臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：台灣閩南語情態研究
作者：忻愛莉 引用關係
作者(外文)：Ai-Li Hsin
校院名稱：國立清華大學
系所名稱：語言學研究所
指導教授：湯廷池
曹逢甫
學位類別：博士
出版日期：1999
主題關鍵詞：情態；言談導向的；認知的；說話者導向的；主語導向的；認可；主要語屬性；多義性；modality；discourse-oriented；epistemic；speaker-oriented；subject-oriented；license；head features；polysemy
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(2) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:345
本論文由語法兼語意角度切入來看台灣閩南語情態結構表現，並提出一句法理論模式來說明情態上有多種類型，其實就是表現在不同句法階層的情態，而且它們之間有固定線性次序的表現。此外，情態動詞常有一字多義現象，這主要與其周圍句法成份都有關係，然最關鍵的是其後接補語子句屬性的動靜態分別，而這正是句法上提升動詞與控制動詞的區別。
論文內容要點為台灣閩南語情態雖有多種結構表現，例如情態述語(包含動詞與形容詞)、情態副詞、複合情態名詞、語尾助詞等，但大致上都不脫言談情態(discourse-oriented modality)、認知情態(epistemic modality)、說話者導向情態(speaker-oriented modality)、以及主語導向情態(subject-oriented modality)等四類。而且當多種情態一起出現時，必定如同上面所列次序，由情態範域最大的言談情態在最高(即最左)位置，依序排列到範域最小的主語導向情態。這種現象以往都只能用語意概略解讀，主觀地認為言談範域理所當然的該大於認知範域，認知範域再大於說話者導向範域，說話者導向範域再大於主語導向範域。但現在我們可以藉由一語法理論，即「副詞認可原則」來解釋。即副詞在語法結構上因為沒有指示語與補述語而呈有缺陷之投射，故在句法表現上一定要有其加接位置的主要語的屬性來認可其存在，否則副詞的出現就會造成句子的不合法。也就是言談情態副詞是CP階層副詞，受C的屬性認可，認知情態副詞是IP階層副詞，受I的屬性認可，主語導向情態副詞是述語詞組PredP階層副詞，受述語動詞的屬性認可。而句法結構的投射上是CP包含IP，IP 包含PredP，因此情態詞之間的順序自然就依此排列下來。這種分析的優點在於它能把所有情態結構都串聯起來，以一個在句法上已存在的認可原則來分析各種情態表現，不但說明情態副詞與認可它的主要語之間的共存限制(co-occurrence restriction)，而且能把其間錯綜複雜的線性次序以簡單的認可原則來解釋清楚。
論文的另一要點為情態動詞的一字多義現象。其實多義的表現有的是因為情態動詞受了周遭句法成份因素左右而在類型上轉變，故有不同的解讀，有的是受了概念上、情境上因素的影響，會偏向一般常態性的解讀。句法成份因素包含主語的人稱、有生與無生、有定或泛指，母句的型態是肯定、否定、或疑問，以及補語子句的動靜屬性等。通常補語子句中述語詞組的性質常是決定情態動詞類型的主要因素之一，主要述語若為靜態動詞或靜態展現(例如進行貌、完成貌、結果補語結構等)，則情態動詞的解讀常是認知情態。反之，若述語詞組為動態動詞或動態展現(例如嘗試貌、短暫貌、使動結構等)，則情態動詞的解讀常是義務情態。其實這種兩極現象就是句法上提升與控制二類動詞的表現，提升動詞後面一般都是靜態/命題型的補語子句，而控制動詞後面一般都是動態/事件型的補語子句。因此我們認為認知情態動詞即是句法上的提升動詞，而主語導向情態動詞則是句法上的控制動詞。說話者導向情態動詞則是介於此兩類之間，語意上是偏向控制動詞，而句法表現又偏向提升動詞。在理論上，本論文先以GB(Government & Binding)模式，再以MP(Minimalist Program)理論來分析這兩類動詞句法上如何分野。MP的分析最為經濟，以認知情態動詞與主語導向情態動詞的補語子句上有[+Tense]屬性的不同，造成補語子句句法展現不同，而致使情態動詞解讀為不同類型，故有不同之情態意義，來說明一字多義現象。
台灣閩南語是情態語意十分豐富的語言，本論文只側重情態述語部份之分析以及情態詞間線性次序之解釋。其實尚有許多地方待探索釐清，本論文只是以現代語言學理論作分析初探，希望能拋磚引玉吸引更多語言學同好來加入台灣閩南語研究的行列。
In this research I intend to investigate from a syntactic-semantic perspective that modality in Southern Min has several types, which actually are modality on different syntactic levels and are in hierarchical order. Also the polysemy of modal verbs is due to the interpretation of different types of modal verbs that are influenced by the syntactic, conceptual, and contextual factors. Traditional semantic analysis divides modality into deontic and epistemic types. I argue that Southern Min modality has four levels: subject-oriented, speaker-oriented, epistemic, and discourse-oriented modalities, with the latter one in turn larger in scope and higher in hierarchy than the former.
The four common modality constructions in Southern Min are modal predicates (i.e. verbs and adjectives), modal adverbs, modal nominals, and sentence-final particles. Although these four modality constructions look independent from each other, they are closely related in semantics and in syntactic hierarchical order. This phenomenon can be well interpreted on the basis of a syntactic model--Licensing Principle of Adverbs. Travis (1988) states that adverbs need to be properly licensed by the head features of the XP to which they are adjuncts so as to be grammatical. According to the principle, subject-oriented adverbs are licensed by the head features of PreP; epistemic adverbs, by IP; and discourse-oriented adverbs, by CP. With this analysis, the linear order of different types of modal adverbs, the linear order between modal adverbs and verbs, and the co-occurrence restriction between adverbs and other modal constructions can be well accounted for without extra theoretical cost.
The polysemy of modal verbs is checked via an analysis of the syntagmatic elements in the sentence. It is found that within the IP complement following the modal, the stative verb, aspect markers such as progressive, completive, experiential markers etc., complement structures expressing result, possibility, completion of an action, final state of the subject, and modal verbs or particles denoting epistemic modality tend to give the matrix modal an epistemic modality. On the other hand, the dynamic verb, phase markers showing direction, movement, attempt etc., complement structures of frequency, duration etc., and the causative marker or patient marker etc. tend to give the matrix modal a subject-oriented modality. The number of person, animacy, and +/-definite of the subject NP will also influence the modality interpretation. Also, the epistemic modality is more limited in syntactic manifestations and usually does not occur with interrogation and negation on the same level. Contextual and conceptual factors also have an impact on the polysemy of modals. Contextually, the clues in the context, knowledge of the world, and the social norms will affect the modal meaning. Conceptual properties like concept of force, concept of dynamic, concept of a controlling agent, concept of later than the reference time, and concept of indefiniteness or non-factuality are all related to the subject-oriented modality.
Modal verbs are analyzed based on modern linguistic theories of GB (Government and Binding) and MP (Minimalist Program). Epistemic modals are syntactically raising verbs with NP trace, subject-oriented modals are control verbs with PRO, and speaker-oriented modals vacillate between the two, with the raising verb structure and the control verb dynamic semantics. In GB model, the PRO is explained by the PRO theorem, c-selection, Case theory etc. MP analyzes the control/raising distinction in means of the [+Tense] difference in the Tense morpheme of TP in a non-finite complement clause after a modal. This analysis is more economical without extra linguistic cost since [+Tense] difference already exists in other syntactic operations such as VP-ellipsis, VP preposing, and relative tag etc.
REFERENCES
Austin, J. L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.
Bosakovic? Zoeljko (1997) The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press.
Brennan, Virginia M. (1993) Root and Epistemic Modal Auxiliary Verbs, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Burton, Strang and Jane Grimshaw (1992) "Coordination and VP-internal subjects," Linguistic Inquire, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 305-313.
Bybee, Joan L. (1985) Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form (=Typological Studies in Language, 9) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L. and Suzanne Fleischman (1995) Modality in Grammar and Discourse (eds.). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chafe, Wallace (1995) "The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquorian languages, and English," in J. Bybee and S. Fleischman (eds.) Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 349-66.
Chao, Yuen-ren (1926) "Reijing, Suzhou, Changzhou Yuzhuci de Yanjiu. [A Study of Particles in the Peking, Suzhou, Changzhou Dialects.] The Tsinghua Journal. 3.2. 865-918.
-------------- (1968) A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. (鄭禮珊) (1991) On the Typology of Wh-Questions, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., C.-T. James Huang, T.-H. Audrey Li, and C.-C. Jane Tang (1997) "Hoo, Hoo, Hoo: Syntax of the Causative, Dative, and Passive Constructions in Taiwanese." ms.
Cheng, Robert L. (鄭良偉) (1977a) "Taiwanese question particles," Journal of Chinese Linguistics 5. 153-185.
----------------- (1977b) "Tense interpretation of four Taiwanese modal verbs," in R.L. Cheng, Y.-C. Li and T.-C. Tang (eds.) Proceedings of Symposium on Chinese Linguistics, 1977 Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America. Taipei: Student Book Co.
----------------- (1978) "Modal adverbs in Taiwanese,". Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association. 15.2, 45-93.
----------------- (1980) "Modality in Taiwanese" JCLTA 15:45-93.
----------------- (1985) "A comparison of Taiwanese, Taiwan Mandarin, and Peking Mandarin," Language 61. 352-77.
---------------- (1997) Taiwanese and Mandarin Structures and Their Developmental Trends in Taiwan III: Temporal and Spatial Relations, Questions and Negatives in Taiwanese and Mandarin, Taipei: Yuan-lio [遠流]
Cheng, Susie S. (鄭謝淑娟) (1981) A Study of Taiwanese Adjectives. Taipei: Student Book Co.
Chomsky, Norm. (1993) "A minimalist program for linguistic theory," in The Review from Building 20:Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Chomsky N. and H. Lasnik (1993) "The theory of principles and parameters," in Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, edited by J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, and T. Vennemann, 506-569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Coates, Jennifer, (1995) "The expression of root and epistemic possibility in English," in J. Bybee and S. Fleischman (eds.) Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 55-66.
Cook, Water A. (1978) "Semantic structure of English modals," TESOL Quarterly 12.5-15.
Ernst, Thomas (1994) "Chinese adjuncts and phrase structure theory," Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Vol. 22, No. 1.new window
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt (1995) "A functional theory of complementizers," in J. Bybee and S. Fleischman (eds.) Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 473-502.
Grimshaw, J. (1979) "Complemtn selection and the lexicon," Linguistic Inquiry 10, 279-326.
He, Yu-jing. (1997). Mood in Taiwanese: negative and modal markers bo5 and be7 and m7. M.A. Thesis: Fu Jen University, Taiwan.
Heine, Bernd, (1995) "Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality: some observation on German modals," in J. Bybee and S. Fleischman (eds.) Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Huang, C-T. J. (黃正德) (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Hsin, Ai-li. (忻愛莉) (1998) "Modality Constructions in Southern Min," Journal of Yuan Ze Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 1, pp. 37-57.new window
Jespersen, O. (1924) The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.
Larson, R. K. (1988) "On the double object construction," Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 335-391.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson (1983) Mandarin Chinese (漢語語法), translated by Hsuan-Fan Huang (黃宣範), Taipei: Crane Bookstore.
Li, Chen-Ching. (李振清) (1979) A Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of Taiwanese Modality, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawaii.
Li, Ing Cherry (李櫻) (1999) Utterance-Final Particle in Taiwanese: A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis. Taipei: Crane Bookstore.
Li, Jen-I (李臻儀) (1996) "The modal verb E in Taiwanese," paper presented in the 49th Annual Kentucky Foreign Language Conference. April, 1996.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei (李壬癸) (1971) "Two negative markers in Taiwanese." Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Vol. 63, pp. 201-220. Academia Sinica, Taipei.
Li, Xian-zhang (1950) Fukkien Goho Josestu. [A Grammar of the Ho-lo Dialect of the Chinese Language]. Taipei: Nan Fang Book Store.
Lien, Chinfa (連金發) (1988) "Taiwanese sentence-final particles," in Robert L. Cheng and Suan-fan Huang (eds.) The Structure of Taiwanese: A Modern Synthesis [現代台灣話研究論文集], Taipei: Crane Bookstore.
--------- (1997) "Aspects of the evolution of tit(得) in Taiwan Southern Min," in Chaofen Sun (ed.) History of Chinese Syntax, Monograph Series No. 10, Journal of Chinese Linguistics. pp. 167-190.
Lin, J. W. (林若望) and J. C. C. Tang (湯志真) (1991) "Modals in Chinese," 第三屆北美漢語語言學會議 (美國康乃爾大學主辦) 發表論文。
Lin, J. W. (林若望) and J. C. C. Tang (湯志真) (1995) "Modals as Verbs in Chinese: A GB Perspective," Collection of Sinica Academia, Vol. 66, Part 1.new window
Lin, Jonah Tzong-Hong (林宗宏) (1998) "Rethinking Wh/QP interaction: aspect, distributivity, and parametrization in quantification," Proceedings of the 6th ICLL, IV, pp. 217-236.
Lin, Shuang-fu (1974). "Reduction in Taiwanese A-not-A questions," Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Vol. 2, pp. 37-78.
Lyons, John (1977) Semantics, 2 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mangione, L. & Li, Dingxuan (1993) "A compositional analysis of -GUO and -LE," Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 65-122.new window
McNally, Louise (1992) "VP coordination and the VP-internal subject hypothesis," Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 336-341.
Mithun, Marrianne (1995) "On the relativity of irreality," in J. Bybee & S. Fleischman (eds.) Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 367-88.
Nichigauchi, Taisuke. (1990) Quantification in the Theory of Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Palmer, Frank R. (1983) "Semantic explanations for the syntax of the English modals," in Henry, Frank and Barry Richards (eds.), Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, Vol. 2. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 205-217.
--------------- (1986) Mood and Modality. London: Oxford University Press.
-------------- (1990) Modality and English Modals. Longman Inc., New York.
Perlmutter, David. (1970) "The two verbs begin," in Readings in English Transformational Grammar (ed) by R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum. Waltham: Blaisdell. pp. 107-19.
Rescher, N. (1968) Topics in Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Saillard, Claire. (1992) Negation in Taiwanese: syntactic and semantic aspects. M.A. Thesis, Linguistics Institute, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Sanders, Robert M. (1992). "The expression of modality in Peking and Taipei Mandarin," Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 289-314.
Searle, J. R. (1983) Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shi, , Dingxu (1994) "The nature of Chinese emphatic sentences," Journal of East Asian Linguistics, Vol. 3, pp. 81-100.
Shi, Ziqiang (1990) "Decomposition of perfectivity and inchoativity and the meaning of the particle LE in Mandarin Chinese," Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 95-124.new window
Smith, Carlota (1990) "Event types in Mandarin," Linguistics, Vol. 28, pp. 309-336.
----------------- (1994) "Aspectual viewpoint and situational type in Mandarin Chinese," Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3, 107-146.
Teng, Shou-hsin (鄧守信) (1973) "Scope of negation," Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Vol. 1-3, pp. 475-8.
----------------- (1974) "Negation in Chinese," Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Vol. 2-2, pp. 125-40.
----------------- (1980) "The semantic and syntax of modal verbs in Amoy," JCLTA, Vol. 15, pp. 33-44.
----------------- (1990) "Diversification and unification of negation in Taiwanese," ICLL, Vol. 1, pp. 335-50.new window
Travis, Lisa. (1988) "The syntax of adverbs," McGill Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 281-310.
Tsao, Feng-fu (曹逢甫) (1988b) "The functions of Mandarin Gei and Taiwanese Hou in the double object and passive constructions," in Huang, S. F. and R. L. Cheng (eds.) The Structure of Taiwanese: A Modern Synthesis. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. pp. 165-208.
-------------- (1990a) Sentence and Clause Structure in Chinese: A Functional Perspective. Taipei: Student Book Co.
--------------- (1996) "On verb classification in Chinese," Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 138-191.new window
-------------- and C. C. Lu (呂菁菁) (1990) "Ka as a source marker and a patient marker in Taiwanese," Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Chinese Language and Linguistics. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Tsao, Jie-fei. (1996). Mood in Mandarin Chinese: negative modal markers BU and MEI. M. A. thesis, Fu Jen University, Taiwan.
Vendler, Z (1967). Linguistic and Philosophy. Ithaca:Cornell Univ Press.
Wang, William S-Y. (王士元) (1969) "Competing Changes as a Cause of Residue," Language, Vol. 45, pp. 9-25.
-------------- (1965) "Two modal markers in Mandarin," Language, Vol. 41, pp. 457-70.
Wu Zhao-jing. (1996). Mood in Mandarin Chinese: affirmative modal markers hui and le. M.A. thesis, Fu Jen University, Taiwan.
Zhang, Zhenxing (1983) Taiwan Minnan Fangyan Jilue. [A Sketch of Taiwan Minnan Dialects]. Fujian Renmin Chuban She.
王本瑛、連金發 (1994) 〈台灣閩南語中的反復問句〉 《台灣閩南語論文集》Papers from the 1994 Conference on Language Teaching and Linguistics in Taiwan, Vol. I: Southern Min, 曹逢甫&蔡美慧 (ed.), Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co., pp. 47-69.
王育德 著 (1964) 黃國彥 譯 (1993). 《台灣話講座》, 台北: 自立晚報.
朱德熙 (1984). 《語法講義》, 商務印書館.
李訥、安珊笛、張伯江 (1998) 〈從話語角度論証語氣詞"的"〉 《中國語文》 第2期(總第263期), pp. 93-102.
呂叔湘 (1980) 《現代漢語八百詞》，商務印書館。
--------- (1982) 《中國文法要略》，商務印書館。
忻愛莉 (1998) 〈閩南語情態副詞與動詞之互動以及否定形態〉, Proceedings of National Symposium on Linguistic and Literature Research, Taipei, Taiwan.
周長楫 (1991) 《閩南語與普通話》, 北京 , 語文出版社。
胡明揚 (1981)〈北京話的語氣詞和嘆詞〉 《中國語文》 第5期, pp. 347-350, 第6期, pp. 416-423.
馬慶株 (1981) 〈時量賓語和動詞的類〉,《中國語文》，1981.2
陳平 (1988) 〈論現代漢語時間系統的三元結構〉,《中國語文》第6期, pp. 410-30.
徐杰、李英哲 (1993). 〈焦點和兩個非線性語法範疇："否定" "疑問"〉 《中國語文》 總第233期，pp. 81-92.
曹逢甫. (1990b) 〈中文被動句的幾點觀察〉，全美中文教師學會，1990年年會。
--------- (1993a) 《台灣話動詞研究》 行政院國家科學委員專題研究計畫成果報導.
--------- (1994) 〈國台語動詞組內某些結構的對比分析〉，《第二屆台灣語言研討會論文集(閩語篇)》，新竹，清華大學。
--------- (1996) 〈漢語的提升動詞〉, 《中國語文》, 第3期 (總第252期), pp. 172-182.
--------- (1998) 〈台灣閩南語中與時貌有關的語詞"有""O"和"啊"試析〉, 《清華學報》, 新28卷, 第3期, pp. 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》 第11期, pp. 155-167.
黃丁華 (1958) 〈閩南方言裡的常用否定詞〉, 《中國語文》 第70期, pp. 189-196.
許瑞芬 (1994). 《台灣閩南語情態詞研究》，碩士論文，國立清華大學語言學研究所，台灣。
許極墩 (1992) 《常用漢字台語辭典》, 台北：自立晚報文化出版社。
湯廷池 (1979) 《國語語法研究論集》, 台北：學生書局。
--------- (1984) 〈國語的助動詞〉, 《中國語文》 第55卷，第2期， pp. 2-28。
--------- (1988) 〈國語的助動詞〉, 《漢語詞法句法論集》, pp. 29-57, 台北：學生書局。
--------- (1989) 《漢語詞法句法續集》, 台北：學生書局。
--------- (1992a) 〈漢語動詞組補語的句法結構與語意功能：北平話與閩南話的比較分析〉, 《漢語詞法句法四集》, pp. 1-94, 台北：學生書局。
--------- (1992b) 〈漢語述補式複合動詞的結構、功能與起源〉, 《漢語詞法句法四集》, pp. 95-164, 台北：學生書局。
--------- (1993) 〈閩南語否定詞的語意內涵與句法表現〉, 《第一屆台灣語言國際研討會論文》C5. 01-32.
--------- (1998) 〈漢語的「限定子句」與「非限定子句」〉, 《第六屆中國境內語言暨語言學國際研討會論文集》pp. 27-48.
--------- (1999) 《極小主義與漢語語法》ms.
湯廷池、湯志真 (1997)〈華語情態詞序論〉《第五屆世界華語文教學研討會論文集， 語文分析組》Taipei, Taiwan. C5.01-32.new window
湯廷池、湯志真、邱明麗 (1997) 〈閩南語的「動貌詞」與「動相詞」〉《橋本萬太郎紀念中國語學論集》余靄芹、遠藤光曉共編，東京：內山書店。
張慎敏 (1993) 《國語方向動詞研究》，碩士論文，國立清華大學語言學研究所，台灣。
楊秀芳 (1991) 《台灣閩南語語法稿》. 台北：大安出版社。
-------- (1991) 〈從歷史語法的觀點論閩南語"了"的用法：兼論完成貌助詞"矣"
("也")〉, 《台大中文學報》 第4期, pp. 183-213.
鄧守信 (1986) 〈漢語動詞的時間結構〉, 《第一屆國際漢語教學討論會論文集》，北京語言學院出版。new window
劉小梅 (1997) 《國閩客語的動態文法體系及動態詞的上加動貌語意》，台北：文鶴.new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：306（臺灣：306，外國：0） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2564847 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68361220
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上