俄语“运动动词”与汉语对应“运动语义”在分割策略上存在着异同:这主要是俄汉语对“运动语义”的词化方式不同,俄语多采用综合型表达法,汉语则主要是略论型表达法。俄语“运动动词”在词化时参考运动的方式、关系对象等,通过不同的前缀表示运动的相关语义属性,前缀不同的动词在语义上彼此分工,而汉语往往只是把动作本身词化,并不把运动的相关属性凝结在词中。俄汉语在“运动语义”上的词化异同直接作用到两种语言在表达上的不同。进入表达层面俄语每个“运动动词”要求特定的成分并置,对并置成分形成选择限制,汉语则通过状语、补语补充说明运动的相关属性。语言与文化探讨对语义分割的解释,主要强调文化因素对分割细度所起的作用影响。马清华还指出了语义分割细度的“相关准则”并强调指出文化对语义分割细度的作用仅是倾向性的,并非严格对应的规则。我们的角度是从词化异同看语义分割策略,不同语言的分割策略往往不同。但人类语言对人的经验结构的分割和范畴化又存在共性。通过对俄汉语“运动语义”的分割策略的对比,我们发现并归纳了俄语“运动动词”词化的语义参数,这些便是俄语对于“运动动词”的语义分割参数。通过俄语汉语对比略论,我们可以进一步求得俄汉语对“运动语义”分割时的共有参数,这说明俄汉语在语义分割上又有共性,探讨这种共性符合探求人类语言共性的语言类型探讨的取向,具有很深的理论意义。本文主要包括以下内容:一、语义分割探讨综述;二、俄汉语“运动语义”分割策略和表达的对比略论;三、由词化和表达看俄汉语的语义分割;四、语义分割的本质和语言类型探讨意义。
Semantic segmentation, a new concept put forward in semantic researchrecently, refers to segmentation and categorization of language to people’ssuccessive and boundless empirical structure. At present, the studies onsemantic segmentation mainly focus on differences in culture, such as cultureconcerning, to the influence and decisive role of different languages.Before “semantic segmentation”was put forward, studies on the theoryof semantic field are mainly the succession and the development of Sassaure’stheory of Relative $amp;$ Value on semantic field theory, i.e. the widely discussionof Trier—Weisgerber’s theory. Except the criticisms on theories, quite aportion of articles combines sememes to analyze and gives a description ofspecific semantic field in Chinese and draws a conclusion. It is because ofpeople’s fully description and concerns to the related and systematic point ofview on semantic field, which made necessary and fully preparation forfurther concerning about the segmentation and categorization of differentlanguages to boundless empirical fields, that the concept of semanticsegmentation was put forward.Semantic segmentation refers to segmentation and categorization oflanguage to people’s successive and boundless empirical structure. Accordingto Culture Linguistics, especially the current situation of studies on thelanguage of national conditions, the study for verb is relatively weak,therefore, we choose verb as the materials to study, which provides somereference for the studies on verb. Another reason why we choose verb (mainlymotion verb) as the study object is related to the verb’s nuclear function andits governed role. The contrastive analysis between the motion verb in Russianand the motion sememe in Chinese has advantage of disclosing the verbalfeature of these two languages. Studies on differences and similarities ofsegmentation on motion sememe in these two languages has advantage ofknowing the function of motion verb in Russian and related verb in Chinese intheir syntactic systems respectively. Owing to the difference on the strategiesof the segmentation on motion sememe between Chinese and Russian, it hasadvantage of disclosing and acknowledging to the syntactic system in bothChinese and Russian.We have a survey of statistical analysis on 672 Russian motion verbsincluding V pattern and prefix patter, 853 sememes. Through the specificanalysis, we can get the basic sememe, then describe and generalize itssemantic feature, thus acquire the basic parameters of motion sememe onsemantic segmentation in Chinese and Russian. Compared to these parametersof the word difference in these two languages, we investigate the amount ofthe specific members and its semantic share and we can find out thedifferences and similarities of segmental strategy in Chinese and Russian.Through comparative analysis, we found out that there is a common semanticparameter in Chinese when expressing motion sememe. Generally speaking,both Chinese and Russian take the parameters such as “A, b, B, d1, D1, d2,D2, …. e, E, F”into consideration when expressing motion sememe, the onlydifference is that they choose different number of semantic parameter as theevidence of verbalization. Our investigation shows that the degree ofverbalization in Russian is higher than that in Chinese. The differences onverbalization in Chinese and Russian directly influence many different aspectsto the two languages on its expressing level. Thus the parameters related tomotion in Chinese, such as tool, place, basically were not expressed throughverb directly when entering the expressing level, but through adverbial,complement for the realization, while in Russian, they had congealed into thewords. At the same time, we need to point out that there are two kinds ofreflections of the above parameters we mentioned on syntax: one is that someRussian verbs can be without complement, when the verbalized parameterscan express the meaning; another is that the verbali ，俄语论文，俄语论文范文 |
