英汉语中非宾格现象之认知构式角度探索

论文摘要

语言学界对非宾格现象的研究始于上个世纪70年代末关系语法提出的“非宾格假说”,这一假说后来被吸纳到乔姆斯基创建的生成语法理论中,作为不及物谓词分类的基本依据和不及物句生成所依赖的基本句法配置。非宾格假说认为不及物动词不是整齐划一的一元谓词,而应根据不同的句法及语义属性划分为非宾格动词和非作格动词。非宾格动词只能投射域内论元,该论元在句子生成过程中从深层句法结构中的宾语位置由特别投射规则支配移位到表层主语位置;而非作格动词投射域外论元,其主语无需经过派生移位产生。从语义属性角度来看,非宾格动词投射的域内论元以受事或客体题元角色为原型,而非作格动词的域外论元以施事题元角色为原型。非宾格假说的理论价值在于维护生成语法学派一贯倡导的句法结构决定语义指派原则:同一题元角色只能对应相同的句法位置,即施事角色从主语位置获得语义解释,而受事或客体角色只能对应深层结构中的宾语位置。非宾格假说虽然创建时间不长,仅仅只有不到三十年的历史,并且其核心框架构建于讲求句法推导的语法学派,但是许多来自跨语言研究的证据显示这种不及物动词的两分法能够用来揭示一些特殊句法结构中因动词属性的不同而造成的表层句法结构的差异,因而也吸引了不同学派的学者参与到对不及物动词分类的讨论之中。这些特殊的句法结构包括荷兰语和德语中的非人称被动式,荷兰语、意大利语以及德语中完成句式中助动词的选择,意大利语中的ne-附着现象。有些学者认为英汉语中动结结构、存现结构、假被动句以及使役交替这四种语法现象中动词的分布规律也反映了非作格与非宾格之间的区别。但是由于这些特殊句式中不及物动词的分布规律又不尽相同,在很大程度上存在着错配现象,并且不同语言中的非宾格句式或非作格句式差别很大,因而对于非宾格假说在各个语言中的适用性语言学界仍然存在很大的争议。本文从认知构式角度对英语和汉语里动结结构、存现结构、假被动句以及使役交替这四种语法现象中不及物动词分布的规律进行了探讨,对非宾格假说在英汉两种语言中的适用性进行了质疑和批判,提出这四种语言结构中动词分布规律并不能反映非作格与非宾格之间的差别,而是由这四种语言结构的构式意义所决定的,与构式意义相吻合的动词能够进入该构式。全文共分五章。第一章回顾了有关非宾格假说的一系列概念,并对本论文的原理、目标、研究方法和论文的结构进行了介绍。第二章是文献回顾,对当前非宾格现象的研究方法和现状进行了总结,指出以往基于词汇语义或深层句法结构角度对非宾格现象的分析都在很大程度上受及物句句法语义特点影响,不能够很好地解释非宾格错配现象出现的原因,因而也就不能全面反映出这些所谓的非宾格假说的诊断句式中动词的分布规律。第三章从构式语法角度分析了英汉语中动结结构、存现结构和假被动句中不及物动词分布的规律。第四章从认知识解角度探讨了一些动词及物和不及物用法交替出现的动因。第五章对本研究做出了结论,指出当前研究的主要发现和理论意义,并对本研究的缺点和今后努力的方向进行了陈述。与以往基于非宾格假说的分析相比,本研究具有以下特点:第一,本论文把动词和句式之间的语言界面归结为词汇语义和句法构式意义层面的互动。前人学者的研究多聚焦于深层结构中的句法移位问题,把语言界面定位于词汇语义与深层句法结构之间,忽略了表层句法结构本身所具有的特殊语义和语用功能对动词的压制和选择作用。第二,本研究能够更准确地描述这些语言结构中的动词分布规律,避免对动词的重复分类。第三,对非宾格假说的适用性进行了系统性质疑,提出不应该用及物性句法结构的理论模型对不及物句的句法和语义进行描写解释。

论文目录

• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• ABSTRACT
• 中文摘要
• Chapter One INTRODUCING UNACCUSATIVITY
• 1.1 Preliminaries
• 1.2 Wading Through the Terminology Jungle
• 1.2.1 Transitive and intransitive verbs
• 1.2.2 UH and the unaccusative-unergative nomenclature
• 1.2.3 Unaccusative diagnostics and unaccusative mismatches
• 1.2.4 Deep and surface unaccusativity
• 1.2.5 Ergativity,split intransitivity and related notions
• 1.2.5.1 Burzio's ergativity:unergative-ergative distinction
• 1.2.5.2 Split intransitivity
• 1.2.6 Summary
• 1.3 Theoretical Homeland for the Present Study
• 1.3.1 Introducing the cognitive constructional approach to language
• 1.3.2 Why a cognitive-constructional approach to unaccusative phenomena?
• 1.4 Structural Organization of This dissertation
• Chapter Two TRANSITIVE-SCHEMA-BASED ACCOUNTS OF UNACCUSATIVE PHENOMENA
• 2.1 Introduction
• 2.2 UAH:Homomorphism between Semantics and Syntax
• 2.3 Syntactic Approaches to Unaccusativity
• 2.3.1 Rosen 1984:the mystery of laying the initial stratum
• 2.3.2 Projectionist accounts:Burzio 1986 and Chomsky 1995
• 2.3.3 Summary of the syntactic approaches
• 2.4 Semantic Approaches to Unaccusativity
• 2.4.1 Dowty 1991:Proto-roles and intransitives
• 2.4.2 Van Valin's 1990 account within the RRG framework
• 2.4.3 Levin & Rappaport Hovav's 1995 lexical-semantic approaches
• 2.4.4 Summary of the semantic approaches
• 2.5 Weighing against the Transitive-schema-based Accounts
• 2.5.1 Recapitulating the transitive-schema-based accounts
• 2.5.2 General weakness of the transitive-schema-based accounts
• 2.5.3 The road ahead:overt constructions with accessible semantic constraints.
• 2.6 Summary
• Chapter Three GRILLING THE UNACCUSATIVE PHENOMENA IN ENGLISH AND CHINESE
• 3.1 Introduction
• 3.2 Resultatives and the Unaccusative-unergative Distinction
• 3.2.1 Definition of the resultatives
• 3.2.2 UH-based accounts of split intransitivity in resultatives
• 3.2.2.1 DOR and the relevance of resultatives to unaccusativity in English
• 3.2.2.2 The relevance of resultatives to unaccusativity in Chinese
• 3.2.3 Problems with the unaccusative-unergative distinction in resultatives
• 3.2.4 A Constructional account of resultatives
• 3.2.4.1 Resultatives as independent constructions with semantic constraints
• 3.2.4.2 The licensing of different types of resultatives
• 3.2.5 Summary
• 3.3 Existentials and the Unaccusative Restriction
• 3.3.1 Structural templates of existentials in English and Chinese
• 3.3.2 Possible types of verbs in existentials
• 3.3.2.1 Unaccusative verbs and passivized verbs
• 3.3.2.2 Unergative verbs found with the existentials
• 3.3.2.3 Transitive verbs
• 3.3.3.4 Summary
• 3.3.3 Existential construction and the unaccusative-unergative distinctions
• 3.3.3.1 Unaccusative accounts based on the generative framework
• 3.3.3.2 A constructional account of the existentials
• 3.3.3.3 Summary
• 3.4 Pseudo-passive construction and the Unergative Restriction
• 3.4.1 RelG's account of the pseudo-passives
• 3.4.2 Constructional account of pseudo-passives in English and Chinese
• 3.5 Summary
• Chapter Four TRANSITIVITY ALTERNATIONS
• 4.1 Introduction
• 4.2 Syntactic and Lexical Semantic Factors in Transitivity Alternation
• 4.2.1 Syntactic features of causative-inchoative alternations
• 4.2.2 Lexical semantic features of causative alternations
• 4.2.2.1 Change of state and selectional requirements
• 4.2.2.2 Control and independent activity
• 4.2.2.3 Causation and spontaneous occurrence
• 4.2.3 Summary
• 4.3 Towards a Cognitive Account of Transitivity Alternations
• 4.3.1 ICMs for conceptualizing transitive sentences
• 4.3.2 Conceptual A/D layering and causative alternations
• 4.3.3 A cognitive account of transitivity alternations
• 4.3.3.1 Detransitivization of transitive verbs
• 4.3.3.2 Causativization of intransitive verbs
• 4.4 Transitivity Alternations in Chinese
• 4.5 Summary
• Chapter Five CONCLUDING REMARKS
• 5.1 Achievements
• 5.2 Implications of the Current Study
• 5.3 Further Issues
• REFERENCES