汉语空主语的生成语法研究

《汉语空主语的生成语法研究》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在学术论文-天天文库。

AGenerativeApproachtoChineseNullSubjectsThesisSubmittedinFulfillmentoftheRequirementsfortheDegreeofMasterofArtsinEnglishByQinXukeSupervisor：ProfessorYangGuangiun一一’_一ForeignLanguagesSchool一May2013 原创性声明本人郑重声明：所呈交的学位论文，是本人在导师的指导下，独立进行研究所取得的成果。除文中已经注明引用的内容外，本论文不包含任何其他个人或集体已经发表或撰写过的科研成果。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。本声明的法律责任由本人承担。学位论文作者：凑竹百日期：加房年·月三。日学位论文使用授权声明本人在导师指导下完成的论文及相关的职务作品，知识产权归属郑州大学。根据郑州大学有关保留、使用学位论文的规定，同意学校保留或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；本人授权郑州大学可以将本学位论文的全部或部分编入有关数据库进行检索，可以采用影印、缩印或者其他复制手段保存论文和汇编本学位论文。本人离校后发表、使用学位论文或与该学位论文直接相关的学术论文或成果时，‘第一署名单位仍然为郑州大学。保密论文在解密后应遵守此规定。学位论文作者：泰磷亏日期：砌，；年朔 摘要摘要空语类概念是乔姆斯基在上个世纪八十年代提出的。空语类现象反映了与人类语言有关的心智模式，对其的研究是原则参数模式研究的重要组成部分。空语类共分四类，空主语是其中之一，指没有语音形式而有语义内容的主语成分，生成语法学认为空主语主要由大代号PRO和小代号pro组成。大代号PRO往往位于非限定句的主语位置，因为句中只有这个位置不受管辖。控制理论负责PRO的所指问题，有主语控制、部分控制和任意控制等控制类型。小代号pro主要出现在限定句的主语位置，它的所指由动词中心语和主目语之间的一致性特征决定。允许pro存在的语言被称为“主语脱落语言(pro-droplanguage)”，主语脱落语言一般具有丰富的形态系统。空主语理论的提出引起了语言学界的极大关注。但其相关经典理论主要建立在对英语、意大利语等印欧语言的研究之上，因此很多语言学者曾用各自的本土语言对空主语理论进行验证。鉴于此，本文亦以汉语空主语为研究对象，主要在管辖约束理论框架内，利用题元、主目、约束、控制等概念分析汉语空主语的分类、分布及所指问题。文中以定性分析为主，引用了大量的生成语法著作中的经典例子和日常生活中的典型句子作为分析材料。与英语相同，汉语亦有限定句与非限定句之分，而且汉语空主语也可分为大代号PRO和小代号pro两类。限定句中的动词允许时间副词的出现，非限定句则不可。PRO主要出现在动词兼语结构、动词补语结构和动词主语结构等非限定句的主语位置，不可词汇化：pro出现在限定句的主语位置，可词汇化。对同一个PRO汉语可以同时有主语控制、任意控制和隐性控制等多种解读方式，不同的解读方式建立在不同的语境因素之上。虽然汉语没有丰富的形态系统，很多学者认为汉语仍是主语脱落语言，汉语的pro所指解读更是依赖于具体的语境因素。关键词：汉语；空主语；生成语法；PRO；pro Abstract111econc印tof即1ptycategoryisputforwardbyChomskyinthe1980s，a11ditisaIlimportant印proaChtoexploringtheprocessofthegenerationandinterpretationoflanguageinh啪a11minds，SOitisasignificantpartinthemodelofprinciplesaIldparameters·⋯Tllereare姗hndsofemptycategories，andnullsubjectisoneofthem·Nuusubjectreferstothosesubjectsthathaveasemanticfunctionbutnophonetlcrepresentation．GenerativegrammardividesnullsubjectsintoPROandpm·PRoalwaVsoccursinthesubjectpositionofanon。finiteclause，becauseonIyttlls∞sitionis111190Vemed．Controltheoryisresponsiblefortheint‘砷fetanonofPRU·Therearedi疵咖tkindsofcontrol，suchassubjectcontrol，pattialcon们1锄darbitrarvConb．01．Differently,proisobservedinthesubjectpositionofafinlteclause，andmeint唧ret撕onofitisdeterminedbytheagreementre：lationshipbe铆eenv砷alpredicates锄dtheirarguments．AlanguagewhichallowstheeXlste薹lceotpr0isapro．droplanguagewhichalwayshasarichsystemofinneCtlon·TlledaSsictheoriesrelatedtonullsubjectsarebasedon0bseⅣatlonsonIndo—El胂peanlanguages，suchasEnglishandItalian·SincetheconC印totnu儿s厕eCtswasproposed，manylinguistshavestudiedthephenomenonofnullsubjectswiththeirnativelanguages．Forthisreason，thisthesisisalsoconductedtodoatenta：tiVeanalysisoftheclassification，distributionandreference斫Cllinesenullsubjects仔啪theperspectiveofgenerativegrammar．QualitatiVe吼alysls砌sthrou曲mewh01ethesis．Meanwhile，alotoftypicalexamplesinclasslcgeneratlVeworks孤ddailylifeareusedtomakethisthesispersuasiveandngorou8·S硫l础，，CKnesedoesdistinctfinitenessfromnon‘finiteness，andnullsubjectsincludePROandpro．Ifatimeadverbialcanbeaddedintoasentenceanddoesnotcausethisresultingsentenceungrammatical，thissentenceisfinite；ifnot，1t1snon．finite．PROalwaysappearsinthesubjectpositionoftyplcalnon-缸111testruc眦s—．mepivotalstructure，theverbalcomplementstructureandtheVerbaJ Abstractsubjectstmctureandtheserialverbsubject--andCannotbelexicalized．EachspecificPROmayhavemorethanonetypeofreference，anddifferentwaysofinterpretationdependondifferentpragmaticfactors．Asforpro，italwaysoccursinthesubjectpositionoffiniteclausesandCanbelexicalized．Andthereferenceofprohi曲lyreliesonpragmaticfactors．KeyWords：Chinese；nullsubjects；generativegrammar；PRO；pro ContdqtsContentsAbstract(inChinese)⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯IAbstract(inEnglish)⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．IIAbbreviations⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯VIIntroduction⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯7ChapterOneLiteratureReview⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．121．1Subject⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯121。1．1TheConfigurationalCriterionforDefiningSubject⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯121．1．2ChomskianOpinionsAboutNullSubjects⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．161．2RepresentativeViewsAboutChinesePRO⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯181．2．1JamesHuang’sViews⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯。181．2．2EdwinBrattistella’SStudy⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．201．2．3XuLiejiong’SProposals⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯221．3Summary⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．26ChapterTwoTheoreticalFramework⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯··282．1LexiconandThetaTheory⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．282．2D／S—s仃uc咖andX．barTheory⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯：⋯312．3BindingTheoryandPROTheorem．：⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯一352．4ControlTheory⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．372．5Summary⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯41ChapterThreeTheFinitenessVS．Non—finitenessDistinction⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯一42IV Contents：；．1ModalsandAspectualMarkers⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯433．2ThePrincipleofOne—dimensionalityofTime⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．473．3HuJianhua’SCriterion⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．493．4ANewCriterion⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯．．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．．⋯．．．513．5Summary⋯．⋯⋯．．⋯．⋯．．⋯⋯⋯．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯．．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯54ChapterFourTheDistributionandReferenceofChineseNullSubjects564．1TheDistributionandReferenceofChinesePRO⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯564．1．1PROinthePivotalS饥lchlre⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．564．1．2PROintheVerbalComplementStructure⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．574．1．3PROi11theSerialVerbStructure⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．594．1．4PROintheVerbalSubjectStructure．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．604．2TheDistributionandReferenceofChinesepro．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯．．．614．2．1Chineseasapro-dropLanguage．⋯⋯．．．．⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．．．．614．2．2TheReferenceofChinesepro⋯．⋯⋯．．．．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．．⋯．．644．3Summary⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．．⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯．．⋯⋯．⋯．．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．．⋯．⋯．⋯．65Conclusion．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．．．⋯⋯l⋯．⋯．．⋯⋯．．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．66Bibliography⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．．⋯．．⋯．⋯．．⋯．．⋯．⋯⋯．．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．．⋯．⋯68Acknowledgements．⋯⋯．．．．⋯⋯⋯．．⋯．．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．．⋯．．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．．．⋯．⋯．．71AbouttheAuthor．⋯⋯⋯⋯．．⋯⋯．i．．⋯．．⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯．⋯．．⋯．⋯．．⋯．⋯．⋯．72V AbbreviationsTheabbreviationsbelowareadoptedinthisthesis．A-movementAGRAMAUXCCPC．selectionD．structureECEPPGBINFLIPLFMPNNPPFSDSpecS．selectionS—structureTUGVVPVlArgumentMovementAgreementAspectualMarkerAuxiliaryComplementizerPhraseCategorialSelectionDeepStructureEmptyCategoryExtendedProjectionPrincipleGovernmentandBindingInflectionInflectionalPhraseLogicalFormMinimalistProgramNounPhrasePhoneticFormStmc删DescriptionSpecifierSemanticSelectionSurfaceStructureTenseUniversalGrammarVerbPhrase IntroductionGenerativegrammaraimstoformulateauniversalprogramforthegenerationandinterpretationofallhumanlanguagesandmostofitstheoriesarebasedonIndo—Europeanlanguages．SinceChomskyputforwardtheconceptofEmptyCategory(EC)inthe1980s，whetherthefindingsaboutECsinEnglishcanalsorespondtoChinesephenomenahassparkedaheateddiscussionamongChineselinguists．Chinesenull(orcovert，empty)subjectisoneofthem．SomescholarsholdthatthereisacorrespondencebetweenEnglishnullsubjectsandthatofChinese；othersarguethatChineseisahighlytopic—prominentlanguage．ThisthesisisundertakentoexploreChinesenullsubjectswiththehelpoftheGovernmentandBindingtheory．ResearchBackgroundEmptysubjectsholdanimportantpartintheGovernmentandBindingtheory,andrefertothosesubjectdementsthathavesemanticand／orsyntacticpropertiesbutnophoneticcontentinasentence．Differentfromotherlexicalcategories，theyarecharacteristicofbeingemptyinphoneticforms．Comparedwithovertnounphrases，ChomskydividesnullsubjectsintoPROandprointermsofthebindingfeaturesof[+／·anaphor]and[+／一pronominal】inGovemmentandBindingtheory．ThepropertiesofPROareasfollows：(a)Itisapronominalanaphor,andCanonlyappearinthesubjectpositionofanon-finiteclause．(b)Controltheoryisresponsibleforitsinterpretation，andthereareseveralkindsofcontrol，suchassubjectcontrol，objectcontrol，implicitcontrolandarbitrarycontrolandSOfonll．Instead，thepropertiesofproare：(a)proisamatterofparameter．Co)Generallyspeaking，arichsystemofinflectionisthepremiseoftheappearanceofproinagivenlanguage．(C)Itsinterpretationreliesontheagreementrelationshipbetweenitandpredicates．TheproposalofPROandproisnotwithoutevidenceandhassyntacticand7 Introductionsemanticevidencesfortheirexistence．Forexample，considernowwhodoestheactionofbecomingandhowtointerprettheagreementpatternofamillionairein(1b)below：(1)a．Hewanthissons[toPRObecomemillionaires]．b．Hewants【toPRObecomeamillionaire]．C．(pro)sonodiTorino．‘(I)anlfromTurin．’AccordingtotheProjectionPrinciple，thesemanticfeaturesoftheverbbecomerequireatleastanAgenttofunctionasthesubjectofthebracketedclause．Instinctively,PROin(1a)CO·indexeswiththeovertnounphraseJjl括sons，andthisassumptionissyntacticallyconfirmedbythepluralrelationshipbetweenh／ssD，lsandmillionaires．Similarly,thebracketedinfinitivecomplementclausein(1b)alsohasnoovertsubject．However,itCanbeunderstoodthatthesubjectofthematrixclauseHeperformstheactionofbecomingamillionaireasPROdoes，whichisreflectedbythesingularformsofHeandamillionaire．Further,thesentence(1c)isanItalianone,withitsparallelEnglishexpressionbeingdisplayedontheright．TheexistenceofproasthesubjectofthefiniteclausesatisfiesthesemanticfeaturesofIPheadedbytheauxiliarysono向叫。NotafewlinguistshaveshownkeeninterestsinthestudyofChinesenullsubjects．Somescholars，suchasHuangZhengde，ⅡliIll(thatPROandprobothexistinChinese；whileothers，likeXuLiejiong，holdthatChinesenullsubjectsaredifferentfromthatofEnglish．ResearchPurposeThepursuitofUGistocreateasetofprinciplessharedbyallhumanlanguagesandtoexplainthemysteriesaboutthegenerationandinterpretationoflanguage．ExistingtheoriesorprogramsaremostlybasedonstudiesofIndo-Europeanlanguages．Obviously,thestudyofChinesenullsubjectsfromtheperspectiveofgenerativegrammarisable：(a)toofferanewresearchapproachforthestudyofChinese；Co)totesttheuniformityandlimitationsofgenerativegrammar；(c)toanalyzethephenomenonofChinesenullsubjects．Whenthisstudyisfinished，itwill IntroductionbefoundthatgenerativegrammarisalsoapplicabletoexplainthephenomenaofnullsubjectsinaparatacticChinese．Interestingly,Chinesenullsubjectsalsohavetheirownfeatures．ResearchSignificanceThisthesisisoftheoreticalandpracticalsignificance．Theoretically,thisthesisconfirmsthatthereisthefinitenessversusnon．finitenessdistinctioninChinese，andclassifiesthosenon—finiteconstructionswherePROalwaysappearsintofourtypicalstructures．Further,adetailedanalysisofthedistributionandreferenceofPROineachconstructionisconductedonebyone．Meanwhile,thisthesisexplorestherelationshipbetweentheinterpretationofproandpragmaticfactors．Practically,thefourtypicalstructureswherePROappearsinChinesearethepivotalstructure，theverbalcomplementstructure，theserialverbstructureandmeverbalsubjectstructure．Therefore，aChineseteachercanpaymoreattentiontothesimilarityamongthesefourkindsofstructureswhenheintroducesthemtostllderlts．Inconclusion，thisthesisreflectstheuniformityofgenerativegrammarandoffersanewwaytoconductthestudyofChinese．ResearchQuestionsTheresearchquestionstobeaddressedinthisthesisarethefollowing：(1)IstherethefinitenessVerSUSnon．finitenessdistinctioninChinese?(2)WhatcharacteristicsdothedistributionandreferenceofChinesePROhave?(3)IsChineseapro-droplanguage?WhatcharacteristicsdothedistributionandreferenceofChineseprohave?ResearchMethodologyDuetothenatureoflanguageresearch，themainmethodologiesusedinthisthesisincludededuction，documentaryresearch，andexemplification．Deductionreferstotheuseofexistingknowledgetoexplainorexploreaproblem．Thismethod9 ——一!呈塑垫!!!竺runsthroughthewholepaper．Asforthisthesis，itisconductedundertheframeoftheGovernmentandBindingtheory．ChapterOneiscompletelydependentondocumentaryresearch，andmanyideasinthispaperarebasedonreviewsaboutexistingfindings．Exemplificationmeanscollectingsometypicaldatatoproveoropposeacertainproposalortheory．ThismethodologyismainlyappliedintheChapterThreeandtheChapterFour．TheOrganizationofThisThesisTheorganizationofthisthesisisoutlinedasfollows：TheIntroductionpartsketchesanoutlineofthisthesis．Itbrieflyintroducestheresearchbackground，thereasonsforconductingthisstudy,thesignificanceofthisresearch，thequestionsthatwillbeanswered，themethodsthatareadoptedandtheorganizationofthisthesis．ChapterOne，namedasLiteratureReview,isconcernedaboutthoserepresentativeopinionsaboutChinesenullsubjectsathomeandabroad．Firstly,variouscriteriausedtodefinegrammaticalrelationsarcpresented．Whenacomprehensiveunderstandingofgenerativenullsubjectsisattained，thisthesisbeginstoreviewrepresentativeviewsabouttheChinesenullsubjectsinlinguisticfield．Forexample，asfortheexistenceofPROinChinese，differentscholaI．shavedifferentvoices．JamesHuangandEdwinBattistellaagreewiththeappearanceofPROinChinese，whileXuLiejiongdoesnot．ChapterTwomakesabriefintroductiononthetheoreticalframeworkint11eorderof．1exiconandThetatheory,D／S-structureandX-bartheory,Bindingtheory,PROtheoremandControltheory．Whenthischapterisfinished，thereadercangetacquaintedwithallthosetheoriesrelatedtothisthesisandhaveamuchdeeperunderstandingofnullsubjects．ChapterThreeiscontributedtothefinitenessVS．non．finitenessdistinctioninChinese．Differentscholarshaveproposedseveraldifferentkindsofcriteriatomal【esuchadistinction，yeteachofthemisnotperfect．Thisthesissuggestsitsownwaytodistinctfinitenessfromnon-finiteness，andgivessomeconcreteexamplesto Introductionprovideevidencesinfavorofthisassumption．Thetentativecriterionstatesthatfiniteverbphrasescanco—occurwithtimeadverbials；instead，anon．finiteclauseCannotcontainatimeadverbialandthecovertlysemanticsubjectwithinitCannotbelexicalized．ChapterFourholdsanirreplaceablepartinthisthesis．Basedonthesediscussionsinprecedingchapters，thissectionteststherationalityofthefinitenessVerSUSnon·finitenesscriterion，andclassifiesconstructionswherePROalwaysappearsintofourtypicalstructures，namelythepivotalstructure，theverbalcomplementstructure，theserialverbstructureandtheverbalsubjectstructure．ThenadetailedanalysisofthedistributionandreferenceofPROineachconstructionisconductedonebyone．Moreover,thischapteralsoconfirmstheexistenceofproinChineseandpositsthat，differentfromItalian，theinterpretationofitishighlydependentonpragmaticfactors．TheConclusionpartmakesaconclusionaboutthefindingsandlimitationsofthiSthesis． ChapterOneLiteratureRenewOneLiteratureReviewAnemptycategoryreferstoanominalelementthatisnotphoneticallyrealized，buthassyntacticand／orsemanticcontents．Theymaybealsocalledascovertnounstobedistinguishedfromovertones．Basedontheanaphoricfeature[+／一anaphor]andpronominalfeature[+／一pronominal]，therearefourkindsofemptycategories：NP—trace，Wh-trace，PROandpro．ThefouroptionalcombinationsofthetwofeaturesbyplusorminusoneofthemgeneratefourkindsofemptycategorieswhichareshownbyFigure1．1：【anaphor]【pronominal】NameofEmptyCategoryCorrespondingOvertNoun刚】．traceR—expressions+ProPronoun+NP．traceAnaphor+PROnoneConventionally,nullsubjectsaredividedintoPROandpro，andanin—depthstudyofthemisabrilliantwaytoexploretheprocessoflanguagegeneration．InChomsky’Swords，thestudyofECsCanhelpUSgointodepthastothe“determiningpropertyofsyntacticandsemanticrepresentationsandtheresultsthatformthem”．(1981：13)1．1Subject1．1．1TheConfigurationalCriterionforDefiningSubjectThenotionofsubjectisoneoftheselinguistictermswithalonghistory,yettoexplainitanditspropertiesisstillasignificantchallengefacingcontemporarylinguists．Fromfunctionallinguisticstoformalsyntax，differentkindsofgrammarsappeartodeploythepropertiesofsubjectindiverse(butsystematic)ways．Beforeallintroductiontothegenerativewayofdealingwiththischallenge，itisusefultobeacquaintedwithsomethingaboutgrammaticalrelations． Grammaticalrelations，alsocalledasgrammaticalroles，grammaticalfunctionsorsyntacticfunctions，refertofunctionalrelationshipsbetweenconstituentsinaclause．Thecanonicalgrammaticalrelationsincludesubjectandobjectwhichcanbesubdividedintodirectobjectandindirectobject：(2)TheresahandedJasonaletter．ThesubjectTheresaisthesourceofthehandingaction，theindirectobject口如秘∥isthebeareroftheaction，andthedirectobjectJasonisthereceiveroftheindirectobjectaletter．Actually,themainverbofaclauseisresponsiblefortheassignmentofgrammaticalfunctionstoitsarguments．Thatis，anounsuchasMickoranoBnphrase口blackcomputerCannotgettheirstatusofsubjectorobjectbythemselves．itisthecontextinwhichtheyoccurthatdetermineswhatkindofgrammaticalfunctionstheybelongto．Inmostcases，mostgrammariansandstudentsbyintuitionunderstandwhatthesubjectandobjectofagivenclauseare．Butwhenoneyearnstosearchfortheoreticallyconformingdefinitionsofthesegrammaticalrelations，hewillprobablygetdisappointed．MosttheoriesofgrammarrecognizegrammaticalrelationsbetweenconStinl髓tsinaclauseandareheavilydependentonthemfortheanalysisofgrammaticalphenomena；nevertheless，theyintentionallyorhelplesslygetawayfromtherequirementofthoroughandconcretedefinitionsofthem．SomeacknowledgedcriteriawhichareusedtodefinegrammaticalrelationswillbeintroiIucedinthenextsectionandnoneofthemisbetterthantheconfigurationalcriterionusedbygenerativegrammar．Thethematicrelations(alsoreferredtoasthematicrolesorsemanticroles，e．g．Agent，Patient，etc．)cansupplythematicorientationfordefininggrammaticalrelations．ItisatendencythatsubjectsarcalwaystobeAgentsandobjectstoben锄esorPatients．Nevertheless，suchsemanticrelationsarenotabletosubstitutegrammaticalrelationsandnorviceversa．Thesepairsofsentencesbelowcanprovideevidencesforthisconclusion：(3)a1．Abbyhasfinishedthehomework．a2．Thehomeworkhasbeenfinished(bYAbby)．b1．Thesubmergedreefswreckedhismotorboat． ChapterOneLiteratureRenewb2．Hismotorboatwrecked．AbbybearstheAgentrolein(a1)，becausesheperformstheactionofdoinghomework；thehomeworktakesthePatientrolein(a1)and(a2)，foritisacteduponinbothexamples．Conversely,thedirectobjectandsubjectarenotconsistentinbothsentences．ThesubjectanddirectobjectareAbbyandthehomeworkrespectivelyintheactivesentence(a1)；however,thehomeworkbecomesthesubjectandthereisnodirectobjectinthepassivesentence(a2)．Similarly,itisalsothecaseforthesentences(bl一2)．111enounphrase协motorboatisthePatientinthetwosentences．Instead，itistheobjectinthefirstsentenceandthesubjectinthesecondone．Basedonthepairofsentences(a1)and(aZ)，TheFigure1．2belowisdrawntomorevisuallyillustratetheinconsistencybetweensemanticrolesandgrammaticalfunctions：硒ematicrolesGrammaticalfunctionsAgentPatientSubjectObjectalAbby、，√thehomework√a2Abby(optional)thehomework√Manyattemptstodefinethesyntacticrelationsattachimportancetotheinflectionalmorphology．Inthoselanguageswithmorphologicalcases，suchasEnglish，syntacticpronounstakedifferentformsofcaseonthebasisofthepositionstheyoccupyorthefunctionstheymayperform．Forexample，thenominativepronounheappearinginthefrontofasentence，willturnupintheaccusativeformh／mwhenitworksastheobjectofatransitiveverb．Still，theutilityofmorphologicalcriterionisawfullylimitedinmanycircumstances．Forthoselanguagesdevoidofinflectionalmorphology,suchasChinese，thiscriterionwouldnothelpmuch．Thetroublesblockingtheattemptstodefinegrammaticalrelationsonthebasisofthematicormorphologicalcriteriacouldbesettledbyanewapproachthatassumesthateachgrammaticalrelationhasitsownprototypicaltraits．Prototypical ChapterOneLiteratureRenewtraitsrefertoageneralcollectionofthematic，syntacticandmorphologicalproperties．Anargumentwhichhasthepotentialtobeasubjectmaynothavealloftheseprototypicaltraits，butithastohaveenoughsubject—likepropertiestoensureitssubjectstatus，andthesameistrueoftheidentificationofobjectandothergrammaticalrelations．Theprototypicalcriterionispopularinmostworksintheoreticalgrammar．Inpractice，mostofsyntacticgrammarsthatacknowledgegrammaticalrelationsbutarenotabletoofferexplicitdefinitionsofthemintrinsicallyadoptthisapproach．Theinadequacyofsuchacriterionliesintheambiguityofso-calledprototypicaltraits．In2001，PeterSvenoniusdeconstructssubjectsintothreeconstituentsinhisarticleSubjects．ExpletivesandtheEPP一“thematic-aspectualsubject，morpho-syntacticsubjectanddiscourse—informationalsubject”．(2001：21)Athematic-aspectualsubjectreferstotheargumentthatbearsthematicrolesdepictedbyasentence’Spredicate．Amorpho-syntacticonemainlydemonstratesthefeatureofcaseand／oragreementbetweenitandthepredicate．Adiscourse·informationaloneworksasthetopicofpragmaticdiscourse．Inmostcases，thethreekindsofsubjectsdonotconverge，andoneortwoofthemsplit．Takethesentencesbelowforexample：(4)a．Thestudentswerefrightenedbythelightening．b．Therearetwopairsofglassesonthedesk．C．Where’SCandy?～Herbrotherhasjusttakenhertoamovie．In(4a)，themorpho·syntacticanddiscourse-informationalsubjectsconvergeintotheentitythestudent，whilethelighteningfunctionsasthethematic-aspectualsubject．In(4b)，onlythemorpho—syntacticsubjecttheresplits．Inthereplyof(4c)，thediscourse-informationalsubjecther(not'her’in'herbrother>neitheroccupiesthesentence—imtialpositionnorshowsanymorphologicagreement．PeterSvenonius’Sclassificationofsubjectstakessyntax，morphologyandpragmaticcontextsintoaccountandtriestoembraceallofthepropertiesofsubject．Infact，itismoreorlessrelatedtotheprototypicalcriterion．Differently,thegenerativeclassificationofargumentsintosubjectorobjectisgreatlydependentonthestructuralrelationshipbetweenverbalpredicatesandtheir ar剐ments．ThesyntacticrelationshipofsentenceconstituentsingeneratiVe缪跚Ⅱnaristhebasisoftheanalysisofallkindsoflinguisticphenomena·Configuratlonlsprimitive，锄dthepositionwhereallargumentoccupiesregulatesits黟咖matlcal向nction．Iftheargumentstandsoutsideaverbphrase，thenitistreatedassubject；ifitappearsinsideit，thenitisconsideredasobject·‰thesentence胁w加胞口letterforexample,thesimplifiedstructureofitISdescribedbyFigure1．3：／VP＼NPHeVP’＼／＼VNPI／＼wroteaIetterTherearetwoarguments一胁and口paper—andaverbalpredicatewritingintiffss耐印ce．胁islocatedoutsideVP’headedbytheverbwro纪·He1sconsideredasthesubjectandisassignedtheroleofAgentbythepredicatewm蛾while口lette，．isdefinedastheobjectandisassignedtheroleofPatient·So．themostsignificantfeatureofconfigurationalcriterionisthatitcmbracesmet}嘲：Ilatic，morpholo西calandstructuralfeaturesatthesamepoint·However’ulereisnocompletelyp砷∞twaytodefinegrammaticalrelations，andtheconti鲫tlonaIappfoachhasalsoitslimitations．Forthesubjectorobjectargument，itdoesworkbest．NeVertheless，forotherconstituents，likeattributesandmodifiers，it1Slessprofound．1．1．2ChomskianOpinionsAboutNullSubjectssubjectsconsistofOVerrsubjectsandc。vert。nesinChomsky’seyes·ThelaCk0fphoneticrealizationdoesnotmeanthatcoVertsubjectsd。nothavemes锄ethematicandconfigurationalfeaturesasovertsubjectsdo．Inrespecttomeclassification，distributionandinterpretationofnullsubjects，generatiVe鲫眦m甜 ChapterOneLiteratureRenewhasgivendistinctexplanations．ChomskyassertsabinarywaytoclassifynullsubjectsandholdsthatallcovertsubjectsinallhumanlanguagescanonlyfallintoPROandpro，andtheexistenceofPROisuniversalwhilethatofproisparametric．ItisnotdifferenttofindthatPROalwaysfunctionsasthesubjectofnon-finiteclauses，andprothesubjectoffiniteclauses．Toaccountforthisfact，theChomskianshavestipulatedvarioustheoriesindifferentstagesofdevelopment．Thewell-knownPROtheorem--PROmustbeungoverned--isputforwardintheprinciplesandparametersstage．PROhasthe【+anaphor]and【+pronominal】bindingpropertiesatthesametime，thusitmustsimultaneouslyfulfillthecontradictoryrequirementsofbeingfreeandboundinthelocaldomain．Tosolvethisproblem，PROCantypicallyappearinthenon-finitestructuresheadedbytheinfinitivalparticleto，fortheinfinitivalparticleisnotagovernor．Notethat，theRPOtheoremdoesnotprohibitthegenerationofPROinagovernedposition．ThevalidityofthePROtheoremwillnotbedisputedifthePRObase-generatedinobjectpositionmovestoanungovernedpositioninasurfacestructure．AsfortheinterpretationofPRO，Controltheorydefinesdifferentkindsofcontrol，suchassubjectcontrol，objectcontrolandSOon．InthepairofsentencesIpromised[toPROstudy]andIpersuadedTrinity[toPROstudy]，thepronounIisthecontrollerorantecedentofPROintheformeranditisasubjectcontrol，whileTrinityisthecontrollerofPROinthelatteranditisanobjectcontr01．Thedistributionandinterpretationofproaresimpler．Firstly,arichenoughsystemofagreementisthepremiseofitsappearance．Secondly,thetypicalpositionwherelittleprooccupiesisthespecifierpositionofAGRP．Thirdly,thereferenceofprocanbederivedfromtheagreementrelationshipbetweenconstituentsinasentence．Thatis，itsinterpretationisdependentonintra—sententialenvironments．Insummary,thissectionfirstlypresentspopularcriteriafordefininggrammaticalrelationsinlinguistics，anditisfoundthattheconfigurationalcriterionusedbygenerativegrammarisbetterthanothers．Thegenerativedefinitionofsubjectnotonlyembracesthestructuralrelationship，butalsotakesthethematicandmorphologicalpropertiesintoconsideration．ThenwhatfollowshasreviewedwherePROandproaredistributedandhowtheyareinterpretedingenerativegrammar． Thecontentofthissectionwillbetheguidancetheoriesforthisthesis．Now,itcomestothereviewofexistingresearchfindingswithregardtoChinesenullsubjects．Here，onemoreimportantthingtobedeclaredinadvanceisthatthereviewofthefinitenessversusnon．6nitenessdistinctioninChinesedetermineswhetherPROexistsinChinese，thusthisdiscussionisnotgoingtobedonehere，andChaptermeisintendedforit．Chinese,unlikeEnglish，isakindofparatacticlanguage．Chomsky’SproposalsaremainlybasedonIndo-Europeanlanguages．Naturally,somescholarsapproveoftheclassificationofPROandproinChinese；othersinsistthatthestudyofChineseshouldnotbelimitedbyformalsyntax．Thisthesistakesthesideoftheformer．1．2RepresentativeViewsAboutChinesePRO1．2．1JamesHuang’SViewsJamesHuanghasmadeatrialonnullsubjectsinChineseandisinsupportoftheexistenceofPROinChinese．HeagreeswithChomskyabouttheuniversalexistenceofPROinhumanlanguages，butheincorporatesPROandprointoonekindofemptypronominalwhichisrepresentedasPro．InrespecttothedistributionandinterpretationofPro，hestipulatesaGeneralizedControlRule(henceforth，GCR)：“CO．indexanemptypronominalwiththeclosestnominalelement'’．(1984：57)Badly,thisrulefailstoofferaconvincingexplanationfortheinterpretationofPROinasubjectcontr01structure．Considerthefollowingsentence：(5)RoseipromisedJackj[PROitoleave]．IfweareinlinewithHuang’Ssuggestion，thecontrollerofPROinthesentenceaboveshouldbetheobjectJackofthepredicatepromise，becauseitisthenominalelementwhichistheclosesttoPRO．Incontrasttothisassumption，thecontrollerofPROshouldintuitionallybethesubjectRoseinthematrixclause．ThisfactputstheGCRtheoryintodoubt．Forthisreason，JamesHuangrevisedGCPbyassumingthatboththec．commandingsubjectandthec-commandingobjectforPROinthesameclause ChapterOneLiteratureReviewbelongtotheclosestnominalelement．Thatistosay,thedistancebetweenthec—commandingsubjectRoseandPROissameasthatbetweenthec-commandingobjectJackandPRO．So，RoseandJackhaveanequalchancetobethecontrollerofPRO．However,whichoneofthemshouldbechosenasthecontroller?JamesHuangattributesittopragmaticfactors．Obviously,thissolutioniskindofmeaningless，becauseitistruethatEnglishhasthedistinctionbetweensubjectcontrolandobjectcontr01．In1989，JamesHuangpresentedarevisedGCRtohandlewiththeambiguityoftheclosestnominalelement：anemptypronominaliscontrolledinitscontroldomain(ifithasone)．Anominalelement仅Cannotbethecontroldomainforp，unlessitistheminimalmaximalcategoryorNPthatcontainspandsimultaneouslyhasaSUBJECTaccessibletop．(Huang，1989：34)Tosomedegree，thenewGCRdoesmakethenotionoftheclosestnominalelementclearer,butthatisnotenough．Therearestillsomeleaksinthenewversion．Accordingtothenewversion，acontroleeisdefinitelycontrolledinitscontroldomain；however,HuangYan(1994)doesnotagreewimit．ThinkaboutthefollowingChinesesentence：(6)1Zhaopingshuomamajuedinghoutian[PRObuyongshangxue]2ZhaopingsayMumdecidethedayaftertomorrownotneedgotoschool3‘ZhaopingsaysMumhasdecidedthatheneednotgotoschoolthedayaftertomorrow．’Inthissentence，thepersonwhoisallowednottogotoschoolisnotphonologicallyrealized，whichisrepresentedbythenullsubjectPRO．JudgingbytherevisedGCR，thecontrollerofPROinitscontr01domainshouldbemama，whichgoesagainstourinstitutionthattherightpersonthatCanbeabsentfromschoolshouldbeZhaoping．Withoutquestion，JamesHuang’SrevisedversionofGCRstillshowsalackofcomprehensiveexplanation．AmoreconvincingchallengefortherevisedGCRisofferedbythefollowingcomparison：1．111efirstsentenceiswritteninthewayofChinesePinyin，anditmeansthat‘赵平说妈妈决定后天不用+I：学’TodescribeChinesesentencesinthewayofPinyiniswidelyacceptedingenerativegrammar2．TheungrammaticalexpressionembmcestheEnglishcounterpartsofeachChineseword．3．ThethirdsentenceistheEnglishcorrespondingexpressionofthefirstsentence．Inconclusion，AlltheseChinesesentenceslistedinthesistoproveorrefuteacertainopinionaredescribedinthisway． (7)a．4Zhaopingdayingmamaxiawu【PROzuogongke】ZhaopingpromiseMumthisafternoondothehomeworkZhaopingpromisedMumtodothehomeworkthisafternoon．b．5mamadayingZhaopingzhoumo[PROguangdongwuyuan】MumpromiseZhaopingthisweekendgotoZOO‘MumhaspromisedZhaopingthathe／theywillgotoZOOthisweekend．’netwosentenceshavethesamesyntacticstructureexceptforthepositionsoccupiedbyZhaopingandmama．ThecontroldomainsforPROin(7a)and(7b)arebomthematrixclause，forthematrixclauseistheonlymaximalcategorycontainingPROandanaccessiblesubjectZhaoping．AccordingtotherevisedGCR，theref．erenceofPROinbothsentencesshouldbeZhaopingandmamarespectively．NeVenheless，weknowitisnotthetruein(7b)．Accurately,PROin(7b)shouldrefertoZhaopingorbothZhaopingandmama．Tosummarize，JamesHuangfailstocomprehensivelyexplaintheinterpretationofemptysubjectsinChinese．Now,letUSpayattentiontotheattemptsmadebyanotherlinguist，EdwinBattistella．1．2．2EdwinBrattistella’SStudyHavealookatthefollowingChinesesentences：(8)a．6ZhangsanshuoMehuilaiZhangsansaywillcomeb．Zhangsansays【Zhangsan】willcome．C．Zhangsansays【othersbutnotZhangsan]willcome．Thereisanullsubjectmarkedbyeinthesentence．ThenativespeakersofChinesewillhavetwowaystointerpretitbyinstitution．Oneisthatthenullsubjecthasthefeatureofanaphorandreferstothesubjectinthematrixclause．Whenthisassumptionistrue，itsEnglishcounterpartisshownbythesentence(8b)．Theotheristhatthenullsubjecthasthefeatureofpronominalandco—indexeswithothersexceptZhangsan．Atthistime，itsEnglishinterpretationisshownbythesentence4．ItsChinesecounterpartisexpressedas‘赵平答应妈妈下午做功课’．5．ItsChinesecounterpaastates‘妈妈答应赵’l￡周末逛动物同’．6．Itis‘张三说会来’inChinese．20 (8c)．InChomsky’Seyes，everynullsubjecthastobePROorproeverytime．Thatittosay,wheneveranullsubjectappears，itcanhaveonlyonekindofreferencefeature，anditisnotallowedforanullsubjecttohavethe[+anaphor]and[+pronominal]featuresatthesamepoint．Incontrast，Chinesedoes．InthesentenceZhangsanshuofejhui18i，thenullsubjectcanbesimultaneouslyunderstoodasananaphororapronominal．Tocapturethisfact，BattistelladepartsfromJamesHuang’Sredefinitionofgoverningcategorytodistinctthegoverningcategoryofanaphorsfromthatofpronominals．JamesHuang’SredefinitionofChomsky’SgoverningcategoryintheBindingtheoryisgivenhere：(1983：15)(1)13isagoverningcategoryforo【iffpisgovernorofGt，andaSUBJECT(possiblyaccessibleto旺．theminimalcategorycontaining仅，aaitself)that，ifCtisananaphor,is(2)Thenotionaccessibleisdefinedasfollows：aisaccessibletopiffBisinthec-commanddomainofaandaandpbearthesameindex．BattistellaassumesthatananaphoriSnotaccessibletoitsel￡Totestthefeasibilityofthedistinctionbetweenanaphorgoverningcategoryandpronominalgoverningcategory,comparethefollowingChinesesentenceswithovertsubjects：(9)a．7ZhangsanshuotahuilaiZhangsansayhewillcome‘Zhangsansaidhewouldcome．’b．5ZhangsanshuozijihuilmZhangsansayselfwillcome*Zhangsansaidselfwouldcome．In(9a)，theovertpronountaiscontrolledintheembeddedclause，fortheembeddedclausecontainsthepronounitselfta(he)，agovernorhui(Will)andaSUBJECTta仍砂．AccordingtotheBindingPrincipleB，apronounmustbefreein7．Itis‘张三说他会来’inChinese．8．Itis‘张三说白己会来’inChinese． ChapterOneLiteratureRenewitsgoverningcategory,SOthepronounta仍砂canrefertothesubjectZhangsaninthematrixclause，orothersintheworld．In(9b)，thegoverningcategoryofthereflexiveziji(selJ)isthematrixclause，becauseareflexivecannotbeaccessibletoitself．SozijiCanonlyCO-indexwiththesubjectinthemainclause．AsforthereasonwhyChinesedemandsthenecessitytodistinguishanaphorgovemingcategoryfrompronominalgoverningcategory,BattistellatriestoattributeittotheabsenceofAGR．BecauseoftheabsenceofAGRinChinese，thedistinctionbetweenfinitenessandnon-finitenessisnotSOclearthatanullsubjectCanhavetwobindingfeaturesatthesamepoint．OnthebasisofJamesHuang’Sproposal，BattistellasignificantlygivesareasonforthedistinctionandinterpretationofChinesenullsubjectsfromanewprospective．However,therearesometheoreticalproblemsinthisassumption．Theoretically,Battistella’SassumptionhasactuallyabandonedthePROtheorem．ThesuggestionthataChinesenullsubjectCallhavebothanaphorbindingfeatureandpronominalbindingfeatureatthesametimeisequaltosaythatthereisnotthefinitenessversusnon-finitenessdistinctioninChinese，andthenChinesehasonlyonekindofemptypronominal．Inthisregard，Battistella’SopinionsareidenticaltothatofJamesHuang．Ifso，thereiSnoinnovationinhisstudy．：1．2．3XuLiejiong’SProposalsDifferentfromJamesHuangandEdwinBrattistella，XuLiejiongdoesnotagreewiththeapplicationofEnglishemptycategoriesinChinese．ChineseemptycategorieshavetheirowncharacteristicswhichallofthefourEnglishemptycategories--Wh—trace，NP-trace，PROandpro--cannotembrace．XucallssuchaspecialemptycategoryasFreeEmptyCategory(henceforth，FEC)．FECischaracterizedbythecompletefreedomofreferentiality．WhatisunderlyinginthissuggestionisthatECsinChineseare‘notinherentlybutcontextuallydefined’．(Xu，1986：13)Thatis，theinterpretationofaChineseemptycategoryisnotsyntacticallylimited．Itsantecedentmaynotc-commandit；itmayhavesplitcontrollers，anditisnotnecessarytobesubjecttolocalityprinciples．Toaffirmtherationalityofhisassumption，Xuexemplifiesthenon．identifiablenessof22 FECwithWh-trace，NP-trace，PROandproonebyone．(1O)a．*Johni，hejsaidyouwouldnothelpe．JohntashuonibukenbangmangJohnhesayyounothelp‘John，hesaidyouwouldnothelp(him)．’TopicstructuresinEnglishareconsideredastypicalWh-tracestructures．ThesentenceflOa)isacanonicaltopicsentence，withtheobjectJohnoftheverbhelpinmeeIIlbeddedclauseappearinginthefrontofthesentence．InEnglish，theinterpretationofWh．traceisstrictlylimitedbytheStrongCross—overcondition·StrongcrossoveroccursinstructureswhereaWh—elementmovesacrossapronominalwhichc．commandstheextractionsite．Forthisreason，theemptycategoryein(1Oa)CannotrefertothetopicJohnorthepronounhe．Differently,thecorrespondingChinesesentence(1Ob)permitsthesamereferenceamongthetopicJohn．thepronountaandtheemptycategoryP．Forexample，whensomeoneaskss矗z矗s矗zIfDwDbukenbangmang(Whosaidthat1wouMnotoffer口hand)，othersmaygivesuchananswerlikeJohn矗heisaidyouwouldnothelp．BasedonthisoIbservation，XuarguesthattheemptycategoryinChinesecannotbesimplyinterpretedasavariable．、_：PassiveformsinEnglishareacknowledgedtohaveanNP—trace．DoesthisalsohappentoChinese?Comparetheactiveformswithitspassiveforms：(Xu，1985：19)(11)a．9wodapolezhetaochajuIbreakAMthiStea．setIbrokethisteaset．’b．10zhetaochajubeiWOdapolethisteasetbyIbreak‘Thisteasetwasbrokenbyme．’Inspiteofthepositionoftheprepositionalphrasebeiwo(bym砂，theMoEnglishsentencesandtheircorrespondingexpressionsinChineseareseeminglysimilarineveryway．TheS-structureof(1ib)isdescribedbywhatfollows：9．Itis‘我打破了这套茶具’inChinese．i0．Itis·这套茶具被我打破了’inChinese． ChapterOneLiteratureRenew(12)zhetaochajubeiWOdapoleeIstheemptycategoryeinthesentenceaboveaNP-trace?IfSO，itisexpectedthattheemptycategoryewillperformlikeananaphor．Thatis，itwillhaveanobligatoryantecedentinthesameclause．Ifnot，howtointerpretit?Now,letUSassumethatthenumberofthebrokencupsisnotthewholesetbutonlythreeofthem．Thenthesentence(12b)mayappearinthefollowingcontext：(13)¨Mum：--zhetaochajubeiJohndapolesangebeizima?thisteasetbyJohnbreakAMthreecup‘WerethethreecupsofthisteasetbrokenbyJohn?’“Susan：--bu，zhetaochajubeiWOdapoleeNothisteasetbyIbreakAM‘No，(of)thisteaset(twocups)werebrokenbyme．’Nodoubt，theS-structureoftheanswergivenbySusanisstillthesameformzhetaochajubeiWOdapoleeasthatof(1ib)．Buttheantecedentofein(13)issange6efzf(threeteacups)intheanSWerratherthanthesubjectofthemainclausezhetaochajufthiswholeteaset)．ThefactdemonstratesthatChinesepassiveformsarenotparalleltothatofEnglish，andtheyaremorelikeChinesetopicstructureswhichdonotrequireananaphoricinterpretation．Considersuchakindofdialoguefollowing：(14)¨Teacher--nimenyijingbaneigehuayuanzhongshanghualema?youalreadythatgradenplantflowers‘Haveyoualreadyplantedflowersinthatgarden?’1耳Students--neigehuayuanyijingbeiwomenzhongshangleethatgardenalreadybyweplant‘InthatgardenehasalreadyplantedbyUS．’AlthoughtheEnglishparaphrasingoftheChineseresponsegivenbystudentsisnotgrammatical，yetitcanbestillunderstoodthattheemptyobjectereferstohua6qowers)inthequestionbutnotthethemeneigehuayuan(thatgarden)intheanswer．11．Itis‘这套茶具被约翰打破了三个杯子吗’inChinese．12．Itsays‘不是，这套茶具被我打破了’inChinese．13．Theteacherasked‘你们已经把那个花园种-l：花了吗?’inChinese，14．Hisstudentsanswered‘那个花吲已经被我们种，}：花了’inChinese．24 TheinconformitybetweentheNP—traceinEnglishandChineseemptycategorymotivatesXutosticktohisproposalofFEC．Rightnow,theFEChasbeenfoundinplaceswhereWh·—traceandNP·-traceOCCUEDoesFECalsoappearinpositionsinwhichPROisanticipated?Haveatrytoanalyzetheinterpretationoftheemptycategoryeinthefollowingsentence：(15)D[John]ijuedingmingtian【PRO西dongshen】Johndeodetomorrowdepart‘[John]／decided【PROitodepart]tomorrow．’IntheEnglishparallelofthesentence(15)，PROCO．indexeswiththesubjectJohninthematrixdause，whichisdisplayedbythesameindexbetweenJohnandPRO．ButthecorrespondingChinesesentencemayhavemorethanoneantecedent，andthesubjectJohnisnottheonlycandidate．WhenthesentenceisutteredtoreplytotheutteranceSusanneitiandongshenyouJohnjueding(WhenSusandeparts必uptoJohn)，theemptycategoryreferstoSusanbutnotJohn．sameistrueoftheinterpretationofcontrolstructureswiththeverbpredicatesdaying(promise)andshuofu(persuade)．InEnglish，thecanonicalcontrollerofaay／以gisthesubjectofthematrixclause，andthatofshuofutheobjectofthematrixclause．However,thisconventionisbrokeninChinese．HavealookatthefollowingChinesesentences：(16)a．16zhuxidayingtazhouliuzhiqian【PROhuixin]chairmanpromiseheSaturdaybeforereply‘Thechairmanpromisedhimto[PRO】giveareplybeforeSaturday．’b．¨daifushuofubingrenyigeyuehou【PROgeitadongshoushu】doctorpersuadepatientonemonthaftergiveheoperate‘．‘Thedoctorpersuadedthepatient[PRO】tooperateonhim．’In(16a)，theactionofgivingareplymaybeperformedbyothersthatobeythechairman’Sorderratherthanthechairmanhimself．In(16b)，theactionofgivinganoperationmayalsobeconductedbyothersratherthanthesubjectofthematrix15．Itexpresses‘约翰决定明天动身’inChinese．16．Itsays‘主席答应他周六之前问信’inChinese．17．Itmeans‘大夫说服病人一个月后给他动手术’inChinese．25 ChapterOneLiteratureRenewclause．Forexample，thesubjectthedoctorisadirectorinahospitalandheasksotherdoctorstooperateonthepatientafteramonth．So，itissufficetosaythattheinterpretationofPROinChinesehasitsowncharacteristicsthatdifferfromthatofEnglish，andishighlydependentonpragmaticcontexts．AlltheexamplesabovegivenbyXu(someofthemmayberevised．)vividlyillustratetherationalityofFEC，withitsinterpretationbeingcompletelyfreeinsyntacticstructuresandhighlydependentoncontexts．However,thehighrelianceonpragmaticfactorsiscontradictorywiththeautonomyofgrammar,SOthatthepureexplorationintothesyntacticmechanismsforthegenerationandinterpretationoflanguagebecomesmuchmoreimpossible．Therefore，Xu’Strialisnotabadone，buthasitsflaws．1．3SummaryInthefirstsectionofthischapter,thisthesistriestounderstandingofnullsubjects．Thepopularcriteriahaveacomprehensive—thematiccriterion，morphologicalcriterion，prototypicalcriterionandconfigurationalcriterion--fordefininggrammaticalrelationshipshavebeendescribed．Itcanbeseenthatthenatureofsubjectistorepresentaspecifickindofgrammaticalrelationsbetweentheverbanditsarguments，andthegenerativedefinitionofnullsubjectsonthebasisoftheconfigurationalcriterionismuchprofound．NullsubjectscontainPROandpro．Firstly,PROisuniversalwhileproisparametric．Secondly,PROappearsinnon—finiteclauses，butproOccursinfiniteclauses．PROhasthebindingfeaturesof[+anaphor]and【+pmnominal]，whileproisfeaturedwith[-anaphor]and【+pronominal]．Thirdly,Controltheorysum．marizesseveralkindsofcontrolconstructionstoidentifytheantecedentofPRO．’Inthesecondsection，abriefbutoverallreviewofrepresentativeopinionsaboutChinesenullsubjectsisconducted．JamesHuangandEdwinBattistellaareinfavoroftheuniformityofRPOandproinChinese，whileXuLiejiongtakestheotherside．HuangholdsthatthereisnodifferencebetweenPROandproinChinese，classifiesthemintoonekindofemptypronominalPro，andoffersarevisedGCRtoexplainits26 reference．Battistelladistinguishestheanaphorgoverningcategoryfromthepronominalgovemingcategory,andthusthrowsoutachallengefacingthenecessityoftheexiStenceofemptycategory．Differently,XuproposesthatChineseemptycategoriesCanbegeneralizedintoFEC(freeemptycategory)．FECCanappearinanypositioninasentenceanditsreferenceisgreatlyreliantonpragmaticcontexts．Althoughtheexamples#yenbyXuinordertoconfirmhisassumptionarepowerful，yettheoveremphasisonpragmaticfactorsisagainsttheautonomyofsyntaxwhichiSoneofthefootstonesofgenerativegrammar．27 ChapterTwoTheoreticalFrameworkTwoTheoreticalFrameworkFormostofUS，wordsandsentencesarejustwaystocommunicatewitheachother,butforNoamChomsky,wordsandsentencesarevaluabletoolsforexploringintothenatureandoriginofknowledge．Actually,ChomskyhasbeentryingtoaskaquestionwhichCangobacktoPlato．Thequestioniswhethertheknowledgeweknowaboutlanguagesisinnateorobtainedthroughexperiences，andwhetheralllanguagesare，tosomeextent，deeplyrelatedandrestrictedbyasomecertainfaculty．Asthemostfamousrepresentativeofformalsyntax，Chomsky’Stheoryhasshiftedfrompsychologytobiologyandinfluencedvirtuallyalmosteveryfieldthatisconcernedwiththemind．OnthebasisoftheobservationthatchildrenCancreatemorecomplexsentencesthanwhattheirparentshavetoldthem，Chomskypostulatesthattheremustbeaninnatesysteminhumanbeings’brainswhichtakesresponsibilityfortheacquisitionofallkindsoflanguages，andtriestodevelopakindofgenerativegrammartodescribesuchaninnatesystem．Generativegrammarisinfactasetofhypothesesaboutwhatispossibleorimpossibleforthegenerationoflanguage．Itischaracterizedbybeingopenandactive，andhasencounteredseveralstagesofdevelopment，amongofwhichtheGovernmentandBindingtheoryisfull—blown．Infact，themoreappreciatenameforthestageoftheGovernmentandBindingtheoryistheprinciplesandparameterstheory,sincethemostdistinctfeatureofthisstageisthatsomeprinciplesitcontainsaleuniversalwhileothersareparametric．Whatfollowsisjustabriefpresentationofcoreconceptsrdatedtonullsubjects．2．1LexiconandThetaTheoryTheGovemmentandBindingtheoryholdsthattherehastobealexiconinhumanbeings’brainsandtheroleofitistodeterminethepropertiesofeachlexicalentry．ThenotionoflexiconfirstappearsintheStandardModelofGenerativeGrammar(Chomsky,1965：23)，andthemotivationfortheproposalofitisto28 simplifygrammar．InChomsky’Swords“⋯thegrammarCallbesignificantlysimplifiedifthey(thegrammaticalfeaturesofformatives)areexcludedfromtherewritingrulesandlistedinlexicalentries．’’(1965：45)However,whetherlexiconhastobeapartofgrammar,evenapartofsyntax，hasnotbeensettleddown．Ononehand，ChomskyconnectsD．structurewiththematicinterpretation，SOtheinsertionoflexicalitemsintoabstractphraserulesmusttakeplacebeforethecompletionofthebuildingofD—structure，therebythesemanticinterpretationcallbeconducted．Ontheotherhand，somemayraiseaconceivableobjectionwhichstatesthatthepartoftheminddealingwithsyntaxisdifferentfromthesectionofthemindstoringuplexicalitems．Thatistosay,itisnotanecessaryconclusionthatlexiconisapartofsyntacticbase．Nevertheless，fromthenforward，lexiconiswidelyconsideredasanintegralpartofgrammar．Intermsofthecontentoflexicon，Chomskyproposesthat“Inparticular,thelexicalentrymustspecify(a)aspectsofphoneticstructure⋯；(b)propertiesoftheformativesthatarerelevantforsemanticinterpretation⋯；(c)lexicalfeaturesindicatingthepositionsinwhichalexicalformativeCanbeinserted(bythelexicalmle)inapre-terminalstring．”(1965：123)Inshort．itemsinlexiconmainlycontainthreekindsofinformation：phonologicalfeaturesabouthowailitemCanbepronounced，semanticfeaturesabouthowitbuildssemanticrelationshipswithotherlexicalentries，andsyntacticfeaturesaboutwhatcategoryitbelongstoandhowitiscombinedwithspecificcategoriestoformlargerstructuralderivations．Semanticroleseverypredicateincludesarecalledthematicroles(or0-rolesforshort)whichCanberepresentedbyO-grid．Forexample，theverbcookneedsanargumenttobeartheroleofAgentandanotherargumenttobeartheroleofPatient．TheexpressionofO-gridofcookiscook．AllofthesethematicrolesCanbeprojectedintosyntacticderivationsthroughtheprocessofS-selection．Thatis，everypredicateCans—selectsaparticularnumberofargumentstobearparticularthematicroles．Compareapairofsentences：(a)Mikecookedspaghetti；(b)#Mikecookedagirl．Inbothofthetwosentences，thepersonMikeperfectlybearsthethematicroleofAgent，whilein(b)thenounphraseagirlfailstobearaPatient ChapterTwoTheoreticalFrameworkrole，becausetheobjectoftheverbcookviolatestheS-selectionrequirementofthenoungirl，thusthe(b)isnotgrammatical．BesidesS-selectionrule，itisoftensuggestedthattheprojectionoflexicalitemsisalsoconstrictedbyC—selection(categoryselection)rulewhichregulateswhatcategorytheycancombinewiminastructure．ThesemanticpropertiesofalexicalitemCanbeexpressedby9一grid；similarly,thesyntacticfeaturesofitCanbedisplayedbyasub·categorizationframe．Forexample,askalwaysselectsaCPorNPasitscomplement，SOitssub—categorizationframecanbeexpressedas‘askLCP／NP]’．S-selectionandC·selectionregulatethesemanticandsyntacticpropertiesoflexicalitemsduringtheprocessofstructurebuildingtogether．BothS-selectionandC—selectionrulesconformtotheProjectionPrinciplewhichhastwoversions．Thefirstversionstatesthatrepresentationsateachsyntacticlevel(i．e．LF,D—andS-structure)areprojectedfromthelexicon，inthattheyobservethesub—categorizationpropertiesoflexicalitems．Thesecondonecameoutin1986．Itstipulatesthat‘lexicalstructuremustberepresentedcategoricallyateverysyntacticlevel’．(Chomsky,1986：45)TheProjectionPrinciplemakesitcertainthatlexicalinformation，onceitissyntacticallyprojected，willkeepunchangedandCannotbeneglected．Forexample，thetransitiveverbcooktakestwoargumentstobearthethematicrolesofAgentandPatient．Aslongasthetransitiveverbcookappearsinasentence，theremustbetwoarguments．Thefollowingsentencesarenotgrammatical，forthenumberoftheargumentsthattheverbcooktakesiseitherlessormore，andthusbothofthemarecontradictorytothenumberoftheargumentsregulatedbythesemanticfeatures：(17)a．宰Mikecooked．(noPatient)b．木Cookedsomething．(noAgent)C．幸Mikecookedsomethingthecupoftea．(toomanyargunaents)In1981，Chomskyproposesthatallsentencesmusthavesubjectsinspiteofwhethertheyaresemanticallydemandedornot．Consequently,theProjectionPrincipleandthedemandthatallclauseshavesubjectsareknownastheExtendedProjectionPrinciple．Anothertheorycloselyrelatedtothesemanticfeatureof1exicaliternsiSthe30 一堡垒型竺!墨竺!塾竺堡垒!型!!婴!!旦坐一—————●——————●—————__————_—-——————-——_———-——_—————●—————-————●-——_——_—————_—————————————————一——ThetaTheory．Thetatheorydealswiththesemanticrelationsbetweenpredicatesandtheirarguments．Theprocessthroughwhichpredicatesassignthematicrolestotheirargumentsiscalled0-roleassignmentwhichisrestrictedbythreeconditions．The矗rstconditioniscalledtheLocalityConditionwhichstatesthatapredicateassignsitsO．roleStoeitheritscomplementoritsspecifier．ThesecondoneistheUniformTheta．roleAssignmentHypothesis(UTAH)proposedbyBaker(1988)，whichregulatesthata0-roleisassignedinthesamestructuralconfigurationina11structuresinwhichitispresent．TheUTAHisthemajorevidenceoftheexistenceofnullsubjects．Thethirdoneisthewell．knownThetaCriterionthatdeclaresthata0-rolemustbeassignedtooneandonlyoneargumentandanargumentmustbearoneandonlyone0-role．2．2D／S—structureandX—barTheoryAftertheselectionofrequiredentriesfromlexicon，itcomestotheformationofphrasesandsentences．AccordingtomeGBtheory,whatfollowsistheconstructionofD．structurewhichconformstotheThetatheory,andthenmovementtakesplace．Asaresult，S．structurewhichabidesbytheCaseTheoryisformed．D-structureandS．structurearetwolevelsofrepresentationsusedtodescribethestructureofanysentence．ItisneededtomentionthattheonlydifferencebetweenD-structureandS-structureliesonthepositionswherethemovedoccupy,andbothofthemaresubjecttotheVrojectionPrincipleandthePrincipleofEconomy．Inthe1950s，ChomskyproposesthatthepositionsinD-structurearesomehowbasicandD．structureisapurerepresentationofthematicrelations，andtheThetatheorytakesresponsibilityforthedistributionofargumentsatD—structure．onmeotherhand．itistheCasetheorythatdeterminesthedistributionofNPargumentsatS-structure．TherearetwoassumptionsinCasetheory．OneassumptionisthatCase，ratherlike0-roles，isassignedbycertainelementstocertainpositions．WhatcanassigncasestoNPsiscalledCaseAssigners．Verbs，Prepositions，AGRandcomplementiserarecaseassigners．Moreover,itisthepositionwhereaNPislocatedthataccountsforwhatformofcaseittakes。Forexample，thespecifierpositionofa ChapterTwoTheoreticalFrameworkfiniteclauseisalwaysfilledbyaNPwithaNominativecase，whilethecomplementpositionofatransitiveverbisoftenoccupiesbyaNPwithanAccusativecase．111eotherassumptionistheSO-calledCaseFilterwhichstatesthatallNPsmustbeassignedaCase．TheCaseFilterrequiresthatallNPsmustoccupyaCaseposition．TherearetwonotionsofCase：MorphologicalcaseandAbstractCase(orjustCase)．Morphologicalcasehassomethingtodowiththepositionorfunctionanominalelementoccupiesorperformsinasentence．Forinstance，thenominativepronounheoccupyingthespecifierpositionofafiniteclausewillshowintheaccusativeformhimwhenitislocatedinthecomplementpositionofapreposition．Onthecontrary,therangeofAbstractCaseislargerthanMorphologicalcase．，nleunderlyingpointofthenotionofAbstractCaseisthataDPjustgetsacasebyoccupyingaspecificstructuralposition，whetheritisrealizedovertlyornot．WehavebeenfamiliarwiththeD-andS-structurebynow,SOthereisaneedtofindasuitableandexplanatorywaytodescribethem．ChomskynoticedthatalloftheseentriesinlexiconCanbeclassifiedintoseveralcategories，Witheachofthemhavingspecificsyntacticproperties，andhealsoobservedthatthestructureofaphraseorsentenceisnotlinearbuthierarchal，witheachconstituentsuccessivelyconsistingofotherconstituents，untiltherearenomoreexpandableitemsleft．Astheheartofsyntax，X-bartheorywhichwasproposedinthe1970sisgreatlydependentontreediagramstocapturetheseobservations．ThecoreconceptsofX—bartheoryinclude：(a)Atwo-barXPorX”consistsofanoptionalspecifierandanX’inanyorder：XP_(specifer)X’orXP_X’(specifer)；(b)Asingle-barX’mayalsocontainanadjunctineitherorder：X’_X’(adjunct)orX’一(adjunct)X’．(c)Asingle-barX’containsaheadwitllnobarandpossiblecomplements(possiblyzero)inanyorder：X’一’X(complements)orX’_(complements)X．Thetreediagramcanvisuallycapturethestructuralrelationshipbetweenconstituentsinphrasesandclauses．AbasictreediagramofphrasestructureisexpressedbyFigure2．1：32 XP7’／＼(specifier)X’／＼×(complement)headX-bartheoryelaboratelyillustratesthatallkindsofphrasesconsistof铆oint锄al1eVels：thehigherlevel(XP)containsthehead(X’)andoptionalspecifiers；thelowerleVer(X，)isformedbytheheadXandoptionalcomplements．Additionally,thistreediagramhasthefeatureofrecursion‘⋯⋯VP—IP—CP-VP⋯⋯’·Canonically’adauseisanIP(InflectionPhrase)innature，andaVPalwaysworksasitscomplement；Inrum，aCP(ComplementizerPhraSe)mainlyfunctionsasthecomplementofaVP,andIPasthecomplementofCPinFigure2．2：⋯．CP／＼Speclc’／＼C／＼．Spec2I’／＼IVP／＼Spec3V’／＼VCP⋯TheIPcategorycallbefurthersubdividedintoAGRP(AgreementPhrase)and33 ChapterTwoTheoreticalFrameworkTP(TensePhrase)．WhetherAGRPdominatesTPorviceversehasnotbeensettleddown．InEnglish，itisacceptedthatAGRPishigherthanTPintreediagram．TheX-bartheoryoffersauniformapproachtoallphrasestructuresandsimplifiesthenotionsofsyntacticcategoriesaswellasthesyntacticnatureofcomplementsandadjuncts．确eproposalofX—barconstructionisbasedonobservationsofrichlanguagematerialsanditisahighlyabstractsyntacticframeworkapplicabletobothD．structureandS．structure．D-structuretakesplacebeforemovementwhileS-structureOccursaftermovement．Takethesentence砌egoatwaschasedbytheleopardwhichCanbeheardorspokenindailylifeforexample，itssimplifiedD-structureandsimplifiedS-structurearedescribedbyFigure2．3andFigure2．4respectively：Tp(D-structure)(simplifiedS-structure)＼VP／＼TheleopardIP／＼DP‘he印＼I’wasDVP’＼Dp／＼Pthegoat／vI—hC√／D—t～．．． ChapterTwoTheoreticalFrameworkBynow,atheoreticalsketchofthegenerationoflanguageandthewaytoexplanatorilydescribesyntacticlevelshasbeenbrieflyintroduced．Whatfollowsfocusesonthegenerativetheoriesorrulesabouttheclassification，distributionandinterpretationofPROandpro．2．3BindingTheoryandPROTheoremForgenerativegrammar,Bindingtheoryisaspecializedandcoherenttheorythatdealswithstructuralrelationshipsbetweennounsandtheirantecedents．Therearethreekindsofovertnouns：(a)R—expressions(referringexpressions)embracingNPsthatgettheirmeaningsbyreferringtoentitiesintheworld，suchaspropernameParisandcommonnounphraseawell-packagedbook．(b)PronounsreferringtoNPsthatobligatorilygettheirmeaningsfromanotherNPinthesamesentenceorpreviouslymentionedinthediscourseorbycontext，suchastheⅡlirdpersonsingularhe．(C)AnaphorsreferringtoNPsthatmustgettheirmeaningsfromanotherNPinthesamesentence，likereflexiveshimself,itselfetc．Now,lookatthefollowingsentences：(18)a．【Mick]／gave【Susanb【abracelet]k．b．[Mick]isaidthat[he]vjpickedupapurseintheclassroom．C．[Mick]idancedwim【himself]／．In(18a)，therearethreeR—expressions—twopropernamesMickandSusanandacommonnounphraseabracelet．Eachofthemreferstoadifferentthingintheworld，andthefactisillustratedbydifferentindicesi,jandkaddedtorelatednounsinmeorderofalphabet．Indexingisameantorepresentthereferencerelationshipbetweennouns．In(18b)，thereferenceofthepronounhehastwotypesofinterpretation．TheoneiSthatitCO—indexeswiththesubjectMickinthesamesentence，whichisindicatedbythesameindexbetweenMickiandhef．Theotherkindofpossibilityisthatitreferstosomeoneelsewhodoesnotappearinthesentencebutisunderstandablebyboththespeakerandthehearer,whichisillustratedbythedifferentindicesbetweenMickiandhe]．In(18c)，thereisonlyonekindofreference．Thereflexivehimselfreferstothesamepersonasthepronoun35 ChapterTwoTheoreticalFrameworkMickdoes，whichisimpliesbythesameindexbetweenMickiandhimselfi．TwoNPsthathavethesameindexaretreatedtobeco-indexed，andtwoNPsthatareco—indexedaresaidtoCO—refer．Meanwhile，theNPthatgivesitsmeaningtoanotherpronounoranaphoristobedefinedastheantecedentofthelatter．Forexample，thewordsMickandhein(18b)arepossibletoCO—refer,SOMickisthepotentialantecedentofthepronounhe，whilethenounsMickandhimselfin(18c)CandefinitelybesaidtoCO-refer,andtheformeristheantecedentofthelatterwithoutdoubt．Allofthesesentencesmentionedabovearesimple，andthereisamorecomplexexample[Micki'smother]jbopped[herselJ]jOntheheadwithaneggplant．Instinctively,theantecedentofthereflexiveherselfisthenounphraseMick'smother,butnotthepropernameMick,whichisindicatedbythesameindexbetweenthebracketedphraseMick'smotherandthereflexiveherself．ButwhyCantheantecedentoftheanaphorbethesubjectofthesentence，butnottheNPinsidethesubject?Tocapturethisphenomenonfromasyntacticperspective，theideaofbindingisputforward．Thereisabinaryrelationbetweennodesinatreediagram．IfAwantstobindB，therearetwoconditionsAandBmustmeet：iff(ifandonlyif)Ac-commandsBandAandBareco—indexed．NodeAc-commandsBiff(a)AisnotB；Co)AdosenotdominateB，andBdoesnotdominateA；(c)everyXthatdominatesAalsodominatesB．Furthermore，NodeAdominatesnodeBiffAishigherupinthetreethanBdoes，suchthatalinegoingonlydownwardsCanbetracedfromAtoB．Consequently,bindingisaspecialkindofc-commandwithCO—indexing．Thereisonemorethingtonote．Thatis，bindingisnotthesameasco·indexing．rnledefinitionofbindingisbasedonstructuralandmeaningrelationsbetweenrelatedelementsatthesametime，anditdemandsac-commandrelationshipbetweentheCO—indexedelements，butCO—indexingmerelyrequiresthesamereferringmeaningbetweenelements．As协asitscontentconcerned，theBindingtheoryiscomposedbythreeconditionsorprinciplesA，BandC，andeachofthemsummarizeswhereaspecifictypeofnounCanappearinsyntacticstructures：(a)Ananaphormustbeboundinalocaldomain．(b)Apronominalmustbefreeinalocaldomain．(C)R-expressions36 篁塾塑!里：!里竺：!坠!!堡垒!型!翌堡型竺坐一————————————————————————-—————————————————————————————————————一一mustbe疗eeeverywhere．AbindingdomainofanexpressionisactuallyitsgoverningcategorywhichisthelowestIPorDPincludingthatexpresslon·aspecifierandtheexpression’scase—licensinghead．So，theBindingtheoryisaboutthesyntacticconstraintsontheinterpretationofnounphrases·Inrespecttoemptycategories，Chomskyholdsthatthereisatightcorrespondencebetweenovertnounsandcovertones．BecausetheresearchtopicISaboutnullsubjects，thisthesisisgoingtodiscussaboutthereferringpropertiesofPROandpro．WhatfollowsaresomesentencesinwhichPROandproappear：(19)a．【Johni】wants[toPROiwin]．b。【Johni]promisedBill[toPROileave]．C．(pro)sonodiTorino．‘(I)alTlfromTurin．’Logically'theantecedentsofPROin(19a)and(19b)areboththesubjectJohnofthesentence，butthereferringmeaningofeachPROisdifferent．Thesentencer19a)canbeinterpretedasJohnwantshimselftowin，whilethesentence(19b)callbeparaphrasedasJohnpromisedBillthatJohnwillleave．Therefore，PROhas【+anaphor]bindingfeatureand【+pronominal】bindingfeatureatthesametime·AccordingtothePrincipleAandB，PROmustbefreeandboundinitsdomainatthesalTletime．Tosolvethisproblem，itissuggestedthatPROmustbeungovemed，whichisthecontentofthePROtheorem．Theonlyungovernedpositioninatreediagramisthesubjectpositionofanon—finiteclause．ThatiswhyPROisoftenseentobelocatedinthefrontofnon—finiteclauses．Ontheotherhand，the(19c)isanItaliansentencewiththesubjectbeingdropped，anditsEnglishcounterpartisontheright．ForItalians，theyCaninstinctivelydeducethatthemissingsubjectreferstothefirst-personsingularnominative／butnotareflexive．‘Soproonlyhasthefeature[+pronominal】andmustbefreeinitslocalgoverningcategory．2．4ControlTheoryControltheoryisawould-betheorythatdealswiththereferentialpropertiesofPRO．TaketheEqui-NPdeletionstructureforexample：37 ChapterTwoTheoreticalFramework(20)a．Johnwants[towin]．b．宰Johnwants[Johntowin]．C．Johnwants【toPROwin]．Thesurface—structure(20a)iswhatweoftenspeakorhearindailylife．InaccordancewiththeThetatheoryandtheProjectionPrinciple，itisderivedfromthedeep-structure(20b)wherethesemanticsubjectoftheinfinitivalclauseJohnisadded，butitisnotgrammaticallyacceptable．111esentence(20a)actuallycontainsasubjectcontrolconstruction．Controlisaconstructioninwhichtheunderstoodsubjectofagivenpredicate，especiallyverbs，isdependentonanotherexpressionincontext．Typically,asuper-ordinateverb‘controls’asubord【inatenon-finiteverb．Standardcontrolconstructionareillustratedbythefollowingsentences：(21)a．[Susani]promisedBill[toPROfhelp]．b．Weitried[toPROikeepquiet]．C．SusanaskedBill／[toPRO／stop]．Eachofthesesentencesincludestwoverbalpredicates，andthecontrolverbiSontheleftwhilethecontrolledverbontheright．necontrolverbdetermineswhichelementCanbeinterpretedasthecovertsubjectofthecontrolledinnon-finiteclauses，andtheargumentofthematrixpredicatethatCO-indexeswithPROintheembeddedclauseisthecontroller．SotheargumentsSusan，WeandBillwhicharemarkedwjiththemarkerfinthesesentencesaboveallarecontroller．TherearetwopairsofcomparisonsandonepropertyabouttheControltheorythatneedtobementioned．Thefirstoneisaboutthecontrolverb．Controlverbsallowaverbalcomplementandauxiliaryverbsalsodo，SOitisnecessarytOdifferen．tiatetheformerfromthelatter．Controlpredicatescontainsemanticcontentsandsemanticallyselecttheirarguments．Thatis，theappearanceofcontrolverbshasastronginfluenceonthenatureoftheargumentstheyCantake，andtheninfluencesthereferenceofPROinnon-finitecomplements．However,auxiliaryverbsdonotcontainsemanticcontentsandhavenoeffectontheselectionoftheirverbalcomplements．Comparethefollowingsentences：38 (22)a．Mickwillgo．b．Mickyearnstogo．Thesentence(22a)containsanauxiliaryverbwillthatdoesnotselectthesubjectargumentandanon．auxiliaryverbthatdeterminesthenatureofthesubjectargument．Thatis，theselectionofthepropernameMickisintendedforfulfillingthe廿lematicfeaturesoftheverbalpredicatego．Incontrast，thesentence(22b)alsocontains舸overbs，butitisthecontrolverbyearnsontheleftthatselectsthesubjectMiek．Toconclude。themostdistinguishingdifferencebetweencontrolverbsandauxiliaryverbsisthattheformerselectsthenatureofargumentsinmatrixclauses，whilethesamethingisdeterminedbyotherverbsexceptforauxiliaryverbs．ThesecondpairofcomparisonisaboutthedifferencebetweenControlandRaising．Bothofthemcontainverbalpredicateswithnon-finitecomplements．Controlpredicatesselecttheftsemanticarguments，whileraisingpredicatesdonotsemanticallyselect(atleast)oneoftheirarguments．Ingenerativegrammar,rammgpredicatesaremoreaccuratelycalledasraising-to—objectverbsorECMverbs(exceptionalcase-markingverbs)．Comparethefollowingsentences：(23)a．Leslieaskedyoutoreadit．(askedisacontrolverb．)b．Leslieexpectsyoutoreadit．(expectisaraising-to—objectverb．)Thecontrolpredicateasksemanticallyselectsitsobjectargumentyou，whereastheraising-to．objectverbexpectdoesnot．Instead，theobjectyouoftheraisingverbexpectseemstohave‘risen’fromthesubjectpositionoftheembeddedpredicateto坨口dff．Asamatteroffact，itistheembeddedpredicatereadthatsemanticallyselectstheargumentyouwhichfunctionsastheobjectofthematrixpredicate．Whatthismeansisthatraising-to—objectverbstakeastructuralobject，buttheyarenotresponsibleforthesemanticselectionoftheobject．Raisingisactuallyakindofsyntacticmovement．码elastonetobementionedisabouttheinterpretationofPROincontrolstrud[1Jr．e。Therearcdifferentkindsofcontrol：subjectVerSUSobjectcontrol，arbitraryVerSUSoptionalcontrol，obligatoryversusnon—obligatorycontrol，partialcontrolandimplicitcontr01．Typicalinstancesofeachkindofcontrolarcgivenasfollows：(24)a1．【Susanf】promisedBill【toPROihelp]．(subjectcontr01)39 ChapterTwoTheoreticalFrameworka2．SusanaskedBill／[toPRO／stop]．(objectcontr01)b1．Monicaknows[howtoPROarbbehaveoneselfinpublic]．(arbitrarycontr01)b2．[Monicai】knows[howtoPRO／behaveherselfinpublic]．(optionalcontr01)c1．[Monicai】tried[toPRO／disinvitehim]．(obligatorycontr01)c2．[Monicai]wasconfused．[EvenafterPROirevealingherinnermostfeelings]，herboyfriendremaineduntouched．(non·obligatorycontr01)e．Wethoughtthat[hei】wanted[toPRO／+meetintheoffice]．(partialcontr01)￡Itwasdecided[toPROleaveat4：00pm]．(implicitcontr01)．Eachkindofcontrolhasitsownreferencefeatures．ThenullsubjectPROofthenon-finiteclausesin(24al一2)CO-indexeswiththesubjectSusanandtheobjectBillofthematrixclauserespectively,althoughsyntacticstructuresofbothsentencesareseemlyidentical，andtheonlydifferencebetweenthemistohaveadifferentverbalpredicateinthematrixclause．In(24b1)，PROcansemanticallyrefertoanarbitraryperson，andthisisshownbytheadditionofabbreviatedindexarbintoPRO；PROin(24b2)obviouslyCO—indexeswitllthesubjectMonicaofthematrixclause，althoughthetwosentenceshavethesamesurfacestructureexceptforthereflexive．Moreover,thecomparisonsbetweenobligatorycontrolandnon-obligatorycontrol，partialcontrolandimplicitcontrolarealsocommon．ObligatorycontrolmeansthatthenullsubjectofinfinitiveconstructionsCanonlybesemanticallyinterpretedasanargumentoftheembeddingpredicate．In(24c1)，theinterpretationofPROCanonlybedependentonthesubjectMonicainmatrixclause．Instead，non—obligatorycontrolstatesthatthePROsubjectofsomestructuresCanbeinterpretedasnon-arbitrarybutnotcompletelycontrolledbythematrixsubject．Logically,theAgentoftheverbrevealin(24c2)isMonicaintheprecedingsentence．Thatis，theinterpretationofRPOisnotlimitedbytheverbalpredicateremaininthematrixclause．Partialcontroldealswiththephenomenonthat‘thematrixpredicateprovidesonlypartofthereferenceofthesubjectoftheinfinitivalclause’．(Landau，2000：56)Theactionofhavingameetingcannotberealizedbythesubjecthealone in(24e)．Onemorekindofcontrolistheimplicitcontrolwhichstatesthatanargumentseemsnottobesyntacticallyprojected．In(240，itisobviousthattheremustbesomeonetodotheactionofleaving，butthepersonisnotoven．2．5SummaryThischapterisintendedforintroducingrelatedtheoriesorprinciplesasthetheoreticalframeworksforthisthesis．ThesectionsofLexiconandThetaTheory,D／S。structureandX-bartheorysketchestheoutlineoftheprocessoflanguagegenerationinChomsky’Seyesandoffersausefulway—binarytreediagram—todescribesyntacticlevels．ThefollowingpartsarerelatedtothedistributionandreferenceofPROandpro．Basedonthe【+／一anaphor]bindingfeatureand【+／-pronominal】bindingfeature，theBindingtheorygrantstherationalityofthePROtheorem．ConsequenflgtheonlypositionwherePROCantakeplaceisthesubjectpositionofnon-finiteclauses，andtheControltheorydealswithhowtointerpretPROandsummarizesdifferentkindsofcontr01．Asforpro，thepremiseofitsexistenceisalSOdiscussed． ChapterThreeTheFinitenessVS．Non．finitenessDistinctionGenerativegrammarconnectstheappearanceofRPOwithnon．finiteclausesandtheoccurrenceofprowithfiniteclauses．Innature，theINFLcategorycontainsnniteonesandnon‘finiteones，anditistheirpropertiesthatdetenninewhichl(indofnullsubjectstheycancombinewith．Morespecifically,thefiniteINFLref．erStot11ecatego巧ofauxiliarywhichtakesinflectedverbalexpressionsasitscompleIllentsandcanbeargrammaticalproperties，suchasaspect，mood，tenseandvoice．Diversely,thenon-finiteINFLmainlyreferstotheinfinitiveparticle幻whichtakesalluninflectedverbformasitscomplementandhasadummysernaIlticrole．PROtheoremregulatesthatPROisrestrictedtothespecifierpositionoftheIPheadedbythenon-finiteINFLto。Nevertheless，proisalwaysfoundinthesubjectpositionofIPheadedbyfiniteauxiliaries．Withintheframeworkofgenerativegrammar,thefeatureofINFLinafiniteclauseischaracterizedby[+1’饥se]aIld[+AGR]，whilethatofanon．finiteclauseisdemonstratedby[-Tense]and[-AGR]There内re，the[+Tense]and【士AGR】featuresdeterminewhetheralangIlageisatensedlanguageornot．AccordingtoStrassen(2009)，aclassicalcriterionforthedisfinctionbe铆eenatensedlanguageandanon。tensedlanguageisbasedontensednesspar锄eter：ThedefinitionofthetensednessparameterIfalanguagehasagrammaticalcategoryoftense，which(i)ismorphologicallyboundOnverbs．and!ii)minimallyinvolvesadistinctionbetweenpastandnon-pasttimerefhence。mentllatlanguageiStensed．Inallothercases，alanguageisnon-tensed．(49)As(i)stipulates，allessentialconditiononatensedlanguageisthatⅡ1eremustbewaystomorphologicallyconveytheconceptoftimeinthatl觚guage，suchasadverbialphrases，auxiliaries，orparticles．Thecontentof(ii)isidenticalwiththerestrictivePastConditionwhichstatesthatasystemofinflectionisneededtomake42 thedifferencebetweenpasttimeandnon。pasttime·IfweapplyTensednessParameterintoChinese，ChineseCallonlybeanon-tensedlanguage，sinceitneitherhasamorphologicsystemofverbalinflectionstobindconceptoftime，norminimallyaccordswithPastCondition．Forex锄ple．theChineseverbphrasexiezuoye(domyhomework)itselfcannottellUSwhenthisactionofdoinghomeworkhappens．MaybeitmeansafutureactionInwoyaoxiezuoyen’mgoingtodomyhomework)orafinishedmatterinwoy习i飘gxiezuoyele(Ihavefinishedmyhomework)．AlthoughChinesefailstosatisfycriteriaofTensednessParameter,it1SstillarguedthatChinesedoeshaveaconvertwaytodistinguishfinitenessfromnon．finiteness．Andquiteafewlinguisticresearchersadvocatedifferenceb咖eenfiniteclausesandnon．finiteones，suchasJamesHuang(1984，1987，1989，1998[19821)，AndreyLi(1985，1990)，ShiYuzhi(2001a’2001b)，HuJianhua(1994，2001)andSOon．Innextsection，representativeviewsfororagainstsuchadistinctionfromrenownedscholarswillbecriticallyreviewed．3．1ModalsandAspectualMarkersJamesHuangarguesthat，althoughChinesehasnotamarkingsystemoftenseandagreement，therearestillotherwaystodifferentiatefiniteclausesfromnon．finiteones．Thewayheproposesispotentialappearanceofmodalsoraspectualmarkers，like／e(did)．Aclausewithamodalorallaspectualmarker1Safiniteone；otherwise，itisanon—finiteclause．Basedonrigorousobservationsandcarefulanalyses，HuangholdsthattherealemainlytwokindsofverbsinChinese：onekindofverballowsafinitecomPlement，suchasshuo(say)andxiangxin仇／／P叫；theother,comprisedbywhatiscalled“controlverbs”likezhunbei(prepare)，shefa(try)，quan(persuade)andbi(force)，onlytakesnon’finitecomplements．Thecomplementsfollowingfirstkindcanhavemodalverbsandaspectualmarkers，whilenon．finitecomplementsmodifyingsecondkindpfveg．bscannotcontainmodalverbsandaspectualmarkers．PROCanoccurincomplementsofsecondoneandworksassubjectsofthesenon‘finiteclauses·43 Toillustratehisargumentsmoreclearly,Huanggavetheseexamplesbdow(1998【1982]：29)：(26)憾WOzhunbeimingtian【PROlai】Iplantomorrowcome‘Iplantocometomorrow．’誊wozhunbeimingtian[PROhuilai】In(26)，thebracketedclausefunctionsasthecomplementoftheverbzhunbei(ptan)。Huanginsiststhatmodalscannotappearinit．Ifamodallikehui(will)occursinfrontoftheverb／ai(come)，thissentencewillnotbegrammatical，whichisillustratedbythesentencemarkedbyallasterisk．Sothenon—finitenessofthebracketedcomplementclausePROmingtianlai(toPROcometomorrow)andthenullsubjectstatusofRPOarcproved．AccordingtoHuang，zhunbeiisnottheonlycontrolverbavailable，andshefa(try)，quan(persuade)andbi(force)arealsoclassifiedintoit．ThefollowingsentencegivenbyHuangisquotedhere(1998【1982]：29)：(27)19WOquanZhangsan[PRObumaizhebenshu】IpersuadeZhangsannotbuythisbook：‘IpersuadeZhangsannottobuythisbook．’Huangarguesthatthebracketedclausein(27)isanon—finiteone，andPROfunctionsasitsnullsubject．IfHuang’Ssuggestionisthetruth，thentheembeddedclausecannotallowanaspectualmarkertoappear．However,itisnotthecase．SentenceslikeWOquanIrachilezhewanfan】IItrytopersuadehimtofinisheatingthisbowlofrice)Canbeheardindailyconversations．Thereisanaspectualmarker／e(whenusedafteraverboranadjectivetodescribeanactionhasbeenfinishedoraneventhasbeendone)inthebracketedclause,whichisagainstHuang’Sassumption．XuLiejiong(1985，1986，1994)disagreeswithHuang，andclaimsthatthereasonfortheungrammaticalityoftheasterisk·markedsentencein(26)shouldnotcomefromtherequirementofthenon．finitenessfeatureoftheembeddedclause，butfromthesemanticcontradictionbetweenthemodalverbhui(wilOandanarranged18．Itsays‘我准务l!}_l天来’inChinese．19．Itmeans‘我劝张三小买这本书’inChinese． event．ThemodalityofhuiinChinesecandenotenotonlyfuturitybutalsopossibilityanduncertainty．Forexample，inthesentenceqichehuilaima?fIsthebuscoming?)，theuseofhuiexpressestheuncertaintyofthecomingofthebus：whileinwomingtianhuilai口willcometomorrow)，theuseofhuinan．atesanlturepromiseofcoming．ForXu，thesemanticmeaningof五谢intheungrammaticallvasteriskedsentence毒WOzhunbeilPR0mingtiankil倥t{jistoexpressakindofpossibility,whichcontradictsthesemanticcertaintyoftheverbzhunbei(prepare)．Therefore,Xuholdsthatitisjustsuchasemanticcontradictionbutnotthef琶a1=ureofnon-finitenessoftheembeddedclausethatcausesthisclauseungrammaticaI．Intheauthor’sopinion，thereasonXuhasgivenisnotconvincingelloughtoexplaintheungrammaticalityoftheasteriskedsentence；conversely,itiustlegislatesthenon-finitenessfeatureoftheembeddedcomplement．ThemodalhuiinCtfineseisjustanauxiliaryexpressingpossibilityandfuturity,andisnotallowedtoappearinnon-finiteclauses．Forthisreason，thefactthattheappearanceofthemodalverbJil“fintheembeddedcomplementcausesthisclausetobeungrammaticalisexacnvt0provethenon-finitestatusofthisembeddedclause．SotheargumentofXufailstostand．Interestingly,itisobservedthatsomemodalsoraspectualmarkersareallowedtoappearinembeddedcomplementsoftheSO—called‘controlverbs’(YLi，1985；Xu，1994)．Havealookatthefollowingexamples：(28)a．川wozhunbeimingtain[PROyaokaichuta]Iplantomorrowwillfirehim‘Iplantofirehimtomorrow．’b．21,WOzhunbeimigntian[PROhuikaichuta】Iplantomorrowpossiblyfirehim宰‘Iplantopossiblyfirehimtomorrow’．Whenthemodalhuiin(28b)isreplacedbythemodalyaoin(28a)，thesentencebecomesaccepted·Why?TheoptionalreasongivenbyY．-H．A．Li(1985，1990)isthatonlythosemodalsthathavebecometensemarkersCandistinguishfiniteclauses20．Itstates‘我准备明天要开除他’inChineSe．21．Itstates‘我准备明天会开除他’inChineSe．45 fromnon‘finiteones．NotallmodalsoraspectualmarkersaretensemarkersWhichcanfreelyappearinfiniteclauses．Forexample，thegrammaticalityof(28a)refutesthetensemarkerfeatureofyao．Onemightarguethatonlyhuiisatensemarkerandyaoisjustamodal．HuJianghua，PanHaihuaandXuleijongarguein／sthereafiniteVS．nonfinitedistinctioninChinese?’that，bothhuiandyaoarefuturetensemarkers，buthavedifferentmeaningswhenusedtodenotefuturity．(2001：12．18)‘'Huiisusedtodenoteanobjectivefuturityorpossibility,butyaoisusedtodenoteasubjectivefuturityandpossibility．”(Xu，1994：323)Inotherwords，huihasastrongfeatureoffuturityandyaohasaweakfeatm'e，therefore，huiisonlyallowedinafiniteclause，whileyaoCanappearinanon—finiteclause．Actually,thisthesisagreeswithsuchasuggestion．InEnglish，thenon—finitecomplementsofverbsalwaysimplythattheactionexpressedbythenon-finitecomplementwillhappeninthefuture．Forexample，inthesentence1wanttobecomeateacher,therealizationofthisdreammustcometrueinthefuture．Followingthisline，itmaybeaskedthatwhyyaoCannotbetakenasaweakmarkerthatexpressesthefuturityfeatureinthoseembeddedsyntacticstructureslike(28a)．Ifthissuggestionisproved，theappearanceofyaointheseembeddedclausescanbeexplained．NowhavealookatthefollowingChinesesentences：(29)a．“moyaoqingxinjieqianhuangyannotbelieveborrowmoneylie‘Don’tbelievethelieofborrowingmoney．’b．z’moqingxinjieqianhaungyannotbelieveborrowmoneylie‘Don’tbelievethelieofborrowingmoney．’The(29a)and(29b)expressthesamemeaningofbeingcarefulnottobecheatedbythelieofborrowingmoney，butthedifferencebetweenthemliesintheappearanceofyao．Theauxiliaryyaoisomittedin(29b)withoutcausingtheincompletionofthesentencemeaning．22．Itmeans‘莫要轻信借钱谎言’inChinese．23．Itmeans‘莫轻信借钱谎言’inChinese． ChapterThreeTheFinitenessVS．Non．finitenessDistincfionBasedonthesediscussions，thisthesiscomestothisconclusionthatJamesHuang’SassumptionofmodalsandaspectualmarkerforthefinitenessVS．non．finitenessdistinctionisnottenableenough．3．2ThePrincipleofOne—dimensionalityofTimeShiYuzhisuggeststherearetwodifferentwaystounderstandtheconceptsoffinitenessandnon．finiteness：oneisunderstoodinabroadsenseandtheotherinan，arrowsense．Narrowlyspeaking，itisheldthatChinesehasnotarichmorphologicalsystemofinflectionstoshowtense，agreementandSOon．Therefore，Chinesedoesnotdistinguishfiniteverbsfromnon—finiteverbsinanarrowway．However,Shiarguesthat，broadlyspeakingtheremustexistsomewaystodifferentiatetheseverbsasthepredicatesofclausesfromthoseonesascomplementsofthesepredicates．Thesematrixclausesinwhichpredicatesappeararefiniteones，whilethosecomplementclausesinwhichotherverbsexceptforpredicatesoccurarenon．finite．ShiYuzhicognitivelydealswiththedistinctionbetweenfinitenessandnon．finiteness．Affectedbytheprincipleofonedimensionalityoftime，Shipositsthatevenifthereisastringofactionsorverbshappeningatthesametimemeasured，thegrammaticalfeaturesrelatedtothatparticulartime，suchastenseandaspect，Canonlybedemonstratedbyonespecificactionorverb．ConsideringthetensefeatureoffiniteclausesandtheHa．inflectionalfeatureofnon-finiteclauses，Shiarguesthatclausesheadingbypredicatescanbetakenasfiniteones，whilethoseheadingbyotherverbalphrasesarenon—finite．Everylanguagemusthaveacertainwaytoexpresstheconceptoftime．JensAllwood(2002)hasmadealistoflinguisticmeanstoexpresstheconceptoftime，namelyaffix，morphemechangebetweenbasicformsofverbs，reduplication，adverbsoftime，intonationandbodymovement．Specifically,allthesemeanshesuggestedcouldbedividedintotwokinds：oneissyntacticandtheotherispragmatic．AsforEnglish．thewaystoexpresstimebyaffix，morphemechangeand47 reduplicationareusuallyfoundinfiniteverbs，andtherearethreekindsofnon·finiteverbs：infinitive，participleandgerund．Infact，allthesethreeformsofverbsareappliedtoeliminatethetemporalqualitiesoftheactionstheyexpress．Shiformulatessuchanideawiththefollowingexamples(2009：54)：(30)a．Hemovedthetableyesterday．b．TomovethetableiSdi瓶cult．C．Movingthetableisdifficult．d．Themovingofthetableisdifficult．In(30a)，theaffix一例daftertheverbmovetellsUSthattheactionofmovingthetableisdoneyesterday,butneithertodaynortomorrow．In(30b，C，d)，theinfinitivalphrasetomovethetable，theparticlephrasemoving砌etableandthegerundphrasethemovingof砌etabledescribeanactionofmovingatable，whilethetimeatwhichsuchanactionhappensisimpliedbythepredicateis．Similarly,Chinesedosehaveitswaystodistinguishpredicatesfromotherverbs，andShisuggeststhatChineseuseaspectualmarker／eandguoandofpredicatestodifferentiatefiniteclausesfromnon-infiniteones．Ifso，theappearanceofaspectualmakersorbecomesthedeterminingfeatureoffiniteclauses．TherealesomeexamplesShigivestoexplainhispointofview,andsomeofthemarealittlerevised(2009：60)：(31)a．24wokanle／guotatiqiu1watchASPhimplayfootball‘1watchedhimplayfootball．’b．木WOkantatile／guoqiu1watchhimplayfootball‘事1watchhimplayedfootball．’C．25WOkanlekantatiqiu1watchASPwatchhimplayfootball‘1watchedhimplayfootballforawhile．’d．*WOkantatiletiqiu24．Itmeans‘我看过／了他踢球’inChinese．25．Itmeans。我看了看他踢球’inChinese．48 ChapterThreeTheFinitenessVS．Non—finitenessDistinction1watchhimplayASPplayfootball‘木1watchhimplayedfootballforawhile．’Shiarguesthatthederivations(31a)and(31c)aregrammaticalwhilethe(3lb)and(31d)not，becausetheverbalphrasetiqiu(prayfootball)inthecomplementclauseCallnotCO-occurwith／eorguoandCannotbereduplicated．Therefore，Shiclaimsthatthematrixclauseisafiniteclauseandthecomplementclauseisanon．finiteone．However,thisthesisdoesnotagreewithShiabouthiscriteriontodistinctthefinitenessfromnon—finiteness．Actually,thesentences(31b)and(31d)canbeheardorspokenindailylife．Forexample，whensomeoneaskswhetheryouhavewatchedafootballstarplayfootball，youmayreplywiththesentence(31b)WOkantatiguoqiu．111eobviousdifferencebetween(31a)and(31b)isthepositionofaspectualmarkersleorguo．Meanwhile．whensomeoneasksyouwhatyouhavedonewimZhaopinglastweekend，youmayanswerWOkantatiletiqiu．Therefore，Shi’Ssuggestionaboutthedistinctionbetweenfinitenessandnon—finitenessisnotperfect，buttheprincipleofonedimensionalityoftimedoesconfirmtheexistenceofthefinitenessversusnon．finitenessdistinctioninhumanlanguages．3．3HuJianhua’sCriterionAnotherproponentofthedistributionoffinitenessVerSUSnon-finitenessiSHuJianhua．Hecomesupwiththefollowingwaytomeasureanon—finiteclause．Aclauseisjudgedasanon-finiteclause，whenandonlywhenitssubjectpositionsatisfiesthefollowingtwoconditionsatthesamet．ime：(i)ThesubjectpositionisaO-position；(ii)ThesubjectpositionCannotbelexicalized．(1997：76)Accordingtogenerativegrammar,a0-positionisonetowhicha0-roleisassigned．Ontheprocessof0-marking，0-positionsarelimitedbythesisterhoodcondition．Thatistosay,0-rolestransferredfromapredicatetoitsargumentsCanonlybeassignedtosisters--thesisterofaheadforinternal0-rolesandthesisterofX’forexternal0-roles．All0-positionsarecertainlyA-positions(Argumentposition)．49 AccordingtoHu，scriterion，thereareonlytwostepsneededtodistinguish6nitedauses舶mnon．finiteones．ThefirststepistofindoutthespecifierpositionofIPandVPinameasuredsentence，andthesecondstepistotestwhetherthesespecificrpositionscanbelexicalized，becausethesecondconditionclaimstllatthesubiectofafiniteclauseislexicalandthatofanon‘finiteclauseshouldnotbelexicalized．F0rexample，onlytheembeddedclausein(34c)isanon-丘mteone：(32)a．[Alecwatched]TVwithHelen·b．Btseems]thatSarahhasleft．C．1want【tostay]In(32a)，thespecifierpositionoflPheadedby’edisoccupiedbyalexicalnoun彳zec．soitisnotanon．finiteclause．In(32b)，thelexicalitemseemdoesnotS-selectaIlar舀脚肌t，andthedummyexpletive／tisrequiredbytheExtendedProjectionPfinciple．Tllerefore，(32b)doesnotmeetthetwoconditionsabove·In(32c)，ontheonehand，thelexical耐巧s缈asksforanargumenttobetheAgentoftheactlonotst嘶nginthespecifierpositionofVEOntheotherhand，thed锄孤dedAg叫c觚notbeleXicalized．Ifnot，itwillbeJwant口tostay]whichisnot撤印tedbYEnglishSpeakerS．Sotheembeddedclausetostaymeetsthetwoconditions，a11d1sanon-fimteone．Doesthis嘶t耐onworkeffectivelyinChineseaswell?HuillustratesseVeralChineseeX锄plestomakesurethatthiscriterionCanalsobeusedtodistin嘶sh觚teclauses舶mnon．finiteonesinChinese．Whatfollowsarehisevidences：(Hu，1997：89)(33)a．26Zhaopingshefa【PRObuchouyan】Zhaopingtry[RPOnotsmoke]‘Zhaopingtries[toquitsmoking]．’b．*Zhaopingshefa[tabuchouyan]‘*Zhaopingtries[himtoquitsmoking]·’Thesemanticfeaturesoftheverbchou(smoke)needanargumenttocarrytheAgentrole．However,thesubjectpositionoftheembeddedclause妇c办D彬"f幻删Jm。舫删is唧ty．IfPROisreplacedbyanovertlexicalwordhimlike(33b)，261tmeans·赵j1￡设法不抽烟’inChinese． ChapterThreeTheFinitenessVS．Non-finitenessDistinctionthesentenceZhaopingtries【himtoquitsmoking]becomesunaccepted．Forthisreason，HuJianhuainsiststhatthereexistnon-finiteclausesinChineseandthecriterionhesuggestscanbeusedtodosuchadistinction．3．4ANewCriterionSofar,adetailedliteraturereviewiscriticallypresented．Here，thisthesiswillhypothesizeanewcriteriontodifferentiatefinitenessfromnon-finitenessinChinese．Firstly,thisthesisagreeswithShi’Scognitiveconceptoftime．Everylanguagemustfinditswaystoexpresstemporalinformation，andonlytheverbphrasesresponsiblefortheexpressionoftimeCanbefinite．AsfaraSChinesewithoutarichsystemofinflectionsconcerned，thisthesispositsthattheappearanceoftimeadverbials，suchaszhiqian(before,ago)andyijing(already)，isonlyfoundinfiniteclauses．Inotherwords，anon-finiteclausedoesnotallowtimeadverbialstooccurwithinit．Moreover,anotherconditionanon-finiteclausemustmeetisthatthephoneticlackofsubjectCannotbelexicalized．Tosumup，verbphrasesinaChinesefiIliteclausecanco．occurwithtimeadverbials；meanwhile，anon-finiteclauseCannotcontainatimeadverbialandthecovertsemanticsubjectwithinitcannotbelexicalized．WhatfollowsareevidencestocheckthefeaSibilityofthisassumption．(34)a．27woanpaixiaowang【PROwanchengzhexiangrenwu】IaskXiaowangfinishthistask‘IaskXiaowang[toPROfinishthistask]’b．WOyijinganpaixiaowang【PROwanchengzhexiangrenwu]already‘IhavealreadyaSkedXiaowang[toPROfinishthistask]’C．WOanpaixiaowang[PROwanchengzhexiangrenwu】‘木IaSkforXiaowang【XiaowangtofinishthistaSk]．’d．WOanpaixiaowang[PROyijingwanchengzhexiangrenwu]already‘宰IaskforXiaowang[tohavefinishedthistask]．’27．Itmeans‘我安排小下完成这项任务’inChinese． ChapterThreeTheFinitenessVS．Non-finitenessDistinctionTherearetwoverbsanpai(askfo砂andwancheng(finish)in(34a)．Basedontheassumptionproposedbythisthesis，theembeddedclausecontainingwanchengisanon—finiteone，whilethematrixclauseincludinganpaiisafiniteone．Whenthetimeadverbialyijingisaddedtotheverbanpaiinthematrixclause，theresultingsentence(34b)isacceptedinChinese；theinsertionofyi，ingintotheverbwanchenginthecomplementclauseinthe(34d)isnotgrammatical．Meanwhile，thelexicalizationoflogicsubjectXiaowanginthecomplementclausewanchengzhexiangrenwucausestheresultingsentence(34c)ungrammatical．Therefore，thenewcriterionputforwardbythisthesisiseffective．Basedonthenewcriterion，thisthesissummarizesfourtypicalkindsofnon-finiteconstructionsinChinese，namelythepivotalstructure，theverbalcomplementstructure，theserialverbstructureandtheverbalsubjectstructure．ThetypicalpivotalstructureCanbedescribedasNPI+、甲l+NP2+IP(PRO+VP2)．ItiSassumedthatthematrixclauseiSfinitewhiletheIPincludingPROandVP，iSanon-finite．Takethefollowingsentenceforexample：(35)a．2SmamayaoqiuZhaoping[PROxiwan】MumaskZhaopingdothedishes‘MumasksZhaopingtodothedishes．’b．mamayijingyaoqiuZhaoping【PROxiwan]already‘MumhasaskedZhaopingtodothedishes．’C．枣mamayaoqiuZhaoping【PROyijingxiwan]already木‘MumasksZhaopingtohavedonethedishes．’d．mamayaoqiuZhaoping[Zhaopingxiwan]木‘MumasksZhaopingto[Zhaopingdothedishes]．’In(35a)，therearetwoverbsyaoqiuinthematrixclauseandxiwaninthecomplementclause．Whenthetimeadverbialy／j／ngisinsertedintothematrixclauseandthecomplementclauseofVP!respectively,theresultingsentence(35b)isaccepted，butthe(35c)isungrammatical．Itisinstinctivelyunderstoodthattheaction28．Itmeans‘妈妈要求赵平饭后洗碗’inChinese．52 ChapterThreeTheFinitenessVS．Non—finitenessDistinctionofdoingthedishesisdonebyZhaoping．However,whenthephoneticallynullsubjectofthecomplementclauseislexicalized，theresultingsentence(35d)isnotgrammatical．So，itcanbesaidthatthematrixclauseinapivotalstructureisfinite，andthecomplementclauseIPisnon—finite．ThetypicalverbalcomplementstructureCanbedescribedasNP+VPl+IP(PRO+VP2)．Inthisconstruction，VPIisfinitewhileVP2not．Comparethefollowingsentences：(36)a．29jianhuakaishi[PROxuexideyu]JianhuastartlearnGerman‘JianhuastartstolearnGerman．’b．Jianhuayijingkaishi[PROxuexideyu】already‘JianhuahasalreadylearnedGerman．’C．幸Jianhuakaishi[RPOyijingxuexideyu】already私JianhuastartstoalreadylearnGerman．’d．Jianhuakaishi【Jianhuaxuexideyu】杉Jianhuastarts【JianhuatolearnGerman]．Similarlytothepivotalconstruction，theinsertionofatimeadverbialyijingdistinguishesthefiniteverbkaishifromthenon-finiteverbxuexi．ThetypicalserialverbstructureCanbedescribedasNP+VPl+IP(PRO+VP2)：(37)a．30Jianhuaqushangchang[PROmai姐fIl】Jianhuagotomarketbuyclothes‘Jianhuagoestomarkettobuyclothes．’b．Jianhuayijingqushangchang【PROmaiyifule】already‘Jianhuahasalreadygonetomarkettobuyclothes．’C．半Jianhuaqushangchang[PRO弼ingmaiyifu】already29．Itmeans‘建华开始学习德语’inChinese．30．Itmeans‘建华去商场买衣服’inChinese．53 木‘Jianhuagoestomarkettoalreadybuyclothes．’d．Jianhuaqushangchang【Jianhuamaiyi蜘私Jianhuagoestomarket[Jianhua]tobuyclothes．，Nomatterwhetherthetimeadverbialyijingisinsertedintothematrixclause．theresulting(37b)isstillacceptable．However,whenyijingiscombinedwiththesecondverbphrasemaiyifu，theresultingsentencebecomesungrammatical．Accordingtothecriterionforthedistinctionbetweenfinitenessandnon．finitenessproposedbythisthesis，itCanbeinferredthatVPlisfinitewhileVP2isinf．mite．ThetypicalverbalsubjectstructureCanbedescribedas(PRO+VP1)IP+VP2+NP．Inthisstructure，VP!inIPisnon．finiteandPROappearsinIP：(38)a．儿[PROxiyan]youhaijiankangsmokehannfulhealth‘TosmokeiSharmfultohealth．’b．*jiangyaoxiyanyouhaijiankangwill奉‘Towillsmokeisharmfultohealth．，C．xiyanjiangyaoyouhaijiankang．will‘Tosmokewillbeharmfultohealth．，TheinsertionoftimemarkerjiangyaointoIPleadstotheungrammaticalsentence(38b)，whilethesamethingdoesnothappentothesentence(38c)．Inthisregard，itisindicatedthatxiyanisanon-finiteverbwhiletheverbphrase1，D“hafjiankangiSafiniteone．3．5SummaryThischapterhashandledwiththemostcontroversialtopicaboutChinesenullsubjects--whetherthefinitenessVerSUSnon．finitenessdistinctionexistsinChinese．FromJamesHuangtoHuJianhua，differentscholarsexpressdiverseevenoppositeopinionsaboutthisdebate．Basedontheiranalyses，thisthesissuggestsitsownway31．Itmeans‘吸烟有害健康’inChinese． ChapterThineTheFinitenessVS．Non-finitenessDistinctiontodistinctfiniteclausesfromnon．finiteonesandgivessomeconcreteexamplestoprovideevidencesinfavorofthisassumption．ThetentativecriterionstatesthatfiniteverbphrasesCanCO—occurwithtimeadverbials；instead．anon—finiteelauseCannotcontainatimeadverbialandthecovertlysemanticsubjectwiminitCannotbelexicalized．Inaddition．thisthesisclassifiesfourtypicalkindsofnon．finiteconstructionsinChineseonthebasisofthenewcriterion．55 ChapterFourTheDistributionandReferenceofChineseNullSubjectsFourTheDistributionandReferenceofChineseNullSubjectsThedistinctionbetweenfinitenessandnon-finitenessinChinesehasbeendiscussedinthepreviouschapter．Anewcriterionisputforwardandthetypicalnon—finiteconstructionsareclassified．ThischapterwillfurtherdiscussthedistributionandinterpretationofPROandprointhetypicalfournon-finiteconstructionsandfiniteclausesrespectively．4．1TheDistributionandReferenceofChinesePRo4．1．1PROinthePivotalStructureThetypicalpivotalstructureCanbedescribedasNPl+VPI+NP2+IP(PRO+VP2)．Inthisconstruction，VPIisfinitewhileVP2isnon-finite，whichisprovedbytheThree．AccordingtotheThetatheory,thesemanticfeaturesofthesecondVP2requireatleastoneargumenttofunctionasitssubject．Therefore，itCanbeassumedthattherequiredsubjectargumentisPRO．TakethesentenceWOanpaiXiaowanglPR0wanchengzhexiangrenwu](1askforXiaowang[toPRO彝mShthistask])forexample，Figure4．1istodescribethesyntaeriestructureofthesentence：／＼：I，／＼我／＼VIPl／＼NPVP裂xi士’P牮套56 Thetreedia酉锄showsthatthepositionwherePROislocatedisthesubjectpositionofthenon-finiteembeddedclausewanchengzhexiangrenwu·That1Stosay,thetypicalpositionwherePROOccursisinthefrontofVP2inapivotalcons吼ctlon·Hows110uldweinterpretPROinthisconstruction?Byinstinct，weseethatPROref砸totheobjeCtNP2ofthematrixclause．Thatis，PROhasanobjectcontmlinthepivotals缸1Jctll玎e，Ⅵ晒ChisdemonstratedbythesameindexbetweenPROandtheobject胁owanginFigure4．1．DoesPROhaveonlyonekindofinterpretatlonmthisconstruction?Considersomemoresentences：(39)a．S2Zhaopingdayingmamaxiawu[PROzuogongke】ZhaopingpromiseMumthisafternoondothehomeworkZhaopingpromisedMumtodothehomeworkthisafternoon·b．33MamadayingZhaopingzhoumo【PROguangdongwuyuanjthisweekendgotoZOOtM咖haSpromisedZhaopingthathe／theywillgotoZOOthisweekend·’Boththes鳅encesin(39)aresubjecttotypicalpivotalconstructlons·Nevertheless，thePROin(38a)iscontrolledbytheobjectZhaopinginthematrixclause。whichisanobjectcontr01．Incontrast，theantecedentofPROmaybeZh口opingor劢口opingandmama．WhatcausesthereferenceofPROin仰osenteIlcesdi琢玎ent?HuangYan(1992)arguesthatthesentence(39b)isinnatureno‘apivotalstructurebutanexceptionallyverbalcomplements缸1lctllre·Toconclusion，PROoftenoccursinthesubjectpositionofIPinthepivotalcons仃uctionaIldischaracterizedbyobjectcontr01．However,somettmesitcanretertothesubjectandobjectinthematrixclauseatthesametime·4．1．2PROintheVerbalComplementStructureT11etypicalverbalcomplementstructureCanbedescribedasNP+VPl+IP(PRO+W'2)．Inthisconstructi。n，thematrixclauseisafiniteclause，whiletheembeddedclauseisanon—finiteone．AccordingtotheThetatheory,thesemanticfeatllresofmesecondVP2requireatleastoneargumenttofunctionasitssubject32．ItmeanSt·赵平答应妈妈下午做功课”inChinese．33．ItmeanS“妈妈答应赵’l‘月末逛公园”inChinese·57 whichismissinginthesurfacestructure．Therefore，itcallbeassumedthatPROworksasthesubjectoftheembeddedclause．TakethesentenceJianhuakaishi[PROxuexideyu](Jianhuastarts[toPROlearnGerman])forexample，Figure4．2istodescribethesyntacticstructureofthissentence：IP／＼IP’／＼VP／＼Vkaishi开始XUeX学习德语ThetreediagramvividlydeclaimsthatthepositionwherePROoccursisthesubjectpositionofthenon-finiteembeddedclausexuexiaeyu，andPROCO—indexeswiththematrixsubjectJianhua．Itisasubjectcontr01．Asamatteroffact，thereismorethanonekindofcontrolinverbalcomplementconstructions：(40)a．341aoshitongyi[PROmingtianjiaojuanzi】teacherallowtomorrowhandinthepaper‘Theteacherallows(thestudents)tohandinthePapertomorrow．’b．"zhuxihaozhao[PROdalituiguangputonghua】chairmancalltovigorouslypopularizeMandarin‘ThechairmancallstovigorouslypopularizeMandarin．’c．MamadayingZhaopingzhoumo【PROguangdongwuyuan】MumpromiseZhaopingthisweekendgotoZOO‘MumhaspromisedZhaopingthathe／theywillgotoZOOthisweekend．’ThePROin(40a)takesimplicitstudentstobeitsantecedent，foritisacommon34．Itmeans‘老师同意明天交卷子’inChinese．35．Itmeans‘主席火力号召推广普通话’inChinese．58PⅦ#胛_|；|iTJ＼／，＼／＼夕。m，／pl她影l～ ChapterFourTheDistributionandReferenceofChineseNullSubjectssensethatstudentshandinpapersandteachersalwaysreadthem．In(40b)，PROhasanarbitrarycontroller．In(400，theantecedentofPROmaysimultaneouslybethesubjectmamaandobjectZhaopinginthematrixclause．So，theinterpretationofPROintheverbalcomplementconstructionisofcomplexity．Thesubjectcontrol，implicitcontrol，arbitrarycontrolandpartialcontrolofPROallcanhappentothisstructure．4．1．3PROintheSerialVerbStructureThetypicalserialverbstructureCanbedescribedasNP+VPl+IP(PRO+VP2)．VPlisafiniteverbwhileVP2isanon-finiteone．Thetatheoryregulatesthattheremustbeacovertargumentinthesubjectpositionoftheembeddedclause，SOthatthesecondVP2Canassignathematicroletothenullsubject．There内re，itCanbeassumedthatPROappearsinthispositiontofulfilltherequirementoftheThetatheory．HavealookatthesentenceJianhuaqushangchanglPR0maiyifu](Jianhuagoestomarket[toPRObuyc／othes])，anditssyntacticstructureisshownbyFigure4．3：／＼／IP’NPJianhua，建华，／＼／VP／＼NPVP，／＼VIP／qushan毫changNIP去商场PRo，＼IP，买衣月艮ThetreediagramillustratesthatthepositionwherePROappearsisthesubjectpositionofthenon-finiteembeddedclausemaiy弘，andPROCO-indexeswiththe59厂 ChapterFourTheDistributionandReferenceofChineseNullSubjectsmatrixsubjectJianhua．Thatistosay,theantecedentofPROisthesubjectinthematrixclause．Moreover,PROinthisconstructionhasotherwaysofinterpretation：(41)的laoshidailingxueshengmen[PROcanguanQinghua】teacherleadstudentsvisittheQinghuaUniversity‘TheteacherleadsthestudentstovisittheQinghuaUniversity．’In(41)，thepeoplewhovisitQinghuaincludenotonlythematrixobjectxueshengmenbutalsothematrixsubjectlaoshi，whichisapartialcontr01．Therefore，PROintheserialverbconstructionhastwowaysofreferenceavailable．Itcanbecontrolledbythematrixobjectaloneorbyboththematrixsubjectandthematrixobject．4．1．4PROintheVerbalSubjectStructureThetypicalverbalsubjectstructurecanbedescribedas(PRO+VPI)IP+VP2+NP：Inthisstructure，VPlinIPisnon—finiteandtheThetatheoryisstillapplicabletothisstructure．ConsiderthesentencelPROxiyan]youhaijiankang([PROtosmoke]括harmfultohealth)．anditssyntacticstmctureisdisplayedbyFigure4．4：IP／＼／IP，NP／＼I／＼／VPPROI＼IPl＼VP／＼youhaijiangkan有害健康ItCanbeseenfromthetreediagramthatPROoccupiesthesubjectpositionofIP,andtheantecedentofPROisarbitrary．Insometimes，PROCanCO-refertothe36．Itmeans‘老师带领学生们参观清华’inChinese．＼／／了黼 ChapterFourTheDistributionandReferenceofChineseNullS——ubjectsNPfollowingVP2：(42)37[PROxiyan]youhaitadejiankangsmokeharmfulhishealth‘Tosmokeisharmfultohishealth．’4．2TheDistributionandReferenceofChinesepro4．2．IChineseasapro-dropLanguageThephenomenonofproisusuallyfoundinapro-droplanguage．Apro·droplanguageallowsfinitenull-subjectdeclarativesentences，whileanon—pro—droplanguage，likeEnglish，doesnot．AccordingtoChomsky(1981，1982)，thedistributionofproisdeterminedbytheprincipleofrecoverability,whichissimilartoJaeggli’S(1982)‘identificationhypothesis’．Thatis，acertainpronouncoulddropfromaspecificsyntacticstructureonlyiftherelatedpropertiesofitsreferenceCanberegainedfromotherelementswithinthesamestructure．Specifically,thereasonwhyItalianallowstheappearanceofproinafiniteclauseisthattheagreementmarkingoffiniteverbsinitisrichenoughtobeabletorecovernecessaryinformationaboutthecovertsubject，suchastheperson，numberand／orgender．TaketheItaliansentenceSonodiTorinoforexampleagain，itsD-structureshouldbeprosono历Torino．Duetothegrammaticalfeaturesoftheverbsono，itiseasilyinterpretedthatthemissingsubjectofsuchafiniteclauseisthefirst-personsingularnominativeI．Followingthisline，itCanbepredictedthatnotonlythesubjectCandropfromafiniteclause，butalsotheobjectCanalsobephoneticallymissingwhentheagreementrelationshipbetweenverbsandrelatedobjectsisalsosufficientlyrich．ConsideringthefollowingsentencesgivenbyLarryL．LaFondinhisbookThepro-dropParameter觑SecondLanguageAcquisitionRevisited．"ADevelopmentalAccount．(200l：13)Bothofthetwosentencescontainanullsubjectpro．(25)a．prohapiovuto(Italian)b．prohallovido(Spanish)prohasrain．ed37．Itsays’吸烟有害他的健康’inChinese． 。(It)hasrained．’Earlyproposalsregardingpro·droplanguagesstatethatacertainlanguagecannotbeconsideredasapro—droplanguageunlessithasarichsystemofagreement．Rizzi(1982)claimsthatthedifferencebetweenapro—droplanguageandanon-pro-droplanguageliesinthefactthatapro—droplanguagehasverbalinflections．Theseverbalinflectionsarespecifiedwitha[+pronoun]feature，whichmal(estherecoveryofnumberandpersonfeaturesofpropossible．TheassumptionCanbedisplayedbyFigure2．5：／＼＼NPfpnqFL’／＼＼A锨cliticTenseVPHowever,arichsystemofinflectionisnotnecessaryfortheexistenceofpro．Chineseiswell—knownforthelackofasystemofinfelction，yetitdoespermittheoccurrenceofpro．Forinstance，someoneasksyouZhangsankantianDajunlema?(DidZhangsanseeDajun?)，andyoumayanswerkantianle(He3awhim)．Tocapturethisphenomenon，JaeggliandSafir(1989)postulatetheMorphologicalUniformity．Themorphologicaluniformitystatesthatpro．dropCanoccurineitheronlytill-derivedinflectionalformsoronlyderivedinflectionalforms．ItalianandSpanishhavecompletelyderivedsystemofinflections，SOtheyarepro—droplanguages；EnglishandFrenchlackmorphologicaluniformity．However,Chinesedoesnothavearichsystemofagreement，howshouldwerealizetherecoverabilityofpro?Differentscholarsexpressdifferentevenoppositepointsofview．SomescholarsareforthestatementofChinesebeingapro—droplanguage，whileothersnot．James62 ChapterFourTheDistributionandReferenceofChineseNullSubjectsHuang(1989)in‘尸m—dropinChinese：AGeneralizedControlTheory’arguesthatChineseisapro—droplanguage．Hepostulatesthat，althoughitiscommonthatanacceptablepro—droplanguagehasarichsubject-verbagreementsystem，itisactuallythefeatureoffinitenessinasentencethatdeterminesthedistributionofproacrosslanguages．Huang’Sopinionaboutthefinitenessversusnon—finitenessdistinctionhasbeenreviewedbefore，andhiscriterionforidentifyingthepositionwhereprocanappearstatesthat‘Ifthesubjectofaclauseisobligatorilynull．thentheclausecannotcontainanelementofAUX’(Huang，1989：23)．Thatistosay,thepermissionofproinChineseiscloselyconnectedwiththeoccurrenceofmodals．Accordingtothisproposal，thelackofarichsystemofagreementinChinesedoesnotpreventitfrombeingapro—droplanguage．DifferentfromItalianorSpanish，Chinesehasitsownwaytodeterminetheoccurrenceofproindifferentclauses．Huangillustrateshisopinionswimthefollowingsentences(1984：54)：(43)弱Mengtianshuo[prolaile]．Theaspectualmarker／eintheembeddedclausedemonstratesthatitisafinitesentencewithoutanovertsubject．Thedeletionofthesubjectdoesnotcausetheunderstandingofthisembeddedclauseimpossible。Instinctively,themissingsubjectCanrefertothematrixsubjectMengtianorsomeoneelse．Instead，theEnglishcorrespondingofthisembeddedclausemustcontainanovertsubject，becausetheaspectualmarker／ewillrequireanovertsubject．Therefore，Chineseisapro—droplanguage．Tothecontrary,HuangYanclaimsthatthereisnoproinChinese．Accordingtothepro-dropparameterintheGovernmentandBindingtheory,proisusuallylicensedbyanovertlyintra-sententialsystemofsubject-verbagreement，SOChinesehasnopro．ButitdoesnotmeanthatChinesedoesnotallowtheomissionofsubjectsorobjects．ThisthesisarguesthatChineseisapro-droplanguage．TheMorphologicalUniformityproposedbyJaeggliandSafir(1989)hasbeenintroduced．TheMorphologicalUniformitystatesthatthedropofproCanoccurineitheronlyan—derivedinflectionalformsoronlyderivedinflectionalforms．Hence，theproblem38．Itstates‘蒙恬说来J，’inChinese．63 ChapterFourTheDistributionandReferenceofChineseNullSubjectscausedbythelackofanovertlyintra·-sententialsystemofsubject·-verbagreementinChinesecallbesettled．Actually,Chineseisfulloftheomissionofsubjectsinfiniteclauses．Takethefollowingsentencesforexample：(44)a．39qing[pro]W'Uchouyanpleasenotsmoke"[pro】donotsmoke，please．’b．40[pro】quantahaohaoxiuxipersuadehimhaveagoodrest杉[pro】persuadehimtohaveagoodrest．’C．41[pro]binglesickdid幸‘[pro】getsick．’d．42[pro]qunianquguolelastyeargodid私[pro】didgolastyear．’4．2．2TheReferenceofChineseproThereferenceofChineseproshowsitsownfeatures．AccordingtoChomsky,proisfeaturedby[一anaphor，+pronominal]，SOinprosono讲Torino，procanonlybeunderstoodasthefirstpersonsingularnominativeLHowever,itiswellknownthatChineseisadiscourse-orientedlanguage，SOthereferenceofprodependsonnotonlyintra．sententialsyntacticrelationshipsasItaliandoes，butalsopragmaticcontexts．TheinterpretationofChineseproismuchmorecomplex．Forinstance，thesemanticunderstandingofprointhesentenceMengtianshuo[prohuilaiJ(Mengtiansaid[pro]came)variesalot．TheonethatwillcomemaybeMengtianorsomeoneelsewithwhomthespeakerandthelearnerarebothfamiliar；itCanalsobeinanimatethings，suchasgoods，whenMengtianisaskingforworkerstounloadthegoods．Forthisreason，thereferenceofproinChineseischaracterizednotonlyby39．ItmeaB$‘请勿抽烟’inChinese．40．Itmeans‘劝她好好休息’inChinese．41．Itmeans‘病了’inChinese．42．Itmeans‘去年去过了’inChinese． thefeatureof[一anaphor,+pronominal】aspronounsdo，butalsobyfeatureof[‘anaphor,-pronominal】asR-expressionsdo．Seemoreexamples：(45)a．qing【pro】WUchouyanb．proquantahaohaoxiuxiC．[pro】bingleThesentence(45a)isatypicalpubicsigninofficesorotherplaces．Theinterpretationofproinitisarbitrary．Anyonewhocomesintoofficeisaskednottosmoke．Theinterpretationofproin(45b)and(450bothdependonspecificcontexts．Whenyourwifegetssickandyoutakehertoseeadoctor,thedoctormaytellyouthatquantahaohaoxiuxi．Similarly,thesentence(45c)maybeareplygivenbyyoutoyourparentswhentheyfindyouunhappyandaskwhathappenedtoyou．4．3SummaryThissectionplaysanimportantpartinthisthesis，becauseittestsrationalityoffinitenessversusnon—finitenesscriterionandclassifiesconstructionswherePROalwaysappearsintofourtypicalstructures，namelypivotalstructure，theverbalcomplementstructure，theserialverbstructureandverbalsubjectstructure．ThenadetailedanalysisofdistributionandreferenceofPROineachconstructioniSconducedonebyone．Moreover,thischapteralsoconfirmsexistenceofproinChineseandpositsthat，differentfromItalian，theinterpretationofproinChineseisgreatlydependentonpragmaticfactors． ConclusionThisthesisattemptstoconductacomprehensiveanddeepstudyonChinesenullsubjects．Thatis，ittriestoexploreintothedistributionandinterpretationofPROandproinChinese．Althoughalotofworkhasbeenfinished，somequestionsstillkeepmysterious．Whatfollowswillgiveadetailedexplanationofthefindingsandlimitationsinthisthesis．Thegoalofgenerativegrammaristohypothesizeasetofbasicprinciplesapplicabletoallhumanlanguages，andthefindingsaboutnullsubjectsinitisgreatlybasedonIndo—Europeanlanguages，suchasEnglish．Chinese，asakindofparataxislanguage，hasitsownpropertieswhichEnglishdoesnothave．ThefirstthingtodointhisthesisistotestthegenerativeuniformityofnullsubjectsinChinese．OnthebasisofacomprehensiveunderstandingofChomkiantheoriesandacriticallyoverallreviewofthefindingsaboutChinesenullsubjects，thisthesisarguesthatthephonologicaldeletionofsubjectsalsohappenstoChineseandChinesenullsubjectsconsistofPROandpro，too．Nevertheless，thedistributionandinterpretationofPROandproinChineseshowtheirownfeatures．Morespecifically,thepremiseoftheexistenceofPROisthedistinctionbetweenfiniteclausesandnon-finiteones．Thisthesispositsanewcriteriontodistinguishfinitenessfromnon-finitenessbyassumingthatfiniteverbscancombinewithtimeadverbialswhilenon—finiteverbsCannot．PROiSoftenfoundinfourkindsofnon-finitestructuresinChinese，namelythepivotalstructm'e，theverbalcomplementstructure，theserialverbstructureandtheverbalsubjectstructure．TheinterpretationofPROineachstructureisunique．Forexample，thesubjectcontrol，implicitcontrol，arbitrarycontrolandpartialcontrolofPROallCanhappentoaverbalcomplementstructure．Moreover,thephoneticallymissingsubjectPROineachstructureCannotbelexicalized．Asforpro，thisthesisisfavorofthemorphologicaluniformity．Chineseisapro—droplanguage．Chineseprooccupiesthespecifierpositionofafiniteclauseand Conclusioncanbelexicalized．Meanwhile，theinterpretationofitishighlydependentonpragmaticfactors．Bynow,thisthesisclaimsthatprinciplesingenerativegrammarCanbeusedtoexplainthephenomenonofChinesenullsubjects．However,therearestillsomequestionsthatarefarbeyondtheauthor’Sacademicability．Firstly,thisthesisfindsthattheinterpretationofPROandproinChineseislimitedbypragmaticcontexts．InChomsky’words，theinterpretationofnullsubjectsinvolves‘anumberofdifferentfactors：structuralconfigurations，intrinsicpropertiesofverbs，andothersemanticandpragmaticconsiderations．’(1981：34)Heevenacknowledgesthatitisanunsolvedmysterytosingleoutthesevariablesandexplainthedifferencesandsimilaritiesamonglanguages．Sohowtosortoutpragmaticfactorsisaquestionthatthisthesisisnotabletoanswer．Secondly,theultimategoalofgenerativegrammaristosearchforthemostfundamentalprinciplestoexplainspecificphenomena．AlthoughthisthesisdoessummarizefourtypicalconstructionswherePROalwaysappears，yetitfailstodigoutallunderlyingandpowerfulconstructiontoembraceallthefourkindsofconstructions．67 Bibliography【1】AUwood，Jens．“Language&Time”．PublicationsoftheDepartmentofGeneralLinguistics，2002(3)：32-57．【2】Baker,MarkC．Incorpora矗on：ATheoryofGrammaticalFunctionChanging．Cambridge：MITPress．1988．[3】Battistella，Edwin．“OntheDistributionofPI的inChinese”．NaturallanguageandLinguisticTheory．1985：l540．[4】Chomsky,Noam．SyntacticStructures．TheHague：Mouton，】957．【5】Chomsky,Noam．AspectsoftheTheoryofSyntax．Cambridge：CambridgeUniversityPress，1965．【6】Chomsky,Noam．“OnBinding”．Linguisticlnquiry,1980(2)：14-21．【7】Chomsky,Noam．LecturesonGovernmentandBinding．Dordrecht：Foils，1981．【8】Chomsky,Noam．SomeConceptsandConsequencesoftheTheoryofGovernmentandBinding．Cambridge：M11rPress．1982．【9】Chomsky,Noam．SomeNotesonEconomyofDerivationandRepresentation．Cambridge：MITPress．1991．[10】Chomsky,Noam．AMinimalistProgramforLinguisticTheory．Cambridge：MITPress，1993．【11】Chomsky,Noam．TheMinimalistProgram．Cambridge：MITPress，1995．[12】Fillmore，Charles．TheCaseforCase．NewYork：Holt，RinehartandWinston，1968．【13】Hermstein，Norbert．“PredicationandPRO”．Language，1987(5)：5一lO．[14】Huang，James．“ANoteontheBindingTheory．”LinguisticInquiry，1983(3)：554·561．[15】Huang，James．“OntheDistributionandReferenceofEmptyPronouns”．Linguisticlnquiry,1984(4)：531-574．【16】Huang，James．‘'RemarksonEmptyCategoriesinChinese'’．LinguisticInquiry,1987(2)：321．337．[17】Huang，James．Pro-DropinChinese：AGeneralizedControlTheory．London：KluwerAcademicPublishers．1989．[18]Huang,James．LogicalRelationsinChineseandtheTheoryofGrammar．NewYork：Garland，1998．【l9】HuJianhua．ParametersintheInterpretationofEmptyCategories：GeneralizedSocializationandX-ControlTheory．Jinan：ShandongUniversity,1994．【20]HuJianhua，PanHaihua，andXuLiejiong．“IsthereaFinitevS．NonfiniteDistinctioninChinese?”Linguistics．2001(6)：11．28．【21】HuangYan．APragmaticAnalysisofControl加Chinese．Amsterdam：JohnBaenjamins，1991． Bibliography【22】HuangYan．“AgainstChomsky’STypologyofEmptyCategories”．JournalofPragmatics，1992(3)：23-31．【23】HuangYan．TheSyntaxandPragmaticsofAnaphor：AStudywithSpecialReferencetoChinese．Cambridge：CambridgeUniversityPress，1994．【24]Jaeqqli，Osvaldo．TopicsinRomanceSyntax(StudiesinGenerativeGrammar)．Holland：FoilsPublications。1962．【25】Jaeggli，Osvaldo，andKennethSafir．觋e地露SubjectParameterandParametricTheory．Boston：Kluwer,1989．【26]LaFond，LarryL．Thepro-dropParameterinSecondLanguageAcquisitionRevisited：ADevelopmentalAccount．2001．23Jan．2013。【27】Landau，Idan．ElementsofControl：StructureandMeaninginInfinitivalConstructions．Netherland：KluwerAcademicPublishers．2000．【28】XuLiejiong．“TowardsaLexical-ThematicTheoryofControl”．LinguisticReview，1985(4)：32．35．[29】XuLiejiong．‘'FreeEmptyCategory'’．LinguisticInquiry,1986(1)：12-16．【30】McCloskey,Jim．SubjecthoodandSubjectPositions．StevensonCollege：LinguisticsResearchCenter,1996．【31]Radford，Andrew．Syntax：AMinimalistIntroduction．Cambridge：CambridgeUniversityPress，2000．【32】Radford，Andrew．SyntacticTheoryandtheStructureofEnglish：AMinimalistApproach．Cambridge：CambridgeUniversityPress，1997．【33】Rizzi，Luigi．IssuesinItalianSyntax．Dordrecht：Foils，1982．【34】Rothstein，Susan．“PleonasticsandtheInterpretationofPronouns”．LinguisticInquiry，1995(26)：499-529．【35】Strassen，Leon．PredicativePossession．Oxford：OxfordUniversityPress，2009．【36】Svenonius，Peter．Subjects,Expletives,andthe固嗲NewYork：OxfordUniversityPress，2001．【37]YehudaN．Fall【．SubjectsandUniversalGrammar．Cambridge：CambridgeUniversityPress．2006．[38】ZhaiYong．“ProcessingofEmptySubjectsinControlStructuresofChinese'’．Jul．1997．Jan．2013