「不」作為中文的否定詞並無法與時態詞如「了」共用，此外，「不」也無法與描述/結果結構中的第一動詞共同出現。黃(1988)認為[不V了]以及[不描述/結果結構]之所以不被接受是由於語意上的問題。黃認為「不」必須先附著於V上，然後「了」再附於[不V]上。然而[[不V]了]所合成的語意很怪異，因為未發生的事件不可說是已經完成了。[不描述/結果結構]也因類似的原因而不被接受。這篇文章所要探討的是：「不」是在何層次附著於V的？本文提出兩個證據來證明「不」在詞庫中即附著於V。第一個證據來自對「不」以及「了」兩個字身份的探討，討論結果顯示「不」必須是在詞庫中即附著於V才可解釋[不V了]的異常。另一證據則是來自焦點/對比標記，「是」以及「不是」，它們有著彈性的分佈位置。如果「不」是在詞庫中即附著於「是」，之後「不是」再以焦點/對比標記的身份加在句中，那麼「是」以及「不是」的彈性分佈位置便可獲得解釋。這篇文章的討論中並且顯示，「不」可代表三種組合：「不」單獨一字，「不」加語氣詞，以及「不是」。換言之，「不」並不如表面所顯示僅代表「不」一字。 Bu as a negator in Mandarin Chinese cannot co-occur with an aspect marker such as le. Moreover, bu cannot occur with the first verb in a descriptive/resultative construction. Huang (1988) suggests that the sequences [bu V le] and [bu descriptive/resultative construction] are ruled out for semantic reasons. That is, bu is first attached to V and then le is attached to the negated verb. Such a sequence [[bu-V]-le] is semantically absurd since the event that has not happened cannot be said to have been completed. [Bu descriptive/resultative construction] is ruled out for similar semantic reasons. The problem this paper proposes to tackle is: At which level is bu attached to V? Two arguments may be posited for the proposal that bu is lexically attached to V. The first argument comes from a consideration of the status of both bu and le and it is shown that only when bu is attached to V in the lexicon can the ungrammatical sequence [bu V le] be explained. Further evidence comes from the focus/contrast markers, shi and bu-shi, which have a flexible distribution. If bu is lexically attached to shi and then together bu-shi is inserted as a focus/contrast marker, then the flexible distribution can be explained. Throughout the discussion, it will be shown that bu can be the manifestation of bu alone, bu-Modal, or bu-shi. That is, unlike what it appears to be, bu is not just bu.
臺灣語言學期刊, 4(2), 67-84 Taiwan Journal of Linguistics