Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T14:18:53.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Showdown at Truth-Value Gap: Burton-Roberts on presupposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Laurence R. Horn
Laurence R. Horn
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , September 1990 , pp. 483 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Burton-Roberts, Noel, The limits to debate: a revised theory of semantic presupposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Pp. ix + 272.Google Scholar

REFERENCES

Atlas, J. D. (1975). Frege's polymorphous concept of presupposition and its role in a theory of meaning. Semantikos 1. 24–44.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1989). Philosophy without ambiguity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (1989a). On Horn's Dilemma: presupposition and negation. JL 25. 95–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. (1989b). Theories of presupposition. JL 25. 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (1985). A reanalysis of some ‘quantity implicatures’. ms., University College, London.Google Scholar
Davison, A. (1985). Indirect speech acts and what to do with them. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 143–185.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1979). In defense of the truth-value gap. In Oh, C.-K. & Dinneen, D. (eds), Syntax and semantics II: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press. 199–244.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1892). On sense and reference. In Geach, P. T. & Black, M. (eds), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege, Oxford: Blackwell, 1952. 56–78.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 183–198.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1983). On the projection problem for presuppositions. WCCFL 2. 114–125.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity. Lg 61. 121–174.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1986). Presupposition, theme and variations. Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory (CLS 22, Part 2). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 168–192.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1917). Negation in English and other languages. Copenhagen: A. F. Høst.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1. 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicature. In Oh, C.-K. & Dinneen, D. (eds), Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition. New York: Academic Press. 1–56.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1986). Ambiguity and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. In Travis, C. (ed.), Meaning and interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell. 77–103.Google Scholar
Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. (eds), The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 246–323.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. In Bäuerle, R.Egli, U. & von Stechow, A. (eds), Semantics from different points of view. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukasiewicz, J. (1930). Philosophical remarks on many-valued systems of prepositional logic. Translated in McCall, S. (ed). Polish logic 1920–1939. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. 40–65.Google Scholar
Lukasiewicz, J. (1970). Jan Lukasiewicz: selected works. Borkowski, L., (ed.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. (1984). Logical form in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mullally, J. P. (1945). The summulae logicales of Peter of Spain. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1981). What price bivalence? Journal of Philosophy 78. 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics, Philosophica 27. 53–94.CrossRefGoogle 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
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In Munitz, M. & Unger, P. (eds), Semantics and philosophy. New York: New York University Press. 197–214.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind 59, 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1964). Identifying reference and truth-values. In Steinberg, D. & Jakobovitz, L. (eds). Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. 86–99.Google Scholar
Thomason, R. H. (1972). A semantics of sortal incorrectness. Journal of Philosophical Logic 1. 209–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Wright, G. H. (1959). On the logic of negation. Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Commentaliones Physico-Mathematicae 22. 1–30.Google Scholar
Wheeler, S. (1983). Megarian Paradoxes as Eleatic Arguments. American Philosophical Quarterly 20. 287–295.Google Scholar