The MP Approach To The Double Object Construction In Modern Chinese

The double object construction (DOC) is a particular and important type of sentence pattern, to which many scholars at home and abroad have paid great attention. However, opinions diverge greatly on DOC. This thesis is mainly concerned with two issues: (ⅰ) Does a transformational relationship exist between DOC and DC (the dative construction)? (ⅱ) How is Chinese DOC derived?The relationship between DOC and DC is always a controversial issue. We argue that there exists no transformational relationship between DOC and DC, and they are derived independently. Different evidence all points to this argument, such as restrictions on DOC and DC, and semantic differences between them. The inherent relationship between DOC and DC is that the two constructions employ similar structural components, while conveying different information focuses and different semantic properties. Different information focuses lead to the alternative of the two constructions; overlapping semantic properties bring about confusion.In this thesis Chinese DOC can be classified into two types: Leftward Type and Rightward Type, while there is only one type of English DOC: Rightward Type. According to the reclassification,we assume that the thematic hierarchy of Chinese DOC is Agent>Goal/Source>Theme, and that the thematic hierarchy controls the order of Merge. Within the framework of Chomsky's Minimalist Program (1995), we reanalyze the derivation of Chinese DOC that is stated as follows:(ⅰ) [v'VCAUSE [VP±HAVE IO [V'V±HAVE [VP DP [v'V DO]]]]]As a general rule, VCAUSE does not have phonetic form, but has the same syntactic meaning with the light verb. VP±HAVE sometimes can be a constituent without phonetic form, and sometimes can also be a bound morpheme: gei or zou. A DOC verb plus gei is VP+HAVE; a DOC verb plus zou represents VP-HAVE. Since only Rightward DOC can exist in English, VP±HAVE in the derivation of English DOC can only be realized as plus value. V+HAVE is always covert, which is different from VP±HAVE in Chinese DOC, i.e. no word can appear in this position. Such an assumption just captures the semantic differences between Chinese DOC and English DOC.In the process of the theta role assignment of the objects in DOC, the IO (the indirect object) gets a Goal/Source role, that is, the IO loses or acquires the DO (the direct object), and the DO gets a theme role. The case feature of the IO is checked by v, while that of DO is checked inherently.Later, we, based on comparative analyses of semantic properties between DOC and DC, also seek to find a unified explanation for Chinese DC and English DC.