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：中文條件句的認知語用研究:'要是' 和 '要不是'
作者：許訓銘
作者(外文)：Hsun-Ming Hsu
校院名稱：高雄師範大學
系所名稱：英語學系
指導教授：王萸芳
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2014
主題關鍵詞：反事實條件句；語法化；心理空間；後設言論；Counterfactuality；Grammaticalization；Mental Space；Metadiscourse
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(0) 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:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:25
中文摘要
本論文針對中文條件句標記「要是」和「要不是」進行對比分析，從語法化、心理空間和後設言談等理論來探討兩者使用功能上的差異。研究語料包括報紙新聞及一般會話。
本文發現兩者皆經歷語法化，但兩者語法化的過程不同。不同於「要是」，「要不是」是從「若不是」演變而來。由於語法化現象的發展不同，兩者的主觀性和交互主觀性也有所不同，此差異不僅造成兩者在條件句上出現頻率不同，也影響兩者在反事實條件句上使用的不對稱。
語法化的差異也導致兩者在反事實條件句中心理空間建構的不同。假設連詞「要不是」的使用否定了既成事實，直接構建了一個抽象虛擬的心理空間，而「要是」條件句則運用了時間指示詞和動貌標記等來表達與事實相反的思維，依賴語境來建構反事實的心理空間。
本文也對「要是」和「要不是」做為後設言談標記做比較分析。依據關聯理論，兩者的功能可以大致歸為四類：連接轉折標記、補充說明標記、緩和語氣標記、態度情感標記。本文發現「要是」在兩種篇章(書面語和口語)中，具有語篇功能和人際功能，然而「要不是」較少出現在口語篇章中，其人際功能也不如「要是」強。
關鍵詞: 反事實條件句，語法化，心理空間，後設言論
ABSTRACT
This dissertation reports the uses of Chinese conditional markers yaoshi and yaobushi, elaborating on their subtle differences and their functional complexity in Chinese written and spoken discourse. The database contains two sets of data: the newspaper corpus and naturally occurring conversation. Their idiosyncrasies are discussed and accounted for from the perspectives of grammaticalization, mental spaces, and metadiscourse.
The result obtained in the present study suggests that both yaoshi and yaobushi have undergone grammaticalization, but they show difference in the process of grammaticalization. Their development follows the general principles of grammaticalization (Traugott 1988, 1989), evolving from a major category to a minor one, from a lexical form to a grammatical one. Because of grammaticalization, their referential function is weakening and their pragmatic function is strengthened. However, different from the reanalysis of yaoshi, i.e., from [yao + shi] to [yaoshi], yaobushi may evolve from [ruo + bushi]. Ruo was gradually replaced by yao in modern colloquial Chinese after the grammaticalization of yao with the function of conditional marker. Their difference in grammaticalization, different subjectivity and intersubjectivity included, influences their performance in discourse and leads to their asymmetrical use in conditionals.
Because of their difference in grammaticalization, different mental space set-ups are involved when yaoshi and yaobushi are used in counterfactual conditionals. The counterfactual reading in yaobushi-marked conditional is naturally derived. On the other hand, in counterfactuals without bushi, counterfactuality is not signaled by the conditional marker yaoshi but rather by combinations of markers, including (past) temporal reference words and the perfective aspect marker le. Inferences from the real world knowledge and the cognitive ability of human beings are drawn to construct the mental space blending in yaoshi-marked counterfactuals.
This study has also identified various discourse-pragmatic functions of metadiscourse markers yaoshi and yaobushi. Both yaoshi and yaobushi display a range of textual and interpersonal functions, including logical connectives, topicalizers, interpretive markers, hedges, and attitude markers. From the relevance-theoretical perspective, they serve as markers of transition, elaboration, mitigation, and emotion. The most common and general function they serve in both discourse types is to organize the discourse as a coherent and well-organized text. However, we note that yaoshi has a stronger tendency than yaobushi toward interpersonal reading. Yaoshi is used more often than yaobushi in that it is more (inter-)subjective, addressee-oriented, and interactive-based.
Key words: counterfactuality, grammaticalization, mental space, metadiscourse
References

Akatsuka, N. 1986. Conditionals are discourse-bound. In Traugott, E. C. et al. (eds.), On Conditionals, 333-352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Athanasiadou, A. &; R. Dirven, (eds.), 1997. On Conditional Again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Au, T. K.-F. 1984. Counterfactuals: in reply to Alfred Bloom. Cognition 17:289-302.
Azar, B. 1989. Understanding and Using English Grammar (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Beauvais, P. 1989. A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication 61:11-30.
Beck, D. 2002. The Typology of Parts of Speech Systems: The Markedness of Adjectives. New York: Routledge.
Biq, Y.-O. 1987. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Cai and Jiu in Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Big, Y.-O. 1988. From focus in proposition to focus in speech situation: cai and jiu in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 16(1): 72-108.
Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom, A. 1981. The Linguistic Shaping of Thought: A Study in the Impact of Language on Thinking in China and the West. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bloom, A. 1984. Caution—the words you use may affect what you say: a response to Au. Cognition 17: 275-287.
Brinton, L. J. &; E. C. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G. &; G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P &; S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. R. Perkins &; W. Paliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cao, L.-M. 2007. A Study of Chinese Counterfactual If-Conditionals from a Cognitive Perspective. M.A. Thesis. Chongqing University.
Chang, J.-H. 2001. The Syntax of Event Structure in Chinese. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i dissertation.

Chang, Y.-S. 2003. “副詞 + 是” 的歷時演化和共時變異. [The diachronic development and synchronic variation of adverb +shi]. 語言科學 [Language Science]: 2003 (04).
Chao, Y.-R. 1959. “How Chinese logic operates.” In Answer S. Dil (ed.). Aspect of Chinese Sociolinguistics: Essays by Yuen-Ren Chao, 250-259. Standford: Standford University Press.
Chao, Y.-R. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Chen, G. 1988. Ying han jiashe tiaojianju bijiao [A formal description of Chinese expressions of hypothetical conditionals in comparison with English]. Waiyu Jiaoxue yu Yenjiu [Foreign Language Teaching and Research: A Quarterly of Foreign Languages and Cultures] 73: 10-18.
Chen, H.-H. 2006. Discourse Function of Chinese Complementizer and Discourse Marker Shuo. M.A. Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Chou, C.-L. 2000. Chinese Speakers’ Acquisition of English Conditionals:
Acquisition Order and L1 Transfer Effects. Second Language Studies 19(1): 57-98.
Comrie, B. 1986. Conditionals: A Typology. In Traugott E. C. et al (eds.), On Conditionals 77-102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S. 2001. Semantic Leaps: Frame Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulson, S. &; T. Oakley. 2005. Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1510-1536.
Crismore, A. 1989. Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York: Peter Lang.
Croft, W. &; D. A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dafouz, E. 2003. Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse. Estudio Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 11: 29-52.
Dafouz, E. 2008. The Pragmatic Role of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in the Construction and Attainment of Persuasion: A Cross-linguistic Study of Newspaper Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 95-113.
Dancygier, B. 1993. Interpreting conditionals: Time, Knowledge and Causation. Journal of Pragmatics 19: 403-434.
Dancygier, B. 1998. Conditionals and Prediction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Dancygier, B. 2006. What can blend do for you? Language and Literature 15(1): 5-15.
Dancygier, B. &; E. Sweetser. 1996. Conditionals, distancing, and alternative spaces.
In A. E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 83-98. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Dancygier, B. &; E. Sweetser. 1997. Then in conditional constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 8(2): 109-36.
Dancygier, B. &; E. Sweetser. 2000. Constructions with if, since, and because: Casuality, epistemic stance, and clause order. In E. Couper-Kuhlen &; B. Kortmann (eds.), Cause, Condition, Concession and Contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 111-142. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dancygier, B. &; E. Sweetser. 2005. Mental Space in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dong, X.-F. 2004. 漢語的詞庫與詞法 [Chinese Lexicon and Morphology]. Beijing:
Beijing University. Press.
Eifring, H. 1988. “The Chinese Counterfactuals”. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 16:193-217.
Fauconnier, G. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 6(3): 353-375.
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental Spaces. 2nd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. &; E. Sweetser. 1996. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Fauconnier, G. &; M. Turner. 1998. Conceptual integration network. Cognitive Science 22: 133-187.
Fauconnier, G. &; M. Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Ferguson, C. A., J. S. Reilly, A. ter Meulen, &; E. C. Traugott. 1986. Overview. In Traugott, E. C. et al. (eds.), On Conditionals, 3-20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillenbaum, S. 1986. Conditionals in discourse: a text-based study from English. In Traugott, E. C. et al (eds.), On Conditionals, 179-195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. 1990. Epistemic Stance of Grammatical Forms in English Conditional Sentences. Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society 1: 137-162.
Ford, C. E. &; S. A. Thompson 1986. Conditionals in discourse: a text-based study from English. In Traugott, E. C. et al. (eds.), On Conditional, 353-372. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, C. E. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, C. E. 1997. Speaking conditionally: Some contexts for if-clauses in conversation. In A. Athanasiadou &; R. Dirven. (eds.) On Conditional Again, 387-414. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Geis, M. L. &; A. M. Zwicky. 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistics Inquiry 2: 561-566.
Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to face behavior. New York: Doubleday.
Grice, H. O. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole &; J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, 43-58. New York: Academic Press.
Haiman, J. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 53(4): 564-589.
Haiman, J. 1980. Hau: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Halliday, M. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Armold.
Halliday, M. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
Halliday, M. &; R. Hasan. 2001. Cohesion in English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
HanYing CiDian (Chinese-English Dictionary). 1981. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan (Commerical Press).
Heine, B., U. Claudi &; F. Hunnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Herring, S. 1991. The grammaticalization of rhetorical questions in Tamil. In E. C. Traugott &; B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization. vol.1: 253-284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hopper, P. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In E, C. Traugott &; B. Heine. (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization. 17-35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hopper, P. &; E. C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, P. &; E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization (2nd ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hsiao, C.-H. 2005. Hypotheticality and Politeness in Discourse: A case study of ruguo, ruguo…de-hua, and de-hua constructions. Paper presented at 2005 National Conference on Linguistics.
Huang, C.-H. 2012. Grammaticalization of Yao in Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-based Approach. M.A. Thesis. National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.
Hyland, K. 1998. Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 437-455.
Hyland, K. 1999. Talking to students: metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes (1): 3-26.
Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 13:133-151.
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse. Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum, Oxford.
Hyland, K. &; P. Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2): 156-177.
Ifantidou, E. 2005. The Sematics and Pragmatics of Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1325-1353.
Intaraprawat, P &; S. Margaret. 1995. The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing 4: 253-272.
Jackson, F. 1991. Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ji, M.-L. 2009. A Study on “Yao-X” conjunctions in Mandarin Chinese. M.A. Thesis. Yanbian University, China.
Kuo, C.-H. 2006. The Information Status and Discourse Functions of Conditionals in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Georgetown University.
Lai, H.-L. 1995. Rejected Expectations: The Two-time-related Scalar Particles CAI and JIU in Mandarin Chinese. PhD Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.
Lai, H.-L. 1999. Rejected expectations: The two time-related scalar particles CAI and JIU in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics 37(4): 625-61.
Lai, K.-W. 2010. The Pragmatic Function of Conditionals in Mandarin Chinese. M.A. Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Lakoff, G. 1987/ 1996. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. &; M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In Charles, L. (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 57-149. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Langacker, R. 1997. A dynamic account of grammatical function. In Bybee, J., J. Haiman &; S. A. Thompson (ed.) Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lasersohn, P. 1996. Adnominal Conditionals. In T. Galloway &; J. Spence (eds.). Proceedings of Semantics and Lingusitic Theory VI. Cornell: Cornell Linguistic Club, 154-166.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In F. R. Palmer (ed.), Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honor of Sir John Lyons. 90-115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meaning: The Theory of Generalized Conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Li, C. N. &; S. A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference
Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, B. 1995. Counterfactual Sentences in Chinese and the Interpretation of their Counterfactuality. M.A. Thesis. Michigan State University.
Liu, Z. 2012. A Contrastive Study of Chinese and American Newspaper Editorials from the Perspective of Metadiscourse. M.A. Thesis. Shanxi Normal University.
Ma, B.-J. 2002. 「要」的語法化Yao de Yufahua [Grammaticalization of Yao]. Linguistic Study. 2002(4): 81-87.
Quirk, R. S. Greenbaum, G. Leech &; J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Ramsay, V. 1987. The functional distribution of preposed and postposed “if” and “when” clauses in written discourse. In Tomlin, R. S. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 383-408. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schiffrin, D. 1994. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schwenter, S. A. (1988). The Pragmatics of Conditional Marking: Implicature, Scalarity, and Exclusivity. Unpublished Dissertation. San Francisco: Stanford University.
Sperber, D. &; Wilson D. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D. &; Wilson D. 2004. Relevance Theory. In Ward, G. &; L. Horn. (eds), Handbook of Pragmatics 607-632. Oxford: Blackwell.
Su, Lily I.-W. 1998. Grounding and Coherence in Chinese Discourse. Taipei: Crane
Publishing.
Su, Lily I.-W. 2005. Conditional reasoning as a reflection of mind. Language and
Linguistics 6(4): 655-680.
Su, S.-H. 2009. Semantic Evolution and a Sense Network Model of Polysemous Adverbs in Chinese: The Case of Cai and Jiu. PhD Dissertation. University of Hawai’i.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural
Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, E. 1996. Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions. In
G.. Fauconnier &; E. Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Tai, James H.-Y. 1985. Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 49-72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Taylor, J. 1997. Conditionals and polarity. In A. Athanasiadou &; R. Dirven, (eds.), On Conditionals Again. 289-306.
Tenbrink, T. &; F. Schilder. 2003. (Non)Temporal concept conveyed by before, after, and then in dialogue. In P. Kuhnlein, H. Rieser &; H. Zeevat (eds.), Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium, 350-378. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thompson, G. 2001. Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 58-78.
Traugott, E. C., A. ter Meulen, J. S. Reilly, &; C. A. Ferguson, (eds.) 1986. On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. 1985. Conditional Markers. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 289-307. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistic Society 14: 406-416.
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65:31-55.
Traugott, E. C. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In D. Stein &; S. Wright (eds.), Language, Subjectivity and Subjectification. 31-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. 1999. From Subjectification to Intersubjectification. Paper presented at the Workshop on Historical Pragmatics, 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, Canada.
Traugott, E. C. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. D. Joseph &; R. D. Janda, (ed.). A Handbook of Historical Linguistics. 624-647. Oxford: Blackwell.
Traugott, E. C. &; B. Heine. (eds.) 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2 vols.
Traugott, E.C. &; R. B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, M. 1996. The Literary Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
van Der Auwera, J. 1986. Conditionals and speech acts. In E. C. Traugott, et al. (eds.) On Conditionals. 197-214. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Y.-F. 2006. The information structure of adverbial clauses in Chinese discourse. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 4(1): 49-88.
Wang, Y.-F. 2012. The textual and pragmatic (interpersonal) functions of (yao)buran, yaobu, and fouze in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Chinese Language Teaching (2011, Dec, 25-27), Taipei.
Wu, H.-F. 1994. “If triangles were circles,…” –A Study of Counterfactuals in Chinese
and in English. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Xie, X.-D. 2010. On the Lexicalization and Grammaticalization of YAOSHUO. M.A. Thesis. Zhejiang Normal University.
Xu, L.-J. 2004. 英漢條件句: if 與 “如果” 和 “如果說”.[English and Chinese conditionals: if vs. “ruguo” and “ruguoshuo”] Journal of Foreign
Languages 3: 44-50.
Xu, L.-J. 2005. If 條件句分類再研究 [A Further Study on Classification of if-Conditionals in Chinese]. Journal of Sichuan International Studies
2: 64-69.
Xu, L.-J. 2008. 英語If 條件句主觀化模式的建構. [Subjectification in English if-conditionals]. Journal of Foreign Language 31(1): 1104-5139.
Yang, Gloria F.-P. 2007. A Cognitive Approach to Mandarin Conditionals. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
Yang, J. 2003. Back to the basic: the basic function of particle LE in modern Chinese. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 38(1): 77-96.
Yeh, H.-C. 2000. Temporal and conditional clauses in Chinese spoken discourse: A
functional-based study. In 14th Pacific Asia Conference on Language,
Information and Computation, 365-376.
You, H.-Y. 1998. Some speculations on the semantic change of Chinese modal verb “yao”. 文山評論. 1(2): 161-175.
Zhao, X. &; R.-Y. Liou 2006. 除非條件句的語意與語用分析 Chufei Tiao-jian Ju de Yu-yi yu Yu-yong Fenxi [A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis on Unless-Construction].
Zhu, D.-X. 1998. 語法講義Yufa Jiangyi [Lectures on Grammar]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.


 
 
 
 
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：837（臺灣：837，外國：0） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1972506 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67773910
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