賽夏語疑問詞問句及其左緣結構之研究

Left Periphery and Wh-questions in Saisiyat

周一銘(Yi-ming Marc Chou)

指導教授 ： 蔡維天

國立清華大學/人文社會學院/臺灣研究教師在職進修碩士學位班/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6843/NTHU.2008.00130

摘要

本篇論文旨在研究賽夏語疑問詞問句及其左緣結構，主要課題著重在各類疑問詞的語意詮釋機制及其在句法結構上的分佈。
賽夏語的疑問詞，根據句法和構詞上的表現，大致可以區分為名詞性、狀語性等兩類。其中，名詞性疑問詞如同一般名詞可以被格位記號(case-markers)標記，也可以在等同結構(equational construction)中擔任謂語(predicate)；狀語性疑問詞的自由分佈，違反了主語優勢(subject-sensitive)理論，但可由蔡(2004)的時態特徵假說(T-feature checking hypothesis)獲得合理說明；我們也討論了一些具有雙重角色(dual status)而可以擔任中心語或者修飾語的疑問詞。
我們認為賽夏語是典型的疑問詞在位(wh-in-situ)語言。由於名詞性疑問詞透過「運符-變數約束」(operator-variable binding)得到認證(licensing)，不涉及句法移位，故缺乏地域效應(locality effects)，且違反空號原則(ECP)及承接條件(Subjacency)。嚴格來講，其詮釋過程(interpretation procedure)是雷因哈特(1998)所倡議的選擇函數(choice function)，即疑問詞具有選擇函數的功能並挑選由名詞制約(N-restriction)所指涉的群組變數(set variable)，接著此選擇函數再轉譯(translated)為f-變數(f-variable)，最後由遠端的一個「疑問-運符」(Q-operator)進行長距離約束(long-distance binding)。如此，解決了無擇約束(unselective binding)蘊含(entailment)不正確的問題，也說明了疑問詞的無定用法是其他的量化詞(quantifiers)與「疑問-運符」相互干涉(intervention)的結果。
我們提出賽夏語中的狀語性疑問詞nak ’ino’(怎麼)和’am powa’(為什麼)會因結構位置而產生不同語意。透過詞序、主語限制(subjectivity restriction)、干涉作用(intervention effects)、範域互動、無論-結構、句子補語、多重疑問結構等證據，我們認為「致使-怎麼」和「原因-為什麼」位於句子左緣(left periphery)，作為整個句子的運符；「方法-怎麼」、「工具-怎麼」、「目的-為什麼」則佔據輕動詞組左緣(vP periphery)，作為事件謂語。「方法-怎麼」為副詞性狀語，具有量化特徵，必須進行邏輯位移(LF-movement)，「工具-怎麼」及「目的-為什麼」則透過「運符-變數」得到認證。由於認證過程不同，產生不同程度干涉作用；「結果-怎麼」則作為論元，出現在動詞組的補語位置，由動詞管轄(govern)。採用芮茨(1997)和藍姆康德(2003)的製圖理念(cartographic approach)以及蔡(2007)內狀語-與事性(comitativity)和外狀語-致使性(causality)的區分，我們描繪了賽夏語疑問詞的句法-語意地圖，同時認為疑問詞間干涉作用的不對稱性(asymmetry)，可以透過芮茨(1997)提出的廣義相對性近距原則(Generalized Relativized Minimality)得到合理解釋(或見蔡2008)。

關鍵字

賽夏語 ； 疑問詞問句 ； 左緣結構 ； 在位疑問詞 ； 選擇函數 ； 製圖理論 ； 相對性近距原則 ； 句法-語意介面

並列摘要

The thesis deals with wh-questions and left periphery in Saisiyat. We focus on the topics regarding the interpretation and the syntactic distribution of wh's.
The interrogatives in Saisiyat are grouped into two types: nominal and adverbial according to their corresponding syntactic and morphological behaviors. Among them, nominal wh-words like general nouns can either be marked by case markers or function as predicates in equational constructions. On the other hand, the free distribution of adverbial wh-words, which violate subject-sensitive theory, can be reasonably illustrated under the T-feature checking hypothesis proposed by Tsai (2004). Moreover, we will also discuss some wh-words with dual-status, which can serve as a head and as a modifier.
We argue that Saisiyat is a true wh-in-situ language. Since nominal wh-words are licensed by operator-variable binding involving no syntactic movement, it lacks locality effects, and violates ECP and Subjacency. Crucially, the interpretation procedure is through the choice function put forward by Reinhart (1998). That is, wh’s serve as a choice function which selects the set variable denoted by N-restriction. The choice function, in turn, is translated as an f-variable being long-distantly bound by a Q-operator far away. Thus, it solves the problems of incorrect entailment resulting from applying unselective binding mechanism. Furthermore, the indefinite wh construals are due to the intervention between the Q-operator and other quantifiers.
We propose that the adverbial wh-words, i.e. nak ’ino’ ‘how’ and ’am powa’ ‘why’, in Saisiyat have different significance depending on their corresponding syntactic positions. According to the evidence from subjectivity restriction, intervention effects, no-matter constructions, multiple wh-constructions, etc., it follows that causal how and reason why are directly merged into left periphery and function as sentential operators, whereas manner how, instrumental how and purpose why occupy the vP periphery and serve as event predicates. Manner how as an adverb with quantifier feature must undergo LF movement. However, the latter two are licensed by operator-variable binding. Dissimilar licensing procedure results in intervention effects with different degree. Besides, reason how as an argument occurs in the complement position of predicate and is governed by the verb. Adopting the cartographic approach (cf. Rizzi 1997, Ramchand 2003) and inner-outer dichotomy (cf. Tsai 2007), we depict the syntax-semantics map of the wh’s. Thus, the asymmetry of intervention effects on wh’s can get a reasonable explanation under Rizzi’s (1997) Generalized Relativized Minimality (see also Tsai 2008).

並列關鍵字

Saisiyat ； Wh-questions ； Left periphery ； Wh-in-Situ ； Choice function ； Cartographic approach ； Relativized minimality ； Syntax-semantics interface

參考文獻

Huang, Lillian M. 1996. Interrogative constructions in some Formosan languages---A typological study. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (IsCLL-5), 43-63. Taipei: NTNU.

Ross, Malcom D. 2002. The history and transitivity of Western Austronesian voice and voice-marking. In The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems, ed. by Wouk, Fay and Malcolm Ross, 17-62. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Huang, Lillian M. 2001. Focus system of Mayrinax Atayal: A syntactic, semantic and pragmatic perspective. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University: Humanities and Social Science 46.1/2: 51-69.

Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1991. Orthographic systems for Formosan languages (in Chinese). In Selected Papers on Formosan Languages, ed. by Paul Jen-kuei Li, 413-1472. Taipei: Academia Sinica (2004 published).

Chang, Henry Yung-li. 1997. Voice, case, and agreement in Seediq and Kavalan. Ph.D. dissertation, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.