Microsoft Word - 语言科学定稿.doc

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Microsoft Word - 语言科学定稿.doc"

勺徵包
7 years ago
Views:

1 for2007 讨论宾 (1) a. * b. * c. * (Thematic Theory) (2) a. b. c., ), (1a)-(1c) 1 94A0316RA), 1 (a) (Theta Criterion) (b) (Projection Principle) 1

2 (3) a. John tried to be honest. b. John seemed to be honest. (4) a. John is eager to please. b. John is easy to please. (5) a. John persuaded Bill to be honest. b. John preferred Bill to be honest. c. John believed Bill to be honest. (Yue 1971) (Mei 1972) (1977) 1980 (the Unaccusative Hypothesis)Perlmutter (1978) (unergative) (unaccusative) Burzio (1986) (transitive) (causative) (6) a. : cry, laugh, talk, sneeze, jumps b. : exist, appear, come, be, arrive, happen c. : eat, drink, hit, criticize, kick, discuss, write d. : break, sink, move, open, close (Li 1985) (1987) (1989) 2 (7) a (1999a, 2001), Chappell (1999), (2000), (2001), (2002), (2004), (2003), Hole (2005), (2005), (2006) 2 (ergative verb, Burzio 1986) 3

3 Perlmutter (1978) (8) (8) (7a-b) (8), (9) a. e e b. t t (7c) (7d) - (1987) (10) a. b. (11) a. b. (10a) (11a)

4 (11b) (11a) (12a) (12) a. [e] b. t (13) a. b. (14) a. b. (10a, 13a) (11a, 14a) (15) a b )... (external argument) (internal argument, (= ) Causer, (= ) 4 (inchoative verb) ( = ) ( = ) 5 +

5 (16) a. VP VP DP V DP V V V DP b, VP VP V DP V V DP V DP (17) a. b. c. (18) a. * b. * (17a-c) (18a-b) (i) a. vp [ v DO VP b. vp [ v DO VP c. vp [ v BECOME VP d. vp [ v CAUSE vp [ v BECOME VP McCawley (1969) Dowty (1979) Larson (1988) Huang (1988) Hale and Keyser (1993), Chomsky (1995) Huang (1997, 2005), Lin (2001), (2005)

6 have( () ) be have 6 (19) a. Johan ist gegangen. ist = is b. Johan hat das Buch gekauft. hat = has (impersonal passive) (a) (suppress) (demote) (b) (a) (b) () (20a) (20b): 7 (20) a. Die Kinder tanzen hier oft. The children dance here often b. es wird hier (von den Kindern) oft getanzt. it becomes here (by the children) often danced * () (= () ) (21) a. Das Kind ist gestern gegangen. The child is yesterday gone. b. *es wird gestern gegangen. it becomes yesterday gone * (=) 6 nu tu Washio 2006? (= )? (=)( 1991) 7 (a) tanzen (b) die Kinder (c) es (= it)

7 (15b) (Experiencer) (22) a. () () b. ( = = ) c. ( = ), (27a) come, (27b) come to me (= I have), (27c) bring (= cause to come) (thematic hierarchy) 8 (23) a. b. c. d. e. () : (23a) (23) : ( ) 8 B. Levin and M. Rappaport Hovav (2005)

8 (Merge, base generation) 9 (23d) (24) 10 (24) a. b. c. d. (23) (24) ( (23d)) X (happen to X)X () (2006) (a) (b) (c) (1989) () Chappell (1999)Hole (2002) (2003), 10 (23d) (24a) Hole (2002) (binding theory) 11 (Experiencer) EXPERIENCE ( HAPPEN-TO) experience vp VP vp 12 (23) (24) (Case theory) (22c) :, (23)-(24)

9 (Affectee) (Indirect Patient) (outer object) (25) a. 25a,, + (inner object) (25a) 13 (26) vp DP1 v v VP DP2 V V DP3 () (Affectee) (= DO TO, AFFECT (26) (25d) 13 Thompson (1973).

10 (middle construction) -er Experiencer, -ee Affectee (23-25),,,,, 14 ( ) (a) (b) (27) a. b. c. () d. Oehrle (1976), Harley (2002) Cheng et al (1999) 27 CAUSEHAVE 14 (2002) (2003) (2005)

11 (28) vp DP v v CAUSE VP DP V V HAVE DP V HAVE v CAUSE,,,, (ho) ( Cheng et al 1999) v CAUSE v CAUSE, (29) a. b. rent buy vs. sell, borrow vs. lend, give vs. receive 15 (28) (27a) (28) (27a) V : * V V....?,??

12 () ()() (30) a. (27-29) (30) (31) a. 17 b. c. (32) a. b. c. (27-29), (33) a. *...., (31) (32) () (i) * (ii) * () ( Rizzi 1990 Relativized Minimality, Chomsky 1995 Minimal Link Condition ) ( p.c.) (partitive case)

13 b. * 18 (34) a. * b. *, (35) a. b. (27d) ()( ) (36) a. * 19 b. *, (30g-h) (37) a. (27c-d) (38a-b) (38) a. * b. * (36)-(37), 20, ( DO TO ) 18 (33b) (34b) (33b) (34b) 19 (i) (ii) (17) 20

14 DO TO (30c) (26) v DO-TO (39) vp DP1 v v DO-TO VP DP2 V V ACT DP3 (30b, c) (30), 21, Zhang (1998) (2000) (1999b) (2002) (2005), + () +, +, + ( slap, spank),, 21 (2005), ( ) (),

15 , ( 30e) 22 (1979) Zhang (1998) (2000) (2003) (2004) CAUSE HAVE LOSE ( NOT-HAVE) CAUSE-to-HAVE CAUSE-to-LOSE ( V- ), X X, ( - - ), (40) (41) (40) (41) 22 (2001) (a), (b) (c) (a)-(b) ( )Zhang (1998) *,,, ( Mary knitted me a pair of gloves, John painted me a picture, for paint paint for (analyticity) )

16 (42) CAUSE t HAVE (43) DO-TO t ACT (42)-(43) (42) (43) Zhang (1998) (2003) (2004), (43), 25 -, - (1999), (2001), 23 *** ( Liu 2006Liu ) 24, ( John feeds Bill with rice), ( Bill feeds on rice) He eats rice 25,?, ()

17 26 4, 5 ( (23)-(24) ), ( (22c) (25) (25) (44) a. * * * *, (Case theory) IP,, (44),, *, 26 (2001), 27 Li (1985, 1990)

18 (inherent case) (27a) (45) (45) vp v VP [ v e], (46) vp [ v ] [ VP t ],, (inherent case) (30c) (47) vp v e VP (48) vp v VP t, ( 30f ) (44) ( 44a, 44d ) ( 22) (30) (49) *He stole John two computers. (50) *John robbed me $500. (51) *You ate them two bowls of noodles.

19 John robbed me of $500; He stole two computers from John (49-51) rent rent, rent : (52) John rented an apartment. (John = ) (53) John rented Bill an apartment. (John = ) (23)-(24) (23)-(24) (54) *John died a father last year. (cf. John s father died on him last year.) (55) *They happened an accident today. (cf. An accident happened to them today.) (56) *The guard escaped 3 prisoners. (cf. 3 prisoners escaped on the guard.) (57) () 29 (58) (=23d) (59), 30 28, (2003) 29 Li (1985) () He charged/fined me $300 (/); The car burst a tire ( ) Zhang (1998) Hole (2005) a (2003) (partitive Case) CAUSE

20 (58) (59) a. An accident happened to them yesterday. b. There happened an accident to them yesterday. c. *They happened an accident yesterday., an accident ( 59a), there (Case chain) ( 59b) they to they an accident (59c) (57) () () () () 48 (57), (57) (57) (patient-centered events), (agent-centered events) (control verb)

21 (raising verb) (try vs. seem; eager vs. likely (3)-(4)), persuade promise : (60) a. John persuaded Bill [PRO to be brave]. b. John promised Bill [PRO to be brave]. persuade ( Bill ), promise ( Bill ) ( Huang 1988 Cheng and Huang 1995) 31 (61) a. () b. () c. () d, () ( * ) ( ) die dream (John died/dreamed a good death/dream, *There died/ dreamed a man) : : V- () (61) (=) 32 Sybesma (1992, 1996), Cheng and Huang (1995) Huang (2006)

22 3: , 2002,289.4: : : : , 270:3, :. Burzio, Luigi (1986) Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Chappell, Hilary (1999) The double unaccusative construction in Sinitic languages, in Doris L. Payne and Immanuel Barshi (eds.), External possession, pp Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cheng, Lisa L.-S. and C.-T. James Huang (1995) On the argument structure of resultative compounds, in Mathew Chen and Ovid Tzeng (eds.) In honor of William Wang. Pp Taipei: the Pyramid Press. Cheng, Lisa L.-S. [], C.-T. James Huang, Audrey Li, and Jane Tang (1999) Hoo, hoo, hoo: syntax of the causative, dative, and passive constructions in Taiwanese, in Pang-Hsin Ting (ed.), Contemporary Studies on the Min Dialects, Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph 14, pp , Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

23 Dowty, David (1979) Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Hale, Kenneth and S. Jay Keyser (1993) On argument structure and lexical expression of syntactic rel+ations, in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.) The view from building 20, pp Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press. Harley, Heidi (2003) Possession and the double object construction, Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, Hole, Daniel (2005) Extra argumentality - a binding account of "possessor raising" in German, English and Mandarin, in Ji-yung Kim, Y. Lander and B. Partee (eds.), Possessives and beyond: semantics and syntax, Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, pp Huang, C.-T. James (1988) Wo pao de kuai and Chinese phrase structure, Language 64: Huang, C.-T. James (1997) On lexical structure and syntactic projection, Chinese Languages and Linguistics 3: Huang, C.-T. James (2006) Resultatives and unaccusatives: a parametric view, Chuugoku Gogaku: Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan [ ] 253: Larson, Richard (1988) On the double object construction, Linguistic Inquiry 19: Levin, Beth and M. Rappaport Hovav (2005) Argument realization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Li, Y.-H. Audrey (1985) Abstract Case in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Li, Y.-H. Audrey (1990) Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lin, T.-H. Jonah (2001) Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine. Liu, Feng-Hsi [] (2006) Dative constructions in Chinese, Language and Linguistics 7: McCawley, James D. (1969) Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure, CLS 4: Mei, Kuang [] (1972) Studies in the transformational grammar of Modern Standard Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Oehrle, Richard T. (1976). The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Perlmutter, David (1978) Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis, Proceedings of BLS 4: Rizzi, Luigi (1990) Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press. Sybesma, Rint (1992) Causatives and accomplishments: the case for Chinese ba. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University. Sybesma, Rint (1999) The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Thompson, Sandra A. (1973) On transitivity and the ba construction in Mandarin Chinese, Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1: Washio, Ryuichi (2006) Unaccusativity and East Asian languages: issues and prospects. Chuugoku Gogaku: Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan [ ] 253:

24 Yue, Anne [ (1971) Mandarin syntactic structures, Chilin 8, Princeton University.. Zhang, Niina N. (1998) Argument interpretations in the ditransitive construction, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 21: Thematic Structures of Verbs in Chinese and their Syntactic Projections C.-T. James Huang Harvard University Abstract The unaccusative hypothesis not only provides a proper distinction between two types of intransitive and transitive verbs, but also serves to identify two types of di-transitives. The give-type double-object construction belongs to the unaccusative series with Causer, Experiencer and Patient, while the rob-type DOC with Agent, Affectee, and Patient belongs to the unergative series. Under this analysis, several well-known peculiar constructions in Chinese fall into place, including the so-called transitive unaccusative construction, the retained-object construction, and the outer-object construction. Keywords Thematic theory, Unaccusative, Unergative, DOC, Decomposition, Event types

2 4a 2-3 N 2-4 2-4 1978 2 5a 5b 5c a. b. 1982 4a a. b. c. 5-6 NP NP1 NP2 NP1 NP2 NP 1 2-4 NP 2. 2-4 NP NP1 NP2

1 1. 3a-d a. a. b. c. (1984); (2002) 2002 Huang1994, 1997 Yanshi Niina Zhang 2 4a 2-3 N 2-4 2-4 1978 2 5a 5b 5c a. b. 1982 4a a. b. c. 5-6 NP NP1 NP2 NP1 NP2 NP 1 2-4 NP 2. 2-4 NP NP1 NP2 3 1978 1982 8c