中文V+OP结构的认知语用阐释

VIP免费

3.0 李佳 2024-09-20 4 4 369.79KB 57 页 150积分

侵权投诉

ABSTRACT

Assimilating and drawing upon theories from the reasonable parts of modern

linguistics and psychology, this dissertation gives a detailed description of the three

features of the construction V+OPand hence makes a further semantic interpretation of

it. The V in the construction involves mono-transitive verbs in Chinese, such as

吃

食堂

and

洗

洗冷水

, as well as unergative verbs, like

睡

睡地板

and

飞

飞上海

The unergative verb is one type of the intransitive verb whose single argument in

normal circumstances is considered to be the initiator of some action, i.e. the agent. OΡ

here stands for “pseudo-object”, a term created by 朱德熙, which means that a certain

nominal phrase occupies the syntactic position immediately following the verb but then

this nominal phrase does not assume the semantic role of patient (as opposed to agent)

and therefore is not the authentic internal argument of the verb.

There are altogether three characteristics of the construction V+OPsemantically or

structurally. Firstly, when V is a mono-transitive verb, the real object replaced with OP

can be mentally recovered. Taking the phrase

吃食堂

as an example, we know clearly

that

食堂

is not the real patient of the verb

吃

. Instead, it is often considered as the place

where the eating action takes place. Although the true patient does not appear in this

phrase, we can still conclude that the true one should be

饭

or some other kind of food.

That’s why we say the authentic patient argument is not lost and has the feature of

mental recoverability. In connection with this, what is the ground for the recoverability

of the original internal argument? Secondly, there exists semantic multiplicity in the

construction V+OP. Apparently

洗冷水

and

睡地板

are richer than their counterparts

用

冷水洗

and

在地板上睡

in connotation, and we can also sense that the former diction is

more vivid and expressive. However, what is the additional meaning and how does it

come into being? Thirdly, the V and OPcannot be detached structurally, which is

浙江财经学院硕士学位论文

III

tantamount to saying that other constituents are not expected to insert between them,

otherwise the intended meaning cannot be preserved or even the newly formed sentence

would become unacceptable. For example, if

他洗冷水

and

他吃丈母娘

are couched in

the emphatic form respectively as

他洗的是冷水

and

他吃的是丈母娘

,the

acceptability will become a problem, let alone the intended subtle adversary relationship

originally implied in the construction.

With regard to the first issue--the recoverability of the replaced object in people’s

mind, we mainly explain it from the perspectives of metonymy and abduction.

Traditional view treats metonymy merely as a figure of speech. But cognitive linguistics

considers it as a way of cognition. By the application of theories on metonymy and

abduction, we could plausibly account for why the replaced object is reproducible in our

mind and why “

吃食堂

” can be understood properly in our conversation.

As for the second issue--semantic multiplicity of the construction V+OP,we

mainly account for it from the following three points. (1) Prototype theory and

adversative relationship. Prototypical relationship between agents and patients involves

adversary semantic meaning, i.e. patients usually fling down the gauntlet to agents in

ability. If we substitute

吃食堂

for

在食堂吃饭

, we are rendering or converting a

locative constituent into a patient-like element by linguistic (mainly syntactic) means

and then a sense of subjective adversary relationship, i.e. a challenge meaning, will

emerge between the canteen (mainly indicating the food in canteen) and the agent (i.e.

people who eat the food made by the canteen staff). We are normally under the

impression that food cooked in a canteen is usually less delicious than that made at

home. Besides, the sanitation condition there is far from being good, but lacking any

alternative, people sometimes have to choose to eat in a canteen, feeling challenged. (2)

Construal theory and information structure. Due to various cognition levels and

observation perspectives, there might be different mental representations of the same

situation. These various abstract mental representations when combined with and

materialized into language form would resort to different syntactic structures so as to

reflect this mental differentiation. When a constituent originally posited in the

secondary information focus is promoted to the primary one, definitely a particular

aspect of meaning would become emphasized and more salient. Naturally semantic

multiplicity of the V+OPconstruction is generated. (3) Constructionist view of language.

Constructions per se have meaning. When a verb’s meaning integrates with a

construction meaning, its former argument structure will probably be changed.

Meanwhile, the thematic roles assumed by the arguments concerned are also likely to

vary. In the construction under discussion, OPnot only points to such non-core or

peripheral semantic roles as LOCATION or INSTRUMENT, it also functions as a

PATIENT-like object, thus giving rise to multi-meanings, what we call the semantic

multiplicity of V+OP.

In order to solve the third issue--why V and OPare interdependent structurally, we

chiefly consider it from viewpoints of grammaticalization and co-composition.

Repetition is the primary cause for grammaticalization, and the result therefrom is the

entrenched relative syntactic settlement of the construction in question with some

particular meaning, so no constituents are allowed to break in on these two parts to

impact the fixed form and meaning. In terms of the co-composition view, the

acquirement of the enriched meaning of V+OPcomes from the V and OPunder

adjacency, which means that two elements are realized in surface structure as

neighboring elements. So if any constituent(s) should be inserted in between them, the

adjacency condition would be violated and the intended meaning would get lost.

Key words: V+O Ρ; Abduction; Construal Theory; Constructionist view;

Co-composition

浙江财经学院硕士学位论文

摘要

本文吸收和利用当代西方语言学和心理学理论中的合理部分对中文 V+OΡ结

构的三个主要特点进行了详细地描写和语义阐释。文中所讨论 V的范围包括汉语

及物动词中的单及物动词和不及物动词中的非作格动词。前者如“吃食堂”中的

“吃”，“洗冷水”中的“洗”，其后通常都带一个宾语。后者如“睡地板”的“睡”，

“飞上海”的“飞”，“走钢丝”的“走”等等；正常情况下它们唯一的论元被视

为此动作的发出者，即施事。

OΡ指由朱德熙先生提出的“伪宾语”（pseudo-object），

它是以上所说的两类动词后所带的非真正内部论元，也就是说它们和动词之间没

有直接的、典型的受事关系。

V+OΡ在句法和语义方面具有三个特点：第一，在 V为单及物动词的情况下，

V+OΡ结构中实际被替代掉的论元具有心理上的可恢复性（这一部分主要讨论单及

物动词）。如短语“吃食堂”中，“食堂”在这里并不是动词“吃”的受事，它一

般被理解成“吃”这个动作所发生的地点。但是“吃”的受事论元并没有丢失。

因此我们说这些被替代掉的论元（如“饭”或“食物”）具有心理上的可恢复性。

与之相关的问题是：原有论元的可恢复性理据是什么？第二，V+OΡ结构具有语义

上的多义性。显然“洗冷水”和“睡地板”较“用冷水洗”和“在地板上睡”具

有更强、更丰富的语义内涵。那么这些“额外”的语义内涵是什么？这种额外的

语义内涵是怎么产生的？第三，V和OΡ在结构上具有不可分离性。也就是说他们

之间不能有其他成分插入。否则一些特定的意思便表达不出来，或者根本不为大

家所接受。若“他洗冷水”和“他吃丈母娘”表达成强调形式“他洗的是冷水”

和“他吃的是丈母娘”的话，其可接受度便大大降低，同时微妙的逆对关系随之

消失。

本文对 V+OΡ结构中被替代论元的可恢复性的解释主要依据转喻和溯因推理

等相关理论。传统观点认为转喻是一种修辞手法，然而随着认知语言学的产生和

发展，转喻越来越多地被认为是人们认知周围事物的一种认知方式。人的语言反

文档加载中……请稍候！
如果长时间未打开，您也可以点击刷新试试。

下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便

150 积分 4人已下载

立即下载 VIP免费下载

摘要：

IIABSTRACTAssimilatinganddrawingupontheoriesfromthereasonablepartsofmodernlinguisticsandpsychology,thisdissertationgivesadetaileddescriptionofthethreefeaturesoftheconstructionV+OPandhencemakesafurthersemanticinterpretationofit.TheVintheconstructioninvolvesmono-transitiveverbsinChinese,suchas吃in吃食堂an...

展开>> 收起<<

中文V+OP结构的认知语用阐释.pdf

共57页,预览4页

还剩页未读，继续阅读

中文V+OP结构的认知语用阐释

相关推荐

开通VIP享超值会员特权

作者详情

相关内容

推荐作者

热门标签

举报选择: