- 學位論文
華語和閩南語動量詞的研究
A Study On Mandarin And Southern Min Verbal Classifiers
摘要
量詞的使用是漢語方言的一大特色，因此量詞的研究在近年來激起了廣泛的探究。然而，展閱以往與量詞相關的文獻，我們發現大部分的文章都集中在名量詞的分析與討論。截至目前，以動量詞為全文的主軸作討論的文章可以說是相當欠缺的。此外，雖然邵敬敏 (1996) 與陳珮嘉 (2000) 分別依據華語動量詞的語意作分類或是分析動量詞的核心成員與非核心成員作了一番討論，但是迄今針對華語和閩南語動量詞比較分析的相關文獻尚未有詳盡的研究結果發表。因此，本文的目的有以下四點。第一，藉由句法準則來加以區分動量詞和名量詞。第二，根據動量詞的語意內涵，作一合理的分類。第三，釐清動量詞的句法特性和探討其與及物述語動詞的連用關係。最後，以「原型理論」(Prototype Theory) 作為闡釋的基礎，進而比較華語和閩南語動量詞的相異之處。 本文所採用的研究方法包含了使用紙本字典與線上語料庫，並且以「原型理論」作為分析的理論基底。如此一來，華語和閩南語動量詞的比較分析結果能更加完善。 本研究結果顯示‘這一番心意’的‘番’異於‘好好打掃一番’的‘番’；也就是說，前者屬於名量詞，然而後者屬於動量詞的範疇。另外，雖然華語和閩南語隸屬於同一語系，就動量詞的使用情形來看，這兩種方言之間還是具有細微的差異。此外，依據傳統的分析，‘趟’和‘場’都可以出現在相同的句法位置，因此‘趟’和‘場’都幾乎是被歸類於動量詞的範疇之中。但是，當其與及物述語動詞連用時，我們發現兩者表現出不同的句法屬性。因此，我們可以說在名量詞和動量詞所構成的連續線上，雖然‘趟’與‘場’都具有兼類的情形，不過前者比較偏向於動量詞的一端，而後者則是比較偏向於名量詞的一端。 總而言之，此研究希望能探究動量詞的分類、句法特性、以及語意內涵等相關議題，語言教師和語言學習者也可藉此進一步了解如何教授與有效學習華語和閩南語的動量詞。
並列摘要
The studies on classifiers have been extensively explored in recent years because the use of classifiers is a distinctive feature in Chinese dialects. However, previous research of classifiers has mostly focused on those appeared in nominal classifiers. Till present, very few studies have ever investigated verbal classifiers. In addition, although the classification of Mandarin verbal classifiers dues to their semantic content or the prototypical and marginal members of each Mandarin verbal classifier has been examined (e.g. Shao 邵敬敏 1996; Chen 陳珮嘉 2000), it seems that few studies have ever conducted a comparative analysis on Mandarin and Southern Min verbal classifiers. Therefore, the objective of this thesis is as follows. First, we attempt to propose the generalized rules to differentiate verbal classifiers from nominal classifiers. Second, on the basis of the semantic content of verbal classifiers, we present a more reasonable classification. Third, the syntactic properties and the relationship between verbal classifier and the transitive verb (or VP) are also revealed. Finally, a theory-based analysis on comparing Mandarin and Southern Min verbal classifiers is further employed. The methods used for the data collection in this study include consulting the dictionaries and on-line corpora and adopting the prototype theory. By doing so, a comparative analysis between Mandarin and Southern Min verbal classifiers can be carefully recruited. The results of this thesis show that the major discrepancy between ‘fan1 (番)’ in ‘zhe4 i1 fan1 xin1 i4 (這一番心意)’ and ‘fan1 (番)’ in ‘hao3 hao3 da3 sao3 i1 fan1 (好好打掃一番)’ is that the former is a nominal classifier while the latter is a verbal classifier by means of the criteria proposed by this thesis. In addition, although Mandarin and Southern Min pertain to the same language family, some nuanced divergences still exist between them in terms of the use of verbal classifiers. Furthermore, we find that some verbal classifiers, such as ‘tang4 (趟)’ and ‘chang3 (場)’, both serve as verbal classifiers in the traditional analyses and appear in the same syntactic position, but reflect different linguistic phenomena when co-occurring with the transitive verb (or VP). We may say that ‘tang4 (趟)’ is a prototypical verbal classifier on the continuum of classifiers; however, though ‘chang3 (場)’ functions as a verbal classifier in some cases, it inclines to be a nominal classifier. To conclude, this study may be of importance in exploring the classification, the syntactic properties, and the semantic content of verbal classifiers, as well as in providing language instructors and learners with a better understanding of how to teach or learn Mandarin and Southern Min verbal classifiers.