期刊文献+

Analysis on the Formation and Elimination of Ambiguity in English Syntactic Ambiguity from the Cognitive Perspective

Analysis on the Formation and Elimination of Ambiguity in English Syntactic Ambiguity from the Cognitive Perspective
下载PDF
导出
摘要 English ambiguity expressions have been a heat topic in language research for a long time with a variety of theories and methods.Among them,the cognitive approach,just like the Figure-Ground theory,relevance theory and cognitive context theory,is a relatively new and vigorous perspective.However,as to studying ambiguity from the perspective of attention,very few researches have been done in this regard.By analyzing different types of English ambiguity expressions,it is necessary to explore how ambiguity expressions are formed and eliminated from the attentional view,and to provide some new insights into ambiguity study. English ambiguity expressions have been a heat topic in language research for a long time with a variety of theories and methods.Among them,the cognitive approach,just like the Figure-Ground theory,relevance theory and cognitive context theory,is a relatively new and vigorous perspective.However,as to studying ambiguity from the perspective of attention,very few researches have been done in this regard.By analyzing different types of English ambiguity expressions,it is necessary to explore how ambiguity expressions are formed and eliminated from the attentional view,and to provide some new insights into ambiguity study.
作者 陈佳嵘
出处 《海外英语》 2016年第17期194-195,208,共3页 Overseas English
关键词 syntactic ambiguity expression cognitive analysis FORMATION ELIMINATION attentional view prominence view experiential view syntactic ambiguity expression cognitive analysis formation elimination attentional view prominence view experiential view
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献26

  • 1项成东.歧义的语用研究[J].外语教学,2002,23(4):35-40. 被引量:35
  • 2刘宇红.心理空间理论与词汇歧义[J].外语学刊,2002(1):34-41. 被引量:12
  • 3Faucornier, C. Methods and generalizations [ A ]. In T.Janssen & G. Redeker (eds.). Cognitive Lingtustics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
  • 4Lakoff, G. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind [ M]. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.
  • 5Neill, W. T. & R. M. Klein. Reflection on modularity and connnectionism [ A]. In D. S. Gorfein & Spring-Verlag(eds.). Resolvind Semantic Ambiguity [ C ]. New York Inc.,1989.
  • 6Oakley, T. V. Conceptual blending, narrative discourse, and rhetoric [J]. Cognitive Linguistics, 1998, (9/4): 326.
  • 7Saeed, J. Semantics [M]. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1997.319.
  • 8Schvaneveldt, R. W. & F. T. Durso. Semantic distance effects in categorization tasks[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 1982, (8): 1 - 15.
  • 9Simpson, R.G. Varieties of ambiguity[A].In D. S. Gorfein & Spring-Verlag (eds.). Resolving Semantic Ambiguity [ C].New York Inc., 1989. 15 - 16.
  • 10Thomas, J. A. Meaning In Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman, 1995.

共引文献296

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部