漢語比字比較句的語法和語意特性之研究

Abstract

近來有關漢語「比字句」語法和語意特性的研究一直離不開下列兩項議題：（一）「比字 句」是否該被分析為一種包含了刪略現象的「子句比較句」，又所有的「比字句」是否 都是由「子句比字句」經由刪略而來的？（二）「比字比較句」在句法層次上是否帶有 「程度比較」，也就是說，是否帶有程度運符和程度變項間的移位或是約束關係？有別 於Beck et al.（2004）、Kennedy（2005, 2007）、向明/Xiang（2005）及林若望/ Lin （2009）等學者的看法：漢語的「比字句」非但是一種「詞組比較句」而且不允許句法 層次上的「程度比較」。在本計畫的第一部分裡，我將論證漢語「比字句」應該被區分 為「詞組比字句」和「子句比字句」；後者非但允許句法層次上的「程度比較」而且還 帶有刪略現象。在計畫的第二部份裡，我將為漢語的「比字句」提出一個由下列幾個要 點所組成的「非單一的分析方式」：《第一》、以下列兩項與「比字句」相關的語法特性 為前提:（一）「比」字所引介的每一個「比較項」（如（1）中的「李四」）在主要子句 裏都需有一個「相應項」（如（2）中的「張三」）;（二）如果「相應項」超過一個以上 而且主要子句的謂語又不是一個事件謂語的話，則「比較項」的數目非但要和「相應項」 一致而且也要大於一，我們將只包含一個「比較項」的「比字句」分析為「詞組比字句」， 帶有一個以上的「比較項」的分析為「子句比字句」，而且「子句比字句」帶有謂語刪 略的現象。 （1） a. 張三[比[李四]]開心。 b. 張三今天在家裡[比[李四昨天在學校開心]]開心。 《第二》、在語法上，「比」字具有類似從屬連詞「因為」的功能，可以選擇一個子句或 者一個非子句詞組為補語。在語意上，「比」字帶有「比較/對照」的語意，所以具有引 介一個和「相應項」成「比較/對照」關係的「比較項」或是一個包含了至少兩個和「 相應項」成「比較/對照」關係的「比較項」的子句且該子句包含了刪略現象。前者如 例句（1a），後者如（1b）。《第三》、為了讓「比較/對照」關係更清楚地呈現出來，在 「子句比字句」（參（1b））中，「比」字的補語子句，除了和「相應項」成「對照」關 係的「比較項」之外，其他成份都不能帶有語音形式。這些不具語音形式的句法成份都 必需符合e-givenness 的要求，以確保其語意內容的可恢復性。由於「比」字已經帶有 「對照」的語意並且以「對照」的方式引介「比較項」，所以「比」字的所引介帶有刪 略現象的補語子句不得再帶有與「對照焦點」相關的（顯性）句法移位。《第四》、「比」 字和它的補語在句法上形成一個附加語詞組（既「比詞組」）並加接到表比較向度主要 謂語的左側。這附加語詞組只能出現在主語和（程度副詞或方式副詞）謂語之間的句法 範域之內。《第五》、在「詞組比字句」中，「比較項」會在主要子句中選擇一個最貼近 它而且在語意上相符的詞組做為「相應項」，在句法上「比較項」和「相應項」必需平 行。在「子句比字句」中，每一個「比較項」都必需被它的「相應項」所c-command， 而且在語法和語意上必需互相平行（主語對主語，附加語對附加語、個體對個體、時間 對時間等）。《第六》、不管是「詞組比字句」或是「子句比字句」在語意上都是一個表 「顯性比較」結構，而且不能帶有表「隱性比較」的程度副詞。這樣的分析，在經驗事 實和理論上，有下列的推論和優點: 《第一》、每一個「比較項」都必需被它的「相應 項」所c-command 這項特性，和「比詞組」以附加語的形式加接到表比較向度的主要謂 語的左側這項特性一起運作的結果使得我們正確地推論出「子句比字句」不允許「異質 比較」（subcomparison）結構。 （2）*這條河今年[比[那條河去年寬]]深。 因為在「比」字所引介的補語子句中，只有和「相應項」成「比較/對照」關係的成份 才能具有語音形式，但是做為補語子句中第三個「比較/對照」項的謂語「寬」無法在 主要子句中找能一個能夠c-command 它的「相應項」，所以例句（2）不合語法。這解釋 了為什麼「子句比字句」不允許「異質比較」的現象。《第二》、我們的分析指出林若望 /Lin（2009）所提的Argument comparison versus Non-argument comparison parameter 及Mono-adic comparison versus Dyadic comparison parameters 這兩個參項的正確 性及可行性仍有待商榷。《第三》、Beck et al.（2004）和Kennedy（2007）所提:倘若 一個語言有「子句比較句」，就會有「程度比較」，有「程度比較」就會允許「異質比較」 的說法，我們認為應該被修正為:倘若一個語言有「子句比較句」，就會有「程度比較」， 但有「程度比較」，並不保證該語言就會有「異質比較」，因為個別語言比較句的特殊語 法現象會造成「異質比較」句式不被允許。《第四》、我們的研究非但正確地預測了像例 句（3）這種帶有「被字句」的「比字句」是一種帶有「包孕標準詞組」的「子句比字 句」（參黃正德等（2009））。 （3）張三i 被李四[Opj 比[Proi 被[IP 王五打得tj-慘]]]打得更慘。 此外，也說明了類似例句（4）這種長久以來一直被用來支持「比字句」不允許「包孕 標準詞組」的句子之所以不合語法是另有原因的。 （4）*張三今天[比[李四認為[王五昨天開心]]]開心。

Chinese bi comparatives, and then propose a non-unified analysis to Chinese bi comparatives. The main themes of my proposal are as follows: First, assuming (A) that each compared constituent introduced by bi must have a correlate in the main clause and (B) that if more than one correlate is found and the predicate of comparison is not an event predicate, then the number of compared constituents is more than one, I analyze examples containing only one compared constituent (e.g., (1)) as the bi phrasal comparative, while those containing more than one compared constituent the bi clausal comparative (e.g., (2)). (1) [S [NP Zhangsan] bi [NP Lisi] kaixin]. Zhangsan than Lisi happy ‘Zhangsan is happier than Lisi.’ (2) [NP Zhangsan] [AdvP jintian] bi [NP Lisi] [AdvP zuotian] kaixin. Zhangsan today than Lisi yesterday happy ‘Zhangsan today is happier than Lisi yesterday was.’ Second, the morpheme bi is a prepositional complementizer taking as complement a (non-)clausal constituent, and forms with it a pre-predicate adjunct phrase (i.e., the bi phrase). The distribution of this adjunct phrase is limited to the domain between the subject NP and the predicate (or the manner/degree adverb if the predicate if modified by a manner/degree adverb). Third, bi with the meaning of ‘comparing/contrasting’ functions to introduce a constituent in a contrastive relation to its correlate, or a clause containing more than one constituent in a contrastive relation to their corresponding correlates. To make the contrast sharp, bi requires all the subelements of its clausal complement except those in a contrastive relation to their corresponding correlates to be ‘elided’, and the ‘elided’ site must be e-given (cf. Merchant (2004)). Semantically, bi functions to introduce compared constituents in a contrastive way. By Occam’s razor, the clause containing compared constituents need not involve any syntactic focus movement. Fourth, in the bi phrasal comparative, the compared constituent chooses as its correlate the minimal c-commanding constituent parallel in category and semantics, and the compared constituent must be parallel to its correlate in syntax. In the bi clausal comparative, the compared constituents must be c-commanded by their corresponding correlates respectively, and the compared constituents and the correlates must be parallel in category, semantics and syntax. Accordingly, (1)-(2) have (3)-(4) as their corresponding syntactic structure. (3) [S [NP Zhangsan] [DegP [bi [NP Lisi]] [DegP [AP kaixin]]]. (4) [S Zhangsan [jintian [CP Opi [C’ [C bi] [Lisi zuotian [DegP [Deg xi] [AP kaixin]]]]] kaixin]]. The assumption that (4) involves syntactic degree comparison gets supporting evidence from (5), which violates the Heim-Kennedy Constraint, and (6), which violates the Focus Intervension Effect (cf. Heim (1985, 2001) and Beck (2006)). (5) *Zhangsan jintian [bi [Opi [meige-ren zuotian dou [DegP xi-kaixin]]]] kaixin. Zhangsan today than everyone yesterday all happy happy (6) *Zhangsan (zhiyou) jintian [bi [Opi [Lisi zhiyou zuotian [DegP xi-kaixin]]]] kaixin. Zhangsan only today than Lisi only yesterday happy happy The ungrammaticality of (7)-(8) results from the bi phrase’s occurring outside the domain where it is allowed, and the ungrammaticality of (9) is ungrammatical because the bi clause involves movement. (7) *Xiaoming-de shengri manman-de bi kuaikuai-de dao lai. Xiaoming-DE birthday slowly than quickly arrive come ‘Xiaoming’s birthday will come slowly than quickly.’ (8) *Mama yinwei Xiaoming shuo huang bi yinwei Xiaoming tou dongxi haiyao shengqi. Mother because Xiaoming say lie than because Xiaoming steal thing more angry ‘Mother was angry more because Xiaomingi told a lie than hei stole things.’ (9) Zhangsan shuxue bi Lisi wuli xihuan. Zhangsan mathematics than Lisi physics like ‘Zhangsan like mathematics more than Lisi likes physics.’ (cf. Mao zhuxi Zhou Enlai bi Deng Xiaoping xinren.) The interaction between the pre-predicate adjunct status of the bi phrase and the c-commanding condition between the correlate and its corresponding compared constituent makes the compared constituent like shen ‘deep’ in (10) not have a correlate. So, subcomparison is not allowed. (10) *Zhe-tiao he xianzai [bi [na-tiao he guoqu shen]] kuan. This-CL river now than that-CL river past deep wide ‘This river is wider than that river was deep.’ The non-unified analysis proposed has the following implications: First, the dichotomy of Chinese bi comparatives proposed indicates that Lin’s (2009) cross-linguistic parameters on comparison are questionable. Second, even if a language has the clausal comparative, it is not necessary for that language to allow subcomparison. Third, it is predicted that the bi clausal comparative allows the embedded standard, and the fact bears out this prediction, as (11) shows (cf. Huang et al. (2009)). (11) [Zhangsani [bei [Lisi [[bi [IP Proi bei [IP Wangwu da-de can]]] [da-de geng can]]]]]. Zhangsan BEI Lisi than BEI Wangwu hit-DE pitiful hit-DE more pitiful ‘Zhangsan was beaten pitifully more by Lisi than by Wangwu.‘