We discuss problems familiar from the literature on presupposition and information structure, and illustrate how a synthesis using the Question Under Discussion (QUD) framework yields fresh insight. In this framework, discourse is analyzed in terms of the strategy of inquiry pursued by the interlocutors, and individual utterances are interpreted relative to the question being addressed. This way of thinking offers a new perspective on diverse phenomena, including the projection of presuppositions, association with focus, contrastive topic marking, and variability of projection behavior. We review the principal issues and prior lines of research in each of these areas, and show how the issues may be recast in QUD terms.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Abrusán M. 2011. Predicting the presuppositions of soft triggers. Linguist. Philos. 34:491–535 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abusch D. 2010. Presupposition triggering from alternatives. J. Semant. 27:37–80 [Google Scholar]
  3. Amaral PM, Roberts C, Smith EA. 2007. Review of ‘The Logic of Conventional Implicatures’ by Chris Potts. Linguist. Philos. 30:707–49 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson SR. 1972. How to get ‘even’. Language 48:893–905 [Google Scholar]
  5. Asher N, Lascarides A. 2003. Logics of Conversation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  6. Atlas JD, Levinson SC. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: radical pragmatics (revised standard version). Radical Pragmatics P Cole 1–62 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  7. Beaver D. 2001. Presupposition and Assertion in Dynamic Semantics Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf.
  8. Beaver D. 2010. Have you noticed that your belly button lint colour is related to the colour of your clothing?. Presuppositions and Discourse: Essays Offered to Hans Kamp R Bäuerle, U Reyle, E Zimmermann 65–99 Oxford, UK: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  9. Beaver D, Clark B. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
  10. Boer SE, Lycan WG. 1976. The Myth of Semantic Presupposition Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Linguist. Club
  11. Büring D. 1997. The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent London: Routledge
  12. Büring D. 2003. On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguist. Philos. 26:511–45 [Google Scholar]
  13. Carlson L. 1983. Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel
  14. Chierchia G, McConnell-Ginet S. 1990. Meaning and Grammar Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2nd ed..
  15. Constant N. 2012. English rise–fall–rise: a study in the semantics and pragmatics of intonation. Linguist. Philos. 35:407–42 [Google Scholar]
  16. Coppock E, Beaver D. 2014. Principles of the exclusive muddle. J. Semant. 31:371–432 [Google Scholar]
  17. de Marneffe MC, Tonhauser J. Inferring meaning from indirect answers to polar questions: the contribution of the rise–fall–rise contour. Questions in Discourse E Onea, M Zimmermann, K von Heusinger Leiden, Neth.: Brill. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  18. DeLancey S. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. J. Pragmat. 33:369–82 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gazdar G. 1979a. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presuppositions, and Logical Form New York: Academic
  20. Gazdar G. 1979b. A solution to the projection problem. Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition CK Oh, D Dineed 57–89 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  21. Geurts B, van der Sandt R. 2004. Interpreting focus. Theor. Linguist. 30:1–44 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ginzburg J. 1996. Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. Language, Logic and Computation J Seligman, D Westerstahl 221–37 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ginzburg J. 2012. The Interactive Stance Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  24. Goodman ND, Lassiter D. 2014. Probabilistic semantics and pragmatics: uncertainty in language and thought. Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. C Fox, S Lappin 655–86 Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  25. Groenendijk J, Stokhof M. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers PhD thesis, Inst. Logic, Lang., Compr., Univ. Amsterdam
  26. Grosz B, Sidner C. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Comput. Linguist. 12:175–204 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hamblin C. 1957. Language and the theory of information PhD thesis, Log. Sci. Method Progr., London Sch. Econ. Polit. Sci.
  28. Hamblin C. 1970. Fallacies London, UK: Methuen
  29. Hamblin C. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Found. Lang. 10:41–53 [Google Scholar]
  30. Heim I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Mass., Amherst
  31. Heim I. 1988. On the projection problem for presuppositions. Proceedings of the 2nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL2) M Barlow, D Flickinger, M Westcoat 114–25 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  32. Heim I. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. J. Semant. 9:183–221 [Google Scholar]
  33. Horn LR. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Calif., Los Angeles
  34. Jackendoff R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  35. Jacobs J. 1983. Fokus und Skalen Tübingen, Ger.: Niemeyer
  36. Jayez J, Mongelli V, Reboul A, Van Der Henst JB. 2015. Weak and strong triggers. Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions F Schwarz 173–93 Berlin: Springer [Google Scholar]
  37. Kadmon N. 2001. Formal Pragmatics Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  38. Kamp H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. Truth, Representation and Information J Groenendijk, T Janssen, M Stokhof 189–222 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  39. Karttunen L. 1971. Some observations on factivity. Pap. Linguist. 4:55–69 [Google Scholar]
  40. Karttunen L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguist. Philos. 1:3–44 [Google Scholar]
  41. Karttunen L, Peters S. 1979. Conventional implicature. Syntax and Semantics 11 Presuppositions C Oh, D Dineen 1–56 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  42. Kempson RM. 1975. Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  43. Kiparsky P, Kiparsky C. 1971. Fact. Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology D Steinberg, L Jakobovits 345–69 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  44. Kratzer A. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguist. Philos. 12:607–53 [Google Scholar]
  45. Krifka M. 1992. A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. Informationsstruktur und Grammatik J Jacobs 17–53 Wiesbaden, Ger.: Verlag für Sozialwiss. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kripke S. 2009. Presupposition and anaphora: remarks on the formulation of the projection problem. Linguist. Inq. 40:367–86 [Google Scholar]
  47. Onea E. 2016. Potential Questions at the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface Leiden, Neth.: Brill
  48. Partee BH, Rooth M. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language R Bäuerle, C Schwarze, A von Stechow 361–93 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  49. Potts C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  50. Roberts C. 1996. Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Ohio State Univ. Work. Pap. Linguist. 49:6 [Google Scholar]
  51. Roberts C. 2011. Only: a case study in projective meaning. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6 Formal Semantics and Pragmatics. Discourse, Context, and Models M Glanzberg, B Partee, J Skilters 1–56 Manhattan, KS: New Prairie [Google Scholar]
  52. Roberts C. 2012. Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semant. Pragmat. 5:1–69 [Google Scholar]
  53. Roberts C. 2012. Information structure: afterword, with bibliography of related work. Semant. Pragmat. 5:1–19 [Google Scholar]
  54. Roberts C, Simons M, Beaver D, Tonhauser J. 2009. Presupposition, implicature and beyond: a unified account of projection. Proceedings of the European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information Workshop on New Directions in the Theory of Presupposition N Klinedinst, D Rothschild. 15
  55. Rojas-Esponda T. 2014. A discourse model for überhaupt. Semant. Pragmat. 7:1–45 [Google Scholar]
  56. Rooth M. 1985. Association with focus PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Mass., Amherst
  57. Rooth M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Nat. Lang. Semant. 1:75–116 [Google Scholar]
  58. Schlenker P. 2008. Presupposition projection: the new debate. Proceedings of the 18th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 18) T Friedman, S Ito 655–93 Ithaca, NY: CLC
  59. Schlenker P. 2009. Local contexts. Semant. Pragmat. 2:1–78 [Google Scholar]
  60. Schwarzschild R. 1999. givenness, avoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Nat. Lang. Semant. 7:141–77 [Google Scholar]
  61. Selkirk EO. 1996. Sentence prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing. The Handbook of Phonological Theory J Goldsmith 550–69 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  62. Simons M. 2000. On the Semantics and Pragmatics of Natural Language Disjunction New York: Routledge
  63. Simons M. 2001. On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. Proceedings of the 11th Semantics and Linguistics Theory Conference (SALT 11) R Hastings, B Jackson, Z Zvolenszky 431–48 Ithaca, NY: CLC
  64. Simons M, Beaver D, Roberts C, Tonhauser J. The best question: explaining the projection behavior of factive verbs. Discourse Proc. Forthcoming
  65. Simons M, Tonhauser J, Beaver D, Roberts C. 2010. What projects and why. Proceedings of the 20th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 20) N Li, D Lutz 309–27 Ithaca, NY: CLC
  66. Stalnaker RC. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. Semantics and Philosophy M Munitz, P Unger 197–213 New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
  67. Syrett K, Koev T. 2015. Experimental evidence for the truth conditional contribution and shifting information status of appositives. J. Semant. 32:525–77 [Google Scholar]
  68. Tonhauser J. 2016. Prosodic cues to speaker commitment. Proceedings of the 26th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 26) M Moroney, C-R Little, J Collard, D Burgdorf Ithaca, NY: CLC. In press
  69. Tonhauser J, Beaver D, Roberts C, Simons M. 2013. Toward a taxonomy of projective content. Language 89:66–109 [Google Scholar]
  70. van der Sandt R. 1992. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. J. Semant. 9:333–77 [Google Scholar]
  71. van Kuppevelt J. 1995. Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. J. Linguist. 31:109–147 [Google Scholar]
  72. van Kuppevelt J. 1996. Inferring from topics. Scalar implicatures as topic-dependent inferences. Linguist. Philos. 19:393–443 [Google Scholar]
  73. Velleman L, Beaver D. 2016. Question-based models of information structure.. The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure C Féry, S Ishihara chapter 5. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  74. von Stechow A. 1990. Focusing and backgrounding operators. Discourse Particles W Abraham 37–84 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  75. Xue J, Onea E. 2011. Correlation between projective meaning and at-issueness: an empirical study. Proceedings of the European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information Workshop on Projective Content G Kierstead 171–84 Ljubljana: FoLLI [Google Scholar]
  76. Zeevat H. 1992. Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics. J. Semant. 9:379–412 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error