Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T11:12:23.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Horn's dilemma: presupposition and negation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Noel Burton-Roberts
Noel Burton-Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is an unquestioned assumption of all recent discussions of semantic presupposition that a presuppositional semantics admitting of truth-value gaps depends upon and therefore implies a semantic ambiguity of natural language negation (SAN). Such theories have been criticized and defended on that basis. This essay invites the reader to contemplate the idea that this picture of things is fundamentally mistaken.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 95 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allwood, J. (1972). Negation and the strength of presuppositions. Reproduced in Dahl, O. (ed.) (1977). Logic, pragmatics, and grammar. University of Goteborg.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. (1977). Negation, ambiguity, and presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, J. (1979). How linguistics matters to philosophy: presupposition, truth and meaning. In Oh, C. & Dinneen, D. (eds) (1979). 265–281.Google Scholar
Boer, S. & Lycan, W. (1976). The myth of semantic presupposition. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (1984). Modality and implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 7. 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (1986). The real difference between a three-valued logic and a two-valued logic with truth-value gaps. Paper delivered at the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, Spring Meeting, Norwich.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (forthcoming). The limits to debate: A revised theory of semantic presupposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R. (ed.), Mental representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 155–181.Google Scholar
Cole, P. (ed.) (1981). Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1973). La preuve et le dire. Paris: Maison Mame.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. (1973). Frege: philosophy of language. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1982). The varieties of reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1969). Types of lexical information. In Kiefer, F. (ed.), Studies in syntax and semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel. 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1967). Logic and conversation. William James Lectures.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Cole, P. (ed.) (1981). 183–198.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1973). Greek Grice. In Corum, C. et al. (eds), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 205–214.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Lg 61. 121–174.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1971a). Implicative verbs. Lg 47. 340–358.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1971b). Some observations on factivity. Papers in Linguistics 4. 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional Implicature. In Oh, C. & Dinneen, D. (eds) (1979). 1–56.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1975). Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1979). Presupposition, opacity, and ambiguity. In Oh, C. & Dinneen, D. (eds) (1979). 283–297.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1988). Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.), Cambridge Linguistic Survey: II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, F. (1977). Two recent studies on presupposition. Lingua 43. 247–271.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. (1971). Fact. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovitz, L. (eds) (1971). 345–369.Google Scholar
Martin, J. (1982). Negation, ambiguity, and the identity test. Journal of Semantics 1. 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, C. & Dinneen, D. (eds) (1979). Presupposition (= Syntax and Semantics 11) New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind 14. 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seuren, P. (1984). Logic and truth-values in language. In Landman, F. & Veltman, F. (eds), Varieties of formal semantics. Dordrecht: Foris. 343–363.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. (1985). Discourse semantics. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In Cole, P. (ed.), 295–318.Google Scholar
Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L. (eds) (1971). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. (1950). On referring. Mind 59. 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, R. (1973). Semantics, pragmatics, conversation, and presupposition. Mimeo. Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Van der Sandt, R. (1988). Context and presupposition. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1975). Presuppositions and non truth-conditional semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. & Sadock, J. (1975). Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In Kimball, J. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics. 4. New York: Academic Press. 1–36.Google Scholar