汉英有定性制约机制研究
|
摘要
有定无定在汉语中是一个纷繁复杂的世界,其制约因素与机制并不十分清楚。英语中有定性是一个显性范畴,有定性实现方式和制约机制显得十分清楚明了。本课题首次系统地对现代汉语和现代英语的有定性进行考察和比较,探索二者的有定性制约因素及机制,旨在探明两者的异同,解释两者的差异,寻求统率这一现象的内部规律。我们的主要观点和发现有以下几点:
在对有定性制约因素之一---词汇语义的观察中,我们发现汉英词汇的有定性大同小异:专有名词、人称代词、指示代词等为[+有定],数量短语为[ -有定],光杆名词[ +有定];显著差异在英语有作为语法标记的冠词而汉语没有。
在对有定性制约因素之二---句法结构的观察中,使用了自建180多万字语料库对“有”字句检索出的语料加现有文献语料进行分析;我们界定了一般N1 V N2结构的有定性、三类无定主语及其特点,找出了“有”字引介无定名词主语的规律;对特殊句式的有定性观察中,发现隐现句中的有定宾语是期待中的事物,“有”字句的有定宾语/兼语是一个普遍现象,可逆句的N1、N2有其自己的规律。
对汉英结构的观察比较中我们发现,英语句法结构类型远比汉语简单;英语中主语有定为主,宾语、表语常表现为无定,但结构并不参与有定性表达,一切由语法标记和词汇标记承担;英语倒装句形式上与汉语的隐现句十分相似,但后置主语主要是有定的,而隐现句宾语以“无定”为主。
在对有定性制约因素之三---语境的观察中,使用了自建180多万字语料库,对数量名词短语两.人.、两.个.人.检索的语料进行分析;我们发现两.人.等的有定意义远比无定意义出现的频率高得多(“有定”占90%以上),其有定性由“回指”赋予。只有非回指性的两.人.等才是无定的(例外是回指无定事物的一部分可以是无定的;);其他数量短语在语境中的有定性与两.人.等是一致的;光杆名词在语境中获得有定性靠的是“回指”或“外指”;有定词语(如专有名词、称谓语)在语境中可保持其本身固有的有定性,也可能失去外延,表现出“无定”意义;在数量名词短语、光杆名词、和有定名词三项中只有“有定名词”在语境中的有定性英语和汉语是一致的。
对汉语有定性制约因素的进一步考察中,我们发了第四个有定性制约因素---句义的现实性,并提出“非现实句无定/类指”假设;在英语言中验证这一假设后,在已有规则的基础上,对有定性制约机制作出增补:“结构赋义、词汇标记优先、语.境.信.息.调.节.、现.实.性.领.先.”。这一增补规则在英语中也得到验证,但英语用标记(语法标记或词汇标记)是强制的,表面上是一元制约,实际上是标记掩盖了其他因素。
总之,汉语没有语法标记(但有词汇标记),有定性的实现靠的是显性的词汇意义和隐性信息如结构含义、回指等,在这二者的合作中实现了汉语表达的有定性。英语则要求用语法标记或词汇标记标明。词汇、结构、语境和句义现实性四者是制约有定性的因素,其相互关系为:现实性层面“非现实句无定/类指”,在现实句中“结构赋义、词汇标记优先、语境信息调节”。这是英语和汉语的共性;差异是有定性的实现是否用语法标记---英语是强制的,汉语是空缺的。
Definiteness is a rather complicated semantic category in the Chinese language, in which its conditioning factors and mechanism are not quite clear yet. But it is an overt grammatical category, and its realization and conditioning mechanism are clearly discernible in the English language. What are its conditioning factors and mechanism and what are the similarities and differences in the rules that guide the realization of definiteness in the two languages --- which motivated the present study and the results can be shon as follows:
In investigation of definiteness on the level of semantic implication --- one of the conditioning factors, we find that the two languages share the same feature that Proper nouns, determiners and numerals have the same semantic component of definiteness except that Chinese has no articles.
In examining definiteness on the level of syntactical structure --- another conditioning factor, for one of the Chinese special structures you-clauses, the corpus of three novels, etc. built in the study is used for the purpose. We recognize three categories of indefinite subjects with their features indicated, explains the way“you”can/must be prefixed to an indefinite subject; for some special structures of the language we find that a definite subject in presentative sentence is usually the one in expectation, that definite objects of“you”structure are universal, and that the N1 and N2 exchangeable sentence N1 V N2 has its own rules guiding N1 /N2’s definiteness.
In checking English sentence patterns for definiteness with reference to those of Chinese, we find that there are less structural patterns in the English language, and that although the ordinary sentence pattern N1 V N2 rejects indefinite N1 or definite N2, it can do nothing but pass the duty to determiners. Sentences in inverted order -- except for those introduced with a negation phrase or adjectival phrase -- usually employ definite expressions as their subjects, while the corresponding Chinese presentative sentences frequently use indefinite objects.
In discussing NPs in context --- still another conditioning factor, the corpus is used again --- liangren and lianggeren, both meaning two people, are retrieved for the purpose. The results show that frequency of definite liangren and lianggeren (>90%) is much higher than that of the indefinite ones, and that they are definite when used anahorically with only one exception that a nunmerical term referring back to a part of a numerical term is indefinite, but indefinite otherwise. It is also true of other Num. + Ns. Bare NPs are definite when they are anaphoric or exophoric, otherwise indefinite. But in English definite must go with the in the above two cases. Finally proper nouns and the like will lose their extensions as attributive predicative, which is also true of English.
In further analysis of the factors, we find another conditioning factor --- sentence denoting, and propose a hypothesis“Irrealis clauses denote indefinite or generic”. After verifying the hypothesis in English, a rule based on Shih Yuzhi’s developed: Irrealis clauses denote indefinite or generic; in realis clauses N1 can get definiteness and N2 indefiniteness in the structure N1 V N2, but lexical marking overwhelms structure strength, and yields to context conditioning. This rule also works in English, but articles/determiners are compulsory in the language, which blurred the effect of the structure or the context.
In conclusion, the Chinese and the English languages share the same features of definiteness of lexical meaning. Similarly, structure, context, and sentence denoting have similar effect on definiteness in the two languages. The difference lies in realization of definiteness with grammatical markers, which are compulsory in English but absent in Chinese, hence the decisive role of conspiracy of lexical meaning, syntactical implication, contextual information, and sentence denoting in the language.
在对有定性制约因素之一---词汇语义的观察中,我们发现汉英词汇的有定性大同小异:专有名词、人称代词、指示代词等为[+有定],数量短语为[ -有定],光杆名词[ +有定];显著差异在英语有作为语法标记的冠词而汉语没有。
在对有定性制约因素之二---句法结构的观察中,使用了自建180多万字语料库对“有”字句检索出的语料加现有文献语料进行分析;我们界定了一般N1 V N2结构的有定性、三类无定主语及其特点,找出了“有”字引介无定名词主语的规律;对特殊句式的有定性观察中,发现隐现句中的有定宾语是期待中的事物,“有”字句的有定宾语/兼语是一个普遍现象,可逆句的N1、N2有其自己的规律。
对汉英结构的观察比较中我们发现,英语句法结构类型远比汉语简单;英语中主语有定为主,宾语、表语常表现为无定,但结构并不参与有定性表达,一切由语法标记和词汇标记承担;英语倒装句形式上与汉语的隐现句十分相似,但后置主语主要是有定的,而隐现句宾语以“无定”为主。
在对有定性制约因素之三---语境的观察中,使用了自建180多万字语料库,对数量名词短语两.人.、两.个.人.检索的语料进行分析;我们发现两.人.等的有定意义远比无定意义出现的频率高得多(“有定”占90%以上),其有定性由“回指”赋予。只有非回指性的两.人.等才是无定的(例外是回指无定事物的一部分可以是无定的;);其他数量短语在语境中的有定性与两.人.等是一致的;光杆名词在语境中获得有定性靠的是“回指”或“外指”;有定词语(如专有名词、称谓语)在语境中可保持其本身固有的有定性,也可能失去外延,表现出“无定”意义;在数量名词短语、光杆名词、和有定名词三项中只有“有定名词”在语境中的有定性英语和汉语是一致的。
对汉语有定性制约因素的进一步考察中,我们发了第四个有定性制约因素---句义的现实性,并提出“非现实句无定/类指”假设;在英语言中验证这一假设后,在已有规则的基础上,对有定性制约机制作出增补:“结构赋义、词汇标记优先、语.境.信.息.调.节.、现.实.性.领.先.”。这一增补规则在英语中也得到验证,但英语用标记(语法标记或词汇标记)是强制的,表面上是一元制约,实际上是标记掩盖了其他因素。
总之,汉语没有语法标记(但有词汇标记),有定性的实现靠的是显性的词汇意义和隐性信息如结构含义、回指等,在这二者的合作中实现了汉语表达的有定性。英语则要求用语法标记或词汇标记标明。词汇、结构、语境和句义现实性四者是制约有定性的因素,其相互关系为:现实性层面“非现实句无定/类指”,在现实句中“结构赋义、词汇标记优先、语境信息调节”。这是英语和汉语的共性;差异是有定性的实现是否用语法标记---英语是强制的,汉语是空缺的。
Definiteness is a rather complicated semantic category in the Chinese language, in which its conditioning factors and mechanism are not quite clear yet. But it is an overt grammatical category, and its realization and conditioning mechanism are clearly discernible in the English language. What are its conditioning factors and mechanism and what are the similarities and differences in the rules that guide the realization of definiteness in the two languages --- which motivated the present study and the results can be shon as follows:
In investigation of definiteness on the level of semantic implication --- one of the conditioning factors, we find that the two languages share the same feature that Proper nouns, determiners and numerals have the same semantic component of definiteness except that Chinese has no articles.
In examining definiteness on the level of syntactical structure --- another conditioning factor, for one of the Chinese special structures you-clauses, the corpus of three novels, etc. built in the study is used for the purpose. We recognize three categories of indefinite subjects with their features indicated, explains the way“you”can/must be prefixed to an indefinite subject; for some special structures of the language we find that a definite subject in presentative sentence is usually the one in expectation, that definite objects of“you”structure are universal, and that the N1 and N2 exchangeable sentence N1 V N2 has its own rules guiding N1 /N2’s definiteness.
In checking English sentence patterns for definiteness with reference to those of Chinese, we find that there are less structural patterns in the English language, and that although the ordinary sentence pattern N1 V N2 rejects indefinite N1 or definite N2, it can do nothing but pass the duty to determiners. Sentences in inverted order -- except for those introduced with a negation phrase or adjectival phrase -- usually employ definite expressions as their subjects, while the corresponding Chinese presentative sentences frequently use indefinite objects.
In discussing NPs in context --- still another conditioning factor, the corpus is used again --- liangren and lianggeren, both meaning two people, are retrieved for the purpose. The results show that frequency of definite liangren and lianggeren (>90%) is much higher than that of the indefinite ones, and that they are definite when used anahorically with only one exception that a nunmerical term referring back to a part of a numerical term is indefinite, but indefinite otherwise. It is also true of other Num. + Ns. Bare NPs are definite when they are anaphoric or exophoric, otherwise indefinite. But in English definite must go with the in the above two cases. Finally proper nouns and the like will lose their extensions as attributive predicative, which is also true of English.
In further analysis of the factors, we find another conditioning factor --- sentence denoting, and propose a hypothesis“Irrealis clauses denote indefinite or generic”. After verifying the hypothesis in English, a rule based on Shih Yuzhi’s developed: Irrealis clauses denote indefinite or generic; in realis clauses N1 can get definiteness and N2 indefiniteness in the structure N1 V N2, but lexical marking overwhelms structure strength, and yields to context conditioning. This rule also works in English, but articles/determiners are compulsory in the language, which blurred the effect of the structure or the context.
In conclusion, the Chinese and the English languages share the same features of definiteness of lexical meaning. Similarly, structure, context, and sentence denoting have similar effect on definiteness in the two languages. The difference lies in realization of definiteness with grammatical markers, which are compulsory in English but absent in Chinese, hence the decisive role of conspiracy of lexical meaning, syntactical implication, contextual information, and sentence denoting in the language.
引文
[1]蔡玮.带定指兼语的‘有’字句[J],《镇江师专学报(社会科学版)》第2期, 2000
[2]蔡玮.‘有’字句中的预设[J],《修辞学习》第2期, 2003
[3]陈安定(重印).《英汉比较与翻译》[M]北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 1998
[4]陈存军.论英语名词短语的定指性和指称性[J],《解放军外语学院学报》第5期, 1998
[5]陈平.释汉语中与名词成分相关的四组概念[J],《中国语文》第2期, 1987
[6]陈平.《现代语言学研究--理论、方法与事实》[M]重庆:重庆出版社, 1991
[7]陈玉洁.联系项居中原则与N1 V N2(NP)结构,《世界汉语教学》第2期,2006
[8]大河内康宪.量词的个体化功能[J],原载《中国语学》,232,1985.中文载《日本近、现代汉语研究论文选》[C]北京:北京语言学院出版社,1993
[9]樊长荣.中国学生英语时体习得中的两大误区[J],《外语教学与研究》第6期,2002
[10]范继淹.无定NP主语句[J],《中国语文》第5期, 1985
[11]方梅.宾语与动量语的次序问题[J],《中国语文》第1期, 1993
[12]方梅.指示词‘这’和‘那’在北京话中的语法化[J],《中国语文》第4期, 2002
[13]方希.有定与向心结构的语序[J],《语文研究》第1期, 1999
[14]傅雨贤.“把”字句与“主谓宾”句的转换及其条件[J],《语言教学与研究》第1期27-44, 1981
[15]黄锦章.专名的不定指用法及其语用含义[J],《修辞学习》第3期, 2004 a
[16]黄锦章.当代定指理论研究中的语用学视角[J],《修辞学习》第5期, 2004 b
[17]黄南松.“论部分宾语的有定性”[A],见胡盛仑(主编)《语言学和汉语教学》[C] pp142-149,北京:北京语言学院出版社, 1990
[18]黄南松.论存在句[J],《汉语学习》第4期, 1996
[19]莱昂斯.《限定范畴》[M]北京:北京大学出版社, 1999 [2005]
[20]李临定.主语的语法地位[J],《中国语文》第1期, 1985
[21]李临定.《汉语比较变换语法》[M]北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1988
[22]李勤.《俄汉不确定/确定范畴:语言手段及其语言功能》[M], 1998
[23]李勤.俄汉不确定/确定范畴比较[J],《外语学刊》第4期, 1999
[24]梁东汉.论“把”字句[A]《语言学论丛》[C](第二辑), 1958
[25]刘安春.《“一个”的用法研究》[D]中国优秀博硕士学位论文全文数据库, 2003
[26]刘长申.西班牙语冠词的功能[J]《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期, 2004
[27]刘丹青.谈类指成分的语义属性和句法属性[J],《中国语文》第5期, 2002
[28]刘培玉.把字句研究评述[J],《河南师范大学学报(哲社版)》第4期, 2001
[29]刘琼竹.数量名主语句的句法分析[J],《汉语学习》第5期, 2000
[30]吕叔湘.《中国文法要略》[M]北京:商务印书馆, 1942[1982]
[31]吕叔湘.“把”字句用法研究[A],见《汉语语法论文集》[C]商务印书馆, 1948
[32]吕叔湘(主编).《现代汉语八百词》[M]北京:商务印书馆, 1981
[33]吕叔湘.《汉语语法论文集》[M]北京:商务印书馆, 1984
[34]吕志鲁.《英汉语法对比分析》[M]成都:电子科技大学出版社, 1995
[35]任鹰.主宾可换位供用句的语义条件分析[J],《汉语学习》第3期, 1999
[36]任鹰.主宾可换位动结式述语结构分析[J],《中国语文》第4期, 2001
[37]邵敬敏.把字句研究中纵横观[J],《语文导报》第7期, 1987
[38]沈家煊.认知语法的概括性[J],《外语教学与研究》第1期, 2000
[39]沈园.汉语中另一种“无定”主语[A],见《语法研究和探索》(十二)[C](210-223)北京:商务印书馆, 2003
[40]石毓智.论汉语的结构意义和词汇标记之关系[J],《当代语言学》第1期, 2002
[41]石毓智.汉语的‘数’范畴与‘有定’范畴之关系[J],《语言研究》第2期, 2003
[42]宋玉柱.关于“把”字句的两个问题[J],《语文研究》第2期, 1981
[43]宋玉柱.“把”字宾语研究献疑[J],《语言学通讯》第3期, 1988
[44]宋玉柱.《现代汉语特殊句式》[M]太原:山西教育出版社, 1991
[45]宋玉柱.存在句的延伸[A],见《纪念马汉麟先生论文集》[C]天津:南开大学出版社, 1998
[46]谭傲霜.从“一个”的隐现谈汉语语法体系[A],《第四届国家汉语教学讨论会论文选》[C], 1993
[47]陶红印、张伯江.无定式把字句在近、现代汉语中的地位问题及其理论意义[J],《中国语文》第5期, 2000
[48]童盛强.“们”的定指意义[J]《中国语文》第3期,2002
[49]王灿龙.制约无定主语句使用的若干因素[A]《语法研究和探索》(十二)[C] 224-239, 2003
[50]王还.《把字句和被字句》[M]北京:新知识出版社, 1957
[51]王还.《“把”字句和“被”字句》[M]上海:上海教育出版社, 1984
[52]王还.“把”字句中“把”的宾语[J],《中国语文》第1期, 1985
[53]王惠、朱学锋.《现代汉语语法信息词典》中的名词子类划分[A]见《1998国际现代汉语语法研究国际会议论文集》[C],济南:山东教育出版社, 1998
[54]王静.‘个别性’与动词后量成分和名词的语序[J],《语言教学与研究》第1期, 2001
[55]王珏.体词的陈述性与非个体性[J]《华东师范大学学报》(哲社版)第6期76-84, 2005
[56]王力.《汉语史稿》(重印本)[M]北京:中华书局, 1980[2001]
[57]王欣.《有定性》评述[J],《当代语言学》第1期, 2003
[58]王智杰.存在句的句型[J] ,《广播电视大学学报》第1期, 2004
[59]徐赳赳.现代汉语联想回指分析[J],《中国语文》第3期, 2005
[60]徐烈炯.《语义学》(修订本)[M]北京:语文出版社, 1995
[61]徐通锵.有定性范畴和语言的语法研究[J],《语言研究》第1期, 1997
[62]徐霞.《心理动词_死_字句中的主宾互易现象研究》[硕士论文]中国优秀博硕士学位论文全文数据库, 2004
[63]许余龙.英汉指称词语表达的可及性[J],《外语教学与研究》第5期, 2000
[64]杨成凯.关于“指称”的反思[A],见《语法研究和探索》(十二)[C](1-16)北京:商务印书馆, 2003
[65]詹开第.有字句[J],《中国语文》第1期, 1981
[66]张斌.《现代汉语句子》[M]上海:华东师范大学出版社, 2000
[67]张伯江.领属结构的语义构成[J],《语言教学与研究》第2期, 1994
[68]张伯江.汉语名词怎样表现无指成分[A],见《庆祝中国科学院语言研究所建所45周年学术论文集》[C], 1997
[69]张伯江.论“把”字句的句式语义[J],《汉语研究》第1期, 2000
[70]张伯江、方梅.《汉语功能语法研究》[M]南昌:江西教育出版社, 1996
[71]张豫峰.有字句研究综述[J],《汉语学习》第3期, 1998
[72]张豫峰.‘得’字句的主语[J],《语文研究》第2期pp14– 19, 2000a
[73]张豫峰.“得”字句研究述评[J],《汉语学习》第2期pp23– 28, 2000b
[74]赵元任.《汉语口语语法》[M](吕叔湘译)北京:商务印书馆, 1979[1968]
[75]朱德熙.《语法讲义》[M],北京:商务印书馆, 1985
[76] Abbott, B. Definiteness and indefiniteness [A] In Laurence R. & H. G. Ward, (eds) Handbook of Pragmatics [C] Oxford: Blackwell, 2001
[77] Allen, K. Nouns and Countability [J] Language 56: 541-567, 1980
[78] Anderson, R. W. Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect marking in second language acquisition [A] In T. Huebner & C. A. Ferguson (eds.). Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistics Theories [C] Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1991
[79] Brown, R. A First Language: The Early Stages. [M] Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973
[80] Baggini, J. & P. S. Fosl, The Philosopher's Toolkit:A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods [M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2003
[81] Carlson, G. & Pelletier, F. J. The Generic Book [M] Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995
[82] Celce-Murcia, M, & Larsen-Freeman, D. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 171-202, 1983
[83] Chesterman, A. On Definiteness: A study with special reference to English and Finnish [M] New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991
[84] Comrie, B. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: syntax and morphology [M] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981
[85] Croft, W. Typology and Universals of Language [M] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000
[86] Curme, G. Syntax [M] Boston, D.C.: Heath and Company, 1931
[87] Donnellan, K. S. Reference and Definite descriptions [J] The Philosophical Review 75: 281-304, 1966
[88] Freeborn, D. From Old English to Standard English [M] London: MacMillan Publishers Ltd, 2000
[89] Givón, T. On Understanding Grammar [M].New York: Academic Press, 1979
[90] Givón, T. Syntax : A functional-typological introduction [M] Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1984
[91] Gundel, H. & Zacharski. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse [J] Language 69: 274– 307, 1993
[92] Gundel, J. K. Centering theory and the Givenness Hierarchy: Towards a Synthesis [A] In Walker, M. A. et al.(eds). Centering in Discourse [C] Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998
[93] Hawkins, J.A. Definiteness and Indefiniteness, [M] London: Humanities Press, 1978
[94] Heim, I. R. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Phrases [D] Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1982
[95] Hornby, A. S., Gatenby, E. V. & Wakefield, H. The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English with Chinese Translation [M] Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980
[96] Hu Mingliang. Definiteness and word order in mandarin Chinese,1993,JCLTA: Volume XXVIII, 1992
[97] Jesperson, O. The Philosophy of Grammar [M] London: Allen & Unwin, 1924
[98] Kripke, S. Naming and necessity[A] In D. Davidson & G. Harman. Eds., Semantics and natural language[C] Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1972
[99] Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar [M] Vol. I Theoretical Prerequisites. Standford: Standford University Press, 1987
[100] Leech, G. Semantics. (2nd ed.) [M] Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1983
[101] Li, C. & Thompson, S. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar[M] Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981
[102] Li, Y.-H. Structures and Interpretations of Nominal Expressions. University of Southern California, 1997
[103] Liu, X. et al. Practical Chinese Readings, Vol. II. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1993
[104] Lyons, C. Definiteness [M] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999
[105] Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An introduction. [M] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995
[106] Master, P. Teaching the English articles as a binary system. [J] TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 24 No.3, 461– 475, 1990
[107] Odlin, T. Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning (4th prin.) [M] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989
[108] Prince, E. F. On the inferring of indefinite this NPs [A] In Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. L. & Sag, I. A. (eds.) Elements of discourse understanding [C] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981
[109] Prince, E. F. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status [A] In Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (eds) Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analysis of a fund-raising text [C] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1992
[110] Quirk, R. et al A comprehensive grammar of the English language. [M] London: Longman, 1985
[111] Russell,B. On Denoting, 1905 http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/denoting/
[112] Strawson,P. F. On Referring [J] Mind 59: 320-344, 1950
[113] The Oxford English Dictionary (reprinted, 1st im.1933) Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978
[114] Trask, R. L. A Student’s Dictionary of Language and Linguistics [M] New York, NY: Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group, 1997
[115] Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. J. An Introduction to Congnitive Linguistics [M] New York: Pearson Education Inc.1996
[116] Vendler, Z. Linguistics in philosophy [M] N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967
[117] Xu, L. J. Limitations on subject hood of numerically quantified noun phrases:a pragmatic approach[A] In Xu, L.J. (ed.), The Referential Properties of Chinese Noun Phrases, 25-44. Paris: Centre de Recherches Linguistics sur L’Asie Orientale, 1997
[2]蔡玮.‘有’字句中的预设[J],《修辞学习》第2期, 2003
[3]陈安定(重印).《英汉比较与翻译》[M]北京:中国对外翻译出版公司, 1998
[4]陈存军.论英语名词短语的定指性和指称性[J],《解放军外语学院学报》第5期, 1998
[5]陈平.释汉语中与名词成分相关的四组概念[J],《中国语文》第2期, 1987
[6]陈平.《现代语言学研究--理论、方法与事实》[M]重庆:重庆出版社, 1991
[7]陈玉洁.联系项居中原则与N1 V N2(NP)结构,《世界汉语教学》第2期,2006
[8]大河内康宪.量词的个体化功能[J],原载《中国语学》,232,1985.中文载《日本近、现代汉语研究论文选》[C]北京:北京语言学院出版社,1993
[9]樊长荣.中国学生英语时体习得中的两大误区[J],《外语教学与研究》第6期,2002
[10]范继淹.无定NP主语句[J],《中国语文》第5期, 1985
[11]方梅.宾语与动量语的次序问题[J],《中国语文》第1期, 1993
[12]方梅.指示词‘这’和‘那’在北京话中的语法化[J],《中国语文》第4期, 2002
[13]方希.有定与向心结构的语序[J],《语文研究》第1期, 1999
[14]傅雨贤.“把”字句与“主谓宾”句的转换及其条件[J],《语言教学与研究》第1期27-44, 1981
[15]黄锦章.专名的不定指用法及其语用含义[J],《修辞学习》第3期, 2004 a
[16]黄锦章.当代定指理论研究中的语用学视角[J],《修辞学习》第5期, 2004 b
[17]黄南松.“论部分宾语的有定性”[A],见胡盛仑(主编)《语言学和汉语教学》[C] pp142-149,北京:北京语言学院出版社, 1990
[18]黄南松.论存在句[J],《汉语学习》第4期, 1996
[19]莱昂斯.《限定范畴》[M]北京:北京大学出版社, 1999 [2005]
[20]李临定.主语的语法地位[J],《中国语文》第1期, 1985
[21]李临定.《汉语比较变换语法》[M]北京:中国社会科学出版社, 1988
[22]李勤.《俄汉不确定/确定范畴:语言手段及其语言功能》[M], 1998
[23]李勤.俄汉不确定/确定范畴比较[J],《外语学刊》第4期, 1999
[24]梁东汉.论“把”字句[A]《语言学论丛》[C](第二辑), 1958
[25]刘安春.《“一个”的用法研究》[D]中国优秀博硕士学位论文全文数据库, 2003
[26]刘长申.西班牙语冠词的功能[J]《解放军外国语学院学报》第2期, 2004
[27]刘丹青.谈类指成分的语义属性和句法属性[J],《中国语文》第5期, 2002
[28]刘培玉.把字句研究评述[J],《河南师范大学学报(哲社版)》第4期, 2001
[29]刘琼竹.数量名主语句的句法分析[J],《汉语学习》第5期, 2000
[30]吕叔湘.《中国文法要略》[M]北京:商务印书馆, 1942[1982]
[31]吕叔湘.“把”字句用法研究[A],见《汉语语法论文集》[C]商务印书馆, 1948
[32]吕叔湘(主编).《现代汉语八百词》[M]北京:商务印书馆, 1981
[33]吕叔湘.《汉语语法论文集》[M]北京:商务印书馆, 1984
[34]吕志鲁.《英汉语法对比分析》[M]成都:电子科技大学出版社, 1995
[35]任鹰.主宾可换位供用句的语义条件分析[J],《汉语学习》第3期, 1999
[36]任鹰.主宾可换位动结式述语结构分析[J],《中国语文》第4期, 2001
[37]邵敬敏.把字句研究中纵横观[J],《语文导报》第7期, 1987
[38]沈家煊.认知语法的概括性[J],《外语教学与研究》第1期, 2000
[39]沈园.汉语中另一种“无定”主语[A],见《语法研究和探索》(十二)[C](210-223)北京:商务印书馆, 2003
[40]石毓智.论汉语的结构意义和词汇标记之关系[J],《当代语言学》第1期, 2002
[41]石毓智.汉语的‘数’范畴与‘有定’范畴之关系[J],《语言研究》第2期, 2003
[42]宋玉柱.关于“把”字句的两个问题[J],《语文研究》第2期, 1981
[43]宋玉柱.“把”字宾语研究献疑[J],《语言学通讯》第3期, 1988
[44]宋玉柱.《现代汉语特殊句式》[M]太原:山西教育出版社, 1991
[45]宋玉柱.存在句的延伸[A],见《纪念马汉麟先生论文集》[C]天津:南开大学出版社, 1998
[46]谭傲霜.从“一个”的隐现谈汉语语法体系[A],《第四届国家汉语教学讨论会论文选》[C], 1993
[47]陶红印、张伯江.无定式把字句在近、现代汉语中的地位问题及其理论意义[J],《中国语文》第5期, 2000
[48]童盛强.“们”的定指意义[J]《中国语文》第3期,2002
[49]王灿龙.制约无定主语句使用的若干因素[A]《语法研究和探索》(十二)[C] 224-239, 2003
[50]王还.《把字句和被字句》[M]北京:新知识出版社, 1957
[51]王还.《“把”字句和“被”字句》[M]上海:上海教育出版社, 1984
[52]王还.“把”字句中“把”的宾语[J],《中国语文》第1期, 1985
[53]王惠、朱学锋.《现代汉语语法信息词典》中的名词子类划分[A]见《1998国际现代汉语语法研究国际会议论文集》[C],济南:山东教育出版社, 1998
[54]王静.‘个别性’与动词后量成分和名词的语序[J],《语言教学与研究》第1期, 2001
[55]王珏.体词的陈述性与非个体性[J]《华东师范大学学报》(哲社版)第6期76-84, 2005
[56]王力.《汉语史稿》(重印本)[M]北京:中华书局, 1980[2001]
[57]王欣.《有定性》评述[J],《当代语言学》第1期, 2003
[58]王智杰.存在句的句型[J] ,《广播电视大学学报》第1期, 2004
[59]徐赳赳.现代汉语联想回指分析[J],《中国语文》第3期, 2005
[60]徐烈炯.《语义学》(修订本)[M]北京:语文出版社, 1995
[61]徐通锵.有定性范畴和语言的语法研究[J],《语言研究》第1期, 1997
[62]徐霞.《心理动词_死_字句中的主宾互易现象研究》[硕士论文]中国优秀博硕士学位论文全文数据库, 2004
[63]许余龙.英汉指称词语表达的可及性[J],《外语教学与研究》第5期, 2000
[64]杨成凯.关于“指称”的反思[A],见《语法研究和探索》(十二)[C](1-16)北京:商务印书馆, 2003
[65]詹开第.有字句[J],《中国语文》第1期, 1981
[66]张斌.《现代汉语句子》[M]上海:华东师范大学出版社, 2000
[67]张伯江.领属结构的语义构成[J],《语言教学与研究》第2期, 1994
[68]张伯江.汉语名词怎样表现无指成分[A],见《庆祝中国科学院语言研究所建所45周年学术论文集》[C], 1997
[69]张伯江.论“把”字句的句式语义[J],《汉语研究》第1期, 2000
[70]张伯江、方梅.《汉语功能语法研究》[M]南昌:江西教育出版社, 1996
[71]张豫峰.有字句研究综述[J],《汉语学习》第3期, 1998
[72]张豫峰.‘得’字句的主语[J],《语文研究》第2期pp14– 19, 2000a
[73]张豫峰.“得”字句研究述评[J],《汉语学习》第2期pp23– 28, 2000b
[74]赵元任.《汉语口语语法》[M](吕叔湘译)北京:商务印书馆, 1979[1968]
[75]朱德熙.《语法讲义》[M],北京:商务印书馆, 1985
[76] Abbott, B. Definiteness and indefiniteness [A] In Laurence R. & H. G. Ward, (eds) Handbook of Pragmatics [C] Oxford: Blackwell, 2001
[77] Allen, K. Nouns and Countability [J] Language 56: 541-567, 1980
[78] Anderson, R. W. Developmental sequences: The emergence of aspect marking in second language acquisition [A] In T. Huebner & C. A. Ferguson (eds.). Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistics Theories [C] Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1991
[79] Brown, R. A First Language: The Early Stages. [M] Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973
[80] Baggini, J. & P. S. Fosl, The Philosopher's Toolkit:A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods [M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2003
[81] Carlson, G. & Pelletier, F. J. The Generic Book [M] Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995
[82] Celce-Murcia, M, & Larsen-Freeman, D. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 171-202, 1983
[83] Chesterman, A. On Definiteness: A study with special reference to English and Finnish [M] New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991
[84] Comrie, B. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: syntax and morphology [M] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981
[85] Croft, W. Typology and Universals of Language [M] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000
[86] Curme, G. Syntax [M] Boston, D.C.: Heath and Company, 1931
[87] Donnellan, K. S. Reference and Definite descriptions [J] The Philosophical Review 75: 281-304, 1966
[88] Freeborn, D. From Old English to Standard English [M] London: MacMillan Publishers Ltd, 2000
[89] Givón, T. On Understanding Grammar [M].New York: Academic Press, 1979
[90] Givón, T. Syntax : A functional-typological introduction [M] Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1984
[91] Gundel, H. & Zacharski. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse [J] Language 69: 274– 307, 1993
[92] Gundel, J. K. Centering theory and the Givenness Hierarchy: Towards a Synthesis [A] In Walker, M. A. et al.(eds). Centering in Discourse [C] Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998
[93] Hawkins, J.A. Definiteness and Indefiniteness, [M] London: Humanities Press, 1978
[94] Heim, I. R. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Phrases [D] Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1982
[95] Hornby, A. S., Gatenby, E. V. & Wakefield, H. The Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English with Chinese Translation [M] Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980
[96] Hu Mingliang. Definiteness and word order in mandarin Chinese,1993,JCLTA: Volume XXVIII, 1992
[97] Jesperson, O. The Philosophy of Grammar [M] London: Allen & Unwin, 1924
[98] Kripke, S. Naming and necessity[A] In D. Davidson & G. Harman. Eds., Semantics and natural language[C] Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1972
[99] Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar [M] Vol. I Theoretical Prerequisites. Standford: Standford University Press, 1987
[100] Leech, G. Semantics. (2nd ed.) [M] Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1983
[101] Li, C. & Thompson, S. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar[M] Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981
[102] Li, Y.-H. Structures and Interpretations of Nominal Expressions. University of Southern California, 1997
[103] Liu, X. et al. Practical Chinese Readings, Vol. II. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1993
[104] Lyons, C. Definiteness [M] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999
[105] Lyons, J. Linguistic Semantics: An introduction. [M] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995
[106] Master, P. Teaching the English articles as a binary system. [J] TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 24 No.3, 461– 475, 1990
[107] Odlin, T. Language Transfer: Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning (4th prin.) [M] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989
[108] Prince, E. F. On the inferring of indefinite this NPs [A] In Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. L. & Sag, I. A. (eds.) Elements of discourse understanding [C] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981
[109] Prince, E. F. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status [A] In Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (eds) Discourse description: Diverse linguistic analysis of a fund-raising text [C] Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1992
[110] Quirk, R. et al A comprehensive grammar of the English language. [M] London: Longman, 1985
[111] Russell,B. On Denoting, 1905 http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/denoting/
[112] Strawson,P. F. On Referring [J] Mind 59: 320-344, 1950
[113] The Oxford English Dictionary (reprinted, 1st im.1933) Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978
[114] Trask, R. L. A Student’s Dictionary of Language and Linguistics [M] New York, NY: Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group, 1997
[115] Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. J. An Introduction to Congnitive Linguistics [M] New York: Pearson Education Inc.1996
[116] Vendler, Z. Linguistics in philosophy [M] N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967
[117] Xu, L. J. Limitations on subject hood of numerically quantified noun phrases:a pragmatic approach[A] In Xu, L.J. (ed.), The Referential Properties of Chinese Noun Phrases, 25-44. Paris: Centre de Recherches Linguistics sur L’Asie Orientale, 1997