| 兼语句是汉语中的一种罕见句式,法语中与其响应的句式是复合宾语句,多为主谓宾补(SVOC)句。两种句式不只在情势上相似,并且在逻辑语义关系上也有类似的地方。国际的一些学者曾研究过它们之间的差异,但数目很少,而且多逗留在句式表层的差异商量上,未就这两种句式发生的深层机理和形成它们之间的差异的缘由睁开深刻评论辩论。本文从认知说话学的角度,对两种说话的句式停止比较。本文以认知说话学的根本假定为基本：“人类经历—领域化—图式化—隐喻拓展—说话情势”,对汉语的“兼语句”与法语的主谓宾语句(SVOC句式)停止了比较研究。起首,经由过程比较两种句式的领域原型,得出其差别：汉语“兼语句”的领域原型为“A使B……”,而法语SVOC句式的原型为“A感化于B及B的机能、活动或状况等”。与此同时,也能够发明它们之间存在某些类似的地方,这就使得两种句式在句法成份及分列措施上存在必定的类似性。其次,二者之间的差异还表现在在图式化进程中。作者运用Langacker的行动链和能量活动构造的实际,得出两种句式各自的幻想认知模子的意象图式,并对其停止了比较。最初,作者联合隐喻拓展实际,对两种句式重要动词的原型做了比较,得出导致义是重要动词最重要的语义类型,导致事宜是两种句式发生的认知基本。然则汉语兼语句的原型动词多为使役动词,而法语SVOC句式的原型动词为非完形及物动词,它们停止句法隐喻拓展以后的必定成果就是重要动词语义的差异。本文运用认知说话学和比较说话学的实际对这两种句式停止比较,总结它们的差异,提醒深层缘由,对汉法互译和对外汉语教授教养都有指点意义。 Abstract: Pivotal sentence is Chinese in a rare sentence, French and its response patterns is complex object sentences, SVO fill (SVOC) sentence. The two kinds of sentence similarity not only in the situation, and have a similar place in the logical semantic relationship. Some international scholars have studied the similarities and differences between them, but few in number, and many funny sentence in the surface to discuss the similarities and differences on, not the deep mechanism of these two sentences and the formation of the similarities and differences between them reason to open profound comments debate. This paper from the perspective of cognitive linguistics, comparative sentence of two stop talking. Based on cognitive learning to speak of basic assumptions for basic: "human experience - field - schematic metaphor development language forms", in Chinese pivotal sentence and French subject verb object sentence (SVOC structure) stopped comparative study. First of all, through the field of prototype process comparison of two kinds of sentences, the difference: the field of Chinese "prototype and statement" for "A B......" SVOC, but the French sentence "A prototype uses at B and B function, activity or situation". At the same time, can also have some similar local inventions between them, which makes the two kinds of sentence are similar in syntactic composition and must breakdown method. Secondly, the differences between the two is also reflected in the process of the schema. The actual action chain and energy structure by using the Langacker of the two kinds of sentence their cognitive model of fantasy image schema, and carries on the comparison. At first, the author combined metaphor compares the actual, two important sentence verb prototype, it is concluded that the meaning is the most important important semantic types of verbs, resulting in matters is the basic two kinds of sentence the cognitive. However Chinese pivotal sentences the prototypical verb causative verb, and French SVOC structure of prototypical verbs for non Gestalt transitive verbs, they stop syntactic metaphor expansion after the inevitable result is important verb semantic similarities and differences. In this paper, the application of cognitive learning to speak and is learning to speak practical of the two sentences, sum up their similarities and differences, remind the deep reason, have directive significance to French translation and foreign language teaching. 目录: Remerciements 4-5 Resume en Francais 5-7 摘要 7 Abreviations et Symboles 12-13 Chapitre 1 Introduction 13-18 1.1 Contexte de l'etude 13-14 1.2 Importance de l'etude 14-15 1.3 Approches de l'etude 15-18 Chapitre 2 Apercu de la Linguistique Contrastive 18-24 2.1 Developpement de la linguistique contrastive 18-20 2.2 Linguistique contrastive 20-21 2.3 D'autres disciplines comparatives 21-23 2.3.1 Linguistique areale 21 2.3.2 Linguistique comparee 21-23 2.4 Linguistique contrastive en chine 23-24 Chapitre 3 Apercu de la Linguistique Cognitive 24-32 3.1 Grammaire cognitive 25-26 3.2 Theorie du prototype 26-28 3.3 Ressemblance de famille et gestalt 28-29 3.4 Schema d'image et idealized cognitive model 29-30 3.5 Theorie de la metaphore 30-32 Chapitre 4 Analyse Contrastive et Cognitive entre la structure-pivotdu Chinois etle Modele SVOC du Francais 32-64 4.1 Introduction de la structure-pivot 32-33 4.2 Introduction des phrases avec complement d'objet complexe 33-34 4.3 Analyse contrastive de la categorie prototypique entre les deux modeles 34-39 4.3.1 Categorie prototypique de la structure-pivot 35-36 4.3.2 Categorie prototypique du modele SVOC 36-38 4.3.3 Analyse contrastive de la categorie prototypique entre les deux modeles 38-39 4.4 Analyse contrastive de la schematisation de l'ICM entre les deux modeles 39-54 4.4.1 Schemas d'image de l'ICM de la tructure-pivot 39-47 4.4.2 Schemas d'image de l'ICM du modele SVOC 47-50 4.4.3 Analyse contrastive de la schematisation de l'ICM entre les deux modeles 50-54 4.5 Analyse contrastive des extensions metaphoriques entre les deux modeles 54-62 4.5.1 Extensions metaphoriques de la structure-pivot 54-58 4.5.2 Extensions metaphoriques du modele SVOC 58-60 4.5.3 Analyse contrastive des extensions metaphoriques entre les deux modeles 60-62 4.6 En bref 62-64 Chapitre 5 Conclusion 64-69 5.1 Contributions de l'etude 64-65 5.2 Implications pour la traduction et l'enseignement des langues 65-68 5.3 Limites de l'etude et propositions pour son approfondissement 68-69 Bibliographie 69-72 Information Personnelle 72-73 Publication 73-75 |
