2004 1 ( ) Jan.

2004
36 1 For eign L anguage T eaching and Research ( bimonthly) Vol. 36 No. 1

:
,


, , ,
,
:

[ ] H0- 05 [ ] A [ ] 1000- 0429( 2004) 01-0003- 7

:

,
20 , ?
, ,
, ?
, ,
?
, : /
, , : , ,
, Chomsky 0( 2002: 77)
( 1957, 1961)
, ( / , Saussure / 0 /
) 0, Chomsky
( , ,
) , UG ( linguist ic universals,

) Chomsky

20
: Pike, H jelmslev, F irt h, H alliday, v an Dijk
( Fries
& Kintsch, Hart mann ( Beaugrande
A merican E ngl ish G rammar , 1940) ,
1991) ( H ymes 1972)
,
( Halliday 1973) (
, ,
Widdowson 1984)

# 3#
 2004 1

, ,
M ey( 1993: 5) , / ( Aarts 1999)

Chomsky 0

Aitchison( 1998: 183- 184) ,
Chomsky ,
, /

;
, , ( Probabilist ic Ap-
, 0 proach) 2001

, , Bob ( 2003) 5
, 6 Jurafsky ( 2003) : /

( McEnery & Wilson 1996 ) Chomsky ,
( 1964) ,
,

, ; ,

, ,
0/

: 0( maxim of cat egoricity )
? ,
? Chomsky ,
, Oakes
( 1998) , ( log- , ,
norm al distribution) , ,
Alien & Seiden- 2003 At lanta
berg( 1999) , , ,

, , , :
,
,

, ,
,

,

,
( f requency) , , / 0
H alliday ,
( 1991) , ,
,

# 4 #


,
, / 0
Sampson( 2000) ( empirical ,
ling uist ics) M anning & Schutze ( 1999) ,
1960 1985 ,
,


1920 ) 1960
1970 ) 1989 Svart vik ( 1996) ,
, , ,
, Leech ( 1992)
, , / -. ,
, 0Sam pson( 2001) ,
Colorless green ideas sleep f uriously ,
,
, , (

/ 0/ 0 )
: In addit ion to ,
this, she insist ed t hat women w ere reg arded as a
different existence f rom man unfairly. / I have Sampson( 1992) ,
an ache in the head. , ,
, ,
M anning & Schutze ( 1999) , Chomsky ,
:
w hile , / 0 ( take a
w hile) , ,
( While you w ere out. . . ) T hey. re just trying t o score
1742 , brow nie p oi nts w it h politicians. / T he boss is
pleased ) t hat. s anot her brow nie p oint .
, , ?
, ,
, brow nie point s 76,
Chomsky brow nie point 6
( 1957)
, , ,
, Man- 20
ning & Schutze ( 1999) 80 Sam pson ( 1987) ,
tall : 1)
( ) , , ; 2)
, , ,
/ 0, ; 3) ,
# 5#
 2004 1

; M I-
CASE ( M ichigan Corpus of Academic Spoken
, English) ;
T 2K- SWAL ( T OEFL
Brow n 2000 Spoken and Writt en Academic Language
, Green Rubin Corpus) ,
T AGGIT , 77- 78% T OEF L
Lancaster Garside( 1987)
LOB 133 @ 133 ,
CLAW , ( F illmore ) (
96- 97% CLAW , ? ?) ,
, ?
BNC, : 1. 15% , ?
3. 75% ( , ,
, ) ( corpus- based approach) ,
, , ( corpus- driven ap-
20 proach) T ognin-
i Bonelli( 2001) ,
60 Brow n LOB 100
, L GSWE( Long man Spoken and
Writ ten English Corpus) 4000 , BNC ,
( Brit ish National Corpus) 1 ( ,
) , COBUILD ( Bank Bob
Quirk
of Eng lish) 4 Biber ( 1999) 5 6Halliday
L GSWE L ongman G ram mar of
Sp oken and Wr it ten Engl ish , 1000
, ,
, 15 ,

( Internat ional Corpus of Eng lish, ICE) , , ,

100 , Sinclair
, , 1987 COBUIL D (
, Simpson & Coll ins Cobuil d Dictionary ) ,
Sw ales( 2001) : / Hunston & F rancis( 2000) 56
, ,
10


0

( L inguist ic Data Consort ium ) 20 50 , ,

;
M acWhinney CH ILDES 60 ) 80 ,
# 6 #


90 ,

Juraf sky( 2003) , 2000 ,
, 77%
, ( ) , / 0
: ( 1) ( )
, : / 0(
)

, ,
( 2) ( cues)
( 3) ( cue v alidit y) ,
( cue av ailabilit y)
( cue reliabilit y)
: , ,
,
, ,
( ?)
: ( emergentism) Bat es
( ( 1998) ,
( Bayes) ) , , :
, ,
;

;
, , /
, ,

, ,
0
,
,

/ ( pidg inizat ion)
, ,


, , ,

, ,
, ( Constraint- based Models)
, ( Rat ional Models)
( M arkov M odels of L ex ical Prefer-
( T he Competit ion Model, M acWhinney et al. ence)
( Stochast ic Con-
1984; MacWhinney & Bat es 1989; M acWhin- t f ree Gram mar) ( Bayesian
tex-
ney, 2001) , Beliefs Net works) ( Proba-
# 7#
 2004 1

bilistic M odeling of P roduct ion) , , ,

, ( 2)
,


, ,
( 3)
,
, , ( 4)
, , / 0 ,
, , ,
11 , ,
/ 0, ?
( 5) ,
, ,
( 6) ,
, UG ( )
21 , ,
(

)
( 1983) 1937 , 41 ,
/ , (
) ,
, 0/ ,
[ ( Kar-
l ,
g ren) , 56,
]

, :
056 , 1951 Cornell
/ 0( ) ,
, 1953 Indiana
, , , / 0;
70
, ( ( 2000)
) ,
, 51
, , , ,
,
31

, , Aarts, B. 2000. Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and fuzzy

, : ( 1) tree fragments [ A ] . I n C. Mair & M . Hundt

( eds. ) . Cor p us L inguistics and L inguistic T heor y
, , , [ C] . Amsterdam: Rodopi.
ICE Aitchison, J. 1998. T he A r ticulate M ammals: A n I n-
# 8 #

troduction to Psycholinguis tics [ M ] . London: Rout-
ledge.
A lien, J & Seidenberg . 1999. T he emerg ence of g ram-
maticality in connectionist networ ks [ A ] . In B.
M acWhinney ( ed. ) . T he Emer gence of L anguage
[ C] . NJ: L aw rence Erlbaum Associates, I nc. , Pub-
lishers
Bates, E. , J. Elman, M . Johnson, A . Karmilo f-
f Smith,
D. Parisi & K. Plunkett. 1989. Innateness and e-
mergentism [ A ] . In W. Bechtel & G. Graham
( eds. ) . A Comp anion to Cognitive Science [ C] .
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Beaugrande, R. 1991. Linguistic T heory : T he D iscourse
of Fundamental Works [ M ] . L ondon: Longman.
Bob, R. , J. Hays & S. Jannedy. 2003. Pr obabilistic
Linguistics [ M ] . Cambridge, M ass. : M IT Press.
Chomsky, N . 1957. Sy ntactic S tr uctures [ M ] . T he
Hague: M outon & Co .
Halliday, M . A. K . 1973. Exp lorations in the Function
of L anguage [ M ] . London: Ar nold.
Halliday, M . A. K . 1991. Corpus studies and probabilistic
grammar [ A] . In K . Aijmer et al. ( eds. ) . English
Corp us L inguistics [ C] . L ondon: Longman
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence [ A ] .
In J. B. Pr ide et al ( eds. ) . Sociolinguistics [ C] .
Harmondswo rth: Peng uin Books Ltd.
Jur afsky, D. 2003. Probabilist ic mo deling in psycholin-
guistics: L inguistic comprehension and productio n
[ A] . In R. Bob et al. ( eds. ) . 2003.
L eech G. N. 1992. Corpora and theories of linguistic per-
formance [ A] . In J. Svartv ik ( ed) . Dir ections in
Corp us L inguistics. Proceedings of N obel Sy mp o-
sium 82 , S tockholm , 4-8 A ugus t, 1991 [ C ] .
Mouton de G ruy ter , Berlin and New York.
M acWhinney, B. , E. Bates & R. Klieg l. 1984. Cue
validity and sentence inter pretation in English, G er-
man, and Italian [ J] . Journal of Ver bal Lear ning
and Ver bal Behav ior 23. 127- 150.
M acWhinney , B. & E. Bates. 1989. T he Cross-linguis-
tic Study of Sentence Processing [ M ] . Cambridge:
Cambridge U niversity P ress.
M acWhinney, B. 2001. T he Competition model: T he
input, the context and the brain [ A] . In P. Robin-
son( ed. ) . Cognition and Second L anguage A cquisi-
tion [ C] . Cambr idge: Cambridge U niversity P ress.
M anning, C. & H. Schutze. 1999. Statistical N atur al
L anguage Pr ocessing [ M ] .
M cEner y, T . & A. W ilson. 1996. Corp us Linguistics
[ M ] . Edinburg h: Edinburg h U niversit y Press.
M ey, J. 1993. Pr agmatics : A n Intr oduction [ M ] . Ox-
ford: Blackw ell Publishers L td.
Oakes, M . 1998. S tatistics f or Cor p us Linguis tics [ M ] .
Edinburgh: Edinburgh U niversity P ress.
Sampson, G. 1987. Probabilistic models of analysis [ A ] .
In R . G arside et al. ( eds. ) . T he Comp utational
A nalysis of English [ C] . L ondon: Longman. 16- 29.
Sampson, G. 1992. Probabilistic parsing [ A ] . In
Svartvik ( ed. ) . D irections in Corp us L inguistics :
Pr oceedings of N obel Sy mp osium 82 [ C] . Berlin:
M outon Gruyter.
Sampson, G. 2001. Emp ir ical L inguistics [ M ] . Lon-
don: Continuum.
Simpson, R. & J. Sw ales. 2001. Intro duction: N orth
American perspectives on co rpus linguistics at the
millennium [ A ] . In R. Simpson & J. Sw ales
( eds. ) . Cor p us L inguistics in Nor th A merica [ C] .
M ichigan: T he U niversit y of M ichig an Press.
Svartvik, J. 1996. Corpor a ar e becoming mainstream
[ A ] . In J. T homas & M . Shor t ( eds. ) . Using
Corp ora f or Language Resear ch [ C ] . L ondon:
L ongman.
T ognin-iBonelli, E. 2001. Cor p us L inguistics at Wor k
[ M ] . A mster dam: Jo hn Benjamins Publishing Co.
Widdow son, H. 1984. Competence and capacity in lan-
guage learning [ A] . I n H. W iddow son ( ed. ) . Ex-
p lor ations in A p plied L inguistics 2 [ C] . Ox ford:
OU P .
, 2000, 5 6 [ M ] :
, 1983, 5 6 [ M ] :
( 1937 )
, 2002,
[ J] ,5 6 4
: 2003 ) 7 ) 26;
, 2003) 11) 1
: 510420
# 9#
 2004 1 ( ) Jan. 2004
36 1 For eign L anguage T eaching and Research ( bimonthly) Vol. 36 No. 1

Abstracts of major papers in this issue

Probabilistic approaches to linguistic research, by Gui Shichun, p. 3
T he paper calls into quest ion linguistic rationalism and its introspective met hodology in ter ms of the relation betw een
linguistic facts and linguistic theories. New developments of probabilist ic linguistics, corpus linguistics, computat ional lin-
guistics, and psycholing uist ics are given as the opposing trend, which reflects the rejuvenation of the historical tradition of
r espect for linguistic facts. In Chinese ling uist ics the str engthening of t heoretical linguistics should g o hand in hand w ith
t he adopt ion of the probabilistic appr oach w hich is more in line w ith the Chinese historical tr adition of focusing on linguis-
tic data.

Grammaticalization of A and B, by Xu Shenghuan , p. 10

T he expression t ype of A_and_B can not only ex press coordination, but also imply subordinative relation of condit ion,
purpose and cause_effect. T he paper ar gues that the implication of this kind of subo rdinative semant ics has been grammat- i
calized as t he Constructio n of A and B . T he paper first ex amines the grammatical_semantic env ironments which ser ve as
t he inducing causes of the gr ammaticalization of the Construction. T hen it summarizes the 4 main features of t he realiza-
tion of grammaticalization of A and B. I t fur ther points out t hat t he nature of the grammat icalization of A and B is essen-
tially the process in w hich and as the device of textual cont inuation first developed into a coordinator in grammar, and
t hen t he coor dinator further developed into a grammatical dev ice w ith w ider coverage of semantic application.

Cognitive effects of grammatical metaphor, by Jin N ana & Chen Zili, p. 25

Grammatical metaphor in this paper refers to elementary grammatical metaphor in SFG, which concentrates on
w ordsp grammatical functions, t hus completely different fr om lexical metaphor. M etaphoricit y pr esumes an index that is
g radated in this paper to describe the quantity of the g rammar metaphor in a tex t. With tw o groups of colleg e studentsp
questionnaires, the positive study brings forth the follow ing results: there is quite a difference between the tw o groups in
construing congruent texts and metaphorical tex ts. F urthermore, the analysis shows that the metapho rical tex t helps sub-
jects make better cog nitive effects, and under certain circumstances, metaphor icity is in direct pro portion to the cog nitive
effects and the r elevance o f the text as w ell. T his is unexpectedly co ntrary to the common v iew that / the more metaphor-i
cal the text r emains, t he more difficult it is to be understood0.

Constructions in the comprehension of English sentences by Chinese EFL learners, by Dong Yanp ing & Liang Junying, p. 42
T his paper investigated, by the sort ing paradigm, the role of verbs or constructions when Chinese EF L learners try to
understand an English sentence. Sixteen sentences were created by crossing four v erbs with four constructions and subjects
of differ ent language proficiencies w er e asked to sor t them into four groups according to their ov erall meaning. T he results
sugg est that in an L 2 context, languag e proficiency makes a difference on t he main determinants of sentence meaning.
T hat is, EFL beginners rely more on the verb in sentence inter pretation, w hile intermediate and advanced learners are
mor e influenced by the construction of a sentence.

The effects of lexical aspect and discourse structure on the simple past marking in English interlanguage, by Cai Jinting, p. 49
T his paper studies the effects of lex ical aspect and discourse structur e on the simple past marking in Chinese_English
interlanguage w ith 120 wr itten nar ratives collected from 120 2nd_year university students. It is found that these two fac-
tors ex ert both individual and interactiv e effects on the simple past marking . T he effect of lexical aspect does no t fully a-
gr ee w ith the prediction of the primacy of lex ical aspect hypothesis, but that of discourse structure accords with the predic-
tion of the discourse hypothesis. Besides, the effect of one factor is mediated by t he other, hence the interactive effects oc-
cur. Discourse structure behaves differentially in various lexical aspect classes, stro nger in activit ies and achievements than
in st ates and accomplishments. L ex ical aspect show s a stronger effect on the simple past marking in the foreground.

Self_concept, English pronunciation and EFL learning, by W ang Chuming , p. 56

T his paper constitutes an attempt to study the role of pro nunciation in EFL learning. T he autho r claims that although
pronunciation is only part of the L2 learning task, performance on L 2 pronunciatio n influences a learnerps L 2 achiev ements
and judgment or self_concept of his/ her L2 learning ability. T he effect of pr onunciation on the L2 learning self_concept
and the facilitating or debilitating ro le of pronunciatio n in L 2 learning are couched in w hat the autho r calls the L 2 pro nun-
ciation lear ning hypot hesis. T hree studies have been conducted to test this hypothesis, adducing converging evidence that
t he English pronunciatio n self_concept correlates hig hly w ith EFL lear ning achievements and predicts the EF L learning
self_concept very well.