查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- The Syntax and Semantics of Prenominals: Construction or Composition?
- 期作對玉米馬齒型與硬粒型組合青割產量及品質特性之影響(2):期作對不同粒型後裔組合力之表現
- 機構式長期照護住民特質與照護需要組合之探討
- 顧客基礎的品牌權益建立之研究
- 長期照護在健保實施後對各醫院所帶來的衝擊以及醫院的建議事項
- 提供社區式家庭支持方案能否減少機構式長期照護服務之使用意願?
- Unhappy "Hexad" of the Knee Joint: Reconsideration of the Natural Assumption, the "O'Donoghue Triad"
- 氣渦輪機使用液態空氣之進口空氣冷卻系統
- 河川棲地模式PHABSIM之水理計算敏感度分析
- 論小學數學科建構式教學的普遍適用性
第1筆 /總和 1 筆
/ 1 筆
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | The Syntax and Semantics of Prenominals: Construction or Composition?=名詞組前置成分的結構和語義:是構式還是組合? |
---|---|
作者 | 黃正德; | 書刊名 | 語言暨語言學 |
卷期 | 17:4 2016.07[民105.07] |
頁次 | 頁431-475 |
分類號 | 802.632 |
關鍵詞 | 名詞組前置成份; 補語與附加語; 無空缺疑似關係子句; 定語; 構式; 組合; Adjunct-complement distinction; Composition; Construction; Determinatives; Gapless relatives; Pre-nominal structure; |
語文 | 英文(English) |
英文摘要 | Although the adjunct–complement dichotomy has long been recognized in traditional Chinese linguistic study for the analysis of clausal and verb-phrase structure, research on nominal structure has traditionally recognized only a general dingyu or ‘determinative’ category in the pre-nominal position. While most generative works on Chinese syntax have followed the X-bar theory and recognize an adjunct–complement distinction for the noun phrase as well as other phrases, few have offered systematic evidence from Chinese to prove this view. In the meantime, some recent typological works have claimed that for a number of languages with head-final noun phrases, the adjunct–complement distinction does not exist, and that a constructionist view that takes all the clausal prenominal modifiers under an undifferentiated ‘noun-modifying’ category should be adopted. This paper presents empirical evidence to reaffirm the existence of an adjunct–complement dichotomy in the nominal structure in Chinese as well as other languages. Extensive evidence is amassed supporting the view that only when adjuncts are structurally positioned higher than complements and the semantic component rules apply accordingly can the relevant facts be appropriately explained. We also take up the facts that have been used to support the constructionist approach and show that they in fact do not serve their purpose. We show that the seemingly uniform de-constructions are in fact heterogeneous, and that the high degree of interpretive and analytic variability and the apparent lack of appropriate input to relativization have their independent sources not peculiar to nominal structure. Once the independent factors are isolated, the syntax and semantics of the prenominal elements can be derived according to standard procedures. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。