Presuppositions and Pronouns - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

162 Presuppositions and Pronouns
general: if a presupposition can be bound in the belief context in which it
arises, the binding theory predicts that this will in fact happen.
If a presupposition X % is is triggered in a belief report on a subject a, a, and X %
cannot be bound, we predict that X % will be accommodated in the main DRS.
For example, it is predicted that, by default, (53a) will be interpreted as
presupposing that there is a manager:
(53) a. Wilbur believes that the manager is a crook.
b. [p, q: W believes p & q, q = p+[x: manager x. x, crook x]]
c. [x, p, q: manager x, W believes p & q, q = p+[x: crook x]]
In (53b) the presupposition that there is a manager cannot be bound, and
therefore the binding theory predicts that, in the absence of a suitable
antecedent, the presupposition is preferably accommodated in the main
DRS.
(Actually, I was cheating just now, though not much. If I had blindly
applied the rules of the binding theory as defined in Chapter 2, the reference
marker x in Wilbur's belief DRS would have become unbound. This problem
is liable to raise its head whenever a presupposition is projected to a DRS
that is not strictly acessible to its home DRS. But I didn't apply the rules
blindly, and inserted a copy of x into the embedded DRS, and will continue
to do so whenever the need arises. The binding theory is easily revised so as
to sanction this sleight of hand, for instance by adjusting the binding
mechanism or the representation of presuppositions.)
Of course, if a presupposition can be accommodated outside of the belief
context in which it is triggered, it may also be bound there. The following is
a case in point:
(54) If Barney was tripped, then he believes that it was Fred who tripped
him.
Intuitively, the presupposition triggered by the it-cleft in the belief report
about Barney (that Barney was tripped) is bound in the antecedent of the
conditional, and this is precisely what our theory predicts:
(55) a. [: [x: x tripped B] =:::} =>
[Il, [p_, q: B believes p, p. B believes q,
q = p+[z: z tripped B, B. Z z = F]]]
b. [p: B believes p,
[x, z: Z z = x, x tripped B, Z z tripped B] => =:::}
[q: B believes q, q = p+[z: z = F]]]
c. [p: B believes p,
[x: x tripped B] =::} => [q: B believes q, q = p+[x: x = F]]]