摘要
本文构建了一个适用于分析提升结构的竞争动因的理论框架。该框架结合了霍金斯的加工效率和难易度理论、功能类型学对动因的界定、格里斯的动因层次划分等理论，将动因分为话语-功能层、语义层和形态句法层三个层次。研究指出，提升结构的竞争动因包括信息状态、生命度、有定性、句法复杂度等因素。这些动因在不同层次上相互竞争和互动，形成优先、合作和冲突三种互动模式。通过对200个实例的先导研究，确定了宾语至主语提升结构的解决方案类型为胜出、折中和阻滞。该理论框架不仅揭示了提升结构的竞争动因及其互动过程，还为理解语言结构的选择提供了新的视角，具有重要的理论和应用价值。
关键词： 提升结构；竞争动因；理论框架
Abstract
This paper constructs a theoretical framework for analyzing the competitive motivations of raising structures. The framework integrates Hawkins' processing efficiency and difficulty theory, the definition of motivations by functional typology, and Gries' hierarchical division of motivations, dividing motivations into three levels: discourse-functional, semantic, and morphosyntactic. The study identifies competitive motivations for raising structures, including information status, animacy, definiteness, and syntactic complexity. These motivations compete and interact at different levels, forming three types of interaction modes: priority, cooperation, and conflict. Based on a preliminary study of 200 examples, the solutions for subject-to-object raising structures were identified as dominance, compromise, and blockage. This theoretical framework not only reveals the competitive motivations and their interaction processes of raising structures but also provides a new perspective for understanding the selection of linguistic structures, offering significant theoretical and practical value.
Key words： Raising construction; Competing motivations; Theoretical framework
参考文献 References
[1] Gries, S. T. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A study of particle placement [M]. New York: Continuum Press, 2003.
[2] Hengeveld, K. & Mackenzie, J. L. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
[3] Mair, C. Infinitival Complement Clauses in English. A Study of Syntax in Discourse [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[4] Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech G., Conrad S. & Finegan E. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English [M]. London: Longman, 1999.
[5] Itagaki, N. & Prideaux, G. D. Nominal properties as determinants of subject selection [J]. Lingua, 1985,.66: 135-149.
[6] Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech G. & Svartvik, J. A Grammar of Contemporary English [M]. London: Longman, 1972.
[7] Hawkins, J. A. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[8] Givón, T. Functionalism and Grammar [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995.
[9] Yamamoto，M. Animacy and Reference: A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
[10] Silverstein, M. Hierarchy of features and ergativity [C]. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.). Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1976, 112-171.
[11] Rosenbach, A. Animacy and grammatical variation: findings from English genitive variation [J]. Lingua, 2007, 118: 151-71.
[12] Behaghel, O. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern [J]. Indogermanische Forschungen, 1909/10,.25: 110-142.
[13] Wasow, T. Remarks on grammatical weight [J]. Language Variation and Change, 1997, 9: 81-105.
[14] Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. Post-verbal constituent ordering in English [C]. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (eds.). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003: 119-154.
[15] Hawkins, J. A. Cross-linguistic Variation and Efficiency [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.