Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Presupposition Triggers and Presumptive Interpretation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy: Part 2 Theories and Applications

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Clearly, Strawson’s later definition of presupposition (Strawson 1954) conflicts with the account of pragmatic presupposition (Reimer and Bezuidenhout 2004, 308; Stalnaker 1973, 1974, 2002). The point we want to make is that Strawson’s original idea of connecting presupposition with utterances can be developed in dialogical terms.

  2. 2.

    According to Gazdar, however, commitments and beliefs are not distinguished, as commitments concern contents presented as a true belief (Beyssade and Marandin 2009).

  3. 3.

    http://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/trans/en/050124IT.htm (Accessed on 21 January 2017).

  4. 4.

    «Je signalerai enfin une perspective particulièrement prometteuse qui s’ouvre dès qu’on considère le sens comme un représentation de l’énonciation, représentation consistant notamment à y faire entendre la voix de divers énonciateurs s’adressant à divers destinataires et à identifier ces rôles illocutionnaires avec des personnages qui peuvent être, entre autres, ceux de l’énonciation. Il s’agit de la construction, dans le discours, du locuteur et de l’allocutaire. Psycho- et sociolinguistes ont quelquefois noté […] que l’on peut, en parlant, constituer une image de soi et de la personne à qui l’on parle, image que l’interlocuteur tantôt accepte et tantôt rejette. Un des principaux moyens de cette constitution est. justement la possibilité, inscrite selon nous dans la langue, c’est-à-dire dans la signification des mots et des phrases, de faire s’exprimer différentes voix, en donnant l’instruction de les identifier à des êtres de la réalité –et en spécifiant même certaines contraintes à observer dans cette identification» (Ducrot 1980, 56).

  5. 5.

    « Mio nonno si beccò una pallottola nella gamba, le indagini non portarono a nulla. Sarà stata una casualità, perché, come tutti sanno: la mafia non esiste » Dina Lauricella, Palermo: le minacce non esistono, è solo Curtigghiu , Il Fatto Quotidiano 1 June 2016 (Retrieved on 1 June 2016).

References

  • 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 

  • Abrusán, Márta. 2016. “Presupposition Cancellation: Explaining the Soft-Hard Trigger Distinction.” Natural Language Semantics 24 (2): 165–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atlas, Jay David. 2005. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195133004.001.0001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • ___. 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 2016. The Pragmatics of Indirect Reports: Socio-Philosophical Considerations. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 2017. “Shifts of Footing in Mrs. Hillary Clinton’s Emectoral Speech.” RASK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. “Quotations as Demonstrations.” Language 66 (4): 764–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducrot, Oswald. 1966. “‘Le Roi de France Est Sage’. Implication Logique et Présupposition Linguistique.” Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 4: 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 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 

  • ___. 1969. “Présupposés et Sous-Entendus.” Langue Française, no. 4: 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1972a. “De Saussure à la Philosophie du Langage.” In Les Actes de Langage, 7–34. Paris: Hermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1972b. Dire et ne pas Dire. Paris: Hermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1980. Les Mots du Discours. Paris: Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1982. “La Notion de Sujet Parlant.” Recherches sur la Philosophie et le Langage 2. Université de Grenoble: 65–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1984. Le Dire et Le Dit. Paris: Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fløttum, Kjersti. 2010. “EU Discourse: Polyphony and Unclearness.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (4). Elsevier: 990–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • ___. 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 

  • Geurts, Bart. 1999. Presuppositions and Pronouns. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 2017. “Presupposition and Givenness.” In Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics, edited by Yan Huang, 180–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, Richard. 1970. “Meaning and Speech Acts.” The Philosophical Review 79 (1): 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hobbs, Jerry R. 1979. “Coherence and Coreference.” Cognitive Science 3: 67–90. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, Laurence. 1985. “Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity.” Language 61: 121–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Yan. 2014. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, Paul. 1992. “The Inheritance of Presuppositions.” Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (4). Springer: 333–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempson, Ruth. 1975. Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, David. 1979. “Scorekeeping in a Language Game.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1): 339–59. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio. 2018. “A dialectical approach to presupposition.” Intercultural Pragmatics 15(2). 291–313. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • ___. 2016b. “Uncommon Ground.” Intercultural Pragmatics 13 (2): 151–180. doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2014. Emotive Language in Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565776.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, Jim, and Phil Staines. 1999. “Hamblin’s Case for Commitment: A Reply to Johnson.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 32 (1): 14–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1994b. Linguistique Modulaire: De La Forme Au Sens. Vol. 28. Louvain and Paris: Peeters Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, François. 2000. Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 2010. Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 2016. “Force Cancellation.” Draft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, Marga, and Anne Bezuidenhout, eds. 2004. Descriptions and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, Nicholas. 2006. Presumption and the Practices of Tentative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498848.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John, and Daniel Vanderveken. 2005. “Speech Acts and Illocutionary Logic.” In Logic, Thought and Action, 109–32. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, Mandy. 2003. “Presupposition and Accommodation: Understanding the Stalnakerian Picture.” Philosophical Studies 112 (3): 251–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 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 

  • Soames, Scott. 1982. “How Presuppositions Are Inherited: A Solution to the Projection Problem.” Linguistic Inquiry 13 (3): 483–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 2002. Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, Robert. 1973. “Presuppositions.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (4): 447–57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00262951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1998. “On the Representation of Context.” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (1): 3–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008254815298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 2002. “Common Ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020867916902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, Peter. 1950. “On Referring.” Mind 59 (235): 320–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1954. “A Reply to Mr. Sellars.” The Philosophical Review 63 (2): 216–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1964a. “Identifying Reference and Truth‐values.” Theoria 30 (2). Wiley Online Library: 96–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1964b. “Intention and Convention in Speech Acts.” The Philosophical Review 73 (4): 439–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1971. “Identifying Reference and Truth-Values.” In Logico-Linguistic Papers, 75–95. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voloshinov, Valentin Nikólaievich. 1986. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, Mass., Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Walton, Douglas. 1985. Arguer’s Position. Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1987. Informal Fallacies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • ___. 1995. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah: Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811160.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

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)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Filosofia da Nova (IFILNOVA), Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

    Fabrizio Macagno

Authors
  1. Fabrizio Macagno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrizio Macagno .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cognitive Science, University of Messina, Barcellona, Italy

    Alessandro Capone

  2. Department SUM, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Marco Carapezza

  3. University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Franco Lo Piparo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Macagno, F. (2019). Presupposition Triggers and Presumptive Interpretation. In: Capone, A., Carapezza, M., Lo Piparo, F. (eds) Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy: Part 2 Theories and Applications. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00973-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00973-1_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00972-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00973-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation