語料庫與跨文化戰略研究講壇之九🔍：Anaphora and binding: Chomskyans versus neo-Griceans

語料庫與跨文化戰略研究講壇之九✍🏿：

題目：Anaphora and binding: Chomskyans versus neo-Griceans

主講人🐠🌟：黃衍

時間：2013年4月3日下午3:00——5:00

地點：外語樓111學術報告廳

聯系人：甄鳳超

主講人簡介：黃衍，University of Auckland教授、著名語言學家，先後在劍橋大學🚴🏼‍♀️、牛津大學、雷丁大學講授語言學🦧💣。1987年當選劍橋大學邱吉爾意昂院士，1990年當選為“語言與語用學”國際會議主席，1995年獲英國學術院學術獎，2003年獲英國藝術和人文研究委員會研究獎，曾任雷丁大學語言學系主任。黃衍提出並系統發展了包括指代的新格賴斯語用學理論，又被成為“黃衍理論”👩🏿‍🎓，被廣泛應用到諸多語言的研究中。代表著作有《英語常用短語用法辨析》、《指代的句法學和語用學》、《Anaphora: Across-Linguistic Study》、《The Oxford Dictionary of Pragmatics》等。

講座摘要🧑🏼‍🎄：

Anaphora and Binding

Yan Huang

Department of Applied Language Studies and Linguistics

University of Auckland

The aim of this paper is twofold: firstly to comment on the two main generative approaches to binding/anaphora, and secondly to advance a revised neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora based on Huang (e.g. 1991, 1994, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010a, b) and Levinson (1987, 1991, 2000).

Anaphora involves syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors. Although it is generally acknowledged that pragmatic factors play an important role in discourse anaphora, it is equally widely held that only syntactic and semantic factors are crucial to intrasentential anaphora. But there has been compelling cross-linguistic evidence that contrary to this popular Chomskyan view, the contribution of pragmatics to anaphora is much more fundamental than has been commonly believed, even at the very heart of intrasentential anaphora.

In this paper I shall concentrate on that type of referential, NP-anaphora known as binding in the literature. I shall first discuss the two main generative accounts of binding, namely the syntactic/geometric one represented by Chomsky (1981, 1995) and the semantic/reflexivity one represented by Reinhart and Reuland (1993). I shall then present my revised neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora.

The underlying idea of the revised neo-Gricean pragmatic approach is that the interpretation of certain patterns of anaphora can be made using general pragmatic enrichment, depending on the language user's knowledge of the range of options available in the grammar, and of the systematic use or avoidance of particular linguistic expressions or structures on particular occasions.

In our theory, anaphora is largely determined by the systematic interaction of the three neo-Gricean pragmatic principles proposed by Levinson (1987, 1991, 2000), namely the Q-, M-, and I-principles (with that order of priority), constrained by a DRP, information saliency and general consistency conditions on conversational implicatures. I shall demonstrate that by utilising these principles and the resolution mechanism organising their interaction, many patterns of preferred interpretation regarding intrasententialbinding/anaphorain a large variety of genetically unrelated and structurally diverse languages can be given an elegant and satisfactory explanation.

歡迎廣大師生積極參與🔦！

                                                                                                                                      意昂体育

                                                                                                                                       2013年3月