Advertisement

Presupposition Triggers and Presumptive Interpretation

  • Fabrizio MacagnoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 20)

Abstract

Pragmatic presuppositions are analyzed considering their relation with the notion of commitment, namely the dialogical acceptance of a proposition by an interlocutor. The attribution of commitments carried out by means of pragmatic presupposition is shown to depend on the reasonableness of the underlying presumptive reasoning, ultimately grounded on hierarchies of presumptions. On this perspective, the ordinary interpretation of pragmatic presuppositions as the “taking for granted” of propositions signaled by semantic or syntactic triggers becomes only the presumptive, prototypical interpretation of a complex linguistic and pragmatic phenomenon. It will be shown how the prototypical interpretation is subject to default in cases of conflicts of presumptions, which lead to reconstructing the speaker’s meaning non-presumptively at a pragmatic, semantic, or syntactic level. The phenomena of presupposition cancellation and neutralization can be explained in terms of presumptive and non-presumptive articulation and interpretation of an utterance, through which the speaker can impose, correct, or refuse implicit commitments.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (research grants no. IF/00945/2013, SFRH/BPD/115073/2016, PTDC/FER?FIL/28278/2017, and PTDC/MHC-FIL/0521/2014)

References

  1. Abbott, Barbara. 2006. “Where Have Some of the Presuppositions Gone?” In Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, edited by Betty Birner and Gregory Ward, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Abrusán, Márta. 2016. “Presupposition Cancellation: Explaining the Soft-Hard Trigger Distinction.” Natural Language Semantics 24 (2): 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan, Keith. 2013. “What Is Common Ground?” In Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology Volume 2, edited by Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo, and Marco Carapezza, 285–310. Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asher, Nicholas, and Alex Lascarides. 1998. “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Presupposition.” Journal of Semantics 15 (3): 239–300. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/15.3.239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atlas, Jay David. 2005. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195133004.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ___. 2008. “Presupposition.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 29–52. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atlas, Jay David, and Stephen Levinson. 1981. “It-Clefts, Informativeness and Logical Form: Radical Pragmatics (Revised Standard Version).” In Radical Pragmatics, edited by Peter Cole, 1–62. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  9. ___. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  10. Beaver, David. 2010. “Have You Noticed That Your Belly Button Lint Colour Is Related to the Colour of Your Clothing.” In Presuppositions and Discourse: Essays Offered to Hans Kamp, edited by Rainer Bäuerle, Uwe Reyle, and Thomas Zimmerman, 65–99. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beyssade, Claire, and Jean-Marie Marandin. 2006. “The Speech Act Assignment Problem Revisited: Disentangling Speaker’s Commitment from Speaker’s Call on Addressee.” In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, edited by Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 6:37–68. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Sorbonne.Google Scholar
  12. ___. 2009. “Commitment: Une Attitude Dialogique.” Langue Française, no. 2. Armand Colin/Dunod: 89–107. http://www.cairn.info/revue-langue-francaise-2009-2-page-89.htm.
  13. Capone, Alessandro. 2005. “Pragmemes (a Study with Reference to English and Italian)”. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (9): 1355–71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ___. 2010. “On the Social Practice of Indirect Reports (Further Advances in the Theory of Pragmemes).” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2): 377–91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ___. 2016. The Pragmatics of Indirect Reports: Socio-Philosophical Considerations. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. ___. 2017. “Shifts of Footing in Mrs. Hillary Clinton’s Emectoral Speech.” RASK.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. “Quotations as Demonstrations.” Language 66 (4): 764–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ducrot, Oswald. 1966. “‘Le Roi de France Est Sage’. Implication Logique et Présupposition Linguistique.” Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 4: 39–47.Google Scholar
  19. ___. 1968. “Le Structuralisme en Linguistique.” In Qu’est-Ce Que le Structuralisme?, edited by Oswald Ducrot and Tzvetan Todorov, 13–96. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  20. ___. 1969. “Présupposés et Sous-Entendus.” Langue Française, no. 4: 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ___. 1972a. “De Saussure à la Philosophie du Langage.” In Les Actes de Langage, 7–34. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  22. ___. 1972b. Dire et ne pas Dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  23. ___. 1980. Les Mots du Discours. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
  24. ___. 1982. “La Notion de Sujet Parlant.” Recherches sur la Philosophie et le Langage 2. Université de Grenoble: 65–93.Google Scholar
  25. ___. 1984. Le Dire et Le Dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
  26. Fløttum, Kjersti. 2010. “EU Discourse: Polyphony and Unclearness.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (4). Elsevier: 990–99.Google Scholar
  27. Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. “A Solution to the Projection Problem.” In Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 11: Presupposition, edited by Choon-Kyu Oh and David Dinneen, 1:57–89. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. ___. 1981. “Speech Act Assignment.” In Elements of Discourse Understanding, edited by Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber, and Ivan Sag, 64–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Geurts, Bart. 1999. Presuppositions and Pronouns. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  30. ___. 2017. “Presupposition and Givenness.” In Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Yan Huang, 180–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  33. Hare, Richard. 1970. “Meaning and Speech Acts.” The Philosophical Review 79 (1): 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hintikka, Jaakko. 2004. “Logic of Conversation as a Logic of Dialogue.” In Philosophical Grounds of Rationality, edited by Richard Grandy and Richard Warner, 259–76. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hobbs, Jerry R. 1979. “Coherence and Coreference.” Cognitive Science 3: 67–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Horn, Laurence. 1985. “Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity.” Language 61: 121–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huang, Yan. 2014. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kay, Paul. 1992. “The Inheritance of Presuppositions.” Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (4). Springer: 333–79.Google Scholar
  39. Kempson, Ruth. 1975. Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1): 339–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Macagno, Fabrizio. 2018. “A dialectical approach to presupposition.” Intercultural Pragmatics 15(2). 291–313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Macagno, Fabrizio. 2015. “Presupposition as Argumentative Reasoning.” In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, edited by Alessandro Capone and Jacob Mey, 465–87. Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Alessandro Capone. 2016a. “Presuppositions as Cancellable Inferences.” In Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use, edited by Keith Allan, Alessandro Capone, and Istvan Kecskes, 45–68. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. ___. 2016b. “Uncommon Ground.” Intercultural Pragmatics 13 (2): 151–180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Giovanni Damele. 2013. “The Dialogical Force of Implicit Premises: Presumptions in Enthymemes.” Informal Logic 33 (3): 361–89. http://windsor.scholarsportal.info/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/3679/3138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2014. Emotive Language in Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mackenzie, Jim, and Phil Staines. 1999. “Hamblin’s Case for Commitment: A Reply to Johnson.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 32 (1): 14–39.Google Scholar
  49. Nølke, Henning. 1994a. “La Dilution Linguistique Des Responsabilités: Essai de Description Polyphonique Des Marqueurs Évidentiels‘ il Semble Que et Il Paraît Que.’” Langue Française, 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. ___. 1994b. Linguistique Modulaire: De La Forme Au Sens. Vol. 28. Louvain and Paris: Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Recanati, François. 2000. Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. ___. 2010. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. ___. 2016. “Force Cancellation.” Draft.Google Scholar
  54. Reimer, Marga, and Anne Bezuidenhout, eds. 2004. Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Rescher, Nicholas. 2006. Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Searle, John, and Daniel Vanderveken. 2005. “Speech Acts and Illocutionary Logic.” In Logic, Thought and Action, 109–32. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  58. Simons, Mandy. 2003. “Presupposition and Accommodation: Understanding the Stalnakerian Picture.” Philosophical Studies 112 (3): 251–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. ___. 2013. “On the Conversational Basis of Some Presuppositions.” In Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 2, edited by Alessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo, and Marco Carapezza, 329–48. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Soames, Scott. 1982. “How Presuppositions Are Inherited: A Solution to the Projection Problem.” Linguistic Inquiry 13 (3): 483–545.Google Scholar
  61. ___. 2002. Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Stalnaker, Robert. 1973. “Presuppositions.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (4): 447–57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00262951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. ___. 1974. “Pragmatic Presuppositions.” In Semantics and Philosophy, edited by Milton Munitz and Peter Unger, 197–214. New York: New York University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237073.003.0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. ___. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. ___. 1998. “On the Representation of Context.” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (1): 3–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008254815298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. ___. 2002. “Common Ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strawson, Peter. 1950. “On Referring.” Mind 59 (235): 320–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. ___. 1954. “A Reply to Mr. Sellars.” The Philosophical Review 63 (2): 216–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. ___. 1964a. “Identifying Reference and Truth‐values.” Theoria 30 (2). Wiley Online Library: 96–118.Google Scholar
  70. ___. 1964b. “Intention and Convention in Speech Acts.” The Philosophical Review 73 (4): 439–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. ___. 1971. “Identifying Reference and Truth-Values.” In Logico-Linguistic Papers, 75–95. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  72. Voloshinov, Valentin Nikólaievich. 1986. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, Mass., Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. von Fintel, Kai. 2008. “What Is Presupposition Accommodation, Again?” Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1): 137–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00144.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Von Fintel, Kai. 2004. “Would You Believe It? The King of France Is Back! (Presuppositions and Truth-Value Intuitions).” In Descriptions and Beyond, edited by Marga Reimer and Anne Bezuidenhout, 315–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Walton, Douglas. 1985. Arguer’s Position. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  76. ___. 1987. Informal Fallacies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
  77. ___. 1995. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah: Routledge. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  79. Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Filosofia da Nova (IFILNOVA), Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e HumanasUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations