外国语

外国语 ›› 2022, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (4): 18-28.

• 语言研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

重估部分词汇主义研究区分英语真、假结果构式的合理性

宋文辉   

  1. 中国人民大学 文学院, 北京 100872
  • 收稿日期:2021-03-10 出版日期:2022-07-20 发布日期:2022-08-08
  • 作者简介:宋文辉(1973-), 男, 河北正定人, 博士, 教授。研究方向: 句法语义
  • 基金资助:
    中国人民大学科学研究基金(中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助)重大项目"现代汉语语法关系语法化程度及相关问题研究"(20XNL018)

The Validity of Distinguishing the So-called True and Pseudo Resultative Constructions in English

Wenhui SONG   

  1. College of Liberal Arts, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
  • Received:2021-03-10 Online:2022-07-20 Published:2022-08-08

RichHTML

9

PDF (PC)

126

摘要：

部分词汇主义研究根据小句核心动词情境类型的语义标准将英语结果构式分为真、假两类, 认为前者的结果短语是补足语, 后者的结果短语是附加语。相关研究采用了语义分解、语义指向、语义转写等多种分析手段。上述看法有偏差, 结果短语可给行为动词加上终结点, 也可使完结动词终结点实现并被凸显, 两类情况句法表现基本相同, 上述基于语义标准的分类缺乏语法形式证据。结果构式有不同来源, 但到现代英语时期不同情况已趋于同构。总之, 真、假结果构式并非合理的语义分类, 更非合理的语法分类。

关键词: 结果构式, 词汇主义, 语义标准, 语法分类

Abstract:

Some lexicalist studies argued that the resultative constructions in English should be divided into two classes, true and pseudo, according to the situation type of main verbs of clauses.However, these studies neglected the function of the RP, which can add an endpoint to the so-called action verb, and realize the endpoint of accomplishment verb and make it prominent.The syntactic features of so called true and pseudo resultative constructions are very similar, so the semantic criteria can not be supported by syntactic evidence.The author argues that resultative constructions originated from different sources, and blended into one in Modern English.

Key words: resultative constructions, lexicalist theory, semantic criterion, grammatical classification

中图分类号: 

  • H04
1 Boas, H.C. Resultative constructions in English and German[D]. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2000.
2 Borer, H. In Name Only[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
3 Broccias, C. The English Change Network[M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
4 Broccias, C. Towards a history of English resultative constructions: The case of adjectival resultative constructions[J]. English Language and Linguistics, 2008, 12 (1): 27- 54.
doi: 10.1017/S1360674307002493
5 Broccias, C. Tying events tight: A reply to Iwata (2006)[J]. Language Sciences, 2013, 38 (1): 32- 52.
6 Cappelle, B. And up it rises: Particle preposing in English[C]//Dehe, N., Jackendoff, R., McIntyre, A. & S. Urban. Verb-particle Explorations. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
7 Carrier, J. , and J.H. Randall . The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 1992, 23 (2): 173- 234.
8 Copley, B. , and H. Harley . A force-theoretic framework for event structure[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2015, 38 (2): 103- 158.
doi: 10.1007/s10988-015-9168-x
9 Dowty, D.R. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ[M]. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company, 1979.
10 Goldberg, A.E. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure[M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1995.
11 Goldberg, A.E. , and R. Jackendoff . The English resultative as a family of constructions[J]. Language, 2004, 80 (3): 532- 568.
doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
12 Halliday, M.A.K. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 1[J]. Journal of Linguistics, 1967, 3 (1): 37- 81.
doi: 10.1017/S0022226700012949
13 Horrocks, G. , and M. Stavrou . Action and their results in Greek and English: The complementarity of morphologically encode (viewpoint) aspect and syntactic resultative constructions[J]. Journal of Semantics, 2003, 20 (3): 297- 327.
doi: 10.1093/jos/20.3.297
14 Hynönen, E. The essive in Finnish[C]//de Groot, C. Uralic Essive and the Expression of Impermanent State. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2017.
15 Iwata, S. Argument resultatives and adjunct resultatives in a lexical constructional account: The case of resultatives with adjectival result phrases[J]. Language Sciences, 2006, 28, 449- 496.
doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.04.001
16 Jackendoff, R. Semantic Structure[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
17 Jespersen, O. The Philosophy of Grammar[M]. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD., 1924.
18 Karlsson, F. Finnish: An Essential Grammar[M]. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.
19 Kratzer, A. Stage and individual level predicates[C]//Carlson, G.N. & F.J. Pelletier. The Generic Book. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
20 Krifka, M. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics[C]//Bartsch, R., van Bentham, J. & P. van Emde Boas. Semantics and Contextual Expressions. Dordrecht: Foris, 1989.
21 Levin, B. , and M. Rappaport Hovav . Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface[M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
22 Levin, B. & M. Rappaport Hovav. Two structures for compositionally derived events[C] // Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory IX, 1999.199-223.
23 Levin, B. & T. Rapoport. Lexical subordination[C] // Papers from the General Session at the 24th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 1988.275-289.
24 Levinson, L. Arguments for pseudo-resultative predicates[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2010, 28 (1): 135- 182.
25 Mateu, J. 'Why can't we wipe the slate clean?': A lexical-syntactic approach to resultative constructions[C] // Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 2000.71-95.
26 Nedjalkov, V. & S. Je. Jaxontov. The typology of resultative constructions[C]//Nedjalkov, V. Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1988.
27 Pustejovsky, J. The syntax of event structure[J]. Cognition, 1991, 41 (1): 47- 81.
28 Randall, J.H. Linking: The Geometry of Argument Structure[M]. New York: Springer, 2010.
29 Rapoport, T. Secondary predication and the lexical representation of verbs[J]. Machine Translation, 1990, 4 (1): 31- 55.
30 Rapoport, T. Verbs in depictives and resultatives[C]//Pustejovsky, J. Semantics and the Lexicon. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.
31 Rapoport, T. Structure, aspect, and the predicate[J]. Language, 1999, 75 (4): 653- 677.
32 Rappaport Hovav, M. Lexicalized meaning and the internal structure of events[C]//Rothstein, S. Theoretical and Cross-linguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008.
33 Rappaport Hovav, M. , and B. Levin . An event structure account of English resultatives[J]. Language, 2001, 77 (4): 766- 797.
34 Rothstein, S. Structuring Events: A Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect[M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.
35 Rothstein, S. Telicity, atomicity and the Vendler classification of verbs[C]//Rothstein, S. Theoretical and Cross-linguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008.
36 Rothstein, S. Another look at accomplishments and incrementality[C]//Demonte, V. & L. McNally. Telicity, Change, and State: A Cross-categorial View of Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
37 Simpson, J. Resultatives[C]//Levin, L., Rappaport, M. & A. Zaenen. Papers in Lexical-functional Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1983.
38 Tenny, C. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness[D]. MIT, 1987.
39 Wälchli, B. & B. Olsson. Exploring the cross-linguistic relationship between resultative constructions and Participles[C]// Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Stockholm, 2012.
40 Washio, R. Resultatives, compositionality and language variation[J]. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 1997, 6 (1): 1- 49.
doi: 10.1023/A:1008257704110
41 Whelpton, M. Building resultatives in Icelandic[C]//Agbayani, B. Proceedings of 34th WECOL. Fresno, CA: California State University, 2007.
42 Williams, E. Predication[J]. Linguistic Inquiry, 1980, 11 (1): 203- 238.
43 Wechsler, S. Resultatives under the event — Argument homomorphism model of telicity[C]//Erteschik-Shir, N. & T. Rapoport. The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
44 Vendler, Z. Linguistics in Philosophy[M]. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press, 1967.
45 胡旭辉. 英语动结式研究: 现状与反思[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2016, 48 (6): 841- 853.
46 沈家煊. 有界与无界[J]. 中国语文, 1995, (5): 367- 380.
47 任绍曾. 英语双重谓语的语义蕴涵[J]. 外国语, 2022, (2): 2- 14.
48 熊仲儒. 英汉致使句论元结构研究[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社, 2015.
[1] 王欢, 林正军. 原型范畴视阈下英语方位转换构式量化研究[J]. 外国语, 2022, 45(4): 29-39.
[2] 孟庆楠. 英语半助动词构式历时变化研究──以be supposed to为例[J]. 外国语, 2022, 45(2): 15-26.
[3] 任绍曾. 英语双重谓语的语义蕴含[J]. 外国语, 2022, 45(2): 2-14.
[4] 金立鑫. “名包动”理论的逻辑问题[J]. 外国语, 2022, 45(1): 2-13.
[5] 程倩雯,程琪龙. 动词—构式语义关系的计量分析[J]. 外国语, 2021, 44(6): 2-13.
[6] 孙成娇. 汉语话题结构的类型新议[J]. 外国语, 2021, 44(6): 14-23.
[7] 张天伟, 吴菡. 现代汉语省略结构中焦点副词的作用及其句法语义功能[J]. 外国语, 2021, 44(6): 33-43.
[8] 席建国. 类型学视角下的英语“名词+复杂修饰语”结构翻译探析[J]. 外国语, 2021, 44(6): 44-51.
[9] 朱磊. 分词主导性结构及其句法功能分析[J]. 外国语, 2021, 44(5): 22-32.
[10] 汤敬安,石毓智. 现代汉语的尝试构式[J]. 外国语, 2021, 44(3): 21-30.
[11] 韩巍峰, 石定栩. 上海话典型差比结构的句法层次[J]. 外国语, 2021, 44(3): 31-37.
[12] 陈禹. 事态性否定的分化——以“并不X”“又不X”的构式竞争为例[J]. 外国语, 2021, 44(2): 2-10.
[13] 庾小美, 马志刚. 汉语关系结构的句法位置及其主宾提取的非对称性——兼论普遍性控制规则(GCR)的失效性及其扩展版的解释力[J]. 外国语, 2021, 44(2): 11-22.
[14] 刘国辉. 英语名-动转类轨迹的实证研究[J]. 外国语, 2021, 44(2): 23-30,40.
[15] 朱丽师. 国内外小句整合研究述评[J]. 外国语, 2021, 44(2): 109-120.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
[1] 张德禄. 评价理论介入系统中的语法模式研究[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(2): 2 -10 .
[2] 蒋承勇. 走向融合与融通——跨文化比较与外国文学研究方法更新[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(1): 103 -110 .
[3] 许钧. 翻译是先锋,语言是利器——五四运动前后的翻译与语言问题[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(4): 2 -3,6 .
[4] 张懂, 许家金. 英汉与格交替现象的多因素研究[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(2): 24 -33 .
[5] 李思旭. 处所转换构式的语言类型学研究[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(1): 2 -24 .
[6] 叶婧婷. 反身领属与强化的类型学考察[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(1): 25 -38 .
[7] 张莹. 行动者网络理论与中国文化外译——以熊式一英译的Lady Precious Stream(《王宝川》)为例[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(4): 25 -34 .
[8] 柳俊. 东南亚语言区域的双及物结构类型及其成因[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(4): 35 -45 .
[9] 雍茜. 违实句中的时制、体貌和语气——兼论语言标记系统的形成、类推和强化[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(2): 11 -23 .
[10] 王雅刚. “被X”雪克隆的言知分化与构式压制[J]. 外国语, 2019, 42(2): 34 -44 .