Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse

Chapter 4
directions, it is necessary to more frequently use a full presuppositional expression
rather than an anaphoric expression for clarity. The presupposition is able to
summarize or join together this scattered information. That bound presuppositions
can have these kind of functions is not surprising, because their anaphoric
alternatives, abstract object anaphoric reference, can have them as well. But the
bound presuppositions can do it better, in more situations, because they have a
greater descriptive content which allows them to in a more precise or refined way
identify exactly what previously given information is intended.
Another communicative function some of the examples of presuppositional
binding seems to show is stating some kind of conclusion that is deducible or
inferable from the discourse record. The presupposed proposition, because parts
of it have already been introduced in the discourse may possibly be hearer-known if
the hearer has been attentive and has made the correct conclusions. This is not
always certain however and the presupposition increases redundancy.
The following example illustrates a case where the full presuppositional
expression increases clarity. The abstract object referred to is only inferable and not
fully expressed. Speaker B is telling a story to Speaker a. Speaker C also knows the
story. Speaker B knows that the information communicated is new to Speaker a,
but is unsure if the information presupposed will be hearer-new or not. This is
because it is inferable from the earlier context (if you are put on probation you
must have been prosecuted in court), but the whole focus of this point in the story
is that this conclusion was not understood by Fan, a friend of the speakers. Speaker
B’s addition, where she again makes the premiss-conclusion connection more clear
by repeating it. This further confirms that the speakers seem to be unsure if
Speaker C will be able to make the same conclusion that Fan was not able to make.
(16) factive, triggered p: “she must also have been up before the court” (1-13 681)
Speaker a *( - laughs)*~|
Speaker B *And he was* , put in gaol. I said to Fan, well I don‘t like to rub it in, but
- it must have been some {huge} affair, because - what {Fan didn‘t}
realize, not being a lawyer, or a lawyer‘s wife - that apparently the wife
was put on probation. So that Fan [?] Fan didn‘t realize that that she
must also have been up {before the court}, you can‘t be put on
probation, *.
Speaker C *Oh yes, she was* prosecuted too, +( . coughs) ,
Speaker B + burnt the books+, when she *knew that*…
Speaker a *For helping* to fiddle the income tax~|
Speaker B ( . coughs) *Well, she must have known about it.
Multi-speaker dialogue may need to use presuppositions this way because
establishing information as mutually known is a more complex task when several
discourse participants are involved than when only two participants are involved.
All conclusions may or may not have been realized by all discourse participants. In
fact, it would be strange if we would not need to explicitly conclude things on
occasion, as a form of grounding. Let’s look at a similar example of another bound
propositional presupposition, the presupposition induced by the it-cleft below.
80