本篇文章探討國語、客語中涉及論元擴充的蒙受結構(affective construction)。蒙受結構包含國語「給」、客語「同t’ung」字句這類有標的「顯性蒙受結構」(Overt Affective Construction)，以及貌似雙賓結構、蒙受論元沒有特別的詞彙標記的「隱性蒙受結構」(Covert Affective construction)。

我們將以蒙受結構核心課題對比國語、客語的相關現象。蒙受結構之所以引人注目，在於這類句式都藉助施用結構(Applicative constructions)之力，拓展動詞的固有論元結構，核准擔任蒙受者的非典論元擠身論元結構已臻飽和的語句。國語顯性、隱性蒙受結構，以TP, vP, VP為界，分作於四大類施用結構─外高階、內高階、中階，以及低階。外高階、內高階施用以顯性的「給」作為中心語，構成有標的、顯性蒙受結構；隱性蒙受結構則隸屬中低階施用(Tsai 2007)。我們發現客語蒙受結構也有顯性、隱性兩類句式，然而其句式形態與施用詞組的高低層次並未如國語這般絕對對應。客語顯性蒙受「同t’ung」字句具有雙重身份─高階、中階施用，使得客語中階施用不僅有隱性、無標的類型，也有顯性的句式。不過，客語裡不見典型的低階施用結構，蒙受結構以高階施用「同t’ung」字句，以及兩類中階施用─隱性蒙受結構、中階「同t’ung」字句為主，涵蓋高階、中階兩層次。

整體而言，客語有相近於國語之處，同時也展現方言特色。就最終句式來說，客語與國語一般都具備顯性、隱性兩種類型；另一方面從施用結構的階層而論，客語蒙受結構以高階、中階施用為主，則顯露了方言獨特之處。

This work focuses on the affective construction in Mandarin Chinese and Hakka. The affective construction has two types, either in the overt form marking the Affectee by Mandarin gei ‘give’ or Hakka t’ung ‘with ’ ,or in the covert form in which the Affectee does not have any marker.

The affective construction is a sort of argument augmentation. The predicate of the affective construction with all its arguments saturated still can take the extra argument—the Affectee once it is licensed by the head of applicatives. Tsai (2007) proposes that there are four types of affective constructions in Mandarin—very high applicative, high applicative, middle applicative and low applicative. The overt construction introducing the Affectee be gei belongs to the higher groups, while the covert types represent the middle and low groups. Followed Tsai (2007), we propose that the very high and high Applicatives in Hakka are expressed by the t’ung constructions. By contrast, Hakka middle applicative has two types of construals: the fist type does without any marker which is headed by implicit applicative head; the other type is marked affective construction which is headed by t’ung. Thus, t’ung has double statuses: it can serve as a high applicative head, and a middle applicative head.

The Hakka Affectives stands in the borderland between Mandarin and Chinese dialects. Like Mandarin, the unmarked middle types and the high applicative type also can be observed in Hakka. Like Chinese dialect such as Southern Min, Hakka has marked middle Applicatives but lacks a typical low applicative construction.

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives.
Berlin: Mouton/deGruyte
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.1997 Thematic Roles and Syntactic
Structure. In L. Haegeman,ed., Elements of Grammar.
Handbook of Generative Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 73-137
Burzio, Luigi. 1986 Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Bowers, J. and E. Georgala. 2005. The Syntax of Goals and
Beneficiaries in Standard Modern Greek.Proceedings of the
Workshop on the Morpho-Syntax of Modern Greek.
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations, in: S.R.
Anderson & P. Kiparsky, Afestschrift for Morris Halle,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding.
Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts/London.
Dixon. R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55 :59-138
Feng, Shengli. 2000. Hanyu Yunlü Jufa Xue [Prosodic syntax
in Chinese]. Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press.
Feng, Shengli. 2003. Prosodically constrained postverbal
PPs in Mandarin Chinese Linguistics 41:1085-1122.
Hale, Ken and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a
Theory of Argument Structure.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harley, H. 2002. Possession and the Double Object
Construction. in P. Pica and J Pooryck, eds., Linguistic
Variation Yearbook 2,John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 31-70
Her, One-Soon, 2006. Justifying part-of-speech assignments
for Mandarin gei. Lingua 116: 1274-1302
Hole, Daniel. 2004b. Extra argumentality – A binding
account of “possessor raising” in German, English and
Mandarin'. In: Ji-Yung Kim, Yury A. Lander & Barbara H.
Partee (Hgg.). Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and
Syntax. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, 365-383
Huang, C.-T. James. 1987. Existential sentences in Chinese
and (in)definiteness. The representation of (in)
definiteness, ed. by Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen,
226-253. Cambridge: 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 predicates in control. In
Richard Larson, Utpal Lahiri,Sabine Iatridou, and James
Higginbotham (eds.), Control and Grammar, 109-147.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1994. “Verb Movement and Some Syntax-
Semantics Mismatches in Chinese,” Chinese Languages and
Linguistics 2, 587-613.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1999. Chinese Passive in Comparative
Perspective. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 29(1):
423-459.
Huang, C., Ahrens, K., 1999. The function and category of
gei on Mandarin ditransitive constructions. Journal
of Chinese Linguistics 27(2),1-26
Huang, Han-Chun. 2005. Causation Types and the Path to
Passives: A Case Study of Hakka Pun. NCL2005
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in
generative grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press
Jackendoff, R. S. 1990a On Larson’s Treatment of Double
Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry21: 427-56
Keenan, Edward L. 1985 Passive in the World’s language.
Language Typology and Syntactic Description, ed. By
Timothy Shopen. Cambridge University Press.
Larson, R. K. 1988. On the Double Object Construction,
Linguistic Inquiry19: 335-391
Larson, R. K.1990. Double object Revised: Reply to
Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589-632
Lai, Huei-ling. 2001. On Hakka BUN: A Case of
Polygrammaticalization. Language and Linguistics 2.2:137-
153
Lai, Huei-ling. 2003. The Semantics Extension of Hakka LAU.
Language and Linguistics 4.3:533-561
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. (1981) Mandarin
Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley; Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Lien, Chin-fa. 2002. Grammatical function words 乞, 度, 共,
甲, 將and 力in Li4 Jing4 Ji4 荔鏡記 and their
development in Southern Min,” in Dah-an Ho (ed.) Papers
from the Third International Conference on Sinology:
Linguistic Section. Dialect Variations in Chinese, 179-
216.Institute of Linguistics, Preparatory Office. Academia
Sinica, Taipei,Taiwan.
Marantz, A. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double
object constructions. In S. Mchombo,ed., Theoretical
aspects of Bantu grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications
Miyagawa, S. & T. Tsujioka. 2004. ‘Argument Structure and
Ditransitive Verbs in Japanese’. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 13, 1–38.
Matsuoka ,Mikinari. 2003.‘Two types of dative
constructions in Japanese’ Journal of East Asian
Linguistics12, 171–203.
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the
unaccusative hypothesis,Proceedings of BLS 4: 157-189.
Pesetsky, David. 1995 Zero Syntax: Experiencers and
Cascades. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Pylkkänen, L., 2000. What Applicative Heads Apply To.
Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics
Colloquium. U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume
6.4.
Pylkkänen, L., 2002. Introducing Arguments. PhD
Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Rackowski, Andrea. 2002. The Structure of Tagalog. PhD
Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA
Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. 1990. Chinese Phrases structure and
the Extended X’ theory. PhD dissertation, Cornell
University.
Tang, Sze-Wing. 2002. A Parametric Theory of the Double
Object Construction in Chinese. IACL-11
Tenny, Carol L. & Pustejovsky, James 1999. Events as
grammatical objects. Stanford, Calif. :CSLI Publications,
Center for the Study of Language and Information,
Tsai, Wei-Tian Dylan. 1999. The Hows of Why and The Whys of
How. In Francesca Del Gobbo and Hidehito Hoshi(eds.), UCI
Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 155-184.
Tsai, Wei-Tian Dylan. 2006. Lectures on the Syntax &
Semantic of How and Why. Nanzan Consortium.
Tsai,W.ei-Tian Dylan. 2007. Four Types of Affective
Constructions in Chinese. Paper presented in FOSS-5,
National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan, April 2007.
Yang, Barry Chung-Yu. 2006. Syntactic Structure of Ka-
construction in Taiwanese Southern Min. USTWPL 2: 141-
171.
貝羅貝.1986. 〈雙賓語結構從漢代至唐代的歷史發展〉，《中國
語文》3期: 204-216
馮勝利.2004. 〈輕動詞移位與古今漢語的動賓關係，《語言科學》
第四卷第一期，3-16頁。
李英哲、鄭良偉、賀上賢、侯炎堯.1990. 《實用漢語參考語法》。
北京語言學院出版社。
李宇明、陳前瑞. 2005.〈北京話「給」自被動句的地位及其歷史發
展〉，《方言》第4期，289─297頁
劉丹青.2001. 〈漢語給予類雙及物結構類型學考察〉，《中國語
文》，第五期，387-397頁
劉堅/蔣紹愚《近代漢語語法資料彙編》
羅肇錦.1984. 《客語語法》‚ 台北: 學生書局。
林英津.1990. 〈論客語方言之“pun” 與 “lau” (“thung”
同）〉，《Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale》，第十九
期，第一卷，61-89。
陸儉明. 2002.〈再談”吃了他三個蘋果”一類結構的性質〉，《中國語文》，第4期，317-325頁
顧陽. 1999.〈雙賓語結構〉，《共性與個性：漢語語言學中的爭
議》，北京語言大學出版社。
何石松, 劉醇鑫編著.2004.《現代客語詞彙彙編》，臺北市政府客
家事務委員會
江敏華. 2006. 〈東勢客家話 “同” 與 “分”的語法特徵及
二者之間的關係〉. Language and Linguistics 7.2: 339-364
蔣紹愚. 2002. 〈“給”字句、“教”字句表被動的來源─兼談語
法化、類推和功能擴展〉, 《語言學論叢》第二十六輯，(北京)商
務印書館
徐丹. 1992. 〈北京話中的語法標記“給”〉，《方言》第1期
徐兆泉編著.2001. 《台灣客家話辭典》， 南天書局
志村良治(江藍生、白維國譯) 1995 《中國中世語法史研究》,(北
京)中華書局
張伯江. 1999.〈現在和宇的雙及物結構式〉，《中國語文》，
第3期。
張寧. 1998. 〈漢語雙賓語據結構分析〉，《面臨新世紀挑戰的現
代和與語法研究》，山東教育出版社
張麗麗. 2006. 〈漢語使役表被動的語意發展〉. Language and
Linguistics 7: 139-174
張國憲. 2001. 〈制約奪事成分句位實現的語意因素〉，《中國語
文》，第6 期
張誼生. 2000. 《現代漢語虛詞》，(上海)華東師範大學
張誼生. 2000 〈現代漢語副詞的性質、範圍與分類〉，《語言研
究》，39:51-63。
張誼生. 2004. 《現代漢語副詞探索》，上海學林
張維耿主編. 1995. 《客家話辭典》, 韶關: 廣東人出版社。
詹開弟. 1981. 〈有字句〉，《中國語文》第一期
鄭縈. 2004. 〈漢語「有」的語法化〉，《漢語學報》163-202
周遲明. 1964 〈漢語雙賓語句的語法現象與歷史發展〉，《山東
大學學報》1: 62-84, 2:80-101
朱德熙. 1979. 〈與動詞“給”相關的句法問題〉，《方言》第2期
朱德熙. 1982. 《語法講義》，北京：商務印書館
石毓智. 2004. 〈兼表被動和處置的“給”的語法話〉，《世界漢
語教學》第3期
沈家煊. 1999. 〈“在”字句與“給”字句〉，《中國語文》第2期
沈陽. 2003. 〈漢語”雙賓結構”分析的不同理論和方法〉，初
稿， 北京大學
陳麗雪. 2004. 〈閩南語雙賓式共時與歷時研究〉，國立政治大學
中文所博士論文
曹逢甫. 2003. 〈台灣閩南語的ka 字句〉，《漢語方言語法研究
和探索》，114-136 頁，戴昭銘主編，黑龍江人民出版社
蔡維天. 2000. 〈為什麼問怎麼樣，怎麼樣問為什麼〉, 《漢學研
究》，第18卷第一期，209-235頁
蔡維天. 2002. 〈自己、自性與自然─談漢語中的反身狀語〉, 中
國語文289: 357-362
蔡維天. 2004. 〈談「有人」、「有的人」和「有些人」〉，《漢
語學報》
蔡維天. 2005 〈談漢語蒙受結構〉，高雄師範大學演講講稿
蔡維天. 2006 〈談漢語蒙受結構〉，社科院演講講稿
王力 . 2004 《漢語史稿》，第2版(重排本)，北京市/中華書局
楊政男 1998. 《客語字音詞典》， 臺灣書店
吳福祥. 2004. 《敦煌變文12種語法研究》，河南大學出版社
吳福祥. 2004. 《朱子語類輯略語法研究》，開封市/河南大學