LEXICASE POINTS WITH TAIWANESE VR CONSTRUCTIONS
VR (resultative verb) constructions are most generally treated as compounds or verbs plus complements by Chinese linguists. In this paper, I would like to question the validity of this analysis with reference to the example of Taiwanese VR constructions, and propose and justify an alternative analysis within the
lexicase dependency framework. A Taiwanese VR construction is a single word, and not a compound, which is different from the traditional analysis that views a VR as a compound composed of two verbs. In this paper I claim that a Taiwanese VR is in fact a single word composed of a verb and a derivational suffix. It has been claimed that differences in the distribution of the object of VR forms depends on whether the object is definite or not. For example, an indefinite object has to be positioned after the VR construction (i.e., VR + O). The distribution of the objects is claimed to be more flexible if they are definite (e.g., O + VR). However, in this paper I would like to account for this phenomenon purely in terms of the transitivity of the resultative verbs. The transitive VR constructions take the nouns that follow them as their dependents and assign accusative case form to them. If the dependent object comes before the VR construction, a so-called disposal marker kā is required; otherwise, no accusative case form will be assigned, and the sentence will be ill-formed. Intransitive VR constructions cannot have their dependents following them simply because no accusative case form can be assigned to them.