I. Research Objects and Research Objectives The object of study in this book is modern Chinese adjectives and "shape-name adhesive structures". "Shape" refers to adjectives, including generally known nature adjectives, state adjectives, non-predicate adjectives (distinguishing words), etc., such as "large, small, broad, state-run, intermediate", etc. "Adverb + adjective" is regarded as a type of state adjective in Zhu Dexi's "Study of Adjectives in Modern Chinese" (1956), and this book treats it as a phrase because "adverb + adjective" directly modifies the noun with theoretical significance. "Name" refers to nouns, including general nouns, collective nouns, material nouns, abstract nouns, etc., as well as denotative predicates, and sometimes partial noun phrases such as "table, class, water, thought, battle, treasure trove of cave art", etc. Each type of noun can be modified by an adjective, but the ability to be modified by an adjective varies considerably. "Shape name adhesive structure" refers to noun phrases formed by adjectives and nouns without "of", such as "small table", "hot scene", "gentle route", etc. Zhu Dexi (1956) proposed to divide the combination of adjectives and nouns into three types: "A 1 form", "A 2 form" and "B form", where "A 1 form" refers to the nature adjective without "the" and nouns forming noun phrases. Later, Zhu Dexi (1982:148-149) divided the noun partial structure into two types: "combination" and "adhesive", in which the adhesive combination of adjectives and nouns is roughly equivalent to the aforementioned "A1 type". In Mr. Zhu's definition of "adhesive", in addition to the combination of form names without "of", there is also a condition that adjectives in adhesive are limited to nature adjectives and non-predicate adjectives (distinguishing words). We use a looser definition here, as long as the adjective and noun combination form a noun phrase, it belongs to the "form-name adhesive structure" discussed in this book, regardless of the type of adjective. Because adjectives and nouns are bonded combinations, although related to the category of adjectives, they are not necessarily related. This study mainly examines the combination of an adjective and a noun, and considers the combination of multiple adjectives or complex adjectives and nouns when necessary, such as "big long ears", "lean little old man", "small village official", "great good news" and so on. Generally, only the bonded name structure is considered, and some combined name structures are also involved in the comparison. In order to compare or explain similar phenomena, this study sometimes involves some "noun + noun" and "verb + noun" structures. There is actually no clear boundary between word formation and syntax, especially in a language like Chinese that is "clear morpheme, unclear words". Mr. Shen Jiaxuan said at the academic lecture on the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the Institute of Linguistics of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (2010): "Over the past century, starting from the Ma Shi Wentong, there have been many achievements in exploring the characteristics of their own Chinese, such as Zhu Dexi, Lu Zhiwei, etc., such as Lu Zhiwei said that 'the word formation of Chinese is not so much a form, but a syntax', and now in the new foreign theory, such as Chomsky's collaborators in the generative grammar school proposed to cancel the form, merge with syntax, the form of words is syntax. "Whether in synchronic or diachronic perspective, the boundary between Chinese compound words and phrases is very blurred. Moreover, the shape-name adhesive structure is originally considered to be quite "solidified" by domestic scholars, and some scholars (especially foreign scholars) believe that the shape-name adhesive structure is a "compound word" because they cannot be expanded. Considering this situation, the "shape-name glue structure" mentioned in this book may also include some "shape + name" words, and sometimes there is no clear distinction between lexical structure and syntactic structure. When discussing the principle of composition and semantic relations, it is possible to also use the word "shape + name" as comparative or supporting material. The "shape-name bonding structure" discussed in this book is in principle limited to modern Mandarin Chinese, and generally does not cover the situation of ancient Chinese and dialects except for comparison and corroboration. There has been little research on adjectives and noun combinations in Old Chinese and Chinese dialects, and we have collected some literature and corpus in the course of this study, which will be studied separately. The research objectives of this book are mainly four: a. The status and characteristics of modern Chinese adjectives. b. The nature and function of modern Chinese form name bonding structure from a cross-lingual perspective. c. Composition law of modern Chinese form name adhesive structure based on real corpus. d. Semantic expression of modern Chinese form name glue structure. If the corpus problem does not consider the difference in frequency and acceptability between a single combination and a single combination, nor does it consider the various syntactic, semantic and discourse differences of the combination and cognitive motivations, and only considers the actual situation of the combination, then the set of possible combinations of adjectives and nouns in modern Chinese is a Cartesian product (symbolized as: A×B = {(a,b)—a∈A and b∈B}), which consists of all ordered pairs (a, b). , where a ∈ adjective and b ∈ noun. For example, if the adjective set A= {big, red, excellent}, and the noun set B= {man, apple, traditional}, then A×B= {(big, person), (big, apple), (large, traditional), (red, people), (red, apple), (red, traditional), (good, human), (excellent, apple), (good, traditional)}, a total of 9 theoretically possible combinations. If according to this algorithm, assuming that there are 2,000 adjectives and 5,000 nouns, the Cartesian product that constitutes the structure of the form name is 10 million, and if you consider proper nouns, noun phrases, and multiple adjectives modifying the noun component, then the possibility of combination is a huge number that causes headaches. In order to understand the actual rules of adjective and noun combinations in modern Chinese, it is necessary to identify and classify these possible combinations one by one, and successively use the method of seeking differences and seeking similarities to find out the laws that restrict the combination. If only the binary combination of an adjective and a noun is considered, then we must also distinguish at least some of the following cases among the tens of millions of possible combinations in this theory: a. Some adjectives and certain nouns cannot be combined in general. Such as "red, traditional". Some adjectives can sometimes be combined with certain nouns, but only in combination. Such as "excellent, people". c. Some adjectives can be combined with certain nouns, but only in an adhesive way. Such as "red, people". d. Some adjectives can be combined with certain nouns, either in an adhesive or combined manner. Such as "excellent, traditional". e. Some adjectives and certain nouns cannot be combined in general, but they can be combined with the help of certain special syntactic formats or contexts. For example, "(This is a great tradition of the Han people)". ...... To study the shape name bonding structure of modern Chinese, some people may think that it is enough to investigate the specific combinations of the above three categories of c, d, and e, and even the combination in class d should not be considered. This really only considers two categories: those that can form a name-name adhesive structure and those that can't. We believe that this is very insufficient, because the composition of the shape name adhesive structure belongs to a systematic structure, and the affirmative combination and conditions (the types and conditions that can constitute the shape name bonding), the negative combination and conditions (the types and conditions that cannot constitute the shape name adhesive structure), the correlation combination and conditions (the types and conditions that constitute the shape name combination structure that are most related to the shape name adhesive structure) are all necessary in the systematic investigation, we must not only examine the "what" and what characteristics the shape name adhesive combination is; It is also necessary to examine what the shape name adhesive combination does not have, and what characteristics it does not have; It is also necessary to examine which combinations are "most similar" and how they relate to each other. Therefore, we must summarize the various combination categories identified as much as possible through a large number of repeated tests, and finally comprehensively and systematically explore the law of shape name bonding combination. This very rational approach may seem very scientific, but language is not mathematics and logic after all, it is a "complex system". In the above classification method, there are still a variety of situations that are difficult to handle: a. The boundary between words and phrases is difficult to distinguish, such as "red person" and "adult" can be regarded as a word, or they can be regarded as a phrase (there is a difference in meaning when looking at words and looking at phrases, among which "red people" need special context when looking at phrases). b. A word may have multiple meanings, and the composition ability and performance of different meanings are different, and their contextual dependence is also different. For example, "old" can be combined and glued in the sense of "old", such as "old painter" and "old painter"; However, in the sense of "long relationship duration", it is generally only suitable for glue, such as "old classmates, old friends" can not be said to be "old classmates, old friends". c. A combination may have multiple functions, and different functional states limit the ability and type of combination, such as the so-called analogy of centrifugal structures "high speed, long distance", etc. d. Personal sense of language and conception of specific composition context may be very different, such as "gentle woman" may not be valid in some people. e. The most critical point is that the frequency, acceptability, and markability of different adjectives and different nouns are different, and does a one-size-fits-all ignore the difference? ...... Although there are these difficult problems to solve, we use relatively simple "can" or "no" to judge and categorize, at least at this stage, we can still draw some rules. Therefore, the judgment of the ability of certain adjectives and nouns to form adhesive structures in this study inevitably tends to be simplistic, and we will try to make up for this deficiency in other related discussions. In order to avoid obvious errors caused by a single method, our determination of the ability to combine specific adjectives and nouns relies on the combination of intuitive judgment and retrieval and collection of actual corpus verification as a language researcher. Using an introspective method based on language intuition to judge the possibility of combination is very effective in typical and commonly used combination situations, but it is more troublesome to analyze some marginal situations, and problems such as "Yu Youren's beard" often appear: Once, a child touched Yu Youren's long beard and asked curiously: "Grandpa Yu, when you sleep at night, is this long beard placed in or outside the quilt?" At that time, Yu Youren couldn't answer. He went to bed at night, whether he put his beard in or outside the quilt, he felt very uncomfortable, and he couldn't sleep all night about this problem. (Wei Tixiang, "The Heart of the Lamp, the Wisdom of the Lamp: The Great Wisdom and the Truth of Simple Life in Small Stories", Beijing: China United Press of Industry and Commerce 2001: 153) Most people's understanding of language is generally unobserved. Mr. Lu Shuxiang ([1980] 2006:5) also said: "Language, that is to say, seems to be an extremely ordinary thing. But if you think about it, it's a great deal. It is precisely because talking is as common as eating and walking that people do not think about what it is all about. "A lot of our language research will also encounter the situation of Yu Youren's beard, we want to explore the language, we want to understand the linguistic phenomena that we are accustomed to without noticing, the actual result may be that we have doubts about the original condition of the language we are familiar with, various theories, various situations, various changes, various interpretations... Let us doubt the value or assumptions about certain laws of language, until we feel decadence or even a breakdown of confidence in the study of language itself. When it comes to the topic of shape name bonding structure, we may have to ask others, or we may have to ask ourselves: Can a certain adjective be combined with a certain or certain noun? Are adjectives bonded or combined with nouns? What is the difference between the bonded and combined form name structure? ...... The person being asked, or ourselves, will hesitate, self-justify, or even go against the intuition of certain answers. In our daily language use, it may be like Yu Youren's beard, and we don't care at all, but if we really want to study everything clearly, think, compare, and consider it repeatedly, in the end, we may not even know whether this is really the case. Introspective linguistic material tends to appear as a result of the right beard, which can be a major obstacle to our language research. A passage from Xiao Guozheng (2001:11) expresses this confusion: "Many people who have some experience in grammar research may have such experience: some sayings, at first, feel that they cannot say, but they study and study, and slowly feel that they can say." You say it's deliberately manufactured, but you can't say it, it's not deliberately manufactured, it doesn't look common, or it's not at all. His explanation is twofold: First, as the research deepens, the degree of rejection of heterogeneous constructs by language researchers may decrease, he said: "Researchers began to make sentences using the same language coding and original grammar system of language identification as everyone, but in the process of research, due to the slow flushing of the flow of the same phenomenon, the repulsive vigilance of language weakened and compromised, and finally some unacceptable sentences entered the legal channel and were accepted." "The introspective corpus for such reasons may be wrong. Second, the ability of researchers to supplement the context in which the sentence is established is stronger than that of ordinary people. He said: "The context in which some sentences are established is relatively wide, while the establishment of other sentences has stricter requirements for context, and the establishment of distant context sentences with stricter requirements, the foreshadowing of its context, is difficult for the language receiver to supplement at once, and long-term research on this phenomenon can improve the level of contextual supplementation and the speed of supplementation of specific distant context sentences, so that the so-called unqualified sentences that start to break can be made at this time... Receive a legal certificate. "The introspective corpus for this reason is acceptable, but there will be a sense of strangeness. The corpus collected by language researchers through introspection tends to decrease in reliability as they think and study deepen. If the theory of accommodation is also involved, then there will be more problems, which may be the reason why some scholars in China are puzzled and dissatisfied with some strange introspection-based linguistic examples of some papers of the formalist school. Introspective material may not be reliable, so is statistics and collected material? The collected written corpus and oral corpus will also be "learned or misused" due to individual differences in speakers, differences in context, and even speech speed, omission, mistakes, etc. Moreover, structuralist inductive methods have long been refuted by transformational generative grammarists: first, structuralist inductive methods cannot describe language completely; Second, the discovery procedure is unidirectional; Third, structuralist inductive research is essentially nothing more than enumerating observed linguistic facts and then classifying them, and the result of the study is only a part of the class grammar (Xu Liejiong, 1988). Of course, statistics and introspective judgments of frequency of use can compensate for this deficiency to some extent. The combination of the two may improve the universality and scientificity of the conclusions, and the "introspection-verification" or "internal and external evidence" (Xiao Guozheng, 2001: 6, 11) is a very reliable corpus collection and processing method. Our treatment of the corpus is basically a model of "introspective judgment + real corpus verification". The specific methods are: (1) Manually collect a large number of corpus, which are quite representative and typical after our selection, which can be used as a concrete example of the thesis, and as the basis for proposing the hypothesis of morphological structure classification and assembly law in the early stage. (2) According to the description and examples after each adjective entry in the Adjective Usage Dictionary (edited by Zheng Huaide and Meng Qinghai, 2003), the adjective formation structure is preliminarily determined. (3) We judge the possibility of adjectives and nouns forming a bonding structure based on our introspection based on the sense of Mandarin discourse and the sense of language of others, and further modify the judgment and statistics of the possible combination. (4) Using the massive linguistic information of the Internet, the adjectives in the "Adjective Usage Dictionary" were searched one by one through the Internet search engine, and the first 20-50 examples of the adjective and various noun combinations were extracted. (5) Using relatively mature corpus (such as the CCL balanced corpus of the Center for Chinese Chinese Linguistics of Peking University and the "Audio Media Language Text Corpus Retrieval System" of Communication University of China) to retrieve the combination of commonly used adjectives and nouns. Five ways to collect, process, and verify the corpus, which can avoid obvious errors in the corpus and conclusions to some extent. In addition, our investigation cannot be exhaustive, because it is unrealistic for us to discern all possible combinations, at least in terms of time and effort. Since many possible combinations of expressions have the characteristics of "class", our innate ability to think by analogy can allow us to grasp the laws more quickly and generally. Therefore, our approach is similar to some models of computer natural language processing: preprocessing of some data - generalization of laws - application promotion (effect measurement). In short, on the issue of using corpus, we use carefully selected representative corpus and our linguistic intuition to summarize the rules and types of various adjectives and noun combinations, and then conduct a large-scale verification of the real corpus, and finally put forward our own opinion. Three research ideas Liu Danqing (2003:21-29) uses three pronunciation close English words test (test), text (discourse), attest (verification) to summarize the characteristics of the three paradigms of contemporary linguistics formalism, functionalism and language typology, in which "test" refers to the introspection of native speakers to explain the structural law of language, generally does not consider the language components that are not directly related, introspection is the main research method used by formalist schools. This approach is also often used by some structuralist linguists; "Discourse" refers to summarizing linguistic laws according to the actual usage in the real corpus (discourse), often using statistical quantification to determine the tendency law, and paying attention to the relationship between grammatical units and context, which is a research method often adopted by functional schools; "Verification" is the main research method adopted by contemporary language typology, which selects some traditional parameters and proves based on cross-lingual evidence, investigates the distribution and performance of a certain syntactic structure in different languages/dialects, verifies the limits of human language variation, and discovers the commonality of language. Each of the three paradigms has its own advantages, and this study aims to absorb their advantages as much as possible. The basic research ideas of this book are: (1) to investigate the nature, function and research significance of modern Chinese form name adhesive structure from a cross-language perspective, the adjective problem has attracted much attention in contemporary language typology, we occupy the relevant research results of typology as much as possible, explore the adjective problem of Chinese from a cross-language perspective, and finally determine the significance of modern Chinese form name adhesive structure in language typologies, and use cross-language evidence to prove the nature of modern Chinese form name adhesive structure. The composition law and semantic characteristics of the shape-name adhesive structure are explained. In contemporary linguistic typology, the relevant syntactic properties of adjectives are a major object of concern. First, contemporary linguistic typology has been very concerned with adjectives since its inception. In Greenberg's classic paper [1963] 1966), among the 45 commonalities listed, there are 10 items such as commonalities 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 31, 40 (original serial number), mainly word order, accounting for 22%, which shows that the word order of adjectives and nouns still occupies a lot of weight in Greenberg's mind. Greenberg (1963]1966) regarded the position of qualifying adjectives and associated nouns as the "basis of the third classification" in word order type studies in addition to subject and object. But they have different word order representations. Although later research results have proved that the word order of adjectives and nouns is not as related to the word order of verbs and objects as the word order of verbs, objects, etc., like the word order of determiners, articles, numerals, quantifiers (such as some, all), etc., which may also serve as the core of nouns, adjectives and noun order still play an important role in multiple implications. Second, in a large number of linguistic typology research results, there are many linguistic commonalities about adjectives. We searched the Konstanz University Universals Archive on December 9, 2009, 2679756 included almost all contemporary typological research, and found a total of 127 commonalities related to "adjectives" in this archive, covering the part-of-speech nature, category, syntactic function of adjectives, etc. This library of commonalities not only lists commonalities, but also provides a brief description of the development of commonality research (such as counterexamples). Thirdly, the part-of-speech status of adjectives and cross-language recognition are the research hotspots of language types. In the past two decades, the problem of parts of speech in human language has attracted a lot of attention, such as the "Amsterdam model" of Hengeveld and Rijkhoff on cross-language word class determination, Croft's "typology typical", Dixon's "core semantic type-main syntactic function-main word class" pairing model, etc. Various theories first need to face and solve the cross-language complexity of adjectives, most of the differences of views are in the determination of adjectives, adjective issues have become a hot spot in linguistic typology disputes, some views are even-for-tat, individual scholars will have completely different views on the adjective problem of a specific language at different times. Adjective parts of speech have become the touchstone for testing the theory of typology. Subsequent research will show that when adjectives and nouns in modern Chinese form noun phrases, the distinction between combination and glue is partially functional consistency with other languages' distinguishing means such as marked and unmarked determiners, prepositional definite and postpositional determiner, conjuxative determiner and modifier, adjective determiner and adjective predicate, and the formal difference between adhesive and combined can be used to distinguish the difference in form, semantics, syntax and pragmatic expression between adjectives and noun combinations. Such as the difference in the semantic category of adjectives (such as the difference in nature, state, etc.), the difference in the external form of the adjective (such as the difference in syllables, structural complexity, component composition, etc.), the difference in the semantic category of nouns (such as the difference between concrete nouns, abstract nouns, proper nouns, etc.), the semantic relationship of adjectives modifying nouns (such as the difference between restrictive, non-restrictive, connotative and other determiners), the information characteristics of the structure of the form name (such as the known and unknown differences between the properties of the adjective), The syntactic environment in which the shape name structure as a whole (such as the entire form name structure acts as a distinction between determiner, adverb, object, predicate, subject, etc.), the pragmatic function of the form name structure (such as the difference between the entire form name structure to represent titles, representation attributes and representation classifications, etc.), the frequency of the form name structure assembly (such as common combinations, occasional combinations, etc.), the functional types of sentences in which the shape name adhesive structure is located (such as the difference between statements, imperatives, exclamations, questions, etc.), and so on. Adjectives and noun combinations are two relatively independent functional means, and the use of adjectives or combinations is the result of selection according to the needs of form, semantics and expression, and has the same value as the functional differences of different syntactic forms of adjectives in other languages. It can be further abstracted that "direct glue" and "use functional word combination" are two different syntactic means, which can also be selected in other structures such as "noun + noun", "verb + noun", and "adverb + center" due to functional differences. (2) Pay attention to the combination of real corpus and introspective judgment, and investigate the conditions and types of adjectives and nouns forming adhesive structures in the context of small sentences, and most of the previous studies on the conditions for adjectives and nouns to form adhesive structures have mostly focused on two major aspects: (1) the category of adjectives themselves, such as monosyllabic adjectives are more likely to form adhesive form name structures, state adjectives and adjective phrases are more likely to form combined form name structures, etc. (2) The semantic relationship between adjectives and nouns, it is generally believed that adjectives and nouns will form an adhesive structure only when the attributes represented by adjectives are the "essential properties" of things represented by nouns and are customarily used as categorical features. This type of research generally only needs to consider two components (i.e., adjectives and nouns) and the relationship between the two, and the use cases studied are mostly in the form of phrases. Examples of adjectives and nouns forming bonded structures, such as Modern Chinese Dictionary and Adjective Usage Dictionary, are also mostly phrases, and generally do not involve other syntactic components and discourse environments other than formal name phrases. The advantage of this tendency to static analysis is obvious, we follow the "Occam's razor" principle of "do not add entities if necessary", when analyzing the composition law of the shape-name adhesive structure, if it can be solved between the two components of adjective and noun, try not to involve other relevant factors. Using the two components of adjectives and nouns to investigate the composition law of the form-name adhesive structure, we mainly proceed from the following aspects: (1) The influence of the subclass of adjectives on the composition. (2) The effect of the subclass of the noun on the composition. (3) The effect of the number of syllables of adjectives and nouns on composition. (4) The influence of cognitive semantics on composition. For the fourth aspect, we will make a key investigation, recognize the rationality of some scholars to deal with the problem of shape-name bonding from the perspectives of idealized cognitive mode and conceptual distance, and further extend and exert it. In addition, special emphasis is placed on the opposite of the principle of iconicity: the economics of cognitive processing will also treat those "attribute-subject" relationships with long conceptual distance and complex semantics as shape-name gluing structures, and there are a large number of markup reversals between conceptual distance and shape-name structure, conceptual complexity and shape-name structure. This is also one of the highlights that sets this study apart from other studies. Static analysis methods only consider adjectives and nouns, and other non-directly related components are generally not considered, and then determine whether they can be combined by analyzing the formal and semantic characteristics of adjectives and nouns and the semantic relationship between the two. This is a zero-breaking research method, first dismantling the form-name combination from the relevant context, and then dismantling the form-name structure into two components, adjective and noun, and then analyzing these two components and their relationships, and concluding that this conclusion is generalized to the similar complete context in which they were originally disassembled. This zeroing research method is a relatively mature scientific research method, but it has long been criticized by some scholars. For example, the famous American futurist Alvin Toffler wrote in the foreword "Science and Change" for Prigogin (Nobel Prize winner) and Stanger's book "From Chaos to Order": One of the most developed techniques in contemporary Western civilization is to break the zero, that is, to break down the problem into the smallest possible parts. We are so good at this that we often forget to put the details back together. This technique is perhaps the most well-honed in science. In science, not only are we accustomed to dividing problems into many details, we often use a useful technique to isolate each of these details from its surroundings. This technique is what we often call certeris paribus, which means "all else is the same". In this way, the complex interaction between our problems and the rest of the universe can be ignored. (Prigogine & Stengers, 1987: 5) But in psychology, theories and methods that focus on "holistic" research have been popular since the early 20th century. Such as "Gestalt" psychology, founded and developed by Wolfgang Kohler, Kurt Koffka, Kurt Lewin and other European psychologists who immigrated to the United States in the 2030s. One of the most important ideas of Gestalt psychology is that people's perception of the environment and events is not composed of many independent components, but a "dynamic whole." (Taylor, Peplau & Sears, 2004) Obviously, the advantages of the "zeroing" method are obvious and highly operable, but its conclusions may avoid many facts that should be considered. Kant said: "Do not rashly reduce the diversity of entities", if the investigation of the adjective and noun combination law only uses the zero method and only relies on introspective static materials, it will inevitably ignore the complex diversity of the shape name bonding composition, and inevitably ignore the important role of other components related in the small sentence, the overall function of the structure, the relevant context, etc. in the composition of the shape name adhesive structure. Adjectives and nouns form an adhesive structure, which often cannot be "set to be the same in other situations", and paying attention to the actual performance of the structure as a whole in related sentences and contexts is the only way to explore its construction law and semantic expression. The advantages of static analysis methods are obvious, easy to grasp, and the rules are relatively obvious. However, it is not enough to analyze the law of shape name bonding assembly in this way. Adjectives and nouns that can be composed of static can form name adhesive combination, and can generally be combined in a certain syntactic environment, but some static can not constitute adjectives and nouns of form name adhesive combination, and can also form adhesive combination in a specific syntactic environment. Shen Jiaxuan (1999:290) pointed out that some combinations of shapes and names generally use the combination in static combinations, but after entering the sentence, you can not add "of", such as "generous manners", and generally add "of" when saying it alone, but you can not add it in "her generous behavior at the cocktail party is impressive". Zhao Yuanren ([1968][1979]2001:304) also believes that the unspeakable "heavy box" and other name-like adhesive structures listed in Zhu Dexi's "Study of Modern Chinese Adjectives" (1956) can be said in dialogue, dubs, and other marked occasions. It is the context of the small sentence that leads to the implementation of glue combination. Sapir divides language into three categories: "analytical", "synthetic" and "multi-synthetic" according to the performance of syntactic devices in language. Among them, Chinese is regarded by him as a typical example of analytical language, which he believes is "in the language of analysis; Sentences are always primary, while words are secondary" (Edward Sapir, [1921] 2007: 114). It is inevitable to examine the grammar rules of Chinese in combination with sentences, and it is very appropriate and necessary to use small sentences as an operating platform for Chinese grammar research. Small sentences are the smallest expressive and independent grammatical units (Xing Fuyi, 1996: 13-15). Small sentences have internal structural components and component relationships, semantic relationships, stylistic characteristics, functional characteristics, frequency characteristics, a larger discourse environment (compound sentences, sentence groups, discourses, chapters, etc.), with small sentences as the entry point (standard) for grammar research, can concentrate as many factors that affect the grammatical structure as much as possible, can find some previously difficult to find grammatical rules, can explain some previously difficult to explain phenomena. Because small sentences are small sentences in a specific context, to a certain extent, the grammatical analysis of "small sentences" can be regarded as an analysis based on the real corpus. There are many influences of sentence context on the composition of the shape name adhesive structure, such as syntactic position, number of components, markability, sentence function (question, imperative, statement, exclamation), affirmation and negation, context context, language style, frequency, etc., which will affect the actual composition of the shape name adhesive structure. In this study, the conditions for adjectives and nouns to form an adhesive structure are analyzed from a static perspective, and then on the basis of a large number of example sentences containing morphonomic structures accumulated by us through manual collection, corpus retrieval, web search, etc., the actual situation and constraints of adjectives and nouns forming an adhesive combination are analyzed in combination with the context of the clause environment, and the results of static analysis are expanded, and the context in which the form-name adhesive structure appears, especially the regulating effect of small sentences. And combine the results of static analysis with the results of dynamic analysis of sentences, and try to use a unified pattern to explain. (3) Combined with some views and methods of structural semantics and cognitive semantics, the semantic expression of the shape name adhesive structure is interpreted in sentence control From the research literature on adjective semantics at home and abroad (especially the interpretation of various dictionaries), the semantics of adjectives are quite different from the semantics of nouns and verbs, and their specific semantic interpretations often change with the context. Moreover, the structure of the shape-name bonding structure is compact, and compared with the combined name-based structure, the semantic index is high, and the semantic relationship types of adjectives and nouns are complex. Although the specific semantic interpretation of adjectives has some default values, it often allows other interpretations and changes, depending on the specific context: on the one hand, when specific adjectives and different nouns are combined, the semantics will have different interpretations, such as "good mobile phone, good cook, good teacher", the specific semantic connotation of "good" is very different. On the other hand, the semantics of specific adjectives and specific noun combinations will also change depending on the context, such as "small boss" allows for many interpretations. However, just as adjectives and nouns can be combined regularly, so is the semantic interpretation after combination: first, adjectives and nouns will automatically seek "adaptable" interpretations based on idealized cognitive patterns; Second, context strengthens or suppresses the default semantic interpretation. Therefore, for the convenience of operation, we mainly use small sentences as the context to analyze the semantics of the shape-name glue structure. And adhere to a principle: if the semantics of the shape name glue structure can be interpreted at the phrase level, it will not be interpreted at the clause level. The semantic interpretation, analysis and synthesis of the shape-name adhesive structure should be combined (Shen Jiaxuan, 2005a). Some structures can be simply thought of as "the whole is equal to the sum of the parts", and the semantics of the entire structure are equal to the adjective semantics and noun semantics are formed according to a simple "attribute + subject" relationship, such as "small table". The semantic interpretation of this structure can be adapted to the methods of structural semantics, which can be used to analyze the methods. But more shape name adhesive structure semantics is "the whole is greater than the sum of parts", the semantics of the entire structure will be greater than the semantics of adjectives and nouns, is "attribute + X + subject" style, X represents the key semantic factors that connect attributes and subjects, such as "hot cup lid", which refers to "the lid of the cup used to hold hot drinks". Therefore, the semantic analysis of such name structure requires the help of some theories and methods of cognitive linguistics, and requires the use of comprehensive methods. Shen Jiaxuan (2005a) argues: "The study of language, analysis and synthesis are indispensable. "When we analyze the semantics of shape-name adhesive structures, the use of analytical methods and synthesis methods depends on the needs. The relevant achievements of structural semantics and cognitive semantics provide many valuable theoretical frameworks and analysis examples for the semantic analysis of shape-name bonded structures, such as semantic field theory, physical structure theory, psychospatial theory, etc., which we will absorb as much as possible in our research. Because we adopt a "pragmatic" attitude, we do not explore too much into the multiple theories themselves, and we will ignore the conflicts between multiple theories in the specific analysis. Our semantic analysis of the structure of form name bonding mainly focuses on four aspects: (1) the semantic function types of adjectives, such as restrictive, non-restrictive, connotative, isotopic and other categories, especially the various subtypes of non-restrictive adjective determiners. (2) The specific semantic interpretation of adjectives and the construction of interpretation patterns. (3) According to the principle of "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts", the semantic characteristics and types of the entire shape-name adhesive structure are analyzed. (4) Theoretical consideration of the semantic characteristics of adjectives, adhesive structures, and form-name adhesive structures by comparing similar or related words, parts of speech, phrases, etc. (4) Combining general research and specific case studies, rational division of labor, each with its own emphasis, multi-angle and multi-level exploration of the composition law and semantic characteristics of shape-name adhesive structures In general research, we focus on solving the following problems: First, according to the different abilities that make up the shape-name adhesive structure, adjectives are divided into different classes, and the characteristics of each subclass are summarized. Second, combined with the real corpus, this paper analyzes many affirmative conditions affecting the composition of the shape name adhesive structure, and attempts to construct a judgment operation process model. Third, on the basis of static semantic analysis, various semantic relationship types and specific semantic connotations of shape-name bonding structures are analyzed. In the specific case study, we selected two representative free combination formats of "big/small + noun" and "front/original + personal noun" and two combination formats with a considerable degree of solidification of "number + large + noun" and "ordinal + adjective + noun" for in-depth discussion. General research mainly uses adjectives as variables, focusing on the analysis of how different types of adjectives affect the formation of adhesive structures and semantic expression. Specific case studies mainly use nouns as variables, focusing on the impact of different types of nouns on the formation of adhesive structures and semantic expression. Although in fact noun differences are also involved in general studies and adjective differences in specific case studies, we intend to make an appropriate division of labor in focus, which is only a tendency. (5) Tends to functionalist view of language, attaches importance to the influence of semantic factors on syntactic structure, and pursues the grammatical analysis of tendentious regularity functionalism has the following characteristics: (1) Break through the practice of only taking introspective sentence patterns as the research object in formal research, and pay more attention to the influence of various factors related to language behavior on discourse organization; (2) It breaks through the practice of focusing only on the similarities and differences of types in formal research, and pays more attention to the law of tendencies reflected by the number of examples; (3) Break through the practice of treating the object as a static finished product in formal research, and more as a dynamic process, and study the language cognitive strategies of both listening and speaking; (4) The practice of looking at sentences (or even just a structure) in isolation from formal grammar and attaching great importance to analysis in relation to context (Zhang Bojiang and Fang Mei, 1996: 1). This study focuses on the analysis of real corpus, the dynamic construction of shape-name bonding structures in small sentences, and the analysis of the semantics of the structure in relation to context, all of which tend to be functional. Structuralism and transformational generative grammar both hope to study the influence of semantics on syntactic structure, but in fact it is difficult to do so. In the most purely formal computer language information processing, semantic factors can not be completely abandoned, the famous artificial intelligence philosopher Boden ([1990] 2001: 8) argued: "Even the simplest programs are not purely formalistic, but have some fairly primitive semantic properties, so fundamentally speaking, computational theory is not inexplainable meaning." As long as the brain's ability to generate intentionality is clear and not completely counterintuitive, the information processing used for this understanding can also be applied to computers. "Computers can also simulate the intentional processing of the human brain, and they must do the same. Semantics that do not involve duration are derived from the intentional characteristics of the human brain, which is the focus of the scientific debate about "determinism" and "randomism". Because of intentionality, the world does not look like a giant automata, and we have come to realize that we live in a pluralistic world (Prigogine & Stengers, 1987: 26-27). Therefore, it is desirable to fully consider and rely on semantics and functionality in language analysis. Scientists have called for "attention to the surprisingly complex behavior lurking in some simple models" (James Glake, 1990: 4). René Thom (1989:396) argued: "If systematic behavior cannot be characterized by a simple law clearly stated, then first try to characterize this behavior qualitatively with the help of tendency." Precisely because the world is not a huge automata, not necessarily completely constrained by the "rules" behind it, and sometimes with a great deal of randomness, linguistic analysis based on intentionality is often incomplete, not what determinists think or hope: the ability to repeatedly apply rules, the ability to explicitly include or exclude certain linguistic elements, the ability to disassemble and combine, and so on. Even staunch proponents of determinism will have a clear affirmative understanding of the role of probability, and the laws of language are often just a "rough" probability problem. This probability tendency is because of the identity of people's use of linguistic means and the identity of expression intentionality, and this linguistic expression is a matter of probability rather than "uniformity", and it is also because of the selectivity of people's use of linguistic means and the selectivity of expression intentionality. Any scientific theory is incomplete, and so is the summary of linguistic theories and their laws. The famous German mathematician Gödel proposed and proved the "incompleteness" theorem as early as 1931, arguing that any axiom system without contradictions, as long as it contains statements of elementary arithmetic, must have an undecidable proposition, and this set of axioms cannot determine its truth or falsehood. The theorem originally developed in the field of mathematics, but its impact extended far beyond mathematics. The theorem not only revolutionized mathematics and logic, raising many challenging questions, but also involved philosophy, linguistics and computer science. 2679757 from the incompleteness theorem, almost all grammatical laws have loopholes. As a study that tends to functional linguistics and cognitive linguistics, the incompleteness of the conclusions may be more pronounced. Ma Zhen (2004) argues that functional grammar "can only provide a tendentious explanation, not strict rules or rules". Lakoff (1973) argues that "grammatical" and "ungrammatical" are simply a matter of degree. It is inevitable that a universal, absolute law of the bonding structure of form names cannot be found, but this is not a reason to stop exploring. Our research is dedicated to finding tendencies and probabilistic laws. IV. The basic structure of the study, in addition to the "Preface" part, the main part of the study consists of seven chapters. Chapter 1, Chinese adjectives and form names bonding structures; Chapter 2, the ability of adjectives to form form names to bond structures and their composition rules; Chapter 3, Nomenclature and Semantic Analysis of Form Name Bonding Structures; Chapter 4, Case Study I: "Big and Small + NP"; Chapter 5, Case Study II: "Former, Original + Referential Noun"; Chapter 6, Case Study III: "Number + Large + NP" Configuration; Chapter 7, Case Study IV: "Ordinal + Adjective" + Noun Structure. These seven chapters can be summarized into two main blocks: the first three chapters are an overall study of the gluing of Chinese adjectives and form names, focusing on the ability of different adjectives to form a form name adhesive structure; The last four chapters are case studies on form-name bonding structures, focusing on the selectivity and semantic expression of shape-name bonding structures formed by different nouns and specific adjectives. These two large pieces of content have a division of labor internally. In the first major piece of content: the first chapter is to look at the adjective and form name bonding structure of Chinese from the height of linguistic typologies, and accurately locate the adjective and form-name bonding structure of Chinese adjectives and form-name in the context of the commonality of adjectives and adjectives modifying noun structures in human language; The second and third chapters are based on the accurate understanding of the properties of Chinese form name adhesive structure, and the specific research on the ability, composition law and semantic pragmatic function of Chinese adjectives to form name adhesive structure. From this point of view, the first chapter and the second and third chapters are "total-score" or "general-specific" relationship. In the second block: chapters 4 and 5 focus on the free combination of specific adjectives and nouns, and select two common pairs of adjectives "large, small" and "first 2679758, original", which are quite representative of the situation in which these two pairs of adjectives form an adhesive structure; Chapters 6 and 7 select two curing-like configurations containing form-name bonding combinations to study separately, and there are great differences in composition possibility, syntactic properties, semantic expression and pragmatic functions in the free adhesion combination of adjectives and nouns and the bonding combination in the curing configuration. The relationship between "big" and noun in "number + big + noun", and adjective and noun in "ordinal + adjective + noun" are more special, and the function of adjectives in these two formats is also more special. Linear forms they are also adjectives and noun groups together, generally not with "of", and have similarity with general form-name adhesive structures, and it is precisely because of this syntactic construction that they can be combined together. Therefore, they are included as a relatively special part of the scope of research in this book. V. Other QuestionsRegarding the marking of the source of the corpus in the text, we basically adopt this model: example sentences collected manually in literary works, news, web pages, etc., generally marked with specific and complete source information, and generally marked with the URL and access time from the web page, and the time of access is placed in square brackets (e.g. [2001-11-18]); Example sentences from corpus and web search (Google or Baidu) are generally not marked with the full source (only the name of the work or the author + the name of the work) or not; Self-made example sentences without attribution. Non-"complete sentence" corpus (mainly words, phrases, and partially contrasting simple sentences) used in the text are not attributed. Parentheses are generally used for corpus sources, placed after the example. Regarding the order of the corpus in the text, we basically only label the complete example sentences, the ordinal number is placed before the example sentence, and each section is sorted separately. Mere words, phrases, etc. are not marked with sequential numbers. The English author's name, work name, place name, institution name, language family name, language family name, and language name involved in the text are all transliterated into Chinese, and the corresponding English original text is generally annotated in parentheses when it first appears, and most of the name translations refer to the common translation methods of published literature, and some translations are self-translated by the author. Due to the author's limited English proficiency and inaccurate grasp of the actual pronunciation of some English names, especially those of non-English-speaking countries, I have listed a translation table of personal names in the appendix at the end of the book in order to make up for possible translation errors.（AI翻译）