句法学.docx

1、句法学Take-Home Exam B.A. Course Syntax 2010I. Form three minimal pairs and provide an account for each of them. (30%).(1) a What does Williams regret that Johnson bought? b What does Williams think that Johnson bought? a 中由于regret 的补助语的事件是预设的，事件内的论元是存在的（无论后悔与否事件及其论元都是存在的）。因此论元是独立依存的，不能所指依存Williams 关于此

2、事件的 regret. 所以从regret 补助语的提取是不可能的。相反，（1b）中的 think 的补助语内事件的确定依存 thinking 的行为，因此论元所指依存事件，这样提取就是合法的。若使（1a）合法，必须建立一个话语场景，regretting 是预设的并且其内容是被提问的，如此才能允许所指依存，这要求特殊的对比语调。所指依存的另一个重要部分就是确定（definite）所指，如果论元是确定的，那么是独立所指，无需所指依存事件，反之，就需要所指依存。主题的提取同样受到所指依存限制。(2) a Who did John believe the claim that Brown is da

3、ting? b Who did John make the claim that Brown is dating? 在（2a）中，the claim 有固定的所指，无论John 相信与否；而在（2b）中，有轻动词结构，致使事件 making the claim 和 claiming 一样，复杂 NP无法有确定所指，其内论元可以所指依存事件。(3) a 这本书，我没见过一个能读懂的人。 b 这本书，我没见过那个能读懂的人。 (3a) 中复杂NP是不确定所指的，因此NP 内论元和所指成分可以喝动词形成的事件构成所指依存关系。如果把“一个”换成“那个”，那就不同了。显然 (3b) 中的NP 具有所指

4、的确定性，其内变量是独立依存的，无法所指依存主题算子域内动词形成事件，所以句子不可接受。(4) a Who will teach what? b what will who teach?多元 wh 问句中，语类非对称地成分统制( asymmetrically c-command)，那么则比具有先进行移位的优势。于是，处于主语位置的wh短语优于宾语位置的wh短语，如果宾语 wh 短语跨越 wh短语移入句首Spec-CP位置则违背优势条件(superiority condition). 这里who 的句法位次高于what, 所以（4a）中的who 优于what 而先期移至Spec-CP 位置，遵循

5、优势条件，句子合乎语法；(4b) 中的 who 原位不动，而句法位次低的 what 移至句首，违背优势条件，句子不合法。(5) a For her to beat Mary would be difficult.b Her to beat Mary would be difficult. Non-finite I of the infinitival clause is “weak”and cant assign case to the Spec, IP. It is not governor and that its projection IP cant block outside gove

6、rnment. Hence (5b) violates case filter which claims that every overt NP must be assigned abstract case. “ Her “ cant be assigned case. So (5b) is illegal. In (5a), “ for” can govern into non-finite IP and case-mark its subject. The prepositional complementizer for in (5a) case-marks the subject NP

7、of the infinitival clause: (5a) passes the case filter and is grammatical. (6) a Maryi thinks that herselfi is the best actor.b Maryi thinks that a picture of herselfi will be beautiful. In (6a) the finite subordinate clause contains the reflexive, its governor(I) and an accessible subject (AGR) and

8、 will constitute the binding domain in which the reflexive must be bound. The AGR is an accessible subject because herself and AGR in is can be coindexed without violating. So herself and Mary cant be coindexed. So the sentence (6a) is illegal. In (6b), the governor of herself is of, the preposition

9、. In orde for the NP subject of the lower clause a picture of herself to be accessible, we must be able to coindex it with the reflexive. This coindexation is banned because it would violate the i-within-I filter. Besides, the AGR of the lower clause couldnt be counted as an accessible subject. Give

10、n that the entire NP in (6b) is the subject NP of the sentence it is coindexed with AGR by virtue of its person and number agreement. The coindexation of herself with AGR would again violate the i-within-I filter. Coindexation is transitive, hence herself ends up being coindexed with the NP. So no a

11、ccessible subject is available inside the finite lower clause. Next, we need to extend the binding domain of the reflexive to the next clause up: the subject Mary, or the SUBJECT, AGR, cant violate the i-within-I filter. So herself and Mary can be under coindexation. The sentence of (6b) is legal.II

12、 Explain the following contrast (20%). 1a. John wants to be happy. =John wants John to be happy1b. Everyone wants to be happy. Everyone wants everyone to be happy.1. “ John” is a unique referent. “ John wants to be happy”, means that John wants John to be happy. “ everyone” is a universal category,

13、which can mean anyone in the society. “ everyone” can mean Mary, Kate, Joey, etc. “ everyone wants to be happy” can mean “ Mary wants Mary to be happy” And “ Joey wants Joey to be happy”, etc. So “ everyone wants to be happy” doesnt equal “ everyone wants everyone to be happy”. 2a. the student of ph

14、ysics with long hair2b. * the student with long hair of physics2c. the student of physics and chemistry2d. the student with long hair and (with) a big moustache2e.* the student of physics and with long hair2. A common syntactic pattern is formed by grouping together two or more categories of the sam

15、e type with the help of a conjunction such as and or or. “ the student of physics and with long hair” violates the principle of coordination structures which claim the category type of the coordinate phrase is identical to the category type of the elements being conjoined. “ of physics” is the compl

16、ement of verb. While “with long hair” is an adjunct which is optional. “ the student with long hair of physics” violates the expanded xp rule. This rule allows a modifier to occur either before the head or after it. Where there is a complement, a modifier that follows the head will normally follow t

17、he complement as well. The Expanded XP Rule: XP(Spec) (Mod) X (Complement*) (Mod). “ with long hair” is a modifier. “of physics” is a complement of verb.3a. John took a book from Mary in order to read it.3b. *John received a book from Mary in order to read it.3. In the sentence 3b, “ John” is assign

18、ed a beneficiary role by “ receive”. At the same time, “ John” is assigned a agent role by “ read. It is impossible for “ John” to be both a beneficiary role and an agent role at the same time. So 3b is wrong.4a.* Poiroti believes that himselfi is the best detective.4b. Poiroti believes that a pictu

19、re of himselfi will be on show.4. In (4a), the finite subordinate clause contains the reflexive, its governor(I) and an accessible SUBJECT(AGR) and will constitute the binding domain in which the reflexive must be bound. The coindexation of the reflexive and the SUBJECT is unproblematic; himself and

20、 AGR in is can be coindexed without violating. The AGR is an accessible SUBJECT. Moreover I is the governor of himself. The bingding domain of himself will be the lower clause. So, the binding domain can not be enlarged to comprise the next higher clause. The sentence(4a) is wrong. In (4b), matters

21、are different. In order to find its binding domain, we need a governor and an accessible subject/ SUBJECT. The governor of himself is of, the preposition. In order for the NP subject of the lower clause a picture of himself to be accessible, we must be able to coindex it with the reflexive. This con

22、indexation is banned because it would violate the i-within-I filter. In addition, given that the entire NP in (4b) is the subject NP of the sentence it is coindexed with AGR by virtue of its person and number agreement. The coindexation of himself is transitive, hence himself ends up being coindexed

23、 with the NP. So the AGR of the lower clause couldnt be counted as an accessible subject. We can infer that no accessible subject/ SUBJECT is available inside the finite lower clause. We need to extend the binding domain of the reflexive to the next clause up: here the subject Poirot or the SUBJECT,

24、 AGR, can qualify: coindexation with himself would not lead to a violation of the i-within-I filter. So the binding domain is enlarged to comprise the next higher clause. The sentence (4a) is right.5a. *What did who read?5b. Which book did which student read?In the multiple wh questions, language cl

25、assasymmetrically c-commandby composition control, then alphahas the priority to displace than beta. Then, the wh -phrases in the subject position has the priority than the wh- phrases in the object position. If the wh-phrases in the object position move across wh-phrases into Spec-CP position, it w

26、ill violate the superiority condition. In (5a), the who in situ is motionless and the what-phrase at the low syntactic position moves to the beginning of sentence, against the superiority condition, so the sentence is illegal. In the sentence (5b), matters are different. Which-NP owns the presetting

27、 function, based on the Discourse-Linking. When an individual asked by a wh-phrase is extracted from an set obvious to the speaker and the listener, or when a wh-phrases can be explained as which of X may lead to the disappearance of superiority condition. So (5b) is legal. 6a.That the world is roun

28、d is obvious.6b.*is that the world is round obvious?6c. For Mary to climb the fence would surprise Bill6d. *would for Mary to climb the fence surprise Bill? There is internal NP clause constraint. Those sentences which contains an internal NP that exhaustively dominates S are ungrammatical. Here, I

29、want to say, constituent A is internal if it is neither the leftmost nor the rightmost constituent of constituent B that immediately dominates it. In (6a), “ that the world is round ” is an internal constituent because it is neither the leftmost nor the rightmost constituent of the INFEL is which do

30、minates it. So the sentence of (6a) is illegal. In (6d), “ for Mary to climb the fence “ , which is an internal constituent because it is neither the leftmost nor the rightmost constituent of the INFEL would which dominates it, also follows the internal NP clause constraint. So the sentence of (6d)

31、is illegal. III. In what ways are all languages the same? How do languages differ? 10% There are both commonality and difference between languages. In terms of generative grammar, the commonality is originated from the common initial state shared by human beings while the difference is due to the di

32、fferent parameters selection made during their acquisition of languages. All languages are the same in the universal grammar and personal grammar. The common character of language contains two kinds of meaning. One of the meaning is the absolute common character, which exists in every language. Such as, language abstract, language obligation, language creativity. The other one of meanings is the comparative common character, which is concluded from all kinds of language. Such as, phonology, phonetics, grammar, semantics. Some people think that universal grammar