透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.234.202.202
  • 學位論文

海圖新繪:從句法—語用介面看台灣閩南語的製圖分析

Charting the High Seas: A Cartographic View of Taiwanese Southern Min from the Syntax–Pragmatics Interface

指導教授 : 蔡維天

摘要


隨著製圖理論(Rizzi 1997;Cinque 1999)的出現,句法學家得以另闢蹊徑,向句法—語用界面展開新一輪的探索。而華語因著在範域關係上呈現高度分析性,具有「句法上的詮釋高度」與「句法—語意對應」之間相對嚴謹的關係,始終於描繪句法分佈上扮演著重要角色;然而,同樣身為東亞語言,分析性更強的台灣閩南語,則未受到同等的關注。 事實上正因其分析性有過之而無不及,台灣閩南語有著許多與語境相關連的顯性功能詞,而這些功能詞在華語中不見得能找到對應詞,由此,台灣閩南語乃為進一步探索句法—語用界面所處的句法左緣結構開了一扇方便之門。 藉由對四個詞項、六個用法的探究,我們得以看見台灣閩南語如何鮮活地將說話者與聽話者、非核心語意與命題層次、共知背景與新訊息、話題與示證性之間的互動在詞項中具體呈現。 以句法階層位置上最高的「咧1」與「咧2」來說,這兩個詞項將代表說話者與聽話者之間互動的言語行為殼結構的兩個主要語顯性化(Speas & Tenny 2003),不同於前人對於此一功能投射之下詞項的觀察(Hill 2007; Haegeman & Hill 2011, 2013; Haegeman 2014),「咧1」與「咧2」與句法結構上較低的呼格無關,甚且,這兩個詞項體現了說話者與聽話者同命題的攸關性,是目前所知在實證上最具說服力的言語行為殼結構的顯性成份,就此,我們可說台灣閩南語是貨真價實的Speas-Tennian語言。除了提供「咧1」與「咧2」的句法及語意分析,本論文並指出另一個位置較低,需與言明焦點共現,且只用於帶說話者特殊態度反詰問句的另一用法:「咧3」;經由這些觀察,我們得見功能詞「咧」因著語法化所衍生由低到高的不同用法,再次驗證透明原則在自然語言不具普遍性(Lightfoot 1979;參見Tsai 2015a)。 早在漢藏語言研究發軔之初,關於華語「是」的研究就如雨後春筍般相繼問世,但本論文所提出「是」的兩個用法,或因對台灣閩南語的相對忽視,又或因此二用法的口語性質,在文獻中未見討論。除了前人所指出各種「是」的用法之外,本論文點出台灣閩南語且將「是」用做言明焦點標記與評論肯定焦點標記;而說話者可藉由「是」來強調非核心語意的用法,則對主張「是」應一律視為繫詞以達成一致性分析的陣營帶來挑戰(如 Cheng 2008)。 同樣常見於日常口語,句首的「啊」在本文中也得到了詳細的檢視及說明,尤其重要的是,本論文主張台灣閩南語句首的「啊」,並非一般所謂單純的「發語詞」,事實上,這個成份的使用是有其語境與句法條件的。在階層位置上,句首的「啊」僅只低於言語行為殼結構,一旦使用,便或是將前句,或是將語境當中的內容,與後句相互接合,與此同時,並要求兩方的內容具備對比性質。一如前面所提到的其他詞項與用法,句首的「啊」再次例示了句法與語用如何相輔相成,並將其交互作用於詞項中具現。 論文的最後一章探討了示證性「無」的分佈與運作,這個功能詞不只常見於句末,更能在句首及句中使用,如果我們對相關現象的歸納無誤,則這個示證性的「無」將是首個於東亞語言當中發掘的共有知識示證詞(Hintz & Hintz 2017)。功能之外,在句法上,由於此一詞項在句中的位置,取決於說話者對命題各部份內容,在語篇話題(亦即QUD)的觀念上,基於語境中該內容是否為聽話者所注意到而做出的判斷,所進行部份或全部內容的話題化移位;換言之,其移位動機,在於建立或確認當前的語篇目標,而語篇目標所決定的,正是命題中各部份內容的相關性高低。至此,我們藉由以上各個功能詞,標定了左緣結構上的一些位置,可做為日後進一步研究的參考點。

並列摘要


With the introduction of the Cartographic Approach (Rizzi 1997; Cinque 1999), syntacticians now have a new perspective in exploring the syntax–pragmatics interface. Well-known by its more analytic strategy to represent the scope relation, since then, Mandarin Chinese (MC) has played a crucial role in depicting the syntactic topography for its strict syntax–semantics correspondence encoded by the notion “the height of interpretation.” Nonetheless, Taiwanese Southern Min (TSM), an even more analytic member in the East Asian languages, has drawn much less attention so far. Thanks to its strong analyticity, TSM furnishes overt function words, which are discourse-oriented and have no counterparts in MC; therefore, this provides convenient access to extend our research into the far left periphery, the uncharted seas seating the syntax–pragmatics interface. By looking into the four elements with six usages in total, I demonstrate how vividly the language incarnates the interactions between speaker and hearer, not-at-issue and at-issue content, common ground and new information, and topics and evidentiality. At the uppermost positions, leh1 (咧) and leh2 (咧) realize the heads of SA shell, and the projection embodies the interplay between the speaker and the addressee (Speas & Tenny 2003). Unlike previous studies that claim the discovery of a lexical item under this projection (Hill 2007; Haegeman & Hill 2011, 2013; Haegeman 2014), leh1 (咧) and leh2 (咧) have nothing to do with vocative, which is supposed hierarchically lower; instead, these two elements are intertwined with the speaker’s and the hearer’s concern with respect to the proposition. With these two best candidates that illustrate the existence of the SA shell, TSM, to my knowledge, is a real Speas-Tennian language. In addition to the syntax and semantics of leh1 (咧) and leh2 (咧), I also point out another usage of leh (leh3), which is lower and interacts with the dictum focus marker in a rhetorical question conveying the speaker’s attitude. The particle leh (咧), with a series of usages from low to high, derived from a process of grammaticalization exemplifies the nullification of Transparency Principle (Lightfoot 1979; cf, Tsai 2015a). Albeit shì (是) ‘be’ in MC has been rather investigated since the early days of Sino-Tibetan linguistics—probably due to neglect of the language in question and its colloquial register—the two usages of sī (是) ‘be’ focused on in this thesis have never been mentioned in the literature. As another instance of violating the Transparency Principle, the word is now employed as a dictum focus and a commenting verum focus marker in TSM, in addition to its well-known copular usage and the disputed focus marking cognates. With the fact that it functions to emphasize the not-at-issue comment from the speaker, the data constitutes a challenge against the camp, which suggests the analysis of all its occurrences as copulas in a unified fashion (e.g., Cheng 2008). Also frequently found in daily conversation, the sentence-initial ah (啊) is carefully examined herein. Unlike other introductory elements, this element is conditioned both discoursally and syntactically. Only second to the speech act (SA) shell, it bridges the antecedent sentence or the context and the following sentence. Additionally, it requires a contrast between the two bridged by itself. This element, once again, illustrates how syntax and pragmatics collaborate and actualize this collaboration in lexical items. Last, a chapter is devoted to the enquiry into the distribution and derivation of the evidential bô (無), a particle whose occurrences found not only at the sentence-final position but across the sentence. Empirically, if the generalizations are correct, we have found a counterpart of mutual knowledge evidentials in an East Asian language (Hintz & Hintz 2017). Even more interestingly, this particle may trigger the topicalization of part of or the whole sentence based on the speaker’s judgment regarding which part of the proposition is noticeable by the addressee in the context, under the notion of discourse topic (cf. QUD; question under discussion). Because the main motivation of this preposing is more about establishing or confirming the current discourse goal that determines what is relevant, unsurprisingly, the element is also pinpointed in the far left periphery as the last piece of the jigsaw is worked out in the thesis.

參考文獻


Lau, Seng-hian. 2010. Excising Tags: Distinguishing between Interrogative SFPs and Tag Questions in Taiwanese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 8.1:1-28.
Teng, Shou-hsin. 1992. Diversification and unification of negation in Taiwanese. Chinese Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 1. Taipei: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 609-629.
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1971. Two Negative Markers in Taiwanese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 43:210-220.
Liu, Hsiuying & Chinfa, Lien. 2006. Mǐnnányǔ gǎntàn jùshì chūtàn [Introduction to the exclamatory sentences in Southern Min]. Zhōngguó Yǔxué 253:92-116.
von Fintel, Kai and Anthony S. Gillies. 2010. Must...stay...strong! Natural Language Semantics 18:351-383.

延伸閱讀