日語表示敬意的詞綴有前綴（像「o」「go」「mi」等）與後綴（像「san」「sama」「chan」等），與同時加前綴和後綴的形式，為何在一個語言內存有前綴和後綴兩種不同的詞綴？ 本論文透過小說語料庫調查表示敬意之無標前綴「o」和後綴「san」的詞彙，並藉由構詞法規則來釐清「o」「san」的語法功能與共起關係。 在以往敬語論與構詞學的研究中，不外乎探討前綴「o」的待遇功能，或研究詞彙結構。有關「o」整體的研究，以及後綴「san」的研究以往皆未提及。 在此，將突破以往觀點所得之實證結果，歸納成以下三個重點。 　　第一，是否要在語基冠上前綴「o」其原因為除了說話者的待遇意識外，並得知尚有詞彙構成，詞彙種類，音韻構造，歷史背景，社會文化等五項因素。還有是否要在語基後加後綴「san」其原因為除了說話者的待遇意識外，還與詞彙種類有關(是否為表示有生物，或者於日本人心理構造「uchi[內部] ，soto[外部] ，yoso[別處]之同心圓構造」中表示soto[外部]領域)。 第二，得知前綴「o」跟後綴「san」都具有待遇和意思識別兩種不同的功能。　而前綴「o」與後綴「san」的待遇功能大可分成sotoka[外化](尊稱，謙稱，美稱)和uchika[內化](暱稱，人性化)。前綴「o」的意思識別功能具有「物品化」「人性化」「事務化」，但後綴「san」意思識別功能僅有「人性化」而已。接著這些大多是藉由比喻(隠喩，換喩，提喻)明確地改變其原意。 第三，前綴「o」跟後綴「san」同時共同使用「o ～san」形式的語基是否有被分成自由詞素和黏著詞素兩種。當語基為自由詞素時，前綴「o」跟後綴「san」可任意附加，但是語基為黏著詞素時，前綴「o」和後綴「san」則為構詞上的必要詞素。 / The affix to express Japanese respect has prefix (such as: "o", "go", "mi") and suffix (such as: "san", "sama", chan"). Furthermore, a form is that both are assigned to at same time. Why are there two different affixes expressing respect in a language? The dissertation aims to using the novel of database in accumulating the word added to express respects of prefix [o] and suffix [san], which are applied in rule of morphology to clarify their functions and relations. Referring to the conventional honorific and morphology studies, only have been discussing for prefix [o] of treatment function or word of constitution. However, concerning about whole prefix [o] of researches and suffix [san] likely are not mentioned still now. Therefore, overcoming past studies will be concerning with our result of demonstration, which can be as concluding below of three points. Firstly, whether the word of basis gets prefix [o] or not cause is except that speaker’s treatment awareness, which has found that other five factors include “word constitution”, “kind of the word”, “phoneme structure”, “background of the history”, and “social culture". In addition, whether back of the word basis puts on the suffix [san] or not cause is except that speaker’s treatment awareness, which concerns with the kind of word (whether that is a word to express an animate thing or not, perhaps “Soto” [external domain] is shown in the psychology structure of Japanese: the concentric structure of “Uchi” [internal domain], “Soto” [external domain], and “Yoso” [elsewhere domain]). Secondly, we have found that prefix [o] and suffix [san] have two different functions with “treatment” and “meaning discrimination”. As well, the treatment function of [o] and [san] are divided in “Sotoka” [externalized] (a title of honor, a modest calling-myself, a eulogistic name) and “Uchika” [internalized] (a term of endearment, humanization). Beside, the meaning discrimination function of prefix [o] includes “Monoka” [reification], “Hitoka” [humanization]” and “Kotoka” [matterization], but the meaning discrimination function of the suffix [san] has only “Hitoka” [humanization]. Therefore, most of them are developed by the metaphor (metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche) for changing original meaning clearly. Finally, prefix [o] and suffix [san] together use the word-basis of form[o～san], which whether free morpheme and bound morpheme are distinguished in or not. In case of word-basis in the free morpheme, prefix [o] and suffix [san] can be an optical addition. But in case of word-basis in the bound morpheme, the prefix [o] and suffix [san] are essential morpheme to be formed the word.

有關漢語動結式的議題，中心語與論元體現皆呈現了複雜的現象。就中心語這部份，過去研究(Cheng & Huang, 1994; Gu, 1992; Huang & Lin, 1992; Y. Li, 1990, 1993, 1995, 1999; C. Li, 2008, 2009; Shen, 1992; Tai, 2003)的論點相當分歧，顯示漢語動結式中心語的位置仍有討論的空間；至於論元體現方面，由於論元與詞類間的互動會帶出許多不同的語意和句法表現，而先前的研究(Her, 2004, 2007; Li, 1990, 1995)尚未足以完整的解釋這些情形。 本研究主要從詞彙的角度來探討中心語和論元體現這兩個議題。首先，依照Her (2004, 2007)的分析方式，本研究嘗試排列出漢語動結式合法的論元結構，並利用這些論元結構描述各個動結式的論元體現，解釋可能的語意及句法結構。接著，同樣根據所提出的合法論元結構，以顯現的論元為主，並採用有關判斷中心語的假設(Zwicky, 1984; Y. Li, 1990, 1995; Chung, 2006; C. Li, 2008, 2009)，整理出漢語動結式中心語的位置。最後，詞彙功能語法中的詞彙映照理論驗證了本研究前半部分對論元體現與中心語的討論，這個理論也另外解釋漢語動結式處所詞倒置的現象。 / Two issues regarding Mandarin resultative compounds, headedness and argument realization, present a complex phenomenon. For one thing, extensive studies (Cheng & Huang, 1994; Gu, 1992; Huang & Lin, 1992; Y. Li, 1990, 1993, 1995, 1999; C. Li, 2008, 2009; Shen, 1992; Tai, 2003) concerning headedness fail to critically determine the head of a Mandarin resultative compound. For another, despite previous research (Her, 2004, 2007; Li, 1990, 1995), the interaction between arguments and grammatical functions of Mandarin resultative compounds remains inconclusive. To settle the foregoing matters, the purpose of this thesis is to probe into argument realization and headedness from a lexicalist approach, aiming to provide a full account of both issues. In the first part of this thesis, following Her’s (2004, 2007) analysis, the thesis focuses on formulating systematic feasible argument structures for Mandarin resultative compounds, then examining the argument structures of a resultative compound to explain its possible readings and syntactic representations. Based on the available argument structures proposed in the first half, the second part of the thesis investigates the headedness of Mandarin resultative compounds, suggesting that the head can be determined when arguments are overt. The criterion for headedness that is adopted in this thesis involves assumptions proposed by Zwicky (1984), Y. Li (1990, 1995), Chung (2006), and C. Li (2008, 2009). Finally, the thesis demonstrates that both issues of argument realization and headedness are well governed by Lexical Mapping Theory and that Lexical Mapping Theory further clarifies constructions with locative inversion of Mandarin resultative compounds.

本論文旨在探討「掉」出現在動詞後面時的語意內涵與語法地位。我們認為當「掉」身為結果補語時，它的意思為「被往下移除」；身為動相標誌時，意思為「被移除」；身為動貌標誌時，則標示起始意。「掉」經常與及物和非作格動詞形成複合動詞：與靜態動詞、瞬間動詞及達成動詞構成達成複合動詞，與動作動詞及完成動詞則構成完成複合動詞。雖然V-掉的論元結構經常是其前置動詞與「掉」之論元結構的結合體，但在某些情況下「掉」可能會壓制前置動詞的論元、幫V-掉複合動詞增加新論元或先壓制前置動詞的論元再幫V-掉複合動詞增加新論元。最後，我們採用虛化的理論來解釋為何「掉」具有多重語意及多重語法地位。由於「掉」符合Hopper (1991)所提出的虛化原則，因此我們相信「掉」的確正處在虛化的過程中。 / There are two main questions about post-verbal diao we dealt with in the present study: one is its meanings, and the other is its syntactic status. We argue that when diao acts as a resultative complement, it means ‘to be removed in a downward direction’, when it acts as a phase marker, it means ‘to be removed’, and when it acts as an aspect marker, it bears a grammatical meaning indicating inchoative. Post-verbal diao usually co-occurs with transitive and unaccusative verbs to form compounds. When diao goes with State, Semelfactive and Achievement verbs, the V-diao compounds will be Achievements, when diao goes with Activity and Accomplishment verbs, the V-diao compounds will be Accomplishments. In most cases, the argument structure of a V-diao compound is a composition of the argument structure of the preceding verb and that of diao. However, diao will suppress the Goal argument when co-occurring with three-place transactional verbs; it will create an argument for the V-diao compound when the argument of the preceding verb and that of diao are incompatible; it will suppress an argument of the preceding verb and create a new one for the V-diao compound when occurring with verbs which have an incremental theme. Grammaticalization is taken to account for the polysemy and the multiple syntactic status of post-verbal diao. Because except specialization, diao follows all of the principles (i.e. Layering, Divergence, Persistence, and De-categorialization) proposed by Hopper (1991), we suggest it is in the process of grammaticalization.

本篇論文主要是採用詞彙功能語法以及篇章功能語法來檢視處所詞倒置的結構在中英文裡的表現，分別從四個層次來檢視，包括了語意結構、詞組結構、句法功能結構、以及信息結構。首先，能進行處所詞倒置的動詞必須要是帶有一個客體及一個方位詞的論元結構，或是帶有一個由主事者和客體所組成的複合論元以及一個方位詞的論元結構。其次，在詞組結構中，英文的前置處所詞是屬於介系詞，而中文裡的前置處所詞是屬於名詞。再者，前置的處所詞在中文裡是位於主詞的位置，但在英文裡是句法功能結構上的主詞。最後，在句子的信息結構上，考量到信息編排的方式，後置的名詞傾向是無定的名詞而非代名詞，而且傾向是比前置的處所詞還要長的詞組。就篇章信息而言，處所詞倒置必須考慮到對前的連結及對後的連結。另外在文體修飾上為了對仗的效果也會促使處所詞倒置的產生。 透過對比分析，本篇論文有系統地比較英文和中文在處所詞結構的表現，主要目的在於為學習英文的中文講者提供教學上的啟發。而將理論語法運用在教學語法上，也顯示出這兩者語法之間的關連性以及合作性。一方面理論語法可以提供教學語法一個強而有力的理論後盾；另一方面，教學語法也提供了理論語法研究的動機。總的來說，將理論語法運用在教學方面，不僅對語言教學有助益，對語言學研究的領域上也有相當的幫助。 / This paper examines locative inversion construction by adopting Lexical Functional Grammar and discourse grammar. The examination concerns both English and Mandarin, from four structure levels, a-structure, c-structure, f-structure, and information structure. First, a locative inversion verb takes an a-structure of <theme locative> or <agent-theme locative>. Second, in c-structure, the preposed locative belongs to PP in English but to NP in Mandarin. Third, whereas the preposed locative phrase is in the subject position in Mandarin, the one in English is only a functional subject in f-structure. Finally, in information structure, given information packaging, the postposed theme is inclined to be an indefinite nominal instead of a pronoun and to be a longer constituent than the preposed locative phrase; in contextual information, a linking device, used either anaphorically or cataphorically, is necessary for locative inversion, and stylistic parallelism further facilitates the occurrence of locative inversion. With the systematic comparison of English and Mandarin, this paper aims to provide pedagogical suggestions in regard to English learning for Mandarin speakers, by virtue of the use of Contrastive Analysis. The application of theoretical grammar to the language teaching field indicates the correlation and cooperation between theoretical grammar and pedagogical grammar. On the one hand, the theoretical grammar provides a firm and reliable theoretical support for language teaching; on the other hand, the pedagogical grammar is the motivation to the research of theoretical grammar. All in all, the application of theoretical grammar to language teaching contributes not only to the language teaching filed but also to the linguistic research.