Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Background of the study
As a matter of fact, we often hear or say such a sentence, like (1)1in daily life,which contains two continuous monosyllable verbs governed by different subjects. It fallsin between the serial verb construction (2) (hereafter as SVC) and the resultativeconstruction (3) (hereafter as RC). Since (1) has the basic characteristics of both (2) and(3), we call it the serial verb-resultative construction S+V1+V2+O2(hereafter as SVRC).This construction is acquired and understood very soon and easily by Chinese people.And it conforms to the consistent principle of “Form Economy, Content Obvious” inChinese. The present study is concerned with SVRC.
(1) 男孩吓晕了姑姑。(Frog by Mo Yan)
Nánhái xià yūn le gūgu.
boy startle faint-LE aunt
‘The boy startled the aunt, and the aunt fainted.’
(2) 爸爸上山砍柴。(Elder Sister by Lu Yao)
Bàba shàngshān kǎnchái.
Dad up hill cut wood
‘Dad went up the hill to cut wood.’
Although SVRC bears some syntactic and semantic resemblances to SVC and RC, itis dissimilar. (2) consists of two or more verbs (phrases) implemented by the samesubject, characterized by temporal relation. (3) consists of a verb and a complement(adjective most of the time) led by subject and object respectively, entailing causalrelation. These two types of verbal constructions are not our research objects in thecurrent study.
.........................
1.2 Significance of the study
SVC and RC are important research topics in the study of modern Chinese, and theyare the rich mines in the study of grammar. The previous research achievements arefruitful, and a variety of linguistic phenomena in these two constructions have beenthoroughly studied from various theoretical perspectives. Nevertheless, SVRC has notbeen studied by the action chain theory of cognitive grammar, so we choose thismeaningful topic. Cognitive grammar belongs to an extremely open philosophy oflanguage, and at the same time has its own set of very rigorous research methods, whichprovides a broader perspective and cutting-edge research methods for the study ofmodern Chinese. In addition, the exploration of other rules besides the basic rules oflinguistics is the exploration of the features of Chinese grammar, which is the basicresearch for the construction of Chinese grammar system and has certain academic value.This study is significant at least in the following ways:
As far as the value of the construction itself is concerned, it enriches and broadensthe research of Chinese grammar. The phenomenon that two verbs combined together isan important way of expression and language mechanism in Chinese. To go one stepfurther, continuous actions are both a cultural and psychological cognitive structure andan important embodiment of the thinking mode of Chinese nation. The major function ofSVC and RC in Chinese is that they can make up for the lack of Chinese vocabulary.Both syntactic and semantic structures of SVC and RC are sophisticated, perse andproductive. Moreover, the usage rate of these two constructions is exceedingly high, andthey are constantly evolving in the course of Chinese grammar. The study on SVRC itselfwill facilitate the research of SVC and RC conversely.
...........................
Chapter Two Literature Review
2.1 Diachronic evolution of SVRC
SVRC, the research target structure, which evolves from SVC, is the combination ofSVC and RC. There is a general correspondence between SVR and RC. We willintroduce SVC and RC at first.
In a broad sense, SVC (review example (2)) refers to the fact that a sentence iscomposed of two or more verbs (phrases) without any grammatical markers to indicatethe structural relationship between the two verbs (phrases) (Zheng Xuedan, 2018: 454).SVC is a type of structure with relatively early existence, wide distribution, and strongvitality. There are about one-third of the languages in the world that have this type ofstructure.
RC3is pided into narrow sense and generalized sense. In its narrow sense, it refersto a kind of cohesive predicate complement structure (review example (3)). Thecomplement is taken as an adjective or a verb and attached to the predicate, indicating theresult of the predicate (Feng Lijuan, 2017: 3). The typical RC, the academic circles tendto agree on, refers to the appearance or change of the state represented by complementverbs due to the occurrence of the action represented by predicate verbs (Shi Chunhong,2007: 21). In its broad sense, the generalized RC not only covers the narrow one, but alsoincludes the complement expressing the meaning of directional trend. Given that SVRCis essentially a kind of RC and originates from SVC, it is necessary for us to have a basicknowledge about the developing course of SVRC to grasp the whole venation.
................................
2.2 Previous studies on RC
Reviewing the past research literature, we find grammar articles abroad and at homehave shown their strong interest in RC. There are perse perspectives in the studies ofRC from foreign and domestic scholars who made the literature colorful.
As for the international studies on RC, there is a wealth of research on the Englishresultative construction. This study mainly summarizes two research methods, i.e.Generative linguistics and Cognitive linguistics. In general, there are three mainapproaches to the analysis of English Resultative Construction (RC): Syntactic approachin TG (Simpson, 1983); Event structure approach by Rappaport-Hovav & Levin (R&L,2001); Goldberg’s construction grammar approach (1995). As a matter of fact, the firsttwo approaches belong to the framework of Generative linguistics. And the third one is inthe scope of Cognitive linguistics. All three approaches have their merits, but also leavesome problems: TG pays little attention to semantics and event structures; R&Lemphasizes microscopic analysis, with no attention to embodiment; Goldberg’s view thatRC is metaphorically derived from the Caused-motion Construction6is not totallyreliable.
Moreover, semantic analysis and the complex predicate are other two representativetypes of studies on English resultative construction within the framework of generativelinguistics. Semantic analysis refers to the semantic description of RC by means ofsemantic rules and gives a deep explanation on this basis. Rothstein (2000) is arepresentative of this type of research and the problem with his research is that somecrucial semantic elements are difficult to find their source in the syntactic derivation. Theresearch from the perspective of the complex predicate holds that RC encodes merely oneevent in the syntax, and the two predicates are combined into a single complex predicate,that is, the predicate of a single resultative construction. Neeleman & van de Koot (2003)is a representative research from this perspective. However, this rule does not belong tothe general principle of syntactic derivation, that’s why its validity needs to be furtherverified.
............................
3.1 Data resources......................14
3.2 Syntactic structure of SVRC....................15
Chapter Four Theoretical Framework................................. 26
4.1Action chain theory by Langacker......................... 26
4.2 Force dynamics theory by Talmy....................28
Chapter Five Collocations and Semantic Interpretation of SVRC from thePerspective of Action Chain...........................35
5.1 Collocations of SVRC....................................35
5.1.1 Identification of S and O..........................36
5.1.2 Regular collocations of V1and V2..................... 38
Chapter Five Collocations and Semantic Interpretation ofSVRC from the Perspective of Action Chain
5.1 Collocations of SVRC
In the third chapter, we have got the preliminary observation about SVRC at thesyntactic and semantic level. In the fourth chapter, based on our observation, we designedaction chain event-semantics analysis framework. Chapter Five will firstly discuss thecollocations of SVRC. According to embodied philosophy, human cognition and thelanguage reflecting cognition are based on experience (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). Not allverbs can be matched randomly; V1must be an action verb that can have a physical orpsychological effect on the subject O, and V2must be an action verb that can express somephysical or emotional state. For example, V1is a non-state verb (action verb), such as “dǎ”(hit), “mà” (scold); V2is a state verb (action verb), conveying the state of the character’spsychological or physical activities, such as “kū” (cry), “pǎo” (run). We will illustrate thecollocation relations from three aspects: the identification of S and O, regular collocationsof V1and V2and irregular collocations of V1and V2.
.......................
Chapter Six Conclusion
6.1 Major findings
Language is a precious wealth of human beings, which enables us to have access tothe cultural treasure house of our ancestors and continue to inherit it. Meanwhile on theother side, language is a mystery, deserving us to explore. This tentative study on thenature of SVRC shed some new light on RC as well as on the action chain theory.
Based on what the author has discussed above, the current study arrives at majorfindings as follows:
Firstly, by observing the syntactic and semantic interface of the construction, we getthe basic features of the syntactic and semantic structure of SVRC: the construction iscomposed of subject (S), two monosyllabic predicate verbs (V1, V2) and object (O), inwhich the subject and object are living entities, and the two predicate verbs are actionverbs. This construction represents a causative event consisting of two sub-events,subject-dominated causing event and object-dominated resulting event.
Secondly, based on the observation of the syntactic and semantic structure on SVRC,this study constructs the action chain event-semantics analysis framework. Under the effectof the causative action chain, its operation mode is shown as the occurrence of the firstaction event leads to the generation of the second action event and due to the influence ofrelevant factors, the dynamic force change and semantic implication of the causal actionevents are different and various.
Thirdly, constrained by the degree of animacy, S and O are usually human beings withagentive properties. The collocations of V1and V2are shown as transitive verbs plusintransitive verbs and so on. Generally speaking, the semantics of this construction expresstypical causative meaning, which is manifested as an independent causative action chainentailing a dependent action chain. At the same time, this construction embodies its ownunique semantic characteristics in each instance.
It is worth expecting that the results of this study deepen the understanding of theessence of SVRC to a certain extent, prove that the action chain theory has a strongexplanatory power to the Chinese construction from the cognitive point of view, andprovide reference for future study.
reference(omitted)