Comparisons And Analyses Of Nominal Possessives In English And Chines

Possession category has always been one of grammatical forms thatlanguage scholars are quite concerned about.“Possession” is concernedby scholars, not only because it is ubiquitous in human social life and auniversal grammar form in human language, but also because it is a kindof grammar category who has its own unique features and at the sametime has a profound impact on other grammatical forms in grammarsystem of any language.Since possession structures exist in grammar system of eachlanguage, is there a correlation between them? If so, the correlation willbe the bridge we comprehend and learn other language. When combingresearch materials for this paper, we found many scholars believe thatthere is some correspondence between possession structures of Chineseand English, but they are not correspond exactly. So, what ways dose thecorrespondence work in and are different in? This paper analyzes andcompares possession structure of Chinese and English minutely in three ways: syntactic form, semantic and pragmatic. We try to research thecorrelation between them and by it we analyze individuality aboutnominal possession structure of Chinese and English to provide somefresh materials and methods to language learners, teaching andtranslations.In the first place, we introduce two manifestations of Englishnominal possession structure: N1’S+N2and N2+of+N1. The mainmanifestation of Chinese nominal possession structure is “N1+的+N2”and there is another special manifestation: N1+N2. We do the researchfrom two aspects constituent components and word order to analyzetheir characters and individualities.In the second place, we found that possessive is just one ofrelationships they express when we analyzed those expressmanifestations. Then we showed that what relationships they can expressand put forward4standards to judge whether an expression ispossession structure: anaphora standard, the labeled standard of “的”， sentence transformation methods，methods of asking questions with“what” and “whose”. Although some standards have limitations, we stillaccurately judge whether a structure belongs to possession structure withthese standards.In the third place, in the study, we found that both of English andChinese’s possession structures can lead to ambiguity, so, this paperanalyzed the appearances existing in possession structure of Chinese andEnglish and compare methods that Chinese and English used toeliminate ambiguity.In the forth place, we make a data statistic between newspaper andclassic masterpiece in different times, investigate the use condiction ofnominal possession structures. Survey the distribution of the sectionsand chapters of nominal possession structures in English and Chinese,and find there is difference between then in quantity and distribution ofsections and chapters.Last but not least, we had concocted a questionnaire to give Chinese students and international students. Then we found that whenChinese students learn English or international students learn Chinese,they have some questions of possession structure. For instance, they aremore likely to use the words “the courage of victim” when Chinesestudents are translating phrase “受害者的勇气” into English. In theprocess of learning Chinese, international students regularly make kindof mistakes like “我的爸爸的警服” when they learn Chinese. Allthese mistakes are caused by insufficient understanding of nominalpossession structures. We give detailed answers and it further show thatthis research is very necessary and practical value problems reflected bythese two questionnaires.