【摘要】：本文主要討論了現(xiàn)代漢語(yǔ)中含有相同語(yǔ)素、意思相近的單雙音節(jié)助動(dòng)詞的異同，選取了“該、應(yīng)該、可、可以、能、可能”這六個(gè)較常用的助動(dòng)詞分三組進(jìn)行考察。除緒論和結(jié)語(yǔ)外，本文具體包括以下四部分： 一、“該”與“應(yīng)該”的主觀性差異及其習(xí)語(yǔ)化傾向�！霸摗钡闹饔^性大于“應(yīng)該”；“該”與“會(huì)”、“是”可以通過(guò)形式否定組成“該不會(huì)”、“該不是”表示言者推斷某事可能發(fā)生，有習(xí)語(yǔ)化傾向；而“應(yīng)該”與“不會(huì)”、“不是”連用時(shí)，“不”仍然是否定副詞，“應(yīng)該不會(huì)”、“應(yīng)該不是”表示言者推斷某事不可能發(fā)生。 二、“可”與“可以”的功能性差異及其語(yǔ)體特征�！翱伞焙汀翱梢浴弊铒@著的差別體現(xiàn)在語(yǔ)體差別上：“可”一般出現(xiàn)在書面語(yǔ)中，，只有在正反對(duì)舉時(shí)才用于口語(yǔ)中。 三、“能”與“可能”的情態(tài)差異及其句類選擇。在表達(dá)說(shuō)話人的主觀推測(cè)和估計(jì)時(shí)，“能”的確信度高于“可能”；在表示句子主語(yǔ)存在的可能性時(shí)，“能”表現(xiàn)出一種依據(jù)性。正因?yàn)檫@種依據(jù)性和客觀性，“能”對(duì)句類的選擇上也呈現(xiàn)明顯的不平衡性：疑問(wèn)句最多、否定句次之、肯定句較少。 四、單雙音節(jié)助動(dòng)詞差異的進(jìn)一步思考。第四章討論了這三組助動(dòng)詞在構(gòu)詞能力、語(yǔ)體或文體差異以及與其他助動(dòng)詞連用情況等三方面的差異，并試圖對(duì)“助動(dòng)詞+動(dòng)詞”結(jié)構(gòu)關(guān)系這一語(yǔ)言學(xué)界的研究熱點(diǎn)問(wèn)題提出一些自己的新看法。在構(gòu)詞能力方面，“該、可、能”中，“可”的構(gòu)詞能力最強(qiáng)，“能”次之，“該”最弱。在語(yǔ)體、文體差異方面，“能”與“可能”的語(yǔ)體、文體差異不明顯；“可”與“可以”的語(yǔ)體差異最突出；“該”有比“應(yīng)該”更適用于新聞標(biāo)題這一細(xì)微的文體差異。在與其他典型助動(dòng)詞直接連用方面，這三組助動(dòng)詞中單音節(jié)助動(dòng)詞連用能力均弱于雙音節(jié)助動(dòng)詞。我們認(rèn)為助動(dòng)詞表示動(dòng)力情態(tài)義和道義情態(tài)義時(shí)，“助動(dòng)詞+動(dòng)詞”結(jié)構(gòu)呈“述賓”關(guān)系；助動(dòng)詞表示認(rèn)識(shí)情態(tài)義時(shí)，“助動(dòng)詞+動(dòng)詞”結(jié)構(gòu)呈“狀中”關(guān)系。
[Abstract]:This paper mainly discusses the similarities and differences of monosyllabic auxiliary verbs with the same morpheme and similar meaning in modern Chinese, and selects "this, should, can, can and may" which are six more commonly used auxiliary verbs to be investigated in three groups. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper includes the following four parts: first, the subjective difference between "this" and "should" and its idiom tendency. "this" is more subjective than "should"; "should" and "will"; "can be formed through formal negation"; "should not" indicate that something may happen and tends to be idiomatic; and "should" and "not" When not, "no" is still a negative adverb, "should not", "should not" means that the speaker inferred that something could not happen. Second, the functional differences between "can" and "can" and their stylistic characteristics. The most significant difference between "can" and "can" lies in the style difference: "can" usually appears in written language and is used in spoken language only when it is opposed to it. Thirdly, the modal difference between "can" and "possibility" and the choice of sentence types. In expressing the subjective speculation and estimation of the speaker, the degree of certainty of "can" is higher than that of "possible", and the "can" shows a kind of basis when indicating the possibility of the existence of sentence subject. Because of this kind of basis and objectivity, "Neng" also presents obvious imbalance in the choice of sentence categories: the interrogative sentence is the most, the negative sentence is the second, and the positive sentence is less. Fourth, the further thinking about the difference of the auxiliary verbs of monosyllabic and double syllable. The fourth chapter discusses the three groups of auxiliary verbs in terms of word-formation ability, stylistic or stylistic differences, and their use with other auxiliary verbs. It also tries to put forward some new views on the structural relationship of auxiliary verbs, which is a hot topic in linguistic circles. In terms of word-formation ability, "can, can" is the strongest, "can" is second, "can" is the weakest. In terms of stylistic and stylistic differences, the stylistic differences between "can" and "may" are not obvious; "can" and "can" are most prominent; "this" is more suitable for the subtle stylistic differences of news headlines than "should". In the aspect of direct connection with other typical auxiliary verbs, the ability of monosyllabic auxiliary verbs in these three groups is weaker than that of disyllabic auxiliary verbs. We think that when auxiliary verbs denote dynamic modal meaning and moral modal meaning, the structure of "auxiliary verb" takes on the relation of "statement object" and "auxiliary verb" structure takes on the relation of "medium" when the auxiliary verb indicates the understanding of modal meaning.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：H146

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李琦;;略論助動(dòng)詞“可以”[J];安徽文學(xué)(下半月);2009年07期

2 朱冠明;情態(tài)與漢語(yǔ)情態(tài)動(dòng)詞[J];山東外語(yǔ)教學(xué);2005年02期

3 寧姍;;用語(yǔ)言對(duì)比方法進(jìn)行漢語(yǔ)教學(xué)點(diǎn)滴——能愿動(dòng)詞“能”和“可以”教學(xué)札記[J];世界漢語(yǔ)教學(xué);1990年03期

4 于康;;命題內(nèi)成分與命題外成分——以漢語(yǔ)助動(dòng)詞為例[J];世界漢語(yǔ)教學(xué);1996年01期

5 胡樹鮮;;“可能”義項(xiàng)淺說(shuō)[J];邏輯與語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí);1988年02期

6 李基安;情態(tài)意義研究[J];外國(guó)語(yǔ)(上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));1998年03期

7 羅驥;釋“該”[J];云南教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1999年06期

8 周小兵;“會(huì)”和“能”及其在句中的換用[J];煙臺(tái)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1989年04期

9 李明;“能”“可以”析微[J];語(yǔ)文建設(shè);2000年12期

10 張誼生;;語(yǔ)法化現(xiàn)象在不同層面中的句法表現(xiàn)[J];語(yǔ)文研究;2010年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 宋永圭;現(xiàn)代漢語(yǔ)情態(tài)動(dòng)詞“能”的否定研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2004年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 徐曉菁;現(xiàn)代漢語(yǔ)可能情態(tài)研究[D];華東師范大學(xué);2007年

2 曾錦程;漢語(yǔ)可能性認(rèn)識(shí)情態(tài)動(dòng)詞的語(yǔ)法化研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2009年

本文編號(hào)：2271871