预设投射问题研究
|
摘要
“预设”作为一个逻辑概念，是德国哲学家、逻辑学家和数学家弗雷格首先提出来的。他认为专有名词总是指向客观存在的实体，即使句子或命题被否定，预设仍不受影响。语义学也认为预设是可以从句子的语义结构层面分析得出的。
正因为从逻辑——语义的角度研究预设，人们便认为预设是不可取消的。同时，弗雷格认为一个表达式的意义是其合成部分意义的组合，语句的意义是由其组成部分的意义组成的，于是，人们便把复句的预设看成是分句预设的简单相加。但是，大量的例子表明，并非所有复句的预设都是其分句预设的简单相加，在有的情况下，分句的预设消失不见了，不能上升到复句中成为复句的预设。这样，预设投射问题就摆在了人们面前。
随着预设投射问题的发现，人们试图建立一套理论原则来构拟预设的生存特性和可取消性，以便对预设投射问题作出一个完整的解释，大量关于预设投射问题研究的理论便应然而生。本文讨论了两种影响很大的对预设投射问题的处理方法，即卡土南和彼特士的归约含义理论和盖士达的含义取消理论。在本文中，这两种理论都是描述性的。前者认为预设是一种规约含义，同时词汇和语法结构也具有一种继承功能，这种功能决定预设的上升或取消。盖士达则对所有的预设投射现象规定了统一的投射条件，即语境和句子的蕴涵意义。句子的会话含义和预设本身都可以决定预设的上升或取消。但是，这两个理论并不能完全准确地预测分句预设的投射，因此它们自身的正确性也受到了挑战。
关联理论是认知语用学的基础，是二十世纪八九十年代由法国认知心理学家斯波珀和威尔逊在批判和发展了格赖斯的“会话原则”的基础上提出来的。关联理论中有关语境和交际的观点为人们理解话语提供了新的角度，它认为人们的交际为的就是改变对方的认知语境，听话者所要做的，是找出说话者话语中的最佳关联的解释。
在吸取了关联理论有关语境和交际的观点后，本文的最后一部分提出了一个我称之为“对比——选择”法的方法来解决预设的投射问题。我把复句看成是人们交际中的话语，这样，人们对复句的理解，就变成了从听话者的角度去理解复句，并从最佳关联的角度出发去决定分句的预设是否能成为复句的预设。
As a logic concept, presupposition was first proposed by Germanicphilosopher G. Frege, who is also a logician and mathematician. He heldthe idea that proper noun always referred to external objective entity, thatis the negation of sentence or preposition had no impact on presupposition.It is also said that presupposition can be analyzed in semantic level insemantics.
It is because people studied presupposition in the point of logics andsemantics that they thought that presupposition could not be cancelled.What's more, Frege held the idea that the meaning of a sentence wasconstituted by the meaning of its composing elements. To do that, peopletreated presupposition of compound sentence as the simple plus ofpresupposition of component sentences. Great amount of examples,however, had indicated that not all of cases talked above works. In somecases, presupposition of component sentences disappeared and could notbecome the presupposition of compound sentence.
Along with the development of projection problem of presupposition,with the aim to illustrate it fully, people tried to establish a theory to thinkof its existence and cancellation character, and many theories relevantcome into being subsequently. The paper introduced two main theories: the"Conventional implicature "theory of Karttunen and Peters and thecancellation approach of Gazdar, which are just described in the paper."Conventional implicature "theory took the idea that presupposition is akind of conventional implicature, vocabulary and grammar can also have aheritage function, which determine the appearance and cancellation ofpresupposition. Gazdar, on the other hand, prescribed a unitivequalification for all projection, which was implication of context andsentence, and conversational implicatuure of sentence and presuppositionthemselves could determine appearance and cancellation of presupposition.These two theories, however, can not exactly forecast projection ofpresupposition of component sentence, neither, so validity of them facedgreat challenge.
Relevant theory, on the basis of cognitive pragmatics, was proposed byFrench cognitive psychologist Sperber and Wilson in the process ofcriticizing Grice's conversational principle. Views of context andcommunication in relevant theory provided new angle in understandingconversation. It thought that the purpose for communication was to changelistener's cognitive context. What the listener should do was to look forrelevant illustration from speaker's conversation. On the basis of views ofcontext and communication in relevant theory, the paper tries to illustratethe question of projection of presupposition in contrast and selection, anddiscuss whether presupposition of component sentence can becomepresupposition of compound sentence. In my point of view, compoundsentence is utterance in conversation, so it can be understood fromlistener's view.
正因为从逻辑——语义的角度研究预设，人们便认为预设是不可取消的。同时，弗雷格认为一个表达式的意义是其合成部分意义的组合，语句的意义是由其组成部分的意义组成的，于是，人们便把复句的预设看成是分句预设的简单相加。但是，大量的例子表明，并非所有复句的预设都是其分句预设的简单相加，在有的情况下，分句的预设消失不见了，不能上升到复句中成为复句的预设。这样，预设投射问题就摆在了人们面前。
随着预设投射问题的发现，人们试图建立一套理论原则来构拟预设的生存特性和可取消性，以便对预设投射问题作出一个完整的解释，大量关于预设投射问题研究的理论便应然而生。本文讨论了两种影响很大的对预设投射问题的处理方法，即卡土南和彼特士的归约含义理论和盖士达的含义取消理论。在本文中，这两种理论都是描述性的。前者认为预设是一种规约含义，同时词汇和语法结构也具有一种继承功能，这种功能决定预设的上升或取消。盖士达则对所有的预设投射现象规定了统一的投射条件，即语境和句子的蕴涵意义。句子的会话含义和预设本身都可以决定预设的上升或取消。但是，这两个理论并不能完全准确地预测分句预设的投射，因此它们自身的正确性也受到了挑战。
关联理论是认知语用学的基础，是二十世纪八九十年代由法国认知心理学家斯波珀和威尔逊在批判和发展了格赖斯的“会话原则”的基础上提出来的。关联理论中有关语境和交际的观点为人们理解话语提供了新的角度，它认为人们的交际为的就是改变对方的认知语境，听话者所要做的，是找出说话者话语中的最佳关联的解释。
在吸取了关联理论有关语境和交际的观点后，本文的最后一部分提出了一个我称之为“对比——选择”法的方法来解决预设的投射问题。我把复句看成是人们交际中的话语，这样，人们对复句的理解，就变成了从听话者的角度去理解复句，并从最佳关联的角度出发去决定分句的预设是否能成为复句的预设。
As a logic concept, presupposition was first proposed by Germanicphilosopher G. Frege, who is also a logician and mathematician. He heldthe idea that proper noun always referred to external objective entity, thatis the negation of sentence or preposition had no impact on presupposition.It is also said that presupposition can be analyzed in semantic level insemantics.
It is because people studied presupposition in the point of logics andsemantics that they thought that presupposition could not be cancelled.What's more, Frege held the idea that the meaning of a sentence wasconstituted by the meaning of its composing elements. To do that, peopletreated presupposition of compound sentence as the simple plus ofpresupposition of component sentences. Great amount of examples,however, had indicated that not all of cases talked above works. In somecases, presupposition of component sentences disappeared and could notbecome the presupposition of compound sentence.
Along with the development of projection problem of presupposition,with the aim to illustrate it fully, people tried to establish a theory to thinkof its existence and cancellation character, and many theories relevantcome into being subsequently. The paper introduced two main theories: the"Conventional implicature "theory of Karttunen and Peters and thecancellation approach of Gazdar, which are just described in the paper."Conventional implicature "theory took the idea that presupposition is akind of conventional implicature, vocabulary and grammar can also have aheritage function, which determine the appearance and cancellation ofpresupposition. Gazdar, on the other hand, prescribed a unitivequalification for all projection, which was implication of context andsentence, and conversational implicatuure of sentence and presuppositionthemselves could determine appearance and cancellation of presupposition.These two theories, however, can not exactly forecast projection ofpresupposition of component sentence, neither, so validity of them facedgreat challenge.
Relevant theory, on the basis of cognitive pragmatics, was proposed byFrench cognitive psychologist Sperber and Wilson in the process ofcriticizing Grice's conversational principle. Views of context andcommunication in relevant theory provided new angle in understandingconversation. It thought that the purpose for communication was to changelistener's cognitive context. What the listener should do was to look forrelevant illustration from speaker's conversation. On the basis of views ofcontext and communication in relevant theory, the paper tries to illustratethe question of projection of presupposition in contrast and selection, anddiscuss whether presupposition of component sentence can becomepresupposition of compound sentence. In my point of view, compoundsentence is utterance in conversation, so it can be understood fromlistener's view.
引文
① 弗雷格：《弗雷格哲学论著选辑》，商务印书馆，2006，第109页。
① 转引自van der Sandt：context andpresupposition，Croom Helm，1988，P7．
② 转引自何自然、陈新仁：《当代语用学》，北京大学出版社，2004，第140页。
③ 何自然、陈新仁：《当代语用学》，北京大学出版社，2004，第140页。
① 参考何自然、冉永平：《语用学概论》，湖南教育出版社，2002，第149—151页。
① 转引自 van der Sandt: context and presupposition, Croom Helm, 1988, P42.
, ~
① 索振羽：《语用学教程》，北京大学出版社，2000，第134页。
① 转引自 van der Sandt: context and presupposition, Croom Helm, 1988, P7.
① Gazdar: Pragmatics: lmplicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P 124.
① Gazdar: Pragmatics: lmplicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P125.
② Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P126.
① Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P135.
② 参考杨先顺：《论盖士达的潜预设理论》，苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，1997年第4期。
③ Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P143.
① Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P147.
② Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, andLogicalForm, Academic press, 1979, P149.
① Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P150.
-,
① Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, andLogical Form, Academic press, 1979, P156.
~
① Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P2.
① Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition(second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P54.
② Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition(second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P58.
① Sperber. Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P61.
② Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P54.
③ Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P32.
① Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P122.
② Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Biackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P125.
③ Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackweli Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P260.
① 苗兴伟：《关联理论与认知语境》，外语学刊(黑龙江大学学报)，1997年第4期。
① 转引自 van der Sandt：“context and presupposition”，1988，P171．
1. Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979.
2. Mandy Simons: Foundational Issues in presupposition, Carnegie Mellon University, 2005.
3. Rob A.van der Sandt: context and presupposition, Croom Helm, 1988.
4. Ruth M. kempson: Presupposition and the delimitation of Semantics, Cambridge University Press, 1975.
5. Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2003.
6．何自然、冉永平：《语用学概论》，湖南教育出版社，2002。
7．何自然、冉永平：《当代语用学》，北京大学出版社，2004。
8．黄华新、王继同：《新逻辑学》，浙江大学出版社，1999。
9．姜望琪，《当代语用学》，北京大学出版社，2003。
10．索振羽：《语用学教程》，北京大学出版社，2000。
11．熊学亮：《认知语用学概论》，上海外语教育出版社，2000。
12．周礼全：《逻辑——正确思维和有效交际的理论》，人民出版社，1994。
13．中国逻辑学编绎：《语用学与自然逻辑》，开明出版社，1994。
1. Irene Heim: Presupposition Projection, included in R. van der Sandt (ed.) Presupposition, Lexical Meaning and Discourse Processes: Work-shop Reader, University of Nijmegen, 1990.
2. Noah Constant: "or" and Presupposition Projection, University of Califomia, Santa Cruz. (年分不详)
3. Philippe Schlenker: Transparency: An Incremental Theory of Presupposition Projection, UCLA & Institut Jean-Nicod, 2006.
4．曹黎明、汪兴富：《预设消失现象的认知解释》，外国语言文学研究，2005年第3期。
5．侯彤：《从关联理论看语际语言交际中的失败与成功》，沈阳教育学院学报，2006年第1期。
6．何玲梅：《从关联理论看语际语言交际中的失败与成功》，求索，2004年第8期。
7．罗雪梅：《论语义预设与语用预设》，湖南大学学报(社会科学版)，1999年第1期。
8．苗兴伟：《关联理论与认知语境》，外语学刊(黑龙江大学学报)，1997年第4期。
9．马国玉：《预设投射问题的认知解释》，天津外国语学院学报，2005年第3期。
10．马崴：《语义学及语用学中“预设”问题的若干研究》，湖北教育学院学报，2005第3期。
11．王扬：《语用预设的特征及其认知阐释》，安徽教育学院学报，2004第2期。
12．王文博：《预设的认知研究》，外国教学与研究(外国语文双月刊)，2003年第1期。
13．夏茹：《关联理论与话语理解》，聊城大学学报(社会科学版)，2005年第5期。
14．杨先顺：《论盖士达的潜预设理论》，苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，1997年第4期。
15．阮熙春：《关联理论对预设可取消性的解释力》，上海师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2003年第6期。
16．殷志平：《预设分析与语法研究》，南京社会科学，1997第100期。
① 转引自van der Sandt：context andpresupposition，Croom Helm，1988，P7．
② 转引自何自然、陈新仁：《当代语用学》，北京大学出版社，2004，第140页。
③ 何自然、陈新仁：《当代语用学》，北京大学出版社，2004，第140页。
① 参考何自然、冉永平：《语用学概论》，湖南教育出版社，2002，第149—151页。
① 转引自 van der Sandt: context and presupposition, Croom Helm, 1988, P42.
, ~
① 索振羽：《语用学教程》，北京大学出版社，2000，第134页。
① 转引自 van der Sandt: context and presupposition, Croom Helm, 1988, P7.
① Gazdar: Pragmatics: lmplicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P 124.
① Gazdar: Pragmatics: lmplicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P125.
② Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P126.
① Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P135.
② 参考杨先顺：《论盖士达的潜预设理论》，苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，1997年第4期。
③ Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P143.
① Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P147.
② Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, andLogicalForm, Academic press, 1979, P149.
① Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979, P150.
-,
① Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, andLogical Form, Academic press, 1979, P156.
~
① Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P2.
① Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition(second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P54.
② Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition(second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P58.
① Sperber. Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P61.
② Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P54.
③ Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P32.
① Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P122.
② Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Biackwell Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P125.
③ Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackweli Publi-shers Ltd, 2003, P260.
① 苗兴伟：《关联理论与认知语境》，外语学刊(黑龙江大学学报)，1997年第4期。
① 转引自 van der Sandt：“context and presupposition”，1988，P171．
1. Gazdar: Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic press, 1979.
2. Mandy Simons: Foundational Issues in presupposition, Carnegie Mellon University, 2005.
3. Rob A.van der Sandt: context and presupposition, Croom Helm, 1988.
4. Ruth M. kempson: Presupposition and the delimitation of Semantics, Cambridge University Press, 1975.
5. Sperber, Wilson: Relevance: Communication and Cognition (second edition), Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2003.
6．何自然、冉永平：《语用学概论》，湖南教育出版社，2002。
7．何自然、冉永平：《当代语用学》，北京大学出版社，2004。
8．黄华新、王继同：《新逻辑学》，浙江大学出版社，1999。
9．姜望琪，《当代语用学》，北京大学出版社，2003。
10．索振羽：《语用学教程》，北京大学出版社，2000。
11．熊学亮：《认知语用学概论》，上海外语教育出版社，2000。
12．周礼全：《逻辑——正确思维和有效交际的理论》，人民出版社，1994。
13．中国逻辑学编绎：《语用学与自然逻辑》，开明出版社，1994。
1. Irene Heim: Presupposition Projection, included in R. van der Sandt (ed.) Presupposition, Lexical Meaning and Discourse Processes: Work-shop Reader, University of Nijmegen, 1990.
2. Noah Constant: "or" and Presupposition Projection, University of Califomia, Santa Cruz. (年分不详)
3. Philippe Schlenker: Transparency: An Incremental Theory of Presupposition Projection, UCLA & Institut Jean-Nicod, 2006.
4．曹黎明、汪兴富：《预设消失现象的认知解释》，外国语言文学研究，2005年第3期。
5．侯彤：《从关联理论看语际语言交际中的失败与成功》，沈阳教育学院学报，2006年第1期。
6．何玲梅：《从关联理论看语际语言交际中的失败与成功》，求索，2004年第8期。
7．罗雪梅：《论语义预设与语用预设》，湖南大学学报(社会科学版)，1999年第1期。
8．苗兴伟：《关联理论与认知语境》，外语学刊(黑龙江大学学报)，1997年第4期。
9．马国玉：《预设投射问题的认知解释》，天津外国语学院学报，2005年第3期。
10．马崴：《语义学及语用学中“预设”问题的若干研究》，湖北教育学院学报，2005第3期。
11．王扬：《语用预设的特征及其认知阐释》，安徽教育学院学报，2004第2期。
12．王文博：《预设的认知研究》，外国教学与研究(外国语文双月刊)，2003年第1期。
13．夏茹：《关联理论与话语理解》，聊城大学学报(社会科学版)，2005年第5期。
14．杨先顺：《论盖士达的潜预设理论》，苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，1997年第4期。
15．阮熙春：《关联理论对预设可取消性的解释力》，上海师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)，2003年第6期。
16．殷志平：《预设分析与语法研究》，南京社会科学，1997第100期。