状语附加语嫁接问题探究.doc

1、状语附加语嫁接问题探究【摘 要】本文旨在解释状语附加语右嫁接的合理性。通过分析Larson和 Kayne各自对状语附加语左嫁接观点解释的方法，发现二者都存在不足。作者采用 Ernst提出的 Directionality Principle, Weight Principle等原则来分析状语附加语的嫁接问题，在遵守普遍语法的经济性原则的前提下，证明了右嫁接存在的合理性。【关键词】状语附加语；右嫁接；左嫁接Abstract: The complexities of the distribution of adverbial adjuncts in base structure have attra

2、cted many linguists attention. The main controversy on this issue is between the left-adjunction hypothesis and the Parameterized Direction Hypothesis with right-adjunction. The former represented by Larson (1988) and Kayne (1994) disallows right-adjunction in order to capture the general principle

3、of UG. And the latter claims adjuncts normally and regularly adjoin to the right of maximal projections. With the theory proposed by Ernst, this paper is an attempt to provide arguments that the distribution of adverbial adjuncts in base structure can be best accounted for by PDH with right-adjuncti

4、on.Keywords: adverbial adjuncts;left-adjunction;right-adjunctionIntroductionMany linguists may be obsessed with the problem of the distribution of adverbial adjuncts in base position. Until recently, it was assumed in generative grammar that adverbials generally occur in adjoined positions which are

5、 on the edges of phrases.Larson (1988), Kayne (1994) and many others propose a current hypothesis that all languages have the same base structure and that head-initial/head-final word order patterns are derived by movement process. Therefore, all adjuncts adjoin to the left (or are in Spec position,

6、 which is to the left of heads) in base structure, any adjunct to the right of V in surface order must have obtained by a series of movement. I refer to this view as Left-adjunction Hypothesis.But when encountered phrase like VP in (1), the tree diagram below is quite natural.(1) read this novel qui

7、cklyVPVP AdvPV NPSo many other linguists put forward that any postverbal adjunct to the right of some element X (a verb, argument, or other adjunct) is adjoined higher than X, just as preverbal elements are adjoined to the left, producing layered structure with the verb and its objects at the bottom

8、 and adjoined items attached upward on both sides. Thus this view supports the existence of right-adjunction. And this approach is called Parameterized Direction Hypothesis (PDH).1 Views of Left-AdjunctionAs far as adjuncts are concerned, views based on left-adjunction hypothesis come in two version

9、s. The first dates from Larson (1988). And the second is a more promising one promoted in Kayne (1994) Alexiadou (1994). 1.1 The Defects of “Larsonian” InterpretationThere are some serious drawbacks to the Larsonian Interpretation of Left-adjunction making use of Logic Form Adjunct Raising (LFAR). I

10、t has no straightforward account of constituent structure, and its way of handling scope relations, LF-raising adjuncts, is fraught with stipulations and extra complications with respect to the traditional theory, which posits only one set of licensing conditions and no movements.1.2 The Defects of

11、Kaynes Intraposition Analysis Intraposition Analysis was originally motivated aiming at upholding a ban on right-adjunction and to eliminate the need to parameterize languages in terms of left-right relations. On the theoretical level, the Intraposition Analysis is notably more complex and less moti

12、vated than the traditional right-adjunction approach.If intraposition is semantically triggered, two of the problems carry over: there is no explanation for predicational adjuncts distribution, and the covariance of basic and adjunct orders is treated as an accident. In addition, the Intraposition A

13、nalysis encodes crucial syntactic restrictions into a semantic principle. Finally, the semantically based Intraposition Analysis forces an unnecessary bifurcation in the semantic licensing of adjuncts between base and LF structures.2 Arguments for PDH with Right-AdjunctionBased on Ernsts theory, I p

14、ropose the analysis that maps adjuncts directly onto base structure in the positions they will have at the surface. The key to this approach is its basis in the C-complex (Complement-Direction) and F-complex (Functional-Direction), each with an associated direction for XPs with respect to heads. The

15、se directions are invoked by a set of Directionality Principles to determine linear order, but they also have a role in deriving certain properties of movement. Moreover, the Directionality Principles make strong claims about the connection between the basic order of complements and that of adjuncts

16、 in a given language. Thus there are theoretical simplifications and restrictiveness to be found in PDH theory with right-adjunction as well.The head-initial and head-final parameter plays an essential part in the discussion of the issue. Several set of data concerning the distribution of adverbial

17、adjuncts needs illumination based on right-adjunction hypothesis.(2a) Predicational adverbs are restricted to preverbal positions for their clausal readings in all languages.(2b) Head-final languages generally require all adjuncts to be preverbal;Head-initial languages in principle allow adjuncts on

18、 either side of V.(2c) In head-initial languages, some adjuncts are restricted to preverbal positions, some to postverbal positions, and some may occur in either position.In head-final languages, the inactivity of C-direction is very obvious, so only (2.1a) and (2.1c) bear some discussions.2.1 Oblig

19、atory Left-adjunction of clausal predicational adverbsThe predicational adverbs straddle the syntax-semantics line: in syntax they may specify possible complements that are not semantically selected. In semantics the whole AdvP translates as a predicate ADJ (a “head”) taking its sister (complement)

20、as an FEO argument. Now suppose that where syntax cannot mandate a direction for a nonhead (i.e., where none of the syntactic requirements of the features +Lex, +S, or +F are in force), C-Cir is always active for this purely semantic complementation, that is, where it is not realized according to th

21、e canonical syntactic X0-YP configuration. Predicational adverbs inside VP (manner adverbs) follow linearization, since the feature +Lex on V is at work, requiring the adverb to follow the same direction as complements.2.2 Adverbial adjunction in head-initial languagesWithin VP all adjuncts must be

22、right-adjoined, because the relevant head X is of the category V (a lexical category bearing a C-complex feature), the following tree diagram sheds light on my argument:(2.2) IPAdvP IP AdvPDP INFLINFL PredPAdvP PredP AdvP Pred VPVi VP AdvP DP VtiThe ternary branching represents the two possibilities

23、 for binary branching and AdvP stands in for any adjunct. V is assumed to always raise to PredP, moving above direct objects in Spec, VP. F-Dir plays more important role in linearization, determining the leftward position of Specs (since they are +F), both landing sites in functional projections (as

24、 for subjects in Spec,IP) and (b) base positions of arguments of V within VP. Complements of functional heads (such as PredP) are to the right of their heads, since they bear F and +S (a C-complex feature). Adjuncts within VP are necessarily to the right of V because they are F and V is +Lex (a C-co

25、mplex feature); combined with obligatory V-to-Pred movement, this in essence embodies the claim that the lexical VP is strictly head-initial in VO languages. Finally, adjuncts above VP are unspecified for direction, because neither they nor the heads of functional projections bear a C-complex featur

26、e. For head-initial languages (a) fix predicational adverbs in preverbal position, except for manner adverbs, which may also be postverbal, and (b) allow functional and participant adjuncts to occur on either side of V. However, in SVO languages, some functional adjuncts must be preverbal, and all p

27、articipant adjuncts, along with some functionals, must be postverbal. In particular, it appears that the former group is made up of short, light adverbs, and the latter of larger, heavier phrasal categories PPs, DPs, and CPs, of both participant and functional semantic types. This may be examined by

28、 Weight theory.3 Left-Adjunction Versus PDH with Right-AdjunctionGiven the following sentence like (3.1), with the corresponding schema in (3.2), the Left-Adjunction Hypothesis posits a structure like (3.3), while the PDH theory with right-adjunction is illustrated in (3.4)(3.1) She (often) had eate

29、n (lightly) (on Sundays) (because of partying the night before).(3.2) ADJUNCT1 INFL V ADJUNCT2 ADJUNCT3 ADJUNCT4(3.3 ) (3.4)IP IPA1 IP A1 IPNP INFL NP INFLINFL AuxP INFL AuxPA2 Aux AuxP A4Aux XP Aux XPA3 X XP A3X VP X VPA4 V VP A2V V(3.4) directly represents the surface order of the adjuncts in (3.1

30、) and also correctly represents their scope relations in terms of c-command. (3.3) also represents the linear order directly but must resort to some other mechanism, such as raising adjuncts at the level of LF, to capture scope relationships. Taking the concentric phenomena of constituent structure,

31、 scope interpretation, and linear order into consideration, the right-adjunction hypothesis is obviously superior to the Larsonian Interpretation and the Intraposition Analysis because the Larsonian Interpretation has trouble to capture the layered constituent structure indicated by postverbal adjun

32、cts correctly and the right-adjunction hypothesis appears less complex and more conceptually motivated.ConclusionI conclude that PDH with right-adjunction Hypothesis is superior to the left-adjunction hypothesis which disallows it at that level but then introduces movements to produce what amounts to right-adjunction on the surface. Despite proponents claims that Left-Adjunction are more restrictive