:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:從認知社會語言學分析漢語分類詞之語意變異
作者:黃木臻萱
作者(外文):HUANG, CHEN-HSUAN
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:語言學研究所
指導教授:何德華
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2017
主題關鍵詞:漢語分類詞語意變異社會語言學語言態度Chinese classifiersemantic variationsociolinguisticslanguage attitude
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:12
分類詞(classifier)是漢語中的一大特色,同時也是人們分類事物的認知機制。然而,過去對於分類詞的社會變異研究關注不多,有鑑於此,本文結合了認知以及社會語言學研究,試圖分析「輛、部、台」以及「個、顆、粒」的使用變異。就內在因素而言,依屬性結構(Pustejovsky, 1995)將語意進行分類,再經由羅吉斯迴歸找出影響語言使用差異的最佳因子。其次,在探究外在因素方面,主要可分成三個部分,第一部分使用「快速匿名觀察」法,比較「輛、部、台」在不同等級之汽車展售場及「個、顆、粒」在超市和傳統市場的使用差異。第二階段的參與者為40位童軍團成員,目的在探討年齡、性別、使用台語頻率與分類詞之間的關係。第三階段的語言態度研究旨在了解大學生對於不同分類詞使用的評價,同時探討造成語言變異的可能成因。
語言內部變異的研究結果如下:「輛」較常使用於四輪以上及非個人使用目的之車輛。其次,「部」和「台」主要突顯車輛之外觀及用途。就「個、顆、粒」而言,雖然物體大小是決定這組分類詞的關鍵,但「顆」的語意有擴大趨勢,因而間接提高了其使用頻率。在社會成因方面,第一階段的研究顯示,銷售員普遍不使用「輛」,而中等價位車商之年長男性銷售員傾向使用「部」,「台」則較受高價位以及二手車商之年輕女性銷售員青睞。另外,「個」常見於超市中的年長女性,傳統市場中的年輕族群則偏好「粒」而男性則喜愛「顆」。第二階段的研究發現,年長女性且工作中不常使用閩南語者偏好「輛」;工作中經常使用閩南語之男性常選擇「部」;在家經常使用閩南語之年輕人則會使用「台」。至於「個、顆、粒」,工作中經常使用閩南語之男性偏好「個」;年輕女性較青睞「顆」;在家偶爾使用閩南語之男性會用「粒」。第三階段的研究顯示,性別以及居住地區對於分類詞的選擇有顯著性差異。台北人認為「輛」的使用最佳,而高雄人傾向「台」;女性偏好「個」而男性則喜愛「顆」。本研究結果不但說明了分類詞的使用非任意,而是依循認知模式的選擇,更重要的是,此研究反映了分類詞在當前台灣社會的使用情況。
Classifier is one of the most striking features of Mandarin Chinese, and it is also one of the devices that show human categorization. However, little attention has been paid to the classifier variations and their uses in the society. This work addressed the lacuna by investigating two classifier sets: “liang (輛), bu (部),tai (台)” and “ge (個), ke (顆), li (粒)” using cognitive and variationist sociolinguistic analyses. For internal factors, Qualia structure (Pustejovsky, 1995) was adopted to classify the semantics, and finally identified the best influential factors through the logistic regression analyses. For the internal factors, first, rapid and anonymous observation was applied to investigate to see how car dealers and market shoppers use classifiers. Second, forty scout members were recruited to examine how gender, age, and Southern Min frequency affect the use of classifiers. Third, the language attitude survey was meant to understand how college students evaluate the classifiers, and tries to find out the possible reasons for the variation.
The findings of internal factors are as follows. Liang (輛) is used for four-wheeled or non-personal use vehicles; bu (部) and tai (台) highlight the appearance and function of the vehicles. Though the object size is a critical factor for “ge (個), ke (顆), li (粒)”, the semantic expansion in ke (顆) makes it have higher usage frequency. For external factors, it found that liang (輛) is not used by car sales; bu (部) is preferred by middle ranking, senior males while tai (台) is popular among young females in higher ranking and used car dealers. In addition, ge (個) is used by senior females in the supermarket. Young people in the traditional markets tend to use li (粒) while males like ke (顆). For the sociolinguistic interviews, liang (輛) is favored by senior females who use Southern Min at work once a while. Males who use Southern Min often at work would use bu(部). Young people who use Southern Min often at home tend to choose tai (台). ge (個) is used for males who often use Southern Min often at work while young females prefers ke (顆). Males who rarely use Southern Min at home would choose li (粒).Finally, gender and residential area have influential impact on the use of classifiers. Taipei residents prefer liang (輛) while Kaohsiung favor tai (台). Females like the use of ge (個) while males favor ke (顆). The results demonstrated that the use of Chinese classifier is not arbitrary, but instead follow cognitive-based categories. More importantly, it reflects the classifier uses in contemporary Taiwan society.
References
Ahrens, K. (1994). Classifier production in normals and aphasics. Journal of Chinese linguistics, 22(2), 202-247.
Allen, K. (1977). Classifier. Language, 53(2), 285-311.
Barcelona, A. (1997). Cognitive Linguistics: A usable approach. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa, 6(2): 7-32.
Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi. T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts. The dynamic interlanguage. New York: Springer.
Biernat, M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Stigma and stereotypes. The social psychology of stigma. pp.88-125. New York: The Guildford Press.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bos, J., Buitelaar, P., & Mineur, A. M. (1995). Bridging as coercive accommodation. In CLNLP, Edinburgh. (https://arxiv.org/pdf/cmp-lg/9508001.pdf)
Bouillon, P., Claveau, V., Fabre, C., & Sébillot, P. (2001). Using part-of-speech and semantic tagging for the corpus-based learning of qualia structure elements. In 1st International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon, GL’2001. (http://www.irisa.fr/texmex/publications/versionElect/2001/sebillotBCFS01.pdf)
Britain, D. (1997). Dialect contact and phonological reallocation:“Canadian Raising” in the English Fens. Language in Society, 26(01), 15-46.
Buchstaller, I., & D'Arcy, A. (2009). Localized globalization: A multi‐local, multivariate investigation of quotative be like. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(3), 291-331.
Bybee, J. L., & Beckner, C. (2010). Usage-based theory. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (2nd). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, D., & Coates, J. (1988). Some problems in the sociolinguistic explanation of sex differences. Language & Communication, 5(3), 143-151.
Chamber, J. (2009) Sociolinguistic theory: Linguistic variation and its social significgance. London: John Wiley.
Chang, J-H. (2012). Mental space theory and the relation of metaphor to ” usefulness“ in Zhuangzi. Language and Linguistics,(13), 999-1027.
Chang, J-H. (2015). Cognitive structure in word formation across sign language. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Chen,Y. & Kennedy, B. (2005). Mini-encyclopedia of Taiwan History. Taipei: Green Future Publisher Co. Ltd.
Chen, S. C. (2010). Multilingualism in Taiwan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2010(205). 79-104.
Chen, P. S. (2017). A study of phonological variation of nasal coda (eng) merger in Taiwan Mandarin. Master’s thesis. National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi, Taiwan.
Chen, R.-A. (2014). A Historical Dictionary of Chinese Classifiers. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Chen, W.-c. &Wen, Y.-w. (2010). Does Language Matter? Ethnicity, Linguistic Capital and Occupational Attainment in Taiwan (講啥米話咁唔要緊? 語言資本對族群間職業取得差異的影響). Taiwanese Journal of Sociology, (44), 1-54.
Cheshire, J. (2002). Sex and Gender in Variationist Research. The handbook of language variation and change, pp.423-443. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Chinese Knowledge Information Processing Group. (1998). Content and Instruction of the Sinica Balanced Corpus. Technical report No. 95. 02, Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Chiu, P.-S. (2016, November, 20). 失落10年!四分之一大專學歷月領不到30K. Taipei: CNA News.
Cimiano, P., & Wenderoth, J. (2005). Automatically learning qualia structures from the web. In Proceedings of the ACL-SIGLEX workshop on deep lexical acquisition. pp. 28-37. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Dailey‐O'Cain, J. (2000). The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 60-80.
De Saussure, F. (1916). Nature of the linguistic sign. Course in general linguistics, 65-70.
Dines, E. R. (1980). Variation in discourse—“and stuff like that”. Language in Society, 9(01), 13-31.
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. Teachers College Press.
Eisikovits, E. (1991). Variation in subject-verb agreement in Inner Sydney English. English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives, 235-255.
Erbaugh, M. (1986). Taking Stock: The Development of Chinese Noun Classifiers Historically and in Young Children. Noun Classes and Categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Executive Yuan. (2014). The Republic of China Yearbook 2014. Taipei: Executive Yuan, R.O.C.
Fasold, R. (1984). The sociolinguistics of society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ferrara, K., & Bell, B. (1995). Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: The case of be+ like. American Speech, 265-290.
Feifel, K. E. (1994). Language attitudes in Taiwan. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Fu, J-W. (1999). Chinese Tonal Variation and Social Network-A Case Study in Tantzu Junior High School, Taichung, Taiwan. Master’s thesis. Providence University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Gao, S.-F. (ed). 1989. Zhengzhong Comprehensive Dictionary of the Form, Pronunciation, and Meaning [Zhengzhong xingyinyi zonghe dacidian].Taipei: Zhengzhong shuju.
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D. (1995). Cognitive Linguistcs. Handbook of pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Gordon, M. J. (2013). Labov: a guide for the perplexed. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Guo, X.-C. (1987). Xiandai Hanyu Liangci Shuoce (A Handbook of Modern Chinese Classifiers). Beijing: Zhonghuo Heping Co. Ltd.
Guy, G. (1980). Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In W. Labov (Ed.), Locating language in time and space (pp. 1-36). New York: Academic Press.
Guo, P.-X. (2013) The variation of Chinese verb reduplication “kàn” and “kàn-kàn” in Taiwan. Master’s thesis. National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi, Taiwan.
Gries, S. T. (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 57-99.
Green, Lisa. (2002). African American English: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hankinson, R. J. (2001). Cause and explanation in ancient Greek thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harvard Management Services. (1986). Analysis of Consumption Patterns among Supermarket shoppers. Breakthrough Magazine. (10). Taipei: Breakthrough Ltd.
Hay, J., & Schreier, D. (2004). Reversing the trajectory of language change: Subject–verb agreement with be in New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change,16(03), 209-235.
Hazen, K. (2010). Labov: language variation and change. The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 24. SAGE publications Ltd.
Hinskens, F. L. M. P. (2011). Lexicon, phonology and phonetics. Or: Rule-based and usage-based approaches to phonological variation. Linguistic universals and language variation, 231, 416-456.
Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of pragmatics, 12(4), 445-465.
Holmes, J. (1990). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185-205.
Hong, W.-T. (2010). Analyze the near-synonyms: ‘Manufacture’ and ‘Produce’. Journal of Applied Chinese, (6). 223-246. [in Chinese]
Hong, J.-F., Huang, C.-R., & Ahrens, K. (2007). The Polysemy of Da3: An ontology-based lexical semantic study. In the Proceedings of the 21st Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC), November 1-3, Seoul National University. pp. 155-162.
Hong, J.-F., Ahrens. K., & Huang, C.-R. (2008). The Polysemy of Da3: An ontology-based study. In the Proceedings of the 9th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW 2008). Singapore: National University of Singapore. July, 13-16.
Huang, C. R., & Ahrens, K. (2003). Individuals, kinds and events: classifier coercion of nouns. Language Sciences, 25(4), 353-373.
Huang, S. (1993). Yuyan shehui yu zuchun yishi. [Language, society and ethnicity in the Chinese language]. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Huspek, M. (1989). Linguistic variability and power: An analysis of YOU KNOW/I THINK variation in working-class speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 13(5), 661-683.
Husdon, R. (2000). Review of Bernard Spolsky: Sociolinguistics. University of Essen, LINSE.
Irvine, J. (2001). “Style” as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, M., & Busa, F. (1999). Qualia structure and the compositional interpretation of compounds. In Breadth and depth of semantic lexicons.pp.167-187. Netherlands: Springer.
Johnson, D. E. (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed‐effects variable rule analysis. Language and linguistics compass, 3(1), 359-383.
Jones, L. (2016). Language and gender identities. The Routledge handbook of language and identity. Abingdon: Routledge, 210-224.
Jyi, F.-T. (2015). Social varieties in L2 Chinese teaching interns’ talk: A critical view on standardization of Chinese grammar. Doctoral dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University. Taipei, Taiwan.
Kalmar, I., Zhong, Y., & Hong, X. (1987). Language attitudes in Guangzhou, China. Language in Society, 16(04), 499-508.
Kennedy, G. (1998) An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.
Kiesling, S. (2011). Linguistic variation and change. Edinburgh University Press.
Khan, F., Frontini, F., Del Gratta, R., Monachini, M., & Quochi, V. (2013). Generative lexicon theory and linguistic linked open data. In the Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon. pp. 62-69.
Kuo, C.-E. (2016, Agu.04). Sales of new cars rise 5.5% ahead of Ghost Month. Taipei Times. 2016.
Kuo, J. Y. C., Lee, M.-L, Tai, & J. H.-Y. (2008). Categorization patterns of classifiers in Taiwan Southern Min. In Redouane Djamouri, Barbara Meisterernst, Rint Sybesma (Eds), Chinese linguistics in Leipzig, 207-221. Paris: Centre de Recherches Linguistiques sur l’Asie Orientale.
Kuo, J. Y. C., & Sera, M. D. (2009). Classifier effects on human categorization: The role of shape classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 18(1), 1-19.
Kristiansen, T. (2004). Social meaning and norm-ideals for speech in a Danish community. Language Power and Social Process, 11, 167-192.
Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.). (2008). Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (Vol. 39). Walter de Gruyter.
Labov, W. (1964). The social stratification of English in New York City. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
Labov, W., Cohen, P, Robins, C., & Lewis, J. (1968). A Study of the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City. Volume II: The Use of Language in the Speech Community. Philadelphia: Regional survey.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1973). The boundaries of words and their meanings. New ways of analyzing variation in English. Georgetown University Press.
Labov, W. (1978). Denotational structure. Parasession on the Lexicon, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 220-260.
Labov, W. (2010a). Principles of Linguistic Change. V. 1: Internal factors. Wiley- Blackwell.
Labov, W. (2010b). Principles of Linguistic Change. V. 2: Social factors. Wiley- Blackwell.
Labov, W. (2010c). Principles of Linguistic Change. V. 3: Cognitive and cultural factors. Wiley- Blackwell.
Labov, William. (2014). What is to be learned: The community as the focus of social cognition. In Cognitive Sociolinguistic: social and cultural variation in cognition and language use. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lambert, W. (1967). A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of social issues, 23(2), 91-109.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. (Vol. 14). Walter de Gruyter.
Lavandera, B. R. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in society, 7(02), 171-182.
Li, N. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional Reference Grammar. California: University of California Press.
Liao, S. (2008). A perceptual dialect study of Taiwan Mandarin: Language attitudes in the era of political battle. In the Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20). (1): 391-408.
Liang, S.-W. (2005). Empirical Study on Ethnic Intermarriage in Taiwan. Issues and Studies. 48(3), 33-62.
Lien, C., Wang, P. (1999). Shape classifiers in Mandarin and Taiwanese--A psycholinguistic perspective. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series, (13): 189-221.
Lin, Y.-H. (1988). Consonant variation in Taiwan Mandarin. In K. Ferrara et al. (eds), Linguistic Change and Contact: NWAV-XVI. Austin: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas. pp.200-8.
Liu, S.-R. (1965). Wei Jin Nan Bei chao liangci yanhjiu (魏晉南北朝量詞研究). Beijing: Zhonghua Bookstore.
Liu, W.-Z. (2006). Zhuzi yulei liangci yangjiu (朱子語類量詞研究). Master’s thesis, Guizhou University, Yunan, China.
Long, D., & Yim, Y. C. (2002). Regional differences in the perception of Korean dialects. Handbook of perceptual dialectology, 2, 249-275.
Martineau, F., & Mougeon, R. (2003). A sociolinguistic study of the origins of ne deletion in European and Quebec French. Language, 79(1), 118-152.
May, F. E. (1971). The effect of social class on brand loyalty. California Management Review, 14(1), 81-87.
McKenzie, R. M. (2008) The Role of Variety Recognition in Japanese University Students‟ Attitudes Toward English Speech Varieties. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29(2), pp. 139–153.
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
Milroy, L. (1987). Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
Milroy, J., Milroy, L., Hartley, S., & Walshaw, D. (1994). Glottal stops and Tyneside glottalization: Competing patterns of variation and change in British English. Language Variation and Change, 6(3), 327-357.
Moore, E., & Podesva, R. (2009). Style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. Language in Society, 38(04), 447-485.
Moravcsik, J. M. (1975). Aitia as generative factor in Aristotle's philosophy. Dialogue, 14(04), 622-638
Montgomery, C. (2007). Northern English dialects: A perceptual approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield.
Myers, J., Gong, S. P., & Shen, Z. G. (1999). The semantic content of the general classifier in Mandarin. In Presented at the International Association of Chinese Linguistics Eighth Annual Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Niedzielski, N., & Preston, D. R. (2003). Folk Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Niedzielski, N., & Preston, D. R. (2009). Folk linguistics. The New Sociolinguistics Reader. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave/MacMillan, 356-373.
Niu, F.-F., & Ding, C.-M. (2010). Liangci “duan” yu “jie”, “tiao”, “jian” bianxi (量詞 “段” 與 “節”“條”“件” 辨析). Modern Chinese, (27), 52-54.
Norman, J. (1988). Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Otheguy, R., Zentella, A. C., & Livert, D. (2007). Language and dialect contact in Spanish in New York: Toward the formation of a speech community. Language, 770-802.
Patrick, P. L. (1991). Creoles at the intersection of variable processes:-t, d deletion and past-marking in the Jamaican mesolect. Language Variation and Change, 3(02), 171-189.
Peng, S.-L. (2010). Liangci “chang” han “bu” de duojiaodu fenxi- shi “yichang dianying” haishi “yi bu dianying”? (量詞 “場” 和 “部” 的多角度分析-是 “一場電影” 還是 “一部電影”?). Modern Chinese, (3): 132-133.
Reppen, R., Fitzmaurice, S. M., & Biber, D. (Eds.). (2002). Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (Vol. 9). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Peyraube, A. (1991). Some remarks on the history of Chinese classifiers. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, 3, 106-126.
Peyraube, A. (1998). On the history of classifiers in archaic and medieval Chinese. Studia linguistica serica, 39-68.
Poesio, M., & Almuhareb, A. (2005). Identifying concept attributes using a classifier. In Proceedings of the ACL-SIGLEX Workshop on Deep Lexical Acquisition, 18-27. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Preston, D.R. (1989). Perceptual dialectology: Nonlinguists' views of areal linguistics (Vol. 7). Walter de Gruyter.
Preston, D.R. (1996). Where the worst English is spoken. Focus on the USA, 297-360.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J., & Jezek, E. (2016). Integrating Generative Lexicon and Lexical Semantic Resources.
(http://lrec2016.lrec-conf.org/media/filer_public/2016/05/10/tutorialmaterial_pustejovsky.pdf)
Pütz, M., Robinson, J. A., & Reif, M. (Eds.). (2014). Cognitive sociolinguistics: social and cultural variation in cognition and language use (Vol. 59). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Rau, Der-Hwa V. (1996). Applications of variation studies to Chinese language teaching (in Chinese), Proceedings of Journées d'éetude internationales sur l'enseignement du chinois moderne, Association Francaise des Professeurs de Chinois, Paris: Librairie le Phoenix. 117-126.
Rau, D. Victoria, Chang, H.-H. & Dong, M.-N. (2009). A tale of two diphthongs in an indigenous minority language. In Variation in Indigenous Minority Languages. Eds. by James N. Stanford & Dennis R. Preston. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rau, D. Victoria, Chang, H.-H &Tarone, E. (2009). Think or sink: Chinese learners’ acquisition of the voiceless interdental fricative. Language Learning. 59.3: 581-621.
Rehner, K. & Mougeon, R. (1999). Variation in the spoken French of immersion students: To ne or not to ne, that is the sociolinguistic question. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(1), 124-154.
Rosch, E.H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. Cognitive development and acquisition of language. 111-144. New York: Academic.
Robinson, J. A. (2010). Awesome insights into semantic variation. Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, 45-85.
Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (1978). Cognition and categorization. (1)978. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. NY: The Free Press.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. & Hamilton, H. E. (2008) The handbook of discourse analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Shen, Y. C. (2009). The use of ranhou in spoken Chinese. Master’s thesis, Providence University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Shuy, R. W. (1990). A brief history of American Sociolinguistics 1949-1989. Historiographia linguistica, 17(1), 183-209.
Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. MA: Harvard University Press.
Stubbe, M., & Holmes, J. (1995). You know, eh and other ‘exasperating expressions’: An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language & Communication, 15(1), 63-88.
Su, H. Y. (2011). The meaning contestation of tai: language ideologies and the global-local ambivalence. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 37(2), 283-308.
Su, H. Y. (2012). The social implications of syllable-final nasal mergers in Taiwan Mandarin: A variation study. Language and Linguistics, 13(4), 767.
Tai, J., Wang, L. (1990). A Semantic Study of the Classifier Tiao. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 25(1), 35-56.
Tai, J. H. (1992). Variation in Classifier Systems Across Chinese Dialects: Towards a Cognition-based Semantic Approach. Chinese Language and Linguistics: Chinese Dialects, Symposium Series of the Institute of History and Philology. (2), Academia Sinica, pp. 587-608.
Tai, J. H. (1994). Chinese classifier systems and human categorization. In honor of William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change, 479-494.
Tai, J. H., & Chao, F. Y. (1994). A semantic study of the classifier zhang. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 29(3), 67-78.
Tai, J. H. (1999). A Note on the Classifier bue53 尾 in Southern Min. Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 225-228.
Tajfel, H. E. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of social issues, 25(4), 79-97.
Tajfel, H. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge University Press.
Tagliamonte, S., & Smith, J. (1999). Analogical leveling in Samaná English: The case of was and were. Journal of English Linguistics, 27(1), 8-26.
Tagliamonte, S., & Hudson, R. (1999). Be like et al. beyond America: The quotative system in British and Canadian youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(2), 147-172.
Tagliamonte, S. (2005). So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conversations of young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics,37(11), 1896-1915.
Tagliamonte, S. (2011). Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation (Vol. 40). John Wiley & Sons..
Tang, X.-Q. (2004). “Zhuzi yulei” fuci yanjiu (《朱子語類》副詞研究). Changsha: Hunan Renmin.
Taylor, J., Hubert. C. & René, D. (2003). Introduction: New directions in cognitive lexical semantic research. Cognitive Approach to Lexical Semantics. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Tomasello, M. (2000,). A usage-based approach to child language acquisition. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 26, (1): 305-319.
Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trudgill, P. (1983). On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives. Oxford: Basil-Blackwell.
Trudgill, P., Gordon, E., & Lewis, G. (1998). New‐dialect formation and Southern Hemisphere English: The New Zealand short front vowels. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2(1), 35-51.
Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Penguin UK.
Tsai, M.-C., Huang, C.-R., & Chen, K.-J. (1996). Corpus-based Semantic Information Extraction and Differentiation: A Study of Near Synonyms [In Chinese]. Proceedings of the 9th R.O.C. Computational Linguistics Conference. pp.281-293.
Tsai, M.-C. (2010). TONGYANG and XIANGTONG are not YIYANG: The Referential Differences of “the Same" in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language Teaching (JCLT).7.(1):51-79. [in Chinese]
Tsai, M.-C. (2011)."Convenient” during the process or as a result-event structure of synonymous stative verbs in TCSL. Journal of Chinese Language Teaching (JCLT).8.(3):1-22. [in Chinese]
Tsai, L.-L et al. (2006). The analysis of customer channel selection between traditional market and supermarket--Take Neipu area as an example. Journal of Far East University. 23(1):153-166.
Tsai, S.-L. (2001). Yuyan shiyong yu zhiyejiecenghua de guanxi: bijiao Taiwan nanxing de zuqunchayi (語言使用與職業階層化的關係: 比較台灣男性的族群差異). Taiwanese Sociology.(1), 65-111.
Tsay, J. (2005). Chiayi shizhi. Juan ba. Yuyan wenxue zhi. Yuwen pian (嘉義市志‧卷八‧語言文學志‧語言篇). Chiayi: Chiayi City Government. pp.1-66.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. J. (2006). An introduction to cognitive linguistics. UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Wang, S., & Huang, C. R. (2010). Adjectival Modification to Nouns in Mandarin Chinese: Case Studies on “cháng+ noun” and “adjective+ túshūguan”. In Proceedings of Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation.
Wang, S., & Huang, C. R. (2011). A generative lexicon perspective to possessive relation in mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 12th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW 2012). 201-213.
Wang, Y.-C. (2014). "Tian-Long" People Feel Superior? Subjective Social Status of Taipei Residents. Master’s thesis. National Taipei University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Wang, X. (2011). Which language? Which culture? Which pedagogy? A study of Mandarin Chinese teachers’ perceptions of their professional self in a British school context. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies, 4.
Wang, Z-Y. (2012).The lexical semantic features and syntactic functions of relatives of ‘yinwei’ and ‘youyu’-A corpus-based approach. Journal of Applied Chinese. (10):203-236. [in Chinese]
Wang,Y.-F.,Chou, F.-T, Chung, S.-M.,& Chung, R.-F. (2014).Chongxiu Pingtungxian zhi—Shehui xingtai yu shehui goucheng (重修屏東縣志-社會型態與社會構成). Pingtung: Pingtung County Government.pp. 39-44.
Watt, D. (2002). ‘I don’t speak with a Geordie accent, I speak, like, the Northern accent’: Contact‐induced levelling in the Tyneside vowel system. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(1), 44-63.
Waters, C. (2011). Social and Linguistic Correlates of Adverb Variability in English: A Cross-varietal Perspective. Doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto. Canada.
Weinreich, U. (1964). Webster’s Third: A Critique of its Semantics, International Journal of American Linguistics, (30): 405-409.
Wolfram, W., & Fasold, R. (1974). The study of social dialects in American English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wu, P.-Y. & Cheng, Y. (2011). Near Synonyms in Teaching Chinese as Second Language: A Case study to “yī”, “jù”, and “yījù”. Taiwan Journal of Chinese as a Second Language, (2): 23-46. [in Chinese]
Wu, F.-X, Feng, S.-L., & Huang, C.-T. (2006). Hanyu “shu+liang+ming” geshi de laiyuan (漢語“數+ 量+ 名” 格式的來源). Zhongguo Yuwen, (5): 387-400. [in Chinese]
Wu, Y.-Y. (2014). Hanyu geti liangci “shu+liang+ming” jiegou de lishi xingcheng guocheng (漢語個體量詞 “數+ 量+ 名” 結構的歷時形成過程). Chinese Linguistics, (3): 83-90. [in Chinese]
Yamada, I., Baldwin, T., Sumiyoshi, H., Shibata, M., & Nobuyuki, Y. A. G. I. (2007). Automatic acquisition of qualia structure from corpus data. IEICE transactions on information and systems, 90(10), 1534-1541.
Yang, S.-H. (2008).Narrative of a cross-cultural language teaching experience: Conflicts between theory and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1564-1572.
Zhang, C. (2010). Fazhan chuqi de Hanyu mingliangci tedian—handai liangci yanjiu (發展初期的漢語名量詞特點—漢代量詞研究). Journal of Chinese Language History, 13.
Zhang, H. (2007). Numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 16(1), 43-59.
Zhang, Q. (2005). A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: Phonological variation and the construction of a new professional identity. Language in Society, 34(03), 431-466.
Zhang, S-L. (2002). Gudai hanyu jiaocheng (古代漢語教程). Shanghai: Fudan University Press.

Online Resources:
Ministry of Education (MOE) online dictionary: http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/
Chinese Sketch Engine: http://wordsketch.ling.sinica.edu.tw
MOE Southern Min online dictionary:
http://twblg.dict.edu.tw/holodict_new/index.html




 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE