Obligatory%20Redundancy%20in%20Discourse%20Presupposition,%20Antipresupposition%20and%20Non-asserted%20Content

1
Obligatory Redundancy in DiscoursePresupposition,
Antipresupposition and Non-asserted Content

• Pascal Amsili Claire Beyssade
• Université Paris-Diderot CNRS Lattice
• Institut Jean Nicod, CNRS Paris

2
1. Introduction

• (1) a. Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la
  fera plus.
• John made a big mistake. He wont do it again
• b. Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la
  refera pas.
• John made a big mistake. He wont redo it
• c. Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la
  refera plus.
• John made a big mistake. He wont redo it
  again
• d. Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la
  fera pas.
• John made a big mistake. He wont do it

3
1. Introduction

• What is surprising in (1)?
• (1) Jean a fait une grosse erreur. Il ne la fera
  plus.
• John made a big mistake. He wont do it again.
• One piece of information is given twice
•  once it is asserted John made a big mistake.
•  and then it is presupposed He wont do it
  again.
• He wont do it again
• He did it John made a big mistake
  (presupposition)
• He wont do it (assertion)

4
1. Introduction

• Redundancy between asserted contents
• (2) a. Its raining. Its raining.
• Redundancy presupposition - asserted content
  (van der Sandt, 1988)
• (2) b. John knows that its raining. Its
  raining.
• Redundancy asserted content - presupposition
• c. Its raining. John knows that.
• d. John made a mistake. He wont do it (ø /
  again).

5
Outline

•  Background
• Generalization when and where does a
  presupposition trigger become obligatory?
• A pragmatic explanation
• Apparent counterexamples

6
2. Background

• The observation that too or again may, in some
  contexts, be compulsary is not new
• (a.o. Kaplan, Krifka, Zeevat, Saebo).
•  But the phenomenon is general a subclass of
  presupposition triggers gives rise to such an
  obligatory redundancy
• (too, again, to know that, clefts, intonation)

7
2.1 Kaplan obligatoriness of too

• (3) a. Jo had fish and Mo did too.
• b. Jo had fish and Mo did.
• (Green 1968, Kaplan 1984)
• too emphasizes the similarity between members
  of a pair of contrasting items 

8
2.1 Kaplan obligatoriness of too

• limited to bisentential too
• (S1 and / but S2 too)
• unclear predictions
• variation of obligatoriness connected to
  variation of contrast
• (4) a. Jo likes syntax and she likes phonetics (
  ?ø / too).
• b. Jo likes syntax but she likes phonetics (
  ø / too). c. Jo has lived in NY and she has
  lived in LA (ø / too).

9
2.2 Krifka distinctiveness constraint

• Additive particles occurring after their focus
• Focus and topic accents
• (5) A  What did Peter and Pia eat?
• B Péter ate pàsta, and Pía ate pàsta.
• B Péter ate pàsta, and Pía ate pasta, tòo.

10
2.2 Krifka distinctiveness constraint

• Congruent answer and focus accent
• (6) A What did Peter eat?
• B Peter ate pàsta.
• B Péter ate pasta.
• Partial answer and contrastive topic accent
  (Büring, 1998)
• (7) A  What did Peter and Pia eat ?
• B Peter ate pàsta.
• B Péter ate pàsta.

11
2.2 Krifka distinctiveness constraint

• Distinctiveness constraint
• If TC is a contrastive answer to a question
  Q, then there is no alternative T of T such that
  the speaker is willing to assert TC
• too allows to violate distinctiveness
• (8) A What did Peter and Pia eat?
• B Péter ate pàsta, and Pía ate pàsta.
• B Péter ate pàsta, and Pía ate pasta, tòo.

12
2.2 Krifka distinctiveness constraint

• A contrastive topic accent in the first part of
  the answer triggers a distinctiveness
  implicature.
• too cancels this implicature.
• The obligatoriness of too is explained only when
  there is a contrastive accent.
• Only additive particles are concerned.

13
2.3 Sæbø back to presupposition

• Too obligatory even without contrastive topic
  accent
• (9) When the gods arrive at Jotunheim, the giants
  prepare the wedding feast. But during the feast,
  the brideThor, that isdevours an entire ox and
  eight salmon. He also drinks three barrels of
  beer. This astonishes Thrym. But Loki averts the
  danger by explaining that Freyja has been looking
  forward to coming to Jotunheim so much that she
  has not eaten for a week. When Thrym lifts the
  bridal veil to kiss the bride, he is startled to
  find himself looking into Thor's burning eyes.
  This time, (Ø/too), Loki saves the situation,
  explaining that the bride has not slept for a
  week for longing for Jotunheim.

14
2.3 Sæbø back to presupposition

• The obligatoriness of too should be explained
  by the inferences triggered by the second
  sentence.
• (10) Swift Deer could see pine-clad mountains on
  the other side of the Rain Valley. Far away to
  the east and west the dry prairies stretched out
  as far as the eye could see. (i) To the north lay
  the yellow-brown desert, a low belt of green
  cactus-covered ridges and distant blue mountain
  ranges with sharp peaks. (ii) To the south
  (ø/too) he could see mountains.

15
2.3 Sæbø back to presupposition

• Presupposition more important than contrast
• Explanation based on a reasoning triggered by
  the second sentence

16
3. Generalization

• Obligatory redundancy can be observed with
  other presupposition triggers.
• ? Which triggers?

17
3. Generalization Which presupposition
triggers?

• Additive particles
• (11) Jean est malade, Marie est malade ( ø /
  aussi )
• John is sick, Mary is sick (ø / too )
• (12) Jean nest pas malade, Marie nest pas
  malade ( ø / non plus)
• John isnt sick, Mary isnt sick (ø / either )

18
3. Generalization Which presupposition
triggers?

• Aspectual particles
• (13) Léa a fait une bêtise. Elle ne la ( ø /
  re-)fera pas.
• Lea did a silly thing. She wont (ø / re-)do
  it
• (14) Il était là hier, il est ( ø / encore /
  toujours) là.
• He was there yesterday, he is (ø/ still )
  there.
• (15) Il a appelé hier, il a de nouveau appelé
  aujourdhui.
• He called yesterday, he has (ø/ again) called
  today.
• (16) Ce site a été créé il y a deux ans. Il
  nexiste ( pas / plus).
• This website was created two years ago. It
  (dont / no longer) exist(s).

19
3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?

• Factive verbs know that vs. know whether
• (17) Léa est partie en Afrique. Jean ne le dit à
  personne, bien quil sache ( si / que) elle est
  partie là-bas.
• Leas gone to Africa. John tells no one, even
  though he knows ( whether / that ) shes gone
  there.

20
3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?

• Factive verbs vérifier que vs. si
• (18) Il y a eu une fuite deau, mais quelquun
  la réparée. Jean appelé le plombier pour quil
  vérifie (?si / que) le problème est réglé).
• There was a leakage, but somebody fixed it.
  John called the plumber so that he checks
  (whether/that) le problem is solved

21
3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?

• Factive verbs ignorer que vs. si
• (19) Jean est revenu de vacances. Mais comme il
  na téléphoné à personne, au bureau, tout le
  monde ignore (?si / que) il est chez lui.
• John has come back from vacation. But since he
  called no one, at his office everybody ignores
  (whether/that) he is at home

22
3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?

• Clefts and Prosody in English
• (20) a. Someone fixed the dinner. It is John who
  did it.
• b. Someone fixed the dinner. JOHN did it.
• c. Someone fixed the dinner. John did it.

23
3. Generalization Which presupposition triggers?

• Clefts in French
• (21)a. Quelquun a préparé le dîner. Ce nest pas
  Jean qui la fait.
• b. Quelquun a préparé le dîner. Jean ne la
  pas fait.
• Someone fixed the dinner. It is not Jean who
  did it / Jean didnt do it

24
3. Generalization Not all presupposition
triggers

• Presupposition triggers such as to regret or only
  are not concerned.
• (22) a. Max owns a Ferrari. Hes the only one.
• b. Max owns a Ferrari. Nobody else does.
• (23) a. Its raining. Max regrets that its
  raining.
• b. Its raining. Max doesnt like it when it
• rains.

25
3. Generalization

• additive particles
•  aspectual particles
• clefts / intonation
• some factive verbs
• ? What do they have in common ?

26
3. Generalization

• too S(f) S(f) ?f f? f F(f)
• cleft S(f) S(f) ?x S(x)
• again ?e S(e) ?e S(e) ?e elte S(e)
• anymore neg S(e) neg S(e) ?e elte
  S(e)
• that s knows whether P s knows whether P
  P
• trigger ? ? ?
• assertion presupposition
• Triggers with no asserted content

27
3. Generalization

• Consider two sentences, S1 and S2, which only
  differ with respect to their presuppositional
  content P.
• S1 ltA, øgt i.e. S1 asserts A and conveys no
  presupposition
• S2 ltA, Pgt i.e. S2 asserts A and presupposes P
• We claim that in a context where the content P
  has been asserted, the use of S2 is obligatory.
• P. S1.
• P. S2P.

28
4. A pragmatic explanation

• Starting point maximize presupposition
• (24) a. A father of the victim arrived at the
  scene.
• b.The father of the victim arrived at the
  scene.
• lta, thegt forms an alternative pair
•  Make your contribution presuppose as much as
  possible (Heim 1991)
• In Sauerland / Percus terminology (24a) is
  unfelicitous because it triggers an implicated
  presupposition/antipresupposition incompatible
  with background knowledge.

29
4. A pragmatic explanation

• (1) John made a mistake. He wont do it (ø
  /again).
• Assertion John made a mistake
• Choice S1 He wont do it
• S2 He wont do it again.
• S2 is presuppositionally stronger than S1
• S2?S1 but not (S1? S2)
• S1 antipresupposes John made a mistake i.e.
• S1 implicates John didnt make any mistake
  which is incompatible with the assertion af the
  first sentence. Thus (A. S1) is unfelicitous.
• On the contrary, S2 doesnt convey any
  antipresupposition.
• Thus (A. S2) is felicitous.

30
4. A pragmatic explanation

• Percuss alternative pairs
• ltthe, agt, ltboth, everygt, ltthe, everygt
• our pairs
• lttoo, øgt, ltagain, øgt, ltanymore, øgt, ltcleft, øgt,
  ltthat, whethergt
• Difference ltTR(S),Sgt

31
4. A pragmatic explanation

• Krifkas proposal

John is sick
Mary is sick
too
Distinctiveness
repair
No one else is sick
clash
32
4. A pragmatic explanation

• our proposal

ø
John is sick
clash
presupposition not satisfied
too
Mary is sick
ø
antipresupposition
No one else
too
33
5. Apparent counterexamples5.1 Enumeration

• (25) Jean est malade, Marie est malade, Paul est
  malade, tout le monde est malade alors !
• John is sick, Marie is sick, Paul is sick,
  everybody is sick then!
• Specific prosody for enumeration
• John is sick enumeration contour
• sick(j) ?x(x?j sick(x))
• cataphoric presupposition

34
5. Apparent counterexamples 5.2 Contrast /
Parallel

• (26) a. Jean était là hier. Il est là
  aujourdhui.
• John was there yesterday. Hes there
  today
• b. Jean était là hier. Il est encore là
  aujourdhui.
• John was there yesterday. Hes still there
  today

35
5. Apparent counterexamples 5.3 Back to Kaplan

• Variability of obligatoriness
• (4) a. Jo likes syntax and she likes phonetics (
  ?ø / too).
• b. Jo likes syntax but she likes phonetics (
  ø / too).
• c. Jo has lived in NY and she has lived in LA (ø
  / too).
• Tentative explanation
• (4) a. Jo likes syntax and she likes
  phoneticsF (ø / too).
• b. Jo likes syntax and she likes phonetics F
  (ø / too).

36
5. Apparent counterexamples 5.4 Particles with
non asserted content?

• (27) A Est-ce que Marie est venue ?
• B Oui.
• A Et Jean ? / Jean aussi ? / Jean ? (cf
  Engdalh)
• A Has Mary come?
• B Yes
• A And John? / John too? / John?
• (28) A Marie est venue.
• B Est-ce que Jean est venu (Ø / aussi / lui
  ) ?
• A Mary came.
• B Did John come (ø/too/him)?

37
5. Apparent counterexamples 5.4 Particles with
non asserted content?

• (29) A Marie est légère.
• B Moi, je suis légère (ø / aussi)
• A Mary is light.
• B Me, Im light (ø/too)

38
Conclusion

• Sub-class of presupposition triggers, which
  have no asserted content.
• Maximize presupposition applies to these
  items, and predicts their obligatoriness.
• Issues
• - what triggers the comparison between S and S
  too ?
• - how many classes of pairs ?
• lttoo,øgt
• ltboth, everygt both asserts every and
  presupposes InI2
• ltthe, agt the doesnt assert a.
• the presupposes more than a, but asserts
  less than a.

39
Selected references

• Nicholas Asher and Alex Lascarides. The semantics
  and pragmatics of presupposition. Journal of
  Semantics, 15239299, 1998.
• Georgia M. Green. On too and either, and not just
  too and either, either. In CLS (Chicago
  Linguistics Society), volume 4, pages 2239,
  1968.
• H. Paul Grice. Logic and conversation. In Peter
  Cole and Jerry Morgan, editors, Syntax and
  Semantics 3 Speech Acts, pages 4158. Academic
  Press, New York, 1975. Reprinted in Grice1989.
• H. Paul Grice. Studies in the Way of Words.
  Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London,
  1989.
• John A Hawkins. Definiteness and Indefiniteness
  A Study in Reference and Grammaticality
  Production. Croom Helm, London, 1978.
• Irene Heim. The Semantics of Indefinite and
  Definite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation,
  University of Massachussetts, Amherst, 1982.
• Irene Heim. Artikel und Definitheit. In Arnim von
  Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, editors, Semantik
  Ein internationales Handbuch des zeitgenössischen
  Forschung, pages 487535. de Gruyter, Berlin,
  1991.
• Jeff Kaplan. Obligatory too in english. Language,
  60(3)510518, 1984.

40
Selected references

• Manfred Krifka. Additive particles under stress.
  In Proceedings of SALT 8, pages 111128, Cornell,
  CLC Publications, 1999.
• Percus, Orin, Antipresuppositions, in Ueyama
  (ed.), Theoretical and Empirical Studies of
  Reference and Anaphora, 2006.
• Uli Sauerland. Implicated presuppositions.
  Hand-out for a talk given at the Polarity, Scalar
  Phenomena, Implicatures Workshop, University of
  Milan Bicocca, Milan, Italy, jun 2003.
• Schlenker, Philippe, Non-Redundancy Towards A
  Semantic Reinterpretation of Binding Theory,
  Natural Language Semantics, 13, 2005.
• Kjell Johan Sæbø. Conversational contrast and
  conventional parallel Topic implicatures and
  additive presuppositions. Journal of Semantics,
  21(2)199217, 2004.
• Rob A. van der Sandt. Context and Presupposition.
  Croom Helm, London, 1988.
• Rob A. van der Sandt. Presupposition projection
  as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics,
  9(4)333378, 1992.
• Henk Zeevat. Particles Presupposition triggers,
  context markers or speech act markers. In
  Reinhart Blutner and Henk Zeevat, editors,
  Optimality Theory and Pragmatics, pages 91111.
  Palgrave-McMillan, London, 2003.

41
Discussion Know vs believe

• ltknow, believegt (Percus)
• Know believe factivity
• ltknow that , know whethergt
• Know that know whether factivity
• (30) Jean ne sait pas si P, mais il le croit.
• John doesnt know whether P, but he believes
  it.

42
Additive particles

• Krifka,1999
• add ...F... F (F?F F)
• assertion presupposition
• F ranges over alternatives of F that are
  semantically of the same type as F.
• F stands for the expression in focus, marked by
  an accent, called the associated constituent.
• Ex aussi, non plus, encore, de nouveau,
  toujours...
• too, neither, again, still...

43
4. A pragmatic explanation

• MAXIMIZE PRESUPPOSITION accounts for
  antipresuppositions essentially by saying that a
  sentence will be blocked in situations where
  another sentence that presupposes more (but do
  not differ in any other way) would communicate
  the same thing.
• (Sauerland, Schlenker, Percus)

44
2. Which contexts?

• The phenonemon appears also when S2 is negative,
  interrogative or involves an attitude verb.
• (14) a. Jean fumait autrefois. Il ne fume (pas /
  plus) ?
• John used to smoke in the past. He doesnt
  smoke (Ø/
• anymore).
• b. Jean fumait autrefois. Est-ce que quil fume
  (Ø / encore) ?
• John used to smoke in the past. Does he (Ø /
  still) smoke?
• c. Jean fumait autrefois. Je crois quil fume
  (Ø /
• encore).
• John used to smoke in the past. I believe that
  he (Ø / still)
• smokes.

45
Presupposition as a rhetorical relation

• (i) a. Jean est allé il y a deux ans au Canada.
  Cest pourquoi il nira plus là-bas.
• b. John went to Canada two years ago. Thats why
  he wont go there anymore?
• (ii) b. Jean est allé il y a deux ans au
  Canada. Cest pourquoi il nira pas là-bas.
• b. John went to Canada two years ago. Thats
  why he wont go there.
• Contra SDRT, presupposition is not a rhetorical
  relation.
• Presupposition and Contrast (for ex.) dont
  affect the same type of content.

46
Antipresupposition (Percus 2006)

• "Some sentences impose the condition that the
  interlocutors not take the truth of a certain
  proposition for granted
• either it will have to be taken for granted that
  the proposition in question is false,
• or it will have to be an open issue whether the
  proposition is true or not.
• In these cases, we might say that the sentence
  antipresupposes the proposition in question."

47
Antipresupposition (Percus 2006)

• (24) Mary thinks that Jane is pregnant.
• antipresupposes via ltthink, knowgt
• Jane is pregnant.
• (25) John is repairing a chair in Marys living
  room.
• antipresupposes via lta, thegt
• Mary has exactly one chair in her living room.
• (26) John assigned the same exercise to all of
  Marys students.
• antipresupposes via ltall, bothgt
• Mary has exactly two students.

48
Antipresupposition (Percus 2006)

• Presupposition every world in the Common
  Ground (CG) have a certain property (Domain
  Condition)
• Antipresupposition not every world in the CG
  have a certain property.
• The intuition what renders a sentence with
  thinks, a, or all infelicitous precisely has
  something to do with the felicity of parallel
  sentences with knows, the, or both.