摘要
本文探讨了语言各层面中的竞争现象，并提出了四种解决语言竞争的方案：胜出、分离、折中和阻滞。Moravcsik（2010）在句法结构的背景下阐释了这些解决方案，其中形式与意义的同构关系被打破。文档概述了这些解决方案如何超越句法，应用于其他学科，如音系学、形态学、生物学、物理学、天文学和哲学。在音系学中，德语摩擦音既是单节段又是多节段的冲突，通过将它们置于不同情境中得到解决。在形态学中，塔加拉语中词缀不寻常的中央位置，由于需要辅音音节的韵头，因此需要对语法规则进行折中。本文强调了竞争解决方案在跨学科理论构建中的重要性，因为它们为预期与现实之间的差异提供了解释。最后将竞争动因的结果分类为分离、阻滞、胜出和折中，突出了它们在不同语法和语言现象中的作用。
关键词： 竞争动因；解决方案；分离；阻滞；胜出；折中
Abstract
The study delves into the phenomenon of competition in language at various levels and proposes four resolutions to linguistic competition: override, separation, compromise, and deadlock/blocking. Moravcsik (2010) elucidates these resolutions in the context of syntactic structures, where the isomorphism between form and meaning is violated. The study outlines how these resolutions can be applied beyond syntax to other disciplines like phonology, morphology, biology, physics, astronomy, and philosophy. For instance, in phonology, the conflict of German fricatives being both single and multi-segmental is resolved by contextualizing them in different scenarios. In morphology, the unusual central position of affixes in Tagalog is explained by the need for a consonantal onset, thus necessitating a compromise in grammatical rules. The document emphasizes the importance of competitive resolutions in theoretical construction across disciplines, as they provide explanations for discrepancies between expectations and reality. It concludes by categorizing the outcomes of competitive motivations into separation, deadlock, override, and compromise, highlighting their roles in different grammatical and linguistic phenomena.
Key words： Competing motivation; Resolution; Separation; Block; Override; Compromise
参考文献 References
[1] Moravcsik, E. Conflict resolution in syntactic theory [J]. Studies in Language, 2010, 34(3): 636–669.
[2] Kertész, A. Cognitive Science and Scientific Knowledge [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004.
[3] Yu, A. C. L. A Natural History of Infixation [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
[4] Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar [C]. In J. J. McCarthy (ed.). Optimality Theory in Phonology: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004:1-25.
[5] Malchukov, A. L. Resolving alignment conflicts: a competing motivations approach [C]. In B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov & E. Moravcsik (eds.). Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014: 17-41.
[6] Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A. 1998. Optimal questions [J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 1998, 16 (3): 443-490.
[7] Malchukov, A. L. Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: constraining co-variation [C]. In L. Kulikov, A. L. Malchukov & P. de Swart (eds.). Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam and Philadephia: John Benjamins, 2006: 329-359.
[8] Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. Functionalist approaches to grammar [C]. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (eds.). Language Acquisition: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982: 173-218.
[9] Kaltenböck, G. & Heine, B. Sentence grammar vs. thetical grammar: two competing domains [C]? In B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov & E. Moravcsik (eds.). Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014: 348-363.
[10] Moravcsik, E. Introduction [C]. In B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov & E. Moravcsik (eds.). Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014: 1-16.
[11] Dik, S. C. On the notion “functional explanation” [J]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 1,1986: 11-52.
[12] Helmbrecht, J. Politeness distinctions in personal pronouns: A case study on competing motivations [C]. In B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov & E. Moravcsik (eds.). Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014: 315-322.