On the Asymmetry of Antonyms Good and Bad from Another PerspectiveA Corpus-Based Behavioral Profile Analysis
-
摘要: 以往对于评价类反义形容词“good/bad”的不对称性研究以定性方法为主，基于语料库的量化分析尚不多见。文章运用基于语料库的行为特征分析法中的层次聚类分析法和对应分析法，从语义和用法两方面考察good/bad的不对称性。研究发现：首先，二者语义不对称性主要表现为语义拓展方向及引申义的不对称：good从基本义拓展到脾气、性格、程度范围、观点和行为，而bad从基本义拓展到脾气、感知、状态、话语、行为和性格；其次，二者引申义的不对称性受定语中心语、句子主语影响，却不受形态和极性的影响，形态和极性仅可解释基本义与引申义之间的差异性，另外时态变量未引起任何影响。层次聚类分析和对应分析方法的结合为反义形容词研究提供了可探索路径，研究结果也为该复合实证方法的可行性提供了新证据，同时可为教学应用研究提供可靠支撑。Abstract: Most previous studies on “good/bad” are qualitative while corpus-based quantitative studies are rare. The present study investigates the asymmetry between “good/bad” in terms of semantic and usage feature using a corpus-based behavioral profile analysis. A hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis and correspond analysis were performed. The results are as the following: 1) the asymmetry between good/bad is reflected in the semantic extension: the literal meaning of “good” extends to temper, character, degree or range, idea and behavior, while that of “bad” extends to temper, feeing, state, language, behavior and character. 2) the asymmetry between extended meanings of “good” and “bad” is influenced by two factors: head nouns modified by “good/bad”, subjects of clause, while the rest two factors, morphological and polarity features, are only the one of reasons causing differences between literal and extending meanings. In addition, the tense has nothing to do with asymmetry. Combining cluster analysis with correspond analysis, this study provides a new path for the study of antonym asymmetry and further demonstrates the applicability of this empirical method, meanwhile gives support for relevant research of teaching application.
-
表 1 标识码类别和标识码水平
标识码类别
(ID tags type)标识码
(ID tags)标识码层级
(ID tags level)形态 原形 比较级 最高级 句法 句子类型 小句、主句、名词性从句、定语从句、状语从句、其他 句子极性 肯定、否定 时态 过去、现在、将来 句法
功能定语 定语中心语类型：人称代词、指示代词、处所、时间类、人工物、事件、消息观念类、其他、策略方法类、人或团体、趋势结果类、条件状况、度量类、情感态度类、运气、身体部位、非人生物、知识类、职业类、自然物、疾病类、省略 表语 主语类型：事件、 人工物、 时间类、 人或团体、知识类、处所类、 其他、策略方法类、情感态度类、度量类、身体部位、消息观念、趋势结果、情况状况、非人生物、 自然物、疾病类、省略 补语 
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 沈家煊. 不对称和标记论[M]. 南昌: 江西教育出版社, 1999. [2] 吕叔湘. 语文杂记[M]. 上海: 上海教育出版社, 1984. [3] 吴淑琼,张雪. 基于语料库的反义形容词cold/hot的不对称性研究[J]. 山东外语教学,2022,43(2):21-31. [4] LYONS J. Semantics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1977. [5] 成汹涌. 不对称性视阈下的英汉极性反义词标记性比较研究[J]. 外语教学,2017,38(2):60-64. [6] 张媛. 国内外反义形容词研究综观及展望[J]. 外语研究,2015,152(4):18-23. [7] COLSTON H L. “Not good” is “bad”,but “not bad” is not “good”:An analysis of three accounts of negation asymmetry [J]. Discourse Processes, 1999, 28(3):237-256. doi: 10.1080/01638539909545083 [8] FRAENKEL T & SCHUL Y. The meaning of negated adjectives [J]. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2008, 5(4):517-540. [9] PARADIS C & WILLNERS C. Antonymy and negation—the boundedness hypothesis [J]. Pragmatics, 2006, 38(7):1051-1080. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.11.009 [10] GIORA R, BALABAN N, FEIN O, et al. Negation as positivity in disguise [C]// COLSTON H L & KATZ A N. Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005: 233-258. [11] RUYTENBEEK N,VERHEYEN S & SPECTOR B. Asymmetric inference towards the antonym:Experiments into the polarity and morphology of negated adjectives [J]. Glossa:a journal of general linguistic, 2017, 2(1):1-27. [12] GOTZNER N & MAZZARELLA D. Face Management and negative strengthening:the role of power relations,social distance,and gender [J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2021(12):1-12. [13] MAZZARELLA D & GOTZNER N. The polarity asymmetry of negative strengthening:dissociating adjectival polarity from face-threatening potential [J]. Glossa:A Journal of General Linguistics, 2021, 61(1):1-17. [14] 段濛濛. 反义词群“好—坏”的组合情况及其不对称现象[D]. 北京: 北京语言大学, 2006. [15] 曾李. 反义词“好”, “坏”的对称性研究[D]. 武汉: 华中师范大学, 2014. [16] 魏琛. 新文科视域下认知语言学的本土化研究路向−《认知语言学与汉语研究》述评[J]. 北京科技大学学报(社会科学版),2020,36(3):1-10. [17] 魏琛. 新文科视域下认知语言学研究的五个维度[J]. 北京科技大学学报(社会科学版),2020,36(1):39-50. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-2689.2020.01.006 [18] GRIES S & DIVJAK D. Behavioral profile: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis [C]// EVANS V & POURCEL S. New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2009: 57-75. [19] HANKS P. Contextual dependency and lexical sets [J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1996, 1(1):75-98. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.1.1.06han [20] 吴淑琼,刘迪麟,冉苒. 心理动词“想”的多义性:基于语料库的行为特征分析[J]. 外语与外语教学,2021,320(5):1-13,147. [21] DIVJAK D & GRIES S. Ways of trying in Russian:Clustering behavioral profiles [J]. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2006, 2(1):23-60. [22] 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):842-852,959. [23] 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. [24] BEREZ A & GRIES S. In defense of corpus-based methods: A behavioral profile analysis of polysemous get in English [C]// MORAN S, TANNER D & SCANLON M. Proceedings of the 24th Northwest Linguistics Conference. Seattle: Department of Linguistics, 2009: 157-166. [25] GRIES S. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run [C]// GRIES S & STEFANOWITSCH A. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006: 57-99. [26] GRIES S & OTANI N. Behavioral profiles:A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy [J]. Icame Journal, 2010(34):121-150. [27] ATKINS B. Semantic ID tags: Corpus evidence for dictionary senses [C]// In the Uses of Large Text Databases: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary. Waterloo: The UW Centre for the New OED, 1978: 17-36. [28] GLYNN D. Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns [C]// GLYNN D & ROBINSON J A. Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2014: 443-486. [29] DIVJAK D. Structuring the Lexicon: A Clustered Model for Near-Synonymy [M]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2010. [30] DIVJAK D & FIELLER N. Cluster analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data [C]// GLYNN D & ROBINSON J A. Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014: 406-441. [31] 许蔚,王文斌. 形容词反义词的可分级性与互补性的关系[J]. 现代外语,2005,28(1):35-41. [32] 沈家煊. 语法中的“标记颠倒”现象 [C]// 中国语文杂志社. 语法研究和探索（10）. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2000: 1-18. [33] PHILIP D & NEWMAN J. A note on quantifying “good” and “bad” prosodies [J]. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory, 2006, 2(2):233-242. [34] PARADIS C,VAN DE WEIJE J,WILLNERS C,et al. Evaluative polarity of antonyms [J]. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2012, 2(2):199-214. [35] 宋文辉. 定语、谓语位置形容词并列结构的用法模式[J]. 汉语学习,2022,247(1):3-12. [36] 袁毓林. 形容词的极性程度意义及其完句限制条件[J]. 中国语文,2022,407(2):131-144,254. [37] BROWN P & LEVINSON S C. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. [38] 陆俭明. 修辞的基础−语义和谐律[J]. 当代修辞学,2010(1):13-20. [39] 沈家煊. 语用原则、语用推理和语义演变[J]. 外语教学与研究,2004(4):243-251,321. [40] 沈家煊. 形容词句法功能的标记模式[J]. 中国语文,1997(4):242-250. -
点击查看大图
图(7) / 表(1)
计量
- 文章访问数: 347
- HTML全文浏览量: 170
- PDF下载量: 16
- 被引次数: 0
