crepancies between them and explore causes behind. Thirdly,this research conducts a corpus-based study mainly focusing on inconsistent treatmentof “X 化” disyllabic lexemes between GDCFC and CCD6 and figure out scientificlabeling information based on the Theory of Two-level Word Class Categorization.
.........
Chapter Two Literature Review
2.1 Previous Studies on Word Class
Word classes are the foundation of grammar study, thus, to achieve a thoroughstudy of grammatical rules, the issue of word classes can never be neglected. Beck(2002) holds that word classes remains to be a critical part in most, if not all, syntactictheories. Word classes are an significant ingrediant in lexicology and lexical semantics.The earliest conception of word classes can be traced back to as early as in thefourth century B.C., pilosophers and grammarians in ancient Greek and Roman debatedon the issue of word classes. At first, Plato divided sentence into two parts, that is,ancient Greek words “onoma” and “rhēma” . And this conception is similar to the term“Theme” and “Rheme” in Functional linguistics, as well as the construction“ S→NP+VP ” of initial rule in Generetic linguistics. Later, his students Aristotlefurther developed this division method. Formal distinction of nouns and verbs owed tothe Stoics grammarians, who later on divided pronouns and articles from noun. Untillthe first century B.C., to meet the demands of teaching Greek as a foreign language,Dionysius Thrax confirmed eight word classes in his Tékhnē grammatiké and they arenouns, verbs, participles, articles, pronouns, prepositions, adverbs and conjunctions.Because of similarities on morphology and syntax with Greek, Latin naturally inheritedthe word class system of Greek. Thereby, Latin’s word classes system, as the grammarfoundation of European Languages, has been upheld until the late 19thcentury.
..........
2.2 Previous Studies on Multifunctionality
Among analytic languages such as Chinese, English, Vietnamese,multifunctionality of type words has long been a throny and hot issue in academia.There are various different terms for and conflicting opinions on multifunctionalityamong linguists (Biber, et al. , 1999; Bloomfield, 1933; Croft, 2001; Jespersen, 1924;Quirk, et al. , 1985; Rijkhoff & Van Lier, 2013; Guo Rui, 2002; Hu Mingyang, 1996,2004; Lu Jianming, 1994, 2003; Lǚ Shuxiang, 1979; Wang Renqiang, 2006, 2010, 2013,2014; Yuan Yulin, 2010 ) . Multifunctionality, as one of the important parts of wordclass categorization, is the most controversial and hard-to-crack issue for grammaticalresearch and lexicology.As research object of morphology, lexicology and syntax, multifunctionality istreated differently from linguists to linguists. Thus, it is of great significance to probeinto the definition of multifunctionality. Lefebvre (2001, p. 109) takes it as the propertyof a certain given lexeme manifesting functions and features of more than one wordclass. Enfield (2006, p. 297) defined multifunctionality from the perspective ofpolysemy, by claiming that if a morpheme is polysemous, it has more than one meaning.And it has significantly semantic overlap between meanings. Jackson (1988, p. 232)holds that to some extent, whether we should treat multifunctionality in analyticlanguages as homograph or multiple class membership is not just a theoretical linguisticproblem, but a matter of practical application, in that different types of dictionariesemploys different design features according to different customers. Lu Jianming (2003,pp. 53-59) thinks we can give different definitions on multifunctionality on the basis ofdifferent demands. He presents three ways of processing multifunctionality. Firstly,from ontological perspective, it is a type word which has two word classes that can beregarded as multifunctionality, o
