台灣語言學期刊
鑽石開放取用期刊(對著作者及讀者皆不收取任何費用)ISSN: 1729-4649 (print); 1994-2559 (online)
臺灣閩南語「予」字句之句法研究
黃瑞恆 / 國立台北商業大學
本研究目的有二:(一)探討臺灣閩南語各種「予」字句型之句法結構; (二)比較臺灣閩南語「予」字句以及華語「給」字句之句法表現。研究結果如下:首先,本研究論證「予」字應為動詞,而非介詞或補語詞。其次,本研究受 Lin & Huang(2015)一文之啟發,提議各種「予」字句型之衍生過程,均含括一通則化雙賓結構,雙賓動詞「予」可選取多種詞類之補語。本研究亦論證,雙賓結構的分析優於 Cheng 等人(1999)所提之致使結構的分析。另外,Lin & Huang指出,華語「給」字可選取名詞組、動詞組或屈折詞組作為補語,而本研究則論述,臺灣閩南語「予」字可選取名詞組、屈折詞組或補語詞組作為補語。正是這種詞類選擇之變異,才導致「給」與「予」在句法上的表現有所不同。
ON THE SYNTAX OF HOO CONSTRUCTIONS IN TAIWANESE SOUTHERN MIN
Rui-heng Ray Huang / National Taipei University of Business
This paper examines diverse syntactic structures which involve the morpheme hoo ‘give’ in Taiwanese Southern Min and also compares the syntax of ‘giving’ in two of the Chinese varieties: hoo constructions in Taiwanese Southern Min and gei constructions in Mandarin. The category of hoo is argued to be invariably a verb instead of a preposition or a complementizer. It is proposed, in light of Lin and Huang (2015), that the derivations of diverse hoo patterns all involve a generalized structure in which the ditransitive verb hoo may select a complement of diverse syntactic categories. This ditransitive verb analysis is shown to be superior to the causative verb analysis proposed by Cheng et al. (1999). Furthermore, while the complement selected by gei, as pointed out by Lin and Huang, can be an NP, a VP or an IP, the complement selected by hoo is shown in this paper to be an NP, an IP or a CP. It is this variation in c-selection that is responsible for syntactic differences between the two Chinese verbs of ‘giving’.