政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/112675

政大典藏 > College of Liberal Arts > Doctor`s / Master`s Program in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language > Theses > Item 140.119/112675

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/112675

Title:	基於語料庫方法辨析漢語動補結構「用X 」及「弄X」之使用情況 A Corpus-based Study of Mandarin Verbs Yong and Nong in Verb-complement Structure
Authors:	楊雅筑
Contributors:	鍾曉芳楊雅筑
Keywords:	動補結構動結式動詞義項語料庫語義韻律 Verb-complement structure Resultive form Verb sense Corpus Semantic prosody
Date:	2017
Issue Date:	2017-09-13 14:47:10 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	本研究探討漢語動補結構在語料庫中的使用情況，透過語料庫研究方法，辨析動詞「用X」及「弄X」與動補結構的關係，並探究動補結構中「用X」及「弄X」相互替代的使用現象，最後由詞彙語意及語義韻律的角度提出說明。本研究利用中文詞彙網路（Chinese Wordnet）、《平衡語料庫》（Sinica Corpus 4.0）以及《批踢踢語料庫》（PTT Corpus），觀察語料庫中動詞「用」、動詞「弄」、動補結構「用X」及動補結構「弄X」的語料分布，以及語料與動詞義項的互動情況。研究發現，在語料庫中，動詞「用」的主要語義是「利用特定對象的特定功能」，而動詞「弄」的主要語義則是以「造成特定結果」和「代動詞，做」，且在語料庫中，「用X」結構的分布集中、「弄X」分布廣泛。研究亦發現，《平衡語料庫》中的動補結構語料相對來說較《批踢踢語料庫》中的語料組合穩定，此一現象是由於不同語料庫中的語料結合緊密程度不同所致。藉由動詞代換檢測及動詞義項的比對，可知在動結式動補結構這個特定的環境下，動詞「用」和「弄」顯示了與近義詞相似的特質，甚至展現出詞彙語意關係中的上下位（hyponymy）或者蘊含關係（entailment）。研究最後透過觀察「用X」和「弄X」動補結構的語義韻律，探究動詞「用」和「弄」在動詞義項以外的異同之處，並發現語料庫中的動補結構「用X」及「弄X」在語義韻律的分布上有相似的表現。 This paper aims to explore the cause of the mutual substitution of verbs yòng(用) and nòng(弄) in verb-complement structure in Taiwan Mandarin. The study adopts a semantic corpus-based approach to examine this phenomenon. To find out the resemblance of meanings shared by the verbs yòng and nòng, this study first retrieved their senses by using Chinese Wordnet and analyzed the sentences from the Sinica Corpus. Three hundred instances of yòng and 240 instances for nòng were analyzed and classified according to their corresponding verb senses. The results showed that yòng and nòng both contain the concept of “utilize certain tool/method/means to fulfill particular purposes”, proving that they could possibly form a synonymous set of verb. The analysis then focused on the behavior of the verbs in verb-complement structures. The verb-complement structures of yòng and nòng from the Sinica Corpus and the PTT Corpus were further inspected: 14 entries of ‘yòng-complement’ (179 instances) and 32 entries of ‘nòng-complement’ (157 instances) were found in Sinica Corpus, while 21 entries of ‘yòng-complement’ (82 instances) and 97 entries of ‘nòng-complement’ (781 instances) were found in the PTT Corpus. The distributions showed that the verb-complement structures in Sinica Corpus were relatively more stable than those in the PTT Corpus, and the phenomenon was inferred to be caused by the distinct degree of the structure combination. In order to examine the possibility of the mutual substitution of yòng and nòng, a verb-substitution test was conducted. The results were further examined by comparing with the verb-complement structures found in the PTT Corpus. In addition, introspective survey of native speakers of Mandarin was also added to re-confirm the substitution test result. Lastly, the verb senses and the semantic prosody of the verb-complement structures were also analyzed. The study showed that the verbs yòng and nòng have shared senses when they appear in resultive verb-complement structures, and the mutual substitution patterns were also discovered. As for the analysis of semantic prosody of the verb-complement structures, the result showed that yòng-complement and nòng-complement have identical distribution tendency: structures with neutral semantic prosody occupied the greatest proportion, followed by the negative ones and the positive ones, which also proved the synonymous relationship between the verbs yòng and nòng in the verb-complement structures.
Reference:	英文部分（依字母排序） Chief, L.C., Huang, C.R., Tsai, M.C.,& Chang, L.L. (2000). What can synonyms tell us. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 5(1), 47-59. Chung, S.F., & Ahrens, K. (2008). MARVS Revisited: Incorporating Sense Distribution and Mutual Information into Near-Synonym Analyses. Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 415-434. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press. Fellbaum, C. (1998, ed.) WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press. Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-55. In F. R. Palmer, (ed.), Selected Papers of J.R. Firth. Indiana University Press, 168-205. Huang, C.R., & Ahrens K. (2000). The Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics. In A. Ikeya & M. Kawamori (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information, and Computation, 104-120. Li, C.N. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Liao, X.T. (2003). A Corpus-Based Lexical Semantic Study of the Mandarin Force-Compulsion Verbs. Master`s thesis. National Chiao Tung University. Liu, M.C. (2002). Corpus-based Lexical Semantic Study of Verbs of Doubt: Huáiyí (懷疑) and Cāi (猜) in Mandarin. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 28(2), 43-55. Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? In M. Baker, G. Francis,& T. Tongnini-Bonelli, (eds.), Text and Technology:In Honour of John Sinclair. John Benjamins,157-176. Lyons, J. (1981). Language, Meaning and Context. Fontana Press. Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonymy, Synonymy, and Other Paradigms. Cambridge University Press. Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A Lexical Database for English. Communications of the ACM. 38(11), 39-41. Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. John Benjamins Publishing. Partington, A. (2004). Utterly Content in Each Other’s Company: Semantic Prosody and Semantic Preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 131-156. Sinclair, J. (ed.). (1987). An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing and the Development of the Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary. Collins. Sinclair, J. A Way with Common Words. In H. Hasselgard and S. Oksefjell, (eds.), Out of Corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johanson, 157-79. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: on the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of language, 2(1), 1-33. Zhang, C.H. (2010). An Overview of Corpus-based Studies of Semantic Prosody. Asian Social Science, 6(6), 190-194. 中文部分（依筆畫排序）王力（1989）。漢語語法史。北京：商務印書館。王智儀（2012）。基於語料庫之近義詞辨析─以動作及物動詞「建立、成立、設立」為例。文藻外語學院華語文教學研究所碩士論文。石毓智（2003）。現代漢語語法系統的建立─動補結構的產生及其影響。北京：北京語言大學出版社。朱德熙（1982）。語法講義。北京：商務印書館。林依穎（2008）。漢語並列複合動詞之近義詞探析－以「需要」為例。輔仁大學語言學研究所碩士論文。紀玉華、吳建平（2000）。語義韻研究：對象、方法及應用。廈門大學學報（哲學社會科學版），3，36-86。胡裕樹（1992）。現代漢語。香港：三聯書店。洪嘉馡、安可思、黃居仁（2011）。及物動詞的事件結構：以MARVS理論出發。第十二屆漢語詞彙語義學研討會發表之論文，臺灣大學霖澤館。孫叔新、周薦（1992）。同義詞語和反義詞語。北京：商務印書館。孫常敘（1957）。漢語詞彙。長春：吉林人民出版社。徐樞（1985）。賓語和補語。哈爾濱：黑龍江人民出版社。許尤芬、鍾曉芳（2011）。中文「泡」、「浸」之辨析---以語料庫為本。第十二屆漢語詞彙語義學研討會論文集。陸儉明、馬真（1996）。形容詞作結果補語情況考察。漢語學習，1，3-7。陸儉明、馬真（1996）。形容詞作結果補語情況考察。漢語學習，6，7-9。張麗麗、陳克健、黃居仁（2000）。漢語動詞詞彙語意分析：表達模式與研究方法。中文計算語言學期刊，5（1），1-18。湯廷池（1994）。漢語詞法句法論集。台北：台灣學生書局。程祥徽、田小琳（1992）。現代漢語。台北：書林出版社。葛本儀（2002）。語言學概論。台北：五南書局。楊美儀（2014）。近義詞「生命、生活」與「Life」之華英對比辨析－以語料庫及問卷研究為本。政治大學華語文教學碩士學位學程碩士論文。趙元任（1968）。中國話的文法。柏克萊：加州大學出版社。萬藝玲、鄭振峰、趙學清（1999）。辭彙應用通則。瀋陽：文藝出版社。劉月華（2001）。實用現代漢語語法。北京：商務印書館。劉虹（2012）。漢語動結式語和動趨式之辨。解放軍外國語學院學報，35（5）。蔡美智、黃居仁、陳克健（1999）。由近義詞辨義標準看語意、句法之互動。中國境內語言暨語言學，5，439-459。蔡美智（2010）。「同樣、相同」不「一樣」：表相似近義詞指稱功能辨析。華語文教學研究，7（1），57-79。蔡蓉芝（2013）。近義詞「引起」、「產生」之辨析與華語教學之應用。第十二屆台灣華語文教學年會暨國際學術研討會發表之論文，文藻外語學院。蔡晨（2014）。泛義動詞「搞」在兩岸漢語中的語義韻變異研究。華語文教學研究，11（3），91-110。潘璠、馮躍進（2003）。語義韻律的語料庫調查及應用研究。當代語言學，5（4），359-366。網路資源中文詞彙網路 http://lope.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/cwn/ 中央研究院現代漢語平衡語料庫4.0版 http://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/ Corpora Open and Search （COPENS）開放語料庫與搜尋工具 http://lopen.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/copens/search/ 批踢踢語料庫 http://lopen.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/PTT/
Description:	碩士國立政治大學華語文教學碩士學位學程 102161010
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1021610101
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[華語文教學博／碩士學位學程] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
010101.pdf	2333Kb	Adobe PDF2	522	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...