Abstract
ABSTRACT This article focuses on ‘therefore’ constructions such as ‘The switch is on, and therefore the lights are on’. We submit that the contribution of ‘therefore’ is to express a dependence as part of the core content of these constructions, rather than being conveyed by conventional implicature [Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy, edited by M. Ezcurdia, and R. J. Stainton, 41–58. Broadview Press; Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford University Press] or a triggered presupposition [Pavese, C. 2017. “On the Meaning of ‘Therefore’.” Analysis 77 (1): 88–97. Pavese, C. 2021. “Lewis Carroll’s Regress and the Presuppositional Structure of Arguments.” Linguistics and Philosophy; Stokke, A. 2017. “II—Conventional Implicature, Presupposition, and Lying.” Aristotelian Society Supplementary 91 (1): 127–147]. We argue that the standard objections to this view can be answered by relying on the general projection hypothesis defended by Roberts et al. and Simons et al. [Roberts, C., M. Simons, J. Tonhauser, and D. I. Beaver. 2009. Presuppositions, Conventional Implicature, and Beyond: A Unified Account of Projection; Simons, M., J. Tonhauser, D. Beaver, and C. Roberts. 2010. “What Projects and Why.” Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20: 309–327], leaving our view on solid ground.
Highlights
It is uncontroversial that the use of ‘’ in sentences like (1) conveys that a certain dependence holds.(1) The switch in the hall is on, and the lights in the office are on.1By uttering (1), the speaker can convey that the lights in the office are on due to the switch in the hall being on
Following the general hypothesis about projection behaviour proposed by Roberts et al (2009) and Simons et al (2010), we suggest that the dependence conveyed by ‘’ construction sometimes projects out of entailment cancelling environments because the dependence can fail to be at issue
Attempts to answer the question under discussion with non-core content of clauses in entailment cancelling environments often result in infelicity rather than stopping the projection behaviour: (32) Q1: Did Carmen have any unhealthy habits?
Summary
It is uncontroversial that the use of ‘’ in sentences like (1) conveys that a certain dependence holds. An influential view in the literature says that this dependence is not part of what is literally said According to this view, the dependence is merely presupposed or implicated by uttering claims like (2). Pavese (2017, 2021) and Stokke (2017) have argued that the dependence conveyed by ‘’ constructions is presupposed, rather than being part of what is being said.. Pavese (2017, 2021) and Stokke (2017) have argued that the dependence conveyed by ‘’ constructions is presupposed, rather than being part of what is being said.4 In these examples, we distinguished between what is literally said from what is implicated or presupposed. Stokke 2017; Pavese 2017; Neta 2013; Potts 2005) According to these views, ‘’ does not differ in its contribution to the core content from ‘and’. We will defend THE CORE DEPENDENCE VIEW against several important objections: one based on projection data and one based on judgments about falsity and direct negation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
