Presuppositional aspect of English legal discourse (in an example of existential and structural presuppositions)

The article examines common presuppositions employed in English legal discourse. Given the fact that presupposition is considered as one of the main pragmatic phenomena, which deals with the implicit meaning of the utterance, the author firstly defines it with the opinions of various scholars and provides supporting examples. However, the focus is placed on the existential and structural presupposition triggers, which are used in lawyers’ speeches during the courtroom trials.

Keywords: pragmalinguistics, presupposition, presupposition triggers, linguistics, English legal discourse, existential and structural presuppositions, signs.

In the 60–70s of the last century, interest in the study of linguistic signs within the context, that is, the speech situation, and the definition of their functional expression in speech led to a further expansion of semantic research in linguistics and the identification of a new direction — pragmalinguistics. “Pragmatics” (greek “pragma”-act, action) was originally studied as a philosophical term at the beginning of the XX century and supplanted by well–known semiotics including G. Claus, Ch. Pierce, Ch. Morris and Y. Stepanov [1, p. 57]. In fact, Ch. Pierce singled out three scientific directions — syntax, semantics and pragmatics as independent fields in semiotics, but later Ch. Morris stressed in his work that the scope of pragmatics is larger in relation to the remaining two realms, so it is necessary to place it on a higher level, and the study of the issues between the language sign and its user has generated a new direction called “pragmalinguistics”, “linguistic pragmatics” or “pragmatic linguistics” in linguistics [2, p. 43]. It is worth noting that the object of linguistic pragmatics research is the relationship between language units and the conditions of their use in a certain communicative pragmatic space (covering the interaction of the addresser and the addressee) and interaction based on a specific goal. It also deals with the ability to choose and apply the optimal means available in the language to influence the recipient (listener) in a particular communication and effectively achieve the intended goal. In addition to this, Uzbek linguist M. Khakimov gives the following definition of pragmalinguistics: “A person should not only know all the semantic knowledge in a language, but also be able to choose and express it according to his purpose. Linguistic pragmatics studies the same aspects in language” [3, p. 8]. In addition, the scientist notes that the universal issues of pragmatic linguistics include: (1) the aspect of the sentence related to the context; (2) manifestations of speech etiquette, socialization of speech, expressing relationships among people; (3) introductory, evaluative word and means related to the subjective-modal aspect of expression; (4) a theory of discourse representing the subjective-personal characteristics of a person and (5) presupposition [4, p. 18–20].

Since the last quarter of the last century, the complication of semantic research in linguistics based on pragmatic analysis has led to the study of linguistic units in the pre-positional aspect based on context, speech situation and general knowledge known in advance to the speaker and listener. Presupposition, which is referred to by the terms “presumption”, “inner meaning”, “pragmatic meaning” and “sigmatic meaning”, serves the correct and full disclosure of the content of the statement as an important pragmatic phenomenon.

Although the first logical views on this phenomenon were expressed by the German philosopher G. Frege (1952), later in P. Strawson, Ch. Fillmore, J. Lakoff, R. Stalnaker and F. Kiefer’s works, the presupposition was given a linguistic assessment, and such definitions as “the general cognitive basis of the speaker, their preliminary consistency”, “the common cognitive element of the speaker and the listener, or a necessary condition for successful speech communication”, “a set of knowledge important for understanding the addressee’s speech”, “the ratio between the speaker and the proportionality of this statement in the context” are given in the scientific literature.

It is characteristic that this phenomenon leads to a complication of the semantic structure of the sentence and the reintegration of the hidden content. After all, in the process of communication, the speaker does not always fully express the thought in order to achieve speech expressiveness or formality. As a result, there is a contradiction and a formal and substantive discrepancy in relation to the sound directly expressed in the sentence. For example, in the sentence “only Henry came to the lesson” the presupposition — “other students did not come” or “the rest did not come” is expressed by “only”. However, linguists believe that “presupposition semantically complicates the text.

Presupposition triggers, which have caused a lot of controversy in English, have been specially studied by Keenan (1971), Karttunen (1983), Levinson (1983), Yule (1996) and others. Consequently, while 31 presuppositional signals are defined in the Karttnunen’s classification, Keenan identifies 9 items called “logical presuppositions”. Based on Karttunen’s work, Levinson also offers his 13 different external presupposition signals, including definite descriptions (the definite article or a possessive), factive verbs (know, realize, regret…), implicative verbs (manage, forget, avoid…), iteratives (again, anymore, return…), change of state verbs (stop, begin, continue…), verbs of judging (praise, accuse, criticize…), temporal clauses (before, while, since…), cleft sentences (It is/wasn’t…that/who…), implicit clefts with stressed constituents, comparisons and contrasts (too, back, in return, comparative constructions…), non-restrictive relative clauses (who, which, when, where…), counterfactual conditionals (if conditions contrary to facts), questions (alternative, rhetorical questions, wh-questions) [5, p. 706]. However, the famous English linguist G. Yule divides them into 6 groups, and this classification is today the main phenomenon characteristic of presuppositional signals in pragmatic linguistics. We can consider these types using the following table:

1. Existential presuppositions in English legal discourse. The famous English philosopher Strawson, who was critical of B. Russell’s logical theory, which he called “the theory of descriptions”, believed that it “contains some fundamental errors” and he states that singular demonstratives, proper names, singular personal &impersonal pronouns and definite noun phrases are main referents [6]. G. Yule recognized that the implicit meaning in this type is realized not only with the help of possessive constructions , but also often with the help of definite noun phrases. As a result of our observations, it was found that such referential units, which usually imply the existence of an object indicated or described by using a certain name or description, are used a lot in English legal discourse. For example:

Mr. Katyal: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:McDonough’s Section 1983 suit claimed that Smith brought and maintained criminal proceedings against him based on fabricated evidence (Case 18–485, McDonough versus Smith).

With existential signals of presupposition, the addresser conveys a lot of information to the addressee. In the given example, the additional presuppositions “Chief Justice exists”, “the Court exists”, “McDonough has a Section 1983 suit” and “Smith exists” are understood.

It is known that, semantically speaking, by using possessive forms, it refers to the relationship between the object and the person who owns it, and shows its ownership status. Accordingly, B. Heine opines that “existence as one of numerous event schemas or source domains from which possessive constructions are derived”. It seems that possessive constructions are also active in forming existential presuppositions. The following legal speeches can be a vivid example of this:

Mr. Justice Forbes: Miss Davies made it clear that her criticisms of the pre-trial publicity were not limited to its sensational nature (Shipman Trial). >>Miss Davies has criticismsofthe pre-trial publicity; >>the pre-trial publicity has sensational nature.

2. Structural presuppositions in English legal discourse. In addition to the types of presuppositions associated with certain words and phrases, there are also presuppositions that are realized by means of certain structures, which are usually used by the speaker and the listener to be accepted or assumed as true. G. Yule noted that this type of presupposition is mainly present in wh-question constructions, and such forms encourage the listener to believe that the given question is not a presupposition of the speaker, but that he knows and believes the presented information correctly without a doubt [6, p.29]. At the same time, rhetorical questions, temporal clauses, comparison & contrasts, cleft sentences and non-restrictive relative clauses are also considered signals of structural presupposition.

1) Prosecutor: And what were you studying at Carolina? (Nathaniel Rowland Trial) >>You are studying at Corolina;

2) Ms. Zois: Okay. And can you describe what your car looked like after the hit and run? (Exline-Hassler v. Penn National Insurance, et al.) >> The car had the hit and run ;

3) Ms. Cakmis: It’s even harsher than harmless error when you get into the habeas world (Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif v. United States, No. 17–9560) >> Harmless error was harsh in the habeas world;

4) Miss Jensen: That’s not where Taylor was murdered. (Ashley McArthur Trial) >> Taylor was murdered;

5) Mr. Porter: You found that she acted with malice aforethought which means the intent to unlawfully kill another human being and when you really look at it, do you really think that fool Amon could have come up with this plan? (Tiffany Moss Trial) >> He could not have come up with this plan.

It is understood that the phenomenon of structural presupposition is often observed in legal discourse. Because if the investigation-inquiry part of the trial (mainly direct-examination) is carried out on the basis of wh-questions, rhetorical questions, temporal clauses, comparison & contrasts, cleft sentences occupy a large place in the introductory and final speech of lawyers or prosecutors. This gives the speech more emotional expressiveness.

References:

1. Safarov Sh. Pragmalinguistics. (2008). Monograph. — Tashkent. publishing house, 2008.

2. Hakimov M. (2013). Basics of Uzbek pragmalinguistics. -Tashkent: “Akademnashr”.

4. Karttunen, L. (2016). Presupposition: What went wrong? Proceedings of SALT 26.

5. Strawson, P.F. (1950). On Referring. Mind, New Series, Vol. 59, No. 235. P. 320. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026–4423 %28195007 %292 %3A59 %3A235 %3C320 %3AOR %3E2.0.CO %3B2-U

6. Yule, George (1996) Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.