排灣語疑問詞語意範疇及其延伸途徑

The Semantic Domains and the Semantic Extension of the Paiwan Interrogative Words

謝富惠(Fuhui HSIEH)

《臺灣語文研究》 14卷1期 (2019/04) Pp. 1-44

https://doi.org/10.6710/JTLL.201904_14(1).0001

摘要

疑問詞的主要功能是用來詢問特定範疇中的世界現象，例如，排灣語疑問詞ima「誰」用來詢問「事件參與者」，而'aku「為什麼」則是詢問「理由」或是「原因」。本論文主要目的有二。首先，本論文對排灣語疑問詞的詞類、語意功能、語法行為、以及疑問詞所表徵的語意範疇均做詳細描述與探究。接著，將排灣語疑問詞的語意範疇與亞里斯多德的世界範疇以及Heine et al.（1991）的疑問範疇做一比較，希冀呈現排灣語疑問詞所呈現的語意間隙。本論文的第二個目的是討論排灣語疑問詞的主要延伸途徑，並參照其他台灣南島語言疑問詞之語意延伸現象做類型學上的比較。本研究發現，排灣語疑問詞語意範疇及其語意延伸呈現兩點類型學上獨特之處。排灣語疑問動詞kuda「做什麼」是一個語意重量相當重（semantically heavy）的疑問詞，其所承載的語意範疇不僅限於「動作（ACTION）」，更進一步擴及至「方式（MANNER）」、狀態「（STATE）」以及「影響（AFFECTION）」等範疇。另外一個獨特之處就在於排灣語用同一個疑問詞inu來詢問「空間（PLACE）」以及「選擇（SELECTION）」這兩個範疇的訊息：本論文也從認知語言學的角度，對此現象提出解釋。

關鍵字

疑問詞 ； 語意範疇 ； 語意間隙 ； 延伸途徑 ； 類型學

並列摘要

This paper sets out to investigate the word classes, the semantic domains and the semantic extensions of the Paiwan interrogative words. First, this study examines the semantic domains linguistically manifested in each Paiwan interrogative word and makes a comparison between the findings in the study with Aristotle's ten categories and the domains of interrogative words reported in Heine et al. (1991). The second purpose is to discuss the semantic extensions of each Paiwan interrogative word, and intents to make a typological comparison between what we have observed in this study with those reported in other Formosan languages. This study has found that the semantic domains of the Paiwan interrogative words display two unique typological features. The Paiwan interrogative verb kuda 'do.what', a semantically heavy word, is encoded with various meanings ranging from 'action', to 'manner', 'state' and 'affection'. Moreover, Paiwan uses the same interrogative word inu to elicit information in both domains of 'place' and 'selection'. This paper also provides a cognitive linguistic explanation to such an intriguing phenomenon.

並列關鍵字

interrogative words ； semantic domains ； semantic gap ； extension paths ； typology

參考文獻

Alloway, Tracy Packiam and Martin Corley. 2004. Speak before you think: The role of language in verb concepts. Journal of Cognition and Culture 4.2: 319-345.

Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43:1-22.

Boroditsky, Lera. 2003. Linguistic Relativity. In Lynn. Nadel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, 917-921. London: MacMillan Press.

Barcelona, Antonio. 2000. Introduction: The cognitive theory of metaphor and metonymy. In Antonio Barcelona (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective, 1-28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Brown, Penelope. 2008. Verb specificity and argument realization in Tzeltal child language. In Melissa Bowerman and Penelope Brown (eds.), Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure, 167-190. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.