< previous page page_255 next page >

Page 255
This is an example of the contextualizing process which takes place in a conversational interaction when a new element is introduced in discourse via a definite description, and A does not know anything about the referring element.
Consider now a conversation in which S utters sentence (37):
(37) John told me that X's last book is interesting.
It seems unlikely that the sequence would continue with (38):
(38) A: Is there an individual named John?
If A does not know the John to whom S is referring, he will not doubt his existence, but he will try to obtain more information to enable him to identify the entity named John. Only then will "reference" be secured. Therefore, a normal reply to (37) would be (39) or (40):
(39) Who is John? I don't think I know him.
(40) Have you already told me about John?
With (40) A is asking the Speaker to tell him where and when, in the preceding context, the individual in question has been named and described. In a text, the Reader would go back to see if this individual has been introduced earlier in the narrative. If in the previous context no reference can be found, A will expect, in the subsequent exchanges of conversation, to obtain the information necessary to identify the object of reference, as in (41) or (42):
(41) John is my nephew.
(42) John is the student in Linguistics with the beard, glasses, and sharp, guttural laugh.
Sentences (41) and (42) represent an appropriate answer to (39) because they enable A to connect some known information with the new information (in this case the proper name). In any case, the utterance of a sentence containing a referring term disposes A to accept more information to clarify the reference of the sentence.
As Manor (1976) suggests, a "benevolent" addressee will wait until the end of the speech to give the Speaker a chance to clarify his views and initial statement. In the case of existential presuppositions, the "benev-

 
< previous page page_255 next page >