[lit-ideas] Geary on presupposition and implicature -- the mediaeval foundation
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:38:47 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/16/2013 2:25:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx writes:
I've sometimes wondered what the difference between "supposition" and
"presupposition" might be.
---
Geary is right that back in the mediaeval days, there was no such
difference. Kneale and Kneale (that's Martha and W. C.) dedicate some 30 pages
of
their book, "The growth of logic" (Oxford, Clarendon Press) on 'suppositio'
theory, which with Strawson became 'presupposition' theory.
Strawson, while an Oxonian, uses 'presupposition' in a sense yet different
from L. Helm, who follows Oxonian usage established by R. G. Collingwood.
In 1970, Grice challenged Strawson and noted that what Strawson meant by
presupposition is best explained by implicature.
But then, Strawson's _locus classicus_ of presupposition is Russell's:
-- The king of France is bald.
-- The king of France is not bald.
Both 'presuppose' (in Strawson's jargon -- he earlied used 'imply') that
there is a king of France.
Grice reverted to Strawson's early use of 'imply' -- but prefers to qualify
the verb, 'implicate', rather than 'imply'.
In Grice, and for what it's worth, mine, view,
"The king of France is bald" ENTAILS there is a king of France.
While
"The king of France is NOT bald" merely IMPLICATES that there is a king of
France. This is sharply noted in 'disimplicature':
"The king of France is not bald; since France is a republic".
Cheers,
Speranza
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Geary on presupposition and implicature -- the mediaeval foundation - Jlsperanza
