摘要
本文在生成语法框架下考察汉语NP1+Vi+NP2句式(Chinese NP1+Vi+NP2construction)。具体地说,本文所研究的汉语NP1+Vi+NP2句式主要包括汉语存现句和领主属宾句。主要目的是解释该句式句法和语义特性。
对于存现句和领主属宾句中动词的性质,普遍接受的看法是其为非宾格动词。然而,在广泛阅读相关文献时我们发现,在汉语存现句中有两类动词争议较多:“游、飞、爬”类不及物动词和“写、煮、演、敲”类及物动词。前者被认为是典型的非作格动词,而后者是及物动词。一般而言,对动词非宾格、非作格的分类仅限于不及物动词,因此存现句中及物动词的性质也成为争论的焦点。在许多语言中,这两类动词不允许进入存现句。汉语存现句中这两类动词性质究竟如何?为回答该问题,本文对存现句中这两种类型动词的句法、语义表现进行了深入研究。我们发现,进入存现句的这两类动词,不同于其他句型中的同类动词,都表现出非宾格性,当属非宾格动词。而其他句型中的同类动词却表现出非作格性,属非作格动词。本文提出,动词属性的变化来自于事件谓词的影响。该事件谓词是存现句所代表事件类型的句法投射。我们从逻辑判断类型出发,认为存现句在逻辑判断类型上属非主题判断。存现句所表示的信息焦点不在动词所表示的动作,而是对一个事件或状态的整体描述,在事件类型上代表的是以客体为中心的事件,以描写状态为主。根据Huang(1997),我们提出该事件类型在句法结构中的投射为事件谓词OCCUR,并由其决定进入存现句的这些动词都是非宾格动词。本文的研究表明,对动词非宾格、非作格的分类不能由单纯的动词义决定。我们赞同Huang(2007),认为动词非宾格、非作格的分类实际上代表了两类不同的事件类型。
本文的研究可以解释“游、飞、爬”类存现句中动词后名词词组的性质问题。对于该问题,语言学界长期争论不休。对该问题的争论自二十世纪五六十年代的主宾大论战就开始了。现在广为接受的看法是其为施事性宾语。我们认为,将其看为施事性宾语在理论和经验证据上都行不通。根据本文的研究,存现句中动词后名词词组的语义角色应是非施事的客体,在句法结构上处于宾语的位置。
汉语存现句和领主属宾句中动词都是非宾格动词,下列问题随之而来:首先,非宾格动词被认为只能指派一个域内论元。然而在汉语NP1+Vi+NP2句式中却有两个论元,这显然不符合动词论元结构的要求,如何解释这一问题?其次,根据Burzio原则(Burzio,1986),非宾格动词不能授宾格。而格过滤器(Case Filter)规定,有语音形式的名词(组)必须有格。虽然汉语缺乏显性的格形态变化,但普遍的看法是汉语同其他语言一样也有格。如何解释名词词组的授格问题?下文试图回答上述问题。
本文第3章讨论了存现句的事件类型,认为存现句代表以客体为中心的事件类型,并假设该事件类型在句法结构上投射为事件谓词“OCCUR”。这种假设的依据是句法与语义的对应关系。对于句法和语义的关系,虽然不能说二者存在严格的一一对应关系,但是二者相互联系是普遍接受的看法。我们认为汉语领主属宾句包含在汉语存现句之中,据此可以推论,汉语NP1+Vi+NP2句式与存现句具有相同的事件类型,代表其事件类型的事件谓词亦为“OCCUR”。这个抽象动词没有语音形式,但是有语义内容。该抽象动词是个事件谓词,它代表了句子所表达的事件类型,是事件类型在句法结构中的投射。有了这个抽象动词“OCCUR”,汉语NP1+Vi+NP2句式中所谓“多出来”的论元就有了自然的解释。非宾格动词选择NP2作为补足语(complement),构成底层VP。该底层VP镶嵌在上层VP的补足语位置。上层VP的中心语是抽象动词“OCCUR”。“OCCUR”选择NP1作为其论元,在句法上占据上层VP的指示语(specifier)位置。因为抽象动词“OCCUR”没有语音内容,句法理论要求它必须吸引一定的词汇形式来得到允准,因此,底层非宾格动词通过中心语移位移到抽象动词“OCCUR”的位置并与之合并,就得到表层汉语NP1+Vi+NP2句式。根据这一假设,NP1基础生成于上层VP的指示语位置,即主语位置,这正好支持了Gu(1992)的假设。
对于动词后名词词组的授格问题,本文根据Belletti(1988),,认为汉语NP1+Vi+NP2句式中NP2带部分格。
This thesis studies the Chinese NP1+Vi+NP2 Construction(special focus will be on Chinese existential sentence(CES) and the "external possession" construction(EPC)) under the framework of Generative Grammar.The aim of the thesis is to provide explanation of the idiosyncrasies of the syntax and semantics of the construction.
It is widely accepted that the verbs in existential sentences(ES) and EPC are unaccusative verbs.In the relevant literature on CES,two types of verbs in CES are subject to debate,that is, intransitive verbs such as you 'swim',fei 'fly' and pa 'crawl' and some transitive verbs like xie 'write',zhu 'cook',yan 'perform' and qiao 'beat".The former type is considered typical unergative verbs cross-linguistically,and the latter type is transitive.Basically,the unaccusative-unergative dichotomy is restricted to intransitive verbs.So it is not unusual that these verbs are under debate.What is more,in many languages,these two types of verbs are banned from ES.What is the nature of these two types of verbs in CES? After a thorough examination,we find that these two types of verbs in CES are different from their counterparts in other constructions.Syntactically and semantically,all these verbs exhibit unaccusative properties and thus belong to unaccusative series while their counterparts in other constructions exhibit unergative properties.Based on our observation,we propose that it is the event predicate that determines the unaccusativity of the verbs in CES.Following Huang(1997),we propose that the event predicate in CES is "OCCUR".It represents the event type of CES and it is the syntactic projection of the event place.The judgment form and the event type of CES have been discussed.We hold that CES expresses thetic judgment and represents a patient-centered event or situation.This study shows that the unaccusative/unergative dichotomy in its essence represents two types of events which provides evidence to Huang(2007).
Our study provides answers to the problem of the status of the postverbal NP in certain Chinese existential sentences like he-li you-zhe yi-tiao yu 'there is a fish swimming in the river'. It has long been a point of contention,ever since the Great Discussion of 1950's.The most prominent view about the status of the postverbal NP held in the domestic linguistic circle is that it is agentive object.According to our study,it is problematic both theoretically and empirically to take it as agentive object.Our study shows that the theta-role of the postverbal NP is none-agentive theme and syntactically it is in the object position.
In the above chapters,it is argued and demonstrated that the verbs in both CES and EPC are unaccusative verbs.The following problems arise:Firstly,it is well known that unaccusative verbs have a sole argument.There are two arguments in Chinese NP1+Vi+NP2 Construction and this means one-too-many argument to be accommodated by the argument structure of the predicate.How to explain this? Secondly,according to Burzio(1986),the unaccusative verb can not assign accusative case.And according to Case Filter,NPs with phonetic form must have case. Though Chinese lacks inflectional features,it is generally believed that NPs in Chinese as well as other languages bear case features which are uninterpretable in LF and should be checked. How to explain the problem of case assignment of the NPs? The following chapter of this thesis attempts to provide answers to these questions.
In the above chapter,the event type of CES has been discussed.It is argued that CES represents Theme-centered event.Given the general belief that there are correspondences between meaning and syntactic structure,we assume this event structure might have syntactic projection.In chapter 4,we hold that Chinese EPC belongs to CES and thus Chinese NP1 +Vi+NP2 Construction represents Theme-centered event.Following Huang's(1997) light verb syntax,we propose that the event predicate in Chinese NP1+Vi+NP2 construction is "OCCUR".It is the syntactic projection of the event type of the construction.This eventuality predicate may be phonetically empty categories,thus it should be lexically supported(or licensed) at S-structure.With the proposal of the abstract verb "OCCUR",the "one extra" argument could find a natural explanation:the unaccusative verb chooses NP2 as its complement and forms the lower VP.The lower VP is embedded in the upper VP the head of which is the abstract verb "OCCUR".NP1 is in the Spec position of the upper VP,and the lower VP is in the complement position.Because the abstract verb "OCCUR" is phonetically empty and should be lexically supported in S-structure,the unaccusative verb moves to the head position of the upper VP and merges with the abstract verb "OCCUR".Finally the S-structure of Chinese NP1+Vi+NP2 Construction obtains.According to this assumption,NP1 is based-generated in the Spec-position of the upper VP and this provides evidence to Gu's(1992) assumption.
The problem of case assignment of NP2 has also been addressed.We follow Belletti(1988) and argue that NP2 bears partitive case.
引文
[1]Alexiadou,A.,E.Anagnostopoulou & M.Everaert.(2004).Introduction[A].In Alexiadou,A.,E.Anagnostopoulou & M.Everaert(eds).The Unaccusativity Puzzle:Explorations of the Syntax-lexicon Interface(pp.1-21)[C].New York:Oxford University Press.
[2]Baker,M.(1988).Incorporation:A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing[M].Chicago,IL:University of Chicago Press.
[3]Belletti,A.(1988).The case of unaccusatives[J].Linguistic Inquiry,19,1-34.
[4]Bresnan,J.(1994).Locative inversion and the architecture of the universal grammar[J].Language,70,72-131.
[5]Bresnan,J & J.M.Kanerva.(1989).Locative inversion in Chichewa:a case study of factorization in Grammar[J].Linguistic Inquiry,20,1-50.
[6]Burzio,Luigi.(1986).Italian Syntax:a Government-binding Approach[M].Dordrecht:Reidel.
[7]Chao,Yuenren.(1968).A Grammar of Spoken Chinese[M].Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press.
[8]Chomsky,N.(1982).Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding[M].Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
[9]Chomsky,N.(1991).Some notes on economy of derivation and representation[A].In Robert Freidin(Ed.).Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar(pp.417-454)[C].Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.
[10]Chomsky,N.(1995).The Minimalist Program[M].Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press.
[11]Coopmans,P.(1989).Where stylistic and syntactic processes meet:locative inversion in English[J].Language,65,728-751.
[12]Dividson,D.(1967).The logical form of action sentences[A].In N.Rescher(ed.) The Logic of Decision and Action(pp.81-85)[C].Pittsburgh:University of Pittsburgh Press.
[13]Dixon,R.M.W.(1987).Studies in ergativity:introduction[J].Lingua,71,1-16.
[14]Dowty,D.(1979).Word Meaning and Montague Grammar[M].Dordrecht:Kluwer.
[15]Dowry,D.(1991).Thematic proto-roles and argument selection[J].Language,67,547-619.
[16]Folly,R.& H.Harley.(2007).Causation,obligation,and argument structure:on the nature of little v[J].Linguistic Inquiry,2,197-238.
[17]Gu,Yang.(1992).On the locative existential construction in Chinese[A].In D.Bates(ed.)Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics(pp.183-196)[C].Stanford:The Stanford Linguistic Association.
[18]Hale,K.& S,J.Keyser.(1993).On argument structure and lexical expression of syntactic relations[A].In Kenneth Hale & S,Jay Keyser(Eds).The view from building(pp.53-110)[C].Cambridge,MA:the MIT Press.
[19]Hazout,I.(2004).The syntax of existential constructions[J].Linguistic Inquiry,35,393-430.
[20]Higginbotham,J.(1985).On semantics[J].Linguistic Inquiry,16,547-594.
[21]Huang,C.-T.James.(1987).Existential sentence in Chinese and(in) definiteness[A].In E.Reuland and A.ter Meulen(Eds.).The Representation of(In) definiteness(pp.226-253)[C].Cambridge & London:The MIT Press.
[22]Hunag C-T James.(1997).On lexical structure and syntactic projection[J].Chinese Languages and Linguistics,3,45-89.Taipei:Academia Sinica.
[23]Hunag C-T James.(2008a).Topic in parametric syntax.CUHK Distinguished Scholars Lecture Series,the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
[24]Hunag C-T James.(2008b).Towards a restrictive parametric theory of variation and change[R].Lectures in Beijing Language and Culture University.
[25]Huang,C-T,Y.-H.Li & Yafei Li.(2008).The syntax of Chinese[M].In press.
[26]Larson,Richard.(1988).On the double object construction[J].Linguistic Inquiry,19,335-391.
[27]Levin,B & M,Rappaport Hovav.(1995).Unaccusativity:at the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface[M].Cambridge,Mass:The MIT Press.
[28]Levin,L.(1986).Operations on Lexical Forms:Unaccusative Rules in Germanic Languages[D].Ph.D.dissertation,MIT.
[29]Li,Y.-h.Audrey.(1990).Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese[M].Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[30]Li,C.& S.Thompson.(1976).Subject and topic:A new typology of language[A].In C.Li (ed.).Subject and Topic[C].New York:Academic Press.
[31]Lin,Tzong-Hong.(2001).Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure[D].Doctoral dissertation,University of California,Irvine.
[32]Lumsden,M.(1988).Existential Sentences:Their Structures and Meaning[M].London:Crown Helm.
[33]McCawley,James D.(1969).Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure[J].CLS,4,71-80.
[34]Milsark,G.(1974).Existential Sentences in English[D].Ph.D.Dissertation.MIT.Published by Garland Press,New York.
[35]Pan,Haihua.(1996).Imperfective aspect ZHE,agent deletion,and locative inversion in Mandarin Chinese[J].Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,14,409-432.
[36]Parsons,T.(1990).Events in the semantics of English.A study in subatomic semantics[M].Cambridge:The MIT Press.
[37]Perlmutter,D.(1978).Impersonal passives and unaccusative hypothesis[J].Berkeley Linguistic Society,4,157-189.
[38]Perlmutter,D.& P.Postal.(1984).The Ⅰ-Advancement exclusiveness law[A].In Permultter,P and C.Rosen(eds).Studies in Relational Grammar,ⅱ(pp.81-85)[C].Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[39]Pinker,S.(1989).Learnability and Cognition:The Acquisition of Argument Structure[M].Cambridge,Mass:MIT Press.
[40]Pustejovsky,J.(1995).The Generative Lexicon[M].Cambridge,Mass:MIT Press.
[41]Rosen,C.(1984).The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations[A].In Permultter,P and C.Rosen(eds).Studies in Relational Grammar,ⅱ(pp.38-77)[C].Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
[42]Sorace,A.(1992).Lexical Conditions on Syntactic Knowledge:Auxiliary Selection in Native and Non-native Grammars of Italian[D].Ph.D.dissertaion.University of Edinburgh.
[43]Van Valin,R.D.(1990).Semantic parameters of split intransitivity[J].Language,66,221-260.
[44]van Hout,A.(2004).Unaccusativity as telicity checking[A].In Alexiadou,A.,E.Anagnostopoulou & M.Everaert(eds).The Unaccusativity Puzzle:Explorations of the Syntax-lexicon Interface(pp.60-83)[C].New York:Oxford University Press.
[45]Vendler,Z.(1967).Linguistic Philosophy[M].Ithacha:Cornell University Press.
[46]Yang,Suying & Haihua,Pan.(2001).A constructional analysis of the existential structure [J].Studies in Chinese Linguistics Ⅱ.Linguistic Society of Hongkong.
[47]Zaenen,A.(1988).Unaccusative verbs in Dutch and the syntax-semantics interface[J].CSLI-Report.123.
[48]范方莲(Fan Fanglian).(1963).存在句[J].中国语文,5.
[49]范晓(Fan Xiao).(1998).三个平面的语法观[M].北京:北京语言文化大学出版社.
[50]冯胜利(Feng Shengli).(2005).轻动词移位与古今汉语的动宾关系[J].语言科学,1,3-16.
[51]顾阳(Gu Yang).(1996).生成语法及词库中动词的一些特性[J].国外语言学,3,1-16.
[52]顾阳(Gu Yang).(1997).关于存现结构的理论探讨[J].现代外语,3,14-25.
[53]韩景泉(Han Jingquan).(2000).领有名词提升移位与格理论[J].现代外语,3, 261-272.
[54]韩景泉(Han Jingquan).(2001).英汉存现句的生成语法研究[J].现代外语,2,143-158.
[55]黄伯荣(Huang Borong).(1998).动词分类和研究文献目录总览[M].北京:高等教育出版社.
[56]黄伯荣,廖序东(Huang Borong,Liao Xudong).(2007).现代汉语[M].北京:高等教育出版社.
[57]黄正德(Huang zhende).(2007).汉语动词的题元结构与其句法表现[J].语文科学,7.3-21.
[58]何元建(He Yuanjian).(2000).论元、焦点与句法结构[J].现代外语,2,111-124.
[59]何元建(He Yuarljian).(2001).动词使役结构[A].沈阳,何元建,顾阳.生成语法理论与汉语语法研究(pp.69-111)[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江教育出版社.
[60]胡建华(Hu Jianhua).(2008).汉语不及物动词的论元和宾语[J].中国语文,5,396-409.
[61]雷涛(Lei Tao).(199 3).存在句研究纵横谈[J].汉语学习,2,22-26.
[62]李京廉,王克非(Li Jinglian,Wang Kefei).(2005).荚汉存现句的句法研究[J].现代外语,4,351-359.
[63]李杰(Li Jie).(2004).不及物动词带主事宾语名研究[D].复旦大学博士学位论文.
[64]陆俭明(Lu Jianming).(2005).现代汉语语法研究教程(第三版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[65]吕叔湘(L(?) Shuxiang).(1990[1946]).从主语、宾语的分别谈国语句子的分析[M].吕叔湘文集,2,(pp.446-480).北京:商务印书馆.
[66]吕云生(L(?) Yunsheng).(2005).有关“施事后置”即“非宾格假说”的几个问题[J].语言科学,5,50-70.
[67]孟琮等(Meng Cong et al.)(主编).(1999).汉语动词用法词典[M].北京:商务印书馆.
[68]聂文龙(Nie Wenlong).(1989).存在和存在句的分类[J].中国语文,2,95-104.
[69]沈园(Shen Yuan).(2000).逻辑判断基本类型及其在语言中的反映[J].当代语言学,3.25-127.
[70]石毓智(Shi Yuzhi).(2007).语言学假设中的证据问题[J].语言科学,4,39-51.
[71]宋玉柱(Song Yuzhu).(1988).略谈假存在句[J].天津师大学报,6.
[72]宋玉柱(Song Yuzhu).(1991).经历体存在句[J].中国语文,2,95-104.
[73]孙晋文,伍雅清(Sun Jinwen,wu Yaqing).(2003).再论“领有名词提升移位”[J].语言科学,6,46-52.
[74]唐玉柱(Tang Yuzhu).(2001).存现句中的there[J].现代外语,1,23-33.
[75]唐玉柱(Tang Yuzhu).(2005).存现动词的非宾格性假设[J].重庆大学学报,4,84-87.
[76]熊仲儒(Xiong Zhongru).(2002).存现句与格理论的发展[J].现代外语,1,35-47.
[77]徐杰(Xu Jie).(1999).两种保留宾语句式及相关句法理论问题[J].当代语言学,1,16-29.
[78]王广成(wang Guangcheng).(2007).汉语无定名词短语的语义特征:指称和量化[D].北京语言大学博士研究生学位论文.
[79]王秀卿,王广成(wang xiuqing& Wang Guangcheng).(2008).汉语光杆名词短语的语义解释[J].现代外语,2,131-140。
[80]王建军(wang Jianjun).(2001).汉语存在句的历时研究[D].南京大学申请博士学位论文.
[81]温宾利,陈宗利(Wen Binli,chen Zongli,).(2001).领有名词移位:基于MP的分析[J].现代外语,4,412-416.
[82]熊仲儒(Xiong zhongru).(2002).存现句与格理论的发展[J].现代外语1,35-47.
[83]徐杰(Xu Jie).(1999).两种保留宾语句式及相关句法理论问题[J].当代语言学1,16-29.
[84]徐烈炯(xu Liejiong).(2002).汉语是话语概念结构化语言吗?[J].中国语文,5,400-410.
[85]杨素英(Yang suying).(1999).从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系[J].当代语言学1,30-43.
[86]杨素英,黄月圆,高立群,崔希亮(Yang et.al.).(2007).汉语作为第二语言存现句习得研究[J].汉语学习,1,59-70.
[87]赵彦春(zhao Yanchun).(2002).作格动词与存现结构症结[J].外语学刊,2,63-67.
[88]朱德熙(Zhu Dexi).(1982).语法讲义[M].北京:商务印书馆.
[89]朱行帆(Zhu Xingfan).(2005).轻动词和汉语不及物动词带宾语现象[J].现代外语,3.221-231.
