本文考察《語苑》和《閩南語故事集》，發現歹(phainn2)出現在四種句法位置：謂語形容詞、次要謂語、定語形容詞、副詞。本文認為歹的語義是詮釋未決的，需要透過和名詞的共同組合，才能得到正確的語義詮釋。因此，釐清歹分別與什麼樣的名詞的物性結構(功用角色、施成角色、形式角色、施成角色)結合有助於我們將歹的語義以簡馭繁。本文以此觀點出發，將歹劃分為謂語形容詞6個句式、次要謂語4個句式、定語形容詞3個類別、副詞2個句式，並發現歹的維度類型有：功能、食用功能、脾氣、品質、道德、味/視/聽覺、信息、舉止、命運預兆、人的部件。這些維度分別由名詞本身或其物性結構所提供，使原本單一語義的歹，在表層語義產生多義性，名詞對謂語形容詞歹的語義影響也直接反映在句法表現上。另外，副詞歹的兩個句式的差別在於「事件/非事件」、「直接證據/間接證據」。最後，我們提出維度可分成「隱性」、「顯性」、「可隱可顯」維度，且形容的語義除了包括「個體論元」或「事件論元」外，還需要一個「量級維度論元」。

This study aims to investigate the polysemy of phainn2 (歹), which appears in four syntactic positions: predicative adjectives, secondary predicates, attributive adjectives, and adverbs. The semantics of phainn2 is underspecified and therefore phainn2 that is co-composed of different kinds of qualia structures of nouns have different interpretations. This research found that phainn2 has the following dimensions：function, function of edible food, temper, quality, morality, the sense of taste/ vison/ hearing, information, behavior, fate, and parts of the human body. These dimensions are provided from the qualia structure of nouns or nouns themselves and lead to the polysemy of phainn2. These dimensions can be divided into three types：overt dimensions, covert dimensions, and overt/covert dimensions. This paper also explores the differences between two patterns of adverbial phainn2：event/non-event and direct evidence/in-direct evidence and proposes the concept of the dimensional argument.

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
誌謝 iii
目錄 v
表目錄 x
圖目錄 xi
1.緒論 1
1.1研究動機與目的 1
1.2研究架構 3
2.理論架構 5
2.1先前研究 5
2.2動相的分類 8
2.2.1 狀態、活動、完成、瞬成、單次、程度瞬成 8
2.2.2 狀態的進一步分類 11
2.2.2.1 屬性概念、結果狀態 11
2.2.2.2 內在致使狀態、外部致使狀態 12
2.2.2 恆態vs暫態 14
2.3量級 16
2.3.1 量級的意義 16
2.3.2 量級的種類 17
2.3.2.1 等級形容詞vs非等級形容詞 17
2.3.2.2 正極形容詞vs負極形容詞 21
2.3.2.3 單調遞增(減)vs非單調遞增(減) 21
2.3.3 動相與量級的關係 25
2.3.4 量級維度的特色 26
2.3.4.1 維度的隱顯性 26
2.3.4.2 多維度理論 28
2.4 名詞的分類 29
2.4.1 自然類、人造類、合成類 29
2.4.2 典型人造類、純人造類、偽人造類 34
2.5 事件語義學 38
2.6 中間結構、準被動結構、非賓格結構、真被動結構 41
2.7 小節 45
3.研究方法 46
3.1語料來源 46
3.2研究步驟 47
4.謂語形容詞 48
4.1人造類(上位類不為食物)＋歹(＋去) 48
4.1.1 主語的論旨角色-客體 49
4.1.2 主語的內部屬性-典型人造類 49
4.1.3 歹的量級-非等級形容詞&非極性形容詞 50
4.1.4 歹為結果狀態 52
4.1.5 歹為外部致使狀態 57
4.1.6變化句式 61
4.2人造類(上位類需為食物)＋歹(＋去) 62
4.2.1 主語的論旨角色-客體 62
4.2.2 主語的內部屬性-典型/偽/純人造類(上位類：食物) 62
4.2.3 歹的量級-非等級形容詞&非極性形容詞 64
4.2.4 歹為結果狀態&內在致使狀態 66
4.3 自然類(有情性)(＋程度副詞)＋歹 67
4.3.1 主語的論旨角色-客體 67
4.3.2 主語的內部屬性-自然類(構成：脾氣) 68
4.3.3 歹的量級-等級形容詞&極性形容詞 69
4.3.4 歹為屬性特徵 70
4.3.5 變化句式-與事＋共＋歹歹 70
4.4人造類/自然類(非有情性)(＋程度副詞)＋歹 71
4.4.1 主語的論旨角色-客體 72
4.4.2 主語的內部屬性-自然類/人造類(構成：品質) 72
4.4.3 歹的量級-等級形容詞&極性形容詞 73
4.4.4 歹為屬性特徵 74
4.5自然類(有情性)(＋程度副詞)＋歹 75
4.5.1 主語的論旨角色-客體 75
4.5.2 主語的內部屬性-自然類(構成：道德) 75
4.5.3 歹的量級-等級形容詞&極性形容詞 77
4.5.4 歹為屬性概念 79
4.5.5 變化句式-客體＋變＋歹＋去 79
4.6信息類(＋程度副詞) ＋歹 81
4.6.1 主語的論旨角色-客體 82
4.6.2 主語的內部屬性-信息類 82
4.6.3 歹的量級-等級形容詞&極性形容詞 83
4.6.4 歹為屬性概念 85
4.6.5 變化句式-客體＋變＋歹＋去 85
4.7 小節 87
5.次要謂語 92
5.1(原因＋)拍＋歹＋人造類(上位類不為食物) 92
5.1.1 主語/賓語的論旨角色-致事/受事 92
5.1.2 賓語的內部屬性-典型人造類 93
5.1.3 歹的量級-非等級形容詞 93
5.1.4 賓語/受事指向的動補結構 94
5.1.5 變化句式-致事＋受事＋拍＋歹＋去(準備動結構) 94
5.2原因＋拍＋歹＋信息類、人的部件類 96
5.2.1 主語/賓語的論旨角色-致事/受事 97
5.2.2 賓語的內部屬性-信息類、人的部件類 99
5.2.3 歹的量級-非等級形容詞 100
5.2.4 賓語/受事指向的動補結構 100
5.3人造類(上位類不為食物)＋動詞＋歹＋去 100
5.3.1 主語的論旨角色&內部屬性-受事&典型人造類 101
5.3.2 歹的量級-非等級形容詞 101
5.3.3 歹為結果補語 101
5.3.4 動詞的內部屬性-瞬間性 104
5.3.5 準備動結構 104
5.3.6 轉喻 104
5.4自然類(有情性)＋動詞＋歹 105
5.4.1 主語的論旨角色&內部屬性-施事&自然類 105
5.4.2 歹的量級-等級形容詞 106
5.4.3 歹為狀態補語 107
5.3.4 動詞的內部屬性-持續性 109
5.5小節 109
6.定語形容詞 111
6.1 維度類型 111
6.2 量級結構-等級形容詞 112
6.3 小節 113
7.副詞 115
7.1客體(＋程度副詞)＋歹＋動詞 115
7.1.1 主語的內部屬性 115
7.1.2 歹為修飾功用/施成角色的副詞 116
7.1.3 中間結構 118
7.1.4 動詞語義 119
7.1.5 變化句式-施事＋歹＋動詞 119
7.2客體(＋程度副詞)＋歹＋感官動詞 120
7.2.1 主語的內部屬性 120
7.2.2 歹為修飾構成角色的副詞 120
7.2.3 中間結構 124
7.2.4 動詞語義 127
7.3小節 127
8.研究結果 129
8.1維度 131
8.1.1 維度的種類 131
8.1.2 維度的特性 136
8.1.2.1 隱性維度、顯性維度、可隱可顯維度 136
8.1.2.2 可以量測vs無法量測 139
8.2 事件 141
8.2.1 事件相關vs非事件相關 141
8.2.2 直接證據vs間接證據 143
8.2.3 形容詞的事件語義學 145
8.3 動相 146
9.討論 147
10.結論 148
10.1總結 148
10.2主要貢獻 148
參考文獻 150
附錄 154
1. 專有名詞中英文對照 154
2. 負極形容詞的維度比較 158

英文部份

Baglini, R., & Kennedy, C. (2019). Adjectives and event structure. In R. Truswell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Event Structure (368-392): Oxford University Press.
Beard, R. (1991). Decompositional Composition: The Semantics of Scope Ambiguities and ‘Bracketing Paradoxes’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 9(2), 195-229.
Beavers, J. (2008). Scalar complexity and the structure of events. In D. Johannes, H.-Z. Tatjana, & S. Martin (Eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation (245-266). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax : a government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to kinds in English [electronic resource]. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Caudal, P. (2000). Types of telicity, types of paths and types of changes of state. Paper presented at the Path and Event Structure Workshop, ESSLI, Birmingham.
Chief, L. (2007). Scalarity and incomplete event descriptions in Mandarin Chinese. (Doctoral dissertation). State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo.
Chierchia, G. (1995). Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (Vol. 125, 176-223): Chicago University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding (rev ed.). Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological review, 82(6), 407.
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge&New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). Where have all the adjectives gone? and other essays in semantics and syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
Foley, W. A. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Garboden, A. K., & Levin, B. (2003). The morphological typology of change of state event encoding. Paper presented at the Mediterranean Morphology Meetings.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions : a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hay, J., Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (2015). Scalar Structure Underlies Telicity in "Degree Achievements". Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 9, 127-144.
Hovav, M. R., & Levin, B. (2010). Reflections on Manner/Result Complementarity. In M. R. Hovav, E. Doron, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure (21-38). New York: Oxford University Press.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1988). Wǒ pǎo de kuài and Chinese phrase structure. Language, 64(2), 274-311.
Kennedy, C. (2001). On the monotonicity of polar adjectives. In J. Hoeksema, H. Rullmann, V. Sánchez-Valencia, & T. v. d. Wouden (Eds.), Perspectives on negation and polarity items (201-221). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kennedy, C., & Levin, B. (2008). Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In L. McNally & C. Kennedy (Eds.), Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse (156-182). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (1999). Degree modification and the scalar structure of gradable adjectives. Paper presented at the Actes de TALN’99, Cargèse, France.
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345-381.
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2015). From event structure to scale structure: degree modification in deverbal adjectives. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 9, 163.
Larson, R. K. (1998). Events and modification in nominals. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 8, 145-168.
Levin, B., & Hovav, M. R. (1995). Unaccusativity : at the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lien, C. (2010). Middles in Taiwanese Southern Min: The interface of lexical meaning and event structure. Lingua, 120(5), 1273-1287. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.08.003
Liu, C.-S. L. (2007a). The chameleon in the Chinese individual exceed comparative. Language and Linguistics, 8(3), 767-796.
Liu, C.-S. L. (2007b). The V-qilai evaluative construction in Chinese. UST Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 43-61.
Liu, C.-S. L. (2007c). The weak comparative morpheme in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 33(2), 53-89.
Liu, C.-S. L. (2008). The light verb lai in the Chinese comparative correlative. Language and Linguistics, 9(1), 69-99.
Liu, C.-S. L. (2010). The positive morpheme in Chinese and the adjectival structure. Lingua, 120(4), 1010-1056. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.001
Liu, C.-S. L. (2018). Projecting adjectives in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 27(1), 67-109. doi:10.1007/s10831-018-9166-4
Lyons, J. (1989). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McKoon, G., & Macfarland, T. (2000). Externally and Internally Caused Change of State Verbs. Language, 76(4), 833-858.
Mittwoch, A. (2019). Aspectual classes. In R. Truswell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Event Structure: Oxford University Press.
Peck, J., Lin, J., & Sun, C. (2013). Aspectual Classification of Mandarin Chinese Verbs: A Perspective of Scale Structure*. Language and Linguistics, 14(4), 663-700.
Pustejovsky, J. (2001). Type construction and the logic of concepts. In P. Bouillon & B. Federica (Eds.), The Syntax of Word Meaning (91-123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (2013). Type theory and lexical decomposition. In J. Pustejovsky, P. Bouillon, H. Isahara, K. Kanzaki, & C. Lee (Eds.), Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory (Vol. 46, 9-38). Dordrecht: Springer.
Pustejovsky‬, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Pustejovsky, J., & Jezek, E. (2008). Semantic coercion in language: Beyond distributional analysis. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20(1), 175-208.
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors (pp. 97-134). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
Sassoon, G. (2013). A Typology of multidimensional adjectives. Journal of Semantics, 30, 335-380.
Schwarzschild, R. (2006). The Role of Dimensions in the Syntax of Noun Phrases. Syntax, 9(1), 67-110. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00083.x
Seuren, P. M. (1984). The comparative revisited. Journal of Semantics, 3(1-2), 109-141. doi:10.1093/jos/3.1-2.109
Shibagaki, R. (2010). Mandarin secondary predicates. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 8(1), 57-93.
Smith, C. S. (1970). Jespersen’s "move and change" class and causative verbs in English. In M. A. Jazayeri, E. C. Polome, & W. Winter (Eds.), Linguistics and literary studies in honor of Archibald A. Hill (Vol. 2, 101-109). The Hague: Mouton.
Smith, C. S. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Taylor, J. R. (1998). Syntactic constructions as prototype categories. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language : cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (177-202). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.
Ting, J. (2006). The Middle Construction in Mandarin Chinese and the Presyntactic Approach. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 32(1), 89-117.
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The philosophical review, 66(2), 143-160.
Wang, S., & Huang, C.-R. (2010). Adjectival Modification to Nouns in Mandarin Chinese: Case Studies on “cháng+ noun” and “adjective+ tú shū gu n”. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation.
Yoshimura, K., & Taylor, J. R. (2004). What makes a good middle? The role of qualia in the interpretation and acceptability of middle expressions in English. English Language and Linguistics, 8(2), 293-321. doi:10.1017/S136067430400139X

中文部份

何文忠 (2004)。中動結構的認知闡釋 (碩士論文)。上海：上海外國語大學。
宋作艷 (2015)。生成詞庫理論與漢語事件強迫現象研究。北京：北京大學出版社。
宋作艷 (2016)。功用義對名詞詞義與構詞的影響——兼論功用義的語言價值與語
言學價值。中國語文，1，44-57。
李強、袁毓林 (2016)。從生成詞庫論看名詞的詞典釋義。辭書研究，4，12-27。
林若望 (2020)。形容詞謂語句及名詞謂語句的一些問題：談語意分析與華語教學。
中國語學，267，1-23。
袁毓林 (1994)。一價名詞的認知研究。中國語文，4，241-253。
袁毓林 (2014)。漢語名詞物性結構的描寫體系和運用案例。當代語言學，16(1)，
31-48。
張羣 (2010)。閩南語評價詞「好」之多重語法功能與語法化：語料庫為本之分析。
(博士論文)。新竹：國立清華大學。
葉瑞娟 (2012)。論客家話「好X」格式的語法化和主觀化。清華學報，42(3)，527-
565。doi:10.6503/THJCS.2012.42(3).05
謝舒凱 (譯) (2020)。生成詞庫理論：展開語意計算的新視野 (原作者：Pustejovsky,
J.)。新北市：聯經。(原出版年：1995)
蕭惠貞、林倩如 (2012)。論現代漢語補語可能構式。語言暨語言學，13(5)，963-998。