請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/37815
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 宋麗梅(Li-May Sung) | |
dc.contributor.author | Cheng-chuen Kuo | en |
dc.contributor.author | 郭政淳 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T15:45:15Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2008-07-15 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2008-07-09 | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2008-07-02 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Abney, Paul Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral Dissertation. Cambridge, Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Andersen, Paul Kent. 1983. Word Order Typology and Comparative Constructions. Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science 4. Current issues in linguistic theory 25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Beck, David. 2002. The typology of parts of speech systems: The markedness of adjectives. New York: Routledge Press. Beck, Sigrid, Toshiko Oda, and Koji Suqisaki. 2004. Parametric Variation in the Semantics of Comparison: Japanese vs. English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13(4).289-344. Bhat, D.N.S. 1994. The adjectival category. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 275-343. ---. 1975. Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Analysis 1(1).25-74. Chang, Henry Yung-Li. 2006. The Guest Playing Host: Adverbial Modifiers as Matrix Verbs in Kavalan. In Hans-Martin Gartner, Paul Law, and Joachim Sabel (eds) Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 43-82. Chen, Teresa. 1987. Verbal Constructions and Verbal Classification in Nataoran-Amis. Pacific Linguistics C-85. Canberra: The Australian National University. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Chung, Sally Hsiu-Ju. 2006. Syntax of the Bi Comparative Construction in Mandarin Chinese. M.A. Thesis. Chiayi: National Chung Cheng Univeristy. Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. Syntactic Typology, ed. by Winfrid Lehmann. Texas: University of Texas Press, 329-94. Corver, Norbert. 1990. The Syntax of Left Branch Constructions. Doctoral dissertation. Tilburg University. Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ---. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Dixon, R.M.W. 1977. Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in language 1.19-80. ---. 1979. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ---. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? Berlin: Mouton. Fu, Yi Chin. 1978. Comparative Structure in English and Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Michigan. Greengberg, Joseph. 1966. Language universals. The Hague: Mouton. Hegeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hsing, Philip Jen-chieh. 2003. On Comparative Sentences with Bi-marker in Mandarin Chinese. M.A. Thesis. National Tsing Hua University. Huang, Lillian M. 1995a. The Case Markers and Pronominal System in Amis, The Journal of National Chengchi University 70.217-258. ---. 1995b. A Study of Mayrinax Atayal. Taipei: Crane. Huang Lillian, Elizabeth Zeitoun, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H.Chang and Joy J. Wu. 1999. A typological overview of pronominal systems of some Formosan languages. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Chinese Linguistics, ed. by Hsu Wang, Feng-fu Tsao and Chin-fa Lien, 165-198. Taipei: Crane. Huang, Yia-jiun.1988. Amis Verb Clasification. M.A. Thesis. Taipei: Fu-jen Catholic University. Hung, Weimei. 1991. Comparative Structure in Mandarin Chinese. M.A. Thesis. National Tsing Hua University. Jakobsen, William H., Jr. 1979. Noun and verb in Nootkan. In The Voctoria Conference on Northwest languages, 83-155. British Columbia Provincial Museum Heritage Record, no. 4. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum. Jhang, Sea-Eun. 2005. Headed Nominalizations in Korean: Relative Clauses, Clefts, and Comparatives. Doctoral Dissertation. Canada: Simon Fraser University. Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the Adjectives: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York: Garland Press. Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale Structure and the Semantic Typology of Gradable Predicates, Language 81.345-81. Klein, Ewan. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistic and Philosophy 4(1).1-45. ---. 1982. The interpretation of adjectival comparatives. Journal of Linguistics 18.113-136. ---. 1991. Comparatives. In Arnim Von Stechow and DieterWunderlich (eds) semantik: Ein internationals Handbuch der zeitgenossischen forschung, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 673-691. Ku. 1994. O citing nu amis (阿美語-漢語字典). Unknown Publisher. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Standford: Standford University Press. Larson, Richard. 1988. Scope and Comparatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 11.1-26. Lehman, Christian. 1972. Comparative constructions in Germanic of the OV type. In Evelyn Scherabon Firchow et al. (eds.). Studies for Einar Hauugen. Janua linguarum, series maior 59, 323-330. The Hague: Mouton. Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 2003. Verbs or adverbs in Thao? Paper presented at the second Workshop on Formosan Languages, Academia Sinica, Nov. 1-2. Liu, Dorinda Tsai-hsiu. 1999. Cleft Constructions in Amis. M.A. Thesis. National Taiwan University. Liu, Emma En-hsin. 2003. Conjunction and Modification in Amis. M.A. Thesis. National Tsing Hua University. Liu, Luther Chen-Sheng. 1996. A note on Chinese comparatives. Studies in the Linguistic Science 26(1).217-235. Matos, Gabriela and Ana Brito. 2002. On the Syntax of Canonical Compartatives in European Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 1(1).41-81. McConnell-Ginet, S. 1973. Comparative Constructions in English: A Syntactic and Semantic Analysis. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Rochester. Napoli, Donna Jo. 1983. Comparative Ellipsis: A Phrase Structure Account. Linguistic Inquiry 14(1).675-694. Rosch, Eleanor H. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4.328-350. Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral Dissertation. Cambridge, Mass: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Ross, Malcom. 2003. The notion of verb in Puyuma: a Construction Grammar approach. Paper presented at the 2nd Workshop on Formosan Languages, Academia Sinica, Nov. 1-2. Schachter, Paul. 1985. Parts-of-Speech systems. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 3-61. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press. Starosta, Stanley. 1988. A grammatical typology of Formosan languages. Fang-kuei Li Memorial Volume. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philosophy, Vol. LIX, Part II, 541-576. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sung, Li-May and Cheng-Chuen Kuo. 2007. Comparative Constructions in Amis. Paper presented at the third Conference on Austronesian Languages and Linguistics (ALL3), School of Oriental and African Studies, London, Sep. 21-22. ---. 2008. Comparative Constructions in Amis and Kavalan. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS XVI), Atma Jaya University, Jakarta, 20-21 September 2006. Sung, Li-May and Lihsin Sung. 2007. Comparatives Constructions in Saisiyat. Paper presented at the third Conference on Austronesian Languages and Linguistics (ALL3), School of Oriental and African Studies, London, Sep. 21-22. Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan, and Melody Yatin Chang. 2003. Two types of wh-adverbials: A typological study of how and why in Tsou. In The Linguistic Variations Yearbook III, Pierre Pica and Johan Rooryck (eds.), 213-236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tsao, Fengfu. 1989. Comparison in Chinese. A topic – comment approach. Tsing Hua Journal of Studies of Chinese Studies (New Series) 19(1).151-189. Tsuchida, Shieru. 1988. Amis. In Takashi Kamei, Rokuro Kono, and Eiichi Chino (eds), The Sanseido Encyclopedia of Linguistics Vol. 1: Languages of the World (Part One), 447-449. Tokyo: Sanseido Press. Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2001. Degree Words and Scalar Structure in Japanese, Lingua 111.29-52. Tsukida, Naomi. 2005. Verb classification in Seediq and Amis. Ms. Ultan, Russell. 1972. Some features basic comparative constructions. WPLU 9.117-162. Wang, Samuel Hsu. 1976. The Syllable Structure of Fataan-Amis. M.A. Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University. Wetzer, Harrie. 1996. The typology of adjectival predication. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter. Wu, Chun-ming. 2004. A study of lexical categories in Paiwan. M.A. Thesis. Chiayi: National Chung Cheng University. Wu, Joy Jing-lan. 2000. Amis Reference Grammar. Taipei: Yuan-Liu Publishing Company. (in Chinese) ---. 2006. Verb classification, case marking, and grammatical relations in Amis. Doctoral Dissertation. New York: State University of New York. ---. 2007. “Voice” markers in Amis: a role and reference grammar analysis. Language and Linguistics 8(1).95-142. Yeh, Marie M. 2003. Adjectives as Verbs in Saisiyat, Paper presented at the 2nd Workshop on Formosan Languages, Academia Sinica, Nov. 1-2. Zeng, Siqi and Mei Yang. 2006. TAIWAN AMEIYU JICHU JIAOCHENG. Beijing: Central University for Nationalities Press. (in Chinese) | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/37815 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本論文主要探討阿美語的比較句結構,以及與比較句相關的議題。
長久以來,比較句的引起學者很大的興趣,因其所觸及的層面涵蓋語言學的許多不同面向。除了語意、句法及它們的介面外,類型學研究也嘗試建立界定比較句的範疇。在這些跨語言的比較句探討上,由於缺乏文獻記載,台灣南島語的比較句並未被放入語言樣本之中。本研究首要目標即在於蒐集阿美語有關比較句的相關用法。 阿美語表現比較概念的方式非常多元。我們透過重要的構詞句法特徵將其區分為四種結構:(1)「並列 (juxtaposition)比較句」利用二個對比的命題句來產生比較概念;(2)「名物(nominal)比較句」透過等同句結構 (equational construction),將比較者放在名詞謂語的地位;(3)「-ki-比較句」使用帶有「超越」語意的特殊詞綴來產生比較概念,其特殊之處在於具備及物性而容許不同的焦點變化;(4) 「ikaka/isafa比較句」則是由親屬詞演變而來的比較結構。除了檢視「物件比較」(entity-comparison)之外,我們也調查了阿美語對於「事件比較」(event-comparison)的呈現方式。研究發現,除了並列比較句之外,代表比較事件的動詞必須進行一個「去動詞化」的過程。 我們也利用阿美語料檢視一些比較句相關的議題。例如Stassen (1985)所提出的比較句類型學的架構,其範疇是建立觀察「比較基準」的格位標記。這樣子的範疇有其重要的句法意義,因為它反映出跨語言上二個比較項的句法關係為何。然而,透過阿美語的檢驗,以及其他語言的佐證,我們認為這樣的架構有其實用面上的限制:共時性的資料顯示,在許多比較句結構之中,二個比較項之間的句法關係有時候是模糊不清的。對於此現象我們提出了認知角度的解釋,結構是「概念化」的具體呈現,在可以允許模糊句法關係的比較句結構中,比較句的功能往往可以透過別種特殊的構詞句法設施來維持。 本研究也檢視了Klein (1991),他利用「並列」/「從屬」及「子句式」/「片語式」這二個句法特徵來歸納比較句的類型特徵。套用此模式描述英文及阿美語比較句式的異同,我們主張詞類系統可能可以作為類型差異的決定因子:具備獨立形容詞類的語言(例如:英語)允許「並列片語式」(Paratactic Phrasal)和從屬子句式(Hypotactic Clausal)比較句的出現。阿美語是一個缺乏獨立形容詞類的語言。這樣的詞類系統限制了「並列片語式」和「從屬子句式」的比較句,因為在阿美語的比較句中,「比較特性」(the property of comparison)需要佔據主要謂語的位置。此現象正好呼應先前的觀察:阿美語中比較事件必須強制進行一個「去動詞化」的程序。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This thesis explores comparative constructions in Amis, as well as the related linguistic issues concerning comparison.
The comparative construction has long aroused scholars’ interests for it touches upon various aspects of linguistics. In addition to semantics, syntax, as well as their interface, there are also typological surveys which attempt to establish the criterion for cross-linguistic classification of comparatives. Among these cross-linguistic studies, due to the absence of documentation, comparatives from the Formosan family are excluded from the language sample. The primary goal of this research, thus, is to collect the Amis usages concerning comparison. Amis has a variety of constructions for comparison. Based on their unique morphosyntactic characteristics, four major constructions are identified: 1) Juxtaposition Comparatives, which employ parallel clauses with contrastive propositions; 2) Nominal Comparatives, whose comparee occupies the nominal predicate position by means of the equational construction; 3) -ki- Comparatives, which employ a specific morpheme -ki-, denoting the ‘exceed’ sense, and for its transitivity, permit different ‘focus’ expressions (i.e. AF and PF). 4) ikaka/isafa Comparatives, whose construction derives from a pair of kinship terms. In addition to entity-comparison, event-comparison in Amis is also incorporated in the thesis. It is discovered that the action words responsible for the compared events must undergo a deverbalization process in all comparative constructions, except the juxtaposition comparatives. Amis data are used to explore some syntactic and typological issues regarding comparatives. For example, Stassen (1985) proposed a typological framework of comparatives, and established a criterion based on the case marking of the standard of comparison. The criterion has its syntactic significance in that it reflects cross-linguistically the possible syntactic relations between the two compared objects. However, Amis, as well as some other languages, suggests that Stassen’s model has some empirical concern: synchronic data show that the syntactic relations between the two compared objects might be ambiguous or vague in many comparative constructions. For this phenomenon, we provide a possible account from a cognitive perspective. In some comparative constructions, the syntactic relations might be ambiguous, since the function as comparatives remains consistent with the aid of certain morphosyntactic device. The thesis also investigates Klein (1991), who employed two sets of syntactic features ‘paratactic/hypotactic’, ‘clausal/phrasal’ altogether as typological characteristics of comparative expressions. By applying this model to English and Amis comparatives, we argue that the parts-of-speech system might serve as a determinant factor for Klein’s cross-linguistic classification: languages with an independent adjective category allow their comparative expressions to have Paratactic Phrasal (PAP) and Hypotactic Clausal (HYC) patterns. Amis is a language without an independent adjective category. This parts-of-speech inventory prohibits PAP and HYC comparative expressions, since the property of comparison must occupy the predicate position. This is verified by the previous observation: in Amis, the action words responsible for the compared events must undergo a deverbalization process. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T15:45:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R93142008-1.pdf: 669444 bytes, checksum: dd38c004d690e5d4897e262842747c71 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.0 Preliminary 1 1.1 Objectives 2 1.2 The Amis Profile 3 1.3 A Brief Sketch of Amis Grammar 5 1.3.1 The Phonemic Inventory 5 1.3.2 Basic Clause Structure 6 1.3.3 The Case Marking System and The Pronominal System 8 1.3.4 The Focus System 12 1.3.4.1 Actor Focus 13 1.3.4.2 Non-Actor Focus 14 1.3.5 Transitivity and Ergativity in Amis 15 1.4 Organization 16 Chapter 2 The Property Class and The Parts of Speech in Amis 18 2.0 Introduction 18 2.1. The Prototype and Markedness Theory 21 2.2 The Parts-of-Speech System in Amis 30 2.2.1 Reference Function in Amis 30 2.2.2 Modification function in Amis 32 2.2.3. Predication function in Amis 35 2.2.4 Summary: Amis as a N[AV] language 41 2.3 Conclusion 45 Chapter 3 Descriptive Grammar of Amis Comparative Constructions 46 3.0 Introduction 46 3.1 Definition and Terminology 47 3.2 Amis Comparative Constructions 50 3.2.1 Juxtaposition Comparatives 50 3.2.2 Nominal Comparatives 52 3.2.3 -ki- Comparatives 56 3.2.3.1 AF -ki- Comparatives 56 3.2.3.2 PF -ki- Comparatives 58 3.2.4 ikaka/isafa Comparatives 60 3.2.5 Amis Comparatives with the Coordinating Particle atu 65 3.3 Interim Summary 68 3.4 Event-Comparison in Amis 70 3.4.0 Preliminary 70 3.4.1 Event-Comparison by Means of Juxtaposition Comparatives 73 3.4.2 Event-Comparison by Means of Nominal, -ki-, and ikaka/isafa Comparatives 75 3.4.3 Issues Related to Structural Ambiguity 79 3.5 Discussion: When to Choose Which Comparative Construction? 82 3.6 Conclusion 86 Chapter 4 On the Grammatical Status of ST 88 4.0 Introduction 88 4.1 An Evaluation of Stassen’s Typology of Comparatives 90 4.1.1 Stassen’s Cross-linguistic Classification of Comparatives 91 4.1.2 The Possible Limitation 94 4.1.2.1 Identifying English than Comparatives 94 4.1.2.2 Identifying Mandain bi Comparatives 97 4.1.2.3 Identifying Amis Comparatives 101 4.1.3 Summary 105 4.2 A Possible Account 106 4.2.0 Preliminary 106 4.2.1 Three Conceptualizations of Comparison 107 4.2.2 The Grammatical Status of ST in Amis 112 4.3 Conclusion 118 Chapter 5 The Parts-of-Speech System and The Comparative Construction 120 5.0 Introduction 120 5.1 A Summary of the Typological Analyses Concerning Comparative Constructions 121 5.2 Evaluation on Klein’s Typology 124 5.2.1 Klein's Typological Characteristics 124 5.2.2. Characterizing English and Amis Comparatives 126 5.2.3 Identifying the Determinant Factor 129 5.2.3.1 Syntactic Analysis of HYC and PAP Patterns 130 5.3 The Parts-of-Speech System and The Comparative Construction 131 5.3.1 Comparatives in English ― a NAV language 132 5.3.2 Comparatives in Amis ― a N[AV] language 134 5.4 Conclusion 139 Chapter 6 Conclusion 140 References 142 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 阿美語的比較句結構 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Comparative Constructions in Amis | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 96-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張永利(Yung-li Chang),吳靜蘭(Jing-lan Wu),劉辰生(Chen-Sheng Liu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 比較句結構,類型學,「超越」型(比較句),去動詞化,詞類系統, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | comparative construction,typology,deverbalization,parts-of-speech system, | en |
dc.relation.page | 145 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2008-07-02 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 語言學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 語言學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-97-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 653.75 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。