Presuppositions and Pronouns - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

Modals 199
that the first sentence of (43a) instructs the hearer to set up a reference
marker for the proposition that Fred is a Freemason, as shown in (54a).
(54) a. [p: p f- H [F is a Freemason]]
b. [p,.q, q': p f- i- [F is a Freemason], q 0 n q',
q' = q+[B is a Freemason]]
c. [p, q': p f- h [F is a Freemason], pDq', p n q' = p+[B is a Freemason]]
Once the semantic representation of the second sentence has been added,
we get (54b). This DRS contains only one relevant presupposition, which is
triggered by the adverbial then. The presupposition is bound to the
antecedent set up by the preceding sentence, and the interpretation we
finally obtain is (equivalent to) (54c). This is the same as the interpretation
we would get for (43b).
If this explanation is correct, then presumably natural-language
conditionals are grammaticalized mini-discourses, which first present a
hypothetical state of affairs, and then make a statement about it. On this
account, conditionals derive from a source that is doubly presuppositional:
the antecedent is presupposed, as I have argued already, and the consequent
is anchored to the antecedent by means of a presuppositional bridge, which
in English (like in many other languages) may be signalled by the particle
then, whose pronominal origin can hardly be overlooked. In if. .... . then
conditionals this pragmatic bridge between antecedent and consequent has
set into a grammatical connection.
6.5 Summing up
What Roberts has dubbed 'modal subordination' is actually a sub-pattern of
presupposition projection that may be schematized as follows:
(a (« ;____________}) ____________(P.—, ~P. J )
Here u a and ~ (3 stand for modal expressions, and modal subordination occurs
whenever Ws (3's domain is bound to a's co-domain; in such cases
presuppositions triggered within the scope of ~ (3 can be be bound within the
scope of a. u. We have already seen that this pattern is not confined to modal
expressions, as the same may happen with conditionals and attitude verbs.
And the schema above is even more general than that, because it also holds
for ordinary quantifying expressions. The binding theory gives a uniform
account of all phenomena that instantiate this schema. For modals,
conditionals, and attitude verbs, this was shown in the present chapter and
the preceding one; the theory has been applied to extensional quantifiers by
Geurts (1996c) and Geurts and van der Sandt (1999).