【摘要】：本文旨在研究漢語在表達(dá)運(yùn)動(dòng)事件時(shí)曾現(xiàn)的類型學(xué)特征,重點(diǎn)在于研究漢語使用者表征運(yùn)動(dòng)事件時(shí)詞匯化模式在不同的歷史時(shí)期是否具有延續(xù)性以及現(xiàn)代英漢在表達(dá)運(yùn)動(dòng)事件時(shí)詞匯化模式是否具有差異性。本文希望通過此項(xiàng)研究展示漢語的類型歸屬。 Talmy在其著作Toward a Cognitive Semantics(2000)中提出了運(yùn)動(dòng)事件框架理論。他根據(jù)運(yùn)動(dòng)事件的詞匯化模式把世界上的語言歸為動(dòng)詞框架語言和衛(wèi)星框架語言,其中漢語被其歸為一種很強(qiáng)的衛(wèi)星框架語(Talmy2000, Ⅱ:272)。 Talmy對(duì)語言類型的劃分激發(fā)了諸多學(xué)者對(duì)語言的進(jìn)一步探究,著名的如Slobin (2004)等。判斷某種語言是動(dòng)詞框架語言還是衛(wèi)星框架語言,應(yīng)該取決于“路徑詞是由核心動(dòng)詞還是衛(wèi)星詞來充當(dāng)”(Talmy2000, Ⅱ:221)。但是漢語究竟是衛(wèi)星框架語言還是如Slobin等提出的屬于第三種語言類型-等價(jià)框架語言(equipollently-framed language)(2004),至今仍未定論。特別是漢語包含豐富的復(fù)合動(dòng)詞,復(fù)合動(dòng)詞的補(bǔ)語是動(dòng)詞且可以單獨(dú)使用,但是否是核心動(dòng)詞,尚無統(tǒng)一看法,使得漢語的類型歸屬成為爭(zhēng)議的焦點(diǎn)。本文暫不對(duì)漢語的類型做出明確斷定,而在此框架模式下分析漢語表達(dá)運(yùn)動(dòng)事件時(shí)采用的詞匯化模式,總結(jié)出漢語在表達(dá)運(yùn)動(dòng)事件時(shí)所具有的類型學(xué)特征。 第一,歷時(shí)考察得出,漢語在不同歷史時(shí)期呈現(xiàn)不同的類型學(xué)特征。在表達(dá)同一語義成分的前提下,古代漢語通常采用綜合的方式,把“運(yùn)動(dòng)”、“原因”、“方式”連同“路徑”一起合并到一個(gè)核心動(dòng)詞中,而現(xiàn)代漢語采用的分析的方式,其“路徑”往往由衛(wèi)星成分來表達(dá)。如果按照以Talmy為首的語言類型學(xué)家指定的根據(jù)路徑詞的不同詞匯化模式劃分語言的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),那么將會(huì)得出,古代漢語屬于動(dòng)詞框架語,現(xiàn)代漢語屬于衛(wèi)星框架語。 第二,共時(shí)考察得出,漢語不是Talmy所聲稱那樣是衛(wèi)星框架語言的“完美例子”(Talmy2000, Ⅱ:27)。與英語等典型的衛(wèi)星框架語言相比,漢語雖然具備了衛(wèi)星框架語言的某些特征,但也存在很大的差異： 相似性：(1)英漢動(dòng)體和背景都遵循可移動(dòng)原則；(2)英漢方式動(dòng)詞都可以包容方式或原因;(3)英漢“路徑”成分都可以由衛(wèi)星成分來表達(dá)。差異性：(1)漢語存在動(dòng)體移動(dòng)性遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于背景,二者顛倒語意不變現(xiàn)象；而英語則不存在此類現(xiàn)象;(2)漢語移動(dòng)動(dòng)詞種類沒有英語豐富；(3)漢語的“路徑”成分主要詞匯化為動(dòng)詞和介詞；而英語的“路徑”成分主要詞匯化為副詞和介詞重疊；(4)漢語運(yùn)動(dòng)“路徑”的詞匯要比英語復(fù)雜得多,既可以由單個(gè)路徑動(dòng)詞單獨(dú)表達(dá),如進(jìn),回，，也可和趨向動(dòng)詞重疊使用,如進(jìn)來,回去；(5)在表達(dá)連續(xù)性運(yùn)動(dòng)事件中,兩種語言的路徑編碼方式也不盡相同。漢語采用[運(yùn)動(dòng)1+運(yùn)動(dòng)2+…路徑1]的連續(xù)表達(dá)式,而英語則采用[運(yùn)動(dòng)1+路徑1+路徑：…]的表達(dá)式； 第三,我們認(rèn)為Talmy的分類雖有道理,但是他忽略了漢語有著悠久的歷史和豐富的文化底蘊(yùn)。從我們的研究看,漢語在描述運(yùn)動(dòng)事件時(shí)有自己獨(dú)特的表達(dá)方式,漢語不是典型的衛(wèi)星框架語言,應(yīng)是一種復(fù)雜的語言,我們把它稱之為復(fù)合框架語(Complex-framed Language)，尚待進(jìn)一步的研究。本文以運(yùn)動(dòng)事件框架理論為導(dǎo)向,借助漢語的研究成果,從詞匯化模式角度對(duì)漢語運(yùn)動(dòng)事件進(jìn)行深入的認(rèn)知語義分析。本文認(rèn)為,類似的研究成果有助漢語歸類之爭(zhēng)的解決,并為進(jìn)一步的相關(guān)實(shí)證研究奠定基礎(chǔ)。
[Abstract]:The purpose of this paper is to study the typological characteristics of Chinese in the expression of sports events. The emphasis is on whether the Chinese speakers' lexicalization patterns have continuity in different historical periods and whether the modern English and Chinese lexicalization patterns are different in the expression of sports events. Show the type of Chinese.
Talmy put forward the motion event frame theory in his work Toward a Cognitive Semantics (2000). He classified the world's language into a verb frame language and a satellite frame language based on the lexicalization mode of the sports events, in which the Chinese is classified as a strong satellite frame language (Talmy2000, II: 272). The classification of language types by Talmy. It has inspired many scholars to further explore the language, such as Slobin (2004) and so on. To judge whether a language is a verb frame language or a satellite frame language, it should depend on "whether the path words are made by the core verb or the satellite word" (Talmy2000, II: 221). But whether Chinese is the satellite framework language or the Slobin, and so on. There are third types of language - equivalent frame language (equipollently-framed language) (2004), which is still unsettled. In particular, Chinese contains rich compound verbs. The complement of the compound verb is a verb and can be used alone. But whether it is the core verb, there is no unified view, which makes the Chinese type belong to the focus of the dispute. The text does not make a clear determination of the type of Chinese, and analyzes the lexicalization model used in the Chinese expression of sports events in this framework, and summarizes the typological characteristics of Chinese in the expression of sports events.
First, the diachronic survey shows that Chinese has different typology characteristics in different historical periods. On the premise of expressing the same semantic components, ancient Chinese usually combines "movement", "cause", "way" together with "path" to a core verb, and the analytical method adopted in modern Chinese. Its "path" is often expressed by satellite components. If the language typed by a language typologist headed by Talmy is to divide the language according to the different lexicalization patterns of the path words, it will be concluded that the ancient Chinese belongs to the verb frame language and the modern Chinese belongs to the satellite frame language.
Second, a synchronic survey shows that Chinese is not the "perfect example" (Talmy2000, II) of the satellite framework language that Talmy claims to be. Compared with the typical satellite framework languages such as English, Chinese has some characteristics of the satellite frame language, but there are also great differences.
Similarity: (1) both English and Chinese actors and backgrounds follow the principle of mobility; (2) both English and Chinese verbs can be included in the way or cause; (3) both English and Chinese "path" components can be expressed by satellite components. (1) the difference is (1) the mobility of the verb in Chinese is far higher than the background, and the two reverses the semantic change; while English does not exist in English Phenomenon: (2) there are no English rich Chinese mobile verbs; (3) the main words of "path" in Chinese are mainly verbs and prepositions; and the "path" component of English is mainly Lexicalization and preposition overlap; (4) the vocabulary of the "path" of Chinese movement is much more complex than English, which can be expressed by a single path verb alone. If we enter, return, and can also be used with the tendency verb, such as coming in and returning; (5) in the expression of continuous events, the way of encoding the path of the two languages is not the same. Chinese use [sports 1+ movement 2+... The continuous expression of path 1], while English adopts the [moving 1+ path 1+ path:... The expression of]
Third, we think that the classification of Talmy is reasonable, but he ignores the long history and rich cultural background of Chinese. From our research, Chinese has its own unique expression in describing sports events. Chinese is not a typical satellite frame language. It should be a complex language. We call it a complex frame. Complex-framed Language, which is still to be further studied, is guided by the framework theory of sports events, with the help of the research results of Chinese, to analyze the Chinese sports events from the perspective of lexicalization. The empirical research lays the foundation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：信陽師范學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：H136

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 韓大偉;;“路徑”含義的詞匯化模式[J];東北師大學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年03期

2 陳佳;趙友斌;;也論現(xiàn)代漢語的運(yùn)動(dòng)事件詞匯化語義編碼模式[J];電子科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社科版);2008年06期

3 石毓智;古今漢語動(dòng)詞概念化方式的變化及其對(duì)語法的影響[J];漢語學(xué)習(xí);2003年04期

4 嚴(yán)辰松;運(yùn)動(dòng)事件的詞匯化模式——英漢比較研究[J];解放軍外語學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1998年06期

5 羅思明;;英漢“緩步”類動(dòng)詞的語義成分及詞化模式分析[J];外語研究;2007年01期

6 李雪;;英漢移動(dòng)動(dòng)詞的詞匯化模式差異及其對(duì)翻譯的影響[J];外語學(xué)刊;2008年06期

7 吳建偉;;漢語運(yùn)動(dòng)事件類型學(xué)的重新分類[J];時(shí)代文學(xué)(雙月上半月);2009年06期

8 吳建偉;;英漢運(yùn)動(dòng)事件路徑語義的句法研究[J];山東外語教學(xué);2009年05期

9 沈家煊;;現(xiàn)代漢語“動(dòng)補(bǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)”的類型學(xué)考察[J];世界漢語教學(xué);2003年03期

10 羅杏煥;;英漢運(yùn)動(dòng)事件詞匯化模式的類型學(xué)研究[J];外語教學(xué);2008年03期

本文編號(hào)：2164138