基于DRT框架的汉语驴子句研究
摘要
自Peter Geach (1962)提出最初的驴子句“Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it."以来,该语言现象就成为语言逻辑领域和语言学领域所关注的重要问题。针对驴子句所涉及的不定名词、量词、辖域等问题,不同领域的学者们从不同方面对该语言现象进行了形式的和非形式的解释和说明,并发展出了针对处理该语言现象的相关形式语义理论。可以说,驴子句研究促进了自上世纪八十年代以来的动态语义研究。
鉴于驴子句对以英语为主要研究对象的语义研究的重要推动作用,近年来,国内学者们纷纷探讨了汉语中的驴子句现象,并主要对汉语中驴子句的分类及表现形式作了大量的研究。本文在这样的大背景下,尝试借鉴处理英语驴子句的一种语义理论—话语表现理论(Discourse Representation Theory,简称DRT)来处理汉语驴子句。这一工作的关键步骤首先是要了解DRT对英语驴子句处理的基本思想和框架；第二,针对英语驴子旬现象的基本特征,对国内已有的汉语驴子句分类研究进行总结和归纳,给出典型的汉语驴子句类型;第三,在DRT框架的基础上,针对汉语驴子句所涉及的句法和语义对原有的DRT构造进行补充和改造,使其成为能够处理汉语驴子句相关语句的理论DRTc,而后我们尝试在DRTc下对汉语驴子句进行处理和解释。
文章主要的创新,首先是对国内汉语驴子句已有的研究成果进行梳理,并归纳整理出几类典型的汉语驴子句；第二是尝试对DRT框架进行补充和改造,使其能够囊括与汉语驴子句相关的句法和语义内容,并随之尝试在调适后的DRTc下对几类汉语驴子句进行解释和处理；另外,就自然语言语句的信息承载功能,并考虑影响语义的多种因素,我们尝试将语句的确定性语义解释置于信息交流的过程中,尝试对DRT已有的模型进行扩充,将信息交流双方的背景知识置于模型的结构中,使得一语句的确定语义解释具有相对性,即相对于交流双方的背景知识,以便更好地实现语句作为信息载体的流通和传输功能。
Since Peter Geach(1962) put forward the original donkey sentence "Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it.", this linguistic problem has become an important research object in the fields of logic and linguistics. As to those problems involved in donkey sentence, researchers from different fields have given formal and informal explanations about it from different aspects. They also developed relative formal semantic theories in order to solve this problem. We could say that researches on donkey sentence have speeded the research of dynamic semantics since80th of last century.
Because those researches on donkey sentences have promoted the development of the semantic research which is mainly about English, scholars begin to discuss Chinese donkey sentences from those years. They also made a lot of researches on types or patterns of manifestation of Chinese donkey sentences. On such a background, we try to analyze Chinese donkey sentences by Discourse Representation Theory (DRT for short) which could process English donkey sentences. There are some key steps about this work:First, we have to know the basic thought and framework of DRT which could be used to analyze English donkey sentences; second, we have to summarize domestic researches on Chinese donkey sentences'classifications and give typical forms of Chinese donkey sentences based on the fundamental characters of English donkey sentences; third, based on DRT's framework, we try to add something new ideas to the syntax and semantics of DRT for the researches about Chinese donkey sentences. This modification will make DRT be a correlative theory to Chinese donkey sentences which we could use DRTc to represent it. Finally we could try to solve Chinese donkey sentences and give their explanations on DRTc.
The main creativity of this dissertation lies in some aspects as follow:first, we have summarized those domestic researches on Chinese donkey sentences, and distinguished several typical forms of Chinese donkey sentences; second, we try to make some modifications for DRT's framework. We make it contain syntax and semantic contents associated with Chinese donkey sentences and give processions and explanations of those kinds of Chinese donkey sentences on the frame of adjusted DRTc; furthermore, in the consideration of the function of bearing information of natural language and those factors affecting its semantics, we try to give a definite explanation of a sentence in the process of information exchanges and try to expand DRT's model. We put the background knowledge of the two sides of information exchanging in one model, which makes the definite explanation of a sentence is relative, that is to say on different background knowledge of exchanging, the semantics of a sentence could be different, so that will better reflect function of circulating and conveying of sentences as information bearers.
鉴于驴子句对以英语为主要研究对象的语义研究的重要推动作用,近年来,国内学者们纷纷探讨了汉语中的驴子句现象,并主要对汉语中驴子句的分类及表现形式作了大量的研究。本文在这样的大背景下,尝试借鉴处理英语驴子句的一种语义理论—话语表现理论(Discourse Representation Theory,简称DRT)来处理汉语驴子句。这一工作的关键步骤首先是要了解DRT对英语驴子句处理的基本思想和框架；第二,针对英语驴子旬现象的基本特征,对国内已有的汉语驴子句分类研究进行总结和归纳,给出典型的汉语驴子句类型;第三,在DRT框架的基础上,针对汉语驴子句所涉及的句法和语义对原有的DRT构造进行补充和改造,使其成为能够处理汉语驴子句相关语句的理论DRTc,而后我们尝试在DRTc下对汉语驴子句进行处理和解释。
文章主要的创新,首先是对国内汉语驴子句已有的研究成果进行梳理,并归纳整理出几类典型的汉语驴子句；第二是尝试对DRT框架进行补充和改造,使其能够囊括与汉语驴子句相关的句法和语义内容,并随之尝试在调适后的DRTc下对几类汉语驴子句进行解释和处理；另外,就自然语言语句的信息承载功能,并考虑影响语义的多种因素,我们尝试将语句的确定性语义解释置于信息交流的过程中,尝试对DRT已有的模型进行扩充,将信息交流双方的背景知识置于模型的结构中,使得一语句的确定语义解释具有相对性,即相对于交流双方的背景知识,以便更好地实现语句作为信息载体的流通和传输功能。
Since Peter Geach(1962) put forward the original donkey sentence "Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it.", this linguistic problem has become an important research object in the fields of logic and linguistics. As to those problems involved in donkey sentence, researchers from different fields have given formal and informal explanations about it from different aspects. They also developed relative formal semantic theories in order to solve this problem. We could say that researches on donkey sentence have speeded the research of dynamic semantics since80th of last century.
Because those researches on donkey sentences have promoted the development of the semantic research which is mainly about English, scholars begin to discuss Chinese donkey sentences from those years. They also made a lot of researches on types or patterns of manifestation of Chinese donkey sentences. On such a background, we try to analyze Chinese donkey sentences by Discourse Representation Theory (DRT for short) which could process English donkey sentences. There are some key steps about this work:First, we have to know the basic thought and framework of DRT which could be used to analyze English donkey sentences; second, we have to summarize domestic researches on Chinese donkey sentences'classifications and give typical forms of Chinese donkey sentences based on the fundamental characters of English donkey sentences; third, based on DRT's framework, we try to add something new ideas to the syntax and semantics of DRT for the researches about Chinese donkey sentences. This modification will make DRT be a correlative theory to Chinese donkey sentences which we could use DRTc to represent it. Finally we could try to solve Chinese donkey sentences and give their explanations on DRTc.
The main creativity of this dissertation lies in some aspects as follow:first, we have summarized those domestic researches on Chinese donkey sentences, and distinguished several typical forms of Chinese donkey sentences; second, we try to make some modifications for DRT's framework. We make it contain syntax and semantic contents associated with Chinese donkey sentences and give processions and explanations of those kinds of Chinese donkey sentences on the frame of adjusted DRTc; furthermore, in the consideration of the function of bearing information of natural language and those factors affecting its semantics, we try to give a definite explanation of a sentence in the process of information exchanges and try to expand DRT's model. We put the background knowledge of the two sides of information exchanging in one model, which makes the definite explanation of a sentence is relative, that is to say on different background knowledge of exchanging, the semantics of a sentence could be different, so that will better reflect function of circulating and conveying of sentences as information bearers.
引文
1 参见Saurer, W. A Natural Deduction System for Discourse Representation Theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic.1993(22):249.
1 Kamp, H.,& Reyle, U. From discourse to logic.1993:24.
1 参加Kamp Hans & Uwe Reyle,1993:65.
1 参见Kamp Hans & Uwe Reyle,1993:84
1 见Van Benthem & ter Meulen. Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language. GRASS Series 4. Dordrecht:Foris. 1985.
1 Cheng, Lisa L. -S & Huang, C.-T. James.Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language semantics.1996(4): 126.
1 Cheng, Lisa L.-S & Huang, C. -T. James. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language semantics. 1996(4):129.
1 Pan, Haihua&Jiangyan. NP interpretation and Chinese donkey sentences]. Proceedings of the Workshop on Inerface Strategies in Chinese:Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases. Summer Institute of Linguistics of the Society of America, Cornell Universtiy.1997:7-8.
1 Jiang, Y.. H.P.,& C. Zou. On the semantic content of noun phrases. In Xu. L.-J. The referential properties of Chinese noun phrases. Paris:Ecole Des Hautes en Sciences Sociales.1997:17.
1 Huang, Aijun. A DR—theoretical account of Chinese donkey anaphora. Changsha:Hunan Normal University. 2003:33.
1 Huang, Aijun. A DR—theoretical account of Chinese donkey anaphora. Changsha:Hunan Normal University. 2003:41.
1 Huang, Aijun. A DR—theoretical account of Chinese donkey anaphora. Changsha:Hunan Normal University. 2003:43.
1 Huang, Aijun. A DR—theoretical account of Chinese donkey anaphora. Changsha:Hunan Normal University. 2003:48.
1 Cheng, Lisa L. -S & Huang, C.-T. James. Two types of donkey sentences. [J]. Natural Language semantics. 1996(4):159.
2 Cheng, Lisa L. -S & Huang, C.-T. James. Two types of donkey sentences. [J].Natural Language semantics. 1996(4):159.
3 温寅利.英语的“驴句”与汉语的“什么…什么句”.现代外语,1997(3)：11。
1 温宾利.“什么…什么句”：一种关系结构.现代外语,1998(4)：15。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语高大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：106。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：108,
2 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：111。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：115。
1 Ning, C. Y. De as a functional head in Chinese[A]. Working paper in linguistics. Irvine:University of Clifornia. 1996:64-65.
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：118。
1 Heim, I & Krazter. Semantics in generative grammar. Massachusetts:Blackwell.1998:115.
2 杨彩梅.“Dep结构”的λ提取与可追踪性原则.现代外语,2003(3)：244。
3 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：122。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：122-123。
2 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：124。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：42。
2 Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carlson, G.. Meulen, A., Link. G.,& Chierchia, G. Genericity:An introduction. In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier, The generic book. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.1995:8.
1 Cohen, A. Think generic:The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford:CSLI Publications.1999:77.
2 Nagel, E. The structure of science; problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York:Harcourt, Brace & World.1961:59.
1 Cohen, A. Think generic:The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford:CSLI Publications.1999:37.
2 Cohen, A. Think generic:The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford:CSLI Publications.1999:38.
3 Cohen, A. Think generic:The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford:CSLI Publications.1999:128.
1 Cohen, A. Think generic:The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford:CSLI Publications.1999: 130-131.
1 Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carlson, G., Meulen, A., Link, G.,& Chierchia, G. Genericity:An introduction. In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier, The generic book. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1995:47.
1 文卫平、英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：53。
1 Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carlson, G., Meulen, A., Link, G.,& Chierchia, G. Genericity:An introduction. In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier, The generic book. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1995:51.
2 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：56。
1 Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carlson, G., Meulen, A.. Link, G.,& Chierchia, G. Genericity:An introduction. In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier, The generic book. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1995:58.
1 Heim, I. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis. University of Massachusetts. Amherst.1982:35.
1 徐国庆.现代汉语词汇系统论.北京：北京大学出版社,1999：178。
2 黎锦熙.1924.新著国语文法.北京：商务印书馆2001年版：84。
3 朱德熙.语法讲义.北京：商务印书馆,1982：52。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：66-67。
2 高顺全.试论汉语通指的表达方式.语言教学与研究,2004(3)：15-19。
3 仲崇涛.类指现象研究.南京：南京师范大学,2001：11-15。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言博士学位论文,2006：70。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：78。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：81。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：86-87,
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：132。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：135。
2 Heim, I. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis. University of Massachusetts. Amherst.2011 Edition:35.
[1]邹崇理.逻辑、语言和蒙太格语法.北京：社科科学文献出版社,1995
[2]邹崇理.自然语言逻辑研究.北京：北京大学出版社,2000
[3]邹崇理.逻辑、语言和信息.北京：人民出版社,2002
[4]徐国庆.现代汉语词汇系统论.北京：商务印书馆,1999
[5]黎锦熙.新著国语文法.北京：科学出版社,2001
[6]朱德熙.语法讲义.北京：商务印书馆,1982
[7]马彦华,王能忠,许敏.汉语中人称代词指代问题研究.中文信息处理国际会议论文集.北京：清华大学出版社,1998：298-303
[8]高原.照应词的认知分析.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2003
[9]吕叔湘.现代汉语八百词.北京：商业出版社,1980
[10]Asher, N.,& Wang, L. Ambiguity and anaphora with plurals in discourse. In R. Young & Y. Zhou (Eds.)-Proceedings of SALT XIII. Ithaca:CLC Publications,2003:19-36
[11]Cooper, R.. The interpretation of pronouns. In F. Henry & H. Schnelle (Eds.). The nature of syntactic representations, syntax and semantics. New York:Academic Press, 1979:61-92
[12]Chierchia. Gennaro. Dynamics of Meaning:Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1995
[13]Chierchia, G. A puzzle about indefinites. In C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia,& M. T. Guasti (Eds.), Semantic interfaces:Reference, anaphora and aspect. Stanford: CSLI,2001:51-89
[14]Cohen, A. Think generic:The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford:CSLI Publications,1999
[15]Elbourne, Paul.'On the Semantics of Pronouns and Definite Articles', in K. Megerdoomian and L. A. Bar-el (eds.). Proceedings of WCCFL 20. Mass:Cascadilla Press,2001:164-177
[16]Geach, P. T. Reference and Generality. Ithaca. NY:Cornell University Press, 1962
[17]Gupta, A. K. The Logic of Common Nouns. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1980
[18]Grice, P. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge. MA:Harvard University Press, 1989
[19]Heim, I & Krazter. Semantics in generative grammar. Massachusetts:Blackwell, 1998
[20]Kamp Hans, Uwe Reyle. From discourse to logic. Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht:Kluwer,1993
[21]Kamp, H. The importance of presupposition. In Christian Rohrer, Antje Rossdeutscher, Hans Kamp, editors. Liguistic Form and its Computation. Standord: CSLI-Publications,2001
[22]Krifka, M. Pragmatic strengthening in plural predications and donkey sentences. In T. Galloway & J. Spence (Eds.). Proceedings from SALT VI. Ithaca:CLC Publications, 1996:136-153
[23]King, Jeffrey C. Complex Demonstratives:A Quantificational Account. Cambridge: MIT Press,2001
[24]Lawler, J. Studies in English generics. University of Michigan papers in linguistics. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,1973
[25]Larson, Richard and Gabriel Segal. Knowledge of Meaning. Cambridge:MIT Press.. 1995
[26]Nagel, E. The structure of science; problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York:Harcourt, Brace & World,1961
[27]Putnam, H. Is semantic possible? In H. E. Kiefer& M. k. Munitz, Language, belief and metaphysics. New York:State University of New York Press,1970:50-63
[28]Putnam, H. The meaning of meaning. In K. Gunderson, Language, mind and knowledge. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1975:131-193
[29]Platteau, F. Definite and indefinite generics. In J. van der Auwera, Semantics of determiners. London:Croom Helm.1980:112-123
[30]Thrane, T. Referential-semantic analysis:Aspects of a theory of linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1980
[31]Van Hoek Karen. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1997
[32]van Eijck, Jan and Hans Kamp. Representing Discourse in Context. In Handbook of Logic and Language, van Benthem, ter Meulen (eds.). Cambridge:The MIT Press, 1997
[33]Williamson, T. Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000
[1]谌志群,周昌乐,郑洪.汉语语篇中人称指代消歧研究.江西师范大学学报(自然科学版).(增刊),1998：121-124
[2]高彦梅.代词衔接功能的认知研究.外语学刊,2003(1)
[3]廖秋忠.现代汉语篇章中指同的表达.中国语文,1986(2)
[4]刘礼进.英汉人称代词回指和预指比较研究.外国语,1997(6)：40-44
[5]刘新文.系统z的量化扩张及其对话语表现理论的处理：[博士学位论文].北京：中国社会科学院,2002
[6]刘礼进.英汉第三人称代词后照应的几个问题：与赵宏,邵志清先生商榷.外国语言 文学,2003(1)：20-24
[7]潘海华.篇章表述理论概说.国外语言学,1996(3)：17-26
[8]秦洪武.第三人称代词在深层回指中的应用分析.当代语言学,2001(1)：55-65
[9]石毓智.指示代词回指的两种语序及其功能.汉语学习,1997(6)
[10]许余龙.语篇回指的认知语言学探索.外国语,2002(1)：28-37
[11]许余龙.语篇回指的认知语言学研究与验证.外国语,2003(2)
[12]杨若东.认知推理与语篇回指代词指代的确定.外国语(上海外国语大学学报),1997(2)
[13]杨彩梅.“Dep结构”的λ提取与可追踪性原则.现代外语,2003(3)：241-248
[14]文卫平.英汉驴子旬研究：[博士学位论文].北京：北京语言大学,2006
[15]王志.篇章代词“它”用法探析.世界汉语教学,1998(3)
[16]王灿龙.现代汉语照应系统研究：[博士学位论文].北京：中国社会科学院,1999
[17]王灿龙.人称代词“他”的照应功能研究.中国语文,2000(3)
[18]王晓斌,周昌乐.基于语篇表述理论的汉语人称代词的消解研究.厦门大学学报(自然科学版),2004(1)：31-35。
[19]王欣.关于驴子句的几点疑问和思考.语文学刊(高教外文版),2007(2)
[20]温宾利.英语的“驴旬”与汉语的“什么…什么句”.现代外语,1997(3)：1-13
[21]温宾利.“什么…什么句”：一种关系结构.现代外语,1998(4)：1-17
[22]于细良.疑问代词的任指用法.中国语文,1965(1)：30-33
[23]邹崇理.话语表现理论述评.当代语言学,1998(4)：20-31
[24]邹崇理.刻画量化结构及其推理的汉语部分语句系统.西南师范大学学报：人文社科版,2003(3)
[25]张威,周昌乐.汉语语篇理解中元指代消解初步.软件学报,2002(13)：732-738
[26]赵虹,邵志清.英汉第三人称代词语篇照应功能对比研究.外语教学与研究,2002(3)： 174-179
[27]Abusch, D. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics,1994,2:83-135
[28]Adrian Brasoveanu. Donkey pluralities:plural information states versus non-atomic individuals, Linguist and Philos.2008,31:129-209
[29]Burge, Tyler.'Demonstrative Constructions, Reference, and Truth'. Journal of Philosophy,1974,71:205-223
[30]Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy,1981,4:159-219
[31]Barker, C. Presuppositions for proportional quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 1996,4:237-259
[32]Barker, S. J. E-type Pronouns, DRT, Dynamic Semantics and the Quantifier/Variable-Binding Model. Linguistics and Philosophy,1997,20:195-228
[33]Barabara Abbott. Donkey Demonstratives. Natural Language Semantics,2002,10: 285-298
[34]Cheng, Lisa L.-S&Huang, C-T. James. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language semantics,1996,4:121-163
[35]Cheng, Lisa L. -S. On the typology of wh-questions:[dissertation]. Cambridge: MIT,1991
[36]Cheng, Lisa L.-S & Huang, C.-T.James. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language semantics,1996,4:121-163
[37]Chierchia, G. Anaphora and Dynamic Binding. Linguistics and Philosophy,1992, 15:11-183
[38]Chierchia, G. Chinese conditional and the theory of conditionals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,20009:1-54
[39]Declerk, R. The manifold interpretation of generic sentences. Lingua,1986,68: 149-188
[40]Declerk, R. The origins of genericity. Linguistics,1991,29:79-101
[41]Donnellan, Keith S.'Reference and Definite Descriptions'. Philosophical Review, 1966,77:281-304
[42]Evans, G. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry,1980,11:337-362
[43]Elworthy, D. A theory of anaphoric information. Linguistics and Philosophy,1995, 18:297-332
[44]Elbourne, Paul.'E-type Anaphora as NP-Deletion'. Natural Language Semantics, 2001,9:241-288
[45]Geurts, B. Donkey business. Linguistics and Philosophy,2002,25:129-156
[46]Heyer, G. Generic descriptions, default reasoning and typicality. Theoreical Linguistics,1985,12:33-72
[47]Heyer, G. Semantic and knowledge representation in the analysis of generic descriptions. Journal of Semantics,1990,7:93-110
[48]Heim, I. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases:[dissertation]. Amherst:University of Massachusetts,1982
[49]Heim, I. E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy,1990, 13:137-178
[50]Huang, Aijun. A DR-theoretical account of Chinese donkey anaphora:[dissertation]. Changsha:Hunan Normal University,2003
[51]J. van Eijck and H. Kamp. Representing discourse in context. In J . van Benthem and A. ter Meulen. Handbook of Logic an Language,1997:179-237
[52]Jiang,.Y. H. P.& C. Zou. On the semantic content of noun phrases. In Xu. L.-J, The referential properties of Chinese noun phrases. Paris:Ecole Des Hautes en Sciences Sociales,1997:3-24
[53]Kamp Hans, Genabith J, Uwe Reyle. Discourse Rrepresentation Theory. Handbook of Philosophical Logic.2nd Edition. Germany:Springer,2011,15:125-394
[54]Kadmon, N. Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy,1990,13:273-324
[55]Krifka, M. Parametric sum individuals for plural anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy,1996,19:555-598
[56]King, Jeffrey C. Context Dependent Quantifiers and Donkey Anaphora. In New Essays in the Philosophy of Language, Supplement to Canadian Journal of Philosophy. M. Ezcurdia, R. Stainton and C. Viger(ed.), Calgary, Alberta, Canada:University of Calgary Press,2004,30:97-127
[57]Kanazawa, Makoto. Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inference in a Dynamic Setting. Linguistics and Philosophy,1994,17:109-158
[58]Kanazawa, Makoto. Singular donkey pronouns are semantically singular. Linguistics and Philosophy,2001,24:383-403
[59]Lappin, Shalom. Donkey Pronouns Unbound. Theoretical Linguistics,1989,15: 263-286
[60]Lappin, Shalom and Nissim Francez. E-type Pronouns, I-sums, and Donkey Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy,1994,17:391-428
[61]Lisa L.-S. Cheng & C.-T. James Huang. Two Types of Donkey Sentences. Natural Language Semantics,1996,4:121-163
[62]Lin, Jo-Wang. Polarity licensing and wh-phrase in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,1996,7:219-255
[63]Ning, C. Y. De as a functional head in Chinese. Working paper in linguistics. Irvine: University of Clifornia,1996:63-79
[64]Nouwen, R. Plural pronominal anaphora in context::[dissertation]. Utrecht:Utrecht University,2003
[65]Nicky Kroll. On bishops and donkeys. Nat Lang Semantics,2008,16:359-372
[66]Pelletier, F. J.& Schubert, L. K. Generically speaking or using Discourse Representation Theory to interpret generics. In G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee,& R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, types and meanings. Dordrecht:Kluwer,1989,2:193-268
[67]Pan, Haihua&Jiangyan. NP interpretation and Chinese donkey sentences. Summer Institute of Linguistics of the Society of America. Cornell Universtiy,1997
[68]Roberts, C. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy,2003, 26:287-350
[69]Sandt, R. v. d.'Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution'. Journal of Semantics,1992,9:333-377
[70]Saurer, W. A Natural Deduction System for Discourse Representation Theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic.1993,22:249-302
[71]Van der Sandt, R. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of' Semantics,1992,9:333-377
[72]Winter, Y. Distributivity and dependency. Natural Language Semantics,2000,8: 27-69
1 Kamp, H.,& Reyle, U. From discourse to logic.1993:24.
1 参加Kamp Hans & Uwe Reyle,1993:65.
1 参见Kamp Hans & Uwe Reyle,1993:84
1 见Van Benthem & ter Meulen. Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language. GRASS Series 4. Dordrecht:Foris. 1985.
1 Cheng, Lisa L. -S & Huang, C.-T. James.Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language semantics.1996(4): 126.
1 Cheng, Lisa L.-S & Huang, C. -T. James. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language semantics. 1996(4):129.
1 Pan, Haihua&Jiangyan. NP interpretation and Chinese donkey sentences]. Proceedings of the Workshop on Inerface Strategies in Chinese:Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases. Summer Institute of Linguistics of the Society of America, Cornell Universtiy.1997:7-8.
1 Jiang, Y.. H.P.,& C. Zou. On the semantic content of noun phrases. In Xu. L.-J. The referential properties of Chinese noun phrases. Paris:Ecole Des Hautes en Sciences Sociales.1997:17.
1 Huang, Aijun. A DR—theoretical account of Chinese donkey anaphora. Changsha:Hunan Normal University. 2003:33.
1 Huang, Aijun. A DR—theoretical account of Chinese donkey anaphora. Changsha:Hunan Normal University. 2003:41.
1 Huang, Aijun. A DR—theoretical account of Chinese donkey anaphora. Changsha:Hunan Normal University. 2003:43.
1 Huang, Aijun. A DR—theoretical account of Chinese donkey anaphora. Changsha:Hunan Normal University. 2003:48.
1 Cheng, Lisa L. -S & Huang, C.-T. James. Two types of donkey sentences. [J]. Natural Language semantics. 1996(4):159.
2 Cheng, Lisa L. -S & Huang, C.-T. James. Two types of donkey sentences. [J].Natural Language semantics. 1996(4):159.
3 温寅利.英语的“驴句”与汉语的“什么…什么句”.现代外语,1997(3)：11。
1 温宾利.“什么…什么句”：一种关系结构.现代外语,1998(4)：15。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语高大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：106。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：108,
2 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：111。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：115。
1 Ning, C. Y. De as a functional head in Chinese[A]. Working paper in linguistics. Irvine:University of Clifornia. 1996:64-65.
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：118。
1 Heim, I & Krazter. Semantics in generative grammar. Massachusetts:Blackwell.1998:115.
2 杨彩梅.“Dep结构”的λ提取与可追踪性原则.现代外语,2003(3)：244。
3 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：122。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：122-123。
2 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：124。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：42。
2 Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carlson, G.. Meulen, A., Link. G.,& Chierchia, G. Genericity:An introduction. In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier, The generic book. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.1995:8.
1 Cohen, A. Think generic:The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford:CSLI Publications.1999:77.
2 Nagel, E. The structure of science; problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York:Harcourt, Brace & World.1961:59.
1 Cohen, A. Think generic:The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford:CSLI Publications.1999:37.
2 Cohen, A. Think generic:The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford:CSLI Publications.1999:38.
3 Cohen, A. Think generic:The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford:CSLI Publications.1999:128.
1 Cohen, A. Think generic:The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford:CSLI Publications.1999: 130-131.
1 Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carlson, G., Meulen, A., Link, G.,& Chierchia, G. Genericity:An introduction. In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier, The generic book. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1995:47.
1 文卫平、英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：53。
1 Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carlson, G., Meulen, A., Link, G.,& Chierchia, G. Genericity:An introduction. In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier, The generic book. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1995:51.
2 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：56。
1 Krifka, M., Pelletier, F., Carlson, G., Meulen, A.. Link, G.,& Chierchia, G. Genericity:An introduction. In G. Carlson & F. Pelletier, The generic book. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1995:58.
1 Heim, I. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis. University of Massachusetts. Amherst.1982:35.
1 徐国庆.现代汉语词汇系统论.北京：北京大学出版社,1999：178。
2 黎锦熙.1924.新著国语文法.北京：商务印书馆2001年版：84。
3 朱德熙.语法讲义.北京：商务印书馆,1982：52。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：66-67。
2 高顺全.试论汉语通指的表达方式.语言教学与研究,2004(3)：15-19。
3 仲崇涛.类指现象研究.南京：南京师范大学,2001：11-15。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言博士学位论文,2006：70。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：78。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：81。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：86-87,
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：132。
1 文卫平.英汉驴子句研究.北京语言大学理论语言学博士学位论文,2006：135。
2 Heim, I. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis. University of Massachusetts. Amherst.2011 Edition:35.
[1]邹崇理.逻辑、语言和蒙太格语法.北京：社科科学文献出版社,1995
[2]邹崇理.自然语言逻辑研究.北京：北京大学出版社,2000
[3]邹崇理.逻辑、语言和信息.北京：人民出版社,2002
[4]徐国庆.现代汉语词汇系统论.北京：商务印书馆,1999
[5]黎锦熙.新著国语文法.北京：科学出版社,2001
[6]朱德熙.语法讲义.北京：商务印书馆,1982
[7]马彦华,王能忠,许敏.汉语中人称代词指代问题研究.中文信息处理国际会议论文集.北京：清华大学出版社,1998：298-303
[8]高原.照应词的认知分析.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2003
[9]吕叔湘.现代汉语八百词.北京：商业出版社,1980
[10]Asher, N.,& Wang, L. Ambiguity and anaphora with plurals in discourse. In R. Young & Y. Zhou (Eds.)-Proceedings of SALT XIII. Ithaca:CLC Publications,2003:19-36
[11]Cooper, R.. The interpretation of pronouns. In F. Henry & H. Schnelle (Eds.). The nature of syntactic representations, syntax and semantics. New York:Academic Press, 1979:61-92
[12]Chierchia. Gennaro. Dynamics of Meaning:Anaphora, Presupposition, and the Theory of Grammar. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1995
[13]Chierchia, G. A puzzle about indefinites. In C. Cecchetto, G. Chierchia,& M. T. Guasti (Eds.), Semantic interfaces:Reference, anaphora and aspect. Stanford: CSLI,2001:51-89
[14]Cohen, A. Think generic:The meaning and use of generic sentences. Stanford:CSLI Publications,1999
[15]Elbourne, Paul.'On the Semantics of Pronouns and Definite Articles', in K. Megerdoomian and L. A. Bar-el (eds.). Proceedings of WCCFL 20. Mass:Cascadilla Press,2001:164-177
[16]Geach, P. T. Reference and Generality. Ithaca. NY:Cornell University Press, 1962
[17]Gupta, A. K. The Logic of Common Nouns. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1980
[18]Grice, P. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge. MA:Harvard University Press, 1989
[19]Heim, I & Krazter. Semantics in generative grammar. Massachusetts:Blackwell, 1998
[20]Kamp Hans, Uwe Reyle. From discourse to logic. Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht:Kluwer,1993
[21]Kamp, H. The importance of presupposition. In Christian Rohrer, Antje Rossdeutscher, Hans Kamp, editors. Liguistic Form and its Computation. Standord: CSLI-Publications,2001
[22]Krifka, M. Pragmatic strengthening in plural predications and donkey sentences. In T. Galloway & J. Spence (Eds.). Proceedings from SALT VI. Ithaca:CLC Publications, 1996:136-153
[23]King, Jeffrey C. Complex Demonstratives:A Quantificational Account. Cambridge: MIT Press,2001
[24]Lawler, J. Studies in English generics. University of Michigan papers in linguistics. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,1973
[25]Larson, Richard and Gabriel Segal. Knowledge of Meaning. Cambridge:MIT Press.. 1995
[26]Nagel, E. The structure of science; problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York:Harcourt, Brace & World,1961
[27]Putnam, H. Is semantic possible? In H. E. Kiefer& M. k. Munitz, Language, belief and metaphysics. New York:State University of New York Press,1970:50-63
[28]Putnam, H. The meaning of meaning. In K. Gunderson, Language, mind and knowledge. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1975:131-193
[29]Platteau, F. Definite and indefinite generics. In J. van der Auwera, Semantics of determiners. London:Croom Helm.1980:112-123
[30]Thrane, T. Referential-semantic analysis:Aspects of a theory of linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1980
[31]Van Hoek Karen. Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1997
[32]van Eijck, Jan and Hans Kamp. Representing Discourse in Context. In Handbook of Logic and Language, van Benthem, ter Meulen (eds.). Cambridge:The MIT Press, 1997
[33]Williamson, T. Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000
[1]谌志群,周昌乐,郑洪.汉语语篇中人称指代消歧研究.江西师范大学学报(自然科学版).(增刊),1998：121-124
[2]高彦梅.代词衔接功能的认知研究.外语学刊,2003(1)
[3]廖秋忠.现代汉语篇章中指同的表达.中国语文,1986(2)
[4]刘礼进.英汉人称代词回指和预指比较研究.外国语,1997(6)：40-44
[5]刘新文.系统z的量化扩张及其对话语表现理论的处理：[博士学位论文].北京：中国社会科学院,2002
[6]刘礼进.英汉第三人称代词后照应的几个问题：与赵宏,邵志清先生商榷.外国语言 文学,2003(1)：20-24
[7]潘海华.篇章表述理论概说.国外语言学,1996(3)：17-26
[8]秦洪武.第三人称代词在深层回指中的应用分析.当代语言学,2001(1)：55-65
[9]石毓智.指示代词回指的两种语序及其功能.汉语学习,1997(6)
[10]许余龙.语篇回指的认知语言学探索.外国语,2002(1)：28-37
[11]许余龙.语篇回指的认知语言学研究与验证.外国语,2003(2)
[12]杨若东.认知推理与语篇回指代词指代的确定.外国语(上海外国语大学学报),1997(2)
[13]杨彩梅.“Dep结构”的λ提取与可追踪性原则.现代外语,2003(3)：241-248
[14]文卫平.英汉驴子旬研究：[博士学位论文].北京：北京语言大学,2006
[15]王志.篇章代词“它”用法探析.世界汉语教学,1998(3)
[16]王灿龙.现代汉语照应系统研究：[博士学位论文].北京：中国社会科学院,1999
[17]王灿龙.人称代词“他”的照应功能研究.中国语文,2000(3)
[18]王晓斌,周昌乐.基于语篇表述理论的汉语人称代词的消解研究.厦门大学学报(自然科学版),2004(1)：31-35。
[19]王欣.关于驴子句的几点疑问和思考.语文学刊(高教外文版),2007(2)
[20]温宾利.英语的“驴旬”与汉语的“什么…什么句”.现代外语,1997(3)：1-13
[21]温宾利.“什么…什么句”：一种关系结构.现代外语,1998(4)：1-17
[22]于细良.疑问代词的任指用法.中国语文,1965(1)：30-33
[23]邹崇理.话语表现理论述评.当代语言学,1998(4)：20-31
[24]邹崇理.刻画量化结构及其推理的汉语部分语句系统.西南师范大学学报：人文社科版,2003(3)
[25]张威,周昌乐.汉语语篇理解中元指代消解初步.软件学报,2002(13)：732-738
[26]赵虹,邵志清.英汉第三人称代词语篇照应功能对比研究.外语教学与研究,2002(3)： 174-179
[27]Abusch, D. The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics,1994,2:83-135
[28]Adrian Brasoveanu. Donkey pluralities:plural information states versus non-atomic individuals, Linguist and Philos.2008,31:129-209
[29]Burge, Tyler.'Demonstrative Constructions, Reference, and Truth'. Journal of Philosophy,1974,71:205-223
[30]Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper. Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy,1981,4:159-219
[31]Barker, C. Presuppositions for proportional quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 1996,4:237-259
[32]Barker, S. J. E-type Pronouns, DRT, Dynamic Semantics and the Quantifier/Variable-Binding Model. Linguistics and Philosophy,1997,20:195-228
[33]Barabara Abbott. Donkey Demonstratives. Natural Language Semantics,2002,10: 285-298
[34]Cheng, Lisa L.-S&Huang, C-T. James. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language semantics,1996,4:121-163
[35]Cheng, Lisa L. -S. On the typology of wh-questions:[dissertation]. Cambridge: MIT,1991
[36]Cheng, Lisa L.-S & Huang, C.-T.James. Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language semantics,1996,4:121-163
[37]Chierchia, G. Anaphora and Dynamic Binding. Linguistics and Philosophy,1992, 15:11-183
[38]Chierchia, G. Chinese conditional and the theory of conditionals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,20009:1-54
[39]Declerk, R. The manifold interpretation of generic sentences. Lingua,1986,68: 149-188
[40]Declerk, R. The origins of genericity. Linguistics,1991,29:79-101
[41]Donnellan, Keith S.'Reference and Definite Descriptions'. Philosophical Review, 1966,77:281-304
[42]Evans, G. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry,1980,11:337-362
[43]Elworthy, D. A theory of anaphoric information. Linguistics and Philosophy,1995, 18:297-332
[44]Elbourne, Paul.'E-type Anaphora as NP-Deletion'. Natural Language Semantics, 2001,9:241-288
[45]Geurts, B. Donkey business. Linguistics and Philosophy,2002,25:129-156
[46]Heyer, G. Generic descriptions, default reasoning and typicality. Theoreical Linguistics,1985,12:33-72
[47]Heyer, G. Semantic and knowledge representation in the analysis of generic descriptions. Journal of Semantics,1990,7:93-110
[48]Heim, I. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases:[dissertation]. Amherst:University of Massachusetts,1982
[49]Heim, I. E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy,1990, 13:137-178
[50]Huang, Aijun. A DR-theoretical account of Chinese donkey anaphora:[dissertation]. Changsha:Hunan Normal University,2003
[51]J. van Eijck and H. Kamp. Representing discourse in context. In J . van Benthem and A. ter Meulen. Handbook of Logic an Language,1997:179-237
[52]Jiang,.Y. H. P.& C. Zou. On the semantic content of noun phrases. In Xu. L.-J, The referential properties of Chinese noun phrases. Paris:Ecole Des Hautes en Sciences Sociales,1997:3-24
[53]Kamp Hans, Genabith J, Uwe Reyle. Discourse Rrepresentation Theory. Handbook of Philosophical Logic.2nd Edition. Germany:Springer,2011,15:125-394
[54]Kadmon, N. Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy,1990,13:273-324
[55]Krifka, M. Parametric sum individuals for plural anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy,1996,19:555-598
[56]King, Jeffrey C. Context Dependent Quantifiers and Donkey Anaphora. In New Essays in the Philosophy of Language, Supplement to Canadian Journal of Philosophy. M. Ezcurdia, R. Stainton and C. Viger(ed.), Calgary, Alberta, Canada:University of Calgary Press,2004,30:97-127
[57]Kanazawa, Makoto. Weak vs. Strong Readings of Donkey Sentences and Monotonicity Inference in a Dynamic Setting. Linguistics and Philosophy,1994,17:109-158
[58]Kanazawa, Makoto. Singular donkey pronouns are semantically singular. Linguistics and Philosophy,2001,24:383-403
[59]Lappin, Shalom. Donkey Pronouns Unbound. Theoretical Linguistics,1989,15: 263-286
[60]Lappin, Shalom and Nissim Francez. E-type Pronouns, I-sums, and Donkey Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy,1994,17:391-428
[61]Lisa L.-S. Cheng & C.-T. James Huang. Two Types of Donkey Sentences. Natural Language Semantics,1996,4:121-163
[62]Lin, Jo-Wang. Polarity licensing and wh-phrase in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,1996,7:219-255
[63]Ning, C. Y. De as a functional head in Chinese. Working paper in linguistics. Irvine: University of Clifornia,1996:63-79
[64]Nouwen, R. Plural pronominal anaphora in context::[dissertation]. Utrecht:Utrecht University,2003
[65]Nicky Kroll. On bishops and donkeys. Nat Lang Semantics,2008,16:359-372
[66]Pelletier, F. J.& Schubert, L. K. Generically speaking or using Discourse Representation Theory to interpret generics. In G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee,& R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, types and meanings. Dordrecht:Kluwer,1989,2:193-268
[67]Pan, Haihua&Jiangyan. NP interpretation and Chinese donkey sentences. Summer Institute of Linguistics of the Society of America. Cornell Universtiy,1997
[68]Roberts, C. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy,2003, 26:287-350
[69]Sandt, R. v. d.'Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution'. Journal of Semantics,1992,9:333-377
[70]Saurer, W. A Natural Deduction System for Discourse Representation Theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic.1993,22:249-302
[71]Van der Sandt, R. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of' Semantics,1992,9:333-377
[72]Winter, Y. Distributivity and dependency. Natural Language Semantics,2000,8: 27-69