聚合與立基:反事實(shí)條件句之前提語(yǔ)義學(xué)的辯護(hù)(英文)
[Abstract]:The basic idea of presupposition semantics is to claim that we can deduce the latter from the former and the appropriate premise. Kratzer (1981, 1989) developed this idea, introduced the concept of premise set (premise sets) to express the appropriate way for us to join the premise, and advocated that the conditional sentence p-Q is true, if and only if each premise set can be extended to logically contain the latter premise set. Kratzer's plan is to find appropriate limitations for the predicate set, which can make the true value condition of the counterfactual conditional sentence correct. Kratzer (1989) uses the concept of aggregate (lumping) to depict the limitation of the predicate set. The idea here is that some propositions will come together, so that if we add one, we will join the rest of the propositions it aggregates. The aggregation relationship between propositions is defined by the part and whole of situational semantics in situational semantics (situation semantics). Such a treatment can solve some problems encountered in the early theory of Kratzer, but still encounter difficulties such as those proposed by Kanazawa et al. (2005). Kratzer himself quickly abandoned this approach and adopted the concept of natural proposition to reconstruct its premise semantics. In this article, I will defend the aggregate semantics of Kratzer (1989). I advocate that the concept of aggregation be understood with the concept of base (grounding) to replace the situational concept used by Kratzer. According to my definition, proposition p aggregates proposition Q, which means that p base is on Q, so when we add a proposition as the premise, we will add the proposition on which it is based together. This approach, which I advocate, can successfully deal with the case of aggregation semantics and avoid its difficulties.
【作者單位】: 臺(tái)灣大學(xué)哲學(xué)系;
【分類號(hào)】:B812
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條
1 熊曉建;;可能世界中反事實(shí)條件句的邏輯分析[J];畢節(jié)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年01期
2 曾慶福;;論反事實(shí)條件句[J];昆明學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年03期
3 胡懷亮;;反事實(shí)條件句與覆蓋律則理論[J];自然辯證法通訊;2013年06期
4 秦姍姍;;反事實(shí)條件句初探[J];神州;2013年14期
5 陳曉平;科學(xué)定律與反事實(shí)條件句——兼論“新歸納之謎”[J];自然辯證法研究;2001年07期
6 王小溪;;反事實(shí)條件句辨析[J];語(yǔ)文學(xué)刊;2014年18期
7 付瑤;;論古德曼反事實(shí)條件句難題[J];重慶理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué));2011年08期
8 王瑩瑩;李寶倫;;反事實(shí)語(yǔ)境中的動(dòng)態(tài)變化(英文)[J];邏輯學(xué)研究;2013年03期
9 ;[J];;年期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條
1 萬(wàn)明;基于預(yù)設(shè)理論的反事實(shí)條件句分析[D];西南大學(xué);2013年
2 季方舟;大衛(wèi)—?jiǎng)⒁姿沟姆词聦?shí)條件句理論[D];華東師范大學(xué);2009年
3 付瑤;論古德曼反事實(shí)條件句難題[D];北京化工大學(xué);2011年
4 馮晶晶;D·劉易斯反事實(shí)條件句思想研究[D];云南師范大學(xué);2013年
5 倪曉嵐;N·古德曼的反事實(shí)條件句思想研究[D];云南師范大學(xué);2014年
,本文編號(hào):2516294
本文鏈接:http://sikaile.net/shekelunwen/ljx/2516294.html