欧盟语言多元化政策及相关外语教育政策分析

2008年1月第40卷　第1期

外语教学与研究(外国语文双月刊)

ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearch(bimonthly)Jan.2008

Vol.40No.1

Abstractsofmajorpapersinthisissue

Languageandnationalism:AcomparativeanalysisofEuropeandChina,byCHENPing(SchoolofLanguagesandComparativeCulturalStudies,Univ.ofQueensland,Brisbane,Australia),p.4

AcomparativeanalysisismadebetweenChinaandfourmajorEuropeancountriesofGermany,France,UKandIrelandwithregardtotherolethatlanguageandlanguageplanninghaveplayedinthedevelopmentofnationalism,andinthecreation,consolidationandreformofmodernstates.Linguisticnationalismoriginatingintheeighteenth2andnineteenth2centuryGermanyhasmanifesteditselfindifferentformsinthecountriesunderstudy.IncomparisonwiththesituationinmajorEuropeancountries,languageplanninginChinasincethelatenineteenthcenturyhasbeenfocusingmainlyontheutilitarianroleoflanguage,ratherthanonitsroleasasym2bolicmarkerofgroupidentity.

AmultilingualpolicyandtherelatedforeignlanguageeducationpolicyintheEU,byFURong&WANGKefei(FrenchDept.,BeijingForeignStudiesUniv.,Beijing100089,China),p.14

TheEuropeanUnionupholdsaprincipleof“unityofdiversity”:of,andoflangua2ges,thoughittriestorealizeapoliticalandeconomiconathelanguagestatusintheEUcountries,thepaperanalyzestheinternalaforsthesocialandhistoricalroleoflanguagesatvariouscountriesandcontemporaryEuropeancommunity,thatformthepolicyoflinguistictfEUπsforeignlanguageeducationpolicyanditsdevelopmentwithspecialrefndardsforForeignLanguageLearningandtheCommonEuropeanFrakforanguages:Learning,Teaching,Assessment.

IstherehChineseandEnglishrelativization?,byYANGCaimei(ForeignLanguagesCollege,TianjinNormalUniv.,Tianjin300387,China),p.20

FollowingthemovementanalysisofEnglishrelativization(ER),generativestudiesallargueforamovementanalysisofChineserelativization(CR),butthispaperarguesforamovementanalysisofERbutanon2movementanalysisofCR,supportedbyaclusterofdifferencesbetweenERandCRwithregardtothefollowingsixaspects:1)The(non2)existenceofreconstructioneffects,2)the(non2)existenceofislandeffects,3)the(non2)existenceofgaplessChineserelativestructures,4)theindependentwell2formednessorill2formednessoftherelativeIP,5)the(non2)existenceof“strongtransitivestranding”,and6)the(non2)existenceofparasiticgap.Itisfinallycon2cludedthatthereisawh2traceorNP/DP2traceinER,butitsChinesecounterpartisjustanemptypronoun.Acognitive2functionalperspectiveonintensivereflexivesinEnglishandChinese,byLIULijin(NationalKeyRe2searchCentreforLinguisticsandAppliedLinguistics,GuangdongUniv.ofForeignStudies,Guangzhou510420,China),p.29

Thethird2personintensivereflexives(IRs)inEnglishandChinesearenormallytakentobe‘pronominalre2flexives’unlike‘real,grammaticalized’reflexives.Judgedbycognitivelogic,IRsarerelativelyhighaccessibilitymarkersandalwaysoccurlowerorrightinthediscoursestructure,thusdependingreferentiallyonacorrespond2ingantecedentasthereferencepoint.IndiscourseIRsareusedprimarilyforemphasisandhighlighting,servingtohighlightendophoricreferent,andtorefertotopicalentityanddifferentiateprotagonistπs/non2protagonistπsviewpoint.AlbeittherearesomestructuraldisparitiesbetweenEnglishandChineseIRsinactualdiscourse,theunderlyingcognitivelogicandfunctionalmotivationfortheiroccurrencesareonthewholemuchthesame.

80