人物专栏 | Marcel den Dikken教授访谈（下）

点击上方蓝字关注我们

编者按

《理论语言学五道口站》（2022年第43期，总第246期）“人物专栏”继续与大家分享本站采编人员雷晨对Marcel den Dikken教授进行采访的访谈录。Marcel den Dikken，匈牙利罗兰大学英美研究学院英语语言学系教授，匈牙利布达佩斯语言研究院高级研究员，北京语言大学语言学系国际教授委员会成员。

本期访谈中，Marcel den Dikken教授首先讨论了自嵌套递归结构限制的普遍性，然后阐述了人称一致性与性、数一致性的区别，并针对人称一致性提出了自己的看法和建议。

本次访谈内容内容由本站成员赵欣宇、雷晨、聂简荻、郭思源、丁子意翻译，Marcel den Dikken教授简介可参考《理论语言学五道口站》“人物专栏”2022年第40期，总第243期。

访谈内容

05.

雷晨：您在2018年的文章（Dikken & Dékány, 2018）中讨论了自嵌套递归结构的制约因素，并且发现匈牙利语与格结构的领有者是处于被领有者SpecDP位置的PP，而不是被复合名词短语的D-结构中心语成分统治，因此匈牙利语的与格结构不属于（1）（restriction on recursion）（Dikken & Dékány, 2018）的限制范畴：长度可以任意。您认为这种现象是匈牙利语特有的还是人类语言中普遍存在的？您是否可以从跨语言的角度来解释一下DP的递归限制？

Marcel den Dikken教授：你所提到的论文中的递归限制是一个普遍现象（“只有在两种á被一个短语核心分隔开的情况下，类型á的短语范畴才能被附加在同类型的短语范畴上，且两种á的中心语之间存在不对称的成分统制关系”)。它的管辖范围远远超出了DP中递归的情况，因此是一个强有力的假设。除了DP之外，它还涵盖了一些难题，比如一个CP作为一个更大的CP的主语：在*Is [that he did this] a good thing? 和*I doubt that [that he did this] is a good thing中，处于低位的CP是由处于高位CP的中心语成分统治的（表现为is和that）。而在高位C和低位CP之间没有短语中心语；因此Éva Dékány和我提出对递归限制的预测，我们认为这种句子应该被降级。而[That he did this] is a good thing是完全可以接受的，Jan Koster教授的经典方法可以解释这一点：语境中的“主语句”是左置话题处于主句中心语C的成分统制之外的高位指示语位置（甚至在结构上完全处于主句之外）。这只是递归限制在自嵌套情况下的一种解释（请注意，该限制并未涉及非自嵌套递归）。跨语言和语言内部的差异不是源于递归限制本身的适用性，而在于类别á的从属标记的句法位置：在一种语言中，这个从属á可能会出现在更高的á所在中心语的成分统制下，在另一种语言中则可能不会（因为它已经移位至或基础生成于这个成分统制域之外的位置）。当然，从属á的位置差异应该在独立的句法基础上进行判断，许多有趣的研究视角正来源于此。

06.

雷晨：请问与数的一致相比，人称一致的特殊性体现在哪一方面？

Marcel den Dikken教授：我在研究中指出（紧随Mark Baker教授的开创性研究），人称特征在名词短语的层级结构中的位置与数（以及性）所占据的位置完全不同：人称在DP内部结构中位于左侧分支，而不在“主脊”上。人称一致的实现方式受此影响，无论在何处，人称一致总是呈现一种“一致吸引”的情况：体现为在外部功能中心语和DP子部分之间一致，并非整个DP的一致。一致吸引受到严格制约，我在期刊Frontiers的文章中也力证过人称一致所受的限制与之十分近似。该论文还提供了一个观点，即从在DP中的结构表现方式这一角度解释了人称特征在DP中的结构表达方式与其他φ特征不同的原因。我在此不做总结，正在阅读这篇访谈的人可以随时查阅这篇论文（开放获取）。

07.

雷晨：在den Dikken（2019）中，您提出，一致关系以及名词短语中φ特征的结构表征将自证其能力，远超文章所述的事实范围。请问您最近在这方面有什么新的进展吗？您能为这方面的后续研究提供一些建议吗？

Marcel den Dikken教授：很遗憾，我暂时没有新的研究分享给你。我最近与Éva Dékány教授一直在研究数字和数词，但这项工作并没有直接（迄今为止）影响复合名词短语中φ特征的一致性和表征结构的研究进度。

在我看来，人称特征可能是唯一一个不在 DP 的“主脊”位置来表示φ特征的。因此，我认为在DP内部，其他φ特征都不可能具有与人称特征一样的结构位置。与其他φ特征相比，人称可能是独特的一类特征。但是，如果有事实证明φ特征集中的特征拥有人称特征所具有的特殊表现，我很乐意站出来指正（可能是我不熟悉的一类特征，又或是一种我熟悉但没有被我发现具有特殊表现的特征）。在这种情况下，存在的问题就是其他φ特征是否像人称一样处于DP中的特定位置。我认为人称特征在DP中的表现方式是普遍的，且与数、性不同；但可以预想到，不同语言中人称（数或性）在DP内部的结构表现方面有所不同。如果DP中某些φ特征是跨语言变体，那么人们会认为这是DP外部一致产生的结果。在我熟悉的语言中，无论是DP内定语修饰还是谓词修饰中，即使数和性一致，也不存在人称一致。这并不是个例。但是，如果事实证明有些语言确实表现出人称一致的情况，那肯定是这些语言DP中人称的表达方式不同于像英语中表示人称的表达方式。我在Frontiers发表的文章从φ特征和一致的句法角度提到无论是人称特征还是其它φ特征都有很多内容需要探索。遗憾的是，汉语普通话并不是探索这些的最佳工具。也许本次采访的一些读者正在研究具有更广泛的φ特征集或具有特殊限制的一致性类型，也许这些要点会启发和引导读者们获得新的经验和发现。如果是这样，这次采访将是十分有意义和价值的。

English Version

05.

Chen Lei: In den Dikken & Dékány (2018), you have discussed restrictions on self-embedding recursion structures and found that Hungarian dative possessors are PPs sitting in the SpecDP of the possessum, not c-commanded by the D-head of the complex noun phrase; so they do not fall under the purview of (1): they can be of any size. Is this phenomenon specific to Hungarian or universal in human language? Or could you explain the recursion restriction of DP from a cross-language perspective?

Prof. Marcel den Dikken: The restriction on recursion that is central to the paper that you are referring to (‘a phasal category of type á can be embedded in a phasal category of the same type where there is an asymmetric c-command relation between the heads of the two instances of á only if the two instances of á are separated by a phase head’) is a universal. It has jurisdiction well beyond cases of recursion in DP. So it is a strong hypothesis. Outside DP, it covers, for instance, the difficulty in using a CP as the subject of a larger CP: in *Is [that he did this] a good thing? and *I doubt that [that he did this] is a good thing, the lower CP is c-commanded by the head of the higher CP (realised as is and that, resp.) and there is no phase head in between the higher C and the lower CP; the restriction on recursion that Éva Dékány and I have proposed thus predicts, correctly as it happens, that such sentences should be degraded. The fact that [That he did this] is a good thing is perfectly acceptable can be explained by following Jan Koster’s classic approach to ‘subject sentences’ in root contexts as left-dislocated topics, in a high specifier position outside the c-command domain of the matrix C-head (or even structurally outside the matrix clause altogether). This is just one illustration of the myriad ways in which the restriction on recursion plays itself out in cases of self-embedding. (Note that the restriction has nothing to say about non-self-embedding recursion.) Cross-linguistic and intra-linguistic variation arises not in the applicability of the restriction on recursion itself but in the syntactic placement of the subordinate token of category á: while in one language, this subordinate á may find itself in the c-command domain of the head of the higher á, in another language it may not (because it has been moved into or base-generated in a position outside this domain). The difference in placement of the subordinate á should, of course, be diagnosable on independent syntactic grounds — and it is here that lots of interesting perspectives for research open up.

06.

Chen Lei: What is the specialness of person agreement compared to number agreement?

Prof. Marcel den Dikken: In my work (following closely in the footsteps of seminal research by Mark Baker), I have pointed out that the person feature finds itself in a position in the hierarchical structure of the noun phrase that is quite different from the position occupied by number (and gender): person sits on a left branch in the internal structure of the DP; it is not on the ‘main spine’. This has consequences for the way person agreement comes about. Wherever it transpires, person agreement is always a case of ‘agreement attraction’: agreement between an outside functional head and a subpart of DP, not the whole DP. Agreement attraction is severely constrained; and as I have endeavoured to demonstrate in my paper in Frontiers, it turns out that person agreement is constrained in very similar ways. This paper also offers a perspective on why person should be different from the other φ-features in the way it is structurally represented in DP. I will not summarise this here because the paper (which is Open Access) is readily accessible to all who are reading this interview.

07.

Chen Lei: In den Dikken (2019), you suggested that the perspectives on the workings of agreement and the structural representation of the φ-features within the noun phrase will prove their mettle well beyond the range of facts reviewed here. Do you have done some new work in this aspect recently? Could you give some advice on further study in this aspect?

Prof. Marcel den Dikken: There is no new work of mine that I can refer you to, unfortunately. I have been looking at number and numerals in some recent work with Éva Dékány, but this work does not impinge in any direct way (as yet) on the workings of agreement or the structural representation of the φ-features in the complex noun phrase.

It seems to me that the person feature is likely the only φ-feature that is represented in a position that is not on the ‘main spine’ of the DP. So I think it is not to be expected that other φ-features will be found to have the same kind of structural position within DP as the person feature. Person is probably truly unique in relation to the other φ-features. But I will be happy to stand corrected on this if it turns out that the special behaviour of person can be reproduced for some other member of the extended family of φ-features (either one that I am not familiar with or one that I know but have not found behaving ‘specially’ in the languages that I have looked at), in which case the question is whether or not that other φ-feature is like person in being in a specifier position within DP. I would like to think that the way in which person is represented in the DP is universal, and that person is universally different from number and gender in this respect; but it is imaginable that languages differ with respect to how person (or number or gender, for that matter) is structurally represented inside DP. If the representation of some φ-feature(s) within DP is cross-linguistically variable, one would expect that this would have consequences outside DP, in the realm of agreement and concord. I note here that although there is concord for number and gender, both in cases of attributive modification within DP and in cases of predication, there is no concord for person in the languages that I am familiar with. This is not an accident. But if it should turn out that there are languages which do exhibit person concord, this will almost certainly have to be a consequence of these languages representing person in the DP in a way that is different from the way in which, say, English represents person there. There are plenty of things to explore, both for person and for the other φ-features, from the perspective of the outlook on the syntax of φ-features and agreement unfolded in my Frontiers paper. Mandarin Chinese is, unfortunately, not the optimal vehicle for an exploration of these things. But perhaps some of the readers of this interview are working on languages with a wider set of φ-features or an unusual(ly constrained) type of agreement, and perhaps these notes will inspire them and lead them to new empirical and analytical discoveries. If so, this interview will have made a useful contribution.

往期推荐

本文版权归“理论语言学五道口站”所有，转载请联系本平台。

编辑：闫玉萌 赵欣宇 雷晨 

排版：闫玉萌 赵欣宇 雷晨 

审校：李芳芳 田英慧

英文编审责任人：雷晨