2.3.4 Structural Presupposition
In this type, the assumption is associated with the use of certain words and phrases and assumed to be true. WH- question construction in English are
conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that the information after the WH- form is already known to be the case.
Example: 18 When did she travel to the USA?
Presupposition of 18: She traveled.
19 When did you buy the book? Presupposition of 19: You bought the book.
2.3.5 Non-Factive Presupposition
This type is an assumption that is assumed not to be true. In this type, verb like dream, pretend and imagine are used with the presupposition that what follows is
not true. Example:
20 She dreamed that she was married Presupposition of 20: She was not married
21He imagine he was a president Presupposition of 21: He was not a president
22He pretends to be an expert Presupposition of 22: He is not an expert.
2.3.6 Counterfactual Presupposition
The assumption that was it presupposed is not only not true, but also the opposite of what is true or contrary of facts is counterfactual presupposition. For
Universitas Sumatera Utara
instance, some conditional structural, presupposes that the information, in the if- clause is not true at the time of utterance.
Example: 23 If you were my daughter, I would not allow you to do this.
Presupposition of 23: You are not my daughter. In this thesis, the truth of presupposition are based on Yule’s 1996: 30-32
explanation.The presupposition of a simple sentence will continue to be true when that simple sentence becomes part of a more complex sentence. This is one version
of the general idea that the meaning of the whole sentence is a combination of the meaning of its parts. However, the meaning of some presupposition as ‘parts’ does
not survive to become the meaning of some complex sentences as ‘wholes’. This is known as the project problem. In example, we are going to see what
happens to the presupposition q ‘Kelly was ill’ which is assumed to be true in the simple structure of, but which does not ‘project’ into the complex structure. In order
to follow this type of analysis, we have to think of a situation in which a person might say: ‘I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill.’
a. Nobody realized that Kelly was ill. =p
b. Kelly was ill. =q
c. p q At this point, the speaker uttering ‘a’ presupposition ‘b’
d. I imagined that Kelly was ill. =r
e. Kelly was not ill. =NOT q
f. r NOT q At this point, the speaker uttering ‘d’ presupposes ‘e’, the opposite of ‘b’.
Universitas Sumatera Utara
g. I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill. =rq
h. rq NOT q At this point, after combining rq, the presupposition q can no longer be assumed
to be true. In an example, the technical analysis may be straight forward, but it may be
difficult to think of a context in which someone would talk like that. Perhaps example will contextualize better.
Shirley: It’s so sad. George regrets getting Mary pregnant. Jean: But he didn’t get her pregnant. We know that now.
If we combine two of the utterances, we have the sequence, ‘George regrets getting Mary pregnant; but he didn’t get her pregnant’. Identifying the different propositions
involved, as in: a.
George regrets getting Mary pregnant. = p
b. George got Mary pregnant.
= q c.
p q d.
He didn’t get her pregnant. = r
e. George regrets getting Mary pregnant,
but he didn’t get her pregnant. = p r
f. p r NOT q
One way to think about the whole sentence presented is as an utterance by a person reporting what happen in the soap opera that day. That person will not assume
that presupposition q that George got Mary pregnant is true when uttering. A simple explanation for the fact that presupposition do not ‘project’ is that
they are destroyed by entailments. Memories that an entailment is something that necessarily follows from what is asserted. In example, Jean’s utterance of ‘he didn’t
Universitas Sumatera Utara
get her pregnant’ actually entails ‘George didn’t get Mary pregnant’ as a logical consequence.
In analyzing presuppositions, the truth of the data analysis process rests on the truth of presupposition itself. Truth presuppositions according to Yule1996: 30-
32 can be viewed from the perspective of the kinds of presuppositions. To answer the second problem, the writer uses the kinds of presuppositions as follows.
1. A truth Non-factive presupposition
A truth Non-factive presupposition is one that is assumed not to be true verbs like ‘dream’, ‘imagine’, ‘pretend’, as shown in, are used with the presupposition that
what follows is not true. Here is example of a truth Non-factive presupposition: a.I dreamed that I was rich
I was not rich b.We imagined we were in Hawai
We were not in Hawai c.He pretends to be ill
He is not ill
2. A truth counterfactual presupposition
A truth counterfactual presupposition, meaning that what is presupposed is not only not true, but is the opposite of what is true, or contrary to facts. Here is
example of a truth counterfactual presupposition:
a. If you were my friend, you would helped me
You are not my friend
2.4 Review of Presupposition’s Reference 2.4.1 Presupposition in Film “Janji Joni” Gayatri Nadya Paramytha, 2009
Gayatri Nadya Paramytha conducted a study in 2009 to know utterances presupposition emerge through the scenes of film “Janji Joni”. She used Yule’s and
Grundy’s theory in analyzing “Janji Joni” films. In analyzing the data, she used
Universitas Sumatera Utara
descriptive study using methodology presented by Soejono and Abdurrahman 2005. Soejono and Abdurrahman stated that the descriptive method is no more
than research is the discovery of the facts or collectively improvised fact finding. She formed two research questions to describe presupposition in “Janji Joni” films,
which are: 1.
How the utterance presuppositions emerge through the scenes of the film “Janji Joni”?
2. What are the types of presupposition that appeared in scenes “Janji Joni”
films associated with the context of the situation, participants, and common knowledge that under lie the speech?
Her findings showed the five classifications of presupposition with different frequencies used in both speeches. It was revealed that every classification occurred
in Janji Joni’s film. They are presuppositions that are found in each of the data is factual presuppositions. Existential presuppositions of data appearing in six of the
seven data analyzed factual presuppositions while appearing in seven overall data. There are two lexical presuppositions and preconceptions of the opposite of all
existing data. There is no presumption in the seventh structural data analyzed The contribution of Gayatri’s analysis are giving the writer some ideas in
choosing the exact reference theory. The writer and Gayatri has the similarities of the topic of study, which is the presupposition, and it inspire the writer in how to
scope the study and make it focus. The first similarity between the writer and Gayatri is the thesis uses the theory of presupposition by Yule to analyze the data. Then, the
second are equally make a transcript of the speech in writing in the form of spoken language. The third is writer will examine only utterances the data that have been
selected only and not every utterance will be sought of its presuppositions. However,
Universitas Sumatera Utara
the writer has some clear differences from Gayatri’s study. The first difference is that Gayatri uses two theories; Yule and Grundy’s theory, but the writer does not use
Grundy’s theory. The writer only uses Yule’s theory to analyze the data. The second difference is that Gayatri chooses a film as the data, but the writer chooses a talk
show as the data.
2.4.2 An Analysis of Presupposition in Newsweek Advertisements Slogans Try Reza Essra, 2011
Kategori