發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-01 07:51

  本文選題：自動(dòng)詞第三者被動(dòng)句 + 領(lǐng)主屬賓句��； 參考：《湖南大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：一直以來(lái)，人們普遍認(rèn)為間接被動(dòng)句是日語(yǔ)獨(dú)有的句式。但縱觀近年來(lái)的研究，筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)漢語(yǔ)中也有類似的表現(xiàn)。即、“領(lǐng)主屬賓句”、“保留賓語(yǔ)被動(dòng)句”分別可以和日語(yǔ)間接被動(dòng)句中的自動(dòng)詞第三者被動(dòng)句和所有者被動(dòng)句構(gòu)成對(duì)應(yīng)關(guān)系。然而，目前關(guān)于這方面的研究才剛起步，仍有許多問(wèn)題有待解決。 本文在先行研究的基礎(chǔ)上，首先從構(gòu)式語(yǔ)法理論出發(fā)，驗(yàn)證了自動(dòng)詞第三者被動(dòng)句和“領(lǐng)主屬賓句”的可比性，同時(shí)從“非賓格理論”出發(fā)進(jìn)行考察，從而得知兩種句式的對(duì)應(yīng)度并非僅依賴于動(dòng)詞的種類。受久野高見(jiàn)（2000）分析日語(yǔ)被害被動(dòng)句成立條件的啟發(fā)，本文通過(guò)分析實(shí)際的語(yǔ)言用例，嘗試探討了新的對(duì)應(yīng)條件。總而言之，兩者的對(duì)應(yīng)與施動(dòng)者是否為有情物及句子上下文的受害顯示程度等因素相關(guān)。 其次，關(guān)于所有者被動(dòng)句和“保留賓語(yǔ)被動(dòng)句”的可比性，本文亦通過(guò)構(gòu)式語(yǔ)法理論進(jìn)行了驗(yàn)證。并根據(jù)領(lǐng)屬名詞和隸屬名詞的可讓渡性，對(duì)兩種句式中的所有者和所有物間的領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系進(jìn)行重新分類，并基于這一分類對(duì)兩者的對(duì)應(yīng)條件及對(duì)應(yīng)度進(jìn)行了考察。原則上，所有物對(duì)所有者的不可讓渡性越高，兩種構(gòu)式的成立條件所受的制約越小，，兩者的對(duì)應(yīng)度也就越高。但根據(jù)上下文及個(gè)人敘述視點(diǎn)的不同，對(duì)應(yīng)度有時(shí)也會(huì)相應(yīng)降低。此外，由于日語(yǔ)被動(dòng)句一般不允準(zhǔn)非生物名詞作主語(yǔ)，故當(dāng)領(lǐng)屬關(guān)系為物品的整體—部分關(guān)系時(shí)，保留賓語(yǔ)被動(dòng)句得以成立，而相應(yīng)的所有者被動(dòng)句則顯得不自然。當(dāng)所有者和所有物間為整體量和部分量的關(guān)系時(shí)亦能得出同樣的結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:It has been widely accepted that indirect passive sentences are unique to Japanese. But in recent years, the author found that there is a similar performance in Chinese. That is, "the lord belongs to the object sentence" and "reserved object passive sentence" can form the corresponding relation with the third party passive sentence and the owner passive sentence in the Japanese indirect passive sentence, respectively. However, the current research on this area is just beginning, there are still many problems to be solved. On the basis of the first research, this paper first verifies the comparability between the passive sentence of the third party and the sentence of "the lord belongs to object" from the theory of construction grammar, and at the same time, from the theory of "non-objective case" to investigate. It is concluded that the corresponding degree of two sentence patterns is not dependent only on the type of verbs. Inspired by the analysis of the conditions for the establishment of Japanese passive sentences, this paper attempts to explore new corresponding conditions by analyzing practical language use cases. In a word, the correspondence between the two factors is related to whether the operator is a sentient object and the degree of victimization of sentence context. Secondly, the comparison between owner passive sentence and reserved object passive sentence is verified by the theory of construction grammar. According to the transferability of the noun and subordinate noun, this paper reclassifies the relationship between owner and owner in the two sentence patterns, and studies their corresponding conditions and corresponding degree based on this classification. In principle, the higher the irtransferability of the property to the owner, the smaller the restriction on the establishment conditions of the two constructions and the higher the corresponding degree of the two constructions. However, according to the context and personal narrative point of view, the degree of correspondence is sometimes reduced accordingly. In addition, since Japanese passive sentences generally do not allow abiotic nouns to be subject, when the relationship between the subject and the subordinate is the wholly-partial relationship of the object, the passive sentence of the retention object can be established, while the corresponding passive sentence of the owner appears unnatural. The same conclusion can be reached when the relationship between the owner and the owner is between the total quantity and the partial quantity.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：H36;H146

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐杰;兩種保留賓語(yǔ)句式及相關(guān)句法理論問(wèn)題[J];當(dāng)代語(yǔ)言學(xué);1999年01期

2 李倩;;日語(yǔ)間接被動(dòng)句與漢語(yǔ)對(duì)應(yīng)句式研究[J];日語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)與研究;2008年S1期

3 于康;;日漢所有關(guān)系被動(dòng)句與所有物共現(xiàn)的語(yǔ)義條件[J];日語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)與研究;2009年04期

4 徐曙;何芳芝;;“太郎が/は父に死なれた”與“王冕死了父親”的構(gòu)式關(guān)系——構(gòu)式語(yǔ)法視角的分析研究[J];日語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)與研究;2010年05期

5 李杰;;試論發(fā)生句——對(duì)隱現(xiàn)句和領(lǐng)主屬賓句的句式意義的重新審視[J];世界漢語(yǔ)教學(xué);2009年01期

6 韓景泉;領(lǐng)有名詞提升移位與格理論[J];現(xiàn)代外語(yǔ);2000年03期

7 溫賓利,陳宗利;領(lǐng)有名詞移位:基于MP的分析[J];現(xiàn)代外語(yǔ);2001年04期

8 王奇;;“領(lǐng)主屬賓句”的語(yǔ)義特點(diǎn)與句法結(jié)構(gòu)[J];現(xiàn)代外語(yǔ);2006年03期

9 李鉆娘;羅慎儀;;出現(xiàn)式與消失式動(dòng)詞的存在句[J];語(yǔ)文研究;1987年03期

10 沈家煊;;“王冕死了父親”的生成方式——兼說(shuō)漢語(yǔ)“糅合”造句[J];中國(guó)語(yǔ)文;2006年04期

本文編號(hào)：1963437