受事主语句的句法研究
|
摘要
本文从生成语言学(generative linguistics)的角度探讨英汉受事主语结构(patient-subject constructions),旨在探讨其深层句法结构的生成机制。有关受事主语句较系统的研究始于龚千炎(1980),此后相关研究逐年增多,但是从生成语法(generative grammar)角度探讨受事主语句的研究却少见,因而该课题具有一定的创新意义。
本文认为受事主语现象是一种普遍的句法现象,但必要时要考虑到它的一些语义特征。文章首先确立了受事主语句作为一种独立句式的存在地位,讨论其分类、句法及语义特征。其次,介绍了一些相关的理论,如θ理论(θ-Theory),格理论(Case Theory),移位理论(Movement)以及核查理论(Checking Theory)。本文重点在于探讨英汉受事主语结构的生成过程(formation process)及其生成机制(derivationalmechanism)。移位假设(Movement Hypothesis)是解释受事主语句生成过程的基本准则,具体操作如下:受事主语句中的表层主语本是在宾语位置上生成,为了满足扩充投射原则(Extended Projection Principle)和格特征核查(Case-Feature Checking)的需要,才经过句法移位到了主语的位置上,受事成分位于底层结构的宾语位置。在此分析基础上,本文提出构成受事主语句的三个重要条件,分别是受事主语化条件(PatientSubiectivization Condition),及物性条件(Transitivity Condition),施事附加化条件(Agent Adiunctivization Condition)。其中,及物性条件和施事附加化条件只为受事主语句生成提供了可能性,而真正决定受事主语句生成的一个必要条件是受事主语化。基于受事主语句这一句式结构表现形式的复杂多样性,本文根据句中动词特性及移位特征将其归为三大类:短距离受事主语句(short-distance PSCs),长距离受事主语句(long-distance PSCs)及复杂谓词受事主语句(complex predicate PSCs)。文中详尽分析了各类受事主语句的移位生成过程,从而在一定程度上对英汉受事主语句做出了统一解释。
此外,受事主语结构与其他一些相关句型(如被动结构、中动结构)既有某些相似之处又有一些根本差异,文中将主要论及它们的差异之处。
本文努力寻找在该选题上两种语言的相似点,那就是动词的深层宾语为满足格核查特征,经过不同程度的移位最终成为句子的表层主语。
This thesis attempts to explore patient-subject constructions in English and Chinese within the theoretical framework of generative linguistics, aiming at seeking the derivational mechanism underlying syntactic constructions. With regard to the study of patient-subject constructions, it is Gong (龚千炎1980) who first studies this kind of construction systematically. Since then, the studies on patient-subject constructions phenomenon have been increasing year by year. However, the study is seldom touched upon from generative grammar. So this study is of creative significance.
This thesis argues that patient-subjectivization is a syntactically unified phenomenon, but its semantic characteristics must also be taken into consideration when necessary. The thesis first proves and establishes the status of patient-subject sentences as a construction, discussing their classifications, syntactic and semantic properties, and introduces some theories concerned, such asθ-Theory, Case Theory, Movement and Feature Checking Theory. The main work of this study is to explore the formation process and derivational mechanism of patient-subject constructions in both Chinese and English. The basic approach to patient-subject constructions formation is Movement Hypothesis, that is, in deriving patient-subject constructions, the surface subject is generated in object position and must move to subject position via syntactic movement in order to satisfy the requirements of Extended Projection Principle and Case-Feature Checking. Based on this analysis, three conditions are vital to patient-subject formation, namely, the Transitivity Condition and Patient Subjectivization and/or Agent Adjunctivization Condition. That is to say, if the transitivity condition and the agent adjunctivization are met, then a patient-subject profile is possible, but there will not necessarily be a patient-subject profile. The necessity or dynamics for patient profile is provided by the initial NP assumed to be patient subjectivization. Only when these three conditions are met, or in other words, only when there is both possibility and necessity, will patient-subject formation occur. Due to the complexity and variety of structural expressions of patient-subject constructions, patient-subject constructions are put into three types according to the characteristics of the verb used in patient-subject constructions: short-distance PSCs, long-distance PSCs and complex predicate PSCs. The thesis analyzes the derivational process of each type in detail and to some extent provides a universal explanation for English and Chinese patient-subject constructions.
Moreover, Patient-subject constructions share important properties with some related sentence types, including passives and middles; they also exhibit considerable differences. Their differences will also be explored.
The thesis manages to track down some similarities on this topic in two totally different languages. It mentions the approach that the deep object of the verb move to subject position via syntactic movement in order to satisfy the requirements of Extended Projection Principle and Case-Feature Checking.
本文认为受事主语现象是一种普遍的句法现象,但必要时要考虑到它的一些语义特征。文章首先确立了受事主语句作为一种独立句式的存在地位,讨论其分类、句法及语义特征。其次,介绍了一些相关的理论,如θ理论(θ-Theory),格理论(Case Theory),移位理论(Movement)以及核查理论(Checking Theory)。本文重点在于探讨英汉受事主语结构的生成过程(formation process)及其生成机制(derivationalmechanism)。移位假设(Movement Hypothesis)是解释受事主语句生成过程的基本准则,具体操作如下:受事主语句中的表层主语本是在宾语位置上生成,为了满足扩充投射原则(Extended Projection Principle)和格特征核查(Case-Feature Checking)的需要,才经过句法移位到了主语的位置上,受事成分位于底层结构的宾语位置。在此分析基础上,本文提出构成受事主语句的三个重要条件,分别是受事主语化条件(PatientSubiectivization Condition),及物性条件(Transitivity Condition),施事附加化条件(Agent Adiunctivization Condition)。其中,及物性条件和施事附加化条件只为受事主语句生成提供了可能性,而真正决定受事主语句生成的一个必要条件是受事主语化。基于受事主语句这一句式结构表现形式的复杂多样性,本文根据句中动词特性及移位特征将其归为三大类:短距离受事主语句(short-distance PSCs),长距离受事主语句(long-distance PSCs)及复杂谓词受事主语句(complex predicate PSCs)。文中详尽分析了各类受事主语句的移位生成过程,从而在一定程度上对英汉受事主语句做出了统一解释。
此外,受事主语结构与其他一些相关句型(如被动结构、中动结构)既有某些相似之处又有一些根本差异,文中将主要论及它们的差异之处。
本文努力寻找在该选题上两种语言的相似点,那就是动词的深层宾语为满足格核查特征,经过不同程度的移位最终成为句子的表层主语。
This thesis attempts to explore patient-subject constructions in English and Chinese within the theoretical framework of generative linguistics, aiming at seeking the derivational mechanism underlying syntactic constructions. With regard to the study of patient-subject constructions, it is Gong (龚千炎1980) who first studies this kind of construction systematically. Since then, the studies on patient-subject constructions phenomenon have been increasing year by year. However, the study is seldom touched upon from generative grammar. So this study is of creative significance.
This thesis argues that patient-subjectivization is a syntactically unified phenomenon, but its semantic characteristics must also be taken into consideration when necessary. The thesis first proves and establishes the status of patient-subject sentences as a construction, discussing their classifications, syntactic and semantic properties, and introduces some theories concerned, such asθ-Theory, Case Theory, Movement and Feature Checking Theory. The main work of this study is to explore the formation process and derivational mechanism of patient-subject constructions in both Chinese and English. The basic approach to patient-subject constructions formation is Movement Hypothesis, that is, in deriving patient-subject constructions, the surface subject is generated in object position and must move to subject position via syntactic movement in order to satisfy the requirements of Extended Projection Principle and Case-Feature Checking. Based on this analysis, three conditions are vital to patient-subject formation, namely, the Transitivity Condition and Patient Subjectivization and/or Agent Adjunctivization Condition. That is to say, if the transitivity condition and the agent adjunctivization are met, then a patient-subject profile is possible, but there will not necessarily be a patient-subject profile. The necessity or dynamics for patient profile is provided by the initial NP assumed to be patient subjectivization. Only when these three conditions are met, or in other words, only when there is both possibility and necessity, will patient-subject formation occur. Due to the complexity and variety of structural expressions of patient-subject constructions, patient-subject constructions are put into three types according to the characteristics of the verb used in patient-subject constructions: short-distance PSCs, long-distance PSCs and complex predicate PSCs. The thesis analyzes the derivational process of each type in detail and to some extent provides a universal explanation for English and Chinese patient-subject constructions.
Moreover, Patient-subject constructions share important properties with some related sentence types, including passives and middles; they also exhibit considerable differences. Their differences will also be explored.
The thesis manages to track down some similarities on this topic in two totally different languages. It mentions the approach that the deep object of the verb move to subject position via syntactic movement in order to satisfy the requirements of Extended Projection Principle and Case-Feature Checking.
引文
1 Gong(龚千炎)claims that patient-subject constructions include bei-sentence(Np+bei+Na+V)and non-bei sentence(Np+V),which are different from the objectives of our study.
2 In a broad sense,patient-subject constructions refer to all those in which the subject is the patient of predicate verb,including marked patient-subject constructions and 'non-marked' patient-subject constructions.
3 Tough-type includes tough,hard,difficult,simple,impossible,etc.
4 Need-type includes need,couM do with,want,require,warrant,deserve,merit.
5 The following abbreviations are used in this thesis:ASP,aspect marker;CL,classifier;PART,particle;NEG,negation.
6 NP in this paper only stands for the subject noun phrase of the sentence,and appears in the initial position of the sentence.
7 Aspectual markers(-le 'completive';-guo 'exeriential';-zhe 'durative')
8 If there are two or more preverbal NPs,the VP and the NP closed to it will form a unit known as zhuwei duanyu weiyu 'a predicate which is itself a subject-predicate phrase',which can take another NP as the subject(see Lu 1986b).
9 Only in Chinese Type 4 does the agent exist by the means of object of sentence.
10 It will be discussed in chapter 5.No agent is implied at all in ergative-type.
11 Here Liu argues that not all transtives are eligible for patient-subject constructions in Chinese.E.g.shi(be),you(have,has),ru(seem).
12 'Traditional' in the sense of' structuralist' or 'behaviori st'.
13 This melt-type sentences are usually called ergatives.
14 Patient refers to the person or thing affected by the action;agent refers to the person or thing carrying out the action.
15 Though Han's movement account is impotent before adjunct middles,it is eligible for middle-type patient-subject constructions.(see何文中2004)
16 The θ-criterion is stated as follows:'Each argument bears one and only one θ-role,and each θ-role is assigned to one and only argument'(Chomsky 1981:36)
17 Given(ⅰ & ⅱ):ⅰ.a.花被他浇过了b.花他浇过了ⅱ.a.她被一个年轻人救了b.*她一个年轻人救了Suppose(ib)is a passive.We would then have to admit that the patient NP hua 'flower' is the(topicalized)subject.In this case,the syntactic of 徐烈炯 & 刘丹青 (1998: 295) think only a subject could be focalized while a topic couldn't.
18 Here it refers to the patient-subject construction in our thesis.
19 Radford (1997:491) defines adjunct as an optional constituent typically used to specify e.g. the time, location or manner in which an event takes place.
20 Examples which appear in some special context.
21 For more examples,see(何文忠,2004).
22 Data of this thesis are mainly based on the English and Chinese.
Ackema, P & Schoorlemmer, M. 1994. The Middle Construction and syntax-semantics interface. Lingua 93: 59-90.
Adele E. Goldberg. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Journal of Foreign Languages 3: 1-11.
Artemis, Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopulou & Martin, Everaert. 2004. The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Exploration of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barron, Julia. 1999. Perception, Volition, and Reduced Clausal Complementation. Ph. D. dissertation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Belletti, A. 1988. The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1-34.
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: a Government-Binding Approach.Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Carrier J. & J. H. Randall. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 173-234.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. 1989. Transitivity alternations in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 3rd Ohio State University Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1986a. Barrier. Cambridge, Mass.: MTT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1986b. Knowledge of Languag: It's Nature, Origin and Use.New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. 1991a. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In R. Freidin (ed.) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 417-454. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.) The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1994. Language and Problems of Knowledge. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of arb.Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521-582.
Cook, Vivian & Newson, Mark. 2000. Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Davidse, K & L. Heyvaert. 1999/2003. On the so-called middle construction in English and Dutch. In S. Granger, J. Lerot & S. Petch-Tyson (eds.)
Empirical Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Diane, Massam. 1992. Null objects and non-thematic subjects. Linguistics 28: 115-137.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.Language 3: 547-619.
Du Bois. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 4: 805-855.
Fellbaum, C. 1986. On the middle constructions in English. Bloomington: Indiana Univeristy Linguistic Club.
Hale, Kenneth, & Samuel J. Keyser. 1986. Some Transitivity Alternations in English. Ms. Lexicon Project Working Papers. MIT.
Hale, Kenneth, & Samuel J. Keyser. 1999. Adjectives, other stative predicates, and the roots of stativity. Ms. Lexicon Project Working Papers. MIT.
Hoekstra, Teun & Ian Roberts. 1993. Middle constructions in Dutch and English. In Eric Reuland & Werner Abraham (eds.) Knowledge and Language II: Lexical and Conceptual Structure, 183-220. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hulk, A. & L. Cornips. 1998. Affected objects in heerlen Dutch and Romance.Languages in Contrast 2: 191-210.
Iwata, S. 1999. On the status of an implicit arguments in Middles. Journal of Linguistics 35: 527-553.
Jaeggli, O. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587-622.
Jen, Ting. 2003. The middle construction in Mandarin Chinese and the presyntactic approach. Presented at the 15th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics at Michigan State University.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In C. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic, 249-310. New York: Academic Press.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Keyser, S. J. & Roeper, T. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15:381-416.
Koopman, H. & D. Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85:211-58.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Levin, Beth & Malka, Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Li, C. & S. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language.In C. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic, 457-89. New York: Academic Press.
Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Mary, Dalrymple & Tracy, Holloway. 2000. Missing-object constructions:lexical and constructional variation.http://www-csli.standford.edu/publications/
Massam, D. 1982. Null objects and non-thematic subjects. Journal of Linguistics 28: 115-137.
Ninna, Zhang. Thematic dependencices between external and internal arguments of transitives. http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/ealc/chinling/articles/Argumen.PDF.
Partee, B. 2003. Privative Adjectives: Subsectives plus Coercion. Ms.,Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157-189.
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English-Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radford, Andrew. 2000a. Transformational Grammar: A First Course.Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Radford, Andrew. 2000b. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Rapoport, T. R. 1999. The English middle and agentivity. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 147-155.
Reider, Michael. 1996. An NP-Movement account of tough constructions.Kansas Working Paper in Linguistics 21: 99-121.
Richards, Jack & Platt, John. 2000. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press.
Roberts, Ian G. 1987. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Robert D & Van Valin. 2002. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation.Linguistic Inquiry 18: 267-310.
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above? In C. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic, 491-518. New York: Academic Press.
Schachter, Paul. 1996. The subject in Tagalog: still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15: 1-61.
Shi, Dingxu. 2000. Topic and topic-comment constructions. Language 2:383-407.
Steinbach, M. 1998. Middles in German. Ph. D. dissertation. Berlin:Humboldt Universitaet zu.
Thomas, Ernst & Chengchi, Wang. 1995. Object preposing in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4: 235-260.
van Oosten. J. 1986. The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanatio. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
Villafana, Christina. 2001. Subject prominence in English Middles. Presented at the Annual Conference of the Linguistic Society of America in Washington, D. C.
Xu,Liejiong.2002.Topicalization in Asian languages.http://www-uilots.let.uu.nl/syncorn/uiltjes/case_145_toal.htm
Xu,Liejiong.& T.Langendoen.1985.Topic structures in Chinese.Language 61:1-27.
蔡金亭,2000,中国学生英语过渡语中的作格动词,《外语教学与研究》第4期,283-289页。
陈昌来,2000,论汉语句子语义结构中的受事,《吉安师专学报》(哲学社会科学版)第2期,35-37页。
程工,1999,《语言共性论》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
戴曼纯,2001,中动结构的句法特征,《外语教学》第4期,31-36页。
戴耀晶,1994,论现代汉语实体的三项语义特征,《复旦学报》(社会科学版)第2期,95-100页。
丁声树,1979,《现代汉语语法研究讲话》。北京:商务印书馆。
范晓,1994,“Np受+Vp”句说略,《语文研究》第2期,7-11页。
高兴刚,2000,空算子与中间结构,《现代外语》第2期,125-136页。
龚千炎,1980,现代汉语的受事主语句,《中国语文》第5期,84-96页。
韩景泉,2000,领有名词提升移位与格理论,《现代外语》第3期,261-272页。
韩景泉,2003,英语中间结构的成生,《外语教学与研究》第3期,179-187页。
韩景泉,何建珍,2004,评高兴刚的中间结构分析,《解放军外国语学报》第1期,15-20页。
何文忠,2004,中动结构的认知阐释(Middle constructions in Chinese and West Germanic languages:Toward a unified cognitive account),Ph.D.dissertation,上海:上海外国语大学。
何文忠,2005,中动结构的的界定,《外语教学》第4期,9-13页。
黄伯荣,廖序东,1997,《现代汉语》。北京:高等教育出版社。
李临定,1992,以语义为基础的分析方法,《语法研究与探索》。北京:语文出版社。
李青,2001,汉英语言无标志受事主语句对比研究,《汉语学习》第3期,41-43页。
李秀香,2001,英语意义被动句与汉语受事主语句的比较,《四川师范学院学报》(哲学社会科学版)第3期,80-84页。
刘叔新,1994,语句内的语义关系和语法意义,《南开学报》(哲学社会科学版)第1期,61-68页。
陆俭明,2004,汉语句法研究的新思考,《语言学论丛》(第二十六辑)。北京:商务印书馆。
陆俭明,沈阳,2003,《汉语和汉语研究十五讲》。北京:北京大学出版社。
吕叔湘,1982,《中国文法要略》。北京:商务印书馆。
吕叔湘,1984,从主语宾语的分别谈国语句子的分析,《汉语语法论文集》(增订版),445-480页。北京:商务印书馆。
吕文华,1987,被字句和无标志的被动句的变换关系,《句型和动词》。北京:语文出版社。
牛保义,2005,英语作格句语用功能的词汇语用分析,《外语与外语教学》第6期,1-6页。
潘海华,韩景泉,2005,显性非宾格动词结构的句法研究,《语言研究》第3期,10-12页。
石定栩,2003,汉语动词前受事短语的句法地位,《中国语文研究》第2期,15-23页。
宋国明,1997,《句法理论概要》。北京:中国社会科学出版社。
宋金花,2006,受事主语句的句法语义研究,[硕士学位论文],吉林:东北师范大学。
王炳炎,1999,英汉被动结构对比,《解放军外国语学院学报》第6期,14-17页。
王玉婷,2006,现代汉语受事主语句研究述评,《江西科技师范学院学报》第2期,102-104页。
王志军,2004,及物性的典型研究,《外国语》第4期,41-45页。
温宾利,2002,《当代句法学导论》。北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
谢玉红,卢红芳,2006,英语作格构块式的认知研究,《外语教学》第4期,11-14页。
熊学亮,王志军,2002,被动句的原型研究,《外语研究》第1期,195-199页。
熊学亮,王志军,2003,被动句认知解读一二,《外语教学与研究》第3期,19-23页。
徐杰,2004,《普遍语法原则与汉语语法现象》。北京:北京大学出版 社。
徐烈炯,刘丹青,1998,《话题的结构与功能》。上海:上海教育出版社。
徐烈炯,刘丹青(主编),2003,《话题与焦点新论》。上海:上海教育出版社。
徐盛桓,2003,常规关系与句式结构研究,《外国语》第2期,8-16页。
徐枢,1988,从语法、语义和语用角度谈“名受+名施+动”句式,《语法研究和探索》四,50-63页。北京:北京大学出版社。
杨成凯,1996,《汉语语法理论研究》。沈阳:辽宁教育出版社。
杨成凯,2000,汉语句子的主语和话题,《现代中国语文研究》第1期,37-52页。
杨素英,1999,从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系,《当代语言学》第1期,30-43页。
袁毓林,2002,述结式的论元选择及其句法配置,纪念王力先生百年诞辰学术论文集。北京:商务印书馆。339-345页。
詹人凤,1992,受事主语句(名-动式的识别),《语范研究和探索》(六)。北京:语文出版社。
张法科,周长银,2004,vP壳结构与英语一项谓词句的生成,《外语与外语教学》第7期,5-9页。
张华,2001,英语作格动词与中介语被动语态的习得,《天津外国语学院学报》第1期,24-29页。
张云秋,1994,汉语受事主语句的理论透视,《齐齐哈尔师范学院学报》 第3期,68-72页。
周宝宽,1995,现代汉语受事主语句研究,《辽宁大学学报》第6期,89-93页。
2 In a broad sense,patient-subject constructions refer to all those in which the subject is the patient of predicate verb,including marked patient-subject constructions and 'non-marked' patient-subject constructions.
3 Tough-type includes tough,hard,difficult,simple,impossible,etc.
4 Need-type includes need,couM do with,want,require,warrant,deserve,merit.
5 The following abbreviations are used in this thesis:ASP,aspect marker;CL,classifier;PART,particle;NEG,negation.
6 NP in this paper only stands for the subject noun phrase of the sentence,and appears in the initial position of the sentence.
7 Aspectual markers(-le 'completive';-guo 'exeriential';-zhe 'durative')
8 If there are two or more preverbal NPs,the VP and the NP closed to it will form a unit known as zhuwei duanyu weiyu 'a predicate which is itself a subject-predicate phrase',which can take another NP as the subject(see Lu 1986b).
9 Only in Chinese Type 4 does the agent exist by the means of object of sentence.
10 It will be discussed in chapter 5.No agent is implied at all in ergative-type.
11 Here Liu argues that not all transtives are eligible for patient-subject constructions in Chinese.E.g.shi(be),you(have,has),ru(seem).
12 'Traditional' in the sense of' structuralist' or 'behaviori st'.
13 This melt-type sentences are usually called ergatives.
14 Patient refers to the person or thing affected by the action;agent refers to the person or thing carrying out the action.
15 Though Han's movement account is impotent before adjunct middles,it is eligible for middle-type patient-subject constructions.(see何文中2004)
16 The θ-criterion is stated as follows:'Each argument bears one and only one θ-role,and each θ-role is assigned to one and only argument'(Chomsky 1981:36)
17 Given(ⅰ & ⅱ):ⅰ.a.花被他浇过了b.花他浇过了ⅱ.a.她被一个年轻人救了b.*她一个年轻人救了Suppose(ib)is a passive.We would then have to admit that the patient NP hua 'flower' is the(topicalized)subject.In this case,the syntactic of 徐烈炯 & 刘丹青 (1998: 295) think only a subject could be focalized while a topic couldn't.
18 Here it refers to the patient-subject construction in our thesis.
19 Radford (1997:491) defines adjunct as an optional constituent typically used to specify e.g. the time, location or manner in which an event takes place.
20 Examples which appear in some special context.
21 For more examples,see(何文忠,2004).
22 Data of this thesis are mainly based on the English and Chinese.
Ackema, P & Schoorlemmer, M. 1994. The Middle Construction and syntax-semantics interface. Lingua 93: 59-90.
Adele E. Goldberg. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Journal of Foreign Languages 3: 1-11.
Artemis, Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopulou & Martin, Everaert. 2004. The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Exploration of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barron, Julia. 1999. Perception, Volition, and Reduced Clausal Complementation. Ph. D. dissertation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Belletti, A. 1988. The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1-34.
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: a Government-Binding Approach.Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Carrier J. & J. H. Randall. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 173-234.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. 1989. Transitivity alternations in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 3rd Ohio State University Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Columbus, Ohio.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1986a. Barrier. Cambridge, Mass.: MTT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1986b. Knowledge of Languag: It's Nature, Origin and Use.New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. 1991a. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In R. Freidin (ed.) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 417-454. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.) The View from Building 20. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1994. Language and Problems of Knowledge. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of arb.Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521-582.
Cook, Vivian & Newson, Mark. 2000. Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Davidse, K & L. Heyvaert. 1999/2003. On the so-called middle construction in English and Dutch. In S. Granger, J. Lerot & S. Petch-Tyson (eds.)
Empirical Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Diane, Massam. 1992. Null objects and non-thematic subjects. Linguistics 28: 115-137.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.Language 3: 547-619.
Du Bois. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 4: 805-855.
Fellbaum, C. 1986. On the middle constructions in English. Bloomington: Indiana Univeristy Linguistic Club.
Hale, Kenneth, & Samuel J. Keyser. 1986. Some Transitivity Alternations in English. Ms. Lexicon Project Working Papers. MIT.
Hale, Kenneth, & Samuel J. Keyser. 1999. Adjectives, other stative predicates, and the roots of stativity. Ms. Lexicon Project Working Papers. MIT.
Hoekstra, Teun & Ian Roberts. 1993. Middle constructions in Dutch and English. In Eric Reuland & Werner Abraham (eds.) Knowledge and Language II: Lexical and Conceptual Structure, 183-220. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hulk, A. & L. Cornips. 1998. Affected objects in heerlen Dutch and Romance.Languages in Contrast 2: 191-210.
Iwata, S. 1999. On the status of an implicit arguments in Middles. Journal of Linguistics 35: 527-553.
Jaeggli, O. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587-622.
Jen, Ting. 2003. The middle construction in Mandarin Chinese and the presyntactic approach. Presented at the 15th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics at Michigan State University.
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In C. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic, 249-310. New York: Academic Press.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Keyser, S. J. & Roeper, T. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15:381-416.
Koopman, H. & D. Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85:211-58.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Levin, Beth & Malka, Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Li, C. & S. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language.In C. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic, 457-89. New York: Academic Press.
Manning, Christopher. 1996. Ergativity: Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Mary, Dalrymple & Tracy, Holloway. 2000. Missing-object constructions:lexical and constructional variation.http://www-csli.standford.edu/publications/
Massam, D. 1982. Null objects and non-thematic subjects. Journal of Linguistics 28: 115-137.
Ninna, Zhang. Thematic dependencices between external and internal arguments of transitives. http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/ealc/chinling/articles/Argumen.PDF.
Partee, B. 2003. Privative Adjectives: Subsectives plus Coercion. Ms.,Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157-189.
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English-Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Radford, Andrew. 2000a. Transformational Grammar: A First Course.Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Radford, Andrew. 2000b. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Rapoport, T. R. 1999. The English middle and agentivity. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 147-155.
Reider, Michael. 1996. An NP-Movement account of tough constructions.Kansas Working Paper in Linguistics 21: 99-121.
Richards, Jack & Platt, John. 2000. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press.
Roberts, Ian G. 1987. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Robert D & Van Valin. 2002. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation.Linguistic Inquiry 18: 267-310.
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above? In C. Li (ed.) Subject and Topic, 491-518. New York: Academic Press.
Schachter, Paul. 1996. The subject in Tagalog: still none of the above. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15: 1-61.
Shi, Dingxu. 2000. Topic and topic-comment constructions. Language 2:383-407.
Steinbach, M. 1998. Middles in German. Ph. D. dissertation. Berlin:Humboldt Universitaet zu.
Thomas, Ernst & Chengchi, Wang. 1995. Object preposing in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4: 235-260.
van Oosten. J. 1986. The Nature of Subjects, Topics and Agents: A Cognitive Explanatio. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
Villafana, Christina. 2001. Subject prominence in English Middles. Presented at the Annual Conference of the Linguistic Society of America in Washington, D. C.
Xu,Liejiong.2002.Topicalization in Asian languages.http://www-uilots.let.uu.nl/syncorn/uiltjes/case_145_toal.htm
Xu,Liejiong.& T.Langendoen.1985.Topic structures in Chinese.Language 61:1-27.
蔡金亭,2000,中国学生英语过渡语中的作格动词,《外语教学与研究》第4期,283-289页。
陈昌来,2000,论汉语句子语义结构中的受事,《吉安师专学报》(哲学社会科学版)第2期,35-37页。
程工,1999,《语言共性论》。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
戴曼纯,2001,中动结构的句法特征,《外语教学》第4期,31-36页。
戴耀晶,1994,论现代汉语实体的三项语义特征,《复旦学报》(社会科学版)第2期,95-100页。
丁声树,1979,《现代汉语语法研究讲话》。北京:商务印书馆。
范晓,1994,“Np受+Vp”句说略,《语文研究》第2期,7-11页。
高兴刚,2000,空算子与中间结构,《现代外语》第2期,125-136页。
龚千炎,1980,现代汉语的受事主语句,《中国语文》第5期,84-96页。
韩景泉,2000,领有名词提升移位与格理论,《现代外语》第3期,261-272页。
韩景泉,2003,英语中间结构的成生,《外语教学与研究》第3期,179-187页。
韩景泉,何建珍,2004,评高兴刚的中间结构分析,《解放军外国语学报》第1期,15-20页。
何文忠,2004,中动结构的认知阐释(Middle constructions in Chinese and West Germanic languages:Toward a unified cognitive account),Ph.D.dissertation,上海:上海外国语大学。
何文忠,2005,中动结构的的界定,《外语教学》第4期,9-13页。
黄伯荣,廖序东,1997,《现代汉语》。北京:高等教育出版社。
李临定,1992,以语义为基础的分析方法,《语法研究与探索》。北京:语文出版社。
李青,2001,汉英语言无标志受事主语句对比研究,《汉语学习》第3期,41-43页。
李秀香,2001,英语意义被动句与汉语受事主语句的比较,《四川师范学院学报》(哲学社会科学版)第3期,80-84页。
刘叔新,1994,语句内的语义关系和语法意义,《南开学报》(哲学社会科学版)第1期,61-68页。
陆俭明,2004,汉语句法研究的新思考,《语言学论丛》(第二十六辑)。北京:商务印书馆。
陆俭明,沈阳,2003,《汉语和汉语研究十五讲》。北京:北京大学出版社。
吕叔湘,1982,《中国文法要略》。北京:商务印书馆。
吕叔湘,1984,从主语宾语的分别谈国语句子的分析,《汉语语法论文集》(增订版),445-480页。北京:商务印书馆。
吕文华,1987,被字句和无标志的被动句的变换关系,《句型和动词》。北京:语文出版社。
牛保义,2005,英语作格句语用功能的词汇语用分析,《外语与外语教学》第6期,1-6页。
潘海华,韩景泉,2005,显性非宾格动词结构的句法研究,《语言研究》第3期,10-12页。
石定栩,2003,汉语动词前受事短语的句法地位,《中国语文研究》第2期,15-23页。
宋国明,1997,《句法理论概要》。北京:中国社会科学出版社。
宋金花,2006,受事主语句的句法语义研究,[硕士学位论文],吉林:东北师范大学。
王炳炎,1999,英汉被动结构对比,《解放军外国语学院学报》第6期,14-17页。
王玉婷,2006,现代汉语受事主语句研究述评,《江西科技师范学院学报》第2期,102-104页。
王志军,2004,及物性的典型研究,《外国语》第4期,41-45页。
温宾利,2002,《当代句法学导论》。北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
谢玉红,卢红芳,2006,英语作格构块式的认知研究,《外语教学》第4期,11-14页。
熊学亮,王志军,2002,被动句的原型研究,《外语研究》第1期,195-199页。
熊学亮,王志军,2003,被动句认知解读一二,《外语教学与研究》第3期,19-23页。
徐杰,2004,《普遍语法原则与汉语语法现象》。北京:北京大学出版 社。
徐烈炯,刘丹青,1998,《话题的结构与功能》。上海:上海教育出版社。
徐烈炯,刘丹青(主编),2003,《话题与焦点新论》。上海:上海教育出版社。
徐盛桓,2003,常规关系与句式结构研究,《外国语》第2期,8-16页。
徐枢,1988,从语法、语义和语用角度谈“名受+名施+动”句式,《语法研究和探索》四,50-63页。北京:北京大学出版社。
杨成凯,1996,《汉语语法理论研究》。沈阳:辽宁教育出版社。
杨成凯,2000,汉语句子的主语和话题,《现代中国语文研究》第1期,37-52页。
杨素英,1999,从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系,《当代语言学》第1期,30-43页。
袁毓林,2002,述结式的论元选择及其句法配置,纪念王力先生百年诞辰学术论文集。北京:商务印书馆。339-345页。
詹人凤,1992,受事主语句(名-动式的识别),《语范研究和探索》(六)。北京:语文出版社。
张法科,周长银,2004,vP壳结构与英语一项谓词句的生成,《外语与外语教学》第7期,5-9页。
张华,2001,英语作格动词与中介语被动语态的习得,《天津外国语学院学报》第1期,24-29页。
张云秋,1994,汉语受事主语句的理论透视,《齐齐哈尔师范学院学报》 第3期,68-72页。
周宝宽,1995,现代汉语受事主语句研究,《辽宁大学学报》第6期,89-93页。