汉英名词的数范畴差异及其认知影响被引量：6

The Difference of Number Marking Systems for Noun Phrases Between Chinese and English

下载PDF

导出

摘要汉语名词普遍借助量词来计数,而英语只有部分名词需要量词,名词主要以屈折变化来表达数的概念,具有普遍强制性。经过对量词的认知分析,文章认为造成这种差异的原因在于汉英名词语义指向不同,前者指向"恒等"的物质,后者指向离散物体。两种语言在名词计数方式上的差异可能会引导操汉语者面对物体时倾向于关注"恒等材质",而操英语者对物体的数更加敏感,进而更在意物体的形状。这种推论得到了认知语言学理论以及实证研究发现的支持。 The article presents a contrastive description of number marking systems for noun phrases in Chinese and English. Numeral classifiers are widely used in enumeration in Chinese, while the grammatical number must be obligatorily marked by inflection when a count noun is used in English. It is suggested that the difference derives from the referential meaning of nouns. Chinese nouns tend to refer to identical material while English nouns tend to refer to discrete objects. Based on a discussion from a cognitive point of view, it is suggested that the wide-spread use of numeral classifiers may result in Chinese speakers ＇ concern with the material composition of objects while the frequent attention to inflectional number marking will lead English speakers to attend more to the number of and then, the shape of, objects. The hypothesis is supported by recent discoveries in cognitive linguistics.

作者杨朝春

机构地区清华大学外语系

出处《西安外国语大学学报》 2009年第2期11-16,共6页 Journal of Xi’an International Studies University

关键词量词复数强制性内在单位 numeral classifiers plurality obligatory intrinsic unit

分类号 H03 [语言文字—语言学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献34

1Boroditsky, Lera, Lauren A. Sehmidt & Web Philips. Sex, syntax and semantics[ A ]. In Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow. (eds.). Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of language and Cognition[ C]. Massachusetts : MIT Press, 2003:61-79.
2Bowerman, M. & S. C. Levirtson. Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development [ M ]. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2001.
3Chercia, G. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of semantic parameter [A]. In Susan Rothstein(ed. ). Events and Grammar[C]. Dordrecht: Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998 : 53-105.
4Choi, S. & Bowerman, M. Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns [ J ]. Cognition, 1991(41) : 83-121.
5Doetjes, J. Mass and count: syntax or semantics? [A]. Proceedings of Meaning on the HIL[C]. HIL. Leiden University, 1996: 34-35.
6Gentner, D. & S. Goldin-Meadow. Language in Mind[ M ]. Massachusetts : MIT Press, 2003.
7Gil, D. Definiteness, noun phrase configurationality, and the count-mass distinction[A]. In E. J. Reuland and A. G. B. ter Meulen(eds. ). The Representation of (in) Definiteness[ C ]. MA: MIT Press, 1987.
8Givon, Talmy. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations[J]. Studies in Language,1991,15( 1 ) : 85-114.
9Greenberg, J. H. Numeral classifiers and substantial number: Problems in the genesis of a linguistic type[J]. Working Papers in Languages Universals, 1972(9): 1-39.
10Gumperz,J. J. & S. C. Levinson(ed. ). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.