Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

Chapter 5
often this correction referred to one argument of what was said earlier in the
previous utterance.
When it-cleft presuppositions were given an accommodated interpretation it
was often because there is an implication that there is a potential for the other
discourse participants not to believe or to be unaware of the argument that is
asserted. The whole structure is formed so as to highlight the contrasted or
misunderstood argument, and the presupposed part is background information. Itclefts
did not appear very often under embedding, only twice in the corpus, and
both cases the presupposition was globally accommodated. I think the reason for
this lies in their function, they are used to focus one argument of factual
information, things that the other discourse participants should be aware of. These
types of meanings are not as likely to occur in hypothetical embeddings or in modal
contexts.
148
Trigger Type
Tendency to
appear in an embedded
context
Tendency to be globally
accommodated when nonnegation
embedded
definite NPs high high
Factives medium low
aspectual-verbs no special tendency high
it-clefts low high
Table 9 Tendencies to appear under embedding and to be globally
accommodated for different triggers
There are several possible explanations for differences in tendencies to appear in an
embedded context and differences in tendencies to be globally accommodated
when embedded. There may be a difference depending on the type of semantic
object different triggers presupposed. And this in turn most likely relates to
tendencies to be backgrounded or foregrounded.
Actually I would say we need to separate the presupposition triggered from
the asserted information with which the trigger is associated. If the presupposed
information can be the focus of the speaker’s communication when using the
trigger, then it can also contribute information substantial enough to function on
its own in a hypothetical context. If the presupposed information is generally
backgrounded in relation to the asserted information, and is a requirement for this
asserted information as in the case of aspectual verbs, then it will tend to project
out. The presuppositions associated with aspectual verbs generally can only serve as
backgrounds, where factives can be both backgrounded or foregrounded. It-clefts
already have an explicitly foregrounded element, the clefted constituent, so even if
their presupposition can be partially or entirely new information, the rhetorically
relationship between the presupposed information and the rest of the text will
always be backgrounded, at least for most of the examples. Definite NPs on the
other hand can be both foregrounded or backgrounded, making a distinction here
difficult to draw. However, when we want to introduce a new discourse referent in
an embedded context we won’t choose a presuppositional expression.