| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立清華大學 === 語言學研究所 === 100 === Two aspectual markers in Mandarin Chinese are investigated: the sentential particle le and the progressive marker zai. Due to its varying functions, the sentential particle le is not well-defined. It is termed as an inchoative marker because it yields a new situation (Chao 1968), a perfect aspect marker because it has the same discourse functions as English perfect aspect (Li et al. 1982), or a change of state marker because it marks an event undergoes a change (Soh 2009). In terms of its temporal use, the sentential particle le is actually a perfect aspect marker because it marks a relation between Event Time and Reference Time. This is exactly how the perfect aspect is defined. For its change-of-state use, it can be accounted by Shen’s theory (2004). That is, in Mandarin Chinese, predicates should agree with aspectual markers. The “new situation” use can accounted by the “extended now” theory of perfect aspect (Portner 2003). New evidence is provided by (in)compatibility of the sentential particle le with cai and jiu, two other markers that presuppose change of state. With further comparison between the sentential particle le and perfect aspect of other languages, the sentential particle le is a genuine perfect aspect marker without doubt.
It is assumed that zai functions as a preposition when it precedes a locative phrase while it functions as an aspectual marker when it precedes a verb phrase (Li and Thompson 1981). However, this claim cannot account for ungrammaticality of double zai constructions. To solve this problem, I propose that zai is a locative verb taking a locative argument. The locative argument can be empty or lexically realized. When zai serves as a progressive marker, it moves to the head position of AspP. Furthermore, zai can also take another verb phrase as its argument. In this case, the locative argument may be re-located to Spec of VP. Consequently, the word order is like [zai + a locative phrase + a verb phrase]. This analysis gives a more consistent account for ungrammaticality of double zai constructions and the fact that zai always precedes locative phrases if there is one in the sentence. Under this analysis, the locative verb zai can be clearly distinguished from the locative preposition zai.
|
|---|
