請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/42249
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 | Lihsin Sung | en |
dc.contributor.author | 宋立心 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T00:55:22Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2008-08-08 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2008-08-08 | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2008-08-05 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and R.M.W. Dixon (ed.) 2006. Serial verb constructions: a cross-linguistic typology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Andersen, Paul Kent. 1983. Word order typology and comparative constructions. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Beck, S., Oda, T., and Sugisaki, K. 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: criteria for differentiation and identification. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Blust, Robert. 1998. A note on the Thao patient focus perfective. Oceanic Linguistics 37.2: 346-353. -----. 1999. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. Selected papers from the eighth international conference on Austronesian linguistics, ed. by Elizabeth Zeitoun and Paul Jen-keui Li, 31-94. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: attribution and predication. Lingua 18: 1-34. Botne, Robert. 2003. To die across languages: Toward a typology of achievement verbs. Linguistic Typology 7.2: 233-278. Bresnan, Joan W. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4.3: 275-343. -----. 1975. Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Analysis 1.1: 25-74. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Diamond, Jared M. 2000. Linguistics: Taiwan’s gift to the world. Nature 403: 709-710. Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language 1.1: 19-80. -----. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? Berlin: Mouton Publisher. -----. 1991. A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford Clarendon Press. -----. 2004. Adjective class in typological perspective. Adjective classes: a cross-linguistic typology, ed. by R.M.W Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 1-49. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dixon, R.M.W and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.) 2004. Adjective classes: a cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dyen, Isidore. 1965. Formosan evidence for some new Proto-Austronesian phonemes. Lingua 14:285-305. Dyen, Isidore. 1990. Homomeric lexical classification. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology, ed. by Philip Baldi, 211-30. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. England, Nora C. 2004. Adjectives in Mam. Adjective classes: a cross-linguistic typology, ed. by R.M.W Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 125-146. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hajek, John. 2004. Adjective classes: What can we conclude? Adjective classes: a cross-linguistic typology, ed. by R.M.W Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 348-362. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hamann. Cornelia. 1991. Adjectival Semantics. Semantik: Ein internationales handbuch der zeitgen ossischen forschung, ed. by Arnim von Stechow and DieterWunderlich, 658-673. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hsieh Fuhui. 2007. Language of emotion and thinking in Kavalan and Saisiyat. National Taiwan University dissertation. Hsieh, Fuhui and Shuanfan Huang 2006. The pragmatics of case marking in Saisiyat. Oceanic Linguistics 45.1: 91-109. Ho, Dah-an and Shiu-Fang Yang. 2000. Introduction. A reference grammar of Saisiyat (in Chinese). Formosan Language Series, No.2. Taipei: Yuan-liou Publishing Company. Hopper, P. J. and S. A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.2: 251-299. Huang, Huei-Ju. 2003. The tense, aspect and reality in Tsou and Saisiyat. National Taiwan University Master’s thesis. Huang, Shuanfan. 2005. Split O in Formosan languages: A localist interpretation. Language and Linguistics 6.4: 783-806. Huang, Shuping and Lily I-wen Su. 2005. Iconicity as evidenced in Saisiyat linguistic coding of causative events. Oceanic Linguistics 44.2: 341-356. Huang, Shuanfan, Lily I-wen Su and Li-May Sung. 2004. Discourse and Cognition in Saisiyat [賽夏語語法與認知整合型計畫報告]. NSC report [NSC-92-2411-H-002-078]. Taipei: National Taiwan University. Huang, L. M. 2000. Verb classification in Maryinax Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 39:364-389. Hyslop, Catriona. 2004. Adjectives in North-East Ambae. Adjective classes: a cross-linguistic typology, ed. by R.M.W Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 263-282. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: the syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland. (1997 UCSC Dissertation) -----. 2005. MS. Variation in the Expression of Comparison: implication for the semantics of comparatives and gradable predicates. (Lecture manuscript at Cornell University) -----. 2007. MS. Standards of Comparison. Colloque de Syntaxe et Semantique de Paris, 6 October, 2007. -----. To appear. Modes of comparison. Papers from the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Klein, Ewan H. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4.1: 1-45. -----. 1982. The interpretation of adjectival comparatives. Journal of Linguistics 18.1: 113-136. -----. 1991. Comparatives. Semantik: Ein internationales handbuch der zeitgen ossischen forschung, ed. by Arnim von Stechow and DieterWunderlich, 673-691. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Larson, Richard K. 1988. Scope and comparatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 11.1:1-26. Levy, Paulette. 2004. Adjectives in Papantla Totonac. Adjective classes: a cross-linguistic typology, ed. by R.M.W Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 147-176. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1978. A comparative vocabulary of Saisiyat dialects. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philosophy 49.2: 133-199. -----. 1990. Classification of Formosan languages: Lexical evidence. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philosophy 56.4: 809-844. -----. 1997a. The ethnic group and migration of Formosan people (in Chinese). Taipei: Chang-ming Culture Company. -----. 1997b. The history and interaction of plain tribes in Taiwan (in Chinese). Taipei: Chang-ming Culture Company. Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther. 1996. A note on Chinese comparatives. Studies in the Linguistic Science 26.1:217-235. -----. 2007. The Chameleon in the Chinese Individual Exceed Comparative. Language and Linguistics 8.3:767-796. Lord, Carol. 1993. Historical change in serial verb constructions. Typological studies 26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matthews, Stephen. 2006. Serial verb constructions in Cantonese. Serial verb constructions: a cross-linguistic typology, ed. by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon, 69-85. New York: Oxford University Press. McQuown, N. A. [1940] 1990. Gramática de la lengua totonaca. México: Unam. Napoli, D. J. 1983. Comparative ellipsis: A phrase structure analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 14.4: 675-694. Ross, Malcom D. 1995. Reconstructing Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: Evidence from Taiwan. Papers from the International Symposium on Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan. Academia Sinica. Sohn, Ho-min. 2004. The adjective class in Korean. Adjective classes: a cross-linguistic typology, ed. by R.M.W Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 223-241. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Starosta, Stanley. 1974. Causative verbs in Formosan Languages. Oceanic Linguistics 13: 279-236. -----. 1995. A grammar subgrouping of Formosan languages. Papers from the International Symposium on Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan, ed. by Paul J.-K. Li, Dah-an Ho, Yinh-kuei Huang, Cheng-hwa Tseng, and Chiu-yu Tseng, 683-726. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Sung, Li-May and Cheng-chuen Kuo, 2008. A descriptive study of comparative constructions in Kavalan and Amis, Papers from the 16th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2006 (SEALS XVI), ed. by Paul Sidwell and Uri Tadmor, 109-119. Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Australia. Sung, Li-May and Lihsin Sung. 2007. Comparative Constructions in Saisiyat. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference on Austronesian Languages & Linguistics, London, UK. Tsao, Feng-Fu. 1989. Comparison in Chinese. A topic-comment approach. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 19.1: 151-189. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Xu Weiyuan. 1988. Capturing the adjective in Chinese. Australian National University Master’s thesis. Yeh, Marie M. 1991. Saisiyat structure. Tsing Hua University. Master’s thesis. -----. 1995. A preliminary report on tense and aspect in Saisiyat. Papers from the First International Symposium on Language in Taiwan, 29-58. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Ltd. -----. 2000a. A reference grammar of Saisiyat (in Chinese). Formosan Language Series, No. 2. Taipei: Yuan-liou Publishing Company. -----. 2000b. Syntax and semantics of the Saisiyat negators. In Grammatical analysis: Morphology, syntax and semantics: Studies in honor of Stanley Starosta, ed. By Videa DeGuzman and Byron W. Bender, 325–347. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. -----. 2003a. A syntactic and semantic study of Saisiyat verbs. National Taiwan Normal University dissertation. -----. 2003b. Adjectives as verbs in Saisiyat. Papers presented at the 2nd Workshop on Formosan Languages, Academia Sinica. Nov. 1-2. Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2001. Negation in Saisiyat: Another perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 40.1: 125-134. Zeitoun, Elizabeth and Chen-huei Wu. 2005. Saisiyat Reduplication Revisited. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 31.2: 31-56. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/42249 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本論文主要探討賽夏語比較句結構,研究面向著重於句法結構和語言類型學,期能深入探究比較關係在賽夏語中是以何種面貌呈現。
誠如Kennedy (to appear)所言,「依據物件特性的量和程度的多寡作排序與比較是人類認知中的基本能力」。然而,長久以來比較句因為其句法、語意的複雜性,以及各語言表現比較關係的高度差異性,成了相當有趣的研究議題。 其中一項差異源自於比較述語的基本特性,也就是語言中的帶有層級性的詞彙。帶有此特性的詞彙,一般可歸類為所謂的形容詞。因此,本研究首先探討賽夏語形容詞在句法、構詞上的特徵。研究顯示,就句法而言,賽夏語形容詞具有高度的動詞特性,特別是有與靜態動詞相類似的句法、構詞表現。在形容詞的修飾功能方面,賽夏語形容詞必須加上一特定標記--’ima;而作為形容詞述語時,則不需與任何標記連用,因此更證明了賽夏語的高度動詞性。 接著我們採用Stassen (1985)的比較句類型學架構,深入分析賽夏語物件比較關係的句法結構。研究顯示,賽夏語比較句結構主要可區分為三類,分別是:並列型(第一類)、加接型(第二類)和超越型(第三類)。第一類結構利用兩個對比的句子或名詞來表現比較關係;第二類結構是在原本的單論元主事焦點句子中,添增一個比較基準名詞組,並以予格表示。此型比較句固定為主事焦點句型,無法有其它焦點變化。另由於賽夏語的予格具有多種功能,本結構難以自Stassen (1985)的架構下覓得適當類別。第三類結構因除了比較述語之外,尚存在一帶有「超越」意義動詞字根-Salaz,故稱為超越型比較句。此型比較句中的超越動詞可經焦點變化成主事焦點或指事焦點型。此比較句型屬連動結構,可歸類為Stassen (1985)架構中的「超越-1」類型。 賽夏語中,此三類比較句結構也可表現事件比較關係。事件比較中的兩個事件以嵌入句(embedded clauses)方式呈現,其中動詞保且有焦點記號。就事件比較而言,使用第二類比較結構時,母句述語為比較述語;使用第三類比較結構時,母句述語則為超越動詞。最後,在賽夏語中,並沒有構詞上的機制來表現等同句和最高級句型,前者利用連動結構表現等同關係;後者則需憑藉語境傳達。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The present thesis investigates the comparative constructions in Saisiyat with particular focus on their syntactic structures and typological characteristics so as to offer an in-depth exploration of how a comparative relationship is realized in Saisiyat.
Just as commented by Kennedy (to appear), “The ability to establish orderings among objects and make comparisons between them according to the amount or degree to which they possess some property is a basic component of human cognition.” However, the comparative construction has been a notorious yet intriguing research topic since languages demonstrate great variations in constructing a comparative structure. One variation stems from the categorical status of the adjectives of which gradability is the essential feature for a comparative predicate. Therefore, we first characterize a group of lexemes that can constitute the comparative predicates in Saisiyat, the so-called putative adjectives. It is demonstrated that the Saisiyat adjectives are generally verb-like in terms of their syntactic behavior. Specifically, since they share similar morphosyntactic patterns with stative verbs despite certain distinctions concerning valency, it seems to be plausible to treat them as a subgroup of stative verbs. In regard to the modification devices in Saisiyat, the adjective modification of a noun is always concomitant with a marker ’ima while the adjective predication is unmarked. This fact reinforces the claim that Saisiyat adjectives are strongly verb-like. We then conduct a syntactic analysis of entity comparisons in Saisiyat on the basis of Stassen’s (1985) typological framework. It is revealed that Saisiyat possesses three main comparative constructions, including the Juxtaposition construction (TYPE 1), the Addity construction (TYPE 2) and the Exceed Construction (TYPE 3). For TYPE 1, the comparative reading is inferred by juxtaposing two nominals or adversative clauses. TYPE 2, being mono-clausal in nature, gains the comparative sense via an addition of the dative-case marked standard NP to a typical one-argument AF construction. It is suggested that Stassen’s criteria are able to accommodate the Juxtaposition construction while a straightforward categorization for the Addity construction is still blurred due to the poly-functions pertaining to the dative case. The Exceed construction, is dubbed this name to characterize the existence of a bare verb root, -Salaz ‘exceed; surpass’ in addition to the kin-marked comparative predicate. While TYPE 2 allows no focus alternation, TYPE 3 has two focus alternations, namely the AF or the RF construction, which are hosted by the exceed-verb alone. The Exceed construction in Saisiyat is analyzed as an SVC and thus accords with the Exceed-1 comparative in terms of Stassen’s (1985) framework. The three comparative devices also apply to event comparisons. The two events in a comparison are coded as embedded clauses as the action verbs are finite with the focus inflection. The matrix predicates in event comparisons are the comparative predicate in TYPE 2, and the exceed-verb in TYPE 3. Finally, we find no morphological device to mark equative and superlative constructions in Saisiyat. The former relationship is conveyed via SVC while the latter is conveyed via pragmatic inference. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T00:55:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R93142006-1.pdf: 1012533 bytes, checksum: 88ae4e597b38588f9f81630b34fd5243 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………………………i
Chinese Abstract ……………………………………………………………………..ii English Abstract ……………………………………………………………………...iii Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………..........v List of Figures ………………………………………………………………............viii List of Tables ………………………………………………………………..............ix Chapter 1 Introduction …………………………………………………………....1 1.0 Preliminary ………………………………………………………………...1 1.1 Saisiyat Profile ………………………………………………………….....7 1.2 A Brief Sketch of Saisiyat Grammar ………………………………………8 1.2.1 The Phonemic Inventory …………………………………………...8 1.2.2 Word Order …………………………………………………………9 1.2.3 Case Marking and Pronominal System …………………………...10 1.2.4 Focus marking System …………………………………….……...12 1.2.4.1 The AF construction ………………………………………….13 1.2.4.2 The NAF constructions ………………………………………16 1.3 Database ………………………………………………………………….19 1.4 Organization ……………………………………………………………...20 Chapter 2 The Adjectives in Saisiyat ……………………………………………21 2.0 Preliminary ……….………………………………………………………21 2.1 The Dixon’s Semantic Types ……………..………………………………26 2.1.1 Criteria for Recognizing an Adjective Class …………...…………30 2.2 Morphosyntactic Characteristics of Saisiyat Adjectives …………………35 2.2.1 Reduplication ……………………………………..………………35 2.2.2 Valency ……………………………………..……………………..39 2.3 Modification in Saisiyat ………….………………..……………………..41 2.3.1 Noun Phrase Modification ………………..………………………41 2.3.2 Adverb Formation ……….………………..………………………45 2.3.3 Degree Modification of Properties …………………………….….46 2.3.3.1 Adverbial Modification ……..……………………….…….46 2.3.3.2 Measure Phrase …….……………..……………………….49 2.4 Summary …….……………………………………..……………………51 Chapter 3 Description of Comparatives in Saisiyat ……………………………53 3.0 Preliminary ……….………………………………………………………53 3.1 Entity Comparisons ………………………………………………………56 3.1.1 TYPE 1: The Juxtaposition Type …………………………….……56 3.1.2 TYPE 2: The Addity Type ………...………………………………58 3.1.3 TYPE 3: The Exceed Type ………...……………………………...62 3.1.3.1 The AF Exceed Comparative ..………………………….....62 3.1.3.2 The RF Exceed Comparative ..………………………….....66 3.2 Event Comparisons ………………………………………………………69 3.3 Measure Phrases and Comparison ………………………………..………74 3.4 Equative and Superlative …………………………………………………75 3.5 Summary ……….………………………………………………………...77 Chapter 4 Syntactic Analysis of Comparatives in Saisiyat …………………….79 4.0 Preliminary ….……………………………………………………………79 4.1 Entity Comparisons ………………………………………………………79 4.1.1 TYPE 1 as the Conjoined Comparative …………………………..79 4.1.2 TYPE 2 ….……………………………………...…………………82 4.1.3 TYPE 3 as the Exceed Comparative …………...…………………85 4.1.3.1 Syntacmatics of m-/si-inSalaz and the Comparative Predicate...89 4.1.3.1.1 The verb root -Salaz ‘exceed’ ……...…….…………89 4.1.3.1.2 The marker in on m-/si-inSalaz …...…….…………93 4.1.3.1.3 The property of kin + comparative predicate ……..104 4.1.3.2 TYPE 3 not as Apposition of Two Verbs ….…….……….112 4.1.3.3 TYPE 3 as Serial Verb Construction …...………………….115 4.2 Event comparisons ………………………….……...………………..…121 4.2.1 Syntactic Encoding of Events in Comparison .………………..…121 4.2.2 Klein’s (1991) Typological Classification .………………..……..125 4.3 Summary ……….………………………………………………………127 Chapter 5 Concluding Remarks ……………………………………………….129 5.0 Recapitulation ………………..………………………………………….129 5.1 Further Studies ………………..………………………………..……….132 References …………………………………………………..……………………134 Appendix I Abbreviations and Transcription Convention …..……………………139 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 賽夏語比較句結構 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Comparative Constructions in Saisiyat | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 96-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 葉美利(Marie M. Yeh),劉辰生(Luther Chen-Sheng Liu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 賽夏語,比較句結構,語言類型學,超越型比較句,形容詞, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Saisiyat,comparative constructions,typology,adjectives, | en |
dc.relation.page | 138 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2008-08-05 | |
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 | 988.8 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。