中文移動事件中的路徑標記

Abstract

本研究為進一步地了解移動事件中的路徑，深入探討中文裡經常使用的三個路徑標記「過」，「經」，「越」的語法和語意特徵，也藉由這些特徵來討論其語意和構詞之間的互動關係。Liu et al. (2012a) 提出了路線(Path)可再被細分為三個互相關聯的語意成分:路徑(Route),方向(Direction)和終點(Endpoint)，而本研究針對路徑(Route)做深入探討。如同下面例句所示，路徑(Route) 可以單純指出移動的軌道而不用說明路線的方向或是終點，而路徑標記則是藉由標示出一個中界點帶出這條軌道來表達位移的概念。

(1) 經風暴，過黑夜，越洋海

這三個路徑標記帶有相同的標記功能且經常出現在以下句式中：

(2) a 過/越/*經 < Route-NP 過/越/*經 [邊界/Route-NP]了

b. 過/越/經 < Route-NP < Motion Verb < Loc-NP 過/越/經[淡水河/Route-NP][到/Motion Verb][對岸/Loc-NP]

c. Verb < 過/越/經 [飛/Verb]過/越/經公路

從這些句式當中，我們可以看出路徑標記有著不同的語法功能。句式一中的路徑標記可做為及物動詞使用，而在句式二裡，這三個路徑標記同時做為功能標記標示出中界點並且做為動介詞和其它移動動詞一起出現。句式三為動詞複合詞，路徑標記做為其中的第二個動詞。值得注意的是，「經」無法做為及物動詞出現在句式一當中。這說明了「經」較偏向於功能性標記而沒有動詞的特性。藉由在各句式中的不同語法表現，我們也發現每個路徑標記的不同語法特性。「經」偏於功能性標記且較無動詞特徵，「過」擁有最多動詞特性而「越」則是介於兩者之間。 在語意方面，這三個路徑標記各自帶出不同的移動軌道(moving contour)。先前的研究(Hsiao 2003, Zeng 2008)指出「過」可以帶出各種移動軌道。從語料當中我們得知「越」限定其移動軌道為 ‘go over’，而「經」的移動軌道則未被限定(underspecified)。除了帶出不同軌道外，從「過」和「越」可自身結束一個移動事件這點來看，其本身除了帶有路徑(Route)的概念還隱含了終點(Endpoint)的概念，這點再度說明了這三個路徑標記在語意上的差異。這兩項語意差異和空間順序以及中文構詞原則的互動關係影響了其在構詞上的表現，「過」可以和其他兩個路徑標記合用故「越過」和「經過」皆為合法複和詞，然而其他組合皆不合法。 本研究深入探討中文移動事件中的路徑標記「過」，「經」，「越」之語法和語意特徵，闡述詞彙語意和構詞之間的互動表現，最終更進一步了解中文移動事件中的路線(Path)概念。

This paper specifies the path in motion events by investigating the grammatical properties and semantic distinction of the three commonly used Mandarin Route markers guò 過 ‘cross/pass’, jīng 經 ‘pass’ and yuè 越 ‘cross’. It further elaborates how morphological makeups reflect semantic details in motion events. According to Liu et al. (2012a), the semantic component Route may be decomposed from the traditional notion of PATH. It denotes the contour of motion without necessarily specifying a direction or endpoint of the path. Route markers serve to introduce the path contour where the figure moves past a landmark, normally specified as a middle point of the path. Unlike Endpoint markers such as dào 到 ‘arrive’ that marks the aimed destination and Direction markers such as wǎng 往 ‘move toward’ that marks the path direction, the Route markers in (1) describe the progressing contour of motion, profiling the process of moving with a locational change: (1) 經風暴，過黑夜，越洋海 jīng fēngbào，guò hēiyè， yuè yanghǎi pass strorm pass dark-night cross sea ‘Pass through the storm,cross the night and the sea.’

These three markers have parallel functions and commonly appear in some syntactic patterns shown as below.

(2) a. 過/越/*經 < Route-NP 過/越/*經 [邊界/Route-NP]了 guò /yuè/ * jīng biānjiè le cross boundary ASP ‘(Someone) crossed the boundary.’

b. 過/越/經 < Route-NP < Motion Verb < Loc-NP 過/越/經 [淡水河/Route-NP][到/Motion Verb][對岸/Loc-NP] Guò/ yuè/ jīng dànshuǐhé dào duìàn cross Danshui.River arrive opposite ‘Cross Danshui River to the opposite bank

c. Verb < 過/越/經 [飛/Verb]過/越/經 公路 fēi-guò/ yuè/ jīng gonglù fly-cross road ‘Fly over the road.’

These three marker show different grammatical functions in the three syntactic patterns. In Pattern 1, they function as a transitive verb while in Pattern 2, they behave as a typical Route marker, specifying the following noun as the passing landmark and also a prepositional-like coverb, coocurring a motion verb followed by a Loc-NP which referring to a destination of the path. In Pattern 3, the three markers are the second verb in a serial verb construction. It is noted that jīng 經 does not show in Pattern 1, in other words, it cannot function as a transitive verb. A close look of corpus data illustrates that these three markers show different behaviors in each pattern and thus they have distinct grammatical status. Jīng 經 is the least verbal and most like a grammatical marker. Guò 過 is the most verbal and yuè 越 is in between.

In addition to grammatical properties, these three markers can be distinguished by their semantic distinction. First, they specify different moving contours. Guò 過 may denote all possible contours (Hsiao 2003, Zeng 2008) while yuè 越 specifies a particular contour ‘go over’. The moving contours in jīng 經 are underspecified and thus jīng 經 may be compatible with various path contours. Besides specifying different contours, guò 過 and yuè 越 are lexically capable of encoding Endpoint while jīng 經 only reflects Route. The two semantic attributes differentiate these three markers and further correlate with their morphological makeups: guò過 can be combined with the other two markers in a fixed sequence so that jīng-guò經過 and yuè-guò越過 are allowed but other combinations are not. The interations between the semantic distictions and two related principles: the spacial sequencing and Mandarin compounding principle account for the ungrammaticality. This study reveals the syntactic and semantic distinctions of the three commonly-used Route markers, illustrating the interesting correlation between lexical semantics and morphological makeups, ultimately further specifying the path in motion events.