跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.211.31.134) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/25 16:54
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:蘇秀芬
論文名稱:台灣手語象似性之探討
論文名稱(外文):Iconicity in Taiwan Sign Language
指導教授:戴浩一戴浩一引用關係
指導教授(外文):Prof. James H.Y. Tai
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:語言學研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:語言學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2004
畢業學年度:92
語文別:中文
論文頁數:131
中文關鍵詞:台灣手語象似性任意性結構雙層性機制中立無效應機制效應
外文關鍵詞:Taiwan Sign LanguageIconicityarbitrarinessduality of patterningmodality non-effectsmodality effects
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:7
  • 點閱點閱:495
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
中文摘要
本論文針對台灣手語之象似性作探討。手語和口語一樣具有Hockett (1960)所提出區別人類自然語言和動物溝通系統的13項特質,但由於手語之視覺與手勢機制 (visual-manual modality),容許能指與所指達到較大程度的自然對應,手語的象似性 (iconicity) 在質與量上都和口語有著顯著的差異 (Emmorey 2002, Lillo-Martin 2002, Meier 2002, Taub, 2001);再加上約90%的聾小孩在正常聽人環境之下的特殊習得環境,隨著歷史演變所伴隨的象似性的消失,手語也比口語緩慢。手語的高度象似性完全是視覺與手勢機制和特殊的習得環境所造成的結果。
Peirce (1955 [1902]) 根據能指和所指的關係,提出符號三分法:象似符 (icons)、標記符 (indexes)、和代碼符 (symbols),他又進一步依象似程度區分象似符為映象符號 (images)、擬象符號 (diagrams)、和隱喻符號 (metaphors)。映象符號 (images) 是以本身帶有該指稱對象的簡單特徵來表達相似,如肖像畫和所畫之人在視覺上表達出簡單模仿的相似性;擬象符號 (diagrams) 呈現出和指稱對象結構相類似的結構,通過自身的各個部分之間的關係,來類比表現指稱對象的各個構成部份之間的關係,如地圖和各個指稱地點在結構上的類比關係;而隱喻符號 (metaphors),除了表徵物和指稱對象之外,還涉及另一事物,表徵物的代表性特徵,不是在其本身中明顯可見的,而是以隱喻指向的相似性來理解,如句子‘My love is a rose.’中,要理解‘my love’,必須透過其和另一事物‘a rose’的平行對應關係才能達到。符號和指稱對象的相似聯結以映象符號最密切,再來是擬象,再來是隱喻。
每一手語詞項都由手型 (handshape)、位置 (location) 和移動成份 (movement) 所組成 (Stokoe, 1960),從本論文所分析1500多個台灣手語的詞彙,將近四成 (39%) 的詞彙為映象象似符號 (images),只有近一成 (9%) 的詞彙為代碼符,而53個台灣手語手型成份中,有39個手型都可找到以該手型為象似理據的映象符號的例子。象似符大多是具體或抽象的實詞 (content words),而代碼符大多是封閉詞類或更為抽象的虛詞 (function words)。我們依Peirce (1955[1902]) 的符號分類,將1500多個台灣手語詞項依象似理據成份歸類12類象似符和3類代碼符。
舉例來說,具體名詞〔口〕,食指在口前繞圈表示,是最象似性的映象符號;抽象動詞〔翻譯〕,以手型 /男/ 重覆在口前平行搖動,將位置 /口/ 視為裝載語言的容器,是一種本體隱喻的應用;專有名詞〔吳〕,由手型 /借/ 在口前開合,借用口部之外形表該字體之上半部,此時的位置形素 /口/ 是一種代碼符號的成份。位置形素 /口/ 由表示映象符號的成份,變成隱喻符號的成份,最後形成代碼符號的成份;所形成的詞項,也從具體實詞,轉為抽象實詞,最後為更抽象的專有名詞。
和口語一樣,手語也會因語言的容易產生或容易辨識 (the ease of production or perception),或是語言的相互接觸而隨著時間改變,改變的結果,原本所具有的象似性往往會淡化、消失或難以辨識 (Frishberg 1975),如台灣手語詞項〔飛機〕由手型 /飛機/ 變成手型 /守/,因手型 /守/ 的容易產生,而美國手語詞項〔水果(fruit)〕受到英文口語的影響,由手型 /C/ 變成手型 /F/,兩個新的詞項在象似性的程度上都有淡化的產生。
總結來說,本論文認為語言的初始狀態應是最具象似性的象似符號所組成,隨著時間、社會化的程度發展,溝通經濟的需要等,象似符號也跟著往代碼符號演變,但手語的視覺手勢機制和特殊習得環境容許象似符號的保留,演變會比口語來得輕緩許多。手語的象似性研究能提供語言演化一個更直接更有效率的解答。
Abstract
This study investigates the issue of iconicity in Taiwan Sign Language (hereafter, TSL). Signed languages share almost the same design features as spoken languages except for the higher degree of iconicity allowed by the visual-manual modality (Emmorey 2002, Lillo-Martin 2002, Meier 2002, Taub, 2001). 90% deaf children are born with hearing parents. This special environment of sign language acquisition makes the de-iconicity process of signed languages slower than the one of spoken languages.
Based on the relationship between the signified and the signifier, Peirce (1955 [1902]) proposes a trichotomy of signs: icons, indexes, and symbols. He further classifies the icons into three types: images, diagrams, and metaphors according to their degree of iconicity. Images (e.g., a portrait of a person) reach similarity by partaking of some of the simple qualities of its object (e.g., the person portrayed), diagrams (e.g., maps) show a structure analogous to the structure of their object (e.g., territories and buildings), and a metaphorical icon signifies its object by pointing to a parallelism between the object and something else.
Since the signifier of each TSL word is made of three phonemic parameters, i.e. handshape, location, and movement (Stokoe, 1960) and each parameter can be the key element in the signifier with iconic motivation, there are a total of twelve possible ways that iconicity can be instantiated in words.
In the TSL word SCISSORS, handshape /二 (two)/ (signified), with index and middle finger extended resembling the image of a physical scissors, is used as the iconic base of the signifier. A pair of examples for diagram is words THINK and REMEMBER, where the location parameter head signifies the relevance of thought or cognition. Another set of words for diagram includes words such as HAPPY and SAD, where the location parameter chest signifies the reference of emotion. Words such as MARRY and DIVORCE are examples of movement-based metaphors. While the word MARRY is formed by moving together the handshapes for male and female (a metaphor for marriage), DIVORCE is formed by moving apart these two handshapes (a metaphor for splitting up).
In addition to be the iconic base of the signifier, these parameters can also be the symbolic units. For example, the handshape /很(very)/ forms the adverb VERY, and the location /mouth/ forms the personal last name WU by representing the shape of the upper part ‘mouth’ of the Chinese character 吳 (WU). From our survey of 1500 vocabularies in TSL, 39% of them are images and only 9% are symbols, and 39 of total 53 handshape phonemes in TSL can be used to represent the images. Most icons are content words and symbols are function words or words to represent the Chinese characters.
The same as spoken languages, signed languages will change historically for the ease of production or perception (Frishberg 1975), or by language contact. As a result, the iconic motivation will fade away or become less identified, for example TSL AIRPLANE (from the handshape /AIRPLANE/ to /GUARD/ for the ease of articulation) and the word FRUIT in American Sign Language (from handshape /C/, the same form as TSL with iconic motivation, to /F/ to represent the initial letter of English word).
In sum, all these phonemic elements in signed languages, i.e. handshape, location, and movement, are valid iconic bases, and those iconic bases may fade away differently in different signed languages by language contact. Research on iconicity in signed languages can address the issue of language evolution in a more direct and more efficient way.
目錄
第一章 緒論……………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 語言的本質-從手語研究談起 …………………………………………… 1
1.2 手語象似性的研究動機…………………………………………………… 4
第二章 理論背景與文獻回顧…………………………………………………… 9
2.1 任意性與理據性…………………………………………………………… 9
2.2 符號學與語言學對象似性符號的探討…………………………………… 12
2.2.1 映象象似符號系統…………………………………………………… 15
2.2.2 擬象象似符號系統…………………………………………………… 17
2.2.3 隱喻象似符號系統…………………………………………………… 18
2.3 台灣手語詞項組成成份簡介…………………………………………… 20
第三章 台灣手語之映象象似符號系統………………………………………… 29
3.1 映象象似符號的類別……………………………………………………… 29
 3.1.1. 映象象似位置形素………………………………………………… 30
 3.1.2. 映象象似手型形素………………………………………………… 31
 3.1.3. 映象象似移動形素………………………………………………… 34
 3.1.4.複合手型和移動形素的動作象似性…………………………… 35
 3.1.5. 雙手搭配的映象象似符號…………………………………………… 37
 3.1.6. 部分代整體和代喻…………………………………………………… 38
3.2分類詞結構是映象象似的應用…………………………………………… 41
3.3 小結………………………………………………………………………… 47
第四章 台灣手語之擬象象似符號系統………………………………………… 49
4.1 擬象象似位置形素……………………………………………………… 49
4.2 擬象象似手型形素……………………………………………………… 53
4.3 擬象象似移動形素……………………………………………………… 54
第五章 台灣手語的隱喻象似符號系統………………………………………… 59
5.1 引言………………………………………………………………………… 59
5.2 Taub之手語雙層映射隱喻理論 …………………………………………… 61
5.3台灣手語的隱喻符號……………………………………………………… 61
 5.3.1. 隱喻象似位置形素…………………………………………………… 61
 5.3.2. 隱喻象似手型形素…………………………………………………… 65
 5.3.3. 隱喻象似移動形素…………………………………………………… 69
 5.3.4. 雙手搭配運用所形成的隱喻………………………………………… 75
 5.3.5. 複合形素的隱喻符號………………………………………………… 76
 5.3.6. 多重隱喻的操作……………………………………………………… 76
第六章 台灣手語構詞策略之象似分析………………………………………… 78
6.1新造詞的象似性及對傳統構詞理論的反思……………………………… 78
6.1.1 複合詞………………………………………………………………… 78
6.1.2 加綴法………………………………………………………………… 81
6.1.3 借字…………………………………………………………………… 86
6.1.4 其他…………………………………………………………………… 88
6.1.5 小結…………………………………………………………………… 89
6.2相關名詞和動詞的衍生變化是成份擬象 (isomorphism)的應用………… 90
6.3傳統呼應動詞之標誌是隱喻象似的應用………………………………… 93
6.4小結………………………………………………………………………… 98
第七章 台灣手語和美國手語之象似性異同分析……………………………… 99
7.1映象象似符號之比較……………………………………………………… 99
7.2隱喻象似符號之比較……………………………………………………… 102
7.3構詞策略的比較…………………………………………………………… 106
7.3.1 衍生變化 …………………………………………………………… 106
7.3.2 屈折變化 …………………………………………………………… 108
7.3.3 借字 ………………………………………………………………… 108
7.4小結………………………………………………………………………… 112
第八章 結論與預側…………………………………………………………… 113
8.1總結………………………………………………………………………… 113
8.2詞彙演變與結構雙層性…………………………………………………… 116
8.3 後記……………………………………………………………………… 118
參考書目………………………………………………………………………… 120
一、中文部分…………………………………………………………………… 120
二、英文部分…………………………………………………………………… 121
附件
附件1. 台灣手語之手型形素圖庫…………………………………………… 126
附件2. 美國手語之手型形素圖庫…………………………………………… 127
附件3. 台灣手語手型形素和相關的映象象似符號、隱喻象似符號、和
代碼符號的例子…………………………………………………… 128
附件4. 與台灣手語相對應的29個美國手語手型及映象符號的例子…… 130
附件5. 與台灣手語相對應的6個美國手語手型及映象符號例子………… 131
參考書目
一、 中文部分
張浩. 1994. 思維發生學. 北京: 中國社會科學出版社.
張敏. 1998. 認知語言學與漢語名詞短語. 北京: 中國社會科學院出版社.
張鳳、高航. 2003. 語言符號的圖表象似性與隱喻象似性。山東外語教學2003年第3期 (總第94期).
張克定. 2001. 語言符號衍生義理據探索. 解放軍外語學院學報第24卷第6期.
陳怡君. 2003. 台灣地區聾人手語選用情形與現行手語政策之探討. 國立政治大
學語言學研究所碩士論文.
陳建初. 1998. 漢語語源研究中的認知觀. 湖南師範大學社會科學學報第27卷. 第5期.
符淮青著. 1985. 現代漢語詞滙. 北京大學出版社.
胡壯麟著. 2004. 認知隱喻學. 北京大學出版社.
李國南著. 2001. 辭格與詞滙. 上海外語教育出版社.
林寶貴. 2001. 手語意見調查研究。<手語教學與應用研討會論文集>。頁45-67。台北:國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系。
劉秀丹. 2004. 啟聰學校學生文法手語、自然手語及書面語故事理解能力之研究。國立彰化師範大學特殊教育學系博士論文。
沈家煊. 1993. 句法的象似性問題. 外語教學與研究1993年第一期.
史文漢、丁立芬(編). 2000(第十四版). 手能生橋第一冊。中華民國聾人協會編印。
史文漢、丁立芬(編). 1999(第十二版). 手能生橋第二冊。中華民國聾人協會編印。
戴浩一. 2002. 概念結構與非自主性語法:漢語語法概念系統初探. 當代語言學第4卷第1期.
杜文禮. 1996. 語言的象似性探微. 四川外語學院學報1996年第1期.
王寅. 1999. Iconicity 的譯名與定義。中國翻譯1999年第2期.
王寅. 2002. 象似說與任意說的哲學基礎與辨證關系. 解放軍外語學院學報2002年第2期.
文旭 2001. 認知語言學中的順序擬象原則. 福建外語2001年第2期 (總第68期).
楊國章. 1992. 原始文化與語言. 北京語言學院出版社.
嚴辰松. 1997. 語言臨摹性概說. 國外語言學1997年第3期.
嚴辰松. 2000. 語言理據探究. 解放軍外語學院學報第23卷第6期.
姚俊英。2001. 台灣手語演進。<手語教學與應用研討會論文集>。頁142-147。台北:國立台灣師範大學特殊教育學系。
于海江. 1994. 符號的任意性與詞的理據. 解放軍外語學院學報1994年第5期 (總第70期).
二、英文部分
Ann, Jean. 1993. A Linguistic Investigation of the Relationship between Physiology and Handshape. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Arizona.
Ann Jean. 1996. On the relation between ease of articulation and frequency of occurrence of handshapes in two sign languages. Lingua 98, 19-41.
Ann, Jean. 1998. Contact between a sign language and a written language: Character signs in Taiwan Sign Language. Paper on Pinky Extension and Eye Gaze: Language Use in Deaf Communities, ed. by Ceil Lucas. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Ann Jean. 2001. Bilingualism and language contact. Paper on The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages, ed by Ceil Lucas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Armstrong, David F., Michael A. Karchmer, and John Vickrey Van Cleve (eds). 2002. The Study of Signed Languages: Essays in Honor of William C. Stokoe. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Armstrong, David F., William C. Stokoe, and Sherman E. Wilcox (eds). 1995. Gesture and the Nature of Language. Cambridge University Press.
Battison, Robin. 1974. Phonological Deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 5, 1-19.
Battison, Robin. 1978. Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD.: Linstok Press.
Battison, Robbin. 1980. Signs have parts: a simple idea. Paper on Sign Language and the Deaf Community: Essays in Honor of William C. Stokoe, ed. by Charlotte Baker and Robbin Battison, 35-52. Silver Spring, Md.: National Association of the Deaf.
Bellugi, U. & P. Siple. 1973. Remembering with and without words. Paper on Current Problems in Psycholinguistics, ed. by Bresson. Paris: CNRS.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1975. Aspects of Language. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Bouvet, Danielle. 1996. Metaphors of the body in gestural languages. Diogenes
44: 175, 27-39.
Boyes-Braem, Penny. 1981. Distinctive features of the handshapes of American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of Californa dissertation.
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Diagrammatic iconicity in stem-inflection relations. Paper on Iconicity in Syntax, ed. by John Haiman, 11-48. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chang, Jung-hsing, Shiou-fen Su and James H-Y. Tai. (to appear). Classifier predicates reanalyzed with special reference to Taiwan Sign Language. To appear in Chinese Language and Linguistics.
Chomsky, Noam. 1967. The general properties of language. Paper on Brain Mechanisms Underlying Speech and Language, ed. By F. Darley. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Corballis, Michael. 2002. From Hand to Mouth: The Origin of Language. Princeton University Press.
DeMatteo, Asa. 1977. Visual imagery and visual analogues in American Sign Language. Paper on On the Other Hand, ed. By Lynn A. Friedman, 109-136. London: Academic Press.
Emmorey, Karen. 1995. Processing the Dynamic Visual-Spatial Morphology of Signed Languages. In Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, ed. by Laurie Beth Feldman, 29-54, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoicates, Publishers.
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, Cognition, and Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fischer, Susan D. and Patricia Siple. (eds.) 1990. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, volume 1: Linguistics. Chicago and London: the University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, Lynn A. 1975. Space, time and person reference in American Sign Language. Language 51 (4), 940-961.
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51 (3), 696-719.
Frishberg, Nancy and Bonnie Gough. 1973. Morphology in American Sign Language (working paper). La Jolla, CA: Salk Institute for Biological Studies.
Frishberg, Nancy and Bonnie Gough. 2000. Morphology in American Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics 3:1, 103-131.
Gee, James Paul and Judy Anne Kegl. 1982. Semantic perspicuity and the locative
hypothesis. Proceedings of the eighth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society.
Givon, T. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism, and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. Paper on Iconicity in Syntax, ed. by John Haiman, 187-220. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Golidin-Meadow, Susan, Carolyn Mylander, Cynthia Butcher. 1995. The resilience of combinatorial structure at the word level: morphology in self-styled gesture systems. Cognition 56, 195-262.
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3), 515-540.
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4), 781-819.
Haiman, John (ed.) 1985a. Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Haiman, John. 1985b. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge University Press.
Hickok, Gregory, Ursula Bellugi and Edward S. Klima. 2002. Sign language in the brain. Scientific American, 46-53.
Hinton, Leanne, Johanna Nichols, and John J. Ohala (eds.). 1994. Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hiraga, Masako K. 1994. Diagrams and metaphors. Iconic aspects in language. Journal of Pragmatics 22, 5-21.
Hockett, Charles. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203, 88-96.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1988[1836]. On Language: On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species. Translated by Peter Heath. Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Jakobson, Roman. 1971[1965]. Quest for the essence of language. Paper on Crucial Questions of Linguistic Theory, Selected Writings II. The Hague: Mouton.
Jakobson, Roman and Linda Waugh. 1979. The Sound Shape of Language. Mouton de Gruyter.
Johnston, Trevor. 1989. Auslan: The Sign Language of the Australian Deaf Community. A dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics, The University of Sydney, Sydney.
Kittay, Eva Feder. 1989. Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. New York :Oxford University Press.
Klima, E., and U. Bellugi. 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. Paper on Metaphor and Thought, 2nd ed., ed. By Andrew Ortony, 202-251. Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphor We Live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Landsberg, Marge E. (ed.). 1995. Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes: the Human Dimension. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Standford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Standford University Press.
Lee, Hsin-hsien. 2003. Analyzing Handshape Changes in Taiwan Sign Language. Master Thesis of Graduate Institute of Linguistics in National Chung Cheng University.
Liddell, Scott K. 1980. American Sign Language Syntax. Mouton Publishers.
Liddell, Scott K. 1995. Real, surrogate, and token space: grammatical consequences in ASL. Paper on Language, Gesture, and Space, ed. by Karen Emmorey and Judy S. Reilly. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, Gesture and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press.
Liddell, Scott K. and Robert E. Johnson 1992 [1989]. American Sign Language: the phonological base. Paper on Linguistics of American Sign Language: an Introduction, ed. by Valli, C. and Lucas, C, 2nd ed, 249-289. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1999. Modality Effects and Modularity in Language Acquisition: The Acquisition of American Sign Language. In Hangbook of Child Language Acquisition, ed. by Ritchie and Bhatia, 531-567, Academic Press.
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2002. Where are all the modality effects? Paper on Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, ed. by Richard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier, and David Quinto-Pozos, 241-262. Cambridge University Press.
Mandel, Mark. 1977. Iconic devices in American Sign Language. Paper on On the Other Hand, ed. By Lynn A. Friedman, 57-107. London: Academic Press.
Meier, Richard P. 2002. Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. Paper on Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages, ed. by Richard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier, and David Quinto-Pozos, 1-26. Cambridge University Press.
Meier, Richard P., Kearsy Cormier, and David Quinto-Pozos (eds.). 2002. Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages. Cambridge University Press.
Meir, Irit. 1998. Syntactic-semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs: The case of backwards verbs. Sign Language & Linguistics 1 (1), 3-37.
Meir, Irit. 2001. Motion and Transfer: The analysis of two verb classes in Israeli Sign Language. Paper on Signed Languages: Discoveries from International Research, ed. by Valerie Dively [et al.], 74 -90. Gallaudet University Press.
Nanny, Max and Olga Fischer (ed.). 1999. Form Miming Meaning: Iconicity in Language and Literature. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
O''Brien, Jennifer. 1999. Metaphoricity in the signs of American Sign Language.
Metaphor and symbol 14 (3), 159-177.
Padden, Carol A. 1990. The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In Sign language research: theoretical issues, ed. by Ceil Lucus. Gallaudet University Press.
Peirce, Charles S. 1955 [1902]. Logic and Semiotic: Theory of Signs. Paper on Philosophical writings ed. by J. Buchler, 98-119. New York: Dover.
Pietrandrea, Paola. 2002. Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies vol 2, no. 3, 296-321.
Rumelhar, 1979. metaphor. Paper on Metaphor and Thought, ed. By Andrew Ortony, Cambridge University Press.
de Saussure, F. 1959[1916]. Course in general linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye with the collaboration of Albert Riedlinger ; Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court.
Schick, Brenda S. 1990. The effects of morphosyntactic structure on the acquisition of classifier predicates in ASL. Paper on Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues, ed. by Ceil Lucas. Gallaudet University Press.
Shepard-Kegl, Judy Anne. 1985. Locative Relations in American Sign Language Word Formation, Syntax, and Discourse. Cambridge, MA :Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Simone, Raffaele (ed.). 1994. Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Siple, Patricia and Susan D. Fischer (eds). 1991. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, vol. 2: Psychology. The University of Chicago Press.
Smith, Wayne H. 1989. The Morphological Characteristics of Verbs in Taiwan Sign Language. Submitted to the faculty of the Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the department of Speech and Hearing Sciences- Indiana University.
Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign Language Structure. Studies in Linguistics Occasional Papers 8. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo Press.
Stokoe, William C. 1991. Semantic Phonology. Sign Language Studies
Stokoe, William C., Dorothy C. Casterline, and Carl G. Croneberg, 1976[1965]. A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Silver Spring, Md.: Linstok Press.
Supalla, Ted. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. Paper on Noun Classes and Categorization, ed. by Colette, Craig, 181-214. Oregon: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Supalla, Ted. 1990. Serial verbs of motion in ASL. Paper on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, volume 1: Linguistics, ed. by Fischer, Susan D and Siple, Patricia, 127-152. Chicago and London: the University of Chicago Press.
Supalla, T., and E. L Newport. 1978. How many seats in a chair? Nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. Paper on Understanding Language through Sign Language Research, ed. by P. Siple, 91-132. Academic Press INC., New York.
Sutton-Spence, Rachel and Bencie Woll. 1999. The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Tai, James H-Y. 1985. Temporal Sequence and Chinese Word Order. Paper on Iconicity in Syntax. Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax, Stanford, June 24-6, 1983, ed. by John Haiman, 49-72. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Tai, James H-Y. 1993. Iconicity: motivations in Chinese grammar. Paper on Principles and Prediction: The Analysis of Natural Language, ed. by Mushira Eid and Gregory Iverson, 153-173. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Tai, James H.-Y. 2004. Modality effects: Iconicity in Taiwan Sign Language. To be published in papers in honor of Professor William S-Y. Wang’s 70th Birthday.
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Paper on Language Typology and Syntactic Description (vol. 3): Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon
Talmy, Leonard. 1991. Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. Paper on Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session, 480-519.
Talmy, Leonard. 2001. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. II: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. The MIT Press.
Taub, Sarah. F. 2001. Language from the body: iconicity and Metaphor in ASL. Cambridge University Press.
Tenant, Richard A. and Marianne Gluszak Brown. 1998. The American Sign Language Handshape Dictionary. Washington, D.C.: Clerc Books Gallaudet University Press.
Tylor, Edward. 1958. Primitive Culture.
Ullmann, Stephen. 1962. Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ungerer, Friedrich. 1999. Diagrammatic iconicity in word-formation. Paper on Form Miming Meaning: Iconicity in Language and Literature, ed. by Max Nanny and Olga Fischer, 307-324. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Valli, C. and C. Lucas (eds). 1992. Linguistics of American Sign Language: an Introduction, 2nd ed. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.
Waugh, Linda. 1992. Let’s take the con out of iconicity: constraints on iconicity in the lexicon. American Journal of Semiotics 9, 7-47.
Waugh, Linda. 1994. Degree of iconicity in the lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics 22 (1), 55-70.
Waugh, Linda R., and Madeleine Newfield. 1995. Iconicity in the lexicon and its relevance for a theory of morphology. Paper on Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes: the Human Dimension, ed. by Marge E. Landsberg, 189-222. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1987. American Sign Language: Linguistic and Applied Dimensions, 2nd ed. A College-Hill Publication.
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). LOT.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 62.陳修,「知識管理與知識經濟」,經濟前瞻,2002年7月5日,第111-113頁
2. 69.鄒景平,「知識管理的關鍵因素」,軟體產業通訊,2000年,第29卷,第23-24頁
3. 59.劉定原,「運用資訊科技推動海軍組織知識管理」,海軍軍官學術月刊,第20卷第3期,2001年8月,頁-15
4. 67.鍾蔚文、臧國仁、陳百齡著,「傳播教育應該教些什麼?幾個極端的想法」,新聞學研究,第53集,1996年
5. 58.郝曉鳴、李展,「傳播科技對中國大陸傳媒體制的挑戰」,新聞學研究第69期,2001年10月,頁95~112
6. 53.楊忠藏,「從波特的競爭觀審視企業核心優勢」,今日會計,第85期,2001年12月,第86-91頁
7. 52.楊人凱,「兩岸加入WTO之後,台灣媒體的去從」,動腦月刊,第309期,2002年1月,第32-35頁
8. 51.曾念民,「解讀策略大師波特的競爭優勢」,管理雜誌,第336期,2002年6月,第60-70頁
9. 38.韋思曼,「港人治台―台灣平面媒體的夢魘」,動腦月刊,第334期,2004年2月,第15-17頁
10. 30.吳萬里,「中時報系財務大揭秘!中時最大股東是『僑外資』」,財訊月刊,第235期,2001年10月
11. 28.吳行健,「創造企業新價值,知識管理」,管理雜誌,第315期,第84-86頁
12. 24.林珊如,「知識管理:對什麼知識?做什麼管理?」,大學圖書館,第6卷第1期,2002年3月,第2-14頁
13. 14.王榮文,「台灣圖書和雜誌出版現況」,出版情報,第177/178期,2003年1/2月,第96-97頁