跨语言视角下的汉语中动句研究
|
摘要
本文根据分布式形态学的基本假设,认为汉语中动句中的"起来"属于"轻动词v_(BECOME)",而主动词为合并到不同位置的词根。词根合并到v_(BECOME)补足语位置时,获得"结果状态"的解读,此时动词后的词组为副词,修饰整个[v_(BECOME)P]。当词根嫁接到v_(BECOME)位置,则成为v_(BECOME)的修饰语,获得"状态变化的方式"解读;此时动词后的词组位于v_(BECOME)的补足语位置,为形容词词组,获得"结果状态"的解读,修饰全句的主语。本文将汉语中动句的研究置于跨语言的中动句研究背景下,指出不同的印欧语的中动结构本身具有各异的句法特征,而汉语中动句也表现出另外一类不同的句法特征。以此为基础,本文初步分析了不同语言如何根据各自词库的特征推导出中动结构的基本模式。
This paper attempts to provide an account of the qilai middle construction in Chinese. Unlike English middles, in Chinese, an additional item, qilai, is attached to the matrix verb to form a middle construction which ascribes the dispositional property denoted by the VP to the subject. A general assumption proposed in this paper is that the item qilai in Chinese is multi-functional, which can serve as a verb, a directional particle, an inchoative aspectual marker, and a specific marker for middles. Based on the standard assumptions of Distributed Morphology, this paper argues that qilai in Chinese middles is a light verb, i.e. v_(BECOME), while the matrix verb is originally a Root merged in different syntactic positions. When merged in the complement position of [v_(BECOME)P], the Root will take the interpretation of ‘resultant state', and the post-verbal phrase is an adverbial phrase modifying the whole [v_(BECOME)P]. When the Root is adjoined to the v_(BECOME) head, it serves as the modifier of v_(BECOME), receiving the interpretation of ‘manner of change of state', and the post-verbal phrase, being an adjectival phrase, is merged in the complement position of v_(BECOME), predicated of the subject. Placing Chinese middles within a cross-linguistic research context, we postulate that the middles of Indo-European languages already exhibit different syntactic derivations, and the syntactic derivation of Chinese middles differs from all of such derivations. Based on this observation, we put forward an initial analysis of cross-linguistic syntactic patterns of middles that hinge upon the properties of the lexicon. The general classification depends on whether the lexicon has a morphological marker for middles: ‘no' for languages like English, and ‘yes' for languages like Chinese, Romance languages, and Greek. A further classification depends on the syntactic nature of different morphological markings, including the reflexive clitic in Romance, the non-active voice marker in Greek, and v_(BECOME) functional item in Chinese, each involving a unique syntactic structure but all deriving the common properties of middle constructions. This research therefore implies that the label ‘middle construction' is delineate by semantic criteria and it is on the wrong track to provide a unified structure for all middles across languages.
This paper attempts to provide an account of the qilai middle construction in Chinese. Unlike English middles, in Chinese, an additional item, qilai, is attached to the matrix verb to form a middle construction which ascribes the dispositional property denoted by the VP to the subject. A general assumption proposed in this paper is that the item qilai in Chinese is multi-functional, which can serve as a verb, a directional particle, an inchoative aspectual marker, and a specific marker for middles. Based on the standard assumptions of Distributed Morphology, this paper argues that qilai in Chinese middles is a light verb, i.e. v_(BECOME), while the matrix verb is originally a Root merged in different syntactic positions. When merged in the complement position of [v_(BECOME)P], the Root will take the interpretation of ‘resultant state', and the post-verbal phrase is an adverbial phrase modifying the whole [v_(BECOME)P]. When the Root is adjoined to the v_(BECOME) head, it serves as the modifier of v_(BECOME), receiving the interpretation of ‘manner of change of state', and the post-verbal phrase, being an adjectival phrase, is merged in the complement position of v_(BECOME), predicated of the subject. Placing Chinese middles within a cross-linguistic research context, we postulate that the middles of Indo-European languages already exhibit different syntactic derivations, and the syntactic derivation of Chinese middles differs from all of such derivations. Based on this observation, we put forward an initial analysis of cross-linguistic syntactic patterns of middles that hinge upon the properties of the lexicon. The general classification depends on whether the lexicon has a morphological marker for middles: ‘no' for languages like English, and ‘yes' for languages like Chinese, Romance languages, and Greek. A further classification depends on the syntactic nature of different morphological markings, including the reflexive clitic in Romance, the non-active voice marker in Greek, and v_(BECOME) functional item in Chinese, each involving a unique syntactic structure but all deriving the common properties of middle constructions. This research therefore implies that the label ‘middle construction' is delineate by semantic criteria and it is on the wrong track to provide a unified structure for all middles across languages.
引文
Acedo-Matellan, Victor. 2015. The Morphosyntax of Transitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ackema, Peter and Maaike Schoorlemmer. 1995. Middles and nonmovement. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 173-97.
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. Active, middle and passive: The morpho-syntax of voice. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 13, 19-40.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Florian Sch?fer, and Giorgos Spathas. 2014. Delimiting voice in Germanic: On object drop and naturally reflexive verbs. In Jyoti Iyer and Leland Kusme, eds., Proceedings of NELS 44, Vol. 1, Pp.1-14.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Sch?fer. 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring Sense, Vol. 1. In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2005b. Structuring Sense, Vol. 2. The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring Sense, Vol. 3. Taking Forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cao, Hong (曹宏). 2004a. On the restriction on verbs and adjectives in middle constructions and its motivation. Linguistic Sciences 1:11-28. [2004a, 中动句对动词、 形容词的选择限制及其理据。《语言科学》第1期, 11-28页。]
Cao, Hong (曹宏). 2004b. Hierarchical structure and grammatical relation of middle constructions in Mandarin. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies 5:42-52. [2004b, 论中动句的层次结构和语法关系。《语言教学与研究》第5期, 42-52页。]
Cao, Hong (曹宏). 2005. On the semantic characteristics of middle constructions in Mandarin. Studies of the Chinese Language 3:205-13. [2005, 论中动句的语义表达特点。《中国语文》第3期, 205-13页。]
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, eds., The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.22-59.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 33-49.
Embick, David. 2004. Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, eds., The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.137-58.
Fagan, Sarah M. B. 1988. The English middle. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 181-203.
Fagan, Sarah M. B. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions: A Study with Special Reference to German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hale, Ken, Pamela Munro, and Paul Platero. 1998. Aspects of Navajo verb morphology and syntax: The inchoative. Navajo Language Academy Linguistics Workshop.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser, eds., The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pp.111-76.
Han, Jingquan (韩景泉). 2003. Derivation of English middle constructions. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 3:179-88. [2003, 英语中间结构的生成。《外语教学与研究》第3期, 179-88页。]
Harley, Heidi. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport, eds., The Syntax of Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.42-64.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74, 101-39.
Hoekstra, Teun and Ian Roberts. 1993. Middle construction in Dutch and English. In Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham, eds., Knowledge and Language 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pp.183-220.
Hu, Xuhui (胡旭辉). 2018. Encoding Events: Functional Structure and Variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huang, C.-T. James (黄正德). 2015. On syntactic analyticity and parametric theory. In Yen-hui Audrey Li (李艳惠), Andrew Simpson, and Wei-Tian Dylan Tsai (蔡维天), eds., Chinese Syntax in a Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.1-48.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. 1986. Passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 587-663.
Keyser, Samuel J. and Thomas Roeper. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 381-415.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pp.109-37.
Lekakou, Maria. 2005. In the middle, somewhat elevated: The semantics of middles and its crosslinguistic realization. Ph.D. diss., University College London.
Lim, Dongsik and Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta. 2012. The syntax and semantics of inchoatives as directed motion: The case of Korean. In Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally, eds., Telicity, Change and State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.212-51.
Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther (刘辰生). 2007. The V-qilai evaluative construction in Chinese. UST Working Papers in Linguistics (USTWPL) 3, 43-61.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 201-25.
Marantz, Alec. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130, 152-68.
Marelj, Marijana. 2004. Middles and argument structure across languages. Ph.D. diss., OTS, Utrecht University.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28, 229-90.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2016. Concept, Syntax, and Their Interface: The Theta System. Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, and Eric Reuland, eds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Reinhart, Tanya and Tal Siloni. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 389-436.
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 439-92.
Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Roberts, Ian. 1987. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht: Foris.
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Roberts, Ian and Anders Holmberg. 2010. Introduction. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan, eds., Syntactic Variation in the Minimalist Program: The Null Subject Parameter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.1-58.
Sch?fer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External Arguments in Change-of-state Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shyu, Shu-ing (徐淑瑛), Yu-Fang Wang (王萸芳), and Zhi-jie Lin (林志傑). 2013. An approximation to secondary predication structure: A case of V-qilai in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics 14, 701-36.
Sims, Lynn and Elly van Gelderen. 2010. Aspectual cycles: The history of English inceptives. The Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference (GLAC) 16.Http://www.public.asu.edu/～gelderen/GLAC16.docx [accessed 8, Oct. 2018]
Sportiche, Dominique. 1998. Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure: Subjects, Agreement, Case and Clitics. London: Routledge.
Sportiche, Dominique. 2014. French reflexive se: Binding and merge locality. In Enoch Oladé Aboh, ed., Locality. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp.104-37.
Sung, Kuo-ming (宋国明). 1994. Case assignment under incorporation. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Sung, Kuo-ming (宋国明). 1998. Introduction to Syntax. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. [1998, 《句法理论概要》。北京: 中国社会科学出版社。]
Wang, Yuyun (王昱匀). 2005. The multiplicity of the V-qi-lai construction. UST Working Papers in Linguistics (USTWPL) 1, 311-30.
Xiong, Jiajuan (熊佳娟). 2011. The verbal constraints in the Chinese qilai middle construction. In the Proceedings of the 12th Chinese Lexical Semantic Workshop (CLSW 2011). Pp.67-74.
(1)本文的“构式取向”特指生成语法框架内的论元理论, 这类理论也被称为新构式理论(neo-constructionist approach)(Borer 2013)。
(2)本句(以及下文)中希腊语形态标记缩略语说明: NOM-主格; 3SG-第三人称单数; NONACT-非主动语态标记; PRES-现在时; IMPERF-非完成体; 3PL-第三人称复数。
(3)Alexiadou(2014)虽然是跨语言的中动句研究, 但没有真正涉及法语类语言的中动结构。
(4)Reinhart和Siloni(2005)是将Marelj(2004)的研究置于他们宏观的参数化理论框架下进行阐述, 因此对中动结构的参数化差异的解释主要来自Marelj(2004)。
(5)感谢匿名审稿人的建议。
(6)这个树形图是根据Shyu等(2013)的论述绘制而成。
(7)严格来说, 以上结构中, 如果“很容易”是修饰动词的话, 应该是副词词组, 其句法位置也不应该是“补足语”(complement), 而应该是“嫁接语”(adjunct), 但这是技术细节, 对该假设不构成威胁。
(8)此处的“修饰”是一个描述性用语, 并不暗示句法性质, 指的是中动句动词后词组描述的性质究竟是指向主语还是动词所表达的动作。这样的语义关系可以通过不同的句法结构获得, 见5.3的具体分析。
(9)此句中, “起”和“来”被宾语隔开。按照Liu(2007)的观点, “起”和“来”的隔开是韵律的要求, 因为“起来”不够凸显, 无法单独构成一个音步, 需要各自粘附到动词和宾语上。
(10)这类v也被称为“轻动词”, 但与我们前文综述提及的“轻动词”有差异。Shyu等(2013)的轻动词并不提供动词词类特征, 也没有任何抽象语义, 最相关的功能是为句法描述提供更多的位置。为了避免混淆, 本文统一将我们假设中的v称为“动词性功能词”。
(11)审稿人指出, 传统X-bar理论下, 补足语位置的成分应该是最大投射(即XP), 无法通过核心词移动到中心语合并。但是, 轻动词后接词根作补足语, 词根经过核心词移动与轻动词融合(incorporation)获得动词词性, 这是分布式形态学的普遍操作。本文采用分布式形态学为基本框架, 因此沿袭了这个操作。Chomsky(2013)在阐述其最新思路——标签算法(labeling algorithm)——的文章中, 也认可这类操作, 将这类操作取名为Borer-Marantz Conception。限于篇幅, 本文无法就分布式形态学与X-bar操作的优缺点进行比较。
(12)生成语言学视角下多个理论框架(如分布式形态学、 XS模式(Borer 2005a, 2005b, 2013)、 第一语段句法(Ramchand 2008))都认为, 论元角色不是由动词分配, 而是来自功能结构的推导(即名词词组合并的句法位置决定其论元角色)。
(13)主旨论元的位置即使在分布式形态学框架下也有不同的看法, 如Harley(2005)等认为这类及物动词的主旨论元应该是词根选择(但Borer 2013指出词根选择主旨论元的假设有诸多问题), Acedo-Matellan(2015)认为这类结构中的主旨论元由一个空介词选择构成PP嫁接到动词上。本结构的目的是展现词根嫁接到v位置而表达“方式”的过程, 主旨论元的位置不影响我们的讨论。
(14)“起来”除了作为vBECOME带有的句法特征, 也具备此处列举的特殊语义, 这与Huang(2015)、 Hu(2018)的观点一致。两个研究都指出, 汉语的功能词除了句法形式特征以外, 往往带有一些特殊的具体语义。
(15)此处有待解决的问题是, 为什么英语中动结构不允许类似的动词出现。这个问题的解释超越了本文的范围, 这里我们提出的基本假设是: 英语和汉语中动结构的句法本质不同, 汉语的动词是否能被允准和“起来”的句法性质以及语义有关。事实上, 英语中动结构的动词允准条件和法语、 希腊语也有差异, 而Sch?fer(2008)、 Alexiadou(2014)、 Alexiadou等(2015)等研究也指出, 英语中动结构与其他两类语言有差异, 但没有解释这种差异为何会带来动词允准的差异。我们认为这是有待进一步研究的重要问题。
(16)受访人中也有认为这句话即使没有语境也不是特别差, 之所以如此, 可能是因为不同的人对“买”这个事件过程的理解有差异, 但这些受访者也同意有了语境, 这句话更容易接受。
(17)本节得益于匿名审稿人提出的宝贵意见。
(18)由于“起来”可以作为体标记, 因此有许多带有“起来”的句子与本文所讨论“V-起来”结构表面上类似, 本节的副词测试可作为一个有效手段进行区分, 本文限于篇幅无法一一说明。
(19)有关带有自反附着语的中动句动词性质, 尚无定论, Pesetsky(1995)、 Sportiche(1998, 2014)、 Embick(2004)、 Lekakou(2005)等研究认为这些语言中的动词为非宾格, 而Sch?fer(2008)和Alexiadou等(2014)则认为这些动词为及物动词。
(20)所谓的自反句, 在英语中的例子是John washes very fast(约翰洗漱很快, 此处“洗”的宾语是约翰自己)。很显然, 汉语的表达不依赖于“起来”。
(21)从笔者咨询的情况来看, 带有se的语言都用此附着语构成中动句, 包括斯拉夫语中的一些语言, 如斯洛文尼亚语等。Alexiadou(2014)认为此类语言的中动句也是与中动语态核心词相关; Alexiadou认为中动语态核心词除了在中动句出现, 也在被动句出现, 但法语等语言的被动句并不依赖se, 这个问题Alexiadou没有解释。Reuland(2001, 2011)、 Roberts (2010)等认为se应该是具有代词性质的附着语(pronominal), 不是语态核心词的形态表征。有鉴于此, 我们认为法语等语言的中动句是在句法推导中通过se来压制(或者填充)外在论元位置, 从而获得中动句。相关的语义分析见 Chierchia(2004)。限于篇幅, 本文不具体展开这个假设。
(22)英语中动句具体的构成模式有不同的解释, 目前在新构式取向下的研究大致认为主语是内在论元移动到主语位置、 外在论元被压制而构成, 尽管外在论元为何被压制的解释比较牵强(见Sch?fer 2008、 Alexiadou 2014等相关研究)。
Ackema, Peter and Maaike Schoorlemmer. 1995. Middles and nonmovement. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 173-97.
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. Active, middle and passive: The morpho-syntax of voice. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 13, 19-40.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Florian Sch?fer, and Giorgos Spathas. 2014. Delimiting voice in Germanic: On object drop and naturally reflexive verbs. In Jyoti Iyer and Leland Kusme, eds., Proceedings of NELS 44, Vol. 1, Pp.1-14.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Florian Sch?fer. 2015. External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring Sense, Vol. 1. In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2005b. Structuring Sense, Vol. 2. The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring Sense, Vol. 3. Taking Forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cao, Hong (曹宏). 2004a. On the restriction on verbs and adjectives in middle constructions and its motivation. Linguistic Sciences 1:11-28. [2004a, 中动句对动词、 形容词的选择限制及其理据。《语言科学》第1期, 11-28页。]
Cao, Hong (曹宏). 2004b. Hierarchical structure and grammatical relation of middle constructions in Mandarin. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies 5:42-52. [2004b, 论中动句的层次结构和语法关系。《语言教学与研究》第5期, 42-52页。]
Cao, Hong (曹宏). 2005. On the semantic characteristics of middle constructions in Mandarin. Studies of the Chinese Language 3:205-13. [2005, 论中动句的语义表达特点。《中国语文》第3期, 205-13页。]
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2004. A semantics for unaccusatives and its syntactic consequences. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, eds., The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.22-59.
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130, 33-49.
Embick, David. 2004. Unaccusative syntax and verbal alternations. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou, and Martin Everaert, eds., The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.137-58.
Fagan, Sarah M. B. 1988. The English middle. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 181-203.
Fagan, Sarah M. B. 1992. The Syntax and Semantics of Middle Constructions: A Study with Special Reference to German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hale, Ken, Pamela Munro, and Paul Platero. 1998. Aspects of Navajo verb morphology and syntax: The inchoative. Navajo Language Academy Linguistics Workshop.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser, eds., The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pp.111-76.
Han, Jingquan (韩景泉). 2003. Derivation of English middle constructions. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 3:179-88. [2003, 英语中间结构的生成。《外语教学与研究》第3期, 179-88页。]
Harley, Heidi. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the ontology of verb roots in English. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir and Tova Rapoport, eds., The Syntax of Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.42-64.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74, 101-39.
Hoekstra, Teun and Ian Roberts. 1993. Middle construction in Dutch and English. In Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham, eds., Knowledge and Language 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pp.183-220.
Hu, Xuhui (胡旭辉). 2018. Encoding Events: Functional Structure and Variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huang, C.-T. James (黄正德). 2015. On syntactic analyticity and parametric theory. In Yen-hui Audrey Li (李艳惠), Andrew Simpson, and Wei-Tian Dylan Tsai (蔡维天), eds., Chinese Syntax in a Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.1-48.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. 1986. Passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 587-663.
Keyser, Samuel J. and Thomas Roeper. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 381-415.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Pp.109-37.
Lekakou, Maria. 2005. In the middle, somewhat elevated: The semantics of middles and its crosslinguistic realization. Ph.D. diss., University College London.
Lim, Dongsik and Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta. 2012. The syntax and semantics of inchoatives as directed motion: The case of Korean. In Violeta Demonte and Louise McNally, eds., Telicity, Change and State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.212-51.
Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther (刘辰生). 2007. The V-qilai evaluative construction in Chinese. UST Working Papers in Linguistics (USTWPL) 3, 43-61.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 201-25.
Marantz, Alec. 2013. Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua 130, 152-68.
Marelj, Marijana. 2004. Middles and argument structure across languages. Ph.D. diss., OTS, Utrecht University.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The theta system: An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28, 229-90.
Reinhart, Tanya. 2016. Concept, Syntax, and Their Interface: The Theta System. Martin Everaert, Marijana Marelj, and Eric Reuland, eds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Reinhart, Tanya and Tal Siloni. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 389-436.
Reuland, Eric. 2001. Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 439-92.
Reuland, Eric. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Roberts, Ian. 1987. The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects. Dordrecht: Foris.
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Roberts, Ian and Anders Holmberg. 2010. Introduction. In Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts, and Michelle Sheehan, eds., Syntactic Variation in the Minimalist Program: The Null Subject Parameter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.1-58.
Sch?fer, Florian. 2008. The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External Arguments in Change-of-state Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shyu, Shu-ing (徐淑瑛), Yu-Fang Wang (王萸芳), and Zhi-jie Lin (林志傑). 2013. An approximation to secondary predication structure: A case of V-qilai in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics 14, 701-36.
Sims, Lynn and Elly van Gelderen. 2010. Aspectual cycles: The history of English inceptives. The Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference (GLAC) 16.Http://www.public.asu.edu/～gelderen/GLAC16.docx [accessed 8, Oct. 2018]
Sportiche, Dominique. 1998. Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure: Subjects, Agreement, Case and Clitics. London: Routledge.
Sportiche, Dominique. 2014. French reflexive se: Binding and merge locality. In Enoch Oladé Aboh, ed., Locality. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp.104-37.
Sung, Kuo-ming (宋国明). 1994. Case assignment under incorporation. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Sung, Kuo-ming (宋国明). 1998. Introduction to Syntax. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. [1998, 《句法理论概要》。北京: 中国社会科学出版社。]
Wang, Yuyun (王昱匀). 2005. The multiplicity of the V-qi-lai construction. UST Working Papers in Linguistics (USTWPL) 1, 311-30.
Xiong, Jiajuan (熊佳娟). 2011. The verbal constraints in the Chinese qilai middle construction. In the Proceedings of the 12th Chinese Lexical Semantic Workshop (CLSW 2011). Pp.67-74.
(1)本文的“构式取向”特指生成语法框架内的论元理论, 这类理论也被称为新构式理论(neo-constructionist approach)(Borer 2013)。
(2)本句(以及下文)中希腊语形态标记缩略语说明: NOM-主格; 3SG-第三人称单数; NONACT-非主动语态标记; PRES-现在时; IMPERF-非完成体; 3PL-第三人称复数。
(3)Alexiadou(2014)虽然是跨语言的中动句研究, 但没有真正涉及法语类语言的中动结构。
(4)Reinhart和Siloni(2005)是将Marelj(2004)的研究置于他们宏观的参数化理论框架下进行阐述, 因此对中动结构的参数化差异的解释主要来自Marelj(2004)。
(5)感谢匿名审稿人的建议。
(6)这个树形图是根据Shyu等(2013)的论述绘制而成。
(7)严格来说, 以上结构中, 如果“很容易”是修饰动词的话, 应该是副词词组, 其句法位置也不应该是“补足语”(complement), 而应该是“嫁接语”(adjunct), 但这是技术细节, 对该假设不构成威胁。
(8)此处的“修饰”是一个描述性用语, 并不暗示句法性质, 指的是中动句动词后词组描述的性质究竟是指向主语还是动词所表达的动作。这样的语义关系可以通过不同的句法结构获得, 见5.3的具体分析。
(9)此句中, “起”和“来”被宾语隔开。按照Liu(2007)的观点, “起”和“来”的隔开是韵律的要求, 因为“起来”不够凸显, 无法单独构成一个音步, 需要各自粘附到动词和宾语上。
(10)这类v也被称为“轻动词”, 但与我们前文综述提及的“轻动词”有差异。Shyu等(2013)的轻动词并不提供动词词类特征, 也没有任何抽象语义, 最相关的功能是为句法描述提供更多的位置。为了避免混淆, 本文统一将我们假设中的v称为“动词性功能词”。
(11)审稿人指出, 传统X-bar理论下, 补足语位置的成分应该是最大投射(即XP), 无法通过核心词移动到中心语合并。但是, 轻动词后接词根作补足语, 词根经过核心词移动与轻动词融合(incorporation)获得动词词性, 这是分布式形态学的普遍操作。本文采用分布式形态学为基本框架, 因此沿袭了这个操作。Chomsky(2013)在阐述其最新思路——标签算法(labeling algorithm)——的文章中, 也认可这类操作, 将这类操作取名为Borer-Marantz Conception。限于篇幅, 本文无法就分布式形态学与X-bar操作的优缺点进行比较。
(12)生成语言学视角下多个理论框架(如分布式形态学、 XS模式(Borer 2005a, 2005b, 2013)、 第一语段句法(Ramchand 2008))都认为, 论元角色不是由动词分配, 而是来自功能结构的推导(即名词词组合并的句法位置决定其论元角色)。
(13)主旨论元的位置即使在分布式形态学框架下也有不同的看法, 如Harley(2005)等认为这类及物动词的主旨论元应该是词根选择(但Borer 2013指出词根选择主旨论元的假设有诸多问题), Acedo-Matellan(2015)认为这类结构中的主旨论元由一个空介词选择构成PP嫁接到动词上。本结构的目的是展现词根嫁接到v位置而表达“方式”的过程, 主旨论元的位置不影响我们的讨论。
(14)“起来”除了作为vBECOME带有的句法特征, 也具备此处列举的特殊语义, 这与Huang(2015)、 Hu(2018)的观点一致。两个研究都指出, 汉语的功能词除了句法形式特征以外, 往往带有一些特殊的具体语义。
(15)此处有待解决的问题是, 为什么英语中动结构不允许类似的动词出现。这个问题的解释超越了本文的范围, 这里我们提出的基本假设是: 英语和汉语中动结构的句法本质不同, 汉语的动词是否能被允准和“起来”的句法性质以及语义有关。事实上, 英语中动结构的动词允准条件和法语、 希腊语也有差异, 而Sch?fer(2008)、 Alexiadou(2014)、 Alexiadou等(2015)等研究也指出, 英语中动结构与其他两类语言有差异, 但没有解释这种差异为何会带来动词允准的差异。我们认为这是有待进一步研究的重要问题。
(16)受访人中也有认为这句话即使没有语境也不是特别差, 之所以如此, 可能是因为不同的人对“买”这个事件过程的理解有差异, 但这些受访者也同意有了语境, 这句话更容易接受。
(17)本节得益于匿名审稿人提出的宝贵意见。
(18)由于“起来”可以作为体标记, 因此有许多带有“起来”的句子与本文所讨论“V-起来”结构表面上类似, 本节的副词测试可作为一个有效手段进行区分, 本文限于篇幅无法一一说明。
(19)有关带有自反附着语的中动句动词性质, 尚无定论, Pesetsky(1995)、 Sportiche(1998, 2014)、 Embick(2004)、 Lekakou(2005)等研究认为这些语言中的动词为非宾格, 而Sch?fer(2008)和Alexiadou等(2014)则认为这些动词为及物动词。
(20)所谓的自反句, 在英语中的例子是John washes very fast(约翰洗漱很快, 此处“洗”的宾语是约翰自己)。很显然, 汉语的表达不依赖于“起来”。
(21)从笔者咨询的情况来看, 带有se的语言都用此附着语构成中动句, 包括斯拉夫语中的一些语言, 如斯洛文尼亚语等。Alexiadou(2014)认为此类语言的中动句也是与中动语态核心词相关; Alexiadou认为中动语态核心词除了在中动句出现, 也在被动句出现, 但法语等语言的被动句并不依赖se, 这个问题Alexiadou没有解释。Reuland(2001, 2011)、 Roberts (2010)等认为se应该是具有代词性质的附着语(pronominal), 不是语态核心词的形态表征。有鉴于此, 我们认为法语等语言的中动句是在句法推导中通过se来压制(或者填充)外在论元位置, 从而获得中动句。相关的语义分析见 Chierchia(2004)。限于篇幅, 本文不具体展开这个假设。
(22)英语中动句具体的构成模式有不同的解释, 目前在新构式取向下的研究大致认为主语是内在论元移动到主语位置、 外在论元被压制而构成, 尽管外在论元为何被压制的解释比较牵强(见Sch?fer 2008、 Alexiadou 2014等相关研究)。