英汉主语的生成语法解释
发布时间：2018-12-11 20:17
【摘要】：在生成语法理论体系框架下,本文对英汉主语进行平行比较(丁金国：1996)后找出这两种语言的共性因子X并分析其在英汉主语中的体现形式和运作方式。 从英语主语的定义来看,它可分为句法主语和逻辑主语：句法主语一般位于IP的标志语位置;逻辑主语则指的是V-bar的外论元。在传统句法学中,充当域外论元的主语以及虚主语都是基生于IP的标志语位置；充当域内论元的主语则是通过移位派生的。然而在1991年主语位于动词词组内假设(KoopmanSportiche:1991)提出后,域内论元与域外论元被整合到同一局部域(VP)内,且所有主语都被认为是派生的。这一假设进一步体现了题元管辖的一致性以及局部条件(locality condition)(指的是句法原则与规则的作用范围)的作用。 本文认为汉语主语的原生位置也在VP内,且汉语动词缺乏形态特征,因此本文在按照胡建华(1997)提出的汉语不定式的判断标准讨论了汉语主语授格问题以及其与动词的结构关系后发现：汉语定式句中动词的外论元便是其逻辑主语,后为满足格理论和扩充投射原则经提升变成句子的主语。至于多名词短语句的主语则根据其基生位置以及充当动词的外论元来确认,而处于句首位置的其余名词短语被提到句首位置本文认为是话题化的结果。 汉语不定式句的主语处于无格位置,等同于英语的PRO,具有不被管辖的性质,或与主句主语共指,或与主句宾语共指；它还可出现在不定式句的补语和附加语位置上。 最后关于汉语中无主语的句子：首先因汉语没有表示一致关系的形态系统,pro指称无法“复原”(recovered)从而不能获得“许可”(licensed)(韩景泉：1997)。其次基于乔姆斯基的空语类指称句内可识别性(Intrasentential Referential Identity) pro在句子中找不到自己的先行项；因此本文认为汉语不是pro-drop语言。 通过以上的比较分析,英汉主语的共性因子X为：基生位置都位于VP内且都充当V-bar的外论元。然而英语主语具有显性格特征,通过提升操作被核查之后才能合法出现且每个句子必须有主语；汉语主语的生成情况则相对复杂,句中其它名词短语可通过主题化的操作手段出现在句首位置,也可根据语境省略主语。 采用生成语法理论对汉语主语进行研究的可行性验证了语言的共性；而且对汉语主语的直接研究关系到句子结构划分的一系列问题以及主语与话题的区分便于解决汉语主语的确认问题。这更说明了形式主义的分析方法能深入的反映语言的内在结构和本质特征。
[Abstract]:Under the framework of generative grammar theory, this paper makes a parallel comparison between English and Chinese subjects (Ding Jinguo: 1996) and finds out the common factor X of the two languages, and analyzes its embodiment and operation mode in English and Chinese subjects. From the definition of English subject, it can be divided into syntactic subject and logical subject: the syntactic subject is generally located in the marker position of IP, and the logical subject refers to the external argument of V-bar. In traditional syntactic theory, the subject acting as the extraterritorial argument and the virtual subject are all the markers based on IP, while the subject acting as the argument in the domain is derived by shifting. However, after the proposition of KoopmanSportiche:1991 in 1991, the intra-domain argument and the extra-territorial argument were integrated into the same local domain (VP), and all the subjects were considered to be derived. This hypothesis further reflects the consistency of the topic meta-jurisdiction and the role of the local condition (locality condition) (refers to the scope of the syntactic principles and rules. This paper holds that the original position of the Chinese subject is also within the VP, and the Chinese verbs lack morphological features. Therefore, according to Hu Jianhua (1997)'s judgment standard of Chinese infinitive, this paper discusses the subject giving case of Chinese and its relation with the structure of verb. It is found that the external argument of verb in Chinese fixed sentence is its logical subject. The latter is to satisfy the case theory and extend the projective principle to become the subject of the sentence. As for the subject of the multi-noun short sentence, it is confirmed by its basic position and the external argument acting as the verb, while the other noun phrases at the beginning of the sentence are referred to as the result of topicalization. The subject of the Chinese infinitive sentence is in a non-case position, which is equivalent to the PRO, of English which has the nature of not being subject, or co-referring with the subject, or with the object of the subject, and it can also appear in the position of complement and adjunct of the infinitive sentence. Finally, about the sentence without subject in Chinese: first of all, because there is no morphological system of consistent relation in Chinese, pro refers that (recovered) can not be "restored" and can not obtain "permission" (licensed) (Hanjingquan: 1997). Secondly, the identifiable (Intrasentential Referential Identity) pro based on Chomsky's empty category reference sentence can not find its own antecedents in the sentence. Therefore, this paper argues that Chinese is not a pro-drop language. Through the above comparative analysis, the common factor X of English and Chinese subjects is as follows: the basic positions are located in the VP and both serve as the external arguments of V-bar. However, the English subject has the characteristic of explicit character, it can appear legally only after the promotion operation is checked, and every sentence must have the subject; The formation of Chinese subject is relatively complex, other noun phrases in sentence can appear at the beginning of the sentence by theming operation means, or the subject can be omitted according to the context. The feasibility of using generative grammar to study Chinese subject verifies the commonness of language. Moreover, the direct research on Chinese subject is related to a series of problems of sentence structure division and the distinction between subject and topic, which is convenient to solve the problem of confirmation of Chinese subject. This shows that formalism analysis method can reflect the internal structure and essential characteristics of language in depth.
【学位授予单位】：中南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：H314;H146
本文编号：2373160
[Abstract]:Under the framework of generative grammar theory, this paper makes a parallel comparison between English and Chinese subjects (Ding Jinguo: 1996) and finds out the common factor X of the two languages, and analyzes its embodiment and operation mode in English and Chinese subjects. From the definition of English subject, it can be divided into syntactic subject and logical subject: the syntactic subject is generally located in the marker position of IP, and the logical subject refers to the external argument of V-bar. In traditional syntactic theory, the subject acting as the extraterritorial argument and the virtual subject are all the markers based on IP, while the subject acting as the argument in the domain is derived by shifting. However, after the proposition of KoopmanSportiche:1991 in 1991, the intra-domain argument and the extra-territorial argument were integrated into the same local domain (VP), and all the subjects were considered to be derived. This hypothesis further reflects the consistency of the topic meta-jurisdiction and the role of the local condition (locality condition) (refers to the scope of the syntactic principles and rules. This paper holds that the original position of the Chinese subject is also within the VP, and the Chinese verbs lack morphological features. Therefore, according to Hu Jianhua (1997)'s judgment standard of Chinese infinitive, this paper discusses the subject giving case of Chinese and its relation with the structure of verb. It is found that the external argument of verb in Chinese fixed sentence is its logical subject. The latter is to satisfy the case theory and extend the projective principle to become the subject of the sentence. As for the subject of the multi-noun short sentence, it is confirmed by its basic position and the external argument acting as the verb, while the other noun phrases at the beginning of the sentence are referred to as the result of topicalization. The subject of the Chinese infinitive sentence is in a non-case position, which is equivalent to the PRO, of English which has the nature of not being subject, or co-referring with the subject, or with the object of the subject, and it can also appear in the position of complement and adjunct of the infinitive sentence. Finally, about the sentence without subject in Chinese: first of all, because there is no morphological system of consistent relation in Chinese, pro refers that (recovered) can not be "restored" and can not obtain "permission" (licensed) (Hanjingquan: 1997). Secondly, the identifiable (Intrasentential Referential Identity) pro based on Chomsky's empty category reference sentence can not find its own antecedents in the sentence. Therefore, this paper argues that Chinese is not a pro-drop language. Through the above comparative analysis, the common factor X of English and Chinese subjects is as follows: the basic positions are located in the VP and both serve as the external arguments of V-bar. However, the English subject has the characteristic of explicit character, it can appear legally only after the promotion operation is checked, and every sentence must have the subject; The formation of Chinese subject is relatively complex, other noun phrases in sentence can appear at the beginning of the sentence by theming operation means, or the subject can be omitted according to the context. The feasibility of using generative grammar to study Chinese subject verifies the commonness of language. Moreover, the direct research on Chinese subject is related to a series of problems of sentence structure division and the distinction between subject and topic, which is convenient to solve the problem of confirmation of Chinese subject. This shows that formalism analysis method can reflect the internal structure and essential characteristics of language in depth.
【学位授予单位】：中南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：H314;H146
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 Joseph H.Greenberg;陆丙甫;陆致极;;某些主要跟语序有关的语法普遍现象[J];国外语言学;1984年02期
2 程工;Chomsky新论:语言学理论最简方案[J];国外语言学;1994年03期
3 何元建;X标杆理论与汉语短语结构[J];国外语言学;1995年02期
4 韩景泉;空语类理论与汉语空位宾语[J];国外语言学;1997年04期
5 徐烈炯,沈阳;题元理论与汉语配价问题[J];当代语言学;1998年03期
6 周国光;潘玉雯;;关于主位、主语、话题的思考[J];华南师范大学学报(社会科学版);2008年06期
7 郑超;扩充的投射原则与中国人的主语潜意识[J];解放军外国语学院学报;2001年03期
8 高明乐,郭献庭;从空语类看英语和汉语的不同语法特点[J];外语研究;2003年03期
9 方环海;谭乡荣;;空主语的性质、分布及其相关问题[J];外语研究;2006年06期
10 伍雅清;英汉语比较研究的两个问题[J];外语学刊;2000年01期
，本文编号：2373160
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/wenyilunwen/hanyulw/2373160.html
