* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 20.131

Wed Jan 14 2009

Books: Semantics: Burton-Roberts

Editor for this issue: Hannah Morales <hannahlinguistlist.org>


Links to the websites of all LINGUIST's supporting publishers are available at the end of this issue.
Directory
        1.    Daniel Davies, The Limits to Debate: Burton-Roberts


Message 1: The Limits to Debate: Burton-Roberts
Date: 14-Jan-2009
From: Daniel Davies <ddaviescambridge.org>
Subject: The Limits to Debate: Burton-Roberts
E-mail this message to a friend

Title: The Limits to Debate
Subtitle: A Revised Theory of Semantic Presupposition
Series Title: Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 51
Published: 2009
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
                http://us.cambridge.org

Author: Noel Burton-Roberts
Paperback: ISBN: 9780521101936 Pages: Price: U.K. £ 19.99
Paperback: ISBN: 9780521101936 Pages: Price: U.S. $ 36.99
Abstract:

Exponents and critics of semantic presupposition have almost invariably
based their discussion on the ('Standard') definition of presupposition
implied by Frege and Strawson. In this study Noel Burton-Roberts argues
convincingly against this definition, that leads it to a three-valued
semantics. He presents a very simple semantic definition which is weaker,
more general and leads to a semantics more easily interpreted as two-valued
with gaps. The author shows that a wide range of intuitive facts that
eluded the Standard definition follow directly from this ('Revised')
definition itself: facts about the presuppositions of compound sentences
and modal sentences, about presuppositional conflict and about differences
in the logical status of simple sentences suffering from presupposition
failure. The book includes a detailed argument that an ambiguity of natural
language negation, generally assumed to be necessary to the defence of
semantic presupposition, is neither possible nor necessary in a
presuppositional semantics. Noel Burton-Roberts has made an authoritative
contribution to a debate which has involved philosophers and linguists for
many years. His command of the issues, his clarity of exposition and his
theoretical insight may well serve to change the boundaries of that debate.

Preface;

Introduction;

Part I. The Prevailing Concept of Semantic Presupposition:
1. The Standard Logical Definition of Presupposition;
2. Further aspects of the prevailing concept;

Part II. The Distinction between a Trivalent Logic and a Two-Valued Logic
with Gaps:
3. Developing the distinction;
4. Classical validity and the distinction;
5. Standard presupposition and the distinction;

Part III. Presupposition in a Two-Valued Logic with Gaps;
6. The base definition and its projective implications;
7. Generalised presupposition;
8. Projective properties of generalised presupposition;
9. Revised presupposition and the logical status of simple sentences;
10. The pragmatics of 'presupposition cancellation';

Epilogue;

Notes;

Bibliography;

Index.


Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories
                            Semantics

Written In: English (eng )

See this book announcement on our website:
http://linguistlist.org/get-book.html?BookID=38980


Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

-------------------------- Major Supporters --------------------------
Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/
European Language Resources Association - ELRA http://www.elra.info.
Hodder Education http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk
John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/
Lincom GmbH http://www.lincom.eu
MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/
Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

---------------------- Other Supporting Publishers ----------------------




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.