請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/51430
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 | Chia-Ying Yang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 楊佳縈 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-15T13:33:57Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-02-15 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2016-02-15 | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2016-02-01 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Aikhenvald, Alexandra. (2006). Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. In Serial verb constructions: a cross-linguistic typology, ed. Alexandra Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon. 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aldridge, Edith. (2004). Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. PhD thesis, Cornell University. Barðdal, Jóhanna. (2007). The semantic and lexical range of the ditransitive construction in the history of (North) Germanic. Functions of Language, 14(1), 9-30. Beavers, John. (2011). An aspectual analysis of ditransitive verbs of caused possession in English. Journal of Semantics, 28(1), 1-54. Bisang Walter. (1992). Das Verb im Chinesischen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und Khmer. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Blust, Robert A. (1977). The Proto-Austronesian pronouns and Austroneisan subgrouping. Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Hawaii 9(2):1-15. — (1999). Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, ed. by E. Zeitoun and Paul Li, 31-94. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica. Boyd, Raymond. (2010). A “reflexive benefactive” in Chamba-Daka. Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies, 331-349. Censabella, Marisa. (2010). Beneficiaries and recipients in Toba (Guaycurú). Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies, 185-201. Chang, Anna Hsiou Chuan. (2006). Paiwan main clause structures. A reference grammar of Paiwan. The Australian National University, 60-80. Chang, Henry Yungli. (1997). Voice, case and agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. PhD diss., National Tsing Hua University. — (2006). Rethinking the Tsouic subgroup hypothesis: A morphosyntactic perspective. Streams Converging into an Ocean: Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Jen-Kuei Li on his 70th Birthday, ed. by Yung-li Chang, Lillian Huang, and Dah-an Ho, 565-583. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. — (2006). Verb sequences in some Formosan languages: SVCs or secondary predicates? Paper presented at 14th IACL and 10th ISCLL joint meeting. Academia Sinica, Taipei. Chang, Sheng-chieh. (2014). Morphosyntax and Semantics of Quantifiers in Kanakanavu. Master’s thesis. National Taiwan University. Cheng, Yi-Yang, & Sung, Li-May. (2015). The Expression of Modality in Kanakanavu. Oceanic Linguistics, 54(1), 17-53. Colleman, Timothy. (2010). The benefactive semantic potential of ‘caused reception’constructions. Benefactives and malefactives: typological perspectives and case studies, 219-243. Davidse, Kristina. 1996a. Functional dimensions of the dative in English. The Dative, Volume 1: Descriptive Studies, edited by William Van Belle and Willy Van Langendonck, 89–338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Deng, An-Ting. (2014). Verbal interrogative constructions. Interrogative Constructions in Kanakanavu. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan University., 76-80. Draye, Luk. (1998). The case of the causee: on the competition between dative and accusative in German lassen and in Dutch latenconstructions. In Willy Van Langendonck & William Van Belle (eds.), The dative. 2: Theoretical and contrastive studies, 75–111. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dyen, Isidore. (1971). The Austronesian langauges and Proto-Austronesian. In Sebeok 1971. 5-54. Ferrell, Raleigh. (1969). Taiwan Aboriginal Groups: Problems in Cultureal and Linguistic Classification. Institute of Ethnology Acdemia Sinica Monograph No. 17. Francez, Itamar. (2006). Possessors, goals, and the classification of ditransitive predicates: Evidence from Hebrew. Empirical issues in Syntax and Semantics,6, 137-154. Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. — (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13: 327-256. Higgins, Roger. (1979). The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. Outstanding dissertation in linguistics. Garland, New York. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (2005). The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: typological characteristics. The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 166-171. Ho, Dah-an. (1997). The Kanakanavu Language. The Formosan Languages in Kaohsiung [In Chinese], edited. by Li, Jen-kuei, pp. 228-271. Kaohsiung City Government. Huang, Huei-Ju., & Huang, Shuanfan. (2007). Lexical perspectives on voice constructions in Tsou. Oceanic Linguistics, 424-455. Huang, Lillian. (1997). Serial verb construction in some Formosan Languages. Paper resented at 9-ICAL, AS, Taipei. Iwasaki, Shoichi. (1995). Causative and benefactive constructions in Thai. In Fifth Annual Meeting of the South-East Asian Linguistics Society. Tempe, AZ: Program on Southeast Asian Studies, Arizona State University. Janda, Laura (1993). A Geography of Case Semantics. The Czech Dative and Russian Instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jenny, Mathias. (2010). Benefactive strategies in Thai. Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies, 377-392. Jung, Yeun-Jin, & Miyagawa, Shigeru. (2004). Decomposing ditransitive verbs. In Proceedings of SICGG (pp. 101-120). Kimenyi, Alexander. (1980). A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkley CA: University of California Press. Kittilä, Seppo. (2005). Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology, 9(2), 269-297. Kittilä, Seppo, & Zúñiga, Femando. (2010). Introduction: Benefaction and malefaction from a cross-linguistic perspective. Benefactives and malefactives: typological perspectives and case studies, 1-28. Kiyosawa, Kaoru, & Gerdts, Donna B. (2010). Benefactive and malefactive uses of Salish applicatives. Benefactives and malefactives: typological perspectives and case studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 147-183. Lambert, Silke. (2010). Beyond recipients: Towards a typology of dative uses (Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of the Graduate School of the University at Buffalo, State University of New York). Lehmann. Christian, Shin, Yong-Min & Verhoeven, Elisabeth. (2000). Direkte und indirekte partizipation. Zur Typologie der sprachlichen Reprӓstentation konzeptueller Relationen. Munich: Lincom Europa. Li, Paul Jen-kuei. (1997) Documentation of most endangered Formosan languages. Pre-Conference Proceedings of the International Conference on Austronesian Endangered Languages Documentation, 1-12. Taichung: Providence University. — (2006). The Internal Relationships of Formosan Languages. Paper presented at Tenth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, Philippines, 17–20 January 2006. — (2010). Cherish the Formosan Languages in Taiwan [In Chinese]. Taipei: Avanguard. Li, Paul Jen-kuei et al. (1997). The Formosan Languages in Kaohsiung [In Chinese]. Kaohsiung: The Government of Kaohsiung. Liao, Hsiu-chuan. (2004). Transitivity and ergativity in Formosan and Philippine languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Liao, Hsiu-chuan. (2010). The development of so-called “Instrumental Focus” verbs in Philippine languages. In 20th Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS 20), University of Zurich, Switzerland, June (pp. 10-11). Lichtenberk, František. (2002). The Possessive-Benefactive Connection. Oceanic linguistics, 41 (2), 439-474. Liu, Hsin-Chen. (2014). Morphology and syntax of the voice construction. A Semantic and Discourse Study on the Voice System in Kanakanavu. Master’s thesis, National Taiwan University. Malchukov, Andrej, Haspelmath, Martin, & Comrie, Bernard. (2010). Ditransitive constructions: a typological overview. Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 1-64. Margetts, Anna. (2004). From implicature to construction: Emergence of a benefactive construction in Oceanic. Oceanic linguistics, 445-468. Mei, Kuang. (1982). Pronouns and verb inflection in Kanakanavu. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 14: 207-232. Melis, Ludo. (1998). From form to interpretation: Building up the ‘dative’ roles. Langendock, van/Belle, van (eds.): The Dative. Theoretical and Descriptive Studies, 2, 261-291. Mukherjee, Joybrato. (2005). Ditransitive verb in previous research and in the present work. English ditransitive verbs: Aspects of theory, description and a usage-based model (No. 53)., 1-69. Rodopi. Newman, John. (1996). Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. — (1996). Constructions with figurative GIVE. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 221-222. — (1998). Recipients and ‘give’ constructions. In Willy van Langendonck & William van Belle (eds.), The Dative, Volume 2: Theoretical and Contrastive Studies, 1–28. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Ogawa, Naoyoshi and Asai, Erin. (1935). The Myths and Traditions of the Formosan Natives Tribes [in Japanese]. Taihoku: Taihoku Imperial University. Pawley, Andrew K., and Reid, Lawrence A. (1979). The evolution of transitive constructions in Austronesian. In Austronesian Studies: Papers from the Second Eastern Conference on Austronesian Languages, ed. By Paz B. Naylor, 103-130. Payne, Thomas. (2006). Voice and Valence. Exploring language structure: a student's guide. Cambridge University Press., 264-269. Quint, Nicolas. (2010). Benefactive and malefactive verb extensions in the Koalib verb system. Benefactives and malefactives. Typological perspectives and case studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 295-315. Rau, Der-hwa Victoria. (1992). Verbal morphology—primary affixes. A Grammar of Atayal. Taipei: Crane University Publishing Co, 35-59. Reid, Lawrence A. (2006). On Reconstructing the morphosyntax of Proto-Northern Luzon. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 37.2: 1-64. Ross, Malcolm. (1995). Reconstructing Proto-Austronesian verbal morphology: evidence from Taiwan. In Paul Jen-kuei Li, Dah-an Ho, Ying-kuei Huang, Cheng-hwa Tsang and Chiu-yu Tseng, eds Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan. Symposium Series of the Institute of History and Philology, Academica Sinica 4, 727‒791. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academica Sinica. — (2006). The argument structure of undergoer voice clauses in Formosan and other Philippine type languages. MS. Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies and Centre for Research on Language Change, The Australian National University. — (2009). Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. In Adelaar, Alexander and Andrew Pawley (eds), Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Robert Blust, 295-326. Pacific Linguistics 601. Canberra: The Australian National University. Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. (2010). The role of benefactive and related notions in the typology of purpose clauses. Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies, 121-146. Shibatani, Masayoshi. (1988). Voice in Philippine languages. Passive and voice., 85-142. — (1994). Benefactive constructions: A Japanese-Korean comparative perspective. Japanese-Korean Linguistics, Vol. 4, Noriko Akatsuka (ed.), 39-74. Stanford: CA-CSLI. Smith, Tomoko Yamashita. (2005). Affectedness constructions: How languages indicate posi- 286 tive and negative events. Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley. Song, Jae Jung. (1998). Benefactive marking in Oceanic languages: From possessive classifiers to benefactive markers. In: A. Siewierska and J. J. Song (eds.), Case, Typology and Grammar, 247–276. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. — (2010). Korean benefactive particles and their meanings. Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies, 393-418. Starosta, Stanley. (1995). A grammatical subgrouping of Formosan languages. Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan, ed. by Li et al., 683-726. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Sung, Li-may, Lily I-wen Su, Fuhui Hsieh, and Zhemin Lin. (2008). Developing an On-lin Corpus of Formosan Languages. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 6.2, 79-118, Crane Publishing, Taiwan. Syeed, Syed Mohammad. (1985) Morphological Causative and the Problems of the Transformational Approach, Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Dissertation filed in 1984, Distributed by IULC in 1985. Tanangkingsing, Machael. (2009). A functional reference grammar of Cebuano. Ph.D. dissertation, National Taiwan University. Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. (1999). On clausal complements in Paiwan. In: Elizabeth Zeitoun and Paul Jen-Kuei Li, (eds.), Selected papers from the eighth international conference on Austronesian linguistics, 529-578. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Thieberger, Nick. (2006). The benefactive construction in South Efate. Oceanic linguistics, 297-310. Tryon, Darrell. (1995). Proto-Austronesian and the major Austronesian subgroups. In Peter Bellwood, James J. Fox & Darrell Tryon (Eds.), The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, p. 17-38. Canberra: Department of Anthropology, Australian National University. Tsuchida, Shigeru. (1976). Reconstruction of Proto-Tsouic phonology. Study of Languages & Cultures of Asia & Africa, Monograph Series, No.5. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. — (2003). Kanakanavu Text (Austronesian Formosan). Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim, No. A3-014. Kyoto. Tsuboi, Eijiro. (2010). Malefactivity in Japanese. Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 419-435. Van Langendonck, W., & Van Belle, W. (Eds.). (1998). Introduction. The Dative: Volume 2: Theoretical and Contrastive Studies (Vol. 3). John Benjamins Publishing., 1-4. Van Valin, Robert D., & LaPolla, Randy J. (1997). Syntax: form, meaning, and function. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. P.383. Völlmin, Sascha. (2010). Benefactives and malefactives in Gumer (Gurage). Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 317-330. Wang, Shan-shan. (2004). An Ergative View on Thao Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Hawai’i. Wierzbicka, Anna. (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wolff, John U. (1973). Verbal inflection in Proto-Austronesian. In Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez: Essays in honor of Cecilio Lopez on his seventy-fifth birthday, ed. by Andrew B. Gonzalez, F.S.C., 71-91. Quezon City: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. Wu, Chunming. (2006). Verb serialization in Kanakanavu. UST Working Papers in Linguistics, Graduate Institute of Linguistics, 2. National Tsing Hua University. Zeitoun, Elizabeth. (2000). Rukai Reference Grammar [In Chinese]. Taipei: Yuanliou. Zúñiga, Fernando. (2009). Benefactives: form and function from a cross-linguistic perspective. Online handout. — (2010). Benefactive and malefactive applicativization in Mapudungun. Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 203-218. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/51430 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本論文探討高雄那瑪夏區卡那卡那富語的受益(benefaction)及受害(adversity/malefaction)概念,旨在提供完整的構詞句法和語意特性之描述。受益和受害皆談論事件參與者的被作用性,因此與蒙受關係(affectedness)有關(Smith, 2005)。根據Van Valin & LaPolla (1997)對受益範疇的分類,卡那卡那富語受益事件可分為三類─原因(reason)受益、替代(substitution)受益和接受(reception)受益。原因受益指出事件中存在一參與者,此參與者間接導致事件的發生,同時也能從事件結果得到喜悅或滿足等正面感受。替代受益在於事件的主事者能替代受益者(beneficiary)執行事件動作。第三種是接受受益,接收者從事件中得到物件,成為物件的所有者,因而受益。有趣的是,我們也觀察到融合受益。融合受益由產出(creating)事件和轉移(transfer)事件組成。一來,受益者免於執行產出物件的職責;二來,受益者能夠任意使用物件。
此外,此研究將致使句型視為受益句構的一種,原因在於致使概念也表達蒙受關係。在致使受益事件中,受益者通常為致使者(causer),受役者(causee)被致使替代致使者執行事件動作。相對地,在致使受害事件中,致使者無法避免受害事件之發生,而蒙受受害結果。 相對於受益,受害概念描述事件參與者的被作用性為負面。卡那卡那富有三種型式可表達─(動詞)詞彙語意、受事焦點標記-ee和致使句型。觀察發現受害者(maleficiary)通常和被作用物間有領屬關係,此領屬關係將被作用物所承受的負面效果傳導至受害者。 本論文期望透過描述性探究,提供完整的句法語意分析,為卡那卡那富語的保存工作貢獻微薄之力。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The present thesis aims to explore benefaction and adversity (or malefaction) in Kanakanavu, an indigenous language spoken in the mountain areas of southern Taiwan. The two notions express affectedness because both involve a participant that is acted on in some way by an event (Smith, 2005). Based on Van Valin & LaPolla (1997), Kanakanavu benefaction can be categorized into three types including reason, substitution, and reception. For benefaction of reason, the beneficiary is an indirect cause of the event and benefited by obtaining satisfaction or enjoyment from it. The second type is benefaction of substitution. The benefited participant is exempted from the duty to carry out an action since someone substitutes as the actor. The third type concerns reception. The benefaction lies in that the beneficiary can receive a thing as the possessor. Intriguingly, we also observe an integrated type that comprises substitution and reception—recipient-benefaction. A recipient-benefactive event is composed of a creating scene followed by a transfer scene. The recipient is absent from the creating event and only partakes in the second event as a recipient that can engage with the given object.
The research also includes the causative as a type of benefaction in that it relates to the expression of affectedness. In terms of the benefactive-causative, the beneficiary is usually the causer though it can be the causee. The causer is benefited by having the causee perform an action for himself/herself. On the other hand, the adversative-causative describes that the causer could have prevented a negative event from taking place but failed to. As opposed to benefaction, adversity or malefaction depicts an event the relevant participant (maleficiary) evaluates as bad. In Kanakanavu, three grammatical means are deployed for encoding—(1) (verb) lexical semantics, (2) the PV marker –ee, and (3) the causative. It is found that the maleficiary often holds possessive control over the object that is directly affected. In sum, the thesis endeavors to document the grammatical peculiarities of Kanakanvu through the specific topic of benefaction and adversity, hoping that the efforts will make contribution to preserving the linguistic treasure in Taiwan. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T13:33:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-104-R01142005-1.pdf: 2008325 bytes, checksum: e19be4aaa341d0f166d705cde236984b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………i
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………… ii Chinese Abstract………………………………………………………………….…iii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………iv List of Maps, Figures, and Tables……………………………………………….…vii Lists of Abbreviations………………………………………………………...…....viii Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………....1 1.1 Preliminary…………………………………………………………………...1 1.2 The General Background……………………………………………………..2 1.2.1 Geography…………………………………………………………….2 1.2.2 Genealogy……………………………………………………………..4 1.2.3 People and society…………………………………………………….6 1.3 A Sketch of Kanakanavu Grammar…………………………………………..8 1.3.1 Phonemic inventory…………………………………………………...8 1.3.2 Pronominal system…………………………………………………..11 1.3.3 Markers sua, na, and ia……………………………………………...13 1.3.4 Word order…………………………………………………………...15 1.3.5 Voice system…………………………………………………………17 1.3.6 TAM markers………………………………………………………...20 1.4 Data Collection……………………………………………………………...22 1.5 Organization………………………………………………………………...23 Chapter 2 Literature Review……………………………………………………….25 2.1 Definition…………………………………………………………………...25 2.2 Classification of Benefaction…..…..……………………………………..27 2.2.1 Van Valin & LaPolla (1997)…………………………………………27 2.2.2 Song (1998)………..………………………………………………...28 2.2.3 Kittilä (2005)………..……………………………………………….29 2.2.4 Interim summary…………………………………………………….31 2.3. Syntactic Coding for Benefaction………………………………………….32 2.3.1 Major mechanisms…………………………………………………..32 2.3.1.1 Cases………………………………………………………….32 2.3.1.2 Adpositions…………………………………………………...33 2.3.1.3 Serial verb constructions……………………………………..33 2.3.1.4 Applicativization……………………………………………..34 2.3.2 Possessive markers in Oceanic languages……………………….......34 2.4 Malefaction in Austronesian Languages…………………….……………37 2.5 Affectedness and Causativity..………………………………………………38 2.5.1 Scope of affectedness………………………………………………..39 2.5.2 Causative as benefactive…………………………………………….40 Chapter 3 Benefaction of Reason and Substitution………………………………41 3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………41 3.2 The IV Marker Sia-.....…...…….………..……………………………….41 3.3 Beneficiary as Reason………………………………………………………46 3.3.1 Vanai ‘reason’ ……………………………………………………….47 3.3.1.1 Denotation…………………………………….………………47 3.3.1.2 Nominal referent………………………………………….…..48 3.3.1.3 Clausal proposition…………………………………………...54 3.3.1.4 Syntactic status of vanai ‘reason’…………………………….57 3.3.1.5 Panaan ‘reason’……………………………………………... 59 3.3.2 Interim summary…………………………………………………….61 3.3 Beneficiary as the Substituted………………………………………………62 3.3.1 Puiri ‘replace’ & moranʉ ‘help’……………………………………..62 3.3.2 Puiri ‘replace’ & moranʉ ‘help’ in serial verb construction…………65 3.3.3 Interim summary…………………………………………….……….67 3.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..67 Chapter 4 Benefaction of Reception and Others………………………………….69 4.1 Beneficiary as Recipient…………………………………………………….69 4.1.1 Ditransitive (Transfer) verbs in Kanakanavu………………………..70 4.1.1.1 Transfer verbs and na marking reception…………………….71 4.1.1.2 Transfer verbs and na marking reception plus direction..76 4.1.1.3 Transfer verbs and alternation of direction…………………...79 4.1.2 Reception in complex scenes………………………………………..81 4.1.3 Verb types and functions of na………………………………………84 4.1.4 Interim summary…………………………………………………….85 4.2 Reception and Substitution Integrated……………………………………...85 4.2.1 The role of Recipient-beneficiary (Rb)……………………………...86 4.2.2 Expression of Purpose involving Rb………………………………...88 4.2.3 Interim Summary…………………………………………………….91 4.3 Causative as a Type of Benefactives………………………………………..92 4.3.1 A general introduction……………………………………………….92 4.3.2 Causer as the beneficiary………………………………….…………93 4.3.3 Causee as the beneficiary…………………………………………....94 4.3.4 Interim summary………………………………………………….…95 4.4 Adversity in Kanakanavu…………………………………………………...96 4.4.1 Adversity in verb semantics…………………………………………96 4.4.2 Adversity indicated by PV marker…………………………………..97 4.4.3 Adversative-Causative……………………………………………….99 4.4.4 Interim Summary…………………………………………………...100 4.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………101 Chapter 5 Concluding Remarks………………………………………………….103 References………………………………………………………………………….109 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 卡那卡那富語受益與受害概念的語言表徵 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Linguistic Representations of Benefaction and Malefaction in Kanakanavu | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 104-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 洪媽益(Michael Tanangkingsing),黃舒屏(Shu-Ping Huang) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 卡那卡那富語,蒙受關係,受害概念,受益概念,致使句構,轉移動詞, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Kanakanavu,affectedness,adversity,benefaction,causative,transfer verb, | en |
dc.relation.page | 115 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2016-02-01 | |
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 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.96 MB | 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。