基于动态性认知的语用预设研究
|
摘要
预设是意义研究的重要内容。弗雷格于1892年在“论涵义与意谓”一文中指出,命题“开普勒死于贫困”及其否定“开普勒没死于贫困”都预设“存在开普勒”。现代的预设研究由此产生,并得到了蓬勃的发展,形成了逻辑预设、语义预设和语用预设三个研究维度,取得了丰硕的研究成果。语用预设分析预设命题真值在话语行为中的理解,形成了预设的公共背景论,预设命题被视为话语的公共背景(语境集)或说话人的公共背景信念。但是,预设动态性并没有得到有效的解释分析,预设调整问题形成了对传统语用预设理论的极大挑战。因此,预设的动态性分析是推动预设研究的关键。本文的研究目标就是揭示语用预设的动态性并在此基础上建立新的语用预设理论。
本文研究以预设动态性为主线,围绕三个基本内容展开:提出新的语用预设理论,考察预设与公共背景的关系,解决预设调整问题。其中语用预设理论是预设动态性分析及理论发展的关键,预设与公共背景关系考察是预设动态性系统分析的拓展,预设调整问题是对上述理论的检验。Kecskes & Zhang(2009)的社会-认知交际观和假定公共背景理论是本文研究的主要理论来源;他们对以往语用学理论和公共背景理论进行了修正、整合,充分揭示了话语交际中认知、语用、文化因素的辩证关系,相比传统语用预设的理论基础——Grice合作原则理论和Stalnaker的公共背景理论——更加全面系统地揭示了话语交际的动态性,为预设的动态性分析以及预设与公共背景的关系考察提供了理论依据。公共知识模型的形式方法是本文采用的主要分析手段;话语交际是一个多主体认知的过程,通过对交际者在具体情境下认知状态的形式分析可以帮助我们深入系统地认识预设动态性并进一步阐释预设与公共背景的关系。
全文共分六章,各部分内容如下:
第一章为绪论。简述预设研究的三个维度,论述预设的动态性为语用预设研究带来的问题和挑战,指出预设动态性分析是推动语用预设研究、认识预设与公共背景关系、解决预设调整问题的关键。提出本文的研究目标、理论来源及研究方法,最后提供全文的组织结构。
第二章是基于预设动态性的说话人主导预设理论建构。首先介绍预设动态性分析的三个重要概念(信念、意图、公共背景)。提出说话人主导预设的定义,指出预设是说话人关于公共背景的提议,说话人在预设行为中根据真诚性准则、意图性准则对预设命题进行命题态度和交际意图的指派;说话人主导预设可分为真诚性预设和假定性预设两种类型。然后详细分析交际者在认知加工预设时需遵循的行为准则,包括真诚性准则和意图性准则。最后,建立说话人主导预设的工作机制——预设认知加工原理,形成预设在话语交际过程中的整个动态认知加工全貌;预设是说话人对公共背景的提议,预设可能但并不一定成为公共背景部分。
第三章基于说话人主导预设理论重新探讨预设与公共背景关系。首先阐述根据说话人主导预设理论形成的预设动态性认识,然后介绍假定公共背景理论以及公共背景动态性的认识。在此基础上重新探讨预设与公共背景关系。最后根据预设与公共背景关系认识提出语用预设、文化预设、会话涵义、逻辑前提等的区别应给予重新理解。
第四章对预设调整问题给予重新解释。旨在运用说话人主导预设理论及预设与公共背景关系认识重新解释预设调整问题,并以此验证理论研究及关系探讨的解释性、正确性。首先介绍预设调整的起源,评述各种调整方案存在的问题与不足,指出其关键问题在于传统语用预设理论对预设及公共背景的动态性认识不够。然后通过形式化推导解决调整问题,阐释交际者认知加工信息预设的原因及方式,并对调整问题进行系统评价。
第五章对语用预设的策略性进行分析。首先概述以往的语用预设在语用策略中的应用研究,然后基于本文的理论研究分析预设的策略性,并结合三种语用文本(广告语、幽默语、侦查讯问)进行实例考察。
第六章为结论。阐述本文研究的主要创新点,指出本文研究存在的问题,并提出今后研究的展望。
Presupposition plays a most important role in the studies of meaning. Ever since Frege claimed in 1892's On sense and reference that both the proposition "Kepler died in misery" and its negation presuppose that "Kepler exists", presupposition has aroused great interests among philosophers, linguists and pragmatists and has achieved great research findings from three dimensions, namely logic presupposition (logical truth debate of presuppostion), semantic presupposition (formal expression of presupposition), and pragmatic presupposition (pragmatic interpretation of presupposition). Pragmatic research of presupposition deals with truth value of the proposition in terms of its interpretation in the course of communication, and the common ground theory of presupposition is prevailing; presupposition is either the subset of common ground of the conversation or belongs to the speaker's belief in it. However, the dynamism of presupposition is not sufficiently handled, and the accommodation problem has formed great challenge to the common ground theory. Therefore, analysis of dynamism in presupposition is the key issue: the goal of this paper is to expose the dynamic picture of presupposition and form related theories.
The research follows the main line of dynamism and unfolds mainly in three subtasks: to construct speaker-assigned presupposition theory, to investigate relations between presupposition and common ground, and to solve the accommodation problem. In these subtasks the presupposition theory is the central part of the study, the relations investigation is an extension of it, and the accommodation issue is a test for them. The research adopts Kecskes & Zhang's (2009) socio-cultural communication theory and assumed common ground theory as the theoretical basis. These theories have revised and integrated pragmatic theories and views of common ground, and revealed an integral dialectical relation between cognitive, pragmatic and socio-cultural factors in communication. Therefore, the research can benefit from their integral, dynamic perspective. The research method is the formal analysis of the interlocutors' cognitive states by the common knowledge model in modal logic. Discourse communication is a multi-agent process, and the formal analysis can offer a deep, systematic description of the dynamic occurrence of presupposition.
The paper consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction. Three dimensions of presupposition are introduced, in which dynamism has been a great challenge and is the breaking point of the research. Researches goals are proposed, theoretical basis and research methods are introduced, and an outline of the paper is offered. Chapter 2 is the construction of the speaker-assigned presupposition theory. Three important concepts are explained, and the theory is proposed, consisting of three parts: the definition and categorization of speaker-assigned presuppositions, the principles that the interlocutors abide by in presupposing, and the the mechanism for presupposition processing. Chapter 3 investigates relations between presupposition and common ground. Dynamism of presupposition is reanalyzed, the notion of assumed common ground and its dynamism are introduced. Based on this, the relations of presupposition and common ground are revisited, and this calls for more careful treatment of the distinction between presupposition and cultural presupposition, implicature and logical premise. Chapter 4 revisits the accommodation problem. It aims to reinterpret the problem by applying the research findings of Chapter 2 and 3 and test their validity in return. The origins of the problem are reviewed, and problems and weaknesses concerned are analyzed, which reveals that the key point is dynamic understanding of presupposition and its common-groundness. The problem is solved and reevaluated based on the findings. Chapter 5 applies the research to strategic analysis of pragmatic presupposition. Previous analysis is introduced, and stragetic analysis is made both in theory and in case studies of advertisement, humor and interrogation. Chapter 6 is conclusion. It summarizes the innovations of the research, points out weaknesses, and proposes future research.
本文研究以预设动态性为主线,围绕三个基本内容展开:提出新的语用预设理论,考察预设与公共背景的关系,解决预设调整问题。其中语用预设理论是预设动态性分析及理论发展的关键,预设与公共背景关系考察是预设动态性系统分析的拓展,预设调整问题是对上述理论的检验。Kecskes & Zhang(2009)的社会-认知交际观和假定公共背景理论是本文研究的主要理论来源;他们对以往语用学理论和公共背景理论进行了修正、整合,充分揭示了话语交际中认知、语用、文化因素的辩证关系,相比传统语用预设的理论基础——Grice合作原则理论和Stalnaker的公共背景理论——更加全面系统地揭示了话语交际的动态性,为预设的动态性分析以及预设与公共背景的关系考察提供了理论依据。公共知识模型的形式方法是本文采用的主要分析手段;话语交际是一个多主体认知的过程,通过对交际者在具体情境下认知状态的形式分析可以帮助我们深入系统地认识预设动态性并进一步阐释预设与公共背景的关系。
全文共分六章,各部分内容如下:
第一章为绪论。简述预设研究的三个维度,论述预设的动态性为语用预设研究带来的问题和挑战,指出预设动态性分析是推动语用预设研究、认识预设与公共背景关系、解决预设调整问题的关键。提出本文的研究目标、理论来源及研究方法,最后提供全文的组织结构。
第二章是基于预设动态性的说话人主导预设理论建构。首先介绍预设动态性分析的三个重要概念(信念、意图、公共背景)。提出说话人主导预设的定义,指出预设是说话人关于公共背景的提议,说话人在预设行为中根据真诚性准则、意图性准则对预设命题进行命题态度和交际意图的指派;说话人主导预设可分为真诚性预设和假定性预设两种类型。然后详细分析交际者在认知加工预设时需遵循的行为准则,包括真诚性准则和意图性准则。最后,建立说话人主导预设的工作机制——预设认知加工原理,形成预设在话语交际过程中的整个动态认知加工全貌;预设是说话人对公共背景的提议,预设可能但并不一定成为公共背景部分。
第三章基于说话人主导预设理论重新探讨预设与公共背景关系。首先阐述根据说话人主导预设理论形成的预设动态性认识,然后介绍假定公共背景理论以及公共背景动态性的认识。在此基础上重新探讨预设与公共背景关系。最后根据预设与公共背景关系认识提出语用预设、文化预设、会话涵义、逻辑前提等的区别应给予重新理解。
第四章对预设调整问题给予重新解释。旨在运用说话人主导预设理论及预设与公共背景关系认识重新解释预设调整问题,并以此验证理论研究及关系探讨的解释性、正确性。首先介绍预设调整的起源,评述各种调整方案存在的问题与不足,指出其关键问题在于传统语用预设理论对预设及公共背景的动态性认识不够。然后通过形式化推导解决调整问题,阐释交际者认知加工信息预设的原因及方式,并对调整问题进行系统评价。
第五章对语用预设的策略性进行分析。首先概述以往的语用预设在语用策略中的应用研究,然后基于本文的理论研究分析预设的策略性,并结合三种语用文本(广告语、幽默语、侦查讯问)进行实例考察。
第六章为结论。阐述本文研究的主要创新点,指出本文研究存在的问题,并提出今后研究的展望。
Presupposition plays a most important role in the studies of meaning. Ever since Frege claimed in 1892's On sense and reference that both the proposition "Kepler died in misery" and its negation presuppose that "Kepler exists", presupposition has aroused great interests among philosophers, linguists and pragmatists and has achieved great research findings from three dimensions, namely logic presupposition (logical truth debate of presuppostion), semantic presupposition (formal expression of presupposition), and pragmatic presupposition (pragmatic interpretation of presupposition). Pragmatic research of presupposition deals with truth value of the proposition in terms of its interpretation in the course of communication, and the common ground theory of presupposition is prevailing; presupposition is either the subset of common ground of the conversation or belongs to the speaker's belief in it. However, the dynamism of presupposition is not sufficiently handled, and the accommodation problem has formed great challenge to the common ground theory. Therefore, analysis of dynamism in presupposition is the key issue: the goal of this paper is to expose the dynamic picture of presupposition and form related theories.
The research follows the main line of dynamism and unfolds mainly in three subtasks: to construct speaker-assigned presupposition theory, to investigate relations between presupposition and common ground, and to solve the accommodation problem. In these subtasks the presupposition theory is the central part of the study, the relations investigation is an extension of it, and the accommodation issue is a test for them. The research adopts Kecskes & Zhang's (2009) socio-cultural communication theory and assumed common ground theory as the theoretical basis. These theories have revised and integrated pragmatic theories and views of common ground, and revealed an integral dialectical relation between cognitive, pragmatic and socio-cultural factors in communication. Therefore, the research can benefit from their integral, dynamic perspective. The research method is the formal analysis of the interlocutors' cognitive states by the common knowledge model in modal logic. Discourse communication is a multi-agent process, and the formal analysis can offer a deep, systematic description of the dynamic occurrence of presupposition.
The paper consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction. Three dimensions of presupposition are introduced, in which dynamism has been a great challenge and is the breaking point of the research. Researches goals are proposed, theoretical basis and research methods are introduced, and an outline of the paper is offered. Chapter 2 is the construction of the speaker-assigned presupposition theory. Three important concepts are explained, and the theory is proposed, consisting of three parts: the definition and categorization of speaker-assigned presuppositions, the principles that the interlocutors abide by in presupposing, and the the mechanism for presupposition processing. Chapter 3 investigates relations between presupposition and common ground. Dynamism of presupposition is reanalyzed, the notion of assumed common ground and its dynamism are introduced. Based on this, the relations of presupposition and common ground are revisited, and this calls for more careful treatment of the distinction between presupposition and cultural presupposition, implicature and logical premise. Chapter 4 revisits the accommodation problem. It aims to reinterpret the problem by applying the research findings of Chapter 2 and 3 and test their validity in return. The origins of the problem are reviewed, and problems and weaknesses concerned are analyzed, which reveals that the key point is dynamic understanding of presupposition and its common-groundness. The problem is solved and reevaluated based on the findings. Chapter 5 applies the research to strategic analysis of pragmatic presupposition. Previous analysis is introduced, and stragetic analysis is made both in theory and in case studies of advertisement, humor and interrogation. Chapter 6 is conclusion. It summarizes the innovations of the research, points out weaknesses, and proposes future research.
引文
[1]Abbott,B.2000.Presuppositions as nonassertions,Journal of Pragmaitcs,(32):1419-1437.
[2]Abbott,B.2004.Where have some of the presuppositions gone? Manuscript.
[3]Abbott,B.2006.Unaccommodating presuppositions:A neoGricean view.Workshop on Presupposition Accommodation.Ohio State University.
[4]Abbott,B.2008.Presupposition and common ground.Linguistics and Philosophy,(21):523-538.
[5]Abusch,D.2002.Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions.Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory(SALT).
[6]Abusch,D.2005.Triggering from alternative sets and projection of pragmatic presuppositions.Manuscript.
[7]Atlas,J.D.&.Levinson,S.1981.It-clefts,informativeness,and logical form.In Cole,P.(ed.),Radical Pragmatics.New York,Academic Press.
[8]Atlas,J.D.2005.Logic,Meaning,and Conversation.New York,Oxford University Press.
[9]Bach,K.1987.On communicative intentions:a reply to Recanati.Mind and Language,(2):141-154.
[10]Baker,A.J.1956.Presupposition and types of clause.Mind,New Series,65(259):368-378.
[11]Baker,M.1992.In other words:A coursebook on Translation.London:Routledge.
[12]Ball,C.N.1994.The origins of the informative-presupposition it-cleft.Journal of Pragmatics,22(6):603-628.
[13]Barr,D.J.& Keysar,B.2005.Mindreading in an exotic case:The normal adult human.In Malle,B.F.& Hodges,S.D.(eds).Other minds:How humans bridge the divide between self and other New York:Guilford Press,271-283.
[14]Beaver,D.1997.Presupposition.In J.Van Benthem & A,Ter Meulen(eds.),Handbook of Logic and Language.Elsevier Science Publishers,939-1008.
[15]Beaver,D.2004.Focus and Presupposition:an outline of an alternative model.Workshop on Information Structure.
[16]Beaver,D.&.Krahmer E.2001.A partial account of presupposition projection.Journal of Logic,Language and Information,(10):147-182.
[17]Beaver,D.&.Zeevat H.2004.Accommodation.Manuscript.
[18]Bilmes,J.1986.Discourse and Behavior.New York:Plenum Press.
[19]Black,M.1952.Definition,presupposition,and assertion.The Philosophical Review,61(4):532-550.
[20]Borg,E.2006.Minimalism versus contextualism in semantics.In Gerhard,P.&.P.Georg(eds.),Content and Context:Essays on semantics and pragmatics.
[21]Borg,E.2007.Minimal Semantics.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[22]Bos,J.2003.Implementing the binding and accommodation theory for anaphora resolution and presupposition projection.Computational Linguistics,29(2):179-210.
[23]Bosch,P & van der Sandt,R.1999.Focus:linguistic,cognitive,and computational perspectives.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[24]Burks,A.W.1953.The presupposition theory of induction.Philosophy of Science,20(3):177-197.
[25]Burton-Roberts,N.1989a.On Horn's dilemma,presupposition and negation.Journal of Linguistics,(25):95-125.
[26]Burton-Roberts,N.1989b.The Limits to Debate:A revised theory of semantic presupposition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[27]Cappelen,H.&.E.Lepore 2005.Insensitive Semantics:a defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism.Oxford:Blackwell.
[28]Carston,R.2002.Thoughts and Utterances.Oxford:Blackwell.
[29]Carston,R.2005.Relevance theory,Grice and the neo-Griceans:A response to Laurence Horn's 'Current issues in neo-Gricean pragrnatics'.Intercultural Pragmatics,2(3):303-319.
[30]Chen,S.2008.Cultural presupposition and decision-making in the functional approach to translation.Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences,4(1):83-89.
[31]Chierchia,G.&.McConnell-Ginnet S.1990.Meaning and Grammar.Cambridge.Cambridge,Mass.:The MIT Press.
[32]Clark,H.1996.Using Languages.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[33]Clark,H.,& Brennan,S.1991.Grounding in communication.In Resnick,J.Levine,& S.Teasley(eds.),Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition,127-149.Washington,DC:American Psychological Association.
[34]Collins,P.2006.It-clefts and wh-clefts:Prosody and Pragrnatics.Journal of Pragmatics,(38):1706-1720.
[35]Colston,H.L.,& Katz,A.(eds.),2005.Figurative language comprehension:Social and cultural influences.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
[36]Crook,J.2004.On covert communication in advertising.Journal of Pragmatics,(36):715-738.
[37]Danziger,E.2006.The thought that counts:interactionai consequences of variation in cultural theories of meaning.In N.Enfield & S.Levinson(eds.),Roots of Human Sociality.Culture,Cognition and Interaction.Oxford:Berg.259-278.
[38]Davis,P.C.2000.Presupposition resolution with discourse information structures.Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics,(54):25-58.
[39]Davis,W.1998.Implicature.Intention,Convention,and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[40]Davis,W.2003.Meaning,Expression,and Thought.New York:Cambridge University Press.
[41]Davis,W.2007.How normative is implicature? Journal of Pragmatics,(39):1655-1672.
[42]Davis,W.2008.Replies to Green,Szabo,Jeshion,and Siebel.Philosophical Studies,(137):427-445.
[43]Delin,J.1991.Presupposition and shared knowledge in it-clefts.Manuscript.
[44]Delin,J.1992.Properties of it-cleft presupposition.Journal of Semantics,9(4):289-306.
[45]Donnel,F.H.1972.A note about presupposition.Mind＞New series,81(321):123-124.
[46]Drew,P.1995.Interaction sequences and anticipatory interactive planning.In E.Goody(ed.),Social Intelligence and Interaction.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.111-138.
[47]Drew,P.2005.Is confusion a state of mind? In Hedwig te Molder & J.Potter (eds.),Conversation and Cognition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.161-183.
[48]Dryer,M.S.1996.Focus,pragmatic presupposition,and activated propositions.Journal of Pragmatics,(27):475-523.
[49]Duranti,A.1988.Intentions,language,and social action in a Samoan context.Journal of Pragmatics,(12):13-33.
[50]Duranti,A.1993.Truth and intentionality:an ethnographic critique.Cultural Anthropology,(8):214-245.
[51]Duranti,A.2006.The social ontology of intentions.Discourse Studies,(8):31-40.
[52]Edwards,D.2006.Discourse,cognition and social practices:the rich surface of language and social interaction.Discourse Studies,(8):41-49.
[53]Edwards,D.& Potter,J.2005.Discursive psychology,mental states and descriptions.In H.te Molder and J.Potter(eds.),Conversation and Cognition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.241-259.
[54]Ehrman,B.D.1993.The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.New York:Oxford University Press.
[55]Fagin,R.,Halpern,J.Y.,Moses,Y.& Vardi,M.Y.2003.Reasoning About Knowledge.Massachusetts.Cambridge,Mass:the MIT Press.
[56]Fawcett,P.2000.Presupposition and Translation.In L.Hickey(ed.),The Pragmatics of Translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.114-123.
[57]Fodor,J.& Lepore E.1991.Why meaning(probably) isn't conceptual role.Mind and Language,(6):328-343.
[58]Gauker,C.1998.What is a context of utterance? Philosophical Studies,91(2):149-172.
[59]George,B.R.2008a.A New Predictive Theory of Presupposition Projection.SALT 18.UCLA.
[60]George,B.R.2008b.Presupposition Repairs:a Static,Trivalent Approach to Predicting Projection.Los Angeles,UCLA.MA.
[61]Gibbs,R.Jr.1999.Intentions in the Experience of Meaning.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[62]Gibbs,R.Jr.2001.Intentions as emergent products of social interactions.In B.Malle,L.Moses & D.Baldwin(eds.),Intentions and Intentionality.Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press.105-122.
[63]Gibbs,R.2002.A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated.Journal of Pragmatics,(34):457-486.
[64]Giora,R.2003.On our mind:Salience,context and figurative language.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[65]Goddard,A.1998.The Language of Advertising.London and New York:Routledge.
[66]Green,M.2007.Self-Expression.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[67]Green,M.2008.Expression,indication,and showing what's within.Philosophical Studies,(137):389-398.
[68]Grice,P.C.1989.Studies in the Way of Words.Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press.
[69]Haugh,M.2008.Intention in pragmatics.Intercultural Pragmatics,5(2):99-110.
[70]Heim,I.1983.On the projection problem for presuppositions.West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics:114-125.Republished in 1991 Davis,S. Pragmatics:A Reader.New York:Oxford University Press.397-405.
[71]Heim,I.1992.Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs.Journal of Semantics,(9):183-221.
[72]Heritage,J.1984.Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology.Cambridge and New York:Polity Press.
[73]Hopper,R.2005.A cognitive agnostic in conversation analysis:when do strategies affect spoken interaction? In H.te Molder & J.Potter(eds.),Conversation and Cognition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,134-158.
[74]Horn,L.R.1984.Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference:Q-based and R-based implieature.In Schiffrin,D.(ed.),Meaning,Form,and Use in Context:Linguistic Applications.Washington DC:Georgetown University Press.11-42.
[75]Horn,L.R.1989.A Natural History of Negation.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[76]Horn,L.R.2005.The border wars.In von Heusinger,K.& Turner,K.P.(eds.),Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics.Oxford:Elsevier.21-48.
[77]Horn,L.R.2006.More issues in neo- and post-Gricean pragmatics:A response to Robyn Carston's response.Intercultural Pragmatics,3(1):81-93.
[78]Huang,Y.2007.Pragmatics.New York:Oxford University Press.
[79]Jaszczolt,K.M.2005.Default Semantics.Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[80]Jaszczolt,K.M.2006.Meaning merger:pragmatic inference,defaults,and compositionality.Intercultural Pragmatics,3(2):195-212.
[81]Kadmon,N.2001.Formal Pragmatics:Semantics,pragmatics,presupposition,and focus.Malden:Blackwell Publishers.
[82]Karttunen,L.1974.Presupposition and linguistic context.Theoretical Linguistics,(1):181-193.Republished in1998 A.Kasher(ed.),Pragmatics:Critical Concepts(Volume Ⅳ).London and New York:Routledge.32-46.
[83]Kasper,R.T.,Davis,P.C.& Roberts,C.1999.An integrated approach to reference and presupposition resolution.ACL'99 Workshop on the Relationship Between Discourse/Dialogue Structure and Reference.College Park:Maryland.
[84]Ke,P.1999.Cultural presuppositions and misreadings.Meta,(44):133-143.
[85]Kecskes,I.2004.Lexical merging,conceptual blending,cultural crossing.Intercultural Pragmatics,1(1):1-26.
[86]Kecskes,I.2008.Dueling contexts:A dynamic model of meaning.Journal of Pragmatics,(40):385-406.
[87]Kecskes,I.& J.Mey(eds.).2008.Intention,Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer.Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[88]Kecskes,I.&.Zhang FH.2009.Activating,seeking and creating common ground:A socio-cognitive approach.Pragmatics and Cognition,(2).
[89]Keenan,E.1971.Two kinds of presupposition in natural language.In 1998Kasher,A.(ed.),Pragmatics:Critical concepts.London and New York:Routledge.
[90]Keysar,B.& Bly,B.1995.Intuitions of the transparency of idioms:Can one keep a secret by spilling the beans? Journal of Memory and Language,(34):89-109.
[91]Keysar,B.2007.Communication and miscommunication:The role of egocentric processes.Intercultural Pragmatics,4(1):71-84.
[92]Knott,A.&.Vlugter P.2003.Syntactic disambiguation using presupposition resolution.Australasian Language Technology Workshop.98-104.
[93]Koschmann,T.& Le Baron,C.D.2003.Reconsidering common ground:examining Clark's contribution theory in the OR.In K.Kuutti,E.H.Karsten,G.Fitzpatrick,P.Dourish & K.Schmidt(eds.),Proceedings of the Eight European Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work.Amsterdam:Kluwer.
[94]Krahmer,E.1998.Presupposition and Anaphora.Stanford:CSLI publications.
[95]Kripke,S.1963a.Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic Ⅰ:Normal Modal Propositional Calculi.Zeitschrift f(u|¨)r Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik(9):67-96.
[96]Kripke,S.1963b.Semantical considerations on modal logic.Acta Philosophica Fennica,(16):83-94.
[97]Kripke,S.1965.Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic Ⅱ:Non-Normal Modal Propositional Calculi.In J.W.Addison,L.Henkin & A.Amsterdam (eds.),The Theory of Models.North-Holland Publishing Co.
[98]Lambrecht,K.1994.Information Structure and Sentence Form:Topics,focus,and the mental representations of discourse referents.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[99]LeVine,R.1984.Properties of culture:an ethnographic view.In R.Shweder & R.LeVine(eds.),Culture Theory:Essays on Mind,Self and Emotion.New York:Cambridge University Press.67-87.
[100]Levinson,S.1983.Pragmatics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[101]Levinson,S.2000.Presumptive Meanings:The theory of generalized conversational implicature.Cambridge:The MIT Press.
[102]Lewis,D.1979.Scorekeeping in a language game.Journal of Philosophical Logic,(8):339-359.Republished in 1991 Davis,S.Pragmatics:A Reader.New York:Oxford University Press.416-427.
[103]Li,F.2005.Presupposition Analysis in Advertising Language,Sino-US English Teaching,2(11):48-51.
[104]Nehrlich,G.1967.Presupposition and classical logical relations.Analysis,27(3):104-106.
[105]Nelson,E.J.1946.Contradiction and the presupposition of existence.Mind＞New series,55(220):319-327.
[106]Nida,E.A.1993.Language,Culture and Translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[107]Ochs,E.1984.Clarification and culture.In D.Schiffrin(ed.),Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics.Washington,DC:Georgetown University Press.325-341.
[108]Prince,E.F.1978.A comparison of it-clefts and wh-clefts in discourse.Language,(54):883-906.
[109]Prince,E.F.1981.Toward a taxonomy of given-new information.In Cole,P.(ed.),Radical Pragmatics.New York:Academic Press.
[110]Prince,E.F.1986.On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions.Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory,22nd Regional Meeting,Chicago Linguistic Society,A.F.P.A.Farley,Edito.208-222
[111]Raskin,V.1985.Semantic Mechanisms of Humour.Dordrecht:Reidel,
[112]Recanati,F.2002.Unarticulated constituents.Linguistics and Philosophy,(25):299-345.
[113]Recanati,F.2004.Literal Meaning.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[114]Recanati,F.1986.On defining communicative intentions.Mind and Language,(1):213-242.
[115]Rescher,N.1961.On the logic of presupposition.Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,21(4):521-527.
[116]Richland,J.2006.The multiple calculi of meaning.Discourse and Society,(17):65-97.
[117]Roberts,C.2006.Only,presupposition and implicature.Manuscript.
[118]Roberts,G.W.1969.A problem about presupposition.Mind＞New series,78(310):270-271.
[119]Rosaldo,M.1982.The things we do with words:Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy.Language in Society,(11):203-237.
[120]Saul,J.2001.Critical studies:Wayne A.Davis,Conversational Implicature:Intention and Convention in the Failure of Gricean Theory.Nous,(35):630-641.
[121]Schegioff,E.1996.Confirming allusions:toward an empirical account of action.American Journal of Sociology,(102):161-216.
[122]Schlenker,P.2006."Maximize presupposition" and Gricean reasoning. Manuscript.
[123]Searle,J.1983.Intentionality:An essay in the philosophy of mind.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
[124]Searle,J.1990.Collective intentions and actions.In P.Cohen,J.Morgan & M.Pollack(eds.),Intentions in Communication.Cambridge,Mass.:The MIT Press.401-416.
[125]Simons,M.2001.On the conversational basis of some presuppositions.Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11.
[126]Simons,M.2003.Presupposition and accommodation:Understanding the Stalnakerian picture.Philosophical Studies,(112):251-278.
[127]Simons,M.2004.Presupposition and relevance.In Z.G Szabo(ed.),Semantics vs.Pragmatics.Oxford:Oxford University Press.329-355.
[128]Simons,M.2006.Presupposition without common ground.Submitted.
[129]Simons,M.2007.Presupposition and cooperation.Manuscript.
[130]Soames,S.1982.How presuppositions are inherited:A solution to the projection problem.Linguistic Inquiry,(13):483-545.Republished in1998 A.Kasher(ed.),Pragmatics:Critical Concepts(Volume Ⅳ).London and New York:Routledge.69-137.
[131]Spenader,J.2002.Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse.Akademitryck AB,Edsbruk,Sweden,Stockholm University.Ph.D.
[132]Sperber,D.& D.Wilson 1986.Relevance:communication and cognition.Oxford:Blackwell.
[133]Stalnaker,R.C.1974.Pragmatic Presuppositions.In Milton K.Munitz &Peter Unger,(eds.),Semantics and Philosophy.New York:New York U.Press:197-213.Republished in 1999 R.C Stalnaker,Context and content:essays on intentionality in speech and thought.Oxford:Oxford University Press.47-62.
[134]Stalnaker,R.C.1978.Assertion.Syntax and Semantics(9):315-332.
[135]Stalnaker,R.C.1999.Context and Content.Oxford and New York:Oxford University Press.
[136]Stalnaker,R.C.2002.Common ground.Linguistics and Philosophy,25 (5-6):701-721.
[137]Stalnaker,R.C.2008.A response to Abbott on presupposition and common ground.Linguistics and Philosophy,(31):539-544.
[138]Stuckardt,R.2005.Verifying binding constraints for anaphor resolution.The HPSG05 Conference.
[139]Tanaka,K,1994/1999.Advertising Language:A Pragmatic Approach to Advertisements in Britain and Japan.London:Routledge.
[140]Thompson,R.J.2008.Grades of meaning.Synthese,(161):283-308.
[141]Travis,C.1997.Pragmaties.In Hale,B.&.Wright C.(eds.),Companion to the Philosophy of Language.Oxford:Blackwell.87-107.
[142]Van der Sandt,R.1988.Context and Presupposition.New York:Croon Helm.
[143]Van der Sandt,R.1992.Presupposition projection as anaphor resolution.Journal of Semantics,(9):333-377.
[144]Van Fraassen,B.C.1968.Presupposition,implication,and self-reference.The Journal of Philosophy,65(5):136-152.
[145]Van Fraassen,B.C.1969.Presuppositions,supervaluations,and free logic.In Lambert,K.(ed.),The Logical Way of Doing Things.New Haven:Yale University Press.67-91.
[146]Von Fintel,K.1998.Quantifiers and 'If-clauses.The Philosophical Quarterly,48(191):209-214.
[147]Von Fintel,K.1999a.NPI licensing,Strawson entailment,and context dependency.Journal of Semantics,16(2):97-148.
[148]Von Fintel,K.1999b.The presupposition of subjunctive conditionals.In U.Sauerland & O.Percus.The Interpretive Tract,No.25 in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics,pp.29-44.Cambridge,MA:MITWPL.
[149]Von Fintel,K.2000.What is accommodation? Manuscript.
[150]Von Fintel,K.2006.What is accommodation,again? Workshop on Presupposition Accommodation.The Ohio State University.
[151]Yule,G.1996.Pragmatics.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[152]Zeevat,H.1992.Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics.Journal of Semantics,(9):379-412.
[153]Zeevat,H.2002.Explaining presupposition triggers.In van Deemter,K.& R.Kibble(Eds.),Information Sharing.Stanford:CSLI Publications.61-87.
[154]Zeevat,H.2004.Presupposition triggers,context markers,or speech act markers.In Blutner,R.& H.Zeevat(Eds.),Optimality Theory and Pragmatics.Houndmills,Basingstoke,Hampshire:Palgrave/Macmillan.
[155]Zhang,FH.2008.Conversational constraint of truthfulness on presuppositions.Intercultural Pragmatics,5(3):367-388.
[156]蔡曙山2001论哲学的语言转向及其意义,《学术界》第86期:16-27.
[157]蔡曙山2006再论哲学的语言转向及其意义--兼论从分析哲学到语言哲学的发展,《学术界》第119期:20-39.
[158]陈嘉映2003《语言哲学》,北京:北京大学出版社.
[159]陈新仁1998论广告用语中的语用预设,《外国语》第5期:54-57.
[160]池昌海1996相声“包袱”与语用“预设”、“含意”虚假,《修辞学习》第3期.
[161]戴耀晶2001汉语疑问句的预设及其语义分析,《广播电视大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)第2期:87-90.
[162]冯志伟1999《现代语言学流派》,西安:陕西人民出版社.
[163]弗雷格2006《弗雷格哲学论著选辑》,北京:商务印书馆.
[164]高彦梅2004《语篇预设·语言学研究》(第三辑),北京:高等教育出版社.
[165]戈玲玲2002预设及翻译技巧,《中国翻译》第3期:42-44.
[166]格雷马斯2005《论意义》,天津:百花文艺出版社。
[167]郭富辉2001谈预设在广告中的作用,《上海理工大学学报》(社会科学版)第9期:47-50.
[168]何兆熊2000《新编语用学概要》,上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[169]何兆熊2003《语用学文献选读》,上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[170]何自然1988《语用学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社.
[171]何自然、陈新仁2004《当代语用学》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
[172]黄国文2001 《语篇分析的理论与实践》,上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[173]黄华新1994.略论汉语预设,《杭州大学学报》第4期.
[174]黄华新、陈宗明2005《描述语用学》,长春:吉林人民出版社.
[175]黄华新、徐以中2007预设的动态性和动态预设观,《浙江大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第5期:35-42.
[176]姜望琪2003《当代语用学》,北京:北京大学出版社.
[177]李昌年2002与预设有关的歧义,《江西教育学院学报》(社会科学)第1期:27-30.
[178]李健2008广告语言与文化认同,《社会科学战线》第1期:142-144.
[179]李锡胤1990对于预设与推涵的思考,《外语学刊》第3期.
[180]李锡胤1996篇章中的预设问题,《外语学刊》第4期.
[181]李锡胤2003再论预设与推涵,《外语研究》第6期.
[182]刘大为2001预设:语义预设与语用预设,《中国大学学术讲演录》,广西师范大学出版社.
[183]刘强2007《先设消解机制的分析》,北京语言大学博士学位论文.
[184]刘森林2007《语用策略》,北京:社会科学文献出版社.
[185]刘小涛2004预设和前提之辩,《社会科学辑刊》第6期:27-29.
[186]刘宇红2003预设投射的Karttunen模式与Fauconnier模式,《外语学刊》第2期:62-65.
[187]刘哲2001论蕴涵与预设的区分问题,《解放军外国语学院学报》第3期:61-64.
[188]马蒂尼奇1998《语言哲学》,北京:商务印书馆.
[189]马国玉2005预设投射问题的认知解释,《天津外国语学院学报》第 3期:49-54.
[190]麦考莱1998《语言逻辑分析--语言学家关注的一切逻辑问题》,杭州:杭州大学出版社.
[191]苗兴伟2002《语用预设的语篇功能》,苏州:苏州大学出版社.
[192]缪鑫平2003语用预设与谈话策略,《云梦学刊》第2期:113-114.
[193]欧阳巧琳2001预设在广告中的语用功能,《中南民族学院学报》(人文社会科学版)第5期.
[194]庞学铨、杨大春、黄华新2005《二十世纪西方哲学的分化与会通》,杭州:浙江大学出版社。
[195]彭玉海2001预设的语义描写功能,《中国俄语教学》第4期:1-8.
[196]彭玉海2003俄语动词语义结构的预设机制,《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期:50-53.
[197]任哗、张鼓2003论语用预设的交际价值,《新疆师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)第4期:188-191.
[198]盛晓明2000《话语规则与知识基础》,上海:学林出版社.
[199]石安石1986句义的预设,《语文研究》第2期.
[200]石安石1994《语义研究》,北京:语文出版社.
[201]束定芳1989关于预设理论的几个问题,《外语研究》第3期.
[202]斯特劳森 1998论指称,《语言哲学》,马蒂尼奇编.北京:商务印书馆,141-446.
[203]王建华2002《汉英跨文化语用学研究》,复旦大学博士论文。
[204]王峻岩2002说预设,《修辞学习》第6期:9-10.
[205]王芹2004汉英广告用语中的预设,《广西社会科学》第10期:114-116.
[206]王守元、苗兴伟2003预设与文学语篇的建构,《外语与外语教学》第3期:1-3.
[207]王维贤、李先焜、陈宗明1989《语言逻辑引论》,武汉:湖北教育出版社.
[208]王文博2003预设的认知研究,《外语教学与研究》第1期:34-39.
[209]维特根斯坦2002《逻辑哲学论》,北京:商务印书馆。
[210]维特根斯坦2004《哲学研究》,北京:商务印书馆。
[211]魏在江2002预设研究的多维思考,《Foreigu Language Edueation》第2期:32-35.
[212]文炼2002预设、蕴涵与句子的理解,《世界汉语教学》第3期:5-9.
[213]文卫平、方立2008《动态意义理论》,北京:中国社会科学出版社.
[214]谢梦、徐靖2006文化预设对文学翻译的作用,《长沙大学学报》第1期:107-109.
[215]熊学亮1999《认知语用学概论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[216]熊学亮2003《语言学新解》,上海:复旦大学出版社.
[217]徐烈炯、刘丹青1998《话题的结构与功能》,上海:上海教育出版社.
[218]徐烈炯、刘丹青2003《话题与焦点新论》,上海:上海教育出版社.
[219]杨翠2006《语言学中的预设分析》,上海师范大学博士学位论文。
[220]杨石乔1999英汉语用预设与信息中心对比,《外语学刊》第4期:27-33.
[221]殷志平1997预设分析与语法研究,《南京社会科学》第6期.
[222]尹青梅2005文化预设的认知透视,《湘潭大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)第5期:151-154.
[223]余玲丽2003论信息结构中主题与存在性预设,《西安外国语学院学报》第1期:55-57.
[224]俞如珍1996语义预设、语用预设和会话含义,《四川外语学院学报》第1期:66-70.
[225]尉万传2009《幽默言语多维研究--语言、逻辑、语境、认知视角》,浙江大学博士论文.
[226]袁毓林2000论否定句的焦点、预设和辖域歧义,《中国语文》第2 期.
[227]曾宇均2005翻译中的文化预设,《湖南工程学院学报》第2期:29-30.
[228]张峰辉、周昌乐2008“DJ+的是+M”的焦点和预设分析,《语言研究》第2期:90-94.
[229]张克定1995语用预设与信息中心,《外语教学》第2期:15-19.
[230]张克定1997预设与割裂句的强调,《外语与外语教学》第4期.
[23l]张克定1999预设·调核·焦点,《外语学刊》第4期:22-26.
[232]张谊生1996现代汉语预设否定副词的表义特征,《世界汉语教学》第2期:30-34.
[233]张谊生1999近代汉语预设否定副词探微,《古汉语研究》第1期:27-35.
[234]周昌乐2001《认知逻辑导论》,北京:清华大学出版社.
[235]周昌乐2003《心脑计算举要》,北京:清华大学出版社.
[236]周礼全1994《逻辑--正确思维和成功交际的理论》,北京:人民出版社.
[237]邹崇理2000《自然语言逻辑研究》,北京:北京大学出版社.
[2]Abbott,B.2004.Where have some of the presuppositions gone? Manuscript.
[3]Abbott,B.2006.Unaccommodating presuppositions:A neoGricean view.Workshop on Presupposition Accommodation.Ohio State University.
[4]Abbott,B.2008.Presupposition and common ground.Linguistics and Philosophy,(21):523-538.
[5]Abusch,D.2002.Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions.Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory(SALT).
[6]Abusch,D.2005.Triggering from alternative sets and projection of pragmatic presuppositions.Manuscript.
[7]Atlas,J.D.&.Levinson,S.1981.It-clefts,informativeness,and logical form.In Cole,P.(ed.),Radical Pragmatics.New York,Academic Press.
[8]Atlas,J.D.2005.Logic,Meaning,and Conversation.New York,Oxford University Press.
[9]Bach,K.1987.On communicative intentions:a reply to Recanati.Mind and Language,(2):141-154.
[10]Baker,A.J.1956.Presupposition and types of clause.Mind,New Series,65(259):368-378.
[11]Baker,M.1992.In other words:A coursebook on Translation.London:Routledge.
[12]Ball,C.N.1994.The origins of the informative-presupposition it-cleft.Journal of Pragmatics,22(6):603-628.
[13]Barr,D.J.& Keysar,B.2005.Mindreading in an exotic case:The normal adult human.In Malle,B.F.& Hodges,S.D.(eds).Other minds:How humans bridge the divide between self and other New York:Guilford Press,271-283.
[14]Beaver,D.1997.Presupposition.In J.Van Benthem & A,Ter Meulen(eds.),Handbook of Logic and Language.Elsevier Science Publishers,939-1008.
[15]Beaver,D.2004.Focus and Presupposition:an outline of an alternative model.Workshop on Information Structure.
[16]Beaver,D.&.Krahmer E.2001.A partial account of presupposition projection.Journal of Logic,Language and Information,(10):147-182.
[17]Beaver,D.&.Zeevat H.2004.Accommodation.Manuscript.
[18]Bilmes,J.1986.Discourse and Behavior.New York:Plenum Press.
[19]Black,M.1952.Definition,presupposition,and assertion.The Philosophical Review,61(4):532-550.
[20]Borg,E.2006.Minimalism versus contextualism in semantics.In Gerhard,P.&.P.Georg(eds.),Content and Context:Essays on semantics and pragmatics.
[21]Borg,E.2007.Minimal Semantics.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[22]Bos,J.2003.Implementing the binding and accommodation theory for anaphora resolution and presupposition projection.Computational Linguistics,29(2):179-210.
[23]Bosch,P & van der Sandt,R.1999.Focus:linguistic,cognitive,and computational perspectives.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[24]Burks,A.W.1953.The presupposition theory of induction.Philosophy of Science,20(3):177-197.
[25]Burton-Roberts,N.1989a.On Horn's dilemma,presupposition and negation.Journal of Linguistics,(25):95-125.
[26]Burton-Roberts,N.1989b.The Limits to Debate:A revised theory of semantic presupposition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[27]Cappelen,H.&.E.Lepore 2005.Insensitive Semantics:a defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism.Oxford:Blackwell.
[28]Carston,R.2002.Thoughts and Utterances.Oxford:Blackwell.
[29]Carston,R.2005.Relevance theory,Grice and the neo-Griceans:A response to Laurence Horn's 'Current issues in neo-Gricean pragrnatics'.Intercultural Pragmatics,2(3):303-319.
[30]Chen,S.2008.Cultural presupposition and decision-making in the functional approach to translation.Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences,4(1):83-89.
[31]Chierchia,G.&.McConnell-Ginnet S.1990.Meaning and Grammar.Cambridge.Cambridge,Mass.:The MIT Press.
[32]Clark,H.1996.Using Languages.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[33]Clark,H.,& Brennan,S.1991.Grounding in communication.In Resnick,J.Levine,& S.Teasley(eds.),Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition,127-149.Washington,DC:American Psychological Association.
[34]Collins,P.2006.It-clefts and wh-clefts:Prosody and Pragrnatics.Journal of Pragmatics,(38):1706-1720.
[35]Colston,H.L.,& Katz,A.(eds.),2005.Figurative language comprehension:Social and cultural influences.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
[36]Crook,J.2004.On covert communication in advertising.Journal of Pragmatics,(36):715-738.
[37]Danziger,E.2006.The thought that counts:interactionai consequences of variation in cultural theories of meaning.In N.Enfield & S.Levinson(eds.),Roots of Human Sociality.Culture,Cognition and Interaction.Oxford:Berg.259-278.
[38]Davis,P.C.2000.Presupposition resolution with discourse information structures.Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics,(54):25-58.
[39]Davis,W.1998.Implicature.Intention,Convention,and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[40]Davis,W.2003.Meaning,Expression,and Thought.New York:Cambridge University Press.
[41]Davis,W.2007.How normative is implicature? Journal of Pragmatics,(39):1655-1672.
[42]Davis,W.2008.Replies to Green,Szabo,Jeshion,and Siebel.Philosophical Studies,(137):427-445.
[43]Delin,J.1991.Presupposition and shared knowledge in it-clefts.Manuscript.
[44]Delin,J.1992.Properties of it-cleft presupposition.Journal of Semantics,9(4):289-306.
[45]Donnel,F.H.1972.A note about presupposition.Mind＞New series,81(321):123-124.
[46]Drew,P.1995.Interaction sequences and anticipatory interactive planning.In E.Goody(ed.),Social Intelligence and Interaction.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.111-138.
[47]Drew,P.2005.Is confusion a state of mind? In Hedwig te Molder & J.Potter (eds.),Conversation and Cognition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.161-183.
[48]Dryer,M.S.1996.Focus,pragmatic presupposition,and activated propositions.Journal of Pragmatics,(27):475-523.
[49]Duranti,A.1988.Intentions,language,and social action in a Samoan context.Journal of Pragmatics,(12):13-33.
[50]Duranti,A.1993.Truth and intentionality:an ethnographic critique.Cultural Anthropology,(8):214-245.
[51]Duranti,A.2006.The social ontology of intentions.Discourse Studies,(8):31-40.
[52]Edwards,D.2006.Discourse,cognition and social practices:the rich surface of language and social interaction.Discourse Studies,(8):41-49.
[53]Edwards,D.& Potter,J.2005.Discursive psychology,mental states and descriptions.In H.te Molder and J.Potter(eds.),Conversation and Cognition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.241-259.
[54]Ehrman,B.D.1993.The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.New York:Oxford University Press.
[55]Fagin,R.,Halpern,J.Y.,Moses,Y.& Vardi,M.Y.2003.Reasoning About Knowledge.Massachusetts.Cambridge,Mass:the MIT Press.
[56]Fawcett,P.2000.Presupposition and Translation.In L.Hickey(ed.),The Pragmatics of Translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.114-123.
[57]Fodor,J.& Lepore E.1991.Why meaning(probably) isn't conceptual role.Mind and Language,(6):328-343.
[58]Gauker,C.1998.What is a context of utterance? Philosophical Studies,91(2):149-172.
[59]George,B.R.2008a.A New Predictive Theory of Presupposition Projection.SALT 18.UCLA.
[60]George,B.R.2008b.Presupposition Repairs:a Static,Trivalent Approach to Predicting Projection.Los Angeles,UCLA.MA.
[61]Gibbs,R.Jr.1999.Intentions in the Experience of Meaning.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[62]Gibbs,R.Jr.2001.Intentions as emergent products of social interactions.In B.Malle,L.Moses & D.Baldwin(eds.),Intentions and Intentionality.Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press.105-122.
[63]Gibbs,R.2002.A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated.Journal of Pragmatics,(34):457-486.
[64]Giora,R.2003.On our mind:Salience,context and figurative language.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[65]Goddard,A.1998.The Language of Advertising.London and New York:Routledge.
[66]Green,M.2007.Self-Expression.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[67]Green,M.2008.Expression,indication,and showing what's within.Philosophical Studies,(137):389-398.
[68]Grice,P.C.1989.Studies in the Way of Words.Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press.
[69]Haugh,M.2008.Intention in pragmatics.Intercultural Pragmatics,5(2):99-110.
[70]Heim,I.1983.On the projection problem for presuppositions.West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics:114-125.Republished in 1991 Davis,S. Pragmatics:A Reader.New York:Oxford University Press.397-405.
[71]Heim,I.1992.Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs.Journal of Semantics,(9):183-221.
[72]Heritage,J.1984.Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology.Cambridge and New York:Polity Press.
[73]Hopper,R.2005.A cognitive agnostic in conversation analysis:when do strategies affect spoken interaction? In H.te Molder & J.Potter(eds.),Conversation and Cognition.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,134-158.
[74]Horn,L.R.1984.Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference:Q-based and R-based implieature.In Schiffrin,D.(ed.),Meaning,Form,and Use in Context:Linguistic Applications.Washington DC:Georgetown University Press.11-42.
[75]Horn,L.R.1989.A Natural History of Negation.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[76]Horn,L.R.2005.The border wars.In von Heusinger,K.& Turner,K.P.(eds.),Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics.Oxford:Elsevier.21-48.
[77]Horn,L.R.2006.More issues in neo- and post-Gricean pragmatics:A response to Robyn Carston's response.Intercultural Pragmatics,3(1):81-93.
[78]Huang,Y.2007.Pragmatics.New York:Oxford University Press.
[79]Jaszczolt,K.M.2005.Default Semantics.Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[80]Jaszczolt,K.M.2006.Meaning merger:pragmatic inference,defaults,and compositionality.Intercultural Pragmatics,3(2):195-212.
[81]Kadmon,N.2001.Formal Pragmatics:Semantics,pragmatics,presupposition,and focus.Malden:Blackwell Publishers.
[82]Karttunen,L.1974.Presupposition and linguistic context.Theoretical Linguistics,(1):181-193.Republished in1998 A.Kasher(ed.),Pragmatics:Critical Concepts(Volume Ⅳ).London and New York:Routledge.32-46.
[83]Kasper,R.T.,Davis,P.C.& Roberts,C.1999.An integrated approach to reference and presupposition resolution.ACL'99 Workshop on the Relationship Between Discourse/Dialogue Structure and Reference.College Park:Maryland.
[84]Ke,P.1999.Cultural presuppositions and misreadings.Meta,(44):133-143.
[85]Kecskes,I.2004.Lexical merging,conceptual blending,cultural crossing.Intercultural Pragmatics,1(1):1-26.
[86]Kecskes,I.2008.Dueling contexts:A dynamic model of meaning.Journal of Pragmatics,(40):385-406.
[87]Kecskes,I.& J.Mey(eds.).2008.Intention,Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer.Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
[88]Kecskes,I.&.Zhang FH.2009.Activating,seeking and creating common ground:A socio-cognitive approach.Pragmatics and Cognition,(2).
[89]Keenan,E.1971.Two kinds of presupposition in natural language.In 1998Kasher,A.(ed.),Pragmatics:Critical concepts.London and New York:Routledge.
[90]Keysar,B.& Bly,B.1995.Intuitions of the transparency of idioms:Can one keep a secret by spilling the beans? Journal of Memory and Language,(34):89-109.
[91]Keysar,B.2007.Communication and miscommunication:The role of egocentric processes.Intercultural Pragmatics,4(1):71-84.
[92]Knott,A.&.Vlugter P.2003.Syntactic disambiguation using presupposition resolution.Australasian Language Technology Workshop.98-104.
[93]Koschmann,T.& Le Baron,C.D.2003.Reconsidering common ground:examining Clark's contribution theory in the OR.In K.Kuutti,E.H.Karsten,G.Fitzpatrick,P.Dourish & K.Schmidt(eds.),Proceedings of the Eight European Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work.Amsterdam:Kluwer.
[94]Krahmer,E.1998.Presupposition and Anaphora.Stanford:CSLI publications.
[95]Kripke,S.1963a.Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic Ⅰ:Normal Modal Propositional Calculi.Zeitschrift f(u|¨)r Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik(9):67-96.
[96]Kripke,S.1963b.Semantical considerations on modal logic.Acta Philosophica Fennica,(16):83-94.
[97]Kripke,S.1965.Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic Ⅱ:Non-Normal Modal Propositional Calculi.In J.W.Addison,L.Henkin & A.Amsterdam (eds.),The Theory of Models.North-Holland Publishing Co.
[98]Lambrecht,K.1994.Information Structure and Sentence Form:Topics,focus,and the mental representations of discourse referents.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[99]LeVine,R.1984.Properties of culture:an ethnographic view.In R.Shweder & R.LeVine(eds.),Culture Theory:Essays on Mind,Self and Emotion.New York:Cambridge University Press.67-87.
[100]Levinson,S.1983.Pragmatics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[101]Levinson,S.2000.Presumptive Meanings:The theory of generalized conversational implicature.Cambridge:The MIT Press.
[102]Lewis,D.1979.Scorekeeping in a language game.Journal of Philosophical Logic,(8):339-359.Republished in 1991 Davis,S.Pragmatics:A Reader.New York:Oxford University Press.416-427.
[103]Li,F.2005.Presupposition Analysis in Advertising Language,Sino-US English Teaching,2(11):48-51.
[104]Nehrlich,G.1967.Presupposition and classical logical relations.Analysis,27(3):104-106.
[105]Nelson,E.J.1946.Contradiction and the presupposition of existence.Mind＞New series,55(220):319-327.
[106]Nida,E.A.1993.Language,Culture and Translation.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[107]Ochs,E.1984.Clarification and culture.In D.Schiffrin(ed.),Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics.Washington,DC:Georgetown University Press.325-341.
[108]Prince,E.F.1978.A comparison of it-clefts and wh-clefts in discourse.Language,(54):883-906.
[109]Prince,E.F.1981.Toward a taxonomy of given-new information.In Cole,P.(ed.),Radical Pragmatics.New York:Academic Press.
[110]Prince,E.F.1986.On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions.Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory,22nd Regional Meeting,Chicago Linguistic Society,A.F.P.A.Farley,Edito.208-222
[111]Raskin,V.1985.Semantic Mechanisms of Humour.Dordrecht:Reidel,
[112]Recanati,F.2002.Unarticulated constituents.Linguistics and Philosophy,(25):299-345.
[113]Recanati,F.2004.Literal Meaning.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
[114]Recanati,F.1986.On defining communicative intentions.Mind and Language,(1):213-242.
[115]Rescher,N.1961.On the logic of presupposition.Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,21(4):521-527.
[116]Richland,J.2006.The multiple calculi of meaning.Discourse and Society,(17):65-97.
[117]Roberts,C.2006.Only,presupposition and implicature.Manuscript.
[118]Roberts,G.W.1969.A problem about presupposition.Mind＞New series,78(310):270-271.
[119]Rosaldo,M.1982.The things we do with words:Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy.Language in Society,(11):203-237.
[120]Saul,J.2001.Critical studies:Wayne A.Davis,Conversational Implicature:Intention and Convention in the Failure of Gricean Theory.Nous,(35):630-641.
[121]Schegioff,E.1996.Confirming allusions:toward an empirical account of action.American Journal of Sociology,(102):161-216.
[122]Schlenker,P.2006."Maximize presupposition" and Gricean reasoning. Manuscript.
[123]Searle,J.1983.Intentionality:An essay in the philosophy of mind.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
[124]Searle,J.1990.Collective intentions and actions.In P.Cohen,J.Morgan & M.Pollack(eds.),Intentions in Communication.Cambridge,Mass.:The MIT Press.401-416.
[125]Simons,M.2001.On the conversational basis of some presuppositions.Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11.
[126]Simons,M.2003.Presupposition and accommodation:Understanding the Stalnakerian picture.Philosophical Studies,(112):251-278.
[127]Simons,M.2004.Presupposition and relevance.In Z.G Szabo(ed.),Semantics vs.Pragmatics.Oxford:Oxford University Press.329-355.
[128]Simons,M.2006.Presupposition without common ground.Submitted.
[129]Simons,M.2007.Presupposition and cooperation.Manuscript.
[130]Soames,S.1982.How presuppositions are inherited:A solution to the projection problem.Linguistic Inquiry,(13):483-545.Republished in1998 A.Kasher(ed.),Pragmatics:Critical Concepts(Volume Ⅳ).London and New York:Routledge.69-137.
[131]Spenader,J.2002.Presuppositions in Spoken Discourse.Akademitryck AB,Edsbruk,Sweden,Stockholm University.Ph.D.
[132]Sperber,D.& D.Wilson 1986.Relevance:communication and cognition.Oxford:Blackwell.
[133]Stalnaker,R.C.1974.Pragmatic Presuppositions.In Milton K.Munitz &Peter Unger,(eds.),Semantics and Philosophy.New York:New York U.Press:197-213.Republished in 1999 R.C Stalnaker,Context and content:essays on intentionality in speech and thought.Oxford:Oxford University Press.47-62.
[134]Stalnaker,R.C.1978.Assertion.Syntax and Semantics(9):315-332.
[135]Stalnaker,R.C.1999.Context and Content.Oxford and New York:Oxford University Press.
[136]Stalnaker,R.C.2002.Common ground.Linguistics and Philosophy,25 (5-6):701-721.
[137]Stalnaker,R.C.2008.A response to Abbott on presupposition and common ground.Linguistics and Philosophy,(31):539-544.
[138]Stuckardt,R.2005.Verifying binding constraints for anaphor resolution.The HPSG05 Conference.
[139]Tanaka,K,1994/1999.Advertising Language:A Pragmatic Approach to Advertisements in Britain and Japan.London:Routledge.
[140]Thompson,R.J.2008.Grades of meaning.Synthese,(161):283-308.
[141]Travis,C.1997.Pragmaties.In Hale,B.&.Wright C.(eds.),Companion to the Philosophy of Language.Oxford:Blackwell.87-107.
[142]Van der Sandt,R.1988.Context and Presupposition.New York:Croon Helm.
[143]Van der Sandt,R.1992.Presupposition projection as anaphor resolution.Journal of Semantics,(9):333-377.
[144]Van Fraassen,B.C.1968.Presupposition,implication,and self-reference.The Journal of Philosophy,65(5):136-152.
[145]Van Fraassen,B.C.1969.Presuppositions,supervaluations,and free logic.In Lambert,K.(ed.),The Logical Way of Doing Things.New Haven:Yale University Press.67-91.
[146]Von Fintel,K.1998.Quantifiers and 'If-clauses.The Philosophical Quarterly,48(191):209-214.
[147]Von Fintel,K.1999a.NPI licensing,Strawson entailment,and context dependency.Journal of Semantics,16(2):97-148.
[148]Von Fintel,K.1999b.The presupposition of subjunctive conditionals.In U.Sauerland & O.Percus.The Interpretive Tract,No.25 in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics,pp.29-44.Cambridge,MA:MITWPL.
[149]Von Fintel,K.2000.What is accommodation? Manuscript.
[150]Von Fintel,K.2006.What is accommodation,again? Workshop on Presupposition Accommodation.The Ohio State University.
[151]Yule,G.1996.Pragmatics.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[152]Zeevat,H.1992.Presupposition and accommodation in update semantics.Journal of Semantics,(9):379-412.
[153]Zeevat,H.2002.Explaining presupposition triggers.In van Deemter,K.& R.Kibble(Eds.),Information Sharing.Stanford:CSLI Publications.61-87.
[154]Zeevat,H.2004.Presupposition triggers,context markers,or speech act markers.In Blutner,R.& H.Zeevat(Eds.),Optimality Theory and Pragmatics.Houndmills,Basingstoke,Hampshire:Palgrave/Macmillan.
[155]Zhang,FH.2008.Conversational constraint of truthfulness on presuppositions.Intercultural Pragmatics,5(3):367-388.
[156]蔡曙山2001论哲学的语言转向及其意义,《学术界》第86期:16-27.
[157]蔡曙山2006再论哲学的语言转向及其意义--兼论从分析哲学到语言哲学的发展,《学术界》第119期:20-39.
[158]陈嘉映2003《语言哲学》,北京:北京大学出版社.
[159]陈新仁1998论广告用语中的语用预设,《外国语》第5期:54-57.
[160]池昌海1996相声“包袱”与语用“预设”、“含意”虚假,《修辞学习》第3期.
[161]戴耀晶2001汉语疑问句的预设及其语义分析,《广播电视大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)第2期:87-90.
[162]冯志伟1999《现代语言学流派》,西安:陕西人民出版社.
[163]弗雷格2006《弗雷格哲学论著选辑》,北京:商务印书馆.
[164]高彦梅2004《语篇预设·语言学研究》(第三辑),北京:高等教育出版社.
[165]戈玲玲2002预设及翻译技巧,《中国翻译》第3期:42-44.
[166]格雷马斯2005《论意义》,天津:百花文艺出版社。
[167]郭富辉2001谈预设在广告中的作用,《上海理工大学学报》(社会科学版)第9期:47-50.
[168]何兆熊2000《新编语用学概要》,上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[169]何兆熊2003《语用学文献选读》,上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[170]何自然1988《语用学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社.
[171]何自然、陈新仁2004《当代语用学》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
[172]黄国文2001 《语篇分析的理论与实践》,上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[173]黄华新1994.略论汉语预设,《杭州大学学报》第4期.
[174]黄华新、陈宗明2005《描述语用学》,长春:吉林人民出版社.
[175]黄华新、徐以中2007预设的动态性和动态预设观,《浙江大学学报》(人文社会科学版)第5期:35-42.
[176]姜望琪2003《当代语用学》,北京:北京大学出版社.
[177]李昌年2002与预设有关的歧义,《江西教育学院学报》(社会科学)第1期:27-30.
[178]李健2008广告语言与文化认同,《社会科学战线》第1期:142-144.
[179]李锡胤1990对于预设与推涵的思考,《外语学刊》第3期.
[180]李锡胤1996篇章中的预设问题,《外语学刊》第4期.
[181]李锡胤2003再论预设与推涵,《外语研究》第6期.
[182]刘大为2001预设:语义预设与语用预设,《中国大学学术讲演录》,广西师范大学出版社.
[183]刘强2007《先设消解机制的分析》,北京语言大学博士学位论文.
[184]刘森林2007《语用策略》,北京:社会科学文献出版社.
[185]刘小涛2004预设和前提之辩,《社会科学辑刊》第6期:27-29.
[186]刘宇红2003预设投射的Karttunen模式与Fauconnier模式,《外语学刊》第2期:62-65.
[187]刘哲2001论蕴涵与预设的区分问题,《解放军外国语学院学报》第3期:61-64.
[188]马蒂尼奇1998《语言哲学》,北京:商务印书馆.
[189]马国玉2005预设投射问题的认知解释,《天津外国语学院学报》第 3期:49-54.
[190]麦考莱1998《语言逻辑分析--语言学家关注的一切逻辑问题》,杭州:杭州大学出版社.
[191]苗兴伟2002《语用预设的语篇功能》,苏州:苏州大学出版社.
[192]缪鑫平2003语用预设与谈话策略,《云梦学刊》第2期:113-114.
[193]欧阳巧琳2001预设在广告中的语用功能,《中南民族学院学报》(人文社会科学版)第5期.
[194]庞学铨、杨大春、黄华新2005《二十世纪西方哲学的分化与会通》,杭州:浙江大学出版社。
[195]彭玉海2001预设的语义描写功能,《中国俄语教学》第4期:1-8.
[196]彭玉海2003俄语动词语义结构的预设机制,《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期:50-53.
[197]任哗、张鼓2003论语用预设的交际价值,《新疆师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)第4期:188-191.
[198]盛晓明2000《话语规则与知识基础》,上海:学林出版社.
[199]石安石1986句义的预设,《语文研究》第2期.
[200]石安石1994《语义研究》,北京:语文出版社.
[201]束定芳1989关于预设理论的几个问题,《外语研究》第3期.
[202]斯特劳森 1998论指称,《语言哲学》,马蒂尼奇编.北京:商务印书馆,141-446.
[203]王建华2002《汉英跨文化语用学研究》,复旦大学博士论文。
[204]王峻岩2002说预设,《修辞学习》第6期:9-10.
[205]王芹2004汉英广告用语中的预设,《广西社会科学》第10期:114-116.
[206]王守元、苗兴伟2003预设与文学语篇的建构,《外语与外语教学》第3期:1-3.
[207]王维贤、李先焜、陈宗明1989《语言逻辑引论》,武汉:湖北教育出版社.
[208]王文博2003预设的认知研究,《外语教学与研究》第1期:34-39.
[209]维特根斯坦2002《逻辑哲学论》,北京:商务印书馆。
[210]维特根斯坦2004《哲学研究》,北京:商务印书馆。
[211]魏在江2002预设研究的多维思考,《Foreigu Language Edueation》第2期:32-35.
[212]文炼2002预设、蕴涵与句子的理解,《世界汉语教学》第3期:5-9.
[213]文卫平、方立2008《动态意义理论》,北京:中国社会科学出版社.
[214]谢梦、徐靖2006文化预设对文学翻译的作用,《长沙大学学报》第1期:107-109.
[215]熊学亮1999《认知语用学概论》,上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[216]熊学亮2003《语言学新解》,上海:复旦大学出版社.
[217]徐烈炯、刘丹青1998《话题的结构与功能》,上海:上海教育出版社.
[218]徐烈炯、刘丹青2003《话题与焦点新论》,上海:上海教育出版社.
[219]杨翠2006《语言学中的预设分析》,上海师范大学博士学位论文。
[220]杨石乔1999英汉语用预设与信息中心对比,《外语学刊》第4期:27-33.
[221]殷志平1997预设分析与语法研究,《南京社会科学》第6期.
[222]尹青梅2005文化预设的认知透视,《湘潭大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)第5期:151-154.
[223]余玲丽2003论信息结构中主题与存在性预设,《西安外国语学院学报》第1期:55-57.
[224]俞如珍1996语义预设、语用预设和会话含义,《四川外语学院学报》第1期:66-70.
[225]尉万传2009《幽默言语多维研究--语言、逻辑、语境、认知视角》,浙江大学博士论文.
[226]袁毓林2000论否定句的焦点、预设和辖域歧义,《中国语文》第2 期.
[227]曾宇均2005翻译中的文化预设,《湖南工程学院学报》第2期:29-30.
[228]张峰辉、周昌乐2008“DJ+的是+M”的焦点和预设分析,《语言研究》第2期:90-94.
[229]张克定1995语用预设与信息中心,《外语教学》第2期:15-19.
[230]张克定1997预设与割裂句的强调,《外语与外语教学》第4期.
[23l]张克定1999预设·调核·焦点,《外语学刊》第4期:22-26.
[232]张谊生1996现代汉语预设否定副词的表义特征,《世界汉语教学》第2期:30-34.
[233]张谊生1999近代汉语预设否定副词探微,《古汉语研究》第1期:27-35.
[234]周昌乐2001《认知逻辑导论》,北京:清华大学出版社.
[235]周昌乐2003《心脑计算举要》,北京:清华大学出版社.
[236]周礼全1994《逻辑--正确思维和成功交际的理论》,北京:人民出版社.
[237]邹崇理2000《自然语言逻辑研究》,北京:北京大学出版社.