台灣華語形狀量詞的真實性｜國立清華大學博碩士論文庫

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	黃鴻盛 Hung-Sheng Huang
論文名稱：	台灣華語形狀量詞的真實性 The Reality of Shape Classifiers in Taiwan Mandarin
指導教授：	王旭 Hsu Samuel Wang
口試委員:
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 語言學研究所 Institute of Linguistics
論文出版年：	2004
畢業學年度：	92
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	80
中文關鍵詞：	分類、華語形狀量詞、評分測驗、反應時間測驗
外文關鍵詞：	categorization, Mandarin shape classifiers, rating test, reaction time test
相關次數：	點閱：2 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

分類的概念在人類的認知行為或語言使用上扮演著重要的角色。華語是一個量詞性的語言，而量詞的選擇則是根據名詞的語意特質所決定的。本論文針對華語形狀量詞（一維量詞︰根、支/枝、條；二維量詞：張、面、片；三維量詞：顆、粒）做為研究基礎，並以兩個實驗（評分實驗及反應時間實驗）的結果與過去文獻做比較，找出現代華語形狀量詞使用的真實性。我們發現，現在的量詞使用與過去相較之下，存在其量詞間的語意界線越來越不明顯。

一維量詞主要是針對長狀物體之『彈性』或『硬性』的特質去做分類。條除了區分長狀物體之外，也可與薄且有彈性之平面物體做結合。支/枝其語意特質較偏向『硬性』，條則較偏向『彈性』，根則介於兩者之間。這樣的結果與文獻中理想的量詞典型是不同的。文獻中，根及支/枝同屬『硬性』，根只與『可附著或有根的』物體做結合以區別支/枝的用法，而支/枝與條的區別則在『硬性』的使用上，條比較偏向『彈性』。

二維量詞主要是針對平面物體之『彈性』或『硬性』的特質去做分類。張較面或片具有『彈性』特質。面較片具有『硬性』特質。然而，在理想的量詞典型之下，張只與『彈性』物體結合，片只與『小的』物體結合。而張與面雖然都可與『厚的』或『薄的』物體做結合，但針對張與面所強調的語意特質或功能性皆為『薄的』那一面，因此面的語意特質亦為『薄的』與張一致，此點在理想量詞中是不同的。

三維量詞主要是針對圓形物體做分類，顆與粒皆含有『大』或『小』的語意特質。然而，在理想量詞典型中，顆是與『小』的物體結合，粒是與『更小』物體結合。

Categorization plays an important role in human cognition and language. Mandarin is a language whose noun phrases need to be accompanied by classifiers on the basis of their specific characteristics. In this study we used rating test and reaction time test to investigate the reality the speakers attach to the use of shape classifiers in Mandarin. The classifiers under investigation included the one dimensional classifiers (gen, zhi, and tiao), the two dimensional classifiers (zhang, mian and pian) and the three dimensional classifiers (ke and li). By comparing the real usage with the idealized norm in the literature, we can get a conclusion that we can see that the boundary among the classifiers in each dimensional classifier is not as clear as it was in the past.
The one dimensional classifiers are primarily to classify long shaped objects which are either flexible or rigid. Tiao can also denote two dimensional objects which must be thin and flexible. Zhi is salient for the feature ‘rigidity’, tiao is salient for the feature ‘flexibility’, and gen is in between. This is different from the idealized norm in the literature, in which gen is considered to be used only for attached or rooted objects to tell from zhi, while zhi is considered to be used only for rigid objects to tell from tiao, and tiao is considered to be only for flexible objects.
The two dimensional classifiers are primarily to classify flat and thin objects which are either flexible or rigid. Zhang is more salient than mian and pian in the feature ‘flexibility’. Mian is more salient than pian in the feature ‘rigidity’. However, in the idealized norm, zhang is used only for flexible objects and pian is used only for small objects. Mian carries the semantic feature ‘thick or thin’ in the idealized norm, which is different from our finding where mian is salient for the functional property of ‘thin’.
The three dimensional classifiers are primarily to denote round objects which are either big or small, but in the idealized norm, ke is for small objects and li is only for very small objects.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENGLISH ABSTRACT……...…………………………………………………..i
CHINESE ABSTRACT..………………………………………………………..ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..…………………………………………………..iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………….iv
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………….vii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………...............................................ix

CAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION..…………………….………………………..1
1.1 Introduction……………………………………………….………………….1
1.2 Purposes of the Study…………………………………….…………………..4
1.3 Organization of the Thesis……………………………….………….………..5

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE……………………………….6
2.1 The Development of Categorization Thesis…………………………….……6
2.2 Some Concepts of Mandarin Noun Classifiers………………………………9
2.2.1 Classifiers versus Measure Words…………………………………...10
2.2.2 Categories of Mandarin Classifiers………………….………………13
2.2.3 Semantic Features of Mandarin Shape Classifiers…………….…….14
2.2.3.1 One Dimensional Classifiers (Longness)…………….……15
2.2.3.2 Two Dimensional Classifiers (Flatness)……………….…..16
2.2.3.3 Three Dimensional Classifiers (Roundness)………………18


CHPTER 3. THE EXPERIMENT……………………………………..…...19
3.1 Experiment I (Rating Test)………………………………………………….19
3.1.1 Subjects…………………………………………..……………….....19
3.1.2 Stimuli…………………………………………………………….....19
3.1.3 Procedures…………………………………………….......................20
3.1.4 Results…………………………………………………………….....21
3.1.4.1 One Dimensional Classifiers……………………………..…23
3.1.4.2 Two Dimensional Classifiers……………………..................26
3.1.4.3 Three Dimensional Classifiers……………………………...29
3.2 Experiment II (Reaction Time Test)………………………………………...31
3.2.1 Subjects………………………………………………………..….....31
3.2.2 Stimuli…………………………………………………………….....31
3.2.3 Procedures……………………………………………..………..…...32
3.2.4 Results…………………………………………………..………..….33

CHAPTER 4. DISCUSSION.………………………..………….……………37
4.1 One Dimensional Classifiers………………………………………………..38
4.2 Two Dimensional Classifiers………………………………………..............42
4.3 Three Dimensional Classifiers………………………………………….......45
4.4 Prototype and Family Resemblance in Each Classifier……………………..48
4.4.1 One Dimensional Classifiers………………….……………………..49
4.4.2 Two Dimensional Classifiers……………………………...................52
4.4.3 Three Dimensional Classifiers……………………………..………..54



CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS...……………...55
5.1 Conclusion…………………………………………………………….…….55
5.2 Implications and Further Research…………………………….……………56
5.2.2 Implications………………………………………………………….56
5.2.3 Further Research…………………………………………………….56

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..58

APPENDIX……………………………………………………….……………….61
    Appendix I: Answer Sheet of the Rating Test……………………………………...61
    Appendix II: Reaction Time Test……………………………………………...…...66
 Appendix III: The Average Rating Scores of Each Item and Its Acceptability..…..67
    Appendix IV: The Frequency and Average Scores of Rating Test……………........71
    Appendix V: The Frequency (F), Average (AVE) and Standard Deviation (SD)
on YES Reaction Time………………………………………….75
    Appendix VI: The Frequency (F), Average (AVE) and Standard Deviation (SD)
on NO Reaction Time…………………………………………….78










LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Background Information of the Rating Test Subjects………………….……19
Table 2 The Highest and Lowest Scores in Each Level………………………….…..22
Table 3 The Ratio of One Dimensional Noun Counts in Each Physical Attribute.…..23
Table 4 Semantic Features of One Dimensional Classifiers………………………....24
Table 5 The Shared Semantic Properties of Each Two Classifiers………………..….24
Table 6 The Object with the Highest Score in the Good Use Level and the Lowest
Score in the Ok Use Level to Each Physical Attribute…………….…….….25
Table7 The Ratio of Two Dimensional Noun Counts in Each Physical Attribute…...26
Table 8 Semantic Features of Two Dimensional Classifiers………………………....27
Table 9 The Shared Semantic Properties of Each two Classifiers…………………....28
Table 10 The Object with the Highest Score in the Good Use Level and the Lowest
Score in the Ok Use Level to Each Physical Attribute…………….………28
Table11 The Ratio of Three Dimensional Noun Counts in Each Physical Attribute...29
Table 12 Semantic Features of Three Dimensional Classifiers……………………....29
Table 13 The Shared Semantic Properties of Both Ke and Li………………………..30
Table 14 The Object with the Highest Score in the Good Use Level and the Lowest
Score in the Ok Use Level to Each Physical Attribute…………….………30
Table 15 Background Information of the Reaction Time Test Subjects………...…...31
Table 16 Idealized Norm vs. Realities in Singapore………………………………....37
Table 17 The Idealized Norm and Reality of One Dimensional Classifiers
in Taiwan…………………………………………………………………..38
Table 18 The Idealized Norm and Reality of Two Dimensional Classifiers
in Taiwan…………………………………………………………………..42
Table 19 The Idealized Norm and Reality of Three Dimensional Classifiers
in Taiwan…………………………………………………………………..46
Table 20 The Precious Objects and Their Correlated Classifiers’ Rating Values..…...47
Table 21 The Precious Objects and Their Correlated Classifiers’
Reaction Time Values……………………………………………………...47
Table 22 The Idealized Norm and Real Usage of Ke Family in Taiwan………….….48
Table 23 Family Resemblance of Each Classifier…………………………………....48








LIST OF FIGURES

Fig 1 The correlation of rating test and reaction time test…………………….…….33
Fig 2 The correlation of rating test (score 1~5) and NO-button reaction time test….34
Fig 3 The correlation of rating test (score 5.1~10) and YES-button reaction time test…35
Fig 4 Two models for one-dimensional classifiers………………………………..…39
Fig 5 Lien and Wang’s model (1999) for one-dimensional classifiers…………..…..40
Fig 6 Our model for one-dimensional classifiers…………………………………….40
Fig 7 Our model for two-dimensional classifiers…………………………………….44

                                

REFERENCES

Alan, Keith. 1977. ‘Classifiers.’ Language 53:2, 285-311.

Ahrens, Kathleen. 1994. ‘Classifiers Production in Normals and Aphasics.’ Journal of Chinese Linguistics 22:2, 202-246

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: University of Oxford Press.

Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their University and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brown, C. H. 1979. ‘A theory of lexical change (with examples from folk biology, anatomical partonomy, and other domains)’, Anthropological Linguistics 21: 257-6.

Chang-Smith, Meiyun. 2000. ‘Empirical Evidence for Prototypes in Linguistic Categorization Revealed in Mandarin Numeral Classifiers.’ Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 35:2, 19-52.

Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chen, Baocun, Chen Guicheng, Chen Hao, Zhang Zaizhan. 1988. Hanyu Liangci Cidian (A Dictionary of Chinese Classifiers). Fuzhou: Fujian Renmin Chubanshe (People’s Publications)

Chen, Rong-an. 1999. The Semantics of Chinese Classifiers─ A Historical Perspective. Taipei: The Crane Publishing.

Denny, J. Peter. 1976. ‘What are Noun Classifiers Good For?’ In Papers from the Twelfth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, pp122-32. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Frumkina, Rebecca M. and Alexei V. Mikhejev. (1996). Meaning and Categorization. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Guo, Xianchen. 1987. Xiandai Hanyu Liangci Shouce (A handbook of classifiers in Modern Chinese). Beiing: Zhonggguo Heping Chubanshe (China Peace Publications).

Hu, Fu. 1957. Shuci He Liangci (Numerals and classifiers). Hanyu Zhishi Jianghua Series. Shanghai: Jiaoyu Chubanshe (Education Publications). Reprinted in 1984 and 1985.

Huang, Juren, Chen Kejian, Lai qinxong .1997. GuoyuRibao Liangcidian (Mandarin Classifiers Dictionary). Taipei: Guoyu Ribao Publications.

Lakeoff George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Li, Charles and Sandra Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lien, Chinfa and Penying Wang. 1999. ‘Shape Classifier in Mandarin and Taiwanese-A Psycholinguistic Perspective.’ In Ovid Tzeng, ed. The Biological Bases of Language. Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series No 13. University of California at Berkeley 189-221.

Loke, Kit-Ken. 1996. ‘Norms and Realities of Mandarin Shape Classifiers.’ Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 31.2:1-22.

Lu, Shuxiang. 1980. Xiangdai Hanyu Babai Ci (800 Expressions in Modern Chinese grammar). Beijing: Shangwu Yingshuguan (Commercial Publications).

Myers, James. 2000. ‘Rules vs. Analogy in Mandarin Classifier Selection.’ Language and Linguistics 1:187-209.

Myers, James and Jane Tsay. 2002 ‘Grammar and Cognition in Sinitic Noun Classifier Systems’ Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference 199-217.

Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. ‘Cognitive Reference Points.’ Cognitive Psychology 7:532-547.

Senft, Gunter. 2000. Systems of Nominal Classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shi, Yu-Zhi. 1996. ‘Proportion of Extensional Dimensions: the Primary Cognitive Basis for Shape-based Classifiers in Chinese.’ Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 31.2:37-59.

Tai, James H-Y and Lianqing Wang. 1990. ‘A semantic Study of the Classifier Tiao.’ Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 25.1:35-56.

Tai, James H-Y and Fang-Yi Chao. 1994. ‘A semantic Study of the Classifier Zhang.’ Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 29.3:67-78.

Tai, James H-Y and Lianqing Wang. 1994. ‘Chinese Classifier Systems and Human Categorization.’ In Matthew Chen and Ovid Tzeng, eds. Essays in Honor of Professor Williams S-Y Wang, 479-494. Taipei: Pyramid Publishing Company.

Tai, James H-Y. 1996. ‘Categorization Patterns of Classifiers in Taiwanese Southern Min and Their Cognitive Principles.’ [in Chinese] National Science Council project report, Taiwan, NSC 86-2411-H-194-005.

Tsobatzidis, Savas L. 1990. Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization. Landon: Routledge and New York: Champan and Hall.

Wang, Li. 1959. Zhongguo Xiandai Yufa (Modern Chinese grammar), 2 Volumes. Hong Kong: Zonghua Shuju (Zhonghua Book Store). Reprinted in 1971. First published in Beijing in 1943.

Wang, Li. 1987. Zhongguo Yufa Lilun (Theory of Chinese Grammar). Vol. 2. Taichung: Landeng.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文