期刊文献+

用语用推理模式论析预设、衍推、含意与断言 被引量:1

Analysis of Presupposition,Entailment,Implicature and Assertion with the Models of Pragmatic Inference
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 预设、衍推、含意与断言这些概念都涉及一定条件下的语用推理,但预设、衍推和断言又不同于含意,且互不相同。含意的获取必须依靠话语的语境信息以及交际双方的共有知识,也就是说,含意的推理不能仅仅依靠一个独立的语句。 The some concepts are discussed which are easy to get confused in the teaching process of pragmatics. These concepts, namely presupposition, entailment, implicature and assertion, involve the pragmatic inference under certain conditions. However, presupposition, entailment and implicature are different from implicature and they are different among themselves. Implicature depends on the contxual information of utterances and the mutual knowledge of the communicators, that is, the inferences of implicature cannot depend upon an independent sentence merely.
作者 王宏军 洪军
出处 《重庆交通大学学报(社会科学版)》 2007年第3期116-119,共4页 Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University:Social Sciences Edition
关键词 预设 衍推 含意 断言 语用学 共有知识 presupposition entailment implieature assertion pragmaties mutual knowledge
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献24

共引文献13

同被引文献18

  • 1邓汉慧,张子刚.西蒙的有限理性研究综述[J].中国地质大学学报(社会科学版),2004,4(6):37-41. 被引量:61
  • 2段宏立.浅说预设[J].重庆工学院学报,2005,19(4):99-101. 被引量:11
  • 3Peccei Jean Stilwell.Pragmatics[M].London:Routledge,1999.Introduced by Lan Chun.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000:19.
  • 4Yule,Gorge.Pragmatics[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004:25.
  • 5Levinson,Stephen C.ed.Pragmatics[M].London:Cambridge University Press,1983.Introduced by He Zhao-xiong.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2005:175,186-7,190,191,204-5.
  • 6Ariel Rubinstein.modeling bounded rationality[M].Massachusetts:The MIT Press.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2005.
  • 7Bryan D.Jones.Bounded Rationality[J].Annu.Rev.Polit.Sci 1999(2):297--321.
  • 8刘杲,等.汉语大词典[M].上海:汉语大词典出版社,2000:3131.
  • 9Bryan D.Jones,Graeme Boushey,and Samuel Workman "Behavioral Rationality and the Policy Processes:Toward A New Model of Organizational Information Processing[J].HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC POLICY,2006(1):45.
  • 10Stein,E.(1996:277) Without Good Reason:The Rationality Debate in Philosophy and Cognitive Science.Oxford:Clarendon Press.

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部