Subject: Semantics MA.

Study 2020

Course instructor: assistant Prof. Ahmed B. Hasan 2nd Semester

Presenters: Sua’ad & Riyadh week \9

A seminar paper on:

Entailment, Inference and presupposition

Prepared by: Sua’ad Hasan (part1 ) & Riyadh Abbas (part2 )

Contents of the seminar

Part 1
Entailment
Inference
Part 2
Presupposition

1
  Introduction:
In this lecture we are going to deal with the term entailment, which is the relationship between
sentences, which forms part of our inference and which can be drawn from our knowledge about
semantic relationship in a language.

We will also look at presupposition, which is another kind of inference which is closely linked to
the words and grammatical structure that are used in the utterance and our knowledge about how
language users interpret them.

 Entailment:
Entailment is a logical relationship between two sentences such as the truth of the second
sentence necessarily follows the truth of the first one.

This means if the first sentence true, the second sentence is also true, for example, sentences (1a)
and (2a) entail the sentences 1(b) and 2(b).

1 (a) Ali caught a trout.

1 (b) Ali caught a fish.

Similarly:

2 (a) Nada baked a cake.

2 (b) Nada baked something.

So, the sentences (1b,2b) are entailment about the sentence (1a, 2a). we can say once we establish the
truth of the sentences (1a, 2a), become automatically true because of the meaning relationship
between trout/ fish, cake/ Something.

This type of entailment is based on "hyponymy". Let us have another example of an entailment
in the following pairs.

3 (a) Amal saw a monkey.

3 (b) Amal saw an animal.

A close look to this pair reveals that only the first sentence entails the second one, but not vice
versa.

3(a) entails 3(b) since a monkey is a kind of animal. But saying that she has seen an animal does not
entail that she has seen a monkey, it could be a horse or a dog or any animal.

2
 This type of entailment is called one – way entailment, because the sentences are not true
paraphrases of each other.

Another type of entailment is the two-way entailment or mutual entailment in which each
sentence entails the other.

4(a) the woman is crying.

4(b) the woman is weeping.

Here, each sentence entails the other and they are paraphrases of each other.

Other philosophers believe that entailment is not only that the truth of the first sentence
entails the truth of the second one, but also the falsity of the second sentence guaranties the falsity of
the first one.

We can say "A sentence (P) entails a sentence (q) when the truth of the first (p) guarantees the
truth of the second (a), the falsity of the second sentence (q) guarantee the falsity of the first one (p).

Another source for entailment is syntax, for example, active and passive voice of the same
sentence will entail one another.

5 (a) the boy broke the window.

5 (b) the window was broken by the boy.

 Inference:
Inference refers to the process of deduction which listeners employ in interpreting utterances.

It is very crucial in interpretation because a good deal of meaning is implied rather than being
explicitly stated.

The amount of inferring which speakers expect their listeners to make is dependent on the
degree of shared knowledge between them.

Look at the following examples:

1. I cleaned the house, my uncle is coming.

Inference/ the speaker cleaned the house because his/her uncle is coming.

2. I studied hard. I had an exam.

Inference/ The speaker studied hard since s/he had an exam.

3
 Most of the inferences are built according to the fact that successive sentences are assumed to
be coherent.

Let us consider the following examples in which the underlined words are inferred by the
listener through the antecedent "noun phrase"

3. I dropped the glass. It broke.

4. I saw the boss yesterday; the old fool still does not who I am.

Another example of inference is what linguists call "bridging inference". These occur in
sentences where speakers rely on their general buck- ground to fill in gaps.

5. I entered the room. The ceiling was beautiful.

b. I walked on the beach. The tide was heavy.

In these cases, because it is a matter of general knowledge that the room hues ceiling and the
tide occurs near beach, the listener is able to make appropriate linking the two sentences together.

 Presupposition
Presuppositions are inferences about what is assumed in an utterance rather than directly asserted.
They are closely linked to the words and grammatical structures that are actually used in the utterance
and our knowledge about the way language users conventionally interpret them. They can be drawn
with very little knowledge of the surrounding context.

1- The notion of presupposition

The notion of presupposition first appears in Frege's work on the nature of reference and referring
expressions. His main claims can be summarized as follows:

1- Referring expressions (names, definite descriptions) carry the presupposition that they do in
fact refer.
2- For a sentence to have a truth value, its presupposition must hold.
3- A presupposition of a sentence is also a presupposition of its negation.

For example, "Kepler died in misery” and “Kepler did not die in misery” both carry the presupposition
that the name "Kepler" designates something. If this presupposition does not hold, the two sentences
have no truth value.

In the following examples, the (b) sentence is a presupposition of the (a) sentence. In each of the (a)
sentences, a presupposition-trigger can be identified, a lexical item or linguistic construction which is
responsible for the presupposition.

4
(1) a. Sue stopped drinking.

b. Sue drank. - (trigger: the verb stop)

(2) a. The king of France is bald.

b. there is a king of France. — (trigger: the definite NP)

(3) a. The king of France is not bald.

b. there is a king of France. - (trigger: the definite N)

As a conclusion from these sentences, presuppositions, unlike entailments, are constant under
negation.

2- Semantic or Logical Presupposition:

A logical or semantic presupposition (P1) is a condition deducible from the meaning of a sentence,
which must be true for that sentence to be either a true or a false proposition, i.e. presupposition in
terms of truth conditions. This is the concern of semanticists for whom presupposition is a matter of
logical relationships. This type of presupposition could be called sentence presupposition. Many
sentence presuppositions are produced by the presence of certain words termed "lexical triggers”. For
instance, there is a class of verbs, like "regret” and “realize", which are called "factive verbs”, because
they presuppose the truth of their complement clauses. Let us compare sentence (1a) and (1b) below.
Only the sentence with the factive verb “realise" presupposes (1c). The non-factive verb “think” has no
such presupposition (1) a. Tom realised that it was snowing.

(b). Tom thought it was snowing.

c. It was snowing.

3- Types of presupposition triggers

Presuppositions are pieces of information which are associated with certain lexical items or syntactic
constructions. There are many such items and constructions, and the following is just a small selection:

(1) Factives:

a. Steven regrets that he cheated at the exam.

b. Steven cheated at the exam.

(2) Aspectual Verbs:

a. Fred has stopped writing sonnets.

5
b. Fred has been writing sonnets.

(3) It-Clefts:

a. It was in August that we left for Denmark.

b. We left for Denmark.

(4) Wh-Clefts:

a. What John ate was apples.

b. John ate something.

(5) Quantifiers:

a. The Queen has talked with all delegates.

b. There were delegates.

(6) Definites:

a. The pizzeria in the Vatican is closed.

b. There is a pizzeria in the Vatican.

Someone who utters any of the (a) sentences commits himself to the truth of the corresponding (b)
sentence.

References:

- Al-Sulaimaan, M. D.(2011) Semantics and Pragmatics. Mosul: Daar Ibn-AL-Atheer for Publishing
and Distribution.
- Saeed, J. (1997) Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.