“实在”在言语行为条件句中的以熵博弈功能

doi:10.12002/j.bisu.634

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本文从信息博弈论的角度，分析了“实在”一词在言语行为条件句中的强调功能和语用价值。该词以保真义寓含穷尽义，在条件句的前件提出一个新问题，即当穷尽所有方法依然无济于事时应该如何应对。这一新问题的提出增加了后件的不确定性以及预测难度。后件提出一个最终解决方案，以此解除前件所带来的不确定性。与不含“实在”的条件句相比，含有“实在”的条件句解答了一个新问题，至少追加了1比特的信息量。讲话人之所以加强言语行为条件句的信息度，是为了实现利己或利他的语用目的。“实在”在言语行为条件句中的语用适切性取决于博弈支付，其在言语行为条件句中的用法体现了讲话人通过降熵获得较高支付的语用策略。

关键词: 言语行为条件句; 信息熵; 以熵博弈; 保真

Abstract:

This paper analyzes the emphatic function and pragmatic value of shizai (“really”) in speech act conditionals from an information-game-theoretic perspective. Through its veridical meaning, shizai implicates exhaustivity. In the antecedent of a conditional, it raises a new question, namely, how one should respond when all available means have been exhausted yet still prove ineffective. Raising this question increases the uncertainty concerning the consequent and makes it harder to predict. The consequent then provides a final solution, thereby removing the uncertainty brought about by the antecedent. Compared with conditionals without shizai, those containing shizai answer an additional question and contribute at least one extra bit of information. Speakers increase the informativeness of speech act conditionals in order to achieve either self-interested or altruistic pragmatic goals. The pragmatic appropriateness of shizai in speech act conditionals depends on game-theoretic payoffs. Its use in such conditionals reflects the speaker’s pragmatic strategy of obtaining higher payoffs through entropy reduction.

Keywords: speech act conditionals; information entropy; entropy game; veridicality

中图分类号:

H030

蒋勇, 侯亚男. “实在”在言语行为条件句中的以熵博弈功能[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2026, 48(2): 1-19.

Jiang Yong, Hou Yanan. The Entropy-Based Game Function of shizai (“really”) in Speech Act Conditionals[J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2026, 48(2): 1-19.

图/表 3

图1 含有二元变量的信息的熵函数图像注：图1中，横轴上的p表示二元随机变量某一取值发生的概率，纵轴上的H（p）表示相应二元信源熵。当p=0.5时，两个结果出现的概率相等，不确定性最大，因此熵值达到最大，为1比特。

图2 “实是”增加支付的博弈矩阵

图3 “实在”降低支付的博弈矩阵

参考文献 61

[1]	AUSTIN J L. Ifs and cans[C]//URMSON J O & WARNOCK G J. Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961:153-180.
[2]	BELTRAMA A. Totally between subjectivity and discourse. Exploring the pragmatic side of intensification[J]. Journal of Semantics, 2018(2):219-261.
[3]	BENZ A. Utility and relevance of answers[C]//BENZ A,JÄGER G & ROOIJ R. Game Theory and Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Mcmillan, 2006:195-219.
[4]	BENZ A & STEVENS J. Game-theoretic approaches to pragmatics[J]. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2018,4:173-191.
[5]	BENZ A & VAN ROOIJ R. Optimal assertions, and what they implicate. A uniform game theoretic approach[J]. Topoi, 2007(1):63-78.
[6]	BLUTNER R. Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation[J]. Journal of Semantics, 2000(3):189-216.
[7]	CHIERCHIA G. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
[8]	CIARDELLI I, GROENENDIJK J & ROELOFSEN F. Inquisitive Semantics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
[9]	CLARK R. Meaningful Games[M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2012.
[10]	CLAUSIUS R. Ueber verschiedene für die Anwendung bequeme Formen der Hauptgleichungen der mechanischen Wärmetheorie[J]. Annalen der Physik, 1865(7):353-400.
[11]	FRANKE M & JÄGER G. Bidirectional optimization from reasoning and learning in games[J]. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2012(1):117-139.
[12]	FRANKE M & JÄGER G. Pragmatic back-and-forth reasoning[C]//REDA S P. Pragmatics, Semantics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014:170-200.
[13]	GOODMAN N D & STUHLMÜLLER A. Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition[J]. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2013(1):173-184.
[14]	GRICE H P. Studies in the Way of Words[M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.
[15]	HORN L R. A Natural History of Negation[M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.
[16]	ISRAEL M. The Grammar of Polarity: Pragmatics, Sensitivity, and the Logic of Scales[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
[17]	JÄGER G. Rationalizable signaling[J]. Erkenntnis, 2014(4):673-706.
[18]	JAYNES E T. Information theory and statistical mechanics[J]. Physical Review, 1957(4):620-630.
[19]	KADMON N & LANDMAN F. Any[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1993(4):353-422.
[20]	KRIFKA M. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items[J]. Linguistic Analysis, 1995,25:209-257.
[21]	KRIFKA M. Polarity Items in Questions[R]. Incheon: The Korean Society of Logic and Information, 2003.
[22]	LEVINSON S C. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature[M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000.
[23]	LEWIS D. Convention[M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969.
[24]	MCCREADY E. Reliability in Pragmatics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
[25]	PARIKH P. Language and Strategic Inference[D]. Stanford: Stanford University, 1988.
[26]	PARIKH P. The Use of Language[M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2001.
[27]	PRINCE A & SMOLENSKY P. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar[M]. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1993.
[28]	RASMUSEN E. Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory[M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 1989.
[29]	ROMERO M & HAN C H. On negative yes/no questions[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2004(5):609-658.
[30]	SIEGEL M E A. Biscuit conditionals: Quantification over potential literal acts[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2006(2):167-203.
[31]	SWEETSER E. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[32]	VAN ROOY R. Negative polarity items in questions: Strength as relevance[J]. Journal of Semantics, 2003(3):239-273.
[33]	VAN ROOY R. Signalling games select Horn strategies[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2004(4):493-527.
[34]	ZEIJLSTRA H. Negation and Negative Dependencies[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022.
[35]	陈运. 信息论与编码[M]. 第2版. 北京: 电子工业出版社, 2007.
[36]	陈忠. 信息语用学[M]. 济南: 山东教育出版社, 1999.
[37]	冯端, 冯少彤. 溯源探幽:熵的世界[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2005.
[38]	姜殿玉. 带熵博弈的局势分析学与计策理论[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2012.
[39]	蒋严. 走近形式语用学[M]. 上海: 上海教育出版社, 2011.
[40]	蒋勇. “Any”与“任何”允准差异的优选论解释[J]. 语言研究集刊, 2015a(1):39-60.
[41]	蒋勇. “都”允准任选词的理据[J]. 当代修辞学, 2015b(5):19-34.
[42]	蒋勇. 扩域词的增熵功能——基于信息论的研究[M]. 上海: 上海财经大学出版社, 2016.
[43]	蒋勇. 曲言负极词语用得体性的博弈论分析[J]. 当代修辞学, 2019(4):32-47.
[44]	蒋勇, 李怡. “死活”临时极性特征背后的信息博弈策略[J]. 当代修辞学, 2023(6):70-83.
[45]	蒋勇, 王志军. “到底”“究竟”不被是非问句允准的理据——基于信息熵的新解[J]. 当代修辞学, 2016(6):61-74.
[46]	李劲荣. “实在”句的语义格局与句法制约[J]. 世界汉语教学, 2007(2):40-53.
[47]	李劲荣. 再论“实在”的语法意义[J]. 通化师范学院学报, 2018(11):14-20.
[48]	吕公礼. 语言信息学[M]. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2016.
[49]	潘艳艳. 基于构式语法的话语策略研究——以突发公共卫生事件的舆情治理为例[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2020(4):108-120.
[50]	邱德君, 陈前瑞. 话语功能与相关语法形式研究的历史脉络[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2021(1):80-95.
[51]	石定栩. “确实、真的、实在”的多维度辨析——语义、句法、语篇和汉语语法分析[J]. 中国语文, 2022(5):522-534.
[52]	王叶萍. 副词“确实”和“实在”的多角度辨析[D]. 广州: 暨南大学, 2008.
[53]	魏纪东. 信息修辞学[M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 2017.
[54]	吴淑琼, 刘迪麟, 刘青. 基于语料库的“确认”类同义副词的行为特征研究——以“的确、确实、实在、着实”为例[J]. 外语教学, 2021(5):19-25.
[55]	肖奚强. 略论“的确”“实在”句法语用差异[J]. 语言研究, 2007(2):74-78.
[56]	杨雪梅. 副词“实在”的语义分析及其教学应用[J]. 世界汉语教学, 2012(1):124-132.
[57]	张则顺. “实在”句的语义格局和对外教学探讨[J]. 世界汉语教学, 2011(4):553-565.
[58]	张则顺. 现代汉语确信副词研究[M]. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2015.
[59]	张振亚. “实在”的语义结构及其句法限制——兼与李劲荣先生商榷[J]. 淮北师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2013(3):22-26.
[60]	赵春利, 陈莹. 诚认副词“实在”的句法验证与话语关联[J]. 语言教学与研究, 2023(5):69-79.
[61]	周密. “实在”与“确实”——基于语料库的比较研究[J]. 长治学院学报, 2016(4):86-88.