本論文試圖以認知角度建立閩南語顏色詞「白」的語義系統，以解釋其不同的意思，並且探討顏色詞「白」在日常生活交談上之語用功能。首先，根據教育部臺灣閩南語常用詞辭典所蒐集的語料，不同語義的顏色詞「白」，可以被大致歸類為原型意義(prototypical meaning)和延伸意義(extended meanings)。在原型意義(prototypical meaning)下，主要類型為感知類型(perception-based type)。在此類型下，顏色詞「白」的意義通常和我們所處環境有著密不可分的關係。延伸意義(extended meanings)下的主要類型包含認知類型(conception-based type)，而認知類型(extended meanings)又再細分為四種認知語意機制來加以闡釋。換言之，在認知類型(conception-based type)下，不同語義的顏色詞「白」可以用四種認知語意機制的觀點來解讀，也就是轉喻延伸意義(metonymic extension)、隱喻延伸意義(metaphorical extension)、隱喻與轉喻之互動(the interaction of metaphor and metonymy)以及文化相關之延伸意義(culturally-related extension)。
其次，為了深入了解顏色詞「白」在閩南語中的語用功能，本文將接續探討在日常生活使用上，顏色詞「白」和臺灣文化背景之相互關係。在平日交談上，顏色詞「白」所扮演和擁有的功能，主要依賴它在上下文的位置來決定。另外，我們所在的大環境或社會，亦會幫我們挑選最合適的措辭用語(Mey, 2008)。因為上下文和文化背景的影響，我們沒辦法確切的將每一種用語正確的歸類到它所屬的類型。顏色感知的隱含意義不是生理上的，而是由社會所建構出來的(Lucy, 1997)。除此以外，特定的顏色詞「白」，例如：pe̍h-pau (白包), pe̍h-thiap-á (白帖仔)……等，不僅僅只是本身顏色的指代，它還能同時建立和增進語言使用者之間的情感。就整體而言，本研究不論在語意上，甚至語用上，都讓我們對閩南語顏色詞「白」的認知有更進一步的認識。

This thesis aims to construct a semantic system for the disparate uses of peh in TSM and peh’s pragmatic functions in actual language uses in terms of cognitive accounts. Firstly, based on the data collected from dictionaries of the Ministry of Education, the present study divided the various meanings of peh into two main types, i.e., prototypical meaning and extended meanings. Prototypical meaning is further classified into perception-based type. How peh is perceived in perception-based type is in close relationship with the actual environment where we interact with. On the other hand, the main category under extended meanings is conception-based type, which is divided into four subcategories of cognitive mechanisms. That is, the diverse meanings of peh in conception-based type will be interpreted in the perspective of four subcategories of cognitive mechanisms. They are metonymic extension, metaphorical extension, the interaction of metaphor and metonymy, and culturally-related extension.
Then, to better understand peh’s pragmatic functions in TSM, the study shifts its foucus to the examination of the interrelationship between peh and the shared Taiwanese cultural background knowledge in actual language uses. Basically, the function which peh serves in discourse depends mainly on the context where it is used, and the world or the community will determine and pick up the most appropriate wordings for us (Mey, 2008). There is no definite answer as to which linguistic expression bears which meaning or interpretation when we try to sort out all possible interpretations and meanings for each linguistic expression containing peh. We need both contextual clues and cultural background knowledge to decipher peh’s underlying meanings. The encodings of color perception do not lie in our biology; instead, it is structured socially (Lucy, 1997). In addition, certain uses of peh, e.g., pe̍h-pau (白包), pe̍h-thiap-á (白帖仔), etc., in real life discourse make the function of peh more than a representation of the color itself but bridge the gap and create interpersonal relationship between their language users at the same time. On the whole, this research may shed light on the cognitive understanding of peh in TSM not only semantically but also pragmatically.

論文審定書........................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................ii
中文摘要..........................................................................................................................iii
English Abstract................................................................................................................iv
Chapter 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................1
1.1 Background and Motivation................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose of the Study............................................................................................4
1.3 Organization of the Thesis...................................................................................6
Chapter 2 Literature Review..............................................................................................7
2.1 Previous Studies on Basic Color Terms...............................................................7
2.2 Previous Studies on Color Metaphors...............................................................10
2.2.1 Studies on Color Metaphors in Other Languages...................................11
2.2.2 Studies on Color Metaphors in Mandarin Chinese.................................13
Chapter 3 A Cognitive Account of Key Concepts...........................................................19
3.1 Prototype............................................................................................................19
3.2 Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Interaction between Metaphor and Metonymy.21
3.2.1 Metaphor.................................................................................................21
3.2.2 Metonymy...............................................................................................24
3.2.3 The Interaction between Metaphor and Metonymy................................27
3.3 Synesthesia........................................................................................................30
3.4 Blending.............................................................................................................34
3.5 Cultural Model and ICMs..................................................................................38
Chapter 4 Discussions.....................................................................................................43
4.1 From Semantics to Pragmatics..........................................................................43
4.2 Different Types of Words Involving Peh in TSM..............................................45
4.2.1 The Perception-based Type: Prototypical Meanings of Peh...................49
4.2.2 The Conception-based Type: Extended Meanings of Peh......................50
4.2.2.1 Metonymic Extension..................................................................51
4.2.2.2 Metaphorical Extension...............................................................56
4.2.2.2.1 Mapping............................................................................56
4.2.2.2.2 Synesthetic Metaphor.......................................................59
4.2.2.2.3 Blending............................................................................61
4.2.2.3 The Interaction of Metaphor and Metonymy...............................63
4.2.2.4 Culturally Based Extension.........................................................65
4.3 Peh in Conversational Texts..............................................................................67
4.3.1 Peh’s Functions in Discourse..................................................................68
4.3.2 Peh and Taiwanese Culture in Discourse................................................72
Chapter 5 Conclusion......................................................................................................76
References.......................................................................................................................84
Appendix I List of Linguistic Expressions of Peh..........................................................91
Appendix II Peh in discourse..........................................................................................94

Barcelona, A. (2000). Introduction: the cognitive theory of metaphor and metonym. In: Barcelona, Antonio (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonym at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 1-28.
Barnden, J. A. (2010). Metaphor and metonymy: Making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics 21(1), 1-34.
Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: their universality and evolution. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1988). Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London, Longman.
Cienki, A. 2007. Frames, idealized cognitive models, domains. In Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 170-187). Oxford University Press.
Conklin, H. C. (1962). Lexicographical treatment of folk taxonomies. International Journal of American Linguistics 27, 119-141.
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 335-70.
D’Andrade, R. (1987). A folk model of the mind. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 112–148). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Derrig, S. (1978). Metaphor in the color lexicon. In papers from the Parasession on the lexicon Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. by Frakas, D., W. M. Jacobsen, and K. W. Todrys. April 14(15), 85-96.
Dirven, R. (1993). Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of conceptualization. Leuvense Bijdragen 82, 1-28.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Principles of conceptual integration. In Koenig, J.P. (ed.), Discourse and cognition (pp. 269-283). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blendings and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fesmire, S. A. (1994). Aerating the mind: the metaphor of mental functioning as bodily functioning. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 9(1), 31-44.
Foley, W. A. (1997). Color. In William A. Foley (ed.), Anthropological linguistics: An introduction (pp. 114-67). The Hague: Mouton.
Forceville, C. (2006). ”Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research.” In: Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, René Dirven and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibàñez (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives (pp. 379-402). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [Reprinted in Forceville and Urios-Aparisi 2009.]
Gibbs, R. W. (1999).Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting into the cultural world. In R. Gibbs and G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 145-166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions of linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 1, 323-340.
Grady, J. E. (1997). THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 267-290.
Grady, J. E. (2005). Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (10), 1595–1614.
Grady, J. E. (2007). Metaphor. In D. Geeraert & H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 188-212). Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (1993). Case marking the semantics of mental verbs. In J. Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon (pp. 55–72). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, S. -F. (1993). Yuyan, Shehui, Yu Zuqun Yishi: Taiwan Yuyan Shehuixue de Yanjiu [Language, Society, and Ethnic Consciousness: A Sociolinguistic Study on Taiwan]. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
Hutchins, E. (1980). Culture and Inference: A Trobriand Case Study. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Hymes, D. (1964). Language in Culture and Society: A reader in linguistics and anthropology. New York : Harper & Row.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Johnson, M. (1999). Embodied reason. In Weiss, Gail, Haber, Honi F. (Eds.), Perspectives on embodiment: The intersections of nature and culture. Routledge, New York, pp. 81-102.
Kay, P. (1975). Synchronic variability and diachronic change in basic color terms. Language in society 4(3), 257-270.
Kay, P., & McDaniel, C. (1978). The linguistic significance of the meaning of basic color terms. Language 54, 610-46.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kövecses, Z., & Szabó, P. (1996). Idioms: a view from cognitive semantics. Applied linguistics 17, 326-355.
Kikuchi, A., & Lichtenberk, F. (1983). Semantic extension in the color lexicon. Studies in Language 7(1), 25-64.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1994). What is a conceptual system? In William Overton (ed.), Proceedings of the 1991 meeting of the Piaget society. Norwood, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Langacker, R. (1991). Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Li, Y. (2003). A cognitive semantic analysis of the basic color terms in Chinese. A master thesis in Zhejiang University.
Liu, Y.-P. (2002). A cognitive approach to the understanding of the six basic color words in Mandarin Chinese. A master thesis in National Taiwan Normal University.
Lucy, J. A. (1997). The linguistic of “color.” In C.L. Hardin and L. Maffi, eds., Color categories in thought and language (pp. 320-346). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Marks, L. E. (1978). The unity of the senses. New York and London: Academic Press.
McArthur, T. (Ed.). (1992). The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse. London: Longman.
Mey, J. L. (2008). Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Mills, C. (1984). English color terms: language, culture and psychology. Semiotica 52(1), 95-109.
Moon, R. (1992). Textual aspects of fixed expressions in learners’ dictionaries. In Arnaud PJ, Béjoint, H. (eds). Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 13-27). Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Palmeri, T.J., Blake, R., Marois, R., Flanery, M. A., & Whetsell, W. Jr. (2002). The perceptual reality of synesthetic colors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(6), 4127-4131.
Panther, K., –U. & Thornburg, L. (2007). Metonymy. In Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (ed). The Oxofrd Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 238-263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Philip, G. (2006). Connotative meaning in English and Italian color-word metaphors. Available: http://www.metaphorik.de/10/philip.pdf.
Quinn, N. (1987). Convergent evidence for a cultural model of American marriage. In Holland, D., & Quinn, N. (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 173-192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
N. Quinn & D. Holland (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge University Press.
Radden, G. (2000). How metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast (pp. 407-434). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17-59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Timothy E. Moore (ed), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111-144). New York: Academic Press.
Sapir, E. (1949). Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality. David Mandelbaum (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press.
Song, W. -H. (2008). A study of semantic evolutions and usage comparisons between the Chinese word “bai” and the English word “white.” A master thesis in Shanghai Normal University.
Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strässler, J. (1982). Idioms in English: A pragmatic analysis. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Su, L. I. W. (2002). What can metaphors tell us about culture? Language and Linguistics, 3(3), 589-614.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Traugott, E. C. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel. (eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245-271.
Ullmann, S. (1959). The Principle of Semantics. 2nd ed. Glasgow: Jackson.
William, J. E., Morland, J. K., & Underwood, W. L. (1970). Connotations of color names in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Social Psychology 82, 3-14.
Williams, J. M. (1976). Synesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language 52(2), 461-478.
Wierzibicka, A. (1990). The meaning of color terms: semantic, culture and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1), 99-150.
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantic: primes and universals. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wu, T. -F. (2007). The color term Hei “黑” (black) in Mandarin Chinese: A cognitive semantics study. A master thesis in Providence University.
Yu, N. (1998). The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Yu, N. (2003a). The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 663-686.
Yu, N. (2003b). Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of literary semantics 32, 19-34.