以框架理論為本之漢語社交互動動詞詞彙語意研究

Abstract

本研究以Fillmore and Atkins (1992)提出之「框架語意理論」(Frame Semantics)及Liu and Chiang (2008)提出之「中文動詞語意網之架構」為本，針對漢語社交互動動詞進行語法及語意之研究，以作為社交互動動詞階層性框架分類的依據，並試圖從Talmy (2000)提出之力學角度(Force Dynamics)，建構社交互動動詞的概念基模。本研究將探討：1) 漢語社交互動動詞中語法表現與交互性語意之配搭、2) 漢語社交互動動詞之分類及階層性框架、3) 以力學角度呈現交互性之概念基模。 漢語社交互動動詞本身即能表現交互性之概念，不需仰賴額外的語法標記，因此屬於lexical reciprocals (cf. Haspelmath 2007)。在語意方面，社交互動動詞指涉的是於社交情境中必定包含兩個或兩個以上參與者的團體活動(cf. Levin 1993)；在語法方面，這些參與者都會體現在主詞位置的單一論元中，如(1)所示：

(1) 我{和/跟/與}他 合作/競爭/交流/互動/分開/對抗/配合/結合。

除此之外，就動詞與參與者之間的及物性來看，漢語社交互動動詞可以進一步被區分為兩大類：第一類動詞只有不及物用法，沒有及物用法，如(2a)、參與者之間的關係是對等的，如(2b)語意等同(2c)；第二類動詞則同時有不及物和及物之用法，如(3a)、參與者之間的關係是不對等的，如(3a)不等同(3b)、(3c)也不等同(3d)，但(3a)等同(3c)、(3b)等同(3d)。

(2) a. *我 合作/競爭/交流/互動/分開 他。 b. 我 {和/跟/與}他 合作/競爭/交流/互動/分開。 c. 他 {和/跟/與}我 合作/競爭/交流/互動/分開。 (3) a. 我 對抗/配合/結合 他。 b. 他 對抗/配合/結合 我。 c. 我 {和/跟/與}他 對抗/配合/結合。 d. 他 {和/跟/與}我 對抗/配合/結合。

不僅如此，當主詞位置的參與者論元是以一個集合名詞來呈現時，第一類動詞表現交互性語意的程度會比第二類動詞來得高，如(4)所示；第二類動則必須與互相共現，才能完整表達交互性語意，如(5)所示。

(4) 我們 合作/競爭/交流/互動/分開/?對抗/?配合/?結合。 (5) 我們互相 對抗/配合/結合。

藉由觀察語法表現及交互性語意的配搭，最終可將漢語社交互動動詞分為兩個次框架：一為雙向互動框架(Bilateral frame)、另一為多元承繼自雙向互動(Bilateral frame)及單向互動(Unilateral)框架。屬於雙向互動框架之詞彙，如：合作/競爭/交流/互動/分開，只有不及物之用法，參與者的關係是對等的，此類動詞之交互性概念已完全詞彙化至動詞語意中；屬於跨類──同時承繼雙向互動框架及單向互動框架──之詞彙，如：對抗/配合/結合，可有不及物和及物用法，參與者的關係是不對等的，此類動詞有時無法單憑詞彙語意本身表達交互性概念，必須與其他詞彙共現。因此，從語法表現中我們可以發現，漢語社交互動動詞本身對於交互性語意的表達是有程度之分的。 簡言之，本研究根據漢語社交互動動詞在實際語料呈現的語意、語法特點，將社交互動動詞分類成階層性之框架，並從力學的角度建構社交互動動詞的概念基模，呈現社交互動動詞本身所帶有的交互性語意。

This study attempts to provide a frame-based analysis of the lexical distinctions encoded in Mandarin social interaction verbs as evidenced in their syntax-to-semantics correlations. Adopting Frame Semantics (Fillmore & Atkins 1992), the hierarchical frame structures (Liu & Chiang 2008) and Force Dynamics (Talmy 2000), this study aims to investigate: 1) the form-meaning correlations lexicalized in Mandarin social interaction verbs, 2) the distinctions of Mandarin social interaction verbs, and 3) the conceptual schemas of reciprocity in terms of force relations. Mandarin social interaction verbs belong to the category of lexical reciprocals, denoting mutual configurations by themselves without necessary grammatical marking (cf. Haspelmath 2007). Semantically, social interaction verbs relate to group activities that inherently involve two or more participants within social settings (cf. Levin 1993). Syntactically, the participants are realized as a single argument in subject position, as shown below:

(1) 我{和/跟/與}他 合作/競爭/交流/互動/分開/對抗/配合/結合。 wo han/gen/yu ta hezuo/jingzheng/jiaoliu/hudong/fenkai/duikang/peihe/jiehe ‘I collaborate/compete/interchange/interact/separate/oppose/coordinate/ combine (with) him.’

In addition, in view of the transitivity between participants, these verbs can be further divided into two subtypes: transitive usage is ungrammatical in Type 1, as in (2a), whereas transitive usage is grammatical in Type 2, as in (3a). The status of participants is equal in Type 1, as (2b) equals to (2c). On the contrary, the status of participants is unequal in Type 2, as (3a) doesn’t equal to (3b), and (3c) does not equal to (3d). However, (3a) equals to (3c), and (3b) equals to (3d).

(2) a. *我 合作/競爭/交流/互動/分開 他。 wo hezuo/jingzheng/jiaoliu/hudong/fenkai ta ‘*I collaborate/compete/interchange/interact/separate him.’ b. 我{和/跟/與}他 合作/競爭/交流/互動/分開。 wo han/gen/yu ta hezuo/jingzheng/jiaoliu/hudong/fenkai ‘I collaborate/compete/interchange/interact/separate with him.’ c. 他{和/跟/與}我 合作/競爭/交流/互動/分開。 ta han/gen/yu wo hezuo/jingzheng/jiaoliu/hudong/fenkai ‘He collaborate/compete/interchange/interact/separate with me.’ (3) a. 我 對抗/配合/結合 他。 wo duikang/peihe/jiehe ta ‘I oppose/coordinate/combine (with) him.’ b. 他 對抗/配合/結合 我。 ta duikang/peihe/jiehe wo ‘He oppose/coordinate/combine (with) me.’ c. 我{和/跟/與}他 對抗/配合/結合。 wo han/gen/yu ta duikang/peihe/jiehe ‘I oppose/coordinate/combine (with) him.’ d. 他{和/跟/與}我 對抗/配合/結合。 ta han/gen/yu wo duikang/peihe/jiehe ‘He oppose/coordinate/combine (with) me.’

What’s more, when the participants are realized as a collective noun in subject position, the reciprocity denoted by verbs in Type 1 are more acceptable than those in Type 2, as shown in (4). To encode reciprocity thoroughly, those verbs in Type 2 need to collocate with 互相 huxiang ‘each other’, as shown in (5).

(4) 我們 合作/競爭/交流/互動/分開/?對抗/?配合/?結合。 women hezuo/jingzheng/jiaoliu/hudong/fenkai/duikang/peihe/jiehe ‘we collaborate/compete/interchange/interact/separate/?oppose/?coordinate/ ?combine.’ (5) 我們互相 對抗/配合/結合。 women huxiang duikang/peihe/jiehe ‘we oppose/coordinate/combine with each other.’

By mapping syntactic realizations to semantic properties, Mandarin social interaction verbs can be divided into two different but related subframes based on their transitivity between participants: 1) Bilateral frame, and 2) multiple inheritances from both Bilateral and Unilateral frame. On one hand, lemmas of Bilateral frame, such as 合作/競爭/交流/互動/分開, can be used intransitively only. The status of participants is equal. The reciprocity is fully lexicalized in the verbs. On the other hand, cross-frame lemmas of Bilateral and Unilateral frame, such as 對抗/配合/結合 can be used both intransitively and transitively. The status of participants is unequal. The verbs sometimes cannot fully denote reciprocity in lexical way, but in both lexical and syntactic ways. A reciprocity scale thus arose due to the grammatical behavior of these verbs. In sum, this study is significant in exploring the reciprocity encoded by Mandarin social interaction verbs from corpus observation, and ultimately probes into a broader generalization of reciprocity in terms of force relations.