This is the first time I have read Lv Shuxiang's Grammatical Analysis of Chinese. During the two weeks of reading this book, I was always infected by Mr. Wang's theoretical attainments and academic spirit. I know that I have little knowledge. I dare not comment rashly and write a grammar article, even if it is only a point of reading report, just because I have read grammar books and learned a little in class. This is unnecessary. I just wrote down my immature thoughts and questions about my inexperience when I was studying and made a reading note. No system, no theme. List them in the order of Mr., please refer to the original text!
But Mr. Lu Lao's theoretical attainments in grammar and academic attitude towards grammar research have always attracted me. My taboo notes can also be mainly divided into these two categories.
In 1 and [9], Mr. Wang thinks that the division of morphemes is better than that of morphemes. I quite agree with that. "Morpheme" may not be an independent word. Logically speaking, it can precede the word, that is, there must be a "morpheme" to have a word. Therefore, it is obviously unreasonable to take "morpheme" as the smallest division unit.
2. In [15], the second method well explains when morphemes become words. Suitable for beginners. It can also be used in the process of teaching Chinese as a foreign language.
3. In [2 1], "It is not a fact to say' air defense' alone, but can it be said that air defense can be used alone?" This statement confuses me. Are monologue and single use two concepts? What is the so-called single use?
4. In [28], Mr. Wang said, "Abbreviation is a transitional form. It has become a word after a long time. " This makes people look very comfortable. Mr. Wang didn't spend any energy on some unimportant issues. It concisely describes the country and the law in real language.
5.[30] I appreciate the term "terms" very much. But what is the definition of "terms"? How to define a semicolon? If "semicolon" is used as a pause in compound sentences and coordinate clauses, then the use of semicolons in compound sentences has been recognized. Therefore, "clause" is also a unique Chinese concept in complex sentences. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use the word "clause" to describe the basic unit of a sentence. Because sentences can be divided into simple sentences and complex sentences, it is obviously unreasonable to call the basic unit in a simple sentence "clause". But what terms do we use to refer to the coordinate elements in a compound sentence with semicolons? I'm afraid we still have to use the word "terms". Only its meaning has changed. So I think it is necessary to keep the concept of clause under the concept of clause. The former is the smallest unit in a sentence that is one level higher than a phrase, and the latter is used to refer to the coordinate components in a compound sentence. This can also be solved by the concept of "semicolon". It is impossible to have such a logically contradictory concept as "clause" in a sentence.
6.[33] It seems that learning morphemes by heart is very beneficial to word formation in teaching Chinese as a foreign language in the future. After word formation, it is more convenient to teach phrases. But as far as teaching Chinese as a foreign language is concerned, I think the value and status of studying morphemes seem to be higher than that of studying phrases. Because phrases can be classified according to structures, according to the universal grammar theory, there are many consistent structures in languages, such as English and Chinese. Therefore, if foreign students have strong word-building ability, they can consciously form phrases and then combine them into sentences. This is an idea of mine.
7.[36] For the concept of "grammar" (the abstraction, generalization and expression of language laws-my point of view), it seems that I prefer to find obvious rules in form. This is appropriate in western languages. But as far as Chinese is concerned, it seems inappropriate. There is no obvious morphological change in Chinese, but the attending doctor found some examples of morphological changes. I think as a "grammar", there should be unity and consistency. There are few morphological classifications in Chinese, and it is better to classify them by function.
8. [46] What are the differences between transitive verbs and intransitive verbs and the markers V, vi and vt in English dictionaries?
9. [47] The word "happy" means "willing" in Wu language, such as "I am happy (willing) to go." That is to say, "happy" has the function of adverbial, so can it also be classified as adverb or auxiliary verb (according to Mr. Lu Lao)? At the same time, I also think that the same word can have different classes. In addition, what I want to say is that there seems to be no such usage as "happy" in northern languages. Just like the example of "disgusting" given in the last class, many students in the north were right, so they refused to analyze it as an example of "Chinese", which is very familiar to my mother tongue Wu. This leads to a problem. When analyzing modern Chinese, we often encounter two problems in the corpus. One is that the problems left over from ancient Chinese are difficult to explain clearly with the grammatical rules of modern Chinese, and the other is that the influence of dialect elements has brought such problems. So before analyzing modern Chinese, is it necessary to identify the analyzed corpus?
10, [48] I think one of the functions of dividing parts of speech is to use words correctly in practical application. So I think adjectives that can modify verbs should be classified as adverbs. Because it can make people use adjectives that can correctly modify verbs.
1 1, [52] I am in favor of using auxiliary words as suffixes (to be precise, "post-affixes") because they have no practical meaning and can help content words form meaning or serve as grammatical functions. This may be one of the few "manifestations" in Chinese.
But the premise of my idea is that "affix" can be used not only for affixes (that is, word formation), but also for making sentences (that is, grammatical functions) independently, such as "Now you are happy!" "Le" is here. It is not an affix, but it has grammatical function in sentences. In this way, one kind of words is missing, which is very useful for primary teaching Chinese as a foreign language, especially for those students who are used to languages with morphological changes.
It seems unnecessary to say whether the words 12 and [56] can be printed. Language is always evolving. Just because we are not used to a word that seems impossible to say today doesn't mean it can't be said. For example, Mr. Wang Can doesn't say "musician", but we seem to be used to saying "Yo-Yo Ma is a cellist", which shows that the old man's speculation is also inappropriate.
13, [57] Regarding the classification of phrases, I think it is better to have only one. I prefer to classify by function, because it can be directly related to sentence analysis. Classification by structure is a strong structural classification of Chinese without obvious morphological changes. Of course, as I said before, structural classification is still very convenient in teaching Chinese as a foreign language. This involves a direction or an attitude problem of grammar research. In my opinion, angle+general exposition = grammar. No matter from any angle, as long as it can be described correctly, it is grammar. It is allowed to analyze grammar from the perspective of their respective applications, and there is no need for a standard grammar. There is no need to discuss which is better, structural classification or functional classification.
14, [63] still agree with "speak grammar until the sentence is finished", and it seems to be a matter of composition method to divide a sentence into "first sentence" and "subsequent sentence" according to its function.
15, [72] The biggest revelation that Teacher Wang gave me was that the classification should be on the same plane. You can't fight in your own terms, just like subject and object.
16, [74] Mr. thinks that phrases should be used as a stepping stone between morphemes and sentences, and I agree very much. Conducive to clauses.
/Mr. kloc-0/7, [8 1, 82, 83] explains this problem very well! We need to grasp it from two points: first, grammatical analysis can't just stay in internal structures such as structure and form. Finally, it is better to return to semantics; Second, as mentioned above, we should pay attention to the plane consistency of analysis.
18, [90] The study of Chinese grammar is very beneficial to the introduction of foreign grammar such as English grammar. For example, the formulation of "predicative language". But now many students will use English grammar to explain Chinese grammar, which is a problem of putting the cart before the horse. One of the reasons for this problem is that the study of Chinese grammar itself has not yet reached home, and the other is that the popularization of Chinese grammar has not yet reached home.
19, [93] It seems that the expression "part-time language" is redundant. I think teacher Wang's concept of "complement" is subjectively good. However, it only stays in the understanding of its thinking, and it is not known whether it is really as Mr. Wang said in practical application and analysis.
Teacher Wang's attitude is admirable. For example, he is very patient and meticulous in his classification and analysis of double objects in [75].