非宾格性句法配置：句法语义接口
|
摘要
本文在生成语法框架内对英汉非宾格性结构表达进行对比研究,主张对汉语传统上的不及物动词进行非宾格性和非作格性两分。但本文没能对汉语的非宾格动词列出清单,而重在对其结构表征提出相关理论解释。
根据Hale和Keyser的论元结构理论,传统上认定的许多汉语动宾复合动词经历了一个词汇-句法操作过程。这些动宾复合动词在进入句法结构之前,本质上是非作格性的,但通过词汇-句法层面的合并操作,词汇内部结构以非宾格性形态进入句法推导,其句法语义功能仍保持非作格性,如:“出汗”、“流血”、“生气”、“闪光”、“出声”等。
汉语的典型不及物动词“来”、‘死’、“笑”等都具有两类不同的结构表征,其中一类在动词后直接或通过次谓语共同带有一个名词NP。汉语文献中一般都把这些结构都看作是不及物动词带宾语现象。但本文认为,这些结构实际上就是不同形态的非宾格性表征:分别表现为存现结构和动补结构。
与其它语言一样,汉语仅在语义层面很难对哪些动词是非宾格动词作清晰的判断。汉语根据不及物动词的句法配置和功能投射,动词的非宾格性具有可预测性,但决定一个动词是否具有非宾格性主要的是句法特征而不是词汇语义特征。
本文发现,在汉语非宾格性的两种典型结构表征:存现结构和动补结构中,并不是所有与这两种结构相容的动词都具有非宾格性。存现结构不能作为非宾格性诊断式,而动补结构可以作为非宾格性诊断式。存现结构在事件关系上都表现为空间转移所致的结果变化状态,而处所外论元的引入是由于可适性(applicativization)中心语投射的结果。英语存现结构中没有外论元,而在汉语里却可以有处所名词短语或领格名词短语作为外论元。导致这种参数差异的就是可适性功能投射中心语(Appl)的有无。除了非子语类化动词带有NP外,汉语中还有诸如“鸡吃完了”这类宾语前置所形成的话题化结构。本文认为,篇章功能语法中的此类话题化现象,其实就是句法结构中的动补复合成分的词汇被动式非宾格结构表征。在动补结构中,非宾格性表现为核心结构中的凸像-背景配置关系,这一关系在事件结构上表达为使成结果状态变化意义。本文认为,动补结构是由一个活动事件结构与一个表明状态变化的核心结构嫁接生成而来,而不是传统上认为的事件增容的结果。这两个子事件之间存在使成关系,其活动事件结构由功能中心语Voice允准。
本文的主要观点如下:
(1)汉语中普遍存在非宾格结构表达;动词的非宾格性不是由词库中标识,而是在词汇-句法和句子-句法配置中,尤其是在完成性动词和达成性动词所表征的核心结构中表征出来;汉语中大量非作格动词实际上表现为非宾格性词汇-句法配置,其生成经历了一个词汇-句法推导过程;
(2)并非所有能进入存现结构的动词都具有非宾格性;汉语中由处所名词主语构成的存现结构的高度能产性是可适性化的结果;存现结构不是非宾格性诊断式;
(3)动补结构是非宾格性诊断式,但必须满足直接宾语限制条件;传统上的动补结构应分为:动补结构和描述性谓语结构两种不同性质的结构。
(4)汉语中包含结果变化意义的话题化可看作非典型非宾格性结构表征。本文用句法配置观探讨不及物动词的结构表征,并运用形式句法理论进行关系诠释。这些研究结果只是建议性的而非规定性,很多相关问题还需进一步研究。这里所做的只是对诸多语言现象的探索提供另一种视角,以期对汉语语言理论研究和对外汉语教学实践有所启示。
This dissertation presents a contrastive study on unaccusativity in the generative framework, holding that the traditional intransitives in Chinese should also be classified as unergatives and unaccusatives. It is not intended to offer an explicit word list of unaccusative verbs, but rather focuses on the relational construal of the syntactic configuration of the unaccusative constructions.
Following Hale and Keyser (1993f), this dissertation argues that the traditional V-O compounds like chuhan‘sweat’, liuxue‘bleed’, shengqi‘be enraged’, shanguang‘glitter’, chusheng‘make a sound’, etc. in Chinese, which are unergative in nature, all have undergone a lexical-syntactic operation, before they enter the sentential-syntactic operation and turn out to be unaccusativized.
The typical intransitive verbs in Chinese like lai‘come’, si‘die’, and xiao‘laugh’, etc. all can be represented in the configuration with an immediate postverbal NP or with a secondary predicate to license a postverbal NP. These are argued to be representations of unaccusativity in the configurations of existential construction (EC) and resultative construction (RC).
It is the same case with Chinese that unaccusative verbs can not be identified only based on the semantic features. It is argued that the unaccusativity in Chinese can be predicted in terms of the syntactic configurations and functional projections. Namely, unaccusativity is primarily determined by syntactic positions rather than semantic features. Of the two syntactic representations, the existential and resultative constructions, not all the verbs compatible with the constructions are unaccusatives. ECs are not the diagnostics of unaccusativity, while RC in the DOR (direct object restriction) sense is. The location or the possessive subject, as the external argument, in the ECs in Chinese is licensed by Applicativization, while there-insertion in English is not. This parametrical difference lies in the presence or absence of the Applicative phrase Projection.
In addition to the nonsubcategrized verbs taking a postverbal NP, there are various so called topicalization structures, of which one is derived by fronting of the transitive object, like ji chiwan le‘The chicken is eaten up’. This is also argued to be a representation of resultative unaccusativity by lexical passivization. With respect to RCs, the typical representation is derived from a core structure in Figure-Ground configuration adjoined by an activity event realized by a transitive or an unergative verb, rather than in the way of event augmentation. The causative relation between the two events is licensed by the functional head Voice.
The main claims in this dissertation is as follows:
(i) Unaccusativity is very productive in Chinese, which is not labeled in the lexicon, but rather derived via lexical-syntactic and sentential-syntactic configurations, especially in the form of the core structure represented by the achievements and accomplishments.
(ii) A good many unergative verbs in Chinese are represented in syntactic configuration at the lexical level, by means of a lexical-syntactic operation.
(iii) Not all verbs compatible with the ECs are unaccusative. The location NP in the subject position in ECs is licensed by Applicativization. ECs are not diagnostics.
(iv) RC is the diagnostic in accordance with DOR. The traditional RCs should be classified as RC and depictive predicate construction.
(v) Topicalization in the change of state sense can be grouped as a non-typical unaccusative representation.
This dissertation explores and gives an account for the unaccusative syntactic representations on the syntactic configuration approach, which just provide a different perspective to the complicated linguistic issues suggestively rather than prescriptively. Many suggestions related are still open for further study in the hope that it will be carried on for the linguistic theoretical development and teaching of Chinese to foreigners.
根据Hale和Keyser的论元结构理论,传统上认定的许多汉语动宾复合动词经历了一个词汇-句法操作过程。这些动宾复合动词在进入句法结构之前,本质上是非作格性的,但通过词汇-句法层面的合并操作,词汇内部结构以非宾格性形态进入句法推导,其句法语义功能仍保持非作格性,如:“出汗”、“流血”、“生气”、“闪光”、“出声”等。
汉语的典型不及物动词“来”、‘死’、“笑”等都具有两类不同的结构表征,其中一类在动词后直接或通过次谓语共同带有一个名词NP。汉语文献中一般都把这些结构都看作是不及物动词带宾语现象。但本文认为,这些结构实际上就是不同形态的非宾格性表征:分别表现为存现结构和动补结构。
与其它语言一样,汉语仅在语义层面很难对哪些动词是非宾格动词作清晰的判断。汉语根据不及物动词的句法配置和功能投射,动词的非宾格性具有可预测性,但决定一个动词是否具有非宾格性主要的是句法特征而不是词汇语义特征。
本文发现,在汉语非宾格性的两种典型结构表征:存现结构和动补结构中,并不是所有与这两种结构相容的动词都具有非宾格性。存现结构不能作为非宾格性诊断式,而动补结构可以作为非宾格性诊断式。存现结构在事件关系上都表现为空间转移所致的结果变化状态,而处所外论元的引入是由于可适性(applicativization)中心语投射的结果。英语存现结构中没有外论元,而在汉语里却可以有处所名词短语或领格名词短语作为外论元。导致这种参数差异的就是可适性功能投射中心语(Appl)的有无。除了非子语类化动词带有NP外,汉语中还有诸如“鸡吃完了”这类宾语前置所形成的话题化结构。本文认为,篇章功能语法中的此类话题化现象,其实就是句法结构中的动补复合成分的词汇被动式非宾格结构表征。在动补结构中,非宾格性表现为核心结构中的凸像-背景配置关系,这一关系在事件结构上表达为使成结果状态变化意义。本文认为,动补结构是由一个活动事件结构与一个表明状态变化的核心结构嫁接生成而来,而不是传统上认为的事件增容的结果。这两个子事件之间存在使成关系,其活动事件结构由功能中心语Voice允准。
本文的主要观点如下:
(1)汉语中普遍存在非宾格结构表达;动词的非宾格性不是由词库中标识,而是在词汇-句法和句子-句法配置中,尤其是在完成性动词和达成性动词所表征的核心结构中表征出来;汉语中大量非作格动词实际上表现为非宾格性词汇-句法配置,其生成经历了一个词汇-句法推导过程;
(2)并非所有能进入存现结构的动词都具有非宾格性;汉语中由处所名词主语构成的存现结构的高度能产性是可适性化的结果;存现结构不是非宾格性诊断式;
(3)动补结构是非宾格性诊断式,但必须满足直接宾语限制条件;传统上的动补结构应分为:动补结构和描述性谓语结构两种不同性质的结构。
(4)汉语中包含结果变化意义的话题化可看作非典型非宾格性结构表征。本文用句法配置观探讨不及物动词的结构表征,并运用形式句法理论进行关系诠释。这些研究结果只是建议性的而非规定性,很多相关问题还需进一步研究。这里所做的只是对诸多语言现象的探索提供另一种视角,以期对汉语语言理论研究和对外汉语教学实践有所启示。
This dissertation presents a contrastive study on unaccusativity in the generative framework, holding that the traditional intransitives in Chinese should also be classified as unergatives and unaccusatives. It is not intended to offer an explicit word list of unaccusative verbs, but rather focuses on the relational construal of the syntactic configuration of the unaccusative constructions.
Following Hale and Keyser (1993f), this dissertation argues that the traditional V-O compounds like chuhan‘sweat’, liuxue‘bleed’, shengqi‘be enraged’, shanguang‘glitter’, chusheng‘make a sound’, etc. in Chinese, which are unergative in nature, all have undergone a lexical-syntactic operation, before they enter the sentential-syntactic operation and turn out to be unaccusativized.
The typical intransitive verbs in Chinese like lai‘come’, si‘die’, and xiao‘laugh’, etc. all can be represented in the configuration with an immediate postverbal NP or with a secondary predicate to license a postverbal NP. These are argued to be representations of unaccusativity in the configurations of existential construction (EC) and resultative construction (RC).
It is the same case with Chinese that unaccusative verbs can not be identified only based on the semantic features. It is argued that the unaccusativity in Chinese can be predicted in terms of the syntactic configurations and functional projections. Namely, unaccusativity is primarily determined by syntactic positions rather than semantic features. Of the two syntactic representations, the existential and resultative constructions, not all the verbs compatible with the constructions are unaccusatives. ECs are not the diagnostics of unaccusativity, while RC in the DOR (direct object restriction) sense is. The location or the possessive subject, as the external argument, in the ECs in Chinese is licensed by Applicativization, while there-insertion in English is not. This parametrical difference lies in the presence or absence of the Applicative phrase Projection.
In addition to the nonsubcategrized verbs taking a postverbal NP, there are various so called topicalization structures, of which one is derived by fronting of the transitive object, like ji chiwan le‘The chicken is eaten up’. This is also argued to be a representation of resultative unaccusativity by lexical passivization. With respect to RCs, the typical representation is derived from a core structure in Figure-Ground configuration adjoined by an activity event realized by a transitive or an unergative verb, rather than in the way of event augmentation. The causative relation between the two events is licensed by the functional head Voice.
The main claims in this dissertation is as follows:
(i) Unaccusativity is very productive in Chinese, which is not labeled in the lexicon, but rather derived via lexical-syntactic and sentential-syntactic configurations, especially in the form of the core structure represented by the achievements and accomplishments.
(ii) A good many unergative verbs in Chinese are represented in syntactic configuration at the lexical level, by means of a lexical-syntactic operation.
(iii) Not all verbs compatible with the ECs are unaccusative. The location NP in the subject position in ECs is licensed by Applicativization. ECs are not diagnostics.
(iv) RC is the diagnostic in accordance with DOR. The traditional RCs should be classified as RC and depictive predicate construction.
(v) Topicalization in the change of state sense can be grouped as a non-typical unaccusative representation.
This dissertation explores and gives an account for the unaccusative syntactic representations on the syntactic configuration approach, which just provide a different perspective to the complicated linguistic issues suggestively rather than prescriptively. Many suggestions related are still open for further study in the hope that it will be carried on for the linguistic theoretical development and teaching of Chinese to foreigners.
引文
1 In Williams (1980), the term of predicate is used to refer to the maximal projection like a VP or an AP.
2 There are varing models of the Thematic Hierarchy (see Baker, 1989)
3 Jackendoff terms what B.Levin’s Lexical Syntactic Representation as Lexical Syntactic Structure.
4 An event refers to a happening depicted by a verb with its complements or a light verb with its predicate and complements. An event usually refers to a linguistic entity in the real world event, which is called event structure representation (Levin and Rappaport 1999).
5 The most clearly articulated version of a configurational approach to theta role assignment is Baker’s Uniformity of Theta Assignement Hypothesis (UTAH)).
6 Hale and Keyser (1997b:62) redefine the term "s-syntax" as "the representation at which lexical items are in construction with the functional projections". If s-syntax is the representation where the output of l-syntax merges to functional categories (such as Infl), then l-syntax should be the part in the structural representation of a sentence removed of the functional categories, namely, the VP (= predicate).
7 An eventuality has many different aspects -- there can be someone who does it, causes it, experiences it, gets affected by it, suffers it, etc.. Also, an eventuality can be situated in some location, at some point of time; it can be carried out with some mode or manner, or accomplished with the aid of some instrument. An eventuality can be in progress, involve a change of state, or simply exist. All these aspects can contribute to the composition of an eventuality. They are all potentially light verbs. Indeed, in the inventory of light verbs that we postulate for Mandarin Chinese, there are members like EXIST, PROGRESS, AT, USE, FOR, in addition to those familiar ones, DO, CAUSE, and BECOME (Lin, 2001).
8 vDO, vδ,vBE represent the notions of activity, inchoativity, and stativity, respectively. vDO is similar to Dowty’s DO, and Rappaport and Levin’s ACT; vδ is similar to BECOME, which is used by Dowty, Rappaport and Levin, and Parsons (and Carter’s CHANGE); vBE corresponds to Carter’s BE, and is implicit in both Dowty’s and Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s representations.
9 Grimshaw’s (1993) distinction between semantic structure and semantic content; and Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s (1998) distinction between the structural (template) and idiosyncratic (constant) components of the verb meanings.
13 Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) do not think of this kind of location inversion as a diagnostic for unaccusatives.
14 The properties include: (i) the selection of a direct internal argument; (ii) the lack of an external argument; (iii) the inability to assign accusative Case.
16 A change of state is typically an achievement or accomplishment. Transitive change of state verbs like break situate the broken argument in direct object position and it invokes both Immediate Cause Linking Rule and Directed Change Linking Rule.
17 Unlike Hale and Keyser (1993), however, Distributed Morphology (Marantz 1993) does not differentiate between an ‘l-syntax’ occurring in the Lexicon and a regular ‘s-syntax.’ Both are simply one module, Syntax. See also Marantz (1997a).
18 V-O compounds actually include Ajective-Object (A-O) compunds. The term ‘V-O compound’ is still used in stead of Predicate-O compound just for convenience.
20 It seems to be a tradition to gloss the element si ‘dead’ in a RC like xiaosi ‘laugh dead’, qisi ‘be enraged dead’ , dasi ‘heat dead’, etc. as the English equivalent die (see Huang, 1982ff, among others). It is strange to do so, while labeling this type of RC as a string of V+ A, instead of V+V. So, I gloss the element ‘dead’ in accordance with the string of V+A.
21 Following DM, Wang (2006) argues this type of resultative compounding is actually root serialization.
22 A term used by Hale and Keyser (1992, 1993) to describe the special process of incorporation involved in the formation of denominal and deadjectival verbs. Conflation involves movement of phonologically overt lexical heads to governing lexical head positions with no phonological conent.
23 Ba-construction in a sense can be equal to causative construction and will be further discussed in later chapters.
24 Some levels of the sentential translation like (37) and the branching diagram like (38) are omitted.
26 Inner VP projection or lower projection (Chomsky, 1995) equals to the first phase projection (Chomsky, 1998).
27 Here the element dao ‘to’ in the compounds laidao ‘come to’ or qudao ‘go to’ is interpreted as a relational head denoting the terminus. But in syntactic representation I agree with Audrey. Li (p.c) to distinguish it as preverbal preposition dao ‘to’ and postverbal verb dao ‘arrive’.
28 Contrary to this view, Hale and Keyser (1993) treat them as dyadic verbs.
29 The VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis (VP-ISH) suggests that all surface subjects, whether of transitive, intransitive (unergative and unaccusative) verbs, originate inside VP, then move to the Spec-IP position. This proposes that the external argument of transitive and unergative verbs would originate in Spec-VP, but the direct internal argument of an unaccusative verb still originates as the sister of V.
31 This suggestion stems from the observation that phenomena in other languages that qualify as diagnostics of surface unaccusativity tend to be restricted to the same subclasses of unaccusative verbs as location inversion, while at the same time being open to a range of unergative verbs.
32 In GB, Chomsky(1986) does not admit ‘there’ is inserted. He just takes it as an LF affix to the postverbal NP.
33 Milsark (1974) calls the sequence like (5a) inside verbal construction and that like (5b) outside verbal construction which is also termed presentational ‘there-insertion’ by Aissen (1975).
35 Yang and Pan (2001) translate the Modernyou into English equivalent ‘have’, but I don’t think of it as the connotation of existence, thus I prefer it to be ‘exist’ .
40 According to the syntactic movement theory, unaccusative verbs do not assign a case so the only argument has to move to the subject position to receive the case or to receive the case from a coindexed expletive subject(i.e.,via LF affix by Chomsky, 1995).
41 Hu (1995) also divides existential sentences into two basic types: (dis)appearance and existence, but he was only concerned with the Aspectual nature of the verbs involved. He also uses the term quasi to describe a subtype of the existential sentences, the verbs of which take the Perfective marker -le.
44 Here I follow Yang and Pan (2001) for the EC configuration in (54), but change their xloc into zloc for convenience.
46 I term it ‘lexical passive’, which equals the ‘conceptual passive’ by Lü Shuxiang (2002)
49 I agree with Wang (2006) on that this kind of resultative compunding is actually root serialization.
51 It is a simple Particle that selects a non-relational element as its complement (room), while both happy and here are complex Particles incorporating their non-relational complement.(see Mateu and Rigau (2002))
52 See Hale 1986 for an in-depth analysis of these semantic relations. Also see Jackendoff (1983,1987) for the primitives of LCS.
59 Mateu and Rigau (2002) propose that the relational semantic feature involved in adjectives is essentially the same as that corresponding to a spatial relation, should be regarded as quite natural from a ‘localistic’ perspective (Gruber, 1965; Jackendoff, 1990).
60 See Mateu (2001) for more discussion.
62 About the Aspectual Structure with respect to the motion event in Modern Chinese, see Zhang (2007, to appear) for more discussion.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Martin Everaert. (eds.). 2004. Introduction to The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-lexicon Interface. Oxford University Press.
Anderson, S. R. 1971. On the Role of Deep Stucture in Semantic Interpretation. Foundations of Language 7: 387-96.
Arad, Michael. 1996. A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8.
Baker, Mark C. 1983. Objects, Themes, and Lexical Rules in Italian. In L. Levin, Rappaport Hovav, and Zaenen 1983, 1-45.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Change. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark C. 1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 513-553.
Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure. In, L. Haegeman (ed.). Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Baker, Mark, 2004. The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation, in Katamba, F. (ed.) Morphology: Critical Concepts in Lingistics. Vol. IV: Morphology: its Relation to Syntax. Routledge: London
Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-Verbs and Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3):291-352.
Belletti, Adriana. 1988. The Case of Unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1-34.
Borer, Hagit. 1994. The Projection of Arguments. In E. Benedicto and J.Runner (eds.). Functional Projections, UMOP 17, University of Massatussets, Amherst.
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Bresnan, Joan and Joni Kenerva. 1989. Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1: 1-50.
Bresnan, Joan and Annie. Zaenen. 1990. Deep Unaccusativity in LFG2. in Dziwirek, K. et al. (eds.). Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective. 45-57. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative Inversion and the Architecture of UG. Ms., Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian Auxiliaries. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Revised as Burzio 1986.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax:A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Bussmann, H. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. (Tr . and ed. G. P. Trauth , K. Kazzazi).
Carrier, Jill and Janet H.Randall. 1992. The Argument Structure and Syntactic Structure of Resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 173-234.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press.
Chang, Jung-hsing. 2001. The Syntax of Event Structure in Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Hawaii.
Chao,Yuan Ren.1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley, California:University of California Press.
Chen, Wangdao. 1978. Wenfa Jianlun (A Brief Introduction to Grammar, Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, Chinese version)
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and C.-T. James Huang. 1994. On the argument structure of resultative compounds. In Matthew Chen and Ovid Tzeng (eds.). In honor of William S.-Y. Wang interdisciplinary studies on language and language change, Taipei Pyramid Press. 187-221.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague.
Chomsky, Noam.1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge,Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam.1995. The Minimalist Program. Camgridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam and H. Larsnik. 1995. The Theory of Principles and Parameters. In The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press: 89-155.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Kale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press: 1-52.
Clark, Eve V. 1978. Locationals: existential, locative, and possessive constructions. In Greenberg, J. H. et al. (eds.), Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Clark, Eve V. and Herbert H. Clark. 1979. When Nouns Surface as Verbs. Language 55: 767-811.
Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2003. Datives at Large. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D.Reidel Publishing Company.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67:547-619.
Fan, Xiao and Zhang Yufeng. 2003. Yufa lilun gangyao (An Outline of Grammatical Theories). Shanghai: Shanghai yiwen chubanshe.
Fang, Xujun. 2000. Xiandai hanyu shici (Modern Lexical Categories in Chinese). Shanghai: Huadong shifandaxue chubanshe.
Feng, Shengli. 1996. Lun hanyu de yunlujiegou jiqi dui jufa gouzao de zhiyue (On the Prosodic Structure in Chinese and Its Restrictions on the Syntactic Construction). Yuyan yanjiu (1).
Feng, Shengli. 1997. GB-Theory and the Passive Construction in Chinese. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 1: 1-28.
Feng, Shengli. 1999. Prosodically Determined Distinction betweeen Word and Phrase in Chinese. Ms. University of Kansas.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.). Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1-88.
Folli, Raffaella and Ramchand G.illian 2001. Getting Results: Motion Constructions in Italian and Scottish Gaelic. In Megerdoomian, K. and Bar-el, L. A. (eds.). WCCFL 20 Proceedings. 101-114. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Fukui, Naoki and Margaret Speas. 1986. Specifiers and Projection. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8: Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 128-72. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction GrammarApproachto Argument Structure. Chicago, Ill.:Unversity of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. and Ray Jackendoff. 2003. The English Resultative as a Family of Construcitons. Ms. Univeristy of Ill. at Urbana-Champaign.
Grimshaw, Jane.1982. Subcategorization and Grammatical Relations. In A. Zaenen (ed.). Subjects and Other Subjects:35-55. Bloominton, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1987. Unaccusatives—An Overview. In Proceedings of NELS 17, 244-59. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, Jane.1993. Semantic Structure and Semantic Content in Lexical Representation. Ms. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Grimshaw, Jane and S.Vikner. 1993. Obligatory Adjuncts and the Structure of Events. In E. Reuland and W. Abraham (eds.). Knowledge and Language II: Lexical and Conceptual Structure: 143-55. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gruber, Jeffry S. 1965. Studies in Lexical Relations, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Gu, Yang. 1997. Guanyu cunxian jiegou lilun tantao (On the Existential Constructions). Xiandai wauyu (3).
Guo, Jimao. 1990. Lingzhu shubin ju (Sentences with the Possessive Subject and the Subordinative Object). zhongguo yuwen (1).
Guo, Rui. 2002. Xiandai hanyu cilei yanjiu (A Study on the Lexical Categories in Modern Chinese). Beijing: Shangwu yinshu guan.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1986. Some Transitivity Alternations in English. Lexicon Project Working Papers 7. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1987. A View from the Middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers 10. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.Hale, K and S. J. Keyser. 1992. The Syntactic Character of Argument Structure. In Roca, I.M. (ed.). Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1991. On the syntax of argument structure. Lexicon Project Working Papers 34. Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1992. The Syntactic Character of Argument Structure. In Roca, I.M. (ed.). Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In The View from Building 20. Hale andKeyser. (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1997a. the Limits of Argument Structure. In Mendikoetxea, A. and Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (eds.). Theoretical Issues at the Morphology-Syntax Interface.203-230. Bizkaia: Servicio Editorial de la UPV.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1997b. On the Complex Nature of Simple Predicators. In Alsina, A. et al. (eds.). Complex Predicates:29-65. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1997c. Adjectives, Stative Predicates, and the Roots of Stativity. Ms. MIT.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1998. the Basic Elements of Argument Structure. In Harley, H. (ed.). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, Papers from the Upenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect. 73-118. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to A Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds.). In the View From Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 111-76.
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subject, Events and Licensing. Doctoral dessertation, MIT.
Heim, Irene. 1988. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small Clause Results. Lingua 74: 101-139.
Hoekstra, Teun and Rene Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as Copular Verbs: Locational and Existential Predication. The Linuigstic Review 7: 1-79.
van Hout, A. 1996. Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternations. TILDIL Dissertation Series.
Hsu, Kylie. 2002. Selected Issues in Mandarin Chinese Word Structure Analysis. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Hu, Yushu and Fan Xiao. 1995. Dongci yanjiu (A Study on the Verbs). Kaifeng: Henandaxue chubanshe.
Huang,C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1987. Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness . In E.J. Reuland et al (eds.). The Representation of (In)definiteness . 226-253. Canbridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1992. Complex Predicates in Control. In R. K. Larson, S. Iatridow, U. Lahiri, and J. Higginbotham (eds.). Control and Grammar. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1997. On lexical structure and syntactic projection. Chinese Languages and Linguistics 3: 45-89. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Huang, C-T. James. 1998. PRO-Drop in Chinese: A Generalized Control Theory. In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.). The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 185-214.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1999. Passives East and West. Talk give at Generative Linguistics in the Old World 2, Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan.
Jackendoff, Ray.1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray.1983. Semantis and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray.1987. The Status of Thematic Relations in LinguisticTheory. Linguistic Inquiry 18:369-411.
Jackendoff, Ray.1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Jin, Guangjin. 2001. Xiandai Hanyu Dongci Yuyi Jisuan Lilun [Formal Logic Semantics of Verbs in Modern Chinese, Chinese version]. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Juarros, Eva. 2003. Argument Structure and the Lexicon/syntax Interface. Doctoral Dissertation . University of Massachusetts.
Kang, Sun-young. 1997. Unaccusative Verbs in Korean---With A Special Reference to the Verbs Ci- and Toy-. Ms. Ulsan University.
Katamba, F. 1993. Morphology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Keyser, Samuel Jay and Thomas Roeper. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry15:381-416.
Kim, Soowon and Joan Maling. 1997. A Crosslinguistic Perspective on Resultative Formation. Texas Linguistic Forum 38: 189-204.
Koopman, Hilda. and Dominique. Sportiche. 1991. The Position of Subjects. Lingua 85: 211-58.
Kratzer, Angelika.1994. The Event Argument and the Semantics of Voice. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kratzer, Angelida. 1996. Serving the External Argument from its Verb. In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds.). Phrase Structure and Lexicon. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The Origins of Telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.). Events and Grammar: Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 197-235.
Krifka, Menfred. 2001. Lexikalische Semantik, SS 2001, Institut für deutsche Sprache und Linguistik, Humboldt-Universit?t zu Berlin, Di 14-16, MOS 403.
Kuno, Susumu. 1971. The Position of Locatives in Existential Sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 333-378.
Kural, Murat. 1996. Verb Incorporation and Elementary Predicates. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.
Levin, Beth. 1983. On The Nature of Ergativity. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Cambrige, Mass.
Levin, Beth.1991. Building a Lexion: The Contribution of Linguistic Theory. International Journal of Lexicography 4: 205-26.
Levin, Beth.1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Levin, Beth. 1999. Objecthood: An Event Structure Perspective. In Proceedings of the 35th Annunal Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. 223-247.
Levin, Beth and Tova Rapoport. 1988. Lexical Subordination. In Papers from the Twenty-Fourth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 275-89. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Havov. 1988. Non-event –er Nominals: A Probe into Argument Structure. Linguistics 26: 1067-83.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1989. An Approach to Unaccusative Mismatches. In Proceedings of NELS 19. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 314-28.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface. the MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2003. The Semantic Determinants of Argument Expression: A View from English Resultative Construction. In Guern, J. and J. Lecarme (eds.). The Syntax of Time. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Levin, L. 1986. Operation on Lexical Forms: Unaccusative Rules in Germanic Languages. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra. A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Li, Jingxi. 2000. Xinzhu guoyu wenfa [A New Chinese Grammar, Chinese version]. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan.
Li, Yafei. 1990. On V-V Compounds in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:177-207.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey.1990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lin, Jimmy. 2004. Event Structure and the Encoding of Arguments: The Syntax of the Mandarin and English Verb Phrase. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Lin, Tzong-Hong. 2001. Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Liu, Feng-His. 1997. An Aspectual Analysis of ba. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 51-99.
Lu, Yingshun. 2005. Xingtai yu hanyu yufa yanjiu [A Study on Morphology and Chinese Grammar, Chinese version]. Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe.
Lü, Shuxiang. 1986. Dongbu jiegou de duoyixing [On Polysemy of Resultative Constructions, Chinese version]. Zhongguo yuwen (1).
Lü, Shuxiang. 2002. hanyu yufa lunwenji [A Collection of Papers on Chinese Grammar, Chinese version] (revised and enlarged edition). Beijing: Shangwu yinshu guan.
Lyons, J. 1967. A Note on Poessive, Existential and Locative Sentences. Foundation of Language 3: 390-396.
Ma, Qingzhu. 2004. Hanyu dongci he dongcixing jiegou [Chinese Verbs and the Verbal Cosntructions, Chinese version]. Beijing: Shangwu yinshu guan.
McCawley, James D. 1968. Concerning the Base Component of A Transformational Grammar. Foundations of Language 4: 243-269.
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of Asymmeties in Double Object Constructions. In S.A. Mchombo (ed.). Theoretical Aspcts of Bantu Grammar 1. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 113-151.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annunal Penn Linguistics Colloquium.
Mateu, Jaum. 1997. On Relational Semantics: A Semantic Theory of Argument Structure. Master Thesis, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra.
Mateu, Jaum. 1999. Universals of Semantic Construal for Lexical Syntactic Relations. Paper presented at the 1999 GLOW Workshop: Sources of Universals. University of Potsdam, Potsdam. GLOW Newsletter 42:77.
Mateu, Jaum. 2000 Syntactically-Based Lexical Decomposition: the Case of Climb Revisited. Paper presented at the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Proceedings of BLS 26.
Mateu, Jaum. 2002. Argument Structure: Relational Construal at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Doctoral Dissertation, Universtat Autonoma de Barcelona.
Mateu, Jaum and German Rigau. 2002. A Minimalist Account of Conflation Processes: Parametric Variation at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface. In Alexiadou, A. (ed.). Theoretical Approaches to Universals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 211-236.
Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward An Explanation of Certain Peculiarities in the Existential Construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3, 1-30.Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Light Verbs and the Ergative Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 20:659-668.
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. The Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley. 157-189.
Perlmutter, David and Paul Postal. 1984. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. In David Perlmutter and Carol Rosen (eds.). Studies in Relational Gammar. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. 81-125.
Perlmutter, David. 1989. Multiattachment and the Unaccusative Hypothesis: The Perfect Auxiliary in Italian. Probus 1: 63-119.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The Syntax of Event Structure. Cognition 41: 47-81. Also in B. Levin and Pinker 1992, 47-81.
Pylkk?nen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Qu, Yanfeng. 1993. Locative inversion in Mandarin Chinese. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 38, 305-330.
Reuland, E. J. 1983. The extended projection principle and the definiteness effect. In M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, and M. Wescoat, (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2. Stanford Linguistics Association, Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Safir, K. 1982. Syntactic Chains and the Definiteness Effect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2001. Aktionsart, l-Syntax and Seleciton. In Proceedings of Perspectives on Aspect.
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2003. First Phrase Syntax. Ms. University of Oxford.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 1988. What to do with Theta-Roles. In W. Wilkins (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 21: Themantic Relations. New York; Academic Press. 7-36.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 1992. –er Nominals: Implications for a Theory of Argument Structure. In Stowell and Wehrli, 1992: 127-53.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin.1998. Building Verb Meanings. The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. M. Butt and W. Geuder (eds.). Stanford, CSLI Publications: 97-134.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 2001. An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives. Language 77. 766-797.
Rosen, Carol. 1984. The Interface between Semantic Roles and Initial Grammatical Relations. In Perlmutter, D. and Rosen, C. (eds.). Studies in Relational Grammar II. Chicago, III.: University of Chicago Press. 38-77.
Shen, Jiaxuan. 2003. Xiandai hanyu dongbu jiegou de leixingxue kaocha (A Look into the Typology of Modern Chinese Resultative Constructions). Shijie hanyu jiaoxue (3):17-23.
Shi, Yuzhi and Charles N. Li. 1999. The Development of the Resultative Construction and Its Consequences. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 2:83-100.
Shi, Yuzhi. 2000. Yufa de renzhi yuyi jichu (The Grammatical Bases of Cognitive Semantics). Nanchang: Jiangxi jiaoyu chubanshe.
Shi, Yuzhi.2002. The Establishment of Modern Chinese Grammar: The Formation of the Resultative Construction and its Effects. John Benjamins Publishing Company:Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Shi, Ziqiang. 1988. The Present and Past of the Particle –le in Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Shin, Kyungsik. 1999. Syntactic Description and Argument Structure: Unaccusativity, passivization and Binding. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. In L. Levin, M. Rappaport Hovav, and A. Zaenen (eds.). Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 143-157.
Sybesma, Rint. 1997. Why Chinese Verb-le Is A Resultative Predicate. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 215-262.
Sybesma, Rint. 1999. The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tai, James H-Y. 1984. Verbs and Times in Chinese: Vendler’s Four Categories. In D. Testen, V. Mishra, and J. Drogo (eds.). Papers from the Parasession on Lexical Semantics. Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, Ill.
Takami, Ken-ichi. 1998. Unaccusativity and the Resultative Constructions in English and Japanese. Ms. Tokyo Metropolitan University
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms. In T. Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon: 57-149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward A Cognitive Semantics (I,II). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tenny, C. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. Doctoral. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Tenny, Carol. 1992. The Aspectual Interface Hypothesis. In Sag, I. and A. Szabolcsi (eds.). Lexical Matters. 1-27. Standford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Travis, L. 2000. Event Structure in Syntax. In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky (eds.) The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, 145-185. Stanford: Center for the Study of language and Information.
Tyler, Lisa. 1999. The Syntax and Semantics of Zero Verbs: A Minimalist Approach. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida.
Van Valin, Robert. D. 1990. Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity. Language 66: 221-60.
Van Valin, Robert. D. 1993. A Synposis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, R.D. (ed.). Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1-64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van Valin, Robert. D. and Randy J. LaPolla.1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. CUP. 2002. Beijing, Peking University Press.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wang Baohua. 2003. Yuyi yu dongci lunyuan jiegou peizhi [Semantics and Argument Structure Configuration of Verbs—at the Syntax and semantics Interface, Chinese version]. Doctoral Dissertation. Fudan University.
Wang, qi. 2006. Conflation and Compounding: A Cross-Linguistic Study of First-Phase Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation. Shanghai Jiaotong University. Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203-38.
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument Structure and Morphology. The Linguistic Review 1: 81-114.
Xu, Jie. 1999. Liangzhong baoliu binyu jushi ji xiangguan yufa lilun wenti [Two Types of the Remaining Object and the Corresponding Theoretical Problems, Chinese version]. Dangdai yuyanxue (1):16-29.
Xu, Zhongren. 1956. Wangmian sile fuqin [Wangmian Had His Father Dead, Chinese version]. Yuwen zhishi (9).
Xu, Liejiong and Langendoen. 1985. Topic Structures in Chinese. Language 61:1-27.
Xu, Liejiong. 1999. Gongxing yu gexing---hanyu yuyanxue zhong de zhengyi [Universals and Diversities---Controversy in Chinese Linguistics, Chinese version]. Beijing: Beijing yuyan wenhua daxue chubanshe.
Yang, Shuying. 1999. Cong feibinge dongci xianxiang kan yuyi yu jufa jiegou zhijian de guanxi [Relations between Semantics and Syntax---from the Perspective of Unaccusative Verbs, Chinese version]. Dangdai yuyanxue (1): 30-43.
Yang, Suying and Haihua, Pan. 2001. A Constructional Analysis of the Existential Structure. In Studies in Chinese Linguistics II. Linguistics Society of Hong Kong.
Zaenen, Annie. 1993. Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating Syntax and Lexical Semantics. In J. Pustejovsky (ed.). Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 129-161.
Zhang, Daqiu. 2006. Cunxian jiegou jufa yuyi guanxi quanshi [Relational Construal of the Existential Constructions, Chinese version]. Waiyu yanjiu (4).
Zhang, Daqiu. 2007 (to appear). Ti jiemian jiashe yu hanyu yundong shijian jiegou [Aspectual Interface Hypothesis and the Motion Event Structure in Chinese,Chinese version] (to appear in Language Teaching and Research).
Zhang, Yunqiu. 2004. Xiandai hanyu shoushi binyu yanjiu [On Patient Objects in Modern Chinese, Chinese version]. Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe.
Zhu, Dexi. 2001. Xiandai hanyu yufa yanjiu [Studies on Modern Chinese Grammar, Chinese version]. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan.
Zhu, Xingfan. 2005. Qingdongci he hanyu bujiwu dongci daibinyu xianxiang [Light Verbs and the Intransitive Verbs with Object, Chinese version]. Xiandaiwaiyu (3): 221-231.
2 There are varing models of the Thematic Hierarchy (see Baker, 1989)
3 Jackendoff terms what B.Levin’s Lexical Syntactic Representation as Lexical Syntactic Structure.
4 An event refers to a happening depicted by a verb with its complements or a light verb with its predicate and complements. An event usually refers to a linguistic entity in the real world event, which is called event structure representation (Levin and Rappaport 1999).
5 The most clearly articulated version of a configurational approach to theta role assignment is Baker’s Uniformity of Theta Assignement Hypothesis (UTAH)).
6 Hale and Keyser (1997b:62) redefine the term "s-syntax" as "the representation at which lexical items are in construction with the functional projections". If s-syntax is the representation where the output of l-syntax merges to functional categories (such as Infl), then l-syntax should be the part in the structural representation of a sentence removed of the functional categories, namely, the VP (= predicate).
7 An eventuality has many different aspects -- there can be someone who does it, causes it, experiences it, gets affected by it, suffers it, etc.. Also, an eventuality can be situated in some location, at some point of time; it can be carried out with some mode or manner, or accomplished with the aid of some instrument. An eventuality can be in progress, involve a change of state, or simply exist. All these aspects can contribute to the composition of an eventuality. They are all potentially light verbs. Indeed, in the inventory of light verbs that we postulate for Mandarin Chinese, there are members like EXIST, PROGRESS, AT, USE, FOR, in addition to those familiar ones, DO, CAUSE, and BECOME (Lin, 2001).
8 vDO, vδ,vBE represent the notions of activity, inchoativity, and stativity, respectively. vDO is similar to Dowty’s DO, and Rappaport and Levin’s ACT; vδ is similar to BECOME, which is used by Dowty, Rappaport and Levin, and Parsons (and Carter’s CHANGE); vBE corresponds to Carter’s BE, and is implicit in both Dowty’s and Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s representations.
9 Grimshaw’s (1993) distinction between semantic structure and semantic content; and Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s (1998) distinction between the structural (template) and idiosyncratic (constant) components of the verb meanings.
13 Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) do not think of this kind of location inversion as a diagnostic for unaccusatives.
14 The properties include: (i) the selection of a direct internal argument; (ii) the lack of an external argument; (iii) the inability to assign accusative Case.
16 A change of state is typically an achievement or accomplishment. Transitive change of state verbs like break situate the broken argument in direct object position and it invokes both Immediate Cause Linking Rule and Directed Change Linking Rule.
17 Unlike Hale and Keyser (1993), however, Distributed Morphology (Marantz 1993) does not differentiate between an ‘l-syntax’ occurring in the Lexicon and a regular ‘s-syntax.’ Both are simply one module, Syntax. See also Marantz (1997a).
18 V-O compounds actually include Ajective-Object (A-O) compunds. The term ‘V-O compound’ is still used in stead of Predicate-O compound just for convenience.
20 It seems to be a tradition to gloss the element si ‘dead’ in a RC like xiaosi ‘laugh dead’, qisi ‘be enraged dead’ , dasi ‘heat dead’, etc. as the English equivalent die (see Huang, 1982ff, among others). It is strange to do so, while labeling this type of RC as a string of V+ A, instead of V+V. So, I gloss the element ‘dead’ in accordance with the string of V+A.
21 Following DM, Wang (2006) argues this type of resultative compounding is actually root serialization.
22 A term used by Hale and Keyser (1992, 1993) to describe the special process of incorporation involved in the formation of denominal and deadjectival verbs. Conflation involves movement of phonologically overt lexical heads to governing lexical head positions with no phonological conent.
23 Ba-construction in a sense can be equal to causative construction and will be further discussed in later chapters.
24 Some levels of the sentential translation like (37) and the branching diagram like (38) are omitted.
26 Inner VP projection or lower projection (Chomsky, 1995) equals to the first phase projection (Chomsky, 1998).
27 Here the element dao ‘to’ in the compounds laidao ‘come to’ or qudao ‘go to’ is interpreted as a relational head denoting the terminus. But in syntactic representation I agree with Audrey. Li (p.c) to distinguish it as preverbal preposition dao ‘to’ and postverbal verb dao ‘arrive’.
28 Contrary to this view, Hale and Keyser (1993) treat them as dyadic verbs.
29 The VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis (VP-ISH) suggests that all surface subjects, whether of transitive, intransitive (unergative and unaccusative) verbs, originate inside VP, then move to the Spec-IP position. This proposes that the external argument of transitive and unergative verbs would originate in Spec-VP, but the direct internal argument of an unaccusative verb still originates as the sister of V.
31 This suggestion stems from the observation that phenomena in other languages that qualify as diagnostics of surface unaccusativity tend to be restricted to the same subclasses of unaccusative verbs as location inversion, while at the same time being open to a range of unergative verbs.
32 In GB, Chomsky(1986) does not admit ‘there’ is inserted. He just takes it as an LF affix to the postverbal NP.
33 Milsark (1974) calls the sequence like (5a) inside verbal construction and that like (5b) outside verbal construction which is also termed presentational ‘there-insertion’ by Aissen (1975).
35 Yang and Pan (2001) translate the Modernyou into English equivalent ‘have’, but I don’t think of it as the connotation of existence, thus I prefer it to be ‘exist’ .
40 According to the syntactic movement theory, unaccusative verbs do not assign a case so the only argument has to move to the subject position to receive the case or to receive the case from a coindexed expletive subject(i.e.,via LF affix by Chomsky, 1995).
41 Hu (1995) also divides existential sentences into two basic types: (dis)appearance and existence, but he was only concerned with the Aspectual nature of the verbs involved. He also uses the term quasi to describe a subtype of the existential sentences, the verbs of which take the Perfective marker -le.
44 Here I follow Yang and Pan (2001) for the EC configuration in (54), but change their xloc into zloc for convenience.
46 I term it ‘lexical passive’, which equals the ‘conceptual passive’ by Lü Shuxiang (2002)
49 I agree with Wang (2006) on that this kind of resultative compunding is actually root serialization.
51 It is a simple Particle that selects a non-relational element as its complement (room), while both happy and here are complex Particles incorporating their non-relational complement.(see Mateu and Rigau (2002))
52 See Hale 1986 for an in-depth analysis of these semantic relations. Also see Jackendoff (1983,1987) for the primitives of LCS.
59 Mateu and Rigau (2002) propose that the relational semantic feature involved in adjectives is essentially the same as that corresponding to a spatial relation, should be regarded as quite natural from a ‘localistic’ perspective (Gruber, 1965; Jackendoff, 1990).
60 See Mateu (2001) for more discussion.
62 About the Aspectual Structure with respect to the motion event in Modern Chinese, see Zhang (2007, to appear) for more discussion.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Martin Everaert. (eds.). 2004. Introduction to The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax-lexicon Interface. Oxford University Press.
Anderson, S. R. 1971. On the Role of Deep Stucture in Semantic Interpretation. Foundations of Language 7: 387-96.
Arad, Michael. 1996. A minimalist view of the syntax-lexical semantics interface. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8.
Baker, Mark C. 1983. Objects, Themes, and Lexical Rules in Italian. In L. Levin, Rappaport Hovav, and Zaenen 1983, 1-45.
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Change. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark C. 1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 513-553.
Baker, Mark C. 1997. Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure. In, L. Haegeman (ed.). Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Baker, Mark, 2004. The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explanation, in Katamba, F. (ed.) Morphology: Critical Concepts in Lingistics. Vol. IV: Morphology: its Relation to Syntax. Routledge: London
Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-Verbs and Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6(3):291-352.
Belletti, Adriana. 1988. The Case of Unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1-34.
Borer, Hagit. 1994. The Projection of Arguments. In E. Benedicto and J.Runner (eds.). Functional Projections, UMOP 17, University of Massatussets, Amherst.
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Bresnan, Joan and Joni Kenerva. 1989. Locative Inversion in Chichewa: A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1: 1-50.
Bresnan, Joan and Annie. Zaenen. 1990. Deep Unaccusativity in LFG2. in Dziwirek, K. et al. (eds.). Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective. 45-57. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative Inversion and the Architecture of UG. Ms., Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian Auxiliaries. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Revised as Burzio 1986.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax:A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Bussmann, H. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. (Tr . and ed. G. P. Trauth , K. Kazzazi).
Carrier, Jill and Janet H.Randall. 1992. The Argument Structure and Syntactic Structure of Resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 173-234.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press.
Chang, Jung-hsing. 2001. The Syntax of Event Structure in Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Hawaii.
Chao,Yuan Ren.1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley, California:University of California Press.
Chen, Wangdao. 1978. Wenfa Jianlun (A Brief Introduction to Grammar, Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, Chinese version)
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and C.-T. James Huang. 1994. On the argument structure of resultative compounds. In Matthew Chen and Ovid Tzeng (eds.). In honor of William S.-Y. Wang interdisciplinary studies on language and language change, Taipei Pyramid Press. 187-221.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague.
Chomsky, Noam.1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge,Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam.1995. The Minimalist Program. Camgridge, Mass:MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam and H. Larsnik. 1995. The Theory of Principles and Parameters. In The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press: 89-155.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Kale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press: 1-52.
Clark, Eve V. 1978. Locationals: existential, locative, and possessive constructions. In Greenberg, J. H. et al. (eds.), Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Clark, Eve V. and Herbert H. Clark. 1979. When Nouns Surface as Verbs. Language 55: 767-811.
Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2003. Datives at Large. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D.Reidel Publishing Company.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67:547-619.
Fan, Xiao and Zhang Yufeng. 2003. Yufa lilun gangyao (An Outline of Grammatical Theories). Shanghai: Shanghai yiwen chubanshe.
Fang, Xujun. 2000. Xiandai hanyu shici (Modern Lexical Categories in Chinese). Shanghai: Huadong shifandaxue chubanshe.
Feng, Shengli. 1996. Lun hanyu de yunlujiegou jiqi dui jufa gouzao de zhiyue (On the Prosodic Structure in Chinese and Its Restrictions on the Syntactic Construction). Yuyan yanjiu (1).
Feng, Shengli. 1997. GB-Theory and the Passive Construction in Chinese. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 1: 1-28.
Feng, Shengli. 1999. Prosodically Determined Distinction betweeen Word and Phrase in Chinese. Ms. University of Kansas.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.). Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1-88.
Folli, Raffaella and Ramchand G.illian 2001. Getting Results: Motion Constructions in Italian and Scottish Gaelic. In Megerdoomian, K. and Bar-el, L. A. (eds.). WCCFL 20 Proceedings. 101-114. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Fukui, Naoki and Margaret Speas. 1986. Specifiers and Projection. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8: Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 128-72. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction GrammarApproachto Argument Structure. Chicago, Ill.:Unversity of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. and Ray Jackendoff. 2003. The English Resultative as a Family of Construcitons. Ms. Univeristy of Ill. at Urbana-Champaign.
Grimshaw, Jane.1982. Subcategorization and Grammatical Relations. In A. Zaenen (ed.). Subjects and Other Subjects:35-55. Bloominton, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistic Club.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1987. Unaccusatives—An Overview. In Proceedings of NELS 17, 244-59. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grimshaw, Jane.1993. Semantic Structure and Semantic Content in Lexical Representation. Ms. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
Grimshaw, Jane and S.Vikner. 1993. Obligatory Adjuncts and the Structure of Events. In E. Reuland and W. Abraham (eds.). Knowledge and Language II: Lexical and Conceptual Structure: 143-55. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gruber, Jeffry S. 1965. Studies in Lexical Relations, Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Gu, Yang. 1997. Guanyu cunxian jiegou lilun tantao (On the Existential Constructions). Xiandai wauyu (3).
Guo, Jimao. 1990. Lingzhu shubin ju (Sentences with the Possessive Subject and the Subordinative Object). zhongguo yuwen (1).
Guo, Rui. 2002. Xiandai hanyu cilei yanjiu (A Study on the Lexical Categories in Modern Chinese). Beijing: Shangwu yinshu guan.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1986. Some Transitivity Alternations in English. Lexicon Project Working Papers 7. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1987. A View from the Middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers 10. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.Hale, K and S. J. Keyser. 1992. The Syntactic Character of Argument Structure. In Roca, I.M. (ed.). Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1991. On the syntax of argument structure. Lexicon Project Working Papers 34. Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1992. The Syntactic Character of Argument Structure. In Roca, I.M. (ed.). Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In The View from Building 20. Hale andKeyser. (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1997a. the Limits of Argument Structure. In Mendikoetxea, A. and Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (eds.). Theoretical Issues at the Morphology-Syntax Interface.203-230. Bizkaia: Servicio Editorial de la UPV.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1997b. On the Complex Nature of Simple Predicators. In Alsina, A. et al. (eds.). Complex Predicates:29-65. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1997c. Adjectives, Stative Predicates, and the Roots of Stativity. Ms. MIT.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1998. the Basic Elements of Argument Structure. In Harley, H. (ed.). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, Papers from the Upenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect. 73-118. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to A Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds.). In the View From Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 111-76.
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subject, Events and Licensing. Doctoral dessertation, MIT.
Heim, Irene. 1988. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small Clause Results. Lingua 74: 101-139.
Hoekstra, Teun and Rene Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as Copular Verbs: Locational and Existential Predication. The Linuigstic Review 7: 1-79.
van Hout, A. 1996. Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternations. TILDIL Dissertation Series.
Hsu, Kylie. 2002. Selected Issues in Mandarin Chinese Word Structure Analysis. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Hu, Yushu and Fan Xiao. 1995. Dongci yanjiu (A Study on the Verbs). Kaifeng: Henandaxue chubanshe.
Huang,C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1987. Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness . In E.J. Reuland et al (eds.). The Representation of (In)definiteness . 226-253. Canbridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1992. Complex Predicates in Control. In R. K. Larson, S. Iatridow, U. Lahiri, and J. Higginbotham (eds.). Control and Grammar. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1997. On lexical structure and syntactic projection. Chinese Languages and Linguistics 3: 45-89. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Huang, C-T. James. 1998. PRO-Drop in Chinese: A Generalized Control Theory. In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.). The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 185-214.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1999. Passives East and West. Talk give at Generative Linguistics in the Old World 2, Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan.
Jackendoff, Ray.1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray.1983. Semantis and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray.1987. The Status of Thematic Relations in LinguisticTheory. Linguistic Inquiry 18:369-411.
Jackendoff, Ray.1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Jin, Guangjin. 2001. Xiandai Hanyu Dongci Yuyi Jisuan Lilun [Formal Logic Semantics of Verbs in Modern Chinese, Chinese version]. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Juarros, Eva. 2003. Argument Structure and the Lexicon/syntax Interface. Doctoral Dissertation . University of Massachusetts.
Kang, Sun-young. 1997. Unaccusative Verbs in Korean---With A Special Reference to the Verbs Ci- and Toy-. Ms. Ulsan University.
Katamba, F. 1993. Morphology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Keyser, Samuel Jay and Thomas Roeper. 1984. On the middle and ergative constructions in English. Linguistic Inquiry15:381-416.
Kim, Soowon and Joan Maling. 1997. A Crosslinguistic Perspective on Resultative Formation. Texas Linguistic Forum 38: 189-204.
Koopman, Hilda. and Dominique. Sportiche. 1991. The Position of Subjects. Lingua 85: 211-58.
Kratzer, Angelika.1994. The Event Argument and the Semantics of Voice. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kratzer, Angelida. 1996. Serving the External Argument from its Verb. In J. Rooryck and L. Zaring (eds.). Phrase Structure and Lexicon. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The Origins of Telicity. In S. Rothstein (ed.). Events and Grammar: Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 197-235.
Krifka, Menfred. 2001. Lexikalische Semantik, SS 2001, Institut für deutsche Sprache und Linguistik, Humboldt-Universit?t zu Berlin, Di 14-16, MOS 403.
Kuno, Susumu. 1971. The Position of Locatives in Existential Sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 333-378.
Kural, Murat. 1996. Verb Incorporation and Elementary Predicates. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and Dangerous Things. University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.
Levin, Beth. 1983. On The Nature of Ergativity. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Cambrige, Mass.
Levin, Beth.1991. Building a Lexion: The Contribution of Linguistic Theory. International Journal of Lexicography 4: 205-26.
Levin, Beth.1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago:Chicago University Press.
Levin, Beth. 1999. Objecthood: An Event Structure Perspective. In Proceedings of the 35th Annunal Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. 223-247.
Levin, Beth and Tova Rapoport. 1988. Lexical Subordination. In Papers from the Twenty-Fourth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 275-89. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Havov. 1988. Non-event –er Nominals: A Probe into Argument Structure. Linguistics 26: 1067-83.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1989. An Approach to Unaccusative Mismatches. In Proceedings of NELS 19. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 314-28.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface. the MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2003. The Semantic Determinants of Argument Expression: A View from English Resultative Construction. In Guern, J. and J. Lecarme (eds.). The Syntax of Time. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Levin, L. 1986. Operation on Lexical Forms: Unaccusative Rules in Germanic Languages. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra. A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Li, Jingxi. 2000. Xinzhu guoyu wenfa [A New Chinese Grammar, Chinese version]. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan.
Li, Yafei. 1990. On V-V Compounds in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:177-207.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey.1990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lin, Jimmy. 2004. Event Structure and the Encoding of Arguments: The Syntax of the Mandarin and English Verb Phrase. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Lin, Tzong-Hong. 2001. Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Liu, Feng-His. 1997. An Aspectual Analysis of ba. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 51-99.
Lu, Yingshun. 2005. Xingtai yu hanyu yufa yanjiu [A Study on Morphology and Chinese Grammar, Chinese version]. Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe.
Lü, Shuxiang. 1986. Dongbu jiegou de duoyixing [On Polysemy of Resultative Constructions, Chinese version]. Zhongguo yuwen (1).
Lü, Shuxiang. 2002. hanyu yufa lunwenji [A Collection of Papers on Chinese Grammar, Chinese version] (revised and enlarged edition). Beijing: Shangwu yinshu guan.
Lyons, J. 1967. A Note on Poessive, Existential and Locative Sentences. Foundation of Language 3: 390-396.
Ma, Qingzhu. 2004. Hanyu dongci he dongcixing jiegou [Chinese Verbs and the Verbal Cosntructions, Chinese version]. Beijing: Shangwu yinshu guan.
McCawley, James D. 1968. Concerning the Base Component of A Transformational Grammar. Foundations of Language 4: 243-269.
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of Asymmeties in Double Object Constructions. In S.A. Mchombo (ed.). Theoretical Aspcts of Bantu Grammar 1. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 113-151.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annunal Penn Linguistics Colloquium.
Mateu, Jaum. 1997. On Relational Semantics: A Semantic Theory of Argument Structure. Master Thesis, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra.
Mateu, Jaum. 1999. Universals of Semantic Construal for Lexical Syntactic Relations. Paper presented at the 1999 GLOW Workshop: Sources of Universals. University of Potsdam, Potsdam. GLOW Newsletter 42:77.
Mateu, Jaum. 2000 Syntactically-Based Lexical Decomposition: the Case of Climb Revisited. Paper presented at the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Proceedings of BLS 26.
Mateu, Jaum. 2002. Argument Structure: Relational Construal at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Doctoral Dissertation, Universtat Autonoma de Barcelona.
Mateu, Jaum and German Rigau. 2002. A Minimalist Account of Conflation Processes: Parametric Variation at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface. In Alexiadou, A. (ed.). Theoretical Approaches to Universals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 211-236.
Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward An Explanation of Certain Peculiarities in the Existential Construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3, 1-30.Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1989. Light Verbs and the Ergative Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 20:659-668.
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. The Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley. 157-189.
Perlmutter, David and Paul Postal. 1984. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. In David Perlmutter and Carol Rosen (eds.). Studies in Relational Gammar. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. 81-125.
Perlmutter, David. 1989. Multiattachment and the Unaccusative Hypothesis: The Perfect Auxiliary in Italian. Probus 1: 63-119.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The Syntax of Event Structure. Cognition 41: 47-81. Also in B. Levin and Pinker 1992, 47-81.
Pylkk?nen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Qu, Yanfeng. 1993. Locative inversion in Mandarin Chinese. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 38, 305-330.
Reuland, E. J. 1983. The extended projection principle and the definiteness effect. In M. Barlow, D. Flickinger, and M. Wescoat, (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2. Stanford Linguistics Association, Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Safir, K. 1982. Syntactic Chains and the Definiteness Effect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2001. Aktionsart, l-Syntax and Seleciton. In Proceedings of Perspectives on Aspect.
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2003. First Phrase Syntax. Ms. University of Oxford.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 1988. What to do with Theta-Roles. In W. Wilkins (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 21: Themantic Relations. New York; Academic Press. 7-36.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 1992. –er Nominals: Implications for a Theory of Argument Structure. In Stowell and Wehrli, 1992: 127-53.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin.1998. Building Verb Meanings. The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. M. Butt and W. Geuder (eds.). Stanford, CSLI Publications: 97-134.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin. 2001. An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives. Language 77. 766-797.
Rosen, Carol. 1984. The Interface between Semantic Roles and Initial Grammatical Relations. In Perlmutter, D. and Rosen, C. (eds.). Studies in Relational Grammar II. Chicago, III.: University of Chicago Press. 38-77.
Shen, Jiaxuan. 2003. Xiandai hanyu dongbu jiegou de leixingxue kaocha (A Look into the Typology of Modern Chinese Resultative Constructions). Shijie hanyu jiaoxue (3):17-23.
Shi, Yuzhi and Charles N. Li. 1999. The Development of the Resultative Construction and Its Consequences. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 2:83-100.
Shi, Yuzhi. 2000. Yufa de renzhi yuyi jichu (The Grammatical Bases of Cognitive Semantics). Nanchang: Jiangxi jiaoyu chubanshe.
Shi, Yuzhi.2002. The Establishment of Modern Chinese Grammar: The Formation of the Resultative Construction and its Effects. John Benjamins Publishing Company:Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Shi, Ziqiang. 1988. The Present and Past of the Particle –le in Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Shin, Kyungsik. 1999. Syntactic Description and Argument Structure: Unaccusativity, passivization and Binding. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. In L. Levin, M. Rappaport Hovav, and A. Zaenen (eds.). Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 143-157.
Sybesma, Rint. 1997. Why Chinese Verb-le Is A Resultative Predicate. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 215-262.
Sybesma, Rint. 1999. The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tai, James H-Y. 1984. Verbs and Times in Chinese: Vendler’s Four Categories. In D. Testen, V. Mishra, and J. Drogo (eds.). Papers from the Parasession on Lexical Semantics. Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, Ill.
Takami, Ken-ichi. 1998. Unaccusativity and the Resultative Constructions in English and Japanese. Ms. Tokyo Metropolitan University
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms. In T. Shopen (ed.). Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon: 57-149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward A Cognitive Semantics (I,II). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tenny, C. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. Doctoral. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Tenny, Carol. 1992. The Aspectual Interface Hypothesis. In Sag, I. and A. Szabolcsi (eds.). Lexical Matters. 1-27. Standford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Travis, L. 2000. Event Structure in Syntax. In C. Tenny and J. Pustejovsky (eds.) The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, 145-185. Stanford: Center for the Study of language and Information.
Tyler, Lisa. 1999. The Syntax and Semantics of Zero Verbs: A Minimalist Approach. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida.
Van Valin, Robert. D. 1990. Semantic Parameters of Split Intransitivity. Language 66: 221-60.
Van Valin, Robert. D. 1993. A Synposis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, R.D. (ed.). Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1-64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Van Valin, Robert. D. and Randy J. LaPolla.1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. CUP. 2002. Beijing, Peking University Press.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wang Baohua. 2003. Yuyi yu dongci lunyuan jiegou peizhi [Semantics and Argument Structure Configuration of Verbs—at the Syntax and semantics Interface, Chinese version]. Doctoral Dissertation. Fudan University.
Wang, qi. 2006. Conflation and Compounding: A Cross-Linguistic Study of First-Phase Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation. Shanghai Jiaotong University. Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203-38.
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Argument Structure and Morphology. The Linguistic Review 1: 81-114.
Xu, Jie. 1999. Liangzhong baoliu binyu jushi ji xiangguan yufa lilun wenti [Two Types of the Remaining Object and the Corresponding Theoretical Problems, Chinese version]. Dangdai yuyanxue (1):16-29.
Xu, Zhongren. 1956. Wangmian sile fuqin [Wangmian Had His Father Dead, Chinese version]. Yuwen zhishi (9).
Xu, Liejiong and Langendoen. 1985. Topic Structures in Chinese. Language 61:1-27.
Xu, Liejiong. 1999. Gongxing yu gexing---hanyu yuyanxue zhong de zhengyi [Universals and Diversities---Controversy in Chinese Linguistics, Chinese version]. Beijing: Beijing yuyan wenhua daxue chubanshe.
Yang, Shuying. 1999. Cong feibinge dongci xianxiang kan yuyi yu jufa jiegou zhijian de guanxi [Relations between Semantics and Syntax---from the Perspective of Unaccusative Verbs, Chinese version]. Dangdai yuyanxue (1): 30-43.
Yang, Suying and Haihua, Pan. 2001. A Constructional Analysis of the Existential Structure. In Studies in Chinese Linguistics II. Linguistics Society of Hong Kong.
Zaenen, Annie. 1993. Unaccusativity in Dutch: Integrating Syntax and Lexical Semantics. In J. Pustejovsky (ed.). Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 129-161.
Zhang, Daqiu. 2006. Cunxian jiegou jufa yuyi guanxi quanshi [Relational Construal of the Existential Constructions, Chinese version]. Waiyu yanjiu (4).
Zhang, Daqiu. 2007 (to appear). Ti jiemian jiashe yu hanyu yundong shijian jiegou [Aspectual Interface Hypothesis and the Motion Event Structure in Chinese,Chinese version] (to appear in Language Teaching and Research).
Zhang, Yunqiu. 2004. Xiandai hanyu shoushi binyu yanjiu [On Patient Objects in Modern Chinese, Chinese version]. Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe.
Zhu, Dexi. 2001. Xiandai hanyu yufa yanjiu [Studies on Modern Chinese Grammar, Chinese version]. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan.
Zhu, Xingfan. 2005. Qingdongci he hanyu bujiwu dongci daibinyu xianxiang [Light Verbs and the Intransitive Verbs with Object, Chinese version]. Xiandaiwaiyu (3): 221-231.