现代汉语“比”字结构的句法英语研究

本文是一篇英语论文，本文从生成语法的角度，回顾了前人对现代汉语差比句的研究成果，对现代汉语“比”字结构进行探讨，并提出以下两个研究问题：（1）现代汉语中，比较级标记“比”字属于什么句法范畴？（2）“比”字后的比较结果是如何产生的？是删除产生的小句还是本身就是名词短语？

Chapter One Introduction

1.1 Research Background
Within the framework of the Generative Grammar, heated discussions have beenmade on comparative constructions. According to Ma (1935), comparisons in Chinesecan be classified into three types, namely, equal, unequal and superlative comparisons.They were used to point out levels of difference between entities. To exemplify hisclassification, (4) is a case for equal comparison, (5) for unequal comparison, and (6)for superlative comparison. As is conspicuously shown in (5), the general pattern of biconstruction goes like this: comparative subject + bi + comparative standard +predicate. Following this pattern, it’s not complicated to make a comparison.Nevertheless, it’s not that simple to encode comparative constructions from linguisticperspectives. Considering this, it’s necessary to show characteristics concerning thispattern before a detailed discussion is made.
According to Tsao (1989) and Lin (2009), categories allowed to serve as thecomparative items range from DPs, including subject, object and temporal DPs, toVPs, PPs, locative phrases and clauses. Respective examples are given as follows:
What’s exemplified above not only shows acceptable categories of compareditems, but also exhibits one hidden mechanism, as is noticed by Tsao (1989). That is,when at least two items are compared, they must follow the order ofsubject-temporal-locative. For instance, the combination of (9) and (12) leads to thefollowing examples:
(14) Ta qu-nian cong jia-li bi wo jin-nian cong Xi-an dao La-sa kuai.He last year from home M I this year from Xi-an to La-sa fast“It’s faster for him to travel from home to Lasa last year than for me to travelfrom Xi’an this year (to Lasa).”
(15) *Ta cong jia-li qu-nian bi wo cong Xi-an jin-nian dao La-sa kuai.Intended meaning: ditto.
.............................

1.2 Research Questions
Based on the previous research, this thesis aims to explore bi comparativeconstruction (CC2 for short) in Mandarin Chinese under the framework of theGenerative Grammar. We will focus on two points in bi CC—comparative marker bi,and comparative items. In short, the thesis attempts to find out the answers to thefollowing two questions:
1) What is the syntactic category of bi?
2) In terms of comparative standards, how are they derived? Are phrasalcomparatives derived from clausal ones by deletion or any other means?
The first question deals with the word class of marker bi. This directlydetermines where bi will be placed in tree diagrams. For instance, if bi is treated as apreposition, then it can possibly be placed in the adjunct position of VP. As for thesecond question, it has to be replied after the first one has been worked out. Whatsyntactic status bi is assumed to have determines where the comparative standard andthe comparative result are base-generated and thus provides justifications for theirpossible movements.
...........................

Chapter Two Literature Review

2.1 Introduction to CC
2.1.1 Definition and Classification of CC
According to Stassen (1985), the comparative construction generally refers to theconstruction that has the semantic function of assigning a graded (non-identical)position on a predicative scale to two (possibly complex) entities. Scholars have madesubstantial discoveries on the development of CC throughout history. Among them,some important constructions like bi sentence draw particular attention fromacademia.
As is mentioned at the beginning, Ma (1898) first classifies CC into equal,unequal and superlative comparisons. He then defines them respectively, whichgreatly influences later related studies. Besides, Lv (1942) goes even further as toclassify CC into 11 subclasses---leitong, bini, jinsi, buji, shengguo, youzui, deshi,buru, yibian. Meticulously classified as they are, the scope for comparative sentencesseems too general. Liu (2011) claims that concepts like leitong, deshi, buru and yibianshould all be treated as similar semantic categories to bijiao and thus need to beeliminated from CC. For the following ones, bini belongs to the category of eitherequal comparison or figures of speech. Gaoxia, shengguo, and buji all stand in linewith unequal comparison, youzui left with superlative comparison. Other scholars alsotry sorting out CC. They are Ding (1961) and Chao (1968). Yet, as they each havedifferent understandings for CC, their criteria for defining CC differ.
2.1.2 Unequal CC
Unequal CC includes bi, yu3 and ru comparatives. Ma (1898) first studies theunequal construction. He points out that unequal sentences in ancient Chinese weremainly marked with yu and ru, with yu taking the lead. He also mentions the deletionof yu. Yet, unequal CC with bi is hardly mentioned for lacking linguistic data.
.........................

2.2 Previous Studies of the Category of Bi
In this section, we are going through previous studies concerning the categoricalstatus of comparative marker bi. Many scholars have done research on this topic.Among them, Liu (1996), Chao (1968), and Lin (2009) hold that bi is a preposition.Xiang (2005) and Erlewine (2007) propose that bi is a verb. Hong (1991) treats bi as sconjunction. Xu (1993) suggests a functional analysis of bi. Hsing (2002) reckons bias a complementizer . As prepositional and verbal analyses are the mainstream views,we will take a view of the two accounts in the following part.
2.2.1 The Prepositional Account
Liu (1996) argues that bi is a preposition, which, when combined with thecomparative standard, forms a PP. He argues against the proposal that bi is acoordinator by employing the adverb yizhi (always) to falsify it.
(1) Guojing yi-zhi bi Huangrong xing-fu.Guojing always M Huangrong happy.“Guojing was always happier than Huangrong.”
(2) *Guojing bi Huangrong yi-zhi xing-fu.Guojing M Huangrong always happy.Intended meaning: ditto.
(Liu 1996: 219)
...............................

Chapter Three Theoretical Framework................................ 19
3.1 An Overview of the Generative Grammar.............................. 19
3.2 Some Key Concepts.............................. 20
Chapter Four The Syntax of Bi........................................ 24
4.1 The Syntactic Properties of Bi....................................24
4.1.1 Bi—Non-prepositional.................................... 24
4.1.2 Bi—Non-verbal..............................30
Chapter Five The Syntax of Bi Comparative Construction........................ 44
5.1 The Syntax of Phrasal Bi-comparatives................................ 44
5.2 The Syntax of Clausal Bi-comparatives......................................52

Chapter Five The Syntax of Bi Comparative Construction

5.1 The Syntax of Phrasal Bi-comparatives
Based on antecedent-contained deletion, phrasal bi-comparatives are derivedfrom clausal ones by deleting the same component, whose antecedent can be traced inthe comparative subject. In this way, the previously clausal comparative standard isshortened into a phrasal one. However, we tend to treat it in another way. Look at thefollowing examples:


...........................

Chapter Six Conclusion

6.1 Major Findings
The comparative construction has been widely used in Chinese. Yet, differentways of expressing comparison can be found in ancient and Mandarin Chinese. Wefocus merely on CC with marker bi in Mandarin Chinese. In studying it, two centralquestions are at issue. One concerns the word class of the marker bi. The other dealswith the derivation of bi-comparatives.
As for the first question, it is considered in the present thesis that marker bi canbe treated as a light verb which has undergone syntactic operations. In analyzing so,the fact in modern use can be explained. That is, bi has been grammaticalized, whichmeans it has progressively lost its role as a typical verb, but more gained its functionalrole. For the second question, we make a similar analysis to that of Larson’s (1988b)double object construction. We propose that phrasal and clausal bi-comparativesshould be distinguished from one another. In terms of the former, we conclude that thecomparative subject has undergone DP movement because of EPP and Case filter. Asfor the comparative standard and the comparative result, they are similar to direct andindirect object in VP-shells. The comparative standard gets DP-moved to [Spec,AgrOP] for Case filter. Marker bi is moved to the head of vP and merges with HOLDthrough AgrO in the midway for Case checking reasons. As for the latter, wehypothesize that subject control comes into play in distinguishing the agent of the CPthat serves as the comparative result. Answers offered to the two crucial questions inthis thesis enable us to have a basic idea of how bi-comparatives work.
reference(omitted)