Syntax And Semantics Of Ergative Constructions In English And Chinese: A Comparative Study

This thesis addressed a tri-aspect investigation:1) syntactic-semantic similarities and differences between English and Chinese ergative constructions (E-C ECs);2) cognitive interpretations of mechanisms and motivations of E-C ECs;3) interpretations of E-C ECs from the perspective of Linguistic Typology. Several major findings have emerged from the investigation.Syntactically, there are three similarities:1) E-C ECs employ past tense or perfect aspect;2) reciprocal ergative verbs require their subjects in the form of NPa+NPb in E-C ECs;3) E-C ECs share two governing word orders:NPin+EV and EV+(Comp). There are four differences:1) the adverb of time already is not ergative-built in English, while yijing and yi in Chinese are ergative-built;2) synthetic ergative verbs are English-specific;3) diversity features affixes in English ergative verbs (EEVs) of derivation, while singleness features those in Chinese ergative verbs (CEVs) of derivation;4) compoundings in EEVs and those in CEVs complement in types.Semantically, there are two similarities:1) synonymy, antonymy and hyponymy all exist in E-C EVs;2) resultative and directional E-C ECs settle their semantic gravity respectively on the result individual and the direction individual contained in resultative and directional EVs. There are two differences:1) the verbal morpheme in a resultative EEV is semantic quadruple, while that in a resultative CEV is semantic trinity where the individual of result is expressed by complementary morpheme instead of by the verbal morpheme itself;2) real language data demonstrate that satellite words in directional EECs are essential while those in CECs are optional.Cognitive interpretations assume that the cognitive mechanism for E-C ECs is metonymy. The drives are that:1) NP in functions as figure,2) EV+(Comp) is in conformity with iconicity,3) NPin and EV+(Comp) cognitively befit the conceptual independence.Interpretations from the perspective of Linguistic Typology suggest that E-C EVs feature themselves differently because of two reasons:1) the dominant word order of SVO in E-C may be a tendency, E-C ECs can be an exception;2) Ergative Verbs Hierarchy proposed in the present thesis depicts when it occurs in an EC, an EV is always of one-valance and in active voice, usually in indicative mood, and often in past tense or perfect aspect.