受詞異相標記

维基百科,自由的百科全书
跳转至: 导航搜索

受詞異相標記(Differential object marking,簡稱DOM)是一個存在於多於300個語言的現象;這詞的創造者為喬治‧玻松(Georg Bossong)。[1][2]在有受詞異相標記現象的語言中,直接受詞往往根據其含意而分割成兩個子類,且在多數有受詞異相標記的語言中,只有一個種類有標記,而另一個子類則不帶標記(但亦有像芬蘭語般兩個種類的受詞各帶有不同標記的語言存在)。

西班牙語[编辑]

一個知名的、有受詞異相標記的語言為西班牙語。在西班牙語中,指稱特定事物且指稱人的名詞需帶有前置介詞a(其意近於英語的to)。如下所示:[3][4][5][6]

  • Kyon besó a Haruhi. = 阿虛親了春日。(直譯:阿虛親了春日)

然而無生名詞一般不能使用此種標記,即使它是指特定的某事物也一樣。如下所示:

  • Kyon besó el retrato. = 阿虛親了那幅畫。

當然,一些指特定的某事物的有生名詞是可加可不加此種標記的。如下所示:

  • Kyon vio (a) la gata. = 阿虛看見了那隻母貓。

其他語言[编辑]

其他有受詞異相標記的語言包括了土耳其語特里基语卡西语(Khasi language)、马拉雅拉姆语含姆語(Kham language)和阿姆哈拉语等語言。在土耳其語中,直接受詞可帶賓格標記或不帶任何(可見的)賓格標記,若一個直接受詞名詞帶有賓格標記,則它是指特定的某事物(像例如「某特的人」),不然就是指某些不特定的事物(像「某人」)。[7].

這和所有直接受詞一律帶相同標記或一律不帶標記的非DOM語言不同,一些語言其所有的直接受詞皆帶有賓格標記;而其他的一些語言,像英語,其直接受詞則完全不帶賓格標記。

對受詞異相標記的研究[编辑]

儘管這現象早已為人所知,但在八零年代喬治‧玻松(Georg Bossong)提供在三百多個以上的語言中存在的受詞異相標記的例子前,這種現象被認為是只存在於少數語言的非正常現象。[8][9]自始以後,受詞異相標記已成了語法理論的一個重要的研究對象,以下為一些和此現象相關的出版品:

  • Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21:435–448.[1]
  • Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, scope, and binding. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory v. 30. Dordrecht ; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.[2]
  • Bossong, Georg. 1983–1984. Animacy and Markedness in Universal Grammar. Glossologia 2–3:7–20.[3]
  • Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in der neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.
  • Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 1988, eds. D. Wanner and D. Kibbee, 143–170. Amsterdam: Benjamins.[4]
  • Bossong, Georg. 1997. Le Marquage Différentiel de L'Objet dans les Langues d'Europe. In Actance et Valence dans les Langues d'Europe, ed. J. Feuillet, 193–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyte.
  • Brugé, Laura, and Brugger, Gerhard. 1996. On the Accusative a in Spanish. Probus 8:1–51.
  • De Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-linguistic Variation in Object Marking, University of Nijmegen: PhD Dissertation.[5]
  • Heusinger, Klaus von, and Kaiser, Georg A. 2003. Animacy, Specificity, and Definiteness in Spanish. In Proceedings of the Workshop Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages. Arbeitspapier 113, eds. Klaus von Heusinger and Georg A. Kaiser, 41–65. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.[6]
  • Heusinger, Klaus von, and Kaiser, Georg A. 2005. The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In Proceedings of the Workshop “Specificity And The Evolution / Emergence of Nominal Determination Systems in Romance”, eds. Klaus von Heusinger, Georg A. Kaiser and Elisabeth Stark, 33–70. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.[7]
  • Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking. Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34:2, 239–272.
  • Leonetti, Manuel. 2004. Specificity and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3:75–114.[8]
  • Öztürk, Balkiz. 2005. Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.[9]
  • Pensado, Carmen ed. 1995. El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor.[10]
  • Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel. 2007. The Syntax of Objects. Agree and Differential Object Marking, University of Connecticut: PhD Dissertation.[11]
  • Torrego, Esther. 1998. The dependencies of objects. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 34. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.[12]

腳註[编辑]

  1. ^ Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in der neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr
  2. ^ Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 1988, eds. D. Wanner and D. Kibbee, 143–170. Amsterdam: Benjamins
  3. ^ Fernández Ramírez, Salvador. 1986. Gramática española 4. El verbo y la oración. Madrid: Arco/Libros.
  4. ^ Pensado, Carmen ed. 1995. El complemento directo preposicional. Madrid: Visor.
  5. ^ Rodríguez-Mondoñedo, Miguel. 2007. The Syntax of Objects. Agree and Differential Object Marking, University of Connecticut: PhD Dissertation.
  6. ^ Torrego, Esther. 1998. The dependencies of objects. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 34. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  7. ^ See Jaklin Kornfilt and Klaus von Heusinger (2005). The case of the direct object in Turkish. Semantics, syntax and morphology. In Turkic Languages 9, 3–44
  8. ^ Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in der neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr
  9. ^ Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 1988, eds. D. Wanner and D. Kibbee, 143–170. Amsterdam: Benjamins