Cover not available
Part of
Beyond Meaning
Edited by Elly Ifantidou, Louis de Saussure and Tim Wharton
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 324] 2021
► pp. 43–60

Presupposition effects

Beyond and within speaker’s meaning

| University of Neuchatel
This paper focuses on presupposition effects, in the light of Sperber and Wilson (2015). First, we define semantic presuppositions as determinate contents, which can in turn be instances of meaning or/and showing. A discussion is then engaged regarding the determinacy of semantic and discursive presuppositions, leading to the identification of a specific property of presuppositions, namely their contribution to the acceptance of an utterance (as per Sperber et al. 2010). The last section seeks to account for the ambivalent status of presuppositions, as they are both ostensive (i.e. triggered by an ostensive verbal stimulus) and relatively less ostensive. We conclude that a proper identification of presuppositions requires to go ‘within’ the speaker’s meaning, by adding an ‘ostensive’ and ‘less ostensive’ continuum to the showing – meaning diagram.
Keywords: presupposition effects, implicated premises, comprehension vs acceptance, less ostensive meanings, processing background information
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Determinate and indeterminate presupposition effects
    • 2.1Semantic presuppositions as determinate contents
    • 2.2Discursive presuppositions as indeterminate meanings
    • 2.3Two criteria to distinguish discursive presuppositions from implicated premises
  • 3.The ostensive and less ostensive continuum
    • 3.1Presupposition effects and the relevance comprehension heuristic
    • 3.2Presupposition effects as less ostensive meanings
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.324.c3
References (25)
References
Bredart, Serge, and Karin Modolo. 1988. “Moses Strikes Again: Focalization Effect on a Semantic Illusion.” Acta Psychologica 67 (2): 135‒144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Domaneschi, Filippo, and Simona Di Paola. 2018. “The Processing Costs of Presupposition Accommodation.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 47 (3): 483‒503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1957. “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review 66 (3): 377‒388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Speech Acts, ed. by P. Cole, and J. Morgan, 41‒58. Vol. 3of Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Marmaridou, Sophia. 2000. Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Vol. 72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana, and Filippo Domaneschi. 2018. “Presuppositional Effects and Ostensive-Inferential Communication.” Journal of Pragmatics 138: 17‒29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2017. The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Misha-Laura. 2018. “Accommodation: A Cognitive Heuristic for Background Information.” Anglophonia: French Journal of English Linguistics, (25). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Heekyeong, and Lynne M. Reder. 2004. “Moses Illusion: Implication for Human Cognition.” In Cognitive Illusions: A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory, ed. by Rüdiger Pohl, 275‒291. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. “Information Structure in Discourse: Towards an Integrated Formal Theory of Pragmatics.” In Working Papers in Linguistics-Ohio State University Department of Linguistics, 91‒136.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Louis. 2013. “Background Relevance.” Journal of Pragmatics 59: 178‒189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simons, Mandy. 2005. “Presuppositions and Relevance.” In Semantics Versus Pragmatics, ed. by Zoltán Gendle Szabo, 329‒355. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 2005. “Modularity and Relevance: How Can a Massively Modular Mind Be Flexible and Context Dependent?” In The Innate Mind, ed. by Peter Carruthers, Laurence Stephen, and Stephen Stich, 53‒68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind and Language 25 (4): 359‒393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1987. “Precis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10 (4): 697‒710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Beyond Speaker’s Meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (44): 117‒149.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, ed. by Marga Reimer, and Anne Bezuidenhout, 315‒339. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2017. “Doing What Comes Naturally.” Paper presented at Pragmatics Next, University of Fribourg, March13, 2017.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2016. “Reassessing the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction.” Lingua 175: 5‒19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Relevance Theory and Literary Interpretation.” In Reading Beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory, ed. by Terence Cave, and Deirdre Wilson, 185‒204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2019. “Pragmatics and the Challenge of ‘Non-propositional’ Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics 145: 31‒38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1979. “Ordered Entailments: An Alternative to Presuppositional Theories.” Syntax and Semantics 11: 299‒323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Tim Wharton. 2006. “Relevance and Prosody.” Journal of Pragmatics 38 (10): 1559‒1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Müller, Misha-Laura & Magali A. Mari
2021. Definite Descriptions in the Light of the Comprehension vs. Acceptance Distinction: Comparing Self-Paced Reading with Eye-Tracking Measures. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.