英漢非賓格性對(duì)比研究

前言

　　本書在形態(tài)和句法層面對(duì)英漢兩種語(yǔ)言中的非賓格現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行對(duì)比研究。句法上，漢語(yǔ)中存在大量不及物動(dòng)詞帶賓語(yǔ)現(xiàn)象，其中有詞匯層面的動(dòng)賓式（或稱述賓式）復(fù)合動(dòng)詞，這是形態(tài)所涉及的范疇；也有短語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)層面的動(dòng)賓式（或稱述賓式）動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)，這是句法所涉及的范疇。這種動(dòng)賓式（或稱述賓式）復(fù)合動(dòng)詞和動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)的定性是學(xué)界長(zhǎng)期爭(zhēng)論懸而未決的老問(wèn)題。形態(tài)上，本書主張從字本位出發(fā)，而不是從傳統(tǒng)上的詞本位出發(fā)，來(lái)探討漢語(yǔ)的非賓格性問(wèn)題。字本位觀與本書所采用的分布形態(tài)觀相類似。分布形態(tài)觀對(duì)詞性不作區(qū)分，而是把核心詞類當(dāng)作詞根（Root），有名詞詞根、動(dòng)詞詞根、形容詞詞根等。本書采納這一體系把漢語(yǔ)的核心字類作為字根處理，如“出汗”、“流血”、“生氣”、“閃光”、“出聲”等傳統(tǒng)上認(rèn)定的動(dòng)賓式復(fù)合詞中都由一個(gè)動(dòng)詞性字根和一個(gè)名詞性字根合并而成。　　根據(jù)Hale和Keyser的論元結(jié)構(gòu)理論，本書認(rèn)為許多漢語(yǔ)動(dòng)賓復(fù)合動(dòng)詞經(jīng)歷了一個(gè)詞匯一句法操作過(guò)程。這些動(dòng)賓復(fù)合動(dòng)詞在進(jìn)入句法結(jié)構(gòu)之前，本質(zhì)上是非作格性的，但通過(guò)詞匯一句法層面的合并操作，詞匯內(nèi)部結(jié)構(gòu)以非賓格性形態(tài)進(jìn)入句法推導(dǎo)，其句法語(yǔ)義功能仍保持非作格性?！　h語(yǔ)的典型不及物動(dòng)詞“來(lái)”、“死”、“笑”等都具有兩類不同的結(jié)構(gòu)表征：其中一類是在動(dòng)詞（如“來(lái)”、“死”）后直接帶有NP，另一類則可能通過(guò)動(dòng)詞（如“笑”）與其次謂詞（如“死”）共同（“笑死”）帶有一個(gè)名詞NP。漢語(yǔ)文獻(xiàn)中一般都把這些結(jié)構(gòu)看作是不及物動(dòng)詞帶賓語(yǔ)現(xiàn)象。但本文認(rèn)為，這些結(jié)構(gòu)實(shí)際上就是不同形態(tài)的非賓格性表征：分別表征為存現(xiàn)結(jié)構(gòu)（ECs）和動(dòng)補(bǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)（RCs）（包括描述性謂語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)）。

內(nèi)容概要

本書在生成語(yǔ)法框架內(nèi)對(duì)英漢非賓格性結(jié)構(gòu)表達(dá)進(jìn)行對(duì)比研究。在經(jīng)典范疇之下，現(xiàn)代漢語(yǔ)對(duì)動(dòng)詞只進(jìn)行及物性與不及物性兩分，而本書認(rèn)為漢語(yǔ)應(yīng)該與英語(yǔ)一樣，有必要對(duì)動(dòng)詞再作進(jìn)一步的劃分，把其中的不及物動(dòng)詞再分為非賓格性和非作格性兩個(gè)次類。這樣就可以對(duì)漢語(yǔ)中大量的不及物動(dòng)詞帶賓語(yǔ)現(xiàn)象以及其他不及物動(dòng)詞后帶名詞現(xiàn)象作出明確的甄別。本書對(duì)非賓格性句法配置的研究，不是單純?cè)谠~庫(kù)中對(duì)動(dòng)詞的詞性進(jìn)行非賓格性界定，而是在句法配置上對(duì)動(dòng)詞的非賓格性進(jìn)行判別，對(duì)其句法結(jié)構(gòu)表征進(jìn)行生成解釋。這不僅深化了漢語(yǔ)動(dòng)詞的及物性范疇，而且也拓寬了對(duì)漢語(yǔ)句法結(jié)構(gòu)的研究視野，使?jié)h語(yǔ)研究更好地與西方語(yǔ)言研究接軌。

書籍目錄

1    Introduction2　Theoretical  Backwood  2.1  Argument Structure(AS) Theory  　2.2  Syntactic Approach to Lexicon-Syntax Relations　2.3  Conceptual Primitives at Semantics and Syntax Interface　2.4  Summary of the Theoretical Background3　The Unaccusative Hypothesis　3.1  The Unaccusative Hypothesis　3.2  Approaches to Unaccusativity　3.3  Unaccusative Verbs in Heterogeneity  　3.4  Levin and Rappaport Hovav's Linking Rules　3.5  Summary  4  Morphosyntax in Modern Chinese  　4.1  Introduction  　4.2  Compound Predicates in Chinese  　4.3  V-0 Compounding Revisited　4.4  A-0 Compounds Revisited　4.5  Motivation for L-Syntax Theory　4.6  L-Syntax in Compounding in Chinese　4.7  Derivation of Deadjectivals in Chinese　4.8  Summary5  Unaccusativity of Existential Constructions　5.1  Introduction　5.2  Approaches to ECs in English　5.3  Existential Constructions in Chinese　5.4  Constraints on the ECs in Chinese　5.5  EC Compatibility Test with Verb Subclasses　5.6  Configurational Approach to ECs　5.7  Introducing NPmc to ECs in Modern Chinese  　5.8  Some Controversies and Solutions　5.9  Summary6　 Unaccusativity of RCs in Modern Chinese　6.1  Introduction　6.2  Crosslinguistic Lexical-Syntactic Flexibility　6.3  Syntactic Representations of RCs in Chinese　6.4  Different Approaches to RCs in Chinese　6.5  Syntactic Configurations of RCs in Chinese　6.6  Summary7  Concluding RemarksAppendix  Bibliography后記

章節(jié)摘錄

　　2 Theoretical Background　　It is generally agreed that，of the two fundamental lexical categories，verband noun，verb holds the dominant status in the specifications of information，offers complex syntactic and semantic information for a sentence，and alsodetermines the syntactic structures with the semantic restrictions on the Cooccurrence of the nominal components（Fillmore，1968；Chafe，1970）．Verbs aregenerally splitted into two subclasses，the transitive and the intransitive，in termsof whether they take an object or not．But things are not SO simply regular．Manytransitives may not necessarily subcategorize an object NP，whereby they aresupposed to have the property of intransitive verbs．On the other hand，manyintransitive verbs sometimes also take an“object”NP。which may be regarded ashaving the property of the transitive verbs．This is a popular case，and it is noexception in Modern Chinese．As a result，it seems to be justified that in ModernChinese no clear boundary is found between transitive and intransitive verbs，justas it is the case with the entanglement of various intransitive verbs which shouldhave been distinguished otherwise as unergative and unaccusative verbs in termsof their syntactic properties as have been done in European languages．But thisreclassification wins no much response from the scholars working on Chinese．Nosystematical research has been done on the unaccusativity of the Chinese languageever since the debut of the Unaccusative Hypothesis by Perlmutter（1978）．Juston the basis of such observation，this book mainly deals with the syntax andsemantics of the argument structure configurations of the intransitive verbs，theunaccusative ones in particular，in Modern Chinese．

圖書封面

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    英漢非賓格性對(duì)比研究 PDF格式下載

---