學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 從語料庫看台灣華語身體部位詞詞彙的詞彙結構、語意表現及詞彙化
Word component structures, meaning distribution and lexicalization: linguistic usages containing body-part terms liǎn / miàn, yǎn / mù and zuǐ / kǒu in Taiwan mandarin作者 許筱翎
Hsu, Hsiao-ling貢獻者 賴惠玲<br>劉吉軒
Lai, Huei-ling<br>Liu, Jyi-Shane
許筱翎
Hsu, Hsiao-ling關鍵詞 語意擴展
詞彙內部構造
詞性標記
轉喻
隱喻
Meaning extensions
Word component structures
Tagging
Metonymies
Metaphors日期 2017 上傳時間 31-七月-2017 10:53:53 (UTC+8) 摘要 本論文主要的目的為找出六個身體部位詞-臉、面、眼、目、嘴、口在台灣華語的真實使用情形。本篇所分析的語料皆來自於目前收錄最多筆語料、體裁種類平衡、被廣泛使用的中央研究院現代漢語平衡語料庫４.０版。我們有系統地分析了包含這六個身體部位詞詞彙的內部構造、語意分佈、與詞彙化類型。研究結果發現，在包含這六個身體部位詞詞彙中，[NN]N為最顯著的詞彙內部構造。而在語意分布的部份，相較於臉、眼、嘴，面、目、口較常被用來表達轉喻及隱喻等非字面上的意義。此外，人與情緒為最為普遍的轉喻意，這兩個轉喻用法在六個身體部位詞詞彙中皆可發現。此外，當身體部位詞詞彙表達人這個轉喻意時，其詞彙內部構造多為[NN]N ; 當身體部位詞詞彙表達情緒這個轉喻意時，其詞彙內部構造多為[NN]N與[VN]V。另外，大體上來說，無論身體部位詞詞彙是表達轉喻意或隱喻意，[NN]N為最普遍的內部構造。並且，當身體部位詞詞彙表達轉喻意或隱喻意時，最常出現的詞彙化類型為隱喻詞彙化（metaphorical lexicalization）。本研究結果期望能提供語料庫辨別轉喻及隱喻的方法，並期望轉喻及隱喻的研究可以從長久以來偏向質性的討論分析，擴展到量化的比較與討論。
This study aims at finding the actual usage patterns of the six body-part terms liǎn, miàn, yǎn, mù, zuǐ, and kǒu extracted from the largest, balanced and widely-used Sinica Corpus 4.0. The word component structures, meaning distribution and lexicalization types in the six body-part terms are systematically analyzed and compared. The results show that, in terms of word component structures, the [NN]N structure is the most dominant word component structure across the six body-part terms. As for meaning distribution, it is found that miàn, mù, and kǒu are more frequently used to denote non-literal meanings (either metonymic or metaphorical meanings) than their counterparts – liǎn, yǎn, and zuǐ. In addition, PERSON and EMOTION are the most prevalent metonymic meanings across the six body part terms. It is also found that when the body-part terms denote PERSON, the most dominant word component structure is [NN]N, while when they denote EMOTION, [NN]N and [VN]V are the most dominant structures. In general, the [NN]N structure shows the highest frequency of occurrences in all the six body part terms when they are used either metonymically or metaphorically. As for the lexicalization types, most of the disyllabic words containing the six body-part terms are in metaphorical lexicalization when they denote metonymic or metaphorical meanings. The results may provide some insights for refining procedures of identifing metaphors and metonymies in corpora so as to accelarate quantification and statistical evaluation.參考文獻 Brinton, L. J., and Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. \n Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. \nCameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum. \nCameron, L., and Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. \n Applied linguistics, 27(4), 671-690.\nChen, K. J., Huang, C. R., Chang, L. P., and Hsu, H. L. (1996). Sinica corpus: Design \n methodology for balanced corpora. Language, 167, 176.\nChu-Ren Huang and Shu-Kai Hsieh. (2010). Infrastructure for Cross-lingual \n Knowledge Representation - Towards Multilingualism in Linguistic Studies. \n Taiwan NSC-granted Research Project (NSC 96-2411-H-003-061-MY3)\nCruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nDavies, M. (2010). Corpus of Contemporary American English (http://corpus. byu. \n edu/coca). Brigham Young University.\nDeignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John \n Benjamins.\nDeignan, A. (2006). The grammar of linguistic metaphors. Trends in linguistics \n studies and monographs, 171, 106.\nGibbs Jr, R. W., and Wilson, N. L. (2002). Bodily action and metaphorical meaning. \n Style, 36(3), 524-540.\nGibbs, R. W., Lima, P. L. C., adn Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in \n embodied experience. Journal of pragmatics, 36(7), 1189-1210.\nHalliday, M. A. K. (Ed.). (2004). Lexicology and corpus linguistics. London: \n Bloomsbury Publishing.\nHalliwell, S.(1987). The Poetics of Aristotle: translation and commentary. UNC \n Press Books.\nHartmann, R. R. K., and Stork, F. C. (1972). Dictionary of language and linguistics. \n Lincoln: Applied Science Publishers.\nHuang, C., Chen, K., Chang, L. and Hsu, H. (1995). An Introduction to Academia \n Sinica Balanced Corpus. [In Chinese]. Proceedings of ROCLING VIII. 81-99.\nHung, Y. Y., and Gong, S. P. (2011). A Cross-Linguistic Approach to Body-part \n Metonymy in English and Chinese. Effects of an On-line Syntactic Analysis \n Strategy Instruction on University Students’ Reading Comprehension of English \n Science Texts,16, 146.\nKastovsky, D. (1982). Word-formation: a functional view. Folia Linguistica, 16(1-4), \n 181-198.\nKövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University \n Press.\nKövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: \n Cambridge University Press. \nLakoff, G. and M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of \n Chicago Press.\nLakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor in A. Ortony (ed.): \n Metaphor and Thought 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nLakoff, G., and Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the \n embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic books.\nLangacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive science, \n 10(1), 1-40.\nLipka, L. (2002). English lexicology: lexical structure, word semantics & word-\n formation. Gunter Narr Verlag.\nLu, Z. (1964). Word Formation in Chinese. Beijing: Scientific.\nMish, F. C. (1991). The Merriam-Webster new book of word histories. Springfield, \n Massachusetts.\nPackard, J. L. (2000). The morphology of Chinese: A linguistic and cognitive \n approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nPike, K. L. (1982). Linguistic concepts: An introduction to tagmemics. Lincoln: \n University of Nebraska Press.\nQin, Xiugui. (2008). The Conceptual Metaphors of “eye” - A Comparative Study\n Based on the Corpus Between English and Chinese. Journal of Foreign \n Languages, 31(5), 37-43.\nRitchie, D. (2003). Argument is war—Or is it a game of chess? Multiple meanings in \n the analysis of implicit metaphors, Metaphor and Symbol, 18/2: 125–46.\nRitchie, D. (2004). Metaphors in conversational context: Toward a connectivity \n theory of metaphor interpretation, Metaphor and Symbol, 19/4: 265–88.\nSemino, E., J. Heywood, and M. Short. (2004). Methodological problems in the \n analysis of a corpus of conversations about cancer, Journal of Pragmatics, \n 36/7: 1271–94.\nSemino, E. (2005). The metaphorical construction of complex domains: The case \n of speech activity in English, Metaphor and Symbol, 20/1: 35–70.\nStefanowitsch, A., and Gries, S. T. (Eds.). (2007). Corpus-based approaches to \n metaphor and metonymy (Vol. 171). Walter de Gruyter.\nTsai, L. C. (1994). The Metaphor of Body-parts in Chinese. Unpublished Master of \n Arts Thesis, National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.\nWen, X., and Wu, S. Q. (2007). A Study on the Cognitive Features of the \n Metaphoric Expressions Involving the English and Chinese FACE [J]. Journal of \n Southwest University (Social Sciences Edition), 6, 028.\nXie, H.Z. (2011). Comparative Study on Metaphorical Meaning of Vocabulary with \n the Denotation of “ face” between Chinese and English. Unpublished Master of\n Arts Thesis, Central China University, China.\nYu, N. (2002). Body and emotion: Body-parts in Chinese expression of emotion. \n Pragmatics & cognition, 10(1), 341-367.\nYu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. The Cambridge handbook of \n metaphor and thought, 247-261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nYu, N. (2011b). Speech organs and linguistic activity / function in Chinese (a \n revised and expanded version of a 2009 book chapter). In Zouheir Maalej \n and Ning Yu (eds.), Embodiment via Body-parts: Studies from Various \n Languages (Human Cognitive Processing series, 31), 117–148. \n Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.\nZhai, L. F. (2009). The interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in the Chinese \n Expressions of Body-part terms Yan and Mu. Canadian Social Science, 4(1), \n 57-62.\nZhao, X.D. (2010). A Cognitive Study on Meaning Transference of Body-Part \n Terms. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Fudan University, China. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
103555007資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103555007 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 賴惠玲<br>劉吉軒 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lai, Huei-ling<br>Liu, Jyi-Shane en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 許筱翎 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Hsu, Hsiao-ling en_US dc.creator (作者) 許筱翎 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Hsu, Hsiao-ling en_US dc.date (日期) 2017 en_US dc.date.accessioned 31-七月-2017 10:53:53 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 31-七月-2017 10:53:53 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 31-七月-2017 10:53:53 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0103555007 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/item?item_id=128283 - 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) 103555007 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本論文主要的目的為找出六個身體部位詞-臉、面、眼、目、嘴、口在台灣華語的真實使用情形。本篇所分析的語料皆來自於目前收錄最多筆語料、體裁種類平衡、被廣泛使用的中央研究院現代漢語平衡語料庫４.０版。我們有系統地分析了包含這六個身體部位詞詞彙的內部構造、語意分佈、與詞彙化類型。研究結果發現，在包含這六個身體部位詞詞彙中，[NN]N為最顯著的詞彙內部構造。而在語意分布的部份，相較於臉、眼、嘴，面、目、口較常被用來表達轉喻及隱喻等非字面上的意義。此外，人與情緒為最為普遍的轉喻意，這兩個轉喻用法在六個身體部位詞詞彙中皆可發現。此外，當身體部位詞詞彙表達人這個轉喻意時，其詞彙內部構造多為[NN]N ; 當身體部位詞詞彙表達情緒這個轉喻意時，其詞彙內部構造多為[NN]N與[VN]V。另外，大體上來說，無論身體部位詞詞彙是表達轉喻意或隱喻意，[NN]N為最普遍的內部構造。並且，當身體部位詞詞彙表達轉喻意或隱喻意時，最常出現的詞彙化類型為隱喻詞彙化（metaphorical lexicalization）。本研究結果期望能提供語料庫辨別轉喻及隱喻的方法，並期望轉喻及隱喻的研究可以從長久以來偏向質性的討論分析，擴展到量化的比較與討論。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This study aims at finding the actual usage patterns of the six body-part terms liǎn, miàn, yǎn, mù, zuǐ, and kǒu extracted from the largest, balanced and widely-used Sinica Corpus 4.0. The word component structures, meaning distribution and lexicalization types in the six body-part terms are systematically analyzed and compared. The results show that, in terms of word component structures, the [NN]N structure is the most dominant word component structure across the six body-part terms. As for meaning distribution, it is found that miàn, mù, and kǒu are more frequently used to denote non-literal meanings (either metonymic or metaphorical meanings) than their counterparts – liǎn, yǎn, and zuǐ. In addition, PERSON and EMOTION are the most prevalent metonymic meanings across the six body part terms. It is also found that when the body-part terms denote PERSON, the most dominant word component structure is [NN]N, while when they denote EMOTION, [NN]N and [VN]V are the most dominant structures. In general, the [NN]N structure shows the highest frequency of occurrences in all the six body part terms when they are used either metonymically or metaphorically. As for the lexicalization types, most of the disyllabic words containing the six body-part terms are in metaphorical lexicalization when they denote metonymic or metaphorical meanings. The results may provide some insights for refining procedures of identifing metaphors and metonymies in corpora so as to accelarate quantification and statistical evaluation. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1\n 1.1 Motivation and Purpose 1\n 1.2 Research Questions 3\n 1.3 Organization of the Thesis 4 \n\nCHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 5\n 2.1 ‘Word’ in Chinese 5\n 2.1.1 Defining the ‘word’ in Chinese 5\n 2.1.2 Describing word components: Form class description 7\n 2.1.3 Lexicalization 9 \n 2.2 Metaphor Theory 11\n 2.3 Metaphors and Metonymies with Body-Part Terms 14\n 2.3.1 Liǎn/miàn and face 15\n 2.3.2 Yǎn/mù and eye 19\n 2.3.3 Zuǐ/ kǒu and mouth 22\n 2.4 Remarks 26\n\nCHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 27\n 3.1 Corpus-Based and Corpus-Driven Approaches 27\n 3.2 Corpora 27\n 3.3 Coding Schema 28\n 3.3.1 Word segmentation 28\n 3.3.2 Filtering 31\n 3.3.3 Form class identity, meanings and lexicalization 32\n\nCHAPTER IV: RESULTS & DISCUSSION 42\n 4.1 Word Component Structures 43\n 4.2 Meaning Distribution 46\n 4.3 Lexicalization Types 65\n 4.4 Overall Discussion 80\n\nCHAPTER V: CONCLUSION 89\n 5.1 Summary 89\n 5.2 Contributions of the Thesis 90\n 5.3 Directions for Future Studies 92\n\nREFERENCES 94 zh_TW dc.format.extent 4268616 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103555007 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語意擴展 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 詞彙內部構造 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 詞性標記 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 轉喻 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隱喻 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Meaning extensions en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Word component structures en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Tagging en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Metonymies en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Metaphors en_US dc.title (題名) 從語料庫看台灣華語身體部位詞詞彙的詞彙結構、語意表現及詞彙化 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Word component structures, meaning distribution and lexicalization: linguistic usages containing body-part terms liǎn / miàn, yǎn / mù and zuǐ / kǒu in Taiwan mandarin en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brinton, L. J., and Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. \n Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. \nCameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London: Continuum. \nCameron, L., and Deignan, A. (2006). The emergence of metaphor in discourse. \n Applied linguistics, 27(4), 671-690.\nChen, K. J., Huang, C. R., Chang, L. P., and Hsu, H. L. (1996). Sinica corpus: Design \n methodology for balanced corpora. Language, 167, 176.\nChu-Ren Huang and Shu-Kai Hsieh. (2010). Infrastructure for Cross-lingual \n Knowledge Representation - Towards Multilingualism in Linguistic Studies. \n Taiwan NSC-granted Research Project (NSC 96-2411-H-003-061-MY3)\nCruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nDavies, M. (2010). Corpus of Contemporary American English (http://corpus. byu. \n edu/coca). Brigham Young University.\nDeignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John \n Benjamins.\nDeignan, A. (2006). The grammar of linguistic metaphors. Trends in linguistics \n studies and monographs, 171, 106.\nGibbs Jr, R. W., and Wilson, N. L. (2002). Bodily action and metaphorical meaning. \n Style, 36(3), 524-540.\nGibbs, R. W., Lima, P. L. C., adn Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in \n embodied experience. Journal of pragmatics, 36(7), 1189-1210.\nHalliday, M. A. K. (Ed.). (2004). Lexicology and corpus linguistics. London: \n Bloomsbury Publishing.\nHalliwell, S.(1987). The Poetics of Aristotle: translation and commentary. UNC \n Press Books.\nHartmann, R. R. K., and Stork, F. C. (1972). Dictionary of language and linguistics. \n Lincoln: Applied Science Publishers.\nHuang, C., Chen, K., Chang, L. and Hsu, H. (1995). An Introduction to Academia \n Sinica Balanced Corpus. [In Chinese]. Proceedings of ROCLING VIII. 81-99.\nHung, Y. Y., and Gong, S. P. (2011). A Cross-Linguistic Approach to Body-part \n Metonymy in English and Chinese. Effects of an On-line Syntactic Analysis \n Strategy Instruction on University Students’ Reading Comprehension of English \n Science Texts,16, 146.\nKastovsky, D. (1982). Word-formation: a functional view. Folia Linguistica, 16(1-4), \n 181-198.\nKövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University \n Press.\nKövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: \n Cambridge University Press. \nLakoff, G. and M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of \n Chicago Press.\nLakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor in A. Ortony (ed.): \n Metaphor and Thought 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nLakoff, G., and Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the \n embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic books.\nLangacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive science, \n 10(1), 1-40.\nLipka, L. (2002). English lexicology: lexical structure, word semantics & word-\n formation. Gunter Narr Verlag.\nLu, Z. (1964). Word Formation in Chinese. Beijing: Scientific.\nMish, F. C. (1991). The Merriam-Webster new book of word histories. Springfield, \n Massachusetts.\nPackard, J. L. (2000). The morphology of Chinese: A linguistic and cognitive \n approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nPike, K. L. (1982). Linguistic concepts: An introduction to tagmemics. Lincoln: \n University of Nebraska Press.\nQin, Xiugui. (2008). The Conceptual Metaphors of “eye” - A Comparative Study\n Based on the Corpus Between English and Chinese. Journal of Foreign \n Languages, 31(5), 37-43.\nRitchie, D. (2003). Argument is war—Or is it a game of chess? Multiple meanings in \n the analysis of implicit metaphors, Metaphor and Symbol, 18/2: 125–46.\nRitchie, D. (2004). Metaphors in conversational context: Toward a connectivity \n theory of metaphor interpretation, Metaphor and Symbol, 19/4: 265–88.\nSemino, E., J. Heywood, and M. Short. (2004). Methodological problems in the \n analysis of a corpus of conversations about cancer, Journal of Pragmatics, \n 36/7: 1271–94.\nSemino, E. (2005). The metaphorical construction of complex domains: The case \n of speech activity in English, Metaphor and Symbol, 20/1: 35–70.\nStefanowitsch, A., and Gries, S. T. (Eds.). (2007). Corpus-based approaches to \n metaphor and metonymy (Vol. 171). Walter de Gruyter.\nTsai, L. C. (1994). The Metaphor of Body-parts in Chinese. Unpublished Master of \n Arts Thesis, National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.\nWen, X., and Wu, S. Q. (2007). A Study on the Cognitive Features of the \n Metaphoric Expressions Involving the English and Chinese FACE [J]. Journal of \n Southwest University (Social Sciences Edition), 6, 028.\nXie, H.Z. (2011). Comparative Study on Metaphorical Meaning of Vocabulary with \n the Denotation of “ face” between Chinese and English. Unpublished Master of\n Arts Thesis, Central China University, China.\nYu, N. (2002). Body and emotion: Body-parts in Chinese expression of emotion. \n Pragmatics & cognition, 10(1), 341-367.\nYu, N. (2008). Metaphor from body and culture. The Cambridge handbook of \n metaphor and thought, 247-261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nYu, N. (2011b). Speech organs and linguistic activity / function in Chinese (a \n revised and expanded version of a 2009 book chapter). In Zouheir Maalej \n and Ning Yu (eds.), Embodiment via Body-parts: Studies from Various \n Languages (Human Cognitive Processing series, 31), 117–148. \n Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.\nZhai, L. F. (2009). The interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy in the Chinese \n Expressions of Body-part terms Yan and Mu. Canadian Social Science, 4(1), \n 57-62.\nZhao, X.D. (2010). A Cognitive Study on Meaning Transference of Body-Part \n Terms. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Fudan University, China. zh_TW
