Earticle

The controversy whether the expression “weixiao de shuo (say with a smile)” is a kind of misapplication elicits another issue about the collocation of Chinese disyllable verbs with the particle “地” used as adverbials. It is generally accepted that “psycho-verbs” and some “behavioral verbs” can be combined with the particle “地” to function as adverbials. So the author starts from analyzing such class of verbs combining “地” to become adverbials. The author suggests that the semantic feature of the collocation of “V1地V2” is that semantically V2 must entail V1, in which V2 are verbs expressing “say”, or “look at” or other body actions. The findings suggest that verbs such as “smile”, “acclaim” and “crawl” can exist only in the form of action, but they cannot express the meaning of latency. Thus, the application of “V1地V2” of these verbs can be taken as “ill collocation”. Besides psycho-verbs and behavioral verbs, there are other verbs which can be combined with “地” to act as adverbials. It is observed that the occurrence of the construction “V1地V2” construed by those verbs is rather low in general. By the contrast, the construction “V1V2” with a drop of the particle “地” or the construction “V1着V2” with “着” substituting “地” occur quite frequently. The conclusion is that users tend to abandon the high-frequency “V1V2” and “V1着V2” constructions and instead insert compulsively a particle “地” to form the construction “V1地V2” just because they are deeply influenced by the fact the unique grammatical function of the particle “地” is to “mark the constituents preceding it the status of adverbial”, in other words, the use of “地” is to “protrude V1 as adverbial”. However, it is far from neglected that the insertion of “地” inevitably results in “awkwardness of language sense”. Whether the collocation of “V1地V2” of some verbs is appropriate or not is verb-specific. We should first take into consideration whether the combination of a specific verb with “地” conforms the internal semantic relation of “V1V2” or “V1着V2”. We should also consider the general habits of acceptance. This needs further observation and analysis. In order to ensure the standardization of a language and its healthy development, the author claims that the random insertion of the particle “地” should be avoided, given the construction “V1V2” or “V1着V2” has sufficient and perfect semantic projection.

This study examines three degree complement structures in modern Chinese: “~得不行” (de bu xing), “~得要命” (de yao ming), and “~死了” (si le). By employing a corpus-based analysis, it systematically investigates their collocative phrases in terms of quantity, frequency, and semantic characteristics. Analysis of 241 instances of “~得不行,” 377 instances of “~得要命,” and 485 instances of “~死了” reveals their distribution patterns and functional differences across four semantic domains: physical sensations, emotional expressions, appearance and state descriptions, and quantity and degree evaluations. The study finds significant differences in frequency and semantic intensity among the three structures. “~死了” exhibits the highest frequency, widely used for extreme expressions of both positive and negative emotions, with the strongest semantic intensity. “~得要命” ranks second in frequency, emphasizing the depth of subjective feelings and emotional fluctuations, with moderately high semantic intensity. “~得不行” is the least frequent, primarily used for casual and everyday emotional or descriptive contexts, with the weakest semantic intensity. These structures demonstrate a hierarchical progression in degree expression, ranging from the mild descriptions of “~得不行” to the intensified expressions of “~得要命,” and ultimately to the extreme exaggerations of “~死 了,” reflecting the nuanced layers of emotional expression in Chinese. This study highlights the regularity and hierarchical semantic intensity of “~得不行,” “~得要命,” and “~死了” in modern Chinese degree expressions. It provides a novel perspective for Chinese grammar studies and offers practical insights for teaching Chinese as a foreign language.

This study explores the semantic differences among three Korean causal expressions: ‘-neun barame' (-는 바람에), ‘-neun tonge' (-는 통에), and ‘-neun tase' (-는 탓에). Using the written language corpus from the National Institute of the Korean Language, it conducts a foundational Collexeme Analysis to examine usage patterns of Distinctive Collexeme Analysis for each construction. By doing so, the study aims to address limitations posed by excessive reliance on the researcher's subjective judgment and move beyond simple frequency-based analysis, thus clarifying semantic characteristics and contextual distinctions among these similar constructions through a more objective and systematic approach. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of these constructions and provide valuable foundational data for advancing research in Korean language education.