REFERRING AND ACCESSIBILITY
REFERRING AND ACCESSIBILITY
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0022226700011567
复制
发表时间：
1988-03-01
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
ARIEL, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
ARIEL, M
照应表达的分析可以分为两个分支。第一种包括明确描述理论和专有名称理论。人们认为，正确使用这些表达的谜团的关键是预设的概念：存在和/或独特性。事实上，这个问题多年来一直主导着文学，从Frege(1982)，Russell(1919)和Strawson(1956,1964)的早期哲学分析开始，到后来的语用语言学分析，如Liberman(1973)，Kempson(1975)，Prince(1978,1981 b)，Gazdar(1979)，McCawley(1979)，Hawkins(1974,1984)，甚至Loftus(1972,1974,1975)，尽管最后一种方法更多的是心理学的。第二个研究分支完全忽略了预设的问题。回指表达的非句法/语义理论，特别是代词，是以心理为导向的，因此对这个问题的解释截然不同。事实上，这些理论的目的一直是通过考察回指表达来阐明加工过程，而不是声称回指表达本身。
The analysis of referring expressions can be divided into two branches for our purposes. The first includes theories of definite descriptions and proper names. The key to the riddle of the appropriate use of such expressions, it was thought, is the notion of presupposition: existence and/or uniqueness. Indeed, this was the question that dominated the literature for many years, starting with the early philosophical analyses of Frege (1982), Russell (1919) and Strawson (1956, 1964), and ending with the much later pragmatically oriented linguistic analyses, such as Liberman (1973), Kempson (1975), Prince (1978, 1981b), Gazdar (1979), McCawley (1979), Hawkins (1974, 1984) and even Loftus (1972, 1974, 1975), although this last approach is more psychological. The second branch of research totally neglected the question of presupposition. Non-syntactic/semantic theories of anaphoric expressions, pronouns especially, were psychologically oriented, and hence saw the issue to be accounted for quite differently. In fact, the objective of these theories has been to elucidate processing procedures by examining anaphoric expressions, rather than to make claims about anaphoric expressions as such.