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 Two-part Allegorical Sayings Xie-hou-yu in Taiwanese Southern Min: A Cognitive Semantic Analysis
台閩語歇後語：認知語意學之分析
作者 陳宜伶
Chen , Yi-ling
貢獻者 賴惠玲
Lai , Huei-ling
陳宜伶
Chen , Yi-ling
關鍵詞 歇後語
隱喻
代喩
two-part allegorical sayings
Xie-hou-yu
metaphor
metonymy
frame
日期 2003
上傳時間 18-九月-2009 16:41:18 (UTC+8)
摘要 歇後語是一種很有趣的口語文體，它由兩個部分組成，語意重心在第二部分，展現豐富的語意和音韻的運作歷程。它並非固定而無法再分析的結構，使用者只能靠死記來使用它；反之，歇後語本質上為我們人類認知的一部份。它展現多層的隱喻、代喻和人類知識架構等語意上的運作（參看Lakoff 1993，Kovecses and Radden 1998，Fillmore 1977等人之論著）。本論文旨在從認知語意學的觀點，探究台閩語歇後語的本質，重心在探究其最終語意的衍生歷程。我們修正Geeraerts (1995)針對成語的分類架構和Ruiz de Mendoza’s (2003)分析成語所使用的隱喻和代喻互動類別，來分析閩南語歇後語，得到在四大類別下，有二十二種語意衍生的種類、十二種變化和十二種次變化。分析的結果顯示，所有的歇後語之語意皆可衍生，且三層的衍生為最普遍的基型。此外，代喻在台閩歇後語很普遍，所有的類型皆有牽涉到代喻。與隱喻相較，代喻在台閩語歇後語語意的衍生上所佔的角色比隱喻重。
Two-part allegorical sayings Xie-hou-yu, colloquial expressions whose second parts bear the main semantic weight, exhibit rich semantic and phonological operations. They are not unanalyzed fixed structures memorized by the users; instead, two-part allegorical sayings are conceptual in nature, exhibiting multiple semantic operations among metaphor, metonymy, and knowledge frame (cf. Lakoff 1993, Kovecses and Radden 1998, Fillmore 1977, among others). This study aims to explore the nature of two-part allegorical sayings in Taiwanese Southern Min from cognitive semantics point of view, focusing on the derivations of the intended meaning. We modify Geeraerts` classification model (1995) and Ruiz de Mendoza’s (2003) model of interaction types in analyzing idioms to account for the data and find twenty-two types of derivation under four major categories with twelve variations and twelve subvariations. The result shows that all two-part allegorical sayings are motivated with three stages of derivation as the common schema. Furthermore, metonymy is very pervasive in two-part allegorical sayings in Taiwanese Southern Min where all of the four types involve metonymy. Comparing with metaphor, metonymy plays a much more important role in the meaning derivation of the two-part allegorical sayings.
參考文獻 Burger, H. 1982. Einleitung [Introduction], in Burger, H. Buhofer, and A. Sialm 1982 Handbuch der phraseologie [Handbook
of phraseology]. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Carter, R., and M. McCarthy. 1988. Vocabulary and language
teaching. London: Longman.
Chafe, W. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Chang, F.-S. 1999. The study of Xiehouyu in Taiwan Southern
Min. M.A. thesis, National Hsin Chu Teachers College.
Chen, H.-W. 2000. An analysis of homophones in Mandarin
Chinese. M.A. thesis in Graduate Institute of Linguistics,
Fu Jen Catholic University.
Chen, Z.-X. 1997-2001. Taiwan suyan yudian [Dictionary of
Taiwan sayings, Volume I to Volume XI]. Taipei: Qianwei.
Cheung, H.-N. 1982. A study of Xie-hou-yu expression in
Cantoese. The Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 14. 51-
103.
Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Fillmore, C.J. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of
meaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, ed.
by C. Cogen, H.Thompson, G. Thurgood and K. Whistler, 123-
31. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
_____. 1977. Topics in lexical semantics. Current issues in
linguistic theory, ed. by R.W. Cole, 76-138. Bloomington,
London: Indiana University Press
_____. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding.
Quaderni di Semantica VI. 222-54.
Fraser, B. 1970. Idioms within a transformational grammar.
Foundations of language 6. 22-42.
Geeraerts, D. 1995. Specialization and reinterpretation in
idioms. Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives,
ed. by Martin Everaert et al.. 57-73. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibbbs, R. W. 1995. Idiomaticity and human cognition. Idioms:
Structural and psychological perspectives, ed. by Martin
Everaert et al.. 97-116. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Greciano, G. 1986. Actualite□s phraseologiques [Recent
developments in phraseology]. Verbum 9. 319-40.
Jian, Z.-C. 1995. Taiwan minnan yanyu yanjiu [A study of
proverbs in Taiwanese Southern Min]. M.A. thesis in
Department of Chinese Literature, Feng Chia University.
Katz, J. 1973. Compositionality, idiomaticity, and lexical
substitution. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by
Anderson and P. Kiparsky. New York.
Kovecses, Z., and G. Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a
cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9:1. 37-
77.
Kovecses, Zolta□n, and Pe□ter Szabo□. 1996. Idioms: A view
from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics 17:3. 326-55.
Lai, G.-H. 1993. Xiehouyu yanjiu: Xiehouyu de jieshuo,
xingcheng, jiegou yu tese [A study of Xie-hou-yu: The
definition, formation, structure, and features of Xie-hou-
yu]. M.A. thesis in Department of Chinese Literature, Feng
Chia University.
Lin, W-P. 2000. Taiwan xiehouyu yudian [Taiwan two-part
allegorical sayings Dictionary]. Taipei: Daotian.
Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor
and thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony. 202-51. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Macmillan English dictionary. 2002. United Kingdom: Macmillan
Publishers Limited. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, and
Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70:3. 491-538.
Radden, G. 2003. How metonymic are metaphors? Metaphor and
metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective, ed. by
Antonio Barcelona. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rosch, et al. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories.
Cognitive Psychology 8. 382-439.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. 2003. The role of mappings and domains in
understanding metonymy. Metaphor and metonymy at the
crossroads: A cognitive perspective, ed. by Antonio
Barcelona. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stern, G. 1931. Meaning and change of meaning. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in
linguistic theory. US: Oxford University Press.
Ullmann, S. A. 1951. The principles of semantics. Glasgow:
Jackson.
_____. 1962. Semantics. An introduction to the science of
meaning. Oxford : Blackwell.
Waldron, R. A. 1967. Sense and sense development. London:
Deutsch.
Wang, W. S.Y.. 1991. Language prefabs and habitual thought.
Explorations in language. Pyramid Press.
Weinreich, U. 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms.
Substance and structure of language, ed. by J. Puhvel. Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Wen, H.-X. 2002. Taiwanese zhihui xiehouyu [Two-part
allegorical sayings of Taiwaneses’ wisdom]. Taipei: Hongxin
Wenhua.
Wen, R.-Z. 1981. Xie-hou-yu de yuyi [The meaning of two-part
allegorical sayings]. Chinese Language Monthly 6. 426-31.
Yang, D.-Y. 2000. A study of Hakka proverbs in Taiwan. M.A.
thesis, National Hsin Chu Teachers College.
Yang, X-Y (ed.). 2002. Xiehouyu quweiji [Interesting
collections of two-part allegorical sayings]. Taizhong:
Jietai.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
90555008
92
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0090555008
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) 陳宜伶zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Chen , Yi-lingen_US
dc.creator (作者) 陳宜伶zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chen , Yi-lingen_US
dc.date (日期) 2003en_US
dc.date.accessioned 18-九月-2009 16:41:18 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 18-九月-2009 16:41:18 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 18-九月-2009 16:41:18 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0090555008en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35982-
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) 90555008zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 92zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 歇後語是一種很有趣的口語文體，它由兩個部分組成，語意重心在第二部分，展現豐富的語意和音韻的運作歷程。它並非固定而無法再分析的結構，使用者只能靠死記來使用它；反之，歇後語本質上為我們人類認知的一部份。它展現多層的隱喻、代喻和人類知識架構等語意上的運作（參看Lakoff 1993，Kovecses and Radden 1998，Fillmore 1977等人之論著）。本論文旨在從認知語意學的觀點，探究台閩語歇後語的本質，重心在探究其最終語意的衍生歷程。我們修正Geeraerts (1995)針對成語的分類架構和Ruiz de Mendoza’s (2003)分析成語所使用的隱喻和代喻互動類別，來分析閩南語歇後語，得到在四大類別下，有二十二種語意衍生的種類、十二種變化和十二種次變化。分析的結果顯示，所有的歇後語之語意皆可衍生，且三層的衍生為最普遍的基型。此外，代喻在台閩歇後語很普遍，所有的類型皆有牽涉到代喻。與隱喻相較，代喻在台閩語歇後語語意的衍生上所佔的角色比隱喻重。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Two-part allegorical sayings Xie-hou-yu, colloquial expressions whose second parts bear the main semantic weight, exhibit rich semantic and phonological operations. They are not unanalyzed fixed structures memorized by the users; instead, two-part allegorical sayings are conceptual in nature, exhibiting multiple semantic operations among metaphor, metonymy, and knowledge frame (cf. Lakoff 1993, Kovecses and Radden 1998, Fillmore 1977, among others). This study aims to explore the nature of two-part allegorical sayings in Taiwanese Southern Min from cognitive semantics point of view, focusing on the derivations of the intended meaning. We modify Geeraerts` classification model (1995) and Ruiz de Mendoza’s (2003) model of interaction types in analyzing idioms to account for the data and find twenty-two types of derivation under four major categories with twelve variations and twelve subvariations. The result shows that all two-part allegorical sayings are motivated with three stages of derivation as the common schema. Furthermore, metonymy is very pervasive in two-part allegorical sayings in Taiwanese Southern Min where all of the four types involve metonymy. Comparing with metaphor, metonymy plays a much more important role in the meaning derivation of the two-part allegorical sayings.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………iv
     Chinese Abstract……………………………………………………………vi
     English Abstract…………………………………………………………vii
     Diagrams and Tables…………………………………………………………x
     CHAPTER
      I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………1
      1.1 Two-part allegorical sayings…………………………1
      1.2 Previous studies…………………………………………3
      1.2.1 Wen (1981)……………………………………………3
      1.2.2 Cheung (1982)………………………………………4
      1.2.3 Chang (1999)…………………………………………5
      1.2.4 Remarks………………………………………………6
      1.3 Traditional approach to idioms………………………7
      1.4 Cognitive approach to idioms…………………………8
      1.5 Organization of the thesis……………………………10
      II. COGNITIVE MECHANISMS……………………………………12
      2.1 Frame………………………………………………………12
      2.2 Metonymy……………………………………………………16
      2.3 Metaphor……………………………………………………20
      2.4 The interaction of metaphor and metonymy…………25
      III. DATA DESCRIPTION………………………………………29
      3.1 Geeraerts’classification model (1995)……………29
      3.2 Modified model……………………………………………32
      3.2.1 The modifications…………………………………32
      3.2.2 Comparison and contrast of Geeraerts’(1995)
      model and the modified model……………………36
      3.3 Data……………………………………………………37
      3.3.1 Data base……………………………………………37
      3.3.2 Distribution of the types………………………38
      IV. ANALYSIS……………………………………………………40
      4.1 Isomorphic & semantically, phonologically and
      semantically motivated (I, SPS)……………………41
      4.1.1 Subtype 1………………………………………………41
      4.1.2 Subtype 2………………………………………………47
      4.1.3 Subtype 3………………………………………………48
      4.1.4 Subtype 4………………………………………………52
      4.1.5 Subtype 5………………………………………………54
      4.2 Nonisomorphic & semantically, phonologically and
      semantically motivated type (NI, SPS)……………57
      4.2.1 Subtype 1………………………………………………57
      4.2.2 Subtype 2………………………………………………64
      4.2.3 Subtype 3………………………………………………66
      4.2.4 Subtype 4………………………………………………67
      4.2.5 Subtype 5………………………………………………70
      4.2.6 Subtype 6………………………………………………72
      4.2.7 Subtype 7………………………………………………73
      4.3. Nonisomorphic & multi-semantically motivated
      type (NI, MS)……………………………………………75
      4.3.1 Subtype 1………………………………………………76
      4.3.2 Subtype 2………………………………………………77
      4.3.3 Subtype 3………………………………………………80
      4.3.4 Subtype 4………………………………………………81
      4.3.5 Subtype 5………………………………………………83
      4.3.6 Subtype 6………………………………………………84
      4.3.7 Subtype 7………………………………………………86
      4.3.8 Subtype 8………………………………………………88
      4.3.9 Subtype 9………………………………………………89
      4.4 Nonisomorphic & uni-semantically motivated type
      (NI, US)…………………………………………………90
      4.5 Remarks……………………………………………………92
      V. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………93
      5.1 Summary of the thesis…………………………………93
      5.2 Residuals…………………………………………………98
      APPENDIX………………………………………………………101
      REFERENCES……………………………………………………125		zh_TW
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0090555008en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 歇後語zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 隱喻zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 代喩zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) two-part allegorical sayingsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Xie-hou-yuen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) metaphoren_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) metonymyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) frameen_US
dc.title (題名) Two-part Allegorical Sayings Xie-hou-yu in Taiwanese Southern Min: A Cognitive Semantic Analysiszh_TW
dc.title (題名) 台閩語歇後語：認知語意學之分析zh_TW
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Burger, H. 1982. Einleitung [Introduction], in Burger, H. Buhofer, and A. Sialm 1982 Handbuch der phraseologie [Handbookzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) of phraseology]. De Gruyter, Berlin.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Carter, R., and M. McCarthy. 1988. Vocabulary and languagezh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) teaching. London: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chafe, W. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago:zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) University of Chicago Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chang, F.-S. 1999. The study of Xiehouyu in Taiwan Southernzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Min. M.A. thesis, National Hsin Chu Teachers College.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chen, H.-W. 2000. An analysis of homophones in Mandarinzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chinese. M.A. thesis in Graduate Institute of Linguistics,zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fu Jen Catholic University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chen, Z.-X. 1997-2001. Taiwan suyan yudian [Dictionary ofzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Taiwan sayings, Volume I to Volume XI]. Taipei: Qianwei.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cheung, H.-N. 1982. A study of Xie-hou-yu expression inzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cantoese. The Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 14. 51-zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 103.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and representations. New York: Columbiazh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fillmore, C.J. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories ofzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) meaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, ed.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) by C. Cogen, H.Thompson, G. Thurgood and K. Whistler, 123-zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 31. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) _____. 1977. Topics in lexical semantics. Current issues inzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) linguistic theory, ed. by R.W. Cole, 76-138. Bloomington,zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) London: Indiana University Presszh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) _____. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Quaderni di Semantica VI. 222-54.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fraser, B. 1970. Idioms within a transformational grammar.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Foundations of language 6. 22-42.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Geeraerts, D. 1995. Specialization and reinterpretation inzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) idioms. Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives,zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) ed. by Martin Everaert et al.. 57-73. Hillsdale, New Jersey:zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gibbbs, R. W. 1995. Idiomaticity and human cognition. Idioms:zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Structural and psychological perspectives, ed. by Martinzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Everaert et al.. 97-116. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrencezh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Erlbaum Associates.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Greciano, G. 1986. Actualite□s phraseologiques [Recentzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) developments in phraseology]. Verbum 9. 319-40.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jian, Z.-C. 1995. Taiwan minnan yanyu yanjiu [A study ofzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) proverbs in Taiwanese Southern Min]. M.A. thesis inzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Department of Chinese Literature, Feng Chia University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Katz, J. 1973. Compositionality, idiomaticity, and lexicalzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) substitution. A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. byzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Anderson and P. Kiparsky. New York.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kovecses, Z., and G. Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing azh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9:1. 37-zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 77.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kovecses, Zolta□n, and Pe□ter Szabo□. 1996. Idioms: A viewzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) from cognitive semantics. Applied Linguistics 17:3. 326-55.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lai, G.-H. 1993. Xiehouyu yanjiu: Xiehouyu de jieshuo,zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) xingcheng, jiegou yu tese [A study of Xie-hou-yu: Thezh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) definition, formation, structure, and features of Xie-hou-zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) yu]. M.A. thesis in Department of Chinese Literature, Fengzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chia University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lin, W-P. 2000. Taiwan xiehouyu yudian [Taiwan two-partzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) allegorical sayings Dictionary]. Taipei: Daotian.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lakoff, G. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphorzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) and thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony. 202-51. Cambridge:zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Macmillan English dictionary. 2002. United Kingdom: Macmillanzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Publishers Limited. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, andzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70:3. 491-538.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Radden, G. 2003. How metonymic are metaphors? Metaphor andzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective, ed. byzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Antonio Barcelona. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rosch, et al. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cognitive Psychology 8. 382-439.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ruiz de Mendoza, F. 2003. The role of mappings and domains inzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) understanding metonymy. Metaphor and metonymy at thezh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) crossroads: A cognitive perspective, ed. by Antoniozh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Barcelona. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Stern, G. 1931. Meaning and change of meaning. Bloomington:zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Indiana University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes inzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) linguistic theory. US: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ullmann, S. A. 1951. The principles of semantics. Glasgow:zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jackson.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) _____. 1962. Semantics. An introduction to the science ofzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) meaning. Oxford : Blackwell.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Waldron, R. A. 1967. Sense and sense development. London:zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Deutsch.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wang, W. S.Y.. 1991. Language prefabs and habitual thought.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Explorations in language. Pyramid Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Weinreich, U. 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Substance and structure of language, ed. by J. Puhvel. Loszh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Angeles: University of California Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wen, H.-X. 2002. Taiwanese zhihui xiehouyu [Two-partzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) allegorical sayings of Taiwaneses’ wisdom]. Taipei: Hongxinzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wenhua.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wen, R.-Z. 1981. Xie-hou-yu de yuyi [The meaning of two-partzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) allegorical sayings]. Chinese Language Monthly 6. 426-31.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Yang, D.-Y. 2000. A study of Hakka proverbs in Taiwan. M.A.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) thesis, National Hsin Chu Teachers College.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Yang, X-Y (ed.). 2002. Xiehouyu quweiji [Interestingzh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) collections of two-part allegorical sayings]. Taizhong:zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jietai.zh_TW