Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/122774
|
| Title: | 漢語多義詞「提」之語義分析：以語料庫為本
A Corpus-based Semantic Analysis of Mandarin Polysemy ti2 |
| Authors: | 林孟潔
Lin, Meng-Chieh |
| Contributors: | 鍾曉芳
Chung, Siaw-Fong
林孟潔
Lin, Meng-Chieh |
| Keywords: | 漢語動詞「提」
多義詞
致使移動事件
Chinese verb tí
Polysemy
Caused-motion event |
| Date: | 2019 |
| Issue Date: | 2019-04-01 14:48:13 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本論文以語料庫為本，分析漢語多義動詞「提」之語義。本研究以「提」的單純詞及詞組為主要研究範圍，以致使移動事件框架中的語義要素切入，以釐清「提」的多義性，並說明「提」眾多義項之間的關係。
本研究首先從歷時角度出發，觀察語料庫中「提」的分佈及使用情形，發現「提」在古漢語與現代漢語中意義的使用頻率有所不同，在古漢語中，上古與中古時期高頻語義主要為二：「挈也」及「舉也」；至近代，「提」的語義增加了，高頻語義也出現些微變化：除了在上古、中古時期就有的「挈也」，「說、談到」亦佔相當高的比例；而到了現代，最高頻的兩個語義為「說、談到」及「舉出後述事件」。觀察「提」在不同時期的語料，發現了「提」在古漢語中以手部的作用使得物體由下往上運動的語意為多，而至現代漢語，「提」卻以言談類的「說、談到」更常使用，而這樣的轉變，是在近代時期產生的。此外，觀察語料庫中的「提」，亦發現古漢語中「提」多以單純詞形式出現，現代漢語則是複合詞形式最多。
本研究接著從共時角度分析現代漢語「提」的多義性。在義項分析上，自致使移動事件框架中，劃分出造成「提」義項間不同的顯著語意要素為「位移主體」、「位移」、「路徑」，非顯著語義要素為「參照物」及「共同事件-原因（致使）」。研究結果發現，「提」不同義項之間，由於「位移主體」、「位移」有實體、抽象的不同，「路徑」有由下往上、由裡往外的差異而有不同意義。「提」為一個致使移動動詞，其不同義項的語義要素之間符合原型效應，由實體往抽象擴展，而有意義的不同，此外，經過容器隱喻、想法即物件的隱喻及轉喻等機制，延伸出其他的路徑，亦是造成義項差異的原因之一。
This research analyzed the semantics of the Chinese polysemous verb tí. Based on corpus research and Motion-Event frame (Talmy 2000), this study investigated all instances of the single-character tí and its compounds, so as to find the semantic elements that contribute to the different senses, and to figure out the realtion between the multiple senses of tí.
The research started from a diachronic perspective by observing the data from corpus. First, we found that there were different meanings of tí in ancient times and nowadays. The most frequent uses of tí in the 220 B.C.to A.D. 220 were ‘lift, carry and raise.’ From the 600s to the 900s, sense of ‘mention, refer to’ appeared, and had become the most frequent use of tí. From analyzing the data of different periods, we found that in the past, the most frequent sense of tí was ‘lifting up an object with hand’; however, in modern Chinese, ti appeared more often as the category of speech instead of actual motion. Senses such as ‘mention, refer to’ were frequently used. According to the metaphors of ‘Container’ and ‘Ideas are Objects’ (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003), the Figure turns to abstract notion like spoken words or thoughts. These senses started to appear during the 600s to the 900s. From the data, we can also see that: tí most of the time appeared as a single-charactered form in ancient Chinese, but as two-charactered form in modern Chinese.
Second, the thesis applied the Motion-Event Frame (Talmy, 2000), including Caused-Motion Event as a reference to analyze the differences between every sense. Three significant elements were used to distinguish each sense: ‘Figure’, ‘Motion’ and ‘Path’. The non-siginifant elements are: ‘Cause’ and ‘Ground’. We discovered that the semantic elements of tí follow the prototype effect: from concrete item to abstract notion. In conclusion, this study provided a thorough semantic analysis of the polysemous verb tí and will be a reference to future diachronic lexical semantic research. |
| Reference: | 朱彥（2010）。基於意象圖式的動詞「穿」的多義體系及意義連接機制。語言科學，9(3)，287-300。
呂淑湘（1947）。中國文法要略（上）。商務印書館：上海。
李子瑄、曹逢甫（2013）。漢語語言學。新北市：正中書局。
李明懿（2000）。現代漢語方位詞「上」的語義分析。國立台灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。
李詩青（2015）。現代漢語動詞「走」之多義性認知研究。國立交通大學碩士論文，新竹。
李福印（2008）。認知語言學概論。北京：北京大學出版社。
沈家煊（2003）。複句三域「行」「知」「言」，中國語文，5，195-204。
周世箴譯著（2006）。我們賴以生存的譬喻（Metaphors we live by），雷可夫&詹森（George Lakoff & Mark Johnson）原著，台北：聯經出版公司。
孫瑩瑩（2012）。現代漢語多義詞「提」的多視角研究。遼寧大學碩士論文。
高照明（2010）。中文詞彙語意資料的整合與擷取：詞彙語意學的觀點。計算語言學論文集，68-97。臺北：文鶴出版社。
張麗麗、陳克健、黃居仁（2000）。漢語動詞詞彙語意分析：表達模式與研究方法。中文計算語言學期刊，5(1)，1-18。
曹逢甫、蔡立中、劉秀瑩（2001）。身體與譬喻：語言與認知的首要介面。臺北：文鶴出版有限公司。
莊舜雯（2018）。「意」的多義現象研究：以語料庫為本。國立政治大學碩士論文，臺北市。
許尤芬（2012）。中文多義詞「發」之語義探討：以語料庫為本。台北市立教育大學碩士論文，臺北市。
連金發（2009）。固定語式探索。載於蘇以文、畢永峨（主編），語言與認知。臺北：國立台灣大學出版中心。
陳松霖（2012）。漢語動詞「吃」從行動到遭受的語義延伸-兼論詞彙化分類。華語文教學研究，9(1)，51-72。
陳茵珮（2009）。現代漢語「下」的語義分析。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。
黃宣範（2009）。棲於身的體現認知。載於蘇以文、畢永峨（主編），語言與認知。臺北：國立台灣大學出版中心。
黃郁純（2006）。說「放」和「擺」：從事件訊息結構和身體動作動詞的詞彙語義進行初探。華語文教學研究，3(1)，27-44。
黃郁純、陳薌宇（2005）。以語料庫為本分析詞語搭配及近義關係。華語文教學研究，2(2)，57-71。
董正存（2012）。動詞「提」產生言說義的過程及動因。漢語學報，38(2)，41-46。
歐秀慧（2008）。從隱喻延伸看多義字的詞義層次認知─以「身」字為例。大葉大學通識教育學報，61-88。
歐德芬（2013）。多義詞義項區別性探究－以感官動詞「看」為例。華語文教學研究，10(3)，1-39。
歐德芬（2014）。多義感官動詞「看」義項之認知研究。語言暨語言學，15(2)，159-198。
歐德芬（2015）。教學為導向的漢語多義動詞辨析─以「開」為例。台灣華語教學研究（11），45-66。
蔡佩庭（2005）。現代漢語「開」與其延伸研究。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。
蔡宛玲（2016）。漢語多義詞「跑」之結構及語意分析。國立政治大學碩士論文，臺北市。
蔡美智（2005）。以句式為本的多義詞詞義辨識。中文計算語言學期刊，10(4)，483-494。
蕭惠貞（2013）。多義詞「洗」之語義分析、詞彙排序與教學應用。華語文教學研究，10(4)，47-80。
蘇以文（2009）。語言與分類。蘇以文、畢永峨（主編），語言與認知。臺北：台大出版中心。
Chang, J. C. (2015). Verbal Semantics and Eventive Inference: The Case of fàng in Mandarin Chinese. MA thesis. Hsinchu: National Chiao Tung University.
Chou, S. P. (2014). Semantic Profile of the Multi-faceted Verb jǐ. MA thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Chung, S. F. (2009). A Corpus-based Study on Figurative Language through the Chinese Five Eements and Body-part Terms. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing (IJCLCLP) Special Issue on Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14.2, 221-236.
Croft, W. and Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon, and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics, 41.1, 33-75.
Fillmore, C. (1975). An alternatiove to checklist theories of meaning. In Cathy Cogen (ed.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123-131. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Fillmore, C. (1982a). Frames semantics. In the Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistic in the Morning Calm, 111-137. Seoul: Hanshin.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The Case for Case. In E. Bach and R. T. Harms, (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1-90). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Topics in Lexical Semantics. In R. Cole, (Eds.), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (pp, 76-138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistics Society of Korea (Eds.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111-138). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
Fillmore, C. J. and Atkins B. T. S. (1992). Toward a Frame-based Lexicon: The Semantics of RISK and its Neighbors. In Lehrer, A. and Kittay, E. F (Eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantics, 75-102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbuan.
Gao, H. (2001). The Physical Foundation of the Patterning of Physical Action Verbs: A Study of Chinese Verbs. Lund: Lund University.
Gibbs R. W. and Colston, H. (1995)., The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6(4), 347-378.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Hu, Y. T. (2014). A Frame-based Lexical Constructional Study of the Polysemy Verb Dài in Mandarin Chinese. MA thesis. Hsinchu: National Chiao Tung University.
Huang, C. R., Ahrens, K., Chang, L. L., Chen. K. J., Liu, M. C. and Tsai, M. C. (2000). The Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics: From Semantics to Argument Structure. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing. 5.1, 19-46.
Hung, W. Y. (2014). A Lexical Semantic Study of TUI and LA in Mandarin. MA thesis. Hsinchu: National Chiao Tung University.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge/MA: MIT Press.
Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1992). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edition) (pp, 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, Ill.; London: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A preliminary Invertigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Li, Q. Z. (2007). A Prototype Study of the Concept of Caused-motion. MA Thesis. Hunan Normal University. China.
Lindner, S. (1983). A Lexico-semantic Analysis of English Verb Particle Constructions with OUT and UP (Doctoral dissertation), University of Indiana, Bloomington.
Miller, George. A. (1978). Semantic Relations among Words. In M. Halle J. Bresnan, & G.A. Miller (eds.), Lingusitics Theory and Psychological Reality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 60-118.
Oakley, T. (2007). Image schema. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 214-235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Packard, J. L. (2000). The morphology of Chinese: A linguistic and cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pustejovsky, J., Anick, P., Bergler, S. (1993). Lexical semantic techniques for corpus analysis. Computational Linguistic, Vol. 19(2).
Putejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press.
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350.
Rosch, E. (1975a). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532-547.
Rosch, E. (1975b). Cognitive represntations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-233.
Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In Neil Warren (ed.), Studies in Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 1, 1-49. London etc: Academia Press.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.). Cognitive and Categorization, 27-48. New York: Lawence Erlbaum.
Rosch, E. and Mervis, C. (1975). Family Resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C., Gray, W., Johnson, D., Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
Su, I. W. (2000). Mapping in Thought and Language as Evidenced in Chinese. Chinses Studies, 18, 395-424.
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: The mind-as-body metaphor in semantic structure and semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. Syntax and semantics, 4, 181-238.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language typology and syntactic description, 3, 57-149.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol. 2: Typology and process in conceptual processing). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Taylor , J. (2003). Linguistic Cateporization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Bejing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Tyler, A., and Evans, V. (2001) Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over. Language, 77(4), 724-765.
Ungerer, F., and Schmid, H. J. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford University Press.
中國社會科學院語言研究所詞典編輯室編（2005）。現代漢語詞典（第五版）。北京：商務印書館。
何容（主編）（1974）。國語日報辭典。臺北：國語日報社附屬出版部。
李行健（主編）（2001）。現代漢語規範字典修訂本。北京市：語文圖書館。
國立臺灣師範大學國語教學中心（2008）。實用視聽華語1-5。臺北：正中書局。
中文詞彙網路:http://lope.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/cwn2/query/
中央研究院現代漢語平衡語料庫:http://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/
FrameNet:http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~framenet |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩博士學位學程
104161007 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104161007 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/THE.NCCU.TCSL.002.2019.A07 |
| Appears in Collections: | [華語文教學博／碩士學位學程] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 100701.pdf | 3289Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 141 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
