A Study Of The Differences Of "Kao" And "Kaoshi" From The Pespective Of Disyllabification

The footsteps studying monosyllabic and disyllabic verbs never stopped. Most scholars expanded their research from a macro perspective. The study for specific synonymous monosyllabic and disyllabic verbs in modern Chinese is rarely reported, let alone diachronic study. In this paper, the differences between "kao(考)" and "kaoshi(考 试)" in meaning and syntax will be analyzed from microcosmic angle based on concrete linguistic materials. Our study will be launched both synchronically and diachronically to seek the reason of coexistence of synonymous monosyllabic and disyllabic verbs and effects of disyllabification on their differences.. The thesis is divided into six chapters.In Chapter I we mainly introduced the subjects, status and methodology of our research.In Chapter II we provided a detailed description on the differences between "kao(考)" and "kaoshi(考试^)" in modern Chinese when being used as a non-predication or a predication. We analyzed the ability of being followed by an object, a complement, auxiliary verb "zhe(着), le(了), guo(过)",and being reduplicated or used in other fixed collection of the two words when being used as a predication. The differences in choosing behavior subject is also within our discussion. We also described the ability of being used as a non-predication such as a reference, a subject or a attribute of the two words. We found out that there’s an opposite tendencies of being used as a predication and a non-predication which led to the coexistence of these two words.In Chapter III we discussed the semantic of "kao(考)" and "shi(试)" and motivation of their lexicalization. Having similar meaning and the same syntactic function provided the possibility while the pursuit of phonological harmonization directly contributed to the lexicalization of the two. Along with the increase of lexicalization degree, "kaoshi(考 试)" had undergone some changes on meaning and argument-as-objects. The meaning of "kaoshi(考试)" is refined from "to inspect" to "to test knowledge and skill through written, oral examination". A corresponding change occurs on its argument-as-objects.In Chapter IV we tracked the function differentiation process of "kao(考)" and "kaoshi(考试)". We found that "kao(考)" and "kaoshi(考试)" have their own inherent advantages in predicative and non-predicative usage and over time this advantage is increasingly clear. The division of labor on reference and assertion of these two words are more and more detailed.In Chapter V we tried to seek the effects of disyllabification on differences of "kao(考)" and "kaoshi(考试)". Monosyllabic word "kao(考)" has inherent advantages on referential function to use as predication while disyllabic word "kaoshi(考试)" has one on asserting function to use as non-predication. The division of labor of two functions has becoming clearer and clearer since ancient times. We believed that the advantage on asserting of disyllabic verbs is related to "conceptual reification". Having clearer meaning and lower dependence made disyllabic verbs easier to be recognized as an entity. This explains why disyllabic verbs are often used to assert. In ancient Chinese this advantage has already emerged and along with the development of disyllabification the form of two-syllable has become a symbol of verb’s being used to assert. Monosyllabic verb "kao(考)" has completely lost its asserting property. However this loss has been compensated by the development of predication usage. The ability of being followed by a object, a compliment or both and its morphological function all had certain development. Meanwhile, disyllabification also contributed to the division of labor of the two words in semantic, syntactic features and pragmatics color. "kao(考)" and "kaoshi(考试)" each has their own unique pragmatic value.The final chapter is the conclusion of this article. We summarized the differences of monosyllabic word "kao(考)" and disyllabic word "kaoshi(考试)" in modern Chinese and traced the functional differentiation process diachronically. Based on this we discussed the effects of disyllabification on these differences and changes. At last, we point out the existence of deficiencies of this paper and our hope for future efforts.