期刊文献+

“汉语复合词的结构与句法结构平行”说新议 被引量:3

A New Discussion on the Parallelism Between Compound Word Structure and Syntactic Structure in Chinese
原文传递
导出
摘要 "汉语复合词的结构与句法结构是平行或一致的"说法是学界流行的观点,但在实际区别两者时,又认为语法结构上的差异是最重要的。前后冲突直接而明显。实际上,复合词与短语在性质与功能、意义透明度、是否产生语法意义、成分属性及其与整体功能之间的关系、语序及其价值五个方面差异显著。复合词与短语不存在结构上的一致性或平行性,语法标准不应也不能是区别复合词和短语的重要标准。 The difference between compounds and phrases has always been a problem in theories and applications of modern Chinese grammar and lexicology,about which there are two opposing views.The mainstream view is that there exists consistency or parallelism between compounds and phrases,namely,that the two are identical in terms of grammatical structure and grammatical meaning.The other view is that the former is incorrect or at least not completely correct.However,neither of these views has been sufficiently proved.The study finds that,first of all,there is an apparent contradiction in the so-called″parallel theory″,according to which,the grammatical parallelism of compound words and phrases is emphasized theoretically,but when distinguishing them in practical terms,differences in phonetics,meaning and grammar are also acknowledged.The theory attaches importance to the grammatical differences.Secondly,we find that compounds and phrases differ in at least the following five aspects.The difference in nature and function:compounds,carrying the minimum concepts,performing the function of reference and naming.Phrases,by contrast,are the compounds of concepts and perform the function of description or predication.The difference in meaning transparency is significant:the meaning of compound words is integrated or abstract.With the bound morpheme increasing in modern compounds,the meaning is less transparent;on the contrary,the meaning of phrases is highly or even completely transparent.The difference lies in the grammatical meaning:grammatical meaning like a syntactic component relationship cannot be found between the compound components;however,specific grammatical meaning can be found between the phrase components.Correspondingly,in terms of the combination,a structural analogy combination that can be found in phrases cannot be found in compound words.The difference also lies in the relationship between the constituent attribute and the overall function:compounds must be composed of morphemes;phrases must be composed of words and the relations can be analyzed.In addition,there is no relevance between the constituent attribute of a compound word;while,the constituent attribute of a phrase is consistent with the overall construction.The difference also lies in the word order and its function:the word order of compounds has no grammatical value but it determines the word’s meaning;in contrast,the word order of phrases has a clear grammatical function.In addition,compound words allow the″unreasonable″combination of constituents,while phrases do not.In Conclusion,there is no such a thing as grammatical parallelism or consistency between Chinese compound words and phrases.Using agrammatical category to describe and explain the internal relationship of compound words is groundless and does not help to illustrate the mechanism behind the formation of compound words.
作者 池昌海 林志永 Chi Changhai;Lin Zhiyong(Center for Chinese History Studies,Zhejiang University,Hangzhou310028,China;School of Foreign Languages,Korean University,Kwangju61452,Korea)
出处 《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》 CSSCI 北大核心 2019年第5期210-223,共14页 Journal of Zhejiang University:Humanities and Social Sciences
基金 教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目(06JJD740014)
关键词 复合词 句法结构 范畴 平行性 区别 compound word syntactic structure category parallelism difference
  • 相关文献

参考文献9

二级参考文献25

  • 1董为光.汉语词汇双音代换管窥[J].语言研究,1992(2):19-26. 被引量:10
  • 2余祥越,黎金娥.“人喝酒”与“酒喝人”——最简方案框架下的汉英动词句法差异比较[J].外语研究,2006,23(1):1-6. 被引量:11
  • 3常敬宇.从一些超常语言现象谈汉语的语义特点[C]//.词汇文字研究与对外汉语教学.北京:北京语言文化大学出版社,1997.110页
  • 4刘叔新.《复合词结构的词汇属性》[J].中国语文,1990,(4).
  • 5黄伯荣,廖序东.现代汉语(增订四版)[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2007.
  • 6Chen, Ping 2003 Indefinite determiner introducing definite referent: A special use of 'yi ('one')+classifier' in Chinese. Lingua 113, 1169-1184.
  • 7Chen, Ping 2004 Identifiability and definiteness in Chinese. Linguistics. 42(6), 1129-1184.
  • 8Chen, Ping 2009 Apects of referentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1657-1674.
  • 9Chen, Ping 2015 Referentiality and definiteness in Chinese. In: William S. Y. Wang & Chaofen Sun (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, Oxford University Press, 404-413.
  • 10DonneUan, Keith S. 1966 Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75, 281-394.

共引文献393

同被引文献44

引证文献3

二级引证文献4

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部