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) #
- Global: presupposition is added to the top-level common ground
- Local: presupposition is satisfied within the embedded context
- Intermediate: presupposition is added at an intermediate level (into the restrictor of a quantifier or antecedent of a conditional)
Three Strategies #
- Heim/Lewis preference: prefer global > intermediate > local. Global preference + consistency constraint ≈ Gazdar's cancellation (@cite{beaver-2001} Ch. 5.8.1).
- Van der Sandt structural: DRT-based move-α; presupposition DRS is moved to the highest accessible position (@cite{van-der-sandt-1992}).
- 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) #
- Informativity: accommodation must be informative (add new information)
- Consistency: accommodated content must be consistent with the context
- Trapping: bound presuppositions cannot escape their binder's scope
- Binding preference: anaphoric resolution is preferred over accommodation
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 : ℕ)
: 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
- Semantics.Presupposition.Accommodation.globalAccommodate c presup w = (c w ∧ presup w = true)
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
- Semantics.Presupposition.Accommodation.isInformative c presup = ¬c ⊧ presup
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
- Semantics.Presupposition.Accommodation.isTrapped bindingDepth Semantics.Presupposition.Accommodation.AccommodationLevel.global = true
- Semantics.Presupposition.Accommodation.isTrapped bindingDepth (Semantics.Presupposition.Accommodation.AccommodationLevel.intermediate d) = decide (d < bindingDepth)
- Semantics.Presupposition.Accommodation.isTrapped bindingDepth Semantics.Presupposition.Accommodation.AccommodationLevel.local = false
Instances For
All constraints bundled together.
- informative : isInformative c presup
- consistent : isConsistent c presup
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.