What's the meaning of 虚化 in Chinese linguistics? I was reading a research paper in linguistics and came across this definition 虚化结果补语。
I'm not sure what the proper English translation would be.
There are a couple introductory sentences that illustrate the usage of the term. (Rough) translations are mine:

本文采用体现这类补语语法演变过程的术语虚化结果补语
This paper uses the term &quot;XXX result complement&quot; to reflect the grammatical evolution of this category of complements.


主要表示动作事件“完成”的意义,与前项动词V有比较广泛的搭配,具有很强的能产性,称为虚化结果补语
[...] mainly expresses that an action event is &quot;complete&quot;, has rather broad collocations with the preceding verb V, and has strong productivity: that is called &quot;XXX result complement&quot;.

Google translates this as &quot;blurred result complement&quot;. This doesn't sound correct. In fact, a quick cross-reference check returns no results.
The character 虚 itself has several different meanings. The ones that may be applicable here are &quot;void&quot; and &quot;virtual&quot;. So together with the suffix 化 &quot;-ize&quot;, I can come up with &quot;virtualized result complement&quot; but that also yields no results.
What's the correct translation of 虚化 in English?
Edit: the paper also claims that this category of complements is also called 动相补语 (phase complement) by other authors.
Edit 2: a longer sentence with the word 虚化 used in different positions:

虚化结果补语是结果补语的一项重要类别,能够发生虚化的结果补语谓词数量不多,内部虚化过程各异,但存在一定共性

Edit 3: I'm going to conclude that the answer lies somewhere in between Tang Ho and Pedroski / KK_tse's answers (thank you!)
The term appears to indicate verbs that lose their concrete meaning when they assume the role of a result complement. Thus, &quot;virtual result complement&quot;, and &quot;grammaticalized result complement&quot; make sense to me. The former highlights the difference with &quot;actual result complements&quot; (see Tang Ho's answer). The latter highlights the process of abstracting away the inherent meaning of the verb in favor of its grammatical role (see Pedroski / KK_tse's answers).
結果補語的「虛」與「實」

漢語動結式（又稱黏合式述補結構）中有一類的補語被稱為「虛化結果補語」，包括「完、好、掉、住、成、著、了、過等」


根據過去的研究，虛化結果補語區別實義結果補語的特點是：皆由實義動詞虛化而來、本身詞匯意義不明顯、語義指向述語、不是動結式的語義中心、主要表示動作事件「完結、結束」等。但是，這些區別特點主要都體現語義層面上，而句法上，無論是對前項動詞的選擇、還是與賓語的搭配，虛化補語與實義補語並無明顯差異

We are familiar with the aspect markers below:
吃(eat) --&gt; 吃了 (eat is a completed action)
吃(eat) --&gt; 吃過 (eat is an experience action)
They are on the list of 虛化結果補語. And the article stated 虛化補語 is mainly used for indicating the verb is 'completed/ finished' and 實義補語 mainly used for indicating the result of the verb. e.g. 斬斷 (chop-apart); 切掉 (cut-away). 斷 is the result complement of the verb 斬; 掉 is the result complement of the verb 切. They indicate the 'actual result' of the verb
From the same article:

而句法上，無論是對前項動詞的選擇、還是與賓語的搭配，虛化補語與實義補語並無明顯差異


實義结果補語 (actual result complements) and 虛化结果補語 (virtual result complements) are practically identical in syntactic.

My knowledge in linguistics terms is based mostly on Hong Kong Standard Written Chinese (SWC). It is likely different from linguistics terms used by Mandarin speakers in the mainland. But I hope my input would help you find the most accurate translation of the term in question
I was taught '斷' and '掉' in '斬斷' and '切掉' are &quot;verb particles&quot;; '了' and '過' in '吃了' and '吃過' are &quot;aspect markers&quot;