1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 客語「放」及其同類動詞：框架語義與構式之互動
Piong3 ‘put’ and its Congeners in Hakka: Frames and Constructions
作者 羅婉君
Luo, Wan Jyun
貢獻者 賴惠玲
Lai, Huei Ling
羅婉君
Luo, Wan Jyun
關鍵詞 框架語義
構式語法
客語放置類動詞
多義性
隱喻與轉喻
詞彙化
Frame semantics
Construction Grammar
Verbs of putting in Hakka
Verbal polysemy
Metaphor and Metonymy
Lexicalization
日期 2006
上傳時間 17-Sep-2009 16:25:04 (UTC+8)
摘要 本論文「客語「放」及其同類動詞：框架語義與構式之互動」以Fillmore (1985)提出的「框架語義」以及Goldberg (1995)等學者提出的「構式語法」觀點為基礎，分析客語「放」字構式呈現的多義現象。客語「放」字涉及「使動事件」：空間位移與狀態變化。本文著重分析「使動結構」與客語「放」字在動賓、動補及句子等構式中語意－句法的互動。同時藉助隱喻與轉喻的強化，說明客語「放」字延伸語意之間的關聯性，並進一步闡述客語「放」字在動賓結構中詞彙化為複合詞的現象。此外，本文亦檢視客語其他放置類動詞：方向同類動詞、工具同類動詞、方式同類動詞，經由審視其詞彙化類型與框架語義之互動，說明其語意內涵與句法上的表現。因此，本論文經由分析詞彙化類型與探討事件架構中參與角色的展現與否，說明客語放置類動詞語意與句法間的相互關係。
English verbs describing putting, a prototypical exemplar of a caused-motion activity, have been pervasively found to be the first acquired and the most frequently used verbs in many languages. Their semantic compatibility with various syntactic structures reinforces the association between verbal meanings and the constructions, giving rise to a grouping of related but distinct senses (Goldberg et al. 2004). Piong3 (放) ‘to put’ in Hakka is abundant in semantics. The basic meaning of piong3 designates a common pattern of human experience: An animate entity exerts manual force upon a physical object and causes the object to move. Adopting Goldberg’s (1995) Constructions and Fillmore’s (1985) Frame Semantics, this study aims to account for the meaning relatedness latent in piong3 and explicate the shades of meaning rooted in the set of its congeners with different degree of family resemblance. It is argued that the delicate nuances denoted by piong3 are derived from the interaction between frames and constructions while the extended meanings of piong3 are linked to its typical use through various metaphors and metonymies such as CONTAINER, EVENT STRUCTURE, CHANGE OF STATE AS CHANGE OF LOCATION metaphors and ACTION FOR RESULT metonymy. Furthermore, with regard to congeners of piong3 in Hakka, it is maintained that differences in profiling and lexicalization patterns capture the primary difference between piong3 and its congeners. Specifically, piong3 does not lexicalize other semantic elements (i.e. path, means, manner, result, and etc.) into its lexical meaning whereas its congeners explicitly do so, in that three subtypes of the congeners can be identified: directional congeners, means congeners, and manner congeners.
參考文獻 -Boas, Hans Christian. 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
-Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar, 281-302. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
-Chiang, Min-hua. 2006. Grammatical characteristics of tung and bun in Dongshi Hakka and the relatedness of the two markers. Language and Linguistics 7.2: 339-364.
-Chirkova, Katia and Christine Lamarre. 2007. The paradox of the construction [V zai NPLOC] and its meanings in the Beijing dialect of Mandarin. Typological Studies of the Linguistic Expression of Motion Events, Vol.1: Perspectives from East and Southeast Asia, ed. by Christine Lamarre and Toshio Ohori, 49-72. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.

-Croft, William. 1998. The structure of events and the structure of language. The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 67-92. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-Croft, William. 2001. Heads, arguments, and adjuncts. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective, 241-280. New York: Oxford University Press.
-Croft, William and Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-Dixon, R. M. W. 2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-Dong, Siou-fang. 2002. Lexicalization of syntactic structure. Linguistics Study 3: 56-65.
-Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic PROTO-ROLES and argument selection. Language 67.3: 547-619.
-Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica VI. 222-255.

-Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay and Mary Kay O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64.3: 501-38.
-Fillmore, Charles J., and Berl T. S. Atkins. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, ed. by Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-Fillmore, Charles J., and Beryl T. S. Atkins. 2000. Describing polysemy: The case of ‘crawl’. Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock, 91-110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-Gao, Hong. 2001. The Physical Foundation of the Patterning of Physical Action Verbs: a Study of Chinese Verbs. Travaux de l’nstitut de linguistique de Lund XLI. Lund: Lund University.
-Gao, Hong, and Cheng Chin-chuan. 2003. Verbs of contact by impact in English and their equivalents in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics 4.3. 485-508.
-Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-Goldberg, Adele E., and Sethuraman, N. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 14: 289-316.
-Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, eds. By Ostman, Jan-Ola, and Mirjam Fried, 17-43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
-Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
-Heine, Bernd, and Ulrike Claudi. 1986. On the Rise of Grammatical Categories: Some Examples from Maa. Berlin: Reimer.
-Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.
-Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-Huang, Yu-chun .2006. A Lexical-Semantic Analysis of Mandarin Chinese Near-Synonym Pair "fang4" and "bai3". Journal of Chinese Language Teaching 3.1: 27-44.
-Iwata, Seizi. 2005a. Locative alternation and two levels of verb meanings. Cognitive Linguisitcs16.2: 355-407.
-Iwata, Seizi. 2005b. The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. Grammatical Constructions: Back to Roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas, 101-118. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
-Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
-Jackendoff, Ray S. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language 73:534-559.
-Jackendoff Ray S. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75: 1-33.
-Kövecses, Zoltan and Gunter Radden. 1998. Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9.1: 37-77.
-Lai, Huei-ling. 2003. Hakka LAU constructions: A constructional approach. Language and Linguistics 4.2: 353-378.
-Lai, Huei-ling. 2003. The semantic extension of Hakka LAU. Language and Linguistics 4.3: 533-561.
-Lamarre, Christine. 2007. The linguistic encoding of motion events in Chinese: with reference to cross-dialectal variation. Typological Studies of the Linguistic Expression of Motion Events, Vol.1: Perspectives from East and Southeast Asia, ed. by Christine Lamarre and Toshio. Ohori, 3-33. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.
-Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
-Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
-Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verbs Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
-Lien, Chinfa. 2000. A frame-based account of lexical polysemy in Taiwanese.
-Lien, Chinfa. 2004. Polyfunctionality of pang3 in Taiwanese Southern Min: An exploration of the relationship between meaning and form. BIBLID 22.1: 391-418.
-Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., and Baldwin, G. 1997. Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language 24: 187-219.
-Liu, Meichun. 2002. Verbs of surface contact in Mandarin: A lexical semantic study. Form and Function: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Shuanfan Huang, ed. by Lily I-wen Su, Chinfa Lien, and Kawai Chui, 275-304. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
-Luo, Zhao-jin. 1988. Hakka Grammar. Taipei: Studentbook Publishing.
-Nemoto, Noriko. 2005. Verbal polysemy and frame semantics in construction grammar: Some observations on the locative alternation. Grammatical Constructions: Back to Roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas, 119-136. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
-Nunberg, G., Ivan A. Sag, and Tom Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70.3:491-538.
-Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

-Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez, Francisco J. and Olga I. Díez Velasco. 2001. High-level metonymy and linguistic structure. Unpublished draft.
< http://sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx/metonymy.htm >.
-Shi, Yuzhi. 2001. The distinction between subject and topic in Chinese. China Journal 2:82-91.
-Slobin, Dan I. 1985. Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. A Crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Theoretical issues:Vol.2, ed. by D. I. Slobin, 1157-256. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
-Svorou, Soteria. 1994. The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
-Sweetser, Eve. E. 1986. Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary? Berkeley Linguistics Society 12:528-538.

-Sweetser, Eve. E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Berkeley Linguistic Society 14:389-405.
-Sweetser, Eve. E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure.
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
-Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon:Vol.3, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 57-149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-Tamly, Leonard. 2000. The windowing of attention in language: Toward a Cognitive Semantics, 261-309. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
-Taylor, John, R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-Tomesello, Michael 2000. The item-based nature of children’s early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4:4:156-163.
-Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Ekkehard Konig. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1, ed. by E. C. Traugott and Bernard Heine, 189-218. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
-Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-Ungerer, F. and H. J. Schmid. 1996. The frame and attention approach: An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. England: Pearson Education Limited.
-Wang, Can-long. 2005. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Two Chinese case studies of "henbude" (恨不得) and "wuse" (物色). Contemporary Linguistics 7.3: 225-236.
-Xiang, Meng-bing. 1997. Grammatical Studies of Liancheng Hakka. Peking: Language Publishing House
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
93555007
95
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093555007
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 賴惠玲zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lai, Huei Lingen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 羅婉君zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Luo, Wan Jyunen_US
dc.creator (作者) 羅婉君zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Luo, Wan Jyunen_US
dc.date (日期) 2006en_US
dc.date.accessioned 17-Sep-2009 16:25:04 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 17-Sep-2009 16:25:04 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 17-Sep-2009 16:25:04 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0093555007en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/33374-
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) 93555007zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 95zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本論文「客語「放」及其同類動詞：框架語義與構式之互動」以Fillmore (1985)提出的「框架語義」以及Goldberg (1995)等學者提出的「構式語法」觀點為基礎，分析客語「放」字構式呈現的多義現象。客語「放」字涉及「使動事件」：空間位移與狀態變化。本文著重分析「使動結構」與客語「放」字在動賓、動補及句子等構式中語意－句法的互動。同時藉助隱喻與轉喻的強化，說明客語「放」字延伸語意之間的關聯性，並進一步闡述客語「放」字在動賓結構中詞彙化為複合詞的現象。此外，本文亦檢視客語其他放置類動詞：方向同類動詞、工具同類動詞、方式同類動詞，經由審視其詞彙化類型與框架語義之互動，說明其語意內涵與句法上的表現。因此，本論文經由分析詞彙化類型與探討事件架構中參與角色的展現與否，說明客語放置類動詞語意與句法間的相互關係。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) English verbs describing putting, a prototypical exemplar of a caused-motion activity, have been pervasively found to be the first acquired and the most frequently used verbs in many languages. Their semantic compatibility with various syntactic structures reinforces the association between verbal meanings and the constructions, giving rise to a grouping of related but distinct senses (Goldberg et al. 2004). Piong3 (放) ‘to put’ in Hakka is abundant in semantics. The basic meaning of piong3 designates a common pattern of human experience: An animate entity exerts manual force upon a physical object and causes the object to move. Adopting Goldberg’s (1995) Constructions and Fillmore’s (1985) Frame Semantics, this study aims to account for the meaning relatedness latent in piong3 and explicate the shades of meaning rooted in the set of its congeners with different degree of family resemblance. It is argued that the delicate nuances denoted by piong3 are derived from the interaction between frames and constructions while the extended meanings of piong3 are linked to its typical use through various metaphors and metonymies such as CONTAINER, EVENT STRUCTURE, CHANGE OF STATE AS CHANGE OF LOCATION metaphors and ACTION FOR RESULT metonymy. Furthermore, with regard to congeners of piong3 in Hakka, it is maintained that differences in profiling and lexicalization patterns capture the primary difference between piong3 and its congeners. Specifically, piong3 does not lexicalize other semantic elements (i.e. path, means, manner, result, and etc.) into its lexical meaning whereas its congeners explicitly do so, in that three subtypes of the congeners can be identified: directional congeners, means congeners, and manner congeners.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………iv
Chinese Abstract………………………………………………………………vi
English Abstract……………………………………………………………vii
Table of Figures………………………………………………………………x
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………1
1.1 Motivation and Purpose…………………………………………2
1.2 Conventions of the Data…………………………………………9
1.3 Organization of the Thesis…………………………………10

II. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………11
2.1 Lien (2004)………………………………………………………………11
2.2 Huang (2006)………………………………………………………………15
2.3 Remarks……………………………………………………………………18

III. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS………………………………………21
3.1 Decomposition…………………………………………………………21
3.2 Lexicalization Patterns…………………………………………22
3.3 Frames and Perspective……………………………………………24
3.4 Constructions……………………………………………………………27
3.5 Metaphor and Metonymy………………………………………………33
3.6 Remarks…………………………………………………………………37

IV. DATA ANALYSIS……………………………………………………39
4.1 The Conceptual Structure of piong3 in Hakka………………40
4.2 Syntactic Realization of Participant Roles in piong3 Constructions………43
4.2.1 The [VN] Constructions…………………………………………47
4.2.1.1 The Semantic Role of Theme in the [VN] Constructions …48
4.2.1.2 The Semantic Role of Location in the [VN] Constructions.....54
4.2.1.3 The Semantic Role of Temporal Expressions in the [VN]Constructions…………………………………………58
4.2.2 The [VC]constructions……………………………………………59
4.2.2.1 Complement Denoting a Path……………………………60
4.2.2.2 Complement Denoting a Result……………………………61
4.2.3 Lexicalization of piong3 Construction……………………63
4.2.3.1 Type 1………………………………………………………66
4.2.3.2 Type 2………………………………………………………71
4.2.3.3 Type 3……………………………………………………77

4.3 Sentential Structure of piong3………………………………81
4.3.1 Canonical Constructions………………………………………… 81
4.3.2 Non-Canonical Constructions……………………………………86
4.3.2.1 TUNG Constructions………………………………………87
4.3.2.2 Locative Inversion…………………………………………94
4.3.2.3 Deprofiled Object Construction…………………………99
4.4 Congeners of piong3 in Hakka.........................102
4.4.1 Preliminary Observation of the Profiled Participants........................103
4.4.2 Syntactic Realizations of Participants in [VN] and [VC] constructions………………………………………………………104

V. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………112
5.1 Summary of the Thesis……………………………………………112
5.2 Issues for Future Study……………………………………………115

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………117		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 62653 bytes-
dc.format.extent 12450 bytes-
dc.format.extent 123008 bytes-
dc.format.extent 94542 bytes-
dc.format.extent 60602 bytes-
dc.format.extent 33216 bytes-
dc.format.extent 13821 bytes-
dc.format.extent 14554 bytes-
dc.format.extent 75920 bytes-
dc.format.extent 84705 bytes-
dc.format.extent 80945 bytes-
dc.format.extent 378711 bytes-
dc.format.extent 116253 bytes-
dc.format.extent 48469 bytes-
dc.format.extent 31609 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093555007en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 框架語義zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 構式語法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 客語放置類動詞zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 多義性zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隱喻與轉喻zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 詞彙化zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Frame semanticsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Construction Grammaren_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Verbs of putting in Hakkaen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Verbal polysemyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Metaphor and Metonymyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Lexicalizationen_US
dc.title (題名) 客語「放」及其同類動詞：框架語義與構式之互動zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Piong3 ‘put’ and its Congeners in Hakka: Frames and Constructionsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Boas, Hans Christian. 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar, 281-302. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Chiang, Min-hua. 2006. Grammatical characteristics of tung and bun in Dongshi Hakka and the relatedness of the two markers. Language and Linguistics 7.2: 339-364.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Chirkova, Katia and Christine Lamarre. 2007. The paradox of the construction [V zai NPLOC] and its meanings in the Beijing dialect of Mandarin. Typological Studies of the Linguistic Expression of Motion Events, Vol.1: Perspectives from East and Southeast Asia, ed. by Christine Lamarre and Toshio Ohori, 49-72. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Croft, William. 1998. The structure of events and the structure of language. The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 67-92. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Croft, William. 2001. Heads, arguments, and adjuncts. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective, 241-280. New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Croft, William and Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Dixon, R. M. W. 2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Dong, Siou-fang. 2002. Lexicalization of syntactic structure. Linguistics Study 3: 56-65.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic PROTO-ROLES and argument selection. Language 67.3: 547-619.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica VI. 222-255.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay and Mary Kay O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64.3: 501-38.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Fillmore, Charles J., and Berl T. S. Atkins. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, ed. by Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Fillmore, Charles J., and Beryl T. S. Atkins. 2000. Describing polysemy: The case of ‘crawl’. Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock, 91-110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Gao, Hong. 2001. The Physical Foundation of the Patterning of Physical Action Verbs: a Study of Chinese Verbs. Travaux de l’nstitut de linguistique de Lund XLI. Lund: Lund University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Gao, Hong, and Cheng Chin-chuan. 2003. Verbs of contact by impact in English and their equivalents in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics 4.3. 485-508.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Goldberg, Adele E., and Sethuraman, N. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 14: 289-316.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, eds. By Ostman, Jan-Ola, and Mirjam Fried, 17-43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Heine, Bernd, and Ulrike Claudi. 1986. On the Rise of Grammatical Categories: Some Examples from Maa. Berlin: Reimer.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Huang, Yu-chun .2006. A Lexical-Semantic Analysis of Mandarin Chinese Near-Synonym Pair "fang4" and "bai3". Journal of Chinese Language Teaching 3.1: 27-44.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Iwata, Seizi. 2005a. Locative alternation and two levels of verb meanings. Cognitive Linguisitcs16.2: 355-407.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Iwata, Seizi. 2005b. The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. Grammatical Constructions: Back to Roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas, 101-118. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Jackendoff, Ray S. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language 73:534-559.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Jackendoff Ray S. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75: 1-33.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Kövecses, Zoltan and Gunter Radden. 1998. Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9.1: 37-77.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Lai, Huei-ling. 2003. Hakka LAU constructions: A constructional approach. Language and Linguistics 4.2: 353-378.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Lai, Huei-ling. 2003. The semantic extension of Hakka LAU. Language and Linguistics 4.3: 533-561.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Lamarre, Christine. 2007. The linguistic encoding of motion events in Chinese: with reference to cross-dialectal variation. Typological Studies of the Linguistic Expression of Motion Events, Vol.1: Perspectives from East and Southeast Asia, ed. by Christine Lamarre and Toshio. Ohori, 3-33. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verbs Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Lien, Chinfa. 2000. A frame-based account of lexical polysemy in Taiwanese.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Lien, Chinfa. 2004. Polyfunctionality of pang3 in Taiwanese Southern Min: An exploration of the relationship between meaning and form. BIBLID 22.1: 391-418.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., and Baldwin, G. 1997. Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language 24: 187-219.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Liu, Meichun. 2002. Verbs of surface contact in Mandarin: A lexical semantic study. Form and Function: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Shuanfan Huang, ed. by Lily I-wen Su, Chinfa Lien, and Kawai Chui, 275-304. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Luo, Zhao-jin. 1988. Hakka Grammar. Taipei: Studentbook Publishing.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Nemoto, Noriko. 2005. Verbal polysemy and frame semantics in construction grammar: Some observations on the locative alternation. Grammatical Constructions: Back to Roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas, 119-136. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Nunberg, G., Ivan A. Sag, and Tom Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70.3:491-538.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez, Francisco J. and Olga I. Díez Velasco. 2001. High-level metonymy and linguistic structure. Unpublished draft.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) < http://sincronia.cucsh.udg.mx/metonymy.htm >.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Shi, Yuzhi. 2001. The distinction between subject and topic in Chinese. China Journal 2:82-91.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Slobin, Dan I. 1985. Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. A Crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Theoretical issues:Vol.2, ed. by D. I. Slobin, 1157-256. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Svorou, Soteria. 1994. The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Sweetser, Eve. E. 1986. Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary? Berkeley Linguistics Society 12:528-538.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Sweetser, Eve. E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Berkeley Linguistic Society 14:389-405.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Sweetser, Eve. E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon:Vol.3, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 57-149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Tamly, Leonard. 2000. The windowing of attention in language: Toward a Cognitive Semantics, 261-309. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Taylor, John, R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Tomesello, Michael 2000. The item-based nature of children’s early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4:4:156-163.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Ekkehard Konig. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1, ed. by E. C. Traugott and Bernard Heine, 189-218. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Ungerer, F. and H. J. Schmid. 1996. The frame and attention approach: An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. England: Pearson Education Limited.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Wang, Can-long. 2005. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Two Chinese case studies of "henbude" (恨不得) and "wuse" (物色). Contemporary Linguistics 7.3: 225-236.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) -Xiang, Meng-bing. 1997. Grammatical Studies of Liancheng Hakka. Peking: Language Publishing Housezh_TW