漢語「讓」的允許、使役及被動用法｜國立清華大學博碩士論文庫

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	翁絹惠
論文名稱：	漢語「讓」的允許、使役及被動用法 The Permissive, Causative and Passive Rang
指導教授：	蔡維天教授
口試委員:
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 語言學研究所 Institute of Linguistics
論文出版年：	2005
畢業學年度：	93
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	65
中文關鍵詞：	讓、允許、使役、被動
外文關鍵詞：	Rang, Permissive, Causative, Passive
相關次數：	點閱：1 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

漢語「讓」的允許、使役及被動用法

使役和被動在漢語中經常有密不可分的關係。被動句的其中一個來源是使役句，漢語的「讓」即是一例。過去的研究多著重於使役及被動之間的關係，多數的研究主張被動式為使役句的作格化(ergativized)用法，因此被動式較使役句少一個論元。本篇論文除了觀察讓的使役和被動的用法即關係外，指出了允許以及使役用法之間的句法差異，並藉由句法上的測試得到驗證。
允許「讓」的句法結構為控制結構，包蘊句中的主語為PRO，而使役「讓」的句法結構不包含PRO，只是單純的使役動詞帶一個句子當補語。句法結構的不同使得兩者在論元的選擇上有不同的限制：允許「讓」的第二個名詞被「讓」所選擇，因此必須帶有意志(volition)。在另一方面，使役「讓」的第二的名詞為包蘊句的主語，因此論旨角色由包蘊句中的動詞決定，和「讓」沒有關係。這個現象可以藉由Reinhart (2003) 的理論來進一步觀察而得到更系統性的分析。同樣的分析也可以應用在被動「讓」的論旨角色限制上。
本篇論文將允許「讓」以及使役「讓」的句法結構分開，不僅可以解決第二個名詞的定位問題，更可以從歷史語言學的角度提供一些佐證來支持兩種結構的分析。長久以來，對於這個論元的位置一直有爭議。有人認為這個論元在母句中，但是也有然認為它是在包蘊句。從「讓」的句法結構中可以發現這個名詞可以被分析為母句的論元，也可以被分析為包蘊句的論元，而這兩種不同的結構代表不同的語意。若從歷史語言學的觀點，從允許「讓」到使役「讓」在進一步到被動「讓」可看出句子結構經過重新分析之後變的更緊密，符合了上述句法結構的分析，此外，也間接支持了論文對不同句法結構的分析。

Table of Contents

Chinese Abstract …..……………………..………………………………………………….i
Acknowledgment…..….…………………..…..……………………………………………..ii
Table of Content ………..…………………………………………………………………...iii

Chapter 1. Introduction ……...…………….……………………………………………….1

Chapter 2. The Requirements of Different Rangs …………………………...………….4
    2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………….4
        2.1.1 Basic Data …………………………………………………………………4
    2.2 Problems…………………………………………………………………………..6
    2.3 Reinhart’s Theta System …………………………………………………………10
    2.4 The Permissive Reading …………………………………………………………13
    2.5 The Causative Reading…………………………………………………………..15
        2.5.1 Differences between Strong and Weak Causatives ………………………15
        2.5.2 Why They Are Different ………………………………………………….17
2.6 The Enable Reading……………………………………………………………...19
2.7 The Passive Reading …………………………………………………………….19
2.7.1 Ordinary Passive and Indirect Passive …………………………………...21
2.7.2 DE-complement ………………………………………………………….23
2.8 Summary …………………………………………………………………...23

Chapter 3. Syntactic Structures of Different Rangs 25
    3.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………...25
    3.2 Literature Review ………………………………………………………………...26
        3.2.1 Moore’s Analysis ………………………………………………………….26
        3.2.2 Alsina’s Analysis …………………………………………………………..26
    3.3 The Permissive Readings ………………………………………………………….27
    3.4 The Causative Reading ……………………………………………………………36
        3.4.1 The Syntactic Structure of The Causative Reading ………………………..36
        3.4.2 Differences between Permissive and Causative Readings …………………38
    3.5 The Passive Reading ………………………………………………………………40
        3.5.1 The Null Operator Analysis ………………………………………………...41
        3.5.2 The Passive Reading of Rang ………………………………………………42
    3.6 Summary …………………………………………………………………………...47


Chapter 4. A Diachronic Analysis for Rang ……………………………………………48
    4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………...48
    4.2 Literature Review ………………………………………………………………..49
        4.2.1 Jiang: Gei and Jiao ……………………………………………………….50
        4.2.2 Xu: Shi …………………………………………………………………....51
        4.2.3 Wei:  ……………………………………………………………………..52
        4.2.4 Chiang …………………………………………………….………………53
    4.3 An Overview of Rang’s Grammaticalization ………………….…………………55
    4.4 Each Step of Rang’s Grammaticalization ……………………………………..….57
    4.5 Summary ………………………………………………………………..………...61

Chapter 5. Conclusion ………………………………………………………..…………..62

Reference ………………………………………………………………………..…………63

                                

Reference

Alsina, Alex (1992) “On the Argument Structure of Causatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 23,
517-555.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., C.-T. James Huang, Y.-H. Audry Li, and C.-C Jane Tang. 1996. “Causative
Compounds across Chinese Dialects: A Study of Cantonese, Mandarin and Taiwanese.”
Taipei Academia Sinica.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., C.-T. James Huang, Y.-H. Audry Li, and C.-C Jane Tang. 2000. “Hoo,
Hoo, Hoo: Syntax of The Causative, Dative, and Passive Constructions in Taiwanese.”
Taipei Academia Sinica.
Chomsky, N. (1977) “On Wh-movement,” in P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian, eds.,
Formal Syntax, Academic Press. New Tork.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. “Some Remarks on Causatives and Transativity in Haruai. Causatives and Transitivity,” ed. by Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky, 315-325.
Gu, Yang (2003) “On the Syntactic Projection of Causatives: Resultative Compound
Predicate Rivisited”, in Jie Xu, Donghong Ji, and Kim Teng Lua, eds., Chinese Syntax and Semantics:27-62, Singapore, Prentice Hall.
Heine, Bernd. 2003 “Grammaticalization.” The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Joseph, B. & Janda R. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Haegeman, L. 2001. “Non-overt categories: PRO and Control,” in Introduction to Government and binding theory, Blackwell, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA, 251-286.
Huang, C.-T. James (1987) “Remarks on Empty Categories in Chinese”, Linguistic Inquiry
15:531-574.
Huang, C.-T. James (1991) “Complex Predicate in Control,” in Lahiri, S. Iatridou, R. Larson
and J. Higginbotham (eds.), Control and Grammar, 109-147. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht.
Huang, C.-T. James (1999) “Chinese Passive in Comparative Perspective,” The Tsing Hua
Journal of Chinese Studies 29 (4), 423-509. National Tsing Hua University.
Lai, huei-ling. (2001) “On Hakka BUN: A Case of Polygrammaticalization.” Language
and Linguistics 2.2:137-153.
Lai, huei-ling. (2001) “Hakka LAU Construction: A Constructional Approach.” Language and Linguistics 2.2:137-153.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Taipei: Crane Publishing Ltd.
Li, Yafe (1999) “Cross-Compositional causativity”, Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 17:445-479
Lien, Chinfa. 2001. “Grammatical Function words 乞，度，共，甲，將and力 in Li Jing Ji and their development in Southern Min.” Paper presented at the third International Conference on Sinology. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Miyagawa, S. (1999) “Causatives”, in N. Tsujimura (ed.) The Handbook of Japanese
Linguistics. MA:Blackwell.
Moore, John (1998) “Object Controlled Restructuring in Spanish,” ms., University of
California, San Diego.
Reinhart, Tanya (2003) “The Theta System- An Overview,” Theoretical Linguistics 28 (3).
Ritter, E. and Rosen, S. T. (1991) “Causative Have”, NELS 21: 323-336
Shibatani, M. (1976) “Causativization”, in M. Shibatani ed., Syntax and Semantics vol.5
Japanese Generative Grammar: 239-294
Ting, Jen (1998) “Deriving the Bei-Construction in Mandarin Chinese”, Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 7:391-354
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan (1994) On Economizing the Yheory of A-bar Dependency. PhD.
Dissertation, MIT.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan (2004) “Self, Selfhood, and Nature: A Reductionist Approach to Chinese
Reflexive Adverbials,” ms., National Tsing Hua University.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard B. Dasher (2002) Regularity in Semaantic Change.
Camgridge University Press.
Washio, Ryuichi. (1993) When Causatives Mean Passive. Journal of East Asian Lainguistics 2:45-90.
張麗麗 2005 清華演講
蔣紹愚 2003 給字句、教字句表被動的來源—兼談語法化、類推和功能擴展, 語法化與
語法研究(一) 202-223, (吳福祥,洪波主編). 商務印書, 北京.
魏培泉 1994 古漢語被動式的發展與演變機制, 中國境內語言暨語言學 2: 293-319. 中
央研究院語言學研究所.
徐丹 2003使字句的演變—兼談使字的語法化, 語法化與語法研究(一) 224-238,
(吳福祥,洪波主編). 商務印書, 北京.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文