f语义学第六讲 蕴涵与预设(课堂PPT)
语义学课件第六章
Instrument
They signed the treaty with the same pen.
(p.140)
location
Goal Source
Percept Recipient
……
The monster was hiding under the bed. Pat told the joke to his friends. We got the idea from a French magazine. The general inspected the troops. He sold me this wreck.
行业PPT模板：/hangye/ PPT素材下载：/sucai/ PPT图表下载：/tubiao/ PPT教程： /powerpoint/ Excel教程：/excel/ PPT课件下载：/kejian/ 试卷下载：/shiti/
行业PPT模板：/hangye/ PPT素材下载：/sucai/ PPT图表下载：/tubiao/ PPT教程： /powerpoint/ Excel教程：/excel/ PPT课件下载：/kejian/ 试卷下载：/shiti/
while actor doesn’t.
• E.g. John took the book from Bill in order to read it. • *John received the book from Bill in order to read it.
• Foley & Van Valin (1984) • Agent < Actor • E.g. The car ran over the hedgehog (刺猬）.
We have seen that there is a tendency for subjects to be agents, direct objects to be patients and themes, and instruments to occur as prepositional phrases, this need not always be the case: ➢ the first is where roles are simply omitted, and the grammatical relations shift to react to this. ➢ the second is where the speaker chooses to alter the usual matching between roles and grammatical relations, a choice often marked by an accompanying change of verbal voice.
语义学 语言学课件(共45张PPT)
• 义素分析法的缺乏(quēfá)： • 第一，主观色彩较浓。例如：
第二十六页，共45页。
• 第二，义素数量较多。 • 第三，缺乏周遍性。只适合于局部(júbù)实
词，很难对全部实词做义素分析。比方， 打、搞、为、爱、恨等等。
第二十七页，共45页。
三 语义的聚合(jùhé)
第二十二页，共45页。
动词(dòngcí)模式〔例3〕
• 炒：把食物放在锅里加热并反复翻动使熟或使干。 • 熘：烹调方法，把菜肴油炸、水煮或清蒸后，参加用作料、淀粉等调好的卤汁，
使卤汁均匀(jūnyún)地裹在菜肴上并加热。 • 炸：把食物放在沸油里使熟。 • 煎：烹调方法，把食物放在少量的油里炸到外表变黄。 • {炒}＝[－用水、－油量大、＋不断翻动、－加淀粉汁] • {熘}＝[－用水、－油量大、＋不断翻动、＋加淀粉汁] • {炸}＝[－用水、＋油量大、－不断翻动] • {煎}＝[－用水、－u)及其分析
• 1、定义：述谓结构，是指由一个谓词和假设干 谓项组成。谓词是句义的核心成分，一般(yībān) 就是句子的谓语动词〔或形容词〕。
• 2、谓词类型：根据谓词需带谓项〔一般(yībān) 只包括施事、受事、结果、与事，不包括时间、 处所、工具等〕的数目，谓词可以分为
第三页，共45页。
• 2. 事物的非重要属性及对它的理性评价。比 方：
• ①木头 • 无灵性 • ②石头 • 不通人情 • ③家 • 温馨 • ④妇女(fùnǚ) • 柔弱
第四页，共45页。
• 3. 理据义。比方汉语的“青蛙〞又叫“田 鸡、水鸡(shuǐ jī)、长股〞等。再来看向日 葵：
• 汉语的“向日葵〞：是“朝向+太阳+葵花 〞
语义分析PPT学习教案
概念义（理性义）是词汇意 义的主体部分；色彩义包括感情 色彩、语体色彩等意义。
第2页/共58页
三、词义的性质
（一）概括性（具体性） （二）模糊性（确定性） （三）民族性（普遍性）
第3页/共58页
第二节 词义的各种关系
一、一词多义
含有一个义项的词是单义词， 含有两个或两个以上义项的词是 多义词。
（2）语法歧义： a、词性不同
“自行车没有锁。”
“饭热菜不热。”
“你别上。”
b、词跟短语同形。
“谁还要炸薯条？”
“我要炒白菜。”
“要出租汽车的快登机。” 第24页/共58页
“这游戏机的开关有问 题。”
c、相同的词语之间存在不同的层 次构造或句法结构关系。eg:
“两个外语学院的学生。” “哥哥和妹妹的同学。” “北京人多。” “我们需要进口机电产品。” “学生家长都来了。” “我想起来了。” 第25页/共58页
蕴含关系一般发生在有上下
2、语义学研究的蕴含关系是 指就话语本身所表达的意义而言 的蕴含关系，这种蕴含关系通常 可以从句子本身的意义推知，而 不必依赖特殊的背景知识。如：
＊今天是端午节 今天吃粽子 ＊今天是8月31号 明天中小学开学
第29页/共58页
3、一个句子的蕴含关系有时不止一个。 原因：一个词的上位词可能有多个
g.处所，指动作行为发生或所
及的处所。例第1如8页/共“58页他回上海了。” 中的“上海”。
（2）语义指向：句子中某个成分 在语义上指向哪儿，或者说同哪 个或哪些成分发生语义联系就是 这个成分的语义指向。如：
他浓浓地泡了一杯茶
小王扭伤了腰 老李死了一头猪 那种点心他们都吃了 他在黑板上写字 第19页/共58页
语义学蕴含与预设
句子语义学词和词之间有各种各样的意义关系，我们称之为sense relation。
句子也一样，可以有各种意义关系。
句子语义学是在句子层面对意义进行研究，并把句子当成一个整体来看待。
◆Presupposition前提/预设，这一概念是由哲学家弗雷格（G.Frege）首先提出来的。
在言语交际中，我们所说的一句句话并不是孤立的，相互之间毫无联系的。
相反前一句话和后一句话往往有密切的联系。
Please open the door.这句话的意思很清楚，就是“请把们打开”，但是说这句话必须有一个前提，那就是“现在要开的门再说话时是关着的”。
所以从语义的角度来看，句子所包含的“前提”和这个句子本身的意义有十份密切的关系句子的前提有这样的特点：否定了句子本身，句子的前提保留不变。
John is married.John exists.John is not married.◆Semantic presupposition and pragmatic presupposition语义预设是对语句之间关系所做的逻辑分析，他面对的是一种不变的关系：即如果P在语义上预设Q, 则P总是在语义上预设Q。
但在实际的语言活动中（语用预设），预设通常不是语义中稳定的不受约束的部分。
这也正是有些语言学家认为预设属于语用学而不属于语义学的主要原因。
一个重要的事实是，在一定的语境里，预设会消失，也就是说预设具有可消失性(defeasibility)。
例如：Sue cried before she finished her thesis.Sue died before she finished her thesis.◆What is Semantic Presupposition?In many discussions of the concept, presupposition is treated as a relationship between two propositions by the linguists. If we say the sentence in (1a.) contains the proposition p and the sentence in (1b.) contains the proposition q, then, using＞＞to mean ‘presupposes’, we can represent the relationship as in (1c.).(1) a. Mary’s dog is cute. (＝p)b. Mary has a dog. (= q)c. p ＞＞qInterestingly, when we produce the opposite of the sentence in (1a.) by negating it (= NOT p), as in (2a.), we find that the relationship of presupposition does not change. That is, the same proposition q, repeated as (2b.), continues to be presupposedby NOT p, as shown in (2c.).(2) a. Mary’s dog isn’t cute. (＝NOT p)b. Mary has a dog. (= q)c. NOT p ＞＞qPresupposition is an inference（推论）to the proposition of the sentence. Take the following sentences for example again:e.g. (3) John is married.(4) John exists.(5) John is not married.Comment: if (3) is true, (4) is true; if (3) is not true, (4) is still true. In this case, we can say both (3) and (5) presuppose (4). A presupposition is something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance. Speakers, not sentences, have presuppositions. An entailment is something that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance. Sentences, not speakers, have entailments.◆Semantic presupposition would be based on the following definition:Sentence A semantically presupposes another sentence B iff:if and only if, iff是充分必要条件(a) in all situations where A is true, B is true(b) in all situations where A is false, B is true◆Types of presuppositionPotential presupposition: in the analysis of how speakers’ assumptions are typically expressed, presupposition has been associated with the use of a large number of words, phrases, and structures. These linguistic forms shall be considered as indicators of potential presuppositions, which can only become actual presuppositions in contexts with speakers. The following kinds of presuppositions are all potential presuppositions. Now we’ll look at the major presupposition types marked by different linguistic features.◆Existential presupposition: presuppose the existence of something.(my). It is not only assumed to be present in possessive constructions, but more generally in any definite descriptions such as definite noun phrase with determines ‘the’, ‘this’, ‘that’, ‘these’, ‘those’, etc. By using any of the expressions in (16), the speaker is assumed to be committed to the existence of the entities named.(16) e.g. The king of Sweden, the cat, the girl next door (Yule, 2004: 27)◆Factive presupposition: presuppose something as a fact.(know). A number of factive verbs, such as ‘realize’in (17a) and ‘regret’in (17b), as well as phrases involving ‘be’ with ‘aware’ in (17c), ‘odd’ in (17d), and ‘glad’ in (17e) have factive presuppositions.(17) a. She didn’t realize he was ill.(＞＞He was ill)b. We regret telling him.(＞＞We told him)c. I wasn’t aware that she was married.(＞＞She was married)d. It isn’t odd that he left early.(＞＞He left early)e. I’m glad that it’s over.(＞＞It’s over)The presupposed information following the verb ‘know’ can be treated as a fac t, and is described as a factive presupposition. Words like know, realize, regret as well as phrases involving ‘be’ with ‘aware’, ‘odd’, and ‘glad’ have factive presuppositions. (Yule, 2004: 27-28)◆Lexical presupposition: when a specific word triggers a presupposition. It is featured by implicative verbs like ‘manage’, ‘start’, ‘stop’, ‘forget’, etc. Generally speaking, in lexical presupposition, the use of one form with its asserted meaning is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that another (non-asserted) meaning is understood.Each time you say that someone ‘managed’to do something, the asserted meaning is that the person succeeded in some way. When you say that someone ‘didn’t manage’, the asserted meaning is that the person did not succeed. In both cases, however, there is a presupposition (non-asserted) that the person ‘tried’to do that something. So, ‘managed’ is conventionally interpreted as asserting ‘succeeded’ and presupposing ‘tried’.(18) a. He stopped smoking.(＞＞He used to smoke)b. They started complaining.(＞＞They weren’t complaining before)c. You’re late again.(＞＞You were late before)Lexical presupposition: in lexical presupposition, the use of one form with its asserted meaning is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that another(non-asserted) meaning is understood. For example, someone ‘managed’ to do something, the asserted meaning is that the person succeeded in some way. Someone ‘didn’t manage’; the asserted meaning is that the person did not succeed. In both cases, there is a presupposition (non-asserted) that the person ‘tried’ to do that something. So ‘managed’is conventionally interpreted as asserting ‘succeeded’ and presupposing ‘tried’. Other examples, involving the lexical items, are ‘stop’, ‘start’, and ‘again’. (Yule, 2004: 28)◆Structural presupposition: certain sentence structures presuppose something to be true.(wh-questions). We might say that speakers can use such structures to treat information as presupposed (i.e. assumed to be true) and hence to be accepted as true by the listener.For example, the wh-question construction in English, as shown in (19a) and (19b), is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that the information after the wh-form is already known to be the case.a. When did he leave?(＞＞He left)b. Where did you buy the bike?(＞＞You bought the bike)Certain sentence structures have been analyzed as conventionally and regularly presupposing that part of the structure is already assumed to be true. We might say that speakers can use such structures to treat information as presupposed (i.e. assumed to be true) and hence to be accepted as true by listener. For example, the wh-question construction in English is conventionally interpreted as that the information after the wh-form is already known to be the case. Such structurally-based presuppositions may represent subtle ways of making information that the speaker believes appear to be what the listener should believe.(wh-questions)◆Non-factive presupposition: It is one that is assumed not to be true. Verbs like ‘dream’, ‘imagine’, and ‘pretend’, as shown in (20), are used with the presupposition that what follows is not true.(20). a. I dreamed that I was rich.(＞＞I was not rich)b. We imagined we were in New York.(＞＞we were not in New York)He pretends to be ill.(＞＞He is not ill)◆Counter-factural presupposition: What is presupposed is not only not true, but is the opposite of what is true, or ‘contrary to facts’. (Conditional structure)A conditional structure of the type shown in (21), generally called a counterfactual conditional, presupposes that the information in the if-clause is not true at the time of utterance.(21). If you were my friend, you would have helped me.(＞＞you are not my friend)Summary:◆The properties of presuppositions★Cancel ability / Defeasibility:Levinson(1983:186) states that they can be cancelled out by either the immediate linguistic context or by some wider context or mode of discourse. If we say ‘The committee failed to reach a decision’, it presupposes that they tried, but we can cancel out that presupposition if we add ‘because they didn’t even get round to discussing it’. Similarly, we can argue presupposition out of the way by a variant on the reductio ad absurdum (the disproof of a proposition by showing that its conclusion can only be absurd) mode of discourse: ‘He didn’t do it, and she didn’t do it…In fact, nobody did it ’. They are defensible in (a) certain discourse contexts, (b) certain intra-sentential context. This property will prove to be the undoing(doing away with) of any possible semantic theory of presupposition. They are defeasible in certain intra-sentential contexts and certain discourse context, for example,(1) Sue cried before she finished her thesis.(2) Sue finished her thesis.(3)Sue died before she finished her thesis.In Sentence(3) the presupposition seems to drop out, since we generally hold that people do not do things after they die, it follows that she could not have finished her thesis. They are liable to evaporate in certain contexts, either immediate linguistic context or the less immediate discourse context, or on circumstances where contrary assumptions are made.(Levinson,2001, p187)Another kind of contextual defeasibility arises in certain kinds of discourse contexts. For example, the cleft sentence 1 is supposed to presuppose 2:1. It isn’t Luke who will betray you.2. Someone will betray you.You say that someon e in this room will betray you. Well maybe so. But it won’t be Luke who will betray you, it won’t be Paul, it won’t be Matthew, and it certainly won’t be John. Therefore no one in this room is actually going to betray youHere each of the cleft sentence(It won’t be Luke, etc.)should presuppose that there will be someone who will betray the addressee. But the whole purpose of the utterance 1 is, of course, to persuade the addressee that no one will betray him, as stated in the conclusion. So the presupposition is again defeated; it was adopted as a counterfactual assumption to argue to the untenability (站不住脚) of such an assumption.So far we have shown that some of the core examples of presuppositional phenomena are subject to presupposition cancellation in certain kinds of context, namely:(i)Where it is common knowledge that the presupposition is false, the speaker is not assumed to be committedto the truth of the presupposition(ii) Where what is said, taken together with background assumptions, is inconsistent with what is presupposed, the presuppositions are cancelled, and are not assumed to be held by the speaker(iii) In certain kinds of discourse contexts, presuppositions can systematically fail to survive.3.4.2 Presuppositions are apparently tied to particular aspects of surface structure. This property may serve to distinguish presupposition from conversational implicatures (which are tied to the context rather than the surface structure.), the other major form of pragmatic inference.( Levinson, S. C. 2001)There are no doubt many other kinds of contextual defeasibility as well, but these examples are sufficient to establish that presuppositions are defeasible by virtue of contrary beliefs held in a context. There are also many kinds of intra-sentential cancellation of suspension of presuppositions.(Levinson, 190)3.4.3 Projection in presupposition There 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 sentence. This is one version of the general idea that the meaning of the whole sentence is a combination of the meaning of its parts. However, the meaning of some presuppositions (as ‘parts’) does not survive to become the meaning of some complex sentences (as ‘wholes’). This is known as the projection problem. (Yule, 2004: P30-33) Another explanation given by Levinson (Levinson, 1983: 191) is that Frege held that meanings of sentences are compositional, i.e. that the meaning of the whole expression is a function of the meaning of the parts. It was originally suggested by Langendoen & Savin (1971) that this was true of presuppositions too, and moreover that the set of presupposition of the complex whole is the simple sum of the presuppositions of the parts, i.e. if S0 is a complex sentence containing sentences S1, S2…S n as constituents, then the presuppositions of S0 = the presuppositions of S1 + the presuppositions of S2 …+ the presuppositions of S n .But such a simple solution to the presuppositions of complex sentences is far from correct, and it has proved in fact extremely difficult to formulate a theory that will predict correctly which presuppositions of component clauses will in fact be inherited/maintained by the complex whole. This compositional problem is known as the projection problem for presuppositions, and the particular behaviour of presuppositions in complex sentences turns out to be the really distinctive characteristic of presuppositions. (The Chinese version may be a little easier to understand:详见索振羽,《语用学教程》2000.北京大学出版社P136-140)◆Presupposition triggers: Some of the kinds of words and structures that seem to trigger presuppositions. Definite noun phrase/definite descriptions: words like the, this, that, these, those and possessives like my, Mary’s, your, prepositional phrase like with(two heads), in, etc. trigger the basic kind of presupposition. The possessives lead to a particularly strong presupposition about the existence of something; this is sometimes called existential presupposition. (Peccei, p20)John saw/didn’t see the man with two heads.》there exists a man with two headsWH-words like when, why, how, etc. used either to ask questions or to introduce a subordinate clause to trigger the presupposition that the speaker has assumed “the person in question did something” is true. (Peccei, p 21)Mr. Givens, why is it important for people to understand body language---that is, communication by means of movements and gestures?Where do we get mannerisms such as these?Verbs that can trigger presuppositions: implicative verbs, factive verbs, change of state verbs and verbs of judging.1) Implicative verbs（含蓄动词）: manage, forget, happen, avoid etc. triggers the presupposition that some actions were conducted(manage), not expected(happen), or should have been conducted(forget).John managed/didn’t manage to open the door》John tried to open the doorJohn forg ot /didn’t forget to lock the door》John ought to have locked, or intended to lock, the doorsome further implicative predicates: X happened to V 》X didn’t plan or intend to V; X avoid Ving 》X was expected to, or usually did, or ought to V2) factive verbs(述实动词/事实动词a verb followed by a clause which the speaker or writer considers to expressa fact:know, realize, regret, deplore（谴责）, I am aware, it is strange, it is odd that, be sorry that, be proud that, be indifferent that, be glad that, be sad that, etc. triggers the presupposition that what follows is a fact。
语义学 蕴含与预设
句子语义学词和词之间有各种各样的意义关系，我们称之为sense relation。
句子也一样，可以有各种意义关系。
句子语义学是在句子层面对意义进行研究，并把句子当成一个整体来看待。
◆Presupposition前提/预设，这一概念是由哲学家弗雷格（G.Frege）首先提出来的。
在言语交际中，我们所说的一句句话并不是孤立的，相互之间毫无联系的。
相反前一句话和后一句话往往有密切的联系。
Please open the door.这句话的意思很清楚，就是“请把们打开”，但是说这句话必须有一个前提，那就是“现在要开的门再说话时是关着的”。
所以从语义的角度来看，句子所包含的“前提”和这个句子本身的意义有十份密切的关系句子的前提有这样的特点：否定了句子本身，句子的前提保留不变。
John is married.John exists.John is not married.◆Semantic presupposition and pragmatic presupposition语义预设是对语句之间关系所做的逻辑分析，他面对的是一种不变的关系：即如果P在语义上预设Q, 则P总是在语义上预设Q。
但在实际的语言活动中（语用预设），预设通常不是语义中稳定的不受约束的部分。
这也正是有些语言学家认为预设属于语用学而不属于语义学的主要原因。
一个重要的事实是，在一定的语境里，预设会消失，也就是说预设具有可消失性(defeasibility)。
例如：Sue cried before she finished her thesis.Sue died before she finished her thesis.◆What is Semantic Presupposition?In many discussions of the concept, presupposition is treated as a relationship between two propositions by the linguists. If we say the sentence in (1a.) contains the proposition p and the sentence in (1b.) contains the proposition q, then, using＞＞to mean …presupposes‟, we can represent the relationship as in (1c.).(1) a. Mary‟s dog is cute. (＝p)b. Mary has a dog. (= q)c. p ＞＞qInterestingly, when we produce the opposite of the sentence in (1a.) by negating it (= NOT p), as in (2a.), we find that the relationship of presupposition does not change. That is, the same proposition q, repeated as (2b.), continues to be presupposedby NOT p, as shown in (2c.).(2) a. Mary‟s dog isn‟t cute. (＝NOT p)b. Mary has a dog. (= q)c. NOT p ＞＞qPresupposition is an inference（推论）to the proposition of the sentence. Take the following sentences for example again:e.g. (3) John is married.(4) John exists.(5) John is not married.Comment: if (3) is true, (4) is true; if (3) is not true, (4) is still true. In this case, we can say both (3) and (5) presuppose (4). A presupposition is something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance. Speakers, not sentences, have presuppositions. An entailment is something that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance. Sentences, not speakers, have entailments.◆Semantic presupposition would be based on the following definition:Sentence A semantically presupposes another sentence B iff:if and only if, iff是充分必要条件(a) in all situations where A is true, B is true(b) in all situations where A is false, B is true◆Types of presuppositionPotential presupposition: in the analysis of how speakers‟ assumptions are typically expressed, presupposition has been associated with the use of a large number of words, phrases, and structures. These linguistic forms shall be considered as indicators of potential presuppositions, which can only become actual presuppositions in contexts with speakers. The following kinds of presuppositions are all potential presuppositions. Now we‟ll look at the major presupposition types marked by different linguistic features.◆Existential presupposition: presuppose the existence of something.(my). It is not only assumed to be present in possessive constructions, but more generally in any definite descriptions such as definite noun phrase with determines …the‟, …this‟, …that‟, …these‟, …those‟, etc. By using any of the expressions in (16), the speaker is assumed to be committed to the existence of the entities named.(16) e.g. The king of Sweden, the cat, the girl next door (Yule, 2004: 27)◆Factive presupposition: presuppose something as a fact.(know). A number of factive verbs, such as …realize‟in (17a) and …regret‟in (17b), as well as phrases involving …be‟ with …aware‟ in (17c), …odd‟ in (17d), and …glad‟ in (17e) have factive presuppositions.(17) a. She didn‟t realize he was ill.(＞＞He was ill)b. We regret telling him.(＞＞We told him)c. I wasn‟t aware that she was married.(＞＞She was married)d. It isn‟t odd that he left early.(＞＞He left early)e. I‟m glad that it‟s over.(＞＞It‟s over)The presupposed information following the verb …know‟ can be treated as a fac t, and is described as a factive presupposition. Words like know, realize, regret as well as phrases involving …be‟ with …aware‟, …odd‟, and …glad‟ have factive presuppositions. (Yule, 2004: 27-28)◆Lexical presupposition: when a specific word triggers a presupposition. It is featured by implicative verbs like …manage‟, …start‟, …stop‟, …forget‟, etc. Generally speaking, in lexical presupposition, the use of one form with its asserted meaning is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that another (non-asserted) meaning is understood.Each time you say that someone …managed‟to do something, the asserted meaning is that the person succeeded in some way. When you say that someone …didn‟t manage‟, the asserted meaning is that the person did not succeed. In both cases, however, there is a presupposition (non-asserted) that the person …tried‟to do that something. So, …managed‟ is conventionally interpreted as asserting …succeeded‟ and presupposing …tried‟.(18) a. He stopped smoking.(＞＞He used to smoke)b. They started complaining.(＞＞They weren‟t complaining before)c. You‟re late again.(＞＞You were late before)Lexical presupposition: in lexical presupposition, the use of one form with its asserted meaning is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that another(non-asserted) meaning is understood. For example, someone …managed‟ to do something, the asserted meaning is that the person succeeded in some way. Someone …didn‟t manage‟; the asserted meaning is that the person did not succeed. In both cases, there is a presupposition (non-asserted) that the person …tried‟ to do that something. So …managed‟is conventionally interpreted as asserting …succeeded‟ and presupposing …tried‟. Other examples, involving the lexical items, are …stop‟, …start‟, and …again‟. (Yule, 2004: 28)◆Structural presupposition: certain sentence structures presuppose something to be true.(wh-questions). We might say that speakers can use such structures to treat information as presupposed (i.e. assumed to be true) and hence to be accepted as true by the listener.For example, the wh-question construction in English, as shown in (19a) and (19b), is conventionally interpreted with the presupposition that the information after the wh-form is already known to be the case.a. When did he leave?(＞＞He left)b. Where did you buy the bike?(＞＞You bought the bike)Certain sentence structures have been analyzed as conventionally and regularly presupposing that part of the structure is already assumed to be true. We might say that speakers can use such structures to treat information as presupposed (i.e. assumed to be true) and hence to be accepted as true by listener. For example, the wh-question construction in English is conventionally interpreted as that the information after the wh-form is already known to be the case. Such structurally-based presuppositions may represent subtle ways of making information that the speaker believes appear to be what the listener should believe.(wh-questions)◆Non-factive presupposition: It is one that is assumed not to be true. Verbs like …dream‟, …imagine‟, and …pretend‟, as shown in (20), are used with the presupposition that what follows is not true.(20). a. I dreamed that I was rich.(＞＞I was not rich)b. We imagined we were in New York.(＞＞we were not in New York)He pretends to be ill.(＞＞He is not ill)◆Counter-factural presupposition: What is presupposed is not only not true, but is the opposite of what is true, or …contrary to facts‟. (Conditional structure)A conditional structure of the type shown in (21), generally called a counterfactual conditional, presupposes that the information in the if-clause is not true at the time of utterance.(21). If you were my friend, you would have helped me.(＞＞you are not my friend)Summary:◆The properties of presuppositions★Cancel ability / Defeasibility:Levinson(1983:186) states that they can be cancelled out by either the immediate linguistic context or by some wider context or mode of discourse. If we say …The committee failed to reach a decision‟, it presupposes that they tried, but we can cancel out that presupposition if we add …because they didn‟t even get round to discussing it‟. Similarly, we can argue presupposition out of the way by a variant on the reductio ad absurdum (the disproof of a proposition by showing that its conclusion can only be absurd) mode of discourse: …He didn‟t do it, and she didn‟t do it…In fact, nobody did it ‟. They are defensible in (a) certain discourse contexts, (b) certain intra-sentential context. This property will prove to be the undoing(doing away with) of any possible semantic theory of presupposition. They are defeasible in certain intra-sentential contexts and certain discourse context, for example,(1) Sue cried before she finished her thesis.(2) Sue finished her thesis.(3)Sue died before she finished her thesis.In Sentence(3) the presupposition seems to drop out, since we generally hold that people do not do things after they die, it follows that she could not have finished her thesis. They are liable to evaporate in certain contexts, either immediate linguistic context or the less immediate discourse context, or on circumstances where contrary assumptions are made.(Levinson,2001, p187)Another kind of contextual defeasibility arises in certain kinds of discourse contexts. For example, the cleft sentence 1 is supposed to presuppose 2:1. It isn‟t Luke who will betray you.2. Someone will betray you.You say that someon e in this room will betray you. Well maybe so. But it won‟t be Luke who will betray you, it won‟t be Paul, it won‟t be Matthew, and it certainly won‟t be John. Therefore no one in this room is actually going to betray youHere each of the cleft sentence(It won‟t be Luke, etc.)should presuppose that there will be someone who will betray the addressee. But the whole purpose of the utterance 1 is, of course, to persuade the addressee that no one will betray him, as stated in the conclusion. So the presupposition is again defeated; it was adopted as a counterfactual assumption to argue to the untenability (站不住脚) of such an assumption.So far we have shown that some of the core examples of presuppositional phenomena are subject to presupposition cancellation in certain kinds of context, namely:(i)Where it is common knowledge that the presupposition is false, the speaker is not assumed to be committedto the truth of the presupposition(ii) Where what is said, taken together with background assumptions, is inconsistent with what is presupposed, the presuppositions are cancelled, and are not assumed to be held by the speaker(iii) In certain kinds of discourse contexts, presuppositions can systematically fail to survive.3.4.2 Presuppositions are apparently tied to particular aspects of surface structure. This property may serve to distinguish presupposition from conversational implicatures (which are tied to the context rather than the surface structure.), the other major form of pragmatic inference.( Levinson, S. C. 2001)There are no doubt many other kinds of contextual defeasibility as well, but these examples are sufficient to establish that presuppositions are defeasible by virtue of contrary beliefs held in a context. There are also many kinds of intra-sentential cancellation of suspension of presuppositions.(Levinson, 190)3.4.3 Projection in presupposition There 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 sentence. This is one version of the general idea that the meaning of the whole sentence is a combination of the meaning of its parts. However, the meaning of some presuppositions (as …parts‟) does not survive to become the meaning of some complex sentences (as …wholes‟). This is known as the projection problem. (Yule, 2004: P30-33) Another explanation given by Levinson (Levinson, 1983: 191) is that Frege held that meanings of sentences are compositional, i.e. that the meaning of the whole expression is a function of the meaning of the parts. It was originally suggested by Langendoen & Savin (1971) that this was true of presuppositions too, and moreover that the set of presupposition of the complex whole is the simple sum of the presuppositions of the parts, i.e. if S0 is a complex sentence containing sentences S1, S2…S n as constituents, then the presuppositions of S0 = the presuppositions of S1 + the presuppositions of S2 …+ the presuppositions of S n .But such a simple solution to the presuppositions of complex sentences is far from correct, and it has proved in fact extremely difficult to formulate a theory that will predict correctly which presuppositions of component clauses will in fact be inherited/maintained by the complex whole. This compositional problem is known as the projection problem for presuppositions, and the particular behaviour of presuppositions in complex sentences turns out to be the really distinctive characteristic of presuppositions. (The Chinese version may be a little easier to understand:详见索振羽,《语用学教程》2000.北京大学出版社P136-140)◆Presupposition triggers: Some of the kinds of words and structures that seem to trigger presuppositions. Definite noun phrase/definite descriptions: words like the, this, that, these, those and possessives like my, Mary’s, your, prepositional phrase like with(two heads), in, etc. trigger the basic kind of presupposition. The possessives lead to a particularly strong presupposition about the existence of something; this is sometimes called existential presupposition. (Peccei, p20)John saw/didn‟t see the man with two heads.》there exists a man with two headsWH-words like when, why, how, etc. used either to ask questions or to introduce a subordinate clause to trigger the presupposition that the speaker has assumed “the person in question did something” is true. (Peccei, p 21)Mr. Givens, why is it important for people to understand body language---that is, communication by means of movements and gestures?Where do we get mannerisms such as these?Verbs that can trigger presuppositions: implicative verbs, factive verbs, change of state verbs and verbs of judging.1) Implicative verbs（含蓄动词）: manage, forget, happen, avoid etc. triggers the presupposition that some actions were conducted(manage), not expected(happen), or should have been conducted(forget).John managed/didn‟t manage to open the door》John tried to open the doorJohn forg ot /didn‟t forget to lock the door》John ought to have locked, or intended to lock, the doorsome further implicative predicates: X happened to V 》X didn‟t plan or intend to V; X avoid Ving 》X was expected to, or usually did, or ought to V2) factive verbs(述实动词/事实动词a verb followed by a clause which the speaker or writer considers to expressa fact:know, realize, regret, deplore（谴责）, I am aware, it is strange, it is odd that, be sorry that, be proud that, be indifferent that, be glad that, be sad that, etc. triggers the presupposition that what follows is a fact。
预设和蕴含的区别
摘要预设和蕴含有着一定的联系，不易区别开来。
对于预设和蕴含，弗雷格、罗素、斯特劳森等都有所论及。
本文旨在区别预设和蕴含，并探讨预设只涉及语句的名词性成分，而蕴含与所陈述的命题有关。
且预设不是语句中固定不变的，不受语境制约的成分，它是可消除的。
而蕴含是一种纯逻辑推理，具有不可消除性。
蕴含是语句中信息的一部分，而预设则是信息的背景。
Abstract: Presupposition has so many relations with entailment that the subtle distinctions between them become the barrier to some scholars. The arguments of Frege, Russell and others represent the hard study process of the problems above. The thesis distinguishes between the presupposition and the entailment from many viewpoints. It argues that the presuppositions only relate to the nominal elements in a sentence, but the entailments to the proposition of a statement. And it says that the presupposition can be defeasible because ifits being ungoverned by context, while the entailment just is a pure logical reasoning. Taking the theory of Grice into account, the thesis author thinks that the entailment is a part of the information of a sentence, but the presupposition is the background of the information.所谓蕴含，是指下列命题关系：在所有情况下P 为真，Q也为真时，那么P蕴含Q。
《语言学概论》精品PPT课件全集
Байду номын сангаас
区别特征
p
双唇
ph
双唇
m
双唇
t
舌尖前
th
舌尖前
n
舌尖前
闭塞 闭塞 鼻音 闭塞 闭塞 鼻音
不送气 送气
不送气 送气
2，区别特征和音位的聚合关系
音位通过区别特征和其他音位相联系，聚合成群。 双向聚合：体现音位的系统性、有相同的语音组合规
则。 单向聚合：在组合和演变中表现特殊。
2，区别特征和音位的聚合关系
语言研究主要从结构规律、社会功能、语言与 思维的关系几方面着眼，有共时和历时研究、理论 和应用研究、宏观和微观研究等不同领域。 三、语言学科的前景及其应用价值
语言学的方法和成果被广泛地应用到许多学科 领域，前景非常广阔。
9
本章重点内容
第一节 重要概念：语言、言语、言语活动 重点掌握：语言的客观存在形式。语言和言语的区分。
语音的物理属性、生理属性、心理属性和 社会属性。
发音器官图
1上下唇 2上下齿
3齿龈
4硬腭
5软腭
6小舌
7舌尖
8舌面
9舌根
10咽腔
11会厌软骨
12声带 13喉头
14气管 15食道
16口腔 17鼻腔
二、音素
1，音素 从音质角度切分出来的最小的语音单位。
2，两类音素： a，辅音音素 b，元音音素
3，音标 专门用来记录语音的符号。
俗成的，有规律可循而又成系统的部分，是一个均 质的，抽象的实体。 言语是言语活动中去除语言部分所剩余的部分，是 言语活动中个别的特殊的部分，具有个人特色。
5
第一节 什么是语言（续二）
3、语言和言语的统一 语言体现在言语中，没有言语就无法体会语言； 言语中包含着语言，没有语言就无法产生相互明白
预设与蕴涵的联系与区别
预设与蕴涵的联系与区别作者：杨威来源：《青年文学家》2014年第02期摘要：预设和蕴涵是语用学上的两个重要概念，他们都是从句子的整体意义推导出来的另外的意义或另外的一些信息。
预设和蕴涵在定义和特征上是既有区别又有联系的，这也成为了许多学者研究它们的重要依据。
本文则是在前人学者研究的基础上对预设和蕴涵的定义和特征进行梳理，同时经过认真推敲理解就预设和蕴涵的真假值问题和预设、蕴涵的时间空间概念提出了自己的创新性见解。
关键词：预设；蕴涵；特征；联系；区别[中图分类号]：H030 [文献标识码]：A[文章编号]：1002-2139（2014）-02--02预设与蕴涵是两种重要的语义，对它们进行探讨，一方面可以升华二者研究深度，另一方面有助于理解语句的含义，在语言分析方面具有重要作用。
學者们对二者的研究由来已久，在国外，早期对预设的研究是命题的真值条件，有人认为预设是作为一种特殊的蕴涵存在的，威尔逊和斯波伯就把预设约简为蕴涵；随着生成语言学的发展，预设研究逐渐与语言的形式结构、语义及语言的用法相结合，从原来的纯哲学逻辑转向语义研究，继而转向语用研究，尤尔就认为预设是语用的，而蕴涵是语义的；弗雷格和斯特劳森认为预设在否定句或否定的陈述中依然保持；肯普森则列出了预设和蕴涵的真值表，提出了从真值上鉴别二者的方法。
国内研究大多使用否定测试的方法对二者进行简单的比较，如徐烈炯《语义学》、和自然、冉永平《语用学概论》、索振羽《语用学教程》；另外还有从真值角度对预设和蕴涵进行比较，石安石《句义的预设》讨论了预设和蕴涵的根本区别；袁莉容《试论否定命题测试的缺陷》分析了否定测试的缺陷，认为否定测试缺陷的实质在于预设归根结底是属于语用的问题；范晓、陈忠《预设与蕴含》提出预设和蕴涵都与特定的句法成分有一定的对应关系，预设大多由定语、主语、状语等成分充当，蕴涵大体与谓语部分相对应。
一、预设的定义预设又叫“前提”或“先设”，左思民的《汉语语用学》给“预设”下的定义是：“预设是决定了一个陈述（命题）是否有真假值可辨的一个未说出的命题。
蕴含和预设的区别语言学概论例子
蕴含和预设的区别语言学概论例子蕴含和预设是语言学中重要的概念，它们在逻辑推理和语言交流中起着至关重要的作用。
在本文中，我们将深入探讨蕴含和预设的区别，并通过语言学概论的例子来加深理解。
1.蕴含和预设的定义蕴含是指如果P成立，则Q也成立的关系，通常表示为P→Q。
而预设则是说话人在进行语言交流时默认假设对方已经知晓或者同意的信息。
这两个概念都在语言交流中起到重要作用，但又有着明显的区别。
2.蕴含和预设的区别蕴含是一种逻辑关系，它表达的是一个命题逻辑上的关系，即如果P成立，则Q也必然成立。
而预设则更多地涉及到语境和语用，它是因为交际者之间的共同背景知识和共识而产生的一种默认的陈述。
3.语言学概论的例子为了更好地理解蕴含和预设的区别，我们可以通过语言学概论中的例子来加深理解。
对于一句话“他在家吗？”如果说话人的预设是知道对方今天生病了，在这种情况下，“他在家吗？”的含义其实是在询问对方是否留在家里休息。
这里的预设是基于交际者之间的共同背景知识而产生的。
而如果我们考虑蕴含的例子，可以想象一个逻辑推理的情景，比如“如果今天下雨，那么明天会很湿”。
这里的蕴含关系在逻辑上是成立的，即如果今天下雨，则明天会很湿。
这和预设的例子有着明显的区别，前者更多地涉及到逻辑推理，后者则更多地涉及到语境和语用。
4.个人观点和理解对于蕴含和预设的区别，我个人认为它们在语言交流中都是至关重要的概念。
蕴含关系帮助我们在逻辑推理和论证中建立起合乎逻辑的关系，而预设则帮助我们在语言交流中更好地理解对方的意图和表达。
在实际的交际中，我们经常会遇到预设的情况，了解和理解预设的存在对于沟通的顺利进行至关重要。
总结回顾通过本文的探讨，我们深入理解了蕴含和预设的区别，并通过语言学概论的例子加深了对这两个概念的理解。
蕴含和预设在语言学中都具有重要的地位，它们帮助我们更好地进行逻辑推理和语言交流，促进了有效的交际和沟通。
在知识的文章格式中，我们可以使用序号标注来更清晰地表达观点和例子，从而帮助读者更好地理解和接受文章内容。
蕴含和预设的区别语言学概论例子
《蕴含和预设的区别——语言学概论》1. 概述在语言学中，蕴含和预设是两个非常重要的概念，它们在语言表达和交流中扮演着重要的角色。
本文将从蕴含和预设的定义开始，逐步深入探讨它们的区别，并结合语言学概论的例子，帮助读者更好地理解这两个概念。
2. 蕴含的定义和例子蕴含是指从一个陈述中可以推导出另一个陈述的关系。
当我们说“如果今天下雨，那么路上会很滑”。
这句话蕴含了“如果路上很滑，那么今天下雨了”。
蕴含是一种逻辑上的推理关系，它可以帮助我们理解语言表达的进一步含义。
3. 预设的定义和例子预设是指说话者在交流时假定对方已经了解或者同意的信息。
当我们说“我又换了新无线终端”，就预设了对方已经知道我们之前有一部无线终端。
预设是语言交际中常见的现象，它可以帮助说话者简化语言表达，同时也涉及到说话者和听话者之间的交流默契。
4. 蕴含与预设的区别蕴含和预设虽然都涉及到语言表达中的额外含义，但它们之间存在着明显的区别。
蕴含是逻辑上的推理关系，是从一个陈述推导出另一个陈述；而预设是说话者在交流中假定对方已经了解的信息。
在实际语言交际中，我们常常会同时运用蕴含和预设，以达到更准确、简洁的表达。
5. 语言学概论中的例子在语言学概论中，蕴含和预设也有着丰富的例子。
在语义学中，我们经常通过分析词语之间的蕴含关系来理解其含义的丰富性；而在语用学中，预设则涉及到说话者和听话者之间的认知和交流模式。
通过深入研究语言学概论中的例子，我们可以更好地理解蕴含和预设在语言学中的实际运用。
6. 总结与回顾通过对蕴含和预设的区别以及语言学概论中的例子的探讨，我们可以清晰地理解这两个概念在语言表达和交流中的重要性。
蕴含和预设不仅帮助人们更准确地理解语言表达的含义，同时也反映了语言交际中的复杂性和多样性。
深入理解蕴含和预设，有助于我们更好地掌握语言学的基本知识，同时也丰富了我们对语言交际的认识。
7. 个人观点和理解在我看来，蕴含和预设是语言学中非常有趣和重要的概念。
前提与蕴涵-PPT课件
.
13
区别
例：
S 他的哥哥考上了大学 S1 他家里有一件喜事 S2 他有哥哥 当S为假时，S1不可知，而S2依然为真。 由此可知，S1是S的蕴涵意义，S2是S的前 提意义。
.
14
联系
一、前提与蕴涵都是句子隐含的意义，是 语句的言内之义，即语句附带的语义信 息。
例： 校园湖边有柳树，蕴涵意义是校园湖边
.
16
联系
三、具有传递性，且彼此传递。
1.自身传递 例：“诸葛亮聪明”，前提“诸葛亮是有思
维的”而“诸葛亮是有思维的”前提 “诸葛亮存在”。
因此，“诸葛亮聪明”前提“诸葛亮存在”。
又如，“
他每天都照常上班”蕴涵“他过节照常上班”，“
他过节照常上班”又蕴涵“他国庆节才上班”，“他每
天都照上班”蕴涵“他国庆节才上班”
例如： a.That person is a bachelor.
b.That person is a man.
在任何情况下，如果某个人是个单身汉，他必定是个男
人，如果说That person is not a bachelor，那么原
句蕴涵b,便很难说是真实的还是不真实的，因为不是单
身汉的人可能是男的，也可.能是女的。
.
7
区别
例：
S 张扬是个单身汉 S1 张扬是个男人 S2 有一个叫张扬的人 显然，S2不仅可以从S中推出，而且可以 从S的否定式（张扬不是个单身汉）中推出 故S2是S的前提。而S1只能从S中推出，故 S1是S的蕴涵。
.
8
区别
三、所有的蕴涵都具有不可取消性，而 前提具有可取消性。
前提不是语句意义中固定不变的，不受语境制 约的成分，它是可以取消的。而蕴涵是一种纯 逻辑推理，是句子固有的，故它具有不可取消 性，一旦被取消，就会产生语义矛盾。
蕴含与预设
蕴含与预设蕴含与预设句义之间可以有各种不同的关系,蕴含与预设就是句义之间重要的两种关系。
蕴含是指存在于一句话语和另一句话语之间的语义上的从属关系。
就话语本身所表达的意义而言，如果有句义甲就必然有句义乙，就是甲蕴含乙。
蕴含可以用公式表示为：甲→乙。
例如：“他是个单身汉”→“他是个男人".蕴含关系一般发生在有上下位关系或整体与局部关系的句义之间。
例如：他买了一篮子白菜。
→他买了一篮子蔬菜。
他踩了小王的脚。
→他踩了小王。
例①中，“蔬菜”和“白菜”有上下位的关系，例②中，“小王”和“小王的脚"有整体与局部的关系。
从例句可以看出，“白菜”是“蔬菜”的下位概念,从“他买了一篮子白菜”可以推知“他买了一篮子蔬菜";而从“他买了一篮子蔬菜”中无法推知“他买了一篮子白菜”。
例②也是如此。
因此,在一般情况下,蕴含的规律是含有下位概念或局部概念的句义蕴含含有上位概念或整体概念的句义,而不是相反.但是如果上位词语或表示整体的词语是周遍性的，即强调所述之事涉及某类事物的全体成员或某一整体的所有部分，则含有上位概念或整体概念的句义蕴含含有下位概念或局部概念的句义，而不是相反.如：什么笔他都有。
→他有钢笔。
那棵白菜全烂了。
→那棵白菜的菜心也烂了。
预设也叫前提,是指使一个命题或语句能够成立的条件。
就话语本身表达的意义而言，与蕴含一样,也是有句义甲就必然有句义乙.但是蕴含包含在句子的断言范围之内，是句子的基本信息；而预设不在句子的断言范围之内,是句子的背景信息。
例如:①他哥哥在北京上大学.→他哥哥在北京上学.②他有哥哥.例①中，“他哥哥在北京上大学”蕴含“他哥哥在北京上学”，因为“他哥哥在北京上学"在“他哥哥在北京上大学"的断言范围之内。
但例②不是例①的蕴含，而是例①的预设。
也就是说,句子①并不是在说“他有没有哥哥”，句子②只是句子①附带表达出来的背景信息，因此例①以例②为预设。
语用学课件-预设与蕴涵
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 sentence.This is one version of the general idea that the meaning of the whole sentence is a combination of the meaning of its parts.However,the meaning of some presuppositions (as ‘parts’) doesn’t survive to become the meaning of some complex sent ences (as ‘wholes’).This is known as the projection problem.In 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 s tructure [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]a.Nobody realized that Kelly was ill.(=p)b.Kelly was ill.(=q)c.p>>q(At this point,the speaker uttering[12a.] presupposes[12b.].)d.I imagined that Kelly was ill.(=r)e.Kelly was not ill.(=NOT q)f.r>>NOT q(At this piont,the speaker uttering[12d.]presupposes[12e.],the opposite of [12b.].)g.I imagined that Kelly was ill and nobody realized that she was ill.(=r&p)h.r&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 that.Perhaps example [13]will contextualize better.In an episode of a TV soap opera,two characters have the dialog in [13].[13]Shirley:It’s so sad.George regrets getting Mary pregnant.Jean:But he didn’t ge t her pregnant.We 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]a.George regrets getting Mary pregnant.(=p)b.George got Mary pregnant.(=q)c.p>>qd.He didn’t get her her pregnant.(=r)e.George regrets getting Mary pregnant,but he didn’t get her pregnant.(=p&r)f.p&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 day.That person will not assume the presupposition q (i.e. 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 entailments.Rememberthat an entailment is something that necessarily follows from what is asserted.In example [13],Jean’s utterance of ‘he didn’t get her pregnant’ actually entails ‘George didn’t get Mary pregnant’ as a logical consequence.Thus,when the person who watched the soapopera tells you that ‘George regrets getting Mary pregnant,but he didn’t get her pregnant’,you have a presupposition q and an entailment NOT q.The 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 presuppositions.Normally 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 an y 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]a.The King of England visired us.b.The King o f 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 presupposition.We abandon the existential presupposition.As already emphasized,it may be best to think of all the types of presuppositions illustrated in Table 4.1 as ‘potential presuppositions’ which only become actual presuppositionswhen intended by speakers to be recognized as such within utterances.Speakers can indeed indicate that the potential presupposition is not being presented as a strong assumption.Possessive constructions such as ‘his car’have a potential presupposition (i.e. he has a car) which can be presented tentatively via expressions such as ‘or something’,as in [16].[16]a.What’s that guy doing in the parking lot?b.He’s looking for his car or something.In [16b.],the speaker is not committed to the presupposition (he has a car) as an assumed fact.It is worth remembering that it is never the word or phrase that has a presupposition.Only speakers can have presuppositions.Ordered entailmentsGenerally speaking,entailment is not a pragmatic concept (i.e.having to do with speaker meaning),but instead is considered a purely logical concept,symbolized by‖-.Some examples of entailment for the sentence in [17] are presented in [18].[17]Rover chased three squirrels.(=p)[18]a.Something chased three squirrels.(=q)b.Rover did something to three squittels.(=r)c.Rover chased three of something.(=s)d.Something happened.(=t)In representing the relationship of entailment between [17] and [18a.] as p‖- q,we have simply symbolized a logical concequence.Let 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 [18a.-d.]).On any occasion of utterance [17],however,the spaeker willindicate how these entailments are to be ordered.That 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 others.For example,in uttering [19a.],the speaker indicates that the foreground entailment,and hence her main assumption,is that Rover chaseda certain number of squirrels.[19]a.Rover chased THREE squirrels.b.ROVER chased three squirrels.In [19b.],the focus shifts to Rover,and the main assumption is that something chased three squirrels.One function of stress in English is,in this approach,clearly tied to marking the main assumption of the speaker in producing an utterance.As 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]a.It was ROVER that chased the squirrels.b.It 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 (i.e.the 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 made.The 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.。
f语义学第六讲 蕴涵与预设(课堂PPT)
❖ > John was in debt.
20
❖ 3. 隐含动词（implicative verbs) ❖ John forgot/didn’t forget to lock the door. ❖ >John ought to have locked, or intended to
lock the door. (regret, happen, avoid, etc) ❖ 4. 改变状态动词（change of state verbs) ❖ John stopped/didn’t stop beating his wife. ❖ > John had been beating his wife.
contrasts) ❖ Carol is/isn’t a better linguist than Babara. ❖ > Babara is a linguist.
24
❖ 11. 非限定性定语从句（non-restrictive attributive clause)
❖ The strong man, who won the race, is my father.
2
❖ 贵客到了→客人到了 ❖ 下位蕴涵上位
core张的头→他打了小张
❖ 部分蕴涵整体（同一时间）
❖ 他什么戏都爱看→他爱看京剧
❖ 上位蕴涵下位（同一个人）
3
蕴涵
❖p
q
T→T
F→T/F
T/F←T
F←F
预设
pq
T→T F→T T/F←T ?←F
Truth Value Gap 真值缺失
plagiarism. ❖ > (John thinks) plagiarism is bad.
试析语义蕴涵与预设的关系
试析语义蕴涵与预设的关系摘要：预设和蕴涵是指句子所表述的命题与命题之间的关系，都是从句子自身的整体意义推导出来的另外的意义或另外的一些信息，研究它们是为了研究句子外面的某些信息对句子的影响。
蕴涵和预设都与特定的句法成分有一定的对应关系：预设大都由定语状语主语等成分充当，蕴涵大体与谓语部分相对应。
蕴涵预设与特定的语义相对应。
关键词：预设；蕴涵；句法；语义1.预设与蕴涵的含义1.1预设的含义所谓预设，就是满足句子所作的断言为真或为假的照应条件或前提。
可以表述为：如果从命题P和命题“非P”可以推导出Q，那么Q就是P的预设。
例如1a.他学会了法语。
（P）该句子可以推导出：他学过法语。
（Q）如果命题“非P”：2a.他没学会法语。
（非P）该句子也可以推导出：b.他学过法语。
（Q）显然从P和“非P”都可以推导出同一个命题Q，因此Q就是P的预设。
P和Q的关系可用符号表示为P>>Q。
上例还说明否定一个命题，其预设却不会被否定，而是继续保留。
因此“否定”也就往往成为检测预设的简便而行之有效的重要方法。
由此可见，预设实质上是一个句子所表达的命题的语用前提。
1.2 蕴含的含义所谓蕴涵（entailment）是指下列命题关系：在所有情况下P为真Q也为真时，那么P蕴涵Q，即P为真Q也一定为真；Q为假P也一定为假，但如果Q为真，P不一定为真，例如：1.王涛的哥哥买了两辆汽车。
（P）这个句子蕴涵：2.王涛的哥哥买了某种东西（Q） 3.有人买了两辆汽车。
（Q）显然，1为真2和3必定也为真，但2或3为真，1可能为真，也可能为假，即从“王涛的哥哥买了某种东西”并不一定能够推导出王涛的哥哥买的是“两辆汽车”；同样，“有人买了两辆汽车”并不一定能够推导出买汽车的人一定是“王涛的哥哥”，1和2，3的关系可用符号表示为：P―>Q。
这里只列举了1的一部分蕴涵，实际上，一个命题所蕴涵的命题数量是很多的，他们构成了为数众多的背景信息，其中特定语境当中只有一个是与该语境有关的前景信息，发话人可以通过相对重音或其他句法手段来明示该前景信息，形成信息焦点，以便与潜在而众多的其他背景信息区分开来。
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
语言预设PPT课件
②具体分析一下这段文字中的预设。一是我们身边并不缺少幸福，二是我 们知道幸福来过，当幸福过去时，我们却倍感惆怅。通过分析作文材料中的 预设，我们也就把握了作文的话题，那就是要珍惜幸福。
可见，在作文审题中注意话题的这些隐含信息，可以避免写作时跑题。
第16页/共25页
课堂训练
1、请根据文段情境，分析本文段的预设。 有一个著名而古老的民间故事，是说有一个呆女婿到丈
人家借织布机。见织布机有四条腿，就对它讲起话来：“你 有四条腿，我只有两条腿，你该背我，怎么让我背起你来了， 你自己走！”于是，把织布机扔在路上，自己跑回家了。 2、请从预设的角度谈谈以下话题作文分别隐含了哪些信息。
第13页/共25页
预设的运用
周朴园：(点头，转向繁漪)你怎么下楼来了，完全好了么? 繁漪：病原来不重⋯⋯回来身体好么? 周朴园：还好。⋯⋯你应当再到楼上去休息。冲儿，你看 你母亲的气色比以前怎么样? 周冲：母亲原来就没有什么病。 周朴园：(不喜欢儿子们这样回答老人的话)谁告诉你的?我 不在的时候，你常来问你母亲的病么?
由此可见，其真正的含义和意图往往需 要借助具体语境才能得以显现。
第15页/共25页
知识拓展
“爸爸回来了!”
就这个句子本身的意义而言，其预设是: 有爸爸，爸爸外出了。
但把这个句子置于一个特定的语境下，就有 可能超越句子的字面意义而显示说话人在特定场 合下的交际意图。如:妈妈对正在玩电游的孩子 说:“爸爸回来了!”其蕴涵含义则是警告孩子不要 再玩了，那么其预设应是:孩子平时怕父亲。
①以“我不知道怎么安慰你”为话题作文。 ②请阅读下面这则材料续写一篇文章，题目自拟，文体不 限（不能写成诗歌），不少于800字。
- 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)。
19
预设触发语
❖ 预设触发语（presupposition triggers)：导致 预设的词或短语。
❖ 1. 有定描述语（definite descriptions)
❖ T →T ❖ F →F
强蕴涵
❖ 我是小学教师→我是教师
❖ 我不是小学教师→我是教师/我不是教师
❖ T →T ❖ F →T/F
弱蕴涵
对比焦点
6
逻辑蕴涵与语义蕴涵
❖ 逻辑蕴涵的语义解释是纯真值的，前后件的 命题可以没有任何意义上的联系。
❖ “如果雪是白的，那么2+2=4。” ❖ 这个命题是真的，因为前件(雪是白的)和后件
❖ 她丈夫去世才不过半年，就要改嫁，未免太 快了。
9
语义预设
❖ 语义预设定义
Frege (1892): presupposition Stawson (1950) 前提、先设
❖ 语义预设研究源自哲学家对自然语言中的照 应现象和照应语本质的探讨。Frege 认为, 人
们通过语句作出断言(assertion)时, 总存在明
15
❖ 3.语义预设的可传递性(transmissibility) ❖ The one who invented telephone is
great(=X) ❖ Someone invented telephone(=Y) ❖ There is something called
telephone(=Z) ❖ X>Y & Y>Z → X>Z
12
语义预设的分类
❖ 命题预设 ❖ 命题与命题之间的预设关系 ❖ 非命题预设 ❖ 非陈述句与其预设之间的关系 ❖ See that you return the book you borrowed
from the library. ❖ You borrowed a book from the library.
显的预设, 即断言中的专用名词必定有所指。
一个著名的例子是:
❖ Kepler died in misery.
10
11
逻辑预设和语义预设
❖ 语义预设是语句的预设，而逻辑预设是命题 的预设。
❖ 并非所有的语句都表达命题，只有具有真假 值的语句也就是通常说的一般的陈述句才直 接表达命题。二值逻辑
❖ “当今法国国王是秃子” ❖ 非真亦非假或无意义的第三值：真值间隙。
4
❖ The king of France is bald. ❖ There is a king of France. ❖ q(F)→p (neither T nor F)
dubious
presupposition failure
5
强蕴涵与弱蕴涵
❖ 杰克的儿子都是海员→杰克的小儿子是海员
❖ 杰克的儿子都不是海员→杰克的小儿子不是海员
(2+2=4)都为真。 ❖ 语义蕴涵的内涵比逻辑蕴涵丰富。语义蕴涵
的命题之间存在语义内容关系。 ❖ “我躺在床上” →“床在我的下面”
7
❖ 语义蕴涵的一个特征： ❖ 一个语句和它推导出来的语义蕴涵之间在意
义上是必然的、稳定的关系，即一个语句存 在，其语义蕴涵就必然存在。
8
蕴含在翻译中的应用
❖ She has been a widow only six months, and it is too soon for her to remarry.
17
预设与语境
❖ 预设存于语境中，受语境制约，也能影响语
境，成为语境的组成部分，是话语理据的基
础。
潜在预设（pre-supposition)
❖ The earthquake didn’t cause the destruction
of the city.
defeasible presuppostion(实际预设）
13
语义预设的特点
❖ 1.语义预设的稳定性(stability）
14
❖ 2. 语义预设的可变性 (changeability) ❖ 预设随焦点的变化而变化 ❖ John’ gave the book to Bill. ❖ John gave the book’ to Bill. ❖ John gave the book to Bill’.
2
❖ 贵客到了→客人到了 ❖ 下位蕴涵上位
coreference 互参原则
❖ 他打了小张的头→他打了小张
❖ 部分蕴涵整体（同一时间）
❖ 他什么戏都爱看→他爱看京剧
❖ 上位蕴涵下位（同一个人）
3
蕴涵
❖p
q
T→T
F→T/F
T/F←T
F←F
预设
pq
T→T F→T T/F←T ?←F
Truth Value Gap 真值缺失
语义学
第六讲
Entailment & Presupposition
1
蕴涵
❖ entailment (蕴涵、衍推、推涵） ❖ 广义：同义解释、预设 ❖ 狭义：纯逻辑推理 ❖ Johnsentence) ❖ Mark is dead. (entailed sentence) ❖ p →q
16
预设投射
❖ Frege: 句子意义具有合成性 （compositionality)=整句意义是各组成部分 意义的函数。
❖ Langendoen&Savin(1971)认为，预设也具有 合成性。
❖ So=S1+S2+S3……Sn ❖ P of So= P of S1+ P of S2+ P of S3…… P of Sn
❖ The destruction of the city was not caused
by the earth.
not defeasible
> There was an earthquake. 18
语义预设的局限性
❖ 难以在复合句中准确表现 ❖ a. If John does linguistics, he will regret
❖ John saw/didn’t see the man with two heads.
❖ > There exists a man with two heads.
❖ 2. 叙实谓词（factive verbs)
❖ John realized/didn’t realize that he was in debt.