汉语双标紧缩句歧义问题初探
|
摘要
以往的汉语歧义研究,比较系统地揭示了词、短语、单句、复句各级单位中存在的多义现象及其原因、类型。然而,紧缩句这一级单位中的多义问题,却一直没有进行专门的研究。本文运用功能语法、认知语法等相关理论,对三种紧缩结构的歧义现象作出分析,并从语义、功能、认知等角度对歧义原因以及理解倾向性等问题作出解释。
“不……不……”结构的歧义是由于结构内部包含并列、条件两种语义关系造成的。本文从语言主观性角度观察,在原有并列关系、条件关系分类的基础上,进一步区分出客观并列、客观条件、主观并列、主观条件四个小类,明确歧义仅出现在主观类中,并对对主观类存在的原因作出解释,从“语义相似性的析取”“句法组合可分说”“多出现在批评语中”三个角度分析主观并列的“不……不……”存在的条件。最后,运用原型理论说明主观类“不……不……”的非典型性。
“再……也……”结构存在两种歧义:1.顺与逆的歧义。“再……也……”可表逆接假设,也可表顺接假设。首先,我们分别对两种构式进行分析,其次,从语用等级、句尾“了2”的功能、前后项双向对应关系、焦点重音四个方面解释了歧义结构中影响理解倾向波动的诸因素。逆接与顺接的“再……也……”体现不同语用功能,在语用量级选择上存在差异。“再……也……”句尾添加“了2”后只能表达顺接关系,不能表达逆接关系,借鉴行、知、言三域理论的相关成果可对此作出合理解释。“再……也……”的前后项呈单向对应关系时句子为单义,存在双向对应时,句子出现歧义。2.虚与实的歧义。虚与实的歧义存在于逆接“再……也……”内部,主要从结构的外部语境入手对歧义加以描写分化。
“一……就……”结构歧义。从“中间项”争议入手区分常规顺接、非常规逆接两类“一……就……”结构,考察前后项词汇义、句类、焦点重音、主观性评注成分对歧义“一……就……”意义的影响。陈述、断言性的“一……就……”一般与常规一致,体现常规顺接关系,疑问则分两种情况。在陈述内部,常规顺接关系体现自然重音,而非常规逆接关系体现对比重音,重音在前在后决定于说话人突出条件的特异性还是结果的特异性。主观评注性成分对“一……就……”结构的语义关系有显化作用。
In the past study of ambiguity in Chinese, some phenomenon and causes of ambiguous words that exist in words, phrases, single sentences, complex sentences are listed out. However, no special study is given to ambiguous words in shortened sentences, or such study is neglected. In this article the theory of functional grammar and cognition grammar is applied to the analysis on three shortened structures for their ambiguity. And some causes of ambiguity and comprehension tendency are explained from different aspects of semantics, function and cognition.
The ambiguity in“bu…bu…”comes from its interior structure containing two compound, conditional semantics. From language subjective point, this structure is further classified into four aspects: objective compound, objective condition, subjective compound and subjective condition on their original compound and conditional compound. And it is clearly pointed out that ambiguity appears only in subjective patterns. The author here explains by introducing language subjective theory why subjective causes come in three aspects of“Comprehension of Similarity in Semantics”,“Separated Syntactic Combination”and“Often in Critical Comments”, and gives an account of the conditions where“bu…bu…”exists. Finally, prototype theory helps us understand the non-typical nature of the subjective kind.
“zai…ye…”structure has two ambiguous meanings. 1) the ambiguity of“go along or go against”. In“zai…ye…”structure, their appear two structured isomerism, respectively referring to along-supposition and against-supposition. Firstly, the author gives analysis separately on these two structures. And secondly some causes are illustrated to affect the understanding of ambiguity within language hierarchy, the function of ending“le2”, the corresponding relations between the fore part to post part, and focus stress. Against-structure and along-structure of“zai…ye…”function differently in language use, therefore there exist differences for the choices of language hierarchy. The ambiguity of“zai…ye…”with ending“le2”only gives along-sense instead of against-sense. Thus explanation is made after the theory of three conceptual domains. When the part before or after“zai…ye…”with one way corresponding relationship, the sentence has one meaning. When the part with two-way corresponding relationship, the sentence has ambiguity. 2) The ambiguity of subjunctive and active, which lies in the“against–structure”“zai…ye…”, is mainly described and classified from its external language environment.
The ambiguity of“yi…jiu…”structure, which leads us to classify from its“middle item”into normal along-structure and subnormal against-structure, may be differentiated from the meanings of the vocabulary, kinds of sentences, focus stress, subjective comments of the fore part or the post part to the affection of their ambiguity. Declarative, assertive structure of“yi…jiu…”is generally consistent with normal along-relationships; Questions have two kinds. In declarative sentence, normal along-structure relationship presents natural stress, while subnormal against-structure presents comparative stress. Whether or not the stress comes on the fore part or the latter part lies in the conditional specificity and resultant specificity given by the speaker. Obviously subjective comments provide more functions to semantic relations of“yi…jiu…”structure.
“不……不……”结构的歧义是由于结构内部包含并列、条件两种语义关系造成的。本文从语言主观性角度观察,在原有并列关系、条件关系分类的基础上,进一步区分出客观并列、客观条件、主观并列、主观条件四个小类,明确歧义仅出现在主观类中,并对对主观类存在的原因作出解释,从“语义相似性的析取”“句法组合可分说”“多出现在批评语中”三个角度分析主观并列的“不……不……”存在的条件。最后,运用原型理论说明主观类“不……不……”的非典型性。
“再……也……”结构存在两种歧义:1.顺与逆的歧义。“再……也……”可表逆接假设,也可表顺接假设。首先,我们分别对两种构式进行分析,其次,从语用等级、句尾“了2”的功能、前后项双向对应关系、焦点重音四个方面解释了歧义结构中影响理解倾向波动的诸因素。逆接与顺接的“再……也……”体现不同语用功能,在语用量级选择上存在差异。“再……也……”句尾添加“了2”后只能表达顺接关系,不能表达逆接关系,借鉴行、知、言三域理论的相关成果可对此作出合理解释。“再……也……”的前后项呈单向对应关系时句子为单义,存在双向对应时,句子出现歧义。2.虚与实的歧义。虚与实的歧义存在于逆接“再……也……”内部,主要从结构的外部语境入手对歧义加以描写分化。
“一……就……”结构歧义。从“中间项”争议入手区分常规顺接、非常规逆接两类“一……就……”结构,考察前后项词汇义、句类、焦点重音、主观性评注成分对歧义“一……就……”意义的影响。陈述、断言性的“一……就……”一般与常规一致,体现常规顺接关系,疑问则分两种情况。在陈述内部,常规顺接关系体现自然重音,而非常规逆接关系体现对比重音,重音在前在后决定于说话人突出条件的特异性还是结果的特异性。主观评注性成分对“一……就……”结构的语义关系有显化作用。
In the past study of ambiguity in Chinese, some phenomenon and causes of ambiguous words that exist in words, phrases, single sentences, complex sentences are listed out. However, no special study is given to ambiguous words in shortened sentences, or such study is neglected. In this article the theory of functional grammar and cognition grammar is applied to the analysis on three shortened structures for their ambiguity. And some causes of ambiguity and comprehension tendency are explained from different aspects of semantics, function and cognition.
The ambiguity in“bu…bu…”comes from its interior structure containing two compound, conditional semantics. From language subjective point, this structure is further classified into four aspects: objective compound, objective condition, subjective compound and subjective condition on their original compound and conditional compound. And it is clearly pointed out that ambiguity appears only in subjective patterns. The author here explains by introducing language subjective theory why subjective causes come in three aspects of“Comprehension of Similarity in Semantics”,“Separated Syntactic Combination”and“Often in Critical Comments”, and gives an account of the conditions where“bu…bu…”exists. Finally, prototype theory helps us understand the non-typical nature of the subjective kind.
“zai…ye…”structure has two ambiguous meanings. 1) the ambiguity of“go along or go against”. In“zai…ye…”structure, their appear two structured isomerism, respectively referring to along-supposition and against-supposition. Firstly, the author gives analysis separately on these two structures. And secondly some causes are illustrated to affect the understanding of ambiguity within language hierarchy, the function of ending“le2”, the corresponding relations between the fore part to post part, and focus stress. Against-structure and along-structure of“zai…ye…”function differently in language use, therefore there exist differences for the choices of language hierarchy. The ambiguity of“zai…ye…”with ending“le2”only gives along-sense instead of against-sense. Thus explanation is made after the theory of three conceptual domains. When the part before or after“zai…ye…”with one way corresponding relationship, the sentence has one meaning. When the part with two-way corresponding relationship, the sentence has ambiguity. 2) The ambiguity of subjunctive and active, which lies in the“against–structure”“zai…ye…”, is mainly described and classified from its external language environment.
The ambiguity of“yi…jiu…”structure, which leads us to classify from its“middle item”into normal along-structure and subnormal against-structure, may be differentiated from the meanings of the vocabulary, kinds of sentences, focus stress, subjective comments of the fore part or the post part to the affection of their ambiguity. Declarative, assertive structure of“yi…jiu…”is generally consistent with normal along-relationships; Questions have two kinds. In declarative sentence, normal along-structure relationship presents natural stress, while subnormal against-structure presents comparative stress. Whether or not the stress comes on the fore part or the latter part lies in the conditional specificity and resultant specificity given by the speaker. Obviously subjective comments provide more functions to semantic relations of“yi…jiu…”structure.
引文
1陈一.《句类与词语同现关系刍议》.中国语文.2005,2
2陈一.《偏依性对举结构与语法单位的对称不对称》.世界汉语教学.2008,3
3陈一民.《歧义结构的歧义度》.中南林学院学报.2004,24卷61期
4陈一民.《歧义结构的意义优选》.语言文字应用.2005,3
5陈一民.《汉语语用平面歧义研究综述》.中南工业大学学报(社会科学版).2001,7卷4期
6陈昌来.《现代汉语句子》.华东师范大学出版社,2000
7陈前瑞.《句尾“了”将来时间用法的发展》.语言教学与研究.2005,1
8储泽祥.《“连用”手段下的多项NP》.中国语文.1999,2
9储泽祥,谢小明.《异类词联合短语研究》.中国语文.2003,3
10蔡振生.《“不A不B”结构浅析》.语言教学与研究.1988 ,4
11董秀芳.《词汇化:汉语双音词的衍生和发展》.四川民族出版社,2002
12董秀芳.《汉语的词库与词法》.北京大学出版社,2004
13邓英树,黄谷.《论“不A不B”的否定意义及其制约因素》.汉语学习.2002,4
14杜鹃.《现代汉语“不X不Y”格式研究》.上海师范大学硕士学位论文.2006
15范开泰.《语法分析三个平面》.语言教学与研究.1993,3
16方梅.《汉语对比焦点的句法表现手段》.中国语文.1995,4
17郭昭军,尹美子.《助动词“要”的模态多义性及其制约因素》.汉语学习.2008,2
18高万云,郑心灵.《“语法分析的三个平面”研究述评》.汉语学习.1994,6
19甘莅豪.《“不A不B”的格式义与语义的消极倾向》.修辞学习.2008,2
20金立鑫.《“S了”的时体意义及其句法条件》.语言教学与研究.2003,2
21吕叔湘.《现代汉语八百词(增订本)》.商务印书馆,1999
22卢建.《影响予夺不明双宾句语义理解的因素》.中国语文.2003,5
23刘勋宁.《现代汉语句尾“了”的语法意义及其解说》.世界汉语教学.2002,3
24李宇明.《汉语量范畴研究》.华中师范范大学出版社,2000
25李善熙.《汉语“主观量”的表达研究》.中国社会科学院博士学位论文.2003
26李瑛.《“不”的否定意义》.语言教学与研究.1992,2
27李凰.《“再X也Y”的构式分析》.暨南大学华文学院学报.2009,4
28罗耀华.《连锁型“不A不B”格式的认知模式》.南都学坛.2002,22卷1期
29罗耀华.《待嵌格式“不A不B”的认知研究》.江汉大学学报.2002,21卷3期
30马真,陆俭明.《现代汉语虚词散论》.语文出版社,1999
31马真.《现代汉语虚词研究方法论》.商务印书馆,2004
32马清华.《并列结构的自组织研究》.华东师范大学博士学位论文.2004
33梅立崇.《现代汉语“即使”假言句》.世界汉语教学.1995,1
34钱敏汝.《否定载体“不”的语义—语法考察》.中国语文.1990,1
35阮氏青姮.《“不A不B”格式及其相关问题》.北京语言文化大学硕士学位论文.2002
36石安石.《语义论》.商务印书馆,1993
37石安石.《句义的预设》.语文研究.1986,2
38沈家煊.《认知与汉语语法研究》.商务印书馆,2006
39沈家煊.《不对称和标记论》.江西教育出版社,1999
40沈家煊.《现代汉语语法的功能、语用、认知研究》.商务印书馆,2005
41沈家煊.《语言的“主观性”和“主观化”》.外语教学与研究.1994,4
42沈家煊.《如何处置“处置式”?——论把字句的主观性》.中国语文.2002,5
43沈家煊.《正负颠倒和语用等级》.《语法研究和探索(七)》.商务印书馆,1995
44沈阳,陆俭明.《汉语和汉语研究十五讲》.北京大学出版社,2004
45邵敬敏.《歧义分化方法探讨》.语言教学与研究.1991,1
46史锡尧.《“再”语义分析——并比较“再”、“又”》.汉语学习.1996,2
47史锡尧.《“不”否定的对象和“不”的位置—兼谈“不”、副词“没”的语用区别》.汉语学习.1995,1
48施雯.《“再X也Y”格式考察及教学研究》.北京语言大学硕士学位论文.2009
49寿永明.《“不……不……”格式的语法意义》.杭州大学学报.1997,27卷2期
50谭春健.《句尾“了”构成的句式、语义及语用功能》.汉语学习.2004,2
51王希杰.《节律和歧义》.汉语学习.1980,5
52王弘宇.《说“一A就C”》.中国语文.2001,2
53王光全.《也论“一X就Y”结构》.汉语学报.2005,3
54王小郴.《复句的预设和复句研究》.福建师范大学硕士论文.2004
55王树瑛.《汉语“不A不B”格式的结构关系及语义研究》.华中师范人学学报.1999,3卷5期
56温锁林.《汉语句子的信息安排及其句法后果——以“周遍句”为例》.《三个平面:汉语语法研究的多维视野》.语文出版社,1998
57邢福义.《复句与关系词语》.黑龙江人民出版社,1985
58邢福义.《汉语复句研究》.商务印书馆,2001
59邢福义.《现代汉语复句问题之研究》.黄冈师专学报.1994,14卷2期
60邢福义.《汉语语法学》.东北师范大学出版社,1997
61玄玥.《焦点问题研究综述》.汉语学习.2002,8
62肖治野,沈家煊.《“了2”的行、知、言三域》.中国语文.2009,6
63徐国庆.《熟语研究》.黑龙江人民出版社,2003
64徐阳春.《现代汉语复句句式研究》.中国社会科学出版社,2002
65杨满生.《对“不A不B”语型的分析》.北京第二外国语学院学报.1997,4
66杨亦鸣.《试论“也”字句的歧义》.中国语文.2000,2
67尹世超.《汉语语法修辞论集》.中国社会科学出版社,2002
68朱德熙.《语法讲义》.商务印书馆,1997
69张国宪.《制约夺事成分句位实现的语义因素》.中国语文.2001,6
70张敏.《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》.中国社会科学出版社,1998
71赵艳芳.《认知语言学概论》.上海外语教育出版社,2001
72朱旭方.《汉语固定格式个案研究》.郑州大学硕士学位论文.2007
73周刚.《说“再”》.汉语学习.1994,3
74周小兵.《析“不A不B”》.语言教学与研究.1996,4
75 Goldberg , Adele E, A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
76 Goldberg, Adele E, A New Theoretical Approach to Language,《外国语》2003.
77 Goldberg, Adele E, Constructions at Work, Oxford University Press, 2006.
78 [美]Goldberg, Adele E,《构式:论元结构的构式语法研究》,吴海波译,北京大学出版社,2007.
79 Jackendoff, R, Semantic interpretation ingenerative grammar, MIT press, Cambridge,Massachusetts, 1972.
80 Langacker, R. W, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vols.I & II. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987/1991.
81 Langacker, R. W, Subjectification , Cognitive Linguistics 1, 1990.
82 Langacker, R. W, Reference point construction , Cognitive Linguistics 4, 1993.
83 Lyons, J, Semantics, Cambridge University Press, 1977.
84 Stein, D. & S. Wright, Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
2陈一.《偏依性对举结构与语法单位的对称不对称》.世界汉语教学.2008,3
3陈一民.《歧义结构的歧义度》.中南林学院学报.2004,24卷61期
4陈一民.《歧义结构的意义优选》.语言文字应用.2005,3
5陈一民.《汉语语用平面歧义研究综述》.中南工业大学学报(社会科学版).2001,7卷4期
6陈昌来.《现代汉语句子》.华东师范大学出版社,2000
7陈前瑞.《句尾“了”将来时间用法的发展》.语言教学与研究.2005,1
8储泽祥.《“连用”手段下的多项NP》.中国语文.1999,2
9储泽祥,谢小明.《异类词联合短语研究》.中国语文.2003,3
10蔡振生.《“不A不B”结构浅析》.语言教学与研究.1988 ,4
11董秀芳.《词汇化:汉语双音词的衍生和发展》.四川民族出版社,2002
12董秀芳.《汉语的词库与词法》.北京大学出版社,2004
13邓英树,黄谷.《论“不A不B”的否定意义及其制约因素》.汉语学习.2002,4
14杜鹃.《现代汉语“不X不Y”格式研究》.上海师范大学硕士学位论文.2006
15范开泰.《语法分析三个平面》.语言教学与研究.1993,3
16方梅.《汉语对比焦点的句法表现手段》.中国语文.1995,4
17郭昭军,尹美子.《助动词“要”的模态多义性及其制约因素》.汉语学习.2008,2
18高万云,郑心灵.《“语法分析的三个平面”研究述评》.汉语学习.1994,6
19甘莅豪.《“不A不B”的格式义与语义的消极倾向》.修辞学习.2008,2
20金立鑫.《“S了”的时体意义及其句法条件》.语言教学与研究.2003,2
21吕叔湘.《现代汉语八百词(增订本)》.商务印书馆,1999
22卢建.《影响予夺不明双宾句语义理解的因素》.中国语文.2003,5
23刘勋宁.《现代汉语句尾“了”的语法意义及其解说》.世界汉语教学.2002,3
24李宇明.《汉语量范畴研究》.华中师范范大学出版社,2000
25李善熙.《汉语“主观量”的表达研究》.中国社会科学院博士学位论文.2003
26李瑛.《“不”的否定意义》.语言教学与研究.1992,2
27李凰.《“再X也Y”的构式分析》.暨南大学华文学院学报.2009,4
28罗耀华.《连锁型“不A不B”格式的认知模式》.南都学坛.2002,22卷1期
29罗耀华.《待嵌格式“不A不B”的认知研究》.江汉大学学报.2002,21卷3期
30马真,陆俭明.《现代汉语虚词散论》.语文出版社,1999
31马真.《现代汉语虚词研究方法论》.商务印书馆,2004
32马清华.《并列结构的自组织研究》.华东师范大学博士学位论文.2004
33梅立崇.《现代汉语“即使”假言句》.世界汉语教学.1995,1
34钱敏汝.《否定载体“不”的语义—语法考察》.中国语文.1990,1
35阮氏青姮.《“不A不B”格式及其相关问题》.北京语言文化大学硕士学位论文.2002
36石安石.《语义论》.商务印书馆,1993
37石安石.《句义的预设》.语文研究.1986,2
38沈家煊.《认知与汉语语法研究》.商务印书馆,2006
39沈家煊.《不对称和标记论》.江西教育出版社,1999
40沈家煊.《现代汉语语法的功能、语用、认知研究》.商务印书馆,2005
41沈家煊.《语言的“主观性”和“主观化”》.外语教学与研究.1994,4
42沈家煊.《如何处置“处置式”?——论把字句的主观性》.中国语文.2002,5
43沈家煊.《正负颠倒和语用等级》.《语法研究和探索(七)》.商务印书馆,1995
44沈阳,陆俭明.《汉语和汉语研究十五讲》.北京大学出版社,2004
45邵敬敏.《歧义分化方法探讨》.语言教学与研究.1991,1
46史锡尧.《“再”语义分析——并比较“再”、“又”》.汉语学习.1996,2
47史锡尧.《“不”否定的对象和“不”的位置—兼谈“不”、副词“没”的语用区别》.汉语学习.1995,1
48施雯.《“再X也Y”格式考察及教学研究》.北京语言大学硕士学位论文.2009
49寿永明.《“不……不……”格式的语法意义》.杭州大学学报.1997,27卷2期
50谭春健.《句尾“了”构成的句式、语义及语用功能》.汉语学习.2004,2
51王希杰.《节律和歧义》.汉语学习.1980,5
52王弘宇.《说“一A就C”》.中国语文.2001,2
53王光全.《也论“一X就Y”结构》.汉语学报.2005,3
54王小郴.《复句的预设和复句研究》.福建师范大学硕士论文.2004
55王树瑛.《汉语“不A不B”格式的结构关系及语义研究》.华中师范人学学报.1999,3卷5期
56温锁林.《汉语句子的信息安排及其句法后果——以“周遍句”为例》.《三个平面:汉语语法研究的多维视野》.语文出版社,1998
57邢福义.《复句与关系词语》.黑龙江人民出版社,1985
58邢福义.《汉语复句研究》.商务印书馆,2001
59邢福义.《现代汉语复句问题之研究》.黄冈师专学报.1994,14卷2期
60邢福义.《汉语语法学》.东北师范大学出版社,1997
61玄玥.《焦点问题研究综述》.汉语学习.2002,8
62肖治野,沈家煊.《“了2”的行、知、言三域》.中国语文.2009,6
63徐国庆.《熟语研究》.黑龙江人民出版社,2003
64徐阳春.《现代汉语复句句式研究》.中国社会科学出版社,2002
65杨满生.《对“不A不B”语型的分析》.北京第二外国语学院学报.1997,4
66杨亦鸣.《试论“也”字句的歧义》.中国语文.2000,2
67尹世超.《汉语语法修辞论集》.中国社会科学出版社,2002
68朱德熙.《语法讲义》.商务印书馆,1997
69张国宪.《制约夺事成分句位实现的语义因素》.中国语文.2001,6
70张敏.《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》.中国社会科学出版社,1998
71赵艳芳.《认知语言学概论》.上海外语教育出版社,2001
72朱旭方.《汉语固定格式个案研究》.郑州大学硕士学位论文.2007
73周刚.《说“再”》.汉语学习.1994,3
74周小兵.《析“不A不B”》.语言教学与研究.1996,4
75 Goldberg , Adele E, A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
76 Goldberg, Adele E, A New Theoretical Approach to Language,《外国语》2003.
77 Goldberg, Adele E, Constructions at Work, Oxford University Press, 2006.
78 [美]Goldberg, Adele E,《构式:论元结构的构式语法研究》,吴海波译,北京大学出版社,2007.
79 Jackendoff, R, Semantic interpretation ingenerative grammar, MIT press, Cambridge,Massachusetts, 1972.
80 Langacker, R. W, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vols.I & II. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987/1991.
81 Langacker, R. W, Subjectification , Cognitive Linguistics 1, 1990.
82 Langacker, R. W, Reference point construction , Cognitive Linguistics 4, 1993.
83 Lyons, J, Semantics, Cambridge University Press, 1977.
84 Stein, D. & S. Wright, Subjectivity and Subjectivisation, Cambridge University Press, 1995.