LangLit

IMPACT FACTOR – 5.61 ISSN 2349-5189

An International Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

A STUDY OF PRESUPPOSITION IN HAROLD PINTER’S THE
HOMECOMING

MR. RANJIT KADAM

Research Scholar
Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University,
Pune, MS.

ABSTRACT

The present research paper deals extensively with presupposition. The concept
of presupposition has briefly been discussed in relation with philosophy, logic,
syntax, Gricean theory, speech act theory as well as entailment. Further, the
paper provides a detailed analysis of semantic conception as well as
pragmatic characterization of presupposition, with various definitions.
Different types of presupposition-triggers have been enlisted with appropriate
illustrations. Properties of presupposition such as defeasibility, detachability,
behavior under negation and so on, have also been highlighted in this paper.
Moreover, projection problem has been discussed with reference to
cumulative suggestion as well as presuppositional grammar. Thus, major
concern of the chapter is to provide a theoretical structure to be applied to
Harold Pinter’s play.

Keywords: Presupposition, Philosophy, Logic, Syntax, Defeasibility, Detachability, etc.

Introduction

Presupposition has its roots in philosophy of language and linguistic semantics. Recent works
in linguistics have given a central place to the notion of presupposition. It is studied as an
essential aspect in providing semantic as well as pragmatic representations.

Resultantly, presupposition has obtained a significant place in the spheres of interest of

linguists, logicians and philosophers. It has been studied as a kind of unspoken information
that accompanies an utterance. Moreover, presuppositions perform a significant role in our
understanding of how context and background determine proper interpretation of any
utterance. They are studied as conditions which must be fulfilled for an expression to be
interpreted meaningfully.

Philosophical Background

Presupposition has its roots in philosophy. The notion of presupposition can be traced back to
Aristotle. As Beaver states, Aristotle explains the similar concept in the following extract
quoted from ‘Categories’: For manifestly, if Socrates exists, one of the two propositions
‘Socrates is ill’, ‘Socrates is not ill’ is true, and the other false. This is likewise the case if he

Vol. 6 Issue 3 142 February, 2020

Website: www.langlit.org Contact No.: +91-9890290602

Indexed: ICI, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Academia.edu, IBI, IIFC, DRJI
 LangLit
IMPACT FACTOR – 5.61 ISSN 2349-5189

An International Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

does not exist; for if he does not exist, to say that he is ill is false, and to say that he is not ill
is true (Aristotle 1950/350 BC, Ch 10:13b, 27-35, in Beaver 2001:3).

In other words, Aristotle treats propositions as having truth value in terms of truth and falsity
which is not distinct from the theories either of Frege or Strawson. Beaver further refers to
Horn’s view that it is the medieval philosopher Petrus Hispanus, who first introduced the
notion of presupposition. In the final part of his work ‘Summulae Logicales,’ Hispanus uses
the terms such as ‘presupponit’ for presupposition and ‘denotat’ for assertion.

In modern times, most significant among the philosophers who influenced the theories of
presupposition are Frege, Russell and Strawson. However, Richard Garner (1971:34-35)
mentions that the difference between philosopher’s talk about presupposition and that of
linguist is of ‘the matter of what it is that is said to do the presupposing’. In fact,
philosophers have their own abstract views, somewhat contrasting with those of linguists,
who deal with presuppositions of words, utterances and sentences.

An Ordinary Usage of the Term ‘Presupposition’

In everyday sense, to presuppose something is to assume something or to take it for granted

in advance without saying it. Levinson (1983) points out that there are significant distinctions
between the ordinary usages of the term ‘presupposition’ and its technical usage in the field
of linguistics. He provides some examples that distinguish these two usages of the term:

1. Effects presuppose causes

2. John wrote Harry a letter, presupposing he could read

3. John said “Harry is so competent,” presupposing that we know Harry had fouled
things up – in fact we didn’t know and so failed to realize that he was being ironic

4. Harry asked Bill to close the door, presupposing that Bill had left it open as usual; he
hadn’t so he threw a chair at Harry

5. Adolph addresses the butler as “Sir”, presupposing that he was the host Sir Ansel
himself

6. The theory of evolution presupposes a vast time-scale

7. The article by Jackendoff presupposes Chomsky’s theory of nominalizations

(1983:168).

In the above examples, ordinary notion of presupposition is used to narrate background

assumptions which make the utterances meaningful. On the other hand, technical usage of
presupposition refers to certain inferences built onto linguistic expressions.

Vol. 6 Issue 3 143 February, 2020

Website: www.langlit.org Contact No.: +91-9890290602

Indexed: ICI, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Academia.edu, IBI, IIFC, DRJI
 LangLit
IMPACT FACTOR – 5.61 ISSN 2349-5189

An International Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

Presupposition and Logic

Levinson (1983) is of the opinion that the characterization of semantic presupposition

requires some fundamental changes in the kind of logic that can be used to model natural
language semantics. He provides the following argument based on the classical logical
assumptions:

1. A presupposes B

2. Therefore, by definition, A entails B and ~A entails B

3. (a) Every sentence A has a negation ~A

(b) A is true or A is false (Bivalence)

(c) A is true or ~A is true (Negation)

4. B must always be true

(1983:175).

The major aim of such presuppositional theories is to cope up with presupposition failure.

They also explain that the sentences are neither true nor false when their presuppositions fail.
According to Bickerton, logical definitions of presupposition have been framed in terms of
the three-valued logic. Such theories suggest that:

A sentence S presupposes a proposition P if both S and –S logically imply

P. If P is false, and then S is generally held to lack a truth value (1979:235).

Presupposition and Third Truth Value

In truth conditional semantics, pragmatics as well as traditional logic, it is practical

assumption that each sentence is either true or false. As Keith Allen points out:

In traditional systems of logic, truth is bivalent, i.e., there are only two values possible: any
proposition P is either true or else it is false (2001:183).

However, according to Allwood et al., the negation of a sentence is true whenever the
sentence is false. Consider the following example from Allwood et al.: Have you stopped
beating your wife? (1977:149).

The above question would have the following possible answers:

1. Yes, I have stopped beating my wife.

2. No, I have not stopped beating my wife.

Vol. 6 Issue 3 144 February, 2020

Website: www.langlit.org Contact No.: +91-9890290602

Indexed: ICI, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Academia.edu, IBI, IIFC, DRJI
 LangLit
IMPACT FACTOR – 5.61 ISSN 2349-5189

An International Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

The answer 2 appears to be the negation of answer 1. If 1 is not true, 2 ought to be true.

But a person, who never beats his wife, cannot answer either. If he answers, it commits him
to having beaten his wife. Statements 1 and 2 in such case are neither true nor false.

In other words, these answers have no truth-value. To have a truth-value, these sentences
should fulfill a condition that the speaker must have beaten his wife at some time or the other.
In addition to true and false, a sentence may have a third truth value called ‘Zero’.

Keenan (1971:46) calls it as ‘nonsense value’.

Presupposition and Inference

Pragmatics is concerned with study of meaning that involves making of inferences.

Presupposition is such a kind of pragmatic inference. Inferences are rule governed steps from
certain premises or propositions, to another proposition, called conclusion. There are two
kinds of inference: deductive and inductive. Encyclopedia Britannica defines these two
inferences as follows. A deductive inference is:

A type of inference or argument that purports to be valid, where a valid argument is one
whose conclusion must be true if its premises are true (2009). An inductive inference is:

A type of nonvalid inference or argument in which the premises provide some reason for
believing that the conclusion is true (2009).

Out of these two, inductive inference is defensible. It shares certain qualities with
presupposition. It can be illustrated with the following example:

Martha avoided quarrelling with Sam.

One can draw the following inferences from the above utterance:

a. Martha did not quarrel with Sam.

b. Martha tried to avoid quarrelling with Sam.

THE HOMECOMING

Conversation One

This passage depicts the opening scene of the play. Max is asking Lenny about scissors but
Lenny neglects him as he wants to read a newspaper quietly.

Contextual Environment

The play opens with Lenny sitting on sofa with a newspaper and pencil in his hand. He is
busy making certain marks on the back page of the newspaper. At this time, Max comes in
from the kitchen and begins to search something. Then he comes downstage and looks
around the room and asks Lenny about the scissors which he is searching for. But Lenny

Vol. 6 Issue 3 145 February, 2020

Website: www.langlit.org Contact No.: +91-9890290602

Indexed: ICI, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Academia.edu, IBI, IIFC, DRJI
 LangLit
IMPACT FACTOR – 5.61 ISSN 2349-5189

An International Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

ignores him and does not reply. When Max says that he wants to cut the paper, Lenny objects
it saying that he is reading the paper. Max clarifies that he is talking about last Sunday’s
paper. However, Lenny abuses him and asks him to shut up.

Conversation

MAX: What have you done with the scissors?

Pause.

I said I’m looking for the scissors. What have you done with them?

Pause.

Did you hear me? I want to cut something out of the paper.

LENNY: I’m reading the paper.

MAX: Not that paper. I haven’t even read that paper. I’m talking about last Sunday’s paper. I
was just having a look at it in the kitchen.

Pause.

Do you hear what I’m saying? I’m talking to you! Where’s the scissors?

LENNY: Why don’t you shut up, you daft prat?

(HC, 7)

Presupposition Analysis

Max thinks that Lenny might know where the scissors are; therefore, he asks ‘What have you
done with the scissors?’ This utterance carries a couple of presuppositions. The definite
description ‘the scissors’ triggers an existential presupposition that there exist scissors in the
house and the interrogative structure as a whole carries a structural presupposition that Lenny
might have done something with the scissors. As Lenny does not reply, Max utters ‘I said I’m
looking for the scissors.’ Here the verbs ‘said’ functions as plug to preserve the factive
presupposition that Max is looking for the scissors. He gets irritated at Lenny’s ignorance and
asks him ‘Did you hear me?’ This interrogative structure carries a structural presupposition
that Lenny either heard or did not hear what Max has said. He needs the scissors as he says ‘I
want to cut something out of the paper.’

In this utterance, the definite description ‘the paper’ triggers an existential presupposition that
there exists a paper which Max wants to cut. Lenny thinks that Max wants to cut the paper
which he is reading. Therefore, Max makes it clear by saying ‘I haven’t even read that paper.’
Here, the definite description ‘that paper’ carries an existential presupposition that there
exists one more paper apart from the one Lenny is reading. Moreover, his utterance ‘I’m
talking about last Sunday’s paper,’ contains the definite description ‘last Sunday’s paper’ that

Vol. 6 Issue 3 146 February, 2020

Website: www.langlit.org Contact No.: +91-9890290602

Indexed: ICI, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Academia.edu, IBI, IIFC, DRJI
 LangLit
IMPACT FACTOR – 5.61 ISSN 2349-5189

An International Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

triggers an existential presupposition that Max has a paper that dates back to last Sunday. He
has come across something important in the paper that he wants to cut out. In his utterance ‘I
was just having a look at it in the kitchen’ the definite description ‘the kitchen’ triggers an
existential presupposition that there is a kitchen in the house, where Max was reading the
paper. Lenny seems uninterested and doesn’t pay attention to Max; therefore he reminds
Lenny that he is talking to him. He says ‘Do you hear what I’m saying?’ In this interrogative
structure, factive verb ‘hear’ triggers a factive presupposition that Max is saying something
and he wants to know whether Lenny heard it or not. Max is sure that Lenny knows the
scissors and asks ‘Where’s the scissors?’ The interrogative structure carries a structural
presupposition that the scissors are kept somewhere and Max assumes that Lenny knows the
whereabouts. Instead of giving a relevant reply, Lenny becomes aggressive and abuses Max
by calling him a fool. He warns Max and asks him to be quiet.

Concluding Remarks

This piece of conversation between father and son focuses on the lack of understanding
between them. Though Max is sure that Lenny knows the whereabouts of the scissors, Lenny
doesn’t co-operate him. He seems to busy reading paper that he could not bear Max’s chatter.
Max tries to invite Lenny’s attention by asking him repeatedly about the scissors and his
proposed work. However, Lenny doesn’t show any respect for his father.

Conversation Two

Teddy asks Ruth that they should cut their tour short and return to America as the children
might be missing them. However, Ruth accuses him that he doesn’t love his family;
therefore, he wants to go back. Teddy claims that he likes all of them.

Contextual Environment

Max claims that he would have arranged a grand ceremony on the occasion of Teddy’s
marriage. He feels proud that his son is a Doctor of Philosophy. He is surprised to realize that
Teddy has three sons and he also has three. Then Lenny asks a question about some abstract
philosophical ideas which Teddy avoids to answer. However, Ruth answers the question quite
confidently and boldly. All of them, including Teddy, are stunned due to the way Ruth tries
to answer Lenny’s philosophical question. They remain silent till Ruth talks about her birth
and her migration to America. After Max and Joey leave; Teddy goes to Ruth and sits close
to her holding her hand. He expresses his wish that they should go back to America.

Conversation

TEDDY: I think we’ll go back. Mmnn?

Pause.

Shall we go home?

RUTH: Why?

Vol. 6 Issue 3 147 February, 2020

Website: www.langlit.org Contact No.: +91-9890290602

Indexed: ICI, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Academia.edu, IBI, IIFC, DRJI
 LangLit
IMPACT FACTOR – 5.61 ISSN 2349-5189

An International Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

TEDDY: Well, we were only here for a few days, weren’t we? We might as well … cut it
short, I think.

RUTH: Why? Don’t you like it here?

TEDDY: Of course I do. But I’d like to go back and see the boys now.

Pause.

RUTH: Don’t you like your family?

TEDDY: Which family?

RUTH: Your family here.

TEDDY: Of course I like them. What are you talking about?

Pause.

RUTH: You don’t like them as much as you thought you did?

TEDDY: Of course I do. … (HC, 54)

Presupposition Analysis

Teddy wants to know Ruth’s wish; therefore, asks her ‘Shall we go home?’ carries a
structural presupposition that they shall either go to home or not. Moreover, the change of
state verb ‘go’ triggers a lexical presupposition that they are not at their home. Instead of
answering Teddy’s question, Ruth asks him ‘Why?’ This question triggers a structural
presupposition that there are certain reasons behind Teddy’s wish to go back home. She
wants to know these reasons. Therefore, Teddy reminds her that they had decided to stay only
for a few days and now he thinks to cut it short. Ruth again asks ‘Why? Don’t you like it
here?’ carrying a structural presupposition that Teddy either likes to stay there or doesn’t. He
assures her that he likes to stay but, as he says ‘I’d like to go back and see the boys.’ In this
utterance, the interactive ‘go back’ triggers a lexical presupposition that he was there before.
Moreover, the definite description ‘the boys’ carries an existential presupposition that there
are boys whom Teddy is egger to meet. In fact, Teddy wants to go back in order to meet his
sons. However, Ruth doesn’t show any eagerness to meet them. Instead, she asks Teddy
‘Don’t you like your family?’ This utterance carries a couple of presuppositions. The definite
description ‘your family’ triggers an existential presupposition that Teddy has a family. The
question as a whole carries a structural presupposition that Teddy either likes his family or
doesn’t like. Teddy gets confused and asks ‘Which family?’ This question triggers a
structural presupposition that Ruth is asking about a particular family. The question also
presupposes that Teddy has two families, the first family includes his father, uncle and
brothers and the second one includes his wife and sons. Therefore, he could not understand
which of these two families Ruth is asking about. Ruth clarifies that she wants to know
whether he loves his family which includes his father, uncle and brothers. Teddy replies that
he likes all of them and in confusion asks her ‘What are you talking about?’ Here, the

Vol. 6 Issue 3 148 February, 2020

Website: www.langlit.org Contact No.: +91-9890290602

Indexed: ICI, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Academia.edu, IBI, IIFC, DRJI
 LangLit
IMPACT FACTOR – 5.61 ISSN 2349-5189

An International Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

question triggers a structural presupposition that Ruth is talking about something that Teddy
wants to be clarified. Therefore, she blatantly says ‘You don’t like them as much as you
thought you did?’ In this utterance, the comparison ‘as … as’ carries a structural
presupposition that

Teddy thought that he likes his family very much. This fact is denied by Ruth, though Teddy
is sure that he likes them.

Concluding Remarks

Teddy is taken aback due to Ruth’s boldness while answering Lenny. He feels insecure
because of Ruth’s behavior. He presupposes that they should go back to their children so that
Ruth will come back at least for them. But she concludes that Teddy doesn’t love his family,
therefore, he wants to go back. However, it is Ruth who seems not to love her sons.
Otherwise, she should have been ready to go back to meet them as soon as possible.

But she tries Teddy to blackmail emotionally by accusing him that he pretends to love his
family. In fact, she has made her mind to stay with Max and family.

Conversation Three

In this passage, Ruth talks about her terms and conditions of employment. She wants all these
things to be written and signed in the presence of witnesses. She also insists that all the
conditions should be clarified to their mutual satisfaction.

Contextual Environment

All of them finalize to put Ruth on the game. Lenny asks Teddy to work as Ruth’s
representative in America and, in return, he will get a little amount out of her earnings. After
Ruth comes downstairs, they talk to her about their plan and she readily accepts it. However,
she has her own conditions which they are supposed to fulfill. She wants a flat with a
dressing room, rest-room and a bed room as well as a personal maid.

Conversation

RUTH: I’d need an awful lot. Otherwise I wouldn’t be content.

LENNY: You’d have everything.

RUTH: I would naturally want to draw up an inventory of everything I would need, which
would require your signature in the presence of witness.

LENNY: Naturally.

RUTH: All aspects of the agreement and conditions of employment would have to be clarified
to our mutual satisfaction before we finalized the contract.

LENNY: Of course. (HC, 77)

Vol. 6 Issue 3 149 February, 2020

Website: www.langlit.org Contact No.: +91-9890290602

Indexed: ICI, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Academia.edu, IBI, IIFC, DRJI
 LangLit
IMPACT FACTOR – 5.61 ISSN 2349-5189

An International Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

Presupposition Analysis

Ruth places her terms and conditions in front of them, saying ‘I’d need an awful lot.
Otherwise I wouldn’t be content’. The contrast in these utterances carries a structural
presupposition that if they want her to be content, it is obligatory for them to fulfill all her
demands. Lenny assures her that they would provide her everything. However, she wants to
draw a list of all her conditions and needs which will be mutually signed. She says ‘I would
naturally want to draw up an inventory of everything I would need, which would require your
signature in the presence of witness.’ In this utterance the relative clause ‘I would need’
carries a structural presupposition that she would need everything mentioned in the list.
Moreover, the definite description ‘your signature’ triggers an existential presupposition that
Lenny has to sign the inventory. The definite phrase ‘the presence of witness’ carries a lexical
presupposition that there will be some people present in front of whom both of them will sign
the inventory. When Lenny accepts this, she further says ‘All aspects of the agreement and
conditions of employment would have to be clarified to our mutual satisfaction before we
finalized the contract.’ This utterance carries several presuppositions. The quantifier ‘all’
triggers a lexical presupposition that there are certain aspects of the agreement. The definite
description ‘the agreement’ in the utterance carries an existential presupposition that there
will be an agreement. Moreover, the change of state verb ‘clarified; gives rise to a lexical
presupposition that there are certain conditions of employment which are vague, therefore it
needs clarification. The temporal clause beginning with ‘before’ triggers a structural
presupposition that they would finalize the contract only after they get all the aspects of the
agreement and conditions of employment clarified to their mutual satisfaction. In addition,
the definite description ‘the contract’ carries an existential presupposition that there is a
contract which they are going to finalize. As Lenny accepts Ruth’s conditions without
objection, she becomes ready to stay with them.

Concluding Remarks

Ruth presupposes that she won’t stay with them if they fall short to keep her satisfied. As all
of them are eager to keep her at any cost, Lenny doesn’t have any option to accept her
conditions. However, she doesn’t believe only in spoken agreement but wants to make a legal
contract. She presupposes that Lenny will sign this contract in front of witnesses. She even
presupposes that they will finalize the contract but only after following a legal process. Lenny
agrees with her and it is obvious that she will stay with them in the house.

To conclude that, the present research paper fulfills the aim of analyzing Harold Pinter’s
selected play in the light of presupposition. After this attempt, it has become obvious that
presupposition is a significant pragmatic concept, with which the authentic analysis of
conversation in literature is possible. The selected conversational passages are analyzed
taking in to consideration their contextual environment, various triggers and types of
presupposition as well as related concepts in pragmatics. The essence of analysis of each
selected passage has been drawn separately as concluding remarks.

Vol. 6 Issue 3 150 February, 2020

Website: www.langlit.org Contact No.: +91-9890290602

Indexed: ICI, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Academia.edu, IBI, IIFC, DRJI
 LangLit
IMPACT FACTOR – 5.61 ISSN 2349-5189

An International Peer-Reviewed Open Access Journal

REFERENCES

1. Abbott, B. (2000). Presuppositions as nonassertions. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1419-

1437.
2. Allan, K. (2001). Natural Language Semantics. Oxford, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
3. Allwood J. et al. (1977). Logic in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Atlas,J.D. (2004).
4. Presupposition. Horn & Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden, Oxford,
Carlton: Blackwell.
5. Cooper, D. E. (1974). Presupposition. Paris: Mouton.
6. Kempson, R. (1975). Presupposition and Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
7. Peccei, J. S. (1999). Pragmatics. London: Routledge
8. Pinter, H. (1978). Plays: Three. London: Methuen.
9. Yule, G. (1997). The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. --------. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vol. 6 Issue 3 151 February, 2020

Website: www.langlit.org Contact No.: +91-9890290602

Indexed: ICI, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Academia.edu, IBI, IIFC, DRJI