華語手部動作動詞種類多元，且多出現在初級詞表中。本研究透過中央研究院「現代漢語語料庫詞頻統計」系統確認「打」為手部動作動詞中使用頻率較高的詞語。且「打」擁有豐富的詞義，同時具有具體義、延伸義及隱喻義。因此，「打」以多元性的詞義體現於日常使用中，以至於華語學習者尚未熟悉使用方法前，容易產生錯誤。
本研究以教育部國語辭典釋義為主，｢中文詞彙網路」（Chinese Wordnet）為輔，查找「打」的詞義，依照其基本義、延伸義及隱喻義區分成三大類。分析結果顯示，「打」的基本義為「擊、敲擊」，所延伸出的詞義可分為10小類；隱喻義則有12小類。延伸義與基本義較為相近且具體，而隱喻義詞義較為抽象，且詞義遠離基本義，並察覺「打」語義發展從具體詞義漸漸地往較抽象詞義發展。本研究將藉由原型理論（Rosch, 1978; Taylor, 2003）及隱喻概念（Lakoff & Johnson 1980, 2003）為理論基礎，探討「打」詞義間的關聯，建構出一個輻射式的語義網路。此外，本研究亦嘗試以「打」的詞義類型探究其搭配詞的特性，研究結果顯示，延伸義後接搭配詞大多為具體人與物為主；而隱喻義大多為與事件相關的抽象事物。
最後，為了證實「打」在實際語言環境的真實現象，本研究實行問卷調查，招募了30位母語受試者及30位華語學習者受試者，並與語料分布進行對比。結果顯示，在單一詞義的詞語測試結果顯示，母語受試者的答題情況較華語學習者受試者表現佳，說明華語學習者受試者對於「打」的詞義尚未完全掌握前，較難判斷出正確的詞義。而具歧義的詞語測試結果不論問卷分析或是語料分布皆呈現一致的結果，但華語學習者受試者的答題情形比母語受試者更為貼近語料分布。

There are many types of Chinese hand action verbs, and they mostly appear in the elementary vocabulary. In this study, the Academia Sinica's " Word List with Accumulated Word Frequency in Sinica Corpus" system confirmed that "dǎ " is a frequently used word in hand action verbs. Moreover, "dǎ " has a rich meaning of words, as well as concrete, extended and metaphorical meanings. Therefore, "dǎ " is embodied in daily use with multiple meanings, so that Chinese learners are prone to make mistakes before they are familiar with the method of use.
This research is based on the interpretation of the Mandarin Chinese Dictionary, supplemented by the Chinese Wordnet. The search for the meaning of the word "dǎ " is divided into three categories according to its basic meaning, extended meaning, and metaphorical meaning. The analysis results show that the basic meaning of "dǎ " is strike and percussion, the extended meaning of the word can be divided into 10 sub-categories; the metaphorical meaning has 12 sub-categories. The extended meaning is relatively similar and specific to the basic meaning, while the metaphorical meaning of the word is more abstract, and the meaning of the word is far away from the basic meaning, and the development of the meaning of "dǎ " is gradually developing from the concrete meaning to the more abstract meaning.
This research will use prototype theory (Rosch, 1978; Taylor, 2003) and metaphorical concepts (Lakoff & Johnson 1980, 2003) as the theoretical basis to explore the relationship between the meanings of "dǎ " and construct a radial semantic network. In addition, this research also tries to explore the characteristics of collocation words with the word meaning type of "dǎ ". The research results show that most collocation words followed by extended meanings are mainly concrete people and things; while metaphorical meanings are mostly abstract things related to events.
Finally, in order to confirm the real phenomenon of "dǎ " in the actual language environment, this study conducted a questionnaire survey, recruited 30 native-speaking subjects and 30 Chinese learning subjects, and compared them with the corpus distribution. The results show that the test results of the single word meaning show that the answer of the native language subjects is better than that of the Chinese learning subjects, indicating that the Chinese learning subjects had difficulty in judging the correct word meanings before they had fully grasped the meaning of the word "dǎ ". The test results of ambiguous words showed consistent results regardless of the questionnaire analysis or the corpus distribution, but the answering situation of the Chinese learning subjects was closer to the corpus distribution than the native language subjects.

王維成（1988）。 從歧義看句法，語義，語用之間的關係。語言教學與研究，1，32-41。
王錦慧、何淑貞（2015）。華語教學語法（修訂版）。臺北：文鶴出版有限公司。
王耀東、敏春芳（2011）。「打」字的來源及讀音考。寧波大學學報：人文科學版，24（2），36-39。
吳品嬅、陳純音（2019）。華語多義詞「怕」的語義探討及其教學啟示-以 「怕」、「害怕」、「可怕」、「恐怕」為例。華語文教學研究，16（4），1-32。
呂佳（2015）。多義詞「打」義項關聯的認知闡釋。語文學刊: 高等教育版，7，28-29。
呂叔湘（1999）。現代漢語八百詞。北京：商務印書館。
李佳佳（2011）。從認知的角度探析常用詞「打」的多義模式。綏化學院學報，2，129-131。
邢志群（2011）。對外漢語詞彙教學法初探。Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association (JCLTA)，46，2。
周曉彥（2016）。認知視域下動詞「打」義項的家族相似性。唐山師範學院學報，36-41。
柳慧朗（2018）。多義詞華語「開」與韓語「열다」的語義對比分析與教學應用-以初中級學習者為例。臺大華語文教學研究，6，47-80。
姚榮松（1996）。從兩岸三地新詞的滋生類型看當代漢語的創新與互動。法國首屆漢語教學學術研討會論文集，93。法國：鳳凰書店。
洪嘉馡、黃居仁、馬偉雲（2008）。語料庫為本的兩岸對應詞彙發掘。語言暨語言學，9（2），221-238。
徐時儀（2001）。「打」字的語義分析續補。辭書研究，3，66-74。
徐時儀（2008）。「打」字的語義分析再補。南陽師範學院學報，7（4），61-67。
張江麗、孟德宏、劉衛紅（2011）。漢語第二語言學習者單音多義詞習得深度研究——以動詞「打」為例。語言文字應用，1，112-121。
張林（2001）。動詞「打」的論元結構和句法特點。湘潭師範學院學報：社會科學版，23（4），101-105。
張莉萍（2014）。不同母語背景華語學習者的用詞特徵：以語料庫為本的研究。Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing，19（2）， 53-72。
曹先擢（1996）。「打」字的語義分析──為慶賀《辭書研究》百期作。辭書研究，6，34-44。
許慎（2012）。說文解字。藝術中國網。
曾榮汾（1994）。兩岸語言詞彙整理之我見。兩岸漢語語彙文字學術研討會論文集。臺北市：中華語文研習所。
路平（1986）。淺談「模糊」和「歧義」。漢語學習，3，14-17。
趙元任、石安石（1988）。漢語的歧義問題。語言學論叢，第15輯。北京：商務印書館。
劉複。（1986）。打雅。劉半農文選，人民文學出版社，119-127。
歐德芬（2013）。多義詞義項區別性探究-以感官動詞「看」為例。華語文教學研究，10（3），1-39。
歐德芬（2015）。教學為導向的漢語多義動詞辨析──以「開」為例。臺灣華語教學研究，11，45-66。
盧婉瑩（2017）。簡析漢語多義動詞「打」的意義。現代交際：學術版，8， 100-101。
蕭惠貞（2013）。多義詞「洗」之語義分析、詞彙排序與華語教學應用。華語文教學研究，10（4），47-80。
Apresjan, J. D. (1974). Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 12(142), 5-32.
Aristotle, A. & Aristotle. (1933). Metaphysics (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Azuma, T. & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why SAFE is better than FAST: The relatedness of a word's meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of memory and language, 36(4), 484-504.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (Vol. 4). New York: Longman.
Dirven, R. (2005). Major strands in cognitive linguistics. Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 69-100.
Evans, V. (2005). The meaning of time: polysemy, the lexicon and conceptual structure. Journal of linguistics, 41(1), 33-75.
Firth, J. 1957. Papers in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Gao, H. (2001). The physical foundation of the patterning of physical action verbs (Doctoral dissertation, PhD thesis, Lund University), 157-204.
Hogaboam, T. W. & Perfetti, C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 14(3), 265-274.
Hong, J. F., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C. R. (2008). The Polysemy of Da3: An ontology-based study. In 9th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop (CLSW 2008), National University of Singapore, 13-16.
Hsiao, H. S., Chen, Y. C., & Wu, Y. C. (2016). Representation of Polysemy in Mandarin Verbs: Chī, Dǎ, and Xǐ. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 42(1), 1-30.
Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive psychology, 13(2), 278-305.
Lakoff, G. & Mark J. (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago and London.
Lin, C. J. C. & Ahrens, K. (2010). Ambiguity advantage revisited: Two meanings are better than one when accessing Chinese nouns. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 39(1), 1-19.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Volume I. Cambridge UP, Cambridge.
Nattinger, J. R. & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (1998). The generative lexicon. MIT press.
Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.). (1978). Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Saeed, John I. (2016). Semantics (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sweetser, E. E. (1986). Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary? In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 12), 528-538.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization. Oxford University Press.
Tyler, A. & Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 724-765.
Wittgenstein, L. (1975). Philosophische untersuchungen. Suhrkamp.
辭典
Dictionary, C. E. (2000). Harper Collins. London & Glasgow.
現代漢語辭典第五版 (2005)。北京：商務印書館. ISBN 978-7-100-04385-4
教育部重編國語辭典修訂本。取自 http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/。檢索日期：2021/07/15
網路資源
中央研究院漢語平衡語料庫4.0。取自 http://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/。檢索日 期：2021/07/15
中央研究院中古漢語語料庫。取自http://lingcorpus.iis.sinica.edu.tw/middle/。檢索日期：2021/07/15
中文詞彙網路2.0。取自 https://lopentu.github.io/CwnWeb/#home。檢索日期：2021/07/15
現代漢語語料庫詞頻統計。取自https://elearning.ling.sinica.edu.tw/cwordfreq.html。檢索日期2021/07/15