Topic continuity in discourse: The functional domain of switch-reference
Topic continuity in discourse: The functional domain of switch-reference
复制标题
话语中的主题连续性：切换引用的功能域
DOI：
10.1075/tsl.2.06giv
复制
发表时间：
1983
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Givón
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Givón
我在这篇文章中所做的建议可能会消除一些传统的开关参考观点的爱好者。我建议勾勒出更广泛的功能域内的现象，“规范”开关参考可以在其适当的上下文中欣赏。在这样做的同时，我将不得不挑战开关引用的传统观点，认为它过于狭隘和限制。对语法中的某个领域作一个狭隘的--因而也是严格的--定义本身并没有什么错。这一方法无疑为跨语言结构和功能的比较提供了坚实的数据。尽管如此，有充分的理由怀疑，最终一种从结构上而不是功能上、狭义而不是广义上定义其域的方法，势必会导致我们作为语言学家忽视功能和结构的重要事实--从而最终错过一些关于功能和代码之间非任意关系的重要概括。我在前面已经用被动化的类型学说明了这些陷阱（Givón，1981年），一个复杂的功能域，与开关引用域共享其三个组件之一-主题连续性。还有其他充分的理由说明，为什么“典型”开关引用的狭隘结构定义必然会留下许多重要的-并且明显相关-语法现象超出了我们的解释范围。语言编码开关指称的各种方式可以从不同的相关子领域的不同来源历时地产生，这些子领域可以与开关指称本身共享不同的功能和/或结构特征。如果一个人排除了先验的各种”非规范”的非规范-
What I propose to do in this paper may displease some aficionados of the traditional view of switch-reference. I propose to outline the wider functional domain within which the phenomenon of" canonical" switch-reference may be appreciated in its proper context. While doing so, I will have to challenge the traditional view of switch-reference as too narrow and constricting. There is nothing wrong per se with a narrow—and thus rigorous—definition of a certain domain in grammar. Such an approach certainly is responsible for un earthing solid data of cross-linguistic comparison in both structure and func tion. Nevertheless, there are good grounds for suspecting that ultimately an approach that starts from defining its domain structurally rather than func tionally, and narrowly rather than broadly, is bound to lead us as linguists to disregard important facts of both function and structure—and thus eventu ally miss a number of important generalizations concerning the non-arbitrary relation between function and code. I have illustrated these pitfalls earlier with the typology of passivization (Givón, 1981), a complex functional do main that shares one of its three components—that of topic continuity—with the domain of switch-reference.There are other good reasons why a narrow structural definition of" ca nonical" switch-reference is bound to leave a number of important—and ob viously related—grammatical phenomena out of the scope of our investiga tion. The various ways in which languages may code switch reference may arise diachronically from different sources in different related sub-domains which may share different functional and/or structural features with switchreference proper. If one rules out apriori various" non-canonical" construc-