Steiner-Mayr, Clemens

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","892"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Semantics and Linguistic Theory"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","912"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","26"],["dc.contributor.author","Mayr, Clemens"],["dc.contributor.author","Romoli, Jacopo"],["dc.contributor.editor","Moroney, Mary"],["dc.contributor.editor","Little, Carol-Rose"],["dc.contributor.editor","Collard, Jacob"],["dc.contributor.editor","Burgdorf, Dan"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-02-03T07:50:02Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-02-03T07:50:02Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016"],["dc.description.abstract","The presuppositions inherited from the consequent of a conditional or the second disjunct of a disjunction oscillate between a conditional and a non-conditional inference, depending on the context. This is problematic for most theories of presupposition projection in the literature, which only predict a condi- tional presupposition for such sentences (Karttunen 1974; Stalnaker 1973; Heim 1983; Beaver 2001; Schlenker 2009; Fox 2008 among others). The general response to this problem, the so-called \"Proviso Problem\" (Geurts 1996), is to assume that in addition to the basic conditional presupposition, a non-conditional inference can arise depending on the relationship between the antecedent/first disjunct and the presupposition of the consequent/second disjunct. We discuss data for which this solution makes the wrong predictions. Similar data have been taken by van der Sandt (1992), Geurts (1996) and Garcia-Odon (2012) to motivate the DRT-approach to presuppositions. Schlenker (2011), however, has raised various arguments against such an approach. We propose an alternative analysis, which doesn't have those problems. In our analysis, the differing presuppositions are the result of a systematic ambiguity involving exhaustification in a trivalent semantics: a non-conditional presupposition obtains with exhaustification, and a conditional one without. Independently motivated plausibility considerations decide which reading is chosen with no direct selection of presuppositions needed. We discuss how this approach deals with the various cases of proviso and the predictions it makes for biconditional sentences."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3765/salt.v26i0.3961"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/99146"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.publisher","CLS Publications"],["dc.publisher.place","Ithaca, NY"],["dc.relatedmaterial.fulltext","https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/26.892/3694"],["dc.relation.conference","SALT 26"],["dc.relation.eissn","2163-5951"],["dc.relation.eventend","2016-05-15"],["dc.relation.eventlocation","University of Texas at Austin"],["dc.relation.eventstart","2016-05-12"],["dc.title","Satisfied or exhaustifed"],["dc.title.subtitle","An ambiguity account of the Proviso Problem"],["dc.type","conference_paper"],["dc.type.internalPublication","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Semantics and Pragmatics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","48"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","9"],["dc.contributor.author","Mayr, Clemens"],["dc.contributor.author","Romoli, Jacopo"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-12-02T07:34:52Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-12-02T07:34:52Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016"],["dc.description.abstract","The present paper discusses novel data which are problematic for assertability conditions based on redundancy (Stalnaker 1979, Fox 2008, Schlenker 2009, Singh 2007, Chierchia 2009, Meyer 2013, Katzir & Singh 2014 among others). The problem comes from disjunctions like Either Mary isn’t pregnant or (she is and) it doesn’t show and in particular from the optional presence of she is (pregnant). These data are even more puzzling if compared to corresponding conditionals like If Mary is pregnant, (#she is and) it doesn’t show where the she is (pregnant) part is unacceptable as expected. In response to this puzzle, we present a solution based on two ingredients: (i) exhaustification and (ii) a notion of incremental redundancy. As we show, exhaustifying a sentence has an effect on the (incremental) redundancy status of its constituents. As a consequence of this, she is (pregnant) is actually not redundant in the disjunctive sentence above, provided the latter is exhaustified. We explore two possible ways of implementing this solution. The first is based on a definition of incremental redundancy which does not make use of local contexts as proposed by Fox (2008, 2013), building on Schlenker 2008. The second is based on Schlenker’s (2009) incremental theory of local contexts. We then briefly compare the two implementations and point to a potential advantage of the one based on local contexts in dealing with the different readings of the disjunctive sentence above."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3765/sp.9.7"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/94917"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.relatedmaterial.fulltext","https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/download/sp.9.7/pdf"],["dc.relation.doi","10.3765/sp"],["dc.relation.issn","1937-8912"],["dc.rights","CC BY 3.0"],["dc.title","A puzzle for theories of redundancy"],["dc.title.subtitle","Exhaustification, incrementality, and the notion of local context"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","no"],["dc.type.subtype","original_ja"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]