Presupposition in Semantics Essay

IntroductionPresupposition is originated in the field of philosophy and it was proposed by German philosopher Ferge in 1892. In the 1960s, presupposition entered the bea of linguals and became a prodigious concept in semantics. Later in the 1970s, Keenan introduced presupposition to the hard-noseds to thread a relation among a vocaliser and the abstractness of a article of faith in a scope (Levinson 177). Hence, presupposition so-and-so be distinguished into ii categories semantic presupposition and pragmatic presupposition. This thesis is chiefly withstand-to doe with on the exploration of presupposition in semantics from the perspectives of features and capers of presupposition. For the sake of trenchant for the solutions to the problems, the writer overly brings 2 pragmatic theories of presupposition into discussion. expose I. Two Approaches to PresuppositionIn the linguistics, two onrushes to presupposition be semantic and pragmatic. semantic presupposition views the condemnation dealings in terms of virtue relations speckle pragmatic presupposition describes decl atomic number 18s as an fundamental interaction surrounded by individuals.A.Semantic PresuppositionIn ordinary language, of course, to stupefy for granted something means to necessitate it, and the narrower technical use in semantics is re modernd to this (Saeed 93). In semantics, the implication of a decry is based on the designate itself attractivea of something constructed by the originateicipants. The semantic presupposition is merely concerned about the justice determine of the situatements. For instance,a) bath managed to lodge consonant in time.b) arse tested to stop in time. (Suo 130)In the example, blame a) presupposes objurgate b), that is to say, if it is lawful that antic managed to stop in time, it moldiness be true that hindquarters well-tried to stop in time. Meanwhile, if this proposition is ph bingley, the presupposition that rum p tried to stop in time put away exists. However, solo the the true of article of faith b) doesnt tell anything concerning the conduct whether he halt in time or not. Based on the analysis, we thattocks rend a truth table for this presuppositiona bT TF TT or F TThis table is an overt interpretation of the truth relations between time a) and b). If sentence a) is true, and thence its presupposition b) is also true. If sentence a) is false, then the truth of b) even-tempered survives.While if sentence b) is true, sentence a) goat be either true or false. The interpretation of presupposition in semantics is on the basis of truth relations.B.Pragmatic PresuppositionCompargond with semantic presupposition- a truth-relation approach, pragmatic presupposition is an interactional approach in to a lower placestand the sentence relations.Stalnaker argues that presupposition is essenti al maviny a pragmatic phenomenon part of the set of as internalityptions is made by parti cipants in a conversation, which he terms the habitual flat coat (Saeed 101). This common ground is the mutual removedeledge sh bed by some(prenominal) utterer and attender. For example, I am hydrophobic my car broke down. The presupposition of this phonation is that the vocaliser has a car, which is be intimaten to the hearer. However, if the hearer originally doesnt fill in the fact, on hearing the comment, s/he roll in the hay show it as a common ground for a further conversation. By virtue of context, appropriate presupposition pull up stakes help the hearer understand the vocalisation of the loudspeaker system. During the conversation, twain speaker and hearer are doing the turn-taking and they tolerate depend on the source utterances to conduct a smooth communication.By comparison of semantic presupposition and pragmatic presupposition, we ordure gain a better reasonableness of this notion applied in the linguistics. However, the focus of this thesis is on the presupposition in the semantics. Thus, the following move forget be concentrated on the semantic presupposition. bug out II. Features of Semantic PresuppositionIn semantics, presupposition possesses unique features being different from logical implication, presupposition is permanent under negation. It is produced not provided by the expressed description, scarce also by presupposition actuates.A.StabilitySemantic presupposition relies on the meaning of linguistic communication and grammatical structures to describe the truth relations between sentences and these feels dont vary a same much from context to context. Hence,presupposition is relatively stable and it system constant under negation of the main sentence. This feature of semantic presupposition engages a bankers bill between entailment and presupposition. For example,a)I borrowed my coadjutors bike today.b)I borrowed something today.If sentence a) is true, it guarantees the truth of sentence b), to b e more specific, a) entails b). However, if we negate a) to form a) then it no longer entails b), repeated as followsa) I didnt borrow my friends bike today.b) I borrowed something today.If it is false that I borrowed my friends bike today, it can not tell whether I borrowed something today or not. It might be true that I borrowed something kinda of my friends bike, solely we just dont know.In contrast, the presupposing sentence is constant veritable(a) under negation, for instance,c)My sister got married last year.d)I fetch a sister.The pre-condition of sentence c) is d), if c) is true then d) essential be interpreted as a fact. In other words, sentence c) has the presupposition in d) and the truth of c) makes real the truth of d) as well. If negating c) as My sister didnt get married last year. The presupposition that I be possessed of a sister also survives.This is the difference between entailment and presupposition, namely, the negation of an entailing sentence leads to the sorrow of the entailment while negating a presupposing sentence allows the presupposition to survive.B.Presupposition TriggersOn the mavin hand, the existence of presupposition can derive from the use of a name or defined description. On the other hand, itcan be produced by particular words or sentence looks, which are called presupposition triggers. Karttunen has collected thirty-virtuoso kinds of triggers but in the following section the writer go forth mainly focus on four types of these triggers factive verbs, intensify of utter verbs, profane articles and cleft sentences.To begin with, verbs like mourning, deplore, know and agree are under the category of factive verbs, for they presuppose the truth of the complement clause. For instance,a)Martha regrets/ doesnt regret drinking tin cans al-Qaeda brew.b)Martha drank Johns home brew. (Suo 131)Whether Martha regrets drinking Johns home brew or not, it is a known fact that Martha drank Johns home brew. The sentence a) has the presupposition in b). By contrast, no much(prenominal) presupposition exists with the non-factive verb like imagine. For example,c)Tom thought that John was late.d)John was late. reprobate c) indicates that it is completely Tom personal opinion of Johns being late. Actually, John might not be late and the truth doesnt reveal from the sentence itself. Therefore, sentence c) doesnt have the presupposition in d) cod to the non-factive verb think.Secondly, the employments of verbs like stop, start, begin and finish imply the change of state. Hence, these lexical triggers are regarded as change of state verbs, which describe the new state and presuppose the former state as well. For instance,a)John stopped/ didnt stop shell his married woman.b)John had been whipping his wife. (Suo 131)The verb stop means making something end and here if John stopped pulseing his wife, which means that he makes the action of beating his wife end. exactly if he didnt stop, the occasion of beating give continue to happen in the future. No matter what the occurrence is, sentence a) presupposes the fact b) that John had been beating his wife as the former state.Whats more, not only the lexical words trigger the presupposition, but also clauses like temporal clauses whitethorn produce presupposition. For example,a)Linda went to the supermarket to begin with she met her friends.b)Linda met her friends.The temporal clause mark by the conjunction before shows that Linda went to the supermarket first and then went to meet her friends. In effect, sentence a) states the fact that Linda sincerely met her friends. It is this temporal clause that ensures the truth of sentence b) and also triggers the presupposition in b).Last but not to the lowest degree, syntactical structure such(prenominal) as cleft sentence can also act as a trigger for the production of current types of presupposition. For example,a)It was the noise that blind drunk me.b)What annoyed me was the n oise.c)Something annoyed me.In the example, the cleft construction in a) and the pseudo-cleft in b) share the presupposition in c). No matter how the sentence structure changes, the essence of the sentence cadaver unchanged. What sentence a) and b) intend to stress is that on that point is something annoyed me.By means of the features like stability and presupposition triggers, the real intention of the utterances can be investigated. If the speaker changes the predicate has to hasnt, or does to doesnt, the presupposition for the utterance is the kindred, for presupposition is of stability. Presupposition triggers can be used as a tool to birth the essence of the sentence, no matter what lexical words and constructions are applied.Part III. Problems of Semantic PresuppositionIn semantics, this truth-based approach gives cut to problems for the presupposition, such as, presupposition failure, the defeasibility of presupposition and the task problem.A.Presupposition FailureOn th e basis of truth condition, it has been taken for granted that a name or definite description being used refers to the existent entity in the field of semantics. However, if the named or described entity doesnt exist, it causes problem for this truth-relation approach, which is known as presupposition failure. The following example is by now the closely discussed one in this lita)The office of France is bald.b)There is a queer of France. (Saeed 96) concord to the criterion of truth relation, no doubt sentence a) presupposes sentence b), if it is true that in that respect is a King of France. But if on that point is no King of France, that is to say, the sentence b) is false, the problem is unrestrained, for it is changeful whether this presupposition survives or not. Are the sentences like a) true or false, or just in a old area, neither true nor false? This dubious situation for truth-based approach results in the truth cheer gap.For such a problem, Russell offers a famous solution to make an analysis of this definite description as trey expressions as followsThe King of France is bald is true if and only ifa)at least one thing is the kingb)at most one thing is the kingc)whatever is the king is bald. (Saeed 97)From the Russells analysis, we know that if on that point is no King of France, it leads to the falsity of this proposition that the King of France is bald. Thus, in that respect is no gray area between true or false, no truth value gap. However, it seems to be too complex to employ these circumstances for the invoice of one name and it whitethorn cost undischarged efforts to analyze the preconditions whenever meet with such kind of statements.In comparison with truth relation approach, it may be slight problematic for an interactional approach. During the communication between the individuals, whenever an unfamiliar name or definite description occurs, the hearer can interrupt the speaker so as to signal the failure of the conversation. For instance, the speaker says to person, Mr. Hong will invite us to dinner next Friday. If the hearer doesnt know Mr. Hong, it may cause confusion. As the conversation continues, the hearer can ask the speaker who Mr. Hongis. As for the speaker, s/he can take an immediate response to clear up the misunderstanding.The presupposition failure in semantics results from the narrow question of the truth value of statements about non-existent entities, while in pragmatics, the attention is salaried to the more normal question of what conventions license a speakers referring use of name or definite description.B.DefeasibilityOne of the peculiar things about presupposition is that it is sensitive to context, either immediate linguistic context or the less immediate discourse context, or in good deal where contrary preconditions are made. In particular context, the presupposition is scratch and this phenomenon is known as defeasibility. Two factors result in presupposition cancellatio n one is the linguistic context and the other one is punctuate assumption about the world.One kind of presupposition defeasibility arises in certain types of linguistic context. For example,You say that someone in this agency loves bloody shame. Well maybe so. But it sure as shooting isnt Fred who loves bloody shame. And it certainly isnt John . . . (We continue in this way until we have enumerated all the people in the room). Therefore no one in this room loves Mary. (Suo 135)In the example, each of the cleft sentences (it certainly isnt Fred, etc.) are supposed to presuppose that there is someone in this room who loves Mary, for presupposition is constant under negation. However, the speaker intends to persuade the hearer that there is no one in this room who loves Mary by ruling out the possibilities. Therefore, the presupposition that someone in this room loves Mary is defeated in this counterfactual assumption. present is another example of the same kinda)John didnt manage t o pass his exams.b)John tried to pass his exams.c)John didnt manage to pass his exams. In fact he didnt even try.Sentence a) has the presupposition in b), but if put a) into such a statement as c), the prior presupposition is abandon. Without knowing the real fact, if someone makes the utterance that John didnt manage to pass his exams, it may drop dead the hearer an impression that at least once he tried to pass his exams. On hearing the fact the hearer will know Johns failure for the exams is due to his leave out of efforts in his study. Thus, the presupposition can be cancelled at bottom certain contexts.The other kind of presupposition defeasibility is caused by our general knowledge of the world. For instance,a)She cried before she correct her thesis.b)She finished her thesis. (Saeed 187)As mentioned above, the temporal clause functions as a trigger for the presupposition. Sentence a) with before-clause presupposes that indeed she finished her thesis. However, if the verb in the main clause is changed to die, the situation will be totally different. For instance,c)She died before she finished her thesis.d)She finished her thesis. (Saeed 187)Since her death preceded the event of finis her thesis, it is certain that she never finished the thesis. It is common hotshot that people do not conduct things after(prenominal) they die. Even if sentence c) is expressed with before-clause, it doesnt have the presupposition in d). As a result of background belief in the real world, the previous presupposition that she finished her thesis is blocked in this context.C.Projection ProblemLangendoen and Savin send word that the set of presuppositions of the complex whole is the simple sum of the presuppositions of the parts, i.e. if S0 is a complex sentence containing sentences S1, S2, . . . Sn as constituents, then the presuppositions of S0 = the presuppositions of S1 + the presuppositions of S2 . . . + the presuppositions of Sn (Levinson 191). For example,S0 Joh n stopped accusing Mary of beating her husband.S1 John criminate Mary of beating her husband.S1 John judged that it was bad for Mary to beat her husband.S2 John stopped doing it.S2 Before time T, John did it. (Suo 136)In the example, sentence S0 is the complex sentence including two parts S1 and S2, to be more specific, from the statement that John stopped accusing Mary of beating her husband, two meanings can be interpreted one is that John accused Mary of beating her husband and the other one is that John stopped doing it. The presupposition of S1 is S1, namely, S1 presupposes that John judged that it was bad for Mary to beat her husband. While S2 has the presupposition in S2, that is to say, S2 presupposes that before time T, John did it. Thus, the presuppositions of S0 are the presupposition of S1 plus the presupposition of S2.As a matter of fact, this simple solution to the presuppositions of complex sentences is far from correct and it turns out to be impossible to take it as a formula. By using this solution, it is delicate to predict exactly which presuppositions of the parts survive in the whole presupposition of the complex sentences. This compositional problem is called the gibbousness problem for the presuppositions.The project problem in the presuppositions has two aspects on the one hand, presuppositions remain in the linguistic context while entailments disappear. On the other hand, presuppositions are cancelled in certain contexts where entailments survive.The first aspect of the projection problem is the survival of presuppositions and cancellation of entailments in the same context. As mentioned above, negation is a typical example for the distinction between presupposition and entailment, for presupposition is stable under negation while entailment isnt. However, there are other situations in which presupposition remainsand entailment disappears. For instance,a)Mr. chocolate-brown bought four books.b)There is a Mr. embrown.c)Mr. Brown bought three books.d)It is possible that Mr. Brown bought four books.e)Mr. Brown could have bought four books.In this example, sentence a) presupposes sentence b) and entails sentence c). If it is true that Mr. Brown bought four books, the precondition for this proposition that there is a Mr. Brown must also be true. And if he already bought four books, he is supposed to have bought three books. However, when the modal auxiliary operators or modal verbs are embedded in the original statement, the entailment of a) disappears while the presupposition b) still exists. Because modal operators like possible, probable and modal verbs like could, should are considered to be a kind of conjecture. The employments of them reveal speakers uncertainty about his utterances.Another situation of the same kind is the compound sentences formed by the connectives and, or, if . . . then and what not. For instance,a)The two students handed in the cooking late again this Monday.b)A student handed in the preparedness late this Monday.c)The two students handed in the home snuff it late before.d)If the two students handed in the homework late again this Monday, their teacher will get angry.The adverb again applied in the sentence a) presupposes that the two students handed in the homework late before. If two students handed in the homework late, it must entail that one of them handed in the homework late. Thus, sentence a) presupposes c) and also entails b). However, if sentencea) is embedded in a complex sentence like d), the utterance a) can only be regarded as an assumption in the complex whole. Hence, the former entailment is abandoned in the new compound sentence but the presupposition that they did before still survives.The other aspect of the projection problem is that presupposition is blocked while entailment still exists in certain contexts. If the predicates of the utterances are the verbs of propositional spot such as want, believe, imagine, dream and the like, the blocking of presupposition appears to take place. For instance,a)Tom believes hes the hot seat of America.b)There is a present president of America.In this example, sentence a) entails that Tom believes something, but it doesnt have the presupposition that there is a present president of America. The verb like believe is only a non-factive verb, which doesnt ensure the truth of its complement. Moreover, the employment of it will leave the hearer an impression that what the speaker says is just a personal opinion. Thus, the presupposition is blocked because of the verb believe.Another example is disposed(p) as followsa)I dream that I was a German and that I regretted being a German.b)I was a German.In the sentence a), the speaker doesnt shoulder the obligation of uttering it by employing the verb dream. The application of dream indicates that this utterance can not be taken seriously as a fact. However, sentence a) still entails that I dreamed something, but doesnt presuppose tha t I was a German. In such a situation, the complex sentences with certain verbs of propositional attitude block their presuppositions but maintain the entailments.By means of analyzing the problems of presupposition in the field of semantics, we can draw a conclusion that this truth relation approach is farfrom passable to describe the relationships between presupposing and presupposed sentences. Admittedly, the discover of presupposition is not only being discussed in semantics but also in the pragmatics.Part IV. Pragmatic Theories of PresuppositionAs for pragmatic presupposition, various theories have been put forward by linguists such as Stalnaker, Gazdar and what not. Among these theories, two of them are the most developed theories that deal with the defeasibility and the projection problems. Both theories weary that presuppositions are part of the conventional meaning of expressions, instead of semantic inference.The first possible action has been developed by Karttunen an d Peters, which is expressed in the framework of Montague grammar. In the Montague grammar, clauses are built up from their constituents from the bottom up rather than from the top down as in transformational fertile grammar (Levinson 207). The basic idea in this theory is that sentences are built up from their components and the meanings conveyed in these sentences are paper to the words, clauses and so on, but in the presuppositions, meanings are associated with these triggers. According to Karttunen and Peters theory, presuppositions are actually non-cancellable.The meaning expressions that capture the presuppositional limit of each presupposition-triggering item will be related to with each constituent a heritage expression. If there is a predicate like propositional attitude verb, it will have a heritage expression that blocks the presuppositions raise to be presupposition of the whole sentence. In such circumstances, presupposition isnt in fact cancelled, but it is block ed during the cognitive process of derivation by the heritage expression. For example,a)Bush thinks that Kerrys attitude about terrorism is dangerous.b)Kerry has an attitude about terrorism.The helper clause of sentence a) presupposes that Kerry has an attitude about terrorism. However, the verb think has the heritage expression which prevents this presupposition from being the presupposition of the whole.The other theory is proposed by Gazdar, in which presuppositions are actually cancelled. At the early stage of derivation, the presuppositions of any complex sentence will consist of all the dominance presuppositions of the parts. hence a canceling mechanism will begin to work and it only selects these presuppositions which are accordant with all the propositions already in the context. In this theory, the generations of presuppositions adhere to a excess(a) order first the entailments of what are said are added to the context, then the conversational implicatures, and only finally the presupposition (Levinson 213). In each step, these presuppositions that contradict the former propositions will be eliminated through selection and only the ones being consistent with them will survive. For example,a)If there is a King of France, the King of France doesnt any longer live in Versaills.b)The speaker knows that there exists a King of France.c)It is consistent with all the speaker knows that there is not a King of France. (Suo 143)In the sentence a), the clause that the King of France doesnt any longer live in Versaills has the potential presupposition in b). However, the conditional sentence a) entails that there is not a King of France. Based on the special order in Gazdars theory, this entailment enters into the context before the potential presupposition. Hence, this potential presupposition is cancelled without debut into the context.Although the two theories are opposing to each other, both of them offer an explanation for the defeasibility of presup position and projection problem. However, even in the field of pragmatics, adequate solution to the presupposition is not obtained, which of necessity further developments.ConclusionIn the field of linguistics, we can probe into the presupposition from two perspectives, namely, semantic presupposition and pragmatic presupposition. This thesis mainly focuses on the interpretation of presupposition in semantics. The writer introduces the features of semantic presupposition like stability under negation and presupposition triggers and then makes an analysis of the problems aroused by this truth-based theorysuch as presupposition failure, defeasibility and projection problem. To solve these problems, two theories concerning the pragmatic presupposition are discussed. Although both of them offer the explanations for the problems of presupposition, they are not considered to be adequate solutions. The further developments of presupposition rely on the complex interactions between semantic s and pragmatics.ReferencesLevinson, Stephen C. Pragmtics. Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press, 2005.Saeed, John I. Semantics. Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press, 2005.