本篇論文主要探討漢語趨向補語「起來」在以下三種句型分布的語意及句法地位和結構：

(1)a.張三發起脾氣來大家都很害怕。
b.張三發起脾氣來很可怕。
(2)a.這本書讀起來很有趣。
b.這本書讀起來很容易。
(3)a.這棟房子看起來不便宜。
b.看起來，這棟房子不便宜。

文獻中，高et al. (1993)認為「起來」在例句裡都屬於附加語，而非主要謂語；宋(1994)以中動句(middle construction)來分析例句(2)和例句(3)，而「起來」則扮演中動語氣標記(middle voice marker)的角色；最後，張(1994)指出「起來」在以上的例句中為一種條件句(conditional construction)標記且將上面的例句都視為條件句。然而這些分析都未臻完善。歷時上，「起來」在語意上的演變是從空間中的位移(上升)延伸到時間上的位移(啟動)，因此「起來」無論是作為中動語氣標記或條件句標記在語意演變上都無法得到合理的解釋。而從句法語意上來看，「起來」除了作為趨向結果複合動詞(directional resultative verbal compound)外還有許多延伸的用法，如以上三例句，但其句法地位在過去的研究裡並不清楚。此外，中動句的特色之一是泛稱性(genericity)，然而例句(2)和(3)中並無此特性而是特指某個事件且帶有評價(evaluative)的語意而非假設語氣。
不同於過去的分析，我主張例句(1)和(2)分別為兩種不同的句型，一是條件句，一是非受格句(unaccusative construction)，而「起來」在這兩種句型中皆為一種強調事件起始點和事件過程的時體標記(viewpoint aspect marker)。在條件句中，作為時體標記用的「起來」引介事件的開端，並進一步修飾或限制主要子句的範域。因為兩個事件呈現因果關係，所以例句(1)可成為一種複句(biclausal)的條件句結構。值得注意的是，例句(1b)似乎不是複句的結構，這是因為主要子句中的主語和前面子句的論元同指涉而被刪略所造成的結果。另一方面，例句(2)中的域內論元出現在結構主語位置而域外論元不存在於結構裡，因此可視為非受格句。在非受格句中，我採用Ramchand(1997, 2001)和林(2001)的分析，將「起來」對應為一種標示事件過程(PROCESS)的輕動詞(light verb)。而句子中的形容詞則為次要謂語(secondary predicate)，其作用為修飾句子裡的論元或事件過程，如(2a)和(2b)，並進一步產生說話者對論元或事件過程進行評價、評估的語意。最後，例句(3)的「起來」已經和主要動詞產生詞彙化現象，轉而成為一種帶有評價意味的句首副詞(evaluative adverbial)，因此可以出現在主語之前。
以上的分析為「起來」提供一個一致性的闡釋，透過分析可以讓「起來」在這些句型中所扮演的句法角色更加一目瞭然也可以找出其延伸語意的來源為何。另外，對於中文的時體標記、條件句及非受格句的研究也提出更深入的分析。

This work discusses the distributions of the Chinese qi-lai construction in the following environment:

(1)a.Zhangsan fa-qi-piqi-lai, dajia dou hen haipa
Zhangsan show-QI-temper-LAI everyoneall very sacred
‘When Zhangsan loses his temper, everyone is scared.’
b.Zhangsan fa-qi-piqi-lai hen kepa
Zhangsan show-QI-temper-LAI very terrible
‘When Zhangsan loses his temper, he is very terrible.’
(2) zhe ben shu du-qi-lai hen rongyi/ hen youqu
this CL. bookread-QI-LAIvery easy very interesting
‘It is easy to read this book.’
‘This book is interesting to read.’
(3) (kan-qi-lai), zhe dong fangzi kan-qi-lai bu pianyi
look-QI-LAI thisCL. houselook-QI-LAI notcheap
‘It seems that this house is not cheap.’

Syntactically, the distribution of qi-lai is quite wide in addition to the directional RVC, and it is not very clear from earlier analyses what function of qi-lai in the structure is.
Contrary to the former proposals, I put forth that qi-lai in (1) and (2) should be assorted to the conditional and unaccusative constructions, respectively. Qi-lai itself is treated as a viewpoint aspect marker which emphasizes on the initial point and process of the event. In the conditional construction, the viewpoint aspect marker qi-lai introduces the initiation of the event. Due to the cause-effect relation, example (1) is biclausal in structure. The reason why (1b) has only one argument (and appears to be monoclausal) is that the subject in the main clause is deleted (subject to identity with subordinate clause). Therefore, (1b) is also biclausal. On the other hand, the internal argument occurs in the structural subject position in (2), resulting in the unaccusative construction. I adopt the accounts in Ramchand (1997, 2000) and Lin (2001) and regard qi-lai as a kind of light verb (taking the eventuality of PROCESS). The adjectival in the sentence takes the position of secondary predicate, modifying theme argument or event argument elucidated in the main predicate. This derives the effect of evaluation on the theme and process in this construction. Lastly, the qi-lai in (3) undergoes lexicalization with the main verb, emerging in an evaluative adverbial, and therefore appears prior to the subject.
The proposed analysis provides a unified account for the qi-lai in the various constructions. I also demonstrate that other meanings of qi-lai can be derived through present analysis. The observation may also shed light on the analyses of Chinese aspect marker, conditional, and unaccusative constructions.

Ackema, Peter. and Maaike, Schoorlemmer. 1995. Middle and Nonmovement. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 26, 173-197.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Martin Everaert. 2003. The unaccusativity puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, Mark and Lisa Travis. 1997. Mood as Verbal Definiteness in a “Tenseless” Language. Natural Language Semantics 5: 213-69.
Bowers, John. 1993. The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 24, 591-656.
Chang, Shen-Min. 1994. V-qi-lai constructions in Mandarin Chinese: A study of their semantics and syntax, National Tsing Hua University, M.A. Thesis.
Cheng, L.-S. Lisa and C.-T. James Huang. 1996. Two Types of Donkey Sentences. Natural Language Semantics 4: 121-163.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1985. Formal Semantics and the Grammar of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 417-443.
Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist Inquiry: the Framework. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. Ken Hale: a Life in Language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Funtional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Comrie, Bernad. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Embick, David. 2004. On the Structure of Resultative Participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 355-392.
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gao, Z.-M., C.-R. Huang and C.-C. Jane Tang. 1993. On the Syntactic Structure of Evaluative V-qilai Construction in Chinese. Appeared in the Proceedings of the First Pacific Asia Conference on Formal & Computational Linguistics (PACFoCoL 1), 107-121.
Haegeman, L. 2001. Non-overt categories: PRO and Control, in Introduction to Government and binding theory, Blackwell, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA, 251-286.
Haegeman, L. 2001.Transformations: NP-movement, in Introduction to Government and binding theory, Blackwell, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA, 293-360.
Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel J. Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relation. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 51-109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. MA:MIT Press.
Horntein, Norbert. 1990. As time goes by. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1988. Wo Pao De Kuai and Chinese Phrase Structure. Language, 64, 274-311.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1992. Complex Predicate in control. in R.K. Larson, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri and J. Higginbotham eds., Control and Grammar. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 109-147.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1999. Chinese Passives in Comparative Perspective. The Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese New Series Vol. 29 No. 4, 423-456.
Huang, C.-T. James and C.-C. Jane Tang. 1991. The Local Nature of the Long-Distance Reflexives in Chinese. In Long-Distance Anaphora, ed. by J. Koster and E. Reuland, 263-282. Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and Individual-level Predicates. The generic books, ed. by Gregory N. Carson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 125-175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth 1987. The Middle Construction and Ergativity. Lingua, 71(1-4), 17-31.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Li, Ya-fei. 1990. On V-V Compounds in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 177-207.
Liao, Wei-wen. 2004. The Architecture of Aspect and Duration. National Tsing Hua University, M.A. Thesis.
Lin, Tzong-hong Jonah. 2001. Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure. Irvine, CA: University of California dissertation.
Lu, John H.-T. 1977. Resultative Verb Compounds vs. Directional Verb Compounds in Mandarin. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 5: 276-313.
Palmer, Frank Robert. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: a Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ramchand, Gillian. 1997. Aspect and predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2001. Aspect, Aktionsart and L-syntax. Talk given at the conference on Perspectives of Aspect, Utrecht.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2003. First Phase Syntax. Oxford: University of Oxford, ms.
Rapoport, T. R. 1999. The English Middle and Agentivity. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 147-155.
Shen, Li. 2004. Aspect Agreement and Light Verbs in Chinese: a Comparison with Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13.141-179.
Smith, S. Carlota. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Stowell, Tim. 1991. The Alignment of Arguments in Adjective Phrases. Syntax and Semantics vol. 25 Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, ed. by Susan D. Rothstein, 105-135. Academic Press.
Sung, Kuo-Ming. 1994. Case assignment under incorporation. Doctoral dissertation,
University of California at Los Angeles.
Tenny, Carol. 2000. Core Events and Adverbial Modification. Events as Grammatical Objects, ed. by Carol Tenny and James Pustejovsky 285-334. Standford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 2001. On subject Specificity and Theory of Syntax-Semantics Interface. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10: 129-168.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 2004. Left Periphery and How-Why Alternations. Ms. National Tsing Hua University.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithca, NY: Cornell University Press.