摘要：Comparative Correlative (CC) constructions in English and in Chinese have a lot in common concernin...Comparative Correlative (CC) constructions in English and in Chinese have a lot in common concerning their external structures as well as their internal ones. Both structures contain two clauses in which one behaves like a subordinate clause and the other a main clause; paired elements appear in these structures, that is, there are paired markers 'the +comparative' in English and '...yue..., ...yue...' in Chinese; The paired markers have almost the same syntactic functions in the sentences.On the other hand, another constructions, FRs, share somewhat similar properties with the CCs. They are alike with regard to the syntactic distribution, the liking devices and the semantic relationship between the two clauses in the sentence.Based on the above facts, this study aims to give a unified analysis of the comparative correlative (CC) construction and the free relative (FR) construction in English and Chinese by finding the answers to the following questions: (1) Why are there paired markers in all the constructions except in English FRs? (2) What are the linguistic mechanisms among these constructions? (3) What is the internal structure of CCs in English? Is 'the comparative' part base-generated there or is it the result of movement?The results show FRs and CCs are two constructions that use the same linking mechanism to connect the two clauses which display a certain syntactic and semantic dependency relationship. They can, therefore, be given a unified analysis, on the basis of which the two constructions are generalized as one maximal projection adjoining to another maxiamal projection, thus forming a balcony position in the sense of Chomsky (1981a).显示全部
摘要：近年来关于语言协同的研究表明，协同的存在是不争的事实。然而，关于人们为何协同以及如何协同，学界尚存...近年来关于语言协同的研究表明，协同的存在是不争的事实。然而，关于人们为何协同以及如何协同，学界尚存争议。根据协同过程是否受非语言因素的影响，协同的机理被分为两大派别(Branigan et al.,2010,2011)。一方面，协同不受影响的观点认为协同是启动的结果：对话者在言语理解过程中会激活相关的语言表征，并将该表征用于随后的言语产出中，整个激活过程是不受外界情境干扰的自动化过程(Pickering&Garrod,2004,2006)。另一方面，协同受影响的观点认为社会影响，比如对话双方的权利关系，会导致对话者为获得对方好感或疏远彼此关系而增强或减弱协同效果(Giles&Powesland,1975)。本论文试图研究对话者的社会权利这个非语言因素是否对协同发生以及协同程度产生影响，进而验证协同的内在机制是自动化的还是受外界因素的影响。为此，本研究采用同盟者脚本技术，以英语及物动词的主、被动结构为目标结构，创设了两个实验情境：20名中国英语学习者（高三学生）分别和两名实验同盟者完成轮流描述图片和匹配图片的任务。其中，一名实验同盟者是具有较高社会权利的英语教师，另一名同盟者是拥有和被试相同社会权利的同班同学。尽管两名同盟者的身份不同，他们的语言产出却是相同的。研究旨在揭示，被试是否会根据教师同盟者和学生同盟者不同的社会权利而在互动中产生不同的协同效果。研究发现：第一，当被试和具有较高社会权利的英语教师互动时，主、被动结构的产出都发生了句法协同；第二，当被试和具有相同社会权利的同学互动时，只有被动结构的产出发生了句法协同；第三，被试在两个实验情境中（即，师生互动和生生互动）被动结构的句法协同效果没有显著差异。句法协同的产生以及两个实验情境中被动结构的无差异协同效果论证了协同不受影响的观点。当被试听到带有某一结构（主动或被动）的句子时，会自动地激活与该结构对应的大脑表征，然后将该表征用于随后的言语产出中。同时，主动结构的产出在师生互动中有协同效应而在生生互动中无协同效应的事实表明，协同可以作为和较高社会权利者增进友好关系的工具。对话双方重复彼此的语言结构，能够减少言语障碍，进而增进相互间的亲密关系。在本研究中，被试为了获得具有较高权利的教师的认可和喜欢，在主、被动结构的产出都发生了句法协同。被试对英语教师专业知识的坚定信念也促进了他们和教师同盟者的句法协同。综上研究发现表明：（1）社会权利对句法协同效果起重要的但并非决定性的作用；（2）自动化的句法协同过程同时也受到外在的非语言因素的影响。显示全部
