本研究中的「心理動詞」指描述感受或情感的動詞，如「愛」、「生氣」、「怕」等。先前已有不少研究針對漢語心理動詞的語法現象作過探討。其中不少是透過管束理論來看心理動詞的獨特性。此篇論文的重點則在於探討漢語感受動詞的語意及句法的互動關係。藉由不同感受類動詞所能進入的句式及格式，觀察彼此之間的語意差異，進而找出漢語感受動詞與其他類動詞的不同。

為求語料的真實性，本文中所引用之格式皆從「中研院漢語平衡語料庫」及Google中篩選，再經過筆者個人及同學的判斷而來。此外，為求所研究之動詞皆具有代表性，本文主要陳列的六個感受動詞格式（即「愛」、「喜歡」、「怕」、「害怕」、「氣」、「生氣」），以及後來加入討論的「嚇」，都是屬於語料庫中詞頻偏高的動詞。這七個動詞可分為三大類，第一類的成員包括「嚇」，為「客體-主語」謂語﹔第二類是「感受者-主語」謂語，包括動詞「愛」、「喜歡」及常作形容詞的「害怕」、「生氣」﹔第三類是跨一、二類的謂語，如「氣」和「怕」等。這類動詞的論元結構因可兼有上述二類，因此在語意上常出現模擬兩可的情形。我們在分析各個動詞所能進入的基本格式後，一一羅列，再進一步相互比較，找出彼此相異的格式型態及語意內涵。

在研究的過程中，我們發現了一些有趣的現象。在此舉二個例子。其一，就論元結構來說，在感受動詞所能進入的格式中，感受者(Experiencer)與客體(Theme)為必要論元，但他們不必然在所有句式中都同時體現。另外，程度(Degree)副詞在感受動詞格式中佔有重要地位，有時甚至影響一個句子的合法性。其二，就使動句與結果句的互動來說，我們發現在只有一個論元的格式中，原先帶有使動意義的動詞（如「嚇」）會選擇感受者作為主語。同樣的格式如果多了一個賓語，則原先主語位置的感受者會被客體所取代。同時，結果句的指涉也跟著不同。

本論文在第一章作概略性的介紹。第二章提到一些分析時會用到的概念。第三章作相關的文獻回顧。第四及第五章進行語料上的分析與討論，第六章為總結。

There have been not a few studies on the syntactic behaviors of Chinese psychological predicates (or psych verbs), denoting affection and emotion such as love, anger and fear. Most of them focus on the unique behaviors within the GB (government and binding) framework. Different from them, this thesis aims to explore the interactions between constructions and meanings of psych verbs. We ferret out the semantic varieties among psychological predicates by looking into the constructions in which they can or cannot occur. We then lay out the features belonging to psych verbs at the end of this study.

To ensure the authenticity of the data, all the constructions in this thesis come from the Sinica Corpus and Google. To guarantee that the selected verbs would be representative ones, we focus on the discussion about seven verbs, i.e.ai4 (love), xi3-huan1 (like), qi4 (anger or be angry), sheng1-qi4 (be angry), pa4 (fear), hai4-pa4 (be afraid) and xia4 (frighten), which are selected due to the high frequency of occurrence at the Sinica Corpus. They can be divided into three types. The first type is the Theme-Subject predicates, e.g. xia4 (frighten). The second type is the Experiencer-Subject predicates, including verbs, e.g. ai4 (love), xi3-huan1 (like) and adjectives, e.g. hai4-pa4 (be afraid), sheng1-qi4 (be angry). The third type is the amphibious predicates like qi4 (anger or be angry) and pa4 (fear). Verbs of this type tend to express ambiguous readings because they can be regarded as Theme-Subject and/or Experiencer-Subject predicates at the same time.

We compare their basic patterns and obtain some interesting findings. Two examples are given as follows. One is about the argument structure. Experiencer and Theme are important elements but they may not necessarily appear simultaneously. Experiencer, as well as Theme, can be shaded in certain constructions. In addition, degree adverbs play a crucial role in certain constructions. Sometimes they even determine the grammaticality of a sentence. The other example is about the interaction between causatives and resultatives. If there is only one argument in a construction, the predicate with CAUSE will assign Experiencer to the subject position. However, when there is an object in the same construction, the subject position will be assigned Theme. Experiencer goes to the object position. Meanwhile, the referent of the resultative state alters with the constructions.

In this thesis, a general introduction is given in chapter one. Some theoretic notions are provided in chapter two. Previous studies are reviewed in chapter three. Chapter four and five comprise the data analysis. Conclusion is given in the final chapter.

References
Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. On the Role of Deep Structure in Semantic Interpretation. Foundations of Language 6: 197-219.

Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi. 1988. Psych-Verbs and θ-Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291-352.

Carlson, Greg. 1977. A Unified Analysis of the English Bare Plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 413-457.

Chang, Li-Li, Keh-Jann Chen and Chu-Ren Huang. 2000. Alternation Across Semantics Field: A Study of Mandarin Verbs of Emotion. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 5(1): 61-80.

Chang, Li-li. et al. 2000. A Lexical-Semantic Analysis of Mandarin Chinese Verbs: Representation and Methodology. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 5(1): 1-18.

Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chen, Dong-dong. 1994. UTAH: Chinese Psych Verbs and Beyond. In Jose Camacho and Lina Choueiri (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics Vol. 1. Los Angles: GSIL, USC.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Davidson, Donald. 1967. The Logical Form of Action Sentences. In N. Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, 81-95. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Reprinted in Davidson 1980.

Davidson, Donald. 1980. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67: 547-619.
Fillmore, Charles J. and Beryl T. Atkins. 1992. Toward a Frame-Based Lexicon: The Semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lahrer and E. Kittay (eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrast, 75-102. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel J. Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20, 53-109. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Hu, Yu-shu and Xiao Fan (eds.) 1995. Dongci Yanjiu [Studies on Verbs]. Kaifeng: Henan University Press.

Huang, Chu-ren, et al. 2000. The Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics: From Semantics to Argument Structure. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 5(1): 19-47.

Huang, Han-Chun. 1998. Lexical Polysemy and Sense Extension in Verbs of Movement in Taiwanese Southern Min. M.A. Thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.

Huang, Shuan-fan. 1974. Mandarin Causative. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2(3): 354-369.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the External Argument from its Verbs. In Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds.) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, Image and Symbol: the Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Levin, Beth, and Tova Rapoport. 1988. Lexical Subordination. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 24, Part 1, 275-289. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations--A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lien, Chinfa. 1999. A Typological Study of Causatives in Taiwanese Southern Min. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 29: 395-422.

Liu, Mei-Chun. 2002. Mandarin Verbal Semantics: A Corpus-based Approach, 2nd Edition. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.

McCawley, James. 1968. Lexical Insertion in Transformational Grammar without Deep Structure. Proceeding of the Chicago Linguistic Society 4, 71-80. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

Mei, Jia-ju, et al. 1993. Tongyici Cilin [Thesaurus]. Taipei: Tung Hua Book Co.
Perlmutter, D.M. and P. M. Postal. 1984. The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In D.M. Perlmutter and C.

Rosen (eds.) 1984. Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiences and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Postal, Paul. 1971. Cross-over Phenomena. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston.

Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Saeed, John I. 1997. Semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publisher.

Shen, Jia-xuan. 2000. Jushi yu Peija [Syntax and Valency]. Zhongguo Yuwen 277: 291-297

Tai, James H.-Y. 1985. Temporal Sequence and Word Order In Chinese. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 49-72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Tai, James H.-Y. 2002. Conceptual Structures and Non-autonomous Syntax: Some Conceptualization Principles in Chinese Grammar. Contemporary Linguistics 4(1): 1-12

Tang, C. –C. Jane. 1989. Chinese Reflexives. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 7: 93-121.

Tang, Ting-chi. 1991. Hanyu Yufa de Bingru Xianxiang [Incorporation in Mandarin Grammar]. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 21: 1-63, 337-376.

Teng, Shou-Hsin. 1996. Chinese Synonyms Usage Dictionary. Beijing: Beijing Language & Culture University Press.

Tenny, Carol & James Pustejovsky (eds.) 2000. Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspective of Lexical Semantics and Syntax. Stanford: CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information) Publications.

Tsai, Mei-Chih, Chu-Ren Huang and Keh-Jiann Chen. 1996. You Jinyici Bianyi Biaozhun Kan Yuyi Jufa Zhi Hudong [From Near-synonyms to the Interactions between Syntax and Semantics]. In Y. Yin, et al. (eds.), Chinese Language and Linguistics V: Interactions in Language, 439-459. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.

Tsai, Mei-chih, Chu-Ren Huang, Keh-Jiann Chen, and Kathleen Ahrens. 1998. Towards a Representation of Verbal Semantics: An Approach Based on Near-Synonyms. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 3(1): 62-74.

Tsao, Feng-fu, L. Tsai and S. Liu. 2001. Shenti yu Piyu: Yuyian yu Renzhi de Shouyao Jiemian [Body and Metaphor: The Primary Interface between Language and Cognition]. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.

Van Voost, Jan. 1992. The Aspectual Semantics of Psychological Verbs. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 65-92.

Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Wang, Hong-bin. 1998. Juedui Chengdu Fuci yu Xinli Dongci Zuhe ho suo Chuxian de Chengdu Yikong Fanchou [The Empty Categories Induced from the Combination of Absolute Degree Adverbs and Psych Verbs]. Yantai Normal University Journal (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 1998(1): 63-70.

Wu, Xiu-zhi. Zoe. 1993. Psychological Predicates in Chinese. M.A. Thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.

Yang, Hua. 1994. Shilun Xinli Zhuangtai Dongci ji qi Binyu de Leixing [An Investigation on Psych Stative Verbs and their Object Types]. Han-Yu Xue-xi 1994(3): 33-36.

Yang, Su-fen. 2000. On Chinese Psych Verbs. M.A. Thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.

Zhou, You-bin and Jing-min Shao. 1993. Hanyu Xin-li Dongci ji qi Juxing [Mandarin Psych Verbs and their Constructions]. Yuwen YanJiu 48: 32-36, 48.

Zipf, George Kingsley. 2000. The Psycho-biology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. New York: Routledge.

Online Resources:

Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese: http://www.sinica.edu.tw/ftms-bin/kiwi1/mkiwi.sh

FrameNet: http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~framenet/