Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/136473
|
| Title: | 明喻結構「B一樣的A」與「B一般的A」探析—以語料庫為本的研究
Distinguishing Yi2yang4 and Yi4ban1 in Simile Construction: A Corpus-based Study |
| Authors: | 廖恒佳
Liao, Heng-Chia |
| Contributors: | 鍾曉芳
Chung, Siaw-Fong
廖恒佳
Liao, Heng-Chia |
| Keywords: | 一樣
一般
明喻
喻底
特徵賦予理論
Yíyàng
Yìbān
Simile
Ground
Property Attribution Theory |
| Date: | 2021 |
| Issue Date: | 2021-08-04 15:37:24 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 針對明喻的觀察，發現以「一樣」及「一般」作為喻詞的明喻結構「B一樣的A」及「B一般的A」，其本體及喻體的排列順序，恰好與華語典型明喻結構「A像B」（如：初戀像詩）相反。更重要的是，有時喻詞右方的A亦可由表達喻體與本體相似性的喻底擔任（如：他過著牛馬一樣的生活）。因此，由「一樣」及「一般」所構成的明喻結構值得我們進一步探究。
本研究採語料庫研究法，以「B一樣的A」及「B一般的A」為探索結構，採用《國教院書面語語料庫2017》作為研究工具。除了藉由喻體與本體的特質來探究「一樣」及「一般」的差異，喻底的語言呈現更是本研究關注的焦點。研究結果顯示，藉由「一樣」及「一般」檢索出來的語料超過一半以上皆為涉及跨域比較的明喻結構，其中「一般」的結果更接近九成；此外，兩者的差異體現在特徵賦予理論（property attribution theory）的框架下，喻詞「一樣」所構成的明喻結構其喻體所賦予的特徵屬性以「具體特徵」為多，喻詞「一般」則以「抽象特徵」佔多數，顯示由「一般」構成的明喻結構隱喻程度較高。
本研究亦發現藉由「B一樣的A」及「B一般的A」所檢索出的明喻結構可分為兩類，第一類明喻結構為「喻體為B」且「本體為A」，第二類明喻結構則為「喻體為B」且「喻底為A」，藉由統計顯示即便第二類明喻結構內部已有喻底的表達，仍會有位於明喻結構外的喻底來詳細描述兩者之間的相似性。本論文除了統計喻底在不同喻體及本體對應之下的分佈情形，也針對其呈現的語言形式進行分類與討論。研究結果發現在本體為「具體事物」的情形下，喻底在不同類型的喻體下會有不同的語言呈現。除此之外，針對明喻結構中無喻底呈現的狀況，本論文也在觀察語料後將其進行分類統計，研究結果顯示在無喻底呈現的明喻結構，其喻體的形象大多為認知世界中的「普遍常理」，因此不須喻底呈現或是與語境互動，就能使人們意會其意涵。
The order of “B yíyàng de A” and “B yìbān de A” is exactly the opposite of the typical Mandarin simile structure “A xiàng B”. More importantly, ‘A’ in the simile structure “B yíyàng de A” and “B yìbān de A” can also be ‘ground’ that expresses the similarity between the vehicle and topic sometimes. Therefore, the simile structures composed of yíyàng and yìbān deserve further investigation.
This thesis adopts a corpus-based approach as our methodology, using “B yíyàng de A” and “B yìbān de A” as the simile structures, and uses the COCT Written Corpus 2017 as our research tool. The thesis aims not only to investigate the differences between yíyàng and yìbān through the characteristics of vehicle and topic, but also to focus on the linguistic representations of ‘ground’ in these structures. The findings show that more than half of the results retrieved by yíyàng and yìbān are simile structures involving cross-domain comparisons, especially with nearly 90% of the results for yìbān. Furthermore, under the property attribution theory, the attributes of vehicles in simile structure composed of yíyàng are more concrete, while the attributes of vehicles in the simile structure composed of yìbān are more abstract, indicating that the simile structures composed of yìbān are more metaphorical than yíyàng.
This study also finds that the simile structures retrieved by “B yíyàng de A” and “B yìbān de A” can be divided into two categories: In the first structure, B is vehicle and A is topic; in the second structure, B is vehicle and A is ground. The analysis shows that even when there are occurrences of ‘grounds’ in the second type of simile structure, additional description of the grounds would also be displayed. In addition to the distribution of the corresponding ‘grounds’ in the two types of simile structures under different attributes of vehicles, this thesis also analyzes and discusses the linguistic representations of the ‘grounds. The results reveal that the linguistic representations of the ‘grounds’ differ according to the types of the ‘vehicles’ when the ‘topics’ are ‘concrete objects’. Moreover, we also find that in the case of simile structures without ‘grounds’, the images of the corresponding ‘vehicles’ are mostly ‘common senses’ in our minds; therefore, people can understand the meanings of these simile structures without the representations of the ‘grounds’ or the interactions of contexts. |
| Reference: | 中文文獻
呂叔湘（1999）。現代漢語八百詞（增訂本）。北京：商務印書館。
束定芳（2000）。隱喻學研究。上海：上海外語教育出版社。
束定芳（2003）。語言的認知研究。外國語文教學，20（3）。5-11。
周世箴（2006）。我們賴以生存的譬喻（原作者：George Lakoff & Mark Johnson）。臺北：聯經書局。（原著出版年：1980）
袁暉（1982）。比喻。合肥：安徽人民出版社。
郭愛萍（2013）。網路環境下明喻與隱喻的理解機制研究。東北大學學報（社會科學版），15（5）。541-544。
黃居仁、陳克健、張莉萍及許蔥麗（1995)。中央研究院平衡語料庫簡介。中華民國第八屆計算語言學研討會論文集。81-99。
黃慶萱（1984）。修辭學。臺北市：三民書局。
潘文（2007）。明喻詞的句法功能及認知語言學思考。語文研究，（3）。18-21。
英文文獻
CKIP Group. (2009). Lexical semantic representation and semantic composition-An introduction to E-HowNet. Technical Report), Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica.
Cuenca, M. J. (2015). Beyond compare: Similes in interaction. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, 13(1), 140-166.
Fraser, B. (1993). The interpretation of novel metaphors. Metaphor and thought, 2, 329-342.
Glucksberg, S., & Keysar, B. (1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological review, 97(1), 3-18.
Glucksberg, S., McGlone, M. S., & Manfredi, D. (1997). Property attribution in metaphor comprehension. Journal of memory and language, 36(1), 50-67.
Goatly. (1997). The language of metaphors. London, England: Routledge.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.
Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. J. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International journal of lexicography, 3(4), 235-244.
Moder, C. L. (2008). It’s like making a soup: Metaphors and similes in spoken news discourse. Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language, 301-320.
Pease, A., Niles, I., & Li, J. (2002, July). The suggested upper merged ontology: A large ontology for the semantic web and its applications. In Working notes of the AAAI-2002 workshop on ontologies and the semantic web (Vol. 28, pp. 7-10).
Shen, Y. (1995). Cognitive constraints on directionality in the semantic structure of poetic vs. non-poetic metaphors. Poetics, 23(4), 255-274.
Steen, G. (Ed.). (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU (Vol. 14). John Benjamins Publishing.
Steen, G. J. (2007). Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI, 10, 1075.
Tartakovsky, R., & Shen, Y. (2019). Meek as milk and large as logic: A corpus study of the non-standard poetic simile. Language and Literature, 28(3), 203-220.
Turney, P., Neuman, Y., Assaf, D., & Cohen, Y. (2011, July). Literal and metaphorical sense identification through concrete and abstract context. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 680-690).
Zharikov, S., & Gentner, D. (2002). Why do metaphors seem deeper than similes? In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty‐Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 976–981). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
電子資源
《廣義知網知識本體架構2.4版》：http://ehownet.iis.sinica.edu.tw/2.4/
《國教院書面語語料庫2017》：https://coct.naer.edu.tw/cqpweb/yl2017/
《教育部國語辭典簡編本》：http://dict.concised.moe.edu.tw/jbdic/index.html
《中文詞彙網路》：https://lope.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/cwn/query/#
Suggested Upper Merged Ontology：http://www.adampease.org/OP/
Wordnet：https://wordnet.princeton.edu |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩博士學位學程
106161011 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106161011 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202101105 |
| Appears in Collections: | [華語文教學博／碩士學位學程] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 101101.pdf | | 3561Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
