Presupposition and Entailment

CHAPTER 04 05 Goals
In this lesson, you will learn:
Definitions
Presupposition
Types of Presupposition
The Projection Problem
Ordered Entailments

OBJECTIVES 5 Goals
Definitions

PART 1
 ASSUMPTION

 Speakers assume certain information is already known

by their listeners.
→ Such information will generally not be stated.
→ Such information will count as part of what is
communicated but not said.
→ Presupposition and Entailment
 PRESUPPOSITION

 Something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to

making an utterance.
→ Speakers have presuppositions.
 ENTAILMENT

 Something that logically follows from what is

asserted in the utterance.
→ Sentences have entailments.
 POTENTIALLY ASSUMED INFOR.

 Mary’s brother bought three horses.

→ Presupposition: A person called Mary exits.
→ Presupposition: She has a brother.
→ Presupposition: She has one brother only.
→ Presupposition: He has a lot of money.

 However, all of them can be wrong.

 LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
 Mary’s brother bought three horses.
→ Entailment: Mary’s brother bought something.
→ Entailment: Mary’s brother bought three animals.
→ Entailment: Mary’s brother bought two horses.
→ Entailment: Mary’s brother bought one horse.

 These entailments follow the sentence, regardless of

whether the speaker’s belief is right or wrong.
 PRESUPPOSITION AND ENTAILMENT

 Entailment is not generally discussed as much in

contemporary pragmatics as the more speaker-
dependent notion of presupposition.
Presupposition

PART 2
 DEFINITION

 Presupposition is treated as a relationship between two

propositions. For example, the first sentence contains
the proposition p and the other contains the proposition
q, then by using the symbol >>, the relationship is p >>
q.
1. Mary’s dog is cute. (= p)
2. Mary has a dog. (= q)
 DEFINITION

 By negating the first sentence (= NOT p), we find that

the relationship of presupposition does not change. In
other words, the same proposition q is presupposed by
NOT p.
1. Mary’s dog isn’t cute. (= NOT p)
2. Mary has a dog. (= q)
→ NOT p >> q
 CONSTANCY UNDER NEGATION

 This property of presupposition is generally

described as constancy under negation. It means that
the presupposition of a statement will remain
constant (i.e. still true) even that statement is
negated.
 ANOTHER CASE

 Consider a situation which you disagree (via a negative)

with someone who has already made the first statement.
1. Everybody knows that John is gay. (= p)
2. Everybody doesn’t know that John is gay. (= NOT p)
3. John is gay. (= q)
→ p >> q & NOT p >> q
NOTE

 Although both speakers (of the two first utterances)

disagree about the validity of p, they both assume the
truth of q in making their statements.
→ The proposition q is presupposed by both p and NOT
p, remaining constant under negation.
Types of Presupposition

PART 3
 POTENTIAL PRESUPPOSITION

 the use of words

 the use of phrases
 the use of structures
→ these linguistics forms = indicators of potential
presupposition
→ they can become actual presupposition in contexts
EXISTENTIAL PRESUPPOSITION

 possessive construction → presupposition of existence

 I crashed your car.

→ You have a car.
EXISTENTIAL PRESUPPOSITION

 any definite noun phrase → the existence of the entities

 the King of Sweden

 the cat
 the girl next door
→ These entities exist.
 FACTIVE PRESUPPOSITION

 Everybody knows that John is gay.

 Everybody knows that q.
→ q = presupposition
→ presupposed information = a fact
→ factive presupposition
 MORE EXAMPLES

 She didn’t realize he was ill.

→ He was ill.
 MORE EXAMPLES

 We regret telling him.

→ We told him.
 MORE EXAMPLES

 I wasn’t aware that she was married.

→ She was married.
 MORE EXAMPLES

 It isn’t odd that he left early.

→ He left early.
 MORE EXAMPLES

 I’m glad that it’s over.

→ It’s over.
 LEXICAL PRESUPPOSITION
 Some are treated as the source of lexical presuppositions.
→ the use of one form with its asserted meaning is
conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that
another (non-asserted) meaning is understood.

 assert = to say that something is certainly true

 conventional = following the usual practices of the past
 LEXICAL PRESUPPOSITION
 She managed to open the door.
→ asserted meaning: The person succeeded in some way.

 She didn’t manage to open the door.

→ asserted meaning: The person didn’t succeed.
 LEXICAL PRESUPPOSITION
 She managed to open the door.
→ asserting: succeeded
→ presupposing: tried
 MORE EXAMPLES
 He stopped smoking.
→ presupposing: He used to smoke.
 MORE EXAMPLES
 They started complaining.
→ presupposing: They weren’t complaining before.
 MORE EXAMPLES
 You’re late again.
→ presupposing: You were late before.
COMPARISON
Lexical Factive

The speaker’s use of a The speaker’s use of a

particular expression is particular expression is
taken to presuppose taken to presuppose the
another (unstated) truth of the information
concept. that is stated after it.
 NOTE
 after it
→ it = factive presupposition = presupposed information
following a verb like know
 STRUCTURAL PRESUPPOSITION
 Structural presuppositions are not associated with the use
of certain words and phrases like the above
presuppositions.
 STRUCTURAL PRESUPPOSITION
 Certain sentence structures are analyzed as a
presupposition.
→ it = conventionally and regularly presupposing that part of
the structure is already assumed to be true.
→ Speakers use such structures to treat information as
presupposed (i.e. assumed to be true) and hence to be
accepted as true by the listener.
 STRUCTURAL PRESUPPOSITION
 WH question construction is conventionally interpreted
with the presupposition that the information after the
wh-form is already known to be the case.

 When did he leave?

→ He left.
 Where did you buy the bike?
→ You bought the bike.
 PROBLEM
 This type of presupposition leads listeners to believe
that the information presented is true, rather than the
presupposition of the person asking the question.

 How fast was the car going when it ran the red light?
→ You didn’t notice whether it was red or not.
→ Answering this question (how fast) means you accept
the truth of the presupposition (i.e. ran the red light).
 PROBLEM
 Structurally-based presuppositions may represent subtle
ways of making information that the speaker believes
appear to be what the listener should believe.
 NON-FACTIVE PRESUPPOSITION

 For some presuppositions, they are not assumed to be

true.
→ non-factive presupposition
 NON-FACTIVE PRESUPPOSITION

 I dreamed that I was rich.

→ I was not rich.
 NON-FACTIVE PRESUPPOSITION

 We imagined we were in Hawaii.

→ We were not in Hawaii.
 NON-FACTIVE PRESUPPOSITION

 He pretends to be ill.
→ He is not ill.
 COUNTER-FACTUAL PRESUPPOSITION

 In the case of If 2, what is presupposed is not only not

true, but is the opposite of what is true.
→ contrary to facts
→ The information is not true at the time of utterance.
 COUNTER-FACTUAL PRESUPPOSITION

 If you were my friend, you would have helped me.

→ You are not my friend.
 POTENTIAL PRESUPPOSITION

Type Example Presupposition

existential the X >> X exists
factive I regret leaving. >> I left.
non-factive He pretended to be >> He wasn’t happy.
happy.
lexical He managed to >> He tried to escape.
escape.
structural When did she die? >> She died.
The Projection Problem

PART 4
 SIMPLE AND COMPLEX

 Presupposition of a simple sentence will continue to be

true when that simple sentence becomes part of a more
complex sentence.
 THEORY

 The meaning of the whole sentence is a combination of

the meaning of its parts.
 PROJECTION PROBLEM

 The meaning of some presuppositions (as parts) does

not survive to become the meaning of some complex
sentences (as wholes).
→ projection problem
 EXAMPLE

a. Nobody realized that Kelly was ill. (= p)

b. Kelly was ill. (= q)
c. p >> q
d. I imagined that Kelly was ill. (= r)
e. Kelly was not ill. (= NOT q)
f. r >> NOT q
g. I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she
was ill. (r & p)
 ANALYSIS

 c = the speaker uttering a presupposes b

→ p >> q
 f = the speaker uttering d presupposes e, the opposite of b
→ r >> NOT q
 After combining r & p, the presupposition q can no
longer be assumed to be true.
→ r & p >> NOT q
ANALYSIS

 q is assumed to be true in the simple structure of c.

 q does not project into the complex structure of h.
 ANOTHER EXAMPLE
 It’s so sad. George regrets getting Mary pregnant.
 But he didn’t get her pregnant. We know that now.
→ A combination of the two sentences should be: George
regrets getting Mary pregnant, but he didn’t get her pregnant.
 EXAMPLE

a. George regrets getting Mary pregnant. (= p)

b. George got Mary pregnant. (= q)
c. p >> q
d. He didn’t get her pregnant. (= r)
e. George regrets getting Mary pregnant,
but he didn’t get her pregnant. (= p & r)
f. p & r >> NOT q
 ANALYSIS

 The presupposition q in b does not survive as a

presupposition of the combined utterances in e.
→ In other words, the person uttering e will not
assume the presupposition q is true when uttering e.
 WHY?

 One reason for this is that presuppositions that don’t

project are destroyed by entailments.
 Meanwhile, an entailment is something that
necessarily follows from what is asserted.
 WHY?

 r entails George didn’t get Mary pregnant.

 p & r presupposes q
 p & r entails NOT q
→ entailment (a necessary consequence of what is said)
> presupposition (an earlier assumption)
 THE EXISTENCE OF THE KING

 The King of England visited us.

→ The King exits.
→ The speaker presupposes the existence of an entity
described.

 The King of England doesn’t exist!

→ There is no King.
→ There is an entailment that there is no king at all.
 QUESTION?

 Does the speaker of the second utterance still have the

presupposition of the existence of the entity described?

 If yes, we recognize that entailment > presupposition.

→ existential presupposition abandoned
 CONCLUSION

 Potential presuppositions in Table 4.1 only become

actual presuppositions when intended by speakers to
be recognized as such within utterances.
→ Potential presupposition is not being presented as a
strong assumption.
→ The word or phrase never has a presupposition, only
speakers have.
 CONCLUSION

 What’s that guy doing in the parking lot?

 He’s looking for his car or something.
→ possessive construction = his car has a potential
presupposition = he has a car, which can be presented
tentatively via expressions such as or something.
Ordered Entailments

PART 5
 PROBLEM

 entailment is not a pragmatic concept.

 entailment is a purely logical concept.
→||-
 EXAMPLE

 Rover chased three squirrels. (= p)

→ Something chased three squirrels. (= q)
→ Rover did something to three squirrels. (= r)
→ Rover chased three of something. (= s)
→ Something happened. (= t)
 BACKGROUND ENTAILMENTS
 In uttering p, the speaker is necessarily committed to the
truth of a very large number of background entailments.
→ (q, r, s, t) are just some of them.
→ The speaker indicates how these entailments are to be
ordered through stress.
→ The speaker decides which entailment is assumed to be in
the foreground, or more important for interpreting intended
meaning than others.
 STRESS

 Rover chased three squirrels.

→ Rover chased THREE squirrels.
→ ROVER chased three squirrels.

→ Stress allows the speaker to mark for the listener what

the focus of the message is and what is being assumed.
 IT-CLEFT SENTENCE

 It was ROVER that chased the squirrels.

→ Foreground Entailment helps to communicate what the
speaker believes the listener may already be thinking.
 IT-CLEFT SENTENCE

 It wasn’t ME who took your money.

→ The utterance is used to attribute Foreground Entailment
to the listener without actually stating it.

 attribute st to sb = to say that a particular person was the

first person to say something, do something