Muraki, Masatake - Discourse Presupposition

This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University]
On: 08 January 2015, At: 09:11

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
Paper in Linguistics
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hrls19
Discourse presupposition
Masatake Muraki
International Christian University , Tokyo

Published online: 21 May 2009.
To cite this article: Masatake Muraki (1972) Discourse presupposition, Paper in

Linguistics, 5:2, 300-320, DOI: 10.1080/08351817209370301
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351817209370301
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 09:11 08 January 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
300
Discourse Presupposition
Masatake Muraki
International Christian University
Tokyo
In i t s wider sense, a "presupposition" is whatever has to

be assumed to be true in order for an utterance to be meaningful.
For example, in ( l ) - ( ^ ) , a will not make sense if b is not true.
(l)a.
b.
(2)a.
b.
(3)a.
John [entered /didn't enter] the room.

John was not in the room.
John [sto-od / didn't stop] beating his wife.
John was beating his wife.
What John said before he got on the bus [made / didn't
make] an everlasting imnression on Mary,
b.
(^)a.
b.
(5)a.
John said something before he got on the bus.

John [realized / didn't r e a l i z e ] that Mary loved Tom.
Mary loved Tom.
John [remembers / doesn't remember] visiting Mary in her
apartment in San Francisco.
b.
John visited Mary in her apartment in San Francisco,
When the speaker utters a, he assumes that b i s true, that i s , he

"presupposes" b, and when the addressee hears a, he understands
that the speaker paresupposes b.
b i s a "presupposition" of a,
presupposed by the speaker, but i t may not be -presupposed by the

addressee.
The addressee may not know that the speaker assumes b
301
until he hears a.
In the case of ( l ) - ( 3 ) , b is inferred by the t o t a l meaning of a.
For example, if a person is inside a room, i t is im-
possible for him to enter the room, and, therefore, i t i s also
meaningless to say that he did not enter i t .
In the case of (4)
and (5), i t might be argued that a semantic redundancy rule like

(6),
or more generally (7), t e l l s that the complement sentence of
a factive verb is assumed to be true by the speaker.

(6)
realize x S i S. and [realize x S^]
(7)
P [g
V ( s Cv +Factive] X S Y) Z] Q = P [S and S. ] Q
3
k
conditions: 1. S. commands H. -fFactive].
2. S. is a -performative sentence.
o
In the following discussion we will be concerned with a

special type of presuppositions which we will call "discourse
presuppositions".
They are presuppositions that are presupposed
by the discourse, that is, by both the speaker and the addressee
based on what has been said or implied in the preceding part of
the discourse.
The term "presupposition" will be used in the
sense of "discourse presupposition".

Consider the three forms of (8).
(8)a.
John read Robinson Crusoe.
b.
It was John that read Robinson Crusoe.
c.
It was Robinson Crusoe that John read.
Though they make the same assertion about the same event, they
cannot be logical equivalents since they are not mutually substi-
302
tutable.
For example, (9a) can be answered by (8a) but not by
(8b) or (8c).
(9)a.
What happened?
b.
Who read Robinson Crusoe?
c.
What did John read?
(8a) may start a discourse, but (8b) and (8c) can not.
Unless a
question like (9b) is either asked or implied in the preceding

part of the discourse, (8b) cannot be well-formed.
(8c) is ac-
ceptable only where a question like (9c) is asked or implied.

Since the grammar must relate surface structures to semantic structures, it must specify three distinct semantic structures for the three forms of (8). Notice that the three questions of (9) prsuppose (lOa), (10b), and (10c) respectively.
(10)a.
Something happened.
b.
Someone read Robinson Crusoe.
c.
John read something.
(8a) presupposes (10a) when i t answers (9a), but i t may also

start a discourse without any presupposition.
(10b), while (8c) presupposes (10c).
(8b) prsupposes
Thus i t is clear that the
semantic structures of (8) must incorporate presuppositions as

well as assertions ( i . e . what are asserted by the sentences).
The semantic structures of (8b) and (8c) might then be represented as (lia) and (lib) respectively.
(ll)a.
b.
PRSP [ A read RC][John read RC]

PRSP [John read A][John read RC]
303
PRSP i s a two-place predicate relating two sentences, and [PRSP

S S, ] means that S i s uresupposed between the speaker and the
ab
a
addressee, while S, is asserted by the speaker.
S of [PRSP S
S, ] will be called the "discourse presupposition" (or just "-pre-
supposition"), and S, the "assertion".
A represents a dummy e l -
ement, and the nondummy constituent of the assertion which corresponds to a A in the pare supposition will be called the focus".
For example, the focus of (lia) i s John.
If (8a) i s ut-
tered as an answer to (9a), i t s semantic structure is (12a), but,

i f i t starts a discourse, i t must be (12b).
(I2)a.
PRSP [happen A][happen (John read RC)]
b.
PRSP A
[happen (John read RC)]
The nonexistence of any relevant presupposition will be shown by

a dummy symbol A as in (12b).
Suppose that the i n i t i a l P-marker ( i . e . the P-marker before the application of any of the grammatical transformations)
did not include the presupposition, for each application of a
transformation like Clefting which is sensitive to the discourse
presupposition, there must be a corresponding semantic interpretation which specifies the presupposition as in the model of
(13).
(13)
SM ---?SM
SM.-5--P
-----P
where i
P, the i n i t i a l P-marker lefore the application of any of
304
the grammatical transformations

P.t
the result of the application of the grammatical

transformation Clefting
P i the surface structure

n
Sit
the semantic inter pore t a t ion which applies to P.. and

maps i t into SM..
SMî the semantic structure which corresponds to P^ and

which does not incorporate the presupposition
Sl^t
the semantic structure which corresponds to P^ and

which incorporates the presupposition
Gif:
the grammatical transformation Clefting
Clf .i
the semantic interpretation which corresponds to
si
Cleft ing and which specifies the presupposition
But (13) is a complicated model.
Since Clefting is not the only
transformation that is sensitive to the raresupposition, for each

such transformation there must be a corresponding semantic interpretation rule.
According to the model of (13) there would "be
no explanation for the fact that all the forms of (14) are equivalents as an answer to the question (15)
.
It was Robinson Crusoe that John read.
b.
What John read was Robinson Crusoe.
c.
John read Robinson Crusoe.
d.
It was Robinson Crusoe that he read.
e.
What he read was Robinson Crusoe.
f.
He read Robinson Crusoe.
305
g.
It was Robinson Crusoe,
h.
Robinson Crusoe!
(15) What did John read?

For example, the pseudocleft form (l*+b) makes the same assertion
with the same pare supposition as the cleft form (lâ) and as any
other forms of (1*0, and the transformation Pseudocleft ing must
be paralleled by Pseudoclefting gi to specify the same presupposition in the semantic structure.
However, by setting up the transformation "Focus Specification", we may simplify the model of (13) into that of (l6).
(16)
wheret
P. t the result of the application of Focus Specification
SM.: the semantic structure which corresponds to P. and
which incorporates the presupposition
FSJ
the grammatical transformation Focus Specification
FS î
the semantic interpretation which specifies the Dresupposition corresponding to Focus Specification
Given the i n i t i a l P-marker (17a), Focus Specification might derive (17b), but that is paralleled by the semantic interpretation
Focus Specification . which specifies the presupposition as in
(17c).
(17 )a.
b.
past [John read RC]

[past, -Focus][(John, -Focus)(read, -Focus)(RC,
+FOCUS)]
306
c.
PRSP [John read A][John read RC]
Then, Clefting may "cleft" only the constituent which contains

the [--Focus] element if there is no [+Focus] element in the rest
of the sentence as in (l**a) and (18), and there will be no need
of semantic interpretations like Clefting . .
(I8)a.
John i s looking for [a man with a (red, +Focus) hat].
b.
It is a man with a red hat that John is looking for.
All the other forms of (lf) may derive from (17b):
(l4b) by
Pseudoclefting, (l4c) by the phonological interpretation of the

feature [+Focus] as a sentential stress, (l4d)-(l4f) by Contextual Proformation which inserts the feature [+Pro] in constituents
which do not contain any focus, and (l^g)-(l4h) by Contextual Deletion
which may delete some of the constituents that do not
contain any focus.

It might be argued against the model of (16) that the semantic interpretation about the presupposition need not be made
at the time of application of Focus Specification, but that such
semantic adjustment could be done by surface structure interpretation.
Then, (16) would be revised into (19).
(19)
SSI
SM n
SI
SMn^
Clf
SM^--~ P 1 . . . . . p l - 1 . . . . - p l - . . . p n
where i
P1!
SM-i
the i n i t i a l P-marker
the result of semantic interpretation of P, which
does not contain the presupposition
307
P i the surface structure
n
SM : the result of semantic adjustments by the surface
structure interpretation which include the specification of the presupposition
SI i the semantic interpretation which interprets P..
SSI;
the adjustment of the semantic structure by semantic

interpretation of the surface structure
(19) makes a nonempty claim about the specification of presupposition, that all the relevant information about the presupposition is available in the surface structure plus the initial Pmarker.
For example, if the surface structure (20a) and the un-
derlying structure of (20b) are given, it should be able to tell

that the presupposition should be (20c).
(20)a.
What John caught was a butterfly.
b.
John caught a butterfly.
c.
John caught <i.
But if (21a) and the underlying structure of (21b) are given, it

will claim that the presupposition should be (21c).
(2l)a.
What John caught will be a butterfly.
b.
What John caught will be a butterfly.
c.
What John caught will be A .
d.
It will be a butterfly that John caught.
However, it will not be able to explain the ambiguity of (22a),

which is ambiguous between (22b) and (22c) since it may TaresuDpose either of (23).
308
(22)a.
John may have killed Mary.
b.
It may have "been John that killed Mary.
c.
It is John that may have killed Mary,
(23)a. A
b.
killed Mary.
may have killed Mary.
Neither can it explain the ambiguity of (24), which may answer

any of the questions of (25) with distinct presuppositions.
(24)
(25)a.
John went.
What about John?
b.
What did John do?
c.
Did John go, or is he going to'go?
(26) shows the three semantic structures underlying (24).

(26)a.
PRSP [AJohn][past (do John [go John] ) ]^
b.
PRSP [past (do John A ) ] [ p a s t (do John [go John] ) ]
c.
PRSP [.A (do John [go John] )][past (do John [go John])]
Thus, i t seems clear that the model of (19) cannot be maintained.

We could simplify (l6) into (27) by incorporating Focus
Specification in the Base Component.
If a l l the constituents of
the i n i t i a l P-marker are specified either as [-i-Focus] or [-Focus],

we do not need Focus Specification as a grammatical transformation, nor do we need to introduce any transformation that affects
the meaning.
(2?)
1_8L,1_VI.SL,1__PII
where :
309
?1i
the i n i t i a l P-marker which does not incorporate the

pre sup-DOS i t ion as such "but a l l the constituents of
which are specified as either [+Focus] or [-Focus]
SM, t the semantic structure which incorporates the presupposition
SI:
the semantic interprttion which maps P, into SM, and

which i s practically the same as Focus Specification .
of the model of (16)
According to the model of (27), the i n i t i a l P-marker (28a) will

be mapped "by semantic interpretation into the semantic structure
(28b), while (28a) may result in any of the forms of (14) by
transformations.
(28)a.
[past, -Focus][(John, -Focus)(read, -Focus)

(RC, -KFOCUS)]
b.
PRSP [rast (John read .A ) ] [mst (John read RC)]

(2?), however, i s a notational variant of (29), whose P^
and P are identical respectively to SM and P of (27).

a
J-
(29)
_L
PAdj
FS
P % . . . . .
S.P......P
i-1
where :
P. i the i n i t i a l P-marker which incorporates the presupposition
Pa i the output of Focus S-recification and other related
rules which together constitute the mirror image
of the SI of (27)
310
PAdj
FSt
PDeli
Pre su PIDOS i t ion Adjustments

Focus Specification
Presupposition Deletion
According to the model of (29), the i n i t i a l P-marker i s also the
semantic structure like (28b), which i s mapped into a P-marker

like (28a), in which a l l the constituents are specified as to the
feature Focus.
The semantic interpretation which relates SM^ and
P, in (27) i s now a set of grammatical tram sformations.
We do
not see any special reason that the relation should be formulated
as semantic interpretation.
Even i f there be a common character-
i s t i c in a l l the rules which relate P7 and P of (29) that i s not

-L
a
shared by any of the rules which apply between P and P , i t does
a
n
not follow that the model of (27) should be adopted in tsreference to (29).
It i s quite natural that early rules should be
chacterized in one way, and late rules in another way.
Whatever
model we follow, we cannot avoid the set of rules that relate

pairs of structures like (28), whether we c a l l them semantic interpretations or grammatical transformations.
In the following, we will assume the model of (29), and
discuss Focus Specification and other related rules, and give
tentative formulations of them.
Since Focus Specification spec-
f i e s the focus by comparing the assertion with the
vresupposi-
tion, the assertion and the presupposition must have parallel

structures such that for each constituent in the pare supposition
there i s a corresponding constituent in the assertion.
311
Suppose a l l the constituents are -previously s-necified as

[H-Focus], Focus Specification (30 ) w i l l change i t t o [-Focus] in
a l l the constituents of the presupposition and in those constituents of the assertion which are identical to their corre s-ponding
constituents in the presupposition.

(30)
Focus Specification
SDi
PRSP [ s X Y Z][g X1 Yf Z f ]
SC:
1.
Y > [-Focus]
2.
If Y Y1, Y1 > [-Focus]
conditions
1.
X, Y, and Z are identical to X \ Y \ and Z1 resiject i v e l y except that a dummy (or dummies) in X, Y,
and/or Z may corre s-pond to a nondummy constituent
(nondummy constituents) in X1, Y 1 , and/or Z'.
2.
Y i s not commanded by any PRSP included in X.
An example that shows the necessity of Condition 2 w i l l be given

in connection with Presupposition Copying which w i l l be discussed
below.
Underlying structures which do not meet the structural
description of Focus Specification must be adjusted by the f o l lowing unordered s e t of precyclic Presupposition Adjustment
rules,
(31)
Presupposition Adjustment rules

a.
Presupposition Embedding
b.
Presupposition Copying
312
c.
Dummy Predicate Rules

1.
Argument Order Change
2.
Dummy Insertion
is
Dummy Argument Insertion
ii,
Dummy Predicate Insertion
3.
Predicate Lowering
4.
Conjunction Expansion
Since the presupposition is presupposed by the speaker,

i t should be outside the scope of the performative verb, the moda l verb, e t c . which define or affect the locution of the assertion.
For example, though (32d) derives from (32c), and (32c)
from (32b), (32b) must derive from (32a) because the presupt>osition that someone killed Mary is not semantically within the
score of the negative.
(32)a.
PRSP [ A killed Mary][not (John killed Mary)]
b.
not [PRSP ( A killed Mary) (John killed Mary)]
c.
not [ i t was John that killed Mary]
d.
I t was not John that killed Mary,
Presupposition Embedding (33) must apply to (32a) and embed the

presupposition in the topmost sentence of the assertion as in
(32b).
(33)
Presupposition Embedding
SDi
PRSP S [X S, Y]
a
D
SC i
X [PRSP S S, ] Y
a o
We assume the convention that any node in the structural descri-
313
tion preceded and/or followed by a variable (e.g. S^ in (33))

should "be interpreted as the highest node compatible with the
structural description.
The ambiguity of (3*0 is explained \jy the two derivations
of (35).
(35a) presupposes that someone may have killed Mary,
while (35b) that someone killed Mary.

(jk)
John may have killed Mary.
(35)a.
PRSP [may ( S k i l l e d Mary)][may (John killed Mary)]

~>
b.
John may have killed Mary,
PRSP [^ killed Mary][may (John killed Mary)]

> may [PRSP ( S k i l l e d Mary)(John killed Mary)]
> John may have killed Mary.
Since the sentential stress on the modal auxiliary tends to be

weakened unless i t is the only sentential stress, we get the ambiguous (3*0. Presupposition Embedding also puts the presupposition within the performative sentence which occurs as the topmost
sentence of the assertion as in (36).
(36)
PRSP [Z^ kissed Mary][I ask you (John kissed Mary)]

> I ask you [PRSP (<A kissed Mary)(John kissed Mary)]
> I ask you [it was John that kissed Mary]
> Was i t John that kissed Mary?
(37e) derives from (37d), which derives from (37c), but
if i t is the speaker rather than Mary who presupposes that John

'carried something, (37c) should derive from (37b) by Presupposition Embedding, and (37b) from a structure like (37a) by Presut>-
314
position Copying (38).

(37)a.
PRSP [John carried A]I?RSP CAsaid [John carried a

revolver])(Mary said [John carried a revolver])]
b.
PRSP [PRSP (John carried A )( A s a id [John carried a

revolver])] [PRSP (John carried \ ) (Mary said [John carried a revolver])]
c.
PRSP [ A said (PRSP [John carried A][John carried a

revolver]) ][Mary said (PRSP [John carried A.][John carried a revolver])]
d.
PRSP [ A said that what John carried was a revolver]

[Mary -said that what John carried" was a revolver]
e.
It was Mary who said that what John carried was a revolver .
(38)
Presupposition Copying
SD: PRSP Sa [PRSP Sfe S c ]
SC: PRSP [PRSP Sa S^][PRSP S& S ]
Though (37a) assumes a hierarchy among the presuppositions, i t

seems natural to assume that the presupposition that John carried
something is presupposed even before the presupposition that someone said that John carried something.
Specification requires Condition 2,
(37) explains why Focus

If we did not have Condition
2, a l l the constituents of the assertion of (37c) would be

[-Focus] except Mary, and we could not apply Pseudoclefting to
the complement sentence of Mary said to get what John carried was
a revolver since revolver would be specified as [-Focus] because
315
i t corresponds to revolver in the presupposition.

When the predicate verb is a dummy, the order of the argument noun phrases is not determined.
Suppose i t is presupposed
that John and Mary are in some relation, John and Mary may have
to be reversed in order as in (39) by Argument Order Change (40)

before the application of Focus Specification.
(39)
PRSP [ A John Mary][tutor Mary John]

> PRSP [AMary John][tutor Mary John]
> Mary is the tutor of John.
(40) Argument Order Change

SD: PRSP [ A Y X][V X1 Y1]
SC: PRSP [ A X Y][V Xf Y1]
When the predicate verb is a dummy, the number of argument noun phrases is not determined, either.
Suppose the dis-
course presupposes that John did something in connection with

Mary, and the speaker asserts that John gave Mary a million dollars.
The underlying structure would be (4la) with a dummy pred-
icate in the presupposition, but must be mapped into (4lb) by

Dummy Argument Insertion (42).
(4l)a,
PRSP [past (do John [AJohn Mary])][past (do John

[give John Mary a million dollars])]
b.
PRSP [past (do John [ A John Mary A ] ) ][past (do John

[give John Mary a million dollars])]
c.
(42)
John gave Mary a million dollars.

Dummy Argument Insertion
316
SDt PRSP [AY][V X Y1 Z]

SCt
PRSP [ A Y A][V X Yf Z]
condition:
X $ or Z $
In case Z is null in (42), the output undergoes Argument Order

Change.
If the presupposition is that John beats Mary when i t is

asserted that John beats Mary because he hates her as in (43a), a
dummy predicate must be inserted as in (43b) by Dummy Predicate
Insertion (44).
(43)a.
PRSP [John beats Mary][because (John beats Mary)(John

hates Mary)]
b.
PRSP [ A (John beats Mary) ][because (John beats Mary)

(John hates Mary)]
c.
PRSP [ A (John beats Mary) A ][be cause (John beats

Mary)(John hates Mary)]
(44)
d.
John beats Mary because he hates her.
e.
I t is because he hates her that John beats Mary.

Dummy Predicate Insertion
SDT PRSP S [V S b S ]
SCi
PRSP [ A Sa ][V S. DC
S ]
Dummy Argument Insertion inserts another dummy in the output of

(44) as in (43c) t and we get forms like (43d) and (43e).
Since
because and John hates Mary correspond to dummies in (43c), they

will be specified as [+Focus]t but John and Mary are pronominalized (but not by Contextual Proformation) and get no sentential
317
strass on them.
(45a) pire suppose s that John is looking for a man with a
hat, and asserts that John is looking for a man with a red hat.
It must undergo Dummy Predicate Insertion as in (45b) and Dummy
Argument Insertion as in (45c)f and may result in (45d).

(45)a.
PRSP [John is looking for a man with a hat][and (John

is looking for a man with a hat)(the hat is red)]
b.
PRSP [ A (John is looking for a man with a hat)][and

(John is looking for a man with a hat)(the hat is red)]
c.
PRSP [ A (John is looking for a man with a hat) y\ Ifand

(John is looking for a man with a hat)(the hat is red)]
d.
It is a man with a red hat that John is looking for.

In (46)-(48), a is mapped into b by Predicate Lowering
(49) and results in c_.

(46)a.
b.
PRSP [AJohn Mary][persuaded John Mary (go Mary)]

PRSP [ A John Mary ( A Mary) ][persuaded John Mary (go
Mary)]
c.
(47)a.
PRSP [AJohn Mary][want John (go Mary)]
b.
PRSP [ A John ( A Mary) ][want John (go Mary)]
c.
John wants Mary to go.
(48)a.
(49)
John persuaded Mary to go.
PRSP [AJohn][appear (rich John)]
b.
PRSP [ A ( A John)] [appear (rich John)]
c.
John appears to be rich.

Predicate Lowering
318
SD:
PRSP [ A X Y Z][V& X1 Yf (V^ Y1 Z 1 ) ]
SC:
PRSP [ A X Y ( A Y Z)][V a Xf Y1 (Vb Y1 Z 1 ) ]
The presupposition [ A John] piractically means that John i s the

theme of the discourse.
We a l s o need Conjunction Expansion (50) for derivations

like ( 5 D - ( 5 2 ) .
(50)
(51)
Conjunction Expansion
SDi
PRSP [ A X Y Z][V (V, X1 Y')(V Y1 Z f ) ]

a t )
c
sei
PRSP [ A ( A x Y ) ( A Y z)][v a (v b x1 Y f )(v c Y1 z 1 ) ]
PRSP [ A John Mary Tom][though (liked John Mary) (hated

Tom Mary)]
>
PRSP [ A ( A John Mary) ( A Mary Tom)] [though (liked

John Mary)(hated Tom Mary)]
>
PRSP [ A ( A j o h n Mary) ( A Tom Mary) ][though (liked

John Mary)(hated Tom Mary)]
>
(52)
John liked Mary though Tom hated her.
PRSP [ A J o h n Mary][and (loved John Mary)(married John

Mary)]
>
PRSP [ A ( A John Mary) ( A John Mary)][and (loved

John Mary)(married John Mary)]
>
John loved Mary and John married Mary
> John loved Mary and married her.

Some of these rules are extraordinarily powerful in the
sense that the structural description i s vague enough to make i t
possible that they apply to P-markers (even to we11-formed P-
319
markers) to make them ill-formed.
For example, a P-marker that
may undergo Dummy Predicate Insertion may undergo i t again and

again any number of times resulting in P-markers with the structure [ A ( A [ A . . . S ])][V S, S ] .
a
In other words, these pro-
oc
supposition adjustment rules may generate an infinite set of i l l -
formed P-markers from we11-formed P-markers,
Since every P-mark-
er must undergo Focus Specification, P-markers which do not meet

i t s structural description are filtered out, and incorrect mapping of semantic structures and surface structures i s avoided.
We do not know what simpler alternative analysis i s possible.
Footnotes
1. There can be more than one focus in a sentence as in

(i), which presupposes (ii), and whose semantic structure is
(iii).
(i)
Hrry kissed Grta.
(ii) Someone kissed someone.
(iii) PRSP [ kissed
][Harry kissed Greta]
2. Strictly speaking, every nonstative sentence is considered to occur as the sentential subject of happen in the underlying structure as in (12). (11a) should then be represented
as (i), but such happen will be omitted in our examples unless it
is crucial to the discussion.
(i) PRSP [happen ( A read RC)][happen (John read R C ) ]
3. The stress on Robinson Crusoe is not just a regular
sentence-final intonation, but a sentential stress which indicates the focus of the assertion. As an answer to (i), (ii) must
have a sentential stress on Harry because it is the focus of the
sentence.
(i) Who kissed Greta?
(ii) Hrry kissed Greta.
4. I owe the term "Contextual Deletion" to E. Bach.
These presupposition-sensitive rules are tentatively formulated
in Muraki (1970a, 1970b).
320
5. Every action sentence is considered to occur as the

complement of do in the underlying structure because of the forms
like (i) though it is omitted in our examples unless it is crucial.
(i)a.
b.
c.
What did John do?

John divorced Mary.
Why did John divorce Mary?
He did so because he realized that she only loved his money.
If John had not assassinated him, it would have been
done by somebody else.
If a nonstative sentence occurs as the sentential subject of happen in the underlying structure, (26a) would be represented as
(ii) since a nonhabitual action is also nonstative.
(ii)
PRSP
John][past (happen [do John (go John)])]
6. This does not commit us, however, to the analysis of

pronominalization as a transformation which changes a full noun
phrase into a pronoun.
References
Bach, E. and S. Peters (1968) "On Pseudocleft Sentences," unpublished paper, University of Texas in Austin.
McCawley, J.D. (1968) "Lexical Insertion in a Transformational
Grammar without Deep Structure," in Binnick, et al.,
eds., Papers from the Fourth Regional Meeting, Department
of Linguistics, University of Chicago, pp. 71-80.
Muraki, M. (1970a) "Presupposition and Pseudoclefting," in PaPers from the Sixth Regional Meeting, University of Chicago, pp. 390-399.
Muraki, M. (1970b) Presupposition, Pseudoclefting, and Thematization, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Texas in Austin.
Ross, J.R. (1970) "On Declarative Sentences," in R.A. Jacobs
and P.S. Rosenbaum, eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham. pp. 222-272.

Muraki, Masatake - Discourse Presupposition

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Muraki, Masatake - Discourse Presupposition

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University]

On: 08 January 2015, At: 09:11

International Christian University , Tokyo

To cite this article: Masatake Muraki (1972) Discourse presupposition, Paper in

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 09:11 08 January 2015

Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 09:11 08 January 2015

In i t s wider sense, a "presupposition" is whatever has to

John [entered /didn't enter] the room.

John said something before he got on the bus.

John visited Mary in her apartment in San Francisco,

When the speaker utters a, he assumes that b i s true, that i s , he

presupposed by the speaker, but i t may not be -presupposed by the

The addressee may not know that the speaker assumes b

For example, if a person is inside a room, i t is im-

possible for him to enter the room, and, therefore, i t i s also

Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 09:11 08 January 2015

meaningless to say that he did not enter i t .

In the case of (4)

and (5), i t might be argued that a semantic redundancy rule like

or more generally (7), t e l l s that the complement sentence of

a factive verb is assumed to be true by the speaker.

realize x S i S. and [realize x S^]

In the following discussion we will be concerned with a

They are presuppositions that are presupposed

The term "presupposition" will be used in the

sense of "discourse presupposition".

John read Robinson Crusoe.

It was John that read Robinson Crusoe.

It was Robinson Crusoe that John read.

For example, (9a) can be answered by (8a) but not by

Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 09:11 08 January 2015

Who read Robinson Crusoe?

What did John read?

question like (9b) is either asked or implied in the preceding

ceptable only where a question like (9c) is asked or implied.

Someone read Robinson Crusoe.

John read something.

(8a) presupposes (10a) when i t answers (9a), but i t may also

Thus i t is clear that the

semantic structures of (8) must incorporate presuppositions as

PRSP [ A read RC][John read RC]

PRSP i s a two-place predicate relating two sentences, and [PRSP

S, ] will be called the "discourse presupposition" (or just "-pre-

Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 09:11 08 January 2015

supposition"), and S, the "assertion".

For example, the focus of (lia) i s John.

tered as an answer to (9a), i t s semantic structure is (12a), but,

PRSP [happen A][happen (John read RC)]

[happen (John read RC)]

The nonexistence of any relevant presupposition will be shown by

the grammatical transformations

the result of the application of the grammatical

P i the surface structure

Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 09:11 08 January 2015

the semantic inter pore t a t ion which applies to P.. and

SM^i the semantic structure which corresponds to P^ and

the semantic structure which corresponds to P^ and

the grammatical transformation Clefting

the semantic interpretation which corresponds to

Since Clefting is not the only

transformation that is sensitive to the raresupposition, for each

According to the model of (13) there would "be