Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and Acquisition
Noun Phrases in Japanese and English: A Study in Syntax, Learnability and Acquisition
复制标题
日语和英语名词短语：句法、可学习性和习得的研究
DOI：
10.1515/jjl-1991-0110
复制
发表时间：
1991
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Keiko Murasugi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Keiko Murasugi
在日语中，属格标记“no”被插入在NP和PP的前置修饰语之后，而不是在关系从句之后。Saito（1982）和福井（1986）等人提出了一个“不”插入规则来解释这一事实。Harada（1980）和Clancy（1985）观察到，一些讲日语的儿童在大约2岁的时候，甚至在关系从句之后插入“no”，如（1）所示。(1)*usatyan ga tabeta no ninzin rabbit Nom ate（*Gen）carrot（the carrot that the rabbit ate）（Harada，1980）这一假说提出了一个假说，关于什么是过度生成的“不”，以及儿童如何从这种过度生成中退缩。为了回答这些问题，第二章首先讨论了日语中几种“不”的句法性质。特别是，我认为，N和C类的“否“是存在的，与Kitagawa和Ross（1982）和福井（1986）相反，但正如Okutsu（1974）和Hoji（1990）所建议的那样。这为（1）中过度生成的“no”设置了三个候选：属格标记，“no”作为N，“no“作为C。第三章研究日语关系从句的句法结构。首先，我沿着Saito（1985）对话题化的分析思路扩展了Perlmutter的分析，并认为日语关系从句可以但不一定涉及移动。基于这一假设，本文得出两个结论：（1）日语中的时间和地点从句具有亲PP性;（2）日语中的关系从句是IP性的（IP假说）。第四章结合第二章和第三章的句法分析，对（1）中过度生成的“不”进行了分析。在此基础上，
In Japanese, the genitive Case marker "no" is inserted after NP and PP prenominal modifiers, but not after relative clauses. Saito (1982) and Fukui (1986), among others, propose a "no"-insertion rule to accountfor this fact. Harada (1980) and Clancy (1985) observe that some Japanese speaking children, at around 2 years old, insert "no" even after relative clauses, as shown in (1). (1) *usatyan ga tabeta no ninzin rabbit Nom ate (*Gen) carrot (the carrot that the rabbit ate) (Harada, 1980) This hypothesis presents a hypothesis as to what the overgenerated "no" is, and as to how children retreat from this overgeneration. In order to attain answers to these questions, I first discuss in Chapter 2the syntactic properties of several types of "no" in Japanese. In particular, I argue that "no"s of categories N and C exist, contrary to Kitagawa and Ross (1982), and Fukui (1986), but as suggested in Okutsu (1974) and Hoji (1990). This sets up three candidates for the overgenerated "no" in (1): the genitive Case marker, "no" as N and "no"as C. Chapter 3 deals with the syntax of Japanese relative clauses. I first extend Perlmutter's analysis along the lines of Saito's (1985) analysis of topicalization, and argue that Japanese relative clauses maybut need not involve movement. Based on this assumption, I draw two conclustions: (i) Japanese has pro PP for time and place adjuncts, and (ii) Japanese relative clauses are IP (the IP hypothesis). With the syntactic analysis in Chapters 2 and 3, Chapter 4 addresses the questions concerning the overgenerated "no" in (1). On the basis offurther