语用学 预设The problematic properties
语用学预设
H
9
1.2．罗素的摹状词说
英国哲学家罗素（Bertrand Russell）1905年提出 “摹状词理论\描写理论”，反对弗雷格的预设理论。 认为当一个摹状词没有专指时，包含它的句子仍然有 真假值。
他认为像“某某人”这些定指描写不像想象的那样只 有简单的逻辑对应形式，虽然在自然语言中是以主语 形式出现，但是在逻辑形式中不是逻辑主语，而是对 应一系列命题的联接。
presupposition that the simple or compound proper names
used have a reference.）”也就是说，一个句子预设了 它所包含的专有名称有所指，即预设了单独名称所
表示的对象存在。
例如我们说“小明学习很用功。” 预设为有“小明”这个人存在。
语义预设是两个命题之间的关系,而语用预设 是话语同一个命题之间的关系。（麦考莱）
H
20
语用预设
语用学研究中，预设作为一种语用推理,是一种依 赖于语境的意义。它是说话人组织信息的策略,并受 说话人对听话人所谈事物的熟悉程度的估计的影响。
语用预设一般被认为是言语交际双方都已知的信 息,或是根据言语上下文的语境至少可以推断出的信 息,因此这些信息会被看作是已交际的一部分无需陈 述出来。利用语用预设,可以让受众领悟到所要表达 的本意,也可使表达更加灵活多变。
Gottlob Frege, the first philosopher who brought presupposition to the notice of the scholarly world, published an article “On Sense and Reference” in 1892. He went on to examine the sense and reference of sentences.
语用预设理论在文学文本翻译中的应用
2332019年45期总第485期ENGLISH ON CAMPUS语用预设理论在文学文本翻译中的应用文/王美懿面意义，或是预设触发语在出发语文化中的语用含义与其在目标语文化中的语用含义相同或相似的情形。
众所周知，巴伐利亚水晶杯，波兰茶杯，以及银器都是西方国家用来接待尊贵客人的器具，所以在这里采用直译，如例1所示。
例1：We were taken immediately to a small building inthe back garden, where two long tables had been set for 21 with matching china and silver, Bavarian crystal tumblers and teacups from Poland.我们被直接带到后花园的一幢小楼里，那里有两张可以款待二十一人用餐的长桌子，每一张桌面上都整齐摆放着相称的陶瓷器物和银器，还有巴伐利亚水晶的玻璃杯和来自波兰的茶杯。
直译法还得被广泛使用于这种情况：当原文的作者有意堆砌了一系列意向或是文中有着紧密的，难以分割的逻辑结构，而其内容也不存在跨文化理解的硬伤，我们选择使用直译法，不仅可以表达原汁原味，更有助于译入语国家读者品味作者行文时的心境，达到最佳的传播效果。
如例2所示：例2：初一看文字只是工具，但中国这么大，组成这么复杂，各个方言系统这么强悍，地域观念、族群观念、门阀观念这么浓烈，连农具、器用、口音、饮食都统一不了，要统一文字又是何等艰难！With different dialect systems in different regions andstrong regionalism, ethnic concept and the distinguishedfamily concept, China is so big and complicated that it can’t even unify agriculture implements, instruments, accents anddiets. How difficult it is for China to unify text!Georgia On My Mind一文按照情节发展顺序记录了作者一行人，从美国来到格鲁吉亚参加异常极具当地特色的晚宴的过程，其描写细腻，充满着字里行间的严密逻辑性。
第六章 语用学(预设和
第四节 语言的接触
三、多语共用 （一）社团双语和个人双语 （二）自然双语和 认为双语 四、语言接触 （一）语言融合的成因 （二）语言融合的方式：1、自愿融合 2、被迫 融合 五、语言混合：1、皮钦语 2、克里奥尔语
二、地域方言
（一）地域方言的成因 1、交际的阻隔 2、异族语言的影响 （二）地域方言的差异 （三）地域方言的发展
地域方言的论述《颜氏家训 音辞篇》
“自兹厥后，音韵铎出，各有土风，递相非笑，指马之喻，未知孰是。 共以帝王都邑，参校方俗，考核古今，为之折衷。榷而量之，独金 陵与洛下耳。南方水土和柔，其音清举而切旨，失在浮浅，其辞多 鄙俗。北方山川深厚，其音沈浊而讹钝，得其质直，其辞多古语， 然冠冕君子，南方为优；闾里小人，北方为愈。易服而与之谈，南 方士庶，数言可辩；隔垣而听其语，北方朝野，终日难分。而南染 吴越，北杂夷虏，皆有深弊，不可具论。其谬失轻微者，则南人以 钱为涎，以石为射，以贱为羡，以是为舐。北人以庶为戍，以紫为 姊，以洽为狎，如此之例，两失甚多。“
b. Assertion:drink(Akiu,red wine)
指示语的类型
指示语一般分为：人称指示、时间指示、空间指 示、社交指示、语篇指示。 人称代词的人称指示用法： 谁去呢？ 我去——你去——您去 我们去——咱们去 我们去，你留下。
指示语的常规用法和变异用法
（1）荔枝原产我国，是我国的特产。（我=我 们） （2）我们要介绍的祥子，不是“骆驼”，因为 “骆驼”……（我们=我） （3）他这个人很内向，你问他十句，他才回答 你一句。（不定指：你、他）
（二）预设触发语
刍议英汉翻译中的语用预设
刍议英汉翻译中的语用预设摘要：译者在翻译过程中应发挥主观能动性，透视语言使用的思维特征，正确认识预设的思维，置原作者和读者的预设于自己的预设框架之下，试图实现视域的融合，传达出原语的真实含义。
本文主要对英汉翻译中的语用预设进行探讨。
关键词：英汉翻译语用预设思维预设是语句的基础，所以它必须是真的，否则语句就会不合逻辑、不能被别人接受。
我们可以否定一个语句，但是不能否认语句的预设。
预设不是字面之义，而是字里之义。
一个语句的预设需要通过具体的语境，从该语句本身推导出来。
如果说语义预设是使一个语句具有真值性的条件，语用预设就是在交际过程中使一个语句具有恰当性的条件。
一个语句或话语的语用预设就是保证该语句具有恰当性。
所谓“恰当性”，是指语句在当时的交际环境中是合适的、恰当的。
1语用预设概述所谓语用预设，是说话语境中所包含的使话语形式得以成立有效的条件。
说话语境有说话的具体情景，包括说话的时间、地点、人物、事件；语境也有涵盖说话环境的说话的社会文化背景，包括说话的社会文化事件、社会思潮和观念、文化心理心态以及各种社会文化组织。
说话语境是客观存在，它向话语形式提供什么条件是语境与话语特定形式相联系后由话语形式触发的。
预设的语用分析，在真值以外还必须在语言意义的分析中引入一个“恰当性”概念。
恰当性概念使语句跟语境发生联系，语句的恰当性通过类型的交际准则制定出来的。
2语用预设在翻译中的作用预设在翻译中的作用首先体现在文本意义的传递上。
译界也一直认为，翻译是在译语中用最近似的自然对等的表达再现原语的信息，首先在意义，其次在风格。
但意义却是纷繁复杂，需要译者运用合理的思维在相关的语境中进行推理才能获得合适的意义。
有时同一字眼所表达的意思在不同语境下大相径庭。
这就要求译者在理解翻译文本时，不应固执地坚持在以往实践中所形成的预设，而应将之置于作者的视域之下，将语境因素纳入考虑的范围，分析语言的内涵与外延，最终扩展自己的预设，形成合理的译文。
浅析英语中的预设触发语分类是否存在于汉语中
浅析英语中的预设触发语分类是否存在于汉语中作者：黄娣来源：《卷宗》2020年第08期摘要：预设是语用学中一个重要的概念，预设触发语是在预设的基础上产生的，本文试图以前人研究为依据，分析和问卷调查为辅助，在列文森英语的预设触发语分类的基础上探讨英语中的预设触发语是否也存在于汉语中。
关键词：预设;预设触发语;英语;汉语1 前言在汉语里，通过使用预设，说话者往往能达到特定的目的。
预设这个哲学概念最初是在1892年由德国哲学家弗雷格提出的，20世纪60年代，预设在被引入语言学领域的同时逐渐成为语用学中一个重要的概念。
预设指的是「something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance」，即发话者在说出某个特定句子时所作的假设或前提，要实现预设功能，需要通过预设触发语即某些特定的词、短语、句子结构等。
2 前人研究卡图南在其著作《预设现象》中总结了31种预设触发语，列文森以此为基础归纳成13类，分别是：1）确定性的描述;2）叙实动词，如regret，know等;3）连带动词，诸如manage，happen to等;4）表示状态改变的动词，譬如stop，start;5）反复词语，如again，anymore;6）判断性动词，如criticize，apologize等;7）时间从句;8）分裂句;9）含强调成分的隐性分裂句式;10）表示比较和对照的句子;11）非限制性关系从句;12）反事实条件句;13）问句[1]。
国内学者关于现代汉语预设触发语的研究的代表人物蓝纯基于列文森（Levinson）对英语预设触发语的分类将汉语预设触发语分为9类：1）特指描写;2）事实性动词，如知道、明白、懂得;3）表示状态变化的词;4）重述词;5）时间状语从句;6）强调句;7）对比结构;8）与事实相悖的条件从句;9）问句。
[2]可以看出，汉语预设触发语的分类与英语预设触发语的分类有重合部分。
课堂上教师的语用学预设
课堂上教师的语用学预设随着教育教学的不断发展，语用学在课堂教学中扮演了越来越重要的角色。
语用学作为一个相对年轻的学科，研究的是语言在社交交际中的运用方式及其与上下文间的关系。
教师在课堂上运用语用学知识，可以更好地指导学生学习英语，提高教学效果。
教师在教学中的语言运用是课堂上的重要一环。
教师的语用学预设，即教师对于学生们在课堂上实施的语言活动所选择的、以及所期待的语用行为，是教师行为的重要组成部分。
首先，教师要了解教学目标，为学生营造一个适当的语境。
教师需要明确教学目标，在课程设计方面考虑到学生的需求，为学生营造一个适当的语境。
例如在教授商务英语时，教师需要设置一个商务场景，并让学生理解在商业场景中适用的商务用语及语言风格，使学生能够理解商务语言的内涵和外延。
其次，教师需要以身作则，示范正向行为。
教师作为学生学习的榜样，不仅需要让学生学习如何说出正确的语音、语法和词汇。
更重要的是，教师将教会学生如何运用语言来交流，了解与他人的互动交流方式，从而培养学生的语言能力和交际技巧。
然后，教师还需要了解语用学的相关理论和知识，为学生构建实现教学目标的语用性任务。
教师需要了解语用学中的常见教学模式和实践，以合适的方式来促进学生的语言学习。
例如，在授课的过程中，教师运用“交流模拟”，通过给学生真实的场景和情境来模拟语言交流，培养学生交际能力。
除此之外，教师还需要了解在语用学中重要的话语策略。
教师应该按照学生的程度以及教学目标，选择特定的话语策略来教授学生。
例如，在教授英语口语的时候，教师会选择加强学生表达意图的策略，例如面部表情和手势，让学生能够清晰地表达自己的意思，并引导学生主动参与口语练习。
最后，教师还需要了解教学内容，并且选择恰当的语体，以提高语言学习效果。
教师需要了解不同的语体类型，并综合教学目标和学生的英语水平，选择合适的语体类型。
例如，在商务英语教学上，教师会选择正式语体来教学，让学生理解商务语言的正式规则和风格要求。
浅谈语言中的预设问题
浅谈语言中的预设问题预设是语用学中一个重要的研究话题，在逻辑学、语义学、语言用学里都有涉及。
预设最早应用于哲学领域，后来逐渐成为语言学的关注对象。
标签：预设哲学语义语用我们先来看生活中的一个故事：有个人过生日，邀请四个好友到家中吃饭。
三个准时到达了，只有一人迟迟未来。
主人有些着急，不禁脱口而出：“急死人了，该来的怎么还没来呢？”其中一人听后，很不高兴的对主人说：“我先告辞了，再见。
”说完就走了。
一个人未到，另一个人又走了，主人急得又冒出一句：“真是的，不该走的却走了。
”剩下的两人中的一个也生气地说：“那好，我也走了。
”说完掉头就走。
又一个人走了，主人更加着急起来。
最后剩下的这位就劝主人：“朋友都被你气走了，以后说话要好好想想。
”主人很无奈地说：“他们全都误会我了，我说的根本不是他们。
”这位朋友听后再也坐不住了，最后也铁青着脸走了。
本来一场欢宴最后却不欢而散，那么主人的哪些话表达有问题，让客人十分恼火，纷纷离开？这是因为他的话里有预设。
预设（presupposition）确实是个极为重要的研究话题。
在逻辑学、语义学和语用学里有很多的研究。
“预设概念从逻辑学向语言学的转移……已带来了诸多争论”，“该术语还不是清楚明白的，一方面是因为从逻辑概念向自然语言的转移并不是由一套转换演算规则支配的；另一方面则是因为，即便在最好情况下，逻辑学和语言学的关系以及两者在自然语言分析中的角色也还是不清楚的。
”①预设甚至在哲学领域也有一定的研究。
最早讨论预设问题的是现代分析哲学先驱弗雷格（Gottlob Frege）。
他在其划时代的论文《论涵义与指称》②里涉及了预设问题。
后来罗素（B. Russell）、斯特劳森（P. F. Strawson）以及其他许多逻辑学家、语言学家继续探讨了这个问题。
德国当代学者布斯曼（H. Bussmann）《语言与语言学词典》对预设的定义是：“（预设是）关于表达或话语的含意的一种不言自明的（含蓄而不言明的）设定。
浅谈语义学中和语用学中的“预设”问题
（） 实 预 设 ２事
事 实 预 设 是 指 交 际 双 方 在 交 流 过 程 中预 先 肯 定
或 否 定 的 一 些 事 实 情 况 ， 无 需 语 境 的 加 入 。 这 类 它 在
预 设 中 ， 们 比较 关 注 由预 设 触 发 语 引 发 的现 象 。 人 例 如 ：真 正 的 去 过 兵 马 俑 之 后 ， 她 就 觉 得 观 景 真 不 如 “ 听 景 。 这 句 话 预 设 “ 去 过 兵 马俑 ” 个 事 实 。 外 ， ” 她 这 另
一
存 在 预 设 是 指 交 际 双 方 对 世 界 上 的 事 物 和 人 的 存 在 的 认 识 ， 种 预 设 的 推 知 不 需 要 语 境 。Ｆ ｅ ｅ认 这 ｒ ｇ
为 关 于 指 称 对 象 的 存 在 预 设 与 语 句 的 真 假 无 关 。 例
、
语义学领域的预设
１语 义 预 设 的 理 论 基 础 ．
如 ： ｉ ａ ｅ ｗ ｓ ｅ ｄ 预 设 “ 有 其 人 ”这 个 预 Ｂ ｎＬ ｄｎ ａ ｄ ａ ． 确 ， 设 是 和 这 个 语 句 的 真 假 （ 本 拉 登 是 否 死 亡 ） 无 即 是
关 的 。
我们之 前 已经提到 语义 学领 域 的预设 研 究句子
本身 固有 的意义 ，不考 虑说 话人 或作 者及 听众 的对
（） 在 预 设 １存
关 系 ， 双 方 交 谈 时 ， 们 有 着 各 方 面 共 同 的 背 景 知 在 他
识 ， 仅 对 所 交 谈 的某 一 特 定 场 合 有 共 同 的 知 识 ， 不 而 且 对 整 个 世 界 有 共 同 的 认 识 。本 文 将 会 对 “ 设 现 预 象 ” 语义 学及语 用学 领域 做一 些简单 的探 讨 。 在
英语语言学概论语用预设[1]
![英语语言学概论语用预设[1]](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/57b07aa0f12d2af90242e6f8.png)
增强预设
（2）故意编造虚假预设，使语气委婉礼貌，避免尴尬。
一位旅馆老板面试甲、乙、丙三位应聘者。 老板：假如你无意中推开房门，看见女房客在洗澡，而她也 看见了你，这时你怎么说？ 甲：说声“对不起”就关门退出。 乙：说声“对不起，小姐，我是无意的”就关门退出。 丙：说声：“对不起，先生”，然后关门出去。 结果，丙被录取了。
甲：啊！我的天，谁把我放在壁炉上的蛋糕吃了？ 乙：我没吃。 甲：还好，幸亏你没吃。 乙：为什么说幸亏没吃呢？ 甲：家里最近耗子太多了，所以我在蛋糕了放了老鼠药。 乙：啊，我中毒了！ 甲：呵呵，亲爱的，没事，是个玩笑，我只不过是想知道谁吃了蛋糕。
此段对话里，甲为了知道是谁吃了蛋糕，故意隐藏意图，强加预设说“ 蛋糕里有老鼠药”，迫使乙说出实情，因此实现自己的目的。
According the sources and origins:
sentence pragmatic presupposition ,text presupposition, the communication roles to the speaker pragmatic presupposition, the listener pragmatic presupposition
预设信息部分是隐含的,稍不留神就会把说话者预设的“断言”当作是真实的 而加以接受。比如,“你是否停止打你老婆了?”这句话本身附着一个预设,即 “你曾经打过你老婆。”对于这一问题,不管回答“是的”还是“没有”,都难 以摆脱以前打过老婆的恶名。这就是预设的隐蔽性,听话人不留心就很容易被 蒙蔽,比如:
甲:你有没有打过人?
消除语句歧义
The tall man and the woman left.
从语义角度看，这是一个歧义句，tall是只修饰man还是修饰了两者？ 事实上，双方都明白当时在场的只有man是高的，正是因为说话人预 设了这一相关背景知识，才如此“模糊”、“简略”地说并确信不会 产生歧义。因此，语用预设可以避免语句歧义的产生。
预设综述
语义预设研究综述Literature Review of Semantic Presupposition 邬登菊1班英语语言理论与应用2014126摘要本文主要对语用学理论中的重要理论—预设理论的重要分支语义预设进行了综述。
全文共分为三大部分。
第一部分交代了语义预设理论的产生背景、定义等内容。
第二部分主要介绍语义预设理论的特点和核心内容以及操作方法。
第三部分首先分析了国内外对于该理论的研究，然后指出了一些专家学者对于关联理论所存在的问题所持主要批判，最后针对这些批判的笔者给出了一些自己的看法。
关键词：语用学；预设；语义预设；综述AbstractThis paper outlined the overall aspects of the semantic presupposition theory，which is one of the most important part of the presopposition theory. This paper is devided into three parts. In the first part the background and definition are illustrated. The second part goes to the core contents and the operations of semantic presupposition. The third part mainly deals with the literature review of this theory，including home and abroad. At the end of this paper the approval and criticism are demonstrated，then some comments will be offered on these ideas.Key words：semantic presupposition; definition; literature review; criticism一、产生背景预设(Presupposition)是预先假定、预先设定的意思。
浅议语义预设及语用的预设-模板
浅议语义预设及语用的预设1、预设理论简介Frege最早讨论预设问题 ,他说 :当我们说到“月亮”时 ,我们预设了该指称的存在。
当今当今西方语言学界对预设有一种常见定义 ,是通过与“蕴涵”相区别而给出的。
所谓蕴是一个语句的逻辑后果 ,而预设则是一个话语的前提条件。
Kempson总结过蕴涵与预设的别: A蕴涵 B,则当且仅当:A 真B必真 ,A假 B可真可假 ,B假 A必假;A预设 B,则当且仅当 :A真B必真,A 假B亦真,B假A可真可假。
例如:“张三不再爱李四”蕴涵“张三现在不爱李四”并且预设“张三曾经爱李四”。
Levinson则直接利用“蕴涵”概念给出了这样一个定义: A预设了B,则当且仅当:A蕴涵了B,并且非A也蕴涵了 B。
试以 Russell给出的一个着名例子为例: “The King of France is wise.”(A)蕴涵了“There is a present king of France.”(B),前者矛盾命题“The King of France is not wise.”(非A)同样蕴含了“There is a p resent king of France.” (B)。
从以上的论述可以看出,预设具有这样一个根本特征:即使在否定命题下,预设仍保持为一个常值。
2、语义预设语义预设的基础理论预设的语义研究始于英国着名哲学家斯特劳逊,他在《逻辑理论导论》(1952)一书中对预设进行了如下定义:“一个命题S预设S’,而且仅当S’是S有真值或假值的必要条件。
”语义学领域的预设是建立在真值条件语义理论(truth -conditional semantics)的基础上的。
如:(1a) Mark’s father bought him a book.(1b) Mark has a father.在真值条件语义逻辑下 ,这两句话的真实性关系可以描述为 :如果 (1a)是真实 (true)的,则(1b)是真实 (true)的 ;如果 (1a)是虚假(false)的 ,则 (1b)还是真实 (true)的 ;如果(1b)是真实 (true)的, 则 (1a)是真实 (true)或虚假 (false)的。
语义学及语用学中_预设_问题的若干研究
2005年5月湖北教育学院学报M ay.2005第22卷第3期Jo urna l ofH ube i Instit u te of Educatio n Vo.l22No.3语义学及语用学中/预设0问题的若干研究马崴(湖北工业大学外语系,武汉430065)摘要:在语义学和语用学领域中,/预设0问题都是一个存在很多争议以及不可避免的问题。
本文粗略地介绍了语义学及语用学中/预设0的概念及其区别与联系,并通过分析/预设失灵0及/预设撤销0等两个问题探讨了预设在语义及语用两个领域的运用。
关键词:语义学;语用学;预设中图分类号:H03文献标识码:A文章编号:1007-1687(2005)03-0026-03作者简介:马崴(1977-),男,湖北工业大学外国语学院,讲师。
研究方向:语义学,语用学。
y/预设0(presupposition另一种译法/前提0)是语义学和语用学中的重要概念。
在上个世纪70年代曾有大量文献讨论这个概念。
预设概念的发展是随着语用学的发展而发展的。
正如语用学本身是以研究在语境中语言的意义;而语义学研究的领域是在不考虑语境的情况下语言内在所固有的含义。
语义学和语用学在预设概念上存在着研究领域的不同。
在语义学的领域中,预设研究来源于哲学研究,研究句子本身固有的意义,不考虑说话人或作者及听众的对语言的背景知识的理解,语义学中的预设是以逻辑学中的真值条件为基础的概念;而在语用学的领域中,预设不仅涉及到语言而且涉及到人,不把预设单纯看作话语和所产生的预设之间的逻辑关系)))在双方交谈时,他们有着各方面共同的背景知识(mu t u al back2 ground),不仅对所交谈的某一特定场合有共同的知识,而且对整个世界有共同的认识。
在很多语言学者如le w is,Sta l n aker,w ilson等看来,预设实质上是一个语用学概念而非语义学的范围,因为以真值条件为基础的预设确实存在一些解决不了的问题,如在下文中要分析到的/预设失灵0等现象,而在另一些学者的眼中,预设可以分作语义和语用两类。
浅议语用预设在广告翻译中的重要性
浅议语用预设在广告翻译中的重要性【摘要】语用预设相对于话语理解而言应该具备合适性和共知性，而其本身则具有单向性、主观性和隐蔽性。
广告用语对语用预设的利用很大程度上反映了这种策略性。
【关键词】语用预设；广告用语；特点On Pragmatic Presupposition in AdvertisingLIU Rong( College of Foreign Languages,Three Gorges University,Yichang Hubei, 443002)【Abstract】Felicity and shared ness, which are essential to utterance understanding in advertisements are often attributable to the pragmatic presuppositions. The pragmatic presupposition is one-way, subjective and latent in its application. Appropriate exploitation of these features in verbal advertising may contribute to the persuasiveness of ads and the potential promotion of business.【Key words】Pragmatic presupposition;Advertisement;Features语用学作为新兴的语言学分支，紧紧抓住语言的交际功能这个言语的中心环节，注意揭示语用因素在言语作品中的地位和作用。
语用学认为，任何言语作品都具有交际功能，都是为达到一定的交际目的服务的，而言语作品为达到交际目的所采用的形式和表达的内容，以及言语作品的这些内容和形式所引起读者的态度和实际达到的效果，就是言语作品的语用因素。
语用学 预设The problematic properties
4.3.1
Defeasibility
One of the peculiar things about presuppositions is that they are liable to evaporate in certain contexts, either immediate linguistic context or the less immediate discourse context, or in circumstances where contrary assumptions are made.
(87) If the Vice-Chancellor invites Simone de Beauvoir (西蒙·德·波伏娃，法国著名存在主义作家，女权运动的 创始人之一) to dinner, he'll regret having invited a feminist to his table (88) If the Vice-Chancellor invites the U.S. President to dinner, he'll regret having invited a feminist to his table
▶ 第一个分句Sue has never been a Mormon为真
Only Mormons habitually wear holy underwear
☞ Sue never did wear holy underwear
与(92)矛盾，(92)被取消
▶ 第一个分句Sue has never been a Mormon为假 ☞ Sue was a Mormon Only Mormons habitually wear holy underwear ☞ Sue used to wear holy underwear 与(92)一致 ∴ The whole sentence (90) shares this presupposition (92) with (91). 由stop激活的预设(92)在either. . . or 的语义框架中成立，成为交际者认知语境的一部 分，因而上升为整个句子的预设。
语用预设文档
语⽤预设⽂档预设⼀、预设是语⾔哲学研究的课题之⼀1892年弗雷格提出“预设”这个术语。
⼆、语⾔学家对预设的关注是从他们对语义关系的研究开始的斯特劳森——区分句⼦和句⼦的使⽤。
句⼦没有真假，只有句⼦做出的陈述才有真假。
蕴涵（entailment）【哲学、逻辑学】涵蕴性(关系)——陈述S1蕴涵⼀个陈述S2——S1 S2预设（presupposition）斯特劳斯认为是⼀种特殊的语⽤推理（pragmatic inference）。
它跟逻辑含义或蕴涵不同，它是从指别词语(referring expressions)的使⽤规约得出的⼀种推理。
否定测试法（negation test）(1)John managed to stop in time.从(1)中可推断出：(2)John stopped in time.(3)John tried to stop in time.现在取(1)的否定得出(4)：(4)John didn’t manage to stop in time.三、预设触发语预设跟某些特定的词（例如例句(1)中的manage）相联系，我们把这些产⽣预设的词语叫做预设触发语（Presupposition-triggers）。
卡图南（L.Kartttunen）——《预设现象》(Presuppositional phenomenon)⼀⽂中收集了31种预设触发语。
列⽂森(1983：181-184)挑选的预设触发语的⼀些例句。
(5)定指描写(Definite description)John saw/didn’t see the man with two heads.》there exists a man with two heads.(6)叙实动词(Factive verbs)Martha regrets/doesn’t regret John’s home brew.》Martha drank John’s home brew.(7)含义动词(Implicative verbs)John forgot/didn’t forget to lock the door.》John ought to have locked, or intended to lock, the door.(8)状态变化动词(Changes of state verbs)John stopped/didn’t stop beating his wife.》John had been beating his wife.(9)表⽰重复的词(Iterativers)The flying saucer came/didn’t come again.》The flying saucer came before.(10)判断动词(Verbs of judging)Agatha accused/didn’t accuse Ianof plagiarism.》(Agatha thinks) plagiarism is bad.(11)时间从句(Temporal clauses)Before Strawson was ever born, Freg noticed/didn’t notice presupposition.》Strawson was born.(12)分裂句(Cleft sentences)It was/wasn’t Henry that kissed Rosie.》Someone kissed Rosie.(13)带重⾳成分的隐形性分裂句(Implicit clefts with stressed constituents)John did/didn’t compete in the OLYMPICS.》John did compete somewhere.(14)⽐较和对⽐(Comparisons and Contrasts)Carol is/isn’t a better linguist than Barbara.》Barbara is a linguist.(15)⾮限制性关系从句(Non-restrictive relative clauses)The Proto-Harrappans, who flourished 2800-2605B.C., were/were not great temple builders.》The Proto-Harrappans flourished 2800-2650B.C..(16)违反实际的条件句(Counterfactual conditions)If Hannibal had only had twelve more elephants, the Romance Languages would/would not this day exist.》Hannibal didn’t have twelve more elephants.(17)疑问句(是⾮问句，选择问句，特殊问句)(17.1)Is there a professor of linguistics at MIT?》Either there is a professor of linguistics at MIT or there isn’t.(17.2)Is Newcastle in England or is it in Australia?》Newcastle is in England or Newcastle is in Australia.(17.3)Who is the professor of linguistics at MIT?》Someone is the professor of linguistics at MIT.四、语义预设和语⽤预设1、语义预设(Semantic presupposition)——卡茨和兰根道(Katz and Langendoen,1976)1.1关于可取消性(defeasibility)：导致预设消失的语境因素分为两种：语境中的语⾔因素和语境中的⾮语⾔因素。
语用预设的认知
1. Introduction1.1 Necessity and Significance of the StudyThe study of presupposition has been the most problematic and controversial areas in linguistic research. From its origin in philosophical study to semantics and pragmatics, many researchers proposed lots of definitions and described presupposition from various perspectives. Meanwhile, they had made much contribution to the study of pragmatic presupposition and is hard for me to make something new. But it is possible for me to try to analysis the pragmatic presupposition from a new perspective—Language Network of Word Grammar.Word Grammar (henceforward: WG) is a theory of language which touches on almost all aspects of synchronic linguistics and unifies them all through a single very general claim (Hudson 1984: 1):The Network Postulate: Language is a conceptual network.Pragmatic presupposition is treated as the knowledge presupposed beforehand between two parties in verbal munication. And language plays the basic role in the munication. In WG, language is nothing but a network– there are no rules, principles, or parameters to plete the work. The nodes mean a notion of language and links point to the relations between the notions. And Isa is a standard notation in WG diagrams: asmall triangle whose base is next to the supercategory and whose apex is connected to the subcategories. (The triangle is iconic: the base is larger than the apex, as thesupercategory is larger than the subcategories.) The line may point in any direction,so all three diagrams are equivalent. Isa links allow multiple default inheritance and the exceptions which override defaults.Therefore, the Language Network Theories will be applied to analyze the pragmatic presupposition from three aspects broadly in this thesis—situational presupposition, shared knowledge and defeasibility of presupposition. The cognitive analysis of context and interpretation to the presupposition with the language network model contributes to spreading of this thesis.1.2 Purpose of the StudyThis study aims to analyze the activating process of Language Network to understand the pragmatic presupposition: using some conceptions of WG to analyze the examples and connecting them with the pragmatic presupposition. From the case of study, this paper tries to connect the Language Network with the pragmatic presupposition. It is hoped that the analysis of Language Network will contributeto developping the study of the pragmatic presupposition from a new perspective.2. Literature ReviewBefore we go further on the issue of the pragmatic presupposition, we will introduce the study history of pragmatic presupposition. Presupposition, originally a topic in philosophy and logics, was first advanced by a German philosopher, Frege in 1982 in his paper On Sense and Reference. Later, Strawson, an English linguist, developed Frege’s views on presupposition, which he regarded as a special inference relation in natural language. He thought that any sentences with certain meaning, mayproduce one or more presuppositions.1960s saw the turning point of language study from Structuralism to (Chomsky’s) TG and cognitive linguistics. A great revolution was raised in language study by TG. Both TG and cognitive linguistics lay the stress on the mental study of language. Particularly the latter considers language as the bination of such factors as objective reality, human cognition, physiological basis, i.e. language is not an independent system. Only by parison with the cognitive process, can we get scientific and believable language explanations (Wang Yin, 2002).Later, with the development of semantics, presupposition got much attention which was studied as a presupposition relation by the linguists. Wei Zaijiang (2003: 32-35) had divided the pragmatic presupposition into several types such as truth, belief presupposition, state presupposition, behavior presupposition, culture presupposition and pun presupposition. Professor He Ziran (1997) thought that pragmatic presupposition was “the presupposed relation which was connected with the belief, attitude and intention of the speaker (or the listener)”. Professor He Zhaoxiong (2000) pointed that pragmatic presupposition can be understood as follows: (1) the speaker has his own understanding to natural language environment and some presuppositions. Basing on those presuppositions, the speaker can spread munication. And the pragmatic presupposition is the background information of the speech. (2) The pragmatic presupposition is a necessary condition to speech act. When the speaker is making speech, he/she must presuppose the necessary condition which makes the speech act reasonable. (3) Pragmatic presupposition is the mutual knowledge inmunication. And it also presents that the speaker would presuppose the listener known.However, the previous study of pragmatic presupposition mostly concerns about the form of linguistic presentation, this thesis will introduce a new way-- Language Network Model to analyze the pragmatic presupposition.Language Networks: a new word grammar is a grammar work published by Oxford University Press in 2007, written by Richard Hudson who is the academician of academy of social science of Britain, professor of London University and the founder of the theory of words and expressions terms. He treats vocabulary as the central part and thinks that the grammar structure depends on the interdependence of vocabularies.(Hudson, 2007)In WG language is considered as a network which can be used to describe every aspect of linguistics. Broadly speaking, both WG and Structuralism consider the language as a network, while WG has not pointed out the strict difference between system and structure, bination and aggregation. So the links among nodes mixes in a single network. Meanwhile, according to WG, language does not totally depend on the language system but closely connected with the cognition and experience of human being. Very little language is innate butmost of language is learned from experience. This is the standard answer in cognitive linguistics.Language doesn’t play a particular part in human intelligence but is inserted in an ordinary cognitive network.In this thesis, the cognitive analysis of presupposition will be well presented with the language network model.3. Pragmatic Presupposition and Language NetworkPragmatic presupposition is treated as the known knowledge presupposed beforehand between two parties in verbal munication. It is shared knowledge (or background) and prerequisite for social verbal munication.On this account, pragmatic presupposition is something like the background beliefs of the speaker or propositions whose truth he takes for granted, or seems to take for granted, in making his statement. The pragmatic presupposition mainly studies the relationship of the speaker, listener and context. And it is more likely and reasonably to be used to explain some language phenomena.Therefore, it is necessary to depend on not only the semantic analysis but also the connection among the speaker, listener and context to prehend the meaning of conversation. So it is necessary to introduce the context next.The notion of “context”was formally first advanced by ananthropologist, Malinowski in 1923 in his works The Matter of Meaning in Original Language in which he proposed and interpreted “Context of Situation”. And he considered that discourse and situation are closely connected with each other. The situation of the discourse plays an essential role in the understanding of language.In munication, cognitive petence varies from people, and the cognitive environment and the frame of reference also differ from people. Therefore, in order to achieve a successful munication, both the speaker and the listener should make a mutual cognitive environment. In this mutual cognitive environment, both parties in the same progress of a munication should make a mon cognition and inference. In the relevance—theoretical framework, context of an utterance is one of the importantnotions, and context plays a vital role in meaning prehension in munication, in language social intercourse. A cognitive environment of an individual is a set of facts that are manifest to him. The cognitive environment of a person prises a huge amount of varied information. It is the potential cognitive context, including situational information, co-text (linguistic context), background information, and any of the information could serve as the potential context of an utterance (Gutt 1991: 24). In concrete process of language use, situational information, co-text and background information—the three pragmatic categories are shared by human beings in one society.On one hand, we will mainly study the context of situation and shared knowledge in the later parts. And the shared knowledge can be divided into three categories—mutual knowledge, cultural knowledge as well as encyclopedic knowledge. On the other hand, the language network model will be applied to the study of presupposition. We will introduce some notions of language network model as follows.. Node creation and definition—creating two new nodes for the currentword token: E, for the experience itself, and T, for its ‘type’(which mayalready be classified as a word, so T isaWord). The procedure is basicallythe same whether E is the word currently being perceived or the target ofspeech planning; but in one case it is the form that is already knownwhereas in the other it is the meaning. These new nodes are the currentfocus of attention, so they receive a great deal of activation which willcontinue until E is classified and otherwise ‘dealt with’. E is, of course,linked to all its observed properties.. Spreading activation leads to binding, binding T to the storednode S whichmatches these attributes best. Spreading activationguarantees that S satisfies the Best Fit Principle, i.e. it ensures that S isa better model for E than any other stored concept is.. Default inheritance—selectively inheriting other attributes from S to E, enriches the description of E (or any other token)once E isa some node T by creating a new copy of every property of T, andespecially of properties which are highly active.. Overriding means that the new properties of the sub-node will prevent it from inheriting corresponding properties from a super-node.3.1 Pragmatic Presupposition Based on SituationPragmatic presupposition as part of human cognition is treated as the known knowledge presupposed beforehand betweentwo parties in verbal munication.It is shared knowledge(or background)and prerequisite for social verbalmunication.And situational presupposition is a kind of pragmatic presupposition and closely connected with context, which is defined as the understanding of the utterance based on some certain situation. The situation is the background of the utterance and it is helpful for getting the related information. And situational presupposition has the characters such as new and observable. In brief, the related information should be got at that time immediately. As we know from the above part, in WG the language is treated as a network. When the language is processed or acquired in our brain, the observable features play an important role. And it is the basis forthe understandingof the language.Everything in language can be described formally in terms of nodes and links.New nodes and links are continually being established, and activation levels throughout the network are affected by spreading activation. Spreading activation leads tobinding, binding the new node T to the stored node S which matches these attributes best. Spreading activation guarantees that the stored node satisfies theBest Fit Principle, i.e. it ensures that S is a better model for E than any other stored concept is.We can illustrate pragmatic presupposition based on situation with the following example: He looks like a gangster today.There are many presuppositions in this utterance. For instance, what He looks like, who He is and he does not dress or behave like a gangster usually.Because of the observable features of the pragmatic presupposition in the situation, we can get the information immediately. In other words, the presupposition of this utterance is based on the situation.Therefore, we know who He refers to and what He looks like toeventually understand this utterance.From the perspective of Language Network, a node is established for the linguisticsymbol—He; this node is called as E (for experience). E is linked to its observed properties (size, color, movement, noise, and so on). He has some observable features, such as looking, dressing, bearing, and so on in this situation.All these are the observable features linked to the node E on the basis of this feature and this node can be further processed.According to this model, upon hearing a linguistic symbol, the first step is to create a new node in our brain for this symbol, and then attach to this new node links of all these observable features. As to this example, when hearing the word He, we create a new node for He, and then immediately link it to all the observable features such as looking, dressing, bearing. This is, according to Language NetworkTheory, a very important basis for us to further process it. Obviously, all these observable features mainly derive from the situation in which the linguistic symbol occurs. In this way, we may say that the pragmatic presuppositions based on situation can be explained in terms of the observable features in Language Network Theory. These pragmatic presuppositions are realized in our mind as feature links. As a result, it is evident now what he looks like and how he behaves, which are very important to understand the utterance ‘he looks like a gangster’, es immediately into our brain because it is the way in which our brain works when processing language. Therefore, the role or function of pragmatic presuppositions based on situation can be well explained from the perspective of Language Network Theory.This is the first step in the model of language understanding. Following this step is important another step, which is called binding. In this step, the new node will be integrated into the existing network in our mind and inherit many features which are not explicitly expressed in the situation. For example, if he is someone we known, in this step it will be bound to the node which stands for this known person in our mind. And this node has existed for a long time. This is realized through spreading activation and best fit principle. The following section will go into it in great details. As to pragmatic presupposition based on situations, they only have something to do with the first step, that is, the observable features linked to the new created node.3.2 Pragmatic PresuppositionBased on Shared Knowledge andLanguage NetworkGenerally speaking, the speaker starts conveying information with given information as the basis which serves as the background against which a successfulmunication could be effected. This given information is usually part of the mon knowledge shared by both the addresser and the addressee, and it is necessary if munication is to succeed.As known to all, munication generally proceeds from the given information to new information. In some cases, the given information is explicitly expressed in verbal forms, that is to say, it is overt in munication. But quite frequently, it is implied in context, perceived by the addressee as pragmatic presuppositions. In other words, the given information is expressed in an indirect and covert way.According to what has been discussed in above section, pragmatic presuppositions shared by the participants always derive from contexts. One important subtype of context is shared knowledge, which can be further divided into mutual knowledge, cultural knowledge and encyclopedic knowledge.In essence, they are all shared knowledge, but differ in the scope within which the knowledge is shared. For example, mutual knowledge is what is shared only by the addresser and addressee, and cultural knowledge refers to what is shared by a nation or at least a certain group of people with mon cultural traditions. The encyclopedic knowledge means the knowledge shared by almost all people, or rather, the mon sense.3.2.1 Pragmatic PresuppositionBased on Mutual Knowledge and Language NetworkPresupposition is interpreted as mutual knowledge or mon ground (jointassumption) between the speaker and the hearer engaged in the act of munication. In other words, presupposition is the knowledge shared by the participants engaged in a munication act, which is the basis for the speaker to express himself or herself to the hearer because the speaker believes that the listener can understand what he or she says; just because of the shared knowledge, the hearer is likely to understand the speaker’s meaning correctly. So whether an addresser uses proper mon knowledge to presuppose can directly affect the addressee’s interpretation, and relative mon knowledge can create optimal context for munication.Generally speaking, the encyclopedic and cultural knowledge also belongs to the category of mutual knowledge. But here we explain them separately because of their difference. Concretely, the encyclopedic and cultural knowledge exists not only between the speaker and the hearer but also among a certain group of people because it has been a cultural phenomenon or mon sense in people’s mind. Therefore, the encyclopedic and cultural knowledge has the features such as stable and wide—ranged. On the contrary, mutual knowledge is shared just by the participants engaged in a munication act. The participants may be the two parties or the small group of people in the municative circle. In other words, getting rid of the utterance, the participants can never understand each other based on the mutual knowledge. In short, both the mutual knowledge and the encyclopedic and cultural knowledge have no essential difference but on the range and stability.According to the first part, the first step of language network model is applied to analyze the situational presupposition. Here we will continue the analysis of mutualknowledge using the theories of Best Fit Principle, Spreading Activation and Inheritance.The example to illustrate pragmatic presupposition based on mutual knowledge is cited as follows:one day in a classroom, a speaker saw Jane entering the classroom and said: look,the nightingale is ing.The pragmatic presupposition of this utterance is based on both situation and the mutual knowledge which is only shared by the addressee and addresser.In this situation, from the observable features such as looking, dressing and bearing, the hearer knows the nightingale is a girl or something. But it is difficult to get more information and not explicitly expressed on the situation. So the mutual knowledge plays more important role here in this utterance understanding.Here Jane is called nightingale because Jane had played a role as nightingale in a play and she acted quite successfully. From then on, she has been called nightingale instead of Jane. This is only known to her classmates or friends and stored as knowledge in their mind.The pragmatic presupposition is that Jane is the nightingale.According to the language network model, following the first stepis another important step, which is called binding, involving spreading activation, inheritance and best fit principle.For example, in this utterance, when the speaker says the nightingale is ing, the hearer will naturally get the related information through the observable features such as what she looks like today and what clothes she wears. First the node-nightingale is established. All the corresponding observable features are bound to the node. And there is an existing node-nightingale; we call it E. Upon hearing the speaker says the nightingale is ing,the naturally activate all the pragmaticpresuppositions concerned with the node-nightingale, for these pragmatic presuppositions are stored as feature links in his mind to a existing node E. Then the new node-nightingale will inherit corresponding feature links of the existing node E. As a result, it is evident now Jane is the nightingale, which is very important to understand the utterance.Otherwise, the nightingale may bemistaken for a bird or someone else. Therefore, the function of pragmatic presuppositions based on mutual knowledge can be well explained from the perspective of language network theory.Similarly,the function of pragmatic presuppositions based on culture and encyclopedic knowledge also can be well interpreted from the perspective of language network theory.3.2.2 Pragmatic Presupposition Based on Culture and Language NetworkAccording to the section of 3.2, Encyclopedic andCultural Knowledge is a part of mutual knowledge. But it has its own properties to be studied. Cultural knowledge is represented by the links between cultural reality and cultural background of model. (Yin Qingmei 2005) In short, cultural knowledge refers to what is shared by a nation or at least a certain group of people with mon cultural traditions. The encyclopedic knowledge means the knowledge shared by almost all people, or rather, the mon sense. In other words, not only the listener but also the people who don’t participate in the conversation can understand what the speaker talks about. So in the case, the situation does not play an important role in understanding of the utterance.Cultural knowledgehas the features of being stable and wide—ranged. Referring to the above analysis, we can apply the theories of language network to interpret the pragmatic presuppositions.The following instance is illustrated to interpret the pragmaticpresuppositions based on culture:…As a clergyman, moreover, I feel it my duty to promote and establish the blessing of peace in all families within the reach of my influence, and on these grounds I flatter myself that my present overtures of good –will are highly mendable, and that the circum stance of my being next in the entail of Longboum state will be kindly overlooked on your side, and not lead you to reject the offered olive – branch. (Austin: Pride and Prejudice Ch 13)“Olive – branch” in this article is a word with rich cultural intonation. It means peace. That is an important cultural knowledge: olive – branch symbolizes peace, which originated from the story of Noah’s Ark in Bible. It is widely known.The addressee must know the meaning of “olive-branch”. This knowledge is stored in his or her mind as a part of culture in which he or she has grown up.According to language network theory, first a node—-olive branch—is established.The hearer will naturally activate all the pragmatic presuppositions concerned with olive-branch, for these pragmatic presuppositions are stored as feature links in his mind as a part of culture to the existing node-olive branch.The existing node-olive branch has its cultural meaning like peace.Spreading activation leads to binding, binding the new node to the stored node which matches these attributes best.Spreading activation guarantees that S satisfies theBest Fit Principle, i.e. it ensuresthat this new node is a better model for the existing node than any other stored concept is. Herethe new node is bound to the feature links of the existing node and will inherit the features.All the inheriting attributes from the existing node to the new node, enriches the description of the new node.And the feature links of the olive-branch are established by inheritance. In short, the olive-branch as the pragmatic presupposition based on culture means peace. It is the basis of utterance understanding.3.2.3Pragmatic Presupposition Based on Encyclopedic Knowledgeand Language NetworkAs a part of mutual knowledge, the encyclopedic knowledge means the knowledge shared by almost all people, or rather, the mon sense.The analysis of encyclopedic knowledge according to the language network theory is similar to the analysis of above section.For instance, when a speaker says the sun is rising. The pragmatic presupposition of this utterance is the hearer knows what the sun is. And the speaker takes it for granted. According to the model of language understanding, the node-sun is established.The hearer will naturally activate all the pragmatic presuppositions concerned with the sun, for these pragmatic presuppositions are stored as feature links in his mind as a part of mon sense to the existing node-the sun. The feature links are bound to the new node-the sun. The new node inherits the feature links of the existing node.And the hearer will understand what the speaker means or refers to.In a word, the pragmatic presupposition of this utterance is based on the encyclopedic knowledge.3.3The Defeasibility of Presupposition and Language NetworkDefeasibility means the canceling of presupposition(John Saeed,1997). Here we will talk about that a presupposition is blocked or cancelled whenthe new information occurs.From the perspective of language understanding,it is a way to apply overriding to well explain the defeasibility of the pragmatic presupposition.According to the language network theory,overridingmeans that the new properties of the sub-node will prevent it from inheriting corresponding properties from a ually, the sub-node can inherit the corresponding properties from the super-node. However, the overriding is an exception. It occurs when the sub-node deserves some new properties which conflicts with the properties of the super-category. At that time, the new properties of the sub-node will override the properties of the super-node. Thus the pragmatic presupposition of this utterance is cancelled. And the overriding will lead to the defeasibility of pragmatic presupposition.For example, when a speaker says he sees a dog in the street.The hearer will naturally activate all the pragmatics presuppositions concerned with dog, because thesepragmatic presuppositions are stored as feature links in his mind to the existing node dog. Among all these features, one is that a dog has four legs, or in other words it is a pragmatic presupposition based on encyclopedic knowledge. Later,the speaker adds that the dog has three legs. Upon hearing this, the hearer will naturally activate the node—dog in his mind. The spreading activation leads to binding, binding the new node to the existing node which matches best. Spreading activationguarantees that thenew node satisfies the Best Fit Principle, i.e. it ensures that the new node is better than any other stored concept is. Therefore, the new node-dog inherits the corresponding features from the existing node.For example, the dog has fur and can bark. All those features can be inherited by the new node from the existing node. However, when the speaker adds that the dog has three legs, the four legs of the existing node dog conflicts with the three legs of the new node.The three legs of the dog are new properties of the new node-dog.Therefore, the feature of the existing node will be blocked or overridden by the feature of new sub-node. It is called overriding. From the perspective of pragmatics, it means the disappearing or the defeasibility of pragmatic presupposition.4.ConclusionPresupposition is universal in munication and is associated with the languageusersand the cognitive context.Besides,it involves plicated cognitive processes and requires alot of cognitive efforts.Thus the study of presupposition from the perspective of cognitivepragmatic is meaningful and possible.This thesis tries to analyze the pragmatic presupposition from the perspective of the language network theory. In WG, language is a network. In this thesis, the body part prises three parts such as pragmatic presupposition based on situation, pragmatic presupposition based on shared knowledge and language and the defeasibility of presupposition and language network. Shared knowledge, as one important subtype of context, can be further divided into mutual knowledge, cultural knowledge and encyclopedic knowledge. In the fist part, it is to apply the first step-establishing a node。
语用学课件预设与蕴涵
The projection problemThere is a basic expectation that the presupposition of a simple sentence will continue to be true when that simple sentence becomes part of a more complex is one version of the general idea that the meaning of the whole sentence is a combination of the meaning of its ,the meaning of some presuppositions (as ‘parts’) doesn’t survive to become the meaning of some complex sentences (as ‘wholes’).This is known as the projection example [12],we are going to see what happens to the presupposition q (‘Kelly was ill’) which is assumed to be true in the simple structure [12c.],but which does not ‘project’into the complex structure [12h.].In order to follow this type of analysis,we have to think of a situation in which a person might say: ‘I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill.’[12] realized that Kelly was ill.(=p)was ill.(=q)>>q(At this point,the speaker uttering[12a.] presupposes[12b.].)imagined that Kelly was ill.(=r)was not ill.(=NOT q)>>NOT q(At this piont,the speaker uttering[12d.]presupposes[12e.],the opposite of [12b.].)imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill.(=r&p)&p>>NOT q(At this piont,after combining r&p,the presupposition q can no longer be assumed to be true.) In an example like [12],the technical analysis may be straightforward,but it may be difficult to think of a context in which someone would talk like example [13]will contextualize an episode ofa TV soap opera,two characters have the dialog in [13].[13]Shirley:It’s so regrets getting Mary pregnant.Jean:But he didn’t get her know that now.If we combine two of the utterances from [13],we have the sequence, ‘George regrets getting Mary pregnant;but he didn’t get her pregnant’.Identifying the different propositions involved,as in [14],we can see that the presupposition q in [14b.] does not survive as a presupposition of the combined utterances in [14e.].[14] regrets getting Mary pregnant.(=p)got Mary pregnant.(=q)>>qdidn’t get her her pregnant.(=r)regrets getting Mary pregnant,but he didn’t get her pregnant.(=p&r)&r >>NOT qOne way to think about the whole sentence presented in [14e.] is as an utterance by a person reporting what happened in the soap opera that person will not assume the presupposition q . that George got Mary pregnant) is true when uttering [14e.].A simple explanation for the fact that presuppositions don’t ‘project’is that they are destroyed by that an entailment is something that necessarily follows from what is example [13],Jean’s utterance of ‘he didn’t get her pregnant’actually entails ‘George didn’t get Mary pregnant’ as a logical ,when the person who watched the soap opera tells you that ‘George regrets getting Mary pregnant,but he didn’t get her pregnant’,you have a presupposition q and an entailment NOT entailment (a necessary consequence of what is said) is simply more powerful than the presupposition (an earlier assumption).The power of entailment can also be used to cancel exastential we assume that when a person uses a definite description of the type ‘the X’ (for example, ‘the King of England’),he or she presupposes the existence of the entity described,as in the utterance of [15a.].Also,in any utterance of the form ‘X doesn’t exist’,as in [15b.],there is an entailment that there is no X..But does the speaker of [15b.] also still have the presupposition of the existence of the entity described?[15] King of England visired us.King of England doesn’t exist!Instead of thinking that a speaker who utters [15b.] simultaneously believes that there is a King of England (=presupposition) and that there is not a King of England (=entailment),we recognize that the entailment is more powerful than the abandon the existential presupposition.As already emphasized,it may be best to think of all the types of presuppositions illustrated in Table as ‘potential presuppositions’ which only become actual presuppositions when intended by speakers to be recognized as such within can indeed indicate that the potential presupposition is not being presented as a strong constructions such as ‘his car’ have a potential presupposition .he has a car) which can be presented tentatively via expressions such as ‘or something’,as in [16].[16]’s that guy doing in the parking lot?’s looking for his car or something.In [16b.],the speaker is not committed to the presupposition (he has a car) as an assumed is worth remembering that it is never the word or phrase that has a speakers can have presuppositions.Ordered entailmentsGenerally speaking,entailment is not a pragmatic concept to do with speaker meaning),but instead is considered a purely logical concept,symbolized by ‖examples of entailment for the sentence in [17] are presented in [18].[17]Rover chased three squirrels.(=p)[18] chased three squirrels.(=q)did something to three squittels.(=r)chased three of something.(=s)happened.(=t)In representing the relationship of entailment between [17] and [18a.] as p‖- q,we have simply symbolized a logical us say that in uttering the sentence in [17],the speaker is necessarily committed to the truth of a very large number of background entailments (only some of which are presented in [.]).On any occasion of utterance [17],however,the spaeker will indicate how these entailments are to be is,the speaker will communicate,typically by stress,which entailment is assumed to be in the foreground,or more important for interpreting intended meaning,than any example,in uttering [19a.],the speaker indicates that the foreground entailment,and hence her main assumption,is that Rover chased a certain number of squirrels.[19] chased THREE squirrels.chased three squirrels.In [19b.],the focus shifts to Rover,and the main assumption is that something chased threefunction of stress in English is,in this approach,clearly tied to marking the main assumption of the speaker in producing an such,it allows the speaker to mark for the listener what the focus of the message is,and what is being assumed.A very similar function is exhibited by a structure called an ‘itcleft’ construction in English,as shown in [20].[20] was ROVER that chased the squirrels.wasn’t ME who took your money.In both examples in [20],the speaker can communicate what he or she believes the listener may already be thinking foreground entailment).In [20b.] that foreground entailment (someone took your money) is being made the shared knowledge in order for the denial of personal responsibility to be utterance in [20b.] can be used to attribute the foreground entailment to the listener(s) without actually stating it (for example,as a possible accusation).It is one more example of more being communicated than is said.。
语用学视角下两会记者会中the作为预设触发语分析
语用学视角下两会记者会中the作为预设触发语分析摘要：本文选取第13届两会记者会王毅部长答记者问文本为语料，结合预设理论, 针对记者会中出现频率最高的存在类预设触发语the进行具体分析。
结果显示，在同一语篇中, the所引起的预设以及产生的语用效果各不相同。
由于记者和发言人代表着不同的政治立场，记者们会根据个人语言表达需求以及交际需要出发, 进行语言表达内容的确定,运用预设触发避免提问太过直接。
而发言人经常遇到政治敏感话题受到语言使用环境的制约，运用存在预设触发语转换话题。
因此，语用预设触发词需要与句子的表达关系和说话人提供的语境兼容，以利于预设含义的传递。
关键词：语用预设，预设触发，两会记者会一、研究背景预设是指利用语言进行交际时双方所共知的常识或根据句子的语境推断出来的信息。
德国哲学家Frege是提出“预设”这一概念的第一人。
预设时通过说话的表层结构中的一些特定的词语、短语或句子，并依据一定的逻辑、语义和语境知识推导出来的。
这些借以推导出预设的话语表层结构就是预设触发语。
Karttunen(1971)搜集到31种预设触发语；列文森（1983）将预设触发语总结为十三种，分别为限定性描述词，表示重复的词，实情动词，含蓄动词，状态变化动词，判断性动词，分裂句，时间状语从句，非限制性定语从句，非真实条件从句和疑问句。
许多学者已将语用预设应用于各个领域，但作为新闻发布会上的最高频率的存在性预设也是值得研究的。
二、两会记者会的意义及词汇构成两会记者会的英译是世界了解中国的重要途径。
从语用预设分析来了解发言人和记者的不同立场和表达目的，从而探讨他们的表达技巧，期以在以后的表达中更好的识别存在性预设触发。
鉴于此, 为明确单词的出现频率, 本文通过语料库检索工具AntConc软件, 获取了两会记者会中排名前十位的单词：不难发现the在文中出现的频率相对较高。
The是存在性预设的典例，本文将尝试以最高频的the为例, 考察预设触发在具体语境中的作用和使用意义。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
if we assume the U.S. President is not a feminist, then (88) will presuppose (89); The presupposition is due, of course, to the factive verb regret, which presupposes its compleher example of the same kind. Consider (90):
(90) Either Sue has never been a Mormon (摩门教徒) or she has stopped wearing holy underwear
The presupposition inferrable from (90) depend on one’s beliefs about whether Mormons wear holy underwear.
This sensitivity to background assumptions about the world seems to be something quite general about presuppositions, and not some peculiar property of those due to before-clauses as shown by the following examples:
(84) Sue cried before she finished her thesis. >> (85) Sue finished her thesis.
But now compare (86): (86) Sue died before she finished her thesis which certainly does not presuppose (85) Sue finished her thesis. Rather, (86) conveys that Sue never finished her thesis. Thus in (86) the presupposition seems to drop out.
The first property will prove to be the undoing of any possible semantic theory of presupposition, while the second property may serve to distinguish presuppositions from conversational implicatures.
▶ John has just finally got a job after finishing a Ph.D., the
normal presupposition will hold. John获得博士学位后找到了工作, “He did a Ph.D.”跟该语 境一致，成为实际预设。
(83) At least John won't have to regret that he did a Ph.D. >> He (John) did a Ph.D.
Another kind of contextual defeasibility arises in certain kinds of discourse contexts. For example, recollect that a cleft sentence （分裂句）like (93) is held to presuppose (94): (93) It isn't Luke who will betray you >> (94) Someone will betray you
(89) The Vice-Chancellor has invited a feminist to his table
The crucial point here is that the presupposition (89) is sensitive to our background assumptions:
But where the subject is first person and the verb is negated, the presupposition clearly fails; thus (81) does not presuppose (82):
(81) (82) I don't know that Bill came Bill came
(87) If the Vice-Chancellor invites Simone de Beauvoir (西蒙·德·波伏娃，法国著名存在主义作家，女权运动的 创始人之一) to dinner, he'll regret having invited a feminist to his table (88) If the Vice-Chancellor invites the U.S. President to dinner, he'll regret having invited a feminist to his table
In sentences where the factive verb (叙实性动词) know has second or third person subjects, the complement is presupposed to be true, as in (80): (80) John doesn't know that Bill came >> Bill came
Defeasibility （可取消性） turns out to be one of the crucial properties of presuppositional behaviour, and one of the touchstones against which all theories of presupposition have to be assessed.
4.3 The problematic properties
Constancy under negation is not in fact a rich enough definition to pick out a coherent, homogeneous set of inferences. Actually presuppositions do exhibit a further set of distinguishing characteristics:
▶ 第一个分句Sue has never been a Mormon为真
Only Mormons habitually wear holy underwear
☞ Sue never did wear holy underwear
与(92)矛盾，(92)被取消
▶ 第一个分句Sue has never been a Mormon为假 ☞ Sue was a Mormon Only Mormons habitually wear holy underwear ☞ Sue used to wear holy underwear 与(92)一致 ∴ The whole sentence (90) shares this presupposition (92) with (91). 由stop激活的预设(92)在either. . . or 的语义框架中成立，成为交际者认知语境的一部 分，因而上升为整个句子的预设。
▶ If participants mutually know that John failed to get into a
doctoral course, the presupposition is simply cancelled by prevailing assumptions. 如果原有语境是交际双方都知道John没有通过博士入学考 试， “He did a PhD”跟该语境冲突，预设被取消。
(90) Either Sue has never been a Mormon or she has stopped wearing holy underwear (91) Sue has stopped wearing holy underwear >> (92) Sue used to wear holy underwear We assume that only Mormons habitually wear holy underwear
Similarly, when it is mutually known that certain facts do not obtain, we can use sentences that might otherwise presuppose those facts, with no consequent presuppositions arising. 预设如果与语境冲突，则会被取消 (83) At least John won't have to regret that he did a Ph.D. >> He (John) did a Ph.D.
the phrase a feminist ☞ Simone de Beauvoir. But since the use of the conditional in (87) specifically indicates that the speaker does not know for certain that the ViceChancellor has invited Simone de Beauvoir, the presupposition (89) is cancelled.