Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

Chapter 2
(49) a. Julia doesn’t have a bicycle. If Julia had more money, her bicycle would
be red.
30
b. [1 x : Julia(x), ¬[2 y : bicycle(y), x owns y], [3 z : x had money ] ⇒ [4 z : [
bicycle (z), z = ?, x owns z ], red(z) ]
c. [1x : Julia(x), ¬[2 y : bicycle(y), x owns y], [3 z : x had money, bicycle (z),
x owns z ] ⇒ [4 : red(z) ]
d. [1x : Julia(x), ¬[2 y : bicycle(y), x owns y], [3 : x had money ] ⇒ [4 z :
bicycle (z) , red(z), x owns z ]
In this example, there is no accessible reference marker for a bicycle that the
induced presupposition can bind with. Because binding is not possible, we have to
accommodate. In the example above, the presupposition occurs in the consequent
of a conditional, which means that three levels of accommodation are possible
because there are three structural positions that are accessible, e.g. at (49)b 1, (49)b 2
or (49) b 3. Global accommodation would add the presupposed information to the
main DRS 1. This is what we try first. But accommodation in the main DRS, DRS 1,
would make the discourse inconsistent. The discourse would read, “Julia has a
bicycle. Julia doesn’t have a bicycle. If she had more money, it would be red.” This
is not a well-formed discourse. Instead we have to try to accommodate in the next
highest level of embedding accessible from the home DRS of the trigger. This is
the antecedent of the conditional. If the presupposed information is
accommodated here then the discourse reads “Julia doesn’t have a bicycle. If Julia
had more money and had a bicycle, then her bicycle would be red.” This is not
inconsistent, and the discourse is well-formed. Accommodation can therefore add
the presupposed information to the antecedent of the conditional. Because this is
between the home DRS and the main DRS it is called intermediate accommodation. It is
also possible to accommodate the presupposition in the home DRS where the
presupposition was triggered, i.e. in the consequent of the conditional. The result,
represented in (49)d, would mean something like “Julia doesn’t have a bicycle. If
she had more money, she would have a bicycle and it would be red.” This is called
local accommodation. This is also consistent and informative with respect to the
discourse, and we would consider the discourse above ambiguous between the two
readings. Now consider another example of local accommodation.
(50) Because John is a bachelor, his wife isn’t coming to the party with him.
John doesn’t have a wife. However, the possessive NP, his wife triggers the
presupposition that John does have a wife. This information contradicts the
information in the first conjunct of the sentence. Therefore, the induced
presupposition cannot be accommodated in the main context, and we have to try
accommodation at the next lowest DRS on the accessibility path between the main
context and the home DRS. This is the home DRS, embedded under negation. We
can accommodate here and the meaning we then get is something like “Because