Please wait a minute...
北京第二外国语学院学报  2020, Vol. 42 Issue (6): 3-23    DOI: 10.12002/j.bisu.306
语言学研究(语言类型学专栏 主持人:金立鑫)     
施通格论元组配类型的逻辑分析
金立鑫()
江苏师范大学,徐州 221009
A Logical Analysis of the Configuration of Ergative-Absolutive Arguments
Lixin Jin()
Jiangsu Normal University, Xuzhou 221009, China
 全文: PDF(10051 KB)   HTML
摘要:

除主宾格句法结构外,语言中还存在另一种常见的句法结构:施通格句法结构。本文从理论和逻辑上推导了施通格句法结构的起源,较为系统地梳理了施通格句法结构内部的功能差异。在大量语言样本的基础上,文章提出了施通格语言演化方向的假设,认为语言句法结构模式与人类的生存环境、生产力水平和文明程度密切相关。

关键词: 施通格语言施通格结构主宾格结构语言演化    
Abstract:

Besides nominative-accusative structure, there is also ergative-absolutive structure. This paper logically traces the origin of the ergative-absolutive structure and elaborates on functional differences across its variants. Based on data from multiple languages, this paper proposes a hypothesis on the evolutionary direction of ergative-absolutive languages, holding that linguistic structure and form are closely related to nature, as well as to human productivity and civilization.

Key words: ergative-absolutive language    ergative-absolutive structure    nominative-accusative structure    language evolution
收稿日期: 2019-03-27 出版日期: 2020-12-30
PACS:  H146.3  
作者简介: 金立鑫,博士,江苏师范大学特聘教授,博士生导师,221009,研究方向:语言类型学、语法学、语义学及对外汉语教学。电子邮箱: jinlixin@hotmail.com
服务  
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章  
金立鑫

引用本文:

金立鑫. 施通格论元组配类型的逻辑分析[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2020, 42(6): 3-23.

Lixin Jin. A Logical Analysis of the Configuration of Ergative-Absolutive Arguments. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2020, 42(6): 3-23.

链接本文:

https://journal.bisu.edu.cn/CN/10.12002/j.bisu.306        https://journal.bisu.edu.cn/CN/Y2020/V42/I6/3

图1  动词与其论元
Value Representation
Neutral 98
Nominative-accusative(standard) 46
Nominative-accusative(marked nominative) 6
Ergative-absolutive 32
Tripartite 4
Active-inactive 4
Total 190
表1  不同论元配置模式的语言数量
图2  初始句法模式
1st / 2nd person pronouns 3rd person pronouns other nominals
A Ø -ŋgu(‘ERG’) -ŋgu(‘ERG’)
S Ø Ø Ø
P -na(‘ACC’) -na(‘ACC’) Ø
表2  迪尔巴尔语生命度与格的配对倾向
Ergative property:yes Ergative property:no
Absolutive property:yes Warlpiri Chinese
Absolutive property:no Nez Perce Latin
表3  施格与通格的四分模式
[1] Baker C M. On dependent ergative case(in Shipibo)and its derivation by phase[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 2014,45(3):341~379.
[2] Comrie B. Ergativity[C] //Lehman W P. Syntactic Typology:Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978: 329~394.
[3] Comrie B. Reflections on verb agreement in Hindi and related languages[J]. Linguistics, 1984,22(6):857~864.
[4] Comrie B. Alignment of Case Marking of Full Noun Phrases[EB/OL]. 2013[2020-08-08]. https://wals.info/chapter/98.
[5] Coon J & Preminger O. Split ergativity is not about ergativity[C] //Coon J,Massam D,Travis L D. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford,United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2017.
[6] Cooreman A. A functional typology of antipassives[C] //Barbara A F & Paul J H. Voice:Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1994: 49~88.
[7] Dixon R M W. Ergativity[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[8] Dowty D. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection[J]. Language, 1991,67(3):547~619.
[9] Givón T. Syntax:A Functional-Typological Introduction(Vol.1)[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 1984.
[10] Halliday M A K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. London:Edward Arnold, 1985.
[11] Hengeveld K. Parts-of-speech systems as a basic typological determinant[C] //Rijkhoff J & van Lier E. Flexible Word Classes:Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013: 31~55.
[12] Holisky D A. Aspect and Georgian Medial Verbs[M]. Delmar,N.Y.:Caravan Books, 1981.
[13] Holmer A. The ergativity parameter[R]. Lund University,Dept. of Linguistics Working Papers, 2001(48):101~113.
[14] Khoja S. APT:Arabic part-of-speech tagger[EB/OL]. 2001[2020-08-08]. http://archimedes.fas.harvard.edu/mdh/arabic/NAACL.pdf.
[15] Kurebito T. An outline of valency-reducing operations in Chukchi[C] //Nakamura W & Kikusawa R. Odjectivization and Subjectivization:A Typology of the Voice Systems. Suita,Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, 2012,77:177~189.
[16] Langacker R W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar,Vol. 2[M]. California: Stanford University Press, 1991.
[17] Mahajan A K. Universal grammar and the typology of ergative languages[C] //Alexiadou A & Hall T A. Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997: 35~57.
[18] Mohanan T. Argument Structure in Hindi[M]. Stanford:CSLI, 1994.
[19] Nedjalkov V P. Diathesen und Satzstruktur im Tschuktschischen[C] //Lötzsch R & Ružicka R. Satzstruktur und Genus verbi. Berlin:Akademie-Verlag, 1976: 181~211.
[20] Patz E. A Grammar of the Kuku Yalanji Language of North Queensland[M]. Canberra:Pacific Linguistics, 2002.
[21] Polinksy M. Ergativity:An Overview[EB/OL]. 2013[2019-02-01]. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mpolinsky/files/ergativity.MIT_.handout.pdf.
[22] Schebeck B. Are Australian languages syntactically nominative-ergative or nominative-accusative: Thangu and Atjnjamathanha[C] //Dixon R M W. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1976: 516~550.
[23] Singh J. Case and Agreement in Hindi:A GB Approach[D]. York:University of York, 1994.
[24] Spreng B. On the conditions for antipassives[J]. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2010,4(7):556~575.
[25] Tasaku T. Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood[J]. Linguistics, 1981,19(5~6):389~438.
[26] Tchekhoff C. ‘Antipassif’,aspect imperfectif et autonomie du sujet[J]. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 1987,82(1):43~67.
[27] van Valin Jr R D. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity[J]. Language, 1990,66(2):221~260.
[28] Vázquez M M. Lexical ergativity in English and Spanish[J]. Gramática Contrastiva Inglés-Español, 1996: 25~44.
[29] Vollmann R. Descriptions of Tibetan Ergativity:A Historiographical Account[M]. Graz:Leykam, 2008.
[30] 方光焘. 方光焘语言学论文集[C]. 南京: 江苏教育出版社, 1986.
[31] 黄正德. 中文的两种及物动词和两种不及物动词[C] //第二届世界华语文教学研讨会论文集. 台北: 世界华文出版社, 1990.
[32] 金立鑫, 崔圭钵. “把”字句的结构功能动因分析[J]. 汉语学习, 2019(1):3~12.
[33] 金立鑫, 于秀金. 地理分布、气候特征与语言结构模式之间的关系[Z]. 2020,手稿.
[34] 罗天华. 类型学的施格格局[J]. 外国语, 2017,40(4):25~33.
[35] 严辰松, 刘虹. 汉语动结式歧义句新探[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2019(6):3~17.
[36] 张伯江. 汉语句式的跨语言观——“把”字句与逆被动态关系商榷[J]. 语言科学, 2014,13(6):587~600.
[1] 于秀金, 王蔚. 主要语序类型语言中关系小句的类型学研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2020, 42(6): 24-43.
[2] 陆志军. 汉语体动词的时间指称特性[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2020, 42(6): 106-123.
[3] 吴玲兰. 句法演化渐变论——评Ljiljana Progovac教授的《演化句法》[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2018, 40(5): 135-143.
[4] 杨烈祥. 汉语句法研究新图景——评Waltraud Paul教授的《汉语句法新视角》[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2018, 40(1): 120-128.