English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88657/118248 (75%)
Visitors : 23504441      Online Users : 220
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124293


    Title: 量名短語有定解讀的共時與歷時考察
    THE DEFINITE INTERPRETATION OF [CL+N] EXPRESSIONS IN SINITIC LANGUAGES: SYNCHRONIC AND DIACHRONIC PERSPECTIVES
    Authors: 李艷芝
    Yanzhi, LI
    吳義誠
    Yicheng, WU
    Contributors: 台灣語言學期刊
    Keywords: 量詞;冠詞;有定性;語用現象;演化過程
    classifier;definite article;defmiteness;pragmatic phenomenon;evolutionary process
    Date: 2018-07
    Issue Date: 2019-07-15 10:40:58 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 過去三十年來,一些學者根據漢語方吉中「量+名」短語可作有定理解的現象,認為量詞在功能上相當於英語的定冠詞。本文通過對幾種南方方言(吳、湘、閩、粵等)的調查以及漢語量詞發展歷史的梳理指出:(1)英語定冠詞the是語法他了的有定標記,[the+N]結構無需語境支持即可作為有定表達式,體現了定冠詞行使語法功能的恆常性;(2)南方方吉中「量+名」結構或光杆量詞脫離語境時與「有定性」沒有任何關係,而在語境中既可作有定亦可作無定理解,具有很強的隨機性;(3)光杆量詞、光杆名詞、「量+名」短語與「數+量+名」短語做有定解讀時,不能把「有定性」強記在某一成分如量詞、名詞或數詞名下,因為這些表達式本質上都是依賴語境表達指稱意義的語用現象。
    It has been claimed in the linguistic literature that numeral classifiers in some Sinitic languages are functionally equivalent to the definite article in the English language, based on the observation that bare classifiers or [Cl+N] expressions can be interpreted as definite under some circumstances. Based on our fieldwork on several Southern dialects in Mainland China, such as Wu, Xiang, Min and Yue dialect, and the evolutionary process of Chinese numeral classifiers, it has been found that (i) the alleged "definiteness" is actually not the inherent property of numeral classifiers themselves, but is expressed via the pragmatic contexts; (ii) [Cl+N] expressions or bare classifiers have nothing to do with "definiteness" out of context, and if placed in a certain context, can be stochastically understood as either definite or indefinite. (iii) it is certainly wrong to ascribe "definiteness" to a certain linguistic element such as "classifier", "nominal" or even "numeral" when a bare classifier, a bare nominal, a [Cl+N] or a [Numeral +Cl+N] expression is construed as definite in a communicative context, since they constitute an essentially pragmatic phenomenon.
    Relation: 台灣語言學期刊, 16(2), 115-157
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://doi.org/ 10.6519/TJL.2018.16(2).4
    DOI: 10.6519/TJL.2018.16(2).4
    Appears in Collections:[台灣語言學期刊 THCI Core ] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML22View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback