Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/130893
|
| Title: | 近義詞「恐懼」與「恐慌」之辨析——以語料庫為本
A Comparison of Mandarin Near-Synonyms Kong3Ju4（恐懼）and Kong3Huang1（恐慌）`Fear`：A Corpus-based Study |
| Authors: | 謝佩璇
Hsieh, Pei-Hsuan |
| Contributors: | 鍾曉芳
Chung, Siaw-Fong
謝佩璇
Hsieh, Pei-Hsuan |
| Keywords: | 恐懼
恐慌
近義詞
語料庫
語義角色
框架語義理論
自然後設語義
Kong3Ju4
Kong3Huang1
Near-synonyms
Corpus
Semantic Roles
Frame Theory
Natural Semantic Metalanguage |
| Date: | 2020 |
| Issue Date: | 2020-08-03 17:18:36 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 摘要
近義詞「恐懼」與「恐慌」之辨析－
以語料庫為本
「恐懼」與「恐慌」為一組心理動詞近義詞，是人類的情緒反應本能。前人對於「恐懼」與「恐慌」在語言學的研究以古漢語或以佛經為主，至今未有現代語料庫的相關研究，因此本論文以《中央研究院漢語平衡語料庫4.0版》（Sinica Corpus）和Chinese Gigaword Corpus為本，分析在語料庫中「恐懼」與「恐慌」為動詞名物化或名詞、動詞與定語三種不同詞性上語義與搭配詞的異同，以及其句法結構。
本文首先整理歸納「恐懼」與「恐慌」在辭典工具書中的詞義，探討此組近義詞的相異之處。當「恐懼」與「恐慌」擔任動詞名物化或名詞，發現與其搭配動詞的差異與此組近義詞本身的詞義是有關的，並嘗試解釋出造成差異的原因為「恐懼」本身是內向的，因此與其搭配的動詞也會以內心的居多；「恐慌」為外向的，搭配的動詞就以引起外在現象的為主；且用來修飾「恐懼」與「恐慌」的結構也會因語義而有所不同，例如「恐懼」的定語多為造成「恐懼」的事件或原因，而不會出現受影響的對象，除非原因已經於在的搭配動詞前面說明；「恐慌」的則以受影響的對象為大宗，因為造成「恐慌」的原因會出現於動詞前面。當此組近義詞為「定語」時，後面所承接的名詞也會因為「恐懼」與「恐慌」本身語義差別而有不同的體現，「恐懼」後面所承接的名詞以「人」或是「人的內心」有關；而「恐慌」的則是以外在狀況的事物為主。當為「動詞」時，將會使用語義角色來進一步辨析「恐懼」與「恐慌」在句法上的相對關係，如「恐懼」的承蒙者（Affectee）可以為主語或賓語的位置；客體（Theme）一般為賓語；當原因（Cause）出現時，會擔任主語的位置。「恐慌」的承蒙者（Affectee）和客體（Theme）均可以為句中主語或賓語的位置；客體（Theme）和原因（Cause）只會擇一出現於以「恐慌」為主要動詞的句子中，且原因（Cause）通常會擔任主語。
最後使用框架語義理論（Frame Theory）與自然後設語義理論（Natural Semantic Metalanguage）整理「恐懼」與「恐慌」在整體概念上的差異，發現即便此組近義詞雖然在辭典工具書中的詞義並無太大的區別，但是在概念上是有所不同的。「恐懼」的語義主要是針對「某件事」而產生的感覺，且若「這件事」沒有發生，則不會產生此種感覺；「恐慌」則是著重於「這件事」的背後所會帶來的影響、現象，且此種感覺是突然的。透過本文可以使學習者更清楚地掌握及使用此組近義詞。
關鍵字：恐懼、恐慌、近義詞、語料庫、語義角色、框架語義理論、自然後設語義
Abstract
A Comparison of Mandarin Near Synonyms Kong3Ju4（恐懼）and
Kong3Huang1（恐慌）‘Fear’：A Corpus-based Study
The Mandarin near synonyms kong3ju4 and kong3huang1 are both mental verbs, that mean ‘fear’. Previous research on kong3ju4 and kong3huang1 was carried out mostly based on ancient Chinese or the Sutras, none of the research was corpus-based. The aim of this paper is to analyze the differences between kong3ju4 and kong3huang1 in three different parts-of-speech (nominalized form, attribute and verb) and the syntactic structures and collocations of each based on the Sinica Corpus and Chinese Gigaword Corpus.
This paper begins by summarizing and analyzing the meanings of kong3ju4 and kong3huang1 by organizing the definitions in the dictionaries. The results show that when kong3ju4 and kong3huang1 are nouns or nominalized forms, when they take a verb, and their collocation depend on the meaning of the verb and the nominalized form, for example, the verb of kong3ju4 is about mental and internal ‘fear’, such as: xin1cun2（心存） and xin1sheng1（心生）; while kong3huang1 is external, it takes such as yin3qi3（引起） and zao4cheng2（造成）. The structures of adjuncts would also be different for both nominalized forms. The adjuncts of kong3ju4 are related to the reason that caused the feeling of kong3ju4, but the adjuncts of kong3huang1are related to the affected object, and the cause of ‘fear’ usually precedes the verb kong3huang1. When kong3ju4 and kong3huang1 are attributes, the following nouns would be different depending on the definitions of kong3ju4 and kong3huang1 as well. For example, when the following noun is more internal and human-related, kong3ju4 would be the attribute. When the following noun is more external in meaning, kong3huang1 would be the attribute. This paper also analyzes both verbs through their semantic roles to discriminate their syntactic relations. It was found that the Affectees of kong3ju4 could be subjects and objects; its Themes could be objects, and when there is a Cause, it would be the subject. Contrast is the Affectee and Theme of kong3huang1, they would be subject or object in a sentence; but the Theme and Cause would not co-occur in a sentence when the main verb of the sentence is kong3huang1, and in this case the Cause would be the subject mostly. This result shows that the syntactic relations of kong3ju4 and kong3huang1 are different although their semantic roles could be the same.
Lastly, this paper will use the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) to summarize the concepts of kong3ju4 and kong3huang1. It shows that although the difference of their definitions is not clearly presented in dictionaries, they are different in their concepts. Their concepts differ in that the scale of kong3ju4’s affected object is smaller than kong3huang1, and the cause of kong3ju4 is more specific. Kong3ju4 shows the feeling of internal, but kong3huang1 represents the feeling of helplessness.
Key words: Kong3Ju4, Kong3Huang1, near-synonyms, corpus, semantic roles, frame theory, natural semantic metalanguage |
| Reference: | 參考文獻
英文文獻（依姓名筆劃排序）
Aristiya, Veronika Dewi. (2008). A componential analysis on synonymous nouns used by the third semester students of English language education study program. Sanata Dharma University.
Atkins, B.T., Kegl, Judy and Levin, Beth. (1988). “Anatomy of a Verb Entry: from Linguistic Theory to Lexicographic Practice,” International Journal of Lexicography I, 84-126
Bloomfield, Leonard. (1933). Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brinton, Laurel J. (2000). The Structure of modern English: a linguistic introduction. Illustrated edition. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Carnie, Andrew. (2007). Syntax: a generative introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Cheung, Candice Chi-Hang & Richard K. Larson. (2015). Psych verbs in English and Mandarin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 127-189
DiMarco, Chrysanne, Graeme Hirst, and Manfred Stede. (1993). “The semantic and stylist differentiation of synonyms and near-synonyms.” AAAI Spring Symposium on Building Lexicons for Machine Translation, Stanford, CA, March, 114-121
Fillmore, Charles. J. (1968). “The Case for Case” In: E. Bach and R.T. Harms （eds.）Universals in Linguistic Theory. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1-25
Fillmore, Charles. J. (1971). “Some Problems for Case Grammar”, in C.J. Fillmore（ed.）
Fillmore, Charles. J. (1977a). The case for case respond. In Peter Cole and Jerrold M. Sadock, editors, Syntax and Semantics Volume 8: Grammatical Relations. Academic Press.
Fillmore, Charles. J. (1977b). Scenes-and-frames Semantics. In Antonio Zampolli, editor, Linguistic Structure Processing. North Holland.
Fillmore, Charles. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.), Linguistic in the morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
Fillmore, Charles. J. & Atkins, B.T.S. (1992). Toward a Frame-based Lexicon: The semantic of RISK and its Neighbors. In Lehrer, A. and Kittay, E.F (eds.), Frame, Fields and Contrast. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum ASSO ciates.
Frege, Gottlob. (1986) [1892]. On sense and nominatum, reprinted in Martinich, A.P. (ed.), The philosophy of language. New York: Oxford University Press, 186-198.
Gibbs, Raymond. (1999). Intentions in the experience of meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goddard, Cliff & Wierzbicka, Anna. (1994). Semantic and Lexical Universals: Theory and Empirical Findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goddard, Cliff. (2002). The search for the shared semantic core of all language. Meaning and Universal Grammar- Theory and Empirical Findings. Volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 5-40.
Goddard, Cliff. (2010). The Natural Semantic Metalanguage approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 459-484
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. (2003). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Huang, Chu-Ren, Kathleen Ahrens, Li-Li Chang, Keh-Jiann Chen, Mei-Chun Liu, and Mei-Chin Tsai. (2000). “The Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics: From Semantics to Argument Structure,” Computational Linguistics Chinese Language Processing. Vol.5.1, 19-46
Jackendoff, Ray S. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
John I, Saeed (2015). Semantics. John Wiley-Blackwell Press.
Johnson, Christopher R., Charles J. Fillmore, Esther J. Wood, Josef Ruppenhofer, Margaret Urban, Miriam R.L. Petruck, and Collin F. Baker. (2000). The FrameNet Project: Tools for lexicon Building. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute.
Levin, Beth. (1993). Verb Classes and Alternation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lynn M. Berk. (1999). English Syntax: From Word to Discourse. Oxford University Press, New York.
Lyons, John. (1981). Language, Meaning and Context. London: Fontana.
McCawley, James D. (1968c). Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. CLS 4.71-80. Reprinted in McCawley 1973e:155-66. German translation in S.Stelzer (ed.), Problems des ‘Lexikons’ (Frankfurt, Athenäum, 1983), 42-56.
Pustejovsky, James. (1988). Event Semantic Structure. Ms. Brandies University.
Pustejovsky, James. (1991). The Syntax of Event Structure. Cognition 41:47-81.
Pustejovsky, James. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Payne, Thomas, E. (2007). Summary of Semantic Roles and Grammatical Relations, 19 Oct.
Radford, Andrew (1988). Transformational Grammar. 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press.
Rudolf, Carnap (1934). Logische Syntax der Sprache. English translation 1937, The
Logical Syntax of Language.
Ryuichi, Washio. (1993). When causative means passive: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2: 40-90.
Trier, Jost. (1931). Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes. Heidelberg: Winter.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1972). Semantic Primitives. Athenäum.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wu, Xiu-Zhi Zoe. (1993). Psychological Predicates in Chinese. M.A. thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
中文文獻（依筆畫排序）
（清）佚名（2014）。《施公案》。黑龍江美術出版社。
王玲玲（1995）。詞彙教學與詞彙的習得。載於國立台東師範大學院舉辦之「第一屆小學語文課程教材教法國際學術研討會」論文集（頁213-222）， 台東市。
王鳳陽（1993）。《古詞辨》。吉林長春：吉林文史出版社。
王曉婷（2013）。漢語“恐懼”類心理動詞的歷時演變研究。碩論，山西大學，山西。
江佳芸（2011）。從隱喻延伸看多義字的詞義認知－以「眼」字為例，《第十二屆漢語詞彙語義學研討會論文》，頁222-231。
呂叔湘（1982）。《中國文法要略》。北京：商務印書館。
巫宜靜、劉美君（2001）。〈心理動詞「想」、「認為」、「以為」與「覺得」的語義區分及訊息表達－以語料庫為本的分析方法〉之「第十四屆計算語言學研討會」論文集，頁317-336，台南市。
李昱穎（2010）。中古佛經情緒心理動詞之研究。博論，中正大學，嘉義市。
李雲長（2005）。敦煌變文懼怕類心理動詞研究。碩論，河南大學，河南。
李曉琪、楊德峰及劉德聯編（1997）。《漢語常用詞用法詞典》。北京：北京大學出版社。
周有斌、邵敬敏（1993）。〈漢語心理動詞及其句型〉。《語文研究》
東漢許慎（1982）。《說文解字》。台北市：華世。
林柏仲（2010）。漢語（不）方便／便利框架語義的凸顯類型研究。碩論，政治大學，台北市。
林羿伶（2010）。近義詞辯析－以名詞為例。碩論，台東大學，台東市。
邱湘雲（2012）。漢語身體動詞義素分析－以「眼、口、手、足」語義子場為例。《台北市立教育大學學報》，第43卷第二期，頁25-56。
胡裕樹編（1992）。〈談對外漢語教學中的近義詞辯析〉。《天津師大學報》，第3期，頁72-76。
祖人植（1999）。〈語言教學中的積極性偏誤與消極性偏誤－以中高級留學生漢語詞彙學習為例〉，張起旺，王順洪主編《漢外語言對比與偏誤分析論文集》，北京：北京大學，頁83-98。
馬建忠（1898）。《馬氏文通》。北京：商務印書館，1983年再版。
馬華燕、庄瑩編（2002）。《漢語近義詞詞典》。北京：北京大學出版社。
張典齊（2001）。《情緒，思緒與生活脫序》，台北：華文出版社。
黃慶萱（1979）。《修辭學》。台北：三民書局公司。
楊美儀（2014）。近義詞「生命、生活」與「Life」之華英對比辨析－以語料庫及問卷研究為本。碩論：政治大學，台北市。
楊素芬（2000）。漢語的心理動詞。碩論，清華大學，新竹市。
劉美君（2006）。中文多義近義詞之語義延伸。碩論，交通大學，新竹市。
劉雅芬（2014）。《說文解字・心部》「恐懼類」情緒心理動詞語義析論。《輔仁國文學報》，第38期，頁25-43。
劉縉（1997）。〈對外漢語近義詞教學漫談〉，《語言文字應用》，第1期，頁18-22。
鍾俊、張麗（2013）。〈框架語義學在中國：評介、應用與展望〉，《華西大學學報》（哲學社會科學版），四川省。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
105555009 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105555009 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202001016 |
| Appears in Collections: | [語言學研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 500901.pdf | | 1223Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
