局域非对称成分统制、词汇特征与保留宾语句式的跨语言差异  

Local asymmetric C-command configuration, lexical features, and the cross-linguistic variation of clauses with stranded objects

作　　者：马志刚[1] 章宜华[1] 

机构地区：[1]广州市广东外语外贸大学外国语言学及应用语言学研究中心/词典学中心,510420

出　　处：《现代外语》2010年第1期1-11,共11页Modern Foreign Languages

基　　金：国家社科基金项目(批准号:09BYY034);教育部人文社会科学研究项目(编号:08JC740010);广东省“211工程”三期建设项目《全球化背景下的外国语言文学研究》子课题(编号:GDUFS211-1-056)

摘　　要：汉语中的两类保留宾语句式实质上等同于英语提升句和存现句。通常所说的汉语特色其实在于:汉语中表达遭受不幸的提升动词"被"对主语和补语都有语义方面的子语类限制,而英语提升动词并无实质性的语义内容,因而可以选择it和that从句作为其标示语和补语;汉语的非宾格动词可以选择φ特征完整的论元作为其标示语,而英语的非宾格动词只能选择特征不完整的there作为其标示语,但二者都要求数量短语作为其补语,以实现部分格赋值。基于探针-目标一致关系对两种语言中两类句型的推导完全相同,从而印证了最简方案句法推导具有共性、语言差异源于词汇特征的断言。The two types of Chinese clauses with stranded objects are, in essence, equivalent to raising clauses and existential clauses in English. What is unique to Chinese is that there exists in it a raising verb 'bèi' which imposes semantic and syntactic constraints (subcategorization) upon both its specifier and complement, whereas English raising verbs have no substantive semantic content and can take the expletive 'it' and that-clause respectively as their specifier and complement. The unaccusative verb in Chinese can take as its specifier arguments with complete φ-features, whereas English unaccusative verbs can only take the expletive 'there' as its specifier, but unaccusative verbs in both languages require QP as their complements, for the realization of the valuation of partitive case. The derivations of the two types of clauses in both languages are essentially identical, thereby substantiating the minimalist claim that syntactic derivation is uniform across all natural languages, and cross-linguistic variation may well be traced back to lexical features.

关 键 词：最简方案 汉语保留宾语句 探针一目标 一致关系 局域非对称成分统制 

分 类 号：H314.3[语言文字—英语]