本文以漢語多義動詞「放」的詞彙語義為探究主題。根據五部詞典和黃郁純與陳薌宇（2005）的研究，「放」的義項少則七項、多則十六項。然而，藉由格式語法和框架語義學分析[放＋名詞]、[放＋補語]兩種格式，本文發現動作動詞「放」具有兩個義項：（1）置放義，以放1表示；（2）釋放義，以放2表示。根據Evans and Tyler（2004a）提出的「有理據多義詞分析（principled polysemy）」，放1是受到「離開有界處所」與「解除束縛狀態」的推理關係規約化而引申出放2，這個推理關係由人的日常經驗所驅動。放1和放2的差別顯現於言談焦點的不同，當語者使用放1時，較關注放1的終點論元；當語者使用放2時，較強調放2的起點論元，同時隱含施事使客體從容器內向外釋放之動作目的。
　　本文以張麗麗、陳克健、黃居仁（2000）所提出的「模組─屬性動詞語義表徵模式」比較「放」與其他置放動詞如「排、堆、擱」等的語義差異，認為「放」是置放動詞群中用法最泛化、最無標者。此外，本文探討了[放＋名詞]的詞彙化型態，總共歸結出詞組、離合詞、複合詞、慣用語性組合、以及慣用語性片語等五種型態。
　　本文之研究成果對對外漢語教學具有若干啟示。依據鄧守信（1997-2009），對外漢語教學應遵守基本義先教、引申義後教的原則，先教放1再教放2。在檢視了當前的漢語教材之後，本文指出需要調整之教材內容，並對教師與教材設計者提出若干建議。

This study aims to investigate the lexical semantics of the verb fang4 in Mandarin Chinese. Though it is well-acknowledged that fang4 is polysemous, there is a lack of consensus about how many senses fang4 has. On the basis of five Chinese dictionaries and the study of Huang and Chen (2005), the amount of its sense ranges from seven to sixteen. With the theories of Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics, this study finds that as an action verb, fang4 has two senses. The primary sense is “to put” and the extended sense is “to release.” From the perspective of principled polysemy (Evans and Tyler 2004a), the meaning extension of fang4 is motivated by the conventionalization of inference related to life experience. Concerning the discourse prominence of arguments, this study indicates that speaker put much discourse prominence to the argument of location when using the primary sense. However, in view of the extended sense, what they emphasize will be the importance of the source argument, implying a purpose of releasing themes from source containers.
Comparing the nuances with other verbs carrying similar lexical meaning in Chinese (i.e., the meaning of putting) such as pai2, dui1, and ge1 by MARVS (Chang et al. 2000), this study proposes that fang4 is the most unmarked and generalized verb among them. Besides, by analyzing the degrees of lexicalization of [fang4+N] ([VN]) construction, this study propounds that there are five lexical types of [VN]: phrases, separable words, compounds, idiomatic combinations, and idiomatic phrases.
The findings of this study have implications for the pedagogical grammar of Chinese as a second language. According to Teng (1997-2009), the primary sense of fang4 should be learned before the extended sense. After surveying the present teaching materials, this study points out that some contents need to be adjusted and offers suggestions to teachers and designers of teaching materials.

英文文獻
Ahrens, Kathleen Ahrens and Chu-Ren Huang. 2001. A Comparative Study of English and Chinese Synonym Pairs: An Approach Based on the Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics. In B. T’sou et al. (eds.), Proceedings of PACLIC 15: 27-32.
Ahrens, Kathleen, Chu-Ren Huang and Yuan-hsun Chuang. 2003. Sense and Meaning Facets in Verbal Semantics: A MARVS Perspective. Language and Linguistics 4.3: 469-484.
Anttila, Raimo. 1989 [1972]. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia : John Benjamins.
Beckner, Clay and Joan Bybee. 2009. A Usage-based Account of Constituency and Reanalysis. Language Learning 59: 27-46.
Brinton, Laurel J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, Joan and Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The Effect of Usage on Degrees of Constituency: The Reduction of Don’t in English. Linguistics 37-4: 575-596.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1968. Idiomaticity as an Anomaly in the Chomskyan Paradigm. Foundations of Language 4: 109-127.
Chamizo, Domínguez Pedro J. and Brigitte Nerlich. 2002. False Friends: Their Origin and Semantics in Some Selected Languages. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1833-1849.
Charles N Li and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese : A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley and LA : University of California Press.
Chief, Lian-Cheng, Chu-Ren Huang, Keh-Jiann Chen, Mei-Chin Tsai, and Li-li Chang. 2000. What Can Near Synonyms Tell Us? Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 5.1: 47-60.
Chuang, Shirley Yuan-Hsun. 2003. Sense Distinction of Verbs in English and Mandarin Chinese: An analysis of ''set'' and ''bai''. Taipei: National Taiwan University MA thesis.
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, Vyvyan and Andrea Tyler. 2004a. Spatial Experience, Lexical Structure and Motivation: The Case of In. In G. Radden and K. Panther (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Motivation, 157-192. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, Vyvyan and Andrea Tyler. 2004b. Rethinking English "Prepositions of Movement": The Case of To and Through. In H. Cuyckens, W. de Mulder and T. Mortelmans (eds.), Adpositions of Movement, 247-270. （Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 18）. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 1996. Blending as a Central Process of Grammar. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, 113-129. Stanford: CSLI.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111-137. Seoul: Hanshin.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6.2: 222-254.
Fillmore, Charles J., and Berl T. S. Atkins. 1992. Toward a Frame-based Lexicon: The Semantics of RISK and its Neighbors. In Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay (eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, 75-102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gao, Hong. 2001. The Physical Foundation of the Patterning of Physical Action Verbs: A Study of Chinese Verbs. Travaux de l’nstitut de linguistique de Lund XLI. Lund: Lund University.
Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York : Academic Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W. JR. 1999. Taking Metaphor out of Our Heads and Putting it Into the Cultural World. In Raymond W. Gibbs, JR. and Geradr J. Steen (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Fifth International Cognitive Linguistic Conference, Amsterdam, 1997, 145-166. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 219-224.
Goldberg, Adele E., Casenhiser, Devin and Sethuramen, Nitya. 2004. Learning Argument Structure Generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 289-316.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Argument Realization: The Role of Constructions, Lexical Semantics and Discourse Factors. In Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and Cross-language dimensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gudykunst, W. B., and Kim, Y. Y. 2003. Communicating With Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Guo, Bi-Yun. 2003. A Lexical Semantic Study of Mandarin Verbs of Moving––On the Near-Synonym Set: BAN, QIAN and YI. Hsinchu: National Chaio Tung University MA Thesis.
Hopper, Paul and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hsieh, Shelley Ching-yu and Elena Kolodkina. 2007. Frame Semantics and Languaculture: Plant Fixed Expressions in Mandarin Chinese and English. Studies in International Cultures. 3(2): 1-33.
Huang, Chu-Ren and Kathleen Ahrens. 2000. The Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics. In A. Ikeya and M. Kawamori (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information, and Computation , 104-120.
Huang, Chu-Ren, Kathleen Ahrens, Li-Li Chang, Keh-Jiann Chen, Mei-Chun Liu and Mei-Chi Tsai. 2000. The Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics: From Semantics to Argument Structure. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 5.1: 19-46.
Kövecses, Zoltán and Günter Radden. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a Cognitive Linguistic View. Cognitive Linguistics 9.1: 37-77.
Kövecses, Z. 2000. Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202-251.
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. New Reflections on Grammaticalization and Lexicalization. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New Reflections onGrammaticalization: 1-19. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lien, Chinfa. 2000. A Frame-based Account of Lexical Polysemy in Taiwanese. Language and Linguistics 1.1: 119-138.
Lipka, Leonhard. 1992. Lexicalization and Institutionalization in English and German. Linguistica Pragensia 1: 1-13.
Luo, Wan Jyun. 2007. Piong3 ‘Put’ and Its Congeners in Hakka: Frames and Constructions. Taipei: National Chengchi University MA thesis.
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sang, and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70: 491-538.
Piaget, Jean. 2000 [1969]. The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books.
Piaget, Jean. 1997 [1959]. The Language and Thought of the Child. London; New York: Routledge.
Radden, Günter and Zoltán Kövecses. 1999. Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Talmy, Leonare. 2007 [1985]. Lexical Typologies. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon Vol.3: 66-168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teliay, Veronika, Natalya Bragina, Elena Oparina, and Irina Sandomirskaya. 1998. Phraseology as a Language of Culture: Its Role in the Representation of a Collective Mentality.” In A. P. Cowie (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, 55-75. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Teng, Shou-hsin. 1997. Towards a Pedagogical Grammar of Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association 32.3: 29-40.
Teng, Shou-hsin. 1998. Sequencing of Structures in a Pedagogical Grammar. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association 33.3: 41-52.
Teng Shou-hsin. 2003a. Guidelines for Grammatical Description in L2 Chinese. Chinese Teaching in the World (世界漢語教學)1: 75-86.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English. Language 65: 31-55.
Tsai, Li Chung. 1994. The Metaphor of Body-parts in Chinese. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University MA Thesis.
Tsao, Feng-fu. 1996. On Verb Classification in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 24.1: 138 191.
Tsao, Feng-fu. 2001. Semantics and Syntax of Verbal and Adjectival Reduplication in Mandarin and Taiwanese Minnan. In Hillary. C. (ed.) Sinitic Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, 285-308. England: Oxford University Press.
Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans. 2001. Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of Over. Language 77.4: 724-765.
Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Verbs and Times. In Z. Vendler (ed.), Linguistics in Philosophy, 97-121. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Wang, Yu-fang. 1995. A cognitive account of the lexical polysemy of Chinese Kai. In Proceedings of the Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 103-107. Language Information Sciences Research Center, City University of Hong Kong, H.K. Doc. 27-28.
Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization Versus Lexicalization – “Methinks” There is Some Confusion. In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein (eds.), Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English, 355-370.
Yu, Ning. 1995. Metaphorical Expressions of Anger and Happiness in English and Chinese. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10.2: 59–92.
Yu, Ning. 1998. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: a Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Yu, Ning. 2002. Body and Emotion: Body Parts in Chinese Expression of Emotion. In Nick Enfield and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.), special issue “The Body in Description of Emotion: Cross-Linguistic Studies,” Pragmatics and Cognition 10(1/2): 341–367.
Yu, Ning. 2003. Metaphor, Body, and Culture: The Chinese Understanding of Gallbladder and Courage. Metaphor and Symbol 18.1: 13–31.

中文文獻
中央研究院詞知識庫小組. 1993. 中文詞類分析技術報告93-05. 南港：中央研究院詞知識庫小組.
中國社會科學院語言研究所詞典編輯室編. 1996. 現代漢語詞典. 北京：商務印書館.
杉村博文. 1983. 試論趨向補拿語”.下””.下來””.下去”的引申用法. 收於北京語言學院語言教學研究所編：現代漢語補語研究資料，頁451-465. 北京：北京語言學院.
呂叔湘. 1983 [1980]. 現代漢語八百詞. 北京：商務印書館.
巫宜靜、劉美君. 2001. 心理動詞「想、認為、以為、覺得」的語意區分及訊息表達─以語料庫為本的分析方法. Proceedings of the 14th Research on Computational Linguistics Conference（第十四屆計算語言學研討會論文集）.
肖國政、刑福義. 1984. 同一語義指向的”動╱趨來”. 收於北京語言學院語言教學研究所編：現代漢語補語研究資料，頁572-589. 北京：北京語言學院.
林杏光、王玲玲、孫德金主編. 1994. 現代漢語動詞大詞典. 北京：北京語言學院.
林依穎. 2008. 漢語並列複合動詞之近義詞探析─以「需要」為例. 臺北：輔仁大學碩士論文.
林若望. 2002. 論現代漢語的時制意義. Language and Linguistics 3.1: 1-25.
具孝靜. 2009. 現代漢語複合詞的研究與教學應用. 臺北：國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文.
孟琮、鄭懷德、孟慶海、蔡文蘭編. 1999. 漢語動詞用法詞典. 上海：上海辭書出版社出版.
洪心衡. 1963. 綜論賓語和補語的一些問題. 收於北京語言學院語言教學研究所編：現代漢語補語研究資料，213-232. 北京：北京語言學院.
洪進鋒. 1990. 台灣民俗之旅. 臺北市：武陵.
孫維張. 1989. 漢語熟語學. 吉林：吉林教育出版社.
國立臺灣師範大學主編. 2008. 實用視聽華語. 臺北：正中書局.
陳月鳳. 2006. 閩南語五官詞彙研究. 高雄：國立高雄師範大學碩士論文.
連金發. 1999. 台灣閩南語〈頭〉的構詞方式. 收於殷允美、楊懿麗、詹惠珍編：中國境內語言暨語言學•第五輯•語言中的互動，289-309. 中央研究院語言學研究所籌備處會議論文輯之二.
連金發. 2000. 構詞學問題探索. 漢學研究，18：61-78.
連金發. 2004. 台灣閩南語「放」的多重功能：探索語意和形式的關係. 漢學研究 22，頁391-418.
連金發. 2007. 動賓式慣用語探索. 中國語言學集刊，2.1：187-209.
梅家駒主編. 1999. 現代漢語搭配詞典. 上海：漢語大詞典出版社.
曹逢甫. 1994. 動賓複合詞、殊指性與間接賓語提前. 華文世界，73：29 32.
曹逢甫. 2000. 華語虛詞的研究與教學—以「呢」字為例. 世界華語文教育學會編第六屆世界華語文研討會論文集第一冊：語文分析組，1-25. 台北：世界華文出版社.
曹逢甫、蔡立中、劉秀瑩. 2001. 身體與譬喻：語言與認知的首要介面. 臺北：文鶴出版有限公司.
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. Language and Linguistics 6.4: 681-705.
張麗麗、陳克健、黃居仁. 2000. 漢語動詞詞彙語意分析：表達模式與研究方法. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 5.1: 1-18.
黃居仁、張莉萍、安可思、陳超然. 1999. 詞彙語意和句式語意的互動關係. 中國境內語言暨語言學，5：413-438.
黃郁純、陳薌宇. 2005. 以語料庫為本分析詞語搭配及近義關係. 華語文教學研究，2.2：57-71.
黃郁純. 2006. 說「放」和「擺」：從事件訊息結構和身體動作動詞的詞彙語義進行初探. 華語文教學研究 ，3.1：27-44.
董秀芳. 2000. 動詞性並列式複合詞的歷時發展特點與詞化程度的等級. 河北師
範大學學報（社會科學版），23.1：57-63.
董秀芳. 2002a. 論句法結構的詞彙化. 語言研究，3：57-65.
董秀芳. 2002b. 詞彙化：漢語雙音詞的衍生和發展. 成都：四川民族出版社.
葉德明主編. 2003. 遠東生活華語. 臺北：遠東圖書公司.
賈寶楠. 2011年，3月7日. 專門「放鴿子」 分紅上百萬. 聯合報，A8版.
劉月華、潘文娛、故韡. 1996. 實用現代漢語語法. 臺北：師大書苑.
劉秀瑩. 1997. 身體部位譬喻現象與文化差異. 新竹：國立清華大學碩士論文.
劉珣主編. 2002. 新實用漢語課本. 北京：北京語言大學.
鄧守信. 2003b. 對外漢語語法點難易度的評定. 對外漢語教學語法探索：首屆國際對外漢語教學語法研討會論文集，102-111.　北京：中國社會科學出版社.
鄧守信. 2009. 對外漢語教學語法（修訂版）. 臺北：文鶴出版有限公司.
鄭縈、魏郁真2006. 「X＋子」詞彙化與語法化過程. 興大中文學報，20：163-208.
鄭縈、陳雅雯. 2009. 閩南語「頭」字的用法與其教學. 臺灣語文研究，3：65-92.
謝健雄. 2006. 漢語成語情感譬喻之概念模式與語言結構. UST Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 43-65.
鍾榮富. 2001. 福爾摩沙的烙印：臺灣客家話導論. 臺北：文建會.
蘇以文. 2005. 隱喻與認知. 臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心.

統計資料
國語辭典簡編本編輯小組. 1997. 國語辭典簡編本編輯資料字詞頻統計報告. http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/m0001/pin/c11.htm?open
教育部國語推行委員會. 1999. 八十七年口語語料調查報告書. http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/m0001/87oral/index.htm?open

語料庫及網站
上古漢語語料庫. http://hanji.sinica.edu.tw
中文詞彙特性速描系統. http://wordsketch.ling.sinica.edu.tw
中央研究院近代漢語語料庫. http://db1x.sinica.edu.tw/cgi-bin/kiwi/pkiwi/pkiwi.sh
中央研究院現代漢語平衡語料庫. http://dbo.sinica.edu.tw/SinicaCorpus
台灣新聞智慧網. http://tnsw.infolinker.com.tw
全球華語文數位教與學資源中心. http://elearning.ling.sinica.edu.tw
教育部重編國語辭典修訂本. http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw
漢籍電子文獻資料庫. http://hanchi.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/ihp/hanji.htm
聯合知識庫. http://udndata.com