本文對漢語裡的時量詞組和動貌的結構有諸多探討。林(2003)指出，漢語的時量詞組可以有兩種詮釋，一種是測量過程(P-related)，一種是測量結果(RS-related)。但是這種觀點留下了一些問題。語意上來說，有兩個問題，第一個是關於終結點(telicity)的問題，例如例句(1)和(2)，漢語和英語在時量詞句作用在有終結點的句子中的表現不同 (Verkuyl 1993、Krifka 1998、Kratzer 2003)。漢語裡的時量詞組看起來違反了終結點的限制，允許時量詞組出現，除非是有完成性的標記(例如‘完’)出現:
(1) a. ??John built a house for three days. b. John built a house in three days.
(2) a. 張三蓋了一棟房子三天。 b. *張三蓋完一棟房子三天。
第二是關於結果狀態的議題，根據Piñón(1999)的看法，測量結果的時量詞組可以出現除非句子有明顯的相對應的結果狀態，例如(3)。然而，漢語似乎又違反了這個原則，例如(4):
(3) a. John opened the window for three hours. (RS-related)
(4) a. 張三打開窗戶很久。　(RS) b. John built the house for three hours. (*RS-related)
b. 張三蓋了房子很久了　(RS?)
從觀察得知，‘了’的出現與否跟時量詞組的詮釋有關，動詞-了的出現可以將終結點取消；而句尾-了的出現則是可以創造出比較自由的結果狀態。要解釋這些現象，就要先了解中文的 ‘了’ 的句法與語意性質。根據劉(1988)的分析，動詞-了表示「實現貌」(也就是強調動作的起始點，而不是終結點)，因此，測量過程的時量詞組是由動詞-了所許可的。另一方面，句尾-了的出現則是提供一個時間的參考點，因此它提供了能夠測量事件結束後的時間。我們得到的結論是漢語的時量詞組的解釋必須分為三類談，一個是測量過程，一個是測量結果，還有一個是測量到參考點的時間。這個分類於是解決了關於結果狀態的爭議，同時，也解釋了關於終結點的爭議，在漢語裡動詞-了表示事件的起始點，而非終結點，所以時間不一定是結束的(跟英語相反)，而事件的終結點在句子裡是推測(implicature)來的，這個終結點是可以被取消的。
句法上來說，我把這三種時量詞組的當作是附加語，並且他們分別被三個不同動貌的句法位置所許可，這個觀點應證了Tenny(2000)對動貌結構的看法。測量結果狀態的時量詞組是由最底部的根動詞(root verb)許可的，測量過程的時量詞組，是由中間的動詞-了所許可的，而與參考點有關的時量詞組，則是由最高的句尾-了許可的。因此，這裡所提供的分析提供了一個從語意到句法的對應關係，對於漢語的動貌結構可以有更清楚的了解。

This work makes several inquiries about Chinese durative phrases and the structure of aspect. Lin (2003) makes a distinction between process-related (P-related) and result state-related (RS-related) interpretations of Chinese duratives. Several questions remain, however. Semantically, there are two questions. First, it is well-known that English telic expressions are marginally compatible with the durative adverbs, as in (1a), but they can be modified by terminative adverbs, as in (1b) (cf. Verkuyl 1993, Krifka 1998, and Kratzer 2003). On the other hand, Chinese durative phrases seem to trespass this telicity constraint, unless a completive marker is present. See (2). This is the issue of telicity:
(1) a. ??John built a house for three days.
(2) a. Zhangsan gai-le fangzi san-tian.
ZS build-LE house three-day
‘ZS built the house for three days.’ b. John built a house in three days.
b. *Zhangsan gai-wan fanzi san-tian.
ZS build-finish house three-day

Second, According to Piñón (1999), the result state (RS-related) durative phrases can only occur with the event which denotes an explicit result state. See (3). However, Chinese durative phrases seem more unrestricted with respect to the result state. See (4). This is the issue of resultativity:
(3) a. John opened the window for three hours. (RS-related)
(4) a. ZS dakai chuanghu henjiu.
‘ZS opened the window for long.’ (RS) b. John built the house for three hours. (*RS-related)
b. ZS gai-le fangzi san-tian le.
‘ZS built the house for three days.’ (RS?)
Under close scrutiny, the presence of le’s (verb-le and sentence-le) is likely to introduce different interpretations. The ‘atelicity’ is allowed by the verb-le, while the relatively free result state by sentence-le. How should this be? I suggest that the answer lies in the nature of the two le’s. Following Liu (1988), the verb-le actually denotes a ‘realization’ aspect, which marks the SI (initial point of a situation). Therefore, the P-related interpretation is ensured by the presence of the verb¬-le. On the other hand, the sentence-le provides a reference time (R) in the Reichanbachian framework. Therefore, it provides an R for the measurement of the duration. Therefore, I argue that a fine-grained categorization should include the P-relate, the RS-related, and the RT-related. This solves the issue of resultativity since the post-event states are classified into two independent categories. In terms of Klein’s theory, the P-related modify the only phase in 1-phase lexical content (or the source phase 2-phase content), the RS-related modify the target state in the sense of Parson (1990), and the RT-related modify the resultant state, or the former two states with respect to a reference point. This analysis also solves the telicity problem. By virtue of the realization aspect denoted by the verb-le, the event is not necessarily a closed one; the SF (final point) appears only by implicature, which is cancelable in nature. Therefore, it is the time span from the initial to an arbitrary final point that is estimated in the P-related in Chinese. The same condition holds in English when an arbitrary final point is provided in context.
Syntacitcally, the three interpretations of the duratives are treated as adjuncts licensed, respectively, by the three levels of the aspectual projections, as proposed by Tenny (2000). Therefore, the RS-related are licensed by the root verb (lower aspect), the P-related by verb-le (middle aspect), and the RT-related by the sentence-le (higher aspect). Conclusively, the model suggests an isomorphic mapping between semantics to syntax.

Bach, Emmon. 1986. Natural Language Metaphysics. Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science VII, ed. by R. Barcan-Marcus, G. J. W. Dorn, and P. Weingartner, 573-95. Amsterdam: North Holland Press.
Baker, Mark, and Lisa Travis. 1997. Mood as Verbal Definiteness in a “Tenseless” Language. Natural Language Semantics 5.213-69.
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and Verb: a guide to tense and aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bowers, John. 1993. The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24.591-656.
Bowers, John. 2002. Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33.183-224.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. 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.
Chung, Sandra, and Alan Timberlake. 1985. Tense, Aspect, and Mood. Language Typology and Syntactic Description Vol.III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, ed. by S. timothy, 202-258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Funtional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collins, Christ. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ernst, Thomas. 1987. Duration Adverbials and Chinese Phrase Structure. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association 22.1-11.
Filip, Hana. 2000. The Quantization Puzzle. Events as Grammatical Objects, ed. by C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky, 39-96. Standford, California: CSLI Publications.
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. 1997. On the Complex Nature of Simple Predicators. Complex Predicates, ed. by Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells 29-66. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegonmenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hay, Jennifer, Christopher Kennedy, and Beth Levin. (1999). Scalar Structure Underlied Telicity in “Degree Achievements.” Proceedings of SALT IX, ed. by T. Mathews and D. Strolovitch, 127-144. Ithaca: CLC Publications.
Higginbotham, James. 1994. Sense and Syntax. Inaugural lecture, University of Oxford. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As Time Goes by. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1994. More on Chinese Word order and Parametric Theory. Syntactic Theory and First Language Acquisition: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, Volume 1, Heads, Projections, and Learnability, ed. by Babara Lust, Margarita Suner, and John Whitman, 15-35. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kang, Jian. 1999. The Composition of the Perfective Aspect in Mandarin Chinese. Boston, MA: Boston Univertiry dissertation.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. New York: Routledge.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1995. A Time-relational Analysis of Russian Aspect. Language 71.669-95.
Klein,Wolfgang, Li Ping, and Henriette Hendriks. 2000. Aspect and Assertion in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18.723-70.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building Statives. Paper presented in the Berkeley Linguistic Society 26.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2002. Telicity and the Meaning of Objective Case. Amherst, University of Massachusetts, ms.
Krifka, Manfred. 1988. The Origin of Telicity. Event and Grammar, ed. by S. Rothstein 197-235. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the Double-object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19.335-91.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1991. Wiping the Slate Clean: a Lexical Semantic Exploration. Cognition 41.123-51.
Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1985. Abstract Case in Chinese. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California Dissertation.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1987. Durational Phrases: distribution and interpretations. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association 22.27-66.
Lin, Jo-wang. 2000. On the Temporal Meaning of the Verbal –le in Chinese. Language and Linguisitics 1.109-33.
Lin, Jo-wang. 2003a. Event Decomposition and the Syntax and Semantics of Durative Phrases in Chinese. Paper presented in the 2nd conference on formal syntax and semantics. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

Lin, Jo-wang. 2003b. Temporal Reference in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12.259-311.
Lin, Tzong-hong Jonah. 2001. Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure. Irvine, CA: University of California dissertation.
Lin, Tzong-hong Jonah and Wei-wen Liao. 2003. Eliminating Right Adjunction: Evidence from the Clauses of Result in Chinese. Paper presented in the 2nd conference on formal syntax and semantics. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Liu, Xun-ning. 1988. Xiandai Hanyu Ciwei ‘le’ de Yufa Yiyi. [The grammar of suffix ‘-le’ in Modern Chinese.] Zhongguo Yuwen 5.321-30.
Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester. 1988. Light Verbs and (theta)-Marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19.205-32.
Moltmann, Friederike. 1991. Measure Adverbials. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 629-60.
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: a Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Piñón, Christopher. 1999. Duration Adverbials for Result States. WCCFL 18 Proceedings, ed. by S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. Haugen, P. Norquest, 420-433. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.
Ramchand, Gillian. 2003. First Phase Syntax. Oxford: University of Oxford, ms.
Reichanbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shen, Li. 2004. Aspect Agreement and Light Verbs in Chinese: a Comparison with Japenese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13.141-179.
Smith, S. Carlota. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Sybesma, Rint. 1997. Why Chinese –le1 is a resultative predicate. Journal of East Asian Linaguistics 6.215-261
Sybesma, Rint. 1999. The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht, Netherland: Kluwer.
Tai, H. Y. James. 1984. Verbs and Time in Chinese: Vendler’s Four Categories. Papers from the Parasession on Lexical Semantics, 289-296. Chicago Linguistics Society.
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Froms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, ed. by T. Shopen 57-149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tang, Chih-chen Jane. 1990. Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X-bar Theory. Ithca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.
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. 1994. On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependency. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Verkuyl, J. Henk. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. FLSS, Vol. 15. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Verkuyl, J. Henk. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality: the interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verkuyl, J. Henk. 1999. Aspectual Issues. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zhang, Nina. 2000. The Reference Time of Tense and the Chinese Sentence Final LE. www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/ealc/chinling/articles/tense.htm, ms.