名詞組前置成份的結構和語義：是構式還是組合？

The Syntax and Semantics of Prenominals: Construction or Composition?

長久以來，學者對於漢語句子的主要成分有很清楚的共識：句子有中心語、狀語、補語等成分，狀語（亦稱附加語）在中心語之前，補語在後。在名詞短語方面，傳統上將名詞中心語前面的成分統稱為定語，沒有所謂的補語與狀語之分。當代語法在X－－標槓理論之下，則認為這種中心語－－補語－－附加語的三分法，除了句子和動詞組結構之外，也同樣適用於其他的主要語法範疇如名詞組、形容詞組、介詞組等。一般研究漢語生成語法的學者也都有這樣的認識，雖然很少人為此正式提出句法與語義方面的論據。最近有些研究語言類型的學者主張在漢、日、韓語等名詞中心語後置的語言裡，其前置成分沒有補語、附加語之分，而都歸於一種籠統的名詞修飾語，並進一步將這種結構獨立出來作為一種「構式」來處理，認為一般的句法語義組合規則不適用於這種結構。這種看法等於是又回到了傳統上的「定語」說了。本文通過實證研究，重申漢語名詞組結構和其他語言一樣，必須區分補語和附加語的不同。文章提供多種證據，說明唯有在適當的詞組結構理論之下將附加語置於補語之上，相關的語言現象才能得到適當的解釋。文章同時檢視若干用來支持構式語法的論點，指出其不足之處，並說明不同「的」字結構的表面相似性、名詞組的指稱多義性、以及表面上不同於其他語言的關係子句等等，都不能支持將它們籠統地歸於一種構式來處理。研究漢語名詞性結構，只要將漢語若干獨立的語法特點隔離出來，就可以看出來名詞組的句法和語義都是遵行一般詞組結構和語義組合規則推導出來的。

Although the adjunct–complement dichotomy has long been recognized in traditional Chinese linguistic study for the analysis of clausal and verb-phrase structure, research on nominal structure has traditionally recognized only a general dingyu or ‘determinative’ category in the pre-nominal position. While most generative works on Chinese syntax have followed the X-bar theory and recognize an adjunct–complement distinction for the noun phrase as well as other phrases, few have offered systematic evidence from Chinese to prove this view. In the meantime, some recent typological works have claimed that for a number of languages with head-final noun phrases, the adjunct–complement distinction does not exist, and that a constructionist view that takes all the clausal prenominal modifiers under an undifferentiated ‘noun-modifying’ category should be adopted. This paper presents empirical evidence to reaffirm the existence of an adjunct–complement dichotomy in the nominal structure in Chinese as well as other languages. Extensive evidence is amassed supporting the view that only when adjuncts are structurally positioned higher than complements and the semantic component rules apply accordingly can the relevant facts be appropriately explained. We also take up the facts that have been used to support the constructionist approach and show that they in fact do not serve their purpose. We show that the seemingly uniform de-constructions are in fact heterogeneous, and that the high degree of interpretive and analytic variability and the apparent lack of appropriate input to relativization have their independent sources not peculiar to nominal structure. Once the independent factors are isolated, the syntax and semantics of the prenominal elements can be derived according to standard procedures.