| 词条 | Locality (linguistics) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 释义 |
In linguistics, locality refers to the proximity of elements in a linguistic structure. Constraints on locality limit the span over which rules can apply to a particular structure. Theories of transformational grammar use syntactic locality constraints to explain restrictions on argument selection, syntactic binding, and syntactic movement. Where locality is observedLocality is observed in a number of linguistic contexts, and most notably with:
SelectionThe projection principle requires that lexical properties — in particular argument structure properties such as thematic roles — be "projected" onto syntactic structures. Together with Locality of Selection, which forces lexical properties to be projected within a local projection (as defined by X-bar theory[1]{{rp|149}}), the projection principle constrains syntactic trees. Syntactic trees are represented through constituents of a sentence, which are represented in a hierarchical fashion in order to satisfy locality of selection through the restraints of X-bar theory.[1] In X-bar theory, immediate dominance relations are invariant, meaning that all languages have the same constituent structure. However, the linear precedence relations can vary across languages. For example, word order (i.e. constituent order) can vary with and across languages.[1]
If α selects β, then β depends on α. If α selects β, and if locality of selection is satisfied, then α and β are in a local dependency. If α selects β, and if locality of selection is not satisfied, then α and β are in a non-local dependency. The existence of a non-local dependency indicates that movement has occurred. From the perspective of projection, an element can be "stretched" to occupy the following projection levels: minimal (X) intermediate (X') maximal (X max) These occupying elements appear valid for all syntactically relevant lexical and functional categories.[4] Head-Complement SelectionAccording to locality of selection, the material introduced in the syntactic tree must have a local relationship with the head that introduces it. This means that each argument must be introduced into the same projection as its head. Therefore, each complement and specifier will appear within the local projection of the head that selects it. For example, the contrast between the well-formed (1a) and the ill-formed (1b) shows that in English, an adverb cannot intervene between a head (the verb study) and its complement (the DP the report). In structural accounts of the contrast between (1a) and (1b), the two sentences differ relative to their underlying structure. The starting point is the lexical entry for the verb study, which specifies that the verb introduces two arguments, namely a DP which bears the semantic role of Agent, and another DP which bears the semantic role of Theme. In the tree for sentence (1a), the verb, studies, is the Head of the VP projection, the DPTHEME, the report, is projected onto the Complement position (as sister to the head V), and the DPAGENT , John, is projected onto the Specifier (as sister to V'). In this way, (1a) satisfies Locality of Selection as both arguments are projected within the projection of the head that introduces them. The adverb phrase, AdvP carefully attaches as an unselected adjunct to VP; structurally this means that it is outside of the local projection of V as it is sister to and dominated by VP. In contrast, in the tree for sentence (1b), the introduction of the AdvP carefully as sister to the verb study violates Locality of Selection; this is because the lexical entry of the verb study does not select an AdvP, so the latter cannot be introduced in the local projection of the verb. Morphological selectionLocality can also be broken down into a morphological perspective, by analyzing words with some, or many affixes. A speaker who can make sense of a word with many morphemes (e.g. affixes) must know: how the morpheme is pronounced and what kind of morpheme it is, (free, prefix, suffix). If it is an affix, then the speaker also must know what the affix c-selects. The speaker must also know that the c-selected element must be adjacent to the affix, amounting to the requirement that branches of a tree never cross. Crossing branches is not included in the lexicon, and it is a general property of how linguistic structures are grammatically structured. This is true because lexical entries do no impose a requirement on a part of word structure that it is not sister to. This relates to the fact that affixes cannot c-select for an element which is not a sister. Additionally, the speaker must know what kinds of thing results after c-selection. These key aspects that a speaker must know can be observed in the lexical entries below, with the example "denationalization".
Lexical SelectionWhen meeting selection requirements, the semantic content of the constituent selected by the head must be taken into consideration. Take for example the verb head time. BindingBinding Theory refers to 3 different theoretic principles that regulate DP's (Determiner Phrase)[2]. In consideration of the following definitions of the principles, the local domain refers to the smallest XP with a subject. If a DP is bound, this means it is c-commanded and co-indexed with an antecedent DP. To contrast, if it is free, then is it not c-commanded and co-indexed with an antecedent DP. Principle APrinciple A for locality in Binding Theory refers to when binding of an anaphor and its antecedent must occur within the local domain. Principle A states that anaphors must be bound in their local domain, that DP's must be in a local relation. Therefore, the antecedent should be in the same clause that contains the anaphor. A clause is the domain if and only if it is the smallest XP containing a DP that c-commands the anaphor and has a subject.[3] An anaphor is considered to be free when it is not c-commanded or coindexed.[4] A node is c-commanded if a sister node of the first node dominates it, (i.e. node X c-commands node Y if a sister of X dominates Y). The following examples show the application of Binding Theory, Principle A: Example (2a) is predicted to be grammatical by Principle A of binding theory. The anaphor and antecedent appear within the same TP domain: TP is the smallest XP that contains the anaphor and DP subject (in this case, the subject is the antecedent). However, in example (2b), the anaphor and antecedent are not bound within the same domain, are coindexed and referring to the same entity, therefore, the sentence is predicted to be ungrammatical. In English, anaphors and their antecedent must agree in gender, (2b) is also ungrammatical because of mismatched gender features. (2b) i) *Mary revealed himself to John ii) Mary revealed herself to John Because the gender features of Mary and himself are mismatched, "Mary" is feminine and "himself" is masculine, the sentence "Mary revealed himself to John" is rendered ungrammatical. {{Gallery }} Example (3) is similar to example (2). (3a) is grammatical because the anaphor is bound within the same domain as the antecedent. However, example (3b) is ungrammatical because the anaphor and antecedent appear within different domains. The anaphor is not bound. Principle BThe following examples show the application of Binding Theory, Principle B which states: pronouns must be free in their local domain, that some DP's are non-locally related to other DP's. When the [DP Lucy], is co-indexed with and c-commanded with [DP her], as in (4a), this violates principle B. , meaning they are locally related but are referring to the same entity. Since [DP her] has a c-commanding antecedent in its domain (i.e. [DP Lucy]) this shows that the pronoun is bound in its domain. Principle B is obeyed in (4b), because the co-indexation of [DP Lucy] and [DP her], are free in their domains, meaning that although they are referring to the same entity they are not locally related.
Principle B does not state anything regarding whether a pronoun requires an antecedent. It is permissible for a pronoun to not have an antecedent in a sentence. Principle B simply states that if a pronoun does have a c-commanding antecedent, then it must be outside of the smallest XP with a subject that has the pronoun, i.e. outside the domain of the pronoun.[3] Principle CThe following examples show the application of Binding Theory, Principle C which states: R-expressions cannot be bound, and certain DP's, such as R-expressions are never related to other DP's.[3]
It is important to note that 5a, can be distinguished from 5b and 5c the differences in structural relations between the pronoun and the name. In 5a, "she" c-commands "Lucy", but this does not occur in 5b and 5c. These observations can be described by the preliminary observation that non-pronominals cannot be bound, i.e., non-pronominals cannot be c-commanded by a co-indexed pronoun. Compared to Principle A and Principle B, this requires goes all the way up to the root node, since it is not limited to any domain. In addition to these principles, it is required that pronouns and reflexives agree with their antecedent in gender. For example, regardless of the consideration of locality, a sentence such as "[DPJohn]i likes [DPherself]i", it would be ungrammatical because the two co-indexed entities do not agree in gender. Pronouns and reflexives also have to agree with their antecedent in number and person. MovementMovement is the phenomenon that accounts for the possibility of a single syntactic constituent or element occupying multiple, yet distinct locations, depending on the type of sentence the element or constituent is in.[5] In wh-movement in English, an interrogative sentence is formed by moving the wh-word (determiner phrase, preposition phrase, or adverb phrase) to the specifier position of the complementizer phrase. This results in the movement of the wh-phrase into the initial position of the clause[3] .In English, they raise past C since they are found to the left of a T that has raised to C, meaning that they raise to the subject (or specifier) position of CP.[3] The wh-phrase must also contain a question word, due to the fact that it needs to qualify as a +q. The +q feature of the complementizer (+q= question feature) results in an EPP:XP+q feature: This forces an XP to the specifier position of CP. The +q feature also attracts the bound morpheme in the tense position to move to the head complementizer position; leading to do-support.[3]{{rp|260–262}} Seven sentencesThere are seven types of violations that can occur for wh-movement. These constraints predict the environments in which movement generates an ungrammatical sentence: Movement does not occur locally. Wh-island constraint
This definition tells us that if the specifier position of CP is occupied or if a C is occupied by a +q word, movement of a wh-phrase out of the CP cannot occur.[3]{{rp|271}} In other words, a CP that has a wh-phrase in its [spec, CP] that is filled with another wh-phrase that is not the one that was extracted, but from higher in the tree. The movement of the wh-phrase is being obstructed by another wh-phrase.[3] }} Example (6b) illustrates the wh-island constraint. The embedded clause contains a complementizer with the feature +q. This causes the DP "who" to move to the specifier position of that complementizer phrase. Movement of the complement DP "what" cannot occur since the specifier position of CP is filled. Therefore, movement of the wh-word "what" generates an ungrammatical sentence, while movement of the wh-word "who" is allowed (specifier position of the embedded CP is not occupied). Adjunct island condition
|title= 5a&b |File:Syntax Tree English - Where did he go before Mary finished the food.png |Where did he go before they finished the food? |File:Syntax Tree English - What did he go home before Mary finished.png |*What did he go home before Mary finished? }} Example (7b) demonstrates the adjunct island condition. We can see that the wh-word, "what", occurs within the complementizer phrase that appears in the adjunct. Therefore, movement of the DP out of the adjunct will generate an ungrammatical sentence. Example (7a) is grammatical because the trace of the PP (prepositional phrase) "where" is not within the adjunct, therefore, movement is allowed. This demonstrates the prohibition of extraction from inside an adjunct and the condition that states that no element in a CP inside an adjunct may move out of this adjunct. Sentential subject constraint
A setenial subject is a subject that is a clause, not the subject of a sentence. Therefore, a clause that is a subject is called a sentenial subject. The Sentenial Subject Constraint is violated when an element moves out of a CP that is in the subject position. |title= 8a&b |File:Syntax Tree English - Who did that Bill threw out the cheese annoy?.png |Who did that Bill threw out the cheese annoy? |File:Syntax Tree English - What did that Bill threw out.png |*What did that Bill threw out annoy you? }} Example (8b) displays the sentential subject condition. The subject of the verb in this sentence is a complementizer clause. The DP "what" that appears within the CP subject moves to the specifier position of the main clause. The sentential subject constraint predicts that this wh-movement will result in an ungrammatical sentence since the trace was within the CP subject. Example (8a) is grammatical because the DP "who" does not have a trace within the CP subject, therefore, allowing movement to occur. Coordinate structure constraint
|title= 9a&b |File:Syntax Tree English - What and rice did you eat.png |What and rice did you eat? |File:Syntax Tree English - What did you eat and rice.png |*What did you eat and rice? }} Example (9a) is grammatical since the DP complement is moving as a whole to the specifier position of the matrix clause; nothing is extracted from the larger DP. Example (9b) is an example of the coordinate structure constraint. The DP "what" originally occurs within the DP conjunct, therefore, this constraint predicts that an ungrammatical sentence will result due to the extraction of an element within the conjunct.[3]{{rp|278}} Complex NP constraint
|title= 9a&b |File:Syntax Tree English - Whose book did yoy buy.png |Whose book did you buy? |File:Syntax Tree English - Whose did you buy book.png |*Whose did you buy book? }} Example (8a) is a grammatical because the DP complement of the verb moves as a whole to the specifier position of the main clause. Example (8b) displays the complex noun phrase constraint. The NP complement D, "whose", is extracted and moved to the specifier position of the main clause. The complex noun phrase constraint predicts that this wh-movement will result in an ungrammatical sentence since extraction of an element within the complex NP is not allowed. Subject condition
|title= 10a&b |File:A picture of which students appeared in the newspapers?.png | A picture of which students appeared in the newspapers? |File:Which students did a picture of appear in the newspapers?.png | *Which students did a picture of appear in the newspapers? }} Example (10a) does not display any wh-movement. Therefore, the sentence is grammatical since nothing is extracted from the subject DP. Example (10b) contains wh-movement of a DP that is within the subject DP. The subject condition tells us that this type of movement is not allowed and the sentence will be ungrammatical.[3]{{rp|277}} Left branch constraint
|title= 11a&b |File:You are eating whose cake..png | You are eating whose cake. |File*Whose are you eating cake?.png | *Whose are you eating cake? }} In example (11a), there is no wh-movement, therefore the left branch constraint does not apply and this sentence is grammatical. In example (11b), the DP "whose" is extracted from the larger DP "whose cake." This extraction under the left branch constraint is not allowed, therefore, the sentence is predicted to be ungrammatical. This sentence can be made grammatical by moving the larger DP as a unit to the specifier position of CP.[3]{{rp|278}} In example (12c), the whole subject DP structure undergoes wh-movement, which results in a grammatical sentence. This suggests that pied-piping can be used to reverse the effects of the violations or extraction constraints.[3]{{rp|278}} |File:What did you wonder who ate?.png |*What did you wonder who ate? }} Example (13) is an example of a wh-island violation. There are two TP bounding nodes that appear between the DP "what" and its trace. The subjacency condition postulates that wh-movement cannot undergo when the elements are spread too far apart.[3] When two positions are separated by only one bounding node, or no bounding node at all, they are considered subjacent[3].Therefore, according to the subjacency condition, movement will result in an ungrammatical sentence.[3]{{rp|271}} See also
References1. ^1 {{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/861536792|title=An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory|last=Dominique.|first=Sportiche,|others=Koopman, Hilda Judith., Stabler, Edward P.|isbn=9781118470480|location=Hoboken|oclc=861536792}} 2. ^1 {{Cite book|title=Bare Syntax|last=Boeckx|first=Cedric|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2008|isbn=978-0-19-953424-1|location=Oxford New York|pages=}} 3. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 {{cite book|title=An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis|last1=Sportiche|first1=Dominique|last2=Koopman|first2=Hilda|last3=Stabler|first3=Edward|date=2014|publisher=Wiley Blackwell|year=|isbn=978-1-4051-0017-5|location=West Sussex|pages=284}} 4. ^{{Cite book|title=Locality Principles in Syntax|last=Koster|first=Jan|publisher=Foris Publications|year=1981|isbn=90-70176-06-8|location=USA|pages=178}} 5. ^{{cite book |last1= Haegeman|first1= Liliane|last2= Guéron|first2= Jacqueline|date= 1999|title= English Grammar: A Generative Perspective|location= Malden, Massachusetts|publisher= Blackwell Publishers Inc.|isbn= 0-631-18839-8}} 3 : Syntax|Generative linguistics|Syntactic relationships |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。