Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

Chapter 2
information that there is a bicycle and Julia owns it, and the entire content of DRS 2
is negated, so it is interpreted as saying “it is not the case that there is a bicycle y
that x owns.” Note that we are able to use the reference marker x in our conditions
within the embedded context, even though x does not appear as a reference marker
in DRS 2. This is because x is accessible to the embedded context. A DRS has
access to all reference markers in DRSs it is subordinate to, which for DRS 2 in (36),
this is only DRS 1.
Conditionals create complex conditions, which we write as two DRSs joined
by an arrow. Information in these embedded contexts has access to all information
in contexts that it is subordinate to. Additionally, the consequent of a conditional
also has access to the reference markers in the antecedent of the conditional. The
following example illustrates how this works.
(37) a. If Julia has a bicycle, it is red.
(38) b. [1 x : Julia(x), [2 y : bicycle(y), x owns y] ⇒ [3 : red(y) ]
Here again, a proper name ‘Julia’ introduces a reference marker x into the main
DRS, that is DRS 1. If creates an embedded DRS for the antecedent. Because ‘a
bicycle’ is an indefinite NP, it introduces a new reference marker into the DRS that
it is a part of, i.e. in the antecedent of the conditional. Here is where the condition
that x owns y is added. The consequent of the conditional contains a pronoun
which needs to be bound. It can be bound to a reference marker in a position
accessible from where it is introduced. Here this means every DRS that DRS 3 is
subordinate to, i.e. DRS 1. Additionally the antecedent of a conditional is also
accessible to the consequent. Here this means that DRS 3 also has access to DRS 2.
This means both x and y are accessible for binding, but because the pronoun it is
only compatible with an antecedent that is inanimate, y is the only possible choice.
Disjunction creates two contexts,[ 1 [ 2φ] ∨ [ 3ψ] ] both of which are
subordinate to the main DRS. Unlike conditionals however, there is no accessibility
relationship between [ 2 φ ] and [ 3ψ ] themselves, so [ 2 φ ] doesn’t have access to
things in [ 3ψ ] and [ 3ψ ] doesn’t have access to things in [ 2 φ ]. 8 Modal verbs and
attitude verbs all create modal contexts and attitude contexts that are written as
embedded DRSs prefixed with the operator of their particular type. For example, a
modal context is represented as a [ 1◊ [ 2 x : something(x) ] ]. DRS 2 has access to
reference markers in DRS 1 but not vice-versa.
Accessibility is the crucial notion in DRT, especially for understanding
anaphoric relationships. This is because accessibility is what defines what reference
markers will be available for anaphoric reference. Accessibility is defined in terms
8 This is actually a problem because we can have antecedents introduced in φ and then picked up
with an anaphoric expression in ψ without infelicity. For example: Either Julia’s bicycle is red or it is
blue, is perfectly fine and there is no problem in understanding that it refers to Julia’s bicycle. But
in my data and in the following there are no examples where the special problems of disjunction
need to be addressed so the interested reader should see the discussion in (Geurts 1999).
22