基于语段理论的汉语关系从句成分提取的主宾不对称现象语言学研究

本文是一篇语言学论文，本文首先回顾了前人关于汉语关系从句句法操作的研究，发现它们在两个主要的理论基础上进行，即运动分析和GCR分析。前一组学者声称，运动实际上是发生的，应该考虑到它的下位性。此外，当一个相对化的NP可以成为整个句子的主题时，这个NP实际上位于相对子句之外，因此提取只跨越一个边界节点。由于相对化NP只有在相对分句岛位于主语修饰位置时才有可能成为话题，所以后面的抽取是语法上的。

CHAPTER ONE GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Orientation of the Research
Under the theoretical guidance of Phase Theory proposed by Chomsky (2005) and some insights from Bo?kovi? (2005) in the most recent Minimalist Program, the present study seeks to shed light on the constraints governing NP extractions out of relative clauses in Mandarin. The purposes of this study lie in several aspects: (i) to render explicit the reasons why it is often more acceptable to extract NPs from the subject position than from the object position; (ii) to find out whether the mechanism behind NP extractions out of relative clauses in Mandarin is purely syntactic or not; (iii) to illustrate some factors that may suspend the ban of NP extractions
This chapter serves as a general introduction of the whole thesis and consists of four parts. Part One is about orientation of the current research and then rationale and significance are given in Section 1.2. Besides, the research questions this thesis attempts to answer are introduced in Section 1.3. Finally, in Section 1.4, the author presents the outline of the whole thesis.
..............................

1.2 Rationale and Significance of the Research
Issues about the grammaticality of NP extractions have long been attracting researchers’ attention and much research has been conducted in the relevant field by scholars both at home and abroad. A basic principle regarding NP extractions is called Complex NP Constraint, according to which extraction from complex NPs is disallowed where complex NP is a noun modified by a clause (Ross 1967). Furthermore, it is generally observed that the syntactic component position where theextraction happens exerts an essential influence on the grammaticality of derived sentences. That is to say, there exists a kind of subject-object asymmetry in English whose main representation consists in wh-movement. As far as English is concerned, when the extraction happens from the object position, the derived sentence will sometimes become somehow marginal if not ungrammatical, but it is grammatical in most cases. However, the picture for the extraction out of the subject position is different because this kind of extraction will definitely result in the ungrammaticality. This interesting contrast can be shown by the following example cited from Li (2000):
(1) a. I wonder how well John understands this book.
b. ? This is the booki that I wonder how well John understands ti.
c. *John is the personi that I wonder how well ti understands this book.
Under Chomsky’s GB framework, this contrast can be directly captured. Despite the fact that both (1b) and (1c) violate the Subjacency Condition (SC), which requires that the movement of extracted components cannot cross two bounding nodes (where bounding nodes are NP and CP) (Chomsky, 1986b), (1b) is thought to be more acceptable than (1c). Therefore, some other constraints also play a role here. The reason underlying this contrast is that the trace left by the NP is properly governed in (1b) but not in (1c). From Chomsky’s point of view, a trace should be properly governed and he puts forward two sub-conditions. A trace is properly governed if it can either be lexical-governed by the predicate verb or be antecedent-governed by its antecedent. In (1b), the trace can get its lexical government from the predicate understands, making this sentence become marginal. Yet, the trace in (1c) can neither be lexical-governed by the predicate understands nor be antecedent-governed by its antecedent person because of the intervening barrier how well, which blocks their antecedent relationship. Besides, the contrast can also be found in logical form.
..............................

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview
As mentioned above, a great number of scholars have noticed the inconsistencies and conducted studies, among which some scholars believe the subject-object asymmetry does exist in Mandarin Chinese while others just hold the opposite opinion. Thus, in the following part efforts will first be made to summarize the ideas of scholars who are in favor of movement analysis. Then, a brief review of proposals put forward by those who support non-movement analysis will be given.
Huang (2009) also expresses his doubt on the reliability of movement analysis since it cannot give a satisfactory explanation to the subject-object asymmetry mentioned in the previous parts. He argues that when movement takes place islands conditions must be taken into consideration. No matter relative clause islands are formed in the subject or object position, NPs extracted out both move across two bounding nodes and hence derived sentences are supposed to be ungrammatical. Yet, extractions from the subject positions are sometimes permissible, which suggests that movement analysis fails to explain this contrast. Attempting to cope with this challenge, Xu (2008) proposes that the base-generated positions of relativized NPs depend on whether the target of relativization can be a topic in the underlying structure. If the NP being extracted can be a topic, it is actually base-generated outside of the island. Otherwise, it can only be generated within the relative clause. Insights of this proposal are gained through the observation of nominal constructions in Japanese and Korean. It is generally accepted that Japanese and Korean have double nominative constructions, with the first nominative adjoined to the IP formed by thesecond nominative NP and the predicate (Kuroda 1987; Yoon 1986; Kim 2001). As a result, the explanation to the subject-object asymmetry comes out naturally.

........................

2.2Non-movement Analysis
One of the most influential representatives adopting non-movement analysis to the study of relative clauses is Huang (2009), who attempts to explain the lack of island violations with a universal account called Generalized Control Rule (GCR). According to Huang, there is a base-generated pro inside the relative clause, which should be co-indexed with the closest nominal element. Now, the contrast between extractions from subject position and those from object position can be capturedstraightforwardly by the following examples.
(10) a. [Opi [[proi chuan tj de] yifuj] hen piaoliang de] na-ge reni.
b. *[Opi [wo xihuan [[proi chuan tj] de] yifuj de]] na-ge reni.
When the complex NP is in the subject position, there is a base-generated pro in the embedded clause, whose identification is subject to GCR. Meanwhile, an operator is generated at the edge of the relative clause. Due to the fact that this operator is the most local c-commanding antecedent for pro, this empty category is properly governed and co-indexed with the head na-ge ren. Since there is no movement, no bounding node is actually crossed and (10a) is grammatical. However, when it comes to the complex NP located in the object position, the picture is different. In (10b) there is an intervening NP wo between the operator and the base-generated pro, which blocks their antecedent relationship. Therefore, pro cannot be identified with the operator properly since it can neither be lexical-governed by the predicate chuan nor get antecedent-government from the operator. This leads to the ungrammaticality of this sentence. Since there is no movement occurring, no actual extraction happens either due to the assumption that the NP is located outside the relative clause from the very beginning. In spite of the efficiency exerted by this non-movement analysis in explaining the contrast found between (10a) and (10b), this analysis doesn’t prove to be unproblematic. In the following cases, GCR makes wrong predictions for the identification of the base-generated pro and this is where one major defect of this analysis lies.
.................................

CHAPTER THREE THE SUBJECT-OBJECT ASYMMETRY IN MANDARIN CHINESE .......... 11
3.1 Overview ........................ 11
3.2 The Existence of Subject-Object Asymmetry in Mandarin Chinese ........... 11
CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ................................... 25
4.1 Overview ................................ 25
4.2 The Theoretical Foundation: Chomsky’s Phase Theory and Insights from Bo?kovi?’s ..................... 25
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION .............................. 39
5.1 Overview ..................................... 39
5.2 Major Findings .......................... 39

CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Overview
In this chapter, the author sets out to deal with the subject-object asymmetry of NP extraction from relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Firstly, the theoretical foundation of the author’s account, a combination of Chomsky’s phase theory and Bo?kovi?’s, is introduced in Section 4.2, including a short comparison made between the two and a proposal that DP should be conceived as a phase under some circumstances. Next, a presentation of the preliminary version of author’s account is given in Section 4.3, where the author endeavors to prove that the background/focus factor matters in the formation of phasehood (Goldberg 2006, Jia 2017). Thirdly, in Section 4.4, another factor called theta-marking is taken into consideration and the combination of these two factors is the final version of the author’s account. Finally, the author briefly summarizes the current study’s main arguments in Section 4.5.

...........................

CONCLUSION

5.1 Overview
This chapter generally serves as a brief summary of the whole study, in which the author re-states the research goals and research questions, presents the major findings and lists some limitations as well.
As introduced in Chapter One, the current study concerned with NP extractions from relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese endeavors to render explicit the mechanism behind the subject-object asymmetry existing in this syntactic operation. The main purposes of this study consist in the following aspects: i. to prove the existence of subject-object asymmetry in Mandarin Chinese and introduce its manifestation with regard to component extractions; ii. to explain why it is more permissible to extract an NP from a relative clause formed at the subject position than the object position; iii. to list the factors that may affect the grammaticality of component extractions. Above all, the author makes a review of previous studies concerning the syntactic operations inside relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese and finds that they are conducted within two main theoretical foundations, that is movement analysis and GCR analysis. The former group of scholars claims that movement actually happens and Subjacency should be taken into consideration. Besides, when a relativized NP can be the topic of the whole sentence in the underlying structure, this NP is actually located outside the relative clause and thus the extraction crosses only one bounding node. Since it is possible for the relativized NP to be a topic only when the relative clause island is located in the subject-modifying position, the later extraction is grammatical.
reference(omitted)