Presupposition: Meaning, Types, and Examples
What is Presupposition?
Presupposition refers to implicit assumptions or background beliefs that a speaker assumes to be
true or shared by the listener in communication. It is not directly stated but is essential for the
utterance to make sense or be meaningful.
For example:
Sentence: "John stopped smoking."
o Presupposition: John used to smoke.
Presuppositions remain valid unless explicitly denied or contradicted. They are crucial in
linguistics and communication for understanding the underlying meaning of expressions.
Types of Presuppositions
Presuppositions are typically categorized based on the linguistic triggers (or presupposition
triggers) that produce them. Below are the primary types:
1. Existential Presupposition
o Definition: Assumes the existence of entities mentioned in the discourse.
o Example:
Sentence: "The dog is barking."
Presupposition: There is a dog.
2. Factive Presupposition
o Definition: Assumes the truth of the information introduced by certain verbs or
expressions.
o Example:
Sentence: "She knows that the Earth is round."
Presupposition: The Earth is round.
3. Lexical Presupposition
o Definition: Assumes certain implied meanings within the use of specific words.
o Example:
Sentence: "He managed to solve the problem."
Presupposition: Solving the problem was difficult.
4. Structural Presupposition
o Definition: Assumes something based on the grammatical structure of the
sentence.
o Example:
Sentence: "When did you arrive?"
Presupposition: You arrived.
5. Non-Factive Presupposition
o Definition: Assumes something to be untrue, often triggered by verbs like
"pretend" or "imagine."
o Example:
Sentence: "He pretends to be a doctor."
Presupposition: He is not a doctor.
6. Counterfactual Presupposition
o Definition: Assumes that the opposite of what is stated is true.
o Example:
Sentence: "If I had studied, I would have passed."
Presupposition: I did not study.
Examples of Presupposition Triggers
Some common triggers include:
Definite descriptions: "The king of France is bald." (There is a king of France.)
Change of state verbs: "She stopped crying." (She was crying.)
Implicative verbs: "He forgot to call." (He was supposed to call.)
Cleft sentences: "It was John who called." (Someone called.)
Questions: "Who took my book?" (Someone took my book.)
Importance of Presupposition in Communication
Helps convey additional information implicitly.
Aids in understanding the speaker's assumptions.
Plays a role in pragmatics, especially in effective and nuanced communication.
Speech Act Theory: Definitions, Types, and Examples
Definition of Speech Act Theory
Speech Act Theory, introduced by J.L. Austin in How to Do Things with Words (1962) and developed
further by John Searle, explains how language is used to perform actions. It highlights that
speaking is not just about conveying information but also about performing actions like
promising, apologizing, or commanding.
Components of Speech Acts
1. Locutionary Act: The basic act of producing meaningful speech.
Example: "The sky is blue." (Describes the sky's color).
2. Illocutionary Act: The intended action or purpose of the speech.
Example: "Can you pass the salt?" (A polite request).
3. Perlocutionary Act: The effect of the speech on the listener.
Example: "There’s a fire!" (Listener evacuates the building).
Types of Speech Acts-- (Searle’s Classification)
1. Assertives: Statements that commit the speaker to the truth of a proposition.
Examples: "It’s raining outside," "The Earth revolves around the Sun."
2. Directives: Attempts to get the listener to perform an action.
Examples: "Close the door, please," "Could you help me?"
3. Commissives: Commitments to a future action by the speaker.
Examples: "I’ll call you tomorrow," "We promise to deliver your package."
4. Expressives: Expressions of the speaker's feelings or emotions.
Examples: "Thank you for your help," "I’m sorry for being late."
5. Declarations: Statements that bring about a change in reality.
Examples: "I hereby declare the meeting open," "You are now husband and wife."
Direct and Indirect Speech Acts
Direct Speech Acts: The structure matches the intended function.
Example: "Open the window." (Command).
Indirect Speech Acts: The intended function is implied.
Example: "It’s really stuffy in here." (Implied request to open the window).
Examples in Context
1. Classroom: Teacher says, "Submit your assignments by Friday." (Instruction).
2. Legal Setting: Judge declares, "You are sentenced to five years." (Declaration).
3. Daily Conversation: Friend promises, "I’ll pick you up at 7 PM." (Commissive).
Speech Act Theory is essential for understanding communication, intentions, and the effects of
speech in various contexts.
Relationship Between Relevance Theory and Implicatures
Relevance Theory and Implicatures are closely linked as Relevance Theory provides a
cognitive framework to explain how implicatures are generated and understood during
communication.
Relevance Theory
Relevance Theory, proposed by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson, suggests that communication
relies on the principle of relevance. Listeners assume that speakers provide information that is
relevant and worth the cognitive effort required to process it.
Key principles include the Cognitive Principle of Relevance (humans maximize relevance in
information processing) and the Communicative Principle of Relevance (utterances are
designed to be optimally relevant).
Implicatures
Implicatures, introduced by H.P. Grice, refer to meanings that are implied rather than explicitly
stated. There are two main types:
Conventional Implicatures: Linked to specific words or expressions, such as "but" implying
contrast.
Conversational Implicatures: Context-dependent inferences based on the Cooperative Principle
and conversational maxims.
Relationship Between Relevance Theory and Implicatures
Relevance Theory simplifies and builds on Grice’s framework by emphasizing relevance as the
core guiding principle in deriving implicatures, removing the need for multiple conversational
maxims. Relevance Theory explains implicatures as follows:
1. Listeners infer implicatures by applying the principle of relevance, seeking interpretations that
provide the greatest cognitive effect for the least effort.
2. Relevance Theory distinguishes between explicitly communicated content (explicatures) and
implicitly communicated content (implicatures). Both are interpreted using the relevance
principle.
3. The theory provides a cognitive mechanism for how implicatures are derived, showing that they
arise naturally as listeners try to maximize the relevance of the speaker’s utterance.
Examples
1. Gricean Perspective: A speaker says, "Can you pass the salt?" The literal meaning is a question
about ability, and the implicature is a polite request.
2. Relevance Theory Perspective: The listener recognizes that asking about ability is less relevant
than a request and infers "Please pass the salt," maximizing cognitive relevance.
Relevance Theory explains implicatures as a natural outcome of the human tendency to interpret
utterances in ways that achieve the most relevance with the least processing effort.
Relationship Between the Cooperative Principle and Metaphors
The Cooperative Principle, introduced by H.P. Grice, governs how effective communication
relies on participants adhering to conversational maxims (quality, quantity, relevance, and
manner). When speakers deliberately deviate from these maxims, they create opportunities for
additional, often implicit meanings to emerge, such as those found in metaphors.
The Cooperative Principle
Grice’s Cooperative Principle states: "Make your conversational contribution such as is
required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk
exchange."
This principle is upheld through four maxims:
1. Maxim of Quantity: Provide the right amount of information.
2. Maxim of Quality: Speak truthfully and provide evidence.
3. Maxim of Relevance: Be relevant.
4. Maxim of Manner: Be clear and orderly.
Metaphors and Maxim Flouting
Metaphors often appear to violate the Maxim of Quality, as their literal meanings are typically
false or nonsensical. However, this apparent violation is intentional and signals to the listener
that they should interpret the metaphor at a deeper, non-literal level.
For example:
Metaphor: "He is a lion in battle."
o Literal Meaning: The person is literally a lion, which is false.
o Flouting Quality Maxim: Signals the listener to derive an implicature (the person is
courageous and fierce).
How Metaphors Align with the Cooperative Principle
Although metaphors flout the Maxim of Quality, they still adhere to the overarching Cooperative
Principle because they aim to communicate relevant and meaningful insights. The listener
assumes the speaker is cooperating and seeks an interpretation that aligns with the context of the
conversation.
1. Maxim of Relevance: The metaphor is relevant to the discussion, encouraging the listener to
infer the intended meaning.
2. Maxim of Manner: The metaphor adds depth, creativity, and richness to communication, often
clarifying abstract ideas through vivid imagery.
Examples of the Relationship
1. Literal Flouting: "Time is a thief."
o Flouts Quality: Time does not literally steal.
o Implicature: Time takes away moments or opportunities, like a thief.
2. Abstract Concepts: "Her words were a dagger to his heart."
o Flouts Quality: Words cannot physically harm.
o Implicature: Her words caused emotional pain.
Conclusion
Metaphors enrich communication by flouting specific maxims (often Quality) while still
adhering to the Cooperative Principle. They rely on shared contextual understanding and the
assumption that the speaker and listener are working together to convey and interpret deeper
meanings. This interplay highlights the creativity and flexibility of language within Grice’s
framework.
