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 ＞＞q
Interestingly, 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 presupposed
by 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 ＞＞q
Presupposition 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 presupposition
Potential 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 marrie
d.
(＞＞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 you
Here 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 committed
to 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 heads
WH-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 door
John forg ot /didn?t forget to lock the door
》John ought to have locked, or intended to lock, the door
some 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 V
2) factive verbs(述实动词/事实动词a verb followed by a clause which the speaker or writer considers to express
a 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。(Peccei, p22)
Martha regrets /doesn?t regret drinking John?s home brew
)Martha drank John?s home brew
It was odd/it was not odd how proud he was.
》he was proud
3) change of state verbs（状态变化动词）: stop, continue, keep, arrive, begin, come, enter, transform, turn, finish, carry on, cease, leave, enter, go, etc. trigger the presupposition that the action was (A) going on before, (B) not going on before.
John stopped /didn?t stop beating his wife
》John had been beating his wife
4) verbs of judging（评价动词）: accuse, charge, criticize, repudiate/criticize, etc.triggers the presupposition that what follows is the judgement or comments made by the subject on the topic or people in question. This kind of implication is, arguably, not really presuppositional at all; for, unlike other presuppositions, the implications are not attributed to the speaker, so much as to the subject of the verb of judging.
Ian criticized/ didn?t criticize Agatha for running away
》(Ian thinks)Agatha ran away
The police charged John with reckless driving.
》John drove recklessly.
5) Verbs like pretend, imagine, dream,etc. triggers the resupposition that what follows is fiction.
Iteratives: again, anymore, return, another time, to come back, restore, repeat, for the -nth time
Carter returned/didn?t r eturn to power
》Carter held power before
Determiners or modifiers: either, even, in spite of, like, only, relatively, etc.
He came again.
》He had been here before.
Temporal clauses before, while, since, as, after, during, whenever ;
while Chomosky was revolutionizing linguistics, the rest of social science was/ wasn?t asleep
》Chomosky was revolutionizing linguistics
Cleft sentences
It was not/was Henry that kissed Roser
》someone kissed Roser
Implicit clefts with stressed constituents;
linguistics was not invented by CHOMSKY
》someone invented linguistics
Comparisons and contrasts
comparison and contrasts may be marked by stress( or by other prosodic means), by particles like too, back, in return, or by comparative constructions.
Adoph called Marianne a Valkyrie, and she complimented him back/in return/too.
》to call someone(or at least Marianne) a Valkyrie is to complimemt them
Counterfactual conditional clause: the use of pretend, imagine, dream, and constructions like If I were…trigger the presupposition that what follows is “fiction”.(Peccei, p 22)
If Hannibal had only had twelve more elephants, the Romance languages would/would not this day exist
》Hannibal didn?t have twelve more e lephants
If the notice had only said …mine-field? in English as well as Welsh, we would/would never have lost poor Llewellyn
》The notice didn?t say mine-field in English
He would make good grades if he didn’t get nervous.（何自然，语用学与英语学习，1995，67）
Non-restrictive relative clause:
There are two kinds of relative clause---those that restrict or delimit the noun phrase they modify(restrictive as in Only the boys who are tall can reach the cupboard) and those that provide additional parenthetical information( non-restrictive as in Hillary, who climbed Everest in 1953, was the greatest explorer of our day). The latter kind is not affected by the negation of the main verb outside the relative clause and thus gives rise to presuppositions.
The Proto-Harrappans, who flourished 2800-2650 B.C., were/ were not great temple builders
》The Proto-Harrappans flourished 2800-2650 B.C.
WH-Questions: WH-Questions introduce the presuppositions obtained by replacing the WH-word by the appropriate existentially quantified variable, e.g. who by someone, where by somewhere, how by somehow, etc., these presuppositions are not invariant to negation.Who is The professor of linguistics at MIT?
》Someone is the professor of linguistics at MIT
these presupposition are not invariant to negation.
Alterative questions presuppose the disjunction of their answers, but non-vacuously. E.g.
Is Newcastle in England or is it in Australia?
》Newcastle is in England or Newcastle is in Australia
Yes/no questions generally have vacuous presupposition, being the disjunctions of their possible answers. E.g.
Is there a professor of linguistics at MIT?
》Either there is a professor of linguistics at MIT or there isn?t
these are the only kinds of presuppositions of questions that are invariant/unchanged under negation.
◆Entailment
上面我们讨论了意义和前提的关系,接下来讨论意义和包涵的关系.
John is a bachelor.
John has never been married.
My son threw a stone at the window.
I have a son.
My son threw something at the window.
My son did something.
Someone threw a stone at the window.
……
因此，有些语义学家认为一个具体句子的意义可以看做是“a set of propositions”, 一组命题。所谓命题就是也就是一个具体句子所表达的基本的，潜在的意义；而这些潜在的意义与原句在语音和句法结构形式上可能没有直接的联系。
在探讨meaning 和entailment的关系时，有两点值得我们注意：
A: 一个陈述句所包含的潜在的句义通常可以从这个陈述句本身推导出来，不必参照这个陈述句所在的上下文。如果这个陈述句所表达的内容是真实的，那么，这个陈述句所包含的各个命题意义也是真实的。
◆All sentences have a number of entailments.
Entailment forms the basis for inferences. It refers to a relationship between two or more sentences (strictly speaking propositions). If knowing that one sentence is
true gives us certain knowledge of the truth of the second sentence, then the first sentence entails the second. Once we establish the truth of sentence (a), sentence (b) becomes automatically true, then we can say that sentence (b) is an entailment of sentence (a). All sentences have a number of entailments. That is to say other sentences are automatically true, if the original sentence is true. This kind of entailment only requires a knowledge of the semantic system of the language being used. Paraphrase is a special kind of entailment.
Generally speaking, entailment is not a pragmatic concept, but instead is considered a purely logical concept. …Entailment?and …analytic sentence?and …contraction? are all considered to be purely semantic concepts, having to do with the sentence meaning rather than the speaker meaning. It does not depend on the context in which a sentence is used. However, they are quite relevant to the study of pragmatics.
◆Types of entailment (p12)
One-way entailment: sentence (b) is automatically true given the synthetic truth of sentence (a); however we can not reverse the process, that is to say when sentence (b) is synthetically true, sentence (a) is not automatically true, in this case the two sentences are not true paraphrases of each other, there is only one-way entailment. Two-way /mutual entailment: when there is two-way entailment, sentence (a) and sentence (b) are true paraphrases of each other. The term paraphrase is used in semantics when there is relationship of mutual entailment between two sentences. Background entailment: in uttering a sentence, the speaker is necessarily committed to the truth of a very large number of entailments, these entailments are termed as background entailments, e.g.
(1)Rover chased three squirrels. (=p)
(2)a. Somebody chased three squirrels.(=q)
b. Rover did something to three squirrels.(=r)
c. Rover chased three of something.(=s) .
d. Something happened.(=t)
in representing the relationship of entailment between (1) and (2a) as p entails q. we have simply symbolized a logical relationship.
2.2.3 The characteristics of entailment
(1) Non-detachability: (detach means separate): Entailment is tied to the semantic content of a sentence or cannot be separated from the content rather than the form. The three sentences in sentence (a) below will all h ave the same entailments as “ John has three cows”.
(a) John owns three cows.
John possesses three cows.
There are three cows which belong to John.
(2) Entailment is not cancelable.Entailment is determinate as against the indeterminacy of conversational implicature, and this perhaps ultimately explains why entailment is not cancelable. For example, one cannot make an assertion and deny its entailment at the same time.
(b) John has three cows, but he does not have any cows.
John has three cows, but he does not have any animals.
John has three cows, but nobody has anything.
(3) Conventionality:Entailment is conventional. Entailment is part of the conventional meaning of a linguistic form. Part of the meaning of …cow? is …It refers to an animal?. To know the meaning of “John” partly means to know … It is a name of a person?, so that it can be replaced by …somebody?. If you don not know the entailment of a linguistic form, you simply have to look it up in the dictionary. Another consequence of its being conventional is that entailment is constant in all contexts. “ John has three cows” will always entail “John has some cows” and all the others which are as bellows: John has some cows. John has some animals. John has something. Somebody has three cows. Somebody has some cows. Somebody has some animals. Somebody has something.
(4) Entailment is not calculable. There is no way to work out an entailment on the basis of the CP and its maxims.
◆Summary
●All sentences have a number of entailments.
●Entailments are inferences that can be drawn solely from our knowledge about the semantic relationships in a language.
●This knowledge allows us to communicate much more than we actually …say?. Although entailment, analytic sentence, and contraction are considered to be purely semantic concepts, having to do with sentence meaning rather than speaker meaning, however, they can be quite relevant to the study of pragmatics. For example, Analytic sentences(My mother is a woman) which seems to be redundant semantically are quite informative to the hearer, and contradictions (My mother is a boy) which seem apparently nonsensical sentence still makes sense to the hearer. Every sentence has many entailments, but in semantics an entailment must be automatically true solely by virtue of meaning relationships in the language, not by virtue of what happens in the real world. Sentences, not speakers, have entailments.
◆The distinction of entailment and presupposition--- negation test: Constancy under negation: presuppositions remain constant under negation, this property of presupposition is usually used as a test for a presupposition. Look at the following examples in which the presupposition-triggers are italicized; the symbol 》stands for
…presuppose?:
6) John saw /didn?t see the man with two heads
》There exists a man with two heads
7) Everybody knows/does not know that John is gay.
》John is gay.
The distinction of entailment and presupposition is usually judged by negation test. We can simply take a sentence, negate it, and see what inferences survive - i.e. are shared by both the positive and the negative sentence.
e.g. (8) John managed to stop in time
From this we can infer:
(9) John stopped in time
(10) John tried to stop in time
Now take the negation of (8).
(11) John didn?t manage to stop in time
From this we cannot infer (9) –in fact the main point of the utterance could be to deny (9) which is the entailment of sentence (8). Yet the inference to (10) is preserved and thus shared by both (8) and its negation (11). Thus on the basis of the negation test, (10) is presupposition of both (8) and (11).
Note that whenever (8) is true, (9) must be true, but that when (11) is true, (9) need not be true. So, (8) entails (9), but (11) does not entail (9), by the definition of entailment above. Clearly, then, when we negate (8) to obtain (11), the entailments of (8) are no longer the entailments of (11). In short, negation alters a sentence?s entailments, but it leaves the presuppositions untouched. Thus (9) is an entailment of (8) which constitutes at least part of the truth conditions of (8), while (10) is a presupposition of both (8) and (11). Behavior under negation makes a basic distinction between presupposition and entailment.
3.1 Truth-value
In Chapter two, we expe rimented with assigning …true? or …false? to sentences. We could assign a truth-value to sentences (whether a sentence is true or false) based either on what was happening in the language (My mother is a woman) or what was happening in the world (Mother is a doctor). We can only assign true or false to some sentences or we can decide whether some sentences are true or false, however we cannot assign either “true” or “false” to all sentences such as imperative sentences/Commands and interrogative sentences/Questions. We usually have the following types of sentences
a. Declarative sentences/statements
b. Imperative sentences/ Commands
c. Interrogative sentences/ Questions
We can infer whether sentences in type a are true or false, what about those in b and c? As we have seen, only declarative sentences can be true or false. Does this mean that we cannot draw some very strong inferences from utterances based on imperative and interrogative sentences? Actually, the answer is no, we can draw another kind of inferences which is presupposition.(Peccei, 19)
3.2.3 Pragmatic presupposition
There exist different understanding and definitions concerning pragmatic presupposition. Here we sum up three main definitions.
1. Pragmatic presupposition means something that speakers assumed to be true before making the utterance. For example:
(12) a. Sam has stopped beating his wife.
b. Sam has not stopped beating his wife.
c. Sam was beating his wife.
In this example, statement a and statement b presuppose statement c. That is, speakers assumed statement c to be true when they stating a and b.
2. Pragmatic presupposition is regarded as the appropriate condition of performing a speech act or the appropriateness of a sentence in a context. (Fillmore, 1971:276)
For example:
(13) a. John accused Harry of writing the letter.
b. There was something blameworthy about the letter.
In this example, sentence a presupposes sentence b.
3. Pragmatic presupposition is regarded as common ground or background knowledge of the speakers and addressee. For example:
(14) a. John has a sister.
b. John exists.
(15) a. The concert last night was marvelous.
b. There was a concert last night.
◆Foregrounding entailment: when uttering a sentence in context, the speaker will have one entailment in mind as the main focus from among several ones, the most important one for interpreting the message. One way of communicating this to the hearer, or foregrounding a particular entailment, is by putting heavy stress on one of
the words in an utterance. More can be communicated than simply what is said. (Peccei, P13)
There are several ways to foreground a particular entailment:
1) Heavy stress on a word can be used to foreground a particular entailment.
2) Cleft sentence分裂句或强调句：Cleft sentences usually begin with It plus a form of the verb be, followed by the element which is being emphasized.) can also do this and particularly in written language where stress is not available. Certain kinds of sentence structures such as a cleft sentence分裂句或强调句（a sentence which has been divided into two parts, each with its own verb, to emphasize a particular piece of information）.
3) Pseudo-cleft sentence: in English a sentence with a wh-clause as subject or complement is known as a Pseudo-cleft sentence. For example, a good holiday is what I need.
Redundant information or not?
Embedded in every sentence is a considerable amount of …understood?information which comes from our knowledge of the language itself. Sometimes, sentences may give or ask for information which can be automatically inferred from the meanings of words the speaker used, e.g. My mother is a woman. I had a summer vacation for two months, over sixty days.If you know the meaning of mother, woman, months and days, then semantically speaking, these sentences seem to give the redundant information, is this really the case?
Sometimes sentences may seem to be contradictory from a semantic point of view, does it mean that there is something with the sentence? Of course not, readers or hearers can often draw some meaningful inferences about the real intention or message that the speakers or writers want to convey. For example,
A. All creatures are imperfect beasts. Man alone is the perfect beast.
B. The brain of a woman is almost as heavy as a human brain.
C. I have reiterated over and over again what I have said before.
D. We don?t have censorship. What we have is a limitation on what newspapers can report.
And also, the same sentence can have different interpretation and understanding from semantic and pragmatic perspectives. For example,
Jane: You ate all the cookies.
Steve: I ate some of the cookies.
This dialogue is tricky. Do you assume that Steve had not eaten all the cookies? Did he specifically say that he had not eaten all the cookies? From a purely logical point of view, if Steve ate all the cookies, then he also ate some of them on his way to eating all of them ( the meaning relationship between all/some is similar to that between trout/fish ). If Steve had eaten all the cookies, from a semantic point of view, he was not lying. From a pragmatic point of view, he is lying, because the implicature which Steve?s utterance produces is that he did not eat all the cookies, which means that he is lying.
◆Sentence types and entailment(Peccei, p10)
Analytic sentences refer to sentences, the understanding of which only requires the knowledge of a particular language, e.g. English. For example,
My mother is a woman.
The tiger is an animal.
Contradictary sentences : sentences which seem to be nonsensical, semantically speaking, they may not be acceptable. For example,
My mother is a boy.
My uncle is a snake.
Synthetic sentences: sentences, the understanding of which does not only involve linguistic knowledge but also the knowledge of the real world or the background information. In other words, readers or hearers cannot verify the truth or falsity of the sentences by linguistic knowledge, non-linguistic knowledge is also needed to make the judgment. These sentences may be synthetically true or false depending on what is happening in the world. For example,
My mother is a doctor.
The tiger is unhappy.
He baked a cake.
Suppose that He baked a cake. is true, then He baked something is automatically true, then He baked something is the entailment of He baked a cake. or He baked a cake. entails He baked something.
从语义学角度谈汉语中的歧义现象 摘要：语言学家普遍认为, 歧义现象是指一个句子的含义模棱两可, 可以作两种或多种解释。歧义是一种普遍的语言现象,存在于一切自然语言之中。本文尝试从语义学角度对汉语中的歧义现象进行分析，对引起歧义的各种因素进行剖析，指出歧义在实际的语言应用中的影响，并提出一些消除歧义的手段。 关键词：语义学，汉语歧义，歧义成因，消除歧义 一、文献综述 语义学是研究语言意义以及语言表达之间的意义关系的学科。语义学研究自然语言的语义特征；它把语义作为语言的一个组成部分去研究，探讨它的性质、内部结构及其变异和发展以及语义间的关系等。 “语义学”这一术语是由法国语言学家Michel Breal 在1893 年首先提出来的。1897 年,Breal 编著的《语义学探索》一书问世,标志着今天所理解的语义学开始逐步形成。1900 年,这本书被译成英文,书名为Semantics : Studies in the Science of Meaning。这本书是第一部语言语义学著作,其研究的重点在词义的历史发展方面,兼顾词汇意义和语法意义。随后，语义学的发展经历了一个曲折的过程。语义学在19 世纪末、20 世纪初开始成为一门独立的学科,50 年代逐步显露发展势头,从70 年代起才获得了充分的发展。随着越来越多的语言学家开始关注和研究语义学，发表关于语义学的著作，语义学逐渐成为一个成熟的体系。 近十年来，现代语义学呈现出多学科、跨学科、多纬度和多层次的几个显著的特点。如果说传统的语义学研究主要局限在词汇意义层次的话,现代语义学的最大特点之一是对语言意义的多层次的考察。笔者经过对近十年的文献研究发现，认知语义学和规范语义学是当代国际语义学研究的两大主流取向。认知语义学就是在认知学的框架内研究语义,对心智进行经验性的研究，它对传统形式语义学的外部缺陷有着深刻的认识，是当代一个热门的研究方向。规范语义学的核心概念是形式体系,即一种抽象的模型结构,模型的抽象性意味着广泛的语义空间,进而彰显出语义自身的自由度。从蒙塔古最初建立规范语义学到后来克里普克等人的继续发展,出现了诸如类型理论,模态理论范畴语法,博弈语义学等新的学说,特别是后来帕蒂等人对蒙塔古语义学的不断完善,充分表明了规范语义学具有极强的生命力。 而国内近十年的语义学研究也遍布了语言研究的各个方面。主要有以下几个方向：对认知语义学的研究，例如张辉的《认知语义学述评》；对框架语义学的研究，例如陶明忠、马玉蕾合著的《框架语义学———格语法的第三阶段》；语义学在对隐喻的研究中的应用，例如于莹的《认知语义学框架下的隐喻研究》；对语义学与语用学之间的关系的研究，例如康灿辉的《试论语义学与语用学的互补性》；对语义学的实际应用的研究，例如王向君的《浅谈语义学与语法教学》。而对于歧义现象的语义学研究主要是对英语中的歧义现象进行研究，例如高桂莲、陈颖、王海岩合著的《对英语歧义现象的语义分析》，却鲜有对汉语中歧义现象的语义分析。所以本文尝试从语义学角度对汉语中的歧义现象进行分析，对引起歧义的各种因素进行剖析，指出歧义在实际的语言应用中的影响，并提出一些消除歧义的手段。 二、歧义的成因 语言学家普遍认为, 歧义现象是指一个句子的含义模棱两可, 可以作两种或多种解释。语言是一种约定俗成的社会现象, 而不是人们根据科学规律创造出来的, 因此, 不论哪种语言都存在大量的歧义现象。引起歧义的原因有很多，下面笔者将对歧义的主要成因进行分类和剖析。 （一）、语音歧义 汉语中的语音歧义多是由于汉语的一个音节可以对应多个不同的语素引起的，一般存在于口语中。语音歧义主要可以分成以下三种情况。 1、同音字引起的歧义 例句：甲：“请问您贵姓？” 乙：“免贵姓zhang。” 在这个例句中，zhang既可以是“张”，也可以是“章”。在汉语中，有很多读音相同但拼写和意义不同的汉字，因此容易产生语音歧义。 2、一词多音引起的歧义
Development Of Language And Translation ABSTRACTION:With the development of our society, and the meeting up to different kind of languages, the words which we used in our daily life are developing.Trough the changes of words, we can also find the movement of our life. Thus language is a way for us to handle the trajectory of our life. In this essay, we analyze the different kinds of reasons of these development and changes of translation because of the development of language. KEY WORDS: Language; Development; Translation; English; New words. INTRODUCTION: In civilization, people use words to give others ideas.We can express our feelings through language. Indeed, linguistics is a kind of science. As our social system's change, it changes; As our our ages change, it changes. The most basic thing in linguistics is words,with the rapid development of this world, many old words become useless, we can see them in less and less passages even in our oral talking, on the other hand, more and more words are invented.So these words enriched our language treasure house.And from here, we can get the rule: The only way that languages exist is being developing,the only way it can get developed is to be changeable. In today's world,English
壹汉语语言学基础知识（共80分） 一、填空题（每小题1分，共30分） 1．现代汉语普通话以语音为标准音。 2．与印欧语系语言相比，汉语在语法上最大的特点是。 3．现代汉语方言中，粤方言的代表话是。 4．中国使用人口最多的方言是。 5．元音与辅音的区别是。 6．普通话声母j、q、x从发音部位上看属于。 7．同一个语音系统中能够区别意义的最小语音类型单位是。 8．现代汉语普通话有个声母（含零声母）。 9．普通话阳平调的调值是。 10．现代汉语普通话大约有个音节（包括声调）。 11．汉字是的书写符号系统。 12．《现代汉语常用字表》规定的常用字和次常用字分别是字。 13．汉字在历史上曾经被我们的邻国使用，现在还在使用部分汉字。 14．现代汉字的标准字体是。 15．语言中最小的音义结合体是。 16．语言中能独立运用的最小单位是。 17．单纯词有联绵词、叠音词、、拟声词四种形式。 18．合成词有复合式、附加式、三种形式。 19．词义的性质包括概括性、和民族性。 20．词语的褒义、贬义关注的是词义的。 21．构成词义的最小意义单位是。 22．词汇由和一般词汇组成。 23．歇后语“外甥点灯——照舅”是采用的方式来表达语义。 24．双音节状态形容词的重叠方式是。 25．根据语气分出来的句子类型叫。 26．根据句子结构特点分出来的句子类型叫。 27．汉语词类划分的主要依据是。 28．“既然”在复句中表示的关系。 29．“不是A而是B”是关系的复句。 30．大多数“把”字句中，“把”引出的是。 二、判断题（每小题1分，共20分）
1．语音的四要素是：音高、音强、音质、音色。 2．声调是汉语区别意义的重要语音手段。 3．儿化词都是名词。 4．轻声不是一个单独的声调。 5．汉字是由笔画直接组成的。 6．汉字经历了甲骨文、金文、隶书、篆书、楷书五种正式字体演变的过程。 7．一般认为，古代有象形、指事、会意、形声四种造字法。 8．单纯词不一定都是单音节的。 9．“姐姐”是叠音单纯词。 10．“舍不得”是惯用语。 11. “笔直”是表示状态的形容词。 12．语法单位可以分为四级：词、短语、单句、复句。 13．“老师”和“教师”的最大区别是所指对象的年龄不同。 14．“我的中国朋友李小京”是偏正短语。 15．“你什么都不买吗？”是特指疑问句。 16．“他这样有本事的人，我很佩服。”是单句。 17．“他希望领导派他到海外教汉语。”从整体上看是兼语句。 18．“与其长期租房，不如贷款买房。”是假设复句。 19．“我们要夹起尾巴做人。”运用了比喻修辞格。 20．“我今天是无事不登金銮殿。”运用了夸张修辞格。 三、选择题（每小题1分，共30分） 1. 苏州话属于。 A 粤方言 C 闽方言 B 吴方言 D 北方方言 2．普通话有韵头 A 2个 C 4个 B 3个 D 5个 3．普通话有韵尾 A 4个 C 5个 B 3个 D 6个 4．普通话声母中的塞音是。 A d、t、g、k C b、p、d、t、g、k B b、p、g、k D d、t、g、k、n、l
第十一届汉语词汇语义学研讨会议程（CLSW2010） Agendum of the 11th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW 2010) 5月20日：全天报到 地点：东吴饭店（苏州吴衙场24号） 5月21日 会议 内容 时间 就餐地点 早餐 7:00 - 8:00 东吴饭店 午餐 12:00 - 13:00 东吴饭店 晚餐 18:30 - 20:00 香雪海饭店 上午日程安排 内容 时间 地点 开幕式 8:30 - 9:00 学术报告厅 照相 9:00 - 9:20 图书馆门前 大会报告 9:20 – 10:40 学术报告厅 茶歇 10:40 – 10:50 学术报告厅 口头报告 10:50 – 12:05 学术报告厅 大会报告 报告人 题目 时间 地点 大会报告1 俞士汶教授 北京大学 语义计算与语言知识库9:20 - 10:00学术报告厅 大会报告2 赵世举教授 武汉大学 词汇语义与语法的关系研 究10:00 - 10:40学术报告厅 口头报告报告人 主持人：待定 地点：学术报告厅 10:50-11:05 宋柔 汉语词汇抽象语义多极性中的模糊现象及处理策略（合作者：邢富坤） 11:05-11:20 郭诗玲 从历时语义角度看“条+命”、“条+新闻”的搭配原因
11:20-11:35 许立群 试析现代汉语-男、-女新词词群 11:35-11:50 劉美君 從構式語法看 V-下來的多義現象（合作者：刘美君） 11:50-12:05 廖佩瑜 The Semantic Extension of Internal Judgment Verbs: From the Aspect of Epistemic Certainty and Manipulation （合作者：刘美君，吴佳纯） 下午日程安排 内容 时间 地点 口头报告 2:00 – 3:45 学术报告厅 POSTER （包括茶歇） 3:45 – 6:00 学术报告厅 口头报告 报告人 主持人：待定 地点：学术报告厅 2:00-2:15 郑泽芝 学科术语标注问题的探索 2:15-2:30 刘苹 “到”义动词“上”、“下”的隐喻基础 2:30-2:45 王莉 影响多义动词词义标注的因素 2:45-3:00 张申 汉语词汇情态语义分析与标注 （合作者：贾珈，王晓慧，蔡莲红） 3:00-3:15 徐艳华 基于语料库的词语义项设置研究（合作者：张蕾） 3:15-3:30 袁应成 基于规则的虚词用法自动标注算法设计与系统实现（合作者：昝红英，张坤丽，周溢辉） 3:30-3:45 周明海 基于多部词典的目标动词义项标注的困难及解决策略（合作者：王莉，亢世勇） POSTER 地点 3:45-6:00学术报告厅 5月22日 会议 内容 时间 就餐地点 早餐 7:00 - 8:00 东吴饭店 午餐 12:00 -13:00 东吴饭店
查看文章 【收藏】北京大学中文系推荐免试研究生必读书目读后有感 2009-09-29 11:07 北京大学要求不严，北京大学中文系要求不严，它崇尚的是一种学习的自由。但学习在那种大师和名校的气氛中，学习在那种图书众多和无数讲座的亲切交谈中，你自己就已经沐浴在她的朝霞中，你自己就已经在鞭策自己不要辜负了这个学校的名字和那些已逝的大师。 北京大学中文系接受全国优秀免试生为直升研究生，但要经过严格的面试和笔试进行选拔，在北京大学中文系的校园网上它挂出了这些书目。看着这些书目我觉得自己读书是如此的浅薄和单一。我想，与我有同一感想的朋友颇多，遂把它陈列出来，作为我们的参考。 古语有云：修身齐家治国平天。又云，达则兼济天下，穷则独善其身。诸葛亮说：非淡泊无以名志，非宁静无以致远。然后在浮躁的今天，这已经是我们可望不可及的梦想，或者是想像古代文人读书的一种渴望方式。也许，多读几本书还是可以享受一下自己的乐趣，陶冶自己的情操。所以我们不妨读读北京大学中文系的推荐书目，尤其是致力于考研究生的朋友。 很多书我们无法在短时间里面读完，这不要紧，把书名、作者、出版社能够顺利背出来，这也是一件很好的事情。古代很多士大夫的学习和钻研就是从背篇目开始。 附录： 文艺学专业必读书目（推荐免试学生使用） 1．《文心雕龙注》上下范文澜注人民文学出版社 2．《文心雕龙研究史》张少康汪春泓等著北京大学出版社 3．《文学理论的未来》（美）拉尔夫﹒科恩主编中国社会科学出版社4．《苏联文学学学派》彭克巽主编北京大学出版社 5．《路德维希﹒费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结》恩格斯著 人民出版社 6．《批评理论和叙事阐释》詹姆逊文集2 中国人民大学出版社 2004年 7．《文学理论学导论》董学文著北京大学出版社 8．《中国文艺理论百年教程》毛庆耆等著广东高等教育出版社 9．《叙事学与小说文体学研究》申丹著北京大学出版社 10．中外经典文学名著三部 语言学及应用语言学专业必读书目（推荐免试学生使用） 1．《语法答问》朱德熙 2．《现代汉语语法研究》朱德熙 3．《中国文法要略》吕叔湘 4．《汉语语法分析问题》吕叔湘 5．《汉语语法论》高名凯 6．《上古音研究》李方桂 7．《汉语语音史》王力 8．《现代语言学教程》霍凯特
语言学教程笔记 第一章语言学导论 语言的定义特征：从本质上将人类语言与动物语言区分开的人类语言的区别性特点。 1. 任意性：任意性是指语言符号的形式与所表示的意义没有天然的联系，任意性是语言的核 心特征。例如，我们无法解释为什么一本书读作 a /buk/，一支钢笔读作a /pe n/。 任意性具有不同层次：（1）语素音义关系的任意性。（2）句法层面上的任意性。 （3） 任意性和规约性。 2. 二层性：二层性是指拥有两层结构的这种特性，上层结构的单位由底层结构的元素构成， 每层都有自身的组合规则。话语的组成元素是本身不传达意义的语音，语音的唯一作用就是 相互组合构成有意义的单位，比如词。因为底层单位是无意的，而上层单位有明确的意义，所以我们把语音叫做底层单位，与词等上层单位相对。二层性使语言拥有了一种强大的能产 性。 3. 创造性：创造性指语言的能产性，指语言有制造无穷长句的潜力，这来源于语言的二层性 和递归性。利用二重性说话者可以通过组合基本语言单位，无止境地生成句子，大多数都是以前没有过的或没有听过的。 4. 移位性：是指人类语言可以让使用者在交际时用语言符号代表时间上和空间上并不可及的 物体、时间或观点。因此我们可以提及孔子或北极，虽然前者已经去世两千五百五十多年而 后者位置距我们非常之远。语言使我们能够谈及已不存在或还未出现的事物。移位性赋予人 们的概括与抽象能力使人类受益无穷。词在指称具体物体时，并不总是出现在即时、形象化 的语境中。他们通常为了体现指称含义而被使用。 5. 文化传递性：语言不是靠遗传，而是通过文化传递的。 6. 互换性：指人可以是信息的发出者，也可以是信息的接受者，即人作为说话者和听话者的 角色是可以随意更换的。 元语言功能：我们的语言可以用来讨论语言本身。比如说，我可以用“书”指代一本书，也可以用“书这个词”来指代“书”这个词本身。这使语言具有无限的自我反身性：人类可以谈论“说话”，也可以思考“思考"。所以只有人类才能提问：元语言功能对交际、思考及人类的意义是什么？
Vol.28No.3 M ar.2012 赤峰学院学报（自然科学版）Journal of Chifeng University （Natural Science Edition ）第28卷第3期（下） 2012年3月英语习语凝聚了英语民族人民的勤劳和智慧，是英语语言国家历史文化发展的结晶，体现了英语国家丰富的历史文化背景.学习英语习语可以成为英语专业学生学习和了解英语语言文化的一扇窗.可是，英语习语却因其结构与语义之间的差异，涉及面广泛繁杂，大多与民族历史发展、地理环境、传统习俗、宗教信仰，神话传说有关，而使学生深感习语语义难以理解，难以记忆，用法难以掌握.认知语义学研究表明,语言的意义与人的认知经验密切相关,习语的意义也是在人类在认知世界的过程中，通过一定的认知机制发展起来的，本文拟从认知语义学的角度出发来揭示英语习语的本质,并运用概念隐喻、转喻与常规知识等主要认知机制分析英语习语的语义.1 传统语义学对习语语义的阐释 传统语义学认为，习语是具有固定的结构，在语义和语法上能独立运用的词组.它的意义一般不能由各组成部分推断出来（王宗炎，1988）.习语是独立于大脑理性思维和人类认知经验之外的抽象符号，它的本质是词汇，是语言系统的一个部分，而不是概念性的. 习语语义具有完整性，我们必须把习语作为一个整体来理解，构成习语的各个词汇失去了它们独立的语义，正如构成单词的每一个字母一般，分开以后毫无意义可言.习语的意义不是构成它的各个单词的意义的相加；如果将其拆分开，尽管可以理解每个单词的意义，但是仍然无法理解这个习语的意义.比如，“I am under the weather ”一句中，un-der the weather 意指“unhappy ”，单从字面意思来理解，毫无无法解释，一个人怎么能“在天气之下”呢？这也正是传统语言学家从习语的语义整体性来研究习语的原因. 习语具有结构的固定性，一般不能用别的词来代替，即使是同义词也不可以，比如，have an axe to grind (另有打算),不能换成“have a hatchet to grind ”.还有，习语中冠词的用法，名词单复数的用法，动词的主动或被动形式等都是固定的，大部分都不能随便进行句法转换.传统语义学认为，习语是一种约定俗成的习惯用法，是一种死喻，对于习语的学习就是死记硬背，模仿和记忆.2认知语义学视角下的习语意义阐释 2.1 习语是概念化的产物 针对传统的客观主义语义学观点，Lakoff &Johnson （1999）提出了基于体验哲学的认知语义观.他们认为人类的知识结构并非符号结构，也不能与客观世界直接对应，人类的知识结构，是概念结构，是人客观世界互动过程中逐渐获得.意义是基于体验的心智现象，是主客观互动的结果.意义需依靠原型范畴，概念化、意象图示来限定的.范畴、概念、推理和心智并不是外部现实客观的、镜像的反映，也不是先天就有的，而是人们在对客观外界感知和体验的基础上认知加工而形成的.完全可以想象，我们的祖先是从认识空间和自身开始认识世界的.人们在经验和行为中形成了范畴和概念，与此同时也就形成了意义（王寅，2007）. 从这个意义上来看，习语也是人类认知和体验的结果.因此，我们可以这样认为，在语言和现实之间存在思维和认知这一中间层次，如果不依赖范畴知识、概念结构和认知方式，就无法接近现实.习语是人类概念体系的产物,不仅仅属于语言本身的问题.习语确实有它的特殊意义,我们应看到这些特殊意义正是来源于人类对客观物质世界的认识,而我们的概念体系正体现了这种认识. 在日常生活中，人们往往参照他们熟知的，有形的，具体的概念来认识、思维、经历、对待无形的、难以定义的概念，形成了一个不同概念之间相互关联的认知方式.以head 一词为例，the head of deparment,head of state,head of government,head of page,head of queue,head of a flower,head of stairs,head of a bed,head of a tape recorder,head of syntactic construction …在head 的所有例子中，所表达的概念都与“头”这一概念紧密联系，表达“the front part of …”或“the vitally important part ”. 比如，在英语中有大量这样以身体词汇概念，产生的习语,play it by ear(随机应变，见机行事),rack your brains （绞尽脑汁想）,turn a blind eye （熟视无睹）,a stiff upper lip （泰然自若，坚定不移）,keep your mouth shut and your eyes open （多看少说）,从这些习语的语义，可以看出人类的认知 英语习语解析———认知语义学视角 李红珍 （孝感学院外国语学院，湖北孝感432000） 摘要：认知语义学为我们提供了探索习语语义的新视角。传统的习语意义观认为习语是不可分析、任意的.认知语义学则认为习语是概念体系的产物,其意义有理据和可分析性.在英语教学中运用认知语义学理论解释和分析英语习语的语义，可以提高学生准确运用习语的能力. 关键词：习语；认知语义学；认知机制中图分类号：G642.3 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1673-260X （2012）03-0250-02 250--
一、语言和语言学 1、语言的区别性特征：Design of features of language 任意性arbitrariness 指语言符号和它代表的意义没有天然的联系 二重性duality 指语言由两层结构组成 创造性creativity 指语言可以被创造 移位性displacement 指语言可以代表时间和空间上不可及的物体、时间、观点 2、语言的功能（不是很重要） 信息功能informative 人际功能interpersonal 施为功能performative 感情功能emotive function 寒暄功能phatic communication 娱乐功能recreational function 元语言功能metalingual function 3、语言学主要分支 语音学phonetics 研究语音的产生、传播、接受过程，考查人类语言中的声音 音位学phonology研究语音和音节结构、分布和序列 形态学morphology研究词的内部结构和构词规则 句法学syntax 研究句子结构，词、短语组合的规则 语义学semantics 不仅关心字词作为词汇的意义，还有语言中词之上和之下的意义。如语素和句子的意义 语用学pragmatics 在语境中研究意义 4、宏观语言学macrolingustics 心理语言学psycholinguistics社会语言学sociolinguistics 人类语言学anthropological linguistics计算机语言学computational linguistics 5语言学中的重要区别 规定式和描写式：规定式：prescriptive说明事情应该是怎么样的 描写式：descriptive说明事情本来是怎么样的 共时研究和历时研究：共时：synchronic研究某个特定时期语言 历时：diachronic 研究语言发展规律 语言和言语：语言：langue指语言系统的整体 言语：parole指具体实际运用的语言 语言能力和语言运用：乔姆斯基(chomsky提出) 能力：competence用语言的人的语言知识储备 运用：performance真实的语言使用者在实际中的语言使用 二、语音学 1、语音学分支 发音语音学articulatory phonetics研究语言的产生 声学语言学acoustic phonetics研究语音的物理属性 听觉语音学auditory phonetics研究语言怎样被感知 2 IPA（国际音标）是由daniel Jones琼斯提出的 三、音位学 1、最小对立体minimal pairs 2、音位phoneme
将英语译成中文(简体)胡壮麟“语言学教程”课后答案 定义以下条款： 1。设计特点：是他们的特点来定义，如任意性，双重性，创造性，位移，文化传播等，我们人类的语言， 2。功能：语言的使用ommunicate，思考，等anguage功能inclucle imformative 功能，人际功能，表演功能，人际功能，表演功能，情感功能，寒暄交流，娱乐功能和工具功能。 3。客位：在与主位是从美国语言学家派克的语音和音位的区别源于长期的对比。作为客位芒作出太多，以及behaviously无关紧要，鉴别，就像是多嚼不语言学与语音正确vx.phonemic分析实例。 4。主位：在与客位的是从美国语言学家派克的语音和音位的区别源于长期的对比。作者：主位言语行为和事件必须被作为一个有意义的资源，验证通过的最后一次演说communith本地成员，而不是通过qppeal到研究者的ingenuith或直觉孤单。‘ 5。同步：一类是描述以一个固定的瞬间（通常，但不一定，目前的）作为观察点。大多数语法是这样的。 6。历时：一种语言的研究是通过其进行的历史过程。 7。规范：一种语言的研究是通过其进行的历史过程。 8。规范：这类研究的语言，一切事都应该是如何规定的，ielaying下来的语言使用规则。 9。描述：这类研究的语言，一切事都只是描述。 10。独断性：一种人类的语言，这是指语言符号的脸，不承担任何形式的关系，其意义自然的设计特点。11。对偶：一种人类的语言，这是指有两对是二次元素组成的各级物业设计功能。水平和两级各有自己的组织原则。12。排量：一种人类的语言，这意味着人类语言的设计特点，使他们的用户，象征着在目前的通信对象，事件和概念并不在时间和空间目前?。13。寒暄交流：人类语言的一种功能，它是指语言的社会互动。14。元语言：语言符号或特定的分析和研究方面的某些种类的描述。15。macrolinguistics：他的语言之间的相互作用，如心理学，社会学，人种学，法学和人工智能等门类的
从词汇语义学角度对比分析《呼啸山庄》的中译 【摘要】滋生于欧美的当代比较语言学，并不一定能成功解决所有语言教学难题，但其重要性却不容忽视。文章从词汇层次，特别是从语义学角度的词义分类和动机方面对《呼啸山庄》的中译进行对比分析。此外，这项研究的局限性可为进一步作这方面的研究起一定的铺垫作用。 【关键词】对比分析《呼啸山庄》语义学动机词义分类 词汇的对比研究包括分析词态学和语义学。本文从后者，即语义学的角度出发，对《呼啸山庄》的中译进行对比分析。语义学是法国语言学家Michel Breal 1984年在美国举行的一 次研讨会上提出来的，六年后英文本《语言学》出版。Breal 在书中首次对语义学的研究从目标和方法角度作出了系统 分析。语义学被确立为一门分支学科后，经历了四个发展阶段，即早期语义学、语源学、结构语义学和多元语义系统研究。与传统语义学不同，现代语义学注重对词汇语义学和句法语义学的研究。本文把重点放在词汇语义学上,这对于从词汇角度对比研究《呼啸山庄》的中译很重要。 许余龙曾对比较语言学这样下定义：比较语言学是一门针对两种（或两种以上）语言进行有系统的共时描述，旨在为与语言相关的活动确定它们之间的相似和相异之处，并找
出这种相似和相异含义的语言学分支。这为一些语言学家所接受，比较语言学也在语言教学过程中开始起到了一定的作用。因此，国内外的语言学家们关注过或一直重视着比较研究这一课题，如赵元任、吕淑湘、刘糜庆、王宗言、许国璋和B.L.Worf,Robert Lado(1957), Catford, Holmes, Hatim。《呼啸山庄》(Wuthering Heights)英文原版是英国文学史上的一位杰出人物艾米莉?q勃朗特的作品，艾米莉?q勃朗特因所写小说的独特而被英国著名小说家和评论家William Somerset Maugham 称为十大杰出人物之一,中国大陆上出现了三种中译版本，其中以杨苡和张玲、张扬两种译本最为流行，本文选这两种译本作为对比研究的对象。 一、文献回顾 1、词义的分类 毋庸置疑，现代语义学的研究目标是词汇意义，而词义是难以定义和分类的。根据现代朗文英语词典，“meaning”(意义)一词指的是：①意思；含义。②重要性；价值；意义。 ③意味深长的。[1]684本文在此采用第一种定义。一般而言，西方语言学界对词义有三种典型的分类。Grice从应用语言的角度把语义分为四种类型：永恒意义、应用永恒意义、场景意义和说话场景意义。而Kitty则在Grice的研究基础上把句
单元练习...．..７6页 英语语言学概论 —自学指导 主编: 支永碧王永祥
英语语言学概论 —自学指导 主编: 支永碧王永祥 副主编：李葆春丁后银王秀凤
前言 本书主要为参加英语专业(本科段)自学考试和全国研究生入学考试的考生而编写,是《英语语言学概论》(王永祥、支永碧,2０0７）的配套辅导用书。 自2０0７年起,《英语语言学概论》（王永祥、支永碧，２007)被确定为英语专业(本科段)自学考试的指定教材。在此期间，许多参加自学考试的考生希望能再出一本配套的辅导教材。他们中的不少人不仅希望自学考试轻松过关,还希望和全国其他学生一样将来能参加全国统一的研究生入学考试继续升造求学。而现有的教材内容和相关练习似乎还不能充分满足他们的需求。其一,配套练习尚不够全面,缺少问答题的参考答案；其二，和研究生入学考试真题相比,配套练习的类型也不够全面；其三,参加自学考试的学生往往很难得到老师的亲自授课和指导，而英语语言学理论和概念往往抽象难懂，再加上其它各种原因,不少考生不能轻易地掌握各章的所有重点、难点，因此,他们迫切需要有一本简单实用的自学考试指南和辅导练习帮助他们解决问题；此外，在英语专业研究生入学考试中，英语语言学是一门必考科目。入学以后,英语语言学也是英语专业研究生的一门必修课。鉴于此,他们希望了解更全面的英语语言学基本理论，多做一些更实用的英语语言学练习和真题，以备将来需要。为了满足广大自考学生和准备参加英语专业研究生入学考试的考生的需要,我们在广泛征求了各方面的意见之后,精心编写了本书。本书的编写除了主要参照王永祥、支永碧主编的《英语语言学概论》以外，我们还参考了胡壮麟主编的《语言学教程》(修订版）和戴炜栋、何兆熊主编的《新编简明英语语言学教程》和其它一些高校使用的语言学教程。 本书第一部分为英语语言学核心理论和概念，主要包括:本章主要考点，课文理解与重点内容分析;第二部分为英语语言学概论的十三章单元配套练习,和原教材中的练习稍有不同的是，在本部分，我们选编了部分自学考试真题和各个高校历年考研真题，以便考生更好地了解本章重点。这样，学生可以更有针对性地进行各章节的学习和复习。虽然该部分略有难度,但对考研和自考的学生都很有帮助；第三部分为英语语言学综合模拟试卷, 内容紧扣《英语语言学概论》，针对性很强,适用于英语专业各类考生；第四部分为江苏省自学考试英语语言学概论部分考试样题及参考答案。本书的习题主要包括以下七种类型:问答题、选择题、填空题、名词解释、是非判断题、汉英术语互译题、操作题。另外,为便于学习者了解考试重点，本书附加了江苏省英语专业(本科段）《英语语言学概论》自学考试新大纲2007版；另外，为便于自学者查询深涩难懂的语言学词汇，我们按照汉语字母顺序编写了常见的英语语言学术语汉英对照表，以补充原教材的些许缺失。 本书力求充分满足广大考生学习和考试的需要,帮助他们了解各章的主要考点和复习要点。祝参加英语专业自学考试的考生轻松克服《英语语言学概论》的学习难题，祝参加英语专业研究生入学考试的考生在本书的帮助下能轻松通过英语语言学这个难关，实现自己的梦想。 支永碧 20０9年2月于南京师范大学随园
从语义学角度分析英语中的词汇歧义现象 摘要：歧义是存在于古今中外所有语言中的一种常见的语言学现象，是语言结构形式与其意义之间的一种特殊关系。语言学家认为一个词或一个句子的含义模糊现象，或者存在两种或多种意义解释的现象称之为语言歧义。由于英语的词汇量很大，语法又比较灵活，语言歧义现象在英语中表现得尤为突出。因此本文从语义学角度对英语中的词汇歧义现象进行分类讨论，分析引起歧义的各种因素，具有很重要的理论和现实意义。 一、引言 语义学，也可以称为“语意学”，是涉及计算机科学、自然语言处理、语言学、心理学、逻辑学以及认知科学等诸多领域的学科专用术语，以自然语言涵义为对象，以对语言的结构、性质以及相互间的关系进行分析、研究为主要内容。歧义的“歧”是指“不一致”，“义”指的是意义。语言学家认为：“语言歧义现象是指在语言交流过程中对一个词或一个句子的意思有不同的理解，可以作两种或多种解释”①。歧义在语言运用中是不可避免的，正如美国语言学家Kaplan曾说：“歧义是语言中反常的通病”②。因此，研究语言中的歧义现象，不仅能促进语言学理论的发展，还能有效避免语言歧义在交流中造成的误解和障碍，从而提高语言交际的准确性、严密性。因此，从语义学角度深入探讨歧义现象具有极大研究价值和现实指导意义。
二、词汇歧义现象分析 2.1 多义词歧义 多义词指具有二个或二个以上意义的词。在句子中，多义词的出现往往使句子产生歧义。美国语言学家G.L.Brook曾说：“一词多义是歧义的语言基础”③。把一个多义词用在特定的语境中，通常情况下它不会产生歧义。但是，如果一个多义词的几种意义在同一个句子中都能成立，那么，此句就有了歧义。例如“Are you engaged？”一句既可以理解成“你忙吗？”又可以理解成“你定婚了吗？”。 2.2 同形异义词歧义 同形异义词是指那些拼写相同而意义不同的词。同形异义词并不是同一个词，它不同于多义词，而是有着不同词源的两个或两个以上形式相同，但是意义不同的一种语言现象。同形异义词又可以分为：同音异义词、同形同音异义词及同形异义词三种形式。例如：Im More satisfied.Ask for more.这是摩尔牌香烟广告，该商标的同音同形异义词是英语中一个常用的与数量有关的形容词。 为什么我们能同时处理多个意义而不产生混乱呢？认知语义学中的家族相似性理论能够说明其原因，“家族成员中具有某种相似特征：体态、相貌、眼睛的颜色、步态和气质都有一些相似和重叠地方”④。人们凭直觉既可准确判断某人属于某一家族，又可识别其家族成员之间的细微差别。世界是由无限种类
Chapter 1 Introduction 语言学的定义： Linguistics is generally defined as the scientific study of language. 问题：How do you interpret the following definition of linguistics: Linguistics is the scientific study of language? →It is a scientific study because it is based on the systematic investigation of linguistic data, conducted with reference to some general theory of language structure. What the linguist has to do “first, then, but”: ①to observe and collect language facts and generalizations are made about them. ②to formulate some hypotheses about the language structure. ③to check the hypotheses thus formed repeatedly against the observed facts to fully prove their validity. The study of language as a whole is often called general linguistics. (普通语言学) 问题: What are the major branches of linguistics? What does each of them study? →phonetics（语音学）→the study of sounds →phonology（音位学）→study how sounds are put together and used to convey meaning →morphology（形态学）→study the way in which symbols or morphemes are arranged and combined to form words. →syntax（句法学）→the study of rules of forming sentences
Chapter one Introduction 一、定义 1.语言学Linguistics Linguistics is generally defined as the scientific study of language. 2.普通语言学General Linguistics The study of language as a whole is often called General linguistics. 3.语言language Language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used for human communication. 语言是人类用来交际的任意性的有声符号体系。 4.识别特征Design Features It refers to the defining properties of human language that distinguish it from any animal system of communication. 语言识别特征是指人类语言区别与其他任何动物的交际体系的限定性特征。 Arbitrariness任意性 Productivity多产性（创造性） Duality双重性 Displacement移位性 Cultural transmission文化传递 5.语言能力Competence（抽象） Competence is the ideal user‘s knowledge of the rules of his language. 6.语言运用performance（具体） Performance is the actual realization of this knowledge in linguistic communication. 语言运用是所掌握的规则在语言交际中的具体体现。 7.历时语言学Diachronic linguistics The study of language change through time. a diachronic study of language is a historical study, which studies the historical development of language over a period of time. 8.共时语言学Synchronical linguistics The study of a given language at a given time. 9.语言langue（抽象） The abstract linguistic system shared by all members of a speech community. 10.言语parole（具体） The realization of langue in actual use. 11.规定性Prescriptive It aims to lay down rules for ‖correct‖ behavior, to tell people what they should say and what should not say. 12.描述性Descriptive A linguistic study describes and analyzes the language people actually use. 二、知识点 https://www.doczj.com/doc/a0474766.html,nguage is not an isolated phenomenon, it‘s a social activity ca rried out in a certain social environment by human beings. 语言不是一种孤立的现象，而是人类在一定的社会环境下进行的一种社会活动。 2.几种观点和现象的提出者： ⑴瑞士语言学家F.de Saussure :Langue和parole的区别
南开大学中文系阅读书目 一、语言学类 普通语言学教程（瑞士〕索绪尔著高名凯译 语言（法）房德里耶斯著岑麟祥、叶蜚声译 语言论（美〕布龙菲尔德著袁家骅等译 语法哲学（丹麦）叶斯柏森著何勇等译 马克思主义与语言学问题（苏联）斯大林著李立三等译语言分析纲要（美）布洛赫、特雷杰著赵世开译） 句法结构（美）诺姆乔姆斯基著邢公畹等译 现代语言学教程（美）霍凯特著索振羽、叶蜚声译 西方语言学名著选读胡明扬主编 国外语言学概述一流派和代表人物赵世开主编 语言论高名凯著 语言学纲要叶蜚声、徐通锵著语言学概论马学良主编 语言学概论石安石、詹人凤著普通语音学纲要罗常培、王均著 世界字母简史周有光著 历史语言学徐通锵著 语义论石安石著 汉藏语概论马学良主编邢公畹等著 文化语言学邢福义主编 语言学史概要岑麟祥著 中国语言学史王力著 中国理论语言学史邵敬敏、方经民著 二、现代汉语类 现代汉语教程邢公畹主编现代汉语（增订本）胡裕树主 编 现代汉语参考资料胡裕树主编 现代汉语语音概要吴宗济主编 语音常识董少文著 汉语词汇讲话周祖谟著 现代汉语同汇符淮青著 汉语描写词汇学刘叔新著 词语的意义和结构周荐著 同义词语和反义词语刘叔新、 周荐著 同义词语的研究周荐著 胡同及其他张清常著 异文化的使者——外来词史有 为著 中国现代语法王力著 中国语法理论王力著 汉语语法纲要王了一（王力） 著 中国文法要略吕叔湘著 双语语法分析问题吕叔湘著 现代汉语语法讲话丁声树著 汉语口语语法赵元任著吕叔 湘译 语法答问朱德熙著 语法讲义朱德熙著 八十年代中国语法研究陆俭明 著 汉语语法专题研究高更生著 汉语词法论陈光磊著 汉语动同和动词性结构马庆株 著 现代汉语句型李临定著 现代汉语特殊句式宋玉柱著 现代汉语复句新解王维贤等著 现代汉语祈使句研究袁毓林著 现代汉语空语类研究沈阳著 语法修辞讲话吕叔湘、朱德熙 著 实用语法修辞于根元、苏培实、 徐枢、饶长溶著 修辞学发凡陈望道著 现代汉语修辞学张弓著 语篇的衔接与连贯胡壮麟著 汉语方言概要袁家骅著 汉语方言调查基础知识邢公畹 著 现代汉语方言詹伯慧著 汉语方言调查手册李荣编著 方言调查字表（修订本）中国 社会科学院语言研究所编 中国文字学唐兰著 文字学概要裘锡圭著 汉字改革概论周有光著 三、古代汉语类 汉语史稿王力著 古代汉语（修订本）王力主编 古代汉语教程解惠全主编 说文解字（东汉）许慎著 说文解字注（清）段玉裁撰 说文通训定声（清）朱骏声著 文字蒙求（清）王筠著 说文解字通论陆宗达著 广韵（北宋）陈彭年等著 中原音韵（元）周德清著 汉语音韵学导论罗常培著 汉语音韵王力著 汉字古音手册郭锡良著 诗词格律王力著 释名（东汉）刘熙著 尔雅义疏（清）郝懿行著 尔雅今注徐朝华著 广雅疏证（清）王念孙著 经义述闻（清）王引之著 古书疑义举例（清）俞樾著 训诂简论陆宗达著 古汉语词汇纲要蒋绍愚著 经传释词（清）王引之著 助字辨略（清）刘淇著 马氏文通（清）马建忠著 古汉语语法及其发展杨伯峻 何乐士著 社科中文工具书使用邓宗荣著