未言成分之争
On Unarticulated Constituents

Morris提出了三分法之后，语用学一直都被看作语义学的垃圾桶，但是语用语义之间的界线并不泾渭分明，尤其是近年来关于语义语用的界面之争愈演愈烈，未言成分的概念提出之后，更是加剧了这种争论，其中语义学家Stanley表示根本就没有真正的未言成分，所谓的未言成分都可以追溯到逻辑句法形式，而以Recanati为代表的一部分语境论者却为未言成分作辩护，并表示未言成分是由自由充实产生的；本文将深入探讨Stanley和Recanati的争论，探索造成该争论的深层动因，并从语用预设的角度为未言成分的产生提出一个新的研究视角。
Since Morris divided the semiotics into three parts, the pragmatic has always been regarded as the ragbag of semantics. However, the line between the semantic and the pragmatic is not such clear, especially in recent years the debate on the interface between semantic and pragmatic has been more and more heated. After the notion of the unarticulated constituent has been put forward, this kind of controversy has been intensified. Many scholars have expressed their stances, such as the representative of semantics—Stanley who claims that the so-called unarticulated constituents can be traced back to the logical form and there is no truly unarticulated constituent while the contextualist such as Recanati defends for the existence of the unarticulated constituents and claims that the generation process of unarticulated constituents which is called free enrichment is purely pragmatic. This paper will explore this debate deeply and aims to explain the unarticulated constituents from the perspective of pragmatic presupposition.