Translated Titles

Perfect and Progressive in Mandarin Chinese





Key Words

完成時貌 ; 進行貌 ; "了" ; "在" ; perfect aspect ; progressive aspect ; the sentential particle le ; zai



Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication


Academic Degree Category




Content Language


Chinese Abstract

本論文主要分成兩個部分。一探討漢語句尾「了」之功能與身份定位。二則探討漢語進行貌標記「在」的句法位置。句尾「了」因於不同語境下所產生出不同的詮釋而被標上不同的記號,如「啟動標記」(an inchoative marker)、「狀態改變標記」(a marker of change of state)或「完成時貌標記」(a perfect aspect marker)。一一分析其所有的功能後可發現,句尾「了」實為一個完成時貌標記。其主要的功能是標示句子中狀態事件的時間點(Event Time)早於或等於語境中的參考時間點(Reference Time)。這點正是完成時貌的功能與定義(Reichenbach 1947, Friedrich 1974, Li et al. 1982, Binnick 1991, Hatav 1997)。此外,其「改變狀態」(change of state)的功能可根據沈(2004)所提出的理論來解釋。沈提出漢語句末助詞與謂語在動貌上(aspect)需達成一致。因此,具有動態特質的句尾「了」會使靜態謂語衍生出狀態改變的語意。雖然這不是完成時貌的功能之一,卻不影響句尾「了」作為完成時貌標記之定位。   漢語進行貌標記「在」當位於名詞之前時,常被視為表示處所之介系詞之用,然而其本質上是一個帶有處所論元的處所動詞,透過移位至較高的詞組結構位置而得到表示進行貌的功能。當「在」另外選擇一動詞詞組為論元時,則形成連動結構(a serial verb construction)。本論文以此論點為基礎解釋了句子中不會同時出現[在+處所詞][在+動詞]的結構。同時,也可區分「在」作為處所動詞與處所介系詞之間的差別。當「在」作為處所動詞時,會選擇處所詞與動詞為其論元;若「在」為處所介系詞,則為其他動詞所選擇的論元或為修飾語。而只有處所動詞的「在」能作為進行貌標誌。

English Abstract

Two aspectual markers in Mandarin Chinese are investigated: the sentential particle le and the progressive marker zai. Due to its varying functions, the sentential particle le is not well-defined. It is termed as an inchoative marker because it yields a new situation (Chao 1968), a perfect aspect marker because it has the same discourse functions as English perfect aspect (Li et al. 1982), or a change of state marker because it marks an event undergoes a change (Soh 2009). In terms of its temporal use, the sentential particle le is actually a perfect aspect marker because it marks a relation between Event Time and Reference Time. This is exactly how the perfect aspect is defined. For its change-of-state use, it can be accounted by Shen’s theory (2004). That is, in Mandarin Chinese, predicates should agree with aspectual markers. The “new situation” use can accounted by the “extended now” theory of perfect aspect (Portner 2003). New evidence is provided by (in)compatibility of the sentential particle le with cai and jiu, two other markers that presuppose change of state. With further comparison between the sentential particle le and perfect aspect of other languages, the sentential particle le is a genuine perfect aspect marker without doubt. It is assumed that zai functions as a preposition when it precedes a locative phrase while it functions as an aspectual marker when it precedes a verb phrase (Li and Thompson 1981). However, this claim cannot account for ungrammaticality of double zai constructions. To solve this problem, I propose that zai is a locative verb taking a locative argument. The locative argument can be empty or lexically realized. When zai serves as a progressive marker, it moves to the head position of AspP. Furthermore, zai can also take another verb phrase as its argument. In this case, the locative argument may be re-located to Spec of VP. Consequently, the word order is like [zai + a locative phrase + a verb phrase]. This analysis gives a more consistent account for ungrammaticality of double zai constructions and the fact that zai always precedes locative phrases if there is one in the sentence. Under this analysis, the locative verb zai can be clearly distinguished from the locative preposition zai.

Topic Category 人文學 > 語言學
人文社會學院 > 語言學研究所
  1. Asher, Nicholas. 1992. A Default, Truth Conditional Semantics for the Progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 463-508. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  2. Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the verb: A guide to tense & aspect. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspects and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Declerck, Renaat. 1979. On the Progressive and the ‘Imperfective Paradox.’ Linguistics and Philosophy, 267-272. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  5. Dowty, David R. 1977. Toward a Semantic Analysis of Verb Aspect and the English ‘Imperfective’ Progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy, 45-77. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  6. Friedrich, Paul. 1974. On Aspect Theory and Homeric Aspect, International Journal of American Linguistics, 40(4-2): 1-44.
  7. Galia Hatav. 1997. The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and biblical Hebrew. Studies in Language Companion Series 34. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  8. Hopper, Paul J. 1979. Some Observations on the Typology of Focus and Aspect in Narrative Language. Studies in Language 3.1: 37-64.
  9. Jóhannsdóttir, Kristín M. 2011. Aspects of the progressive in English and Icelandic. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia.
  10. Klein, Wolfgang 2000. An Analysis of the German Perfekt. Language 76/2:358-382
  11. Lai, Huei-Ling. 1999. Rejected Expectations: the Scalar Particles Cai and Jiu in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics 37 (4), 625-661.
  12. Li, Charles N./ R. McMillan Thompson, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1982. The Discourse Basis of the Perfect Aspect: The Mandarin Particle le. In Paul J. Hopper, ed., Tense and Aspect. Between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 19-44.
  13. Li, Charles N./ Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California Press.
  14. Montague, R. 1973. The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English. In K. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, and P. Suppes ed., Approaches to Natural Language. Reidel, Dordrecht, 221-242.
  15. Parsons, Terence. 1989. The Progressive in English: Events, States and Processes. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 213-241. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  16. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365-424. The MIT Press
  17. Portner, Paul. 1998. The Progressive in Modal Semantics. Language, 760-787
  18. Portner, Paul 2003. The (Temporal) Semantics and (Modal) Pragmatics of the Perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 495-510
  19. Shen, Li 2004. Aspect Agreement and light verbs in Chinese: A comparison with Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13, 141-179
  20. Smith, Carlota. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  21. Soh, Hooi Ling. 2009. Speaker presupposition and Mandarin Chinese sentence-final -le: a unified analysis of the “change of state” and the “contrary to expectation” reading. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 27:623-657
  22. Xiao, Richard and Tony McEnery. 2004. Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  23. Bertinetto, Pier Marco./ Karen H. Ebert, and Casper de Groot. 2000. The progressive in Europe. In Osten Dahl, ed., Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  24. Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. The Nominal in the Progressive. Linguistic Inquiry, 246-250. The MIT Press
  25. Bybee, Joan/ Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
  26. Chao, Yuen-Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: The University of California Press.
  27. Dowty, David R. 1975.The Stative in the Progressive and Other Essence/ Accident Contrasts. Linguistic Inquiry, 579-588. The MIT Press
  28. Goldsmith, John and Erich Woisetschlaeger. 1982. The Logic of the English Progressive. Linguistic Inquiry, 79-89. The MIT Press.
  29. Jackendoff, Ray. 1979. How to Keep Ninety from Rising. Linguistic Inquiry, 172-177. The MIT Press.
  30. Landman, Fred. 1992. The Progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1:1-32. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  31. Liao, Wei-Wen 2004. The Architecture of Aspect and Duration. Hsinchu, Taiwan: National Tsing Hua University MA thesis.
  32. Löbner, Sebastian. 1981. Intensional Verbs and Functional Concepts: More on the “Rising Temperature“ Problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 471-477. The MIT Press.
  33. Olsen, Mari Broman 1997. A Semantic and Pragamatic model of lexical and grammatical aspect. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
  34. Reichenback, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press.
  35. Rothstein, Bjorn. 2008. The perfect time span: On the present perfect in German, Swedish and English. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  36. Zucchi, Sandro. 1999. Incomplete Events, Intensionality and Imperfective Aspect. Natural Language Semantics 7:179-215. Kluwer Academic Publishers.