量度反义复合词的语法化和功能性同义
Grammaticalization and Functional Synonymy of Measurement Antonym Compounds
摘要: 量度反义复合词是具有量度形容词性质的反义复合词,具有较高的语法化水平。本文借助概念整合理论及转喻、隐喻机制探讨量度反义复合词在语法化过程中的同义化趋势。研究发现,量度反义复合词之间具有功能性同义的特征,可以被细分为“语素相近型”同义、“语用等价型”同义和“范畴并入型”同义三种类型,对应着从低到高的语法化水平。量度反义复合词的同义性与词义延展能力密切相关,受到直观性、对称性、身体经验等因素的影响,其中“高低”的词义延展性尤为显著。
Abstract: Measurement Antonym Compounds are antonymous compounds with the properties of gradable adjectives and exhibit a high degree of grammaticalization. Drawing on Conceptual Blending Theory as well as metonymic and metaphorical mechanisms, this paper investigates the tendency toward synonymization in the grammaticalization process of Measurement Antonym Compounds. The study finds that Measurement Antonym Compounds display features of Functional Synonymy, which can be further subdivided into three types: “morpheme-proximal” synonymy, “pragmatically equivalent” synonymy, and “category-merging” synonymy, corresponding to grammaticalization levels from lower to higher. The Functional Synonymy of Measurement Antonym Compounds is closely related to their semantic extension capacity and is influenced by factors such as perceptibility, symmetry, and bodily experience, among which the semantic extensibility of “high-low” is particularly prominent.
文章引用:管方嫄, 曾静涵. 量度反义复合词的语法化和功能性同义[J]. 现代语言学, 2025, 13(11): 442-450. https://doi.org/10.12677/ml.2025.13111182

参考文献

[1] 陆俭明. 说量度形容词[J]. 语言教学与研究, 1989(3): 46-59.
[2] 张金竹. 现代汉语反义复合词式的语义和认知研究[M]. 北京: 世界图书出版公司, 2015: 64-97.
[3] 胡为飞. 汉语量度反义复合词的形成动因与机制[J]. 宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2021, 43(2): 13-16.
[4] 吴淑琼. 基于语料库的“名词+量度反义形容词”构式研究[J]. 新疆大学学报(哲学·人文社会科学版), 2021, 49(5): 136-142.
[5] 吴淑琼, 杨永霞. 概念整合理论视域下的翻译过程研究——基于《红楼梦》中量度反义复合词的英译[J]. 外语研究, 2021, 38(3): 79-86.
[6] Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
[7] Cruse, D.A. (1986) Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press.
[8] 江蓝生. 语法化程度的语音表现[M]//近代汉语探源. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2001: 230-243.
[9] 张谊生. 现代汉语副词探索[M]. 上海: 学林出版社, 2004: 343.
[10] 李宇明. 汉语量范畴研究[M]. 武汉: 华中师范大学出版社, 2000.
[11] Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live by. University of Chicago Press.
[12] Talmy, L. (1983) How Language Structures Space. In: Pick, H.L. and Acredolo, L.P., Eds., Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application, Plenum Press, 225-282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[13] Chassy, S., Grodd, W. and Gruber, O. (2018) Brain Coactivation Patterns During Number and Space Processing: Evidence for a Common Magnitude System in Humans. Human Brain Mapping, 39, 2442-2452.
[14] Bender, A. and Beller, S. (2019) Spatial Frames of Reference Across Languages and Cultures: Implications for Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 882-908.
[15] Winter, B. (2019) Sensory Linguistics: Language, Perception and Metaphor. Cambridge University Press.