英漢與格構(gòu)式對比研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-12-27 14:56
【摘要】：雙及物構(gòu)式作為一種常見的語言現(xiàn)象,主要表現(xiàn)為兩種句法類型：雙名構(gòu)式和與格構(gòu)式。諸多語言學流派如結(jié)構(gòu)主義,轉(zhuǎn)換生成語法,認知語言學都對雙及物構(gòu)式進行過研究。但以往學者更多關(guān)注的是雙名構(gòu)式,且很少對英漢與格構(gòu)式進行過系統(tǒng)的對比研究。 本文運用Goldberg的構(gòu)式語法理論在語義與句法層面探討英漢與格結(jié)構(gòu)的異同,找出英漢與格結(jié)構(gòu)中所用與格動詞的語義特性的異同點；并分析其與格結(jié)構(gòu)在句法上的異同點,進而探究兩者產(chǎn)生差異性的緣由,試圖找出其規(guī)律與限制條件,并對Goldberg的與格構(gòu)式表征圖示進行了修改,從而更好地通過聯(lián)接來說明英漢與格結(jié)構(gòu)的特定角色與句法位置之間的映射。 研究發(fā)現(xiàn)如下：第一,英漢與格動詞的語義特征既有相同點也有差異性。第二,通過探討與格動詞和與格構(gòu)式之間的關(guān)系發(fā)現(xiàn),漢語與格動詞的意義比與格構(gòu)式的意義突出,而英語與格動詞的意義受到與格構(gòu)式的影響,且與格構(gòu)式的意義決定了表達式的意義,即英語與格構(gòu)式的意義表現(xiàn)得更加突出。第三,一些英語與格結(jié)構(gòu)不具有對應的漢語與格句式,只能翻譯成漢語與格結(jié)構(gòu)的另外幾種句式。第四,英漢與格結(jié)構(gòu)具有同樣的論元角色,即施事論元,受事論元以及接收者論元；同樣的構(gòu)式意義：施事論元執(zhí)行某種行為致使受事論元轉(zhuǎn)移至接收者論元或者施事論元將受事論元轉(zhuǎn)移至接收者論元的路徑被阻斷；大體相似的制約因素：施事論元要求是有意識的,受事論元要求是能被轉(zhuǎn)移的實體,除非其通過比喻,轉(zhuǎn)喻或擬人被引申到抽象的概念。第五,英語與格構(gòu)式還能表達接收者論元將受事論元轉(zhuǎn)移至施事論元,而漢語與格構(gòu)式則不能；第六,英語與格結(jié)構(gòu)對受事論元和接收者論元的信息重度很講究,但是漢語與格結(jié)構(gòu)的順序相對靈活。它允許“給+NP,”出現(xiàn)在動詞的任一側(cè),從而使得其擁有更多的與格句式。 英漢民族擁有相似的認知體驗和認知能力,因此所建構(gòu)的語言結(jié)構(gòu)必定有相似之處。同時英漢民族的思維方式不同,英漢語言語法化和詞匯化的程度不同,這些也決定了英漢與格構(gòu)式的差異。
[Abstract]:As a common linguistic phenomenon, ditransitive constructions are mainly expressed in two syntactic types: double nomenclature and lattice construction. Many linguistic schools, such as structuralism, transformational generative grammar, and cognitive linguistics, have studied transitive constructions. However, previous scholars pay more attention to the double-nomenclature construction, and seldom make a systematic contrastive study of English and Chinese constructions and lattice constructions. This paper uses Goldberg's construction grammar theory to explore the similarities and differences between English and Chinese and case structure at the semantic and syntactic levels, and to find out the similarities and differences between English and Chinese and case structure and the semantic characteristics of the case verb. It also analyzes the syntactic similarities and differences between them and explores the causes of their differences, tries to find out their laws and limitations, and modifies the representation of Goldberg and its lattice structure. Thus, the mapping between the specific roles and syntactic positions of English and Chinese case structures can be better explained by joining. The results are as follows: first, the semantic features of English and Chinese verbs are similar and different. Secondly, it is found that the meaning of Chinese and case verbs is more prominent than that of case constructions, while the meaning of English and case verbs is influenced by their case constructions. And the meaning of lattices determines the meaning of expression, that is, the meaning of English and lattice is more prominent. Third, some English and the case structure does not have the corresponding Chinese and the case sentence pattern, only can translate into the Chinese and the case structure other kind of sentence pattern. Fourth, English and Chinese have the same argument role as case structure, that is, agent argument, recipient argument and receiver argument. The same meaning of construction: the transference of the subject argument to the recipient argument or the transference of the recipient argument to the recipient argument by the agent argument is blocked; Similar constraints: the agent argument is consciously required, and the receptive argument is a transferable entity unless it is extended to abstract concepts by analogy, metonymy, or personification. Fifth, English and lattice can also express the recipient argument to transfer the recipient argument to the agent argument, but Chinese and lattice construction can not; Sixth, English and case structures pay attention to the information of patient argument and recipient argument, but the order of Chinese and case structure is relatively flexible. It allows "give NP," to appear on either side of the verb, allowing it to have more and more case patterns. English and Chinese people have similar cognitive experience and cognitive ability, so the language structure must be similar. At the same time, different modes of thinking and different degrees of grammaticalization and lexicalization of English and Chinese also determine the differences between English and Chinese.
【學位授予單位】：浙江師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：H314;H146
本文編號：2393243
[Abstract]:As a common linguistic phenomenon, ditransitive constructions are mainly expressed in two syntactic types: double nomenclature and lattice construction. Many linguistic schools, such as structuralism, transformational generative grammar, and cognitive linguistics, have studied transitive constructions. However, previous scholars pay more attention to the double-nomenclature construction, and seldom make a systematic contrastive study of English and Chinese constructions and lattice constructions. This paper uses Goldberg's construction grammar theory to explore the similarities and differences between English and Chinese and case structure at the semantic and syntactic levels, and to find out the similarities and differences between English and Chinese and case structure and the semantic characteristics of the case verb. It also analyzes the syntactic similarities and differences between them and explores the causes of their differences, tries to find out their laws and limitations, and modifies the representation of Goldberg and its lattice structure. Thus, the mapping between the specific roles and syntactic positions of English and Chinese case structures can be better explained by joining. The results are as follows: first, the semantic features of English and Chinese verbs are similar and different. Secondly, it is found that the meaning of Chinese and case verbs is more prominent than that of case constructions, while the meaning of English and case verbs is influenced by their case constructions. And the meaning of lattices determines the meaning of expression, that is, the meaning of English and lattice is more prominent. Third, some English and the case structure does not have the corresponding Chinese and the case sentence pattern, only can translate into the Chinese and the case structure other kind of sentence pattern. Fourth, English and Chinese have the same argument role as case structure, that is, agent argument, recipient argument and receiver argument. The same meaning of construction: the transference of the subject argument to the recipient argument or the transference of the recipient argument to the recipient argument by the agent argument is blocked; Similar constraints: the agent argument is consciously required, and the receptive argument is a transferable entity unless it is extended to abstract concepts by analogy, metonymy, or personification. Fifth, English and lattice can also express the recipient argument to transfer the recipient argument to the agent argument, but Chinese and lattice construction can not; Sixth, English and case structures pay attention to the information of patient argument and recipient argument, but the order of Chinese and case structure is relatively flexible. It allows "give NP," to appear on either side of the verb, allowing it to have more and more case patterns. English and Chinese people have similar cognitive experience and cognitive ability, so the language structure must be similar. At the same time, different modes of thinking and different degrees of grammaticalization and lexicalization of English and Chinese also determine the differences between English and Chinese.
【學位授予單位】：浙江師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：H314;H146
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 周長銀;現(xiàn)代漢語給字句的生成句法研究[J];當代語言學;2000年03期
2 朱德熙;與動詞“給”相關(guān)的句法問題[J];方言;1979年02期
3 陸儉明;;構(gòu)式語法理論的價值與局限[J];南京師范大學文學院學報;2008年01期
4 錢軍;句式意義——句法與語義關(guān)系的若干理論問題[J];外語研究;2004年02期
5 徐盛桓;;相鄰關(guān)系視角下的雙及物句再研究[J];外語教學與研究;2007年04期
6 徐暢賢;;英語雙及物動詞及其構(gòu)塊的語義研究評介[J];外語與外語教學;2005年12期
7 何曉煒;雙賓語結(jié)構(gòu)和與格結(jié)構(gòu)的關(guān)系分析[J];外國語(上海外國語大學學報);2003年02期
8 王黎;關(guān)于構(gòu)式和詞語的多功能性[J];外國語(上海外國語大學學報);2005年04期
9 何曉煒;;合并順序與英漢雙及物結(jié)構(gòu)對比研究[J];外國語(上海外國語大學學報);2008年02期
10 何曉煒;雙賓語結(jié)構(gòu)的句法研究[J];現(xiàn)代外語;1999年04期
，本文編號：2393243
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/wenyilunwen/yuyanxuelw/2393243.html
