动词能做定语吗?

Can verbs be nominal modifiers?

朱德熙(1985a)认为现代汉语的动词不能做定语,李晋霞(2008)等则持相反意见。本文基于对现代汉语、英语、韩国语、马来语相关事实的考察提出:在上述四种语言里,语义上指称行为动作或事件且直接修饰名性核心的是词根或事件名词,不是动词,动词不能做定语。文章指出,与其他三种语言相比,现代汉语的个性体现在两方面。首先,现代汉语缺少形态变化。现代汉语既无形态手段区分词根和动词,也无形态手段区分动词和事件名词,这客观上造成了现代汉语动词可以做定语的假象。其次,现代汉语是典型的词根语言。词根相较于词缀的绝对优势占比使得复合成为现代汉语最主要的构词手段.导致各类复合词大量存在。文章最后从动词和名词句法性质差异的角度对动词不能做定语这一跨语言规律进行了解释。

Zhu(1985a)claims that verbs in Mandarin cannot function as nominal modifiers.Much recent work such as Li(2008)holds the opposite view.Based on the analyses of relevant facts from Mandarin,English,Korean and Malay,this paper demonstrates that it is a cross-linguistic generalization that verbs cannot directly modify a nominal head.It is shown that modifiers which merge directly with a nominal head and which denote actions or events are either roots or event nouns but not verbs.The generalization is blurred in Mandarin due to the fact that Mandarin has no morphological clues to distinguish roots,verbs and event nouns,which,as a result,creates the misleading impression that the modifier is a verb.It is pointed out that Mandarin differs from the other three languages in being a typical root language in that its morphemes are mostly roots・The lack of genuine affixes makes compounding a dominant way of word-formation in Mandarin and its compounds much more diverse in type than the other three languages.Lastly,the paper argues that the reason why a verb cannot modify a noun is that its case-assigning ability cannot be realized in a configuration where it modifies a noun to create an NP.