Main Article Content
Whereas there has been ample research on presupposition, and different taxonomies have been put forward on the various types of presupposition, presupposition triggers, on the difference between entailment and presupposition, and on the dichotomy semantic presupposition/pragmatic presupposition, the interrelationship between presupposition and intertextuality has not received due attention. In some philosophical and linguistic accounts, the presupposition is preserved as a meaning-based notion and thereby accounted for in non -intertextual way where only propositions that are accepted and taken for granted by speaker/ writer count. The present study argues for an intertextual account of presupposition, where the proposition is not the property of the speaker/writer per se; rather, the presupposed proposition is interpreted in terms of intertextual relations with previous texts. The aim of the present article was to find; changed to, what kind of knowledge text producers expect their audience to have to be able to process new texts; what kind of knowledge text producers presuppose in the creation of new texts; the conceptual status of presupposition when new information is conveyed; and how presuppositions obtain in the case of intertextuality. This has been accomplished by drawing on both notions: Presupposition and intertextuality to argue whereas the two notions have been kept separate in non-intertextual accounts on presupposed propositions, both notions work on the same level of drawing on the text, and therefore to argue for coining a new term textual presupposition.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
De Beaugrande, R.A. and Dressler, W.U. (1992) Introduction to text linguistics. New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Frege, G. (1892) On Sense and Reference”. Philosophie, 16, pp. 192-205.
Filippo, D. (2016) Introduction: Presuppositions philosophy, linguistics and psychology. Topoi, 35(1), pp. 5-8.
Hiramoto, M. and Sung- Yul, P.J. (2010) Media intertextualities: Semiotic mediation across time and space. Pragmatics and Society, 1:2, pp. 179-188.
Hudson, G. (1999) Essential introductory linguistics. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers.
Kadmon, N. (2001) Formal pragmatics semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, pp. 749-755.
Kempson, R.M. (1975) Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kristeva, J. (1969) Narration et transformation. Semiotica, 1(4), pp. 422-448.
Kristeva, J. (1980) Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lambrecht, K. (1994) Cambridge studies in linguistics. Information structure and sentence form: Topics, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents.New York, US: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moyise, S. (2002) Intertextuality and biblical studies: A review. Verbum et Ecclesia, 23(2), pp. 418-431.
Plett, H.F. (1991) Intertextualities. In: Plett, H.F., (ed.), Intertextuality. Berlin amd New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 3-29.
Porter, J.E. (1986) Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review, 5(1), pp. 34-47.
Simandan, V.M. (2010) The matrix and the alice books. Raleigh: Lulu Books.
Soames, S. (1982) How presuppositions are inherited: A solution to the projection problem Linguistic Inquiry, 13, pp. 483-545.
Verschueren, J. (1999) Understanding pragmatics. New York: Edward Arnold.
Widdowson, H.G. and Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics. 4th ed. Oxford: OUP, USA.
Yule, G. (1996) Pragmatics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.