【作者】 杨红；

【导师】 曾常年；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 汉语言文字学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 本文主要讨论了疑问语气副词与疑问句类型的选择搭配及匹配能力。前言部分主要在评述前人研究成果的基础上,确定本文的研究范围及研究方法。将疑问语气副词限定为“莫非”、“莫不是”、“难道”、“难不成”、“究竟”、“到底”、“何必”、“何须”、“何妨”、“何曾”、“何尝”、“何不”、“何苦”、“岂”这十四个词。第一、二、三、四章分别描述了疑问语气副词与不同的疑问句类型的选择搭配情况及语用特点。另外,还讨论了“莫非/莫不是”；“难道/难不成”；“究竟/到底”这三对近义词语用上的异同点。我们得出,在现代汉语中,“莫非”、“莫不是”、“难道”和“难不成”用于疑问句时,只应用于是非问句,不用于选择问、特指问和正反问句；且这四个词均可表测度和反问,而不表询问。“莫非”、“莫不是”主要表测度,其次表反问,“难道”、“难不成”主要表反问,其次表测度。“何+X”类词只应用于特指问,不用于其他三类疑问句,语气上只表反问。“究竟”和“到底”可用于选择问、正反问、特指问,不用于是非问；语气上既可表询问也可表测度和反问,具体所表语气与疑问句类型及具体语境有关。“岂”可用于是非问和特指问,不用于选择问和正反问,只表反问语气。最后一章结论部分按照疑问语气副词用于疑问句的绝对数量、在疑问句及非疑问句中的分布情况、可搭配疑问句类型的种类、可表疑问语气的种类及其与疑问语气助词的搭配情况,对疑问语气副词与疑问句类型的匹配能力进行了排序,得出结论,即疑问语气副词与疑问句类型匹配能力的高低排序为：究竟>到底>岂>难道>莫非>何必>何尝>何不>何苦>莫不是>何曾>何妨>何须>难不成更多还原

【Abstract】 This thesis focuses on the discussion of the matching ability of interrogative modal adverbs with different types of interrogative sentences.The Introduction part, based on the review of previous research, mainly defines the research scope and research method of the thesis. As to the research scope, it limits the interrogative modal adverbs to the fourteen words "mo fei(莫非)”,"mo bu shi(莫不是)”,"nan dao(难道)”,‘’nan bu cheng(难不成)”,"jiu jing(究竟)”,"dao di(到底)”,"he bi(何必)”,"he xu(何须)”,"he fang(何妨)”,"he ceng(何曾)”,"he chang(何尝)”,"he bu(何不)’’,"he ku(何苦)", and "qi(岂)”.The first four chapters describe respectively the cases and pragmatic features of interrogative modal adverbs’matching with different types of interrogative sentences. Besides, they discuss the differences and similarities in pragmatics between the three pairs of synonyms "nan dao/mo bu shi(莫非/莫不是)”,"nan dao/nan bu cheng(难道/难不成)”,and "jiu jing/dao di(究竟/到底)’’as well. From the discussion some conclusions are reached as follows:"mo fei(莫非)”,"mo bu shi (莫不是)”,"nan dao(难道)”nd "nan bu cheng(难不成)’’can not be applied to alternative interrogations, specific interrogations or A-not-A interrogations but yes-or-no interrogations once they are used in modern Chinese; what’s more, all of them can express tones of conjecturing and rhetorical questioning but inquiring, in which "mo fei(莫非)”, and "mo bu shi(莫不是)”primarily indicate conjecturing and next rhetorical questioning, while "nan dao(难道)”and "nan bu cheng(难不成)”primarily indicate rhetorical questioning and next conjecturing. Moreover, words like "he+X(何+X)’’can only be applied to specific interrogations rather than the other three kind of interrogations and can express the tone of rhetorical questioning only; but "jiu jing(究竟)”and "dao di(/到底)”an be applied to all the four types of interrogations except yes-or-no interrogations, and can express all the three tones-inquiring, conjecturing and rhetorical questioning which are associated with the types of interrogations and context. In addition, "qi(岂)’’can be applied to yes-or-no interrogations and specific interrogations but not to alternative interrogations or A-not-A interrogations, and can only express the tone of rhetorical questioning.The last chapter concludes the thesis and ranks the matching ability of interrogative modal adverbs with different types of interrogative sentences in descending order as follows:jiu jing(究竟)>dao di(到底)>qi(岂)>nan dao(难道)>1no fei(莫非)>he bi(何必)>he chang(何尝)>he bu(何不)>he ku(何苦)>Ino bu shi(莫不是)>he ceng(何曾)>he fang(何妨)>he xv(何须)>nan bu cheng(难不成),according to their numbers applied in interrogative sentences, their distribution in interrogative sentences and non-interrogative sentences, the types of interrogative sentences that they can match with, the types of tones they can express, and their matching case with interrogative modal particles.更多还原