政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/112601

政大典藏 > College of Foreign Languages and Literature > Graduate Institute of Linguistics > Theses > Item 140.119/112601

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112601

Title:	臺灣客語「過」構式：結構、語義與語音綜合分析 Taiwan Hakka go55 constructions: A structural, semantic and phonetic integrated analysis
Authors:	劉曉蒨 Liu, Hsiao-chien
Contributors:	賴惠玲曾淑娟 Lai, Huei-ling Tseng, Shu-chuan 劉曉蒨 Liu, Hsiao-chien
Keywords:	趨向詞客語「過」構式意象模組語法化理論構式語法以構式解析語法化的觀點口語產製實驗音長正規化 directionals Hakka go55 constructions image schema Grammaticaliztion Construction Grammar a constructional view of change production experiment duration normalization
Date:	2017
Issue Date:	2017-09-13 14:04:56 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	本論文旨於針對臺灣客語趨向詞「過」構式提供一個具有結構、語義及語音之整合性研究。首先在句法結構層面，本文主要採用Traugott & Trousdale (2013)「以構式解析語法化的觀點」(a constructional view of change)，從「構式語法」(construction grammar) 的觀點重新思考語法化 (grammaticalization) 研究的演變。為了強化構式語法的「認知概念」面向，本文將Langacker (1987)的意象模組 (image schema) 概念整合至構式分析，具體呈現認知層面與語義層面的互動關係。最後，本文操弄口語產製實驗 (production experiment)，以探索語法化、結構語義及語音的弱化關係。本文希望提出一個研究趨向詞與語法化的整合框架，作為日後其他趨向詞對比研究的基礎，並能使理論發展與語言解釋能有更實質的連結。過去語法化研究主要以詞彙單位為研究對象，而且通常分成句法演變和語義延伸的各別專研，導致容易偏重特定面向。因此本文以典型的結構為主，如[NP1+(V)+過+NP2]，在此稱為構式，如此可以考慮這個構式裡每個成分的變化與互動，用以掌握形式及意義的演變(或共變)。為了釐清「過」構式與分佈，本文首先製作一個專門性的小型口語語料庫，其中收集到738筆帶「過」的趨向構式，語料標記的項目著重於組成成分的詞彙、句法與語義面。雖然真實使用情況容許諸多形式變化，但本文僅聚焦於典型構式與經歷語法化的構式。經過由下到上的標記程序，語料庫的結果顯示「過」構式主要涵蓋三種上層構式(主要構式)，即A類[NP1+V過+NP2]、B類[NP1+V+過(+D去/來)+NP2+D去/來]與C類[NP+過+VP]，A類與B類涵括動詞與補語「過」的所有構式，因此兩者句法結構變化類型最多且出現頻率高。而C類則是放置形容程度的構式，故出現頻率較低。在瞭解「過」構式的樣貌後，本文係從概念、語義與句法等三個層面探討其對應關係。就目前為止，本文認為趨向結構適合構式語法的分析，但就本文的研究結果來說，構式義不全然與動詞義無關，而是動詞是建構構式的一部分，此動詞的概念語義與其他成分(特別是動詞後面的NP2)的互動結果影響著構式義的形成，因此先行操作意象模組的認知概念，形塑「過」構式在認知概念的內在意涵，然後將此認知概念產物與構式合併觀察論元結構在語義及句法的連結與體現關係。在兼顧這三個語言層面後，加以探討每個新構式的產生與構式內部的變化，用以呼應、討論並精進前人研究。據此研究結果，本文歸納出「過」的構式家族，再處理概念與語義的銜接以展現動詞義的區辨，以及構式義與動詞義的互動表現，並且在語義與句法的銜接的框架下討論構式之間的變化。最後探討語音弱化與語法化的關係，以嘗試探索對語法化理論的檢驗方法，如何能補充「過」構式在語音上的表現。依照語法化理論的假設，結構語義及功能趨於強化、結構趨於固化，則語音形式便趨於弱化。因此本文以客語「過」構式為主，並以華語「過」構式為輔，利用口語產製實驗檢視構式語義及語音的對應問題。為了讓音長作為可信的量化指標，本文對原始音長進行正規化處理。實驗結果顯示，「過」的動詞、補語與動貌標記用法呈現由長到短的音長差異，而且構式中的能性補語通常得到較弱的語音表現。在語義層面，與具體空間位移用法相比之下，發現抽象空間延伸用法的語音表現較為減弱。綜上所述，本文以客語「過」在語料庫之真實使用，探究整體「過」構式語法化，就結構、語義及語音三個範疇表現提出綜合之觀點及分析。 This dissertation aims at providing a structural, semantic and phonetic integrated analysis for Taiwan Hakka go55 constructions. First, we adopt Traugott & Trousdale`s (2013) framework, “a constructional view of change”, which reconsiders some aspects of prior works on grammaticalization from a constructional perspective. Then, we integrate Langacker`s (1987) "image schema" into our constructional analysis in the hope of linking the mapping between the cognitive and semantic aspects. Lastly, we conduct a production experiment to investigate the relation between grammaticalization and phonetic reduction. Much work on grammaticalization has paid attention to a morphemic or word unit in which structural and meaning changes are sometimes treated independently. We, however, investigate Hakka go55 structure [NP1+(V)+過+NP2], regarded it as a construction, and then examine the variations and interaction within a construction for capturing form and meaning changes. We first design a mini-corpus that collects 738 oral tokens of go55 constructions for understanding its usages and distribution. In this corpus, we identify and label the lexicons, structures and semantics of the elements of the constructions. Our targets are typical constructions and the grammaticalized ones although there are many syntactic variations in natural speech. Through the bottom-up labeling process, the result shows that there are three macro-constructions: Type A [NP1+V過+NP2], Type B [NP1+V+DC過(+D去/來)+NP2+D去/來] and Type C [NP+過+VP]. Type A and B contain all verbal and complement directional constructions, so they present many syntactic patterns in high frequency while Type C is the degree construction in low frequency. We further investigate the corresponding relationships among cognitive concepts, semantics and syntax. The results show that the constructional meaning is not completely independent of the verbal meaning since the verb is part of the construction. Moreover, the interaction between the other components (particularly the nouns after the verbs) affects the formation of the constructional meaning. Therefore, the cognitive concepts of image schema are first examined to understand the cognitive nature of go55 constructions and are merged into the constructional analysis based on the relation between semantic and syntax. After taking three aspects into account, we explore the emergence of constructionalization and constructional change. Then, all subconstructions form a family, organized in an inheritance hierarchy. In order to examine the relation between phonetic reduction and grammaticalization, finally, a production experiment is implemented to reflect the phonetic representation of go55 constructions. Hakka go55 constructions are the major targets while Mandarin ones are the supplement roles. The duration of the original data is normalized for obtaining a reliable phonetic feature signifying phonetic reduction. The results suggest that the aspectal use is prosodically less prominent than their verbal use. Potentiality forms are often reduced than the other components. Compared to the concrete-motion meaning, the abstract one is majorly reduced. Overall, this dissertation provides a comprehensive analysis and overview of structures, semantics and phonetics in Hakka go55 constructions.
Reference:	1. 中文文獻太田辰夫，1987，蔣紹愚、徐昌華譯，《中國語歷史文法》。北京：北京大學出版社。方梅，2005，〈篇章語法與漢語篇章語法研究〉，《中國社會科學》，第6期，頁165-172。王錦慧，2002，〈談趨向補語「來」與「去」的產生〉，《新竹師院學報》，第15期，頁181-209。王錦慧，2004，《「往」「來」「去」的歷史演變綜論》。台北：里仁書局。朱德熙，1982，《語法講義》。北京：商務印書館。江敏華，2013，〈台灣客家話趨向結構中與體貌有關的成分〉，《語言暨語言學》，第14.5期，頁837-73。何耿鏞，1993，《客家方言語法研究》。廈門大學出版社。吳福祥，1996，《敦煌變文語法研究》。Changsha, Yuelu Shushe。吳福祥，1998，〈重談「動+了+賓」格式的來源和完成體助詞「了」的產生〉，《中國語文》，第6期，頁452-462。吳福祥，2010，〈漢語方言裡與趨向動詞相關的幾種語法化模式〉，《方言》，第2期，頁97-113。呂叔湘，2005，《現代漢語八百詞》。北京：商務印書館。李訥、石毓智，1997，〈論漢語體標記產生的機制〉，《中國語文》，第2期，頁82-96。李如龍，2000，〈論方言特徵詞〉，《中國語言學報》，第10期。李詩敏，2015，《臺灣客語時貌構式：詞彙與構式觀點》。臺北：國立政治大學語言學研究所博士論文。李詩敏、賴惠玲，2016，〈從動詞到連接詞：臺灣客語「過」之語法化和詞彙化〉，發表於「第十一屆台灣語言及其教學國際學術研討會」，中央研究院語言學研究所。李榮主編、黃雪貞編纂，1995，《梅縣方言詞典》。南京市，江蘇教育出版社。邢向東，2011，〈陝北神木話的趨向動詞及其語法化〉，《語言暨語言學》，第12.3期，頁565-593。沈家煊，1995，〈「有界」與「無界」〉，《中國語文》，第5期，頁367-79。邢福義，2001，《漢語複句研究》。北京：商務印書館。房子欽，2015，《台灣客家語動後體標記語法化研究》。新竹：國立新竹教育大學臺灣語言研究與教育研究所博士論文。林燾，1957，〈現代漢語補足語裡的輕音現象所反映出來的語法和語義問題〉，《北京大學學報》，第2期，頁153-166。邱蕙芳，2010，《華語及客語補語「起來」的研究》。新竹：國立新竹教育大學臺灣語言與語文教育研究所碩士論文。侯復生，2002，〈梅縣方言謂詞後面的「啊」〉，謝棟元主編，《客家方言研究：第四屆客方言研討會論文集》，頁332-343。廣州：暨南大學出版社。柯理思，2003，〈漢語空間位移事件的語言表達〉。《現代中國語研究》，第5期，頁1-18。柯理思，2006，〈論十九世紀客家話文獻《啟蒙淺學》中所見的趨向補語〉。《語言暨語言學》，第7.2期，頁261-95。洪惟仁，1994，〈閩南語輕聲變化與語法的關係〉。廈門閩南語研討會。范繼淹，1963，〈動詞和趨向性後置成分的結構分析〉，《中國語文》，第2期，頁136-160。徐兆泉主編，2009，《臺灣四縣腔與海陸腔客家話辭典》。台北市：南天書局有限公司。馬玉汴，2005，〈趨向動詞的認知分析〉，《漢語學習》，第6期，頁6:34-39。馬慶珠，1997，〈“V來/去”與現代漢語的主觀範疇〉，《語文研究》，第3期，頁16-22。張雙慶，1996，〈香港粵語動詞的體〉，張雙慶主編，《動詞的體》，頁143-160。香港：中文大學中國文化研究所吳多泰中國語文研究中心。張麗麗，2010，〈返回義趨向詞作狀語：從語義框架看虛化〉，《語言暨語言學》，第11.4期，頁803-851。張伯江，1991，〈關於動趨式帶賓語的幾種語序〉，《中國語文》，第3期，頁183-91。曹逢甫，1998，〈台灣閩南語中與時貌有關的語詞「有」「Ø」和「啊」試析〉。《清華學報》，第28.3期，頁299-334。曹逢甫，2005，《漢語的句子與子句結構》。北京：北京語言大學出版社。梁銀峰，2007，《漢語趨向動詞的語法化》。上海：學林出版社。連金發，2003，〈十六世紀及現代閩南語指示動詞的語法化〉，《國際中國學研究》，第6期，頁379-410。連金發，2006，〈荔競記趨向式探索〉，《語言暨語言學》，第7.4期，頁755-798. 連金發，2011，〈閩南語趨向式歷時演變探索〉，《語言暨語言學》，第12.2期，頁427-475。黃美鴻、鄭縈，2010，〈臺灣海陸客家語「來/去」做趨向語的相關研究〉。《北市大語文學報》，第5期，頁25-53。郭維茹，2005，《指示趨向詞_來_去_之句法功能及歷時演變》。台北：國立臺灣大學中國文學研究所博士論文。郭維茹，2011，〈《朱子語類》能性述補結構中的幾個趨向補語：兼與閩南語相較〉，《國文學報》，第49期，頁107-134。陳前瑞、張曼，2015，〈漢語經歷體標記"過"的演變路徑〉，《漢語史研究集刊》，第19期，頁70-88。項夢冰，1997，《連城客家話語法研究》。北京：語文出版社。馮勝利，2009，《漢語的韻律、詞法與句法》。北京：北京大學。楊蕙菁，2004，《「過」字語法化研究》。台中：靜宜大學中國文學研究所碩士論文。趙靜雅，2009，〈從構式語法看現代漢語動補結構的論元體現〉，《華語文教學研究》，第6.2期，頁23-43。遠藤雅裕，2015，〈南方漢語的「過」字差比句：以臺灣海路客語的差比句為中心〉。發表於「2015大埔客家文化國際學術研討會」，台中：國立臺中教育大學，2015年11月7-8日。劉月華，1998，《趨向補語通釋》。北京：北京語言文化大學出版社。劉月華，2001，《實用現代漢語語法》。北京：商務印書館。劉承慧，2012，〈上古到中古「來」在構式中的演變〉，《語言暨語言學》，第13.2期，頁247-287。劉堅、曹廣順、吳福祥，1995，〈論誘發漢語詞彙語法化的若干因素〉，《中國語文》，第3期，頁161-169。歐淑珍、蕭宇超，1997，〈從「韻律音韻學」看台灣閩南語的輕聲現象〉，《聲韻論叢，第6期，頁865-895。黎錦熙，1947，《新著國語文法》。北京，商務印書館。鄭中信，2008，《客家話趨向詞「轉」語法探析－以臺灣東勢大埔腔為例》。屏東：國立屏東教育大學中國語文學系。賴文英，2015，《臺灣客語語法導論》。台北：國立台灣大學出版中心。賴惠玲、李詩敏，2009，〈客語「過」構式句法及語意之衍變：跨範疇之觀點〉，發表於「2009年日本中國語學會第59回全國大會」，日本北海道大學。謝健雄，2008，〈當代台灣漢語慣用轉喻：認知語言學取徑〉，《人文暨社會科學期刊》，第4.1期，頁55-67。魏培泉，2013，〈近代漢語動趨式中的「將」〉，《語言暨語言學》，第41.5期，頁875-928。魏培泉，2013，〈經驗體標記「過」的歷史由來〉。發表於「漢語時間標記之歷史演變研討會暨第八屆海峽兩岸漢語語法史研討會」，新竹：國立清華大學中國文學系，2013年11月16-18日。魏培泉，2016，〈經驗體標記「過」的歷史由來〉，《語言暨語言學》，第17.2期，頁265-290。羅肇錦，1984，《客語語法》。台北：台灣學生書局。羅肇錦，1990，《台灣的客家話》。台北：臺原出版社。羅肇錦，1996，〈四縣客語附著成分結構〉，董忠司主編，《『臺灣客家語概論』講授資料彙編》，頁117-153。台北：臺灣語文學會。羅肇錦，1996，〈四縣客語虛詞的功能結構〉，董忠司主編，《『臺灣客家語概論』講授資料彙編》，頁154-187。台北：臺灣語文學會。羅肇錦主編，1999，《苗栗客語故事集(一)~(三) 》。苗栗市：苗栗縣立文化中心。嚴修鴻，2001，〈平遠客家話的結構助詞〉。《語言研究》，第2期，頁37-47。 2. 英文文獻 Ahrens, K. & C.-R. Huang. 2002. Time passing is motion. Language and Linguistics 3(3): 491-519. Ansaldo, U. & L. Lim. 2004. Phonetic absence as syntactic prominence: Grammaticalization in isolating tonal languages. In F. Olga, N. Muriel & P. Harry, eds., Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization, 345-362. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Boersma, P. & D. Weenink. 2017. Praat (Version 6.0.31) [Software]. Latest version available for download from www.praat.org. Bybee, J. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda, eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 602-623. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, J., W. Pagliuca, et al. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Campbell, L. 2001. What`s wrong with grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23: 113-161. Chao, Y. R. (趙元任). 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. (《中國話的文法》，丁邦新譯。香港：中文大學出版社。) Chappell, H. 1992. Towards a typology of aspect in Sinitic languages. Zhongguo Jingnei Yuyan ji Yuyanxue [Journal of Chinese Languages and Linguistics] 1: 67-106 (Taipei Academia Sinica). Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Croft, W. 2007. Construction grammar. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 463-508. New York: Oxford University Press. Croft, W. & D. A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Darwin, Charles. 1859 (2005). On the origin of species. New York: Penguin Books. Duanmu, S. 2007. The phonology of standard Chinese. New York: Oxford University Press. Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms, eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehard & Winston. Fillmore, C. J. 1988. The mechanisms of `Construction Grammar`. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster, eds., Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: General session and parasession on Grammaticalization, 35-55. Berkeley, CA, Berkeley Linguistics Society. Francis, E. J. & L. A. Michaelis. 2003. Mismatch: A crucible for linguistic theory. In E. J. Francis & L. A. Michaelis., eds., Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar, 1-27. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ. Fried, M. 2008. Constructions and constructs: Mapping a diachronic process. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald. Berlin, eds., Constructions and Language Change, 47-79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, A. E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 219-224. Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Goldberg, A. E. & R. Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3): 523-568. Grabe, E. & E. L. Low 2002. Durational Variability in Speech and the Rhythm Class Hypothesis. In C. Gussenhoven & N. Warner, eds., Papers in Laboratory Phonology 7, 515-546. Berlin: Mouton. Haspelmath, M. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In F. Olga, N. Muriel & P. Harry, eds., Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization, 17-44. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Heine, B. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, B., C. Ulrike, et al. 1997. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hopper, P. J. & S. A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251-299. Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. Huang, S.-m. & S. C.-y. Hsieh. 2008. Grammaticalization of directional complements in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics 9(1): 49-68. Hudson, R. A. 2007. Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hurford, J. R. 2003. The Language mosaic and its evolution. In M. H. Christiansen & S. Kirby, eds., Language evolution, 16-37. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Israel, M. 1996. The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg, ed., Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 217-230. Stanford: CSLI Publ. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge & Mass.: MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press. Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ladefoged, P. 2006. A Course in Phonetics. Australia, Boston & Mass.: Thomson, Wadsworth. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamarre, C. 2007. The linguistic encoding of motion events in Chinese: with reference to cross-dialectal variation. In C. Lamarre & T. Ohori, eds., Typological Studies of the Linguistic Expression of Motion Events. 1, 3-33. Tokyo: Center for Evolutionary Cognitive Sciences at the University of Tokyo. Lamarre, C. 2008. The linguistic categorization of deictic direction in Chinese: with reference to Japanese. In D. Xu, ed, Space in languages of China: Cross-linguistic, synchronic and diachronic perspectives, 69-98. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Lamarre, C. 2009. The typological of Sinitic directionals. Workshop on Chinese Directionals: History and Dialectal Variations, in conjunction with the 6th Cross-Strait Conference on Chinese Historical Grammar, Taipei, Academia Sinica. Lamarre, C. 2009. The Typological of Sinitic directionals. Workshop on Chinese Directionals: History and Dialectal Variation, in conjunction with the 6th Cross-Strait Conference on Chinese Historical Grammar. Academia Sinica. Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. 1992. Prepositions as grammatical(izing) elements. Leuvenese Bijdragen 81: 287-309. Lehmann, C. 1992. Word order change by grammaticalization. In M. Gerritsen & D. Stein, eds., Internal and external factors in syntactic change, 395-416. Berlin: Mouton. Lin, Y.-H. 2007. The sounds of Chinese. Cambridge, U.K & New York: Cambridge University Press. Liu, Y.-F. & S.-C. Tseng. 2009. Linguistic patterns detected through a prosodic segmentation in spontaneous Taiwan Mandarin speech. In Shu-Chuan Tseng, ed., Linguistic Patterns in Spontaneous Speech, 147-166. Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Lobanov, B. M. 1970. Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different speakers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49(2): 606-608. Mandler, J. 1992. How to build a baby: II Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review 99: 587-604. Mermelstein, P. 1975. Automatic segmentation of speech into syllabic units. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 58(4): 880-883. Myers, J. & Y. Li. 2009. Lexical frequency effects in Taiwan Southern Min syllable contraction. Journal of Phonetics 37(2): 212-230. Núñez, R. E., B. A. Motz, et al. 2006. Time after time: The psychological reality of the ego- and time-reference-point distinction in metaphorical construals of time. Metaphor and Symbol 21(3): 133-146. Newmeyer, F. J. 2001. Deconstructing grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23: 187-229. Newmeyer, F. J. 2003. What can the field of Linguistics tell us about the origins of language? In M. H. Christiansen & S. Kirby, eds., Language evolution, 58-76. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Noël, D. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14: 177-202. Peyraube, A. 2006. Motion events in Chinese: A Diachronic study of directional complements. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert, eds., Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories. Philadelphia: Benjamins: 121-135. Pinker, S. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the Dative alternation in English. Language 65(2): 203-257. Pinker, S. & P. Bloom. 1990. Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and brain sciences 13: 707-784. Shen, X. S. 1990. The prosody of Mandarin Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press. Shen, X. S. 1993. Relative duration as a perceptual cue to stress in Mandarin. Language and Speech 36(4): 415-433. Smirnova, E. 2015. Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. In J. h. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea, eds., Diachronic construction grammar, 81-106. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Stefanowitsch, A. & T. G. Stefan. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209-243. Tai, J. H.-Y. 1989. Toward a cognition-based functional grammar of Chinese. In J. H.-Y. Tai & F. Hsueh. Kalamazoo, eds., Functionalism and Chinese grammar, 186-226. MI: Chinese Language Teachers Association. Talmy, L. 1983. How language structure space. In H. Pick & L. Acredelo, eds., Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application, 225-320. New York: Plenum. Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical form. In T. Shopen, ed., Language typology and syntactic description 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 57-149. New York: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, L. 2007. Lexical typologies. In T. Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description 3, grammatical categories and the lexicon, 166-168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, E. C. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda, eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 624-647. Oxford: Blackwell. Traugott, E. C. 2008. Grammaticalication, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jäger and T. Veenstra, eds., Variation, selection, development－Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 219-250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Traugott, E. C. 2008. The grammaticalization of NP of NP constructions. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald, eds., Constructions and language change, 21-43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Traugott, E. C. 2015. Towards a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In J. h. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea, eds., Diachronic construction grammar, 51-79. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In E. C. Traugott & G. Trousdale, eds., Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization, 19-44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trousdale, G. 2008. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne, eds., Constructional Approaches to English Grammar, 33-67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Trousdale, G. 2010. Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English. In K. Stathi, G. Elke & E. König, eds., Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 51-72. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Tseng, S.-C. 2010. Directional complements in Taiwan Mandarin natural speech. Language and Linguistics 11(3): 469-501. Tseng, S.-C. 2013. Lexical coverage in Taiwan Mandarin Conversation. Computational linguistics & Chinese language processing 18(1): 1-18. Tyler, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tyler, A. & V. Evans. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77(4): 724-765. Vennemann, T. 1974. Topics, subjects and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX. In J. M. Anderson & C. Jones, eds., Historical linguistics I, 339-376. North Holland: Amsterdam. Wang, L. F.-m. 2002. From a motion verb to an aspect marker: A study of Guo in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics 28(2): 57-84. Wu, H.-C. 2003. A case study on the grammaticalization of GUO in Mandarin Chinese--Polysemy of the motion verb with respect to semantic changes. Language and Linguistics 4(4): 857-885. Xu, Y. 1997. Contextual tonal variations in Mandarin. Journal of Phonetics 25: 61-83. Yiu, C. Y.-m. 2013. Directional verbs in Cantonese: A typological and historical study. Language and Linguistics 14(3): 511-569. Yu, N. 1998. The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Description:	博士國立政治大學語言學研究所 97555502
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0975555022
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Linguistics] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
502201.pdf	1817Kb	Adobe PDF2	175	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...