现代汉语系词“是”与几个相关问题

发布时间：2018-07-15 13:25

【摘要】：系词一直是哲学、语言学中的一个重要话题,何为“to be”、何为“是”都是争议不清的话题。但现代汉语的“是”却因为过于寻常而被理所应当地得到了一些定位——只有名词谓语句和部分形容词谓语句中的“是”是判断动词；而动词谓语句里看似可有可无的“是”或被认为是语气副词,或为焦点标记。其他动词相比,“是”因为其动态性、及物性等明显的动词性特征,更加适合充当小句谓语。为什么从古至今,汉语的主谓之间都能见到“是”的身影?古代汉语中,所谓“是”虚化为焦点标记之前,为什么可以和其后动词短语连用?到底“是”是不是可有可无?“是”有没有语义价值?为什么汉语几乎所有的小句都可以插入“是”?这些诸多的问题都有待一个清晰的解释。本文使用传统句法层级分析、认知语言学的理论,并借鉴生成语法的一些研究方法和成果,期望对“是”及其几个相关问题做细致、可靠的研究。文章首先从“是”的语义价值入手,通过比较因“是”而语义不同的“只”和“只是”,尝试解读“是”究竟有没有为“只”向“只是”的演化提供语义和句法上的价值。随后,将“是”放置于含不同类别情态词的小句中,以“是”和情态词互动的句法限制为基础去探索“是”的语义内容。当“是”的语义真值得到确认,“是”的句法性质重新定位即是本文的下一步目标。如果“是”只是焦点标记,那么“只”和“只是”的语义区别得不到解释,“是”和情态词互动时的句法限制以及“是”与疑问代词共现时的所谓双重强式焦点矛盾也得不到解释。当我们回归“是”的判断动词定位之后,所以的问题都不再是问题。动词(短语)谓语前的“是”是焦点标记还是判断动词,这实质上关系着汉语的词类划分。为什么现代汉语几乎所有的动词短语都能充当判断动词“是”的宾语?名词和动词是相互独立还是包含关系?本文比较了以往关于动词和动词短语做主宾语时的所谓“名词化”、“名物化”策略,以及“小句投射”观的不足。在汉语名词和动词短语的平行研究中发现,动词(短语)不仅可以同名词一样无标记地占据小句的主宾语位置,同时,动词能受副词修饰这一被认为是唯一的、最可靠的名动词区别性特征却一直没有丧失。即是说,动词和动词短语在做主宾语时,语用上是指称语,句法上仍然是动词性,没有改变。名词和动词(短语)的唯一区别是动词(短语)能无标记充当陈述语。历时的语料观察也发现,动词短语在“是”成为判断动词的前后一直能无标记地充当主宾语。随后,动词短语做话题时的句法分析、以及VP短语做谓语核心的回指问题研究进一步验证了汉语动词(短语)既是陈述语又是指称语的观点。和“是”紧密相关的另一个问题是其“主观性”。语言的演变总是与说话人的语言的主观化运用相生相伴,“是”从其指代用法到判断用法的语义变化中,也伴随着主观性的增强。所谓的“不合逻辑”系词句是考察“是”主观性用法的最好窗口。既往关于“不合逻辑”系词句的研究,以“转指说”和“空主语说”为主,这两种说法都遇到一些不可回避的问题。“是”的主观认同义才是解决问题的关键。研究发现,不同语言中系词的来源和主观性程度不同影响了该语言对“不合逻辑”系词句的允准情形是不同的。汉语的“是”来自于意义本义很虚的指示代词,和来源于实义动词的意大利语系词“sono”、粤语系词“保”相比,其高度的主观化程度允准了汉语普通话里的“不合逻辑”系词句。当情态副词“梗”用于粤语的系词句之后,原本不合法的粤语“不合逻辑”系词句在“梗”的主观情态义辅助之下才变得合法。进一步关于“是”主观认同义的研究聚焦在“要是、若是”等假设连词中“是”的构词基础解释。无论是类型学的研究成果,或者是其他汉语假设连词历时虚化过程的回顾都说明,“主观认同”义是假设连词的最重要语义基础。“是”的主观义符合了假设连词的语义要求,判断动词“是”能以主谓小句为其补足语的特性也帮助“要”、“就”等单音节句中假设连词在和“是”的连用中从句中走向了句首,使得“要是、就是”出现在单音节假设连词“要、就”等不能占据的句法位置。最后,本文把研究拓展到了句末的“了”(即“了2”)。“是”和“有”所关注的“是非”和“存在”问题是语言中最基础性概念,也是人类认识世界的基础问题。句末“的”因为常和“是”一起连用形成所谓“事态句”,所以得到了情态语气词的定位。“了2”和“的”的平行研究表明“了2”和句末“的”有几乎一致的用法。“了2”也并非关注动词短语的时、态等“存在”问题,它所在小句的句法语义研究、否定形式研究,以及“了2”的历时研究,都指出,“了2”和“是非”问题有关。“了2”的情态语气词定位符合语料中“了2”被大量用于主观句和传信句的语言事实。
[Abstract]:The word "to" is an important topic in linguistics. What is the "be" and "yes" is a controversial topic. But the "yes" in modern Chinese is too ordinary to get some orientation - only the noun predicate and some adjectives are the judgment verbs; The verb predicate sentence seems to be a "yes" or is regarded as a mood adverb or a focus mark. Compared to other verbs, "yes" because of its dynamic, transitivity and other obvious verb characteristics, more suitable for acting as a clause predicate. Before the so-called "is" as a focus mark, why can it be used with the following verb phrase? Is it "yes" in the end? Is there any semantic value? Why can almost all the small clauses in Chinese be inserted "yes"? Many of these problems have to be explained clearly. This article uses the traditional syntactic hierarchy. By analyzing the theory of cognitive linguistics and drawing on some research methods and achievements of generative grammar, we expect to make a detailed and reliable study of "yes" and its related issues.
The article begins with the semantic value of "is" and compares the semantic and syntactic value of "yes" to the evolution of "only" by comparing "only" and "just" with different semantic meanings because of "is". The syntactic restriction of the interaction of modality words is based on the semantic content of "yes". When the true value of the "yes" is confirmed, the reorientation of the syntactic nature of "yes" is the next goal of this article. If "yes" is only a focus mark, then the meaning of "only" and "just" can not be explained, "yes" and "modal words" each other. The syntactic restriction of dynamic time and the so-called dual strong focus contradiction between "yes" and interrogative pronouns can not be explained. When we return to the "yes" judgment verb, the problem is no longer a problem.
The verb (phrase) predicate is the focus mark or the judgment verb before the predicate, which is essentially related to the classification of the Chinese words. Why can almost all the verb phrases in modern Chinese act as the object of judging the verb "yes"? Is the noun and verb mutually independent or contained? This article compares the past about the verb and the verb. The so-called "nominalization", "nominalization" strategy and the inadequacy of the "small sentence projection" view in the main object of the language. In the parallel study of the Chinese nouns and verb phrases, it is found that the verb (phrase) can not only occupy the main object position of the clause with the same name word, while the verb can be modified by the adverb to be the only one. The most reliable distinguishing feature of the noun verb has never been lost. That is, when the verb and the verb phrase are in the main object, they are pragmatically the denotational language, and the syntax is still a verb, without change. The only difference between the noun and the verb (phrase) is that the verb (phrase) can not be marked as a statement. The diachronic observation of the corpus and the verb phrase Then, the syntactic analysis of the verb phrase when it is a topic, and the study of the anaphora of the VP phrase as the core of the predicate, further verify that the Chinese verb (phrase) is both a declarative and a referential point.
Another problem closely related to "yes" is its "subjectivity". The evolution of language is always associated with the subjective use of the speaker's language. "It is" from its meaning to the semantic change of the use of judgment, but also with the enhancement of subjectivity. The so-called "illogical" words are the subjective usage of "yes". The best window. The previous study of "illogical" words, which are mainly "turn finger" and "empty subject", all meet some unavoidable problems. "Yes" is the key to solve the problem. It is found that the origin and subjectivity of different languages in different languages affect the two different languages. The "yes" in the language is different. The "yes" in Chinese comes from the demonstrative pronoun with very weak meaning, and the Italian word "sono" derived from the real meaning verb, and the degree of subjectivism of the Cantonese word is compared to the word "illogical" in Mandarin Chinese. When the modal adverb "stalks" is used in the Cantonese words, the original unlawful "unlogical" words of the Cantonese language become legal under the assistance of the subjective modality of the "stalemate".
Further research on "yes" is focused on the explanation of "yes" in the hypothetical conjunctions, such as if, if it is the research results of typology, or the retrospect of the diachronic process of other Chinese hypothesized conjunctions, "subjective identity" is the most important semantic basis for hypothesis conjunctions. "Yes" The subjective meaning of the verb conforms to the semantic requirements of the hypothetical conjunctions, judging that the verb "is" can also help "to" with the characteristic of the subject predicate clause as its complement, and the single syllable sentence, such as "right", assumes that the conjunctions go to the first sentence in the clause of the continuous use of the "yes", so that "if, it is" in the monosyllabic hypothetical conjunctions "want," and so on. The occupied syntactic position.
Finally, this paper extends the study to the end of the sentence ("2"). The "yes" and "existence" concerns are the most basic concepts in the language and the basic problem of the human understanding of the world. The parallel study of "2" and "" shows that "the 2" and "the" at the end of the sentence have almost identical usage. "The 2" is not concerned with the verb phrase, the state of the "existence" problem, the sentence French meaning research, the negative form study, and the diachronic study of "the 2", all points out, "2" and "2" The location of modal particles in "2" is consistent with the fact that "2" has been used in subjective and oral sentences widely.
【学位授予单位】：南开大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：H146

【参考文献】