Journal of FLTR ›› 2010, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (5): 380-386.

• 论文 • Previous Articles     Next Articles

A validity study of the word class system in modern Chinese as seen from the Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (5th edition)

WANG Renqiang   

  1. Center for Linguistics, Literary &|Cultural Studies, Sichuan International Studies University, Chongqing 400031, China
  • Online:2010-09-20 Published:2010-05-25

Abstract:

The 5th edition of The Contemporary Chinese Dictionary (CCD5 for short) published in 2005 labeled all the lexemes with word class information based on the distinction between modern Chinese words and non-words,which is a milestone in the history of CCD and is also of great significance in the standardization of modern Chinese vocabulary. This paper is intended to make a validity study of the word class system in four dimensions as seen from CCD5 from the perspectives of Cognitive Linguistics,language typology,cognitive psychology,Usage-Based Theory and lexicography. It is found that the word class system adopted in CCD5 is basically justifiable in terms of the number of word classes and its internal structure,and that most of the word classes have been accurately defined,which can ensure accurate labeling of the prototypical members of specific classes and of the prototypical parts-of-speech of individual lexemes. Nevertheless,the word class system adopted in CCD5 has certain flaws,which reflects the deficiencies in Modern Chinese grammar studies. It is thus suggested that the establishment of the word class system in modern Chinese should stick to the basic definition as grammatical categories,and that the definitions of various word classes (especially the major classes of NOUN,VERB and ADJECTIVE) in the dictionary should include at least explanations of their unmarked grammatical functions so as to ensure standard procedures of word class identification and final valid results,and to help users to have a correct understanding of the word class system of modern Chinese. Modern Chinese grammar studies should refrain not only from taking the so-called "Indo-European perspective" but also from "considering the Chinese language alone without referring to other languages".

CLC Number: 

  • H164