视点回指和汉英长距离反身代词研究
|
摘要
本文着重研究语法和语用上被称为的(篇章)“视点回指”现象。所谓“视点回指”乃长距离回指或长距离反身化的一种特定形式,存在于人类的许多语言之中。学术界对它的定义详略不一。这里,我们援用Yan Huang(2004a, 2007)的定义,简要描述其基本的特性,即,“视点回指是指以下这样的语言现象:以特定的词汇和/或句法手段表达一个语句/语段(篇章)的内部主人公视点,而非当前外部说话者视点。”这里的“视点”是一个专门术语,表示(话语所指实体/对象的)“语词”、“思想”、“认知”、“情感”、“感知”或“空间处所”。(另见Hagège 1974, Clements 1975, Sells 1987, Reuland 2009等人的定义)笼统地说,视点回指——我们觉得——也就是篇章回指的一种特别形式或特定说法,而在本文是专指长距离反身代词(LDR)之于最小语篇主人公(MDP)实体之间的回指关系。诚然,汉英篇章中都存在(或允准)这么一种回指关系——尽管表现形式和程度有所不同:在汉语中主要(若非一定总是)由简单反身代词“自己”建立,在英语中由反身代词“Pn-self”表达。
长距离反身化或/和视点回指是近三十年来语言学领域的热点课题。无论形式主义学派,还是语用功能主义学派,都对它有过较广泛的研究。形式主义学派的研究主要是针对Chomsky(1981, 1982)标准“管约理论”遇到的棘手问题——管辖域之外的长距离约束——而展开的各种句法约束理论探究。这些研究沿袭乔氏经典约束理论路线,致力于提出一些具体的句法理论方案或分析法(如“中心词移位法”、“IP(屈折短语)附接法”、“题元等级论”、“自我归属论”),以图解决管辖语域外反身代词长距离的约束问题。这些研究大部分局限于句子层面反身代词的受约束现象,并大多以句法约束规则的建立为前提,有一定的理论价值。但是,形式语言学研究的局限性也很明显:即,不能真正解决语篇中LDR的受约束问题。究其根源,这些分析法都试图用(参数化的)句法理论来解释非句法性质的长距离反身化(cf. Huang 1994)。长距离反身化,本质上是一种篇章回指现象,不是句法现象;因而,既有的形式语言学理论未能对它做出足以令人满意的分析。
专门针对“视点回指”而进行的研究主要有Sells(1987)、Zribi-Hertz(1989)、Baker(1995)等。这些研究已然不囿于(传统)形式语言学的理论成规,更多地是在语义、语篇分析或功能分析视野下进行的。而语用理论视角下对长距离反身化/视点回指进行的研究,既有以非洲和西方语言作为研究的对象,也有以汉语作为研究的语料的。有影响力的研究主要有Horn(1984, 1989)、Levinson(1991, 2000)、Huang(1994, 2007)等等。许余龙(2004)从功能语用角度,在对自然篇章中的回指进行系统而深入探索的同时,也对汉语LDR有所研究。此外,笔者近年来对汉语LDR和指代词在语篇中的语用功能也进行了一些有益的探讨(刘礼进2007a/b, 2008a/b)。语用学、功能主义视角下的这些研究,应该说较之形式学派的研究,能更有效地阐释反身代词和指代词的篇章功能特点。鉴于既有研究中仍缺乏跨语言对比分析,我们拟扩大语料范围,检索足够的实例,运用对比方法,进一步探索汉英LDR的视点回指和/或长距离回指的功用特点和规律。
我们从汉、英语小说中检索了一定量的LDR用法实例,制作成汉-英、英-汉翻译(对比)语料数据(库),以考察汉英篇章中视点回指/长距离回指的异同特点。本文要着力探究三个方面的问题:(i)汉英LDR视点回指式/非视点回指式(回指语与先行语在语法上的关联方式)的异同性和分布特征,(ii)汉英LDR在篇章中的功能特点及语用动因,(iii)汉英LDR在篇章中的回指生成模式(篇章回指的建立和维持或推进手段)的异同特点。
本文采取“对比功能分析”之理论假设和实证分析相结合的方法(cf. Chesterman 1998,许余龙2005)、定性定量相结合的方法,考察了汉英叙事语篇中LDR的(视点)回指功能。本研究是根据自制的汉英小说语料进行的,主要完成了两方面的任务。第一,利用汉英原文小说语料,考察了汉英篇章中视点回指式/长距离回指式的分布情况。第二,利用汉译英语料和英译汉语料,考察了汉语LDR与其英语对译/对应用语的情况,并且分析了汉语LDR与英语LDR/代词的不同的篇章功能特点和语用动因。
本文借鉴、吸取前人研究的理论观点,围绕“最小篇章主人公”(MDP)概念,建立了自己的分析框架——“汉英LDR视点回指语用原则”,并以此对语篇中LDR的语法语用功能做了统一的解释。
本文研究的主要发现如下:
(1)就篇章回指结构式而言,汉英LDR的视点/非视点回指式之间存在相同之处,也存在不同之处。主要的相同处在于,汉英“一般视点回指式”在叙事篇章中均较为普遍。主要的差异在于:(i)在汉语篇章中由视点回指动词触发并由“自己”构建的“典型视点回指式”很常见,而英语篇章中由Pn-self构成的此类回指式较鲜见,表明这不是英语篇章中主要的回指结构式;(ii)英语Pn-self的“非视点回指式”要比汉语“自己”的“非视点回指式”在篇章中更普遍,究其缘由,英语LDR不仅负有建立篇章回指的责任,还承担了语义强化和构成信息对比的功能;(iii)总体上,汉语“自己”的视点回指/长距离回指式的分布频数,远远超过英语“Pn-self”的视点回指/长距离回指式的分布频数(722 vs. 93),说明前者是叙事语篇中常见的连贯现象,后者不是。
(2)从汉语LDR与英语对译/对应用语情况看,(i)叙事语篇中,汉英回指表达式虽然有所相似,但两者之间存在的差异是主要的:汉语常用LDR建立视点回指/长距离回指,而英语更多地使用普通代词建立长距离回指。(ii)汉语简单LDR常与英语代词相对译/对应,也即,汉语各句位的“自己”通常相应地译成和译自于英语各格位的代词。这表明,操汉语者易受主人公(主观)叙述视点驱动,多用“自己”建立篇章回指关系;操英语者常立足于观察者(客观)叙述视角,使用代词表达回指关系。主要原因可能是,英语属于规范的屈折语,词语本身的形态变化(如代词的人称、性、单复数特征变化)能明确标示各词语之间的语法关系和所指关系;因而,代词化手段不但不会造成语篇理解困难,反而使得语篇生成更为经济、省力,进而说明,英语无须衍生出一个像汉语“自己”那样的词汇化的单语素反身代词(如self)。(iii)汉语复合LDR也通常与英语代词相互对译/对应,即,汉语中各句位的“Pn-自己”大多也是相应地译成和译自于英语中各格位的代词。原因或在于,说汉语者要比说英语者更喜欢用强调性词语来凸显语篇所指对象。
(3)从LDR的回指功能及回指生成模式看,(i)汉语“自己”可定义为“视点回指语”,其根本功能是指代MDP实体,“Pn-自己”主要用做代词的一种强势语形式,其作用在于凸显篇章所指实体及其对比性;而英语篇章中的“Pn-self”既可用以建立视点回指,又用于对语篇中的所指实体加以强调或比对。(ii)汉英篇章中主要有两类涉及LDR的回指生成模式:单层回指建构模式和双层(多层)回指建构模式。汉语有简单和复合反身代词之分,因而,其回指生成模式要比英语的更复杂些。(iii)对于汉英LDR在语篇中的回指功能和回指生成模式,本文提出的理论机制——语用准则、视点(回指)领域条件、(先行语或MDP实体的)生命性/意识性条件——能够做出较充分的阐释。也就是说,汉英LDR的篇章功能解读和篇章回指生成,原则上都能为上述“语用准则”、“视点领域条件”和“生命性/意识性条件”所支配或预测。
本文的研究具有一定的理论意义和实用意义。
首先,我们提出的“汉英(第三人称)LDR视点回指语用原则”,是一个语用学和语篇分析的理论机制,它对现行语言学理论建构具有相当的启示意义。它促使我们认真地重新思考关于语法规则与语用原则的相互作用问题。语法规则不应该是脱离或独立于语言使用的准则,而应该是起源于语言运用之中。用Levinson(1987a, cf. Huang 2007: 271)的话说,语法最好(被)视作“凝固的语用法”——即从“语例意义”经过“语型意义”再到“句型意义”这样一个历时过程中的渐变之结果。当然,这不等于说,我们可以用语用原则否定语法规则,而恰恰相反,语用原则从广义上看属于语法的一部分,是对语法的必要补充和完善。本文提出的“语用原则”,一定程度上可以说是对前人语言学理论的有益补充和发展。比如,相对于“意识主语”假说和新格莱斯语用学理论,我们的语用机制具有本身的特点:(i)可用以分析汉英LDR的语篇回指功能,包括回指解读和回指生成两个方面,并更适于处理汉语篇章回指;(ii)不仅可用以处理单层篇章回指,也可用以分析双层(多层)篇章回指;(iii)其“最小语篇主人公”(MDP)概念,不啻于对“意识主语”的简单“克隆”,更是一个语义功能概念,它的含义或所指不囿于某一固定的(表层)语法句位成分,因而具有较强的预测力或解释力。
其次,本文的研究发现和结果,对汉语、外语教学具有一定的实用意义。由汉、英语LDR建立的视点回指/长距离回指,是篇章回指的特定形式,较普遍地存在于汉、英语(尤其是汉语)篇章当中。因此,了解和掌握汉英篇章中LDR的(视点)回指式分布特征、功用特点、回指生成模式等等,无疑有助于汉、英语教学和翻译教学与实践。比如说,明白了汉、英语原文本中视点回指/长距离回指的构成方式,可以减轻篇章理解负荷,节省阅读时间;明确了汉英篇章回指生成模式,可以更连贯、更有效地在写作中进行篇章生产;熟悉了汉语LDR与英语LDR/代词之间的对译/对应用语规律,在汉-英、英-汉翻译教学与实践过程中,就能更准确、经济、高效地将汉语原文本译成英语文本,反之亦然。
This dissertation is intended to study what is known, grammatically and pragmatically, as logophoricity or logophora. Logophoricity is an ad hoc, given phenomenon of long-distance anaphora (LDA) or long-distance reflexivization in language. There is no complete consensus among the linguistic scholars regarding its definitions. Here, however, I largely cite Yan Huang’s (2004a, 2007) definition of logophoricity and give a brief description of what it is as follows. Logophoricity refers to the phenomenon in which the perspective or point of view of an internal protagonist of a sentence or discourse, as opposed to that of the current, external speaker, is reported by some morphological and/or syntactical means. The term‘perspective’or‘point of view’is used here in a technical sense and is intended to encompass the words, thoughts, knowledge, emotion, perception and space-location in relation to the protagonist (cf. Huang (ibid.), for different definitions see also Hagège 1974, Clements 1975, Sells 1987, Reuland 2009). Put roughly, logophoricity can be simply taken as a sort of particular realization, or ad hoc wording, of discourse anaphora, and here for our part is especially deemed as an anaphoric linkage between a long-distance reflexive (LDR) and an NP encoding a minimal discourse-internal protagonist (MDP). Such an anaphoric/logophoric linkage does exist, though to varying degrees, in both Chinese and English (C-E) discourse: it is established in Chinese frequently (if not definitely always) with simplex reflexive‘ziji’, and in English with reflexive‘Pn-self’.
Long-range reflexivization or/and logophora has/have around three decades been a topic of research in linguistic field. Scholars, both formalist and functionalist, have done much research on it. Formal linguists’studies centered on the formulation of distinctive theories or approaches (e.g.‘head-to-head movement’,‘IP-adjunction’,‘thematic hierarchy’and‘self-ascription’) with an view to cracking the problem confronting Chomsky’s (1981, 1982) GB Theory—long-range binding occurring outside the governing category. Therefore, these studies, made along the line of Chomsky’s classic binding theory, would be more often than not devoted to binding at the sentence level and intended to work out some syntactical rules regulating the structures of binding; and they are of theoretical significance. But obviously, they have their limitations: they cannot really deal with long-distance bound reflexives, since they attempted to handle long-distance reflexivization which is non-syntactical in nature, with some (parameterized) binding theories. Long-range reflexivization would be an issue of discourse anaphora but not a syntactical one; so the formalists’analyses have not solved it successfully.
And there are important studies devoted exclusively to logophoricity, such as Sells (1987), Zribi-Hertz (1989) and Baker (1995). These are not done on a sheerly (traditional) formalistic basis and instead more on a discourse/pragmatic basis. Then, there are quite a few studies on long-distance reflexivization and logophoricity from the perspective of pragmatics, some of which are dedicated to African and Western languages and the Chinese language (among others). The more influential are Horn (1984, 1989), Levinson (1991, 2000) and Huang (1994, 2007). Y. Xu (2004), nonetheless, made a systematic functional-pragmatic study of discourse anaphora resolution, including the uses of LDRs in Chinese. Also, I myself lately did research on the anaphoric uses of LDRs and pronouns in Chinese in line with some of the pragmatic theories (cf. Liu 2007a, 2008a). The studies conducted from the pragmatic/functionalist perspective would be in a sense more effective in accounting for the functions of reflexives and pronouns. Given the fact that, however, there is much less research in the literature done cross-linguistically, we find it worthwhile to pursue a further, in-depth investigation of the logophoric/anaphoric uses of LDRs in C-E discourse on a greater number of textual data.
Our data are composed of testified examples drawn from Chinese and English novels or stories, and we intend to examine the differences and similarities in logophora / LDA in C-E discourse. We have three questions to research into: (i) what are the distributional similarities and differences in logophoric vs. non-logophoric patterns made by the LDRs in C-E discourse? (ii) What are the functions of the LDRs and the motivations for their uses in C-E discourse? (iii) What are the similarities and dissimilarities in anaphoric production involving the LDRs in C-E discourse?
We have conducted this study with qualitative plus quantitative method, aside from adopting Chesterman’s (1998, cf. also Xu 2005) CFA (‘contrastive functional analysis’) method. Overall, we have two tasks: the first is to analyze the Chinese and English textual data to find out about the distributions of logophora/LDA patterns in C-E discourse; and the second to analyze the C-E and E-C translation data to find out about the functions of Chinese LDRs vs. English LDRs / pronouns and the motivations for their different uses in discourse. Drawing principally on the Western scholars’theories and ideas, we have formulated as our analytical framework a set of pragmatic principles governing the LDRs in C-E discourse, which hinges on the MDP. And with it we have given a unified treatment of the uses of LDRs in Chinese and English.
The major findings are as follows.
(1) In the case of anaphoric pattern, there are similarities and differences in the use of LDRs in C-E discourse. They have something in common in that both are often used to form a‘general logophora pattern’. They differ from each other in that as an LDR in Chinese‘ziji’is frequently triggered by a logophoric verb to make a‘typical logophora pattern’while as an LDR in English‘Pn-self’is scarcely so triggered to form such a pattern, showing that the‘typical logophora pattern’is perhaps not so frequent in English discourse. There are, nevertheless, a good many non-logophoric patterns made by‘Pn-self’in English while there are much fewer such patterns in association with‘ziji’in Chinese.
(2) In the case of the use of Chinese LDRs vs. their corresponding English wording in translations, though the anaphoric expressions in C-E discourse function somewhat alike, both of their uses are noticeably dissimilar in some respects. First, a Chinese LDR is generally chosen to encode logophora/LDA in discourse, whereas an English pronoun is commonly used to express LDA in discourse. Second, Chinese‘ziji’is in the great majority translated into and from an English pronoun, showing that a Chinese speaker tends to often use‘ziji’to set up a logophoric linkage in discourse from the protagonist’s perspective, while an English speaker is apt to employ a pronoun to establish an anaphoric relationship in discourse from the observer’s perspective. Third, in most cases Chinese‘Pn-ziji’is also often translated into and from an English pronoun. This is probably because, compared with English speakers, Chinese speakers would prefer to highlight a discourse entity with this complex reflexive.
(3) In the case of anaphoric production (anaphoric understanding aside), in Chinese discourse,‘ziji’can be well defined as a‘logophor’, serving basically to refer to an MDP, and‘Pn-ziji’serves as, so to say, an intensive expression of pronoun to highlight a discourse entity. By contrast, as an LDR in English discourse,‘Pn-self’is used to both establish a logophoric relationship and highlight a discourse entity, owing to the fact that there is no such logophor in English as‘ziji’in Chinese. There are, then, upon the whole two types of construction in terms of anaphoric production in C-E discourse: one bearing a single-fold anaphoric linkage and the other bearing multifold ones. With a system of simplex plus complex LDR in Chinese, the anaphoric production modes in Chinese discourse are relatively more complicated than those in English discourse. Moreover, the uses, precisely the anaphoric functions and production modes, of LDRs in C-E discourse can be satisfactorily explained by the set of pragmatic principles formulated in this dissertation, including the‘anaphoric interpretation / production’maxims and the‘domain of point of view’(DPV) and‘animacy / consciousness’constraints.
This study has both theoretical and practical implications. One noticeable implication is that as a discourse mechanism, the set of pragmatic principles stated in this dissertation has made some contribution to the current linguistic theorizing, as it will lead to a further rethinking of the interaction between syntactical rule and pragmatic principle. It is argued that grammatical rules (like Chomsky’s binding conditions) should not be independent of pragmatic maxims but instead dependent of language use. As depicted in Levinson’s (1987a, cf. Huang 2007: 271) metaphor, some such rules are best seen as‘frozen pragmatics’—the outcome of a gradual, diachronic process from utterance-token-meaning via utterance-type-meaning to sentence-type-meaning. This does not mean these rules as they are today are not part of the grammar. On the contrary, they are and should be dealt with in the grammar (Huang ibid.). Another point, more specifically, is that the set of our pragmatic principles would add more or less to the advance of the existing linguistic theories. In contrast to the‘Subject of Consciousness’(SC) hypothesis and neo-Gricean pragmatic theories, our pragmatic apparatus has its own special edges: (i) it is fit for the anaphoric interpretation and production in C-E discourse, and certainly fitter for addressing the LDRs in Chinese; (ii) it may cover both single-fold and multifold discourse anaphora; (iii) with the concept of MDP, which is not at all a mechanical‘clone’of the SC, it seems more predictable and explicable in that it can cope with the anaphora patterns with the antecedent occurring in nearly all possible syntactical positions.
Finally, the findings have practical implications for the Chinese learning and EFL teaching. To put it plainly, a good mastery of the uses of LDRs and their logophoric / anaphoric patterns in C-E discourse would be of much help to the Chinese language and EFL learners. This will, for instance, enable them to save time for discourse understanding, to write essays more coherently and effectively, and to do translations more accurately and efficiently.
长距离反身化或/和视点回指是近三十年来语言学领域的热点课题。无论形式主义学派,还是语用功能主义学派,都对它有过较广泛的研究。形式主义学派的研究主要是针对Chomsky(1981, 1982)标准“管约理论”遇到的棘手问题——管辖域之外的长距离约束——而展开的各种句法约束理论探究。这些研究沿袭乔氏经典约束理论路线,致力于提出一些具体的句法理论方案或分析法(如“中心词移位法”、“IP(屈折短语)附接法”、“题元等级论”、“自我归属论”),以图解决管辖语域外反身代词长距离的约束问题。这些研究大部分局限于句子层面反身代词的受约束现象,并大多以句法约束规则的建立为前提,有一定的理论价值。但是,形式语言学研究的局限性也很明显:即,不能真正解决语篇中LDR的受约束问题。究其根源,这些分析法都试图用(参数化的)句法理论来解释非句法性质的长距离反身化(cf. Huang 1994)。长距离反身化,本质上是一种篇章回指现象,不是句法现象;因而,既有的形式语言学理论未能对它做出足以令人满意的分析。
专门针对“视点回指”而进行的研究主要有Sells(1987)、Zribi-Hertz(1989)、Baker(1995)等。这些研究已然不囿于(传统)形式语言学的理论成规,更多地是在语义、语篇分析或功能分析视野下进行的。而语用理论视角下对长距离反身化/视点回指进行的研究,既有以非洲和西方语言作为研究的对象,也有以汉语作为研究的语料的。有影响力的研究主要有Horn(1984, 1989)、Levinson(1991, 2000)、Huang(1994, 2007)等等。许余龙(2004)从功能语用角度,在对自然篇章中的回指进行系统而深入探索的同时,也对汉语LDR有所研究。此外,笔者近年来对汉语LDR和指代词在语篇中的语用功能也进行了一些有益的探讨(刘礼进2007a/b, 2008a/b)。语用学、功能主义视角下的这些研究,应该说较之形式学派的研究,能更有效地阐释反身代词和指代词的篇章功能特点。鉴于既有研究中仍缺乏跨语言对比分析,我们拟扩大语料范围,检索足够的实例,运用对比方法,进一步探索汉英LDR的视点回指和/或长距离回指的功用特点和规律。
我们从汉、英语小说中检索了一定量的LDR用法实例,制作成汉-英、英-汉翻译(对比)语料数据(库),以考察汉英篇章中视点回指/长距离回指的异同特点。本文要着力探究三个方面的问题:(i)汉英LDR视点回指式/非视点回指式(回指语与先行语在语法上的关联方式)的异同性和分布特征,(ii)汉英LDR在篇章中的功能特点及语用动因,(iii)汉英LDR在篇章中的回指生成模式(篇章回指的建立和维持或推进手段)的异同特点。
本文采取“对比功能分析”之理论假设和实证分析相结合的方法(cf. Chesterman 1998,许余龙2005)、定性定量相结合的方法,考察了汉英叙事语篇中LDR的(视点)回指功能。本研究是根据自制的汉英小说语料进行的,主要完成了两方面的任务。第一,利用汉英原文小说语料,考察了汉英篇章中视点回指式/长距离回指式的分布情况。第二,利用汉译英语料和英译汉语料,考察了汉语LDR与其英语对译/对应用语的情况,并且分析了汉语LDR与英语LDR/代词的不同的篇章功能特点和语用动因。
本文借鉴、吸取前人研究的理论观点,围绕“最小篇章主人公”(MDP)概念,建立了自己的分析框架——“汉英LDR视点回指语用原则”,并以此对语篇中LDR的语法语用功能做了统一的解释。
本文研究的主要发现如下:
(1)就篇章回指结构式而言,汉英LDR的视点/非视点回指式之间存在相同之处,也存在不同之处。主要的相同处在于,汉英“一般视点回指式”在叙事篇章中均较为普遍。主要的差异在于:(i)在汉语篇章中由视点回指动词触发并由“自己”构建的“典型视点回指式”很常见,而英语篇章中由Pn-self构成的此类回指式较鲜见,表明这不是英语篇章中主要的回指结构式;(ii)英语Pn-self的“非视点回指式”要比汉语“自己”的“非视点回指式”在篇章中更普遍,究其缘由,英语LDR不仅负有建立篇章回指的责任,还承担了语义强化和构成信息对比的功能;(iii)总体上,汉语“自己”的视点回指/长距离回指式的分布频数,远远超过英语“Pn-self”的视点回指/长距离回指式的分布频数(722 vs. 93),说明前者是叙事语篇中常见的连贯现象,后者不是。
(2)从汉语LDR与英语对译/对应用语情况看,(i)叙事语篇中,汉英回指表达式虽然有所相似,但两者之间存在的差异是主要的:汉语常用LDR建立视点回指/长距离回指,而英语更多地使用普通代词建立长距离回指。(ii)汉语简单LDR常与英语代词相对译/对应,也即,汉语各句位的“自己”通常相应地译成和译自于英语各格位的代词。这表明,操汉语者易受主人公(主观)叙述视点驱动,多用“自己”建立篇章回指关系;操英语者常立足于观察者(客观)叙述视角,使用代词表达回指关系。主要原因可能是,英语属于规范的屈折语,词语本身的形态变化(如代词的人称、性、单复数特征变化)能明确标示各词语之间的语法关系和所指关系;因而,代词化手段不但不会造成语篇理解困难,反而使得语篇生成更为经济、省力,进而说明,英语无须衍生出一个像汉语“自己”那样的词汇化的单语素反身代词(如self)。(iii)汉语复合LDR也通常与英语代词相互对译/对应,即,汉语中各句位的“Pn-自己”大多也是相应地译成和译自于英语中各格位的代词。原因或在于,说汉语者要比说英语者更喜欢用强调性词语来凸显语篇所指对象。
(3)从LDR的回指功能及回指生成模式看,(i)汉语“自己”可定义为“视点回指语”,其根本功能是指代MDP实体,“Pn-自己”主要用做代词的一种强势语形式,其作用在于凸显篇章所指实体及其对比性;而英语篇章中的“Pn-self”既可用以建立视点回指,又用于对语篇中的所指实体加以强调或比对。(ii)汉英篇章中主要有两类涉及LDR的回指生成模式:单层回指建构模式和双层(多层)回指建构模式。汉语有简单和复合反身代词之分,因而,其回指生成模式要比英语的更复杂些。(iii)对于汉英LDR在语篇中的回指功能和回指生成模式,本文提出的理论机制——语用准则、视点(回指)领域条件、(先行语或MDP实体的)生命性/意识性条件——能够做出较充分的阐释。也就是说,汉英LDR的篇章功能解读和篇章回指生成,原则上都能为上述“语用准则”、“视点领域条件”和“生命性/意识性条件”所支配或预测。
本文的研究具有一定的理论意义和实用意义。
首先,我们提出的“汉英(第三人称)LDR视点回指语用原则”,是一个语用学和语篇分析的理论机制,它对现行语言学理论建构具有相当的启示意义。它促使我们认真地重新思考关于语法规则与语用原则的相互作用问题。语法规则不应该是脱离或独立于语言使用的准则,而应该是起源于语言运用之中。用Levinson(1987a, cf. Huang 2007: 271)的话说,语法最好(被)视作“凝固的语用法”——即从“语例意义”经过“语型意义”再到“句型意义”这样一个历时过程中的渐变之结果。当然,这不等于说,我们可以用语用原则否定语法规则,而恰恰相反,语用原则从广义上看属于语法的一部分,是对语法的必要补充和完善。本文提出的“语用原则”,一定程度上可以说是对前人语言学理论的有益补充和发展。比如,相对于“意识主语”假说和新格莱斯语用学理论,我们的语用机制具有本身的特点:(i)可用以分析汉英LDR的语篇回指功能,包括回指解读和回指生成两个方面,并更适于处理汉语篇章回指;(ii)不仅可用以处理单层篇章回指,也可用以分析双层(多层)篇章回指;(iii)其“最小语篇主人公”(MDP)概念,不啻于对“意识主语”的简单“克隆”,更是一个语义功能概念,它的含义或所指不囿于某一固定的(表层)语法句位成分,因而具有较强的预测力或解释力。
其次,本文的研究发现和结果,对汉语、外语教学具有一定的实用意义。由汉、英语LDR建立的视点回指/长距离回指,是篇章回指的特定形式,较普遍地存在于汉、英语(尤其是汉语)篇章当中。因此,了解和掌握汉英篇章中LDR的(视点)回指式分布特征、功用特点、回指生成模式等等,无疑有助于汉、英语教学和翻译教学与实践。比如说,明白了汉、英语原文本中视点回指/长距离回指的构成方式,可以减轻篇章理解负荷,节省阅读时间;明确了汉英篇章回指生成模式,可以更连贯、更有效地在写作中进行篇章生产;熟悉了汉语LDR与英语LDR/代词之间的对译/对应用语规律,在汉-英、英-汉翻译教学与实践过程中,就能更准确、经济、高效地将汉语原文本译成英语文本,反之亦然。
This dissertation is intended to study what is known, grammatically and pragmatically, as logophoricity or logophora. Logophoricity is an ad hoc, given phenomenon of long-distance anaphora (LDA) or long-distance reflexivization in language. There is no complete consensus among the linguistic scholars regarding its definitions. Here, however, I largely cite Yan Huang’s (2004a, 2007) definition of logophoricity and give a brief description of what it is as follows. Logophoricity refers to the phenomenon in which the perspective or point of view of an internal protagonist of a sentence or discourse, as opposed to that of the current, external speaker, is reported by some morphological and/or syntactical means. The term‘perspective’or‘point of view’is used here in a technical sense and is intended to encompass the words, thoughts, knowledge, emotion, perception and space-location in relation to the protagonist (cf. Huang (ibid.), for different definitions see also Hagège 1974, Clements 1975, Sells 1987, Reuland 2009). Put roughly, logophoricity can be simply taken as a sort of particular realization, or ad hoc wording, of discourse anaphora, and here for our part is especially deemed as an anaphoric linkage between a long-distance reflexive (LDR) and an NP encoding a minimal discourse-internal protagonist (MDP). Such an anaphoric/logophoric linkage does exist, though to varying degrees, in both Chinese and English (C-E) discourse: it is established in Chinese frequently (if not definitely always) with simplex reflexive‘ziji’, and in English with reflexive‘Pn-self’.
Long-range reflexivization or/and logophora has/have around three decades been a topic of research in linguistic field. Scholars, both formalist and functionalist, have done much research on it. Formal linguists’studies centered on the formulation of distinctive theories or approaches (e.g.‘head-to-head movement’,‘IP-adjunction’,‘thematic hierarchy’and‘self-ascription’) with an view to cracking the problem confronting Chomsky’s (1981, 1982) GB Theory—long-range binding occurring outside the governing category. Therefore, these studies, made along the line of Chomsky’s classic binding theory, would be more often than not devoted to binding at the sentence level and intended to work out some syntactical rules regulating the structures of binding; and they are of theoretical significance. But obviously, they have their limitations: they cannot really deal with long-distance bound reflexives, since they attempted to handle long-distance reflexivization which is non-syntactical in nature, with some (parameterized) binding theories. Long-range reflexivization would be an issue of discourse anaphora but not a syntactical one; so the formalists’analyses have not solved it successfully.
And there are important studies devoted exclusively to logophoricity, such as Sells (1987), Zribi-Hertz (1989) and Baker (1995). These are not done on a sheerly (traditional) formalistic basis and instead more on a discourse/pragmatic basis. Then, there are quite a few studies on long-distance reflexivization and logophoricity from the perspective of pragmatics, some of which are dedicated to African and Western languages and the Chinese language (among others). The more influential are Horn (1984, 1989), Levinson (1991, 2000) and Huang (1994, 2007). Y. Xu (2004), nonetheless, made a systematic functional-pragmatic study of discourse anaphora resolution, including the uses of LDRs in Chinese. Also, I myself lately did research on the anaphoric uses of LDRs and pronouns in Chinese in line with some of the pragmatic theories (cf. Liu 2007a, 2008a). The studies conducted from the pragmatic/functionalist perspective would be in a sense more effective in accounting for the functions of reflexives and pronouns. Given the fact that, however, there is much less research in the literature done cross-linguistically, we find it worthwhile to pursue a further, in-depth investigation of the logophoric/anaphoric uses of LDRs in C-E discourse on a greater number of textual data.
Our data are composed of testified examples drawn from Chinese and English novels or stories, and we intend to examine the differences and similarities in logophora / LDA in C-E discourse. We have three questions to research into: (i) what are the distributional similarities and differences in logophoric vs. non-logophoric patterns made by the LDRs in C-E discourse? (ii) What are the functions of the LDRs and the motivations for their uses in C-E discourse? (iii) What are the similarities and dissimilarities in anaphoric production involving the LDRs in C-E discourse?
We have conducted this study with qualitative plus quantitative method, aside from adopting Chesterman’s (1998, cf. also Xu 2005) CFA (‘contrastive functional analysis’) method. Overall, we have two tasks: the first is to analyze the Chinese and English textual data to find out about the distributions of logophora/LDA patterns in C-E discourse; and the second to analyze the C-E and E-C translation data to find out about the functions of Chinese LDRs vs. English LDRs / pronouns and the motivations for their different uses in discourse. Drawing principally on the Western scholars’theories and ideas, we have formulated as our analytical framework a set of pragmatic principles governing the LDRs in C-E discourse, which hinges on the MDP. And with it we have given a unified treatment of the uses of LDRs in Chinese and English.
The major findings are as follows.
(1) In the case of anaphoric pattern, there are similarities and differences in the use of LDRs in C-E discourse. They have something in common in that both are often used to form a‘general logophora pattern’. They differ from each other in that as an LDR in Chinese‘ziji’is frequently triggered by a logophoric verb to make a‘typical logophora pattern’while as an LDR in English‘Pn-self’is scarcely so triggered to form such a pattern, showing that the‘typical logophora pattern’is perhaps not so frequent in English discourse. There are, nevertheless, a good many non-logophoric patterns made by‘Pn-self’in English while there are much fewer such patterns in association with‘ziji’in Chinese.
(2) In the case of the use of Chinese LDRs vs. their corresponding English wording in translations, though the anaphoric expressions in C-E discourse function somewhat alike, both of their uses are noticeably dissimilar in some respects. First, a Chinese LDR is generally chosen to encode logophora/LDA in discourse, whereas an English pronoun is commonly used to express LDA in discourse. Second, Chinese‘ziji’is in the great majority translated into and from an English pronoun, showing that a Chinese speaker tends to often use‘ziji’to set up a logophoric linkage in discourse from the protagonist’s perspective, while an English speaker is apt to employ a pronoun to establish an anaphoric relationship in discourse from the observer’s perspective. Third, in most cases Chinese‘Pn-ziji’is also often translated into and from an English pronoun. This is probably because, compared with English speakers, Chinese speakers would prefer to highlight a discourse entity with this complex reflexive.
(3) In the case of anaphoric production (anaphoric understanding aside), in Chinese discourse,‘ziji’can be well defined as a‘logophor’, serving basically to refer to an MDP, and‘Pn-ziji’serves as, so to say, an intensive expression of pronoun to highlight a discourse entity. By contrast, as an LDR in English discourse,‘Pn-self’is used to both establish a logophoric relationship and highlight a discourse entity, owing to the fact that there is no such logophor in English as‘ziji’in Chinese. There are, then, upon the whole two types of construction in terms of anaphoric production in C-E discourse: one bearing a single-fold anaphoric linkage and the other bearing multifold ones. With a system of simplex plus complex LDR in Chinese, the anaphoric production modes in Chinese discourse are relatively more complicated than those in English discourse. Moreover, the uses, precisely the anaphoric functions and production modes, of LDRs in C-E discourse can be satisfactorily explained by the set of pragmatic principles formulated in this dissertation, including the‘anaphoric interpretation / production’maxims and the‘domain of point of view’(DPV) and‘animacy / consciousness’constraints.
This study has both theoretical and practical implications. One noticeable implication is that as a discourse mechanism, the set of pragmatic principles stated in this dissertation has made some contribution to the current linguistic theorizing, as it will lead to a further rethinking of the interaction between syntactical rule and pragmatic principle. It is argued that grammatical rules (like Chomsky’s binding conditions) should not be independent of pragmatic maxims but instead dependent of language use. As depicted in Levinson’s (1987a, cf. Huang 2007: 271) metaphor, some such rules are best seen as‘frozen pragmatics’—the outcome of a gradual, diachronic process from utterance-token-meaning via utterance-type-meaning to sentence-type-meaning. This does not mean these rules as they are today are not part of the grammar. On the contrary, they are and should be dealt with in the grammar (Huang ibid.). Another point, more specifically, is that the set of our pragmatic principles would add more or less to the advance of the existing linguistic theories. In contrast to the‘Subject of Consciousness’(SC) hypothesis and neo-Gricean pragmatic theories, our pragmatic apparatus has its own special edges: (i) it is fit for the anaphoric interpretation and production in C-E discourse, and certainly fitter for addressing the LDRs in Chinese; (ii) it may cover both single-fold and multifold discourse anaphora; (iii) with the concept of MDP, which is not at all a mechanical‘clone’of the SC, it seems more predictable and explicable in that it can cope with the anaphora patterns with the antecedent occurring in nearly all possible syntactical positions.
Finally, the findings have practical implications for the Chinese learning and EFL teaching. To put it plainly, a good mastery of the uses of LDRs and their logophoric / anaphoric patterns in C-E discourse would be of much help to the Chinese language and EFL learners. This will, for instance, enable them to save time for discourse understanding, to write essays more coherently and effectively, and to do translations more accurately and efficiently.
引文
Aoun, J. 1985. A Grammar of Anaphora. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Baker, C. L. 1995. Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71, 63-101.
Baltin, M. 2003. The interaction of ellipsis and binding: Implications for the sequencing of Principle A. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 215-246.
Banfield, Ann. 1979. Oùl’épistémologie, le style et la grammaire rencontrent l’histoire lettéraire: le dévelopment de la parole et de la pensée représentées. Langue Fran?aise 44, 9-26.
Barss, A. 1986. Chains and Anaphoric Dependence, unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridege, Massachusetts.
Battistella, Edwin. 1989. Chinese reflexivization: A movement to INFL approach. Linguistics 27, 987-1012.
Battistella, Edwin & Yonghui Xu. 1990. Remarks on the reflexives in Chinese. Linguistics 28, 205-240.
Bouchard. 1982. On the Content of Empty Categories. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the Content of Empty Categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Cantrall, William R. 1974. Viewpoint, Reflexives and the Nature of Noun Phrases. The Hague: Mouton.
Chesterman, Andrew. 1998. Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1986a. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York:Praeger.
Chomsky, N. 1986b. Barrier. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Clements, G. N. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 2, 141-177.
Cohen, Dana. 1999. Towards a unified account of intensive reflexives. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 1041-1052.
Cornish, Francis. 2007. Indirect pronominal anaphora in English and French: Marginal rarity, or unmarked norm? Some psycholinguistic evidence. In Schwarz-Friesel, M., M. Chonsten & M. Knees (eds.). Anaphors in Text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Culy, Christopher. 1994. Aspects of logophoric marking. Linguistics 32, 1055-1094.
Culy, Christopher. 1997. Logophoric pronouns and point of view. Linguistics 35, 845-859.
Dowty, D. R. 1980. Comments on the paper by Bach and Partee. Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora. Chicago Linguistic Society, 29-40.
Farmer, A. K. & R. M. Harnish. 1987. Communicative reference with pronouns. In Verschueren, J. & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.). The Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 547-564.
Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 67, 377-388.
Grice, H. P. 1967. Logic and conversation. Unpublished manuscript of the William James Lectures, Harvard University (later published in Grice 1989).
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & G. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. London: Academic Press, 41-58.
Grice, H. P. 1978. Further notes on Logic and conversation. In P. Cole (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. London: Academic Press, 113-128.
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Givón, T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam /New York: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Hagège, C. 1974. Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Sociétéde Linguistique de Paris 69, 287-310.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. 1985. Text and Context: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Melbourne: Deakin University Production Unit.
Halldiay, M. A. K. & M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (third edition). London: Arnold.
Hellan, L. 1991. Containment and connectedness anaphors. In Koster, J. & E. Reuland (eds.). Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27-48.
Horn, L. R. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. PhD Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Horn, L. R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (ed.). Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Application. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 11-42.
Horn, L. R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Huang, C.-T. James & C.-C. J. Tang. 1991. The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. In Koster, J. & E. Reuland (eds.). Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 263-282.
Huang, Yan. 1987. Zero anaphora in Chinese: Toward a pragmatic analysis. Cambridge College Research Fellowship Competition dissertation.
Huang, Yan. 1991. A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27, 301-335.
Huang, Yan. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huang, Yan. 2002. Typology of coreferential and neo-Gricean pragmatics: Implications for a newly defined artificial language. Journal of Universal Language 3, 31-56.
Huang, Yan. 2004a. Anaphora and the pragmatics-syntax interface. In Horn, L. R. & G. Ward (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 288-314.
Huang, Yan. 2004b. Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory: Looking back on the past; looking ahead to the future. Journal of Foreign Languages (Waiguoyu) 149, 2-25.
Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford /New York: Oxford University Press.
Huang, Yan. 2008. Anaphora, generative grammar and neo-Gricean pragmatics (lecture), Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou.
Jackendoff, R. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 369-411.
Kamp, J. A. W. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J., T. Janssen & M. Stokhof (eds.). Formal Methods in the Study of Language (Part 1).
Mathematical Centre Tracts, Amsterdam, 277-321. Also in Groenendijk, J., T. Janssen & M. Stokhof (eds.). Truth, Interpretation and Information. Dordrecht: Foris, 1-41, 1984.
Keenan, Edward L. 1988. Complex anaphors and bindα. In Macleod, L., G. Larson & D. Brentari (eds.). Papers from the 24th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.
Kempson, Ruth. 1984. Pragmatics, anaphora and logical form. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.). Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, D.C.:Georgetown University Press, 1-10.
Kempson, Ruth. 1988a. Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, F. J. (ed.). Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey (4 vols.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kempson, Ruth. 1988a. Logical form: The grammar cognition interface. Journal of Linguistics 24, 393-431.
K(?)nig, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.
Koster, Jan & Eric Reuland (eds.). 1991. Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Kuno, S. & E. Kaburaki. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 627-672.
Lebeaux, David. 1983. A distributional difference between reflexives and reciprocals. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 2.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1987a. Minimalization and conversational inference. Verschueren, J. & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.). The Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 61-129.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1987b. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23, 379-434.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27, 107-161.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mitkov, Ruslan. 2002. Anaphora Resolution. London: Pearson Education Ltd. Pan, Haihua. 1995. Locality, Self-ascription, Discourse Prominence, and MandarinReflexives. PhD dissertation, the University of Texas at Austin.
Pan, Haihua. 1997. Constraints on Reflexivization in Mandarin Chinese. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Pan, Haihua. 1998. Closeness, prominence, and binding theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 771-815.
Parker, Frank, Kathryn Riley & Charles F. Meyer. 1990. Untriggered reflexive pronouns in English. American Speech 65.1, 50-69.
Pollard, C. & I. A. Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 261-303.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora question. Linguistics & Philosophy 6, 47-88.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1986. Center and periphery in the grammar of anaphora. In Lust, B. (ed.). Studies in the Acquision of Anaphora (vol. 1). Dordrecht: Reidel, 123-150.
Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland. 1991. Anaphors and logophors: An argument structure perspective. In Koster, J. & E. Reuland (eds.). Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 283-321.
Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 4, 657-720.
Reuland, Eric. 2009. Binding theory. Downloaded from the Internet (Oct. 7, 2009). Reuland, Eric & Jan Koster. 1991. Long-distance anaphora: An overview. In Koster, J. & E. Reuland (eds.). Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-26.
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 445-479.
Schwarz-Friesel, M. 2007. Indirect anaphora in text: A cognitive account. In Schwarz-Friesel, M., M. Chonsten & M. Knees (eds.). Anaphors in Text. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stern, Nancy. 2004. The semantic unity of reflexive, emphatic and other -self pronouns. American Speech 79, 270-280.
Stirling, Lesley. 1993/2005. Switch-reference and Discourse Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(本文引用本:数码版本第一版, 2005)
Tang, C.-C. J. 1989. Chinese reflexives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 93-121.
Thráinsson, H. 1991. Long-distance reflexives and typology of NPs. In Koster, J. & E. Reuland (eds.). Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 49-76.
van Hoek, K. 1995. Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language 71, 310-340.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1990. Review article: Functionalism, Anaphora and Syntax. Studies in Language 14, 1, 169-219.
Xu, Liejiong. 1993. The long-distance binding of ziji. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 21, 123-141.
Xu, Liejiong. 1994. The antecedent of ziji. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 22, 115-137.
Zribi-Hertz, A. 1989. Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65, 695-727.
何自然,1988,《语用学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社。
胡建华、潘海华,2002,NP显著性的计算与汉语反身代词“自己”的指称,《当代语言学》第1期,46-60页。
姜望琪,2001,也谈新格莱斯照应理论,《外语教学与研究》第1期,29-37页。
刘礼进,1997,英汉人称代词回指和预指比较研究,《外国语》第6期,40-44页。
刘礼进,2001,英语话语中的间接照应,《四川外语学院》第2期,70-73页。
刘礼进,2003,英汉第三人称代词后照应的几个问题,《外国语言文学》第1期,20-24页。
刘礼进,2007a,汉语句内代词所指解读的语用学视角,《现代外语》第2期,135-143页。
刘礼进,2007b,汉语反身代词长距离照应研究中的一些问题,《汉语学习》第1期,25-31页。
刘礼进,2008a,现代汉语反身代词“自己”的照应功能,《外国语》第1期,36-44页。
刘礼进,2008b,英汉语强势反身代词用法的认知功能观,《外语教学与研究》第1期,29-36页。
刘礼进,2010,关于语言的本质——三种语言哲学观点述评,《外国语言文学》第1期,8-14页。
莫爱屏,2004,汉语话语中推理照应的实证研究,《现代外语》第3期,230-238页。
莫爱屏,2005,《汉语话语中推理照应的语用研究》,长沙:湖南人民出版社。
秦洪武,2001,第三人称代词在深层回指中的应用分析,《当代语言学》第1期,55-64页。
沈家煊,2001,语言的“主观性”和“主观化”,《外语教学与研究》第4期,268-275页。
束定芳、刘正光、徐盛桓,2009,引进与借鉴:我国国外语言学研究六十年,《外语教学与研究》第6期,431-437页。
王军,2004,;论关联度在间接回指释义中的主导作用,《现代外语》第3期,239-247页。
徐烈炯,1997,语言学理论与语言事实,《现代外语》第3期,27-32页。
许余龙,2000,也谈语言学理论与语言事实,《外国语》第3期,2-9页。
许余龙,2002,《对比语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
许余龙,2004,《篇章回指的功能语用探索——一项基于汉语民间故事和报刊语料的研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
许余龙,2005,对比功能分析的研究方法及其应用,《外语与外语教学》第11期,12-15页。
Baker, C. L. 1995. Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71, 63-101.
Baltin, M. 2003. The interaction of ellipsis and binding: Implications for the sequencing of Principle A. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 215-246.
Banfield, Ann. 1979. Oùl’épistémologie, le style et la grammaire rencontrent l’histoire lettéraire: le dévelopment de la parole et de la pensée représentées. Langue Fran?aise 44, 9-26.
Barss, A. 1986. Chains and Anaphoric Dependence, unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridege, Massachusetts.
Battistella, Edwin. 1989. Chinese reflexivization: A movement to INFL approach. Linguistics 27, 987-1012.
Battistella, Edwin & Yonghui Xu. 1990. Remarks on the reflexives in Chinese. Linguistics 28, 205-240.
Bouchard. 1982. On the Content of Empty Categories. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the Content of Empty Categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Cantrall, William R. 1974. Viewpoint, Reflexives and the Nature of Noun Phrases. The Hague: Mouton.
Chesterman, Andrew. 1998. Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. MA: The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1986a. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York:Praeger.
Chomsky, N. 1986b. Barrier. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Clements, G. N. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 2, 141-177.
Cohen, Dana. 1999. Towards a unified account of intensive reflexives. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 1041-1052.
Cornish, Francis. 2007. Indirect pronominal anaphora in English and French: Marginal rarity, or unmarked norm? Some psycholinguistic evidence. In Schwarz-Friesel, M., M. Chonsten & M. Knees (eds.). Anaphors in Text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Culy, Christopher. 1994. Aspects of logophoric marking. Linguistics 32, 1055-1094.
Culy, Christopher. 1997. Logophoric pronouns and point of view. Linguistics 35, 845-859.
Dowty, D. R. 1980. Comments on the paper by Bach and Partee. Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora. Chicago Linguistic Society, 29-40.
Farmer, A. K. & R. M. Harnish. 1987. Communicative reference with pronouns. In Verschueren, J. & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.). The Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 547-564.
Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 67, 377-388.
Grice, H. P. 1967. Logic and conversation. Unpublished manuscript of the William James Lectures, Harvard University (later published in Grice 1989).
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & G. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. London: Academic Press, 41-58.
Grice, H. P. 1978. Further notes on Logic and conversation. In P. Cole (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics. London: Academic Press, 113-128.
Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Givón, T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam /New York: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Hagège, C. 1974. Les pronoms logophoriques. Bulletin de la Sociétéde Linguistique de Paris 69, 287-310.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan. 1985. Text and Context: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Melbourne: Deakin University Production Unit.
Halldiay, M. A. K. & M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (third edition). London: Arnold.
Hellan, L. 1991. Containment and connectedness anaphors. In Koster, J. & E. Reuland (eds.). Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27-48.
Horn, L. R. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. PhD Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Horn, L. R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In D. Schiffrin (ed.). Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Application. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 11-42.
Horn, L. R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Huang, C.-T. James & C.-C. J. Tang. 1991. The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. In Koster, J. & E. Reuland (eds.). Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 263-282.
Huang, Yan. 1987. Zero anaphora in Chinese: Toward a pragmatic analysis. Cambridge College Research Fellowship Competition dissertation.
Huang, Yan. 1991. A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27, 301-335.
Huang, Yan. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross-linguistic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huang, Yan. 2002. Typology of coreferential and neo-Gricean pragmatics: Implications for a newly defined artificial language. Journal of Universal Language 3, 31-56.
Huang, Yan. 2004a. Anaphora and the pragmatics-syntax interface. In Horn, L. R. & G. Ward (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 288-314.
Huang, Yan. 2004b. Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory: Looking back on the past; looking ahead to the future. Journal of Foreign Languages (Waiguoyu) 149, 2-25.
Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford /New York: Oxford University Press.
Huang, Yan. 2008. Anaphora, generative grammar and neo-Gricean pragmatics (lecture), Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou.
Jackendoff, R. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 369-411.
Kamp, J. A. W. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J., T. Janssen & M. Stokhof (eds.). Formal Methods in the Study of Language (Part 1).
Mathematical Centre Tracts, Amsterdam, 277-321. Also in Groenendijk, J., T. Janssen & M. Stokhof (eds.). Truth, Interpretation and Information. Dordrecht: Foris, 1-41, 1984.
Keenan, Edward L. 1988. Complex anaphors and bindα. In Macleod, L., G. Larson & D. Brentari (eds.). Papers from the 24th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.
Kempson, Ruth. 1984. Pragmatics, anaphora and logical form. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.). Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, D.C.:Georgetown University Press, 1-10.
Kempson, Ruth. 1988a. Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, F. J. (ed.). Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey (4 vols.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kempson, Ruth. 1988a. Logical form: The grammar cognition interface. Journal of Linguistics 24, 393-431.
K(?)nig, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.
Koster, Jan & Eric Reuland (eds.). 1991. Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Kuno, S. & E. Kaburaki. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 627-672.
Lebeaux, David. 1983. A distributional difference between reflexives and reciprocals. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 2.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1987a. Minimalization and conversational inference. Verschueren, J. & M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.). The Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 61-129.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1987b. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23, 379-434.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27, 107-161.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mitkov, Ruslan. 2002. Anaphora Resolution. London: Pearson Education Ltd. Pan, Haihua. 1995. Locality, Self-ascription, Discourse Prominence, and MandarinReflexives. PhD dissertation, the University of Texas at Austin.
Pan, Haihua. 1997. Constraints on Reflexivization in Mandarin Chinese. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Pan, Haihua. 1998. Closeness, prominence, and binding theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 771-815.
Parker, Frank, Kathryn Riley & Charles F. Meyer. 1990. Untriggered reflexive pronouns in English. American Speech 65.1, 50-69.
Pollard, C. & I. A. Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 2, 261-303.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora question. Linguistics & Philosophy 6, 47-88.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1986. Center and periphery in the grammar of anaphora. In Lust, B. (ed.). Studies in the Acquision of Anaphora (vol. 1). Dordrecht: Reidel, 123-150.
Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland. 1991. Anaphors and logophors: An argument structure perspective. In Koster, J. & E. Reuland (eds.). Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 283-321.
Reinhart, Tanya & Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 4, 657-720.
Reuland, Eric. 2009. Binding theory. Downloaded from the Internet (Oct. 7, 2009). Reuland, Eric & Jan Koster. 1991. Long-distance anaphora: An overview. In Koster, J. & E. Reuland (eds.). Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-26.
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 445-479.
Schwarz-Friesel, M. 2007. Indirect anaphora in text: A cognitive account. In Schwarz-Friesel, M., M. Chonsten & M. Knees (eds.). Anaphors in Text. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stern, Nancy. 2004. The semantic unity of reflexive, emphatic and other -self pronouns. American Speech 79, 270-280.
Stirling, Lesley. 1993/2005. Switch-reference and Discourse Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(本文引用本:数码版本第一版, 2005)
Tang, C.-C. J. 1989. Chinese reflexives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 93-121.
Thráinsson, H. 1991. Long-distance reflexives and typology of NPs. In Koster, J. & E. Reuland (eds.). Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 49-76.
van Hoek, K. 1995. Conceptual reference points: A cognitive grammar account of pronominal anaphora constraints. Language 71, 310-340.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1990. Review article: Functionalism, Anaphora and Syntax. Studies in Language 14, 1, 169-219.
Xu, Liejiong. 1993. The long-distance binding of ziji. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 21, 123-141.
Xu, Liejiong. 1994. The antecedent of ziji. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 22, 115-137.
Zribi-Hertz, A. 1989. Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65, 695-727.
何自然,1988,《语用学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社。
胡建华、潘海华,2002,NP显著性的计算与汉语反身代词“自己”的指称,《当代语言学》第1期,46-60页。
姜望琪,2001,也谈新格莱斯照应理论,《外语教学与研究》第1期,29-37页。
刘礼进,1997,英汉人称代词回指和预指比较研究,《外国语》第6期,40-44页。
刘礼进,2001,英语话语中的间接照应,《四川外语学院》第2期,70-73页。
刘礼进,2003,英汉第三人称代词后照应的几个问题,《外国语言文学》第1期,20-24页。
刘礼进,2007a,汉语句内代词所指解读的语用学视角,《现代外语》第2期,135-143页。
刘礼进,2007b,汉语反身代词长距离照应研究中的一些问题,《汉语学习》第1期,25-31页。
刘礼进,2008a,现代汉语反身代词“自己”的照应功能,《外国语》第1期,36-44页。
刘礼进,2008b,英汉语强势反身代词用法的认知功能观,《外语教学与研究》第1期,29-36页。
刘礼进,2010,关于语言的本质——三种语言哲学观点述评,《外国语言文学》第1期,8-14页。
莫爱屏,2004,汉语话语中推理照应的实证研究,《现代外语》第3期,230-238页。
莫爱屏,2005,《汉语话语中推理照应的语用研究》,长沙:湖南人民出版社。
秦洪武,2001,第三人称代词在深层回指中的应用分析,《当代语言学》第1期,55-64页。
沈家煊,2001,语言的“主观性”和“主观化”,《外语教学与研究》第4期,268-275页。
束定芳、刘正光、徐盛桓,2009,引进与借鉴:我国国外语言学研究六十年,《外语教学与研究》第6期,431-437页。
王军,2004,;论关联度在间接回指释义中的主导作用,《现代外语》第3期,239-247页。
徐烈炯,1997,语言学理论与语言事实,《现代外语》第3期,27-32页。
许余龙,2000,也谈语言学理论与语言事实,《外国语》第3期,2-9页。
许余龙,2002,《对比语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
许余龙,2004,《篇章回指的功能语用探索——一项基于汉语民间故事和报刊语料的研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
许余龙,2005,对比功能分析的研究方法及其应用,《外语与外语教学》第11期,12-15页。