Presupposition and Entailments (Yule, George)

1. PRESUPPOSITION AND
ENTAILMENT
MUSFERA NARA VADIA
WURI YULITRINISYA
REZKY JAFRI

2. PRESUPPOSITION AND ENTAILMENT
• A presupposition is something the speaker assumes to be
the case prior to making an utterance. Speakers, not
sentences, have presupposition.
• An entailment is something that logically follows from what
is asserted in the utterance. Sentences, not speakers, have
entailments.
Speakers have presuppositions while sentences have
entailments.

3. Example : Mary’s brother bought three horses.
Presupposition:
Mary exists, Mary has a
brother, Mary has only one
brother, Mary’s brother is
rich.
= speaker’s subjective
presupposition, all can be
wrong.
Entailment:
Mary’s brother bought
something, bought three
animal, two horses, one
horse etc.
= the speaker’s beliefs are
right or wrong

4. PRESUPPOSITION
• The relationship between two propositions.
• Mary’s cat is cute (p)
• Mary has a cat. (q)
• p >>q = p presupposes q
• If the speaker denies the proposition p (NOT p), the presupposition q doesn’t change.
• Mary’s cat isn’t cute. (NOT p)
• Mary has a cat. (q)
• Not p >>q = Not p presupposes q

5. Constancy Under Negation:
The presupposition of a statement will remain true even
when that statement is negated.

6. Types of presupposition
• Presuppositions are associated with the use of a large
number of words, phrases and structures.
• These linguistic forms are considered as indicators of
potential presupposition, which can only become actual
presupposition in contexts with speakers.

7. 6 Types of presupposition
• Existential presupposition
• Factive presupposition
• Lexical presupposition
• Structural presuppositions
• Non-factive presupposition
• Counter-factual presupposition

8. 1. The existential presupposition, Speaker is committed to the existence
of the entities named. It is not only assumed to be present in
possessive constructions (for example: ‘your car’ >> ‘you have a car’),
but more generally in any definite noun phrase
2. Factive presupposition, Certain verbs/construction indicate that
something is a fact. For examples:
a. She didn’t realize he was ill. (>> He was ill)
b. We regret telling him. (>> we told him)
c. I wasn’t aware that she was married. (>> she was married)
d. It isn’t odd that he left early. (>> he left early)
e. I’m glad it’s over (>> it’s over)

9. 3. Lexical presupposition, is the assumption that, in using one word, the
speaker can act as if another meaning (word) will be understood.
When you say that someone ‘managed’ the asserted meaning is that
the person succeed in some way. Other examples:
a. He stopped smoking. (>> He used to smoke)
b. They started complaining. (>> They weren’t complaining before)
c. You’re late again. (>> you were late before)
The speaker’s use of particular expression is taken to presuppose another
(unstated) concept, whereas in the case of a factive presupposition, the
use of a particular expression is taken to presuppose the truth of the
information that is stated after it.

10. 4. Structural presupposition, is the assumption associated with the use of
certain words and phrases. For example, the WH-question construction
in English below is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition
that the information after the WH-form (i.e. ‘when’ and ‘where’) is
already known to be the case.
a. When did he leave? (>>He left)
b. Where did you buy the bike? (>> You bought the bike)
c. When did she travel to the USA? ( >> she travelled)
Those presupposition can lead listeners to believe that the information
presented is necessarily true, rather than just the presupposition of the
person asking the question.

11. 5. Non-factive presupposition, is one that is assumed not to be true. Verbs like
‘dream’, ‘imagine’, and ‘pretend’, are used with the presupposition that what
follow is not true.
a. I dreamed that I was rich. (>> I was not rich)
b. We imaged we were in Hawaii. (>>we were not in Hawaii)
c. He pretends to be ill. (>> He is not ill)
6. Counter-factual presupposition, meaning that what is presupposed is not only
not true, but is the opposite of what is true, or ‘contrary to facts’. Presupposes
that the information in the if-clause is not true at time of utterance. Look at
the examples below:
a. If you were my friend, you would
have helped me. (>> you are not my friend)
b. If I were rich I would buy a Ferrari (>> I’m not rich)

12. • Indicators of potential presupposition discussed so far are
summarized in table below:
Type Example Presupposition
Existential The X >> X exists
Factive I regret leaving >> left
Non-factive He pretended to be happy >> he wasn’t happy
Lexical He managed to escape >> he tried to escape
Structural When did she die? >> she died
Counterfactual If I weren’t ill, >> I am ill

13. The Projection Problem
• Projection problem is the meaning of some presuppositions (as ‘parts’)
doesn’t survive to become the meaning of some complex sentences (as
‘wholes’).
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 (= r & p)
and nobody realized that she was ill.
h. r & p >> NOT q

14. • The presupposition of those examples don’t project because
they are “destroyed” by entailments.
• Remember that an entailment is something that necessarily
follows from what is asserted.
• The entailments are more powerful than the presuppositions.
• ‘potential presupposition’ which only become actual
presupposition is not being presented to be recognized as
such within utterances.
• Speaker can indeed that the potential presupposition is not
being presented as a strong assumption.

15. ENTAILMENTS
• A relationship that applies between two sentences/ propositions, where the
truth of one implies the truth of the other because of the meaning of the words
involved .
A: Everyone passed the examination.
B : No-one failed the examination.
A entails B
• whenever A is true, B is true
• the information that B contains is contained in the information that A conveys
• a situation describable by A must also be a situation describable by B
• A and NOT B are contradictory.

16. CHARACTERISTIC OF ENTAILMENTS
• logical consequences following from what is asserted in the utterance.
• Entailments depend on sentence meaning, not the context in which the
sentence is used.
• Entailment also happens when one set of objects is included in another. It
may be seen as a kind of hyponymic relation.
• Entailments can also involves the use of determiners. This is simply the
relation of inclusion.
e.g. Every student loves learning English.
=> Most students love learning English.

17. Ordered Entailments
entailment is not a pragmatic concept (i.e. having to do with the speaker
meaning), but it is considered a purely logical concept, simbolized by II-.
1)Bob ate three sandwiches.
• a) Someone ate three sandwiches. (Who ate the sandwiches)
• b) Bob did something to three sandwiches. (What Bob did)
• c) Bob ate three of something. (What Bob ate)
• d)Something happened. (What happened)

18. Background vs. Foreground entailment
• In one occasion, one sentence can has a number of background
entailments but one foreground entailment.
• Foreground entailments which is defined by stress, is more
important for interpreting intended meaning.
• The speaker will necessarily produce a very large number of
background entailments but the speaker will indicate how these
entailments are to be ordered. How? It can be done by stress and by
using special structures. So that the hearer will understand which
entailment is assumed to be more important for interpreting intended
meaning.

19. Rover chased THREE squirrels.
(Rover chased a certain number of squirrels.)
ROVER chased three squirrel.
(something chased three squirrels.)
A very similar function is exhibited by a structure called It-cleft
construction/cleft sentences:
a) I’ve come to discuss my future with you.
The reason why I've come is to discuss my future with you.
b) It was TOM that did the work.
c) It wasn’t ME who took your money.
What is the foreground entailment?

20. Yule, George. 1998. Pragmatics. Oxford; Oxford University Press