从管约理论到最简方案

出版时间：2010-4  出版社：科学出版社  作者：孙兴文  页数：243  字数：335000  
Tag标签：无  

前言

　　生成语法诞生于20世纪60年代美国著名语言学家Qiomskv所发起的“认知革命(CogrIitiveRevoludon)”。从此，人们开始从一个崭新的视角来审视语言。语言学家不再满足于对具体语料的搜集、归类和分析，而是要通过对语言事实进行分析这个途径，力求探讨人类语言机能的工作奥秘，进而通过研究语言机能去探索大脑的工作机制及人类思维活动的本质。　　不了解生成语法的人，往往把生成语法和传统语法等量齐观，以为都是研究语法。其实，生成语法学与传统语法学的研究对象和研究目标大相径庭。生成语法学研究的对象是人类大脑中主司语言的生理机制，所追求的终极目标乃是人类心智。生成语法学把语言看做是反映人类心智的一面镜子，把语言研究当作探索人类心智活动的基本途径和手段。而传统语法学研究的对象是语言本身，主要是对具体语言的口语及书面语材料进行分类描写，通过对语言事实的翔实描述，弄清各种语言的真实结构，为跨语言对比和语言教学服务。如果说人的大脑中存在一个生产语言的装置，则传统语法是对该装置所生产的产品进行研究，而生成语法的目标却是认识这个装置的生产过程和运作原理。　　社会中每个人都能理解和使用自己的母语，懂得某个句子表达什么意思以及是否符合语法。人们所具有的这种能力从本质上说是潜意识的(subconsci()US)，人类现有知识尚不能揭示语言交际过程中人们使用语言时涉及哪些具体的心理过程。为了研究母语使用者的这种潜意识的能力，Chomskv(1965)区分了当代语言学研究中两个十分重要的概念：语言能力(competence)和语言应用(performarice)。语言能力是指“说话人或听话人所具有的关于自己母语的知识”，而语言应用则是指“语言在具体情景中的实际应用”。很明显，生成语法所研究的实际上是心理语法，是语言使用者内在化的语言能力。因此，当生成语法学者研究语言知识和语法结构时，他们实际上是在研究内化于语言使用者大脑中的认知系统。

内容概要

本书前四章介绍“管辖约束”阶段的经典理论，后两章介绍“最简方案”阶段的新近发展。第1章介绍形式句法的基本概念，涉及定义、目标、特征、语言机能、句法与语义的关系、管约与最简的要点提示等。第2章涉及词汇语类、动词特征、短语小句结构、基本句法关系等。第3章讨论格位过滤、名词短语与约束、空语类与控制。第4章涉及各种名词移位、疑问词移位与限制、中心词移位与最近限制。第5章为过渡衔接，详细论述精简句法表达层次的理论动因、现实需要、具体途径与手段以及由此产生的一系列后果等。第6章论及最简方案的新近发展与实际运用，包括线性对应、移位复制、特征核查、经济推导、语段与移位、主语部分提取与限制等最新理论发展。　　本书定位的第一类读者是国内英语语言学专业的研究生及高年级本科生。第二类读者是具有一定英语基础的汉语、少数民族语言和其他外语专业的学生，以及语言教师和语言研究人员。社会上对形式句法研究感兴趣的其他读者也可以选读相关章节。

书籍目录

序 前言 Chapter 1 Basics of Syntax 　1.1 Definitions of Syntax 　1.2 Goals of Syntax 　1.3 Properties of Syntax 　1.4 Meaning in Syntax 　1.5 Faculty of Language 　1.6 Cores of GB 　1.7 Essentials of MP 　1.8 Summary Chapter 2 Categories and Structures in GB 　2.1 Words as Category 　2.2 Functional Categories 　2.3 Features of Verbs 　2.4 Basic Syntactic Structures 　2.5 Major Syntactic Relations 　2.6 Summary Chapter 3 Primary Modules in GB 　3.1 Case-filter 　3.2 NPs and Binding 　3.3 Empty Categories and Control 　3.4 Summary Chapter 4 Movement and Constraints in GB 　4.1 NP-movement and Constraints 　4.2 Wh-movement and Constraints 　4.3 Head Movement and Constraints 　4.4 Summary Chapter 5 Minimalist Transition 　5.1 Dispensing with SS 　5.2 Dispensing with DS 　5.3 Postulating PISH 　5.4 Postulating VP Shells 　5.5 Replacing Government 　5.6 Splitting Functional Projections 　5.7 Summary Chapter 6 Minimalist Horizons 　6.1 Minimalist Program and Linearization 　6.2 Copy and Feature Checking 　6.3 Derivational Economy 　6.4 Phase and Movement 　6.5 Subject Subextraction 　6.6 Summary References Appendix Glossary with Chinese Interpretation 后记

章节摘录

　　proposed by the British linguist Radford (2002: 2) that "Syntax is concerned with the formation and interpretation of phrases and sentences". This would land us in a better position to explain the native speakers knowledge about grammaticality, and to capture peoples intuitions about semantic acceptability as well. But before more efforts are made to pin down the object for syntactic study, it is vital for us to clarify the proper notion of language in which such structures are studied by generative syntax and other linguistic branches at large.　　Chomskys distinction between linguistic competence and per- formance in his early years has become the cornerstone for modern syntax. According to Chomsky, competence is the native speakers underlying knowledge of language while performance is his actual use of language in concrete situations. He further developed this dis- tinction into I[nternal]-language and E[xternal]-language, referring respectively to the speakers internal system of knowledge and exter-nal behavior of linguistic interaction. For Chomsky and his followers, the proper object of syntax is linguistic competence or rather, I-language that enables humans to speak and understand their native languages (Chomsky, 1965: 4).　　It should be noted, however, that the linguistic competence or grammatical knowledge of the native speaker is often tacit rather than explicit. Any native English speaker can tell you with his intuitions that (3a) is grammatical or well-formed while (3b) is not. He can fur-ther tell you that (4a) is better than (4b) though neither of them is grammatical. He may also be able to judge that (5a) is nonsensical while (5b) is ambiguous. But it is unlikely for him to offer any sys-tematic theoretical explanation for the grammaticality and acceptabil-ity of such sentences.