近年來，中文動詞詞彙語意的研究十分豐富；然而有關臺灣閩南語動詞詞彙語意之研究卻仍在起步中。 此篇論文試圖研究臺灣閩南話動詞詞彙語意。在本篇研究中，我們主要參考有關動詞詞彙語意與功能語法之相關理論 (Biber et al. 1996, 1998; Fillmore 1968, 1982; Jackendoff 1976, 1990; Hopper and Thompson 1980; Levin 1993; Vendler 1967)，探究臺灣閩南語有關“溝通動詞”之功能語意。所研究之溝通動詞包括了｢講、提出、建議｣。藉由觀察語料庫中語料分佈之型態，研究顯示雖然臺灣閩南語這三個溝通動詞都是用於溝通，然而卻在語法呈現、語意呈現與事件結構皆顯露出細微的不同處。大體來說，這三個溝通動詞中，｢講｣是最常被使用的，也因為如此，在語法呈現、語意呈現與事件結構也展現著多樣性；｢提出｣相較之下，在語法呈現、語意呈現與事件結構是最受限的，而｢建議｣介於中間。首先，不同的語法呈現建議三個溝通動詞中, ｢提出｣有最高的可及物性而｢建議｣最低。 再者，不同的語意呈現顯示｢講｣在各種場合皆大大被使用，尤其是在口語型式，描述日常生活。｢提出｣與｢建議｣，尤其是｢提出｣則較喜歡被使用於書寫型式、正式場合與論談中，顯示著講者間不平衡之權力關係。｢講｣包含雙向與單向之溝通方向；然而｢提出｣與｢建議｣則只包含單向之溝通。最後不同的事件結構呈現｢講｣最具彈性，而｢提出｣則是一非常典型時間結束點明確的動詞。

For the past decade, abundant verbal semantic researches on Mandarin Chinese have been conducted, yet verbal semantics studies on Taiwanese Southern Min are still in its infancy. The present thesis aims to be a pioneering study of verbal semantics in Taiwanese Southern Min (TSM). Following the theories of verbal semantics and functional grammar (Biber et al. 1996, 1998; Fillmore 1968, 1982; Jackendoff 1976, 1990; Hopper and Thompson 1980; Levin 1993; Vendler 1967), this present thesis explores the functional semantic properties of communication verbs in TSM, for they constitute a basic domain in our lexicon and they encode the most fundamental aspect of human activity. Three communication verbs, namely KONG ‘to speak, say’ 講 (verb of speaking), THECHHUT ‘to propose; to raise (a question)’ 提出 (as a verb of speaking and of suggestion) and KIANGI ‘to suggest’ 建議 (also as a verb of suggestion) are chosen for analysis and discussion. This thesis examines corpus-based distributional patterns to delimit the semantic and functional properties of each verb in question. The three verbs of communication in TSM sharing the same frame do reveal the subtle differences and similarities regarding their syntactic representations, semantic representations and the transitivity. Overall, among the three verbs, KONG which is an extremely unmarked use, demonstrates most varieties in its use while KIANGI is more restricted and THECHHUT is the most restricted communication verb. The different syntactic representations suggest that THECHHUT is of the highest transitivity while KONG is of lower transitivity and KIANGI is of the lowest transitivity. Their semantic representations demonstrate that KONG is widely used in almost all situations and is preferred in the spoken form which depicts daily life; whereas KIANGI and, in particular, THECHHUT are preferred in the formal context and situational talks, which exhibits the power asymmetry between speakers. KONG involves either one-way direction or bi-directional communication while the communication in THECHHUT and KIANGI is always one way. Lastly, their transitivity shows that KONG is very flexible regarding to the distinction features of telicity and punctuality. KIANGI can either be telic/durative and telic/punctual while THECHHUT is a very typical punctual/telic verb.

References
Baker F. Collin and Josef Ruppenhofer. 2002. FrameNet’s Frames vs. Levin’s Verb Classes. In J. Larson & M. Paster, eds., Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 27-38.
Biber, Douglas, 1996. Investigating Language Use Through Corpus-based Analyses of Association Patterns. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics:1(2), 171-97.
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad and Rande Rappen. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R. J. 1988. On Linking: Papers by Richard Carter, ed. B Levin and C. Tenny. Lexicon Project Working Papers 25, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT. Cambridge, Mass.
Chang, Li-Li, Keh- Jiann Chen and Chu-Ren Huang. 2000. Alternation across Semantic Field: A Study of Mandarin Verbs of Emotion. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing. 5.1:61-80.
Chao, Yuen-Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations.The Cognitive Organization of Information. University of Chicago Press.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrect: Reidel.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67(3), 547-619.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The Case for Case. In E. Bach and R.T. Harms, eds., Universals in Linguistics Theory, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, 1-88.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame Semantics in Linguistics in the Morning Calm. 111-137. Hanshin Publishing Co., Seoul, South Korea
Fillmore, Charles J., and Atkins, Beryl T. 1992. Toward a Frame-Based Lexicon: The Semantics of RISK and Its Neighbors. In Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Defer Kittay eds., Frames, Fields and Contrasts, 75-102. Hillsdale. New Jersy: Lawrence.
Fillmore, Charles J., Collin F. Baker and Josef Ruppenhofer. 2002. Collocational Information in the FrameNet Database. In: Braasch, Anna & Claus Porsen eds., Proceedings of the Tenth Euralex International Congress Vol. I, 359-69. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Green, G. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Her, One Soon. 1990. Grammatical Functions and Verb Categorization in Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
Hopper, Paul, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251-99.
Hopper, Paul, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18:369-411.
Hopper, Paul, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. Typological Studies in Language 45: Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 27-60. Philadelphia, PA : John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Huang, Chu-Ren & Mei-chih Tsai. 1997. From Near Synonyms to Event Structure: Corpus-based Studies of Mandarin Verbal Semantics. Paper presented at the Mini-Conference on Lexical Semantics. Graduate Institute of Linguistics. National Chung Cheng University.
Huang, Chu-Ren, Kathleen Athens, Li-Li Chang, Keh-Jiann Chen, Mei-Chun Liu, and Mei Chih Tsai. 2000. The Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics: From Semantics to Argument Structure. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 5(1):19-46. Also appeared in Proceedings of the Symposium on Selected NSC Projects in General Linguistics from 1998-2000, 119-46.
Huang Chu-Ren, Kathleen Ahrens, and Shirley Chuang. 2003. "Sense and Meaning Facets in Verbal Semantics: A MARVS Perspective." Language and Linguistics, 4/3: 468-484.
Jackendoff, R.S. 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 7:89-150.
Jackendoff, R.S. 1990. Semantic Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press
Levin, Beth and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1991. Wiping the Slate Clean: A Lexical Semantic Exploration. In B. Levin and S Pinker, eds., Lexical & Conceptual Semantics, 123-151. Cambridge, Ma. : Blackwell
Levin, Beth. 1993. Verb Classes and Alternation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth, Atkins, B.T.S., and A. Zampolli. 1994. Computational Approaches to the Lexicon: An Overview. In B.T.S. Atkins and A. Zampolli eds., Computational Approaches to the Lexicon, 17-45. Oxford University Press.
Levin, Beth. 1995. Approaches to Lexical Semantic Representation. In D. Walker, A Zampolli, and N. Calzolari, eds., Automating the Lexical I: Research and Practice in a Multilingual Environment, 53-91. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Massachusettes: The MIT Press.
Levin, Beth and Atkins, B.T.S. 1995. Building on a Corpus: A Linguistic and Lexicographical Look at Some Near-Synonyms. International Journal of Lexicography 8, 85-114.
Levin, Beth and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1996a. Lexical Semantics and Syntactic Strucutre. In S. Lappin, ed., The Handbook of Contemporary Semantics Theory. Blackwell, Oxford.
Levin, B. and M. Rappaport Hovav. 1996b. From Lexical Semantics to Argument Realization. Unpublished ms., Northwestern University and Bar Ilan University, Evanston, IL and Ramat Gan, Israel. A revised and expanded version will appear in the Cambridge Research Surveys in Linguistics Series. 70 pages, postscript.
Levin, Beth, G. Song, and B.T.S Atkins. 1997. Making Sense of Corpus Data: A Case Study of Verbs of Sound. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2, 23-64.
Levin, Beth. 2000. Aspect, Lexical Semantics Representation, and Argument Expression. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 413-429.
Levin, Beth. 2003. Objecthood and Object Alternation. Department of Linguistics , UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
Liu, Mei-Chun. 1997. Conceptual Bases and Categorial Structure: A Study of Mandarin V-R Compounds as a Radial Category. Chinese Languages and Linguistics I., 425-51. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Liu, Mei-Chun. 1999. Lexical Meaning and Discourse Patterning—the Three Mandarin Cases of “Build”. In B Fox, D, Jarafsky and L. Michaelis, eds., Cognition and Function in Language, 181-199. Standford:CSLI.
Liu, Mei-Chun. 2002a. Mandarin Verbal Semantics: A Corpus-based Approach. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Liu, Mei-Chun. 2002b. Verbal Semantics and the Profiling of Cause: A study of Emotional Activity Verbs in Mandarin. Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference.
Liu. Mei-Chun. 2002c. Corpus-based Lexical Semantic Study of Verbs of doubt: Huayi and Cai in Mandarin. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 28.1: 43-55.
Liu, Mei-Chun. 2003. From Collocation to Event Information: The Case of Mandarin Verbs of Discussion. Language and Linguistics 4.3:563-82.
Liu, Mei-Chun and Yiching Wu. 2003. Beyond Frame Semantics: Insight from Mandarin Verbs of Communication. Paper presented in the 4th CLSW (Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop). Hong Kong.
Payne, Thomas. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prince, Gerald. 1982. Narratology: The Form and Function of Narrative. Berlin ; New York : Mouton.
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Reddy, Michael. 1979. The Conduit Metaphor. In A. Ortony, ed., Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge, Eng.: At the University Press.
Saeed, John I. 1997. Semantics. Cambridge, Mass. Blackwell Publishers.
Smith, Carlotta S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Talmy, L. 1975. Semantics and Syntax of Motion. In J.P. Kimball, ed., Syntax and Semantics 4, 181-238. New York: Academia Press.
Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In. T. Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntax Description 3. Grammatical Categories and the lexicon, 57-149. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.
Tenny, Carol. 1992. The Aspectual Interface Hypothesis. In Ivan A. Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, eds., Lexical Matters. Standford: CSLI.
Tenny, Caorl. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Tsai, Mei-chi, Chu-ren Huang, and Keh-jiann Chen. 1996. From Near-synonyms to the Interaction between Syntax and Semantics. Paper presented at IsCLL-5 (The 5th International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Chinese Linguistics). Taipei, Taiwan.
Tsai, Mei-Chi, Chu-ren Huan, Keh-Jiann Chen, and Kathleen Ahrens. 1998. Towards a Representation of Verbal Semantics – An Approach Based on Near-Synonyms. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 61-74.
Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY. Cornell University Press
Cheng, Robert Liang Wei and Cheng, Shieh Shu Juan. (鄭良偉,鄭謝淑娟). 1977. Phonological structure and romanization of Taiwanese Hokkian. 台灣福建話的語音結構及標音法. 台北:臺灣學生.

Website Resources
FrameNet. http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~framenet/
Iun’s Corpus. http://203.64.42.21/TG/guliaukhou/
Sinica Corpus. http://www.sinica.edu.tw/ftms-bin/kiwi.sh./