动宾组合中的“有界”与“无界”问题质疑  

On Boundedness and Nonboundedness in the VO Phrase

作　　者：许有江[1] 

机构地区：[1]安徽农业大学外国语学院,安徽合肥230036

出　　处：《学术界》2010年第9期95-103,共9页Academics

摘　　要：本文讨论动宾组合中的"有界"与"无界"问题。本文认为,宾语的有界性难以确立动宾短语的有界性,Verkuyl提出的从树状图底部往上判断动宾组合是否有界的观点,以及与之类似的Tenny和Krifka的观点难以成立;部分动词的"有界"与"无界"、动宾短语的"有界"与"无界"很多情况下是在句子层面上反映出来的;在特定的语境中,有界宾语未达到其内在的终止点句子也成立;汉语"了"只是完成体标记,"了"本身不能确立动词的有界性,动补结构才是有界动词,单音节动词加"了"既可能表示有界意义,也可能表示无界意义。This paper discusses boundedness and nonboundedness in the VO phrase.It holds that a bounded object NP does not delimitate the VO phrase.Verkuyl's proposal that the proper way of judging boundedness of the phrase structure is from the bottom of the tree to top of it,and the theories proposed by Tenny and Krifka,are not appropriate.The judgment of boundedness or nonboundedness of a verb and a VO phrase has to be done on the sentential level.Given a specific context,a sentence with its bounded NP object without reaching its endpoint may indicate a developing event.As an aspectual marker in Chinese,Le does not delimitate the verb.The VC construction is bounded while the one-syllable verb plus Le is either bounded or nonbounded.

关 键 词：有界 无界 名词宾语 动宾短语 体标记 

分 类 号：H04[语言文字—语言学]