Maximize Presupposition! (MP), as originally proposed in Heim (Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, pp. 487–535, 1991) and developed in subsequent works, offers an account of the otherwise mysterious unassertability of a variety of sentences. At the core of MP is the idea that speakers are urged to use a sentence ψ over a sentence ϕ if ψ contributes the same new information as ϕ, yet carries a stronger presupposition. While MP has been refined in many ways throughout the years, most (if not all) of its formulations have retained this characterisation of the MP-competition. Recently, however, the empirical adequacy of this characterisation has been questioned in light of certain newly discovered cases that are infelicitous, despite meeting MP-competition conditions. This has led some researchers to broaden the scope of MP, extending it to competition between sentences which are not contextually equivalent (Spector and Sudo in Linguistics and Philosophy 40(5):473–517, 2017) and whose presuppositions are not satisfied in the context (Anvari in Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 28, pp. 711–726, 2018; Manuscript, IJN-ENS, 2019). In this paper, we present a body of evidence showing that these formulations of MP are sometimes too liberal, sometimes too restrictive: they overgenerate infelicity for a variety of felicitous cases while leaving the infelicity of minimally different cases unaccounted for. We propose an alternative, implicature-based approach stemming from Magri (PhD dissertation, MIT, 2009), Meyer (PhD dissertation, MIT, 2013), and Marty (PhD dissertation, MIT, 2017), which reintroduces contextual equivalence and presupposition satisfaction in some form through the notion of relevance. This approach is shown to account for the classical and most of the novel cases. Yet some of the latter remain problematic for this approach as well. We end the paper with a systematic comparison of the different approaches to MP and MP-like phenomena, covering both the classical and the novel cases. All in all, the issue of how to properly restrict the competition for MP-like phenomena remains an important challenge for all accounts in the literature.

最大化预设！（MP）最初是在海姆（Heim）中提出的（Semantik：Ein internationales Handbuch derzeitgenössischenForschung，pp。487-535，1991），并在随后的著作中得到发展，它解释了各种句子原本神秘的无法断言的情况。在MP的核心是扬声器都敦促使用一个句子的想法ψ在判刑φ如果ψ有助于同新的信息φ，但具有更强的前提条件。多年来，尽管MP已通过许多方式进行了完善，但大多数（即使不是全部）提法也保留了MP竞争的这一特征。然而，近来，尽管满足MP竞争条件，但鉴于某些新发现的案例，尽管不符合MP竞争条件，但这种表征的经验上的适当性仍受到质疑。这导致一些研究人员扩大了MP的范围，将其扩展到上下文不相等的句子之间的竞争（Spector and Sudo in Linguistics and Philosophy 40（5）：473-517，2017），并且其前提不满足语境（《语义学和语言学理论》第28卷，第711-726页，2018年;手稿，IJN-ENS，2019年）。在本文中，我们提供的证据表明，MP的这些表述有时过于宽松，有时过于局限：对于各种喜好案件，它们会过分夸大其词，而对极少不同的案件的这种疏忽却无法解释。我们提出了一种基于隐式的替代方法，该方法源于Magri（博士学位论文，麻省理工学院，2009），Meyer（博士学位论文，麻省理工学院，2013）和Marty（博士学位论文，麻省理工学院，2017），它重新引入了语境对等和前提满足通过相关性概念的某种形式。事实证明，这种方法可以解释经典案例和大多数新颖案例。然而，后者中的一些对于这种方法仍然存在问题。在本文结尾处，系统地比较了解决MP和类似MP现象的各种方法，涵盖了经典案例和新颖案例。总而言之，如何适当地限制对类MP现象的竞争仍然是所有文献中面临的重要挑战。