:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:從空間到時間:臺灣閩南語時間起點之概念化研究
作者:郭永松
校院名稱:國立新竹教育大學
系所名稱:臺灣語言與語文教育研究所
指導教授:葉美利
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2013
主題關鍵詞:概念化時間起點認知空間臺灣閩南語語意conceptualizationtemporal inceptioncognitionspaceTaiwanese Southern Minsemantics
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:17
本論文的主要目的是透過臺灣閩南語時間起點介詞,即「對(ui3)」、「對(tui3)」、「按」、「自」、「從(tsiong5)」與「從(tsing5)」的語法及語意表現,探討此語言是藉由何種認知歷程與概念化機制來產生時間起點概念。臺灣閩南語的時間起點概念可以利用多種介詞來表達並且這些介詞亦同時具有空間意義,在此基礎上,本論文除了研究各時間起點介詞如何在空間概念的基礎上擴展出時間起點概念外,亦同時探究各時間起點介詞在時間與空間的語意上有何差異性。為了探討上述議題,本論文以概念隱喻理論、換喻理論、意象圖式理論、動態注意理論與語法化理論等用以闡釋概念化歷程的相關認知語言學理論作為主要的理論框架,並且採用建立在認知語意學、認知語法學與語料庫量化分析等基礎上的研究方法。
在時間起點介詞的時間語意研究方面,本論文發現各時間起點介詞在時間語意功能方面具有相似性與相異性。前者主要表現在所有的時間起點介詞都具有引介時間起點概念的核心語意並且涵蘊情境的持續存在或陸續發生。再者,基於概念結構的限制,所有的時間起點介詞都傾向於不與有終事件共現。後者則表現在各時間起點介詞其賓語類型的型態、意義的強化型態和與其他詞語的共現情況上都有所不同,反映出各時間起點介詞在「高強制解讀性」、「專指『過去』」、「高持續性」與「『極早』語意涵蘊」等概念屬性上的差異。這種差異性也同時驗證了語言的經濟性與功能性。
在時間起點介詞的空間語意研究方面,本論文發現各時間起點介詞的空間語意亦具有某種程度的相似性與相異性。這些特性表現在幾個方面:首先,「對(tui3)」/「對(ui3)」與「按」其共時層次的空間意義具有較高的分布頻率,而「自」與「從(tsiong5)」/「從(tsing5)」則否。其中,「對(ui3)」傾向於引介空間起點,而「對(tui3)」與「按」則傾向於引介空間終點。其次,「對(tui3)」/「對(ui3)」與「按」都具有分別引介空間起點、路徑與終點的介詞性語意,並且在映射空間起點概念時,其與動詞的相對詞序都遵循著「時間順序原則」。此種肖像性亦藉由概念隱喻映射至時間域。再者,「對(tui3)」/「對(ui3)」與「按」的動詞性本義在水平性、垂直性與面對性等語意屬性上具有差異性,這些語意屬性會滯留在介詞性語意上而使這些介詞的空間語意產生差異。
在跨時空認知域的概念化研究方面,本論文發現雖然大部分的時間起點介詞都透過動態注意、概念換喻或概念隱喻等認知機制而從本義擴展出時間起點概念,並且其概念擴展大都符合「「人」/「物體」→ 「空間」→ 「時間」」、「「具體概念」→「抽象概念」」或是「「時間關係」→ 「非時間關係」」等具有語言普遍性的語法化歷程,但是各時間起點介詞在共時層面的跨時空概念化歷程仍具有差異性。首先,「對(tui3)」/「對(ui3)」與「按」在概念化過程中所產生的空間意義仍然保留在現今的臺灣閩南語中,然而「自」與「從(tsiong5)」/「從(tsing5)」的空間意義則已經大幅的削弱或消失。其次,「自」在概念化歷程中並沒有擴展出「引介空間終點」的語意而與其他介詞不同。此外,相較於其他時間起點介詞都具有動詞性本義並涉及動態注意的認知機制,「自」只具有代詞性的本義並且不涉及動態注意機制。
此外,藉由對古漢語進行歷時角度的語法化探討,我們一方面驗證了上述臺灣閩南語時間起點概念在共時層面的概念化歷程,另一方面也發現了臺灣閩南語某些時間起點介詞在概念化歷程上的特異性:(一)「對」的「「引介空間路徑」→「引介空間起點」→「引介時間起點」」概念化歷程與「按」的「「引介空間起點」→「引介時間起點」」等概念化歷程都是在臺灣閩南語內部產生的,而非古漢語的滯留。(二)「從」在臺灣閩南語中缺乏「引介空間終點」語意的現象是因為其在上古漢語所產生的該義項已在臺灣閩南語中丟失所致。
綜合以上所述,本論文的研究一方面發現了臺灣閩南語藉由空間概念來概念化時間起點概念的普遍性與特異性,並且釐清了時間起點介詞在語意與語法上的相似性與相異性,另一方面也驗證了語法、語意與認知三者之間的緊密聯繫。
This dissertation aims to explore the conceptualization of temporal inception in Taiwanese Southern Min by investigating the syntax and semantics of the prepositions expressing temporal inception, viz., ui3對, tui3對, an3按, tsu7自, tsiong5從and tsing5從. Given that these prepositions can express spatial meanings as well, we probe not only the paths and mechanisms of conceptualization from spatial to temporal domain but also the semantic differences among these prepositions.
Following the theoretical framework of cognitive linguistics and the methodology of corpus-based analyses, this dissertation makes some main discoveries related to the temporal and spatial semantic structures and the conceptualization from space to time. In respect of temporal semantic structures, the prepositions expressing temporal inception manifest both similarities and differences. The most obvious similarity lies in the fact that these prepositions share identical core meaning of temporal inception and semantic implication of situational continuance. With this remarkable similarity, there are still temporal semantic differences among those prepositions which reflect their different patterns of conceptual features. These divergences are in accordance with the principles of economy and functionality of languages. With respect to spatial semantic structures, these temporal inception prepositions show differences in the distribution frequency and direction designated. Concretely speaking, the distribution frequencies of spatial meanings designated by ui3對, tui3對 and an3按 are higher than those denoted by tsu7自, tsiong5從and tsing5從. Regarding the direction designated, in opposition to ui3對 which tends to indicating spatial inception, tui3對 and an3按 tend to designate spatial termination. Concerning the conceptualization from space to time, based on the investigation from the synchronic and diachronic perspectives, temporal inception of these prepositions arises from their original meaning via such cognitive mechanisms as dynamic attention, metaphor or metonymy though there are varieties resulting from differences in original meaning.
In conclusion, this dissertation found the universality and idiosyncrasies on the conceptualization of temporal inception in Taiwanese Southern Min. The results not only reflected the unidirectionality of grammaticalization from the cognitive perspectives but also accounted for the semantic connections between spatial and temporal domain. Finally, this dissertation exemplified the close relationship among syntactic, semantic and cognitive structures which is the main concern of cognitive grammars and non-autonomous theory of syntax.
英文參考書目
Biq, Y.-O. 1988. From focus in proposition to focus in
speech situation: cai and jiu in Mandarin Chinese.
Journal of Chinese Linguistics 16:72-108.
Biq, Y.-O., J. Tai, and S. Thompson. 1996. Recent
Developments in Functional Approaches to Chinese. In C.-
T. J. Huang and Y.-H. A. Li (Eds.), New Horizons in
Chinese Linguistics. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 97-140.
Boroditsky, L. 2000. Metaphoric Structuring: Understanding
time through spatial metaphors. Cognitio (75), 1-28.
Bybee, J. L. 2002. Cognitive processes in
grammaticalization. In M. Thomasello, editor, The New
Psychology of Language,volume II. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc..
Casasanto, D. & Boroditsky, L. 2008. Time in the Mind:
Using space to think about time. Cognition (106), 579–
593.
Chu, C. 1976. Some semantic aspects of action verbs. Lingua
40. 43-54.
Clark, H. H. 1973. Space, time, semantics, and the child.
In Timothy E. Moore. (ed), Cognitive Development and the
Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press, 27-63.
Clausner, Timothy & Croft, William. 1999. Domain and
image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics. 10(1): 1-31.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1986. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Croft, William. 1993. The role of domains in the
interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive
Linguistics 4 (4): 335-370.
Croft, William. 1998. Linguistic evidence and mental
representations. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 151-73.
Croft, William, & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive
Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dirven, Ren. 2005. Major strands in cognitive linguistics.
In Ruiz de Mendoza Ib nez, Francisco J., and M. Sandra
Pena Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal D
ynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 17-68.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument
Selection. Language 67(3). 547-619.
Evans, Vyvyan. 2003. The Structure of Time: Language, M
Meaning, and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Evans, Vyvyan and Green, Melanie. 2006. Cognitive
Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame Semantics. In The
Linguistics Society of Korea, ed., Linguistics in the
Morning Calm, 111-138. Seoul: Hanshin.
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative
thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W. & Herbert Colston. 1995. The cognitive
psychological reality of image schemas and their
transformations. Cognitive Linguistics 6 (4): 347-378.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction
Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Grady, Joseph E. 1997. THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited.
Cognitive Linguistics8:267-90.
Grady, Joseph E. 1998. “The conduit metaphor” revisited:
a reassessment of metaphors for communication. Bridging
the gap: discourse and cognition, ed. Jean-Pierre Koenig,
205-18. Stanford, Calif.: Center for the Study of
Language and Information.
Haiman, John. 1980. The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism
and Motivation. Language, Vol 56: 515-540.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. From space to time: Temporal
adverbials in the world’s languages. (Lincom Studies in
Theoretical Linguistics, 3.) Munich & Newcastle: Lincom
Europa
Heine, B., Ulrike Claudi, and F. Hunnemeyer. 1991.
Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Herskovits Annette. 1986. Language and spatial cognition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of
grammaticization. Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 217-
36.
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1993.
Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: the bodily basis
of reasons and imagination. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 107-46.
Kathleen Ahrens and Chu-Ren Huang. 2002. Time Passing Is
Motion. Language and Linguistics 3.3: 491-519.
Lai, Huei-ling. 2002. The grammaticalization of the verb DO
in Hakka. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 30.2: 370-391.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor.
In A. Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp.202-
251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live
By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 2003 [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:
University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar. Vol.1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Congnitive
Linguistics 1: 5-38.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar. Vol.Ⅱ, Descriptive Application. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. Reference-point constructions,
Cognitive Linguistics 4 (1): 1-38.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000 [1999]. Grammar and
Conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. Dynamicity in grammar. In
Axiomathes 12: 7-33.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The
Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. Ten Lectures on Cognitive
Grammar By Ronald Langacker. Gao Yuan and Li Fuyin
(eds.). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research
Press.
Levin, Beth. 1993. Verb Classes and Alternation. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1981. Mandarin
Chinese: a Functional Reference Grammar. University of
California Press.
Lien, Chinfa. 2000. A Frame-based Account of Lexical
Polysemy in Taiwanese. Language and Linguistics 1.1: 119-
138.
Light, Timothy. 1979. Word order and word order change in
Mandarin Chinese. JCL 7, 149-180.
Lin, Jo-wang. 2006. Time in a language Without Tense: The
case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics 23: 1-53.
Liu, Mei-Chun. 1994. Discourse Explanations for the Choice
of Jiu and Cai in Mandarin Conversation. Chinese
Languages and Linguistics 2. 671-709. Taipei: Academia
Sinica.
Liu, Mei-Chun. 2002. Mandarin Verbal Semantics: A Corpus-
based Approach. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal of
Semantics 12: 109-32.
Núñez R. 2007. Inferential Statistics in the Context of
Empirical Cognitive Linguistics. In: M González-Márquez,
I Mittelberg, S Coulson, & M Spivey (Eds.), Methods
in Cognitive Linguistics, 87-118. Philadelphia PA: John
Benjamins.
Núñez, R. & Sweetser, E. 2006. With the Future Behind
Them : Convergent Evidence From Aymara Language and
Gesture in the Crosslinguistic Comparison of Spatial
Construals of Time. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 401-450.
Oakley, Todd. 2007. Image schema. In Dirk Geeraerts and
Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics, 214-235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peyraube, Alain. 1994. On the History of Chinese Locative
Prepositions. Zhongguo Jing Nei Yuyan ji Yuyan Xue 2: 361-
387.
Peyraube, Alain. 1996. Recent Issues in Chinese Historical
Syntax. In New Horizon in Chinese Linguistics, C–T James
Huang, and Y.–H. Audrey Li (eds.), 161-214. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.。
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon.
Cambridge. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Radden, Günter. 2003. The Metaphor TIME AS SPACE across
Languages. Baumgarten, Nicole/Böttger, Claudia/Motz,
Markus/Probst, Julia (eds.), Übersetzen, Interkulturelle
Kommunikation, Spracherwerb und Sprach-vermittlung - das
Leben mit mehreren Sprachen. Festschrift für Juliane
House zum 60. Geburtstag. Zeitschrift für
Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht [Online], 8
(2/3). 1-14.
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic.
London: Macmillan.
Smith, Carlota S. 1990. Event types in Mandarin.
Linguistics, Vol. 28, pp.309-336.
Smith, Carlota S. 2006. The pragmatics and semantics of
temporal meaning. In P. Denis, E. McCready, A. Palmer, &
B. Reese (eds), Proceedings, Texas Linguistics Forum
2004. Cascadilla Press. In press.
Smith, Carlota S. and Mary S. Erbaugh 2001. Temporal
information in sentences of Mandarin. In Xu Liejiong and
Shao Jingmin, editors in chief; editors K.K. Luke, Shao
Jingmin, Shan Zhourao and Xu Liejiong New Views in
Chinese Syntactic Research -- International Symposium on
Chinese Grammar for the New Millenium. Hangzhou: Zhejiang
Jiaoyu Chuban she.
Smith, Carlota S. and Mary S. Erbaugh 2005. Temporal
interpretation in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics, Vol. 43,
no.4: 713-756.
Sweetser, E. 1984. Semantic structure and semantic change:
A cognitive linguistic study of modality, perception,
speech acts, and logical relations. Doctoral
dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Sweetser, E. 1991. From Etymology to Pragmatics:
Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tai, James H.-Y. 1984. Verbs and times in Chinese:
Vendler‟s four categories. Papers from the Parasession on
Lexical Semantics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society,
289-296.
Tai, James H.-Y. 1985. Temporal sequence and word order. In
John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 49-72.
Tai, James H.-Y. 1989. Toward a cognition-based functional
grammar of Chinese. Functionalism and Chinese Grammar,
ed. by H-Y. Tai and Frank Hsueh, 187-226. South Orange:
Chinese Language Teachers Association.
Tai, James H.-Y. 1993. Iconicity: Motivations in Chinese
Grammar. In M. Eid and G. Iverson (eds.) Principles and
prediction: The Analysis of Natural Language.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tai, James H.-Y. 2005. Conceptual structure and
conceptualizations in Chinese grammar. Language and
Linguistics 6.4: 539-574.
Talmy, Leonard. 1972. Semantic structures in English and
Atsugewi. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics,
University of California, Berkeley.
Talmy, Leonard. 1977. Rubber sheet cognition in language.
Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago
Linguistic Society, ed. Woodford A. Beach et al., 612-28.
Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Talmy, Leonard. 1981. Force dynamics. Paper presented at
conference on Language and Mental Imagery, University
of California, Berkeley.
Talmy, Leonard. 1983. How language structures space. In
Herbert L. Pick and Linda P. Acredolo (eds.), Spatial
Orientation: Theory, Research and Application, 225-282.
New York: Plenum Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and
cognition. Cognitive Science 12, 49-100.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. I
& Vol. II. Cambridge:
Taylor, J. R. 1989. Linguistic Categorization:Prototypes
in Linguistic Theory. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Taylor, J. R. 2002. Category extension by metonymy and
metaphor. In Rene Dirven and Ralf Porings (eds.) Metaphor
and Metonomy in Comparison and Constrast, 323-347.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Traugott, E. C. 1978. On the expression of spatio-temporal
relations in language. In J. H. Greenberg. (ed),
Universals of Human Language. III. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 369-400.
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in
English: An example of subjectification in semantic
change. Language 57: 33-65.
Traugott, E. C. 1995. Subjectification in
grammaticalization. In Dieter Stein and Susan Wright,
eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 37-54.
Tsao, Feng-fu and Ting-Ting Hsu. 2005. Chinese “Dui” and
its Grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICAL-13.
Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands, Jun. 9-11, 2005.
Turner, Mark. 1990. Aspects of the invariance hypothesis.
Cognitive Linguistics 1:247-55.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. 2003. The semantics of English
prepositions: spatial scenes, embodied meanings, and
cognition. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell
University Press.
Wang, Fu-mei. 2002. From a Motion Verb to an Aspect Marker:
A Study of Guo in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies
in English Literature and Linguistics 28.2:57-84.
Wu, Hsiao-Ching. 2003. A Case Study on the
Grammaticalization of GUO in Mandarin Chinese- Polysemy
of the Motion Verb with Respect to Semantic Changes.
Language and Linguistics 4.4: 857-885.
Wu, Jiun-Shiung. 2007. Semantic Difference between the Two
Imperfective Markers in Mandarin and Its Implications on
Temporal Relations. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 35.2:
372-398.
Wu, Jiun-Shiung. 2009. Aspectual Influence on Temporal
Relations: A Case Study of the Experiential Guo in
Mandarin. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 7.2: 1-24.
Wu, Jiun-Shiung. 2010. Interactions between Aspect and
Temporal Relations: A Case Study of the Perfective le.
Language and Linguistics 11.1: 65-98.
Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A
Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

中文參考書目
中國社會科學院語言研究所古代漢語研究室(主編). 1999.《古代漢語虛詞詞典》。北京:北京商務印書館。
王力. 1980.《漢語史稿》。北京:中華書局。
王鴻賓. 2007.〈介詞“自/從”歷時考〉,《上海師範大學學報》,第36卷第1期。
石毓智. 1995.〈時間的一維性對介詞衍生的影響〉,《中國語文》,1995年第1期。
吳守禮 (編). 2000.《國台語對照活用辭典》。台北:遠流出版社。
呂叔湘. 1980.《現代漢語八百詞》。北京:北京商務印書館。
李福印. 2008.《認知語言學槪論》。北京:北京大學出版社。
沈家煊. 1999.〈轉指和轉喻〉,《當代語言學》,第1期。
周芍、邵敬敏. 2006.〈試探介詞‚對‛的語法化過程〉,《語文研究》,2006年01期。
邱秀華. 1997.《國語中“時間就是空間”的隱喻》。國立中正大學語言學研究所碩士論文。
邱湘雲. 2008.〈客家話「打」字語法化初探〉,《彰化師大國文學誌》,第十六期。
馬貝加. 1999.〈處所介詞“向”的產生及其發展〉,《語文研究》,1999年第1期。
馬貝加. 2002.《近代漢語介詞》。北京:中華書局。
馬貝加、徐曉萍. 2002.〈時處介詞“從”的產生及其發展〉,《溫州師範學院學報》,第23卷第5期。
224
張敏. 1997.〈從類型學和認知語法的角度看漢語重疊現象〉,《外國語言學》,第2期,37-45頁。
張會蘭. 2009.《“從”類介詞研究》,華東師範大學對外漢語學院對外漢語系碩士論文。
張瓊云. 2011.《從時間即是空間的隱喻關係看閩南語的時間詞》。國立新竹教育大學臺灣語言與語文教育研究所碩士論文。
張麗麗. 2003.〈動詞複合與象似性〉,《語言暨語言學》4.1: 1-27。new window
曹逢甫、蔡中立、劉秀瑩. 2001.《身體與譬喻:語言與認知的首要介面》。台北:文鶴出版公司。new window
梁炯輝. 2009.〈臺灣閩南語語言源流與特色-以唐詩、三字經為例〉。未出版。
連金發. 1999.〈臺灣閩南語‘頭’的構詞方式〉,《第五屆中國境內語言暨語言學國際研討會論文集》。台北:中研院語言所籌備處:289-309頁。new window
郭進屘. 2008.〈閩南語和現代漢語的部分結構:可接近性和整體性〉。行政院國家科學委員會補助計畫。
陳修 (編). 2003.《台灣話大辭典》。台北:遠流出版社。
陸丙甫. 2011.〈重度-標誌對應律--兼論功能動因的語用性落實和語法性落實〉,《中國語文》,2011年第4期。
程祥徽、田小琳. 1992.《現代漢語》。台北:書林出版有限公司。
楊秀芳. 1991.《台灣閩南語語法稿》。台北:大安出版社。
楊秀芳. 2000.〈方言本字研究的觀念與方法〉,《漢學研究,18卷特刊,臺灣語言學的創造力專號》,111-146頁。new window
225
楊蕙菁. 2004.《「過」字語法化研究》。靜宜大學中國文學研究所碩士論文。
董忠司 (主編). 2000.《台灣閩南語辭典》。台北:五南出版公司。
董忠司 (主編). 2001.《福爾摩沙的烙印─臺灣閩南語概要(上冊)》。台北:行政院文化建設委員會。new window
董為光. 2004.〈介詞“打”來源補說〉,《語言研究》,2004年第24卷第1期。
趙元任. 1968. 丁邦新譯.《中國話的文法》。台北:臺灣學生書局。
劉子瑜. 2011.〈《朱子語類》中的“從”字介賓結構研究-兼論介詞“從”的起源和發展〉。第七屆海峽兩岸漢語語法史研討會論文。浙江師範大學。
劉平. 2006.〈古漢語中虛詞“自”的語法化歷程 〉,《蘭州教育學院學報》,2006年第2期。
劉瑞紅. 2008.〈介詞“自”和“從”歷時比較簡析〉,《北京教育學院學報》,第22卷第2期。
蔡依恬. 2005.《上下古今、承前啟後: 探究不同語言裡,對「時間」的思考方式》。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文。
鄭良偉 (編) . 1997.《台、現代漢語的時空、疑問與否定》。台北:遠流出版公司。
鄧守信. 1985.〈漢語動詞的時間結構〉,《語言教學與研究》,1985年第4期:7-17頁。new window
戴浩一. 2002.〈概念結構與非自主性語法:漢語語法概念系統初探〉,《當代語言學》4.1:1-12。
戴浩一. 2007.〈中文構詞與句法的概念結構〉,《現代漢語文教學研究》4.1:1-30。new window
226

網路資料

線上辭典
《在線新華字典》http://tool.httpcn.com/Html/Zi/24/PWKOUYTBUYUYCAZD.shtml
《教育部重編國語辭典修訂本》http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/
《臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典》http://twblg.dict.edu.tw/holodict_new/index.html
《線上台日大辭典》http://minhakka.ling.sinica.edu.tw/bkg/e-kha.php?kin=16& gi_gian=hoa

線上語料庫
中央研究院「古漢語語料庫」 http://hanji.sinica.edu.tw/
中央研究院「現代漢語平衡語料庫」 http://db1x.sinica.edu.tw/kiwi/mkiwi/
《荔鏡記(嘉靖本)》http://cls.hs.yzu.edu.tw/lm/origin1/all_Text.ASP
楊允言「台語文語料庫」 http://iug.csie.dahan.edu.tw/TG/guliaukhou/
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE