It has been observed (Heim in Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, 487–535, 1991) that when there is competition between alternative sentences with different presuppositional strength, use of the weaker alternative triggers an inference, sometimes called an antipresupposition, to the effect that the presupposition of the stronger alternative is not satisfied. Furthermore, it has been argued that in order to account for antipresuppositions, it is necessary to postulate an independent pragmatic principle called Maximize Presupposition!, which states that the sentence with the stronger presupposition should be preferred whenever its presupposition is satisfied. In parallel, presuppositional theories of slurs (Cepollaro, PhD thesis. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01508856/document, 2017; Cepollaro and Stojanovic in Grazer Philosophische Studien 93(3): 458–488, 2016; Schlenker in Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.017, 2007) maintain that while these expressions encode the same truth-conditional content as their neutral counterparts, they trigger a presupposition that accounts for their derogatory potential. In this article, I argue that presuppositional theories of slurs together with Maximize Presupposition! predict that the use of a neutral counterpart triggers an antipresupposition to the effect that the presupposition of the corresponding slur is not satisfied. As a result, this view incorrectly predicts (i) that it is infelicitous to use the neutral counterpart in contexts where the slur’s presupposition is satisfied, and (ii) that felicitous use of the neutral counterpart in a context that is unspecific w.r.t. the pejorative presupposition typically triggers the inference that the presupposition of the corresponding slur is not satisfied.

已经观察到（Heim in Semantik：国际刑法出版社，487–535，1991年），当具有不同预设强度的替代句子之间存在竞争时，使用较弱的替代词会触发推论，有时被称为反预设无法满足较强替代方案的预设的效果。此外，有人争辩说，为了解决反预设，有必要提出一个独立的实用原则，即最大化预设！，该规则指出，只要满足前提条件，就应该优先选择具有较强前提条件的句子。与此同时，对诽谤的预设理论（Cepollaro，PhD thesis。https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01508856/document，2017; Cepollaro和Stojanovic在Grazer Philosophische Studien 93（3）：458–488，2016 ; Schlenker in Theoretical Linguistics 33（2）：237-245。https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.017，2007）坚持认为，尽管这些表达式编码的真理条件内容与中立的表达式相同，但它们会触发一个假说说明了他们的贬损潜力。在本文中，我认为诽谤的预设理论与最大化预设有关！可以预见，使用中性对应物会触发一个反对前提，即无法满足相应浆料的前提。结果，这种观点错误地预测了（i）在满足slur的预设前提下使用中性对应词是不恰当的，以及（ii）在没有贬义预设的情况下非特定地使用了中性对应词是不恰当的通常会触发这样的推论，即不满足相应浆料的预设。