:
1

First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all the venerable professors who have instructed me during my graduate study in this university: Prof. Han Jingquan, Prof. Li Baiqing, Prof. Fan Xianlong, Prof. Tan
Waiyuan, Prof. Tu Guoyuan, Prof. Peng Jinding, Prof. Zhang Chengping, Prof. Xiao
Liming, Prof. Li Yanlin, Prof. Yang Shoukang and Prof. Zhang Yinxian.
I especially want to express my heartfelt thanks and appreciation to my supervisor, Prof. Han Jingquan, for his suggestions influenced me enormously in forming the idea of this thesis. It has been a great privilege and joy to work under his guidance and with his encouragement.
Finally, my thanks go to the contribution to my thesis made in various ways by my family, friends and colleagues.
2

According to the semantic relations between the complement and the verb, the bound verb-complement compounds can be classified into resultative, directional, degree, manner, location, time, quantity, cause complement construction etc.. Among these the first three types have enjoyed greater attention of the linguists. In this paper, I’ll focus on the resultative complement construction.
According to traditional typology, Mandarin Chinese is considered an isolating language with little morphology, while it is true only insofar as Chinese lacks inflectional affixation. In fact,
Chinese is very rich in compounding. Based on the comparative analysis of verb-complement construction in English and Chinese, this study attempts to make an exploration on the issue of the arguments of the resultative-verb compounds (RVCs) and the syntactic function of the arguments as well.
Previous analyses on RVCs can be classified into two lines, namely, the syntactic and the lexical approach. Their analyses can be stated below: a.
How many types can V-complement compounds be divided into? b.
Where do they come from? (Syntactically or lexically) c.
Which one is the head of the RVCs? d.
How many arguments do RVCs take? Why?
Among all these hotly debated issues much discussion has been carried out in the linguistic field with some agreement reached so far, while the last one needs further discussion.
I’ll follow Chao’s (1968), Selkirk’s (1982) Lapointe’s (1980), Huang’s (1988), Gu’s (1992) and Tang’s (2000) analyses in assuming that verb-complement compounds are syntactically derived. And I’ll follow Tang’s conclusion that Chinese RVCs are not only head-initial but also head-final and propose our hypothesis that the arguments RVCs take depends on their heads.
The rest chapters of the paper are organized as the following:
Chapter 1 proposes the theoretical framework and introduces some basic theoretical notions: argument structure, case theory, the Projection Principle, case filter, visibility condition, adjacency requirement and Mirror Principle.
In Chapter 2 I’ll compare briefly English and Chinese verb-complement construction to show their similarities and differences, which will help us to understand the Chinese RVCs better.
Chapter 3 will consider the historical development of Chinese RVCs, examine the differences between RVCs and phrases, and discuss the combination rules of RVCs.
Chapter 4 is the review of two lines of available analyses of RVCs, i.e. the lexical and syntactic approach, and a modified account will be proposed after the reviewing.
In Chapter 5 I propose an account for the arguments of the VRCs and the position of their heads.
Chapter 6 concludes this paper, summarizing both its advantages and disadvantages and raises
3

issues for further research.
In the literature, argument structure refers to the lexical representation of grammatical information about a predicate (Grimshaw 1990). According to the Projection Principle, all arguments and thematic property of predicate verbs must be mapped onto the syntactic representation: D-structure, S-structure, and Logical Form (LF).
(1) Projection Principle
Representations at each syntactic level (D-structure, S-structure, LF) are projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the subcategorization properties of lexical items.
(Chomsky 1981)
And according to the Theta Criterion, all arguments must be assigned one and only one theta role.
(2) Theta Criterion
Each argument bears one and only one-role, and each-role is assigned to one and only one argument.
(Chomsky 1981)
There are several types of arguments as shown below:
(3) a. external argument and internal argument
b. direct internal argument and indirect internal argument
First, there is a distinction between external argument and internal argument. The argument, which is associated with the position outside the maximal projection of the predicate, is called external argument, whereas the argument to be associated with the position within the maximal projection of the predicate is called internal argument (Grimshaw 1990).
Second, the distinction between direct internal argument and indirect internal argument is based on the syntactic realization of arguments. The argument that is assigned its theta role directly from the verb is referred to as the direct (internal) argument while the argument whose theta role is assigned by a preposition is referred to as the indirect (internal) argument (Marantz
1984).
Arguments are closely related to case. Case is assigned to an NP. But an NP is not assigned case when the NP is not an argument. Let us first consider a case condition on NP below:
(4) Case Filter
An overt NP must have case.
(Chomsky 1981)
4

An overt NP refers to an NP that is a phonologically realized. Thus the covert NP, PRO, is not assigned case. And only an NP with case can be assigned a theta-role. That is to say, case renders an NP argument visible to theta-role assignment. The case filter is related to the theta theory via a
Visibility Condition, which is stated as follows:
(5) To be theta-marked, an NP needs to be visible; in order to be visible an NP needs to be case-marked.
(Haegeman, 1994)
As for the case assigner and the case assignee, they must abide by the following Adjacency
Requirement, i.e.
(6). The case assigner and the element to which case is assigned should be adjacent
(Haegeman, 1994)
The relationship between morphology and syntax should obey the following principle.
The morphological derivations must directly reflect syntactic derivations (and vice versa).
. (Baker, 1985)
This chapter will compare verb-complement construction in English and Chinese, which will give us a better understanding of the properties of Chinese verb-complement constructions from which RVCs are derived.
2.2 Comparative study of English and Chinese verbs
A Comparative study is made of the lexical properties of English and Chinese verbs which play an important role in the verb-complement constructions (VCCs).
2.3 Analyses of VCCs in English and Chinese: a comparison
2.3.1 Lexical properties of English VCCs
It is observed in literature that English Resultative Constructions are notoriously picky in formation about the sentence class of both the matrix predicate and the resultative predicate. In
English Resultative Constructions, only verbs can act as matrix predicates, but not all verbs can take a resultative predicate to form resultative construction freely. Resultative predicate can be an
AP&PP or NP, however, not every potential phrase in these categories is allowed freely to be resultative predicate. Examples of resultative constructions in English are given below:
(1) a. He sneezed his handkerchief completely soggy.
5

b. The joggers ran their Nikes threadbare.
(Carrier & Randall 1992: 257)
2.3.2. Lexical properties of Chinese VCCs
In Chinese, there is a kind of verb construction in which a verb is followed by another verb or an adjective in the dimension of result or direction etc. We call it dong-bu (verb-complement) construction.
According to Chao (1968), VCCs can be classified on the basis of the status of the complement. The complement can be free, e.g. “Zhang san chi de hen bao” (Zhangsan is full after eating); or the complement can be bound, e.g. “Zhangsan chi bao le” (Zhangsan has eaten full).
The former type is unanimously regarded as phrases, while the status of the latter is still controversial.
2.3.3. The differences and similarities of VCCs in English and Chinese
Differences: Chinese resultative constructions are much freer in formation about the semantic class of both the matrix predicate and the resultative predicate. Pragmatic resultatives are very pervasive in Chinese concerning relationship between the two predicates, i.e. all the action—result relation inferred according to our pragmatic knowledge can be expressed by resultative constructions. Also due to the difference in building eventuality, Chinese has several types of resultative constructions not shared with English. Because there is no clear action—result relation denoted in these resultative constructions. We call them spurious resultative constructions.
Similarities: In English and Chinese, verbs can be divided into transitive and intransitive verbs.
2.4 Conclusion
As the previous analyses show, Chinese VCCs have some unique properties which make them the basis for the Chinese RVCs.
This chapter considers the historical development of Chinese RVCs, and the differences between morphemes and phrases. The combination rules of RVCs and their semantic and syntactic functions are also elaborated here.
Distinguishing their differences helps us to narrow the scope of our research.
Through probing into the classification and the history of RVCs in Chinese, we’ll find that
RVCs can be derived not only syntactically but also lexically.
We’ll examine what kind of verbs is eligible to appear in the V1 and V2 slots. In Chinese
6

RVCs, the first verb usually denotes an action, and the slot is usually filled by an action verb. The second verb usually denotes a result, so it cannot be a verb of volition, and in this case, it is usually a verb capable of denoting a change of state.
RVCs are endocentric in structure and may be used as intransitive, transitive and ergative
(causative – transitive & inchoative—intransitive) verbs.
I’ll say a few words about the resultative marker “de”. “De” was developed from the lexical verb “ de
”, which means “to obtain”. In the process of development, it has been grammaticalized to introduce the result of an action, and it can be followed by adjectives, verbs, phrases and sentences.
Both compounds in RVCs jointly determine the properties of the compounds in terms of the syntactic behavior and semantic prediction. In order to provide the background information for the further discussion of the formation of compounds, this section will first shed light on the possible candidates for V1and V2, and it will also discuss what semantic and syntactic characteristics the
Chinese RVCs have.
The candidates of V1 in a resultative compound are verbs denoting events, including activity and achievement, while the candidates for V2 are verbs that can express results.
Achievement-denoting ergative verbs qualify as result verbs since they describe a change of state.
Our modified account
After the examination of the lexical and syntactic properties of Chinese RVCs I’ll propose the hypothesis that in Chinese there is morphology and Chinese RVCs are morph-syntactically derived and in the process of generation, certain constraints are at work to determine which kind of verbs can enter into the V1 or V2 slot through application of the Mirror Principle.
4.1 Introduction
I’ll first compare the lexical and syntactic approaches to Chinese RVCs and then present an modified account.
4.2 Lexical approach
4.2.1 Li Yafei’s analysis
Li Yafei (1990, 1995) proposes a lexical analysis in which resultative compounds are formed in the lexicon. His basic assumption is that the RVCs enter syntax directly from the lexicon. His major concern is the multiple reading natures of many RVCs. Li begins by considering examples such as (2) which have been noted for two possible interpretations as indicated:
(2) BaoYu qi-lei-le ne-pi ma.
Bao Yu ride-tired-ASP that-CL horse
‘a. BaoYu rode the horse and as a result BaoYu got tired.’
‘b. BaoYu rode the horse and as a result the horse got tired.’
He proposes a mechanism of “theta-identification” in which a theta role from one verb may be identified with a theta role in the second verb’s argument structure and then assigned to a single
7

argument of the newly compounded verb.
4.2.2 Gu’s (1992) and Zou’s (1995) analyses
Strictly speaking, they propose different types of lexical—syntactic analyses according to which some resultative compounds are derived syntactically while the others are formed in the lexicon. However, Gu argues that resultative compounds are formed in the lexicon through theta-identification in some cases, while Zou proposes that resultative compounds are derived in syntax through verb—incorporation.
4.2.2.1 Gu’s (1992) proposal
In Gu’s opinion, the verb in the complement part (YP) moves to adjoin to the causative head to assume the second part of the causative feature.
Her approach can be showed below:
(3) a. Kan nei-ben shu nong-huai-le Lisi-de yanjing.
Read that-CL book make-blur-ASP. Lisi’s eyes.
‘Lisi’s eyes blurred as a result of reading this book.’
b. Da nei-ge ren nong-teng-le Zhangsan-de shou.
Hit that-CL person make-ache-ASP Zhangsan’s hand.
‘Zhangsan got a hand ache as a result of hitting that person.’
(4)
VP
∕ ＼
XP V’
∕ ＼
V YP
(cause) ︱
Nong V2
↑ ＿＿＿＿＿＿｜
Compounds as
“nong-teng” “nong--huai”
are thus formed. The V1 (projected from XP) and
V2 (projected in YP) respectively move into the cause verb and form the Chinese resultative compounds verb. Because of constraints of movement, the chain of V1 movement is not well-formed and the moved V1 cannot properly govern its trace, so resultative compounds in
Chinese must be formed in the lexicon.
4.2.2.2 Zou’s (1994) model
Zou proposes that the semantic implication relation between the two verbs may be captured by suggesting that V1 selects fro a second VP depicting the outcome of V1 and that this latter VP is headed by V2. The following sentence with the (b) reading will then have a structure approximately as in (6) with lei “be-tired” raising overtly to V1 zhui “chase”.
(5) Baoyu hui zhui-lei Lisi
Baoyu will chase-tired Lisi.
‘a. Baoyu will chase Lisi and bayou will get tired as a result of it.’
‘b. Baoyu will chase Lisi until Lisi gets tired.’
(6)
8

IP
∕ ＼
Spec I’
∕ ＼
I0 VP1
∣ ∕ ＼ hui Spec V1’ will ∣ Baoyu ∕ ＼
↑ ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜ V10 VP2
Zhui ∕ ＼
Chase Spec V2’
Lisi ∣
V2
∣
Lei tired
↑ ＿＿＿＿＿＿｜
The essence of Zou’s analysis is to admit that there exists a selection between V1 and V2.
The advantage of it is that it represents the thematic relation in V1-V2 compounds in a transparent way.
4.3 Syntactic approach
4.3.1 Tang’s (2000) method
He states that “there is no clear-cut borderline between word—syntax and sentence—syntax in Chinese or more specifically, that sentence—syntactic rules and principles extend to apply in the domain of word-syntax as well in all unmarked cases”, “It is also suggested that the analogous relation between syntactic and morphological constructions in Chinese may turn out to be a general rule in natural languages rather than an exception in a particular language.” And he adds that “…aside from the categorical distinction between word (X0) and phrase (XP), and theoretical consequences resulting from the distinction, word—syntax and sentence—syntax are in fact one and the same”.
4.3.2 Chao’s (1968) & Selkirk (1982)’s proposal
Chao states that “as for the formation of compounds […] the relations involved are mostly analogous to those in syntactic constructions […]” and adds “ in Chinese most words are syntactic” (Chao 1968: 366).
Selkirk points out, in more general terms, that “word structure has the same general formal properties as syntactic structure”, and, furthermore, that “it is generated by the same sort of rule system”.
4.3.3 Sybesma’s (1990) analysis
Sybesma argues that both transitive and intransitive dynamic activity verbs may select for a small clause representing a (result) state predicated of an NP which is the subject of that small clause.
As in the following diagram, Sybesma suggests that V2 base generates in a small clause selected by V1 and predicates on the NP from this position. As some later time before spell out, the V2 will raise up to join the V1.
9

(7)
VP
∣
V’
∕ ＼
V1 VP (sc)
∣ ∕ ＼
∣ NP V2
∣ ∣ ︱ shuai beizi sui
↑ ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜
Based on this structure, Sybesma proposes that the NP has no predication relationship with
V1, there is only some loose pragmatic relation between them, and that the interpretation of
“xi-ganjing yifu” is essentially as the following:
Wash [clothes(are/become)clean]
There is a washing event.
The state of clothes being clean aspectually closes the washing event.
Pragmatic implicature: if the clothes are clean and they are part of a washing, then they can be assumed to have been washed. Pragmatically the NP is inferred to be the object of V1.
4.4 A Modified Account
Following the previous analyses, I maintain that the Chinese RVCs are derived not only in a syntactic way but also from the lexicon. However, I’ll propose a hypothesis to depict the process of derivation of RVCs in a morph-syntactic way and to show that some of the hotly debated issues in Chinese syntax follow naturally from the recognition of morphology in the language and of its interface with the syntax to Chinese, which can contribute to general linguistics as well.
5.1 Introduction
After probing into the head of the RVCs on which the arguments they take depend on I’ll come to the argument structure of Chinese RVCs briefly as well.
5.2 The head of Chinese RVCs
I maintain that Tang’s (2000) proposal that Chinese RVCs can be head-initial and head-final as well will help us to account for the arguments they take.
a. Head-initial perspective
Some RVCs are head-final while some are head-initial. The following RVCs such as “ 走动 ”,
“ 作直 ”,“ 吃饱 ”and “ 看见 ”are head-initial since the syntactic category or subcategory of the entire compound verbs is the same as that of the first rather than the second stem of the compound. b. Head-initial perspective
Some RVCs such as “ 打开 ”, “ 摇动 ”,and “ 缩小 ” are head-final because the second rather than the first stem determines the syntactic category subcategory of the entire compound.
5.3 The arguments of Chinese RVCs
I’ll probe into the argument of the head of Chinese RVCs. The central question is: when an
10

adjective acts as the resultative complement, which constituent, the adjective or V1 will play an important role in determining the number of the arguments they take?
5.4 A modified proposal
Based on Tang’s method, I propose the hypothesis that the number of arguments of the
Chinese RVCs depends on their heads.
The consequences of our study can contribute to general linguistics. First of all, the predominant view that Chinese has meager morphology will be rejected in the course of demonstrating that Chinese possesses compounding. Second, the investigation of the main verb of
Chinese RVCs and the arguments they take show that Chinese is subject to the constraints set by universal grammar.
Chang, Jung-hsing. 2003. Event structure and argument linking in Chinese. Language and
Linguistics 4. 2:317-351.
Chomsky, N. 1981.
Lectures on Government and Binding . Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky N. 1995. The Minimalist Program.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.2002. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature , Origin and Use . Beijing: Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press.
Chao, Yuan-Ren/1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese.
Berkeley: University of California Press
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory . Oxford: Blackwell.
Levin, B. & M. Rapparport Hovav. 1995. Unacusativity.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lin, Jimmy. 2004. Event Structure and the Encoding of Arguments: The Syntax of the Mandarin and English Verb Phrase . Ph. D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Radford, A. 2000.
Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction . Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press.
Selkirk, E.O. 1982. The Syntax of Words.
Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 7 Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Carrier,J. and J,Randall. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives.
Linguistic Inquiry 20:1—50.
Sybesma, Rint. 1999. The Mandarin VP . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Packard Jerome L. 2000. The Morphology of Chinese hiALCACUP
程工， 1999 ， ，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
顾阳， 1994 ，论元结构理论介绍。 1 期： 1 － 11 页。
顾阳， 1996 ，生成语法及词库中动词的一些特征。 3 期： 1 － 16 页。
桂诗春，宁春岩， 2002 ， 。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
李临定， 1986 ， 。北京：商务印书馆。
11

陆俭明，沈阳， 2003 ，《汉语和汉语研究十五讲》。北京：北京大学出版社。
石定栩， 2002 ，
温宾利， 2002 ， 。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
徐烈炯， 1995 ， （修订本）
徐烈炯， 2003 ， 。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
朱德熙， 1982 ，
汤廷池， 2000 ，汉语词法论集。台湾：金字塔出版社。
12