賽夏族語詞典編輯的語義分析問題

Semantic Analysis and Dictionary Compiling: A Case Study of Saisiyat

10.6710/JTLL.201103_6(1).0008

葉美利(Marie Mei-li YEH)；高清菊(Chin-Chu KAO)

賽夏族語 ； 語義 ； 詞典 ； 多義詞 ； 近義詞 ； Saisiyat ； dictionary ； semantic analysis ； polysemy ； near synonym

臺灣語文研究

6卷1期（2011 / 03 / 01）

189 - 210

繁體中文

本文從語義學出發討論我們在編輯賽夏族語詞典遭遇到的問題，包含詞彙釋義、詞彙之間的語義關係，如近義詞辨析、多詞義之處理及呈現等。我們發現認知語義學有關詞彙語義的研究可以協助我們解決以上的問題，在詞彙定義或釋義方面，認知語義學採用的百科知識觀點(encyclopedic approach)，有助我們定義表達特殊文化經驗和涵意的詞彙。詞彙關係方面，近義詞辨析上，除了語義特徵之外，我們發現還必須採用句法方面的次類畫分(subcategorization)與選擇限制(selectional restriction)。多詞義方面，我們發現從語義延伸的觀點分析，可以釐清語義延伸的方向，有助於決定是否分為不同之義項，以及多個義項之間的呈現順序。

This paper deals with the problems on semantic analysis arising from the compilation of a Saisiyat-Chinese dictionary. Issues discussed include how to achieve accuracy in word definition and how to catch the semantic relationships between words. For definition, it is found that cross-language translation may lead to inaccurate definition that is either too wide, too narrow or containing false elements (Goddard 1998). It is thus proposed that explanation rather than translation is employed in defining a word. For dealing with near synonyms and polysemys, it is found that results from the studies on grammaticalization and semantic extension in Cognitive Semantics can shed light on how to determine the relationship between different meanings of the same word.

1. 教育部國語推行委員會. 《重編國語辭典修訂本》網路版：http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/。
2. 教育部、原民會. 《台灣原住民族語言歷史文化大辭典》，http://citing.hohayan.net.tw/。
3. Adelaar, K. Alexander,Himmelmann, Nikolaus(2004).The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar.Routledge.
4. Bybee, Joan(1988).Semantic substance vs. contrast in the development of grammatical meaning.General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization,Berkeley:
5. Evans, Vyvyan,Green, Melanie(2006).Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction.Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
6. Fillmore, Charles J.(1985).Frames and the semantics of understanding.Quaderni di Semantica,VI,222-255.
7. Goddard, Cliff(1998).Semantic Analysis: A practical introduction.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
8. Groefsema, Marjolein(1995).Can, may, must and should: a relavance theoretic account.Journal of Linguistic,31,53-79.
9. Heine, Bernd,Claudi, Ulrike,Hunnemeyer, Friederike(1991).Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
10. Heine, Bernd,Kuteva, Tania(2002).World Lexicon of Grammaticalization.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
11. Hogan, Patrick Colm(ed.)(2010).The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences.
12. Hopper, Paul. J.,Traugott, Elizabeth C.(2003).Grammaticalization.Cambridge University Press.
13. Huang, Shuping(2008).Taipei,National Taiwan University.
14. Katamba, Francis(1993).Morphology.St. Martin's Press.
15. Langacker, Ronald W.(1987).Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites.Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
16. McCawley, James. D.(1968).The role of semantics in grammar.Universals in Linguistic Theory,New York:
17. Palmer, F. R.(1981).Semantics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
18. Saeed, John(1997).Semantics.Cambridge:Blackwell.
19. Yap, Foong Ha(ed.),Wrona, Janick(ed.)(2011).Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
20. Yeh, Marie M.(1991).Hsinchu,National Tsing Hua University.
21. Yeh, Marie M.(2003).Graduate Institute of English, National Taiwan Normal University.
22. 何英玉編(2004)。語意學。上海外語教育出版社。
23. 趙正貴(2009)。賽夏族的歷史文化傳統與變遷。新竹縣政府文化局。

1. 葉美利(2014)。賽夏語指示詞的句法、構詞與語意初探。臺灣語文研究，9(1)，55-78。
2. 葉美利(2018)。賽夏語疑問詞及其疑問範疇研究。清華學報，48(3)，595-629。