第五章 結論
5.2 研究限制及未來研究方向
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
「跑」受到其後所接的非常規賓語種類不同而產生「往特定目標移動」義、「為 某事忙碌奔走」義與「兩個以上的參與者競速」義,「往特定目標移動」義後的 路徑大多屬於目標類的一般地點與特定地點,「為某事忙碌奔走」義後的路徑通 常是目標類中的人物團體、增量主題與目的或原因;「兩個以上的參與者競速」
義後的路徑多數為距離、持續時間、頻率詞與目標類的結果。總結來說,「跑」
的多義現象與其所體現的概念結構、句法結構及語意三者之間的相互影響有著密 不可分的關係。
5.2 研究限制及未來研究方向
本論文仍存在一些研究限制有待未來能繼續改進和研究:
第一、 考量有限的人力及時間限制下,本研究取材的語料僅限於「中研院平衡 語料庫」,其「跑」的語料雖具一定代表性,但為 1981 年至 2007 年 所蒐集之文章,期許未來的研究能夠概括更多不同的語料以得到更完整
「跑」的各項用法,如:新聞、網路論壇等。
第二、 本論文僅限於研究「跑」的多義現象,但多義動詞尚有其他方面可以著 墨,如:詞彙化、隱喻等,期許未來能夠從不同的方面切入研究「跑」。 第三、 本研究僅針對「跑」的多義現象進行研究與討論,但尚可與同為動作動
詞的「走」進行對比研究,期許未來能夠有更深入的對比分析。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
參考文獻
中文文獻(依姓氏筆劃順序排列)
邢福義(1991)。漢語裡賓語帶入現象之觀察。世界漢語教學,2,76-84。
李詩青(2016)。現代漢語動詞「走」之多義性認知研究。 國立清華大學,新竹。
莊舒文(2002)。時相與時態的搭配關係(未出版之碩士論文)。 國立台灣師範大 學,臺北市。
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。
歐德芬(2013)。多義詞義項區別性探究-以感官動詞 [看] 為例。 華語文教學研 究,10(3),1-39。
蕭惠貞(2013)。多義詞 [洗] 之語義分析,詞彙排序與華語教學應用。 華語文教 學研究,10(4),47-80。
英文文獻(依姓氏字母順序排列)
Atkins, B. T. (1987). Semantic ID tags: corpus evidence for dictionary senses. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the UW Centre for the New Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. 1736).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chou, S. P. (2014). Semantic Profile of the Multi-faceted Verb ji. National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Clark, H. H., & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguists. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of linguistics, 41(1), 33-75.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, 103.
Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. T. (2000). Describing Polysemy: the case of ‘crawl’.
In Ravin, Y., & Leacock, C. (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches (pp. 91-110). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
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.
Huang, C. R., Ahrens, K., Chang, L. L., Chen, K. J., Liu, M. C., & Tsai, M. C. (2000).
The module-attribute representation of verbal semantics: From semantics to argument structure. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 5(1), 19-46.
Jackendoff, R., & Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition (Vol. 8). MIT press.
Jackendoff, R. (1985). Multiple subcategorization and the ϑ-criterion: The case of climb. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 3(3), 271-295.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of imagination, reason,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
and meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Katz, J. J. (1972). Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What categories tell us about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford university press.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation.
University of Chicago press.
Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G. (1987, September). Taking: A study in lexical network theory. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 13, pp.
195-206).
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. London, England: The MIT Press.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. Metonymy in language and thought, 4, 17-60.
Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. Studies in cross-cultural psychology,1, 1-49.
Sandra, D., & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s?. Cognitive Linguistics
(includes Cognitive Linguistic Bibliography), 6(1), 89-130.
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Stromqvist, S., & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp.219-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sweetser, E. E. (1986, May). Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Talmy, L. (1991, July). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 480-519).
Talmy, L. (1975). Semantics and syntax of motion. Syntax and semantics, 4, 181-238.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms.
Language typology and syntactic description, 3, 57-149.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol. 1). MIT press.
Tang, C. H. (2014). A Constructional Approach to Form-meaning Mismatch: the Case of Mandarin Manner of Motion Verb Pao. Providence University, Taichung.
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 724-765.
Wang, J. (2009). A Corpus-Based Study on the Chinese Near-Synonymous Verbs of Running. Volume 2/edited by Yun Xiao. Published by: Bryant University Smithfield, Rhode Island USA, 2, 399.
網路文獻
Chu-Ren Huang and Shu-Kai Hsieh. (2010). Infrastructure for Cross-lingual
Knowledge Representation ─ Towards Multilingualism in Linguistic Studies.
Taiwan NSC-granted Research Project (NSC 96-2411-H-003-061-MY3) 中央研究院平衡語料庫:http://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/
教育部重編辭典修訂本:http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cbdic/