- 期刊
反身代名詞－中英比較
The Reflexive Pronouns in Mandarin Chinese and English: A Comparative Study
摘要
本論文主旨在在比較漢語和英語中的反身代名詞。由於管約理論(Government & Binding Theory)是以英語爲主要分析對象所完成的句法理論，所以英語中反身代名詞的行爲表現完全符合管約理論對反身代名詞的規範，例如，反身代名詞不能居於主語位置，反身代名詞必須在約束範圍內被約束，反身代名詞與其前置詞不能被CP隔開。相較於英語，漢語中的反身代名詞，或者說狀似反身代名詞的語詞顯得比較多樣，不只在樣貌上可分爲「自己」和「×自己」，而且「自己」和「×自己」在句法的表現上又各有兩種不同的表現。當「自己」做反身代名詞，他的約束範圍依他的前置詞的人稱而異，不以CP爲限，但終究不能超過句子。另外「自己」還可做非限定代名詞，用來泛指，在這個時候「自己」就是一個代名詞，可以居於主語的位置，也不須前置詞。「×自己」也可分爲兩類，第一類是一個典型的反身代名詞，在句法上的行爲完全符合管約理論對反身代名詞的規範。另一類的「×自己」由於約束範圍可以依語境改變，甚至跨越句子到上文中找到前置詞，這樣的說法使得和雨中反身代名詞的約束範圍非常模糊。於是本文將這類的「×自己」重新定位爲一複合詞：結合了一個代名詞「×」和一個「×自己」成爲一自給自足的代名詞。如此一來，這樣的「×自己」出現在主語位置就不成問題了。這樣的說法至少可將漢語中反身代名詞的約束範圍縮小到以句子爲界限。於是我們便可歸納出英語和漢語中的反身代名詞共通特性爲：反身代名詞必有約束範圍；反身代名詞不可居於主格格位；且反身代名詞的約束範圍不可超過句子。
並列摘要
The aim of this paper is to make a comparative study of the reflexive pronouns in Mandarin Chinese and English. The Government and Binding Theory is based mainly on the analysis of the language English; hence the reflexive pronouns in English behave in accordance with the theory. For example, a reflexive cannot take a nominative case, a reflexive has to be bound in the binding domain, and an antecedent cannot be separated with its anaphor by a CP. The reflexives in Mandarin Chinese present a variety of manners. It appears that some of the reflexives or we may say the reflexive-like words in Mandarin Chinese are the same as the ones in English, but the others are very different. At least there are two types of reflexive-like words in Mandarin Chinese-ziji and ×ziji, and both ziji and ×ziji serve different functions. As a reflexive, the binding domain of ziji depends on the φ-feature1 of its antecedent and CP is not a boundary On the other hand ziji can be an impersonal pronoun with a vague reference. When xziji is a reflexive, it behaves in accordance with the Government and Binding Theory as the reflexives in English. But sometimes we find ×ziji as the subject of a sentence and sometimes we find CP is not the boundary of ×ziji's binding domain. Therefore, in this paper Ⅰ categorize this type of xzij as a compound pronoun, × a common pronoun and ziji a reflexive pronoun. This explains the domain ambiguity of ×ziji in Mandarin Chinese. At the end of this paper Ⅰ conclude the three points that shared by the reflexives of the both languages: a reflexive must be bound in it binding domain, a reflexive cannot take a nominative case, and the binding domain of a reflexive cannot be bigger than a sentence.