TRA CỨU
  • Bài trích
  • 组合式形名结构词长搭配量化研究 /
Tác giả CN 应学凤
Nhan đề 组合式形名结构词长搭配量化研究 / 应学凤, 端木三
Thông tin xuất bản 中国 : 吉林省延吉市, 2020
Mô tả vật lý p. 21-29
Tóm tắt With regard to word-length preferences in corpus-ased data, there have been studies on "AN" nominals in Chinese, but no yet on "A de N" nominals. We offer a study that fills the gap, using the Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese. It is found that the frequency ranking is 2+2 > 1+2 > 2+1 > 1+1, with 2+2 being the most frequent and 1+1 barely found. The result differs from the frequency ranking of "AN" nominals in the same corpus, which is 1+1 > 2+2 > 1+2 > 2+1. From each length pattern, some prefer "A de N" and some prefer "AN". 2+2 nominals have far more "A de N" than "AN", followed by 2+1 nominals. In contrast, 1+1 nominals are mostly "AN" and hardly any "A de N". Our findings offer quantitative evidence for some observations of Lü(1963) while shedding new light on some other points. For example, both "A de N" and "AN" are frequent for 1+2 nominals, contrary to the view that 1+2 nominals are mostly "A de N".
Tóm tắt 基于语料库的形名结构研究成果存在不平衡现象,黏合式多,所以黏合式便得到了学界的广泛关注,但组合式却尚未论及。本文基于兰卡斯特语料库,针对形名组合结构词长搭配情况的统计发现,不同词长搭配的组合式形名结构数量从多到少为:2+2>1+2>2+1>1+1。2+2式最多,1+1式几乎没有。同一语料库黏合式从多到少为:1+1>2+2>1+2>2+1。研究还发现,不同词长搭配的形名结构有的偏好黏合式,有的偏好组合式。2+2式偏好组合式,2+1式次之,1+2式偏好黏合式,1+1式几乎都是黏合式。本文统计部分证实吕叔湘(1963)的说法,并提供了量化证据,同时也更新了部分认识,比如,1+2式形名结构组合式黏合式都不少,与"一般都没有‘的’"不完全相符。
Đề mục chủ đề Chinese--Vocabulary--Length of the vocabulary
Đề mục chủ đề 中国人--词汇--词汇长度
Thuật ngữ không kiểm soát Tiếng Trung Quốc
Thuật ngữ không kiểm soát Từ vựng
Thuật ngữ không kiểm soát Độ dài của từ
Tác giả(bs) CN 端木三
Nguồn trích 汉语学习 ,Chinese Language Learning- 2020(04)
Tệp tin điện tử eng.oversea.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbCode=cjfq&QueryID=20&CurRec=3&filename=HYXX202004003&dbname=CJFDLAST2020
000 00000nab#a2200000ui#4500
00161924
0022
00494096439-BD0E-4B6D-8219-A1D7BCA232A4
005202105111007
008081223s2020 vm| vie
0091 0
022 |a10037365
035|a1456389538
039|a20241202135542|bidtocn|c20210511100722|dtult|y20210429092313|zhuongnt
0410 |achi
044 |ach
1000 |a应学凤
24510|a组合式形名结构词长搭配量化研究 / |c应学凤, 端木三
260 |a中国 : |b吉林省延吉市, |c2020
300 |ap. 21-29
520 |aWith regard to word-length preferences in corpus-ased data, there have been studies on "AN" nominals in Chinese, but no yet on "A de N" nominals. We offer a study that fills the gap, using the Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese. It is found that the frequency ranking is 2+2 > 1+2 > 2+1 > 1+1, with 2+2 being the most frequent and 1+1 barely found. The result differs from the frequency ranking of "AN" nominals in the same corpus, which is 1+1 > 2+2 > 1+2 > 2+1. From each length pattern, some prefer "A de N" and some prefer "AN". 2+2 nominals have far more "A de N" than "AN", followed by 2+1 nominals. In contrast, 1+1 nominals are mostly "AN" and hardly any "A de N". Our findings offer quantitative evidence for some observations of Lü(1963) while shedding new light on some other points. For example, both "A de N" and "AN" are frequent for 1+2 nominals, contrary to the view that 1+2 nominals are mostly "A de N".
520 |a基于语料库的形名结构研究成果存在不平衡现象,黏合式多,所以黏合式便得到了学界的广泛关注,但组合式却尚未论及。本文基于兰卡斯特语料库,针对形名组合结构词长搭配情况的统计发现,不同词长搭配的组合式形名结构数量从多到少为:2+2>1+2>2+1>1+1。2+2式最多,1+1式几乎没有。同一语料库黏合式从多到少为:1+1>2+2>1+2>2+1。研究还发现,不同词长搭配的形名结构有的偏好黏合式,有的偏好组合式。2+2式偏好组合式,2+1式次之,1+2式偏好黏合式,1+1式几乎都是黏合式。本文统计部分证实吕叔湘(1963)的说法,并提供了量化证据,同时也更新了部分认识,比如,1+2式形名结构组合式黏合式都不少,与"一般都没有‘的’"不完全相符。
65010|aChinese|xVocabulary|xLength of the vocabulary
65010|a中国人|x词汇|x词汇长度
6530 |aTiếng Trung Quốc
6530 |aTừ vựng
6530 |aĐộ dài của từ
7000 |a端木三
773 |t汉语学习 ,Chinese Language Learning|g2020(04)
856 |ueng.oversea.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbCode=cjfq&QueryID=20&CurRec=3&filename=HYXX202004003&dbname=CJFDLAST2020
890|a0|b0|c0|d0

Không có liên kết tài liệu số nào