A Study on Monosyllabic Bare Reflexive Zi and Ji Based on Diachronic Chinese Corpora

本論文旨在透過分析歷時漢語語料，探究反身單音詞「自」與「己」之歷時語法分佈及功能為何，藉由這些發現進而窺探親代漢語「非論元」反身狀語及「論元」反身代詞「自己」是否源於相同的發源詞。本研究主要三個發現如下：（1）就句法分佈而言，「自」與「己」呈現互補分佈－「己」主要出現於論元位置（如，主詞與受詞位置），而「自」出現於非論元位置（如，位於情態動詞及動詞之間）；（2）就句法功能而言，「己」作「反身代詞」用並具有【+反身】_(-代名詞)語意語法特性；「自」作「反身狀語」用並具有二種不同語法特性－在大部份語言情境中，「自」具有【+反身】_(-狀語)的語意語法特性，然而在「自+及物動詞」語境下，「自」融合三種語意語法特性：【+反身】_(-狀語)與【+反身】_(-代名詞)；（3）除了特殊語境外，「自+及物動詞+己」之句法結構是不容許出現於一般語法情境下，這是因為「同屬性共存限制」規則致使反身詞「自」與「己」不能共同存在於同一個動語片語範疇內，也因而造成「自+及物動詞」句法結構之產生。以上這些發現顯露了雖然古漢語反身單音詞「自」與「己」在現代漢語已結合成一個雙音詞反身詞「自己」，但他們在古漢語「論元」與「非論元」的特性仍存現於現代漢語反身詞「自己」內，這進一步顯示出現代漢語論元「自己」與非論元「自己」是源自不同詞源，亦即各自源於「己」與「自」。

關鍵字

反身代詞；反身狀語；論元；非論元；同屬性共存限制；融合型態

並列摘要

The present study aims to explore the syntactic distribution and use of bare reflexive zi and ji based on an analysis of diachronic corpora of classical Chinese, which, in turn, unveils the origins of argumental and non-argumental ziji in modem Chinese. In this study, there were three major findings concerning reflexive zi and ji in classical Chinese: (1) in terms of syntactic distribution, zi and ji are complementary-ji occurs in an argument position (e.g., subject and object) and zi occurs in a non-argument position (e.g., between a modal and a verb); (2) in terms of syntactic functions, ji serves as a bare reflexive anaphor with the feature [+reflexive]_(-pronoun), whereas zi serves as a reflexive adverbial, which has two different syntactic properties-in most contexts, zi simply contains [+reflexive]_(-adverbial), but in zi + transitive verb (Vt.), zi conflates [+reflexive]_(-adverbial), with [+reflexive]_(-pronoun); and (3) the construction zi + Vt. + ji is not possible in normal syntactic contexts, since reflexive zi and ji cannot co-occur within a verb phrase due to Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP)-this leads to the construction of zi + Vt. These findings reveal that while reflexive zi and ji in classical Chinese have merged into the disyllabic word ziji 'oneself' in modem Chinese, they preserve their functions in both argument and non-argument positions. This, in turn, suggests that argumental and non-argumental ziji in modern Chinese do not share the same origin but, rather, originate from the classical Chinese ji and zi, respectively.