英汉光杆名词短语的指称特征.pdfVIP

English Abstract Abstract There is a long tradition of research into the reference. And Since Carlson (1977), Bare NPs as a special category of NPs, have been receiving much attention in the circle of linguistics. Studies on Bare NPs in English can be divided into two approaches: referential analysis and ambiguous analysis. This paper is devoted to English and Chinese Bare NPs, concerning with the reference similarities and differences. The theoretical frame of this study concerns Discourse Representation Theory, Type Theory, -conversion and so on. Based on the review and evaluation of literature related to references of Bare NPs home and broad, this thesis intends to reveal the similarities and differences by examining, describing and interpreting the references of Bare NPs in English and Chinese respectively. With a comprehensive summary of the research findings on Bare NPs, and a scan of the two major approaches, this thesis makes a relatively comprehensive and systematic analysis on Bare NPs in English and Chinese. This thesis arrives at the following conclusions. First, there are some reference similarities between Chinese and English Bare NPs: The stage-level predicates induce both generic and existential readings for Chinese and English Bare NP subjects. Bare NP subjects of individual-level predicates can only receive generic reading. Generic interpretations are limited to subjects does not hold generally for all types of predicates. Experiencer predicates in English and Chinese result in generic readings for Bare NP objects. Bare NP objects after verbs in English such as “become, make and get” and “chengwei” (become), “maochong” (imitate), “kanzuo” (take