Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

Tableau 1 interpret : If Julia bakes cookies, her brother eats them.
input: if a then b{p} AVOIDA BE STRONG
� 1. p, a ⇒ b (global) *
2. ( a ∧ p) ⇒ b
(intermediate)
* *(1 >2,3)
3. a ⇒ (b ∧ p) (local) * *(3 >2)
Approaches to Presupposition
All three interpretations demand accommodation, violating AVOIDA. Thus, the
constraint that determines the winning candidate is BE STRONG. Because candidate
1 is semantically stronger than both candidate 2 and candidate 3, the winning
interpretation is candidate 1, i.e. global accommodation. The winning candidate in
interpretation is always marked with an arrow (�).
Blutner (2000) developed Bidirectional Optimality Theory to account for
several well known pragmatic problems, arguing that taking the perspective of both
the hearer and the speaker at the same time offers a solution. His treatment of
presupposition projection is meant to illustrate how Bi-OT can be applied to
structural underspecification. Bi-OT takes the position of radical pragmatics,
treating meaning as underspecified for interpretation. Only by applying pragmatic
principles to meanings to resolve this underspecification can we get an explanation
for preferences in interpretation.
The pragmatic principles in bidirectional OT that constrain interpretation as
well as production are based on neo-Gricean principles of cooperation. Blutner
(2000) uses the pruned Gricean principles introduced by Atlas & Levinson (1981)
and Horn (1984), generally known at the Q- 18 and I-principles. Examine the
following definitions:
Q-principle: Say as much as you can (given I) (Horn, 1984)
I-principle: Say no more than you must (given Q). (Horn, 1984)
Read as much into an utterance as is consistent with what you
know about the world (Levinson 1983: 146-147)
In general, Bi-OT uses the Q-principle to constrain generation and the I-principle
to constrain interpretation. But the way they are defined makes them dependent on
each other as well. In Bi-OT the optimization of interpretation and optimization of
generation constrain each other. Presuppositional binding is argued to be a direct
effect of fully complying to the I-principle in interpretation; that is, not interpreting
more than is necessary. Blutner also argues that the blocking of accommodation in
some cases can then be explained as a consequence of the Q-principle, in that
speakers should not say more than they can. A bidirectional perspective can then
18 Horn uses the term the ‘the R-principle’ rather than ‘Q-principle’ but I will follow Atlas and
Levinson (1981) and Blutner (2000) and use the term ‘Q-principle’.
45