Qualitative analysis reveals six presupposition types in CNN's online news, suggesting effective communication.
In the digital era, people can obtain information using communication devices. The spread of information on social media is an important factor in understanding its meaning. The language used still has its own rules for communication. It has different meanings or perspectives depending on the person who interprets it. Therefore, this study aims to identify the presuppositions contained in viral news. In general, analyzing language or speech can be identified from anywhere, one of which is news. Therefore, the object of this research is the presupposition found in CNN's news style regarding THE DEATH OF LIAM PAYNE EX ONE DIRECTION PERSONNEL. This presupposition is seen in how the assumptions or inferences implied in the language utterance help provide additional meaning and estimate the context of the language, the language in discourse, conversation or others using Yule's (1996, pp.26-30) which calcifies that Presupposition has six types, they are existential, factive, non-factive, lexical, structural, and counterfactual. However, there are two additional additions, namely adverbial and relative additions. Considering these factors, this study used a qualitative descriptive design. The reason for choosing a qualitative descriptive design is that "the aim of qualitative descriptive research is a comprehensive summary, in everyday terms, of specific events experienced by individuals or groups of individuals" (Lambert & Lambert, 2012). From the results of the analysis and identification, 12 presuppositions were found in the written online news text; adverbial 3 (21.4%), factive 2 (14%), lexical 2 (14%), non-factive 1 (7%), relative 1 (7%), existential 2 (14%), and counter 1 (7%). The most dominant type of presupposition found in the CNN news transcript is factive presupposition. Factive presuppositions are the most common type of presupposition found in news texts they provide accurate information and contain facts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Herman et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: