請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/5891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 | Yu-Chih | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 林昱志 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-16T16:18:05Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2013-08-23 | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-05-16T16:18:05Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2013-08-23 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2013-08-15 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | References
Achard, M. (2011). Representation of cognitive structures: Syntax and semantics of French sentential complements. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Bonami, O. & D. Godard. (2008). On the syntax of direct quotation in French. In S. Muller (Ed.) Proceedings of the HPSG08 Conference (358-377). Keihanna: CSLI Publications. Chang, Y.-L. & D. W.-t. Tsai. (2001). Actor-sensitivity and obligatory control in Kavalan and some other Formosan languages. Language and Linguistics, 2(1), 1-20. Comrie, B. (1976). The syntax of causative constructions: Cross-language similarities and divergences. In M. Shitatani (Ed.) The Grammar of Causative Constructions (Syntax and Semantics 6) (pp. 261-312). New York; Academic Press. Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dixon, R. M. W. (2000). A typology of causatives: Form, syntax and meaning. In R. M. W. Dixon, & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.) Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity (pp. 30-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleck, D. W. (2002). Causation in Matses (Panoan, Amazonian Peru). In Shibatani, M. (Ed.) The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation (pp. 373-415). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givon, T. (2001). Syntax: An Introduction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givon, T. (1975). Cause and control: On the semantics of interpersonal manipulation. In J. Kimball (Ed.) Syntax and Semantics 4 (pp. 59-89). New York: Academic Press. Godard, D. (2012). Indicative and subjunctive mood in complement clauses: From formal semantics to grammar writing. In C. Pionn (Ed.) Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (pp. 129-148). Himmelmann N. P. (2005). The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: Typological characteristics. In K. A. Adelaar, & N. Himmelmann (Eds.) Language Universals and Linguistic Typology (pp. 110-181). New York: Routledge. Hsieh, F. (2012). When say verb is not saying: The Paiwan case. Paper presented at NTU Miniworkshop, National Taiwan University, Taipei. Hsieh, F. (2012). On the Grammaticalization of the Kavalan SAY Verb zin. Oceanic Linguistics, 51(2), 467-492. Huang, H. (2010). The syntax and pragmatics of clausal constituents in Tsou discourse. PhD dissertation, Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Taiwan University, Taipei. Huang, L. M. (1994). Ergativity in Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics, 33(1), 129-143. Huang, L. M. (1995). A study of Mayrinax syntax. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Huang, L. M. (2000). Verb classification in Mayrinax Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics, 39(2), 364-390. Huang, L. M. (2001). Focus system of Mayrinax Atayal: a syntactic, semantic and pragmatic perspective. Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanity & Social Science, 46(1,2), 51-69. Huang, L. M. (2002). Nominalization in Mayrinax Atayal. Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 197-225. Huang, L. M. & H. Tali’. (2008). Syntax and semantics of p- in Squliq Atayal. Language and Linguistics, 9(3), 491-521. Huang, S. & L. I. Su. (2005). Iconicity as evidenced in Saisiyat linguistic coding of causative events. Oceanic Linguistics, 44(2), 341-356. Huang, Z.-R. & K.-C. J. Lin (2012). Placing Atayal on the ergativity continuum. Paper presented at The LSA Annual Meeting 2012. Abstract retrieved from http://elanguage.net/journals/lsameeting/index Starosta, S. (1999). Transitivity, ergativity, and the best analysis of Atayal case marking. In E. Zeitoun & P. J. Li (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics (pp. 371-392). Taipei: Academia Sinica. 黃宣範，宋麗梅，江文瑜(Huang et. al)。(2007)。噶瑪蘭語語法與認知整合型計 畫(III)──噶瑪蘭語言談與認知研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 NSC 95-2411-H-002-051。 Kayne, R. S. (1981). On certain differences between French and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 12(3), 349-371. Kemmer, S. & A. Verhagen. (1994). The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 115-156. Kozinsky, I. & M. Polinsky. (1993). Causee and patient in the causative of transitive. In B. Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Causatives and Transitivity (pp. 177-240). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lin, D. & J. J. Wu. (2008). Complementation and nominalization in Kavalan and Amis. Paper presented at The Workshop on the Grouping and Dispersal of Austronesian People, Academia Sinica, Taipei. Liu, T. (2011). Complementation in three Formosan languages—Amis, Mayrinax Atayal and Tsou. PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Hawai’i, Honolulu. Lu, Y.-A. (2005). Mayrinax phonology: with special reference to UM affixation. MA thesis, Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua Univisity, Hsinchu. Masica, C. (1976). Defining a Linguistic Area. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ross, M. (1995). Reconstructing Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: Evidence from Taiwan. In P. J. Li, D. Ho, Y. Huang, C. Tsang and C. Tseng (Eds.) Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan (pp. 727-791). Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica. Ross, M. (2006). The argument structure of undergoer voice clauses in Formosan and other Philippine-type languages. Paper presented at Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association 13, Hsinchu. Saksena, A. (1982). Contact in causation. Language, 58(4), 820-830. Shen, W. (2008). Sakizaya syntax: With special reference to negative, interrogative, and causative constructions. MA theses, Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Taiwan University, Taipei. Shibatani, M. (1976). The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus. In M. Shitatani (Ed.) The Grammar of Causative Constructions (Syntax and Semantics 6) (pp. 1-42). New York: Academic Press. Shibatani, M. (2002). Introduction: some basic issues in the grammar of causation. In Shibatani, M. (Ed.) The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation (pp. 1-22). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Shibatani M. & P. Pardeshi. (2002). The causative continuum. In Shibatani M (Ed.) The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation (pp. 85-126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Starosta, S. (1974). Causative verbs in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics, 13(1/2), 279-369. Sung, L.-M. & C.-c Shen. (2006). Reciprocals in Kavalan and a typological comparison. In H. Y. Chang, L. M. Huang & D. Ho (Eds.) Streams Converging into an Ocean (pp. 239-277). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Tsai, D. W. (2007). Conjunctive reduction and its origin: A comparative study of Tsou, Amis, and Squliq Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics, 46(2), 585-602. Wu, J. (2006). The analysis of Pa- verbs in Amis. In H. Y. Chang, L. M. Huang & D. Ho (Eds.) Streams Converging into an Ocean (pp. 279-321). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Zeitoun, E. & L. M. Huang. (2000). Concerning ka-, an overlooked marker of verbal derivation in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics, 39(2), 391-414. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/5891 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究探討汶水泰雅語中致使概念在形式上的表現，以及形式上的特質與語意上的關聯。在Shibatani（2002）和Shibatani and Pardeshi（2002）語言分類�功能取向的研究框架之下，本研究將汶水泰雅語中表現致使概念的構式排列構成一個致使連續體（causative continuum），連續體的兩端為直接致使（direct causation）和間接致使（indirect causation）。構詞�句法與語意的互動可以清楚地藉由此致使連續體觀察得出。
在構詞層次，汶水泰雅語中主要藉由pa-前綴來表示致使概念。第二章檢視能產性（productivity，致使連續體的兩個形式面象之一）在pa-致使構式之中的表現。透過觀察致使化動詞語態（voice）變化上的規律，發現「語態」和「動詞語意」為pa-致使形式中兩個交互作用的約束。四個語態當中的pa-致使構式，[pa-STEM-un]（PV）能產性最低，可以就靜態動詞、不及物動詞，以及有限的及物動詞形成致使構式。[si-pa-STEM]（CV）則是能產性最高，除了靜態動詞和不及物動詞之外，還可以就及物動詞形成致使構式。另外一個形成pa-致使構式的約束則是動詞語意，此概念構成了汶水泰雅語中的致使化層級（causativization hierarchy）。這個層級大致上遵照Shibatani（2002）的預測，顯示出不及物動詞較容易透過構詞方式致使化，及物動詞則較困難。 致使概念也可以分析型的方式（analytic）表達，尤其是牽涉到人際操縱的情況，或是致使化及物動詞以及雙及物動詞，不允許使用pa-的情況之下。第三章檢視兩個分析型表達致使概念的構式─引述構式（quotative construction）以及易主構式（switch-subject construction）。這兩個構式在形式緊合（formal synthesis，致使連續體的另一形式面象）上的差異，以Givon（2001）提出的句法方式測試。比較的結果顯示，易主構式形式在子句間距、語態、否定、人稱指涉一致等方面，子句緊合程度較強。這兩個分析型表達致使概念的構式，加上非致使引述構式，以及pa-致使構式，合起來形成一個表話語�操縱�致使概念的補語級別（complementation scale）。第三章的最後描述了英語、法語以及噶瑪蘭語的補語級別，以進一步跨語言比較補語策略。 第二章以及第三章呈現了汶水泰雅語中致使概念構式的形式層面，接著第四章將這些構式沿著致使連續體排列，並以直接�間接的面相討論這些構式的語意。排列的結果發現，詞彙致使構式，以及pa-構詞致使構式傾向表達直接致使概念，而分析型致使構式則傾向表達間接致使概念。協同致使概念（sociative causation）則透過[si-pa-STEM]（CV）以及AV引述構式表達。最後，非致使語態構式的語意和功能被認為是造成致使概念構式之間語意差異的原因。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | The present study discusses how causation is encoded formally in Mayrinax Atayal and how the formal properties of these causation-encoding forms are correlated with their semantics. Under the typological-functional framework of Shibatani (2002) and Shibatani and Pardeshi (2002), the present study maps the causation-encoding forms in Mayrinax Atayal onto a causative continuum headed by direct and indirect causation at its two ends. With the causative continuum, the interaction between morpho-syntax and semantics is clearly observed.
At the morphological level, the prefix pa- is predominantly used to express causation in Mayrinax Atayal. Chapter 2 examines how productivity, one of the two measures for the formal dimensions of the causative continuum, is realized among pa- causatives. Through observation on the causativization patterns in terms of the voice paradigm of causativized verbs, it has been found that voice and verbal semantics are the two interacting constraints on the formation of pa- causatives. Among the pa- causatives in the four voices, the one in patient voice [pa-STEM-un] is the least productive, causativizing statives, intransitives, and a restricted number of transitives, while the pa- causative in conveyance voice [si-pa-STEM] is the most productive, causativizing transitive verbs in addition to stative and intransitive verbs. The other constraint on pa- causativization, namely, verbal semantics, shapes a causativization hierarchy in Mayrinax Atayal, which largely conforms to Shibatani’s (2002) prediction that inactive intransitves are easier to causativize through morphology while morphological causativization on transitives is faced with more difficulty. Causation can be coded analytically as well, especially in situations where interpersonal manipulation is involved, or where transitive and ditransitive verbs are to be causativized (in other words, where pa- prefixation is impossible). Chapter 3 examines two constructions that are employed to encode causation analytically: quotative construction and switch-subject construction. These two constructions are distinguished in their degree of synthesis (the other measure for the formal dimension of the causative continuum), which is measured against the syntactic coding devices provided in Givon (2001). Formal comparison shows that switch-subject construction exhibits stronger degree of synthesis regarding inter-clausal gap, voice, negation, and personal deixis agreement. These two analytic causation-encoding constructions, together with the non-causative quotative construction and pa- causatives, form a complementation scale in Mayrinax along the utterance-manipulation-causation cline. For a cross-linguistic comparison of complementation strategies, the complementation scales in English, French and Kavalan are presented. After the presentation of the formal aspects of causation-encoding constructions in Mayrinax Atayal in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, Chapter 4 maps these constructions onto a causative continuum and discusses the semantic aspects in the directness dimension. It is found that, on the continuum, lexical causatives and morphological pa- causatives gravitate toward direct causation, while constructions that encode causation analytically (namely, quotative construction and switch-subject construction) gravitate toward indirect causation. Sociative causation, the intermediary category, is expressed through pa- causatives in CV and quotative construction in AV. The semantics and functions of non-causative voice constructions are argued to contribute to the semantic differences among the causation-encoding constructions. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-16T16:18:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-R99142009-1.pdf: 2223685 bytes, checksum: 064dfc31e289837c7fc23710f5e2df01 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | Table of contents
Abstract.........................................................................................................................i Abstract in Chinese.................................................................................................... iii Table of contents..........................................................................................................iv Abbreviations .............................................................................................................vii List of tables.............................................................................................................. viii List of figures...............................................................................................................ix Chapter 1 Introduction.............................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................1 1.1 Preliminaries .................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Defining causatives............................................................................2 1.1.2 Typology of causative constructions..................................................5 1.2 Objectives .....................................................................................................7 1.3 Framework ....................................................................................................8 1.3.1 Shibatani (2002) and Shibatani and Pardeshi (2002).........................8 1.3.2 Givon (2001)....................................................................................14 1.4 The Mayrinax Atayal language...................................................................17 1.4.1 Phonemic inventory .........................................................................17 1.4.2 Word order .......................................................................................18 1.4.3 Case-marking and pronominal systems ...........................................19 1.4.4 Voice system ....................................................................................22 1.5 Reviewing Huang (1995)............................................................................24 1.6 Database......................................................................................................30 1.7 Organization................................................................................................30 Chapter 2 Causativization through morphological means: pa- causatives .......33 2.0 Introduction.................................................................................................33 2.1 Identifying the pa- causative.......................................................................33 2.2 Data .............................................................................................................39 2.2.1 Pattern 1: pa- causativization is possible in all the four voices .......41 2.2.2 Pattern 2: pa- causativization is possible in all voices except PV...45 2.2.3 Pattern 3: pa- causativization is possible in all voices except AV...47 2.2.4 Pattern 4: pa- causativization is possible in LV and CV..................50 2.2.5 Pattern 5: pa- causativization is possible only in CV......................52 2.2.6 Pattern 6: pa- causativization is completely impossible ..................53 2.2.7 An interim summary ........................................................................54 2.3 Participants and structural features .............................................................55 2.3.1 Referential properties.......................................................................56 2.3.2 Coding..............................................................................................58 2.3.3 Word order .......................................................................................60 2.4 Causativization hierarchy............................................................................63 2.4.1 Transitivity and verbal semantics constraint....................................63 2.4.2 Voice constraint................................................................................66 2.4.3 Modification to Shibatani’s (2002) model .......................................68 2.5 Modeling morphological causative constructions ......................................70 2.5.1 Intransitive causative constructions: PV..........................................71 2.5.2 Transitive causative constructions: LV and CV...............................72 2.5.3 Residual constructional meaning of CV construction .....................74 2.6 Summary.....................................................................................................75 Chapter 3 Analytic causation-encoding constructions and clause union ..........76 3.0 Introduction.................................................................................................76 3.1 Quotative constructions ..............................................................................77 3.1.1 kal-un ‘tell (PV)’..............................................................................78 3.1.2 sal-un ‘say (PV)’..............................................................................83 3.1.3 Quotative constructions as analytic causation-encoding constructions ....................................................................................88 3.1.4 mha’ as complementizer...................................................................90 3.2 Switch-subject constructions ......................................................................92 3.2.1 tu’-un ‘order (PV)’ ...........................................................................93 3.2.2 siwal-an ‘allow (LV)’.......................................................................97 3.3 Clause union................................................................................................99 3.3.1 Comparing complementation of quotative construction and switch-subject construction............................................................100 3.3.1.1 Formal realization of the complement clause: finiteness, voice, and negation .............................................................100 3.3.1.2 Reference.............................................................................102 3.3.1.3 Constituent order ................................................................104 3.3.1.4 Wh-extraction......................................................................105 3.3.1.5 An interim summary............................................................106 3.3.2 The complementation scale............................................................108 3.3.2.1 Relating event-integration and clause union from utterance to manipulation and causation................................................108 3.3.2.2 Complementation scale in Mayrinax Atayal....................... 111 3.4 Cross-linguistic comparison......................................................................113 3.4.1 French ............................................................................................114 3.4.2 Kavalan ..........................................................................................116 3.5 Summary...................................................................................................119 Chapter 4 Semantics and form-function correlations .......................................120 4.0 Introduction...............................................................................................120 4.1 Three approaches to semantics of causatives............................................120 4.1.1 Saksena (1982): Semantic-composite approach ............................121 4.1.2 Dixon (2000): Parameter approach................................................124 4.1.3 Shibatani and Pardeshi (2002): Event-structure approach.............128 4.2 Causative continuum.................................................................................131 4.2.1 Mapping Mayrinax causatives onto the continuum.......................131 4.2.2 Form-meaning correlations............................................................139 4.3 Interplay with voice ..................................................................................143 4.3.1 Degree of affectedness: PV and LV...............................................143 4.3.2 AV as intermediate categories on the causative continuum...........146 4.3.3 Causative/applicative syncretism in CV........................................148 4.4 Summary...................................................................................................150 Chapter 5 Conclusion ...........................................................................................152 5.1 A general summary ...................................................................................152 5.2 Implications and future studies .................................................................156 References .................................................................................................................159 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.subject | 語態 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 汶水泰雅語 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 致使構式 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 致使概念 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 構詞?句法 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 形式?語意關聯 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | causative construction | en |
| dc.subject | voice | en |
| dc.subject | form-meaning correlation | en |
| dc.subject | Mayrinax Atayal | en |
| dc.subject | morpho-syntax | en |
| dc.subject | causation | en |
| dc.title | 汶水泰雅語中致使概念的語言表現：致使連續體的觀點 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Linguistic Coding of Causation in Mayrinax Atayal: A Causative Continuum Approach | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 101-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 吳靜蘭(Jing-lan Wu),黃舒屏(Shuping Huang) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 汶水泰雅語,致使構式,致使概念,構詞?句法,形式?語意關聯,語態, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Mayrinax Atayal,causative construction,causation,morpho-syntax,form-meaning correlation,voice, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 162 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2013-08-16 | |
| 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-102-1.pdf | 2.17 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。