DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

COURSE :DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

COURSE CODE: ENG 333

PRESENTATION TOPIC: PRESUPPOSITION

GROUP MEMBERS

Group 1

2021024001 Okonkwo Fortune Tochukwu

2021024002 Izuehie Rita Chioma

2021024003 Okafor Anita Somtochukwu

2021024004 Ukeje Doreen Ngozi

2021024005 Amaghiro Blessing Chiamaka

2021024006 Benson Loveleen Ketandu

2021024007 Eboh Favour Ifechukwu

2021024008 Okeoma Chinaza Victory

2021024009 Asinobi Wonder Chisom

2021024010 Nwogbo Victoria Onyedikachi

2021024011 Onyia Jessica Chimaobi

2021024012 Areh Chukwudumebi Prisca

2021024013 Enwere Miracle Obianuju

2019024029 Mbaebie Chimdinma Christiana

*OUTLINE*

1. Abstract
2. Introduction

3. Presupposition

4. Brief Background on Presupposition

5. Levels of Presupposition

6. Presupposition in Truth conditional Semantics

7.Negation of a sentence containing a Presupposition

8.Presupposition Triggers

9.Identifying Presupposition through Presupposition Triggers

10.Conclusion

11. Reference

ABSTRACT

Presupposition is a linguistic phenomenon that deals with implicit assumptions or beliefs embedded in
statements. It is a concept studied within the field of pragmatics, which focuses on how language is used
in context to convey meaning beyond the literal interpretation of words.The study of presupposition has
practical applications in various fields such as linguistics, discourse analysis, natural language processing,
and communication studies. Understanding presuppositions helps in analyzing and interpreting
meaning, resolving ambiguities, and comprehending the intended implications behind statements.

INTRODUCTION

We discuss presupposition, the phenomenon whereby speakers mark linguistically information as being
taken for granted, rather than being part of the main propositional content of a speech act. Expressions
and constructions carrying presuppositions are called “presupposition triggers”, forming a large class
including definites and factive verbs.

Speakers take a lot for granted. That is, they presuppose information. As we wrote this, we presupposed
that readers would understand English. We also presupposed as we wrote the last sentence, repeated in
(1), that there was a time when we wrote it, for otherwise the fronted phrase “as we wrote this” would
not have identified a time interval.

(1)

As we wrote this, we presupposed that readers would understand English.

Further, we presupposed that the sentence was jointly authored, for otherwise “we” would not have
referred. And we presupposed that readers would be able to identify the reference of “this”, i.e., the
article itself. And we presupposed that there would be at least two readers, for otherwise the bare
plural “readers” would have been inappropriate. And so on.

Note that some of these presuppositions arise by default from specific words that we used. The
existence of a time when we wrote the article is a requirement associated with our use of “as”. It is a
requirement built into the meaning of the temporal preposition “as”, which has a similar meaning to
temporal "while", that in a phrase “as X”, the “X” has to hold at some time. We say that “as” is a
presupposition trigger. Similarly, “this” is a presupposition trigger requiring something salient to refer
to, the bare plural is a presupposition trigger requiring existence of multiple individuals, and “would” is a
presupposition trigger requiring a salient future or hypothetical circumstance.

In contrast, some of the presuppositions above have nothing to do with the meanings of any of those
words. For example, we can say that the presupposition that the addressee speaks English, like the
presupposition that the addressee is interested in what the speaker (or writer) has to say, is a
conversational presupposition or, following Stalnaker (1972; 1974), speaker presupposition or pragmatic
presupposition. The presuppositions associated with specific triggers are said to be conventional or
semantic. The terminological distinction between semantic and pragmatic presupposition is of
theoretical import: as we will see later, some theorists regard it as an open question whether there are
any purely conventional presuppositions. A halfway house, suggested for example by Karttunen (1973)
and Soames (1982), is to define a notion of utterance presupposition, thus involving a specific form that
is uttered, but allowing that what is actually presupposed may depend also on the attitudes of the
speaker who utters it.

It is important to note that to call presuppositional expressions “conventional” or “semantic” is not

necessarily to imply that the presuppositions they trigger don’t depend on the context in any way. For
example, although “this” may be viewed as a conventional presupposition trigger, the interpretation
very much depends on the context, and the presupposition, although typically regarded as conventional,
is normally seen precisely as a constraint on the utterance context.

What makes presuppositions special? That is, to the extent that presuppositions are just a part of the
conventional meaning of some expressions, what makes them sufficiently distinctive that they merit
their own entries in handbooks and encyclopedias, as well as many hundreds of other articles and book
chapters elsewhere? First, presuppositions are ubiquitous. And second, there are various respects in
which the behavior of presuppositions differs sharply from other aspects of meaning.
Brief Background on presupposition.

presupposition, the phenomenon whereby speakers mark linguistically information as being taken for
granted, rather than being part of the main propositional content of a speech act. Expressions and
constructions carrying presuppositions are called “presupposition triggers”, forming a large class
including definites and factive verbs. The article first introduces a sample of triggers, the basic properties
of presuppositions such as projection and cancellability, and the diagnostic tests used to identify them.
The reader is then introduced to major models of presupposition from the last 50 years, separated into
three classes: Frege-Strawson derived semantic models, pragmatic models such as that offered by
Stalnaker, and dynamic models. Finally we discuss some of the main current issues in presupposition
theory. These involve accommodation, which occurs when a hearer’s knowledge state is adjusted to
meet the speaker’s presuppositions; presupposition failure, which occurs when a presupposition is
(known to be) false; the interaction between presuppositions and attitudes; and variability in the
behavior of triggers and their presuppositions. These assumptions are crucial for understanding the
intended meaning of a statement. They can be linguistic, cultural, or situational, shaping how
information is interpreted. Identifying presuppositions is essential for effective communication and
avoiding misunderstandings.

In the realm of philosophy, the origins of presupposition can be traced to the works of Ludwig
Wittgenstein, a towering figure in 20th-century philosophy. Wittgenstein's exploration of language in his
seminal work "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" laid the groundwork for understanding how linguistic
expressions carry inherent assumptions. His concept of language as a system of representation
emphasized that words gain meaning through their relation to states of affairs, inherently carrying
presuppositions about the world.

Building on Wittgenstein's ideas, J.L. Austin, a philosopher known for his contributions to the
philosophy of language, introduced the concept of speech acts. Austin highlighted that utterances not
only convey information but also perform actions. In this context, presuppositions play a crucial role in
shaping the background knowledge necessary for interpreting speech acts accurately.

The linguistic aspect of presupposition gained prominence with the works of Hans Kamp and J.H. P.
van der Sandt in the 1970s. Their focus on the pragmatic aspects of language use, particularly in
discourse, led to the development of formal theories to analyze presupposition. These theories aimed to
unravel the intricate interplay between explicit statements and the implicit assumptions that accompany
them.

In conclusion, the background of presupposition is intricately woven into the fabric of philosophy and
linguistics. From Wittgenstein's philosophical foundations to the pragmatic insights of Grice and the
formal theories of linguists like Kamp and van der Sandt, presupposition has evolved as a crucial element
in understanding the complexities of language and communication. It continues to be a vibrant area of
research, bridging the gap between philosophy and linguistics, as scholars explore the nuanced ways in
which presuppositions shape our understanding of language and discourse.

LEVELS OF PRESUPPOSITION

*Lexical Presupposition:

Lexical presupposition involves specific words that inherently carry extra information. When someone
says, " resume eating the cake," the word "resume" presupposes that someone was eating the cake
before, implying a pause or interruption.

Examples:

a. " Avoid mentioning his name"

( Presupposes the possibility of mentioning his name).

b. " Continue reading the book"

( Presupposes there was a prior reading).

* STRUCTURAL PRESUPPOSITION:

Structural presupposition is about how a sentence structure implies certain background details. In the
sentence " they fixed the car that broke down," the structure presupposes that the car experienced a
breakdown, providing context to the fixing action.

Examples:

a. " She returned the dress that didn't fit"

( Presupposes the dress didn't fit previously).

b. "He visited the city where he grew up"

(Presupposes he grew up in a specific city).

* SPEAKER PRESUPPOSITION:
Speaker presupposition relates to assumptions a speaker makes about shared knowledge with the
listener. For instance, when someone says, " I'll return your book tomorrow," it presupposes that the
speaker currently possesses the listener's book, assuming a shared understanding of this possession.

Examples:

a." I'll get you another coffee".

( Presupposes the speaker knows the person likes coffee)

b. "You don't need to remind me about the meeting".

* DISCOURSE PRESUPPOSITION:

Discourse presupposition involves expectations set within a conversation. It extends beyond individual
sentences, relying on the context of the ongoing conversations. Imagine someone saying, " as we
discussed, the project is due next week". Here, the presupposition lies or is rooted in the previous/ prior
discussion about the project deadline, showcasing the importance of conversational history.

Examples:

a. " As you know, the test results are out".

(Presupposes shared knowledge about the test results).

b. " Building on what we learned last week, let's discuss advanced concepts".

* EVENTIVE PRESUPPOSITION:

This level of presupposition focuses on assumptions about events or actions. When you hear, "she
painted the room again," it presupposes that there was a previous instance of her painting the room,
indicating a recurring action.

Examples:

a. " She started jogging again".

( Presupposes she jogged before).

b. " They celebrated their anniversary once more".

( Presupposes prior anniversary celebrations).

PRESUPPOSITION IN TRUTH CONDITIONAL SEMANTICS

In truth-conditional semantics, presuppositions are inherent assumptions within a sentence that must
be true for the sentence to be meaningful or evaluated for truth. These assumptions are not explicitly
stated within the sentence but are instead background information taken for granted by both the
speaker and the listener. Presuppositions remain constant regardless of changes in sentence structure,
such as negation or question formation.

For example, consider the sentence:

"The president of the United States visited France."

This sentence presupposes that there is a president of the United States. Whether the sentence is true
or false depends on whether this presupposition is satisfied. Even if the sentence is negated ("The
president of the United States did not visit France") or turned into a question ("Did the president of the
United States visit France?"), the presupposition remains the same.Presuppositions play a crucial role in
understanding the full meaning of a sentence and are often analyzed alongside other aspects of truth-
conditional semantics, such as assertions (the main content of the sentence) and entailments (additional
information implied by the sentence).

Another example, consider the sentence:

"The king of France is bald."

The presupposition here is that there exists a king of France. Even though there is no current king of
France, the sentence still carries this presupposition, and its truth value cannot be determined unless
this presupposition is satisfied.In truth-conditional semantics, presuppositions are often analyzed
alongside assertions and entailments to provide a comprehensive understanding of the meaning of a
sentence.

NEGATION OF A SENTENCE CONTAINING A PRESUPPOSITION

The negation of a sentence with presupposition involves addressing the presupposed information in a
way that challenges or contradicts it. It aims to negate the implied or assumed content while
maintaining grammatical structure.

Example sentence with presupposition: "John stopped smoking."

Negation addressing presupposition: "John didn't continue smoking."

Example sentence with presupposition: "She returned to her favorite bookstore."

Negation addressing presupposition: "She didn't leave her favorite bookstore."

Original sentence with presupposition: "Alex already knew about the party."

Negation addressing presupposition: "Alex didn't have prior knowledge of the party."

Example sentence with presupposition: "Tom fixed his car again."

Negation addressing presupposition: "Tom didn't leave his car unfixed."

PRESUPPOSITION TRIGGERS

Presupposition triggers are linguistic elements that signal certain assumptions or presuppositions within
a sentence. These triggers help convey information about what the speaker assumes to be true or what
the speaker expects the listener to already know or accept as true. Here's an extensive overview of
presupposition triggers:

1. **Definite Descriptions**: Phrases like "the," "this," or "that" often presuppose the existence of the
referred entity. For example, in the sentence "The president of the United States gave a speech," the
use of "the president" presupposes that there is indeed a president of the United States.

2. **Demonstratives**: Words like "this," "that," "these," and "those" presuppose the existence of the
objects they refer to. For instance, "This is delicious" presupposes the existence of something to be
delicious.

3. **Tense and Aspect**: Verb tenses and aspects can also serve as presupposition triggers. For
example, in the sentence "John has finished his homework," the use of the present perfect tense
presupposes that John has homework.

4. **Proper Names**: Proper names presuppose the existence of the entities they refer to. For instance,
in the sentence "Mary went to the store," the use of "Mary" presupposes that there is indeed someone
named Mary.

5. **Cleft Sentences**: Cleft constructions, such as "It was X that Y" or "What X did was Y," often
presuppose the existence of X. For example, in the sentence "It was John who ate all the cookies," the
use of the cleft construction presupposes that someone ate all the cookies.
6. **Comparative Constructions**: Comparative adjectives and adverbs can also act as presupposition
triggers. For instance, in the sentence "John is taller than Mary," the use of "taller" presupposes that
both John and Mary exist.

7. **Change of State Verbs**: Verbs like "start," "stop," "continue," and "finish" presuppose the
existence of the state or action they describe. For example, in the sentence "John stopped smoking," the
use of "stopped" presupposes that John was smoking before.

8. **Factive Verbs**: Factive verbs, such as "know," "realize," and "regret," presuppose the truth of
their complement clauses. For instance, in the sentence "John regrets eating all the cake," the use of
"regrets" presupposes that John ate all the cake.

9. **Implicatives**: Implicative verbs or adjectives imply certain presuppositions. For example, in the
sentence "John managed to finish his work," the use of "managed" implies that finishing the work was
difficult or challenging.

10. **Presupposition Accommodation**: Sometimes, presuppositions can be accommodated or

adjusted to fit the context. This can happen through strategies like presupposition cancellation or
presupposition suspension.

Understanding presupposition triggers is crucial for effective communication and interpretation of

language, as they provide important contextual information that influences the meaning of sentences.

IDENTIFYING PRESUPPOSITION THROUGH PRESUPPOSITION TRIGGERS

The basic ways of identifying a presupposition through presupposition triggers are as follows;

1. Semantic Triggers: Semantic triggers are words or phrases that also indicate the presence of a
presupposition, but they are not necessarily prepositions. They are often nouns or adjectives that have a
specific meaning that suggests that some information is being taken for granted. For example, the word
"already" is a senantic trigger that implies that something has already happened. Similarly, the word
"unfortunately" implies that something bad has happened. These words do not explicitly state that
something has happened, but they suggest it and therefore act as triggers for a presupposition. Another
good example can be found in the sentence "John is flying to New York today". Note that the word
"today" implies that there is some other day that is not today. This is the presupposition - that there are
other days besides today. The information that there are other days is not explicitly stated, but it is
implied by the word "today." Therefore, the sentence "John is flying to New York today" contains a
presupposition about other days. By identifying the lexical trigger "today," we can identify the
presupposition. Semantic triggers can also be called lexical triggers.

2. Structural Triggers: A structural trigger is a grammatical structure that indicates a presupposition. It

also helps to indicate the focus of the sentence,what is assumed and to indicate new information.
Structural triggers can be very helpful in identifying presuppositions because they often indicate which
part of the sentence is the focus of the sentence. This can help to clarify which part of the sentence is
being assumed, or presupposed. In the sentence, "I went to the zoo.", "I" is the focus of the
sentence.Therefore, the sentence contains the presupposition that the speaker went to the zoo. This
information is not explicitly stated, but it is implied by the structure of the sentence.

3) Pragmatic triggers: Pragmatic triggers are based on the context of the conversation. They take into
account the background knowledge and assumptions of the participants in the conversation. For
example, the sentence "It's cold outside" contains a pragmatic trigger because it assumes that the
speaker and the listener both know what "cold" means. This understanding is based on the shared
knowledge and assumptions of the participants. Therefore, it is not explicitly stated, but it is assumed
based on the context of the conversation. Other examples of pragmatic triggers include words like
"yesterday" and "tomorrow." These words assume that the speaker and the listener share a common
understanding of time.Just like structural triggers, pragmatic triggers help to identify presuppositions by
showing what is already known or assumed. However, instead of using grammatical structures,
pragmatic triggers use the context of the conversation. This can include things like shared knowledge,
cultural norms, and common sense. For example, the sentence "I got a new car" has the pragmatic
trigger "new." This implies that the speaker and the listener both understand what "new" means and
that it is assumed that the car is different from the one the speaker had before. This understanding
comes from shared knowledge and common sense, rather than the grammar of the sentence.

4. Common ground: In linguistics, common ground refers to the shared knowledge and assumptions that
are held by the participants in a conversation. This can include things like the same language, the same
culture, and the same experiences. For example, if two people are both from the United States, they
may have a common understanding of American culture and history. This shared understanding forms
the foundation for their conversation. Without common ground, it would be very difficult to
communicate. This is because the participants would not have any shared assumptions to rely on. The
more common ground that two people have, the easier it will be to understand each other.Common
ground helps to identify presuppositions by providing a framework for understanding what is being
assumed. For example, if two people are talking about politics, they may have a common understanding
of certain political terms and concepts. This common understanding forms the basis for their
conversation. If one person makes a statement like "The president should be impeached," the other
person can use their common ground to understand that the speaker is assuming that the president has
done something wrong. Without this common ground, it would be difficult to understand the speaker's
intended meaning.
5) Inference: An inference is a conclusion that is drawn from the information that is available. When we
identify a presupposition, we are making an inference about what is being assumed. For example, if
someone says "I'm going to the store," we can infer that they are assuming that they are able to go to
the store. This inference is based on our understanding of the particular store refered to and our
knowledge of the world. Without this inference, we would not be able to identify the presupposition.
The process of making an inference can help us to identify a presupposition in several ways. First, it can
help us to fill in any gaps in our understanding of the statement. Second, it can help us to determine if
the statement is logical or not. Finally, it can help us to identify the speaker's intention. For example, if
someone says "I'm going to the store, if you want to come," we can infer that the speaker is assuming
that the listener may want to come to the store. This inference helps us to understand the statement
and identify the underlying assumption.

CONCLUSION

Identifying presuppositions through presupposition triggers in discourse analysis involves recognizing

linguistic cues that reveal underlying assumptions or beliefs within a statement. Presuppositions are
implicit meanings that are taken for granted by the speaker and are crucial in understanding the full
implications of a message. Here are some ways to identify presuppositions through triggers in discourse
analysis. In conclusion, identifying presuppositions through presupposition triggers in discourse analysis
requires careful attention to linguistic cues, structural patterns, anaphoric references, entailments,
background knowledge, and negations. By recognizing these triggers, one can uncover the implicit
assumptions and beliefs embedded in communication.