試析臺灣華語視覺感知構式「看」、「看見」、「看到」與「看完」的語意區別

An Analysis of Semantic Differentiation of Constructions of Visual Perception 'KAN', 'KANJIAN', 'KANDAO' and 'KANWAN' in Taiwanese Mandarin

10.6393/JCLT.201104.0047

郭永松(Yung-Sung Kuo)

臺灣華語 ； 視覺感知構式 ； 認知 ； 語意 ； 構式語法 ； 語法化 ； Taiwanese Mandarin ； constructions of visual perception ； semantic differentiation ； construction grammar ； grammaticalization ； cognition

華語文教學研究

8卷1期（2011 / 04 / 01）

47 - 74

繁體中文

本文嘗試從內部時間結構、MARVS與構式語法等三種認知角度來辨析臺灣華語視覺感知構式「看」、「看見」、「看到」與「看完」的語意差異。研究結果發現，相較於內部時間結構與MARVS的分析存在著若干弱點，結合語法化觀點的構式語法理論更能區別及解釋「看」、「看見」、「看到」與「看完」的語意差異，顯示認知語言學內部的各種理論之間也具有解釋力的強弱區別。本文除了發現構式的象徵性、圖式性與組成成份的語法化程度是造成「看」、「看見」、「看到」與「看完」語意差異的關鍵因素外，還發現相對於「看見」、「看到」與「看完」的語意只侷限於視覺感知域，「看」的語意卻可藉由範疇化及概念轉喻而同時涵蓋視覺感知域與認知域。綜合言之，本文的研究使我們更具體的了解到構式語意、概念結構與語法行爲間的密切關聯。

According to the view of temporal structure, MARVS and construction grammar, this research attempted to differentiate the semantic structures of the four constructions of visual perception, viz., kan 看, kanjian看見, kandao看到 and kanwan看完, in Taiwanese Mandarin. The result showed that the combining of construction grammar and the theory of grammaticalization can differentiate and explain the semantic structures of kan看, kanjian看見, kandao看到 and kanwan看完 more perfectly than the perspectives of temporal structure and MARVS. Based on the construction grammar and the theory of grammaticalization, the finding displayed that the semantic differences among kan看, kanjian看見, , kandao看到 and kanwan看完 were resulted from the symbolicity and schematicity of constructions and the degree of grammaticalization of their units. In addition, it can be shown that the meaning of kan看 encompasses both visual perceptional domain and cognitive domain because of the mechanisms of categorization and metonymy, while the meaning of kanjian看見, kandao看到 and kanwan 看完 is limited within the visual perceptional domain. In conclusion, this study found not only the close relationship among constructional semantics, conceptual structures and syntactic behaviors, but also the importance of constructional semantics in probing the interaction between cognition and linguistic structures.

1. Huang, Chu-Ren,Athens, Kathleen,Chang, Li-Li,Chen, Keh-Jiann,Liu, Mei-Chun,Tsai, Mei-Chih(2001).The module-attribute representation of verbal semantics: from semantics to argument structure.Proceedings of the Symposium on Selecled NSC Projects in General Linguislics from 1998-2000
   連結：
2. 張麗麗、陳克健、黃居仁(2000)。漢語動詞詞彙語意分析：表達模式與研究方法。中文計算語言學期刊，5(1)，1-18。
   連結：
3. 中央研究院現代漢語平衡語料庫， http://www.sinica.edu.tw/ftms-bin/kiwi.sh/=from Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese http://www.sinica.edu.tw/ftms-bin/kiwi.sh/
4. Bailey, C. -J.(ed.),Shuy, R.(ed.)(1973).New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English.
5. Bailey, Charles-James N.(ed.),Shuy, Roger W.(ed.)(1973).New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English.
6. Croft, William,Cruse, D. Alan(2004).Cognitive Linguistics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
7. Dowty, David(1991).Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.Language,67(3),547-619.
8. Fujimura, Osamu(ed.)(1973).Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory.
9. Gao, Yuan(ed.),Li, Fuyin(ed.)(2007).Ten Lectures on Cognilive Grammar By Ronald Langacker.
10. Geeraer, Dirk(1994).Structure of Lexical Variation : meaning, naming and context.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
11. Goldberg, Adele(1995).Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
12. Haiman, John(1980).The iconicity of grammar: isomorphism and motivation.Language,56,515-540.
13. Jacobsen, Wesley M.(ed.),Todrys, Karol W.(ed.)(1978).Papers from the Parasession on the lexicon.Donka Farkas.
14. Levin, Beth.(1993).Verb Classes and Alternation.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
15. Li, Charles N.,Thompson, Sandra A.(1981).Mandarin Chinese: a Funclional Reference Grammar.Berkeley:University of California Press.
16. Lien, Chinfa(2005).Verbs of visuaJ perception in Taiwanese Southern Min: A cognitive approach to shift of semantic domain..Language and Linguistics,6(1),109-132.
17. Liu, Mei-Chun.(2002).Mandarin Verbal Semantics: A Corpus-based Approach.Taipei:Crane Publishing Co..
18. Pustejovsky, James(1995).The Generative Lexicon.Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT Press.
19. Rosch, Eleanor.(1973).Natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,4,328-350.
20. Ross, Claudia.(1972).The category squish : Endstation Hauptwort.Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting,Chicago Linguistic Society:
21. Ross, Claudia.(1981).Nominal Decay.Cambridge, MA:Department of Linguistics, MIT.
22. Ross, Claudia.(1974).There, There, (There, (There, (There, ...)))..papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting,Chicago Linguistic Society:
23. Tai, James H.-Y.(1984).Parasession on Lexical Semantics.
24. Ungerer, F.,Schamid, H. J.(1996).An introduction to Cognitive Linguislics.United Kingdom:Longman.
25. Vendler, Zeno.(1967).Linguistics in Philosophy.Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.
26. Wittgenstein, L.,Anscombe, G. E. M.(Trans.)(1953).Philosophical Investigations.New York:MacMillan.

1. 歐德芬(2017)。義素為本的詞語教學—以關鍵義素組構詞語網絡。臺灣華語教學研究，15，97-123。