从“区别词”看现代汉语词的界定  

On the definition of word in Mandarin Chinese:A case study of “criterion words”

作　　者：邓盾 DENG Dun

机构地区：[1]香港中文大学中国语言及文学系,中国香港

出　　处：《世界汉语教学》2024年第1期32-46,共15页Chinese Teaching in the World

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“汉语词法特点的探索与词法理论的建构(22JJD74001)”的资助。

摘　　要：本文以“区别词”为研究对象,通过其身份鉴定来探讨现代汉语词的界定中的相关问题。文章指出了“区别词”的通行定义存在的两方面问题:第一,定义使用的关键概念“粘着词”缺乏明确的内涵和配套的操作程序;第二,定义设立的鉴定标准“只能在名词或助词‘的’前边出现”缺乏事实依据,并且不能将目标对象唯一地圈定出来。文章提出应将“男”代表的单音节成分定性为不成词的词根语素,将“自动”代表的双音节成分定性为词根语素的组合。文章论证了上述新定性的合理性,并分析了由“区别词”的讨论引出的区分现代汉语复合名词与名词词组的难题,给出了本文的解决之道。This paper discusses some key issues in the definition of word in Mandarin Chinese based on a close scrutiny of the so-called “criterion words” defined by Zhu(1982).It is shown that the definition of criterion words as “bound words” that can only appear before nouns or the particle de has both theoretical and empirical flaws.I argue that criterion words should be redefined as roots.To be specific,monosyllabic elements such as nan ‘male' should be redefined as bound roots with no syntactic category and disyllabic elements such as zidong ‘automatic' should be redefined as compound roots.Facts are provided to demonstrate the superiority of the new definition and clarifications are made to explain potential controversies.I also address an important issue brought up in the discussion of criterion words,namely how to distinguish compound nouns from noun phrases in Mandarin Chinese.After reviewing the expansion test proposed by Lu et al(1957) and a procedure proposed by Deng(2020a),I suggest a revision to Deng's procedure,which is shown to be able to deal with difficult cases.

关 键 词：“区别词” 词的界定 词根及其组合 词与词组区分 

分 类 号：H146[语言文字—汉语]