Presupposition as a Verbal Strategy of Disparagement in Selected Memes

Meme discourse has become a productive site for the circulation of evaluative, ideological, and often disparaging meanings. While many studies of memes focus on humor, irony, or multimodal interaction, less attention has been given to the role of presupposition as a specifically verbal mechanism in the indirect construction of disparagement. Presupposition is particularly significant in this context because it allows meme producers to embed degrading assumptions within what is treated as already given rather than openly argued. As a result, the disparaging meaning may appear natural, shared, or unquestionable. This study investigates how presupposition operates as a verbal strategy of disparagement in three selected memes representing political, social, and religious discourse. By limiting the analysis to the verbal level, the study aims to show that presupposition is not merely an accompanying pragmatic feature, but a central mechanism through which disparaging meanings are conveyed, stabilized, and intensified in meme discourse.

 

Accordingly, based on the aims of the present study, this research seeks to answer the following questions:

 

1.              How does presupposition function as a verbal strategy in constructing disparagement in selected political, social, and religious memes?

2.              What types of presupposition are most relevant in conveying disparaging meaning across the selected memes?

 

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Disparagement

Disparagement in Mariam webster (n.d.) is defined as “to speak slightingly about (someone or something): to belittle the importance or value of (someone or something) or to lower (someone or something) in rank or reputation.”

 

Rossolova (2020, p. 1409) defines disparagement as a form of verbal hostility. The defamation is intended to undermine the adversary's reputation, resulting in a detrimental emotional impact. The framework of a subversive informative act suggests the presence of an imminent threat of defamation; motives directing communications designed to disparage an individual; and the process of conveying messages, encompassing strategies and techniques for expressing harm. Disparagement can be conveyed by several available resources, with the choice depending on the participants of the public protest, their objectives, and the characteristics of discourse behavior. If the recipient intends to express his negative attitude indirectly, he employs subtle ways and strategies, creating a negative context for interpreting the information in a statement.

 

2.1.1 Disparagement Across Contexts

Disparagement is manifested through derogatory treatment, unfavorable stereotyping, or amusement at others' expense—takes varied forms and produces different outcomes depending on the context. Research indicates that its effects are shaped by social structures, group identities, and institutional contexts, contributing to inequities in education, health, justice, and interpersonal relationships.

 

A. Social and Structural Contexts

Social hierarchies such as race, class, caste, and gender have disparagement profoundly rooted within them. These frameworks are responsible for the continuous differences in wealth, opportunities, and treatment that exist between people in different cultures (Darity & Ruiz, 2024). Jackson and Vander (2016) argue that the disciplines of stratification economics and intersectionality frameworks demonstrate that the origins and persistence of disparities that are related to disparagement are frequently discovered at the points where several marginalized identities intersect. They also show that policy interventions must target these overlapping systems in order to be successful.

 

B. Educational Contexts

Disparagement in education may be the result of dissimilarities between the cultural backgrounds of students and the cultures of educational institutions. For instance, kids from working-class backgrounds may experience feelings of devaluation when they are in academic environments that place a high importance on competition and independence. This can result in self-threat and unfair treatment from teachers (Michelmore, & Rich, 2023). In addition, there is a substantial correlation between long-term exposure to contextual disadvantage in families, schools, and neighborhoods and racial and socioeconomic gaps in educational outcomes. Gender and social identity stereotypes significantly influence students' self-concept and academic performance, with classroom attitudes and peer dynamics being crucial factors (Andersen & Smith, 2022).

 

C.  Health and Healthcare Contexts

In the field of healthcare, disparagement manifests itself in the form of inequalities in access, quality, and outcomes that are determined by a patient's race, ethnicity, mental health state, or socioeconomic background. As a consequence of systematic biases, biases exhibited by providers, and structural restrictions, these inequities persist, which leads to underrepresented populations experiencing worse health outcomes (Conn, 2025).

 

D. Interpersonal and Relational Contexts

The perception of disparagement at the interpersonal level varies based on the status and relationship of individuals who are participating. Jokes that are told by people who are of a higher social status or who are members of out-groups are seen to be more hurtful and less acceptable, particularly when those jokes are directed at groups who are marginalized. Depending on the context, which includes cultural norms and power relations, disparagement can be perceived and experienced in different ways (Weitz & Koç, 2022).

 

2.2 Presupposition

A presupposition denotes the assumptions inherently embedded within the linguistic structure of texts, linking linguistic elements to extralinguistic context through inferences that are likely to be derived about this context (Levinson, 1983, p.68). Yule (1996) asserts that speakers consistently formulate their language messages based on assumptions on the prior knowledge of their listeners. A speaker's assumptions regarding what is true or known by the listener are termed presuppositions (pp. 131-132).

Akmajian et al. (1995) define presupposition as “an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse”.

 

Yule (1996) asserts that presumption is typically characterized as stability despite negation. This indicates that despite the negation of a statement's assumption, the presupposition itself remains unaltered. According to Grundy (2008), there are two approaches to determine presuppositions; either through presupposition triggers, or to think of them as expressions with shared background belief of knowledge.

 

Building on Grundy's (2008) perspective, both methods of identifying presuppositions will be used in this study's data analysis. It will start by looking at presupposition triggers, which are particular lexical or grammatical components found in meme texts that typically indicate underlying preconceptions. Second, it will take into account presuppositions as statements that represent socially or culturally established ideas and are based on shared background knowledge between the viewers and the meme creator. By combining these two approaches, the study can make a thorough examination of the hidden meanings included in the memes, exposing the ways in which presupposed information aids in the creation of disparagement.

 

Levinson (1983, p.217) posits that presupposition is typically viewed as a "heterogeneous collection of quite distinct and different phenomena". He further asserts that presupposition denotes the assumptions or inferences inherent in language utterances. According to this view, presupposition connects linguistic structure with extralinguistic context by inferences derived from the linguistic structure itself.

This work synthesizes Yule’s (2000) typology of presuppositions and Levinson’s (1983) list of presupposition triggers to elucidate the functioning of implicit assumptions in memes. Yule's approach classifies presupposition types, including existential, factive, lexical, structural, and counterfactual, whereas Levinson's analysis identifies the linguistic triggers that indicate these presuppositions within context.

 

2.2.1 Yule’s (1996) Classification of Presupposition Types

Yule (2000) asserts that the extensive utilization of diverse terminologies, expressions, and constructs is equivalent with assumption. These linguistic forms are recognized as possible presupposition indicators and can only manifest as actual presuppositions in connection to the speaker or writer. He identifies six types of presupposition utilized by the researcher: existential, factive, non-factive, lexical, structural, and counterfactual. The following elucidations pertain to the six categories of presumption. The sign (≫) denotes "presupposition."

 

1. Existensial Presupposition

Existential presupposition is a type of presupposition that implies existence. A presumption regarding the existence of an entity denoted by a noun phrase. For example:

(1)     Mary has a new car.

≫ Mary exists and she has a new car.

 

2. Factive Presupposition

The presupposition can be shown by certain verbs that are regarded as a fact such as know, learn, regret, discover, understand, hear, notice, resent, accept, enjoy, tolerate, recall, and realize, which all imply the factual accuracy of their objects. Moreover, factive predicates such as "be sorry that," "be proud that," "be glad that," "be aware that," "the fact that," and "be sad that" might serve as presuppositional triggers (Brinton & Brinton, 2010). For example:

 

(2)     Jacob realized that he was in trouble.

≫Jacob was in fact in trouble.

 

 

 

3. Lexical Presupposition

When people talk about something that is traditionally understood, they usually use one form with its asserted meaning, assuming that the other meaning is also understood. For example:

 

(3)The crowd begin to laugh.

               >> the crowd did not laugh before.

(4)He stops searching the document.

>> he was searching the document before.

 

4. Structural Presupposition

The presupposition is linked to some types of phrases in which the speaker treats them as already known facts and accepts them as true about the listeners.

You can see that in the way Wh- questions are made, which is when the information after the Wh-question is already known to be true.  For example:

 

(5) Where did you buy the bike?

>> You bought the bike.

 

5. Non Factive Presupposition

The presumption relates to specific verbs that are regarded as being false. Dream, imagine, and pretend are verbs of a similar kind. Individuals who typically presume that the subsequent information is inaccurate.

For example:

 

(6)  I dreamed that I was rich.

>> I was not rich.

(7) He pretends to be ill.

>> He is not ill

 

6. Counterfactual Presupposition

This form creates a preconception that contradicts the facts or reverses reality. The assumption of this form is seen in the application of if-clause constructions when the data is inaccurate at the given time. For example:

(8) If you were my friend, you would have helped me.

>> You are not my friendز

3. Data Analysis

Meme 1

Happy INTL Women’s Day!! (Imgflip, n.d.).