本文選題：漢語(yǔ) + 單音節(jié)��； 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2017年博士論文

【摘要】：由于漢語(yǔ)研究傳統(tǒng)“向無(wú)文法之學(xué)”,從來(lái)不講名詞、動(dòng)詞、形容詞和主語(yǔ)、謂語(yǔ)、賓語(yǔ),因此,要建立漢語(yǔ)語(yǔ)法體系,便不得不向西方學(xué)習(xí),即借鑒西方先進(jìn)語(yǔ)言理論、研究方法來(lái)研究漢語(yǔ)語(yǔ)法結(jié)構(gòu)。但實(shí)踐過(guò)程中,研究者遇到的難題是:如何實(shí)現(xiàn)西方語(yǔ)言理論與漢語(yǔ)句法結(jié)構(gòu)規(guī)律研究的有效結(jié)合。盡管研究者對(duì)此做出過(guò)大量努力,但結(jié)合的成效至今甚微,諸如詞類劃分等基本問(wèn)題遲遲未能得到妥善解決,經(jīng)常發(fā)生周期性爭(zhēng)論。主要原因便在于以往研究往往存在“印歐語(yǔ)眼光”.:把印歐語(yǔ)所有而為漢語(yǔ)所無(wú)的東西強(qiáng)加給漢語(yǔ)。這使得研究者近來(lái)得出印歐語(yǔ)語(yǔ)法理論不大適合用于漢語(yǔ)語(yǔ)法研究的經(jīng)驗(yàn)總結(jié),并進(jìn)一步提出以下研究共識(shí):擺脫“印歐語(yǔ)眼光”,實(shí)現(xiàn)西方先進(jìn)理論、方法與漢語(yǔ)研究有效結(jié)合的前提在于首先要弄清楚漢語(yǔ)的實(shí)際究竟是什么樣子的。漢語(yǔ)詞類研究也不例外:應(yīng)從尋找我們碰巧熟悉的語(yǔ)言所重視的區(qū)分轉(zhuǎn)向?qū)ふ覞h語(yǔ)自身重視的區(qū)分。本研究不僅是對(duì)這一“轉(zhuǎn)向”理念的實(shí)踐,同時(shí)也是對(duì)這一理念的實(shí)證。由于單音節(jié)漢字詞是漢語(yǔ)初始性結(jié)構(gòu)單位,加之遵循由簡(jiǎn)及繁的研究順序,本研究以單音節(jié)名詞和動(dòng)詞為研究對(duì)象。另外,出于對(duì)相關(guān)學(xué)者提出的“根據(jù)詞的意義劃分詞類是行不通的”(朱德熙1985: 10)理論主張的反思,本研究擬考察以下三個(gè)基本問(wèn)題:(1)由單個(gè)漢字構(gòu)成的漢語(yǔ)單音節(jié)名詞和動(dòng)詞在詞匯層面是否存在漢語(yǔ)說(shuō)話者重視的區(qū)分?換言之,漢語(yǔ)單音節(jié)名詞和動(dòng)詞的加工過(guò)程是否存在顯著神經(jīng)分離性,如存在,導(dǎo)致二者分離的因素是什么? (2)漢語(yǔ)和屈折語(yǔ)(主指英語(yǔ)和德語(yǔ))詞類加工過(guò)程是否存在顯著神經(jīng)類型學(xué)差異?(3)如存在,這種神經(jīng)類型學(xué)差異在語(yǔ)言層面表現(xiàn)如何?研究者又應(yīng)如何透過(guò)這些語(yǔ)言差異尋找語(yǔ)際普遍性詞類?本研究共開(kāi)展了兩項(xiàng)事件相關(guān)電位(ERP)實(shí)驗(yàn)和一項(xiàng)問(wèn)卷調(diào)查實(shí)驗(yàn)。兩項(xiàng)ERP實(shí)驗(yàn)分別對(duì)漢語(yǔ)光桿單音節(jié)名詞、動(dòng)詞和“名-動(dòng)”兼類詞(參見(jiàn)第四、五章)以及違反語(yǔ)境下漢語(yǔ)單音節(jié)名詞和動(dòng)詞(第六章)的神經(jīng)加工機(jī)制展開(kāi)考察,旨在回答問(wèn)題(1)和(2)。問(wèn)卷調(diào)查實(shí)驗(yàn)(第七章)旨在基于漢語(yǔ)本族語(yǔ)說(shuō)話者的自然語(yǔ)感,考察“名-動(dòng)”詞類跨語(yǔ)言普遍性概念基礎(chǔ)的心理真實(shí)性、詞類語(yǔ)言專屬性和構(gòu)式專屬性,進(jìn)而回答問(wèn)題(3)。通過(guò)實(shí)驗(yàn)考察,得出以下研究發(fā)現(xiàn)和結(jié)論:(1)與以往研究(楊亦鳴等2002)未觀察到漢語(yǔ)光桿單音節(jié)詞語(yǔ)存在顯著“名-動(dòng)”詞類效應(yīng)不同,本研究發(fā)現(xiàn)光桿單音節(jié)名詞和動(dòng)詞存在顯著神經(jīng)分離性,即后者比前者誘發(fā)更負(fù)的額葉N100,這表明后者獲得更多的早期視覺(jué)注意加工�？疾毂緦�(shí)驗(yàn)所選構(gòu)成單音節(jié)名詞和動(dòng)詞的漢字特征后,我們發(fā)現(xiàn),構(gòu)成單音節(jié)動(dòng)詞的漢字具有更為鮮明一致的義符,據(jù)此推斷,正是這些義符本身所具有的語(yǔ)義、句法功能提示性或其所致的漢字空間構(gòu)字特征,導(dǎo)致單音節(jié)動(dòng)詞獲得更多的早期視覺(jué)注意加工。這為義符可作為漢語(yǔ)單音節(jié)詞語(yǔ)劃類標(biāo)準(zhǔn)提供了實(shí)證依據(jù)。通過(guò)將光桿單音節(jié)“名-動(dòng)”兼類詞誘發(fā)的神經(jīng)加工機(jī)制分別與相應(yīng)名詞和動(dòng)詞進(jìn)行比較分析后發(fā)現(xiàn),“名-動(dòng)”兼類詞與名詞具有完全相同的神經(jīng)加工機(jī)制;與動(dòng)詞存在早期視覺(jué)加工差異即動(dòng)詞比兼類詞誘發(fā)更負(fù)的額葉N100,這依然與所選動(dòng)詞具有更為一致的義符相關(guān)。(2)通過(guò)對(duì)違反語(yǔ)境中漢語(yǔ)單音節(jié)名詞和動(dòng)詞神經(jīng)加工機(jī)制的考察發(fā)現(xiàn),二者在“詞類+語(yǔ)義”雙違反條件下誘發(fā)相同的ERP反應(yīng)型式,即均誘發(fā)一個(gè)標(biāo)志詞匯語(yǔ)義整合加工的N400成分。這與以往基于英語(yǔ)和德語(yǔ)等印歐語(yǔ)的實(shí)驗(yàn)發(fā)現(xiàn)相左:印歐語(yǔ)雙違反句誘發(fā)的反應(yīng)型式為“ELAN+P600”(Friederici 2002, 2011; Friederici et al. 1999; Hahne Friederici 1999, 2002)�；谏鲜� ERP成分的功能關(guān)聯(lián)性推知:漢語(yǔ)單音節(jié)“名-動(dòng)”詞類確實(shí)存在與印歐語(yǔ)詞類加工不相一致的神經(jīng)類型學(xué)特點(diǎn),上述神經(jīng)類型學(xué)特點(diǎn)支持印歐語(yǔ)是語(yǔ)法型語(yǔ)言、漢語(yǔ)是語(yǔ)義型語(yǔ)言的漢印類型學(xué)差異觀。(3)問(wèn)卷調(diào)查結(jié)果證實(shí)基本語(yǔ)義范疇(物體vs.動(dòng)作)可為主要詞類(名詞vs.動(dòng)詞)提供心理真實(shí)性和跨語(yǔ)言普遍性概念基礎(chǔ),這為尋找跨語(yǔ)言普遍性詞類提供了可能。同時(shí),上述調(diào)查結(jié)果也證實(shí)了詞類的“形-義”符號(hào)本質(zhì),即詞類并非結(jié)構(gòu)主義語(yǔ)言學(xué)家所說(shuō)的單純的“形類”,而是“形式-意義”的配對(duì)。另外,漢語(yǔ)說(shuō)話者的自然語(yǔ)感證實(shí)詞類存在構(gòu)式專屬性:詞語(yǔ)-構(gòu)式組合存在原型效應(yīng),同一詞語(yǔ)可因構(gòu)式類型差異而表現(xiàn)出不同的句法功能,且這些功能之間存在程度差異。構(gòu)式專屬性進(jìn)一步說(shuō)明不同個(gè)體語(yǔ)言所含詞類存在語(yǔ)際差異,該差異主要表現(xiàn)為詞類形式表征手段存在的跨語(yǔ)言差異。因此,詞類不僅存在構(gòu)式專屬性還存在語(yǔ)言專屬性。詞類的語(yǔ)言專屬性和構(gòu)式專屬性要求:相關(guān)理論和實(shí)證研究必須為其所考察詞語(yǔ)嵌入的構(gòu)式語(yǔ)境提供詳盡且具有理論基礎(chǔ)的定義,以保證不同研究之間研究結(jié)果的可比性。基于上述實(shí)驗(yàn)發(fā)現(xiàn),我們對(duì)漢語(yǔ)詞類得出以下認(rèn)識(shí):(1)對(duì)于存在義符優(yōu)勢(shì)不對(duì)稱性的漢語(yǔ)光桿單音節(jié)名詞和動(dòng)詞而言,二者存在顯著神經(jīng)分離性,這說(shuō)明,與印歐語(yǔ)一樣,漢語(yǔ)也存在鮮明的名動(dòng)分立關(guān)系。(2)與屈折語(yǔ)(主指英語(yǔ)和德語(yǔ))說(shuō)話者更多依賴形態(tài)信息進(jìn)行詞類加工操作不同,漢語(yǔ)說(shuō)話者則更多依賴語(yǔ)義信息開(kāi)展相關(guān)詞類加工。(3)上述神經(jīng)類型學(xué)差異在語(yǔ)言類型學(xué)層面具體表現(xiàn)為詞類形式表征手段的跨語(yǔ)言差異——與屈折語(yǔ)詞語(yǔ)基于鮮明形態(tài)標(biāo)記標(biāo)志其詞類信息不同,標(biāo)志漢語(yǔ)單音節(jié)詞語(yǔ)詞類信息的可以是具有鮮明詞類提示性的義符;詞類的跨語(yǔ)言形式表征手段差異表明,跨語(yǔ)言共性詞類不可能在語(yǔ)言形式層面得以探尋,相反,詞類“形-義”符號(hào)本質(zhì)決定了語(yǔ)際普遍性詞類只能在概念語(yǔ)義層面得以尋找。
[Abstract]:Because of the traditional Chinese study of the traditional "non grammar", it never speaks noun, verb, adjective, adjective and subject, predicate and object. Therefore, to establish a Chinese grammar system, we have to learn from the west, that is to learn from western advanced language theory and study methods to study the structure of Chinese language. The effective combination of western language theory and the study of the rules of Chinese syntactic structure has been achieved. Although the researchers have made a great deal of effort, the results of the combination have been very little, and the basic problems such as the division of words have not been properly solved, and there are often periodic disputes. The main reason is that the previous research often existed "Indo European eye". This makes the researchers nearly come to the conclusion that Indo European grammar theory is not suitable for the study of Chinese grammar, and further puts forward the following research consensus: to get rid of the "Indo European eye", to realize the advanced western theory, and to combine the Chinese research effectively. The premise is to find out what the reality of Chinese is like first. The study of Chinese word class is no exception: it is necessary to shift from finding the distinction between our familiar language and the distinction of Chinese attention. This study is not only a practice of this "turn" concept, but also an empirical study of this idea. The syllabic Chinese word is the initial structural unit of Chinese, and the study of the monosyllabic nouns and verbs is the object of study in this study. In addition, this study intends to examine the following three points out of the reflection on the theory of "the classification of words is not practicable according to the meaning of words" (Zhu Dexi 1985: 10). Basic questions: (1) is there a distinction between Chinese monosyllabic nouns composed of single Chinese characters and verbs at the lexical level? In other words, there are significant neural separations in the processing of monosyllabic nouns and verbs in Chinese, for example, what are the factors that lead to the separation of the two? (2) Chinese and flexion (main finger English) Is there a significant neurotypic difference in the process of word processing? (3) how does this neurologic difference show at the language level, and how should the researchers look for interlingual universal words through these differences? Two ERP experiments and a questionnaire survey have been carried out in this study. Two items have been carried out in this study. In the ERP experiment, the single syllable noun, verb and "name verb" concurrently (see fourth, fifth chapters) and the neural processing mechanism of Chinese monosyllabic nouns and verbs (sixth chapters) in violation of context are investigated to answer the questions (1) and (2). The seventh chapter is based on the natural language of Chinese native speakers. Feeling, it examines the psychological authenticity of the conceptual foundation of the "name and motion" word class across the language, and then answers the question (3). Through the experimental investigation, the following findings and conclusions are found: (1) and the previous study (Yang Yiming and other 2002) did not observe the existence of the prominent "name move" words of the Chinese single syllable words. The effect is different. This study found that the monosyllabic nouns and verbs have significant neural separateness, that is, the latter induces more negative frontal N100 than the former, which indicates that the latter obtains more early visual attention processing. With a more consistent meaning, it is inferred that the semanteme of the meaning itself, the hint of syntactic function, or the character of the Chinese character space, can lead to more early visual attention processing of the monosyllabic verbs. This provides an empirical basis for the classification of Chinese monosyllabic words. After comparing with the corresponding nouns and verbs, the neural processing mechanism induced by the single syllables of the single syllable of the single syllable of the single syllable has been compared with the corresponding nouns and verbs. It is found that the "noun verb" concurrently and nouns have exactly the same mechanism of neural processing; and the verbs have early visual processing differences, that is, the verb is more negative than the verb N100, which is still selected as the choice. Verbs have more consistent semantic correlation. (2) through the investigation of Chinese monosyllabic nouns and verbs in the context of context, the two ones induce the same type of ERP reaction under the "word class + semantic" double violation, that is, to induce a N400 component of the word semantic integration processing, which is based on English and in the past. The experimental findings of Indo European language such as German are disconnected: the reaction pattern induced by Indo European double sentence is "ELAN+P600" (Friederici 2002, 2011; Friederici et al. 1999; Hahne Friederici 1999, 2002). Based on the functional relevance of the above ERP components, the Chinese Monosyllabic "name movement" category does exist with Indo European word classes do not process. The characteristics of the same neurotypology, the characteristics of the neurotypology support Indo European language is grammatical language, Chinese is the semantic language of Chinese and Indian typology differences. (3) the result of the questionnaire survey confirmed that the basic semantic category (object vs. action) can provide psychological authenticity and the conceptual basis of cross language universality for the main part of speech (noun vs. verb). It is possible to find universal words in cross language. At the same time, the above results also confirm the "form meaning" sign essence of the word class, that is, the word class is not the simple "form" that the structuralist linguist says, but the pairing of "form meaning". In addition, the natural sense of the Chinese speaker's natural sense of language has a constructional attribute. The word structure combination has the prototype effect, and the same word can show different syntactic functions due to the difference of the structure type, and there is a degree difference between these functions. The structure specificity further illustrates the interlingual difference in the parts of speech of different individual languages, which is mainly a cross language difference in the means of word class representation. Therefore, word classes not only exist in structural exclusivity but also in language specificity. Language specificity and constructional specific properties of word classes require that relevant theories and empirical studies have to provide a detailed and theoretical basis for the contexts embedded by the words they examine to ensure the comparability of research results between different studies. The experiment shows that we get the following understanding of Chinese word classes: (1) there are significant neural separations in the two of Chinese light pole monosyllabic nouns and verbs which have asymmetric advantage asymmetry, which shows that, like Indo European, there is a distinct relationship between Chinese and Chinese. (2) more than the inflectional language (main finger English and German) speaker Chinese speakers rely more on morphological information to process different word classes, and Chinese speakers rely more on semantic information to process related parts of speech. (3) the differences in neurotypology at the level of language typology represent the cross language differences in the means of word class representation -- and the word category information is marked by the distinctive morphological markers of the inflectional words. Different, the word class information that marks the Chinese monosyllabic word class can be a symbol with distinct lexical hints, and the difference in the means of representation of the cross language form shows that the cross language generic words can not be explored in the language form. On the contrary, the "form meaning" symbol of the word class determines that the interlingual universal words can only be in the conceptual semantics. The level is sought.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：H146.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫崇飛;張輝;;認(rèn)知神經(jīng)科學(xué)和漢語(yǔ)詞類研究——后現(xiàn)代哲學(xué)思潮呼喚漢語(yǔ)詞類研究方法的多元化和研究理念的整體化[J];外語(yǔ)學(xué)刊;2017年03期

2 沈家煊;;漢語(yǔ)有沒(méi)有“主謂結(jié)構(gòu)”[J];現(xiàn)代外語(yǔ);2017年01期

3 孫崇飛;;再論隱喻釋義及其釋義模式——認(rèn)知神經(jīng)科學(xué)視閾下隱喻釋義模式的建構(gòu)[J];外國(guó)語(yǔ)(上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2016年06期

4 張積家;章玉祉;;義符啟動(dòng)范式下義符的語(yǔ)義和語(yǔ)法激活的時(shí)間進(jìn)程[J];心理學(xué)報(bào);2016年09期

5 孫崇飛;潘艷艷;;名動(dòng)認(rèn)知神經(jīng)科學(xué)研究四十年——兼談?dòng)h詞類類型學(xué)對(duì)比研究[J];外語(yǔ)研究;2016年03期

6 王洪磊;;基于失語(yǔ)癥患者的漢語(yǔ)動(dòng)詞配價(jià)實(shí)證研究[J];外語(yǔ)研究;2015年06期

7 王文斌;;從“形動(dòng)結(jié)構(gòu)”看行為動(dòng)作在漢語(yǔ)中的空間化表征[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;2015年06期

8 沈家煊;;漢語(yǔ)詞類的主觀性[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;2015年05期

9 周韌;;兼類說(shuō)反思[J];語(yǔ)言科學(xué);2015年05期

10 陸儉明;;漢語(yǔ)詞類的特點(diǎn)到底是什么?[J];漢語(yǔ)學(xué)報(bào);2015年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 夏全勝;漢語(yǔ)名詞、動(dòng)詞和動(dòng)名兼類詞語(yǔ)義加工的ERP研究[D];南開(kāi)大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1803791