使动句与“使”字句致使意义之辨——基于“无介入致使”理论的认知实证新探  

A Cognitive Empirical Comparison of Causative Meaning Between the Causative Sentence and the “SHI” Sentence

作　　者：袁毅敏[1] 楚军[1] 王诚[2] 

机构地区：[1]电子科技大学外国语学院,四川成都611731 [2]浙江大学人文学院,浙江杭州310028

出　　处：《西安外国语大学学报》2017年第4期39-43,共5页Journal of Xi’an International Studies University

基　　金：2015年四川省社科联规划专项课题"基于语料库和实证研究的现代汉语致使事件语义类型学研究"(项目编号:SC15WY013);中央高校基本科研业务费项目"英汉事件表征的认知实证对比研究"(项目编号:ZYGX2014J125);"从英语动结式角度探究句法语义界面"(项目编号:ZYGX2010J138)的阶段性研究成果;电子科技大学青年科研启动经费项目"英语动词分类"(项目编号:Y02002011301012)资助

摘　　要：根据"无介入致使"理论,使动句表达直接致使,"使"字句表达间接致使。本研究通过问卷调查和访谈证明了这一论断。研究同时发现:"无介入致使"理论在分析汉语致使意义时存在局限,无法将直接和间接致使完全区分开来;同时,英汉兼语式致使结构对其中使事的要求不同:"使"字句要求使事必须为有生命的物体或者与人相关,而英语中则无此限制。该差异或与"使"的动词特征有关。According to the ＂No-Intervening-Cause＂ theory, the Chinese causative sentence construes direct causation and the ＂SHI＂ sentence indirect causation. And this hypothesis is supported by the data collected from the questionnaires and interviews in our study. However, it is also detected that the ＂No-Intervening-Cause＂ theory is not adequate for the analysis of the Chinese causative meaning in that it fails to make a clear cut between the direct and the indirect causation. Meanwhile, a difference is also found between the Chinese and English periphrastic causative constructions： the ＂SHI＂ sentence requires an animate or human-related ＂causee＂, while its English counterpart does not have such restriction. The authors also argue that the difference is related to the verb in the construction.

关 键 词：“无介入致使”理论 使动句 “使”字句 直接致使 间接致使 

分 类 号：H030[语言文字—语言学]