No description available.

本篇論文論證在漢語中動詞以及文獻中所認定的形容詞(putative adjectives)之間的區分是非必要的。本文探討了文獻中區分和辨別漢語形容詞詞類的各項準則，並論證這些準則並無法全面性解釋所有傳統上被視為是形容詞的詞彙，也因此使得漢語語法更加複雜和歧異。文獻中所認定的形容詞在句法上並未呈現出形容詞的特性；相反地，它們無論是從時貌標記來看或就範疇功能(categorial function)等方面而論都與動詞一致。因此，把文獻中所認定的形容詞與動詞歸於一類將可維持漢語語法的簡單性。 此外，我們認為Chomsky (1965)以兩個正負號特徵(±N, ±V)所界定出的四個詞類(名詞、動詞、形容詞以及介係詞)並不是普遍性的(universal)；意即，並非所有語言都需要同時擁有這四個詞類。功能語言學派的看法亦同，他們認為語言中最少只需要兩個詞類來執行語言功能，即動詞與名詞，因此只有這兩個詞類具有普遍性，而另兩個詞類的語意功能可藉由它們來執行。對此，我們引用了缺乏形容詞(如：韓語(cf. Kim 2002a, 2002b))及介係詞(如：賽德克語(cf. Huang 1998))語言的語料來佐證只有動詞與名詞具有普遍性的看法。最後，本文採用Bhat (1994)在觀察跨語言間形容詞詞類的行為表現後所提出的形容詞鑑定標準，來證明漢語中並沒有一個獨立的形容詞詞類。 / This thesis argues that the verb-adjective distinction in Mandarin Chinese is unnecessary. The criteria for identifying a distinct adjectival category have been proposed by many linguists, e.g., Zhu (1982), Yin (2003), Huang et al (2008); however, they fail to accommodate all putative adjectives as a category. A distinct adjective category requires stipulations to account for the verb-adjective distinction and thus complicates the grammar. Descriptively, putative adjectives in Mandarin Chinese do not exhibit adjectival characteristics; rather, they are unmarked predicates and thus behave similarly as verbs in terms of aspectual marking, N’-ellipsis, and reduplication. Putative adjectives should thus be conflated with verbs to maintain the simplicity of the grammar. From a typological perspective, some languages have been argued to lack adjectives (e.g., Korean (cf. Kim 2002)) and others, prepositions (e.g., Seediq (cf. Huang 1998)). Therefore, Chomsky’s (1965) four categories defined by two universal feature specifications [±N] and [±V] do not seem to be ubiquitous. Functionalist linguists also assert that only Noun and Verb are universal, for they represent the elementary and central concepts at two extremes of the world while Adjective and Preposition may not be syntactically realized and their semantic concepts are thus associated with either Noun or Verb. Finally, Chinese putative adjectives are further examined with the cross-linguistic criteria proposed in Bhat (1994). The only logical conclusion is that Mandarin Chinese does not distinguish adjectives as a distinct category.

新詞反映在某一段時間、在某一個社會環境的變遷下所產生的新事物、新概念和新觀念，從新詞的內容和其形式方面來看，它具有相當鮮明的時代性特色。本文針對現代漢語新詞進行研究，首先，使用「地區」的概念，以「台灣地區」和「大陸地區」通行的漢語新詞為主要的研究對象，分析漢語共同語中新詞的特點。其次，本文中現代漢語新詞的範圍還包括「港澳地區」和「新加坡地區」通行的漢語新詞，透過討論這兩個地區廣為流傳的新詞，了解漢語新詞在不同地區之差異。本文所舉的漢語新詞實例，主要是以收錄於新詞詞典的新詞為主，也包含各種專書和期刊論文及報章雜誌中的新詞。 本研究共分為六章，各章的核心內容如下： 第一章 〈緒論〉，說明本文的研究動機與目的，新詞之界定與範圍，以及研究範圍與方法。 第二章 〈現代漢語新詞形成之背景及當前研究狀況〉，在進入現代漢語新詞的正式範圍之前，本章以海峽兩岸地區為主，來說明現代漢語新詞形成之背景。並回顧當前兩岸學者們對新詞的研究，以及漢語新詞詞典的出版狀況。 第三章 〈現代漢語新詞之類型及其構詞形式〉，針對現代漢語新詞，分析討論其類型及構詞形式的種類。 第四章 〈現代漢語新詞之發展傾向及其功用〉，探討現代漢語新詞之類型及其構詞形式，整理出現代漢語新詞之數種發展趨勢，並討論現代漢語新詞對語言文化與社會發展產生了哪些作用。 第五章 〈現代漢語新詞在不同地區之差異及其規範問題〉，主要討論在香港和新加坡地區通行的漢語新詞和其特點，並進一步討論現代漢語新詞的規範問題。 第六章 〈結論〉，歸納整理現代漢語新詞的特點，並提出一些對未來漢語新詞研究之展望。 如今，隨著中國大陸經濟的崛起，現代漢語，在國際社會上已成為相當重要的全球語言。因此，本文強調及時整理漢語新詞的重要性，以及未來建立一個全球性現代漢語語料庫的必要性。本文希望透過對現代漢語新詞的整理，以梳理新詞所產生的社會狀況及詞彙本身的演變過程。此外，隨著科學的進步和社會的發展變化，新詞也以前所未有的速度大量湧現，希望語言研究者能繼續關注漢語新詞的產生及發展變化，讓漢語新詞的研究能有更蓬勃的發展及更為傑出的表現。

兩種語句處理模型曾被提出以解釋閱讀句子時語法及語意資訊的互動。句法優先模型(syntax-first models)認為詞性判斷必定先於語意分析，而制約滿足模型(constraint-satisfaction models)則認為不同的資訊在語句理解的過程中會同時被處理。本研究檢驗兩種語句處理模型能否解釋語句中的詞彙歧義解困(lexical ambiguity resolution)。 許多眼動研究曾發現詞彙歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應(subordinate bias effect)，顯示語意偏向次要語義的語境能加速激發歧義詞的次要語義並且產生語義競爭。然而，語境的語法在詞彙歧義解困中扮演的角色並不清楚。因而，不同語義分屬不同詞性的詞性歧義詞便提供我們一個媒介以檢驗詞彙歧義解困中詞性及語意限制的互動。 本研究的目的有二：(一) 檢驗詞性限制能否決定中文詞性歧義詞的語義解困；(二) 檢驗中文歧義詞語義的詞性是否會影響次要語義偏向效應。實驗一我們將四種不同類型的中文非均勢同形異義詞置於語法及語意皆為次要語義偏向的句子裡；實驗二則將四種不同類型的中文非均勢同形異義詞置於語法為次要語義偏向但語意中立的句子裡。受試者閱讀句子時的眼動表現會即時被記錄。 實驗一的結果發現：(一) 四類型歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應只反映在目標詞後區域的二次閱讀指標上；(二) 就效果量而言，NV歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應在目標詞及目標詞後兩個區域都比VN歧義詞來得大。實驗二的結果則發現：(一) VN歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應從目標詞區的首次閱讀指標就出現，並且持續至目標詞及目標詞後兩個區域的二次閱讀指標；(二) 另外三類型歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應直到所有分析區域的二次閱讀指標才反映出來；(三) NV歧義詞的次要語義偏向效應比VN歧義詞出現得更晚也更不明顯。整體而言，本研究的結果顯示詞性限制並不是影響中文詞性歧義詞語義解困的唯一因素。此結果支持制約滿足模型，並反對句法優先模型的預測。 / Two primary sentence processing models have been proposed to account for the interaction between syntactic and semantic information in reading sentences: Syntax-first models assume that syntactic-category assignment must precede semantic analysis, while constraint-satisfaction models propose that information from different sources is processed and weighed at the same time during sentence comprehension. The present study examined whether these sentence processing models, which assume different contribution of syntactic category and semantic context, can explain the resolution of lexical ambiguity in sentences. Several eye movement studies have demonstrated the subordinate bias effect (SBE) for lexical-semantic ambiguous words (i.e., NN/VV homographs), indicating that a subordinate-biased semantic context can boost the activation of the subordinate meaning of ambiguous words and causes meaning competition (Duffy, Morris, & Rayner, 1988). However, the role of syntactic context in lexical ambiguity resolution is less clear. Syntactic category ambiguous words (i.e., SCA words; VN/NV homographs), whose alternative meanings differ in syntactic category (e.g., watch in English), serve as a means of examining the interaction between syntactic category and semantic constraints during lexical ambiguity resolution. The purpose of the present study was twofold: (a) to examine whether the syntactic category constraint can determine the semantic resolution of Chinese SCA words, and (b) to investigate whether syntactic category of alternative meanings of Chinese homographs can influence the SBE during lexical ambiguity resolution. Four types of Chinese biased homographs (NN, VV, VN, and NV) were embedded into syntactically and semantically subordinate-biased sentences (Experiment 1) and into syntactically subordinate-biased but semantically neutral sentences (Experiment 2). Participants’ eye movements were recorded as they read each sentence. In Experiment 1, the results showed: (1) The SBE for the four types of homographs was significant only in the second-pass reading on the post-target words. (2) Numerically, the NV homographs revealed a larger effect size of SBE than VN homographs on both target and post-target words. In Experiment 2, the results showed: (1) The SBE for VN appeared from the first-pass reading on the target words and lasted to the second-pass reading on the target and post-target words. (2) The SBE for the other types of homographs did not occur until the second-pass reading in all analyzed regions. (3) The SBE for NV occurred much later and less obviously than that for VN. In general, our findings support the constraint-satisfaction models and reject the prediction of the syntax-first models, suggesting that the syntactic category constraint is not the only factor influencing the semantic resolution of SCA words.