【摘要】：“應(yīng)該”和“應(yīng)當(dāng)”是現(xiàn)代漢語中經(jīng)常使用的一組近義詞,漢語學(xué)界對二者的對比研究不多,本文考察“應(yīng)該”和“應(yīng)當(dāng)”在組配、情態(tài)、語體等方面的差異。第一部分為緒論,介紹研究現(xiàn)狀、研究內(nèi)容、研究意義、語料的來源和研究方法。第二部分,從組配的角度展開研究�！皯�(yīng)該”和“應(yīng)當(dāng)”為助動(dòng)詞,考察發(fā)現(xiàn)“應(yīng)該” “應(yīng)當(dāng)”后接自主動(dòng)詞和非自主動(dòng)詞時(shí)存在差異,同助動(dòng)詞連用和同“說”搭配時(shí)也存在差異,“應(yīng)該”“應(yīng)當(dāng)”后接動(dòng)詞所構(gòu)成的結(jié)構(gòu)為述賓結(jié)構(gòu)。我們在談話中回答別人的感謝時(shí),一般用“應(yīng)該的”,而不用“應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)摹�。第三部�?從情態(tài)的角度展開研究。“應(yīng)該”表達(dá)認(rèn)識情態(tài)和道義情態(tài)較自由,“應(yīng)當(dāng)”則以表達(dá)道義情態(tài)為主,“應(yīng)該”表達(dá)道義情態(tài)義務(wù),“應(yīng)當(dāng)”表達(dá)道義情態(tài)必要�！皯�(yīng)該”和“應(yīng)當(dāng)”同完整體標(biāo)記和非完整體標(biāo)記同現(xiàn)時(shí),表達(dá)的情態(tài)存在差異�！皯�(yīng)該”和“應(yīng)當(dāng)”在表達(dá)認(rèn)識情態(tài)時(shí),同時(shí)也表達(dá)傳信范疇,“應(yīng)該”和“應(yīng)當(dāng)”表達(dá)道義情態(tài)時(shí)卻不能表達(dá)傳信范疇。第四部分,從語體視角展開研究,“應(yīng)該”和“應(yīng)當(dāng)”存在語體差異,體現(xiàn)在數(shù)量分布上和語法特征上,這跟“應(yīng)該”“應(yīng)當(dāng)”自身的差異和語體功能不同有關(guān)。第五部分為文章的結(jié)論部分,總結(jié)全文取得的研究成果,介紹文章創(chuàng)新之處,并指出文章的不足。
[Abstract]:"should" and "should" are a group of synonyms frequently used in modern Chinese, but there are few comparative studies on them in the field of Chinese. This paper examines the differences between "should" and "should" in terms of matching, modality, style, and so on. The first part is introduction, which introduces the research status, research content, research significance, the source of corpus and research methods. The second part, from the point of view of the combination of the study. "should" and "should" are auxiliary verbs. It is found that there are differences between "should" and "should" followed by autonomous verbs and non-autonomous verbs, and there are also differences in collocation with auxiliary verbs and with "said". The structure formed by the verb "should" and "should" is the object structure. When we answer people's thanks in conversation, we usually use "should" rather than "should". The third part, the research from the angle of modality. "should" expresses cognition modality and moral modality more freely, "should" mainly expresses moral modality, "should" expresses moral modal obligation, "should" expresses moral modality is necessary. There are differences between "should" and "should" in the expression of modality. When "should" and "should" express the cognitive modality, they also express the category of transmission, while "should" and "should" express the moral modality, but they cannot express the category of transmission. In the fourth part, from the perspective of style, there are differences in style between "should" and "should", which are reflected in the quantitative distribution and grammatical features, which is related to the differences and functions of "should" and "should". The fifth part is the conclusion of the article, summarizes the research results, introduces the innovation of the article, and points out the shortcomings of the article.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：H146.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙雅青;;“深+N_季”組配的認(rèn)知語義分析[J];當(dāng)代修辭學(xué);2011年06期

2 周崧;;蜜蜂工程育種概論(二)[J];蜜蜂雜志;1987年03期

3 彭思;;“整理”與“收拾”的異同[J];神州;2014年18期

4 田英華;;組配流行語的結(jié)構(gòu)、意義與文化傳播功能[J];對外漢語研究;2012年00期

5 黃鳳，

本文編號：2216539