學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 漢語(不)方便/便利框架語意的凸顯類型研究
Patterns of Profiling of the (In)convenience Frame in Mandarin Chinese作者 林柏仲
Lin, Po chung貢獻者 張郇慧
Chang, Hsun huei
林柏仲
Lin, Po chung關鍵詞 進義詞
框架語意學
框架成分
凸顯類型
參與角色
原因次事件
結果次事件
構式
near-synonym
Frame Semantics
frame element
cause-subevent
result-subevent
patterns of profiling
participant role
construction日期 2009 上傳時間 4-九月-2013 16:33:27 (UTC+8) 摘要 本論文旨在探討近義詞的相關議題，特別是要檢視其背後的概念結構與表層的語法功能。透過「方便」與「便利」的研究，本文就這對近義詞在語意上的差異做深入並有系統地分析，並期以此解釋他們在語法層次上不同的表現。 以框架語意學(Frame Semantics)為理論架構，本研究發現近義詞「方便」與「便利」會引導出「方便框架」(CONVENIENCE frame)與「不方便框架」 (INCONVENIENCE frame)，而這兩個語意框架雖有相對應的框架成分(frame element)，實質上卻是引發出不同的概念型態。近一步說明這對近義詞在語意上的差別，「方便」與「便利」對於他們所涉入的複雜事件(complex event)持不同的觀點：「方便」主要是專注在結果次事件(result-subevent)並採受恩者(BENEFICIARY)的觀點；而「便利」則較專注在原因次事件(cause-subevent)並採動作者/施恩者(AGENT/BENEFACTOR)的觀點。此外，由於「方便」與「便利」具備了正面、值得嚮往的特質，這也解釋了何以「方便框架」比「不方便框架」有更高程度的目的性(intentionality)。 為檢視近義詞在概念上的差異是否會反映於在他們的語法表現上，本研究闡明了「方便」與「便利」的語法功能及其使用分布的情況、以及參與角色(participant role)的凸顯類型(profiling pattern)。結果顯示「方便」與「便利」主要有五種語法功能，即名詞化、修飾名詞、修飾動詞、不及物動詞謂語、及物動詞謂語，最常使用的語法功能為名詞化與動詞謂語(包含及物與不及物)。此五種語法功能皆會突顯某些參與角色，但主要都是突顯了「目的」(PURPOSE)與「手段」(MEANS)；而其他參與角色也會在不同語法功能的使用中被突顯，並且這些突顯類型皆可由「方便」與「便利」在概念上的差異來做解釋。 總結來說，本論文闡釋了近義詞「方便」與「便利」在概念上不同的偏好會導致他們在語法上有不同的表現；此外，「方便」與「便利」在參與角色的凸顯類型上亦不相同，這說明了，「方便」與「便利」是屬於不同的構式(construction)。最後，本論文也再次確認了詞彙背後的語意概念會決定其語法的表現。
The purpose of this thesis is to approach the issue of near-synonyms via the examination of their respective underlying conceptual structures and surface syntactic functions. Specifically, the present study aims to furnish a fine-grained and systematic analysis of the semantic differences between the near-synonymous pair fangbian and bianli that shall better explain their differential syntactic behaviors. Based on the theoretical framework of Frame Semantics, this study found that the conceptual structures of fangbian and bianli are associated with the frames of CONVENIENCE and INCONVENIENCE. While pertaining to a corresponding set of frame elements, the two frames actually prompt distinct conceptualizations. Precisely, fangbian and bianli differ in their perspectivization of the complex event involved: fangbian focuses on the result-subevent and takes the BENEFICIARY’s perspective whereas bianli on the cause-subevent and takes the AGENT/BENEFACTOR’s perspective. In addition, the fact that convenience is desirable and thus typically intended also explains the stronger intentionality involved in the CONVENIENCE frame than in the INCONVENIENCE frame. To investigate whether conceptual differences between the near-synonyms would be manifested in their syntactic behaviors, this thesis further elucidated the syntactic functions and their distribution of fangbian and bianli as well as the profiling of the participant roles in each syntactic function. In particular, five main syntactic functions of fangbian and bianli were identified: nominalization, nominal modifier, verbal modifier, intransitive verbal predicate and transitive verbal predicate; each serves to profile distinct participant roles, mostly PURPOSE or MEANS. Moreover, the profiling of other participant roles can be accounted for by the perspectival distinction between the near-synonymous pair. Finally, the distribution of syntactic functions of fangbian and bianli demonstrated that the usage of the near-synonyms as verbal predicate and nominalization is the most dominant categories. To conclude, this thesis has shown that the conceptual preferences of fangbian and bianli in terms of their perspectivization lead to their different syntactic behaviors. Moreover, the near-synonymous pair also differs in their profiling of the participant roles; in other words, they display distinct profiling patterns and therefore pertain to different constructions. Finally, it still holds for the present study that the semantics of a word drives its syntactic behaviors.參考文獻 Baratta, Alex. 2010. Nominalization development across an undergraduate academic degree program. Journal of Pragmatics, 4.1017-1036. Barsalou, L.W. 1992a. Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Chang, Li-li; Keh-jiann Chen; and Chu-ren Huang. 2000. Alternation across semantic fields: A study of Mandarin verbs of emotion. International journal of computational linguistics and Chinese language processing 5.61-80.Chief, Lian-cheng; Chu-ren Huang; Keh-jiann Chen; Mei-chih Tsai and Li-liChang. 2000. What can near synonyms tell us. International journal of computational linguistics and Chinese language processing 5.47-60.Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, William. 2009. Connecting frames and constructions: A case study of eat and feed. Constructions and Frames.1:1, 7-28.Dirven, René and John R. Taylor. 1988. The conceptualisation of vertical space in English: the case of tall. Topics in cognitive linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 207-229. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Origins and evolution of language and speech, ed. by Stevan R. Harnad, Horst D. Steklis, and Jane Lancaster, 20-32. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. The need for a frame semantics in linguistics. Statisticalmethods in linguistics, ed. by Hans Karlgren, 5-29. Stockholm: Skriptor.Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the morning calm,111-137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni disemantica 6.222-254.Fillmore, Charles J., & Beryl T. Atkins. 1992. Towards a frame-based organization of the lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantics and lexical organization, ed. by Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Fillmore, Charles J.; Josef Ruppenhofer; and Collin F. Baker. 2004. FrameNet and representing the link between semantic and syntactic relations. Computational linguistics and beyond, ed. by Chu-ren Huang and Winfried Lenders, 19-64. Taipei: Academic Sinica.Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.John B. Lowe, Collin F. Baker, and Charles J. Fillmore. 1997. A frame-semantic approach to semantic annotation. In Marc Light, editor, Tagging Text with Lexical Semantics: Why, What and How? Special Interest Group on the Lexicon, Association for Computational Linguistics.Levin, Beth. 1993. Verb classes and alternation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Li, C. and Thompson, S. 1981. Mandarin Chinese, a functional reference grammar. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Liu, Mei-chun. 1997. Lexical meaning and discourse patterning: The three Mandarin cases of build. Paper presented in the third conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, Boulder, Colorado.Liu, Mei-chun. 2002. Corpus-based lexical semantic study of verbs of doubt:huaiyi and cai in Mandarin. Concentrics 28.43-56.Petruck, Miriam R. L. 1996. Frame Semantics. Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren, Jan-ola Östman, Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Taylor, John R. 2002. Near synonyms as co-extensive categories: High and tall revisited. Language Sciences 25.263-284.Tsai, Mei-chi; Chu-ren Huang; and Keh-jiann Chen. 1999. You jinyici bianyi biaozhun kan yuyi jufa zhi hudong. (From near-synonyms to the interaction between syntax and semantics). Chinese languages and linguistics, 439-459.Tsai, Mei-chi; Chu-ren Huang; Keh-jiann Chen; and Kathleen Ahrens. 1998.Towards a representation of verbal semantic: An approach based on near-synonyms. International journal of computational linguistics & Chinese language processing 3.61-74.教育部重編國語辭典編輯委員會 (1981) 重編國語辭典。台北：商務印書館。陳炳昭 (1997) 近義詞應用詞典。北京 : 語文。趙新、李英 (2009) 商務館學漢語近義詞詞典。北京 : 商務印書館。Internet ResourcesChinese Wordnet: http://cwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw/Sinica Corpus (平衡語料庫): http://dbo.sinica.edu.tw/SinicaCorpus/The Udndata (聯合知識庫): http://udndata.com/. http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/nov/22/today-life9.htm 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
95555003
98資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095555003 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 張郇慧 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Chang, Hsun huei en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 林柏仲 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Lin, Po chung en_US dc.creator (作者) 林柏仲 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lin, Po chung en_US dc.date (日期) 2009 en_US dc.date.accessioned 4-九月-2013 16:33:27 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 4-九月-2013 16:33:27 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 4-九月-2013 16:33:27 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0095555003 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/60166 - 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) 95555003 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 98 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本論文旨在探討近義詞的相關議題，特別是要檢視其背後的概念結構與表層的語法功能。透過「方便」與「便利」的研究，本文就這對近義詞在語意上的差異做深入並有系統地分析，並期以此解釋他們在語法層次上不同的表現。 以框架語意學(Frame Semantics)為理論架構，本研究發現近義詞「方便」與「便利」會引導出「方便框架」(CONVENIENCE frame)與「不方便框架」 (INCONVENIENCE frame)，而這兩個語意框架雖有相對應的框架成分(frame element)，實質上卻是引發出不同的概念型態。近一步說明這對近義詞在語意上的差別，「方便」與「便利」對於他們所涉入的複雜事件(complex event)持不同的觀點：「方便」主要是專注在結果次事件(result-subevent)並採受恩者(BENEFICIARY)的觀點；而「便利」則較專注在原因次事件(cause-subevent)並採動作者/施恩者(AGENT/BENEFACTOR)的觀點。此外，由於「方便」與「便利」具備了正面、值得嚮往的特質，這也解釋了何以「方便框架」比「不方便框架」有更高程度的目的性(intentionality)。 為檢視近義詞在概念上的差異是否會反映於在他們的語法表現上，本研究闡明了「方便」與「便利」的語法功能及其使用分布的情況、以及參與角色(participant role)的凸顯類型(profiling pattern)。結果顯示「方便」與「便利」主要有五種語法功能，即名詞化、修飾名詞、修飾動詞、不及物動詞謂語、及物動詞謂語，最常使用的語法功能為名詞化與動詞謂語(包含及物與不及物)。此五種語法功能皆會突顯某些參與角色，但主要都是突顯了「目的」(PURPOSE)與「手段」(MEANS)；而其他參與角色也會在不同語法功能的使用中被突顯，並且這些突顯類型皆可由「方便」與「便利」在概念上的差異來做解釋。 總結來說，本論文闡釋了近義詞「方便」與「便利」在概念上不同的偏好會導致他們在語法上有不同的表現；此外，「方便」與「便利」在參與角色的凸顯類型上亦不相同，這說明了，「方便」與「便利」是屬於不同的構式(construction)。最後，本論文也再次確認了詞彙背後的語意概念會決定其語法的表現。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The purpose of this thesis is to approach the issue of near-synonyms via the examination of their respective underlying conceptual structures and surface syntactic functions. Specifically, the present study aims to furnish a fine-grained and systematic analysis of the semantic differences between the near-synonymous pair fangbian and bianli that shall better explain their differential syntactic behaviors. Based on the theoretical framework of Frame Semantics, this study found that the conceptual structures of fangbian and bianli are associated with the frames of CONVENIENCE and INCONVENIENCE. While pertaining to a corresponding set of frame elements, the two frames actually prompt distinct conceptualizations. Precisely, fangbian and bianli differ in their perspectivization of the complex event involved: fangbian focuses on the result-subevent and takes the BENEFICIARY’s perspective whereas bianli on the cause-subevent and takes the AGENT/BENEFACTOR’s perspective. In addition, the fact that convenience is desirable and thus typically intended also explains the stronger intentionality involved in the CONVENIENCE frame than in the INCONVENIENCE frame. To investigate whether conceptual differences between the near-synonyms would be manifested in their syntactic behaviors, this thesis further elucidated the syntactic functions and their distribution of fangbian and bianli as well as the profiling of the participant roles in each syntactic function. In particular, five main syntactic functions of fangbian and bianli were identified: nominalization, nominal modifier, verbal modifier, intransitive verbal predicate and transitive verbal predicate; each serves to profile distinct participant roles, mostly PURPOSE or MEANS. Moreover, the profiling of other participant roles can be accounted for by the perspectival distinction between the near-synonymous pair. Finally, the distribution of syntactic functions of fangbian and bianli demonstrated that the usage of the near-synonyms as verbal predicate and nominalization is the most dominant categories. To conclude, this thesis has shown that the conceptual preferences of fangbian and bianli in terms of their perspectivization lead to their different syntactic behaviors. Moreover, the near-synonymous pair also differs in their profiling of the participant roles; in other words, they display distinct profiling patterns and therefore pertain to different constructions. Finally, it still holds for the present study that the semantics of a word drives its syntactic behaviors. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements iTable of Contents iiList of Tables ivChinese Abstract vEnglish Abstract vii1 Introduction 1 1.1 Studies on near-synonyms 1 1.2 The dictionary view of fangbian and bianli 2 1.3 Research questions 5 1.4 The data of this study 72 Literature Review 8 2.1 Chief et al. (2000) on fangbian and bianli 8 2.2 The theoretical framework of Frame Semantics 143 The Conceptual Structures of Fangbian and Bianli 17 3.1 The CONVENIENCE frame and fangbian/bianli 17 3.1.1 The frame elements of the CONVENIENCE frame 17 3.1.2 One frame, two perspectives 23 3.1.3 Response to Chief et al. (2000) 31 3.2 The INCONVENIENCE frame and fangbian/bianli 39 3.2.1 The frame elements of the INCONVENIENCE frame 39 3.2.2 Why the INCONVENIENCE frame 44 3.3 Recapitulations 494 The Syntactic Functions of Fangbian and Bianli 51 4.1 The syntactic behaviors of fangbian and bianli 51 4.1.1 Nominalization 52 4.1.2 Nominal modifier 61 4.1.3 Verbal modifier 65 4.1.4 Intransitive verbal predicate 70 4.1.5 Transitive verbal predicate 79 4.1.6 Other usage 85 4.2 The distribution of syntactic functions of fangbian and bianli 90 4.3 Recapitulations 925 Conclusion 945.1 Summary of the findings 94 5.2 Implications for future research 97References 99 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1176262 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095555003 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 進義詞 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 框架語意學 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 框架成分 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 凸顯類型 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 參與角色 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 原因次事件 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 結果次事件 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 構式 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) near-synonym en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Frame Semantics en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) frame element en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) cause-subevent en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) result-subevent en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) patterns of profiling en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) participant role en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) construction en_US dc.title (題名) 漢語(不)方便/便利框架語意的凸顯類型研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Patterns of Profiling of the (In)convenience Frame in Mandarin Chinese en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Baratta, Alex. 2010. Nominalization development across an undergraduate academic degree program. Journal of Pragmatics, 4.1017-1036. Barsalou, L.W. 1992a. Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Chang, Li-li; Keh-jiann Chen; and Chu-ren Huang. 2000. Alternation across semantic fields: A study of Mandarin verbs of emotion. International journal of computational linguistics and Chinese language processing 5.61-80.Chief, Lian-cheng; Chu-ren Huang; Keh-jiann Chen; Mei-chih Tsai and Li-liChang. 2000. What can near synonyms tell us. International journal of computational linguistics and Chinese language processing 5.47-60.Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, William. 2009. Connecting frames and constructions: A case study of eat and feed. Constructions and Frames.1:1, 7-28.Dirven, René and John R. Taylor. 1988. The conceptualisation of vertical space in English: the case of tall. Topics in cognitive linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 207-229. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Origins and evolution of language and speech, ed. by Stevan R. Harnad, Horst D. Steklis, and Jane Lancaster, 20-32. New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. The need for a frame semantics in linguistics. Statisticalmethods in linguistics, ed. by Hans Karlgren, 5-29. Stockholm: Skriptor.Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the morning calm,111-137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni disemantica 6.222-254.Fillmore, Charles J., & Beryl T. Atkins. 1992. Towards a frame-based organization of the lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantics and lexical organization, ed. by Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Fillmore, Charles J.; Josef Ruppenhofer; and Collin F. Baker. 2004. FrameNet and representing the link between semantic and syntactic relations. Computational linguistics and beyond, ed. by Chu-ren Huang and Winfried Lenders, 19-64. Taipei: Academic Sinica.Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.John B. Lowe, Collin F. Baker, and Charles J. Fillmore. 1997. A frame-semantic approach to semantic annotation. In Marc Light, editor, Tagging Text with Lexical Semantics: Why, What and How? Special Interest Group on the Lexicon, Association for Computational Linguistics.Levin, Beth. 1993. Verb classes and alternation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Li, C. and Thompson, S. 1981. Mandarin Chinese, a functional reference grammar. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Liu, Mei-chun. 1997. Lexical meaning and discourse patterning: The three Mandarin cases of build. Paper presented in the third conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, Boulder, Colorado.Liu, Mei-chun. 2002. Corpus-based lexical semantic study of verbs of doubt:huaiyi and cai in Mandarin. Concentrics 28.43-56.Petruck, Miriam R. L. 1996. Frame Semantics. Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren, Jan-ola Östman, Jan Blommaert, and Chris Bulcaen. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Taylor, John R. 2002. Near synonyms as co-extensive categories: High and tall revisited. Language Sciences 25.263-284.Tsai, Mei-chi; Chu-ren Huang; and Keh-jiann Chen. 1999. You jinyici bianyi biaozhun kan yuyi jufa zhi hudong. (From near-synonyms to the interaction between syntax and semantics). Chinese languages and linguistics, 439-459.Tsai, Mei-chi; Chu-ren Huang; Keh-jiann Chen; and Kathleen Ahrens. 1998.Towards a representation of verbal semantic: An approach based on near-synonyms. International journal of computational linguistics & Chinese language processing 3.61-74.教育部重編國語辭典編輯委員會 (1981) 重編國語辭典。台北：商務印書館。陳炳昭 (1997) 近義詞應用詞典。北京 : 語文。趙新、李英 (2009) 商務館學漢語近義詞詞典。北京 : 商務印書館。Internet ResourcesChinese Wordnet: http://cwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw/Sinica Corpus (平衡語料庫): http://dbo.sinica.edu.tw/SinicaCorpus/The Udndata (聯合知識庫): http://udndata.com/. http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/nov/22/today-life9.htm zh_TW
