以語料庫驅動之隱喻源域界定研究__臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

論文基本資料
摘要
外文摘要
參考文獻

題名：	以語料庫驅動之隱喻源域界定研究
作者：	鍾曉芳
作者(外文)：	Siaw-Fong Chung
校院名稱：	國立臺灣大學
系所名稱：	語言學研究所
指導教授：	安可思
學位類別：	博士
出版日期：	2007
主題關鍵詞：	源域；概念隱喻；由上而下的方式；由下而上的方式；知識本體；搭配詞組；source domains；conceptual metaphors；top-down approach；bottom-up approach；ontology；collocation
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(1) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:0 點閱:51

一般來說，領域訊息在隱喻形成的時候會產生互換的情形，而在概念隱喻裡 (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Lakoff, 1993)，互換的兩個領域訊息分別為源域與目標域。源域通常比目標域較為具體，所以源域提供的訊息對於理解目標域的概念來說是十分關鍵的要素。因此，在過去曾經有相關的研究嘗試定義源域，可是這些研究通常會遇到以下兩個問題：第一，對源域定義的差異、第二，對源域界定的主觀程度不一致。
本論文為了克服這些困難，使用了兩個面向的方式將隱喻之源域做系統化地界定：一是由上而下、二則為由下而上。一般來說，由上而下的方式通常會假設一個上層的概念，而源域就是這些概念裡的一部份。唯有當源域已決定之後，才會把各種的隱喻例子歸類到不同的源域。而隱喻概念這個理論 (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Lakoff, 1993) 用的就是這一種方式，例如：在LOVE IS JOURNEY 的隱喻概念裡，當決定JOURNEY為源域之後，一些相關的例子才會接著分類到該源域內。相反地，由下而上的方式則會先累積人類的用語，而這些資訊會構成較上層的知識。此種方式通常會以頻率為基礎，如：(Rosch and Mervis, 1975; Labov, 1973) 所舉出的典型模範 (prototype) 指的就是共現度高的搭配詞組。在隱喻相關研究中，這兩種方式都曾有學者使用過，但是，在文獻中卻少有研究對這兩種方式做全面性的比較。本論文使用了WordNet、SUMO (Suggested Upper Merged Ontology) (知識本體) 與Chinese Sketch Engine (中文詞彙特性速描系統) 等計算語言學的工具來界定源域，是第一個整合從由上而下及由下而上兩種方式來比較領域訊息的研究。並且，我們透過計算語言學工具來驗證領域界定的理論架構，得到的結果有助於我們進一步了解人類對事物的歸類。而更重要的是，本論文結合了計算語言學、語言學理論及心理語言學的知識來界定領域概念，因此其成果將具有跨領域的貢獻。

以文找文

Domain information is mapped in the formulation of metaphors. In conceptual metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Lakoff, 1993), the two domains mapped are the target domain and source domain. Target domains are usually more abstract, for the most part borrowing information from the source domains, whereas source domains are more concrete, and the information they provide is an important key to understanding the concept of the target domains. Due to the importance of source domains, studies attempting to operationally define source domains involved in conceptual metaphors have been undertaken in the past. However, authors of previous studies encountered difficulties due to two main reasons: (a) the variation in the specificity of the source domains; and (b) the subjectivity of individuals when determining source domains.
This thesis overcomes these difficulties by employing both top-down and bottom-up approaches to determine the source domain of a conceptual metaphor. A top-down approach to metaphor identification usually sorts metaphorical instances according to pre-determined source domains which come from a conceptual knowledge system (such as an ontology). An example of this is the prediction of metaphorical instances based on a general metaphor such as LOVE IS JOURNEY, where JOURNEY is pre-determined (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980). A bottom-up approach, on the other hand, accumulates knowledge about domain though language use (or collocation). The bottom-up approach has been used in frequency-based or prototypical (Rosch and Mervis, 1975; Labov, 1973) definitions of source domains. Both top-down and bottom-up approaches have been used to identify source domains in metaphor studies, however the precision of the two approaches has not previously been compared. It is therefore the intention of this thesis to compare these two approaches employed to determine source domains, using computational tools such as WordNet, SUMO (Suggested Upper Merged Ontology) and Sketch Engine.
The outcome of the thesis will be a comprehensive comparison of these two approaches regarding the determination of source domains. This thesis is the first study to compare both top-down and bottom-up approaches in defining domain information. Furthermore, our use of computational tools with a linguistic framework of domain identification, as well as evidence from psycholinguistic experiments, will contribute not only to computational linguistics, but will also enhance our ability to define domains. This in turn will make a substantial contribution to understanding the human categorization of concepts through linguistic evidence. Based on the combined results of the two approaches, this thesis also proposes a hierarchical model for source domain definition. This model facilitates automatic identification of metaphors and explains why certain domains overlap in conceptualization.

以文找文

Ahrens, Kathleen, Siaw-Fong Chung and Chu-Ren Huang. 2003. “Conceptual Metaphors: Ontology-based Representation and Corpora Driven Mapping Principles.” ACL Workshop on the Lexicon and Figurative Language. Sapporro, Japan. pp. 35-41.
Ahrens, Kathleen, Siaw-Fong Chung and Chu-Ren Huang. 2004. “From Lexical Semantics to Conceptual Metaphors: Mapping Principle Verification with WordNet and SUMO.” In Donghong Ji, Kim Teng Lua and Hui Wang (eds.). Recent Advancement in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5). Singapore: COLIPS. pp. 99-106.
Ahrens, Kathleen. 2002. “When Love is Not Digested: Underlying Reasons for Source to Target Domain Pairings in the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Y. E. Hsiao (Ed.). The First Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Cheng-Chi University, Taiwan. pp. 273-302.
Ahrens, Kathleen. 2006. “Using a Small Corpus to Test Linguistic Hypotheses: Evaluating ‘People’ in the State of the Union Addresses.” International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing. 11(4). pp. 377-392.
Blake, William. 1794. Song of Experience.
Budanitsky, Alexander and Graeme Hirst. 2006. “Evaluating WordNet-based Measures of Semantic Relatedness.” Computational Linguistics. 32(1). pp. 13-47. new window

Cameron, Lynne and Graham Low (eds.). 1999. Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series, Cambridge University Press.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan and Andreas Musolf. 2003. “‘Battered Hero’ or ‘Innocent Victim’?” A Comparative Study of Metaphors for Euro Trading in British and German Financial Reporting.” English for Specific Purposes. 22. pp. 153-176.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan and Timothy Ennis. 2001. “A Comparative Study of Metaphor in Spanish and English Financial Reporting.” English for Specific Purposes. 20. pp. 249-266.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2000. “Metaphor and Vocabulary Teaching in ESP Economics.” English for Specific Purposes. 19. pp. 149-165.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Palgrave-MacMillan.
Charteris-Black, Jonathon. 2005. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Palgrave-MacMillan.
Chen, Keh-jiann, Chu-Ren Huang, Li-ping Chang, and Hui-Li Hsu. 1996. “Sinica Corpus: Design Methodology for Balanced Corpora.” In. Byung-Soo Park and Yongbeom Kim (eds.). Proceeding of the 11th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation. Seoul: Kyung Hee University. pp. 167-176.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens and Chu-Ren Huang. 2003. “ECONOMY IS A PERSON: A Chinese-English Corpora and Ontological-based Comparison Using the Conceptual Mapping Model.” In the Proceedings of the 15th ROCLING Conference for the Association for Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing National. Tsing-Hwa University, Taiwan. pp. 87-110.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens and Chu-Ren Huang. 2004a. “Using WordNet and SUMO to Determine Source Domains of Conceptual Metaphors.” In Donghong Ji, Kim Teng Lua and Hui Wang (eds.). Recent Advancement in Chinese Lexical Semantics: Proceedings of 5th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW-5). Singapore: COLIPS. pp. 91-98.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens and Chu-Ren Huang. 2004b. “RECESSION: Defining Source Domains through WordNet and SUMO.” In the Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of Korea (LSK) International Conference. Volume II: General Sessions. Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea (LSK) and Yonsei Institute of Language and Information Science (ILIS). pp. 43-52.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens and Chu-Ren Huang. 2005. “Source Domains as Concept Domains in Metaphorical Expressions.” Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing (CLCLP). 10(4). pp. 553-570.
Chung, Siaw-Fong, Kathleen Ahrens and Yahui Sung. 2003. “STOCK MARKETS AS OCEAN WATER: A Corpus-based, Comparative Study in Mandarin Chinese, English and Spanish.” In the Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC). Singapore. pp. 124-133.
Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2005. “ECONOMIC GROWTH and Its Source Domains: A Methodological Concern.” In Maya Yu-ting Yeh (ed.). National Taiwan University Working Papers in Linguistics. 8. pp. 41-89.
Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2005. “Kena as a Third Type of Malay Passive.” Oceanic Linguistics. 44(1). University of Hawaii Press. pp. 194-214. new window

Chung, Siaw-Fong. 2005. “MARKET Metaphors: Chinese, English and Malay.” In the Proceedings of the 19th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC19). Taipei: Academia Sinica. pp. 71-81.
Church, Kenneth W. and Patrick Hanks. 1990. “Word Association Norms, Mutual Information and Lexicography.” Computational Linguistics. 16(1). pp. 22-29. new window

Cienki, Alan. 2005. “Metaphor in the “Strict Father” and “Nurturant Parent” Cognitive Models: Theoretical Issues Raised in an Empirical Study.” Cognitive Linguistics. 16(2). pp. 279-312.
Clausner, Timothy C. and William Croft. 1997. “Productivity and Schematicity in Metaphors.” Cognitive Science. 21(3). pp. 247-282.
Clausner, Timothy C. and William Croft. 1999. “Domains and Image Schemas.” Cognitive Linguistics. 10 (1). pp. 1-31. new window

Croft, William. 2003. “The Role of Domains in the Interpretation of Metaphors and Metonymies.” In René Dirven and Ralf Pörings (eds.). Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 161-205.
deGroot, Adrian D. 1965. Thought and Choice in Chess. The Hague: Mouton.
Deignan, Alice. 1999. “Metaphorical Polysemy and Paradigmatic Relations: A Corpus Study.” Word. 50(3). pp. 319-338.
Deignan, Alice. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics: Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research. Volume 6. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Bejamins.
Dobrovol’skij, Dmitrij and Elisabeth Piirainen. 2005. Figurative Language: Cross-cultural and Cross-linguistic Perspectives: Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Volume 13. Amsterdam, Boston & Heidelberg: Elsevier.
Fass, Dan and Yorick Wilks. 1983. “Preference Semantics, Ill-formedness, and Metaphor.” Computational Linguistics. 9(3-4). pp. 178-187.
Fass, Dan. 1988. “Metonymy and Metaphor: What''s the Difference?” In the Proceedings of the 12th conference on Computational Linguistics, p. 177-181.
Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.). 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press.
Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.). 2007. Idioms and Collocations: Corpus-based Linguistic and Lexicographic Studies. London : Continuum.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. “Scenes-and-Frames Semantics.” In Antonio Zampolli (ed.). Linguistic Structures Processing: Fundamental Studies in Computer Science, Volume 5. Amsterdam: North-Holland. pp. 55-81.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. “Frame Semantics.” Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin. pp. 111-138.
Fillmore, Charles J. and Beryl T Atkins. 1992. “Toward a Frame-based Lexicon: The Semantics of RISK and its Nneighbors.” In Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay. (eds.). Frames, Fields and Constrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrense Erlbaum. pp. 75-102.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Josephine M. Bogdanovich, Jeffrey R. Sykes, and Dale J. Barr 1997. “Metaphor in Idiom Comprehension.” Journal of Memory and Language. 37. pp. 141-154.
Gildea, Patricia, and Sam Glucksberg. 1983. “On Understanding Metaphor: The Role of Context.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 22, pp. 577-590.
Glucksberg, Sam and Boas Keysar. 1993 “How Metaphors Work.” In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Second nd Edition, New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 401-424.
Glucksberg, Sam and Boas Keyser. 1990. “Understanding Metaphorical Comparisons: Beyond Similarity.” Psychological Review. 97. pp. 3-18.
Glucksberg, Sam, Patricia Gildea and Howard Bookin. 1982. “On Understanding Nonliteral Speech: Can People Ignore Metaphors?” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 21. pp. 85–98.
Goatly, Andrew. 1997. “Metaphorical and Literal Language.” In The Language of Metaphor. Chapter 1. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 14-40. new window

Grady, Joseph E. 1997. “THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS Revisited.” Cognitive Linguistics. 8(4). pp. 267-290.
Grady, Joseph E. 1999. “A Typology of Motivation for Conceptual Metaphor: Correlation vs. Resemblance.” In Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. and Gerard J. Steen (eds). Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 79-100.
Graff, David and Chen Ke. 2003. Chinese Gigaword. [Corpus]. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.
Gries, Stefan. Th. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London, New York: Continuum Press.
Heywood, John and Elena Semino. 2005. “Source ‘scenes’ and source ‘domains’: Insights from a Corpus-based Study of Metaphor for Communication.” In the Proceedings of the Third Interdisciplinary Workshop on Corpus-Based Approaches to Figurative Language. pp. 12-19.
Huang, Chu-Ren, Chang, Ru-Yng, Lee, Shiang-Bin. 2004. “Sinica BOW (Bilingual Ontological Wordnet): Integration of Bilingual WordNet and SUMO”. Presented at the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2004). Lisbon. Portugal.
Huang, Chu-Ren, Kathleen Ahrens, Chang Li-li, Chen Keh-jiann, Liu Mei-chun, and Tsai Mei-Chih. 2000. “The Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics: From Semantics to Argument Structure.” In Yung-O Biq (ed.). Special Issue on Chinese Verbal Semantics. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing. 5(1). pp. 19-46. new window

Huang, Chu-Ren. 1994. “Corpus-based Studies of Mandarin Chinese: Foundational Issues and Preliminary Results.” In Matthew Y. Chen and Ovid J-L. Tzeng. (eds.). In Honor of William S-Y. Wang. Interdisciplinary Studies on Language and Language Change. Taipei: Pyramid. pp. 165-186.
Huang, Chu-Ren. 2006. “Automatic Acquisition of Linguistic Knowledge: From Sinica Corpus to Gigaword Corpus.” Invited Speech at 13th National Institute of Japanese Literature (NIJL). Tokyo, Japan.
Kennedy, Graeme. 1998. An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman
Kilgarriff Adam and David. Tugwell. 2001. “WORD SKETCH: Extraction and Display of Significant Collocations for Lexicography.” In the Proceedings of the ACL Workshop COLLOCATION: Computational Extraction, Analysis and Exploitation. Toulouse. pp. 32-38.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Chu-Ren Huang, Pavel Rychly, Simon Smith, David Tugwell. 2005. “Chinese Word Sketches.” In the Proceedings of Asialex, Singapore.
Knowles, Murray and Rosamund Moon. 2006. Introducing Meaphor. London and New York: Routledge.
Koller, Veronika. 2004. Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A Critical Cognitive Study. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2006. Book Review: Figurative Language: Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(3). pp. 191-198.
Labov, William. 1973. “The Boundaries of Words and their Meanings.” In Charles James Baily and Roger W. Shuy (eds.). New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, Washington D.C: Georgetown University Press. pp. 340–373.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphor We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1987. “Image Metaphors.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity. 2(3). pp. 219-222.
Lakoff, George. 1993. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.” In Andrew Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought. (second edition). CUP. pp. 202-251.
Landes, Shari, Claudia Leacock and Randee I. Tengi. 1998. “Building Semantic Concordances.” In Christiane Fellbaum (ed.). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. pp. 199-216. MIT Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Volume 1. California: Stanford University. new window

Leezenberg, Michiel. 2001. Contexts of Metaphor: Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Volume 7. Amsterdam, London & New York: Elsevier.
Lemmens, Maarten. 2001. “Computational Economy in Metaphor Analysis.” In John Barnden, Mark Lee and Katja Markert (eds.). Proceeding Workshop on Corpus-Based and Processing Approaches to Figurative Language.
Lin, Dekang. 1998. “Automatic Retrieval and Clustering of Similar Words.” In the Proceedings of COLING-ACL. pp. 768-774.
Ma, Wei-yun and Huang Chu-Ren. 2006. “Uniform and Effective Tagging of a Heterogeneous Giga-word Corpus.” Presented at the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2006). Genoa, Itlay.
Marim-Arrese, Juana. 1996. “To Die, To Sleep: A Contrastive Study of Metaphors for Death and Dying in English and Spanish.” Language Sciences. 18(1-2). pp. 37-52.
Martin, James H. 1990. A Computational Model of Metaphor Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Mason, Zachary J. 2004. “CorMet: A Computational, Corpus-Based Conventional Metaphor Extraction System.” Computational Linguistics. 30. pp. 23-44.
McClelland, James L. and David E. Rumelhart .1986. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Volume 2: Psychological and Biological Models, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
McEnery, Tony and Andrew Wilson. 2001. Corpus Linguistics. Second Edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Miller, George A., Richard Beckwith, Christiane Fellbaum, Derek Gross and Katherine J. Miller. 1990. “Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database.” International Journal of Lexicography. 3(4). pp. 235-244.
Musolff, Andreas. 2004. Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Niles, Ian and Adam Pease. 2001. “Towards a Standard Upper Ontology.” In the Proceedings of the international conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems. (FOIS-2001). pp. 2-9.
O’Connor, Kathleen T. 1998. “Money and Finance as Solid, Liquid, and Gas in Spanish.” Metaphor and Symbol. 13(2). pp. 141-157.
Özcalişkan, Seyda. 2003. “Metaphorical Motion in Crosslinguistic Perspective: A Comparison of English and Turkish.” Metaphor and Symbol. 18(3). pp. 189-228.
Pease, Adam. 2003. “The Sigma Ontology Development Environment.” In the Working Notes of the IJCAI-2003 Workshop on Ontology and Distributed Systems. Volume 71 of CEUR Workshop Proceeding series.
Pustejovsky, James, Sabine Bergler and Peter Anick. 1993. “Lexical Semantic Techniques for Corpus Analysis.” In Susan Armstrong (ed.). Using Large Corpora. pp. 291-318
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The Generative Lexicon. Computational Linguistics. 17(4). pp. 409-441.
Ritchie, David. 2003. “ARGUMENT IS WAR”—Or is it a Game of Chess? Multiple Meanings in the Analysis of Implicit Metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol. 18(2). pp. 125-146.
Rogers, Willie. 2000. TREC Mandarin. [Corpus]. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.
Rosch, Eleanor and Caroline B. Mervis. 1975. “Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories.” Cognitive Psychology. 7. pp. 573-605.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. “Natural Categories.” Cognitive Psychology, 4. pp. 328-350.
Scott, Farrar, William D. Lewis, and D. Terence Langendoen. “A Common Ontology for Linguistic Concepts.” In the Proceedings of the Knowledge Technologies Conference.
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression & Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Semino, Elena, John Heywood and Mike Short. 2004. “Methodological Problems in the Analysis of Metaphors in a Corpus of Conversations about Cancer.” Journal of Pragmatics. 36(7). pp. 1271-1294.
Ševčenko, Michael. 2003. “Online Presentation of an Upper Ontology.” In the Proceedings of Znalosti. .
Shen, Yeshayahu. 1999. “Principles of Metaphor Interpretation and the Notion of ‘Domain’: A Proposal for a Hybrid Model.” Journal of Pragmatics. 31. pp. 1631-1653.
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sloutsky, Vladimir M., Jennifer Kaminski and Andrew F. Heckler. 2005. “The Advantage of Simple Symbols for Learning and Transfer.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 12 (3). pp. 508-513.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2003. “Words and their metaphors: A cross-linguistic corpus-based approach.” Presented at the Language between Mind and Text: The Use of Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics (ICLC-8).
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2005. “The function of metaphor: developing a corpus-based perspective.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10(2). pp. 161-198.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006. “Words and their Metaphors: A Corpus-based Approach.” In Anatol Stefanowitsch and Stefan Th. Gries (eds.). Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy (Trends in Linguistics 171). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 61-105.
Su, Lily I-wen. 2002. “What Can Metaphor Tell Us About Culture?”
Language and Linguistics. 3(3). pp. 589-614.
Teng, Shou-hsin, Chin-Chuan Cheng and Chin-Hsi Lin. 2006. Pintone 2006. [Computer Software]. Taipei: Graduate Institute of Teaching Chinese as a Second Language.
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2002. Corpus Linguistic at Work. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wang, S. Y. 1969 “Competing Changes as a Cause of Residue.” Language. 45. pp.9-25.
Wang, Zhimin. 2006. Chinese Noun Phrase Metaphor Recognition. Ph.D. thesis. School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Peking University, China.
White, Michael. 2003. “Metaphor and Economics: The Case of Growth.” English for Specific Purposes. 22. pp.131-151.
Wilensky, Robert. 1986. “Knowledge Representation – A Critique and a Proposal.” In J. Kolodner and C. Riesbeck (eds.). Experience, Memory, and Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey. pp. 15-28.
Wilks, Yorick. 1975. “Preference Semantics.” in Edward Keenam (ed.). The Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 329-348.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1978. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. [English translation by G.E.M. Anscombe].
Wu, Zhibiao and Martha Palmer. 1994. “Verb Semantics and Lexical Selection.” In the Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 133–138.
Wu, Zhibiao. 1995. Mandarin Chinese News Text. [Corpus]. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.
Yu, Ning. 1995. “Metaphorical Expressions of Anger and Happiness in English and Chinese.” Metaphor and Symbol Activity. 10(2). pp. 59-92.
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1932. Selected Studies of the Principle of Relative Frequency in Language. Mass.: Cambridge.
束定芳。2000。《隱喻學研究》。上海:上海外語教育出版社。
李福印。2004。《隱喻與認知：中國大陸出版物注釋目錄(1980-2004)》北京：中國文史出版社。
黃居仁. 2004b。《詞類歧義的本質與解釋─以大量語料庫為本的分析研究》。石鋒,沈鍾偉主編。《樂在其中─王士元教授七十華誕慶祝文集》。頁235-245.天津：南開大學出版社。
黃居仁。2004a。《中文的詞義小辭典1.0》[Meaning in Sense in Mandarin Chinese Version 1.0] 。台北：中央研究院文獻語料庫與詞庫小組技術報告。 new window

黃居仁。2005。《中文的詞義小辭典2.0》[Meaning in Sense in Mandarin Chinese Version 2.0] 。台北：中央研究院文獻語料庫與詞庫小組技術報告。
黃居仁。2006。《中文的詞義小辭典3.0》[Meaning in Sense in Mandarin Chinese Version 3.0] 。台北：中央研究院文獻語料庫與詞庫小組技術報告。
黃居仁。2007。《中文的詞義小辭典4.0》[Meaning in Sense in Mandarin Chinese Version 4.0] 。台北：中央研究院文獻語料庫與詞庫小組技術報告。
劉揚。2004。《雙語WordNet詞義知識庫的構造理論與工程實踐》。博士論文。北京大學。
http://bow.sinica.edu.tw/ (SinicaBow) #
http://corpora.fi.muni.cz/chinese_all/ (Chinese Sketch Engine)#
http://wordsketch.ling.sinica.edu.tw/ (Chinese Sketch Engine)#
http://virtual.cvut.cz/ smsaWeb/browser/title (KMASA Project)#
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ (WordNet)#
http://www.touchgraph.com/ (TouchGraph)
http:// sourceforge.net/projects/touchgraph/ (TouchGraph)
http://www.anu.edu.au/asianstudies/mcp/ (Malay Concordance Project)
http://www.ln.edu.hk/lle/cwd/project01/web/home.html (Metalue)
http://www.ontologyportal.org/ (Suggested Upper Merged Ontology; SUMO)
http://www.sinica.edu.tw/SinicaCorpus/ (Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of
Mandarin Chinese)
http://cogsci.berkeley.edu/lakoff/ (Conceptual Metaphor Homepage)
http://www.touchgraph.com/ (TouchGraph)
http:// sourceforge.net/projects/touchgraph/ (TouchGraph)

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	Semantic Relationships in Mandarin Speech Errors
2.	再探「高興」類近義詞：基於語料庫工具輔助之辨析研究
3.	Conventionalization of Lexical Meanings and the Role of Metaphoricity: Processing of Metaphorical Polysemy Using a Cross-modal Lexical Priming Task
4.	臺灣客語「怕」之情態演變--語法化與主觀化之觀點
5.	試析臺灣華語視覺感知構式「看」、「看見」、「看到」與「看完」的語意區別
6.	MARVS Revisited:Incorporating Sense Distribution and Mutual Information into Near-Synonym Analyses
7.	The Construction of Mandarin VerbNet:A Frame-based Study of Statement Verbs
8.	A Synchronous Corpus-Based Study on the Usage and Perception of Judgement Terms in the Pan-Chinese Context
9.	Feature Representations and Logical Compatibility between Temporal Adverbs and Aspects
10.	From Collocation to Event Information: The Case of Mandarin Verbs of Discussion
11.	Verbs of Contact by Impact in English and Their Equivalents in Mandarin Chinese
12.	Sense and Meaning Facets in Verbal Semantics: A MARVS Perspective
13.	State Eventualities and Aspect Marker LE in Chinese
14.	What Can Near Synonyms Tell Us?

1.	1
2.	以計算統計方法及聲學參數研究中文自然語流之韻律短語切分

1.	A Corpus-Driven Approach to Source Domain Determination
2.	中文的意義與詞義
3.	Mandarin Verbal Semantics : a Corpus-Based Approach
4.	概念隱喻
5.	Verb of Surface Contact in Mandarin : A Lexical Semantic Study

無相關著作

臺灣語言活力研究

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫