動詞「給」在功能性延展中對於組合詞排列順序的影響：泰語與華語的比較研究

Effects of Constituent Orders on Functional Extension Patterns of the Verbs for ‘Give’: A Contrastive Study of Thai and Mandarin Chinese

泰語為修飾詞後置，華語為前置。本研究探討泰語 hây 與華語 gěi 在功能性延展中的不同。觀察發現：一、hây 可連接子句，gěi 不可。二、gěi 可標示被動，hây 不可。三、gěi標示的與格置於動詞前或後，hây 置於動詞後。四、北京語料庫中 gěi 標示的與格置於動詞前。五、gěi 標示的受益格置於動詞前。六、gěi 標示的使役與被動結構一致。七、hây常被用於標示使役，gěi 不常。研究顯示，泰語的修飾詞後置與功能性延展語素置於動詞後相關，而華語與置於動詞前相關。

It is generally known that Thai and Mandarin Chinese are typologically different in that Thai has the headmodifier constituent order whereas Mandarin Chinese has the modifier-head one. This paper aims to investigate how different constituent orders of the head vis-a-vis the modifier and vis-a-vis the complement in Thai and Mandarin Chinese bear on patterns of functional extension of the verbs meaning ‘give’ in the two languages, namely, hây in Thai and gě i in Mandarin Chinese. Some observations can be made regarding the functional extension patterns of hây and gě i as follows: (a) the clause connector use is possible for hây but lacking for gě i; (b) the passive-marking use is possible for gě i but lacking for hây; (c) the gě i-marked dative PP can occur both preverbally and postverbally, whereas the hây-marked one can occur only postverbally; (d) only the preverbal gě i-marked dative PPs are attested in a Beijing Mandarin speech corpus; (e) the gě i- marked benefactive PP can occur only preverbally; (f) the structural schemas of the causative and the passive gě i are identical; and (g) the causative use of hây is productive but that of gě i is not. It is argued that the head-modifier order in Thai seems to correspond with postverbal functionally extended morphemes prevalent in the language. On the other hand, the modifier-head order in Mandarin Chinese seems to correspond with preverbal functionally extended ones prevalent in the language.