韩国语单位性依存名词与汉语量词的对比
|
摘要
量是人类认识世界,把握世界的一个重要手段。韩国语和汉语都属于量词发达的语言,大量存在的量词在两国的语言生活中起着不可或缺的作用。本论文从名词与量词之间存在一定的搭配规律的角度出发,选取了韩国语和汉语中常用的、具有可比性的一些量词(韩国语中称为“单位性依存名词”)进行分析,以期达到准确找出韩国语单位性依存名词与汉语量词具体意义与用法之间的对应关系的目的。
论文构成如下：
第一章是绪论,阐述本文的研究目的和意义、研究方法,介绍韩中两国语法学界对量词(单位性依存名词)研究的概况,确定本论文的研究范围。
第二章是对韩国语量词的本体论研究,分为概念、体系、意义和用法三部分。由于对单位性依存名词属性的认识不同,学者们的观点各不相同。韩国语法界至今没有统一的名称,主要有传统的“数量单位依存名词”和80年代新兴的“分类词”两大类叫法；分类上由于标准不同,更是五花八门,有按语义范畴分类的,有按度量衡尺度分类的,还有其它各种分类；为了便于进行韩汉对比,本论文在参考各学者的观点的基础上,设立了新的分类体系,并分析了每类中常用的单位性依存名词的用法及与其它近义量词的区别。
第三章是对汉语量词的本体论研究,同样分为概念、体系、意义和用法三部分。汉语量词的定名与分类同样经过了漫长的争论时期。但现在已经统一称为“量词”,分类上虽不完全一样,但一般都是按量词的语法功能来分的。为了方便与韩国语单位性依存名词进行对比,本论文采取了同第二章相同的分类方法,并对相关量词的意义与用法进行了分析。
第四章是对韩国语单位性依存名词与汉语量词的对比研究。分析了两者在概念、体系上的异同之后,重点放在分析语义与用法的对应关系上。利用二、三章分析的结果,将韩国语单位性依存名词分为汉字词单位性依存名词与固有词单位性依存名词,分别与汉语量词进行对比。汉字词单位性依存名词与汉语量词的对应关系分为“完全同义”,“部分同义”,“完全异义”三种情况进行对比分析,固有词单位性依存名词与汉语量词的对应关系分为“一对一”,“一对多”,“多对一”以及“互不对应”四种情况进行对比分析。
第五章是结论。对本论文所述内容进行概括和总结,并指出了文中的不足之处及今后的努力方向。
"Quantity" is one of the most important means for the human understanding of the world. Korean and Chinese belong to the classifier well-developed language. Plenty of classifier in the language of the two countries plays an indispensable role in life.
Some scholars believe that there is certain regularity between nouns and classifiers, from this perspective, this paper select a number of classifiers that are common and comparable in Korean and Chinese analysis of the difference between them.
Paper form as follows:
The first chapter is an introduction, explain the purpose, research methods and significance of this research, describes the profile of the quantifier of the Korean and Chinese, and determine the scope of the study paper.
The second chapter is a Korean classifier ontology research, into concepts, systems and usage of three parts. Because of the different understanding of the properties of classifier, scholars have different views. Korean grammar circles have no common name of the classifiers, there are two main types, tradition, it is called "number of unit's incomplete noun"; Starting from the 80's, it is called "classifier. Because of different standards, classification is varied. Classified according to semantic category, classified according to size by the weights and measures, and other methods. To facilitate comparison of Korean and Chinese, after reference to the views of various scholars, this paper established a new classification system, and analyzes the usage of each classifier.
The third chapter is the ontology of Chinese classifier, into the same concept, system, usage three parts. About the Chinese classifier's name and system, similarly, after a long period of debate, but now unified as "classifier". Although not exactly the same classification, but generally it is according to the classifier's grammatical function. To facilitate comparison with the Korean language quantifiers, this study adopted the same classification with the second chapter, and analyzed the relevant classifier usage.
The fourth chapter is the comparison between Korean and Chinese classifier. After analyzing the similarities and differences on the concepts and systems, analyzed the corresponding relations of the Korean and Chinese classifier. Use the results of analysis of two, three chapters, divided the Korean classifier into the Korean natural classifier and the Hanja classifier, and compared with the Chinese classifiers respectively. The relationships between Korean Hanja classifier and Chinese classifier is " completely synonymous ", "part of the synonymous", "completely different meaning". The relationships between Korean natural classifier and Chinese classifier is "one to one", "one to many", "more of one", and "do not correspond".
Chapter V is the conclusion. Summary and conclusion of the content, and pointed out the shortcomings of the text and the future endeavors.
论文构成如下：
第一章是绪论,阐述本文的研究目的和意义、研究方法,介绍韩中两国语法学界对量词(单位性依存名词)研究的概况,确定本论文的研究范围。
第二章是对韩国语量词的本体论研究,分为概念、体系、意义和用法三部分。由于对单位性依存名词属性的认识不同,学者们的观点各不相同。韩国语法界至今没有统一的名称,主要有传统的“数量单位依存名词”和80年代新兴的“分类词”两大类叫法；分类上由于标准不同,更是五花八门,有按语义范畴分类的,有按度量衡尺度分类的,还有其它各种分类；为了便于进行韩汉对比,本论文在参考各学者的观点的基础上,设立了新的分类体系,并分析了每类中常用的单位性依存名词的用法及与其它近义量词的区别。
第三章是对汉语量词的本体论研究,同样分为概念、体系、意义和用法三部分。汉语量词的定名与分类同样经过了漫长的争论时期。但现在已经统一称为“量词”,分类上虽不完全一样,但一般都是按量词的语法功能来分的。为了方便与韩国语单位性依存名词进行对比,本论文采取了同第二章相同的分类方法,并对相关量词的意义与用法进行了分析。
第四章是对韩国语单位性依存名词与汉语量词的对比研究。分析了两者在概念、体系上的异同之后,重点放在分析语义与用法的对应关系上。利用二、三章分析的结果,将韩国语单位性依存名词分为汉字词单位性依存名词与固有词单位性依存名词,分别与汉语量词进行对比。汉字词单位性依存名词与汉语量词的对应关系分为“完全同义”,“部分同义”,“完全异义”三种情况进行对比分析,固有词单位性依存名词与汉语量词的对应关系分为“一对一”,“一对多”,“多对一”以及“互不对应”四种情况进行对比分析。
第五章是结论。对本论文所述内容进行概括和总结,并指出了文中的不足之处及今后的努力方向。
"Quantity" is one of the most important means for the human understanding of the world. Korean and Chinese belong to the classifier well-developed language. Plenty of classifier in the language of the two countries plays an indispensable role in life.
Some scholars believe that there is certain regularity between nouns and classifiers, from this perspective, this paper select a number of classifiers that are common and comparable in Korean and Chinese analysis of the difference between them.
Paper form as follows:
The first chapter is an introduction, explain the purpose, research methods and significance of this research, describes the profile of the quantifier of the Korean and Chinese, and determine the scope of the study paper.
The second chapter is a Korean classifier ontology research, into concepts, systems and usage of three parts. Because of the different understanding of the properties of classifier, scholars have different views. Korean grammar circles have no common name of the classifiers, there are two main types, tradition, it is called "number of unit's incomplete noun"; Starting from the 80's, it is called "classifier. Because of different standards, classification is varied. Classified according to semantic category, classified according to size by the weights and measures, and other methods. To facilitate comparison of Korean and Chinese, after reference to the views of various scholars, this paper established a new classification system, and analyzes the usage of each classifier.
The third chapter is the ontology of Chinese classifier, into the same concept, system, usage three parts. About the Chinese classifier's name and system, similarly, after a long period of debate, but now unified as "classifier". Although not exactly the same classification, but generally it is according to the classifier's grammatical function. To facilitate comparison with the Korean language quantifiers, this study adopted the same classification with the second chapter, and analyzed the relevant classifier usage.
The fourth chapter is the comparison between Korean and Chinese classifier. After analyzing the similarities and differences on the concepts and systems, analyzed the corresponding relations of the Korean and Chinese classifier. Use the results of analysis of two, three chapters, divided the Korean classifier into the Korean natural classifier and the Hanja classifier, and compared with the Chinese classifiers respectively. The relationships between Korean Hanja classifier and Chinese classifier is " completely synonymous ", "part of the synonymous", "completely different meaning". The relationships between Korean natural classifier and Chinese classifier is "one to one", "one to many", "more of one", and "do not correspond".
Chapter V is the conclusion. Summary and conclusion of the content, and pointed out the shortcomings of the text and the future endeavors.
引文
[1]#12
[2]《现代汉语词典(第五版)》,商务出版社(2005)
[3]#12
[4]郭先珍(1987),《现代汉语量词手册》,中国和平出版社
[5]何杰(2001),《现代汉语量词研究(修订版)》,民族出版社
[6]黄伯荣,廖序东(1991),《现代汉语》,高等教育出版社
[7]刘月华,潘文娱(1983),《实用现代汉语语法》,北京外语教学与教育出版社
[8]吕叔湘(1988),《现代汉语八百词》,商务出版社
[9]#12
[10]#12
[11]#12
[12]#12
[13]#12
[14]#12
[15]江玉莲(2007),《韩国学生汉语量词使用现状调查研究》,厦门大学硕士学位论文
[16]刘红艳(2007),《汉语个体量词认知功能和认知机制的研究》,华南师范大学硕士学位论文
[17]周芍(2006),《名词量词组合的双向选择研究及其认知解释》,暨南大学博士学位论文
[18]申修瑛(2007),《现代汉语词语搭配研究》,复旦大学硕士学位论文
[19]马宏姝(2005),《量词的类特征及名动量的扭结与比较》,东北师范大学硕士 学位论文
[20]秋永善(2006),《韩汉量词对比》,延边大学硕士学位论文
[21]吴清香(2006),《形式量词及量词式短语的语法和语义分析》,北京语言大学硕士学位论文
[22]杜艳(2006),《现代汉语平面类量词的认知研究》,南开大学硕士学位论文
[23]唐苗(2008),《现代汉语线状量词的语义分析及认知解释》,华中师范大学硕士学位论文
[24]郭敏(2006),《基于认知语言学的现代汉语形状量词词义考察》,北京语言大学硕士学位论文
[25]周丽颖(2004),《名词与量词关系考察》,广西大学硕士学位论文
[26]杨娜(2004),《汉语名词、量词匹配问题研究》,广西大学硕士学位论文
[27]何明航(2009),《现代汉语近义名量词初探》,天津师范大学硕士学位论文
[28]张璇(2008),《汉语量词“种、类、样”探析》,暨南大学硕士学位论文
[29]高佳(2007),《汉语服装量词的形成及演变研究》,四川大学博士学位论文
[30]王琳(2009),《韩汉生命体量词对比研究》,中国海洋大学硕士学位论文
[31]牛巧红(2007),《量词“口”、“头”、“只”的系源研究及认知分析》,郑州大学博士学位论文
[32]#12
[33]#12
[34]#12
[35]#12
[36]#12
[37]#12
[38]#12
[39]#12
[40]#12
[41]#12
[42]#12
[43]#12
[44]石毓智(2001),《表物体形状的量词的认知基础》,语言教学与研究
[45]金珍我(2002),《汉语与韩语量词比较》,世界汉语教学
[46]靳葆强(2006),《韩汉量词句法语义功能对比》,济南大学外语学院
[47]牛巧红(2007),《量词“只”、“头”的认知分析与对外汉语教学,鞍山师范学院学报
[48]朱庆明(1994),《析“支”、“条”、“根”》,世界汉语教学
[49]王洁(2004),《从认知角度看量词“片”修饰视觉域具体名词》,乐山师范学院学报
[51]崔尔胜(2009),《量词“棵”的发展模式分析》,大学语文
[52]彭媛(2009),《由量词“串”管窥对外汉语量词教学》,云南师范大学学报.
[53]周伊(2008),《量词“条”与“根”的辨析》,安徽文学(下半月)
[54]宗守云(2008),《论量词“丛”和“簇”对名词性成分的选择》,合肥师范学院学报
[2]《现代汉语词典(第五版)》,商务出版社(2005)
[3]#12
[4]郭先珍(1987),《现代汉语量词手册》,中国和平出版社
[5]何杰(2001),《现代汉语量词研究(修订版)》,民族出版社
[6]黄伯荣,廖序东(1991),《现代汉语》,高等教育出版社
[7]刘月华,潘文娱(1983),《实用现代汉语语法》,北京外语教学与教育出版社
[8]吕叔湘(1988),《现代汉语八百词》,商务出版社
[9]#12
[10]#12
[11]#12
[12]#12
[13]#12
[14]#12
[15]江玉莲(2007),《韩国学生汉语量词使用现状调查研究》,厦门大学硕士学位论文
[16]刘红艳(2007),《汉语个体量词认知功能和认知机制的研究》,华南师范大学硕士学位论文
[17]周芍(2006),《名词量词组合的双向选择研究及其认知解释》,暨南大学博士学位论文
[18]申修瑛(2007),《现代汉语词语搭配研究》,复旦大学硕士学位论文
[19]马宏姝(2005),《量词的类特征及名动量的扭结与比较》,东北师范大学硕士 学位论文
[20]秋永善(2006),《韩汉量词对比》,延边大学硕士学位论文
[21]吴清香(2006),《形式量词及量词式短语的语法和语义分析》,北京语言大学硕士学位论文
[22]杜艳(2006),《现代汉语平面类量词的认知研究》,南开大学硕士学位论文
[23]唐苗(2008),《现代汉语线状量词的语义分析及认知解释》,华中师范大学硕士学位论文
[24]郭敏(2006),《基于认知语言学的现代汉语形状量词词义考察》,北京语言大学硕士学位论文
[25]周丽颖(2004),《名词与量词关系考察》,广西大学硕士学位论文
[26]杨娜(2004),《汉语名词、量词匹配问题研究》,广西大学硕士学位论文
[27]何明航(2009),《现代汉语近义名量词初探》,天津师范大学硕士学位论文
[28]张璇(2008),《汉语量词“种、类、样”探析》,暨南大学硕士学位论文
[29]高佳(2007),《汉语服装量词的形成及演变研究》,四川大学博士学位论文
[30]王琳(2009),《韩汉生命体量词对比研究》,中国海洋大学硕士学位论文
[31]牛巧红(2007),《量词“口”、“头”、“只”的系源研究及认知分析》,郑州大学博士学位论文
[32]#12
[33]#12
[34]#12
[35]#12
[36]#12
[37]#12
[38]#12
[39]#12
[40]#12
[41]#12
[42]#12
[43]#12
[44]石毓智(2001),《表物体形状的量词的认知基础》,语言教学与研究
[45]金珍我(2002),《汉语与韩语量词比较》,世界汉语教学
[46]靳葆强(2006),《韩汉量词句法语义功能对比》,济南大学外语学院
[47]牛巧红(2007),《量词“只”、“头”的认知分析与对外汉语教学,鞍山师范学院学报
[48]朱庆明(1994),《析“支”、“条”、“根”》,世界汉语教学
[49]王洁(2004),《从认知角度看量词“片”修饰视觉域具体名词》,乐山师范学院学报
[51]崔尔胜(2009),《量词“棵”的发展模式分析》,大学语文
[52]彭媛(2009),《由量词“串”管窥对外汉语量词教学》,云南师范大学学报.
[53]周伊(2008),《量词“条”与“根”的辨析》,安徽文学(下半月)
[54]宗守云(2008),《论量词“丛”和“簇”对名词性成分的选择》,合肥师范学院学报