簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 薛博帆
Syue, Bo-Fan
論文名稱： 論西班牙文第一連接詞之一致關係
On First Conjunct Agreement in Spanish
指導教授： 颯楊
Gerardo Fernández-Salgueiro
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年： 2017
畢業學年度： 105
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 80
中文關鍵詞： 第一連接詞之一致關係 、西班牙文 、一致 、階段 、晚附加
英文關鍵詞： first conjunct agreement, Spanish, agree, phase, late adjunction
DOI URL： https://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202202088
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：166  下載：46 
分享至:
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

    • 本文探討西班牙文中第一連接詞之一致關係 (first conjunct agreement) 的現象，此現象在許多語言中已經被大量地研究了。然而，幾乎沒有任何研究著重在西班牙文不同句構中的第一連接詞之一致關係。此外，在最簡方案 (Minimalist Program) 中並沒有任何關於西班牙文第一連接詞之一致關係的分析有包含階段理論 (Phase Theory) (Chomsky 1998) 或談論到連接詞組 (&P) 附加的時機。本研究採納了Soltan (2007) 的晚附加 (late adjunction) 分析方式，也納入了階段 (phase) 的概念來檢視西班牙文中五種不同的句構，包括存在句、及物句、非限定句、被動句及反身被動句。另外，我提出以下的看法 — 和一致投射 (agreement projection) 有關連的動詞與第一連接詞之間的完整標記一致 (ϕ-complete Agree) 阻饒了第一連接詞之一致關係；然而，分詞和第一連接詞之間的缺陷標記一致 (ϕ-defective Agree) 顯示了第一連接詞之一致關係。透過了三個成分 (晚附加、一致和階段)，本文可以成功地解釋在本研究中五種句構的第一連接詞之一致關係的不同可能性；另外，連接詞組的附加時機也被展示出來。我預期本研究的分析可以被運用到西班牙文中的任何句構。

    This thesis investigates the first conjunct agreement (FCA) phenomenon in Spanish. This phenomenon has been widely studied in many languages. However, there are few studies, if any, that focus on FCA in different constructions in Spanish. Besides, there is no analysis on Spanish FCA in the Minimalist Program that incorporates the phase theory (Chomsky 1998) or deals with the timing of the adjunction. In this study, I adopt the late adjunction approach in Soltan (2007) and take into account the phase concept to look into five different constructions, including existential, transitive, non-finite, passive, and reflexive passive, in Spanish. In addition, I propose that ϕ-complete Agree between the verb associated with the agreement projection and the first conjunct blocks FCA; ϕ-defective Agree between the participle and the first conjunct, however, displays FCA. Through the three ingredients, i.e. late adjunction, agreement, and phase, the different possibilities of FCA among the five constructions in this study can be successfully accounted for; besides, the timing of the adjunction of the &P is also demonstrated. It is expected that the analysis of this study can be applied to any constructions in Spanish.

    Chinese Abstract i English Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Glossary vii Chapter One – Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Motivation 8 1.3 Data Concerned in This Study 9 1.4 Purpose of the Study 11 1.5 Organization of the Thesis 12 Chapter Two – Previous Studies 13 2.1 Munn (1999) 13 2.2 Camacho (2003) 16 2.3 Soltan (2007) 17 2.4 Bošković (2009) 20 2.5 Demonte and Pérez-Jiménez (2012) 21 2.6 Aljović and Begović (2016) 24 2.7 Implications for FCA in Spanish 26 Chapter Three – FCA in Various Types of Constructions in Spanish 28 3.1 Basic Structure in Spanish 28 3.2 Existentials 30 3.3 Transitives 37 3.4 Non-finites 43 3.5 Passives 48 3.6 Reflexive Passives 52 3.7 Summary of the Five Construction Types Concerning FCA 56 Chapter Four – Analysis: Timing of Adjunction, Agreement, and Phases 58 4.1 Completeness and Defectiveness of ϕ-Features 60 4.2 The Phase Theory – Chomsky (1998) 62 4.3 Deriving FCA with Late Adjunction, Agreement, and Phase 63 4.3.1 One Phase – Existentials, Passives & Reflexive Passives 63 4.3.2 Two Phases – Transitives & Non-finites 68 Chapter Five – Conclusion 73 References 75

    Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
    Alijović, Nadira, and Muamera Begović. 2016. Morphosyntactic aspects of adjectival and verbal first-conjunct agreement. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24(1): 7-39.
    Aoun, Joseph, Elabbas Benmamoun, and Dominique Sportiche. 1994. Agreement, word order and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 195-220.
    Aoun, Joseph, Elabbas Benmamoun, and Dominique Sportiche. 1999. Further remarks on first conjunct agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 669-681.
    Aoun, Joseph, and Dominique Sportiche. 1981. On the formal theory of government. The Linguistic Review 2: 211-236.
    Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror principle and morpho-syntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373-416.
    Belletti, Adriana. 2001. Agreement projections. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), A Handbook of Syntactic Theory, 483-510. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
    Benmamoun, Elabbas, Archna Bhatia, and Maria Polinsky. 2010. Closest conjunct agreement in head-final languages. In Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.) Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2009: 67-88.
    Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Bošković, Željko. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 681-742.
    Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27(3): 455–496.
    Camacho, José. 2003. The structure of coordinate: conjunction and agreement phenomena in Spanish and other languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
    Chomsky, Noam. 1998. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework” MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. Republished in 2000 in R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (eds.). Step By Step: Essays In Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. 89–155. MIT Press.
    Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by Phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, no. 18 (also published in M. Kenstowicz (ed.) (2001) Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp.1-52.
    Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik ed. by Roger Martin, David Micheals, and Juan Uriagereka, 89-156. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
    Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20:1-28. MIT.
    Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On Phases.” in Foundational Issues in Linguistics Theory, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta, 133-166. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
    Cuza, Alejandro, Lori Czerwionka and Daniel Olson. 2016. Inquiries in Hispanic Linguistics: From theory to empirical evidence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Demonte, Violeta, and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez. 2012. Closest conjunct agreement in Spanish DPs: Syntax and beyond. Folia Linguistica 46(1): 21–74.
    Doron, Edit. 2000. VSO and left-conjunct agreement: Biblical Hebrew vs Modern Hebrew. In The syntax of verb initial languages, eds. Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle, 75-95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Fernández-Salgueiro, Gerardo. 2008. Aspects of the syntax of (TP) coordination, Across-the-Board extraction, and parasitic gaps. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
    Fernández-Salgueiro, Gerardo. 2011a. PRO vs. pro (vs. DP) in Spanish and Galician (and English). Manuscript.
    Fernández-Salgueiro, Gerardo. 2011b. Romance Null Subjects at the Sensory-Motor Interface. Syntax 14(1): 1-28.
    Fox, Danny, and Jon Nissenbaum. 1999. “Extraposition and Scope: A Case for Overt OR.” Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 132-144.
    Harbert, Wayne, and Maher Bahloul. 2002. Postverbal subjects in Arabic and the theory of agreement. Themes in Arabic and Hebrew Syntax ed. By Jamal Ouhalla and Ur Shlonsky, 45-70. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    Holmberg, Anders. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533–564.
    Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1996. Partial agreement and coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 661-676.
    Kelling, Carmen. 2006. Spanish se-constructions: the passive and the impersonal construction. Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference, ed. By Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King. Stanford: USLI Publications, 275-288.
    King, Tracy, and Mary Dalrymple. 2004. Determiner agreement and noun conjunction. Journal of Linguistics 40: 69–104.
    Legate, Julie. 1999. The morphosyntax of Irish agreement. In Karlos Arregi, Benjamin Bruening, Cornelia Krause, and Vivian Lin (eds.), Papers on Morphology and Syntax, Cycle One: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 219-240.
    Marušič, Franc, Andrew Nevins, and Amanda Saksida. 2007. On Slovenian conjunct agreement. Novi Sad Generative Grammar Workshop, Novi Sad, Serbia. 8.-10. 1. 2007.
    May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. Ph.D dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
    Munn, Alan. 1999. First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4): 643–668.
    Radford, Andrew. 2006. Minimalist Syntax Revisited, http://courses.essex.ac.uk/lg/lg514
    Richards, Marc. 2008. Defective Agree, Case Alternations, and the Prominence of Person. In M. Richards & A. Malchukov, eds., Scales. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86: 137-161.
    Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel. 2005. Case and agreement in Spanish existential constructions (and beyond). Minimalist Essays, 326-394.
    Sheehan, Michelle. 2006. The EPP and Null Subjects in Romance. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.
    Sobin, Nicholas. 1994. Non-local agreement. Manuscript, University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
    Soltan, Usama. 2007. On agree and postcyclic merge in syntactic derivations: First conjunct agreement in Standard Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XIX: Papers from the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Urbana, Illinois, April 2005, ed. Elabbas Benmamoun, 175-189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Uriagereka, Juan. 2002. Pure adjuncts. Ms., University of Maryland, College Park.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE