（外国语言学及应用语言学专业论文）从概念整合的视角看语用预设的理解.pdf

descriptive chinese abstract i 摘摘 要要 人类的语言交流是一个非常复杂的过程，语用预设在其中起着十分重要的作用。预设 问题首先是在哲学领域中被提出来的,随后进入语言学的研究领域，学者们已经从各个不 同的角度对其展开研究， 然而从听话者的角度对语用预设理解过程中的认知操作进行分析 和阐释的研究却为数不多。语用预设是说话者主观上做出的一种假设，但作为交际中的另 一个主体，听话者对语用预设的理解也至关重要。 本文试图从认知语言学的角度， 运用概念整合理论来探讨听话者在理解语用预设的过 程中所涉及的具体认知操作。 本文认为， 听话者为了理解语用预设， 会构建一个认知语境。 同时，特定的词汇或语法结构在触发预设的同时也会帮助听话者构建心理空间。然后，听 话者在认知语境下通过一些原则和策略对形成的心理空间进行整合， 最终理解说话者所做 出的预设，从而使成功交际成为可能。 在引言部分，本文简述了语用预设的研究历史与现状,并指出目前预设研究中存在的 不足, 进而介绍了本文研究的内容、方法以及文章结构。第一章首先介绍了语用预设的产 生，定义和特征，并概述了几种与本文研究相关的重要理论。本文第二章简要介绍了概念 整合理论和心理空间的主要内容及重要概念， 并提出预设触发语实际上也在一定程度上充 当了空间建构者的角色， 并在此基础上提出运用概念整合理论来研究语用预设。 在第三章， 本文重点探讨了如何运用概念整合理论来描述听话者在理解语用预设时涉及的复杂认知 操作以及相关原则和策略。最后是本文的结论。在概念整合理论的框架下，听话者在理解 语用预设时进行的认知操作得到了形象化的描述。 关键词：语用预设关键词：语用预设 概念整合概念整合 认知语境认知语境 认知操作认知操作 english abstract ii abstract human verbal communication is a process of great complexity in which pragmatic presupposition plays a very important role. as one of the most controversial issues in linguistic filed, it has been addressed from various perspectives by scholars around the world. since it is related to both the speaker and the listener, it is important the listener should understand the pragmatic presupposition in a correct way so that he catches what the speaker means by that particular utterance. this process requires a lot of cognitive efforts and is involved with a series of cognitive operations. until now, there has not been a widely accepted theory for the description of these cognitive operations in understanding pragmatic presupposition. this dissertation tends to describe the cognitive operations in understanding pragmatic presuppositions in human verbal communication from the perspective of mental space and conceptual integration under conceptual integration theory. the author argues that the triggers of presupposition also work as space builders. during the process of understanding pragmatic presupposition, the triggers help listener to construct a cognitive context in which the spaces are built and integrated, and finally determine what exactly the speakers intention is. this study may get a new view of the triggering, projection, transference and defeasibility of presupposition in human verbal communication. at first, the author gives an introduction of the study of pragmatic presupposition. then he points out the limitations of previous studies and introduces the objectives and method of the study in this essay. the first chapter is a brief review of presupposition studies, including the philosophical foundation, definitions and features and several important theories in this study. chapter two includes a brief introduction of conceptual integration theory and mental spaces. the third chapter is the main part of the thesis which puts emphasis on the description of processes of understanding pragmatic presupposition from the perspective of conceptual integration theory. in the last chapter a conclusion is drawn for the whole thesis. key words: pragmatic presupposition; conceptual integration; cognitive context; cognitive process introduction 1 introduction the study of presupposition has been the most problematic and controversial areas in linguistic research. from its origin in philosophical study to semantics and pragmatics, many researchers proposed lots of definitions and described presupposition from various perspectives. as the language phenomenon draws much more attention from linguists and philosophers, it is claimed to be related with more factors and play more important roles in verbal communication. at the very beginning, it is reckoned to be contained in language structures some of which are called triggers. later, pragmatists argue that it comes from speakers assumption of the context of communication and is closely related to context. as the cognitive study of linguistics becomes popular, the process of understanding presupposition is considered to be involved with cognitive operations. until now, some problems are still open for discussions, like the projection and defeasibility of presupposition. whats more, the complicated processes in understanding presuppositions remain unknown. this thesis tries to address the topic under concept integration theory by describing the cognitive operations embedded in the triggering, projection and transference of presupposition, interpreting the defeasibility of presupposition in cognitive dynamic context. in this chapter, a brief introduction is given to the history of study of presupposition and limitations of present study, followed by the objective and methodology of the study in the thesis, and the organization of the thesis as well. 0.1 a brief review since the subject of presupposition was introduced by frege in 1892, many philosophers and linguists investigated presupposition based on their own theories and understanding, making the studies of this topic a deeper and more thorough one. among the scholars, russell(1905), strawson(1950), keenan(1971), gazdar(1979), levinson(1983), yule(1999) are major representatives. russell (1905) proposed a method in his analysis which is called scope-ambiguities today. his formula allows, at least, two slots for negation to capture the ambiguity: negation either occurs within wide-scope or within narrow-scope. russells well-known theory of descriptions, which for forty-five years dominated the inquiries of presupposition, remained largely unchallenged until strawson (1950) proposed a quite different approach. he stated that sentences are not true or false, only statements are. more formally, he held that, supposing there are two statements a and b, statement a presupposes statement b iff b is a introduction 2 precondition of the truth or falsity of a. (strawson 1952:175) however, this belief is true only for statements in the form of simple sentences. as for those in the form of compound and complex sentence, it is not the case. furthermore it is subject to the constraints of truth-condition. strawsons notion of presupposition, nevertheless, came to the attention of linguists, and it seemed to open up a new and interesting possibility.(levinson, 1983:174) later, it was realized as semantic presupposition, which is contrasted with pragmatic presupposition in the following part of this thesis. kennan (1971) noted that presupposition concerning the relationship between speaker and listener simply does not affect truth condition. therefore, he held that such examples form an independent and distinct class of pragmatic inferences which he called pragmatic presuppositions, which are best described as a relation between a speaker and the appropriateness of a sentence in a given context. this kind of inference is, in fact, an aspect of social deixis encoded as conventional implicature. (levinson, 1983:89,127) formal school intended to explain this linguistic phenomenon by using a set of symbols. levinson, a pragmatist, classified the representing forms of presupposition into 13 kinds. grundy (1995, 2000) divided presupposition into pragmatic presupposition and conventional presupposition. yule (1999:25) pointed out that a presupposition is something the speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance. speakers, not sentences, have presuppositions. professor he ziran stated that the crucial aspects in investigating pragmatic presupposition lied in its appropriateness and mutual understanding (he, 1988:111). professor xu shenghuan made a further research on this topic. he proposed that presupposition is, in fact, a condition stated or implied in semantic sense. (xu, 1993:1-9) professor xiong xueliang (1999) proposed a model of pragmatic inference from the perspective of listeners on the basis of relevance theory. some scholars and learners think presupposition should be associated with the cognitive context. wei zaijiang (2004:7) combines the study of pragmatic presupposition and the theory of conceptual integration. he also argued that mental space theory has a strong explanatory force of the floating, transfer, projection and trigger of the pragmatic presupposition. however, the previous study of pragmatics presupposition mostly concerns about the form of linguistic presentation, less attention has been paid to the mental process embedded in verbal communication. since language comes from human cognitive ability, the use of it reflects some cognitive process and thus it could and also should be approached from a introduction 3 cognitive perspective. on the other hand, effective communication is not totally and only depending on speakers efforts, listeners also play an indispensable part. this is where the thesis starts. 0.2 objectives in the analysis of the process of understanding pragmatic presupposition in effective communication, the thesis treats pragmatic presupposition basically as a pragmatic and cognitive notion, and takes an integrated approach to it, i.e., the integration of the pragmatic presupposition and the cognitive context. as pragmatic presupposition in effective communication reflects the addressers assumptions about the addressees state of knowledge at the time of an utterance, and ignorance or misunderstanding of presupposition may lead to failure in communication. the thesis argues that pragmatic presupposition serves as cognitive context in the flow of information in verbal communication and the development of the communication contributes to the generating of new context. in short, it provides a dynamic cognitive context for the listeners interpreting of speakers intention by particular utterance. this thesis is to study the process of listeners understanding of pragmatic presupposition and the nonlinguistic elements affecting the process. 0.3 methodology in this thesis, the language data used for analysis are selected mainly from scripts of cross talk by guo degang who became popular for his works around 2004. every script as a whole as well as part of the script is an independent and complete text. it is very important for the study of pragmatic presupposition which is context dependent. on the other hand, in the process of identifying the cognitive activities involved, the theory used to explain the process is also revalued at the same time. the primary approach adopted for the present study will be deductive rather than inductive which first analyzes the language forms that carry presupposition and then turns to deal with the language in use. presupposition is a background belief relating to an utterance. this background belief must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and the addressee for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context and generally will remain such a necessary assumption whether the utterance is placed in the form of an assertion, denial, or question, and that can generally be associated with a specific lexical item or grammatical feature (presupposition trigger) in the utterance. introduction 4 0.4 organization at first, the author gives an introduction of the study of pragmatic presupposition and points out the limitations of previous studies. on this basis, he introduces the objectives and methodology of the study in this essay. the first chapter is a brief introduction of presupposition, including the philosophical foundation, development of related study and several important theories in relevant study. chapter two includes explanations of some key notions in the dissertation: cognitive context and mental spaces. chapter three includes a brief introduction of conceptual integration theory and some key notions of this theory. the fourth chapter is the main part of the thesis which puts emphasis on the description of complicated cognitive processes of understanding pragmatic presupposition from the perspective of conceptual integration theory. the last part is the conclusion of the whole thesis. chapter i presupposition: a brief survey 5 chapter i presupposition: a brief survey as one of the most problematic and controversial topics of linguistic theory, the study of presupposition has profoundly affected the subject of philosophy and linguistics. philosophical investigations of presupposition (frege, 1892; russell, 1905; strawson, 1952) mainly concern debates about the nature of reference and referring expressions. on the basis of these studies, the semantic notion of presupposition is suggested, which holds that presupposition is a semantic relationship between sentences or propositions which remains constant under negation. since semantics is entirely truth-conditionally based and context-independent, the semantic accounts of presupposition are not viable. then, alternative pragmatic notions of presupposition are developed, where presupposition is defined in terms of mutual knowledge, facility condition, implicature, and etc. although the phenomenon of presupposition has escaped the restriction of the fixed and strict semantic relation of truth-value, and entered the more multitudinous pragmatic study of language use, all the traditional pragmatic approaches to presupposition still risk being static and idealizing. more often than not, scholars have been studying presupposition of individual sentence instead of presupposition in the process of communication, and consequently important factors like the interlocutors and their cognition in communication are neglected. researchers now pay much attention to presupposition and its relation to context and the cognitive efforts in understanding presupposition. a cognitive pragmatic perspective has been popular among researchers. as a result, the study of presupposition has been linked ever closely to the factors of context and communication. this chapter gives an exquisite introduction to the development of the study of presupposition. in the summary, the author points out the disadvantage of pragmatic approach and the direction in which this thesis is going to develop. 1.1 the tradition presupposition was first introduced by the german philosopher frege in 1892 in his paper on sense and reference. frege (1892) raised the issue with a much-cited example “kepler died in misery.” to show that if any thing is asserted there is always an obvious presupposition that the simple or compound proper names used have a reference. freges theory of presupposition can be generalized as: chapter i presupposition: a brief survey 6 (i) linguistic items such as proper nouns and temporal clause carry presupposition to the effect that they do in fact have a referent; (ii) a sentence and its negative counterpart share the same set of presuppositions; (iii) in order for a sentence or an assertion to be either true or false, its presupposition must be true or satisfied. (levinson, 1983: 170) since the discussion of presupposition by frege is inspiring and is with somewhat mixed views (for example: is it sentence or assertions that carry presupposition), many of the issues raised by frege in his paper are sources of further discussions of presupposition. presupposition in this sense can be seen as the proposition, when it is false, results in a truth-value gap in the sentence that entails it. russell, in his defending of bivalent logic, opposed freges view on presupposition. his well-known theory of descriptions consists of a contrary conclusion of the same problems in the theory of reference. russell denied the existence of truth-value gap and insisted that sentences always have either of the two truth-values-true and false. the definite description the king of france thus no longer forms a structural constituent of the logically analyzed sentence. it is dissolved into quantifiers and propositional functions. according to this account, the sentence is not truth-valueless but simply false because the assertion cannot assert the existence of the king of france. for the next forty-five years after russell(1905) raised his theory of descriptions, no other philosopher or linguists could challenge it with other convincing accounts of presupposition until strawson (1950, 1952) reverted to the traditional subject-predicate analysis for sentences with definite descriptions as their subject. strawsons view on presupposition resembles that of frege essentially for strawson, if statement a presupposes statement b then its negative counterpart also presupposes b, and when b fails to be true, both a and its negation lack a truth-value. in his own words, a statement a presupposes a statement b iff b is a precondition of the truth or falsity of a (strawson 1952:175). strawsons notion of presupposition opens up a new and interesting possibility for linguists. the only already well-defined semantic relation then, namely entailment or logical consequence then has a new partner. the most obvious difference between strawsons view and one semantic one is that the former is a relation between statements while the latter is between sentences. the first candidate for a semantic account of presupposition uses entailment, which states as “a sentence a presupposes another sentence b iff both a and its negative counterpart entails b (gazdar, 1979: 90).” but a semantic definition will not do chapter i presupposition: a brief survey 7 because of the following reasons: i. a presupposes b ii. therefore, by a semantic definition, a entails b and -a entails b iii. (a) every sentence a has a negation a (b) a is true or a is false (bivalence) (c) a is true or -a is true（negation) iv. b must always be true (levinson, 1983:175) this definition makes it impossible to presuppose anything but tautologies. the only way out of this impasse for the proponents of semantic presupposition is simply to abandon the assum