双及物构式在语域中的变化——以Send为例
Variations of the Ditransitive Construction across Registers—Taking “Send” as an Example
DOI: 10.12677/ml.2026.143244, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 吴 玲, 柳凯鹏:四川外国语大学英语学院,重庆
关键词: 双及物构式Send语域社会认知Ditransitive Construction Send Register Socio-Cognition
摘要: 本文在双及物构式研究和社会认知语言学的变异理论指导下,以send及其变形为例,基于大型英语语料库对英语双及物构式在不同语域之间的变异情况进行了研究。根据逻辑回归方法的结果,本文发现拟合的随机效应模型的方差为0.03782,标准差为0.1945。这表明不同语域之间的截距存在一定的变异,但变异程度相对较小。这说明双及物构式在不同语域之间的变化存在,但总体趋于一致。在两种语体中,书面语无论是正式场合还是非正式场合,相较于口语都更容易选择双宾构式。在两种场合下,非正式场合相较于正式场合更容易选择双宾构式。在选择的变量中,受试有生性、主题定指性、受事代词性、长度、主题复杂性和动词含义对双宾构式的选择有显著影响。最后本文从社会认知的角度对结果进行了解释。本研究的成果可以为语域变异研究和社会语言学提供一些借鉴。
Abstract: Guided by the research on the ditransitive construction and the variation theory in socio-cognitive linguistics, this paper takes “send” and its variants as examples to study the variation of the English ditransitive construction across different registers based on a large-scale English corpus. According to the results of the logistic regression method, this paper finds that the variance of the fitted random effects model is 0.03782 and the standard deviation is 0.1945. This indicates that there is a certain degree of variation in the intercepts among different registers, but the degree of variation is relatively small. It shows that although changes exist in the ditransitive construction across different registers, they are generally consistent. In both spoken and written languages, written language, whether in formal or informal situations, is more likely to choose the double object construction than spoken language. In both situations, the informal situation is more likely to choose the double object construction than the formal situation. Among the selected variables, the animacy of the subject, the definiteness of the theme, the pronominal nature of the patient, length, the complexity of the theme, and the meaning of the verb have significant impacts on the choice of the double object construction. Finally, this paper interprets the results from the perspective of socio-cognition. The findings of this study can provide some references for the research on register variation and sociolinguistics.
文章引用:吴玲, 柳凯鹏. 双及物构式在语域中的变化——以Send为例[J]. 现代语言学, 2026, 14(3): 452-463. https://doi.org/10.12677/ml.2026.143244

参考文献

[1] Saussure, F.D. (1916) Cours de linguistique générale. Payot.
[2] Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Praeger.
[3] Goldberg, A.E. (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. The University of Chicago Press.
[4] Larson, R.K. (1988) On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335-391.
[5] Newmeyer, F.J. (2002) Optimality and Functionality: A Critique of Functionally-Based Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 20, 43-80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[6] Kay, P. and Fillmore, C.J. (1999) Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction. Language, 75, 68-103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[7] Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. and Baayen, R.H. (2007) Predicting the Dative Alternation. In: Boume, G., Kraemer, I. and Zwarts, J., Eds., Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 69-94.
[8] Closs Traugott, E. (2008) Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Incremental Development of Language: Suggestions from the Development of Degree Modifiers in English. In: Eckardt, R., Jäger, G. and Veenstra, T., Eds., Variation, Selection, Development, Mouton de Gruyter, 219-252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[9] Halliday, M.A. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic. Arnold, 136 p.
[10] Biber, D. (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[11] Thompson, S.A. (2002) “Object Complements” and Conversation Towards a Realistic Account. Studies in Language, 26, 125-163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[12] Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S.T. (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 209-243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[13] Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G. and Peirsman, Y. (2010) Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (Vol. 45). Walter de Gruyter.
[14] Biber, D. and Conrad, S. (2019) Register, Genre, and Style. 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[15] Bresnan, J. and Hay, J. (2008) Gradient Grammar: An Effect of Animacy on the Syntax of Give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua, 118, 245-259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[16] Szmrecsanyi, B., Rosseel, L., Grafmiller, J. and Engel, A. (2022) Assessing the Complexity of Lectal Competence: The Register-Specificity of the Dative Alternation after Give. Cognitive Linguistics, 33, 727-766.
[17] Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. and Baayen, R.H. (2007) Predicting the Dative Alternation. In: Bouma, G., Krämer, I. and Zwarts, J., Eds., Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, KNAW, 69-94.
[18] Hawkins, J.A. (1994) A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency (No. 73). Cambridge University Press.
[19] Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J. and Szmrecsanyi, B. (2017) Cognitive Indigenization Effects in the English Dative Alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28, 673-710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef