Проблемы китайского и общего языкознания. К 90-летию С. Е. Яхонтова

 528    Christoph Harbsmeier NP “complex nominal”, e. g. jūn zǐ 君子 RULER SON “gentle- man” (negatable in principle by f i 非 IS-NOT “is not a”) VP “complex verbal”, e. g. hào xu 好學 ENJOY STUDY “be fond of study” (negatable in principle by bù 不 NOT “does not”, or able to take a direct object) PP “complex particle”, e. g. wū hū 嗚呼 ONOMATOPOEIC ONOMATOPOEIC “alas” ( in principle not negatable as such, i.e. can never constitute the whole scope of a negation) Note 1 : The notion of a complex verbal ( VP ) and a complex nominal ( NP ) is not the same as that of noun phrase and a verb phrase in modern linguistics. This is because modern linguistics presupposes a universal notion of the word which turns out to be not generally applicable to classical Chinese where the distinction between an idiomatic phrase and multisyllabic word is very often systematically opaque 1 . (Compare “no one” versus “everyone” in English to illustrate that the problem is not absent in English either.) Note 2 : The convenient definition of the three basic syntactic categories in terms of negation yields no results for those syntactic positions which in classical Chinese cannot be negated. Thus, for example, an adverb like shèn 甚 BE-INTENSE as in shèn dà 甚大 BE-INTENSE BE-BIG “be very big” cannot itself be the scope of negation. The decision to categorise shèn 甚 in this construction as a verbal expression modifying a verbal one can thus not be based on our definition which involves negation in this precise context. But in general shèn 甚 is often negated by bù 不 “not”, and since shèn 甚 is never negatable by f i 非 “not be” in classical Chinese, it is certainly plausible to take it to be a (de)verbal modifier v . It is not always possible to reach such plausible conclusions, especially when a word is equally common as a noun and as a verb, as in the case of r n 仁 “1) human-heartedness; 2) be human- hearted”. Similarly, in rén lì 人立 MAN STAND-UP “stand up like a man” the modifier r n 人 MAN is naturally taken as a (de)nominal adverbial modi- 1 Jerome Packard, The Morphology of Chinese. A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000 and PACKARD Jerome L. (ed). New Approaches to Chinese Word Formation : Morphology, Phonology and the Lexicon in Modern and Ancient Chinese . Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1998. 386 p. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 105) give a useful survey of current discussion. Packard 1998 does not address the issue of word boundaries for classical Chinese and it does not solve that issue for modern Chinese either. See the review by Viviane Alleton in Cahiers de linguistique — Asie orientale, vol. 29 n°1, 2000, pp. 125–142.