指示语的认知模型解析
|
摘要
语言中普遍存在的指示现象是语言学研究的重要议题。传统研究已经对指示现象进行了非常详细的描写,但仍然缺乏系统的理论框架。近几年指示语的认知研究虽然开辟了新的途径,但这些研究大多侧重个别指示现象,或者只强调指示语的经验解释。基于此,本研究建立了一个指示语认知模型,形象地描写指示的认知过程并据此揭示指示现象的本质。该模型的建立不仅能发展指示理论,同时为人工智能理解指示语提供准备,具有理论意义和实用价值。
通过分析形成指示现象的认知机制,即视角及视角转移、概念隐喻和认识模型,我们将指示语的认知模型定义为一个以说话人为原点,以空间、时间和情态为轴的笛卡尔坐标系,用矢量描写指示语在该系统中的语义结构。该模型涉及人称指示、空间指示、时间指示和情态指示,能够最大限度地涵盖指示现象。模型的结构和使用也以认知机制为基础,其中视角、空间隐喻和认识模型为模型基本结构的建立提供依据,而视角转移使模型以动态的方式解决问题。此外,概念隐喻使该模型的各层面存在关联,也使该模型成为一个有机系统。矢量的体现和运行也有其感知和神经生理基础,视角和远近空间差异决定矢量的方向和大小,而视角转移可以导致矢量的迁移、放大和缩小。这样一个以认知为基础的模型能够形象地模拟指示语在经验世界的产生和应用,清楚地展现指示语在言语交际中的认知“路径”。
指示语的认知模型采用几何空间模拟指示语的概念化过程。本研究以传统研究中的典型指示语和日常用语中的指示语为语料,用矢量空间描写其语义结构。人称代词和指示代词定位于物理空间轴,他们的定位存在某种内在关系。呼语和移情指示则定位于心理空间轴。在时间轴和情态轴上识别事件,已知现实由过去时间和现在时间表达,潜在现实由将来时间和情态动词表达。借助该模型,现在、过去和将来时态的一些异常用法可以得到合理的解释。同时,该模型中协调系统的整体移动为移动动词、历史现在时和条件句等用法提供了充分的说明。总之,指示就是说话人根据情景语境和经验现实为确定某实体的物理距离、心理距离和认识距离所作的“努力”,这一“努力”过程用矢量空间形象地表达出来。
基于认知模型中指示语的语义结构,本研究归纳总结了指示语的本质。首先,指示现象不是语言现象而是概念现象。据此,可将指示定义为说话人通往所指实体的认知“通道”,仅有指示意义没有指称意义。它可以由语言的自由形式和黏着形式表达,包括仅具指示意义的纯粹指示语和兼具指示意义和指称意义的非纯粹指示语。
同时本研究还区分了指示语的两种主观特性,即“客观”主观性和“主观”主观性。传统研究中所说的主观性其实是本研究中的“客观”主观性,它是说话人的主观感知,决定着指示的常规使用方法。而“主观”主观性则源于说话人的视角转移,每类指示语中都存在“主观”主观性,它使说话人经常使用各种异常的指示表达方式。
最后,本研究揭示了指示语的系统性,并建立了指示语的系统模型。指示是一个系统,因为指示语间存在关联。这种关联归因于人类的自我中心、空间认知、概念隐喻、视角转移和范畴化等认知机制。指示语系统是一个开放系统,即随着指示研究的深入进行,该系统将产生新的系统因素。
指示语的认知模型将为计算机识别指示语奠定基础。为了实现这个目标,我们下一步的工作是为指示语在模型中的精确定位提供必要条件,尤其是指示映射产生的先决条件。任务虽然艰巨,但具有实用价值。
Deixis, as a universal language phenomenon, is an important topic in linguistic studies. The traditional studies, though successful in providing a considerably detailed description of deixis, lack a theoretical framework, in terms of which deixis can be studied in a systematic way. The cognitive approaches to deixis in recent years shed new light on the study of deixis, but focus is only restricted to certain deictic expressions or the epistemic interpretation of deixis. The present study, based on the traditional and cognitive studies of deixis, builds up a cognitive model of deixis, by means of which the cognitive process of deixis can be iconically represented and the nature of deixis can be revealed from the perspective of cognition. The cognitive model of deixis can develop the theory of deixis, and provide the foundation for artificial intelligence to understand deixis. It is of theoretical significance and practical value.
By analyzing the three cognitive mechanisms that bring on deixis, i.e. viewpoint and viewpoint shift, conceptual metaphor and epistemic models, we define the cognitive model of deixis as a Cartesian coordinate system with three axes --- space, time and modality, in which the speaker is situated at the origin, and vectors are applied to represent the semantic configuration of deixis. This model involves person deixis, space deixis, time deixis and modal deixis, with the capacity of covering as much deixis as possible. Both the structure and the operation of the model are cognitively motivated in that viewpoint, spatial metaphor and epistemic models shape the basic structure of the model while viewpoint shift enables the model to work in a dynamic way. Moreover, conceptual metaphor makes it coherent by mapping the physical space axis onto the psychological space axis, the past time axis, the future time axis and the modality axis. Finally, vectors are figured and operated on the perceptual and neurophysiological bases. Viewpoint and proximal/distal distinction determine the direction and the length of vectors whereas viewpoint shift motivates vectors to function by way of transformation, dilation and contraction. Such a cognitively motivated model can best simulate the way deixis is derived and applied in the experiential situatedness of human individuals, and thus clearly show the cognitive“path”of deixis in actual speech communication.
In the cognitive model of deixis, geometric space is applied to figure the conceptualization of deixis. Some typical examples in the traditional studies and some commonly-used deictic expressions are adopted as language data. Their semantic configuration is iconically represented by a vector or a set of vectors. Personal pronouns and demonstratives are located on the physical space axis, and their locations are intrinsically interrelated. Vocatives and empathetic deixis reflect the speaker’s emotional distance or empathy, and therefore have their configurative presentation on the psychological space axis. Events are identified on the time axis and the modality axis. Known reality is designated by past time and present time while potential reality is indicated by future time and modals. With the help of these axes, some unconventional uses of present tense, past tense and future tense can be better explained. What’s more, some abnormal uses of deixis like verbs of motion, historical present and conditionals can also be better explained with the shift of coordinate system. In general, deixis in the study is about a speaker indicating the amount of“effort”that goes into determining the physical, psychological and epistemic status of a referent in terms of its definiteness and its proximity/distance vis-à-vis the origin of the model and the“effort”is iconically represented by geometric vectors.
In light of the semantic configuration of deixis in the cognitive model, the nature of deixis is revealed through inductive reasoning. In the first place, the study comes to the discovery that deixis is a conceptual phenomenon rather than a linguistic phenomenon. It can thus be defined as a cognitive“path”by which the speaker accesses the profiled entity; it has only deictic meaning and is devoid of referential meaning. Deixis can be morphologically expressed in free form and bound morpheme,covering pure deictic expressions with exclusive deictic meaning and non-deictic expressions with both deictic and referential meaning.
The study also differentiates the two degrees of subjectivity of deixis, the“objective”subjectivity and the“subjective”subjectivity. What is conventionally called subjectivity is actually the“objective”subjectivity in the study. It is the speaker’s subjective perception and determines the common uses of deixis in speech communication. The“subjective”subjectivity results from the speaker’s viewpoint shift. It is reflected in the application of all categories of deixis, and thus enables the speaker to coin various abnormal deictic expressions.
Finally, the study reveals the systematic nature of deixis and builds up a system model of deixis. Deixis is thought of as a system since it is composed of various deictic expressions that are interrelated to each other. The relations between categories of deixis and those between various deictic expressions are figured out in terms of human being’s cognitive mechanisms, including egocentric cognition, spatial cognition, conceptual metaphor, viewpoint shift, and categorization. Deixis is an open system, which implies that new deictic expressions will be introduced into the system with the further study on deixis.
The cognitive model of deixis proposed in the study lays the foundation for comprehending deixis on computer. In order to achieve this goal, it is our next job to provide all necessary conditions for the specific orientation of each deictic expression in the coordinate system, especially the prerequisites for deictic projection. This may be a tough job, but of practical value.
通过分析形成指示现象的认知机制,即视角及视角转移、概念隐喻和认识模型,我们将指示语的认知模型定义为一个以说话人为原点,以空间、时间和情态为轴的笛卡尔坐标系,用矢量描写指示语在该系统中的语义结构。该模型涉及人称指示、空间指示、时间指示和情态指示,能够最大限度地涵盖指示现象。模型的结构和使用也以认知机制为基础,其中视角、空间隐喻和认识模型为模型基本结构的建立提供依据,而视角转移使模型以动态的方式解决问题。此外,概念隐喻使该模型的各层面存在关联,也使该模型成为一个有机系统。矢量的体现和运行也有其感知和神经生理基础,视角和远近空间差异决定矢量的方向和大小,而视角转移可以导致矢量的迁移、放大和缩小。这样一个以认知为基础的模型能够形象地模拟指示语在经验世界的产生和应用,清楚地展现指示语在言语交际中的认知“路径”。
指示语的认知模型采用几何空间模拟指示语的概念化过程。本研究以传统研究中的典型指示语和日常用语中的指示语为语料,用矢量空间描写其语义结构。人称代词和指示代词定位于物理空间轴,他们的定位存在某种内在关系。呼语和移情指示则定位于心理空间轴。在时间轴和情态轴上识别事件,已知现实由过去时间和现在时间表达,潜在现实由将来时间和情态动词表达。借助该模型,现在、过去和将来时态的一些异常用法可以得到合理的解释。同时,该模型中协调系统的整体移动为移动动词、历史现在时和条件句等用法提供了充分的说明。总之,指示就是说话人根据情景语境和经验现实为确定某实体的物理距离、心理距离和认识距离所作的“努力”,这一“努力”过程用矢量空间形象地表达出来。
基于认知模型中指示语的语义结构,本研究归纳总结了指示语的本质。首先,指示现象不是语言现象而是概念现象。据此,可将指示定义为说话人通往所指实体的认知“通道”,仅有指示意义没有指称意义。它可以由语言的自由形式和黏着形式表达,包括仅具指示意义的纯粹指示语和兼具指示意义和指称意义的非纯粹指示语。
同时本研究还区分了指示语的两种主观特性,即“客观”主观性和“主观”主观性。传统研究中所说的主观性其实是本研究中的“客观”主观性,它是说话人的主观感知,决定着指示的常规使用方法。而“主观”主观性则源于说话人的视角转移,每类指示语中都存在“主观”主观性,它使说话人经常使用各种异常的指示表达方式。
最后,本研究揭示了指示语的系统性,并建立了指示语的系统模型。指示是一个系统,因为指示语间存在关联。这种关联归因于人类的自我中心、空间认知、概念隐喻、视角转移和范畴化等认知机制。指示语系统是一个开放系统,即随着指示研究的深入进行,该系统将产生新的系统因素。
指示语的认知模型将为计算机识别指示语奠定基础。为了实现这个目标,我们下一步的工作是为指示语在模型中的精确定位提供必要条件,尤其是指示映射产生的先决条件。任务虽然艰巨,但具有实用价值。
Deixis, as a universal language phenomenon, is an important topic in linguistic studies. The traditional studies, though successful in providing a considerably detailed description of deixis, lack a theoretical framework, in terms of which deixis can be studied in a systematic way. The cognitive approaches to deixis in recent years shed new light on the study of deixis, but focus is only restricted to certain deictic expressions or the epistemic interpretation of deixis. The present study, based on the traditional and cognitive studies of deixis, builds up a cognitive model of deixis, by means of which the cognitive process of deixis can be iconically represented and the nature of deixis can be revealed from the perspective of cognition. The cognitive model of deixis can develop the theory of deixis, and provide the foundation for artificial intelligence to understand deixis. It is of theoretical significance and practical value.
By analyzing the three cognitive mechanisms that bring on deixis, i.e. viewpoint and viewpoint shift, conceptual metaphor and epistemic models, we define the cognitive model of deixis as a Cartesian coordinate system with three axes --- space, time and modality, in which the speaker is situated at the origin, and vectors are applied to represent the semantic configuration of deixis. This model involves person deixis, space deixis, time deixis and modal deixis, with the capacity of covering as much deixis as possible. Both the structure and the operation of the model are cognitively motivated in that viewpoint, spatial metaphor and epistemic models shape the basic structure of the model while viewpoint shift enables the model to work in a dynamic way. Moreover, conceptual metaphor makes it coherent by mapping the physical space axis onto the psychological space axis, the past time axis, the future time axis and the modality axis. Finally, vectors are figured and operated on the perceptual and neurophysiological bases. Viewpoint and proximal/distal distinction determine the direction and the length of vectors whereas viewpoint shift motivates vectors to function by way of transformation, dilation and contraction. Such a cognitively motivated model can best simulate the way deixis is derived and applied in the experiential situatedness of human individuals, and thus clearly show the cognitive“path”of deixis in actual speech communication.
In the cognitive model of deixis, geometric space is applied to figure the conceptualization of deixis. Some typical examples in the traditional studies and some commonly-used deictic expressions are adopted as language data. Their semantic configuration is iconically represented by a vector or a set of vectors. Personal pronouns and demonstratives are located on the physical space axis, and their locations are intrinsically interrelated. Vocatives and empathetic deixis reflect the speaker’s emotional distance or empathy, and therefore have their configurative presentation on the psychological space axis. Events are identified on the time axis and the modality axis. Known reality is designated by past time and present time while potential reality is indicated by future time and modals. With the help of these axes, some unconventional uses of present tense, past tense and future tense can be better explained. What’s more, some abnormal uses of deixis like verbs of motion, historical present and conditionals can also be better explained with the shift of coordinate system. In general, deixis in the study is about a speaker indicating the amount of“effort”that goes into determining the physical, psychological and epistemic status of a referent in terms of its definiteness and its proximity/distance vis-à-vis the origin of the model and the“effort”is iconically represented by geometric vectors.
In light of the semantic configuration of deixis in the cognitive model, the nature of deixis is revealed through inductive reasoning. In the first place, the study comes to the discovery that deixis is a conceptual phenomenon rather than a linguistic phenomenon. It can thus be defined as a cognitive“path”by which the speaker accesses the profiled entity; it has only deictic meaning and is devoid of referential meaning. Deixis can be morphologically expressed in free form and bound morpheme,covering pure deictic expressions with exclusive deictic meaning and non-deictic expressions with both deictic and referential meaning.
The study also differentiates the two degrees of subjectivity of deixis, the“objective”subjectivity and the“subjective”subjectivity. What is conventionally called subjectivity is actually the“objective”subjectivity in the study. It is the speaker’s subjective perception and determines the common uses of deixis in speech communication. The“subjective”subjectivity results from the speaker’s viewpoint shift. It is reflected in the application of all categories of deixis, and thus enables the speaker to coin various abnormal deictic expressions.
Finally, the study reveals the systematic nature of deixis and builds up a system model of deixis. Deixis is thought of as a system since it is composed of various deictic expressions that are interrelated to each other. The relations between categories of deixis and those between various deictic expressions are figured out in terms of human being’s cognitive mechanisms, including egocentric cognition, spatial cognition, conceptual metaphor, viewpoint shift, and categorization. Deixis is an open system, which implies that new deictic expressions will be introduced into the system with the further study on deixis.
The cognitive model of deixis proposed in the study lays the foundation for comprehending deixis on computer. In order to achieve this goal, it is our next job to provide all necessary conditions for the specific orientation of each deictic expression in the coordinate system, especially the prerequisites for deictic projection. This may be a tough job, but of practical value.
引文
Allwood, H., Anderson, L. & Dahl, O. 1977. Logic in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ariel, M. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65-87.
Bar-Hillel, Y. 1954. Indexical expressions. Mind 63: 359-79.
Bergen, B. K. 2005. The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existentials. Cognitive Linguistics Vol.16 Issue1: 1-42.
Bonomi, A. 2006. Truth and reference in context. Journal of Semantics Vol. 23 No. 2: 107-134.
Borg, E. 2002. Pointing at Jack, talking about Jill: understanding deferred uses of demonstratives and pronouns. Mind & Language Vol. 17 No. 5: 489-512.
Brandt, L. & Aage, P. 2005. Making sense of a blend: a cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics Vol. 3 Issue 1: 216-249.
Brisard, F. (ed.). 2002a. Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brisard, F. 2002b. Introduction: The epistemic basis of deixis and reference. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, xi-xxxiv. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brisard, F. 2002c. The English present. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, 251-297. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, E. K. & Miller, J. E. 1980. Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure. London: Hutchinson.
Brown, G. & Yule, G.. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G., K. M., Pollitt, A. & Williams, J. 1994. Language and Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bruner, J. 1974. From communication to language --- a psychological perspective. In V. Lee (ed.) Language Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bühler, K. 1982 [1934]. The deictic field of language and deictic words. In R. J. Javella& W. Klein (eds.), Speech, Place and Action, 9-30. New York: Wiley.
Cann, R. 1993. Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chilton, P. 2005. Vectors, viewpoint and viewpoint shift. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 78-116.
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B. 2005. Tense. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Cornillie, B. 2005. On modal grounding, reference points, and subjectification: the case of the Spanish epistemic modals. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics Vol.3 Issue1:56-77.
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Declerk, R. & Reed, S. 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Epstein, R. 2002. Grounding, subjectivity and definite descriptions. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, 41-82. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fasold, R. 2000. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces. London: Bradford Book.
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, C. J. 1966. Deictic categories in the semantics of come. Foundations of Language 2: 219-27.
Fillmore, C. J. 1971a. Toward a theory of deixis. In The PCCLLU Papers (Department of Linguistics, University of Harwaii), 3.4: 219-41.
Fillmore, C. J. 1971b. Coming and Going. Unpublished MS. Summer Program in Linguistics, University of California at Santa Cruz.
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In R. J. Javellaand W. Klein (eds.), Speech, Place and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, 31-59. New York: Wiley.
Finegan, E. 1995. Subjectivity and subjectivisation: an introduction. In S. Stein & S. Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, 1-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Firth, J. R. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-1955. Studies in Linguistic Analysis (special volume of the Philological Society). Oxford: Blackwell.
Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. 1983. An Introduction to Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Geach, P. T. 1962. Reference and Generality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Gibson, E. J., Spelke, E. & Olson, S. 1983. The development of perception. In Flavell & E. M. Markman (eds.), Mussen Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. III Cognitive Development: 1-76. New York: John Wiley.
Halliday, M. A. K. 2001. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 2001. Cohesion in English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hanks, W. F. 1989. The indexical ground of deictic reference. In B. M. R. Graczyk & C. Wiltshire (eds.), Paper from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: Parasession on Language in Context, 104-122. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Hanks, W. F. 1990. Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hanks, W. F. 1992. The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hergenhann, B. R. 1986. An Introduction to the History of Psychology. Balmont: Wadsworth.
Huddleston, P. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, P. 1988. English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, R.A. 1983. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hurford, J. & Heasly, B. 1983. Semantics: a Course Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Isard, S. 1975. Changing the context. In E. L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Janssen, T. A. J. M. 2002. Deictic principles of pronominals, demonstratives, and tenses. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, 151-196. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jaszczolt, K. M. 2004. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
Kempson, R. M. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol.I Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol.II Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 2002a. Remarks on the English grounding systems. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, 29-38. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 2002b. Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, 1-28. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Laury, R. 2002. Interaction, grounding and third-person referential forms. In F. Brisard(ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, 83-111. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1968. An Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1975. Deixis as the source of reference. In E. L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, 61-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1977a. Deixis and anaphora. In T. Myers (ed.), The Development of Conversation and Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lyons, J. 1977b. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 2000. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Merriam Webster’s Desk Dictionary 1st ed. 1996. Springfield: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Mey, J. L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Moore, K. E. 2006. Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics Vol. 17 Issue 2: 199-244.
Palmer, F. R. 1983. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pascual, E. 2006. Fictive interaction within the sentence: a communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics Vol. 17 Issue 2: 245-267.
Peirce, C. S. 1932. Division of Signs. In Hartshorne & Weiss (eds.), Collected Papers of C.S. Peirce Vol II. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. 1956. The Child’s Conception of Space. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Poole, S. C. 2000. An Introduction to Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. London: Macmillan.
Saeed, J. H. 2000. Semantics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Tanz, C. 1980. Studies in the Acquisition of Deictic Terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. & Pratt, M. L. 1980. Linguistics for Students of Literature. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. J. 2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wales, R. 1979. Deixis. In P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds.), Language Acquisition, 241-60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yule, G. 1985. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. London: Oxford University Press.
保罗·利科,汪堂家译,2004,《活的隐喻》。上海译文出版社。
陈令君、马坤,人称指示的语用投射及其交际功能,《北方论丛》2006年第1期,63-66。
陈忠华、刘心全、杨春苑,2003,《知识与语篇理解:话语分析认知科学方法论》。外语教学与研究出版社。
程琪龙,2006,《概念框架和认知》。上海外语教育出版社。
戴浩一,以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议,《国外语言学》1990年第4期,21-27。
郭聿楷,指示语:研究历史、属性、分类及其他,《外语教学》1995年第4期,7-11。
何兆熊,1999,《新编语用学概要》。上海外语教育出版社。
侯国金,this的语用综述,《内蒙古民族大学学报》,2002年第2期,51-57。
胡壮麟,2004,《认知隐喻学》。北京大学出版社。
蓝纯,2003,《从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻》。外语教学与研究出版社。
刘宇红a,可能世界与心理空间,《湘潭大学社会科学学报》,2002年第5期,152-155。
刘宇红b,指示语的多元认知研究,《外语学刊》2002年第4期,60-63。
卢植,2006,《认知与语言——认知语言学引论》。上海外语教育出版社。
马林、李洁红,空间参照框架:语言与认知研究的新理论,《外语学刊》2005年第4期,29-33。
冉永平,2006,《语用学:现象与分析》。北京大学出版社。
沈家煊,语言的“主观性”和“主观化”,《外语教学与研究》2001年第4期,268-275。
石锡书,心理造成的“移花接木”:漫谈心理距离对指示语用法的影响,《山东外语教学》2004年第1期,50-57。
石毓智,2006,《语法的概念基础》。上海外语教育出版社。
束定芳,2000,《隐喻学研究》。上海外语教育出版社。
孙飞凤,英汉人称代词社交指示功能的语用对比研究,《集美大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2006年第1期,81-86。
孙蕾,西方指示语研究的历史及现状,《四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2002年第6期,70-75。
孙蕾,方位词语义辨析,《外语学刊》2005年第4期,72-77。
王蕊,主观性在人称代词移用中的表现,《四川教育学院学报》2004年第20卷第9 期,77-79。
王义娜,话语指称的认知构建与心理空间可及性,《外国语》2003年第5期,35-42。
王寅, 2001,《语义理论与语言教学》。上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2005,《认知语法概论》。上海外语教育出版社。
许余龙,2004,《篇章回指的功能语用探索》。上海外语教育出版社。
游晓琼,从认知角度看会话中人称指示语的映射现象,《南昌高专学报》2006年第1期,50-53。
章振邦,1995,《新编英语语法教程》。上海外语教育出版社。
赵艳芳,2000,《认知语言学概论》。上海外语教育出版社。
朱永生、郑立信、苗兴伟,2001,《英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究》。上海外语教育出版社。
Ariel, M. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65-87.
Bar-Hillel, Y. 1954. Indexical expressions. Mind 63: 359-79.
Bergen, B. K. 2005. The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existentials. Cognitive Linguistics Vol.16 Issue1: 1-42.
Bonomi, A. 2006. Truth and reference in context. Journal of Semantics Vol. 23 No. 2: 107-134.
Borg, E. 2002. Pointing at Jack, talking about Jill: understanding deferred uses of demonstratives and pronouns. Mind & Language Vol. 17 No. 5: 489-512.
Brandt, L. & Aage, P. 2005. Making sense of a blend: a cognitive-semiotic approach to metaphor. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics Vol. 3 Issue 1: 216-249.
Brisard, F. (ed.). 2002a. Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brisard, F. 2002b. Introduction: The epistemic basis of deixis and reference. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, xi-xxxiv. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brisard, F. 2002c. The English present. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, 251-297. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, E. K. & Miller, J. E. 1980. Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure. London: Hutchinson.
Brown, G. & Yule, G.. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G., K. M., Pollitt, A. & Williams, J. 1994. Language and Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bruner, J. 1974. From communication to language --- a psychological perspective. In V. Lee (ed.) Language Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bühler, K. 1982 [1934]. The deictic field of language and deictic words. In R. J. Javella& W. Klein (eds.), Speech, Place and Action, 9-30. New York: Wiley.
Cann, R. 1993. Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chilton, P. 2005. Vectors, viewpoint and viewpoint shift. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 78-116.
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B. 2005. Tense. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Cornillie, B. 2005. On modal grounding, reference points, and subjectification: the case of the Spanish epistemic modals. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics Vol.3 Issue1:56-77.
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Declerk, R. & Reed, S. 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Epstein, R. 2002. Grounding, subjectivity and definite descriptions. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, 41-82. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fasold, R. 2000. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces. London: Bradford Book.
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, C. J. 1966. Deictic categories in the semantics of come. Foundations of Language 2: 219-27.
Fillmore, C. J. 1971a. Toward a theory of deixis. In The PCCLLU Papers (Department of Linguistics, University of Harwaii), 3.4: 219-41.
Fillmore, C. J. 1971b. Coming and Going. Unpublished MS. Summer Program in Linguistics, University of California at Santa Cruz.
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In R. J. Javellaand W. Klein (eds.), Speech, Place and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, 31-59. New York: Wiley.
Finegan, E. 1995. Subjectivity and subjectivisation: an introduction. In S. Stein & S. Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, 1-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Firth, J. R. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-1955. Studies in Linguistic Analysis (special volume of the Philological Society). Oxford: Blackwell.
Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. 1983. An Introduction to Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Geach, P. T. 1962. Reference and Generality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Gibson, E. J., Spelke, E. & Olson, S. 1983. The development of perception. In Flavell & E. M. Markman (eds.), Mussen Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. III Cognitive Development: 1-76. New York: John Wiley.
Halliday, M. A. K. 2001. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 2001. Cohesion in English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Hanks, W. F. 1989. The indexical ground of deictic reference. In B. M. R. Graczyk & C. Wiltshire (eds.), Paper from the 25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: Parasession on Language in Context, 104-122. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Hanks, W. F. 1990. Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hanks, W. F. 1992. The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hergenhann, B. R. 1986. An Introduction to the History of Psychology. Balmont: Wadsworth.
Huddleston, P. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, P. 1988. English Grammar: An Outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, R.A. 1983. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hurford, J. & Heasly, B. 1983. Semantics: a Course Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Isard, S. 1975. Changing the context. In E. L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Janssen, T. A. J. M. 2002. Deictic principles of pronominals, demonstratives, and tenses. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, 151-196. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jaszczolt, K. M. 2004. Semantics and Pragmatics: Meaning in Language and Discourse. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
Kempson, R. M. 1977. Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol.I Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol.II Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. 2002a. Remarks on the English grounding systems. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, 29-38. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 2002b. Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, 1-28. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Laury, R. 2002. Interaction, grounding and third-person referential forms. In F. Brisard(ed.), Grounding: The Epistemic Footing of Deixis and Reference, 83-111. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1968. An Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1975. Deixis as the source of reference. In E. L. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, 61-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 1977a. Deixis and anaphora. In T. Myers (ed.), The Development of Conversation and Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lyons, J. 1977b. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. 2000. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Merriam Webster’s Desk Dictionary 1st ed. 1996. Springfield: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Mey, J. L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Moore, K. E. 2006. Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics Vol. 17 Issue 2: 199-244.
Palmer, F. R. 1983. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pascual, E. 2006. Fictive interaction within the sentence: a communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics Vol. 17 Issue 2: 245-267.
Peirce, C. S. 1932. Division of Signs. In Hartshorne & Weiss (eds.), Collected Papers of C.S. Peirce Vol II. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. 1956. The Child’s Conception of Space. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Poole, S. C. 2000. An Introduction to Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. London: Macmillan.
Saeed, J. H. 2000. Semantics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Tanz, C. 1980. Studies in the Acquisition of Deictic Terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. & Pratt, M. L. 1980. Linguistics for Students of Literature. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ungerer, F. & Schmid, H. J. 2001. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wales, R. 1979. Deixis. In P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds.), Language Acquisition, 241-60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yule, G. 1985. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. London: Oxford University Press.
保罗·利科,汪堂家译,2004,《活的隐喻》。上海译文出版社。
陈令君、马坤,人称指示的语用投射及其交际功能,《北方论丛》2006年第1期,63-66。
陈忠华、刘心全、杨春苑,2003,《知识与语篇理解:话语分析认知科学方法论》。外语教学与研究出版社。
程琪龙,2006,《概念框架和认知》。上海外语教育出版社。
戴浩一,以认知为基础的汉语功能语法刍议,《国外语言学》1990年第4期,21-27。
郭聿楷,指示语:研究历史、属性、分类及其他,《外语教学》1995年第4期,7-11。
何兆熊,1999,《新编语用学概要》。上海外语教育出版社。
侯国金,this的语用综述,《内蒙古民族大学学报》,2002年第2期,51-57。
胡壮麟,2004,《认知隐喻学》。北京大学出版社。
蓝纯,2003,《从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻》。外语教学与研究出版社。
刘宇红a,可能世界与心理空间,《湘潭大学社会科学学报》,2002年第5期,152-155。
刘宇红b,指示语的多元认知研究,《外语学刊》2002年第4期,60-63。
卢植,2006,《认知与语言——认知语言学引论》。上海外语教育出版社。
马林、李洁红,空间参照框架:语言与认知研究的新理论,《外语学刊》2005年第4期,29-33。
冉永平,2006,《语用学:现象与分析》。北京大学出版社。
沈家煊,语言的“主观性”和“主观化”,《外语教学与研究》2001年第4期,268-275。
石锡书,心理造成的“移花接木”:漫谈心理距离对指示语用法的影响,《山东外语教学》2004年第1期,50-57。
石毓智,2006,《语法的概念基础》。上海外语教育出版社。
束定芳,2000,《隐喻学研究》。上海外语教育出版社。
孙飞凤,英汉人称代词社交指示功能的语用对比研究,《集美大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2006年第1期,81-86。
孙蕾,西方指示语研究的历史及现状,《四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2002年第6期,70-75。
孙蕾,方位词语义辨析,《外语学刊》2005年第4期,72-77。
王蕊,主观性在人称代词移用中的表现,《四川教育学院学报》2004年第20卷第9 期,77-79。
王义娜,话语指称的认知构建与心理空间可及性,《外国语》2003年第5期,35-42。
王寅, 2001,《语义理论与语言教学》。上海外语教育出版社。
王寅,2005,《认知语法概论》。上海外语教育出版社。
许余龙,2004,《篇章回指的功能语用探索》。上海外语教育出版社。
游晓琼,从认知角度看会话中人称指示语的映射现象,《南昌高专学报》2006年第1期,50-53。
章振邦,1995,《新编英语语法教程》。上海外语教育出版社。
赵艳芳,2000,《认知语言学概论》。上海外语教育出版社。
朱永生、郑立信、苗兴伟,2001,《英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究》。上海外语教育出版社。