This paper challenges the one prominent feature in Carrier and Randall’s (1992) account of English resultative constructions, i.e., a weakening of the θ-Criterion by allowing more than one theta role to be assigned to an argument position. The derivational framework they assumed does not allow the preservation of both their structural analyses, which are basically sound, and the strict one-to-one linking. Such relaxed linking is likewise essential in Li’s (1995) influential account of Chinese resultative compounds. However, this relaxation means a less constrained UG, and thus weakens its predictive power and increases the burden of language acquisition. I have demonstrated that such a relaxation is in fact unnecessary and the range of data on resultatives from both English and Chinese presented in the paper in fact support the strict one-to-one linking principle. The LFG analyses I put forth for English resultative constructions largely preserve Carrier and Randall’s insight;
furthermore, the simple analysis for Chinese resultative compounds hinges upon the notion of role suppression, a notion independently motivated by lexical processes such as passivization and detransitivization. The account for English also relies on the notion of functional control, again a notion independently motivated. Thus, the analyses I proposed only extend the generality of these existing notions and impose no extra burden on the grammar.
Within the tradition of the generative grammar, a more constrained theory is recognized as a better theory and a simpler analysis is a preferred analysis. The simplest one-to-one linking should be maintained meta-theoretically. The LFG analyses I have offered should thus be preferred on both theoretical and empirical grounds.
References
Ackerman, Farrell. 1992. Complex predicates and morpholexical relatedness:
Locative alternation in Hungarian. Lexical Matters, ed. by Ivan Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, 55-83. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Ackerman, Farrell and John Moore. 2001. Dowtyian proto-properties and Lexical Mapping Theory, paper presented at the 6th International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference, Hong Kong, June 2001.
Alsina, Alex. 1996a. The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Alsina, Alex. 1996b. Resultatives: A joint operation of semantic and syntactic
structures. On-line Proceedings of the First LFG Conference, ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King.
http://www-csli.stanford.edu/publications/LFG/lfg1.html.
Alsina, Alex and Sam Mchombo. 1993. Object asymmetries and the Chichewa applicative construction. Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, ed. by Sam Mchombo, 17-45. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Babby, Leonard. l989. Subjectlessness, external subcategorization, and the Projection Principle. Zbornik Matice srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku 32:7-40.
Bresnan, Joan. l994. Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar.
Language 70:72-l3l.
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Bresnan, Joan and Jonni Kanerva. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20:1-50.
Bresnan, Joan and Jonni Kanerva. l992. The thematic hierarchy and locative inversion in UG: A reply to Schachter's comments. Syntax and Semantics: Syntax and the Lexicon, 111-25. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bresnan, Joan and Lioba Moshi. l990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21.2:147-85.
Bresnan, Joan and Annie Zaenen. l990. Deep unaccusativity in LFG. Grammatical Relations: A Cross-theoretical Perspective, ed. by K. Dziwirek, P. Farrell and E.
Mejias, 45-57. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Carrier, Jill and Janet Randall. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23:173-233
Chomsky, Norm. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Norm. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Norm. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by R. Martin, D. Michaels and J Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chung, Karen Steffen. 2004. Mandarin Compound Verbs, PhD dissertation, Leiden University.
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67.3:547-619.
Emonds, Joseph. 1985. A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Foris, Dordrecht.
Falk, Yehuda. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Constraint-based Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Fontanals, Jaume Mateu. 2002. The DOR regained: Evidence from English and Dutch, paper presented at Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop 17, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland, August 9-10, 2002.
Francez, Nissim and Shuly Wintner. 2003. Unificatuion Grammars, MA thesis, Department of Computer Science, Israel Institute of Technology and Department of Computer Science, University of Haifa. (Available on-line at
http://www.folli.uva.nl/CD/2003/Introductory/Wintner/esslli03.pdf) Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Her, One-Soon. 1997. Interaction and Variation in the Chinese VO Construction.
Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Her, One-Soon. 2003. Chinese inversion constructions within a simplified LMT.
Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph, No. 19: Lexical-Functional Grammar Analysis of Chinese, ed. by B. Adams and K. Luke.
Her, One-Soon. 2004. Argument-function mismatches in Mandarin Chinese: A lexical mapping account, MA thesis, National Chengchi University.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74:101-39.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1998. Movement and chains. Syntax 1.2:99-127.
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. M! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Huang, James C.-T. 1982. Logical Structures in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.
Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Huang, Chu-ren and Fu-Wen Lin. 1992. Composite event structure and complex predicates: A template-based approach to argument selection. Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America, 90-108.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
Huang, Chu-ren. 1993. Mandarin Chinese and the Lexical Mapping Theory: A study of the interaction of morphology and argument changing. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 62.2:337-88.
Kaplan, Ronald and Joan Bresnan. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. The Mental Representation of
Grammatical Relations, ed. by Joan Bresnan, 173-281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Also reprinted in Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, ed. by Mary Dalrymple, Ronald M. Kaplan, John Maxwell, and Annie Zaenen, 1995, 29-130. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Kayne, Richard. 1985. Principles of participle constructions. Grammatical
Representation, ed. by J. Gueron, H.-G. Obenauer, and J.-Y. Pollock. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Building resultativess. Grammatical Representation, ed. by Claudia Maienborn and Angelika Wollstein-Leisten. Dordrecht: Foris.
Keenan, Edward and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8.1:63-99.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport. 1986. The formation of adjective passives.
Linguistic Inquiry 17:623-61.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Li, Yafei. 1990. On V-V compounds in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8:177-207.
Li, Yafei. 1995. The thematic hierarchy and causativity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theories 13:255-82.
Lin, Fu-wen. l990. Mandarin V-R Compounds. MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Lodrup, Helge. 2000. Underspecification in Lexical Mapping Theory: The case of Norwegian existentials and resultatives. Argument Realization, ed. by Mariam Butt and Tracy Holloway King, 55-83. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
McCloskey, James. 1999. On the distribution of subject properties in Irish, paper presented at the Workshop on Grammatical Functions, University of Illinois, July 1999.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rappaport, Tova R. 1986. Nonverbal predication in Hebrew. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 5. Stanford University.
Rappaport-Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77.4:766-97.
Sells, Peter. 1986. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, ed. by Lori Levin, Malka Rappaport, and Annie Zaenen, 143-57. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri Morpho-syntax: A Lexicalist Approach. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stuart, Shieber. 1986. A Introduction to Unification-based Approaches to Grammar.
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Verspoor, Cornelia Maria. 1997. Contextually-dependent lexical semantics, Ph. D dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Wechsler, Stephen. 1997. Resultative predicates and control. Texas Linguistic Forum 38: The Syntax and Semantics of Predication, ed. by R. Blight and M. Moosally, 307-21. Austin, TX: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas.
Wu, Ching-Huei Teresa. 2004. On de/bu and the syntactic nature of resultative verbal compounding, paper presented at 27th GLOW, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Greece, 18-21 April 2004.
Zaenen, Annie and Elizabeth Engdahl. 1994. Descriptive and theoretical syntax in the lexicon. Conceptual Approaches to the Lexicon, ed. by B. T. S. Atkins and A.
Zampolli, 181-212. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Zhang Niina. 2004. Move is Remerge. Language and Linguistics 5.1:189-208.
[Received 23 July 2004; revised 2 November 2004; accepted 19 November 2004]
Graduate Institute of Linguistics National Chengchi University Taipei, TAIWAN
hero@nccu.edu.tw
結果式中的論旨角色與句法功能連結
何萬順 國立政治大學
Carrier and Randall(1992)對英語結果句的分析與Li(1995)對漢語結 果複合詞的分析有一個顯著的共通點，就是對於論旨準則(θ-Criterion) 的從寬解釋，允許一個句法論元獲得一個以上的論旨角色。本文贊同以 上兩篇論文所提出的詞組結構及論旨結構分析，但堅決認為不應且無須 犧牲論旨角色與句法功能一對一的連結關係。本文所提出的分析以詞彙 功能語法(LFG)中的彙照映理論(LMT)為理論基礎，以功能結構為句法 訊息之核心，連結論旨結構與詞組結構。對漢語結果複合詞的分析利用 了論旨角色吸收(absorb)或隱藏(suppress)的概念，英語的分析則利用了 功能控管(control)的概念；兩者都是句法理論中既有、普遍且合理的概 念。
關鍵詞：論旨準則、結果句、吸收(absorb)、隱藏(suppress)、詞彙功能
語法、控管(control)