Leech教授论语料库语言学及语_省略_eoffreyLeech教授访谈_徐以中

JournalofForeignLanguages

中图分类号：H0

March2015Vol．38No．2文献标识码：D

文章编号：1004－5139（2015）02－0106－06

Leech教授曾应邀出席由《外国语》编者按：2005年9月，编辑部和剑桥大学在上海“第三届对比语义学与语用学国际研讨会”，并做了题为“礼貌有外国语大学联合举办的

（Politeness：IsThereanEast-WestDivide？）的大会发言（刊发于《外无东方与西方之分？”

2005年第6期）。2014年8月19日，Leech教授在英国兰卡斯特大学的办公室突国语》

享年78岁。本刊特发表Leech教授去世前不久所接受的一次访谈，以作纪念。然去世，

Leech教授论语料库语言学及语言理论与实践———GeoffreyLeech教授访谈

12，3

徐以中，余光武

（1．南京航空航天大学外国语学院，江苏南京211106；2．江苏师范大学语言科学学院，江苏徐州221009；3．语言能力协同创新中心，江苏徐州221009）访谈背景：

英国兰卡斯特大学（LancasterUniversity）的GeoffreyLeech教授是国际著名语言学家。他自20“英语国家语料库”（BritishNationalCorpus，世纪70年代开始致力于语料库研究，对简称BNC）的建立做出巨大贡献。Leech教授提出的“礼貌原则”为中国学者所熟知。他著述丰硕，其《语义学》（1981）至今仍为中国高校语言学专业研究生的重要教材。

“大数据”近年来，随着时代的到来，语料库语言学研究逐渐成为学者关注的热点。连一向不赞成利用语料库方法进行语言研究的NoamChomsky也承认语料库语言学的巨大影响。Chomsky［2：19］“如果想得到项目资助，。曾指出，近来的一个趋势是最好的办法就是说明你做语料库研究”那么，语料库语言学的优缺点到底在何处？笔者利用2013至2014年在兰卡斯特大学访学的机会，多次和Leech教授进行当面和邮件交流，并就语言研究和教学中一些相关问题进行了采访。以下是访谈内容。

Question1：Itseemstousthatcorpuslinguisticsisbecomingmoreandmoreinfluentialinlinguisticstoday．Youareapioneerofcorpuslinguistics，socouldyoutelluswhatyouconsidertobethemainstrengthsandweaknessesofcorpuslinguisticsintheoryandinpractice？

Leech：Themainstrengthofcorpusanalysisisthis：thedescriptivestatements，claims，ortheoriesonemakesaboutalanguagearebasedontheempiricalevidenceof（samplesof）languageuse．Icanbestshowtheadvantagesofthispositionbycomparingitwiththewell-knownrejectionofcorpusdatabyChomskyandthegenerativistschoolthatdominatedmuchlinguistictheorizinginthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury．

s‘intuition’—knowledgeofalanguageac-Chomskyanlinguisticshasreliedonthenativespeaker’

cessedthroughintrospection．Iwouldarguethatthecorpuslinguist，ontheotherhand，usesbothcorpusdataandintuition—thatis，weneedtheempiricaldataofhowlanguageisused，andalsotheanalyticinsightwebringtodescribingandtheorizingaboutlanguage，basedonourownknowledge．Thisisneces-saryifwearebothtoobserveandtounderstandthenatureoflanguage．So，althoughsomecorpuslinguists

106

wouldrejectintuition，Icertainlydon’t．

Todaywehaveenormouscorpora，soitispossibletosearchforrareaswellascommonfeaturesofaandtodescribethemingreatdetail．Itisalsopossibletofindsuitableexamplestoillustratefea-language，

turesofthelanguage．Sodictionariesandgrammarsthesedaysprovideauthentic，naturalexamplesoflan-guageuse，ratherthan‘wooden’exampleslikeThefarmerkilledtheducklingthatweusedtofindingrammarsandtextbooksfiftyyearsago．

Yetanother‘plus’ofcorpuslinguisticsisitsabilitytorevealpatternsofvariationwithinthelan-srelianceon‘intuition’requiredthefictionofan‘idealnativespeaker/hearer’guage．Thegenerativist’

whospeaksaninvariantvarietyofthelanguagewearestudying［1：1－3］．Butsociolinguisticsandotherusage-orientedbranchesoflinguisticshavehighlightedthevariabilityofalanguageintermsofnativespeakerdialectsoridiolects．Thenon-uniformityofalanguageiswidelyacceptedasself-evidenttoday，anditisclearthatanynativespeaker’sknowledgeofthatlanguageisboundtobeincomplete，whetherindialectorhistoricalchange．Corpuslinguistsacceptthisnon-uniformity，andprovidethetermsofregister，

toolstoinvestigateit，compilingcorporaandsubcorporarepresentingdifferentvarietiesofalanguage—forexample，corpusanalysishasshoneaspotlightonthebigdifferencesbetweenspokenandwrittenEng-lish，andlikewiseonthedifferencesbetweenAmericanandBritishEnglish．

Oneotherpoint：animportantstrengthofcorpusanalysisistheprincipleoftotalaccountability—theabilitytoaccountforusageinallitsvariety．Studiesofcorporabringtolightphenomenathatcannotbeneatlyfittedintointuition-basedgeneralizationsorcategories．Theseoftenoccursystematicallyandcannotberejectedasperformanceerrors．Ｒather，theyinviteanalysisintermsofnon-deterministicmodelsoflan-guage：weacceptthatlinguisticphenomenadonotalwayshaveneatboundaries，butcanbecharacterizedsintuitionunsupportedbybyprototypeeffects，gradients，orfuzzycategories．Ifwerelyonthelinguist’

corpusevidence，wearelikelytodiscoveronlyclear-cut，prototypicalexamplestobackupgeneraliza-tions，or，incontrast，tofindunrealisticcounterexamplesforwhichacorpuswouldprovidenoauthenticsupport．

Oneextraadvantageofcorpuslinguisticsisthatitgivesappropriatevaluetothelinguisticscholarshipofnon-nativespeakers．Thegenerativist’srelianceonthenativespeaker’sintuitionseemstoundervaluesuchanalysts，whooftenhavedeepknowledgeandreliableunderstandingofwhatispossibleinalan-guage．Inthecontextofpresent-dayworldwideuseofEnglish，itisartificialtorestrictinformationaboutalanguagetothatprovidedbynativespeakers．ItisnocoincidencethatEnglishcorpuslinguisticsflourishedearlyincountrieswhereatraditionofEnglishstudiesisverystrong，butwhereEnglishisnotanativelan-guage—inGermanyandSweden，forinstance．Onceagain，Iemphasizethatcorpusanalysisreliesbothontheconcreteevidenceoflanguageuse，andtheinsightandunderstandingthatthecorpusanalyst（notnecessarilyanativespeaker）bringstothetask．

Finally，animportantadvantageofcorporaisthattheyprovidefrequencyinformation，whichistypi-callydifficultorimpossibletoobtainfromothersources．Thisisamatterofgrowingimportancetolinguis-tictheoryandtothestudyoflinguisticprocessessuchaslanguageacquisitionanddiachronicchange．

Whataretheweaknessesofcorpuslinguistics？Well，Idonotrecognizeanyweaknessesincorpuslin-guisticsasageneralapproach，buttherearecertainlysomeweaknessesinthewaysithasbeenpractised．Inmyview，onesourceofweaknessistheassumptionthatcorporaprovidetheonlykindofobservableevi-

107

dencelinguistsneed．Iwouldarguethatotherkindsofevidencecanbeimportant—especiallytheevidenceofintuitionandtheevidenceofthedataelicitedfrominformants，forexampleinlinguisticfield-workorinpsycholinguistictesting．Theseprimarysourcesofevidencehavetheirownspheresofvalidity，andthroughthemwecanaccesscognitivesourcesofinformationinaccessiblefromcorpora．Inbrief，cor-porayieldperformancedata，whileelicitationyieldscognitive（competence）data．Theseareoftenmutual-lyconfirmatory，but，forexample，thefrequencyphenomenaprovidedbyacorpusdonotnecessarilycor-respondcloselywiththeprototypeinformationtowhichelicitationexperimentscangiveaccess．［Onthis［4：635－676；3：273－291］andrelatedissues，seeGriesetal．（2005）andGilquin（2007）．］

Anothercomplaintaboutcorpuslinguisticsisthatittendstobeconcernedwithlow-leveldescriptivefactsaboutparticularlanguages，whereasformanylinguists，thehigh-levelabstractuniversalsoflanguagearemostsignificant．Again，Iwouldarguethattosomeextentthisimpressionisduetoinadequateuseofcorpusmethods：inearlierdays，corpuslinguiststypicallylackedambitiontoengagewiththeory，butthisisbeingovercome．OnesignofthisisthejournalCorpusLinguisticsandLinguisticTheory．

Yetafurthersourceofweaknessisthis：mostcorporafurnishanimpoverishedpictureofthespeecheventsorwrittentextstheycontain．Thisarisesfromtwosources．Thefirst，applicableespeciallytocorpo-visualcorporaandmulti-modalcorpo-raofspokendiscourse，ispovertyofcontextualinformation．Audio-ra，whichprovideavideorecordcombinedwithanauditoryrecordofthespeechevent，areovercomingpartofthisproblem，althoughtheyareobviouslymorecostlyandtime-consumingtocreatethanpurelytex-tualrenderingsofdiscourse．（GuYueguo’scorpusofsituateddiscourse，analyzingBeijingspeech，isanotableexampleofwhatcanbeachieved．［6：127－167］）Again，aprosodictranscriptionofdiscourse，withbuilt-inpause，intonationandstressphenomena，isanadvantageintellingusnotjustwhatwassaid，buthowitwassaid．Butitisalltoocommonforaspokenlanguagecorpustobetranscribedrathersimplis-ticallyasanorthographicrecord，simplybecauseofthedifficultyofprovidingthealternative．Anortho-graphicrecord，whetherofspeechorofwriting，imposesitsownlimitedperspectiveonthetext，segment-ingitintowordsseparatedbywhite-spacewordboundariesandsentencesseparatedbyperiodsandotherfinalpunctuation．Hencethetypicalwindowontoacorpus—aconcordancebasedonplainorthographictext—isseriouslylimitingasarepresentationofaspokendiscourse，andcanalsobesomethingofalimi-tationforrepresentingwrittendiscourse．

Secondly，thereisoftenalackofthedeeperanalysisthatcanbeprovidedbyannotation．Themostfrequentformofannotation—part-of-speechtagging—isthemostsimplistic，whereasparsing，semanticanalysis，anaphoricannotation，etc．wouldprovidemuchmore．（Someparsedcorpora，ortreebanks，ex-ist，buttheyarenotsowidelyusedoraswidelyavailableastheycouldbe．）Thelackofsuchkindsofan-alyticinformationaboutthetextinpracticeleadslinguiststorestrictinvestigationstothekindsofphenom-enathatcanberetrievedwithoutthem—forexample，tolexicalstudiesandsimpleword-basedgrammati-calstudies．Ofcourse，thesecanbeveryrevealing，buttheyonlygiveusapartialviewpointonthemulti-levelednatureoflanguage．Inconclusion，IwanttomakeitclearthatIseethesenotasinherentweaknes-sesofthecorpusmethodology，butasfrequentlimitationsinthewaycorpusmethodshavebeendevelopedandused．

Question2：ＲecentlyitseemsthatyouhavebeenmoreconcernedwithlanguagechangeinEnglish（e．g．modalchange）．Doesthismeanthatdiachroniclinguisticstudyismoreimportantthansynchronic

108

linguisticstudyinyourview？Andcouldyougiveussomeexamplestoshowhowsuchstudyhasthepoten-tialtopredictfuturedevelopmentsinascientificway？

Leech：Thisistwoquestions，oneabouttherelativemeritsofsynchronicanddiachroniclinguistics，andanotheraboutthepossibilityofusingdiachroniccorpusstudiestopredictfuturedevelopments．Myan-swertobothisinthenegative！

Idon’tthinkdiachroniclinguisticsismoreimportantthansynchroniclinguistics．ButifwetaketheexampleofEnglish，theenormousproliferationofhistoricalcorporasincethe1990shasgivenanimmensepowertodiachroniclinguisticmethodology．Ithinksimilardevelopmentshavebeentakingplaceincorpusresourcesforotherlanguages．Corporaprovidetheabilitytostudylanguagechangeinanew，morepreciseway，byhistoricalstudyofvariationbetweendialectsandregisters，andhowthesehaveevolvedbetweendifferentperiods．Languagechangeisjustonedimension，thoughanimportantdimension，oflanguagevariation．Whatissignificantisthatcorpuslinguisticsenablesustostudychangeinmuchmoredetail，andwithmuchgreaterprecision，thanwaspossibletwentyyearsago．

Predictionoffuturedevelopmentshastobespeculative，butonecouldexpectcertainchangestocon-tinue：inEnglish，forexample，increasingfrequencyintheprogressiveaspectandsemi-modalslikebego-offofgrammaticalization．OtherdevelopmentsinEnglish，suchingtoseemslikelytocontinue，asaspin-asthedecreasingfrequencyofmostmodalsauxiliaries，andofthepassive，arelesspredictable，butIwouldn’tbesurprisediftheycontinue．Ontheotherhand，trendscansometimespeteroutorgointore-verse—forexample，inrecentBritishEnglish，theuseofhaveto（ascontrastedwiththedeclineofmust）increasedthroughmostofthetwentiethcentury，buttherehaverecentsignsthathavetoisbegin-ningtodecline．

Question3：Inanearlierinterview（in2007）youmentionedpolitenessasaverypracticalissueforlearnersofaforeignlanguage［9］．Socouldyoutalkmoreabouttheprincipleofpoliteness？Anddoyouhaveanysuggestionsforcarryingonpolitenessstudiesinlinguistics？

Leech：Ihavewrittenanewbookonpoliteness：ThePragmaticsofPoliteness（publishedbyOxfordUniversityPress，2014）［8］．ItreturnstothemaximsofpolitenessthatIwroteaboutinPrinciplesofPragmatics（1983）［5］，butitseesthemaspartofasimplegeneraltheoryofpoliteness．Idefinepolite-nessas‘communicativealtruism’—thatis，tobepolite，speakerscommunicateinsuchawayastogivevaluetotheotherperson，andnottothemselves．Allmaximsarevariantsofthis‘GeneralStrategyofPo-liteness’．Howdowestudypoliteness？Well，thesourcesofevidenceIhavealreadymentionedarealsothesourcesweuseforpolitenessstudies：thedataofactualusage（especiallycorpusdata），dataelicitedfrominformants，andthedataofintuition．Wealsoneedtoengageincomparativepolitenessstudies，whichhavetwoaspects：thewaysinwhichlanguagesdifferintheirresourcesforpoliteness，andthewayculturesdifferinthevaluetheygivetocertaintypesofpoliteness．Forexample，itseemsthatinChineseculturetheGenerosityMaximisgenerallymorepowerful，whereasinwesternEnglish-speakingcultures，theTactMaxim—thekindofpolitenessthatisfoundinindirectrequests—isgenerallymorepowerful．Thereismuchmoreresearchtobedoneonthisandothercomparativestudiesofpoliteness．

Question4：Wheredoyousuggestapersonnewtolinguisticsshouldstarttheirinvestigationoflan-guage？

Leech：Anobviouspointisthatourresearchshouldbeginwithasurveyofwhatotherpeoplehave

109

publishedonthetopicwehavechosentoinvestigate．Butevenwhiledoingthat，weshouldengagewiththeactualdataweneedforourstudies．Inthis，thereisalottorecommendthecorpuslinguisticmethod-ology．Manydifferentelectroniccorporaandsearchtoolsareeasilyavailable，andnowadaysitispossibletobuildupyourowncorpus—forexample，byusingdatathatyoucollect（withpermission）fromlan-guagestudents，orbydownloadingdatafromtheweb．Livinginthiscenturyof‘bigdata’，wehaveanimmenseadvantageoveracademicresearchersofearlierperiods，whooftenhaddifficultyfindingenoughrealdatatostudy．Youmightbeworried，though，thatallthetopicsyoucanthinkofhavebeeninvestiga-sothatyoucannotcontributeanythingoriginal．Butoftenspendingacoupleofhoursinspec-tedbyothers，

tingaconcordancefromacorpuswillrevealinterestingpatternsthatnoonehaspreviouslynoticed，andwhichcouldformthebasisforanoriginalstudy．

Question5：Forapersonwhohasalreadychosenlinguisticsashiscareer，isthereaneffectiveandefficientmethodinlinguisticresearch，suchasinthefieldofpragmatics，corpuslinguistics，cognitivelin-guistics，orstylistics，etc．？

Leech：Inmyownresearch，Ihavestudiedfourmainareasoflinguistics：Englishgrammar，pragma-tics，stylistics，andcorpuslinguistics．Thesearenottotallyseparate，because，forexample，wecanusecorpusmethodstostudygrammar，stylisticsandpragmatics．IfsomeoneaskedmewhyIchosethesefourfields，Iwouldfinditdifficulttogiveasensibleanswer．Onereasonwasinterest，andanotherwasoppor-tunity：Igotinvolvedwiththeseareasoflinguisticsbecauseofmyowninterest，andbecauseoftheoppor-tunitiesthatcamemyway．IcannotsayIhaveundertakenresearchincognitivelinguistics，whichisarelativelynewfield．ButIwelcomethedirectioncognitivelinguisticshasbeentaking，withitsemphasisonusage-basedmodelsanditsrecognitionthatfrequencyisoneofthekeystohowlanguageisprocessed，isthisisthewaycorpuslinguisticscanbestengagewiththeory．IfIwereacquiredandevolves．Inmyview，

startingacareerinlinguisticstoday，Iwouldfollowmyowninterests，whichwoulddefinitelyincludebothcognitivelinguisticsandcorpuslinguistics．

Question6：WhetherwelookinNoamChomsky’sgenerativelinguisticsorinsomeinfluentialfunc-tionallinguistics，it’shardtofindmuchofpracticalrelevancetosecondlanguagelearning．Ontheotherhandyourpaperon“Frequency”，inForeignLanguageTeachingandＲesearch（2011）［7：3－21］，isbothilluminatingandinsightful．Couldyougiveussomemoreadviceoneffectivesecondlanguageteach-ingandlearning，especiallyEnglishteachingandlearning？

Leech：Ihavelittleexperienceoflanguageteachingperse，andsoIhavelittletosayaboutmethodsoflanguageteachingandthereasonsforsuccessorfailureinlanguagelearning．Iamaverybadspeakerofforeignlanguagesmyself！SoIwillconfinemyremarkstothecontentoflanguageteachingandlearning，ratherthantomethodsandprocesses．Youmentionedfrequency，andI’mabelieverintheprinciple‘Morefrequent=moreimportanttolearn’．Thatis，thelearnerwillencountermoreexamplesoffrequentfeaturesoflanguagethaninfrequentfeatures，andsopriorityoflearningshouldfollowfrequency．Socorpo-ra（asI’vealreadysuggested）areimportantintellingusaboutfrequency．Itisalsonotablethatteach-ers，evenverygoodteachers，donothavemuchideaabouttherelativefrequencyofdifferentfeaturesoflanguage．Forexample，teachersoftenimaginethattheprogressiveformoftheEnglishverb（istaking）ismorefrequentthanthesimpleform（takes），whereasfromgeneralcorporaweknowthatthesimpleformismorethantentimesasfrequentastheprogressive．

110

Buttherearetwoimportantcaveatstoadd．

thegeneralfrequencyofanitemisnotalwaysagoodguide，asfrequencyvariesgreatlyaccord-First，

ingtowhatkindoflanguageweareusing．Forexample，frequencyinspeechisoftenverydifferentfromfrequencyinwriting．Let’sjustconsideroneexample．TheverbsgetandbecomeinEnglishcanbeusedinasimilarway：ShegotangryandShebecameangryhavealmostthesamemeaning．Butinspeechgetismorethantentimesasfrequent，andinwritingbecomeismorethantentimesasfrequent．Soatamoreadvancedlevellearnersneedtobesensitivetofrequencyvariation．

Second，somefrequentfeaturesoflanguageareeasytolearn，anddonothavetobeprioritized．ForVerb-Objectwordorder，sothatveryfrequentexample，ChineseandEnglishbothhaveabasicSubject-patterndoesn’tcausedifficultyforChineselearnersofEnglish，compared，forexample，withJapaneselearners，whoseownlanguageplacestheverblast．Todiscoverareasofdifficulty，acorpusoflearners’languageismoreuseful，asitwillshowwherethelearnersmakeerrors，wheretheyencounterproblems．Sowhileinformationaboutfrequencyinthetargetlanguageisessentialtoreflectthelearners’needs，in-formationaboutfrequencyinthelearners’interlanguage，andespeciallyfrequencyoferrorinthelearner’snativelanguage，aremorevaluableinshowingwherehelpisneeded．Parallelcorpora（thatis，corporarepresentingtranslationsbetweentwolanguages）canalsoshowwhereareasofdifficultylie．Oftherearemanyaspectsoflanguagelearningtobediscussed，andcorpuslinguisticsasdevelopedatcourse，

themomentdoesn’tprovidealltheanswers．ButIhopethisisenoughtogiveasketchofhowcorpuslin-guisticscanhelplanguagelearningandteaching．

Question7：Thankyouforyourtimeandforallyouranswers．Isthereanythingyouwanttoadd？Ifit＇snottoomuchtoask，wewouldliketoknowwhatfirstsparkedyourinterestinhumanlanguage．

Leech：Iwenttoasmallcountryschoolwherethepupilswere150boys，andtheonlylanguagestaughtwereFrenchandLatin．Igotinterestedinthoselanguages，andwhentheopportunitycametogotouniversity，IoptedforFrench．Butthrougharemarkablegoodfortune，myfatherusedtovisitapubanddrinkbeerwithaprofessor，whowastheprofessorofEnglishLanguageatUniversityCollegeLondon．SoitwasthroughthispersonalcontactthatIobtainedaplaceatwhatbecamemyalmamater—tostudyEng-lish，notFrench．Ineverregrettedthis，becausebyluck，IhadarrivedinprobablythebestplacetostudyEnglishlanguageintheUK．BeforeIstartedmylifeasauniversitystudent，IundertookmyNationalSer-vice（thenobligatoryforyoungmen）inGermany，andusedmuchofmysparetimetolearnwhatIcouldnotonlyofGerman，butOldEnglish，ItalianandSpanish．Ididn’tmasteranyofthese！Buttryingtolearntheselanguagesmademeawareofthefascinationofhistoricalrelationshipsbetweenlanguages—forexample，betweenLatinanditsmodernoffspring，ItalianandSpanish，andbetweenGerman，OldEng-lish，andPresent-DayEnglish．Atuniversity，IalsostudiedanotherGermaniclanguagethathashelpedtoshapetheEnglishlanguage：OldNorse．AstheEnglishproverbwarnsus：‘Jackofalltrades，masterofnone！’Ifailedtoshineinanylanguageapartfrommynativelanguage，English．Ihadnoidea，asastudent，thatIwouldendupmakingacareerofthatnativelanguage，andthatEnglishwouldmoreoverbe-comethegloballinguafrancathatitistoday．参考文献：

［1］Chomsky，N．AspectsoftheTheoryofSyntax［M］．Cambridge，MA：MITPress，1965．1－3．

111

［2］Chomsky，N．TheScienceofLanguage：InterviewswithJamesMcGilvray［M］．Cambridge：CambridgeUniver-sityPress，2012．

［3］Gilquin，G．Toerrisnotall：Whatcorpusandelicitationcanrevealabouttheuseofcollocationsbylearners

［J］．ZAA，2007，55（3）：273－291．

［4］Gries，St．Th，Hampe，B．＆D．Schnefeld．Convergingevidence：Bringingtogetherexperimentalandcorpus

dataontheassociationofverbsandconstructions［J］．CognitiveLinguistics，2005，16（4）：635－676．［5］Leech，G．PrinciplesofPragmatics［M］．NewYork：LongmanGroupLimited，1983．

［6］Gu，Y．Multimodaltextanalysis—Acorpuslinguisticapproachtosituateddiscourse［J］．TextandTalk，

2006，26（2）：127－167．

［7］Leech，G．WhyfrequencycannolongerbeignoredinELT？［J］．ForeignLanguageTeachingandＲesearch，

2011，43（1）：3－20．

［8］Leech，G．ThePragmaticsofPoliteness［M］．NewYork：OxfordUniversityPress，2014．［9］刘风光，J］．外语与外语教学，2009，（1）：17－21．林晓英，徐珺．Leech教授的语用文体观［

（10CYY033）、基金项目：本文为国家社科基金项目“汉语情态动词语用、语义与句法的互动研究”江苏高校

“汉语和侗台语若干语法范畴的形式与功能研究”、哲学社会科学重点研究基地重大项目江苏省教育厅高校哲学社会科学研究项目（2012SJD740041）以及中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金“高校英语基础（NＲ2012014）的阶段性成果。课程领导及生态化建设研究”收稿日期：2014－09－18

作者简介：徐以中（1975－）男，江苏沭阳人，博士，副教授，硕士生导师。研究方向：语言理论与教学。

余光武（1974－）男，安徽寿县人，博士，副教授，硕士生导师。研究方向：理论语言学。

112