汉语的“兼语式”并非兼语

Chinese “Pivotal Structure” Is Not Pivotal at All

摘要: 本文目的在于多角度、多层面地揭示，汉语“兼语式”的理论并不具有客观的句法学依据。鉴于汉语缺乏构形形态的变化，因此本文在探究“兼语式”结构时，则主要依赖于表达句法结构的层次分析和词序变化等语法手段，由古至今地证明了汉语的“兼语式”并不构成语法范畴的主谓结构，由于“兼语”及其“谓语”并不处于同一的结构层次。因而“兼语”不是主语，而是宾语；宾语其后的成分则为宾语补足语，虽然两者之间存有被陈述和陈述的逻辑关系。再者，古代汉语中的宾格代词“之”和现代汉语中省略了数词“一”的量词单独作为定语，并且分别出现在“兼语式”中的语言事实，均已客观而有力地证明了汉语的“兼语”只是个宾语。本文还证明了“兼语”的语音属性，即为宾语所具有的语音特征。因此，传统的“兼语”则是一个纯粹的宾语而已。

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to show from multi-angle and multi-level that the theory of Chinese “pivotal structure” has no objective basis in syntax. In view of the fact that the Chinese language is short of morphological changes, this article puts more emphasis on the syntactic level and word order to prove that the traditional “pivotal structure” is not a subject-predicate structure in a grammatical category from ancient Chinese to modern Chinese, as a result of the so-called “subject” and “predicate” are not at the same syntactic level. Accordingly, the “pivot” is an object rather than a subject, though the object and the part followed that is called object complement possess the logical relationship of being stated and stating. And also, the truth that both the object pronoun “之” in ancient Chinese and a classifier used as an attributive by itself without numeral “一” in modern Chinese are seen separately in a “pivotal structure” has convincingly attested that the “pivot” is an object only. This article has still proved that the features of pronunciation of the so-called “pivot” are, in fact, just the same as those exactly of an object. So undoubtedly, Chinese “Pivot” is completely a pure object only.