张立平编写的《关于形态变化对语序及主语脱落影响的历时性研究》的主要内容为通过对形态变化做历时性分析来研究形态变化对语序及主语脱落的影响，形态变化包括形态格和动词的性数一致词缀，都是语序变化及主语脱落的决定性因素。本书结构严谨、富有理论深度，对学界具有较高的实践意义。

《关于形态变化对语序及主语脱落影响的历时性研究》的目的是通过对形态变化做历时性分析来研究形态变化对语序及主语脱落的影响。形态变化包括两个方面：形态格(morphological case)和动词的性数一致词缀(verbal agreementinflection)。这两者都是语序变化及主语脱落的决定性因素。

在语序分析中，我们提出以下假设：在有着丰富的表示性数一致的动词词缀的语言(agreement-rich languages)中，词缀通过显性动词移位附着在动词上；而在表示性数一致的词缀贫乏的语言(agreement-impoverished)中，词缀是通过在音系部分(phonologicalcomponent)下移(affix lowering)附着在动词上的。有着丰富的一致词缀的语言又可根据功能语类Agr的嫁接位置分为两种：c-Agr语言和T-Agr语言。在c-Agr语言中，性数一致体现在c上；而在T-Agr语言中，性数一致体现在T上。换言之，在c-Agi-语言中，Agr嫁接在c上，因此动词移位至c以获取词缀；而在T-Agr语言中，Agr嫁接在T上，动词只移位至T以获取其词缀，其动词至c的移位是受[Topic]特征的驱使。

随着形态的发展变化，带有一致词缀的动词(agreeing verbs)的指示性(referential power)逐渐消失，这就导致空主题(emptytopic)的消失。也就是说，主题位置必须有个句子成分填充，这意味着VSO句式的消失。另外，随着形态格的消失，主语的位置被固定在[Spec，TP]，并且只能由主格主语来填充。这就导致动词至c的移位的消失，从而使得SV0成为主要句式。 性数一致形态的变化不仅会影响语序，而且是决定主语脱落的重要因素。主语能否脱落是由带有一致词缀的动词的指示性的强度决定的。在性数标记(agreement marker)和动词词干相溶合的过程中，带有一致词缀的动词的指示性的强度逐渐削弱，从完全指示(full-referential)到半指示(quasi-referential)再到无指示(nonreferential)。主语脱落也相应地受到更多限制：在有些语言中，三种主语(完全指示主语，半指示主语及无指示主语)都允许脱落；有些语言只允许后两种主语脱落；而有些语言只允许最后一种主语脱落。主语脱落的不同情况只在有着丰富的一致词缀的语言(agreement-rich languages)中加以区分，一致词缀贫乏的语言是不允许任何主语脱落的。我们认为这种限制与空主题消失及SVO成为主要句式有关。

《关于形态变化对语序及主语脱落影响的历时性研究》的作者是张立平。

序言

List of Abbreviations

Abstract

摘要

Introduction

Chapter 1 A Study of the Contemporary Morphological Researches on Syntax

 1.0 Introduction

 1.1 Contemporary Morphological Researches on Word Order

 1.1.1 Rohrbacher (1999)

1.1.1.1 Strong agreement hypothesis

1.1.1.2 Bobaljik's (2002) view on the strong agreement hypothesis

 1.1.2 Bobaljik (2002)

1.1.2.1 Effects of syntactic structure variation

1.1.2.2 Our view on Bobaljik's (2002) hypotheses

 1.1.3 Trosterud (1989)

1.1.3.1 Nominative case-marking hypothesis

1.1.3.2 Counterevidence from Faroese

 1.1.4 Roberts (1993)

1.1.4.1 The hypothesis,of overt distinct agreement marking

1.1.4.2 Our view based on Rohrbacher's (1999) counterevidence

 1.1.5 Holmberg and Platzack (1995)

1.1.5.1 Presence of Agr

1.1.5.2 Finiteness feature

1.1.5.3 Our relative proposals 

 1.2 Researches on Subject Omission

 1.2.1 Chomsky (1981, 1982)

 1.2.2 Jaeggli and Safir (1989)

 1.2.3 Shortcomings of the two null subject hypotheses

 1.2.4 Vainikka and Levy (1999)

1.2.4.1 Pronominal correspondence

1.2.4.2 Our view on Vainikka and Levy's (1999) hypothesis...

 1.3 Conclusion

Chapter 2 Theoretical Background and Main Proposals of Morphological Effects

 2.0 Introduction

 2.1 Morphological Evolution

 2.1.1 Theoretical background

2.1.1.1 Original morphological inflections

2.1.1.2 Tendency of morphological evolution

 2.1.2 Process of morphological evolution

 2.1.3 Verbal agreement paradigms of different richness degrees...

 2.1.4 Our hypothesis about ways of language evolution

 2.2 Language Classification with Respect to Verbal Agreement Morphology

 2.2.1 Presence of the functional category Agr

 2.2.2 C-Agr vs. T-Agr

 2.2.3 Classification of agreement paradigms

2.2.3.1 Classification in our analysis of word order variation..

2.2.3.2 Classification in our analysis of subject omission

2.2.3.3 Subdivision of degraded rich agreement morphology..

 2.3 Theoretical Background about Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change

 2.3.1 Haeberli's (2000) diachronic study

 2.3.2 Word computation

 2.4 Our Proposals of Morphological Effects on Syntax

 2.4.1 Two affixation levels

 2.4.2 Psychological evidence for affixation levels

 2.4.3 Morphological case system

 2.4.4 Morphological influence on subject omission

 2.5 Language Change as a Continuum

 2.6 Conclusion

Chapter 3 A Diachronic Study of the Romance Languages

 3.0 Introduction

 3.1 Evolutional Process of Romance Morphology

 3.1.1 Ancestor of the Romance languages

 3.1.2 Developmental tendency of clitics

3.1.2.1 From simple clitics to special clitics

3.1.2.2 From prefixes to suffixes

 3.1.3 Evolution of Romance clitics

 3.1.4 Optional positions of Romance clitics

 3.2 Romanian

 3.2.1 Romanian morphology

 3.2.2 Romanian syntax

3.2.2.1 Unset head parameter value

3.2.2.2 Free word order

3.2.2.3 V-to-T movement

 3.3 Italian

 3.3.1 Italian morphology

 3.3.2 Italian syntax

3.3.2.1 Change of the head parameter value

3.3.2.2 Change from C-Agr to T-Agr

3.2.2.3 V-to-T movement

3.2.2.4 V-to-C movement

3.3.2.5 Comparison between Romanian and Italian

 3.4 French

 3.4.1 French morphology

 3.4.2 French syntax

3.4.2.1 Obligatory vs. optional clitic doubling in Colloquial French

3.4.2.2 Fixed word order

3.4.2.3 V-to-T movement

 3.5 Conclusion

Chapter 4 A Diachronie Study of the Germanic Languages

 4.0 Introduction

 4.1 Classification of the Germanic Languages

 4.2 Morphological Evolution of the Germanic Languages

 4.2.1 Gothic morphology

 4.2.2 Morphology of the North Germanic languages

 4.2.2.1 Old Scandinavian

4.2.2.2 Comparison between Old Scandinavian and the Romance languages 

4.2.2.3 Modern Icelandic

4.2.2.4 Mainland Scandinavian languages 

 4.2.3 Morphology of the West Germanic languages

4.2.3.1 German morphology

4.2.3.2 Morphological development in English

 4.3 Syntactic Comparison of the North Germanic Languages

 4.3.1 Old Scandinavian

4.3.1.1 Unset head parameter value

4.3.1.2 Free word order

4.3.1.3 Syntactic effects of morphological development

 4.3.2 Similarities in the modern Scandinavian languages

4.3.2.1 Head parameter value

4.3.2.2 Verb second constraint

4.3.2.3 Fixed subject position

 4.3.3 Differences in the modern Scandinavian languages

 4.3.4 EMCs in Scandinavian

 4.4 Syntax of the West Germanic Languages

 4.4.1 German

4.4.1.1 V-to-C movement

4.4.1.2 V-to-T movement

 4.4.2 English

4.4.2.1 V-to-T movement in Old English

4.4.2.2 Loss of V-to-T movement in Modern English

4.4.2.3 Base-generated position of be and have

4.4.2.4 Loss of OV pattern in Modern English

 4.5 Conclusion

Chapter 5 Null Subject Permission

 5.0 Introduction

 5.1 Main Proposals on Subject Omission

5.1.1 Classification of agreement paradigms

5.1.2 Licensing conditions of different null subjects

5.1.3 Loss of empty topics

5.1.4 Re-interpretation of topics

 5.2 Full-null-subject Languages vs. Non-null-subject Languages

5.2.1 Full-null-subject languages

5.2.2 Non-null-subject languages

 5.3 Semi-null-subject Languages

5.3.1 Old Scandinavian and Modern Icelandic

5.3.2 Modern German

 5.4 Conclusion

Conclusion

Bibliography

Acknowledgements