本篇主要採用構式搭配分析法（Collostructional analysis）來探索「擠」的動賓構式和動趨賓構式中與名詞詞組的搭配關係，藉此檢視結構對賓語的偏好，並透過前人（cf. 周書平，2014）模擬之動詞「擠」的概念圖來歸整動賓構式及動趨賓構式賓語類型之偏好和分佈；「擠」的概念基模擬訂三個階段：第一階段為致使移動義（進）、第二階段為動詞佔有物的狀態（在）、第三階段為動作移除（出）。本文理論架構採用Fillmore（1982）框架語意將動詞「擠」的特徵列出幾項：「動作對象」、「受事特徵」、「動作之方法」、「動作致使移動」、「動作之結果狀態」；利用Talmy（2000）事件框架和注意力視窗來觀察結構和語篇的視角關係；另外，採用Lakoff and Johnson（2003）概念譬喻來解釋賓語形態多樣性的成因。

兩結構之賓語類型共分為十六項：（1）食物、（2）日常用品、（3）人體部位、（4）異物、（5）排泄物、（6）時間、（7）錢、（8）表情、（9）其他1（抽象）、（10）其他2（隱喻）、（11）交通工具、（12）目標1（空間）、（13）目標2（物體）、（14）目標3（平面）、（15）目標4（權力）、（16）目標5（榮譽），並從語料庫篩選能凸顯該動詞的移動表徵之趨向補語為：「出」、「進」、「上」、「入」、「過」、「下」、「回」，共7個。

研究結果發現動賓結構偏好之賓語為（1）食物，動趨賓結構偏好之賓語依上述趨向補語排列為：（2）表情、（13）目標2（物體）、（11）交通工具、（13）目標2（物體）、（13）目標2（物體）、（15）目標4（權力）、（13）目標2（物體）。而賓語屬抽象概念分佈範圍以動賓結構佔據第二階段和第三階段；以動趨賓結構佔據第一階段和第三階段。兩結構皆可看出視角關係依賴結構和語境（或語句）中主體和背景的互動，因此單從動賓或動趨賓結構無法斷定語意的走向，但動趨賓結構因趨向補語的介入凸顯了方向性。再者，兩結構之賓語形態多變是因語言遵循了語言經濟原則，賓語皆傳達了同一個空間概念：將主體視為內容物、背景為容器，不僅體現人體是經驗的載體，也能透過載體幫助外語學習者認識跨語言的文化。

This thesis adopts the collostructional analysis to explore the collostructional patterns of the verb ji3 in the verb-object construction and in the verb-directional complement-object construction in Mandarin Chinese. The focus is on the interaction of lexemes and the grammatical structures associated with them. Based on the previous semantic conceptual analysis of ji3 suggested by Chou (2014), a three-stage model is proposed, including caused to move (into), caused to be, and caused to remove (out). According to Fillmore’s (1982) frame semantics, such frame elements as agent, entity (target of the action), manner, place, and result are examined to see how the verb ji3 is used in actual corpus texts. The windowing of attention in motion event-frames proposed by Talmy (2000) is used to see how one distributes one’s attention over the structured event from the selected perspective point. Lakoff and Johnson’s (2003) theory of metaphors is adopted to explain the diversity of the object NPs in the given constructions.

The object NPs are classified into sixteen categories, including (1) food, (2) daily supplies, (3) body parts, (4) foreign objects, (5) excrement, (6) time, (7) money, (8) expression, (9) other 1 (abstract), (10) other 2 (metaphor), (11) transportation, (12) target 1 (space), (13) target 2 (object), (14) target 3 (plane), (15) target 4 (power), and (16) target 5 (honor). To highlight the direction of motion, 7 directional complements are selected from the corpus, including chu1 ‘exit’, jin4 ‘enter’, shang4 ‘ascend’, ru4 ‘enter’, guo4 ‘pass’, xia4 ‘descend’, and hui2 ‘return’.

The results show that the preferred object category in the verb-object construction is (1) food, and that in the verb-directional complement-object construction may vary depending on the complement, viz., (2) expression (chu1), (13) target 2 (object) (jin4), (11) transportation (shang4), (13) target 2 (object) (ru4), (13) target 2 (object) (guo4), (15) target 4 (power) (xia4), and (13) target 2 (object) (hui2). When collocating with an abstract object noun, the ‘caused to be’ and ‘caused to remove (out)’ readings predominate in the verb-object construction, whereas the ‘caused to move (into) and ‘caused to remove (out)’ readings outnumber the ‘caused to be’ interpretation in the verb-directional complement-object construction. Both constructions show that the perspective relationship relies on the interaction between the figure and the ground in the constructions/contexts. The direction of the action is, therefore, not fully specified in the two constructions; however, the occurrence of a directional complement may help profile the directionality. In addition, the diversity of the object NPs is a reflection of the principle of economy. Basically, the semantic extension of the object NP has a lot to do with the container metaphor, i.e., the figure is the containee and the ground, the container. This is a clear case showing that metaphors have roots in our bodily experiences, a fact that may help foreign language learners to better understand cross-linguistic cultures.

摘要
第一章 前言
1.1 研究背景與動機...........................................1
1.2 研究議題.................................................6
1.3 研究目標及目的...........................................8
1.4 研究架構與概念組織.......................................9
第二章 文獻回顧
2.1 漢語多面向動詞「擠」的語意研究..........................10
2.2 漢語致使移動到空間組合之研究............................16
2.3 小結....................................................24
第三章 理論架構
3.1 FILLMORE的框架語意......................................25
3.2 TALMY的事件框架與注意力視窗.............................28
3.3 LAKOFF AND JOHNSON的概念譬喻............................32
3.4 小結....................................................33
第四章 語料來源及研究方法
4.1 語料來源及分類..........................................34
4.2 研究方法................................................37
第五章 研究發現與分析
5.1 動詞「擠」的語意特徵及其動作對象........................39
5.2 動詞「擠」之動賓結構與賓語類型的搭配組合................69
5.3 動詞「擠」之動趨賓結構與賓語類型的搭配組合..............71
5.4 動詞「擠」之動賓結構與動趨賓結構之賓語類型之比較........80
5.5 動詞「擠」之動（趨）賓結構中賓語的延伸語意..............82
5.6 動詞「擠」之動（趨）賓結構中賓語的語意分布..............90
5.7 小結....................................................92
第六章 結論與討論
6.1 文本主要發現............................................93
6.2 研究限制................................................95
6.3 未來研究方向............................................96
附錄...........................................................100
參考文獻.......................................................131

Boas, H. C. (2007). Construction Grammar in the twenty-first century. English Language & Linguistics, 11(3), 569-585.
Boas, H. C. (2008). Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In Leino, J. (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp. 11-36). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Boas, H. C. (2011). A frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations: The case of build verbs. In Pilar Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Verbal Alternations in English (pp.207-234). London: Equinox.
Chang, W. C. (2013). The Distributional restrictions and the semantic range of direction markers in Mandarin motion event. Master's thesis, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu.
Cheng, L. L.-S., Huang, C.-T. J., Audrey, Y.-H., & Jane Tang, C.-C. (1999). Hoo, hoo, hoo: Syntax of the causative, dative, and passive constructions in Taiwanese. In Contemporary Studies on the Min Dialects, Pang-Hsin Ting, (Ed.), Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series, 14: 146-203.
Chou, S. P. (2014). Semantic profile of the multi-faceted verb ji in Mandarin Chinese. Master's thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Chien, M., & Liu, M. (2010). Verbal Semantics and cross-frame interaction: A Study of Mandarin Verbal Evaluation Verbs. Paper presented at the 11th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW). Soochow, China: Soochow University.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1975) An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Cathy Cogen (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) (pp. 123-131). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Topics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole, (Eds.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 76-138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1977a). The case for case reopened. In Peter Cole and Jerrold M. Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Grammatical Relationship, Volume: 8 (pp. 59-81). New York: Academic Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1982). Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111-138). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaiser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 35-55). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based Lexicon: The Semantics of RISK and Its Neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantics (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbuan..
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O'Connor, M. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language, 64(3), 501-538. doi:10.2307/414531
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. USA: Oxford University Press.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, Y., & Wu, Y. (2018). The constructionalization and constructional change of noncanonical V-NP expressions in Mandarin Chinese. Studies in Language, 42(4), 886-922. (doi:10.1075/sl.17001.li)
Lien, C. (2007). Idioms in Verb-object Constructions. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics, 2(1), 187-209.
Liu, M. C., & Chiang, T. Y. (2008). The construction of Mandarin VerbNet: A frame-based study of statement verbs. Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 239-270.
Liu, M., & Chang, C. W. (2015). A lexical-constructional approach to verbal semantics: The case of Mandarin ‘hang’verbs. International Journal of Knowledge and Language Processing, 6(4), 1-19.
Liu, M. C., & Chang, J. C. (2016). Semantic annotation for Mandarin verbal lexicon: A frame-based constructional approach. In M. Dong, Y-H. Tseng, Y. Lu, L-C. Yu, L-H. Lee, C-H. Wu, & H. Li (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Asian Language Processing (IALP) (pp. 30-36). Tainan, Taiwan: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
Liu, M., & Chang, J. (2019). From caused-motion to spatial configuration: Placement verbs in Mandarin. Language and Linguistics, 20(2), 180-224. doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00034.liu
Nemoto, N. (1998). On the polysemy of ditransitive “save”: The role of frame semantics in construction grammar. English Linguistics, 15: 219-242.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995).The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International journal of corpus linguistics, 8(2), 209-243.
Sweester, E. E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cutural Aspects of Semantci Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language typology and syntactic description, 3(99), 36-149.
Talmy, L. (1991). Paths to realization: A typology of event conflation. In L. Sutton and C. Johnson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 480–519). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. l: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Traugott, E. C. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In W.P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (Ed.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. (pp. 245-271). Amsterdam/Phladelphia: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 61(1), 31-55.
Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In D. Stein, & S, Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives (pp. 31-54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C. (2003a). Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (Eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, (pp. 624-647). Malden: Blackwell.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (2015). An introduction to cognitive linguistics, 2nd Edition. London: Routledge.
Wulff, S. (2006). Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy. In S. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 101-126). New York: De Gruyter Mouton.

力量、吳延玫（2006）。近代漢語“動賓補”結構。淮陰師範學院學報（哲學社會科學版），28（6），701-707。
王丹、楊文全（2005）。漢語語法的意合網絡。東方文化，40（1），214-218。
王蕙萱（2018）從語料庫探討溝通式動詞的教學語法—以聊、談、聊天、談天為例（碩士論文），國立清華大學中國語文學系所，新竹市。取自 https://hdl.handle.net/11296/t8r5k6。
江敏華（2007）。東勢客家話的動補結構初探。中國語言學報，35（2），225-266。
江敏華（2013）。台灣客家話動趨結構中與體貌有關的成分。語言暨語言學，35（5），837-873。
呂叔湘（1979）。漢語語法分析問題。北京：商務印書館。
呂叔湘（1999）。現代漢語八百詞（增訂本）。北京：商務印書館。
李進學（2007）。動賓複合詞的詞彙化的原因和機制分析。社會科學論壇，2007（10B），118-120。
周世箴（譯注導讀）（2006）。我們賴以生存的譬喻（Metaphors we live by）。台北：聯經出版社。（Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M., 1980）
袁毓林（2015）。漢語意合語法的認知機制和描寫體系。中國語學，(262)，1-30。
張淑敏、湯廷池（2009）。漢、英、日複合詞的對比分析：分類、結構與衍生。臺灣語文研究，(3)，179-213。doi:10.6710/JTLL.200901_(3).0010
盛新華、朱軍（2005）。動賓式不及物動詞"VN"帶賓語語義研究。湘潭大學學報（哲學社會科學版），29（6），136-139。
湯廷池（1988）。漢語詞法句法論集。臺北：學生書局。
劉月華、潘文娛、故韡（1996）。實用現代漢語語法。第五版。台北市：師大書苑。
劉承慧（2003）。古漢語實詞的複合化。載於何大安（主編），古今通塞：漢語的歷史與發展（107-139頁）。台北：中央研究院語言學研究所。

中文詞彙網：http://lope.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/cwn/query/
中央研究院（搜詞尋字）：http://words.sinica.edu.tw/sou/sou.html
英文框架語意網：https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/
國教院語料庫：https://coct.naer.edu.tw/cqpweb/
教育百科：https://pedia.cloud.edu.tw/
教育部國語辭典簡編本：http://dict.concised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/jbdic/gsweb.cgi?ccd=8SrPpn&o=e0&sec=sec1&op=v&view=0-1