汉西领属结构的类型学研究

发布时间：2018-09-14 13:52

【摘要】：领属是客观存在的基本语义范畴,是对所有者和被占有物之间关系的表达。世界上不同的语言都有其特定的方式来反映该语言使用者对领属关系的认知和构建。首先从认知角度上说,对领属关系的界定并没有完全统一的标准,某种语义关系在一门语言中被认为是具有领属意义的,可能在其它语言中却被排除在领属范畴之外,例如某些时间-空间关系:“昨天的报纸”、“围墙的外面”等等。所以,领属关系其实是一个界限模糊、不易定义的庞杂的概念系统。然而,暂时抛开那些模棱两可、无法确定的关系,我们能做并且值得去做的是在那些被人们所普遍认知的领属关系中找出一些共有的、有意义的特征,并以此为依据进行分类,从而对“领属”这一概念有更有效的理解,比如典型性与非典型性、可让渡性与不可让渡性。其次,从构建方式来看,各语言所使用的表达手段更是多种多样。有简单策略,不包含附加语素,可以是所有者和被占有物的并列,或者是形态上的串接或融合;也有包括附加语素的语法化程度更高的复杂策略,如格标记、类标记等。所以说,领属关系是一种受到民族文化强烈制约的范畴,其构成成分因不同文化而表现各异。显而易见,我们已经通过语义手段确定出领属的语法范畴,不同语言在表达领属关系的结构上有很大差异,而这正符合语言类型学研究和解释的目标。按照类型学标准研究策略,首先必须确定了有兴趣研究的特定语义(语用)结构或情景类型;然后考查对这种情景类型进行编码的形态句法构式或策略;最后,搜寻这种情景类型使用的构式与其他因素间的依存关系,即与其他的结构特征、与由该构式所表达的其他外在功能的依存关系,或者同时与这两者的依存关系(Croft,2009)。因此,本文正是在确定领属结构作为研究对象的基础上进行不同类型的分析和阐释。第一章作为理论基础,就领属关系和类型学共性两个方面作了较为详尽的阐述。此外,作为类型学的基本特点,跨语言比较在语言分析中占有重要地位,它不仅可以让我们从一个不同的视角来重新审视和解释单一语言中的语言现象,而且可以透过不同语言归纳出语言的普遍现象。跨语言比较的基本前提是语言间的可比性,即在不同语言中可确定相同的语法现象。格林伯格在其关于语序的原创性论文中对跨语言可比性这个问题提供了基本的回答: 所有的语言都有主谓结构,有词类之分和领属语结构等等。我很清楚,在确定不同结构的语言中的这些现象时,人们使用的基本上是语义标准。很可能会有形式上的相似点,可以用来归并不同语言中的这类现象。(Greeberg,陆丙甫、陆志极译,1984) 勿庸置疑,刚才我们已经指出,领属关系是可以在不同文化和语言中确定的语法现象,将它作为跨语言比较的对象是可行的。那么,接下来的问题是语言样本的选取。理论上讲,被考察的语言种类越多,得出的结果越令人信服。事实上,也有不少语言学家是这么做的,调查研究了世界上两三百种语言,语料极其丰富。可是,在我们无法做到的情况下,我们将西班牙语和汉语作为主要样本,最重要的原因是这两种语言极具代表性,从谱系上说,汉语属于汉藏语系,西语属于印欧语系;从形态上划分,前者是典型的孤立语,后者是典型的屈折语。两者毫无亲属关系,存在较大差异,语言距离较远。另外,本文在适当的时候加入了英语样本,一是为丰富语料;二是主要考虑到英语处在西语和汉语之间,有时语法表现类似汉语,有时又与西语相近,当然,后者情况居多,因为它距离西语更近;其次,大多数西语、汉语学习者已经具备较好的英语基础,将英语引入便于比较。至此,我们已经明确了研究的对象和方法,简单来说,就是从类型学的视角来比较汉西领属结构。这在汉语和西语语言学界都算是较为新颖的。分开来看,单对领属关系或单对语言类型学的研究并不少见。现代汉语关于领属的研究焦点在于领属标记“的”字,尤其是它在结构中的隐现问题。从最早的朱德熙“的”字三分法,到如今沈家煊、石毓智、张敏、陆丙甫等众多语言学者分别从有界性、认知、标记理论、功能性等多角度赞同将“的”作统一处理,有关“的”字结构的探讨依旧热烈。近年来,类型学研究在国内正蓬勃开展,国外有关类型学的经典之作陆续被译成中文,将先进的类型学理论和研究成果介绍到国内,诸如威廉·克洛夫特的《语言类型学与语言共性》、伯纳德·科姆里的《语言共性和语言类型》。与此同时,刘丹青、陆丙甫、金立鑫等学者纷纷发表类型学相关论文和书籍,大大推动了类型学在国内的发展。而在西语学界,对领属语的研究一般围绕属格代词展开,在西语语法书中或多或少都会对这一词类进行描述。其中较新较为全面的要数西班牙皇家语言学院先后编著的《西班牙语描写语法》(1998)和《新西班牙语语法》(2009)。除此以外,也有一些有关属格代词的专著或论文先后发表,主要就其属性、用法等给予了充分论证。在西语类型学领域中,代表人物当数卢克·杜让以及莫雷诺·卡布雷拉。前者作为《类型学研究》(1997)论文集的主编,同时著有《语言类型学历史简介》(1998),一书中对类型学的发展历程做了全面的回顾;后者撰写了《语言的世界》(2003),对世界上的语言作了详细的归类。纵观汉西有关领属和类型学研究的历史和现状,我们发现汉西语言学家对本族语言的考察已有较为深入的认识,但是将两者共同作为主要观察对象的调查实为罕见,因此,本文试图在此方面有所突破。前面我们已经说过,本文将采用类型学的研究方法,即由类型描写到类型概括和阐释。在描写时,首先将领属结构分为短语和小句两个基本层面,之后再分别进行下位分类,分别放在第二章和第三章中。在短语层面上,所有格构式被定义为当说话人想要提到被占有物(被占有项目)时所使用的表示所有权的语义关系,即这种被占有物是名词短语的中心语,而所有者是它的修饰语。修饰语既可以是名词,也可以是人称代词。无论是何种性质的限定语,汉西两种语言均有各自的表达手段。虽然形式各异,但我们总能找到某一种类型在这门语言中是更为常用的,即所谓的基本类型。在名词作限定语的领属短语中,汉西的基本结构都借助了关系词(relacionador),分别是后置助词“的”和前置词de。从语序上看,表面上两个结构正好相反,一个领有者在前所属物在后,一个所属物在前领有者在后。但在类型学的框架内,这样的语序特点恰好符合世界语言的普遍规律,即由格林伯格所总结出的45条共性中的第2条:使用前置词的语言,属格几乎都在所修饰的名词之后;而在使用后置词的语言中,属格几乎都在名词之前。(Greenberg,1966)在代词作限定语的领属短语中,汉语保持了“的”字结构的基本类型,而西语则改用了前置或后置属格代词。在语序方面,“的”字结构与前置代词相似,而在一些用法上又与后置代词接近。除了基本类型外,汉西也有其它的领属表达方式。比如,核心名词的省略、汉语“的”字的缺省、“其”字的使用、西语关系形容词的使用、冠词替代属格代词等等。这些结构各具特点,值得深入研究。在小句层面上,汉西领属句都可由领属动词构成,最基本的分别是“有”和tener。大多数情况下,两者在表示领属关系时都能找到彼此对应,句型结构均为典型的SVO:主语领有者-谓语领属动词-宾语被占有物。但是,两者用法上也存在差异。很明显的是汉语“有”字句可表示存在关系,即所谓的时间-空间关系,此时对应的是西语动词haber。由此可以看出,时空关系在汉语中被看作是广义的领属,在西语中则不是,这正符合我们前面提到的各语言领属域的不同。此外,汉西领属简单句的常用类型还有用来表达“是”(ser)的系动词加附置词“的”(de)结构,两者用法类似,与领属名词短语结构相呼应。上述两种结构为汉西所共有,相似性很大,较容易掌握。然而事实上,我们更感兴趣也更值得深入研究的是两种语言中较为独特、相对较复杂的领属表达方式。比如,西语的与格结构以及汉语的主谓谓语句【NP+(Np+VP)】。两种结构表面看似毫无关联,可是从领属的角度来观察,我们却惊喜地找出了两者的内在联系,即隐藏在结构背后的共性。它们所表达的语义关系以及所使用的场合非常接近。领属关系越紧密,比如身体部位、个人衣物、用品、亲属关系等,越倾向于使用这两种句子结构,而放弃了原本的基本类型。这时,领有者变成了话题,所属物则成了谓语的论元。除了简单句以外,我们还看到表达领属的关系小句。西语有明显的关系词作为标记,包括que和cuyo,与之对应的汉语表达可以是“的”或“其”字结构。在进行了较为详细的类型描写之后,我们在第四章中总结概括出这些类型的焦点所在,并对其产生的原因加以阐释。我们发现,汉语领属结构的关键问题在于“的”字的隐现,无论在短语还是小句层面,归根到底,类型的变异都取决于这一“的”字。而西语矛盾的焦点在属格代词的使用与否,如果不用,势必得用其它手段予以表达,这就是为什么会有冠词替代、使用与格的情况。究其类型变异的原因,我们归纳出对汉西领属结构产生重要影响的几大参数,分别是有定性、话题化、生命度以及让渡性。这四大因素贯穿于我们调查分析的始终,对我们的研究发挥着重要作用。然而,从更深层次来说,类型学认为需要借助相互竞争的理据来分析语言在概念表达上的差异,最基本的动因便是经济性(economía)和象似性(iconidad)。前者要求表达应该尽可能简洁,后者是指语言结构应该反映概念结构,以达到两者相符。经济性和象似性原则,特别是距离象似性,在汉西领属结构中都有所体现。为了验证理论分析的可信度,我们做了进一步的实证研究。首先,在第五章中利用Wconcord等先进的电脑软件程序对海明威《老人与海》的英、西、汉译本进行文本分析,重点对词频和搭配两项基本情况进行准确的数据统计。结果显示,西语的属格代词使用频率确实远远低于英语原文,其后的所属物多为与所有者关系紧密的身体部位或个人物品。此外,特别针对原文中常用领属结构o(f或’s)及以his为主的属格代词,通过大量例句我们找出汉西翻译时对应的多种处理方式,基本涵盖了我们所列举的各种领属类型。最后,我们分别对56位中国的西语学生以及20位母语为西语的汉语学生进行了问卷调查,问卷涉及与领属相关的练习和主观认识。调查结果和相关分析显示在第六章中,反映了学生们在学习领属结构时所遇到的困难和易犯的错误,同时也显示出他们母语中的问题。鉴于此,我们提供了一些可行的解决办法,并对西语教学和对外汉语教学提出了针对性的建议。总而言之,本论文是在语言类型学的理论基础之上,通过跨语言比较,主要对西班牙语和汉语各领属结构类型做出描写、概括、解释和调查验证,并以此为依据,探求两者在领属范畴内的共性规律,将其应用于教学实践之中。可以说,我们在汉西领属结构的类型学研究方面做出了积极的努力,尽管仍有一些没有考察的问题,如多项领属关系的名词短语及其语序排列,但我们希望我们的尝试能够起到抛砖引玉的作用,激起更多人的研究兴趣,将这个课题深入下去,便已足矣。
[Abstract]:Ownership is a basic semantic category that exists objectively and is an expression of the relationship between the owner and the possessed. Different languages in the world have their own specific ways to reflect the cognition and construction of the ownership relationship of the language users. Relationships are considered possessive in one language and may be excluded from possession in other languages, such as certain temporal-spatial relationships: "Yesterday's newspaper", "Outside the wall" and so on. Therefore, possession is actually a complex conceptual system with vague boundaries and difficult to define. What we can do, and what is worth doing, is to identify common, meaningful features in the universally recognized neighbourhood and categorize them on the basis of which the notion of "possession" can be more effectively understood, such as typicality and atypicality, transferable. Secondly, from the perspective of construction methods, languages use a variety of means of expression. There are simple strategies, which do not contain additional morphemes, can be the juxtaposition of the owner and the possessed, or can be morphological concatenation or fusion; there are also more complex strategies, such as case markers, which include additional morphemes with a higher degree of grammaticalization. Class markers and so on. Therefore, the possessory relationship is a category which is strongly restricted by the national culture, and its composition varies from culture to culture.
Obviously, we have determined the grammatical category of possession by means of semantic means. Different languages have great differences in the structure of possession, which is in line with the goal of linguistic typology and interpretation. It then examines the morphological syntactic constructions or strategies that encode this type of situation. Finally, it searches for the dependencies between the constructions used in this type of situation and other factors, that is, other structural features, other external functions expressed by the constructions, or both (Croft, 2) Therefore, this paper is based on the determination of the possessory structure as the research object to carry out different types of analysis and interpretation. Chapter 1 as a theoretical basis, on the possessory relationship and typological generality of two aspects made a more detailed exposition.
In addition, as a basic feature of typology, cross-linguistic comparison plays an important role in linguistic analysis. It not only enables us to re-examine and explain linguistic phenomena in a single language from a different perspective, but also induces linguistic phenomena in general through different languages. Comparability, that is, identifying the same grammatical phenomena in different languages. Greenberg, in his original paper on word order, provides a basic answer to the question of cross-linguistic comparability:
All languages have subject-predicate structures, parts of speech, and territorial structures, etc. I am quite clear that people use basically semantic criteria in determining these phenomena in languages with different structures. 984)
Undoubtedly, we have just pointed out that possession is a grammatical phenomenon that can be determined in different cultures and languages, and that it is feasible to use it as an object of cross-linguistic comparison. Then the next question is the selection of language samples. Theoretically, the more languages are examined, the more convincing the results are. In fact, there are also. Many linguists have done this by investigating two or three hundred languages in the world. The corpus is extremely rich. However, in the circumstances that we can not do, we take Spanish and Chinese as the main samples. The most important reason is that the two languages are very representative. From the genealogy point of view, Chinese belongs to the Sino-Tibetan language family, while Western belongs to Indo-European language. Morphologically, the former is a typical isolated language, while the latter is a typical inflectional language. There is no kinship between the two languages, there is a great difference between them and the language is far away. Chinese, sometimes similar to Western, of course, the latter case is more, because it is closer to Western; secondly, most of the Western language, Chinese learners have a good foundation in English, the introduction of English to facilitate comparison.
So far, we have clearly defined the object and method of study. Simply speaking, it is to compare the Chinese and Western possession structures from the perspective of typology. This is relatively new in both Chinese and Western linguistic circles. From Zhu Dexi's "de" to Shen Jiaxu, Shi Yuzhi, Zhang Min, Lu Bingfu, and many other linguists agree that "de" should be dealt with in a unified way in terms of boundedness, cognition, marking theory and functionality. In recent years, typology research is flourishing in China, and the classics of typology abroad have been translated into Chinese, introducing advanced typological theories and research results to China, such as William Croft's "Linguistic Typology and Linguistic Commonalities" and Bernard Comry's "Linguistic Commonalities and Linguistic Types". At the same time, Liu Danqing, Lu Bingfu, Jin Lixin and other scholars have published papers and books on typology, which has greatly promoted the development of Typology in China. In the field of Western linguistics, the study of possessive pronouns is generally centered on genitive pronouns, which are more or less described in the grammar books of Western languages. In addition, some monographs and papers on genitive pronouns have been published, mainly on their attributes and usages. In the field of Western typology, the representative figure is Luke. Durant and Moreno Cabrera, the former editors of the Collection of Typological Studies (1997) and the author of Brief History of Typology (1998), give a comprehensive review of the development of typology; the latter, the World of Language (2003), gives a detailed classification of languages in the world. The history and current situation of genus and typology study reveal that Sino-Western linguists have a deep understanding of the study of native languages, but it is rare that both genus and typology are taken as the main objects of observation. Therefore, this paper attempts to make a breakthrough in this respect.
As we have already said, this paper will adopt the typological approach, that is, from typological description to typological generalization and interpretation. In the description, the possessive structure is divided into two basic levels: phrase and clause, and then the subordinate classification is carried out, which is put in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 respectively. The semantic relation used by the speaker to indicate ownership when he wants to refer to the possessed item is that the possessed item is the central word of the noun phrase and the owner is its modifier. The modifier can be either a noun or a personal pronoun. Although the forms are different, we can always find a certain type which is more commonly used in this language, that is, the so-called basic type. But within the framework of typology, such a word order fits well with the universal law of world languages, that is, Article 2 of the 45 commonalities summarized by Greenberg: the language in which the preposition is used is almost entirely modified by the genitive case. (Greenberg, 1966) In possessive phrases with pronouns as determiners, Chinese maintains the basic type of the word "de" structure, while Western uses prepositional or postpositional generic pronouns. In addition to the basic types, there are also other forms of possessive expression in Western Han Dynasty. For example, the ellipsis of the core noun, the default of the word "de" in Chinese, the use of the word "de", the use of adjectives in Western languages, and the substitution of articles for genitive pronouns.
On the clause level, both Chinese and Western possessive sentences can be made up of possessive verbs, and the basic distinctions are "you" and tener. In most cases, both of them can be found corresponding to each other in the expression of possessive relationship. The sentence structure is typical SVO: subject possessor-predicate possessive verb-object possessive object possessive. It is obvious that the Chinese "you" sentence can express the existential relation, that is, the so-called time-space relation, which corresponds to the Western verb haber. It can be seen from this that the spatial-temporal relation is regarded as a generalized domain in Chinese, but not in Western, which is in line with the different domain of the languages mentioned earlier. The common types of simple sentences are also the adverbial and adverbial de structures used to express "yes" (ser), which are similar in usage and correspond to the possessive noun phrase structures. The two structures are common to both Hanxi and have great similarities and are easier to grasp. However, in fact, what we are more interested in and worth further studying are the two languages. For example, the dative structure in Western language and the subject-predicate sentence in Chinese [NP+ (Np+VP)] seem to have nothing to do with the surface of the two structures, but from the perspective of subordination, we are surprised to find out the internal relationship between the two, that is, the commonness hidden behind the structure. The closer the relationship between possessors, such as body parts, personal clothing, articles of use, kinship, etc., the more inclined they are to use these two sentence structures instead of the original basic types. We also see the relative clauses expressing possession. There are obvious relative words in Western languages as markers, including Que and cuyo. The corresponding Chinese expressions can be "de" or "qi".
After describing the types in detail, we summarize the focus of these types in Chapter 4 and explain their causes. We find that the key problem of Chinese possessive structure lies in the presence of the word "de". In the final analysis, both in phrases and clauses, the variation of types depends on this. The focus of the contradiction in Western language is whether genitive pronouns are used or not. If not, they must be expressed by other means. This is why articles are substituted and dative cases are used. Topicalization, life span and transferability. These four factors run through our analysis and play an important role in our research. However, at a deeper level, typology believes that we need to resort to each other.
【学位授予单位】：上海外国语大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：H030

【参考文献】