优选论视角下的英汉疑问句类型差异研究（已处理）

优选论视角下的英汉疑问句类型差异研究（已处理） 优选论视角下的英汉疑问句类型差异研究 中南民族大学 硕士学位论文 优选论视角下的英汉疑问句类型差异研究 姓名:刘林娴 申请学位级别:硕士 专业:外国语言学及应用语言学 指导教师:许菊 2011-05An OT Account of the Typological Differences Between English and Chinese Interrogatives 摘 要 本文在由 Alan Prince 与 Paul Smolensky于 90年代提出的优选论的理论框架 下对英汉疑问句句型进行了全面系统的对比 分析 定性数据统计分析pdf销售业绩分析模板建筑结构震害分析销售进度分析表京东商城竞争战略分析 。前人所进行的对比研究多是以 “原则?参数理论”作为理论框架,其中普遍参数与具体参数的设置是学者们关注 的焦点,是学者们研究疑问句类型差异的关注焦点。而本文旨在从优选论这一全 新视角对英汉疑问句进行研究。优选论通过探讨不同语言的层级排列来阐释 语言 间的类型差异,语言的特殊性和普遍性能够在其中得到统一体现。 疑问结构的存在是自然语言的一个普遍属性,但各语言建构疑问句句型的策 略大不相同。本文利用英汉疑问句作为研究目标并试图回答下列问题: (1)哪些 制约条件限制英汉两种疑问句的生成?(2)制约条件的不同排列如何导致英汉 疑问句的类型差异?(3)导致这些类型差异的根源是什么? 本文采纳 Quirk 1985, 朱德熙(1982)的分类,主要探讨了英汉疑问句中 的一般疑问句,特殊疑问句和选择疑问句三种句型。英汉疑问句类型差异主要体 现如下:就一般疑问句而言,英语采纳“auxiliary + subject”模式,而汉语采纳 “declarative + ma”模式; 就特殊疑问句而言,英语采纳“wh-word + auxiliary”模 式,而汉语采纳“wh-in-situ + ne/a”模式; 就选择疑问句而言,英语采纳“auxiliary + subject”模式,而汉语采纳 “declarative + ne/a”模式。 本文在句法理论的基础上归纳出制约英汉疑问句生成的限制条件,包括 HD-MOVE, DO-INSERT, OP-SPEC, OB-HD, ECONOMY & STAY。前五个为负责 触发变化及/或移位的标记性条件,而最后一个属于负责阻止变化及/或移位的发 生的忠实性条件,。 第六章中,本文发现上文提及的制约条件在英汉三种疑问句中的层级排列 不同:英汉一般疑问句的制约条件层级排列分别为HD-MOVE DO-INSERT ECONOMY STAY 和 ECONOMY HD-MOVE STAY ; 英汉特殊 疑问句的制约条件排列分别为OP-SPEC OB-HD ECONOMY STAY 和ECONOMY OP-SPEC OB-HD STAY; 英汉选择疑问句的制约条件 排列分别为HD-MOVE DO-INSERT ECONOMY STAY 和 ECONOMY HD-MOVE STAY.正因为这些制约条件的不同层级排列导 iv中南民族大学硕士学位论文 致英汉两种语言疑问句句型的差异。本文通过语例分析证明被这些制约条件层级 排列体系下评估与筛选出来的最优候选项与第四章提出的疑问句句型模式 一致。 此外,在上述发现的基础上,本文归纳出英汉疑问句的一般类型趋势, 并从 语言,认知,社会文化等诸多因素中来探讨导致这些趋势的根本原因。 本文在结论中指出,对英汉疑问句类型差异的优选论分析比以往的研究方法 更有说服力、更有效,是对前人研究的必要补充。本文期望本研究可为句法现象 的后续研究提供一些借鉴。 关键词:优选论;类型差异;英汉疑问句;限制条件;层级排列vAn OT Account of the Typological Differences Between English and Chinese Interrogatives Abstract This thesis presents a contrastive analysis of the sentence patterns for English and Chinese interrogatives within the framework of Optimality Theory OT proposed by Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky in 1990s. The previous researches on interrogatives are mainly done on the basis of Chomsky’s Principle-Parameter Theory, in which the universal principles and specific parameter-settings are the main concern of the scholars who study the typological variations in interrogative sentence patternsThis thesis, however, tends to conduct a contrastive analysis of the English and Chinese interrogatives from a brand-new perspective ? OT. OT explains the typological differences between languages through exploring the different hierarchical rankings of constraints in different languages. Both the universality and particularity possessed by certain types of language can be revealed through OT analysis The existence of interrogative constructions seems to be a universal property of natural languages, but those languages also differ greatly in the strategies they employ for coding interrogatives. This thesis takes English and Chinese interrogatives as the research subject and attempts to answer the following questions: i what constraints control the generation of both English and Chinese interrogatives? ii what kinds of hierarchical systems of constraints lead to the typological differences in the interrogative sentence patterns between English and Chinese languages? iii what are the deep-rooted reasons underlying those typological differencesThis thesis adopts the categorization of interrogatives made by Quick 1985 and Zhu Dexi 1982 and explores three major types of English and Chinese interrogatives: yes-no questions, wh-questions and alternative questions. The typological differences between English and Chinese interrogatives are generalized as follows: in terms of yes-no questions, English has “auxiliary + subject” model whereas Chinese has “declarative + ma” model; in terms of wh-questions, English has “wh-word + auxiliary” model whereas Chinese has “wh-in-situ + ne/a” model; in terms of alternative questions, English has “auxiliary + subject” model where Chinese has “declarative + ne/a” model Based on syntactic theories, the constraints on the generation of English andii中南民族大学硕士学位论文 Chinese interrogatives are discovered, including HD-MOVE, DO-INSERT, OP-SPEC, OB-HD, ECONOMY & STAY, among which the former five belong to markedness constraints which trigger change and/or movement whereas the last one belongs to faithfulness constraint which prevents change and movement from happening In Chapter Six, it is further found that the above mentioned constraints are ranked differently for the three types of English and Chinese interrogatives as follows: the constraint rankings for English and Chinese yes-no questions are respectively HD-MOVE DO-INSERT ECONOMY STAY and ECONOMY HD-MOVE STAY ; the constraint rankings for English and Chinese wh-questions are respectively OP-SPEC OB-HD ECONOMY STAY and ECONOMY OP-SPEC OB-HD STAY; the constraint rankings for English and Chinese alternative questions are respectively HD-MOVE DO-INSERT ECONOMY STAY and ECONOMY HD-MOVE STAY. It is just these differences in hierarchies of constraints that lead to the typological differences in interrogative sentence patterns between English and Chinese languages. It is proved with examples that the optimal interrogative candidates evaluated and selected by these hierarchical rankings of constraints coincide with the interrogative models summarized in Chapter Four Furthermore, based on the findings in the previous chapters, this thesis summarizes three general typological tendencies of English and Chinese interrogatives and attempts to interpret these tendencies from linguistic, cognitive and social-cultural perspectives This thesis is concluded by pointing out that OT analysis of the typological differences between English and Chinese interrogatives is more persuasive and effective than previous approaches and makes a necessary complement to the previous researches. It is hoped that this study can provide some enlightenment for further researches on syntactic phenomenaKey words: optimality theory; typological differences; English and Chinese interrogatives; constraints; hierarchical rankings iii 中南民族大学 学位论文原创性声明 本人郑重声明:所呈交的论文是本人在导师的指导下独立进行研究所 取得的研究成果。除了文中特别加以标注引用的内容外,本论文不包含任 何其他个人或集体已经发 表 关于同志近三年现实表现材料材料类招标技术评分表图表与交易pdf视力表打印pdf用图表说话 pdf 或撰写的成果作品。对本文的研究做出重要贡 献的个人和集体,均已在文中以明确方式标明。本人完全意识到本声明的 法律后果由本人承担。 作者签名:日期:年 月 日学位论文版权使用授权 书 关于书的成语关于读书的排比句社区图书漂流公约怎么写关于读书的小报汉书pdf 本学位论文作者完全了解学校有关保留、使用学位论文的规定,同意 学校保留并向国家有关部门或机构送交论文的复印件和电子版,允许论文 被查阅和借阅。本人授权中南民族大学可以将本学位论文的全部或部分内 容编入有关数据库进行检索,可以采用影印、缩印或扫描等复制手段保存 和汇编本学位论文。 本学位论文属于 1、保密?,在______年解密后适用本授权书。 ? 2、不保密?。 (请在以上相应方框内打“?”) 作者签名: 日期:年 月 日 导师签名: 日期:年 月 日 中南民族大学硕士学位论文 Acknowledgements Many people have ever helped and encouraged me during my preparation and writing of this thesis. I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to all of themFirst of all, I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Professor Xu Ju, who has provided constant guidance to me throughout the process of the thesis writing. She read through my drafts of this thesis out of her busy schedule and revised my thesis word by word, which brings a great improvement to this paper. Without her patient and constructive instruction and suggestions, this thesis could not be brought to the present appearance I would also like to express my appreciation to all the other professors who have taught me during the three years of my postgraduate study. Their extensive professional knowledge and inspiring lectures help me greatly in my academic research and provide me with enlightenment for this paperBesides, I owe much of the bright side of my life at SCUN to my friends and classmates: Deng Yu, Zhang Juan, Wu Yanan, Wu Wei, Tang Lei, Li Kui. They provided their precious suggestions and practical support to my research, which is very important for the completion of the research Special thanks should go to my parents, whose love and warm encouragement are the most powerful strength supporting me. Without their encouragement and understanding, I could not have reached so far, and this thesis would never have been possiblei中南民族大学硕士学位论文 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Research Questions Interrogative, as one of the most frequently used clause types, occupies a very important position in the language studies. Interrogative is common in all human languages, but the interrogative structures vary from language to language. What are the reasons underlying the different sentence patterns of the interrogatives in different languages? This question is the major concern of this study. It is believed that some typological features have distinguished sentence patterns of interrogatives in different languages. Much literature has been developed in this area. But most of the previous researches have been conducted within the framework of Chomsky’s Principle-Parameter Theory and only a very small part of them involves cross-linguistic comparisons. This thesis, however, tends to provide an adequate account of the typological differences that distinguish the interrogatives within the OT framework Optimality Theory OT is a further development of Chomsky’s Generative Grammar. The basic idea of General Grammar is that Universal Grammar is composed of a set of inviolable constraints on representational well-formedness, out of which particular grammars are constructed. But OT argues that the constraints are always conflicting with each other in a particular language and most of the representations are well-formed. It is to say that the grammar is composed of the constraints as well as a general means which can resolve the conflicts of themselvesAs a constraint-based theory, OT has shifted the burden of phonological analysis from the traditional generative theories of rules and derivations to the theory of constraintsThe ultimate objective of OT is to determine and characterize universal constraints and the different hierarchical rankings of these constraints in different languages which result in the variations of the representations in different languagesSince English and Chinese are two major languages that have relatively greater1An OT Account of the Typological Differences Between English and Chinese Interrogatives influence on the international communities, this thesis mainly studies the typological differences between English interrogatives and Chinese interrogatives. Based on the syntactic theories, the constraints that bring about the differences of sentence models between English and Chinese interrogatives will be explored, and OT tableaus will be utilized to precisely analyze the typological differences of three major interrogatives existing in English and Chinese languages: yes-no questions, wh-questions and alternative questions. The following questions will be addressed in this thesis:i Which constraints lead to the typological differences between English and Chinese interrogatives ii How should the constraints be ranked in English and Chinese interrogatives respectively? What are the reasons underlying such typological differences in the hierarchies of the constraintsiii What are the general typological tendencies between the English and Chinese interrogatives? What are the fundamental factors underlying these tendencies 1.2 Research Purpose and Significance This research is to make an exploration into the typological features of English and Chinese interrogatives within the OT framework. It is generally considered that the cross-linguistic comparison actually refers to the status of the cross-linguistic correlation. Hence, we can solve the problems like “what correlations are between the different languages and what factors cause such correlations” through the cross-linguistic comparison. A persuasive generalization about language could not be made without examining more than one language and the generalization based on theinter-language comparison may be characteristic of languages in general. Hence, this paper makes a systematic comparison between the sentence models respectively in English and Chinese interrogatives It is found that most of the previous cross-linguistic researches on syntax are based on the Principle-Parameter Theory, which support the view that a single parameter setting in interaction with other general principles may lead to many2中南民族大学硕士学位论文 superficial differences among languages and those differences can be parameterized to enable us to make further cross-linguistic comparisons about the parametric options on interrogatives of the natural languages. This paper, however, tends to explore the constraints on the cross-linguistic contrasts between English and Chinese interrogatives under the OT framework. OT is a brand-new theory for linguistic research. There is very few of papers or articles on OT and the publications on the cross-linguistic comparison of interrogatives within the OT framework are even fewerThe present writer will apply OT into the typological comparison between English and Chinese interrogatives and try to find out the different constraint ranking systems in English and Chinese interrogatives, based on the syntactic theories. One set of the constraints ranking will be used to analyze all of the inputs in one language and finally maintain the optimal input A lot of previous researches have applied Principle-Parameter Theory into the typological analysis of the interrogative structures in different languages or just applied OT to the analysis or explanation of the typological differences of the wh-questions. In this thesis, however, the results of the systematic typological comparison between English and Chinese interrogatives will be further analyzed and interpreted by OT, aiming at people’s better and more comprehensive understanding of the typological differences between English and Chinese interrogatives1.3 Thesis Organization This thesis is composed of eight chapters. Chapter One is a brief introduction to the research questions, the purpose and significance of the research. Chapter Two reviews some of the literature related to the English Interrogatives, Chinese interrogatives and the contrasts between the interrogatives in those two languagesChapter Three is a sketch of the Optimality Theory, including several of its basic concepts, the architecture of OT grammar, the markedness and faithfulness constraints and so on, which constitute the theoretical basis of the present research. Chapter Four makes a comprehensive contrast between the sentence models of three types of English and Chinese interrogatives, that is, yes-no questions, wh-questions and3An OT Account of the Typological Differences Between English and Chinese Interrogatives alternative questionsChapter Five and Chapter Six are concerned with the OT analysis. Chapter Five deals with the constraints on the English and Chinese interrogatives. Chapter Six gives an exploration to the different hierarchical rankings of the three major types of interrogatives in English and Chinese based on the syntactical theories. In addition, on the basis of the different constraint rankings, this chapter utilizes the OT tableau to analyze the inputs from English and Chinese interrogatives respectively. Through the OT tableau analysis, the optimal candidates are maintained respectively. The optimal candidates, namely the optimal sentence patterns, are consistent with the fixed models proposed in Chapter FourIn Chapter Seven, the typological tendencies in both the English and Chinese interrogative are concluded and illustrated, and these tendencies are interpreted respectively from the linguistic, cognitive and social-cultural perspectives The last Chapter draws a conclusion of the whole thesis. The implications of the present research and its suggestions for further researches are pointed out 4中南民族大学硕士学位论文 Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Previous Studies on English Interrogatives According to Quick 1985,English interrogatives can be divided into three major types according to the types of answers to the questions: yes-no questions, wh-questions and alternative questions. Since the syntactic patterns are the basis of modern syntactic theories on interrogatives, a review of the previous researches on the three types of questions in both English and Chinese will be conducted firstA. Yes-No questionsYes-no questions are a kind of questions to which the speaker expects a “Yes” or “No” response Langacker, 1974. It means that you have to answer with “Yes” or “No” when someone asks you questions as follows: 1 Can you help me2 Do you like Chinese3 Will they come back tomorrowThese sentences differ from declarative sentences only in one aspect?word order, as indicated below: 4 a. You will become friends Declarative sentence b. Will you become friends Yes-no question It is obvious that the structure of 4b results from the subject-auxiliary inversion of 4a, in which the auxiliary will is moved to the front of the subject youThe auxiliary movement is not restricted to modal auxiliaries only, but applicable to all of the auxiliaries in interrogatives. It is also called “Head Movement”, which means that the “head” i.e. auxiliary is always moved to the front position of the sentence in the process of forming a yes-no question. He Zhaoxiong, 2002 B. Wh-questions Wh-questions refer to the questions that begin with the following interrogative operators: what, when, where, why, whom, whose ,which and how. Because5An OT Account of the Typological Differences Between English and Chinese Interrogatives wh-questions are always used to ask for specific information, they are sometimes called “information questions” Quirk, 1985. Yes-no question is a kind of general question which just needs a general answer, but the wh-question is much more specific since the whole proposition is questioned in such a type of sentence. In fact, the reason why wh-question is also called information question is that in such type of question there is a specific information gap required to be filled. Wang Ruiyun2005 has summarized the kinds of constituents that might be que