Presuppositions and Pronouns - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

52 Presuppositions and Pronouns
(31) a. [ 1 b x, z: z = x, Fred x, Fred z,
bY: [ 2 y: rabbit y, x owns y] ::::}
[3[ 3 ~: w: rabbit w, z owns w, w. pink w]]
b. [ 1 b x: Fred x,
b [ 2 y: rabbit y, x owns y] => ::::}
[3~: [ 3 w: rabbit w, w. x owns w, w. pink w]]
Finally, the last remaining presupposition, [w: rabbit w, x owns w], is bound
in (31b 2 ), so that we end up with (32a), which is equivalent to (32b):
(32) a. [x: Fred x,
[y, w: w = y, rabbit y, x owns y, rabbit w, x owns w] => ::::}
[: pink w]]
b. [x: Fred x, [y: rabbit y, x owns y] ::::} => [: pink y]]
This DRS adequately represents the preferred interpretation of (28a). In
particular does it not follow from (32) that Fred has a rabbit, and thus it is
correctly predicted that someone who utters (28a) does not thereby commit
himself to the assumption that Fred has a rabbit. The presupposition which
originates in the consequent of the conditional is bound in the antecedent,
just as a personal pronoun might have been bound, and thus is 'blocked': the
matrix sentence doesn't inherit the presupposition that Fred has a rabbit.
(28b) contains three presupposition triggers (for pronouns are treated as
ordinary presupposition-inducing expressions), and its initial representation
is the following: 6
(33) [: lli, [a, y: v: Fred u, rabbit v, v. u owns v, v. pink v] ::::} => [~: [w: male w, happy w]]
Neither of the presuppositions triggered in the antecedent of (33) can be
bound, and both will therefore have to be accommodated. As in the first
example, there are two DRSs in which these presuppositions might be
accommodated, and as before it is predicted that they will be accommodated
in the principal DRS, which yields:
(34) [u, v: Fred u, rabbit v, u owns v, [: pink v] ::::} => [~: [w: male w, happy w]]
The remaining presupposition is (in fact, must be) bound at top level, and
thus the interpretation of (28b) results in (35a), which is equivalent to (35b):
6
6 In (33) the pronoun he is represented by the presupposition [w: male(w)], whereas in the
foregoing it was assumed that the anaphor merely introduced a new reference marker. I consider
the former representation to be the correct one, because pronouns generally have at least some
descriptive content (but see Bosch, 1983: 151-157, for a discussion of what he calls 'pure', i.e.
semantically empty, anaphors). However, I shall only use the official representation of pronouns
when it helps to bring home some point or other -— in this case: that anaphoric pronouns are just
like other presuppositional expressions.