學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 臺灣客語時貌構式：詞彙與構式觀點
Aspectual constructions in Taiwanese Hakka: A Lexical-Constructional Approach作者 李詩敏
Li, Shih Min貢獻者 賴惠玲
Lai, Huei Ling
李詩敏
Li, Shih Min關鍵詞 時貌構式
臺灣客語
構式語法
詞彙語意
強制轉換
語法化
詞彙化
aspectual construction
Taiwanese Hakka
Construction Grammar
lexical semantics
coercion
grammaticalization
lexicalization日期 2015 上傳時間 1-Oct-2015 14:09:14 (UTC+8) 摘要 過去探討臺灣客語時貌性議題的文獻多從詞彙語意角度著手，鮮少以搭配構式角度切入，此方法較容易忽略句子中影響時貌的其他成分。為窺得時貌性之全貌，本論文採詞彙與構式互動之觀點，同時觀察事態類型、動後時貌性成分及其他附加語。此外，為不流於主觀，本論文採用臺灣客語語料庫之語料，以客觀探討臺灣客語四個時貌構式（即，「等」構式、「忒」構式、「著」構式、「過」構式）所牽涉的議題。本文研究議題包括四個時貌構式的三個議題：第一，事態類型和時貌構式的搭配情形，第二，詞彙語意與構式語意衝突時所帶來的強制轉換作用，第三，動後時貌性成分的句法及語意演變情形。經逐一探討後，我們發現，搭配構式的不同將會影響動後時貌性成分所選擇的觀點時貌，這證明時貌性的研究必須要訴諸於較大的語境。再者，當事態類型和動後時貌性成分的語意及時貌特性相符時，時貌構式不涉及任何強制轉換；若不相符，則詞彙語意和構式語意便互相競爭，最終構式語意為贏家，遂產生強制轉換作用，讓構式成為涉及隱性轉換之協調構式或顯性轉換之變換構式。此外，當動後時貌性成分所搭配的動詞類型或前後成分不同，容易造成此成分經歷語法化歷程；當搭配成分共現程度高時，也將產生詞彙化情形。在「等」構式、「忒」構式、「著」構式和「過」構式四個時貌構式中，「等」構式指涉靜態或靜態化動態的持續，「等」為持續貌標記；「忒」構式指涉狀態的改變，「忒」標誌完成貌，其句法功能正在演變中，「忒」介於動相標記和時貌標記之間；「著」構式指涉動作瞬間實現後所造成的狀態，「著」標誌完成貌，為動相標記；「過」構式可指涉事件的完成、事件的經驗或事件的再次發生，「過」標誌三種時貌，為完成貌標記、經驗貌標記或重行貌標記。從句法功能的演變路徑來看，「等」、「過」演進速度最快，「忒」次之，「著」最慢。雖然欠缺足夠的歷時語料，採用共時語料及跨語言比較，本論文仍發現，「等」構式及「著」構式在時貌上具靜態化功能，「著」構式展現詞彙化歷程中詞彙黏著程度的不同，「忒」的句法功能正在演變中，「過」兼有數個句法範疇，在語法化演變途徑中展現多個語法化原則。基於以上發現，本論文建議略修正判別動相標記及時貌標記之項目，並補充前人對臺灣客語時貌性研究之不足，且提出臺灣客語「過」在臺灣語言中指涉重行貌之獨特性。
Previous studies on aspectuality in Taiwanese Hakka are mostly on the basis of lexical semantics rather than the collostrution; therefore, factors of constructional/sentential elements which affect aspectuality are often overlooked. To investigate the whole picture of aspectualiy, here we adopt the perspective of interaction of lexical semantics and constructions to examine situation types, aspectual elements preceded by verbs, and adjuncts. For the sake of objectivity, the corpus of Taiwanese Hakka is utilized to discuss the issues of four aspectual constructions in Taiwanese Hakka, i.e., the den2 construction, the ted4 construction, the do2 construction and the go3 construction. Three issues are concerned in this dissertation, including the collostruction of situation types and aspectual constructions, coercion caused by the conflicts between lexical meanings and constructional meanings, and the syntactic and semantic change of aspectual elements. After our inspection, it is found that, first, different collocation with aspectual elements will bring about different aspectual construals. This proves that the study of aspectuality has to be resorted to a broader context. Second, when lexical meanings are compatible with constructional meanings, aspectual constructions do not have coercion effects on aspect. Otherwise, lexical meanings will compete with constructional meanings. Then, constructional meanings become the winner and then overrides are coerced. Overrides are classified into cases of explicit and implicit conversion. Explicit conversion is performed by shift constructions, whereas implicit conversion is performed by concord constructions. Third, the collstruction of aspectual elements with different neighboring constructions will result in grammaticalization. The higher degree the collocation has, the more lexicalized the collostruction is. As for the status of the four aspectual constructions in Taiwanese Hakka, the den2 construction refers to a continuous state or a stativizing event. Den2 is a durative aspect marker signifying an imperfective viewpoint. The ted4 construction refers to a change of state. Ted4 signifies a perfective viewpoint. The syntactic function of ted4 is grammaticalized from a phase marker to an aspect marker. The do2 construction refers to a resulted state which is momentarily actualized by an event. Do2 is a phase marker signifying a perfective viewpoint. The go3 construction refers to a completion, experience or recurrence of an event. Go3 is a perfect aspect marker, an experiential aspect marker or a duplicative aspect marker signifying three kinds of perfective viewpoints. On the route of syntactic changes, den2 and go3 become grammaticalized faster than ted4. By comparison, do2 is the slowest one than others. Due to a lack of diachronic data, synchronic data and a cross-linguistic comparison are applied. It is asserted that the den2 and go3 constructions have stativizing functions. The do2 construction illustrates different degree of fusion. Further, ted4 is undergoing syntactic changes. Go3 has several syntactic categories and performs principles of grammaticalization. These findings suggest that we have to revise the principles of distinguishing phase markers from aspect markers, to supply arguments to previous studies on Taiwanese Hakka, and to recruit the duplicative function of go3.參考文獻 中文馬希文，1987。〈北京方言裡的“著”〉，《方言》1987.1：19-24。江敏華，2007。〈東勢客家話與時間或體貌有關的「緊」字〉，「第七屆客家方言國際學術研討會」論文。香港：香港中文大學，2007.1.20-21。江敏華，2013。〈台灣客家話動趨結構中與體貌有關的成分〉，《語言暨語言學》14.5：837-873。吳旭虹，2007。〈南寧白話體貌考察〉。未出版之碩士論文。湖北：華中科技大學。吳福祥，2004。〈也談持續體標記“著”的來源〉，《漢語史學報》第4輯：17-26。李小華，2014。《閩西永定客家方言虛詞研究》。廣東：華南理工大學出版社。李詩敏、賴惠玲，2011。〈臺灣客語表完成貌與持續貌「著」之探討—詞彙語意與構式互動的觀點〉，《漢學研究》29.3：193-230。林宗宏，2008。〈論漢語的「處所突顯」性質〉，《現代中國語研究 (Contemporary Research in Modern Chinese)》10：18-27。林若望，2002。〈論現代漢語的時制意義〉，《語言暨語言學》3.1：1-25。林欣儀，2003。〈台灣閩南語結構助詞‘甲’、‘了’、‘著’、‘去’之研究〉。未出版之碩士論文。新竹：國立新竹師範學院。林華勇，2005。〈廣東廉江方言的經歷體和重行體——兼談體貌的區分及謂詞的語義作用〉，《中國語文研究》2: 9-18。柯理思，2006。〈論十九世紀客家話文獻《啟蒙淺學》中所見的趨向補語〉，《語言暨語言學》7.2：261-295。徐陽春，1999。〈南昌方言的體〉，《南昌大學學報：人文社會科學版》1999.3: 93-96。孫朝奮，1997。〈再論助詞「著」的用法及其來源〉，《中國語文》1997.2：139-146。陳光明，2003。〈現代漢語動相標誌的研究〉。未出版之博士論文。新竹：國立清華大學。陳怡君，2006。〈閩南語指示位移動詞「來」、「去」語意及格式之研究〉。未出版之碩士論文。新竹：國立清華大學。陳前瑞，2009。〈“著”兼表持續與完成用法的發展〉，吳福祥、崔希亮（主編）《語法化與語法研究（四）》，1-22。北京：商務印書館。連金發，1995。〈臺灣閩南語完結時相詞試論〉，曹逢甫、蔡美慧（編輯）《臺灣閩南語論文集，第一輯：閩南語》，121-140。臺北：文鶴。 連金發，1997。〈臺灣閩南語的趨向補語─方言類型和歷史的研究〉，《中國境內語言暨語言學》4：379-404。連金發，2006。〈《荔鏡記》動詞分類和動相、格式〉，《語言暨語言學》7.1：27-61。連金發，2015。〈現代閩南語「無」的多重功能：從階層結構入手〉，《語言暨語言學》16.2：169-186。梅祖麟，1989。〈漢語方言裡虛詞“著”字三種用法的來源〉，《中國語言學報》3：193-216。梅祖麟，1994。〈唐代、宋代共同語的語法和現代方言的語法〉，《中國境內語言暨語言學‧第二輯‧歷史語言學》，61-97。台北：中央研究院歷史語言研究所。曹逢甫，1998。〈台灣閩南語中與時貌有關的語詞“有” “Ø”和“啊”試析〉，《清華學報》28.3：299-334。曹逢甫、鄭縈，1995。〈談閩南語“有”的五種用法及其間的關係〉，《中國語文研究》11：155-167。曹逢甫、鄭縈，2001。〈客家話動詞組結構研究：時貌、情貌，把字句與被字句〉。國科會計畫：NSC 89-2411-H-007-037。新竹：國立清華大學。郭維茹，2003。〈從閩語“去”字的用法看動相補語和體貌標記的判斷問題〉，《中國文學研究》17：111-124。張麗麗、陳克健、黃居仁，2000。〈漢語動詞詞彙語意分析：表達模式與研究方法〉，《中文計算語言學期刊》5.1；1-18。黃惠華、戴浩一，2014。〈時間順序結構與時貌標記「著」〉，《中國語言學報》42.1：39-54。項夢冰，1997。《連城客家話語法研究》。北京：語文出版社。項夢冰，2002。〈連城客家話完成貌句式的歷史層次〉，語言學論叢編委會（編）《語言學論叢》第26輯，134-158。北京：商務印書館。雷鳴，2012。〈耒陽方言的體貌系統〉。未出版之碩士論文。長沙：湖南大學。楊秀芳，1992。〈從歷史語法的觀點論閩南語「著」及持續貌〉，《漢學研究》10.1：349-394。楊敬宇，2002。〈南寧平話的體貌標記“過”〉，《方言》2002.4：340-343。葉瑞娟，2004。〈客語中與時貌相關的兩個語詞〉，《台灣語文研究》2：265-283。葉灃儀，2007。〈臺灣閩南語「去」的語法化〉。未出版之碩士論文。高雄：高雄師範大學。劉丹青，1995。〈無錫方言的體助詞“則”（仔）和“著”─兼評吳語“仔”源於“著”的觀點〉，《中國語言學報》6：223-233。蔣紹愚，2006。〈動態助詞“著”的形成過程〉，《周口師範學院學報》23.1：113-117。蔡維天，2002。〈台灣國語和方言中的「有」─談語法學中的社會因緣與歷史意識〉，《清華學報》32.2：495-528。鄧守信，1985。〈漢語動詞的時間結構〉，《語言教學與研究》4：7-17。鄭良偉，1992。〈台灣話和普通話的時段─時態系統〉，《中國境內語言暨語言學》第一輯：漢語方言，179-239。臺北：中央研究院歷史語言研究所。鄭縈，2005。〈臺灣客語動詞“有”的語法特點與語法化〉，《臺灣語言與語文教育》6：31-47。賴文英，2015。《臺灣客語語法導論》。臺北：臺大出版中心。魏培泉，2013。〈「V─過─來／去」的歷史發展〉。《中國語言學集刊》7.2: 115-148。魏培泉，2015。〈古漢語時體標記的語序類型與演變〉，《語言暨語言學》16.2：213-247。羅肇錦，1988。《客語語法》。臺北：學生書局。羅肇錦，1990。《台灣的客家話》。臺北：臺原出版社。羅肇錦，1996a。〈四縣客語附著成分結構〉，董忠司（主編）《『臺灣客家語概論』講授資料彙編》，117-153。臺北：臺灣語文學會。羅肇錦，1996b。〈四縣客語虛詞的功能結構〉，董忠司（主編）《『臺灣客家語概論』講授資料彙編》，154-187。臺北：臺灣語文學會。英文Abraham, Werner, and Leonid Kulikov (eds). 1999. Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity: Essays in Honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Asher, Nicholas, and Julie Hunter. 2012. Aspectual coercions in content composition. Space and Time in Languages and Cultrues: Language, Culture, and Cognition, ed. by Luna Filipović, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 55-81. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Bach, Emmon. 1981. On time, tense, and aspects: An essay in English metaphysics. Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 63-81. New York: Academic Press.Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 5-16.Bary, Corien, and Markus Egg. 2012. Variety in Ancient Greek aspect interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 35.2: 111-134.Binnick, Robert. 2006. Aspect and aspectuality. The Handbook of English Linguistics, ed. by Bas Aarts and April McMahon, 244-268. Oxford: Blackwell.Boas, Hans C. 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Boas, Hans C. 2005. Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: A reply to Goldberg & Jackendoff. Language 81.2: 448-464Boas, Hans. 2008a. Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. Constructional Reorganization, ed. by J. Leino, 11-36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Boas, Hans. 2008b. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 113-144.Boas, Hans C. 2008c. Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. Grammar, Constructions, and Interfaces (Special Issue of Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57), ed. by Eulalia Sosa Acevedo, and Francisco José Cortés Rodríguez. 17-48.Borer, Hagit. 2005. The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bott, Oliver. 2010. The Processing of Events. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Brennan, Jonathan, and Liina Pylkkänen. 2008. Processing events: Behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of aspectual coercion. Brain & Language 106: 132-143.Brinton, Laurel J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Languag Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bybee, Joan. 2005. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda, 602-623. Oxford: Blackwell.Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Chafe, Wallace. 1992. The importance of corpus linguistics to understanding the nature of language. Directions in Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Jan Svartvik, 79-97. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Chao, Yuen Ren (趙元任). 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Chappell, Hilary (曹茜蕾). 2001. Chinese Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chappell, Hilary (曹茜蕾), and Christine Lamarre (柯理思). 2005. A Grammar and Lexicon of Hakka: Historical Materials from the Basel Mission Library. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.Chen, Chien-chou (陳建州). 2009. Experientiality and reversibility of the aspectual morpheme guo in Mandarin Chinese: Temporal and Atemporal perspectives. Dong Hwa Journal of Humanties 14: 247-294.Cheng, Hui-wen (鄭惠文). 2004. The syntax and semantics of post-verbal diao. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Taiepei: National Chengchi University.Cheng, Robert L (鄭良偉). 1979. Taiwanese u (有) and Mandarin you (有). Asian and Pacific Conference on Linguistics and Language Teaching: 141-180.Cheng, Robert L (鄭良偉). 1985. A comparison of Taiwanese, Taiwan Mandarin, and Peking Mandarin. Language 61.2: 352-377.Chiang, Shu-mei (強舒嬍). 2009. Event Conception and Argument Realizations of Hakka Potential Complement Constructions: Intergration of Cognitive-Constructional Models. Ph.D. Dissertation. Taipei: Natioal Chengchi University.Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. Motivation in Language: Studeis in Honour of Günter Radden, ed. by H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, and K.-U. Panther, 49-68. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Danchev, Andrei. 1992. An outline of aspectuality in English within a compromise linguistic model. Current Advances in Semantic Theory, ed. by Maxim I. Stamenov, 321-337. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruytede Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16.2: 347-385.Dölling, Johannes. 2014. Aspectual coercion and eventuality structure. Events, Arguments, and Aspects: Topics in the Semantics of Verbs, ed. by Klaus Robering, 189-226. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Fillmore, Charles J. 1992. “Corpus linguistics” or “computer-aided armchair linguistics”. Directions in Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Jan Svartvik, 35-60. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64.3: 501-538.Francis, Elaine J., and Laura A. Michaelis. 2003. Mismatch: A crucible for linguistic theory. Mismatch: Form-function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar, ed. by Elaine Francis, and Laura Michaelis, 1-27. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Fuhs, Stefan. 2010. The aspectual coercion of the English durative adverbial. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches, ed. by Dylan Glynn, and Kerstin Fischer, 137-154. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 15-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Goldberg, Adele E., and Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80.3: 532-568.Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. A Mosaic of Corpus Linguistics: Selected Approaches, ed. by Aquilino Sánchez, and Moisés Almela, 269-291. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Gries, Stefan Th. 2012. Collostructions. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Peter Robinson, 92-95. London/New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Data in Construction Grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 93-108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9.1: 97-129.Hampe, Beate. 2011. Discovering constructions by means of collostruction annlysis: The English denominative construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22.2: 211-245.Heine, Bernd. 2005. Grammaticalization. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda, 575-601. Oxford: Blackwell.Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Her, One-Soon. 2005. Optimality-theoretic lexical mapping theory: A case study of locative inversion. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 2.1: 67-94.Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 17-35. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Hopper, Paul J. 1996. Some recent trends in grammaticalization. Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 217-236.Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.2: 251-299.Huang, James C-T. 1987. Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. The Representation of (In)definiteness, ed. by Eric J. Reuland, and Alice G. B. ter Meulan, 226-253. Cambridge: MIT Press.Iljic, Robert. 1990. The verbal suffix –guo in Mandarin Chinese and the notion of recurrence. Lingua 81.4: 301-326.Iwata, Seizi. 2005a. Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. Cognitive Linguistics 16.2: 355-407.Iwata, Seizi. 2005b. The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried, and Hans C. Boas, 101-118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative Alternation: A Lexical-Constructional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge: MIT Press.Jackendoff, Ray. 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 84.1: 8-28.Kang, Jian. 1999. The composition of the perfective aspect in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Boston: Boston University.Kang, Jian. 2002. The unmarked perfective guo. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 37.3: 1-36.Kay, Paul. 1995. Construction grammar. Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jan Blommaert, 171-177. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Kay, Paul, and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75.1: 1-33.Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge.Hopper, Paul, and Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.2: 251-299.Hsiao, Yuchao E. (蕭宇超). 2003. Conceptualizations of GUO in Mandarin. Language and Linguistics 4.2: 279-300.Lai, Huei-ling (賴惠玲), and Shu-mei Chiang (強舒嬍). 2007. The family of Hakka idiomatic gin2 X gin2 Y constructions: Paratactic constructions with subordinate meanings. Paper presented at the 10th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Poland: Jagiellonian University. July 15-20.Lauwers, Peter, and Dominique Willems. 2011. Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics 49.6: 1219-1235.Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English verb. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge.Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Li, Shih-min (李詩敏). 2000. A Study of Hakka Aspect Markers: e11/le11, ko55 and ten31. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Taipei: Fu Jen Catholic University.Li, Shih-min (李詩敏), and Huei-ling Lai (賴惠玲). 2011. Hakka aspectual ted4 constructions: A constructional approach. International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS) 5.1: 67-94.Lien, Chinfa (連金發). 2001. The semantic extension of Tioh8 著in Taiwanese Southern Min: An interactive approach. Language and Linguistics 2.2: 173-202.Lien, Chinfa (連金發). 2005a. Phase and aspect Markers in Li Jing Ji. Essays in Chinese Historical Linguistics: Festschrift in Memory of Profess Fang-kuei Li on his Centennial Birthday, ed. by Pang-Hsin Ting, and Anne O. Yue, 393-420. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Lien, Chinfa. 2005b. Families of ditransitive constructions in Li Jing Ji. Language and Linguistics 6.4: 707-737.Lin, Jo-wang (林若望). 2003. Temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12.3: 259-311.Lin, Jo-Wang (林若望). 2006. Time in a language without tense: The case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics 23.1: 1-53.Lin, Jo-Wang (林若望). 2007. Predicate restriction, discontinuity property and the meaning of the perfective marker Guo in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16.3: 237-257.Liu, Meichun (劉美君). 2003. Motion, direction and spatial configuration: A lexical semantic study of ‘hang’ verbs in Mandarin. Motion, Direction and Location in Languages: In Honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier, ed. by Erin Shay, and Uwe Seibert, 177-188. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Liu, Meichun (劉美君). 2015. Tense and aspect in Mandarin Chinese. The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, ed. by William S-Y. Wang, and Chaofen Sun, 274-289. New York: Oxford University Press.Loetzsch, Martin, Remi van Trip, and Luc Steels. 2008. Typological and computational investigations of spatial perspective. Modeling communication with Robots and Virtual Humans, ed. by Ipke Wachsmuth, and Günther Knoblich, 125-142. Germany: Springer.Ljungqvist, Marita. 2007. Le, guo and zhe in Mandarin Chinese: A relevance-theoretic account. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16.3: 193-235.McEnery, Tony, and Andrew Wilson. 2004. Corpus Linguistics. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.McEnery, Tony, and Zhonghua Xiao. 2007. Parallel and comparable corpora: The state of play. Corpus-Based Perspectives in Linguistics, ed. by Yuji Kawaguchi, Toshihiro Takagaki, Nobuo Tomimori, and Yoichiro Tsuruga, 131-145. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.McEnery, Tony, Zhonghua Xiao and Lili Mo. 2003. Aspect marking in English and Chinese: Using the Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese for contrastive language study. Literary and Linguistic Computing 18.4: 361-378.Mei, Tsu-lin (梅祖麟). 1979. The Etymology of the Aspect Marker tsi in the Wu Dialect. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 7.1: 1-14.Meyer, Charles F. 2002. English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Michaelis, Laura A. 2003a. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and constructional meaning. Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, ed. by H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, and J. Taylor, 163-210. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Michaelis, Laura A. 2003b. Headless constructions and coercion by construction. Mismatch: Form-function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar, ed. by Elaine Francis, and Laura Michaelis, 259-310. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 1-67.Michaelis, Laura A. 2005. Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman, and Mirjam Fried, 45-88. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Michaelis, Laura A. 2011. Stative by construction. Linguistics 49: 1359-1400.Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1978. Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 415-434.Mukherjee, Joybrato, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide 30.1: 27-51.Nagy, Tünde. 2009. Aspectual coercion and the complementation of aspectualizers in English. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica 1.2: 229-240.Paczynski, Martin, Ray Jackendoff, and Gina Kuperberg. 2014. When events change their nature: The neurocognitive mechanisms underlying aspectual coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 26.9: 1905-1917.Paducheva, Elena. 2009. Event structure: Taxonomy, semantic roles, aspect, causation. Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics 43.3: 196-202.Pan, Hai-Hua (潘海華). 1996. Imperfective aspect zhe, agent deletion, and locative inversion in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 409-432.Pan, Hai-Hua (潘海華), and Po-Lun Lee (李寶倫). 2004. The role of pragmatics in interpreting the Chinese perfective markers –guo and –le. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 441-466.Partee, Barbara, and Mats Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, eds. by Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, 361-383. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Pickering, Martin J., Brain McElree, Steven Frisson, Lillian Chen, and Matthew J. Traxler. 2006. Underspecification and aspectual coercion. Discourse Processes 42.2: 131-155.Pustejovsky, James. 1991a. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 4.1-3: 47-81.Pustejovsky, James. 1991b. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17.4: 409-441.Pustejovsky, James. 1993. Type coercion and lexical selection. Semantics and the Lexicon, ed. by James Pustejovsky, 73-94. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Pustejovsky, James. 2005. The syntax of event structure. The Language of Time: A Reader, ed. by Inderjeet Mani, James Pustejovsky, and Rob Gaizauskas, 33-60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Pustejovsky, James. 2008. From concepts to meaning: The role of lexical knowledge. Unity and Diversity of Languages, ed. by Piet van Sterkenburg, 73-84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Pustejovsky, James, and Pierrette Bouillon. 1995. Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy. Journal of Semantics 12: 133-162.Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Mismatching meaning in brain and behavior. Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 712-738.Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2000. Classifying single argument verbs. Lexical Specification and Insertion, ed. by Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert, and Jane Grimshaw, 269-304. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Roby, David Brian. 2009. Aspect and the Categorization of States: The case of ser and estar in Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Rodríguez, Francisco Cortés. 2009. The inchoative construction: semantic representation and unification constraints. Deconstructing Constructions, ed. by Christopher S. Butler, and Javier Martín Arista, 247-270. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Silva, Augusto Soares da. 2007. Verbs of letting: Some cognitive and historical aspects. On Interpreting Construction Schemas: From Action and Motion to Transitivity and Causality, ed. by Nicole Delbecque, and Bert Cornillie, 171-200. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic.Smith, Carlota S. 1994. Aspectual viewpoint and situation type in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3.2: 107-146.Smith, Carlota S. 2012. Tense and aspect: Time across languages. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3, ed. by Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, 2581-2607. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2013. Collostructional analysis. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 290-306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.2: 209-243.Tai, James H-Y (戴浩一). 1984. Verbs and times in Chinese: Vendler’s four categories. Parassession on Lexical Semantics, ed. by D. Testen, U. Mishra, and J. Drogo, 289-296. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Tai, James H-Y (戴浩一). 1985. Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. Iconicity in Syntax, ed. by John Haiman, 49-72. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Talmy, Leonard. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 165-205.Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Townsend, David J. 2013. Aspectual coercion in eye movements. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 42.3: 281-306.Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Constructions in grammaticalization. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda, 624-647. Oxford: Blackwell.Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Grammaticalization. The Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, ed. by Silvia Luraghi, and Vit Bubenik, 271-285. London: Continuum Press.Trautwein, Martin. 2005. The Time window of Language: The Interaction between Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Knowledge in the Temporal Interpretation of German and English Texts. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Tummers, Jose, Kris Heylen, and Dirk Geeraerts. 2005. Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1.2: 225-261.Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Verkuyl, Henk J. 1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 39-94.Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Verkuyl, Henk J. 2005. Aspectual composition: surveying the ingredients. Perspectives on Aspect, ed. by Henk J. Verkuyl, Henriette de Swart, and Angeliek van Hout, 19-39. Netherlands: Springer.Wiechmann, Daniel. 2008. On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4.2: 253-290.Wu, Hsiao-Ching (吳曉菁). 2003. A case study on the grammaticalization of GUO in Mandarin Chinese ─ Polysemy of the motion verb with respect to semantic changes. Language and Linguistics 4.4: 857-885.Wu, Jiun-Shiung (吳俊雄). 2007. Semantic difference between the two imperfective markers in Mandarin and its implications on temporal relations. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 35.2: 372-398.Wu, Jiun-Shiung (吳俊雄). 2008. Terminability, wholeness and semantics of experiential guo. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17.1: 1-32.Wu, Jiun-Shiung (吳俊雄). 2009a. Tense as a discourse feature: Rethinking temporal location in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18.2: 145-165.Wu, Jiun-Shiung (吳俊雄). 2009b. Aspectual influence on temporal relations: A case study of the experiential Guo in Mandarin. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 7.2: 1-24.Xiao, Richard, and Tony McEnery. 2004. Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-Based Study. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Xiao, Richard, and Tony McEnery. 2010. Corpus-Based Contrastive Studies of English and Chinese. London: Routledge.Yeh, Jui-chuan (葉瑞娟). 2001. A Preliminary Study on Two Aspect-Related Morphemes `Ø` and ‘le’. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.Yeh, Meng. 1993. The stative situation and the imperfective zhe in Mandarin. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 28.1: 69-98.Yeh, Meng. 1996. An analysis of the experiential guoexp in Mandarin: A temporal quantifier. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5: 151-182.Yong, Shin. 1997. The grammatical functions of verb complements in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics 35: 1-24.Yue, Anne O. (余靄芹). 2001. The verb-complement construction in historical perspective with special reference to Cantonese. Sinitic Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, ed. by Hilary Chappell, 232-265. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 描述 博士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
95555501資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095555501 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 賴惠玲 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lai, Huei Ling en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 李詩敏 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Li, Shih Min en_US dc.creator (作者) 李詩敏 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Li, Shih Min en_US dc.date (日期) 2015 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Oct-2015 14:09:14 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Oct-2015 14:09:14 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Oct-2015 14:09:14 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0095555501 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/78710 - dc.description (描述) 博士 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) 95555501 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 過去探討臺灣客語時貌性議題的文獻多從詞彙語意角度著手，鮮少以搭配構式角度切入，此方法較容易忽略句子中影響時貌的其他成分。為窺得時貌性之全貌，本論文採詞彙與構式互動之觀點，同時觀察事態類型、動後時貌性成分及其他附加語。此外，為不流於主觀，本論文採用臺灣客語語料庫之語料，以客觀探討臺灣客語四個時貌構式（即，「等」構式、「忒」構式、「著」構式、「過」構式）所牽涉的議題。本文研究議題包括四個時貌構式的三個議題：第一，事態類型和時貌構式的搭配情形，第二，詞彙語意與構式語意衝突時所帶來的強制轉換作用，第三，動後時貌性成分的句法及語意演變情形。經逐一探討後，我們發現，搭配構式的不同將會影響動後時貌性成分所選擇的觀點時貌，這證明時貌性的研究必須要訴諸於較大的語境。再者，當事態類型和動後時貌性成分的語意及時貌特性相符時，時貌構式不涉及任何強制轉換；若不相符，則詞彙語意和構式語意便互相競爭，最終構式語意為贏家，遂產生強制轉換作用，讓構式成為涉及隱性轉換之協調構式或顯性轉換之變換構式。此外，當動後時貌性成分所搭配的動詞類型或前後成分不同，容易造成此成分經歷語法化歷程；當搭配成分共現程度高時，也將產生詞彙化情形。在「等」構式、「忒」構式、「著」構式和「過」構式四個時貌構式中，「等」構式指涉靜態或靜態化動態的持續，「等」為持續貌標記；「忒」構式指涉狀態的改變，「忒」標誌完成貌，其句法功能正在演變中，「忒」介於動相標記和時貌標記之間；「著」構式指涉動作瞬間實現後所造成的狀態，「著」標誌完成貌，為動相標記；「過」構式可指涉事件的完成、事件的經驗或事件的再次發生，「過」標誌三種時貌，為完成貌標記、經驗貌標記或重行貌標記。從句法功能的演變路徑來看，「等」、「過」演進速度最快，「忒」次之，「著」最慢。雖然欠缺足夠的歷時語料，採用共時語料及跨語言比較，本論文仍發現，「等」構式及「著」構式在時貌上具靜態化功能，「著」構式展現詞彙化歷程中詞彙黏著程度的不同，「忒」的句法功能正在演變中，「過」兼有數個句法範疇，在語法化演變途徑中展現多個語法化原則。基於以上發現，本論文建議略修正判別動相標記及時貌標記之項目，並補充前人對臺灣客語時貌性研究之不足，且提出臺灣客語「過」在臺灣語言中指涉重行貌之獨特性。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Previous studies on aspectuality in Taiwanese Hakka are mostly on the basis of lexical semantics rather than the collostrution; therefore, factors of constructional/sentential elements which affect aspectuality are often overlooked. To investigate the whole picture of aspectualiy, here we adopt the perspective of interaction of lexical semantics and constructions to examine situation types, aspectual elements preceded by verbs, and adjuncts. For the sake of objectivity, the corpus of Taiwanese Hakka is utilized to discuss the issues of four aspectual constructions in Taiwanese Hakka, i.e., the den2 construction, the ted4 construction, the do2 construction and the go3 construction. Three issues are concerned in this dissertation, including the collostruction of situation types and aspectual constructions, coercion caused by the conflicts between lexical meanings and constructional meanings, and the syntactic and semantic change of aspectual elements. After our inspection, it is found that, first, different collocation with aspectual elements will bring about different aspectual construals. This proves that the study of aspectuality has to be resorted to a broader context. Second, when lexical meanings are compatible with constructional meanings, aspectual constructions do not have coercion effects on aspect. Otherwise, lexical meanings will compete with constructional meanings. Then, constructional meanings become the winner and then overrides are coerced. Overrides are classified into cases of explicit and implicit conversion. Explicit conversion is performed by shift constructions, whereas implicit conversion is performed by concord constructions. Third, the collstruction of aspectual elements with different neighboring constructions will result in grammaticalization. The higher degree the collocation has, the more lexicalized the collostruction is. As for the status of the four aspectual constructions in Taiwanese Hakka, the den2 construction refers to a continuous state or a stativizing event. Den2 is a durative aspect marker signifying an imperfective viewpoint. The ted4 construction refers to a change of state. Ted4 signifies a perfective viewpoint. The syntactic function of ted4 is grammaticalized from a phase marker to an aspect marker. The do2 construction refers to a resulted state which is momentarily actualized by an event. Do2 is a phase marker signifying a perfective viewpoint. The go3 construction refers to a completion, experience or recurrence of an event. Go3 is a perfect aspect marker, an experiential aspect marker or a duplicative aspect marker signifying three kinds of perfective viewpoints. On the route of syntactic changes, den2 and go3 become grammaticalized faster than ted4. By comparison, do2 is the slowest one than others. Due to a lack of diachronic data, synchronic data and a cross-linguistic comparison are applied. It is asserted that the den2 and go3 constructions have stativizing functions. The do2 construction illustrates different degree of fusion. Further, ted4 is undergoing syntactic changes. Go3 has several syntactic categories and performs principles of grammaticalization. These findings suggest that we have to revise the principles of distinguishing phase markers from aspect markers, to supply arguments to previous studies on Taiwanese Hakka, and to recruit the duplicative function of go3. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 誌謝 v目錄 vii表目錄 x中文摘要 xi英文摘要 xiii第一章 緒論 iv1.1 動機與目的 11.2 研究議題 61.3 語料來源及標注 141.4 章節介紹 16第二章 文獻回顧 172.1 臺灣華語時貌研究 172.2 臺灣閩南語時貌研究 242.3 臺灣客語及其他客語方言時貌研究 262.4 結果補語、動相標記和時貌標記判定之研究 292.5 小結 34第三章 理論架構 353.1 事態類型 353.2 構式語法 403.3 搭配構式 433.4 強制轉換 453.5 小結 49第四章 臺灣客語時貌構式：持續貌、完成貌與重行貌 514.1 持續貌：等 514.1.1 華語及閩南語持續貌：著 524.1.2 客語持續貌：等 544.1.3 綜合評述 574.1.4 臺灣客語「等」之句法、語意及時貌特性 584.1.5 小結 694.2 完成貌：忒 714.2.1 客語完成貌：忒 714.2.2 綜合評述 764.2.3 臺灣客語「忒」之句法、語意及時貌特性 774.2.4 小結 824.3 完成貌：著 834.3.1 華語及閩南語完成貌：著 834.3.2 客語完成貌：著 854.3.3 臺灣客語「著」之句法、語意及時貌特性 864.3.4 小結 944.4 完成貌、經驗貌及重行貌：過 954.4.1 華語完成貌及經驗貌：過 954.4.2 客語完成貌、經驗貌及重行貌：過 964.4.3 綜合評述 974.4.4 臺灣客語「過」之句法、語意及時貌特性 984.4.5 小結 1044.5 動後時貌性標記的句法和語意演變 1044.5.1 「忒」之句法演變 1054.5.2 「著」之句法和語意演變 1094.5.3 「過」之句法和語意演變 1114.5.4 綜合評述 1124.6 小結 115第五章 結論 1175.1 研究發現 1175.2 未來研究議題 1185.2.1 語言層面 1185.2.2 理論層面 1225.3 小結 123參考書目 125 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2320347 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095555501 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 時貌構式 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 臺灣客語 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 構式語法 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 詞彙語意 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 強制轉換 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語法化 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 詞彙化 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) aspectual construction en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Taiwanese Hakka en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Construction Grammar en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) lexical semantics en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) coercion en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) grammaticalization en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) lexicalization en_US dc.title (題名) 臺灣客語時貌構式：詞彙與構式觀點 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Aspectual constructions in Taiwanese Hakka: A Lexical-Constructional Approach en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文馬希文，1987。〈北京方言裡的“著”〉，《方言》1987.1：19-24。江敏華，2007。〈東勢客家話與時間或體貌有關的「緊」字〉，「第七屆客家方言國際學術研討會」論文。香港：香港中文大學，2007.1.20-21。江敏華，2013。〈台灣客家話動趨結構中與體貌有關的成分〉，《語言暨語言學》14.5：837-873。吳旭虹，2007。〈南寧白話體貌考察〉。未出版之碩士論文。湖北：華中科技大學。吳福祥，2004。〈也談持續體標記“著”的來源〉，《漢語史學報》第4輯：17-26。李小華，2014。《閩西永定客家方言虛詞研究》。廣東：華南理工大學出版社。李詩敏、賴惠玲，2011。〈臺灣客語表完成貌與持續貌「著」之探討—詞彙語意與構式互動的觀點〉，《漢學研究》29.3：193-230。林宗宏，2008。〈論漢語的「處所突顯」性質〉，《現代中國語研究 (Contemporary Research in Modern Chinese)》10：18-27。林若望，2002。〈論現代漢語的時制意義〉，《語言暨語言學》3.1：1-25。林欣儀，2003。〈台灣閩南語結構助詞‘甲’、‘了’、‘著’、‘去’之研究〉。未出版之碩士論文。新竹：國立新竹師範學院。林華勇，2005。〈廣東廉江方言的經歷體和重行體——兼談體貌的區分及謂詞的語義作用〉，《中國語文研究》2: 9-18。柯理思，2006。〈論十九世紀客家話文獻《啟蒙淺學》中所見的趨向補語〉，《語言暨語言學》7.2：261-295。徐陽春，1999。〈南昌方言的體〉，《南昌大學學報：人文社會科學版》1999.3: 93-96。孫朝奮，1997。〈再論助詞「著」的用法及其來源〉，《中國語文》1997.2：139-146。陳光明，2003。〈現代漢語動相標誌的研究〉。未出版之博士論文。新竹：國立清華大學。陳怡君，2006。〈閩南語指示位移動詞「來」、「去」語意及格式之研究〉。未出版之碩士論文。新竹：國立清華大學。陳前瑞，2009。〈“著”兼表持續與完成用法的發展〉，吳福祥、崔希亮（主編）《語法化與語法研究（四）》，1-22。北京：商務印書館。連金發，1995。〈臺灣閩南語完結時相詞試論〉，曹逢甫、蔡美慧（編輯）《臺灣閩南語論文集，第一輯：閩南語》，121-140。臺北：文鶴。 連金發，1997。〈臺灣閩南語的趨向補語─方言類型和歷史的研究〉，《中國境內語言暨語言學》4：379-404。連金發，2006。〈《荔鏡記》動詞分類和動相、格式〉，《語言暨語言學》7.1：27-61。連金發，2015。〈現代閩南語「無」的多重功能：從階層結構入手〉，《語言暨語言學》16.2：169-186。梅祖麟，1989。〈漢語方言裡虛詞“著”字三種用法的來源〉，《中國語言學報》3：193-216。梅祖麟，1994。〈唐代、宋代共同語的語法和現代方言的語法〉，《中國境內語言暨語言學‧第二輯‧歷史語言學》，61-97。台北：中央研究院歷史語言研究所。曹逢甫，1998。〈台灣閩南語中與時貌有關的語詞“有” “Ø”和“啊”試析〉，《清華學報》28.3：299-334。曹逢甫、鄭縈，1995。〈談閩南語“有”的五種用法及其間的關係〉，《中國語文研究》11：155-167。曹逢甫、鄭縈，2001。〈客家話動詞組結構研究：時貌、情貌，把字句與被字句〉。國科會計畫：NSC 89-2411-H-007-037。新竹：國立清華大學。郭維茹，2003。〈從閩語“去”字的用法看動相補語和體貌標記的判斷問題〉，《中國文學研究》17：111-124。張麗麗、陳克健、黃居仁，2000。〈漢語動詞詞彙語意分析：表達模式與研究方法〉，《中文計算語言學期刊》5.1；1-18。黃惠華、戴浩一，2014。〈時間順序結構與時貌標記「著」〉，《中國語言學報》42.1：39-54。項夢冰，1997。《連城客家話語法研究》。北京：語文出版社。項夢冰，2002。〈連城客家話完成貌句式的歷史層次〉，語言學論叢編委會（編）《語言學論叢》第26輯，134-158。北京：商務印書館。雷鳴，2012。〈耒陽方言的體貌系統〉。未出版之碩士論文。長沙：湖南大學。楊秀芳，1992。〈從歷史語法的觀點論閩南語「著」及持續貌〉，《漢學研究》10.1：349-394。楊敬宇，2002。〈南寧平話的體貌標記“過”〉，《方言》2002.4：340-343。葉瑞娟，2004。〈客語中與時貌相關的兩個語詞〉，《台灣語文研究》2：265-283。葉灃儀，2007。〈臺灣閩南語「去」的語法化〉。未出版之碩士論文。高雄：高雄師範大學。劉丹青，1995。〈無錫方言的體助詞“則”（仔）和“著”─兼評吳語“仔”源於“著”的觀點〉，《中國語言學報》6：223-233。蔣紹愚，2006。〈動態助詞“著”的形成過程〉，《周口師範學院學報》23.1：113-117。蔡維天，2002。〈台灣國語和方言中的「有」─談語法學中的社會因緣與歷史意識〉，《清華學報》32.2：495-528。鄧守信，1985。〈漢語動詞的時間結構〉，《語言教學與研究》4：7-17。鄭良偉，1992。〈台灣話和普通話的時段─時態系統〉，《中國境內語言暨語言學》第一輯：漢語方言，179-239。臺北：中央研究院歷史語言研究所。鄭縈，2005。〈臺灣客語動詞“有”的語法特點與語法化〉，《臺灣語言與語文教育》6：31-47。賴文英，2015。《臺灣客語語法導論》。臺北：臺大出版中心。魏培泉，2013。〈「V─過─來／去」的歷史發展〉。《中國語言學集刊》7.2: 115-148。魏培泉，2015。〈古漢語時體標記的語序類型與演變〉，《語言暨語言學》16.2：213-247。羅肇錦，1988。《客語語法》。臺北：學生書局。羅肇錦，1990。《台灣的客家話》。臺北：臺原出版社。羅肇錦，1996a。〈四縣客語附著成分結構〉，董忠司（主編）《『臺灣客家語概論』講授資料彙編》，117-153。臺北：臺灣語文學會。羅肇錦，1996b。〈四縣客語虛詞的功能結構〉，董忠司（主編）《『臺灣客家語概論』講授資料彙編》，154-187。臺北：臺灣語文學會。英文Abraham, Werner, and Leonid Kulikov (eds). 1999. Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity: Essays in Honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Asher, Nicholas, and Julie Hunter. 2012. Aspectual coercions in content composition. Space and Time in Languages and Cultrues: Language, Culture, and Cognition, ed. by Luna Filipović, and Kasia M. Jaszczolt, 55-81. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Bach, Emmon. 1981. On time, tense, and aspects: An essay in English metaphysics. Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 63-81. New York: Academic Press.Bach, Emmon. 1986. The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 5-16.Bary, Corien, and Markus Egg. 2012. Variety in Ancient Greek aspect interpretation. Linguistics and Philosophy 35.2: 111-134.Binnick, Robert. 2006. Aspect and aspectuality. The Handbook of English Linguistics, ed. by Bas Aarts and April McMahon, 244-268. Oxford: Blackwell.Boas, Hans C. 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Boas, Hans C. 2005. Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: A reply to Goldberg & Jackendoff. Language 81.2: 448-464Boas, Hans. 2008a. Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. Constructional Reorganization, ed. by J. Leino, 11-36. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Boas, Hans. 2008b. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 113-144.Boas, Hans C. 2008c. Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. Grammar, Constructions, and Interfaces (Special Issue of Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57), ed. by Eulalia Sosa Acevedo, and Francisco José Cortés Rodríguez. 17-48.Borer, Hagit. 2005. The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bott, Oliver. 2010. The Processing of Events. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Brennan, Jonathan, and Liina Pylkkänen. 2008. Processing events: Behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of aspectual coercion. Brain & Language 106: 132-143.Brinton, Laurel J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Languag Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bybee, Joan. 2005. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda, 602-623. Oxford: Blackwell.Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Chafe, Wallace. 1992. The importance of corpus linguistics to understanding the nature of language. Directions in Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Jan Svartvik, 79-97. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Chao, Yuen Ren (趙元任). 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Chappell, Hilary (曹茜蕾). 2001. Chinese Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chappell, Hilary (曹茜蕾), and Christine Lamarre (柯理思). 2005. A Grammar and Lexicon of Hakka: Historical Materials from the Basel Mission Library. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.Chen, Chien-chou (陳建州). 2009. Experientiality and reversibility of the aspectual morpheme guo in Mandarin Chinese: Temporal and Atemporal perspectives. Dong Hwa Journal of Humanties 14: 247-294.Cheng, Hui-wen (鄭惠文). 2004. The syntax and semantics of post-verbal diao. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Taiepei: National Chengchi University.Cheng, Robert L (鄭良偉). 1979. Taiwanese u (有) and Mandarin you (有). Asian and Pacific Conference on Linguistics and Language Teaching: 141-180.Cheng, Robert L (鄭良偉). 1985. A comparison of Taiwanese, Taiwan Mandarin, and Peking Mandarin. Language 61.2: 352-377.Chiang, Shu-mei (強舒嬍). 2009. Event Conception and Argument Realizations of Hakka Potential Complement Constructions: Intergration of Cognitive-Constructional Models. Ph.D. Dissertation. Taipei: Natioal Chengchi University.Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. Motivation in Language: Studeis in Honour of Günter Radden, ed. by H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, and K.-U. Panther, 49-68. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Danchev, Andrei. 1992. An outline of aspectuality in English within a compromise linguistic model. Current Advances in Semantic Theory, ed. by Maxim I. Stamenov, 321-337. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruytede Swart, Henriëtte. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16.2: 347-385.Dölling, Johannes. 2014. Aspectual coercion and eventuality structure. Events, Arguments, and Aspects: Topics in the Semantics of Verbs, ed. by Klaus Robering, 189-226. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Fillmore, Charles J. 1992. “Corpus linguistics” or “computer-aided armchair linguistics”. Directions in Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Jan Svartvik, 35-60. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64.3: 501-538.Francis, Elaine J., and Laura A. Michaelis. 2003. Mismatch: A crucible for linguistic theory. Mismatch: Form-function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar, ed. by Elaine Francis, and Laura Michaelis, 1-27. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Fuhs, Stefan. 2010. The aspectual coercion of the English durative adverbial. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches, ed. by Dylan Glynn, and Kerstin Fischer, 137-154. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 15-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Goldberg, Adele E., and Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80.3: 532-568.Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. A Mosaic of Corpus Linguistics: Selected Approaches, ed. by Aquilino Sánchez, and Moisés Almela, 269-291. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Gries, Stefan Th. 2012. Collostructions. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Peter Robinson, 92-95. London/New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Data in Construction Grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 93-108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9.1: 97-129.Hampe, Beate. 2011. Discovering constructions by means of collostruction annlysis: The English denominative construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22.2: 211-245.Heine, Bernd. 2005. Grammaticalization. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda, 575-601. Oxford: Blackwell.Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Her, One-Soon. 2005. Optimality-theoretic lexical mapping theory: A case study of locative inversion. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 2.1: 67-94.Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 17-35. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Hopper, Paul J. 1996. Some recent trends in grammaticalization. Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 217-236.Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.2: 251-299.Huang, James C-T. 1987. Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. The Representation of (In)definiteness, ed. by Eric J. Reuland, and Alice G. B. ter Meulan, 226-253. Cambridge: MIT Press.Iljic, Robert. 1990. The verbal suffix –guo in Mandarin Chinese and the notion of recurrence. Lingua 81.4: 301-326.Iwata, Seizi. 2005a. Locative alternation and two levels of verb meaning. Cognitive Linguistics 16.2: 355-407.Iwata, Seizi. 2005b. The role of verb meaning in locative alternations. Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried, and Hans C. Boas, 101-118. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative Alternation: A Lexical-Constructional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge: MIT Press.Jackendoff, Ray. 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 84.1: 8-28.Kang, Jian. 1999. The composition of the perfective aspect in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Boston: Boston University.Kang, Jian. 2002. The unmarked perfective guo. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 37.3: 1-36.Kay, Paul. 1995. Construction grammar. Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jan Blommaert, 171-177. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Kay, Paul, and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75.1: 1-33.Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge.Hopper, Paul, and Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.2: 251-299.Hsiao, Yuchao E. (蕭宇超). 2003. Conceptualizations of GUO in Mandarin. Language and Linguistics 4.2: 279-300.Lai, Huei-ling (賴惠玲), and Shu-mei Chiang (強舒嬍). 2007. The family of Hakka idiomatic gin2 X gin2 Y constructions: Paratactic constructions with subordinate meanings. Paper presented at the 10th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Poland: Jagiellonian University. July 15-20.Lauwers, Peter, and Dominique Willems. 2011. Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics 49.6: 1219-1235.Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English verb. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge.Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Li, Shih-min (李詩敏). 2000. A Study of Hakka Aspect Markers: e11/le11, ko55 and ten31. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Taipei: Fu Jen Catholic University.Li, Shih-min (李詩敏), and Huei-ling Lai (賴惠玲). 2011. Hakka aspectual ted4 constructions: A constructional approach. International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS) 5.1: 67-94.Lien, Chinfa (連金發). 2001. The semantic extension of Tioh8 著in Taiwanese Southern Min: An interactive approach. Language and Linguistics 2.2: 173-202.Lien, Chinfa (連金發). 2005a. Phase and aspect Markers in Li Jing Ji. Essays in Chinese Historical Linguistics: Festschrift in Memory of Profess Fang-kuei Li on his Centennial Birthday, ed. by Pang-Hsin Ting, and Anne O. Yue, 393-420. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Lien, Chinfa. 2005b. Families of ditransitive constructions in Li Jing Ji. Language and Linguistics 6.4: 707-737.Lin, Jo-wang (林若望). 2003. Temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12.3: 259-311.Lin, Jo-Wang (林若望). 2006. Time in a language without tense: The case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics 23.1: 1-53.Lin, Jo-Wang (林若望). 2007. Predicate restriction, discontinuity property and the meaning of the perfective marker Guo in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16.3: 237-257.Liu, Meichun (劉美君). 2003. Motion, direction and spatial configuration: A lexical semantic study of ‘hang’ verbs in Mandarin. Motion, Direction and Location in Languages: In Honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier, ed. by Erin Shay, and Uwe Seibert, 177-188. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Liu, Meichun (劉美君). 2015. Tense and aspect in Mandarin Chinese. The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, ed. by William S-Y. Wang, and Chaofen Sun, 274-289. New York: Oxford University Press.Loetzsch, Martin, Remi van Trip, and Luc Steels. 2008. Typological and computational investigations of spatial perspective. Modeling communication with Robots and Virtual Humans, ed. by Ipke Wachsmuth, and Günther Knoblich, 125-142. Germany: Springer.Ljungqvist, Marita. 2007. Le, guo and zhe in Mandarin Chinese: A relevance-theoretic account. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16.3: 193-235.McEnery, Tony, and Andrew Wilson. 2004. Corpus Linguistics. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.McEnery, Tony, and Zhonghua Xiao. 2007. Parallel and comparable corpora: The state of play. Corpus-Based Perspectives in Linguistics, ed. by Yuji Kawaguchi, Toshihiro Takagaki, Nobuo Tomimori, and Yoichiro Tsuruga, 131-145. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.McEnery, Tony, Zhonghua Xiao and Lili Mo. 2003. Aspect marking in English and Chinese: Using the Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese for contrastive language study. Literary and Linguistic Computing 18.4: 361-378.Mei, Tsu-lin (梅祖麟). 1979. The Etymology of the Aspect Marker tsi in the Wu Dialect. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 7.1: 1-14.Meyer, Charles F. 2002. English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Michaelis, Laura A. 2003a. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and constructional meaning. Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, ed. by H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, and J. Taylor, 163-210. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Michaelis, Laura A. 2003b. Headless constructions and coercion by construction. Mismatch: Form-function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar, ed. by Elaine Francis, and Laura Michaelis, 259-310. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 1-67.Michaelis, Laura A. 2005. Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman, and Mirjam Fried, 45-88. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Michaelis, Laura A. 2011. Stative by construction. Linguistics 49: 1359-1400.Mourelatos, Alexander P. D. 1978. Events, processes, and states. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 415-434.Mukherjee, Joybrato, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide 30.1: 27-51.Nagy, Tünde. 2009. Aspectual coercion and the complementation of aspectualizers in English. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica 1.2: 229-240.Paczynski, Martin, Ray Jackendoff, and Gina Kuperberg. 2014. When events change their nature: The neurocognitive mechanisms underlying aspectual coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 26.9: 1905-1917.Paducheva, Elena. 2009. Event structure: Taxonomy, semantic roles, aspect, causation. Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics 43.3: 196-202.Pan, Hai-Hua (潘海華). 1996. Imperfective aspect zhe, agent deletion, and locative inversion in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 409-432.Pan, Hai-Hua (潘海華), and Po-Lun Lee (李寶倫). 2004. The role of pragmatics in interpreting the Chinese perfective markers –guo and –le. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 441-466.Partee, Barbara, and Mats Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, eds. by Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, 361-383. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Pickering, Martin J., Brain McElree, Steven Frisson, Lillian Chen, and Matthew J. Traxler. 2006. Underspecification and aspectual coercion. Discourse Processes 42.2: 131-155.Pustejovsky, James. 1991a. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 4.1-3: 47-81.Pustejovsky, James. 1991b. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17.4: 409-441.Pustejovsky, James. 1993. Type coercion and lexical selection. Semantics and the Lexicon, ed. by James Pustejovsky, 73-94. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Pustejovsky, James. 2005. The syntax of event structure. The Language of Time: A Reader, ed. by Inderjeet Mani, James Pustejovsky, and Rob Gaizauskas, 33-60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Pustejovsky, James. 2008. From concepts to meaning: The role of lexical knowledge. Unity and Diversity of Languages, ed. by Piet van Sterkenburg, 73-84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Pustejovsky, James, and Pierrette Bouillon. 1995. Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy. Journal of Semantics 12: 133-162.Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Mismatching meaning in brain and behavior. Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 712-738.Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2000. Classifying single argument verbs. Lexical Specification and Insertion, ed. by Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert, and Jane Grimshaw, 269-304. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Roby, David Brian. 2009. Aspect and the Categorization of States: The case of ser and estar in Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Rodríguez, Francisco Cortés. 2009. The inchoative construction: semantic representation and unification constraints. Deconstructing Constructions, ed. by Christopher S. Butler, and Javier Martín Arista, 247-270. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Silva, Augusto Soares da. 2007. Verbs of letting: Some cognitive and historical aspects. On Interpreting Construction Schemas: From Action and Motion to Transitivity and Causality, ed. by Nicole Delbecque, and Bert Cornillie, 171-200. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic.Smith, Carlota S. 1994. Aspectual viewpoint and situation type in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3.2: 107-146.Smith, Carlota S. 2012. Tense and aspect: Time across languages. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3, ed. by Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, 2581-2607. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2013. Collostructional analysis. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 290-306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.2: 209-243.Tai, James H-Y (戴浩一). 1984. Verbs and times in Chinese: Vendler’s four categories. Parassession on Lexical Semantics, ed. by D. Testen, U. Mishra, and J. Drogo, 289-296. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Tai, James H-Y (戴浩一). 1985. Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. Iconicity in Syntax, ed. by John Haiman, 49-72. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Talmy, Leonard. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 165-205.Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Townsend, David J. 2013. Aspectual coercion in eye movements. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 42.3: 281-306.Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Constructions in grammaticalization. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda, 624-647. Oxford: Blackwell.Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Grammaticalization. The Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, ed. by Silvia Luraghi, and Vit Bubenik, 271-285. London: Continuum Press.Trautwein, Martin. 2005. The Time window of Language: The Interaction between Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Knowledge in the Temporal Interpretation of German and English Texts. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Tummers, Jose, Kris Heylen, and Dirk Geeraerts. 2005. Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1.2: 225-261.Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Verkuyl, Henk J. 1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 39-94.Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Verkuyl, Henk J. 2005. Aspectual composition: surveying the ingredients. Perspectives on Aspect, ed. by Henk J. Verkuyl, Henriette de Swart, and Angeliek van Hout, 19-39. Netherlands: Springer.Wiechmann, Daniel. 2008. On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4.2: 253-290.Wu, Hsiao-Ching (吳曉菁). 2003. A case study on the grammaticalization of GUO in Mandarin Chinese ─ Polysemy of the motion verb with respect to semantic changes. Language and Linguistics 4.4: 857-885.Wu, Jiun-Shiung (吳俊雄). 2007. Semantic difference between the two imperfective markers in Mandarin and its implications on temporal relations. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 35.2: 372-398.Wu, Jiun-Shiung (吳俊雄). 2008. Terminability, wholeness and semantics of experiential guo. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17.1: 1-32.Wu, Jiun-Shiung (吳俊雄). 2009a. Tense as a discourse feature: Rethinking temporal location in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18.2: 145-165.Wu, Jiun-Shiung (吳俊雄). 2009b. Aspectual influence on temporal relations: A case study of the experiential Guo in Mandarin. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 7.2: 1-24.Xiao, Richard, and Tony McEnery. 2004. Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-Based Study. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Xiao, Richard, and Tony McEnery. 2010. Corpus-Based Contrastive Studies of English and Chinese. London: Routledge.Yeh, Jui-chuan (葉瑞娟). 2001. A Preliminary Study on Two Aspect-Related Morphemes `Ø` and ‘le’. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.Yeh, Meng. 1993. The stative situation and the imperfective zhe in Mandarin. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 28.1: 69-98.Yeh, Meng. 1996. An analysis of the experiential guoexp in Mandarin: A temporal quantifier. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5: 151-182.Yong, Shin. 1997. The grammatical functions of verb complements in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics 35: 1-24.Yue, Anne O. (余靄芹). 2001. The verb-complement construction in historical perspective with special reference to Cantonese. Sinitic Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, ed. by Hilary Chappell, 232-265. Oxford: Oxford University Press. zh_TW
