分析语双层词典范畴化理论视角的汉语叹词词类判断实证研究

发布时间：2017-07-18 23:20

本文关键词：分析语双层词典范畴化理论视角的汉语叹词词类判断实证研究

【摘要】：词类研究是近二、三十年来语言学界的热难点问题，由于汉语等分析性语言缺失严格意义的形态，词类问题的研究集中体现在兼类/语法多功能现象的处理，这一直是语法研究的老大难问题，因此汉语词典的词类标注也成了词典编纂的老大难问题。随着国际学术交流的不断深入，外向型汉语学习词典词类标注的准确性越显重要，，尤其是能传情达意的感叹词，其词类标注的准确性更是会影响学习者之间的日常交流。近年来，各类词条词类标注的研究已引起了学界的关注，但目前还没有学者对叹词词条的词类标注进行深入的研究。鉴于汉语和英语都属于分析性语言，本研究以分析语的双层词类范畴理论模型为理论框架，借助现代大型平衡语料库，以《现代汉语学习词典》（1995）（以下简称《现汉学习》）中的叹词词条为研究材料，探讨汉语词典中叹词词条的词类标注问题。与此同时，本文以《牛津高阶学习者词典》（第八版）（以下简称《牛津8》）中的英语叹词词条与之做对比研究，以达到深化汉语词类研究的目的。本文以《现汉学习》为基准，以《现代汉语词典》（第六版）（以下简称《现汉6》）和《现代汉语规范词典》（第二版）（以下简称《现汉规范2》）为辅助做比较，以便收集研究对象，并且以《牛津8》做英汉对比研究，以便发现更多研究问题。研究发现，《现汉学习》只收录了47个叹词，叹词兼类比例为23.4%；47个叹词词条中有11个条目与《现汉6》和《现汉规范2》的词类标注有差异。而《牛津8》收录了237个叹词词条，其中叹词词条中兼类的比例为30.5%。借助于Sketch Engine中的Internet-ZH语料库以及因特网语料库，将标注不一的汉语叹词词条进行了穷尽性的搜索，以观察其语法功能。结果表明，汉语词典中的叹词词类标注未认清“词类范畴化发生在两个层面（即言语层面句法中的词类范畴化和社群语言层面词库中的词类范畴化）（王仁强，2014）”这一事实，一味地遵循了所谓的“简略原则”，人为地减少了叹词的兼类数量。并且，《现汉学习》词类标注过程中，多遗漏初始词类非叹词词条的叹词词类标注。本文采取新的理论视角，注重定性与定量研究相结合，对现代汉语叹词词类标注进行实证研究，不仅有助于深化汉语的词类标注研究，而且对国际交流也有促进作用。
【关键词】：《汉语学习词典》 叹词 词类标注 分析语双层词类范畴化 实证研究
【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】：2014
【分类号】：H136
【目录】：

摘要4-5
Abstract5-7
Acknowledgments7-11
Abbreviations11-12
Chapter One Introduction12-18
1.1 Rationale of the Study12-16
1.2 Objectives of the Study16
1.3 Layout of the Thesis16-18
Chapter Two Literature Review18-31
2.1 Review of Studies on Word Classes18-22
2.1.1 A General Study on the Identification of Word Classes18-21
2.1.2 Review of Multiple Class Membership21-22
2.2 Review of Studies on Interjections22-29
2.2.1 Review of the Identification of English Interjections23-25
2.2.2 Review of the Identification of Chinese Interjections25-28
2.2.2.1 Study on the Definition of Chinese Interjections26
2.2.2.2 Disputes on the Identification of Chinese Interjections26-28
2.2.3 Review of the Comparative Studies between English and Chinese Interjections28-29
2.3 Summary29-31
Chapter Three Theoretical Foundation31-40
3.1 Introduction31
3.2 The Theoretical Background31-38
3.2.1 Language as a Complex Adaptive System32-33
3.2.2 The Usage-based Theory33-34
3.2.3 The Theory of Norms and Exploitations34-38
3.2.3.1 Norms & Exploitations35-37
3.2.3.2 Meaning Events and Meaning Potentials37-38
3.3 The Two-level Word Class Categorization in Analytic Languages38-40
Chapter Four Research Design40-45
4.1 Dictionaries and Corpora Used in the Study40-42
4.2 Data Collection42-43
4.3 Data Processing43-45
Chapter Five Results and Discussion45-73
5.1 Overall Description of Statistical Results45-55
5.1.1 Data Description of Interjections in LDMC, CCD6 and MCSD23445-46
5.1.2 Statistical Comparison among the Three Chinese Dictionaries46-49
5.1.3 Results of Dictionary-based POS and Corpus-based Survey on the Controversial Chinese Interjection Lexemes49-51
5.1.4 Statistical Results of POS Labeling in OALD851-54
5.1.5 A Comparison between Chinese and English Interjection Lexemes54-55
5.2 Discussion55-71
5.2.1 The Analysis of Chinese Interjection Lexemes and Case Studies55-62
5.2.1.1 The POS of the Controversial Chinese Interjection Lexemes and A Case Study55-59
5.2.1.2 The Interjection Lexemes not Collected in LDMC and A Case Study59-62
5.2.2 The Comparison of Interjection POS Labeling between English and Chinese Dictionaries62-71
5.2.2.1 Comparison on the Amount of English and Chinese Interjection Lexemes and A Case Study62-65
5.2.2.2 Comparison between the English and Chinese Interjection Lexemes of Multi-category and Case Studies65-71
5.3 Summary71-73
Chapter Six Conclusion73-77
6.1 Major Findings of the Study73-75
6.2 Limitations of the Study75-76
6.3 Suggestions for Further Study76-77
References77-84
Appendices84-87
Appendix 1 Interjection Lexemes Collected in CCD6 but not in LDMC84-85
Appendix 2 Interjection Lexemes Collected in MCSD2 but not in LDMC85-86
Appendix 3 The Common Interjection Lexemes Found in CCD6 and MCSD2 but not in LDMC86-87
Appendix 4 Corpus Results of the Common Interjection Lexemes Found in CCD6 and MCSD2 but not in LDMC87