| A definite NP is a nominal phrase which points uniquely to a particular (sub)type or entity, either concrete or abstract, and this entity involved can be uniquely located by S and H in (sub)type domain or the domain of instantiation and retrievable as psychological representation in S's and/or H's encyclopedic knowledge. Definite NPs cover not only nominal phrases preceded by definite article the (i.e. definite descriptions), but also many less prototypical types such as personal pronouns, demonstratives, etc. Definite NPs may be used either endophorically or exophorically, that is to say, either an anaphoric relation or a word-world relation may be involved. Anaphoric relation comprises of two kinds: direct anaphoric relation and indirect anaphoric relation. Indirect anaphoric relation means that the antecedent does not include the head which appears in the anaphoric element. Reference, too, can be subdivided into two types, i.e. semantic reference and pragmatic reference, or speaker reference. The study of anaphoric use of definite NPs has undergone a considerably long history. Chomsky (1981; 1982)'s approach is a pure grammatical one, Reinhart (1983), Kuno (1989) and Levinson (1987a) find out that many uses cannot be accounted for by Chomsky's Binding principles, so Levinson (1987a; 1987b; 1991) blazes a new path and starts a pragmatic methodology. Levinson's pragmatic approach is superior to Chomsky's pure grammatical methodology in that by invoking three pragmatic principles a much wider range of corpus can be explained. But Levinson's approach, in turn, is challenged by cognitive linguists such as Ariel (1994) and Gundel et al (1993), who claim that the hearer does not have to find out the antecedent of an anaphoric element in her interpretation of an utterance, nor will she cease to decode a referring expression (note that a referring expression can be either anaphoric or referential) when she concludes that an explicit antecedent is unavailable, on the contrary, she will resort to her long-term memory to continue her search for the possible reference until she succeeds or the conversation breaks down. All the above-mentioned theories fail to touch upon indirect anaphoric relations. We insist that indirect anaphoric relation is an indispensable part in the study of anaphoric relations. An indirect anaphoric element may take either of two forms, one is introduced by definiteness marker the, theother presents itself as this/these + NP. By adopting such concepts as frame, script, and scenario, the interrelationship between the antecedental expression and the definite indirect anaphor (the + NP) can be diagrammed in three ways. Demonstrative pronominal expressions involved in indirect anaphoric relations undergo more strict constraints: on the one hand, the antecedental expression must represent a process or situation; on the other hand, the indirect anaphoric expression must form part of the semantic content of the antecedental expression. The theory of description is a philosophical approach to referring expressions, so a comprehensive study of referring expressions (and definite NPs especially) cannot bear to neglect the theory of description. In Chapter 5 we introduce how Russell, the originator of the theory of description, dissolves a clause containing a definite description into three interconnected clauses and thus deduces the meaning of definite descriptions, and then two revisions by Strawson and Donnellan respectively are introduced. A cognitive interpretation of Russell's theory is conducted in this chapter but an explication of Strawson's and Donnellan's versions of the theory of description is reserved until the last section of Chapter 7.In Chapter 6 and 7, we put forward for the first time the cognitive domain model and attempt to conduct an all-around reference resolution to all types of definite NPs and indefinite NPs as well. A cognitive domain is "a context for the characterization of a semantic unit" (Langacker1987: 147), or "a coherent area of conceptualization... |
PDF Full Text Request