Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 漢語「奪」及複合詞的語意發展： 以認知語言學及語料庫為本
A Diachronic Semantic Analysis of Duó and its Compounds in Mandarin: A Cognitive Linguistic and Corpus-based Study作者 陳筑琬
Chen, Chu-Wan貢獻者 鍾曉芳
Chung, Siaw-Fong
陳筑琬
Chen, Chu-Wan關鍵詞 多義詞
「奪」
語料庫
勢力圖式
語意網絡
語法化
動力學
Polysemy
Chinese verb duó
FORCE schemas
Corpus
Semantic network
Grammaticalization
Force dynamics日期 2019 上傳時間 1-Jul-2019 10:38:43 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究以多義詞「奪」為主要研究範圍，以詞彙結構分布及歷時性語意，釐清「奪」的多義現象。前人對於「奪」的多義與語意延伸的討論不多，僅有探究其句法或「奪」的基本語意及近義詞等相關論述，並未透過歷時性的語意探討及共時性的語料庫佐證，故本研究以《中央研究院漢籍電子文獻》中的古漢語語料庫及《聯合知識庫》的現代漢語語料為本，以客觀的語言事實作分析，參照Talmy（2000）所提出的動力學（Force Dynamics）結合Langacker（2002）射體（Trajector）與界標（Landmark）的概念為本，輔以Johnson（1987）勢力概念（Force Schemas）為基模，探討「奪」的相關意象圖式，並討論「奪」的語法化及其語意延伸以描繪「奪」的語意網絡圖。研究發現，從語料中可發現，古漢語語料大多以單純詞形式出現，而現代漢語語料則以複合詞形式為普遍，雙字詞「奪X」的語法結構原本在上古時期都以補充式的結果補語為主，但隨後使用頻率逐漸遞減，在現代漢語語料中補充式的結果補語使用頻率最低。在近代漢語語料中，「X奪」首次出現動補結果為主的情形，另外，近代漢語語料中發現「奪X」的語料多於「X奪」，且位居最高的使用為動補趨向補語。再者，「奪」涵蓋五種的意象圖式，其中Johnson（1987）之「吸引」與「強制」勢力概念可釐清「奪」的「強取」義與「削除」義，並繪出與「奪」相關之意象圖式。此外，透過Talmy（2000）所提出的動力學概念中的「施動者」（agonist）與「受動者」（antagonist）的互動關係，可發現「用手抓」義為核心語意。本篇對於「奪」的詞義發現有助於未來歷時性的詞彙語意研究。
The study investigated the diachronic meanings of the polysemy duó and its internal structures in Mandarin Chinese. The lack of in-depth discussion of duó motivated the study of the diachronic meanings of duó. Data from the Hanchi Database of Academia Sinica, including the Corpus of Old Chinese, the Corpus of Middle Chinese, and the Corpus of Modern Chinese, was extracted as the ancient data of this study and the United Daily News constituted the modern data. Based on the data, the image schemas of duó were presented, utilizing the Force Dynamics theory of Talmy (2000), the Trajector-Landmark Alignment of Langacker (2002), and the Force Schemas of Johnson (1987) as the basic frameworks. A semantic network of polysemous verb duó was also postulated so as to trace its semantic extensions and grammaticalization patterns.It was found that the internal structures of [duó X] were originally verb-resultative complements in the Corpus of Old Chinese, but the frequency gradually decreased with time. The verb-resultative complements of [duó X] were the least frequenct in the Corpus of Modern Chinese. Comparatively, in the Corpus of Early Chinese, the verb-resultative complements of [X duó] were most frequently used. As for [duó X], it was found that [duó X] started to become more common in the Corpus of Early Mandarin Chinese. The directional complements were the most frequently used in the Corpus of Early Mandarin Chinese. From the data, duó appeared most of the time as a single-charactered form in ancient Chinese, but as two-charactered form in modern Chinese. It was also found that there were five image schemas of duó. The two senses ‘to snatch’ and ‘be deprived of’ were distinguished according to the schemas of Johnson (1987). We also discovered that the sense ‘to grip’ was the the core sense based on the interaction between the ‘agonist’ and the ‘antagonist’ discussed in Talmy (2000). In conclusion, this semantic study of polysemy duó will contribute to future diachronic lexical semantic research.參考文獻 英文文獻（依姓名筆劃排序）Ahrens, K., Huang, H., & Chung, Y. H. (2003). Sense and meaning facets in verbal semantics: A MARVS perspective. Language and Linguistics, 4, 468.Bjelogrlić, A. (2016). Pulling (Closer) and Pushing (Away): Verbs expressing attraction and repulsion in English, Belgrade English Language and Literature Studies, 8 (3) 51-67.Brown, C. (1990). A survey of category types in natural language. In Tsohatzidis (Eds.), Meanings and Prototypes (RLE Linguistics B: Grammar) (pp. 27-57). Routledge.Brugman, C. (1988). The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. MA thesis. University of California, Berkeley.Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In S. Small, G. Cottrell, & M. Tannenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 477-507). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Carroll, L. (1865). Alice in wonderland: Authoritative texts of Alice’s adventures in wonderland, through the looking-glass, the hunting of the snark: Backgrounds. In Donald. (Eds.), Essays in criticism (pp. 146). New York: Norton.Chao, Y. R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Chung, K. S. (2004). Mandarin compound verbs. Doctoral dissertation. Universiteit Leiden.Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1-31.Coleman, L., & Kay, P. (1981). Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language, 57(1), 26-44.Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dippner, K. (2010). Metaphorical Use of Mandarin Compound Directional Complements. MA thesis. University of Oslo.Doyle, A. C. (1894). The Annotated Sherlock Holmes. In Baring-Gould, W. S (Eds.), The Annotated Sherlock Holmes (pp. 568). New York: Clarkson N. Potter.Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure, Journal of linguistics, 41(1), 33-75.Evans, V & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Evans, V. (2007). Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.Gibbs, Raymond W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Goldberg, A. E. (1992). Argument Structure Constructions. Doctoral dissertation. University of California at Berkeley.Gruyter. W. D. (1995). Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World. In Taylor, J. R., & MacLaury, R. E. (Eds.), Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs (pp.1-406).Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, E. C., & Heine, B. (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, (pp.17-35). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins Pub. Co.Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible?. Linguistics, 37(6), 1043-1068.Heine, B. (2017). Grammaticalization. The handbook of historical linguistics, 573-601.Heine, B., & Reh, M. (1984). Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Buske Helmet Verlag Gmbh.Heine, B., Claudi, U. & F. Hünnemeyer. (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: Chica-go University Press.Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Huang, H. C. (2007). Argument realization of Chinese result and phase complements. Doctoral dissertation. National Tsing Hua University.Jackendoff, R. S. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Jackendoff, R. S. (1996). Conceptual semantics and cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 93-129.Johnson, M. (1987) The Body in the Mind: The Bodiliy Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Köhler, W. (1925). The Mentality of Apes. Comparative Psychology, 4, 69-103.Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Lakoff, G. (1986). Classifiers as a reflection of mind. In C. G. Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization, (pp. 13-51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39-74.Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edition) (pp. 202-51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1989). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application, (Vol. 2). Standford: Standford University Press.Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1-38.Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar, (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter.Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: University of California Press.Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Li, X., Zhao, H., & Lu, Y. (2014). The Relation between Thematic Role Computing and Semantic Relatedness Processing during On-Line Sentence Comprehension. PLoS ONE 9(4): e95834. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095834.Lin, M. C., & Chung, S. F. (2018). A Corpus-Based Lexical Semantic Study of Mandarin Verbs: Guān and Bì. In Workshop on Chinese Lexical Semantics, pp. 358-371.Lindner, G. M., & Wright Jr, R. W. (1983). Bovine embryo morphology and evaluation. Theriogenology, 20(4), 407-416.Liu, M. C., Huang, C. R., Lee, C., & Lee, C. Y. (2000). When endpoint meets endpoint: a corpus-based lexical semantic study of Mandarin verbs of throwing. International Journal of Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing, 5(1), 81-96.Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.Lyons, J .(1981). Language, Meaning and Context. Bungay, Suffolk: Fontana.Mandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99(4), 587.Mbah, B. M., & Edeoga, P. N. (2012). Image Schema of the Verb “Sè” in Igbo Semantics. Image, 2(7), 41-47.Natali, P.C. (2018). On the Importance of FORCE Schemas in Video Games. MA thesis. RWTH Aachen University.Otieno, R. F., Owino, F. R., Attyan, J. M., & Ogone, J. O. (2017). Image schemas in political discourse in Kenya. European Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 5(2), 71-84.Packard, J. L. (2000). The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Peña (1999). Subsidiarity relationships between image-schemas: An approach to the force schema. Journal of English Studies, (1), 187-208.Pinker, S. (1995). Language acquisition. Language: An invitation to cognitive science, 1, 135-82.Radden, G. (1996). Motion Metaphorized: The case of coming and going. Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics, 423-458.Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37-78.Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17-59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 104(3), 192.Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (Eds.), Advances in Cross-Cultural Psychology (Vol. 7). London: Academic Press.Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum, 27-48.Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive psychology, 7(4), 573-605.Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. Syntax and semantics, 4, 181-238.Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and thought. In W. Eilfort, P. Kroeber and K. Peterson (Eds), Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity (pp. 293–337). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Talmy, L. (2000). Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Toward A Cognition Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Taylor, J. R. (1993). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, 3, 201-226.Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2001). Regularity in semantic change (Vol. 97). Cambridge University Press.Tversky, B. (1990). Where partonomies and taxonomies meet. Meanings and prototypes: Studies on Linguistic Categorization, London: Routledge, 334-344.Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meanings and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wang, S., & Huang, C. R. (2011). Sense Representation in MARVS: A Case Study on the Polysemy of chī. International Journal of Computer Processing Of Languages, 23(03), 285-306.Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investgations. Oxford University Press.Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophische Untersuchungen, trans.G. E.M. Anscombe as Philosophical Investigations, 3rd edn. 1999. Harlow, London: Prentice Hall.Witwer, H. C. (1918). From Baseball to Boches. United States: Whitefish MT.Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese (Vol. 1). John Benjamins Publishing.中文文獻（依姓名筆劃排序）王智儀 （2012）。基於語料庫之近義詞辨析─ 以動作及物動詞 [建立, 成立, 設立] 為例。文藻外語學院碩士論文，高雄市。王韻雅（2011）。成語的隱喻藝術。秀威出版。江姿儀 （2011） 。中文互動動詞的力學展演。國立交通大學碩士論文，新竹市 。朱德熙（1982）。語法講義。商務印書館：北京。呂淑相（1947）。中國文法要略（上）。商務印書館：上海。李子瑄&曹逢甫（2009）。漢語語言學。正中出版發行。李菁菁（2014）。漢語多義詞義項區辨架構—位移動詞「出」的語料庫實證研究。國立台灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。李詩青（2016）。現代漢語動詞「走」之多義性認知研究。國立清華大學碩士論文，新竹市 。李懿方（2016）。漢語他動詞「投」在動賓結構之研究。國立交通大學碩士論文，新竹市 。吳怡玲（2009）。意象圖式與台灣自然手語的詞彙形成。國立中正大學碩士論文，嘉義縣。何傳躍（2003）。「奪」不是「強取」。現代語文，45。周世箴譯注（2006）。我們賴以生存的譬喻（Metaphors we live by），雷可夫&詹森（George Lakoff & Mark Johnson）原著。臺北市：聯經出版事業股份有限公司。周柏吟（2009）。漢語動詞拜託之語法化過程。輔仁大學碩士論文，台北市。周玟觀（2016）。觀念與味道中國思想文獻中的概念譬喻管窺。淩網科技股份有限公司。周書平（2014）。漢語多面向動詞「擠」的語意研究。國立清華大學碩士論文，新竹市。林素朱（2001）。中文多義詞「出」字之語意探討。國立政治大學碩士論文，臺北市。周慶華（2015）。語文與語文教育的展望。臺東大學（秀威代理）。胡茜（2007）。簡論同義詞群「搶、劫、掠、奪」。學語文，漢語廣角:漢語教學，2，42。時良兵（2003）。也談上古漢語的「奪+之+名」結構。樂山師範學院報，18（11），49-51。孫淑芳（2009）。言語行為動詞的語意闡釋。外語學刊，6，88-93。許尤芬（2012）。中文多義詞「發」之語意探討：以語料庫為本。臺北市立教育大學碩士論文，臺北市。陳彤曲（2014）。「掉」的語意演變與語法化。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。陳茵珮（2010）。現代漢語「下」的語意分析。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。許婷婷（2013）。主觀化與義務情態動詞的形成: 以閩南語 [著]，[愛]，[會] 為例。國立清華大學碩士論文，新竹市。強舒媺（2003）。客語打類、忍類及促類動詞中動力學之體現。國立政治大學碩士論文，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。單永進（2015）。“奪”≠“奪取”——《屈原列傳》注釋商榷。語文教學之友，3，35。湯廷池（1982）。國語形容詞的重疊規律。漢語詞法句法論集。師大學報，6，279-291。黃苕冠（2001）。現代漢語徒手動作動詞「打」字的語意、語法探析。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。黃舒榆. (2011)。台灣俗諺語身體隱喻與轉喻研究---以陳主顯《 台灣俗諺語典》 為例。國立成功大學台灣文學系碩士在職專班學位論文，臺南市。黃慧如（2010）。論「說」在台灣國語中的整合模式語法化。國立清華大學碩士論文，新竹市。葉瑞娟（2012）。 漢語" V 得/不住" 格式: 動力驅動學與構式語法的觀點。國立新竹教育大學碩士論文，新竹市。.廖振佑（2005）。從先秦書面語看動詞「奪」的性質。南昌大學學報，36（1），120-123。蔡宛玲（2017）。漢語多義詞「跑」之結構及語意分析。國立政治大學碩士論文，臺北市。鄧思穎（2015）。粵語語法講義。商務印書館（香港）有限公司。蔡美智（2005）。以句式為本的多義詞詞義辨識。中文計算語言學期刊，10(4), 483-494。歐德芬（2013）。多義詞義項區別性研究–以感官為動詞「看」為例。華語文教學研究，10（3），1-39。黎錦熙（2001）。朱德熙選集。東北師範大學出版社。賴伊凡 (2010)。以框架理論為本之漢語社交互動動詞詞彙語意研究。國立交通大學碩士論文，新竹市 。賴惠玲（2017）。語意學。台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。鍾榮富（2015）。當代語言學概論。台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。蕭妤珍（2016）。臺灣華語「塞」 和「堵」的詞彙語意研究。國立交通大學碩士論文，新竹市 。蕭惠帆（2003）。從語法到教學論詞彙來去的趨向和情態。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。蕭惠貞（2013）。多義詞「洗」之語意分析。詞彙排序與華語教學應用。華語文教學研究，10（3），1-39。羅云普（2011）。漢語多義動詞「放」的研究。國立清華大學碩士論文，臺北市。蘇以文（2005）。隱喻與認知。國立臺灣大學出版中心。 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
1045550061資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1045550061 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 鍾曉芳 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Chung, Siaw-Fong en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳筑琬 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, Chu-Wan en_US dc.creator (作者) 陳筑琬 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chen, Chu-Wan en_US dc.date (日期) 2019 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2019 10:38:43 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Jul-2019 10:38:43 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2019 10:38:43 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1045550061 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124089 - 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) 1045550061 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究以多義詞「奪」為主要研究範圍，以詞彙結構分布及歷時性語意，釐清「奪」的多義現象。前人對於「奪」的多義與語意延伸的討論不多，僅有探究其句法或「奪」的基本語意及近義詞等相關論述，並未透過歷時性的語意探討及共時性的語料庫佐證，故本研究以《中央研究院漢籍電子文獻》中的古漢語語料庫及《聯合知識庫》的現代漢語語料為本，以客觀的語言事實作分析，參照Talmy（2000）所提出的動力學（Force Dynamics）結合Langacker（2002）射體（Trajector）與界標（Landmark）的概念為本，輔以Johnson（1987）勢力概念（Force Schemas）為基模，探討「奪」的相關意象圖式，並討論「奪」的語法化及其語意延伸以描繪「奪」的語意網絡圖。研究發現，從語料中可發現，古漢語語料大多以單純詞形式出現，而現代漢語語料則以複合詞形式為普遍，雙字詞「奪X」的語法結構原本在上古時期都以補充式的結果補語為主，但隨後使用頻率逐漸遞減，在現代漢語語料中補充式的結果補語使用頻率最低。在近代漢語語料中，「X奪」首次出現動補結果為主的情形，另外，近代漢語語料中發現「奪X」的語料多於「X奪」，且位居最高的使用為動補趨向補語。再者，「奪」涵蓋五種的意象圖式，其中Johnson（1987）之「吸引」與「強制」勢力概念可釐清「奪」的「強取」義與「削除」義，並繪出與「奪」相關之意象圖式。此外，透過Talmy（2000）所提出的動力學概念中的「施動者」（agonist）與「受動者」（antagonist）的互動關係，可發現「用手抓」義為核心語意。本篇對於「奪」的詞義發現有助於未來歷時性的詞彙語意研究。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The study investigated the diachronic meanings of the polysemy duó and its internal structures in Mandarin Chinese. The lack of in-depth discussion of duó motivated the study of the diachronic meanings of duó. Data from the Hanchi Database of Academia Sinica, including the Corpus of Old Chinese, the Corpus of Middle Chinese, and the Corpus of Modern Chinese, was extracted as the ancient data of this study and the United Daily News constituted the modern data. Based on the data, the image schemas of duó were presented, utilizing the Force Dynamics theory of Talmy (2000), the Trajector-Landmark Alignment of Langacker (2002), and the Force Schemas of Johnson (1987) as the basic frameworks. A semantic network of polysemous verb duó was also postulated so as to trace its semantic extensions and grammaticalization patterns.It was found that the internal structures of [duó X] were originally verb-resultative complements in the Corpus of Old Chinese, but the frequency gradually decreased with time. The verb-resultative complements of [duó X] were the least frequenct in the Corpus of Modern Chinese. Comparatively, in the Corpus of Early Chinese, the verb-resultative complements of [X duó] were most frequently used. As for [duó X], it was found that [duó X] started to become more common in the Corpus of Early Mandarin Chinese. The directional complements were the most frequently used in the Corpus of Early Mandarin Chinese. From the data, duó appeared most of the time as a single-charactered form in ancient Chinese, but as two-charactered form in modern Chinese. It was also found that there were five image schemas of duó. The two senses ‘to snatch’ and ‘be deprived of’ were distinguished according to the schemas of Johnson (1987). We also discovered that the sense ‘to grip’ was the the core sense based on the interaction between the ‘agonist’ and the ‘antagonist’ discussed in Talmy (2000). In conclusion, this semantic study of polysemy duó will contribute to future diachronic lexical semantic research. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 目錄第一章 緒論 11.1 動機與目的 21.1.1 「奪」字的研究動機與目的 41.2 研究問題 71.3 研究範圍 7第二章 文獻探討 92.1 動詞多義相關研究 92.2 「奪」的相關研究 112.3 漢語中的「詞」 152.3.1 動詞中的動補結構 172.3.2 動詞詞彙語意表達模式（MARVS）192.4 「詞」的概念性語意範疇 232.4.1 原型 242.4.1.1 格式塔理論 242.4.1.2 意象圖式 252.4.1.3 勢力圖式 312.4.1.4 動力學 382.4.1.5 語意網絡 432.5 隱喻 452.6 轉喻 492.7 語法化 522.8 小結 57第三章 研究方法 583.1 研究工具 583.1.1 字詞典 583.1.2 資料庫 593.2 詞義於字詞典之整理與歸納 603.2.1 古漢語「奪」之詞義整理 603.2.2 現代漢語「奪」之詞義整理 623.3. 語料蒐集與分類 653.3.1 「奪」的語料蒐集 663.3.2 「奪」的語料分析 663.4 小結 74第四章 研究結果 754.1 「奪」構詞在各時期語料庫中的分布 754.1.1 上古漢語語料構詞分布 764.1.2 中古漢語語料構詞分布 794.1.3 近代漢語語料構詞分布 844.1.4 現代漢語語料構詞分布 894.2 「奪」於各時期語料庫中詞義分布 944.2.1 「奪」於上古漢語語料中詞義分布 954.2.2 「奪」於中古漢語語料中詞義分布 954.2.3 「奪」於近代漢語語料中詞義分布 954.2.4 「奪」於現代漢語語料中詞義分布 964.3 「奪」的賓語性質 974.3.1 上古漢語詞義中「奪」的賓語性質 974.3.2 中古漢語詞義中「奪」的賓語性質 1014.3.3 近代漢語詞義中「奪」的賓語性質 1034.3.4 現代漢語詞義中「奪」的賓語性質 106第五章 「奪」的詞義討論 1125.1 動力學框架下「奪」的詞義研究 1125.2 動詞「奪」義項間的語意網絡 123第六章 結語 1276.1 研究發現與貢獻 1276.2 研究限制與未來研究建議 130參考文獻 132 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2195526 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1045550061 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 多義詞 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 「奪」 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語料庫 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 勢力圖式 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語意網絡 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語法化 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 動力學 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Polysemy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Chinese verb duó en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) FORCE schemas en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corpus en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Semantic network en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Grammaticalization en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Force dynamics en_US dc.title (題名) 漢語「奪」及複合詞的語意發展： 以認知語言學及語料庫為本 zh_TW dc.title (題名) A Diachronic Semantic Analysis of Duó and its Compounds in Mandarin: A Cognitive Linguistic and Corpus-based Study en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 英文文獻（依姓名筆劃排序）Ahrens, K., Huang, H., & Chung, Y. H. (2003). Sense and meaning facets in verbal semantics: A MARVS perspective. Language and Linguistics, 4, 468.Bjelogrlić, A. (2016). Pulling (Closer) and Pushing (Away): Verbs expressing attraction and repulsion in English, Belgrade English Language and Literature Studies, 8 (3) 51-67.Brown, C. (1990). A survey of category types in natural language. In Tsohatzidis (Eds.), Meanings and Prototypes (RLE Linguistics B: Grammar) (pp. 27-57). Routledge.Brugman, C. (1988). The story of over: Polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. MA thesis. University of California, Berkeley.Brugman, C., & Lakoff, G. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In S. Small, G. Cottrell, & M. Tannenhaus (Eds.), Lexical ambiguity resolution: Perspectives from psycholinguistics, neuropsychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 477-507). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Carroll, L. (1865). Alice in wonderland: Authoritative texts of Alice’s adventures in wonderland, through the looking-glass, the hunting of the snark: Backgrounds. In Donald. (Eds.), Essays in criticism (pp. 146). New York: Norton.Chao, Y. R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Chung, K. S. (2004). Mandarin compound verbs. Doctoral dissertation. Universiteit Leiden.Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10(1), 1-31.Coleman, L., & Kay, P. (1981). Prototype semantics: The English word lie. Language, 57(1), 26-44.Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dippner, K. (2010). Metaphorical Use of Mandarin Compound Directional Complements. MA thesis. University of Oslo.Doyle, A. C. (1894). The Annotated Sherlock Holmes. In Baring-Gould, W. S (Eds.), The Annotated Sherlock Holmes (pp. 568). New York: Clarkson N. Potter.Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure, Journal of linguistics, 41(1), 33-75.Evans, V & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Evans, V. (2007). Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.Gibbs, Raymond W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Goldberg, A. E. (1992). Argument Structure Constructions. Doctoral dissertation. University of California at Berkeley.Gruyter. W. D. (1995). Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World. In Taylor, J. R., & MacLaury, R. E. (Eds.), Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs (pp.1-406).Hopper, P. J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, E. C., & Heine, B. (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, (pp.17-35). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins Pub. Co.Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible?. Linguistics, 37(6), 1043-1068.Heine, B. (2017). Grammaticalization. The handbook of historical linguistics, 573-601.Heine, B., & Reh, M. (1984). Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Buske Helmet Verlag Gmbh.Heine, B., Claudi, U. & F. Hünnemeyer. (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: Chica-go University Press.Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Huang, H. C. (2007). Argument realization of Chinese result and phase complements. Doctoral dissertation. National Tsing Hua University.Jackendoff, R. S. (1990). Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Jackendoff, R. S. (1996). Conceptual semantics and cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 93-129.Johnson, M. (1987) The Body in the Mind: The Bodiliy Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Köhler, W. (1925). The Mentality of Apes. Comparative Psychology, 4, 69-103.Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Lakoff, G. (1986). Classifiers as a reflection of mind. In C. G. Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization, (pp. 13-51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39-74.Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edition) (pp. 202-51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1989). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application, (Vol. 2). Standford: Standford University Press.Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1-38.Langacker, R. W. (2002). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar, (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter.Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: University of California Press.Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Li, X., Zhao, H., & Lu, Y. (2014). The Relation between Thematic Role Computing and Semantic Relatedness Processing during On-Line Sentence Comprehension. PLoS ONE 9(4): e95834. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095834.Lin, M. C., & Chung, S. F. (2018). A Corpus-Based Lexical Semantic Study of Mandarin Verbs: Guān and Bì. In Workshop on Chinese Lexical Semantics, pp. 358-371.Lindner, G. M., & Wright Jr, R. W. (1983). Bovine embryo morphology and evaluation. Theriogenology, 20(4), 407-416.Liu, M. C., Huang, C. R., Lee, C., & Lee, C. Y. (2000). When endpoint meets endpoint: a corpus-based lexical semantic study of Mandarin verbs of throwing. International Journal of Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing, 5(1), 81-96.Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.Lyons, J .(1981). Language, Meaning and Context. Bungay, Suffolk: Fontana.Mandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99(4), 587.Mbah, B. M., & Edeoga, P. N. (2012). Image Schema of the Verb “Sè” in Igbo Semantics. Image, 2(7), 41-47.Natali, P.C. (2018). On the Importance of FORCE Schemas in Video Games. MA thesis. RWTH Aachen University.Otieno, R. F., Owino, F. R., Attyan, J. M., & Ogone, J. O. (2017). Image schemas in political discourse in Kenya. European Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 5(2), 71-84.Packard, J. L. (2000). The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Peña (1999). Subsidiarity relationships between image-schemas: An approach to the force schema. Journal of English Studies, (1), 187-208.Pinker, S. (1995). Language acquisition. Language: An invitation to cognitive science, 1, 135-82.Radden, G. (1996). Motion Metaphorized: The case of coming and going. Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics, 423-458.Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37-78.Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17-59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 104(3), 192.Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (Eds.), Advances in Cross-Cultural Psychology (Vol. 7). London: Academic Press.Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum, 27-48.Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive psychology, 7(4), 573-605.Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. Syntax and semantics, 4, 181-238.Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and thought. In W. Eilfort, P. Kroeber and K. Peterson (Eds), Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity (pp. 293–337). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Talmy, L. (2000). Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Toward A Cognition Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Taylor, J. R. (1993). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, 3, 201-226.Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2001). Regularity in semantic change (Vol. 97). Cambridge University Press.Tversky, B. (1990). Where partonomies and taxonomies meet. Meanings and prototypes: Studies on Linguistic Categorization, London: Routledge, 334-344.Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meanings and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wang, S., & Huang, C. R. (2011). Sense Representation in MARVS: A Case Study on the Polysemy of chī. International Journal of Computer Processing Of Languages, 23(03), 285-306.Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investgations. Oxford University Press.Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophische Untersuchungen, trans.G. E.M. Anscombe as Philosophical Investigations, 3rd edn. 1999. Harlow, London: Prentice Hall.Witwer, H. C. (1918). From Baseball to Boches. United States: Whitefish MT.Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese (Vol. 1). John Benjamins Publishing.中文文獻（依姓名筆劃排序）王智儀 （2012）。基於語料庫之近義詞辨析─ 以動作及物動詞 [建立, 成立, 設立] 為例。文藻外語學院碩士論文，高雄市。王韻雅（2011）。成語的隱喻藝術。秀威出版。江姿儀 （2011） 。中文互動動詞的力學展演。國立交通大學碩士論文，新竹市 。朱德熙（1982）。語法講義。商務印書館：北京。呂淑相（1947）。中國文法要略（上）。商務印書館：上海。李子瑄&曹逢甫（2009）。漢語語言學。正中出版發行。李菁菁（2014）。漢語多義詞義項區辨架構—位移動詞「出」的語料庫實證研究。國立台灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。李詩青（2016）。現代漢語動詞「走」之多義性認知研究。國立清華大學碩士論文，新竹市 。李懿方（2016）。漢語他動詞「投」在動賓結構之研究。國立交通大學碩士論文，新竹市 。吳怡玲（2009）。意象圖式與台灣自然手語的詞彙形成。國立中正大學碩士論文，嘉義縣。何傳躍（2003）。「奪」不是「強取」。現代語文，45。周世箴譯注（2006）。我們賴以生存的譬喻（Metaphors we live by），雷可夫&詹森（George Lakoff & Mark Johnson）原著。臺北市：聯經出版事業股份有限公司。周柏吟（2009）。漢語動詞拜託之語法化過程。輔仁大學碩士論文，台北市。周玟觀（2016）。觀念與味道中國思想文獻中的概念譬喻管窺。淩網科技股份有限公司。周書平（2014）。漢語多面向動詞「擠」的語意研究。國立清華大學碩士論文，新竹市。林素朱（2001）。中文多義詞「出」字之語意探討。國立政治大學碩士論文，臺北市。周慶華（2015）。語文與語文教育的展望。臺東大學（秀威代理）。胡茜（2007）。簡論同義詞群「搶、劫、掠、奪」。學語文，漢語廣角:漢語教學，2，42。時良兵（2003）。也談上古漢語的「奪+之+名」結構。樂山師範學院報，18（11），49-51。孫淑芳（2009）。言語行為動詞的語意闡釋。外語學刊，6，88-93。許尤芬（2012）。中文多義詞「發」之語意探討：以語料庫為本。臺北市立教育大學碩士論文，臺北市。陳彤曲（2014）。「掉」的語意演變與語法化。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。陳茵珮（2010）。現代漢語「下」的語意分析。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。許婷婷（2013）。主觀化與義務情態動詞的形成: 以閩南語 [著]，[愛]，[會] 為例。國立清華大學碩士論文，新竹市。強舒媺（2003）。客語打類、忍類及促類動詞中動力學之體現。國立政治大學碩士論文，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。單永進（2015）。“奪”≠“奪取”——《屈原列傳》注釋商榷。語文教學之友，3，35。湯廷池（1982）。國語形容詞的重疊規律。漢語詞法句法論集。師大學報，6，279-291。黃苕冠（2001）。現代漢語徒手動作動詞「打」字的語意、語法探析。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。黃舒榆. (2011)。台灣俗諺語身體隱喻與轉喻研究---以陳主顯《 台灣俗諺語典》 為例。國立成功大學台灣文學系碩士在職專班學位論文，臺南市。黃慧如（2010）。論「說」在台灣國語中的整合模式語法化。國立清華大學碩士論文，新竹市。葉瑞娟（2012）。 漢語" V 得/不住" 格式: 動力驅動學與構式語法的觀點。國立新竹教育大學碩士論文，新竹市。.廖振佑（2005）。從先秦書面語看動詞「奪」的性質。南昌大學學報，36（1），120-123。蔡宛玲（2017）。漢語多義詞「跑」之結構及語意分析。國立政治大學碩士論文，臺北市。鄧思穎（2015）。粵語語法講義。商務印書館（香港）有限公司。蔡美智（2005）。以句式為本的多義詞詞義辨識。中文計算語言學期刊，10(4), 483-494。歐德芬（2013）。多義詞義項區別性研究–以感官為動詞「看」為例。華語文教學研究，10（3），1-39。黎錦熙（2001）。朱德熙選集。東北師範大學出版社。賴伊凡 (2010)。以框架理論為本之漢語社交互動動詞詞彙語意研究。國立交通大學碩士論文，新竹市 。賴惠玲（2017）。語意學。台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。鍾榮富（2015）。當代語言學概論。台灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。蕭妤珍（2016）。臺灣華語「塞」 和「堵」的詞彙語意研究。國立交通大學碩士論文，新竹市 。蕭惠帆（2003）。從語法到教學論詞彙來去的趨向和情態。國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文，臺北市。蕭惠貞（2013）。多義詞「洗」之語意分析。詞彙排序與華語教學應用。華語文教學研究，10（3），1-39。羅云普（2011）。漢語多義動詞「放」的研究。國立清華大學碩士論文，臺北市。蘇以文（2005）。隱喻與認知。國立臺灣大學出版中心。 zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU201900039 en_US
