子句主语的英汉对比研究

发布时间：2019-05-03 20:30

【摘要】：在生成语法的框架内，主语与话题在句法结构中占有不同的句法位置，有各自的特征。然而对于限定词短语做主语是毫无疑问的，可是一旦子句出现在主语位置时，其主语地位就遭到了质疑。有人认为子句主语是话题有人认为是主语。针对这个问题上面存在的争议，本文试图通过自己对语言事实的观察与论证探讨汉语句子（主要是被动句）中子句主语的句法地位以及与英语的不同。本文采用英汉对比的方式，通过对子句做主语在英汉两种语言中的分布和使用的观察，找出两种语言中子句主语用法的差异性，并结合汉语被动句自身的特点最终明确汉语句首子句的句法地位。首先，我们调查了汉英两种语言中主动句与被动句转化关系的对比。Alrenga(2005)的分析指出，英语被动允许句首子句出现的前提是谓语动词在主动句中允许DP补语的存在。通过观察汉语的语言事实，我们发现并没有这种主被动不对称现象，只有部分动词与英语对应词语的用法相似，那么汉语句首子句跟英语是否一样呢？这就关系到第二个对比，英汉被动结构的对比。由于英语主动句在转化为被动句时，宾语要提升至被动主语的位置来获得格，而在原来的位置留下语迹，使得被动句可以满足EPP原则。然而汉语被动句中有很多保留宾语的现象不能用英语的方法得到解释，梅广(1972),李艳慧(1985),黄正德(2001)，认为汉语的“被”是个二元谓词，句首子句充当“被”的论元。汉语被动句中句首子句是话题的假设就站不住脚。本文通过对汉语中子句主语分布与DP主语分布的深入调查发现，可以修饰DP主语的副词也可以修饰子句主语，并且副词与两者的相对位置也是一样的，这可以从一定程度上说明句首子句的主语身份。另外，由于在句法结构中，主语的姐妹节点是谓语成分，话题的姐妹节点是说明成分，根据蒋自新(1991)的论证，通过否定词、修饰语、以及是否能形成“V不V”问句来证明哪个节点是谓语成分，哪个节点是话题成分，由此可以间接地分辨出主语成分与话题成分。根据子句主语与DP主语在分布上的相似性，，以及汉语子句主语非限定性的特点，本文最后假设汉语的子句主语其实是一个隐性的CP。正是由于汉语的CP跟DP一样都可以作为句子主语，因此它们具有分布的一致性，并且都要受格。CP要受格的论证有利于为CP主语建立跨语言的句法一致性。
[Abstract]:In the framework of generative grammar, subject and topic occupy different syntactic positions in syntactic structure and have their own characteristics. However, there is no doubt that the qualifier phrase is subject, but once the clause appears in the subject position, its subject position is questioned. Some people think that a clause subject is a topic. Some people think it is a subject. In view of the controversy over this problem, this paper attempts to explore the syntactic status of the subject of subsentence in Chinese sentences (mainly passive sentences) by observing and demonstrating the linguistic facts and the differences between Chinese sentences (mainly passive sentences) and English. In this paper, through the observation of the distribution and use of clause as subject in English and Chinese, the author finds out the difference in the usage of subject in subsentence between the two languages, by comparing it with English and Chinese, and through the observation of the distribution and use of clause in English and Chinese. Combined with the characteristics of the Chinese passive sentence, the syntactic status of the first clause of the Chinese sentence is finally clarified. Firstly, we investigate the contrast between active sentence and passive sentence transformation in Chinese and English. Alrenga (2005) points out that the premise of the first clause of passive permissible sentence in English is that predicate verbs allow the existence of DP complement in the active sentence. By looking at the linguistic facts of Chinese, we find that there is no such phenomenon of active-passive asymmetry, but only some verbs are similar to their English counterparts. So is the first clause of Chinese sentence the same as that of English? This relates to the second contrast, the contrast between English and Chinese passive structures. When English active sentence is transformed into passive sentence, the object should be promoted to the position of passive subject to obtain the case, and the original position should be left behind, which makes the passive sentence satisfy the EPP principle. However, there are many phenomena in Chinese passive sentences that can not be explained in English. Mei Guang (1972), Li Yanhui (1985) and Huang Zhengde (2001) think that "Wu" in Chinese is a binary predicate. The first clause of the sentence serves as the argument of "be". The assumption that the first clause in a Chinese passive sentence is a topic cannot stand up. Through an in-depth investigation of the distribution of subject and DP subject in Chinese subsentence, it is found that the adverbs that can modify the subject of DP can also modify the subject of clause, and the relative position of adverbs is the same as that of the two. To some extent, this can explain the subject identity of the first clause of a sentence. In addition, because in syntactic structure, the sister node of subject is predicate component, and the sister node of topic is declarative element, according to Jiang Zixin (1991), through negative words and modifiers, And whether the "V not V" question can be formed to prove which node is the predicate component and which node is the topic component can be used to distinguish the subject component from the topic component indirectly. According to the similarity between clause subject and DP subject in distribution, as well as the non-definiteness of Chinese clause subject, this paper finally assumes that the clause subject in Chinese is actually an implicit CP.. It is precisely because the Chinese CP can be used as the sentence subject just like DP, so they have the same distribution and are subject to the case. CP should be proved by the case in favor of establishing the cross-language syntactic consistency for the CP subject.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：H146;H314

【参考文献】