汉语兼语句与英语复合宾语句的对比研究

论文摘要

本文从认知的角度对比了汉语兼语句和英语复合宾语句两种句式。这两种句式在形式上相似，句式的逻辑语义关系也存在相似之处。前人的研究，主要是分析句子成分的对应关系，当然也有分析这两种句式的共性和差异的，但是从形式语法的角度阐释英汉语言的共性，且对差异的探讨不够深入。本文运用整体和部分，共时和历时相结合的方法对其进行对比研究。共时对比首先整体上对比这两种句式的特点，然后从语法类别、语义和语法功能等方面对比其中的各个组成部分的特点。而其中最重要的是两种句式中动词类别的对比，根据动词的语义，英汉中有较多相对应的类别，也有不相对应的类别。两种句式中大多数相对应的类别都含有致使义，所以这两种句式都可看成致使结构，然后本文从经验论和力意象图式两个角度分析这两种句式共同的认知基础。基于两句式共时对比的相同和相异之处，本文再从历时的角度对两种句式的发展过程进行对比，以进一步研究这些相似和相异之处产生的原因。首先，本文归纳并总结了英语复合宾语句与汉语兼语句历时发展的过程。英语复合宾语句经历了从古英语，到中古英语，再到现代英语三个时期的发展过程，其中中古英语时期为这一结构的形成时期，因为从古英语到中古英语，这一结构经过了一个从SVO1O2到SVOC的重新分析的过程，这一过程不仅影响了这种句式的整体特点，而且制约了其组成成分的特性。汉语兼语句在汉语史上很早就出现了，而且发展到现代汉语，是最稳固的语法形式之一，其发展史上没有经历一个重新分析的过程。这一历时发展的差异导致了这两种句式共时差异的形成，如：两种句式中主谓关系的差异，兼语句中的兼语陈说部分与复合宾语句中补语的差异以及两种句式中一些特殊的动词语义类型的差异。而历时发展过程中也有相似之处，两种句式产生时，致使义是主动词最主要的语义类型，这证明了致使事件是二者产生的认知基础，而且两种句式中的致使类动词（使／make）都经历了从具体词汇义的动词到语法词的变化，也就是说经历了一个语法化的过程，这些都是语言共性的表现。本文运用认知语言学的理论对这两种句式进行对比，总结了二者的相似和差异之处，并从认知、共时和历时的角度分析了这些相同和相异之处形成的原因，特别是本文将两种句式历时发展的过程进行归纳和比较，合理地解释了二者共时对比的差异和相同之处，从而弥补了前人研究的不足。文中的论述也体现了语法化理论的合理性和普遍性。本研究一方面有利于全面、深刻地认识这两种句式，另一方面也有利于兼语句的英译和英语复合宾语句的汉译，所以它无论是对英语学习，还是对对外汉语教学都有相当的指导意义。

论文目录

• 摘要
• Abstract
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 Literature Review
• 1.1 A Review of Chinese Pivotal Sentences
• 1.1.1 Definition of Chinese Pivotal Sentence
• 1.1.2 Previous Studies of Chinese Pivotal Sentences
• 1.1.2.1 Previous Studies from the Synthetic Perspective
• 1.1.2.2 Previous Studies from the Diachronic Perspective
• 1.2 A Review of English Complex Object Sentences
• 1.2.1 Definition of English Complex Object Sentence
• 1.2.2 Previous Studies of English Complex Object Sentences
• 1.3 Present Contrastive Studies of the Two Sentence Types
• 1.4 Summary
• Chapter 2 Theoretical Bases
• 2.1 Cognitive Views and Image Schema
• 2.2 Grammaticalization Theory
• 2.2.1 Principles of Grammaticalization
• 2.2.2 Hypothesis of Unidirectionality
• 2.2.3 Mechanisms: Reanalysis and Analogy
• 2.2.3.1 Reanalysis
• 2.2.3.2 Analogy/Rule Generalization
• Chapter3 Synthetic Contrast between the Two Structures
• 3.1 Contrast of the Entire Structure
• 3.1.1 Contrast of the Form and Logical Relations
• 3.1.1.1 Similarities in Form
• 3.1.1.2 Similarities in Semantic and Logical Relations
• 3.1.2 Contrast of Subject-predicate Relations
• 3.1.3 Contrast of the Mark of Tense and Aspect
• 3.2 Contrast of the Components in the Two Structures
• 3.2.1 Contrast of Matrix Verbs in the Two Structures
• 3.2.1.1 Similar Semantic Types of Matrix Verbs
• 3.2.1.2 Different Semantic Types of Matrix Verbs
• 3.2.1.3 Cognitive Foundations of the Two Structures
• 3.2.2 Contrast of Subject in the Two Structures
• 3.2.3 Contrast of Object in the Two Structures
• 3.2.3.1 Similarities of Object in the Two Structures
• 3.2.3.2 Differences of Object in the Two Structures
• 3.2.4 Contrast of Object（jianyu） Predicate and Complement
• 3.2.4.1 Similarities between Object（jianyu） Predicate and Complement
• 3.2.4.2 Differences between Object（jianyu） Predicate and Complement
• Chapter4 Diachronic Contrast between the Two Structures
• 4.1 Diachronic Development of Complex object Structure
• 4.1.1 Original Form in Old English
• 4.1.1.1 Semantic Types of Matrix Verbs
• 4.1.1.2 Traits of Object in Complex Object Structure
• 4.1.1.3 Types of Complement in Complex Object Structure
• 4.1.2 Formation of SVOC Structure in Middle English
• 1O₂ to SVOC Structure'>4.1.2.1 Reanalysis from SVO₁O₂ to SVOC Structure
• 4.1.2.2 Changes of Matrix Verbs and the Reasons
• 4.1.2.3 Types of Complement in SVOC Structure
• 4.1.3 Development of SVOC Structure in Modern English
• 4.1.3.1 Increasing Use of Some Matrix Verb Types
• 4.1.3.2 Increasing Use of Passives
• 4.1.3.3 Increasing Use of Present Participles
• 4.2 Diachronic Development of Chinese Pivotal Structure
• 4.2.1 General Accounts of the Diachronic Development
• 4.2.2 Research on Chinese Pivotal Structure in Zhanguoce
• 4.2.2.1 Semantic Types of Matrix Verbs in the Structure
• 4.2.2.2 Forms of Object in the Structure
• 4.2.2.3 Forms of Object（jianyu） Predicate in the Structure
• 4.2.3 Grammaticalization of ‘使’-type in Pivotal Structure
• 4.2.3.1 Grammaticalization of ‘使’
• 4.2.3.2 Grammaticalization of Several Similar Verbs
• 4.3 Diachronic Contrast between the Two Structures
• 4.3.1 A Proof of Similar Cognitive Base
• 4.3.2 Reasons for the Difference of Subject-predicate Relations
• 4.3.3 Grammaticalization of Make-type Verbs
• 4.3.4 Reasons for the Differences of Some Semantic Types
• 4.3.5 Reasons for the Differences between Object Predicate and Complement
• 4.3.6 Similarities between Modern English and Ancient Chinese
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Appendix
• Acknowledgements