Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Preamble
This is an essay about Neurolinguistic Programming and Psycholinguistics. In particular it is about the way certain types of English language patterns - presuppositions - and in particular a
type within the set which are known as counterfeit presuppositions, can be deliberately used to subtly affect consciousness. Although the essay refers to the English language it is, since there
is evidence to suggest that all languages are universally patterned, likely to be applicable to others.
This essay refers to English usage - not about 'English', 'language', semantics or grammar per se - although specific forms are inevitably discussed since language patterns are the central
theme.
For related pages, follow the links.
Introduction
Presuppositions - the meaning of the word 'presuppose' is to 'assume beforehand; involve, imply' - represent some of the most powerful of language patterns. They are in common, everyday
use by all of us and are built into the structure of the English language; indeed it is probably impossible to utter a sentence of any consequence without making some kind of assumption - and
hence without the use of presupposition. Presupposition is the mechanism used implicitly to make assumption in day to day language whereas direct assertion is the means used to do so
overtly (although all but the simplest assertions will themselves contain presuppositions). The difference between the two is that the latter is a type of communication that is accessible to
direct, conscious processing whilst the former - the assumptions in which must normally be accepted for a given sentence or phrase to have meaning or sense - normally represents
subconscious processing. The contents of any given presuppositional sentence will normally have to be assumed to be true 'a priori' in order for the sentence to be even understood as
meaningful 'language'.
Take for example the nine word opening sentence presented in this introduction: it contains (at least) the following presuppositions:
a) presuppositions exist
b) they are language patterns
c) they are powerful
d) there is a scale of power in language patterns
e) there are other (powerful) language patterns
f) language exists
g) language is patterned
h) patterns exist
i) power exists
As will be further discussed, presuppositions may be 'fair and uncontroversial' - based upon knowledge which is common to all parties privy to a communication, or 'unfair', 'counterfeit' or
'controversial' - made upon the basis of covert knowledge by a communicator with a hidden agenda.
In addition to discussing the nature of fair and unfair forms, the refutation of the latter, and the illustration of several complex forms, this essay also presents examples of everyday
presuppositions in the form of examples/exercises intended to alert the reader and aid in the recognition of some of the typical language patterns and their underlying assumptions.
'It is clear that anytime we are listening to others speaking, watching TV, or reading, we are for the most part entirely unaware of what we have
accepted as presuppositions. Some of these presuppositions may have major consequences of our behaviour, thoughts and actions. This, of course,
also means that any time we are speaking to others, we are constantly, and unconsciously, using presuppositions which affect how they perceive the
world. In other words, we affect how/what they think, believe, think and act with our speech and for the most part we do this without knowing what
we are presupposing to be true for them.'
In listening to speech (and note that although this essay refers primarily to the spoken word it, applies equally to the written word - the latter being simpler in that it is both easier to
compose and analyse at leisure - is assumed to be covered by default), the listener decodes meaning as a sentence proceeds, using ongoing clues in syntax and context/implied context to
converge on a meaning. This all happens very rapidly. Because of the 'real time' nature of the spoken word - the typical listener will be between 200 and 500ms behind in integrating the
meaning of 'normal' speech as it unfolds - and, given the often complex form of presupposition, the listener will often be forced to tacitly accept the implied meaning of a given sentence
before the next one is upon him and then the next. Given an ongoing stream of presuppositions, he thus becomes progressively 'caught' in a mind set of subconsciously accepting the speaker's
point of view - indeed there are those in the NLP fraternity who would have it that, given a set of three or four stacked presuppositions, it is impossible, owing to the way the human brain
processes information, for the listener NOT to accept the assumptions/inferences made by the speaker.
[see http://www.cadvision.com/Home_Pages/accounts/leadedge/ex1.htm].
A further factor mitigating against the reader's 'So what?' approach is, that, without practice, he/she is hardly likely to be able to even identify the simplest of the welter of presuppositions
encountered in the course of a normal day, let alone determine which are honest.
It is possible, as will be demonstrated, for someone with the proper skills and sufficient motivation to subtly and deliberately distort a speech stream by means of carefully chosen inferences
and implications in the form of presupposition. Anyone without sufficient insight will inevitably fall prey - to some degree - to such cleverly constructed schemes of counterfeit
presuppositions, the ultimate aim of which would be to PERSUADE and get the a potentially mendacious communicator's otherwise questionable point of view accepted uncritically.
'It seems to me that a true presupposition is based on an unconsidered assumption by the encoder. That assumption is that the decoder will draw
the same suppositions from the non-asserted elements of a message as the encoder holds. Hence the notion of a presupposition being
uncontroversial.'
'I propose to use the term counterfeit supposition to describe the kind of supposition that is forced onto a decoder by virtue of a FORM OF WORDS,
but which is not shared innocently by the encoder. It is worth studying because where it dominates (for example, in propaganda) the communication
cycle becomes corroded by cynicism. Note that the phenomenon differs from a regular proposition [i.e. in a 'fair' or 'true' presupposition - DS] in
which unshared information is openly asserted.'
[see http://thormay.webprovider.com/tech2.html for full text and examples]. Proposition in the foregoing paragraphs means the proposition(s), or assumption(s), upon which the
presupposition is based: the 'encoder' is the speaker, and the 'decoder' the listener: [capitals are by DS].
Note that the last two examples, by presupposing degrees of 'fastness' and 'slowness', demonstrate how a question can be very easily loaded implicitly by using terms at the extreme ends of a
relative scale - old/young, fat/thin, tall/short, loud/quiet, violent/peaceful, etc. are similar word pairs. In the example given, a 'fair' question would be 'What speed were you doing?'.
Questions, other than the ultra-primitive monosyllabic form of 'who, why, what, when where and how?' (but the latter will have some context), are ALWAYS based upon presuppositions
embodied in the question form. The 'question' form of the presupposition is used to complete this list:
1. When listening to any kind of speech, the reader should ask: 'What is the speaker assuming?' Assumptions are the basis of presupposition.
2. TV and radio news, chat shows and advertisements, by virtue of their structure, are a rich source - avoid scripted drama, most of which is
simplistically artificial (advertisements, on the other hand, whilst being carefully constructed, do use some clever presupposition). The trick is to
IGNORE WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED AS THE CONTENT OF THE MESSAGE/CONVERSATION and observe the assumptions implicit in the
language patterns (the real content). It is easiest to start by listening to questions - which are relatively simple to analyse: listen to one question,
ignore the answer and work out the presuppositions in the question by asking: 'what assumptions did the speaker just make?' or 'what were the
assumptions in that?' The reader should keep asking what the assumptions are/were. Once this is done, the procedure should be repeated again and
again and again. Particularly sticky/compound questions might be written it down and assessed at leisure. All questions contain presuppositions -
that's why they are an easy place to start.
3. When the reader is are competent at questions, a start can be made working on answers. If 'answers' are long and convoluted, they can be
evaluated one phrase at a time: a pocket tape recorder is handy for this.
4. Given some TV radio work, it can be useful to listen in unobtrusively to real life conversation - statements as well as Q and A. This is a lot easier
in some respects since vocabulary is usually simpler, as is phrasing and sentence length, and the general public tends not to speak in the convoluted
fashion of those who frequent radio/TV news - although there may be a few surprises. The complicating thing is that there are likely to be a lot of
direct assertions - overt statements along the lines 'X is Y' mixed in - which may or may not themselves contain presupposition. Most everyday
direct speech is richer in assertion than it is in presupposition.
Note that at this stage it is unlikely that the reader will be able to identify the majority of presuppositions and underlying assumptions (indeed, the more subtle forms of presupposition
haven't been discussed yet & 'ultimate' identification - which lies at the very roots of language and meaning - is impracticable), but there will be a start. Fortunately, most presuppositions in
everyday use tend to be 'fair'.
The foregoing exercises relate to the spoken word, the analysis of real time 'live' speech being the ultimate objective. Should the reader find these too difficult, a start could be made in
analysing newspaper and magazine articles in order to get the hang of things - transcripts of political speeches and interviews (especially unscripted ones) are good sources - but it should be
remembered that the written word is often edited several times before it goes to press.
2) You/I'll Z and/while/if/etc W. (the element that follows 'you' is the principle presupposition)
This type verge on commands, almost saying 'you will'. That's easy to see in the short versions, not so obvious in the longer versions, which can be
used to hide even more insidious implied assumptions.
a. I'll give you my pen and then you can sign just here.
[assumes you will sign]
b. I'll lend you my pen while you write your phone number here.
[assumes you will write the phone number]
c. I'll settle the bill while you order a taxi.
[assumes you will order a taxi: implies you are leaving... together by context]
d. You can say goodbye to your friends while I nip to the men's room.
[assumes you are saying goodbye - further implies you are leaving]
e. You can go and warm the bed ready for me while I just say goodnight to my buddies and get a pack of condoms from the machine.
[compound assumptions - some by implication]
3) Now/Since C, then D. (C is the principle presupposition - and flies past the subject's attention - with secondary 'qualifying' presuppositions often
occurring in D, the part of the sentence normally reserved for the implantation of suggestion).
This is a causative form with the implicit assumption that C is 'true' somehow causes D in some assumed logical fashion. That is the assumption -
but in the general case that assumption is not necessarily true: in the case of the counterfeit presupposition it is usually (always?) false. Note the
word 'then' is often unsaid.
a. Now, since the car fulfils all your requirements (THEN) we can make a deal.
[car assumed to fulfil all requirements and assumption of making a deal: NB the logic of 'C causes D' is false]
b. Now we know each other so well (THEN) we can start talking about more intimate matters, like...
[assumed intimacy is invoked in order to assume even more intimacy]
c. Since I'm the man of your dreams, (THEN) you should be sleeping close to me tonight.
[hmmm]
d. Now that you have opened up, (THEN) can you tell me honestly how the fire started.
[assumed 'opened up': further assumed that 'you' will speak honestly and have knowledge about the said fire]
e. So, you want the station wagon with the alloy wheels: I think you've made a good decision - considering the excellent discount we're giving you,
and I can see your wife is happy with it. Now you've chosen the model you really want and I've got your credit clearance, (THEN) I need you to sign
just here and here.
[assumptions, opinions, false causality and fiction mixed with fact: this is how it comes]
4) If X then Y. This is a causal form of logic/conditional statement often seen in computer programming, the difference being that in computer
programming the logic is based on fact. It is related to the last form but less definite (form 3. has the first part of the sentence stated as 'fact') and
can be further compounded in the form (If X then Y and Z and P and Q and ...). This looks fairly obvious and easy to fathom... but it isn't when the
'If', 'Then', and 'And'' mysteriously begin to vanish. Note that the reader should bear in mind that the implied CAUSALITY in this, and some of the
other, more complex forms that follow, is also presupposed by the speaker.
a. (IF you) sign up today and (THEN) you get free carpets and kitchen units.
[replace the word 'If' by 'assuming': that's what the speaker is assuming ultimately: the second part of the sentence - following the word 'then' - is a
presupposition based upon the assumption in the first part of the sentence being true. This is a convoluted form]
b. If I said you had a beautiful body, (THEN) would you hold it against me?
[replace 'If I said' by 'assuming': second half of sentence, which is a question, contains the presupposition
c. If you don't go immediately (THEN) I'll scream AND call the police AND set the dog on you.
[assuming you stay, then speaker assumes screaming/police/dog]
d. If I give you the jack and (THEN) you can change the tyre.
[assuming jack is handed over then assuming that 'you' will change the tyre]
e. If you had listened to what I say (THEN) you wouldn't be in such a mess.
[you didn't listen, therefore(assumed causality), you are in a mess]
5) If X then Y or Z. More computer logic, but with optional outcomes in the apparent causal chain of events based on condition X being met. This can
chain into an extended list of outcomes in the form: IF X THEN Y OR Z OR/AND A OR/AND B OR C OR... etc. although more than three is rare -
unless a list is presented. Often used in order to selectively reduce choice by presenting apparent choice from an impoverished set: type 9) is a more
general form of this.
a. Would you like free carpets or kitchen units (if) when you sign here?
[the pattern is inverted - but the logic's the same: assumes that either carpets or kitchen units are available: no other choice: assumes you have to
sign to get one of the offered items]
b. If you use my pen, you can sign here or here.
[this is the more standard form: assumes that you will sign in one of the places using said pen]
c. If you want to get into the best part of the stadium, you can use the east gate or the south gate and park by the fountain - you know where that is.
[assumes you will use one of the two routes, by exclusion of others: assumes you want to get into the part of the stadium which the speaker
assumes to be 'best': assumes you will be driving and that you know of/know where the fountain is
a. Have you thought which of your feet you are going to notice first?
[assumes you are going to notice one of your feet and that you can/will think about it (you will because of the structure of the predicate)]
b. Are you wondering whether to buy three or four loaves at the supermarket?
[assumes you are going to buy three OR four loaves at a supermarket: assumes you are wondering]
c. Would you say that I earn $200,000 or $250,000 a year?
[assumes either/or: assumes you can say]
d. I'd like you to consider whether we are going to eat three times or four today, at home or in the Chinese restaurant, in the cafeteria on the ferry or
at the burger bar on 41st street.
[assuming a. we are going to eat three or four times, b. in one of four places, c. that we are going on the ferry, d. we are going to 41st street, e. that
you can/will consider these limiting options - to the exclusion of all others. Since you already have enough to think about, you probably will exclude
others!]
a. Now you're feeling relaxed, and while we have a little time, you can tell me about your sexual fantasies.
[assumes you are relaxed, that 'we' have a little time, that you have sexual fantasies and that you can tell the speaker about them: four
presuppositions in one relatively simple sentence - plus the presuppositions of causality implied by the now/while/you can chain]
b. Now you're at last telling the truth, and while the jury is aware of that fact, tell us about the last time you beat your wife.
c. Now you have committed yourself to answering my questions, and while you are in a talkative mood, can you tell me why you started the fire?
[speaks for itself]
d. Since you have now admitted that you quite often break the speed limit and jump red lights, and while we have you safely out of a car and sober
for once, you can rest assured that once you've given us the details about that hold up you pulled last Thursday we won't question you about your
kidnapping attempts until tomorrow.
[compound presuppositions - there are at least ten in the single sentence]
9) R or S? (either/or)
By restriction of available choices to R or S, all other choices are assumed to be unavailable. This form is used to set up the 'double bind', a situation
in which the same outcome occurs irrespective of which of the (apparently) available choices is made.
This concludes the first group. Stated baldly, and shown as skeletons with small groups of enveloping words, as in most of the foregoing examples, the given presuppositional forms might
seem simple enough to detect and evaluate both in terms implied causality & assumption. That such is not the case should become apparent from the examples where the presuppositions are
stacked together in groups - and there are more difficult forms to follow.
The reader should note that some speakers have either 'naturally' occurring presuppositional language patterns (probably learned in childhood - speech patterns are inherited/assimilated
from others) or have purposely studied forms of presuppositional speech for whatever reason. Such people are skilled in the day to day these language patterns and their practised and rapid
delivery makes the forms particularly difficult to untangle when the medium of the spoken word is involved.
In order to test this, the reader should try modifying the nouns and verbs in say forms 7) and 8) above to suit a few appropriate everyday contexts, compounding them and delivering the
resulting patterns(s) in spoken form, without warning, to a couple of friends for effect. The test is in checking which assumptions the friends miss.
"1. At some point x in the sequence of dialogue, A is brought forward by the proponent, either as a proposition the proponent explicitly asks the
respondent to accept for the sake of argument, or as a non-explicit assumption that is part of the proponent's reasoning.
2. The respondent has an opportunity at x to reject A.
3. If the respondent fails to reject A at x, then A becomes a commitment of both parties during the subsequent sequence of dialogue."
In short, the message is 'Refute or Accept' - and the listener accepts at his peril. [Those who tend to favour the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - that language significantly
affects consciousness (i.e. that something which is accepted as fact in word, in consciousness is fact) - will no doubt feel strongly inclined towards the refutation of counterfeit assumption.]
This is the relatively formal reasoning behind refutation. A more informal way is for the listener to consider why he/she should allow anyone to put to them, in a premeditated and pernicious
form, inaccurate and/or deceptive information? Looked at this way, it becomes a matter for the disruption of deliberate and contrived deceit.
Tip 1: analysing questions is an easy place to start - it is normal in any dialogue to allow someone time to think before replying, so the listener won't
look odd when he pauses to evaluate what has been said.
Tip 2: when someone says something, the listener might look away as if thinking (true), PAUSE and work out as many underlying assumptions,
beginning with the earliest ones (see earlier), during the pause.
Tip 3: if time is required/the listener is unsure of a point, the speaker should be asked to slowly repeat what has been said.
Tip 4: the listener should never be afraid to INTERRUPT. If the speaker is going too fast, speaking in too complex a pattern, or there is a suspicion
that counterfeit presuppositions are present, then interruption is the order of the day. Interruptions are also useful in breaking mind set (see
Interrupts page elsewhere on this site).
Tip 5: to create time - and to permit step by step analysis - the listener can slowly paraphrase/repeat what the speaker has said point by point,
digging out - and if necessary refuting by question or counter statement - each assumption one by one.
'Why are you assuming X, Y and Z (assumptions)?' 'Your presumptions are all wrong', 'You are assuming (assumptions): why?', 'Most of what
you've just said is just plain wrong/bullshit (and don't explain why - they said it, not you)', 'I don't agree with your assumptions (followed by
silence).', 'Who says that {assumption/assumptions}?', 'Your logic that A leads to B and C is wrong (challenges false causality)' and - if you're
feeling charitable and have plenty of time: 'You've made a lot of assumptions there, let's go through them slowly one by one.'
If you are not feeling charitable/don't have any time, a blank statement of: 'You're wrong,' is very effective - since you don't specify how/where/why/etc. Ultimately, the reader/listener
should work out their own preferred way.
a. courtroom
b. confrontational debates - political or otherwise
c. police interviews
d. advertising
e. political broadcasts
f. 'sales' situations
g. seduction
h. business meetings
j. one to one disputes
For more of these presuppositional forms - and examples - see Appendix I. Note that the forms shown in the appendix are equally as difficult to unravel as the foregoing and are worthy of
equal attention by the reader. They are only separated out in order to contain the main body of the text of this essay within manageable proportions.
Closing Remarks
In this essay the nature of genuine and counterfeit presupposition has been presented along with some examples of the language environments in which presuppositions are likely to be
encountered. As the reader will by now realise, presupposition in language can take many forms, and it is well nigh impossible for anyone - however alert and well trained - to integrate a
continuous, fast moving (spoken at 150/200wpm), set of compound presuppositions more than say a dozen items long. The exact number is arguable - if some in the NLP community are to be
believed. (evidence?) it is perhaps impossible to effectively decode presuppositions in a continuous string more than three or four items long - but there is no doubt that at some point, the
language processing system of the listener will overload, cease to fully process what is being said, and 'lock up'. Beyond, and around this 'lock up' point, the listener will become tacitly, and
subconsciously, 'committed' to the world view being assumed/presented by the speaker and, insofar as behaving according to his own rational system of volition with regards to the matter in
hand is concerned, be lost.
This is the way literature, drama and movies work: given a sufficiently credible opening to capture consciousness, the story takes over and we become entranced by the scenario presented by
the images. [the Word Interrupt page, elsewhere on this site, can be used to experiment with 'lock up']. As an aside, Milton Erickson - father of conversational hypnosis - used
presuppositional form extensively in his inductions.
Having said that a continuous stream of presuppositional speech cannot be integrated, it can be dealt with in other ways thus:
a. General Practice: continually asking oneself what a speaker is assuming - and challenging assumptions in 'real time' encounters - definitely helps.
b. Environment: being aware of the type of environments in which counterfeit presuppositions are likely to be encountered - and being particularly
alert in such environments.
c. Keywords: learning the keywords that are commonly used in making presuppositions - opinionated adverbs/adjectives, change of time, change of
place words, etc.
d. Structured Practice: taking one form from each of those given and using it oneself to actually make presuppositions/listening out for it for two or
three days at a time (the technique advocate by some NLP schools).
e. Vehement interruption: especially when the first counterfeit presupposition in a potential stream is encountered.
Of these, a. and b. are likely to be the most practicable aids. Accordingly, therefore, it is important - particularly during the early stages of any encounter - that the listener tests the ground
and pays particular attention to the presuppositions (plus direct assertions) of the speaker and IMMEDIATELY interrupts so as to prevent a breach once any counterfeit presupposition is
detected - the interruption should be such as to contradict the false assumptions and disrupt the speaker's flow and his/her view of the world. For the reasons outlined in the previous
paragraph, no listener should allow ANY speaker to rant on endlessly and every spurious presupposition should be met by a corresponding challenge at, or close to, the time it is uttered.
Once embarked upon, interruptions should be as vociferous and regular as needed: pleas for 'time to finish' should be entirely ignored when a speaker has been discovered (deviously) to be
using counterfeit presuppositions. Counterfeit presuppositions should NEVER be allowed to compound since they will adversely affect the listener's point of view, or consciousness (see Sapir-
Whorf theory), and cause the listener to commit to an illusory view an already vague world as presented by the speaker for the latter's own unspoken reasons.
To each of us, the world 'out there' is not as it is, it is as we think it is - and, like it or not, because we 'think' in words, what we think it is inevitably influenced by words.
If necessary, in extreme circumstances, the listener is advised, without reserve, to fight fire with fire and deliberately use honest complex forms of compounded presupposition in order to
disrupt the speaker's position. There is enough ammunition in the present essay to enable any reader of average intelligence to do this by developing some pro forma configurations - but
remember, since these are likely to be complex patterns, they will need practice.
Rhetorical Questions
Questions that the speaker asks without the expectation of any answer.
a. Who cares if you jump in the lake?
[implies that nobody cares]
b. What's the point in me giving you all this information if you don't use it?
[implies there is no point: implies you don't use the information]
c. How are you going to discover the answer to the last question?
[implies there is a question and a means of discovering the answer]
Comparatives
MORE, LESS, LONG, FAST, RIGHT, WRONG, BEST. Words ending in -ER/-EST and their roots.
These words, and there are a whole host of them, imply relativity of some feature - even though such might be misrepresented as some kind of
absolute (the words represent speaker's assumption/opinion remember) AND they are non-specific. If there is 'more' of one thing that another, the
implication is that the other thing is 'less'. If one thing is proposed as 'right' then the implication is that all others are 'wrong'. Similarly with
longER/long/shorter, fastER/fast/slower, greatER/lesser, smallER/larger, tiniER/bigger, tallER/shorter and so on.
a. There aren't many bikes that are fastER than a Mazouwki.
[the Mazouwki is a 'fast' bike]
b. You took MORE than your fair share of the robbery proceeds.
[there was a robbery, and you took some of the proceeds & what is assumed 'more' than a 'fair' share - this implies that the proceeds were split and
someone, or others, got 'less' than a fair share.]
c. You may find that leaning back in the chair makes you feel LESS uncomfortable.
[you are feeling 'uncomfortable']
d. It'll be for the BEST if you confess.
[not to confess is for the 'worst' & your state can be 'improved' by confession. Note the non specific definitions of 'best' and 'worst']
e. How LONG have you been suffering from heartburn?
[you are suffering from heartburn]
Comparative A AS< X >AS B
A and B are being compared, but in the comparison something is implied about the nature of A and/or B.
a. I hope you aren't AS screwed up AS your wife.
[your wife is screwed up - so are you by the implication provided by 'AS']
b. Bloggs is about AS funny AS and open grave.
[an open grave, by common agreement, is not funny: hence Bloggs is not funny]
c. When you are AS convinced by the evidence AS I am, then you will convict.
[the speaker is convinced by the evidence - so is the jury, but not AS much]
Ordinal Numerals
FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, UMPTEENTH, ANOTHER, ADDITIONAL, ALTERNATIVE, NEXT
The statement that there is one (or more) numbers carries with it the implication that there are other numbers.
a. If you can find an ADDITIONAL nut to fit this bolt then we'll fix the engine.
[presuppose the existence of at least one other nut that fits the bolt]
b. I'm asking you for the THIRD time: 'Did you steal the cake?'
[you have already been asked twice]
c. NEXT time I come here, you'd better be gone.
[I am coming back here and intend returning]
d. ANOTHER thing to consider is your rate of breathing.
[there is/are some thing(s) to consider other than your rate of breathing]
Quantifiers
(ALL, EACH, EVERY, FEW, FEWER, LOTS, MANY, MUCH, NONE, SEVERAL, SOME, etc)
These indicate number and can be used to generalise plurality, totality or absence. Examples are thus:
a. All the cheer leaders ate ice cream after the game.
[this implies there were a number of cheer leaders present after the game and then generalises that 'all' without exception ate ice cream: totality is
implied]
b. Each of the cheer leaders ate ice cream after the game.
[again plurality is implied and totality generalised]
c. A few of the cheer leaders didn't eat ice cream after the game.
['few' is non-specific and thus a generalisation: the word also implies that more than a few - i.e. a majority - ate ice cream after the game]
d. None of the cheer leaders attended the game.
['None' is absolute - and implies by generalisation that they were not there, supporting any side, nor observing]
e. I won't be getting under your feet MUCH longer now my new flat is almost ready.
[implies that the speaker has 'been getting under your feet' for a long time]
Cleft Sentences
These begin with the words IT IS or IT WAS - followed by a noun argument: the form can be concatenated.
a. IT WAS next door's cat that dug the forty foot hole in our lawn.
[there is a hole in the lawn: unless there is evidence to demonstrate that the said cat dug the hole in the lawn, then the first part of the sentence is an
out and out assumption by assertion]
b. IT IS next door's cat that is responsible for digging the forty foot hole in our lawn OR IT IS that dog from across the way.
[concatenated form]
Appendix II
What follows is a note by the author relating to conscious and subconscious communication in word and how words and meaning relate to 'things' in the broadest sense. This is closely related
to the present Presuppositions page, indeed it was written in parallel with it, and is published here in its more or less original, speculative, rough form in order to provide interested readers
with some food for thought on the topic of general language use, meaning and understanding. The note as written refers to communications in words between two or more parties: since a
signifcant proportion of what we call 'thinking' takes place in words (i.e. in 'Internal Dialogue' also known as Audio-Internal-Digital or Aid mode in NLP terminology), what is presented will
also have implications for how words connect with meaning in 'thought'.
Divergence in Meaning:
More presuppositions means more assumptions made about the commonality of meaning between transmitter/receiver. These assumptions in 'fair' cases - which comprise by far and above
the majority of communications - are subconscious.
Because it is impossible to transmit in words 'all' that is known about the content of a particular message/utterance, (ultimately, 'all' becomes the language system of the parties and how it
relates to itself and the subject matter under consideration), every transmission made - and received - is necessarily incomplete and may be divided into conscious (semi-'deliberately'
chosen/spoken) elements and subconscious (unspoken/implied) elements, the former residing in the surface wording, the latter in the nested presuppositions within the wording.
The more presuppositions (=assumptions) the sender makes, the more assumptions the receiver has to admit in order to decode the message - all subconsciously (in the normal, fair case).
Because of differences in understanding of word/concept, and differences in the linguistic/image reference systems in general between the two parties, what is sent will not be what is
received - and the discrepancy will be compounded in proportion to the number of assumptions (=presuppositions) made by the sender. Referring back to what is written above about words
and meaning: "all superlatives/relatives are dropped and the words and word forms used are, as far as possible, simple, unambiguous, and what everyone involved would agree to be 'fact'."
Combining the last two sentences and re-stating: THE CLEAREST COMMUNICATIONS ARE THOSE CONTAINING THE FEWEST PRESUPPOSITIONS. That is one property: others could be stated.
Cheating:
Counterfeit presuppositions cheat and short circuit the natural communication process to the benefit of the sender. In addition to the normal conscious to conscious, subconscious to
subconscious messaging that takes place in an ordinary communication, a new element of conscious to subconscious direction takes place: this is a manipulative process introduced by the
sender in order to deliberately influence the receiver subliminally.
Slang:
Slang, cliché, generalisation, sentence fragments and aphorism all rely heavily upon implied meanings, which the speaker - and the listener (unless he challenges) - subconsciously accept: a)
as presupposed fact and b) as being common in their systems of understanding. Since a) above depends upon b) - and b), owing to the different experiences, images, memories and hence
different language conditioning of the participants, can never ultimately be true - the assumptions made in a) and b) are false in all but the broadest, lowest common denominator sense. Thus
all but the very simplest communications in 'slang', or similar loosely defined systems, are likely to be fraught with misunderstanding at the subconscious level.
Bibliography
1 Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning -Walton (Lawrence Erlbaum)
2 The Structure of Magic Vol 1 - Bandler & Grinder (Science and Behaviour Books)
Links