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：泰雅語之事件概念化與動詞分類
作者：葉郁婷
作者(外文)：Maya Yuting Yeh
校院名稱：國立臺灣大學
系所名稱：語言學研究所
指導教授：黃宣範
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2013
主題關鍵詞：底；圖；圖示；動詞類別；內在承受者；承受形式之假定值；default UV form；Figure；Ground；intrinsic undergoer；schema；verb class
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:52
這篇論文的目的在於，透過在一個新架構之建立後，對泰雅語賽考利克方言的動詞進行分類，而這新的架構是根據在Fillmore （1975, 1976, 1977, 1982, 1985)的框架理論（Frame Theory)、Johnson（1987)的圖示理論（Schema Theory)以及Talmy（2000) 的「圖-底」（Figure-Ground)之二分理論上。這些理論都屬於認知語言學的知識。
如同多數菲律賓語類型的語言，泰雅語的主語可以透過四種語態結構來標示出，諸如，「主事語態」（AV)結構中要突顯的多是行動者角色的主語；在「受事語態」（PV)結構中，則是受事者主語；在「處所語態」（LV)結構中，則是要突顯處所主語；在「傳達語態」（CV)結構中，其主語則是工具或受益者論元；後三種結構通常一併被歸類在「承受者」（undergoer)語態結構之下。然而，透過自然言談語料的觀察，我們注意到這些語態結構的諸多複雜性，其複雜性可以從至少兩個事實中看出：其一，並不是任一動詞的所有三種「承受者標記形式」（UV form)，亦即-un, -an與s-等形式，都以相同的認知過程進入所謂的發展成熟之四分語態系統中；其二，不同的動詞有選用不同承受者來標記承受者主語的傾向。針對第一個面向，我們發現到，任一承受者形式位置之被填入，至少是要為了表達三種功能裡之任一或任二種使能進行，包括：（一)、能呈現動詞語意所投射出之「內在承受者」（intrinsic undergoer)與突顯這承受者之「承受形式之假定值」（default UV form)兩者間之固有關係的功能，（二) 、能反映事件事實性（reality)之差異或因應不同情境需求去表達所談論之承受者之細微差異等的功能，以及（三) 、為了標記應用語態（applicative voice)之主語承受者的功能。在這三種功能之中，第二種功能需要在任一動詞之第一與第三種較基本的功能都確定好之後，使能進行確認。承此，這份動詞分類研究終究是建立在第一與第三功能之互有關係的結果上，並且是一份以UV形式為根基的分類；此外，我們會發現，動詞的語意才是決定任一動詞的四種動詞形式之獲得的關鍵因素。
於是，透過檢驗三百餘動詞所反映之事件參與者的空間與概念的相互關係以及其所呈現的詞法行為（morphosyntactic behavior) ，我將論證，任一動詞的「內在承受者」（intrinsic undergoer)可以被賦予「圖」（Figure)或是「底」（Ground)的概念值，並且，這概念值確實會借助各自動詞的「承受形式之假定值」（default UV form)去顯示其在中性語境裡最為顯著之參與者的地位，這「承受形式之假定值」（default UV form)與「內在承受者」（intrinsic undergoer)所具備的概念值之搭配得到的結果，正是任一動詞所屬的類別；因此，在這樣的研究中，我們區辨出如下五個主要的動詞類別:
第一類：-un 形式動詞類別 (The -un verb class)
第二類：-an 形式動詞類別 (The -an verb class)
第三類：s-形式動詞類別 (The s- verb class)
第四類：s-/-an 形式混成動詞類別 (The s-/-an composite verb class)
第五類：s-/-un 形式混成動詞類別 (The s-/-un composite verb class)
更進一步地，因應著事件在本質上是可以進行抽象的圖示化，我們依據圖示，再在每一個主要類別之下區分出一至八不等之次類，因此，我們目前得到二十個圖示；任一的動詞即為所屬圖示的例子。
透過這冗長的研究，我們或能感受或是理解認知語言學學者（諸如，Fauconnier (1985, 1999) 、Lakoff (1982, 1987, 1990) 、Langacker (1976, 1987, 2002) 、Johnson (1987) 、Johnson-Laird (1983) 、 Talmy (1975, 1983, 1985, 1988, 2000) 等等)所堅持的觀點，亦即，語言是，語言使用者根據其具象的生活經驗後，將這些經驗經由認知機制的作轉化後、並包含著認知過程中可能做的解釋等種種結果之集合體，而並不是ㄧ個自我包含、置外於情境的封閉系統。
A central goal of the present study is to develop a novel framework for classifying verbs in Squliq Atayal into various types in terms of Charles Fillmore’s (1975, 1976, 1977, 1982, 1985) Frame Theory, Mark Johnson’s (1987) notion of schemas and Leonard Talmy’s (2000) Figure-Ground distinction-- concepts that are now familiar in cognitive linguistics.
As in many Philippine-type languages, Squliq Atayal has four ways to encode the subject of a verb. That is, Actor Voice (AV) is usually used to encode an actor subject, Patient Voice (PV) a patient subject, Location Voice (LV) a location subject and Conveyance Voice (CV) an instrument or a beneficiary subject. The last three voice types are further grouped into Undergoer Voice (UV). However, a closer scrutiny of naturally occurring data shows that there is a complex reality in the way voice constructions are employed in two aspects. Firstly, not all three UV forms of a verb, i.e. -un, -an, and s-, are found to fill their respective slots in a so-called full-fledged four-way voice system via equal processing. Secondly, different verb types prefer different UV forms to code subjects. Filling in any UV form slot is contingent on meeting one or two of the three functions: (i) the encoding of an inherent relationship between a verb’s intrinsic undergoer and its default UV form, (ii) the encoding of an intrinsic undergoer for signaling the reality distinction or for exhibiting subtle semantic differences, and (iii) the encoding of an applicative undergoer. Of the three functions, (ii) is far more complex, since all possible conditions are not identified until a decision is made on (i) and (iii). That is, the nature of verb classification investigated in the present study ultimately hinges on interrelated results that derive from (i) and (iii), which is an UV-based classification. Besides, it is now commonplace that the availability of all the four voice forms for a given verb is lexically specific.
It is argued that, based on an examination of the spatio-conceptual relationship of participants in the event a verb encodes and the morphosyntactic behavior of over 300 verbs, the intrinsic undergoer of a verb is assigned either the Figure or the Ground, and a verb has a default UV voice form typically used to make either the Figure or the Ground participant the subject of a clause and thus more prominent. The pairing of the default UV form and the default status of the intrinsic undergoer determines the class of a verb. Five major verb classes are then identified:
(I) The -un verb class: Undergoer as the Figure (e.g., hkani’ ‘search for’, lamu’ ‘pick’, and naga’ ‘wait for’)
(II) The -an verb class: Undergoer as the Ground (e.g., gyah ‘open’, wayaw ‘choose’, and ’luy ‘find’)
(III) The s- verb class : Undergoer as the Figure (e.g., gihu’ ‘turn’, ruruw ‘push’, and tbaziy ‘sell’)
(IV) The s-/-an composite verb class: Undergoer as the Figure specified by the s- form and Undergoer as the Ground specified by the -an form of a verb (e.g., biq ‘give’, paqut ‘ask’, and qapax ‘paste’)
(V) The s-/-un composite verb class: Undergoer as the Figure specified by the s- form and Undergoer as the Figure specified by the -un form of a verb (e.g., kal ‘discuss; talk about’, and syuk ‘act in turn; retaliate; answer’)
Furthermore, for each of the five major classes identified, further subtypes can be distinguished, depending on the nature of the schematization of events. Specific verbs can be thought of as instantiating specific event schema type. A total of 20 schemas have been identified.
The bulk of the dissertation study is devoted to justifying the ways events are schematized and verbs are classified. To cognitive linguistics (e.g. Fauconnier (1985, 1999), Lakoff (1982, 1987, 1990), Langacker (1976, 1987, 2002), Johnson (1987), Johnson-Laird (1983), Talmy (1975, 1983, 1985, 1988, 2000), and among others), language is viewed as the result of general cognitive mechanisms and processes grounded in embodied experiences, rather than as a self-contained, context-independent system. We hope to demonstrate that the typing of verbs in Squliq Atayal can be shown to be largely grounded in embodied experiences that underpin the various schema types identified above.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. In Serial Verb Construction: A cross-linguistic typology, ed. by Alexandra A Aikhenvald, and Dixon, R. M. W, 1-68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and commands. Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atkins, B. T. S. 1994. Analyzing the verbs of seeing: A Frame Semantics approach to lexicography, BLS 20 (Papers of the 11th Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society), 42-56. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Atkins, Sue, Charles J. Fillmore, and Christopher R. Johnson. 2003. Lexicographic relevance: Selecting information from corpus evidence. International Journal of Lexicography, 16, 251-80.
Baker, Mark C. 1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 513-553.
Behrend, Douglas. 1990. The development of verb concepts: children’s use of verbs to label familiar and novel events. Children Development 61:681-96.
Blackwell, Sarah E. 2010. Evaluation as a pragmatic act in Spanish film narratives. Journal of Pragmatics 42:2945-63.
Blake, Barry J. 2001. Case. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boas, Hans C., and M. Fried (eds.). 2005. Grammatical constructions: back to the roots. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985a. Diagrammatic iconicity in stem-inflection relations. In Iconicity in syntax: Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Standford, June 24-26, 1983, ed. by John Haiman, 11-47. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985b. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Chang, Yung-li. 1997. Voice, case and agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. Ph.D. dissertation, National Tsing Hua University.
Chang, Yung-li. 2000. A reference grammar of Kavalan. Introduction to Formosan Language Series No. 12. Taipei: Yuan-liu Publishing Co. (In Chinese)
Chang, Yung-li. 2009. Adverbial verbs and adverbial compounds in Tsou: A syntactic analysis. Oceanic Linguistics, 48 (2): 439-76.
Chen, Sih-wei. 2007. Applicative constructions in Atayal. M.A. thesis, National Tsing- Hua University
Chung, Sandra, and Alan Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect, and mood. In Language typology and syntactic description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, vols. 3, 202-58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, Chris. 1997. Argument Sharing in Serial Verb Constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 461-497.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crowley, Terry. 2002. Serial verbs in Oceanic: a descriptive typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dean, James C. 1958. Some principal grammatical relations of Bilaan. Oceania Linguistic Monographs 5:83-90.
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.
Dik, Simon C (ed.). 1983. Advances in Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
Dik, Simon C. 1984. The theory of functional grammar. Vol. 1. The simple predication. Dordrecht: Foris.
Dik, Simon C. 1989. The theory of Functional Grammar Part I: The structure of the clause. Amsterdam: Foris Publications.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. Where have all the Adjectives gone and other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton Publishers.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory (Vol. 1). Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Egerod, Søren. 1965. Verb inflexion in Atayal. Lingua 15:251-82.
Egerod, Søren. 1966. Word order and word class in Atayal. Language 42:346-69.
Egerod, Søren. 1980. Atayal-English dictionary. 2 vols. Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Mongraphs Series No. 35. London and Malmo: Curzon Press.
Elliott, Jennifer R. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology 4:55-90.
Enkvist, Nils E. 1976. Notes on valency, semantic scope and thematic perspective as parameters of adverbial placement in English. In Reports on Text Linguistics: Approaches to word order, ed. by N. E. Enkvist and V. Kohonen, 51-73. Abo, Finland: Meddelanden fran stiftelsens for Abo Akademi Forskningsinstitut, nr.8.
Evans, Vyvyan. 2004. The structure of time: Language, meaning, and temporal cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1999. Methods and generalizations. In Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope and methodology, ed. by Theo Janssen and G. Redeker, 95-128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ferrell, Raleigh J. 1969. Taiwan aboriginal groups: problems in cultural and linguistic classification. Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, monograph 17. Taipei.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968a. The case for case. In Universals in linguistic theory, ed. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1-90. New York: Holt Reinhart and Winston.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968b. Lexical entries for verbs. Foundations of Language 4:373-93.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1971a. Types of lexical information. In Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, ed. Danny D. Steinberg, and Leon A. Jacobovits, 370-92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1971b. Some problems for case grammar. In Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics, 24:35-56, ed. Richard J. O’rien. Washington, C.D.: Georgetown University Press
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Proceeding of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Cathy Cogen, Henry Thompson, Graham Thrugood, Kenneth Whistler, and James Wright, 123-31. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, 280:20-32.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977a. The case for case reopened. In Grammatical relations (Syntax and Semantics, 8), ed. Peter Cole and Jerrold M. Sadock, 59-82. New York: Academic Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977b. Scenes-and-frames semantics. In Linguistic structure processing (Fundamental Studies in Computer Science, 5), ed. Antonio Zampolli, 55-81. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982a. Frame semantics. In Linguistic in the morning calm, ed. The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111-37. Seoul: Hanshin.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982b. Toward a descriptive framework of spatial deixis. In Speech, place and action, ed. Robert J. Jarvella and Wolfgang Klein, 31-59. London: John Wiley.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1984. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderin di semantic 6:222-54.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Syntactic intrusion and the notion of grammatical construction. BLS 11 (Papers of the 11th Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society), 73-86. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically-controlled zero anaphora. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Vassiliki Nikiforidou, Mary VanClay, Mary Niepokuj, and Deborah Feder, 95-107. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Fillmore, Charles J. 2006. The articulation of lexicon and construction. Plenary lecture. The Fourth International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG4). Japan: The University of Tokyo.
Fillmore, Charles J. 2008. Border conflicts: FrameNet meets construction grammar. In Proceedings of the XIII {EURALEX} International Congress, ed. Elisenda Bernal and Janet DeCesaris, 49-69. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Fillmore, Charles J., and Beryl T. Atkins. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Frames, fields and contrast: New essays in lexical organization, ed. A. Lehrer and E. Feder Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fillmore, Charles J., Miriam R. L. Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer, & Abby Wright. 2003. Framenet in action: The case of attaching. International Journal of Lexicography, 16, 297-332.
Fried, Mirijam and Jan-Ola Östman 2004. Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective, ed. by M. Fried and J.-O. Östman, 11-86. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
French, Koleen Matsude. 1988. The focus system in Philippine language: an historical overview. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 18.2 & 19.1:1-27.
Friginal, Eric. 2009. The language of outsourced call centers: A corpus-based study of cross-cultural interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gentner, Dedre. 1978. On relational meaning: the acquisition of verb meaning, Child Development 49:988-98.
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Givón, Talmy. 1994. Irrealis and the subjunctive. Studies in Language 18(2):265-337.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: the case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics 3(1): 37-74.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2001. Patient arguments of causative verbs may be omitted: the role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences 23:503-24.
Goldberg, Adele. 2002. Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13 (4): 327- 56.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Argument realization: the role of constructions, lexical semantic and discourse factors. In Construction grammars: cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, ed. Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried, 17-43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2010. Verbs, constructions, and semantic frames. In Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure, ed. by Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel, 39-58. Oxford: Oxford Universoty Press.
Goldberg, Adele E., and Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultatives as a family of constructions. Language 80: 532-68.
de Groot, Albert W. 1956. Classification of cases and uses of cases. For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his 60th birthday, ed. by Roman Jakobson, Morris Halle, Robert Abernathy, 187-94. The Hague: Mouton.
Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, and Richard Goldberg. 1991. Affectedness and direct objects: the role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition 41:153-95.
Hare, R. M. 1952. The language of morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. BLS 13 (Papers of the 13th Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society), 139-57. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Hsieh, Fuhui. 2007. Language of emotions and thinking in Kavalan and Saisiyat. Ph.D. dissertation, National Taiwan University.
Huang, Heuiju, and Huang Shuanfan. 2007 Lexical perspectives on voice constructions Tsou. Oceanic Linguistics 46.2:424-55.
Huang, Lillian M. 1993. A study of Atayal syntax. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Huang, Lillian M. 1994. Ergativity in Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 33(1): 129-43.
Huang, Lillian M. 1995a. A study of Mayrinax syntax. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Huang, Lillian M. 1995b. The syntactic structure of Wulai and Mayrinax Atayal: a comparison. Journal of Taiwan Normal University, 40:261-93.
Huang, Lillian M. 2000. Verb classification in Mayrinax Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 39 (2): 364–90.
Huang, Lillian M., Marie M. Yeh, Elizabeth Zeitoun, Anna H. Chang, and Joy J. Wu. 1988. A typological overview of nominal case marking systems of some Formosan languages. In Selected papers from the Second International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan, ed. by Shuanfan Huang, 21-47. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Huang, Shuanfan. 2005. Split O in Formosan languages- A localist interpretation. Language and Linguistics 6 (4):783-806.
Iwata, Seizi. 2005. The Role of Verb Meaning in Locative Alternations. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried and Hans Christian Boas, 101-18. John Benjamins.
Iwata, Seizi. 2006. Argument Resultatives and Adjunct Resultatives in a Lexical Constructional Account: The Case of Resultatives with Adjectival Result Phrases. Language Sciences 28: 449-96.
Jakobson, Roman. 1936. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russichen Kasus. Selected Writings 2, 23-71. The Hague: Mouton (reprinted in 1971).
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. London: Chicago University Press.
Johnson-Laird, Philip N. 1983. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Klaiman, M.H. 1991. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: CUP.
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Dissertation in Linguistics. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Lakoff, George . 1982 . Categories and cognitive models. Cognitive Science Report, No. 96. Berkeley: Institute for Cognitive Studies, University of California.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, Geroge. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1(1):39-74.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1976. Semantic representations and the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Foundations of Language 14:307-57.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar, vol. 1: An overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002 [1991]. Concept, image, symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar, 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, Amy Pei-Jung. 1997. The case-marking and focus systems in Kavalan. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP.
Liao, Hsiu-chuan. 2004. Transitivity and Ergativity in Formosan and Philippine Languages. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawai’i.
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1980. The phonological rules of Atayal dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, 51 (2):349-405.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1981. Reconstruction of proto-Atayalic phonology. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, 52 (2):235-301.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1982. Male and female forms of speech in the Atayalic group. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, 53 (1):265-304.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1985. Linguistic criteria for classifying the Atayalic dialect groups. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, 56 (4):699-718.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1991. Vowel deletion and vowel assimilations in Seediq. Currents in Pacific Linguistics, Papers on Austronesian languages and ethnolinguistics in honour of George W. Grace. Pacific Linguistics C-117:163-69.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1994. The case-marking system in Mayrinax, Atayal. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Subsequently published as Li 1995.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1995. The case-marking system in Mayrinax Atayal. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, 66 (1):23-52.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1997. A syntactic typology of Formosan languages—Case markers on nouns and pronouns. In Chinese languages and linguistics IV: Typological studies of languages in China, ed. by Chiu-yu Tseng, 343-78. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1998. The dialectal differences in Atayal in I-Lan. Selected Papers from the Second International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan, ed. Shuanfan Huang, 49-78. Taipei: The Crane.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 2000. Formosa languages: The state of the art. Austronesian Taiwan: Studies of the indigenous people known historically as the Formosan aborigines, ed. by David Blundell, 45-66. Berkeley: The Phoebe Museum of Anthropology.
Lin, Wan-ying. 2004. Vowel epenthesis and reduplication in Squliq and C’u’li’ Atayal dialects. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Liu, Adlay Kun-long. 2004. On relativization in Squliq Atayal. M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Mandler, Jean. 2004. The Foundations of Mind: Origins of Conceptual Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Margetts, Anna. 2007. Three-participants events in Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics 46: 71-127.
McFarland, Curtis D. 1976. A provisional classification of Tagalog verbs. Study of Languages & Cultures of Asia & Africa Monograph Series No. 8. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Miller, George A., and Philip N. Johnson-Laird. 1976. Language and perception. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Palmer, Frank R. 1994. Grammatical roles and relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pinkster, H. 1972. On Latin adverbs. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meaning. In The Projection of Arguments, ed. by W. Geuder and M. Butt, 97-134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77:766-97.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure, ed. by E. Doron, M. Rappaport Hovav, and I. Sichel, 21–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rau, Der-Hwa Victoria. 1992. A grammar of Atayal. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Rau, Der-Hwa V. & Joseph Grimes. 1994. Transitivity and discourse grounding in Atayal, Paper presented at the 7th ICAL, Leiden University, The Netherlands, 8/22-27/1994.
Reid, Lawrence A., and Hsiu-chuan Liao. 2004. A brief syntactic typology of Philippine languages. Language and Linguistics 5(2): 433–490.
Robins, R. H. 1964. General linguistics: An introductory survey. London: Longmans, Green.
Ross, Malcolm D., and Stacy Fan-Ching Teng. 2005. Formosan languages and linguistic typology. Language and Linguistics 6(4):739-81.
Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schank, Roger, and Robert Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2005. The attrition of the Austronesian focus system. In Proceedings of the Taiwan-Japan Joint Workshop on Austronesian Languages, 1-18. Paper presented at Taiwan-Japan Joint Workshop on Austronesian Languages, 23-24 June, Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Siewierska, A. 1988. Word order rules. London: Coom Helm.
Siewierska, A. 1993. On the interplay of factors in the determination of word order. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by J. Jacobs., A von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, and T. Vennemann, 826-845. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Smith, Carlota C. 1991. Parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Starosta, Stanley. 1985. Relator nouns as a source of case inflection. In For Gordon H. Fairbanks, ed. by Veneeta Z. Acson and Richard L. Leed, 111-113. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications No. 20. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Starosta, Stanley. 1999. Transitivity, ergativity and the best analysis of Atayal case marking. In Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (8ICAL), ed. by Elizabeth Zeitoun and Paul Jen-kuei Li, 371-92. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Semantics and syntax of motion. In Syntax and semantics, Vol. 4, ed. by John Kimball, 181-238. New York: Academia Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 1976. Semantic causatives types. In The grammar of causative constructions (Syntax and semantics, 6), ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, 43-116. New York: Academic Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 1978. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4, Syntax, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 625-49.
Talmy, Leonard. 1983. How language structures space. In Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, ed. by Herbert Pick and Linda Acredolo, 225-282. New York: Plenum Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Force dynamics in language and thought. In Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity, ed. by William H. Eilfort, Paul D. Kroeber and Karen L. Peterson, 293-337. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12:49-100.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tang, Ai-Yu (Apay). 2010. The interpretation and transitivity of -un/-an in Truku. Hawai‘i University Working Papers in Linguistics 41 (2).
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2008. A reference grammar of Puyuma: An Austronesian language of Taiwan. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Thomas, David D. 1958. Mansaka sentence and sub-sentence structures. Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review 23:339-358.
Tseng, Chiou-yuh. 1989. Atayal Verb Classification. M.A. thesis, Fu-jen Catholic University.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1980. Linguistic position of Sikikun and Manawyan: linguistic bases of subgrouping Sqolyeq and Ts’ole dialects in Atayal. (Handout for a talk given at Academic Sinica)
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1983. Austronesian languages in Taiwan (Formosa). In Language Atlas of the Pacific Area, ed. by S. A. Wurm and Shiro Hattori. Pacific Linguistics, Series C. No. 67.
Varela, Francisco, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. 1991. The embodied mind: Cognition science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and context. London: Longman.
Wei, Hui-lin. 1955. Taiwan feng tu zhi (Taiwanese Culture). Vol. 2. Taipei. (In Chinese]
Wouk, Fay, and Malcolm Ross (eds). 2002. The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems. Pacific Linguistics 518. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Wu, Jing-lan Joy. 2006. Verb classification, case marking, and grammatical relations in Amis. Ph.D. dissertation, The State University of New York at Buffalo.
Yeh, Marie Meili. 2003. A syntactic and semantic study of Saisiyat verbs. Ph.D. dissertation, National Tsing Hua University.
Yeh, Maya Yuting and Shuanfan Huang. 2009. A Study of Triple Verb Serialization in Four Formosan Languages. Oceanic Linguistics 48(1): 78-110.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2007. A grammar of Mantauran Rukai. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series A4-2.

 
 
 
 
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：498（臺灣：493，外國：5） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1430120 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67229064
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