【作者】 郭印；

【导师】 许余龙；

【作者基本信息】 上海外国语大学 ， 外国语言学及应用语言学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 功能语言学和认知语言学界一般认为,世界语言的类型可以分为及物性系统和作格性系统两大类(Halliday 1985, 1994; Langacker 1991; Lemmens 1998),但正如韩礼德(1985, 1994)、Langacker(1991)、Dixon(1994)等人所说,任何一种语言都同时存在两种模式,只是程度的不同。Lemmens(1998)、倪蓉(2009)等人认为,英汉语所存在的大量的作格现象,长期以来没有受到足够的重视。致使交替是作格现象的核心概念,致使交替的突出特征是谓语动词既有及物用法又有不及物用法。其中不及物动词的典型用法是表示某实体所承受的状态变化事件,及物用法表示这一状态变化事件是由另一不同实体所带来的。本文研究的致使交替现象是指在语义上用同一动词来表达相同的动作事件,致使含义包括(原型)施事者参与角色及其引起动作的情况,而起动含义不包含该施事参与角色,动词所表示的动作是自发的。致使交替存在不同的跨语言特征,很多研究者试图从不同角度对上述现象进行解释,此类的研究既有形式语言学视角,也有认知语言学和功能语言学视角。形式的角度主要有两派观点:去及物化(detransitivization)和致使化(causativization)。去及物化理论认为反致使动词标记是去及物化过程,反致使形态是否具备应被看作语素变体的特例。致使化理论认为及物形式是由基础反致使/非宾格词条通过致使化过程派生而来。但是,动词标记的不规律性使得无论去及物化还是致使化理论都不能解决全部问题。非交替非宾格动词(如blossom)既没有派生来源,也没有派生目标,这对于上述两种形式理论均构成了挑战。Goldberg的“表层概括理论”从致使交替现象中抽离出来,从构式的角度来进行观察,淡化了动词语义在交替中的作用,认为动词的多种用法和意义是构式所赋予的。但是,脱离了动词义来探讨致使构式和反致使构式与其他相关构式的联系与区别,会变得相当困难。与先行研究相比,本研究具有以下特色:1)构建了统一的致使交替事件域认知模型;2)确立了研究致使交替强度的相关指标及计算公式;3)基于语料库展开汉英对比研究。本文在力动态理论、使因链理论、A/D分层理论和独立识解观等认知语言学理论的基础上,建立了致使交替事件域认知模型,为进一步分析致使交替动词在相关构式中的表现提供了理论框架。本文提出,建立在多义基础上的致使交替动词也是一种构式,属于作格性构式,动词是否具有交替性在于作格性构式与及物性构式的相互压制与竞争的结果。如何通过语料库测量致使交替强度,并就此展开汉英对比是本文的重点。在汉英对比部分采用“对比功能分析法”的理论假设和实证分析相结合的方法(Chesterman 1998)。语言对比语料主要是基于北京大学现代汉语语料库(CCL)和英国国家语料库(BNC)进行KWIC检索获得的。我们认为基于语料库考察致使交替性质和强度必须既要考察共有动词,还要考察共有客体,为此,我们在Stefanowitsch & Grie(s2003, 2004)和Lemmens(2009)的配式分析(collostructional analysis)基础上,提出研究致使交替强度(CAS)的三个指标及其计算方式:1)动词共同类符指数(verbal shared type index,简称STyI,“共类指数”);2)动词共同形符指数(verbal shared token index,简称SToI,“共形指数”);3)客体共同形符指数(theme shared token index,简称TSTI,“客形指数”)。在这三个CAS指标基础上,我们进而考察了汉英典型致使交替动词和“窒息”类致使交替动词。通过前者的考察我们总结CAV的一般特征和句法表现,后者的考察旨在寻求非典型致使交替动词(CAV)的交替特征和认知规律。我们对所检索到的两万余条句例逐条考察了CAV的致事特征、客体表现、动词语义结构和语义内容及其对交替特征的影响、时体特征。我们还从构式语法的角度,考察了有关致使交替现象的构式图谱以及动词与构式的互动关系。本文的主要发现如下:1)汉英致使交替现象的差异主要表现在:(i)就汉英典型CAV而言,除了结构差异较大之外,两者情状也有不同。英语致使交替动词通常都是达成或完结类动词,而汉语缺少完结动词,因此往往借助两种其他手段。一是在活动动词的基础上附加补语,将活动谓词变成完结谓词。二是借用时体标记词(如“了”)将结果义加于单音节动词之上,以此获取“过程+客体”独立识解的可能,其作用相当于“动作+结果”的动结式。(ii)汉英语“窒息”类动词的交替强度并不一致。汉语中单音节词致使交替动词非常有限,这是由汉语动词的双音化发展趋势所决定的。汉语中单音节动词的交替性低于英语,而汉语的双音节动词(如“窒息”类单音动词加“死”所构成的动结式)的交替广度和强度高于英语。汉语中受到话题句的影响,出现的假反致使句数量远远超过英语。2)由于本文主要探讨致使交替现象的认知理据,因此也非常关注语料反映的共性:(i)英汉语中均存在共类指数与共形指数不一致的情况,但均呈连续统态势。动词客体使用频次的不均衡导致了致使交替的广度与强度的差异。连续统分布以及典型CAV也存在分裂作格的现象推翻了致使交替现象的作格/非作格两分说(Levin & Rappaport 1995;曾立英2007; 2009等)。(ii)汉英“窒息”类动词存在致使交替强度与认知概念的相关性,交替强度的最低值均出现在关涉外部的动词,而强度最高值均出现在关涉内部的动词,但是完全自发的动词也不具致使交替性(如smoulder)。汉英CAV在致使句中均具有行为义、致使义和结果状态义,其中行为义和致使义往往结合较为紧密。在反致使句中均具有结果状态义,不包含但不排斥行为义和致使义。(iii)致事“可移性”(transferability)是交替性的重要特点。如致事可以在施事、工具、自然力以及有无施事性之间转移,动词的可交替性就强,否则就弱。(iv)可交替性与动词结果义的语义指向以及内外论元生命度的级差有关。首先,致使交替动词的结果义需要指向客体论元。其次,动词语义要求的外论元与内论元的生命度级差越大,越具可交替性,同级则不能交替。更多还原

【Abstract】 Functional linguistics and Cognitive Linguistics generally accept that world languages consist of transitive paradigm and ergative paradigm (Halliday 1985, 1994; Langacker 1991; Lemmens 1998), both of which, as put by Halliday (1985, 1994), Langacker (1991) and Dixon (1994), co-exist in every language. Lemmens (1998) and Ni Rong (2009) observe that substantial ergative phenomena in English and Chinese have long been neglected.Causative alternation, as a core concept of ergativity, is characterized by verbs with both intransitive and transitive use. The intransitive use typically denotes a change-of-state event undergone by some entity while the transitive use denotes that this change-of-state event has been caused by some different entity. We define causative alternation in this dissertation as the same event denoted by the same verb, the causative content of which includes the prototypical agent and subsequent act, while the inchoative content of which does not, since the act denoted by the verb is voluntary.Scholars have conducted much research on various cross-linguistic features of causative alternation from various perspectives of formal linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics and functional linguistics. The formalist school holds two opposite interpretations: detransitivization and causativization. Researchers supporting detransitivization assume that all anticausatives are derived from their transitive counterpart and take the anticausative morphology as an idiosyncratic instance of allomorphy. The causativization approach assumes that the transitive entry is derived from the basic anticausative/unaccusative entry. However, the asymmetry of verb marking prevents both approaches from a satisfactory solution. The lack of derivational source and target of nonalternative unaccuatives constitutes a challenge for both transitive-based and intransitive-based approaches. Cognitive construction grammar, on the other hand, looks beyond alternations and considers each surface pattern on its own terms. Goldberg refers to the broader generalizations as Surface Generalizations. Nevertheless, it is no easy job to distinguish causative and anti-causative constructions from other relevant constructions.The present research, compared with previous studies, differs in the following aspects: 1) We construct a unified Cognitive Model of Causative Alternation Event (CMCAE). 2) We set forth the relative indices of Causative Alternation Strength (CAS) and design corresponding formulae to measure them. 3) We conduct a corpus-based Chinese-English contrastive study.Grounded on theories of Force-Dynamic, Causal Chain, A/D Layering and Absolute Construal, this study constructs CMCAE as a theoretical framework for further analyses of CAV in construction contexts. It proposes that polysemic CAV can also be taken as a construction, and the alternation ability is the outcome of the mutual competition between ergative and transitive constructions.This study focuses on a contrastive study under the assistance of the measurement of CAS. We conduct this research with both qualitative and quantitative methods, adopting Chesterman’s (1998) CFA (Contrastive Functional Analysis) method. The data are gathered through KWIC search in CCL (Center for Chinese Linguistic PKU) Corpus and BNC (British National Corpus). We hold that it is essential to study the shared verbs plus shared themes. Thus, under the framework of collostructional analysis, we propose three CAS indices and design relative formulae: 1) verbal shared type index (“StyI”); 2) verbal shared token index (“SToI”); 3) theme shared token index (“TSTI”). We further explore the typical CAVs and the“SUFFOCATE”CAVs in both Chinese and English. We intend to obtain a general picture of semantic and syntactic features of CAVs and the cognitive motivations behind them. For that purpose, we have studied more than 20,000 samples in search of the nature of the causers, themes, tense-aspect features as well as the semantic structure and semantic content which influence alternation. This study also takes a close look at the construction family of causative alternation phenomena and the verb-construction interactions.The major findings are as follows:1) The dissimilarities between the two languages are: (i) Apart from structural differences, Chinese and English typical CAVs differ in situation types. English CAVs are generally achievement and accomplishment verbs, while due to the lack of accomplishment verbs, Chinese has to depend on two other means to achieve the same effect. One is to change activity predicates into accomplishment ones by attaching complements to activity verbs, and the other is to add the resultative meaning to monosyllabic verbs through tense-aspect markers (eg.“le”) so that“process + theme” obtains an absolute construal. (ii) Chinese and English“SUFFOCATE”verbs are dissimilar in CAS. Chinese monosyllabic CAVs are limited in number, as determined by the trend in disyllablization. The CAS of Chinese monosyllabic verbs is generally lower than that of their English counterparts, whereas that of Chinese disyllable verbs are higher in both STyI and SToI than that of the English ones. Considering the frequent occurrence of Chinese topic sentences, we conclude that the Chinese pseudo-anticausative sentences far outnumber English ones.2) As this study tries to seek the cognitive motivation of causative alternations, the following commonalities reflected by the data should also deserve our attention. (i) With STyI-SToI inconsistencies in both languages, StyI and SToI reveal a tendency of continuum. The asymmetry of theme frequencies leads to the dissimilarities in the quality and quantity of causative alternations. The continuum trend and the split ergativity in even typical CAVs lead us to abandoning the clear-cut ergativity/non-ergativity distinction (Levin & Rappaport 1995; Zeng 2007, 2009, among others). (ii) In the case of Chinese and English“SUFFOCATE”verbs, there is a correlation between CAS and cognitive conception. The lowest CAS value is found in verbs concerning exterior organs, while the highest value is associated with verbs involving inner part of the body. Another interesting finding, though not many, is that fully voluntary verbs (such as“smoulder”) do not alternate. Chinese and English CAVs contain the semantic ingredients of ACT, CAUSE-BECOME and RESULT-STATE. The ACT and CAUSE-BECOME meanings are often integrated while the semantic direction of the RESULT-STATE meaning is the object argument. Anti-causatives must contain RESULT-STATE meaning, with neither inclusion nor expulsion of ACT and CAUSE-BECOME meanings. (iii) Another striking feature of causative alternations is the“transferability”of the causer. If the causer can be transferred among such semantic roles as agent, instrument, and natural force, or between the presence and absence of agentivity, the verb possesses a high potential for alternation. And it is also true the other way around. (iv) Potential for alternation is interrelated with the semantic direction of the RESULT-STATE meaning and animacy differences of the outer and inner arguments. First, the RESULT-STATE meaning directs toward the theme argument. Second, the broader the animacy gap between outer and inner argument is, the more potential for alternation a verb is. If both arguments are of the same animacy level, the verb is not likely to alternate.更多还原