這篇論文旨在呈現三種漢語「得」字的不同句法地位和語義功能，其為表
可能的「得」、要求的「得」和允許的「得」。雖然，它們同為情態詞，但三者
的語法功能和行為不盡相同。

本文就以上議題，主張提出三個分析方案。第一，因為可能的「得」和允
許的「得」都是輕音節，所以它們都是附著詞。但是，要求的「得」是個重音
節，並不須依附其他詞彙，所以要求的「得」並不是依附詞。第二，帶有不同
語義功能的「得」在句法結構上呈現不同的地位。從結構來看，由高到低的
為：要求的「得」、允許的「得」、可能的「得」。允許的「得」帶著一個AspP
補語 (complement)，允許的「得」是ModP 的中心語，同時帶著一個VP 補語，
而可能的「得」是DeP 的中心語，也帶著一個VP 補語。

此外，本文也將進一步分析可能的「得」、要求的「得」和允許的「得」的
語意。可能的「得」表示可能性，要求的「得」展現必要性(deontic
necessity)，是說話者的要求，而允許的「得」展現說話者禁止。

This thesis shows that the potential de, the demand dei and the permissive de are
modals. They occur and behave differently.

I propose that the potential de and the permissive de are clitics because of their
prosodic lightness, whereas the deontic dei is not a clitic and can stand alone due to its
prosodic heaviness. For syntactic position, the modal de constructions from high to
low are the deontic dei, the permissive de and the potential de, respectively. The
deontic dei takes a higher AspP complement; the permissive de as the head of ModP
takes a VP complement; the potential de as the head of DeP takes a VP complement.

Moreover, I also show the semantic properties of the modal de constructions. The
potential de indicates possibility; the deontic dei denotes a deontic necessity, a
demand expressed by the speaker; the permissive de usually expresses prohibition
imposed by the speaker with the present of the negation bu.

References
Cheng, L. L. S., & Sybesma, R. (2004). Postverbal ‘can’in Cantonese (and Hakka) and Agree. Lingua, 114(4), 419-445.
Ernst, T. (1995). Negation in mandarin Chinese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 13(4), 665-707.
Huang, C. T. J. (1992). Complex predicates in control. In Control and grammar (pp. 109-147). Springer Netherlands.
Huang, J. (2006). Resultatives and unaccusatives: a parametric view. Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan, 2006(253), 1-43.
Kratzer, A. (1977). What ‘must’and ‘can’must and can mean. Linguistics and philosophy, 1(3), 337-355.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Univ of California Press.
Lin, J. W. (2003). Aspectual selection and negation in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics, 41(3), 425-459.
Li, R. (2004). Modality in English and Chinese: A typological perspective. Universal-Publishers.
Lin, T. H. (2001). Light verb syntax and the theory of phase structure (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine).
Lin, T. H. (2012). Multiple-modal constructions in Mandarin Chinese and their finiteness properties. Journal of Linguistics, 48(1), 151-186.
Lin, T. H. (2003). Postverbal secondary predicates in Taiwanese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 1(2), 65-94.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (2014). Modality and the English modals. Routledge.
Sun, C. (1996). Word-order Change and Grammaticalization in the History of Chinese. Stanford University Press.
Tregidgo, P. S. (1982). MUST and MAY: demand and permission. Lingua, 56(1), 75-92.
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The philosophical review, 143-160.
Xie, Z. (2012). The modal uses of de and temporal shifting in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 21(4), 387-420.
Yang, Hui-Ting (2013) Adverbs of continuity and genricity in Mandarin Chinese. Master thesis, National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.
Yang, Tsai-Heng (2012) Distributivity in Mandarin Chinese. Master thesis, National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.
Wang, C. (2017). On some mysteries, asymmetries and derivation of potential de construction in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 18(4), 647-698.
Wang, S. L. (2003). Prediction? Prescription? An analysis of Chinese and English modalities: A comparative approach (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa).
Wu, C. H. T. (2004). On de/bu and the syntactic nature of resultative verbal compounding. Language and Linguistics, 5(1), 271-329.
呂叔湘. (1999). 現代漢語八百詞. 北京: 商務印書館.
陳玉華. (1999). 漢語能願動詞 [可以] 之教學語法. 臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所學位論文, 1-176.