英维修饰语对比研究
|
摘要
作为语言组成中不可或缺的部分,修饰语在语言运用中扮演着为语句提供更多有效信息及深化语义内涵的用作,因而世界上几乎所有的语言中都不乏修饰语结构。修饰语的结构和位置倾向也因语言而异。本文主要对比研究了在英语和维吾尔语语言中修饰语的结构和位置的异同。尽管英语和维吾尔语分属于不同的语系，但在这两种语言中存在着某些可共享的修饰语的结构与位置，也分别有其在各自的语言中对修饰语独特的运用特点。与此同时，在这两种语言中所表现出的修饰语结构和位置的异同，可以用诸如语序类型学，重度等级理论及图形和背景理论等加以阐释。
通过对比研究发现英语和维吾尔语中存在着诸如名词，形容词，代词，数词，分词，动名词和关系从句等类似的名词修饰语成分。此外，英语以不定式，副词以及介词短语作为修饰语成分,而在维吾尔语中则以拟声词和后置词短语充当名词修饰语成分。对于多项前置修饰语，英语和维吾尔语共有的结构性顺序是：领属性修饰语>形容词>属性名词，表达主观观念的形容词先于表达客观观念的形容词。数词和指示代词在维吾尔语中的位置比较灵活而这类修饰语在英语中的位置则相当固定。
语序类型学作为一个新的研究领域向我们阐述了语言的基本词序与语言中包括修饰语成分在内的其它成分之间的相关性。根据这一理论，领属成分(of领属结构)和关系从句在像英语这样SVO结构的语言中置于核心名词之后。然而在像维吾尔语这样具有SOV结构的语言中置于核心名词之前。由霍金斯提出的重度等级理论阐述的是人们倾向于将比较沉重和复杂的语言成分置于语句后半部以减轻人们对记忆完整语句的负担，这一点与英语语句的后置修饰语结构相一致。根据图形和背景理论的解释可以得知，运用不同语言的人们在感知事物时也是从不同的角度进行观察的。有些语言运用者对于事物的观察顺序是从核心向外部递进，而还有一些语言的运用者在观察事物则通常采用从外部到核心的观察顺序。英语和维吾尔语的思维方式也分别与以上理论所阐述的前者和后者的情况相一致。而修饰语在这两种语言的结构顺序也分别遵照从核心到外部及从外部到核心的模式。
Almost no language exists in the world without modification system as it is anindispensible part of every language with its vital role of providing furtherinformation and clarifying sentence meaning. Different languages have differentmodificational structures and positional tendencies. This paper mainly deals with thestructural and positional similarities and differences of modifiers between English andUyghur language. Even though English and Uyghur language belong to differentlanguage families, they still share some structural and positional similarities withshowing their distinctive features. In the meantime, the structural and positionaldifferences and similarities embodied by two languages can be explained by suchtheories as word order typology, heaviness hierarchy and figure and ground theory.
Through comparison, it is found that both in English and Uyghur, there aresimilar modifying components such as nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals,participles, gerunds and relative clauses. At the same time, there are infinitives,adverbs and prepositional phrases in English to serve as modifiers whileonomatopoeia and postpositional phrases can serve as modifiers in Uyghur. As tomultiple premodifiers, both English and Uyghur have the order: possessives>adjectives> attributive nouns and adjectives denoting subjective evaluation>adjectives denoting objective evaluation. Numerals and demonstratives are ratherflexible in Uyghur while they are relatively fixed in English.
Word order typology is one of the new areas in which scholars present us withthe correlations of word order with other language elements including elementsserving as modifiers. In accordance with this theory, genitives (of genitive) andrelative clauses are placed after head word as most SVO languages do in the worldlike English while these elements are put after head word as most SOV languages dolike Uyghur. Heaviness hierarchy is another theory put forward by Hawkins. Peopletend to put heavy, complicated elements in the end to ease the memory burden as it is the case in English phrasal and clausal postmodificational structures. The last but notthe least one is figure and ground theory in which it is said that people of differentlanguages may perceive objects from different angles, i.e., some perceive from centralobject to objects around it and others from objects around to central objects. Englishand Uyghur thinking mode is in conformity with this theory and modifiers can bearranged in from figure to ground and ground to figure respectively.
通过对比研究发现英语和维吾尔语中存在着诸如名词，形容词，代词，数词，分词，动名词和关系从句等类似的名词修饰语成分。此外，英语以不定式，副词以及介词短语作为修饰语成分,而在维吾尔语中则以拟声词和后置词短语充当名词修饰语成分。对于多项前置修饰语，英语和维吾尔语共有的结构性顺序是：领属性修饰语>形容词>属性名词，表达主观观念的形容词先于表达客观观念的形容词。数词和指示代词在维吾尔语中的位置比较灵活而这类修饰语在英语中的位置则相当固定。
语序类型学作为一个新的研究领域向我们阐述了语言的基本词序与语言中包括修饰语成分在内的其它成分之间的相关性。根据这一理论，领属成分(of领属结构)和关系从句在像英语这样SVO结构的语言中置于核心名词之后。然而在像维吾尔语这样具有SOV结构的语言中置于核心名词之前。由霍金斯提出的重度等级理论阐述的是人们倾向于将比较沉重和复杂的语言成分置于语句后半部以减轻人们对记忆完整语句的负担，这一点与英语语句的后置修饰语结构相一致。根据图形和背景理论的解释可以得知，运用不同语言的人们在感知事物时也是从不同的角度进行观察的。有些语言运用者对于事物的观察顺序是从核心向外部递进，而还有一些语言的运用者在观察事物则通常采用从外部到核心的观察顺序。英语和维吾尔语的思维方式也分别与以上理论所阐述的前者和后者的情况相一致。而修饰语在这两种语言的结构顺序也分别遵照从核心到外部及从外部到核心的模式。
Almost no language exists in the world without modification system as it is anindispensible part of every language with its vital role of providing furtherinformation and clarifying sentence meaning. Different languages have differentmodificational structures and positional tendencies. This paper mainly deals with thestructural and positional similarities and differences of modifiers between English andUyghur language. Even though English and Uyghur language belong to differentlanguage families, they still share some structural and positional similarities withshowing their distinctive features. In the meantime, the structural and positionaldifferences and similarities embodied by two languages can be explained by suchtheories as word order typology, heaviness hierarchy and figure and ground theory.
Through comparison, it is found that both in English and Uyghur, there aresimilar modifying components such as nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals,participles, gerunds and relative clauses. At the same time, there are infinitives,adverbs and prepositional phrases in English to serve as modifiers whileonomatopoeia and postpositional phrases can serve as modifiers in Uyghur. As tomultiple premodifiers, both English and Uyghur have the order: possessives>adjectives> attributive nouns and adjectives denoting subjective evaluation>adjectives denoting objective evaluation. Numerals and demonstratives are ratherflexible in Uyghur while they are relatively fixed in English.
Word order typology is one of the new areas in which scholars present us withthe correlations of word order with other language elements including elementsserving as modifiers. In accordance with this theory, genitives (of genitive) andrelative clauses are placed after head word as most SVO languages do in the worldlike English while these elements are put after head word as most SOV languages dolike Uyghur. Heaviness hierarchy is another theory put forward by Hawkins. Peopletend to put heavy, complicated elements in the end to ease the memory burden as it is the case in English phrasal and clausal postmodificational structures. The last but notthe least one is figure and ground theory in which it is said that people of differentlanguages may perceive objects from different angles, i.e., some perceive from centralobject to objects around it and others from objects around to central objects. Englishand Uyghur thinking mode is in conformity with this theory and modifiers can bearranged in from figure to ground and ground to figure respectively.
引文
[1] Bache, C. The Order of Premodifying Adjectives in Present-Day English [M]. Odense: OdenseUniversity Press,1978.
[2] Bache, C. Another Look at the Order of Pre-modifying Adjectives in English [A]. In Sounds,Structures and Senses [C]. Odense: Odense University Press,1997:117-138.
[3] Bock, K. Towards a cognitive psychology of syntax: information processing contributions tosentence formulation [J]. Psychological Review,1982,(89):1-47.
[4] Brown, K.&Miller, J. Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure [M]. London:Routledge,1991.
[5] Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures [M]. Mouton: The Hague,1957.
[6] Chomsky, N. Reflections on Language [M]. New York: Pantheon,1965.
[7] Comrie, B. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology [M]. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press,1989.
[8] Croft, W. Typology and Universals [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and ResearchPress,1999.
[9] Dryer, M. SOV Languages and the OV:VO Typology [M]. Journal of Linguistics,1991,(27):443-482.
[10] Dryer, M. The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations [J]. Language,1992,(68):81-138.
[11] Dryer, M. Order of Subject, Object and Verb [J] In: WALS,2005:330-33.
[12] Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguages Education Press.1994.
[13] Givón, T. Iconicity, Isomorphism and Non-arbitrary Coding in Syntax [A]. Iconicity inSyntax [C]. Ed. Haiman, J. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1985:187-219.
[14] Goyvaerts, D. L. An Introductory Study on the Ordering of a String of Adjectives in PresentDay English [M]. Philologica Pmgensia,1968.
[15] Greenberg, J. H. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order ofmeaningful elements [A]. Greenberg, Joseph H.(eds.) Universals of grammar [C]. Mass: MITPress,1963:73-113.
[16] Greenberg, Joseph H. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order ofMeaningful Elements [M]. Mass: MIT Press,1966.
[17] Haiman, J. Iconic and Economic Motivation [J]. Language,1983,(59):781-819.
[18] Hawkins, J. A. Word Order Universal [M]. New York: Academic Press,1983.
[19] Hawkins, J. A. A Parsing Theory of Word Order Universals [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1990,(21):223-261.
[20] Hawkins, J. A. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
[21] Malkiel, Yakov. Studies in Irreversible Binominals [J]. Lingua,1959,(8):113-160.
[22] Odlin, T. Language Transfer---Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Teaching Press,2001.
[23] Quirk, R&Greenbaum, S. An Universal Grammar of English [M]. London: Longman,1973.
[24] Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, Jan Svartvik. A ComprehensiveGrammar of the English Language [M]. New York: Longman,1985.
[25] Radford A. Transformational Grammar: A First Course [M]. Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press,1988.
[26] Stallings, L., MacDonald, M.,&O Seaghdha, P. Phrasal ordering constraints in sentenceproduction: phrase length and verb disposition in heavy-NP shift [J]. Journal of Memory andLanguage,1998,(39):392-417.
[27] Swan, M. Practical English Usage [M]. Oxford University Press,1980.
[28] Talmy, G. Bio-linguistics: the Santa Barbara Lectures [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2002.
[29] Taylor, J. Ten Lectures on Applied Cognitive Linguistics by Jone Taylor [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2006.
[30] Teyssier, J. Notes on the Syntax of the Adjective in Modern English [M]. Lingua,1968,(20):225-249.
[31] T mür, H mit. Modern Uyghur Grammar (Translated by Anne Lee)[M]. Istanbul: KitabMatbaasi,2003.
[32] Ungerer, F.&H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive linguistics [M]. Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press,2001.
[33] Wasow, T. Remarks on Grammatical Weight [J]. Language Variation and Change,1997,(9):81-105.
[34] Wasow, T. Postverbal Behavior [M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications,2002.
[35]陈世民、热扎克.维吾尔语实用语法[M].新疆大学出版社,1991.
[36]程适良.现代维吾尔语语法(维吾尔文)[M].新疆人民出版社,1996.
[37]丁石庆.浅谈哈萨克语动名词[J].语言与翻译,1987,(2).
[38]方晓华.维吾尔语句子类型分析[M].民族语文,1997,(5):44-53.
[39]哈米提·铁木尔.现代维吾尔语语法(维吾尔文)[M].民族出版社,1993.
[40]金立鑫.对一些普遍语序现象的功能解释[J].当代语言学,1999,(4).
[41]力提甫·托乎提.维吾尔语的关系从句[J].民族语文,1995,(6).
[42]力提甫·托乎提.维吾尔语格的省略和X标杆理论[J].民族语文,1999,(2):65-71.
[43]力提甫·托乎提.维吾尔语及其他阿尔泰语言的生成句法研究[M].北京:民族出版社,2001.
[44]力提甫·托乎提.阿尔泰语言构形成分的句法层次问题[J].中央民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002,(6):80-84.
[45]力提甫·托乎提.从短语结构到最简方案---阿尔泰语言的句法结构[M].北京:中央民族大学出版社,2004.
[46]力提甫·托乎提.生成语法框架内的维吾尔语句法[J].民族语文,2005:(6):35-43.
[47]力提甫·托乎提.维吾尔语名词性语类间的句法共性[J].民族语文,2006,(4):59-67.
[48]李素秋.汉维多重定语语序对比研究[D].中央民族大学博士学位论文,2009.
[49]李素秋.汉语和维吾尔语多重定语语序的共性特点[J].语言与翻译,2010,(1).
[50]李祥瑞.现代维语的名名结构[J].语言与翻译,2001,(3):4-6.
[51]梁伟.现代维吾尔语的动名词定语及其分类[J].民族语文,1999,(1).
[52]林青.汉维语语序对比研究[D]喀什师范学院硕士论文,2008.
[53]林青.从汉维语语序的对比看汉维语两种语言的语言类型特点[J].喀什师范学院学报,2010,(2).
[54]刘冰泉,况新华.英语名词短语形容词排序的认知学分析[J].外语与外语教学,2006,(5).
[55]刘丹青.语序共性与歧义结构[A].沈家煊主编.现代汉语语法的功能、语用、认知研究
[C].商务印书:2003.
[56]刘珉.汉维共时对比语法[M].新疆人民出版社,1991.
[57]陆丙甫.定语的外延性、内涵性和称谓性[J].语法研究与探索,1988,(4).
[58]毛薇.英汉多项前置修饰语次序的认知功能探索[D].上海外国语大学博士论文,2006.
[59]买买提明·沙力.现代维吾尔语(维吾尔文)[M].乌鲁木齐:新疆大学出版社,2000.
[60]木再帕尔.论维吾尔语的名词化短语[D].中央民族大学博士学位论文,2007.
[61]前苏联哈萨克斯坦社会科学院语言研究所维吾尔语研究室编.陈世民、廖泽余译.现代维吾尔语(汉文版)[M].新疆人民出版社,1987.
[62]王寅.认知语法[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
[59]王栋,戴炜栋.语言迁移研究:问题与思考[J].外国语,2002,(3).
[63]魏生儒.浅谈汉语、维吾尔语定语的异同[J].语言与翻译,1987,(1).
[64]杨承兴.现代维吾尔语语法[M].乌鲁木齐:新疆大学出版社,2002.
[65]易坤秀、高士杰.维吾尔语语法[M].北京:中央民族大学,1998.
[66]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海外语教学出版社,2004.
[67]张敏.认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[68]张绍忠.英语修饰语[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社,1988.
[69]张世才.维吾尔语语序刍议[J].语言与翻译,1999,(2).
[70]张淑芳.汉维短语比较[J].新疆师范大学学报,1995,(1).
[71]章振邦.新编英语语法[M].上海外语教育出版社,1997.
[72]张玉萍.汉维语法对比[M].乌鲁木齐:新疆人民出版社,1999.
[2] Bache, C. Another Look at the Order of Pre-modifying Adjectives in English [A]. In Sounds,Structures and Senses [C]. Odense: Odense University Press,1997:117-138.
[3] Bock, K. Towards a cognitive psychology of syntax: information processing contributions tosentence formulation [J]. Psychological Review,1982,(89):1-47.
[4] Brown, K.&Miller, J. Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure [M]. London:Routledge,1991.
[5] Chomsky, N. Syntactic Structures [M]. Mouton: The Hague,1957.
[6] Chomsky, N. Reflections on Language [M]. New York: Pantheon,1965.
[7] Comrie, B. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology [M]. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press,1989.
[8] Croft, W. Typology and Universals [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and ResearchPress,1999.
[9] Dryer, M. SOV Languages and the OV:VO Typology [M]. Journal of Linguistics,1991,(27):443-482.
[10] Dryer, M. The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations [J]. Language,1992,(68):81-138.
[11] Dryer, M. Order of Subject, Object and Verb [J] In: WALS,2005:330-33.
[12] Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguages Education Press.1994.
[13] Givón, T. Iconicity, Isomorphism and Non-arbitrary Coding in Syntax [A]. Iconicity inSyntax [C]. Ed. Haiman, J. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1985:187-219.
[14] Goyvaerts, D. L. An Introductory Study on the Ordering of a String of Adjectives in PresentDay English [M]. Philologica Pmgensia,1968.
[15] Greenberg, J. H. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order ofmeaningful elements [A]. Greenberg, Joseph H.(eds.) Universals of grammar [C]. Mass: MITPress,1963:73-113.
[16] Greenberg, Joseph H. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order ofMeaningful Elements [M]. Mass: MIT Press,1966.
[17] Haiman, J. Iconic and Economic Motivation [J]. Language,1983,(59):781-819.
[18] Hawkins, J. A. Word Order Universal [M]. New York: Academic Press,1983.
[19] Hawkins, J. A. A Parsing Theory of Word Order Universals [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1990,(21):223-261.
[20] Hawkins, J. A. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
[21] Malkiel, Yakov. Studies in Irreversible Binominals [J]. Lingua,1959,(8):113-160.
[22] Odlin, T. Language Transfer---Cross-linguistic Influence in Language Learning [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Teaching Press,2001.
[23] Quirk, R&Greenbaum, S. An Universal Grammar of English [M]. London: Longman,1973.
[24] Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, Jan Svartvik. A ComprehensiveGrammar of the English Language [M]. New York: Longman,1985.
[25] Radford A. Transformational Grammar: A First Course [M]. Beijing: Foreign LanguageTeaching and Research Press,1988.
[26] Stallings, L., MacDonald, M.,&O Seaghdha, P. Phrasal ordering constraints in sentenceproduction: phrase length and verb disposition in heavy-NP shift [J]. Journal of Memory andLanguage,1998,(39):392-417.
[27] Swan, M. Practical English Usage [M]. Oxford University Press,1980.
[28] Talmy, G. Bio-linguistics: the Santa Barbara Lectures [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2002.
[29] Taylor, J. Ten Lectures on Applied Cognitive Linguistics by Jone Taylor [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2006.
[30] Teyssier, J. Notes on the Syntax of the Adjective in Modern English [M]. Lingua,1968,(20):225-249.
[31] T mür, H mit. Modern Uyghur Grammar (Translated by Anne Lee)[M]. Istanbul: KitabMatbaasi,2003.
[32] Ungerer, F.&H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive linguistics [M]. Beijing: ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press,2001.
[33] Wasow, T. Remarks on Grammatical Weight [J]. Language Variation and Change,1997,(9):81-105.
[34] Wasow, T. Postverbal Behavior [M]. Stanford: CSLI Publications,2002.
[35]陈世民、热扎克.维吾尔语实用语法[M].新疆大学出版社,1991.
[36]程适良.现代维吾尔语语法(维吾尔文)[M].新疆人民出版社,1996.
[37]丁石庆.浅谈哈萨克语动名词[J].语言与翻译,1987,(2).
[38]方晓华.维吾尔语句子类型分析[M].民族语文,1997,(5):44-53.
[39]哈米提·铁木尔.现代维吾尔语语法(维吾尔文)[M].民族出版社,1993.
[40]金立鑫.对一些普遍语序现象的功能解释[J].当代语言学,1999,(4).
[41]力提甫·托乎提.维吾尔语的关系从句[J].民族语文,1995,(6).
[42]力提甫·托乎提.维吾尔语格的省略和X标杆理论[J].民族语文,1999,(2):65-71.
[43]力提甫·托乎提.维吾尔语及其他阿尔泰语言的生成句法研究[M].北京:民族出版社,2001.
[44]力提甫·托乎提.阿尔泰语言构形成分的句法层次问题[J].中央民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002,(6):80-84.
[45]力提甫·托乎提.从短语结构到最简方案---阿尔泰语言的句法结构[M].北京:中央民族大学出版社,2004.
[46]力提甫·托乎提.生成语法框架内的维吾尔语句法[J].民族语文,2005:(6):35-43.
[47]力提甫·托乎提.维吾尔语名词性语类间的句法共性[J].民族语文,2006,(4):59-67.
[48]李素秋.汉维多重定语语序对比研究[D].中央民族大学博士学位论文,2009.
[49]李素秋.汉语和维吾尔语多重定语语序的共性特点[J].语言与翻译,2010,(1).
[50]李祥瑞.现代维语的名名结构[J].语言与翻译,2001,(3):4-6.
[51]梁伟.现代维吾尔语的动名词定语及其分类[J].民族语文,1999,(1).
[52]林青.汉维语语序对比研究[D]喀什师范学院硕士论文,2008.
[53]林青.从汉维语语序的对比看汉维语两种语言的语言类型特点[J].喀什师范学院学报,2010,(2).
[54]刘冰泉,况新华.英语名词短语形容词排序的认知学分析[J].外语与外语教学,2006,(5).
[55]刘丹青.语序共性与歧义结构[A].沈家煊主编.现代汉语语法的功能、语用、认知研究
[C].商务印书:2003.
[56]刘珉.汉维共时对比语法[M].新疆人民出版社,1991.
[57]陆丙甫.定语的外延性、内涵性和称谓性[J].语法研究与探索,1988,(4).
[58]毛薇.英汉多项前置修饰语次序的认知功能探索[D].上海外国语大学博士论文,2006.
[59]买买提明·沙力.现代维吾尔语(维吾尔文)[M].乌鲁木齐:新疆大学出版社,2000.
[60]木再帕尔.论维吾尔语的名词化短语[D].中央民族大学博士学位论文,2007.
[61]前苏联哈萨克斯坦社会科学院语言研究所维吾尔语研究室编.陈世民、廖泽余译.现代维吾尔语(汉文版)[M].新疆人民出版社,1987.
[62]王寅.认知语法[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
[59]王栋,戴炜栋.语言迁移研究:问题与思考[J].外国语,2002,(3).
[63]魏生儒.浅谈汉语、维吾尔语定语的异同[J].语言与翻译,1987,(1).
[64]杨承兴.现代维吾尔语语法[M].乌鲁木齐:新疆大学出版社,2002.
[65]易坤秀、高士杰.维吾尔语语法[M].北京:中央民族大学,1998.
[66]赵艳芳.认知语言学概论[M].上海外语教学出版社,2004.
[67]张敏.认知语言学与汉语名词短语[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[68]张绍忠.英语修饰语[M].石家庄:河北教育出版社,1988.
[69]张世才.维吾尔语语序刍议[J].语言与翻译,1999,(2).
[70]张淑芳.汉维短语比较[J].新疆师范大学学报,1995,(1).
[71]章振邦.新编英语语法[M].上海外语教育出版社,1997.
[72]张玉萍.汉维语法对比[M].乌鲁木齐:新疆人民出版社,1999.