I need everyone to do me a favor and provide some information about object research.

Hope it helps you

A brief introduction to the study of Chinese word order

As we all know, since Chinese is a non-morphological language, the word order of Chinese is smaller than that of some Indo-European languages. Word order is more important. A series of issues related to word order have been debated and studied as early as the 1950s in discussions about subject and object language. Since the 1980s, research on word order issues has received increasing attention.

1. The nature of Chinese word order. "Word order" is called "word order" in some books. As early as the 1930s, Zhang Shilu put forward the idea of ??"establishing categories based on word order and gathering categories to form a system." With the deepening of research, everyone's understanding of word order has become more and more profound. Shen Xiaolong believes that changes in the order of sentence components are always observed from a relatively stable fulcrum in the sentence, which is usually the main verb of the sentence. As the semantic core of the sentence structure, the verb is connected at the first level to the subject and object of the sentence. They are essential items for establishing the logical structure of a sentence and can be called arguments, while adverbials and attributives are non-argument components of the sentence structure. Therefore, the study of Chinese word order should be examined from two levels: argument and non-argument. At the same time, he also believed that from the perspective of the characteristics of Chinese sentence organization, the concept of so-called word order needs to be expanded. Chinese is a language that pays attention to content. The concept of word order in Chinese grammar should be expanded to the arrangement of phrases. The study of word order can be studied from a broad perspective. Shen's views have certain reasonable elements, which are in line with a series of views of cultural linguistics that he has always advocated.

Zhao Zhencai believes that it is difficult to explain clearly the word order of Chinese sentences by structural analysis alone. High-level analysis is required to understand why there are such changes in word order. For example, when the object of a Chinese sentence expresses unknown information, it usually appears at the end of the sentence; when the object of a Chinese sentence expresses known information, it often appears at the beginning of the sentence ("Word Order and Emphasis in Simple Chinese Sentences", "Language Teaching" and Research" 1985 Issue 3). Zhao's analysis is actually from a pragmatic perspective. Although the analysis is not in-depth enough, the questions raised are still very enlightening. Li Na and Thomson in the United States also have similar views. They believe that in Chinese, things expressed in SVO word order are neutral, while things expressed in SOV word order are the opposite of what is expected. For example, "He has done his homework" is a neutral, general statement. "He has finished his homework" is used for a specific purpose, perhaps the father is explaining to the mother why the child is watching TV instead of doing homework (Taiwan Wenhe Language Research Series 1982 (3), translated by Huang Xuanfan, translated as "Chinese Grammar"). When Li Na and Thomson analyzed the reasons for changes in Chinese word order, it was undoubtedly very insightful to analyze the sentences in a certain language environment.

Lu Bingfu has proposed in his master's thesis that the formal factor of word order should be abstracted and analyzed in depth. In "On Some Factors Restricting Chinese Word Order" co-written with Mr. Hu Yushu (Journal of Yantai University, Issue 1, 1988), he put forward his own views on the nature of word order. This article believes that word order should be a sequence of functional categories, or a sequence of "functional blocks". Usually when analyzing the word order in a language structure, the number of basic units directly processed is at most seven, so "block" is used It is more appropriate as the basic unit of word order analysis.

Among all the studies on the nature of word order, the most pioneering and instructive one is "Several Issues in the Study of Chinese Word Order" by Wen Lian and Hu Fu ("Chinese Language" 1984 March Expect). The two gentlemen believed that the arrangement of language units is subject to many conditions. People are most likely to notice the limitation of meaning, while psychologists pay attention to the limitation of length. From a grammatical perspective, there are many issues worthy of attention. They mainly raised three issues: 1. The position of the noun is related to the nature of the verb. For example, "we", "discuss" and "problem" have three word orders to choose from, while "we", "discuss" and "how" only have two word orders to choose from.

Therefore, there is much potential to study verbs one by one, classify them, and find out the rules of word order arrangement. 2. The arrangement of word order is related to the use of function words. In this regard, some grammatical works in the past have paid attention to it. However, the relationship between the order of content words and the use of function words seems to be less important than "Ma Shi Wentong". It seems that there is still a lot worth inheriting from past grammar works. 3. Word order includes syntax, semantics and pragmatics. These three are both related and different. For example, in "Modern Chinese" (revised edition, 1987 edition) edited by Hu Yushu, it is explained as follows: "You look at me" and "I look at you" have different meanings because they are substituted in the format of "A looks at B" Although different words are used, the syntactic relationship does not change. The change in word order here is semantic. "Is your brother here?" and "Are you here, your brother?" have different colors. The latter is because the speaker is emotionally nervous and the behavior itself comes to mind first, so it is said first. This category of word order is pragmatic and is produced to adapt to the needs of specific circumstances in the communication process. There are only words like "The guest is coming" and "The guest is coming". The difference between "It's raining" and "It's raining" is syntactic. Wen Lian and Hu Fu's views and theories on word order research undoubtedly have extremely important guiding significance for the in-depth study of Chinese word order. Sentences are based on syntactic structure, but sentences are not equal to syntactic structure. Sentences often have additions and changes based on syntactic structure. Some of these changes are related to semantics, and some are related to pragmatics. If we only limit word order within the scope of syntactic structure, it is naturally impossible to explain many phenomena clearly. In short, word order is not a self-sufficient means and must be comprehensively examined in connection with many aspects before we can draw practical conclusions.

2. Object and attributive. In the research and discussion on Chinese word order, two aspects have attracted widespread attention. The first is how to treat the "object" in front of the verb. The traditional view is that since an external verb takes an object as its broad form, its object should be caught wherever it goes, and it should still be treated as an object. For example, a sentence like "All the money is spent" should still be considered a sentence with subject, predicate and object, but the object is already at the beginning of the sentence. This view has since lost many supporters.

Zhu Dexi believes in "Grammar Lectures" (Commercial Press, 1984 edition) that the subject is not necessarily the agent, and the object is not necessarily the object. The subject and object cannot be understood as the agent. The opposite of suffering. "The glass is cleaned" is a subject-predicate structure. Just because "glass" is the subject, it cannot be said to be an object in advance. "The guest is here" is a predicate-object structure. Just because "guest" is the agent, it cannot be said to be the subject. Move back. Subject and predicate are syntactic concepts, while agent, recipient, and subject are semantic concepts. Although these two aspects are related, they are not the same thing and cannot be confused. He believes that only sentences such as "He went abroad and heard about it" can be considered as object-fronted. Lu Jianming pointed out ("Translocation Phenomenon in Chinese Spoken Syntax", "Chinese Language", Issue 2, 1980) that the so-called inverted sentences with the object in front are not based on structural relationships but are subject to traditional meaning analysis and giver-recipient relationships. Influence. In fact, the same grammatical structure can represent different semantic relationships, and different grammatical structure relationships can also represent the same semantic relationship. Generally speaking, Zhu and Lu's views are correct. But for a sentence like "I can't name any of the students in our class", Lu Jianming believed that the subject and predicate were nested within the subject and predicate, four levels in a row ("The unique overlapping phenomenon of Chinese syntactic components", "Chinese Language" 1990 Issue 2 of the year). There are still different views on this. Lu Shuxiang once said in "Problems in Chinese Grammar Analysis", "I have no impression of this matter in my mind now", and "this matter", "I", "now", "in my mind" and "no impression" are the subjects one by one. , will it blur some useful distinctions?

Modern Chinese, edited by Hu Yushu, believes that the object of the object can be placed before the verb under certain conditions, and not all nominal components placed before the verb are subjects.

The conditions are: 1. The object is an interrogative pronoun, often combined with the adverbs "du", "ye", etc.; 2. The object is preceded by "一" and followed by the negative adverb "no" or "无,无"; 3. Some objects are not question words, but the whole sentence is in the form of enumeration, and the objects in the clauses can also be used before the verb. The above three types have the same characteristic, that is, they have the meaning of universal reference, and the object is emphasized. In this regard, two gentlemen, Wen Lian and Hu Fu, believe that in this case, the object is used before the verb, which only changes the position of the object, but does not change the structural relationship between the verb and the object. Regarding this issue, Li Ziyun ("Subject-Predicate Sentences", "Language Teaching and Research" Issue 3, 1982) also expressed his own views. He believed that subject and predicate are the two most important parts of the first level of sentence structure. The object is the internal structural component of the predicate. Therefore, the change of the object position can only be limited to the predicate scope and cannot go beyond the predicate field. Therefore, they all believe that some of the subjects after the predicate verb can be moved to the front of the verb for expression needs. Although the position has changed, the structural relationship between them can still remain unchanged.

Shen Xiaolong believes ("Research on the Topic Sentence of "Zuo Zhuan"", "Chinese Language", Issue 2, 1986) that some main brain components of Chinese sentences can be regarded as coming from the predicate in mind. Moved up a position to the beginning of the sentence to make the topic. But calling it "shift" is just a convenient way of explaining the semantic relationship. Because once it is shifted, it is no longer a sentence component in the original sense, but fundamentally changes the type of sentence. The sentences are no longer narrative but critical. He believes that the "shift" of the object essentially reflects the different angles from which Han people's linguistic thinking reflects reality. It is a fundamental factor that determines the sentence pattern, and "shifting" will inevitably lead to the transformation of the sentence pattern.

The second is how to treat the postposition and forwarding of attributive. The older generation of linguists, such as Wang Li, Li Jinxi, Chen Wangdao, Shi Cunzhi and others, all believe that Chinese attributives can be postpositioned. Only Zhang Zhigong believes that the modifier comes first and the modifier comes after. Reversed, once reversed, it becomes a different relationship. "Modern Chinese" edited by Zhang Jing believes that the normal position of the attributive is before the central word. For expression needs, it can sometimes be moved after the central word or before the verb predicate. Attributive postposition or advance is still attributive. Mr. Zhang's so-called attributive is moved before the verb predicate, which means that "the walls are covered with red, green, and yellow slogans." Pan Xiaodong said in "A Brief Discussion on the Translocation Phenomenon of Attributives" ("Chinese Language" 1981 Issue 4) and "The Consistency of Grammatical Structure and Semantic Structure from the Attributive Translocation" ("Zhejiang Linguistics Annual Journal" 1984) also hold the same view. He believes that the reason why "red", "green" and "yellow" are attributive is because they are aspectual and cannot modify the following verbs. Moreover, when these components are returned to the object noun as an attributive, the meaning of the whole sentence will be different. Change, but become more enlightened. He believes that the reason why the attributive must move forward is because the verb requires the object to be as close as possible. When there are several attributives before the object, those attributives that are loosely combined with the central word may be pushed to the front. Moreover, when the speaker intends to emphasize a certain attributive, he will also move it to the front of the verb.

Lu Jianming pointed out in "On the Problem of Attributive Translocation" ("Chinese Language" Issue 3, 1982) that although the components of structures such as "red", "green" and "yellow" It is aspectual, but these structures themselves are non-attentional. Different from the commonly-known nominal joint components, these structures are often used as adverbials. Lu also pointed out: From the semantic relationship point of view, the "preceding attributive" has a modifying relationship with the noun object, but from the perspective of grammatical structure relationship, they are not the attributive components of the object.

In fact, as early as 1980, Lu Jianming had summarized the transposition situation between the attributive and the central phrase in Chinese, and pointed out four conditions that a transposition sentence should have: 1. The stress of the transposition sentence must be on the prefix part. , the part that moves later must be read lightly; 2. The focus of meaning of a transposition sentence is always on the preceding component, and the part that moves later can never be the object of emphasis; 3. Both the inverted components in the transposition sentence can be reset, reset The meaning of the last sentence remains unchanged; 4. The modal particles at the end of the sentence never appear after the backward part, but must immediately follow the prefix part. Lu's above summary is basically consistent with the actual language, and is of great reference value for determining translocation sentences in pragmatic communication. Shao Jingmin's "Looking at Attributive Shifts from the Three Planes of Word Order" (Journal of East China Normal University, Issue 4, 1987) believes that strictly distinguishing word order changes in the three planes of grammar, semantics, and pragmatics is the key to determining the shift of "attributive" The premise of position, however, relies on the function of the grammatical component of shifting position, and uses the "grammatical function exclusive" identification method to determine whether the component is still an attributive or has changed its identity after being shifted, thus proving that only a small number of them have " "Predicated" typical nominal structures are still attributive after postposition, but the so-called predicates do not exist, some are adverbials, and some are subjects.

3. Exploration from multiple angles. In addition to the relatively concentrated research on the above-mentioned aspects, the scope of research on word order issues is very wide. First of all, issues related to Chinese language types related to word order have aroused the interest of scholars at home and abroad. In their book "Mandarin Chinese" and some other articles, based on Greenlerg's views and their own analysis, Li Na and Thomson believed that Mandarin is a language that has both SVO and SOV characteristics. Mandarin is gradually changing from SVO language to SOV language. Some scholars have put forward different views on this. Wen Lian and Hu Fu pointed out in "Several Issues in the Study of Chinese Word Order" that some scholars have obviously made Greenlerg's theory absolute and violated his original intention in terms of methods. It also made comparisons between ancient and modern times from three aspects: the position of modifiers, the use of postpositions, and the question of modal expressions at the end of sentences, thus irrefutably denying the Chinese language type proposed by Dai Haoyi, Li Na, and Thomson. learned arguments.

Secondly, some scholars have conducted in-depth discussions on some specific issues in Chinese word order from a micro perspective. The more representative ones include Zhang Bojiang's "On Several Word Orders of Dynamic Patterns with Objects" ("Chinese Language", Issue 3, 1991), Liao Qiuzhong's "The Order of Parallel Noun Components in Modern Chinese" ("Chinese Language") Issue 3, 1992), Fang Mei's "The Order of Objects and Momentum Words" ("Chinese Language", Issue 1, 1995). Zhang Wen analyzed the four word orders of dynamic tense with object, and examined the expression differences of these different word orders from the perspective of historical development, pragmatics and communication; he also discussed the related meaning of "LE" It introduces the relationship between new information and old information and word order, and explains the mandatory and tendentious rules in the use of various word order formats. On the basis of summarizing previous research, Liao Wen proposed eleven principles that influence the order of parallel components in Chinese, namely: the principle of importance, the principle of time, the principle of familiarity, the principle of salience, the principle of positive attitude, Footholding principle, single direction principle, similar principle, correspondence principle, politeness principle, simple to complex principle. Liao Wen believes that the ordering principles are multifaceted, including psychological-cognitive, social-cultural, and pragmatic-contextual. To fully explain all these principles, we must approach them from different perspectives. inspection. Liao Wen's research has undoubtedly further deepened people's understanding of the constraints on word order. Fang Wen's investigation of the factors that restrict morphemes mainly starts from the referential nature of "N", and introduces two pairs of concepts related to referentiality, namely referential and non-referential, definite referent and indefinite referent. In addition, research was conducted from the perspectives of new information and old information, what is already and what is not yet, and the length of the nominal component. Finally, a dynamic comparative analysis over time was also made.

The author believes that "motion, momentum, name" and "motion, name, momentum" have different ideographic functions, and the frequency of use of the former tends to increase, and its application range is getting wider and wider.

Again, combine logic and phonetics to study word order. Hu Yushu and Lu Bingfu's article "On Some Factors Restricting Chinese Word Order" first proposed that "word order should be the sequence of functional categories" and believed that talking about Chinese word order is mainly about syntactic word order phenomena. This article believes that the "universal quantity terms, special quantity terms, and existential quantity terms" in logic also have an impact on the word order of Chinese. The order of quantity terms sometimes plays a decisive leading role in whether a sentence is qualified or not. In more cases, under certain conditions, the order of quantity terms and the order of deep case factors determine whether the sentence is qualified or not. The article also believes that rhythm also has a certain impact on Chinese word order. For example, two-syllable verbs are generally not allowed to take a single-syllable post-object, such as "cleaning the streets" and "writing a play" are all unqualified. Although the 2·1 rhythm is rarely used in object-object structures, it is widely used in positive structures, such as "hairy rabbit", "workbench", etc. For another example, "copying documents" and "taxi" are ambiguous, while "copying" and "taxi" are univocal. In short, rhythm issues are also a broad word order phenomenon. They mainly reflect the restrictions and choices of syntactic order on rhythm. Of course, in turn, rhythmic form also has certain restrictions and selection effects on word order.

In summary, the research on Chinese word order is being carried out in depth at multiple levels and angles, and a series of achievements have been achieved. However, due to the many issues involved in the word order phenomenon, many issues have not been truly revealed yet, and further efforts are needed in the future.