Home The evidential meaning of presupposition and implicature between retractability and deniability of information
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The evidential meaning of presupposition and implicature between retractability and deniability of information

  • Viviana Masia ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: December 13, 2023
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

The relation evidentiality bears on the coding of some information as presupposition or as implicature is still an underexplored research field. In this paper, such an interplay is addressed by looking into how presupposed and implied contents (differently) respond to contexts of challenge and deniability. As taken for granted information (Stalnaker, Robert. 1973. Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(4). 447–457), presupposition is more resistant to both challenging and retracting conversational moves, since it conveys content the speaker does not commit to. By contrast, implicature – characterized as intentional meaning (Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press) – allows both challenging and retracting conversational moves, because it is information the speaker commits to the most, similarly to what happens with plain declarative sentences. Building on this account, it is suggested that the higher challenging and deniability status cued by implicature is related to its function of encoding a direct type of evidentiality (Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press), namely a condition in which the speaker presents herself as the first-hand source of some information. Conversely, the weaker challengeability and deniability associated to presupposition hinges on its property of encoding a mutual type of evidentiality (Hintz, Daniel J. & Hintz Diane M. 2017. The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua 186. 88–109), that is, a state in which information is construed and conveyed as already shared by all participants at the moment of utterance.


Corresponding author: Viviana Masia, Department of Foreign Languages, Literatures and Cultures, Roma Tre University, Via del Valco di San Paolo, 19, 00146 Rome, Italy, E-mail:

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Amaral, Patricia & Chris Cummins. 2015. A cross-linguistic study on information backgrounding and presupposition projection. In Florian Schwarz (ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions, 157–172. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-07980-6_7Search in Google Scholar

Anderson, Lloyd B. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Wallace Chafe & Joanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality. The linguistic coding of epistemology, 273–312. Norwood (NJ): Ablex.Search in Google Scholar

Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Beyssade, Claire & Jean-Marie Marandin. 2009. Commitment: une attitude dialogique. Langue Française 162. 89–107. https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.162.0089.Search in Google Scholar

Brocca, Nicola, Ewa A. Borowiec & Viviana Masia. 2020. Didactics of pragmatics as a way to improve social media literacy. An experiment proposal with Polish and Italian students in L1. heiEDUCATION Journal 5. 81–107. https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.heied.2020.5.24158.Search in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace & Joanna Nichols (eds.). 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood (NJ): Ablex.Search in Google Scholar

Daneš, František. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In František Daneš (ed.), Papers on functional sentence perspective, 106–128. Prague: Academia & The Hague.10.1515/9783111676524.106Search in Google Scholar

Faller, Martina T. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford: University of Stanford dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar

Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_003Search in Google Scholar

Gunlogson, Christine. 2008. A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22. 101–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.06gun.Search in Google Scholar

Hintz, Daniel J. & Hintz Diane M. 2017. The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua 186. 88–109.10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.014Search in Google Scholar

Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of information. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.48Search in Google Scholar

Katriel, Tamar & Marcelo Dascal. 1989. Speaker’s commitment and involvement in discourse. In Tobin Yishai (ed.), From sign to text: A semiotic view of communication, 275–297. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/fos.20.21katSearch in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Carol & Paul Kiparsky. 1971. Fact. In Danny D. Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovitz (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader, 345–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1. 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, David. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philological Logic 8(1). 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00258436.Search in Google Scholar

Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. 2009. La struttura informativa. Forma e funzione negli enunciati linguistici. Roma: Carocci.Search in Google Scholar

Masia, Viviana. 2017. Sociobiological bases of information structure. Philadelphia & Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ais.9Search in Google Scholar

Masia, Viviana. 2020. Presupposition, assertion and the encoding of evidentiality in political discourse. Linguistik Online 102(2). 129–153. https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.102.6828.Search in Google Scholar

Masia, Viviana. 2021. The manipulative disguise of truth. Tricks and threats of implicit communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.322Search in Google Scholar

Masia, Viviana, Davide Garassino, Nicola Brocca & Louis de Saussure. 2023. Recalling presupposed information: Evidence from the online processing of presuppositions in political tweets. Pragmatics & Cognition 30(1). 92–119. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.22011.mas.Search in Google Scholar

Mazzarella, Diana, Robert Reinecke, Ira Noveck & Hugo Mercier. 2018. Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragmatics modulates commitment. Journal of Pragmatics 133. 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.009.Search in Google Scholar

Murray, Sarah E. 2017. The semantics of evidentials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Nuyts, Jan. 2005. Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In William Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality (The Expression of Cognitive Categories 1), 1–26. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197570.1Search in Google Scholar

Nuyts, Jan. 2012. Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction 5. 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.04nuy.Search in Google Scholar

Pagin, Peter. 2004. Is assertion social? Journal of Pragmatics 36(5). 833–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.004.Search in Google Scholar

Récanati, François. 1987. Meaning and force: The pragmatics of performative utterances. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14(56). 479–493.10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479Search in Google Scholar

Saussure, Louis de & Steve Oswald. 2009. Argumentation et engagement du locuteur: pour un point de vue subjectiviste. Nouveaux Cahiers de Linguistique Française 29. 215–243.Search in Google Scholar

Sbisà, Marina. 2007. Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Search in Google Scholar

Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert. 1973. Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(4). 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00262951.Search in Google Scholar

Strawson, Peter F. 1959. Individuals: An essay on descriptive metaphysics. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90(1–2). 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90058-5.Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2002. Relevance theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 249–290.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-05-31
Accepted: 2023-07-31
Published Online: 2023-12-13
Published in Print: 2025-04-28

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 19.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/flin-2023-2048/html?lang=en&srsltid=AfmBOopRMWa804X81duhYMeJSZQRSPw2EMaxCG9SSgGybFHVNvdwypif
Scroll to top button