离合词的句法本质再探——对袁毓林(2018)等质疑的回应

Revisiting the Syntax of Separable Words: A Reply to Yuan (2018) and Others

潘海华、叶狂(2015)提出汉语离合词结构本质上是双音节不及物动词带同源宾语形成的结构,离合词因而没有分开过。该文发表以来,受到学界广泛关注,也引发争议。袁毓林(2018)在对"同源宾语说"质疑的基础上提出了"形式转喻说"。文章首先对相关疑问一一回应,并指出"转喻说"面临三个难题:不能解释近义的双音节及物、不及物动词之间的句法对立;离合词与粘合式动宾结构之间也存在极大差异,二者难以建立转喻关系;离合词结构中的形义错配还需要另外的机制来解释。之后,文章在跨语言句法共性视野下,对比汉语离合结构与英语同源宾语结构的相似性,进一步支持潘和叶(2015)的观点。最后,文章指出,孟琮等(1999)很早就提到离合词是同源宾语结构,但未展开。潘和叶(2015)以及本文只不过是提供了详细论证。

Yuan （2018） as well as others argues against Pan and Ye＇s （2015） ＂cognate object hypothesis＂ which advocates that the constructions with separable words in Mandarin Chinese are bona fide cognate object constructions and no split inside disyllabic verbs has ever taken place. Yuan puts forward his own ＂metonymy hypothesis＂ for the separable words, claiming that the very mechanism that sanctions disyllabic words to be used in a divorced manner is formal metonymy, where a verb phrase with an incorporated object is viewed as the tenor and the separable word as the vehicle. This paper first points out that there are empirical facts that can be easily accounted for by the ＂ cognate object hypothesis＂, though they cannot be captured by Yuan＇s ＂metonymy hypothesis＂. The paper then provides additional evidence and arguments for the ＂cognate object hypothesis＂ from a syntactic perspective. The paper finally points out the fact that the term of ＂cognate objects＂ was already mentioned in Meng, et al. （1999）, though without arguments and formal analysis. Therefore, Pan and Ye （2015） and the current paper could be considered as providing arguments for and further substantiating the cognate object hypothesis for the separable words in Mandarin Chinese.