论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】The present thesis presents a discussion of syntactic movement within the framework of Optimality Theory （OT）. Based on the analysis of NP-movement， Aux-movement and Wh-movement in English， it is proposed that OT way in analyzing syntactic movement is approachable and thus provide a novel perspective.
【Key words】Optimality Theory； syntactic movement； constraints
【作者簡介】宁雯，女，陕西西安人，西安外国语大学英文学院在读研究生，2017级外国语言学及应用语言学专业。
1. Syntactic Movement
Syntactic movement refers to the movement of any constituent in a sentence out of its original place to a new position. It exists in many circumstances， and plays a major role in structure changing. The change from active sentence to passive one relates to NP-movement； the change concerning the promotion of auxiliary words are Aux-movement； and the movement of the Wh-words changing a statement into a question can be called Wh-movement.
2. Optimality Theory （OT）
Optimality Theory （OT in short） is initiated by Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky （1993） in the year of 1992 as a new phonological framework that deals with the interaction of violable constraints. It is a linguistic model proposing that the observed forms of language arise from the interaction between conflicting constraints.
OT grammar is an input-output mechanism that pairs an output form to an input form （Kager 18）. The accomplishment of this function is dependent upon a division of labor between two components， Generator （or GEN） and Evaluation （or EVAL）. The former maps the input onto an infinite set of candidate output forms， the latter being burdened with evaluating the candidate output forms by set of ranked constraints.
Given an input， a constraint hierarchy is given， which consists of three constraints： C1>>C2>>C3 （C1 dominates C2 which dominates C3）， and GEN produces candidates （a）， （b） and （c）.
The basic idea underlying OT phonology is equally well applicable to OT syntax. It follows some general assumptions of OT phonology to include the essential properties of universality， violability， freedom of analysis， strict domination and harmony.
3. Research method
3.1 X’ Theory （respected under analysis by GEN）： each node must be a good projection of a lower one， if a lower one is present. （Kager 346）
（IP： inflectional phrase； CP： complementizer phrase； VP： verb phrase）
3.2 Constraints in English syntax
（1）OPERATOR IN SPECIFIER （OP-SPEC） Syntactic operators must be in specifier position. （Grimshaw 374）
This CP is an extended projection subject to structural constraints that indirectly trigger the effects of forcing the movement of Wh-elements （which are syntactic operators） into the specifier position of some extended projection， typically the specifier position of a Complementizer Phrase （or Spec-of-CP）.
（2）OBLIGATORY HEADS （OB-HD）
A projection has a head. （Grimshaw 374）
For verbal projections， Verb Phrase （VP） and its extended projections Inflectional Phrase （IP） and Complementizer Phrase （CP） imply that each must have a verb as its head.
（3） FULL INTERPRETATION （FULL-INT）
Lexical conceptual structure is parsed. （Grimshaw 374）
In a sentence such as “What did Tom say？” The verb “do” is semantically empty， functioning merely as an auxiliary for the lexical verb “say”.
（4）ECONOMY OF MOVEMENT （STAY）
Trace is not followed. （Grimshaw 374）
The function of STAY is to prevent any element from moving at surfacing structure， or “in the case of gradient violation， to select the shortest movement， the one that has the minimal number of intermediate steps” （Kager 351）.
FULL-INT must be dominated by OB-HD， since violations of FULL-INT （in the form of do-support） are tolerated to avoid violations of OB-HD. Therefore， we have“OB-HD>>FULL-INT”. Do-support only when necessary， so we have OP-SPEC， OB-HD>>FULL-INT， STAY
OP-SPEC>>OB-HD>>FULL-INT>>STAY
4. OT-approach to syntactic movement
4.1 OT-approach to NP-movement
NP-movement changes the sentence “The teacher asked students to sing a song.” into “The students were asked by the teacher to sing a song.” This is to change an active voice to a passive one. Taking as a typical sentence example to be analyzed， two constraints shall be added.
CASE： Case-marked DPs must appear in Case position
CASE makes the subject leave specifier of VP and move to specifier of IP， on the assumption that nominative is assigned to specifier of IP. In English， the cost of violating CASE is high； hence this constraint is high-ranked.
LX-MV （No Lexical Movement）： No Movement of a Lexical Head.
LX-MV is violated when a verb leaves V.
Input： {ask（X， Y）， X=the students， Y=the teacher， tense=past}
In order to testify whether it is alright to choose sentence C to be the optimal one， it is supposed to draw a tree diagram for the two sentences as below： Also， we can see whether the optimal choice is suitable by analyzing the process it experienced while changing into its passive voice.
From the illustration above， the optimal choice chosen from OT is quite approachable in grammar step. Therefore， the way of OT in optimal sentence choosing can be seen to be reliable.
4.2 OT-approach to Aux-movement
We can set the similar step to auxiliary movement， which are： “She has suffered a lot.” and “Has she suffered a lot？”
Input： {suffer（X）， X=she， tense=past， auxiliary=has done}
It is evident that the sentence movement of the optimal sentence according to OT is quite sound in illustration. Hence， we can draw into conclusion that OT is suitable in Auxiliary movement.
4.3 OT-approach to Wh-movement
In the same way， Wh-movement can be illustrated by two sentences： “George helped Mary.” and “Who did George help？”
Input： {help（X， Y）， X=George， Y=who， tense=past}
The movement procedure is fully expressed in the diagram， “e=empty” shows the former position under the inflectional item. “t=trace” inflecting the original position of the word “who”. The movement itself is the manifestation of the relationship between deep structure and surface structure.
5. Conclusion
The examining of syntactic movement under OT framework suggested the application of a theory proposed. From the list of OT， the testified tree diagram and the change of the movement， we can draw into conclusion that OT in analyzing NP-movement， Aux-movement and Wh-movement are all approachable. The approaches used in this paper concerns chart-filling， tree diagram which binary cut the syntactic structure of each movement we referred to. The check of OT makes it performed better and more innovative than other checking way which lacks scientific support.
References：
[1]Grimshaw，Jane.“Projection，heads，and optimality”.Linguistic Inquiry 28（1997）：373-422.
[2]Kager，Rene.Optimality Theory.Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press，2001.
[3]Prince，Alan.and Paul，Smolensky.Optimality Theory：Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar.Oxford：Blackwell，1993.
【Key words】Optimality Theory； syntactic movement； constraints
【作者簡介】宁雯，女，陕西西安人，西安外国语大学英文学院在读研究生，2017级外国语言学及应用语言学专业。
1. Syntactic Movement
Syntactic movement refers to the movement of any constituent in a sentence out of its original place to a new position. It exists in many circumstances， and plays a major role in structure changing. The change from active sentence to passive one relates to NP-movement； the change concerning the promotion of auxiliary words are Aux-movement； and the movement of the Wh-words changing a statement into a question can be called Wh-movement.
2. Optimality Theory （OT）
Optimality Theory （OT in short） is initiated by Alan Prince and Paul Smolensky （1993） in the year of 1992 as a new phonological framework that deals with the interaction of violable constraints. It is a linguistic model proposing that the observed forms of language arise from the interaction between conflicting constraints.
OT grammar is an input-output mechanism that pairs an output form to an input form （Kager 18）. The accomplishment of this function is dependent upon a division of labor between two components， Generator （or GEN） and Evaluation （or EVAL）. The former maps the input onto an infinite set of candidate output forms， the latter being burdened with evaluating the candidate output forms by set of ranked constraints.
Given an input， a constraint hierarchy is given， which consists of three constraints： C1>>C2>>C3 （C1 dominates C2 which dominates C3）， and GEN produces candidates （a）， （b） and （c）.
The basic idea underlying OT phonology is equally well applicable to OT syntax. It follows some general assumptions of OT phonology to include the essential properties of universality， violability， freedom of analysis， strict domination and harmony.
3. Research method
3.1 X’ Theory （respected under analysis by GEN）： each node must be a good projection of a lower one， if a lower one is present. （Kager 346）
（IP： inflectional phrase； CP： complementizer phrase； VP： verb phrase）
3.2 Constraints in English syntax
（1）OPERATOR IN SPECIFIER （OP-SPEC） Syntactic operators must be in specifier position. （Grimshaw 374）
This CP is an extended projection subject to structural constraints that indirectly trigger the effects of forcing the movement of Wh-elements （which are syntactic operators） into the specifier position of some extended projection， typically the specifier position of a Complementizer Phrase （or Spec-of-CP）.
（2）OBLIGATORY HEADS （OB-HD）
A projection has a head. （Grimshaw 374）
For verbal projections， Verb Phrase （VP） and its extended projections Inflectional Phrase （IP） and Complementizer Phrase （CP） imply that each must have a verb as its head.
（3） FULL INTERPRETATION （FULL-INT）
Lexical conceptual structure is parsed. （Grimshaw 374）
In a sentence such as “What did Tom say？” The verb “do” is semantically empty， functioning merely as an auxiliary for the lexical verb “say”.
（4）ECONOMY OF MOVEMENT （STAY）
Trace is not followed. （Grimshaw 374）
The function of STAY is to prevent any element from moving at surfacing structure， or “in the case of gradient violation， to select the shortest movement， the one that has the minimal number of intermediate steps” （Kager 351）.
FULL-INT must be dominated by OB-HD， since violations of FULL-INT （in the form of do-support） are tolerated to avoid violations of OB-HD. Therefore， we have“OB-HD>>FULL-INT”. Do-support only when necessary， so we have OP-SPEC， OB-HD>>FULL-INT， STAY
OP-SPEC>>OB-HD>>FULL-INT>>STAY
4. OT-approach to syntactic movement
4.1 OT-approach to NP-movement
NP-movement changes the sentence “The teacher asked students to sing a song.” into “The students were asked by the teacher to sing a song.” This is to change an active voice to a passive one. Taking as a typical sentence example to be analyzed， two constraints shall be added.
CASE： Case-marked DPs must appear in Case position
CASE makes the subject leave specifier of VP and move to specifier of IP， on the assumption that nominative is assigned to specifier of IP. In English， the cost of violating CASE is high； hence this constraint is high-ranked.
LX-MV （No Lexical Movement）： No Movement of a Lexical Head.
LX-MV is violated when a verb leaves V.
Input： {ask（X， Y）， X=the students， Y=the teacher， tense=past}
In order to testify whether it is alright to choose sentence C to be the optimal one， it is supposed to draw a tree diagram for the two sentences as below： Also， we can see whether the optimal choice is suitable by analyzing the process it experienced while changing into its passive voice.
From the illustration above， the optimal choice chosen from OT is quite approachable in grammar step. Therefore， the way of OT in optimal sentence choosing can be seen to be reliable.
4.2 OT-approach to Aux-movement
We can set the similar step to auxiliary movement， which are： “She has suffered a lot.” and “Has she suffered a lot？”
Input： {suffer（X）， X=she， tense=past， auxiliary=has done}
It is evident that the sentence movement of the optimal sentence according to OT is quite sound in illustration. Hence， we can draw into conclusion that OT is suitable in Auxiliary movement.
4.3 OT-approach to Wh-movement
In the same way， Wh-movement can be illustrated by two sentences： “George helped Mary.” and “Who did George help？”
Input： {help（X， Y）， X=George， Y=who， tense=past}
The movement procedure is fully expressed in the diagram， “e=empty” shows the former position under the inflectional item. “t=trace” inflecting the original position of the word “who”. The movement itself is the manifestation of the relationship between deep structure and surface structure.
5. Conclusion
The examining of syntactic movement under OT framework suggested the application of a theory proposed. From the list of OT， the testified tree diagram and the change of the movement， we can draw into conclusion that OT in analyzing NP-movement， Aux-movement and Wh-movement are all approachable. The approaches used in this paper concerns chart-filling， tree diagram which binary cut the syntactic structure of each movement we referred to. The check of OT makes it performed better and more innovative than other checking way which lacks scientific support.
References：
[1]Grimshaw，Jane.“Projection，heads，and optimality”.Linguistic Inquiry 28（1997）：373-422.
[2]Kager，Rene.Optimality Theory.Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press，2001.
[3]Prince，Alan.and Paul，Smolensky.Optimality Theory：Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar.Oxford：Blackwell，1993.