Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/130894
題名: 基於語料庫與框架語義探討近義動詞的辨析 ——以「領」和「取」為例
A Corpus- and Frame-based Study of the Near-synonymous Verbs Ling3 and Qu3 in Mandarin Chinese
作者: 吳璐
LU, WU
貢獻者: 鍾曉芳
Siaw-Fong Chung
吳璐
WU LU
關鍵詞: 近義動詞
「領」和「取」
框架語義
語義角色
句式
MARVS
Synonym verbs
Ling3 and Qu3
Frame semantics
Semantic role
Sentence pattern
MARVS
日期: 2020
上傳時間: 3-Aug-2020
摘要: 「領」和「取」為生活中常用的「取得」義(亦稱「獲取」義)動詞,關於二者的近義研究,本文從三個面向進行考察:1. 根據框架語義理論標記語料庫,提取「主事者(Agent)」、「客體(Theme)」、「來源(Source)」三個語義角色,而後探究各語義角色的內部屬性差異;2. 從句式角度,考察動詞「領」和「取」的特殊句式及與語義角色的互動關係;3. 以「動詞語意表達模式」(MARVS)理論為依據,描述取得事件「領」和「取」的完整事件訊息。以期從上述三個面向,全面考察「領」和「取」的語義差異。\n本文以框架語義理論對「領」和「取」的語料進行標註,而後統計分析「主事者(Agent)」、「客體(Theme)」、「來源(Source)」三個語義角色的內部屬性差異。結果發現從三個語義角色的表現來看,「領」和「取」皆有【人類】、【政府】和【機構】三類主事者;「領」和「取」都有【金錢】、【物品】客體,「領」更傾向於【金錢】客體,「取」更常與【物品】客體搭配。「取」有【地點】、【抽象】來源,「領」則無;「領」有【政府】來源,「取」則無。從「主事者」和「來源」的【權威性】來看,「領」的來源表現出較高的【權威性】。\n從句型結構來看,「領」不同於「取」的句式有:表主事者、客體之間領屬關係的有字句;「取」不同於「領」的句式有:1.【地點】來源作主語的存現句;2. 話題句中「來源」作補語的「Theme取(之、自)Source」句式。\n最後,本文以動詞語意表達模式(MARVS)理論驗證本文對「領」和「取」的辨析,發現「領」和「取」同屬「簡單事件(simple event)」的動詞,其表達的事件皆可持續一段時間,為可指涉時間端點的過程事件。其事件內部屬性為【+控制】,即主事者有意識動作。本文在此基礎上,提出【方向】的屬性來區分二者的語意,「領」為【+上向】,即來源的權威性在主事者之上;「取」為【-上向】,其來源的權威性不在主事者之上。並以「主事者」和「客體」的【+限定】關係作為輔助,「領」為【+限定】,主事者和客體關係為一對一,不可更改;「取」為【-限定】,主事者可隨意取得客體。\n前人研究以語義基元描述「領」和「取」的語義並不完整,在句式上僅論及少量句式及客體屬性。本研究在語義角色及屬性上進行更細緻地描述,句式不僅包含基本句還涉及「領」和「取」獨有的特殊句式,並以「動詞語意表達模式」(MARVS)對「領」和「取」事件進行全面描寫,以期對近義詞辨析、詞典編纂和漢語教學提供參考。
The verbs ling3 and qu3 are two commonly used ‘take’ verbs. In this thesis, we look for their differences from three aspects: First, we labeled three semantic roles according to Frame semantics, namely ‘Agent’, ‘Theme’, ‘Source’, and explored the difference of their internal properties; Second, from the perspective of sentence patterns, the special sentence patterns of the two verbs and their relations with semantic roles were investigated; Third, based on the Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics (MARVS) theory, we described the complete event information of ling3 and qu3. The results are as follows.\nBoth ling3 and qu3 have three kinds of Agents, which are [Human], [Organization] and [Government]. Ling3 and qu3 have the [Money] and [Object] Theme, but ling3 tends to have more the [Money] Theme; qu3 occurs more often with the [Object] Theme. The verb ling3 has the [Government] Source, but qu3 does not; qu3 has the [Place] and [Abstract] Source, but ling3 does not. From the perspective of the [Authority] between Agent and Source, the Source of ling3 has higher authority than that of qu3.\nAs for sentence structure, the sentence patterns of ling3 are different from qu3 in the following ways: The sentence of you3 to indicate the ownership between Agent and Theme. The following sentence patterns are only used with qu3:1. In the existential sentences where the [Place] Source is the subject; 2. In the topic sentences, in which ‘Source’ is the complement.\nFinally, this paper used the Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics (MARVS) theory to verify the distinctions of ling3 and qu3, and found that they are both verbs of ‘simple event’, and the events expressed by both can last for a period of time and are process events that can refer to the end point of time. The internal attribute of the event is [+ control], that is, it shows the conscious action of the Agent when taking something. On this basis, this paper added the attribute of [+direction] to distinguish ling3 and qu3, ling3 is [+ upward direction], that is, the authority of Source is higher; qu3 is [- upward direction], in which the authority of the Source is lower. In addition, the [+limited] relationship between Agent and Theme is used as a supplement. Ling3 is [+limited] and the relationship between Agent and Theme is one-to-one and cannot be changed; qu3 is [-limited], the Agent can obtain the Theme at will.\nPrevious studies have described the semantic meaning of ling3 and qu3 uncompletely from the semantic primitives. In the sentence patterns, only several sentence patterns and the Theme attribute were discussed. This study on the semantic role and properties has a more detailed description. It contains not only the basic sentences involving ling3 and qu3 but also the unique special sentence patterns. Under the Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics (MARVS) theory, ling3 and qu3 had a comprehensive description as events. This thesis will contribute to near synonym analysis, lexicography and Chinese language teaching.
參考文獻: 英文文獻(依姓氏字母順序排序)\nChafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects and topics. Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles Li, 25-55. New York: Academic Press.\nCrystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Malden. MA: Blackwell.\nDowning, A., & Locke, P. (2006). English grammar: A university course. Routledge.\nFillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1-88. New York. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.\nFillmore, C. J. (1971). Some problems for case grammar. Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 35.\nFillmore, C. J. (1977). The case for case reopened. In Grammatical relations (pp. 59-81). Brill.\nFillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, 103, 75-102.\nGIVÓN, T. (1995). Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.\nGoldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a construction on grammar approach to argument structure. The university of Chicago press.\nHaiman, J. (1978). Conditionals are topics. Language, 54(3), 564-589.\nLakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.\nLi, C., & Thompson, S. (1976). Subject and topic: a new typology. In Li, C., editor, Subject and topic, New York: Academic Press.\nLi, C., & Thompson, S. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: a Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.\nLyons, J. (1981). Language and linguistics. Cambridge University Press.\nMalchukov, A., Haspelmath, M., & Comrie, B. (2010). Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview. Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 1-64.\nMitkov, R. (2014). Anaphora resolution. Routledge.\nRadden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. Metonymy in language and thought, 4, 17-60.\nRadford, A. (2004). English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.\nRomagnoli, C. (2013). The Lexicographic Approach to Modern Chinese Synonyms. International Journal of Lexicography, 26(4), 407–423.\nSaeed, J. I. (2015). Semantics (Vol. 25). John Wiley & Sons.\nTaylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization. Oxford University Press.\nTesnière, L. (1959). Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.\nRobert, D., VALIN, V., & Lapolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: structure, meaning and function. Cambridge University Press.\nWatanabe, T. (2000). Object Topicalization, Passive, and Information Structure in Japanese. In Proceedings of the 14th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 339-344).\n\n中文文獻(依姓名筆劃排序)\n王芸華(2014)。被動句主語的語義角色考察。賀州學院學報,030(002),18-22。\n王培培(2008)。「有N可V」的形式、語義、功能。廣西師範大學碩士論文,廣西。\n石定栩(2000)。漢語句法的靈活性和句法理論。當代語言學,1,18-26。\n石毓智(2001)。漢語的主語與話題之辨。語言研究,2,82-91。\n石毓智(2004)。漢英雙賓結構差別的概念化原因。外語教學與研究,036(002),83-89。\n朱勘宇(2002)。漢語零形回指的句法驅動力。漢語學習,4,73-80。\n朱德熙(1979)。與動詞「給」相關的句法問題。方言,2,81-87。\n朱德熙(1982)。語法講義。商務印書館。\n呂叔湘(1942)。中國文法要略。商務印書館。\n呂叔湘(1979)。漢語語法分析問題。北京:商務印書館。\n呂叔湘(1999)。現代漢語八百詞。香港:商務印書館。\n呂彥菁(2005)。現代漢語疑問詞「什麼」的教學語法。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文,臺北市。\n李宇明(1996)。領屬關係和雙賓句分析。語言教學與研究,3,62-102。\n李金蘭(2006)。現代漢語身體動詞的認知研究。華東師範大學博士論文,上海。\n沈家煊(2000)。句式和配價。中國語文,4,291-297。\n屈承熹(1999)。漢語認知功能語法。臺北市:文鶴出版有限公司。\n侯敏,孫建軍(2005)。漢語中的零形回指及其在漢英機器翻譯中的處理對策。中文資訊學報,19(1):15-21。\n徐烈炯, 劉丹青(1998)。話題的結構與功能。 上海教育出版社。\n袁明軍(2008)。與「V於NP」結構有關的句法語義問題。漢語學習,4,24-30。\n袁毓林(2004)。論元結構和句式結構互動的動因, 機制和條件——表達精細化對動詞配價和句式構造的影響。語言研究,4,1-10。\n馬慶株(1997)。指人參與者角色關係趨向與漢語動詞的一些小類。漢語動詞和動詞性結構: 二編,2,1。\n張占山(2006)。語義角色視角下的謂詞同義詞辨析。廈門大學博士論文,廈門。\n張欣(2016)現代漢語「予取」類權勢關係動詞研究。雲南師範大學學報(對外漢語教學與研究版),14(1):56-66。\n張健(2012)。現代漢語「獲取義」雙賓語句研究。遼寧大學碩士論文,遼寧。\n張國憲(2001)。制約奪事成分句位實現的語義因素。中國語文,6,30-40。\n張豫峰(1998)。「有」字句研究綜述。漢語學習,3,28-32。\n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。\n符達維(1984)。現代漢語的定語後置。重慶師院學報,4。\n陳平(1987)。漢語零形回指的話語分析。中國語文,5。\n陳昌來(1997)。論現代漢語語義結構中「工具」的性質和工具動詞。煙臺師範學院學報 (哲學社會科學版) ,3。\n陳麗君(Le-Kun Tan)(2012)。台、華語語言接觸下的「有」字句。臺灣學志,5,1-26。\n陸儉明(2005)。現代漢語語法研究教程。北京大學出版社。\n曾秀彬(2014)。現代漢語單音節獲取類手部動詞研究。南京林業大學碩士論文,南京。\n馮麗(2013)。以「拿」為認知基元的現代漢語動詞同義詞群建構研究。武漢大學博士論文,武漢。\n楊成凱(1996)。漢語語法理論研究。瀋陽:遼寧教育出版社。\n詹開第(1981)。有字句。中國語文,1,27-34。\n趙元任(1968)。中國話的文法。加州大學出版社。\n趙元任(1979)。漢語口語語法。商務印書館。\n劉月華,潘文娛,& 故韡(1996)。實用現代漢語語法。 師大書苑。\n範曉(1994)。「N受+V」句說略。語文研究,2,7-12。\n蔡維天(2005)。 談漢語的蒙受結構。 手稿, 新竹: 清華大學語言學研究所。\n聶仁發(2013)。漢語主語和話題問題研究。浙江大學出版社。\n嚴俊彤 (2017)。基於HSK語料庫的獲取類動詞偏誤分析及對外漢語教學策略。南京大學碩士論文,南京。
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
105555011
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105555011
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
501101.pdf4.58 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.