學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 漢語多義詞「跑」之結構及語意分析
A structural and semantic analysis of the polysemous verb PAO in Mandarin Chinese作者 蔡宛玲
Tsai, Wan-Ling貢獻者 賴惠玲
Lai, Huei-Ling
蔡宛玲
Tsai, Wan-Ling關鍵詞 多義詞
跑
移動事件框架
概念結構
句法結構
語意網絡
Polysemy
PAO
Motion event frame
Conceptual structure
Syntactic structure
Semantic network日期 2017 上傳時間 24-Jul-2017 11:55:36 (UTC+8) 摘要 一詞多義是所有語言會出現的共有現象，然而，過往較少探討多義詞整體結構與其各義項間的關聯，也鮮少討論句法結構延伸的原因。本篇研究將探討漢語日常使用頻率較高的移動動詞「跑」的多義性，以中研院語料庫之語料為本，客觀的回歸到語言事實作分析，並參照Talmy（1975, 1985, 2000）提出的移動事件框架，檢視「跑」所體現的概念結構及句法結構間的關聯，試圖解釋造成不及物用法至非常規賓語用法背後所展現的機制，此外，本文根據教育部重編國語辭典、中文詞彙網絡知識庫內「跑」的定義及參照Evans（2005）的原則性多義理論，確立「跑」的獨立義項並探討概念結構中不同元素的變化和「跑」多義性之間的關聯，進一步地說明各義項間的相關性與區別性，最後，參照Lakoff（1987）的放射形範疇結構整理出屬於「跑」的語意網絡圖。 本篇研究結果顯示，「跑」共有四種不同的句法結構，分別為最典型的不及物﹝A.名詞短語+跑﹞句式，由趨向介詞帶出名詞短語的﹝B.名詞短語+處所/趨向介詞+名詞短語+跑﹞句式及﹝C.名詞短語+跑+處所/趨向介詞+名詞短語﹞句式、從不及物用法延伸至非常規賓語用法的﹝D.名詞短語+跑+名詞短語（斜格）﹞句式，各句式映射到的概念結構皆不同，是概念結構內不同要素的變化影響句法結構的改變，人類的自然認知過程使路徑延伸出不同種類，造成「跑」的非常規賓語用法以及延伸出不同於字面義的其他義項。此外，本文確立「跑」的七個獨立義項為「以兩腿交互快速向前移動」義、「往特定目標移動」義、「為某事忙碌奔走」義、「迅速離開、逃走、躲避」義、「兩個以上的參與者競速」義、「交通工具或物體的移動」義及「離開原有的位置」義，各義項的出現與整體句法結構、概念結構及語境有很大的關聯，總結來說，「跑」所體現的概念結構、句法結構及語意三者之間的相互影響是造成多義現象的重要因素。
This study investigates the prevalently used polysemous motion verb PAO “run” in Mandarin Chinese. The data are extracted from Academic Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese. Under the framework of Motion Event Frame （Talmy 1975, 1985, 2000）, the study explicates the mechanism of PAO’s syntactic complexities in a more plausible manner. Four different structures of PAO are detected: the most typical intransitive structure [A. NP+PAO], structures with prepostions [B. NP+P+PAO+NP] and [C. NP+PAO+P+NP], and the unconventional transtive structure [D. NP+PAO+NP（oblique case）]. Each structure manifests different conceptual structures. It is claimed that the extention of Path has caused the usage of unconventional transtive structure and the polysemous phenomenon of PAO.In addition, this paper investigates the relationship between the different senses of PAO and elements in its conceptual structure. The relevance and distinction between the different senses of PAO are built as a radial categorization. PAO is suggested to have seven different senses: move quickly with legs, move to specific places, move for specific reasons, escape, two or more participants race, vehicles or objects move and leave the original location. Each sense is related to the overall syntactic structure, the conceptual structure and different contexts. In conclusion, the interaction between the conceputual structure, the syntactic structure and semantic meanings is a major factor that makes a polysemy.參考文獻 中文文獻（依姓氏筆劃順序排列）邢福義(1991)。漢語裡賓語帶入現象之觀察。世界漢語教學，2，76-84。李詩青(2016)。現代漢語動詞「走」之多義性認知研究。 國立清華大學，新竹。莊舒文(2002)。時相與時態的搭配關係(未出版之碩士論文)。 國立台灣師範大學，臺北市。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。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。蕭惠貞(2013)。多義詞 [洗] 之語義分析，詞彙排序與華語教學應用。 華語文教學研究，10(4)，47-80。英文文獻（依姓氏字母順序排列）Atkins, B. T. (1987). Semantic ID tags: corpus evidence for dictionary senses. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. 1736).Chang, J. C. (2015). Verbal Semantics and Eventive Inference: The Case of fàng inMandarin Chinese. National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu.Chou, S. P. (2014). Semantic Profile of the Multi-faceted Verb ji. National Tsing HuaUniversity, Hsinchu.Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguists. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of linguistics, 41(1), 33-75.Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semanticsof RISK and its neighbors. Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semanticand lexical organization, 103.Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. T. (2000). Describing Polysemy: the case of ‘crawl’. In Ravin, Y., & Leacock, C. (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches (pp. 91-110). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Gries, S. T. (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many sensesof to run. Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntaxand lexis, 57-99.Huang, C. R., Ahrens, K., Chang, L. L., Chen, K. J., Liu, M. C., & Tsai, M. C. (2000).The module-attribute representation of verbal semantics: From semantics toargument structure. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 5(1), 19-46.Jackendoff, R., & Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition (Vol. 8). MIT press.Jackendoff, R. (1985). Multiple subcategorization and the ϑ-criterion: The case ofclimb. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 3(3), 271-295.Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of imagination, reason,and meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Katz, J. J. (1972). Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What categories tell us aboutthe mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford university press.Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago press.Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G. (1987, September). Taking: A study in lexical network theory. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 13, pp. 195-206).Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. London, England: The MIT Press.Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. Metonymy inlanguage and thought, 4, 17-60.Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. Studies in cross-cultural psychology,1, 1-49.Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s?. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 6(1), 89-130.Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Stromqvist, S., & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp.219-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Sweetser, E. E. (1986, May). Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary?. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 12, pp. 528-538).Talmy, L. (1991, July). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 480-519).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. 1). MIT press.Tang, C. H. (2014). A Constructional Approach to Form-meaning Mismatch: the Case of Mandarin Manner of Motion Verb Pao. Providence University, Taichung.Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: Thecase of over. Language, 724-765.Wang, J. (2009). A Corpus-Based Study on the Chinese Near-Synonymous Verbs ofRunning. Volume 2/edited by Yun Xiao. Published by: Bryant UniversitySmithfield, Rhode Island USA, 2, 399.網路文獻Chu-Ren Huang and Shu-Kai Hsieh. (2010). Infrastructure for Cross-lingual Knowledge Representation ─ Towards Multilingualism in Linguistic Studies. Taiwan NSC-granted Research Project (NSC 96-2411-H-003-061-MY3)中央研究院平衡語料庫：http://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/教育部重編辭典修訂本：http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cbdic/ 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
103555006資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1035550061 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 賴惠玲 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lai, Huei-Ling en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 蔡宛玲 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Tsai, Wan-Ling en_US dc.creator (作者) 蔡宛玲 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Tsai, Wan-Ling en_US dc.date (日期) 2017 en_US dc.date.accessioned 24-Jul-2017 11:55:36 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 24-Jul-2017 11:55:36 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 24-Jul-2017 11:55:36 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1035550061 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/111282 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 語言學研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 103555006 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 一詞多義是所有語言會出現的共有現象，然而，過往較少探討多義詞整體結構與其各義項間的關聯，也鮮少討論句法結構延伸的原因。本篇研究將探討漢語日常使用頻率較高的移動動詞「跑」的多義性，以中研院語料庫之語料為本，客觀的回歸到語言事實作分析，並參照Talmy（1975, 1985, 2000）提出的移動事件框架，檢視「跑」所體現的概念結構及句法結構間的關聯，試圖解釋造成不及物用法至非常規賓語用法背後所展現的機制，此外，本文根據教育部重編國語辭典、中文詞彙網絡知識庫內「跑」的定義及參照Evans（2005）的原則性多義理論，確立「跑」的獨立義項並探討概念結構中不同元素的變化和「跑」多義性之間的關聯，進一步地說明各義項間的相關性與區別性，最後，參照Lakoff（1987）的放射形範疇結構整理出屬於「跑」的語意網絡圖。 本篇研究結果顯示，「跑」共有四種不同的句法結構，分別為最典型的不及物﹝A.名詞短語+跑﹞句式，由趨向介詞帶出名詞短語的﹝B.名詞短語+處所/趨向介詞+名詞短語+跑﹞句式及﹝C.名詞短語+跑+處所/趨向介詞+名詞短語﹞句式、從不及物用法延伸至非常規賓語用法的﹝D.名詞短語+跑+名詞短語（斜格）﹞句式，各句式映射到的概念結構皆不同，是概念結構內不同要素的變化影響句法結構的改變，人類的自然認知過程使路徑延伸出不同種類，造成「跑」的非常規賓語用法以及延伸出不同於字面義的其他義項。此外，本文確立「跑」的七個獨立義項為「以兩腿交互快速向前移動」義、「往特定目標移動」義、「為某事忙碌奔走」義、「迅速離開、逃走、躲避」義、「兩個以上的參與者競速」義、「交通工具或物體的移動」義及「離開原有的位置」義，各義項的出現與整體句法結構、概念結構及語境有很大的關聯，總結來說，「跑」所體現的概念結構、句法結構及語意三者之間的相互影響是造成多義現象的重要因素。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study investigates the prevalently used polysemous motion verb PAO “run” in Mandarin Chinese. The data are extracted from Academic Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese. Under the framework of Motion Event Frame （Talmy 1975, 1985, 2000）, the study explicates the mechanism of PAO’s syntactic complexities in a more plausible manner. Four different structures of PAO are detected: the most typical intransitive structure [A. NP+PAO], structures with prepostions [B. NP+P+PAO+NP] and [C. NP+PAO+P+NP], and the unconventional transtive structure [D. NP+PAO+NP（oblique case）]. Each structure manifests different conceptual structures. It is claimed that the extention of Path has caused the usage of unconventional transtive structure and the polysemous phenomenon of PAO.In addition, this paper investigates the relationship between the different senses of PAO and elements in its conceptual structure. The relevance and distinction between the different senses of PAO are built as a radial categorization. PAO is suggested to have seven different senses: move quickly with legs, move to specific places, move for specific reasons, escape, two or more participants race, vehicles or objects move and leave the original location. Each sense is related to the overall syntactic structure, the conceptual structure and different contexts. In conclusion, the interaction between the conceputual structure, the syntactic structure and semantic meanings is a major factor that makes a polysemy. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 研究動機與目的 1 1.2 論文架構 5第二章 文獻回顧 6 2.1 理論框架 6 2.1.1 Talmy（1975, 1985, 2000）移動事件框架 6 2.1.2 Lakoff（1987）放射形範疇結構 8 2.2 移動事件框架研究 11 2.3多義詞語意網絡架構研究 15 2.3.1 Evans（2005）原則性多義理論 15 2.3.2 語意網絡架各相關研究 15 2.4 跑的相關研究 20 2.5 小結 23第三章 研究方法 26 3.1 研究工具與範圍 26 3.2 語料處理 26 3.3 語料分析 27第四章 研究結果與討論 31 4.1 語料分布 31 4.2 句法分析 33 4.2.1句式A：名詞短語+跑 37 4.2.2句式B：名詞短語+處所/趨向介詞+名詞短語+跑 38 4.2.3句式C：名詞短語+跑+處所/趨向介詞+名詞短語 41 4.2.4句式D：名詞短語+跑+名詞短語（斜格） 43 4.3 「跑」的語意關聯性 50 4.3.1 「跑」的獨立義項分析 50 4.3.2 「跑」的語意網絡圖 60第五章 結論 64 5.1 研究發現與貢獻 64 5.2 研究限制及未來研究方向 68參考文獻 69 zh_TW dc.format.extent 5971010 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1035550061 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 多義詞 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 跑 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 移動事件框架 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 概念結構 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 句法結構 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語意網絡 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Polysemy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) PAO en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Motion event frame en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Conceptual structure en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Syntactic structure en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Semantic network en_US dc.title (題名) 漢語多義詞「跑」之結構及語意分析 zh_TW dc.title (題名) A structural and semantic analysis of the polysemous verb PAO in Mandarin Chinese en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻（依姓氏筆劃順序排列）邢福義(1991)。漢語裡賓語帶入現象之觀察。世界漢語教學，2，76-84。李詩青(2016)。現代漢語動詞「走」之多義性認知研究。 國立清華大學，新竹。莊舒文(2002)。時相與時態的搭配關係(未出版之碩士論文)。 國立台灣師範大學，臺北市。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。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。蕭惠貞(2013)。多義詞 [洗] 之語義分析，詞彙排序與華語教學應用。 華語文教學研究，10(4)，47-80。英文文獻（依姓氏字母順序排列）Atkins, B. T. (1987). Semantic ID tags: corpus evidence for dictionary senses. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. 1736).Chang, J. C. (2015). Verbal Semantics and Eventive Inference: The Case of fàng inMandarin Chinese. National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu.Chou, S. P. (2014). Semantic Profile of the Multi-faceted Verb ji. National Tsing HuaUniversity, Hsinchu.Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguists. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of linguistics, 41(1), 33-75.Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semanticsof RISK and its neighbors. Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semanticand lexical organization, 103.Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. T. (2000). Describing Polysemy: the case of ‘crawl’. In Ravin, Y., & Leacock, C. (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches (pp. 91-110). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Gries, S. T. (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many sensesof to run. Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntaxand lexis, 57-99.Huang, C. R., Ahrens, K., Chang, L. L., Chen, K. J., Liu, M. C., & Tsai, M. C. (2000).The module-attribute representation of verbal semantics: From semantics toargument structure. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 5(1), 19-46.Jackendoff, R., & Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition (Vol. 8). MIT press.Jackendoff, R. (1985). Multiple subcategorization and the ϑ-criterion: The case ofclimb. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 3(3), 271-295.Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of imagination, reason,and meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Katz, J. J. (1972). Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What categories tell us aboutthe mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford university press.Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago press.Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G. (1987, September). Taking: A study in lexical network theory. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 13, pp. 195-206).Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. London, England: The MIT Press.Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. Metonymy inlanguage and thought, 4, 17-60.Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. Studies in cross-cultural psychology,1, 1-49.Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s?. Cognitive Linguistics (includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 6(1), 89-130.Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Stromqvist, S., & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp.219-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Sweetser, E. E. (1986, May). Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary?. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 12, pp. 528-538).Talmy, L. (1991, July). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 480-519).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. 1). MIT press.Tang, C. H. (2014). A Constructional Approach to Form-meaning Mismatch: the Case of Mandarin Manner of Motion Verb Pao. Providence University, Taichung.Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: Thecase of over. Language, 724-765.Wang, J. (2009). A Corpus-Based Study on the Chinese Near-Synonymous Verbs ofRunning. Volume 2/edited by Yun Xiao. Published by: Bryant UniversitySmithfield, Rhode Island USA, 2, 399.網路文獻Chu-Ren Huang and Shu-Kai Hsieh. (2010). Infrastructure for Cross-lingual Knowledge Representation ─ Towards Multilingualism in Linguistic Studies. Taiwan NSC-granted Research Project (NSC 96-2411-H-003-061-MY3)中央研究院平衡語料庫：http://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/教育部重編辭典修訂本：http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cbdic/ zh_TW
