MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
HANOI LAW UNIVERSITY
GROUP ASSIGNMENT
SUBJECT: PRAGMATICS
TOPIC: PRESUPPOSITIONS
GROUP 4 - 4727
1
1 Introduction
Can we speak a language without making assumptions? Is this even possible, and if
so, would we want to? Let's try an experiment: rephrase the first sentence of Emily
Brontë's "Wuthering Heights" without using expressions that typically trigger
assumptions:
Original: "I have just returned from a visit to my landlord—the solitary neighbor that
I shall be troubled with."
Paraphrased: "I have a unique landlord whom I visited recently. He is the only
neighbor I have, and he is bothersome."
This exercise shows that removing assumptions from language can make it very
tedious and repetitive. Presuppositions help package information efficiently.
However, a completely assumption-free language is impossible. Even trying to
explain the meaning of words requires assumptions about the world and our
understanding. Additionally, pronouns and anaphors rely on assumptions about what
we're talking about.
Presuppositions are essential for creating coherent discourse, managing information,
and building relationships. They are deeply ingrained in natural language and are
difficult to eliminate completely.
Key Points:
• Presuppositions are assumptions that are taken for granted in language.
• Removing presuppositions from language can make it difficult to understand
and communicate effectively.
• Presuppositions are essential for creating coherent discourse and managing
information.
• It is difficult to eliminate presuppositions completely from natural language.
2
2 What is presupposition?
Presuppositions are background assumptions that are taken for granted when a
sentence is used. They act as preconditions for the appropriate use of a sentence.
Presuppositions can be semantic (related to the meaning of words) or pragmatic
(related to the context of the conversation).
• Semantic presuppositions are properties of sentences themselves.
• Pragmatic presuppositions are beliefs that speakers hold when they utter
sentences.
• Semantico-pragmatic presuppositions combine elements of both semantic and
pragmatic presuppositions.
In summary, presuppositions are essential for understanding the meaning of
utterances and for effective communication. They play a crucial role in both semantic
and pragmatic aspects of language use.
2.1 One Possibility: A Precondition to Meaning
Presupposition refers to the assumptions a speaker takes for granted during a
conversation. For an utterance to make sense, certain facts must already be accepted
by both the speaker and the listener. Presuppositions act as a "precondition to
meaning," much like the foundation of a building supports its structure, providing the
groundwork for understanding a sentence.
Presuppositions can range from general norms, like assuming both people are
speaking the same language, to more specific ideas tied to particular words or phrases.
They can be either pragmatic (based on context) or semantic (related to word
meanings), and both types help make conversations meaningful.
2.1.1 Pragmatic Presuppositions
Pragmatic presuppositions are assumptions that arise from the broader context of the
conversation, not from specific words. For example, in any conversation, both
participants assume they’re following the same rules of when to talk and listen. These
assumptions come from what the speaker believes the listener already knows.
3
If someone asks, "Did you finish the project?" it presupposes that the listener had a
project to complete. These assumptions aren’t tied to any specific word but are
understood based on the context. Stalnaker (1972, 1974) pointed out that these
presuppositions rely on shared knowledge between speaker and listener.
2.1.2 Semantic Presuppositions
Semantic presuppositions, in contrast, are tied to the meanings of specific words,
known as presupposition triggers. For example, if someone says, "She found her
keys" it presupposes that she had lost her keys before. If this isn’t true, the sentence
doesn’t make sense.
Frege (1892) and Strawson (1950) developed the idea that some words carry built-in
assumptions. For instance, "The cat stopped scratching the furniture" presupposes
that the cat was previously scratching the furniture. If this isn’t true, the sentence
becomes meaningless. These presuppositions are crucial to understanding the
sentence’s meaning.
2.1.3 Dynamic Approaches
Dynamic approaches focus on how presuppositions evolve during a conversation.
Instead of seeing presuppositions as fixed, these approaches suggest that
presuppositions can change as new information is shared.
Heim (1983, 1992) proposed that sentences update the context of the conversation.
In this view, presuppositions are conditions that must be met as the conversation
progresses. As speakers exchange information, the context changes, allowing
presuppositions to be confirmed or adjusted. This flexibility helps explain how
conversations continue smoothly.
2.1.4 Projection
Projection refers to how presuppositions carry over within more complex sentences.
For instance, in the sentence "If Sarah quit her job, she must be looking for a new
one," the assumption that Sarah had a job remains true, even though the sentence is
hypothetical.
4
Various theories explain how presuppositions "project" from one part of a sentence
to another. These include trivalent logic (Keenan 1972, Beaver and Krahmer 2001),
dynamic approaches (Heim 1992), and anaphoric theories (van der Sandt 1992).
Projection explores how certain assumptions persist even within more complex
sentence structures.
2.2 Accomodation
In theory, presuppositions should be part of our shared knowledge for communication
to work. But often, they aren’t—and yet, conversation still flows smoothly. This is
where accommodation comes in. For instance, when we read or hear a sentence
whose presuppositions we don’t share, communication still tends to flow smoothly.
Why is that? This brings us to the idea of accommodation."
Presupposition Accommodation – Lewis’s Theory
David Lewis proposed that when a presupposition isn’t shared, listeners often accept
it on the spot—‘magically’ updating their understanding. This helps conversations
continue without confusion." In short, we update our beliefs mid-conversation.
Stalnaker’s Theory – A Pragmatic Process
"Now, let’s look at Stalnaker’s contribution. He argues that presupposition
accommodation isn’t so mysterious. If a speaker makes an assumption that isn’t
shared by the listener, the listener recognizes this and updates their beliefs. If the
presupposition is uncontroversial—meaning it’s something the listener can easily
accept—then the listener will incorporate it into their understanding of the
conversation."
An Example of Accommodation
"Let’s consider an example. If I say, 'I need to pick up my dog from the vet,' and you
didn’t know I had a dog, you might accommodate this information. You’ll assume
that I have a dog without needing any explicit clarification."
5
In short, presupposition accommodation helps keep conversations going smoothly,
even when assumptions aren’t shared. It’s a key part of how we understand each
other.
2.3 Another Possibility: A Side Effect of Information Packaging
"Grice's work significantly influenced Stalnaker’s theory and led to different lines of
thought in pragmatic discussions on presuppositions. Grice’s 1970 paper, published
in 1981, argued that the implication of unique existence in statements like 'The F is
not G' should be considered a conversational implicature. This set the foundation for
various neo-Gricean approaches."
• Neo-Gricean Pragmatic Accounts:
"Grice’s idea spurred theories aiming to reduce presuppositions to conversational
implicatures. These theories, including those by Kempson et al. (1975) and Wilson
(1975), leaned on the maxims of relevance and quantity. Recent accounts like Simons
(2001, 2004) continued exploring this by attributing presuppositions to
conversational frameworks, focusing on the concept of scalar implicatures."
• Grice's View on Non-controversiality:
"In his 1981 paper, Grice made an insightful comment on how presuppositions are
not necessarily common knowledge but rather noncontrovers
3 Types of Presuppositions
6 types of presupposition:
• Existential presupposition
• Factive presupposition
• Non-factive presupposition
• Lexical presupposition
6
• Structural presupposition
• Counter-factual presupposition
3.1 Existential presupposition
- Entities named by the speaker are assumed to be present.
- It is the assumption of the existence of the entities named by the speaker.
3.1.1 Definition Noun phrase
Ex: The covid-19 pandemic is breaking out.
→ Presupposes that the existence of the entities it refers to, “ The covid-29 pandemic”
3.1.2 Possessive constructions
Ex: Your dress is beautiful.
→ We can presuppose that you exist and that you have a dress
3.2 Factive presupposition
• Verbs: know; realize; regret..
• Phrases: be aware of, be glad, be odd.
Ex: She regrets meeting him ( → She met him)
I know she has a car. ( → She has a car)
I wasn’t aware that she was married ( → She was married)
3.3 Non- factive presupposition
- Một điều được thừa nhận là không đúng với thực tế ( the verbs like: dream, image,
pretend,..)
- It is an assumption referred to something that is not true
Ex: She dreamed that she has a lot of money. ( → She hasn’t a lot of money.)
I imagined that she liked me. ( → She didn’t like me)
7
3.4 Lexical presupposition
- The assumption that, in using one word, the speaker can act as the another meaning
( word) will be understood. ( Sử dụng những từ ngữ thông thường thừa nhận điều đã
được hiểu ( stop, start, again..)
Ex: Nick stopped swimming . ( → Nick used to swim)
He is sick again. ( → He was sick before)
Are you still such an English teacher? ( → She was an English teacher)
=> “ stop”, “ again”, “ still” are taken to presuppose another concept.
- The word itself shows the meaning/ presupposition
“ Managed” to do st: succeeded in some way
“ Didn’t manage”: did not success
In both case the person “ tried” to do st
“ managed” is conventionally interpreted as asserting “ succeeded” and presupposing
“ tried”
3.5 Structural presupposition
- Wh-question constructions= the listener perceives that the information presented is
necessarily true, or intended as true by the speaker..( Sử dụng WH-question để thừa
nhận một điều gì đó là đúng)
Ex: Orginal sentence: “ Lucy regrets selling her car.”
Presupposition: Lucy sold her car/ Question: “ Does Lucy regret selling her car?”
Presupposition remains: Lucy sold her car.
In this case, the presupposition “ Lucy sold her car” is preserved even when turned
into a question.
Where did you buy the flower? ( → you bought flower)
3.6 Counterfactual presupposition
- The assumption that what is presupposed is not only untrue, but is the opposite of
what is true, or contrary to facts.
For instance, some conditional structures, generally called counterfactual
conditionals presuppose that the information, in the if- clauses, is not true at the time
of utterance ( những điều được giả định không đúng và trái thực tế)
ex: “ If I had enough money, I would buy a new car.”
Counterfactual presupposition: I do not have enough money to buy a new car.
8
In this example, the use of counterfactual “ If I had enough money” presupposes that
I don’t have enough money to buy a new car.
4 Some recent developments and outstanding questions
4.1 Types of triggers
Presuppositions are implicit assumptions conveyed by language and triggers are
linguistic elements that activate presuppositions.
Types of triggers:
• Definite NPs: Refer to specific entities (e.g., "the king").
• Quantificational NPs: Indicate a set of entities (e.g., "all students").
• Factive verbs: Assume the truth of their complement (e.g., "know," "regret").
• Clefts: Highlight a particular element (e.g., "It was John who...").
• Wh-Questions: Imply the existence of an answer.
• Counterfactuals: Assume the opposite of the condition (e.g., "If I were
rich...").
• Intonational stress: Emphasize a specific word or phrase.
• Sortally restricted predicates: Require a specific type of argument (e.g.,
"bark" implies a dog).
• Signifiers of actions: Indicate the completion of an action.
• Iterative adverbs: Suggest repetition (e.g., "again," "too").
• Others: Implicatives, verbs of judging, focus-sensitive particles.
4.2 Factors that influence presupposition projection and interpretation
Presuppositions typically project through various embedded contexts, and research
since Karttunen’s 1970s work has aimed to explain this projection pattern. Over time,
it became evident that semantic, pragmatic, and contextual factors interact with
presupposition projection, challenging the idea of a purely rule-based system. Key
factors include:
9
• Discourse context: Presuppositions that align closely with prior discourse are
more likely to project.
• Question under discussion (QUD): If a presupposition addresses the current
QUD, it may not project.
• Prosodic prominence: Elements given prosodic emphasis are less likely to
project.
• Topicality: Non-topical elements in a sentence are more likely to be
interpreted without presuppositions.
• Types of triggers: Different types of presupposition triggers exhibit varying
degrees of projection.
• Sentence content and probability: The likelihood of a presupposition being
accepted depends on its plausibility within the discourse.
• Perspectival reasoning: Presuppositions may only need to hold true from the
perspective of the protagonist rather than the general discourse context.
These factors illustrate the complex interplay between the inherent properties of
presuppositions and the broader discourse context.
5. Conclusion
Key points:
• Presuppositions are complex and influenced by both linguistic and
extralinguistic factors.
• Understanding presuppositions requires a deep understanding of how
language interacts with other aspects of communication.
• While the complexity of presuppositions can be daunting, it is possible to
make progress in understanding them.
In conclusion, the study of presuppositions reveals the intricate relationship between
language and other factors in communication. This understanding is essential for a
comprehensive understanding of human language.
10
REFERENCES
Daniel Altshuler_ Linguistics Meets Philosophy
11
