請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/7085完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 呂佳蓉 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Shan Lin | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 林育珊 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-17T15:59:30Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2020-04-16 | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-05-17T15:59:30Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2020-04-16 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2020-03-26 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Attardo, Salvatore. (2007). Irony as Relevant Inappropriateness. In Gibbs, Raymond W.
and Colston, Herbert L. (eds.), Irony in language and thought: a cognitive science reader. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Begagić, Mirna. (2013). Semantic preference and semantic prosody of the collocation make sense. Jezikoslovlje, 14 (2-3), 403-416. Brugman, Claudia. (1981). The story of ‘over’: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon ( MA thesis). University of California, Berkeley (published New York: Garland, 1988). Brugman, Claudia, & Lakoff, George. (1988). Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In S. Small, G. Cottrell, & M. Tannenhaus (eds.), Lexical Ambiguity Resolution (pp. 477-507). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman. Bublitz, Wolfram. (1996). Semantic prosody and cohesive company: somewhat predictable. Leuvense Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor Germaanse Filologie. 85 (1–2), 1-32. Cienki, Alan. (2010). Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clark, Eve V. & Clark Herbert H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55(4). 767-811. Collins, Charles A. (1984). Bitch: An example of semantic development and change. Lambda Alpha Journal of Man, 16(1), 69-86. Croft, William. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: Chicago University. Cruse, Alan. (2011). Meaning in language: an introduction to semantics and pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Crystal, David. (2006). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dirven, René, Wolf, Hans-Georg, & Polzenhagen, Frank. (2007). Cognitive Linguistics and cultural studies. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Du, Zhengsheng. [杜正勝]. (1982). 傳統家族試論. Chuán-tǒng jiā-zú shì-lùn. A Study on traditional family. Continent Magazine, 65(2). Evans, Vyvyan. (2004). The structure of time: language, meaning and temporal cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Evans, Vyvyan, & Tyler, Andrea. (2004a). Rethinking English ‘prepositions of movement’: the case of to and through. In Cuychens Hubert, de Mulder Walter & Mortelmans Tania (eds.), Adpositions of movement (special issue of the Belgian Journal of Linguistics 17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Evans, Vyvyan, & Tyler, Andrea. (2004b). Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: the case of in. In Radden, Gunter & Panther, Klaus-Uwe (eds.), Linguistic studies in motivation (pp.157-192). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Evans, Vyvyan. (2005). The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. J. Linguistics, 41, 33-75. Evans, Vyvyan, & Green, Melanie. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fauconnier, Gilles. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fauconnier, Gilles. (1997). Mappings in language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fauconnier, Gilles, & Turner, Mark. (1994). Conceptual projection and middle spaces. (retrieved from http://www.lit.kobe-u.ac.jp/~yomatsum/resources/Fauconnierturner1984.pdf ) Fauconnier, Gilles, & Turner, Mark. (1998).Conceptual Integration Networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133-187. Fauconnier, Gilles, & Turner, Mark. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual Blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books. Finegan, Edward. (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction. In D. Stein, & S. Wright (eds.). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation (pp. 1-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Firth, John R. (1957b). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In John R. Firth (ed.), Studies in Linguistic Analysis, 1-32. Oxford: Philological Society. Geeraerts, Dirk. (1997). Diachronic prototype Semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Geeraerts, Dirk. (2010). Theories of lexical semantics. New York: Oxford University Press. Glynn, Dylan, & Robinson, Justyna A. (eds.). (2014). Corpus methods for Semantics: quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haverkate, Henk. (1990). A speech act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics 14(1). 77-109. Holdcroft, David. (1983). Irony as a trope, and irony as discourse. Poetics Today, 4(3), 493-511. Huang, Chu-Ren, Hsieh, Shu-Kai, & Chen, Keh-Jiann. (2017). Mandarin Chinese Words and Parts of Speech: A Corpus-based Study. Abingdon: Routledge. Hunston, Susan. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunston, Susan. (2007). Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(2), 249-268. Hu, Ping. 胡平. (2016). 论“隱涵義規約化”對多義詞形成的作用—以“婊子”為個案. Lùn “yǐn-hán-yì guī-yuē-huà” duì duō-yì-cí xíng-chéng de zuò-yòng—yǐ “biǎo-zi ” wéi gè-àn. The conventionalization of Implicature Contribution to polysemy of word: A Case study on “biaozi (bitch)”. Studies on the History of Chinese Language, 21, 174-178. Ji, Xusheng. 季旭昇. (2010). 說文新證字釋. Shuō-wén xīn-zhèng zì-shì. China: Fujian People's Publishing House. Johnson, Mark. (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Koch, Peter. (2012). The pervasiveness of contiguity and metonymy in semantic change. In Kathryn Allan and Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Current methods in historical semantics (pp. 259-311). Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. Kövecses, Zoltán & Radden, Günter. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37-78. Kövecses, Zoltán. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kövecses, Zoltán. (2003). Metaphor and emotion: language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kövecses, Zoltán. (2005). Metaphor in culture: universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lai, Huiling. [賴惠玲]. (2017). 語意學. Yǔ-yì xué. Semantics. Taipei: Wu-Nan Book Inc. Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark. (1980). Metaphors we live by. The U.S.A.: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. The U.S.A.: The University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Standford: Standford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Levinson, Stephen C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. (2007). Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.139-169). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. The U.S.A.: University of California Press. Li, Ye, & Zhu, Xiaoyan. [李曄、朱曉燕]. (2011). 從認知角度分析親屬稱謂詞的空間 隱喻. Cóng rèn-zhī jiǎo-dù fèn-xī qīn-shǔ chēng-wèi cí de kōng-jiān yǐn-yù. Master, 237. Li, Zong-jiang. (2004). The semantic property of Chinese passives and its cognitive explanation. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 27(6), 7-11. Liu, Tsun-Jui. (2014). PTT Corpus: Construction and Applications (MA Thesis). National Taiwan University, Taipei. Louw, Bill. (1993 [2004]) ‘Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies’. In Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.) Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.157-176. Reprinted in Sampson, G. and McCarthy, D. (2004) (eds.) Corpus Linguistics: readings in a widening discipline. London: Continuum, ch.20. Louw, Bill. (2000). Contextual prosodic theory: bringing semantic prosodies to life. In C. Heffer and H. Saunston (eds.), Words in Context: In Honour of John Sinclair (pp.48-94). Birmingham: ELR. Lu, Kaijun, & Shao, Junhang. [卢凯军、邵军航]. (2012). 汉文化人际关系的空间隐喻 机制. Hàn-wén-huà rén-jì guān-xì de kōng-jiān yǐn-yù jī-zhì. Major Spatialization Metaphors of interpersonal relationship in Chinese culture. Journal of Zhejiang Ocean University, Humanities Science, 29(1), 31-36. Lucariello, Joan. (1994). Situational irony: a concept of events gone awry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(2), 129-145. Partington, Alan. (2004a). ‘“Utterly content in each other’s company”: semantic prosody and semantic preference’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 131-156. Peirsman, Yves, & Geeraerts, Dirk. (2006). Metonymy as prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269-316. Tyler, Andrea, & Evans, Vyvyan. (2001b). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: the case of over. Language, 77, 724-725. Tyler, Andrea, & Evans, Vyvyan. (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Sciences, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martsa, Sandor. (2013). Conversion in English: a cognitive semantic approach. British: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Myers Roy, Alice. (1977). Towards a definition of irony. In R.W. Fasold and R. Shuy (eds.), Studies in language variation.Washington: Georgetown University Press. Partington, Alan. (2004). “Utterly content in each other’s company:” Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 131-156. Rosch, Eleanor ([1978] 1999) Principles of categorization. In B. Lloyd and E. Rosch (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (pp. 27-48); reprinted in E. Margolis and S. Laurence (eds.). (1999). Concepts: Core Readings (pp. 189-206). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,. Rosch, Eleanor, & Caroline, Mervis. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605. Sandra, Dominiek. (1998). What linguists can and can’t tell you about the human mind: a reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(4), 361-478. Sandra, Dominiek, & Rice, Sally. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s?, Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 89-130. Shindo, Mika. (2009). Semantic extension, subjectification, and verbalization. The U.S.A.: University Press of America. Sinclair, John. (1987). Looking Up. London: Collins. Sinclair, John. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stewart, Dominic. (2010). Semantic prosody: a critical evaluation. Routledge. Stubbs, Michael. (2001a). Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. Sweetser, Eve E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tan and Xu. (2018). Research on cognitive mechanism of Chinese Appellation of Orientation. Modern Linguistics, 6(2), 220-224. Traugott, Elizabeth C., & Dasher, Richard B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yuan, Haixia. [袁海霞]. (2006)。從方位詞 “內”、“外”探討親屬稱謂的空間隱喻. Cóng fang-wèi-cí “nèi,” “wài” tàn-tǎo qīn-shǔ chēng-wèi de kōng-jiān yǐn-yù. Study on space—metaphor of relation titles in China. Journal of Ankang Teachers College, 18(5), 36-38。 Vinter, Vanja. (2017). “You call me a bitch lik it’s a bad thing”: a study into the current use and semantic properties of the noun bitch. (a student essay) Xiong, Xueliang, & Wang, Zhijun. [熊學亮、王志軍]. (2002). 被動句式的原型研究. Bèi-dòng jù-shì de yuan-xíng yán-jiū . Study on the prototypical pattern of passive constructions. Studies on Foreign Language, 1, 19-23. Xu, Hui. [許暉]. (2011). 這個詞，原來是這個意思. Zhè-gè cí, yuan-lái shì zhè-gè yì-sī. The original meanings of these words. Taipei: Azothbooks. Xu, Yangjie. [徐揚杰]. (1992). 中國家族制度史. Zhōng-guó jiā-zú zhì-dù shǐ. The history of Chinese family system. Beijing: People’s Publishing House. Chinese Wordnet. Huang, Chu-Ren, & Hsieh, Shu-Kai. (2003-2010). http://lope.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/cwn/query/# Liberty Times Net. [自由新聞網]. https://news.ltn.com.tw/search. Accessed date: 2019/01/25. PTT Corpus. http://lopen.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/pttcorp/. Accessed date: 2018/03/26 PTT鄉民百科。 http://zh.pttpedia.wikia.com/wiki/PTT%E9%84%89%E6%B0%91%E7%99%BE%E7%A7%91) Accessed date: 2018/05/20 Revised Online Chinese Dictionary, the Ministry of Education. [教育部重編國語辭典修訂本], (2015). http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?ccd=kQZYjA&o=e0&sec=sec1&index=1 Udndata.com [聯合知識庫]. http://udndata.com/ndapp/Index. Accessed date: 2019/01/25. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/7085 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究旨在探討中文中「婊」一字的語意變遷以及語意發展──「婊」一字原來為詈罵語，作名詞使用，但在現代用法中也可以當作謂語。應用 Evans (2005) 提出的「原則性多意模型理論」以及Traugott 與Dasher (2002) 所提出的「語意變遷的導引推論理論」，我們不僅分析、說明「婊」一字在現代用法中衍伸出的多個語意，也整合繪出此字的語意網絡圖，並藉由追朔此字字源、歷時性的語意變遷，結合導引推論理論的鐘形圖示，闡釋了此字在變遷的過程中所牽涉的隱喻、轉喻等認知機制以及文化與社會因素。此外，我們也比對分析「婊」一字在「PTT實業坊」以及「新聞報紙」兩個不同語域中的使用情形，例如該字在兩個語域中的詞類分布以及語意韻等等，藉此讓我們更了解次文化對於主流文化的影響。總結來說，本研究藉由深入探討「婊」一字的語意變遷以及發展，除了闡釋語言與文化錯綜複雜的關係，同時也一探認知機制在語意變遷的過程中的運作，並增加多義詞研究的豐富度。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This study focuses on the semantic change and development of the word婊biǎo, which is once used as an expletive, and then has developed a predicate usage in the modern era. We apply not only the model of Principled Polysemy (Evans 2005) to illustrate the semantic network of 婊biǎo, but the Invited Inferencing Theory (Traugott and Dasher 2002) for its semantic change as well as some possible cultural and social factors. In addition, we compare and contrast how the word is used (e.g., the semantic prosody, the distribution of syntactic categories) in two registers—PTT forum and newspapers, enables us to understand more about the influence of the subculture on the main culture. Through the analysis, we illustrate not only the relation between language and culture but how cognitive mechanisms function during semantic change. Moreover, we provide a complete description and semantic network for the word 婊biǎo, which complements the research gap of Chinese study on this word. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-17T15:59:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-109-R05142004-1.pdf: 4089414 bytes, checksum: b1486bdaac8b35b8cedd30dea818fb3a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要 ii
Abstract i Table of Contents iv List of Figures vi List of Tables viii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Motivation and the Issue 1 1.2 Research Questions 3 1.3 Organization of the Thesis 4 Chapter 2 Literature Review 5 2.1 Theoretical Framework 5 2.1.1. A Cognitive perspective on Word Meaning and the Model of Principled Polysemy 5 2.1.2. Metaphor and Metonymy 9 2.1.3. The Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change 15 2.1.4. A Cognitive Semantic Perspective on Conversion 18 2.1.5 Semantic Prosody 19 2.1.6 Image Schemas in Cognitive Grammar 21 2.2 Relative Studies on the Expletive 婊biǎo ‘bitch’ in English and Chinese 23 2.2.1 The English Expletive bitch 23 2.2.2 The Chinese Expletive 婊biǎo 25 2.3 Spatial Metaphor and Human Relationships in Chinese Culture 27 2.4 Interim Summary 30 Chapter 3 Methodology 31 3.1 Database 31 3.2 Categorization of Data 33 3.2.1 Data Tagging 33 3.2.2 Senses 34 3.2.3 Semantic Prosody 34 Chapter 4 Semantic development of the polysemy婊biǎo 39 4.1 Modern Usage of Newly-emerging 婊biǎo 39 4.1.1 Nominal 婊biǎo 39 4.1.2 Verbal 婊biǎo 42 4.2 Mechanisms for the Semantic Change of Modern 婊biǎo 52 4.2.1 The Semantic Change of Nominal 婊biǎo 52 4.2.2 The Semantic change of Verbal 婊biǎo 55 4.3 Diachronic Analysis on 婊biǎo 65 4.3.1 From Entity-denoting 表biǎo to Space-denoting 表biǎo 66 4.3.2 From Space-denoting 表biǎo to Relationship-denoting 表biǎo 69 4.4 Interim Summary 74 Chapter 5 The Semantic Prosody of 婊biǎo 78 5.1 Synchronic Perspective 78 5.1.1 Collocates of Different Syntactic Categories 78 5.1.2 Context Tendency for Different Syntactic Categories 84 5.2 Comparison and Contrast of Semantic Prosody between Two Registers 87 Chapter 6 Conclusion 94 6.1 Summary of the study 94 6.2 Implications and Future study 96 Reference 98 Online Reference Resource 104 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.title | 從認知語意學觀點探討中文「婊」一字的語意變遷 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A Cognitive Semantic Perspective on the Semantic Change of 婊biǎo in Mandarin Chinese | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 賴惠玲,鍾曉芳 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 認知語意學,多義詞,詈罵語,髒話,空間隱喻,文化研究,語意變遷,語意韻, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Cognitive Semantics,polysemy,expletives,spatial metaphor,cultural meaning,semantic change,semantic prosody, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 104 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202000707 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2020-03-26 | |
| 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-109-1.pdf | 3.99 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。