事态句的时间量化及其语言类型学意义——以汉语“V+T(的)+N”及其对应英语结构的对比分析为例
|
摘要
"V+T(的)+N"结构的句法、时间语义以及T的量化功能尚未得到充分研究。本文运用事件语义学理论,通过"V+T(的)+N"(T型)与"V+Q+N"(Q型)结构比较、T型和Q型结构与对应英语结构比较,以及"V+T(的)+N"与动词拷贝结构比较,发现汉语T型和Q型结构均具事件性,而英语Q型结构可有事件性,T型结构却有过程性(非事件性)。"V+T(的)+N"结构的事件性源于T的D-量化功能,而英语"V+N+FOR T"结构的过程性则源于T的A-量化功能。上述量化差异显示,汉语对"事件"和"事物"取相同的量化方式(D-量化);而英语对"事件"作A-量化,对"事物"作D-量化,表明汉英语言使用者对事态的感知方式存在差异。另外,"V+T(的)+N"与动词拷贝结构同义异构,而英语里既无D-量化的事件性结构又无动词拷贝结构,由此可做如下类型学推断:D-量化的事件性结构蕴涵动词拷贝结构。
Based on the theory of event semantics,and through a series of comparison between "V + T( de) + N"( T-type),"V + Q + N"( Q-type) and the English corresponding constructions,and between "V + T( de) + N"and verb-copying construction,the present study finds that both T-type and Q-type Chinese constructions represent events,while the English Q-type represents events,the T-type represents processes( non-events). The event property of"V + T( de) + N"derives from the D-quantification function of the T element,whereas the process property of the English "V + N + FOR T" construction derives from the A-quantification function of the "T " element. The quantificational differences show that,in Chinese,quantification on events and things is realized in the same way as D-quantification,but in English,quantification on events is realized through A-quantification compared to D-quantification on things. This implies that the modes of perception of Chinese and English speakers may diverge in that,whereas "events"are perceived in Chinese,"processes"are perceived in English. The study also finds that"V + T( de) + N"and verb-copying construction in Chinese are synonymic constructions,but English has neither of the constructions,which may be inferable for a typological hypothesis,that is: A temporal D-quantificational event construction in a language entails a verb-copying construction.
Based on the theory of event semantics,and through a series of comparison between "V + T( de) + N"( T-type),"V + Q + N"( Q-type) and the English corresponding constructions,and between "V + T( de) + N"and verb-copying construction,the present study finds that both T-type and Q-type Chinese constructions represent events,while the English Q-type represents events,the T-type represents processes( non-events). The event property of"V + T( de) + N"derives from the D-quantification function of the T element,whereas the process property of the English "V + N + FOR T" construction derives from the A-quantification function of the "T " element. The quantificational differences show that,in Chinese,quantification on events and things is realized in the same way as D-quantification,but in English,quantification on events is realized through A-quantification compared to D-quantification on things. This implies that the modes of perception of Chinese and English speakers may diverge in that,whereas "events"are perceived in Chinese,"processes"are perceived in English. The study also finds that"V + T( de) + N"and verb-copying construction in Chinese are synonymic constructions,but English has neither of the constructions,which may be inferable for a typological hypothesis,that is: A temporal D-quantificational event construction in a language entails a verb-copying construction.
引文
[1]Bach,E.The algebra of events[J].Linguistics and Philosophy,1986,(9):5-16.
[2]Bunt,Harry C.Mass Terms and Model-theoretic Semantics[M].Cambridge/London/New York:Cambridge University Press,1985.
[3]Comrie,B.Aspect:An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1976.
[4]Davidson,D.The logical form of action sentences[C]//Rescher,N.The Logic of Decision and Action.Pittsburgh,PA:University of Pittsburgh Press,1967.81-95.
[6]Francis,E.J.,S.Matthews,R.W,Y.Wong&S.W.M.Kwan.Effects of weight and syntactic priming on the production of Cantonese verb-doubling[J].Journal of Psycholinguistics Research,2011,(40):1-28.
[7]Jaap,van der Does&H.J.Verkuyl.Book review on Quantification in Natural Languages(Volumes I&II)[J].Journal of Logic,Language and Information,1999,(8):243-251.
[8]Li,C.N.&S.A.Thompson.Mandarin Chinese:A Functional Reference Grammar[M].Berkeley,Los Angeles,London:University of California Press,1981.
[9]Pawley,A.Encoding events in Kalam and English:Different logics for reporting experience[C]//Russell,S.T.Coherence and Grounding in Discourse:Outcome of a Symposium,Eugene,Oregon,June 1984.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins,1987.329-360.
[10]Rothstein,S.Structuring Events:A study in the semantics of lexical Aspect[M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2004.
[11]Vendler,Z.Verbs and times[J].The Philosophical Review,1957,66(2):143-160.
[12]Verkuyl,H.J.On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects(Foundations of Language Supplementary Series,15)[M].Dordrecht-Holland:D.Reidel Publishing Company,1972.
[13]Verkuyl,H.J.Aspectual classes and aspectual composition[J].Linguistics and Philosophy,1989,(12):39-94.
[14]陈莉.事件语义学视角下汉语的谓语分类[J].外国语,2016,(6):23-33.
[15]程书秋.二项式领属性定语后“的”字隐现规律[J].语言文字应用,2014,(3):51-58.
[16]何清强,王文斌.空间性特质与汉语的个性特点-从离合词的成因谈起[J].外国语,2016,(1):2-11.
[17]李讷,石毓智.汉语动词拷贝结构的演化过程[J].国外语言学,1997,(3):32-38.
[18]吕叔湘.中国文化要略,吕叔湘文集(第一卷)[M].北京:商务印书馆,1947/2010.
[19]马庆株.时量宾语和动词的类[J].中国语文,1981,(2):86-90.马庆株.汉语动词和动词性结构[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.1-11.
[20]马庆株.动词后面时量成分与名词的先后次序[J].语言学论丛,1984,(13):40-56.马庆株.汉语动词和动词性结构.北京大学出版社,2004,123-138.
[21]屈承熹.汉语功能篇章语法---从认知、功能到篇章结构[M].台北:文鹤出版有限公司,2010.
[22]尚新.集盖、事件类型与汉语“都”字句的双层级量化[J].外语教学与研究,2011,(3):363-374.
[23]尚新.从动词类型学到体算子情态论---英美语言学传统中的体态理论演进管窥[J].外国语,2014,(3):30-40.
[24]沈家煊.“有界”与“无界”[J].中国语文,1995,(5):367-380.
[25]施春宏.动词拷贝句句式构造和句式意义的互动关系[J].中国语文,2010,(2):99-113.
[26]施春宏.动词拷贝句的语法化机制及其发展层级[J].国际汉语学报,2014,(1):1-27.
[27]王力.中国现代语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,2011.
[28]徐阳春.“的”字隐现的制约因素[J].修辞学习,2003,(2):33-34.
[29]赵元任.汉语口语语法[M].吕叔湘,译.北京:商务印书馆,1968/2001.
[30]朱德熙.语法讲义[M].北京:商务印书馆,1981/2000.
(1)在本文的研究里,中括号“[]”表示事态的建构范围,波浪线“~~”表示量化成分。
(2)Quantification is a complex phenomenon that occurs whenever a nominal and a verbal constituent combine to form a higher constituent,where the verbal constituent denotes a predicate which is applied to arguments supplied by the nominal constituent(Bunt1985:137).
(3)(12a)中的x表示man(M)对woman(M)构成的所有关系,然后跟love(L)取交集,这个交集应该大于其补集;(12b)是Man(M)跟谓词Love a woman(LaW)取交集,这个交集大于其补集。
(4)施春宏(2010)对动词拷贝句的前期研究做了比较详尽的综述分析,值得参看。但我们认为,施春宏(2014)过多从语义的角度来诠释动词拷贝结构,致使其“动词拷贝”概念下的拷贝句式涵盖了太多的模糊区域,甚至“苍蝇打死了”这样的句子也可以解释为“边缘拷贝句”(因为可以解释为“打苍蝇打死了”!),这就有些不可思议。谈到“句法结构”,“结构”本身仍应是第一位的界定标准。离开了“VOVC”当中的四个结构性要素,都不应定义为动词拷贝结构。
(5)有关离合词的讨论,可参看何清强、王文斌(2016)。
[2]Bunt,Harry C.Mass Terms and Model-theoretic Semantics[M].Cambridge/London/New York:Cambridge University Press,1985.
[3]Comrie,B.Aspect:An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1976.
[4]Davidson,D.The logical form of action sentences[C]//Rescher,N.The Logic of Decision and Action.Pittsburgh,PA:University of Pittsburgh Press,1967.81-95.
[6]Francis,E.J.,S.Matthews,R.W,Y.Wong&S.W.M.Kwan.Effects of weight and syntactic priming on the production of Cantonese verb-doubling[J].Journal of Psycholinguistics Research,2011,(40):1-28.
[7]Jaap,van der Does&H.J.Verkuyl.Book review on Quantification in Natural Languages(Volumes I&II)[J].Journal of Logic,Language and Information,1999,(8):243-251.
[8]Li,C.N.&S.A.Thompson.Mandarin Chinese:A Functional Reference Grammar[M].Berkeley,Los Angeles,London:University of California Press,1981.
[9]Pawley,A.Encoding events in Kalam and English:Different logics for reporting experience[C]//Russell,S.T.Coherence and Grounding in Discourse:Outcome of a Symposium,Eugene,Oregon,June 1984.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins,1987.329-360.
[10]Rothstein,S.Structuring Events:A study in the semantics of lexical Aspect[M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2004.
[11]Vendler,Z.Verbs and times[J].The Philosophical Review,1957,66(2):143-160.
[12]Verkuyl,H.J.On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects(Foundations of Language Supplementary Series,15)[M].Dordrecht-Holland:D.Reidel Publishing Company,1972.
[13]Verkuyl,H.J.Aspectual classes and aspectual composition[J].Linguistics and Philosophy,1989,(12):39-94.
[14]陈莉.事件语义学视角下汉语的谓语分类[J].外国语,2016,(6):23-33.
[15]程书秋.二项式领属性定语后“的”字隐现规律[J].语言文字应用,2014,(3):51-58.
[16]何清强,王文斌.空间性特质与汉语的个性特点-从离合词的成因谈起[J].外国语,2016,(1):2-11.
[17]李讷,石毓智.汉语动词拷贝结构的演化过程[J].国外语言学,1997,(3):32-38.
[18]吕叔湘.中国文化要略,吕叔湘文集(第一卷)[M].北京:商务印书馆,1947/2010.
[19]马庆株.时量宾语和动词的类[J].中国语文,1981,(2):86-90.马庆株.汉语动词和动词性结构[C].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.1-11.
[20]马庆株.动词后面时量成分与名词的先后次序[J].语言学论丛,1984,(13):40-56.马庆株.汉语动词和动词性结构.北京大学出版社,2004,123-138.
[21]屈承熹.汉语功能篇章语法---从认知、功能到篇章结构[M].台北:文鹤出版有限公司,2010.
[22]尚新.集盖、事件类型与汉语“都”字句的双层级量化[J].外语教学与研究,2011,(3):363-374.
[23]尚新.从动词类型学到体算子情态论---英美语言学传统中的体态理论演进管窥[J].外国语,2014,(3):30-40.
[24]沈家煊.“有界”与“无界”[J].中国语文,1995,(5):367-380.
[25]施春宏.动词拷贝句句式构造和句式意义的互动关系[J].中国语文,2010,(2):99-113.
[26]施春宏.动词拷贝句的语法化机制及其发展层级[J].国际汉语学报,2014,(1):1-27.
[27]王力.中国现代语法[M].北京:商务印书馆,2011.
[28]徐阳春.“的”字隐现的制约因素[J].修辞学习,2003,(2):33-34.
[29]赵元任.汉语口语语法[M].吕叔湘,译.北京:商务印书馆,1968/2001.
[30]朱德熙.语法讲义[M].北京:商务印书馆,1981/2000.
(1)在本文的研究里,中括号“[]”表示事态的建构范围,波浪线“~~”表示量化成分。
(2)Quantification is a complex phenomenon that occurs whenever a nominal and a verbal constituent combine to form a higher constituent,where the verbal constituent denotes a predicate which is applied to arguments supplied by the nominal constituent(Bunt1985:137).
(3)(12a)中的x表示man(M)对woman(M)构成的所有关系,然后跟love(L)取交集,这个交集应该大于其补集;(12b)是Man(M)跟谓词Love a woman(LaW)取交集,这个交集大于其补集。
(4)施春宏(2010)对动词拷贝句的前期研究做了比较详尽的综述分析,值得参看。但我们认为,施春宏(2014)过多从语义的角度来诠释动词拷贝结构,致使其“动词拷贝”概念下的拷贝句式涵盖了太多的模糊区域,甚至“苍蝇打死了”这样的句子也可以解释为“边缘拷贝句”(因为可以解释为“打苍蝇打死了”!),这就有些不可思议。谈到“句法结构”,“结构”本身仍应是第一位的界定标准。离开了“VOVC”当中的四个结构性要素,都不应定义为动词拷贝结构。
(5)有关离合词的讨论,可参看何清强、王文斌(2016)。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |