基于约束理论的英语反身代词研究
A Study on English Reflexive Pronouns Based on Binding Theory
DOI: 10.12677/ml.2026.145474, PDF,   
作者: 张培锟:北京交通大学外国语与新闻传播学院,北京
关键词: 生成语法约束理论英语反身代词局部约束Generative Grammar Binding Theory English Reflexive Pronouns Locality
摘要: 本研究在生成语法框架下,以乔姆斯基的约束理论为基点,通过对英语反身代词约束行为的系统性研究,旨在深化对约束原则A及其“局部性”条件的理解。尽管约束理论在解释印欧语言时曾展现出强大解释力,但汉语等语言中反身代词的长距离约束现象对其普遍性构成根本性质疑。在此背景下,英语反身代词作为严格遵守局部约束的典范,其个案研究具有独特的理论检验价值。本研究论证了英语反身代词的严格局部性根植于其形态与句法的内在关联,其复合形态携带了完备的φ-特征(人称、数、性),使之无需进行长距离特征依存,从而被“锚定”于最小局部语域。本研究结论表明,“局部性”并非绝对句法铁律,而是词汇项形态属性与句法计算互动产生的参数化结果,从而在捍卫约束理论核心洞察的同时,亦揭示了其必要的参数化维度。
Abstract: This study, based on the Binding Theory of Chomsky within the framework of Generative Grammar, systematically investigates the binding behavior of English reflexive pronouns, aiming to deepen the understanding of Binding Principle A and its condition of “locality”. While Binding Theory has effectively explain the language phenomena of Indo-European languages, its universality has been fundamentally challenged in long-distance binding phenomena of reflexive pronouns in languages like Chinese. Against this backdrop, English reflexive pronouns, as a model of strictly adhering to the locality, offer unique theoretical testing value. The study demonstrates that the strict locality of English reflexive pronouns is rooted in the intrinsic connection between their morphology and syntax, where their complex morphology carries complete φ-features (person, number, gender), eliminating the need for long-distance feature dependency and thereby “anchoring” them within the minimal local domain. The findings reveal that locality is not an absolute syntactic role but a parametric outcome of the interaction between the morphological properties of lexical items and syntactic computation. It not only upholds the core insight of Binding Theory, but also uncovers its necessary parametric dimension.
文章引用:张培锟. 基于约束理论的英语反身代词研究[J]. 现代语言学, 2026, 14(5): 912-919. https://doi.org/10.12677/ml.2026.145474

参考文献

[1] 曾玉洪, 赵涛. 从约束理论看汉语指称中的光杆反身代词自己[J]. 西南民族大学学报(人文社科版), 2008, 29(S1): 175-178.
[2] 王文斌. 约束理论与英汉反身代词第二语言习得的理论研究[J]. 当代语言学, 2001(2): 132-142+158.
[3] 徐烈炯. 生成语法理论[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 1990.
[4] Chomsky, N. (1980) On Binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 1-46.
[5] Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris.
[6] Wexler, K. and Manzini, M.R. (1987) Parameters and Learnability in Binding Theory. In: Roeper, T. and Williams, E., Eds., Parameter Setting, Springer, 41-76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[7] Cole, P., Hermon, G. and Sung, L.M. (1990) Principles and Parameters of Long-Distance Reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 1-22.
[8] Levinson, S.C. (1991) Pragmatic Reduction of the Binding Conditions Revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 107-161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[9] Chomsky, N. (2000) Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In: Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J., Eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, 89-155.
[10] Reuland, E. (2001) Primitives of Binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 439-492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[11] Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. (2001) T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences. In: Kenstowicz, M.J., Ed., Ken Hale, The MIT Press, 355-426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[12] Reuland, E. (2011) Binding and Reflexivization. Cambridge University Press.
[13] Van Urk, C. (2019) The Role of-Agreement in Binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 50, 483-522.
[14] 黄衍. 照应[M]. 张庆宗, 译. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2021.
[15] Pica, P. (1987) On the Nature of the Reflexivization Cycle. In: McDonough, J. and Plunkett, B., Eds., Proceedings of NELS 17, GLSA, 483-499.