【作者】 张龙；

【导师】 池昌海；

【作者基本信息】 浙江大学 ， 语言学及应用语言学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 本文主要运用构式语法、语法化的基本概念和理论,讨论了构式的概念、特点及相关理论问题,然后重点考察了“好了”、"V+ta+个VP".“不是”、“才怪”“X说”五类构式,最后进行了一些理论总结,并指出了本文研究存在的不足与问题。全文共有8个部分。第一章是绪论,主要介绍了研究的对象、研究的意义、研究的理论背景、研究的目标和研究的方法,并对语料的来源、标注进行了说明。第二章介绍了构式语法和语法化的基本概念和理论,分析了构式的概念和类型,并陈述了我们对构式的定义和类型的看法。我们认为：构式是复杂的形式-意义配对<F,S>（F指语音形式,S指非字面意义）,且F或S的某些方面不能从构式的组成成分或其它已存在的构式中得到完全的预测。构式有四个属性：不可预测性、复杂性、固定性和规约性。根据构式的使用特点,我们把构式分为词汇构式和语法构式。词汇构式基本上都是实体构式,语法构式则都是形式构式。语法构式既包括动词性的表达式,如双及物构式、致使构式等,也包括一些习用表达式,如"1et alone"."the X-erthe Y-er”等。习用性语法构式最大的特点就是即使掌握了语言的语法和词汇也无法知道“如何使用它”、“它是什么意思”、“是否表达一种规约意义”等,除非通过专门的学习。第三至七章是习用语法构式的个案研究：第三章主要研究了“好了”的相关构式。我们首先区分了“好了”的五种用法,然后考察了从“好了1”到“好了3”、“好了2”到“好了4”的演变,发现：“好了3”是从“就好了”条件句发展而来的,其构式的核心功能是“建议”；“好了4”作为话语标记具有标记结束和转换两个中心功能,直接来源当是“好了2”前的动词省略,最早用例见于元杂剧中,并在发展的过程中受到了“好了1”和“好了5”句法功能的影响。第四章主要研究了“V+ta+个VP”的相关构式。我们首先运用转换、插入、删除等方法区分了“V+ta1+个VP”和“V+ta2+个VP”两种结构,指出ta前指实体成分时就是ta1,后指“个VP”时就是ta2,并分析了ta2虚化的理据性及NP的有界性质；最后指出“V+ta2+个VP”是由“V+个VP”和"V+ta₂+NP"两个表达式类推糅合生成的。第五章主要研究了“不是”的相关构式。我们首先指出了“不是2”是句末准语气词,其基本功能是强调,在具体的语境中有提醒和弱断言两种语用功能,然后通过考察发现：“不是1”是焦点标记,“不是2”是强调标记；“不是2”产生的基础是否定判断词“不是”,但在演变过程中受到了“不是1”的影响；“不是2”在产生初期,还存有一定的反问语气,当反问语气强度降低,就发展为了陈述语气,在这个主观化的过程中,“不是2”的语气功能逐渐扩大,有了“吧”和“是不是”的部分功能。第六章主要研究了“才怪”的相关构式。“才怪2”是评注性准句末副词。“P才怪”是个对语境敏感的构式,在不同类型的语境中表达的时意义不尽相同,通过考察发现“P才怪2”是推断性反预期标记式,是从复句缩约而来,它的历时演变过程就是主观化的过程。第七章主要研究了“X说”的相关构式。我们选择了“我说”、“我跟你说”、“不说”、“要不说”作深入地研究。关于“我说”。“我说”有六种用法,其中,“我说1”大约产生于魏晋南北朝时期的佛经中,直到元代,我们才看到“我说2”、“我说3”、“我说4”和“我说5”的用例,明代时期表醒悟义的“我说。”开始使用。“我说2”是从“我说1”演变而来,而后又分化出“我说3”,“我说3”又发展出“我说6”；我说4”也是从“我说1”演变而来,然后又分化出“我说5”。关于“我跟你说”。“我跟你说1”和“我跟你说2”最早都出现在清代的文献当中。“我跟你说1”一开始后跟的宾语是事物宾语,语义焦点是以动词“说”为中心的整个事件,并无强调的意味。后来“我跟你说,”后逐渐可以跟事件宾语,语义重心后移,语义焦点变为作宾语的“事件”,“事件宾语”逐渐变成独立的核心成分,“我跟你说”也逐渐从核心成分变成了外围成分,作为外围成分的“我跟你说”就逐渐固化为“我跟你说2”。关于“不说”。“不说2”表递进关系,前后项的语义关系主要有两种类型：可接受度递减型和可接受度递增型。“不说4”前后项语义搭配主要遵循可接受度递减模式。“不说2”、“不说4”和“别说2”都表示递进关系,都具有引出对比项、突显焦点信息、衔接语篇的作用。它们除了在语法上有明显的差别外,前后项的语义关系也不大相同：“不说2”和“不说4”的前后项语义关系主要以主观建构为基础,遵循以“可接受度”建立的梯度模式；而“别说2”的前后项关系主要以客观建构为基础,前后项具有衍推关系。“不说1”在早期的用例中后面主要跟名词短语,随着使用频率的增加,大约在唐五代时期“不说1”后逐渐可以跟事件宾语。元代时期,“不说”与“且说”“再说”等词语配合使用表示事件的转换,这就是“不说,”的原型。“不说5”引导的事件与后面的事件是并列关系,两个事件往往不属于同一语义范畴,不构成语义级差。明代时期,“不说5”连接的两个事件具有语义上的不平等性,随着使用频率的增多,这种用法逐渐固定,就分化出了“不说4”。“不说。”是从“不说1”演变而来,其前后项关系可以用“不是……而是”来替换,否定的是一种适宜性,是语用否定。而“不说7”是语义否定,可判断真值,往往带有责怪、批评的意味,不是直接从“不说1”演变而来,而是来源于“不说……倒说／反说”用法。“不说3”就是从后置使用的“不说1”演变而来,“不说2”则是从“不说3”分化而来,它们的演变分别受到了“不说5”和“不说4”的影响。关于“要不说”。“要不说3”具有强调的意味。“要不说1”出现在清代的文献中,“要不说2”在所见民国以前的语料中没有找到用例,“要不说3”在民国期间开始使用。“要不说3”是由“要不我说／要不我们说”演变而来的。表达的简洁性是其演变的动因。第八章是结语。这部分主要是基于个案研究的理论思考的归纳和总结,并指出了本文研究存在的不足。更多还原

【Abstract】 Based on the theories of Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization, this paper firstly discusses construction’s notion and properties, and then analyzes five kinds of idiomatical grammatical constructions:"HaoLe", "V+ta+geVP", "BuShi", "CaiGuai" and "Xshuo", finally makes some theoretical summaries and points out the present problems and weakness of our research.The paper consists of eight chapters:First chapter mainly introduces object, significance, theoretical background, goal and methods of our research, and makes some explanations of our corpus.Second chapter introduces the theories of Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization, and then analyzes construction’s notion and type. In my opinion, Construction is complex form-meaning pair<F, S> （F is pronunciation, and S is not literal meaning）, and certain aspect of F or S is not strictly predictable from construction’s component parts or from other previously established constructions. A construction has four properties:unpredictability, complexility, fixity and conventionality.Based on application features, construction is divided into two groups:lexical construction and grammatical construction. Lexical construction is substantial construction, and grammatical construction is formal construction. Grammatical construction contains verbal grammatical construction （like distransitive construction, caused motion construction） and idiomatical grammatical construction （like "let alone" construction, "the X-er the Y-er" construction）. The feature of idiomatical grammatical construction is a person who knows the grammar and the vocabulary of the language couldn’t know how to say it, what it means, or whether it is a conventional thing, unless he learns previously.The chapters from third to seventh are case studies:Third chapter researches "HaoLe" and its constructions. We firstly distinguish five usages of "HaoLe", and then after investigating the evolution of "HaoLe₁" to "HaoLe₃" and "HaoLe2" to "HaoLe₄", we find:"HaoLe₃" was evolved from "JiuHaoLe", and the meaning of its construction is "advise"; "HaoLe4" which first appeared in Yuan Dynasty was evolved from "HaoLe2", and its evolution was also affected by "HaoLe₁" and "HaoLe₅".Fourth chapter researches "V+ta+geVP" construction. "V+ta+geVP" is a spoken grammar construction, where ge is an object marker, to is a demonstrative pronoun. When to means somebody that has already appeared in the talk, we call it ta₁. When ta means "geVP", we call it ta₂. "V+ta+geVP" is a special double object construction. Compared to ta₁, ta₂ has lost part of its meaning. The desemanticization of ta₂ is related to its position and the phonetic reduction of ta₂ is to keep the grammar construction of "V+ta+geVP" harmonious in prosody. "V+ta+geVP" was the result of generation of two constructions "V+geVP" and "V+ta2+NP" by analogy and blending.Fifth chapter researches "BuShi" and its constructions. We firstly points out "BuShi₂" is a quasi-mood particle of sentence end, and its fundamental function is emphasis, and it has two kinds of pragmatic function:remindness and weak assertion. And then by investigating we find:"BuShi₁" is a focus marker and "BuShi2" is an emphatic marker; "BuShi2" was evolved from the link verb "BuShi", and its evolution was also affected by "BuShi₁"; "BuShi2" which had rhetorical mood at first was getting indicative mood, when its rhetorical mood disappeared slowly, and was getting some function like "Ba" and "ShiBuShi".Sixth chapter researches "CaiGuai". "CaiGuai₂"is a commentary quasi-adverb, and its construction "P CaiGuai" is sensitive to context and has different tense meanings in different type of context. After investigation we find:"P CaiGuai" is deductive counter-expectation construction, and it was evolved from compound sentence, whose evolution process is also the process of subjectification.Seventh chapter researches "Xshuo". We choose four constructions of "Xshuo": "WoShuo", "WoGenNiShuo", "BuShuo" and "YaoBuShuo".On "WoShuo". "WoShuo" has six usages, among which "WoShuo₁" appeared in WeiJinNanBeiChao, and "WoShuo₂/WoShuo₃/WoShuo₄WoShuo₅" appeared in Yuan Dynasty, and "WoShuo₆"appeared in Ming Dynasty. By investigating we find: "WoShuo2" was evolved from "WoShuo₁" and "WoShuo₃" was evolved from "WoShuo₂" and "WoShuo6"was evolved from "WoShuo₃"; "WoShuo4" was evolved from "WoShuo₁", and "WoShuo₅" was evolved from "WoShuo₄".On "WoGenNiShuo". "WoGenNiShuo₁" and "WoGenNiShuo2" both appeared in Qing Dynasty. "WoGenNiShuo " was followed by nominal object, where "shuo" is main verb. When "WoGenNiShuo₁"was followed by event object, "shuo" in "WoGenNiShuo₁"was not main verb and the verb in event became main verb, finally " WoGenNiShuo₁"had to be used as a discourse marker.On "BuShuo". "BuShuo₂" is an additive post-conjunction, there are two semantic relationships between items before and after it, that is, acceptability-scale up and acceptability-scale down. The semantic relationship between items before and after "BuShuo₄"is acceptability-scale down. The main difference among "BuShuo₂", "BuShuo₄’and "BieShuo₂"is the semantic relationship between items before and after itself:the semantic relationship between items before and after "BuShuo₂" and "BuShuo₄"is acceptability-scale, which is based on subjectivity; the semantic relationship between items before and after "BieShuo₂"is entailment, which is based on objectivity."BuShuo₁"was followed by nominal object and was getting to be followed by event object in TangWuDai. In Yuan Dynasty, "BuShuo" was used with words like "QieShuo/ZaiShuo" in order to mark the transformation between two events, where "BuShuo" was the prototype of "BuShuo₅". Two events in "BuShuo₅"sentence didn’t belong to the same semantic class and there was no scale between them. In Ming Dynasty, Two events in "BuShuo₅"sentence belonged to the same semantic class and there was scale between them, under the circumstances "BuShuo₅"became "BuShuo₄". "BuShuo6"which is pragmatic negation was evolved from "BuShuo₁", and "BuShuo₇" which is semantic negation was evolved from "BuShuo...DaoShuo/FanShuo". "BuShuo₃"was evolved from "post-BuShuo₁", and "BuShuo₂"was evolved from "BuShuo₃", the evolution processes of "BuShuo2_" and "BuShuo₃"were seperately affected by "BuShuo₅" and "BuShuo₄"On "YaoBuShuo". "YaoBuShu₃"has the function of emphasis. "YaoBuShu₁" appeared in Qing Dynasty, and "YaoBuShuo2" was not seen before Qing Dynasty, and "YaoBuShuo₃"appeared in MingGuo Dynasty. "YaoBuShuo₃"was evolved from "YaoBuWoShuo/YaoBuWoMenShuo" because of brevity.Eighth chapter is conclusion, which makes some theoretical summaries, and points out some problems and weaknesses which still exist in our research.更多还原