东野圭吾和紫金陈分别是21世纪日本与中国重要的侦探小说作家，他们同属于社会派侦探小说作者。本文以东野圭吾与紫金陈的侦探小说（东野圭吾的小说选择其翻译作品）作为研究对象，采用定量统计和定性分析相结合的方法对两位作家的作品进行对比研究。本文选择了句长、段长、标点符号、词类、颜色词、心理动词、名词、动词和形容词的情感分类等作为语言学特征，利用频率分布、秩和检验、t检验、文本聚类等统计方法，对两位作家的作品进行了统计和详尽的分析。针对名词、动词和形容词的情感类别的研究，发现了两位作者对于恶的描写、人物心理的描写和社会问题的关注点不同。东野圭吾描述的恶与人物命运或人物性格上的缺陷有关；而紫金陈描述的恶更多与社会环境相关。东野圭吾善于描写人物心理，对于人物心理的变化描述较为复杂；而紫金陈则是简化动机；强化犯案手法与情节线索。东野圭吾关注的社会问题主要在于人文关怀的缺失；而紫金陈关注的社会问题主要在于公权力的腐败与堕落。针对颜色词的研究，发现了东野圭吾利用颜色来描述人物的性格与心理活动， 而紫金陈则用颜色来衬托环境；东野圭吾使用颜色偏平和，虽然明暗分明但并不激烈；而紫金陈使用的颜色浓烈，其鲜艳、极性化的颜色比东野圭吾使用得更多一些。针对心理动词的研究，发现了东野圭吾描述的人物心理活动细腻、丰富， 但总体上并不激烈，呈现出较为绵密的特征。紫金陈表达的情感激烈、大开大合。东野圭吾善于用人物情感的变化推进情节，而紫金陈的情感描写对于情节的推动较少。东野圭吾善于从第三人称视角描述人物情感，而紫金陈多从人物自身情感的叙述角度进行描写。利用计量风格学的研究方法，对东野圭吾与紫金陈的作品进行研究，一方面在验证了以往文学研究中的研究成果之外，还在颜色词、心理动词和情感词的详尽分析中得出了一些新的发现。另一方面可以为定性研究提供实证数据，拓展了纯文学研究领域的视野。
Keigo Higashino and Zijin Chen are prominent figures in 21st-century detective fiction in Japan and China, respectively, both associated with the social school of detective literature. This study examines their detective novels—focusing on the translated works of Keigo Higashino—and employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative analysis with qualitative interpretation, to conduct a comparative analysis of their works.This study selects linguistic features such as sentence length, paragraph length, punctuation usage, word classes, color terms, psychological verbs, emotive nouns, emotive verbs, and emotive adjectives. Statistical methods—including frequency distribution, rank-sum test, t-test, and text clustering—are employed to conduct both quantitative and detailed analyses of the works of the two authors.The study of the emotional categories of nouns, verbs, and adjectives reveals that the two authors differ significantly in their portrayals of evil, character psychology, and social concerns. In Keigo Higashino‘s works, evil is often linked to the character‘s fate or intrinsic personality flaws, whereas in Zijin Chen‘s novels, it is more commonly rooted in the broader social environment. Higashino is adept at depicting psychological complexity, offering nuanced portrayals of internal emotional shifts. In contrast, Zijin Chen tends to simplify character motivations while emphasizing the technical aspects of crime and the progression of the plot. The social issues highlighted by Higashino largely reflect a concern with the erosion of humanistic values, while Zijin Chen focuses more on the corruption and moral decay of public institutions.The analysis of color terms reveals that Keigo Higashino often employs colors to depict characters‘ personalities and psychological states, whereas Zijin Chen uses colors primarily to enhance the atmosphere or setting. Higashino tends to favor more subdued and balanced color choices—though there is clear contrast between light and dark, the tones are not overly intense. In contrast, Zijin Chen frequently uses vivid, highly polarized colors, with a greater emphasis on brightness and intensity than Higashino.In the analysis of psychological verbs, it is evident that Higashino‘s portrayal of characters‘ inner experiences is subtle and nuanced, characterized by a gentle and continuous emotional undercurrent rather than dramatic shifts. Zijin Chen, by contrast, expresses emotion with greater intensity and abruptness. Higashino skillfully advances the plot through the gradual evolution of characters‘ emotions, while emotional descriptions in Zijin Chen‘s works play a more limited role in narrative progression. Additionally, Higashino often adopts a third-person perspective to convey characters‘ emotional states, whereas Zijin Chen tends to use the characters‘ own perspectives, emphasizing internal narration.By applying the methods of quantitative stylistics, this study analyzes the works of Keigo Higashino and Zijin Chen. On the one hand, it not only verifies findings from previous literary studies but also uncovers new insights through detailed analysis of color terms, psychological verbs, and emotive words. On the other hand, it provides empirical data to support qualitative research, thereby broadening the scope of traditional literary scholarship.
