行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告
漢語動結結構的詞彙映照分析
研究成果報告(精簡版)
計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型 計 畫 編 號 ： NSC 96-2411-H-004-037- 執 行 期 間 ： 96 年 08 月 01 日至 98 年 09 月 30 日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立政治大學語言學研究所 計 畫 主 持 人 ： 何萬順 計畫參與人員： 此計畫無其他參與人員 報 告 附 件 ： 出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文 處 理 方 式 ： 本計畫涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，1 年後可公開查詢中 華 民 國 98 年 12 月 30 日
行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫
▇ 成 果 報 告
□期中進度報告
漢語動結結構的詞彙映照分析
計畫類別：▇ 個別型計畫 □ 整合型計畫
計畫編號：
NSC 95-2411-H-004-027
執行期間：
96 年 08 月 01 日至 98 年 10 月 30 日
計畫主持人：
何萬順
共同主持人：
計畫參與人員：
成果報告類型(依經費核定清單規定繳交)：▇精簡報告 □完整報告
本成果報告包括以下應繳交之附件：
▇赴國外出差或研習心得報告一份
□赴大陸地區出差或研習心得報告一份
□出席國際學術會議心得報告及發表之論文各一份
□國際合作研究計畫國外研究報告書一份
處理方式：得立即公開查詢
執行單位：
國立政治大學語言學研究所
中 華 民 國 98 年 12 月 31 日
A
U
NIFIEDA
CCOUNT OFM
ANDARINVR
C
ONSTRUCTIONS:
A
L
EXICALM
APPINGA
PPROACHIn this concise report, we will outline the essence of the unified, comprehensive account of Mandarin resultataive compounds. The account consists of three parts: causativeity assignment, headness, and argumentation. Though ultimately formulated in the theoretical framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar, the account is independently motivated and assumes the function-argument biuniqueness, or more commonly known as the Theta-Criterion in the mainstream derivational theory, between semantic argument roles such as agent and theme and syntactic argument functions such as subject and object.
1. T
HEL
INKINGP
ROBLEMDespite the view of autonomous syntax which characterizes syntactic theories within the tradition of generative grammar (Newmeyer 1991), various mechanisms and principles have been proposed by generative grammarians to account for the general correspondences between semantic roles and syntactic arguments, for example agents to subjects and patients to objects.1 Such correspondences are known as ‘linking’, ‘mapping’, and also ‘argument realization’. Unsatisfied with the earlier rule-based stipulations2, more principled constraints were proposed to account for the linking between lexical semantics and syntax. Among such universal constraints, the following three stand out and have had the greatest influences: Chomsky’s (1981) θ-criterion, Perlmutter and Postal’s (1984) Universal Alignment Hypothesis (UAH), and Baker’s (1988) Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH).
(1) θ-Criterion (Chomsky 1981: 36)
Each argument bears one and only one θ-role, and each θ-role is assigned to one and only one argument.
(2) Universal Alignment Hypothesis (UAH) (Perlmutter and Postal 1984: 97) There exist principles of UG which predict the initial relation borne by each nominal in a given clause from the meaning of the clause.
(3) Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (Baker 1988: 46)
Identical thematic relationships between items are represented by identical structural relationships between those items at the level of D-structure.
The θ-Criterion, originally proposed within the Government and Binding framework, states
that the mapping between theta roles and syntactic arguments is strictly one-to-one, bidirectionally. The UAH, first formulated in the framework of Relational Grammar (RG), predicts that the connection between lexical semantics and the initial syntactic representation is constant and constrained by general principles (but leaves these principles unspecified) and thus implies that semantic roles represent equivalence classes of predicate arguments which the mapping process refers to. The UTAH maintains that the mapping between theta roles and structural relationships is consistent in that syntactic arguments fulfilling a particular role of a given predicate must all be generated in the same initial underlying syntactic position.
All three hypotheses function as constraints over the syntax-semantics interface and assume a fundamental connection between the event structure and some level of syntactic representation. However, their applicability on linking depends on the particular syntactic framework one
1 This may or may not apply to all languages, esp. ergative languages, which is an issue of great debate but will not
be discussed here.
2 In LFG, for example Bresnan (1982a), prior to the lexical mapping theory, linking of thematic roles to grammatical
assumes. Within the mainstream structuralist tradition, this linking relationship holds between a theta role and the initial pre-movement argument position in the structural configuration of a constituent structure.3 Within this framework, grammatical functions such as subject and object are secondary notions defined purely in structural terms. However, within alternative frameworks which recognize grammatical relations, also known as grammatical functions, as primary notions, linking holds between the theta structure and the relational structure of syntactic functions. RG and LFG, or Lexical-Functional Grammar, are two prime examples.
UTAH is thus only relevant to a structure-based, transformational framework, not function-based frameworks like RG and LFG. The UAH, though function-based, also presumes a transformational multistratal framework; as such, it does not apply to LFG, a monostratal non-transformational framework. The θ-Criterion, however, applies universally, as it simply states that theta roles must map to syntactic arguments and such linking, besides being mandatory, must also be monogamous.
However, none of the hypotheses mentioned thus far accounts for the central mechanism by which the theta structure and the syntactic structure are linked; for example, specifically how agents are assigned to the syntactic subject and patients to object in typical transitive verbs. One of the most significant hypotheses put forward to avoid the traditional stipulations on linking individual semantic roles4 is the notion of thematic hierarchy (TH), which maintains that
semantic roles are ranked hierarchically and universally according to prominence and that more prominent roles are mapped to more prominent syntactic arguments, and vice versa. This consequence of the TH with regard to argument realization is formally stated in Larson (1988) as the Relativized UTAH.
(4) Relativized UTAH (Larson 1988: 382)
If a verb α determines theta roles θ1, θ2,…, θn, then the lowest role on the
Thematic Hierarchy is assigned to the lowest argument in constituent structure, the next lowest role to the next lowest argument, and so on.
The TH can thus be viewed as a concrete example of the kind of universal principle that the UAH refers to, and one that supplements the UTAH. In the derivational framework, the syntactic prominence that aligns with the semantic prominence in the TH is defined by a command relation. Between two syntactic argument positions, the one c-commanding the other is more prominent. Thus, given that agent outranks theme/patient in prominence and that the subject position c-commands, and thus outranks, the object position in a clause, the linking of agent to subject and patient to object is obtained. However, within non-derivational frameworks such as RG and LFG the prominence of syntactic arguments is not determined structurally; rather, a syntactic prominence scale is considered among syntactic relations such as subject and object, which are deemed primary notions independent of constituent structures. While the subject is universally viewed as the most prominent grammatical function, there is a lack of agreement as to the precise prominence scale across the relation-based frameworks. Likewise, attractive the notion of TH may be, there is surprisingly little agreement as to the precise inventory of such roles or the exact ranking of such roles, except that agent is the most prominent (Newmeyer 2002: 65)5.
3 In the Government and Binding framework it is the D(eep)-structure, and in the Minimalist framework, it is where
the item initially merges with its head.
4 An example of such stipulations is found in Fillmore (1968: 33), where it is stated that if an Agent is present, it is
the subject; otherwise, if an Instrument is present, it is the subject; otherwise, the Objective (= Theme or Patient) is the subject.
5 Newmeyer (2002) is in fact critical of the TH and even doubts its very existence; however, see Levin (2005) for
1. T
HEORETICALF
RAMEWORKIn this section, we introduce LFG’s linking module, the lexical mapping theory. As a non-derivational generative framework, LFG takes seriously the insight that some generalizations regarding the mapping between the predicate argument structure and the syntactic structure must be stated at an independent level of predicate valence (Levin 1987, Rosen 1989, Bresnan and Kanerva 1989, Bresnan and Zaenen 1990, Grimshaw 1990, Jackendoff 1990, Alsina 1993, 1996, Mohanan 1994, Neeleman 1994, Butt 1995, Butt and King 2000, among others), and thus poses an argument structure (a-structure), which links the lexical semantic structure and the syntactic structure of a predicator (e.g., Bresnan and Kanerva 1989, Bresnan and Zaenen 1990). The particular conception of the a-structure assumed here is based on Baker (1983) and Bresnan (1996, 2001).
(5) Lexical semantics (e.g., beat <beater beatee>) ↓
a-structure (e.g., beat <agent theme>) ↓
syntactic structure (e.g., beat <(↑SUBJ) (↑OBJ)>)
Furthermore, to capture the RG concept of grammatical relations, LFG posits two parallel planes of syntactic representation: constituent structure (c-structure) and functional structure (f-structure) (Kaplan and Bresnan 1982). The c-structure encodes the categorical hierarchies, usually represented as tree configurations. The f-structure, formally a feature structure, is the central locus of grammatical information, such as grammatical functions (e.g., SUBJ and OBJ), tense, aspect, polarity, case, person, number, gender, etc. These parallel structures are linked by correspondence principles and together provide the complete syntactic description. The lexical mapping theory (LMT) is the UG component that constrains the linking between a-structure roles and f-structure functions.
LMT also assumes a universal hierarchical organization of a-structure arguments, thus a thematic hierarchy, as shown in (58) (Bresnan and Kanerva 1989, l992), which might also be derived from Dowtyan proto-role properties (Dowty 1991, Bresnan 2001: 321fn). And, by convention, roles in the a-structure are listed in a descending order accordingly, for example <ag
th>. The most prominent role in the a-structure, or the logical subject, is known as Ô, pronounced
‘theta-hat’.
(6) Thematic Hierarchy:
ag > ben > go/exp > inst > pt/th > loc
Grammatical functions (GFs) that are subcategorized for, also known as argument functions (AFs), including SUBJ, OBJ, OBLθ (oblique functions), and OBJθ, (secondary objects),
are likewise ranked for syntactic prominence. This syntactic hierarchy is formally due to a classification of AFs with two binary features: [+r] (whether an AF is restricted to having a thematic role) and [+o] (whether an AF is objective, and thus a complement of a transitive predicate). SUBJ has minus, and thus unmarked, values on both and OBJθ has plus values. SUBJ
is thus the least marked with two minus values, while OBJθ is at the opposite end of the scale.
OBJ and OBLθ are equal in prominence.
(7) Markedness Hierarchy of Argument Functions:
SUBJ(-r –o) > OBJ(-r +o)/OBLθ(+r –o) > OBJθ(+r +o)
Recall that in the derivational framework a theta role of a predicate is consistently assigned to an argument’s initial syntactic position, i.e., before any movement takes place, as
stated in UTAH. However, LFG maintains the spirit of UTAH by posing a universal scheme of morphosyntactic classification of a-structure roles, as in (8) and (9) (Bresnan and Kanerva 1989) and a unified mapping principle (UMP), as in (10) (Her 1999, 2003, 2007, to appear).
(8) Intrinsic Morphosyntactic Classification of Argument Roles (IC): θ,iff θ = pt/th
[-r]
(9) Default Morphosyntactic Classification of Argument Roles (DC):
θ, iff θ ≠ Ô
[+r]
(10) Unified Mapping Principle (UMP):
Map each role to the highest compatible* AF available+. *An AF is compatible iff it contains no conflicting features. + An AF is available iff it is not fully specified by a role and not
linked to a higher role.
The generalization in (8) can be viewed as an implementation of the unaccusative hypothesis, initially proposed by Perlmutter (1978), that cross-linguistically pt/th is encoded as an unrestricted function, i.e., SUBJ or OBJ (Bresnan and Kanerva 1989, Bresnan and Zaenen 1990, Zaenen 1993). The elsewhere condition in (9) captures the generalization that a non-logical subject, non-patientlike role is typically assigned a thematically restricted oblique function. The UMP in (10) reflects two generalizations. First, a more prominent role favors a more prominent AF; second, each role consistently favors the most prominent AF possible. Finally, note that the UMP also incorporates the θ-Criterion in that a one-to-one linking is strictly required.
Lexical mapping of three different types of verbs is illustrated below: the unaccusative verb
melt in (11), the unergative verb bark in (12), and the transitive verb break in (13).
(11) The ice melted.
melt < x > (x = pt/th) IC: [-r] DC: --- S/O UMP: S (12) The dog barked.
bark < x > (x = ag) IC: DC: ---
S/O/… UMP: S (13) The girl broke the window.
break < x y > (x = ag, y = pt/th) IC: [-r] DC: --- S/O/… S/O UMP: S O
The mapping in (11) and (12) is straightforward. In (13), the role x, being an agent role, receives no IC, and being the logical subject, receives no DC. It is thus compatible with all four AFs in (8), while the role y, a patient/theme role, receives IC [-r] and thus no DC. It is compatible with SUBJ and OBJ. The UMP requires the mapping of the more prominent x onto the most prominent AF available, and thus SUBJ; hence, the less prominent y must be mapped to the only function that remains available to it, OBJ.
While the mapping above is accounted for by the universal component of LMT, there are language-specific morphological operations that may affect the a-structure and/or linking. While all morphological operations may affect the predicate, only morpholexical operations may alter the ‘lexical stock’ of the a-structure by adding, suppressing, or binding argument roles (e.g., Bresnan 2001: 310, Markantonatou 1995, Ackerman and Moore 2001). The morpholexical operation of passivization, which suppresses, or ‘absorbs’ as it is known in the derivational framework, the logical subject, is an example; see (66-67).
(14) Passivization: <θ… > ↓
∅ (15) The window was broken.
broken < x y > (x = ag, y = pt/th) IC: [-r] DC: --- S/O UMP: S
2. T
HES
UPPRESSIONA
PPROACH(H
ER2003,
2007)
In this section we will demonstrate a partial lexical mapping account on causativity and theta assignment, as proposed in Her (1997, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2007), in a limited range of VR constructions. The crucial feature in this account is the one-to-one-linking-induced suppression of a theta-role in a composite role. This logical and natural interpretation of the Theta-Criterion no only maintains the strict one-to-one linking, but also provides a well-motivated and well-constrained account for the VR data covered.
We will use a three-way ambiguous sentence with the VR compound 追累 zhui-lei ‘chase-tired’ to illustrate this account. As shown in (16), the single theta-role for lei may form a composite role with either of the two roles from zhui. But, most interestingly, out of the two possibilities, three grammatical readings are obtained. Note further that two of the three readings are also causative.
(16) zhui ‘chase <x y>’ + lei ‘tired <z>’ → (i) <x
y-z>
(ii) <x-z
y>
(17) 張三 追累了 李四 Zhangsan zhui-lei-le Lisi. John chase-tired-ASP Lee
↓
↓ SUBJ OBJ
a. ‘John chased Lee and made Lee tired.’ (causative) <x y-z>
↓ ↓
S O John[caus] Lee[af]
b.
*
‘Lee chased John and he (John) got tired.’ (non-existent) <x y-z>*S *O John Lee
c. ‘John chased Lee and (John) got tired.’ (non-causative) <x-z y>
↓
↓
S O John
Lee
d. ‘Lee chased John and was made tired (by John).’ (causative) <x-z y>
S O John[caus] Lee[af]
The most important and innovative feature in this account is that, under the strict one-to-one linking required by the Theta-Criterion, a composite role, e.g., x-z, cannot be linked
unless one of the composing roles is suppressed. Note that Randall’s (2010: 182) Bound
Argument Condition (Given two bound CS arguments, only the higher one is eligible to link to an
AS position) follows the same spirit; however, we shall demonstrate that Randall’s formulation is
too restrictive as either composing role in a bound, or composite, role can receive syntactic assignment. Therefore, x-z can either be linked as x-z (with z suppressed) or as x-z (with x suppressed). This Theta-Criterion-induced suppression thus in fact predicts the two possibilities in (18) are in fact four.
(18) zhui ‘chase <x y>’ + lei ‘tired <z>’ → (i) <x y-z>
(ii) <x y-z>
(iii) <x-z y>
(iv) <x-z y>
We will first see how causativity is accounted for before demonstrating that these four possible a-structures in fact produce the three, not four, grammatical readings.
(19) Causativity Assignment in Resultative Compounding:
An unsuppressed role from Vres receives [af] iff an unsuppressed role
from Vcaus exists to receive [caus].
Within a causative resultative compound the most natural place for [af], or Affectee, is indeed the only role required by Vres, and the natural place for Cause is a role from Vcaus. The
restriction that a suppressed role does not receive causative roles is also reasonable. This account of causative follows naturally from the event structure of [Vcaus+Vres]. causativity assignment is
receiving Cause and Affectee are expressed and thus receive syntactic assignment. According to (19), the four a-structures in (18) now be specified with causativity.
(20) zhui ‘chase <x y>’ + lei ‘tired <z>’ → (i) <x y-z>
(ii) <x[caus] y-z[af]>
(iii) <x-z y>
(iv) <x-z[af] y[caus]>
Now we will demonstrate that (20i) and (20ii) in fact overlap and thus produce one single syntactic construction only, where the non-causative (20ii) is neutralized by the causative (20i). The logic is simple: zero plus one is always one, never zero.
(21) Zhangsan zhui-lei-le Lisi.
a. ‘John chased Lee to the extent of making him (Lee) tired.’ < x y-z > (20i) (x = ag, y = pt/th) IC [-r]
--- GF S/O/... S/O UMP S O John Lee
<x[caus]
y-z[af]> (20ii) (x = ag, z = pt/th)
IC [-r] --- GF S/O/... S/O UMP S O John Lee
b.*‘Lee chased John and he (John) got tired.’ (non-existent) < x y-z > (20i)
. < x y-z> (20ii)
*O *S Lee John
Reading (a) is thus accounted for, together with causativity. Note that the account also predicts correctly that the reading of (b) is non-existent. Now we demonstrate that (20iii) predicts the (c) reading and (20iv), the (d) reading.
(22) Zhangsan zhui-lei-le Lisi.
c. ‘John chased Lee and (John) got tired.’
< x-z y > (20iii) (x = ag, y = pt/th) SC [-r] --- GF S/O/... S/O UMP S O John Lee
d. ‘Lee chased John and was made tired (by John).’ <x-z[af]
y[caus]> (20iv) (y = pt/th, z = pt/th)
SC [-r] [-r] --- GF S/O S/O UMP O S Lee John
Note that the account of causativity is crucial in accounting for the inversed (d) reading. Between x-z[af] and y[caus], both z and y are patient/theme type of roles. Causticity thus provides
the deciding factor in assigning y[caus] to subject and x-z[af] to object, either in the Dowtyan sense
or in terms of Grimshaw’s aspectual dimension. Consequently, one other great advantage of this account is that the thematic hierarchy is never violated, unlike Li’s (1995, 1999) account, for here the more prominent agent-like role x is in fact suppressed and thus not part of syntactic assignment at all. The inversion effect is therefore only apparent, not real.
This account offers a natural explanation of causativity and grammaticality found in the VR compounds covered in Her (2007) and also abides by both the Theta-Criterion (or the UMP) and the thematic hierarchy. It is thus potentially the best account among the ones examined. In this project, we intend to have it as our base and expand it to all types of VR compounds.
3. A
C
OMPREHENSIVEA
CCOUNTIn this project, we will adopt this suppressionist approach to account for the comprehensive range of VR compounds. In (23), a more clearly formulated principle of causativity assignment in VR compounding is given. In (24), the four possible combinations are listed and the grammatical lexical options listed. For the purpose of illustration, we also list the ungrammatical combinations, which are due to the violation of the thematic hierarchy.
(23) Causativity Assignment in Resultative Compounding:
Given θa from Vcaus and θb from Vres, θa and θb receive [caus] and
[af] respectively iff both are syntactically expressed.
(24) Resultative Compounding: [Intran V + Intran V]
Vcaus<x> + Vres<1> →
VcausVres <α (β)>, where <α (β)> = (i) <x-1>
(ii) <x-1>
(iii) <x[caus] 1[af]> (iv) *<1 x>, x > 1
[Tran + Intran]
Vcaus<x y> + Vres<1> →
VcausVres <α β>, where <α β> = (i) <x y-1>
(ii) <x[caus] y-1[af]> (iii) <x-1 y>
(iv) < x-1[af] y[caus]>
[Tran + Tran]
Vcaus<x y> + Vres<1 2> →
VcausVres <α β>, where <α β> = (i) <x-1 y-2>
(ii) <x-1[caus] y-2[af]> (iii) <x-1 y-2>
(v) *<x-2 y-1>, 1 > 2 (vi) *<y-1 x-2>, x > y
[Intran + Tran]
Vcaus<x> + Vres<1 2> →
VcausVres <α β>, where <α β> = (i) <x-1[caus] 2[af]>
(ii) <x-1 2>
(iii) *<1 x-2>, x > 1
Next, we shall account for the argument realization in the grammatical compounds listed in (24). Here, we likewise employ the Lexical Mapping Theory; however, we shall not give the detailed linking for each ctype of compound and will only list the outcomes. For an illustration, refer to (21) and (22) above. Note that in (25) below we have indicated apparent subject-object inversions with boldface.
(25) Argument Realization in Resultative Compounds: [Intran + Intran]
Vcaus<x> + Vres<1> →
VcausVres <α (β)>, where <α (β)> = (i) <x-1>
S (ii) <x-1> S
(iii) <x[caus] 1[af]> S O
[Tran + Intran]
Vcaus<x y> + Vres<1> →
VcausVres <α β>, where <α β> = (i) <x y-1>
S O
(ii) <x[caus] y-1[af]> S O
(iii) <x-1 y> S O
(iv) < x-1[af] y[caus]> O S
[Tran + Tran]
Vcaus<x y> + Vres<1 2> →
VcausVres <α β>, where <α β> = (i) <x-1 y-2>
S O
(ii) <x-1[caus] y-2[af]>
S O
(iii) <x-1 y-2> S O
(iv) <x-1[af] y-2[caus]>
[Intran + Tran]
Vcaus<x> + Vres<1 2> →
VcausVres <α β>, where <α β> = (i) <x-1[caus] 2[af]>
S O
(ii) <x-1 2>
S O
The final issue we shall account for is headness in VR compounds. For a critical review of all previous positions, i.e., V1-headed, V2-headed, and double-headed, refer to Li (2008, 2009), where he has thus reached the conclusion that VR compounds are headless. We shall assume, following Li (2008, 2009) and many others, the head feature percolation condition.
(26) Head Feature Percolation Condition (Li 2009:43)
The way that the arguments of the head of a compound are realized in the syntax should be maintained on the compound level.
In (27) below, we illustrate that nearly all previous positions are both right and wrong at the same time, if the principle in (26) is to be upheld.
(27) Headness in Resultative Compounds: [Intran + Intran]
Vcaus<x> + Vres<1> →
VcausVres <α (β)>, where <α (β)> = (i) <x-1>
S
V1 is head
(ii) <x-1> S
V2 is head
(iii) <x[caus] 1[af]> S O
V1 is head
[Tran + Intran]
Vcaus<x y> + Vres<1> →
VcausVres <α β>, where <α β> = (i) <x y-1>
S O
V1 is head
(ii) <x[caus] y-1[af]> S O
No head
(iii) <x-1 y> S O
V1 is head
(iv) < x-1[af] y[caus]> O S
[Tran + Tran]
Vcaus<x y> + Vres<1 2> →
VcausVres <α β>, where <α β> = (i) <x-1 y-2>
S O
V1 is head
(ii) <x-1[caus] y-2[af]>
S O
No head
(iii) <x-1 y-2> S O
V2 is head
(iv) <x-1[af] y-2[caus]>
O S
No head
[Intran + Tran]
Vcaus<x> + Vres<1 2> →
VcausVres <α β>, where <α β> = (i) <x-1[caus] 2[af]>
S O
V1 is head
(ii) <x-1 2>
S O
V2 is head
As shown in (27) below, a VR compound is never double-headed; however, all other possibilities are obtained, i.e., V1-headed, V2-headed, and headless. There is clearly not a uniform head in all VR compounds, which explains the long-lasting controversy in previous studies.
4. C
ONCLUSIONThe strict one-to-one linking between theta roles and syntactic arguments is the simplest interpretation of the biuniqueness requirement and, as we have demonstrated, it motivates, as well as constrains, the suppression of a composing role in a composite role. The relaxation of this biuniqueness restriction not only complicates the grammar. The suppression of a thematic role is not a novel idea; rather it is a well-established morpholexical operation. For example, passivization is widely assumed to involve the suppression of the external role. The account offered in this study, though formulated in LFG, is in fact theory-neutral, assuming only a strict one-to-one linking, which entails the suppression of one of the composing roles in the syntactic assignment of a composite role, formed by two composing roles. The function-argument mismatches in question are simply consequences of such suppressions. This comprehensive account also explains the causativity assignment and headness in VR compounds.
R
EFERENCESAckerman, Farrell and John Moore: 2001a, ‘Dowtyan Proto-properties and Lexical Mapping Theory’, paper presented at the 6th International Lexical-Functional Grammar Conference, Hong Kong, June 2001.
Ackerman, Farrell and John Moore: 2001b, Proto-properties and Grammatical Encoding: A
Correspondence Theory of Argument Selection, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California.
Alsina, Alex: 1996, The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar: Evidence from Romance, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California.
Alsina, Alex and Sam Mchombo: 1993, ‘Object Asymmetries and the Chichewa Applicative Construction’, in Sam Mchombo (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California, pp.17-45.
Aoun, Joseph and Y.-H. Audrey Li: 1993, ‘Wh-elements in situ: syntax or LF?’, Linguistic
Inquiry 24, 199-238.
Baker, Mark: 1983, ‘Objects, Themes, and Lexical Rules in Italian’, in L. Levin, M. Rappaport, and A. Zaenen (eds.), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Baker, Mark: 1988, Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Baker, Mark: 1996, ‘On the structural position of themes and goals’, in J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds), Phrase structure and the lexicon: Studies in natural language and unguis tic theory, Kiuwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 7-34.
Baker, Mark: 1997, ‘Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure’, in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Handbook of Generative Syntax, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp.73-137.
Baltin, Mark: 1995, ‘Floating quantifiers, PRO and predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 26, 199-248. Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi: 1988, ‘Psych Verbs and Theta Theory’, Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 6, 291-352.
Belletti, Adriana: 1990, Generalized verb movement. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. Bobaljik, J. (1995) Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection, MIT dissertation.
Bender, Emily: 2000, ‘The Syntax of Mandarin BA: Reconsidering the Verbal Analysis’, Journal
of East Asian Linguistics 9, 105–145.
Birner, B.: l994, Information Status and Word Order: An analysis of English Inversion, Linguistic
Inquiry l7, 347-354.
Boskovic, 1.: 1997, ‘Coordination, object shift, and v-movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 28, 327-365.
Bowers, John: 1993, ‘The syntax of predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591-656
Bresnan, Joan: l989, ‘The Syntactic Projection Problem and Comparative Syntax of Locative Inversion’, Journal of Information Science and Engineering (Special issue devoted to the Proceedings of ROCLING II, Taipei, l989) 5, 287-303.
Bresnan, Joan: l994, ‘Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar’, Language 70, 72-l3l.
Bresnan, Joan: l996, ‘Lexicality and Argument Structure’, paper presented at Collogue de Syntax et Semantique Paris, October 12-14, 1995.
http://csli-www.stanford.edu/users/bresnan/
Bresnan, Joan: 2001, Lexical-Functional Syntax, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
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, Academic Press, New York, pp.111-l25.
Linguistic Inquiry 21.2, 147-185.
Bresnan, Joan and Annie Zaenen: l990, ‘Deep Unaccusativity in LFG’, in K. Dziwirek, P. Farrell and E. Mejias, (eds.), Grammatical Relations: A Cross-theoretical Perspective, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California, pp.45-57.
Burzio, Luigi: 1986, Italian Syntax, Dordrecht, Reidel.
Butt, Miriam: 1998, ‘Constraining Argument Merger through Aspect’, in E. Hinrichs, A. Kathol and T. Nakazawa (eds.), Syntax and Semantics No. 30: Complex Predicates in
Nonderivational Syntax, Academic Press, New York.
Butt, Mariam and Tracy Holloway King (eds.): 2000, Argument Realization, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California.
Butt, Mariam, Mary Dalrymple and Anette Frank: 1997, ‘An Architecture for Linking Theory in LFG’, in Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference, CSLI Publications: http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/2/lfg97-toc.html
Carnie, Andrew: 1995, Non-verbal predication and head movement, MIT dissertation
Carrier-Duncan, Jill: 1985, ‘Linking of Thematic Roles in Derivational Word Formation’,
Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 1-34.
Carrier, Jill and Janet Randall: 1992, ‘The Argument Structure and Syntactic Structure of Resultatives’, Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 173-233
Chao, Y-R: 1968, A grammar of spoken Chinese, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Cheng, L.-S. Lisa and C. T. James Huang: 1994, ‘On the Argument Structure of Resultative Compounds, in honor of William S.-Y. Wang’, in Matthew Chen and Ovid Tzeng (eds.),
Interdisciplinary Studies on Language and Language Change, Pyramid, Taipei, pp.187-221.
Cheng, Lisa, C.-T. James Huang, Y.-H. Audrey Li, and C.-C. Jane Tang: 1997, ‘Causative Compounds across Chinese Dialects: A Study of Cantonese, Mandarin and Taiwanese’,
Chinese Languages and Linguistics 4: 199-224.
Cheng, Robert: 1983, ‘Focus Devices in Mandarin Chinese’, in Ting-chi Tang, Robert Cheng and Ying-che Li (eds.), Hanyu Jufa Yuyixue Lunji (Studies in Chinese Syntax and Semantics), Student Book Co., Taipei, pp.50-102.
Chomsky, Noam: 1970, ‘Remarks on nominalization’, in R. Jacobs & P. Rosen- baum (eds),
Readings in English transformational grammar, Ginn, Massachusetts, Waltham.
Chomsky, Noam: 1977, ‘On wh –movement’, in P. W. Culicover et al (eds), Formal syntax, Academic Press, New York.
Chomsky, Noam: 1980, ‘On Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1-46.
Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam: 1982, Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and
Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Chosmky, Noam: l986a, Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use, Praeger, New York. Chomsky, Noam: 1986b, Barriers, MIT Press, Massachusetts, Cambridge.
Chomsky, Noam: 1991, ‘Some notes on the economy of derivation’, in R. Freidin (ed) Principles
and parameters in comparative grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp.
417-454.
Chomsky, Noam: 1993, ‘A minimalist program for linguistic theory’, in K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (eds.) The view from the Building 20, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 1-52. Chomsky, Noam: 1995, Categories and transformations. Chapter 4 of the minimalist program,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Chomsky, Noam: 1998, ‘Minimalist inquiry: The framework. Ms. Cornrie, B. (1976 )The system of causative constructions: Cross language similar
ity and divergencies’, in M. Shibatani (ed), The grammar of causative constructions, Academic Press, New York.
Chomsky, Noam: l985, ‘Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphiology’, in T. Shopen (ed), Language typology and syntactic description, vol.3, CUP, New York.
grammar of causative constructions, Academic Press, New York.
Culicover, P. W. : 1992, ‘Topicalization, inversion and complementizers in English’, in D. Delfitto et al (eds.), OTS Working Paper: Going Romance and Beyond, University of Utrecht, pp. 1-45.
Culicover, P. W.: 1993, ‘The adverb effect: evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effects’,
NELS, 97-110.
Dalrymple, Mary: 2001, Lexical Functional Grammar, Academic Press, New York, New York. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Williams, Edwin: 1987, On the definition of word, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dowty, David: 1979, Word meaning in Montague grammar, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Dowty, David: 1991, ‘Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection’, Language 67.3, 547-619. Emonds, Joseph: 1976, A transformational approach to English syntax, Academic Press, New
York.
Ernst, Thomas: 1991, ‘On the Scope Principle’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 750-56.
Ernest, Thomas and Wang, Chengchi: 1995, ‘Object preposing in Mandarin Chinese’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4, 235-260.
Falk, Yehuda: 2001, Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to
Constraint-based Syntax, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California.
Fodor, Jerry: 1970, ‘Three reasons for not deriving “kill” from “cause to die”, Linguistic Inquiry 1, 429-438
Fukui, Naoki: 1995, The theory of projection in syntax, CSLI Publications, Stanford.
Gao, Qian: 1997, ‘Resultative verb compounds and ba-constructions in Chinese’, Jour nal of
Chinese Linguistics 25, 84-130
Gergely, G. and Bever, T.: 1986, ‘Relatedness intuitions and the mental representations of causative verbs’, Cognition 23, 211-277
Grimshaw, Jane: 1990, Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Gu, Yang: 1992, The Syntax of Resultative and Causative Compounds in Chinese, PhD dissertation, Corneal University.
Gu, Yang: 1998, ‘Reflections on Incorporation, Conflation, and the Resultative’, in Gu Yang (ed.)
Studies in Chinese Linguistics, 83-115, Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
Haegeman, Liliane: 1997a, ‘Introduction: on the interaction of theory and description in syntax’, in L. Haegeman (ed), The New comparative Syntax, 1-32, Long man, London.
Haegeman, Liliane: 1997b, ‘Elements of grammar’, in Haegeman (ed), Elements of grammar:
Handbook of generative grammar, 1-72, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Hale, K. U. and S. J. Keyser: 1991, ‘On the Syntax of Argument Structure’, Lexicon Project
Working Papers, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Hale, K. U. and S. J. Keyser: 1992, ‘The syntactic character of thematic structure’, in I. M. Roca (ed.), Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, Foris, Berlin.
Hale, K. U. and S. J. Keyser: 1993, ‘On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Semantic Relations’, in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: 53-109, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Hale, K. U. and S. J. Keyser: 1994, ‘Constraints on Argument Structure’, in B. Lust, M. Suner & J. Whitman (eds.), Heads, Projections and Learnability, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N. J.
Harley, Heidi: 1995, Subjects, events and licensing, MIT dissertation
Hashimoto, A.: 1965, ‘Resultative verbs and other problems’, Foundation of Language 6, 22-42 He, Y.: 1990, Aspects of Chinese syntax: A GB approach, University of London, doctoral thesis. He, Y.: 1996, An introduction to GB theory in Chinese syntax, The Edwin Mellen Press, Lampeter,
N. J.
He, Y.: l998a, Further on X-bar syntax in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at Seminar of Department of Chinese, Translation and Linguistics, City University of Hong Kong
He, Y.: 1998b, The Split-VP Hypothesis: A Chinese perspective. Paper presented in the 8th. International Conference on Chinese Linguistics (ICCL-8), Melbourne University,
Melbourne, Australia, 1999.07.05
Her, One-Soon. 1990. Grammatical functions and verb subcategorization in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Hawaii. Also as 1991. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Her, One-Soon: 1997, Interaction and Variation in the Chinese VO Construction, Crane Publishing, Taipei.
Her, One-Soon: 1999, ‘Interaction of Thematic Structure and Syntactic Structures: On Mandarin Dative Alternations’, in Y. Yin et al (eds.), Chinese Languages and Linguistics V: Interaction
of Form and Function, Academia Sinica, pp.373-412.
Her, One-Soon: 2003, ‘Chinese Inversion Constructions within a Simplified LMT’, in A. Bodomo and K. Luke (eds.), Lexical-Functional Grammar Analysis of Chinese, Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph, No. 19.
Her, One-Soon: 2004, ‘Argument-function Linking in Resultatives.’ Concentric: Studies in
Linguistics 30.2, 1-34
Her, One-Soon: 2006. Optimality-Theoretic Lexical Mapping Theory: A case study of locative inversion. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (Special Issue on Human Language Technology in Multilingual Perspectives) 2(1), 67-94.
Her, One-Soon. 2007. Argument-function mismatches in Mandarin Chinese: A lexical mapping account. Lingua 117.1, 221-246.
Her, One-Soon. To Appear. Apparent Subject-object inversion in Chinese. Accepted for publication in Linguistics.
Higginbotham, James: 1985, ‘On Semantics’, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547-593.
Hsieh, Hsin-I: 1989, ‘History, Structure, and Competition’, paper presented at the 8th International Workshop on Chinese Linguistics, POLA, University of California, Berkeley, California, March 20-21.
Hsieh, Hsin-I: 2005, ‘Semantic Opacity and Its Challenge for Teachers of Chinese’, paper presented at Operational Strategies and Pedagogy for Chinese Language Programs in the 21st Century: An International Symposium, National Taiwan Normal University, June 10-11, 2005.
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, 337-388.(cf. Higginbotham 1985)
Huang, Chu-ren and Fu-Wen Lin: 1992, ‘Composite Event Structure and Complex Predicates: A Template-based Approach to Argument Selection’, in Proceedings of the Third Annual
Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America, Indiana University Linguistics
Club, Bloomington, Indiana, pp.90-108.
Huang, Hui-ting and One-Soon Her: 1998, ‘Mandarin Locative Inversion and Relation-changing Rules’, in S. Huang (ed.), Selected Papers from the Second International Symposium on
Languages in Taiwan, Crane Publishing, Taipei, pp.287-304.
Huang, James C.-T.: 1982a, Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar, MIT doctoral dissertation.
Huang, James C.-T.: 1984, ‘On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns’, Linguistic
Inquiry 15, 531-573.
Huang, James C.-T.: 1987, ‘Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness’, in Eric J. Reuland & Alice G. B. ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 226-253.
Huang, James C.-T.: 1988, ‘Wo pao de kuai and Chinese Phrase Structure’, Language 64, 274-331.
Huang, James C.-T.: 1989, ‘Pro-drop in Chinese: A generalized control theory’, in 0. Jaeggli & K. Safir (eds), The null subj ed parameter, Kiuwer, Dordrecht.
Huang, James C.-T: 1992, ‘Complex Predicates in Control’, in J. Higginbotham and R. Larson (eds.), Control and Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp.109-147. Jackendoff, Ray S.: 1972, Semantic interpretation in generative grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Jackendoff, Ray S.: 1977, X’-Theory: A study of phrase structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Jackendoff, Ray S.: 1987, ‘The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory’, Linguistic
Inquiry 18, 369-411
Jackendoff, Ray S.: 1990, Semantic structures, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Johnson, Kyle: 1991, ‘Object positions’, Natural language and Linguistic Theory 9, 577-636 Kayne, Richard: 1994, The antisymmetry of syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Kayser, S. J. and T. Roeper: 1984, ‘On the middle and ergative constructions in English’,
Linguistic Inquiry 15, 38 1-416
Kitagawa, Yoshihisa: 1986, Subjects in English and Japanese, University of Massachusetts dissertation.
Koizumi,Masatoshi: 1995, Phrase structure in minimalist syntax, MIT dissertation.
Koopman, Hilta and Dominique Sportiche: 1991, ‘The position of subjects’, in J. McCloskey (ed.), The syntax of verb-initial languages. Special issue of Lingua 85, 211-258.
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki: 1988, ‘Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese’, Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1-46
Larson, Richard: 1988, ‘On the Double Object Construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-391. Larson, Richard: 1990, ‘Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff’, Linguistic Inquiry 21,
589-632.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito: 1984, ‘On the nature of proper government’, Linguistic
Inquiry 15, 235-289.
Lasnik, Howard and Juan Uriagereka: 1988, A course in GB syntax: Lectures on binding and
empty categories, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson: 1976, ‘Development of the causative in Mandarin Chinese: Interpretation of diachronic progresses in syntax’, in M. Shibatani (ed), The
grammar of causative constructions, Academic Press, New York
Li, Charles and Sandra Thompson: 1981, Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Li, Jen-I, 1996, Preverbal NP positions in Mandarin Chinese, University of Arizona dissertation. Li, Yafei: 1990, ‘On V-V Compounds in Chinese’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8,
177-207.
Li, Yafei: 1993, ‘Structural head and aspectuality’, Language 69, 480-504.
Li, Yafei: 1995, ‘The Thematic Hierarchy and Causativity’, Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 13, 255-282.
Li, Yafei: 1999, ‘Cross-Componential Causativity’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27, 445-497.
Lin, Fu-wen: l990, Mandarin V-R Compounds, unpublished MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Lu, H-C, 1994, Preverbal NPs in Spanish and Chinese, UCLA dissertation.
Lu, H-T John, 1977, ‘Resultative verb compounds vs. directional verb compounds in Mandarin’,
Journal of Chinese Linguistics 5, 276-3 13
Marantz, Alec: 1984, On the nature of grammatical relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Marantz, Alec: 1993, ‘Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions’, in S. Mchombo (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California, pp.113-150.
McCawley, James: 1978, ‘Conversational implicature and the lexicon’, in P. Cole (ed), Syntax
and semantics, vol.9, Academic Press, New York
McCawley, James: 1992, ‘Justifying Part-of-speech Assignments in Mandarin Chinese’, Journal
of Chinese Linguistics 20.2, 211-246.
grammar: Handbook of generative grammar, Kiuwer, Dordrecht, pp. 197-236.
McCloskey, James: 1999, ‘On the Distribution of Subject Properties in Irish’, paper presented at the Workshop on Grammatical Functions, University of Illinois, July 1999.
Oirsouw, R. R. van: 1983, ‘Coordinate deletion and N-ary branching’, Journal of Linguistics 19, 305-321.
Oirsouw, R. R. van: 1985, ‘A linear approach to coordination deletion’, Linguistics 23, 363-390. Ouhalla, Jamal: 1991, Functional categories and parametric variation, Routledge, London. Pan, Haihua: 1998, ‘Thematic Hierarchy, Causative Hierarchy, and Chinese Resultative Verb
Compounds’, paper presented at LSHK A nnual Research Forum 98, HK PolyU, 5-6 December 1998.
Palmer, Frank: 1994, Grammatical roles and relations, CUP, Cambridge.
Perlmutter, David: 1978, ‘Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis’, BLS 4: 157-189
Pesetsky, David: 1995, Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Pinker, Steven: 1989, Learnability and Cognition: The asquisition of argument structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Pollock, Jean-Yves: 1989, ‘Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP’,
Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424
Pollock, Jean-Yves: 1997, ‘Notes on clause structure’, in Haegeman (ed), Elements of grammar:
Handbook of generative grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 237-280.
Pullum, G. K.: 1988, ‘Topic ... comment: Citation etiquette beyond Thunderdome’, Natural
Language & Linguistic Theory 6, 579-588
Qu, Yanfeng: 1994, Object noun phrase dislocation in Mandarin Chinese, UBC dissertation. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.: 1971, A grammar of contemporary English,
Longman, London.
Radford, Andrew: 1997a, The structure of English: A minimalist approach, CUP, Cambridge. Radford, Andrew: 1997b, Syntax: A minimalist introduction, CUP, Cambridge.
Randall, Janet. 2010. Linking: The Geometry of argument structure. Springer. Rizzi, L.: 1990, Relativzed Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Rizzi, L.: 1997, ‘The fine structure of the left periphery’, in L. Haegeman (ed), Eleinents of
grammar: A handbook of generative syntax, Kiuwer ,Dordrecht, pp, 281-330.
Rosenbaum, Peter S.: 1967, The grammar of English predicate complement constructions, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ross, John R.: 1970, ‘Gapping and the order of constituents’, in M. Bierwisch & K. F. Heidoiph (eds), Progress in Linguistics, Mouton, The Hague.
Rothstein, Susan: 1983, The syntactic form of predication, MIT dissertation.
Rothstein, Susan: 1995, ‘Pleonastics and the interpretation of pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 26, 499-529.
Ryle, Gilbert: 1949, The concept of mind, UOP
Sadler, L. and Arnold D.: 1993, ‘Prenominal adjectives and phrasal / lexical distinction’, Journal
of Linguistics 30, 187-226.
Sells, Peter: 1985, Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories, CSLI Publications, Standford. Shi, Dingxu: 1992, The Nature of Topic Comment Constructions and Topic Chains, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Shi, Dingxu: 1994, ‘The V-V complex predicates are complex’, paper presented at LSHK Annual Research Forum 94, HKU.
Shi, Dingxu: 1996, ‘The nature of Chinese verb-reduplication constructions’, Studies in the
Linguistic Sciences 26, 27 1-284.
Shi, Dingxu: 1998a, The Complex Nature of V-C Constructions. In Gu Yang (ed.), Studies in
Chinese Linguistics, Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, pp. 23-52.
LSHK Annual Research Forum98, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 5-6 December 1998. Shi, Dingxu and S-W Tang: 1999, ‘Some notes on the so-called “pseudo-passives” in Chinese’,
paper presented at LSHK Annual Research Forum 99, CUHK.
Shibatani, Masayoshi: 1976, ‘The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus’, in M. Shibatani (ed), The grammar of causative constructions, Academic Press, New York.
Shyu, S.: 1995, The syntax of focus and topic in Mandarin Chinese, USC dissertation.
Simpson, Jane: 1991, Warlpiri Morpho-syntax: A Lexicalist Approach, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Speas, Margaret: 1990, Phrase Structure in Natural Language, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Sun, Chao-fen and Talmy Givon: 1985, ‘On the So-called SOV Word Order in Mandarin Chinese: A Quantified Text Study and Its Implications’, Language 61, 329-5 1.
Sybesma, Rint: 1992, Causatives and Accomplishments. The Case of Chinese Ba, PhD dissertation, Leiden University.
Sybesma, Rint: 1999, The Mandarin VP, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Tan, Fu: 1991, Notion of Subject in Chinese, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University. Tang, Sze-Wing: 1998, Parameterization of features in syntax, University of California (Irvine)
dissertation.
Teng, Shou-hsin: 1975, A semantic study of transitivity relations in Chinese, Student Book Co., Taipei.
Thompson, Sandra A.: 1973, ‘Resultative verb compounds in Mandarin Chinese: A case for lexical rules’, Language 49, 36 1-379.
Tsao, Feng-Fu: 1979, A Functional Study of Topic in Chinese: The First Step Towards Discourse
Analysis, Student Book, Taipei.
Tsao, Feng-Fu: 1983, ‘Subject and topic in Chinese’, in R. L. Cheng, Y-C Li & T-C Tang (eds), Proceedings of Symposium on Chinese Linguistics - 1977 Linguistic Institute of the
Linguistic Society of America, Student Book Co., Taipei.
Tsao, Feng-Fu: ‘1987 On the So-called Verb-copying Construction in Chinese’, Journal of the
Chinese Language Teachers Association 22, 2 13-43.
Tsao, Feng-Fu: 1990, Sentence and clause structure in Chinese: A functional perspective, Student Book Co., Taipei.
Travis, Lisa: 1984, Parameters and effects of word order variation, MIT doctoral dissertation. Wang, Lingling: 1997, ‘V-V Resultative Constructions in Mandarin Chinese’, paper presented at
ICCL-6, Leiden University.
Wang, Lingling & He, Y.: 1998, ‘Compounds or not compounds: A syntactic approach to causative V-V constructions in Mandarin Chinese’, ms.
Webelhuth, Gert: 1995, Government and binding theory and the minimalist program, Blackwell, Oxford (U. K.) & Cambridge (USA).
Williams, Edwin: 1981, ‘Argument Structure and Morphology’, The Linguistic Review 1, 81-114 Williams, Edwin: 1994, Thematic structure in syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Wang, Li: 1958, Hanyu Shigao, Science Press, Beijing.
Wu, Daoping: 1992, On serial verb constructions, University of Maryland dissertation
Xu, Ding: 1998, Functional categories in Mandarin Chinese, Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics, Amsterdam.
Xu,Liejiong & Langendoen: 1985, ‘Topic structures in Chinese’, Language 16, 1-17.
Zaenen, Annie: 1993, ‘Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating Syntax and Lexical Semantics’, in J. Pustejovsky, (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp.129-161.
Zhang, Ning: 1997, Syntactic dependencies in Mandarin Chinese, University of Toronto dissertation
Ziegeler, Debra: 2000, ‘A Possession-Based Analysis of the Ba-Construction in Mandarin Chinese’, Lingua 110.11, 807-42.
Zou, Ke: 1993, ‘The Syntax of the Chinese BA Construction’, Linguistics 31, 715-736.
Zou, Ke: 1995, The syntax of the Chinese ba-construction and verb compounds: A morpho-syntactic analysis, USC dissertation.
(In Chinese) Diao, Yanbin 刁晏斌，現代漢語使動用法論略，《語文建設通訊》，1997；54：5-9 Fan, Xiao 範曉，三個平面的語法觀，北京：北京語言學院出版社，1996 Fang, Yuqing 房玉清，實用漢語語法，北京：北京語言文化學院出版社，1984 Gu, Yang 顧陽，論元結構理論介紹，《國外語言學》，1994；1：1-11 Guo, Rui 郭銳，述結式的配價結構與成分的整合，載沈陶、鄭定歐〔主編〕現代漢語配價 語法研究，北京：北京大學出版社，1995；168-191 Guo, Jimao 郭繼懋，談談“夜上海”這樣的不及物動詞帶賓語的現象，《中國語文》，1999；5： 337-346 He, Yuanjian 何元建，論Ｘ標桿理論及漢語短語結構，《國外語言學》，1995；2：36-44 He, Yuanjian 何元建，“不力而成”與漢語動結結構，香港語言學會年會：香港中文大學 1999 年12 月 11-12 日，1999a He, Yuanjian 何元建，論漢語動詞的併入結構，黑尤江大學出版社，1999b He, Yuanjian 何元建，論元、焦點和句法結構，《現代外語》，2000；1：111-124 Hu, Yushu et al 胡裕樹等，現代漢語（增訂本），上海：上海教育出版社，1992 Jiang, Jipin 蔣冀騁，二十世紀的近代漢語研究，載劉堅〔主編〕二十世紀的中國語言學， 北京：北京大學出版社，1998；182-224 Li, Linding 李臨定，動補格句式，《中國語文》，1980；2：93-102 Li, Linding 李臨定，現代漢語句型，北京：商務印書館，1986
Li, Linding 李臨定，動詞分類研究說略，《中國語文》，1990a；4：248-257 Li, Linding 李臨定，現代漢語動詞，北京：中國社會科學出版社，1990b Lin, Xingguang et al 林杏光、王玲玲、孫德金〔主編〕現代漢語動詞大詞典，北京：北京語 言學院出版社，1994 Lin, Tao 林涛，現代漢語補足語裡的輕音現象所反映出來的語法和語義同題，載北京語言學 院語言教學研究所〔編〕現代漢語補語研究資料，北京：北京語言學院出版社，1992； 36-55
Lu, Jianming 陸儉明，“VA 了”述補結構語又分析，《漢語學習》，1990；1：1-6
Lu, Jianming 陸儉明，現代漢語補語研究資料，序，載北京語言學院語言教學研究所〔編〕 現代漢語補語研究資料，北京：北京語言學院出版社，1992；1-7 Lu, Jianming 陸儉明，八十年代中國語法研究，北京：商務印書館，1993 Lü Shuxiang 呂叔湘〔主編〕，現代漢語八百詞，北京：商務印書館，1981 Lü Shuxiang 呂叔湘，形容詞使用情況的一個考察，漢語語法論文集（增訂本），北京：商 務印書館，1984；301-326 Lü Shuxiang 呂叔湘，漢語句法的靈活性，《中國語文》，1986；3：1-9 Lü Shuxiang 呂叔湘，一說“勝”和“敗”，《中國語文》，1987；1：l-5 Mei, Tsu-lin 梅祖麟，從漢代的“動殺”和“動死”來看動補結構的發展，《語言學論基》（第十 六輯），1991；112-136 Meng, Zong et al 孟琮等，動詞用法詞典，上海：上海辭書出版社，1987 Mou, Jinan 繆錦安，漢語的語義結構和補語形式，上海：上海外語教育出版社，1990 Shao, Jingming 邵敬敏，說“V 成”結構的性質，《漢語學習》，1988；1：2-5 Shen, Yang 沈陽，現代漢語空語研究，濟南：山東教育出版社，1994 Shen, Yang 沈陽，名詞短語的多重移位形式及把字句的構造過程與語文解秤，《中國語文》， 1997；6：402-414
Shi, Dingxu 石定栩、王玲玲，漢語述結結構的及物性，《中國語文通訊》，1997；6：22-30 Tang, Ting-chi 湯延池，國語疑問句研究續論，《師大學報》，1984；29：381-35） Tang, Ting-chi 湯延池，漢語述補式複合動詞的結構，動能與起源，漢語詞法句法四集，臺 灣：學生書局，1992-a；95-164 Tang, Ting-chi 湯延池，漢語動詞組補語的句法結構與語義動能：北平話與閩南話的比較分 析，漢語詞法句法四集，台灣：學生書局，1992-b；1-94 Tang, Ting-chi 湯延池，漢語語法的併入結構，漢語詞法句法三集，臺北：學生書局，1992-c； 139-242
Tang, Ting-chi 湯延池，論兼語結構，ICCL-5 論文，清華大學（新竹），1997
Wang, Hongqi 王紅旗，動結式述補結構配價研究，載沈陽、鄭定歐〔主編〕現代漢語配份 語法研究，北京：北京大學出版社，1995；144-167 Wang, Li 王力，中國語法理論，北京：商務印書館（1985 版）, 1945 Wang, Li 王力，漢語史稿（中冊），北京：中華書局，1957a Wang, Li 王力，漢語被動式的發展，《語言學論叢》（第一輯），上海：新知識出版社，1957b Wang, Lingling 王玲玲，關於必用論元確定問題，載陳力為〔主編〕計算語言學研究與應用， 北京：北京語言學院出版社，1993；47-53 Wang, Lingling 王玲玲，動詞的必用論元與動詞的“向”，載沈陽、鄭定歐〔主編〕現代漢語 配價語法研究，北京：北京大學出版社，1995；20-28 Wang, Lingling 王玲玲，動結結構句法分析，“98 現代漢語語法國際學術會談”，北京大學， 1998 年 8 月 26-31 日，1998
Wang, Lingling and He, Yuanjian 王玲玲、何元建，漢語動結結構，浙江教育出版社，2002 Wang, Yannong et al 王硯農、焦群、龐顒，漢語動詞－結果補語搭配詞典，北京：北京大學
出版社，1987
Wei, Zhouming 魏岫明，漢語詞序研究，臺灣：唐山出版社，1992
Xu, Liejiong and Liu, Danqing 徐烈炯、劉丹青，話題的結構與動能，上海：上海教育出版社， 1998
Xu, Liejiong and Shen, Yang 徐烈炯、沈陽，題元理論與漢語配價問題，《當代語言學》，1998；
3：1-21 Yang, Jianguo 楊建國，補語式發展試探，《語法論集》，1959；3 Yu, Jianping 余健萍，使成式的起源和發展，《語法論集》，1957；2 Yuan, Jiahua 袁家驊，漢語方言概要，北京：文字改革出版社，1962 Yuan, Yulin 袁毓林，袁毓林自選集，廣西：廣西師範大學出版社，1999 Zhang, Qingyuan 張清源，成都話裏虛化的“得”，載胡明楊〔主編〕漢語方言體貌論文集， 南京：江蘇教育出版社，1996；86-106 Zhichun, Liangzhi 志村良治，漢語的使成複合動詞形成過程之研究，載大河內康完〔主編〕 日本近、現代漢語研究論文逃，北京：北京語言學院出版社，1993；12-41
Institute of Linguistics, Chinese Academia of Social Sciences 中國社會科學院語言研究所詞典
編輯室〔編〕，現代漢語詞典（修訂本），北京：商務印書館，1996
Zhu, Dexi 朱德熙，語法講義，北京：商務印書館，1981
出席國際會議心得報告 計畫主持人：何萬順 計畫執行單位：國立政治大學語言學研究所 計畫名稱：漢語動結結構的詞彙映照分析 計畫類別：個別型計畫 計畫編號：NSC96-2411-H-004-037 執行期間：96 年 08 月 01 日至 98 年 07 月 31 日 計畫主持人於2008 年 12 月 5 日至 8 日期間，應澳門大學中文系系主任徐傑 邀請前往 研究訪問，共同研究有關漢語漢語動結結構的句法及語意機制。徐教授從衍生語法的架構， 以變化律的普及運用以及簡約的要求，傾向用變化律來解析動結結構；動結結構的 V1 和 V2 被視為兩個獨立的動詞，所以在句法上各自投射其動詞詞組。變化律則是用來把兩者 拉近合併，以顯示動結形式所呈現的辭彙特徵。本人則從詞彙學派出發，認為動結結構乃 由動詞複合所造成，動結複合詞是動詞並列複合結構。兩人就此兩種理論基礎及實證分析 交換看法。
此外並且討論了第三種可能：Ramchand (2005, 2008)所提出的 First Phase Syntax 理 論，及其應用於分析漢語動結結構的可行性。Ramchan 將所有事件的語法結構分為三個層
次的投射：致使事件 causing subevent、過程事件 process subevent 及結果事件 result
subevent。其結構如下圖所示： 討論結果認為該理論應可應用於漢語各種動詞的描述，但是如何從描述進而能解釋語言中 合法與不合法的「語意-句法」連結則仍須深入的探究。 此行並且應邀參加了「首屆兩岸四地語言學論壇」，澳門語言學學會主辦，於 12 月 6 日至7 日為期兩天，會議地點為澳門理工學院。共有超過 50 篇論文於會議中發表，是今年 的語言學盛會，因此吸引兩岸許多學者與會，其中也包括來自台灣的學者與研究生。本人 發表的場次為12 月 6 日上午第一場，對全體與會學者發表論文。論文發表後多為與會學者 表示看法，對此研究表示肯定。本次會議也獲得當地媒體重視，「澳門日報」隔日以大篇幅 報導，本人的報告也於報導中提及，甚感榮幸。
本人為「台灣語言學期刊」Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 主編，因此此行之另一收穫是
與「澳門語言學學報」Macao Journal of Linguistics 主編周薦會面，交換經驗與看法並商討
出席國際會議心得報告 計畫主持人：何萬順 計畫執行單位：國立政治大學語言學研究所 計畫名稱：漢語動結結構的詞彙映照分析 計畫類別：個別型計畫 計畫編號：NSC96-2411-H-004-037 執行期間：96年08月01日至98年07月31日 計畫主持人於2008年12月5日至8日期間，應澳門大學中文系系主任徐傑 邀請前往研究訪問，共同研究有關漢語漢語動結結構的句法及語意機制。徐 教授從衍生語法的架構，以變化律的普及運用以及簡約的要求，傾向用變化 律來解析動結結構；動結結構的V1 和V2 被視為兩個獨立的動詞，所以在句 法上各自投射其動詞詞組。變化律則是用來把兩者拉近合併，以顯示動結形 式所呈現的辭彙特徵。本人則從詞彙學派出發，認為動結結構乃由動詞複合 所造成，動結複合詞是動詞並列複合結構。兩人就此兩種理論基礎及實證分 析交換看法。 此外並且討論了第三種可能：Ramchand (2005, 2008)所提出的 First Phase Syntax理論，及其應用於分析漢語動結結構的可行性。Ramchan將所有 事件的語法結構分為三個層次的投射：致使事件causing subevent、過程事件 process subevent 及結果事件result subevent。其結構如下圖所示：
討論結果認為該理論應可應用於漢語各種動詞的描述，但是如何從描述進而 能解釋語言中合法與不合法的「語意-句法」連結則仍須深入的探究。
此行並且應邀參加了「首屆兩岸四地語言學論壇」，澳門語言學學會主 辦，於12月6日至7日為期兩天，會議地點為澳門理工學院。共有超過50篇論 文於會議中發表，是今年的語言學盛會，因此吸引兩岸許多學者與會，其中
也包括來自台灣的學者與研究生。本人發表的場次為12月6日上午第一場，對
全體與會學者發表論文。論文發表後多為與會學者表示看法，對此研究表示
肯定。本次會議也獲得當地媒體重視，「澳門日報」隔日以大篇幅報導，本 人的報告也於報導中提及，甚感榮幸。
本人為「台灣語言學期刊」Taiwan Journal of Linguistics主編，因此此行 之另一收穫是與「澳門語言學學報」Macao Journal of Linguistics主編周薦會 面，交換經驗與看法並商討雙方合作的可能。
