presupposing re definitions final

8/13/2019 Presupposing Re Definitions Final

1/21

Presupposing redefinitions

Definitions in argumentation

Words, and in particular ethical or emotive terms (Stevenson 1937: 18-19), are

etremel! po"er#ul instruments$ %he! can &e used to modi#! our &elie#s, our 'no"lede

and our perspective on realit!, &ut also to conceal #acts and ualities$ *t the same time,

"ords can descri&e and hide realit! (Schiappa +3) to in#luence our udments and

decisions$ .or this reason, "ords can &e the most innocent and mischievous tools o#

persuasion and deceit$ Words can &e used to purposel! select in#ormation in order to

omit characteristics o# a state o# a##airs that can &e relevant and crucial #or the udment

or the decision to &e made$ /o"ever, sometimes the! are not simpl! used to select, &ut

to distort realit!$ 0assacres and human traedies are called paci#ications2

dictatorships are usti#ied &ecause the! are democracies2 (4r"ell 1956)$ Wars arepraised as acts o# #reedom2 (o!le Sam&anis +6: 1) drone &om&ins are

nelected i# called non-hostile operations2$ %he su&tle di##erence &et"een selectin

and distortin, persuadin and manipulatin lies in the essential #eature o# "ords, their

meanin$ ! chanin the meanin o# a "ord it is possi&le to modi#! the "a! realit! is

perceived &! our interlocutor, creatin an am&iuit! that is eploited to redirect his

values and alter his udments$

are#s'! (1998) and Schiappa (+3: 111-11+ 13) pointed out the implicit

dimension o# this act o# namin realit!, "hich the! call arument &! de#inition$ ;nstead

o# puttin #or"ard a classi#ication and support it &! a de#initional reason, the spea'er

simpl! names realit!, leavin the de#inition unepressed$ ;nstead o# statin or advancin

a de#inition, he simpl! ta'es it #or ranted, considerin it as part o# the interlocutors)$ /o"ever, dependin

on "hether the spea'er is assessin a speci#ic course o# action or considerin a oal, the

t!pe o# reasonin can have di##erent #orms$ %he #irst and simpler #orm o# arument is

the arument #rom conseuences (Walton, Ceed 0acano +8: 33+)

DC?0;S? 1: ;#Ais &rouht a&out, ood (&ad) conseuences "ill plausi&l! occur$DC?0;S? +: What leads to ood (&ad) conseuences shall &e (not) &rouht a&out$

N4JNKS;4J: %here#oreAshould &e &rouht a&out$

.or instance, classi#!in an operation as an act o# peace2 or as a paci#ication2 can

trier a reasonin #rom positive conseuences: since the operation leads to peace, and

peace is desira&le, the operation shall &e supported$ %he other #orm o# reasonin, called

practical reasonin, proceeds #rom a value to the means that can possi&l! &rin it a&out

(Walton, Ceed 0acano +8: 3+3):

DC?0;S? 1: ; (an aent) have a oal A$

DC?0;S? +: Narr!in out this action * is a means to reali=e A$N4JNKS;4J: %here#ore, ; ouht to (practicall! spea'in) carr! out this action *$

.or instance, #reein people #rom "ant and need in countries overned &! dictators can

&e rearded as hihl! desira&le, and can usti#! some #orms o# intervention presented as

the onl! means to achieve such a oal$

#motions and definitions

Stevenson pointed out ho" "ords can &e used to a##ect the interlocutor


8/21

*s seen a&ove, de#initions can &e considered as the premises o# classi#icator! reasonin,

"hich are o#ten ta'en #or ranted &ecause the! are part o# the common round$

/o"ever, "hen a ne" de#inition is advanced, it &ecomes a standpoint that needs to &e

supported &! reasons i# not accepted &! the interlocutor$ * de#inition, or a rede#inition,

is an implicit claim in #avour o# a ne" use o# an eistin "ord (Schiappa +3), and

needs to &e open to challene$ We can conceive a rede#inition as a standpointcon#lictin "ith the shared opinion on a "ord use and #or this reason it is presumed not

to &e accepted$ %here is nothin "ron "ith rede#inin a "ord the crucial pro&lem is

ho" a rede#inition is introduced$ .or instance, "e can consider ho" 4&ama rede#ined

the concept o# @hostilit!< to classi#! *merican airstri'es in Ki&!a$ ;n order to avoid

Nonress authori=ation to continue the hostilities, 4&ama adapted the meanin o# such

"ord to eclude &om&ins and operations conducted &! unmanned aircra#ts (Obama

Administration letter to $ongress %ustifying &ibya engagement, Fune 1>th, +11, p$ +>):

Implicit redefinition: Hostilities

%he Dresident is o# the vie" that the current $S$ militar! operations in Ki&!a are

consistent "ith the War Do"ers Cesolution and do not under that la" reuire #urtherconressional authori=ation, &ecause $S$ militar! operations are distinct #rom the 'ind

o# hostilities contemplated &! the Cesolution 19>+ Qarttunen, 1973 Qempson, 197> Wilson, 197> Qeenan,

1971)$ %his pramatic vie" etends the notion o# presupposition to several phenomena

o# meanin#ulness constraints (*ustin 196+: 35 >1), such as selectional restrictions,

coherence relations and #elicit! conditions$ Several phenomena are la&eled as

presuppositions, includin the controversial semantic presuppositions and the "ider

class o# #elicit! conditions o# speech acts and coherence relations$ %he common

characteristic o# all these phenomena is that a propositionpis presupposed "hen it is

ta'en #or ranted in per#ormin a speech act, "hose #elicit! depends on the

interlocutor


9/21

propositional attitude, "hich can &e interpreted as an action o# a 'ind (Stalna'er, ++:

71)$ *s Qempson put it (197>: 19), presupposin amounts to treatin a proposition as

part o# the common round:

%he spea'er &elieves that the hearer 'no"s (and 'no"s that the spea'er 'no"s) a

certain &od! o# propositions (i$e$ there is a Dramatic niverse o# iscourse) and inma'in a certain utterance @V'p< he &elieves that the hearer, 'no"in the conventions

o# the lanuae and hence the conditions #or the truth o# the proposition in uestion,

"ill reconise a su&set o# those conditions as &ein part o# that Dramatic niverse o#

iscourse and hence neither asserti&le, denia&le or ueria&le LUM

;n particular #or the purpose o# this paper a speci#ic t!pe o# pramatic presupposition

needs to &e inuired into, the presupposition o# de#initional sentences$ .or this reason, it

is necessar! to investiate ho" de#initions can &e presupposed in discourse, or rather

ho" the! can &e triered$

Presuppositions of discourse relations

e#initions, &ein the implicit premises o# a classi#icator! arument, need to &e inuired

into ta'in into consideration the linuistic structure o# discourse relations, or rather

connectives$ Qarttunen (1973: 176) descri&ed ho" presuppositions can &e triered &!

predicates o# hiher level, the connectives, "hose linuistic aruments are discourse

seuences$ Nonnectives lin' seuences and presuppose speci#ic relations &et"een them$

.or instance, "e can consider the #ollo"in #amous case (Ka'o##, 1971: 133):

1$ Fohn is tall, &ut he is no ood at &as'et&all$

Ka'o## notices that (1) is composed o# an assertion (Fohn is tall, and he is no ood at&as'et&all) and a presupposition (;# someone is tall, then one "ould epect him to &e

ood at &as'et&all)$ %he e##ect is a denial o# epectation, "hich "as descri&ed &!

ucrot as the contradiction &! the second conunct o# a presupposed conclusion (in this

case, Fohn is ood at &as'et&all) (ucrot, 1978)$ Similarl!, the connective @and: 16+)$ ;n coordination, an eplicit or implicit

predicate hides a deeper relationship (allard, Nonrad Konacre, 1971) that needs to

&e reconstructed in order to understand the role and the conditions o# the discourse


10/21

sements or seuences$ .or instance, coordination can epress temporal, causal,

eplanation relations, imposin speci#ic reuirements on their seuences, such as a

causal or temporal order o# the seuences$ ;n all cases, ho"ever, a hih level notion

(/o&&s 198>) connects the propositions epressed &! the clause such a notion, or

predicate, can &e epressed or not, and speci#ied or not$ ;n all cases, the sentences or

clauses are connected &! an a&stract, hih level and eneric semantic relation thatimposes speci#ic reuirements on its aruments$ %here can &e several hih-level

relations: eplanation, narration, contrast, etc$ (see /o&&s, 198> Kascarides *sher,

1993) ho"ever, "e "ill consider one o# such relations, motivation or support$ We can

anal!se the #ollo"in interpretation and reconstruction o# the a#orementioned arument

used &! 4&ama to classi#! the airstri'es in Ki&!a:

(*) 4ur operations do not involve the presence o# $S$ round troops$ ()

(therefore) 4ur operations are not @hostilities


11/21

Figure : Presuppositions of !therefore"

%he a&stract relation o# coherence (/o&&s 1979, *sher Kascarides +3, chap$ 7), in

this case motivation, is #urther speci#ied accordin to the three levels o# anal!sis o# the

sentences$ %he last step is the speci#ication o# the presupposition, "hich in this case

corresponds to a de#initional principle o# @hostilit!: 19)

that the interlocutor &elieves thatpis true and reconi=es that the spea'er is ma'in this

assumption (Stalna'er, 1975: +)$ .rom this account o# pramatic presupposition, t"ocrucial elements emere: 1$ Dresupposition can &e considered as a decision to treat a


12/21


13/21

interlocutor$ .rom a pramatic perspective, the possi&ilit! o# presupposin in#ormation

not shared, or not 'no"n to &e shared, needs to &e accounted #or$ 4n Ke"isE perspective

(Ke"is 1979), the hearer reconstructs the presupposed and not shared propositions in

order to avoid communicative #ailure (Ton .intel +8) in other "ords, he

accommodates the missin and necessar! in#ormation (Ke"is 1979: 35):

;# at time tsomethin is said that reuires presuppositionPto &e accepta&le and i#Pis

not presupposed ust &e#ore t, then Z ceteris paribusand "ithin certain limits Z

presuppositionPcomes into eistence at t$

%he crucial pro&lem o# this vie" is to determine ho" a presupposition can come into

eistence, and &e added to the shared propositions$ 4n Soames< vie", accommodation

is possi&le "hen no o&ections are raised, namel! the interlocutor has alread! accepted

the proposition (it is part o# the common round) or it is not con#lictin "ith it (Soames,

198+: 586):

tterance Dresupposition *n utterance presupposes D (at t) i## one can reasona&l!in#er #rom that the spea'er S accepts D and reards it as uncontroversial, either

&ecause

a$ S thin's that it is alread! part o# the conversational contet at t, or &ecause

&$ S thin's that the audience is prepared to add it, "ithout o&ection, to the contet

aainst "hich is evaluated$

Soames eplains the phenomenon o# accommodation in terms o# the spea'er


14/21

presuppositions (the de#inition o# [at\]ma and the re#erent o# the!2) cannot &e

accommodated, cannot &e reconstructed, as the! are not rhetoricall! &ound to the

contet (*sher Kascarides 1998: +77), nor the! are related to propositions presumed

to &e 'no"n$ ;n this case, the process o# reconstruction sho"n in #iure + can #ail at

level 1 or +, as the spea'er ma! not understand the meanin o# the seuences connected

and there#ore retrieve their relationship, or he can understand their relationship &utcannot reconstruct the de#initor! statement$ Ceconstruction is not the onl! process

"hich needs to &e considered #or anal!sin presuppositions, as () does not represent

the onl! case in "hich the speech act is in#elicitous &ecause o# presuppositional #ailure$

;n N and the hearer can understand the nature o# the proposition ta'en #or ranted (a

de#initor! statement) and connect it "ith his or her &ac'round 'no"lede$ /o"ever, in

N the hearer cannot accept that the propert! o# &ein nice and "ell done2 is a

de#inition o# an action (hostilities)$ ;n this case, the process o# presupposition

reconstruction represented in #iure + a&ove #ails at level +$ ;n , the presupposition can

&e reconstructed and its nature o# de#initor! statement accepted$ /o"ever, no

conressmen and presuma&l! no ?nlish spea'er can accept that coo'in o# potatoes2

is a de#inition o# @hostilit!


15/21

&et"een the spea'er


16/21

evidence, or provin a proposition, onto the other part!$ .or instance, the #undamental

leal presumption is the innocence o# the de#endant$ %his does not mean that the

de#endant is innocent, &ut simpl! that he is considered as such until he is proved uilt!

(&e!ond a speci#ic standard o# proo#)$ %he other part!, the prosecution (or in civil cases

the plainti##) has to provide evidence to re&ut this presumptive conclusion$

%he leal #rame"or' provides a eneral idea o# the structure o# this reasonin inever!da! arumentation$ Dresumptions "or' to move the dialoue #urther "hen

'no"lede is lac'in$ %heir role is to shi#t the &urden o# proo# onto the other part!, "ho

can reect the proposition onl! &! providin contrar! aruments or positive #acts leadin

to a contrar! conclusion$ ;# not re&utted, the spea'er can consider it as tentativel!

proved, and move the dialoue #urther$ Cescher outlined the structure o# this t!pe o#

in#erence as #ollo"s (Cescher +6: 33):

DC?0;S? 1: P(the proposition representin the presumption) o&tains "henever the

condition $o&tains unless and until the standard de#ault proviso+(to

the e##ect that countervailin evidence is at hand) o&tains ("ule)$

DC?0;S? +: Nondition $o&tains (Fact)$DC?0;S? 3: Droviso+does not o&tain (#xception)$

N4JNKS;4J:Po&tains$

%he"uleo# presumption lin's the accepta&ilit! o# a propositionP(#or instance, the

de#endant is innocent) to a condition $(#or instance, he denies the crime he is chared

"ith) until a speci#ic de#ault proviso+o&tains (#or instance, he is #ound uilt! &e!ond

reasona&le dou&t)$ ;# he denies the chare and is not #ound uilt! &e!ond reasona&le

dou&t, he is to &e #ound innocent$ %his t!pe o# reasonin can &e applied to the anal!sis

o# the conditions o# presuppositions to assess "hen and "hether the spea'er can

reasona&l! ta'e a proposition #or ranted$ %his pattern o# reasonin outlines the

structure o# the reasonin underl!in his &elie#2 or thin'in2 that the interlocutoraccepts or 'no"s the presupposed proposition$

Presumptions and redefinitions

%he structure o# presumptive reasonin mentioned a&ove can &e applied to the cases o#

rede#inition cited, and in particular the persuasive de#initions o# hostilities2 and

peace2$ ;n the #irst case, 4&ama too' advantae o# the a&sence o# an eplicit de#inition

in the War Do"ers Cesolution$ /o"ever, the a&sence o# an eplicit de#inition cannot

result in the accepta&ilit! o# an! de#inition$ We can reconstruct 4&ama


17/21

$onclusion:The audience should ,now that /hostilities0 means /presence of land

troops and sustained fighting0(D)$

;n this case, the crucial pro&lem "as not the a&sence o# a de#inition o# @hostilities6)$ Noncepts such as @art: 11) are the outcome o# previous dialoues, and represent thepropositions that the interlocutors have accepted or stated$ ;n a dialoue,


18/21

presuppositions are implicit activations o# dar' side commitments (see Nor&lin, ++):

the! re#er to propositions alread! accepted &! the parties to move the commitments

#urther$ Dresupposin unshared propositions is a t"o#old dialectical strate!$ 4n the one

hand, presuppositions are commitments: presupposin an unshared proposition means

committin the hearer to a vie" that he or she never accepted, and that has to &e denied

in order to &e deleted #rom the commitment store$ 4n the other hand, presuppositionsare the conclusions o# implicit presumptive reasonin, and there#ore their denial needs

to &e supported &! an arument that re&uts the presumption$

$onclusion

;mplicit rede#initions can &e crucial and danerous instruments o# persuasion and

manipulation$ Stevenson underscored ho" the! can &e used to redirect emotions and

a##ect udments and decisions$ ! modi#!in the meanin o# a "ord that triers

positive or neative udments, the spea'er can in#luence the hearer, +39-+99$


19/21

*ustin, F$(196+)$ /o" to o %hins With Words$ 4#ord: Nlarendon$

ach, Q$ (+3)$ Speech acts and pramatics$ ;n 0$ evitt and C$ /anle! (?ds$),

lac'"ell$ Auide to the Dhilosoph! o# Kanuae (pp$ 157-167)$ 4#ord: lac'"ell$

allard $, Nonrad, C$, Konacre, C$ (1971)$ %he eep and Sur#ace Arammar o#

;nterclausal Celations$ .oundations o# Kanuae, 7 (1), 7-118$

ierce, *$ (+)$ %he una&rided evil->5)$ Je" `or': /olt$

Qempson, C$ (197>)$ Dresupposition and the delimitations o# semantics$ Nam&ride:

Nam&ride niversit! Dress$

Ka'o##, A$ (1971)$ 4n Aenerative Semantics$ ;n $ Stein&er, K$ Fa'o&ovits (eds$),

Semantics: *n ;nterdisciplinar! Ceader in Dhilosoph!, Kinuistics and Ds!cholo! (pp$

+3+-+96), Nam&ride: Nam&ride niversit! Dress$

Kascarides, *$ *sher, J$ (1993)$ %emporal ;nterpretation, iscourse Celations and

Nommonsense ?ntailment$ Kinuistics and Dhilosoph! 16(>): 537-593$

Ke"is, $ (1979)$ Score'eepin in a Kanuae Aame$ Fournal o# Dhilosophical Koic, 8,

339Z3>9$


20/21


21/21

presupposing re definitions final

Documents