再论“王冕”论元的准入与限制  

On the Admittance and Restriction of“Wang Mian”Argument

作　　者：桑耘 常玲玲[2] 

机构地区：[1]南京传媒学院 [2]南京大学

出　　处：《外国语文研究（辑刊）》2023年第2期85-110,共26页

基　　金：2023年度江苏高校哲学社会科学研究重大项目“数字社会背景下高校文化资源供给的可及性研究”(编号:2023SJZD147);南京市社会科学基金“学习贯彻党的二十大精神”专项项目“基于可及性理论的南京基本公共服务现状评价与创新路径研究”(编号:23YB18)阶段性成果。

摘　　要：本文从分析“领有”和“占有”概念的细微差别入手,说明“王冕”论元以及该句式的形成与“的”字结构的纯粹“领属”没有必然联系。结合德语“领属三格”和“领属二格”的语义区分,从汉语学习者和德语学习者的问卷调查中得出,外语学习者很容易将目标语中可转让的纯粹“领属”和不可转让的“整体—部分”“领属”混淆。指出,汉学界在“王冕”论元问题上之所以长期存在“领属”与“存现”分歧,是因为两者既有区别又有共通,“整体—部分”体现了“领属”与“存现”之间语义交集的自然属性。论文继而论证了由“整体—部分”隐喻衍生的不可转让的“占有领属”、血缘—姻亲、亲密和责任等社会“依附”关系才是“王冕”论元准入的决定因素,是对领主属宾句构式意义的投射。Starting from the analysis of the subtle differences(nuances)between the concepts of“ownership”and“possession”,this paper shows that the formation of the“Wang Mian”argument and the sentence pattern has no inevitable connection with the pure“ownership”of the DE-structure.Based on the semantic distinction between the“possessive dative case”and the“possessive genitive case”in German,and the analysis of the questionnaire survey of foreign Chinese learners and domestic German learners,it is easy for foreign language learners to confuse the alienable pure“ownership”and the inalienable“whole-part ownership”in the target language.It is pointed out that the reason why there has been a long divergence between“possession”and“existential”in the Sinological circle on the issue of“Wang Mian”argument is that they are both different and common.The“whole-part”reflects the natural attribute of semantic intersection between“possession”and“existential”.The paper argues that the inalienable“possession ownership”,consanguinity in law,intimacy,responsibility and other social“attachment”relationships derived from the metaphor of“whole-part”relationship are the decisive factors for the admittance of“Wang Mian”of argument,the projection of the construction meaning of the unaccusative sentence.

关 键 词：论元准入 广义领属 整体—部分 依存性和触及性 构式的隐喻投射 

分 类 号：H33[语言文字—德语] H146