請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/4917
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 謝舒凱(Shu-Kai Hsieh) | |
dc.contributor.author | Po-Ya Angela Wang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 王伯雅 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-14T17:50:30Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2015-08-25 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-14T17:50:30Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2015-08-25 | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2015-08-20 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Aitchison, & Lewis. (1996). The mental word web: Forgeting the links. Svartvik.
Aitchison, J. (2001). Language change: progress or decay? Cambridge University Press. Aitchison, J. (2012). Words in the mind : an introduction to the mental lexicon. Chichester, West Sussex ; Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, pp. 716-23. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control(19), pp. 716–23. Algeo, J. (1980). Where do all the new words come from. American Speech, 55(4), pp. 264-77. Altmann, E.G. , Zakary L. , & Whichard, Motter, A.E. (2013). Identifying Trends in Word Frequency Dynamics. Journal of Statistical Physics, 151(1-2), pp. 277-288. Altmann, E.G., Pierrehumbert, J.B., & Motter, A.E. (2011). Niche as a determinant of word fate in online groups. PloS one, 6(5). Baayen, R. H. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: morphological productivity. In Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (pp. 900-19.). Barnhart. (2007). A calculus for new words. Dictionaries(28), pp. 132–138. Barnhart, C. (1978). American lexicography, 1945–1973. American Speech, 53(2), pp. 83-140. Bauer. (1983). English Word-formation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Betz, W. (1949). Deutsch und Lateinisch: Die Lehnbildungen der althochdeutschen Benediktinerregel. Bonn: Bouvier. Boulanger, V. (1997). What Makes a Coinage Successful?: The Factors Influencing the Adoption of English New Words. University of Georgia. Brekle, H. (1978). Reflections on the conditions for the coining and understanding of nominal compounds. In U. Wolfgang , & W. Meid (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Linguists (pp. 68-77). Innsbruck: Universit4tsverlag Innsbruck. Brinton, L. (2002). Grammaticalization versus lexicalization reconsidered: on the 'late' use of temporal adverbs. In T. Fanego, L.-C. M.J. , & J. Pérez-Guerra (Ed.), English historical suntax and morphology: selected papers from 11ICEHL (pp. 67-97). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Brinton, L., & Dieter , S. (1995). Functional renewal. In Andersen, AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE SERIE (pp. 33-47). Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? . Cognitive Neuropsychology(14), pp. 177–208. Ceng, W.-X. (2013). Huayu baqian ci cihui fanji yanjiu [ Classification on Chinese 8,000 Vocabulary ]. Teaching Chinese as Second Language, pp. 23-35. Chang, P, & Ahrens, K. (2008). Towards a Model for the Prediction of Chinese Novel Verbs. PACLIC , (pp. 131-40). Chao, Y. (1976). Aspects of Chinese sociolinguistics: essays (Vol. 9). Stanford University Press. Charles , W., & Miller, G. (1989). Contexts of antonymous adjectives. Applied Psycholinguistics(10), pp. 357-75. Chesley, P., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Predicting new words from newer words: Lexical borrowings in French. Linguistics, 48(6), pp. 1343–74. Choueka, Y., Klein, S., & Neuwitz, E. (1983). Automatic retrieval of frequent idiomatic and collocational expressions in a large corpus. Journal of the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, 4. Church, K. W. (1990). Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16(1), pp. 22–29. Church, K., Gale, W. A., Hanks, P., & Hindle, D. (1991). Using statistics in lexical analysis. In Lexical Acquisition: Using On-line Resources to Build a Lexicon (pp. 115–64). Lawrence Erlbaum. Cook., P. (2010). Exploiting linguistic knowledge to infer properties of neologisms. University of Toronto. Cruse. (1992). Antonymy revistited: Some thoughts on the relationship between words and concepts. In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts (pp. 289-306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates . Cruse. (2001). The lexicon. In Mark Aronoff and Janie Rees-Miller. In The Handbook of Linguistics (pp. 238-64). Blackwell Publishers Inc., Malden, MA. Cruse. (2011). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Donovan , R., & O’Neil, M. (2008). A systematic approach to the selection of neologisms for inclusion in a large monolingual dictionary. Proceedings of the 13th Euralex International Congress (pp. 571-579). Barcelona. Duckworth, D. (1977). Zur terminologischen und systematischen Grundlage der Forschung auf dem Gebiet der englisch-deutschen Interferenz. Evans, V., & Melanie, G. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics An Introduction. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press. Evert, S. (2005). The statistics of word cooccurrences: word pairs and collocations. Farrar, S., & Langendoen, D. (2003). A linguistic ontology for the semantic web. Glot International. Fellbaum, C. (2014). Large-Scale Lexicography in the Digital Age. International Journal of Lexicography. Fellbaum, L. (1995). Morphological Aspects of Language Processing. Hove:Lawrence Erlbaum. Fenk-Oczlon. (1989). Word frequency and word order in freezes. Linguistics(27), pp. 517-56. Fernández-Domínguez, J. (2010). Productivity vs. Lexicalization: Frequency-Based Hypotheses on Word-Formation. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 46(2), pp. 193-219. Firth, J. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–55. In In Studies in linguistic. The Philological Society, Oxford. Fischer. (1998). Lexical Change in Present Day English: A Corpus-Based Study. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tぴubingen, Germany. Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A., & Stein, D. (2000). Pathways of change: grammaticalization in English (Vol. 53). John Benjamins Publishing. Fromkin. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language(47), pp. 27-52. Geeraerts, D. (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University. Gibbs, & Gonzales. (1985). Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idioms. Cognition, pp. 243-59. Giuliano, V. (1965). The interpretation of word associations. In M. Stevens, V. Giuliano, & L. Heilprin (Ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Statistical Association Methods For Mechanized Documentation. 269, pp. 25-32. Washington,DC: National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous Publication. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1991). The last stages of grammatical elements: Contractive and xpansive desemanticization. In Heine, & Traugott, Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 301–314). Gross, D., & Miller, K. (1989). Adjectives in WordNet. International Journal of Lexicography(3), pp. 265-77. Halliday, M., & Webster, J. (2007). Language and society (Vol. 10). Bloomsbury Publishing. Hargraves, O. (2007). Taming the wild beast. Dictionaries(28), pp. 139-141. Harley, T. (2005). The Psychology of Language. New York: Psychology Press. Harris, A., & Lyle , C. (1995). Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistics Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language(26), pp. 210-31. Hay, J. , & Baayen, H. . (2002). Parsing and productivity . In G. Booij , & J. van Marle, Yearbook of morphology (pp. 203-35). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer. Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, B. (2003). (De)grammaticalization. Kate Burridge and Barry Blake. Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptualframework. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Hickey, R. (2003). Motives for language change. Cambridge University Press. Hohenhaus, P. (2005). Lexicalization and institutionalization. In Handbook of word-formation (pp. 353-73). Springer Netherlands. Hong, J.-f., Wu, Y., & Huang, C.-R. (2005). yitizi yu yiti ci cihui yuyi chutan [ Probe on Variants in Chinese Characters and Lexical Items]. CLSW2005. Hsu, F.-h. (2006). Taiwan dangdai guoyu xin ci tan wei[Probe on Neologisms of Taiwan Modern Chinese]. Hsu, F.-h. (2006). Taiwan dangdai guoyu xin ci tan wei[Probe on Neologisms of Taiwan Modern Chinese]. Huang, C.-R. (2005). Hanzi zhishi bi oda de ji ge cengmian: Zi, ci, yu ciyi guanxi gailun[ Ontology of Chinese Characters in Several Perspectives: Characters, Lexical Items, and Semantic Relations]. International Conference on Chinese Character and gGobalization. Taipei. Hudson, R. (1996). Sociolinguistics . Cambridge University Press. Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hurford, J. R., Heasley, B., & Smith, M. B. (2007). Semantics: a coursebook. Cambridge University Press. Hurford, J., Michael, S.-K., & Chris. (1998). Approaches to the Evolution of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jarema, G., & Libben, G. . (2007). Introduction: Matters of definition and core perspectives. In G. Jarema , & G. Libben, The Mental Lexicon: Core Perspectives (pp. 1-7). Oxford: ELSEVIER. Jenkins. (1970). The 1952 Mnnesota word association norms. In Postman, & Keppel, Norms of word association (pp. 1-38). Academic Press New York. Johnson-Laird. (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Jucker, A. H., & Taavitsainen, I. (Eds.). (2010). Historical pragmatics . Walter de Gruyter. Keller, R. (1994). On language change: The invisible hand in language. Psychology Press. Kerremans, D. (2015 ). A Web of New Words: A Corpus-based Study of the Conventionalization Process of English Neologisms. Kerremans, D., Stegmayr, S., & Schmid, H. J. . (2011). The NeoCrawler: identifying and retrieving neologisms from the internet and monitoring ongoing change. Current Methods in Historical Semantics(73), p. 59. Kessler, B. (2001). The significance of word lists. Center for the Study of Language and Inf. Kim, H. (2007). Xiandai hanyu xin ci yanjiu [Sutdy on Neologisms of Modern Chinese]. Kjellmer, G. (2000). Potential Words. Word(51), pp. 205-28. Klein, D. E. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language(45), pp. 259–82. Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kreidler. (1998). Introducing English Semantics. London: Routledge. L’Homme, M. C. (2014). Why Lexical Semantics is Important for E-Lexicography and Why it is Equally Important to Hide its Formal Representations from Users of Dictionaries. International Journal of Lexicography, 27(4), pp. 360-77. Lakoff, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1987). The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland, & N. Quinn, Cultural Models in Language and Thought (pp. 195–221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, George, & Mark Johnson . (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP. Lass, R. (1990). How to do things with junk: exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics, 26, pp. 79-102. Lass, R. (1997). Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Leech, G. (1981). Semantics (2nd ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Lehmann, C. (1995[1982]). Thoughts on Grammaticalization (originally published as Thoughts on Grammaticalization: A Programmatic Sketch, Vol. 1. University of Cologne: Arbeiten des Kölner Universalienprojekts 49). Munich: LINCOM EUROPA. Lehr, A. (1996). Kollokationen und maschinenlesbare Korpora. volume 168 of Germanistische Linguistik. Niemeyer, Tübingen. Lehrer. (2003). Understanding trendy neologisms. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), pp. 369–382. Lipka, L. (1977). Lexikalisierung, Idiomatisierung und Hypostasierung als Probleme einer synchronen Wortbildungslehre. In K. Dieter , & E. Herbert , Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung Beitrage zum Wuppertaler Wortbildungskolloquium vom 9. – 10. (pp. 155-64). Brekle. Bonn: Bouvier. Liu, T.-j. (2014). PTT Corpus: Construction and Applications. Love, N. (2006). Language and history: Integrationist perspectives . Routledge. Lyons. (1981). Language,Meaning,and Context. London:Fontana. Masini, F., & Huang, h.-q. (1997). Xiandai hanyu cihui de xingcheng: Shijiu shiji hanyu wailai ci yanjiu [The Formation of Modern Chinese Vocabulary: Loan Words in the Nineteenth Century]. Foreign Chinese Dictionary. Metcalf, A. (2002). Success, Predicting New Words: the Mystery of Their Success. Boston New York:Houghton Mifflin Company. Metcalf, A. (2007). The enigma of 9/11. Dictionaries(28), pp. 160–162. Milroy, L., & Gordon, M. (2008). Sociolinguistics: Method and interpretation (Vol. 13). John Wiley & Sons. Moon, R. (2013). Braving Synonymy: From Data to Dictionary. International Journal of Lexicography, 26(3), pp. 260-278. Murphy, G., & Andrew, J. (1993). The conceptual basis of antonymy and synonymy in adjectives. Journal of Memory and Language(32), pp. 301-319. Murphy, M. (2013). What We Talk about When We Talk about Synonyms (And What it can tell us About Thesauruses). International Journal of Lexicography. Norde, M. (2002). The final stages of grammaticalization: Affixhood and beyond. In W. Diewald, Typological Studies in Language (pp. 45-81). Plag, I. (2006). Productivity. In The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 537-56.). Polguere, A. (2014 ). From Writing Dictionaries to Weaving Lexical Networks. International Journal of Lexicography. Renouf, A. (2013). A finer definition of neology in English: the life-cycle of a word. . Corpus perspectives on patterns of lexis, pp. 177-207. Rey, A. (1995). The Concept of neologism and the evolution of terminologies in individual languages. In In Essays on Terminology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Romagnoli, C. (2013). The Lexicographic Approach to Modern Chinese Synonyms. International Journal of Lexicography, 26(4), pp. 407-23. Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore, Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language (pp. 111–44). New York: Academic Press. Sabino, R. (2005). Survey Says . . . Gameday. American Speech(80), pp. 61–77. Schmid, H. J. (2005). Englische Morphologie und Wortbildung: Eine Einführung. Schmid, H.-J. (2008). New words in the mind: Concept-formation and entrenchment of neologisms. In Anglia-Zeitschrift für englische Philologie (pp. 1-36). Sheidlower. (1995). Principles for the inclusion of new words in college dictionaries. Dictionaries(16), pp. 33–44. SinclairJohn. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Speer, R., & Havasi, C. . (2012). Representing General Relational Knowledge in ConceptNet 5. LREC , (pp. 3679-3686). Starreveld, P. A. (2004). Phonological facilitation of grammatical gender retrieval. Language and Cognitive Processes (6), pp. 677–711. Tang, T.-C. (1989). Hanyu ci fa jufa xuji[ Chinese Semantic and Syntax ]. Thomason, S., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic. Berkeley: University of California Press. Traugot, E. (2004). Exaptation and grammaticalization. In Linguistic Studies Based on Corpora (pp. 133-156). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing Co. Traugott , E., & Bernd, H. (1991). Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth C, & Richard B. Dasher . (2005). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Ulrike, O. (2010). Using Corpus Methodology for Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis: What Can Corpora tell Us About the Linguistic Expression of Emotions? Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), pp. 727–63. Vincent, N. (1995). Exaptation and grammaticalization. In Andersen, AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE SERIES (pp. 433-448). Wang , Z.-m. (2010). Jiyu shijian kuadu de hanyu jiaoxue changyong ci biao tongji yanjiu[Statistic Information for Chinese Teaching Wordlists based on Temporal Information]. huawen jiaoxue yu yanjiu(4), pp. 49-55. Wang, W. S., Ke, J., & Minett, J. W. (2004). Computational studies of language evolution. In Monograph Series B (pp. 65-108). Warren, P. (2012). Introducing Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton. Williams, G. (2003). Les collocations et l’école contextualiste britannique. In F. Grossmann , & A. Tutin, Les Collocations: analyse et traitement (pp. 33-44). Amsterdam: De Werelt. Wischer, I., & Diewald, G. (2002). New reflections on grammaticalization (Vol. 49). John Benjamins Publishing. Yip, M. (1980). The tonal phonology of Chinese. Ph D Dissertation, MIT. Published. Yip, M. (1994). Isolated Uses of Prosodic Categories. In J. Cole , & C. Kisseberth. Stanford,California: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Yip, M. (2003). What Phonology has Learnt from Chinese. Yip, M. (2007). Tone. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, pp. 229-252. Yip, P. (2000). The Chinese lexicon: a comprehensive survey. Psychology Press. Yu, N. (1998). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Yu, N. (2002). Body and Emotion :Body Parts in Chinese Expression of Emotion. Pragmatics & Cognition(10), pp. 341–67. Zhu, J.-n. (2000). Taiwan xiaoyuan xin ci de fazhan he dua jiaoxue de yingxiong[ Influence of Neologisms from Taiwan Campus on Teaching]. 6th Global Chinese Teaching Conference. Taipei. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/4917 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 前人的在語詞上的研究有許多見解,主要可分為兩部分:語言理論上的分析和語言處理的應用。理論上的分析主要包含三個角度:研究語言現象歷史發展的歷史語言學,新詞共時表現的詞彙語義學,預測詞彙存留的計算語言學。他們都可以運用於字典學,設計語言教材,構建自然語言處理所需的資源。然而,在相關研究中少有同時採用量化和質性角度的探討。其次,前人研究中所選取的目標詞彙有其侷限性。同時,時間訊息以及各類語言學變相都應納入討論以及更深刻的了解詞彙穩定的肇因。詞彙以概念連結的組構模式以及隨著時間積累的心理詞庫都應在探討本議題時納入考量。因此,本文欲以量化和質性觀點切入研究,提出詞彙可能有的三種生命形態(擴散、穩定、失去活性),透過時間資訊以及六種語言學面向(聲韻、構詞、語意、句法、語用、社會語言學)來探討本議題,並期能將結果運用於詞彙預測以及資源建構。
量化分析的角度來看,線性回歸模型用以研究區分不同時間點詞彙的語言學特色。語用學顯著地解釋了1950年以前存在的詞彙期使用穩定度的高低,而1950年以後所造的詞是否在語言中穩定使用則有賴語法面向的因素來解釋。這樣的結果暗示詞彙活得越久越與經驗性和語用性知識相關,但對於近期新生的詞彙句法結構的結合性對於其是否會被穩定使用有著決定性的意義。新起的擴散詞以及存在數世紀的詞彙在使用穩定度上十分相似,但藉由邏輯回歸模型可以發現數音節、近義詞數、同義詞數目、在回文中使用的活躍度、是否為外來語成功區別擴散詞以及存在數世紀的詞彙。另方面,語言學特質的角度而言1950年後新生的詞彙與近來新起的擴散詞有相似的語言學特徵。所以將1950年以後新生的詞作為訓練資料建構預測模型來理解現下擴散的詞未來發展的趨勢。結果顯示目標詞前後共現的不同詞彙數有顯著的預測能力,達到0.6335的準確度。 質性分析的面向從同義詞間的競爭來探討,句法上的兼容性和該詞概念關係的豐富度應為是否能贏過其他同義詞而被大量使用的關鍵。此外,不同時間點生成的詞在貼文與回文中有不同的使用活性。不同於其他兩者擴散詞在回文中較為活躍,這暗示他們在類似回覆導向的口語風格中以及互動中較易擴散。根據這些研究發現,我們可以進一步應用於增補詞彙於語言資源中。語用上的穩定度、語法上的結合性,以及語意可作為增補詞彙的標準,較廣泛使用的異體詞,語意表達中較穩定使用的詞彙,以及來自同一概念經歷詞彙化的詞項皆收錄於增補後的詞,由此可知所提標準的涵蓋性。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Previous studies have many insights in understanding lexical items. They can be generally captured into two parts: linguistic analysis and application. Linguistic analysis mainly includes three angles: studies on historical development of linguistic phenomenon from Historical Linguistics, probes on synchronic emergence of neologisms from Lexical Semantics, and prediction models built for understanding survival of words from Computational Linguistics. They can all be applied on including words for Lexicology, designing language teaching materials, and constructing resources for Natural Language Processing. However, there is rarely a single work include quantitative and qualitative methods simultaneously. Second, the generality of included target words in previous studies needs reconsideration. Meanwhile, temporal information of lexical items and various linguistic aspects should be invited to probe deeper for understanding factors contributing to conventionalization of a word. The conceptual associations of organization in mental lexicon and temporal accumulation for mental lexicon should all be considered when facing this issue. Thus, this thesis is aimed to conduct quantitative profiling and qualitative analysis as well as to apply them in constructing lexical resources with proposing three life stages of lexical items (diffusion, conventionalization, and inactivation), including target words from different temporal points, and adopting linguistic variables from six linguistic aspects (phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics).
In quantitative profiling, the linear regression model has built to distinguish words from different temporal points. The result shows that pragmatics can best account behavioral performance of words before 1950 and syntax can best capture words after 1950, which implies that words live longer may correlated with rich experiential and pragmatic using knowledge, but for those who are born recently their structurally syntactic compatibility plays important role in deciding their fluctuation in use. Diffused words are similar to words existing over centuries in their Revised Constant U. From logistic regression model it is found that number of syllable, number of near-synonym, number of synonym, activeness in used in comments, and borrowing from other language or not are statistically significant variables that distinguish diffused words and words existing over centuries. On the other hand, words born after 1950 and diffused words are quite similar in their linguistic characteristics. Prediction model based on training data from words after 1950 are built to foretell potential life of diffused words. It shows that number of types co-occurring before target words is statistically valued in prediction. With words before 1950 and recent diffused words as test data the accuracy of model reaches 0.6335. Qualitative analysis on competitions among words from the same synset indicates that structural compatibility and involved conceptual relations may be the key for one lexical item to winning over the other synonymous member. Besides, words coming from different temporal points show differences in their activeness in being used in comments and posts on PTT. Diffused words are more active in comments, which implies they are more correlated with feedback oriented oral style and diffused in interaction. With these findings we can further apply them on proposing suggestions for lexicology. Pragmatically stable in use, syntactic compatibility, and semantically number of senses are taken as standard to expanding inclusion of words. The updated inclusion of popularly used variants, more stable semantic representation, and words lexicalized from the same conceptual experiences indicates the inclusiveness of proposed standards. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-14T17:50:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-104-R01142009-1.pdf: 3553619 bytes, checksum: b1cfb883c50e9e7546971ba0208fff96 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Acknowledgements ii
摘要 iii Abstract v Table of Contents vii List of Figures x List of Tables xiii List of Appendices xv Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Background 1 1.2. Purpose 3 1.3. Organization 4 Chapter 2. Literature review 6 2.1. Qualitative Discussion from Historical linguistics and Lexical Semantics 7 2.1.1. Historical Linguistics: Grammaticalization, Degrammaticalization, Lexicalization, and Exaptation 7 2.1.2. Lexical Semantics on Neology 12 2.2. Quantitative Analysis on “Life Cycle” of Lexical Items 18 2.2.1. Analysis on “Life Cycle” of Different Lexical Items 18 2.2.2. Quantitative Profiling on “Life” of Lexical Items 22 2.3. Applications 26 Chapter 3. Methodology 29 3.1. Scope of Study 29 3.1.1. Unit of Observation 29 3.1.2. Types of Target Words 31 3.1.3. Potential Limitation and Corresponding Compensation in Current Study 34 3.1.4. Proposed Life Stages 35 3.1.5. Operational Definitions on Predicted Value 39 3.2. Resource for Collecting Target words 42 3.2.1. Kim (2006) and Chang and Ahrens (2008) 43 3.2.2. Google Books Ngram Corpus (GBNC) 43 3.2.3. Web 45 3.2.4. Newspaper 46 3.2.5. Chinese Wordnet 46 3.3. Categorization on Target Lexical Items 48 3.3.1. Target Lexical Items for Understanding Diffusion 49 3.3.2. Target Verbs for Understanding Conventionalization 50 3.4. Proposed Linguistic Predictors for Understanding Stabilization 52 3.4.1. Phonology 56 3.4.2. Morphology 57 3.4.3. Syntax 66 3.4.4. Semantics 70 3.4.5. Sociolinguistics 73 3.4.6. Pragmatics 75 Chapter 4. Exploratory Analysis and Modeling 81 4.1. Revised Constant U in Three Types of Targets 81 4.2. Performance of Linguistic Factors in Target Words 88 4.3. Linguistic Regression Models for Three Sets of Words 99 4.3.1. Revised Constant U and Phonology 102 4.3.2. Revised Constant U and Morphology 103 4.3.3. Revised Constant U and Semantics 104 4.3.4. Revised Constant U and Syntax 105 4.3.5. Revised Constant U and Pragmatics 105 4.3.6. Revised Constant U and Sociolinguistics 107 4.3.7. Logistic Regression Model 109 4.4. Qualitative Analysis on Members of Synset 114 4.5. Application: Inclusion of Lexical Items for Lexicology 121 Chapter 5. General discussion and conclusion 128 5.1. Conclusion 128 5.2. Implication and future study 129 References 131 Appendices 141 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 詞彙穩定的秘密—對各語言學面向的質性與量化分析 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Secrets of Lexical Conventionalization:
A Quantitative and Qualitative Exploratory Analysis on Linguistic Factors | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 103-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 劉德馨(Teh-Sin Liu),高照明(Zhao-Ming Gao) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 詞彙穩定,詞彙生命,新詞,詞彙擴散,網路語言,語言改變,量化語言學,語料庫,字典學, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | conventionalization,life cycle of words,neologism,diffusion,internet language,language change,quantitative linguistics,corpus,lexicology, | en |
dc.relation.page | 175 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2015-08-20 | |
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-104-1.pdf | 3.47 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。