| 认知立场类动词作为英语平常外交的一种罕见说话景象，惹起说话学界的普遍存眷。对认知立场类动词的研究重要集中在语用功效方面，很少触及它们的语义特点。是以，本文从一个新的研究视角一句法语义视角，研究认知立场类动词的两种语义演化一语义逆化和语义虚化，经由过程剖析三个认知立场类动词know， think和believe，研讨语义逆化和语义虚化这两种语义演化的证据、念头、演化趋向和成果。人们发明在句型‘’I don’t think so，法语毕业论文，法语论文范文， I don’t believe so， I know so’’中，以往被以为是同义词的know， think和believe互相之间存在反义特点。这一景象被称作语义逆化(antonymization)。本文从内容义与法式义，客不雅义与客观义，传言义与熟悉义三方面研究know， think和believe的语义特点，研讨认知立场类动词产生语义逆化的缘由和门路。在语义虚化方面，本文以think为例，从语法化角度研究了认知立场类动词。语义虚化又被称作语义虚脱(desemanticization)，指词语原始意义的缺掉。Think与第一人称代词和第二人称代词所组成短语的语义虚化可以从非领域化实际，句法特点和语用特点三面方面获得应证。语义虚化的念头包含正面变换，客观性和交互客观性。I think的功效多样性惹起它的过度运用，继而惹起语用蚀化和效率缺掉，招致其替换情势的发生。Think连续赓续的语法化阅历了从客观性到交互客观性，从命题到外交再到语篇的成长过程。这一成长趋向可以经由过程构式语法和语法化获得公道预示息争释。本文经由过程摸索认知立场类动词的两种语义演化，为认知立场类动词供给了一种全新且周全的解读，增强了对认知立场类动词的说明力度，加深了对认知立场类动词的懂得，对增进平常外交具有实际意义。 Abstract: Cognitive position verbs as a common foreign language of the English speech scene, to arouse the general concern of the academic community. The study of cognitive position verbs is important in pragmatic functions, and rarely touches on their semantic features. Is, this paper from a new research angle of view a sentence syntactic and semantic perspective, research cognitive stance verbs of the two semantic evolution a semantic inverse and semantic grammaticalization, through the analysis of the process of three cognitive stance verbs know, think and believe, to explore semantic inverse and semantic false evidences of the two semantic evolution, idea, evolution trend and results. People invented in the sentence "don t I" think so, don I believe so t, I, know so ', in the past was thought to be synonymous with know, think and believe between the existence of anti sense characteristics. This scene is called semantic antonymization. The from the semantic content and French justice, objectivity and objective meaning, rumors and familiar with meaning from three aspects: the research know, think and believe the semantic features of cognitive stance verbs generate semantic inverse of reason and opportunities. In the aspect of semantic deficiency, this paper takes think as an example to study the cognitive stance verbs from the perspective of grammar. The semantic grammaticalization is called semantic collapse (desemanticization), refers to the original meaning of the missing words. The semantic meaning of the phrase which is composed of the Think and the first personal pronoun and the second person pronoun can be obtained from three aspects of non domain, syntactic and pragmatic characteristics. The idea of semantic virtual contains positive transformation, objectivity and mutual objectivity. The effectiveness of think I diversity to cause its excessive use, and then cause pragmatic erosion and efficiency of missing, resulting in the occurrence of its replacement situation. Think continuous continuously grammaticalization experience from objectivity to interactive objectivity, from proposition to foreign to the growth process of discourse. This growth trend can be obtained through the process of construction grammar and grammar to obtain a reasonable prediction of the interpretation of information. The through groping epistemic stance verbs of the two semantic evolution, offers a new and comprehensive interpretation of the cognitive stance verbs, enhance the cognitive stance verbs described efforts, deepen the epistemic stance verbs understand that to enhance the usual diplomatic with practical significance. 目录: Acknowledgements 4-5 Content 5-8 Abstract 8-9 内容摘要 10-12 Chapter One Introduction 12-16 1.1 Research questions 13-14 1.2 Data and methodology 14 1.3 Significance of the study 14-15 1.4 Framework of the study 15-16 Chapter Two Literature review 16-23 2.1 Historical review on VCAs 16-19 2.1.1 Demarcation of VCAs 16-17 2.1.2 Previous study on VCAs 17-19 2.2 Theoretical foundations 19-23 2.2.1 Grammaticalization 19-20 2.2.2 Antonymization 20-21 2.2.3 Semantic properties 21-23 Chapter Three Semantic Change of VCAs:Antonymization 23-39 3.1 Introduction 23-28 3.1.1 Data and methodology 24 3.1.2 Results 24-28 3.2 Semantic properties of know,think and believe 28-34 3.2.1 Semantic properties encoded by know 29-30 3.2.2 Semantic properties encoded by think 30-32 3.2.3 Semantic properties encoded by believe 32-33 3.2.4 Interim Summary 33-34 3.3 Why antonymization 34-38 3.3.1 Implication of antonymization 34-35 3.3.2 Motivations of antonymization 35-38 3.3.2.1 Comparative analysis from conceptual/procedural perspective 35-36 3.3.2.2 Comparative analysis from objective/(inter)subjective perspective 36-37 3.3.2.3 Comparative analysis from evidential/epistemic aspects 37-38 3.4 Summary 38-39 Chapter Four Semantic change of VCAs:bleaching and grammaticalization 39-57 4.1 Evidences of semantic bleaching 39-44 4.1.1 Decategorization of VCAs 40-42 4.1.2 Syntactic properties of VCAs 42-43 4.1.3 Pragmatic properties of VCAs 43-44 4.2 Motivations of semantic bleaching 44-50 4.2.1 Alternation of profiles 45-47 4.2.2 Subjectification 47-48 4.2.3 Intersubjectification 48-50 4.3 Pathways and tendency of semantic bleaching 50-55 4.3.1 Continuous grammaticalization 50-54 4.3.2 A Constructional Grammar approach to the semantic change 54-55 4.4 Summary 55-57 Chapter Five Conclusion 57-60 5.1 Major findings and implications of the study 57-58 5.2 Limitations and prospects for further research 58-60 References 60-66 Appendix One Questionnnaire One 66-67 Appendix Two Questionnaire Two 67 |
