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","204"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Semantics and Linguistic Theory"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","224"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","25"],["dc.contributor.author","Mayr, Clemens"],["dc.contributor.editor","D'Antonio, Sarah"],["dc.contributor.editor","Moroney, Mary"],["dc.contributor.editor","Little, Carol Rose"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-02-03T08:26:56Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-02-03T08:26:56Z"],["dc.date.issued","2015"],["dc.description.abstract","There is evidence from bare plurals that strongly suggests that plural-marking on noun phrases does not exclude singular reference. This paper discusses the problematic consequence that such a view has for the analysis of definite plurals, namely that their multiplicity inference is not straightforwardly predicted. We adduce novel evidence that this inference is a presupposition arising from the application of the definite article to the plural noun phrase and that it cannot be explained away by a presuppositional analysis of number-marking (Sauerland 2003). It is proposed that plural- and singular-marking are scalar items subject to obligatory exhaustification (Ivlieva 2013). We show that global exhaustification is, however, untenable in the case of definite plurals, contra (Magri 2014). The semantics of the definite article is shown to force exhaustifiation to occur below itself on the noun phrase directly. Having reached this conclusion for definite plurals, makes it possible to drastically simplify the derivation of the multiplicity inference even in bare plurals when compared to competing proposals such as (Spector 2007a; Zweig 2009)."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3765/salt.v25i0.3059"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/99162"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.publisher","CLC Publications"],["dc.publisher.place","Ithaca, NY"],["dc.relatedmaterial.fulltext","https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/25.204/3144"],["dc.relation.conference","SALT 25"],["dc.relation.eissn","2163-5951"],["dc.relation.eventend","2015-05-17"],["dc.relation.eventlocation","Stanford University"],["dc.relation.eventstart","2015-05-15"],["dc.title","Plural definite NPs presuppose multiplicity via embedded exhaustification"],["dc.type","conference_paper"],["dc.type.internalPublication","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]