Author: |
林予茜 Lin, Yu-Chien |
---|---|
Thesis Title: |
從認知語義角度探討華語反義詞「快」與「慢」之對稱性分析 A Symmetry Analysis of the Chinese Antonyms “kuài” and “màn” from a Cognitive Semantic Perspective |
Advisor: |
洪嘉馡
Hong, Jia-Fei |
Committee: |
洪嘉馡
Hong, Jia-Fei 林建宏 Lin, Chien-hung 張瑜芸 Chang, Yu-Yun |
Approval Date: | 2024/10/11 |
Degree: |
碩士 Master |
Department: |
華語文教學系 Department of Chinese as a Second Language |
Thesis Publication Year: | 2024 |
Academic Year: | 113 |
Language: | 中文 |
Number of pages: | 140 |
Keywords (in Chinese): | 反義詞 、認知語義學 、MARVS理論 、語料庫 |
Keywords (in English): | Antonyms, Cognitive semantics, MARVS, Corpus |
DOI URL: | http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202401967 |
Thesis Type: | Academic thesis/ dissertation |
Reference times: | Clicks: 84 Downloads: 3 |
Share: |
School Collection Retrieve National Library Collection Retrieve Error Report |
本研究針對華語反義詞「快」與「慢」之語言使用方法,分析其詞義的不對稱性。「反義詞」在一般的認知中,應是一對意義完全相反、詞義可以相呼應的詞彙。然而觀察自然語言及語料庫中的用法,發現反義詞並非全然對稱,因此本研究欲了解詞彙間不對稱之現象,故選擇以日常使用較頻繁的「快」與「慢」為例,以認知語言學的觀點分析其詞義,並應用MARVS (Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics) 理論(黃居仁等,2000)進一步了解兩者狀態不及物動詞之語義特徵。
本研究首先以蒐羅中央研究院平衡語料庫所有華語「快」與「慢」之詞彙組合,再參照「教育部重編國語辭典修訂本」、「中文詞彙網路2.0」,以及前人的研究歸納出「快」與「慢」的詞義,「快」總共有11個詞義,而「慢」共有8種詞義。接著根據Evans (2005) 界定之原型理論標準及各詞義在平衡語料庫中的分布狀況,推導出其原型詞義,以及其他轉喻義及隱喻義。然後根據兩個詞彙之狀態不及物動詞詞義,以MARVS理論(黃居仁等,2000)分析其不同的事件狀態及語義角色,最終其語義表達的類型。
本研究欲了解「快」與「慢」之詞義不對稱性,從自然語言及平衡語料庫中檢視其不對稱之情形,發現兩者的詞義並無完全對應,「快」的不對稱性比例比「慢」還要高,然而大部分「慢」的語義是可以和「快」對稱的上的,這可能與華語的社會背景及認知發展有關,造成其詞義延展有差異性。
本研究最終根據研究結果提出了「快」與「慢」之研究建議方向,期能對將來對語言學和華語教學有興趣之研究做出貢獻。
This study investigates the asymmetry in the meanings of the Mandarin Chinese antonyms "kuài" (fast) and "màn" (slow) by analyzing their usage in natural language. While antonyms are generally understood to be pairs of words with completely opposite meanings, observations of natural language and corpus data reveal that antonyms are not always symmetrical. This research aims to understand the phenomenon of asymmetry between these lexical pairs by selecting the frequently used terms "kuài" and "màn" as examples and analyzing their meanings from a cognitive linguistic perspective. Furthermore, it applies the MARVS theory (Huang et al., 2000) to gain a deeper understanding of the semantic characteristics of these two intransitive state verbs.
The study begins by collecting all combinations of the words "kuài" and "màn" from the Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese. Then, by referring to the "Revised Mandarin Chinese Dictionary" by the Ministry of Education, the "Chinese Wordnet 2.0," and previous studies, it identifies the meanings of "kuài" and "màn." "Kuài" has a total of 11 meanings, while "màn" has 8 meanings. Using the prototype theory standards defined by Evans (2005) and the distribution of each meaning in the balanced corpus, the study derives their prototypical meanings, as well as other metonymic and metaphorical meanings. Subsequently, based on the semantic characteristics of the two intransitive state verbs, the MARVS theory (Huang et al., 2000) is used to analyze their different event states and semantic roles, ultimately determining the types of semantic expressions.
This study aims to understand the asymmetry in the meanings of "kuài" and "màn" by examining their asymmetry in natural language and the balanced corpus. The findings indicate that the meanings of these two words do not correspond completely, with "kuài" exhibiting a higher degree of asymmetry than "màn." However, most of the meanings of "màn" can correspond to those of "kuài." This difference may be related to the social context and cognitive development of the Chinese language, leading to differences in the extension of their meanings.
Finally, based on the research results, this study proposes directions for future research on "kuài" and "màn", hoping to contribute to the fields of linguistics and Mandarin Chinese language teaching.
石毓智(2011)。肯定和否定的對稱與不對稱(增訂本)。北京:北京語言文化大學出版社。
朱德熙(1982)。語法講義。北京:商務印書館。
成伶俐(2015)。反義詞「快」「慢」的不對稱研究。湖北:華中師範大學研究所碩士論文。
呂叔湘(1980)。現代漢語八百詞。北京:商務印書館。
呂叔湘(1992)。中國文法要略。北京:商務印書館。
汪文麗(2016)。反義詞“快/慢”的不對稱現象及其原因。阜陽職業技術學院學報,(1)。
沈家煊(1999)。不對稱和標記論。南昌:江西教育出版社。
張敏慧(2011)。腳本理論與漢語「快」的語意分析。嘉義:國立中正大學語言言研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
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,11(4),803-851。
許秀霞(2008)。漢語動詞分類的句法搭配語較學應用。臺北市:國立台灣師範大學華語文教學系碩士論文(未出版)。
詞庫小組(1993)。中文詞類分析技術報告93-05,中文詞庫知識小組,中央研究院資訊科學研究所、中央研究院歷史語言研究所。
陳威佑、鍾曉芳(2017)。反義詞「多」和「少」在數量名結構中的不對稱現象-以語料庫為本的分析,中文計算語言學期刊,22(1),27-52。
湯廷池(1979)。國語語法研究論集。臺北:學生書局。
黃居仁、張麗麗等(2000)。漢語動詞詞彙語意分析:表達模式與研究方。Computational Linguistics。第5期,第1卷,1-18。
黃亭寧(2023)。漢語反義詞的不對稱性研究 -以「上」及「下」為例。臺北市:國立台灣師範大學華語文教學系碩士論文(未出版)。
黃品閑(2022)。從認知語義角度辨析漢語顏色詞詞義與教學建議 —以「黑」與「白」為例。臺北市:國立台灣師範大學華語文教學系碩士論文(未出版)。
傅一勤(譯)(1994)。語法哲學(原作者:Jespersen)。台北:學生書局。(原著出版年:1924)
董志翹(2003)。中古漢語中的「快」及其相關的詞語。古漢語研究。01,87-89。
趙元任(1968)。中國話的文法。香港:中文大學出版社。
趙元任(2002)。中國話的文法(增訂版)。香港:中文大學出版社。
劉月華、潘文娛等(1996)。實用現代漢語語法。臺北:師大書苑。
劉雯(2009)。以「快、慢」為例分析漢語語義場的歷時演變。文教資料,第23期,36-37。
歐德芬(2013)。多義詞義項區別探究──以感官動詞「看」為例,華語文教學研究,第10卷第3期,1-39。
鄭語箴(2018)。法籍學習者之狀態動詞語義分析研究-以「大」之多義性為例。台北市:國立台灣師範大學華語文教學系碩士論文(未出版)。
薛俊杰(2016)。反義詞「快/慢」的不對稱分析及對外漢語較學研究。廣西:廣西大學研究所碩士論文。
蕭佩宜(2009)。論漢語趨向動詞「上」和「下」的語法化和語意不對稱性,暨南大學華文學院學報,廣州。
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deese, J. (1964). ‘The Associative Structure of Some Common English Adjectives.’ Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 3: 347-57.
Evans, V. (2005). The Meaning of Time: Polysemy, the Lexicon and Conceptual Structure. Journal of linguistics, 33-75.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1982). Frame semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by the Linguistic Society of Korea, 111-137. Seoul: Hanshin.
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Universals of language (2nd ed.). M.I.T. Press.
Hong, J. F., Huang, C. R. & Ahrens, K. (2007). The Polysemy of Da3: An ontology-based lexical semantic study. In the Proceedings of the 21st Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC 21). November 1-3, 155-162.
Huang, Chu-Ren and Ahrens, Kathleen. (1999). The Function and Category of gei in Mandarin Ditransitive Constructions. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 27. 1-26.
Jones, S. (2002). Antonymy : a corpus based perspective. New York: Routledge.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphor we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Leech, G. (1974). Semantics. New York: Penguin
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Rosch, E., & Lloyd B.B. (1978). Cognition and categorization. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ravin, Yael, and Claudia Leacock.(2000). Polysemy: An overview. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock, 1-29. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saeed, J. I. (2003). Semantics (2nd ed). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Sweetser, E.(1986). Polysemy vs. Abstraction: Mutually Exclusive or Complementary? Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 528-538.
Teng. (1974). Verb classification and its pedagogical extensions. JCLTA,9(2),84-92.
Ungerer, F & Schmid, H. J (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Addison Wesley Pub.
Wu, Hsiao-Ching. (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. 4:857–885.
網路資源
中央研究院現代漢語平衡語料庫4.0版https://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/
中文詞彙網路https://lopentu.github.io/CwnWeb/
教育部重編國語辭典https://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/index.jsp
漢語大詞典http://www.kaom.net/book_hanyudacidian.php