【作者】 隋娜；

【导师】 王广成；

【作者基本信息】 曲阜师范大学 ， 外国语言学与应用语言学， 2009， 硕士

【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。更多还原

【Abstract】 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.更多还原