对景颇语 [名词+形容词] 成分的结构分析.doc

对景颇语 名词+形容词 成分的结构分析香港中文大学 顾 阳 北京中央民族大学 戴庆厦 本文重点分析景颇语形容词与名词的结构关系。景颇语在类型上属SOV语言，当谓语动词的论元结构（argument structure）中仅有一个论元时，该论元与谓语动词在句法上的语序便为 名词组+动词。景颇语中大部分形容词既可以作名词修饰语又可以直接作谓词。形容词为一元性谓词（one-place predicate），即该类谓词的论元结构中只有一个论元。当景颇语的形容词做谓词时，论元与谓词在句法上的词序便为名词组+形容词，如(1) 所示。当形容词修饰名词时，词序亦为名词组+形容词，如 (2) 所示。 (1) Shi nampan hkye mu sai.Si33nam31pan33 khje33 mu31 sai 33 他花 红 看见 (句尾) “他看见红花了。” （2）Shi nampan hkye sai mu sai.Si33nam31pan33 khje33 sai33 mu31 sai 33 他 花 红 (助词)看见 (句尾) “他看见花红了。”虽然两例中的名词+形容词 nam31pan33 khje33（花红）这一成分在表层词序上一致，它们的结构不尽相同，因此在理论上必须对这两种形式有清晰的结构界定。本文通过一系列的语义测试及结构测试，确定例（1）中的名词+形容词 应分析为偏正结构，(2) 中的名词+形容词 应分析为主谓结构，从而区分出名词性 名词+形容词 成分和子句性 名词+形容词 成分的结构特征。文章重点考察景颇语中相关的名词结构，如复合词，从而区分名词与名词组，并观察分析形容词修饰名词时的不同结构位置。文章亦讨论动词所选择的补语类别，分析导致宾语结构出现歧义的原因。文章并通过考察由话题引起的结构成分移位、句尾形态标记，等等，来验证对景颇语名词组+形容词这两种结构分析的合理性，进一步定义景颇语短语结构中的功能范畴。文章还将所得的分析引申到 名词+动词 的结构中去，界定其中修饰关系与主谓关系的结构区别。A Structural Analysis of the Jingpo N+A Constructions GU Yang DAI Qingxia The Chinese University of Hong KongBeijing Central University for Minorities .hk This paper provides a structural analysis for adjectives and related noun phrases in Jingpo. Typologically, Jingpo is an SOV language. When there is only one argument in a given predicates argument structure, the argument and the predicate assume the order NP+VP in syntax. In Jingpo, most adjectives can be used predicatively as well as attributively. Predicative adjectives are formally analysed as one-place predicates, i.e. there is only one argument in their argument structure. In Jingpo, when such an adjective and its argument appear in syntax, as exemplified in (1), the adjective follows its argument, showing a word order of N+A. When an adjective is used attributively, as reflected in (2), the same word order is obtained.（1） Shi nampan hkye mu sai. Si33nam31pa=n33 khje33 mu31 sai 33 he flower redsee SFP “He saw some red flowers.”（2） Shi nampan hkye sai mu saiSi33nam31pa=n33 khje33 sai33mu31 sai 33he flower red P see SFP“He saw that some flowers were turning red.”A theoretical account is hence called for to explain the structural differentiation between the two constituents highlighted in (1) and (2), despite their superficial similarity in N+A word order. We apply a series of semantic and syntactic diagnoses to the Jingpo data, by following relevant theories of generative grammar, and argue that the N+A sequence in (2) is contained in a complement clause of the main predicate, hence it is structurally distinct from that in (1), which in fact is a noun phrase. The proposed analysis is supported in particular by our discussion of related issues regarding the distinction between noun phrases and compounded nouns, pre-nominal and post-nominal adjective modification, complement selection of relevant verb types, constituent movement in topicalization, as well as properties of clause final particles in this language. We also extend our dis