论文部分内容阅读
Chapter1 Introduction
1.1 Research Background
The double object construction exists in both English and Chinese， and many experts have had some research on it from different perspectives. However， few studies have covered the contrastive analysis of the two languages. As mandarin gains great popularity overseas these years， there is a need to carry on researches about language acquisition based on the contrastive analysis.
1.2 Objectives
The double object construction is hard to learn for second language learners， due to the non-equivalence of verbs， the position of direct objects and indirect objects， and the sentence patterns and variations. This thesis aims to compare the similarities and differences of the two languages from these aspects， which will contribute to language study.
1.3 Research Questions
This thesis takes the method of language contrastive analysis to study the differences of the double object construction in both languages from the perspective of syntax and semantics. And find the explanations for the differences of the verbs， arguments， sentence patterns and variations.
1.4 Significance of the Study
There are not many studies on the contrastive analysis of English and Chinese double objects construction. By contrasting the two languages， people will know more about the features of double object constructions. And it is meaningful both for language teaching and translation.
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
This thesis consists five chapters in all： Chapter one offers an introduction of the thesis， including the research backgrounds， the objectives， research questions， significance of the study as well as the organization of this thesis. Chapter two lays out the literature review. It displays some important achievements made by other scholars. Then， on the basis of previous conclusions， the thesis analyzes the similarities and differences of give-type double object construction in English and Chinese， and tries to explore the explanations in chapter 4. The last part is the conclusion.
Chapter2 Literature Review
2.1 Previous Studies on Double Object Construction in English
Double object construction has always been a hot issue in the field of generative grammar. In 1976， Oehrle put forward a hypothesis that the two objects NP1 and NP2 are coordinate， not asymmetrically c-commanded.
In 1981， Chomsky proposed that the direct object c-commands the indirect object. However， Barss and Lasnik carried on some researches about the bound of reflexives， and found out that the indirect object should c-commands the direct object instead.
Although this approach successfully explained the correct c-commanding relations between the two objects NP1 and NP2， it did not conform to the binary construction analysis. In 1988， Larson came up with the VP-shell hypothesis， holding that the double object construction derived from the dative construction.
In 1984， Kayne proposed a small clause theory， indicating that the indirect object possesses the direct object and the verb selects the small clause.
In 1995， Pesetsky put forward that the verbs in double object construction select prepositions as complements， and the empty propositions are head words in the construction.
Based on Pesetsky’s theory， Harley came up with the hypothesis of lexical decomposition.
2.2 Previous Studies on Double Object Construction in Chinese
In 1898， the double object construction was first mentioned by Ma Jianzhong. In 1924， Li Jinxi first put forward the concept of double object construction. In 1944， Wang Li described the phenomenon of double object construction. In 1950s， as the structuralism was introduced in， double object construction became a heated research field， and many experts agreed that there are two objects in this construction， one indicates people， the other refers to objects. After the reform and opening up， many new linguistic branches flooded into China， experts began to make detailed research on it.
2.3 Contrastive Studies on Double Object Construction in English and Chinese
Liu Danqing took the method of language contrastive analysis and found out some features of double object constructions from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. Shi Yuzhi proposed that the concepts of Chinese and English double object construction are different. The English object can only move from the subject to the indirect object.
Chapter3 The Similarities and Differences of Give-type Double Object Construction in English and Chinese
This thesis analyzed the Give-type double object construction from its verbs， arguments， sentence patterns and variations.
3.1 Verbs
3.1.1 The respective typical give-type verb is give in English and gei in Chinese.
3.1.2 The forms of give-type verbs are different. In English， we use a single word to express the complete semantic meanings （buy， sell）. In contrast， we use compounding words （Vt the accusative morpheme） in Chinese （maizou， da diaole）. 3.1.3 Chinese verbs carry inherent cases while in English only give-type verbs have.
3.1.4 The English give-type verbs have double meanings in Chinese， give and get.
3.2 Sentence Patterns and Variations
3.2.1 Same basic word order S V N1 N2.
3.2.2 Chinese sentence variations do not rely on prepositions and the word order enjoy more freedom.
3.2.3 The passives are very common in English， and it’s easy to transform into each type. But it is still controversial in Chinese.
Chapter4 Explanations
Similarities and differences of the use of double-object construction in English and Chinese have been discussed in the former chapters. Then what are the causes of such similarities and differences？ This section aims to give a tentative explanation for the causes from two perspectives： distinct process of language development， and different cultural backgrounds between the east and the west.
4.1 Distinct Process of Development（synthetic， analytic）
Chinese and English languages belong to different language families， and， with the development of history， they have quite typical features now. According to the morphological typology， Chinese is relatively an analytic language while English is a synthetic language. In terms of sentence structures， Chinese pays more attention to parataxis while English emphasizes hypotaxis. Besides， the differences of DOC between the two languages in Chinese and English may also have something to do with different parameters.
4.2 Different Cultural Backgrounds
Chinese philosophers value ideas more than forms of language， which is fully reflected on Chinese language， while western philosophy stresses forms. Chinese people hold the view that meanings are superior to forms， and thus some structures are not complete or odd according to English standards. For example， in Chinese DOC， we can use ba to emphasize the Do， while in English there are no such counter-patterns.
Chapter5 Conclusion
The double object construction exists in both English and Chinese， and many experts have had some research on it from different perspectives. This thesis compares the similarities and differences of the two languages from the perspective of syntax and semantics. And find the explanations for the differences of the verbs， sentence patterns and variations. Hopefully， it is meaningful both for language teaching and translation.
References：
[1]Barss，A.and H.Lasnik 1986.J.A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects[J].Linguistic Inquiry，17：347-354.
1.1 Research Background
The double object construction exists in both English and Chinese， and many experts have had some research on it from different perspectives. However， few studies have covered the contrastive analysis of the two languages. As mandarin gains great popularity overseas these years， there is a need to carry on researches about language acquisition based on the contrastive analysis.
1.2 Objectives
The double object construction is hard to learn for second language learners， due to the non-equivalence of verbs， the position of direct objects and indirect objects， and the sentence patterns and variations. This thesis aims to compare the similarities and differences of the two languages from these aspects， which will contribute to language study.
1.3 Research Questions
This thesis takes the method of language contrastive analysis to study the differences of the double object construction in both languages from the perspective of syntax and semantics. And find the explanations for the differences of the verbs， arguments， sentence patterns and variations.
1.4 Significance of the Study
There are not many studies on the contrastive analysis of English and Chinese double objects construction. By contrasting the two languages， people will know more about the features of double object constructions. And it is meaningful both for language teaching and translation.
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
This thesis consists five chapters in all： Chapter one offers an introduction of the thesis， including the research backgrounds， the objectives， research questions， significance of the study as well as the organization of this thesis. Chapter two lays out the literature review. It displays some important achievements made by other scholars. Then， on the basis of previous conclusions， the thesis analyzes the similarities and differences of give-type double object construction in English and Chinese， and tries to explore the explanations in chapter 4. The last part is the conclusion.
Chapter2 Literature Review
2.1 Previous Studies on Double Object Construction in English
Double object construction has always been a hot issue in the field of generative grammar. In 1976， Oehrle put forward a hypothesis that the two objects NP1 and NP2 are coordinate， not asymmetrically c-commanded.
In 1981， Chomsky proposed that the direct object c-commands the indirect object. However， Barss and Lasnik carried on some researches about the bound of reflexives， and found out that the indirect object should c-commands the direct object instead.
Although this approach successfully explained the correct c-commanding relations between the two objects NP1 and NP2， it did not conform to the binary construction analysis. In 1988， Larson came up with the VP-shell hypothesis， holding that the double object construction derived from the dative construction.
In 1984， Kayne proposed a small clause theory， indicating that the indirect object possesses the direct object and the verb selects the small clause.
In 1995， Pesetsky put forward that the verbs in double object construction select prepositions as complements， and the empty propositions are head words in the construction.
Based on Pesetsky’s theory， Harley came up with the hypothesis of lexical decomposition.
2.2 Previous Studies on Double Object Construction in Chinese
In 1898， the double object construction was first mentioned by Ma Jianzhong. In 1924， Li Jinxi first put forward the concept of double object construction. In 1944， Wang Li described the phenomenon of double object construction. In 1950s， as the structuralism was introduced in， double object construction became a heated research field， and many experts agreed that there are two objects in this construction， one indicates people， the other refers to objects. After the reform and opening up， many new linguistic branches flooded into China， experts began to make detailed research on it.
2.3 Contrastive Studies on Double Object Construction in English and Chinese
Liu Danqing took the method of language contrastive analysis and found out some features of double object constructions from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. Shi Yuzhi proposed that the concepts of Chinese and English double object construction are different. The English object can only move from the subject to the indirect object.
Chapter3 The Similarities and Differences of Give-type Double Object Construction in English and Chinese
This thesis analyzed the Give-type double object construction from its verbs， arguments， sentence patterns and variations.
3.1 Verbs
3.1.1 The respective typical give-type verb is give in English and gei in Chinese.
3.1.2 The forms of give-type verbs are different. In English， we use a single word to express the complete semantic meanings （buy， sell）. In contrast， we use compounding words （Vt the accusative morpheme） in Chinese （maizou， da diaole）. 3.1.3 Chinese verbs carry inherent cases while in English only give-type verbs have.
3.1.4 The English give-type verbs have double meanings in Chinese， give and get.
3.2 Sentence Patterns and Variations
3.2.1 Same basic word order S V N1 N2.
3.2.2 Chinese sentence variations do not rely on prepositions and the word order enjoy more freedom.
3.2.3 The passives are very common in English， and it’s easy to transform into each type. But it is still controversial in Chinese.
Chapter4 Explanations
Similarities and differences of the use of double-object construction in English and Chinese have been discussed in the former chapters. Then what are the causes of such similarities and differences？ This section aims to give a tentative explanation for the causes from two perspectives： distinct process of language development， and different cultural backgrounds between the east and the west.
4.1 Distinct Process of Development（synthetic， analytic）
Chinese and English languages belong to different language families， and， with the development of history， they have quite typical features now. According to the morphological typology， Chinese is relatively an analytic language while English is a synthetic language. In terms of sentence structures， Chinese pays more attention to parataxis while English emphasizes hypotaxis. Besides， the differences of DOC between the two languages in Chinese and English may also have something to do with different parameters.
4.2 Different Cultural Backgrounds
Chinese philosophers value ideas more than forms of language， which is fully reflected on Chinese language， while western philosophy stresses forms. Chinese people hold the view that meanings are superior to forms， and thus some structures are not complete or odd according to English standards. For example， in Chinese DOC， we can use ba to emphasize the Do， while in English there are no such counter-patterns.
Chapter5 Conclusion
The double object construction exists in both English and Chinese， and many experts have had some research on it from different perspectives. This thesis compares the similarities and differences of the two languages from the perspective of syntax and semantics. And find the explanations for the differences of the verbs， sentence patterns and variations. Hopefully， it is meaningful both for language teaching and translation.
References：
[1]Barss，A.and H.Lasnik 1986.J.A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects[J].Linguistic Inquiry，17：347-354.