| dc.contributor.advisor | 賴惠玲 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Huei-Ling Lai | en_US |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | 李美芳 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | Mei-fang F. Lee | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 李美芳 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Mei-fang F. Lee | en_US |
| dc.date (日期) | 2002 | en_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) | G0089555008 | en_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) | 89555008 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 91 | zh_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/#G0089555008 | en_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) | Polysemy | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Construction Grammar | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Frame Semantics | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Cognitive Semantics | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Windowing of Attention | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | Taking Care of "Take": Frame and Constructions | zh_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Take | zh_TW |
| dc.type (資料類型) | thesis | en |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | REFERENCES | zh_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 |
