The LISP Presupposition Tagset

In the strategic arena of a courtroom, what remains unsaid is often as powerful as what is explicitly stated. The LISP project explores this "hidden" dimension by analyzing lawyers' pleadings—texts explicitly designed to persuade and guide a judge’s interpretation. At the core of our research is a specialized annotation tagset focused on presuppositions.

The Strategy of "Non-Bona Fide" Implicits

Our tagset does not simply record every implicit message. We focus exclusively on Non-Bona Fide True (NBFV) implicits. While standard "Bona Fide" communication uses implicits for textual economy (saving time by assuming shared knowledge), NBFV implicits are used strategically to "smuggle" controversial, weak, or unproven information into the Common Ground.
By presenting a claim as a presupposition rather than a direct statement, lawyers can bypass the receiver's epistemic vigilance (critical defense). This leads to shallow processing, where the judge or opponent processes the information less attentively, making it harder to challenge.

Presupposition Subtypes: The "What"

We classify presuppositions based on their linguistic triggers—the specific words or structures that force a reader to accept a premise as true. The LISP tagset identifies seven key subtypes:

  • Definite Descriptions (PPP_DDEF): These use definite articles ("the") or possessives ("his/her") to present a concept as an established fact.
  1. Evaluative (V): These include judgmental adjectives, such as "the father’s negligence," where the fault is treated as a given.
  2. Neutral (N): Descriptions without explicit evaluation, like "the contract".
  • Iterative Adverbs (PPP_ITER): Words like "again" or "repeatedly" which presuppose that an event has occurred before.
  • Focusing Adverbs (PPP_FOC): Triggers like "also," "even," or "only" that presuppose the existence of other similar scenarios or entities.
  • Change of State/Aspectual Verbs (PPP_ASP): Verbs such as "stop," "continue," or "remain" which presuppose that a previous state of affairs was already in progress.
  • Factive Predicates (PPP_FACT): Expressions like "to realize," "to know," or "it is a shame that" which treat the content of a subordinate clause as an undeniable truth.
  • Relative Clauses (PPP_REL): Particularly non-restrictive or participial forms (e.g., "The company, which had already been warned...") that place information in the "background," making it less "at-issue" and thus harder to contest.
  • Subordinate Clauses (PPP_SUB): Clauses introduced by "when," "after," or "since" that anchor a claim in a context the reader is subtly forced to accept before reaching the main verb.

Pragmatic Functions: The "Why"

Identifying the trigger is only the first step. To understand the persuasive intent, the LISP tagset assigns a Pragmatic Function to every implicit. We analyze why the lawyer chose to hide a specific message:

  • CRITICISM (CRT): The implicit is used to attack or negatively evaluate a specific target, such as the opposing party or a specific behavior.
  • DEFENSE (DEF): The implicit serves to justify a client's actions, presenting a decision or behavior as understandable, legitimate, or inevitable.
  • STANCE (STK): The lawyer uses the implicit to express a general principle or interpretative orientation without attacking a specific individual.
  • INFORMATION (INF): Used for neutral context-building, providing factual or procedural details about the case.
  • CLIENT BOOSTING (SPR): The implicit aims to present the client in a positive light, highlighting their diligence or good character.
  • THIRD-PARTY PRAISE (OPR): Used to highlight the positive work of actors like social services or the court.

Conclusion

The LISP tagset provides a rigorous framework for mapping the "unsaid" in legal discourse. By analyzing these types and functions, we can quantify the degree of implicitness in lawyers' pleadings and observe how hidden language is used to convey stereotypes or influence the outcome of sensitive cases, such as those involving sexual violence or family law. Our goal is to enhance legal transparency and foster a more conscious use of language in the justice system.