本文選題：全稱量化詞 + 句法成分�。� 參考：《安徽大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：人類語(yǔ)言既有共性,也存在差異,差異主要表現(xiàn)在三個(gè)方面:一、庫(kù)藏不同;二、可能存在不同的移動(dòng),也就是是否移位;三、不同語(yǔ)言的功能語(yǔ)類在顯性實(shí)現(xiàn)還是隱性實(shí)現(xiàn)方面可能存在不同。本文研究的是漢語(yǔ)全稱量化詞,主要將其分為兩類,即統(tǒng)指類全稱量化詞和分指類全稱量化詞,對(duì)這兩類全稱量化詞進(jìn)行探討,并用語(yǔ)言類型學(xué)的視角和方法將漢語(yǔ)的全稱量化詞和英語(yǔ)的全稱量化詞進(jìn)行比較,從語(yǔ)言庫(kù)藏和是否移位的角度闡述它們之間的差異,在此基礎(chǔ)上,考察母語(yǔ)為英語(yǔ)的留學(xué)生漢語(yǔ)全稱量化詞的習(xí)得情況。第一章為緒論。第二章主要探討漢語(yǔ)全稱量化詞的相關(guān)特點(diǎn),包括三個(gè)方面:全稱量化詞所充當(dāng)?shù)木浞ǔ煞�、全稱量化詞與"都"共現(xiàn)的特點(diǎn)、全稱量化詞的轄域特點(diǎn)。根據(jù)對(duì)現(xiàn)代漢語(yǔ)語(yǔ)料的調(diào)查和統(tǒng)計(jì),研究發(fā)現(xiàn),除了統(tǒng)指類全稱量化詞"凡"只能做主語(yǔ),出現(xiàn)在主語(yǔ)位置上,其他的全稱量化詞都是可以做主語(yǔ)(主語(yǔ)中心)、賓語(yǔ)(賓語(yǔ)中心)、定語(yǔ)的,還有一些全稱量化詞可以做狀語(yǔ),比如統(tǒng)指類全稱量化詞"全部"、分指類全稱量化詞"每""和"各"。但是英語(yǔ)全稱量化詞與漢語(yǔ)并不完全對(duì)應(yīng),一個(gè)英語(yǔ)全稱量化詞對(duì)應(yīng)的漢語(yǔ)全稱量化詞通常不止一個(gè),而"every"對(duì)應(yīng)的兩個(gè)漢語(yǔ)全稱量化詞在語(yǔ)義上屬于不同類別,在句法成分上,漢英全稱量化詞也存在不一致的地方。在與"都"共現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題上,全稱量化詞及全稱量化名詞詞組只有在充當(dāng)以下三種句法成分時(shí)才會(huì)與"都"共現(xiàn):第一,主語(yǔ)、主語(yǔ)中心;第二,賓語(yǔ)、賓語(yǔ)中心,以"…動(dòng)詞/介詞+全稱量化詞/全稱量化名詞詞組+…+(都)+謂詞性成分"的形式出現(xiàn);第三,位于主語(yǔ)之前、主語(yǔ)之后的狀語(yǔ)或省略主語(yǔ)的狀語(yǔ)。根據(jù)對(duì)現(xiàn)代漢語(yǔ)語(yǔ)料的統(tǒng)計(jì),全稱量化詞及全稱量化名詞詞組做主語(yǔ)與"都"共現(xiàn)的頻次要明顯高于全稱量化詞及全稱量化名詞詞組做賓語(yǔ)和狀語(yǔ)與"都"共現(xiàn)的頻次,而做賓語(yǔ)與"都"共現(xiàn)的頻次則要高于做狀語(yǔ)與"都"共現(xiàn)的頻次。此外,當(dāng)句子在語(yǔ)義上選擇了別的詞時(shí),"都"不出現(xiàn),這些詞主要有"也(就/總)、就、皆、俱、即"。但是英語(yǔ)中沒(méi)有與"都"對(duì)應(yīng)的詞,所以英語(yǔ)的全稱量化詞沒(méi)有這一句法特點(diǎn)。轄域方面,全稱量化詞在主語(yǔ)位置上與否定詞共現(xiàn)時(shí)沒(méi)有歧義,表達(dá)的是全部否定的意思。全稱量化詞與存在量化詞、WH-詞共現(xiàn)時(shí)的轄域問(wèn)題存在爭(zhēng)論。根據(jù)調(diào)查問(wèn)卷中的統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù),我們發(fā)現(xiàn):當(dāng)統(tǒng)指類全稱量化詞"所有"與存在量化詞"一""、WH-詞共現(xiàn)時(shí),句子傾向于"統(tǒng)指解";當(dāng)分指類全稱量化詞"每"與存在量化詞"一"、WH-詞共現(xiàn)時(shí),句子傾向于分指解;當(dāng)這兩個(gè)全稱量化詞與存在量化詞"某"共現(xiàn)時(shí),句子都傾向于統(tǒng)指解。但是在英語(yǔ)中,全稱量化詞與否定詞、存在量化詞、WH-詞共現(xiàn)的句子是典型的轄域歧義句。第三章通過(guò)對(duì)HSK動(dòng)態(tài)作文語(yǔ)料庫(kù)中語(yǔ)料的整理和統(tǒng)計(jì),了解留學(xué)生對(duì)漢語(yǔ)全稱量化詞的掌握情況。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)留學(xué)生能很好的掌握漢語(yǔ)各種句法位置上的全稱量化詞,但是對(duì)于與"都"共現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題,留學(xué)生則會(huì)出現(xiàn)偏誤,偏誤主要是"都"的遺漏和"都"的混用。我們分析了偏誤產(chǎn)生的原因,主要有兩點(diǎn):第一,母語(yǔ)負(fù)遷移,全稱量化詞與"都"共現(xiàn)這一句法特點(diǎn)是漢語(yǔ)特有的,英語(yǔ)中沒(méi)有這一句法特點(diǎn),也就是沒(méi)有這一語(yǔ)言庫(kù)藏。第二,漢語(yǔ)全稱量化詞除了可以與"都"共現(xiàn),還可以與別的詞共現(xiàn),而這些詞與"都"的區(qū)別不甚明顯。對(duì)于漢語(yǔ)全稱量化詞與"都"共現(xiàn)的特點(diǎn),從句法成分的角度來(lái)說(shuō),留學(xué)生的習(xí)得順序是:主語(yǔ)(主語(yǔ)中心)賓語(yǔ)(賓語(yǔ)中心)狀語(yǔ)。我們認(rèn)為這是因?yàn)槿Q量化詞及全稱量化詞名詞詞組做主語(yǔ)與"都"共現(xiàn)比較普遍,而做賓語(yǔ)與"都"共現(xiàn)需要出現(xiàn)在特定的結(jié)構(gòu)中,做狀語(yǔ)與"都"共現(xiàn)僅限于"全部"和"每"。第四章通過(guò)問(wèn)卷調(diào)查的方式討論留學(xué)生漢語(yǔ)全稱量化詞相關(guān)轄域特點(diǎn)的習(xí)得情況。根據(jù)問(wèn)卷調(diào)查統(tǒng)計(jì)的結(jié)果,我們發(fā)現(xiàn),隨著留學(xué)生漢語(yǔ)水平的升高,留學(xué)生的掌握情況也越來(lái)越好。根據(jù)SPSS統(tǒng)計(jì)的結(jié)果,我們發(fā)現(xiàn),留學(xué)生在習(xí)得漢語(yǔ)全稱量化詞與否定詞共現(xiàn)時(shí)的轄域特點(diǎn)上,與母語(yǔ)者沒(méi)有顯著差異,但是在另外兩類轄域問(wèn)題上則有顯著差異,不能完全習(xí)得。這是因?yàn)闈h語(yǔ)全稱量化詞與否定詞共現(xiàn)時(shí)沒(méi)有轄域歧義,而英語(yǔ)全稱量化詞與否定詞共現(xiàn)時(shí)是有轄域歧義的,這種差別是涇渭分明的,反而比較容易掌握。但漢語(yǔ)全稱量化詞與存在量化詞、WH-詞共現(xiàn)時(shí)是有轄域歧義的,并且這種歧義不像英語(yǔ)中那樣典型,而是有某種傾向性。對(duì)于母語(yǔ)不是漢語(yǔ)的留學(xué)生來(lái)說(shuō),要理解這一點(diǎn)是非常困難的。第五章是對(duì)教材的調(diào)查,從而對(duì)教材的編寫(xiě)和教師的教學(xué)提出一些建議。
[Abstract]:Human language has both commonness and differences. The difference is mainly manifested in three aspects: first, the reservoir is different; two, there may be different movements, that is, whether or not it is displaced; three, the functional languages of different languages are different in explicit or recessive realization. That is to discuss the two types of total quantifiers, and to compare the total quantifiers in Chinese with the total quantifiers in English with the perspective and method of language typology. On the basis of this, the mother tongue is examined. The first chapter is the introduction. The second chapter mainly discusses the related characteristics of the Chinese full name quantifier, including three aspects: the syntactic components of the full name quantifier, the characteristics of the total quantifier and the "capital", the scope characteristics of the full weighing words, and the adjustment of the modern Chinese Corpus. According to the investigation and statistics, it is found that, in addition to the word "fan", which can only be the subject and appear on the subject position, all the other quantifier words can be the subject (the center of the subject), the object (object center), the attributive, and some full quantifier words can be used as adverbials. "Every" and "" each "" and "" each "," but the total number of English quantifiers in English is not completely corresponding to the Chinese, a total quantifier of a total number of English quantifiers in English is usually more than one, and "every" corresponding to the two Chinese full quantifiers in the semantic category, in the syntactic points, the Chinese and English total quantifiers are also inconsistencies. On the issue of "co - occurrence", the total quantifier word and the total quantifier noun phrase can be shared with "all" only when it acts as the following three syntactic components: first, subject, center of subject; second, object, object center,... Verb / preposition + universal quantifier / universal quantifier noun phrase +... Third, the adverbials after the subject, the adverbials after the subject, or the adverbials of the omission subject. According to the statistics of the modern Chinese corpus, the frequency of the co occurrence of the total quantifier and the full quantified noun phrase as the subject and the "all" is obviously higher than the total quantifier and the full quantified noun phrase as the object and adverbial. The frequency of co occurrence with the "capital", and the frequency of co occurrence of the object and the "capital" is higher than the frequency of co occurrence of adverbials and "all". In addition, when the sentence is semantically selected other words, the word "all" does not appear, and these words mainly have "(it)" and "all, all, that is". But there is no word corresponding to the "capital" in English, so the full quantifier of the English is not this There is no ambiguity in the position of the total quantifier in the subject position and the negative word, and the expression is all negative. The total quantifier and the existence of the quantifier and the WH- word are debated. In the quantifier word "one", "WH- word" is present, the sentence tends to "point out". When the total quantifier of the class refers to the word "one" and "there is a Quantifier" and "WH- word" is present, the sentence tends to be partial solution; when the two full quantifier words and the existence of Quantifier "one" co present, the sentences are inclined to the unified solution. But in English, the full name quantifier and the negative word, deposit. In quantitative words, the sentences shared by WH- words are typical domain ambiguity sentences. In the third chapter, through the arrangement and statistics of the corpus in the HSK dynamic composition corpus, we know that the foreign students' mastery of the total nominal quantifiers in Chinese. We find that the foreign students can well master the full quantified words in various syntactic positions in Chinese, but they are shared with the "capital". The foreign students will be mistaken, and the error is mainly the misuse of the "all" omission and the "capital". We have analyzed the reasons for the error. The first, the negative transfer of the mother tongue, the syntactic characteristic of the total name of the quantifier and the "capital", is unique in Chinese. There is no such syntactic feature in English, that is, there is no reservoir in the language. Two, in addition to the concurrence with the "capital", the Chinese full name quantifier can be co existing with other words, and the difference between these words and the "capital" is not very obvious. For the characteristics of the co-occurrence of the total quantifier and the "capital" in Chinese, from the point of view of the syntactic component, the acquisition order of the foreign students is the subject (the center of the subject) object (the object center) adverbial. Because the full name quantifier and the full name quantifier noun phrase are common to the subject and the "capital", the co occurrence of the object and the "capital" needs to appear in the specific structure. The co occurrence of adverbials and "all" is limited to "all" and "every". The fourth chapter discusses the acquisition of the related domain characteristics of the total Chinese word quantifier of the foreign students through the questionnaire survey. According to the results of the questionnaire survey, we found that with the increase of the Chinese level of the foreign students, the mastery of foreign students is getting better and better. According to the results of SPSS statistics, we find that there is no significant difference between the foreign students and the native speakers on the acquisition of the universally quantified and negative words in the Chinese language, but in the other two categories. There are significant differences in the area of jurisdiction, which can not be completely learned. This is because there is no jurisdiction ambiguity in the total quantifier and negative word in Chinese, but the total quantifier and the negative word are ambiguous, but the difference is quite distinct, but it is easier to grasp. However, the Chinese word quantifier and the quantifier and WH- word exist. There is a sense of ambiguity, and the ambiguity is not as typical as in English, but a tendency. It is very difficult for foreign students who are not Chinese to understand this. The fifth chapter is the investigation of the teaching materials, so as to make some suggestions for the compilation of the textbooks and the teaching of teachers.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：H195.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王青云;;論副詞“就”“才”和語(yǔ)氣助詞“了”的共現(xiàn)[J];安徽職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年03期

2 王曉華;;漢日情態(tài)共現(xiàn)的差異與共性[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;2014年02期

3 溫曉芳;;“沒(méi)(有)”和“了”共現(xiàn)問(wèn)題的研究[J];文教資料;2009年01期

4 王燦龍;;關(guān)于“沒(méi)(有)”跟“了”共現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題[J];世界漢語(yǔ)教學(xué);2006年01期

5 田然;;“既A又B”格式中A、B共現(xiàn)的條件[J];云南師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(對(duì)外漢語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究版);2007年04期

6 葉蘭;;淺談“剛”與“了”的共現(xiàn)問(wèn)題[J];現(xiàn)代語(yǔ)文(語(yǔ)言研究版);2009年07期

7 金立鑫;“沒(méi)”和“了”共現(xiàn)的句法條件[J];漢語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí);2005年01期

8 唐鈺明;朱玉賓;;漢語(yǔ)被動(dòng)/處置共現(xiàn)句略論[J];中山大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年01期

9 毛榮貴;雅俗共現(xiàn)的美國(guó)告示語(yǔ)[J];大學(xué)英語(yǔ);1997年02期

10 史金生;情狀副詞的類別和共現(xiàn)順序[J];語(yǔ)言研究;2003年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 匡鵬飛;時(shí)間詞語(yǔ)前后分句共現(xiàn)狀態(tài)之研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2006年

2 尹洪波;否定詞與副詞共現(xiàn)的句法語(yǔ)義研究[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 曹龍;基于詞共現(xiàn)模型的微博熱點(diǎn)話題發(fā)現(xiàn)方法研究[D];中國(guó)地質(zhì)大學(xué)(北京);2015年

2 趙楠楠;共現(xiàn)分析在學(xué)科交叉特征識(shí)別中的應(yīng)用[D];大連理工大學(xué);2015年

3 凌穗誼;基于共現(xiàn)信息及感知?dú)w類的衣物識(shí)別與解析[D];廣東工業(yè)大學(xué);2016年

4 張靜靜;漢英反義詞共現(xiàn)構(gòu)式的認(rèn)知解讀[D];天津工業(yè)大學(xué);2016年

5 曹婷婷;基于數(shù)字足跡的旅游目的地景觀共現(xiàn)效應(yīng)研究[D];上海師范大學(xué);2016年

6 余紫微;釋“再、又、還、也”與“不”“沒(méi)”的共現(xiàn)[D];華中師范大學(xué);2016年

7 程圓圓;現(xiàn)代漢語(yǔ)推測(cè)詞語(yǔ)共現(xiàn)研究[D];江西師范大學(xué);2016年

8 王琴琴;對(duì)外漢語(yǔ)教學(xué)中兩類全稱量化詞研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2017年

9 黃倩;漢語(yǔ)共現(xiàn)空間反義詞擴(kuò)展信息的認(rèn)知研究[D];重慶大學(xué);2011年

10 徐福翠;漢語(yǔ)被動(dòng)式與處置式共現(xiàn)合用句研究[D];安徽師范大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：2065955