The Contrast Theory of Why-Questions
The Contrast Theory of Why-Questions
复制标题
为什么问题的对比理论
DOI：
10.1086/289421
复制
发表时间：
1988
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
D. Temple
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Temple
经典的解释研究，如亨佩尔和布伦伯格的研究，理所当然地认为一个形式为“为什么P？”的解释问题。应该被理解为询问命题P。这一观点最近受到了巴斯·范·弗拉森和艾伦·加芬克尔的质疑。他们承认，有些问题的表面形式是“为什么是P？”，但他们认为，正确解读“为什么是P(而不是Q)”应该是“为什么是P(而不是Q)？”，其中Q是一个截然不同的选择。这里讨论的是这种对比理论。有人认为，如果理解得当，对比理论和命题方法可以而且应该对为什么问的问题给予同等的解读。
Classic studies of explanation, such as those of Hempel and Bromberger, took it for granted that an explanation-seeking question of the form "Why P?" should be understood as asking about the proposition P. This view has been recently challenged by Bas van Fraassen and Alan Garfinkel. They acknowledge that some questions have the surface form "Why P?", but they hold that a correct reading for why-questions should take the form "Why P (rather than Q)?", where Q is a contrasting alternative. This contrast theory is discussed here. It is argued that, properly understood, the contrast theory and the propositional approach can and should give equivalent readings to why-questions.