|
|
|
|
|
|
discourse, the intuitive notion of presupposition is partially captured by such concepts as "new" and "old" or "given" information but is not completely explained by them. In fact, it is not difficult to imagine a context in which the new information conveyed is precisely what is presupposed by a sentence. Consider, for example, an expression such as |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3) We regret to inform you that your article has been rejected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this case, the new information conveyed by the sentence is exactly the factivity of the subordinate clause, presupposed by the factive regret. Moreover, the concept of background frame is different from the concept of old information because the stress is not on what is already known but on what is assumed as unchallengeable by the participants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The distinction between background and foreground should also be kept distinct from the concept of the background knowledge of S and A, since the background frame is a textual element, produced by specific features inside the text. It is crucial to the present definition that both background and foreground information be furnished or conveyed at the same time by the same expression. In this sense the background information should not be identified with any previous external knowledge of S and/or A but, rather, is what S and A take for granted by virtue of the utterance of the expression. (The cases of conflict between the conveyed background knowledge and what S and A previously knew will be a matter for further challenge of the expression employed.) The background frame organizes the textual perspective of the distribution of information, putting some information in the area of implicit mutual agreement between S and A. In this sense all presuppositions have a function of textual integration, setting different information at different levels (background or foreground) within the discourse. Our aim is to describe how some of those background frames depend on, and are activated by, some specific lexical items or linguistic expressions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some remarks are now in order to define the domain of phenomena which we want to analyze as presuppositions. What we called the frame of mutual agreement may in fact be determined by a number of different elements, such as syntactic features, phonological intonations, textual inferences, and so on. Generally, it is impossible to communicate without putting something into the background frame of mutual agreement and assuming that the other is able to access this presupposed knowledge. Otherwise, each speech event would require a complete restatement, with the result that there would not be time to say, or listen to, anything. This is clearly too great an extension for presupposition as |
|
|
|
|
|