本文主要探究「給N1 V N2」及「V N2 給N1」的差異，採語料庫調查及顯著共現詞素分析法，再結合Liu (2006)與Goldberg (1995, 2002)的動詞類別，確認兩構式間有各自吸引的動詞類別與構式義，支持 Goldberg (1995)提出的「構式無同義原則」。本文進一步發現中國與臺灣形成各自的語言習慣，中國語料顯示不論動詞類別都傾向使用「給N1 V N2」，以及受北方方言影響偏好「V 給」複合雙及物動詞，皆與臺灣語料使用分佈的現象有顯著不同。

This paper adopts a distinctive collexeme analysis of corpus-based data to investigate the difference between the [gei-N1-V-N2] and [V-N2-gei-N1] constructions in Mandarin. The data were collected from the Sinica Corpus, developed in Taiwan, and the CCL Corpus from Mainland China, each in accordance with the respective corpus policies. Based on the distinctive collexeme analysis of Sinica Corpus data, two distinctive verb collexeme lists showed distinctive attractions to two target constructions. By applying Liu (2006) and Goldberg’s (1995) classifications, the findings indicate that the two constructions have separate and particular verb subclasses, as well as construction meanings. This finding is comparable with the “Principle of No Synonymy” proposed by Goldberg (1995). After data analysis, the current study found, in the case of da dianhua “give someone a call,” the corpora sheds light on the differences in usage of this specific verb phrase between Mainland China and Taiwan. Based upon Mainland China-based corpus data, the overall [gei-N1-V-N2] was preferred by speakers of Mandarin from Mainland China, regardless of verb subclasses, in contrast to speakers of Mandarin from Taiwan.

顯著共現詞素分析; 動詞語意類別; 構式無同義原則; 語言現象差異

Distinctive Collexeme Analysis; Verb Subclasses; Principle of No Synonymy; Linguistics Difference