语料库词典学视域下文化特色词微观结构研究

发布时间：2018-09-01 21:08

【摘要】：儒学词,作为承载中国传统文化的精髓,是弘扬中国文化,传承华夏文明的主体。其释义表征的准确性对儒家思想的传播起着至关重要的作用。为了全面系统的了解主流汉英词典中儒学词的表征现状以及与英美国家编纂的英汉词典之间的差别,本文将系统对比汉英词典儒学词和英汉词典圣经词汇的微观结构释义特征,探析汉英词典中儒学词表征模式的不足之处,吸收五大学习型词典值得借鉴的地方。本文将采用定性分析和定量分析相结合的方法,以等距抽样的方式分别在《中国儒学词典》和《圣经百科辞典》中选取儒学词和圣经词汇作为研究对象,并选择21世纪之后出版的五本较权威的汉英词典—《新世纪汉英大词典(第二版)》(2016)、外研社出版的《汉英词典》(第三版)(2010)、《新时代汉英词典(第二版)》(2014)、《现代汉英词典》(2001)和商务印书馆出版的《汉英词典》(2006)与五大英语学习词典(Big Five)进行系统对比调查分析。立足于共选理论和常态与拓展理论,本文系统构建了汉英词典中儒学词释义的理论分析框架,并借助平行语料库、北京大学中国语言学研究中心现代汉语语料库以及英国国家语料库,通过案例分析具体验证框架的合理性与可行性,以此不断完善和优化儒学词的表征效果。通过分析,本文发现,汉英词典与英汉词典在微观结构上(包括注释系统,释义系统和例证系统)具有显著性差异。首先,在注释系统方面,汉英词典无论在注释覆盖率还是注释精准度上都不及英汉词典。在语音标注方面,针对汉英词典,除《汉英词典(第三版)》外,其他词典均有发音缺失的问题,其中包括内词条和多音节词目拼音标注空白;而对于英汉词典,所有词典除均配有国际音标外,部分词目中还标有K.K.音标,语音标注系统完善。在词类标注方面,五本汉英词典均存在部分词目未标注词类的现象,例如所有的多音节词目在《现代汉英词典》中均未被标注,几乎所有的词目在《汉英词典》中均未被标注词类。相反,所有的英汉词典均有词类标注。其次,在释义系统方面,汉英词典借鉴性强,但以消极型知识为主,无法有效促进学习者的产出能力。在义项划分方面,汉英词典具有很显著的划分依赖性,主要以《现代汉语词典》为蓝本。而英汉词典间依照各自语料库进行划分,在统计学上无显著性差异。在对等词方面,汉英词典以翻译型对等词为主,缺少解释性对等词,而英汉词典则兼具翻译型与解释型对等词,兼顾了词目的内涵与外延。在句法结构方面,汉英词典并无句法标注,而英汉词典句法标注非常丰富。在附加意义方面,汉英词典与英汉词典差异显著。最后,在例证系统方面,不论在例证的覆盖率还是原创性方面,汉英词典与英汉词典差异巨大。汉英词典中除《新世纪汉英词典(第二版)》和《新时代汉英词典(第二版)》两本词典外,其他词典的例证覆盖率只有不到60%,另外,五本汉英词典中均出现有多个词目配相同例证的现象,词典间例证依耐性强。反观英汉词典,除《麦克米伦高阶英汉双解词典》词目配例是70.37%外,其他词典词目配例比例高达80%以上,而且不同词典由于基于各自的语料库进行例证选取,因而具有原创性。上述结果显示,汉英词典与英汉词典差距明显,语料库的使用是解决上述问题的有效方法之一。本文对儒学词抽样分析与优化提高有利于弥补传统释义的不足,进一步拓展汉英词典中儒学词的理论研究,提高汉英词典乃至双语词典的编撰质量,传播中国儒家思想,维护中华文化的自主性和安全性,实现文化强国的战略目标。
[Abstract]:Confucian words, as the essence of Chinese traditional culture, are the main body of carrying forward Chinese culture and inheriting Chinese civilization. The accuracy of their interpretation and representation plays an important role in the spread of Confucianism. This paper will systematically compare the micro-structure features of Confucian words in Chinese-English dictionaries and Bible words in English-Chinese dictionaries, explore the shortcomings of the representation model of Confucian words in Chinese-English dictionaries, and absorb the five major learning dictionaries for reference. In the Chinese Confucian Dictionary and the Bible Encyclopedia Dictionary, five authoritative Chinese-English dictionaries published after the 21st century, the Chinese-English Dictionary of the New Century (second edition) (2016), the Chinese-English Dictionary (third edition) (2010), and the New Era Chinese-English Dictionary (second edition) (2), were selected as the subjects of study. 014), < Modern Chinese-English Dictionary > (2001) and < Chinese-English Dictionary > (2006) published by the Commercial Press are systematically compared with Big Five. Based on the theory of co-selection and the theory of normality and expansion, this paper systematically constructs a theoretical framework for the interpretation of Confucian words in Chinese-English dictionaries, and with the help of a parallel corpus, Beijing University. Through case study, the rationality and feasibility of the framework are verified and the representation effect of Confucian words is continuously improved and optimized. Through analysis, it is found that Chinese-English dictionaries and English-Chinese dictionaries are micro-structured (including annotation system, interpretation system and English-Chinese dictionary). First of all, Chinese-English dictionaries are inferior to English-Chinese dictionaries in both annotation coverage and annotation accuracy in annotation systems. In phonetic annotation, Chinese-English dictionaries, except for the Chinese-English Dictionary (3rd edition), all have phonetic deficiencies, including internal entries and polysyllabic entries. In addition to the international phonetic alphabet, some English-Chinese dictionaries are marked with K.K. phonetic alphabet, and the phonetic annotation system is perfect. On the contrary, all English-Chinese dictionaries have part-of-speech tagging. Secondly, the Chinese-English dictionary has a strong reference in the interpretation system, but it can not effectively promote learners'production ability by focusing on negative knowledge. In terms of equivalence, Chinese-English dictionaries are dominated by translational equivalents, lacking explanatory equivalents, while English-Chinese dictionaries are both translational and explanatory equivalents, taking into account both the connotation and externalities of the purposes of the words. In terms of syntactic structure, Chinese-English dictionaries have no syntactic annotations, while English-Chinese dictionaries have very rich syntactic annotations. In terms of additional meanings, there are significant differences between Chinese-English dictionaries and English-Chinese dictionaries. Except for the Chinese-English Dictionary of the 20th Century (2nd edition) and the Chinese-English Dictionary of the New Age (2nd edition), the coverage of examples in other dictionaries is less than 60%. In addition, the five Chinese-English dictionaries have more than one entries with the same examples, and the lexicon-to-dictionary examples are more patient. Except for 70.37%, the proportion of other dictionaries is more than 80%. Different dictionaries are original because they are based on their own corpus. The results show that there is a significant gap between Chinese-English dictionaries and English-Chinese dictionaries. The use of corpus is one of the effective ways to solve the above problems. The improvement of sample analysis and optimization can make up for the deficiency of traditional interpretation, further expand the theoretical study of Confucian words in Chinese-English dictionaries, improve the compilation quality of Chinese-English dictionaries and even bilingual dictionaries, disseminate Chinese Confucianism, safeguard the autonomy and security of Chinese culture, and realize the strategic goal of cultural power.
【学位授予单位】：四川外国语大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H316

【相似文献】