摘要
随着语言学研究重心由句子的客观领域向主观领域的转移,情态研究得到了前所未有的发展。作为亚洲代表性语言的日语、汉语的情态研究及对比研究在世界的情态研究中占据重要地位。日汉情态对比研究的发展来自于语言教学实践的客观需要。本研究论述了情态领域的基本概念在日、汉语中的共性和差异以及日、汉情态具有的类型学特殊性；从语言类型学的视角划分日语的情态系统,确立日汉对比平台；在对日语、汉语情态在宏观和微观领域进行了相关考察的基础上对日汉情态进行了若干宏观及微观层面的对比。本研究的出发点和落脚点是通过日汉情态的研究和对比研究为中国的日语教育提供理论参考。
本文分为十章,约21万字。
第一章,明确研究背景、研究目的、研究意义、研究内容、研究对象、研究方法、语料来源。
第二章,针对情态研究中基本概念不清、系统不明的问题,明确情态、语气等概念在英、日、汉中的共性和差异。介绍本研究所涉及的相关理论基础、概念。对日语情态理论的主要流派和基本概念、观点、基本立场、研究方法进行整理归纳。
第三章,从类型学角度探讨日语、汉语情态在语气概念、情态概念、情态系统、表现方式等方面的蕴涵共性及特殊性,进一步明晰日、汉情态的特征和性质。语法上日语是一种情态系统与语气并存的语言,情态系统占绝对主要地位,日语语气与印欧语的语气性质不同,语气的表现形式通常被列入情态系统。汉语是一种情态系统与语气并存的语言,汉语情态的语法表现主要为情态系统,近现代汉语情态研究中的“语气”概念和印欧语“情态”的概念内涵更接近,目前一般表示mood。日汉情态在情态类型、情态载体、微观概念、表达方式、语序、句子结构等各方面都具有差异。
第四章,从语言类型学的角度尝试对现代日语情态进行类型划分,对情态与句类的关系进行了说明。对现代日汉情态系统进行整理,建立日汉情态对比的平台。日语的情态可划分为能动情态、道义情态、行为情态、认识情态、说明情态、态度情态六类；根据情态类型,将日语的句子在传统的陈述句、疑问句、祈使句中划分Ⅱ出意愿句,意愿句下分祈愿句和意志句。汉语情态系统可分为能动情态、道义情态、认识情态、态度情态四类。本文的情态系统建立在以情态动词为中心的情态标识的基础上。
第五章,通过语料库进行日汉对比实证调查研究,为本研究提供数据支持。第五章选取了部分使用率高的汉语情态动词和代表性日语情态标识,从中日对译语料库中分别抽取例句进行了数据调查。对于当前基于数据库的对比实证研究的缺陷及语料整理分析中若干问题等进行说明。
第六章选取若干日汉对比中涉及的相关情态标识在微观层面展开具体研究。第六章根据第四章的情态类型分类,在第五章数据统计的基础上,围绕着日语的道义、；汉语的多义的情态动词“应该(该、应、应当、当)”、“要”、“好”等,涉及“会”“可以(可)”“得dei、必须”“能(能够)”,以语义为中心,结合形态,从时态、极性、人称等方面分别围绕着语义分布、语义特征、性质等问题展开具体的探(?)自由度方面具有不同的特征。另外,本章论述了汉语情态动词的道义与行为要求(祈使)问题,汉语的道义情态动词不具有独立行使祈使功能的作用力,汉语中不存在像日语那样独立的行为情态系统。
第七章,在第四章构建的情态类型平台上从宏观和微观的层面对构成情态系统的情态标识进行日汉对比研究。主要内容包括：日汉情态标识在句子结构、句子层次中的差异；情态语义与形态、时、体、人称、动词等关系的不同；情态类型的分布,情态标识具有不同特征等。第七章也涉及日汉情态的相关共性问题。第七章尝试运用语义地图对日汉情态标识进行语义、体系对比并指出了语义地图存在的不足。第七章涉及“日语的情态标识是否为‘单义’型”；“日语的认识情态与道义情态的关联性、语法化问题”；“‘可以’的语义分析”；“双重否定”等日汉对比课题。
第八章对日语的情态标识共现问题进行考察,日语中情态标识共现是一个常见的现象,而以汉语为母语的日语学习者在日语情态标识共现的习得方面基本采取回避策略。第八章归纳日语情态标识的共现特点、性质、结构、语义表达和五项共现规则；通过句子结构、共现类型、共现项数、共现规则、共现语义的角度对日汉情态共现进行对比。从类型学角度对汉日情态共现进行宏观对比分析后发现汉日情态标识共现顺序相反的现象背后隐藏着共同的规律。在微观的方面,通过对比得出[べきだ]与“应该”的情态共现“表象相同、本质不同”的结论。
第九章,基于中国的日语教育、日语学习者的学习现状,从语言学角度阐述了日汉对比在中国的日语教学中的必要性及作用。目前在中国的日语教育领域,对比分析对于母语负迁移问题的解决起到了重要作用。标记理论尚处于发展的起步阶段。
情态是日语二语教育中的难点和重点。由于日汉语言差异与深层次的语言结构制约因素的不同,日汉情态在形态、句法结构、语义表现等方面的巨大差异给汉语为母语的日语学习者造成了程度较高的困难。日、汉的母语者在情态习得过程中存在着认知过程、认知机制差异,导致发生母语负迁移现象。日语教学需要针对日汉情态的认知心理机制等差异采取有效的教学对策。
第十章结语,总结本文主要内容,指出不足之处及展望今后的研究。
With the objective approach to sentence in linguistics shifting to the subjective one, modality study has experienced an unprecedented development. The independent and contrast researches into modality of Chinese & Japanese have been an indispensable part of modality study among the world languages. The development of Japanese-Chinese (Sino-Japanese) contrastive linguistics in the field of modality meets the needs of language teaching and language research.
The study further clarifies the basic concepts, the difference and universals, and typological particularities of modal systems in modern Japanese & Chinese. With a typological approach, modal systems of Japanese and Chinese are studied from both macro and micro perspectives. We attempt to provide a theoretical basis for Japanese & Chinese international education and Japanese language education in China.
The dissertation consists of ten chapters, about 210 thousand words (Chinese characters).
The first chapter introduces the background, purpose, significance, objects, the content, methods, and corpus sources of the study.
In ChapterⅡ, the dissertation clarifies the basic concepts and the theoretical foundation to address the problem of unclear basic concepts and the system of modality. It introduces main schools and basic concepts, ideas, stances, and methods of modern Japanese modality. It also makes a retrospection on modality research of modern Chinese.
In ChapterⅢ, from the typological perspective, the dissertation discusses specificity and implicational universals of Japanese and Chinese modality, further clarifies the typology features and characteristics of Japanese and Chinese modality. Grammatically modal system and mood occur within Japanese, and modal system is much more salient than mood. Mood system of Japanese is essentially different from that of Indo-European language. Traditionally, mood of Japanese is discussed within the modal system. Both modal system and mood occur within Chinese and the way in which Chinese deal grammatically with modality is mainly represented in terms of modal system. The Ⅷconcept of“语气”in modern Chinese study is closer to the concept of "modality". Japanese and Chinese have differences in the modal types of modality, modal carriers, micro-concepts, expressions, word order, sentence structure and other areas.
Chapter IV, from the typological perspective, tries to make a classification of modern Japanese modality and the relation between modality and sentence types. A macroscopic comparison basis is established between Japanese and Chinese modal systems.
Japanese modality can be classified into six types:dynamic modality, deontic modality, act modality, epistemic modality, attitudinal modality. Based on the modal types, the volitive sentence can be separated out from the traditional declarative, interrogative, and imperative sentence in Japanese. The Chinese modal system can be divided into four types of dynamic modality, deontic modality, epistemic modality and attitudinal modality. Modal systems of the dissertation are built on the basis of modal markers, of which the central part is modal verb.
In Chapter V, empirical research is conducted by Chinese and Japanese contrastive corpus, so as to provide data support for related research. The investigation is carried out by selecting the Chinese modal verbs with the high usage rate and the typical Japanese modal markers, and extracts examples from CJCS (2003). The defects and the problems of the current empirical research based on the database and corpus are also described.
Chapter VI, according to the modal classification of chapter IV, based on the statistical database of chapter V, discusses Japanese & Chinese modal markers from the angles of semantics, syntax, polarity, tense and so on. The related modal markers include:the deontic and act modality of (?) (?), epistemic modality of (?) (?), markers with polysemy of (?)‘应该(该、应、应当、当)”、“要”、“好”and“会”“可以(可)”“得dei、必须”“能(能够)”. ChapterⅥdiscusses the comparison between similar modal markers of (?) (?)etc, which have different characteristics in the tendency of determining benchmark, behavior & situation's controllability and freedom degree. In chapter VI, the author also analyses the essence and the feature of the Japanese and Chinese modal markers. In addition, discussion was made here on whether the Chinese deontic modal verbs have imperative functions. It is considered that the Chinese deontic modal verbs do not have independent imperative function, and an independent act modal system doesn't exist in Chinese.
ChapterⅦ, the author makes contrastive studies of Japanese and Chinese based on the typological platform constructed in chapterⅣ, discusses the characteristics of Japanese and Chinese modality. The main contents include the differences between Japanese and Chinese modality in sentence structure, hierarchy structure, modal systems, modal markers, semantic, syntax, tense, polarity, verbs and other aspects. The common points on Japanese and Chinese modality are also discussed. ChapterⅦattempts to make Japanese-Chinese contrastive research on semantics or modal system by using the semantic map and further points out the defects of semantic map explanation. ChapterⅦalso involves the issues of whether Japanese modal markers are monosemic, the relation and grammaticalization of Japanese epistemic and deontic modality, semantic analysis and double negation, etc.
ChapterⅧdescribes a study of co-occurrence and collocation of modality. First, we generalize the features, essence, structure, semantic of the Japanese co-occurrence patterns. Second, Japanese-Chinese contrastive research is carried out on sentence structure, type, number of items and the semantic of the co-occurrence. We find that Japanese and Chinese co-occurrence patterns have the reverse order. However, a universal can be found behind the reverse surface from the typological perspective. ChapterⅧalso makes a microscopic comparison on co-occurrence problem between "べきだ" and'‘应该”It's found that "べきだ" and“应该”seem to have the same co-occurrence order but they are essentially different.
In ChapterⅨ, based on the current state of Japanese language education in China and Chinese native speaker's Japanese learning situation, the dissertation describes the role and the necessity of the Japanese-Chinese (Sino-Japanese) contrast research from the linguistic perspective. Currently in the field of Japanese education in China, contrastive analysis has played an important role in negative transfer of mother language. Markedness theory research is in the elementary stage.
Modality is a focus and difficult subject in the second language education of Japanese. With the different deep-seated structural constraints of different languages, we can find Japanese and Chinese modality showing wide differences in form, syntactic structure, X semantic and other aspects. It is the wide differences that make Chinese native speaker's study of Japanese rather difficult. Furthermore, the cognitive processes and cognitive mechanisms between Japanese and Chinese native speakers in the modal acquisition process are different, which results in Chinese negative transfer in Japanese learning. So Japanese modality teaching requires for effective teaching strategies for psychological mechanisms of cognitive differences between Japanese and Chinese in China.
Chapter X summarizes the contents of this dissertation, and points out the inadequacies and prospects for future research.
引文
[2]#12
[3]#12
[5]#12
[6]安达太郎,副詞が文末形式な與ぇる影響,[A],広岛女子大学国际文化学部紀要 3広岛女子大学国际文化学部1997
[7]安达太郎,「だろう」の伝達的な侧面,[J],日本藉教育95,日本語教育学会,1997
[9]#12
[12]#12
[14]奥田靖雄,おしはかり(一)(二),[J],日本語学3-12、4-2,1985
[15]奥田靖雄,文のこと·文のさまざま(1),[J],教育国語80,1985
[16]#12
[20]#12
[21]#12
[23]#12
[24]北原保雄,日本語助动詞の研究,[M],大修館書店,1981b
[25]布村政雄,文のこと,[A]，国藉国文13·14,宫城教育大,1984
[26]川村大,べシの诸用法の位置关系,[A],築岛裕博士古希记念国語学論集,汲古書院,1995
[27]川村大,べシの表す意味-肯定·否定·疑問の文環境の中で-,[A]，山口明穗教授還歷记念国語学論集,明治书院,P175-194,1996
[28]川村大,叙法と意味—古代語べシの场合一,[J],日本語学通卷246号,P28-36,2002
[29]村田昌巳,實質と形式—モノ·コトの用法かうー[A],同志社国文学54,同志社大学国文学会/同志社大学国文学会[編],P113-122,2001(3) 252
語 讲座6文法Ⅱ,朝倉害店,P193-214,2004
[46]工藤浩,评価成分をめくつて,[M],川端善明他編日本藉文法,1997
[47]#12
[53]工藤真由美,否定の表现金水敏·工藤真由美·沼田善子著日本語の文法2时·否定と取り立て,[M],岩波书店,P93—115,2000c P1-17，2004a
[57]#12
[59]宫岛逢夫,情熊副詞と陈述,[A],副用語の研究,明治書院,1983
[60]#12
[61]#12
[63]#12DeonticEpistemic
[65]吉田茂晃,ノダ形式の连文的侧面,[A],神户大学国文学研究ノート21,1988
[66]吉田茂晃,,ノダ形式の构造と表现效果,[A],神户大学国文论叢15,1988
[70]金善美·影山太郎·高梨信乃·松田结贵他,日本藉文法4卷1号,[M],くろしお出版,2004
[71]金水敏,伝达の凳話行为と日本語の文末形式,[A],神户大学文学部紀要第18号,P23-41,1991
[74]#12
[75]金水敏,日本語存在表现の历史,[M],ひつじ书房,2006
[78]井岛正博,隙述论史の多层的解释,[J],成蹊国文28,1995
[79]井岛正博,ノダ文の技能と构造,[J],日本語学论集(第六号),P75-105,2010
[80]堀口和吉,[のだ]の表现性,[J],山迈道29,1985
[82]毛文伟,现代日语助词性机能辞研究,[M],华东理工大学出版社,2009
[84]#12
[85]南不二男,质問文の构造,[A],朝仓日本語新讲座[文法と意味Ⅱ]1985
[92]#12
[93]仁田羲雄,ぁる近代的日本文法研究史,[M],和泉書院,2005
[94]#12
[98]森山卓郎,日本語动词述語文の研究,[M],明治書院,1988
[102]森山卓郎,价值判断のム一ド形式と人称,[J],日本語教育77号,日本語教育学会,1992
[103]#12
[107]森田·松木日本語表现文型,[M],アルク,1989
[108]森田良行,日本語学と日本藉教育,[M],凡人社,P86-101,1990
[109]#12
[110]#12
[112]山口尧二,疑問表现の否定,[J],国語と国文学61-7,1984
[113]山梨正明,认知文法论,[M],ひつじ书房,1995
[115]#12
[117]#12
[118]#12
[124]寺村秀夫,モノとコト,[J]，国语学论集,大修馆害店,1981a
[125]寺村秀夫,ム一ドの形式と意味3—取立て助詞につぃてー,[J],文艺言語研究言語篇6
号筑波大学,1981b
[127]汤本久美子日英語认知モダリティ论ー连(?)性の视座ー,[M],くろしぉ出版,2004
[128]堂下修司·新美康永·白井克彦·田中穗積·溝口理一郎編、ォーム社音声にょる人間と机械の对話,[M],P257-271,1998
[130]田村直子,ハブダの意味と用法,[J]，日本藉と日本文学21,P43-53,1995
[131]田窪行则,岩波讲座认知科学7言語,[M],岩波害店,1995
[132]田窪行则,言語学と日本语教育2,[M],くろしお出版,2001
[133]田窪行则,日本語の文法4复文と谈話,[M],岩波讲座,岩波书店,2002
[135]田野村忠温,现代日本語の文法Ⅰ一[のだ]の意味と用法一[M],和泉害院,1991
[136]田野村忠温,rのだJの机能,[J],日本語学12卷1l号,1993
[138]田野村忠温,现代日本語の文法Ⅰ一のだの意味と用法一,[M],和泉书院,1990a
[140]田中敏生,否定述语·不确実述語の作用面と对象面一隙述副词の呼応の内実を求めてー
[A][日本語学]2卷10号,1983
[141]王晓华,中国語の[应该]と对应关系をもつ日本藉のモダリティ,[D],上海外国语大学硕士学位论文,2006
[144]王志英,命令·依赖の表现一日本語·中国語の对照研究一,[M],勉诚出版,2005
[145]尾方理惠,[屯のだ]の意味と用法,[A],东京外国語大学留学生日本語教育センター论集26,P1-16,2000
[146]尾上圭介,文法论--陈述论の诞生と终焉,[J],[国語と国文学]67-5,1990
[147]乡丸静香,现代日本語の当为表现,[A],三重大学日本藉学文学6,三重大学日本藉学文学会,P29-39,1995
[149]篠崎一郎,[ハズ]の意味について,[J],日本語教育44号,P43-56,1981.6
[150]野波正隆·孙树乔,中国人日本語学习者の[意志表现]につぃて,[A],大阪教育大学紀要第Ⅰ部门第58卷第Ⅰ号,P43-62,2009
[151]野村刚史,モダリティ形式の分类,[J],国語学通卷212号(54-1),国語学会,P17-31, 256
[158]#12
[163]#12
[167]益岡隆志,命题の文法一日本藉文法序税一,[M],くろしぉ出版,1987
[169]益同隆志,复文,[M],くろしぉ出版,1997
[170]益同隆志,日本語文法の诸相,[M],くろしぉ出版,2000
[174]#12
[175]益岡隆志,モダリティ,[J],别(?)国文学53,学燈社,2000b
[176]#12
[186]姬野伴子,[のだ]の机能と用法,[A],东京外国語大学日本語学科年报11,1989
[187]#12
[191]中右(?),认知意味论の原理,[M],大修馆书店,1994a
[192]#12
[193]#12
[194]吴大纲,日语语法、句法与篇章法,[M],上海外语教育出版社,2007
[1]Bernard Comrie,沈家煊译,对比语言学和语言类型学,[J],国外语言学1988年第3期,1988
[2]C.Lamarre,汉语里标注惯常动作的形式,[A],北京语言大学出版社,P101-124,2007
[3]Kripke S,命名与必然性,[M],上海译文出版社,2005
[4]北京大学中文系1955/1957级语言班编,现代汉语虚词例释,[M],商务印书馆,P199-449,1982
[5]北京语言学院语言教学研究所,汉语词汇的统计与分析,[M],外语教育与研究出版社,1985
[6]曹大峰、张麟生、李庆祥译,仁田义雄著日语的语气和人称,[M],北京大学出版社,1997
[7]曾常红、陈嘉嘉,“应该1”与“应该2”的句法语义分析,[J],《湖州师范学院学报》第27卷,2005(5)
[8]陈凡凡,标记假说与汉语二语习得中的母语迁移现象及习得难度,[A],第八届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选,高等教育出版社,P521-530,2007
[9]陈嘉嘉,“应该”的多视角研究,[D],湖南师范大学硕士学位论文,2006
[10]崔诚恩,现代汉语情态副词研究,[D],中国社会科学院研究生院博士学位论文,2002
[11]崔希亮,事件的情态和汉语的表态系统,[A],《语法研究和探索》(十二),商务印书馆,2003
[12]戴宝玉,关于陈述接续词与复合谓语的呼应以及相互连接,[J],《日语学习与研究》第4期,2010
[13]戴耀晶,现代汉语助动词“可能”的语义分析,[A],语法研究和探索(十二),2003
[14]董秀芳,论句法结构的词汇化,[J],语言研究,P62-63,2002(3)
[15]董英东,模态逻辑发展历史概述,[J],燕山大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2010(6)
[16]范开泰,语义分析说略,[A],语法研究和探索4,北京大学出版社,1988
[17]范伟,现代汉语情态系统与表达研究,[D],上海师范大学博士学位论文,2010
[18]范晓,三个平面的语法观,[M],北京语言文化大学出版社,1996
[19]范晓主编,汉语的句子类型,[M],书海出版社,P221-263,1988
[20]高名凯,汉语语法论,[M],商务印书馆,1986
[21]古川裕,助动词“要”的语义分化及其主观化和语法化,[A],日本现代汉语语法研究论文选,北京语言文化大学出版社,P83-97,2007
[22]郭昭军、尹美子,现代汉语必要类动词比较研究,[J],汉语学报,P62-68,2008(1) 258
[23]郭昭军、尹美子,助动词“要”的模态多义性及其制约因素,[J],汉语学习,P35-39,2008(4)
[24]郭昭军、尹美子,助动词“要”的模态多义性及其制约因素,[J],汉语学习,P35-39,2008(4)
[25]郝斌,“情态性”还是“模态性”,[J],中国俄语教学,P1-6,2001(8)
[26]胡明扬,语气助词的语气意义, [J],汉语学习,P4-7,1988
[27]胡明扬,语气助词的语气意义,[J],汉语学习,1988(6)
[28]胡雁群,试论英语虚拟语气范畴的不存在性,[J],内蒙古农业大学学报(社会科学版)P352-355,2008(2)
[29]江天,现代汉语语法通解,[M],辽宁人民出版社,P29-45,1982
[30]蒋家义,认知心理分析模式与日语认识情态,[J],衡水学院学报,P73-76,2008(10)
[31]金立鑫,从一组与ov、vo相关的参项考察普通话的语序类型,手稿,2011
[32]金立鑫,对Reichenbach时体理论的一点补充,[J]，中国语文,P433-440,2008(5)
[33]金立鑫,陆丙甫,语法描写的逻辑形式,[J],语言科学,P34-45,2010(1)
[34]孔红,道义逻辑与法律规范推理,[J],哲学动态,中国社会科学院哲学研究所,增刊,2006
[35]赖鹏,情态的概念范围和跨语言研究,[J],现代外语第28卷,2005(8)
[36]黎锦熙,新著国语文法,[M],商务印书馆,1951复本
[37]黎千驹,模糊语义学导论,[M],社会科学文献出版社,2007
[38]李基安,情态意义和情态助动词意义,[J],外国语(上海外国语大学学报),P19-23,1999
[39]李基安,情态与介入,[J],外国语(上海外国语大学学报)P60-63,2008
[40]李晋霞,“好”的语法化与主观性,[J],世界汉语教学,P44-49,2005
[42]李琚宁,“可以”与日语当否判断语气的比较,[J],口语学习与研究,P69-77,2010(3)
[43]李临定,现代汉语句型,[M],商务印书馆,1986
[44]李永夏,日语语法界关于“陈述”问题的争论,[J],《日语学习与研究》,1986
[45]李战子,情态-从句子到语篇的推广,[J],外语学刊,P7-12,2000(4)
[46]李战子,语气作为人际意义的“句法”的几个问题,[J]，外语研究,P33-39,2002(4)
[47]李战子,从语气、情态到评价,[J],外语研究,P14-19,2005(6)
[48]梁晓波,情态的多维研究透视,[J],解放军外国语学院学报Vo1.25,No.1,2002
[49]廖秋忠,《语气与情态》评介,[J],国外语言学1989年第4期,P157-163,1989
[50]刘立华,日语语气的前现代研究：引进与诠释[J],外语学刊143,P100-102,2008
[51]刘月华,实用现代汉语语法,[M],外语教学与研究出版社,P105-116,1983
[52]鲁晓雁,日本学生汉语能愿动词偏误研究,[D],黑龙江大学硕士学位论文,2001
[53]吕叔湘,中国文法要略,[M],商务印书馆,1982
[54]吕叔湘,通过对比研究语法,[A],吕叔湘论文集,P137,1983
[55]吕叔湘主编,现代汉语八百词,[M],商务印书馆,1980
[56]马贝加,“要”的语法化,[J],语言研究,P81-87,2002(4)
[57]马建忠,马氏文通,[M],商务印书馆,1983
[58]马庆株,汉语动词和动词性结构,[M],北京大学出版社,2004
[59]马庆株,能愿动词的连用,[J],语言研究,P18-28,1988(1)
[60]马壮寰,精确与模糊,[A],P137-141,2009
[61]闵星雅,助动词“能”和“会”的认知研究,[D],上海师范大学博士学位论文,2007
[62]倪菊华,现代汉语“要”的情态问题研究,[D],浙江大学硕士学位论文,2008
[63]彭利贞,现代汉语情态研究,[M],中国社会科学出版社,2007
[64]彭利贞,论“应该”的情态与体的互动关系[A],第八届国际汉语教学讨论会,P315-328,2005(7)
[65]彭利贞,论情态与情状的互动关系,[J],浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),P53-58,2007(9)
[66]齐沪扬,语气词与语气系统,[M],安徽教育出版社,2002
[67]齐沪扬,现代汉语祈使句句末语气词选择性研究,[J],上海师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),P62-69,2005(3)
[68]桥本万太郎,余志鸿译,语言地理类型学,[M],世界图书出版公司,2008
[69]任群,语言的标记性与母语迁移,[J],US-China Foreign Language,ISSN1539-8080,USA,2007(12)(Serial No.51)
[70]沈家煊,类型学中的标记模式,[J],外语教学与研究,1997
[71]沈家煊,关于词法类型和句法类型,[J]，民族语文,2006
[72]沈家煊,“语法化”研究综观,[J],外语教学与研究,P17-23,1994(4)
[73]沈家煊,语言类型学的眼光,[J],语言文字应用,2009(03)
[74]石安石,语义论,[M],商务印书馆,2005
[75]石定栩,关于“有标记”的歧解,[J],当代语言学,P86-88,2006(1)
[76]宋永圭,现代汉语情态动词“能”的否定研究,[D],复旦大学博士学位论文,2004
[77]宋永圭,现代汉语情态动词否定研究,[M],中国社会科学出版社,2007
[78]宋永圭,现代汉语情态助动词及其否定研究,[D],复旦大学硕士学位论文,2001a
[79]孙汝建,语气和口气研究,[M],中国文联出版社,1999
[80]汤廷池,汉语语法论集,[M],台北：金字塔出版社,2000
[81]王传经,模态关系与意义分析,[J],外语研究,2007(2)
[82]王飞华,汉英语气系统对比研究,[D],华东师范大学大学博士学位论文,2005
[83]王红卫,汉语情态动词“能”语法化的类型学研究,[J],淮北煤炭师范学院学报(哲学社
会科学版)第29卷第4期,P131-135,2008
[84]王红卫,汉语情态动词“能”的语义演变的机制[J],阜阳师范学院学报(社会科学版),P33-35,2009(5)
[85]王力,中国现代文法,[M],商务印书馆,1985
[86]王晓华,评价性语气[べきだ]的语义结构,[A],日语研究,商务印书馆,P186-196,2006
[87]王晓华,现代日语情态研究综述,[C],文汇出版社,2011
[88]王晓华,涉及三种语气范畴的[ことだ] [J],日语学习与研究,P44-49,2008(3)
[89]王晓华,评价性语气的意义结构,[J],日语学习与研究,P45-49,2010(1)
[90]王晓凌,论非现实主义范畴,[D],复旦大学博士学位论文,2007
[91]王忻,关于日语句子的语气,[J],《日语学习与研究》第1期,1993
[92]王忻,日语语气再考(上),[J],《日语学习与研究》第2期,2002
[93]王忻,日语语气再考(下),[J],《日语学习与研究》第3期,2002
[94]王振来,论能愿动词的语义类别,[J],辽宁工学院学报,P16-18,2002(2)
[95]吴大纲,现代日语动词意义的研究,[M],上海外语教育出版社,2000
[96]吴辉,情态动词“会”的语义分析及其主观化,[J],外语研究,P49-50,2007
[97]武氏河,现代汉语语序研究,[D],南京师范大学博士学位论文,2006
[98]谢佳玲,汉语的情态动词,[D],台湾清华大学博士论文,2002
[99]徐晶凝,汉语语气表达方式及语气系统的归纳,[J],北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),P136-140,2000(3)
[100]徐晶凝,情态表达与时体表达的互相渗透,[J],汉语学习,P28-35,2008(2)
[101]徐晶凝,现代汉语话语情态研究,[M],昆仑出版社,2008
[102]许和平,汉语情态动词语义和句法初探,[A],第三届国际汉语教学讨论会论文选,1990
[103]许余龙,对比语言学,[M],上海外语教育出版社,2002
[104]杨坤,距离相似动因与汉语多项定语的顺序,[D],辽宁师范大学硕士研究生学位论文,2006
[105]杨树达,高等国文法,[M],商务印书馆,P120-275,1984
[106]袁毓林,现代汉语祈使句研究,[M],北京大学出版社,1993 260
[107]张德禄,汉语语气系统的特点,[J],外国语文,P1-7,2009(10)
[108]张定、丁海燕,助动词“好”的语法化及相关词汇化现象,[J],语言教学与研究,P31-37,2009(5)
[109]张万禾,助动词“要”的情态语义分析,[J],现代语文,P66-68,2007
[110]张喜洪,现代汉语情态范畴初论,[D],四川师范大学硕士学位论文,2008
[111]张兴、陶庭义,试论日语语气的研究,[J],解放军外国语学院学报Vo1.23\No.5\Sep2000,P17-21,2000
[112]张艳芳,“会”的历史演变考察,[D],广西大学硕士学位论文,2006
[113]张谊生,现代汉语副词的性质、范围与分类,[J],语言研究,P51-63,2000(2)
[114]周步晟,模态逻辑中事物模态引起的相关问题研究,[D],苏州大学大学硕士学位论文,2008
[115]周祯祥,真性模态、道义模态和现代道义逻辑的经典系统,[J],湘潭师范学院学报,P36-42,2000(9)
[116]周祯祥,道义逻辑、行动逻辑和规范逻辑,[J],广州大学学报(社会科学版),2002(9)
[117]周祯祥,事实命题、价值命题、规范命题及其逻辑,[J],华南师范大学学报(社会科学版),P15-23,2004(6)
[118]周祯祥,从动态命题逻辑PDL到动态道义逻辑DDL,[J]，哲学动态,P55-58,2006(2)
[119]朱德熙,语法讲义,[M],商务印书馆,1982
[120]朱冠明,情态动词“必须”的形成和发展,[J],语言科学,P57-67,2005(5)
[121]朱新华,日本语言学家奥田靖雄,[J],国外语言学1991年第1期,P41-44,1991
[1]Angelika Kratzer, Modality, In Semantics:An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, edited by Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich, Berlin:de Gruyter, P639-650,1991
[2]Anna Papafragou, On speech-act modlity, Journal of Pragmatics32, P519-538,2000
[3]Austin.J.L, How to do things with words, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1962
[4]Bernard Comrie, Tense, Cambridge University Press,1985
[5]Bernard Comrie, Language universals and linguistic typology,Oxford:Blackwell,1981 a
[6]Bernard Comrie, Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Typology and language acquisition:The cases of relative clauses, Mouton de Gruyter, P19-37,2003
[7]Bhat D.N.S, The Prominence of Tense, Aspect, and Mood, Amsterdam.John Benjamins,1999
[8]Bjorn Hansen (Regensburg),Mood in Russian,Revised version,Mood in the Languages of Europe. Edited by Bjorn Rothstein and Rolf Thieroff,P1-16,2007(10)
[9]Bybee Joan and Suzanne Fleischman, (eds.),Modality in Grammar and Discourse, Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995
[10]Bybee, Joan and Osten Dahl, The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World, Studies in Language 13:1, P51-103,1989
[11]Bybee.J et al.The evolution of grammar:tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world, University of Chicago Press,1994
[12]Bybee.J, Morphology:a study of the relation between meaning and form, Typological studies in language 9, John Benjamins,1985
[13]Bybee.J, "Irrealis" as a grammatical category, Anthropological Linguistics 40.2, P257-271, 1998
[14]Chandler Daniel, Semiotics:The Basics. Routledge, Routledge, London, UK,2nd edn 2007, 2002/2007
[15]Coates.J, Review of Palmer(1979),Lingua,Volume51,P337-346,1980
[16]Coates.J, the semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries, London:Croom Helm,1983
[17]Coates.J, Jennifer&Cameron,Deborah(eds), Women in Their Speech Communities:new perspectives on language and sex, Longman, P94-122,1988
[18]Coates.J, Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman(eds), Modality in Grammar and Discourse, Amsterdam John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995
[19]Crystal D, A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics.2nd edition, New York:Basil Blackwell,1985
[20]Dietmar Zefferer, A general typology of modal categories, Skandinaviske Sprogstudier,2007
[21]Eckman F, Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis, Language Learning 27, P315 330,1977
[22]Ellis.Rod, Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, P206-208,1999
[23]F.D. Nauze, Modality in Typological Perspective, PrintPartners Ipskamp, Enschede,2008
[24]F.R. Palmer, Modality and the English modals, London:Longman,1979
[25]F.R. Palmer,Mood and modality, Cambridge:Cambridge university Press,1986
[26]F.R. Palmer著、李战子导读,Mood and modality,剑桥大学出版社、世界图书出版公司,2007
[27]Ferdinand de Haan, EVIDENTIALITY AND EPISTEMIC MODALITY:SETTING BOUNDARIES, outhwest Journal of Linguistics,18, P83-101,1999
[28]Ferdinand de Haan, The relation between modality and evidentiality, Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 9. Hamburg:H. Buske,2001
[29]Ferdinand de Haan, TYPOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO MODALITY, The expression of modality in natural language, Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter(2006), P27-69,2004
[30]Ferdinand de Haan, HE. Semantic Distinctions of Evidentiality, Matthew Dryer, Martin Haspelmath, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.). World Atlas of Linguistic Structures,Oxford University Press,P314-321,2004
[31]Ferdinand de Haan, Typology of Tense, Aspect and Modality systems,2010
[32]Ferdinand de Haan, Building a Semantic Map:Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Approaches, Linguistic Discovery 8.1, P102-117,2010
[33]Ferenc Kiefer, On Defining Modality, Folia Linguistica 21(1), P67-94,1987
[34]Fillmore.Charles J, The Case for Case, Universals in Linguistic Theory, Form and Meaning in Language, P1-89,2003
[35]Georg Henrik von Wright, An Essay in Modal Logic, Amsterdam:North-Holland,1951
[36]Givon. T, Syntax:A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. Ⅰ, Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 1984
[37]Givon. T, Syntax:A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol.Ⅱ, Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 1990
[38]Givon. T, Irrealis and the subjunctive, Studies in Language 6, P23-49,1994
[39]Givon. T, Functionalism and Grammar, Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1995
[40]Greenberg Joseph H, Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Eleents, Universals of Language, Cambridge, Massachusets, and London, England:MIT Press, P73-113,1966
[41]Hadumod Bussmann, Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics,外语教学与研究出版
社,2000
[42]Halliday Michael.A.K, An Introduction to Funtional Grammar(2nd),外语教育与研究出版社,2000
[43]Hawkins J.A, Word Order Universals, New York:Academic Press,1983 262
[44]Heiko Narrog, Polysemy and Indeterminacy in Modal Markers-The Case of Japanese BESHI, Journal of East Asian Linguistics, Volume 11, Issue 2, Springer, P123-167,2002b
[45]Hengeveld, Kees & Rijkhoff, Jan & Siewierska, Anna, Parts-of-speech systems and word order, Journal of Linguistics 40.3, P527-570,2004
[46]Hopper, Paul J& Elizabeth Traugott, Grammaticalization, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003
[47]Hui Wu, A Study of Two Functions of Modal Auxiliary Verbs in English, with Special Reference to Can, May and Must, English Language Teaching, P159-168,2008(12)
[48]Hyltenstam K, The use of typological markedness conditions as predictors in second language acquisition:The case of pronominal copies in relative clauses, In:R. Andersen (ed.), Second Languages:A Cross-linguistic Perspective, Rowley,MA:Newbury House,1984
[49]Hyltenstam K, Markedness, Language Universals, Language Typology and Language Acquisition, in C. Pfaff (ed.) First and Second Language Acquisition Processes, Cambridge, MA:Newbury House, 1986
[50]Joan L. Bybee, Morphology:A study of the Relation between Meaning and Form, Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1985b
[51]JOHAN VAN DER AUWERA & LAUREN VAN ALSENOY, INDEFINITENESS MAPS:PROBLEMS, PROSPECTS, AND RETROSPECTS,2010
[52]Johan van der Auwera & Vladimir A. Plungian, Modality's Semantic Map, Linguistic Typology 2, P79-124,1998
[53]Johan van der Auwera, On the Typology of Negative Modals, In Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items, edited by Jack Hoeksema,Hotze Rullmann, Victor Sanchez-Valencia,& Ton van der Wouden, Amsterdam:Benjamins, P23-48,2001
[54]John Lyons,汪榕培导读,Linguistic Semantics:An Introduction,剑桥大学出版社、外语教学与研究出版社,2008
[55]Joost Zwarts,Semantic Map Geometry:Two Approaches, Linguistic Discovery 8.1, P377-395,2010
[56]Kai von Fintel, Modality and Language, Encyclopedia of Philosophy-2nd Edition, MacMillan Reference USA,2006
[57]Kasper Boye, "Semantic Maps and the Identification of Cross-Linguistic Generic Categories: Evidentiality and its Relation to Epistemic Modality, "Linguistic Discovery 8.1, P4-22,2010
[58]Lakoff.George,Women, fire, and dangerous things:What categories reveal about the mind,Chicago:University of Chicago,1987
[59]Laura A. Janda, What is the role of semantic maps in cognitive linguistics?STALMASZCZYK, Piotr/OLEKSY, Wieslaw (eds.), Cognitive approaches to language and linguistic data,P105-124, 2009
[60]Marianne Mithun, The languages of native North America, Cambridge UK:Cambridge University Press,1999
[61]Michael Cysouw, Martin Haspelmath and Andrej L. Malchukov, Semantic Maps:Methods and Applications, Linguistic Discovery 8.1, Volume 8, Issue 1, P1-3,2010
[62]Mizuho Tamaji, Rethingking typological universal, deontic>epistemic, 高松大学纪要47, P9-24, 2007(2)
[63]Ogden, C. K.& Richards, I.A.,:A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism,10th ed. With supplementary essays by Bronislaw Malinowski and F. G. Crookshank. Routledge & Kegan Paul.1st ed.,1923
[64]Osten Dahl, Tense and Aspect Systems, Oxford:Blackwell,1985
[65]Osten Dahl, Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter,2000a
[66]Perkins.R, Modal Expressions in English, London:Frances Pinter,1983
[67]Quirk,R Greenbaum,Leach G & Svartvik J, A comprehensive grammar of the English language, London and New York:Longman,1985
[68]Rachel Nordlinger and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Scope and the development of epistemic modality, English Language and Linguistics 1, P295-317,1997b
[69]Renzhi Li, Modality in English and Chinese:A Typological Perspective, Boca Raton Florida, P1-368,2004
[70]Rescher Nicholas, Topics in philosophical logic, Dordrecht D. Reidel Pub. Co.,1968
[71]Rod Ellis, Learning a Second Language Through Interaction, Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1999
[72]Sweetser.E.E, Root and Epistemic Modals:Causality in two worlds, Berkeley Linguistic Papers 8, P484-507,1982
[73]Sweetser.E.E, From etymology to pragmatics metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure, Cambridge University Press,1991
[74]Talmy.L, Force dynamics in language and cognition, Cognitive Science 2, Volume 12, Issuel, P49-100,1988
[75]Traugott Elizabeth C, On the tise of epistemic meanings in English:an example of subjectification in semantic change, Language65.1, P33-35,1989
[76]Traugott Elizabeth C, Richard Dasher, Regularity in Semantic Change, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005
[77]Vladimir A. Plungian, The Place of Evidentiality within the Universal Grammatical Space, Journal of Pragmatics 33, P349-357,2001
[78]Whaley.L.J刘丹青导读,Introduction to Typology:The Unity and Diversity of Language, Sage Publications,授权世界图书出版公司,2010
[80]Oxford Advanced Learner's English-Chinese Dictionary, Fourth edition, Oxford University Press, The Commercial Press,1997
