Now consider the following functional structures:
Figure 5. Description of f-structure 1.
Figure 6. Description of f-structure 2.
Figure 7. Description of f-structure 3.
The OT-based analysis illustrates how the two types of resultative constructions function as structural alternatives to express the cause-result meaning. Given the above three functional structures, the OT analysis predicts that to express the information encoded in the first f-structure, both the mono-clausal and the bi-clausal resultatives are valid in forming the cause-result meaning. For the other two f-structures, using lexical cause-resultatives to express the cause-result meaning would cause ungrammaticality.
Tableau 12 evaluates the structural alternatives for the first f-structure:
Tableau 12
CAUSEE) UNIFORM *STRUC
lexical
resultative *
syntactic
resultative *
Accordingly, all the following sentences in (31) are potential expressions for the meaning encoded in f-structure 1:
(31)
a. gia ba au-ton tet gi ge su his father fold-broken ASP he POSS hand
TRANS: His father folded his arms and made them broken.
b. gia ba au gi ge su au do ton tet le his father fold he POSS hand fold COMP broken ASP PART
TRANS: His father folded his arms and made them broken.
tableau 13 eliminates the choice of adopting lexical resultatives for the expression of f-structure 2:
CAUSEE) UNIFORM *STRUC lexical
resultative *! *
syntactic
resultative *
Therefore, it causes ungrammaticality if the construction of RVC is adopted to express the meaning of f-structure 2; alternatively, the resultative meaning can be expressed by a separate subordinate clause:
(32)
a. *kungko sia-son le gi ge su homework write-sore ASP he POSS hand
TRANS: He has been writing homework for a long time; it made his hand sore.
b. gi sia kungko sia do gi ge su dong son he write homework write COMP he POSS hand very sore
TRANS: He has been writing homework for a long time; it made his hand sore.
Finally, tableau 14 suggests that it is ungrammatical to express the meaning intended in f-structure 3 through the RVC resultative:
Tableau 14
CAUSEE) UNIFORM *STRUC lexical
resultative *! *
syntactic
resultative *
The corresponding sentence structures are presented in (33) below:
(33)
a. *ziu siit-zui gi le alcohol drink-drunk he PART
TRANS: He has drunk too much alcohol, which made him drunk.
b. gi siit ziu siit do zui he drink alcohol drink COMP drunk
TRANS: He has drunk too much alcohol, which made him drunk.
4. Conclusion
This paper has shown that both Mandarin and Hakka allow two structural alternatives to express the cause-result meaning. The mono-clausal
resultatives use the so-called “resultative verbal compounds” and the bi-clausal resultatives adopts a subordinate CP headed by the functional morpheme do to convey the cause-result meaning. It has been proved that comparing with Mandarin, Hakka is relatively more restricted in adopting the mono-clausal resultative construction. In Hakka, neither the causer nor the causee can be realized by an element that is outside the argument structure of V1; besides, this paper propose an accessibility hierarchy on causative NPs, which is based on the accessibility of different grammatical relations to be realized as the causer or causee of a given causative verb. It is argued that in Hakka all the NPs related to the syntactic role of a causer or a causee must each be associated with a grammatical relation on the hierarchy. The causer should not be associated with the grammatical relation placed lower on the hierarchy in relation to the causee, and vise versa. If a mono-clausal resultative construction violates the hierarchy, as a repairing strategy, the bi-clausal resultative construction could replace.
The second part of this paper has shown that with an Optimality Theoretic generalization, the competition between the mono-clausal and the bi-clausal resultatives can be captured as a competition of two universal structural motivations: iconicity and economy. Iconicity motivates the bi-clausal pattern in which a one to one correspondence between meaning and syntactic node can be built. On the other hand, economy motivates the mono-clausal pattern by leaving out morphemes which simply serve grammatical functions and using one single syntactic node to express both the cause and the result. The constraints coming into play include *STRUCTURE, which penalizes redundant structures, and the various manifestations of UNIFORMITY, which requires a one to one correspondence in meaning and form.
Acknowledgment
This paper was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) in Taiwan through the grant #NSC-101-2410-H-032-075.
The Author Yu-Ching Tseng (Email: [email protected]
References
) is an Assistant Professor in the English Department at Tamkang University Taiwan. Her research interests include the Optimality Theory, Hakka syntax and general linguistics.
Aarts, B. (2008). English syntax and argumentation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carrier, J., & Randall, J. H. (1992). The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 173-234.
Chang, J. H. (2003). Event structure and argument linking in Chinese.
Language and Linguistics, 4, 317-351.
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dai, J. X. L. (1990). Historical morphologization of syntactic words: Evidence from Chinese derived verbs. Diachronica, 7, 9-46.
Dai, J. X. L. (1992). Chinese morphology and its interface with the syntax.
Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, Mass: MIT-press.
Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 555-595.
Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59, 781-819.
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haspelmath, M. (2008). Frequency v.s. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(1), 1–33.
Hoekstra, T. (1988). Small clause results. Lingua, 74, 101-137.
Huang, C.-T. J. (2006). Resultatives and unaccusatives: A parametric view.
Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan, 253, 1-43.
Kayne, R. S. (1985). Principles of particle constructions. In J. Guéron, H.-G.
Obenauer & J.-Y. Pollock (Eds.), Grammatical representations, (pp. 101-140). Dordrecht: Foris.
Levin, B. (1999). Objecthood: An event structure perspective. CLS, 35(1), 223-247.
Li, C. (2007). Mandarin resultative verb compounds: Where syntax, semantics, and pragmatics meet. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
Li, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1982). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Taipei: The Crane Publishing CO.
Li, Y. (1990). On V-V compounds in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8, 177-207.
Li, Y. (1995). The thematic hierarchy and causativity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 445-497.
Lin, H. L. (1998). The Syntax-morphology interface of verb-complement compounds in Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993a). Generalized alignment. In G. E. Booij & J.
van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology, (pp. 79-153). Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1993b). Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachussetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University, New Brunswick.
Morimoto, Y. (2001). Deriving the directionality parameter in OT-LFG. In M.
Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG01 conference, (pp. 238-258). Stanford: CSLI publications.
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Unpublished manuscript, New Brunswick:
Rutgers University, and Boulder, University of Colorado.
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In M. Butt &
W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, (pp. 97-134). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2001). An event structure account of English resultatives. Language, 77, 766-797.
Rosenbach, A. (2003). Iconicity and Economy in the choice between the ’s-genitive and the of-’s-genitive in English. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, (pp. 379-411).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Salmani Nodoushan, M. A., & Mohiyedin Ghomshei, G. R. (2014). Iconicity of cohesion in Persian causative constructions. Linguistik Online, 68, 29-42.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13092/lo.65.1401
Shibatani, M. (1972). Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’ in Japanese. In J. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, (pp. 125-137). New York: Academic Press.
Simpson, J. (1983). Resultatives. In L. Levin, M. Rappaport & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Papers in lexical-functional grammar, (pp. 143-157). Bloomington:
Indian University Linguistics Club.
Sybesma, R. (1991). Results in Chinese: Resultatives to an extent. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 271-284.
Sybesma, R. (1999). The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Thompson, S. A. (1973). Resultative verb compounds in Mandarin Chinese: A case for lexical rules. Language, 49, 361-379.
Yeh, J. C. (2008). Resultatives in Mandarin Chinese and Hakka: Argument Realization. Doctoral dissertation. National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.