《浙江大学》 2004年
收藏 | 手机打开


【摘要】: This thesis compares the allocation tendency of sentential stresses among four reading styles, Lyric, Critical, Explanatory and Neutral. Three levels are investigated respectively named the chunk level, the base phrase level and the level of disyllabic prosodic words. Indicators for stress tendency are defined for clusters of words between chunks or within base phrases according to the research level to illustrate (1) the possibility for a class of words to obtain sentential stresses and (2) which component in a certain type of construction is easier to obtain stresses. The final conclusions are (1) rhythmic stresses tend to locate on the final part of the construction in levels of prosodic words and base phrases, regardless of reading styles; while in the chunk level, the stresses are generally evenly distributed. (2) allocation of semantic stresses is affected by the reading styles and varies in terms of the research level. Within prosodic words', the initial-stressed cases are of absolute majority. In the chunk level, however, things are just the opposite. The final-stressed. tendency is dominant. Reading styles exert the biggest influence within base phrases. The Explanatory style shares a similar allocation tendency with the Neutral style. The Critical style differs from the Neutral style mainly in phrases with the adverbial+head structure. The Lyric style differs from the other styles in many aspects because, when reading essays in Lyric style, the speaker tends to form a kind of poetry-like rhythm to get .a better expression of the beauty of the essay. 1. Introduction Stress, or its substitute, prominence, has been defined as "the degree of force" in terms of speech production [1] or as "the degree of loudness" from the viewpoint of speech perception [2]. It has been ranked into different levels of hierarchy, on the top of which is the most salient sentential stress [3]. The definition of sentential stress varies in past literatures. However, all these definitions can be classified into two groups if the functions of the stress are considered the main factor in delivering messages. Generally speaking, those, as normal stress defined by Newman [4] and Zhao [5], or grammar stress defined by Bolinger [6] and Chomsky [7], to reflect the syntactic or rhythmic structure, are predictable with grammatical [8] or phonological rules [9]. Others, as contractive stress, emphatic stress [10], logical stress, to express speaker's special intentions, are hard to predict without a deep understanding of the context. In Chu Wang's recent works [11][12], sentential stress is classified into rhythmic stress and semantic stress. The former serves the purpose of illustrating the rhythmic structure of an utterance and the later of making the speaker's opinion or intention prominent. The validity of the classification has been proven by perceptual experiments. Their study shows that the rhythmic stress tends to be allocated to the final syllable within a prosodic word [12] and to the last syllable of the last word in a prosodic phrase [11], while no direct relationship has been found between the location of semantic stress and the prosodic structure of an utterance. In a study on semantic stress in Mandarin, Wang et. al. [12][13] found that the allocation tendency of semantic stress changes with the speech unit studied. On the one hand, semantic stress is more often allocated to the predicate part or the objective part (if there exists any) than to the subjective part in the chunk level,. However, such tendency does not hold within a base phrase. On the other hand, in a base phrase or a prosodic word, semantic stress is often found to be allocated to the modifiers when the phrase has an attribute+head structure or an adverbial+head structure. Yet, such tendency does not hold in the sentence level. The main difference in the allocation tendency of sentential stress between base phrases and prosodic words lies in that, semantic stress shows final-stress tendency in coordinative structures in base phrases but i

中国期刊全文数据库 前10条
1 王韫佳,初敏,贺琳;汉语语句重音的分类和分布的初步实验研究[J];心理学报;2003年06期
2 毛力群;试论言语的声音形态[J];平顶山师专学报;2002年04期
3 李静;朗读中重音的确定与表达[J];新乡师范高等专科学校学报;2002年02期
4 仲晓波,郑波,杨玉芳;关于普通话韵律短语重音的实验研究[J];声学学报;2002年02期
5 郑贵友!100083;汉语句子实义切分的宏观原则与主位的确定[J];语言教学与研究;2000年04期
6 王兆胜;中国现代“诗的散文”发展及其嬗变[J];中国文学研究;2000年04期
7 孙汝建;汉语语调的语气和口气功能[J];南通师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版);2000年03期
8 石定栩;汉语句法的灵活性和句法理论[J];当代语言学;2000年01期
9 江新,荆其诚;句法和语义在汉语简单句理解中的作用[J];心理学报;1999年04期
10 仲晓波,杨玉芳;国外关于韵律特征和重音的一些研究[J];心理学报;1999年04期
中国期刊全文数据库 前10条
1 李健;;对英汉语篇中主位推进模式分类的再研究[J];蚌埠学院学报;2015年06期
2 王秋萍;;“没准儿”“不一定”“不见得”和“说不定”的语义倾向性和主观性差异[J];语言与翻译;2015年04期
3 尹婷;;泰国留学生带特殊疑问词“什么”否定表达声学特征分析[J];现代语文(语言研究版);2015年08期
4 傅根生;;古代诗学概念“句法”论[J];海南大学学报(人文社会科学版);2015年03期
5 李玲;;从空语类看英汉语篇中省略现象的差异[J];青年文学家;2015年14期
6 宋璟瑶;;汉语篇章主位模式与信息结构研究[J];语文学刊;2015年09期
7 于泳波;;同音异序两字组正常重音考察[J];湖北理工学院学报(人文社会科学版);2015年02期
8 屠爱萍;;汉语国际传播中判断句的句法定位及教学[J];国际汉语教育研究;2015年00期
9 刘丽萍;韩巍峰;;汉语并列空动词句的语用特征[J];世界汉语教学;2015年01期
10 曹云波;;中文句法对英文句法的影响研究[J];科教文汇(上旬刊);2014年11期
中国期刊全文数据库 前10条
1 王洪君;;汉语的韵律词与韵律短语[J];中国语文;2000年06期
2 杨玉芳;语句重音分布模式知觉[J];心理学报;1996年03期
3 陈?之,熊蔚华;中文阅读之句法分析历程初探[J];心理科学;1995年06期
4 朱永生;主位推进模式与语篇分析[J];外语教学与研究;1995年03期
5 沈炯;汉语语势重音的音理(简要报告)[J];语文研究;1994年03期
6 彭聃龄,刘松林;汉语句子理解中语义分析与句法分析的关系[J];心理学报;1993年02期
7 沈炯;;汉语语调模型刍议[J];语文研究;1992年04期
8 黄衍;试论英语主位和述位[J];外国语(上海外国语学院学报);1985年05期
9 鲁枢元;;用心理学的眼光看文学[J];文学评论;1985年04期
10 缪小春,陈国鹏,应厚昌;词序和词义在汉语语句理解中的作用再探[J];心理科学通讯;1984年06期
中国期刊全文数据库 前8条
1 王韫佳;初敏;贺琳;;汉语焦点重音和语义重音分布的初步实验研究[J];世界汉语教学;2006年02期
2 刘群;朗读中的重音处理[J];宁波大学学报(教育科学版);1999年03期
3 苗慧;在教学中容易忽略的“бЫTЬ”现在时[J];齐齐哈尔社会科学;1999年03期
4 王韫佳;初敏;贺琳;;普通话语句重音在双音节韵律词中的分布[J];语言科学;2004年05期
5 董洪杰;;汉语语句重音再分析[J];西安文理学院学报(社会科学版);2010年03期
6 王韫佳,初敏,贺琳;汉语语句重音的分类和分布的初步实验研究[J];心理学报;2003年06期
7 方武;教学语言的语音特征及文化品位[J];池州师专学报;1996年01期
8 刘立志;朗读的重音与停顿[J];语文教学与研究;1998年07期
中国重要会议论文全文数据库 前1条
1 王韫佳;初敏;贺琳;;汉语语义重音分布的初步研究[A];第六届全国现代语音学学术会议论文集(上)[C];2003年
中国博士学位论文全文数据库 前1条
1 高裴裴;人眼驱动语音合成的若干关键技术研究[D];南开大学;2012年
中国硕士学位论文全文数据库 前2条
1 包明真;关于重音在不同朗读风格中的分布研究[D];浙江大学;2004年
2 徐桂华;现代汉语“V+N”结构的多维考察[D];苏州大学;2009年
 快捷付款方式  订购知网充值卡  订购热线  帮助中心
  • 400-819-9993
  • 010-62791813
  • 010-62985026