英语硕士论文范文——汉语双宾句的句法结构及其宾语的句法表现

索取号： 密级： 硕 士 学 位 论 文汉语双宾句的句法结构及其宾语的句法表现研究生:指导教师: 培养单位:外国语学院一级学科:外国语言文学二级学科:英语语言文学完成时间:答辩时间:AbstractAs a hot topic in generative linguistics, Chinese Double Object Constructions (DOC) have received extensive studies, which are mainly centered on the membership of Chinese DOCs and their syntactic representation. Since the Government-Binding period, those two major questions have been explored from various perspectives, including the Case theory, the binding principles, functional categories, phase, and so on. Though contributing to the understanding of Chinese DOCs, such analyses are not unproblematic. Specifically, on one hand, excessive semantic criteria are taken into account regarding the definition of DOCs, and on the other, inadequate exploration has been devoted to the correlation between DOCs syntactic structure and their objects performances.Regarding Chinese DOCs, three major issues will be addressed. Firstly, what are the members of Chinese DOCs? Secondly, how should they be represented syntactically? Thirdly, why do their objects contrast in syntactic performances?On the basis of previous studies on this topic, coupled with prosodic syntax, new findings have been made concerning Chinese DOCs:Firstly, adverbial intervention and exhaustive resultative reveal that the controversial affect-DOCs (A-DOCs) are qualified as DOC members, instead of being derived from de omission of single object constructions.Secondly, the two kinds of Chinese DOCs should be captured with different syntactic structures, of which the former are prosodically motivated, and the latter include a phonologically null verb with the semantics of being affected.Finally, the objects behaviors bear on the corresponding syntactic contexts in which they occur. Considering that IO is the object of a preposition and that Chinese generally disallows preposition stranding, it follows naturally that IO in transfer-DOCs (T-DOCs) can not granted null operator movement. As for A-DOCs, c-commanding relation and Proper Event Structure Constraint can be adduced to account for the syntactic performances of DO and IO.Key words: double object construction; prosodic syntax; null operator; Proper Event Structure Constraint摘要汉语双宾句是生成语言学研究的一个热点课题，学界对该课题从句法角度所做的研究大致可概括为两大方面：一，汉语双宾句包括哪些次类成员；二，用何种句法结构表征这些次类。从管辖约束理论时期一直到最简方案，研究者从多个角度对这两大问题进行了探索，所涉及的主要分析方法包括格理论、约束原则、功能语类以及语段理论。这些分析深化了对汉语双宾句的认识，然而也面临着一些局限之处。一是对双宾句的定义过于依赖语义标准，二是未能充分重视双宾句式的宾语在其他结构中的句法特征。因此，关于汉语双宾句式，有三个主要问题需要进一步探讨。首先，汉语双宾范畴包括哪些成员？其次，汉语双宾成员的句法结构如何表征？最后，汉语双宾句的宾语在句法表现方面的差异如何解释？以前贤对双宾结构的研究成果为基础，结合生成语法、韵律句法及相关语义学理论来分析汉语双宾句式，可以发现：一，副词插入和“穷尽性”补语测试表明，“蒙受类”双宾结构属于汉语双宾句的成员，而非单宾领属结构省略“的“字派生而来；二，汉语的“转移类”和“蒙受类”双宾句有不同的形成机制和句法表征，前者是由韵律作用推动而形成的动介复合结构，后者存在一个受影响意义的零形轻动词；三，汉语两类双宾句式的宾语之所以在相关结构中有不同的句法表现，与其所在的句法结构有密切联系。由于“转移类”双宾句的间接宾语是介词“给”的宾语，而汉语不允许介词悬空，因此间接宾语不能进行空算子移位。至于“蒙受类”双宾句，因间接宾语成分统制直接宾语，因此前者构成后者的移位障碍；由于零形轻动词选择空算子会违反“真事件结构条件”，故其不能进入把字句、话题句以及关系从句。被动句允准间接宾语由不含零形轻动词的结构推导而来。关键词：双宾结构 韵律句法 空算子 真事件结构条件List of AbbreviationsVAFFAPPLBABEICLCPDCDEDODOCDPGB G-NSRIOA-DOC MP NOP NP NS PERFPLPP T-DOCSRC VP light verb with the meaning of affectingapplicativeba construction in Chinesepassive verb bei in Chineseclassifierscomplementizer phrasedative constructionparticle de in Chinesedouble objectdouble object constructiondeterminer phrasegovernment and binding theorygovernment-based nuclear stress ruleindirect objectaffect-double object constructionthe minimalist programnull operatornoun phrasenuclear stressperfective marker le in Chineseplural marker menprepositional phrasetransfer-double object constructionstructural removing conditionverb phraseContentsAbstractI摘要IIIList of AbbreviationsIVIntroduction10.1 Research Background10.2 Layout of the Thesis6Chapter One Literature Review91.1 The Syntactic Structure of Double Object Constructions91.2 Passivization of DOCs151.2.1 The Case Analysis161.2.2 The Structure Analysis171.2.3 The Morpheme Analysis241.3 Summary25Chapter Two Theoretical Background Prosodic Syntax272.1 Nuclear Stress and Its Assignment in Chinese282.2 Prosodic (In)Visibility and Structural Removing Condition292.3 Summary31Chapter Three Membership and Syntactic Structures of Chinese DOCs323.1 Identity of the Controversial A-DOCs323.1.1 Binding Facts about the Pronominal Indirect Object353.1.2 Intervention of Adverbials Between IO and DO363.1.3 Co-occurrence with Exhaustive Resultatives393.2 Syntactic Structures of Chinese DOCs423.2.1 Syntactic Structure of T-DOCs433.2.2 Syntactic Structure of A-DOCs513.3 Summary56Chapter Four Syntactic Behaviors of Objects in Chinese DOCs574.1 Null Operator Movement in Chinese574.2 Syntactic Behaviors of Objects in Chinese DOCs604.2.1 Syntactic Behaviors of Objects in T-DOCs604.2.2 Syntactic Behaviors of Objects in A-DOCs624.3 Idiosyncratic Members of Chinese DOCs654.3.1 Idiosyncrasy in T-DOCs654.3.2 Idiosyncrasy in A-DOCs684.4 Summary71Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Study72Bibliography76Acknowledgments82The Syntactic Structures of Chinese Double Object Constructions and Their Objects Syntactic BehaviorsIntroduction0.1 Research BackgroundDouble object constructions (DOCs) have been attracting enormous attention in linguistics, especially in the generative field. Since the early age of the generative grammar, linguists have been trying to capture the structure and other properties of DOCs. Efforts of this kind abound throughout the development of generative theory, yielding fruitful and influential works, among which stand out Chomsky (1981), Barss&Lasnik (1986), Larson (1988), Marantz (1993), Baker (1996), Pylkknen (2000), Harley (2002), Mayagawa&Tsujioka (2004), Bruening (2010), Georgala (2012), etc. The upsurge of exploring this construction generatively has also exerted considerable influence on the research of Chinese DOCs. Many linguists have presented their analysis in the spirit of generativism, including Zhang (1998), Gu Yang (1999), Xu Jie (1999), Zhou Changyin (2000), Tang (2003), Huang (2007), He Xiaowei (2008), Huang Hebin (2010), among others. At first, attention was mainly centered on the introduction of generative analysis of DOCs in other languages (mainly English), and the application thereof to Chinese data. Then, more and more work is being putting in comparing DOCs crosslinguistically and revealing the characteristics of Chinese DOCs. Generative grammar sheds light on the explication of Chinese DOCs. In return, Chinese DOCs pose many intriguing and challenging questions to generative linguists. Take the following pair of sentences for example (IO and DO in the brackets stand for indirect object and direct object respectively).(1). 张三 送给 了 李四 一个 杯子Zhang San song gei le Li Si (IO) yi-ge beizi(DO) Zhang San give give PERF Li Si one-CL cup Zhang San gave Li Si a cup(2). 张三 打碎 了 李四 一个 杯子Zhang San da sui le Li Si(IO) yi-ge beizi(DO) Zhang San hit break PERF Li Si one-CL cup Zhang San broke one of Li Sis cupsHe Xiaowei (2011:137) refers to Chinese DOCs of the (1) type as Rightward DOCs (R-DOCs) and that of the (2) type as Leftward DOCs (L-DOCs), since he proposes that in (1) the subject causes DO to be transferred to IO, while in (2) it causes DO to be transferred from IO. However, we partially agree with such a classification in that the so-called L-DOCs do not always specify the direction and destination of DOs transfer, unlike the R-DOCs, where DO is always transferred rightward from the subject to IO. For instance, while it is reasonable to maintain that the Zhang San causes the cup to be transferred from Li Si to himself in Zhang San tou le Li Si yi-ge beizi (Zhang San stole a cup from Li Si), it is unclear where the cup is transferred in (2). Actually, it is more plausible to interpret IO in (2) as some entity affected by an event in which DO, the possessum, is caused to undergo some change brought about by the action denoted by the verb. Thus, in sentences like (2), IO should receive the theta role of affectee, rather than goal. And this issue will be addressed in detail in 3.2.2. As a result, we will term constructions of the (2) kind as affect-DOCs (A-DOCs). As for DOCs of the (1) type, we will call them transfe-DOCs (T-DOCs), taking into account the semantics of transfer noted by He Xiaowei (2011). One may wonder what the criteria will be to define a DOC, if we encode (1) and (2) in different semantics. Note that there seems to be a tendency to capture all DOCs within a uniform semantic frame. When it comes to DOCs, a certain relationship, be it transfer or possession, should be established between IO and DO, where sometimes this is achieved by setting semantic parameters, as is reflected in Tang (2003), Wang Qi (2005), and He Xiaowei (2011). However, if we examine the name DOC carefully, what is implied is that there are two (double) objects selected by the verb. Strictly, object is a grammatical/syntactic concept instead of a semantic one. Though certain semantic roles can be used to characterize objects, there seems to be no fixed mapping between objects and semantic roles, since an object can be a patient, a theme, or a goal. In a word, if DOCs are treated in a purely syntactic manner, it is unproblematic that they are not tied to any uniform semantic criterion. The only thing to be assured is that in addition to the subject, another two core arguments are selected. Since subject is usually assumed to be selected by a light verb in the present generative framework, the other two core arguments are situated in the domain c-commanded by the light verbv. Therefore, from a syntactic perspective, a DOC can be defined as a syntactic construction where two core arguments are present in the c-commanded domain of v. Now, in Chinese, we have two kinds of DOCsT-DOC and A-DOC. The above two types of DOCs have been interesting linguists working in the generative field. First, what is the category of gei in T-DOCs? Is it a preposition, a verb, or a functional item? How is it combined with the verb song? Does the complex song+gei function as a lexical compound, syntactic compound, or something else? Then, does sentences of the (2) kind count as DOCs? Is it a true DOC, or a construction derived by the omission of the particle de? If (2) is qualified as a member of Chinese DOCs, does it share the syntactic structure with (1)? Actually, this has been a major debate over the identity of constructions like (2) in the research of Chinese DOCs. In this thesis, the answer is positive. Thus, for the present, let us just call it A-DOC, and empirical evidence will be given in Chapter Three and Chapter Four.Furthermore, if we test A-DOCs and T-DOCs with passivization, topicalization, relativization, and BA construction, different behaviors of the objects will be observed, illustrated by the following instances.Passivization (Pas)IO of T-DOC: *Li Si BEI Zhang San song gei le yi ge beizi Li Si was given a cup by Zhang SanDO of T-DOC:Na ge beizi BEI Zhang San song gei le Li Si That cup was given to Li Si by Zhang SanIO of A-DOC:Li Si BEI Zhang San da sui le yi ge beizi One of Li Sis cups was broken by Zhang SanDO of A-DOC:*Na ge beizi BEI Zhang San da sui le Li Si Li Sis cup was broken by Zhang SanTopicalization (Top)IO of T-DOC:*Li Si, Zhang San song gei le yi ge beizi As for Li Si, Zhang San gave him a cupDO of T-DOC:Na ge beizi, Zhang San song gei le Li Si As for that cup, Zhang San gave it to Li SiIO of A-DOC:*Li Si, Zhang San da sui le yi ge beizi As for Li Si, Zhang San broke one of his cupsDO of A-DOC:*Na ge beizi, Zhang San da sui le Li Si As for that cup of Li Si, Zhang San broke itRelativization (Rel)IO of T-DOC:*Zhang San song gei yi ge beizi de Li Si Li Si, to whom Zhang San gave a cupDO of T-DOC:Zhang San song gei Li Si de na ge beizi The cup that Zhang San gave to Li SiIO of A-DOC:*Zhang San da sui yi ge beizi de Li Si Li Si whose cup was broken by Zhang SanDO of A-DOC:*Zhang San da sui Li Si de yi ge beizi A cup of Li Sis that Zhang San brokeBA construction (BA)IO of T-DOC:*Zhang San BA Li Si song gei le yi ge beizi Zhang San gave Li Si a cupDO of T-DOC:Zhang San BA yi ge beizi song gei le Li Si Zhang San gave a cup to Li SiIO of A-DOC:*Zhang San BA Li Si da sui le yi ge beizi Zhang San caused Li Si to have one of his cup broken by himDO of A-DOC:*Zhang San BA yi ge beizi da sui le Li Si Zhang San caused a cup of Li Sis to be broken by himTo be clear, the above syntactic differences of objects are summarized in diagram .Diagram.Syntactic Behaviors of Objects in Chinese DOCsPas Top RelBA T-DOCIODOA-DOCIODOIn Chinese Chinese,objects of a transitive verb normally pass all the four tests. However, as we can see in Diagram, it seems that in T-DOCs, DO behaves like a true object, since it reacts positively in all the tests, while IO passes none of them. Surprisingly, the situation looks bewildering in A-DOCs: only one object gets the green light in one test, i.e. only IOs passive is well-formed. Then one may wonder why the objects of the two types of Chinese DOCs have such syntactic contrasts, even though they share the labelDOC, which would literally require their objects, or at least some of them, to fulfill their “object-hood”. Now, we are confronted with three questions:1). Do both sentences of the type (1) and (2) count as members of Chinese DOCs?2). If the answer to question 1 is positive, then how do we represent them structurally? If the answer is negative, on what basis do we exclude one, or both of them from the family of DOCs?3). If the answer to question 1 is positive, why do the objects of Chinese DOCs behave so differently, though they are categorized into the same family?Considering the significance of those questions in the exploration of Chinese DOCs, this thesis tries to provide tentative answers to them within the generative framework.0.2 Layout of the ThesisThe whole thesis contains three major parts which are presented sequentially as follows:In the Introduction, of which the above pages constitute its bulk, readers are briefed on the research background, research questions and arrangement of the thesis.The second part is the main body. Specifically, Chapter One reviews the previous exploration of DOCs from the generative perspective, with the focus on the research of Chinese data. In this part, we examine how DOC is depicted structurally in the generative literature, which includes such aspects as the syntactic position of the two objects, the Case assigned to them, and derivation of their linear order. Besides, accounts of the objects syntactic behaviors, mainly passivization, will be inspected in that many linguists tend to predict how IO and DO get passivized based on the structure they propose for DOCs.Chapter Two provides the techniques to be employed in the remaining chapters. Broadly, the general background of our research is Chomskyan generativism, and we will simply adopt some key concepts thereof, such as Case, c-command, binding theory, Extension Projection Principle (EPP), light verb, etc. Since those ideas are explained in almost every textbook about the Government and Binding theory (GB) and the Minimalist Program (MP), we will not bother to give them an independent section in this thesis, though almost every one of them is controversial in terms of their definition or even the necessity of their existence. However, there will be something really non-mainstream to be mentioned. That is, an interfacial theoryprosodic syntaxwill be introduced, for we will see that prosody plays a crucial part in forming V+gei in the derivation of T-DOCs.In Chapter Three, we represent the two types of Chinese DOCs structurally on the basis of our theoretic framework in chapter two. It argues that in T-DOCs, gei is a preposition that incorporates into the verb because of prosodic requirement in Chinese, which implies that IO is related indirectly to the main verb in terms of constituency. As for A-DOCs, the verb such as tou zou (steal), da sui (break) and chi diao (eat) takes DO as its complement, while IO is introduced by a phonetically null light verb with the semantics of being affected, similar to the case in Chinese passives. Structurally, in T-DOCs, IO does not c-command DO, contra the case in English DOCs; in A-DOCs, IO c-commands DO. Our argument will be supported by the differences shown by the two kinds of Chinese DOCs concerning Binding Principle A, and secondary predication. Drawing on our argument in the previous part, in Chapter Four, we account for the syntactic performances of Chinese DOCs with respect to passivization, topicalization, relativization and BA construction. Though the above four operations are often referred to as A and A- movement, what moves varies across languages. Specifically, in the derivation of long passives, topics, relatives and BA constructions in Chinese, it is a null operator that undertakes the movement. This point will be taken in our explication of the objects behaviors of Chinese DOCs. Given that gei is a preposition in T-DOCs and Chinese disallows preposition stranding, it is natural to predict IOs ungrammaticality in the four ope