動結式句構中，一個動詞包含兩個以上的子事件。句法角度而言，動結式建構在以語意決定論元角色之限制--直接賓語限制。然而，以直接賓語限制解釋主語指向化動結式句構之論元角色，仍是有爭議的。本文欲以合併理論為基礎，透過句法的觀察驗證直接賓語限制於論元角色解釋上仍是合理、有效的。此架構下，動詞二與帶語意的輕動詞合併，成為動詞一之中心詞。本文利用小子句(Hoekstra, 1988, 1992) 即詞彙句法結構(Hale & Keyser, 1998)分析英語與漢語動結式，兩個主要句構因此出現: 「非受格—事件句構」與「致使—及物句構」。第一類為限制句構。句構中，小子句指示詞裡的[P-主事者]和動詞合併後，晉升句子中之主語位置，成為非受格句構。第二類為例外格位指派句構。句構中，非次類化分之[P-受事者]為動作動詞之非選擇動詞補語，成為非作格句構。而促使與小子句合併之句構，則為小子句指示詞中論元之論旨角色。主語指向句子中，賓語名詞片語與動詞後合併成為複雜謂語。此複雜謂語非真正的賓語，而是路徑指向名詞片語。複雜謂語之形成，促使主語指向句子成為非受格—事件句構。帶賓語之動結式 (包含及物與帶假反身詞之動結式)則呈現致使—及物之句構。漢語複合動詞可出現在兩種句構中；然而，和英語不同的是，這些複合動詞可與語意不適之指示詞並存，顯示漢語句子中心詞是詞根。漢語動結式之事件語意是從句構衍伸而來，利用合併理論則能解釋諸多在句構理論上合理的限制，包括非受格假設(Burzio, 1986; Perlmutter, 1978) 和論旨關係準則(Chomsky, 1981).

Resultative sentences are of theoretical interest as they are sentences in which more than one sub-event is expressed by a single verb. Syntactic accounts of resultatives depend on a crucial restriction, the Direct Object Restriction, which allows the semantics to decode which argument the resultative phrase is predicated of. The explanatory power of this restriction has been called into question, however, due to the existence of subject-predicated resultatives. This thesis hopes to show that the restriction remains valid by advancing a syntactic account of resultatives based on conflation. Under the account, lexical verbs conflate in syntax to semantics-bearing light verb heads in a V1 slot via an available V2. The account employs small clauses (Hoekstra, 1988, 1992) and l-syntactic structures (Hale & Keyser, 1998) to analyze resultative sentences in English and Chinese. Two basic configurations emerge: the “unaccusative” configuration and the “causative” configuration. The first is a control structure, in which a [P-AGENT] in Spec-SC is raised to sentential subject position after merger of the verb, from where it controls its trace. This configuration is unaccusative. The second is an ECM (Exceptional Case Marking) configuration, in which a nonsubcategorized [P-PATIENT] functions as an unselected verbal complement of an activity verb. This configuration is unergative. The trigger as to the configuration with which the small clause will merge is argued to be the θ-role of the argument in Spec-SC. Subject-predicated sentences are assimilated to the unaccusative configuration as the object NP is not a true object, but a path-denoting NP which, together with the verb, forms a complex predicate. Object-taking resultatives, including “transitives” and those with “fake” reflexives, are assimilated across the board to the causative configuration. Chinese compound verbs appear in either configuration, and, unlike English, these verbs permit semantically-inappropriate specifiers, suggesting that their heads are actually √roots. The event semantics of a Chinese resultative is argued to be derived structurally. The conflation account is able to preserve several constraints considered desirable under a syntactic account, including the Unaccusative Hypothesis (Burzio, 1986; Perlmutter, 1978) and the θ-criterion (Chomsky, 1981).

Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bresnan, J. (1982). Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 515-31.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origins and Use (Convergence). New York: Praeger Publishers.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001a). Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: a Life in Language, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (2001b). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. Unpublished Ms. MIT.
Croft, W.A. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dowty, D.R. (1991): Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67, 547-619.
Folli, R. & H. Harley (2006). On the licensing of causatives of directed motion: Waltzing Matilda all over. Studia Linguistica, 60(2), 121-249.
Folli, R. & H. Harley (2007). Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 197-238.
Grove, K.W. (2008). Why Unergatives Select Themselves a Fake Reflexive. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 30, 106-119.
Hale, K. (1985). Notes on world view and semantic categories: some Warlpiri examples. In P. Muysken & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Features and Projections. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hale, K. & S.J. Keyser (1998). The basic elements of argument structure. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 32, 73-118. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.
Hale, K. & S.J. Keyser (1999). A Response to Fodor and Lepore, ‘Impossible Words?’ Linguistic Inquiry, 30(3), 453-466.
Higginbotham, J. (1997). Location and causation. Ms. University of Oxford.
Hoekstra, T. (1988). Small clause results. Lingua, 74, 101–139.
Hoekstra, T. (1992). Aspect and theta-theory. In I. Roca (Ed.), Thematic structure: its role in grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Huang, C.-T. J., Y.-H. A. Li & Y. Li (2009). The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: CUP.
Jayaseelan, K.A. (1984). Complex predicates and the theory of theta-marking. Paper presented at GLOW, Copenhagen, April 11-14.
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from the verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109-137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lakoff, G. (1976). Towards Generative Semantics. In. J.D. McCawley (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, 43-62. New York: Academic Press.
Langacker, R.W. (1990). Settings, participants and grammatical relations. In Tsohatzidis, S.L. (Ed.), Meanings and Prototypes: Studies on Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Routledge.
Larson, R.K. (1988). On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 335-391.
Larson, R.K. (1990). Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(4), 589-632.
Levin. B. & M. Rappaport Hovav (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Li, Y.-F. (1990). On V-V Compounds in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 177-207.
Lin, T.-H. J. (2001). Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Mateu, J. (2001). Small Clause Results Revisited. In N. Zhang (Ed.). ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 26: Syntax of Predication. Berlin: Zentrum fur Allgemeine Sprachwissenshaft.
Mateu, J. (2005). Arguing our way to the Direct Object Restriction on English resultatives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 8, 55-82.
Mateu, J. & G. Rigau (2001). A Syntactic Approach to Illusive Event Type-Shiftings. GGT Research Report, 01-3. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Bacelona.
Marantz, A.P. (1997). No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), 201-25. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Department of Language and Linguistics.
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In J. Jaeger et al.. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pollard, C. & I. Sag (1994). Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford & Chicago: CSLI Publications & University of Chicago Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The Syntax of Event Structure. Cognition, 41, 47-81.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Radford, A. (2004). English Syntax: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP.
Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.
Ramchand, G. & P. Svenonius (2004). Prepositions and external argument demotion. Oslo: University of Oslo. Retrieved 01/10/10 from: http://www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/papers/RamchandSvenonius04Oslo.pdf.
Rappaport Hovav, M. & B. Levin (1998). Building Verb Meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The Projection of Arguments. Lexical and Compositional Factors, 97-134. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications
Rappaport Hovav, M. & B. Levin (2001). An event structure account of English resultatives. Language, 77(4), 766-797.
Reinhart, T.M. (1976). The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Reinhart, T. (2002). The Theta System-An Overview. Theoretical Linguistics, 28, 229-90.
Rubin, E. (1921). Visuell Wahrgenommmene. Kobenhaven: Glydenalske boghandel.
Simpson, J. (1983). Resultatives. In L. Levin, M. Rappaport & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Sybesma, R. (1999). The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
Tenny, C.L. (1988). The aspectual interface hypothesis. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 18, 490-508.
Ungerer, F. & H.-J. Schmid (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Verspoor, C.M. (1997). Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.
Wechsler, S. (1997). Resultative Predicates and Control. Texas Linguistic Forum, 38. Austin, TX: University of Texas Department of Linguistics. Retrieved 01/10/10 from: https://webspace.utexas.edu/wechsler/Wechsler-TLS-result.pdf.
Wunderlich, D. (1997). Argument Extension by Lexical Adjunction. Journal of Semantics, 14, 95-142.