WO PAO DE KUAI AND CHINESE PHRASE STRUCTURE

Bai Ruixue

This paper juxtaposes two competing hypotheses about the structure of resultative and descriptive sentences in Chinese., exemplified by 我跑得很快 and 他们跳得很累 respectively. The problem in question is the structural relationship between V1 and V2, in particular the question of which of the two verbs is the main verb. There are two approaches to this question: the Primary Predication hypothesis which treats the second verb as the main verb and the first one as part of the adverbial adjunct or clause, and the Secondary Predication hypothesis, according to which the first verb is the main verb and the second one is a compliment of the first. .arguing for the traditional SP hypothesis, the author in this article first reviewed the three major arguments that have been put forth for the PP hypothesis and show one by one that each of these arguments turns out to be a non-argument upon closer examination and cannot constitute problems for the SP analysis. And then he turns to some further arguments in favor of the SP hypothesis.

In the first part, the author examines the three major arguments for the PP hypothesis. The first one turns on the distribution of negation and the so-called A-not-A questions. .Given the typical sentence of the A-not-A form “张三喜不喜欢你？”, it is argued in the PP hypothesis that only the main verb cab appear in the A-not-A form. Therefore, V2 is the main verb since V2, not V1, takes the A-not-A form in sentences like “他们跑得快不快？” To retort this argument, the author gives direct counterexamples like “如果你不跑得快， 你就得不到奖品。”，in which the A-not-A form occurs in the embedded clause. Then he explains if V1 is the main verb, why can’t it take the A-not-A form. He points out that the perfective aspect markers you and le are in a complementary distribution. While you occurs only as an auxiliary preceding the verb in negative of A-not-A contexts., a main verb, if suffixed with perfective le, cannot occur in A-not-A forms.

* 他们骗不骗了李四？

他们有没有骗李四？

This you/le alternation shows that not all main verbs can be directly negated and occur in A-not-A forms. Thus, the distribution of AA-not-A form is independent of the identification of the main verb. Thirdly, the author examines the scope of bu by proposing the Principle P:

The negative morpheme bu forms an immediate construction with the first V0 element following it. With this principle, we can explain why V1 can’t be negated or A-not-A questioned when followed by a resultative or descriptive expression. For instance, “他们不跑得很快” is not valid because of the semantic absurdity, since the sentence asserts that someone is fast, while “不跑”，as an immediate constituent, presupposes the non-existence of the relevant event. However, bu or A-not-A fo can precede V1 as long as it is supported by an element in INFL such as 是or有 which has the effect of “do-support”. Some English data are mentioned for a comparison. To the question “Does he run fast?” The cot answer is “No, he runs slow.” Rather than “No, he doesn’t run.” This shows that both English and Chinese are subject to the restriction that V1 “run” cannot be negated alone. Since in English there is no doubt that V1 is the main verb, we are not justified to say V2 is the main verb in its Chinese equivalent. Fourthly, the author finds further evidence for the close relationship between bu and the following element from the fact that some words, like “别”and ”甭”, are the result of the fusion of 不要and 不用, and so on. In this part the author also explains why his counterexamples like如果你不跑得快， 你就得不到奖品 are not in violation of the Principle P. This is because there is a meaning of volition or future modality involved, and this abstract element in INFL supports bu and prevents it from forming an immediate constituent with the verb 跑. (Bu in these sentences means “won’t”, not simply “not”.)

[1] [2] [3] 下一页  

The second argument the author examines is related to le-suffixation. It is argued in the PP hypothesis that since only the main can take suffixes like le, the V2 in the following sentence must be the main verb. （他们哭得眼泪流了出来 *他们哭了得眼泪流了出来）The author retorts that verbs in embedded clauses can also take le as in 张三以为李四打了他 and not all main verbs can take le, as in *他们喜欢了李四. In explaining why the first verb cannot take le in *他们跑了得很快, the author mentions an assumption by Li & Thompson which argues that le can only be attached to those verbs that denote a “bounded event”. In *他们跑了得很快,although 跑can express a bounded event when used alone, it does not by itself refer to a bounded event when followed by a descriptive expression.

The third argument within consideration is related to the binding Condition C which follows that all referential expressions are free in reference from any c-commanding arguments. Examining the sentences like 醉得张三站不起来， supporters of the PP hypothesis argue that the understood subject of V1 is also the subject of V2. Therefore, if V1 is the main verb, this sentence will have the same structure as 说张三不能来,in which the empty subject asymmetrically c-commands its antecedent and this is in direct violation of Binding Condition C. In this connection, the author argues that there is a difference between 醉得张三站不起来and 张三醉得站不起来, because in the former sentence there is an implicit Causer whose reference is understood in discourse. The empty subject preceding V1 is not coindexed with the c-commanded 张三, but instead a free zero pronoun referring to the understood Causer, 这瓶酒, for instance. So they do not constitute a binding theory violation under the SP hypothesis. In further analysis, the author makes a distinction between inchoatives like张三醉得站不起来and the causatives like张三醉得站不起来. A generalization is made on the basis of their different D-structures that the causative meaning is available only from the combination of V1 and V2 as a whole, not from V1 or V2 alone.

上一页  [1] [2] [3] 下一页  

In the second part of this paper, the author put forth more positive arguments in favor of the SP analysis. Backward anaphora in Chinese is the first kind of evidence. It is well known that an overt pronoun cannot occur as the possessive of an NP c-commanding its antecedent, as in *他的妹妹i很喜欢张三i, but can be the possessive of the subject NP of an adverbial clause or sentential subject, as in 他i的妹妹一回到家，张三i就哭了. Of course in the sentence 他的妹妹气得张三直发抖, “his sister” doesn’t refer to Zhangsan’s sister. However, according to PP hypothesis, this is unexpected, since “his sister” would be the subject of an adverbial exactly as it is in他i的妹妹一回到家，张三i就哭了. On the contrary, the SP hypothesis correctly predicts this pattern, since “his sister” would be a main clause subject c-commanding Zhangsan. Other evidence comes from the facts related to the scope of negation, the Phrase Structure Condition, ambiguity, and tone sandhi. All these combine to indicate the SP analysis as a more reasonable approach to this problem.

上一页  [1] [2] [3] 

[1]