Pragma-discourse analysis of presupposition in Clinton testimony and his speech after the trial

Abstract EN

This study sheds light on the term presupposition, it means that when one presupposes something, he/she assumes it.

People often do not realize that when they are saying something actually they assume something for the listener.

The aims of this study are the following: Recognizing the use of the presupposition in Clinton's court language and the interview of Clinton after the trial, highlighting the relationship between Presupposition and Grice's maxims concerning the trial and the speech of Clinton, and identifying the different types of Presupposition in discourse.

In the light of the above aims, it can be hypothesized that: There is a reason behind using certain types of presupposition by Clinton.

And there is a difference between Clinton's trial presupposition and his speech after the trial.

Clintons' trial and his interview after the trial are used as a data analysis and the use of Grice's maxims and Yule theory as a model of analysis and, the result shows that there are many maxims violated.

Concerning the types of maxims, there are many types used in Clinton's testimony and the most frequently used are factive and Existential presupposition