【作者】 樊长荣；

【导师】 尉迟治平； 程邦雄；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 语言学及应用语言学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 有定无定在汉语中是一个纷繁复杂的世界,其制约因素与机制并不十分清楚。英语中有定性是一个显性范畴,有定性实现方式和制约机制显得十分清楚明了。本课题首次系统地对现代汉语和现代英语的有定性进行考察和比较,探索二者的有定性制约因素及机制,旨在探明两者的异同,解释两者的差异,寻求统率这一现象的内部规律。我们的主要观点和发现有以下几点:在对有定性制约因素之一---词汇语义的观察中,我们发现汉英词汇的有定性大同小异:专有名词、人称代词、指示代词等为[+有定],数量短语为[ -有定],光杆名词[ +有定];显著差异在英语有作为语法标记的冠词而汉语没有。在对有定性制约因素之二---句法结构的观察中,使用了自建180多万字语料库对“有”字句检索出的语料加现有文献语料进行分析;我们界定了一般N1 V N2结构的有定性、三类无定主语及其特点,找出了“有”字引介无定名词主语的规律;对特殊句式的有定性观察中,发现隐现句中的有定宾语是期待中的事物,“有”字句的有定宾语/兼语是一个普遍现象,可逆句的N1、N2有其自己的规律。对汉英结构的观察比较中我们发现,英语句法结构类型远比汉语简单;英语中主语有定为主,宾语、表语常表现为无定,但结构并不参与有定性表达,一切由语法标记和词汇标记承担;英语倒装句形式上与汉语的隐现句十分相似,但后置主语主要是有定的,而隐现句宾语以“无定”为主。在对有定性制约因素之三---语境的观察中,使用了自建180多万字语料库,对数量名词短语两.人.、两.个.人.检索的语料进行分析;我们发现两.人.等的有定意义远比无定意义出现的频率高得多(“有定”占90%以上),其有定性由“回指”赋予。只有非回指性的两.人.等才是无定的(例外是回指无定事物的一部分可以是无定的;);其他数量短语在语境中的有定性与两.人.等是一致的;光杆名词在语境中获得有定性靠的是“回指”或“外指”;有定词语(如专有名词、称谓语)在语境中可保持其本身固有的有定性,也可能失去外延,表现出“无定”意义;在数量名词短语、光杆名词、和有定名词三项中只有“有定名词”在语境中的有定性英语和汉语是一致的。对汉语有定性制约因素的进一步考察中,我们发了第四个有定性制约因素---句义的现实性,并提出“非现实句无定/类指”假设;在英语言中验证这一假设后,在已有规则的基础上,对有定性制约机制作出增补:“结构赋义、词汇标记优先、语.境.信.息.调.节.、现.实.性.领.先.”。这一增补规则在英语中也得到验证,但英语用标记(语法标记或词汇标记)是强制的,表面上是一元制约,实际上是标记掩盖了其他因素。总之,汉语没有语法标记(但有词汇标记),有定性的实现靠的是显性的词汇意义和隐性信息如结构含义、回指等,在这二者的合作中实现了汉语表达的有定性。英语则要求用语法标记或词汇标记标明。词汇、结构、语境和句义现实性四者是制约有定性的因素,其相互关系为:现实性层面“非现实句无定/类指”,在现实句中“结构赋义、词汇标记优先、语境信息调节”。这是英语和汉语的共性;差异是有定性的实现是否用语法标记---英语是强制的,汉语是空缺的。更多还原

【Abstract】 Definiteness is a rather complicated semantic category in the Chinese language, in which its conditioning factors and mechanism are not quite clear yet. But it is an overt grammatical category, and its realization and conditioning mechanism are clearly discernible in the English language. What are its conditioning factors and mechanism and what are the similarities and differences in the rules that guide the realization of definiteness in the two languages --- which motivated the present study and the results can be shon as follows:In investigation of definiteness on the level of semantic implication --- one of the conditioning factors, we find that the two languages share the same feature that Proper nouns, determiners and numerals have the same semantic component of definiteness except that Chinese has no articles.In examining definiteness on the level of syntactical structure --- another conditioning factor, for one of the Chinese special structures you-clauses, the corpus of three novels, etc. built in the study is used for the purpose. We recognize three categories of indefinite subjects with their features indicated, explains the way“you”can/must be prefixed to an indefinite subject; for some special structures of the language we find that a definite subject in presentative sentence is usually the one in expectation, that definite objects of“you”structure are universal, and that the N1 and N2 exchangeable sentence N1 V N2 has its own rules guiding N1 /N2’s definiteness.In checking English sentence patterns for definiteness with reference to those of Chinese, we find that there are less structural patterns in the English language, and that although the ordinary sentence pattern N1 V N2 rejects indefinite N1 or definite N2, it can do nothing but pass the duty to determiners. Sentences in inverted order -- except for those introduced with a negation phrase or adjectival phrase -- usually employ definite expressions as their subjects, while the corresponding Chinese presentative sentences frequently use indefinite objects.In discussing NPs in context --- still another conditioning factor, the corpus is used again --- liangren and lianggeren, both meaning two people, are retrieved for the purpose. The results show that frequency of definite liangren and lianggeren (>90%) is much higher than that of the indefinite ones, and that they are definite when used anahorically with only one exception that a nunmerical term referring back to a part of a numerical term is indefinite, but indefinite otherwise. It is also true of other Num. + Ns. Bare NPs are definite when they are anaphoric or exophoric, otherwise indefinite. But in English definite must go with the in the above two cases. Finally proper nouns and the like will lose their extensions as attributive predicative, which is also true of English.In further analysis of the factors, we find another conditioning factor --- sentence denoting, and propose a hypothesis“Irrealis clauses denote indefinite or generic”. After verifying the hypothesis in English, a rule based on Shih Yuzhi’s developed: Irrealis clauses denote indefinite or generic; in realis clauses N1 can get definiteness and N2 indefiniteness in the structure N1 V N2, but lexical marking overwhelms structure strength, and yields to context conditioning. This rule also works in English, but articles/determiners are compulsory in the language, which blurred the effect of the structure or the context.In conclusion, the Chinese and the English languages share the same features of definiteness of lexical meaning. Similarly, structure, context, and sentence denoting have similar effect on definiteness in the two languages. The difference lies in realization of definiteness with grammatical markers, which are compulsory in English but absent in Chinese, hence the decisive role of conspiracy of lexical meaning, syntactical implication, contextual information, and sentence denoting in the language.更多还原