論中文寄生空位結構

Some Remarks on Parasitic Gaps in Chinese

自 Engdahl (1983)的研究開始，寄生空位結構即在學界引發廣泛的討論。我們主張儘管中文允許空主語存在，本文所探討的空位(gap)並不是空代詞，亦不是Li (2007a, b)所提出的真空位置(TEP)，而是一個變項(variable)。本文所提出的論點不僅證明中文寄生空位的確存在，在經過嚴密的檢視比較後更發現，若根據Culicover (2001)針對英文寄生空位結構所歸納出的幾項共識來看，中文和英文的寄生空位結構其實呈現出相當大的相似性。至於其中一些不同之處，可能是由於中文與英文之間某些參數差異(parametric differences)所造成。一言以蔽之，中文的寄生空位結構如同英文，亦為普遍語法(universal grammar) 的原則所認可。

The phenomenon of parasitic gaps has evoked extensive discussion in the literature since the first systematic examination by Engdahl (1983). In this paper, we argue that although Chinese is a pro-drop language, the gap at issue is not an empty pronoun and does not represent a True Empty Position under Li’s (2007a, b) theory; rather, it is a variable. Supporting arguments will be provided to justify the existence of a P-gap in Mandarin Chinese. Close examination of the P-gap in Chinese reveals that it conforms largely to the Current Consensus Positions (CCP) observed for English P-gaps as summarized by Culicover (2001), with some differences possibly due to parametric differences between Chinese and English. In a word, parasitic gaps in Chinese are also licensed largely by the same principles provided in Universal Grammar as those in English. 自 Engdahl (1983)的研究開始，寄生空位結構即在學界引發廣泛的討論。我們主張儘管中文允許空主語存在，本文所探討的空位(gap)並不是空代詞，亦不是Li (2007a, b)所提出的真空位置(TEP)，而是一個變項(variable)。本文所提出的論點不僅證明中文寄生空位的確存在，在經過嚴密的檢視比較後更發現，若根據Culicover (2001)針對英文寄生空位結構所歸納出的幾項共識來看，中文和英文的寄生空位結構其實呈現出相當大的相似性。至於其中一些不同之處，可能是由於中文與英文之間某些參數差異(parametric differences)所造成。一言以蔽之，中文的寄生空位結構如同英文，亦為普遍語法(universal grammar) 的原則所認可。