1. PRESUPPOSITION
PRESENTED BY:
SUHAEMI

2. THE DISCUSSION Introduction Two Approaches Presupposition Failure
Presupposition Triggers
Presupposition and Context
Pragmatic Theories

3. INTRODUCTION Sentence a is said to presuppose the sentence b.
a presupposition (or ps) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse (wikipedia)
To Presuppose means to assume it.
The Example:
He’s stopped turning into a werewolf every full moon.
He used to turn into a werewolf every full moon.
Sentence a is said to presuppose the sentence b.

4. The two Approaches of Presupposition:
Truth relations approach
essentially semantic
2. Presupposition Failure: Interactional approaches
essentially pragmatic

5. Presupposition as a truth relation ( Truth relation approach)
Step 1: If p (the presupposing sentence) is true then q (the presupposed sentence) is true.
Step 2: If p is false, then q is still true.
Step 3: If q is true, p could be either true or false.
p q
T → T
F → T
T or F ← T

6. The example John’s brother has come back from Texas.
John has a brother
The truth relation presupposition;
If it is true that John’s brother has come back from Texas, it must be true that John has a brother.
If it is false that John’s brother has come back from Texas (he is still there), the presupposition that John has brother is still survive.
Finally, If it is true that John has a brother, it doesn’t tell us anything about whether he has come back from Texas or not: we just don’t know.

7. Presupposition Failure (Interactional Approach)
Step 1: If p (the presupposing sentence) is true then q (the presupposed sentence) is true.
Step 2: If p is false, then q is still true.
Step 3: If q is true, p could be either true or false.
Step 4: If q is false, p is dubious, possibly neither true nor false (a truth-value gap).
p q
T → T
F → T
T or F ← T
? (T v F) ← F

8. The example The king of France is bald There is a king of France.
If q (b statement is false), the status of p (a statement) is dubious, possibly neither true nor false. It is a truth-value gap.
=======================================
Russell’s analysis on interactional approach (1989:47)
Sentence a is false if there is no king in France.
Sentence a ( The king of France is bald) is true if and if only:
At least one thing is the king
At most one thing is the king
Whatever is the king is bald

9. Presupposition Triggers
A presupposition trigger is a lexical item or linguistic construction which is responsible for the presupposition.
Lexical items that may produce presupposition;
Syntactic structure (Cleft construction and Pseudo-cleft)
Subordinate clause ( adverbial clause and comparative clause)
Lexical triggers :
- factive verb: regret, realize
- judgment verb: blame
- change-state verbs: start, begin, stop

10. The Example Syntactic structure
It was his behavior with frogs that disgusted me. ( cleft construction)
What disgusted me was his behavior with frog. (pseudo-cleft)
Something disguised me.
Subordinate clause
Adverbial clause
I was riding motorcycles before you learned to walk
You learn to walk
Comparative clause
He’s even more gullible than you are.
You are gullible.

11. Example of Factive verbs which produce presupposition
Factive verb ‘realize’
Sean realized that Miranda had dandruff
Sean thought that Miranda had dandruff
Miranda had dandruff
Sentence a presupposes sentence c
Sentence b doesn’t presupposition sentence c
Factive verb ‘regret’
Sheila regretted eating the banana.
Sheila considered eating the banana.
Sheila ate the banana.

12. Example of judgment verbs which produce presuppositions
Judgment verb ‘blame’
John blamed me for telling her.
John accused me of telling her
I told her
Sentence a presupposes sentence c. It means that the verb ‘blamed’ produces the presupposition in sentence c.
Sentence b doesn’t presuppose sentence c. It means that the verb ‘accused’ doesn’t produce the presupposition in sentence c.

13. Example of change-of-state verbs which produce presupposition
The verb ‘start’
Judy started smoking cigars
Judy used not to smoke cigars.
The verb ‘stop’
Michelle stopped seeing werewolves.
Michelle used to see werewolves.
Sentence a presupposes sentence b
It means that the verb ‘started’ has a kind of switch presupposition. The new state is described not to have the held prior to the change.

14. Presupposition and Context
presupposition behavior seems sensitive to context (Problem in simple truth-based account of presupposition)
It is usually trigger by time adverbial clauses, such as in;
a. She cried before she finished her thesis.
b. She finished her thesis.
a. She died before she finished her thesis.
Sentence a in example I presupposes sentence b, but if we change the verb ‘cried’ → ‘died’ (sentence a in example II), the presupposition is no longer produced. It means that in presupposition context, if t is true not always q is also true. Not like in entailment context where if t is true so it must be q is true.
This characteristic is called defeasibility.

15. a. It was Harry who Alice loved b. It was Alice who loved Harry
Another example of context sensitivity that show different conversational context
a. It was Harry who Alice loved
b. It was Alice who loved Harry
The sentences A and B seem to describe the same essential situation of Alice loving Harry or they embody the same proposition.
The different between them is that they belong to different conversational context: whether the participants have been discussing Harry or Alice.
II. a. Alice loved someone
b. Someone love Harry.
Sentences in I (a and b) rise different presupposition, with sentence a in example I presupposes sentence a in example 11 and sentence b in example 1 presupposes sentence b in example 11.
111. a. Alice loved HARRY.
b. ALICE loved Harry.
Stressing different part of the sentence produce different presupposition.

16. The Projection Problem
The projection happens if the presupposition produced by a simple clause does not survive because the clause is incorporated into a complex sentence;
Study the following example:
John will regret doing linguistic.
John is doing/will do linguistic.
Sentence a which contains the factive verb regret produces the presupposition in sentence b. (normal truth relation).
If John does linguistic, he’ll regret it.
In the context of a conditional clause (sentence c),the presupposition in sentence b disappears.

17. Conclusion of Presupposition Failure
Preposition Failure happen in different levels of context which cause fluctuation in presupposition behavior, such as in:
The context provided by background knowledge
(the example is on slide 8, 11, 12, 13)
The context provided by topic of conversation
(the example is on slide 14 to 15)
The narrower linguistic context of surrounding structures’
(the example is on slide 16)

18. Pragmatic Theories of Presupposition
1. (Leech: 1981) → Two types of presupposition:
Semantic presupposition ( truth-relation approach)
Pragmatic Presupposition (interactional description)
2. Stalnaker (1974) argued. → presupposition is essentially a pragmatic phenomenon.→ Part of the set of assumptions made by participants in a conversation. → common ground.
3. Lewis (1927: 127) → a principle of accommodation
4. Sperber and Wilson (1995) argue → presupposition is not an independent phenomenon but one of series of effects produced when the syntactic structure and intonation fits into the previous background.

19. Example of Sperber and Wilson Theory
It rained on MONDAY
On Monday it RAINED
On MONDAY it rained
Sentence a, b and c are integrated presupposition with traditional discourse notions; given, new information and focus.
They belongs to different context of use that is preceding context will naturally lead the speaker to choose one of the sentences above one another.
The theory proposes that the same principle of relevance to contextual assumption covers both presupposition and the choice of different word orders and intonation.

20. SUMMARY → semantic area
If we discuss presupposition as a truth relation ( Truth relation approach) which essentially semantic, so it assumes that presupposition is the same relation with entailment.
→ semantic area
If we discuss presupposition as an interactional approach which essentially pragmatic, so it considers that it fails to account presuppositional behavior, in particular presupposition’s sensitivity to contextual features.
Pragmatic approach → describing presupposition in term of speaker’s strategies to package her message against her estimate of what her audience knows.