现代汉语同素单双音节助动词比较研究

发布时间：2018-10-15 07:59

【摘要】：本文主要讨论了现代汉语中含有相同语素、意思相近的单双音节助动词的异同，选取了“该、应该、可、可以、能、可能”这六个较常用的助动词分三组进行考察。除绪论和结语外，本文具体包括以下四部分：一、“该”与“应该”的主观性差异及其习语化倾向。“该”的主观性大于“应该”；“该”与“会”、“是”可以通过形式否定组成“该不会”、“该不是”表示言者推断某事可能发生，有习语化倾向；而“应该”与“不会”、“不是”连用时，“不”仍然是否定副词，“应该不会”、“应该不是”表示言者推断某事不可能发生。二、“可”与“可以”的功能性差异及其语体特征。“可”和“可以”最显著的差别体现在语体差别上：“可”一般出现在书面语中，，只有在正反对举时才用于口语中。三、“能”与“可能”的情态差异及其句类选择。在表达说话人的主观推测和估计时，“能”的确信度高于“可能”；在表示句子主语存在的可能性时，“能”表现出一种依据性。正因为这种依据性和客观性，“能”对句类的选择上也呈现明显的不平衡性：疑问句最多、否定句次之、肯定句较少。四、单双音节助动词差异的进一步思考。第四章讨论了这三组助动词在构词能力、语体或文体差异以及与其他助动词连用情况等三方面的差异，并试图对“助动词+动词”结构关系这一语言学界的研究热点问题提出一些自己的新看法。在构词能力方面，“该、可、能”中，“可”的构词能力最强，“能”次之，“该”最弱。在语体、文体差异方面，“能”与“可能”的语体、文体差异不明显；“可”与“可以”的语体差异最突出；“该”有比“应该”更适用于新闻标题这一细微的文体差异。在与其他典型助动词直接连用方面，这三组助动词中单音节助动词连用能力均弱于双音节助动词。我们认为助动词表示动力情态义和道义情态义时，“助动词+动词”结构呈“述宾”关系；助动词表示认识情态义时，“助动词+动词”结构呈“状中”关系。
[Abstract]:This paper mainly discusses the similarities and differences of monosyllabic auxiliary verbs with the same morpheme and similar meaning in modern Chinese, and selects "this, should, can, can and may" which are six more commonly used auxiliary verbs to be investigated in three groups. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper includes the following four parts: first, the subjective difference between "this" and "should" and its idiom tendency. "this" is more subjective than "should"; "should" and "will"; "can be formed through formal negation"; "should not" indicate that something may happen and tends to be idiomatic; and "should" and "not" When not, "no" is still a negative adverb, "should not", "should not" means that the speaker inferred that something could not happen. Second, the functional differences between "can" and "can" and their stylistic characteristics. The most significant difference between "can" and "can" lies in the style difference: "can" usually appears in written language and is used in spoken language only when it is opposed to it. Thirdly, the modal difference between "can" and "possibility" and the choice of sentence types. In expressing the subjective speculation and estimation of the speaker, the degree of certainty of "can" is higher than that of "possible", and the "can" shows a kind of basis when indicating the possibility of the existence of sentence subject. Because of this kind of basis and objectivity, "Neng" also presents obvious imbalance in the choice of sentence categories: the interrogative sentence is the most, the negative sentence is the second, and the positive sentence is less. Fourth, the further thinking about the difference of the auxiliary verbs of monosyllabic and double syllable. The fourth chapter discusses the three groups of auxiliary verbs in terms of word-formation ability, stylistic or stylistic differences, and their use with other auxiliary verbs. It also tries to put forward some new views on the structural relationship of auxiliary verbs, which is a hot topic in linguistic circles. In terms of word-formation ability, "can, can" is the strongest, "can" is second, "can" is the weakest. In terms of stylistic and stylistic differences, the stylistic differences between "can" and "may" are not obvious; "can" and "can" are most prominent; "this" is more suitable for the subtle stylistic differences of news headlines than "should". In the aspect of direct connection with other typical auxiliary verbs, the ability of monosyllabic auxiliary verbs in these three groups is weaker than that of disyllabic auxiliary verbs. We think that when auxiliary verbs denote dynamic modal meaning and moral modal meaning, the structure of "auxiliary verb" takes on the relation of "statement object" and "auxiliary verb" structure takes on the relation of "medium" when the auxiliary verb indicates the understanding of modal meaning.
【学位授予单位】：上海师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：H146

【参考文献】