Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 Taking Care of "Take": Frame and Constructions
從語意架構和構造語法的觀點分析英語多義詞Take
作者 李美芳
Mei-fang F. Lee
貢獻者 賴惠玲
Huei-Ling Lai
李美芳
Mei-fang F. Lee
關鍵詞 多義詞
構造語法
語意架構
認知語意學
Polysemy
Construction Grammar
Frame Semantics
Cognitive Semantics
Windowing of Attention
日期 2002
上傳時間 18-Sep-2009 16:41:04 (UTC+8)
摘要 英語動詞take有許多不同的語意,而這些語意之間則存有密切的關聯性。藉著分析take的各種語意,可以讓我們更深入地瞭解多義詞現象。本論文藉助認知語言學派的語意架構理論和構造語法理論,深入分析了take出現在不同句法結構中所產生的不同語意及這些語意彼此之間的關聯性。研究結果發現︰當take出現在及物結構中(Caused-Affected Construction)時,透過語言使用者在觀點上不同的選擇(Windowing of Attention),會衍生出四個基本語意,分別為選擇、拿取、消耗、及狀態改變。此外,take可以與七類型的介詞片語共同表達出七種不同的語意功能。最後,take還可以與介詞組合成片語動詞,產生特殊的語意,為使動結構的邊緣衍生用法。
The English verb take attests a wide range of meanings and provides rich resources for the exploration of polysemy. Attempting to examine how the various senses of take are related to one another, this thesis investigates the meaning relatedness under the framework of Frame Semantics, which postulates that a conceptual representation is required to fully capture verb semantics (Fillmore and Atkins 1992, 2000), and Construction Grammar, which holds that constructions found in language are the basic units of language and that verb semantics interacts with constructions, thus yielding different meanings (Goldberg 1995, Jackendoff 1997). A careful examination of data reveals that take derives a variety of senses both from its interaction with the semantics of other components in the constructions and from different windowings of take’s conceptual frame. When integrated with the Caused-Affected Construction, the take construction acquires the senses of choosing, grabbing, consuming, and changing. When integrated with the Caused-Motion Construction, the take construction is found to be prototypically followed by prepositional phrases exhibiting seven semantic functions.
     When occurring in less prototypical cases of the Caused-Motion Construction, the meaning of the take construction blends into the meaning of the preposition following right behind it.
參考文獻 REFERENCES
Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brinton, Laurel J., and Minoji Akimoto (eds.) 1999. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Brugman, Claudia, and George Lakoff. 1988. Cognitive topology and lexical networks. Lexical ambiguity resolution, ed. by S. Small, G. Cottrell, and M. Tanenhaus, 477-507. Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
Brugman, Claudia. 1988. The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press. [1981. The story of over. Berkeley, CA: UC-Berkeley master’s thesis.]
Cienki, Alan. 1998. Straight: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive linguistics 9. 107-50.
Clausner, Timothy C., and William Croft. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10:1. 1-31.
Cochran, William Gemmell. 1977. Sampling techniques. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dewell, Robert B. 1994. Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 351-80.
Dirven, René. 1993. Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing, ed. by C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 73-97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dowty, David. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role’. Properties, types and meanings, vol. II, ed. by Barbara Partee, Gennaro Chierchia, and Ray Turner, 69-130. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 6. 547-69.
Ekberg, Lena. 1993. The cognitive basis of the meaning and function of cross-linguistic take and V. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 8. 21-42.
Fillmore Charles J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by E. Bach and R. T. Harms, 1-90. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Fillmore Charles J. 1977. Topics in lexical semantics. Current issues in linguistic theory, ed. by R. Cole, 76-138. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore Charles J. 1982. Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. Speech, place, and action, ed. by R. Jarvella and W. Klein, 31-59. New York: Wiley.
Fillmore Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica. 6. 223.
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, ed. by Lehrer, Adrienne and Eva Feder Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fillmore, Charles J., and B. T. S. Atkins. 1994. Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. Computational approaches to the lexicon, ed. by B. T. S. Atkins and A. Zampolli. Clarendon Press.
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, 91-110. New York: Oxford UP.
Givón, T. 1995a. Functionalism and grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Givón, T. 1995b. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. Typological studies in language, ed. by John Haiman, 187-219.
Givón, T. 1995c. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Iconicity in language, ed. by Raffaele Simone, 47-76. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goddard, Cliff. 2000. Polysemy: A problem of definition. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock, 129-51. New York: Oxford UP.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London: the University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1996. Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 7. 3-19.
Gruber, J. 1965. Studies in lexical relations, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
Herskovits, Annette. 1986. Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hiltunen, Risto. 1999. Verbal phrases and phrasal verbs in early modern English. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, ed. by Laurel J. Brinton and Kinoji Akimoto, 133-65. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hofmann, Th. R. 1993. Realms of meaning: An introduction to semantics. New York: Longman.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 3. 369-411.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language 73. 534-59.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Katz, J. J. 1972. Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.
Katz, J. J., and J. A. Fodor, 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39. 170-210.
Kay, Paul, and Charles Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75. 1-34.
Kittay, Eva Feder, and Adrienne Lehrer (eds.) 1992. Frames, fields, and contrasts. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Koskenniemi, Inna. 1977. On the use of verbal phrases of the type ‘to take revenge’ in English renaissance drama. Poetica 7. 80-90.
Lai, Huei-ling. 2003. Hakka LAU constructions: A constructional approach. Language AND Linguistics 4:2. 353-78.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Concept, image and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lehrer, Adrienne, and Eva Feder Kittay. 1992. Frames, fields, and contrasts. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1992a. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Lexical and conceptual semantics, 123-51. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1992b. The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The lexical semantics of verbs of motion. Thematic structure: Its roles in Grammar, ed. by I. M. Roca, 247-69. New York: Foris.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1996. Lexical semantics and syntactic structure. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 487-507. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Lien, Chinfa. 1998. Shi lun Taiyu fanyi ci ‘phah4’ <試論台語泛意詞「拍」>. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Languages and Language Teaching in Taiwan, ed. by Chungsu Tung, 375-90. Hsinchu: National Hsinchu Normal University.
Lien, Chinfa. 2000a. A frame-based account of lexical polysemy in Taiwanese. Language and Linguistics 1:1. 119-38.
Lien, Chinfa. 2000b. Interface between construction and lexical semantics: a case study of the polysemous word kek4 and its congeners ti3n, chng1 and ke3 in Taiwanese Southern Min. Proceedings of IsCLL VII. 1-13.
Lien, Chinfa. 2001. Exploring multiple functions of choe3 做and its interaction with constructional meanings in Taiwanese Southern Min. Proceedings of the Symposium on Selected NSC Projects in General Linguistics from 1998-2000. 169-83.
Lindstromberg, Seth. 1998. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Liu, Mei-chun, and Chu-ren Huang. 2001. Beyond verbal semantics: Predicate coercion with manner-denoting verbs. Proceedings of the Symposium on Selected NSC Projects in General Linguistics from 1988-2000. 103-18.
Morgan, Pamela. 1997. Figuring out figure out: Metaphor and the semantics of the English verb-particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics 8. 327-57.
Norvig, Peter, and George Lakoff. 1987. Taking: A study in lexical network theory. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13. 195-206.
Numberg, Geoffery, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70. 491-538.
O’Dowd, Elizabeth. 1998. Prepositions and particles in English: A discourse-functional account. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Prins, Anton Adrian. 1952. French influence in English phrasing. Leiden: Univesitaire Pers Leiden.
Pustejovsky, J. 1993. Semantics and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Quine, W. V. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Ravin, Yael, and Claudia Leacock (eds.) 2000a. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. New York: Oxford UP.
Ravin, Yael, and Claudia Leacock. 2000b. Polysemy: An overview. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock, 1-29. New York: Oxford UP.
Ruhl, Charles. 1999. Monosemic take. LACUS Forum 25. 213-22.
Sweetser, Eve E. 1986. Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary? BLS 12.528-50.
Sweetser, Eve E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. BLS 14. 389-405.
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000a. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000b. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory, 2 edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Rand Corporation. 1955. A million random digits with 100,000 normal deviates. New York: The Free Press.
Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.) 1990. ,Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization. London: Routledge.
Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans. 2002. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77: 4. 724-65.
Vandeloise, Claude. 1994. Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 157-84.
William Collins Sons and Co Ltd. 1987. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. London: HarperCollins Publishers.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
89555008
91
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0089555008
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 賴惠玲zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Huei-Ling Laien_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 李美芳zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Mei-fang F. Leeen_US
dc.creator (作者) 李美芳zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Mei-fang F. Leeen_US
dc.date (日期) 2002en_US
dc.date.accessioned 18-Sep-2009 16:41:04 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 18-Sep-2009 16:41:04 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 18-Sep-2009 16:41:04 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0089555008en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35980-
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) 89555008zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 91zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 英語動詞take有許多不同的語意,而這些語意之間則存有密切的關聯性。藉著分析take的各種語意,可以讓我們更深入地瞭解多義詞現象。本論文藉助認知語言學派的語意架構理論和構造語法理論,深入分析了take出現在不同句法結構中所產生的不同語意及這些語意彼此之間的關聯性。研究結果發現︰當take出現在及物結構中(Caused-Affected Construction)時,透過語言使用者在觀點上不同的選擇(Windowing of Attention),會衍生出四個基本語意,分別為選擇、拿取、消耗、及狀態改變。此外,take可以與七類型的介詞片語共同表達出七種不同的語意功能。最後,take還可以與介詞組合成片語動詞,產生特殊的語意,為使動結構的邊緣衍生用法。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The English verb take attests a wide range of meanings and provides rich resources for the exploration of polysemy. Attempting to examine how the various senses of take are related to one another, this thesis investigates the meaning relatedness under the framework of Frame Semantics, which postulates that a conceptual representation is required to fully capture verb semantics (Fillmore and Atkins 1992, 2000), and Construction Grammar, which holds that constructions found in language are the basic units of language and that verb semantics interacts with constructions, thus yielding different meanings (Goldberg 1995, Jackendoff 1997). A careful examination of data reveals that take derives a variety of senses both from its interaction with the semantics of other components in the constructions and from different windowings of take’s conceptual frame. When integrated with the Caused-Affected Construction, the take construction acquires the senses of choosing, grabbing, consuming, and changing. When integrated with the Caused-Motion Construction, the take construction is found to be prototypically followed by prepositional phrases exhibiting seven semantic functions.
     When occurring in less prototypical cases of the Caused-Motion Construction, the meaning of the take construction blends into the meaning of the preposition following right behind it.
en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents TABLE OF CONTENTS
     
     
     Acknowledgements…………………………………………………iv
     Chinese Abstract…………………………………………………x
     English Abstract…………………………………………………xi
     Chapter
     1. Introduction…………………………………………………1
     1.1 Motivation and Purpose……………………………………2
     1.2 Layout of the Thesis………………………………………4
     2. Literature Review…………………………………………6
     2.1 Theoretical Background……………………………………6
     2.1.1 Classical Theories of Meaning Versus Cognitive Semantics………………………………………………………………7
     2.1.2 Frame Semantics……………………………………………14
     2.1.3 Perspective Taking………………………………………16
     2.1.4 Constructional Approach…………………………………17
     2.1.5 Thematic Roles……………………………………………21
     2.1.5.1 Jackendoff’s Thematic Relations…………………22
     2.1.5.2 Dowty’s Proto-agent and Proto-patient…………24
     2.1.5.3 Dixon’s Notion of Affectedness……………………26
     2.1.6 Image Schemas………………………………………………28
     2.2 Previous Analyses of Take………………………………30
     2.2.1 Norvig & Lakoff (1987)…………………………………31
     2.2.2 Ruhl (1999)…………………………………………………4
     2.3 Remarks………………………………………………………35
     3. Analysis……………………………………………………40
     3.1 Data…………………………………………………………40
     3.2 The Quest for the Semantics of Take…………………43
     3.2.1 The Core Meaning of the Take Construction…………43
     3.2.2 The Take Construction plus the Caused-Affected Construction…………………………………………………………46
     3.2.2.1 The Choose Type…………………………………………49
     3.2.2.2 The Grab Type……………………………………………52
     3.2.2.3 The Consume Type………………………………………58
     3.2.2.4 The Change-of-state Type……………………………61
     3.2.3 The Take Construction plus the Caused-Motion Construction… ……………………………………………………70
     3.2.3.1 Source, Path and Goal…………………………………74
     3.2.3.2 Concomitant, Locative, Benefactive, and
     Instrument……………………………………………………………90
     3.2.4 The Chameleon Take plus the Caused-Motion Construction…………………………………………………………94
     3.2.4.1 Take out and Take away………………………………97
     3.2.4.2 Take over, Take in, Take off, Take on, and Take up………………………………………………………………………99
     3.2.4.3 Take After, and Take to……………………………107
     3.3 Summary…………………………………………………109
     4. Conclusion…………………………………………………111
     4.1 Summary of Results………………………………………111
     4.2 Further Research Issues………………………………113
     
     References…………………………………………………………118
     
     
     
     
     TABLE OF FIGURES
     
     
     2-1 Caused-Motion Construction ………………………………20
     2-2 Composite Fused Structure: Caused-Motion + put………20
     2-3 Norvig & Lakoff’s semantic network for take…………33
     3-1 Distributions of syntactic patterns in which take occurs……………………………………………………………………42
     3-2 Conceptual frame for the take construction……………44
     3-3 Caused-Affected Construction………………………………47
     3-4 Windowing of LEFTOVERS’ being left hind………………51
     3-5 Windowing of initial fetching……………………………53
     3-6 Meaning extension of the grab sense of the take construction……………………………………………………………57
     3-7 Windowing of the OUTCOME OF THEME g1……………………58
     3-8 Windowing of changes undergone by THEME………………62
     3-9 The process of note taking…………………………………63
     3-10 The process of photograph taking…………………………63
     3-11 Meaning extension of the take construction in the CAC…………………………………………………………………………65
     3-12 Caused-Motion Construction…………………………………70
     3-13 Composite Fused Structure: Caused-Motion + take……71
     3-14 The entire moving trail of theme…………………………75
     3-15 The entire moving trail of theme with initial windowing…………………………………………………………………75
     3-16 The entire moving trail of theme with medial windowing…………………………………………………………………81
     3-17 Image schemas of prepositions across, over and through……………………………………………………………………82
     3-18 An image schema of the preposition around……………83
     3-19 The entire moving trail of theme with final windowing…………………………………………………………………83
     3-20 Image schemas of prepositions……………………………84
     3-21 Image schemas of out and away……………………………98
     3-22 Semantic network for over (Tyler & Evans 2001)……101
     3-23 Image schema of the excuse taking in the teacher…103
zh_TW
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0089555008en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 多義詞zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 構造語法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語意架構zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 認知語意學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Polysemyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Construction Grammaren_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Frame Semanticsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cognitive Semanticsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Windowing of Attentionen_US
dc.title (題名) Taking Care of "Take": Frame and Constructionszh_TW
dc.title (題名) 從語意架構和構造語法的觀點分析英語多義詞Takezh_TW
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) REFERENCESzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brinton, Laurel J., and Minoji Akimoto (eds.) 1999. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brugman, Claudia, and George Lakoff. 1988. Cognitive topology and lexical networks. Lexical ambiguity resolution, ed. by S. Small, G. Cottrell, and M. Tanenhaus, 477-507. Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufman.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brugman, Claudia. 1988. The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press. [1981. The story of over. Berkeley, CA: UC-Berkeley master’s thesis.]zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cienki, Alan. 1998. Straight: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive linguistics 9. 107-50.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Clausner, Timothy C., and William Croft. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10:1. 1-31.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cochran, William Gemmell. 1977. Sampling techniques. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dewell, Robert B. 1994. Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 351-80.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dirven, René. 1993. Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing, ed. by C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 73-97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dowty, David. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role’. Properties, types and meanings, vol. II, ed. by Barbara Partee, Gennaro Chierchia, and Ray Turner, 69-130. Dordrecht: Kluwer.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 6. 547-69.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ekberg, Lena. 1993. The cognitive basis of the meaning and function of cross-linguistic take and V. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 8. 21-42.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore Charles J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by E. Bach and R. T. Harms, 1-90. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.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, 76-138. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore Charles J. 1982. Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. Speech, place, and action, ed. by R. Jarvella and W. Klein, 31-59. New York: Wiley.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica. 6. 223.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, ed. by Lehrer, Adrienne and Eva Feder Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore, Charles J., and B. T. S. Atkins. 1994. Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. Computational approaches to the lexicon, ed. by B. T. S. Atkins and A. Zampolli. Clarendon Press.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, 91-110. New York: Oxford UP.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Givón, T. 1995a. Functionalism and grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Givón, T. 1995b. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. Typological studies in language, ed. by John Haiman, 187-219.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Givón, T. 1995c. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Iconicity in language, ed. by Raffaele Simone, 47-76. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goddard, Cliff. 2000. Polysemy: A problem of definition. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock, 129-51. New York: Oxford UP.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. 1996. Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 7. 3-19.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gruber, J. 1965. Studies in lexical relations, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Herskovits, Annette. 1986. Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hiltunen, Risto. 1999. Verbal phrases and phrasal verbs in early modern English. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, ed. by Laurel J. Brinton and Kinoji Akimoto, 133-65. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hofmann, Th. R. 1993. Realms of meaning: An introduction to semantics. New York: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 3. 369-411.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language 73. 534-59.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Katz, J. J. 1972. Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Katz, J. J., and J. A. Fodor, 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39. 170-210.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kay, Paul, and Charles 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) Kittay, Eva Feder, and Adrienne Lehrer (eds.) 1992. Frames, fields, and contrasts. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Koskenniemi, Inna. 1977. On the use of verbal phrases of the type ‘to take revenge’ in English renaissance drama. Poetica 7. 80-90.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lai, Huei-ling. 2003. Hakka LAU constructions: A constructional approach. Language AND Linguistics 4:2. 353-78.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Concept, image and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lehrer, Adrienne, and Eva Feder Kittay. 1992. Frames, fields, and contrasts. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1992a. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Lexical and conceptual semantics, 123-51. Cambridge: Blackwell.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1992b. The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The lexical semantics of verbs of motion. Thematic structure: Its roles in Grammar, ed. by I. M. Roca, 247-69. New York: Foris.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1996. Lexical semantics and syntactic structure. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 487-507. Cambridge: Blackwell.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lien, Chinfa. 1998. Shi lun Taiyu fanyi ci ‘phah4’ <試論台語泛意詞「拍」>. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Languages and Language Teaching in Taiwan, ed. by Chungsu Tung, 375-90. Hsinchu: National Hsinchu Normal University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lien, Chinfa. 2000a. A frame-based account of lexical polysemy in Taiwanese. Language and Linguistics 1:1. 119-38.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lien, Chinfa. 2000b. Interface between construction and lexical semantics: a case study of the polysemous word kek4 and its congeners ti3n, chng1 and ke3 in Taiwanese Southern Min. Proceedings of IsCLL VII. 1-13.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lien, Chinfa. 2001. Exploring multiple functions of choe3 做and its interaction with constructional meanings in Taiwanese Southern Min. Proceedings of the Symposium on Selected NSC Projects in General Linguistics from 1998-2000. 169-83.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lindstromberg, Seth. 1998. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Liu, Mei-chun, and Chu-ren Huang. 2001. Beyond verbal semantics: Predicate coercion with manner-denoting verbs. Proceedings of the Symposium on Selected NSC Projects in General Linguistics from 1988-2000. 103-18.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Morgan, Pamela. 1997. Figuring out figure out: Metaphor and the semantics of the English verb-particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics 8. 327-57.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Norvig, Peter, and George Lakoff. 1987. Taking: A study in lexical network theory. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13. 195-206.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Numberg, Geoffery, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70. 491-538.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) O’Dowd, Elizabeth. 1998. Prepositions and particles in English: A discourse-functional account. New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Prins, Anton Adrian. 1952. French influence in English phrasing. Leiden: Univesitaire Pers Leiden.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pustejovsky, J. 1993. Semantics and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Quine, W. V. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ravin, Yael, and Claudia Leacock (eds.) 2000a. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. New York: Oxford UP.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ravin, Yael, and Claudia Leacock. 2000b. Polysemy: An overview. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock, 1-29. New York: Oxford UP.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ruhl, Charles. 1999. Monosemic take. LACUS Forum 25. 213-22.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Sweetser, Eve E. 1986. Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary? BLS 12.528-50.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Sweetser, Eve E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. BLS 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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Talmy, Leonard. 2000a. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Talmy, Leonard. 2000b. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory, 2 edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) The Rand Corporation. 1955. A million random digits with 100,000 normal deviates. New York: The Free Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.) 1990. ,Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization. London: Routledge.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans. 2002. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77: 4. 724-65.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Vandeloise, Claude. 1994. Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 157-84.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) William Collins Sons and Co Ltd. 1987. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. London: HarperCollins Publishers.zh_TW