A Semantic Study of Mandarin Chinese Qian and Southern Min Khan

國語「牽」（Qian）與閩南語「牽」（Khan）之語意研究

10.30114/CGJHSS.201210.0003

李鴻麟(Larry Hong-Lin Li)；蘇秋萍(Chiu-Ping Su)

認知 ； 多意性 ； 因果事件框架 ； 框架語義學 ； 連結模式 ； 譬喻 ； Cognition ； Polysemy ； Causal-Chain Event-Frames ； Frame Semantics ； Link Schemas ； Metaphor

長庚人文社會學報

5卷2期（2012 / 10 / 01）

317 - 351

英文

本文從認知的觀點探索國語「牽」（qian）及閩南語「牽」（khan）的多意性。我們發現雖然國語「牽」（qian）及閩南語「牽」（khan）具有相同的語意，兩者也發展出了不同的意義。閩南語「牽」（khan）有國語「牽」（qian）不具有的意義，像是「承受某事」、「提拔」、「攪動芡粉（以勾芡）」、「言詞推托」、「交往或具有男女關係」等涵義，而國語「牽」（qian）亦有閩南語「牽」（khan）不具備的涵義，像是「關心」之語意即是。我們的結論是：語言並非是獨立於認知系統的一種能力。而且，我們證明了用於體驗外在世界的認知運作的確反應在語言系統上。

From a cognitive perspective, this paper explores the polysemous natures of Mandarin Chinese qian and Southern Min khan. It is found that although Mandarin Chinese qian and Southern Min khan have shared senses, they have developed distinct meaning facets. Southern Min khan has engendered senses which Mandarin Chinese qian does not have, such as 'to endure', 'to promote', 'to stir (starch)', 'to quibble', and 'to be in a relationship with'. On the other hand, Mandarin Chinese qian has the sense 'to concern about' which Southern Min khan does not possess. We conclude that language is not a faculty independent of the other cognitive fields. Also, we verify that cognitive operations in perceiving the real world are encoded in language.

1. Zhuang, S.-B. (2011), Weblogs: Answering Taiwanese “Walking the Monkey”.Retrieved February 24, 2012, from http://hmt201.104es.com/customnews.php?id= 11051200
2. Chinese WordNet, http://cwn.ling.sinica.edu.tw/
3. Liu, J.-R. (2010), Webblog: Jiàu kâu - Catching a Cheating Spouse. Retrieved February24, 2012, from http://taiwanlanguage.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/抓猴(liaʔ⊦-kau ')─捉姦/
4. Taiwanese Concordancer, http://iug.csie.dahan.edu.tw/TG/concordance/ form.asp
5. Clausner, T. C.,Croft, W.(1997).The Productivity and Schematicity of Metaphor.Cognitive Linguistics,10,1-31.
6. Croft, W.,Cruse, D. A.(2004).Cognitive Linguistics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
7. Dirven, R.(ed.),Pörings, R.(ed.)(2002).Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
8. Fillmore, C. J.(1985).Frame and the Semantics of Understanding.Quaderni di Semantic,6(2),222-254.
9. Grossman, R. E.(ed.),San, L. J.(ed.),Vance, T. J.(ed.)(1975).Functionalism.Chicago:Chicago Linguistic Society.
10. Hasko, V.(ed.),erelmutter, R.(ed.)(2010).New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion.Amsterdam-Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
11. Heine, B.(1997).Cognitive foundations of grammar.New York:Oxford University.
12. Johnson, M.(1987).The Body in the Mind.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
13. Kövecses, Z.(2000).Metaphor and Emotion.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
14. Lakoff, G.(1987).Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
15. Lakoff, G.,Johnson, M.(1980).Metaphors We Live By.Chicago:University of Chicago University.
16. Lakoff, G.,Tuner, M.(1989).More than Cool Reason.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
17. Langacker, R. W.(1987).Foundation of Cognitive Grammar 1.Stanford:Stanford University Press.
18. Ortony, A.(ed.)(1993).Metaphor and Thought.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
19. Ortony, A.(ed.)(1993).Metaphor and Thought.New York:Cambridge University Press.
20. Rosch, E. H.(ed.),Lloyd, B.(ed.)(1978).Cognition and Categorization.Hillsdale, New Jersey:Erlbaum.
21. Shibatani, M.(ed.)(1976).The Grammar of Causative Constructions: Syntax and Semantics 6.New York:Academic Press.
22. Shopen, T.(ed.)(1985).Language and Typology and Syntactic Description.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
23. Sommer, E.,Weiss, D.(1996).Metaphors Dictionary.Detroit:Visible Ink Press.
24. Talmy, L.(2000).Toward a Cognitive Semantics I: Conceptual Structuring Systems.Cambridge, Massachusetts:MIT press.
25. Talmy, L.(1991).Path to Realization: A Typology of Event Conflation.Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,Berkeley:
26. Talmy, L.(1988).Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition.Cognitive Science,12,49-100.
27. Ungerer, F.,Schmid, H.(1996).An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics.London:Longman.