[請益] C-command or Precedence?已刪文
最近作到一題有關 Binding Theory 的題目
題目如下:
We proposed that binding required both c-command and coindexation.
Consider an alternative: binding requires that the antecedent precedes
(rather than c-command) and is coindexed with the anaphor or pronoun.
Which of these alternatives is right? How can you tell?
You might consider dada such as the following:
a)[s'[s'Although he loves marshmallows][s Art is not a big fan of Smores]].
這邊的 "he" 與 "Art" coindexed
b)[s[NP His yearbook picture] give gives Tom the creeps].
這邊的"His" 與 "Tom" coindexed
由於 a) b)兩句的pronoun "he" "His" 並沒有c-command 後面同指涉的 "Art" 和 "Tom"
但在a) b) 兩句卻是 coindexed,因此不符合一開始題目所提的第一個論點:
binding required both c-command and coindexation.
如果用 antecedent precedes 來探討, "Art" 和 "Tom"若是先行詞卻放在
"he" "His"的後面，因此不成立。
有沒有一種可能的假設是:
若pronoun 若在 a) b)句這種句子內，不是c-command 且 pronoun precede
就可同指涉(coindexed)後面的人，ex:"Art" 和 "Tom"
也有另種可能是 a) b) 兩句經過變形，deep structure 是符合 C-command.
請問各位版友們有什麼想法呢?
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 123.193.50.203
→
10/26 04:38, , 1F
10/26 04:38, 1F
→
10/26 04:38, , 2F
10/26 04:38, 2F
→
10/26 04:39, , 3F
10/26 04:39, 3F
→
10/26 04:39, , 4F
10/26 04:39, 4F
→
10/26 04:40, , 5F
10/26 04:40, 5F
→
10/26 04:40, , 6F
10/26 04:40, 6F
→
10/30 18:44, , 7F
10/30 18:44, 7F
Linguistics 近期熱門文章
PTT職涯區 即時熱門文章
