---
title: "An Implemented Formalism for Computing Linguistic"
description: "Philosophical theories of nonexistence can describe dragons or Sherlock Holmes, but they do not… 20 references, cited by 1 paper here."
authors: ["Daniel Marcu", "Graeme Hirst"]
year: 1995
venue: "arXiv:cmp-lg/9504018"
source: "https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9504018"
doi: "10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9504018"
arxiv: "cmp-lg/9504018"
licence: "arXiv non-exclusive distribution licence (read only, no redistribution)"
licence_url: "http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/marcu-1995-implemented-formalism-computing-linguistic-presuppositions/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/marcu-1995-implemented-formalism-computing-linguistic-presuppositions/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [1995](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/1995/) / An Implemented Formalism for Computing Linguistic Presuppositions and Existential Commitments

# An Implemented Formalism for Computing Linguistic Presuppositions and Existential Commitments

**Authors:** [Daniel Marcu](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/daniel-marcu/) and [Graeme Hirst](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/graeme-hirst/) · **Year:** 1995 · **Venue:** arXiv:cmp-lg/9504018 · **Licence:** [arXiv non-exclusive distribution licence (read only, no redistribution)](http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9504018) · [PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/cmp-lg/9504018) · [DOI 10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9504018](https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9504018) · [arXiv cmp-lg/9504018](https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9504018) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W1489331217)

**Citations:** 4 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · [1](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/marcu-1995-implemented-formalism-computing-linguistic-presuppositions/cited-by/) in our library, of the 149,439 papers whose bibliographies we read

## Summary
Marcu and Hirst address a gap between two research traditions. Linguistic theories of presupposition explain things like factive complements but say little about why hearers assume that definite referents exist. Philosophical theories of nonexistence can describe dragons or Sherlock Holmes, but they do not explain that default commitment. The authors combine both traditions. They use Hirst's rich ontology, which separates physical, fictional and unactualized existence. They add Lejewski's unrestricted reading of quantifiers, under which quantifying over something does not claim it exists. They also add methodological principles drawn from Meinong and Grice. All of this sits inside stratified logic, where every fact is labelled either undefeasible (asserted) or defeasible (implied). Presuppositions are the defeasible facts of the "optimistic" models, meaning the preferred models that keep as much defeasible content as stays consistent. The system is implemented in Common Lisp as stratified Beth tableaux, using the nondeterminism of Screamer. It computes presuppositions uniformly, including existential ones, and it handles their cancellation even when the contradicting information arrives later in the discourse.

## Key points
- Stratified logic splits relations by strength (undefeasible vs defeasible) and by polarity (positive vs negative), and it defines separate u-satisfiability and d-satisfiability.
- Existence is described with several predicates:
  - E! for physical existence;
  - F! for fictional objects, which implies ¬E!;
  - UE! for unactualized objects such as an averted strike, which also implies ¬E!.
- A general rule states that every definite reference defeasibly exists. Model ordering then keeps the optimistic models.
- In the worked examples:
  - "Pelé" receives a defeasible E!, while "Sherlock Holmes" receives F! and ¬E!.
  - "John does not regret that Mary came" presupposes that Mary came. A later "Mary did not come" removes that presupposition.
- The authors criticize earlier accounts:
  - Parsons builds existence into what is said, which leaves no room for cancellation.
  - Hobbs ties existential "transparency" to predicates rather than to objects, so the King of Buganda case cannot be handled.
  - Atlas, van der Sandt and Zeevat do not handle late cancellation or richer ontologies.

## Interesting ideas
- Mark every derived fact as either asserted (hard) or presupposed (soft), so that soft facts can be withdrawn when later discourse contradicts them. This avoids rebuilding the whole interpretation.
- Existence is more than a yes/no property: objects can be real, fictional, unactualized (a cancelled party, an averted strike) or past.
- Choose among candidate interpretations with a preference order: keep the most "optimistic" consistent model, the one holding the most defeasible content. This is a principled form of default reasoning rather than an ad hoc heuristic.
- Whether an argument's referent exists should follow from knowledge about that object, not from a fixed property of the verb. The paper's Ross/Zeus and King of Buganda cases show why.
- Express factive triggers as rules that survive negation: the negated main verb still yields its complement as a defeasible fact.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (world): Store presupposed facts in the text world with a defeasible flag and retract them on contradiction, which keeps every change of belief explainable.
- **I2** (world): Give each entity an existence-mode attribute so that fable characters, prevented events and historical people are not treated as present physical objects.
- **I3** (answer): When a question depends on unstated defaults, the reader can choose the maximal consistent world and cite which defaults it relied on.
- **I4** (frames): Do not hard-code existence entailments in VerbNet-based frames; let the world knowledge (for example, Wikidata or WordNet marking Zeus as mythological) decide.
- **I5** (frames): Add presupposition rules for factives such as regret and know, and for verbs like stop, to the pragmatics crate, and test them on negated and later-cancelled examples as controls.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [University of Toronto](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-toronto/) — University, Toronto, Canada · 96 works · 142,007 citations

📚 Shelves (6): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 16,667 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 16,194 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 16,039 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 15,891 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 1,552 works · [💭 Experimental and Cognitive Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/experimental-and-cognitive-psychology/) · 870 works

🧭 Topics (1): [😉 Implicature](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/implicature/) · 138 works

## Cite

Cite as: Daniel Marcu and Graeme Hirst. 1995. An Implemented Formalism for Computing Linguistic Presuppositions and Existential Commitments. arXiv:cmp-lg/9504018.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@misc{marcu1995implemented,
  title = {{An Implemented Formalism for Computing Linguistic Presuppositions and Existential Commitments}},
  author = {Daniel Marcu and Graeme Hirst},
  year = {1995},
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9504018},
  eprint = {cmp-lg/9504018},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9504018}
}
```

- [← previous Analysis of the Arabic Broken Plural and Diminutive](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kiraz-1995-analysis-arabic-broken-plural-diminutive/)
- [next → Predicate-Argument Structure of English Adjectives](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/ikeya-1995-predicate-argument-structure-english-adjectives/)
- [↑ back to papers of 1995](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/1995/)

## References

20 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. J.D. Atlas. What are negative existence statements about? Linguistics and Philosophy, 11:373–394, 1988. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00668680)
2. G. Hirst. Existence assumptions in knowledge representation. Artificial Intelligence, 49:199–242, 1991. International Workshop on Computational Semantics [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(91)90010-h)
3. J.R. Hobbs. Ontological promiscuity. In Proceedings 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 61–69, 1985. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=J%2ER%2E+Hobbs%2E+Ontological+promiscuity%2E+In+Proceedings+23rd+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Association+for+Computational+Linguistics%2C+pages+61%E2%80%9369%2C+1985%2E)
4. L. Karttunen. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2):169–193, 1973. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=L%2E+Karttunen%2E+Presuppositions+of+compound+sentences%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry%2C+4%282%29%3A169%E2%80%93193%2C+1973%2E)
5. P. Kay. The inheritance of presuppositions. Linguistics & Philosophy, 15:333–379, 1992. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00627681)
6. C. Lejewski. Logic and existence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 5:104–119, 1954. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/v.18.104)
7. D. Marcu. [A formalism and an algorithm for computing pragmatic inferences and detecting infelicities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/marcu-1995-formalism-algorithm-computing-pragmatic-inferences/). Master’s thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto, September 1994. Also published as Technical Report CSRI–309, Computer Systems Research Institute, University of Toronto. [↗](https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9504019)
8. A. Meinong. Über gegenstandstheorie. In Meinong A., editor, Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandstheorie und Psychologie. Barth, Leipzig, 1904. reprinted in: The theory of objects, Chisholm R.M. editor, Realism and the Background of Phenomenology, pages 76–117. Free Press, Glencoe, IL, 1960. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=A%2E+Meinong%2E+U%CC%88ber+gegenstandstheorie%2E+In+Meinong+A%2E%2C+editor%2C+Untersuchungen+zur+Gegenstandstheorie+und+Psychologie%2E+Barth%2C+Leipzig%2C+1904%2E+reprinted+in%3A+The+theory+of+objects%2C+Chisholm+R%2EM%2E+editor%2C+Rea)
9. R.E. Mercer. A Default Logic Approach to the Derivation of Natural Language Presuppositions. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, 1987. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=R%2EE%2E+Mercer%2E+A+Default+Logic+Approach+to+the+Derivation+of+Natural+Language+Presuppositions%2E+PhD+thesis%2C+Department+of+Computer+Science%2C+University+of+British+Columbia%2C+1987%2E)
10. R.E. Mercer. Personal communication, 1993. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=R%2EE%2E+Mercer%2E+Personal+communication%2C+1993%2E)
11. T. Parsons. Nonexistent Objects. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1980. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=T%2E+Parsons%2E+Nonexistent+Objects%2E+Yale+University+Press%2C+New+Haven%2C+CT%2C+1980%2E)
12. W.V.O. Quine. Designation and existence. In Feigl H. and Sellars W., editors, Readings in Philosophical Analysis, pages 44– 51. Appleton-Century-Croft, New York, 1949. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=W%2EV%2EO%2E+Quine%2E+Designation+and+existence%2E+In+Feigl+H%2E+and+Sellars+W%2E%2C+editors%2C+Readings+in+Philosophical+Analysis%2C+pages+44%E2%80%93+51%2E+Appleton%2DCentury%2DCroft%2C+New+York%2C+1949%2E)
13. W.J. Rapaport. Meinongian semantics for propositional semantic networks. In Proceedings 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 43–48, 1985. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=W%2EJ%2E+Rapaport%2E+Meinongian+semantics+for+propositional+semantic+networks%2E+In+Proceedings+23rd+Annual+Meeting+of+the+Association+for+Computational+Linguistics%2C+pages+43%E2%80%9348%2C+1985%2E)
14. R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81–132, 1980. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4)
15. B. Russell. On denoting. Mind n.s., 14:479–493, 1905. reprinted in: Feigl H. and Sellars W. editors, Readings in Philosophical Analysis, pages 103–115. Appleton-Century-Croft, New York, 1949. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=B%2E+Russell%2E+On+denoting%2E+Mind+n%2Es%2E%2C+14%3A479%E2%80%93493%2C+1905%2E+reprinted+in%3A+Feigl+H%2E+and+Sellars+W%2E+editors%2C+Readings+in+Philosophical+Analysis%2C+pages+103%E2%80%93115%2E+Appleton%2DCentury%2DCroft%2C+New+York%2C+1949%2E)
16. R.A. van der Sandt. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9:333–377, 1992. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.333)
17. J.M. Siskind and D.A. McAllester. Nondeterministic Lisp as a substrate for constraint logic programming. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 133–138, 1993. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=J%2EM%2E+Siskind+and+D%2EA%2E+McAllester%2E+Nondeterministic+Lisp+as+a+substrate+for+constraint+logic+programming%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+Twelfth+National+Conference+on+Artificial+Intelligence%2C+pages+133%E2%80%93138%2C+19)
18. J.M. Siskind and D.A. McAllester. Screamer: A portable efficient implementation of nondeterministic Common Lisp. Technical Report IRCS-93-03, University of Pennsylvania, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, July 1 1993. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=J%2EM%2E+Siskind+and+D%2EA%2E+McAllester%2E+Screamer%3A+A+portable+efficient+implementation+of+nondeterministic+Common+Lisp%2E+Technical+Report+IRCS%2D93%2D03%2C+University+of+Pennsylvania%2C+Institute+for+Research+in+Cogn)
19. S. Soames. How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3):483–545, Summer 1982. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=S%2E+Soames%2E+How+presuppositions+are+inherited%3A+A+solution+to+the+projection+problem%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry%2C+13%283%29%3A483%E2%80%93545%2C+Summer+1982%2E)
20. H. Zeevat. Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics. Journal of Semantics, 9:379–412, 1992. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.4.379)

*Updated 1 November 2026*