跨语言“主语”的性质及其与语义角色的关系研究
A Study on the Nature of Cross-Linguistic “Subject” and Its Relationship with Semantic Roles
摘要: 本研究探讨了跨语言“主语”的性质及其与语义角色的关系。文章首先梳理了主语在不同理论模式中的定义和性质，并指出主语是一个句法层面的概念，应通过格和语序来判定，之后，文章还列举了部分代表性的映射理论。在此基础上，研究选取了7个不同语系的共10种语言样本，分析了跨语言主语对不同语义角色的偏好等级，并尝试对一些非典型现象进行解释。研究发现，核心论元在所有语言样本中都可以作为主语出现，而其他的论元在一定数量的语言样本中可以映射为主语。结果表明，跨语言主语对不同语义角色的偏好程度体现为：施事 > 致事 > 主事 > 经事 > 与事 > 受事 > 工具/对象 > 时间/处所/结果，语义透明度较高的语言通常允许更多数量的语义角色映射为主语，反之则反之，这个数量一般介于6~9之间。最后，文章总结了跨语言主语的普遍共性，并列举了部分影响映射关系的因素，包括动词语义、句法类型学特征、认知加工方式和语用因素等。
Abstract: This study explores the nature of cross-linguistic “subject” and its relationship with semantic roles. Firstly, the article summarizes the definitions and properties of subjects in different theoretical models, and points out that subject is a syntactic concept, which should be determined by grammatical and constituent order, and then the article also lists some representative Mapping Theories. On this basis, the study selects a total of 10 language samples from seven different language families, analyzes the preference hierarchy of cross-linguistic subjects for different semantic roles, and tries to explain some atypical phenomena. It is found that core arguments can appear as subjects in all language samples, while other arguments can be mapped onto subjects in a certain number of language samples respectively. The results show that the preference hierarchy of cross-linguistic subjects for different semantic roles is reflected in the following: agent > causer > theme > experiencer > dative > patient > instrument/target > time/locative/result, and languages with higher semantic transparency usually allow a higher number of semantic roles to be mapped onto subjects, and vice versa, with this number generally ranging between 6 and 9. Finally, the article summarizes the general commonalities of cross-linguistic subjects and lists some of the factors affecting the mapping relationships, including verb semantics, linguistic typological features, cognitive processing, and pragmatic factors.
文章引用：李天琪. 跨语言“主语”的性质及其与语义角色的关系研究[J]. 现代语言学, 2024, 12(12): 16-30. https://doi.org/10.12677/ml.2024.12121114

参考文献

[1] Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language. H. Holt and Company.
[2] Hockett, C.F. (1958) A Course in Modern Linguistics. The Macmillan Company.
[3] Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The MIT Press.
[4] Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
[5] Keenan, E.L. (1976) Towards a Universal Definition of “Subject”. In: Li, C., Ed., Subject and Topic, Academic Press, 303-333.
[6] 黎锦熙. 新著国语文法[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1924.
[7] 王宗炎. 怎样辨析主语和宾语[M]//中国语文杂志社编. 汉语的主语宾语问题. 北京: 中华书局, 1956.
[8] 朱德熙. 语法讲义[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1982.
[9] 高明乐, 潘晓颖. 主语的语法性质和语言类型学意义[J]. 外语教学, 2020(2): 39-43.
[10] 宋文辉. 现代汉语中是否存在和话题分立的语法主语[J]. 语言教学与研究, 2020(2): 77-88.
[11] Haspelmath, D. (2014) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online.
https://wals.info/
[12] Dixon, R.M.W. (1994) Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.
[13] 金立鑫. 广义语法形态理论的解释力——对普通话语序类型与论元配置类型的描写与解释[J]. 华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2019(2): 32-43.
[14] Haspelmath, M. (2012) Terminology of Case. In: The Oxford Handbook of Case, Oxford University Press, 505-517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[15] Fillmore, C. (1968) The Case for Case. In: Bach, E. and Harms, R., Eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1-88.
[16] Newmeyer, F.J. (2010) On Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories: A Reply to Haspelmath. Language, 86, 688-695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[17] Fillmore, C. (1971) Some Problems for Case Grammar. In: O’Bien, R., Ed., Report of the 22nd Annual Round able Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, Georgetown University Press.
[18] 袁毓林. 论元角色的层级关系和语义特征[J]. 世界汉语教学, 2002, 16(3): 11-22.
[19] 袁毓林. 一套汉语动词论元角色的语法指标[J]. 世界汉语教学, 2003, 17(3): 24-36.
[20] 李临定. 现代汉语句型[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 1986.
[21] 鲁川, 林杏光. 现代汉语语法的格关系[J]. 汉语学习, 1989(5): 11-15.
[22] 于秀金, 姜兆梓. 跨语言论元配置模式下“把”字句的结构属性[J]. 当代语言学, 2023(1): 75-100.
[23] 金立鑫, 王红卫. 动词分类和施格、通格及施语、通语[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2014(1): 45-57+158-159.
[24] Müller-Gotama, F. (1994) Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on their Syntax and Semantics. De Gruyter Mouton.
[25] Thráinsson, H. (2007) The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge University Press.
[26] Andrews, A.D. (2001) Noncanonical A/S Marking in Icelandic. In: Aikhenvald, A.Y., Dixon, R.M.W. and Onishi, M., Eds., Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects, John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[27] Hidayat, E. (2022) Subject Phenomenon in German. Nusantara Science and Technology Proceedings, 2022, 160-165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[28] Kittilä, S., Västi, K. and Ylikoski, J. (2011) Introduction to Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles. In: Typological Studies in Language, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1-26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[29] Shibatani, M. (2001) Non-Canonical Constructions in Japanese. In: Typological Studies in Language, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[30] Onishi, M. (2001) Non-Canonically Marked A/S in Bengali. In: Typological Studies in Language, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[31] Bayer, J. (2004) 3. Non-Nominative Subjects in Comparison. In: Typological Studies in Language, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[32] Bossong, G. (1998) Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues d’Europe. In: Eurotyp 2, Actance et Valence dans les Langues de l’Europe, de gruyter mouton, 259-294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[33] Haspelmath, M. (2001) Non-Canonical Marking of Core Arguments in European Languages. In: Typological Studies in Language, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[34] 蔡淑美, 施春宏. 中动句的形义关系、构造机制和层级系统——基于跨语言比较的视角[J]. 外国语(上海外国语大学学报), 2023, 46(6): 33-44.
[35] 吴洲欣. 跨语言视角下的汉语中动结构表达[J]. 汉字文化, 2023(23): 4-6.
[36] Greenspon, M.D. (1996) A Closer Look at the Middle Construction. Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University.
[37] Naylor, M. (2024) Icelandic Grammar Reference.
https://icelandicgrammar.com/
[38] 其木格. 蒙汉语常用语义格对比研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 北京: 中央民族大学, 2008.
[39] 韩格日乐吐. 基于语料库的蒙古语主语、宾语映射为语义角色的统计研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 呼和浩特: 内蒙古大学, 2022.
[40] Park, C. and Kim, J. (2022) Nominative Objects in Korean. Linguistics, 60, 1487-1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[41] 关月月. 俄语简单句语义-句法模式生成机制研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 哈尔滨: 黑龙江大学, 2014.
[42] Bresnan, J. and Kanerva, J. (1989) Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 20), 1-50.
[43] 张月红. 配位结构的理论与应用[D]: [博士学位论文]. 哈尔滨: 黑龙江大学, 2019.
[44] Barðdal, J. (2001) Case in Icelandic—A Synchronic, Diachronic and Comparative Approach. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Lund.
[45] 高明乐. 题元角色的句法实现[D]: [博士学位论文]. 北京: 北京语言文化大学, 2003.
[46] Palmer, F.R. (1994). Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge University Press.[CrossRef] 
[47] Yang, I. (1972) Korean Syntax: Case Markers, Delimiters, Complementation and Relativization. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hawaii.
[48] Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press.
[49] Taylor, J. (1995) Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[50] 胡壮麟. 认知隐喻学[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2004.
[51] Grimshaw, J. (1990) Argument Structure. MIT Press.
[52] Dik, S.C. (1978) Functional Grammar. North Holland Linguistic Series.
[53] Givón, T. (1984) Syntax. John Benjamins Publishing Company. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[54] Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.