English Middle Formation: A VP-shell Approach
|Course||English Language and Literature|
|Keywords||Middle Construction Generate VP - shell Vocabulary Builder says NP- shift said|
English middle structure involving complex syntactic, semantic and lexical relations, linguistics research focus. Middle Construction generation is a hot research field linguists are competing, which gave birth to the two camps, the formation of the two doctrines: Vocabulary Builder term shift to generate said. In this paper, the VP-shell theory, the dynamic the dynamic structure typical class linguists hot and rare atypical class structures are included in the study aims to propose a comprehensive set of unified generation mode. In this paper, sublation, structural semantics to start moving from the research, the Middle Construction generation is to reveal the syntactic level. In this paper, a useful exploration in the following four areas. First of all, our middle construction tentative definition (working definition), and the middle construction of a new classification. The English middle structure for a long time, but has not been a rough or precise definition. Research needs, tentatively scheduled to be roughly defined as: formal structure consists of a subject NP and verb V adv ADV English middle; semantics, the subject NP (intrinsic properties) causative verbs [V-ing (of NP) how (ADV); syntax, verb active form, the present tense, and usually require an adverb modified. Although this definition is broad, rough, but it can capture the salient features of the middle construction semantics, syntax. By this definition, the the many moving structure can be included in the scope of our study. Face of the complicated dynamic structure, we need to be reclassified. Distinguish between the traditional sense of typical and atypical, vague and abstract. Us on the basis of previous studies, according to the characteristics of sub-genres of the verb in the moving structure is divided into Class 1 middles the Class 2 middles and Class 3middles,. This distinction, standards, new methods, a comprehensive classification. The establishment of a working definition of the distinction of the middle construction, enables us to get rid of the fuss, and to further expand our research tentacles. Furthermore, in terms of semantic constraints, we have established the central position of the middle construction grammatical subject accountability in the Middle Construction generation process. We move from the study of syntactic structure generation from the outset, but we great importance to the semantic properties of the sentence. Many attributes of the semantic aspects ultimate destination, that is the responsibility of the grammatical subject (Responsibility condition). Through the middle construction generated many constraints comparative analysis, we believe, the the subject responsibility is the core conditions generated by the middle construction. Verbs physical appearance condition (the aspectual condition), to select the legal verb; non-result condition (anti-effectednesscondition), parasitic on the conditions of liability, liability conditions corollary the; the agent conditions (Agentivitycondition), is the verb physical appearance a necessary complement to the two work together on the verb be selected. All of these conditions and subject accountability conditions compared to peripheral conditions, provides the possibility for the Dynamic generation. Not the core conditions, the number of peripheral constraints complicated, and so forth, it is difficult to exhaust its research. And computer configuration is quite similar, the CPU is the kernel of the computer configuration, peripherals variety, scanner, camera, projector, and so on. External conditions are not prerequisites, while the CPU is indispensable. Even with all the core elements and peripheral elements, and sometimes the computer will still card machine. Dynamic sentence is true, sometimes all the constraints have been met, but still can not generate qualified Dynamic sentence, because there may be many unknown factors (such as pragmatic constraints, etc.). Accordingly, we draw the following diagram, Figure (1) below: third, we believe that the the implied agent was in the English middle structure parameters: dominant for-PP phrase, recessive IMP . The Middle Construction generation there are many differences, but the point is that the parties recognized the existence of the agent argument that is implicit. Vocabulary Builder said that, it only exists in the vocabulary conceptual level, is not involved in syntactic projection, because in most cases, be interpreted as arb (people in general). This approach can not explain why the agent on the dominant element in the sentence, in the interpretation of constraints built-the subject anaphor (subject-contained anaphor) is powerless because of the constraints on the syntactic level. Even the term shift that implied the identity of the agent argument differences also exist, which in the end is PRO or pro, or other hidden ingredients, different opinions. English would not consent pro, it is not possible to PRO, Stroik (1992) studies suggest that adjuncts, specifically, is attached to the VP Pro.