華語「通過」及「透過」之辨析──基於意象圖式和空間融合理論之分析

On the Semantic Distinction between Tongguo and Touguo: An Image-Schematic and Conceptual Blending Approach

本研究旨在釐清「通過」與「透過」此組近義詞在語義、語體及兩岸用法差異，從意象圖式、空間融合理論切入，在語料庫的基礎上區辨兩詞的核心語義。本文主要圍繞三個研究問題：（1）意象圖式如何凸顯兩詞的核心差異？（2）兩詞在口語使用頻率的差距是否與其義項數量及分工有關？（3）臺灣和中國在兩詞的使用上是否存在分布差異？是否和語言自然發展有關？本研究所使用和參考的語料有：（1）COCT書面語語料庫（臺灣語料）；（2）北京語言大學語料庫（中國語料）；（3）中文詞彙特性速描系統（含臺灣、中國語料）；（4）COCT口語語料庫（臺灣語料）。研究結果發現：（1）意象圖式指出「透過」的語義傾向於「過程」，而「通過」傾向於「結果」；（2）「通過」義項範圍廣，得與「來」、「以」等詞共現代替副動詞的功能，而「透過」則不像「通過」的副動詞功能可由其他義項分工，根據關聯理論，口語中被提取機率會更高；（3）中國較常用「通過」，「臺灣」較常用「透過」，語料指出副動詞的「通過」被列為中國的規範詞彙，而「透過」則不然。本研究結果得以填補過去文獻在兩詞辨析上的缺口。

This study investigates the semantic, stylistic, and cross-strait differences between the near-synonymous forms tōngguòand tòuguò, drawing on image schemas and Blending Theory to uncover their core semantic distinctions. Using corpus-based evidence, the study first evaluates whether image schemas can account for the fundamental contrast between the two forms. The analysis shows that tòuguòsemantically foregrounds process, while tōngguòhighlights result, providing a cognitively grounded explanation for their divergent uses. The second research question considers whether the wide frequency gap observed in spoken language reflects differences in the number of senses and functional distributions associated with each word. The findings reveal that tōngguòexhibits a broader range of meanings and can co-occur with elements such as lái 'come' and yǐ'with' to replace its coverb function, whereas the coverb function of tòuguòdoes not show comparable flexibility. From the perspective of Relevance Theory, this makes tòuguòmore likely to be activated in spoken discourse, given its process-oriented semantic profile and reduced functional load. The third research question explores whether Taiwan and Mainland China display divergent usage patterns of these two forms. The results demonstrate that tōngguòis used more frequently in China, whereas tòuguòappears more commonly in Taiwan. This distribution corresponds with normative linguistic policies: the coverb use of tōngguòis codified as standard in China, while tòuguòlacks such prescriptive support. These cross-strait differences, when considered alongside the semantic and functional distinctions identified earlier, suggest that the two forms have undergone separate yet natural trajectories of linguistic development. Overall, the study contributes to filling a notable gap in the literature by providing an integrated semantic, discourse-functional, and sociolinguistic account of how tōngguòand tòuguòdiffer in contemporary usage.