Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractThrough thinking about the derivation of presuppositions, this paper intends to demonstrate the assumption that at least presuppositions have a conversational source. Moreover, it aims to provide a partial proposal for the conversational derivation and a multicomponent model of these presuppositions.Key words: Presupposition; Conversational basis; Common ground; Contextual; Defeasibility; Non- detachabilityINTRODUCTIONHow should we define presupposition? Linguists have proposed various definitions, and the debate about their relation to each other and their respective merits is far too extensive to summarize. Among them, two dominant kinds of explanation need to be mentioned here.Presuppositions as implicatures. According to this view, the presuppositions of a sentence are just another component of the total package of information that the sentence can be used to convey. Other components of this package include the content and the conversational implicatures. This view is proposed by Karttunen and Peters (1979) as well as Gazdar (1979). Only Karttunen & Peters use the term conventional implicatures; Gazdar calls them But what matters here is not terminology, but the concepts behind it. On this view, certain lexical items have, in addition to their truth conditional content, a special presuppositional content, which is carried through the compositional process to produce a propositional presupposition. This theory is generally refuted by pragmatists, for its validity is too specific to cover sentences like George has three children, and may have more for all I know. Although the Karttunen and Peter's model for treating presupposition has been rejected by many researchers, we still talk about the presuppositions of special words like know, too, even, and so on, as regard to their meaning.Presuppositions as admittance conditions. This view is best represented by Stalnaker's work (1973, 1974, 1979) and also in Karttunen (1974). It says that the propositions a sentence presupposes must be entailed by the ground of any context admitting that sentence. This notion of presupposition relies on a notion of common ground: the ground of a context of utterance is the combination of all those propositions that the interlocutors take for granted in that context (either because they are permanently shared beliefs in their community, or because they have been established in the course of the preceding conversation. Although mightier than the former, this theory is not authoritative enough to expel semantic aspects out of mention.Till now, there seems to be no such a theory that is adequate and integrate enough to cover the whole area. The real exit for us to approach this kind of simple but vague pragmatic phenomena remains in a fog.Presuppositions, however, might have a very different source, i.e., might be conversationally derived, that is, they might be inferences regulated by general conversational principles. Stalnaker (1974) suggests that at least presuppositions have a conversational source. He claims that:One of the primary advantages of the move from a semantic to a pragmatic account of presupposition as being the possibility of explaining some of the presupposition facts in terms of general assumptions about rational strategy in situations where people exchange information or conduct argument (1974, p.205).My primary goal is to motivate the claim that at least presuppositions have a conversational source, and to set out a partial proposal for the conversational derivation and multicomponent model of these presuppositions. Thinking about the derivation of presuppositions is worthwhile, because it gives us a different perspective on what presuppositions are, and perhaps could provide us a new perspective of solving the presupposition projection problem.1. EVIDENCE FOR THE CONVERSATIONAL BASIS OF SOME PRESUPPOSITIONSThe presuppositions having a conversational source possess two typical properties of conversational implicature? …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».