Robert Stalnaker's pragmatic theory "Common Ground" (2002) is investigated in regard to questions. The wh-question "who left?" and the yes-no question "did someone leave?" are investigated as for a change of presupposition, common belief and common ground. For the wh-question, I came to the conclusion that there is a presupposition in the Stalnakerian notion of the term; there might be a belief change and there is a change of common ground. For the yes-no question, there is neither a presupposition included, nor a change of common belief or common ground.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Presuppositions
2.1. Different Approaches towards a Definition of a presupposition
2.2. Presuppositions and Questions
3. Common Belief
3.1. Stalnaker's Definition of Common Belief and how common belief changes with declarative sentences
2.2. Common belief change with questions
4. Common Ground
4.1. Stalnaker's definition of common ground
4.2. Common ground change because of questions
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper explores the application of Robert Stalnaker’s pragmatic theory—specifically his concepts of presupposition, common belief, and common ground—to interrogative sentences, which are not explicitly addressed in his original 2002 work.
- Analysis of speaker presupposition in wh-questions vs. yes-no questions.
- Examination of belief change and the mechanism of accommodation.
- Distinction between belief and acceptance within a conversation.
- Investigation into how the common ground is altered by different types of questions.
Excerpt from the Book
2.2. Presuppositions and Questions
Further investigation in the analysis of presuppositions in the Stalnakerian definition will be done to see if his definition can also be applied to questions. First, it will be investigated considering the wh-question “Who left?”. Alice utters this question. By uttering this question, Alice presupposes that she believes that someone left, otherwise she would ask “Did someone leave?”. The question “Who left?” does not inevitably imply that someone left, as it could also be answered by saying “No-one left”. But by uttering this question, the speaker presupposes that someone left; otherwise she would not perform this speech act. As Stalnaker defines presupposition in a pragmatic way, in an analysis of speaker presupposition, it can be stated that the question “Who left?” presupposes the proposition that someone left, as this is what the speaker presupposes, it is her/his propositional attitude.
After investigating the presupposition of a wh-question, how can Stalnaker's theory be applied to a yes-no question? If a speaker utters the question “Did someone leave?”, she/he presupposes only that someone might have left. If we assume that the question is not asked in an ironic way, we can say that the speaker presupposes the possibility that someone left. So the only thing that can be presupposed is that whether someone left or did not leave which cannot be called a presupposition, as Stalnaker states in one of his earlier papers: “This set, which I will call the Context Set, is the set of possible worlds recognized by the speaker to be the “live options” relevant to the conversation. A proposition is presupposed if and only if it is true in all of these possible worlds” Stalnaker 1979: 321f.). By uttering the question “Did someone leave?” in a non-ironic way, the speaker presupposes that it is possible for him that someone could have left. She/he presupposes that it might be true, that it is a possibility for her.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the paper's aim to analyze Stalnaker’s pragmatic theories by applying them to interrogative structures.
2. Presuppositions: This section discusses various definitions of presuppositions and begins the inquiry into how they relate to specific types of questions.
3. Common Belief: The chapter explores the definition of common belief and investigates whether posing questions causes a change in the belief state of conversation participants.
4. Common Ground: This part differentiates between belief and acceptance, evaluating how the common ground is modified when a speaker asks a question.
5. Conclusion: The summary reviews the findings regarding wh-questions and yes-no questions, noting that only the former typically result in clear presuppositional changes in a Stalnakerian framework.
Keywords
Stalnaker, Common Ground, Common Belief, Presupposition, Pragmatics, Interrogatives, Accommodation, Speaker Presupposition, Wh-question, Yes-no question, Context Set, Linguistic theory, Proposition, Belief, Acceptance.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines Robert Stalnaker’s pragmatic theory of common ground and tests its applicability to interrogative sentences, a domain not covered in Stalnaker's original text.
What central concepts are analyzed?
The central concepts are presupposition, common belief, and common ground, interpreted through the lens of speaker intent and conversational dynamics.
What is the main research question?
The research asks whether Stalnaker’s pragmatic definitions for declarative sentences can explain how presuppositions and common ground change when a speaker uses wh-questions or yes-no questions.
Which methodology is employed?
The author uses a theoretical analysis approach, comparing definitions from various theorists and applying them to specific linguistic examples like “Who left?” and “Did someone leave?”.
What is covered in the main body?
The main body breaks down the theory of presuppositions, defines common belief and common ground, and applies these definitions to practical question-based scenarios.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Stalnaker, Common Ground, Pragmatics, Presupposition, and Accommodation.
How does the author define the difference between wh-questions and yes-no questions?
The author concludes that wh-questions inherently presuppose a proposition (e.g., that someone left), whereas yes-no questions typically only presuppose a possibility.
What role does the concept of "accommodation" play in the text?
Accommodation is defined as the process by which a proposition becomes common ground because one party recognizes that the other takes it to be so, facilitating smooth conversation.
- Quote paper
- Daniela Keller (Author), 2004, Robert Stalnaker: Common Ground, 2002: A presentation of his paper and an investigation how its theories can be applied to questions., Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/37336
