复合动词和及物结构 ——汉语及物动结构式认知研究

论文摘要

汉语及物动结式(如“他打跑了小偷”,“他吃饱了饭”,“三瓶酒喝倒了老王”)包含两个理论问题：一,动结式复合动词的生成,二,及物动结式中主语和宾语的选择。动结式复合动词具有很强的能产性,同时需要加以限制。前人的研究存在三个问题。第一,以往的研究虽然将能产性归因于复合动词的致使语义,但对其中的致使语义表征没有清楚的定义和描述。第二,以往的研究提出了句法和体貌层面的限制。但是这些限制既无法排除部分不合格的用法(如“*打笑”),也无法允准部分合格的用法(如“吓死”)。第三,前人的研究也无法解释语境为什么可以允准一些原本难以接受、或者创新性的复合动词用法(如“人头马喝哭志愿者”,“留学生吻瘫机场”)。针对前人研究的第一个问题,本文提出,在构式框架下,复合动词作为一种认知构式,包含固定的形式和语义特征,通过两个动词直接排列的方式编码致使语义。不同的复合动词(如“打死”,“吃饱”,“学会”,“跑丢”,“饿死”)编码的致使语义略有差异,构成了一个语法网络,通过范畴化关系互相连接,将抽象的致使语义以不同的方式具体化。构式的致使语义决定了复合动词的共同特征(补语动词的凸显),以及各类复合动词自身的特征。针对第二个问题,本文提出复合动词构式需要编码典型的致使语义,即结果必须符合致使者发出致使行为的目的或预期。致使语义的典型性限制了动结式构式的能产性,明显偏离原型的致使关系无法通过复合动词编码。针对第三个问题,本文提出句法或语篇语境的存在可以强化复合动词两个动词之间的致使语义,允准接受程度不高的复合动词。在前人的研究中,对于及物动结式主宾语的选择主要在三种思路下进行：复合动词,轻动词和构式。在复合动词框架中,表层句法结构由复合动词编码的事件结构决定。复合动词可以赋予致使者和被使者两个角色,决定主宾语的选择。在轻动词的框架下,轻动词编码了致使语义,决定了主语的致使者地位。在构式的框架下,致使构式的存在决定了主语/宾语的致使者/被使者的地位。但是,除了自身理论内部的问题外,复合动词、轻动词和构式框架下的研究还存在理论层面和实证层面共同的问题。从理论层面看,前人的研究没有区分两种表征致使的方式,即将致使看作两个事件的关联还是两个参与者之间的关联。忽视两种致使表征之间的关联也导致了实证层面的问题。以往的研究没有对致使者主语做出足够的限制,无法排除不合格的句子(如“*领导醉倒了老王”)。根据构式语法的精神,本文提出及物动结式构式来源于复合动词和及物结构的融合。融合由范畴化关系允准。及物构式编码了两个参与者之间的致使关系(主语→宾语),和复合动词编码的两个事件之间的致使关系(述语→补语)存在语义的共性,可以通过范畴化和融合操作,允准及物动结式的各类表达(如“老王打跑了小偷”,“老王吃饱了饭”,“三瓶酒喝倒了老王”,“他学会了英语”,“他跑丢了鞋”,“三瓶酒醉倒了老王”)。此外,融合操作还可以解释以“喝醉”为代表的复合动词的两种论元表达(如“老王喝醉了酒”和“三瓶酒喝醉了老王”)。“喝醉”特殊的致使语义(即施事造成自身的状态变化)允准了两种主宾语选择。融合操作还可以解释汉语学界长期讨论的“老王追累了老李”句型的三重解读(老王追老李→老李累了,老王追老李→老王累了,老李追老王→老李累了,*老李追老王→老王累了)。在构式的框架下,多重解读来源于“追累”的歧义,以及它与及物构式不同的融合。融合操作同时排除了不合格的第四重解读,因为复合动词无法和及物构式建立范畴化关系。更重要的是,根据融合操作的精神,及物构式和复合动词在融合中共同决定了主语和宾语的选择。换言之,主语除了得到及物构式的允准、作致使者解读外,还需要得到复合动词的允准,和复合动词构成语义关联。因此,“*领导醉倒了老王”之所以无法接受,是因为主语虽然可以得到及物构式的允准,却无法和复合动词建立语义关联,从而得到复合动词的允准。及物动结式的构式分析具有理论和实证层面的多重意义。对于及物动结式的研究支持了语法的构式观,展示了百科语义和范畴化操作在允准语法结构中的重要作用。除了具体讨论的及物动结式外,复合动词的构式分析可以延伸到不及物的动结式(如“小偷打跑了”,“他吃饱了”,“饭吃饱了”,“他学会了”,“英语学会了”)中的用法。复合动词的构式语义决定了补语被凸显,因此和补语事件相关的参与者可以得到优先投射,决定了不及物动结式的论元表达。对于及物动结式主宾语选择的融合分析,也适用于其它的动结式,如“得”字动结式。在理论层面,融合操作强调论元要得到构式和动词的共同允准。因此,在融合中,虽然结构中的论元可以来源于构式,但必须得到动词的允准。

论文目录

• Acknowledgement
• ABSTRACT
• 摘要
• CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
• 1.1 General Features of Chinese Resultative Compounds
• 1.2 Significance of Studying the Resultative Compounds
• 1.2.1 The resultative compound:its diachronic and synchronic importance
• 1.2.2 Significance of studying its argument expressions
• 1.3 Theoretical Background
• 1.3.1 The verb-centric approach to argument expressions
• 1.3.2 The light-verb approach to argument expressions
• 1.3.3 The constructional approach to argument expressions
• 1.3.4 Fusion between the verb and the construction
• 1.3.5 Frame semantics and encyclopedic knowledge
• 1.3.6 Conceptual operations in Cognitive Grammar
• 1.4 Structure of the Dissertation
• CHAPTER TWO COMPOUNDING:A REVIEW
• 2.1 The Constrained Productivity of the Resultative Compound
• 2.2 Productivity and Causation
• 2.3 Constraints on the Productivity
• 2.3.1 Syntactic constraints
• 2.3.2 Aspectual constraints
• 2.4 Background information
• 2.5 The Issue and the Research Question
• CHAPTER THREE A CONSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH
• 3.1 Constructional Status of the Compound
• 3.1.1 Existence of the construction
• 3.1.2 Motivations of the construction
• 3.1.3 Definition of causation
• 3.2 Different instantiations of the construction
• 3.2.1 The patient-oriented construction
• 3.2.2 The agent-oriented construction
• 3.2.3 Compounds denoting acquisition
• 3.2.4 Compounds denoting loss
• 3.2.5 Single-participant compounds
• 3.2.6 Summary of the five types of compounds
• 3.3 Constructional semantics and Salience of V2 in the Compound
• 3.3.1 The salience of the caused event in a causative relationship
• 3.3.2 Linguistic tests on the salience of V2 in the compounds
• 3.3.3 Caused event as the figure
• 3.4 Prototypical Causation and Constraint on Productivity
• 3.4.1 Prototypical causation and intended/expected result
• 3.4.2 Agent causation and intended/expected result
• 3.4.3 Intended/expected result and compounding
• 3.4.4 Further refinement on intended/expected result
• 3.5 Two Types of Compounds Deviating from the Prototype
• 3.5.1 Agent-oriented compounds
• 3.5.2 One-participant compounds
• 3.5.3 Intended/expected results:a summary
• 3.6 On background Information
• 3.6.1 Discourse information and the compound
• 3.6.2 Syntactic information and the compound
• 3.7 Summary and the Previous Accounts Revisited
• 3.7.1 Previous accounts revisited
• 3.7.2 Summary
• CHAPTER FOUR THE CHOICE OF SUBJECT AND OBJECT:A REVIEW
• 4.1 Data and Observations
• 4.1.1 The subject as the causer
• 4.1.2 Argument alternation of subject-oriented compounds
• 4.1.3 Ambiguity of transitive resultative construction
• 4.2 Theoretical Background:Headedness of the Compound
• 4.2.1 The impossibility of V1 as the head
• 4.2.2 The impossibility of V2 as the head
• 4.2.3 Conclusion
• 4.3 An Overview of Existing Accounts:What Determines the Subject and Object
• 4.3.1 Two ways of representing causation
• 4.3.2 Constraint on the causer subject
• 4.4 Light-Verb Approach
• 4.4.1 Advantages and disadvantages:an overview
• 4.4.2 Selectional restrictions between the light verb and the compound
• 4.4.3 Review of representative studies
• 4.5 Compound-Verb approach
• 4.5.1 The causative hierarchy
• 4.5.2 Unmotivated causer and causee roles
• 4.5.3 Event structure
• 4.6 Constructional Approach
• 4.6.1 The framing event
• 4.6.2 The framing event and the transitive resultative constructions
• 4.6.3 Linking of the patient
• 4.6.4 Choice of subject
• 4.7 Conclusion
• CHAPTER FIVE A CATEGORIZATION-BASED FUSION ACCOUNT
• 5.1 The Present Account:An Overview
• 5.2 The Transitive Construction and the Causer Status of the Subject
• 5.3 Accounting for the Non-canonical Patterns
• 5.3.1 Subject as a participant
• 5.3.2 Subject as the setting
• 5.3.3 Subject licensed by the compound verb
• 5.3.4 More case analysis
• 5.4 Extending the Analysis to the Canonical Patterns
• 5.4.1 Patient-oriented compounds
• 5.4.2 Agent-oriented compounds
• 5.4.3 Compounds denoting acquisition or loss
• 5.4.4 Summary
• 5.5 Argument Alternation
• 5.5.1 The first alternation
• 5.5.2 The second alternation
• 5.6 Explaining the Ambiguity of Transitive Resultative Compounds
• 5.7 Conclusion
• CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
• 6.1 Two issues investigated in the dissertation
• 6.2 Answer to the First Issue and Its Implications
• 6.2.1 Answer to the first issue
• 6.2.2 Implications
• 6.3 Answer to the Second Issue and Its Implications
• 6.3.1 Answer to the second issue
• 6.3.2 Implications
• 6.4 Theoretical Significance
• 6.5 Limitations
• References