Presupposition 预设

1. 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 Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

2. 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. Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

3. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

4. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

5. 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. Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

6. 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? Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

7. 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. Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

8. 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.) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

9. 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. Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

10. 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: Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

11. 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! Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

12. 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.” Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

13. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

14. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

15. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

16. 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? Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

17. “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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

18. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

19. 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.) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

20. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

21. 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. Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

22. 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. Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

23. 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.’) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

24. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

25. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

26. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

27. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

28. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

29. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

30. 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 if-clause 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

31. 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. Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

32. 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. Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

33. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

34. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

35. 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) Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011

36. 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. Essentials in Pragmatics, Fall 2011