動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)研究

前言

　　《動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)研究》是筆者在博士論文的基礎(chǔ)上修改、擴(kuò)充而成的，其內(nèi)容是在生成語(yǔ)法的框架內(nèi)探討動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)的結(jié)構(gòu)。關(guān)于動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)的結(jié)構(gòu)，出現(xiàn)了不少理論。筆者依照Hale和Keyser以及其他許多學(xué)者（主要是持“分布式形態(tài)學(xué)”觀點(diǎn)的生成語(yǔ)法學(xué)家）的理論精神，把動(dòng)詞分解成小的基本成分。這樣，有助我們能夠解釋動(dòng)詞表現(xiàn)的跨語(yǔ)言差別?！　ale和Keyser認(rèn)為詞與句子的構(gòu)成方式是一致的；這個(gè)思路被Mateu和McIntyre所繼承，他們的理論是本書的研究基礎(chǔ)。Mateu認(rèn)為在加泰羅尼亞語(yǔ)（一種印歐語(yǔ)系拉丁語(yǔ)族語(yǔ)言）中，定點(diǎn)的方向成分并合進(jìn)了動(dòng)詞，就不可能有其他再并合進(jìn)動(dòng)詞。由于英語(yǔ)和加泰羅尼亞語(yǔ)在復(fù)雜謂語(yǔ)中都沒(méi)有漢語(yǔ)式的詞根復(fù)合現(xiàn)象，筆者認(rèn)為Mateu的觀點(diǎn)從描寫的角度來(lái)說(shuō)是正確的，至少對(duì)英語(yǔ)和加泰羅尼亞語(yǔ)及其他羅曼語(yǔ)來(lái)說(shuō)是這樣的。Snyder認(rèn)為，一種語(yǔ)言只有允許能產(chǎn)性詞語(yǔ)復(fù)合，才可能有復(fù)雜謂語(yǔ)（包括復(fù)雜結(jié)果式謂語(yǔ)）。然而，雖然他認(rèn)為英語(yǔ)有能產(chǎn)性的復(fù)雜謂語(yǔ)，他承認(rèn)英語(yǔ)的復(fù)雜謂語(yǔ)的兩部分是不連續(xù)的，于是他推測(cè)這兩部分在邏輯式部分會(huì)成為一個(gè)復(fù)合詞。McIntyre注意到了Snyder。的發(fā)現(xiàn)，接受了他的基本思想，但對(duì)他的（動(dòng)詞成分與結(jié)果成分間的）“復(fù)合”進(jìn)行了改造，認(rèn)為復(fù)合是發(fā)生在并入的詞根和本來(lái)沒(méi)有音系內(nèi)容的空動(dòng)詞之間。如果仔細(xì)考察漢語(yǔ)的相關(guān)語(yǔ)料，會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)情況更為復(fù)雜。漢語(yǔ)在允許定點(diǎn)成分的能產(chǎn)性并合方面與其說(shuō)像英語(yǔ)，不如說(shuō)更像加泰羅尼亞語(yǔ)；然而漢語(yǔ)也有像英語(yǔ)的地方：允許詞根并入表致使的輕動(dòng)詞。Mateu的分析在處理漢語(yǔ)的運(yùn)動(dòng)方式句式時(shí)，就遇到了麻煩：在這類句子中，方式和運(yùn)動(dòng)一路徑成分都顯性出現(xiàn)，構(gòu)成一個(gè)復(fù)合詞，而按Mateu的分析，方式和路徑中只能有一個(gè)與輕動(dòng)詞并合，不能兩個(gè)都與之并合；McIntyre的理論對(duì)這樣的漢語(yǔ)語(yǔ)料也沒(méi)有解釋力。

內(nèi)容概要

　　《動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)研究》在生成語(yǔ)法的框架內(nèi)探討動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)的結(jié)構(gòu)。全書共分五章：第一章是導(dǎo)論，主要介紹理論背景；第二章是有關(guān)并合（conflation）和復(fù)合（conpounding）的文獻(xiàn)綜述；第三章圍繞并合和復(fù)合探討跨語(yǔ)言的較簡(jiǎn)單的動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)；第四章分析較復(fù)雜的動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)；第五章是結(jié)束語(yǔ)?！秳?dòng)詞短語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)研究》試圖在以下幾方面拋磚引玉：引進(jìn)“分布式形態(tài)學(xué)”等西方生成語(yǔ)言學(xué)新理論，分析包括漢語(yǔ)的跨語(yǔ)言語(yǔ)料，對(duì)漢語(yǔ)的一些“特殊”語(yǔ)法現(xiàn)象作出非特殊解釋；立足漢語(yǔ)語(yǔ)料，對(duì)國(guó)外新理論進(jìn)行補(bǔ)充和完善；引起國(guó)內(nèi)語(yǔ)言學(xué)界對(duì)喬姆基學(xué)派內(nèi)部非喬式本人的理論的重視。　　《動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)研究》適合語(yǔ)言研究者、高校語(yǔ)言文學(xué)類專業(yè)師生以及語(yǔ)言愛(ài)好者等對(duì)語(yǔ)言學(xué)感興趣的讀者閱讀。

書籍目錄

1 Introduction1.1 Theoretical Background1.1.1 Argument Structure： An Overview1.1.2 A Brief Introduction to Distributed Morphology1.2 A Presentation of This Books Theoretical Ideas1.3 Structure of This Book2 Conflation and Compounding： An Overview2.1 Conflation2.1.1 Conflation in Talmys Lexicalization Theory2.1.2 Conflation in Hale and Keysers Theory2.1.3 Conflation in Mateus Theory2.1.4 Conflation in McIntyres Theory2.1.5 Summary of This Section2.2 Compounding2.2.1 Languages Allowing or Banning Root Serialization in Verbs2.2.2 Previous Analyses of Root Serialization in Verbs2.3 Conflation and Compounding in the Formation of a New Theory3 The Interaction between Conflation and Compounding3.1 A Close Look at Root Compounding in Verbs3.1.1 Overt Root Serialization3.1.2 Overt/Covert Root Compounding in Verbs3.1.3 Root Serialization and Root Compounding3.1.4 Chinese Compound Verbs3.1.5 Summary of This Section3.2 A Closer Look at Conflation3.2.1 Motion Sentences3.2.2 Deadjectival Verbs in English and Modern Chinese3.2.3 The Nature of Conflation and Compounding3.3 Causer and the Direct Object Restriction3.4 Interpretation of Compound Verbs in Chinese Causatives3.5 The Absence of Post-verb Prepositions in Modern Chinese3.6 Summary of This Chapter4 Conflation， Compounding， and Sentences with Complex Verb Phrases4.1 The Double Object Construction4.1.1 Properties of the Double Object Construction4.1.2 Harleys Analysis of the Double Object Construction4.1.3 Advantages of Harleys Analysis4.1.4 Pylkkainen/Cuervos Analysis of the DOC4.1.5 Double Object Sentences in Modern Chinese4.1.6 A New Approach4.1.7 Summary of This Section4.2 Non-core Arguments in Causative and Inchoative Sentences4.2.1 Extra Arguments in Causatives and Inchoatives4.2.2 Previous Analyses of Sentences with Non-core Arguments4.2.3 Problems with These Views4.2.4 PSPO Sentences in Other Languages4.2.5 The Structure of Sentences with Extra Arguments4.2.6 Summary of This Section4.3 Location and Locatum Sentences in English and Chinese4.4 Conclusion5 Concluding RemarksBibliography后記

章節(jié)摘錄

　?。?） Proto-Patient　　a. undergoes change of state　　b. incremental theme　　c. causally affected by another participant　　d. stationary relative to movement of another participant　?。╡. does not exist independently of the event， or not at all）　　Given this list， an argument can function as the subject or object of a sentence according to how many Proto-Agent and Proto-Patient properties they have. All the properties are equal in position all that is important is the number of each of the properties an argument have. In this system， there are only two proto-roles， each having at most five properties.　　Although Dow tys approach solves the second problem posed by Fill more an analyses， i.e. greatly reduced the number of （proto-）roles to two， it still cannot solve the psych-verb problem in a satisfactory way. Besides， there are more challenging question about this theory that need answering. Why are these properties chosen instead of others？ What are the criteria of property classification？　　We thus seem to have come to the conclusion that， if arguments are projected into positions of sentences according to their semantics， thematic roles are not the relevant primitives of argument structure theory. Other approaches have to be tried.　　1.1.1.2 Aspect and Event Structure　　Having seen the drawbacks of using thematic roles as the basis for argument structure， we now have a brief look at another trend of investigation into the syntax-semantics-lexicon interface. Aspectual （Aktionsart） properties of the event denoted by predicates （or verbs） are proposed as playing a central part in determining the behavior of predicates （verbs） in the sentence （Jackendoff， 1990， Grimshaw， 1990， Tenny， 1994， Levin and Rappaport Hovav， 1995， Pusteiovsky.

圖書封面

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)研究 PDF格式下載

---