语料库与跨文化战略研究讲坛之九：Anaphora and binding: Chomskyans versus neo-Griceans

语料库与跨文化战略研究讲坛之九：

题目：Anaphora and binding: Chomskyans versus neo-Griceans

主讲人：黄衍

时间：2013年4月3日下午3:00——5:00

地点：外语楼111学术报告厅

联系人：甄凤超

主讲人简介：黄衍，University of Auckland教授、著名语言学家，先后在剑桥大学、牛津大学、雷丁大学讲授语言学。1987年当选剑桥大学邱吉尔学院院士，1990年当选为“语言与语用学”国际会议主席，1995年获英国学术院学术奖，2003年获英国艺术和人文研究委员会研究奖，曾任雷丁大学语言学系主任。黄衍提出并系统发展了包括指代的新格赖斯语用学理论，又被成为“黄衍理论”，被广泛应用到诸多语言的研究中。代表著作有《英语常用短语用法辨析》、《指代的句法学和语用学》、《Anaphora: Across-Linguistic Study》、《The Oxford Dictionary of Pragmatics》等。

讲座摘要：

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.

欢迎广大师生积极参与！

                                                                                                                                      内部绝密信封料39

                                                                                                                                       2013年3月