Scholarlink

<p>This paper argues against a uniform syntactic analysis of V-V compound resultatives and V-<i>de</i> phrasal resultatives in Mandarin Chinese. I propose instead that V-V resultatives are built in morphology while V-<i>de</i> resultatives are built in syntax. My proposal predicts that V-V and V-<i>de</i> resultatives will exhibit distinct behaviour with respect to a number of syntactic processes. (i) V-<i>de</i> resultatives are accessible to syntactic operations while V-V resultatives are not. (ii) Since obligatory arguments must be projected in a syntactic structure, V1 must project its arguments in V-<i>de</i> resultatives but not in V-V resultatives. Furthermore, it seems that these differences in argument structure between compound and phrasal resultatives are observed in languages other than Mandarin. These differences cannot be captured within a theoretical framework that makes no reference in syntax to some notion of a “word”. Therefore, to the extent that it is on the right track, my proposal provides evidence for a distinction between word syntax and phrasal syntax.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Compound vs phrasal resultatives: the view from Mandarin Chinese

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月31日

查看全文
  • Wenkai Tay

摘要

This paper argues against a uniform syntactic analysis of V-V compound resultatives and V-de phrasal resultatives in Mandarin Chinese. I propose instead that V-V resultatives are built in morphology while V-de resultatives are built in syntax. My proposal predicts that V-V and V-de resultatives will exhibit distinct behaviour with respect to a number of syntactic processes. (i) V-de resultatives are accessible to syntactic operations while V-V resultatives are not. (ii) Since obligatory arguments must be projected in a syntactic structure, V1 must project its arguments in V-de resultatives but not in V-V resultatives. Furthermore, it seems that these differences in argument structure between compound and phrasal resultatives are observed in languages other than Mandarin. These differences cannot be captured within a theoretical framework that makes no reference in syntax to some notion of a “word”. Therefore, to the extent that it is on the right track, my proposal provides evidence for a distinction between word syntax and phrasal syntax.