國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	鄭偉成 Wei-Cherng Sam Jheng
論文名稱：	論漢語「跟」字句: 其句法範疇及語法化 On the Syntax of Chinese GEN: Its Category and Grammaticalization
指導教授：	吳曉虹 Wu, Hsiao-Hung
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2011
畢業學年度：	99
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	128
中文關鍵詞：	伴同結構、並列結構、形式語法化、跟字句、邊緣特徵、並列結構限制
英文關鍵詞：	comitative construction, coordinate construction, formal approach to grammaticalization, GEN, edge feature, Coordinate Structure Constraint
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：288 下載：32
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本篇論文主旨討論以漢語詞彙「跟」字為中心語所構成(headed)之三種句法結構。分別為動詞組附加語(comitative VP-adjunct)，伴同結構(comitative construction) 以及並列結構(coordinate construction)。

漢語字詞「跟」的確切句法範疇(syntactic category)迄今無法定義。根據前人研究，「跟」根據其句法行為可定義為動詞，介詞，連接詞或其它。儘管有相當成熟的句法表現與具有共識的句法分析，仍無法充分解釋語料的現象，譬如，併列結構中的第一並列詞組(first conjunct)抽取(extraction) 。此抽取違反了Ross(1967)所提出的並列結構限制(Coordinate Structure Constraint )，說明了此限制並非牢不可破。另一方面，Kayne(1994)的 with/and替換(alternation)分析以及Zhang(2006)對於英語的伴同結構分析皆無法解釋漢語中的伴同結構以及並列結構。因此，我主張本文所提出的句法分析可以解決語料上的發現並且補充理論上的不足。此外，主張的句法分析和「跟」字的語法化過程與內容相當一致。

本文有四個目的。首先，透過跨語言的比較(俄羅斯語及捷克語)和一項句法測驗(約束原則A)，我證明漢語「跟」字為中心語所構成的結構可分成兩種。第一種又可分為兩部分加以說明，動詞組附加語(comitative VP-adjunct)，伴同結構(comitative construction)，皆以介詞「跟」為中心語。第二種為並列結構(coordinate construction)則是以連接詞「跟」為中心語。其次，奠基於Kitada (2007a, 2007b)以及Zhang (2006)的研究，我主張介詞「跟」和連接詞「跟」皆被功能投射(Functional Projection)所支配，而在此投射範疇內，「跟」體現為邊緣特徵(Edge Feature)。此主張說明兩種範疇的「跟」皆有其複雜的內部結構(rich internal structure)，結構的功能中心語觸發 (trigger) 一致（Agree）以及移動(Move)等句法操作(syntactic operation)。此主張有兩個貢獻:介詞「跟」的伴同(comitative)語意與連接詞「跟」的分指(distributive)語意可以在句法推導(derivation)過程中得到論證，以及併列結構中的第一並列詞組(first conjunct)抽取(extraction)獲得理論上之解釋。第三，採用形式語法化(van Gelderen 2004, 2006; Roberts and Roussou 1999, 2003)的方法，我們發現並得知本文所提出的三種「跟」字句法結構皆與其語法化過程相符合。我主張此語法化可透過後續合併原則(Late Merge Principle)連同特徵經濟原則(Feature Economy)獲得理論上的支持以及解釋。最後，本文所提出的主張希望可用於其它語言，因而得到更多的跨語言支持。

This thesis focuses on three constructions headed by GEN in Chinese, VP-adjunct, comitative construction and coordinate construction.

The precise syntactic categories of GEN, as a verb, a preposition, a coordinator or others, have been the subject of extensive inquiry from various approaches and perspectives, with sufficient progress and convergence (Tang 1979, Li and Thompson 1981, Gu 2000, Paris 2008 and Zhang 2008 and 2009, Tang 2010, among others). Nevertheless, given the studies, some empirical problems remain unsolved and await better treatment, such as extraction of the first conjunct out of a coordinate construction, which violates the Coordinate Structure Constraint (Ross 1967). Along the same line, two theoretical accounts, and/with alternation (Kayne 1994) and comitative construction in English (Zhang 2006), fail to cover the comitative and coordinate construction in Chinese. Granted this empirical finding and the theoretical inadequacy, I argue for my proposed analyses that can cope with the inadequacy and complement the previous analyses. At last, the proposed analyses are consistent with the path of grammaticalization of GEN.

I have four goals in this thesis. First, having gained a comparative perspective from other languages (Russian and Czech) and employing one syntactic test (Binding Principle A), I demonstrate that there are two types of constructions headed by GEN, comitative and coordinate, with the former being further split into VP-adjunct and comitative coordination which are base-generated at different positions. They are headed by the prepositional GEN and the conjunctive GEN respectively. Second, assuming Kitada (2007a, 2007b) and Zhang (2007), I argue that a prepositional GEN and the conjunctive GEN are dominated by a functional projection (FP) where GEN is realized as an Edge Feature, suggesting that they have the rich internal structure in which the functional head of the phrase triggers syntactic operations, such as Agree and Move. Along the line of this argument, comitativity denoted by a prepositional GEN and distributivity by a conjunctive GEN can be explained in the derivation. Besides, granted this argument, possible extraction of DP1 out of the coordinate structure headed by the conjunctive GEN, not discussed in the studies, can receive an explanatory treatment. Third, employing a formal approach to grammaticalization (van Gelderen 2004, 2006; Roberts and Roussou 1999, 2003), I demonstrate that the grammaticalization of GEN is consistent with three syntactic configurations I proposed respectively. Two principles are operative, the Late Merge Principle and the Feature Economy. Fourth, it is hoped that the proposed analyses can receive substantial support from other languages.

中文摘要    i
English Abstract    ii
Acknowledgement    iii
List of Tables    viii
List of Abbreviations    ix

Chapter 1
Overview    1
1.1 Introduction    3
1.2 Frameworks    4
1.3 Goals    4
1.4 Defining Crucial Terms    4
1.4.1 Comitative Coordination    4
1.4.2 Ordinary Coordination    5
1.5 Structure of the Thesis    6
Chapter 2
The Properties of GEN    7
2.0 Overview    7
2.1 Language Facts    7
2.1.1 GEN as a Verb    7
2.1.2 GEN as a Preposition    10
2.1.3 GEN as a Coordinator    14
2.2 Syntactic Tests    18
2.2.1 The Relativization Test    18
2.2.2 The A-not-A Test    19
2.2.3 The Aspect-Suffixing Test    20
2.3 Summary    21
Chapter 3
Previous Studies On GEN    23
3.0 Setting the Stage    23
3.1 Tang (1979): Four Kinds of GEN    23
3.2Gu (2000): The Interaction between Predicates and GEN    28
3.3 Paris (2008, 2009): GEN as an Underspecified Marker    29
3.4 Zhang (2008, 2009): A Unified Analysis of GEN    34
3.5 Tang (2010): A Non-unified Analysis of GEN    42
3.6 Summary and Further Issues    47
Chapter 4
Syntactic structures of GEN    52
4.0 Setting the Stage    52
4.1 Comitative and Coordinate Construction in Other Languages    55
4.2 Binding Principle A in Comitative Construciton and Coordinate Construciton    61
4.2.1 The Binding of Ziji and Bici in Comitative VP- Adjunction    66
4.2.2 The Binding of Ziji and Bici in Comitative Coordination    67
4.2.3 The Binding of Ziji and Bici in Ordinary Coordination    69
4.2.4 Interim Summary    71
4.3 Theoretical Accounts of Comitative Construction and Coordinate Construction    72
4.3.1 Kayne (1994): With/And Alternation    72
4.3.2 Zhang (2007): Two Types of Comitative Constructions- Symmetrical and Asymmetrical    75
4.3.3 Kitada (2007a, b): A Preposition and A Coordinator as the Edge Feature    78
4.3.4 Interim Conclusion    88
4.4 Syntactic Configurations of Comitative Construction and Coordinate Constructions    89
4.4.1 GEN as an Edge Feature    89
4.4.2 The Configuration of Comitative VP-Adjunction    90
4.4.3 The Configuration of Comitative Coordination Construction    92
4.4.4 The Configuration of Coordinate Construction    95
4.4.5 Conclusion    100
Chapter 5
Grammaticalization    102
5.0 Setting the Stage    102
5.1 A Formal Approach to Grammaticalization    104
5.2 Feature Economy and Later Merge    108
5.3 Grammaticalization of GEN    110
5.5 Conclusion    119
Chapter 6
Conclusion    121
References    125


List of Tables
Table 1. Differences between three syntactic categories of GEN    21
Table 2. Semantic values of GEN    30
Table 3. The summary of GEN in natural coordination and accidenta coordination    42
Table 4. The summary of categories of GEN    48
Table 5. The summary of sematics of GEN    48
Table 6. The summary of syntactic properties of comitative VP-adjunct, comitative coordination and ordinary coordination    61
Table 7. Four contrastive properties of symmetrical and asymmetrical comitative constructions    75
                                

Chao, Yuen Ren. 1986. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cheng. Lisa L.-S. 1995. On DOU-quantification. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4, 197-234.
Chien, Chun-Chun. 2008. Reciprocal constructions in Mandarin Chinese. MA Thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In: R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, eds, Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 89–155.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1-52.
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. On phases. ms., MIT.
Chuang. Yun-hsiang. 2007. A semantic and syntactic study of gen in Taiwan Mandarin. MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei City.
Dalrymple, I. Hayrapetian, and T. H. King. 1998. The semantics of the Russian comitative construction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:597–631.
Feldman, Anna. 2001.Comitative and plural pronoun constructions.In Proceedings of the Is- rael Association of Theoretical Linguistics, ed. Yehuda N. Falk. Online publication, available at http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/ ̃english/IATL/17/.
Gelderen, Elly van. 2006. Economy of merge and grammaticalization: Two steps in the evolution of language. In Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 197.
Gelderen, Elly van. 2008. Where did Late Merge go? Grammaticalization as feature economy. Studia Linguistica, 61(3), 287-300.
Gu, Chuan-yu. 2000. Semantics orientation of gen and the cognitive explanation. Language Teaching and Research 3:37-44. [In Chinese]
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Coordinating constructions: An overview. Coordinating Constructions, ed. By Martin Haspelmath, 3-39. Typological.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In: Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, vol. II: Complex constructions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-51.
Hopper, P.J. and E.C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Second edition.
Hopperm Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, eds. Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Hein. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hornstein, Norbert and David Lightfoot. 1987. Predication and PRO. Language 63:23–52.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1983. A note on the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 554–561.
Huang, C.-T. James, Y.-H. Audrey Li and Yafei Li . 2009. The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lehmann, Christian and Yong-Min Shin. 2005. The functional domain of concomitance: a typological study of instrumental and comitative relations. In Christian Lehmann (ed.), Typological Studies in Participation, 9-104. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Lightfood, D. 1999. The development of language, acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lightfood, D. 2006. How new languages merge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lin, Tzong-hong Jonah. 2001. Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
McNally, L. 1993. Comitative coordination: A case study in group formation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 347–379.
Munn, A. 1992. A null operator analysis of ATB gaps. The Linguistic Review 9, 1-26.
Kitada,Shin-ichi. 2007a. Feature-Inheritance in prepositional phrases. The Formal Linguistic Circle. Symposium conducted at Department of English Linguistics, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Kitada,Shin-ichi. 2007b. Edge Feature and labeling algorithms in coordination. The Formal Linguistic Circle. Symposium conducted at Department of English Linguistics, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Kitagawa, Y. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Koopman, H. and D. Sprotiche. 1991. The Position of subjects. Lingua 85, 211-258.
Paris, Marie-Claude. 2008. On parts of speech in Chinese: gen. The Linguistic Review 25, 3-4, 347-366.
Paris, Marie-Claude. 2009. Gen’ and French ‘ET’/’AEVC’, Talk given in Taiwan National Normal University.
Pollard, Carl and Ivan Sag 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: exploring the structure of English.
Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 1999. A formal approach to 'grammaticalization'. Linguistics 37: 1011-1041.
Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge,
R´akosi, G. 2003. Comitative arguments in Hungarian. In: UiL-OTS Yearbook 2003, 47–57. Utrecht: Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS.
Sabel, Joachim. 2002. A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands. Linguistic Review 19: 271-315.
Schwartz, L. .1988. Conditions for verb-coded coordinations. In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik, and J. Wirth (Eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, Typological Studies in Language (TSL), Amsterdam, Philadelphia, pp. 53–73. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Skrabalova, H. 2003. Comitative Constructions in Czech. In P. Kosta, J. Baszczak, J. Frasek, L. Geist, and M. Zygis (Eds.), Investigations into Formal Slavic Linguistics. Contributions of the Fourth European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL IV) held at Potsdam University, November 28–30, 2001,Number 10/1–2 in Linguistik International, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 685–696. Lang.
Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 429-449.
Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. Late adjunction and minimalist phrase structure. Syntax 4: 94–125.
Tang, TingChi. 1979. Studies in Chinese syntax. Taipei: Student Book Co., Ltd.
Tang, C.-C. J. 2010. Comitativity vs. Coordination in Chinese: A Non-unified analysis of Gen. FOSS 7, Academia Sinica.
Tang, Ze-Wing. 1999. Grammaticalization as structure elimination. The 28th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest, The University of Texas at San Antonio.
Takahashi, Daiko 1994. Minimality of movement. PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Williams, E. 1991. Reciprocal scope. Linguistic Inquiry 22:159–173.
Wu, Zoe 2004. Grammaticalization and language change in Chinese. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Ye, Qiu-sheng. 2007.Analyze meaning selection of company adverb "Yiqi" and " Yiqi". Journal of Qiqihar Junior Teachers' College, (2): 60-62.
Zeitoun, E., Chu, T.H., and Kaybaybaw L.T. 2009. Ki as a marker of coordination and comitativity Saisiyat. In Proceedings of Workshop on Coordination and Comitativity in Austronesian Languages: 47-70.
Zhang, N. 2006. On the configuration issues of coorindaiton. Language and Linnguistics 7(1): 17-223.
Zhang, N. 2007. The Syntax of English comitative constructions. Folia Linguistica 41: 135-169.
Zhang, N. 2008. Relativized parallelism in Mandarin Chinese natural coordination. Language Research 44 (1): 121-163.
Zhang, Niina N. 2009. Coordination in Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zoerner, E. 1999. One coordinator for all. Linguistic Analysis. 29.322-41.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文