訪客IP:3.84.182.112
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
本論文永久網址: 
line
研究生:蔡瑜
研究生(外文):Yu Tsai
論文名稱:金門金城閩南語央元音(ö)與(«)之社會變異研究
論文名稱(外文):A Sociolinguistic Variation Study of Southern Min central vowel (ö) and («) in Jincheng of Kinmen
指導教授:何德華何德華引用關係
指導教授(外文):Der-hwa V. Rau
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:靜宜大學
系所名稱:英國語文學系研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文出版年:2001
畢業學年度:90
語文別:英文
論文頁數:100
中文關鍵詞:社會變異央元音閩南語金門
外文關鍵詞:Sociolinguistic VariationSouthern MinKinmencenteal vowel
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:402
  • 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:64
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
金門閩南語的(ö)與(«)央元音是其主要的特色。金門金城的部分居民使用[i,u]與[ue]新變體,有別於其他居民所使用的央元音[ö]與[«]舊變體。此現象說明閩南語方言中包含了不同的變體,即「台灣優勢腔」和「金門腔」。本研究旨在調查此變異與內在的語言規律和外在的社會因素關係密切。
本研究共有六十四位受試者,年齡層分佈在14歲到78歲之間。運用社會語言學的面談法進行正式及非正式的訪談,包括字表、句子朗誦、看圖說話。實地錄音、蒐集語料,進行語音變異之量化分析。利用多變量分析(ANOVA)、關連表(implicational scale)、無母數檢定的統計方法來檢測(ö)與(«)央元音在語音環境、社會因素、及語言態度的相關性。
調查結果顯示:(1)愈常用的字,說話者則傾向使用「台灣優勢腔」,而(2)根據關連表,顯示年齡因素影響其語言的使用型態,年紀超過60及40-59歲者,較常使用「金門腔」而年紀20-39 及19歲以下則傾向使用「台灣優勢腔」,整體來說,音變會隨著年齡減少而增加。(3)統計分析顯示社會因素影響其語言使用:40-59歲的女性及20-39歲男性在正式語體中較喜愛使用「台灣優勢腔」; 而在自然言談中,則是男性較喜歡「台灣優勢腔」。其同化調適(Accommodation theory)理論為說話者的考慮因素。此外,社會階層較高的男生及中間階層的女生較傾向使用「台灣優勢腔」。(4)研究對象的語言態度—年輕的受訪者對於「台灣優勢腔」有正向的態度而年老者則相反,因此年輕的受訪者也傾向使用新變體。
The central vowels (ö) and («) are the conspicuous sounds in Kinmen, an island southwest of Taiwan, and differ from those of other Southern Min dialects. Some people in Kinmen use non-central vowels of [i,u] and [ue] in Southern Min, while others use central vowels [ö] and [«].This means two types of phonological variants occurring in the Southern Min dialect
of Kinmen accent. In this study, the phonological variation of (ö) and (& laquo;) central vowels is correlated with both internal phonological environments and external social factors.
Sixty-four subjects participated in this study, ages ranging from fourteen to seventy-eight. This study was conducted according to sociolinguistic interview methods, which include wordlist, sentence reading, and picture reading to collect a great amount of data for quantitative analysis. All interviews were recorded and analyzed to test for subjects’ use of different language variety in different speech styles. An Analysis of Variation (ANOVA), an implicational scale, and nonparametric test were used for statistic analysis to examine variation of (ö) and («) in the phonological environment, social variables, and language attitudes.
The results of the survey indicate that (1) the higher the frequency of each word use in daily life, the greater the percentage of the new variants of [i, u] and [ue]; (2) the sound change generally decreased with age, those aged over 60 and 40-59 retained old forms of [ö] and [«] variants, while ages 20-39 and under 19 used new variants of [i,u] and [ue] more often; (3)females aged 40-59 used a higher percentage of the new variants while males aged 20-39 used new forms in conditioned speaking (CS). In spontaneous speaking (SS), males aged 20-39 preferred to use the new forms. The accommodation theory can be the basis for their linguistic using patterns; in addition, higher social classes of males were more likely to use new variants of [i,u] and [ue], whereas middle social classes of females used new variants more often; (4) younger generations had more positive attitude toward new variants of [i,u] and [ue] while older generation had lower evaluation for new variants. Thus, younger speaker are inclined to use the new forms [i,u] and [ue] as well.
Table of Contents i
Chinese Abstract v
English Abstract vi
Acknowledgements viii
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xi
Chapter One Introduction 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Historical Background 2
1.2.1 Tang and Song Dynasties 3
1.2.2 Ming and Qing Dynasties 3
1.2.3 From 1911 to the Present Time 4
1.3 Sociodemographic Profile 5
1.3.1 Geography 5
1.3.2 Population 8
1.3.3 Age 9
1.3.4 Socioeconomic Features 10
1.3.5 Language Usage 11
1.4 Purpose of the Study 12
1.5 Outline of the Study 13
Chapter Two Literature Review 14
2.1 Exposition of Language System of Kinmen 14
2.2 Theoretical Framework 18
2.2.1 Accommodation theory 19
2.2.2 Lexical diffusion 20
2.2.3 Superior Southern Min 20
2.3 Social variables in sound change 21
2.4 Social linguistic study on Southern Min 23
2.5 Language Attitude 26
Chapter Three Methodology 28
3.1 Pilot Study 28
3.2 Linguistic Variables 30
3.2.1 Selection of Linguistic Variables 30
3.2.2 Co-occurrence of («) and (ö) vowels 31
3.3 Research Questions 32
3.4 Hypotheses 33
3.5 Sampling 34
3.5.1 Age and Sex 35
3.5.2 Social Class 36
3.6 Data Collection 37
3.7 Sociolinguistic Interview 38
3.7.1 Conditioned Speaking (CS) 39
3.7.1.1 Personal Information 40
3.7.1.2 Questionnaire of Language Attitude 40
3.7.1.3 Word List and Sentences 42
3.7.2 Spontaneous Speaking (SS) 42
3.8 Data Analysis and Statistical Testing 43
3.8.1 Two Variables in Linguistic Factors 44
3.8.2 Two Variables by Implicational Scale 44
3.8.3 Two Variables in CS and SS 44
3.8.4 Language Attitude and Language Use Questionnaires 45
Chapter Four Results and Discussion 46
4.1 Linguistic Dimension 46
4.1.1 Phonological Environment 47
4.1.2 Frequency of Word Usage 49
4.1.3 Discussion of Linguistic Dimension 51
4.2 Implicational Scale of Two Variables 51
4.2.1 Distribution of («) 52
4.2.2 Distribution of (ö) 55
4.2.3 Discussion of implicational scale 57
4.3 Social Dimension 58
4.3.1 Results of («) Variable 58
4.3.2 Results of (ö) Variable 62
4.3.3 Discussion of («) and (ö) Variables 66
4.4 Language Attitude 69
4.4.1 Attitude Toward Two Varieties 70
4.4.2 Language Use 74
Chapter Five Conclusion 78
5.1 Summary of Findings 78
5.2 Innovation of («) and (ö) Variables in Kinmen 80
5.3 Limitation 82
5.4 Suggestions 82
References 84
Chinese References 86
Appendix 1 88
Appendix 2..............................................90
Appendix 3 ..............................................94
Appendix 4..............................................96
Appendix 5 ..............................................98
Barnes, J. A. (1954). Class and committees in a Norwegian Island parish. Human
Relations. 7 (1): 39-58.
Cargile, A. C., Giles, H., Ryan, E. B., & Bradac, J. J. (1994). Language
attitudes as a social process: a conceptual model and new directions. Language
and Communication, 14 (3), 211-236.
Cargile, A. C. & Giles, H. (1997). Understanding language attitudes: exploring
listener affect and identity. Language and Communication, 17(3), 195-217.
Chambers, J. K. (1995). Sociolinguistic theory: linguistic variation and its
social significance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chambers, J. K. & Trudgill, P. (1998). Dialectology. Cambridge University
Press.
Cooper, R. L. & Fishman, J. A. (1974). The study of language attitude. 
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 3:5-19.
Cote, P. & Clement, R. (1994). Language attitudes; an interactive situated
approach. Language and Communication, 14(3), 237-251.
Dorian, N. (1980). Language shift in community and individual: the phenomenon
of the laggard semi-speaker. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 25:85-94.
Eckert, P. (1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation.
Language Variation and Change, 1:245-268.
Fasold, R. W. (1984). The sociolinguistic of society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Fischer, J. L. (1958). Social influences on the choice of linguistic variant.
Word, 14:47-56.
Fought, C. (1999). A majority sound change in a minority community: /u/-
fronting in Chicano English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(1): 5-23.
Fu, Jo-Wei. (1999). Chinese tonal variation and social network a case study in
Tantzu junior high school Taichung. Taiwan. Taichung: Providence University. M.
A. Thesis.
Giles, H. (1973a). Accent mobility: a model and some data. Anthropological
Linguistics, 15(2): 287-105.
-----.(1973b). Towards a theory of interpersonal accommodation through
language: Some Canadian data. Language in Society, 2, 177-192.
Gumperz, J. J. & J. Cook-Gumperz. (1982). Introduction: Language and the
communication of social identity. In Gumperz, J.J. (Ed.). Language and social
identity. London: Cambridge University Press. Pp1-21.
Gynan, S. N. (1998). Migration patterns and language maintemance in Paraguay. 
Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2 (2): 259-270.
Hudson, R. A. (1983). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Jang, S. C. (1993). Attitudes toward language varieties and language
policies. First annul workshop of Linguistics. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.,
Ltd.
Kinmen Show. (1999, July 25). [Online article for Kinmen Website]. Retrieved
February 13, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://horng.how.com.tw.html
Krishnamurti BH. (1998). Regularity of sound change through lexical diffusion:
A study of s>h>ψ in Condi dialects. Language variation and change, 10(2): 193-
220.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: university of
Pennsylvania Press.
---(1994). Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Ladegaard, H. J. (1998a). Boys, girls, language and identity: language
attitudes and linguistic behaviour in a rural community in Denmark.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 3-25.
--- (1998b). National stereotypes and language attitudes: the perception of
British, American and Australian language and culture in Denmark. Language and
Communication,18, 251-274.
---(2000). Language attitudes and sociolinguistic behaviour: Exploring
attitude-behaviour relations in language. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2),
214-233.
Li, M. C. (1995). A sociolinguistic variation study of Chinese retroflex
initials /T§/, /T§/ and /§/ in Taiwan. Taichung: Providence University. M.
A. Thesis.
Light, D., S. Keller & C. Calhoun. (1989). Sociology. 5th Ed. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Milroy, L. & Milroy, J. (1992). Social network and social class: Toward an
integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in society, 21:1-26.
Milroy, L. & Milroy, L. (1978). Belfast: change and variation in an urban
vernacular. In Trudgill, P. (Ed.) Sociolinguistic patterns in British English.
London: Edward Arnold. Pp.19-36.
Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks. 2nd Ed. Baltimore: University
Park.
Rau. Der-Hwa V.(2000). Phonological variation and sound change in Atayal.
Oceanic Linguistics, 39(1), 144-156.
Ryan, E.B., Giles, H. & Sebastian, R. (1982). An intergrative perspective for
the study of attitudes toward language variation. In Ryan, E. and Giles, H. (
Eds), Attitudes Towards Language Variation, 2:1-19. Arnold, London.
Sankoff, G. & Nagy, N. (Ed.). (1997). Variation in the use of discourse
markers in a language contact situation. Language variation and change, 9:191-
217.
Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Vries, J. D. (1994). Ganada’s officials language communities: an overview of
the current demolinguistic situation. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language, 105-106:37-68.
Yaeger-Dror, M. (1989).Patterned symmetry of shifting and lengthened vowels in
the Montreal French vernacular. In :Ralph W. Fasold & Deborah Schiffrin (
eds.), Language change and variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, B.V.
Chinese References
王力. 1996. 漢語史稿. 北京. 中華書局.
王芸亭、黃婷鈺. 1995. 閩南與鹿港方言母音轉變之社會調查. 第二屆台灣語言國際研討
會論文選集. 台北. 文鶴出版公司. p. p. 397-417.
何大安. 1993. 聲韻學中的觀念和方法. 台北. 大安出版社.
周長楫. 1986. 福建境內閩南方言的分類. 語言研究. 第二期. P.p. 68-84.
金門國家公園. 1999. 金門人文采丰:金門國家公園人文史蹟調查. 金門國家公園.
金門縣立社會教育館. 1992. 金門縣志. 金門:金門縣政府.初版.
金門縣社會局. 2000. 金門縣政府因應開放小三通勞動市場因應措施報告.
金門縣政府民政局. 1998. 年終靜態統計報表.
洪惟仁. 1992. 台灣方言之旅. 台北. 前衛出版社. P.p. 57-149.
----------- 1996. <彙音妙悟>與古代泉州音. 台北. 國立中央圖書館台灣分館.
----------- 1997. 高雄縣閩南語方言. 高雄. 高雄縣政府.
許維民. 1992. 金門之旅. 台北. 設計家.
張屏生. 1994. 金門方言的語音系統---以金城鎮的方言為例. 第十二屆全國聲韻學會學術
研討會論文.
-----------1996. 同安方言及其部分相關方言的語音調查和比較. 國立台灣師大國文所博
士論文.
張振興. 1993. 台灣閩南方言紀略. 台北. 文史哲出版社.
曹逢甫、蔡美慧. 1995. 廈門音與漳州音開合口對調(flip-flop)的歷史原因. 第一屆台
灣語言國際研討會論文選集. 台北. 文鶴出版公司. p. p. 407-418.
許長安. 1993. 廈門話文. 廈門. 鷺江出版社. 第1版第1次印刷.
陳漢光. 1968. 金門語研究. 福建文獻. 第三期. P.P. 58-66.
楊秀芳. 1991. 台灣閩南語語法稿. 台北. 大安出版社.
董忠司. 1993. 台南市方言中的「«」元音與元音重組. 中華學苑. 43期. P.p. 23-
46.
木通口靖. 1988. 台灣鹿港方言的一些語言特點. 現代台灣話研究論文集. 台北. 文鶴出
版公司. p. p. 1-15.
劉秀雪. 1998. 金門瓊林方言探討. 國立清華大學碩士論文.
鄭良偉、曾金金、李櫻、盧廣誠. 2000. 大學台語文選. 台北. 遠流出版公司.
鄭縈. 1994. 金門官澳方言初探. 余光雄、魏捷茲編. 金門暑期人類學田野工作教室論文
集. 台北.中央研究院民族學研究所. p. p. 37-55.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 林海清(1998),〈道德教育的省思與探討〉,《南投文教》,第11期,頁27-41。
2. 林淑瓊(2003),〈淺談全人教育〉,《海軍軍官》,第22卷,第1期,頁70-75。
3. 林俊瑩(2000),〈國小道德課程設計的模式分析與落實方向〉,《訓育研究》,第39卷,第4期,頁72-80。
4. 林俊瑩(2003),〈康德(I.Kant)與邊沁(J.Bentham)道德論的批評及對學校道德教育的意義〉,《學生事務》,第42卷,第1期,頁10-17。
5. 林思伶(2000),〈淺淡倫理教育教學法〉,《哲學與文化》,第27卷,第4期,頁362-371。
6. 何秀珠(1995),〈價值澄清-從學校走入家庭〉,《竹縣文教》,第10期,頁11-18。
7. 吳曉菁(2002),〈康德的哲學思想及其在教育上的啟示〉,《教育文粹》,第31期,頁11-16。
8. 吳宗立(1999),〈康德道德哲學對中小學道德教育的啟示〉,《人文及社會學科教學通訊》,第9卷,第5期,頁145-154。
9. 沈清松(1997),〈道德教育的道德哲學基礎〉,《人文及社會學科教學通訊》,第8卷,第2期,頁6-17。
10. 沈清松(1998),〈非哲學專長教師講授專業倫理學的倫理認知〉,《哲學與文化》,第25卷,第8期,頁690-705+789。
11. 李奉儒(2004),〈九年一貫課程中實施道德教育的困境與突破〉,《學生輔導雙月刊》,頁38-55。
12. 李奉儒(1997),〈自由與理性的正反論題:道德自律與道德教育的探究〉,《暨大學報》,第1卷,第1期,頁265-283+338-339。
13. 李奉儒(1997),〈後現代倫理學與德育蘊義〉,《研習資訊》,第14卷,第1期,頁57-63。
14. 李明輝(1981),〈康德「道德情感」學說之演變—「康德哲學中道德情感問之研究」(3)〉,《鵝湖》,第78期,頁22-31。
15. 李明輝(1981),〈康德「道德情感」學說之演變—「康德哲學中道德情感問之研究」(2)〉,《鵝湖》,第77期,頁46-52。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔