Presuppositions and Cross-Linguistic Variation*

Lisa Matthewson

University of British Columbia

1. Introduction

This paper argues that languages differ in whether they possess pragmatic
presuppositions in the sense of Stalnaker (1974). I will argue for this somewhat radical
claim on the basis of data from St’át’imcets (a.k.a. Lillooet, Northern Interior Salish). I
will show that St’át’imcets displays no evidence for presuppositions which place
constraints on the common ground of the discourse. I will present an analysis according
to which St’át’imcets possesses presuppositions only in the sense of Gauker (1998).

1.1 The Problem

What happens when there is presupposition failure? In English, presupposition failures in

discourse are often challenged by the addressee. An example of this taken from a real-life
discourse is given in (1). Presupposition triggers are highlighted throughout.

(1) A: Mark phoned again.

B: Mark? Which Mark?
A: Portland Mark.
B: Again? I didn’t know he phoned in the first place!

The first main goal of this paper is to demonstrate that unlike speakers of English,
speakers of St’át’imcets consistently do not react to presupposition failures. A typical
example is given in (2). At the time of A’s utterance, B had just walked into A’s house
and there had been no prior conversation apart from greetings. In spite of this, B did not

*
I am very grateful to St’át’imcets consultants Beverley Frank, Gertrude Ned, Laura Thevarge and
Rose Agnes Whitley. I am also very grateful to David Adger, Seth Cable, Guy Carden, Gennaro Chierchia,
Henry Davis, Irene Heim, Angelika Kratzer, Chris Potts, Hotze Rullmann, Florian Schwarz, Martina
Wiltschko, a class at the 2005 LSA Summer Institute, and audiences at the UBC and NELS 36. This is still
work in progress and I have unfortunately not yet had a chance to address most of the insightful
suggestions I received at NELS. Fieldwork is supported by SSHRC grants #410-2002-1715 and #410-
2005-0875.
 Lisa Matthewson

challenge A’s use of hu7 ‘more’.1

(2) A: wá7-lhkacw ha xát’-min’ ku hu7 ku tih

IMPF-2SG.SUBJ YNQ want-APPL DET more DET tea
‘Would you like some more tea?’

B: iy
‘Yes.’

The second goal of the paper is to present an account of this cross-linguistic

variation. The idea involves a fairly radical cross-linguistic difference: I claim that in
St’át’imcets, typical presupposition triggers do not place the same restrictions on the
common ground as they do in English. In particular, the St’át’imcets presupposition
triggers do not involve pragmatic presuppositions in the sense of Stalnaker (1974).
Unlike in English, in St’át’imcets a speaker who presupposes something does not
necessarily assume anything about the addressee’s beliefs.

The paper is structured as follows. In §2 I present some background on

presuppositions and on fieldwork methodology. In §3 I provide some English data, and
§4 the St’át’imcets data. §5 addresses a potential wrong analysis, and §6 presents the
current analysis. The final section briefly addresses the theoretical implications.

2. Background on Presupposition

One of the most influential theories of presupposition is that of Stalnaker (1973, 1974,
1978). The idea is summarized as follows:

A proposition P is a pragmatic presupposition of a speaker in a given

context just in case the speaker assumes or believes that P, assumes or
believes that his addressee assumes or believes that P, and assumes or
believes that his addressee recognizes that he is making these assumptions,
or has these beliefs (Stalnaker 1974:573).

In other words, a speaker presupposes P just in case s/he believes that P is in the common
ground (the set of propositions representing the shared assumptions of the discourse
participants). This has been termed the pragmatic presupposition approach; it places a
constraint on possible discourse contexts in which sentences may be felicitously uttered.

2.1 How to Test for Presuppositions

How does one go about detecting presuppositions, or distinguishing them from

assertions, in a language for which one does not have native speaker intuitions? To rule
1
Data are presented in the practical orthography created by Jan van Eijk. APPL = applicative, CAU
= causative, CONJ = conjunctive, DEIC = deictic, DET = determiner, DIR = directive transitivizer, FUT =
future, HYP = hypothetical, INTR = intransitive, NEG = negative, NOM = nominalizer, OB = object, OOC = out
of control, POSS = possessive, SG = singular, SUBJ = subject, YNQ = yes-no question.
 Presuppositions and Cross-Linguistic Variation

out one potential method right away, observe that it would be illegitimate to ask
consultants whether a sentence Q takes a proposition P ‘for granted’. Such questions in
effect ask the consultant to perform analysis.2 It would be even worse to fall back on the
theoretical claim that failed presuppositions give rise to truth-value gaps, and to ask
consultants for judgments about those. As discussed by von Fintel (2001; see also
references therein), speakers do not have stable intuitions about truth-value gaps.

Luckily, there is hope. The pragmatic presupposition approach predicts that if a

presupposition P is not in the common ground at the time of utterance (and if P cannot
easily be accommodated), the addressee may feel justified in challenging the speaker.
This can be diagnosed by the ‘Hey, wait a minute’ test (von Fintel 2001:171; henceforth
the ‘wait-a-minute test’). The test works as follows. A presupposition which is not in the
common ground at the time of utterance can be challenged by ‘Hey, wait a minute!’ In
contrast, an assertion which is not in the common ground cannot be challenged in this
way. This is illustrated in (3), from von Fintel (2001:271). The relevant presupposition
here is the existence presupposition of the.

(3) A: The mathematician who proved Goldbach’s Conjecture is a woman.

B: Hey, wait a minute. I had no idea that someone proved Goldbach’s
Conjecture.
B’: # Hey, wait a minute. I had no idea that that was a woman.

Another well-known property of presuppositions, which might potentially offer a

methodology for detecting them, is that they project through certain operators (see e.g.,
Soames 1982, Heim 1983, 1992). Projection is illustrated in (4). (4a-d) all contain a
presupposition trigger embedded under an operator. Each matrix sentence still carries the
relevant presupposition. Presuppositions crucially differ from assertions in this respect.

(4) a. Ann hasn’t stopped smoking. NEGATION

b. Has Ann stopped smoking? YES-NO QUESTION
c. If Ann has stopped smoking, I’ll be happy. ANTECEDENT OF CONDITIONAL
d. I hope that Ann has stopped smoking. ATTITUDE VERB

However, the projection property does not in itself provide us with a way to test
for presuppositions. Imagine that we are trying to determine in a language L whether the
element which translates ‘stop’ has the same presupposition as the English item. We have
already rejected the method of asking consultants whether (5a) takes (5b) for granted:

(5) a. Ann has stopped smoking.

b. Ann used to smoke.

Can the projection facts in (4) help us out? Unfortunately not. The fact that (4a-d) are
predicted all to presuppose that Ann used to smoke does not give us any way of

2
See Matthewson 2004 for the claim that there are only three legitimate kinds of native-speaker
judgments: grammaticality, and truth or felicity in particular discourse contexts.
 Lisa Matthewson

determining whether (5a) presupposes (5b), beyond asking whether (4a-d) take (5b) for
granted. This is the same illegitimate fieldwork technique we rejected for (5a).

In contrast, the wait-a-minute test, at least in theory, provides us with an easy and
reliable way to test for presuppositions. If a wait-a-minute response is appropriate in
cases of presupposition failure, we can assume that the relevant triggers place restrictions
on the common ground of the discourse.

3. Testing for Presuppositions in English

As predicted, the wait-a-minute test can indeed be used as a fieldwork tool for detecting
presuppositions. For example, Conti (1999) tested a number of English speakers in real-
life discourse contexts. Conti intentionally used sentences containing the in contexts
where its presuppositions were not satisfied. She obtained many wait-a-minute-style
responses. Similarly, Matthewson et al. (2001) tested 25 adult English speakers on cases
of presupposition failure with the. They obtained ‘challenge responses’ 62% of the time.
Finally, recall that it is easy to hear wait-a-minute responses in naturally-occurring
English discourse; see (1) above. (6) provides another example. Here, the issue is the
failed uniqueness presupposition of the. (Speaker B happened to be three years old.)

(6) A: And then the flat car said to the little red caboose …
B: WHICH flat car?
A: This one.
B: Why not THIS one? (points to second flat car in picture)

I conclude from this that the wait-a-minute test is a reliable method for detecting
presupposition failure (and hence, the presence of presuppositions). Now let us turn to
St’át’imcets.

4. Testing for presuppositions in St’át’imcets

The situation in St’át’imcets is very different from in English. For this study, the
following potential presupposition triggers were tested:

(7) múta7 ‘again / more’

tsukw ‘stop’
hu7 ‘more’
t’it ‘also’

A battery of methodologies was utilized to attempt to elicit wait-a-minute responses. (8i)

is obviously the most desirable methodology, but is the trickiest to put into practice
(given the limited frequency and extent of naturally-occurring St’át’imcets discourses).
(8iv) is a last-resort methodology used by a desperate fieldworker.

(8) i. Intentionally causing presupposition failure in real-life discourse situations

ii. Asking consultants to translate English discourses containing wait-a-
 Presuppositions and Cross-Linguistic Variation

minute responses
iii. Attempting to construct wait-a-minute responses in St’át’imcets and
asking consultants to judge discourses containing them
iv. Explicitly discussing the test, using English to illustrate, and asking for
similar responses in St’át’imcets

We will see that none of these methodologies managed to elicit wait-a-minute

responses. Before presenting the data, though, there are some other methodological
considerations to discuss.

When constructing the particular presupposition failures to be tested, one must not
make the presuppositions too uncontroversial. A very uncontroversial presupposition will
be too easy for the consultants to accommodate. If they accommodate the presupposition,
then obviously they will not respond with ‘wait a minute’. It is also advisable to construct
sentences whose presuppositions relate to the addressee. For example, saying ‘Have you
stopped smoking?’ to someone who has never smoked is more likely to elicit a challenge
than ‘I have stopped smoking.’ (The addressee will probably not be willing to
accommodate the presupposition that they themselves used to smoke.) Furthermore, the
presupposition should ideally concern something of importance to the addressee (such as
a missed phone call, as in (1) above).

Finally, it should be observed that the wait-a-minute test depends not only on
details of the particular discourse context, but also on subtle matters such as the closeness
of the relationship between speaker and addressee.3 For example, if A mentions to B, a
relative stranger, that she is on her way to meet her fiancé, B will seamlessly
accommodate the presupposition that A is engaged. On the other hand, if A utters the
same sentence to her mother, she will likely receive a wait-a-minute response if the
mother was previously unaware that A is engaged.

For the current research, I was unable to test discourses within a range of different
social relationships. My relationship with the consultants from whom data were obtained
is a friendly one, and I have known each of the consultants for between 12 and 14 years.

4.1 St’át’imcets data

The following sentences were all offered in ‘out of the blue’ contexts to St’át’imcets
speakers. In all cases, the presuppositions failed and were not easily accommodatable.
The B utterances in each case are the consultants’ spontaneous responses to A.

(9) Context: Interlocutors all know that Henry is not a millionaire.

A: t’cum múta7 k Henry l-ta lottery-ha

win(INTR) again DET Henry in-DET lottery-DET
‘Henry won the lottery again.’

3
Thanks to Irene Heim (p.c.) for discussion of this point and for the following example.
 Lisa Matthewson

B: o, áma
oh good

(10) Context: Addressee has been a teetotaler for several decades.

A: xat’-min’-lhkácw ha ku hu7 ku qvl s-7úqwa7

want-APPL-2SG.SUBJ YNQ DET more DET bad NOM-drink
‘Do you want some more alcohol?’

B: káti7. qyáx-kan kélh t’u7

DEIC drunk-1SG.SUBJ FUT just
‘No way. I’ll get drunk.’ (laughs)

(11) Context: Addressee has no knowledge of anyone planning a trip to Paris.

A: nas t’it áku7 Paris-a kw s-Haleni lh-klísmes-as

go also DEIC Paris-DET DET NOM-Henry HYP-Christmas-3CONJ
‘Henry is also going to Paris at Christmas.’

B: o áma
oh good

(12) Context: No prior discussion of anyone being in jail.

A: wá7 t’it l-ti gélgel-a tsitcw k Lisa

be also in-DET strong-DET house DET Lisa
‘Lisa is also in jail.’

B: stam’ ku s-záyten-s
what DET NOM-business-3POSS
‘What did she do?’

(9-12) display the absence of wait-a-minute responses to failed presuppositions.

Nor did any of the other elicitation methodologies in (8) above reveal any distinction
between unknown presuppositions and unknown asserted material. When consultants are
explicitly encouraged to express a response to failed presuppositions, they will do so by
either denying or questioning the attempted presupposition. Importantly, however, they
will use exactly the same constructions to challenge unknown or disagreed-with
assertions. This is shown in (13). The B and C responses challenge the presupposition
(with denial and questioning respectively), but the B’ and C’ responses challenge the
asserted material in an exactly parallel manner.

(13) A: plan tsukw k-wa-s mán’c-em kw s-Bob

already stop DET-IMPF-3POSS smoke-INTR DET NOM-Bob
‘Bob stopped smoking.’
 Presuppositions and Cross-Linguistic Variation

B: aoz t’u7 kw-en-s-wá zwát-en kw s-tu7

NEG just DET-1SG.POSS-NOM-IMPF know-DIR DET NOM-then
mán’c-em s-Bob
smoke-INTR NOM-Bob
‘I didn’t know Bob smoked.’

B’: aoz t’u7 kw-en-s-wá zwát-en kw s-tsukw-s

NEG just DET-1SG.POSS- NOM-IMPF know-DIR DET NOM-stop-3POSS
‘I didn’t know he stopped.’

C: wa7 ha tu7 mán’c-em kw s-Bob

IMPF YNQ then smoke-INTR DET NOM-Bob
‘Did Bob used to smoke?’

C’: tsukw ha tu7

stop YNQ then
‘Did he stop?’

5. A Wrong Analysis: Culture

It is natural to ask whether the apparent total absence of wait-a-minute responses in

St’át’imcets could be the result of a cultural difference between English speakers and
St’át’imcets speakers. Perhaps it is considered impolite in St’át’imc culture to explicitly
challenge infelicitous utterances. This analysis does have some intuitive plausibility.
However, I am convinced that that is not what is going on. Instead, the absence of wait-a-
minute responses results from a linguistic difference between English and St’át’imcets,
along the lines that will be outlined in the following section.

There are two pieces of potential evidence for a culture-based analysis. First, it is
true that the St’át’imc place a very high value on listening, rather than on questioning and
challenging. For example, if an elder explains something that one does not understand,
one is not supposed to ask for further explanation. One is supposed to figure it out for
oneself, and to continue listening (Maggie Adolph, p.c.; Albert Joseph, p.c.).

However, there is no converse prohibition against elders challenging younger

people. Thus, while it may be inappropriate for me to question my St’át’imcets
consultants, it would not be inappropriate for them to challenge me. Indeed, it is almost
their duty to challenge younger people and to teach them what is right. Note also that
with respect to data gathered within an elicitation context, the consultants are all very
familiar with the idea that they can, and should, correct the linguists’ errors.

The other potential piece of evidence for a cultural explanation comes from some
very preliminary data suggesting that at least one consultant also does not give wait-a-
minute responses in English conversations. However, this speaker did not learn English
until she was 13 years old, so it is difficult to interpret the data conclusively. It could be
that her pragmatic parameters were set before she acquired English, and that her
 Lisa Matthewson

St’át’imcets grammar has affected her English. Further research is required here.

The major argument that culture is not the source of the observed cross-linguistic
difference is that St’át’imcets speakers do readily challenge other kinds of infelicitous
utterances. For example, discourse-initial utterances with unclear pronoun reference elicit
laughter and/or challenge responses. An example of this is given in (14).

(14) # ti nk’yáp-a áts’x-en-as

DET coyote-DET see-DIR-3ERG
‘The coyote saw him/her/it.’ Consultant’s comment: “Who? Incomplete.”

Similarly, contradictory utterances easily elicit challenges, as illustrated in (15).

(15) # xwem t’u7 k tsukw kw s-wa7 q’a7, t’u7 cw7aoz kw s-tsúkw-al’ts

fast just DET finish DET NOM-IMPF eat but NEG DET NOM-finish-food
‘He finished eating fast, but he didn’t finish eating.’

Consultant’s comment (laughs): “It doesn’t make much sense. Sounds impossible.
Like I’m contradicting myself.”

(16) is particularly telling. It was an attempt to elicit a wait-a-minute response

based on the failed presupposition associated with t’it ‘also’. While the consultant did not
challenge the presupposition, she did challenge the unclear DP-reference:4

(16) A: wá7 t’it ta n-snúk’w7-a l-ta qwenúcw-alhcw-a

be also DET 1SG.POSS-friend-DET in-DET sick-place-DET
‘My friend is also in the hospital.’

B: swat ku snúk’wa7-su
who DET friend-2SG.POSS
‘Who is your friend?’

The data in (14-16) show that St’át’imcets speakers are willing and able to
challenge infelicitous utterances of various kinds. I conclude from this that their failure to
offer wait-a-minute challenges to failed presuppositions does not result from a cultural
prohibition against challenges in general. It must be something linguistic.

6. Analysis

The analysis I propose postulates a cross-linguistic difference in the nature of

presuppositions. If the analysis strikes the reader as radical, bear in mind that the
presupposition-response data vary radically between St’át’imcets and English. The

4
B’s utterance here is not a wait-a-minute response to a failed familiarity presupposition induced
by a definite noun phrase. I have argued elsewhere (Matthewson 1998) that St’át’imcets possesses no
determiners which induce familiarity presuppositions.
 Presuppositions and Cross-Linguistic Variation

analysis therefore should make the languages look different in some significant way.

I propose that we adopt Gauker’s (1998) analysis of presuppositions for

St’át’imcets. Gauker claims that presuppositions are not required to be in the common
ground (as in Stalnaker’s theory). Instead, Gauker appeals to the concept of the ‘objective
propositional context’. The objective propositional context contains propositions that are
not shared assumptions but ‘facts that are particularly relevant to the conversational aims
of the interlocutors, whether they are aware of these facts or not’ (Gauker 1998:150).

According to Gauker (1998:162), ‘the speaker’s presuppositions are merely the

speaker’s own take on the propositional context.’ As such, the speaker’s presuppositions
may be informative to the hearer (as in cases of what in the Stalnaker framework are
analyzed as accommodation). There is crucially no expectation or requirement that the
speaker’s presuppositions belong to the hearer’s set of assumptions. If the speaker’s
utterance carries a presupposition P that the hearer did not previously believe to be true,
then ‘the hearer may accept that something the speaker evidently takes to belong to the
objective propositional context really does belong to it’ (Gauker 1998:168).

Under Gauker’s proposal, then, presuppositions are more similar to assertions in

their discourse effects than they are under a Stalnakerian analysis. While presuppositions
under both analyses differ from assertions in not being directly asserted (but ‘snuck in’,
so to speak), under a Gaukerian analysis the hearer has no grounds to offer wait-a-minute
responses. This is because although the hearer is certainly entitled to disagree with a
speaker’s presupposition, the hearer is not entitled to object that s/he was presumed to
believe the presupposition beforehand. And it is the presumption of hearer knowledge
which gives rise to the wait-a-minute effect.

This in turn means that Gauker’s analysis predicts a general absence of wait-a-
minute responses. Of course, this is exactly what we find in St’át’imcets.

What about English? It has been pointed out by von Fintel (2000) that Gauker’s
analysis has empirical problems for English. Specifically, it over-generates felicitous
discourses. Von Fintel observes (2000:14-15) that Gauker incorrectly predicts (17) to be
acceptable in an out-of-the-blue context:

(17) John can’t come to the meeting tonight. He is having dinner in New York, too.

What is critical about (17) is that within a Stalnakerian theory, accommodation is

predicted to be difficult here. too triggers a presupposition that a salient person other than
John is having dinner in New York tonight. However, the hearer will only be able to
accommodate an unspecific proposition that someone other than John is having dinner in
New York tonight. That unspecific proposition is obviously true, but is not enough to
make (17) appropriate out-of-the-blue; too requires the more specific presupposition (von
Fintel 2000:15; see also Kripke 1990).

For Gauker, on the other hand, (17) is predicted to be good. The hearer infers that
 Lisa Matthewson

the speaker’s take on the propositional context contains a proposition of the form x (

John) is having dinner in New York tonight. The hearer is not expected to know the entire
propositional context, so no infelicity is predicted (von Fintel 2000:15).

Strikingly, even sentences containing the equivalent of ‘too’ do not elicit wait-a-
minute responses in St’át’imcets. We have seen examples already above in (11,12,16). In
this respect, St’át’imcets obeys Gauker’s predictions, rather than Stalnaker’s. I therefore
claim that von Fintel’s analysis (a Stalnakerian one) is correct for English, while
Gauker’s analysis is right for St’át’imcets.

To summarize: in St’át’imcets, an addressee may fail to assume a presupposition

in context. The addressee is free to point that out in conversation (see (13) above).
Crucially, however, the addressee is predicted not to be able to object that s/he has been
assumed to believe the presupposition.

6.1 So What Do They Mean, Then?

The reader may be wondering what the St’át’imcets elements being examined here could
possibly mean. Surely a presupposition is part of the basic meaning of a word like
‘again’? How can I even claim that múta7 means ‘again’ if it is non-presuppositional?

My answer to this is that I am not claiming that múta7 is non-presuppositional. I

am only claiming that its presupposition does not impose the same constraints on the
common ground as again does. In all other respects, the St’át’imcets elements parallel the
English ones. Crucially, for example, their presuppositions project; thus, it is not that the
elements of meaning which in English are presuppositions, are part of the assertion in
St’át’imcets. This is illustrated in (18). The consultant gave no wait-a-minute response
here, but when asked for a judgment in a context where the hearer has not yet eaten any
salmon, she replied that one should not say (18) then. (18) therefore does not mean ‘if it
is the case that you have eaten salmon recently and you want some more, take some’.

(18) lh-xát’-min’-acw múta7 ku ts’wan, kwan láta7

HYP-want-APPL-2SG.CONJ more DET wind.dried.salmon take(DIR) DEIC
‘If you want some more wind-dried salmon, take some.’

6.2 A Prediction

So far, we have seen that Gauker’s (1998) analysis predicts a general absence of wait-a-
minute responses. This prediction is incorrect for English, but correct for St’át’imcets.
Interestingly, however, Gauker does seem to predict a challenge response in one type of
case: where the speaker presupposes something so unusual that the hearer cannot believe
that the speaker could believe that proposition to be in the objective propositional
context. In that case, we predict – even in St’át’imcets – a wait-a-minute response.

A clarification is in order here. Recall that the important feature of the wait-a-
minute test is its ability to distinguish between presuppositions and assertions; unknown
 Presuppositions and Cross-Linguistic Variation

presuppositions do, and unknown assertions do not, give rise to wait-a-minute responses.
I have just suggested that the use of bizarre presuppositions should elicit wait-a-minute
responses even in St’át’imcets. But very bizarre propositions can elicit challenges even
when they are part of the assertion. So we must beware of losing the critical contrast
between presuppositions and assertions when applying the test.

Although the distinction will by necessity be more subtle than it is in English, I

think we can still expect to distinguish presuppositions from assertions using this method.
Recall that while presuppositions and assertions have a more similar discourse status
under Gauker’s theory than under Stalnaker’s, they still differ in that the presuppositions
are ‘snuck in’. The speaker who uses an informative presupposition does not outright
assert the proposition, but merely makes clear that s/he takes the proposition for granted.
We should therefore expect responses with a greater level of surprise when the bizarre
proposition is a presupposition, as opposed to an assertion.

The prediction that challenge responses will emerge with bizarre presuppositions
is upheld. There is an element nukw in St’át’imcets which I analyze as introducing a
presupposition of non-maximality (Matthewson 2005). An example is given in (19).

(19) cúy’-lhkan nas-ts i núkw-a sk’wemk’úk’wmi7t áts’x-en-tsin

going.to-1SG.SUB go-CAU DET.PL nukw-DET children see-DIR-2SG.OB
‘I am going to bring some of the children to see you.’ (cannot be all the children)

Although nukw is presuppositional, it does not carry a familiarity presupposition. nukw

can be used in the first sentence of a story; it does not require hearer-familiarity with a
previously-mentioned individual fitting the description. See Matthewson (2005) for
details of the analysis and supporting data.

Now let us test the above-mentioned prediction of Gauker’s analysis using nukw.
Although nukw will not usually give rise to wait-a-minute responses (even if the hearer is
unaware of the non-maximality of the referent), such responses should emerge if the non-
maximality presupposition is odd enough that the addressee cannot believe that the
speaker believes that proposition to be part of the propositional context. Here is a case:

(20) A: ka-lhéxw-a aylh ta núkw-a snéqwem

OOC-appear- OOC then DET nukw-DET sun
‘Another sun appeared.’

B: NUKWA?! [laughs] Yikes! [laughs a lot] On another planet maybe!

[laughs a lot].

The use of nukw in (20) indicates that A’s take on the propositional context
includes the proposition There are at least two suns. B finds this idea humorous.

(20) is important for another reason: it shows that St’át’imcets speakers are not
unable or unwilling to express surprise and hilarity at strange presuppositions. This
 Lisa Matthewson

reinforces the claim made in section 5 that the general absence of wait-a-minute
responses in the St’át’imcets data is not due to a cultural effect.

The line being advanced here makes a further prediction, alluded to above. If
(20B) is really a wait-a-minute response to a bizarre presupposition, then the assertion
that there are two suns should not give rise to quite the same response. While data
collection on this point is unfortunately not complete at the stage of writing, there are
some hints that the prediction is upheld. One speaker assigns the two sentences in (21)
different grammaticality statuses; she states that (21a) is a good sentence, but is not true,
while (21b) is ‘not a very good sentence’.

(21) a. wá7 i án’was-a snéqwem

be DET.PL two-DET sun
‘There are two suns.’

b. ?? ka-cál’h-a ti núkw-a snéqwem

OOC-appear- OOC DET nukw-DET sun
‘Another sun appeared.’

Consultant’s comment: “But there’s only one. Sounds like there’s more.”

7. Implications

I have argued in this paper that typical presupposition triggers like ‘also’, ‘more’ and
‘stop’ fail to induce pragmatic presuppositions in St’át’imcets. In this section I briefly
investigate the consequences of this claim for parametric theory and for learnability.

Previous research on St’át’imcets had already established some differences

between St’át’imcets and English with respect to presuppositions. Matthewson (1998)
showed that determiners in St’át’imcets all lack presuppositions of familiarity or
uniqueness. The absence of definite determiners was derived there from a semantic
parameter regulating determiner denotations. Davis et al. (2004) then showed that
St’át’imcets clefts also do not presuppose either familiarity nor uniqueness. Davis et al.
derived the properties of clefts from the independently-motivated determiner semantics;
under an analysis as in Percus (1997) or Hedburg (2000), English clefts are disguised
definite descriptions containing the determiner the. Assigning St’át’imcets clefts a similar
syntax automatically predicts that definite presuppositions will be absent from them.

These previous analyses linked the absence of presuppositions to a set of

functional elements – Ds – and as such were micro-parametric in nature. The current
results, however, begin to make the lack of presuppositions look much more general. The
question now is whether we should postulate a language-wide macro-parameter, such that
St’át’imcets lacks pragmatic presuppositions, while English possesses them.

Empirically, I can at least tentatively conclude that the facts support a macro-
parameter. Recall that the only element which displays a wait-a-minute effect is nukw. I
 Presuppositions and Cross-Linguistic Variation

claimed above that nukw elicits a wait-a-minute effect only when the presupposition is so
bizarre that the hearer cannot countenance the speaker’s believing it to be in the objective
propositional context. Thus, nukw is analyzable as Gauker-style presupposition trigger.5,6

There is of course a question about whether a macro-parameter banning pragmatic

presuppositions is conceptually desirable, and whether it gives rise to learnability
problems. I have no definitive answer to this (and have myself in the past argued against
such macro-parameters; see Matthewson 2003). However, such a parameter does not
seem impossible to me. It sets up a subset relationship between languages, as good
parameters should. The learner will begin by assuming that the language lacks pragmatic
presuppositions (i.e., that s/he is learning St’át’imcets). Only after observing evidence for
pragmatic presuppositions in English will the learner switch their parameter setting.

This scenario predicts that children will initially have problems with over-
generation of definites in English, at the stage where they have not yet learned that the
induces a pragmatic familiarity presupposition. In fact, there is a large literature
documenting exactly this phenomenon (Maratsos 1974, among many others). There is
also evidence from other areas of the grammar that children acquire presuppositional
phenomena relatively late. Schulz (2000) finds that English-speaking children do not
challenge presuppositions with factive verbs until the age of 7. In a similar vein, Bergsma
(2000) observes that Dutch-speaking children tend to ignore the contribution of ook ‘also’
up to age six (see Hollebrandse 2002).

References

Bergsma, W. 2000. Unstressed ook in child Dutch. Paper presented at Semantics Meets
Acquisition, Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen.
Conti, Rachel 1999. Presuppositions of the. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Davis, Henry, Lisa Matthewson and Scott Shank. 2004. Clefts vs. nominal predicates in
two Salish languages. In Studies in Salish linguistics in honor of M. Dale
Kinkade, ed. Donna Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson. Missoula: University of
Montana Press.
von Fintel, Kai. 2000. What is presupposition accommodation? Ms., MIT.
von Fintel, Kai. 2001. Would you believe it? The king of France is back! Presuppositions
and truth value intuitions. In Descriptions and Beyond, ed. A. Bezuidenhout and
M. Reimer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gauker, Christopher. 1998. What is a context of utterance? Philosophical Studies 91:149-
172.
Hedberg, Nancy. 2000. The referential status of clefts, Language 76.4: 891-920.
Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of the
5
Failed presuppositions with nukw, even non-accommodatable ones, do not usually give rise to
wait-a-minute responses. Space constraints prevent me from including the relevant data here.
6
Future research involves the elements í7wa7 ‘even’ and tsukw t’u7 ‘only’. It is also often
assumed that pronominal features are presuppositional (e.g., Heim and Kratzer 1998). However, see
Kratzer (2005) for a different proposal.
 Lisa Matthewson

West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2:114-125.

Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal
of Semantics 9:183-221.
Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Hollebrandse, Bart. 2002. Review of Schulz (2000). Glot International Volume 6.
Kratzer, Angelika 2005. Paper presented at the Workshop on QP Structure,
Nominalizations, and the Role of DP, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken.
Kripke, Saul. 1990. Presupposition and anaphora: Remarks on the formulation of the
projection problem. Ms., Princeton University.
Maratsos, Michael. 1974. Preschool children’s use of definite and indefinite articles.
Child Development 45:446-455.
Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence
from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2003. Thoughts on universality and variation in semantics. Paper
presented at Cross-Linguistic Data and Theories of Meaning, Max Planck
Institute, Nijmegen.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International
Journal of American Linguistics 70:369-415.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2005. An unfamiliar proportional quantifier. Paper presented at the
Workshop on QP Structure, Nominalizations, and the Role of DP, Universität des
Saarlandes, Saarbrücken.
Matthewson, Lisa, Timothy Bryant and Tom Roeper. 2001. A Salish stage in the
acquisition of English determiners: Unfamiliar ‘definites’. In The Proceedings of
SULA. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying Open the Cleft, In Proceedings of NELS 27, 337-351. GLSA,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Schulz, Petra 2000. Getting the facts: Finite complements, factive verbs and their
acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tübingen.
Soames, Scott. 1982. How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection
problem. Linguistic Inquiry 13:483-545.
Stalnaker, Robert. 1973. Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2:447-457.
Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Semantics and Philosophy, ed.
M.K. Munitz and P.K. Unger, 197-213. New York: New York University.
Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Syntax and Semantics 9, ed. Peter Cole, 315-322.
New York: Academic Press.

Department of Linguistics
University of British Columbia
E270-1866 Main Mall
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
Canada

[email protected]