同位语结构的句法推导与赋格

论文价格:0元/篇 论文用途:仅供参考 编辑:论文网 点击次数:0
论文字数:**** 论文编号:lw202321711 日期:2023-07-20 来源:论文网

本文是一篇语言学论文,笔者认为关于规则同位结构的句法推导,许多语法学家表达了他们的观点,如Smith(1964)强调的“Whis”删除,Postal(1966)引入的决定论,Delorme&Dougherty(1972)倡导的同位理论,Jackendoff(1977)构建的附加假设,de Vries(2000、2002、2006)系统地讨论和发展了指定协调假设。

CHAPTER ONE GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH MOTIVATION
The appositive construction is a common existence among almost all languages, such as English, Chinese, German and Russian etc, as is shown by the bold constituents in
(1) respectively.


语言学论文怎么写

Such a structure has been intriguing syntacticians for a long time. Consequently, studies regarding apposition were carried out one after another, and these studies are urgently needed and absolutely necessary for certain reasons. On the one hand, appositive structures exert significant effects on different areas, such as language teaching, language acquisition, translation and discourse analysis. On the other hand, the difficulty in comprehending and learning appositive constructions is unneglectable due to the interference of syntactic factors.
..........................
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Just as has been mentioned above, this thesis targets at the syntactic derivation and Case assignment of appositive constructions. In order to achieve such a goal, three questions are itged here:
a) How is an appositive construction syntactically derived?
b) What is the syntactic representation of an extraposed appositive construction?
C) How are Case features valued within appositive constructions?
These questions run through the discussions of the entire research. By means of detailed analyses and elaborate explanations in the following chapters, they will be answered one by one eventually.
Over the past few years, research concerning apposition has cropped up here and there. In spite of fruitful results, however, some vital issues have been left over. In the meantime, some works likewise manifest the important value of appositive studies. Based on collected literature, first of all, some have attempted to depict the derivational process of appositive constructions. Nevertheless, there are remaining problems. What’s more, issues related to the Case-assignment of appositives remain unsettled. Albeit some have claimed that constituents in apposition shared the same Case, such an assumption was refuted afterwards. Surprisingly, a certain number of studies centered on the distinction between appositive clauses (ACs) and relative clauses (RCs) whose similarities are indeed confusing. This can be supported by the following findings.
......................
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 DEFINITION OF APPOSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS
2.1.1 APPOSITIVE AND APPOSITIVE CLAUSE
Generally, an appositive construction refers to two or more than two linguistic units in a natural language, which point to the same referent and among which the former unit is the anchor3 modified and explained by the latter unit(s) while the latter unit(s) is/arecalled an appositive/appositives specifying the content of the anchor.
Nevertheless, it’s hard to draw a conclusion on the definition of an appositive on account of non-uniform standards held by scholars. Unsurprisingly though, an appositive construction is most frequently narrowed down to the grammatical relation between NPs, since appositives are commonly represented as nominal expressions, just as sentence (3) shows:
(3) My friend Anna was here last night. (Quirk et al. 1985:1305)
For instance, Fries (1952) and Francis (1958) regarded apposition as a strict relation between juxtaposed NPs, which were co-referred to some extent. Jesperson (1961) extended the category of apposition into reflexives and clauses following an NP, like “The president himself is a sophisticated politician.” Moreover, based on collected corpora, Meyer (1992) considered an apposition as two units that generally had four syntactic forms: two NPs, a NP followed by a clause or sentence, two units (most frequently NPs) joined by an obligatory marker of apposition, and two units one or both of which was a sentence, clause, or phrase rather than a NP. According to Morley (2000), “Apposition is said to occur where two or more grammatically parallel and normally contiguous entities have identity of reference”, and she further subpided apposition into three different types:
(4) a. (apposition) identifying complement, supplementary: Bill, the baker, gave a most provoking talk. b. (apposition) non-identifying complement, supplementary: My neighbor, a keen mountaineer, is in Skye. c. (apposition) identifying complement, integral: Bill the baker gave a most interesting talk. (Morley 2000:187)
.............................
2.2 ESTABLISHED STUDIES ABOUT THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE OF APPOSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS
2.2.1 THE SYNTACTIC REPRESENTATION OF REGULAR APPOSITIVE STRUCTURES
In light of collected literature, a variety of assumptions have been proposed to sketch the syntactic derivation of appositive constructions. Nonetheless, those that are directlyrelated to this research will be reviewed in this section, and these assumptions are categorized into five types here: “Wh is” Deletion, the Determiner Theory, the Appositive Theory, the Adjunction Hypothesis and the Specifying Coordination Hypothesis.
2.2.1.1 “WH IS” DELETION
As far as I know, Smith (1964) is the first one trying to depict the derivation process of an appositive construction. According to his analysis, appositive constructions are built via a “Wh is” deletion transformation process, where “Wh” refers to relative pronouns like who or which.
(10) a. John, who was a good salesman, charmed them immediately. b. John, a good salesman, charmed them immediately. (11) a. The girl, who was bored, yawned delicately. b. The girl, bored, yawned delicately. (Smith 1964:252)
Taking (10) for example, there is an appositive construction in (10)b and a NRR in (10)a respectively. It was believed that the surface structure (10)b was derived from the underlying structure (10)a via an optional “Wh is” deletion process. Specifically, the appositive construction is generated by deleting “who was” in the NRR. Besides “Wh is NP” structures, such an operation could likewise be applied to a broader scope like “Wh is AP”, as is shown in
(11). With differences in handling though, such an assumption was supported by many a researcher. Presumably, this explains why there are impartible connections between ACs and RCs, since some even treated ACs the same as NRRs which were called appositive relative clauses (ARCs). Nonetheless, such an operation was considered deficient owing to its inadequate applicability in certain environments (See Postal 1966).
.................................

CHAPTER THREE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................. 37
3.1 Three methodological prerequisites ................................ 37
3.2 Agreement and multiple agreement .................................. 39
3.3 Split projections .................................. 42
CHAPTER FOUR SYNTACTIC DERIVATION OF APPOSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS .................. 53
4.1 Regular appositions: [RP [XP Anchor] [R’ R (Ø) [YP Appositive]]] ................ 53
4.1.1 Appositives: complements or adjuncts? ............................. 53
4.1.2 Appositives as secondary predicates............................ 57
CHAPTER FIVE CASE VALUATION OF APPOSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS .............................. 85
5.1 Mirages cast up by identical φ-features ........................ 86
5.2 Case shelter for appositives .............................. 91
CHAPTER FIVE CASE VALUATION OF APPOSITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS
5.1 MIRAGES CAST UP BY IDENTICAL Φ-FEATURES
At first sight, an anchor and an appositive always share identical φ-features, as is instantiated by the two sentences in (116).


语言学论文参考

In (116)a, the anchor Charles carries interpretable third-person, singular-number features. As a consequence, only the boy with the same φ-features rather than the boys with dissimilar third-person, plural-number features, is an eligible candidate for its appositive. Similarly, in (116)b, the appositive businessmen carries [3-Pers, Pl-Num] features. Consequently, the only qualified anchor is the pronoun they which carries the same φ-features, instead of the [3-Pers, Sg-Num] pronoun he or the [1-Pers, Sg-Num] pronoun I which carry different φ-features.
............................
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION
6.1 MAJOR FINDINGS
The appositive construction is a common existence among different types of languages. Not only does it play an important role in syntactic studies, but also it serves as a touchstone of linguistic theories. Typically, an appositive construction comprises two parts, the anchor and the appositive, with the latter providing supplementary information for the former. An appositive position is most frequently occupied by noun phrases. Nonetheless, a multitude of linguistic facts indicate that other linguistic units such as adjectives, verbs, gerunds, infinitives etc are likewise eligible candidates. Despite different kinds of appositive constructions, however, this research simply lays emphasis on appositive arguments, nominal appositives such as proper nouns, pronouns, noun phrases and noun clauses occupying argument positions.
Tracing back to previous studies, issues related to appositive constructions have raised broad attention. In particular, the syntactic derivation and Case valuation of appositive constructions have engendered furious controversies, which are also the focus of this research. Specifically, with respect to the syntactic derivation of regular appositive constructions, a number of syntacticians have expressed their ideas, such as “Wh is” Deletion highlighted by Smith (1964), the Determiner Theory introduced by Postal (1966), the Appositive Theory advocated by Delorme & Dougherty (1972), the Adjunction Hypothesis built by Jackendoff (1977), the Specifying Coordination Hypothesis systematically discussed and developed by de Vries (2000, 2002, 2006). Moreover, some appositives, they are not immediately adjacent to their anchors. Rather, they are either anticipated or postponed. These structures are regarded as extraposed appositive constructions. In respect of extraposed appositive constructions, it wasbelieved by de Vries (2002) that appositives were extraposed via a specifying coordination plus ellipsis process. In addition, Milićev & Milićević (2012) attempted to find a home for the constituent moved out of its original habitat who speculated that it is the anchor rather than the appositive that is leftwards moved to FocP in Serbian and to ƩP in Old English. What is more, as regards Case-assignment of regular nominal appositives, relevant works held the similar opinions that they share the same Case with their anchors which is whatever Case assigned to the entire appositive construction. Nonetheless, appositive clauses were viewed as unquailed Case receivers. Undoubtedly, these studies have made significant contributions to appositive research, but they also revealed the research gaps. For instance, issues related to the syntactic derivation and Case valuation of appositive constructions still yearn for common ground. Furthermore, some research proceeded at a relatively early age which are inevitably subject to certain theoretical limitations.
reference(omitted)

如果您有论文相关需求,可以通过下面的方式联系我们
客服微信:371975100
QQ 909091757 微信 371975100