• Scott Soames
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 167)


To presuppose something is to take it for granted in a way that contrasts with asserting it. For example, if one assertively utters (1a) It was Sam who broke the typewriter. one presupposes that the typewriter was broken and asserts that Sam was the one who did it. Similarly, if one assertively utters (2a) John is going to drop out of school again. one presupposes that he has dropped out of school before and asserts that he will drop out in the future. In each case, the speaker commits himself both to that which he presupposes and to that which he asserts. However. there are important differences between the two.


Singular Term Conversational Implicature Indicative Conditional Conventional Implicature Conversational Participant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atlas, J. D.: 1977, ‘Negation, ambiguity, and presuppositions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwise, J. and J. Perry: 1983, Situations and Attitudes, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Donnellan, K. S.: 1966, ‘Reference and definite descriptions’, The Philosophical Review 75, 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Donnellan, K. S.: 1978, ‘Speaker reference, descriptions and anaphora’, in P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 47–69.Google Scholar
  5. Frege, G.: 1891, ‘Function and concept’, in P. Geach and M. Black (eds.) [1952].Google Scholar
  6. Frege, G.: 1892a, ‘On concept and object’, in P. Geach and M. Black (eds.) [1952].Google Scholar
  7. Frege, G.: 1892b, ‘On sense and reference’, in P. Geach and M. Black (eds.) [1952].Google Scholar
  8. Gazdar, G.: 1979, Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Geach, P. and M. Black (eds.): 1952, Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Heim, I.: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  11. Heim, I.: 1983, ‘On the projection problem for presuppositions’, in M. Barlow, D. P. Flickinger, and M. T. Wescoat (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Volume 2, Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford, California, pp. 114–125.Google Scholar
  12. Horn, L.: 1969, “A presuppositional analysis of ‘only’ and ‘even’”, in R. Binnick. A. Davison, G. Green, and J. Morgan (eds.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 98–107.Google Scholar
  13. Kamp, H.: 1968, Tense Logic and the Theory of Linear Order, Doctoral dissertation, U.C.L.A.Google Scholar
  14. Kaplan, D.: 1977, ‘Demonstratives’, unpublished manuscript, U.C.L.A., Dept. of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  15. Karttunen, L.: 1974, ‘Presupposition and linguistic context’, Theoretical Linguistics 1, 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karttunen, L. and S. Peters: 1979, ‘Conventional implicature’, in Ch.-K. Oh and D. Dineen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics II: Presupposition, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
  17. Kempson, R.: 1975, Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Kripke, S.: 1975, ‘Outline of a theory of truth’, The Journal of Philosophy 72,690–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kripke, S.: 1979, ‘Speaker’s reference and semantic reference’, in P. French, T. Uehling, and H. Wettstein (eds.), Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 6–27.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, D.: 1979, ‘Scorekeeping in a language game’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parsons, T.: 1984, ‘Assertion, denial, and the liar paradox’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 13. 137–152.Google Scholar
  22. Russell, B.: 1905, ‘On denoting’, Mind 14,479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salmon, N. U.: 1982, ‘Assertion and incomplete definite descriptions’, Philosophical Studies 42,37–45.Google Scholar
  24. Salmon, N. U.: 1986, Frege’s Puzzle, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  25. Soames, S.: 1979, ‘A projection problem for speaker presuppositions’, Linguistic Inquiry 10, 623–666.Google Scholar
  26. Soames, S.: 1982, ‘How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem’, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 483–545.Google Scholar
  27. Soames, S.: 1985, ‘Truth, paradox, and partially defined predicates’, unpublished manuscript Princeton University, Dept. of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  28. Soames, S.: 1986, ‘Incomplete definite descriptions’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27. 349–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Soames, S.: 1987, ‘Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content’, Philosophical Topics 15, 47–87.Google Scholar
  30. Stalnaker, R.: 1972, ‘Pragmatics’, in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 380–397.Google Scholar
  31. Stalnaker, R.: 1973, ‘Presuppositions’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 2,447–457.Google Scholar
  32. Stalnaker, R.: 1974, ‘Pragmatic presuppositions’, in M. K. Munitz and P. K. Unger (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, New York University Press, New York, pp. 197–214.Google Scholar
  33. Strawson, P. F.: 1950, ‘On Referring’, Mind 59,320–344.Google Scholar
  34. Strawson, P. F.: 1952, Introduction to Logical Theory, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  35. Thomason, R. H.: 1983, ‘Accommodation, conversational planning, and implicature’, unpublished manuscript, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  36. Wettstein, H.: 1981, ‘Demonstrative reference and definite descriptions’, Philosophical Studies 40,241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson, D.: 1975, Presuppositions and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Soames

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations