How to Deny a Presupposition

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review


This paper deals with the puzzle of sentences like (i.a), which denies (i.b).
(i) a. The King of France is not bald, because there is no
King of France.
b. The King of France is bald.
In previous analyses of such examples two problems are often overlooked: the first is that (i.a) is supposed to express denial of (i.b)
specifically on the grounds that the existence of a King of France is its
presupposition, but it is not clear how, if at all, (i.a) does so; the second
is that (i.a) is not very natural—when speakers wish to deny presuppositions, they usually choose different constructions, e.g. (ii).
(ii) The King of France can’t be bald, because there is no King of
I argue that the negation in (i.a) and (ii) is the standard descriptive
negation. Sentence (ii) demonstrates that the existence of a French
king is a presupposition of (i.b), and rejects (i.b) on these grounds.
Sentence (i.a) is entailed by (ii); hence, when the latter is true, so
is the former. However, (i.a) is not as good a sentence because it,
unlike (ii)
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationWhere Semantics Meets Pragmatics
EditorsK. Turner, K. von Heusinger
ISBN (Print)0-08-044976-X
StatePublished - 2006

Publication series

NameCurrent Research in the Semantics Pragmatics Interface


Dive into the research topics of 'How to Deny a Presupposition'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this