韩汉主从复句对比研究
|
摘要
本文以汉族人学习韩国语的角度，在共时性研究方法下，从韩汉语本体论角度对韩汉语主从复句的分类以及各个类型的特点进行了综合性的考察和归纳；并且运用对比语言学、语用学、统计学的研究方法，着实对韩国语和汉语的因果关系、条件关系、让步关系等三种主从复句相互间的对应现象，进行了系统的考察、分析和对比。
通过实际翻译语料对比分析可得知，韩国语的“（？）”因果关系复句在汉语中大多用“因为－一所以－一”因果复句来表现，相反，汉语的“因为一一所以一”因果复句用韩国语来表现时，使用惯用型“（？）”因果复句形式和“（？）”等单句形式，远远大于使用由连接语尾“（？）”构成的复句形式。另外，和汉语“既然一就一”因果复句对应的前四位是“（？）（30.8%)”、“（？）（25.6%)”、“（？））(7.7%)”、，“（？）(5.1%)”；“以致”因果复句在原文中共出现11次，译文中除了省略4次，和“（？）”因果复句对应的只有2次，其他和“（？）”等形式对应。
韩国语的“（？）”条件复句都可用汉语的条件复句和假设复句来表现，“（？）”条件复句可用汉语的条件复句和让步复句来表现，但实际翻译语料中，“（？），”条件复句和汉语假设复句的对应频率却高于和条件复句或其他关系复句的对应频率，“（？）”条件复句和“只有一一才一一”必要条件复句的对应频率高于和无条件复句、让步关系复句的对应频率。反之，汉语的充分条件复句和韩国语的“（？）”条件复句对应；必要条件复句和“（？）”条件复句对应；比起和韩国语的条件复句的对应，汉语的无条件复句和韩国语的让步关系复句、选择关系复句有着更好的对应关系；汉语的假设复句主要和韩国语的条件复句对应，有些也可以和让步关系对应。
韩国语的让步关系复句普遍都能和汉语的让步关系复句对应，有些情况和汉语的条件、假设、转折等关系复句也能很好地对应，比如“（？）”让步关系复句和汉语转折关系复句的对应频率就很高。反之，汉语的“即使一也”让步关系标记和“就是／就算／哪怕—也”让步关系标记和韩国语的让步关系标记对应，但是这两种关系标记和韩国语助词的对应频率却很高,分别是31%和22.7%；汉语的“尽管---也(还)”和韩国语对立关系标记的对应频率远远高于和让步关系标记的对应频率。
总之,韩国语和汉语中都有主从复句这一语法范畴,但它们的判定标准各有不同又各具特色,本文运用多种研究方法,来考察韩语和汉语相互间的表达方式,进一步揭示它们在复句结构认定上的差异。希望本文的研究能够在一定程度上丰富韩汉语复句研究的理论,在韩国语和对外汉语的教学及研究上起到一定的指导作用,在韩汉语互译实践上特别是机器翻译上提供一些帮助。
Through synchronic study, this paper makesserious and detailed comparative analysisof the said compound sentences with the methodologies of contrastive linguistics,contrastive analytics and comparison between Korean and Chinese; moreover, makessystematic exploration, analysis and comparison by virtue of theoretical knowledge oftranslatology and statistics upon the correspondence among the three Korean and Chinesesubordinative compound sentences of cause-effect, conditional and concessive relations.
As indicated by the comparative analysis of practical translation corpus, the "(?) or (?)"Korean cause-effect compound sentence is mostly translated into Chineseas "因为---所以---', while when the latter is translated into Korean, it is commonlytranslated as--)I EN "" cause-effect compound sentence and "(?)or "simple sentences more frequently than the compound sentencecomposed of such subordinating conjunctions as "(?)".Moreover, the top four corresponding to the "因为---所以---" cause-effect Chinesecompound sentence are:"(?)(0.8%)","(?)(7.7%)" and(?)(5.1%)"; there are totally "以致" cause-effect compound sentences in theoriginal text, among the translated versions,4are ellipsis, only2correspond to the "0[(?)" cause-effect compound sentence, and the rest correspond to the forms of "(?)".
Both the "(?)" Korean conditional compound sentences can be translated intoChinese hypothetical and conditional compound sentences, while the "010k" conditionalcompound sentences can be translated into Chinese conditional and concessive compoundsentences. But in practical translation corpus, the corresponding. frequency between the"(?)"conditional compound sentence and Chinese hypothetical compound sentenceis higher than that between it and the conditional or other relation compound sentences,and the corresponding frequency between the "010k" conditional compound sentence and"只有--才--" necessary-condition compound sentence is higher than that between it andthe non-conditional or concessive compound sentence. On the contrary, the Chinese sufficient-condition compound sentence corresponds to the "(?)" Korean conditional compound sentence; necessary-condition compound sentence corresponds to "(?)" conditional compound sentence; the correspondence between the Chinese non-conditional compound sentence and the Korean concessive and selective compound sentences is better than that between it and the Korean conditional compound sentence; The Chinese hypothetical compound sentences mainly correspond to the Korean conditional compound sentences, some to the concessive ones.
The majority of Korean concessive compound sentences can correspond to the Chinese counterparts, and can satisfactorily correspond to the Chinese conditional, hypothetical and adversative compound sentences in certain cases, e.g.,"(?)" concessive component sentence has a high corresponding frequency with the Chinese adversative compound sentence. On the contrary, the Chinese concessive marks of“即使---也”and“就是／就算／哪怕---也”corresponds to the Korean concessive marks, but have a high corresponding frequency with the Korean auxiliary words, being31%and22.7%respectively; the corresponding frequency between the Chinese "尽管---也(还)”and the Korean counterpart is much higher than that between it and the concessive mark.
In conclusion, though the grammatical category of subordinative compound sentence is an integral part of both Korean and Chinese, their identifying criteria differs and is distinctive. Our objective is to study the corresponding expressions between Korean and Chinese through the comparative study, so as to further unveil their differences in identifying the compound sentence structures. Hopefully that this study can to a certain extent enrich the theories of study on Korean and Chinese compound sentences, offer certain instructions to the teaching and study of Korean and Chinese for foreigners, and facilitate the Korean-Chinese and Chinese-Korean translations and especially the machine translation.
通过实际翻译语料对比分析可得知，韩国语的“（？）”因果关系复句在汉语中大多用“因为－一所以－一”因果复句来表现，相反，汉语的“因为一一所以一”因果复句用韩国语来表现时，使用惯用型“（？）”因果复句形式和“（？）”等单句形式，远远大于使用由连接语尾“（？）”构成的复句形式。另外，和汉语“既然一就一”因果复句对应的前四位是“（？）（30.8%)”、“（？）（25.6%)”、“（？））(7.7%)”、，“（？）(5.1%)”；“以致”因果复句在原文中共出现11次，译文中除了省略4次，和“（？）”因果复句对应的只有2次，其他和“（？）”等形式对应。
韩国语的“（？）”条件复句都可用汉语的条件复句和假设复句来表现，“（？）”条件复句可用汉语的条件复句和让步复句来表现，但实际翻译语料中，“（？），”条件复句和汉语假设复句的对应频率却高于和条件复句或其他关系复句的对应频率，“（？）”条件复句和“只有一一才一一”必要条件复句的对应频率高于和无条件复句、让步关系复句的对应频率。反之，汉语的充分条件复句和韩国语的“（？）”条件复句对应；必要条件复句和“（？）”条件复句对应；比起和韩国语的条件复句的对应，汉语的无条件复句和韩国语的让步关系复句、选择关系复句有着更好的对应关系；汉语的假设复句主要和韩国语的条件复句对应，有些也可以和让步关系对应。
韩国语的让步关系复句普遍都能和汉语的让步关系复句对应，有些情况和汉语的条件、假设、转折等关系复句也能很好地对应，比如“（？）”让步关系复句和汉语转折关系复句的对应频率就很高。反之，汉语的“即使一也”让步关系标记和“就是／就算／哪怕—也”让步关系标记和韩国语的让步关系标记对应，但是这两种关系标记和韩国语助词的对应频率却很高,分别是31%和22.7%；汉语的“尽管---也(还)”和韩国语对立关系标记的对应频率远远高于和让步关系标记的对应频率。
总之,韩国语和汉语中都有主从复句这一语法范畴,但它们的判定标准各有不同又各具特色,本文运用多种研究方法,来考察韩语和汉语相互间的表达方式,进一步揭示它们在复句结构认定上的差异。希望本文的研究能够在一定程度上丰富韩汉语复句研究的理论,在韩国语和对外汉语的教学及研究上起到一定的指导作用,在韩汉语互译实践上特别是机器翻译上提供一些帮助。
Through synchronic study, this paper makesserious and detailed comparative analysisof the said compound sentences with the methodologies of contrastive linguistics,contrastive analytics and comparison between Korean and Chinese; moreover, makessystematic exploration, analysis and comparison by virtue of theoretical knowledge oftranslatology and statistics upon the correspondence among the three Korean and Chinesesubordinative compound sentences of cause-effect, conditional and concessive relations.
As indicated by the comparative analysis of practical translation corpus, the "(?) or (?)"Korean cause-effect compound sentence is mostly translated into Chineseas "因为---所以---', while when the latter is translated into Korean, it is commonlytranslated as--)I EN "" cause-effect compound sentence and "(?)or "simple sentences more frequently than the compound sentencecomposed of such subordinating conjunctions as "(?)".Moreover, the top four corresponding to the "因为---所以---" cause-effect Chinesecompound sentence are:"(?)(0.8%)","(?)(7.7%)" and(?)(5.1%)"; there are totally "以致" cause-effect compound sentences in theoriginal text, among the translated versions,4are ellipsis, only2correspond to the "0[(?)" cause-effect compound sentence, and the rest correspond to the forms of "(?)".
Both the "(?)" Korean conditional compound sentences can be translated intoChinese hypothetical and conditional compound sentences, while the "010k" conditionalcompound sentences can be translated into Chinese conditional and concessive compoundsentences. But in practical translation corpus, the corresponding. frequency between the"(?)"conditional compound sentence and Chinese hypothetical compound sentenceis higher than that between it and the conditional or other relation compound sentences,and the corresponding frequency between the "010k" conditional compound sentence and"只有--才--" necessary-condition compound sentence is higher than that between it andthe non-conditional or concessive compound sentence. On the contrary, the Chinese sufficient-condition compound sentence corresponds to the "(?)" Korean conditional compound sentence; necessary-condition compound sentence corresponds to "(?)" conditional compound sentence; the correspondence between the Chinese non-conditional compound sentence and the Korean concessive and selective compound sentences is better than that between it and the Korean conditional compound sentence; The Chinese hypothetical compound sentences mainly correspond to the Korean conditional compound sentences, some to the concessive ones.
The majority of Korean concessive compound sentences can correspond to the Chinese counterparts, and can satisfactorily correspond to the Chinese conditional, hypothetical and adversative compound sentences in certain cases, e.g.,"(?)" concessive component sentence has a high corresponding frequency with the Chinese adversative compound sentence. On the contrary, the Chinese concessive marks of“即使---也”and“就是／就算／哪怕---也”corresponds to the Korean concessive marks, but have a high corresponding frequency with the Korean auxiliary words, being31%and22.7%respectively; the corresponding frequency between the Chinese "尽管---也(还)”and the Korean counterpart is much higher than that between it and the concessive mark.
In conclusion, though the grammatical category of subordinative compound sentence is an integral part of both Korean and Chinese, their identifying criteria differs and is distinctive. Our objective is to study the corresponding expressions between Korean and Chinese through the comparative study, so as to further unveil their differences in identifying the compound sentence structures. Hopefully that this study can to a certain extent enrich the theories of study on Korean and Chinese compound sentences, offer certain instructions to the teaching and study of Korean and Chinese for foreigners, and facilitate the Korean-Chinese and Chinese-Korean translations and especially the machine translation.
引文
15 黎锦熙, 《新著国语文法》,商务印书馆,1992,p215
17 黄伯荣,廖序东, 《现代汉语》,高等教育出版社,2008,p130
19 李廷元, 《现代中国语连词研究》,东国大学硕士论文,1998,p61
20 邢福义, 《汉语复句研究》,商务印书馆,2003,p67
33 邢福义, 《汉语复句研究》,商务印书馆,2003,p64-65
8 姚双云,《复句关系标记的搭配研究》,华中师范大学出版社,2008,p167
58 张亚军, 《副词与限定描状功能》,安徽教育出版社,2002,p54
71 邢福义, 《现代汉语》,高等教育出版社,2011,p371-374
73 李晓琪,《现代汉语讲义》,北京大学出版社,2011,p168
[30]白晓红,汉语虚词15讲,北京语言大学出版社,2007
[31]陈昌来,二十世纪的汉语语法学,书海出版社(太原),2002
[32]陈昌来,现代汉语句子,华东师范大学出版社,2002
[33]崔羲秀,俞春喜,韩国语实用语法,延边大学出版社,2003
[34]邓福南,秦旭卿等,汉语语法新编,湖南教育出版社,1983
[35]范晓,汉语的句子类型,书海出版社,2000
[36]郭志良,现代汉语转折词语研究,北京语言文化大学出版社,1999
[37]胡裕树,现代汉语,上海教育出版社,1979
[38]黄伯荣,廖序东,现代汉语(增订四版),高等教育出版社,2008
[39]金日,中朝翻译基础,延边大学出版社,2005
[40]金永寿,全华民,汉朝朝汉翻译基础,延边大学出版社,2003
[41]黎锦熙,新著国语文法,商务印书馆,1992
[42]李晓琪,现代汉语讲义,北京大学出版社,2011
[43]林裕文,偏正复句,上海教育出版社,1984
[44]刘月华,潘文娱,实用现代汉语语法,商务印书馆,2001
[45]刘月华,实用现代汉语语法,外语教学与研究出版社,1983
[46]卢福波,对外汉语教学实用语法,北京语言学院,1996
[47]陆俭明,现代汉语语法研究教程,北京大学出版社,2003
[48]吕叔湘,吕叔湘文集,商务印书馆,2004
[49]吕叔湘,现代汉语八百词,商务印书馆,2010
[50]吕叔湘,中国文法要略,商务印书馆,1982
[51]马建忠,马氏文通,商务印书馆,1898,1983
[52]戚雨村,语言对比和文化对比,对比语言学论文集,外语教学与研究出版社,1992
[53]齐沪杨,张谊生,陈昌来,现代汉语虚词研究综述,安徽教育出版社,2002
[54]邵敬敏,现代汉语通论,上海教育出版社,2001
[55]沈仪琳,韩文汉译实用技巧,社会科学文献出版社,2006
[56]宋庆山,应用汉语,合肥工业大学出版社,2005
[57]王力,中国语法理论,商务印书馆,1946
[58]王力,中国现代语法,商务印书馆,2000
[59]王维贤,现代汉语语法理论研究,语文出版社,1997
[60]刑福义,汉语语法三百问,商务印书馆,2002
[61]邢福义,汉语复句研究,商务印书馆,2003
[62]邢福义,汉语语法学,东北师范大学出版社,2000
[63]邢福义,现代汉语,高等教育出版社,2011
[64]宣德五,朝鲜语基础语法,商务印书馆,1994
[65]姚双云, 《复句关系标记的搭配研究》,华中师范大学出版社,2008
[66]袁彩云,实用现代汉语,高等教育出版社,2006
[67]张斌 《现代汉语》,语文出版社,1999
[68]张斌,新编现代汉语,复旦大学出版社,2002
[69]张斌,,张谊生,现代汉语虚词,华东师范大学出版社,2000
[70]张静, 新编现代汉语,上海教育出版社,1986
[71]张亚军,副词与限定描状功能,安徽教育出版社,2002
[72]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,现代汉语词典(第5版).北京商务印书馆,2008
[73]周刚,连词与相关问题,安徽教育出版社,2002
[74]朱德熙,语法讲义,商务印书馆,1982
[75]朱德熙,朱德熙文集,商务印书馆,1999
[76]朱景松,现代汉语虚词词典,语文出版社,2007
[96]崔佩筠,条件复句的逻辑分析,齐齐哈尔师范学院学报,1996年第1期
[97]胡雯姝,论复句的分析与关联词语的关系,辽宁师专学报,2004年第3期
[98]金庆爱,韩汉原因表达对比研究,长春师范学院学报,2010年3月
[99]李向农,复句研究的启示,华中师范大学学报,2001年9月
[100]陆俭明,汉语中表示主从关系的连词
[101]聂焱,新议条件复句的范围及分类,西北第二民族学院学报,2002年第1期
[102]宋玲珍,区分单复句的几个重要方法,科技信息,2010年第1期
[103]王丽超,假设复句内部的概念域分类,哈尔滨师范大学,2011年第9期
[104]吴锋文,基于关系标记的汉语复句分类研究,汉语学报,2011年第3期
[105]肖任飞,张芳,复句特征与复句标准的确立,湖北社会科学,2010第11期
[106]谢晓明,假设类复句关系词语连用情况考察,汉语学报2010年第2期
[107]杨霞林,复句内部分句间关系的本质属性与逻辑意义,南昌高专学报,2006年2期
[108]张静,单句复句定义和划界问题,《语文研究》1981第1期
[109]张静,复句和复句的类型, 《语文知识》1988第四期
[110]张谊生,现代汉语副词的性质,范围和分类,语言研究39,2000
[111]朱斌,复句研究天地宽——《汉语复句研究》读后,江汉大学学报,2001年8月
[159]方向红,基于内涵逻辑的现代汉语连接词及关联句式语义研究,上海师范大学博士论文,2004
[160]郭圣林,现代汉语若干句式的语篇考察,复旦大学博士论文,2004
[161]洪鹿平,汉语复句关系自动判定研究,南京师范大学硕士论文,2008
[162]刘建平,汉语偏正复句偏句关联词位置探究,上海外国语大学硕士论文,2006
[163]罗进军,有标假设复句研究,华中师范大学博士论文,2007
[164]倪重阳,现代汉语因果连词研究,华中师范大学硕士论文,2008
[165]钱多,对外汉语教学中的转折复句研究,沈阳师范大学硕士论文,2007
[166]王地娟,现代汉语复句基本问题的研究,四川师范大学硕士论文,2004
[167]王佳毅,由“结果”连接的复句研究,湖南师范大学硕士论文,2005
[168]王琳,基于本体的汉语复句语义分析,华中师范大学硕士论文,2006
[169]王璐,韩中语法原因范畴对比研究,复旦大学硕士论文,2009
[170]王楠楠,韩国语条件关系连接词尾在汉语中的对应形式,吉林大学硕士论文,2010
[171]武琼,现代汉语条件关联词语研究,南京师范大学硕士学位论文,2007
[172]肖任飞,现代汉语因果复句优先序列研究,华中师范大学博士论文,2009
[173]许凤才,俄汉语主从复合句的对比研究,上海外国语大学博士学位论文,2005
[174]杨江, “与其”句式及相关问题研究,暨南大学硕士学位论文,2006
[175]尹蔚,多维视域下的有标选择复句研究,华中师范大学博士论文,2008
[176]于娜,面对对外汉语教学的假设和条件连词研究,南京师范大学硕士论文,2008
[177]曾常年,现代汉语因果句群研究,华中师范大学博士论文,2003
[178]张金桥,汉语句子理解中语言表达的命题表征项目互换效应,华南师范大学博士论文,2003
[179]朱珏, “即使——,也——”复句研究,上海外国语大学硕士学位论文,2008
[183]Fries, Charles C. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign La nguage. Ann Arber:U of Michigan P.1945
[184]Winter, W. Impossibilities of translation. In W. Arrowsmith and R. Shattuck (eds). The craft and Context of Translation. New York:Anch or.1961
17 黄伯荣,廖序东, 《现代汉语》,高等教育出版社,2008,p130
19 李廷元, 《现代中国语连词研究》,东国大学硕士论文,1998,p61
20 邢福义, 《汉语复句研究》,商务印书馆,2003,p67
33 邢福义, 《汉语复句研究》,商务印书馆,2003,p64-65
8 姚双云,《复句关系标记的搭配研究》,华中师范大学出版社,2008,p167
58 张亚军, 《副词与限定描状功能》,安徽教育出版社,2002,p54
71 邢福义, 《现代汉语》,高等教育出版社,2011,p371-374
73 李晓琪,《现代汉语讲义》,北京大学出版社,2011,p168
[30]白晓红,汉语虚词15讲,北京语言大学出版社,2007
[31]陈昌来,二十世纪的汉语语法学,书海出版社(太原),2002
[32]陈昌来,现代汉语句子,华东师范大学出版社,2002
[33]崔羲秀,俞春喜,韩国语实用语法,延边大学出版社,2003
[34]邓福南,秦旭卿等,汉语语法新编,湖南教育出版社,1983
[35]范晓,汉语的句子类型,书海出版社,2000
[36]郭志良,现代汉语转折词语研究,北京语言文化大学出版社,1999
[37]胡裕树,现代汉语,上海教育出版社,1979
[38]黄伯荣,廖序东,现代汉语(增订四版),高等教育出版社,2008
[39]金日,中朝翻译基础,延边大学出版社,2005
[40]金永寿,全华民,汉朝朝汉翻译基础,延边大学出版社,2003
[41]黎锦熙,新著国语文法,商务印书馆,1992
[42]李晓琪,现代汉语讲义,北京大学出版社,2011
[43]林裕文,偏正复句,上海教育出版社,1984
[44]刘月华,潘文娱,实用现代汉语语法,商务印书馆,2001
[45]刘月华,实用现代汉语语法,外语教学与研究出版社,1983
[46]卢福波,对外汉语教学实用语法,北京语言学院,1996
[47]陆俭明,现代汉语语法研究教程,北京大学出版社,2003
[48]吕叔湘,吕叔湘文集,商务印书馆,2004
[49]吕叔湘,现代汉语八百词,商务印书馆,2010
[50]吕叔湘,中国文法要略,商务印书馆,1982
[51]马建忠,马氏文通,商务印书馆,1898,1983
[52]戚雨村,语言对比和文化对比,对比语言学论文集,外语教学与研究出版社,1992
[53]齐沪杨,张谊生,陈昌来,现代汉语虚词研究综述,安徽教育出版社,2002
[54]邵敬敏,现代汉语通论,上海教育出版社,2001
[55]沈仪琳,韩文汉译实用技巧,社会科学文献出版社,2006
[56]宋庆山,应用汉语,合肥工业大学出版社,2005
[57]王力,中国语法理论,商务印书馆,1946
[58]王力,中国现代语法,商务印书馆,2000
[59]王维贤,现代汉语语法理论研究,语文出版社,1997
[60]刑福义,汉语语法三百问,商务印书馆,2002
[61]邢福义,汉语复句研究,商务印书馆,2003
[62]邢福义,汉语语法学,东北师范大学出版社,2000
[63]邢福义,现代汉语,高等教育出版社,2011
[64]宣德五,朝鲜语基础语法,商务印书馆,1994
[65]姚双云, 《复句关系标记的搭配研究》,华中师范大学出版社,2008
[66]袁彩云,实用现代汉语,高等教育出版社,2006
[67]张斌 《现代汉语》,语文出版社,1999
[68]张斌,新编现代汉语,复旦大学出版社,2002
[69]张斌,,张谊生,现代汉语虚词,华东师范大学出版社,2000
[70]张静, 新编现代汉语,上海教育出版社,1986
[71]张亚军,副词与限定描状功能,安徽教育出版社,2002
[72]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室,现代汉语词典(第5版).北京商务印书馆,2008
[73]周刚,连词与相关问题,安徽教育出版社,2002
[74]朱德熙,语法讲义,商务印书馆,1982
[75]朱德熙,朱德熙文集,商务印书馆,1999
[76]朱景松,现代汉语虚词词典,语文出版社,2007
[96]崔佩筠,条件复句的逻辑分析,齐齐哈尔师范学院学报,1996年第1期
[97]胡雯姝,论复句的分析与关联词语的关系,辽宁师专学报,2004年第3期
[98]金庆爱,韩汉原因表达对比研究,长春师范学院学报,2010年3月
[99]李向农,复句研究的启示,华中师范大学学报,2001年9月
[100]陆俭明,汉语中表示主从关系的连词
[101]聂焱,新议条件复句的范围及分类,西北第二民族学院学报,2002年第1期
[102]宋玲珍,区分单复句的几个重要方法,科技信息,2010年第1期
[103]王丽超,假设复句内部的概念域分类,哈尔滨师范大学,2011年第9期
[104]吴锋文,基于关系标记的汉语复句分类研究,汉语学报,2011年第3期
[105]肖任飞,张芳,复句特征与复句标准的确立,湖北社会科学,2010第11期
[106]谢晓明,假设类复句关系词语连用情况考察,汉语学报2010年第2期
[107]杨霞林,复句内部分句间关系的本质属性与逻辑意义,南昌高专学报,2006年2期
[108]张静,单句复句定义和划界问题,《语文研究》1981第1期
[109]张静,复句和复句的类型, 《语文知识》1988第四期
[110]张谊生,现代汉语副词的性质,范围和分类,语言研究39,2000
[111]朱斌,复句研究天地宽——《汉语复句研究》读后,江汉大学学报,2001年8月
[159]方向红,基于内涵逻辑的现代汉语连接词及关联句式语义研究,上海师范大学博士论文,2004
[160]郭圣林,现代汉语若干句式的语篇考察,复旦大学博士论文,2004
[161]洪鹿平,汉语复句关系自动判定研究,南京师范大学硕士论文,2008
[162]刘建平,汉语偏正复句偏句关联词位置探究,上海外国语大学硕士论文,2006
[163]罗进军,有标假设复句研究,华中师范大学博士论文,2007
[164]倪重阳,现代汉语因果连词研究,华中师范大学硕士论文,2008
[165]钱多,对外汉语教学中的转折复句研究,沈阳师范大学硕士论文,2007
[166]王地娟,现代汉语复句基本问题的研究,四川师范大学硕士论文,2004
[167]王佳毅,由“结果”连接的复句研究,湖南师范大学硕士论文,2005
[168]王琳,基于本体的汉语复句语义分析,华中师范大学硕士论文,2006
[169]王璐,韩中语法原因范畴对比研究,复旦大学硕士论文,2009
[170]王楠楠,韩国语条件关系连接词尾在汉语中的对应形式,吉林大学硕士论文,2010
[171]武琼,现代汉语条件关联词语研究,南京师范大学硕士学位论文,2007
[172]肖任飞,现代汉语因果复句优先序列研究,华中师范大学博士论文,2009
[173]许凤才,俄汉语主从复合句的对比研究,上海外国语大学博士学位论文,2005
[174]杨江, “与其”句式及相关问题研究,暨南大学硕士学位论文,2006
[175]尹蔚,多维视域下的有标选择复句研究,华中师范大学博士论文,2008
[176]于娜,面对对外汉语教学的假设和条件连词研究,南京师范大学硕士论文,2008
[177]曾常年,现代汉语因果句群研究,华中师范大学博士论文,2003
[178]张金桥,汉语句子理解中语言表达的命题表征项目互换效应,华南师范大学博士论文,2003
[179]朱珏, “即使——,也——”复句研究,上海外国语大学硕士学位论文,2008
[183]Fries, Charles C. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign La nguage. Ann Arber:U of Michigan P.1945
[184]Winter, W. Impossibilities of translation. In W. Arrowsmith and R. Shattuck (eds). The craft and Context of Translation. New York:Anch or.1961