《英漢非賓格性對比研究》在生成語法框架內對英漢非賓格性結構表達進行對比研究。在經典範疇之下，現代漢語對動詞隻進行及物性與不及物性兩分，而《英漢非賓格性對比研究》認為漢語應該與英語一樣，有必要對動詞再作進一步的劃分，把其中的不及物動詞再分為非賓格性和非作格性兩個次類。這樣就可以對漢語中大量的不及物動詞帶賓語現像以及其他不及物動詞後帶名詞現像作出明確的甄別。《英漢非賓格性對比研究》對非賓格性句法配置的研究，不是單純在詞庫中對動詞的詞性進行非賓格性界定，而是在句法配置上對動詞的非賓格性進行判別，對其句法結構表征進行生成解釋。這不僅深化了漢語動詞的及物性範疇，而且也拓寬了對漢語句法結構的研究視野，使漢語研究更好地與西方語言研究接軌。

1 Introduction
2 Theoretical Background
2．1 Argument Structure（AS）Theory
2．2 Syntactic Approach to Lexicon—Syntax Relations
2．3 Conceptual Primitives at Semantics and Syntax Interface
2．4 Summary of the Theoretical Background

3 The Unaccusative Hypothesis
3．1 The Unaccusative Hypothesis
3．2 Approaches to Unaccusativity
3．3 Unaccusative Verbs in Heterogeneity
3．4 Levin and Rappaport HovavS Linking Rules
3．5 Summary

4 Morphosyntax in Modern Chinese
4．1Introduction
4．2 Compound Predicates in Chinese
4．3 V-0 Compounding Revisited
4．4 A-O Compounds Revisited
4．5 Motivation for Lsyntax Theory
4．6 L．Syntax in Compounding in Chinese
4．7 Derivation of Deadjectivals in Chinese
4．8 Summary

5 Unaccusativity of Existential Constructions
5．1IntrOductiOn
5．2 Approaches to ECs in English
5．3Existential Constructions in Chinese
5．4 Constraints on the ECs in Chinese
5．5 EC Compatibility Test with Verb Subclasses
5．6 Configurational Approach to ECs
5．7 Introducing NP to ECs in Modern Chinese
5．8 SOme Controversies and Solutions
5．9 Summary

6 Unaccusativity of RCs in Modern Chinese
6．1 Introduction
6．2 Crosslinguistic Lexical-Syntactic Flexibility
6．3 Syntactic Representations of RCs in Chinese
6．4 Different Approaches to RCs in Chinese
6．5 Syntactic Configurations of RCs in Chinese
6．6 Summary
7 Concluding Remarks
Appendix
Bibliography
後記

2 Theoretical Background
It is generally agreed that，of the two fundamental lexical categories，verband noun，verb holds the dominant status in the specifications of information，offers complex syntactic and semantic information for a sentence，and alsodetermines the syntactic structures with the semantic restrictions on the Cooccurrence of the nominal components（Fillmore，1968；Chafe，1970）．Verbs aregenerally splitted into two subclasses，the transitive and the intransitive，in termsof whether they take an object or not．But things are not SO simply regular．Manytransitives may not necessarily subcategorize an object NP，whereby they aresupposed to have the property of intransitive verbs．On the other hand，manyintransitive verbs sometimes also take an“object”NP。which may be regarded ashaving the property of the transitive verbs．This is a popular case，and it is noexception in Modern Chinese．As a result，it seems to be justified that in ModernChinese no clear boundary is found between transitive and intransitive verbs，justas it is the case with the entanglement of various intransitive verbs which shouldhave been distinguished otherwise as unergative and unaccusative verbs in termsof their syntactic properties as have been done in European languages．But thisreclassification wins no much response from the scholars working on Chinese．Nosystematical research has been done on the unaccusativity of the Chinese languageever since the debut of the Unaccusative Hypothesis by Perlmutter（1978）．Juston the basis of such observation，this book mainly deals with the syntax andsemantics of the argument structure configurations of the intransitive verbs，theunaccusative ones in particular，in Modern Chinese．

本書在形態和句法層面對英漢兩種語言中的非賓格現像進行對比研究。句法上，漢語中存在大量不及物動詞帶賓語現像，其中有詞彙層面的動賓式（或稱述賓式）復合動詞，這是形態所涉及的範疇；也有短語結構層面的動賓式（或稱述賓式）動詞短語，這是句法所涉及的範疇。這種動賓式（或稱述賓式）復合動詞和動詞短語的定性是學界長期爭論懸而未決的老問題。形態上，本書主張從字本位出發，而不是從傳統上的詞本位出發，來探討漢語的非賓格性問題。字本位觀與本書所采用的分布形態觀相類似。分布形態觀對詞性不作區分，而是把核心詞類當作詞根（Root），有名詞詞根、動詞詞根、形容詞詞根等。本書采納這一體繫把漢語的核心字類作為字根處理，如“出汗”、“流血”、“生氣”、“閃光”、“出聲”等傳統上認定的動賓式復合詞中都由一個動詞性字根和一個名詞性字根合並而成。
根據Hale和Keyse結構理論，本書認為許多漢語動賓復合動詞經歷了一個詞彙一句法操作過程。這些動賓復合動詞在進入句法結構之前，本質上是非作格性的，但通過詞彙一句法層面的合並操作，詞彙內部結構以非賓格性形態進入句法推導，其句法語義功能仍保持非作格性。
漢語的典型不及物動詞“來”、“死”、“笑”等都具有兩類不同的結構表征：其中一類是在動詞（如“來”、“死”）後直接帶有NP，另一類則可能通過動詞（如“笑”）與其次謂詞（如“死”）共同（“笑死”）帶有一個名詞NP。漢語文獻中一般都把這些結構看作是不及物動詞帶賓語現像。但本文認為，這些結構實際上就是不同形態的非賓格性表征：分別表征為存現結構（ECs）和動補結構（RCs）（包括描述性謂語結構）。