【作者】 宫同喜；

【导师】 束定芳；

【作者基本信息】 上海外国语大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 前人研究认为,英汉语语序呈现倾向性差异：英语倾向于采用图形先于背景的语序,而汉语倾向于采用背景先于图形的语序。在此语序规律的基础上,相关研究进而推测英汉民族认知方式存在类似差异。但图形先于背景的认知方式明显与图形-背景的定义性特征不符。根据图形-背景的定义,背景应先于图形被感知。这是本文研究的最初缘起。文献回顾发现,前人关于图形-背景语序的考察尚存在诸多可改进之处：(1)研究对象界定不清,象红色的花这种不能直观表达图形-背景概念的语言结构成为重点论述对象；(2)重要研究对象缺位,复句图形-背景语序一直没有得到细致考察；(3)研究方法运用不当,简单地对特定类型语篇中的存在句和处所句进行定量对比,而未进行充分的定性分析；(4)对比研究不够充分。因此,有必要对英汉语图形-背景语序进行进一步考察,系统、准确描述英汉语图形-背景语序规律特征,为认知方式假设奠定基础。我们较为系统地考察了英汉语单句、复句和语篇的图形-背景语序特征。首先我们根据图形-背景属性界定研究对象,明确以单句中的存在句、处所句、领有句,复句中的时间关系复句、条件关系复句、因果关系复句,和语篇中的描写型语篇为研究对象。这些语言结构是表达图形-背景概念的典型结构。通过对这些语言结构的考察,我们的主要结论是,英汉语语序均在一定层面、一定程度上遵循背景先于图形的语序,差异中显示更多共性,而不是呈现倾向性差异。单句层面上,英汉语单句均采用背景先于图形和图形先于背景两种语序,完成不同的语用功能,展现不同的认知过程。定性分析表明,背景先于图形的语序更为基本。复句层面上,英汉语复句均以某种形式在一定程度上遵循背景先于图形的规律。如果认定从句为背景,主句为图形,则汉语呈现明显的背景先于图形的语序,而英语语序特征不明显。但如果从语义上分析,英语中表达背景概念的从句往往位于主句之前,表达图形概念的从句往往位于主句之后。例如,after引导的从句描述的事件发生在主句事件之前,语义上表达背景概念,而before引导的从句描述的事件发生在主句事件之后,语义上表达图形概念,因此after引导的时间状语从句比before引导的时间状语从句更易于位于主句之前。同理,条件状语从句比原因状语从句更易于位于主句之前,而原因状语从句比结果状语从句更易于位于主句之前。语篇层面上,英汉语语篇也同样遵循背景先于图形的语序规律。无论是平行语料,还是独立文本,英汉语描写型语篇均以背景链和中心链为组织语篇的主要手段。背景链模式中,背景引出图形,该图形进而演变为新的背景,引出下一个图形,层层推进；中心链模式中,背景为中心,引出背景周围的若干不同的背景。两种模式均是以背景为出发点,引出图形,体现了背景先于图形的语序特征。综上所述,英汉语语序呈现一定的共性：均在一定程度上体现了背景先于图形的语序特征。更多还原

【Abstract】 Previous studies on figure-ground order in English and Chinese conclude that English tends to exhibit figure-before-ground order while Chinese tends to exhibit ground-before-figure order. This contrast in language orders is believed to have exerted great influence on language speakers’ conceptualization. It is generally believed that English speakers tend to focus on figure first while Chinese speakers tend to focus on ground first. However, this inference is incompatible with figure-ground definition, according to which ground should be perceived first. The contradiction between language description, conceptualization inference and figure-ground definition leads to the beginning of this study.Previous studies are flawed in several aspects. First, the research objects are not well defined. Phrases that cannot express figure-ground notion, such as red flowers, are widely used as basic evidences. Second, important language structures such as complex sentences are seldom studied. Third, quantitative studies are carried out between qualitatively different structures, such as between locative sentences and existential sentences. Forth, data drawn from different language structures are mixed to make up some rather ambiguous conclusions. Therefore, it is necessary to further investigate the figure-ground order in both English and Chinese.We study systematically figure-ground order of simple sentences, complex sentences and discourses in both English and Chinese. First, language structures that express figure-ground notion naturally are selected as our research objects. In line with the definition and characteristics of figure-ground, our research objects are narrowed down to simple sentences expressing location and possession, complex sentences expressing time, condition and cause-result, and descriptive discourses. Our finding is that both English and Chinese tend to use ground-before-figure order in various ways, in contrast to the previous belief that English features figure-before-ground order while Chinese features ground-before-figure order. Both English and Chinese simple sentences use figure-before-ground order and ground-before-figure order to fulfill different pragmatic functions and exhibit different conceptual processes. Ground-before-figure order is more basic in both English and Chinese. Similarly, complex sentences expressing figure-ground notion naturally in both languages tend to use ground-before-figure order. If the subordinate clause is defined as ground and the main clause is defined as figure, Chinese exhibit predominantly ground-before-figure order and English is more balanced. However, semantic analyses show that English subordinate clauses expressing figure meaning are more likely to precede main clauses. For instance, the event described in an after-clause usually happens before the event in the main clause while the event described in a before-clause usually happens after the event in the main clause. From the figure-ground perspective, the after-clause describes a ground notion while the before-clause describes a figure notion. Data show after-clauses are more likely to appear before the main clause than before-clauses. This can also explain why the if-clause tends to precede the main clause and why the cause-clause is more likely to precede the main clause than the result-clause. English and Chinese descriptive discourses also exhibit a ground-before-figure order. Both English and Chinese discourses use ground-chaining and center-linking as key organization techniques. Ground-chaining refers to a pattern of ground anchoring in which the current ground is anchored with an entity in the immediately previous sentence. Center-linking pattern refers to a pattern of ground anchoring in which some entities are anchored with one common ground. In both patterns the ground comes before the figure, exhibiting ground-before-figure order. To summarize, there is more similarity than difference between English and Chinese figure-ground order, both languages exhibiting ground-before-figure in various ways.更多还原