基于逻辑和语义视角的预设与蕴涵的鉴别

预设与蕴涵的联系与区别作者：杨威来源：《青年文学家》2014年第02期摘要：预设和蕴涵是语用学上的两个重要概念，他们都是从句子的整体意义推导出来的另外的意义或另外的一些信息。

预设和蕴涵在定义和特征上是既有区别又有联系的，这也成为了许多学者研究它们的重要依据。

本文则是在前人学者研究的基础上对预设和蕴涵的定义和特征进行梳理，同时经过认真推敲理解就预设和蕴涵的真假值问题和预设、蕴涵的时间空间概念提出了自己的创新性见解。

关键词：预设；蕴涵；特征；联系；区别[中图分类号]：H030 [文献标识码]：A[文章编号]：1002-2139（2014）-02--02预设与蕴涵是两种重要的语义，对它们进行探讨，一方面可以升华二者研究深度，另一方面有助于理解语句的含义，在语言分析方面具有重要作用。

學者们对二者的研究由来已久，在国外，早期对预设的研究是命题的真值条件，有人认为预设是作为一种特殊的蕴涵存在的，威尔逊和斯波伯就把预设约简为蕴涵；随着生成语言学的发展，预设研究逐渐与语言的形式结构、语义及语言的用法相结合，从原来的纯哲学逻辑转向语义研究，继而转向语用研究，尤尔就认为预设是语用的，而蕴涵是语义的；弗雷格和斯特劳森认为预设在否定句或否定的陈述中依然保持；肯普森则列出了预设和蕴涵的真值表，提出了从真值上鉴别二者的方法。

国内研究大多使用否定测试的方法对二者进行简单的比较，如徐烈炯《语义学》、和自然、冉永平《语用学概论》、索振羽《语用学教程》；另外还有从真值角度对预设和蕴涵进行比较，石安石《句义的预设》讨论了预设和蕴涵的根本区别；袁莉容《试论否定命题测试的缺陷》分析了否定测试的缺陷，认为否定测试缺陷的实质在于预设归根结底是属于语用的问题；范晓、陈忠《预设与蕴含》提出预设和蕴涵都与特定的句法成分有一定的对应关系，预设大多由定语、主语、状语等成分充当，蕴涵大体与谓语部分相对应。

一、预设的定义预设又叫“前提”或“先设”，左思民的《汉语语用学》给“预设”下的定义是：“预设是决定了一个陈述（命题）是否有真假值可辨的一个未说出的命题。

蕴含与预设蕴含与预设句义之间可以有各种不同的关系,蕴含与预设就是句义之间重要的两种关系。

蕴含是指存在于一句话语和另一句话语之间的语义上的从属关系。

就话语本身所表达的意义而言，如果有句义甲就必然有句义乙，就是甲蕴含乙。

蕴含可以用公式表示为：甲→乙。

例如：“他是个单身汉”→“他是个男人".蕴含关系一般发生在有上下位关系或整体与局部关系的句义之间。

例如：他买了一篮子白菜。

→他买了一篮子蔬菜。

他踩了小王的脚。

→他踩了小王。

例①中，“蔬菜”和“白菜”有上下位的关系，例②中，“小王”和“小王的脚"有整体与局部的关系。

从例句可以看出，“白菜”是“蔬菜”的下位概念,从“他买了一篮子白菜”可以推知“他买了一篮子蔬菜";而从“他买了一篮子蔬菜”中无法推知“他买了一篮子白菜”。

例②也是如此。

因此,在一般情况下,蕴含的规律是含有下位概念或局部概念的句义蕴含含有上位概念或整体概念的句义,而不是相反.但是如果上位词语或表示整体的词语是周遍性的，即强调所述之事涉及某类事物的全体成员或某一整体的所有部分，则含有上位概念或整体概念的句义蕴含含有下位概念或局部概念的句义，而不是相反.如：什么笔他都有。

→他有钢笔。

那棵白菜全烂了。

→那棵白菜的菜心也烂了。

预设也叫前提,是指使一个命题或语句能够成立的条件。

就话语本身表达的意义而言，与蕴含一样,也是有句义甲就必然有句义乙.但是蕴含包含在句子的断言范围之内，是句子的基本信息；而预设不在句子的断言范围之内,是句子的背景信息。

例如:①他哥哥在北京上大学.→他哥哥在北京上学.②他有哥哥.例①中，“他哥哥在北京上大学”蕴含“他哥哥在北京上学”，因为“他哥哥在北京上学"在“他哥哥在北京上大学"的断言范围之内。

但例②不是例①的蕴含，而是例①的预设。

也就是说,句子①并不是在说“他有没有哥哥”，句子②只是句子①附带表达出来的背景信息，因此例①以例②为预设。

基于逻辑和语义视角的预设与蕴涵的鉴别
张玉上;黎倩
【期刊名称】《湖南农业大学学报（社会科学版）》
【年(卷),期】2009(010)001
【摘要】预设和蕴涵是两个密切相关的概念,对二者进行区别有助于准确地理解和使用自然语言.从逻辑和语义的角度出发,首先界定预设和蕴涵的概念,然后分析预设和蕴涵的关系;再提出预设和蕴涵的主要区别及鉴别方法.最后得出结论:对两个相关的概念进行鉴别的关键是概念清楚,关系明晰及结合多种普遍有效的鉴别方法.【总页数】4页(P85-88)
【作者】张玉上;黎倩
【作者单位】湖南农业大学,外国语学院,湖南,长沙,410128;湖南农业大学,外国语学院,湖南,长沙,410128
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】H030
【相关文献】
1.基于有限格蕴涵代数的格值命题逻辑语义系统 [J], 马骏;秦克云;徐扬
2.浅议自然语言逻辑中的语义预设和语用预设 [J], 刘锐
3.蕴涵和预设判别的逻辑语义标准:困境与对策 [J], 李怀奎
4.从认知参照点视角探讨蕴涵的等级性和语义预设的关系 [J], 赵勇;施应凤
5.从认知参照点视角探讨蕴涵的等级性和语义预设的关系 [J], 赵勇; 施应凤
因版权原因，仅展示原文概要，查看原文内容请购买。

语义关系的推论关系
语义关系推论（Semantic relation inference）是指基于已知的语义关系，推导出新的语义关系的过程。

语义关系推论可以在自然语言处理和人工智能领域中发挥重要作用，例如在知识推理、问答系统、机器翻译等领域。

以下是常见的语义关系推论类型：
1.蕴含关系：如果一个句子中的信息能够推出另一个句子中的信息，那么这
两个句子之间就存在蕴含关系。

例如，“苹果是一种水果”蕴含着“水果是一种食品”。

2.逻辑关系：逻辑关系是指句子之间通过逻辑运算符（如AND、OR、NOT
等）连接的关系。

例如，“约翰喜欢音乐 AND 约翰喜欢跳舞”表示约翰同时喜欢音乐和跳舞。

3.上下文关系：上下文关系是指句子之间通过上下文语境连接的关系。

例如，
“约翰买了苹果”和“约翰买了香蕉”之间存在上下文关系，因为它们都描述了约翰购买的水果。

4.因果关系：因果关系是指句子之间通过因果连接词连接的关系。

例如，
“因为下雨了，所以路面湿滑”表示下雨是路面湿滑的原因。

5.类比关系：类比关系是指句子之间通过类比连接词连接的关系。

例如，
“狗和猫都是宠物”类比于“苹果和香蕉都是水果”。

6.部分整体关系：部分整体关系是指句子之间通过部分和整体的关系连接的
关系。

例如，“头部是身体的一部分”表示头部是身体的一个部分。

这些语义关系推论类型可以根据具体的应用场景进行组合和扩展，以实现更复杂的语义推理任务。

在自然语言处理领域中，常见的语义关系推论方法包括基于规则的方法、基于统计的方法和深度学习方法等。

谈蕴含和预设的区分问题
刘哲
【期刊名称】《解放军外国语学院学报》
【年(卷),期】2001(24)3
【摘要】蕴含和预设是句子之间两种不同的语义关系。

否定检验法在赋予新的意义后，可以有效地解释二者的区别问题，即：处于否定范围之外的成分是句子的预设，而这个预设也同样是与其相对应的肯定句的预设。

弱蕴含所表现出的同真不同假的特点．，实际上是混杂异质成分的结果。

【总页数】4页(P61-64)
【作者】刘哲
【作者单位】解放军外国语学院二系，河南洛阳471003
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】H146.3
【相关文献】
1.谈预设与生成——兼谈美术课中预设与生成的和谐统一性 [J], 金新忠
2.叶蜚声、徐通锵《语言学纲要(修订版)》指瑕——以"句义的蕴含、预设关系"为例 [J], 周孟战;张永发
3.叶蜚声、徐通锵《语言学纲要(修订版)》指瑕——以第五章第三节的第四小节"句义的蕴含、预设关系"为例 [J], 周孟战;张永发
4.叶蜚声、徐通锵《语言学纲要（修订版）》指瑕——以第五章第三节的第四小节
“句义的蕴含、预设关系”为例 [J], 周孟战;张永发;
5.谈预设与生成——兼谈美术课中预设与生成的和谐统一性 [J], 金新忠
因版权原因，仅展示原文概要，查看原文内容请购买。

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 ＞＞qInterestingly, 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 presupposedby 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 ＞＞qPresupposition 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 presuppositionPotential 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 married.(＞＞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 youHere 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 committedto 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 headsWH-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 doorJohn forg ot /didn‟t forget to lock the door》John ought to have locked, or intended to lock, the doorsome 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 V2) factive verbs(述实动词/事实动词a verb followed by a clause which the speaker or writer considers to expressa 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。

蕴含和预设的区别语言学概论例子蕴含和预设是语言学中重要的概念，它们在逻辑推理和语言交流中起着至关重要的作用。

在本文中，我们将深入探讨蕴含和预设的区别，并通过语言学概论的例子来加深理解。

1.蕴含和预设的定义蕴含是指如果P成立，则Q也成立的关系，通常表示为P→Q。

而预设则是说话人在进行语言交流时默认假设对方已经知晓或者同意的信息。

这两个概念都在语言交流中起到重要作用，但又有着明显的区别。

2.蕴含和预设的区别蕴含是一种逻辑关系，它表达的是一个命题逻辑上的关系，即如果P成立，则Q也必然成立。

而预设则更多地涉及到语境和语用，它是因为交际者之间的共同背景知识和共识而产生的一种默认的陈述。

3.语言学概论的例子为了更好地理解蕴含和预设的区别，我们可以通过语言学概论中的例子来加深理解。

对于一句话“他在家吗？”如果说话人的预设是知道对方今天生病了，在这种情况下，“他在家吗？”的含义其实是在询问对方是否留在家里休息。

这里的预设是基于交际者之间的共同背景知识而产生的。

而如果我们考虑蕴含的例子，可以想象一个逻辑推理的情景，比如“如果今天下雨，那么明天会很湿”。

这里的蕴含关系在逻辑上是成立的，即如果今天下雨，则明天会很湿。

这和预设的例子有着明显的区别，前者更多地涉及到逻辑推理，后者则更多地涉及到语境和语用。

4.个人观点和理解对于蕴含和预设的区别，我个人认为它们在语言交流中都是至关重要的概念。

蕴含关系帮助我们在逻辑推理和论证中建立起合乎逻辑的关系，而预设则帮助我们在语言交流中更好地理解对方的意图和表达。

在实际的交际中，我们经常会遇到预设的情况，了解和理解预设的存在对于沟通的顺利进行至关重要。

总结回顾通过本文的探讨，我们深入理解了蕴含和预设的区别，并通过语言学概论的例子加深了对这两个概念的理解。

蕴含和预设在语言学中都具有重要的地位，它们帮助我们更好地进行逻辑推理和语言交流，促进了有效的交际和沟通。

在知识的文章格式中，我们可以使用序号标注来更清晰地表达观点和例子，从而帮助读者更好地理解和接受文章内容。

当看到语言学这个考试题目时，首先进入脑海中的就是题目是不是出错了。

在以前的定向思维的理解中，“差一点离婚了”，意思就是“没离婚”，而“差一点没离婚”，意思就是“离婚了”。

然而题目却是说这两者的意思是一样的，即为“没离婚”。

另外一方面，“差一点及格了”表示的意思是“没及格”，而“差一点没及格”，表示的意思却是“及格了”，这两者的意思在此却是不同的。

在查阅相关语言学资料后，关于这种现象我们可以从蕴含和预设的角度对“差一点”的客观意义和主观意义进行分析，再从中分析“差一点”的语义预设和御用预设，并从预设的角度解释羡余否定现象的产生。

通过和评注性副词的比较，指出“差一点”是介于描摹性副词和评注性副词之间的一个副词。

蕴含和预设是由语言学家从逻辑学中引入的概念。

我们可以这样理解，蕴含是一个话语的逻辑后果，预设是话语能够成立的前提条件。

“差一点”是一个有意思的副词。

在这里我们先用汉语言思维解释，在《现代汉语词典》中，“差一点”也被作为一个副词理解，正与我们题目中的句子相关，兹引用如下：“表示某种事情接近实现或勉强实现。

如果是说话的人不希望实现的事，说‘差一点’或‘差一点没’都是指事情接近实现而没有实现；如果是说话的人希望实现的事情，‘差一点’是惋惜它未能实现，‘差一点没’是庆幸它终于勉强实现了。

”于是，我们将此解释套入题目中的句子，就有了如下的结果：“差一点离婚了”和“差一点没离婚”，所指事情就是离婚，在这里，如果说话的人是不希望离婚这件事情可以实现，那么，这两句话表示的意思就是接近离婚了但是没有离，所以，那两句话的意思才会如题目所示的，意思一样，即为“没离婚”。

而套入后两句话中，我们可以这样看，“差一点及格了”和“差一点没及格”，所指的事情就是及格，在此处，如果说话的人是希望及格这件事情可以实现，那么前者，意思即为“没及格”这里表示了一种惋惜，而后者，意思即为“及格了”，是庆幸它终于勉强实现了。

所以，这样我们就可以解释清楚为什么同一个“差一点”会造成如此大的意义差别了。

蕴含和预设的区别语言学概论例子摘要：一、引言1.语言学概论的基本概念2.蕴含与预设的区别二、蕴含1.蕴含的定义2.蕴含的例子3.蕴含在语言中的应用三、预设1.预设的定义2.预设的例子3.预设在语言中的应用四、蕴含与预设的区别1.概念上的区别2.实际应用中的区别五、总结1.蕴含与预设的共同点2.蕴含与预设对语言理解的重要性正文：一、引言语言学概论作为语言学的基础理论，研究的是语言的本质、结构、功能和演变。

在语言学的学习过程中，蕴含和预设是两个重要的概念，它们在语言中起着至关重要的作用。

然而，很多人对这两个概念的区别并不十分清楚。

本文将对蕴含和预设进行详细的阐述，以便读者更好地理解这两个概念。

二、蕴含1.定义蕴含，又称内在意义，是指一个句子中词汇和语法结构所隐含的信息。

简单来说，蕴含是说话者通过语言表达，听话者能够推断出来的意义。

2.例子例句1：小明喜欢吃苹果。

这句话的蕴含是：小明可能还喜欢吃其他水果。

例句2：他去上学了。

这句话的蕴含是：他现在不在家里。

3.在语言中的应用蕴含是语言中的一种重要现象，它可以帮助我们更有效地进行沟通。

通过蕴含，我们可以传递更多的信息，使对方更容易理解我们的意图。

三、预设1.定义预设，又称前提，是指一个句子中说话者和听话者共同默认的一个事实或信念。

预设通常是不需要明确说出的，但却对理解句子至关重要。

2.例子例句1：小明喜欢吃苹果。

这句话的预设是：小明是一个人。

例句2：他去上学了。

这句话的预设是：他是一个学生。

3.在语言中的应用预设是语言中的一种普遍现象，它可以帮助我们更快速地理解句子，提高沟通效率。

预设通常基于人们共同的知识、经验和文化背景。

四、蕴含与预设的区别1.概念上的区别蕴含是指句子中隐含的信息，而预设是指句子中说话者和听话者共同默认的事实或信念。

这两者之间的区别在于，蕴含是语言表达中可以推断出的意义，而预设是理解句子所必需的前提。

2.实际应用中的区别在实际应用中，蕴含和预设经常同时出现。