跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.194.255) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/24 05:12
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:王姸琇
研究生(外文):WANG, YEN-HSIU
論文名稱:框架與華語修飾語的篇章功能:以拍賣框架為例
論文名稱(外文):Frame and Discoursal Functions of Modifiers in Chinese: Using Frame of Auction as an Example
指導教授:張榮興張榮興引用關係
指導教授(外文):CHANG, JUNG-HSING
口試委員:林惠玲林建宏
口試委員(外文):LIN, HUEI-LINGLIN, CHIEN-HUNG
口試日期:2024-05-31
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:2024
畢業學年度:112
語文別:中文
論文頁數:111
中文關鍵詞:修飾語詞彙語意篇章框架理論
外文關鍵詞:modifierslexical semanticsdiscourseframe theory
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:16
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:5
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
華語修飾語與詞彙語意有著緊密切的關係,透過修飾語的搭配,我們可以更加瞭解修飾語在篇章上下文的語意與功能。本文旨透過認知框架分析華語修飾語之修飾面向,使華語學習者能夠更加理解華語修飾語之語意與功能。

本論文將承襲Fillmore and Aktins(1992)「商業交易框架」,並透過相似的「拍賣框架」為主題,以探討框架語意的架構是如何在不同的篇章上下文形成語意對應,以及修飾語在篇章中是如何觸發不同的修飾面向。本研究提出了兩個研究議題,分別為:(一)篇章中框架和複合關係所對應之語意功能呈現、(二)修飾語和不同框架融合的修飾面向變化以及框架語意對應變化。

篇章當中的框架和具備複合關係的框架會透過上下文呈現出不同的語意脈絡。因此本文以「拍賣框架」為核心,將拍賣框架分為不同類別的語意成分,並透過羅列不同的拍賣複合搭配,如:公益拍賣等等,進一步分析複合搭配會如何影響原本框架語意的聚焦,以及在篇章中讀者如何對應語意以便能夠於腦中形成語意連接,進而理解篇章。

此外,承襲上述「拍賣框架」與複合關係的搭配的議題,此研究進一步分析不同框架融合與修飾語「大」的加入,如:破盤大拍賣等等,此時框架語意和修飾語的修飾面向是如何透過框架融合,於篇章中對於特定語意更加地凸顯和鎖定,並透過隱喻的角度來解讀較為抽象的框架,如:跳樓大拍賣等等,對於讀者來說在理解此框架會有如何的認知轉變與連接。

本文以「台灣新聞智慧網」語料庫為來源,藉新聞語料篇章分析來觀察框架理論如何運作,並如何產生修飾面向轉變和語意變化分析。本文的研究結果指出,詞彙語意和修飾語之間會透過認知框架將焦點聚焦於特定修飾面向,且其修飾面向也會隨著篇章上下文所提供的信息而有所不同。此外,華語修飾語的功能不單用來修飾詞彙,更是透過框架來誘發出蘊含其中的語意。

Mandarin modifiers are closely related to lexical semantics. Through the combination of modifiers, we can gain a deeper understanding of the semantics and functions of modifiers in the context of discourse. This article aims to analyze the modification aspects of Mandarin modifiers through a cognitive framework, helping Mandarin learners to better understand the semantics and functions of these modifiers.

This paper will follow Fillmore and Atkins' (1992) "commercial transaction frame" and explore a similar "auction frame" to investigate how the structure of frame semantics forms semantic correspondences in different discourses, and how modifiers trigger different modification aspects within these discourses. The study proposes two research questions: (1) the presentation of semantic functions corresponding to frames and compound relationships in discourse, and (2) the variation in modification aspects and semantic correspondences when modifiers are integrated with different frames.

Frames and compound relationships within discourse will present different semantic contexts through their surrounding texts. Therefore, this paper uses the "auction frame" as its core, categorizing the auction frame into different semantic components and analyzing various compound combinations, such as charity auctions, to further understand how these combinations affect the focus of the original frame semantics and how readers form semantic connections to comprehend the discourse.

Furthermore, building on the topic of the auction frame and compound relationships, this study further analyzes the integration of different frames and the addition of the modifier "big" (as in "big sale"), examining how frame semantics and modification aspects are highlighted and focused within discourse through frame integration. It also interprets more abstract frames from a metaphorical perspective, such as "jumping-off-the-building sale," and explores how readers cognitively connect and transform their understanding of these frames.

Using the "Taiwan News Smart Web" corpus as a source, this paper observes how frame theory operates in news discourse and analyzes the shifts in modification aspects and semantic changes. The results of the study indicate that lexical semantics and modifiers focus on specific modification aspects through cognitive frames, and these aspects vary with the information provided by the discourse. Additionally, the function of Mandarin modifiers not only embellishes vocabulary but also evokes the underlying semantics through frames.
目次
致謝 i
摘要 ii
目次 iii
表目次 vi
圖目次 vii

第一章 緒論 1
1.1 引言 1
1.2 研究議題 4
1.3 研究方法 6
1.4 論文架構 6
第二章 文獻回顧 8
2.1 框架的概念 8
2.2 框架的理解與應用 9
2.2.1 框架的特性 11
2.2.2 框架和背景語境與文化的關係 11
2.2.3 框架和篇章的關係 14
2.2.4 框架和認知理解的關係 17
2.2.5 框架和隱喻的關係 20
2.3 修飾語在框架中的功能 22
2.3.1 修飾語「大」的分析與解讀 23
2.3.2 華語修飾語「大」的分析 25
2.3.3 詞彙與修飾語的關係和修飾面向 27
2.4 結論 28
第三章 框架和詞彙搭配關係 30
3.1 前言 30
3.2 「拍賣」的框架意義 31
3.3 「拍賣」與詞彙的搭配關係 34
3.3.1 「價格相關」的詞彙搭配 35
3.3.2 「賣方相關」的詞彙搭配 37
3.3.3 「目的相關」的詞彙搭配 39
3.3.5 「方式相關」的詞彙搭配 43
3.3.6 「時間相關」的詞彙搭配 44
3.4 修飾語「大」於框架中的修飾面向 46
3.4.1 修飾語「大」於「商品類別」的修飾面向 48
3.4.2 修飾語「大」於「價格類別」的修飾面向 50
3.4.3 修飾語「大」於「買方/賣方類別」的修飾面向 52
3.4.4 修飾語「大」於「規模類別」的修飾面向 54
3.5 小結 56
第四章 隱喻與框架融合在篇章的呈現 58
4.1 前言 58
4.2 具體框架融合 59
4.2.1 「價格相關」的框架融合 – 破盤大拍賣 60
4.2.2 「買方相關」的框架融合 – 搶購大拍賣 63
4.2.3 「原因/目的相關」的框架融合 – 倒店大拍賣 66
4.2.4 「地點相關」的框架融合 – 全球大拍賣 69
4.2.5 「方式相關」的框架融合 – 競標大拍賣 72
4.2.6 「時間相關」的框架融合 – 歲末大拍賣 74
4.3 隱喻與框架的融合 77
4.3.1 隱喻於框架中的呈現 – 「跳樓大拍賣」 79
4.3.2 隱喻於框架中的呈現 – 「吐血大拍賣」 83
4.3.3 隱喻於框架中的呈現 – 「流血大拍賣」 86
4.4 小結 90
第五章 結論 91
參考文獻 95


中文部分:

文秋芳. 2013.《認知語言學與二語教學》(第1版),北京:外語教學與研究出版社。
王玲玫. 2012.〈淺析“大”和“小”作形容詞修飾名詞用法上的對稱和不對稱〉。《語文學刊:基礎教育版》9 : 36–37。
王衍軍、高立國、齊小俊. 2023.〈「小偷」不小,「大盜」何以稱大-兼談詞彙理據及教學啟示〉。《華語文教學研究》20.1: 01–24。
王寅. 2002.〈認知語言學與兩代認知科學〉。《外語學刊》1.1 : 9–14。
王繼瑛、葉浩生、蘇得權. 2018.〈身體動作與語義加工:具身隱喻的視角〉。《心理學探新》38.1 : 15–19.
任永軍. 2004.〈空間維度詞“大、小”的認知語意分析〉。《聊城大學學報: 哲學社會科學版》5: 30-33。
何中清. 2013.〈功能一認知視角下的構式隱喻理論研究〉。《外語教學》34.5 : 1–6。
何悅. 2019.〈漢日語空間維度詞「大」、「小」的隱喻義對比〉。《文學教育(下)》4 : 54–55。
吳佳樺. 2016.〈古漢語「藥」的名動轉變研究:以框架為本的語義分析〉。《南台人文社會學報》15 : 53-91。
吳珊、李福印. 2008.〈漢語多義詞「立」的認知語言學研究〉。《北京航空航太大學學報(社會科學版)》21.1 : 74-77。
李軍、任永軍. 2002.〈空間維度詞“大、小”的隱喻意認知分析〉。《中國海洋大學學報:社會科學版》4: 58-62。
李進喜. 2009.〈背景語境與文本理解〉。《浙江學刊》3 : 87–90。
李福印. 1995.〈認知模式:隱喻的根源〉。《當代修辭學》6 : 38–39。
李福印. 2009.〈如何闡釋認知語言學〉。《外語學刊》2 : 23–28。
李福印. 2015.〈Leonard Talmy的語言哲學思想〉。《中國外語》 6 : 41–47。
沈賢淑. 2002.〈漢、朝空間維度詞的隱喻意對比〉。《延邊大學學報: 社會科學版》35.1: 75-77。
周清海. 2017.〈“大華語”與語言研究〉。《漢語學報》2: 61-66。
屈承熹. 2004. 《漢語認知功能語法》,哈爾濱市:黑龍江人民出版社。
林怡. 2020.〈端午話粽子〉。《清流雙月刊》27: 80-84。
唐琼玲. 2007.〈“大”、“小”隱喻英漢對比分析〉。《牡丹江師範學院學報: 社會科學版》3: 49-51。
張敏慧. 2011.《腳本理論與漢語「快」的語意分析》。嘉義:國立中正大學碩士論文。
張榮興、黃惠華. 2005.〈心理空間理論與「梁祝十八相送」之隱喻研究〉。《語言暨語言學》6.4 : 681–705。
張榮興、黃惠華. 2006.〈從心理空間理論看「最短篇」小說中之隱喻〉。《華語文教學研究》 3.1 :117-133。
張榮興. 2008.〈華語篇章中的攝取角度〉。《華語文教學研究》 5.2 : 47–67。
張榮興. 2012.〈心理空間理論與《莊子》[用] 的隱喻〉。《語言暨語言學》13.5: 999-1027。
張榮興. 2012.〈從心理空間理論解讀古代 [多重來源單一目標投射] 篇章中的隱喻〉。《華語文教學研究》9.1: 1-22。
張榮興. 2017.〈心理空間理論與《莊子》不為官寓言的隱喻分析〉。《臺灣語文研究》12.2: 161-185。
張榮興. 2021.《解開文句的方程式 : 啟動你的認知閱讀模式 (初版) 》,臺北市:文鶴。
張榮興. 2023.〈華語篇章<套圈圈> 中的事件結構隱喻與成語教學〉。《華文世界》131: 63-78。
陳俊光. 2010.《篇章分析與教學應用 (一版)》,臺北市:新學林。
陳寅清. 2016.〈以當代概念隱喻之視角解析道家的「丘」、「壺」隱喻-以《列子》為中心所作的考察〉。《東華漢學》24 : 29-60。
鄂貞君、王驄穎、張育慈、蕭竹岑. 2022.〈臺灣社區詞 [辦桌] 於新聞文本的分布與對 CSL 文化教學的建議〉。《華語文教學研究》19.3: 43-76。
黃宣範. 2021.《語言學 : 結構認知與文化的探索. (初版) 》,臺北市:臺灣大學出版中心。
楊亞丁. 2021.〈語言的隱喻視角下人類認知框架建構〉。《心理學探新》 41.5 : 392–396.
楊秋燕. 2011.《從詞彙概念及認知模型理論看漢語「好」的多義現象》。嘉義:國立中正大學碩士論文。
聞政華. 2008.〈形容詞“大”的認知語義分析〉。《濮陽職業技術學院學報》21.1 : 66–67。
劉宇紅. 2011.《隱喻的多視角研究 (第1版) 》,北京:世界圖書北京公司。
蔣冰清、蔣成. 2008.〈語意腳本理論對言語幽默的解讀〉。《湖南人文科技學院學報》 3 : 130–133。
蔣媛媛. 2016.〈漢語中的前置性修飾語的類型歸屬分析〉。《牡丹江教育學院學報》4 : 29–30。
鄭貴友. 2005.〈漢語篇章分析的興起與發展〉。《漢語學習》5 : 40–48。
黎曉丹、杜建政、葉浩生. 2016.〈中國禮文化的具身隱喻效應:蜷縮的身體使人更卑微〉。《心理學報》6. 746–756.
謝菁玉、葉蓮. 2007.〈框架語意學與語言文化: 漢語和英語的植物固定語式〉。《國際文化研究》3.2: 1-33。
羅朝暉、石運寶、薛濤. 2022.〈形容詞修飾語義的現代類型論探析〉。《邏輯學研究》15.2 : 29–47。
顧建敏. 2003.〈語境因素與語篇分析〉。《河南大學學報(社會科學版)》43.6 : 102–103。

英文部分:

Agar, Michael. 1994. The intercultural frame. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18.2: 221-237.
Amaireh, Hanan A. 2022. COVID-19 IS WAR, WATER APERSON: Metaphorical Language of the Coronavirus Disease in “the Jordan Times” Newspaper. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 12.7:1286-1293.
Anderson, Curt and Morzycki, Morzycki. 2015. Degrees as kinds. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33.3: 791–828.
Bailin, Alan and Grafstein, Ann. 2016. Readability : text and context. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bailin. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critique. Language & Communication 21(3).
Baker, Colin F. and Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2002. FrameNet’s Frames vs. Levin’s Verb Classes. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 28.1: 27-38.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1993. Challenging assumptions about concepts. Cognitive Development 8.2: 169–180.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2017. What does semantic tiling of the cortex tell us about semantics? Neuropsychologia 105:18–38.
Barsalou, Lawrence. W. 2008. Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59.1:617–645.
Bartlett, Frederic C. 2009. Feeling, imaging and thinking. The British Journal of Psychology 100.S1:189–198.
Binder, Jeffrey R., Conant, Lisa L., Humphries, Colin J., Fernandino, Leonardo, Simons, Stephen B., Aguilar, Mario, and Desai, Rutvik H. 2016. Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation. Cognitive Neuropsychology 33.3–4: 130–174.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2017. Fire Metaphors: Discourses of Awe and Authority. London: Bloomsbury.
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William and Cruse, David A. 2005. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William. 1998. Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics 9.2:151–174.
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Pearson Education.
D’Angelo, Paul. 2002. News Framing as a Multiparadigmatic Research Program: A Response to Entman. Journal of Communication 52.4: 870–888.
Dalpanagioti, Thomai. 2021. A Frame-Inspired Task-Based Approach to Metaphor Teaching. Lexis Journal in English Lexicology 18: 1-22.
De Beaugrande, Robert and Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1981. Introduction to text linguistics (Vol.1). London: Longman.
Dixon, Robert. Malcolm. Ward. 1982. Where have All the Adjectives Gone?: And Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Dixon, Robert. Malcolm. Ward. 1986. Noun classes and coun classification in typological perspective. In C. Craig (ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization, 105–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication 43.4: 51-58.
Entman, Robert. Matthew. 2006. Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents. Journal of Communication 41.4: 6-27.
Evans, Vyvyan and Pourcel, Stephanie. 2009. New directions in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Evans, Vyvyan. 2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics 17.4: 491-534.
Evans, Vyvyan. 2013. Language and time a cognitive linguistics approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fahlenbrach, Kathrin. 2016. Embodied metaphors in film, television, and video games : cognitive approaches. London : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark. 2002. The way we think : conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark. 2003. Conceptual Blending, Form and Meaning. Recherches En Communication 19:67-68.
Fillmore, Charles J., Shibatani, Masayoshi, and Thompson, Sandra. A. 1995. Essays in semantics and pragmatics : in honor of Charles J. Fillmore. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Story grammars and sentence grammars: Some considerations. Journal of Pragmatics 6.5: 451–454.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the origin and development of language and speech 280.1: 20-32.
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6: 222-254.
Fillmore, Charles. J. and Baker, Colin. F. 2009. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 313-339. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, Charles. J., Johnson, Christopher. R., & Petruck, Mirium. R. 2003. Background to framenet. International Journal of Lexicography 16.3: 235-250.
Fillmore, Charles. J.and Atkins, Beryl. T. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, 75–102. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fleisher, Nicholas. 2008. A crack at a hard nut: Attributive-adjective modality and infinitival relatives. In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 91: 163-171.
Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NY : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Funnell, Elaine. 2001. Evidence for scripts in semantic dementia: Implications for theories of semantic memory. Cognitive Neuropsychology 18.4: 323–341.
Geise, Stephanie and Baden, Christian. 2015. Putting the Image Back Into the Frame: Modeling the Linkage Between Visual Communication and Frame-Processing Theory. Communication Theory 25.1: 46–69.
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W. and O’Brien, Jennifer E. 1990. Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation for idiomatic meaning. Cognition 36.1: 35–68.
Gibbs, Raymond. W and Costa Lima, Paula. L. and Francozo, Edson. 2004. Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics 36.7 : 1189–1210.
Gintsburg, Sarali. 2019. Lost in dictation. A cognitive approach to oral poetry: Frames, scripts and ‘unnecessary’ words in the Jebli ayyu. Language & Communication 64:104–115.
Gitlin, Todd. 1977. Spotlights and Shadows: Television and the Culture of Politics. College English 38.8:789–801.
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis : an essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Goldstone, Robert L and Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1998. Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition 65.2: 231–262.
Gottwald, Janna. M. and Elsner, Birgit and Pollatos, Olga. 2015. Good is up-spatial metaphors in action observation. Frontiers in Psychology 6 : 1605–1605.
Grice, Paul, H. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, ed. by P, Cole and J. L. Morgan, 3:41-58.
Hampe, Beate. 2017. Metaphor : embodied cognition and discourse. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Hart, Christopher. 2010. Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science new perspectives on immigration discourse. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan.
Hart, Christopher. 2018. Riots engulfed the city: An experimental study investigating the legitimating effects of fire metaphors in discourses of disorder. Discourse & Society 29.3: 279–298.
Hsu, Iju and Chiang, Wen-Yu. 2022. ‘Seeing’ music from manga: visualizing music with embodied mechanisms of musical experience. Visual Communication (London, England) 21.4 : 623–644.
Hu, G and Chen, L. 2019. “To our great surprise …”: A frame-based analysis of surprise markers in research articles. Journal of Pragmatics 143:156–168.
Hughes, Ian and Byrne, Edmand and Mullally, Gerard and Sage, Colin. 2021. Metaphor, Sustainability, Transformation : Transdisciplinary Perspectives. Milton : Taylor & Francis Group.
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1985. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Jahn, Manfred. 1997. Frames, Preferences, and the Reading of Third-Person Narratives: Towards a Cognitive Narratology. Poetics Today 18.4:441–468.
Kachru, Braj. B and Quirk, Randoplh and Widdowson, Henry. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism. World Englishes. Critical Concepts in Linguistics 241-270.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2008. Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 40.3: 385–406.
Koller, Veronika. 2004. Metaphor and gender in business media discourse: A critical cognitive study. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kövecses, Zoltán. 1990. Emotion concepts. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lakoff, George and Brugman, Claudia. 1986. Argument Forms in Lexical Semantics. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 442-454.
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1987. The Death of Dead Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 2.2: 143–147.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. W. 2008. Cognitive grammar : a basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lederer, Jenny. 2013. ‘Anchor baby’: A conceptual explanation for pejoration. Journal of Pragmatics 57: 248–266.
Lehnert, Wendy G. 1981. Plot units and narrative summarization. Cognitive Science 5.4: 293–331.
Levi, Judith. N. 1978. The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York : Academic Press.
Littlemore, Jeannette. 2019. Metaphors in the mind. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Löbner, Sebastian. 2013. Understanding semantics (Second Edition.). New York: Routledge.
Löbner, Sebastian. 2021. Frames at the Interface of Language and Cognition. Annual Review of Linguistics 7: 261-284.
Löbner, Sebastian. 2021. Frames at the Interface of Language and Cognition. Annual Review of Linguistics 7.1: 261–284.
Metzing, Dieter. 1979. Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding. Boston: De Gruyter.
Milică, Ioan and Guia, Sorin. 2017. Culinary recipes: orality and scripturality (I). Diacronia (Iași) 5: 1–13.
Millikan. Ruth M. 1998. Language conventions made simple. The Journal of Philosophy 95.4: 161-180.
Minaabad, Malahat. 2011. The Effect of Collocation on Meaning Representation of Adjectives Such as “Big” and “Large” in Translation from Two Languages Used in the Article to English Language Texts. English Language Teaching (Toronto) 4.1: 70-75.
Minsky, Marvin. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. by Winston, P.H, 211–278. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Minsky, Marvin. 1987. The Society of Mind. The Personalist Forum 3.1: 19–32.
Minsky, Marvin. L. 1968. Semantic information processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Muelas Gil, María. 2019. Ideology, metaphor and persuasion in times of elections: a corpus-based study of British and Spanish economic reports. Complutense Journal of English Studies (Internet) 27: 223–246.
Nedelcheva, Svetlana and Todorova, Mariana. 2018. Frame Semantics And Verbs Of Motion. The Case of Enter And Go Into. A Corpus-Based Study. Studies in Linguistics. Culture and FLT (Online) 3.1: 45–61.
Nguyen, Chau. 2022. Automation of Frontline Service Encounters: A Script Theory Perspective. 2022 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET): 1–7.
Pentzold, Christian and Fraas, Claudia. 2023. Media frames as adaptive networks of meaning: A conceptual proposition. Language & Communication 93: 95–106.
Pentzold, Christian, Sommer, Vivian, Meier, Stefan, and Fraas, Claudia. 2016. Reconstructing media frames in multimodal discourse: The John/Ivan Demjanjuk trial. Discourse, Context & Media 12:32–39.
Petruck, Miriam. R. 1996. Frame semantics and the lexicon: Nouns and verbs in the body frame. Essays in semantics and pragmatics: In honor of Charles J. Fillmore. 279-297. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pustejovsky, James and Batiukova, Olga. 2019. The lexicon. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Reese, Stephen D. 2007. The Framing Project: A Bridging Model for Media Research Revisited. Journal of Communication 57.1: 148–154.
Riemer, Nick. (Ed.). 2016. The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London; New York: Routledge.
Samur, Dalya and Lai, Vicky. T and Hagoort, Peter and Willems, Roel. M. 2015. Emotional context modulates embodied metaphor comprehension. Neuropsychologia 78: 108–114.
Sassoon, Galit. Weidman. 2013. A typology of multidimensional adjectives. Journal of semantics 30.3: 335-380.
Schank, Roger C and Schank, Roger C. 1999. Dynamic memory revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schank, Roger C. 1990. Tell me a story : a new look at real and artificial memory. New York: Scribner.
Schank, Roger C. and Abelson, Robert P. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry Into Human Knowledge Structures (1st ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
Scheufele, Dietram A and Tewksbury, David. 2007. Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication 57.1: 9–20.
Scollon, Ron. 2001. Action and text: towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter) action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action. In Methods of critical discourse analysis 113:139-183.
Semino, Elena. 2010. Descriptions of Pain, Metaphor, and Embodied Simulation. Metaphor and Symbol 25.4 : 205–226.
Steen, Gerard. 1994. Understanding metaphor in literature : an empirical approach. London: Longman.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems (Vol. 1). Cambridge: MIT press.
Tatsakovych, Uliana. 2019. Frame Semantics and Translation of Intertextuality. Kalbų Studijos 35:104-120.
Taylor, David S. 1988. The Meaning and Use of the Term ‘Competence’ in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics 9.2: 148–168.
Van der Gucht, Fieke, Willems, Klaas, and De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2007. The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences (Oxford) 29.6: 733–754.
Vervaeke, John and Kennedy, John. M. 1996. Metaphors in Language and Thought: Falsification and Multiple Meanings. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 11.4: 273–284.
Violi, Patrizia. 2001. Meaning and experience, ed. By Thomas A, Sebeok, translated by Jeremy Carden. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Wilk, Przemysław. 2017. The role of the cognitive model profile in knowledge representation and meaning construction: the case of the lexical item Europe. Revista de Lenguas Para Fines Específicos 23.2: 188-205.
Winter, Bodo. 2019. Sensory linguistics : language, perception and metaphor. Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Xie, Zhiguo. 2010. ‘The other pole of degree modification of gradable nouns by size adjectives: A Mandarin Chinese perspective’. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics 245–256.
Ziem, Alexander. 2014. Frames of understanding in text and discourse : theoretical foundations and descriptive applications, ed. by Catherine, Schwerin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top