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：英語、漢語與台灣閩南語之訊息結構：雙賓動詞論元體現探析
作者：胡佳音
作者(外文)：Hu, Chia-yin
校院名稱：國立清華大學
系所名稱：語言學研究所
指導教授：連金發
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2015
主題關鍵詞：訊息結構；雙賓動詞；論元體現；英語；漢語；閩南語；Information Structure；Ditransitive Objects；Argument Realization；English；Mandarin Chinese；Southern Min
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:20
雙賓動詞及相關構式在語言學研究中一直備受重視。前人研究著重此類動詞的範疇與分類，也深入探究個別動詞參與句式的限制條件。然而，過去研究大多針對單句進行分析，缺乏上下文語境，無法對雙賓句式所聯繫的語用、篇章功能以及論元隱現提出解釋。本研究以語料庫為本，探究英語、漢語及台灣閩南語之雙賓動詞在面對面交談中的論元體現。針對直接賓語與間接賓語隱現以及常出現的構式、句法位置進行數據統計，討論對話篇章中的訊息結構對直接賓語、間接賓語前後順序與隱現與否之影響。
本論文提出三個主要研究結果。首先，研究發現顯性雙賓論元之前後順序顯示了不同的訊息狀態。同時，英語、漢語及台灣閩南語存在跨語言之差異。當英語直接賓語指涉的對象為聽話者所熟知，則出現在與格構式;若直接賓語陳述新訊息，則出現在雙及物構式。漢語及台灣閩南語的直接賓語在陳述新訊息時，可能出現在雙及物構式或與格構式，但陳述舊訊息時，則出現在主題句、賓語提前句式，或處置式。整體來說，顯性雙賓論元之前後順序在英語、漢語及台灣閩南語皆遵守「從舊到新」的先後順序。差異在於，英語雙賓受詞的新舊訊息的排列維持在動詞詞組內，但漢語及台灣閩南語則超出動詞詞組，更可能跨越句子範疇。這顯示探究訊息結構時，應以跨句的篇章研究為考察對象，而非侷限於個別句式的範疇中。同時，唯以面對面交談的跨句研究才能探知說話者、聽話者交談過程中，由於訊息成分的改變，造成的表層形式改變。其二，探究面對面交談語料發現，即便是一般認為不允許隱性論元的英語，當句中某論元角色相較於其他角色更為不重要，說話者便可能以空形式呈現此論元角色。最後，本文對於英語、漢語及台灣閩南語雙賓動詞論元體現進行的跨語言比較研究顯示了重要的類型學特徵。英語為綜合性語言，將多個語意成分濃縮在單一詞素中;漢語、台灣閩南語則為分析性語言，不同詞素表達個別語意成分。此外，英語為主語顯著語言，漢語、台灣閩南語則為主題顯著語言。因此，在對談時，漢語、台灣閩南語的直接賓語常以其他動詞引介，呈現主題鏈。
本文認為，以言談提供上下文訊息的研究，能補足以個別句子為主體的語法分析，因此語言研究應強調跨越語句之間的藩籬。傳達相同真假值的命題，在說話者、聽話者之間對話進行過程中，可能因為論元指涉對象的訊息流動因而改變表層形式。因此，跨句分析能在訊息結構研究中扮演重要角色。以言談分析為重心，並以語言溝通功能原則為本位的語言學研究也能為語言教學與教材設計提供更貼近真實情境之語言材料。此外，跨語言比較之研究結果也能提供語言學習者更清楚認知母語與目標語相同與差異之處。
This dissertation investigates the discourse-pragmatic properties of ditransitive constructions in English, Mandarin Chinese (MC) and Taiwanese Southern Min (TSM) based on argument realization patterns of the ditransitive objects in discourse contexts. The specific focuses are on the conditioning factors of two linguistic phenomena: word ordering variation and argument omission. Three main corpus-based observations are developed.
The first observation concerns the cross-linguistic differences in the grammatical packaging of the direct objects (DOs) and the indirect objects (IOs) of ditransitive verbs. Specifically, the favored positions of overt objects were found to be largely conditioned by the informational-statuses they carry. In English, the Double Object Construction (DOC) introduces Discourse-New DOs, while the Prepositional Dative Construction (PDC) introduces Discourse-Old DOs. In MC and TSM, on the other hand, Discourse-New DOs occur in both the DOC and the PDC, while Discourse-Old DOs occur in preverbal positions, including Topicalization, Object Fronting, and Disposal Construction. While the observed sequential orderings of the ditransitive objects concur with the general discourse principle known as the Given-Before-New Principle (Gundel 1988), the discourse-oriented languages MC and TSM show more discourse-sensitivity than English does. Moreover, the Old vs. New sequencing in English is more likely to be restricted within VP, while that in MC and TSM tend to go across VP boundary, forming a well-structured Topic Chain.
The second observation concerns phonologically unsaturated fragments. Contra to the traditional prescriptive view that English, which is a non-pro-drop language, does not allow zero pronominals in the argument positions of finite clauses, under closer observation, the data reveals that even in English, ditransitive arguments carrying Hearer-Old, Discourse-Old or Inferrable information can surface as zero anaphora, given that recoverability of unexpressed elements can be carried out by addressees provided with sufficient background or discourse information. This indicates the significant role that information structure plays in the surface argument realization of nominal objects.
Finally, typological characteristics have been observed in two perspectives. The first one is synthetic vs. analytic distinction; the second is Subject-prominence vs. Topic-prominence. It was found that the contrast between TSM and MC (analytic languages) as oppose to E (synthetic language) is characterized by the profile of manner, purpose, and directionals in TSM and MC. Moreover, in MC, and particularly TSM, overt DOs tend to be pre-introduced by a verb or preposition, and be semantically associated with a number of verbs in a serial verb construction, maintaining a Topic Chain. This reflects the important typological characteristics of MC and TSM: Topic-prominent.
In sum, the empirical description of the surface realization patterns of ditransitive objects in face-to-face conversation presented in this dissertation shows that ditransitive verbs and constructions serve as an ideal conduit for the study of information structure. While in the conceptual structure, three participants are involved in transfer events, in actual language use, speakers can choose to highlight or background the participants with varying informational-statuses by implicitly or explicitly expressing them as well as by ordering them in a certain way. More importantly, the significant role that information structure plays in argument realization is difficult to be observed in the absence of discourse context, as the interrelationships among nominal objects go beyond sentence level. Only by examining a domain larger than single sentences can a linguist discover the rich discourse constraints licensing the distribution of null arguments. The dissertation shows how information structure, among other factors, affects both the linear sequencing and the (c)overtness of ditransitive objects.
Arnold, Jennifer E, Anthony Losongco, Thomas Wasow and Ryan Ginstrom. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76.1: 28-55.
Birner, Betty J and Gregory Ward. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Boas, Hans C. 2013. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale, 233-254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bresnan, Joan and Tatiana Nikitina. 2003. On the Gradience of the Dative Alternation. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
----- 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984 , ed. by R.S. Tomlin, 21-51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chen, Betty Hsiu-ying. 1972. The uses of HO in Taiwanese. In Papers in Linguistics in Honor of A. A. Hill, ed. by Charles T. C. Tang, Jeffery C. H. Tung, and Anthony Y. T. Wu, 5-31. Taipei, Taiwan: Rainbow-Bridge Book Co.
Chen, Chenju, and Chinfa Lien. 2008. Transfer of possession verbs in Taiwanese Southern Min: a case study of lexical and constructional effects. In Chinese Linguistics in Leipzig, ed. by Redouane Djamouri, Barbara Meisterernst, and Rint Sybesma, 191-205. Paris: Centre de Recherches Linguistiques sur l’Asie Orientale, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.
Chen, Li-hsueh (陳麗雪). 2005. Minnanyu Shuangbinshi Gongshi Yu Lishi Yanjiu閩南語雙賓式共時與歷時研究 [Ditransitive Constructions in Southern Min: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives]. Taipei, Taiwan: National Chengchi University dissertation.new window
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., C.-T. Huang James, Y.-H Audrey Li and C.-C. Jane Tang. 1999. Hoo Hoo Hoo in Taiwanese: Syntax of the causative, dative and passive constructions in Taiwanese. In Contemporary Studies on the Min Dialects, Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 14, ed. by Pang-Hsin Ting, 146-203. Berkeley: Project on Linguistic Analysis, University of California, Berkeley.
Cheng, Robert. L. 1974. “Causative constructions in Taiwanese.” Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2:279-324.
----- (鄭良偉) and Susie S. Cheng (鄭謝淑娟). 1977. Taiwan Fujianhua De Yuyin Jiegou Ji biaoyinfa台灣福建話的語音結構及標音法[Phonological Structure and Romanization of Taiwanese Hokkian]. Taipei: Student Press.new window
Chin, Chi On. 2009. The Verb GIVE and Double-Object Construction in Cantonese in Synchronic, Diachronic and Typological Perspectives. Seattle: University of Washington dissertation.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Holland: Foris Publications. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Colleman, Timothy and Bernard De Clerck. 2009. ‘Caused Motion’? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative. Cognitive Linguistics 20. 1: 5-42.
Cote, Sharon Ann. 1996. Grammatical and Discourse Properties of Null Arguments in English. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1979. Discourse constraints on ditransitive movement. In Syntax and Semantics: Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givon. Vol. 12. New York: Academic Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95-107. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Fox, Barbara A. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givón, Talmy. (ed.) 1979. Discourse and Syntax. Syntax and Semantics 12. New York: Academic Press.
-----. (ed.) 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Linguistic Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
-----. 2001. Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: the role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences 23: 503-524.
-----. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 219-224.
-----. 2004. Pragmatics and argument structure. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 427-41. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
-----. 2014. The information structure of ditransitives: Informing scope properties and long-distance dependency constraints. In Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht, ed. by S. K. Bourns and L. L. Myers, 3-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gregory, Michelle L and Laura A Michaelis. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of pragmatics 33: 1665-1706.
Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg, and Ronald Wilson. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65: 205-57.
Gong, Qianyan (龔千炎). 1983. You “V-gei” yinqi de jianyuju ji qi bianhua 由V-gei引起的兼語句及其變化 [The pivotal construction introduced by “verb-gei” and some variants]. Zhongguo yuwen 中國語文 [Studies of the Chinese Language] 4: 241-249.
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. Studies in Syntactic Typology 17: 209-239.
----- and Thorstein Fretheim. 2004. Topic and focus. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence Horn and Gregory Ward, 175-196. Oxford: Blackwell.
Halliday, Michael AK. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199-244.
-----. 1970. Language structure and language function. In New Horizons in Linguistics, ed. by John Lyons, 140-165. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.
Harley, Heidi. 2000. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hopper, Paul and Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in discourse and grammar. Language 56: 251-299.
Huang, Chu-Ren and Kathleen Ahrens. 1999. The function and category of gei in Mandarin ditransitive constructions. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 27.2: 1-26.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1989. Pro-drop in Chinese: A generalized Control Theory. In The Null Subject Parameter, ed. by Osvaldo Jaeggli and Ken Safir, 185-214. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Huang, Jing-Shin (黃景星). 1977. Minnanyu De Shuangbin Jiegou閩南語的雙賓結構 [Double-Object Construction in Taiwanese]. Taipei: Fu-Jen Catholic University MA Thesis.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243-276.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
-----. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39: 463.
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335-391.
Levinson, Steven. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
----- and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Subject and Topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 457-490. New York: Academic Press.
-----. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
-----. 1979. Third person pronouns and zero-anaphora in Chinese discourse. In Syntax and Semantics, vol 12. ed. by Talmy Givón, 311-335. New York: Academic Press.
Lien, Chinfa. 2005. Families of ditransitive constructions in Li Jing Ji. Language and Linguistics 6.4: 707-737.
-----. 2008. Special types of passive and causative constructions in TSM. In Chinese Linguistics in Leipzig, ed. by Redouane Djamouri, Barbara Meisterernst, and Rint Sybesma, 223-237. Paris: Centre de Recherches Linguistiques sur l’Asie Orientale, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.
Lin, Yan (林艷). Hanyu Shuangbin Goushi Jufa Yuyi Yanjiu 漢語雙賓構式句法語義研究 [The Semantic and Syntactic study on Ditransitive Construction in Mandarin Chinese]. 北京市 Beijing : 北京語言大學出版社 Beijing Language and Culture University Press.
Linde, Charlotte. 1979. Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse. In Syntax and Semantics, vol 12. ed. by Talmy Givón, 337-354. New York: Academic Press.
Liu, Dan-qing (劉丹青). 2001. Hanyu Geiyulei Shuangjiwu Jiegou De Leixingxue Kaocha漢語給予類雙及物結構的類型學考察 [A typological study of the give-type ditransitive constructions in Chinese]. Zhongguo yuwen 中國語文 [Studies of the Chinese Language] 5: 387-398.
Liu, Feng-hsi. 2006. Dative constructions in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 7.4: 863-904.
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath and Bernard Comrie. (ed.) 2010. Studies in Ditransitive Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Mallinson, Graham and Barry J. Blake .1981. Language Typology: Cross-linguistic Studies in Syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Michaelis, Laura A. and Knud Lambrecht. 1996. The exclamative sentence type in English. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, ed. by Adele Goldberg, 375-389. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2005. English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-Based Model (Language and Computers 53). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.
Paul, Waltraud. 1988. The purposive gei-clause in Chinese. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 17.1: 25-65.
Prideaux, G. 1987. Processing strategies: A psycholinguistic neofunctionalism. In Functionalism in Linguistics, ed. by René Dirven and Vilém Fried, 297-308. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 223-255. New York: Academic Press.
-----. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness and information status. In Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, ed. by W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson, 295-325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ransom, Evelyn N. 1979. Definiteness and animacy constraints on passive and double-object construction in English. Glossa 13.2: 215-240.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44:129-167.
Ruppenhofer, Josef Karl. 2004. The Interaction of Valence and Information Structure. California: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.
Searle, John R, Ferenc Kiefer and Manfred Bierwisch. 1980. Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Berlin: Springer.
Shao, Jing-min (邵敬敏). 2009. Cong “Vgei” jushi de leihua kan yuyi de juedingxing yuanze 從“V給”句式的類化看語義的決定性原則 [The meaning-determining principle from the categorization of the "V给" structure]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu 語言教學與研究 [Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies] 2009.6: 1-8.
Shen, Jia-xuan (沈家煊). 1999. “Zai” zi ju he “gei” zi ju “在”字句和“給”字句. [Zai Construction and Gei Construction] Zhongguo Yuwen 中國語文 [Studies of the Chinese Language] 269: 94-102.
Smyth, Ronald, Gary Prideaux and John Hogan. 1979. The effect of context on dative position. Lingua 47: 27-42.
Sun, Chaofen. 2015. The grammaticalization of the Ba construction: Cause and effect in a case of specialization. In The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, ed. by William S-Y Wang and Chaofen Sun, 429-442. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. 1990. Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X’-Theory. Ithaca: Cornell University dissertation.
Tang, Ting-Chi (湯廷池). 2011. Cong “cong jiu dao xin” de gongneng yuanze tan huayu yu yingyu “yinjieju” de duibi fenxi 從「從舊到新」的功能原則談華語與英語「引介句」的對比分析 [A Contrastive Analysis of Chinese and English Presentative Sentences, based on "From Old to New Principle"] Furen Waiyu Xuebao 輔仁外語學報 [Fu Jen Journal of Foreign Languages Linguistics, Literature, Culture] 8: 1-19.new window
-----. 2012. Cong “cong jiu dao xin” de gongneng yuanze tan huayu yu yingyu “yinjieju” de duibi fenxi 從「從舊到新」的功能原則談華語與英語「引介句」的對比分析（下） [A Contrastive Analysis of Chinese and English Presentative Sentences, based on "From Old to New Principle"] fu ren wai yu xue bao 輔仁外語學報 [Fu Jen Journal of Foreign Languages Linguistics, Literature, Culture] 9: 1-16.
Ting, Jen and Miller Chang. 2004. The category of gei in Mandarin Chinese and grammaticalization. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 2.2: 45-74.
Thompson, Sandra A. 1995. The Iconicity of ‘Dative Shift’ in English: Considerations from Information Flow in Discourse. In Syntactic Iconicity and Freezes: The Human Dimension, ed. by Marge E. Landsberg, 155-175. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tsao, Feng-fu. 1979. A Functional Study of Topic in Chinese: The First Step towards Discourse Analysis. Taipei: Student Book.
-----. 1982. The double nominative construction in Mandarin Chinese. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 14: 276-297.
-----. 1988. The function of Mandarin gei and Taiwanese hou in the double object and the passive constructions. In The Structure of Taiwanese: A Modern Synthesis, ed. by Robert L. Cheng and Shuan-fan Huang, 165-208. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
-----. 1990. Clause and Sentence Structure in Chinese: A Functional Perspective. Taipei: Student Book.
-----. 1997. Taiwan Minnanyu Zonghe Yufa Yanjiu: Taiwan Minnanyu Zonghe Yufa Huizheng Zhuanxie台灣閩南語綜合語法研究：台灣閩南語綜合語法彙整撰寫 [The Write-up of a Comprehensive Grammar of Taiwanese]. NSC86-2411-H007-003-N3.
-----. 2005. Taiwan minnanyu de ka7 yu binyu de qianzhi台灣閩南語的Ka7與賓語的前置 [On ka7 in Taiwanese Southern Min and object-fronting ]. Hanyu Xuebao漢語學報 [Chinese Linguistics] 2005.1: 21-30.
-----. 2012. Argument structure change, reanalysis and lexicalization: Grammaticalization of transitive verbs into ditransitive verbs in Chinese, Japanese and English. In Newest Trends in the Study of Grammaticalization and Lexicalization in Chinese, ed. by Janet Z. Xing, 275-302. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Zimmermann, Malte and Caroline Féry. 2009. Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zhu, Dexi (朱德熙). 1979. Yu dongci gei xiangguan de jufa wenti 與動詞“給”相關的句法問題 [Syntactic issues related to the verb ‘give’]. Fangyan 方言 [Dialects] 2: 81-87.
-----. 1983. Baohan dongci gei de fuza jushi 包含動詞“給”的複雜句式[Complex constructions with the verb gei]. Zhongguo yuwen 中國語文 [Studies of the Chinese Language] 3: 161-166.

 
 
 
 
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：588（臺灣：585，外國：3） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1669892 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67470826
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