List of Abbreviations VI
Introduction XI
Chapter l A Study of the Contemporary Morphological Researches
1.1 Contemporary Morphological Researches on Word Order
1.1.1 Rohrbacher 1999
1.1.1.1 Strong agreement hypothesis
1.1.1.2 Bobaljik''s 2002 view on the strong agreement hypothesis
1.1.2.1 Effects of syntactic structure variation
1.1.2.2 0ur view on Bobaljik''s 2002 hypotheses
1.1.3 I Nominative case-marking hypothesis
1.1.31 Counterevidence from Faroese
1.1.4 I The hypothesis of overt distinct agreement marking
1.1.4.2 0ur view based on Rohrbacher''s 1999 counterevidence
1.1.5 H01mbergnd Platzack1 995 1
1.1.5.2 Finiteness feature
1.1.5.3 0ur relative proposals
1.2 Researches on Subj ect Omission
1.2.1 Chomsky 1981, 1982
1.2.2 Jaeggli and Safir 19 8 9
1.2.3 Shortcomings of the two null subj ect hypotheses
1.2.4 Vainikka and Levy 1999
I .2.41 Pronominal correspondence
1.2.4.2 0ur view on Vainikka and Levy''s 1999 hypothesis
Chapter 2 Theoretical Background and Main Proposals ofMorphological Effects
2.1Morphological Evolution
2.1.1 Theoretical background
2.1.1.1 0riginal morphological inflections
2.1.1.2 Tendency of morphological evolution
2.1.2 Process of morphological evolution
2.1.3 Verbal agreement paradigms of different richness degrees
2.1.4 0ur hypothesis about ways of language evolution...
2.2 Language Classification with Respect to Verbal Agreement Morphology
2.2.1 Presence of the functional category Agr
2.2.2 C-Agr vs T-Agr
2.2.3 Classification of agreement paradigms
2.2.3.1 Classification in our analysis ofword order variation
2.2.3.2 Classification in our analysis of subj ect omission 5
2.2.3.3 Subdivision of degraded rich agreement morphology
2.3 Theoretical Background about Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change 64
2.3.1 Haeberli''s 2000 diachronic study
2.3.2 Word computation
2.4 0ur Proposals of Morphological Effects on Syntax
2.4 1 Two a伍xation levels
2.4.2 Psychological evidence for affixation levels .
2.4.3 Morphological influence on subject omission
2.5 Language Change as a Continuum
Chapter 3 A Diachronic Study of the Romance Languages
3.1 Evolutional Process of Romance Morphology
3.1.1 Ancestor of the Romance languages
3.1.2 Developmental tendency of clitics
3.1.2.1 From simple clitics to special clitics
3.1.2.2 From prefixes to sumxes
3.1.3 Evolution of Romance clitics
3.1.4 0ptional positions of Romance clitics
3.21Romanian morphology
3.2.2 Romanian syntax
3.2.2 1 Unset head parameter value 1
3.2.2.2 Free word order
3.2.2.3V-to-Tmovement 1
3.3IItalianmorphology 114
3.3.2.1 Change of the head parameter value
3.3.2.2 Change from C-Agr to T-Agr
3.2.2.3 V-to-T movement
3.2.2.4 V-to-C movement
3.3.2.5 Comparison between Romanian and Italian
3.4.1 French morphology
3.4.2Frenchsyntax 13
3.4.2.1 0bligatory vs optional clitic doubling in Colloquial
3.4.2.2 Fixed word order
3.4.2.3 V-to-T movement
Chapter 4 A Diachronic Study of the Germanic Languages
4.1 Classification of the Germanic Languages
4.2 Morphological Evolution of the Germanic Languages
4.2.1 Gothic morphology
4.2.2 Morphology of the North Germanic languages
4.2.2.2 Comparison between Old Scandinavian and the Romance
4.2.2.3 Modem Icelandic
4.2.2.4 Mainland Scandinavian languages 15
4.2.3 Morphology of the West Germanic languages
4.2.3 1 German morphology 1
4.2.3.2 Morphological development in English
4.3 Syntactic Comparison of the North Germanic Languages
4.3.1.1 Unset head parameter value
4.31.2Free wordorder
4.3.1.3 Syntactic effects of morphological development
4.3.2 Similarities in the modern Scandinavian languages
4.3.2.1 Head parameter value
4.3.2.2 Verb second constraint
4.3.3 Differences in the modem Scandinavian languages
4.3.4 EMCs in Scandinavian
4.4 Syntax of the West Germanic Languages 1
4.4 11V-to-C movement 1
4.41.2V-to-Tmovement 1
4.4.2.1 V-to-T movement in Old English
4.4.2.2 Loss of V-to-T movement in Modern English
4.4.2.3 Base-generated position of be and have
4.4.2.4 Loss of OV pattern in Modern English
Chapter 5 Null Subject Permission
5 I Main Proposals on Subj ect Omission
5.1.1 Classification of agreement paradigms
5.1.2 Licensing conditions of different null subj ects
5.1.3 Loss of empty topics
5 1 .4 Re-interpretation of topics
5.2 Full-null-subj ect Languages vs Non-null-subj ect Languages
5.21Full-null-subj ect languages
5 .2.2 Non-null-subj ect languages 2
5 .3 Semi-null-subj ect Languages 2 1
5.3.1 0ld Scandinavian and Modern Icelandic
Bibliography
Acknowledgements
內容試閱：
In this chapter, we will introduce some of the contemporarymorphological researches on word order and subject omission Wewill show that in the analyses of word order variation, most of thecontemporary morphological studies are from a synchronic perspectiveand generally focus on one single aspect of morphology; therefore, theycannot cover all the syntactic differences among human languages In ouropinion, a diachronic comparison of morphological paradigms is quiteimportant in the analysis of syntactic variation.
Moreover, we will show that a single or a few syntactic parameters,as proposed in many generativists'' frameworks cf Chomsky 1981, 1982;Jaeggli and Safir 1989, cannot cover all the null subject phenomena,because there are three types of null subjects and the licensing conditionof each kind of null subject is different Compared to thegenerativists''studies, an analysis based on morphological comparison, like Vainikkaand Levy''s 1999 analysis of the pronominal connection, appears to bemore flexible in that different licensing conditions of subject omissionare even allowed to be present in one language Nevertheless, theirnull subject analysis only considers null thematic subjects, withoutconsideration of null expletives, which is actually a hotly debated topicin syntax.
購物車/收銀台(0) | 在線留言板
| 付款方式
| 運費計算
| 聯絡我們
| 幫助中心 |
加入書簽
HOME
新書上架
