• 全国中文核心期刊
  • 中国人文社会科学核心期刊
  • 中文社会科学引文索引（CSSCI）来源期刊
  • 国家社会科学基金学术期刊资助入选期刊
二维码
YU Xiujin, JIN Lixin. A Typological Approach to Mixed Case-alignment Patterns in Chinese[J]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 2020, 43(5): 30-45.
Citation: YU Xiujin, JIN Lixin. A Typological Approach to Mixed Case-alignment Patterns in Chinese[J]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 2020, 43(5): 30-45.
shu

A Typological Approach to Mixed Case-alignment Patterns in Chinese

  • 1.

    School of Foreign Studies, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan 250014, China

  • 2.

    Institute of Linguistic Studies, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai 200083, China

  • 3.

    School of Linguistic Sciences and Arts, Jiangsu Normal University, Xuzhou 221009, China

More Information
  • Received Date: May 19, 2019
    Graphical Abstract
    • Abstract
  • It is common for a certain language to have both nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive patterns in the world, which is conditioned by the factors of tense-aspect-modality, semantic nature of predicative verb and semantic nature of core NP, etc. In the coexistence of the nominative-accusative pattern and the ergative-absolutive pattern in many languages, a differentiation between absolutive case and nominative case often occurs in the case function of the same morphological morpheme or a zero morpheme. From a cross-linguistic view, this article attempts to show that Chinese has the coexistence of nominative-accusative pattern and ergative-absolutive pattern conditioned by different types of verbs or verbal complexes (VC) and resultative aspect. It is proposed that in Chinese the unmarked basic word order or syntactic positions can serve as case markers to exhibit a certain case-alignment pattern. The ergative-absolutive Ba-construction and the absolutive construction fall into the ergative-absolutive pattern, which is different from the case-alignment pattern of the nominative-accusative construction and the nominative construction. In terms of the differentiation of the functions of case markers, it is observed that differentiations occur between ergative-absolutive case in the Ba-construction and nominative-accusative case in the nominative-accusative construction, between absolutive case in[SABS V/VC] and nominative case in[SNOM V/VC], and between absolutive case in[V/VC SABS] and accusative case in[V/VC PACC].
    • FullText(HTML)
    • References (72)
  • [1]
    Authier, G. & K. Haude. Ergativity, Valency and Voice[C]. Berlin/Boston:De Gruyter Mouton, 2012.
    [2]
    Blake, B. J. On ergativity and the notion of subject:Some Australian cases[J]. Lingua, 1976, 39:281-300.
    [3]
    Blake, B. J. Case Marking in Australian Languages:AIAS Linguistic Series, No. 23[M]. Canberra:Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1977.
    [4]
    Blake, B. J. The absolutive:Its scope in English and Kalkatungu[C]//Hopper, P. J. & S. A. Thompson. Studies in Transitivity. New York:Academic Press, INC., 1982. 71-94.
    [5]
    Blake, B. J. Australian Aboriginal Grammar[M]. London and New York:Routledge, 1987.
    [6]
    Blake, B. J. Case (2nd edn.)[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2001.
    [7]
    Breen, G. Wangkurnara [M]. Canberra:Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1981.
    [8]
    Burzio, L. Italian Syntax:A Government-Binding Approach[M]. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1986.
    [9]
    Butt, M. Theories of Case[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2006.
    [10]
    Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & W. Pagliuca. The Evolution of Grammar:Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World[M]. Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press, 1994.
    [11]
    Comrie, B. Ergativity[C]//Lehmann, W. P. Syntactic Typology:Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Austin:The University of Texas Press, 1978. 329-394.
    [12]
    Cooreman, A. A functional typology of antipassives[C]//Fox, B. A. & P. J. Hopper. Voice:Form and Function. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 1994. 49-88.
    [13]
    Dahl, Ö. Tense and Aspect System [M]. Bath:The Bath Press, 1985.
    [14]
    Dixon, R. M. W. Ergativity[J]. Language, 1979, 55:59-138.
    [15]
    Dixon, R. M. W. Ergativity[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1994.
    [16]
    Dixon, R. M. W. Australian Languages[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2004.
    [17]
    Frei, H. The ergative construction in Chinese:Theory of Pekinese pa[J]. Gengo Kenkyu, 1956, 31:22-50; 1957, 32:83-115.
    [18]
    Hopper, P. J. & S. A. Thompson. Transitivity in grammar and discourse[J]. Language, 1980, 56:251-299.
    [19]
    Hu, Jianhua, Pan, Haihua & Liejiong Xu. Is there a finite vs. nonfinite distinction in Chinese?[J]. Linguistics, 2001, 6:1117-1148.
    [20]
    Huang, C.-T. J. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar[D]. Cambridge, MA:MIT, 1982.
    [21]
    Johns, A., Massam, D. & J. Ndayiragije. Ergativity:Emerging Issues[C]. Dordrecht:Springer, 2006.
    [22]
    Kalmar, I. The Antipassive in Inuktitut[J]. Etudes Inuit, 1977, 1:129-142.
    [23]
    Li, Y. C. & M. Yip. The bǎ-construction and ergativity in Chinese[C]//Plank, F. Ergativity:Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London:Academic Press, 1979. 103-114.
    [24]
    Li, Y.-H. A. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese[M]. Dordrecht:Kluwer, 1990.
    [25]
    Markman, V. G. On the parametric variation of case and agreement[J]. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2009, 2:379-426.
    [26]
    Palmer, F. R. Grammatical Roles and Relations[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1994.
    [27]
    Perlmutter, D. M. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis[J]. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1978, 4:157-189.
    [28]
    Plank, F. The extended accusative/restricted nominative in perspective[C]//Plank, F. Relational Typology. Berlin/Boston:De Gruyter Mouton, 1985. 269-311.
    [29]
    Schieberl, M. L. An explanation for ergative versus accusative languages:An examination of Inuktitut[D]. University of Ottawa, 1998.
    [30]
    Silverstein, M. Hierarchy of features and ergativity[C]//Dixon, R. M. W. Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra:Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 1976.112-171.
    [31]
    Singh, J. Case and agreement in Hindi:A GB approach[D]. University of York, 1994.
    [32]
    Spreng, B. Antipassive Morphology and Case Assignment in Inuktitut[C]//Johns, A., Massam, D. & J. Ndayiragije. Ergativity:Emerging Issues. Dordrecht:Springer, 2006. 247-270.
    [33]
    Spreng, B. Viewpoint Aspect in Inuktitut:The Syntax and Semantics of Antipassives [M]. Toronto:University of Toronto, 2012.
    [34]
    Steiner, G. Verbalkonstruktion oder Verbalauffassung?[C]//Plank, F. Relational Typology. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter, 1985. 339-358.
    [35]
    Tai, H.-Y. J. Cognitive Relativism:Resultative Constructions in Chinese[J]. Language and Linguistics, 2003, 4:301-316.
    [36]
    Trask, R. L. On the origins of ergativity[C]//Plank, F. Ergativity:Toward a Theory of Grammatical Relations. New York:Academic Press, 1979.385-404.
    [37]
    Whaley, L. J. Introduction to Typology:The Unity and Diversity of Language[M]. California:Sage Publications, Inc., 1997.
    [38]
    陈立民. 论动词重叠的语法意义[J]. 中国语文, 2005, (2):110-122.
    [39]
    陈前瑞. 动词重叠的情状特征及其体的地位[J]. 语言教学与研究, 2001, (4):48-56.
    [40]
    陈前瑞. 汉语体貌研究的类型学视野[M]. 北京:商务印书馆, 2008.
    [41]
    崔希亮. "把"字句的若干句法语义问题[J]. 世界汉语教学, 1995, (3):12-21.
    [42]
    胡建华. 题元、论元和语法功能项——格标效应与语言差异[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2007, (3):163-168.
    [43]
    胡建华."他的老师当得好"与论元的选择——语法中的显著性和局部性[J]. 世界汉语教学, 2016, (4):435-455.
    [44]
    黄正德. 题元理论与汉语动词题元结构研究[C]//沈阳, 冯胜利. 当代语言学理论和汉语研究. 北京:商务印书馆, 2008. 136-161.
    [45]
    金立鑫. "把"字句的句法、语义、语境特征[J]. 中国语文, 1997, (6):415-423.
    [46]
    金立鑫, 王红卫. 动词分类和施格、通格及施语、通语[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2014, (1):45-57.
    [47]
    金立鑫. 普通话混合语序的类型学证据及其动因[J]. 汉语学习, 2016a, (3):3-11.
    [48]
    金立鑫. 普通话句法中的"通语"[J]. 东方语言学, 2016b, (16):11-17.
    [49]
    金立鑫. 广义语法形态理论的解释力——对普通话语序类型与论元配置类型的描写与解释[J]. 华东师范大学学报, 2019, (2):32-43.
    [50]
    金立鑫, 崔圭钵. "把"字句的结构功能动因分析[J]. 汉语学习, 2019, (1):3-12.
    [51]
    刘丹青. 从所谓"补语"谈古代汉语语法学体系的参照系[J]. 汉语史学报, 2005, (5):37-49.
    [52]
    刘丹青. 语法化理论与汉语方言语法研究[J]. 方言, 2009, (2):106-116.
    [53]
    刘培玉. 现代汉语把字句的多角度探究[M]. 武汉:华中师范大学出版社, 2009.
    [54]
    陆丙甫. 从某些语言学术语的翻译谈起[J]. 外国语, 2009, (2):2-7.
    [55]
    陆俭明. 90年代现代汉语语法研究的发展趋势[J]. 语文研究, 1990, (4):4-11.
    [56]
    罗天华. 也谈语言学术语的翻译问题[J]. 当代语言学, 2012, (1):73-79.
    [57]
    罗天华. 施格语言的语序[J]. 外国语, 2016, (4):10-20.
    [58]
    吕叔湘. 汉语语法论文集[M]. 北京:商务印书馆, 1984.
    [59]
    屈承熹. 汉语认知功能语法[M]. 哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社, 2005.
    [60]
    沈家煊. "王冕死了父亲"的生成方式——兼说汉语"糅合"造句[J]. 中国语文, 2006, (4):291-300.
    [61]
    石毓智, 李讷. 汉语语法化的历程——形态句法发展的动因和机制[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社, 2001.
    [62]
    隋娜, 胡建华. 动词重叠的句法[J]. 当代语言学, 2016, (3):317-338.
    [63]
    太田辰夫. 中国语历史文法[M]. 蒋绍愚, 徐昌华译. 北京:北京大学出版社, 1987.
    [64]
    王力. 中国现代语法[M]. 北京:商务印书馆, 1985.
    [65]
    王力. 汉语语法史[M]. 济南:山东教育出版社, 1990.
    [66]
    徐烈炯. 中国语言学在十字路口[M]. 上海:上海教育出版社, 2008.
    [67]
    杨素英. 从非宾格动词现象看语义与句法结构之间的关系[J]. 当代语言学, 1999, (1):30-43.
    [68]
    叶狂, 潘海华. 逆动态的跨语言研究[J]. 现代外语, 2012a, (3):221-229.
    [69]
    叶狂, 潘海华. 把字句的跨语言视角[J]. 语言科学, 2012b, (6):604-620.
    [70]
    叶狂, 潘海华. 从分裂作格现象看汉语句法的混合性[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2017, (4):526-538.
    [71]
    张伯江. 汉语句式的跨语言观——"把"字句与逆被动态关系商榷[J]. 语言科学, 2014, (6):587-600.
    [72]
    朱德熙. 语法讲义[M]. 北京:商务印书馆, 1982.
    • Related Articles

Catalog

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML
    Article views (1536) PDF downloads (26) Cited by()
    Turn off MathJax
    Article Contents
    Abstract
    References
    Email Alert RSS

    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co., Ltd.  Baidu Analytics

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return