First published Fri Apr 1, 2011; substantive revision Thu Jan 7, 2021

We discuss presupposition, the phenomenon whereby speakers mark linguistically information as being taken for granted, rather than being part of the main propositional content of a speech act. Expressions and constructions carrying presuppositions are called “presupposition triggers”, forming a large class including definites and factive verbs. The article first introduces a sample of triggers, the basic properties of presuppositions such as projection and cancellability, and the diagnostic tests used to identify them. The reader is then introduced to major models of presupposition from the last 50 years, separated into three classes: Frege-Strawson derived semantic models, pragmatic models such as that offered by Stalnaker, and dynamic models. Finally we discuss some of the main current issues in presupposition theory. These involve accommodation, which occurs when a hearer’s knowledge state is adjusted to meet the speaker’s presuppositions; presupposition failure, which occurs when a presupposition is (known to be) false; the interaction between presuppositions and attitudes; and variability in the behavior of triggers and their presuppositions.

1 Characterizing Presupposition

1.1 Introduction

Speakers take a lot for granted. That is, they presuppose information. As we wrote this, we presupposed that readers would understand English. We also presupposed as we wrote the last sentence, repeated in (1), that there was a time when we wrote it, for otherwise the fronted phrase “as we wrote this” would not have identified a time interval.

As we wrote this, we presupposed that readers would understand English.

Further, we presupposed that the sentence was jointly authored, for otherwise “we” would not have referred. And we presupposed that readers would be able to identify the reference of “this”, i.e., the article itself. And we presupposed that there would be at least two readers, for otherwise the bare plural “readers” would have been inappropriate. And so on.

Note that some of these presuppositions arise by default from specific words that we used. The existence of a time when we wrote the article is a requirement associated with our use of “as”. It is a requirement built into the meaning of the temporal preposition “as”, which has a similar meaning to temporal "while", that in a phrase “as X”, the “X” has to hold at some time. We say that “as” is a presupposition trigger. Similarly, “this” is a presupposition trigger requiring something salient to refer to, the bare plural is a presupposition trigger requiring existence of multiple individuals, and “would” is a presupposition trigger requiring a salient future or hypothetical circumstance.

In contrast, some of the presuppositions above have nothing to do with the meanings of any of those words. For example, we can say that the presupposition that the addressee speaks English, like the presupposition that the addressee is interested in what the speaker (or writer) has to say, is a conversational presupposition or, following Stalnaker (1972; 1974), speaker presupposition or pragmatic presupposition. The presuppositions associated with specific triggers are said to be conventional or semantic. The terminological distinction between semantic and pragmatic presupposition is of theoretical import: as we will see later, some theorists regard it as an open question whether there are any purely conventional presuppositions. A halfway house, suggested for example by Karttunen (1973) and Soames (1982), is to define a notion of utterance presupposition, thus involving a specific form that is uttered, but allowing that what is actually presupposed may depend also on the attitudes of the speaker who utters it.

It is important to note that to call presuppositional expressions “conventional” or “semantic” is not necessarily to imply that the presuppositions they trigger don’t depend on the context in any way. For example, although “this” may be viewed as a conventional presupposition trigger, the interpretation very much depends on the context, and the presupposition, although typically regarded as conventional, is normally seen precisely as a constraint on the utterance context.

What makes presuppositions special? That is, to the extent that presuppositions are just a part of the conventional meaning of some expressions, what makes them sufficiently distinctive that they merit their own entries in handbooks and encyclopedias, as well as many hundreds of other articles and book chapters elsewhere? First, presuppositions are ubiquitous. And second, there are various respects in which the behavior of presuppositions differs sharply from other aspects of meaning.

As regards the ubiquity of presuppositions, at least the following lexical classes and constructions are widely agreed to be presupposition triggers:

  • factives (Kiparsky and Kiparsky, 1970)
    Berlusconi knows that he is signing the end of Berlusconism.
    → Berlusconi is signing the end of Berlusconism.
  • aspectual verbs (“stop, continue”) (Simons, 2001; Abusch, 2002; Lorenz, 1992)
    China has stopped stockpiling metals.
    → China used to stockpile metals.
  • temporal clauses headed by “before”, “after”, “since”, etc. (Beaver and Condoravdi, 2003; Heinämäki, 1974)
    The dude released this video before he went on a killing spree.
    → The dude went on a killing spree.
  • manner adverbs (Abbott, 2000)
    Jamie ducked quickly behind the wall.
    → Jamie ducked behind the wall.
  • sortally restricted predicates of various categories (e.g., “bachelor”) (Thomason, 1972)
    Julius is a bachelor.
    → Julius is an adult male.
  • cleft sentences (Delin, 1995; Prince, 1986)
    It was Jesus who set me free.
    → Somebody set me free.
  • quantifiers (Roberts, 1995; Gawron, 1995; Abusch and Rooth, 2000; Cooper, 1983)
    I have written to every headmaster in Rochdale.
    → There are headmasters in Rochdale.
  • definite descriptions (Strawson, 1950)
    The Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago stood up and wagged his finger.
    → Trinidad and Tobago have a (unique) prime minister.
  • names (van der Sandt, 1992)
    The author is Julius Seidensticker.
    → Julius Seidensticker exists.
  • intonation (e.g., focus, contrast) (Jackendoff, 1972; Geurts and van der Sandt, 2004; Roberts, 1998)
    HE set me free.[1]
    → Somebody set me free.

And this is only a small sample of the words and syntactic constructions that have been classified as presupposition triggers, so even if in some cases there may be doubts about this diagnosis, it can hardly be doubted that presupposition triggers abound in everyday language. In the following sections we will discuss the behaviors which mark out presuppositions from ordinary entailments, and then introduce some of the theories that have been developed to account for those behaviors.

1.2 Projection

The hallmark of presuppositions, as well as the most thoroughly studied presuppositional phenomenon, is projection (Langendoen and Savin, 1971). Consider (2). This has all the presuppositions in (3). These presuppositions all follow from utterances of the base sentence in (2), as do the regular entailments in (4): someone who sincerely uttered (2) would certainly be expected to accept the truth of (3) and (4), as well:

It’s the knave that stole the tarts.
There is a (salient and identifiable) knave.
There were (salient and identifiable) tarts.
Somebody stole the tarts.
The knave did something illegal.
The knave took possession of the tarts.

Now consider the sentences in (5):

It isn’t the knave that stole the tarts. (negation)
If it’s the knave that stole the tarts, he will be punished. (antecedent of a conditional)
Is it the knave that stole the tarts? (question)
Maybe/It is possible that it’s the knave that stole the tarts. (possibility modal)
Presumably/probably it’s the knave that stole the tarts. (evidential modal, probability adverb)
The king thinks it’s the knave that stole the tarts. (belief operator)

In all these examples, sentence (2) is embedded under various operators. What is notable is that whereas the statements in (4) do not follow from any of these embeddings (and would not be expected to follow according to classical logics), the presuppositions do follow. We say that the presuppositions are projected. Certainly, the inference is more robust in some cases than in others: while it is hard to imagine sincerely uttering (5a) without believing some tarts to be salient, it is easier to imagine a circumstance in which (5f) could be uttered when in fact the tarts were not stolen, but hidden. But in the absence of special factors, to which we will turn shortly, someone who sincerely uttered any of the sentences in (5) might be expected to believe all of the presuppositions in (3a)–(3b).

Projection from embeddings, especially negation, is standardly used as a diagnostic for presupposition (hence the term “negation test”). However it is important to try several types of embedding when testing for presupposition for a few different reasons. First of all, it is not always clear how to apply a given embedding diagnostic. For example, although it is widely agreed that the additive particle “too” is a presupposition-inducing expression, the negation test is awkward to apply because it is not immediately clear whether the negation outscopes the additive or vice versa in (6b), and it’s not obvious how the negation interacts with focus:

Fred kissed BETTY, too.
Fred didn’t kiss BETTY, too.

We leave it as an exercise for the reader to show that embedding (6a) under a different operator e.g., under a modal or in the antecedent of a conditional, provides evidence that this sentence presupposes that someone other than Betty was kissed by Fred.

Additionally, some inferences seem to project from negation but not other embeddings. For example, both (7a) and (7b) seem to presuppose that the speaker has sensory experience with the pie, and this type of data has led some to conjecture that uses of predicates of personal taste are associated with a presupposition that the judgment of taste resulted from direct experience.[2] However, we don’t get any projection of this inference from the conditional in (7c), and example (7d) seems to imply that the speaker has not tasted the pie themselves. This data suggests that any account claiming a presupposition of direct experience for predicates of personal taste needs to be highly nuanced.

The pie is tasty.
The pie isn’t tasty.
If the pie is tasty, it will go quickly.
Is the pie tasty?

More generally, such examples demonstrate why it’s important to look at a wide range of embeddings when identifying presuppositions on the basis of their projection behavior.

1.3 Cancellability

What makes the “projection problem” problematic? If some part of the meaning of an expression α was never affected by the linguistic context in which α was embedded, that would be philosophically interesting, and would demand a theoretical explanation, but it would at least be trivial to completely describe the data: all presuppositional inferences would survive any embedding, end of story. But that isn’t what happens. Presuppositions typically project, but often do not, and most of the empirical and theoretical work on presupposition since the 1970s has been taken up with the task of describing and explaining when presuppositions project, and when they don’t.

When a presupposition does not project, it is sometimes said to be “cancelled”. The classic cases of cancellation occur when the presupposition is directly denied, as in the following variants of some of the sentences in (5):

In this court, it isn’t the knave that steals the tarts: the king employs no knaves precisely because he suspects they are responsible for large-scale tart-loss across his kingdom.
If it’s the knave that stole the tarts, then I’m a Dutchman: there is no knave here.
Is it the knave that stole the tarts? Certainly not: there is no knave here.
The king thinks it’s the knave that stole the tarts, but he’s obviously gone mad, since there is no knave here.

Presuppositional inferences are typically subject to cancellation by direct denial only when the presupposition trigger is embedded under some other operator. When the presupposition is not embedded, such cancellation (by the same speaker) is usually infelicitous, just as is cancellation of entailed content which is not embedded. Thus the denial of a presupposition in (9) and the denial of an ordinary entailment in (10) both lead to pragmatically infelicitous utterances (marked by a “#”).

#It’s the knave that stole the tarts, but there is no knave.
#It’s the knave that stole the tarts, but he didn’t do anything illegal.

The fact that presuppositions associated with unembedded triggers are not cancellable, except in an outright retraction of what the speaker has previously claimed, is one of the features that distinguishes most presuppositions from Gricean conversational implicatures (Grice, 1989). For example, an utterance of (11a) might ordinarily lead to the so-called scalar implicature in (11b). But while this implicature is cancellable, as in (11c), the presupposition that there is a knave, once again, is not cancellable, as shown by the oddity of (11d).

The knave stole most of the tarts.
The knave did not steal all of the tarts.
The knave stole most of the tarts—in fact, he stole them all.
#The knave stole most of the tarts, but there was no knave.

We can summarize the typical behavior of entailments, presuppositions, and conversational implicatures as follows:

  Entailments Presuppositions Implicatures
Project from embeddings no yes no
Cancellable when embedded yes
Cancellable when unembedded no no yes

Because presuppositions are typically only cancellable when embedded, Gazdar (1979a, 1979b) argues that presuppositions are usually entailed when the trigger is not embedded.

The literature is choc-a-bloc with examples of presuppositional inferences apparently disappearing. Whether such examples are appropriately described as involving cancellation is partly a theoretical decision, and, as we will see, many scholars avoid using the term “cancellation” for some or all such cases. One reason for this is that the term “cancellation” appears to suggest that an inference has been made, and then removed. But in many cases there are theoretical reasons not to regard it as an apt characterization, and in considering early views on presupposition in the next section, we will come across one class of such cases (specifically, cases involving hypothetical reasoning in conditionals).

2. The Frege-Strawson tradition

The early literature on presupposition almost exclusively revolved around definite descriptions, which are said to presuppose the existence of a unique referent. A problem arises when a definite description, like the King of France, fails to refer. Russell (1905) claimed that sentences like "The King of France is bald" are false because the logical form of definite descriptions contains a false existential claim. However, Strawson (1950) famously argued against Russell’s theory by proposing that when a definite description fails to refer, the result can be a sentence which lacks a truth value. Thus presuppositions are understood as definedness conditions, necessary requirements for an expression to have a meaning.

Strawson’s intuition, which can be traced back to Frege (1892), leads to the following definition:[3]

Definition 1 (Strawsonian presupposition)
One sentence presupposes another iff whenever the first is true or false, the second is true.

Another definition that is often used is this:

Definition 2 (Presupposition via negation)
One sentence presupposes another iff whenever the first sentence is true, the second is true, and whenever the negation of the first sentence is true, the second sentence is true.[4]

hese two definitions are equivalent if negation maps true onto false, false onto true, and is undefined when its argument is undefined. However, the second definition is notable in the context of the above discussion of projection, because it seems to directly encode the projection properties of at least one operator: negation. Specifically, it says that presuppositions are inferences that survive embedding under negation.[5]

It is clear that if the above assumptions about presupposition are made, then the presuppositions of a sentence will be the same as the presuppositions of the negation of the sentence. But what about projection from embeddings other than negation? A very simple account of projection is based on the cumulative hypothesis, first discussed by Morgan (1969) and Langendoen and Savin (1971). This is the idea that presuppositions always project from embedding, as if there were no effects like cancellation. A trivalent semantics that yields this behavior is obtained by using the Weak Kleene connectives (Kleene, 1952). Assume (for all the partial/multivalent semantics given in this article) that for classically valued arguments, the connectives behave classically. Then Weak Kleene connectives (also known as the Bochvar Internal connectives) are defined as follows:

Definition 3 (Weak Kleene)
If any argument of a sentence with a Weak Kleene connective lacks a classical truth value, then the sentence as a whole lacks a truth value.

Weak Kleene fails as a theory of presupposition because it entails that presuppositions project uniformly, whereas in fact they do not. Another system of Kleene’s, the Strong Kleene connectives, does not have this property:

Definition 4 (Strong Kleene)
If the classically-valued arguments of a sentence with a Strong Kleene connective would suffice to determine a truth value in standard logic, then the sentence as a whole has that value; otherwise it doesn’t have a classical value.

For example, in classical logic a conjunction is bound to be false if one of its conjuncts is false, and therefore the same holds for Strong Kleene “and”. Similarly, since in classical logic a disjunction must be true if one of its disjuncts is true, the same holds for Strong Kleene “or”. We obtain the following truth tables for the main binary connectives:

φ ∧ ψ t f
t t f
f f f f
φ ∨ ψ t f
t t t t
f t f
φ → ψ t f
t t f
f t t t

Now consider the following example:

If there is a knave, then the knave stole the tarts.

Let’s ignore all presupposition triggers in (12) save “the knave”, and show that Strong Kleene predicts that the sentence as a whole does not presuppose that there is a knave. Using Definition 1, it suffices to find at least one model where (12) has a classical truth value, but in which there is no knave. This is easy: in such a model, the antecedent is false, and inspection of the above Strong Kleene table shows that when the antecedent of a conditional is false, the conditional is true, as would be the case classically. In fact, Strong Kleene predicts no presupposition for (12). This is in contradistinction to Weak Kleene, which would fail to give (12) a classical value in knave-less models, and hence predict that (12) presupposes the existence of a knave.

There are other cases where Strong Kleene does predict a presupposition, and the presupposition predicted is not what we might have expected. Thus Strong Kleene gives (13a) a classical truth value in all models where there is a knave, and in all models where there was trouble. So while we might have expected the presupposition in (13b), Strong Kleene predicts the presupposition in (13c).[6] We will return to this issue shortly.

If the knave stole the tarts, then there was trouble.
There is a knave.
If there was no trouble, then there is a knave.

Much of the discussion of partial and multivalent approaches to presupposition over the last three decades has centered on the treatment of negation.[7] Specifically, the issue has been the treatment of cancellation examples like (14).

The tarts were not stolen by the knave: there is no knave.

A standard approach is to propose that negation is ambiguous between a presupposition-preserving negation and a presupposition-denying negation; see e.g., the discussion by Horn (1985, 1989). The presupposition-preserving negation (aka choice negation) we have already seen, and it is found in both the Weak and Strong Kleene systems. The presupposition-denying (or exclusion) negation is typically taken to map true to false and false to true, as usual, but also to map an argument lacking a classical value to true. Thus if (14) is interpreted in a model where there is no knave, but “not” is understood as a presupposition-denying negation, then “the tarts were stolen by the knave” would lack a classical value, but “The tarts were not stolen by the knave”, and (14) as a whole, would be true.

3. Pragmatic presupposition

Probably the most significant philosophical counterpoint to the Frege-Strawson approach to presupposition, other than the original non-presuppositional work of Russell, is due to Stalnaker (1972, 1973, 1974), and later clarified in Stalnaker (1998).[8] Stalnaker suggests that a pragmatic notion of presupposition is needed, so that the proper object of philosophical study is not what words or sentences presuppose, but what people presuppose when they are speaking. A pragmatic presupposition associated with a sentence is a condition that a speaker would normally expect to hold in the common ground between discourse participants when that sentence is uttered.[9]

One consequence of Stalnaker’s view is that, contra semantic accounts of presupposition, presupposition failure need not produce a semantic catastrophe. There are, however, two weaker types of failure that can occur: (i) a speaker uttering some sentence S can fail to assume that some proposition P is in the common ground, even though most utterances of S would be accompanied by the presupposition that P; and (ii) a speaker can presuppose something that is not in the common ground. We see these two types of failure respectively in (15a), where there is no presupposition that Mullah Omar is alive, and (15b) where it is presupposed that Luke was alive.

I don’t know that Mullah Omar is alive. I don’t know if he’s dead either. (General Dan McNeill, Reuters, 19 May 2008)
Vader didn’t know that Luke was alive, so he had no intentions of converting Luke to the Sith. (Web example)

These examples involve a subclass of factive verbs called "semifactives," which Karttunen (1971b) concluded only trigger a presupposition in some person and tense forms. As Karttunen himself realized, such a stipulation is unmotivated. For Stalnaker’s pragmatic account of presupposition, these examples are not problematic; the verb "know" need not presuppose that its complement is true. When an addressee hears the first sentence of (15a), he will realize that if it were in the common ground that Mullah Omar was alive, then the speaker would know this, and so the speaker’s claim would be false. Therefore the hearer can reason that the speaker is not presupposing the complement of “know” to be true. On the other hand, when a hearer is confronted by (15b), it is consistent to assume that Luke was alive. Since speakers using “know” typically presuppose the truth of the complement, we can assume that this is the case here.

Stalnaker’s work was part of an avalanche of pragmatic attacks on the semantic conception of presupposition. Working in the immediate aftermath of Grice’s 1967 William James lectures[10], accounts like Atlas (1976; 1977; 1979), Atlas and Levinson (1981), Kempson (1975), Wilson (1975), and Böer and Lycan (1976) all present detailed arguments that presuppositions should be understood as something akin to conversational implicatures. Generally speaking, these approaches justify presuppositional inferences by using the maxims of relevance and quantity. Thus, for example, Atlas (1976) suggests that an embedding of a definite under a negation will tend to produce a meaning that is ruled out as insufficiently strong to satisfy the maxim of quantity, unless it is strengthened by treating the definite as if it had wide scope and could act referentially. Contemporary descendants of this pragmatic tradition include Abbott (2000; 2006; 2008), Simons (2001; 2003; 2004; 2006; 2007), and Schlenker (2007; 2008). Both Abbott and Simons are at pains to distinguish between different presupposition triggers, rather than lumping them all together. Thus Simons, for example, makes a case for deriving presuppositional inferences associated with factives and aspectual adverbs using a combination of Stalnakerian and Gricean reasoning, allowing that typically anaphoric triggers like the additive “too” might function conventionally. On the other hand, Schlenker’s pragmatic derivation of projection properties, using both standard maxims and at least one rule specific to presuppositions[11], does not make fine-grained distinctions between presupposition triggers.

There is a contrast among pragmatic approaches to presupposition as regards whether the source of presuppositions is discussed. The approaches mentioned in the preceding paragraph, which attempt to derive presuppositional inferences from general conversational principles, aim to explain both the source of presuppositions, and the phenomenon of projection. But Stalnaker made no attempt whatsoever to explain where presuppositions came from, beyond indicating that they are inferential tendencies that might or might not be associated with semantic presuppositions. This emphasis on the projection of presuppositions rather than their source, which holds also of the contemporaneous work by Karttunen (1974; 1973), to which we shall turn shortly, lived on in much of the work influenced by these theories. It is particularly obvious in what we can collectively term cancellation-based theories of presupposition, led by Gazdar (1979a; 1979b), and including Soames (1979; 1982), Mercer (1987; 1992), Gunji (1981), Marcu (1994), Horton (1987), Horton and Hirst (1988), Bridge (1991), and van der Sandt (1982; 1988).

Cancellation accounts can be traced back in spirit to Stalnaker’s account of semifactives, discussed above, in which presuppositions are defeated by competing conversational inferences: the general idea is simply to make presuppositions into defaults, and wipe them out whenever they would cause pragmatic embarrassment. Gazdar provided a remarkably straightforward formalization of this account, as well as extending to many other projection phenomena, based on a general principle he characterizes as “All the news that fits”. In Gazdar’s model, the strategy for a hearer is first to identify sets of entailments, conversational implicatures, and presuppositions, and then to try adding them to the speaker’s set of commitments.

Definition 5 (Gazdar: cancellation)
Implicatures and entailments defeat presuppositions, so a hearer adds to his or her commitments only those presuppositions that are compatible with both implicatures and entailments. All remaining presuppositions are cancelled.

Consider (16a), and assume there are no relevant pre-existing commitments:

If the king is angry, then the knave stole the tarts.
If there is a knave, then the knave stole the tarts.

According to Gazdar, (16a) entails that if there is an angry king then there is a knave and he stole some set of tarts. (This much all theories agree on; some theories may predict stronger entailments.) The set of implicatures would include the clausal implicature that the speaker doesn’t know whether a king is angry, and doesn’t know whether a knave stole tarts. The presuppositions (or “potential presuppositions”, in Gazdar’s terms) are that there is a unique king, a unique knave, and a unique set of tarts. The hearer proceeds by adding the entailments to (their representation of) the speaker’s commitment set, then adding whatever implicatures fit in, and then adding the presuppositions that fit after that. In this case, all the entailments, implicatures, and presuppositions are consistent, and all can be added without any being cancelled.

But now consider (16b), repeated from (12). Here there is an implicature that the speaker doesn’t know whether there is a knave. The hearer accepts this and other implicatures, and then considers the presuppositions that there is a knave and that there are some tarts. The presupposition that there are tarts is unproblematic, and is added, but the hearer cannot consistently add the presupposition that there is a knave. So this presupposition is canceled, and (16b) does not presuppose that there is a knave. Hence, according to Gazdar, presuppositions are sometimes blocked by conversational implicatures.

Within the space of cancellation-based accounts of presupposition, it is hard to beat Gazdar’s for its conceptual and technical simplicity, and its empirical coverage. Some conceptual questions remain, however, such as why it should be that presuppositions are the last things to be added in the process of updating commitments. Van der Sandt’s (1982, 1988) reformulation of the cancellation model gives us an alternative way to think about this, by modeling projection in terms of whether presuppositions could have come first.

Definition 6 (Van der Sandt: cancellation)
Project only those presuppositions that could be conjoined to the beginning of the sentence while leaving the utterance consistent with (neo-Gricean) conversational principles.[12]

The intuitive idea underlying van der Sandt’s proposal is that presuppositions are given information, and in this sense “precede” their carrier sentences, if not de facto then at least de jure, in the sense that the context would have legitimated their presence. In the case of (16), fronting the presupposition that there are some tarts yields the sentences in (17).

There are some tarts and if the king is angry then the knave stole the tarts.
There are some tarts and if there is a knave, then the knave stole the tarts.

The fronting of the presupposition does not lead to a clash with any Gricean principles, so the presuppositions are predicted to project in (16a) and (16b). Similarly, fronting the presupposition that there is a knave to (16a), as in (18a), produces no clash, so (16a) presupposes that there is a knave. But adding the presupposition that there is a knave to (16b), as in (18b), does result in a clash: since (18b) is truth-conditionally equivalent to the simple conjunction “there is a knave and the knave stole the tarts”, it is redundant, conflicting with the requirement of brevity in Grice’s Maxim of Manner. On van der Sandt’s analysis, if fronting a presupposition would produce a redundant result, then that presupposition cannot project. So (16b) is correctly predicted not to presuppose that there is a knave.

There is a knave and if the king is angry then the knave stole the tarts.
There is a knave and if there is a knave, then the knave stole the tarts.

It should be noted, however, that even if (18b) is redundant, it is arguably a felicitous discourse, and therefore some subtlety is needed in applying van der Sandt’s cancellation principle in the simplified form above. The issue is not simply whether a discourse is felicitous, but whether there is any clash with the maxims. And this will of course depend on how exactly the maxims are formulated. But for the purposes of understanding the intention of van der Sandt’s analysis, we can take it that though an utterance of (18b) could be felicitous, it would be a case of flouting (in Grice’s sense), a case where a maxim is disobeyed in order to preserve some greater conversational goal.

A more recent pragmatic approach situates presuppositions in a wider taxonomy of projective content based on the property of at-issueness. Once we’ve identified the QUD, we can identify content that is meant to be relevant towards answering it. In other words, content that is at-issue. Simons et al (2010) propose that this pragmatic property is relevant to projection such that only not-at-issue content projects.

Definition 7 (Cancellation via at-issueness)
Project only those presuppositions that are not-at-issue.

Consider examples (19) and (20) from Beaver (2010). These examples involve the factive verb "discover", and hence are expected to trigger a presupposition that its complement is true, i.e. that the addressee’s work is plagiarized. In (19), where "discover" is stressed, this presupposition seems to project, with the implication that, absent the T.A. finding out what’s going on, the speaker is prepared to overlook the plagiarism. In this case, we might say that what is at-issue is the question of whether the T.A. finds out about the plagiarism. However, in (20), where stress in on "plagiarized", it is far less clear whether the speaker believes the addressee’s work is plagiarized. This can be explained if stress on "plagiarized" is marking the proposition that the work is plagiarized as at-issue. So, the generalization in Definition 7 predicts that this proposition does not project.

If the T.A. disCOVers that your work is plagiarized, I will be forced to notify the Dean.
If the T.A. discovers that your work is PLAgiarized, I will be forced to notify the Dean.

Pragmatic approaches to presupposition take the burden of projection off conventional triggering and allow for discourse structure to influence projection when triggers are placed in different contexts. One consequence of this view is that it can be applied cross-lingustically (e.g. Tonhauser et al 2013) without running into the issue of language-specific conventionalized triggers. Additionally it allows us to account for the projection of expressions that don’t display other properties that we associate with presupposition, for example appositives, expressives and honorifics (Potts 2005). In other words, there’s a reason why some things that aren’t presuppositions still behave like them.

A new trend of psycholinguistic research potentially offers some promising new evidence about the degree to which presuppositions are processed like pragmatic inferences or semantic entailments. The methods in these studies typically rely on identifying at what point during the processing of an utterance presuppositions become available to the listener. The line of reasoning goes like this: if presuppositions are conventionally encoded in their triggers and are conditions for contexts to update, they should arise immediately when a trigger is used. However, if presuppositions are the result of pragmatic reasoning, there should be a delay in their processing. While the results of these studies have been somewhat inconsistent, they largely suggest that presuppositions are processed immediately. For example, one of the experiments in Tiemann et al. (2011) finds that presupposition triggers themselves carry a processing cost relative to other non-presuppositional expressions. In an eye-tracking study, Kim (2008) finds that there are shifts in eye movements quite rapidly after the utterance of the trigger only. These studies and the methodologies used in them are still relatively new. However, empirical work on the processing of presuppositions remains a promising strand of research in determining the extent to which we can consider presuppositions to be conventional

4. Local contexts and the dynamic turn

In static theories of meaning, such as the trivalent accounts of presupposition discussed above, when a sentence is interpreted in a given context, every expression in that sentence is interpreted relative to that same context. In dynamic theories of meaning, the context is allowed to change as a sentence is interpreted. The earliest and perhaps still clearest motivation for this dynamism is what might be termed the anaphoric asymmetry. The anaphoric asymmetry consists in pronouns across languages being usually resolved to expressions that have already occurred, and only being resolved cataphorically to expressions that occur later in the sentence in quite special configurations. The dynamic explanation for this is that pronouns are resolved to referents via the context, and that the context is updated during processing so that it typically only contains information about things that have already been mentioned. The question might then be asked: how does the processing of anaphora relate to the processing of presuppositions? It turns out that there are remarkably strong parallels between phenomena involving anaphora and presupposition, and this in turn provides a motivation for considering not only anaphora but also presupposition to be an intrinsically dynamic phenomenon. In this section, we will first study the parallels between presupposition and anaphora, seen as a possible motivation for considering context change in analyzing presupposition, and then describe in largely historical terms the sequence of developments that led to contemporary dynamic theories.

4.1 Presupposition and anaphora

While a number of authors have noted that presuppositions behave in some respects like anaphors (e.g., Kripke 2009 and Soames 1989), it was van der Sandt (1989; 1992) who brought out the connection the most forcefully. He noted that for every configuration of anaphors and antecedents where a pronoun is interpreted anaphorically but is not interpretable as a bound variable, a similar configuration is possible with presuppositions.[13] In each of the following quadruples, we illustrate some configuration in the (a) and (b) examples, while the (c) and (d) cases show that a slight divergence from the original configurations (i.e. those in (a) and (b)), produces infelicity. Note that the (a) and (c) examples include an anaphoric pronoun (“it”), and the (b) and (d) examples include the factive verb “knows”, which triggers a presupposition that its propositional complement is true (i.e., that Fred left). So, anaphora is felicitous in configurations in which presuppositions are felicitous, and anaphora is infelicitous in configurations in which presuppositions are infelicitous. It is clear that connections between anaphoric pronouns and their antecedents on the one hand, and presupposition triggers and their antecedents on the other, are sensitive to very similar configurational requirements.

Inter-sentential (discourse) anaphora

There was a storm. It was fierce.
Fred left. Mary knows that Fred left.
#It was fierce. There was a storm.
#Mary knows that Fred left. Fred left.

Donkey anaphora

If a farmer owns a donkey then he beats it.
If Fred left then Mary knows that Fred left.
#If a farmer doesn’t own a donkey, then he beats it.
#If Fred didn’t leave left then Mary knows that Fred left.

Modal subordination

A wolf might come to the door. It would eat you.
Fred might have left. Mary would know that Fred has left.
#A wolf might come to the door. It’s brown.
#Fred might have left. Mary knows that Fred has left.

Bathroom anaphora

Either there’s no bathroom in this house, or else it’s in a funny place.
Either Fred didn’t leave, or else Mary knows that he left.
#Either there is a bathroom, or else it’s in a funny place.
#Either Fred left, or else Mary knows that he left.

4.2 Satisfaction in local contexts

As previously noted, early work on presupposition was primarily focused on definite descriptions, and definite descriptions have continued to be the paradigmatic example of a presupposition trigger in philosophical literature over the last fifty years. However, by the early 1970s, more linguistically oriented work had expanded the empirical domain of presupposition theory from definite descriptions to other trigger types, including factives (Kiparsky and Kiparsky, 1970), implicatives (Karttunen, 1971a), focus particles (Horn, 1969), verbs of judging (Fillmore, 1971) and sortal constraints (Thomason, 1972). Stalnaker’s discussion of Karttunen’s semifactives provides an early example of how this linguistic expansion of the empirical domain has impacted philosophical work. Also by the early 1970s, linguists had expanded the empirical domain in another direction. The philosophical literature was largely oriented towards unembedded presupposition triggers and triggers under negation, but as we have already mentioned, Morgan (1969) and Langendoen and Savin (1971) generalized the issue by considering arbitrary embeddings. However, it was not until Karttunen (1973) that the full complexity of the projection problem became apparent. By methodically considering projection behavior construction by construction, Karttunen showed that there was more variation in projection behavior than had been previously described, making it quite clear that none of the extant Frege-Strawson derived systems could hope to cover every case, and this ultimately led to the application of dynamic models of meaning to the problem of presupposition projection.

Karttunen (1973) presented a taxonomy of embedding constructions that divided them into three classes: plugs, holes and filters. Plugs comprise a class of predicates and operators which Karttunen claimed block the projection of presuppositions, while holes are a class of predicates and operators which allow presuppositions to project freely. So, for example, since “told that” is a plug, according to Karttunen,[14] (25) is predicted not to presuppose that there is a King of France. On the other hand, since “perhaps” is a hole, (26) is predicted to presuppose that there is a King of France.

Mary told Jim that the King of France was bald.
Perhaps the King of France is bald.

Karttunen’s filters include the binary logical connectives “if then”, “and”, and “or”. The intuition behind the filter metaphor is that these constructions allow only some presuppositions to project, others being caught in the filter, and we have already seen examples of this phenomenon. Thus example (12) showed that sometimes a presupposition in the consequent of a conditional does not project: here the presupposition that there was a knave is filtered out. But the same example includes an occurrence of the definite “the tarts” in the consequent, and the presupposition that there are (or at least were) some tarts projects from the conditional. Karttunen concluded that the consequent of a conditional acts as a hole to some presuppositions, but filters out all those presuppositions which are entailed by the antecedent, or, more generally, by a combination of the antecedent and contextually supplied background information.

Karttunen’s key example showing the role of context bears repetition:

Either Geraldine is not a mormon or she has given up wearing her holy underwear.

The second half of (27) contains (at least) two presupposition triggers: the definite description “her holy underwear” and the aspectual verb “give up”, which trigger the presuppositions that Geraldine used to have and wear holy underwear, respectively. Karttunen’s filtering condition for disjunctions removes from the right disjunct any presuppositions that are entailed by a combination of the context and the negation of the left disjunct. Now consider a context supporting the proposition that all mormons have holy underwear which they wear regularly. It follows from this proposition and the negation of the left disjunct, i.e., the proposition that Geraldine is a mormon, that Geraldine has holy underwear and has worn it regularly. But these are exactly the presuppositions triggered in the right disjunct, so they are filtered out. It follows that (27) has no presuppositions.

Karttunen’s (1973) account is of interest not only for its triptych of plugs, holes and filters, but also because it sets the background for a crucial shift of perspective in Karttunen (1974), and thence to the dynamic approaches to presupposition that have been dominant in recent years. What remained unclear in the 1973 paper was the motivation for filtering, i.e. why presuppositions should be filtered out when entailed by other material. Karttunen (1974) suggests an alternative conception based on the idea of local contexts of evaluation. The idea is that the parts of a sentence are not necessarily evaluated with respect to the same context as that in which the sentence as a whole is evaluated: a local context may contain more information than the global context. For example, when evaluating a conjunction, the second conjunct is evaluated in a local context which contains not only the information in the global context, but also whatever information was given by the first conjunct. Karttunen (1974) defines local contexts of evaluation for a range of constructions, and suggests the following requirement: presuppositions always need to be entailed (or “satisfied”, as he put it) in the local context in which the trigger is evaluated. Given this requirement, the overall presuppositions of a sentence will just be whatever propositions must be in a context of an utterance in order to guarantee that the requirements associated with presupposition triggers are satisfied in their local contexts of interpretation.

Karttunen spelled out how local satisfaction should be calculated separately for each connective and operator he considered. However, recent developments in Schlenker (2008) provide a general way of calculating what the local context should be. In the following reformulation of Karttunen’s model we incorporate Schlenker’s insights along the lines proposed by Beaver (2008).

Let us say that some clause in a complex sentence is redundant relative to some context of utterance if you can replace that clause by a tautology without affecting the amount of factual information conveyed by the sentence in that context. For example, in (28), the first conjunct is redundant in any context of utterance. Here, the same factual information would be conveyed by “Mary is Mary and Mary owns a sheep”, where the first conjunct is replaced by the tautology “Mary is Mary”.

Mary owns an animal and Mary owns a sheep.

Now let us say that a clause is left-redundant if it is possible to tell by looking at the material in the sentence to the left of the clause that the clause is redundant. So “Mary owns an animal” is not left-redundant in (28) (except if the context of utterance already entails that Mary owns an animal), because there is no material before that clause, implying that it is impossible to tell by looking at material to the left of the clause that the clause is redundant. On the other hand, the same sentential fragment, “Mary owns an animal”, is left-redundant in (29) and also in (20):

Mary owns a sheep and Mary owns an animal. (Truth-conditionally equivalent to: Mary owns a sheep and Mary is Mary)
If Mary owns a sheep then Mary owns an animal. (Truth-conditionally equivalent to: If Mary owns a sheep then Mary is Mary)

Now we use this idea of left redundancy, which echoes the above van der Sandt analysis of the effect of fronting presuppositions, to define the crucial notion in Karttunen’s (1974) account.

Definition 8 (Karttunen/Schlenker: Presupposition via satisfaction)
A presupposition P is satisfied at point X in S iff P would be left-redundant if added at point X. A sentence presupposes whatever propositions must hold in global contexts of utterance such that each locally triggered presupposition is satisfied where its trigger occurs.

As an example, let us consider the presuppositions predicted for (27), repeated below:

Either Geraldine is not a mormon or she has given up wearing her holy underwear.

Note first that for all sentences of the form “A or B”, the negation of A is satisfied within the right disjunct. So “Geraldine is a mormon” is satisfied in the right disjunct of (27). And more generally, anything entailed by a combination of propositions in the context and the negation of the left disjunct will be satisfied in the right disjunct. Now, let us consider the clause “she has given up wearing her holy underwear”: we take this to trigger the presupposition that Geraldine has had holy underwear that she wore. This presupposition will be satisfied provided the global context of utterance, combined with the negation of the left disjunct, entails that she has had holy underwear that she wore. And classically this will be the case if and only if the context supports the conditional “if Geraldine is a mormon, then she has had holy underwear that she wore” (which would also be the case if the context supported something stronger). Hence, this conditional is the presupposition Karttunen (1974) predicts for (27).

One notable property of Karttunen’s 1974 treatment of examples like (27), a property not found in his 1973 model, is that the presupposition predicted is conditionalized. That is, (27) is not predicted to presuppose that Geraldine has had holy underwear that she wore, but that if she is a mormon then she has had such underwear. We already encountered such conditionalized presuppositions in our discussion of Strong Kleene; in fact, Strong Kleene predicts exactly the same conditionalized presupposition in this case. Karttunen’s 1974 model also predicts conditionalized presuppositions when the presupposition trigger is in the right conjunct of a conjunction, or in the consequent of a conditional.[15] Thus in (16a), repeated below, the presuppositions predicted are that there is a king (since presuppositions triggered in the antecedent are not conditionalized), and that if the king is angry, then there is a knave. In (16b), the conditional presupposition (that if there is a knave, then there is a knave) is trivial, so in effect there is no net presupposition.[16]

If the king is angry then the knave stole the tarts.
If there is a knave, then the knave stole the tarts.

Although Karttunen’s (1974) model is distinct conceptually from any of its predecessors, we have already noted that it shares at least some predictions with Strong Kleene. An observation made by Peters (1979) showed that the 1974 model is surprisingly closely related to the semantic accounts of presupposition discussed above. In particular, Peters showed that Karttunen’s way of calculating presuppositions for the truth conditional connectives is equivalent to what would be obtained within a three-valued logic, but with special non-symmetric connectives. Here is a general way of defining the Peters Connectives, inspired both by Schlenker (2009; 2008) and George (2008):

Definition 9 (Middle Kleene/Peters connectives)
Go from left to right through the sentence. For each argument X that takes a non-classical value, check whether on the basis of material on its left, assigning an arbitrary classical value to X could conceivably have an effect on the overall value. If so, the sentence as a whole lacks a classical truth value. If not, just assign X an arbitrary value, and carry on. If this procedure allows all non-classical values to be filled in classically, then the sentence can be assigned a classical value.

For example, this procedure makes a conjunction classical if both its arguments are classical, false if the left conjunct is false, and undefined otherwise. Thus undefinedness of the left conjunct forces undefinedness of the entire conjunction, whereas undefinedness of the right conjunct only sometimes yields undefinedness of the entire conjunct, as seen in the following comparison of truth tables in various systems. The net effect is that presuppositions of the left conjunct project in the Middle Kleene system, just as in the Weak Kleene system, but presuppositions of the right conjunct are conditionalized, just as in the Strong Kleene system. This behavior precisely mirrors that of the Karttunen (1974) model.

Definition 10 (Trivalent truth tables for conjunction)

Weak Kleene
φ ∧ ψ t f
t t f
f f f
Middle Kleene/Peters
φ ∧ ψ t f
t t f
f f f f
Strong Kleene
φ ∧ ψ t f
t t f
f f f f

The equivalence between Peters’ connectives and Karttunen’s model paved the way for a more complete reformulation of the Karttunen model in Karttunen and Peters (1977; 1979), where certain types of presupposition (which Karttunen and Peters regard as conventional implicatures rather than presuppositions) are treated in a compositional grammar fragment. This fragment uses two dimensions of meaning, one for presupposition and one for assertion, and is effectively an implementation of the Peters connectives in a four-valued logic; see Krahmer (1994); Krahmer (1998), Beaver (2001), and Beaver and Krahmer (2001) for discussion, and the latter for a fragment that mirrors that of Karttunen and Peters, but allows for richer interactions between presuppositions and quantifiers.[17]

4.3 Satisfaction theories

Although Karttunen’s (1974) model turned out to be equivalent to a system which, from a purely technical point of view, is in the Frege-Strawson tradition, Karttunen (1974) was one of the seminal papers of the dynamic zeitgeist that swept through semantics and pragmatics in the last decades of the twentieth century. Also relevant here are Hamblin (1970), Stalnaker (1972; 1974) , Gazdar (1979) and Lewis (1979), all of whom advanced dynamic models of pragmatics in which the (joint) commitments of speakers and hearers evolve as new assertions are made and their content becomes part of the linguistic context available for future utterances. It is against this background that Heim (1982; 1983) offered the first dynamic semantic account of presupposition. Heim’s model utilizes Stalnaker’s notion of a context as a set of all possible worlds compatible with what has been established at that point in a conversation, but involves a crucial twist adapted from Karttunen. In Stalnaker’s model, a single global context is updated each time new information is asserted, but in Heim’s model the context is updated locally in the process of computing the meanings of subparts of a complex expression.[18] We can define a simplified version of Heim’s system as follows:

Definition 11 (Dynamic Semantics)
Assuming that the context set C is a set of possible worlds and S and S′ are sentences:
  1. C + S = the subset of worlds in C that are compatible with S, but this is defined iff S’s presuppositions (if any) are true in all worlds in C.
  2. C + ¬S = C − (C + S)
  3. C + S S′ = (C + S) + S
  4. C + SS′, where ○ is some truth functional operator, is given by the simplest classical definition of ○ in terms of ¬ and ∧ that preserves the order of the two sub-clauses.
  5. S is satisfied in a context C iff C + S = C (i.e., updating C with S has no effect).
  6. S presupposes S′ iff S′ is satisfied in all contexts where update with S is defined.

Clause (iv) entails that update with a conditional is defined via the equivalence AB ≡ ¬ (A ∧ ¬ B) (provided that the subordinate clause precedes the main clause). To see how this will work, let’s consider the following example:

If the king is angry, then the knave stole the tarts. ( = (16a))

In order to update a context with (31), we must do the equivalent of updating with (32a). Now clause (ii) says that to update a context with (32a), we must first try updating with (32b), and subtract the result from the original context (so as to leave behind whichever worlds are not compatible with (32a)). But (32b) is a conjunction, so we must first update with the left conjunct (32c), and then with the right (32d). Updating with (32c) is only defined if the presupposition that there is a king is satisfied in all worlds in the context set. We immediately see that (31) and (32a), (32b), and (32c) all have this requirement, i.e., they presuppose that there is a king. Provided this presupposition is satisfied, updating with (32c) produces a subset of worlds where the king is angry. We use this reduced context set for update with (32d). But update with (32d) again uses the negation clause (ii) of the above definition. So we started off with a set of worlds where there is a king, we reduced it to a set of worlds where the king is angry, and now we must update that context with (32e), an update which will only be defined if there is a knave.

It’s not the case that [the king is angry and the knave didn’t steal the tarts].
The king is angry and the knave didn’t steal the tarts.
The king is angry.
The knave didn’t steal the tarts.
The knave stole the tarts.

The upshot of the above argumentation is that update of a context with (31) is only defined for contexts in which (a) there is a king, and (b) all the worlds where the king is angry are worlds where there is a knave. Following the definitions through, it turns out that, once again, the original sentence carries both a non-conditionalized presupposition, that there is a king, and the conditionalized presupposition that if the king is angry, then there is a knave.

The satisfaction based model has seen considerable further development—see e.g., Beaver (1992; 2001), Chierchia (1995), Heim (1992), Zeevat (1992), and, for a rather different formalization of a dynamic semantic approach, van Eijck (1993; 1994; 1995).[19]

5. Accommodation

The most important feature of the satisfaction model not covered in the description above is accommodation. Accommodation was first discussed by Karttunen (1974) and Stalnaker (1974), though only named as such by Lewis (1979). Karttunen introduces the concept as follows:

Ordinary conversation does not always proceed in the ideal orderly fashion described earlier. People do make leaps and shortcuts by using sentences whose presuppositions are not satisfied in the conversational context. This is the rule rather than the exception […] I think we can maintain that a sentence is always taken to be an increment to a context that satisfies its presuppositions. If the current conversational context does not suffice, the listener is entitled and expected to extend it as required. (Karttunen 1974: 191)

If this looks reasonably straightforward, the reader should be warned that accommodation is among the more contentious topics in presupposition theory. [20]

To begin with, there are various notions of accommodation, some of which are stricter than others. To explain, consider the following example by Heim (1982):

John read a book about Schubert and wrote to the author.

In order to determine the intended meaning of “the author”, the hearer has to infer (i) that there is an author and (ii) that the said author wrote the book read by John. Whereas on a broad understanding of accommodation, all of this is accommodated, on a strict construal only (i) is, and (ii) is a bridging inference. This is not just a matter of terminology. If we choose to be strict, we can argue that there is something like an “accommodation module”, which as such has nothing to do with world knowledge; whereas if the notion is construed more broadly, accommodation is of a piece with bridging. To facilitate the following discussion, we will adopt a strict notion of accommodation, and take the naive view that what is accommodated is the presupposition as triggered by, e.g., a definite NP or factive verb.

5.1 Global and Local Accommodation

With these preliminaries out of the way, we turn to the first major question: Where are presuppositions accommodated? Though it may seem odd at first, this question is inescapable if we assume, as is standard in dynamic semantics, that an expression may occur in several contexts at the same time (cf. Section 4.3). For Heim (1982), following Lewis (1979), accommodation is a process whereby contexts are adjusted so as to make update possible when presuppositions are not satisfied. In terms of her treatment of accommodation, Heim’s major innovation over Lewis was to allow this process to take place not only in the global context of utterance, but also on local contexts found midway through an update. To illustrate, consider the following:

(c0) Maybe (c1) Betty is trying to give up drinking.
(c0) Maybe (c1) Wilma thinks that (c2) her husband is having an affair.

Here c0 refers to the global context in which a given sentence is uttered, and c1and c2 are auxiliary, or local, contexts. In (34a), the modal “maybe” creates an auxiliary context of possible states of affairs in which Betty is trying to give up drinking; the same, mutatis mutandis, for (34b). The presupposition triggered in (34a), that Betty used to drink, can be accommodated globally, i.e., in c0, or locally, in c1. In the former case, the utterance is construed as meaning that Betty used to drink and may be trying to kick the habit; in the latter, it conveys that, possibly, Betty used to drink and is trying to give up drinking. Likewise, in (34b), the presupposition that Wilma is married may be accommodated globally, or locally in the most deeply embedded context. But here there is a third option, as well: if the presupposition is accommodated in c1, the sentence is read as “Maybe Wilma is married and she thinks that her husband is having an affair”, and we speak of intermediate accommodation.

It is widely agreed that the following empirical generalization, made explicit by Heim (1983), is correct:

PGA: Global accommodation is preferred to non-global accommodation.

While the PGA was initially based solely on intuitions, quantitative studies on the speed of processing local and global interpretations have since provided empirical support for it (e.g. Chemla and Bott 2013 and Romoli and Schwartz 2014).

In the examples in (34) the PGA (preference for global accommodation) clearly holds: non-global interpretations may be possible, but they require special contexts. One such context may be that the presupposition contains a variable which is bound by a quantifier:

Most Germans wash their cars on Saturday.

In (35), with the possessive presupposition trigger “their cars”, there is a global context (outside of the scope of “most”), a local context corresponding to the scope of the quantifier (occupied by the VP “wash their cars on Saturday”), and also an intermediate context in the restrictor of the quantifier (occupied by “Germans”). The most natural interpretation of this sentence surely is that most Germans who own a car wash it on Saturday. So in this case intermediate accommodation seems to be the preferred option, and this might be explained, following van der Sandt (1992), by supposing that the possessive pronoun contains a variable bound by the quantifier.

There are other cases where intermediate accommodation is virtually impossible:

(c0) If (c1) Fred is coming to the reception, (c2) he may (c3) bring his wife.

It is quite unlikely that this may be construed, with intermediate accommodation in c1, which is the antecedent of the conditional, as “If Fred is married and is coming to the reception, he may bring his wife.” More generally, we don’t know of any clear-cut cases (i.e., cases in which accommodation is not forced by independent contextual factors) in which a presupposition triggered in the consequent of a conditional is accommodated in the antecedent.

The picture is rather confusing. While in some cases, e.g., (34b) or (35), intermediate accommodation seems possible and sometimes even preferred, in other cases it doesn’t seem possible at all. And things get even more confused than this. Thus far, we have taken our examples at face value, but some authors have argued that we shouldn’t because, as a matter of fact, intermediate accommodation doesn’t exist. For instance, according to Beaver (2001), the presupposition in (35) is taken as evidence that the topic of conversation is car-owning Germans, and it is this topic that restricts the domain of the quantifier, making intermediate accommodation redundant. See also von Fintel (1995) and Geurts and van der Sandt (1999) for discussion.

Returning to the uncontested PGA, let us ask how it can be explained. Heim (1982) was not explicit about exactly how accommodation should work and what should be accommodated. And oddly enough, although virtually all theories of presupposition projection accept that the PGA holds, there haven’t been that many attempts at explanation. One candidate is what Beaver (2001) calls the “Atlas Principle”, after Atlas (1976):

AP: One accommodation alternative is preferred to another if the former yields a stronger meaning than the latter (i.e., if the first meaning unilaterally entails the second).

Advocates of the Atlas Principle include, besides its eponym, Yeom (1998), Zeevat (1999), and Blutner (2000). One thing to note about the Atlas Principle is that it does not necessarily vindicate the PGA across the board: while the predictions made by the Atlas Principle will tend to comply with the PGA, they don’t have to. However, it is surprisingly difficult to say where exactly the Atlas Principle deviates from the PGA, because this depends on various extraneous factors; see Geurts (2000) for discussion.

A major worry about the Atlas Principle is that it is ad hoc. Despite its soothing resemblance to Grice’s second Quantity Maxim, it is questionable whether hearers generally prefer stronger interpretations to weaker ones. This suggests that the Atlas Principle may not be justified as an instance of a more general constraint, and is therefore stipulative. The sad and somewhat embarrassing truth seems to be that, thus far, we don’t really know why the PGA should hold.

One last issue we would like to mention is that accommodation isn’t always equally easy (or hard). For example:

Fred is looking for the person.
Wilma is pregnant, too.

In (37a) the presupposition triggered by “the person” clearly requires a salient discourse referent to hook on to; the sentence would be infelicitous when uttered out of the blue. The same goes for the presupposition triggered by “too” in (37b), viz. that some salient person different from Wilma is pregnant. This sentence would be very peculiar when uttered out of the blue, or in any context where no salient person was under discussion who could be pregnant. Put otherwise: unlike the presuppositions we have seen thus far, it is very hard to deal with the presuppositions of “the person” or “too” by accommodation alone.[21] Why should this be so?

Van der Sandt (1992) proposes that presuppositions whose descriptive content is relatively poor are hard to accommodate. This generalization is borne out by pronouns, names, and semantically attenuate definite NPs like “the person”. However, it is not very clear what “relatively poor” means. Definite NPs like “the water molecule” or “the lonely carpenter” don’t strike us as particularly poor, but may be hard to interpret by way of accommodation. Similarly, the presuppositions associated with “too” may be quite rich, and nevertheless they are generally hard to accommodate. Geurts and van der Sandt (2004) propose to account for the latter by adopting Heim’s (1992) idea that the presupposition triggered by “too” contains a pronominal element, which blocks accommodation, but this proposal has been criticised by Beaver and Zeevat (2007). Be this as it may, it seems clear that van der Sandt’s generalization cannot be read as biconditional: even if poor presuppositions are difficult to accommodate, the reverse doesn’t always hold.

Another problem with van der Sandt’s generalization is that it is not clear how it can be justified. Even if it somehow makes sense that lack of descriptive content should make accommodation hard, we would like to know more precisely why this should be so. A possible answer to this question may be found in the work on definites by Hawkins (1978), Clark and Marshall (1981), Heim (1982), and others. As Heim observes, “accommodation in response to definites is not normally a matter of adding just the minimal amount of information that would restore felicity.” (Heim 1982, p. 372) It seems plausible that this holds for accommodation generally, and it arguably follows from the nature of accommodation. If a presupposition is to be interpreted by way of accommodation, new information is presented as if it were given, and it has often been observed that this will only work if the information is not contentious or otherwise remarkable. That is to say, it should always be possible to integrate the new information into the common ground: it has to be linked to what is already given. This will be hard with semantically attenuate NPs like “the thing” or pronouns like “he”, but also with richer definites whose content cannot readily be linked to anything in the common ground. Nevertheless, it will generally be easy with richer presuppositions, not because they have more content, but simply because they are more likely to contain anchors into the common ground.

5.2 Accommodating Presuppositions in Satisfaction Framework

Local satisfaction is at the heart of dynamic theories of presupposition, but we’ve already seen that it faces some empirical challenges in accounting for conditionalized presuppositions. Specifically, sometimes satisfaction theories generate weaker conditional presuppositions when intuitively the speaker is presupposing a stronger, unconditionalized presupposition. Geurts (1996,1999a) deems this "The Proviso Problem," and the data surrounding this problem has left quite a mess for proponents of satisfaction theories to clean up.[22]

According to satisfaction theories, only weak conditional presuppositions should follow from embedding presuppositions in certain constructions, notably conditionals themselves. For example, imagine that you are about to go surfing for the first time in the cold waters of Northern California, and you and your interlocutor suspect that a common acquaintance, Theo, is a scuba diver, and that he may be able to help. In this context, the use of his in (38a) intuitively leads to the conditional inference in (38c):

If Theo is a scuba diver, then he will bring his wet suit.
Theo has a wet suit.
If Theo is a scuba diver, then he has a wet suit.

Contrast this with (39a), which strongly suggests that the speaker believes that Theo has a wet suit (39b), and not the weaker conditional in (39c):

If Theo is in a generous mood, then he will bring his wet suit.
Theo has a wet suit
If Theo is in a generous mood, then he has a wet suit.

Whatever mechanism is used to determine what is accommodated, it must ensure that sometimes conditional presuppositions are strengthened (to become unconditionalized), and sometimes they aren’t. What examples like (38) and (39) suggest is that this might be explained in terms of plausibility: it could be that the conditional in (39c) is strengthened because it seems implausible that a speaker would be assuming that Theo’s generosity was linked to his ownership of aquatic paraphernalia, whereas it seems more plausible that a speaker would simply be assuming that Theo owned such equipment.

Several proposals (e.g. Beaver 2001, Singh 2007, 2009; Schlenker 2011) try to motivate this kind of strengthening mechanism to explain when exactly a conditionalized presupposition should be strengthened. For example, Beaver’s model of accommodation, first published in Beaver (1992) treats accommodation as a type of filtering operation. Beaver suggests that due to uncertainty about what the speaker takes the common ground to be, the hearer has to entertain multiple alternative context sets, with some ranking of which is the most plausible. All these alternative contexts are updated simultaneously. Accommodation is then what happens when the update is not defined on what was previously considered to be the most plausible context, in which case the hearer drops that context from contention. What remains is a new set of contexts in which the most plausible one is a context that has been successfully updated.

Unfortunately for this style of explanation of presupposition strengthening, plausibility appears to have its limits. Consider the two examples in (40a,b). If we assume that a cleft "it is X that Y-ed" presupposes an existential, roughly "someone/something Y-ed" then in a dynamic theory of presupposition (40b) will generate the same conditionalized presupposition as results from (40a), which involves the factive "knows", namely the conditional in (40c). However, there is a clear difference in the inferences we would tend to draw from utterances of (40a) and (40b). Whereas (40a) licenses an inference only to the conditional presupposition in (40c), example (40b) leads to the stronger, unconditionalized presupposition in (40d). Under the assumptions we have made, namely that (40a) and (40b) generate exactly the same underlying conditionalized presupposition, the plausibility approach used in Beaver’s framework fails to predict a difference in what is accommodated in these cases.

Peter knows that if the problem was easy, someone solved it.
If the problem was easy then it was Kristie who solved it.
If the problem was easy, someone solved it.
[Conditional presupposition for (40a,b), accommodated for (40a)]
Someone solved the problem.
[Unconditionalized presupposition, accommodated for (40b) but not (40a)]

One relevant factor here that might influence accomodation is information structure. In (40b), the cleft structure might be said to reflect the presence of a Question Under Discussion (QUD), in the sense of Roberts (2012), concerning who solved the problem. To the extent that such a question is under discussion, the interlocutors will presumably know that this is so. And if "Who solved the problem?" is indeed the question the interlocutors are trying to answer, then they are likely to mutually accept that someone solved the problem, thus explaining projection. Crucially, this line of reasoning depends on the cleft in (40b) having a particular information structural function, and a similar argument could not be made in a case like (39a), where there is no constructional marking of information structure, and in particular no indicator that "Who solved the problem?" is the QUD.

If the problem was easy then Peter knows that someone solved it.
If the problem was easy then Peter KNOWS that someone solved it.
If the problem was easy then even PETER knows that someone solved it.

We may have reasonable motivations for when we might expect a conditional presupposition to be strengthened. But even with such mechanisms, satisfaction theories still fall short when confronting certain data. For example, consider (42) below.

If when Sam gets back from vacation he finds moldy fruit in the kitchen, he’ll be annoyed that he had food in the house.

Here, the consequent presupposes that Sam had food in the house, which is also entailed by the antecedent. Since satisfaction theories assume that presuppositions in a complex sentence will be satisfied locally, we’re left with a tautology. So, the local satisfaction constraint generates presuppositions which are redundant.

The proviso problem is still a relevant hurdle for proponents of modern satisfaction theories. Mandelkern (2016) presents a version of satisfaction theory designed to avoid the proviso problem entirely. Romoli et al (2011) explore this issue experimentally by asking which presupposition -the conditional or unconditional option- is more basic. But, ultimately the proviso problem is less problematic for other accounts of presupposition, which don’t rely on local context updates.

5.3 Resolving and Accommodating Presuppositions in DRT

In order to account for both presupposition projection facts and the parallels between presupposition and anaphora, van der Sandt proposed an accommodation-based model as an extension of Discourse Representation Theory (see the SEP entry on discourse representation theory for an introduction). Presupposed information is information that is presented as given, and in van der Sandt’s theory this means that presuppositions want to have discourse referents to bind to. However, whereas anaphoric pronouns are rarely interpretable in the absence of a suitable antecedent, the same does not hold for all presupposition-inducing expressions. For instance, a speaker may felicitously assert that he met “Fred’s sister” even if he knows full well that his audience isn’t aware that Fred has a sister. In such cases, presuppositions are generally accommodated, which is to say that the hearer accepts the information as given, and revises his representation of the context accordingly. Accommodation, thus understood, is a form of exploitation in Grice’s sense: the purpose of presuppositional expressions is to signal that this or that information is given, and if some information is new but not particularly interesting or controversial (like the fact that somebody has a sister) the speaker may choose to “get it out of the way” by presuppositional means.

Van der Sandt’s theory incorporates the notion of accommodation as follows. Presuppositions, according van der Sandt, introduce information that prefers to be linked to discourse referents that are already available in the hearer’s representation of the discourse, and in this respect they are like pronouns. Van der Sandt in fact uses the term "binding" to refer to configurations in which presuppositions have antecedents in the Discourse Representation Structure (DRS), thus generalizing the standard notion of a bound pronoun to cases involving multiple discourse referents. However, if a suitable discourse antecedent is not available, a new one will be accommodated, and the presupposition is linked to that. Generally speaking, accommodation is not an option in the interpretation of pronouns, and one reason that has been suggested for this is that a pronoun’s descriptive content is relatively poor (see Section 5.1 for discussion). Being told that “she” is wonderful is not particularly helpful if it isn’t clear who the pronoun is meant to refer to. By contrast, if the speaker refers to “Pedro’s sister” there is more to go on, and accommodation becomes feasible. Hence, van der Sandt hypothesizes that pronouns are a special class of presuppositional expressions: while all presupposition triggers prefer to be linked to antecedents, pronouns almost always must be linked to antecedents because they are descriptively attenuated, and therefore cannot be construed by way of accommodation.

To get a better idea how this is supposed to work, let us consider an example with several presupposition triggers:

If Fred is protesting, then his son is protesting, too.

This sentence contains the definite NP “his son”, which in its turn contains the pronoun “his”, and the focus particle “too”. Assuming the pronoun’s antecedent is “Fred”, the definite NP triggers the presupposition that Fred has a son, while the focus particle triggers the presupposition that someone other than Fred’s son is protesting. Note that in this example the presupposition triggered by the definite NP is “inherited” by the sentence as a whole, while the one triggered by “too” is not: normally speaking, an utterance of (43) would license the inference that (according to the speaker) Fred has a son, but not that someone else besides Fred’s son is protesting.

Van der Sandt’s theory accounts for these observations as follows. We suppose that the grammar assigns (43) the intermediate semantic representation in (44a). Here [ u1,…, um: φ1,…,φn] is a simple Discourse Representation Structure in linear form, with u1,…, um a list of discourse markers, and φ1,…,φn a list of conditions on those markers; connectives like ⇒ are used to build up complex conditions. We assume for convenience that most interpretative problems have been cleared out of the way already, and that the only thing that remains to be done is resolve the presuppositions triggered by “his”, “his son” and “too”, which are flagged by Beaver’s (1992) trigger symbol, ∂.

[x: Fred(x), [: protesting(x)] ⇒ [: ∂[z: ∂[y:], z is y’s son], protesting (z), ∂[u: u ≠ z, protesting(u)]]]
…binding y to x…
[x: Fred(x), [: protesting(x)] ⇒ [: ∂[z: z is x’s son], protesting(z), ∂[u: u ≠ z, protesting(u)]]]
…accommodating x…
[x, z: Fred(x), z is x’s son, [: protesting(x)] ⇒ [: protesting(z), ∂[u: u ≠ z, protesting(u)]]]
…binding u to x…
[x, z: Fred(x), z is x’s son, [: protesting(x)] ⇒ [: protesting(z), x ≠ z]]

(44a) is the initial semantic representation associated with (43), in which three presuppositions remain to be resolved. The first of these, triggered by the pronoun “his”, is bound to the discourse referent representing Fred, which results in (44b). The second presupposition, that Fred has a son, cannot be bound, and therefore must be interpreted by way of accommodation. Van der Sandt’s theory, like Heim’s (Heim, 1983), stipulates that accommodation at the global level, as shown in (44c), is preferred to accommodation at other sites. Finally, the presupposition triggered by the focus particle can be bound in the antecedent of the conditional; after simplification, this results in (44d), which represents the most natural way of interpreting (43).

6. Born to fail, or unborn?

What happens when a presupposition is false? The textbook proto-history of answers to this question goes as follows. According to Frege (1892), if an expression A suffers from presupposition failure, then any sentence containing A will lack a truth value; Russell (1905) famously denied this, holding that such a sentence will always be true or false; and then Strawson (1950) reaffirmed Frege’s position, more or less. What is less well known, at least insofar as it usually doesn’t make it into introductory classes on philosophy of language, is that in subsequent work, Strawson partly recanted his initial view and came to doubt that presupposition failure invariably entails lack of truth value.

Taking a closer look at how speakers actually assess a sentence, Strawson’s (1964) paper argues that presupposition failure may but need not cause a sentence to be infelicitous. Two of his examples are the following:

Jones spent the morning at the local swimming pool.
The exhibition was visited yesterday by the king of France.

If there is no swimming pool locally, it is “natural enough”, according to Strawson, to say that (45a) is false, and since the king of France doesn’t exist, the same applies to (45b). And if these sentences are false, their negations must be true. So, if these subtle judgments are accepted, there are cases in which presupposition failure does not prevent us from saying that a sentence is true or false. But Strawson hasn’t changed his mind about Russell’s example:

Confronted with the classical example, “The king of France is bald”, we may well feel it natural to say, straight off, that the question whether the statement is true or false doesn’t arise because there is no king of France. (Strawson 1964: 90)

Strawson goes on to observe, however, that speakers who subscribe to this judgment may want to reconsider their verdict if the context is set up the right way. For instance, if Russell’s sentence is used to answer the question, “What examples, if any, are there of famous contemporary figures who are bald?”, we may be more inclined to say that the answer is simply false.

Strawson’s explanation for these facts is given in terms of topicality. The most likely purpose of a sentence like (45a) is to describe what Jones has been doing in the morning, rather than, say, who the local swimming pool was visited by. That is, in the absence of further information about the context in which this sentence is uttered, its topic will be Jones’s exploits. Similarly, a sentence like (45b) will normally be used to convey information about the exhibition. If so, although the sentence purports to refer to the king of France, it is not about him; the king of France is not the topic of discourse, nor part of the topic. In other words, the existence of the king of France is not at-issue. Strawson’s suggestion is that this circumstance influences the way presupposition failure is dealt with. On this view, presupposition failure results in infelicity only if it affects the topic of a sentence; otherwise the sentence will be judged true or false, as appropriate.

One of the appealing features of this analysis is that it takes into account the context-dependence of speakers’ intuitions. As Strawson notes, Russell’s sentence (46) will by default be construed as being about the king of France, whence a strong tendency to judge the sentence infelicitous.

The king of France is bald.

If, however, the discourse is about royal baldness in general, for instance, the grammatical subject of (46) is used to say something about that topic, and Strawson’s account predicts that the sentence is more likely to be judged false, which seems correct. Another observation that neatly falls into place is that word order may have an effect on speakers’ intuitions about presupposition failure. As Strawson observes, if we compare (45b) with (47), where the defective description is in subject position, we would be “a shade more squeamish” to say that the sentence is simply false (p. 91). This is precisely what one should expect if speakers’ intuitions were topic-dependent.

The king of France visited the exhibition yesterday.

Assuming that Strawson’s observations are correct, should we say (a) that non-topical definites are non-presuppositional, or (b) that they do have presuppositions, whose failure happens not to affect speakers’ truth-value judgments? Some authors argue for the former (e.g., Reinhart 1982, Horn 1989); this is Strawson’s view, as well. Von Fintel (2004) argues for the latter: topical or non-topical, “the king of France” always triggers the presupposition that there is a king of France; it’s just our truth-value judgments that fluctuate.

Von Fintel’s position is in line with what has been a working hypothesis for many years in theories of projection. According to these theories, presuppositions are never really cancelled: if a presupposition seems to disappear, it is because it projects to a non-global context. It bears emphasizing that this view is not irrevocably linked to these theories. It’s just that there is no need to assume that there are part-time presupposition triggers (in a sense we expand upon in Section 8 below), because non-global projection can be relied upon to explain why presuppositions sometimes seem to disappear. However, this working hypothesis may have to be reassessed if we want to account for Strawson’s observations, which might be taken to show that presuppositions are cancellable not only in complex sentences but in simple sentences, as well.

So far we’ve only talked about definite descriptions. Some other triggers show similar variability, but not all of them do. On the one hand, the domain presuppositions associated with strong quantifiers like “all” and “most” behave very much like definite presuppositions (de Jong and Verkuyl 1985, Lappin and Reinhart 1988, Geurts 2007). For example, when uttered out of the blue, (48) will sound odd, but when proffered in response to Strawson’s question, “What examples, if any, are there of famous contemporary figures who are bald?”, it seems more likely to be judged false:

All South-American monarchs are bald.

On the other hand, consider the following:

#BENEDICT XVI is the incumbent pope, too.
#Carnap managed to be born on May 18, 1891.

Given that there is only one incumbent pope and that it can’t have taken Carnap any effort to be born on May 18, 1891, both (49a) and (49b) suffer from presupposition failure. But if someone who knew that there was only one incumbent pope uttered (49a), it would not seem entirely natural to say that they had lied. One might even say that these sentences are true, and this intuition does not seem to be topic dependent. The reason for this may be that the presuppositions in question are incidental to the primary content of these sentences.

7. Presuppositions and attitudes

For nearly four decades, the Holy Grail of presupposition research has been to explain the behavior of presuppositional expressions occurring in embedded positions. A particularly challenging mode of embedding arises with attitude verbs. If we embed a presupposition trigger under, e.g., “believe”, we observe two types of inference. This is seen in the following examples, where “→” indicates that there is an inference, but of unspecified type:

Barney believes that his sister is drunk.
→ Barney has a sister.
→ Barney believes he has a sister.
Wilma believes that Barney knows that his sister is drunk.
→ Barney’s sister is drunk.
→ Wilma believes that Barney’s sister is drunk.

Both inferences are fairly robust, and both seem to exhibit projection behavior, as we illustrate here by applying various embedding tests to (50):

Barney doesn’t believe that his sister is drunk.
Perhaps Barney believes that his sister is drunk.
If Barney has a sister, then he believes that his sister is drunk.
If Barney believes that he has a sister, then he also believes that his sister is drunk.

It is natural to infer from both (52a) and (52b) that Barney has a sister and that he believes that he has a sister, and these inferences can be blocked in sentences such as those in (52c) and (52d) , where “his sister” occurs in the consequent of a conditional whose antecedent makes one or the other inference explicit. It may seem odd at first that (52c) should block the inference that Barney believes that he has a sister, while (52d) blocks the inference that Barney has a sister. Note however that, generally speaking, Barney has a sister iff he believes that he has a sister. We’ll return to this theme below.

Interestingly, literally the same pattern of observations holds for other attitude verbs, like “want” for example:

Barney wants to phone his sister.
→ Barney has a sister.
→ Barney believes he has a sister.

The puzzling thing is that (53) does not license the inference that Barney wants to have a sister, but rather that he believes that he has one.

So, in many cases at least, a presupposition φ triggered within the scope of “x VA…”, where VA is an attitude verb, gives rise to two inferences with a candidature for presuppositional status: (a) that φ and (b) that x believes φ. Hence, we have three possible ways of proceeding, all of which have been defended in the literature:

  1. Both inferences are presuppositions (Zeevat 1992, at least for certain triggers).
  2. Only φ is a presupposition (Gazdar 1979a; van der Sandt 1988; Geurts 1998).
  3. Only “x believes that φ” is a presupposition (Karttunen 1974; Heim 1992).

The first strategy seems to require a stipulation that certain presuppositions have to be accommodated twice, once inside a belief context, and once outside, and such a strategy is difficult to motivate. On the other hand, for (ii) and (iii), there is the obvious problem that if we adopt either one of them, we only account for half of the observed inferences. How to explain the other half? Three possible answers to this question have been discussed in the literature, mainly by Heim (1992):

  1. De re construal (Heim 1992) What at first looks like a presupposition projecting to the global context may in fact be due to a de re construal of the presupposition trigger. This solution has several serious drawbacks. In particular, it’s hard to see how this proposal can give us both inferences at the same time, rather than one (de re) or the other (presupposition). For this and other reasons (see Geurts 1998), we will not consider it any further.
  2. Exportation (Karttunen 1974, Heim 1992, Kay 1992) If Barney believes that he has a sister, then it may plausibly be inferred that he has a sister. Therefore, if it is presupposed that Barney believes that he has a sister, then it may plausibly be inferred that he has a sister.
  3. Importation (Heim 1992, Geurts 1998) If Barney has a sister, then it may plausibly be inferred that he believes that he has a sister. Therefore, if it is presupposed that Barney has a sister, then it may plausibly be inferred that he believes that he has a sister.

If our presupposition theory predicts that the inferences projected from “x VA” are of the form “x believes that φ”, then we can appeal to exportation to explain why φ is inferable, as well. Vice versa, a theory which predicts that φ is presupposed can use importation for deriving “x believes that φ”. So we have two options:

  x believes that φ φ
Option A importation presupposition
Option B presupposition exportation

Which is it going to be? That’s a hard question, which raises various issues, only some of which we can mention here. First, it should be noted that, whereas for theories of the satisfaction family it is hard to avoid making the prediction that presuppositions projected from attitude contexts are of the form “x believes that φ”, DRT-style theories are more flexible, and can predict either this or that the presupposition is simply φ. In other words, satisfaction theories are more constrained (which is good), but therefore practically forced to resort to Option B.

One of the issues that need to be addressed is that of the true nature of importation and exportation inferences. It seems reasonable to assume that, generally speaking, people’s beliefs are consistent with the facts, and that we tend to assume by default that this is the case. But even if this much is true, it is most unlikely that, by default, people will infer φ from “x believes φ” (for arbitrary x and φ), or vice versa. Whatever importation and exportation are, they aren’t general heuristics; rather, these inferences are almost certainly dependent on the context to some degree.

8. Presupposition variability

Much contemporary work on presupposition has been devoted to case studies of particular triggers or families of triggers. More often than not, these studies end up granting some sort of special consideration to the trigger(s) in question. We have already seen instances of trigger differentiation above; for example, anaphoric accounts identify a class of triggers whose content is "descriptively poor" to explain why their presuppositions are more difficult to accommodate than those of other triggers (see Sections 5.1 & 5.3). Researchers have noted more and more ways in which the presuppositions of triggers differ, mostly focused around questions of how robustly the presupposition projects and in what sorts of contexts the presupposition disappears.

For some, the blurry boundaries between the sorts of inferences that are covered by presupposition theories have opened up the door for new triggers and presupposition-like things that might not be covered by traditional labels. For example, Schlenker (2015, 2018) applies a presuppositional framework to iconic co-speech gestures, to identify what he calls "cosuppositions." There are also inferences that seem to challenge traditional diagnostics like projection. For instance, non-restrictive relative clauses ("Fred, who I like, ...") produce projection like presuppositions, but typically introduce new information to the discourse (Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet 1990).

Finally, the way that some theories model presuppositions can give rise to new types of related inferences. For example, Chemla (2008) notes that the sentence in (54a) strongly suggests that the speaker does not have a sister. According to Heim (1991), this inference arises from the fact that the speaker did not utter the alternative in (54b), which strongly presupposes that the speaker does have a sister. This prediction follows from Heim’s Maximize Presupposition! principle, that a speaker will use the felicitous sentence with the strongest presupposition among a set of alternatives. These types of inferences have been referred to in the literature as ’anti-presuppositions,’ a term originating with Percus (2006).

(54a) John believes I have a sister.
(54b) John knows I have a sister.

One observed difference between some triggers is that they don’t seem to reliably generate presuppositions in certain contexts. As we mentioned in Section 6, theories of presupposition projection tend to adopt the working hypothesis that presuppositions are associated with expression types: if an expression α triggers a presupposition φ, then φ will always be triggered by α. This is just a matter of economy: since a projection theory already provides a mechanism for explaining how presuppositions, once triggered, can seem to disappear, there is no need for supposing that there are part-time presupposition triggers. Indeed, it would be a bit of a nuisance if it turned out that that some expressions or constructions trigger their presuppositions on a part-time basis, because then we would have two ways of explaining why a given presupposition fails to appear: echoing our discussion in section 6, either it has been canceled (say through being resolved in an embedded context) or it wasn’t triggered in the first place.

Are there compelling reasons for believing that there are part-time triggers? Not as far as we know. There are suggestive facts, though. In the following example from Fauconnier (1985), A and B are sitting in a bar observing a stranger who doesn’t seem to be too happy:

A: I wonder why that guy is looking so glum.
B: Maybe his girlfriend jilted him.

The most natural interpretation of B’s answer, in this context, is that it is possible that the stranger has a girlfriend who has jilted him; this construal will require local accommodation of the girlfriend if we assume that “his girlfriend” always triggers the presupposition that the pronoun’s referent has a girlfriend.[23] The problem is that if this is local accommodation, then it’s too easy. Local accommodation is supposed to be dispreferred. If we allow that in this case the presupposition is locally accommodated, why can’t all embedded presuppositions just be locally accommodated away and not project? Allowing local accommodation to occur without constraint would potentially destroy any claim to have explained the observation that has defined the phenomenon of presupposition since its inception, the observation that presuppositions tend to project.

If we could explain why this or that expression triggers such and such a presupposition, one of the corollaries might be that the expression in question is a part-time trigger. To see how such an argument might run in outline, consider the presuppositions associated with aspectual verbs like “start” or “stop”:

Jill has started smoking pot.
→ Jill didn’t use to smoke pot.
Jill has stopped smoking pot.
→ Jill used to smoke pot.

Aspectual verbs describe a transition from one state to another, and it is always the first state that is presupposed, as standard projection tests confirm. An explanation might be sought in the idea that interlocutors are more interested in where the story is going than where it came from, and therefore tend to take the past as given. A purely pragmatic analysis might involve the hearer reasoning that since the speaker is likely to intend to provide the information that is of greatest interest, they are probably assuming a context in which the pre-state associated with a telic sentence is already in the common ground, i.e. presupposed. It might further be argued that such reasoning only applies when the hearer has reason to think that the speaker has expertise on the situation being described. A part-time trigger analysis might be based on the idea that the regularity with which pre-states of telic sentences are in the common ground has led to this pragmatic reasoning being conventionalized. A part-time trigger analysis might involve a special triggering condition, e.g. involving the speaker’s expertise. So the part-time trigger analysis might amount to the claim that when the context determines that the speaker has expertise about an event, the pre-state is presupposed, but when the context determines that the speaker lacks expertise, there is no such presupposition.

The disappearance of a pre-state presupposition in example (57) could be explained in this way. On a more standard view, the aspectual verb triggers a quantified presupposition, roughly that x used to smoke. This has to be accommodated locally, perhaps because as suggested by van der Sandt (1992), bound presuppositions can never be accommodated outside of the scope of the binder, what he calls trapping. But it is also conceivable that there is no presupposition to be trapped. The idea would be that the speaker lacks expertise on the habits of the arbitrary individuals quantified over by the quantifier "anyone", and that this is just the situation in which a presupposition is not triggered. The ease with which the existence presupposition of the possessive in example (55) disappears could be explained along the same lines.

If anyone stops smoking before July 1, they are eligible for a payment from the Tobacco Indemnity Fund. (Example adapted from Abusch 2002.)

A different perspective has emerged in recent years to explain the why certain triggers seem to only result in a presupposition part of the time. Rather than proposing that there is variation in triggering, some linguists interpret this behavior as the result of variation in the inherent cancellability among triggers. Abusch (2002, 2010) distinguishes between ‘soft’ triggers which are weak and context-dependent and ‘hard’ triggers, which are resistent to cancellation. For example, she classifies the achievement verb win, in (58a), as a soft trigger, since the presupposition that John participated in the race is contextually defeasible, whereas the cleft construction in (58b) is considered a hard trigger because it cannot be cancelled by the speaker by explicitly expressing ignorance.

I have no idea whether John ended up participating in the Road Race yesterday. But if he won it, then he has more victories than anyone else in history.
??I have no idea whether anyone read that letter. But if it is John who read it, let’s ask him to be discreet about the content.

Abusch’s soft/hard distinction suggests that degrees of cancellability are intrinsic properties of the triggers themselves, and those that buy into this theory must motivate why that is. For Abusch, hard presuppositions are strictly semantic, whereas soft presuppositions arise from alternative sets generated in the context. Romoli (2011, 2014) takes this a step further by arguing that presuppositions from soft triggers aren’t presuppositions at all, but rather entailments or scalar implicatures. In contrast, Abrusán (2011a, 2011b, 2016) argues that the difference between soft and hard triggers emerges from how both types interact with the context, for example with regard to their focus sensitivity.

Despite the arguments made for a distinction between soft and hard triggers, empirical studies have challenged the view that triggers differ in their conventional properties. Jayez et al (2014) find that projection differences between different triggers depend more on context than on the classification of the trigger itself. Schwarz (2014) compares processing times between hard and soft triggers and finds that there is no difference between the two.

With the rise of arguments for more fine-grained variability among presuppositions, inferences that we may have confidently called ’presuppositions’ have become harder to think of as forming a natural class. For some, the inconsistency in trigger behavior has fed into something of a presupposition identity crisis, a crisis dating at least as far back as Böer and Lycan’s (1976) description of semantic presupposition as a "myth". Karttunen (2016) reflects on the state of the field with an air of regret, saying that the "veritable zoo" of triggers that were lumped into the same presuppositional cage should never have been considered the same species in the first place. Ultimately, in order to either salvage a unified notion of presupposition, or else argue in a grand tradition (following e.g. Böer and Lycan 1976 or Karttunen and Peters 1977) for rejecting the possibility of a unified notion of presupposition, it has become pressing for linguists to understand how triggers and their inferences vary and why, fueling a trend in recent years towards systematic empirical work, looking for evidence of cross-linguistic variation, and developing methods for experimentally testing the predictions of different theories.


  • Abbott, Barbara, 2000, “Presuppositions as nonassertions”, Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10): 1419–1437.
  • Abbott, Barbara, 2008, “Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of definite descriptions in English”, in Reference: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, J.K. Gundel and N. Hedberg (eds.), Oxford University Press.
  • Abbott, Barbara, 2006, “Where have some of the presuppositions gone?”, in Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn, Betty Birner and Gregory Ward (eds.), Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Abrusan, Marta, 2011a, "Predicting the presupposition of soft triggers", Linguistics and Philosophy, 34(6): 491–535.
  • Abrusan, Marta, 2011b, "A note on quasi-presupposition and focus", Journal of Semantics, 30(2), 257–265.
  • Abrusan, Marta, 2016, "Presupposition cancellation: explaining the ’soft-hard’ trigger distinction", Natural Language Semantics, 24(2): 165–202.
  • Abusch, Dorit, 2002, “Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions”, in Jackson, Brendan (ed.), Proceedings of SALT XII, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, 1–20.
  • Abusch, Dorit, 2010, "Factivity in exclamatives is a presupposition", Studia Linguistica, 64(1): 141–157.
  • Abusch, Dorit and Rooth, Mats, 2000, “Empty-domain effects for presuppositional and non-presuppositional determiners”, To appear in Hans Kamp and Barbara Partee (eds), Context Dependency in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning.
  • Atlas, Jay, 1976, On the Semantics of Presupposition and Negation: an Essay in Philosophical Logic and the Foundations of Linguistics, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University.
  • Atlas, Jay, 1977, “Negation, ambiguity and presupposition”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 1: 321–336.
  • Atlas, Jay, 1979, “How linguistics matters to philosophy: Presupposition, truth, and meaning”, in Oh, C. K. and Dineen, D. A. (eds.), Presupposition, New York: Academic Press, vol. 11 of Syntax and Semantics, 265–281.
  • Atlas, Jay and Levinson, Stephen, 1981, “It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics”, in Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, Academic Press, 1–61.
  • Beaver, David, 1992, “The kinematics of presupposition”, in Dekker, P. and Stockhof, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium, University of Amsterdam: ILLC, 17–36.
  • Beaver, David, 1997, “Presupposition”, in van Benthem, J. and ter Meulen, A. (eds.), The Handbook of Logic and Language, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 939–1008.
  • Beaver, David, 2001, Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [Available online]
  • Beaver, David, 2008, “As brief as possible (but no briefer)”, Theoretical Linguistics, 34: 213–228.
  • Beaver, D. (2010). "Have You Noticed that Your Belly Button Lint Color is Related to the Color of Your Clothing?", in R. Bauerle, U. Reyle, and T. Zimmermann (eds.) Presuppositions and discourse: Essays offered to Hans Kamp, Brill, 65–100.
  • Beaver, David and Condoravdi, Cleo, 2003, “A uniform analysis of ”before“ and ”after“”, in Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XIII, Cornell, Ithaca: CLC Publications, 37–54.
  • Beaver, David and Denlinger, Kristin, 2020, "Negation and Presupposition", in Deprez, V. and Espinal, M. T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Negation, 369–390.
  • Beaver, David and Krahmer, Emiel, 2001, “A partial account of presupposition projection”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10: 147–182.
  • Beaver, David and Zeevat, Henk, 2007, “Accommodation”, in Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Oxford University Press, 533–538.
  • Blamey, Steven, 1989, “Partiality”, in Gabbay, D. and Guenther, F. (eds.), The Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Dordrecht: Reidel, vol. IV, 553–616.
  • Blutner, Reinhard, 2000, “Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation”, Journal of Semantics, 17(3): 189–216.
  • Bochvar, Dmitrii Anatoljevich, 1939, “Ob odnom trehznachom iscislenii i ego primeneii k analizu paradoksov klassicskogo rassirennogo funkcional ‘nogo iscislenija’”, Matematiciskij Sbornik, 4: 87–112. English Translation: History and Philosophy of Logic 2, 1981, “On a Three-valued Calculus and Its Applications to the Analysis of the Paradoxes of the Classical Extended Functional Calculus”.
  • Böer, Steven E. and Lycan, William G., 1976, “The myth of semantic presupposition”, in Zwicky, A. (ed.), Papers in nonphonology, Columbus, Ohio: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University, vol. 21 of Working Papers in Linguistics, 1–90.
  • Bridge, Derek, 1991, Computing Presuppositions in an Incremental Natural Language Processing System, Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory. Available as Technical Report No. 237.
  • Chemla, Emmanuel, 2008, "An anti-introduction to presuppositions", in Proceedings of MIT-France workshop on scalar implicature and presupposition, 60.
  • Chemla, Emmanuel and Bott, Lewis, 2013, "Processing presuppositions: Dynamic semantics vs. pragmatic enrichment", Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(3): 241–260.
  • Chierchia, Gennaro, 1995, Dynamics of Meaning, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Chierchia, Gennaro & Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1990. Meaning and Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Clark, Herbert H. and Marshall, C., 1981, “Definite reference and mutual knowledge”, in Joshi, A. and Webber, B. L. and Sag, I. (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding, Cambridge University Press.
  • Cooper, Robin, 1983, Quantification and Syntactic Theory, Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • de Jong, Franciska and Verkuyl, Henk, 1985, “Generalized quantifiers: the properness of their strength”, in ter Meulen, A. and van Benthem, J. (eds.), Generalized Quantifiers: Theory and Applications, Dordrecht: Foris, vol. 4 of GRASS, 21–43.
  • Delin, Judy, 1995, “Presupposition and shared knowledge in it-clefts”, Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(2): 97–120.
  • van Eijck, Jan, 1993, “The dynamics of description”, Journal of Semantics, 10: 239–267.
  • van Eijck, Jan, 1994, “Presupposition failure: a comedy of errors”, Formal Aspects of Computing, 6(6): 766–787.
  • van Eijck, Jan, 1995, “Presuppositions and dynamic logic”, in Papers from the Second CSLI Workshop on Logic, Language and Computation, Makoto Kanazawa, Christopher Piñon, and Henriette de Swart (eds.), Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  • Fauconnier, Gilles, 1985, Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Fillmore, Charles, 1971, “Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description”, in Fillmore, C. and Langendoen, D. T. (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, New York.: Holt, Reinhardt and Winston, 272–289.
  • von Fintel, Kai, 1995, Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachussetts at Amherst.
  • von Fintel, Kai, 2004, “Would you believe it? The king of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions”, in Reimer, M. and Bezuidenhout, A. (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond, Oxford University Press, 269–296.
  • von Fintel, Kai, 2008, "What’s Presupposition Accommodation, Again?", Philosophical Perspectives, 22: 137–170.
  • Fraassen, Bas C. van, 1968, “Presupposition, implication, and self-reference”, The Journal of Philosophy, 65(5): 136–152.
  • Frege, Gottlob, 1892, “Uber Sinn und Bedeutung”, Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, C: 25–50. English Translation: “On Sense and Meaning”, in McGuinness, B. (ed), Frege: collected works, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 157–177.
  • Gamut, L. T. F., 1991, Logic, Language and Meaning, vol. 1, University of Chicago Press.
  • Gawron, Jean Mark, 1995, “Quantification, quantificational domains and dynamic logic”, in Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, 247–267.
  • Gazdar, Gerald, 1979a, Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form, New York: Academic Press.
  • Gazdar, Gerald, 1979b, “A solution to the projection problem”, in Oh, C.-K. and Dineen, D. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, New York: Academic Press, 57–89.
  • George, Benjamin R., 2008, Presupposition Repairs: a Static, Trivalent Approach to Predicting Projection, Master’s thesis, UCLA.
  • Geurts, Bart, 1996, “Local satisfaction guaranteed”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 19: 259–294.
  • Geurts, Bart, 1998, “Presuppositions and anaphors in attitude contexts”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 21: 545–601.
  • Geurts, Bart, 1999a, Presuppositions and Pronouns, vol. 3 of CRiSPI, Amsterdam: Elsevier. [Available online]
  • Geurts, Bart, 1999b, “Specifics”, in Geurts, B. and Krifka, M. and van der Sandt, R. (eds.), Focus and presupposition in multi-speaker discourse, Utrecht: ESSLLI 99, 99–129.
  • Geurts, Bart, 2000, “Buoyancy and strength”, Journal of Semantics, 17(4): 315–333.
  • Geurts, Bart, 2007, “Existential import”, in Comorovski, I. and von Heusinger, K. (eds.), Existence: syntax and semantics, Dordrecht: Springer, 253–271.
  • Geurts, Bart and van der Sandt, Rob, 1999, “Domain restriction”, in Bosch, P. and van der Sandt, R. (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 268–292.
  • Geurts, Bart and van der Sandt, Rob, 2004, “Interpreting focus”, Theoretical Linguistics, 30(1): 1–44.
  • Grice, H. Paul, 1989, Studies in the Way of Words, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  • Groenendijk, Jeroen and Stokhof, Martin, 1991, “Dynamic Predicate Logic”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 14: 39–100.
  • Gunji, Takao, 1981, Towards a Computational Theory of Pragmatics—Discourse, Presupposition and Implicature, Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University.
  • Hamblin, Charles L., 1970, Fallacies, London: Methuen & Co.
  • Hawkins, J.A., 1978, Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction, Croom Helm.
  • Heim, Irene, 1982, On the Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
  • Heim, Irene, 1983, “On the projection problem for presuppositions”, in Barlow, M. and Flickinger, D. and Westcoat, M. (eds.), Second Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford University, 114–126.
  • Heim, Irene, 1992, “Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs”, Journal of Semantics, 9: 183–221.
  • Heinämäki, Orvokki, 1974, Semantics of English Temporal Connectives, Ph.D. thesis, University of Indiana at Bloomington.
  • Horn, Laurence, 1969, “A presuppositional analysis of only and even”, in Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago, 98–107.
  • Horn, Laurence, 1972, On the semantic properties of logical operators in English, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
  • Horn, Laurence, 1985, “Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity”, Language, 61: 121–174.
  • Horn, Laurence, 1989, A Natural History of Negation, University of Chicago Press. Reissued with new introduction (2001), David Hume Series, CSLI Publications, Stanford.
  • Horton, Diane, 1987, “Incorporating agents’ beliefs in a model of presupposition”, Tech. Rep. CSRI-201, Computer Systems Research Institute, University of Toronto.
  • Horton, Diane and Hirst, Graeme, 1988, “Presuppositions as beliefs”, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING, 255–260.
  • Jackendoff, Ray, 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press.
  • Jayez, Jacques, Mongelli, Valeria, Reboul, Anne and Van Der Henst, Jean-Bapteiste, 2014 "Weak and strong triggers", in Experimental perspectives on presuppositions, Cham: Springer, 173–193.
  • Karttunen, Lauri, 1971a, “Implicative verbs”, Language, 47(2): 340–358.
  • Karttunen, Lauri, 1971b, “Some Observations on Factivity”, Papers in Linguistics, 5: 55–69.
  • Karttunen, Lauri, 1973, “Presuppositions of Compound Sentences”, Linguistic Inquiry, 4: 167–193.
  • Karttunen, Lauri, 1974, “Presuppositions and Linguistic Context”, Theoretical Linguistics, 1: 181–194.
  • Karttunen, Lauri and Peters, Stanley, 1977, “Requiem for presupposition”, in BLS3, Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Berkeley: California: 266–278.
  • Karttunen, Lauri and Peters, Stanley, 1979, “Conventional Implicatures in Montague Grammar”, in Oh, C.-K. and Dineen, D. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, New York: Academic Press, 1–56.
  • Karttunen, Lauri, 2016, "Presupposition: What went wrong?", in Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 26: 705–731.
  • Kay, Paul, 1992, “The inheritance of presuppositions”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 15: 333–381.
  • Kempson, Ruth, 1975, Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kim, Christina, 2008, "Processing presupposition: verifying sentences with ‘only’", University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 14(1): 17.
  • Kiparsky, Paul and Kiparsky, Carol, 1970, “Fact”, in Bierwisch, M. and Heidolph, K. (eds.), Progress in Linguistics, The Hague: Mouton, 143–173.
  • Kleene, Stephen, 1952, Introduction to Metamathematics, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  • Krahmer, Emiel, 1994, “Partiality and dynamics”, in Dekker, P. and Stokhof, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium: Volume 2, University of Amsterdam: ILLC, 391–410.
  • Krahmer, Emiel, 1998, Presupposition and Anaphora, Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  • Kripke, Saul, 2009, “Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the projection problem”, Linguistic Inquiry, 40: 367–386.
  • Langendoen, D. Terence and Savin, Harris, 1971, “The projection problem for presuppositions”, in Fillmore, C. and Langendoen, D. T. (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, New York: Holt, Reinhardt and Winston, 373–388.
  • Lappin, Shalom and Reinhart, Tanya, 1988, “Presuppositions of quantifiers: a processing account”, Linguistics, 26: 1021–1037.
  • Lewis, David, 1979, “Scorekeeping in a language game”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8: 339–359. Also in Bäuerle, R. and Egli, U. and von Stechow, A. (eds.), 1979, Semantics from Different Points of View, Springer, Berlin.
  • Lorenz, Sven, 1992, “On the role of reasoning about change in the projection of presuppositions”, Report 234, IWBS, IBM Germany.
  • Mandelkern, Matthew, 2016, "A note on the architecture of presupposition", Semantics and Pragmatics, 9(13): 1–24.
  • Marcu, Daniel, 1994, A Formalisation and an Algorithm for Computing Pragmatic Inferences and Detecting Infelicities, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, Computer Systems Research Institute. Available as Technical Report CSRI-309, Computer Research Institute, University of Toronto.
  • McCawley, James, 1981, Everything That Linguists Have Always Wanted to Know about Logic (but Were Ashamed to Ask), University of Chicago Press.
  • Mercer, Robert, 1987, A Default Logic Approach to the Derivation of Natural Language Presuppositions, Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia.
  • Mercer, Robert, 1992, “Default Logic: Towards a common logical semantics for presupposition and entailment”, Journal of Semantics, 9: 223–250.
  • Morgan, Jerry, 1969, “On the Treatment of Presupposition in Transformational Grammar”, in Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, 167–77.
  • Nerlich, G., 1967, “Presupposition and Classical Logical Relations”, Analysis, 27(3): 104–106.
  • Pearson, Hazel, 2013, "A Judge-Free Semantics for Predicates of Personal Taste", Journal of Semantics, 30: 103–154.
  • Peters, Stanley, 1979, “A truth-conditional formulation of Karttunen’s account of presupposition”, Synthese, 40(2): 301–316.
  • Percus, Orin, 2006, "Antipresuppositions", in A. Ueyama (ed.) Theoretical and empirical studies of reference and anaphora, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science: Report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research B.
  • Potts, Christopher, 2005, The logic of conventional implicatures, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Prince, Ellen, 1986, “On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions”, in Farley, A. M. and Farley, P. T. and McCullough, K.-E. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, 22nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, 208–222.
  • Reinhart, Tanya, 1982, “Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics”, Philosophica, 27: 53–94.
  • Roberts, Craige, 1995, “Domain Selection in Dynamic Semantics”, in Bach, E. Jelinek, E. and Kratzer, A. and Partee, B. (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 661–700.
  • Roberts, Craige, 1998, “Focus, the flow of information, and universal grammar”, in Culicover, P. and McNally, L. (eds.), The Limits of Syntax, New York: Academic Press, 109–160.
  • Roberts, Craige., 2012, "Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics", Semantics and Pragmatics, 5: 1–69.
  • Romoli, Jacopo, 2011, "The presuppositions of soft triggers aren’t presuppositions", Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 21: 236–256.
  • Romoli, Jacopo, 2014, "The presuppositions of soft triggers are obligatory scalar implicatures", Journal of Semantics, 32(2): 173–219.
  • Romoli, Jacopo, Sudo, Yasutada and Snedeker, Jesse, 2011, "An experimental investigation of presupposition projection in conditional sentences", Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 21: 592–608.
  • Romoli, Jacopo & Schwarz, Florian (2014), "An experimental comparison between presuppositions and indirect scalar implicatures", in F. Schwarz (ed.), Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions, Cham: Springer, 215–240.
  • van Rooij, Robert, 2007, “Strengthening conditional presuppositions”, Journal of Semantics, 24: 289–304.
  • Rothschild, Daniel, 2008, “Presupposition projection and logical equivalence”, Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1): 473–497.
  • Russell, Bertrand, 1905, “On Denoting”, Mind, 14: 479–493.
  • Sæbø, Kjell Johan, 1996, “Anaphoric presuppositions and zero anaphora”, Linguistics and Philosophy, 19: 187–209.
  • van der Sandt, Rob, 1982, Kontekst en Presuppositie: Een Studie van het Projektieprobleem en de Presuppositionele Eigenschappen van de Logische Konnektieven, Ph.D. thesis, Nijmegen Institute of Semantics.
  • van der Sandt, Rob, 1988, Context and Presupposition, London: Croom Helm.
  • van der Sandt, Rob, 1989, “Presupposition and discourse structure”, in Bartsch, R. van Benthem, J. and van Emde Boas, P. (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, Dordrecht: Foris, 287–94.
  • van der Sandt, Rob, 1992, “Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution”, Journal of Semantics, 9: 333–377.
  • Schlenker, Philippe, 2007, “Anti-dynamics: Presupposition projection without dynamic semantics”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 16(3): 325–256.
  • Schlenker, Philippe, 2008, “Be articulate: A pragmatic theory of presupposition”, Theoretical Linguistics, 34: 157–212.
  • Schlenker, Philippe, 2009, “Local contexts”, Semantics and Pragmatics, 2(3): 1–78.
  • Schlenker, Philippe, 2011, "The proviso problem: a note", Natural Language Semantics, 19(4): 395–422.
  • Schlenker, Philippe, 2015, "Gestural presuppositions", Snippets, 30: 9–11.
  • Schlenker, Philippe, 2018, "Gesture projection and cosuppositions", Linguistics and Philosophy, 41: 295–365.
  • Schwarz, Florian (ed.), 2014, Experimental perspectives on presuppositions, Cham: Springer.
  • Sellars, W., 1954, “Presupposing”, Philosophical Review, 63: 197–215.
  • Simons, Mandy, 2001, “On the conversational basis of some presuppositions”, in Hastings, R. and Jackson, B. and Zvolensky, Z. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory 11, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, 431–448.
  • Simons, Mandy, 2003, “Presupposition and accommodation: Understanding the Stalnakerian picture”, Philosophical Studies, 112(3): 251–278.
  • Simons, Mandy, 2004, “Presupposition and relevance”, in Zoltán Szabó (ed.), Semantics vs. Pragmatics, Oxford University Press, 329–355.
  • Simons, Mandy, 2006, “Foundational issues in presupposition”, Philosophy Compass, 1(4): 357–372.
  • Simons, Mandy, 2007, “Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition”, Lingua, 117(6): 1034–1056.
  • Simons, Mandy, Tonhauser, Judith, Beaver, David and Roberts, Craige, 2010, "What projects and why", Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 20: 309–327.
  • Singh, Raj, 2007a, “Formal alternatives as a solution to the proviso problem”, in Gibson, M. and Friedman, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University, 264–228.
  • Singh, Raj, 2009, "Symmetric and interacting alternatives for implicature and accommodation", in N. Klinedinst and D. Rothschild (eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2009 Workshop: New directions in the theory of presupposition.
  • Soames, Scott, 1979, “A projection problem for speaker presuppositions”, Linguistic Inquiry, 10: 623–666.
  • Soames, Scott, 1982, “How presuppositions are inherited: a solution to the projection problem”, Linguistic Inquiry, 13: 483–545.
  • Soames, Scott, 1989, “Presupposition”, in Gabbay, D. and Guenther, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Dordrecht: Reidel, vol. IV, 553–616.
  • Stalnaker, Robert, 1972, “Pragmatics”, in Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel: Dordrecht, 389–408.
  • Stalnaker, Robert, 1973, “Presuppositions”, The Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2: 447–457.
  • Stalnaker, Robert, 1974, “Pragmatic presuppositions”, in Munitz, M. and Unger, P. (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, New York University Press, 197–214.
  • Stalnaker, Robert, 1998, “On the representation of context”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 7: 3–19.
  • Strawson, Peter F., 1950, “On referring”, Mind, 59: 320–44.
  • Strawson, Peter F., 1952, Introduction to Logical Theory, London: Methuen.
  • Strawson, Peter F., 1954, “A Reply to Mr. Sellars”, Philosophical Review, 63: 216–231.
  • Strawson, Peter F., 1964, “Identifying reference and truth-values”, Theoria, 30: 96–118. Reprinted in: Logico-linguistic Papers. Methuen, London, 1974, 75–95.
  • Tiemann, Sonja, Schmid, Mareike, Bade, Nadine, Rolke, Bettina, Hertrich, Ingo, Ackermann, Hermann, Knapp, Julia, and Beck, Sigrid, 2011, "Psycholinguistic evidence for presuppositions: On-line and off-line data", in Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung, 15(15): 581–595.
  • Tonhauser, Judith, 2012, "Diagnosing (not-) at-issue content", Proceedings of Semantics of Under-represented Languages of the Americas (SULA), 6: 239–254
  • Tonhauser, Judith, Beaver, David, Roberts, Craig, and Simons, Mandy, 2013, "Toward a taxonomy of projective content", Language, 89(1): 66–109.
  • Thomason, Richmond, 1972, “A semantic theory of sortal incorrectness”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1: 209–258.
  • Veltman, Frank, 1996, “Defaults in update semantics”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25: 221–261.
  • Wilson, Deidre, 1975, Presupposition and Non-truth-conditional Semantics, London: Academic Press.
  • Yeom, J.I., 1998, A Presuppositional Analysis of Specific Indefinites: Common Grounds as Structured Information States, Garland Publishing.
  • Zeevat, H., 1999, “Explaining presupposition triggers”, in Proceedings of the Twelfth Amsterdam Colloquium, ILLC, Amsterdam, 19–24.
  • Zeevat, Henk, 1992, “Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics”, Journal of Semantics, 9: 379–412.

Other Internet Resources


The authors would like to thank Leah Velleman for initially converting the article to html, and the editorial team at SEP for extensive help and advice with both content and form. Beaver’s work was supported by NSF award 0952862 Semantics and Pragmatics of Projective Meaning across Languages, by NSF award 0904913 Modeling Discourse and Social Dynamics in Authoritarian Regimes, by BAA DCHC-BAA-000101 Tracking Secretive Behavior through Word Use, and by the NYCT TeXIT project.

Copyright © 2021 by
David I. Beaver <>
Bart Geurts <>
Kristie Denlinger <>

Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.
The Encyclopedia Now Needs Your Support
Please Read How You Can Help Keep the Encyclopedia Free