再论“领有名词提升移位”

A Reanalysis of "Possessor Raising Movement"

本文在Chomsky(1999)的基本框架下重新分析所谓的“领有名词提升移位”,并对以往的分析提出质疑。徐杰(1999),韩景泉(2000),温宾利、陈宗利(2001)等人所说的领有名词与隶属名词之间的关系仅仅是语义定义,缺乏必要的论证,因为两个句子同义与两个句子由同一个来源得出并不等价(潘海华1997)。本文认为,(1)“张三死了父亲”和(2)“张三的父亲死了”的论元结构并不相同,前者中带有受害者角色的论元“张三”是论元增容的结果。(1)实际上是由两个事件构成,因而其推导也有两步。第一步的推导与其他正常推导无异,再推导第二步时、假设词库中存在一个带有[effect]特征但没有语音特征的空动词,同时,受害者处于被动式中。这样,就解决了动词前后两个名词格的问题。

We propose a new analysis of the so-called Possessor Raising Movement (as shown in (1)) in the spirit of Chomsky (1999). We cast doubts on the past analyses, in which (1) and (2) are believed to have the same deep structure, as shown in (3). However, we believe that (1) and (2) have different deep structures. (1) Zhang San si-le fuqin. (2) Zhang San de fuqin side. Zhang San die-ASP father. Zhang San DE father die-ASP. Zhang San's father died. Zhang San's father died. (3) [e [si-le Zhang San de fuqin]] die-ASP Zhang San DE father We argue that there are two events contained in (1): one is the event fuqin si-e 'father died'; the other is the event of misfortunes happening to someone. The derivation of the whole sentence has two steps in accordance with the two events. The derivation of the first event goes on as one normal sentence, and the subject fuqin gets the nominative Case. When the maleficiary q-role (MAL) Zhang San in (1) is inserted, the derivation has to go on. We suppose that there is one verb with the feature [+effect] that lacks any phonetic features, and this feature must be checked. Since the MAL is af- fected, we assume he undergoes the misfortunes passively, that is, the MAL is in a passive sentence. At the end, the MAL Zhang San also gets the nominative Case.