Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Lodz Papers in Pragmatics

Founded by Cap, Piotr

Editor-in-Chief: Chilton, Paul / Kopytowska, Monika

CiteScore 2018: 0.79

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.197
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.787

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Presuppositions and Appropriateness of Assertions

Filippo Domaneschi
Published Online: 2012-01-05 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-011-0011-8

Presuppositions and Appropriateness of Assertions

In this paper I aim to compare and evaluate two theoretic approaches to pragmatic presuppositions: the Common Ground account and Propositional Context account. According to the Common Ground account proposed by Stalnaker (2002), it is appropriate to assert a sentence p that requires a presupposition q only if q is mutually believed as accepted as true and taken for granted by the interlocutors. Otherwise, Gauker (2002, 2008) claims that the ground of propositions taken for granted coincides with what he calls the objective propositional context, that is the set of objectively relevant propositional elements that speakers ought to share in order to evaluate the appropriateness of utterances so as to reach the goal of a conversation.

The main purpose of my paper is to show that, according to the Propositional Context account, a theory of presupposition has to take into account a normative-objective notion of context. Secondly, I aim to develop a criticism of Gauker's point of view claiming that the Propositional Context account does not account for the number of ways in which a proposition can be taken for granted by the speakers depending on the context. Finally, I propose to integrate Gauker's account with a further condition for appropriateness of assertion which states that: in order to appropriately assert a sentence p that requires a presupposition q, speakers ought to recognize how they should justify q in a specific communicative context.

Keywords: presupposition; propositional context; epistemic contextualism; common ground; appropriateness conditions

  • Annis, David. 1978. A Contextualist Theory of epistemic Justification. American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 213-229.Google Scholar

  • Asher, Nicholas. 1999. Discourse structure and the logic of conversation. In: Ken Turner (ed.), The Semantic/Pragmatic Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, 19-48.Google Scholar

  • Beaver, David and Zeevat, Henk, 2007. Accommodation. In: Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 533-538.Google Scholar

  • DeRose, Keith, 1999. Contextualism: An Explanation and Defense. In: John Greco and Ernest Sosa (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, Oxford: Blackwell, 187-205.Google Scholar

  • Ducrot, Oswald, 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris, Hermann.Google Scholar

  • Gauker, Christopher. 1994. Thinking out loud. An essay on the relation between language and thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gauker, Christopher. 1998. What is a context of utterance?. Philosophical Studies 91: 149-172.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gauker, Christopher. 2002. Words Without Meaning. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Gauker, Christopher. 2008. Against accommodation: Heim, van der Sandt, and the presupposition projection problem. Philosophy of Language, 22: 171-205.Google Scholar

  • Gu, Yueguo. 1999. Towards a model of situated discourse analysis. In: Ken Turner (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View. Oxford: Elsevier, 149-178.Google Scholar

  • Heim, Irene 1992. Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs. Journal of Semantics 9:183-221.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Karttunnen, Lauri 1974. Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181-194.Google Scholar

  • Lumsden, David 2008. Kinds of conversational cooperation. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1896-1908.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Penco, Carlo. 2008. Context and Contract. In: Paolo Bouquet, Luciano Serafini and Richmond H. Thomason, (eds.), Perspectives on Contexts, Stanford: CSLI Publications, 187-211.Google Scholar

  • Sbisà, Marina. 1999. Ideology and persuasive presuppositions. In: Jef Verschueren (ed.), Language and Ideology. Selected paper from the 6th International Pragmatic Conference, vol. 1, International Pragmatic Association, Antwerp, 492-509.Google Scholar

  • Sbisà, Marina. 2002. Presupposizioni e contesti. In: Carlo Penco (ed.), La svolta contestuale, Milano: McGraw-Hill, 221-239.Google Scholar

  • Soames, Scott 1982. How presuppositions are inherited. A solution to the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 483-545.Google Scholar

  • Sosa, Ernest and Enrique Villanueva. 2000 (eds.). Skepticism. Philosophical Issues 10, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic Presuppositions. In: Milton K. Munitz and Peter K. Unger (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, New York: New York University Press, 197-213.Google Scholar

  • Stalnaker, Robert. 1999. Context and Content. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5-6): 701-721.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Stalnaker, Robert. 2009. A response to Abbott on presupposition and common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 539-544.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Thomason, Richmond. 1990. Accommodation, Meaning, and Implicature: Interdisciplinary Foundations for Pragmatics. In: Phillip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in Communication, Cambridge, 325-363.Google Scholar

  • von Fintel, Kai, 2000. What is presupposition accommodation?. URL http://mit.edu/fintel/fintel-2000-accomm.pdf

  • von Fintel, Kai, 2004. Would You Believe It, The King of France is Back. In: Anne Bezuidenhout and Marga Reimer (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 315-341.Google Scholar

  • Yablo, Stephen. 2006. Non-Catastrophic Presupposition Failure. In: Judith Thomson and Alex Byrne (eds.), Content and Modality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 164-180.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2012-01-05

Published in Print: 2011-01-01

Citation Information: Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 205–222, ISSN (Online) 1898-4436, ISSN (Print) 1895-6106, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-011-0011-8.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in