台灣閩南語時間構式的語義辨析－基於認知的觀點

A Cognitive Perspective on Semantic Differences of Temporal Constructions in Taiwanese Southern Min

10.6710/JTLL.201003_5(1).0006

郭永松(Yung-Sung KUO)

台灣閩南語 ； 時間構式 ； 認知 ； 語義 ； 概念隱喻 ； 原型效應 ； Taiwanese Southern Min ； temporal constructions ； cognition ； semantics ； metaphor ； prototypical effects

臺灣語文研究

5卷1期（2010 / 03 / 01）

109 - 128

繁體中文

本文的主旨是藉由分析比較台灣閩南語ui^3 從__、kau^3 到__、ui^3 從__kau^3 到__、cu^7自__、cu^7自__kau^3 到、cing^7 從__與cing^7 從__ kau^3 到___等主要時間構式的語法表現，來界定這些構式各自的語義結構，並且給予認知角度的描述與詮釋。本文發現台灣閩南語存有二種類型的時間構式：時空多義性構式與非時空多義性構式。二者的差別在於前者牽涉到「時間就是空間」的概念隱喻，而後者則否。再者，藉由分析各時間構式所指稱的概念類型，以及觀察這些時間構式與副詞ciah^4才及to^7就、動貌助詞liau^2了與全稱量化詞long^2攏的搭配情形，我們也發現台灣閩南語的時間構式之間具有不同的語義或概念結構。此外，台灣閩南語的時間構式範疇與相關的空間構式範疇還呈現出原型效應的特徵。我們認為，這種語言層面的原型效應反映著母語使用者在認知上如何對時間與空間概念進行範疇化。本文的研究除了對台灣閩南語的認知語義學領域有所助益外，也讓我們更加確信語言與認知間的緊密互動。

This paper explores the semantic differences of seven temporal constructions in Taiwanese Southern Min within the framework of Cognitive Semantics. Two types of temporal constructions are attested in Taiwanese Southern Min: (1) those referring to both spatial and temporal concepts; and (2) those referring to temporal concepts only. The difference between the two types lies in the fact that the former involves the metaphor TIME IS SPACE whereas the latter does not. Furthermore, analyzing the patterns of concepts indicated by the temporal constructions and observing the co-occurrence relations between the temporal constructions and the adverbs ciah^4才and to^7就, aspectual particle liau^2了, and universal quantifier long^2 攏, we find that these constructions have different semantic or conceptual structures. In addition, the distribution of the spatial and temporal categories represents the prototypical effects, which reflects the way that native speakers categorize the spatial and temporal concepts.

1. 楊允言. 2008. 《楊允言台語文語料庫》。http://iug.csie.dahan.edu.tw/TG/guliaukhou/
2. Ahrens, Kathleen,Huang, Chu-Ren(2002).Time passing Is motion.Language and Linguistics,3(3),491-519.
3. Bailey, Charles-James N(ed.),Shuy, Roger W.(ed.)(1973).New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English.Washington:Georgetown University Press.
4. Fillmore, Charles J.(1982).Frame Semantics.Linguistics in the Morning Calm,Seoul:
5. Goldberg, Adele E.(1995).Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
6. Haiman, John(ed.)(1985).Iconicity in Syntax.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
7. Johnson, Mark(1987).The Body in the Mind: the Bodily Basis of Reasons and Imagination.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
8. Lakoff, George(1987).Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
9. Lakoff, George,Ortony, A.(ed.)(1993).The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and Thought.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press..
10. Langacker, Ronald W.(1987).Theoretical Prerequisites.Stanford:Stanford University Press.
11. Liu, Mei-Chun(1994).Discourse explanations for the choice of Jiu and Cai in Mandarin conversation.Chinese Languages and Linguistics,Taipei:
12. Pustejovsky, J.(1995).The Generative Lexicon.Cambridge, MA.:MIT Press.
13. Wittgenstein, L.,Anscombe, G. E. M.(Trans.)(1953).Philosophical Investigations.New York:MacMillan.
14. Yu, Ning(1998).The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A Perspective from Chinese.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
15. 張誼生(2005)。副詞“都”的語法化與主觀化－兼論“都”的表達功用和內部分類。徐州師範大學學報，31(1)，56-62。
16. 楊秀芳(1991)。臺灣閩南語語法稿。台北:大安出版社。
17. 董忠司編(2000)。臺灣閩南語辭典。台北:五南出版公司。