(3.235.41.241) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/15 05:11
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:李釗麟
研究生(外文):Chao-lin Li
論文名稱:排灣語的空間表徵
論文名稱(外文):The Spatial Representations in Paiwan
指導教授:張永利張永利引用關係
指導教授(外文):Henry Yung-li Chang
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:英文
論文頁數:181
中文關鍵詞:排灣語語言類型位移事件空間指涉框架虛構位移位事件空間-時間連續體
外文關鍵詞:Paiwanlinguistic typologyMotion eventsframes of spatial referencefictive motion eventsspatial-temporal continuum
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:496
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
This thesis explores the spatial representations concerning the Motion events and the spatial frames of reference in Paiwan. First, we explore how Paiwan conceptualizes the Motion events via its linguistic structure. We find that Paiwan has three kinds of Motion verbs, that is, (a) the Manner-type verbs, (b) the Path-type verbs, and (c) the Figure-type verbs. In this respect Paiwan seems to behave like a verb-framed language. However, Paiwan exhibits a rather different typological syntactic pattern from Talmy’s (1991) two-way typology and from the macro-event language (S. Huang 2001). In Paiwan the event integration is syntactically realized as matrix-complement constructions. In such constructions the matrix verb can be a Manner verb or a Path verb. It is hard to determine which type of Motion verbs is the main verb. Thus, we propose that Paiwan is a third linguistic typology: an equipollently-framed language.
Second, we find that Paiwan uses both the Projector-based and Guidepost-based Reference Frames to describe their micro-oriented environment and that Paiwan also employs two Field-based locative nominals (i.e. kacedas ‘the East’ and kaletjep ‘the West’) to describe to their macro-oriented environment. However, Paiwan has no corresponding spatial terms to the notions ‘North & South’. The Paiwan speakers employ two other reference frames, i.e. (a) the Ground-based Reference Frame (e.g. tayhuku ‘Taipei’ and takau ‘Kaohsiung’), and (b) the Projector-based Reference Frame (e.g. viri ‘left’ and naval ‘right’) to express the so-called Field-based spatial notions ‘North & South’. Moreover, it is worth noting that Paiwan employs the fictive motion event to represent a spatial static scene. Morphologically, a static predicate can be decomposed into a locative verbal root (i.e. i ‘be located’) plus a motion affix (i.e. -pasa- ‘go toward’). We propose that the motion prefix -pasa- ‘go toward’ provides a fictive path between the primary Reference object and the secondary Reference object. The fictivity in human’s cognition accounts for how come such a static situation is expressed by the seemingly dynamic motion event.
Finally, we find that the framing event pasa forms a spatial-temporal continuum. As far as the Motion event is concerned, the framing event pasa can be classified into (a) the causative motion verb, i.e. a causative prefix ‘pa-’ plus a motion root sa, and (b) the self-propelled motion verb, i.e., the causative prefix ‘pa-’ is grammaticalized as a motion marker. Moreover, as far as Fictive Motion is concerned, the framing event pasa serves as a fictive motion affix, expressing orientation and extension. Furthermore, as far as State Change is concerned, the framing event pasa serves as a temporal state-change prefix.

Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 A sketch of Paiwan grammar 5
2.1 General background 5
2.2 Phonemic inventory 6
2.3 Word order 7
2.4 The case-marking system 9
2.5 The pronominal system 14
2.6 The focus system 18
2.7 Aspect and mood system 23
2.7.1 The irrealis markers: uru and uri 23
2.7.2 The perfective aspect markers: na- (AF) and -in- (NAF) 25
2.7.3 The change-of-state marker: -anga 26
2.7.4 The durative marker: -anan 27
2.7.5 Reduplication of the predicate stems 28
2.8 Imperative sentences 29
Chapter 3 Lexicalization Patterns and Linguistic Typology in Paiwan 31
3.1 Introduction 31
3.2 Theoretical framework 32
3.2.1 The clausal level 32
3.2.1.1 Lexicalization patterns 32
3.2.1.1.1 Motion + Co-event 33
3.2.1.1.2 Motion + core schema 34
3.2.1.1.3 Motion + figure 35
3.2.1.2 Typology of event integration 36
3.2.1.2.1 Event integration and the Macro-event 36
3.2.1.2.2 Verb-framed languages vs. satellite-framed languages
37
3.2.2 The discourse level 38
3.2.2.1 Two-way typology 38
3.2.2.2 Typology revisited 41
3.3 Previous studies 43
3.3.1 Austronesian languages 43
3.3.1.1 Tsou 43
3.3.1.2 Seediq 45
3.3.1.3 Saisiyat 46
3.3.1.4 Squliq Atayal 48
3.3.1.5 Tagalog and Cebuano 49
3.3.2 East Asian languages 50
3.3.2.1 Korean 50
3.3.2.2 Mandarin Chinese 51
3.3.2.3 Thai 52
3.4 Motion events in Paiwan 54
3.4.1 The clausal level: lexicalization patterns 54
3.4.1.1 Motion + Co-event 54
3.4.1.2 Motion + core schema 60
3.4.1.3 Motion + figure 63
3.4.2 The discourse level 69
3.4.2.1 Frog stories 69
3.4.2.2 Myth stories 71
3.5 The position of Paiwan in Talmy’s typology of event integration 72
3.5.1 Previous analyses on the a-clauses in Paiwan 72
3.5.1.1 Huang’s (1997) analysis 72
3.5.1.2 Tang’s (1999) analysis 73
3.5.2 The motionconstructions in Paiwan 74
3.5.2.1 Boundedness of aspect markers onto the initial verb 75
3.5.2.2 Non-occurrence of an overt subject in the a-clauses 76
3.5.2.3 AF-NAF asymmetry 77
3.5.2.4 Word order 79
3.5.2.5 Prohibition from extraposing 82
3.5.2.6 Coordination, subordination, or complementation? 83
3.5.3 A third way to travel: a revisited typological pattern 84
3.5.3.1 Lexicalization patterns vs. linguistic typology 84
3.5.3.2 comparison of Paiwan with Tsou, Mandarin, and Thai 88
3.6 Conclusion 89
Chapter 4 How Paiwan Structures Space 91
4.1 Introduction 91
4.2 Theoretical framework 92
4.2.1 Figure and Ground 93
4.2.2 Frames of references 95
4.2.3 Fictive motion event in language 99
4.3 Previous studies 102
4.3.1 Austronesian languages 103
4.3.1.1 Malayo-Polynesian languages 103
4.3.1.2 Formosan languages 105
4.3.2 Mayan languages 107
4.3.3 Mandarin Chinese 108
4.4 Frames of reference in Paiwan 109
4.4.1 Ground-based reference frame in Paiwan 110
4.4.1.1 Inside vs. outside 111
4.4.1.2 Interiority 115
4.4.1.3 Middle vs. both sides 118
4.4.2 Projector-based reference frame in Paiwan 120
4.4.2.1 Left vs. right 120
4.4.2.2 Front vs. back 123
4.4.3 Field-based reference frame in Paiwan 128
4.4.3.1 East vs. west 128
4.4.3.2 Upside vs. downside 135
4.4.3.3 Uphill vs. downhill 139
4.4.4 Guidepost-based reference frame in Paiwan 142
4.5 Fictive motion expressing static locations 143
4.6 Conclusion 150
Chapter 5 The Syntactic Realizations of Event Complexes in Paiwan 152
5.1 Introduction 152
5.2 The causative pasa 152
5.3 The self-propelled pasa 154
5.3.1 Altering with the self-propelled sema 154
5.3.2 Contrasting with the causative pasa 160
5.4 The fictive pasa 168
5.5 The temporal pasa 169
5.6 Conclusion 170
Chapter 6 Conclusion 172
6.1 Summary 172
6.2 Suggestions for future research 174
References 175

REFERENCES
Bennardo, Giovanni. (ed.) 2002. Representing space in Oceania: culture in language and mind. Australia: The Australian National University.
Berman A. Ruth and Dan Isaac Slobin. 1994. Relating events in narrative: a cross-linguistic developmental study. Hove and UK, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Blust, Robert. 1984. The Austronesian homeland: a linguistic perspective. Asian Perspective 26.46-57.
____. 1997. Semantic change and spatial relationships. Referring to space: studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages, ed. by Gunter Senft, 39-52. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bowden, John. 1992. Behind the preposition: grammaticalisation of locatives in Oceanic languages. Australia: Australian National University.
Brown, Cecil H. 1983. Where do cardinal direction terms come from? Anthropological Linguistics 25.121-161.
Brown, Penelope. 1994. The INs and ONs of Tzeltal locative expressions: The semantics of static descriptions of location. Linguistics 32:743-790.
____. 2001. Learning to talk motion UP and DOWN in Tzeltal: is there a language-specific bias for verb learning? language acquisition and conceptual development, ed. by Melissa Bowerman and Soonja Choi, 512-543. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, Henry Yungli. 1997. Voice, case, and agreement In Seediq and Kavalan. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University dissertation.
____. 2001. Actor-sensitivity and obligatory control in Kavalan and some other Formosan languages. Language and Linguistics 2.1-20.
____. 2003. AF verbs: transitive, intransitive, or both? Paper Presented at the second workshop on Formosan languages, Taipei.
Chang, Hsiu-chuan. 1992. Causative constructions in Paiwan. M.A. thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Choi, Soonja, and Melissa Bowerman. 1991. Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition 41.83-121.
Chomsky, Noam.1986. Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Ferrell, Raleigh. 1982. Paiwan dictionary. Canberra: The Australian National University Press.
François, Alexandre. 2003. Of men, hills, and winds: space directionals in Mwotlap. Oceanic Linguistics 42.407-437.
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax. Vol. 2. Amserdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Huang, M. Lillian. 1995. A Study of Mayrinax syntax. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Company.
____. 1997. Serial verb constructions in some Formosan languages: a typology view. Paper presented at the eighth international conference on Austronesian languages, Taipei
____. 2000. Verb classification in Mayrinax Atayal. Oceanic Linguistics 39.364-390.
____, Marie M. Yeh, Elizabeth Zeitoun, Anna H. Chang, and Joy J. Wu. 1998. A typological overview of nominal case marking systems of some Formosan languages. Selected papers from the second international symposium on languages in Taiwan, ed. by Shuanfan Huang. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Huang, Shuanfan. 2001. A third way to travel. Seediq and Tsou: Spatial representations in languages without prepositions. Paper presented at the ALT IV, UCSB.
____. 2002. Tsou is different: A cognitive perspective on language, emotion, and body. Cognitive Linguistics 13:167-186.
Hill, C. 1978. Linguistic representation of spatial and temporal orientation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4.524-539.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press
____. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
____. 1996. The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. Language and space, ed. by Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, and Merrill F. Garrett, 1-30. Cambridge: MIT Press.
____. 2002. Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Landau, Barbara, and Ray Jackendoff. 1993. “What” and “Where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain sciences 16.217-265.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1986. Abstract motion. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12.455-471.
____. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
____. 1991. Abstract motion. Concept, image, and symbol, ed. by Ronald W. Langacker, 149-163. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
de León, Lourdes. 1994. Exploration in the acquisition of geocentric location by Tzotzil children. Linguistics 32.857-884.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1994. Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics 32.791-855.
____, and Brown P. 1994. Immanuel kant among the Tenejapans: anthropology as applied philosophy. Ethos 22.3-41.
Li, Chao-lin. 2003. Motion events in Paiwan. ms. Chia-Yi: National Chung Cheng University.
Matsumoto, Yo. 1996a. How abstract is subjective motion? a comparison of coverage path expressions and access path expressions. Conceptual structure, discourse and language, ed. by Adele E. Goldberg, 359-373. CA: CSLI.
____. 1996b. Subjective motion and English and Japanese verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 7.183-226.
Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press.
Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementattion. Language Typology and syntactic description 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 42-140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ozanne-Rivierre, Françoise. 1999. Spatial orientation in some Austronesian languages. Language diversity and cognitive representations, ed. By Catherine Fuchs and Stéphane Robert, 73-84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Senft, Gunter. (ed.) 1997. Referring to space: studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
____. 2001. Frames of spatial reference in Kilivila. Studies in Language 25.521-555.
Slobin, I. Dan. 1996. Two ways to travel: verbs of motion in English and Spanish. Grammatical constructions: their form and meaning, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thomposon, 195-219. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
____. 2000. Verbalized events: a dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. Evidence for linguistic relativity, ed. by Susanne Niemeier and René Dirven, 107-138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
____. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. Relating events in Narrative: typological and conceptual perspectives, ed. By S. Strömqvist and L. Verhoeven, 219-257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
____, and Nini Hoiting. 1994. Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: typological considerations. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20.487-505
Tai, James H.-Y. 1993. Conceptual structures of Chinese spatial expressions. Chicago Linguistics Society 29.347-362.
____. 2003. Cognitive relativisim: resultative construction in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 4.301-316.
Talmy, Leonard. 1975. Figure and ground in complex sentences. Paper presented at the proceedings of the first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley.
____. 1983. How language structures space. Spatial orientation: theory, research, and application, ed. by H. L. Pick, Jr., and L. P. Acredolo, 225-282. New York: Plenum Press.
____. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. Language typology and syntactic description 3: grammatical categories and the lexicon, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 57-149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
____. 1991. Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 17.480-519.
____. 1996. Fictive motion in language and “ception”. Language and space, ed. by Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel, and Merrill F. Garrett, 211-276. Cambridge: MIT Press.
____. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. 2 vols. MA: MIT press.
Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. 1999. On clausal complements in Paiwan. Selected papers from the ICAL 8, 529-578. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
____. 2002. On nominalizations in Paiwan. Language and Linguistics 3.283-333.
____, Yung-li Chang, and Dah-an Ho. 1998. On noun phrase structures in Paiwan. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studeis 28.335-384.
Tanangkingsing, Michael. 2002a. The study of motion in Saysiyat. Paper presented at the proceedings of 2002 National conference on linguistics, Taichung.
____. 2002a. A study of motion events in Saisiyat and Cebuano. Paper presented at the sixth conceptual structure, discourse and language conference, Houston.
____. 2003. Do we move in different ways or do we differ in our ways to move: a study of motion verbs in Four Austronesian languages. Paper presented the second workshop on Formosan languages, Taipei.
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 1997. Complex Sentences in Puyuma. M.A. thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Wu, Hsiao-Ching. 2004. Spatial Conceptualizations in Tsou and Saisiyat. M.A. thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, and Lillian M. Huang. 2000. Concerning ka-, an overlooked marker of verbal derivation in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 39.391-414.
____, ____, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H. Chang and Joy J. Wu. 1996. The temporal, aspectual and modal systems of some Formosan languages: a typological perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 35.21-56.
Zlatev, Jordan, and Peerapat Yangklang. 2004. A third way to travel: the place of Thai in motion-event typology. Relating events in narrative: typological and conceptual perspectives, ed. By S. Strömqvist and L. Verhoeven, 159-190. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
張秀絹 (Chang, Hsiu-chuan). 2000. 《排灣語參考語法》. 台北:遠流出版有限公司.
莊惠如 (Chuang, Joyce Hue-ru). 2002. 《排灣語名詞組的指涉》 碩士論文,嘉義:國立中正大學。
何大安 (Ho, Dah-an). 1978。<五種排灣語方言的初步比較> 《中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刑》49: 565-580.
劉寧生 (Liu, Ning-sheng). 1994. <漢語怎樣表達物體的空間關係> 《中國語文》3: 169-179.
____. 1995. <漢語偏正結構的認知基礎及其在語序類型學上的意義> 《中國語文》2: 81-88。
葉美利 (Yeh, Marie Meili). 2000. 《賽夏語參考語法》. 台北:遠流出版有限公司.
翁翠霞 (Weng, Tracy Cui-xia). 2000. <排灣語的時制、動態、動貌系統初探> 期末報告,嘉義:國立中正大學.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 楊婉瑩、劉嘉薇(2009)。〈探討統獨態度的性別差異:和平戰爭與發展利益的觀點〉。《選舉研究》,第16卷第1期,頁37-66。
2. 劉嘉薇(2013)。〈社群、典則與當局:大學生政治支持穩定與變變動方向的邏輯〉。《中國行政評論》,第19卷第2期,頁121-155。
3. 黃政傑(2004)。〈中國大陸學生來台就讀大學之評估〉。《師友月刊》,第103期,頁1-5。
4. 陳陸輝、黃信豪(2007)。〈社會化媒介、在學經驗與台灣大學生的政治功效意識和政治參與〉。《東亞研究》,第38卷第1期,頁1-47。
5. 陳陸輝、周應龍(2004)。〈台灣民眾統獨立場的持續與變動方向〉。《東亞研究》,第35卷第2期,頁143-186。
6. 盛杏湲(2002)。〈統獨議題與台灣選民的投票行為:一九九零年代的分析〉。《選舉研究》,第9卷第1期,頁41-80。
7. 張瑞雄(2007)。〈開放大陸學生來台問題之剖析〉。《師友月刊》,第480期,頁1-5。
8. 張光、蔣璐(2005)。〈網路與大學生政治社會化實證研究〉。《東亞論壇季刊》,第450期,頁47-63。
9. 林濁水、梁文傑(1999)。〈台灣政黨轉型與民眾統獨意向的變動方向〉。《中國大陸研究》,第42卷第6期,頁59-77。
10. 李樑堅、李銘義、顏志榮、趙文彬(2013)。〈開放陸生來台就學之面對問題及學生感受之研究〉。《教育行政論壇》第5卷第2期,頁47-78。
11. 李樑堅、李銘義、顏志榮、趙文彬(2013)。〈開放陸生來台就學之面對問題及學生感受之研究〉。《教育行政論壇》,第5卷第2期,頁47-78。
12. 李佩雯(2014)。〈我群與他群:兩岸學生社會認同差異之跨群體溝通研究〉。《傳播研究與實踐》,第4卷第1期,頁129-171。
13. 吳親恩、林政楠(2010)。〈省籍通婚與中國人、台灣人認同——家庭成員影響力的變化〉。《政治學報》,第50期,頁41-82。
14. 王嘉州、李侑潔(2012)。〈赴陸交流對台灣學生統一意願之影響〉。《社會科學論叢》,第6卷第2期,頁1-34。
15. 劉嘉薇、黃紀(2010)。〈持續與變動方向——政治資訊對大學生 政治信任感影響之定群追蹤研究〉。《政治學報》,第50期,頁111-146。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔