情態句比較研究：漢語之情態動詞和可能補語

Modal verbs and the potential complement in Chinese: A contrastive study

林逸筑(I-Chu Lin)

指導教授 ： 魏伯特

國立暨南國際大學/人文學院/外國語文學系/碩士(2013年)

https://doi.org/10.6837/NCNU.2013.00180

摘要

情態 (modality) 的動詞表達方式有兩種：一般的情態動詞「能」和可能補語「V+de/bù+C」一種特別的構詞形式。本論文旨在比較這兩種形式之語意差異，並理清中文的情態系統。本論文採用類型學的方法，並藉由F. R. Palmer (2001) 的情態系統去討論這兩種形式的對比差異。Palmer的情態系統有兩個主要的類別：命題情態 (propositional modality) 和事件情態 (event modality)，而且我們也使用了三個子類別: 認知情態 (epistemic modality)、動力情態 (dynamic modality) 和義務情態 (deontic modality)。Palmer又把動力情態分為能力情態 (abilitive modality) 和意願情態 (volitive modality)。Palmer (1990) 考慮到第三個類別中立情態(neutral modality)， 但是Palmer (2001) 沒有再用這個類別，把這概念併入能力情態裡。然而，在許多前人的研究為基礎下，特別是學者謝佳伶 (2002, 2006)，本論文還是把能力情態細分為主觀能力 (subjective ability) 和客觀能力 (objective ability)。主觀能力跟主詞本身內在的、固有的能力有關，而客觀能力則指環境所產生的能力，使句子所描述的事件有發生之可能性。
本論文發現，「能」主要表達動力情態（主觀能力和客觀能力），而可能補語主要表達客觀能力和認知情態。因此，「能」和可能補語「V+de/bù+C」語義重疊，但非同義。除此之外，這兩個動詞形式也有其他重要的差異，「能」可以出現在請求句和反問句，也有雙重否定的用法，但是可能補語只出現於反問句中，沒有請求的意思，也沒有雙重否定的用法，這點在第三章和第四章作檢視。
在第五章裡，我們把焦點放在同一個句子中的這兩種動詞形式的結合形式，並發現這兩種形式皆為肯定或否定時，他們可以結合在一起，但是當他們一個為肯定形式，另一個為否定形式，就會互相衝突。在這些結合類型中，「能」常常表達出強烈的反問語氣以及條件句的性質，而可能補語所表達出的可能性則是說話者的態度比較中立。

關鍵字

情態 ； 情態動詞 ； 可能補語 ； 認知情態 ； 動力情態 ； 義務情態 ； 主觀能力 ； 客觀能力

並列摘要

Chinese uses two distinct verbal forms to express modality: modal verbs such as néng and a special morphological form “V+de/bù+C” known as the potential complement (PC). This thesis compares these two forms, adopting a typological approach, and in particular the typology of modality proposed by F. R. Palmer (2001). Palmer’s modal systems have two main categories, propositional modality and event modality, and several subcategories; we adopt three of these: epistemic, dynamic and deontic modality. Palmer classifies dynamic modality into abilitive and volitional, and in Palmer (1990) considers the possibility of a third category, neutral, but in Palmer (2001) he apparently rejects this and combines this with abilitive modality. Based on a number of studies, however, particularly those of Hsieh (2002 and 2006), this thesis subdivides abilitive modality into subjective and objective ability. Subjective modality refers to an internal, inherent ability of the subject, while objective modality refers to a capacity which is contingent on circumstances that make the event or state described in the sentence possible.
As this thesis shows, néng primarily expresses both types of dynamic modality, subjective ability and objective ability, while the potential complement expresses objective ability and epistemic modality. Hence, néng and the PC have only partial semantic overlap, and are not fully synonymous. In addition, these two forms have other important differences: for instance, néng can be used in requests and rhetorical questions, and with double negation, but the PC only can be used in rhetorical questions. There are also phrases whose construction is similar to the PC, but do not belong to the PC. These are examined in chapters 3 and 4.
Chapter 5 focuses on when ‘néng’ and the PC, occur in the same sentence; we find that when both forms are affirmative or negative, they can combine together, but when one is affirmative and the other is negative, they conflict. In these combinations, the contribution of the néng is often strongly rhetorical, expressing the conditional nature of the sentence, or the speaker's attitude toward the possibility expressed by the more neutral PC form.

並列關鍵字

modality ； modal verb ； potential complement ； epistemic modality ； dynamic modality ； deontic modality ； subjective ability ； objective ability

參考文獻

Anjum, Rani Lill, and Mumford, Stephen. 2011. Dispositional Modality. In Lebenswelt und Wissenschaft, ed. C. F. Gethmann, 380-394. Hamburg: Meiner Verlag.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegen, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. New York: Longman.

Bybee, Joan, and Fleishman, Suzanne. 1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W. 2004. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chung, Sandra, and Timberlake, Alan. 1985. Tense, Aspect, and Mood. In Language typology and syntactic description, ed. Timothy Shopen, 202-258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.