( 80 ), ( causer), ( causee), ( ) ( agent) (patient) XP, YP, : (2) [ XP ] [ YP ], YP, (1), (2) Y YP, RP YP, (2) : (3) [ XP ] [ Y RP ] ( Y ) XP,

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "( 80 ), ( causer), ( causee), ( ) ( agent) (patient) XP, YP, : (2) [ XP ] [ YP ], YP, (1), (2) Y YP, RP YP, (2) : (3) [ XP ] [ Y RP ] ( Y ) XP,"

锁旦毛
7 years ago
Views:

1 : 3,,, ; ;,,,,,,,,,,, (1943) ( causative),,, ( causative construction),, ( causative event, ), ( causing e2 vent, ) ( caused event, ), ; ( ) : (1),, 3 ( : 05BYY044),, 21

2 ( 80 ), ( causer), ( causee), ( ) ( agent) (patient) XP, YP, : (2) [ XP ] [ YP ], YP, (1), (2) Y YP, RP YP, (2) : (3) [ XP ] [ Y RP ] ( Y ) XP, : ( ), ( ), XP (, ) ;, XP ;,, YP, Y;,, RP,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, : 22, (overt causer) : (4) a. b. ( ) c., ( covert causer) : (5) a. b. c.

3 :, ( exter2 nal causer, ) : (6) a. b. c. (, 2003;, 2004a 2004b ), ( active causer) : (7) a. b. c. d.,,,,,,, ( ),, /,,,?,, ( ) ( ),, (, ;, 1995) ;, ( ), (, 2001;, a) ; ( head feature percolation), (, L i, ; Gu, ; Cheng & Huang, 1994;, 2000) ; (, 2003;, 2004b),,,,, ( : ) : (8) a., ( ) b. ( ) ( ), ( ),, 23

4 ( 80 ),, : ( 9 ) a. ( ) b. ( ) : (10) a.,,, ( ) b.,,,? ( ) c. ( A29 ),? (8a) : (11) [ ( ) ( ) ( ) ] [ ( ) ],,? : (12) a. : ( ) ( ) / ( ) ( ) b. : ( ) / ( ) c. : ( ) / ( ) d. : ( ) / ( ) e. : ( ) / ( ) f. : ( ) Q / ( ) Q g. : ( ) / ( ) h. : ( ) / ( ),, ( ), (7),,,,,, ( non2head caus2 er), ( head causer), (12), ( ), (passivization),,,,,,, / ;, (8), 24?,,,

5 :, (, ), (3) [ XP ] [ Y RP ], XP XP XP,, [ XP ] [ Y RP ] ( ) : (13) [NP1 +V ( +NP2 ) ] [ Y RP ], NP1 NP2 V ( + NP2 ) NP1 + V ( + NP2 ), NP1 NP2, V ( +NP2 ) NP1 + V ( + NP2 ) NP1, (, ) ; NP2, ; V ( + NP2 ) NP1 + V ( + NP2 ), ( ( 7), ),, ( construction),,, ( 1979: 73) :,,,,, ( ) ( ), ( ), ( ),, ( ),,,, : (14) a. ( ) b. c.,, ( sentient), ( theme), ( ) ; ( target, ), (, 2002c),,,, (,, ),,,,, 25

6 ( 80 ),,, (11), ( ),,, ( ) ( ) : (15) a. (, ) b. (, ) c. (, ) d. (, ) ( ) : (16) a. (, ) b. (, ( ) ) c. (, ) d. (, ) e. (, ) (16a - c) (5a - c), (16d), (16e) ( ) (15a) (16a) : (17) a. [ ( ) ( ) ] [ ( ) ] b. [ ( ) ( ) ] [ ( ) ] (17a),,, ; ( 17b), (16a),,,,,, (5a),, : ( ) /,, (15) ;,, ( 16) ( 16) ; ( 15), (16d), (16),,, 26

7 :, ( ) (6a), : (18) [ ( ) [ ( ) ) ] ] [ ( ) ],,, (17a),,, (6a) (4a) gλυ,, (6),, ( ), : gλϖ (19) a., b., c. ( ), ( entitive causer),, :,,, / ( internal causer),,,,,,,,,,, 27

8 ( 80 ),,??,,?,?,,,,,,,, : (20) a. b. (21) a. b. (20b) (21b), : (22) a. b. (23) a. b. (22b) (23b), : (24) a. b. c.,,,,,,, :,, ( causativity) :,,,,, 28

9 :, :, ( idealized cognitive model),,,,,, (20) ( ), ; (21) ( ),, ( 8a), ( ), ; (24b) (24a) ( ),,,,, ( contrastive pair) (22) (23),,, (, ),, (24c) ( 24b),,,,,,,,, : (25) a. b.? (26) a. b. 3,,,, : : > : > : >,,,,, ( continuum ), 29

10 ( 80 ),,,, (11) gλω,, : (27) a. ( ( ), ) b.? ( ( ), ) (27a) (27b),,, : (28) a. ( ) b. ( ) c. ( ) d. ( ),,,,,,, (5) : (29) a. b. c.,,,,, : (30) a.? b.? c.?,, : (31) a. b. 3, ( b), : (32) a. b. 30

11 : (2003: 86) (32a), (32b),,, (, 2004 ),,,,,,,, : (33) a. b. ( ),,, (15) ( ),,,,, ( type) ( token) ;,,,,,, : ( ),,,,,, : / / > >,,,,, : ( ) ( ),,, ( entitive), ( eventive),,, Shibatani (1976) Dowty(1979), 31

12 ( 80 ),,, : (34) ( ) : (35) (34) (35),, (34), (34), gλξ : (36) a. ( ) b., (,, 1987, 176 ),,,, : (37), :!, ( ),, ( ),, : (38), ( ) (metonymy) ( 34) ( ) (, 2003;, 2004b),, ; ( ) ( 34) (16) ;, (2003),,,,, : (39) a.,, ( ) b.,,, (39a) (39b) : 32

13 : (40) a., ( ) b.,, ( ) c., ( ),,,,, : (41) a., b.,, c.,,,?,,,,,, (42),,, ( ), : (43) a., [ ( ) [ ] ] b. [ [ ] [ ] ], (43a), (43b),,,,,, : (44) a.,, ( ) b. ( ) ( ),,,, (12), ( ),,,,,, (p rofile) 33

14 ( 80 ),, : (45) a. b. (46) a. b. (45),,,, (46),, ( (2002c) ),,, : (47) a. ( ) b. ( ),,,,,,, (periphrastic causative) V,, : (48) a. b. (49) a., b., (, 1982: 137) (48),, ( ) (49), : (50) a., b., c. (1986: 142) (50), ( a), ( b), ( c), ( c), ( ), :,,, (2002b) :, :,, 34

15 : ( inverted causative structure), L i ( ) Gu ( ) (2001) ( ),,, : (51),, gλψ : (52),, : (53) [ ( ) ( ) ] [ ( ) ( ) ] ( ), ( 51), (51), :, ;, (52), : (54), : (52) (54), (51), ( ( ) ),, ;,, :,, ( ) ; ( ) gλζ,,,,,,,,, 35

16 ( 80 ),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :, ( ), ( ),, (1997),,,,,,,,,,, ( ), 36

17 : ( ) Com rie (1981 /1989: 206) :, ( ),,, ( ) ( ) L i ( ) Gu (1992) Cheng & Huang(1994) (2001) (2002) ( ),,, (2000) (2003) (2003) ( 2003) (2004a) ( 2004) ( 2004) ( 2005) ( 2005) ( 2006), (1986),,, (2003) (4) ; ( 5),, ( b),, (5) ( ),, ( 2002c),,,,,,,, ( ), ( ),, (2006a) (well2formed) (well2used) (2001),, ( ),, ( ) (2004a: 192) : ( ) ;,,,,,, (, 1999),,,,,,,, (6b c),,, (6) ( 17),, gλϖ (19),, 37

18 ( 80 ) gλω,, gλξ, (2003) ;, (2002a) gλψ (2005: 61) (51),,, gλζ (2006) ( ),,, (51), ( ),,,, ( ), ( ),,,,, (2001),, : (1995),, : (2002), ( ) 21, : (2004), (2006), 2 (1986), : (2003), (1979), : (1997), (2004), (1999), 1 (2000), 4 (2003), (2005), 1 (2006a), ( ), : (2006b), 4 (2003), (2001), 1 (2005), : (1995),, : 38

19 : (1943), : (2000), (2002), : (2004a), : (2004b), 4 (2006), (2001), 5 (2002a), 2 (2002b), 3 (2002c), 3 (1998), : (2005), : (1982), : Cheng, L isa Lai2Shen & C. 2T. James Huang ( 1994) On the argument structure of resultative compounds. In M athew Y. Chen & Ovid J. L. Tzeng ( eds. ), In honor of W illiam S 2Y W ang: Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change, Taipei: Pyram id Press. Com rie, B. (1981) L anguage typology and linguistic universals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ( ), :, 1989 Dowty, D. ( 1979) W ord m eaning and M ontague gramm ar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Goldberg, A. E. ( 1995) Constructions: A construction gramm ar approach to argum ent structure. Illinois, Chica2 go: The University of Chicago Press. Gu, Yang ( 1992) The syntax of resultative and causative compounds in Chinese. Doctoral D issertation, Cornell University. Gu, Yang ( 1997) On defining causativity and the significance of discourse information. Text 17. 4, Her, One2Soon (1997) Interaction and variation in the Chinese VO construction. : L i, Yafei ( 1990) On V2V compounds in Chinese. N atural Language and L inguistic Theory 8, L i, Yafei ( 1995) The thematic hierarchy and causativity. N atural Language and L inguistic Theory 13, L i, Yafei ( 1999) Cross2componential causativity, N atural L anguage and L inguistics Theory 17, Moreno, J. C. (1993) Make and the semantic origin of causativity: A typological study. In B. Com rie andm. Polinsky ( eds. ), Causativity and transitivity, Am sterdam: John Benjam ins. Shibatani, M. ( 1976) The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In M. Shibatani ( ed. ), Syntax and semantics 6: The gramm ar of causative constructions, New York: Academ ic Press. Talmy, L. ( 2000) Tow ards a cognitive sem antics. V olum e I: Concept structuring system s. Cambridge, MA: M IT Press.,,,,, ( ) ( : ) 39

20 SH3J I, H%NY? J I%O XU CH INESE TEACH ING IN THE WO RLD No. 2 Apr il 2007 Abstracts of papers in th is issue The m orpho2syn tax of the non2syllab ic 2er in Be ijing d ia lect FANG M e i, p5 The non2syllabic 2er in Beijing dialect is regarded as two types in this paper: 1) m utation, e. g. the demonstrative zh r (, here), the time noun zu r (, yesterday) ; 2) dim inu2 tive suffix, e. g. r nr(, person), w n r(, p lay). The first type is motivated by phone2 m ic conditions and no dim inutive meaning involved while the second only serves as a morpho2 logical p rocess with no phonem ic motivation. Based on Chao s argument ( 1968), this paper suggests that the suffix 2er acts as: 1 ) derivation, such as ch (, to eat) vs. ch r (, food) ; 2) inflection, such as s (, die) vs. s r(, death). W hen a referent is p resented in a noun ending in suffix 2er with a no 2er suffix noun co2occurring in contexts, the 2er ending noun serves in referential referring, while the no 2er suffix noun serves in generic or non2refer2 ential one. D iachronically, the noun r (, child) obtained its morphological evolution in: compound > derivation > inflection, and sem antic bleaching p rocess in: objective dim inutive > subjective dim inutive > marker of quantifiable noun. Key w ords: dim inutive suffix, derivation, inflection, objective dim inutive, subjective di2 m inutive, marker of quantifiable noun On w ic a s con junction X ING Fuy i and YAO Shuangyun, p14 In modern Chinese, w ic ( ) is a p repositional phrase as well as a conjunction. The p repositional phrase w ic developed from a verbal phrase in early ancient. During the Tang and Song dynasties, part of the p repositional phrases began to grammaticalize into a conjunction, and it was fossilized into a full conjunction during the Yuan, M ing and Q ing dynasties. The se2 mantic features and syntactic conditions of this phrase are the two essential factors that contrib2 ute to its grammaticalization. Generally speaking, the grammaticalization of w ic as conjunction has been intensified in modern Chinese. Key w ords: w ic, grammaticalization of the conjunction, semantic features, syntactic con2 ditions On the types, seman tic properties and syn tactic form s of the causer in the verb2 resulta tive con struction SH I Chunhong, p21 The causer p lays a decisive role in the semantic components which form the causal rela2 tion. This paper makes a further analysis on the types, sem antic p roperties and syntactic form s of the causer in VRC from two perspectives: the semantic structure in the causative event and the interaction between the form and meaning in this construction. First it exp lores systematical2 ly the multip le sources of the causer and its hierarchy and discusses the semantic foundation on which the underlying elements are raised to the level of the causer. Then it holds that different

21 types of causers share the same constraints during this p rocess. A lthough syntactically they ex2 p ressed as entities, the causers are actually eventive in causative concep tual structurs. B ased on the above analysis, this paper gives a new exp lanation on the so2called inverted causa tive structu re, and discusses the base and p rocess of m etonymy in the special syntactic structure. Fi2 nally it points out that by using structural regulations, we can find the general types rather than tokens. And only when finding out the cognitive foundation of the syntactic structure can we il2 lustrate clearly the conditions on which these tokens are realized and further the p rocess of how the structural regulations are formed. Key w ords: verb2resultative construction (VRC), causer, sem antic constraints, eventive metonymy, interaction Seman tic pa ttern s and syn tactic restr iction s of sh z i sen tence L I J inrong, p40 The features of sh z i( ) asmodal adverb, are reflected in its usages. The typ ical pat2 tern of sh z i sentence is: 2q, sh z i p, q, in which p imp lies levels of degree, q hypernor2 mality. Sh z i occurs in p and intensifies p in its levels of degree. A s the result of p, q should be necessary and deducible. Therefore, the grammatical meaning of sh z i can be generalized as subjective confirm ation of high2level features of the matters, which sets up lim its to words, phrases and structures that can appear in sh z i sentences. Key w ords: adverb sh z i, degree, hypernormality, subjectivity D iscourse handling and its gender d ifference in Ch inese da ily conversa tion s GUO Fenglan, p67 B ased on a taped corpus, this paper describes and summarize the form s, distribution, functions and features of discourse handling in Chinese daily conversation. Coherence and difference between male and fem ale in discourse handling are discussed and analyzed, in de2 tail, to p robe into the underlying causes. It also suggests that p resent discourse handling con2 tents in Chinese should be added into the conversation top ics when teaching Chinese as a for2 eign language at the interm ediate and advanced levels, in order to help learners understand and exp ress such information better in real context. Key w ords: Chinese, daily conversations, discourse handling, gender difference, teaching Chinese as a foreign language The L2 acqu isiton of the Ch inese B i2con struction HUANG Y ueyuan et a l., p76 This paper reports our study of acquisition of the b i2construction by English speakers. The Chinese passive b i2construction is subject to a strict semantic restriction: the p redicate must be telic. English passive requires no such constraint. W e analyzed both p roduction data and com 2 p rehension data and found that 1) English speakers had a strong sensitivity to the telic2atelic distinction, which could be exp lained as a developmental tendency in language acquisition by the A spect Hypothesis; 2) L1 English has certain effect. Some most frequently used verbs in English passive are used w rongly in the p roduction data; and 3) the learners had difficulty in selection of p roper delim iting elements to their b i2sentences. The findings have direct imp lica2 tions for the imp rovement of teaching the b i2structure. Key w ords: b i2construction, second language acquisition, aspecutual types, telicity, de2 lim iting elem ents

2005 1 ( 71 ),,,,, ( 2003) :, ;,,,, ( ) ( ) ( ),,,,,, ( causative),,,,,,,,, (V, R, VR ) : (3) a. 1 + 2 b. 1 + 2 c. V + R VR, (p rom inent),,,, V R ;,

: 3,,, g ( ),, (1980, 1986),,,, : (1) : a. (, ) b. ( ) (, ) (2) : a. (, ) b. (, ), ( argument structure) ( ),,,,,, (motivation), 3,, 5 2005 1 ( 71 ),,,,, ( 2003) :, ;,,,, ( ) ( ) ( ),,,,,, ( causative),,,,,,,,,