Documentation

Linglib.Theories.Semantics.Presupposition.Accommodation

Accommodation #

@cite{lewis-1979} @cite{beaver-2001} @cite{van-der-sandt-1992}

Accommodation is the process by which a context is adjusted to satisfy a presupposition that is not already entailed. @cite{lewis-1979} introduced the concept: "If at time t something is said that requires presupposition P to be acceptable, and if P is not presupposed just before t, then — ceteris paribus — presupposition P comes into existence at t."

Three Levels (@cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5) #

Three Strategies #

  1. Heim/Lewis preference: prefer global > intermediate > local. Global preference + consistency constraint ≈ Gazdar's cancellation (@cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.8.1).
  2. Van der Sandt structural: DRT-based move-α; presupposition DRS is moved to the highest accessible position (@cite{van-der-sandt-1992}).
  3. Fauconnier flotation: presupposition floats upward through mental spaces, leaving a shadow at each level (@cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.8.3).

Constraints (@cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.3) #

The level at which accommodation occurs. @cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5, @cite{lewis-1979}, @cite{heim-1983}.

  • global : AccommodationLevel

    Add presupposition to the global common ground.

  • local : AccommodationLevel

    Satisfy presupposition within the local embedded context.

  • intermediate (depth : ) : AccommodationLevel

    Add presupposition at an intermediate level (e.g., restrictor of a quantifier, antecedent of a conditional). @cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.5 argues this is heavily restricted.

Instances For
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For
      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
      Instances For

        Global accommodation: update the context to include the presupposition. @cite{lewis-1979}: "presupposition P comes into existence."

        Formally, this intersects the context set with the presupposition, removing worlds where the presupposition fails.

        Equations
        Instances For

          Global accommodation strengthens the context (is eliminative).

          After global accommodation, the presupposition is entailed.

          Accommodation is idempotent: accommodating what's already entailed doesn't change the context.

          Accommodation via PrProp.defined: globalAccommodate c p.presup restricts the context to points where PrProp.defined holds. This is the structural connection between accommodation and PrProp — accommodation targets .presup by construction.

          Informativity: the accommodated content must add new information. The context must not already entail the presupposition. @cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.3.

          Equations
          Instances For

            Consistency: the result of accommodation must be non-empty. @cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.3.

            Equations
            Instances For

              Trapping: a presupposition with a bound variable cannot be accommodated above its binder. @cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.3.

              Modeled as a predicate on the accommodation level and a binding depth: accommodation at level l is trapped if the presupposition is bound at depth d and l would place it above d.

              Equations
              Instances For

                All constraints bundled together.

                Instances For

                  An accommodation strategy determines which level of accommodation is preferred. @cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.8.

                  • heimPreference : AccommodationStrategy

                    Heim/Lewis: prefer global, fall back to local if global is inconsistent. Global preference ≈ projection; local fallback ≈ cancellation. @cite{heim-1983}, @cite{lewis-1979}.

                  • vanDerSandt : AccommodationStrategy

                    Van der Sandt: DRT-based move-α. Presupposition DRS is moved to the highest accessible position that satisfies binding constraints. @cite{van-der-sandt-1992}.

                  • fauconnierFlotation : AccommodationStrategy

                    Fauconnier: presupposition floats upward through mental spaces, leaving a copy ("shadow") at each intermediate level. @cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.8.3.

                  Instances For
                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For

                      Select accommodation level based on the Heim/Lewis strategy.

                      Try global first; if inconsistent, fall back to local.

                      @cite{heim-1983}: "by stipulating a ceteris paribus preference for global over local accommodation, we recapture the effect of Gazdar's assumption that presupposition cancellation occurs only under the threat of inconsistency."

                      Equations
                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                      Instances For

                        Heim's observation: global accommodation preference is equivalent to Gazdar's cancellation under threat of inconsistency.

                        When global accommodation would be inconsistent, we fall back to local accommodation — which has the same effect as Gazdar's presupposition cancellation.

                        @cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.8.1: "with one short remark buried in a terse paper, Heim offers a simple synthesis between the two antitheses of 1970s presupposition theory."

                        When global accommodation IS consistent, Heim's strategy projects the presupposition globally — matching Karttunen's projection.

                        Intermediate accommodation is problematic.

                        @cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.5 argues that intermediate accommodation (accommodation into the restrictor of a quantifier or antecedent of a conditional) is heavily restricted and only occurs with generic/habitual statements. Without intermediate accommodation, both Heim's CCP and van der Sandt's DRT make better predictions.

                        This is formalized as: the Heim preference strategy never selects intermediate accommodation.

                        Van der Sandt vs. Fauconnier: the key difference is whether accommodation leaves shadows at intermediate levels.

                        • Van der Sandt: presupposition jumps to highest position, no trace at intermediate levels.
                        • Fauconnier: presupposition floats up, leaving a copy at each level it passes through.

                        @cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.8.3: Fauconnier's strategy correctly predicts that lexical triggers (factives) must hold at all intermediate levels, while anaphoric triggers (definites, 'too') only need to hold at the highest level.

                        • anaphoric : TriggerClass

                          Anaphoric/resolution triggers: definites, 'too', 'again'. Collect entities from context. Use van der Sandt strategy.

                        • lexical : TriggerClass

                          Lexical triggers: factives ('know', 'regret'). Impose conditions on concept application. Use Fauconnier strategy.

                        Instances For
                          Equations
                          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                          Instances For

                            Select accommodation strategy based on trigger class. @cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.8, following Zeevat (1992).

                            Equations
                            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                            Instances For