Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese
Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese
复制标题
DOI：
10.1023/b:jeal.0000007345.64336.84
复制
发表时间：
2004-01-01
影响因子：
0.5
通讯作者：
Tsujioka, T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Miyagawa, S;Tsujioka, T
诸如发送和给出之类的双递质动词以英语，双对象和供态构建方式出现。众所周知，两者在语义和句法上有所不同。在最近的一些作品中，有人建议两者在语义和句法上有所不同。在最近的一些作品中，有人提出，Bresnan（1978），Oehrle（1976）等观察到的语义差异以及Barss和Lasnik（1986），Larson（1988）等人所指出的结构性差异，都可以是。通过假设双对象结构的额外头（例如，Marantz（1993），Harley（1995），Pylkkanen捕获（2002））。这个头与班图语中的适用头对应相对应，将目标作为其指定符，并将其与包含动词和主题的VP联系起来（Marantz）（1993）），或直接与主题相关（Pylkkanen（2002年）（2002年） ）。适用的负责人贡献了与文档不同的含义，并引起了Barss和Lasnik注意的层次结构，待办事项中缺少该应用的头部，以使该结构具有与文档不同的论证结构）。论文，我们将在日语中查看相应的结构。与英语不同，日本人似乎只有一个结构，其中的目标标记了诉讼标记的主题和主题。目标主题被认为是基本顺序（Hoji（1985），Takano（1998），Yatsushiro（1998，2003））。唯一的变化是该主题可以在目标之前发生，但这仅将其视为可选的争夺实例。我们将论证说英语和日语之间的差异仅是显而易见的。经过仔细的审查，我们发现与DOC相对应的两个论点结构和英语中的待办事项都存在日语。
Ditransitive verbs such as send and give appear in two distinct structures in English, the double object and the to-dative constructions. It is well known that the two differ semantically and syntactically. In some recent works, it is suggested that the two differ semantically and syntactically. In some recent works, it is suggested that the semantic differences observed by Bresnan (1978), Oehrle (1976) and others, and the structural properties noted by Barss and Lasnik (1986), Larson (1988), and others, can both be captured by postulating an extra head for the Double Object Construction (DOC, e.g., Marantz (1993), Harley (1995), Pylkkanen (2002)). This head, which corresponds to the applicative head in Bantu languages, takes the goal as its specifier and relates it either to the VP that contains the verb and the theme (Marantz) (1993)), or directly to the theme (Pylkkanen (2002)). The applicative head contributes the meaning distinct to the DOC, and it gives rise to the hierarchical structure noted by Barss and Lasnik, This applicative head is missing in the to-dative so that this construction has an argument structure distinct from the DOC) in this paper, we will look at the corresponding construction(s) in Japanese. Unlike English, Japanese appears to have only one structure, in which the goal is marked with the dative and the theme with the accusative case marking. The goal-theme order is assumed to be the basic order (Hoji (1985), Takano (1998), Yatsushiro (1998, 2003)). The only variation is that the theme can occur before the goal, but this is viewed simply as an instance of optional scrambling. We will give arguments that the difference between English and Japanese is only apparent. With close scrutiny, we find that the two argument structures corresponding to the DOC and the to-dative in English exist in Japanese.