Syntactic Constraints on Compound Interpretations

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

(4) a. Zhangsan lei-si-le. (unaccusative) Zhangsan tired-dead-ASP

‘Zhangsan is really tired.’

b. zhe-ge gongzuo lei-si Zhangsan le. (causative) this-CL job tired-dead Zhangsan ASP

‘This job made Lisi really tired.’

This is what is termed unaccusative-causative alternation in Cheng and Huang (1994).

It is worth noticing that despite both being transitive, sentences (3b) and (4b) show one difference that the subject in (4b) actually causes the event of Zhangsan being tired while the subject in (3b) does not cause the event of Lisi crying.

2.1.2 Syntactic Constraints on Compound Interpretations

With the syntactic structures of Chinese resultative compounds sorted out, it is now time to see how the interpretations of the compounds are achieved in terms of their syntactic structures. Supported by the evidence from English, a constraint is proposed by Simpson (1983) to explain how resultative constructions are to be interpreted based on which predicate should be predicated on which argument:

(5) a. John hammered the metal flat.

b. *John hammered the metal tired. (under the resultative reading)

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Due to the ungrammaticality of (5b), Simpson proposes the Direct Objet Restriction (DOR), which states that the Result of resultative constructions should be predicated on the direct object of the sentence:

(6) The Direct Object Restriction (Simpson, 1983):

In a resultative construction, the result is predicated on an object, not the subject.

At first glance, the DOR seems right for resultative constructions. But what happens if Chinese resultative compounds are put into consideration? The interpretation of Zhangsan riding two horses and making the horses tired in (2b) is rendered by the

DOR. However, any native speaker of Chinese can tell that there are indeed more interpretations to it besides that glossed in (2b). For one, (2b) can mean Zhangsan rode two horses and got tired, where the Result of the resultative compound is predicated on the subject.

Another problem to the DOR is that the DOR implies that an object is required in resultative constructions since the result of the constructions has to be predicated on the object. English resultative constructions would be rendered ungrammatical without an object. Compare examples (7) and (8):

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

(7) a. *John laughed silly.

b. *Mary ran tired.

(8) a. John laughed himself silly.

b. Mary ran herself tired.

In order to avoid being filtered out by the DOR, the ‘fake’ reflexives have to be inserted for the predication of the result. Things are completely different in Chinese resultative constructions. The unergative and unaccusative nature of the predicates shows that intransitive use of resultative constructions, where the subject-predication of the result is the only option, is absolutely grammatical.

To solve the problems posed by the DOR, Rappaport Hovav and Levin (2001) propose two explanations. In situations where an object is missing, the resulative constructions are claimed to have a simplex underlying event structure, i.e. the

sub-events denoted by the predicates of the constructions are temporally and spatially coextensive and are treated as a simple event:

(9) A man gabbed and groped her…, but she kicked free and fled.

In (9), since the moment of her kicking is the moment of her being free, the resultative construction is taken to be a simple event that functions intransitively.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

The second explanation for the subject-predication of the Result in Chinese transitive resultative compounds are proposed by Rappaport Hovav and Levin (RHL) (2001) and dubbed by Cheng and Huang (1994) the Force Recipient Principle (FRP):

(10) The Force Recipient Principle (paraphrasing RHL 2001):

a. In a resultative construction, the Result is predicated on the argument bearing the role of Force Recipient of the relevant action or event, if such a recipient exists.

b. If no Force Recipient exists, the Result is predicated on the subject.

It seems to have successfully explained the transitivity and Result predication differences between English and Chinese. However, Cheng and Huang (1994) have discovered that the first explanation of English unergative predicates being analyzed as having a simplex event structure is insufficient to account for Chinese unergative resultative compounds for many of them are composed of predicates that do not denote temporally and spatially coextensive events. Take (2a), Zhangsan qi-lei-le (Zhangsan rode himself tired.), for example, it is generally conceived that the point of Zhangsan being tired only occurs some time after the point at which the action of

riding starts. Cheng and Huang (1994) see it more like an analogy of the use of English unaccusative predicates:

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

(11) The river froze solid. (unaccusative)

The point of the river being solid happens some time after the point the river starts to freeze. Therefore, Cheng and Huang (1994) hold the idea that Chinese unergative resultative compounds “may be alternatively analyzed as unaccusatives.”

As for the second explanation, the default of subject being the target of Result predication when Force Recipient is missing is called into question by Cheng and Huang (1994) since what makes the subject the target is left unclear. Cheng and Huang state that it is argument prominence that determines Result predication. In their account, the Result of resultative constructions should be predicated on the closest prominent argument. As a result, if the prominent argument, Force Recipient is not realized in the syntactic structure of the constructions, the subject becomes the most prominent on which the Result is predicated. Although it seems to have successfully explained the Result predication on Subject in example (11), the cases of Chinese resultative compounds, where the Result could be predicated on both Object and Subject and lead to semantic ambiguity, remain unsolvable under the explanation.