構式與詞彙語意之互動： 以框架理論為本之漢語多義詞「帶」的研究

A Frame-based Lexical Constructional Study of the Polysemic Verb Dài in Mandarin Chinese

胡韵庭(Yun-Ting Hu)

指導教授 ： 劉美君

國立交通大學/人文社會學院/外國語文學系外國文學與語言學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6842/NCTU.2014.00874

摘要

本研究以框架語意學為本，試圖從構式以及詞彙語意之互動探討漢語多義動詞「帶」其多種語意內涵之關聯。據觀察，漢語「帶」涵蓋九種語意內涵，藉由結合框架語意之理論與構式語法，本文欲探索「帶」所隱含之多個詞意在其相對應之語法呈現上其語意與語法互動連結關係。本研究提出「帶」的原型事件，即核心語意為表達一個致使移動事件(caused-motion event)。以此原型事件(prototype)為語意概念基模(semantic base)，本文提出藉由不同的語意側重(semantic profile)成分輔以框架語意及構詞語法之互動呈現，他動動詞「帶」可投射出不同之語意內涵。本研究指出「帶」的原型語意為表達一個共移(co-motion)事件，即主事者和受事者於事件中皆共同移動至某個空間處所並執行某目的性事件(如：學生帶錢到學校繳註冊費)。透過認知轉換，本文分析「帶」所表之共移語意亦可側重於主事者與受試者之共行(co-action)事件，亦即主事者帶受事者共同執行某個活動，表一帶領事件。(如：我帶他環遊世界)。此外，共移事件亦可側重於表達主事者與受試者之共存狀態(co-existence)，視為共移事件的結果，表一個攜帶事件(如：她身上帶著護照)。以致使移動事件及其所隱含之「帶領」及「攜帶」的語意面向出發，本文提出「帶」將藉由不同語意框架下參與者角色之語意延伸或語意面向之側重延展至多個非核心語意，其中包含「帶」(to bring to) 延伸至「接」(to pick up)、「照顧」(to take care of) 、「帶動」、(to activate)「佩帶」(to wear) 、「帶有」(to be with) 、「呈現」 (to appear with)之語意內涵。本研究著眼於詞彙之框架語意與構式之互動並佐以語料之證明，為漢語多義詞「帶」所展現之多個語意面向提出一套有系統性的框架語意分類及語意連結分析，並且於語言學上語意及語法之互動呈現、詞彙與構式之關聯甚至於認知與語言之互動關係提供一良好的案例證明。

關鍵字

漢語 「帶」 字 ； 框架語意學 ； 詞彙語意學 ； 多義詞 ； 漢語攜帶類動詞 ； 語意投射

並列摘要

The present study probes into the polysemic nature of the verb dài 帶 ‘bring’ in Mandarin, in which dài 帶 ‘bring’ is found to bear at least nine meaning imports. Integrating Frame Semantic (Fillmore and Atkins 1992) and Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995, 2010), this study aims to explore the semantic-to-syntactic correlations between the different senses underlining the syntactic realizations of dài 帶 ‘bring’. It is argued that dài 帶 ‘bring’ may profile different semantic scopes from the semantic base: dài 帶 ‘bring’ as a caused-motion verb, with distinct frame-specific roles and morphosyntactic realizations. The basic sense of the caused-motion dài 帶 ‘bring’ depicts a co-motion event in which an agent Mover takes a Co-Movee to undergo a locational change (e.g., xuésheng dài qián dào xuéxiào jiǎo zhùcèfèi 學生帶錢到學校繳註冊費 ‘Students bring the money to the school to pay for the registration fee.’). Nevertheless, due to conceptual transfers, dài 帶 ‘bring’ may be used to profile a dynamic co-action event in leading and initiating an activity (e.g., wǒ dài tā huán yóu shìjiè 我帶他環遊世界 ‘I took him to travel around the world.’) and further extended to profile the stative co-existence relation without movement (e.g., tā shēnshàng dài zhe hùzhào 她身上帶著護照 ‘He brought the passport with him.’). Based on these three semantic domains, it is postulated that other non-central senses of dài 帶 ‘bring’ are derived either when the prototypical cases of semantic roles are mapped unto different semantic relations or when the event highlights a specific semantic attribute. The analysis proposed in this study is substantiated with a detailed corpus analysis of colloconstructional variations. It follows the frame-based lexical constructional approach in delimiting semantically salient features pertaining to lexical frames with a constructional account that captures the form-meaning mapping correlations. The study provides a clear case study that demonstrates the close interaction between semantics and syntax, lexicon and construction and ultimately, cognition and language.

並列關鍵字

Mandarin dài 帶 ； Frame Semantics ； Lexical Semantics ； polysemic verb ； ‘bring’ verb in Mandarin ； semantic profiling

參考文獻

Boas, C. Hans. 2003. Towards a Lexical-Constructional Account of the Locative Inversion. In L., Carmichael, C.-H. Huang and V. Samiian (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 Western conference on Linguistics, 13: 27-42.

Deane, Paul. 1988. Polysemy and cognition. Lingua 75:325-361

Fillmore, Charles J., and Beryl T Atkins. 1992. Toward a Frame-based Lexicon: The Semantics of RISK and Its Neighbors. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, ed. by Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale. New Jersey: Lawrence.

Fillmore, C.J.; Atkins, B.T.S.. 2000. "Describing polysemy: The case of "crawl"". In Leacock, C. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 91–110.

Greeraerts, D. 1993. Vagueness’s Puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, this issue.