Presuppositions and Pronouns - Nijmegen Centre for Semantics

The binding theory 81
marker x in the domain of the quantifier, as shown in (81b), which is
equivalent to (81c). The second presupposition cannot be bound and must
therefore be accommodated. Accommodation in the principal DRS is not
possible because this presupposition contains a reference marker, i.e. x,
which is introduced in the domain of the quantifier, and so the binding theory
predicts that accommodation in the restrictor is the next-preferred option,
and we obtain the DRS in (81d). The reading thus obtained is roughly (but
only roughly, as we will presently see) paraphrased by (82):
(82) Everyone of my friends who owned a copy of 'Lolita' sold it.
I think this is a gratifying result, but it has been argued by Beaver (1994) that
this prediction is false. Beaver's objection is based upon the supposition that,
according to the binding theory, there is no relevant difference at all between
(80) and (82). If this were so, then the following contrast would become a
problem:
(83) a. Hardly any of my friends ever owned a copy of 'Lolita', and
everyone of my friends has sold his copy of 'Lolita'.
b. Hardly any of my friends ever owned a copy of 'Lolita', and
everyone of my friends who owned a copy of 'Lolita' sold it.
Whereas (83b) is a fairly normal thing to say, (83a) sounds decidedly odd.
However, the binding theory predicts, according to Beaver, that (80) and
(82) are equivalent, so it cannot account for the contrast observed in (83).
More generally, Beaver charges, the prediction that a presuppositional
expression in the scope of a quantifier can give rise to domain restriction is
incorrect.
It is not hard to see what is wrong with Beaver's objection. There is an
obvious difference between (80) and (82), which happens to be of a
presuppositional nature. In (80) the quantified subject NP triggers the
presupposition that a set of friends is given. The corresponding
presupposition triggered in (82) is more specific: it presents as given a set of
friends who own a copy of 'Lolita'. If the binding theory had predicted that
the same presuppositions are triggered in (80) and (82), Beaver would have
had a point. But since it doesn't, he hasn't.
This suffices to refute Beaver's objection, but of course there is more to say
about the difference between (80) and (82), and how this difference causes
the contrast in acceptability between (83a) and (83b). We must somehow
account for the fact that (80) and (82) have different presuppositions, and
the problem with Kamp and Reyle's version of DRT is that it doesn't provide
the means for doing this in a straightforward way. The presupposition
triggered by the quantifier in (80) may be paraphrased as 'the speaker's
friends'. It may be thought of as the set of individuals which satisfy the