对比语言视角下汉柬语“饮食类”动词研究
Abstract
From a syntactic perspective, both Chinese and Khmer are typical subject-verb-object (SVO) languages, and thus their linguistic features often exhibit a degree of symmetry. However, this study conducts a comparative analysis of the usage of "eat" and "drink" in Chinese and Khmer, revealing that despite their shared SVO structure, there are notable differences in verb-object constructions. In Chinese, the verb "eat" (chī) tends to select objects based on the physical form of food and has a broad range of applications, whereas in Khmer, "eat" (nham) encompasses the consumption of all types of food without emphasizing physical form, and its "drink" (phīrk) is strictly limited to beverages. Additionally, the expression of "eat" in Khmer varies depending on the listener’s seniority or social status, reflecting the language’s politeness culture. Nevertheless, the semantic scope of "eat" and "drink" in Khmer remains confined to food-related contexts, exhibiting less flexibility compared to Chinese. These differences often lead to errors among learners, particularly in mastering verb-object collocations. To address this, targeted teaching strategies—such as comparative explanations and contextual practice—should be employed to help students understand the distinctions and similarities in the usage of "eat" and "drink" between the two languages, thereby improving learning outcomes and providing practical support for cross-linguistic comparative studies.
Keywords
References
[1] សម្តេចព្រះសង្ឃរាជជួនណាត.វចនានុក្រមខ្មែរ[Z]. ភ្នំពេញ:ពុទ្ធសាសនបណ្ឌិត្យ, 1967.
[2] Shi, D. (2008). Communication verbs in Chinese and English: A contrastive analysis. Languages in Contrast, 8(2), 181-207.
[3] Hong-yan, Z. H. A. N. G. (2015). Comparative analysis of modal auxiliary verbs in English and in Chinese. Sino-US English Teaching, 12(2), 128-136.
[4] Yin, H. (2007). Serial verb constructions in English and Chinese. In Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association (Vol. 17),1-10.
[5] Hsieh, C. L. (2005). Modal verbs and modal adverbs in Chinese: An investigation into the semantic source. UST Working Papers in Linguistics, 1(1), 31-58.
[6] Paul, W. (2008). The serial verb construction in Chinese: A tenacious myth and a Gordian knot. Linguistic Review, 25(3-4), 367-411.
[7] 陈默.(2018).汉柬定语对比与柬埔寨华校学生汉语定语语序偏误分析.青岛:青岛大学,8-22.
[8] 陈玉宁.(2016).柬埔寨大学生汉语单字声韵习得偏误分析及对策. 北京:中国人民大学,10-18.
[9] 葛李勤&李轩志.(2020).面向对柬汉语教学的汉柬趋向补语对比分析.海外华文教育,(3),127-135.
[10] 洪顺发.(2019).动态助词“着”与柬语对应形式的对比研究及偏误分析. 广州:中山大学,1-5.
[11] 胡勇.(2016).“吃食堂”的认知功能分析,世界汉语教学,(3), 342-355.
[12] 贾燕子&吴福祥.(2017).词汇类型学视角的汉语“吃”“喝”类动词研究,世界汉语教学,(3), 361-381.
[13] 江宝珠.(2017).汉柬情态动词“能、会、可以”与“អាច”的对比及对外汉语教学策略探讨.成都:四川师范大学,20-42.
[14] 李艾.(1994).汉柬语音对比与汉语语音教学,世界汉语教学,(2), 33-35.
[15] 李圃,唐艳.(2020).现代汉语“吃/喝(茶)”用法的历时层次及其地域特征,语言与翻译,(2), 20-26.
[16] 李艳敏&柏振东.(2018).汉柬“花”词族隐喻的对比分析,当代教育实践与教学研究,(23), 195-196.
[17] 刘峰.(2017).汉柬定语的差异及柬埔寨学生汉语学习初级阶段的定语偏误分析.西安:陕西师范学校,9-18.
[18] 陆俭明,郭锐.(1998).汉语语法研究所面临的挑战,世界汉语教学,(4), 3-21.
[19] 吕叔湘.(1999).现代汉语八百词.北京.商务印书馆.
[20] 陶红印.(2000).从“吃”看动词论元结构的动态特征,语言研究,(3), 21-38.
[21] 夏羚.(2021).柬埔寨中级汉语学习者定、状、补语语序偏误分析.成都:四川大学,28-42.
[22] 谢晓明,左双菊.(2007).饮食义动词“吃”带宾情况的历史考察,古汉语研究,(4),91-96.
[23] 徐宜良.(2014).饮食义动词“喝”的语义特征及其宾语语义类型探讨,湖北社会科学,(4), 119-123.
[24] 于明桥&王昭懿.(2022).柬埔寨初级汉语教学中语音习得偏误分析——基于柬埔寨东南亚大学中文系的辨音实验,西部学刊,(19), 163-168.
[25] 张伯江.(2005).功能语法与汉语研究,语言科学,(6), 42-53.
[26] 张翼.(2022).“吃食堂”新解:基于认知语法和文化图式的阐释,语言教学与研究,(5), 73-82.
[27] 中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室. 现代汉语词典(第五版). 北京:商务印书馆,2005
[28] 钟楠&郑军军&卢军.(2010).柬埔寨语语法.广州:世界图书出版广东有限公司.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.




.png)






