영어 전제투사 제약에 관한 연구 : 담화표시이론을 중심으로
Constraints on Presupposition Projection in English Discourse : with Special Remarks on Discourse Representation Theory
영어영문학과 영어학 전공
영어 전제투사 제약;
- 원문 URL
The purposes of this dissertation are to review two main theories on presupposition projection, to suggest some possible directions for a better analysis, and to investigate several constraints on presupposition projection in English discourse. The research is done within a Discourse Representation Theory framework(hereafter DRT). The dissertation first examines two main theories on presupposition projection: satisfaction theory and binding theory. Satisfaction theory is based on the single idea that presuppositions must be satisfied in the local context for the interpretation of a sentence. However, several problems such as weak presupposition, unmotivated local accommodation, and projection of satisfied presuppositions occur because this theory makes only a minimal requirement to the context for interpretation. Binding theory assumes that presuppositions are anaphoric elements which can be accommodated. Binding theory was built on the assumptiions of DRT. Anaphoric structures(hereafter A-structures) in DRT shows the relation of anaphor and antecedent. Presupposition-trigger is the anaphor, and presupposition is the antecedent. Thus, presupposition projection is an anaphoric resolution. Binding theory is characterized as a theory in which a presupposition is directly manipulated as a syntactic object. Yet, it has been shown that the syntactic notion of binding is not motivated, and claim that presupposition projection is a matter of information. Based on the discussion above, some possible directions for a better analysis have been suggested. First of all, presupposition projection should be based on information, rather than a syntactic apparatus. In this respect, entailment is too narrow to explain presupposition projection. Second, a presupposition is cancelled by some information in a preceding context along the accessibility path, but when a presupposition is accommodated, it does not seem to follow the same path. A presupposition in the consequent conditional clause can be satisfied or bound by something in the antecedent clause, but when it is accommodated, it is not accommodated there. This observation also supports the claim that bound readings and accommodation readings should be dealt with separately. Third, presuppositions can be accommodated in various contexts, which gives rise to various readings. Satisfaction theory only tries to capture this observation by strengthening a single weak presupposition. This strategy is taken in order to deal with cases where presupposition are satisfied. Yet, It has been pointed out that it makes wrong predictions which cannot be corrected easily. if bound readings and accommodation readings are dealt with separately, and if the preference of global accommodation is captured, the direction should be reversed. That is, the strongest reading should be checked first. Finally, presupposition accommodation is always possible expect several cases. Take an example of exceptions: a presupposition triggered by too, also, etc. must be definitely satisfied, because it involves variables within it that are necessarily bound. However, except such cases, accommodation is generally admitted. This shows that presuppositions should not be constrained like the definedness condition proposed by the advocates for satisfaction theory. In addition to several suggestions this dissertation investigates two kinds of constraints on presupposition projection, syntactic constraints and pragmatic ones. The syntactic constraint is the one by which a resolved DRS doesn't have to contain free variables by accessibility. If resolved DRS contains free variables, it will be impossible to interpret the meaning of a sentence. Thus this constraint is required. The other constraint is acceptability one involved in pragmatic information. This is a crucial constraint governing presupposition accommodation. This constraint singles out the set of admissible interpretations from the set of possible interpretations of a sentence in a given discourse. After that, a cooperative hearer chooses a preferred interpretation from the set of admissible interpretations.