从单音节活动类位移动词后终点论元的分布看词的生成与界定  

On the Generation and Definition of Words:A Case Study Based on the Distributions of Goal after Monosyllabic Activity Motion Verbs in Mandarin Chinese

作　　者：邓盾 DENG Dun(the Department of Chinese Language and Literature,the Chinese University of Hong Kong,China)

机构地区：[1]香港中文大学中国语言及文学系,中国香港

出　　处：《当代语言学》2025年第1期17-35,共19页Contemporary Linguistics

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“汉语词法特点的探索与词法理论的建构”(22JJD74001)的资助。

摘　　要：“飞、滚、爬、跳、游”等现代汉语的单音节活动类位移动词只能以光杆形式带终点论元作宾语,而不能先带上体后缀“了”,然后再后接终点论元,如“跳桌上”vs“*跳了桌上”。同时,光杆的单音节活动类位移动词带上终点论元后,整个片段后还可以出现体后缀“了”以及一个指称位移主体的无定名词词组,如“跳桌上了一只猫”。为解释上述现象,本文采纳Huang等(2009:62-76)的相关假设,认为单音节活动类位移动词是以无类词根的身份进入句法参与组合造句的。然后本文借鉴Borer(2013)等关于词根获类的观点,提出句法里的相关功能性核心成分既可以将前述的无类词根动词化,生成一个单纯动词;也可以将无类词根与终点论元的组合整体动词化,生成一个非宾格性质的复合动词。后一种情况可以解释“跳桌上了一只猫”这类片段的合法性。至于“*跳了桌上”这类情况的不合法性,本文基于跨语言的事实提出,活动类位移动词的论元结构里没有终点这一论元,这导致“*跳了桌上”这类情况无法进行语义阐释,因此片段不合法。以上述个案研究为主要的经验基础,再结合其他相关事实,本文探讨了现代汉语词的生成与界定这两个理论议题,提出如下观点:词是在句法里生成的,现代汉语的语法体系不需要在句法之外另设独立的部门来专门负责词的生成。以语法体系建设为目的的理论研究,应从句法的角度设立标准来对词进行界定,而不宜依赖音节数量的多寡、语义组合是否规则等服务于语音词汇等非语法研究或词典编纂等应用任务的界定标准。This paper discusses the generation and definition of words based on a case study of the distributions of Goal after monosyllabic activity motion verbs(MAMVs)in Mandarin Chinese such as fei‘fly',gun‘roll',pa‘crawl',tiao‘jump'and you‘swim'.It is shown that a nominal goal argument such as a localizer phrase can directly appear after an MAMV,and the MAMV-Goal sequence can then take the perfective aspect marker le and an indefinite NP denoting the theme that undergoes the motion.However,if an MAMV first takes the perfective aspect marker-le,then the MAMV-le sequence cannot take a nominal goal argument.The grammaticality contrast between“MAMV-Goal-le”and“~*MAMV-le+Goal”holds for all the MAMVs surveyed in the paper.To account for the distributional pattern,I follow Huang et al.(2009:62-76)to assume that monosyllabic action verbs in the language,including MAMVs,enter the syntax with the identity of a category-less Root.The Root merges with Goal first,and the resultant Root-Goal sequence then merges with v to form a vP,which merges with the perfective aspect marker-le.Adopting a non-lexicalist framework such as that established by Borer(2013),I claim that v can either categorize the Root or the Root-Goal sequence.In the first scenario,the Root gets verbalized as a monomorphemic verb,whereas in the second scenario,the Root-Goal sequence gets verbalized as an unaccusative compound verb.The perfective aspect marker-le undergoes lowering in the post-syntactic component to be suffixed to the verb,which gives rise to the surface fact that it always directly follows the verb.In the first scenario,-le appears after the MAMV to generate the ungrammatical“~*MAMV-le+Goal”.I claim that Goal is not an argument of the MAMV.As a result,Goal needs to be introduced to an MAMV through some morpho-syntactic means.“~*MAMV-le+Goal”is ungra-mmatical because the required morpho-syntactic means are absent,and the semantic interpretation thus fails.In the second scenario,-le occurs after the Goal since the whole Root-Go

关 键 词：位移动词 终点论元 词根 句法构词 词的界定 

分 类 号：H14[语言文字—汉语]