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：多義詞的分析及其在語料庫標記的應用:以賽夏語為例
作者：黃舒屏 引用關係
作者(外文)：Shuping Huang
校院名稱：國立臺灣大學
系所名稱：語言學研究所
指導教授：蘇以文
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2008
主題關鍵詞：多義詞；比較語言學；分類；原型；語料標記；觀點化；polysemy；comparative linguistics；categorization；prototype；language documentation；perspectivization
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(0) 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:429
詞彙的多義現象是語言學、哲學及心理學共同感興趣的議題。雖然一詞多義理論上會造成溝通的誤解，但是這樣的誤解很少出現在日常語言使用中 (Taylor 2003)；多義詞造成困擾，多半是在跨語言溝通的情境 (Riemer 2001)。這促使我們將多義詞的研究延伸到跨語言的比較，而本論文即以語料庫標記為主要探討目標。我們從「台大台灣南島語多媒體語料庫」的工作經驗出發，以三個賽夏語的多義詞彙為案例，分析語言田野調查過程中，透過發音人的解釋和翻譯了解多義詞的過程。
在田野調查中，確認一個詞彙的意義是相當不容易的，這受到兩個因素的影響：詞彙語意的環境調節(contextual modulation) 以及跨語言的語意切分落差 (mismatches of semantic partitioning)。環境調節為某個詞彙增添或改變語意，因此當該詞彙每次出現在一個新的語境中，就有可能得到不同的解釋。語構對詞彙意義的影響亦不容忽視。此外，語意切分的方式在各個語言中往往有落差，一群概念在賽夏語中被視為相互有關聯，並用同一詞彙表達，在中文中他們之間的關係卻可能被忽略，而用多個不同的詞彙來表達。當一個賽夏語詞彙對應到多個中文翻譯時，我們需要透過分析和比較才能知道哪一個翻譯最能表現該詞彙的核心語意。
我們分析了三個詞彙，發現在呈現語料時，超語言翻譯的影響是很直接的。例如賽夏語的nanaw可以用於表達數量的限定，接近中文的「只」，也可用於表達對某項事件真實度的肯定，接近中文的「原本」。類似的語意延伸在其他的語言中並不多見，也因此發音人所提供的直接翻譯詞看似彼此並無關聯，容易產生同型異義(homonomy)和多義詞的混淆。另一詞彙nahaen用於表達事件重複、事件接續以及事件先行，類似的語意延伸較容易在其他語言中發現，其中文翻譯「再」、「又」、「還」等等，大多在中文中都有明顯的功能重疊，nahaen的用法之間的關係也較容易想像。而少數的辭彙，例如ma''，意義接近中文的「也」，其語意延伸有很高的跨語言可預測性，類似的語意網絡常出現在不同的語言中，其中文翻譯一致性較高，不容易產生同型異義的誤解。
分析的結果可以從兩方面來討論。理論面上，跨語言多義詞語意發展的特殊性促使我們重新審視「觀點化」(perspectivization) 現象。一般認為語意變化的途徑是受到主觀化的影響 (Langacker 1990)，意即以說話者的觀點出發。近來則興起互動主觀化的概念(Traugott 2003)，強調說話者的觀點選定需配合其言談對象。我們的研究支持互動主觀化，並認為互動主觀化的考量對象應包含整個語言社群，方能解釋語言獨特性的產生。
應用面上，我們認為單一詞彙得到多種中文翻譯，是田野調查不可避免的過程。然而經過分析和對照之後，多義詞在語料標記中宜採用一致的超語言注解 (meta-language gloss) (Lehmann 1982)。其優點有五: 1) 代表語意和語用層面的基本切分，2) 有利語料庫使用者了解多義詞和同型異義的區分，3) 標記的經濟性，4) 利於語料庫內的詞彙搜索，5) 保存濱危語言的獨特語意切分方式。我們也提出，多義詞的本質為一種分類 (categorization)，而一個多義詞的原型 (prototype) 可作為尋找超語言註解的根據。在一個詞彙的眾多可能意義當中，超語言註解反映的為其原型意義。
本文結合了單一語言的多義詞研究和跨語言的多義詞比較，除理論方面的思考外，並探討語意學研究在語言田野調查的進行和語料標記的應用，有助於我們在研究意義的過程中採用更寬廣更活用的觀點。
Being an important issue, polysemy has received a great much attention from different fields such as linguistics, philosophy, and psychology. In everyday conversation, language users typically generate appropriate interpretation of a polyseme with no difficulty (Taylor) — Polysemy is found to cause problems mainly in cross-linguistic contexts (Riemer 2001). We are thus motivated to investigate polysemy in a cross-linguistic context. Based on our experience of working on the creation and maintenance of the NTU Corpus of Formosan languages, we aim to explore documentation of polysemes by case studies on Saisiyat polysemy, using Mandarin as a meta-language.
In the course of language fieldwork, there is no known method of determining precisely the meaning of a lexical item. Two factors are directly responsible: contextual modulation and mismatches of semantic partitioning. The meaning of a lexical item is modulated in situated contexts, and new meaning emerge almost whenever a lexical item is used in a novel context. In addition, semantic partitioning is also a major source of misunderstanding. For concepts that are conceived as relevant in Saisiyat, their relations may not be highlighted in Mandarin and are thus expressed with formally irrelevant linguistic forms. When one Saisiyat lexical item yields multiple Mandarin translations, we need careful collation to determine which translation reflects the core meaning of the delimited lexical item.
Our analysis of three Saisiyat lexical items reveals that meta-language translation has a direct impact on our interpretation of the linguistic data. For example, Saisiyat nanaw denotes limitation of a quantity, like English ‘only,’ and it is also used to express an affirmative attitude to the factual status of a statement, like English ‘exactly.’ These two meanings are related, but such extension is found to be typologically-unimportant ones manifested in few languages, and its meta-language translations are seemingly irrelevant, which can yield a homonymy reading. Another lexical item nahaen is used to denote repetition, succession, and precedence of activities. Similar semantic network are more likely to be found in other languages, and many of its Mandarin translations exhibit functional overlaps, which may help corpus users to discover the relations between instances of nahaen. We may also come across cases of very high degree of cross-linguistic predictability, yielding similar ways of conceptual categorization in genetically-unrelated languages, as well as relatively consistent direct translation. Our study of Saisiyat ma'' ‘also’ is one of the examples.
Theoretically, language-specificity of semantic partitioning urges us to take a social-cultural view on perspectivization. It is commonly held that the development of a network exhibits tendency of “subjectification”— the speaker tends to include his own epistemic attitude and personal evaluation when using an expression (Langacker 1990). Traugott (2003) further postulates that speaker’s point of view has to align with that of his addressee, a tendency known as “intersubjectification.” The intersubjectification view is supported by our study, but we claim that the speaker’s construal of a scene for the purpose of verbalization has to take into the shared linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge of the entire speech community. A “collective” view of intersubjectification is postulated to account for language-specificity.
Empirically, we propose that a consistent gloss of a polyseme can be sought on the basis of its prototype. We agree that inconsistent and imprecise translation of a lexical item in different contexts is inevitable in linguistic fieldwork. A polyseme is nevertheless advisable to be glossed consistent by one meta-language gloss (Lehmann 1982). Consistent glossing yields five advantages: 1) reflecting fundamental division between semantics and pragmatics, 2) facilitating user’s identification of a linguistic item, 3) exhibiting economy and precision of data presentation, 4) facilitating search of a lexical item in a corpus, and 5) preserving conceptual categorization of the target language. Based on the categorization view of polysemy, we propose that the meta-language gloss of a polyseme should reflect the prototype of the polyseme. When a researcher wishes to gloss a polyseme by a consistent cover term, he can exploit the notion of prototype.
Overall, our investigation integrates intra-language investigation of polysemy with inter-language comparison of semantic partitioning. In addition to examination of theoretical issues, we tackle empirical problems of semantic analysis in language fieldwork with special focus on the possible applications to language documentation.
AIKHENVALD, ALEKSANDRA IUREVNA. 2000. Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
AUSTIN, JOHN. 1961. The meaning of a word. Philosophical papers, ed. by J.O Urmson and G.J. Warnock, 23-43. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
BICKFORD, J. ALBERT. 1997. A Rich Model for Presenting Interlinear Text. SIL Electronic Working Papers (1997-003). Available on http://www.sil.org/silewp/1997/003/.
BIERWISCH, MANFRED. 1983. Semantische und konzeptuelle Reprïsentation lexikalischer Einheiten. Untersuchungen zur Semantik, ed. by Rudolf Ruzicka and Wolfgang Motsch, 61-99. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
BIQ, YUNG-O. 1989. Ye as manifested on three discourse planes: Polysemy or abstraction. Functionalism and Chinese grammar, ed. by James H-Y. Tai and Frank F. S. Hsueh, 1-18. South Organge, New Jersey: Chinese Language Teachers Association.
BIQ, YUNG-O. 2004. Construction, reanalysis, and stance: ''V yi ge N'' and variations in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 36.1655-72.
BLANK, ANDREAS. 2003. Polysemy in lexicon and discourse. Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language, ed. by Brigitte Nerlich,Zazie Todd,Vimala Herman, and David D. Clarke, 267-93. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
BLUST, ROBERT. 1999. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, ed. by Elizabeth Zeitoun and Paul Jen-kuei Li, 31-94. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
BLUST, ROBERT. 2002. Notes on the history of ''focus'' in Austronesian languages. The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems, ed. by Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, 63-78. Australia: Australian National University.
BOAS, FRANZ 1940. Race, language, and culture. New Work: Macmillan.
BOTNE, ROBERT. 2005. Cognitive schemas and motion verbs: COMING and GOING in Chindali (Eastern Bantu). Cognitive Linguistics 16.43-80.
BOWERMAN, MELISSA, and SOONJA CHOI. 2003. Space under construction: Language specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. Language in mind, ed. by Dedre Gentener and Susan Goldin-Meadow, 387-428. Cambridge: MIT Press.
BOWERMAN, MELISSA. 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. Language and space, ed. by Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lyn Nadel, and Merrill F. Garret, 385-436. Cambridge: MIT Press.
BROWN, PENELOPE, and STEPHEN C. LEVINSON. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BRUGMAN, CLAUDIA. 1988. Story of over: polysemy, semantics, and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland.
BYBEE, JOAN; REVERE PERKINS; and WILLIAM PAGLIUCA. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
CAMPBELL, LYLE. 1998. Historical linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
CARROLL, JOHN B. (ed.) 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge: MIT Press.
CHAFE, WALLACE. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
CHANG, HENRY Y. 2004. The syntax of adverbial modifiers in Kavalan and Tsou. Paper presented at IsCLL-9, National Taiwan University, Taipei, November19-21.
CHEN, YI-TING. 2006. Yi-dian as a politeness device in Mandarin directives. Presented in International Association for Dialogue Analysis (IADA). Mainz, Germany, 9/25-29.
CHESTERMAN, ANDREW. 1998. Contrastive functional analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
CLAUSNER, TIMOTHY C., and WILLIAM CROFT. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10.1-31.
COLEMAN, LINDA, and PAUL KAY. 1981. Prototype and semantics: the English lie. Language 57.26-44.
CROFT, WILLIAM, and D. ALAN CRUSE. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CROFT, WILLIAM, and ESTHER J. WOOD. 2000. Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence. Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach, ed. by Liliana Albertazzi, 51-78. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
CROFT, WILLIAM. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
CROFT, WILLIAM. 1998. Linguistic evidence and mental representation. Cognitive Linguistics 9.151-73.
CROFT, WILLIAM. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CRUSE, D. ALAN. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CRUSE, D. ALAN. 1990. Prototype theory and lexical semantics. Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, ed. by S. L. Tsohatsidis, 382-402. London; New York: Routledge.
CRUSE, D. ALAN. 2000. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DEANE, PAUL D. 1988. Polysemy and cognition. Lingua 75.325-61.
DOMINIEK, SANDRA, and SALLY RICE. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind — the linguist''s or the language user''s? Cognitive Linguistics 6.89130.
DOWTY, DAVID. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
DUBOIS, JOHN W.; STEPHAN SCHUETZE-COBUM; SUSANNA CUMMING; and DANAE PAOLINO. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. Talking data: Transcription and coding for language research, ed. by J. A. Edwards and M. S. Lampert, 46-89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
EVANS, VYVYAN, and MELANIE GREEN. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
EVANS, VYVYAN. 2003. The structure of time. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
EVANS, VYVYAN. 2005. The meaning of time: Polysemy, the lexicon, and conceptual structure. Journal of Linguistics 41.33-75.
FAUCONNIER, GILLES, and MARK TURNER. 2002. The way we think. New York: Basic Books.
FAUCONNIER, GILLES. 1985. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
FILLMORE, CHARLES J. 1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by I. Yang, 111-37. Seoul: Hanshin.
FILLMORE, CHARLES J., and B. T. ATKINS. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon. Frames, fields, and contrasts, ed. by Adrienne Lehrer and E. F. Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
FILLMORE, CHARLES J.; PAUL KAY; and MARY CATHERINE O''CONNOR. 1988. Regularity and idiomacity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64.501-38.
FORD, CECILIA; BARBARA A. FOX; and SANDRA A. THOMPSON. 2003. Social interaction and grammar. The new psychology of language, Vol. 2, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 119-43. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
FRITZ, GERD. 1998. Historische Semantik. Weimer: J. B. Metzler.
GEERAERTS, DIRK. 1989. Introduction: Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Linguistics 27.587-612.
GODDARD, CLIFF, and ANNA WIERZBICKA. 2002. Semantic primes and universal grammar. Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings, ed. by Anna Wierzbicka and Cliff Goddard, 41-85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
GODDARD, CLIFF, and ANNA WIERZBICKA. 2004. Cultural Scripts: What are they and what are they good for? Intercultural Pragmatics 1/2.153-65.new window
GODDARD, CLIFF. 2001. Lexical-semantic universals: A critical overview. Linguistic Typology 5.1-65.
GODDARD, CLIFF. 2002. The search for the shared semantic core of all languages. Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings, Vol. 1, ed. by Cliff Goddard and Anna Wierzbicka, 5-40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.new window
GOFFMAN, ERVING. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
GOLDBERG, ADELE E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
GOLDBERG, ADELE E. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
GRAUMANN, CARL F. 1990. Perspectival structure and dynamics in dialogues. The dynamics of dialogue, ed. by I. Markova and K. Foppa, 105-27. New York: Springer.
GRAUMANN, CARL F., and WERNER KALLMEYER. 2002. Perspective and perspectivization in discourse. Perspective and perspectivization in discourse, ed. by Carl F. Graumann and Werner Kallmeyer, 1-14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
GREENBERG, JOSEPH H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universal of Language, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 73-113. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
GUMPERZ, JOHN J., and STEPHEN C. LEVINSON (eds.) 1996. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GYORI, GABOR. 2002. Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics 13.123-66.
HAN, YUKUO. 2004. Hanyu fuci you de qiyi—jian tan fanchou yufa dui hanyu yianjiu de shiyongxing (The polysemous structure of Mandarin adverb you: the applicability of categorization theory in Mandarin Linguistic research) [in Chinese]. Academic Journal of Yunnan Normal University 2.64-69.
HARTMANN, R. R. K., and GREGORY JAMES. 1998. Dictionary of Lexicography. London: Taylor & Francis.
HASPELMATH, MARTIN. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. New York: Oxford University Press.
HASPELMATH, MARTIN. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. The new psychology of language, Vol 2, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 211-42. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
HEINE, BERND; ULRIKE CLAUDI; and FRIEDERIKE HUENNEMEYER. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
HIMMELMANN, NIKOLAUS P. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics Linguistics. Linguistics 36.161-95.
HIMMELMANN, NIKOLAUS P. 2002. Voice in western Austronesian: An update. The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems, ed. by Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross, 7-16. Australia: Australian National University.
HO, DAH-AN, and SIU-FANG YANG. 2000. Austronesian Languages and Formosan Languages. Formosan Language Series, 1-36. Taipei: Yuan-liu. [in Chinese].
HOPPER, PAUL J., and ELIZABETH CLOSS TRAUGOTT. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HORN, LAURENCE R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
HSIEH, FUHUI, and SHUANFAN HUANG. 2006. The pragmatics of case marking in Saisiyat. Oceanic Linguistics 45.91-109.
HSIEH, FUHUI. 2007. Language of emotion and thinking in Kavalan and Saisiyat. Doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan University.
HUANG, LILLIAN M. 2000. Verb classification in Mayrinax Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 39.364-90.
HUANG, SHUANFAN. 1998. Emergent lexical semantics. Selected Papers from the Second International Symposium in Language in Taiwan, ed. by Shuanfan Huang, 129-50. Taipei: Crane.
HUANG, SHUANFAN; LILY I-WEN SU; and LI-MAY SUNG. 2004. A Functional Reference Grammar of Saisiayt. NSC technical report (NSC 92-2411-H-002-077).
JACKENDOFF, RAY. 1987. Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
JASZCZOLT, KATARZYNA M. 2003. On translating ''What is said'': Tertium comparationis in contrastive semantics and pragmatics. Meaning Through Language Contrast, ed. by Katarzyna M. Jaszczolt and Ken Turner, 441-62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
JOHNSON, MARK. 1990. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
KEMMER, SUZANNE. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
KOFFKA, KURT. 1935. Principles of gestalt psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
KRZESZOWSKI, TOMASZ P. 1984. Tertium comparationis. Contrastive linguistics: Prospects and problems, ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 301-13. Berlin: Mouton.
KRZESZOWSKI, TOMASZ P. 1990a. Contrasting languages: The scope of contrastive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
KRZESZOWSKI, TOMASZ P. 1990b. Prototypes and equivalence. Further Insights into Contrastive Analysis, ed. by Jacek Fisiak. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
LÖBNER, SEBASTIAN. 2002. Understanding semantics. London: Arnold.
LABOV, WILLIAM. 1973. The boundaries of words and their meaning. New ways of analyzing variation of English, ed. by Charles-James N. Bailey and Roger W. Shuy, 340-73. Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
LAKOFF, GEORGE, and MARK JOHNSON. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
LAKOFF, GEORGE, and MARK TURNER. 1989. More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
LAKOFF, GEORGE. 1968. Instrumental adverbs and the concept of deep structures. Foundations of Language 4.4-29.
LAKOFF, GEORGE. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
LANGACKER, RONALD W. 1985. Observation and speculation on subjectivity. Iconicity in syntax, ed. by John Heiman, 109-50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
LANGACKER, RONALD W. 1987a. Foundations of cognitive grammar 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.new window
LANGACKER, RONALD W. 1987b. A usage-based model. Topics in cognitive linguistics, ed. by Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 127-61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
LANGACKER, RONALD W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1.5-38.new window
LANGACKER, RONALD W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
LANGACKER, RONALD W. 1998. Conceptualization, symbolism and grammar. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 1-39. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
LANGACKER, RONALD W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
LEHMANN, CHRISTIAN. 1982. Directions for interlinear morphemic translations. Folia Linguistica 16.199-224.
LEHMANN, CHRISTIAN. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20.303-18.
LEHRER, ADRIENNE. 1992. A theory of vocabulary structures: Retrospectives and prospectives. Thirty years of linguistic evolution, ed. by Martin Putz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
LEVIN, beth. 1993. Towards a lexical organization of English verbs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
LEVINSON, STEPHEN C. 1997. From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. Language and conceptualization, ed. by E. Pederson and J. Nuyts, 13-45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LEVINSON, STEPHEN C. 2000. Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
LI, CHARLES N., and SANDRA A. THOMPSON. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkley: University of California Press.
LI, PAUL JEN-KUEI. 1978. A comparative vocabulary of Saisiyat dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 49.133-99.
LI, PAUL JEN-KUEI. 1997. Taiwan nandao minzu de zucun yu ciansi (The ethnic group and migration of Formosan people). Taipei: Changmin.
LI, PAUL JEN-KUEI. 2006. Numerals in Formosan languages. Oceanic linguistics 45.133-52.
LICHTENBERK, FRANTISEK. 1985. Multiple uses of reciprocal situations. Australian Journal of Linguistics 5.19-41.
LIPKA, LEONHARD. 1987. Prototype Semantics or Features Semantics: An Alternative? Perspectives on language in performance, ed. by W. Lörscher and R. Schulze, 282-98. Tübingen: Niemeye.
LIU, FENG-HSI. 2001. The scalar particle HAI in Chinese. Cahiers de Linguistique- Asie Orientale 29.41-84.
LÖBNER, SEBASTIAN. 2002. Understanding semantics. London: Arnold.
LYONS, JOHN. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MACLAURY, ROBERT E. 1991. Prototypes revisited. Annual Review of Anthropology 20.55-74.
MALINOWSKI, BRONISLAW. 1938. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. The meaning of meaning, ed. by Charles K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, 296-336. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
MATTHEWSON, LISA. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70.369-415.
MITHUN, MARIANNE. 2001. Who shapes the record: The speaker and the linguist. Linguistic fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 34-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NERLICH, BRIGITTE, and DAVID D. CLARKE. 2003. Polysemy and flexibility: Introduction and overview. Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language, ed. by Brigitte Nerlich,Zazie Todd,Vimala Herman, and David D. Clarke, 3-10. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
PALMER, FRANK. 1976. Semantics: A new outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PALMER, FRANK. 2001. Mood and modality New York: Cambridge University Press.
PAN, WENGUO, and WAI MUN THAM. 2007. Contrastive linguistics. New York: Continuum.
PUSTEJOVSKY, JAMES. 1998. The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
RIEMER, NICK. 2001. Interpreting semantic extension: Metaphor and metonymy on different levels of lexical categorization. The 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Canberra, Australia
ROSCH, ELEANOR. 1978. Principles of categorization. Cognition and categorization, ed. by Eleanor Rosch and B. Lloyd, 27-48. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.
ROSCH, ELEANOR. 1983. Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. New trends in cognitive representation: Challenges to Piaget''s theory, ed. by E. Scholnick, 73-86. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ROSS, MALCOLM, and STACY FANG-CHING TENG. 2005. Formosan languages and linguistic typology. Languages and Linguistics 6.739-81.
RUHL, CHARLES. 1989. On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. Albany: State University of New York.
RUHL, CHARLES. 2002. Data, comprehensiveness, monosemy. Signal, meaning, and message: Perspectives on sign-based linguistics, ed. by Wallis Reid Ricardo Otheguy, and Nancy Stern. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
SAEED, JOHN. 1997. Semantics. Oxford ; Cambridge: Blackwell.
SAMARIN, WILLIAM J. 1967. Field linguistics: A guide to linguistic field work. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
SANDERS, TED J. M.; WILBERT P. M. SPOOREN; and LEO G. M. NOORDMAN. 1992. Toward a taxonomy of coherence relations. Discourse Processes 15.1-35.
SANFORD, ANTHONY, and SIMON GARROD. 1981. Understanding written language. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
SCHANK, ROGER C., and ROBERT ABELSON. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
SLOBIN, DAN I. 1996. From "thought to language" to "thinking for speaking". Rethinking linguistic relativity, ed. by J. John Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson, 70-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SPERBER, DANIEL, and DEIRDRE WILSON. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
STAROSTA, STANLEY. 1995. A grammatical subgrouping of Formosan languages. Austronesian studies relating to Taiwan, ed. by Paul Jen-kuei Li,Dah-an Ho,Ying-kuei Huang, and Cheng-hwa Tsang. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
SU, LILY I-WEN, and SHUPING HUANG. 2006. Polysemy and Categorization: Implications to Corpus Documentation. Streams Converging into An Ocean: Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Jen-Kuei Li on His 70th Birthday, ed. by Henry Y. Chang,Lillian M. Huang, and Dah-an He, 415-38. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
SU, LILY I-WEN. 1998. Grounding and coherence in Chinese discourse. Taipei: Crane.
SU, LILY I-WEN; LI-MAY SUNG; SHUPING HUANG; FUHUI HSIEH; and ZHEMIN LIN. forthcoming. NTU Corpus of Formosan Languages: A state-of-the-art report. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.
SWEETSER, EVE. 1986. Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary? Berkeley Linguistic Society 12.528-38.
SWEETSER, EVE. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TALMY, LEONARD. 1977. Rubber sheet cognition in language. Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society 13.612-28.
TALMY, LEONARD. 1978. The relation of grammar to cognition. Proceedings of TINLAP-2: Theoretical issues in natural language processing ed. by David Waltz, 14-24. Urbana: University of Illinois Coordinated Science Laboratory.
TALMY, LEONARD. 1983. How language structures space. Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, ed. by H. Pick and L. Acredolo, 225-82. New York: Plenum Press.
TALMY, LEONARD. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12.49-100.
TANNEN, DEBORAH, and CYNTHIA WALLET. 1993. Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction. Framing in discourse, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 57-76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
TAYLOR, JOHN. 1990. Schemas, prototypes, and models: In search of the unity of the sign. Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, ed. by Savas L. Tsohatzidis, 521-34. London; New York: Routledge.
TAYLOR, JOHN. 1995a. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory, 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
TAYLOR, JOHN. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
TAYLOR, JOHN. 2003. Polysemy''s paradoxes. Language Sciences 25.637-55.
TOMASELLO, MICHAEL. 2003. The key is social cognition. Language in mind, ed. by Dedre Gentener and Susan Goldin-Meadow, 47-57. Cambridge: MIT Press.
TRAUGOTT, ELIZABETH CLOSS, and RICHARD B. DASHER. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TRAUGOTT, ELIZABETH CLOSS. 1999. From subjectification to intersubjectification. the Workshop on Historical Pragmatics (14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics). Vancouver, Canada
TRAUGOTT, ELIZABETH CLOSS. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. Motives for language change, ed. by Raymond Hickey, 124-39. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
TSAI, HUI CHIN. 2006. Additive adverbs and coordinators in Chinese: A case study of ye ''also'', erqie ''and'' and he ''and''. UST Working Papers in Linguistics 2.67-95.
TSOHATZIDIS, SAVAS L. (ed.) 1990. Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization. London; New York: Routledge.
TUGGY, DAVID H. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 4.273-90.
TYLER, ANDREA, and VYVYAN EVANS. 2001. The relation between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: Non-temporal uses of tense and language teaching. Applied cognitive linguistics I: Theory and language acquisition, ed. by Martin Putz,Susanne Niemeier, and Rene Dirven, 63-108. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
TYLER, ANDREA, and VYVYAN EVANS. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TYLER, ANDREA, and VYVYAN EVANS. 2004. Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The case of over. Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching, ed. by Michel Achard and Susanne Niemeier, 257-80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
ULLMANN, STEPHEN. 1957. The principles of semantics, 2nd ed. Glasgow: Jackson.
ULLMANN, STEPHEN. 1972. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
UNGERER, FRIEDRICH, and HANS-JORG SCHMID. 1996. An introduction to cognitive linguistics. Essex: Longman.
VAN DER AUWERA, JOHAN, and VLADIMIR PLUNGIAN. 1998. Modality''s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2.79-124.
VAUX, BERT, and JUSTIN COPPER. 1999. Introduction to linguistic field methods. Munchen: Lincom.
VERVAEKE, JOHN, and CHRISTOPHER D. GREEN. 1997. Women, fire, and dangerous theories: A critique of Lakoff''s theory of categorization. Metaphor and Symbol 12.59-80.
WANG, LI. 1947. Zhongguo xiandai yufa (Modern Chinese grammar). Shanghai: Zhonghua Bookstore.
WEINREICH, URIEL. 1962. Problems in lexicography. International Journal of American Linguistics 28.25-43.
WIERZBICKA, ANNA. 1972. Semantic primitives. Frankfurt am Mein: Athenäum.
WIERZBICKA, ANNA. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WIERZBICKA, ANNA. 1999. Emotions across language and culture: Diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WIERZBICKA, ANNA. 2002. Semantic primes and linguistic typology. Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings, ed. by Cliff Goddard and Anna Wierzbicka, 257-301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
WILSON, DEIRDRE. 2000. Metarepresentation in linguistic communication. Metarepresentations, ed. by Daniel Sperber, 411-48. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG. 1963. Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.
YEH, MARIE M. 2000a. Saixiayu cankau yufa (A Reference Grammar of Saisiyat). Taipei: Yuanliu [in Chinese].
YEH, MARIE M. 2000b. Nominalization in Saisiyat. Paper presented at the Workshop on Nominalization in Formosan Languages. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
YEH, MARIE M. 2003. A syntactic and semantic study of Saisiyat verbs, Doctorate thesis. Graduate Institute of English, National Taiwan Normal University.
YEH, MENG. 1998. On hai in Mandarin. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 26.236-80.
ZEITOUN, ELIZABETH, and CHING-HUA YU. 2005. The Formosan Language Archive: Linguistic analysis and language processing. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 10.167-200.
ZEITOUN, ELIZABETH, and LILLIAN M. HUANG. 2000. Discussion on ka-: An overlooked marker of verbal derivation in the Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 39.391-414.
ZEITOUN, ELIZABETH. 2000. Dynamic vs. stative verbs in Mantauran (Rukai). Oceanic Linguistics 39.415-27.

Dictionaries
Jìaoyùbù Gúoyŭ Xĭao Zìdĭan (Miniature Dictionary of the Ministry of Education)
http://dict.mini.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gdic/gsweb.cgi?o=ddictionary
Gúoyŭrìbào Cídĭan (Mandarin Daily News Dictionary)
1978. Taipei: Mandarin Daily News.
Shìyi Xúesheng Cídĭan (Student Dictionary published by Shiyi Bookstore).
2005. Taipei: Shiyi Bookstore.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
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：740（臺灣：740，外國：0） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1855660 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67657634
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