【摘要】：領(lǐng)屬是客觀存在的基本語(yǔ)義范疇,是對(duì)所有者和被占有物之間關(guān)系的表達(dá)。世界上不同的語(yǔ)言都有其特定的方式來(lái)反映該語(yǔ)言使用者對(duì)領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系的認(rèn)知和構(gòu)建。首先從認(rèn)知角度上說(shuō),對(duì)領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系的界定并沒(méi)有完全統(tǒng)一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),某種語(yǔ)義關(guān)系在一門(mén)語(yǔ)言中被認(rèn)為是具有領(lǐng)屬意義的,可能在其它語(yǔ)言中卻被排除在領(lǐng)屬范疇之外,例如某些時(shí)間-空間關(guān)系:“昨天的報(bào)紙”、“圍墻的外面”等等。所以,領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系其實(shí)是一個(gè)界限模糊、不易定義的龐雜的概念系統(tǒng)。然而,暫時(shí)拋開(kāi)那些模棱兩可、無(wú)法確定的關(guān)系,我們能做并且值得去做的是在那些被人們所普遍認(rèn)知的領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系中找出一些共有的、有意義的特征,并以此為依據(jù)進(jìn)行分類(lèi),從而對(duì)“領(lǐng)屬”這一概念有更有效的理解,比如典型性與非典型性、可讓渡性與不可讓渡性。其次,從構(gòu)建方式來(lái)看,各語(yǔ)言所使用的表達(dá)手段更是多種多樣。有簡(jiǎn)單策略,不包含附加語(yǔ)素,可以是所有者和被占有物的并列,或者是形態(tài)上的串接或融合;也有包括附加語(yǔ)素的語(yǔ)法化程度更高的復(fù)雜策略,如格標(biāo)記、類(lèi)標(biāo)記等。所以說(shuō),領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系是一種受到民族文化強(qiáng)烈制約的范疇,其構(gòu)成成分因不同文化而表現(xiàn)各異。 顯而易見(jiàn),我們已經(jīng)通過(guò)語(yǔ)義手段確定出領(lǐng)屬的語(yǔ)法范疇,不同語(yǔ)言在表達(dá)領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系的結(jié)構(gòu)上有很大差異,而這正符合語(yǔ)言類(lèi)型學(xué)研究和解釋的目標(biāo)。按照類(lèi)型學(xué)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究策略,首先必須確定了有興趣研究的特定語(yǔ)義(語(yǔ)用)結(jié)構(gòu)或情景類(lèi)型;然后考查對(duì)這種情景類(lèi)型進(jìn)行編碼的形態(tài)句法構(gòu)式或策略;最后,搜尋這種情景類(lèi)型使用的構(gòu)式與其他因素間的依存關(guān)系,即與其他的結(jié)構(gòu)特征、與由該構(gòu)式所表達(dá)的其他外在功能的依存關(guān)系,或者同時(shí)與這兩者的依存關(guān)系(Croft,2009)。因此,本文正是在確定領(lǐng)屬結(jié)構(gòu)作為研究對(duì)象的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行不同類(lèi)型的分析和闡釋。第一章作為理論基礎(chǔ),就領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系和類(lèi)型學(xué)共性?xún)蓚�(gè)方面作了較為詳盡的闡述。 此外,作為類(lèi)型學(xué)的基本特點(diǎn),跨語(yǔ)言比較在語(yǔ)言分析中占有重要地位,它不僅可以讓我們從一個(gè)不同的視角來(lái)重新審視和解釋單一語(yǔ)言中的語(yǔ)言現(xiàn)象,而且可以透過(guò)不同語(yǔ)言歸納出語(yǔ)言的普遍現(xiàn)象。跨語(yǔ)言比較的基本前提是語(yǔ)言間的可比性,即在不同語(yǔ)言中可確定相同的語(yǔ)法現(xiàn)象。格林伯格在其關(guān)于語(yǔ)序的原創(chuàng)性論文中對(duì)跨語(yǔ)言可比性這個(gè)問(wèn)題提供了基本的回答: 所有的語(yǔ)言都有主謂結(jié)構(gòu),有詞類(lèi)之分和領(lǐng)屬語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)等等。我很清楚,在確定不同結(jié)構(gòu)的語(yǔ)言中的這些現(xiàn)象時(shí),人們使用的基本上是語(yǔ)義標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。很可能會(huì)有形式上的相似點(diǎn),可以用來(lái)歸并不同語(yǔ)言中的這類(lèi)現(xiàn)象。(Greeberg,陸丙甫、陸志極譯,1984) 勿庸置疑,剛才我們已經(jīng)指出,領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系是可以在不同文化和語(yǔ)言中確定的語(yǔ)法現(xiàn)象,將它作為跨語(yǔ)言比較的對(duì)象是可行的。那么,接下來(lái)的問(wèn)題是語(yǔ)言樣本的選取。理論上講,被考察的語(yǔ)言種類(lèi)越多,得出的結(jié)果越令人信服。事實(shí)上,也有不少語(yǔ)言學(xué)家是這么做的,調(diào)查研究了世界上兩三百種語(yǔ)言,語(yǔ)料極其豐富。可是,在我們無(wú)法做到的情況下,我們將西班牙語(yǔ)和漢語(yǔ)作為主要樣本,最重要的原因是這兩種語(yǔ)言極具代表性,從譜系上說(shuō),漢語(yǔ)屬于漢藏語(yǔ)系,西語(yǔ)屬于印歐語(yǔ)系;從形態(tài)上劃分,前者是典型的孤立語(yǔ),后者是典型的屈折語(yǔ)。兩者毫無(wú)親屬關(guān)系,存在較大差異,語(yǔ)言距離較遠(yuǎn)。另外,本文在適當(dāng)?shù)臅r(shí)候加入了英語(yǔ)樣本,一是為豐富語(yǔ)料;二是主要考慮到英語(yǔ)處在西語(yǔ)和漢語(yǔ)之間,有時(shí)語(yǔ)法表現(xiàn)類(lèi)似漢語(yǔ),有時(shí)又與西語(yǔ)相近,當(dāng)然,后者情況居多,因?yàn)樗嚯x西語(yǔ)更近;其次,大多數(shù)西語(yǔ)、漢語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者已經(jīng)具備較好的英語(yǔ)基礎(chǔ),將英語(yǔ)引入便于比較。 至此,我們已經(jīng)明確了研究的對(duì)象和方法,簡(jiǎn)單來(lái)說(shuō),就是從類(lèi)型學(xué)的視角來(lái)比較漢西領(lǐng)屬結(jié)構(gòu)。這在漢語(yǔ)和西語(yǔ)語(yǔ)言學(xué)界都算是較為新穎的。分開(kāi)來(lái)看,單對(duì)領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系或單對(duì)語(yǔ)言類(lèi)型學(xué)的研究并不少見(jiàn)�，F(xiàn)代漢語(yǔ)關(guān)于領(lǐng)屬的研究焦點(diǎn)在于領(lǐng)屬標(biāo)記“的”字,尤其是它在結(jié)構(gòu)中的隱現(xiàn)問(wèn)題。從最早的朱德熙“的”字三分法,到如今沈家煊、石毓智、張敏、陸丙甫等眾多語(yǔ)言學(xué)者分別從有界性、認(rèn)知、標(biāo)記理論、功能性等多角度贊同將“的”作統(tǒng)一處理,有關(guān)“的”字結(jié)構(gòu)的探討依舊熱烈。近年來(lái),類(lèi)型學(xué)研究在國(guó)內(nèi)正蓬勃開(kāi)展,國(guó)外有關(guān)類(lèi)型學(xué)的經(jīng)典之作陸續(xù)被譯成中文,將先進(jìn)的類(lèi)型學(xué)理論和研究成果介紹到國(guó)內(nèi),諸如威廉·克洛夫特的《語(yǔ)言類(lèi)型學(xué)與語(yǔ)言共性》、伯納德·科姆里的《語(yǔ)言共性和語(yǔ)言類(lèi)型》。與此同時(shí),劉丹青、陸丙甫、金立鑫等學(xué)者紛紛發(fā)表類(lèi)型學(xué)相關(guān)論文和書(shū)籍,大大推動(dòng)了類(lèi)型學(xué)在國(guó)內(nèi)的發(fā)展。而在西語(yǔ)學(xué)界,對(duì)領(lǐng)屬語(yǔ)的研究一般圍繞屬格代詞展開(kāi),在西語(yǔ)語(yǔ)法書(shū)中或多或少都會(huì)對(duì)這一詞類(lèi)進(jìn)行描述。其中較新較為全面的要數(shù)西班牙皇家語(yǔ)言學(xué)院先后編著的《西班牙語(yǔ)描寫(xiě)語(yǔ)法》(1998)和《新西班牙語(yǔ)語(yǔ)法》(2009)。除此以外,也有一些有關(guān)屬格代詞的專(zhuān)著或論文先后發(fā)表,主要就其屬性、用法等給予了充分論證。在西語(yǔ)類(lèi)型學(xué)領(lǐng)域中,代表人物當(dāng)數(shù)盧克·杜讓以及莫雷諾·卡布雷拉。前者作為《類(lèi)型學(xué)研究》(1997)論文集的主編,同時(shí)著有《語(yǔ)言類(lèi)型學(xué)歷史簡(jiǎn)介》(1998),一書(shū)中對(duì)類(lèi)型學(xué)的發(fā)展歷程做了全面的回顧;后者撰寫(xiě)了《語(yǔ)言的世界》(2003),對(duì)世界上的語(yǔ)言作了詳細(xì)的歸類(lèi)�？v觀漢西有關(guān)領(lǐng)屬和類(lèi)型學(xué)研究的歷史和現(xiàn)狀,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)漢西語(yǔ)言學(xué)家對(duì)本族語(yǔ)言的考察已有較為深入的認(rèn)識(shí),但是將兩者共同作為主要觀察對(duì)象的調(diào)查實(shí)為罕見(jiàn),因此,本文試圖在此方面有所突破。 前面我們已經(jīng)說(shuō)過(guò),本文將采用類(lèi)型學(xué)的研究方法,即由類(lèi)型描寫(xiě)到類(lèi)型概括和闡釋。在描寫(xiě)時(shí),首先將領(lǐng)屬結(jié)構(gòu)分為短語(yǔ)和小句兩個(gè)基本層面,之后再分別進(jìn)行下位分類(lèi),分別放在第二章和第三章中。在短語(yǔ)層面上,所有格構(gòu)式被定義為當(dāng)說(shuō)話(huà)人想要提到被占有物(被占有項(xiàng)目)時(shí)所使用的表示所有權(quán)的語(yǔ)義關(guān)系,即這種被占有物是名詞短語(yǔ)的中心語(yǔ),而所有者是它的修飾語(yǔ)。修飾語(yǔ)既可以是名詞,也可以是人稱(chēng)代詞。無(wú)論是何種性質(zhì)的限定語(yǔ),漢西兩種語(yǔ)言均有各自的表達(dá)手段。雖然形式各異,但我們總能找到某一種類(lèi)型在這門(mén)語(yǔ)言中是更為常用的,即所謂的基本類(lèi)型。在名詞作限定語(yǔ)的領(lǐng)屬短語(yǔ)中,漢西的基本結(jié)構(gòu)都借助了關(guān)系詞(relacionador),分別是后置助詞“的”和前置詞de。從語(yǔ)序上看,表面上兩個(gè)結(jié)構(gòu)正好相反,一個(gè)領(lǐng)有者在前所屬物在后,一個(gè)所屬物在前領(lǐng)有者在后。但在類(lèi)型學(xué)的框架內(nèi),這樣的語(yǔ)序特點(diǎn)恰好符合世界語(yǔ)言的普遍規(guī)律,即由格林伯格所總結(jié)出的45條共性中的第2條:使用前置詞的語(yǔ)言,屬格幾乎都在所修飾的名詞之后;而在使用后置詞的語(yǔ)言中,屬格幾乎都在名詞之前。(Greenberg,1966)在代詞作限定語(yǔ)的領(lǐng)屬短語(yǔ)中,漢語(yǔ)保持了“的”字結(jié)構(gòu)的基本類(lèi)型,而西語(yǔ)則改用了前置或后置屬格代詞。在語(yǔ)序方面,“的”字結(jié)構(gòu)與前置代詞相似,而在一些用法上又與后置代詞接近。除了基本類(lèi)型外,漢西也有其它的領(lǐng)屬表達(dá)方式。比如,核心名詞的省略、漢語(yǔ)“的”字的缺省、“其”字的使用、西語(yǔ)關(guān)系形容詞的使用、冠詞替代屬格代詞等等。這些結(jié)構(gòu)各具特點(diǎn),值得深入研究。 在小句層面上,漢西領(lǐng)屬句都可由領(lǐng)屬動(dòng)詞構(gòu)成,最基本的分別是“有”和tener。大多數(shù)情況下,兩者在表示領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系時(shí)都能找到彼此對(duì)應(yīng),句型結(jié)構(gòu)均為典型的SVO:主語(yǔ)領(lǐng)有者-謂語(yǔ)領(lǐng)屬動(dòng)詞-賓語(yǔ)被占有物。但是,兩者用法上也存在差異。很明顯的是漢語(yǔ)“有”字句可表示存在關(guān)系,即所謂的時(shí)間-空間關(guān)系,此時(shí)對(duì)應(yīng)的是西語(yǔ)動(dòng)詞haber。由此可以看出,時(shí)空關(guān)系在漢語(yǔ)中被看作是廣義的領(lǐng)屬,在西語(yǔ)中則不是,這正符合我們前面提到的各語(yǔ)言領(lǐng)屬域的不同。此外,漢西領(lǐng)屬簡(jiǎn)單句的常用類(lèi)型還有用來(lái)表達(dá)“是”(ser)的系動(dòng)詞加附置詞“的”(de)結(jié)構(gòu),兩者用法類(lèi)似,與領(lǐng)屬名詞短語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)相呼應(yīng)。上述兩種結(jié)構(gòu)為漢西所共有,相似性很大,較容易掌握。然而事實(shí)上,我們更感興趣也更值得深入研究的是兩種語(yǔ)言中較為獨(dú)特、相對(duì)較復(fù)雜的領(lǐng)屬表達(dá)方式。比如,西語(yǔ)的與格結(jié)構(gòu)以及漢語(yǔ)的主謂謂語(yǔ)句【NP+(Np+VP)】。兩種結(jié)構(gòu)表面看似毫無(wú)關(guān)聯(lián),可是從領(lǐng)屬的角度來(lái)觀察,我們卻驚喜地找出了兩者的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系,即隱藏在結(jié)構(gòu)背后的共性。它們所表達(dá)的語(yǔ)義關(guān)系以及所使用的場(chǎng)合非常接近。領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系越緊密,比如身體部位、個(gè)人衣物、用品、親屬關(guān)系等,越傾向于使用這兩種句子結(jié)構(gòu),而放棄了原本的基本類(lèi)型。這時(shí),領(lǐng)有者變成了話(huà)題,所屬物則成了謂語(yǔ)的論元。除了簡(jiǎn)單句以外,我們還看到表達(dá)領(lǐng)屬的關(guān)系小句。西語(yǔ)有明顯的關(guān)系詞作為標(biāo)記,包括que和cuyo,與之對(duì)應(yīng)的漢語(yǔ)表達(dá)可以是“的”或“其”字結(jié)構(gòu)。 在進(jìn)行了較為詳細(xì)的類(lèi)型描寫(xiě)之后,我們?cè)诘谒恼轮锌偨Y(jié)概括出這些類(lèi)型的焦點(diǎn)所在,并對(duì)其產(chǎn)生的原因加以闡釋。我們發(fā)現(xiàn),漢語(yǔ)領(lǐng)屬結(jié)構(gòu)的關(guān)鍵問(wèn)題在于“的”字的隱現(xiàn),無(wú)論在短語(yǔ)還是小句層面,歸根到底,類(lèi)型的變異都取決于這一“的”字。而西語(yǔ)矛盾的焦點(diǎn)在屬格代詞的使用與否,如果不用,勢(shì)必得用其它手段予以表達(dá),這就是為什么會(huì)有冠詞替代、使用與格的情況。究其類(lèi)型變異的原因,我們歸納出對(duì)漢西領(lǐng)屬結(jié)構(gòu)產(chǎn)生重要影響的幾大參數(shù),分別是有定性、話(huà)題化、生命度以及讓渡性。這四大因素貫穿于我們調(diào)查分析的始終,對(duì)我們的研究發(fā)揮著重要作用。然而,從更深層次來(lái)說(shuō),類(lèi)型學(xué)認(rèn)為需要借助相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的理?yè)?jù)來(lái)分析語(yǔ)言在概念表達(dá)上的差異,最基本的動(dòng)因便是經(jīng)濟(jì)性(economía)和象似性(iconidad)。前者要求表達(dá)應(yīng)該盡可能簡(jiǎn)潔,后者是指語(yǔ)言結(jié)構(gòu)應(yīng)該反映概念結(jié)構(gòu),以達(dá)到兩者相符。經(jīng)濟(jì)性和象似性原則,特別是距離象似性,在漢西領(lǐng)屬結(jié)構(gòu)中都有所體現(xiàn)。 為了驗(yàn)證理論分析的可信度,我們做了進(jìn)一步的實(shí)證研究。首先,在第五章中利用Wconcord等先進(jìn)的電腦軟件程序?qū)Ｃ魍独先伺c海》的英、西、漢譯本進(jìn)行文本分析,重點(diǎn)對(duì)詞頻和搭配兩項(xiàng)基本情況進(jìn)行準(zhǔn)確的數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)。結(jié)果顯示,西語(yǔ)的屬格代詞使用頻率確實(shí)遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)低于英語(yǔ)原文,其后的所屬物多為與所有者關(guān)系緊密的身體部位或個(gè)人物品。此外,特別針對(duì)原文中常用領(lǐng)屬結(jié)構(gòu)o(f或’s)及以his為主的屬格代詞,通過(guò)大量例句我們找出漢西翻譯時(shí)對(duì)應(yīng)的多種處理方式,基本涵蓋了我們所列舉的各種領(lǐng)屬類(lèi)型。最后,我們分別對(duì)56位中國(guó)的西語(yǔ)學(xué)生以及20位母語(yǔ)為西語(yǔ)的漢語(yǔ)學(xué)生進(jìn)行了問(wèn)卷調(diào)查,問(wèn)卷涉及與領(lǐng)屬相關(guān)的練習(xí)和主觀認(rèn)識(shí)。調(diào)查結(jié)果和相關(guān)分析顯示在第六章中,反映了學(xué)生們?cè)趯W(xué)習(xí)領(lǐng)屬結(jié)構(gòu)時(shí)所遇到的困難和易犯的錯(cuò)誤,同時(shí)也顯示出他們母語(yǔ)中的問(wèn)題。鑒于此,我們提供了一些可行的解決辦法,并對(duì)西語(yǔ)教學(xué)和對(duì)外漢語(yǔ)教學(xué)提出了針對(duì)性的建議。 總而言之,本論文是在語(yǔ)言類(lèi)型學(xué)的理論基礎(chǔ)之上,通過(guò)跨語(yǔ)言比較,主要對(duì)西班牙語(yǔ)和漢語(yǔ)各領(lǐng)屬結(jié)構(gòu)類(lèi)型做出描寫(xiě)、概括、解釋和調(diào)查驗(yàn)證,并以此為依據(jù),探求兩者在領(lǐng)屬范疇內(nèi)的共性規(guī)律,將其應(yīng)用于教學(xué)實(shí)踐之中�？梢哉f(shuō),我們?cè)跐h西領(lǐng)屬結(jié)構(gòu)的類(lèi)型學(xué)研究方面做出了積極的努力,盡管仍有一些沒(méi)有考察的問(wèn)題,如多項(xiàng)領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系的名詞短語(yǔ)及其語(yǔ)序排列,但我們希望我們的嘗試能夠起到拋磚引玉的作用,激起更多人的研究興趣,將這個(gè)課題深入下去,便已足矣。
[Abstract]:Ownership is a basic semantic category that exists objectively and is an expression of the relationship between the owner and the possessed. Different languages in the world have their own specific ways to reflect the cognition and construction of the ownership relationship of the language users. Relationships are considered possessive in one language and may be excluded from possession in other languages, such as certain temporal-spatial relationships: "Yesterday's newspaper", "Outside the wall" and so on. Therefore, possession is actually a complex conceptual system with vague boundaries and difficult to define. What we can do, and what is worth doing, is to identify common, meaningful features in the universally recognized neighbourhood and categorize them on the basis of which the notion of "possession" can be more effectively understood, such as typicality and atypicality, transferable. Secondly, from the perspective of construction methods, languages use a variety of means of expression. There are simple strategies, which do not contain additional morphemes, can be the juxtaposition of the owner and the possessed, or can be morphological concatenation or fusion; there are also more complex strategies, such as case markers, which include additional morphemes with a higher degree of grammaticalization. Class markers and so on. Therefore, the possessory relationship is a category which is strongly restricted by the national culture, and its composition varies from culture to culture.
Obviously, we have determined the grammatical category of possession by means of semantic means. Different languages have great differences in the structure of possession, which is in line with the goal of linguistic typology and interpretation. It then examines the morphological syntactic constructions or strategies that encode this type of situation. Finally, it searches for the dependencies between the constructions used in this type of situation and other factors, that is, other structural features, other external functions expressed by the constructions, or both (Croft, 2) Therefore, this paper is based on the determination of the possessory structure as the research object to carry out different types of analysis and interpretation. Chapter 1 as a theoretical basis, on the possessory relationship and typological generality of two aspects made a more detailed exposition.
In addition, as a basic feature of typology, cross-linguistic comparison plays an important role in linguistic analysis. It not only enables us to re-examine and explain linguistic phenomena in a single language from a different perspective, but also induces linguistic phenomena in general through different languages. Comparability, that is, identifying the same grammatical phenomena in different languages. Greenberg, in his original paper on word order, provides a basic answer to the question of cross-linguistic comparability:
All languages have subject-predicate structures, parts of speech, and territorial structures, etc. I am quite clear that people use basically semantic criteria in determining these phenomena in languages with different structures. 984)
Undoubtedly, we have just pointed out that possession is a grammatical phenomenon that can be determined in different cultures and languages, and that it is feasible to use it as an object of cross-linguistic comparison. Then the next question is the selection of language samples. Theoretically, the more languages are examined, the more convincing the results are. In fact, there are also. Many linguists have done this by investigating two or three hundred languages in the world. The corpus is extremely rich. However, in the circumstances that we can not do, we take Spanish and Chinese as the main samples. The most important reason is that the two languages are very representative. From the genealogy point of view, Chinese belongs to the Sino-Tibetan language family, while Western belongs to Indo-European language. Morphologically, the former is a typical isolated language, while the latter is a typical inflectional language. There is no kinship between the two languages, there is a great difference between them and the language is far away. Chinese, sometimes similar to Western, of course, the latter case is more, because it is closer to Western; secondly, most of the Western language, Chinese learners have a good foundation in English, the introduction of English to facilitate comparison.
So far, we have clearly defined the object and method of study. Simply speaking, it is to compare the Chinese and Western possession structures from the perspective of typology. This is relatively new in both Chinese and Western linguistic circles. From Zhu Dexi's "de" to Shen Jiaxu, Shi Yuzhi, Zhang Min, Lu Bingfu, and many other linguists agree that "de" should be dealt with in a unified way in terms of boundedness, cognition, marking theory and functionality. In recent years, typology research is flourishing in China, and the classics of typology abroad have been translated into Chinese, introducing advanced typological theories and research results to China, such as William Croft's "Linguistic Typology and Linguistic Commonalities" and Bernard Comry's "Linguistic Commonalities and Linguistic Types". At the same time, Liu Danqing, Lu Bingfu, Jin Lixin and other scholars have published papers and books on typology, which has greatly promoted the development of Typology in China. In the field of Western linguistics, the study of possessive pronouns is generally centered on genitive pronouns, which are more or less described in the grammar books of Western languages. In addition, some monographs and papers on genitive pronouns have been published, mainly on their attributes and usages. In the field of Western typology, the representative figure is Luke. Durant and Moreno Cabrera, the former editors of the Collection of Typological Studies (1997) and the author of Brief History of Typology (1998), give a comprehensive review of the development of typology; the latter, the World of Language (2003), gives a detailed classification of languages in the world. The history and current situation of genus and typology study reveal that Sino-Western linguists have a deep understanding of the study of native languages, but it is rare that both genus and typology are taken as the main objects of observation. Therefore, this paper attempts to make a breakthrough in this respect.
As we have already said, this paper will adopt the typological approach, that is, from typological description to typological generalization and interpretation. In the description, the possessive structure is divided into two basic levels: phrase and clause, and then the subordinate classification is carried out, which is put in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 respectively. The semantic relation used by the speaker to indicate ownership when he wants to refer to the possessed item is that the possessed item is the central word of the noun phrase and the owner is its modifier. The modifier can be either a noun or a personal pronoun. Although the forms are different, we can always find a certain type which is more commonly used in this language, that is, the so-called basic type. But within the framework of typology, such a word order fits well with the universal law of world languages, that is, Article 2 of the 45 commonalities summarized by Greenberg: the language in which the preposition is used is almost entirely modified by the genitive case. (Greenberg, 1966) In possessive phrases with pronouns as determiners, Chinese maintains the basic type of the word "de" structure, while Western uses prepositional or postpositional generic pronouns. In addition to the basic types, there are also other forms of possessive expression in Western Han Dynasty. For example, the ellipsis of the core noun, the default of the word "de" in Chinese, the use of the word "de", the use of adjectives in Western languages, and the substitution of articles for genitive pronouns.
On the clause level, both Chinese and Western possessive sentences can be made up of possessive verbs, and the basic distinctions are "you" and tener. In most cases, both of them can be found corresponding to each other in the expression of possessive relationship. The sentence structure is typical SVO: subject possessor-predicate possessive verb-object possessive object possessive. It is obvious that the Chinese "you" sentence can express the existential relation, that is, the so-called time-space relation, which corresponds to the Western verb haber. It can be seen from this that the spatial-temporal relation is regarded as a generalized domain in Chinese, but not in Western, which is in line with the different domain of the languages mentioned earlier. The common types of simple sentences are also the adverbial and adverbial de structures used to express "yes" (ser), which are similar in usage and correspond to the possessive noun phrase structures. The two structures are common to both Hanxi and have great similarities and are easier to grasp. However, in fact, what we are more interested in and worth further studying are the two languages. For example, the dative structure in Western language and the subject-predicate sentence in Chinese [NP+ (Np+VP)] seem to have nothing to do with the surface of the two structures, but from the perspective of subordination, we are surprised to find out the internal relationship between the two, that is, the commonness hidden behind the structure. The closer the relationship between possessors, such as body parts, personal clothing, articles of use, kinship, etc., the more inclined they are to use these two sentence structures instead of the original basic types. We also see the relative clauses expressing possession. There are obvious relative words in Western languages as markers, including Que and cuyo. The corresponding Chinese expressions can be "de" or "qi".
After describing the types in detail, we summarize the focus of these types in Chapter 4 and explain their causes. We find that the key problem of Chinese possessive structure lies in the presence of the word "de". In the final analysis, both in phrases and clauses, the variation of types depends on this. The focus of the contradiction in Western language is whether genitive pronouns are used or not. If not, they must be expressed by other means. This is why articles are substituted and dative cases are used. Topicalization, life span and transferability. These four factors run through our analysis and play an important role in our research. However, at a deeper level, typology believes that we need to resort to each other.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：H030

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 Joseph H.Greenberg;陸丙甫;陸致極;;某些主要跟語(yǔ)序有關(guān)的語(yǔ)法普遍現(xiàn)象[J];國(guó)外語(yǔ)言學(xué);1984年02期

2 戴浩一;黃河;;時(shí)間順序和漢語(yǔ)的語(yǔ)序[J];國(guó)外語(yǔ)言學(xué);1988年01期

3 戴浩一;葉蜚聲;;以認(rèn)知為基礎(chǔ)的漢語(yǔ)功能語(yǔ)法芻議(上)[J];國(guó)外語(yǔ)言學(xué);1990年04期

4 戴浩一;葉蜚聲;;以認(rèn)知為基礎(chǔ)的漢語(yǔ)功能語(yǔ)法芻議(下)[J];國(guó)外語(yǔ)言學(xué);1991年01期

5 金立鑫;對(duì)一些普遍語(yǔ)序現(xiàn)象的功能解釋[J];當(dāng)代語(yǔ)言學(xué);1999年04期

6 陸丙甫;從賓語(yǔ)標(biāo)記的分布看語(yǔ)言類(lèi)型學(xué)的功能分析[J];當(dāng)代語(yǔ)言學(xué);2001年04期

7 陸丙甫;語(yǔ)序優(yōu)勢(shì)的認(rèn)知解釋(上):論可別度對(duì)語(yǔ)序的普遍影響[J];當(dāng)代語(yǔ)言學(xué);2005年01期

8 陸丙甫;語(yǔ)序優(yōu)勢(shì)的認(rèn)知解釋(下):論可別度對(duì)語(yǔ)序的普遍影響[J];當(dāng)代語(yǔ)言學(xué);2005年02期

9 劉永耕;試論名詞性定語(yǔ)的指稱(chēng)特點(diǎn)和分類(lèi)——兼及同位短語(yǔ)的指稱(chēng)問(wèn)題[J];福建師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1999年03期

10 朱德熙;;從方言和歷史看狀態(tài)形容詞的名詞化[J];方言;1993年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：2242894