English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88866/118573 (75%)
Visitors : 23562971      Online Users : 332
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/35980

    Title: Taking Care of "Take": Frame and Constructions
    Authors: 李美芳
    Mei-fang F. Lee
    Contributors: 賴惠玲
    Huei-Ling Lai
    Mei-fang F. Lee
    Keywords: 多義詞
    Construction Grammar
    Frame Semantics
    Cognitive Semantics
    Windowing of Attention
    Date: 2002
    Issue Date: 2009-09-18 16:41:04 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 英語動詞take有許多不同的語意,而這些語意之間則存有密切的關聯性。藉著分析take的各種語意,可以讓我們更深入地瞭解多義詞現象。本論文藉助認知語言學派的語意架構理論和構造語法理論,深入分析了take出現在不同句法結構中所產生的不同語意及這些語意彼此之間的關聯性。研究結果發現︰當take出現在及物結構中(Caused-Affected Construction)時,透過語言使用者在觀點上不同的選擇(Windowing of Attention),會衍生出四個基本語意,分別為選擇、拿取、消耗、及狀態改變。此外,take可以與七類型的介詞片語共同表達出七種不同的語意功能。最後,take還可以與介詞組合成片語動詞,產生特殊的語意,為使動結構的邊緣衍生用法。
    The English verb take attests a wide range of meanings and provides rich resources for the exploration of polysemy. Attempting to examine how the various senses of take are related to one another, this thesis investigates the meaning relatedness under the framework of Frame Semantics, which postulates that a conceptual representation is required to fully capture verb semantics (Fillmore and Atkins 1992, 2000), and Construction Grammar, which holds that constructions found in language are the basic units of language and that verb semantics interacts with constructions, thus yielding different meanings (Goldberg 1995, Jackendoff 1997). A careful examination of data reveals that take derives a variety of senses both from its interaction with the semantics of other components in the constructions and from different windowings of take’s conceptual frame. When integrated with the Caused-Affected Construction, the take construction acquires the senses of choosing, grabbing, consuming, and changing. When integrated with the Caused-Motion Construction, the take construction is found to be prototypically followed by prepositional phrases exhibiting seven semantic functions.
    When occurring in less prototypical cases of the Caused-Motion Construction, the meaning of the take construction blends into the meaning of the preposition following right behind it.
    Reference: REFERENCES
    Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Brinton, Laurel J., and Minoji Akimoto (eds.) 1999. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Brugman, Claudia, and George Lakoff. 1988. Cognitive topology and lexical networks. Lexical ambiguity resolution, ed. by S. Small, G. Cottrell, and M. Tanenhaus, 477-507. Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
    Brugman, Claudia. 1988. The story of over: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. New York: Garland Press. [1981. The story of over. Berkeley, CA: UC-Berkeley master’s thesis.]
    Cienki, Alan. 1998. Straight: An image schema and its metaphorical extensions. Cognitive linguistics 9. 107-50.
    Clausner, Timothy C., and William Croft. 1999. Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics 10:1. 1-31.
    Cochran, William Gemmell. 1977. Sampling techniques. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.
    Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Dewell, Robert B. 1994. Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 351-80.
    Dirven, René. 1993. Dividing up physical and mental space into conceptual categories by means of English prepositions. The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing, ed. by C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt, 73-97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Dowty, David. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role’. Properties, types and meanings, vol. II, ed. by Barbara Partee, Gennaro Chierchia, and Ray Turner, 69-130. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 6. 547-69.
    Ekberg, Lena. 1993. The cognitive basis of the meaning and function of cross-linguistic take and V. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 8. 21-42.
    Fillmore Charles J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by E. Bach and R. T. Harms, 1-90. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    Fillmore Charles J. 1977. Topics in lexical semantics. Current issues in linguistic theory, ed. by R. Cole, 76-138. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    Fillmore Charles J. 1982. Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. Speech, place, and action, ed. by R. Jarvella and W. Klein, 31-59. New York: Wiley.
    Fillmore Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica. 6. 223.
    Fillmore, Charles J., and B. T. S. Atkins. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Frames, fields, and contrasts, ed. by Lehrer, Adrienne and Eva Feder Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Fillmore, Charles J., and B. T. S. Atkins. 1994. Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. Computational approaches to the lexicon, ed. by B. T. S. Atkins and A. Zampolli. Clarendon Press.
    Fillmore, Charles J., and B. T. S. Atkins. 2000. Describing Polysemy: The case of ‘crawl’. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock, 91-110. New York: Oxford UP.
    Givón, T. 1995a. Functionalism and grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    Givón, T. 1995b. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. Typological studies in language, ed. by John Haiman, 187-219.
    Givón, T. 1995c. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Iconicity in language, ed. by Raffaele Simone, 47-76. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Goddard, Cliff. 2000. Polysemy: A problem of definition. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock, 129-51. New York: Oxford UP.
    Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago and London: the University of Chicago Press.
    Goldberg, Adele E. 1996. Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 7. 3-19.
    Gruber, J. 1965. Studies in lexical relations, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
    Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
    Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Herskovits, Annette. 1986. Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Hiltunen, Risto. 1999. Verbal phrases and phrasal verbs in early modern English. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, ed. by Laurel J. Brinton and Kinoji Akimoto, 133-65. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Hofmann, Th. R. 1993. Realms of meaning: An introduction to semantics. New York: Longman.
    Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
    Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 3. 369-411.
    Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin’ the night away. Language 73. 534-59.
    Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Katz, J. J. 1972. Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.
    Katz, J. J., and J. A. Fodor, 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39. 170-210.
    Kay, Paul, and Charles Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75. 1-34.
    Kittay, Eva Feder, and Adrienne Lehrer (eds.) 1992. Frames, fields, and contrasts. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Koskenniemi, Inna. 1977. On the use of verbal phrases of the type ‘to take revenge’ in English renaissance drama. Poetica 7. 80-90.
    Lai, Huei-ling. 2003. Hakka LAU constructions: A constructional approach. Language AND Linguistics 4:2. 353-78.
    Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Concept, image and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
    Lehrer, Adrienne, and Eva Feder Kittay. 1992. Frames, fields, and contrasts. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
    Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1992a. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Lexical and conceptual semantics, 123-51. Cambridge: Blackwell.
    Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1992b. The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The lexical semantics of verbs of motion. Thematic structure: Its roles in Grammar, ed. by I. M. Roca, 247-69. New York: Foris.
    Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1996. Lexical semantics and syntactic structure. The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. by Shalom Lappin, 487-507. Cambridge: Blackwell.
    Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
    Lien, Chinfa. 1998. Shi lun Taiyu fanyi ci ‘phah4’ <試論台語泛意詞「拍」>. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Languages and Language Teaching in Taiwan, ed. by Chungsu Tung, 375-90. Hsinchu: National Hsinchu Normal University.
    Lien, Chinfa. 2000a. A frame-based account of lexical polysemy in Taiwanese. Language and Linguistics 1:1. 119-38.
    Lien, Chinfa. 2000b. Interface between construction and lexical semantics: a case study of the polysemous word kek4 and its congeners ti3n, chng1 and ke3 in Taiwanese Southern Min. Proceedings of IsCLL VII. 1-13.
    Lien, Chinfa. 2001. Exploring multiple functions of choe3 做and its interaction with constructional meanings in Taiwanese Southern Min. Proceedings of the Symposium on Selected NSC Projects in General Linguistics from 1998-2000. 169-83.
    Lindstromberg, Seth. 1998. English prepositions explained. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Liu, Mei-chun, and Chu-ren Huang. 2001. Beyond verbal semantics: Predicate coercion with manner-denoting verbs. Proceedings of the Symposium on Selected NSC Projects in General Linguistics from 1988-2000. 103-18.
    Morgan, Pamela. 1997. Figuring out figure out: Metaphor and the semantics of the English verb-particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics 8. 327-57.
    Norvig, Peter, and George Lakoff. 1987. Taking: A study in lexical network theory. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13. 195-206.
    Numberg, Geoffery, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70. 491-538.
    O’Dowd, Elizabeth. 1998. Prepositions and particles in English: A discourse-functional account. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Prins, Anton Adrian. 1952. French influence in English phrasing. Leiden: Univesitaire Pers Leiden.
    Pustejovsky, J. 1993. Semantics and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    Quine, W. V. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    Ravin, Yael, and Claudia Leacock (eds.) 2000a. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. New York: Oxford UP.
    Ravin, Yael, and Claudia Leacock. 2000b. Polysemy: An overview. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock, 1-29. New York: Oxford UP.
    Ruhl, Charles. 1999. Monosemic take. LACUS Forum 25. 213-22.
    Sweetser, Eve E. 1986. Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary? BLS 12.528-50.
    Sweetser, Eve E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. BLS 14. 389-405.
    Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Talmy, Leonard. 2000a. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Talmy, Leonard. 2000b. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory, 2 edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    The Rand Corporation. 1955. A million random digits with 100,000 normal deviates. New York: The Free Press.
    Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.) 1990. ,Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization. London: Routledge.
    Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans. 2002. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77: 4. 724-65.
    Vandeloise, Claude. 1994. Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 157-84.
    William Collins Sons and Co Ltd. 1987. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. London: HarperCollins Publishers.
    Description: 碩士
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0089555008
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[語言學研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback