Lexicase Points with Taiwanese VR Constructions

LEXICASE觀點的台語動補結構

動補結構一向被漢語語言學家認為是複合詞（compounds）或是動詞加補語。本文對台語動補結構持此分析的妥當性提出質疑，並提議以依存語法理論（lexicase dependency framework）的替代方案來分析。一個台語動補結構是單一的語詞（a single word），而非複合詞。傳統分析將動補結構看做兩個動詞的構造，我在此加以辯駁。本文宣稱台語動補結構是一個單一動詞加上它自身衍生的詞尾（a derivational suffix）。語言學界向來認為台語動補結構其受詞分佈的差異是看它的受詞是否限定而定（definite or not）。譬如說，受詞若是非限定，它就得置於動補結構之後；反之；若是限定的受詞就相當具有彈性，可置前可置後。然而，在本文，我將此現象解釋為單純只是因為該動補結構是否及物（transitivity）而定。該動補結構若是及物，就接名詞做它的依存詞（the dependent），並且授予受格；假若依存詞置於動補結構之前，就需要有所謂的處置動詞（disposal marker kā）；否則無法取得受格，而該句子就不合文法（ill-formed）。不及物動補結構不能接依存詞於後，全然是因為此動補結構無法被分派受格之故。

VR (resultative verb) constructions are most generally treated as compounds or verbs plus complements by Chinese linguists. In this paper, I would like to question the validity of this analysis with reference to the example of Taiwanese VR constructions, and propose and justify an alternative analysis within the lexicase dependency framework. A Taiwanese VR construction is a single word, and not a compound, which is different from the traditional analysis that views a VR as a compound composed of two verbs. In this paper I claim that a Taiwanese VR is in fact a single word composed of a verb and a derivational suffix. It has been claimed that differences in the distribution of the object of VR forms depends on whether the object is definite or not. For example, an indefinite object has to be positioned after the VR construction (i.e., VR + O). The distribution of the objects is claimed to be more flexible if they are definite (e.g., O + VR). However, in this paper I would like to account for this phenomenon purely in terms of the transitivity of the resultative verbs. The transitive VR constructions take the nouns that follow them as their dependents and assign accusative case form to them. If the dependent object comes before the VR construction, a so-called disposal marker k? is required; otherwise, no accusative case form will be assigned, and the sentence will be ill-formed. Intransitive VR constructions cannot have their dependents following them simply because no accusative case form can be assigned to them.