Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of VP-lai-VP Construction

• Main Authors: Tai-ChunHou, 侯岱君
• Other Authors: Chin-Cheng Lo
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2017
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/weg9ux

碩士 === 國立成功大學 === 外國語文學系 === 105 === This thesis aims to investigate the construction VP1-lai-VP2 in terms of syntactic and semantic perspectives. Based on the argument sharing properties, we classify constituents into three subtypes. We first exert ‘le-suffixation’ to find out the main predicate of VP1-lai-VP2 constituent. Further, by applying the examination of Tsai (2008, 2009) wh-adverbial tests, we try to figure out the relation between two VPs. We argue that type I involving both subject and object sharing are in effect consecutive serial verb construction because VP1 and VP2 are unable to fit the substitution of either causality ‘weisheme’ or the comitativity ‘zenmeyang.’ Type II is compatible with the comitativity ‘zenmeyang’ substitution only. The examination illustrates that the VP1 of type II is actually a VP-layer attributive denoting instrument and the purposive meanings of the constituent. Type III contains two events. VP1 is able to be substituted by inner adverb zenmeyang, and only some of VP2 can be replaced with inner purposive adverbial weileshenme. Further, we examine the relations between VP1 and lai-clause with regard to ‘Predicate decomposition’ from Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1998, 2005). We find out that when the VP1 is stative verb specified as [ v BE at/on ], it is not compatible to three types of lai-clause. Some of the dynamic verbs, among which unergative verbs are excluded, are in harmony with lai purposive clause. As for Type II, the predicate1 in is usually decomposed as light verb [USE] which assign [INSTRUMENT] theta role and it displays object-preposing properties. In type III, when VP1 are achievement or accomplishment verbs, carrying semantic feature [Change-of-State], they are congenial with lai purposive clause. Finally, semantic feature [telicity] and [boundness] explain the discrepancy between ‘weile’ purpose phrase and purposive VP1-lai-VP2 construction.