Harvard Linguistics 171 Handout 3

p. 11 Argument Structure I. The unaccusative hypothesis: 動詞分類 II：通格、作格。單元述詞與雙元述詞都可以分 別進一步劃分為兩種。Perlmutter 1978 首倡單元述詞可分為 unergative 與 unaccusative 兩 種；Burzio 1981/86 進一步指出雙元述詞亦應區分為兩類。漢語單元述詞語雙元述詞的再 分類 (李 1985/ 1990, 呂叔湘 1987, 黃 1989, etc.)

(1)

Unergative:

xiao ‘laugh’, ku ‘cry’, fei ‘fly’, tiao ‘dance, jump’…. (通格動詞： 笑、哭、飛、跳、吵鬧 ... 等表示動作的自動詞)

Unaccusative: lai ‘come’, qu ‘go’, shi ‘be’, you ‘have’, si ‘die’, zou ‘leave’, chuxiang ‘appear’, fasheng ‘happen’, tang-zhe ‘lie’ (作格動詞： 來、去、是、有 、死、走、出現、發生、躺著 ... 等存現動詞)

Transitive:

da ‘hit’, ma ‘scold’, chi ‘eat’, xie ‘write’, piping ‘criticitize’, qipian ‘cheat’, zanmei ‘praise’ .... (動作性及物動詞： 打、罵、吃、寫、批評、 欺騙、讚美 ....)

Causative:

kai ‘open’, guan ‘close’, chen ‘sink’, yao ‘shake’, xiao ‘scare’, qi-si ‘anger-to-death’ .... (致使性及物動詞： 開、關、沈、搖、嚇 、氣死 (了 李四)、樂昏 (他的頭 ) ....)

(2) On sheng ‘win’ and bai ‘defeat’ (呂叔湘 (1987) 說勝和敗) a. 中國隊打勝了韓國隊。 （及物動詞） Zhongguo dui da-sheng-le Hanguo dui. China team play-win-Perf Korea-team The Chinese team won over the Korean team. b. 中國隊打敗了韓國隊。 （致使動詞） Zhongguo dui da-bai-le Hanguo dui. China team play-defeat Korea team The Chinese team defeated the Korean team. (The Chinese team won.) c. 中國隊打勝了。 （通格動詞） Zhongguo dui da-sheng-le China team play-win-Perf. The Chinese team won. d. 中國隊打敗了。 （作格動詞） Zhongguo dui da-bai-le. China team play-defeat-Perf The Chinese team lost. (a=b), but ~(c=d)

p. 12 (3) The two series: a. The unaccusative series: Unaccusative  Causative (by adding a subject) b. The unergative series: Unergative  Transitive (by adding an object)

• The unaccusative series is underlying subjectless. Addition of an external argument results in a causative. [causativization]

• The unergative series is underlyingly transitive. Omission of the object results in the unergative. [intransitivization]

(4) The Unaccusative-Causative series: - Lai-le xuduo keren. 來了許多客人 Come-Perf many guests (There came many guests.) - Xuduo keren lai-le. 許多客人來了. Many guests come-Perf (NP-movement, optional with lai, etc.) - Men guan-shang-le. Door close-up-Perf (The door closed. NP-movement, obligatory.) - Zhangsan guan-shang-le men. Zhangsan close-up-Perf door. (Causative.) (5) The Transitive-Unergative series: - Zhangsan chi-le pingguo. (Zhangsan ate the apple.) - Zhangsan chi-le. (Zhangsan ate.) (6) Evidence for the unaccusative hypothesis 支持非賓格假定的證據: a. Theta roles: {Agent}, {Agent, Theme}; {Theme}, {Causer, Theme} b. Obligatory vs. optional argument: Causatives cannot omit objects, transitives cannot subjects. [cf. middles] c. So-called “subject-verb inversion” applies to only the unaccusatives. zou-le bushao ren. 走了不少人. leave-Perf not-few people ‘There left many people.’ ku-le bushao ren. *哭了不少人. cry-perf many people *there cried many people. d. Auxiliary selection Johan ist gegonen. (Unaccusative) Johan hat das Buch gekauft. (Unergativee/transitive) e. Impersonal passive 虛位主語被動句 Hier wird nicht geparkt. (No parking here.) Es wurde viel getanzt und gesungen. (There was a lot of dancing and singing.) Wir liefen zum Markt. Es wurde zum Markt gelaufen. (walk) *Es wurde zum Markt gegangen. (go) f. The recently arrived guest, vs. *The recently cried baby.

p. 13 Claim: The unaccusative vs. unergative distinction applies to 3-place predicates as well. The unaccusative series: Theme > Experiencer > Causer The unergative series: Agent > Affectee > Patient II. The unaccusative series: Theme > Experiencer > Causer. 作格系列: 除了受事（或客體）與致事之外，還可以與中間論元“經驗者” 構成句子。

(7) a. 終於來了一碗麵。 zhongyu lai-le yi-wan mian. Finally came a bowl of noodles.

(客體或受事) (Theme or Patient)

b. 您來碗炸醬麵吧？我已經來過兩碗了。 (經驗者) nin lai wan zhajiang mian ba? Wo yijing lai-guo liang-wan le. you come bowl zhajiang noodles ok? I already come-Exp two-bowl Perf Would you have a bowl of zhajiang noodles? I already have two. (Experiencer) c. 小二，來碗炸醬麵。’bring’ (致事) xiao-er lai wan zhajiang mian. Waiter, come bowl zhajiang mian Waiter, bring (me) a bowl of zhajiang noodles. (Causative) (8) Examples of the “unaccusative transitives” a. 王冕七歲死了父親。 Wang Mian qi sui si-le fuqin Wang Mian 7 year die-Perf father Roughly: Wang Mian had his father dying when he was 7. b. 張三又瞎了一隻眼睛。 Zhangsan you xia-le yi-zhi yanjing. Zhangsan again blind-Perf one-CL eye Roughly: Zhangsan again had a blind eye. c. 看守又逃了三個犯人了。 d. 昨天他們發生了一起車禍。 e. 他們公司又沈了一艘船，恐怕要撐不下去了。 f. 他家來了許多客人。 g. 中國出了一個毛澤東。 Zhongguo chu-le yi-ge Mao Zedong Roughly: China had the emergence of Mao Zedong. h. 張三的兒子長出了兩顆門牙。 i. 他起了一身雞皮疙瘩。

p. 14

Important points: • Not just possessive relations • Not just undesirable or pejoritive events • Not derivable from movement (possessive raising, possesum lowering, etc.) • MERGE (base-generated): Experiencer • Cf. Shen Jiaxuan 2006 (but also see Huang 1989/91) III. The unergative series: Agent > Affectee (outer Patient) > Theme (or Inner Patient) 通格系列也有中間論元，語義上指涉蒙受者 ，句法上則處於“外賓語”的位置。 (9) Evidence for the Affectee Argument as the outer object of an unergative series: the “retainied object construction” 保留賓語結構 a. 張三把橘子剝了皮。 Zhangsan ba juzi bo-le pi. Zhangsan BA orange peel-Perf skin Zhangsan perform ‘remove-skin’ onto the orange. (ZS peeled the orange.) b. 李四把紙門踢了一個洞。 Lisi ba zhimen ti-le yi-ge dong. Lisi performed ‘kick-a-hole’ onto the paper-door. (LS kicked a hole in the door.) c. 他們簡直把你當傻瓜。 Tamen jianzhi ba ni dang shagua. they nearly/no-less BA you consider a fool. (They [amount to] treat you as a fool.) d. 他轉眼間把十個蘋果吃掉了八個。

例句 (12a) 的謂語“死了父親”屬作格類，“王冕”可視為輕動詞BECOME的主語； (12a) 的小謂語“剝了皮”屬及物通格類，“橘子”是的外賓語。 英語沒有(或很少)直接對應于(12)-(13)的句子, 所以漢語語法給這非賓格假定提供了 重要的證據,並加強了這個假定, 即: 通格-作格之區分可適用于單元,雙元,與三元述 詞. Question: Why don’t you see all three arguments in a causative sentence? Why don’t you see both objects in postverbal positions? Proposed answer: • Case theory • Ditranstive verbs have the property of assigning two internal Cases (perhaps a structural Case and an inherent Case)

p. 15

IV. Two kinds of ditransitive verbs. 兩种雙賓結構 • 3-place unaccusative series: (outer subject (inner subject (object))) - The so-called double-object construction is actually a double-subject construction. • 3-place unergative series: (subject (outer object (inner object))) - This is the real double-object construction. IV.A: The 3-place unaccusative series: 三元作格類: 給與動詞屬於三元作格類（即包含致事、經驗者、受事的致使動 詞）： (10)

give, sell, rent (as a landlord), lend, mail, hand, etc.: a. 張三給了李四一本書。 b. 張三賣了李四兩輛汽車。 Zhangsan mai-le Lisi liang-liang qiche. Zhangsan sell-Perf Lisi two-CL car Zhangsan sold Lisi 2 automobiles. c. 李先生租（給）了我一間辦公室。 d. 他借（給）了我兩百塊錢。

(11)

[Zhangsan CAUSE [Lisi HAVEBUY 4 cars ]]

(12)

Some evidence for lexical decomposition: mai/mai ‘buy/sell’, zu/zu ‘rent in/out’, jie/jie ‘lend/borrow’, shou/shou ‘bestow/receive’, jia/jia ‘lend/borrow’ 詞義分解例證: 買/賣,租/租,借/借,授/受,假/假, etc. a. 我受牛羊三千; b. 王授我 牛羊三千.

IV.B: 3-place unergative series: 三元通格類： 下面的雙賓結構屬三元通格類（包含施事, 蒙受者（或間接受事), 與 直接受事）： (13)

hit, eat, rent in (as do-er), borrow (as do-er) a. 我打了他一個耳光。 b. 人們每年吃掉台灣兩條高速公路。 (蔡維天 2005) c. 他租了我一間公寓，一直沒付我房租。 d. 他借了我兩萬元，從來沒付過利息

他對我施以“租了一間公寓”之擧, 他將“租了一間公寓”之事加之於我.

p. 16 Important points: • Difference between the verbs in (13) and those in (13). Proposed: - Inherent case assigning property of given verbs. - Inherent Case seems to be subject to an inanimacy restriction • Evidence that there is no possessive relationship between outer and inner object: - The affectedness requirement (Affectee) - Evidencee from 陸儉明(2002), 蔡維天(2005): (14) (15)

a. 阿Q一共搶了小D五百塊錢。 b. 阿Q一共偷了小D兩套西裝。 a. *阿Q一共搶了小D的五百塊錢。 b. *阿Q一共偷了小D的兩套西裝。

Compare: (16) a. b.

阿Q一共搶了五百塊小D的錢。 阿Q一共偷了兩套小D的西裝。

(17)

三元作格: [致事–經驗者–受事] = [外主語–内主語–賓語] 三元通格: [施事–蒙受者–受事] = [主語–外賓語–内賓語]

(18)

Parametric differences: English, Chinese, Japanese, Korean 跨語差異: 英語與日語似沒有通格系列的雙賓結構,漢語與韓國語有: *John stole me 300 dollars. *John ate Mary 3 months of dinners. John rented an apartment. (John = tenant 房客) John rented Bill an apartment. (John = landlord 房東)  參數理論需解答的問題.

IV.C: Persuade vs. promise: • Persuade: unergative series • Promise: unaccusative series 其他三元述詞結構如 persuade 與 promise 句式的分別也是通格與作格之別。前者屬 通格類，其賓語 Bill 是輕動詞 DO 底下的外賓語；後者屬作格類，其賓語則是輕動 詞 CAUSE 底下的小句主語。(cf. Larson 1991) (19)

John persuaded Bill to be honest. John DO [Bill [persuade-to-be-honest]] (John did onto Bill the action of persuading him [=Bill] to be honest.)

(20)

John promised Bill to be honest. John CAUSE [Bill promise-to-be-honest] (John gave Bill the promise that he [John] will be honest.)