本文為針對閩南語雙賓式的共時與歷時研究，首先以熟悉的現代臺灣閩南語為先，並對十六世紀、十七世紀、十八與十九世紀的閩南語各共時面依序探討其雙賓句式與雙賓動詞。在共時研究之後，串聯此四個共時面的歷時現象與演變結果，更是本文探討主題。 此研究嘗試以「雙賓家族」的概念來觀察雙賓句式，並介紹語法學者對雙賓句衍生模式的看法，基底結構的語義內涵與表層結構的句型變化，且特別採用格式語法的觀點──即出現於同一句式中的動詞，常具備相同的語義與句法特性，這種相同特性有些是動詞內在的，有些是句式賦予的；注重表層結構的探討，認為整體句式意義大於部分構成要素之和。期待在前人對雙賓句型的描寫和規律的歸納總結之外，探討閩南語雙賓動詞與所帶論元在語義與句式之間的互動。 而閩南語之外，同時也對華語、漢語方言與古漢語雙賓式作簡要的觀察。並透過四個共時面的歷時討論，以對雙賓式相關句式的演變與轉換機制作進一步的探究。 / This is a synchronic and diachronic study of ditransitive constructions in Southern Min. It takes the most familiar modern Taiwanese Southern Min as a point of departure, and then examines Southern Min texts in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth century with respect to ditransitive constructions and ditransitive verbs. The main aim of this study is to map out historical phenomena and the result of evolution by putting together the four synchronic states each of which has been specified. This study tries to capture ditransitive constructions taken as a family. Its scope is therefore broader than the ditransitive constructions in English. In terms of methodology it employs the generative model, and examines the semantic content in underlying structure, and the variety of sentence pattern in surface structure. In particular, this work adopts the methodology of construction grammar in that verbs that appears in the same construction share common semantic and syntactic properties. The common features are attributable to the inherent properties of verbs in some cases, but they may be contributed by constructions in other cases. It therefore stresses the investigation of surface structure on the assumption that the meaning of a whole sentence is much bigger than the sum total of the senses of its part. This work will go beyond what is achieved by previous studies and explore in more detail the interaction between verb and its arguments with respect to meaning and construction. Brief but pertinent observations are also made of ditransitive constructions in Mandarin, Chinese dialects and Old Chinese for the purpose of a comparison with Southern Min. This study tries to generalize the mechanism of the shift and development of ditransitive constructions and other constructions by piecing together the four synchronic states.

本文以《論近代零聲母的形成與演化—以官話區的明清語料及現代方言為主》為題，研究近代至現代零聲母的語音演變現象。我們所討論的議題集中在音韻( phonology )方面，綜觀各韻書、韻圖，在不同的時間點將同質性的語音現象比較觀察，並且分別從共時的、歷時的面向切入，比較現代官話方言的音韻表現，進而追尋語音發展的軌跡。以下列出本文的章節安排，並約略說明每一章所討論的核心問題。 第一章、序論：本章介紹研究動機、材料、目的與方法。針對本文所採用的15本明清語料，分別辨明其年代、反映音系與方音背景。 第二章至第五章：論文逐章針對零聲母的中古來源來做探討，分別是「影、云、以三母」、「疑母」、「微母」和「日母」，每個章節先討論零聲母在明清語料中的擬音及演變的現象，之後再分析現代官話各方言中零聲母的今讀類型，最後在各章小結試圖呈現出零聲母歷時音變和共時地理分佈的現象。 第六章：以不成系統性的其他零聲母來源為主，另立一章來討論現代官話中非系統性的零聲母，並且與「現代國語」非系統性的零聲母例字稍作比對，探討 這類零聲母字異常演變的原因。 第七章、結論：總結全文，說明零聲母從明清至現代官話語流音變的特點，並提出後續研究之展望。

本研究旨在探討社會科學各學科期刊自我引用之情形。根據學者專家意見所做的社會科學範圍比較以及SSCI資料庫中對於社會科學類期刊收錄範圍所做的分類，共同篩選本研究的核心學科期刊，包括：人類學（51種）、商業學（101種）、經濟學（173種）、教育學（124種）、歷史學（54種）、資訊科學與圖書館學（53種）、法律學（99種）、管理學（73種）、政治學（83種）、心理學（423種）、社會工作與社會學（146種）等十一類學科。 採用Thomson Scientific公司所製作之2005年版SSCI的JCR資料庫社會科學學科期刊之引用數據，包括：刊載文章篇數、被引用次數、影響因素、即時引用指數、引用半衰期、被引用半衰期、同時法自我引用率及歷時法自我引用率等八項數據之各學科基本特性介紹，並利用皮爾森相關係數、費雪爾Z轉換、獨立樣本T檢定等統計方法進行分析。 研究結果歸納如下。： 一、社會科學各學科期刊的基本特性分析 1.社會科學期刊出刊頻率以季刊為主，其次為雙月刊，以經濟學的年出刊次數最多樣化，政治學的年出刊次數分佈最廣泛。 2.社會科學學科期刊的年刊載文章篇數，主要分佈在20~29篇，其次是30~39篇。 3.社會科學學科期刊的被引用次數，主要集中在100~199次，其次為分佈在200~299次。 4.期刊影響因素主要集中在0.001~0.999，幾近90%的社會科學期刊影響因素都未達2。 5.即時引用指數以分佈在0.001~0.099之間的居多，即時引用指數大於0.5以上的學科，以法律學最高，其次為心理學。 6.社會科學期刊十一類學科引用的參考文獻，以大於10年以上的資料為大多數，除了資訊科學與圖書館學(5至5.9年)和(法律學7至7.9年) 7.社會科學十一種學科期刊的被引用半衰期，主要是分佈在大於等於10年以上，僅有資訊科學與圖書館學(6年至6.9年)和政治學(5年至5.9年)。 8.十一種社會科學學科期刊的同時法自我引用率分佈，主要集中於1%至9.99%，佔社會科學學科期刊的77.75%。 9.十一種社會科學學科期刊的歷時法自我引用率分佈，主要集中於1%至9.99%(佔40.22%)。其次分佈在10%至19.99%(佔32.54%)。 顯示社會科學期刊在同時法自我引用率比歷時法自我引用率之分佈情形來得相似。 二、社會科學各學科期刊自我引用率與其他引用數據的相關性分析 同時法自我引用率與被引用次數、影響因素；歷時法自我引用率與影響因素為最相關的引用數據，而自我引用率與引用半衰期之相關性極小；歷時法自我引用率與即時引用指數則未有學科達到顯著差異。 三、社會科學各學科期刊自我引用率與其他引用數據的相關性差異分析 十三組引用數據相關係數差異性檢定之中，達到顯著水準的為： 1.同時法自我引用率和刊載文章篇數、被引用次數、影響因素、即時引用指數； 2.歷時法自我引用率和被引用半衰期； 3.同時法自我引用率和歷時法自我引用率等六組引用數據。 四、社會科學各學科期刊引用數據之平均數差異性分析 1.平均數最具差異的引用數據，以引用半衰期為最，其次是影響因素、被引用次數。 2.而以學科來看的話，平均數最具有差異的為歷史學，其次為心理學。 / The purpose of this study is to explore the self-citation researches of western social sciences journals. According to the experts and scholars opinions, and from the classification of social sciences journals registered in SSCI database knowing that the disciplines which including anthropology (51records), business (101records), economics (173records), education (124records), history (54records), information science and library science (53records), law(99records), management (73records), politics (83records), psychology (423records), sociology and social work (146 records) etc. This study adopts the citation data of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) on 2005. The citation data include articles, total cites, impact factor, immediacy index, citing half-life, cited half-life, synchronous self-citation rate, and diachronous self-citation rate. This research analyzes the journals'' basic characteristics and the characteristics of self-citation data on 2005 In this study, first, the correlation between each pair of citation data on the Pearson correlation tests. Second, the Fisher’s Z-Transform examination is used to examine the correlation coefficient variation of citation data. Third, the study focuses on independent-samples T test is used to ascertain whether there were equality and mean difference between the citation data in social sciences. The results of this study revealed: 1. The distributions of basic data of each disciplines journals and the characteristic of the citation data. (1)Most social sciences journals are quarterly, followed by bimonthly. The economics journals are the most diverse in issued numbers each year, and politics journals are the most extensive of the distribution scope each year. (2)The most numbers of published articles of each journal are 20-29 articles, followed by 30-39 articles. (3) The most numbers of citation frequency of each journal are 100-199 times, followed by 200-299 times. (4)The impact factor is between 0.001 and 0.999 mostly. Among the journals which have the impact factor bigger than 2. (5)The immediacy index is concentrated mostly in 0.001~0.099. However, the immediacy index bigger than 0.5 are law and psychology journals mostly. (6)The mostly Citing half-life is focused on 10 to more than 10 year. Except for information science and library science journals concentrate in 5 years to 5.9 years, the law journals are focused on 7 to 7.9 years. (7)In addition to the information science and library science and politics journals are in cited half-life, the rest journals are not aged easily and have the longer life cycle. (8) The most numbers of synchronous self-citation rate of each journal are 1%-9.99%. (9) The most numbers of diachronous self-citation rate of each journal are 1%-9.99%, followed by 10%-19.99%. The synchronous self-citation rate for each discipline journals are similar; whereas diachronous self-citation rate are different 2. The correlation between self-citation rate and other citation data in journals of social sciences. The highest correlations of journals citation data are between the synchronous self-citation rate and total cites, impact factor, and between diachronous self-citation rate and impact factor; but the correlation between self-citation rate and citing half-life is the minimum. However, there is no significant difference between diachronous self-citation rate and immediacy index. 3.The correlation coefficient variation of self-citation rate and other citation data in journals of social sciences. There are six groups citation data in each discipline have significant difference in correlation coefficient included： (1)Synchronous self-citation rate and published articles, total cites, impact factor and immediacy index. (2) Diachronous self-citation rate and cited half-life. (3) Synchronous self-citation rate and Diachronous self-citation rate. 4.The analysis of equality and mean difference between the citation data in social sciences disciplines journals. (1)Citing half-life has the most significant differences. The second is impact factor. The third is total cites. (2)The difference between history and other disciplines is the highest, psychology come next.

本研究採用同時法與歷時法二種文獻老化研究方法，進行資訊檢索領域下系統研究及使用者研究二種主題文獻之老化研究，主要研究重點有二，一是資訊檢索領域下，系統研究及使用者研究二種不同主題文獻老化現象之差異性；二是同一主題文獻下，同時法與歷時法二種不同老化研究方法之文獻衰退情形是否一致。 同時法研究是針對現時某一特定文獻之引用參考文獻進行分析，並測得其引用年齡中數。本研究自LISA資料庫取得2006年資訊檢索領域下系統研究及使用者研究二種主題之相關文獻，作為同時法研究樣本，並利用T檢定檢測系統研究及使用者研究二種主題文獻老化現象之差異。在同時法研究結果方面，系統研究及使用者研究二種主題文獻之引用年齡中數分別為7.25歲與7.98歲，系統研究主題文獻同時法老化速度快於使用者研究主題文獻，但差異不大，T檢定結果亦顯示同時法系統研究及使用者研究二種主題文獻之老化速度無顯著差異。 歷時法研究是分析過去某特定期間所發表之文獻，其逐年被引用情形，並計算其被引用半衰期。本研究利用LISA資料庫取得1996年資訊檢索領域下系統研究及使用者研究二種主題之相關文獻，作為歷時法研究樣本，並利用WOS資料庫，取得其自1996年至2006年間逐年被引用情形。在歷時法研究結果方面，系統研究及使用者研究二種主題文獻之被引用半衰期分別為5.12歲與4.99歲，系統研究主題文獻之歷時法老化速度較使用者研究主題文獻稍慢，二者差異不大，T檢定結果亦顯示歷時法系統研究及使用者研究二種主題文獻之老化速度無顯著差異。 在同時法與歷時法二種研究方法比較部份，就文獻老化速度而言，同時法之引用參考文獻數量於高峰期後，呈現顯著文獻衰退現象；而歷時法達到被引用次數最高峰後，則未呈現明顯文獻衰退現象，可知同時法文獻老化速度較歷時法文獻老化速度快。在柯史（K-S）檢測方面，檢測結果發現，不論系統研究主題文獻或使用者研究主題文獻，同時法與歷時法之文獻老化現象皆不一致。 因此，本研究重要研究結論有二：一是資訊檢索領域下，不會因主題不同而有顯著差異；二是資訊檢索領域下，同時法所測得之文獻老化現象與歷時法所測得之文獻老化現象不一致。 / This obsolescence study uses two kinds of aging research methods - synchronous approach and diachrinous approach. Analyze two subjects of systems-centered and users-centered in the information retrieval field. The main emphasis of the research is two. First, under information retrieval field, the differences between systems-centered and user-centered in obsolescence study. Second, the difference between synchronous approach and diachrinous approach’s aging phenomenon in the same subject. Synchronous approach is targeted at the present of a particular literature references and calculated median citation age. This study acquired the information retrieval field of systems-centered and user-centered’s sample in 2006 from LISA database, and tested the difference between systems-centered and user-centered literature aging with using t-test. The result of synchronous approach, median citation age of systems-centered literature is 7.25 years and median citation age of user-centered literature is 7.98 years. So systems-centered literature aging is faster than user-centered literature. But the difference is small. T test results also revealed that difference between systems-centered and user-centered of literature aging has not significantly. Diachrinous approach was to analyze a particular during the past published literature and observed the cited times each year, and finally calculated its half-life. This study acquired the information retrieval field of systems-centered and user-centered’s sample in 1996 from LISA database, and acquired the cited times each year during 1996 to 2006 from WOS database.The result of diachrinous approach, cited half-life of system-centered literatures is 5.12 and cited half-life of user-centered literatures is 4.99 years. So user-centered literature aging was faster than system-centered literatures. But the difference was small. T test results also revealed that difference between the system-centered and user-centered of literature aging has not significantly Synchronous approach and diachrinous approach methods of comparison. By the literature on the aging speed, cited reference numbers of synchronous approach reached peak period, and the literature curve showed significant recession; cited times of diachrinous approach reached a peak, and literature curve were not significantly recession. It revealed that aging speed of synchronous approach was faster than aging speed of diachrinous approach. In the K-S test, the results showed that synchronous approach and diachrinous approach were inconsistent, whether systems-centered literatures or users-centered literatures. Therefore, the important conclusion of this study are two : First, in the information retrieval field, even different subject there will be no significant differences on literature aging phenomenon; Second, under the information retrieval field, synchronous approach and diachrinous approach which measured the aging phenomenon of literature are inconsistent.