Presupposition and Entailment

Presupposition and entailment
BASIC CONCEPTS
Presupposition and entailment describe two different aspects of information that need not be stated as speakers assume it is already known by listeners
[these concepts used to be much more central to pragmatics than they are now, but they are still important to understand the relationship between pragmatics and semantics]
presupposition:
something the speaker assumes to be the case before making an utterance Speakers, not sentences, have presuppositions
!! not the same meaning as in ordinary usage (John wrote Harry a letter, presupposing he could read)!!
entailment:
something that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance Sentences, not speakers, have entailments
Example analysis: Mary's brother bought three horses.

presuppositions: Mary exists, Mary has a brother, Mary has only one brother, Mary's brother is rich speaker's subjective presuppositions, all can be wrong entailments: Mary's brother bought something, bought three animals, two horses, one horse etc. entailments follow from the sentence regardless of whether the speaker's beliefs are right or wrong [Because of its logical nature, entailment is not generally discussed as much in contemporary pragmatics as the more speaker-dependent notion of presupposition]
Hauptseminar Introduction to Pragmatics
http://ifla.uni-stuttgart.de/~jilka/index.html

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND I
Concern with this topic originates with debates in philosophy, specifically debates about the nature or reference and referring expressions Frege (1892): If anything is asserted there is always an obvious presupposition (Voraussetzung in the original) that the simple or compound proper names used have a reference. If one therefore asserts Kepler died in misery, there is a presupposition that the name Kepler designates something (Kepler designates something is not part of the meaning of Kepler died in misery) (i) referring phrases carry presuppositions to the effect that they do indeed refer (ii) a sentence and its negative counterpart share the same set of presuppositions (iii) in order for assertion to be either true or false, its presuppositions must be true or satisfied
Hauptseminar
Introduction to Pragmatics

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND II
Russell (1905): Sentences that lack proper referents are meaningful (vs. (iiii) in Frege) The King of France is wise The sentence is meaningful because it is simply false The King of France is not wise can be taken in two ways: a. there is a King of France and he is not wise (narrow scope of negation)
b. there is no King of France and he is not wise (wide scope of negation) (The King of France is not wise because there is no such person)
Hauptseminar

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND III
Strawson (1950): Sentences must distinguished from uses of sentences. Russells conflation of the distinction led him to think that because The King of France is wise is meaningful, it must be either true are false. Sentences arent true or false, only statements are The statement of The King of France is wise may have been true in 1670 and false in 1770, but in 1970 it cannot sensibly be said to be either true or false, due to the non-existence of a King of France the question of its truth or falsity does not even arise. there is a precondition for The King of France is wise to be true or false and that is There is a present King of France. This is a presupposition
Hauptseminar

PRESUPPOSITION
Presupposition is treated as a relationship between two propositions
Mary's dog is cute Mary has a dog p >> q (= proposition p) (= proposition q) (p presupposes q)
Negation does not change the relationship of presupposition

Mary's dog isn't cute Mary has a dog NOT p >> q (= NOT p) (= q) (NOT p presupposes q)
constancy under negation = the presupposition of statement remains constant (i.e., true) even when that statement is negated
Everybody knows that John is gay Everybody doesn't know that John is gay John is gay p >> q & NOT p >> q (= p) (= NOT p) (= q)
speakers disagree about validity of p, but not of q


TYPES OF PRESUPPOSITION I
Linguistic forms (words, phrases, structures) are indicators (or triggers) of potential presuppositions which can only become actual presuppositions in contexts with speakers. A. Existential Presupposition speaker is committed to the existence of the entities named
the King of Sweden the cat the girl next door the Counting Crows your car
any definite noun phrase
B. Factive Presupposition certain verbs/construction indicate that something is a fact

Everybody KNOWS that John is gay She didn't REALIZE he was ill We REGRET telling him I WASN'T AWARE that she was married It ISN'T ODD that he left early I'M GLAD that it's over (>> John is gay) (>> He was ill) (>> We told him) (>> She was married) (>> He left early) (>> It's over)
Hauptseminar

TYPES OF PRESUPPOSITION II
C. Lexical Presupposition
The use of a form with its asserted meaning is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that another, non-asserted, meaning is understood He MANAGED to repair the clock He didn't MANAGE to repair the clock He STOPPED smoking They STARTED complained You're late AGAIN (>> he tried to repair the clock) Asserted meaning: he suceeded (>> he tried to repair the clock) Asserted meaning: he failed (>> he used to smoke) (>> they weren't complaining before) (>> You were late before)
D. Structural Presupposition
certain sentence structures conventionally and regularly presuppose that part of the structure is already assumed to be true Wh-questions: When did he leave? (>> he left) Where did you buy the bike? (>> You bought the bike) This type of presupposition can lead listeners to believe that the information presented is necessarily true, rather than just the presupposition of the person asking the question How fast was the car going when it ran the red light? (>> the car ran the red light) If the question is answered with some estimate of the speed the speaker would appear to be accepting the truth of the presupposition (very popular with lawyers)

TYPES OF PRESUPPOSITION III
E Non-factive Presupposition certain verbs/constructions indicate that something is not a fact / not true
I DREAMED that I was rich We IMAGINED we were in Hawaii He PRETENDS to be ill (>> I was not rich) (>> We were not in Hawaii) (>> He is not ill)
F. Counterfactual Presupposition structures mean that what is presupposed is not only not true, but is the opposite of what is true, i.e. contrary to facts
If you were my friend, you would have helped me (>> You are not my friend)
SUMMARY
Type existential factive non-factive lexical structural counterfactual
Hauptseminar
Example the X I regret leaving He pretended to be happy He managed to escape When did she die? If I weren't ill
Presupposition >> X exists >> I left >> He wasn't happy >> He tried to escape >> She died >> I am ill

TYPES OF PRESUPPOSITION III
Identify the respective presuppositions and classify them according to type
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 John didnt realize that he was in debt >> John was in debt factive Before Strawson was even born, Frege noticed presuppositions >> Strawson was born structural If Hannibal had only had twelve more elephants, the Romance languages wouldnt exist now >> Hannibal didnt have 12 more elephants counterfactual John didnt see the man with two heads >> there exists a man with two heads existential Carter returned to power >> Carter was in power before lexical It wasnt Henry that kissed Rosie >> someone kissed Rosie structural Fred hallucinated that he had won a billion Dollars >> Fred didnt win a billion Dollars non-factive Agatha accused Ian of plagiarism >> Agatha thinks plagiarism is bad lexical

THE PROJECTION PROBLEM I
There is a basic expectation that the presupposition of a simple sentence will continue to be true when that simple sentence becomes part of a more complex sentence Projection Problem: the meaning of some presuppositions (as 'parts') doesn't survive to become the meaning of some complex sentences (as 'wholes') EXAMPLE ANALYSIS 1:
I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill a. Nobody realized that Kelly was ill b. Kelly was ill c. p >> q => Speaker uttering a. presupposed b. (= p) (= q)
d. I imagined that Kelly was ill (= r) e. Kelly was not ill (= NOT q) f. r >> NOT q => speaker uttering d. presupposed e. (which is the opposite of b.) g. I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill h. r & p >> NOT q => q can no longer be assumed to be true (= r & p)
Hauptseminar

THE PROJECTION PROBLEM II
EXAMPLE ANALYSIS 2 Dialog in a TV soap opera:
Shirley: It's so sad. George regrets getting Mary pregnant. Jean: But he didn't get her pregnant. We know that now. 'George regrets getting Mary pregnant; but he didn't get her pregnant a. George regrets getting Mary pregnant b. George got Mary pregnant c. p >> q d. He didn't get her pregnant e. George regrets getting Mary pregnant; but he didn't get her pregnant f. p & r >> NOT q (= p) (= q) (= r) (= p & r)
The presupposition does not project because it is overruled by an entailment: 'He didn't get her pregnant' entails 'George didn't get Mary pregnant' as a logical consequence. Therefore 'George regrets getting Mary pregnant; but he didn't get her pregnant' includes the presupposition q in the first half and the entailment NOT q in the second half the entailment is more powerful
Hauptseminar

THE PROJECTION PROBLEM III
Entailments can also cancel existential presuppositions
a. The King of England visited us b. The King of England does not exist
the speaker uttering b. does not simultaneously believe that there is a King of England (presupposition) and that there is no King of England (entailment) Presuppositions should be thought of as potentials (they are defeasible), they only become actual presuppositions when intended by the speaker to be recognized as such
At least John wont have to regret that he did a PhD
Despite the use of regret only the context/knowledge can decide whether John did a PhD or not. Speakers can indicate that a potential presupposition is not presented as a strong assumption
What's that guy doing in the parking lot? He's looking for his car or something.
Hauptseminar

ORDERED ENTAILMENTS
Generally speaking, entailment is not a pragmatic (i.e. having to do with speaker meaning), but a purely logical concept.
Rover chased three squirrels a. Something chased three squirrels b. Rover did something to three squirrels c. Rover chased three of something d. Something happened (= p) (= q) (= r) (= s) (= t)
Relationsship of entailment between p and q: p ||- q a.-d. are examples of background entailments (there are more) the speaker can communicate - usually by means of stress the order of importance of the entailments
Rover chased THREE squirrels ROVER chased three squirrels
foreground entailment Cleft-constructions can fulfil the same purpose

It was ROVER that chased the squirrels

Presupposition and Entailment

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Presupposition and Entailment

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Presupposition and entailment

Example analysis: Mary's brother bought three horses.