A discourse analysis of presuppositions in the declaration of independence made by president ho chi minh = phân tích diễn ngôn các tiền giả định trong tuyên ngôn độc lập của chủ tịch hồ chí minh

Acknowledgements

For the completion of this work, I have been fortunate to receive invaluable
contributions from many people.
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor –
M.A. Phan Van Huong for her useful advice in choosing the topic, necessary
assistance in reference materials and detailed feedback she gave on each of the
pages of this thesis. Without her enthusiastic help, I would not have completed my
thesis.
I would like to express my thanks to dear teachers in Foreign Languages
Department-Vinh University for giving the opportunity and creating favorable
conditions for us to do graduation thesis.
I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to my teachers at Foreign
Languages Department for their undeniably useful lectures during the course,
whereby I have accumulate basic and necessary knowledge for doing a research.
Finally, my warmest thanks are due to my family and my friends for their
indispensable support and encouragement.
Vinh, May 2009
Le Thi Thao

1


Table of Contents
Page
i

Acknowledgements

ii

Table of contents

1

Part I: Introduction

1

1.Justification of the Study

2

2.Aims of the Study

2

3.Scope of the Study

3

4.Methods of the Study

3

5.Design of the Study

Part II: Development
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background

4

4

1.1.Discourse Analysis

4

1.1.1.Discourse and Text

5

1.1.2.Discourse Analysis
1.1.3.Spoken Discourse versus Written Discourse

5
6

1.1.4.Discourse Context
1.2. Presupposition: the Discursive Strategy

8
8

1.2.1.What is Presupposition?

10

1.2.2.Presupposition Triggers
Chapter 2: Ideological Discourse Analysis

13

13

2.1.Ideologies

13

2.2.Ideological Discourse Analysis

14

2.3.Structures of Ideologies
2


15

2.4.Ideology and Presupposition
Chapter 3: A discourse analysis of
presuppositions in the declaration of
independence made by president ho chi minh

17

17

3.1.Background of the Speech

18

3.2.Data Analysis

18

3.2.1.In the Perspective of Semantics
3.2.1.1.Expressions of Temporal Relations
3.2.1.2.Change of State Verbs and Adverbs
3.2.1.3.Expressions indicating repetition

19
21
22
23

3.2.1.4.Complex Adjectives of Time

23

3.2.1.5.Comparatives

24

3.2.1.6.Quantifiers

26

3.2.1.7.Definite Descriptions

28

3.2.2.In the Perspective of Pragmatics

3.2.3.Ho Chi Minh’s Ideology in the Speech

33
35

Part III: conclusion

35

1.Findings of the Study

37

2.Applications of the Study

37

3.Suggestions for Further Studies

38

References
Appendix

3


Part I: introduction
1. Justification of the Study
People may study language by examining the way that words relate to each

other or investigating what words mean by themselves. These are the things syntax
and semantics do. However, these do not take into account the outside world or
context in which an utterance is made. They do not show us who said it to whom,
where, when, or why. Studying language in the perspective of discourse analysis
can help the researchers understand more about language use. Discourse analysis
considers how humans use language to communicate, how they construct linguistic
messages for others and how others work on the linguistic messages in order to
interpret them. It is closely attached to the purposes and intentions of the speaker.
Thus, this field opens up many interesting issues.
Political discourse is one kind of discourse which promises a lot of appealing
research. Politics is particularly important to a nation and when a person conducts
a political speech, he really has to take linguistic means into careful consideration
so that his political intentions can be revealed. President Ho Chi Minh is not only a
famous leader but also a talented person in using language to gain the political
purposes. Many of his speeches have been translated into English as well as many
other languages. Among them, the Independence Declaration of the Democratic
Republic of Vietnam on September 2, 1945 catches the author’s attention. The
author’s choice, firstly, originates from her feelings of honor and gratitude toward
a preeminent leader of the nation. Moreover, the independence declaration not only
contains nationally and internationally historic values but also makes a great
contribution to the world on the new concept of human rights.
During the course of her study, the author found interest in pragmatics and
discourse analysis, of which presupposition is an interesting issue. This is the
reason for the author’s choice to study presupposition. This study will analyze the
4


presuppositions embedded in the discourse. Presupposition appears to be a more
related concept to pragmatics and has not been mentioned a lot in the study of
discourse. This paper will show why the discourse was made in that moment and

how intended meaning is communicated.
For these reasons, the author decides to conduct a discourse analysis of
presuppositions in president Ho Chi Minh’s Independence Declaration. The data
was retrieved from the homepage of the Vietnamese Embassy in the United States
of America. The original record is published in HoChiMinh, Selected Works
(Hanoi, 1960 - 1962) (vol.3, pp.17-20).
2. Aims of the Study
The study is aimed to:
- Study presupposition in a greater depth and how it conveys implicit meanings to
the audience
- Probe into the relationship between language and ideology in president Ho Chi
Minh’s declaration of independence
- Suggest some practical applications in learning and teaching
3. Scope of the Study
Types of discourse are various. Within the scope of this thesis, political
discourse is chosen to be analyzed in order to explore how linguistic means are
utilized to achieve communicative purposes. The data is an English version of
president HoChiMinh’s declaration of independence. Thus, the study will entirely
focus on dealing with the English record, ignoring any linguistic features related to
Vietnamese and proposing no comparisons between the two languages.
Since doing discourse analysis is involved in many domains, we necessarily
have to impose constraints on our subject-matter. We only deal with
presuppositions expressed in discourse and skip other tempting areas such as
5


lexicalization, referent, modality. Some of the related issues may be briefly
presented here but they are out of the study’s focus. Even within the types of
presupposition, only a few ones are discussed.
4. Methods of the Study

- Collecting the data and materials
- Reviewing related theories
-Analyzing the data
- Synthesizing
5. Design of the Study
Except for acknowledgements, table of contents, references and
appendix, this paper consists of three main parts:
The first part is Introduction. This part presents briefly the justification,
aims, scope, methods and design of the Study.
The second part is Development of the study. There are three chapters
covered in this part. Chapter one introduces the theoretical background, in
which we will have a look at the theories related to discourse analysis and the
theory of presupposition. Chapter two provides an overview of ideological
discourse analysis. Chapter three deals with an analysis of president Ho Chi
Minh’s declaration of independence by considering the data in the perspective
of semantics as well as pragmatics; after that it gives a comment on the
ideology conveyed in the text.
The third and also the last part is Conclusion which summarizes the major
findings, applications of the study and suggestions for further studies.

6


Part II: development
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background
1.1. Discourse Analysis
1.1.1. Discourse and Text
There has been some confusion in using the two terms “discourse” and
“text”. Some researchers label their analysis “Discourse Analysis” while others
claim they are doing “Text Analysis”. The following are some of common

definitions:
According to Crystal (1992: 25), discourse is “a continuous stretch of
(especially spoken) language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent
unit, such as a sermon, argument, joke or narrative”. Cook (1989: 156) views
discourse as “stretches of language perceived to be meaningful, unified and
purposive”.
Crystal (1992: 72) also gives his opinion about text, saying “text is a piece of
natural occurring spoken, written, or signed discourse identified for purposes of
analysis. It is often a language unit with a definable communicative function, such
as a conversation, a poster”. While Cook (1989: 158) states that text is a stretch of
language interpreted formally, without context.
From the points above, it can be asserted that the meaning of a text does not
establish until it is actively employed in a context of use. This process of activation
of a text by relating it to a context of use is what we call discourse. In these terms,
text is treated as the observable product of the whole communicative process or it
is simply a representation or a verbal record of discourse. In turn, discourse must
be seen as the process that has created text.
In brief, although discourse and text are different, they are related to each
other. The difference and interrelationship between discourse and text is best
7


captured by Widdowson’s claim: “Discourse is a communicative process by means
of interaction. Its situational outcome is a change in a state of affairs: information
is conveyed, intentions made clear. Its linguistic product is Text” (quoted in Aston,
1988).
1.1.2. Discourse Analysis
Paltridge(2007) posits that discourse analysis focuses on knowledge about
language beyond the word, phrase, clause and sentence that is needed for
successful communication. It looks at patterns of language across texts and

considers the relationship between language and the social and cultural contexts in
which it is used. Discourse analysis considers the ways that the use of language
presents different views of the world and different understandings. It examines
how the use of language is influenced by relationships between participants as well
as its effects on social relations.
To sum up, discourse analysis involves the study of language in use. A wide
range of linguistic texts are explored in the study of discourse. These might be in
either spoken or written form, including a conversation or a letter, a speech or a
report, a broadcast or an interview, a lesson, an advertisement or even a piece of
gossip.
1.1.3. Spoken Discourse versus Written Discourse
Spoken discourse and written discourse can be understood as speech and
writing. In general, they share much in common, that is, both spoken and written
discourses perform a similar range of broad functions. They are used to get things
done, to provide information and to entertain.
In spite of such similarities, they are distinguished from each other in some
characteristics. Firstly, in terms of context, written language is used for
communication among people who are removed in time and space or for occasions
requiring a permanent or semi-permanent record. Meanwhile, most people in
8


different cities and countries can communicate directly by means of speech. They
are also different in the way discourse is produced. While speaking, the speaker
has to control what he says so that it fits his intentions, and prepare for what to say
next. Every word uttered will be heard by the interlocutor, so the speaker might be
under pressure. However, there are some advantages for the speaker, i.e., he can
observe the listener’s reactions and can immediately modify what he is saying to
make it clearer and more acceptable to the listener. The speaker may use facial
expressions, postures, or gestures to increase the effect of what he speaks. On the

contrary, the writer has the advantage of taking more time in choosing lexis and
organizing ideas. He can rearrange what has been written and make changes if he
wants. There is no fear of interruption by the interlocutor. But because of this, the
reader has to imagine the reader’s reactions. [Besides, the linguists propose a
distinction of written and spoken discourse in terms of their form. It is not our
intention to discuss this here.]
According to Brown and Yule (1983), the major differences between speech
and writing derive from the fact that one is essentially transitory and the other is
designed to be permanent. These differences, anyway, are not absolute and the
characteristics that we tend to associate with written language can sometimes occur
in spoken language and vice versa. This means that some spoken texts will be more
like written texts than others, while some written texts will be more like spoken
texts than others.
1.1.4. Discourse Context
Discourse Analysis involves many aspects such as cohesion, coherence, text
type and so on. Among them, context plays a key role in the analysis. Thus, Cook
(1989) asserts: “there are arguments for limiting the field of study to make it
manageable, but it is also true to say that the answer to the question of what gives
discourse its unity may be impossible to give without considering the world at
large: the context”.
9


What is context? Is it really as important in discourse analysis as Cook says?
A brief definition of context given by David Nunan (1995: 7) is: “Context
refers to the situation giving rise to the discourse, and within which the discourse is
embedded”. The meaning of context is understood at two levels, namely, the
linguistic level and the non-linguistic level. At the linguistic level, context refers to
any linguistic items that occur before and after a word, a phrase, or even an
utterance or text. At the non-linguistic level, context refers to the surrounding

situation in which an utterance or a discourse occurs. It is the broader social
situation in which a linguistic item is used.
Linguistic context is what Joan Cutting (2002) calls co-textual context or cotext, which is concerned with such concepts as reference, substitution, ellipsis,
repetition, .e.t.c. Cutting also mentions about the situational context. It is the
immediate physical co-presence, the situation where the interaction is taking place
at the moment of speaking. Simply speaking, it is what the speaker and hearer can
see around them. However, within the scope of this study, these types will be not
elaborated here. What we concern and serves the purpose of analysis is another
sort of context: background knowledge context. This can be either cultural general
knowledge that most people carry with them in their minds, about areas of life; or
interpersonal knowledge, specific and possibly private knowledge about the history
of the speakers themselves.
To make it clear, let us study an example. The following is a conversation
between a husband and his wife:
Husband: I’m flying to Moscow with David tomorrow. At home, take care of
yourself!
Wife: Don’t worry! Everything will be okay,…except that I will miss you a lot
Husband: Uhm, I’ll phone you regularly

10


Wife: OK, I’ve prepared all of your luggage here. Well, I also bought some more
sweaters for you.
Husband: My dear, how wonderful you are!
In the conversation, the husband seems to have no idea about buying some
more sweaters. That is because they share mutual knowledge that the weather in
Moscow is very cold and then the husband should bring enough warm clothes with
him. Rather, they are part of the same group. The communities of people who can
be assumed to know about the weather of Moscow are those who have visited or

heard about Moscow. We are talking about the cultural context. We also see that
the husband and his wife know who David is. This is the interpersonal context.
Shared interpersonal knowledge is knowledge acquired through verbal interactions
or joint activities and experiences, and it includes privileged personal knowledge
about the interlocutor.
In short, context plays a very important role in discourse analysis. A
discourse and its context are in close relationship: discourse elaborates context and
context helps interpret the meaning of utterances in discourse.
1.2. Presupposition: the Discursive Strategy
1.2.1. What is Presupposition?
Presupposition is a common term in linguistics. This notion has been defined
by Givón (cited in Martin 1992) “in terms of assumptions the speaker makes about
what the hearer is likely to accept without challenge”. Stalnaker (1973) also argues
that presuppositions are “assumptions shared by the interlocutors, which form the
background of their ongoing discourse”. It is noticeable that, in both quotations,
the indicated source of presuppositions is the speaker, or we can say that the
speaker has presuppositions.
When two people are trying to communicate and their presuppositions are
not known to each other, that is when misunderstanding takes place. Let us take an
11


example into consideration. Someone says: “Did you stop beating your wife?”
Under what circumstances does that question have meaning? What presuppositions
are necessary for that sentence to make sense? Thus, the speaker must assume in
advance: “You have a wife and you bit your wife”. Without that presupposition,
the question makes no sense because a person would not ask you whether you
stopped doing something that you never did.
Presupposition can be treated as pragmatics or semantics. Just have a look at
the following example:

Tell Peter to come and see me after class!
The speaker presupposes that the hearer knows who Peter is and what he
looks like, that the hearer is going to see Peter and is willing to give the message to
him and that Peter is in class. We can call these kinds of assumptions “pragmatic
presuppositions” because they are clearly non-linguistic in nature. They are related
to the context in which the sentence is uttered. There is a further presupposition
which is not related to the context of the utterance, namely, there is such a person
as Peter. It means that without considering the context, the speaker’s
presupposition can still be recognized. We call this kind of presupposition
“semantic presupposition” because it seems not to be context and thus we are
speaking of presupposition of utterances rather than that of speaker. This kind of
presupposition is activated by lexical or structural items, i.e. a proper name like
Peter in the given example.
However, whether presupposition is looked from any angle, semantics or
pragmatics, its vital role in communication is undeniable. It is very convenient that
we can rely on presupposition; otherwise we may have to speak every detail
underlying what we want the interlocutors to catch in. Instead of “Tell Peter to
come and see me after class”, we may say something like this: “I know that you

12


know who Peter is and what he looks like and I know you are going to see him now
and since I want to talk to him, please tell Peter to come and see me after class!”.
Therefore, linguistically, the reason we have presuppositions is that they are
necessary to shorten what we say. And it is actually impossible to speak without
using presuppositions. One thing we should remember is that presupposition is a
subconscious mechanism. Clearly, anytime when we are listening to others
speaking, we are mostly unaware of what we have accepted as presuppositions.
This, of course, also means that anytime when we are speaking to others, we are

using

presuppositions

constantly

and

unconsciously.

In

other

words,

presuppositions occur subconsciously and naturally in communication.
1.2.2. Presupposition Triggers:
Most of the shared background assumptions have linguistic markers.

Some

linguists like Levinson (1983) and Van der Sandt (1988) speak of these markers as
presupposition inducers or triggers. They refer to lexical items, morphological
devices or syntactic constructions which may require or activate a pragmatic
presupposition. A proper name like Peter in the previous example is just a trigger.
In fact, there are a variety of presupposition triggers. Following are some of them
which will appear in the data of the study:
*Definite descriptions:
Example: What was your reaction when you saw the snake?

Presupposition: You saw a particular snake and you had a reaction to it.
*Expressions indicating repetition:
(also, again, back, too, words beginning with “re” such as return, repeat, replicate,
retell, renew, reiterate, restate, reestablish, e.t.c.)
Example: If you come late again, you will get sacked
Presupposition: You have already come late at least once
13


*Complex adjectives of time:
(Earlier, former, later, new, old, previous…)
Example: Your new room looks brighter
Presupposition: You had an old room which looked less bright
*Comparatives:
(More, less, words ending with er/ est and their roots)
Example: There aren’t many cars that are more expensive than a Mercedes
Presupposition: the Mercedes is an expensive car
*Quantifiers:
(All, each, every, some, few, lots, many, several, much,…)
Example:

A

few

of

the

guests

didn’t

eat

ice-cream

in

the

party

Presupposition: “few” is non-specific and implies that more than a few, i.e. a
majority ate ice-cream in the party
*Expressions of temporal relations:
(Before, after, while, during, prior, whenever, as, since…)
Example: what will you do after you give up horse-racing?
Presupposition: you are currently engaged in horse-racing
*Change of state verbs and adverbs:
(Begin, start, stop, become, change, continue, end, cease, yet, still, already, turn…)
Example: I began driving at the age of 20
Presupposition: I didn’t drive before 20
In the first section of this chapter, we have reviewed some preliminary issues
in discourse analysis and made a distinction between text and discourse, spoken
and written discourse. We have also seen how important context is in discourse
14


analysis. In the second section, we have explored presupposition – a kind of

assumptions taken for granted as the background to the utterances, and presented
some cases in which presuppositions are signaled by lexical items or structures.
Chapter three will elaborate these cases of presupposition in the independence
declaration and the relation between presupposition and context where the text was
produced. However, before proceeding the main analysis, we need to consider the
concept “Ideological discourse analysis” because this is an approach which this
paper will follow in the analysis.

15


Chapter 2: Ideological Discourse Analysis
2.1. Ideologies
For understanding ideological discourse analysis, we must begin with an
abstract concept: Ideologies. Van Dijk (1998) defines ideologies as “a special form
of social cognition shared by social groups. Ideologies thus form the basis of the
social representations and practices of group members, including their discourse,
which at the same time serves as the means of ideological production, reproduction
and challenge”.
Ideologies organize social group attitudes consisting of general opinions
about social issues such as abortion, nuclear energy or affirmative action. So far,
socialism, communism, feminism,… have been spoken of as ideologies. However,
ideologies are not necessarily such complex systems, but they may be limited to a
few basic principles. Since ideologies are socially shared, they are characteristic of
whole groups and reflect the basic aims, interests and values of groups. It is not to
say that all the members of a group will have the same ideological system.
Depending on its position, each group will select from the general cultural
repertoire of social norms and values those that realize its goals and interests in the
best way, and the group will use these values as building blocks for its group
ideologies. Thus, the value of equality or the norm of non-discrimination will be

extremely important in the ideologies of women, and minorities. Likewise,
oppressed or slave groups will have a high opinion of freedom.
It is worth noting that ideologies can be good or bad depending on the
consequences of the social practices based on them. Thus, both racism and
antiracism are ideologies and sexism and feminism are, too.
2.2. Ideological Discourse Analysis
First of all, it should be emphasized that ideological discourse analysis
should be seen as one specific type of socio-political analysis of discourse. Such an
16


analysis attempts to relate structures of discourse with structures of society. For
example, social relations of class, gender, or ethnicity are associated with the
structural units, levels or strategies of talk and text embedded in their social,
political and cultural contexts.
Language users are seen as members of groups, organizations or
communities. Consequently, they often have to write, speak or interpret discourse
from a specific social position. Ideological analysis then examines what ideologies
are typically associated with that position, e.g. in order to defend or legitimate that
position by discourse.
To put it simply, ideological discourse analysis is just the process in which
we analyze discourse to discover ideologies that the speaker or writer wants to
convey to the audience. There are a number ways in which ideologies might be
explored in a text. The analysis may start by looking at textual features in the text
and move from there to the explanation and interpretation of the analysis. This may
include tracing underlying ideologies from linguistic features of the text,
unpacking ideological presuppositions underlying the text, and relating the text to
other texts and to the readers/speakers’ own experiences and beliefs.
According to Paltridge (2007), one aspect that may be considered in this
kind of analysis is the framing of the text, that is, how the content of the text is

presented and the sort of angle and perspective the writer/speaker is taking. Closely
related to the framing is the notion of foregrounding, i.e. what concepts and issues
are emphasized as well as what concepts and issues are backgrounded or played
down in the text.
2.3. Structures of Ideologies
During the process of analysis, the analyst applies discursive strategies to
explore the structures of ideologies. Some categories of such structures are norm

17


and value, resource, self-identity, position and relation, goal and activity
descriptions.
*Norm and value descriptions: they are about what we find good or bad, right or
wrong and what our actions and goals we try to respect and achieve. Thus,
speakers may emphasize on truth and factuality. Minorities and women may
emphasize their discourse on justice or equality. In the description of opponents or
enemies, we may expect an emphasis on violation of such norms and values.
*Resource descriptions: groups can generally exist only when they have access to
general or specific resources. In intergroup conflicts and when such norms are
threatened or limited, ideological discourse will largely focus on such resources:
minorities and women may focus their discourse on the fact that they do not have
equal access to valuable social resources such as status, respect, jobs, equal pay,…
*Self-identity descriptions: who are we? Where do we come from? What are our
properties? How are we different from others? Or what are we proud of?,... This
will typically be the case for those groups whose identity is threatened, insecure or
marginalized.
*Activity descriptions: what are our tasks? What do we do? What is expected of
us? What are our social roles?...
*Goal descriptions: what are the goals of these activities?

*Position and relation descriptions: groups define their identity, activities and
goals largely in relation to other groups. For example, oppressed with respect to
dominators, anti-racists with respect to racists or feminists with respect to
chauvinist men… we may expect a special focus on group relations, and conflicts.
2.4. Ideology and Presupposition
Van der Sandt (1988) holds that presuppositions play a prominent role in
political or ethical choices or in the practical adhesion to ways of life, so that the
18


speakers may find it necessary to convey them and to win their audience’s
approval of them.
The study of presupposition concentrates on the meaning dimensions which
are taken for granted in an utterance or a text, while values and ideologies
underlying text often tend to be hidden rather than overtly stated. Thus, the area of
presupposition offers an instrument suitable for examining the links between
language and ideology. In this regard, what is presupposed has to do with values,
social norms or ideals, or with facts which are proper to a specific social factor.
The next chapter will clarify how president Ho Chi Minh’s ideologies are
expressed through presuppositions and how he uses strategies of text to arrive at
his purposes on the basis of presuppositions.

19


Chapter 3: a discourse analysis of presuppositions in the
declaration of independence made by president ho chi
minh

3.1. Background of the Speech

As said in chapter 1, context plays a very important role in doing discourse
analysis. An analysis of presupposition in discourse also does not lie beyond
context. Hence, it is necessary to run through the context of this independence
declaration.
In August 1945, World War II was about to end. At that moment, the
revolutionary forces of Vietnam were ready to take up actions. On August, 16,
1945 the Vietnamese National Congress appointed a Provisional Government with
Ho Chi Minh as president and approved the decision for the general insurrection.
Within only fewer than 10 days, the August 1945 national-wide insurrection
and revolution ended in victory, putting an end to about 100 years of imperialists’
domination over the Vietnamese people. However, Vietnam fell into the tense
situation: In the North of Vietnam, the Japanese was about to come in; in the
South, the French colonists, hiding behind the British troops, had an intention of
occupying the South. The young independence was in serious danger. In that
situation, by the end of August, Ho Chi Minh returned Hanoi from Viet Bac.
On August, 28, at No.48, Hang Ngang Street, Hanoi, president Ho Chi Minh
wrote the declaration of independence. And on September, 2, 1945, in Ba Dinh
square, Hanoi, he read the declaration before thousands of people on behalf of the
Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, founding the
Democratic Republic of Vietnam – the first worker-peasant state in the area of
Southeast Asia. This is an important historic event, which closed a grief past under
20


the feudalist-colonist yoke and opened a new era – the era of independence and
freedom.
The declaration affirmed the independence of Vietnam with a view to
preventing the French plots of invasion and courting the international support.

3.2. Data Analysis

Some

discourse

analysts

may

take

only

linguistically

marked

presuppositions into consideration. While some are more concerned with what the
speakers and hearers are doing. Anyway, whenever an utterance has a
presupposition, its speaker may be said to make that presupposition. If we only
base on semantic presupposition in doing discourse, it seems to be inadequate. A
trigger can not always tell us all of what the speaker presupposes in the utterance.
Thus, something more is required. This paper will integrate both features of
semantic and pragmatic presupposition. It will follow the view that presupposition
is made by the speaker and linguistic items are just devices of assistance.

3.2.1. In the Perspective of Semantics
This section is hoped to present the findings about the different types of
presupposition inducers used in the independence declaration. A careful
calculation results in the following statistic table:

21


Types of presupposition triggers

Number of

Percentage

occurrence
Expressions of temporal relations

4

2.44%

Change of state verbs and adverbs

3

1.83%

Expressions indicating repetition

3

1.83%

Complex adjectives of time

1

0.61%

Comparatives

2

1.22%

Quantifiers

12

7.32%

Definite descriptions

139

84.75%

Total

164

100%

Table1. Proportions of types of presupposition triggers to the total triggers
This table shows that there appear a great number of different types of

presupposition triggers. Markedly, while complex adjectives of time make up the
smallest percentage, definite descriptions make up the biggest. In this section, we
will separate each sort of inducers for a detailed analysis.
3.2.1.1. Expressions of temporal relations:
The table 1 illustrates that total expressions of temporal relations make up
2.44% of total triggers present in the data. These are four sentences containing
presuppositions of this type:
(24) In the autumn of 1940, when the Japanese Fascists violated Indochina’s
territory to establish new bases in their fight against the Allies, the French
imperialists went down on their bended knees and handed over our country to them.
Presupposition: the Japanese violated Indochina’s territory to establish new bases
in their fight against the Allies.
22


(31) … before fleeing they massacred a great number of our political prisoners
detained at Yen Bai and Cao Bang.
Presupposition: The French colonialists fled
(33) Even after the Japanese putsch of March 1945, the Vietminh League helped
many Frenchmen to cross the frontier, rescued some of them from Japanese jails,
and protected French lives and property.
Presupposition: There happened a Japanese putsch in March 1945
(35) After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to
regain our national sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
Presupposition: The Japanese surrendered to the Allies
Whenever this type of expressions appears, the proposition following it
becomes a presupposition and the neighboring proposition is what the speaker
asserts.
Sometimes, the phrases like before, after, when can be replaced with other
expressions. For example, instead of “before fleeing they massacred a great

number of our political prisoners detained at Yen Bai and Cao Bang”, the President
can say “they fled and then massacred a great number of our political prisoners
detained at Yen Bai and Cao Bang”. However, if such a replacement takes place,
both two propositions “they fled” and “they massacred a great number…” are the
assertions, and this makes every utterances bring equal values. But when one
proposition becomes a presupposition, the other seems to be more prominent and is
emphasized. It can be understood that in president Ho Chi Minh’s mind, that the
French fled is less noteworthy than that they massacred political prisoners.
Therefore, his political purposes are executed and his attitudes are also expressed.
That is, the President condemns the inhumanity of the French imperialists.

23


Similarly, he may want to assert the French action of surrendering to the
Japanese rather than the Japanese’s violation into Indochina. It features the French
crimes as they had been vocal about protecting Vietnam but in fact, sold our
country to the Japanese. Also, the actions of the Vietminh members’ helping and
rescuing Frenchmen are given prominence to.
All of those do not mean that the communicative values of the clauses
containing presuppositions are decreased. Rather, the distinction is that the
temporal clause provides a background against which another event such as going
down on, handing over, massacring, helping, rescuing, protecting and regaining is
highlighted.
3.2.1.2. Change of state verbs and adverbs:
The table 1 specifies that the proportion of change of state verbs and adverbs
is really not much in comparison with the total. It accounts for 1.83%, with three
expressions ceased, become and already:
(34) From the autumn of 1940, our country had in fact ceased to be a French colony
and had become a Japanese possession.

In (34), there are two presupposition inducers. Ceased triggers the
presupposition that before the autumn of 1940, Vietnam used to be a French
colony. Our knowledge about the world tells us that in 1858, the French
colonialists fired to conquer Vietnam and from that time up to 1940, Vietnam had
always been dominated by them. That is the fact everyone knows, so it is
presupposed. Through this presupposition, president Ho Chi Minh reinforces the
assertion about the independence of Vietnam because saying that Vietnam had
ceased to be a French colony means that Vietnam was not a French colony any
more.

24


By means of the verb of change become, the change from non-Japanese
possession to Japanese possession is marked. It induces the presupposition that the
previous state was non-Japanese possession.
(46) For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government of the
Democratic republic of Vietnam, solemnly declare to the world that Vietnam has the
right to be a free and independent country and in fact it is so already.
Already activates the presupposition that Vietnam has become free and
independent. Uncle Ho does not spell out that Vietnam is in the state of freedom
and independence, but he is, nonetheless, taking for granted and suggesting people
in the world and the invading enemies to take for granted that it is currently in that
state. In this case, the presupposition suggests or fosters approvals from the
audience. For one thing, Vietnam is no longer the French colony because they sold
our country to the Japanese fascists. For another, Vietnam seized power from the
Japanese. Thus, there is no reason to deny Vietnam’s freedom and independence.
Prior to making this sentence the president must have presupposed these. And it is,
possibly speaking, a persuasive strategy.
3.2.1.3. Expressions indicating repetition:

Expressions of repetition make up the same percentage as change of state
verbs and adverbs, i.e. 1.83%. These expressions are also, regain and reconquer:
(5) The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man
and the Citizen also states: “All men are born free and with equal rights, and must
always remain free and have equal rights.”
The presupposition is another statement was made in a similar way as the
Declaration of the French Revolution. It means, before the French Revolution
declared the human rights such as freedom and equality, the United States of
America had done it.

25