Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35982
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisor賴惠玲zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorLai , Huei-lingen_US
dc.contributor.author陳宜伶zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorChen , Yi-lingen_US
dc.creator陳宜伶zh_TW
dc.creatorChen , Yi-lingen_US
dc.date2003en_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-09-18T08:41:18Z-
dc.date.available2009-09-18T08:41:18Z-
dc.date.issued2009-09-18T08:41:18Z-
dc.identifierG0090555008en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35982-
dc.description碩士zh_TW
dc.description國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description語言學研究所zh_TW
dc.description90555008zh_TW
dc.description92zh_TW
dc.description.abstract歇後語是一種很有趣的口語文體,它由兩個部分組成,語意重心在第二部分,展現豐富的語意和音韻的運作歷程。它並非固定而無法再分析的結構,使用者只能靠死記來使用它;反之,歇後語本質上為我們人類認知的一部份。它展現多層的隱喻、代喻和人類知識架構等語意上的運作(參看Lakoff 1993,Kovecses and Radden 1998,Fillmore 1977等人之論著)。本論文旨在從認知語意學的觀點,探究台閩語歇後語的本質,重心在探究其最終語意的衍生歷程。我們修正Geeraerts (1995)針對成語的分類架構和Ruiz de Mendoza’s (2003)分析成語所使用的隱喻和代喻互動類別,來分析閩南語歇後語,得到在四大類別下,有二十二種語意衍生的種類、十二種變化和十二種次變化。分析的結果顯示,所有的歇後語之語意皆可衍生,且三層的衍生為最普遍的基型。此外,代喻在台閩歇後語很普遍,所有的類型皆有牽涉到代喻。與隱喻相較,代喻在台閩語歇後語語意的衍生上所佔的角色比隱喻重。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractTwo-part allegorical sayings Xie-hou-yu, colloquial expressions whose second parts bear the main semantic weight, exhibit rich semantic and phonological operations. They are not unanalyzed fixed structures memorized by the users; instead, two-part allegorical sayings are conceptual in nature, exhibiting multiple semantic operations among metaphor, metonymy, and knowledge frame (cf. Lakoff 1993, Kovecses and Radden 1998, Fillmore 1977, among others). This study aims to explore the nature of two-part allegorical sayings in Taiwanese Southern Min from cognitive semantics point of view, focusing on the derivations of the intended meaning. We modify Geeraerts` classification model (1995) and Ruiz de Mendoza’s (2003) model of interaction types in analyzing idioms to account for the data and find twenty-two types of derivation under four major categories with twelve variations and twelve subvariations. The result shows that all two-part allegorical sayings are motivated with three stages of derivation as the common schema. Furthermore, metonymy is very pervasive in two-part allegorical sayings in Taiwanese Southern Min where all of the four types involve metonymy. Comparing with metaphor, metonymy plays a much more important role in the meaning derivation of the two-part allegorical sayings.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsAcknowledgements……………………………………………………………iv\r\nChinese Abstract……………………………………………………………vi\r\nEnglish Abstract…………………………………………………………vii\r\nDiagrams and Tables…………………………………………………………x\r\nCHAPTER\r\n I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………1\r\n 1.1 Two-part allegorical sayings…………………………1\r\n 1.2 Previous studies…………………………………………3\r\n 1.2.1 Wen (1981)……………………………………………3\r\n 1.2.2 Cheung (1982)………………………………………4\r\n 1.2.3 Chang (1999)…………………………………………5\r\n 1.2.4 Remarks………………………………………………6\r\n 1.3 Traditional approach to idioms………………………7\r\n 1.4 Cognitive approach to idioms…………………………8\r\n 1.5 Organization of the thesis……………………………10\r\n II. COGNITIVE MECHANISMS……………………………………12\r\n 2.1 Frame………………………………………………………12\r\n 2.2 Metonymy……………………………………………………16\r\n 2.3 Metaphor……………………………………………………20\r\n 2.4 The interaction of metaphor and metonymy…………25\r\n III. DATA DESCRIPTION………………………………………29\r\n 3.1 Geeraerts’classification model (1995)……………29\r\n 3.2 Modified model……………………………………………32\r\n 3.2.1 The modifications…………………………………32\r\n 3.2.2 Comparison and contrast of Geeraerts’(1995)\r\n model and the modified model……………………36\r\n 3.3 Data……………………………………………………37\r\n 3.3.1 Data base……………………………………………37\r\n 3.3.2 Distribution of the types………………………38\r\n IV. ANALYSIS……………………………………………………40\r\n 4.1 Isomorphic & semantically, phonologically and\r\n semantically motivated (I, SPS)……………………41\r\n 4.1.1 Subtype 1………………………………………………41\r\n 4.1.2 Subtype 2………………………………………………47\r\n 4.1.3 Subtype 3………………………………………………48\r\n 4.1.4 Subtype 4………………………………………………52\r\n 4.1.5 Subtype 5………………………………………………54\r\n 4.2 Nonisomorphic & semantically, phonologically and\r\n semantically motivated type (NI, SPS)……………57\r\n 4.2.1 Subtype 1………………………………………………57\r\n 4.2.2 Subtype 2………………………………………………64\r\n 4.2.3 Subtype 3………………………………………………66\r\n 4.2.4 Subtype 4………………………………………………67\r\n 4.2.5 Subtype 5………………………………………………70\r\n 4.2.6 Subtype 6………………………………………………72\r\n 4.2.7 Subtype 7………………………………………………73\r\n 4.3. Nonisomorphic & multi-semantically motivated\r\n type (NI, MS)……………………………………………75\r\n 4.3.1 Subtype 1………………………………………………76\r\n 4.3.2 Subtype 2………………………………………………77\r\n 4.3.3 Subtype 3………………………………………………80\r\n 4.3.4 Subtype 4………………………………………………81\r\n 4.3.5 Subtype 5………………………………………………83\r\n 4.3.6 Subtype 6………………………………………………84\r\n 4.3.7 Subtype 7………………………………………………86\r\n 4.3.8 Subtype 8………………………………………………88\r\n 4.3.9 Subtype 9………………………………………………89\r\n 4.4 Nonisomorphic & uni-semantically motivated type\r\n (NI, US)…………………………………………………90\r\n 4.5 Remarks……………………………………………………92\r\n V. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………93\r\n 5.1 Summary of the thesis…………………………………93\r\n 5.2 Residuals…………………………………………………98\r\n APPENDIX………………………………………………………101\r\n REFERENCES……………………………………………………125zh_TW
dc.language.isoen_US-
dc.source.urihttp://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0090555008en_US
dc.subject歇後語zh_TW
dc.subject隱喻zh_TW
dc.subject代喩zh_TW
dc.subjecttwo-part allegorical sayingsen_US
dc.subjectXie-hou-yuen_US
dc.subjectmetaphoren_US
dc.subjectmetonymyen_US
dc.subjectframeen_US
dc.titleTwo-part Allegorical Sayings Xie-hou-yu in Taiwanese Southern Min: A Cognitive Semantic Analysiszh_TW
dc.title台閩語歇後語:認知語意學之分析zh_TW
dc.typethesisen
dc.relation.referenceBurger, H. 1982. Einleitung [Introduction], in Burger, H. Buhofer, and A. Sialm 1982 Handbuch der phraseologie [Handbookzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceof phraseology]. De Gruyter, Berlin.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCarter, R., and M. McCarthy. 1988. Vocabulary and languagezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceteaching. London: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChafe, W. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceUniversity of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChang, F.-S. 1999. The study of Xiehouyu in Taiwan Southernzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMin. M.A. thesis, National Hsin Chu Teachers College.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChen, H.-W. 2000. An analysis of homophones in Mandarinzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChinese. M.A. thesis in Graduate Institute of Linguistics,zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFu Jen Catholic University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChen, Z.-X. 1997-2001. Taiwan suyan yudian [Dictionary ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTaiwan sayings, Volume I to Volume XI]. Taipei: Qianwei.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCheung, H.-N. 1982. A study of Xie-hou-yu expression inzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCantoese. The Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 14. 51-zh_TW
dc.relation.reference103.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbiazh_TW
dc.relation.referenceUniversity Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFillmore, C.J. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referencemeaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, ed.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceby C. Cogen, H.Thompson, G. Thurgood and K. Whistler, 123-zh_TW
dc.relation.reference31. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference_____. 1977. Topics in lexical semantics. Current issues inzh_TW
dc.relation.referencelinguistic theory, ed. by R.W. Cole, 76-138. Bloomington,zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLondon: Indiana University Presszh_TW
dc.relation.reference_____. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceQuaderni di Semantica VI. 222-54.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFraser, B. 1970. Idioms within a transformational grammar.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceFoundations of language 6. 22-42.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGeeraerts, D. 1995. Specialization and reinterpretation inzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceidioms. Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives,zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceed. by Martin Everaert et al.. 57-73. Hillsdale, New Jersey:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLawrence Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGibbbs, R. W. 1995. Idiomaticity and human cognition. Idioms:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceStructural and psychological perspectives, ed. by Martinzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceEveraert et al.. 97-116. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrencezh_TW
dc.relation.referenceErlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceGreciano, G. 1986. Actualite□s phraseologiques [Recentzh_TW
dc.relation.referencedevelopments in phraseology]. Verbum 9. 319-40.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJian, Z.-C. 1995. Taiwan minnan yanyu yanjiu [A study ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceproverbs in Taiwanese Southern Min]. M.A. thesis inzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDepartment of Chinese Literature, Feng Chia University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKatz, J. 1973. Compositionality, idiomaticity, and lexicalzh_TW
dc.relation.referencesubstitution. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. byzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAnderson and P. Kiparsky. New York.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKovecses, Z., and G. Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing azh_TW
dc.relation.referencecognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9:1. 37-zh_TW
dc.relation.reference77.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceKovecses, Zolta□n, and Pe□ter Szabo□. 1996. Idioms: A viewzh_TW
dc.relation.referencefrom cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics 17:3. 326-55.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLai, G.-H. 1993. Xiehouyu yanjiu: Xiehouyu de jieshuo,zh_TW
dc.relation.referencexingcheng, jiegou yu tese [A study of Xie-hou-yu: Thezh_TW
dc.relation.referencedefinition, formation, structure, and features of Xie-hou-zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceyu]. M.A. thesis in Department of Chinese Literature, Fengzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceChia University.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLin, W-P. 2000. Taiwan xiehouyu yudian [Taiwan two-partzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceallegorical sayings Dictionary]. Taipei: Daotian.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceLakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphorzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceand thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony. 202-51. Cambridge:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceMacmillan English dictionary. 2002. United Kingdom: Macmillanzh_TW
dc.relation.referencePublishers Limited. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, andzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceThomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70:3. 491-538.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRadden, G. 2003. How metonymic are metaphors? Metaphor andzh_TW
dc.relation.referencemetonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective, ed. byzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAntonio Barcelona. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRosch, et al. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceCognitive Psychology 8. 382-439.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceRuiz de Mendoza, F. 2003. The role of mappings and domains inzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceunderstanding metonymy. Metaphor and metonymy at thezh_TW
dc.relation.referencecrossroads: A cognitive perspective, ed. by Antoniozh_TW
dc.relation.referenceBarcelona. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceStern, G. 1931. Meaning and change of meaning. Bloomington:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceIndiana University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceTaylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes inzh_TW
dc.relation.referencelinguistic theory. US: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceUllmann, S. A. 1951. The principles of semantics. Glasgow:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJackson.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference_____. 1962. Semantics. An introduction to the science ofzh_TW
dc.relation.referencemeaning. Oxford : Blackwell.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWaldron, R. A. 1967. Sense and sense development. London:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceDeutsch.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWang, W. S.Y.. 1991. Language prefabs and habitual thought.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceExplorations in language. Pyramid Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWeinreich, U. 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceSubstance and structure of language, ed. by J. Puhvel. Loszh_TW
dc.relation.referenceAngeles: University of California Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWen, H.-X. 2002. Taiwanese zhihui xiehouyu [Two-partzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceallegorical sayings of Taiwaneses’ wisdom]. Taipei: Hongxinzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWenhua.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceWen, R.-Z. 1981. Xie-hou-yu de yuyi [The meaning of two-partzh_TW
dc.relation.referenceallegorical sayings]. Chinese Language Monthly 6. 426-31.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYang, D.-Y. 2000. A study of Hakka proverbs in Taiwan. M.A.zh_TW
dc.relation.referencethesis, National Hsin Chu Teachers College.zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceYang, X-Y (ed.). 2002. Xiehouyu quweiji [Interestingzh_TW
dc.relation.referencecollections of two-part allegorical sayings]. Taizhong:zh_TW
dc.relation.referenceJietai.zh_TW
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1en_US-
item.openairetypethesis-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_46ec-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
Appears in Collections:學位論文
Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
index.html115 BHTML2View/Open
Show simple item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


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