【摘要】：系詞一直是哲學(xué)、語言學(xué)中的一個(gè)重要話題,何為“to be”、何為“是”都是爭(zhēng)議不清的話題。但現(xiàn)代漢語的“是”卻因?yàn)檫^于尋常而被理所應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)氐玫搅艘恍┒ㄎ弧挥忻~謂語句和部分形容詞謂語句中的“是”是判斷動(dòng)詞；而動(dòng)詞謂語句里看似可有可無的“是”或被認(rèn)為是語氣副詞,或?yàn)榻裹c(diǎn)標(biāo)記。其他動(dòng)詞相比,“是”因?yàn)槠鋭?dòng)態(tài)性、及物性等明顯的動(dòng)詞性特征,更加適合充當(dāng)小句謂語。為什么從古至今,漢語的主謂之間都能見到“是”的身影?古代漢語中,所謂“是”虛化為焦點(diǎn)標(biāo)記之前,為什么可以和其后動(dòng)詞短語連用?到底“是”是不是可有可無?“是”有沒有語義價(jià)值?為什么漢語幾乎所有的小句都可以插入“是”?這些諸多的問題都有待一個(gè)清晰的解釋。本文使用傳統(tǒng)句法層級(jí)分析、認(rèn)知語言學(xué)的理論,并借鑒生成語法的一些研究方法和成果,期望對(duì)“是”及其幾個(gè)相關(guān)問題做細(xì)致、可靠的研究。 文章首先從“是”的語義價(jià)值入手,通過比較因“是”而語義不同的“只”和“只是”,嘗試解讀“是”究竟有沒有為“只”向“只是”的演化提供語義和句法上的價(jià)值。隨后,將“是”放置于含不同類別情態(tài)詞的小句中,以“是”和情態(tài)詞互動(dòng)的句法限制為基礎(chǔ)去探索“是”的語義內(nèi)容。當(dāng)“是”的語義真值得到確認(rèn),“是”的句法性質(zhì)重新定位即是本文的下一步目標(biāo)。如果“是”只是焦點(diǎn)標(biāo)記,那么“只”和“只是”的語義區(qū)別得不到解釋,“是”和情態(tài)詞互動(dòng)時(shí)的句法限制以及“是”與疑問代詞共現(xiàn)時(shí)的所謂雙重強(qiáng)式焦點(diǎn)矛盾也得不到解釋。當(dāng)我們回歸“是”的判斷動(dòng)詞定位之后,所以的問題都不再是問題。 動(dòng)詞(短語)謂語前的“是”是焦點(diǎn)標(biāo)記還是判斷動(dòng)詞,這實(shí)質(zhì)上關(guān)系著漢語的詞類劃分。為什么現(xiàn)代漢語幾乎所有的動(dòng)詞短語都能充當(dāng)判斷動(dòng)詞“是”的賓語?名詞和動(dòng)詞是相互獨(dú)立還是包含關(guān)系?本文比較了以往關(guān)于動(dòng)詞和動(dòng)詞短語做主賓語時(shí)的所謂“名詞化”、“名物化”策略,以及“小句投射”觀的不足。在漢語名詞和動(dòng)詞短語的平行研究中發(fā)現(xiàn),動(dòng)詞(短語)不僅可以同名詞一樣無標(biāo)記地占據(jù)小句的主賓語位置,同時(shí),動(dòng)詞能受副詞修飾這一被認(rèn)為是唯一的、最可靠的名動(dòng)詞區(qū)別性特征卻一直沒有喪失。即是說,動(dòng)詞和動(dòng)詞短語在做主賓語時(shí),語用上是指稱語,句法上仍然是動(dòng)詞性,沒有改變。名詞和動(dòng)詞(短語)的唯一區(qū)別是動(dòng)詞(短語)能無標(biāo)記充當(dāng)陳述語。歷時(shí)的語料觀察也發(fā)現(xiàn),動(dòng)詞短語在“是”成為判斷動(dòng)詞的前后一直能無標(biāo)記地充當(dāng)主賓語。隨后,動(dòng)詞短語做話題時(shí)的句法分析、以及VP短語做謂語核心的回指問題研究進(jìn)一步驗(yàn)證了漢語動(dòng)詞(短語)既是陳述語又是指稱語的觀點(diǎn)。 和“是”緊密相關(guān)的另一個(gè)問題是其“主觀性”。語言的演變總是與說話人的語言的主觀化運(yùn)用相生相伴,“是”從其指代用法到判斷用法的語義變化中,也伴隨著主觀性的增強(qiáng)。所謂的“不合邏輯”系詞句是考察“是”主觀性用法的最好窗口。既往關(guān)于“不合邏輯”系詞句的研究,以“轉(zhuǎn)指說”和“空主語說”為主,這兩種說法都遇到一些不可回避的問題�！笆恰钡闹饔^認(rèn)同義才是解決問題的關(guān)鍵。研究發(fā)現(xiàn),不同語言中系詞的來源和主觀性程度不同影響了該語言對(duì)“不合邏輯”系詞句的允準(zhǔn)情形是不同的。漢語的“是”來自于意義本義很虛的指示代詞,和來源于實(shí)義動(dòng)詞的意大利語系詞“sono”、粵語系詞“�！毕啾�,其高度的主觀化程度允準(zhǔn)了漢語普通話里的“不合邏輯”系詞句。當(dāng)情態(tài)副詞“梗”用于粵語的系詞句之后,原本不合法的粵語“不合邏輯”系詞句在“�！钡闹饔^情態(tài)義輔助之下才變得合法。 進(jìn)一步關(guān)于“是”主觀認(rèn)同義的研究聚焦在“要是、若是”等假設(shè)連詞中“是”的構(gòu)詞基礎(chǔ)解釋。無論是類型學(xué)的研究成果,或者是其他漢語假設(shè)連詞歷時(shí)虛化過程的回顧都說明,“主觀認(rèn)同”義是假設(shè)連詞的最重要語義基礎(chǔ)�！笆恰钡闹饔^義符合了假設(shè)連詞的語義要求,判斷動(dòng)詞“是”能以主謂小句為其補(bǔ)足語的特性也幫助“要”、“就”等單音節(jié)句中假設(shè)連詞在和“是”的連用中從句中走向了句首,使得“要是、就是”出現(xiàn)在單音節(jié)假設(shè)連詞“要、就”等不能占據(jù)的句法位置。 最后,本文把研究拓展到了句末的“了”(即“了2”)�！笆恰焙汀坝小彼P(guān)注的“是非”和“存在”問題是語言中最基礎(chǔ)性概念,也是人類認(rèn)識(shí)世界的基礎(chǔ)問題。句末“的”因?yàn)槌：汀笆恰币黄疬B用形成所謂“事態(tài)句”,所以得到了情態(tài)語氣詞的定位�！傲�2”和“的”的平行研究表明“了2”和句末“的”有幾乎一致的用法�！傲�2”也并非關(guān)注動(dòng)詞短語的時(shí)、態(tài)等“存在”問題,它所在小句的句法語義研究、否定形式研究,以及“了2”的歷時(shí)研究,都指出,“了2”和“是非”問題有關(guān)�！傲�2”的情態(tài)語氣詞定位符合語料中“了2”被大量用于主觀句和傳信句的語言事實(shí)。
[Abstract]:The word "to" is an important topic in linguistics. What is the "be" and "yes" is a controversial topic. But the "yes" in modern Chinese is too ordinary to get some orientation - only the noun predicate and some adjectives are the judgment verbs; The verb predicate sentence seems to be a "yes" or is regarded as a mood adverb or a focus mark. Compared to other verbs, "yes" because of its dynamic, transitivity and other obvious verb characteristics, more suitable for acting as a clause predicate. Before the so-called "is" as a focus mark, why can it be used with the following verb phrase? Is it "yes" in the end? Is there any semantic value? Why can almost all the small clauses in Chinese be inserted "yes"? Many of these problems have to be explained clearly. This article uses the traditional syntactic hierarchy. By analyzing the theory of cognitive linguistics and drawing on some research methods and achievements of generative grammar, we expect to make a detailed and reliable study of "yes" and its related issues.
The article begins with the semantic value of "is" and compares the semantic and syntactic value of "yes" to the evolution of "only" by comparing "only" and "just" with different semantic meanings because of "is". The syntactic restriction of the interaction of modality words is based on the semantic content of "yes". When the true value of the "yes" is confirmed, the reorientation of the syntactic nature of "yes" is the next goal of this article. If "yes" is only a focus mark, then the meaning of "only" and "just" can not be explained, "yes" and "modal words" each other. The syntactic restriction of dynamic time and the so-called dual strong focus contradiction between "yes" and interrogative pronouns can not be explained. When we return to the "yes" judgment verb, the problem is no longer a problem.
The verb (phrase) predicate is the focus mark or the judgment verb before the predicate, which is essentially related to the classification of the Chinese words. Why can almost all the verb phrases in modern Chinese act as the object of judging the verb "yes"? Is the noun and verb mutually independent or contained? This article compares the past about the verb and the verb. The so-called "nominalization", "nominalization" strategy and the inadequacy of the "small sentence projection" view in the main object of the language. In the parallel study of the Chinese nouns and verb phrases, it is found that the verb (phrase) can not only occupy the main object position of the clause with the same name word, while the verb can be modified by the adverb to be the only one. The most reliable distinguishing feature of the noun verb has never been lost. That is, when the verb and the verb phrase are in the main object, they are pragmatically the denotational language, and the syntax is still a verb, without change. The only difference between the noun and the verb (phrase) is that the verb (phrase) can not be marked as a statement. The diachronic observation of the corpus and the verb phrase Then, the syntactic analysis of the verb phrase when it is a topic, and the study of the anaphora of the VP phrase as the core of the predicate, further verify that the Chinese verb (phrase) is both a declarative and a referential point.
Another problem closely related to "yes" is its "subjectivity". The evolution of language is always associated with the subjective use of the speaker's language. "It is" from its meaning to the semantic change of the use of judgment, but also with the enhancement of subjectivity. The so-called "illogical" words are the subjective usage of "yes". The best window. The previous study of "illogical" words, which are mainly "turn finger" and "empty subject", all meet some unavoidable problems. "Yes" is the key to solve the problem. It is found that the origin and subjectivity of different languages in different languages affect the two different languages. The "yes" in the language is different. The "yes" in Chinese comes from the demonstrative pronoun with very weak meaning, and the Italian word "sono" derived from the real meaning verb, and the degree of subjectivism of the Cantonese word is compared to the word "illogical" in Mandarin Chinese. When the modal adverb "stalks" is used in the Cantonese words, the original unlawful "unlogical" words of the Cantonese language become legal under the assistance of the subjective modality of the "stalemate".
Further research on "yes" is focused on the explanation of "yes" in the hypothetical conjunctions, such as if, if it is the research results of typology, or the retrospect of the diachronic process of other Chinese hypothesized conjunctions, "subjective identity" is the most important semantic basis for hypothesis conjunctions. "Yes" The subjective meaning of the verb conforms to the semantic requirements of the hypothetical conjunctions, judging that the verb "is" can also help "to" with the characteristic of the subject predicate clause as its complement, and the single syllable sentence, such as "right", assumes that the conjunctions go to the first sentence in the clause of the continuous use of the "yes", so that "if, it is" in the monosyllabic hypothetical conjunctions "want," and so on. The occupied syntactic position.
Finally, this paper extends the study to the end of the sentence ("2"). The "yes" and "existence" concerns are the most basic concepts in the language and the basic problem of the human understanding of the world. The parallel study of "2" and "" shows that "the 2" and "the" at the end of the sentence have almost identical usage. "The 2" is not concerned with the verb phrase, the state of the "existence" problem, the sentence French meaning research, the negative form study, and the diachronic study of "the 2", all points out, "2" and "2" The location of modal particles in "2" is consistent with the fact that "2" has been used in subjective and oral sentences widely.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南開大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：H146

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 朱德熙;現(xiàn)代書面漢語里的虛化動(dòng)詞和名動(dòng)詞 為第一屆國(guó)際漢語教學(xué)討論會(huì)而作[J];北京大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1985年05期

2 張和友;;情態(tài)確認(rèn)型“是”字構(gòu)式中“是”的語義功能[J];北京大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年02期

3 何思成;談“是”的語法功能[J];成都大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1984年02期

4 范曉;同音同形的“是”的分化[J];辭書研究;1996年02期

5 吳福祥;關(guān)于語法化的單向性問題[J];當(dāng)代語言學(xué);2003年04期

6 司富珍;中心語理論和漢語的DeP[J];當(dāng)代語言學(xué);2004年01期

7 董秀芳;“是”的進(jìn)一步語法化:由虛詞到詞內(nèi)成分[J];當(dāng)代語言學(xué);2004年01期

8 張和友;鄧思穎;;與空語類相關(guān)的特異型“是”字句的句法、語義[J];當(dāng)代語言學(xué);2010年01期

9 劉勛寧;現(xiàn)代漢語句尾“了”的來源[J];方言;1985年02期

10 段德森;副詞轉(zhuǎn)化為連詞淺說[J];古漢語研究;1991年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：2124222