Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This paper selected 11 major degree complementary constructions in modern Chinese and empirically analyzed differences between them in usage. We investigated the corpus use of a total of 11 constructions, derived 'distinctive' collexemes applying two of the distinctive collexeme analysis approaches, and discussed the differences.BR In particular, this study took into account the fact that although these constructions are generally considered synonymous, there is also a lack of information about the collexemes that appear at position of complement, and derived fairly detailed and rigorous quantitative research results through an unprecedented scope of research. The results empirically verified and supplemented existing studies on degree complements, and suggested 'good examples' as well as 'bad examples' of major degree complement constructions for learner for L2, and lexicography work.BR Theoretically, this study provided strong support for semantic theory's claim that the study of linguistic units requires a constructional approach based on 'usage' investigations. In addition, this study can besaid to have improved existing corpus meaning research and contributed to the research field in that methodologically, it can be re-verified or disproved through other corpus investigations or experiments.
E. A. Lee (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: