http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : ( Yoko Mizuta ) (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
( Yoko Mizuta ) 서울대학교 인지과학연구소 2015 Journal of Cognitive Science Vol.16 No.4
Kaplan (1989a) claims that sentence P (I am here now) is logically true - i.e. true in every context of utterance. Its negation ~P (I am not here now) would then be logically false. Vision (1985), however, argued that ~P uttered in a voice message apparently stands for a true proposition. In the literature, this puzzle is called the Answering Machine Paradox (AMP) and has received the continuous attention of philosophers. Some scholars identify the reference of ‘I’ in the recording context. Others argue that the reference of ‘I’ is determined by elements such as the speaker’s intention, the linguistically competent and attentive audience, and the convention in which an answering machine is used. In any case, previous works hold, just like Kaplan, that the agent of ~P (and P) should be an individual and therefore that there is no agent in the playback context. In this position, the case of AMP would then be dismissed as an ‘improper utterance’, which goes beyond the scope of Kaplan’s theory. This paper provides a novel analysis of this philosophical issue from a cognitive scientific perspective, using the mental spaces framework. AMP is explained in two steps. The key proposal made in the first step is to introduce the agent of the utterance with one’s logical identity but without his/her physical identity (Agent_log). This notion of Agent_log is given a theoretical basis in terms of a cognitive blend of mental spaces. In the second step, the voice message involves a pragmatic mapping from the Agent_log to a relevant individual, who is the ultimate reference of ‘I’. The apparent puzzle in question is attributed to Kaplan’s empirical assumption that the agent should be an individual, as in a face-to face communication. With the introduction of the notion of Agent_log, a wider range of messages can be accommodated as proper utterances and Kaplan’s theory of indexicals is essentially defended.
-
Semantics and Pragmatics of Pure Indexical Reference
( Yoko Mizuta ) 서울대학교 인지과학연구소 2019 Journal of Cognitive Science Vol.20 No.1
Kaplan (1989) proposed a semantic theory of pure indexicals, arguing that “I,” “here,” and “now’’ refer respectively to the agent, the place, and the time of the context of utterance. He focused on real-time, face-to-face communication, assuming “proper utterances,” that is, those utterances in which the agent is located in the place and time of the context of utterance. Kaplan claimed that in proper utterances the proposition “I am here now” is logically true, that is, true in every context of utterance. In the past few decades, the semantics of pure indexicals has been discussed beyond the scope of the work of Kaplan. Recorded and written messages are now a central concern of the literature and the logical truth of “I am here now” needs to be reexamined. In these messages, pure indexical references are to be communicated through the discrepancy between the spatial and temporal locations that the speaker and the hearer are in. In the literature, factors such as the speaker’s intention and social conventions have been mentioned as playing a key role in the identification of pure indexical references. However, the relation between these factors has been left unclear. Also, it remains to be clarified whether or not Kaplan’s semantic theory needs to be modified in order to accommodate the cases of recorded and written messages. This paper investigates the identification of pure indexical references from both semantic and pragmatic perspectives. It presents a theory which involves a minimum extension of Kaplan’s theory, introducing the notion of the “salient context of utterance.” Specifically, this paper argues the following: 1) it proposes a semantic theory which claims that “I,” “here,” and “now’’ refer respectively to the agent, the place, and the time of the pragmatically determined salient context of utterance, 2) it argues that “I am here now” is true in every salient context of utterance and provides a solution to the so-called “answering machine paradox,” 3) it identifies multiple pragmatic factors which contribute to the identification of the salient context of utterance, and 4) it proposes a hierarchy for the ways in which these multiple factors apply.
KCI
KISS연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
