外国语
外國語
외국어
Journal of Foreign Languages
2011年
2期
47~55
,共null页
词类 语类 范畴化 分布形态理论
詞類 語類 範疇化 分佈形態理論
사류 어류 범주화 분포형태이론
part of speech ; category ; categorization ; Distributed Morphology
针对汉语中普遍存在的词类与语法功能的失称现象,作者指出,词类划分所带来的困惑以及由此引发的争议产生于把词以及词类(即语类)的形成都归功于词库的“词汇主义”观点。本文的研究表明,在主张“非词汇主义”的“分布形态理论”的框架下,汉语的相关事实都能得到合理的解释。根据该理论,词是语素通过“合并”等形式手段在句法运算中生成的:词根通过与某个定义语类的功能语素构成局部结构关系而获得语类标签。因此,词类或语类并非词库的规定,而是句法结构的衍生物。汉语为“分布形态理论”的合理性提供了进一步的跨语言证据。在该理论假设的基础上,汉语和英语的事实被纳入同一种分析机制中,两种语言之间的差异也被归因于词根的不同属性以及PF层局部的形态音系操作。
針對漢語中普遍存在的詞類與語法功能的失稱現象,作者指齣,詞類劃分所帶來的睏惑以及由此引髮的爭議產生于把詞以及詞類(即語類)的形成都歸功于詞庫的“詞彙主義”觀點。本文的研究錶明,在主張“非詞彙主義”的“分佈形態理論”的框架下,漢語的相關事實都能得到閤理的解釋。根據該理論,詞是語素通過“閤併”等形式手段在句法運算中生成的:詞根通過與某箇定義語類的功能語素構成跼部結構關繫而穫得語類標籤。因此,詞類或語類併非詞庫的規定,而是句法結構的衍生物。漢語為“分佈形態理論”的閤理性提供瞭進一步的跨語言證據。在該理論假設的基礎上,漢語和英語的事實被納入同一種分析機製中,兩種語言之間的差異也被歸因于詞根的不同屬性以及PF層跼部的形態音繫操作。
침대한어중보편존재적사류여어법공능적실칭현상,작자지출,사류화분소대래적곤혹이급유차인발적쟁의산생우파사이급사류(즉어류)적형성도귀공우사고적“사회주의”관점。본문적연구표명,재주장“비사회주의”적“분포형태이론”적광가하,한어적상관사실도능득도합리적해석。근거해이론,사시어소통과“합병”등형식수단재구법운산중생성적:사근통과여모개정의어류적공능어소구성국부결구관계이획득어류표첨。인차,사류혹어류병비사고적규정,이시구법결구적연생물。한어위“분포형태이론”적합이성제공료진일보적과어언증거。재해이론가설적기출상,한어화영어적사실피납입동일충분석궤제중,량충어언지간적차이야피귀인우사근적불동속성이급PF층국부적형태음계조작。
Aiming at the prevalent mismatches between parts of speech and grammatical fimctions in Chinese, the author points out that the confusion brought about by word classification and the resulting disputes grow out of the lexicalist view that ascribes the formation of words and parts of speech (or categories) to the lexicon. The study shows that the relevant Chinese facts can be given a unified account under the framework of Distributed Morphology ( DM ) that is based on the non-lexicalist view, according to which words are generated in the syntactic computation by morphemes through formal devices such as " Merge", so that roots are categorized by virtue of being in a local structural relationship with one of the category-defining functional heads. Therefore, parts of speech or categories are not regulations of the lexicon but are derivatives of the syntactic structure. Chinese facts provide further cross-linguistic evidence for the validity of DM. Under the basic assumptions of this theory, Chinese and English facts are subordinated to tile same analytic mechanism and discrepancies between the two languages are attributed to the different properties of the roots and the local morpho-phonological operations at PF.