Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/158767
|
| Title: | 烹飪動詞與介系詞詞組之語料庫分析：以cook、boil、fry、bake為例
Cooking Verbs with Prepositions: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Cook, Boil, Fry, and Bake |
| Authors: | 張瑞吟
Chang, Rui-Yin |
| Contributors: | 鍾曉芳
Chung, Siaw-Fong
張瑞吟
Chang, Rui-Yin |
| Keywords: | 語意類別
原型理論
烹飪動詞
semantic categories
prototype theory
cooking verbs |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-08-04 15:38:39 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究以英語中的四個烹飪動詞cook、boil、bake、fry為分析核心，探討其與介系詞及名詞片語結合之結構（COOKING VERB + PREP NP）中，名詞片語所呈現的語義類別與介系詞片語所扮演的語法角色。研究以 COCA（Corpus of Contemporary American English）語料庫為基礎，針對每個動詞擷取五個最高頻率的介系詞搭配並隨機擷取100筆語料，若該搭配不足100筆則全部採納，總計共蒐集1,765筆語料進行分析。研究依據 Taylor（2003）提出的語意原型理論，界定四個烹飪動詞的核心意義，並據此判斷語料中的語境為字面或隱喻，進而分類名詞片語的語義類別（semantic categories）。
在字面語境中，共歸納出20類語義類別，其中以器具、溫度、時長等類別的出現頻率最高，這些類別代表了烹飪事件中相關的必要成分或附加條件。在隱喻語境中，則根據概念隱喻的模型發展出五個語義類群（metaphorical groupings），其中以情緒相關類群及發展相關類群最為常見，展現出烹飪動詞在抽象語意中的延伸用法。
研究結果顯示，cook的語義涵蓋最為廣泛，呈現其原型核心地位；相形之下，boil、bake、fry的語義分布則較為集中。此外，cook常見於未具體描述烹調方式，但明確指涉參與者或情境資訊的語境中。研究亦發現，介系詞與特定語義類別之間展現出穩定的搭配趨勢，並且介系詞與名詞片語的語義選擇彼此互相牽制，兩者在結構中存在語意競爭關係，共同影響語句的語義建構與詮釋。在隱喻語境中，常見搭配如boil with指涉情緒及bake into指涉發展等，展現出語義延伸的慣化使用，經常嵌入於固定結構中，符合 Deignan（2005）對語料中隱喻表達慣性的觀察。儘管介系詞片語就句法而論被視為附加語（adjunct），但其與特定語意類別之間的高度對應性，顯示出其對事件的語意建構具關鍵作用，在某些語境中，若缺乏介系詞片語帶出資訊，語意甚至難以被完整建立及傳達。因此，研究結果指出，某些句法上的附加語（即本研究中的介系詞片語）在語意層面上，可能實為事件意涵得以連貫詮釋所不可或缺的元素。
This study investigates four English cooking verbs (cook, boil, bake, and fry) in terms of the semantic categories of noun phrases and the semantic roles of prepositional phrases within the structure [COOKING VERB + PREP NP]. For each verb, the five most frequent prepositional collocates were identified, and 100 random instances were retrieved for each. If a collocate had fewer than 100 instances, all available instances were included. In total, 1,765 instances were collected from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Based on Taylor’s (2003) prototype theory, the core meanings of the four verbs were identified to determine whether each context was literal or metaphorical. After this classification, all instances were further categorized into semantic categories based on the meaning of the noun phrases.
In literal contexts, twenty semantic categories were identified, with [Instrument], [Temperature], and [Duration] as the most frequent, while several others were also observed. These categories represent essential or additional components and conditions involved in cooking events. In metaphorical contexts, five groupings were established based on patterns of conceptual metaphor, with [Related to Emotion] and [Related to Development] being the most frequent. These groupings illustrate how cooking verbs are extended to express abstract meanings beyond their literal sense.
The findings show that cook has the broadest semantic range and serves as the prototypical verb among the four, while boil, bake, and fry tend to be associated with narrower meanings. In many of the cases, cook appeared in contexts where the specific cooking method was not detailed, while additional information about participants or settings was made explicit. Prepositions were also found to have stable associations with specific semantic categories. The selection of prepositions and noun phrases appears to be mutually constrained, which suggests a competitive relationship that shapes both the structure and interpretation of the sentence.
In metaphorical contexts, frequent combinations such as ‘boil with’ followed by emotion-related noun phrases and ‘bake into’ followed by development-related noun phrases demonstrate conventional patterns of metaphorical usage. These expressions often appear in fixed expressions, consistent with Deignan’s (2005) observations on metaphorical regularities. Although prepositional phrases are syntactically considered adjuncts, their frequent association with certain semantic categories suggests that they often encode essential information for constructing event meaning, without which the intended meaning would be incomplete. Therefore, the finding suggests that certain syntactic adjuncts (prepositional phrases in this study) may function as semantically indispensable elements for coherent event interpretation. |
| Reference: | Alexiadou, A., & Verhoeven, E. (2021). The syntax of argument structure: Empirical advancements and theoretical relevance. De Gruyter Mouton.
Bolinger, D. (1971). The phrasal verb in English. Harvard University Press.
Bresnan, J. (1995). Lexicality and argument structure. Proceedings of the Paris Syntax and Semantics Conference, 2–3.
Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I., & Wechsler, S. (2016). Lexical-functional syntax (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Burgers, C., & Ahrens, K. (2020). Change in metaphorical framing: Metaphors of trade in 225 years of State of the Union addresses (1790–2014). Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 260–279.
Darwin, C. M., & Gray, L. S. (1999). Going beyond definitions: A prototype approach to teaching phrasal verbs. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 65–83.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. John Benjamins.
Dirven, R. (2022). English prepositions: Their meanings and uses. Routledge.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. https://doi.org/10.2307/415037
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Fillmore, C. J. (1978). On the organization of semantic information in the lexicon. In D. Farkas, W. M. Jacobsen, & K. W. Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon (pp. 148–173). Chicago Linguistic Society.
Fraser, B. (1976). The verb-particle combination in English.
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1987). The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(3), 369–411.
Jackendoff, R. (2002). English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax. In N. Dehé, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre, & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-particle explorations (pp. 67–94). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kennedy, A. G. (1920). The modern English verb-adverb combination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lehrer, A. (1969). Semantic fields and lexical structure. North-Holland.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2009). Argument realization. In P. Goldberg, P. Ackema, & M. Schoorlemmer (Eds.), The syntax of argument structure (pp. 73–94). Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education. (2018). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education for elementary school, junior high and general senior high schools: Subject of English in the domain of language. National Academy for Educational Research.
Palmer, F. R. (1974). The English verb (2nd ed.). Longman.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. MIT Press.
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
Semino, E. (2017). Metaphor, cancer and the end of life: A corpus-based study. Routledge.
Stern, J. (2008). Metaphor, semantics and context. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 3(1), 262–287.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Winter, B., & Srinivasan, M. (2022). How frequent is metaphor? Understanding metaphoric mappings through lexical statistics. Cognition, 223, 104983.
Zinken, J. (2007). Discourse metaphors: The link between figurative language and habitual analogies. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 445–466. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
英國語文學系
111551021 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111551021 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [英國語文學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 102101.pdf | | 6030Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
