现代汉语打击类动词研究

发布时间：2018-06-29 22:23

本文选题：打击类动词 + 词义分析　；参考：《湖南大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文的研究对象为现代汉语打击类动词。这类动词指词的理性意义中包含[+打击]这一语义特征的一类动词，本文以《现代汉语词典》、《汉语动词用法词典》为依据，并结合每个打击义动词在北京大学现代汉语语料库中出现的词频情况，共确定了37个动词作为研究对象。借鉴前人对类义词群的研究方法，，本文从词义分析、句法分布、句式特点、古今词义对比四个方面做了一个较为全面细致的考察，通过考察来揭示打击类动词内部成员的异同。词义方面，运用“词义成分——词义构成”模式分析法，对37个打击类动词的概念义进行了分析，得出5个词义聚合类型，并在此基础上比较分析了各语义模式类型的异同关系。再通过语义特征和孳生义的分析，探求了各个动词语义上的共性及其间的细微差异。句法分布方面，主要分析打击类动词出现在主语、宾语和定语位置上的情况。考察发现，打击类动词都能出现在谓语的位置上，出现在主语、宾语位置上的打击类动词可以是简单形式，也可以是复杂形式。其中“捶打、敲打1、撞击、冲撞1、磕碰1”能出现在主语的位置上，“摔打(shuai55da)1、敲打1、磕打、叩打、拍打(pai55da)1、扑打（pu55da214）、抽打（chou55da214）、撞击、冲撞1、冲击1、磕碰1”能出现在宾语的位置上，“敲打1、撞击、磕碰1”能出现在定语的位置上。句式方面，主要考察了打击类动词的句式特点，每个打击类动词都有其基本句式，但其派生句式却不相同。根据袁毓林（1999）祈使句式对动词类型选择的总结和语言的使用习惯情况，考察发现打击类动词均可进入肯定式祈使句和否定式祈使句；少数打击类动词独用还可进入表示催促、发令、方式、行话性的祈使句，并分析其独用构成祈使句受限制的原因。古今词义对比方面，以“词义成分——词义构成模式”图中的d1、E和F三项为视角，对先秦两汉时期的古汉语和现代汉语两个不同词汇系统的手部打击义动词进行了对比分析，揭示它们的差异性并分析其原因，以便为我们更深入的了解现代汉语打击义动词提供一个历史比较的维度。
[Abstract]:The object of this thesis is the modern Chinese verb of strike. The rational meaning of this kind of verb refers to a class of verbs which contain the semantic feature of "strike". This article is based on the Modern Chinese Dictionary and the Chinese verb usage Dictionary. According to the word frequency of every strike verb in the modern Chinese corpus of Peking University, 37 verbs are selected as the object of study. Referring to the previous research methods, this paper makes a comprehensive and detailed investigation from four aspects: word meaning analysis, syntactic distribution, sentence structure characteristics and comparison between ancient and modern words and meanings, and reveals the similarities and differences among the internal members of attacking verbs. In the aspect of word meaning, using the mode analysis of "word meaning component-word meaning composition", this paper analyzes the conceptual meaning of 37 strike verbs, and obtains five types of syntactic aggregation. On this basis, the similarities and differences of each semantic pattern type are compared and analyzed. Through the analysis of semantic features and breeding meanings, this paper explores the semantic commonness and subtle differences among verbs. In the aspect of syntactic distribution, it mainly analyzes the situation of the position of object, subject and attributive. It is found that the verb of strike class can appear in the position of predicate and subject, and the verb of object can be simple form or complex form. "beating, hitting, bumping, bumping" can appear in the position of subject, "shuai55da 1, knock 1, knock, tap, pai55da 1, pu55da214, chou55da214, hit, hit" can appear in the position of object, the object can be found in the position of "1", "hit" (1), "hit (1)," can appear in the position of the object. "knock 1, hit, bump 1" can appear in the attributive position. In the aspect of sentence structure, this paper mainly studies the characteristics of the sentence structure of the verb of strike class, each of which has its basic sentence structure, but its derivative sentence is different. According to Yuan Yu-lin (1999)'s summary of the choice of verb types and the usage of language, it is found that both positive imperative and negative imperative sentences can be entered by strike verbs, and a few strike verbs can be used alone to express urge. Order, way, jargon imperative sentence, and analyze the reason why the imperative sentence is restricted by its sole use. In terms of comparison between ancient and modern word meanings, from the perspective of D1E and F in the pattern of word meaning composition, this paper makes a contrastive analysis of the hand strike verbs in two different lexical systems of ancient Chinese and modern Chinese in the pre-Qin and Han dynasties. To reveal their differences and analyze their causes in order to provide us with a more in-depth understanding of the modern Chinese verb to combat the meaning of a historical comparison of the dimension.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：H146

【相似文献】