In pragmatics Presupposition is what the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance. Entailment, which is not a pragmatic concept, is what logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance. Speakers have presuppositions while sentences, not speakers, have entailments. Take a look at the example below:
Jane's brother bought two apartments.
This sentence presupposes that Jane
exists and that she has a brother. The speaker may also hold the more specific presupposition that
she has only a brother and her brother has a lot of money. All these presuppositions are
held by the speaker and all of them can be wrong.
In pragmatics, entailment is
the relationship between two sentences where the truth of one (A) requires the
truth of the other (B). For example, the sentence (A) The president was
assassinated. entails (B) The president is dead.
Presupposition
The concept of presupposition
is often treated as the relationship between two propositions. In the case
below, we have a sentence that contains a proposition (p) and another
proposition (q), which is easily presupposed by any listener. However, the
speaker can produce a sentence by denying the proposition (p), obtaining as a
result the same presupposition (q).
Debora's cat is cute. (p)
Debora has a cat. (q)
When I say that Debora' s cat is cute,
this sentence presupposes that Debora has a cat. In
Debora' s cat is not cute. (NOT p)
Types of Presupposition
The types of presupposition are:
Existential
presupposition:
it is the
assumption of the existence of the entities named by the speaker.
For example, when a speaker says "Tom's
car is new", we can presuppose that Tom exists and that he has a car.
Factive presupposition: it is the assumption that something is
true due to the presence of some verbs such as "know" and
"realize" and of phrases involving glad, for example. Thus, when a
speaker says that she didn't realize someone was ill, we can presuppose that
someone is ill. Also, when she says "I'm glad it's over", we can
presuppose that it's over.
Lexical presupposition: it is the assumption that, in using one word, the speaker
can act as if another meaning (word) will be understood. For instance:
Andrew stopped running. (>>He used to run.)
You are late again. (>> You were late before.)
In this case, the use of the
expressions "stop" and "again" are taken to
presuppose another (unstated) concept.
Structural
presupposition: it is the assumption associated with the
use of certain words and phrases. For example, wh-question in English are
conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that the information after
the wh-form (e.g. when and where) is already known to be the case.
When did she travel to the USA? ( >> she traveled)
Where did you buy the book? (>> you bought the book)
The listener perceives that the
information presented is necessarily true rather than just the presupposition
of the person asking the question.
Non-factive
presupposition:
it is an assumption
that something is not true. For example, verbs like "dream",
"imagine" and "pretend" are used with the presupposition that
what follows is not true.
I dreamed that I was rich. (>> I am not rich)
We imagined that we were in London. (>> We are not in London)
Counterfactual
presupposition:
it is the assumption
that what is presupposed is not only untrue, but is the opposite of what is
true, or contrary to facts. For instance, some conditional structures,
generally called counterfactual conditionals, presuppose that the information,
in the if- clauses, is not true at the time of utterance.
If you were my daughter, I would not
allow you to do this.
( > you are not my daughter)
(Source: Kompasiana.com)
Generally speaking,
entailment is not a pragmatic concept (i.e. having to do with the speaker
meaning), but it is considered a purely logical concept.
Observe the examples below:
Observe the examples below:
"Bob ate three
sandwiches."
a) Something ate three
sandwiches.
b) Bob did something to
three sandwiches.
c) Bob ate three of
something.
d) Something happened.
When a speaker utters
sentence (1), the speaker is necessarily committed to the truth of a
very large number of background knowledge. On any occasion, in uttering (1),
however, the speaker will indicate how these entailments are to be ordered.
That is, the speaker will communicate, typically by stress, which entailment is
assumed to be the foreground, or more important for interpreting
intended meaning, than any others. For example, when the speaker utters the
following sentences, she indicates that the foreground entailment, and
hence her main assumption, is that Bob ate a certain number of sandwiches.
a) Bob ate THREE sandwiches.
b) BOB ate three
sandwiches.
In b), the focus
shifts to BOB, and the main assumption is that someone ate three sandwiches.
The stress in English functions to mark the main assumption of the
speaker in producing an utterance. As such, it allows the speaker to mark for
the listener what the focus of the message is, and what is being assumed.
A very similar function is
exhibited by a structure called cleft construction in English, as we can
observe in the example below:
a) It was VICTOR that did
the work.
b) It wasn’t ME who took
your jacket.
In both the examples
above, the speaker can communicate what she believes the listener may already
be thinking (i.e. the foreground entailment). In b), that foreground
entailment (someone took your jacket) is being made in order to deny
personal responsibility. The utterance in b) can be used to attribute
the foreground entailment to the listener(s) without actually stating it (as a
possible accusation).
Source: Dr. Shadia Y. Banjar
