[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/abrusan-2013-experimenting-king-france-topics-verifiability/)

[home](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [docs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/) / [papers](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/) / [English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/) / Experimenting with the king of France: Topics, verifiability and definite descriptions

# Experimenting with the king of France: Topics, verifiability and definite descriptions

**Authors:** Márta Abrusán, Kriszta Szendrői · **Year:** 2013 · **Venue:** Semantics and Pragmatics 6(10) **Link:** [doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.10](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.10) · **Licence:** [CC BY-NC 3.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) as printed on the article (the library card says CC BY) — summary only

[**129** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W2157385211) openalex · 2026-10-19[**3** citations in our library](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/cited-by/abrusan-2013-experimenting-king-france-topics-verifiability/) of the 140673 papers whose bibliographies we read[Semantics and Pragmatics](https://openalex.org/S33105140)[licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

- [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.10)
- [PDF](https://semprag.org/index.php/sp/article/download/sp.6.10/pdf)
- [DOI 10.3765/sp.6.10](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.10)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2157385211)

**Authors (2)**

1. [Márta Abrusán](https://openalex.org/A5071160269) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9561-9177) · [Semantic Scholar](https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/2941239) · h 15 · 1226 citations · 51 works
2. [Kriszta Szendrői](https://openalex.org/A5021659485) [ORCID](https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6883-1631) · [Semantic Scholar](https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/1926236) · h 19 · 2353 citations · 82 works

Citations and author metrics from openalex (2026-10-19); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

Sentences with an empty definite description, such as "The king of France is bald", have been argued to get different truth-value judgments depending on context. The authors test this with a trivia-quiz experiment. Thirty-three native English speakers judged TRUE, FALSE or CAN'T SAY for 88 critical items spread over eleven conditions, plus fillers and controls. Positive sentences were judged FALSE almost always (about 78% in the baseline condition, under 20% CAN'T SAY). Negated sentences gave more TRUE answers when another, referentially sound entity was present (about 46% to 72%, against 21% in the negative baseline) and when that entity was known to the speaker. Topicality had a smaller effect, visible only in the negative conditions. The authors conclude that verifiability is the main factor and topicality follows from it.

## Ideas

- I1. `prag/src/frames.rs`: when a reference-failure noun phrase is the only entity in a clause, mark the truth value as undefined. When another entity in the same clause can serve as a foothold for verification, let the frame reader pick it and return TRUE or FALSE, with the entity named as the reason.
- I2. Treat "topic" as a default choice of foothold: when the subject is a sound noun phrase, prefer it for verification. Record which entity was used so each answer can say why.
- I3. Negative control: positive controls with a sound referent (France has a king and he is bald) must give the same answer before and after the change. Run twice to confirm determinism.

## For Mova

The chapter is [33. Implicature and presupposition](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/33-implicature-and-presupposition/), with [35. Reference and coreference](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/en/35-reference-and-coreference/) for the definite descriptions. The code is `prag/src/frames.rs` (frames) and `coref/src/mention.rs` (mentions that can serve as antecedents). Measure: the TRUE, FALSE and CAN'T SAY split on a list of Mova-built items in the paper's condition types, with the reason logged. Build a new item list rather than copy the paper's items.

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.3765/sp.6.10](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.10)

```
@article{abrusan2013experimenting,
  title = {{Experimenting with the king of France: Topics, verifiability and definite descriptions}},
  author = {Abrusán, Márta and Szendrői, Kriszta},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2013},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.6.10},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.10}
}
```

- [← previous A Shakespearian Grammar: an attempt to illustrate some of the differences between Elizabethan and modern English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/abbott-1869-shakespearian-grammar-attempt-illustrate/)
- [next → When to generate hedges in peer-tutoring interactions](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/abulimiti-2023-when-generate-hedges-peer-tutoring/)
- [↑ back to English](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/en/)

## References

60 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Abbott, Barbara. 1999. Support for a unique theory of definite descriptions. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 9. 1–15. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Abbott%2C+Barbara%2E+1999%2E+Support+for+a+unique+theory+of+definite+descriptions%2E+Semantics+and+Linguistic+Theory+%28SALT%29+9%2E+1%E2%80%9315%2E)
2. Abbott, Barbara. 2000. Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics 32(10). 1419–1437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00108-3. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00108-3)
3. Atlas, Jay D. 1977. Negation, ambiguity and presupposition. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 321–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00353452. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00353452)
4. Atlas, Jay D. 2004. Descriptions, linguistic topic/comment, and negative existentials: A case study in the application of linguistic theory to problems in the philosophy of language. In Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.), Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena, 342–360. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Atlas%2C+Jay+D%2E+2004%2E+Descriptions%2C+linguistic+topic%2Fcomment%2C+and+negative+existentials%3A+A+case+study+in+the+application+of+linguistic+theory+to+problems+in+the+philosophy+of+language%2E+In+Marga+Reimer+%26)
5. Beaver, David & Emiel Krahmer. 2001. A partial account of presupposition projection. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10(2). 147–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008371413822. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008371413822)
6. Bezuidenhout, Anne & Marga Reimer. 2004. Introduction to Section III, “Presupposition and truth-value gaps”. In Anne Bezuidenhout & Marga Reimer (eds.), Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena, 307–314. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bezuidenhout%2C+Anne+%26+Marga+Reimer%2E+2004%2E+Introduction+to+Section+III%2C+%E2%80%9CPresupposition+and+truth%2Dvalue+gaps%E2%80%9D%2E+In+Anne+Bezuidenhout+%26+Marga+Reimer+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Descriptions+and+beyond%3A+An+interdisciplinary+c)
7. Cresti, Diana. 1995. Indefinite topics. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD thesis. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cresti%2C+Diana%2E+1995%2E+Indefinite+topics%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology+PhD+thesis%2E)
8. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Erteschik%2DShir%2C+Nomi%2E+1997%2E+The+dynamics+of+focus+structure%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
9. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure. Oxford University Press. von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on quantifier domains. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts PhD thesis. [http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/](http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/) jA3N2IwN/fintel-1994-thesis.pdf. von Fintel, Kai. 2004. Would you believe it? The king of france is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. In Anne Bezuidenhout & Marga Reimer (eds.), Descriptions and beyond: An interdisciplinary collection of essays on definite and indefinite descriptions and other related phenomena, 315–341. Oxford University Press. [↗](http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/)
10. Fodor, Janet D. 1979. In defense of the truth-value gap. In Chung-Kyu Oh & David Dinneen (eds.), Presupposition (Syntax and Semantics 11), 199–224. New York: Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fodor%2C+Janet+D%2E+1979%2E+In+defense+of+the+truth%2Dvalue+gap%2E+In+Chung%2DKyu+Oh+%26+David+Dinneen+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Presupposition+%28Syntax+and+Semantics+11%29%2C+199%E2%80%93224%2E+New+York%3A+Academic+Press%2E)
11. Márta Abrusán and Kriszta Szendrői Foley, William & Robert Van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=M%C3%A1rta+Abrus%C3%A1n+and+Kriszta+Szendro%CC%8Bi+Foley%2C+William+%26+Robert+Van+Valin%2E+1984%2E+Functional+syntax+and+universal+grammar%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
12. Fox, Danny. 2012. Trivalence, local accommodation, and presupposition strengthening. HUJI and MIT. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fox%2C+Danny%2E+2012%2E+Trivalence%2C+local+accommodation%2C+and+presupposition+strengthening%2E+HUJI+and+MIT%2E)
13. Francez, Itamar. 2007. Existential propositions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University PhD thesis. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Francez%2C+Itamar%2E+2007%2E+Existential+propositions%2E+Stanford%2C+CA%3A+Stanford+University+PhD+thesis%2E)
14. Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik C. English Translation: On Sense and Meaning, in McGuinness, Brian (ed.), Frege: Collected works, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 25–50. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Frege%2C+Gottlob%2E+1892%2E+%C3%9Cber+Sinn+und+Bedeutung%2E+Zeitschrift+f%C3%BCr+Philosophie+und+philosophische+Kritik+C%2E+English+Translation%3A+On+Sense+and+Meaning%2C+in+McGuinness%2C+Brian+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Frege%3A+Collected+works%2C+O)
15. Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York, NY: Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gazdar%2C+Gerald%2E+1979%2E+Implicature%2C+presupposition+and+logical+form%2E+New+York%2C+NY%3A+Academic+Press%2E)
16. Geurts, Bart. 1998. Mechanisms of denial. Language 74(2). 274–307. http : //www.jstor.org/stable/417868. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Geurts%2C+Bart%2E+1998%2E+Mechanisms+of+denial%2E+Language+74%282%29%2E+274%E2%80%93307%2E+http+%3A+%2F%2Fwww%2Ejstor%2Eorg%2Fstable%2F417868%2E)
17. Geurts, Bart. 2007. Existential import. In Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Existence: Syntax and semantics, 253–271. Dordrecht: Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Geurts%2C+Bart%2E+2007%2E+Existential+import%2E+In+Ileana+Comorovski+%26+Klaus+von+Heusinger+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Existence%3A+Syntax+and+semantics%2C+253%E2%80%93271%2E+Dordrecht%3A+Springer%2E)
18. Givón, Talmy. 1983. An introduction. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 1–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Giv%C3%B3n%2C+Talmy%2E+1983%2E+An+introduction%2E+In+Talmy+Giv%C3%B3n+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Topic+continuity+in+discourse%3A+A+quantitative+cross%2Dlanguage+study%2C+1%E2%80%9341%2E+Amsterdam%2FPhiladelphia%3A+John+Benjamins%2E)
19. Gundel, Jeanette K. 1974. The role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Published by Garland, 1989. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin PhD thesis. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gundel%2C+Jeanette+K%2E+1974%2E+The+role+of+topic+and+comment+in+linguistic+theory%2E+Published+by+Garland%2C+1989%2E+Austin%2C+TX%3A+University+of+Texas+at+Austin+PhD+thesis%2E)
20. Gundel, Jeanette K. 1977. Role of topic and comment in linguistic theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gundel%2C+Jeanette+K%2E+1977%2E+Role+of+topic+and+comment+in+linguistic+theory%2E+Bloomington%2C+IN%3A+Indiana+University+Linguistics+Club%2E)
21. Gundel, Jeanette K. 1985. ‘Shared knowledge’ and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics 9(1). 83–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90049-9. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90049-9)
22. Gundel, Jeanette K. & Thorstein Fretheim. 2004. Topic and focus. In Laurence Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatic theory, 174–196. Oxford: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gundel%2C+Jeanette+K%2E+%26+Thorstein+Fretheim%2E+2004%2E+Topic+and+focus%2E+In+Laurence+Horn+%26+Gregory+Ward+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+handbook+of+pragmatic+theory%2C+174%E2%80%93196%2E+Oxford%3A+Blackwell%2E)
23. Hajičová, Eva. 1984. Presupposition and allegation revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 8(2). 155–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90046-8. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90046-8)
24. Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3(2). 199–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0022226700016613. [↗](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/)
25. Heim, Irene. 1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 2. 114–125. Experimenting with the king of France Horn, Larry. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Heim%2C+Irene%2E+1983%2E+On+the+projection+problem+for+presuppositions%2E+West+Coast+Conference+on+Formal+Linguistics+%28WCCFL%29+2%2E+114%E2%80%93125%2E+Experimenting+with+the+king+of+France+Horn%2C+Larry%2E+1989%2E+A+natural+his)
26. Horn, Laurence R. 1986. Presupposition, theme and variations. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 22. 168–192. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Horn%2C+Laurence+R%2E+1986%2E+Presupposition%2C+theme+and+variations%2E+Chicago+Linguistics+Society+%28CLS%29+22%2E+168%E2%80%93192%2E)
27. Karttunen, Lauri & Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional implicatures in Montague Grammar. In Chung-Kyu Oh & David Dinneen (eds.), Presupposition (Syntax and Semantics 11), 1–56. New York: Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Karttunen%2C+Lauri+%26+Stanley+Peters%2E+1979%2E+Conventional+implicatures+in+Montague+Grammar%2E+In+Chung%2DKyu+Oh+%26+David+Dinneen+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Presupposition+%28Syntax+and+Semantics+11%29%2C+1%E2%80%9356%2E+New+York%3A+Academic+Press)
28. Kuno, Susumu. 1972. A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3(3). 269–320. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177715](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177715). [↗](http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177715)
29. Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. A theory of topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lambrecht%2C+Knud%2E+1994%2E+A+theory+of+topic%2C+focus+and+the+mental+representations+of+discourse+referents%2E+Cambridge+University+Press%2E)
30. Langton, Rae & David Lewis. 1998. Defining ‘intrinsic’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58(2). 333–345. [http://dx.doi](http://dx.doi) . org / 10 . 2307 / 2653512. [↗](http://dx.doi)
31. Lasersohn, Peter. 1993. Existence presuppositions and background knowledge. Journal of Semantics (2). 113–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/10. 2.113. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/10)
32. Lewis, David. 1986. On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lewis%2C+David%2E+1986%2E+On+the+plurality+of+worlds%2E+Oxford%3A+Blackwell%2E)
33. Lewis, David. 1988. Statements partly about observation. Philosophical Papers 17(1). 1–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/05568648809506282. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/05568648809506282)
34. Neale, Stephen. 1990. Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Neale%2C+Stephen%2E+1990%2E+Descriptions%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
35. Partee, Barbara H. & Vladimir Borschev. 2004. The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: The nature and role of perspectival structure. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14. 212–234. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Partee%2C+Barbara+H%2E+%26+Vladimir+Borschev%2E+2004%2E+The+semantics+of+Russian+genitive+of+negation%3A+The+nature+and+role+of+perspectival+structure%2E+Semantics+and+Linguistic+Theory+%28SALT%29+14%2E+212%E2%80%93234%2E)
36. Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying open the cleft. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 27. 337–351. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Percus%2C+Orin%2E+1997%2E+Prying+open+the+cleft%2E+North+East+Linguistic+Society+%28NELS%29+27%2E+337%E2%80%93351%2E)
37. Percus, Orin. 1998. Presupposition denial and the origin of antecedents. In Uli Sauerland & Orin Percus (eds.), The interpretive tract: Working papers in syntax and semantics. Department of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Percus%2C+Orin%2E+1998%2E+Presupposition+denial+and+the+origin+of+antecedents%2E+In+Uli+Sauerland+%26+Orin+Percus+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+interpretive+tract%3A+Working+papers+in+syntax+and+semantics%2E+Department+of+Linguistic)
38. Prince, Ellen. 1997. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. In Peter W. Culicover & Louise McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax (Syntax and Semantics 29), 281–302. Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Prince%2C+Ellen%2E+1997%2E+On+the+limits+of+syntax%2C+with+reference+to+left%2Ddislocation+and+topicalization%2E+In+Peter+W%2E+Culicover+%26+Louise+McNally+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+limits+of+syntax+%28Syntax+and+Semantics+29%29%2C+281%E2%80%93)
39. Putnam, Hilary. 1958. Formalization of the concept about. Philosophy of Science 25(2). 125–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/287584. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1086/287584)
40. Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica (1). 53–94. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Reinhart%2C+Tanya%2E+1981%2E+An+analysis+of+sentence+topics%2E+Philosophica+%281%29%2E+53%E2%80%9394%2E)
41. Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Optimal and costly computations (Linguistic Inquiry monographs 45). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Reinhart%2C+Tanya%2E+2006%2E+Optimal+and+costly+computations+%28Linguistic+Inquiry+monographs+45%29%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
42. Márta Abrusán and Kriszta Szendrői Roberts, Craige. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(3). 287–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024157132393)
43. Roberts, Craige. 2011. Topics. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2, 1908–1934. Berlin/Boston. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1515/9783110255072.1908. [↗](http://dx.doi.org/10)
44. Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind (4). 479–493. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/mind/XIV.4.494. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/xiv.4.494)
45. Russell, Bertrand. 1957. Mr Strawson on referring. Mind 66(263). 385–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/LXVI.263.385. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/lxvi.263.385)
46. Ryle, Gilbert. 1933. About. Analysis (1). 10–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ analys/1.1.10. [↗](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/)
47. Schlenker, Philippe. 2008. A pragmatic theory of presupposition. Theoretical Linguistics 34(3). 157–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2008.013. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2008.013)
48. Schlenker, Philippe. 2009. Local contexts. Semantics and Pragmatics 2(3). 1–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.3. [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.2.3)
49. Schoubye, Anders. 2009. Descriptions, truth–value intuitions, and questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(6). 583–617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10988-010-9069-y. [↗](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/)
50. Simons, Mandy. 2001. On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 11. 431–448. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Simons%2C+Mandy%2E+2001%2E+On+the+conversational+basis+of+some+presuppositions%2E+Semantics+and+Linguistic+Theory+%28SALT%29+11%2E+431%E2%80%93448%2E)
51. Soames, Scott. 1976. A critical examination of Frege’s theory of presupposition and contemporary alternatives. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD thesis. http://dx.doi.org/1721.1/38231. [↗](http://dx.doi.org/1721.1/38231)
52. Stalnaker, Robert C. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Milton Munitz & Peter Unger (eds.), Semantics and philosophy: Essays. New York University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stalnaker%2C+Robert+C%2E+1974%2E+Pragmatic+presuppositions%2E+In+Milton+Munitz+%26+Peter+Unger+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Semantics+and+philosophy%3A+Essays%2E+New+York+University+Press%2E)
53. Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. Assertion. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 9, 315–332. New York: Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stalnaker%2C+Robert+C%2E+1978%2E+Assertion%2E+In+Peter+Cole+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Syntax+and+Semantics+9%2C+315%E2%80%93332%2E+New+York%3A+Academic+Press%2E)
54. Strawson, Peter F. 1950. On referring. Mind 59(235). 320–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.235.320. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/lix.235.320)
55. Strawson, Peter F. 1964. Identifying reference and truth-values. Theoria 30(2). 96–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1964.tb00404.x. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1964.tb00404.x)
56. Szabó, Zoltán Gendler. 2000. Descriptions and uniqueness. Philosophical Studies 101(1). 29–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026437211756. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026437211756)
57. Vallentyne, Peter. 1997. Intrinsic properties defined. Philosophical Studies 88(2). 209–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004250930900. Experimenting with the king of France Visser, Albert. 1984. Four valued semantics and the liar. Journal of Philosophical Logic 13(2). 181–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00453021. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1004250930900)
58. Yablo, Stephen. 1999. Intrinsicness. Philosophical Topics 26(1-2). 479–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/philtopics1999261/234. [↗](https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics1999261/234)
59. Yablo, Stephen. 2006. Non-catastrophic presupposition failure. In Judith J. Thomson & Alex Byrne (eds.), Content and modality: Themes from the philosophy of Robert C. Stalnaker, 164–190. Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Yablo%2C+Stephen%2E+2006%2E+Non%2Dcatastrophic+presupposition+failure%2E+In+Judith+J%2E+Thomson+%26+Alex+Byrne+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Content+and+modality%3A+Themes+from+the+philosophy+of+Robert+C%2E+Stalnaker%2C+164%E2%80%93190%2E+Oxford+Univer)
60. Zubizarreta, Maria L. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Márta Abrusán IRIT, Université Paul Sabatier 118 Route de Narbonne 31062 Toulouse CEDEX 9 France marta.abrusan@gmail.com Kriszta Szendrői UCL Linguistics, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, Chandler House 2 Wakefield Street London WC1N 1PF, UK k.szendroi@ucl.ac.uk [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Zubizarreta%2C+Maria+L%2E+1998%2E+Prosody%2C+focus+and+word+order%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E+M%C3%A1rta+Abrus%C3%A1n+IRIT%2C+Universit%C3%A9+Paul+Sabatier+118+Route+de+Narbonne+31062+Toulouse+CEDEX+9+France+marta%2Eabrusan%40gmai)