英语‘A+I’结构的句法分析
|
摘要
本文在生成语法的理论框架下详细分析了英语A+I结构。如何解释A+I结构中主动词后名词短语的属性和其格的获取成为生成语法研究的新挑战。文章首先解释了什么是A+I结构,指出这种语言现象在感官上的句法特点,并进一步分析它实质的句法特征,试图对A+I结构做出一个合理的解释。
文章阐述了相关的理论,如题元理论,格理论,动词壳理论和宾语一致投射理论,概括了A+I结构的文献综述。该结构在前人的分析中被称为“主语至宾语提升结构”(Raising-to-Object structure,简称RtoO)或“例外格标记结构”(Exceptional Case Marking structures,简称ECM)。“主语至宾语提升结构”指出主动词后名词生成于补语分句的主语位置,提升为主动词的宾语位置,从而获得宾格。“例外格标记结构”认为是主动词越过管辖障碍“例外地”向其非域内论元的名词赋格。通过研究这两种分析方法的证据,对比分析了RtoO与ECM的优点和缺点。
文章认为“主语至宾语提升结构”比“例外格标记结构”更有说服力,并进一步用RtoO的分析方法探讨了英语A+I结构主动词后名词短语的句法生成位置及其特征。指出提升结构的主动词后名词短语为补语分句的主语,生成于不定式分句动词的指示语位置,作为分句动词的域外论元获得题元角色,并提升至AgrOP的指示语位置上,核查为宾格；控制结构作为一种与A+I结构极为类似结构,指出其与提升结构存在明显的句法特征的差异。控制结构中主动词后名词短语作为主动词的域内论元,获得主句主动词的内题元角色,核查为宾格。不定式补语分句的主语为PRO,并提升至spec-IP的位置,由空格to核查。
最后指出就A+I结构中主动词后名词格的获取的一种新的解释方法,即由肖娴(2008)提出的无宾格假说论。文章对其观点和推论作了介绍和分析,其观点认为宾格只是名词短语在词层面的形态变化,不属于句法范畴。宾格是基础生成的,属于无标记项。受时态分句的屈折语驱动会发生形态变化,体现为有标记项的主格。文章提出肖娴的假说在某种程度上有其合理的一面,但就其指出格理论的局限性以及论证中分析个别特殊的例子而做出的推论还有待进一步论证。文章就两种不同的解释方法,提出了格与句法是否具有一一对应的关系,格的获取是否依赖于句法结构的问题。本文通过对英语‘A+I’结构的句法分析引出格与句法的关系问题,虽然存在有待解决的问题和局限性,但该分析在生成语法中是有意义的。
The Syntactic analysis of 'A+I' Pattern in English in this thesis is carried out within the framework of Generative Grammar. How to explain the properties of the post-verbal NP and how the post-verbal NP gets its object case become the challenge to the generative grammar. Firstly, the thesis defines the A+I construction and lists some superficial syntactic characteristics, then make a further analysis with a view to making an alternative account of the essential characteristics of this construction.
Some basic theories and principles related to the current research are introduced in this thesis. They are Theta Theory, Case Theory, VP Shell Theory and Object Agreement Projection. Furthermore, some previous studies on the A+I construction in English are summarized. In Raising to Object (RtoO) analysis of'A+I' construction, it is believed that at an initial stage of the derivation of the sentence the post-verbal NP is in the subject position of the embedded clause, as part of the syntactic derivation a transformation moves that embedded subject up to the direct object position of the main clause, hence the name "raising to object". According to ECM (Exceptional Case-marking) approach, it is the main verb that "exceptionally" assigns object case to post-verbal NP which is not its thematic direct object. The thesis analyzes the merits and demerits of the two brands after the summary of the evidence.
We believe the RtoO Analysis is more convincing than the ECM Approach. The thesis puts forward an alternative account of the A+I Construction by RtoO analysis. A detailed syntactic analysis of A+I construction is supposed that the main verb first occupies the head position of VP then is raised to the head position of AgrOP, thus be able to check the objective case of NP. Then, a superficially similar-looking construction, the object control construction is analyzed. A syntactic analysis of Object Control construction is that the post-verbal NP is the object of the main verb, there must be a PRO before infinitival verb because of theθ-criterion. PRO first moves to spec-IP to be checked by null case to and objective case of the post-verbal NP is checked by the main verb. Comparing the two constructions, the differences of them are listed.
Finally, another proposed account of the A+I construction in English is discussed, which is the hypothesis of non-object case for nominal phrase put forward by Xiao(肖娴,2008). She believes that the object case of the nominal phrase in A+I construction is morphological marking. Xiao points out some limitations of the Case Theory in explaining the object case assignment by giving some special examples. Furthermore she deduces that Object case assignment of the NP is independent of the syntax. We think her proposal will be further discussed and the problem whether the object case assignment depends on syntax or not is to be explained in a better theory in the subsequent study. In spite of the limitations and some unsolved problems, we believe that this analysis of the A+I construction is meaningful in the generative grammar.
文章阐述了相关的理论,如题元理论,格理论,动词壳理论和宾语一致投射理论,概括了A+I结构的文献综述。该结构在前人的分析中被称为“主语至宾语提升结构”(Raising-to-Object structure,简称RtoO)或“例外格标记结构”(Exceptional Case Marking structures,简称ECM)。“主语至宾语提升结构”指出主动词后名词生成于补语分句的主语位置,提升为主动词的宾语位置,从而获得宾格。“例外格标记结构”认为是主动词越过管辖障碍“例外地”向其非域内论元的名词赋格。通过研究这两种分析方法的证据,对比分析了RtoO与ECM的优点和缺点。
文章认为“主语至宾语提升结构”比“例外格标记结构”更有说服力,并进一步用RtoO的分析方法探讨了英语A+I结构主动词后名词短语的句法生成位置及其特征。指出提升结构的主动词后名词短语为补语分句的主语,生成于不定式分句动词的指示语位置,作为分句动词的域外论元获得题元角色,并提升至AgrOP的指示语位置上,核查为宾格；控制结构作为一种与A+I结构极为类似结构,指出其与提升结构存在明显的句法特征的差异。控制结构中主动词后名词短语作为主动词的域内论元,获得主句主动词的内题元角色,核查为宾格。不定式补语分句的主语为PRO,并提升至spec-IP的位置,由空格to核查。
最后指出就A+I结构中主动词后名词格的获取的一种新的解释方法,即由肖娴(2008)提出的无宾格假说论。文章对其观点和推论作了介绍和分析,其观点认为宾格只是名词短语在词层面的形态变化,不属于句法范畴。宾格是基础生成的,属于无标记项。受时态分句的屈折语驱动会发生形态变化,体现为有标记项的主格。文章提出肖娴的假说在某种程度上有其合理的一面,但就其指出格理论的局限性以及论证中分析个别特殊的例子而做出的推论还有待进一步论证。文章就两种不同的解释方法,提出了格与句法是否具有一一对应的关系,格的获取是否依赖于句法结构的问题。本文通过对英语‘A+I’结构的句法分析引出格与句法的关系问题,虽然存在有待解决的问题和局限性,但该分析在生成语法中是有意义的。
The Syntactic analysis of 'A+I' Pattern in English in this thesis is carried out within the framework of Generative Grammar. How to explain the properties of the post-verbal NP and how the post-verbal NP gets its object case become the challenge to the generative grammar. Firstly, the thesis defines the A+I construction and lists some superficial syntactic characteristics, then make a further analysis with a view to making an alternative account of the essential characteristics of this construction.
Some basic theories and principles related to the current research are introduced in this thesis. They are Theta Theory, Case Theory, VP Shell Theory and Object Agreement Projection. Furthermore, some previous studies on the A+I construction in English are summarized. In Raising to Object (RtoO) analysis of'A+I' construction, it is believed that at an initial stage of the derivation of the sentence the post-verbal NP is in the subject position of the embedded clause, as part of the syntactic derivation a transformation moves that embedded subject up to the direct object position of the main clause, hence the name "raising to object". According to ECM (Exceptional Case-marking) approach, it is the main verb that "exceptionally" assigns object case to post-verbal NP which is not its thematic direct object. The thesis analyzes the merits and demerits of the two brands after the summary of the evidence.
We believe the RtoO Analysis is more convincing than the ECM Approach. The thesis puts forward an alternative account of the A+I Construction by RtoO analysis. A detailed syntactic analysis of A+I construction is supposed that the main verb first occupies the head position of VP then is raised to the head position of AgrOP, thus be able to check the objective case of NP. Then, a superficially similar-looking construction, the object control construction is analyzed. A syntactic analysis of Object Control construction is that the post-verbal NP is the object of the main verb, there must be a PRO before infinitival verb because of theθ-criterion. PRO first moves to spec-IP to be checked by null case to and objective case of the post-verbal NP is checked by the main verb. Comparing the two constructions, the differences of them are listed.
Finally, another proposed account of the A+I construction in English is discussed, which is the hypothesis of non-object case for nominal phrase put forward by Xiao(肖娴,2008). She believes that the object case of the nominal phrase in A+I construction is morphological marking. Xiao points out some limitations of the Case Theory in explaining the object case assignment by giving some special examples. Furthermore she deduces that Object case assignment of the NP is independent of the syntax. We think her proposal will be further discussed and the problem whether the object case assignment depends on syntax or not is to be explained in a better theory in the subsequent study. In spite of the limitations and some unsolved problems, we believe that this analysis of the A+I construction is meaningful in the generative grammar.
引文
Bresnan, J.1972. Theory of Complementation in English Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cambridge, Mass:MIT.
Bresnan, J.1976. On the form and functioning of transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 7.1:3-40.
Baltin, M.& C. Collins.2000. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Chomsky, N.1971. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg D.& L. Jakobovits. (eds.) Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N.1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N.1986a. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.1986b. Knowledge of Language:Its Nature, Origin and Use. NewYork:Praeger.
Chomsky, N.1989. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. MIT Working Papers. Linguistics 10:43-74.
Chomsky, N.1995a The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik.1995. Theory of Principles and Parameters 1993. In N. Chomsky.1995. The Minimalist Program,13-127 Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Culicover, P. W.1997. Principles and Parameters:An Introduction to Syntactic Theory. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Cook, V.& M. Newson.1996. Chomsky's Universal Grammar:An Introduction. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Davies, W. D.& S. Dubinsky.2004. The Grammar of Raising and Control. London:Blackwell Publishers.
Haegeman L.1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Huddleston, R.& K. Pullum.2002. The Cambridge Grammar of English Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R.1990. On larson's account of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21:427～456.
Jaeggli, O.1986. Passive, Linguistic Inquiry 17:587-633.
Larson, R.1998. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.
Lasnik, H. and M. Saito.1991. On the subject of infinitives. In L. Dobrin, L. Nichols, and R. Rodriguez (eds.) Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society:324-343.
Kayne, R.1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht:Foris.
Kiparsky P.& C. Kiparsky 1970. Facts. In M. Bierwisch & K. Heidolph. (eds.) Progress in Linguistics,143-173. The Hague:Mouton.
McCawley, J. D.1970. Where do noun phrases come from. In R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum. (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar,166-183. Boston:Ginn.
Pollock, J. Y.1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365-424.
Postal, P.1974. On Raising:Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Quirk, R., G. Sidney, G. Leech & J. Svartivik.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English language. London:Longman.
Radford, A.1988. Transformational Grammar:A First Course. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A.1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English:A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A.2004. Minimalist Syntax:Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Runner, J. T.1995. Noun Phrase Licensing and Interpretation. PH.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts. Amherst:GLSA.
Rosenbaum, P. S.1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Vergnaud, G.1980. Didactics and acquisition of multiplicative structures in secondary schools. In W. F. Archerhold, R. H. Driver, A. Orton. & C. Wood-Robinson (eds.) Cognitive Development Research in Science and Mathematics,285-291. Leeds, England:University of Leeds.
程工,2000，《语言共性论》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
顾阳,1994,论元结构理论介绍,《国外语言学》,第1期,1-11页。
胡波、文卫平,1991,A+I结构主动词后名词短语的句法分析,《现代外语》,第1期,12-18页。
宋国明,1997,《句法理论概要》。北京：中国社会科学出版社。
温宾利,2002,《当代句法学导论》。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
徐烈炯,1988,《生成语法理论》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
肖娴,2008,名词短语无宾格假说,《外语与翻译》,第4期,50-55页。
Bresnan, J.1976. On the form and functioning of transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 7.1:3-40.
Baltin, M.& C. Collins.2000. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Chomsky, N.1971. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg D.& L. Jakobovits. (eds.) Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N.1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N.1986a. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.1986b. Knowledge of Language:Its Nature, Origin and Use. NewYork:Praeger.
Chomsky, N.1989. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. MIT Working Papers. Linguistics 10:43-74.
Chomsky, N.1995a The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik.1995. Theory of Principles and Parameters 1993. In N. Chomsky.1995. The Minimalist Program,13-127 Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Culicover, P. W.1997. Principles and Parameters:An Introduction to Syntactic Theory. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Cook, V.& M. Newson.1996. Chomsky's Universal Grammar:An Introduction. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Davies, W. D.& S. Dubinsky.2004. The Grammar of Raising and Control. London:Blackwell Publishers.
Haegeman L.1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Huddleston, R.& K. Pullum.2002. The Cambridge Grammar of English Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R.1990. On larson's account of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21:427～456.
Jaeggli, O.1986. Passive, Linguistic Inquiry 17:587-633.
Larson, R.1998. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.
Lasnik, H. and M. Saito.1991. On the subject of infinitives. In L. Dobrin, L. Nichols, and R. Rodriguez (eds.) Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society:324-343.
Kayne, R.1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht:Foris.
Kiparsky P.& C. Kiparsky 1970. Facts. In M. Bierwisch & K. Heidolph. (eds.) Progress in Linguistics,143-173. The Hague:Mouton.
McCawley, J. D.1970. Where do noun phrases come from. In R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum. (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar,166-183. Boston:Ginn.
Pollock, J. Y.1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365-424.
Postal, P.1974. On Raising:Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Quirk, R., G. Sidney, G. Leech & J. Svartivik.1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English language. London:Longman.
Radford, A.1988. Transformational Grammar:A First Course. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A.1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English:A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Radford, A.2004. Minimalist Syntax:Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Runner, J. T.1995. Noun Phrase Licensing and Interpretation. PH.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts. Amherst:GLSA.
Rosenbaum, P. S.1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Vergnaud, G.1980. Didactics and acquisition of multiplicative structures in secondary schools. In W. F. Archerhold, R. H. Driver, A. Orton. & C. Wood-Robinson (eds.) Cognitive Development Research in Science and Mathematics,285-291. Leeds, England:University of Leeds.
程工,2000，《语言共性论》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
顾阳,1994,论元结构理论介绍,《国外语言学》,第1期,1-11页。
胡波、文卫平,1991,A+I结构主动词后名词短语的句法分析,《现代外语》,第1期,12-18页。
宋国明,1997,《句法理论概要》。北京：中国社会科学出版社。
温宾利,2002,《当代句法学导论》。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
徐烈炯,1988,《生成语法理论》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
肖娴,2008,名词短语无宾格假说,《外语与翻译》,第4期,50-55页。