Transitive [init, proc, res] verbs with rhematic DPs

Another group of transitive [init, proc, res] verbs singled out by Ramchand (2008) are English verbs like find and enter, the DP objects of which are not undergoers of the process or holders of a result state but rather rhematic elements describing the final result. For example, in a sentence like Ariel entered the room, Ariel covers the role of Initiator-Undergoer, as well as that of Resultee attaining the final location described by the DP the room. In Chinese, verbs containing both an [init] and a [res] feature are very often compounds formed by two verbal roots, which identify differente pieces of the events (e.g. 找到 zhǎodào ‘search-arrive = find’). However, the verb 进 jìn ‘enter’, seems to be characterized as a [init, proc, res]. Consider the example in (38),

59 _{Note that, when 吃 chī ‘eat’ is used without an overt object, it involves a definite interpretation} (pro). For example, a sentence like 张三吃了 Zhāngsān chī le ‘Zhangsan eat ASP = Zhangsan ate it’ cannot mean that Zhangsan had a meal, but only that Zhangsan ate something specified by the context (cf. Cheng & Sybesma 1998:83).

59 where the subject of the sentence, 孩子 háizi ‘child’, is an Initiator-Undergoer as well as a Resultee attaining the final location described by the DP 教 室 jiàoshì ‘classroom’.

(38) a. 孩子 进 了 教室。

háizi jìn le jiàoshì child enter ASP classroom ‘The child entered the classroom.’ b. initP

tu

孩子 háizi ‘child’

tu

进 jìn ‘enter’ procP

tu

< 孩子 háizi ‘child’ >

tu

<进 jìn ‘enter’> resP

tu

< 孩子 háizi ‘child’ >

tu

res DP <进 jìn ‘enter’> 教室 jiàoshì ‘the room’ 1.4.1.2 Intransitive verbs

Unergative verbs in this system possess [init, proc] features and have a single composite role, i.e. Initiator-Undergoer, e.g. 笑 xiào ‘laugh’. See the example in (39):

(39) a. 孩子 笑 了

háizi xiào le

child laugh ASP ‘The child laughed’ b. initP

tu

孩子 háizi ‘child’

tu

init procP 笑 xiào ‘laugh’

tu

< 孩子 háizi ‘child’ >

tu

proc XP < 笑 xiào ‘laugh’> 4

Ramchand (2008) observes that for intransitive [init, proc] verbs, path objects are in principle allowed, e.g. Michael ran the race (p.72), Ch. 我跑了马拉松 wǒ pǎo le

mǎlāsōng ‘I run ASP marathon = I ran the marathon’60.

In Chinese most unergative verbs have a VO counterpart, formed with a dummy object (cf. Cheng & Sybesma 1998), e.g. 走路 zǒu-lù ‘walk + road = walk’, 跑步

pǎo-bù ‘run/jog’, in a similar way as transitive verbs with a Path object, as shown in

section 1.4.1.1.2 (cf. also 6.3.2.2). The difference between the two kinds of verbs is that, while with transitive verbs with a Path object, like 吃 chī ‘eat’, dummy objects are obligatory in the intransitive/unspecified object reading, with intransitive verbs like 跑 pǎo ‘run’ the dummy object is optional, e.g. 他喜欢跑(步) tā xǐhuān pǎo (bù) ‘he like run (step) = he likes to run’ (cf. Cheng & Sybesma 1998:82). Interestingly, Cheng & Sybesma (1998) point out that, in Chinese, there is just a very small class of intransitive verbs which do not have a VO counterpart; they just found the verbs 笑

xiào ‘laugh’ and 哭 kū ‘cry’. Cheng & Sybesma (1998:85-86) consider these dummy

objects (as well as those found with transitive verbs with a Path object, cf. 1.4.1.1.2) as syntactic active objects, for different reasons. First of all, dummy objects are in complementary distribution with other objects: e.g. 吃 (*饭)苹果 (*饭) chī (*fàn)

píngguǒ (*fàn) ‘eat (*rice) apple (*rice)’; 跑商店 pǎo shāngdiàn ‘run shop = go to

shops’ vs. *跑步商店 pǎobù shāngdiàn ‘run-step shop’ or *跑商店步 pǎo shāngdiàn

bù ‘run shop step’. Dummy objects, thus, never co-occur with other kinds of objects.

Furthermore, a postverbal quantitative expression can occur between the verb and the dummy objects, in the same way as “normal” objects do: e.g. 跑一下步 pǎo yīxià bù ‘run a-bit step = run a bit’. Finally, Cheng & Sybesma (1998) observe that dummy objects can be modified, especially by time expressions, e.g. 我跑了一个小时的步

wǒ pǎo le yī ge xiǎoshí de bù ‘I run ASP one CL hour DE step = I run/jogged for an hour’, 我看了两天的书 wǒ kàn le liǎng tiān de shū ‘I read ASP twoday DE book = I read for two days’. Therefore, Cheng & Sybesma (1998) consider dummy objects as

60 _{Note that many Chinese verbs, both transitive and intransitive, can take different kinds of DPs as} objects, which are not direct objects but other types of complements: e.g. a locative complement, as in 走草地 zǒu cǎodì ‘walk grassland = walk on the grassland’; a result, as in 跑第一名 pǎo dìyī míng ‘run the first (in competition) = arrive first in a race’; a manner 跑圈儿 pǎo quānr ‘run circle = run in circles’, etc. (examples taken from 汉语动词用法词典 ‘A Usage Dictionary of Chinese Verbs’ (HDYC 1999).

61 syntactic active objects and give VO verbs taking a dummy object the structure in (40), from Cheng & Sybesma (1998:85), representing 跑步 pǎo-bù ‘run/jog’.

(40) VP

tu

V NP 跑 pǎo ‘run’ N 步 bù ‘step’

Reinterpreting Cheng & Sybesma’s (1998) proposal in Ramchand’s system, we propose that the dummy objects found with unergative verbs and with transitive verbs with a Path object in the intransitive/unspecified object reading (like 吃 chī ‘eat’, 看

kàn ‘read’; cf. 1.4.1.1.2) are rhemes which fill the complement position of procP, as

shown in (41), representing 跑步 pǎo-bù ‘run/jog’.

(41) initP

tu

DP1

tu

init procP 跑 pǎo ‘run’

tu

< DP1 >

tu

proc NP

< 跑 pǎo ‘run’> 步 bù ‘step’ The fact that most unergative verbs in Chinese take a dummy object makes them similar to transitive verbs61. It is not clear why 笑 xiào ‘laugh’ and 哭 kū ‘cry’ behave differently from other unergative verbs (cf. Cheng & Sybesma 1998).

61

Note that Hale & Keyser (1993, 1998, 2002) show that unergative verbs are in many respects similar to transitive verbs, even though they are not causatives. According to Hale & Keyser, a transitive verb like make and an unergative verb like laugh share the same lexical structure, i.e. “lp- monadic structure” (lp = lexical projection): the argument structure configuration projected by the head contains just one argument, i.e. the complement. See the structures in (i) and (ii) for make and laugh respectively: (i) V (ii) V tu tu V NP V NP ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ make N N ⏐ ⏐ trouble laugh

Besides dummy objects, unergative verbs can take other kinds of objects (cf. also fn. 60), as in 跑商店 pǎo shāngdiàn ‘run shop = go to shops’ seen above, which could be considered as rhematic DPs. These issues deserve further investigation.

Among intransitive verbs, there are unaccusative verbs, e.g. 断 duàn ‘break’ and 死 sǐ ‘die’ (two [proc, res] verbs). We will consider this issue in detail in chapter 4, where we will also discuss the causative alternation in Chinese.

Ramchand (2008) includes English verbs like arrive and fall among intransitives. According to Ramchand, these verbs have [init, proc, res] features and a single Initiator-Undergoer-Resultee role. She observes that these verbs are traditionally considered to be ‘unaccusative’ (cf. 2.4.1) and this is due, according to her, to their obligatory telic character and monotransitivity (p.78). Ramchand cannot see any language-specific reasons for ascribing an English verb like arrive to the class of verbs that have no initiation component62. However, the corresponding kind of verbs in Chinese, as e.g. 到 dào ‘arrive’, 倒 dǎo ‘fall’, 走 zǒu ‘leave’, apparently behave unaccusatively and are characterized by having [proc, res] features. We will examine these verbs in chapter 4 (cf. also chapters 5 and 6 on resultatives, since these verbs can act as V2s in resultative compounds)63.

1.4.1.2.1 Semelfactives

Among intransitive verbs, Ramchand (2008) isolates the group of the so-called semelfactives (cf. Smith 1997, Rothstein 2004, 2008a), which are ambiguous between having a telic punctual reading and a durative, indefinitely iterated reading, in which The difference between (i) and (ii) is that the lexical structure of an unergative verb like laugh (ii) involves incorporation of the nominal head of the NP complement into an abstract V (cf. Hale & Keyser 1993:54). Note that Hale & Keyser use the term monadic in relation to the arguments which must appear internal to the lexical configuration associated with a lexical item, not in relation to syntactic adicity (cf. Hale & Keyser 1998): in sentential syntax, a transitive verb is considered as dyadic, since it has both a subject and an object. The sentential subject is external, not a part of the lexical projection itself.

62 _{Note that Ramchand assumes that the there-insertion test in English is not a diagnostic for} unaccusativity, but rather is related to independent constraints connected to locative existential predications (Ramchand 2008:78, fn. 6). On the there-test in English, cf. 4.2.

63 _{It should be noted that, even if we were to consider a verb like 到 dào ‘arrive’ as a verb endowed} with an [init] feature, it would behave as 进 jìn ‘enter’ discussed above (cf. 38), since it may take DPs describing the final location attained by the Initiator-Undergoer-Resultee, as for example:

他们 昨天 到 了 上海。

tāmen zuótiān dào le Shànghǎi they yesterday arrive ASP Shanghai ‘They arrived in Shanghai yesterday.’

63 case they are atelic, e.g. knock, kick, jump, hiccup. Ramchand (2008:80-81) assumes that these verbs are ambiguous between being [init, proc, res] and [init, proc]. Following this assumption, in Mandarin Chinese a verb like 敲 qiāo ‘knock’ should be ambiguous between being [init, proc, res], e.g. 我敲了门 wǒ qiāo le mén ‘I knock ASP door = I knocked at the door’64, or [init, proc], e.g. 我敲了十分钟 wǒ qiāo le shí fēnzhōng ‘I knock ASP ten minute = I knocked for ten minutes’.

Note that for a verb of motion like 跳 tiào ‘jump’, the different readings correlate with the occurrence of different locative PPs: the occurrence of a preverbal locative PP (42a) correlates with an atelic (iterated) reading; the occurrence of a postverbal locative PP (42b) correlates with a telic (punctual) reading (cf. Chao 1968, Li & Thompson 1981, Sybesma 1992, among many others).

(42) a. 孩子 在 床 上 跳。

háizi zài chuáng shàng tiào child at bed top jump ‘The child is jumping on the bed.’

b. 孩子 跳 在 床 上。

háizi tiào zài chuáng shàng child jump at bed top ‘The child jumped onto the bed.’ 1.4.1.3 Double object verbs

Ramchand (2008) also takes into account double object verbs, which can manifest the dative alternation (cf. Larson 1988, Pesetsky 1995, Harley 2002, among others): I sent

him a letter vs. I sent a letter to him. Ramchand stresses the fact that some verbs are

good in the double object construction but not in the dative alternating version: Bill

threw Mary a glance vs. *Bill threw a glance to Mary; the war years gave Mailer a book vs. *the war years gave a book to Mailer (from Harley 2002, cit. in Ramchand

2008:100).

Chinese too has double object verbs, e.g. 给 gěi ‘give’, 送 sòng ‘give, send’ and 教

jiāo ‘teach’. While the verb 给 gěi ‘give’ can appear only in the double object

construction, 送 sòng ‘give, send’ and 教 jiāo ‘teach’ can appear either in the double object construction (43a) or in the dative construction. In Chinese, the dative version makes use of the root 给 gěi. This root is generally considered as a ‘coverb’ (cf. Chao

64 _{Here, and in many other cases, as we have seen, the locative phrase in the complement position is} realized by means of an NP object.

1968, Li & Thompson 1981), i.e. an item that may function as either a verb (‘give’) or as a preposition (‘for; to; for the benefit of’). Examples in (43) show a sentence containing a double object verb (43a) and its possible dative variants with 给 gěi (43b-d). We will show that only (43b) is the dative alternant of (43a). For the moment, we do not provide the translations of sentences (43b-d).

(43) a. 我 送 他 一 个 礼物。

wǒ sòng tā yī ge lǐwù I give he one CL present ‘I give him a present.’

b. 我 送 一 个 礼物 给 他。

wǒ sòng yī ge lǐwù gěi tā I give one CL present give/to/for he

c. 我 送 给 他 一 个 礼物。

wǒ sòng gěi tā yī ge lǐwù

I give give/to/for he one CL present

d. 我 给 他 送 一 个 礼物。

wǒ gěi tā sòng yī ge lǐwù

I give/to/for he give one CL present

The sentences in (43b-d) deserve some attention, given the double nature of the root 给 gěi as a verb and as a preposition. While it is generally agreed that the preverbal 给 gěi is a preposition (e.g. Li Y.H.A. 1990, Sybesma 1992 and 1999, Her 2006), there is no clear consensus on the nature of the postverbal 给 gěi: for example, while Zhang (1990) and Sybesma (1992, 1999) consider it as a preposition, Li Y.H.A. (1990) and Huang & Ahrens (1999) consider it as a verb (the reader is referred to the mentioned works for evidence in support of the two hypothesis). Huang & Ahrens (1999) argue that the postverbal 给 gěi occurring after a verb (43c) forms a complex predicate and that the postverbal 给 gěi following the direct object is part of a serial verb construction (for the serial verb construction, cf. 1.3.4.2.2). Due to this lack of agreement, let consider the possible dative alternations in (43b-d). Her (2006) points out that in sentences like those in (43b) 给 gěi may be a prepositions as well as a verb. Consider the examples in (44), adapted from Her (2006:1277):

(44) a. 李四 会 借 她 一 栋 房子。

Lǐsì huì jiè tā yī dòng fángzi

Lisi will loan she one CL house ‘Lee will loan her a house.’

65

b. 李四 会 借 一 栋 房子 给 他。

Lǐsì huì jiè yī dòng fángzi gěi tā

Lisi will loan one CL house give she i. ‘Lee will loan a house to her.’

ii. ‘Lee will borrow a housei to give ei to her.’

As it is shown, the sentence in (44b) has two possible readings. Her (2006) highlights the fact that, in a serial verb account (cf. Huang & Ahrens 1999), the 给

gěi-NP phrase is a VP adjunct, not an argument, and points out that, if 给 gěi were a

verb only, the sentence in (44b) would have only the interpretation in (44bii). However, Her further notices that the identical semantic content in the reading of (44bi), which is the preferred one, and (44a) suggests a common argument structure, which is predicted by the prepositional account of 给 gěi65. Therefore, Her (2006) considers (44a) and (44bi) as an instance of the so-called dative alternation. Her (2006) provides evidence in support of the prepositional analysis (e.g. the fact that the postverbal 给 gěi following an object does not allow aspect markers and cannot be stranded66_{). We will not discuss further such evidence, for which the reader may refer} to the mentioned work (cf. also Zhang 1990). Following Her’s (2006) account, we consider the sentence in (43b) as an instance of the dative construction, where 给 gěi is a preposition.

Let us now consider the sentence in (43c): here the root 给 gěi directly follows the verb. As observed by Her (2006), the V-给 gěi sequence is generally considered as a single lexical item, more precisely a complex verb (cf. Li Y.H.A. 1990, McCawley 1992, Her 1999, among others)67. According to Her (2006:1282), the fact that the V- 给 gěi sequence cannot be separated (for example an aspect marker cannot follow the

65_{According to Her (2006:1281), the two possible readings have the following structures} respectively:

a. [V NP1 [PP 给 gěi NP2 ]] (V’s argument structure = <x z y>) b. [V NP1i [VP 给 gěi NP2 ei ]] (V’s argument structure = <x y>)

According to Her, among Sinitic languages, such ambiguity arises only in those languages where the verb ‘give’ and the goal-marking preposition are homonymous. For example, he considers the case of the Dongyang variety of Wu (cf. Liu 2001), where the distinction is quite clear: 分 fai24 (verb) vs. 咧 lie (preposition) (cf. 汉语方言大词典 ‘Great dictionary of Chinese dialects’, HYDC 1999). According to Her, such evidence also provides indirect support for the prepositional nature of the postverbal 给 gěi following an object in Mandarin.

66 _{Chinese does not allow prepositional stranding.}

67 _{Alternative accounts do exist. For example, Sybesma (1999:103) considers the postverbal 给 gěi} in V-给 gěi as a preposition that may be left empty. Her (2006:1281, fn.5) criticises this approach, arguing that this kind of analysis complicates the grammar, since there is no other PP in Mandarin Chinese that may appear between the verb and its direct object.

first verb, i.e. *寄了给他 jì le gěi tā ‘post ASP give he’) is a proof of its lexical integrity; moreover, the fact that V-给 gěi as a whole can take an aspect marker (e.g. 寄给了他 jì gěi le tā ‘post give ASP he’) indicates that this unit is a single double object verb having the same argument structure as the verb 给 gěi ‘give’. As for the exact process involved in V-给 gěi word formation, while some authors (cf. Huang 1993, Huang & Ahrens 1999) consider 给 gěi as a suffix, others (cf. Her 1999 and 2006, McCawley 1992) analyse V-给 gěi as a V-V compound (for an overview, cf. Her 2006:1281-1286). Therefore, we consider the 给 gěi in the sentence in (43c) as a verb forming a complex verb, and thus (43c) does not represent a real dative construction.

Finally, consider the sentence in (43d), which contains a preverbal 给 gěi. Her (2006) highlights that 给 gěi in the preverbal position represents a complicated issue and may have a number of different functions. First of all, it should be noted that in this position 给 gěi can be used as the matrix verb of a purposive clause (cf. Her 2006), as in (45), adapted from Her (2006:1286):

(45) 李四 给 她 这 笔 钱 买 房子。

Lǐsì gěi tā zhè bǐ qián mǎi fángzi

Lisi give she this CL money buy house ‘Lisi gave her this money to buy a house.’

Moreover, Her (2006:1286) also notices that the preverbal 给 gěi can act as a passive marker, in a way similar to the passive marker 被 bèi, as shown in (46), adapted from Her (2006:1286):

(46) 李四 给／被 她 骗 了。

Lǐsì gěi /bèi tā piàn le

Lisi PASS she deceive ASP ‘Lisi was deceived by her.’

However, the prevalent use of the preverbal 给 gěi is the prepositional one (see above), which is the one found in (43d), where it marks the beneficiary (cf. Li & Thompson 1981, among others). See the example in (47), adapted from Her (2006:1287).

67

(47) 李四 给／为 她 摘下 了 一 朵 花。

Lǐsì gěi/wèi tā zhāixià le yī duǒ huā

Lisi for she pick-down ASP one CL flower

‘Lisi picked a flower (for her).’

Her (2006) notes that the 给 gěi beneficiary PP occurs with all kinds of predicates: intransitive, transitive and ditransitive. Moreover, predicates like those in (47) are complete without the preverbal 给 gěi PP. These facts suggest that the PP in (47) is not an argument but an adjunct marking the beneficiary role68 and thus is different from the postverbal goal argument 给 gěi PP (cf. Her 2006).

However, Her (2006) highlights also that some prepositional dative verbs do allow the goal argument (给 gěi PP) to appear either preverbally or postverbally. With such verbs the preverbal 给 gěi PP is ambiguous between the goal reading and the beneficiary reading. See the example in (48), adapted from Her (2006:1288):

(48) 李四 给 老师 寄 了 一 份 文件。

Lǐsì gěi lǎoshī jì le yī fèn wénjiàn

Lisi to/for teacher post ASP one CL document ‘Lee posted a document to/for the teacher.’

Nevertheless, not all prepositional dative verbs allow the goal PP to appear preverbally. An example is the verb 卖 mài ‘sell’, which requires the goal argument to occur postverbally; the preverbal 给 gěi PP with such a verb can only mark the beneficiary. See the examples in (49), adapted from Her (2006:1289):

(49) a. 张三 卖 了 一 栋 房子 给 李四。

Zhāngsān mài le yī dòng fángzi gěi Lǐsì

Zhangsan sell ASP one CL house for Lee ‘Zhangsan sold a house to Lisi.’

b. 张三 给 李四 卖 了 一 栋 房子。

Zhāngsān gěi Lǐsì mài le yī dòng fángzi .

Zhangsan for Lisi sell ASP one CL house ‘Zhangsan sold a house for/*to Lisi.’

68 _{Its status as an adjunct is further supported by the possibility of having a post-object 给 gěi PP} (cf. Her 2006:1288):

李四（给／为）我 寄 了 一 份 文件 给 老师

Lǐsì gěi wèi wǒ jì le yī fèn wénjiàn gěi lǎoshī Lisi for I post ASP one CL document to teacher ‘Lisi posted a document to the teacher (for me).’

Her (2006:1289-1290) observes that verbs that do not allow the goal argument to appear preverbally are those which behave like 给 gěi ‘give’, allowing the double object construction, e.g. 卖 mài ‘sell’, 借 jiè ‘loan’, 换 huàn ‘return’. These verbs contrast with those ditransitive verbs which do not allow the double object construction, e.g. 寄 jì ‘post’, 传 chuán ‘pass’: *李四寄了老师一份文件 Lǐsì jì le

lǎoshī yī fèn wénjiàn ‘Lisi post ASP teacher one CL document = Lisi sent the teacher a document’ vs. 我卖了李四一栋房子 wǒ mài le Lǐsì yī dòng fángzi ‘I sell ASP Lisi one CL house = I sold Lisi a house’ (cf. Her 2006:1289). Her concludes that, in order to allow a preverbal goal-marking 给 gěi PP, a verb, first, must allow the prepositional

In document Verbal compounding and causativity in Mandarin Chinese (Page 78-90)