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：太魯閣語指示詞的語法化研究
作者：許韋晟
作者(外文)：Hsu, Wei-Cheng
校院名稱：國立清華大學
系所名稱：語言學研究所
指導教授：張永利
葉美利
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2019
主題關鍵詞：指示詞；言談分析；語法化；太魯閣語；demonstrative；discourse analysis；grammaticalization；the Truku language
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:5
本論文主要研究太魯閣語指示詞，包括nii「這」、gaga/ga「那」、kiya/ki「那」、hini「這裡」、hiya/hi「那裡」等五組指示詞，從句法、言談分析、語法化等角度進行討論，並聚焦於指示詞的言談功能。
本文的研究發現，這五組指示詞都呈現多功能用法，在句法上，主要可分成兩大類：第一類是指示詞的基本功能，包括代名詞性指示詞、定語性指示詞、狀語性指示詞等，第二類是指示詞的延伸功能，包括方位動詞、動貌助動詞、時間用法等。在語意特徵上，主要跟指示的特性相關，包括距離以及可見性兩類，距離對比上，nii「這」表示近指、gaga/ga「那」表示遠指，kiya/ki「那」則是不區分遠近；可見性對比上，nii和gaga/ga都是可見性的，而kiya/ki亦不區分。
在言談中，本論文分成口語敘事、遊戲設計對話、以及節目訪談對話三個言談模式進行討論，將指示詞的言談功能分成六大類，包括文外照應（情境用法）、篇章指示、文內照應（回指和後指）、識別用法、關聯詞用法以及言談標記用法，其中言談標記用法又包括主題標記、確認用法、應答用法、話題接續、填補詞等。結果發現，指示詞的言談功能中，指示詞單用和指示詞詞串在用法上有明顯差異，甚至有分工的情況，也發現到指示詞gaga幾乎不具有言談功能，kiya/ki可搭配的成分較多，呈現的言談功能也較多樣化，此外，這三類言談模式各自呈現了一些用法上的特殊性及偏好。
從語法化的角度分析指示詞的言談功能後發現，太魯閣語的五組指示詞，各有不同程度的語法化現象，其中近指處所用法hini「這裡」是語法化程度最淺的，而kiya/ki「那」是語法化程度最深的指示詞。在語法化演變的路徑，指示詞主要經歷了以下的目標項：方位動詞、動貌標記、第三人稱單數代名詞、肯定用法/應答用法、時間用法、言談標記，甚至可能發展成定冠詞用法。
最後，本文提出三個主要的貢獻，第一，實證經驗的材料提供，在過去台灣南島語的研究中，關於指示詞的相關研究仍不足，在太魯閣語亦是如此，而本論文針對太魯閣語指示詞現象進行系統性的研究；第二，類型學上的貢獻，在台灣南島語的指示詞演變情況，太魯閣語、噶瑪蘭語等語言可延伸出方位動詞和動貌用法，但這些重要的資料尚未被呈現在跨語言類型學的研究中；第三，自然口語語料的重要性，本論文同時使用書面語料及口語語料進行分析，結果發現如果僅針對書面語資料進行研究，將會遺漏掉部分的用法，也可能因此無法呈現指示詞的全貌。
This dissertation mainly studies demonstratives in the Truku language, including nii “this”, gaga/ga “that”, kiya/ki “that”, hini “here”and hiya/hi “there”. We discuss from the perspective of syntax, semantics, discourse analysis, and grammaticalization, and we mainly focus on the phenomenon of grammaticalization of demonstratives.
We discover that these five groups of demonstratives all present multifunctional use. In syntax, we can have two categories. First, the basic function of demonstratives, including pronominal demonstratives, adnominal demonstratives, and adverbial demonstratives. Second, the extended function of demonstratives, including locative verb, aspectual auxiliary, and temporal use. In the semantic feature, the use is mainly related to demonstrative characteristics, such as distance and visibility. As for the contrast of distance, nii “this” indicates proximal, and gaga/ga “that”, distal, whereas kiya/ki “that” also indicates distal, and it can refer to a referent which does not occur in the discourse context as well; as for the contrast of visibility, there is restriction of visibility on nii “this” and gaga/ga “that”, but not on kiya/ki “that”.
In discourse analysis, the functions of demonstratives fall into six categories, such as exphoric use, discourse deictic use, endophoric use, recognitional use, connectives, and discourse marker. We find that, in the discourse functions of demonstratives, there are significant differences in the use of a single demonstrative and the collocating phrase, they even work with a division of labor. We also find that gaga hardly has any discourse function, while kiya/ki has more collocations and presents a variety of discourse functions.
Based on the principles of grammaticalization, proposed by Diessel (1999) and Hopper (1991), we view these five groups of demonstratives and find that each of them has different degrees of grammaticalization. Among these, the proximal locative demonstrative hini “here” is the one with the least degree of grammaticalization, while kiya/ki “this/that”, with the deepest. In the mechanism of grammaticalization, some demonstratives undergo reanalysis and thus begin to have new uses or to get into the process of de-categorialization, in which metaphor and metonymy play a great role. Meanwhile, we also observe that the demonstratives evolve from the propositional level to the textual level to express the semantic relationship from one proposition to the other. Eventually, with the increase of subjectivity of speaker, expressing one’s stand and attitude, the uses of demonstratives go further to the level of expression of emotional function, which matches the path of semantic evolution, proposed by Traugott (1989, 1995): propositional> textual > expressive.
In conclusion, this dissertation provides three main contributions. First, the providing of empirical material. In the previous studies of the Formosan languages, few are related to demonstrative, not to mention the studies on the Truku languages. This study performs a systematic analysis of this topic. Second, the contribution to linguistic typology. In the case of grammaticalization of demonstratives in the Formosan languages, Truku and Kavalan can have extended uses, such as locative verb and aspectual auxiliary; however, these important data have not been presented in cross-linguistic typological studies. Third, the importance of natural spoken language. We use both written and spoken material to carry out the analysis in this study. We find that they have their characteristics and preferences respectively, and it is easier, especially in the spoken language, to observe a complete picture of demonstratives.
書籍與期刊：
Anderson, S. and Keenan,E. 1985. Deixis. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Fieldwork ,vol. III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp.259-308.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1993. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asai, Erin. 1953. The Sedik language of Formosa. Kanazawa: Cercle Linguistique de Kanazawa, Kanazawa University.
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge University Press.
Biq, Yung-O (畢永峨). 1990. Conversation, continuation, and connectives. Text 3: 187-208.
Blust, R., and Trussel S. 2013. The Austronesian Comparative Dictionary: A Work in Progress. Oceanic Linguistics 52.2: 493-523.
Brown, P., ＆ Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burenholt, Niclas. 2008. Spatial coordinate systems in demonstrative meaning. Linguistic Typology 12: 99-142.
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency. In Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Richard Janda & Brian Joseph, 602-623. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bybee, Joan and Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degree of constituency: The reduction of don’t in American English. Linguistics, 37.4: 575-596.
Bybee, Joan, Pagliuca, William, & Perkins, Revere. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, Lyle. 2013. Historical Linguistics: an Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. (3rd edition.)
Chafe, Wallace. 1982. Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature. In TANNEN, D. Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 35-53.
Chang, Anna Hsiou-chuan (張秀絹). 2006. A reference grammar of Paiwan. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University.
Chang, Miao-Hsia and Hsu, Huai-Tung (張妙霞、徐懷彤). 2019. Focal Point in Conversation: Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of Distal Demonstrative HE in Taiwanese Southern Min. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 17:1.
Clancy, P. M., Thompson, S. A., Suzuki, R., & Tao, H. (1996). The conversational use of reactive tokens in English, Japanese, and Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics 26(3), 355-387.
Clark, E.V. 1978. From Gesture to Word: On the natural history of deixis in　language acquisition. In Human Growth and Development, J. S. Bruner and　A. Garton (eds.), 85-120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, David. 1941 [2000].《現代語言學詞典》，沈家煊譯。北京：商務印書館。譯自：A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics。
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Typological Studies in Language 42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Diessel, Holger. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17. 463-489.
Diessel, Holger. 2011. Where do grammatical morphemes come from? On the development of grammatical markers from lexical expressions, demonstratives, and question words. MS, University of Jena. (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9787/2ac1e4f711078bfc1d64e6cbfb6be6331251.pdf)
Diessel, Holger. 2013. Pronominal and Adnominal Demonstratives. Dryer, Matthew S., Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online　Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. URL (Accessed on 2018-05-07.)
Dirven, R & Verspoor, M. 2004. Cognitive explorations of language and linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dixon, Robert. 2003. Demonstratives: a cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language 27.1: 61-112.
Du Bois, John, W., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Cumming, Susanna, and Paolino, Danae. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research , eds Jane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert. 45 89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatic 31, 931-952.
Fraser, Bruce. 2006. Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 189-204
French, Koleen Matsuda. 1988. The focus system in Philippine languages: An historical overview. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 18.2/19.1:1-17.
Givón, T. 1984. Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. 1993. Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language 69: 274-307.
Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Harris, Alice & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Hayashi, Makoto & Yoon, Kyung-eun. 2006. A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction. With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. Studies in Language 30.3: 485-540.
Hayashi, Makoto & Yoon, Kyung-eun. 2010. A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: With particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble, In Fillers, Pauses and Placeholders (N. Amiridze, B. Davis, M. Maclagan, eds.), 33-66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Heine, B., Claudi, U. and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2003. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-Verbal Prediction: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: a taxonomy of universal uses. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 205-254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components. (= Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 158). 21-42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, P. J. 1991. On Some Principles of Grammaticalization. In Traugott and Heine (eds.) 1: 17-35.
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 1993/2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hsu, Huai-Tung (徐懷彤). 2014. The Discourse Functions of the Distal Demonstrative he in Taiwanese Southern Min. MA. thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Huang, Lillian M. (黃美金). 1995. A study of Mayrinax Syntax. The Crane Publishing, Taipei.
Huang, Lillian M. 2001. Focus system of Mayrinax Atayal: A syntactic, semantic and pragmatic perspective. Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanities and Social Science 46:51-69.
Huang, Lillian M. 2002a. A Study of Deixis in Mayrinax Atayal. The 9th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (9ICAL), Canberra: National Australian University, January 8-11, 2002.
Huang, Lillian M. 2002b. Nominalization in Mayrinax Atayal. Language and Linguistics 3.2: 197-225.
Huang, Lillian M. 2008. Grammaticalization in Squliq Atayal. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 34.2.1-45.
Huang, Shuanfan (黃宣範). 1999. The Emergence of a Grammatical Category Definite Article in Spoken Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 77-94.
Huang, Shuanfan. 2013. Referring Expressions. Chinese Grammar at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Huang, Shuanfan, Lily I-wen Su and Li-May Sung. 2003. Language, space, and emotion. NSC Project. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Ingham, Bruce. 2001. English-Lakota Dictionary. Richmond, England: Curzon.
Jiang, Hao-wen (江豪文). 2006. Spatial conceptualizations in Kavalan. MA. thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Jiang, Hao-wen. 2009. Spatial deixis as motion predicates and aspect markers: The case in Kavalan, presented at the 11th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (ICAL-11), Aussois, France, Jun 22-26.
Juang, Yu-Ning (莊郁寧). 2012. Negation in Truku Seediq. MA. thesis. Kaohsiung: National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Keevalik, Leelo. 2010. The interactional profile of a placeholder: the Estonian demonstrative see. In Fillers, pauses and placeholders, ed. by Nino Amiridze, Boyd H. Davis and Margaret Maclagan, 139-172. Typological Studies in Language 93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In: Li, (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change 57-139.
Lee, Amy Pei-jung (李佩容). 2009. Dorsal consonant harmony in Truku Seediq. Language and Linguistics 10.3: 569-591.
Lee, Amy Pei-jung. 2010. Phonology in Truku Seediq. Taiwan Journal of Indigenous Studies 3.3: 123-168.
Lee, Amy Pei-jung. 2011a. Comitative and coordinate constructions in Truku Seediq. Language and Linguistics 12.1: 49-75.
Lee, Amy Pei-jung. 2011b. Metaphorical euphemisms of RELATIONSHIP and DEATH in Kavalan, Paiwan, and Seediq. Oceanic Linguistics 50.2: 351-379.
Lee, Amy Pei-jung. 2015. Body part nomenclature and categorisation in Seediq. In Elizabeth Zeitoun, Stacy F. Teng and Joy J. Wu, eds., New Advances in Formosan Linguistics, 451-483. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Ing Cherry (李櫻). 1999. Utterance-Final Particles in Taiwanese: A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei (李壬癸). 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.
Lichtenberk, Frank. 1996. Patterns of anaphora in To’aba’ita narrative discourse. In B. A. Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 379-411. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lima, José Pinto de. 2002. Grammaticalization, subjectification and the origin of phatic markers. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 49), 363-378. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lin, Hsiu-hsu (林修旭). 2005. The grammaticalization of tense/aspect auxiliaries in Seediq. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 31: 111-132.
Lyons. John. 1977. Semantics. Vols 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matisoff, J. A. 1973. The Grammar of Lahu. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Matthew S. Dryer. 2013. Definite Articles. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/37, Accessed on 2019-06-10.)
Maynard, S. K. 1990. Conversation management in contrast: Listener response in Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics 14(3): 397-412.
Özçalışkan, Şeyda, Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. 2014. Do iconic gestures pave the way for children’s early verbs? Applied Psycholinguistics 35: 1143-1162.
Pan, Chia-jung (潘家榮). 2012. A grammar of Lha'alua, an Austronesian language of Taiwan. Ph.D. dissertation, James Cook University.
Pecoraro, Ferdinando, MEP. 1977. Essai de Dictionnaire Taroko-Français. Cahiersd'Archipel 7. Paris: Soci* pru l'Etude et la Connaissance du Monde Insulindien.
Podlesskaya, Vera I. 2010. Parameters for typological variation of placeholders. In Fillers, pauses and placeholders, ed. by Nino Amiridze, Boyd H. Davis and Margaret Maclagan, 11-32. Typological Studies in Language 93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rau, D. Victoria (何德華). 1992. A Grammar of Atayal. Taipei: Crane.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. 1992 [2002].《朗文語言教學及應用語言學辭典》，沈家煊譯。北京：外語教學與研究出版社。譯自：Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics。
Ross, Malcolm. 2004. Demonstratives, local nouns and directionals in Oceanic languages: a diachronic perspective, in Gunter Senft (ed.), Deixis and demonstratives in Oceanic Languages, Pacific Linguistics, Canberra, 175-204.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shen, Yi-chun (沈怡君). 2009. The Use of ranhou in Spoken Chinese. MA. thesis. Taichung: Providence University.
Squartini, Mario. 2013. From TAM to discourse: The role of information status in North-Western Italian già ‘already’, in L. Degand, B. Cornillie, P. Pietrandrea (eds), Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description, Amsterdam, 163-190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Su, Lily I-wen (蘇以文). 1998. Conversational coherence: the use of ranhou ‘then’ in Chinese spoken discourse, In Selected Papers form the Second International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan, ed. by Huang, Shuanfan, 167-181. Taipei: Crane.
Suh, K.-H. 2000. Distal demonstratives as fillers. Language Research 36.4, 887-903.
Tabor, Whitney and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paul J. Hopper (eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization, 229-272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tao, Hongyin (陶紅印). 1999. The grammar of demonstratives in Mandarin conversational discourse: A case study. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 27.1: 69-103.
Teng, Stacy F. (鄧芳青). 2007. A Reference Grammar of Puyuma. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31-55.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, ed. by Dieter Stein & Susan Wright, 31-54. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tsai, Hsiu-chun (蔡秀淳). 2001. The Discourse Function of the Dui Receipt in Mandarin Conversation. MA. thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Tsou, Chia-jung (鄒佳蓉). 2011. Aspects of the Syntax of Truku Seediq. MA. thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Tsukida, Naomi (月田尚美). 2005. Seediq. in Alexander Adelaar and Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, 291-325. New York: Routledge.
Tsukida, Naomi. 2006. Adverbial function and Seediq conveyance voice future form. In Streams Converging into an Ocean: Festschrift in Honor of Prof. Paul Jenkuei Li on His 70th Birthday, ed. by Chang, Yung-li, Lillian M. Huang and Dahan Ho, 185-204. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series W-5. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Tsukida, Naomi. 2009. A Grammar of Truku (Seediq). Ph.D dissertation. Tokyo: The University of Tokyo. [in Japanese]
Verschueren, Jef .1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.
Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman, Nina Hyams. 1998 [2002].《語言學新引》，黃宣範譯。台北：文鶴出版有限公司。譯自：An Introduction to Language。
Vries, L. de. 1995. Demonstratives, Referent Identification and Topicality in Wambon and Some Other Papuan Languages. Journal of Pragmatics 24: 513-533.
Wang, Chueh-chen, and Huang, Lillian M. (王玨珵、黃美金). 2006. Grammaticalization of connectives in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. Language and Linguistics 7.4: 991-1016.
Wegener, Heide. 2002, The Evolution of the German Modal Particle ‘denn’. In: I. Wischer & G. Diewald (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization, 379-393. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Woodworth, N. L. 1991. Sound Symbolism in Proximal and Distal Forms. Linguistics 29: 273-299.
Wouk, Fay. 2005. The syntax of repair in Indonesian. Discourse Studies 7(2): 237-258.
Wu, Hsiao-Ching (吳曉菁). 2004. Spatial conceptualizations in Tsou and Saisiyat. MA. thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Xu, Liejiong (徐烈炯). 2005. Topicalization in Asian Languages. The Blackwell companion to Syntax. Everaert, Martin and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds). Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell Reference Online. 23 November 2007: (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405114851)
Yang, Mei-Hui (楊美慧). 1992. NA in Chinese spoken discourse. MA. thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal Unversity.
Yeh, Marie M. (葉美利). 2010. Grammaticalization of the demonstrative ’isa:a’ in Saisiyat, Workshop on Pragmatic Markers in Asian Languages: A pre-conference workshop of The 4th Conference on Language, Discourse and Cognition, 2010.04.30. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Yeh, Marie M. 2015. Functions of ma’ ’isa:a’ in Saisiyat: A discourse analysis. New Advances in Formosan Linguistics. edited by Elizabeth Zeitoun, Stacy F. Teng and Joy J. Wu, 363-384, Studies on Austronesian Languages, Asia-Pacific Linguistics series A-PL 017 / SAL 003.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, L. Huang, M. Yeh and A. Chang. 1999. Existential, possessive and locative constructions in the Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 38.1: 1-42.
方 梅. 2002.〈指示詞「這」和「那」在北京話中的語法化〉，《中國語文》4: 343-356。
王錦慧. 2015.〈時間副詞「在」與「正在」的形成探究〉，《語言暨語言學》16(2): 187-212。
何德華、董瑪女. 2016.《達悟語語法概論》。新北巿：原住民族委員會。
吳新生. 2013. 〈從言談分析的觀點探討泰雅語 yasa「那」的語言現象〉，發表於「第十四屆全國語言學論文研討會」，2013年5月24-25日。花蓮：國立東華大學。
吳靜蘭. 2016.《阿美語語法概論》。新北巿：原住民族委員會。
宋麗梅. 2016.《賽德克語語法概論》。新北巿：原住民族委員會。
李小軍. 2013.《先秦至唐五代語氣詞的衍生與演變》。北京：北京師範大學出版社。
李壬癸. 1999.《臺灣原住民史‧語言篇》。南投：臺灣省文獻委員會。
李壬癸. 2007.〈台灣南島語言的詞典編纂技術檢討〉。載於台東大學華語文學系（編），原住民族語言發展論叢：理論與實務（頁16）。台北：原住民族委員會。
李世文、陳秋梅. 1993.〈中文口語與書寫語的比較研究〉，《教學與研究》15：63-96。臺北：國立臺灣師範大學。
李佩容、許韋晟. 2018.《太魯閣語語法概論》。新北巿：原住民族委員會。
李佩容. 2013.〈從音韻學觀點探討太魯閣語書寫符號系統〉，《臺灣原住民族研究季刊》6(3): 55-76。
李櫻. 2000.〈漢語研究中的語用面向〉，《漢學研究特刊》18: 323-356。臺北：漢學研究中心.
沈家煊. 1994.〈語法化研究綜觀〉，《外語教學與研究》4: 17-25。
胡萃苹. 2011.《現代漢語指示詞「這」與「那」之探析與教學應用》台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
胡震偉. 2003. 《賽德克語太魯閣方言多媒體超文本雛議》輔仁大學語言學研究所碩士論文。
徐烈炯、劉丹青. 2007.《話題的結構與功能》（增訂本）。上海：上海教育出版社。
張永利. 2000.《賽德克語參考語法》。台北：遠流出版社。
張秀絹. 2016.《排灣語語法概論》。新北巿：原住民族委員會。
張庭瑋. 2017.《漢語「對」和「真的」之會話結構與功能分析及教學啟示》國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文。
張智傑. 2016. 〈郡群布農語的指示詞研究〉，2016年台灣原住民族語言國際研討會。台北：國立台灣大學。
曹逢甫. 2000.〈華語虛詞的研究與教學－以呢字為例〉，《第六屆國際華語文教學研討會論文集：語文分析組》台北：世界華文教育協進會，pp. I-1-25。
曹逢甫. 2005.《漢語的句子與子句結構》，王靜譯。北京：北京語言大學出版社。
梁銀峰. 2018.《漢語指示詞的功能和語法化》，上海：上海教育出版社。
梁曉云. 2004.《現代漢語語尾助詞「呢」的教學語法初探》國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
畢永峨. 2007.〈遠指詞“那”詞串在台灣口語中的詞匯化與習語化〉，《當代語言學》9(2): 128-138.
許韋晟. 2008.《太魯閣語構詞法研究》，碩士論文。新竹：國立新竹教育大學。
許韋晟. 2014.〈太魯閣語方位詞的空間概念研究──以意象圖式和原型範疇理論為分析觀點〉，《清華學報》新44(2): 317-350。新竹：清華大學。
許韋晟. 2015.〈詞彙、認知介面與文化層面的連結性──以太魯閣語為例〉，《台灣原住民族研究季刊》8(4): 43-79。花蓮：國立東華大學。
許韋晟. 2016. 〈太魯閣語指示詞現象探究──從語法化的觀點分析〉，第十一屆臺灣語言及其教學國際學術研討會，2016.7.12-13。台北：中央研究院。
許韋晟. 2018. 〈太魯閣語指示詞kiya在篇章中的關聯詞用法〉，第十二屆臺灣語言及其教學國際學術研討會，2018.10.26-27。高雄：國立中山大學。
連皓琦. 2012.《賽德克語太魯閣方言禁忌語與委婉語研究》東華大學民族發展與社會工作學系研究所碩士論文。[現已更名為民族事務與發展學系研究所]
陳丕榮. 2010.《外籍學習者漢語句末語氣助詞習得研究與教學應用》國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文。
陳麗雪. 2009.〈《荔鏡記》指示詞的語法、語意特點〉，《台灣文學研究集刊》5: 191-202。
黃建銘. 2014. 《漢語兒童「然後」的使用》國立政治大學語言學研究所碩士論文。
黃美金、吳新生. 2016.《泰雅語語法概論》。新北巿：原住民族委員會。
黃漢君、連金發.2007. 〈萬曆本荔枝記指示詞研究〉，《清華學報》新37(2): 561-577。
楊盛凃、田信德. 2007.《台灣原住民德路固語》。花蓮：大統出版社。
葉美利. 2014.〈賽夏語指示詞的句法、構詞與語意初探〉，《台灣語文研究》9(1): 55-77。
葉美利. 2016.《賽夏語語法概論》。新北巿：原住民族委員會。
齊滬揚. 2002.〈「呢」的意義分析和歷史演變〉，《上海師範大學學報：哲學社會科學版》31(1): 34-45。
蔡豐念（總編輯）. 2013.《太魯閣族語辭典》。花蓮：花蓮縣秀林鄉公所。
羅沛文. 2015.〈賽德克語指示詞 nii「這」的多重功能研究〉，發表於「第十六屆全國語言學論文研討會」，2015年5月2-3日。台北：國立政治大學。
蘇以文. 2010. 〈語用學的發展與展望〉，《人文與社會科學簡訊》12(1): 128-135。


其他資料：
花蓮縣秀林鄉公所. 2012.《太魯閣族語兒童繪本》。花蓮縣：秀林鄉公所。
花蓮縣秀林鄉公所. 2014a.《太魯閣族語中階讀本》。花蓮縣：秀林鄉公所。
花蓮縣秀林鄉公所. 2014b.《太魯閣族語高階讀本》。花蓮縣：秀林鄉公所。
原住民族委員會委託研究計劃。2000。《泰雅族賽德克語言(太魯閣語)》。


線上資源：
原住民族語言線上詞典。http://e-dictionary.apc.gov.tw/Index.htm。
原住民族線上繪本及動畫。http://web.klokah.tw/animation/。
Blust, R., and Trussel S. 2010-. The Austronesian comparative dictionary, web edition (work-in-progress). Online: http://www.trussel2.com/acd/.
 
 
 
 
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：539（臺灣：538，外國：1） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1430120 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67228252
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