现代汉语句末助词“了”的句法语义属性及其对语序的影响

发布时间：2018-06-07 21:31

本文选题：句末助词 + “尾盖尾制限”原则　；参考：《上海外国语大学》2017年博士论文

【摘要】：任何句法成分的分析都不能脱离其自身所在的句法环境,脱离句法环境只单纯对句末助词(Sentence Final Particles,简称SFP)进行分析必然导致窥一斑而不见全身。在形式句法系统的视阈下,句末助词是个麻烦制造者,其线性位置上的居后与句法结构上的高层节点构成抵牾。语法学家必须对其CP核心的句法位置作出合理解释。移位还是合并?移位的动机又是什么?具体到现代汉语的句末助词“了”,无论是根据朱德熙(1982),还是Paul(2005,2015)的排序,句末助词“了”都是位列语气助词或者句末助词大家庭的第一序位。因此,句末助词“了”的句法位置成为整个句末助词与语序研究的核心。这种核心地位在Biberauer,HolmbergRobert(2007,2014)所提出的“尾盖尾制限”(Final-Over-Final Constraint)原则下尤为突出。但在以往研究中,很少有将语序和句末助词“了”进行同步考察。这里的语序问题并非类型学意义上的SVO或者SOV等三个句法实体的组配顺序(金立鑫2012),而是形式句法上CP核心和TP的语序问题,简而言之,就是C-TP还是TPC的语序问题。当然,这里的C核心包括但不仅限于传统的标句词(Complementizer)“that”或者“for”,因此,现代汉语的句末助词“呢、吗、吧、啊、呕”等都属于广义的C核心(Tang 1998)。那么句末助词“了”是不是CP核心?很少有文献明确探讨这个问题。基于以上分析和考量,本文对句末助词“了”的句法语义属性及其对语序影响的研究主要包括以下五个方面:一、“尾盖尾制限”原则对汉语语序的解释力。在句法结构推导和大规模语序统计的基础上,Biberauer,HolmbergRoberts(2007,2014)提出了具有形式类型学意义的FOFC制限原则。该原则认为同一语类([+V]或者[+N])扩展的句法结构具有语序上的同一性。但汉语等东亚及东南亚语言中大量存在的句末助词对FOFC制限原则构成了理论上的挑战。因此,在FOFC制限原则下考察现代汉语的句末助词有助于我们进一步认清句末助词的句法语义属性,有助于判定它们的句法类别。也正因为在检验FOFC制限原则对现代汉语适用性过程中,本文的研究问题和研究核心才得以突显。二、句末助词“了”体现话主在所述事件中的显身。既然在现有句法框架下,句末助词“了”成为FOFC制限原则普遍性的绊脚石,那么就必须对句末助词“了”的句法语义属性作详细的梳理。以往对句末助词“了”的研究大都集中在“完成体”、“起始体”、“过去时”等时体范畴以及话主的立场、态度等主观性范畴。这明显反映出研究者对“了”理解上的偏差,但如果统一来看,这种偏差又都能集中到一个话语事件(speech event)中来。“完成体”、“起始体”等时体的意义是围绕着话主的说话时间点来解读的,而话主的立场、态度等又都是围绕着话主在所述事件中的主观介入来解读。话主的说话时间和话主的主观介入在很大程度上就是话主在所述事件中的显身,本文试图通过话主显身这个概念将“了”与事件时间和主观立场等意义联结起来,进行统一解释。三、句末助词“了”的语法化。任何助词的形成都经历了漫长的语法化过程,句末助词“了”也当如此。那么句末助词“了”所表现的话主显身的意义是如何演变而来的?通常认为,句末助词“了”和词尾“了”同源,都与事件时间相关。然而,从历时的语料来看,“了”在魏晋南北朝时期是表示“完结”义的动词,后来逐渐演变为事件句的完结动词,居于句末。这是两个不同的事件。通过重新分析机制,“了”进一步语法化并融入其前的事件句中。在北宋时期,“了”和句末助词“也”合并,形成了现代意义上的句末助词“了”,这也是句末助词“了”具有时体意义和话主主观态度等双重意义的来源。四、句末助词“了”在句法上是限定性(finiteness)标记。当句末助词“了”的语义确定以后,其在句法结构上的位置必然成为研究的核心。那么如何确定句末助词“了”的句法位置?现代汉语是否如印欧语言一样具有限定范畴一直是个争论的话题。目前文献的争论主要还是集中在动词的屈折形态的有无上,这应该与当下限定性概念稍有差距。随着句法研究的深入,限定性不再局限于动词的时态或者一致的形态屈折,而是与体现说话事件的CP句法层直接相关。游离在时间轴上的事件获得来自话主说话时间定位的句子为限定小句,反之则为非限定小句。限定小句的限定性可以以其他形式体现出来,而不仅仅体现在动词形态上。因此限定小句不仅仅是语义上的概念,而是实实在在的句法范畴,有着专属于限定范畴的句法体现。句末助词“了”作为说话事件中的话主显身的语法标记,与限定性概念相吻合,这确立了句末助词“了”作为限定核心之一的句法语义基础。从而在句法结构上奠定了句末助词“了”的FinP核心地位。五、Fin核心的语类(category)归属。既然句末助词“了”是Fin核心,属于CP层的句法范畴,那在句法推导过程中,限定核心“了”是移位还是合并而成的?限定核心和TP,vP,VP等核心同源吗,都属于[+V]的扩展投射吗?印欧语言与语气、句子类型等有关的CP层大都以动词的屈折形态来体现,德语就有V2现象,英语也有疑问词移位现象,当然这种句法结构的变化都与TP层向CP层的T-to-C提升移位有关。但现代汉语的CP层的语义或者形态体现与印欧语言并不相同,汉语没有疑问词移位,而是采用句末助词合并的形式来标识分属不同CP概念的句法结构。因此,传统根据印欧语言所认定的CP核心属于[+V]投射的认识必须重新认定。本文将根据句末助词所体现的句法语义属性来判定汉语的CP层既不属于[+V]也不属于[+N]的扩展投射。而是语言外体现话主主观显身的[-V,-N]成分。因此句末助词与FOFC的抵牾问题将不再是句法理论的难题,句末助词不是人类认知上的另类。
[Abstract]:The analysis of any syntactic component can not be separated from its own syntactic environment, and the analysis of the Sentence Final Particles (SFP) from the syntactic environment will inevitably lead to a glimpse of the whole body. In the visual threshold of the formal syntactic system, the end of the sentence is a troublemaker, and its linear position is in the post and The syntactic structure of the high-level nodes constitutes a contradiction. The grammer must make a reasonable explanation of the syntactic position of its CP core. What is the shift or merger? What is the motive of the shift? Concrete to the end of the sentence in modern Chinese, whether according to Zhu Dexi (1982) or the order of Paul (20052015), the end of the sentence is the list. Therefore, the syntactic position of the end of the sentence is the core of the study of the final word and word order of the end of the sentence. This core position is particularly prominent under the principle of "tail cap tail system limit" (Final-Over-Final Constraint) proposed by Biberauer, HolmbergRobert (20072014). In the study, there is little to synchronize the word order and the end of the sentence. The word order problem is not the order of three syntactic entities, such as SVO or SOV in the typology (Jin Lixin 2012), but the word order of the CP core and TP in the form of syntax, in short, the word order of C-TP or TPC. Of course, C here. The core includes but not limited to the traditional Complementizer "that" or "for". Therefore, the end of the sentence of modern Chinese, "does it, bar, ah, nausea" and so on belong to the generalized C core (Tang 1998). So is the end of the sentence "the" the core of the CP? Few documents explicitly discuss this problem. Based on the above analysis and consideration, The study of the syntactic and semantic attribute of the end of the sentence and its influence on the word order mainly includes the following five aspects: first, the explanatory power of the "tailing tail system limit" principle to the Chinese language order. On the basis of the syntactic structure derivation and the large-scale word order statistics, Biberauer and HolmbergRoberts (20072014) put forward the meaning of formal typology. The principle of the FOFC limitation of meaning. This principle holds that the extended syntactic structure of the same language class ([+V] or [+N]) has the same character in the word order. However, a large number of sentence end words in East and South East Asian languages such as Chinese and other languages constitute a theoretical challenge to the principle of the restriction of the FOFC system. Therefore, it is helpful to examine the end of sentence in modern Chinese under the principle of FOFC restriction. We further recognize the syntactic and semantic attributes of the end of the sentence, which helps to determine their syntactic categories. It is also because in the test of the applicability of the FOFC limit principle to modern Chinese, the research and the core of this paper can be highlighted. Two, the end of the sentence "is" the embodiment of the speaker in the events described. Under the framework of the law, the end of the sentence "is" a stumbling block to the universality of the principle of FOFC limit. Then it is necessary to make a detailed combing of the syntactic and semantic attributes of the end of the sentence. The previous research on the end of the sentence "the" is mostly focused on the "completion", "starting body", "past tense" and the position of the speaker, and the position of the speaker. The degree of subjectivity, such as degree of subjectivity, clearly reflects the deviation of the researcher's understanding of "the", but if it is unified, the deviation can all be concentrated in a discourse event (speech event). The meaning of the "completion" and "starting body" is interpreted around the point of time of the speaker, and the position of the speaker, the attitude, etc. It is also around the subjective intervention of the speaker in the events described. The time of the speaker and the subjective intervention of the speaker are, to a great extent, the body of the speaker in the events described. This article tries to unite the meaning of "the" and the event time and the subjective standing field through the concept of the Lord of the speaker. Three, The grammaticalization of the end of an auxiliary word "is". The form of any auxiliary word in Chengdu has undergone a long grammaticalization process and the end of the sentence "is". From the diachronic corpus, "the" is a verb "completion" in the period of the Wei, Jin and Northern and Southern Dynasties, and then gradually evolved into a completion verb of the event sentence, which is at the end of the sentence. This is the two different event. By reanalyzing the mechanism, "the" is further grammaticalization and integrated into the former event sentence. In the Northern Song Dynasty, "the" and the sentence. The final auxiliary word "also" is merged to form the modern meaning of the end of the sentence "the", which is also the source of the double meaning of the meaning of the time body and the subjective attitude of the speaker in the end of the sentence. Four, the end of the sentence "the" is a finiteness mark in syntax. The position on the structure must be the core of the study. Then how to determine the syntactic position of the end of the sentence? Whether the modern Chinese is as restricted as the Indo European language has always been a controversial topic. The current debate on the literature is mainly focused on the inflexion of the inflection form of the verb, which should be slightly with the present restrictive concept. With the deepening of the syntactic study, the limitation is no longer limited to the tense of the verb or the conformation of the conformation, but is directly related to the CP syntactic layer that embodies the speaking event. The sentences free on the time axis are limited by the sentence of the time of the speaker, and the other is a non restrictive clause. It can be embodied in other forms, not only in the form of the verb, so the limited clause is not only a semantic concept, but a real syntactic category, with a syntactic representation of a limited category. The end of the sentence "is" as the grammatical mark of the speaker in the speech event, which is consistent with the restrictive concept. This establishes the semantic basis of the sentence of the end of the sentence as one of the core of the sentence. Thus, it lays the core position of the FinP in the syntactic structure. Five, the category belonging to the core of the Fin. Since the end of the sentence is the core of the Fin, it belongs to the syntactic category of the CP layer, which is limited to the core in the process of syntactic derivation. Is it a shift or a merger? Are the core and TP, vP, VP, and other core homology of the [+V], are they all belong to the extended projection of the [+V]? The language and mood of the Indo European language and the sentence types are mostly reflected by the inflection form of the verb, the German has the V2 phenomenon, the English also has the displaced phenomenon of the interrogative words, of course the change of this syntactic structure is of course all the changes of this syntactic structure, of course. The TP layer is related to the shift of T-to-C in the CP layer, but the semantic or morphological representation of the CP layer in modern Chinese is not the same as that of the Indo European language. In Chinese, there is no interrogative word shift, but the form of the combination of the end of sentences is used to identify the syntactic structure of the different CP concepts. Therefore, the traditional root according to the Indo European language is the [+V] projection. It is necessary to reaffirm the understanding of the sentence at the end of the sentence. This paper will determine that the CP layer of the Chinese language is neither a [+V] nor an extended projection of [+N], but a [-V and a -N] component of the subjective body of the language, so the contradiction between the end of the sentence and the FOFC will no longer be a difficult problem in the syntactic theory, and the end of the sentence is a auxiliary word. It is not an alternative to human cognition.
【学位授予单位】：上海外国语大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H146.3

【参考文献】