本文是一篇文学论文，文学作品是作家用独特的语言艺术表现其独特的心灵世界的作品，离开了这样两个极具个性特点的独特性就没有真正的文学作品。（以上内容来自百度百科）今天为大家推荐一篇文学论文，供大家参考。
Chapter One Introduction
As a general introduction to this thesis, this chapter will give a brief description ofthe background of the study, the objectives of the study as well as the contents andstructure of the thesis.
1.1 Background of the Study
The middle construction, as a unique construction across languages, has becomeone of the hottest topics among linguists. The studies on the middle construction wereinspired by Keyser & Roeper (1984). Keyser & Roeper (1984) labeled the sentences in[1] as middle constructions.Since the first systematic study made by Keyser & Roeper (1984), much attentionhas been devoted to middle constructions in European languages, such as English,German, Dutch, French, Italian and Spanish, by numerous western linguists withdifferent academic backgrounds. Linguists have conducted detailed studies which coverthe derivation of the middle construction, the syntactic and semantic features of themiddle construction and the comparison between the middle construction and ergativestructures under various linguistic theories, including generative grammar, functionalgrammar and cognitive linguistic theories (e.g. Keyser & Roeper 1984; Stroik 1992,1995, 1999; Hoekstra & Roberts 1993; Fagan 1988,1992; Zribi-Hertz 1993; Ackema &Schoorlemmer 1994, 1995; Rapoport 1999; Lekakou 2002).
..........
1.2 Objectives of the Study
This thesis is concerned with the middle constructions in English and Chinese. Tostart off, it is of essence to present a working definition of them. Middle constructionsacross languages do not syntactically behave in a uniform way but they share acommonality in semantic features. Lekakou (2002: 402) points out that there onlyremains middle semantics rather than middle construction. In other words, it is themiddle semantics that is of cross-linguistic university. Henceforth, the middleconstructions can be uniformly defined from the perspective of semantics. It is customarily believed that the middle constructions should conform to the followingsemantic criteria (He Wenzhong 2004; Fu Yan 2012; Fu Yan & Chen Zongli 2017):1. Modality. Middle constructions do not report actual events which have taken placebut often indicate the potentiality of the occurrence of events.2. Responsibility. In middle constructions, the grammatical subjects (passiveparticipants) take the responsibility for the outcome of the event due to theirinherent properties.3. Agentivity. There must be an arbitrary agent who can initiate the action denoted bythe verb although it is not visible at the syntactic level.4. Genericity. The middle constructions are generic statements which attribute someproperties to the grammatical subjects.All in all, the middle construction is a type of construction that portrays theproperties of the grammatical subject which is responsible for bringing about theoccurrence of the event described by the verb in a certain manner designated by theadjunct. Therefore, the agent is defocused and implied.
........
Chapter Two Literature Review
Up to now, numerous linguists and scholars have strived to make studies on themiddle construction from various perspectives. Therefore, it is of the essence to reviewthe previous studies systematically. In this chapter, some representative views on themiddle construction will be listed and the merits and demerits of them will be pointedout.
2.1 Studies of the Definition of the Middle Construction
The definition of the middle construction has long been a thorny issue. Differentresearchers employ different criteria to define the middle construction. As a result,controversies about what middle construction is can by no means be avoided. Forexample, Yan Chensong (2011) claims that there is no middle construction in Chinese.With respect to the definition of the English middle construction, some agreementshave been arrived at, for instance, there is an agent in the English middle constructionalthough it doesn’t appear in the syntax (e.g. Keyser & Roeper 1984; Stroik 1999;Rapoport 1999); English middle construction doesn’t describe a specific event in time,it is a type of generic statement instead (e.g. Keyser & Roeper 1984; Fagan 1988;Lekakou 2002); English middle construction generally requires an adverbial modifier(e.g. Keyser & Roeper 1984; Stroik 1999).As for the defining criteria to the Chinese middle construction, there is less thanperfect agreement on them. Up to now, researchers haven’t reached a consensus on thesyntactic structure of the Chinese middle construction.
...........
2.2 Studies of the Middle Construction under Various Linguistic Theories
Generative linguists have made remarkable achievements on the exploration of theanswer to how the middle construction is generated. They mainly focus on two differentapproaches, namely Movement Approach and Non-movement Approach, to make areasonable account for middle formation.The Movement Approach attributes the derivation of the middle construction to thesyntactic process of movement. Prominent adherents of the Movement Approachinclude Keyser & Roeper (1984), Carrier & Randall (1992), Stroik (1992, 1995, 1999),and Hoekstra & Roberts (1993), Gao Xinggang (2000), Dai Manchun (2001) and HanJingquan (2003).According to the Movement Approach, the mechanism for middle formation isfully analogous to that for passive formation whereby the logical object moves to thesubject position and receives nominative case.Since a passive sentence is transformed from its active counterpart, there must alsobe an active counterpart from which the middle construction is generated. However, thefact is that some middle constructions do not have active counterparts or their activecounterparts are unacceptable or ungrammatical.
.........
Chapter Three Methodology..............16
3.1 Theoretical Framework...............16
3.2 Data Collection...............18
3.3 DataAnalysis......19
Chapter Four Comparison of Verbs in English and Chinese.........22
4.1 Constraints on Middle Verbs...... 22
4.2 Types of Middle Verbs....33
4.2.1 Types of Verbs in English Middle Constructions............. 33
4.2.2 Types of Verbs in Chinese Middle Constructions.............38
4.3 Similarities and Differences....... 41
Chapter Five Comparison of Adjuncts in English and Chinese ........43
5.1 Constraints onAdjuncts..............43
5.2 Types ofAdjuncts...........53
5.3 Similarities and Differences....... 65
Chapter Five Comparison of Adjuncts in English and Chinese Middle Constructions
This chapter will first analyze the constraints on adjuncts in English and Chinesemiddle constructions, i.e. the status and function of adjunct, the syntactic position ofadjunct and the non-volitional constraint. Then the types of adjuncts appearing in thecollected English and Chinese middle constructions will be revealed. In the last part, thesimilarities and differences between adjuncts in English and Chinese middleconstructions will be summarized.
5.1 Constraints on Adjuncts
It is overt that there is generally a mandatory adjunct in the English and Chinesemiddle constructions. However, only limited adjuncts are permitted in middleconstructions. Proper characterization of the adjuncts admissible in English and Chinesemiddle constructions is still a hard nut to crack.As has been observed by the former researchers (e.g. Keyser & Roeper 1984;Condoravdi 1989; Cao Hong 2004a; Yoshimura & Taylor 2004; He Wenzhong 2005;Davidse & Heyvaert 2007 ), both English and Chinese middle constructions generallyrequire some sort of adjunct ( Details for the types of adjuncts are provided in 5.2).When the adjuncts are taken away, most of the English middle constructions wouldbecome unacceptable.
.......
Conclusion
This chapter will draw a conclusion of the major findings of the present study,demonstrate the implications of the findings and reveal the limitations of this study.The previous chapters have discussed the issues on verbs and adjuncts in Englishand Chinese middle constructions. The findings of the present study are listed asfollows.With respect to the middle verbs, firstly, the present study has discussed someconstraints on verbs in English and Chinese middle constructions, including transitivity,volitional constraint, temporal and aspectual constraint. By virtue of the previousstudies and the collected data, the conclusion is reached that English and Chinesemiddle verbs have both similarities and differences concerning the selectionalconstraints. On the one hand, typical English and Chinese middle verbs are transitive inother constructions and become derived intransitive when enter the middleconstructions as a result of their interaction with the construction meaning. In addition,both English and Chinese middle verbs should be semantically volitional. On the otherhand, English and Chinese middle verbs show a difference in the temporal and aspectualconstraint. English middle verbs allow various tenses and aspects while Chinese middleverbs are not permitted to take any aspectual marker.#p#分页标题#e#
..........
References (abbreviated)
