预设和蕴含的区别
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。
蕴涵和预设的理论基础和实际运用
－
５ ・ ３
维普资讯
第 ２ 卷 ３
攀枝花学院学报
第２ 期
语用预设研究的代表人物有 Ｅ ｅｎｎ和 Ｇ ａ ａ Ｋｅａ 于 １７ ．Ｋｅａ ．Ｇｚ ｒ ｅ ｎ ９９年发表《 然语言的两种预设》 ｄ。 ｎ 自 ， 提出“ 逻辑预设” 语用预设” 把“ 和“ ， 语用预设” 界定为“ 出一句话就语用预设其语境是合适 的” ａｄｒ 说 。Ｇ ｚａ 于１９ ７ ９ 年出版《 语用学——含义、 预设及逻辑式》认为含义和预设都要分成潜在的和实际的两种 ， ， 只有那 些满足话语语境的部分才实际上成为该话语的含义和预设。他认为， ， 语境 包括语言语境和情景语境， 是一 个取消机制， 决定着哪些潜在的预设会成为实际的预设 ， 最终得出“ 衍推） 含义） 预设” 的结论。
ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้
们对自然语言语料的认识， 自然语言语料叉能推动蕴涵和预设理论进一步发展。
关键词 蕴涵 ； 预设 ； 理论 ； 用 运
一
、
引言
语 言理论来源有二 ： 语言事实的归纳和语言规律的演绎。语言理论 的发展也有两个渠道 ： 语言规律
在 自身范围内自我加速 、 我完善和在大量语言事实上进行检验、 自 补充 、 更新。本文简要概括语言学的蕴 涵和预设理论 ， 然后进行两个结合的研究 ： 将蕴涵和预设理论跟其他语言理论结合起来 ， 研究蕴涵和预设 理论对其他理论的指导作用 ； 将蕴涵和预设理论跟《 红楼梦》 中大量语料结合起来 ， 研究蕴涵和预设理论 对语言事实的文本分析。最后对蕴涵和预设理论的发展与运用的前景提一些 自己的看法。
本章用经济决定论蕴籍的内涵作为重要向度剖析了经济决定论面临着当代经济世界发展的不确定性在增加复杂性在扩展信息不对称在加剧经济世界中的非理性因素越来越凸显等现实问题并且在这些问题面前主流经济学的解释范围越来越受到挑战其话语权也越来越不能像以往那样地显现从而最终使其不可避免地陷入二律背反的逻辑矛盾之中
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。
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。
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.
语用学(第五章)
语用学(第五章)一共六章语用学主讲教师：徐志奇主讲教师：第五章预设什么叫预设预设与蕴涵的关系语义预设和语用预设预设的利用一、什么叫预设什么叫预设预设（presupposition）或译为“预设（presupposition）,或译为“前先设”广义的预设，提”、“先设”。
广义的预设，指交际双方预先设定的信息，双方预先设定的信息，即说话和写作时假定对方已知的信息。
狭义的预设，假定对方已知的信息。
狭义的预设，是在句义中体现出或暗含着的某些客观事情况。
态、情况。
预设是使用一个句子的先决条件，预设是使用一个句子的先决条件，也是是使用一个句子的先决条件一种推理，一种推理，它以实际的语言结构意义为根靠逻辑概念、语义、据，靠逻辑概念、语义、语境等推断出话语的先决条件。
语的先决条件。
预设从内容分有存在性预设和事态性预设两种：设两种：存在性预设是指客观存在的人事物是指客观存在的人事物。
存在性预设是指客观存在的人事物。
事态性预设是指人事物的情况状态是指人事物的情况状态。
事态性预设是指人事物的情况状态。
例如：例如：①甲：你怎么迟到了？你怎么迟到了？我的自行车给偷走了。
乙：我的自行车给偷走了。
乙的这句话有如下预设：乙的这句话有如下预设：1、存在一种叫自行车的车子；乙有自行车。
行车的车子；2、乙有自行车。
否则乙就不会对甲说这句话，甲说这句话，这句话也不能成为乙解释为什么迟到的理由，甲也无从推导出它的含义。
迟到的理由，甲也无从推导出它的含义。
二者同为存在性预设。
同为存在性预设。
杯中的普洱茶真好喝。
②杯中的普洱茶真好喝。
要使此语的句义得以形成，必须有如下预设：要使此语的句义得以形成，必须有如下预设：至少有一个杯子；存在一种叫普洱的茶；1、至少有一个杯子；2、存在一种叫普洱的茶；杯子中有普洱茶；说话人喝过杯中的茶。
3、杯子中有普洱茶；4、说话人喝过杯中的茶。
否则其会话含义（是向对方发出提醒，否则其会话含义（是向对方发出提醒，或进行劝告等）无法表达和推导出来。
语言学概论笔记（第五章）（5）
㈡预设 1）定义：就话语本⾝表达的意义⽽⾔，通过背景知识断⾔有句义甲就必然有句义⼄就是说甲以⼄为预设。
2）预设和蕴含区别： ①蕴含在句⼦的断⾔范围之内，是句⼦的基本信息； ②预设不在句⼦的断⾔范围之内，是句⼦的背景信息。
3）预设对⾔语表达和理解的影响：避免重复罗嗦。
6.歧义 1）定义：指同⼀形式的语⾔符号序列可能表达不同意义的现象。
2）歧义以语⾔符号序列的同形为前提条件。
3）歧义与模糊的区别： ①模糊指语⾔形式所反映的对象只有⼀个⼤致的范围，⽽没有明确的界限，意义之间难以绝对划分清楚。
歧义指同形的语⾔符号中具有两个或两个以上不同的意义。
②在⾔语交际中，歧义可以通过上下⽂语境和情景语境来消除。
⽽模糊始终是模糊的。
4）歧义与笼统性区别： ①统来源于语义的概括性特点是指对同类对象的不同成员进⾏抽象概括⽽产⽣的。
②歧义来源于语义和表达形式之间的⽭盾。
5）影响歧义难度的因素： ①与各种解释的相对频率有关系 ②与歧义形式本⾝的特点有关系。
6）歧义的类型：①词汇歧义②组合歧义 备注：㈠词汇歧义：指由词汇上的原因造成的歧义。
词语的同⾳异义可能造成⼝头歧义。
词语的同形异义也可能造成歧义。
词语的⼀词多义也可能造成歧义。
㈡组合歧义： 1）定义：指由词语组合关系上的原因造成的歧义。
2）分类：①语法结构歧义②语义结构歧义 （三）如果相同的词语之间可以有不同的句法结构关系，就有可能造成歧义。
如果相同的词语之间可以有不同的层次构造，也有可能造成歧义。
如果相同的词语之间可以有不同的语义结构关系，就有可能造成歧义。
歇后语中的预设和蕴涵
大 众 文 艺大162摘要：从对“预设”定义的一种理解——使话语有意义的必要条件对歇后语进行了研究。
论述了歇后语中一些预设和蕴涵的特点并从预设和蕴涵的角度研究了歇后语含意产生的原理。
关键词：歇后语；预设；蕴涵歇后语是熟语的一种，是我国人民在生活实践中创造的一种有中国特色的特殊的语言形式。
它起源于民间，历史悠久。
作为一种语言形式和语言现象歇后语远在先秦时期就已经出现了，如《战国策•燕策》中，“鹬蚌相争，渔人得利”，这就是我们今天所看到的歇后语。
从结构上看，歇后语由两部分组成。
前一部分是比喻或隐语，后一部分是意义的解释。
歇后语在实际的语言中和惯用语、成语一样在句子中充当句法成分，不成为独立的句子。
但是歇后语的本身却可以视为一个陈述。
任何一种陈述中都存在着预设和蕴涵，笔者想从对“预设”的一种理解——使话语有意义的必要条件对歇后语进行研究，论述歇后语中一些预设和蕴涵的特点并从预设和蕴涵的角度研究歇后语含意产生的原理。
一、歇后语中的预设和蕴涵预设是说话者在说话前假定某事成立。
对预设的概念很多人还有许多不同的看法。
有人认为预设是真实值的必要条件；有人认为预设是施行言语行为的恰当条件；有人认为预设是交际双方的共有知识；也有人把它看成是使话语具有意义所必须满足的条件。
不管从哪一个角度讲，预设都是使一个命题有意义的必要条件。
蕴涵是就句子的本身而言的，是所说话语的逻辑推理。
（一）歇后语中的蕴涵歇后语的前后部分大都可以在中间加上“是（那是、那真是）”使之成为判断句。
例如，画蛇添足----多此一举，可以改写成 画蛇添足是（那是、那真是）多此一举。
根据蕴涵的定义可以看出后半部分是由前半部分推理得到的，也即前半部分蕴涵后半部分。
以上面的歇后语为例，蛇是没有足的，画了蛇以后再添上足是费力不讨好的，是不需要的也是不必要的，因此是多此一举。
如果按照Leech的 否定测试法（negation test）检验一下，上面的说法依然成立。
- 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)。
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。
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。
③有人买了两辆汽车。
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23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，一个命题所蕴含的数量是很多的。
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。
如：4 王涛的哥哥买了两辆汽车。
或：王涛的哥哥买的是两辆汽车。
5 王涛的哥哥买了两辆汽车。
或：是王涛的哥哥买了两辆汽车。
可见，蕴涵与句子语用中的焦点有一定联系。
特定的焦点总是联系着特定的蕴涵。
从句子的焦点可以推导出其蕴涵。
The term presupposition was first put forward by the great logician Frege in 1892. Leech pointed out that presupposition was a problem that couldn’t be ignored in any book of semantics, for it was the essential problem that semantics must solve. Presupposition is a topic not only in semantics but also in pragmatics. Pragmatic presupposition was first put forth by Robert Stalnaker. Then there weremany works on pragmatics such as Pragmatics (Stephen Levinson, 1983) and Pragmatics (Steven Davis, 1991). Some linguists realized that presupposition was a pragmatic phenomenon rather than a pure semantic phenomenon (Stalnaker, 1970; 1974 Levinson, 1983van der Sandt, 1988 Lmbrecht, 1994 Bryer, 1996).What is semantic presupposition? The definition of semantic presupposition is viewed as a true relation; if P (the presupposing sentence ) is true then Q (the presupposed sentence) is true; if p is false, then q is still true; if Q is true, then P could be either true or false.(1).a. John married Fred’s sister.b. Fred has a sister.For example, (1)b is the supposition of 1a, if (1)a is true ,we can say (1)b is also true. Suppose that we realize that John didn’t marry Fred’s sister, then (1)a is false, we can still say(1)b is true.(2)a. The King of France is bald.b. There is a King of France.The problem arises when there is no referent for the nominal. If there is no King of France, that is to say, if (2)b is false, what is the status of sentence (2)a? Is it in a grey area, neither true nor false? This shows that Q is false, and the status of P is dubious. This is a problem for truth-based theory, known as a truth value gap, which is caused by presupposition failure. What is pragmatic presuppositionSo far, the linguists haven’t reached to an agreement to the definition of pragmatic presupposition. Stalnaker, who first put forward the concept of pragmatic presupposition, thought presupposition, is not only related to contexts but also to the speaker. Jackendoff regarded pragmatic presupposition as the common knowledge or background knowledge of the speaker and the hearer involved in the communication. Ellimore treated pragmatic presupposition as appropriate condition needed to satisfy a speech act. HeZibran once said: “presupposition is the common knowledge of the speaker and hearer involved in the communication. Based on this knowledge, the speaker is likely to tell the hearer something that he believe that the hearer will understand. And also because of the common knowledge, the hearer is likely to well understand what the speaker said to him.”(He Zibran, 1998) The views above are divided into two groups. One is from the aspect of speech act, and the presupposition is regarded as the common knowledge or background knowledge of the speaker and the hearer.1.例如：A.John married Fred’s sister.其语义预设是Fred has a sister.例如A.是不真实的，即John didn’t marry Fred’s sister, 其预设仍然是真实的。
通俗的说，发话人在讲出句子A以及A的否定形式，都以句B 为预设，不难看出区别蕴含关系和预设关系的一个条件，也就是在A句不真实或者说在被否定的情况下，这种推理能不能继续存在。