国内外近义词语义研究方法述评及展望
Review and Prospect of Semantic Research Methods of Synonyms at Home and Abroad
DOI: 10.12677/ML.2022.103046, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 徐文倩, 王 冲：大连理工大学，辽宁 大连
关键词: 近义词；语义；语料库；心理实验；Synonyms； Semantics； Corpus； Psychological Experiment
摘要: 近义词语义研究长期以来多借助内省法或者诱导法。这些传统研究方法在研究近义词辨析等方面做出了一定贡献。随着近义词语义研究转向实证方向，出现了基于心理实验和语料库的语言学研究方法，克服了以往传统研究方法主观性强，可信度低等局限性。本文梳理分析了国内外近义词语义研究的现状，展望了近义词语义研究今后的研究方向。
Abstract: For a long time, the semantic research of synonyms has mostly relied on introspection or induc-tion. These traditional research methods have made some contributions to the study of synonym discrimination. With the semantic research of synonyms turning to the empirical direction, a lin-guistic research method based on psychological experiment and corpus has emerged, which overcomes the limitations of the previous traditional research methods, such as strong subjectivity and low reliability. This paper combs and analyzes the current situation of semantic research of synonyms at home and abroad, and looks forward to the future research direction of semantic research of synonyms.
文章引用：徐文倩, 王冲. 国内外近义词语义研究方法述评及展望[J]. 现代语言学, 2022, 10(3): 366-372. https://doi.org/10.12677/ML.2022.103046

参考文献

[1] 王冲, 洪春子, 佐治伸朗, 刘晓颖. 日本人汉语学习者近义动词范畴化特征研究[J]. 现代外语, 2018(4): 479-490.
[2] 赵新, 李英. 对外汉语教学中的同义词辨析[J]. 暨南大学华文学院学报, 2001(2): 16-21.
[3] 松田文子, 白石知代. 多義動詞「とる」の意味—隣接語との差異に着目して[J]. 人間文化論叢, 2004, 7: 409-419.
[4] 敖桂华. 对外汉语近义词辨析教学对策[J]. 汉语学习, 2008(3): 106-109.
[5] 陆方喆. 基于语料库的对外汉语近义词教学[J]. 云南师范大学学报(对外汉语教学与研究版), 2016, 14(5): 49-56.
[6] Geeraerts, D. (2006) Words and Other Wonders: Papers on Lexical and Semantic Topics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[7] Deese, J. (1965) The Structure of Associations in Language and Thought. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
[8] Gross, D., Fischer, U. and Miller, G.A. (1989) The Organization of Adjectival Meanings. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 92-106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[9] Sandra, D. and Rice, S. (1995) Network Analyses of Prepositional Meaning: Mirroring Whose Mind—The Linguist’s or the Language User’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 89-130.
[10] Chen, J.D. (2007) He Cut-Break the Rope: Encoding and Categorizing Cutting and Breaking Events in Mandarin. Cognitive Linguistics, 18, 273-285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[11] Majid, A., Boster, J.S. and Bowerman, M. (2008) The Cross-Linguistic Categorization of Everyday Events: A Study of Cutting and Breaking. Cognition, 109, 235-250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] 王冲, 洪春子, 佐治伸郎. 汉日“切割”类动词范畴化的跨语言实证研究[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2018, 50(4): 516-528.
[13] 洪春子. 日韓中の「切る•割る」事象における語彙カテゴリー化の対照研究[J]. 言語研究, 2020, 158: 63-89.
[14] 刘泽军, 李文平. 基于语料库的现代日语同名词主题显现的考察[J]. 天津外国语大学学报, 2017, 24(6): 30-36+78-79.
[15] 杉本武. コーパスからみた類義語動詞: 『ねじる』と『ひねる』. 筑波大学文藝言語研究: 言語篇, 2009, 55: 109-122.
[16] 杉村泰. コーパスを利用した複合動詞「V1-抜く」と「V1-抜ける」の意味分析[J]. 言語文化論集, 2014, 35(2): 55-68.
[17] Giles, S.T., Hampe, B. and Schonefeld, D. (2005) Converging Evidence: Bringing Together Experimental and Corpus Data on the Association of Verbs and Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 635-676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[18] Wulff, S. (2006) Go-V vs. Go-and-V in English: A Case of Constructional Synonymy? In: Gries, S.T. and Stefanowitsch, A., Eds., Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 101-126.
[19] Gilquin, G. (2010) Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions. John Benjamin’s Publishing, Amsterdam. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[20] Hanks, P. (1996) Contextual Dependency and Lexical Sets. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1, 75-98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[21] Gries, S.T. (2003) Towards a Corpus-Based Identification of Prototypical Instances of Constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 1-27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[22] Divjak, D. (2006) Ways of Intending: Delineating and Structuring near Synonyms. In: Gries, S.T. and Stefanowitsch, A., Eds., Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 19-56.
[23] Divjak, D. and Gries, S. (2006) Ways of Trying in Russian: Clustering Behavioral Profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2, 23-60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[24] Gries, S. (2006) Corpus-Based Methods and Cognitive Semantics: The Many Meanings of to Run. In: Gries, S.T. and Stefanowitsch, A., Eds., Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Cor-pus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 57-59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[25] Divjak, D. and Gries, S. (2009) Corpus-Based Cognitive Semantics: A Contrastive Study of Phasal Verbs in English and Russian. In: Dziwirek, K. and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B., Eds., Studies in Cognitive Corpus Linguistics, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, 273-296.
[26] Liu, D. (2010) Is It a Chief, Main, Major, Primary, or Principal Concern? A Corpus-Based Behavioral Profile Study of the Near-Synonyms. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15, 56-87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[27] Uba, S. (2015) A Corpus-Based Behavioral Profile Study of Near-Synonyms: Important, Essential, Vital, Necessary and Crucial. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 3, 9-17.
[28] 钟勇. 基于概念空间的日语近义词可视化分析——以「勉強する•習う•学ぶ•学習する」为例[J]. 高等日语教育, 2021(1): 69-79+164-165.
[29] Divjak, D. and Arppe, A. (2013) Extracting Prototypes from Exemplars: What Can Corpus Tell Us about Concept Representation? Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 221-274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[30] Levshina, N., Geeraerts, D. and Speelman, D. (2013) Mapping Constructional Spaces: A Contrastive Analysis of English and Dutch Analytic Causatives. Linguistics, 51, 825-854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[31] Levshina, N. (2016) A Geometric Exemplar-Based Model of Semantic Structure: The Dutch Causative Construction with Laten. In: Yoon, J. and Gries, S., Eds., Construction Grammar beyond English: Observational and Experimental Approaches, John Benjamin’s, Amsterdam, 241-262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[32] 方子纯, 陈坚林. 基于语料库的同义形容词行为特征研究[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2014, 46(6): 842-852.
[33] 崔文琦. 基于语料库的词项整体行为研究方法对一组近义形容词的研究[J]. 北京化工大学学报(社会科学版), 2014(4): 82-88.
[34] 吴淑琼, 刘迪麟, 刘青. 基于语料库的“确认”类同义副词的行为特征研究——以“的确、确实、实在、着实”为例[J]. 外语教学, 2021, 42(5): 19-25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[35] 邵斌, 王文斌, 黄丹青. 英语强化词的构式搭配分析及其可视化研究[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2017, 49(3): 379-391+480.
[36] 张炜炜, 王芳. 从基于样例的概念空间看构式交替——以“让”和“给”的被动用法为例[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2017(6): 22-33.
[37] 杜静, 李福印. “破”类动词的多维语义分析[J]. 外语研究, 2019, 36(6): 22-29.
[38] 黄洁. 认知词汇语义学研究的回顾与展望[J]. 现代外语, 2018, 41(6): 864-874.
[39] Gries, S.T. (2015) Polysemy. In: Dabrowska, E. and Divjak, D., Eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 472-489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[40] 张炜炜, Nian Liu. 认知语言学研究的“实证周期”[J]. 外语研究, 2015(3): 18-23+29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]