认知视角下英汉双及物动词对比研究

发布时间：2018-05-25 23:20

本文选题：英汉双及物动词 + 英汉双及物构式　；参考：《上海师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：英汉双及物动词进入双及物构式前后发生了有趣的变化:部分动词本身并不表示给予或获取意义,进入双及物构式后似乎变得能够表达这些意思;部分动词本身表达给予、取得、或中性方向意义的动词,进入构式后表达取得、给予、或多向方向。很多学者研究过双及物动词的这些变化,但目前对这些变化较为深入的跨语言研究较少。本文意欲在Goldberg构式语法理论指导下,以自建数据库语料为基础,分析并比较英汉双及物动词进入双及物构式的过程,及期间动词语义发生的变化,以便更进一步地揭示两种语言的异同。本文将英汉双及物构式分解为两个分构式:一为双及物构式,即致使取得构式;一为变体双及物构式,即致使失去构式;并对从“北京大学中国语言学研究中心语料库”和“英国国家语料库”检索与筛选搜集到的62个英语、168个汉语双及物动词,进行三个方面的研究,主要包括动词所表达的事件类型、动词事件中的参与者角色、以及动词与双及物构式的融合。此种分类及研究主要基于Goldberg关于构式的理念。Goldberg认为构式是对人类经验基本情景进行概括总结的抽象语言表达。它既是一种语言形式,也是对客观世界某类特定事件的一种描述,是形式与意义的配对。另外,构式有独立于其内动词的独特的意义。这种意义不能通过对构式成分意义的简单加减得出,也不与其他构式分享,是一种需要习得的意义。最后,动词进入相应构式不是一蹴而就的,这期间需要动词与构式在各自角色,各自所表达的事件两方面进行互动。本研究有四点发现:第一,汉语双及物动词较英语双及物来说,种类更丰富;第二,英汉双及物动词进入双及物构式时,构式对其都有四个方面的影响,包括限定动词事件的句法表达、从动词事件的相邻事件中提取可与论元角色融合的参与者角色、改变动词事件中参与者角色的性质,和为动词事件提供某些参与者角色,然而每类影响在两种语言中所占的比重有差异;第三,英汉双及物动词并不从双及物构式那里得到给予或取得义,入式后动词意义保持不变;第四,英语双及物动词更易于在给予类双及物构式的影响下改变自身之方向义,而汉语双及物动词则可较为自由选择自己在双及物构式中的方向义。
[Abstract]:In English and Chinese, there are interesting changes before and after the ditransitive verb enters into the ditransitive construction: some verbs themselves do not mean to give or acquire meaning, and when they enter the ditransitive construction, they seem to be able to express these meanings; some verbs themselves express the meaning of giving. A verb with the meaning of acquisition, or neutral direction, that enters the construction and expresses the direction of acquisition, giving, or multidirection. Many scholars have studied these changes of transitive verbs, but there are few cross-linguistic studies on these changes. Under the guidance of Goldberg's construction grammar theory, this paper analyzes and compares the process of English and Chinese ditransitive verbs entering into ditransitive constructions, and the semantic changes of verbs during the period, based on the self-built database corpus. In order to further reveal the similarities and differences between the two languages. In this paper, the English and Chinese transitive constructions are divided into two constructions: one is the ditransitive construction, that is, the resulting acquisition construction, the other is the variant ditransitive construction, that is, the loss of the construction; It also makes a study of 62 English and 168 Chinese double-transitive verbs collected from the Corpus of the Center for Chinese Linguistics Studies of Peking University and the British National Corpus. It mainly includes the event types expressed by verbs, the roles of participants in verb events, and the fusion of verbs and transitive constructions. This classification and research is mainly based on Goldberg's concept of construction. Goldberg believes that construction is an abstract language expression that summarizes the basic situations of human experience. It is not only a linguistic form, but also a description of a certain kind of event in the objective world. In addition, construction has a unique meaning independent of its inner verb. This kind of meaning cannot be obtained by simple addition or subtraction of the meaning of construction elements, nor can it be shared with other constructions. It is a kind of meaning to be learned. Finally, the verb enters the corresponding construction not overnight, during this period, the verb and the construction in their respective roles, each expresses the event two aspects to carry on the interaction. There are four main findings in this study: first, the variety of Chinese transitive verbs is more abundant than that of English ones; second, when the English and Chinese ditransitive verbs enter the ditransitive constructions, the constructions have four effects on them. It includes defining the syntactic expression of the verb event, extracting the participant role that can be fused with the argument role from the adjacent events of the verb event, changing the nature of the participant role in the verb event, and providing some participant roles for the verb event. However, the proportion of each type of influence in the two languages is different; third, the English and Chinese ditransitive verbs do not give or obtain the meaning from the ditransitive constructions, and the meaning of the verb remains unchanged after entering; fourth, the meaning of the English and Chinese ditransitive verbs does not change. It is easier to change the directional meaning of English ditransitive verbs under the influence of the similar transitive constructions, while the Chinese ditransitive verbs are free to choose their own directional meanings in the ditransitive constructions.
【学位授予单位】：上海师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H146.2;H314.2

【参考文献】