多维视域下的指类句语用功能研究
|
摘要
指称问题一直以来都是语言学界关注的焦点,与之密切相关的指类句(generic sentence)也正成为我国近年来逐渐受到重视的议题。有关指类句的研究,学界业已出现的多种理论视角和形式处理方法都有其可取之处,然而皆有待进一步完善。本文尝试在“小三角”视域、“立场”视域和“语体”视域等多维视域下对指类句进行全面、系统地审视。
首先,我们试图将“小三角”理论引入指类句的研究,从指类句的句法语义入手,在语表、语里和语值三个方面对指类句进行进一步深入观察和审视。结论如下：(一)在语表形式上,指类句主要由“类指主语”和“属性谓语”两个基本部分组成。此外,指类句主要表现为“单宾动词句”、“‘是’字句”、“‘有’字句”和兼语句等几种句式；(二)在语里意义上,指类句大体上不表示明确情节或独立事实,而是指明一类事物全体(或部分)具有某种规律、属性或特征；(三)在语用价值上,指类句为适应一定的语用需要而做出“特设判断”。
其次,文章尝试在“立场”视域下聚焦指类句的语用功能。主要通过考察指类句立场表达的实现方式,揭示指类句立场表达的内在运作机制。研究表明,指类句分别通过“类指主语”和“属性谓语”两个基本部分进行立场表达。具言之：“类指主语”主要运用“概括”这种特殊的立场表达机制实现其“个人立场”、“互动立场”和“社会文化立场”的表达；而“属性谓语”则主要借助“是”、“具有”等静态性动词或“应该”“必须”等情态动词以及特定副词来帮助实现其立场表达。
最后,本文在“语体”视域下对指类句的语用功能进行观测。考察发现,指类句可以细分为“说明型”、“指令型”和“评述型”三类,分别具有“判断”、“指令”和“评价”三种功能。其中,说明型指类句主要出现在科技语体中；指令型指类句主要出现在法律语体中；评述型指类句主要出现在政论语体中。显然,指类句在不同语体中的分布呈现出显著的差异性。这一分布上的差异可以通过语体自身特征和交际功能获得很好的解释。另外,大量的语言事实表明,指类句不但具有描述实体共同特性的功能,还具有规定实体共性行为的功能。由此,我们将指类句定义为：基于一定的语用需求,对一类对象的某种特征进行概括、评价或对其行为作出规定和指令的句子。这一个定义有助于更全面、深入地认识指类句的句法特点与语用功能。
The generic issue has always been the focus of attention within linguistic domain, thus the generic sentence has gained increasing attention in recent years. The past studies on the generic sentence from different perspectives have made great achievements, yet there's still room to make improvements. This present thesis attempts to make a systemic analysis of the generic sentence on the basis of the theory of the Small Triangle Hypothesis, the Stance Theory and the Genre Theory.
Firstly, the Small Triangle Theory is introduced to study the syntactic forms as well as the semantic meaning and the pragmatic effect of the generic sentence. The conclusions are:(1) Syntactically, the generic sentence is composed of the generic subject and the attribute predicate. The generic sentence can be divided into the verbal sentence with a single object, the "shi" sentence, the "you" sentence and the series verb sentence. (2) Semantically, the generic sentence expresses the general attributes and shows the law and characteristics of the things of the same category. (3) Pragmatically, the generic sentence is a "special judgment" to meet a specific pragmatic need.
Secondly, this thesis analyses the pragmatic functions of the generic sentence from the stance perspective. It examines the realizations and uncovers the internal mechanism of the stance of the generic sentence. It demonstrates that the generic sentence expresses the stance through "the generic subject" and "the attribute predicate". Specifically, the generic subject expresses the personal stance, the interactive stance, and the socio-cultural stance through its special mechanism of "generalization". The attribute predicate help realize the stance through stative verbs as "shi" (be) and "juyou" (have) and the modal verbs like "yinggai" (should) and "bixu" (must).
Lastly, this thesis investigates the pragmatic function of the generic sentence within the register theory. It is found that the generic sentence can be divided into three types: the descriptive generic sentence, the directive generic sentence and the commentary generic sentence. The descriptive generic sentence occurs in scientific and technological discourse, the directive generic sentence occurs in legal discourse and the commentary generic sentence occurs in political discourse. The distribution of the generic sentence displays remarkable disparity in different registers. Languages prove that the generic sentence has the function of describing and stipulating the common characteristics of the entities Therefore the generic sentence can be defined as a sentence which concludes, evaluates and stipulates certain characteristics of a certain subject. This definition helps us have a deep and thorough the syntactic features and pragmatic function.
首先,我们试图将“小三角”理论引入指类句的研究,从指类句的句法语义入手,在语表、语里和语值三个方面对指类句进行进一步深入观察和审视。结论如下：(一)在语表形式上,指类句主要由“类指主语”和“属性谓语”两个基本部分组成。此外,指类句主要表现为“单宾动词句”、“‘是’字句”、“‘有’字句”和兼语句等几种句式；(二)在语里意义上,指类句大体上不表示明确情节或独立事实,而是指明一类事物全体(或部分)具有某种规律、属性或特征；(三)在语用价值上,指类句为适应一定的语用需要而做出“特设判断”。
其次,文章尝试在“立场”视域下聚焦指类句的语用功能。主要通过考察指类句立场表达的实现方式,揭示指类句立场表达的内在运作机制。研究表明,指类句分别通过“类指主语”和“属性谓语”两个基本部分进行立场表达。具言之：“类指主语”主要运用“概括”这种特殊的立场表达机制实现其“个人立场”、“互动立场”和“社会文化立场”的表达；而“属性谓语”则主要借助“是”、“具有”等静态性动词或“应该”“必须”等情态动词以及特定副词来帮助实现其立场表达。
最后,本文在“语体”视域下对指类句的语用功能进行观测。考察发现,指类句可以细分为“说明型”、“指令型”和“评述型”三类,分别具有“判断”、“指令”和“评价”三种功能。其中,说明型指类句主要出现在科技语体中；指令型指类句主要出现在法律语体中；评述型指类句主要出现在政论语体中。显然,指类句在不同语体中的分布呈现出显著的差异性。这一分布上的差异可以通过语体自身特征和交际功能获得很好的解释。另外,大量的语言事实表明,指类句不但具有描述实体共同特性的功能,还具有规定实体共性行为的功能。由此,我们将指类句定义为：基于一定的语用需求,对一类对象的某种特征进行概括、评价或对其行为作出规定和指令的句子。这一个定义有助于更全面、深入地认识指类句的句法特点与语用功能。
The generic issue has always been the focus of attention within linguistic domain, thus the generic sentence has gained increasing attention in recent years. The past studies on the generic sentence from different perspectives have made great achievements, yet there's still room to make improvements. This present thesis attempts to make a systemic analysis of the generic sentence on the basis of the theory of the Small Triangle Hypothesis, the Stance Theory and the Genre Theory.
Firstly, the Small Triangle Theory is introduced to study the syntactic forms as well as the semantic meaning and the pragmatic effect of the generic sentence. The conclusions are:(1) Syntactically, the generic sentence is composed of the generic subject and the attribute predicate. The generic sentence can be divided into the verbal sentence with a single object, the "shi" sentence, the "you" sentence and the series verb sentence. (2) Semantically, the generic sentence expresses the general attributes and shows the law and characteristics of the things of the same category. (3) Pragmatically, the generic sentence is a "special judgment" to meet a specific pragmatic need.
Secondly, this thesis analyses the pragmatic functions of the generic sentence from the stance perspective. It examines the realizations and uncovers the internal mechanism of the stance of the generic sentence. It demonstrates that the generic sentence expresses the stance through "the generic subject" and "the attribute predicate". Specifically, the generic subject expresses the personal stance, the interactive stance, and the socio-cultural stance through its special mechanism of "generalization". The attribute predicate help realize the stance through stative verbs as "shi" (be) and "juyou" (have) and the modal verbs like "yinggai" (should) and "bixu" (must).
Lastly, this thesis investigates the pragmatic function of the generic sentence within the register theory. It is found that the generic sentence can be divided into three types: the descriptive generic sentence, the directive generic sentence and the commentary generic sentence. The descriptive generic sentence occurs in scientific and technological discourse, the directive generic sentence occurs in legal discourse and the commentary generic sentence occurs in political discourse. The distribution of the generic sentence displays remarkable disparity in different registers. Languages prove that the generic sentence has the function of describing and stipulating the common characteristics of the entities Therefore the generic sentence can be defined as a sentence which concludes, evaluates and stipulates certain characteristics of a certain subject. This definition helps us have a deep and thorough the syntactic features and pragmatic function.
引文
高顺全2004《试论汉语通指的表达方式》,《语言教学与研究》第3期。
葛洪义2008《法理学》,北京：中国政法大学出版社。
胡家全2007《类指成分的语用研究》,《沙洋师范高等专科学报》第2期。
刘丹青2002《汉语类指成分的语义属性和句法属性》,《中国语文》第5期。
龙涛2005《名词类指、个指的语息表达与名词次范畴(一)——名词类指信息与类别义名词》,《华中科技大学学报·社会科学版》第3期。
龙涛2005《名词类指、个指的语息表达与名词次范畴(二)——名词个指信息与“个体化事物”名词及名词指称分工》,《华中科技大学学报·社会科学版》第6期。
陆烁、潘海华2009《汉语无定主语的语义允准分析》,《中国语文》第6期。
骆小所1995《现代修辞学》,昆明：云南人民出版社。
史金生2003《语气副词的范围、类别和共现顺序》,《中国语文》第1期。
陶红印2007《操作语体中动词论元结构的实现及语用原则》,《中国语文》第1期。
王德春、陈瑞端2000《语体学》,南宁：广西教育出版社。
汪国胜2010《修辞教学的目标定位》,《华中师范大学》(人文社会科学版)第2期。
魏红、储泽祥2007《“有定居后”与现实性的无定NP主语句》,《世界汉语教学》第3期。
吴炳章2010《指类句的指类功能实现机制探讨》,《外语教学与研究》第3期。
邢福义2000《汉语语法学》,长春：东北师范大学出版社。
邢福义2004《汉语语法三百问》,北京：商务印书馆。
邢福义2009《语法问题献疑集》,北京：商务印书馆。
邢福义、汪国胜2006《现代汉语》,武汉：华中师范大学出版社。
徐杰2001《自然语言交际中的语码解读和知识匹配》,《世界汉语教学》第4期。
徐晶凝2007《现代汉语话语情态研究》,北京：昆仑出版社。
徐盛桓2010《指类句研究的认知-语用意蕴》,《外语教学与研究》第3期。
姚双云2011《<话语中的立场表达：主观性、评价与互动>评介》,《外语教学与研究》第1期。
讚井唯允1993《语用上的具体化与一般化——从所谓“无定NP主语句”与“存在句”说起》,载于《日本近、现代汉语研究论文选》,北京语言学院出版社。
张伯江2007《语体差异和语法规律》,《修辞学习》第2期。
张立英2006《概称句的语义解释及形式化比较研究》,《哲学动态》第8期。
张立英2007《用概率的方法解释概称句》,《哲学动态》第12期。
张谊生2000《现代汉语副词研究》,上海：学林出版社。
周北海2004《概称句本质与概念》,《北京大学学报》第4期。
周北海2008《涵义语义与关于概称句推理的词项逻辑》,《逻辑学研究》第1期。
宗守云2002《浅论科技语体中的“似乎VP”句》,《中国语文》第1期。
Benveniste, E.1971. Problems in General Linguistics. Translated by Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables, FL:University of Miami Press.
Berman, R.A., Ragnarsdottir, H. and Stromqvist, S.2002. Discourse stance. Written Language and Literacy 5 (2):255-290.
Berman, R.A.2005. "Introduction:Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages." Journal of Pragmatics 37:105-124.
Biber, D. and Finegan, E.1989. "Styles of stance in English:Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect." Text 9(1):93-124.
Biber, D. and Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E.1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London:Longman.
Biber, D. and Susan Conrad.2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brandone, C. Amanda, Susan A. Gelman.2009. Differences in preschoolers' and adults' use of generics about novel animals and artifacts:A window onto a conceptual divide. Cognition 110:1-22.
Carlson, G.1982. Generic terms and generic sentences. Journal of Philosophical of Logic 11:145-181.
Carlson, G. 1989. On the semantic composition of English generic sentences [A].In G. Chierchia, B. Partee & R. Turner (eds.). Properties, Types and Meaning:Semantic Issues [C]. Berlin:Springer.167-192.
Carlson, Gregory N.1995. The truth conditions of generic sentences:Two contrasting views. In Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds) The generic book. Chicago:Chicago University Press.224-237.
Carlson, G.& Beverly Spejewski.1997. Generic passages. Natural Language Semantics 5:101-165.
Cimpian, Andrei & Ellen M. Markman.2008. Preschool children's use of cues to generic meaning. Cognition 107:19-53.
Cimpian, Andrei & Ellen M. Markman.2009. Information learned from generic language becomes central to children's biological concepts:Evidence from their open-ended explanations. Cognition 113:14-25.
Cohen, A.1999. Think Generic! The Meaning and Use of Generic Sentences [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
W, John & Du Bois. The Stance Triangle.2007. In Stancetaking in discourse:Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Robert Englebretson (ed), Amsterdam:John Benjamins. 139-182.
Eckardt, R.1999. Normal objects, normal worlds and the meaning of generic sentences [J]. Journal of Semantics 16:237-278.
Elinor, Ochs.& Bambi, Schieffelin.1989. Language Has A Heart. Text 9(1):7-25.
Englebretson, R.2004. Stancetaking in Discourse:Subjectivity in Interaction. The 10th Biennial Rice Linguistics Symposium, Rice University, Houston, TX, March 31-April 3.
Friederike, Moltmann 2006. Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person [J]. Nat Lang Semantics.14:257-281.
Gardner, R.2001. When Listeners Talk:Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gelmana, Susan, A.& Twila Tardif.1998. A cross-linguistic comparison of generic noun phrases in English and Mandarin. Cognition 66:215-248.
Gelmana, Susan A.& Paul Bloom.2007. Developmental changes in the understanding of generics. Cognition 105:166-183.
Ghomeshi, J.2003. Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57 (2):47-74.
Hunston, S. and Thompson, G.2000. Evaluation in Text:Authorial Stance and The Construction of Discourse. New York:Oxford University Press.
Jaffe, A.2004. Stance in Social and Cultural Context. Special Session at the Sociolinguistics Symposium 15, Newcastle upon Tyne, April 1-4.
Kafura, D.1998. Object-Oriented Software Design and Construction with C++. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Krifka, M.1995. "Common Nouns:a Contrastive Analysis of Chinese and English" in G. Carlson and J. Pelletier (eds.)
Labov, W.& Waletzky, J.1967. "Narrative analysis:Oral version of personal experience." In Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, J. Helm (ed.),12-44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Lee, C.1994. What are generic sentences about [OL]. http://dspace.wul.waseda.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2065/11843/1/KYOTO94-1-10. pdf(accessed 16/05/2010).
Macken-Horarik, M. and Martin, J.R. (eds.).2003. Negotiating heteroglossia:Social perspectives on evaluation. Special Issue, Text 23.
Mushin, I.2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance:Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Palmer, F. R.1995. Modality and the English Modals, New York:Longman Inc.
Papafragou, Anna.1996. On generics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8.
Rimell, Laura.2004. Habitual sentences and generic quantification. WCCFL 23 Proceedings, ed. G. Garding and M. Tsujimura. Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Press.
Sandeep, Prasada.2000. Acquiring generic knowledge. Trends in Cognitives Sciences. 2-4.
Scheibman, J.2007. Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversations. In Stancetaking in discourse:Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Robert Englebretson (ed),111-138. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Shoaps, R. and Kockelman, P.2002. Morality and Epistemology:Stance-taking and the Discursive Constitution of Personhood. Panel presented at the 101st annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans, LA, November 21.
Squib, A.1985. "Dependent plurals" are distinct from bare plurals. Psychosemantics Seminar. Barbara Partee.
Veneeta, Dayal.1999. Bare NP's, reference to kinds, and incorporation. In the Proceedings of SALTIX.
Veneeta, Dayal.2004. Number marking and (in) definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(4):393-450.
Wang, P.2008. The generation and evaluation of generic sentences [OL]. http://www. phil. pku.edu. cn/cllc/archive/papers/logic/GenericSentence.pdf (accessed 16/05/2010).
White, P.R.R.2003. "Beyond modality and hedging:A dialogic view of the language of inersubjective stance."Text 23(2):259-284.
Wu, R.-J.2004. Stance in Talk:A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Yearwood, J. L.& A. Stranieri.2006. The generic/actual argument model of practical reasoning. Decision Support Systems 41.358-379.
葛洪义2008《法理学》,北京：中国政法大学出版社。
胡家全2007《类指成分的语用研究》,《沙洋师范高等专科学报》第2期。
刘丹青2002《汉语类指成分的语义属性和句法属性》,《中国语文》第5期。
龙涛2005《名词类指、个指的语息表达与名词次范畴(一)——名词类指信息与类别义名词》,《华中科技大学学报·社会科学版》第3期。
龙涛2005《名词类指、个指的语息表达与名词次范畴(二)——名词个指信息与“个体化事物”名词及名词指称分工》,《华中科技大学学报·社会科学版》第6期。
陆烁、潘海华2009《汉语无定主语的语义允准分析》,《中国语文》第6期。
骆小所1995《现代修辞学》,昆明：云南人民出版社。
史金生2003《语气副词的范围、类别和共现顺序》,《中国语文》第1期。
陶红印2007《操作语体中动词论元结构的实现及语用原则》,《中国语文》第1期。
王德春、陈瑞端2000《语体学》,南宁：广西教育出版社。
汪国胜2010《修辞教学的目标定位》,《华中师范大学》(人文社会科学版)第2期。
魏红、储泽祥2007《“有定居后”与现实性的无定NP主语句》,《世界汉语教学》第3期。
吴炳章2010《指类句的指类功能实现机制探讨》,《外语教学与研究》第3期。
邢福义2000《汉语语法学》,长春：东北师范大学出版社。
邢福义2004《汉语语法三百问》,北京：商务印书馆。
邢福义2009《语法问题献疑集》,北京：商务印书馆。
邢福义、汪国胜2006《现代汉语》,武汉：华中师范大学出版社。
徐杰2001《自然语言交际中的语码解读和知识匹配》,《世界汉语教学》第4期。
徐晶凝2007《现代汉语话语情态研究》,北京：昆仑出版社。
徐盛桓2010《指类句研究的认知-语用意蕴》,《外语教学与研究》第3期。
姚双云2011《<话语中的立场表达：主观性、评价与互动>评介》,《外语教学与研究》第1期。
讚井唯允1993《语用上的具体化与一般化——从所谓“无定NP主语句”与“存在句”说起》,载于《日本近、现代汉语研究论文选》,北京语言学院出版社。
张伯江2007《语体差异和语法规律》,《修辞学习》第2期。
张立英2006《概称句的语义解释及形式化比较研究》,《哲学动态》第8期。
张立英2007《用概率的方法解释概称句》,《哲学动态》第12期。
张谊生2000《现代汉语副词研究》,上海：学林出版社。
周北海2004《概称句本质与概念》,《北京大学学报》第4期。
周北海2008《涵义语义与关于概称句推理的词项逻辑》,《逻辑学研究》第1期。
宗守云2002《浅论科技语体中的“似乎VP”句》,《中国语文》第1期。
Benveniste, E.1971. Problems in General Linguistics. Translated by Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables, FL:University of Miami Press.
Berman, R.A., Ragnarsdottir, H. and Stromqvist, S.2002. Discourse stance. Written Language and Literacy 5 (2):255-290.
Berman, R.A.2005. "Introduction:Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages." Journal of Pragmatics 37:105-124.
Biber, D. and Finegan, E.1989. "Styles of stance in English:Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect." Text 9(1):93-124.
Biber, D. and Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E.1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London:Longman.
Biber, D. and Susan Conrad.2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brandone, C. Amanda, Susan A. Gelman.2009. Differences in preschoolers' and adults' use of generics about novel animals and artifacts:A window onto a conceptual divide. Cognition 110:1-22.
Carlson, G.1982. Generic terms and generic sentences. Journal of Philosophical of Logic 11:145-181.
Carlson, G. 1989. On the semantic composition of English generic sentences [A].In G. Chierchia, B. Partee & R. Turner (eds.). Properties, Types and Meaning:Semantic Issues [C]. Berlin:Springer.167-192.
Carlson, Gregory N.1995. The truth conditions of generic sentences:Two contrasting views. In Gregory N. Carlson & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds) The generic book. Chicago:Chicago University Press.224-237.
Carlson, G.& Beverly Spejewski.1997. Generic passages. Natural Language Semantics 5:101-165.
Cimpian, Andrei & Ellen M. Markman.2008. Preschool children's use of cues to generic meaning. Cognition 107:19-53.
Cimpian, Andrei & Ellen M. Markman.2009. Information learned from generic language becomes central to children's biological concepts:Evidence from their open-ended explanations. Cognition 113:14-25.
Cohen, A.1999. Think Generic! The Meaning and Use of Generic Sentences [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
W, John & Du Bois. The Stance Triangle.2007. In Stancetaking in discourse:Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Robert Englebretson (ed), Amsterdam:John Benjamins. 139-182.
Eckardt, R.1999. Normal objects, normal worlds and the meaning of generic sentences [J]. Journal of Semantics 16:237-278.
Elinor, Ochs.& Bambi, Schieffelin.1989. Language Has A Heart. Text 9(1):7-25.
Englebretson, R.2004. Stancetaking in Discourse:Subjectivity in Interaction. The 10th Biennial Rice Linguistics Symposium, Rice University, Houston, TX, March 31-April 3.
Friederike, Moltmann 2006. Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person [J]. Nat Lang Semantics.14:257-281.
Gardner, R.2001. When Listeners Talk:Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gelmana, Susan, A.& Twila Tardif.1998. A cross-linguistic comparison of generic noun phrases in English and Mandarin. Cognition 66:215-248.
Gelmana, Susan A.& Paul Bloom.2007. Developmental changes in the understanding of generics. Cognition 105:166-183.
Ghomeshi, J.2003. Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 57 (2):47-74.
Hunston, S. and Thompson, G.2000. Evaluation in Text:Authorial Stance and The Construction of Discourse. New York:Oxford University Press.
Jaffe, A.2004. Stance in Social and Cultural Context. Special Session at the Sociolinguistics Symposium 15, Newcastle upon Tyne, April 1-4.
Kafura, D.1998. Object-Oriented Software Design and Construction with C++. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
Krifka, M.1995. "Common Nouns:a Contrastive Analysis of Chinese and English" in G. Carlson and J. Pelletier (eds.)
Labov, W.& Waletzky, J.1967. "Narrative analysis:Oral version of personal experience." In Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, J. Helm (ed.),12-44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Lee, C.1994. What are generic sentences about [OL]. http://dspace.wul.waseda.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2065/11843/1/KYOTO94-1-10. pdf(accessed 16/05/2010).
Macken-Horarik, M. and Martin, J.R. (eds.).2003. Negotiating heteroglossia:Social perspectives on evaluation. Special Issue, Text 23.
Mushin, I.2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance:Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Palmer, F. R.1995. Modality and the English Modals, New York:Longman Inc.
Papafragou, Anna.1996. On generics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8.
Rimell, Laura.2004. Habitual sentences and generic quantification. WCCFL 23 Proceedings, ed. G. Garding and M. Tsujimura. Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Press.
Sandeep, Prasada.2000. Acquiring generic knowledge. Trends in Cognitives Sciences. 2-4.
Scheibman, J.2007. Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversations. In Stancetaking in discourse:Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Robert Englebretson (ed),111-138. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Shoaps, R. and Kockelman, P.2002. Morality and Epistemology:Stance-taking and the Discursive Constitution of Personhood. Panel presented at the 101st annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans, LA, November 21.
Squib, A.1985. "Dependent plurals" are distinct from bare plurals. Psychosemantics Seminar. Barbara Partee.
Veneeta, Dayal.1999. Bare NP's, reference to kinds, and incorporation. In the Proceedings of SALTIX.
Veneeta, Dayal.2004. Number marking and (in) definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(4):393-450.
Wang, P.2008. The generation and evaluation of generic sentences [OL]. http://www. phil. pku.edu. cn/cllc/archive/papers/logic/GenericSentence.pdf (accessed 16/05/2010).
White, P.R.R.2003. "Beyond modality and hedging:A dialogic view of the language of inersubjective stance."Text 23(2):259-284.
Wu, R.-J.2004. Stance in Talk:A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Yearwood, J. L.& A. Stranieri.2006. The generic/actual argument model of practical reasoning. Decision Support Systems 41.358-379.