1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. 外國語文學院
  4. 學位論文
  5. Item

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

題名 從動詞意義和結構的整合分析客語移除類動詞
Verbs of Removal in Hakka: Integration of Verbal Meanings and Constructions
作者 廖珮筠
Liao,Pei Yun
貢獻者 賴惠玲
Lai,Huei Ling
廖珮筠
Liao,Pei Yun
關鍵詞 客語
構式語法
移除類動詞
Hakka
constructions
removal verbs
BUN
LAU
日期 2006
上傳時間 17-九月-2009 16:25:13 (UTC+8)
摘要 本文以客語移除類動詞為研究對象探索語意和形式的關係。動詞的語義透過詞彙分解化、概念結構、詞彙化、框架語義和顯像等機制帶出。後以Goldberg (1995, 2006)的構式理論為基礎，運用Iwata (2005a, b)建議的修正模式，對動詞和結構之間的整合，提出更精細、更詳盡的解釋。根據前述方法，我們初步將移除類動詞分為六個次分類，並呈現出他們在結構上被顯像的論元。最後帶入Iwata提出的模組，分析各次分類動詞和不同句子結構的結合情形和其後的語義表現。
This paper aims to explore verbs of removal in Hakka with respect to the relationship between form and meaning. Following the constructional approach in the shape of Goldberg (1995, 2006) and Iwata (2005a, b), we display a finer mechanism for the integration of verbal meanings and constructions. Verbal meanings, L-meanings (Lexical Head Level Meaning), are carried out through the following concepts: decomposition, conceptual structure, conflation, frame, profiling. Constructional meanings or P-meanings (Phrasal Level Meaning), variants of L-meanings, are manifested by different constructions. In our preliminary analysis, we display six tentative subclasses of verbs of removal in Hakka, depending on their different lexicalized meanings. We also present the different roles they profile in phrasal expressions. Last, we demonstrate the integration of the verbal meaning and several constructions (e.g., BUN construction and LAU construction).
參考文獻 
Baker, M. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. Elements of Grammar, ed. by L. Haegeman. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 73-137.
Becker, D.A. 1971. Case grammar and German be. Glossa 5: 125-45.
Birner, Betty J. and Gregory Ward. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boas, Hans Christian. 2000. Resultative constructions in English and German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
Boas, Hans Christian. 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Boons, J.-P. 1974. Acceptability, interpretation and knowledge of the world: Remarks on the verb planter (to plant). Cognition2: 185-211.
Bowerman, M. 1973. Early Syntactic Development: A Cross-Linguistic Study with Spacial Reference to Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, E.V. 1978. Discovering what words can do. Chicago Linguistic Society 14: 34-57.
Clark, E.V. 1996. Early Verbs, Event Types, and Inflections, vol 9. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Croft, W.A. 1986. Categories and Relations in Syntax: The Clause-Level Organization of Information. Doctorial dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Croft, W.A. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W.A. 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. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Croft, W.A. 2001. Radial Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Express.
Dik, S.C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1989. Subject and object in Universal Grammar. Essays on Grammatical Theory and Universal Grammar, eds. by D. Arnold et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 91-118.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar: On Semantic Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1991. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dowty, D.1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547-619.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1966. A proposal concerning English prepositions. Report of the Seventeenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, ed. by S.J. F.P. Dinnen. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 10-34.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1968a. The case for case. Universals in Linguistic Theory, eds. by E. Bach and R.T. Harms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1-88.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1968b. Lexical entries for verbs. Foundations of Language 4: 373-393.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1977. Topics in lexical semantics. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. by R. Cole. Bloomingon: Indiana University Press. 76-138.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame Semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by Linguistics Society of Korea. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. 111-138.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frame and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6: 222-54.
Fillmore, Charles J. and B.T.S. Atkins. 1992. Toward a Frame-based Lexicon: The Semantics of Risk and its Neighbors. Frames, Fields and Contrasts, eds. by A. Lehrer and E. Kittay. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 75-102.
Fillmore, Charles J. and B.T.S. Atkins. 2000. Describing Polysemy: The case of ‘crawl’. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock. New York: Oxford Press. 91-110.
Fillmore, Charles J. Paul Kay and Mary Kay O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical construction: the case of let alone. Language 64: 501-38.
Fukui, N., S. Miyagawa, and C. Tenny. 1985. Verb classes in Eng;ish and Japanese: A case study in the interaction of syntax, morphology, and semantics. Lexicon Project Working Paper 3. Cambridge, MA: Center of Cognitive Science, MIT.
Gao, Hong. 2001. The Physical Foundation of the Patterning of Physical Action Verbs: A study of Chinese verbs. Travaux de l`institut de linguistique de Lund XLI. Lund: Lund University.
Gleitman, L., Henry, G., Miller, C., and Ostrin, R. 1996. Similar and similar concepts. Cognition: 321-76.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: the case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics 3: 37-74.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London the University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1999. The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. The Emergence of Language, ed. by B. MacWhinney. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 197-212.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2000. Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: The role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences 34: 503-24.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13: 327-56.
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 Works: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Express.
Goldberg, Adele E. forthcoming. Constructions in Acquisition, eds. by E. Clark and B. Kelly. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Goldberg, Adele E., and Farrell Ackerman. 2001. The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language 77: 798-814.
Goldberg, Adele E, Devin Casenhiser, and Nitya Sethuraman. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 14: 289-316.
Grégorie, A. 1937. L’apprentissage du Language, vol.1. Paris: Droz.
Grimshaw, Jane and Sten Vikner. 1993. Obligatory Adjuncts and the structure of events. Knowledge and Language II: Lexical and Conceptual Structure, eds. by E. Reuland & W. Abraham. Dordrecht: Kluwer Acadamic Publisher. 143-55.
Gruber, J.S. 1976. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Guerssel, M., K. Hale, M. Laughren, B. Levin and J. White Eagle. 1985. A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity, eds. by W.H. Eilfort, P.D. Kroeber, and K.L. Peterson. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. 48-63.s
Halliday, M.Q.K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part II. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199-244.
Huang, Chu-Ren and Shen-Ming Chang. 1996. "Metaphor, Metaphorical Extension, and Grammaticalization: A Study of Mandarin Chinese." Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, California: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 201-16.
Hong, Jia-Fei, Xiang-Bing Li, and Chu-Ren Huang. 2005. Ontology-based prediction of compound relations: A study based on SUMO. Logico-Linguistic Society of Japan.
Iwata, Seizi. 2005a. Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 2. 355-407.
Iwata, Seizi. 2005b. The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 101-18
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1987. Consciousness and the Computational Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R.1990a. On Larson’s treatment of double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 427-56.
Jackendoff, R.1990b. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1992. Parts and boundaries. Lexical and Conceptual Semantics, eds. by Beth Levin and Steven Pinker. Oxford: Blackwell. 9-45.
Jackendoff, R. 1997. Twistin the night away. Language 73: 534-59.
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaufmann, I. and D. Wunderluch. 1998. Cross-linguistic patterns of resultatives. University of Dusseldorf manuscript. Dusseldorf. Germany.
Kay, Paul. 2001. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. Unpulished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.
Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 71-98.
Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75: 1-34.
Laughren, M. 1988. Towards a lexical representation of Warlpiri verbs. Thematic Relations, ed. by W. Wilkins. New York: Academic Press. 215-42.
Lai, Huei-ling. 2000. The lexicalization patterns of verbs of hitting in Hakka. Proceedings of the 2000 NCCU Teachers’ Conference on Linguistics Research. 200-11. Taipei: NCCU.
Lai, Huei-ling. 2003a. Hakka LAU constructions: A Constructional Approach. Language and Linguistics 4.2: 353-378.
Lai, Huei-ling. 2003b. The semantic extension of Hakka LAU. Language and Linguistics 4.3:533-561.
Lai, Huei-ling. 2004. The syntactic Grounding and conceptualization of Hakka BUN and LAU. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 30.1: 80-105.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R.W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2. Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1991. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition 41: 123-51.
Lien, Chinfa. 2000. A frame-based of lexical polysemy in Taiwanese. Language and Linguistics 1.1: 119-138.
Lien, Chinfa. 2004. Polyfunctionality of pang3 in Taiwanese Southern Min : An explanation of the relationship between meaning and form. ＜台灣閩南語「放」的多重功能：探索語意和形式的關係＞ BIBLID（漢學研究）22:1. 391-418.
Lien, Chinfa. 2006. <<荔鏡記>>動詞分類和動相、格式. Language and Linguistics 7.1: 27-61.
Liu, Meichun. 2000.Verbs of surface contact in Mandarin: A lexical semantic study. A Festschrift for Shuan-Fan Huang, ed. by Lily Su. Taipei: Crane. 257-303.
MacWhinney, B. 1995. The Childes Project: Tools for analyzing Talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Matthews, Peter H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Michaelis, Laura A. and Knud Lambrecht. 1996. Toward a construction-based theory of language functions: the case of nominal extraposition. Language: 72: 215-47.
Park, T.-Z. 1977. Emerging Language in Korean Children. Unpublished manuscript, Institute of Psychology, Bern.
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York. William Morrow and Co.
Rappaport, Malka and Levin, B. 1985. A Case Study in Locative Analysis: The Locative Alternation. Bar Illan and Stanford Universities.
Rappaport, Malka and Levin, B. 1988. What to do with theta roles. Syntax and Semantics: Thematic Relations, ed. by W. Willkins. New York: Academic Press. 7-36.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka Rappaport and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, ed. by M. Butt and W. Geider. Standford, CA: CSLI.
Sanchés, M. 1978. On the Emergence of Multi-Element Utterances in the Child’s Japanese. Unpublished manuscript, Austin, Texas.
Schank, Roger C. and Robert P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causative types. The Grammar of Causative Consructions, ed. by M. Shibatani. New York: Academic Press. 43-116.
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3, ed. by Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57-149.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000a. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000b. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tomasello, M. 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomesello, M. 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74: 209-53.
van Hout, Angeliek. 1996. Event semantics of verb frame alternations: A case study of Dutch and its acquisition. Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant Doctorial Dissertation.
Williams, E. 1991. Meaning categories of NPs and Ss. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 584-7.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
93555008
95
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093555008
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 賴惠玲zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lai,Huei Lingen_US
dc.contributor.author (作者) 廖珮筠zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Liao,Pei Yunen_US
dc.creator (作者) 廖珮筠zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Liao,Pei Yunen_US
dc.date (日期) 2006en_US
dc.date.accessioned 17-九月-2009 16:25:13 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 17-九月-2009 16:25:13 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 17-九月-2009 16:25:13 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0093555008en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/33375-
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) 93555008zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 95zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本文以客語移除類動詞為研究對象探索語意和形式的關係。動詞的語義透過詞彙分解化、概念結構、詞彙化、框架語義和顯像等機制帶出。後以Goldberg (1995, 2006)的構式理論為基礎，運用Iwata (2005a, b)建議的修正模式，對動詞和結構之間的整合，提出更精細、更詳盡的解釋。根據前述方法，我們初步將移除類動詞分為六個次分類，並呈現出他們在結構上被顯像的論元。最後帶入Iwata提出的模組，分析各次分類動詞和不同句子結構的結合情形和其後的語義表現。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) This paper aims to explore verbs of removal in Hakka with respect to the relationship between form and meaning. Following the constructional approach in the shape of Goldberg (1995, 2006) and Iwata (2005a, b), we display a finer mechanism for the integration of verbal meanings and constructions. Verbal meanings, L-meanings (Lexical Head Level Meaning), are carried out through the following concepts: decomposition, conceptual structure, conflation, frame, profiling. Constructional meanings or P-meanings (Phrasal Level Meaning), variants of L-meanings, are manifested by different constructions. In our preliminary analysis, we display six tentative subclasses of verbs of removal in Hakka, depending on their different lexicalized meanings. We also present the different roles they profile in phrasal expressions. Last, we demonstrate the integration of the verbal meaning and several constructions (e.g., BUN construction and LAU construction).en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………iv
Chinese Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………vii
English Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………viii
Figures and Tables..…………………………………………………………………………………ix
Chapter
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………1
1.1. Motivation and purpose………………………………………………………1
1.2. Conventions of the data……………………………………………………7
1.3. Organization of the thesis……………………………………………7
2. Literature Review……………………………………………………………………9
2.1. Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1991) …………………………10
2.2. Liu (2000) ……………………………………………………………………………………16
2.3. Remarks………………………………………………………………………………………………19
3. Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………22
3.1 The lexical approach……………………………………………………………22
3.1.1. Event conceptual structure……………………………………………22
3.1.2. Lexicalization……………………………………………………………………………23
3.1.3. Frame and perspective…………………………………………………………27
3.2 The constructional approach…………………………………………30
3.3 Remark…………………………………………………………………………………………………39
4. Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………40
4.1 Conceptual structures of verbs of removal……41
4.2 [V X] constructions………………………………………………………………43
4.2.1 [V O] constructions………………………………………………………………46
4.2.2 [V C] constructions………………………………………………………………61
4.2.3 Adjuncts……………………………………………………………………………………………69
4.2.4 The generalization of [V X] constructions……71
4.3 BUN constructions……………………………………………………………………73
4.3.1 Profiling goal……………………………………………………………………………75
4.3.2 Profiling agent…………………………………………………………………………80
4.3.3 The generalization on BUN constructions…………83
4.4 LAU constructions……………………………………………………………………87
4.4.1 Profiling patient, source, and goal……………………88
4.4.2 Profiling comate and benefactive……………………………95
4.4.3 The generalization of LAU construction……………100
4.5 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………104
5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………105
5.1 Summary of the thesis…………………………………………………………105
5.2 Contrast between Iwata’s model and the present model………108
5.3 Future study…………………………………………………………………………………109

References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………110		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 47545 bytes-
dc.format.extent 16070 bytes-
dc.format.extent 15654 bytes-
dc.format.extent 230869 bytes-
dc.format.extent 26274 bytes-
dc.format.extent 127354 bytes-
dc.format.extent 21991 bytes-
dc.format.extent 26189 bytes-
dc.format.extent 87553 bytes-
dc.format.extent 90413 bytes-
dc.format.extent 106954 bytes-
dc.format.extent 357745 bytes-
dc.format.extent 46952 bytes-
dc.format.extent 71994 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.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093555008en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 客語zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 構式語法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 移除類動詞zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Hakkaen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) constructionsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) removal verbsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) BUNen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) LAUen_US
dc.title (題名) 從動詞意義和結構的整合分析客語移除類動詞zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Verbs of Removal in Hakka: Integration of Verbal Meanings and Constructionsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Baker, M. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. Elements of Grammar, ed. by L. Haegeman. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 73-137.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Becker, D.A. 1971. Case grammar and German be. Glossa 5: 125-45.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Birner, Betty J. and Gregory Ward. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Boas, Hans Christian. 2000. Resultative constructions in English and German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.zh_TW
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) Boons, J.-P. 1974. Acceptability, interpretation and knowledge of the world: Remarks on the verb planter (to plant). Cognition2: 185-211.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bowerman, M. 1973. Early Syntactic Development: A Cross-Linguistic Study with Spacial Reference to Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Clark, E.V. 1978. Discovering what words can do. Chicago Linguistic Society 14: 34-57.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Clark, E.V. 1996. Early Verbs, Event Types, and Inflections, vol 9. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Croft, W.A. 1986. Categories and Relations in Syntax: The Clause-Level Organization of Information. Doctorial dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Croft, W.A. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Croft, W.A. 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. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Croft, W.A. 2001. Radial Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Express.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dik, S.C. 1978. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dixon, R.M.W. 1989. Subject and object in Universal Grammar. Essays on Grammatical Theory and Universal Grammar, eds. by D. Arnold et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 91-118.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dixon, R.M.W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar: On Semantic Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dixon, R.M.W. 1991. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dowty, D.1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547-619.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore, Charles. J. 1966. A proposal concerning English prepositions. Report of the Seventeenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, ed. by S.J. F.P. Dinnen. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 10-34.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore, Charles. J. 1968a. The case for case. Universals in Linguistic Theory, eds. by E. Bach and R.T. Harms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1-88.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore, Charles. J. 1968b. Lexical entries for verbs. Foundations of Language 4: 373-393.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore, Charles. J. 1977. Topics in lexical semantics. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. by R. Cole. Bloomingon: Indiana University Press. 76-138.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame Semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by Linguistics Society of Korea. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. 111-138.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frame and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6: 222-54.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore, Charles J. and B.T.S. Atkins. 1992. Toward a Frame-based Lexicon: The Semantics of Risk and its Neighbors. Frames, Fields and Contrasts, eds. by A. Lehrer and E. Kittay. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 75-102.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore, Charles J. and B.T.S. Atkins. 2000. Describing Polysemy: The case of ‘crawl’. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock. New York: Oxford Press. 91-110.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 construction: the case of let alone. Language 64: 501-38.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fukui, N., S. Miyagawa, and C. Tenny. 1985. Verb classes in Eng;ish and Japanese: A case study in the interaction of syntax, morphology, and semantics. Lexicon Project Working Paper 3. Cambridge, MA: Center of Cognitive Science, MIT.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`institut de linguistique de Lund XLI. Lund: Lund University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gleitman, L., Henry, G., Miller, C., and Ostrin, R. 1996. Similar and similar concepts. Cognition: 321-76.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: the case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics 3: 37-74.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London the University of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goldberg, Adele E. 1999. The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. The Emergence of Language, ed. by B. MacWhinney. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 197-212.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goldberg, Adele E. 2000. Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: The role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences 34: 503-24.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goldberg, Adele E. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13: 327-56.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 Works: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Express.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goldberg, Adele E. forthcoming. Constructions in Acquisition, eds. by E. Clark and B. Kelly. Stanford: CSLI Publications.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goldberg, Adele E., and Farrell Ackerman. 2001. The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language 77: 798-814.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goldberg, Adele E, Devin Casenhiser, and Nitya Sethuraman. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 14: 289-316.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Grégorie, A. 1937. L’apprentissage du Language, vol.1. Paris: Droz.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Grimshaw, Jane and Sten Vikner. 1993. Obligatory Adjuncts and the structure of events. Knowledge and Language II: Lexical and Conceptual Structure, eds. by E. Reuland & W. Abraham. Dordrecht: Kluwer Acadamic Publisher. 143-55.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gruber, J.S. 1976. Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Guerssel, M., K. Hale, M. Laughren, B. Levin and J. White Eagle. 1985. A cross-linguistic study of transitivity alternations. Papers from the Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity, eds. by W.H. Eilfort, P.D. Kroeber, and K.L. Peterson. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. 48-63.szh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Halliday, M.Q.K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part II. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199-244.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Huang, Chu-Ren and Shen-Ming Chang. 1996. "Metaphor, Metaphorical Extension, and Grammaticalization: A Study of Mandarin Chinese." Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, California: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 201-16.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hong, Jia-Fei, Xiang-Bing Li, and Chu-Ren Huang. 2005. Ontology-based prediction of compound relations: A study based on SUMO. Logico-Linguistic Society of Japan.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Iwata, Seizi. 2005a. Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 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 the Roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 101-18zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jackendoff, R. 1987. Consciousness and the Computational Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jackendoff, R.1990a. On Larson’s treatment of double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 427-56.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jackendoff, R.1990b. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jackendoff, R. 1992. Parts and boundaries. Lexical and Conceptual Semantics, eds. by Beth Levin and Steven Pinker. Oxford: Blackwell. 9-45.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jackendoff, R. 1997. Twistin the night away. Language 73: 534-59.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kaufmann, I. and D. Wunderluch. 1998. Cross-linguistic patterns of resultatives. University of Dusseldorf manuscript. Dusseldorf. Germany.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kay, Paul. 2001. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. Unpulished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried and Hans C. Boas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 71-98.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: 1-34.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Laughren, M. 1988. Towards a lexical representation of Warlpiri verbs. Thematic Relations, ed. by W. Wilkins. New York: Academic Press. 215-42.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lai, Huei-ling. 2000. The lexicalization patterns of verbs of hitting in Hakka. Proceedings of the 2000 NCCU Teachers’ Conference on Linguistics Research. 200-11. Taipei: NCCU.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lai, Huei-ling. 2003a. 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. 2003b. The semantic extension of Hakka LAU. Language and Linguistics 4.3:533-561.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lai, Huei-ling. 2004. The syntactic Grounding and conceptualization of Hakka BUN and LAU. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 30.1: 80-105.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) Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Langacker, R.W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2. Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Levin, Beth and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1991. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition 41: 123-51.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lien, Chinfa. 2000. A frame-based of lexical polysemy in Taiwanese. Language and Linguistics 1.1: 119-138.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lien, Chinfa. 2004. Polyfunctionality of pang3 in Taiwanese Southern Min : An explanation of the relationship between meaning and form. ＜台灣閩南語「放」的多重功能：探索語意和形式的關係＞ BIBLID（漢學研究）22:1. 391-418.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lien, Chinfa. 2006. <<荔鏡記>>動詞分類和動相、格式. Language and Linguistics 7.1: 27-61.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Liu, Meichun. 2000.Verbs of surface contact in Mandarin: A lexical semantic study. A Festschrift for Shuan-Fan Huang, ed. by Lily Su. Taipei: Crane. 257-303.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) MacWhinney, B. 1995. The Childes Project: Tools for analyzing Talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Matthews, Peter H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Michaelis, Laura A. and Knud Lambrecht. 1996. Toward a construction-based theory of language functions: the case of nominal extraposition. Language: 72: 215-47.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Park, T.-Z. 1977. Emerging Language in Korean Children. Unpublished manuscript, Institute of Psychology, Bern.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York. William Morrow and Co.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rappaport, Malka and Levin, B. 1985. A Case Study in Locative Analysis: The Locative Alternation. Bar Illan and Stanford Universities.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rappaport, Malka and Levin, B. 1988. What to do with theta roles. Syntax and Semantics: Thematic Relations, ed. by W. Willkins. New York: Academic Press. 7-36.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rappaport Hovav, Malka Rappaport and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, ed. by M. Butt and W. Geider. Standford, CA: CSLI.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Sanchés, M. 1978. On the Emergence of Multi-Element Utterances in the Child’s Japanese. Unpublished manuscript, Austin, Texas.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Schank, Roger C. and Robert P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causative types. The Grammar of Causative Consructions, ed. by M. Shibatani. New York: Academic Press. 43-116.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3, ed. by Timothy Shopen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57-149.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Talmy, Leonard. 2000a. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Talmy, Leonard. 2000b. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tomasello, M. 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tomesello, M. 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74: 209-53.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) van Hout, Angeliek. 1996. Event semantics of verb frame alternations: A case study of Dutch and its acquisition. Tilburg: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant Doctorial Dissertation.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Williams, E. 1991. Meaning categories of NPs and Ss. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 584-7.zh_TW