研究习作：已经和曾经的异同

回复：研究习作：已经和曾经的异同

以下是引用 xiaoz 在 2005-7-30 10:30:30 的发言：
It appears that the distribution of ceng/cengjing is not so closely associated with the formal/informal distinction as the narrative/expository distinction, as shown by the LCMC corpus:
Click to expand...

Sorry I was not clear in my post: I meant that use and non use of 曾/曾经
may have to do with formality. I didn't think much about the differences
between 曾经 and 曾, which may be interesting by itself.
 
LCMC shows that

ceng occurs 337 times per million words
cengjing occurs 85 times per million words

In Callhome (ca. 300K words):

ceng occurs 0 time
cengjing occurs 7 times per million words

It seems that ceng/cengjing is very likely to be a written usage. In conversions, ceng/cengjing is often omitted. You said it.
 
回复：研究习作：已经和曾经的异同

The first sentence sounds more natural than the second.

In my view, there is a distinction between yi/jing and ceng/cengjing. The former focuses upon current relevance, while the latter focuses upon experientiality.

以下是引用 oscar3 在 2005-7-30 10:34:08 的发言：
曾and 已(or 曾经/已经) can be substituted mutually in many cases without any semantic differences, for example,
我已去过长城了， 不想再去了。​
我曾经去过长城，不想再去了。​
We can also find many instances where either 已经 or 曾经 is acceptable alternatively， but I dont't think frequency can help us more if the specific restraints are not analyzed.
Click to expand...
 
Yi/yijing is similar to already in English. While already frequently occurs in perfect constructions, this adverb alone can signal current relevance, as evidenced by the possible substitution of the perfect of result with the simple aspect taking already in American English and some dialects of British English. Like its English equivalent already, yi/yijing in Chinese can signal the current relevance of a situation.

The current relevance denoted by yi/jing is made clear by the contrast in the following pair:

English: He studied the state’s PE programs for two decades.
Translation:
a. 他对该州的体育课程作了20年的研究.
b. 他已对该州的体育课程作了20年的研究.
c. 对该州的体育课程作了20年的研究了.

An activity taking -le is reasonably expected to be presented as a whole, including its final temporal endpoint provided by a delimiting device. For example, the attested example (a) has a closed reading, indicating that he is no longer involved in that study. To indicate the contrary, the combination of the actual -le and the change-of-state (COS) le must be used, as in the modified alternative (c). In the alternative translation (b), only the actual -le, instead of its combination with the COS le, is used. Yet the sentence still has an open-ended reading rather than the expected closed reading as in (a). This is because the adverb yi is used in (b). As noted earlier, yi/yijing signals the current relevance of an actualised situation. As an activity does not have a final spatial endpoint, its current relevance is only related to its persistence up to the present. As such, when yi/yijing is used, its current relevance reading overrides its actualisation reading. This also explains why these adverbs appear very frequently in aspectually unmarked sentences with perfect meanings.

On the other hand, the adverb ceng/cengjing “once, ever”, when used either alone or in combination with -guo, indicates that an event once happened or a state once held and strengthens the force of experientiality.

As such, 我已去过长城了， 不想再去了。is more natural than 我曾经去过长城，*不想再去了。- 不想再去了 is an instance of current relevance, which is in conflict with experientiality 曾经去过.
 
回复：研究习作：已经和曾经的异同

以下是引用 xiaoz 在 2005-7-30 11:30:48 的发言：
Yi/yijing is similar to already in English. While already frequently occurs in perfect constructions, this adverb alone can signal current relevance, as evidenced by the possible substitution of the perfect of result with the simple aspect taking already in American English and some dialects of British English. Like its English equivalent already, yi/yijing in Chinese can signal the current relevance of a situation.
Click to expand...

This is a great topic for contrastive analysis of Chinese and English.
 
回复：研究习作：已经和曾经的异同

以下是引用 xiaoz 在 2005-7-30 10:43:00 的发言：
LCMC shows that

ceng occurs 337 times per million words
cengjing occurs 85 times per million words

In Callhome (ca. 300K words):

ceng occurs 0 time
cengjing occurs 7 times

It seems that ceng/cengjing is very likely to be a written usage. In conversions, ceng/cengjing is often omitted. You said it.
Click to expand...

This is very useful information. In terms of the differences between
曾 and 曾经, your data shows that 曾 alone prefers a more formal
context than 曾经.

I don't think anybody has talked about this difference when they
focus on 曾经 and other items
such as 已经.
 
sometimes i feel puzzled, i dont know what we can use corpus to analyze, excepte some similar structures and synonyms. and how are the results important?
 
You would not even mentioned the part following "excepte" if you have not read this posting...It appears that the introductory corpus books your supervisor recommended have not taught you much in this connection.

Try the postings Using corpora in language studies (1) and (2) in this section to find more...
 
thanks very much.
i just got two books on this subject: one is by Susan Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, the other is Corpus linguistics, by Douglas Biber, Susan Concord, & Randi Reppen.
both the two books tell what we can get by corpus, but not the details
 
That can be said a drawback of exisiting corpus books on the market - telling you what you can do with a corpus but not how to do it, focusing on why but not how. There are book that given step-by-step demonstrations, but only of one corpus with dedicated software package. Aston and Burnard's 1998 book only shows you how to explore the BNC using SARA, Nelson and Wallis's 2002 book only shows you how to explore the ICE-GB using ICE-UP. I hope our new book Corpus-Based Language Studies will improve this situation by focusing upon both why and how and demonstrating the procedures of exploring a range of major corpora using different packages.
 
回复：研究习作：已经和曾经的异同

以下是引用 majorlv511 在 2005-8-1 18:23:55 的发言：
sometimes i feel puzzled, i dont know what we can use corpus to analyze, excepte some similar structures and synonyms. and how are the results important?
Click to expand...

Think of it this way: the reason that corpus linguists tend to tackle similar lexical
and syntactic structures is that these are the more difficult problems than, say,
isolated items (even though not all isolated items are easy to handle). If a method
can tease apart the highly interchangable items, it can be expected that it will be
able to deal with the less difficult items.

In other words, the ability to handle synonyms and like structures is not a weakness of
corpus linguistics but a strength.

Welcome to Corpus4U!

[本贴已被 作者 于 2005年08月02日 00时57分29秒 编辑过]​
 
回复：研究习作：已经和曾经的异同

Looking back at this post, with data actually collected by xiaoz, 已经和曾经
may not collocate with the same verbs? I'm speaking, of course, about
tendencies here, not hard rules.

以下是引用 动态语法 在 2005-7-29 23:59:05 的发言：
Do you think 过 interacting with 曾/曾经 and 已/已经 has the same meaning?

2005073008595436.jpg


2005073009002445.jpg
Click to expand...
 
回复：研究习作：已经和曾经的异同

Scheduled to appear on Nov 18 - a lucky number, isn't it?

https://ecommerce.tandf.co.uk/catalogue/PerformSearch.asp?ResourceCentre=ROUTLEDGE2&book=&isbn=nobuy&curPage=1&search_text=0415286220&SearchGroup=PRISBN&results_order=ByTitle


以下是引用 majorlv511 在 2005-8-2 10:43:56 的发言：
Richard, when can the book, Corpus-Based Language Studies, be available?
thanks
Click to expand...
 
While we cannot say that yi/yijing and ceng/cengjing do not collcate with the same verbs, the former group certainly has a wider range of collocations than the latter. Below is a list of collocations for each (L0-R1, z>3.0; frequency>5) based on LCMC:

Ceng/cengjing:

- <listCollocs left="0" right="1">
<colloc seq="1" freq="13" score="79.8">多次</colloc>
<colloc seq="2" freq="6" score="15.4">发生</colloc>
<colloc seq="3" freq="24" score="15.1">有</colloc>
<colloc seq="4" freq="9" score="11.6">被</colloc>
<colloc seq="5" freq="27" score="10.9">在</colloc>
<colloc seq="6" freq="9" score="10.7">用</colloc>
<colloc seq="7" freq="14" score="9.9">说</colloc>
<colloc seq="8" freq="7" score="9.5">给</colloc>
<colloc seq="9" freq="6" score="8.8">想</colloc>
<colloc seq="10" freq="10" score="8.5">为</colloc>
<colloc seq="11" freq="7" score="8.4">以</colloc>
<colloc seq="12" freq="12" score="3.3">是</colloc>
</listCollocs>

Yi/yijing:
- <listCollocs left="0" right="1">
<colloc seq="1" freq="47" score="61.2">成为</colloc>
<colloc seq="2" freq="16" score="42.6">久</colloc>
<colloc seq="3" freq="30" score="34.9">开始</colloc>
<colloc seq="4" freq="47" score="31.9">被</colloc>
<colloc seq="5" freq="13" score="30.4">知</colloc>
<colloc seq="6" freq="85" score="27.4">有</colloc>
<colloc seq="7" freq="16" score="27.4">达</colloc>
<colloc seq="8" freq="8" score="26.6">建成</colloc>
<colloc seq="9" freq="13" score="22.1">进入</colloc>
<colloc seq="10" freq="14" score="21.9">取得</colloc>
<colloc seq="11" freq="8" score="18.1">超过</colloc>
<colloc seq="12" freq="7" score="14.6">确定</colloc>
<colloc seq="13" freq="8" score="13.2">近</colloc>
<colloc seq="14" freq="6" score="11.8">获得</colloc>
<colloc seq="15" freq="13" score="11.7">成</colloc>
<colloc seq="16" freq="9" score="11.6">形成</colloc>
<colloc seq="17" freq="6" score="11.6">离开</colloc>
<colloc seq="18" freq="66" score="11.2">是</colloc>
<colloc seq="19" freq="8" score="10.7">得到</colloc>
<colloc seq="20" freq="6" score="10.3">黑</colloc>
<colloc seq="21" freq="8" score="9.8">基本</colloc>
<colloc seq="22" freq="10" score="9.8">知道</colloc>
<colloc seq="23" freq="7" score="9.4">有的</colloc>
<colloc seq="24" freq="6" score="8.3">死</colloc>
<colloc seq="25" freq="6" score="7.9">决定</colloc>
<colloc seq="26" freq="15" score="7.2">从</colloc>
<colloc seq="27" freq="13" score="7.0">很</colloc>
<colloc seq="28" freq="7" score="6.9">见</colloc>
<colloc seq="29" freq="39" score="5.6">在</colloc>
<colloc seq="30" freq="16" score="5.5">到</colloc>
<colloc seq="31" freq="25" score="5.4">不</colloc>
<colloc seq="32" freq="10" score="5.3">将</colloc>
<colloc seq="33" freq="13" score="5.3">把</colloc>
<colloc seq="34" freq="9" score="5.1">过</colloc>
<colloc seq="35" freq="13" score="4.3">为</colloc>
<colloc seq="36" freq="7" score="4.3">向</colloc>
<colloc seq="37" freq="8" score="4.2">使</colloc>
<colloc seq="38" freq="6" score="3.9">由</colloc>
<colloc seq="39" freq="6" score="3.1">给</colloc>
</listCollocs>
 
回复：研究习作

把上面的数据稍微简化一下，只看动词，还是能够看出一些区别来的。
例如，除了有和是两个常用动词外，其他都不相同。

曾/曾经
freq=24 有
freq=14 说
freq=12 是
freq=9 用
freq=7 给
freq=6 想
freq=6 发生


已/已经 （只含十次以上的）
freq=85 有
freq=66 是
freq=47 成为
freq=30 开始
freq=16 达
freq=16 到
freq=14 取得
freq=13 知
freq=13 进入
freq=13 成
freq=10 知道
 
回复：研究习作：已经和曾经的异同

以下是引用 动态语法 在 2005-8-6 11:58:59 的发言：
把上面的数据稍微简化一下，只看动词，还是能够看出一些区别来的。
例如，除了有和是两个常用动词外，其他都不相同。

曾/曾经
freq=24 有
freq=14 说
freq=12 是
freq=9 用
freq=7 给
freq=6 想
freq=6 发生


已/已经 （只含十次以上的）
freq=85 有
freq=66 是
freq=47 成为
freq=30 开始
freq=16 达
freq=16 到
freq=14 取得
freq=13 知
freq=13 进入
freq=13 成
freq=10 知道
Click to expand...

有了这些动词，还不知道如何给它们分类：
Accomplishment / Achievement / Activity / Individual Level State /
Stateg Level State / Semelfactive?

怎么能让大家都知道如何操作，从而达到一致的分类？
 
Classifying verbs into such categories is an important yet complex concept in aspect studies. Those interested in this are advised to read the following paper:

Xiao, Z. & A. McEnery (2004) A corpus-based two-level model of situation aspect. Journal of Linguistics 40(2): 325-363.

Available online here: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/49/
 
More about 已经和曾经的异同
http://www.eastling.org/bbs/moredata.asp?species_id=3008&syid=772

Also recommedning the site of 东方语言学 to those intested in Chinese Linguistics:

http://www.eastling.org/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
顶部