Almamoori, H. H. A.

“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”

2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-

Semantic Study

El uso de las presuposiciones léxicas en G. B. Shows Camdida. Un estudio

pragma-semántico

ALMAMOORI, Hussein Hadi Abed

University of Almeria
almamoori1988@gmail.com

Abstract

“Presupposition is a crucial concept in both semantic and pragmatic fields, as it

involves implicit assumptions made by speakers that are necessary for understanding their
utterances correctly. It is a widely discussed and analyzed term, with various perspectives on
its nature. While there is a consensus that presupposition is a universal feature of language,
there are divergent views regarding its specific characteristics. This study views
presupposition as context-dependent and emphasizes its pragmatic nature rather than its
purely semantic aspects.”

Semantically speaking, the analysis focuses on the computation of invariable stable

meanings from a given set of sentences uttered in isolation without any special context
regarding presupposition as a particular type of sense relationship between sentences in
which it is evoked by certain words, expressions, and structures. “However, this study aims
at proving that such a kind of semantic analysis is inadequate for there are other types of

3
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

information deducible from a given sentence which have to do with the relationship between
that sentence uttered and the context in which it is used, including the addresser and the
addressee, background, and cultural belief that significantly help in analyzing presupposition
in G. B. Shows Camdida.

Keywords: Presuppositions, Lexical Presuppositions, G. B. Show, Camdida, Semantic.

Resumen

La presuposición es un concepto crucial tanto en el campo semántico como en el

pragmático, ya que implica suposiciones implícitas que hacen los hablantes y que son
necesarias para comprender correctamente sus enunciados. Es un término ampliamente
debatido y analizado, con diversas perspectivas sobre su naturaleza. Aunque existe un cierto
consenso en la bibliografía en que la presuposición es un rasgo universal del lenguaje,
algunos autores difieren en sus características específicas. Este estudio considera que la
presuposición depende del contexto y hace hincapié en su naturaleza pragmática más que en
sus aspectos puramente semánticos.

Desde el punto de vista semántico, el análisis se centra en el cálculo de significados

estables, invariables, a partir de un conjunto dado de oraciones pronunciadas de forma aislada
sin ningún contexto especial, considerando así la presuposición como un tipo particular de
relación de sentido entre oraciones en la que es evocada por ciertas palabras, expresiones y
estructuras. Sin embargo, este estudio pretende demostrar que este tipo de análisis semántico
no es adecuado, ya que existen otros tipos de informaciones deducibles de una oración dada,
que tienen que ver con la relación entre la oración pronunciada y el contexto en el que se
utiliza, incluidos el receptor y el emisor, el trasfondo y la creencia cultural, que ayudan
significativamente a analizar la presuposición de forma pragmática.

Palabras clave: Presuposiciones, Presuposiciones Léxicas, G. B. Show, Camdida,

Semántica.

4
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

1. Introduction

In this study, we delve into the exploration of lexical presuppositions found in G. B.

Shaw's play Candida. Lexical presuppositions are implicit assumptions or beliefs that are
conveyed through the use of certain words or phrases in language. They play a crucial role
in shaping the meaning and interpretation of a text.

Candida, a renowned play by George Bernard Shaw, presents a rich tapestry of

language and discourse. Shaw, known for his sharp wit and insightful social commentary,
carefully crafts the dialogue in Candida to convey deeper layers of meaning and challenge
societal norms.

This pragma-semantic study aims to examine the use of lexical presuppositions in

Candida, analyzing the specific words and phrases that carry implicit assumptions. By
adopting a pragma-semantic approach, we consider not only the linguistic aspects of these
presuppositions but also their pragmatic implications and the social implications they carry.

The study will employ a comprehensive analysis of the text, drawing upon theories
of presupposition and pragmatics to uncover the underlying messages conveyed through the
use of specific lexical choices. By exploring the interplay between language, meaning, and
societal context, we aim to shed light on the complexities of Shaw's work and its relevance
in contemporary discourse.

Overall, this pragma-semantic study offers a fresh perspective on G. B. Shaw's

Candida by highlighting the significance of lexical presuppositions and their role in shaping
meaning, interpretation, and social critique within the play.

2. Semantic Notions of Presupposition

The term presupposition is used parallel with many terms, but a few to mention are
supposition, assumption, consequence, kin probability, set of appropriate background

5
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

propositions, sentence truth conditional, presumed knowledge, preferred interpretation,

expectation, conjuncture, etc.

Presupposition is commonly understood as the information that needs to be assumed

for an utterance to be meaningful. In the 1970s, semanticists such as Kempson, Wilson,
Gazdar, McCawley, Oh, and Dinneen focused on the concept of presupposition, defining it
as a logical concept closely tied to truth-conditional semantics. Truth-conditional semantics
analyzes the propositional meaning of sentences and the logical conditions that determine
their truth or falsity. According to Lyons, there is a distinction between the truth-value of a
proposition and the truth conditions of a sentence. Propositions can be characterized as true
or false, regardless of the specific sentence used to express them.

Different people can utter the same sentence “My friend has just arrived” at different
times and places, making it indeterminate in terms of truth or falsity. However, the
propositions conveyed by sentences can have truth conditions, which are determined by their
correspondence with facts or accurate descriptions of the state of affairs in the world. In
summary, while sentences themselves do not possess truth values, their truth conditions
determine the truth-value of the propositions they convey when used to make statements.

Cresswell (1988: 13) argues that understanding the meaning of a sentence entails
knowing the conditions under which it is true. For example, the sentence "John is married"
presupposes the truth of John's marital status. Therefore, the sentence is considered true when
he is married and false when he is not. This semantic perspective on presupposition focuses
on the truth or falsity of sentences in isolation, without specific contextual information. It
defines presupposition as either what is assumed to be true or related to the concept of
existence in a broad sense. This viewpoint, as supported by Van Fraassen (1971: 164) and
Mitchell (1975: 154), considers semantic presupposition as concerned with the real-world
conditions necessary for sentences to be meaningful. In other words, semantic presupposition
is closely tied to the conditions that must exist in the real world for sentences to be acceptable
in terms of their meaning (Wardhaugh, 1976: 176).

6
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

There are two distinct approaches to the concept of "semantic presupposition of a

“

sentence." The first approach traces its origins to philosophical debates, particularly those
concerning the nature of reference and referring expressions. Levinson (1983: 169) notes that
this approach was put forth by Frege, who raised several issues that are central to
presupposition. According to Frege and his followers, presupposition refers to a referential
condition that determines the truth or falsity of the proposition expressed by a declarative
sentence. Jacobsen's (1977, 164) example illustrates this, where sentence (1a) presupposes
(1b):”

(1a) John regrets selling his car.

(1b) John sold his car.

In this example, the presupposition is that John actually sold his car, and the truth or
falsity of sentence (1a) depends on the existence of this referential condition.

By the same token, (2a) presupposes (2b):

2. a. The present president of Britain is a woman.

b. There exists a person who is the president of Britain.

Since (2b) is obviously false, (2a) does not succeed in making a statement, i.e., it has
no truth-values.

3. Lexical Presupposition

Broadly speaking, lexical presupposition refers to the phenomenon where the use of
a particular word or expression with its intended meaning automatically implies the presence
of an additional non-asserted meaning. This type of presupposition is established through the
conventional interpretation of certain words or phrases, such as "managed," "stop," "again,"
and so on. The usage of these words inherently carries an underlying presupposition that goes
beyond their explicit or asserted meaning.

7
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

Yule (1996: 28) offers an explanation of lexical presupposition, emphasizing that

certain verbs carry both an asserted and a presupposed meaning. For instance, when we say
that someone "managed" to do something, the verb "managed" conveys both an asserted
meaning (success in accomplishing the task) and a presupposed meaning (that the person
attempted to do it). In the negation of this sentence, where someone "did not manage" to do
something, the asserted meaning is that the person did not succeed, while the presupposed
meaning is that they made an effort. This type of verb, which carries both an assertion and a
presupposition, is referred to as an "implicative verb" by Levinson (1983: 181).

Levinson provides examples to illustrate this concept, such as:

(3) a. John managed to open the door.

b. John tried to open the door.

a. John forgot to lock the door.

b. John ought to have locked or intended to lock the door.

In these examples, the verbs "managed" and "forgot" assert the successful or
unsuccessful completion of an action while presupposing the attempt or intention. Other
lexical items exhibit similar patterns, where words like "happened to" presuppose the lack of
planning or intention, and "avoided" presupposes an expectation or obligation.

Another type of lexical presupposition is found in change of state verbs, also known
as aspectual verbs. Saeed (1997: 99) explains that these verbs exhibit a switch presupposition,
implying that the new state described not only holds at the present moment but also
presupposes that it did not exist prior to the change. This can be illustrated with the following
examples provided by Saeed:

(4) a. Judy started smoking cigars.

b. Judy used not to smoke cigars.

8
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

a. Michelle stopped seeing werewolves.

b. Michelle used to see werewolves.

In these examples, the verbs "started" and "stopped" convey the change from one
state to another. The asserted meaning is that Judy began smoking cigars or Michelle ceased
seeing werewolves. However, the presupposed meaning is that prior to the change, Judy did
not smoke cigars, and Michelle used to see werewolves.

Other verbs that exhibit this switch presupposition include "begin," "continue,"
"finish," "take," "leave," "enter," "come," "go," "arrive," and so on.

Another type of lexical presupposition is known as "iterative" or "categorical"

presupposition. According to Levinson (1983: 182), iterative presupposition is associated
with specific words such as "another" and "again." Examples of this type of presupposition
can be seen in sentences like:

(5) a. The flying saucer came again.

b. The flying saucer came before.

a. Bill drank another cup of tea.

b. Bill had drunk at least one.

In these examples, the words "again" and "another" carry an iterative presupposition.
The asserted meaning is that the flying saucer came or Bill drank a cup of tea, but the
presupposed meaning is that there was a previous occurrence of the action. The use of "again"
implies a repetition of the event, while "another" suggests the presence of a previous
reference. Other words that exhibit this type of presupposition include "anymore," "returned,"
"another time," "to come back," "restore," "repeal," and so on.

9
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

4. Pragmatic Notions of Presupposition

“One of the early advocates of pragmatic presupposition is not a linguist but a

philosopher named Robert Stalnaker. He introduced the term "pragmatic presupposition" in
his influential article in 1974. Stalnaker emphasized the importance of context in correctly
interpreting an utterance in terms of its truth and falsity. An example of this can be seen in
the sentence:”

(6) The cat is on the mat.

“ Regardless of whether this sentence is true or false, it presupposes the existence of a

cat and a mat that the speaker is referring to. The context in which the sentence is uttered can
provide additional pragmatic presuppositions, such as the speaker complaining about the cat
dirtying the mat. Stalnaker's work highlights the role of context and pragmatic assumptions
in understanding the meaning and implications of utterances beyond their literal truth
conditions. Pragmatic presupposition recognizes that meaning can extend beyond the explicit
content of a sentence and relies on the shared knowledge and inferences drawn from the
context of the communication.”

“ According to Finch (2000: 175), communication involves a level of presumed

knowledge that goes beyond purely semantic knowledge. The extent of this assumed
knowledge depends on contextual factors. For instance, if someone asks a friend if they want
a cup of coffee and the friend replies, "It will keep me awake," it is presumed that the person
asking the question knows whether or not their friend wants to stay awake. This background
presupposition cannot be inferred solely from the form of the answer but must already be
present for the response to be appropriate.”

In other words, the understanding of the friend's response relies on shared knowledge
and assumptions about the situation, which may not be explicitly stated in the utterance itself.
The context and prior knowledge of the participants play a crucial role in interpreting the
meaning and implications of the conversation. Finch's argument highlights the importance of
pragmatic presupposition in communication, where the participants rely on shared
knowledge and assumptions that go beyond the literal meaning of the words used. These

10
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

presuppositions are essential for understanding and generating appropriate responses in a

given context.

“Keenan (1971), as cited in Fillmore and Langendoen (1971: 49), defines pragmatic
presupposition as the relationship between an uttered sentence and the context in which it is
spoken. According to Keenan, the context of an utterance includes the participants involved
in the speech act (such as the speaker and the listener), the physical and cultural setting in
which the speech act takes place. In other words, the context encompasses the addresser, the
addressee (if applicable), the audience (if present), the physical environment, and the cultural
environment.”

Tyler (1978: 32) further expands on this by stating that pragmatic presupposition, also
known as utterance presupposition, relies on extralinguistic information. This extralinguistic
context consists of both linguistic and extralinguistic factors. The linguistic factors pertain to
how a sentence relates to other sentences within the discourse context and the relationship
between what a sentence states and what it implies. On the other hand, the extralinguistic
context considers factors such as who is speaking, who they are speaking to, how, when,
where, and why the conversation is taking place. By taking into account these contextual
factors, understanding is facilitated, as it allows for determining what is expressed by a
sentence and whether the utterance is appropriate based on common assumptions shared by
the interlocutors. Pragmatic presupposition involves the relationship between an uttered
sentence and the context in which it is spoken. The context includes both linguistic and
extralinguistic information, such as the participants in the speech act, the physical and
cultural setting, and the shared assumptions of the interlocutors. Understanding an utterance
requires considering these contextual factors to determine the intended meaning and
appropriateness of the speech act.

“Pragmatic presuppositions are conditions that determine the appropriate use of

sentences and lexical items. Keenan (1971), as cited in Fillmore and Langendoen (1971: 49),
provides a broad definition of appropriateness in context, stating that an utterance of a
sentence pragmatically presupposes that its context is suitable. In other words, pragmatic
presuppositions are essential for a sentence to be interpreted as appropriate within a given

11
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

context. However, this definition encompasses a wide range of phenomena that are typically
classified as presuppositions in recent literature. It includes all aspects of the context that
influence how an utterance is interpreted.”

According to Levinson (1983: 217), pragmatic presupposition poses a challenge

because it encompasses a diverse range of distinct and different phenomena. To simplify the
understanding of pragmatic presupposition, Akmajian et al. (1997: 383) and others have
identified three main types of phenomena that fall under the label of pragmatic
presupposition: Pragmatic presupposition as an addresser's attitude (belief) on a proposition:
This type of presupposition involves the addresser's perspective or belief about a particular
proposition. It reflects the underlying assumptions or expectations held by the speaker, which
are conveyed through their choice of words or expressions. Pragmatic presupposition as a
condition for felicitousness: Here, pragmatic presupposition refers to the conditions that need
to be met in order for a sentence or proposition to be considered felicitous or appropriate in
a given context. It is about the requirements or expectations that should be fulfilled for the
utterance to make sense or be considered linguistically and socially acceptable. Pragmatic
presupposition as mutual understanding between addresser and addressee: This type of
presupposition involves the shared knowledge or mutual understanding between the speaker
and the listener. It relies on the assumption that certain information or background knowledge
is already known and accepted by both parties in the conversation. This mutual understanding
helps in interpreting the intended meaning and implications of the utterance.

5. Summaries of ‘Candida’

The plot of Candida, like many other European plays before and after Shaw's time,
revolves around a common theme known as the "eternal triangle." This refers to a situation
where two men are in love with the same woman, typically a woman who is already married
to one of them. In traditional treatments of this theme, the woman engages in a secret affair
with the second man while her husband remains unaware. Eventually, the husband discovers
the affair, leading to a highly dramatic and emotional scene where he confronts his wife and

12
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

she is usually cast aside to continue the illicit relationship. However, Shaw takes a different
approach in Candida by focusing on the moral and immoral aspects of the situation rather
than solely on the sexual intrigue and deception between the wife and the other man.

In Shaw's play Candida, the character of Candida is depicted as more than just a
faithful wife. She is portrayed as a strong and independent character who relies on her
practical judgment rather than being swayed by emotions or passions. Unlike the traditional
portrayal of a woman who is fought over by two men and ultimately disposed of at the whims
of either one, Candida takes charge of the situation. She asserts her own agency, swiftly
resolves the dispute between the two men, and imposes her own will upon both of them. This
portrayal of Candida challenges the conventional expectations and empowers her as a
decisive and assertive character (Ward, 1982: 92-3).

6. Analysing Presupposition

Whether presupposition is a semantic or pragmatic concept, linguists are divided into

two groups. The first group, including Keenan (1971); Leech (1981); and McCawley (1981),
among others has classified presupposition into two types: first, semantic presupposition,
amenable to a truth relation approach also labelled ‘supposition’; second, pragmatic
presupposition which requires an interactional description also called ‘utterance
presupposition’. The second group, including Stalnaker (1974); Kempson (1975); Wilson
(1975); Levinson (1983); Fasold (1990); Mey (1993); and others, refuses the argument that
presupposition can be dealt with semantically; due to the fact it is purely a pragmatic
phenomenon. It seems that there is an argument that no context-free concept of
presupposition can be maintained since no semantic theory can adequately describe this
complicated nature of presupposition.

In order to prove this argument practically, the present study focuses on analyzing
sentences semantically and pragmatically to see whether it is enough to crucially depend
upon semantic or pragmatic description to arrive at the appropriate meaning of what is said.
The semantic analysis consists of relating a sentence-object to other sentence-objects as a

13
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

relationship between sentences with reference to the syntactic forms of the presupposing
sentence and to the words and structures evoking presupposition.

Example No.1

Proserpine: Another lecture?

Morell: Yes. The Hoxton Freedom Group want me to address them on Sunday
morning. [He lays great emphasis on Sunday, this being the unreasonable part of the
business]. (Act I: 18)

The semantic analysis would be as follows:

Syntactic form
Pre-ing s Pre-ed s Type of pre used
of pre-ing s
Another lecture? Yes/No There is a lecture to be Existential pre of object
(Do not you have question delivered
another lecture?)

The addressee delivered at Interactive lexical pre due to

least one lecture before. the use of "another"
The Hoxton The addresser is a human Conventional pre
freedom Group Declarative female.
want/ (do not sentence
There is a group named Existential pre of persons
want) me to
address them on Hoxton Freedom.
Sunday morning.

Regarding the context in which these sentences are uttered, Morell, a clergyman of
the Church of England, opens the last of his morning’s letters and realizes its content with a
comic groan of despair the thing which evokes Proserpine, his typist, to infer that he is asked
by somebody to deliver a lecture. Pragmatically speaking, regarding this context, one can
provide the following pragmatic presuppositions: that this group has sent the letter by post
as part of their application. Morell utters his utterance with objection which is prompted by
the focus on the word Sunday. Such a kind of presupposition in order to be arrived at requires
certain cultural knowledge that Sunday is the time of the church service and it is a non-
working day of the week. Therefore, as a pastor of the church Morell cannot respond to their
question. Another pragmatic Presupposition that one can infer is that Morell seems to be used

14
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

to delivering numerous speeches before different groups beside his delivering sermons in the
Church of England. Moreover, all of the above pragmatic presuppositions are treated
pragmatically as shared information between Morell and Proserpine, since they are accepted
without challenge from either part as given old information. Thus, the context in which these
utterances are used is non-defective since there are no discrepancies between the
presupposition of Proserpine and those of Morell.

Example No.2

Morell: Well, Lexy? Late again, as usual!

Lexy: I’m afraid so. I wish I could get up in the morning.

(Act I: 19)

Syntactic form of
Pre-ing s Pre-ed s Type of pre used
pre-ing s
Well, Lexy? Question and A person named Lexy exists. Existential pre of
Late/ (you are not exclamation person
late) again, as
usual. He is a human male. Conventional pre.
He was late before. Interactive lexical pre
due to the use of
“again”.
He is used to be late. Interactive lexical pre
due to the use of “as
usual”.
The addresser does not expect any Conventional pre.
contented excuse from the
addressee.

I wish (do not Declarative sentence The addresser could not get up in Counterfactual pre
wish) the morning. due to the use of
I could get up in “wish”.
the morning
The addresser had to wake up early Conventional pre.
in the morning.

The above semantic presuppositions are treated pragmatically as old shared

information already known by Morell and Lexy since one can find no presupposition failure,
which requires any redressive action on the part of Lexy. So, the context is non-defective.

15
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

In the context of this situation, Morell’s curate, Lexy, enters tardily as usual and
Morell blames him for being late. Pragmatically speaking, Morell’s utterance indicates that
he is an adult male and may also suggest that he is socially superior to his addressee. Yet, it
also presupposes that Morell is indulgent with his curate since it is not the first time for him
to be late. Additionally, it assumes Morell as being more energetic than Lexy who finds it
hard to get up in the morning.

Example No.3

Lexy: Oh, wait a bit: I forgot [Morell halts and turns with the doorknob in his hand] Your
father-in- law is coming round to see you.

Morell: Mr. Burgess?

Lexy: Yes, I passed him in the park, arguing with somebody. He

asked me to let you know that he was coming. (Act I: 20-21).

Syntactic form of
Pre-ing s Pre-ed s Type of pre used
pre-ing s
Wait/ (do not) wait a Direct command. The addressee was going out Conventional pre
bit. or was going to embark on
some different action.
I forgot/ (did not Declarative The addresser ought to have Implicative lexical pre
forget). sentence told the addressee or intended due to the use of “forgot”
to tell him.
Your father-in-law is Declarative The addressee has a father-in- Existential pre of object.
(is not) coming Sentence law.
round to see you.

The addressee is married. Conventional pre.

The addressee’s father-in-law Change of state of verb
was not there. (lexical pre) due to the
use of “come”

Beside these presupposed sentences, there are other presuppositional meanings that
can be deduced from these utterances. As Morell starts to depart the room, Lexy rememberes
to tell him that his father-in-law is coming to see him. Thus, by using the utterance “wait a

16
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

bit” Lexy presupposes that Morell is able to wait, so, if not, he would not ask him. He also
wants him to wait and assumes that Morell would respond to his request by performing a
perlocutionary act, which is to wait. All of these conditions are felicitous presuppositions
necessary for Lexy’s utterance to be appropriate. Morell’s response, in return, is so quick as
he shuts the door again, with a complete change of manner producing the utterance “Mr.
Burgess?” the thing which indicates (assumes) that Morell is surprised and being not pleased
by Mr. Burgess’s visit. Again, the context here is non-defective.

7 Conclusions

Presupposition refers to a fundamental belief or assumption that the speaker and

listener must share or assume for effective communication in a given context. Semantic
presuppositions focus on the fixed and consistent meanings of expressions, which remain
relatively unchanged across different contexts. They pertain to the conventional
understanding of language. On the contrary, pragmatic presuppositions are flexible and
context-dependent, varying based on individual usage and specific contextual factors. They
involve aspects of meaning that are influenced by the particular context of communication.

Shaw in Candida appears to be more committed to the use of presuppositions as

implicit assumptions, used by his characters in order to make his readers and audience arrive
at what he wants to say either by making his characters share or accommodate factual
knowledge known to the whole society or a particular information necessary for the success
of his character’ communication, or by making them misunderstand each other’s due to
lacking shared knowledge.

In analyzing the texts, it is important to note that presupposition is primarily a

pragmatic aspect rather than a semantic one. However, this does not imply that
presupposition is detached from any organized semantics. In fact, semantics and pragmatics
can collaborate to provide a comprehensive understanding of presuppositions in sentences
and conversations. This involves considering shared knowledge, the contextual framework

17
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

of the discourse, and the role of lexical items categorized by semantics. By incorporating
these elements, the pragmatic content of presuppositions can be effectively formulated.

References

AKMAJIAN, A.; R. A. DEMERS, A.; K. FORMER & R. M. HARNISH

1997. Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. London: MIT Press.

CRESSWELL, M. J.

1988. Semantical Essay: Possible Worlds and Their Rivals. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

FASOLD, R.

1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.

FILLMORE, CH. J. & D.T. LANGENDOEN.

1971. Studies in Linguistics Semantics. New York: Irvingtnon.

FINCH, L.

2000. Linguistics Terms and Concepts. London: Macmillan Press.

GAZDAR, G.

1979. Pragmatics, Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic
press.

KEENAN, E. L.

1971. “Two kinds of Presuppositions in Natural Language” in Fillmore, Cha. J. & D. T.

Langendoen (eds) (1971). Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Irvingtnon.
pp.45-54.

18
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

KEMPSON, R.

1975. Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

LANGENDOEN, D. T.

1971. “Presupposition and Assertion in the Semantic Analysis of Nouns and Verbs in
English” in Steinberg and Jakobovits, eds. (1971). Semantics and Psychology: An
Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. pp.341-344.

LEECH, G.

1981. Exploration in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

LEVINSON, S. C.

1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LYONS, J.

1981. Language and Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCawley, J. D.

1981. Syntax and Semantics. Vol.7, New York: Academic Press.

MEY, T.L.

1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford Blackwell Publishers.

MITCHELL, T.F.

1975. Principles of Firthian Linguistics. London: Longman Group Ltd.

SAEED, J.

1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Ltd.

19
 Almamoori, H. H. A.
“The Use of Lexical Presuppositions in G. B. Shows Camdida: A Pragma-Semantic Study”
2024. Sabir International Bulletin of Applied Linguistics, 4: 3-20.

STALNAKER, R.

1974. “Pragmatic Presupposition” in M. K. Munitz & P. K. Unger, eds. (1974). Semantics

and Philosophy. New York: New York University Press. Pp. 197 – 219.

TYLER, S. A.

1978. The Said and the Unsaid: Mind, Meaning, Culture. New York, Harcourt: Harcourt
Academic Press, Inc.

VAN FRAASSEN, B.C.

1971. Formal Semantics and Logic. New York: Macmillan.

WARDHAUGH, R.

1976. Introduction to Linguistics. New York: Mc Craw – Hill Book Company.

WILSON, D.

1975. Presupposition and Non-Truth Conditional Semantics. London: Academic Press Inc.

YULE, G.

1996. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

20