The Semantic Feature Analysis Of Visual Verbs Between Chinese And Vietnamese

The contrastive analysis of the visual verbs in different languages is one of the topics which have drawn attention of linguists. During the process of collecting materials, it has been learnt that Vietnamese has already had contrastive analysis of the visual verbs between Vietnamese and French and between Vietnamese and English, while in China there have been same studies on Chinese-English, Chinese-Russian and Chinese-Japanese. However, there is lack of analysis on visual verbs between Chinese and Vietnamese. Basing on that fact, working on the contrastive analysis of the visual verbs between Chinese and Vietnamese in the view of a linguist is required. At the same time, this research title will hopefully enrich Chinese-Vietnamese’reseach content, and fill in the blanks in the aspect of Chinese-Vietnamese’s vocabulary.The main content of this paper are as follows:Chapter Ⅰ:The preface. The introduction includes reasons for selecting the topic, subject and range, analysis purpose, current analysis situation and analysis significance. The final part introduces study method.Chapter Ⅱ:Matters relating to visual verbs in Chinese and Vietnamese.In the linguist’s perspective, system of visual verbs can be classified into2major categories:"non-visual behavior verbs" and "visual behavior verbs". And this thesis mainly focuses on analysis of "visual behavior verbs" in Chinese and Vietnamese.By contraposition of《现代汉语词典》,《现代汉语规范词典》,《汉语教与学词典》,《新华同义词词典》,《同义词词林》,《词典学词汇学语义学文集》,《现代汉语分类大词典》,《越南语词典》,《越南词�'�语词典》,《汉越词典》, 《越汉词典》as the reference books,105Chinese glosseme and46Vietnamese glosseme in the semantic field of the visual behavior verbs are divided into two basic semantic fields:semantic field of action of visual verbs and semantic field of perception of visual verbs. According to the lexical distinguishing features, the semantic field is divided at great length.In Chinese the typical verb for "semantic field of action of visual verb" is“看”.In Vietnamese the typical verb for "semantic field of action of visual verb" is "nhin". On the basis of "semantic field of action of visual verbs" in Chinese, we further analyze into basic semantic field“看”and11sub-fields“细看”,“注视”,“窥探”,“环视”,“斜视”,“平视”,“望”,“阅读”,“仰视”,“回视”,“俯视”.The counterpart in Vietnamese is futher classified into basic semantic field "nhin" and6sub-fields "nhin ky","dom","liec","doc","nhin xa","nguac". Among those fields“看”and "nhin",“细看”and "nhin ky",“窥探”and "dom",“斜视”and "liec",“阅读”and "doc",“望”and "nhin xa",“仰视”and "nguoc" are symmetrically corresponding semantic fields.Typical Chinese verb for "semantic field of perception of visual verbs" is "见", while the typical Vietnamese verb for "semantic field of perception of visual verbs" is "thay". In "semantic field of perception of visual verbs" of both Chinese and Vietnamese, semantic field of“见”and that of "thay" are symmetrically corresponding fields.Through the contrast of the semantic fields of the visual behavior verbs in Chinese and Vietnamese, we clearly understand this kind of words on the whole. The semantic fields of the visual behavior verbs in Chinese and Vietnamese have both universality and individuality. The universality of the semantic field of the visual behavior verbs in the two languages is that the internal levels of the semantic field of the visual behavior verbs are roughly the same. They are both divided into basic fields and sub-fields. The individuality is that there are five semantic fields(“注视”,“环视”,“平视”,“回视”,“俯视”)of the visual verbs are vacant in Vietnamese. The phenomenon of lexical gap exists in the corresponding semantic fields of visual behavior verbs in Chinese and Vietnamese.Chapter Ⅲ:Comparison of "semantic field of action of visual behavior verbs" between Chinese and Vietnamese.We made sememe analysis of the glosseme in the corresponding semantic fields with reference to some dictionaries. It is found that there are universality and particularity in the visual behavior verbs of Chinese and Vietnamese. They share identical semantic fields accordings to their mutual semantic components and are distinguished through individual factors. In both Chinese and Vietnamese, there are2general seme in the semantic field of the visual behavior verbs:[part of the body](eyes),[semantic core](see); There are12specific seme:[action],[time],[space],[way],[attitude],[related object],[scope of application],[purpose],[spirit],[form],[result],[type of writing].The quantity of the glosseme in corresponding semantic fields is incompletely corresponding, we have found96glossemes under semantic field of action of visual verbs in Chinese and44in Vietnamese. In which, basic semantic field’‘看”has4glossemes,’‘细看”has36,’‘窥探”has8,"斜视”has11,“阅读”has13,“望”has19,“仰视”has5; basic semantic field "nhin" has5glossemes,"nhin ky" has21,"dom" has10,"liec" has4,"doc" has3,"nhin xa" has1, and "nguac" has2; Applying the statistical method, we found the semantic field "见" under " semantic field of perception of visual verbs" in Chinese has9glossemes, and semantic field "thay" in Vietnamese with2golossemes.There are3relations among the glosseme of the2languages:conrresponding glosseme, incompletely corresponding glosseme, lexical gap. The distinctiveness of the semantic feature determines this correspondence or difference. During the research,22groups of corresponding meaning and2goups of partially corresponding meaning in the semantic fields of visual verbs in Chinese-Vietnamese,2goups of partially corresponding meaning in the semantic fields of perception of visual verbs in Chinese-Vietnamese,47vacant meaning in Vietnamese and1vacant meaning in Chinese.Chapter Ⅳ:Application condition of Chinese Verb of visual behavior among Vietnamese studentsResearches in this part mainly includes the application condition of Chinese Verb of visual behavior among Vietnamese students. It has been found through survey that: most of Vietnamese students do not have a in-depth understanding of Verb of vision, which leads to word misapplication. The main reason for this is the differences in matching subjects and in actual meanings.