Presupposition
预设
Professor Shaozhong Liu, Ph.D. (Pragmatics) / Ph.D. (Higher Education)
College of Foreign Studies, Guilin University of Electronic Technology
Homepage: www.gxnu.edu.cn/Personal/szliu
Blog: cyrusliu.blog.163.com
Email: shaozhong@hotmail.com
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
1
Objectives and SLOs
1) Objectives
• To familiarize students with the concept
• To illustrate it with examples
• To discuss its role in Pragmatics
2) Student learning outcomes (SLOs)
• Be able to define the concept
• Be able to use examples to illustrate the concept
• Be able to speak and write with presuppositions.
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
2
3 sentence types in human language
• Declaratives (declarative sentences): typically
functioning as statements; in other words, in
declaring something, we state something. E.g.:
1) You run away.
Which is structurally analyzed as:
Subject Verb(al phrase)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
3
• Imperatives (imperative sentences): typically
functioning as commands; in other words, in
utterings an imperative, we give a command
or order someone to do something. Different
from declaratives, imperatives have no subject
present, though it is “understood” as “you”.
E.g.:
2) Run away!
Which is structurally analyzed as:
(Subject implied you the hearer) Verb(al phrase)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
4
• Interrogatives (interrogative sentences): typically
functioning as questions, which fall under two
forms, general and special, with the former
answerable with “yes” or “no” and the latter
begun with “wh-” words and answerable with
specific information. E.g.:
3) Did you run away?
4) Why did you run away?
Pedagogically, general questions are more fit for
developing beginners’ L2 competence while special
questions are more productive in generating L2
competence in intermediate-advanced learners.
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
5
Distinguish sentence types
1) Abraham Lincoln is the current president of the
USA.
2) The Eiffel Tower is in Paris.
3) A car is an automobile.
4) Have a cookie.
5) Be careful of the crumbs.
6) Where was Abraham Lincoln born?
7) How much did the car cost?
8) Did you get a look at my face when I took your
purse?
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
6
Sentence types and meaning
understanding: one effort, 2 tools.
• Inference is absolute, though its effort varies in terms
of levels of sentence difficulty and who the inferer is.
• 2 tools for the inferring effort: entailing and
presupposing
• Sentences may entail various meanings, but it’s people
who read the entailments judge, interpret, and assign
the actual meaning.
• Sentences may presuppose meanings (propositions),
but it’s people who read the presuppositions judge,
interpret and assign the actual meaning.
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
7
• Entailments are limited to declaratives or
statements, whose understanding depends on
1) our semantic knowledge, and 2) our worldly
knowledge.
• If the entailments match with our above
knowledge, they are true; if not, false. Hence,
• 1) My mother is a woman. (Is semantically
true)
• 2) My mother is a doctor. (Can be true and
false, depending on what is happening in the
world.)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
8
• Sentences like “my mother is a doctor” and
“did you get a good look at my face when I
took your purse?” are syntactically different
(being of different structural types) but
semantically associate with concrete
situations or realities. Put another way, they
need to be processed with our worldly
knowledge, hence the term “truth-value” or
“truth-conditional value”, which goes like this:
if it matches with the reality, it is true;
otherwise, false.
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
9
• Necessity to introduce the presupposition tool
• “the entailments of a sentence are other
sentences which automatically true if the original
sentence is true. However, …. Only declarative
sentences can be ‘true’ or ‘false’. Does this mean
that we cannot draw some very strong inferences
from utterances based on imperative and
interrogative sentences?” (Peccei,
1999/2000,p.18)
• Regardless of sentence types, which is a
perspective of understanding, the subsequent
examples all contain inferences obvious to make:
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
10
1) Where has Faye looked for the keys?
-- Faye has looked for the keys.
2) Did you buy this awful wine?
-- This wine is awful.
3) Don’t sit on Annie’s sofa.
-- Annie has a sofa.
4) Stop being lazy.
-- You are being lazy.
5) Lucy knows that George is a crook.
-- George is a crook.
ALL THESE OBVIOUS INFERENCES ARE EASY TO MAKE,
BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL PRESUPPOSES THE LATTER!
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
11
Presupposition
• “Since not all utterances consist of full declarative
sentences, presupposition can be a useful
concept when analyzing speaker meaning.”
(Peccei, 1999/2000, p.19)
• Broad and speaker-oriented definition:
Presupposition is “anything the speaker assumes
to be true before making the utterance.” (Peccei,
1999/2000, p.19)
• Narrow and sentence-oriented definition:
Presupposition is “a necessary precondition for
the sentence to be true.”
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
12
• In many discussions of the concept,
presupposition is treated as a relationship
between two propositions. If we say that the
sentence in a contains the proposition p and
the sentence in b contains the proposition q,
then, using symbol .. To mean ‘presupposes’,
we can represent the relationship as in c:
• a. Mary’s dog is cute. (= p)
• b. Mary has a dog. (=q)
• c. p >> q
• (Yule, 1996/2000, p.26)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
13
• Interestingly, when we produce the opposite of the
sentence by negating it (=NOT p), we find that the
relationship of presupposition doesn’t change. That is,
the same proposition q continues to be presupposed
by NOT p, as shown below:
• a. Mary’s dog isn’t cute. (= NOT p
• b. Mary has a dog. (= q)
• NOT p >> q
• This property of presupposition is generally described
as constancy under negation. Basically, it means that
the presupposition of a statement will remain constant
(i.e. still true) even when that statement is negated.
(Yule, 1996/2000, p.26)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
14
• Peccei’s definition: Presupposition is an
“inference about what is assumed to be true in
the utterance rather directly asserted to be true.”
(Peccei, 1999/2000, p.19)
• Liu’s definition: “Presupposition: logical meaning
of a sentence or meanings logically associated
with or entailed by a sentence.” (Liu, 2000; 2011)
• Hence:
• “Annie has a sofa” directly asserts “Annie has a
sofa.”
• “Don’t sit on Annie’s sofa” presupposes “Annie
has a sofa.” (Peccei, 1999/2000, p.19)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
15
Presupposition triggers
• Presupposition triggers: words and structures
that seem to suggest an assumed meaning or
linking relationship. E.g.:
• Mike might find the chocolate cake in the kitchen.
/ Mike might find a chocolate cake in the kitchen.
• Is Mike giving Annie that chocolate cake? / Is
Mike giving Annie a chocolate cake?
• Did Mike hide a chocolate cake? / Did Mike hide
Annie’s chocolate cake?
• What differences are there between the 3 pairs
of sentences?
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
16
• “What we notice is that in each of those
utterances the noun cake is part of a larger noun
phrase. The words the, that, this, these, those,
and possessives like Annie’s, my, your, etc. make it
a definite noun phrase and trigger this very basic
kind of presupposition.” (Peccei, 1999/2000,
p.20)
• “Notice that possessives lead to a particularly
strong presupposition about the existence of the
chocolate cake, and in addition lead to the
presupposition that ‘Annie has a chocolate cake.’
This basic type of presupposition is sometimes
called an existential presupposition.” (Peccei,
1999/2000, p.20)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
17
• Verbal triggers: regret, pretend, stop
1) Steve regrets buying a dog - Steve bought a
dog.
2) Meridyth pretends she’s a rock star. -Meridyth
is not a rock star.
3) Ed should stop eating raw oysters. - Ed eats
raw oysters.
• The use of regret in (1) triggers the
presupposition that what follows is ‘fact’. (Others
verbs that can behave like this are know, realize,
discover, find out, etc. As well as constructions
like I’m aware that … and it’s strange that …)
(p.22)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
18
• The use of pretend in (2) triggers the
presupposition that what follows is ‘fiction’.
(Other verbs that can behave like this are imagine
and dream and constructions like If I were … as in
If I were the Prime Minister, I’d ban
presuppositions.) (p.22)
• The use of stop in (3) triggers the presupposition
that the action was going on before. (Other verbs
that can behave like this are continue and keep.
On the other hand, start and begin can
presuppose that the action was not going one
before.)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
19
Presupposition use in real life
• “You’ll want DomeBeGone, my revolutionary
cure for baldness.”
• “My revolutionary cure” lurk several dubious
propositions which are simply assumed to be
true:
• ‘There is a cure for baldness.’
• ‘The cure is revolutionary.’
• I have this cure.’ (Peccei, 1999/2000, p.21)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
20
• Presupposition is widely and most effectively present
in persuasive language, such as courtroom and
advertising.
• Advertisers are not allowed to directly assert claims
about their products or their competitors; for which
they have no evidence. However they can generally get
away with making indirect assertions via
presupposition. More examples in Ex.3.8 and 3.10.
• In the courtroom, where the stakes are much higher
than in advertising, lawyers examining witnesses are
often not allowed to make an indirect assertion via
presupposition, unless it has been established by
previous evidence. (Peccei, 1999/2000, p.21) More
examples in Ex. 3.7 and 3.9.
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
21
• Wh-words like when, why, how, etc. can
trigger supposition both when they are used
to ask a question and when they introduce a
subordinate clause. E.g.:
• 1) When did Mike smash the television?
• 2) Why did Mike smash the television?
• 3) I was eating popcorn when Mike smashed
the television.
• 4) I don’t understand why Mike smashed the
television.
• 5) I wonder how Mike smashed the television.
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
22
Types of presupposition
• Potential presuppositions: refer to a large
number of words, phrases, and structures that
speakers use to assume things and that can
only become actual presuppositions in
contexts with speakers. (Yule, 1996/2000,
p.27) (though Peccei (1999/2000, 22) asserts
that ‘presuppositions can be drawn even when
there is little or no surrounding context.’)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
23
• Existential presuppositions: Refer to the use of
possessives that are associated with a
presupposition of existence. By using any of
the expressions as in below, the speaker is
assumed to be committed to the existence of
the existence of the entities named:
• The King of Sweden, the cat, the girl next door,
the Counting Crows
• Yule (1996/2000, p.27)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
24
• Factive presuppositions: Refers to presupposed
information following a verb like ‘know’ (realize, regret,
be aware, odd, glad) suggesting a fact. E.g.:
• a. Everybody knows that John is gay. (=p)
• b. Everybody doesn’t know that John is gay. (=NOT p)
• c. John is gay. ( = q)
• d. p >> Q & NOT p >> q
• e. She didn’t realize he was ill. (>>He was ill)
• f. We regret telling him. (>> We told him)
• g. I wasn’t aware that she was married. (>> She was
married)
• h. It isn’t odd that he left early. (>> He left early)
• i. I’m glad that it’s over. (>> It’s over)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
25
• Lexical presuppositions: Refer to the use of one form with
its asserted meaning conventionally interpreted with the
presupposition that another (non-asserted) meaning is
understood. E.g.:
• Each time you say that someone ‘managed’ to do
something, the asserted meaning is that the person
succeeded in some way. When you say that someone
‘didn’t manage’, the asserted meaning is that the person
did not succeed. In both cases, however, there is a
presupposition (non-asserted) that the person ‘tried’ to do
that something. So, ‘managed’ is conventionally interpreted
as asserting ‘succeeded’ and presupposing ‘tried’. (Yule,
1996/2000, p.28)
• a. He stopped smoking. (>> He used to smoke)
• b. They started complaining. (>>They weren’t complaining
before)
• c. You’re late again. (>> You were late before)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
26
• In the case of lexical presupposition, the
speaker’s use of a particular expression is
taken to presuppose another (unstated)
concept, whereas in the case of a factive
presupposition, the use of a particular
expression is taken to presuppose the truth of
the information that is after it. (Yule,
1996/2000, p.28)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
27
• Structural presuppositions: Refer to the case that
certain sentences structures have been analyzed
as conventionally and regularly presupposing that
part of the structure is already assumed to be
true. … For example, the wh-question
construction in English is conventionally
interpreted with the presupposition that the
information after the wh-form is already known
to be the case. (Yule, 1996/200o, pp.28-29)
• a. When did he leave? (>> He left)
• b. Where did you buy the bike? (>> You bought
the bike)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
28
• Non-factive presuppositions: Refer to
presuppositions introduced by verbs like
‘dream’, ‘imagine’, and ‘pretend’, etc. that are
assumed not to be true. E.g.:
• a. I dreamed that I was rich. (>> I was not rich)
• b. We imagined we were in Hawaii. (>> We
were not in Hawaii)
• c. He pretends to be ill. (>> He is not ill)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
29
• Counter-factual presuppositions: Refer to
structures whose presuppositions are not only
true, but are opposite of what is true, or
‘contrary to facts’.
• A conditional structure of the type below,
generally called a counterfactual conditional,
presupposes that the information in the ifclause is not true at the time of utterance.
E.g.:
• If you were my friend, you would have helped
me. (>>You are not my friend)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
30
Presupposition as pragmatic strategy and
presuppositional competence development
• Peccei, p.23
• Ex. 3.7 In each case assume that the judge has sustained an
objection to the question. What presupposition(s) might
have been objected to?
• Ex. 3.9 Try your hand at being a tricky lawyer. Write some
questions that attempt to sneak in the following ‘facts’ via
presupposition. Here’s a sample question for ‘The
defendant drove his car into a shop window’: Did you brake
before you drove your car into the shop window? Notice
how if the defendant ‘just answers the question’, either Yes
or No, he accepts the truth of the presupposition and
admits that he drove his car into the shop window.
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
31
• Ex. 3.8 In each of the following advertisement
extracts, what claim or claims are being made by
presupposition rather than directly asserted?
(The names have been changed to protect the
innocent.)
• Ex. 3.10 Try your hand at being a tricky advertiser.
Below are completely unsubstantiated claims
about various products. For each one, write a line
of advertisement that slips in the claims via
presupposition. For the purposes of this exercise
use full sentences. Your sentences can be
declaratives, interrogatives or imperatives. In
fact, you will find interrogatives and imperatives
particularly useful in some cases.
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
32
Summary
• “Presuppositions are inferences that are very
closely linked to the words and grammatical
structures actually used in the utterance, but
they come from our knowledge about the way
language users conventionally interpret these
words and structures. “ (Peccei, 1999/2000,
p.19)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
33
• Presuppositions are inferences about what is
assumed in an utterance rather than directly
asserted.
• Presuppositions are closely related to the
words and grammatical structures that are
actually used in the utterance and our
knowledge about the way language users
conventionally interpret them.
• Presuppositions can be drawn even when
there is little or no surrounding context.
(Peccei, 1999/2000. p. 22)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
34
• Entailment vs. presupposition:
• “An entailment is something that logically
follows from what is asserted in the sentence.
Sentences, not speakers, have entailments.”
(Yule, 1996/2000, p.25)
• “A presupposition is something the speaker
assumes to be the case prior to making an
utterance. Speakers, not sentences, have
presuppositions.” (Yule, 1996/2000, p.25)
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
35
Further readings
• Leech, G. (1981). Semantics. (Chapter 14).
Penguin: Harmondsworth.
• Simpson, P. (1993). Language, Ideology and
Point of View. (Chapter 5). London: Routledge.
• Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. (pp.99-100)
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10/5/2011
Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011
36