賽夏語動詞的語意與語法研究

A syntactic and semantic study of Saisiyat verbs

葉美利(Mei-Li Ye)

指導教授 ： 黃美金

國立臺灣師範大學/文學院/英語學系/博士(2002年)

摘要

句法與語意在語言學的研究上雖屬兩個部門，卻存在著許多互動關係。例如動詞的句法表現與其語意就有密切的關係。本研究從賽夏語動詞所展現的形式和語意對應關係來探討句法與語意的互動。在認知功能語法的理論架構之下，我們假定形式上的相同可能蘊含著語意（或功能）上的相關，而形式上的差異則可能象徵語意或功能上的些微差異。因此，我們特別關注同一個形式所表達的多重語意間是否有所關聯，且其關聯為何。相對的，對於表達同一語意或語法功能的不同形式，我們則側重在探索其使用上之差異。
首先要探討的是賽夏語焦點的形式與語意。焦點詞綴的主要功能在標示主語的語意角色，然主事焦點與非主事焦點展現不同的形式語意不對稱關係。就主事焦點而言，同一語意角色可由不同的主事焦點詞綴-om-, m-, ma-, Ø來標示，而非主事焦點所展現的是同一焦點詞綴，如工具/受惠焦點si-可標示許多語意角色為主語。我們發現如果以中綴-om-為中心來看，其與零標記的主事焦點詞綴差別在動詞的語意類屬動態或靜態、與m-的差異在及物性之高低、與ma-的差別在於意志(volition)之強弱。動態或靜態、及物性之高低以及意志根據Hopper & Thompson (1980)的定義，都屬語意及物性之參數，因此主事焦點的多樣性似乎與語意的及物性有關。至於工具/受惠焦點si-的多重用法則是由語意延伸而來的。
接著我們探討其他展現在動詞構詞上的形式與語意對應關係，包含重疊、使動與互惠。賽夏語有三種形式的重疊：Ca-、CV- 與CVC，各展現多重的用法或涵義。Blust (1998) 以Ca-重疊衍生工具名詞的現象對焦點為名詞說提出質疑。他首先主張Ca-動詞與Ca-工具名詞為不相關的兩種功能，接著指出Ca- 重疊在古南島語即用來衍生工具名詞，且與焦點屬不同的策略，基於兩個截然不同的構詞不可能執行完全相同的功能，古南島語工具焦點*Si-的唯一功能也是衍生工具名詞（焦點為名詞）這種說法是不可行的。然而我們在賽夏語的觀察顯示，Ca-重疊的動詞用法是工具/受惠焦點的未來式，名詞用法是工具名詞，兩者皆與工具有關，只是詞類不同。因此Ca-重疊和焦點是一樣的名物化策略。只是，Ca-重疊的某種用法因為語法化了，所以可以與其它焦點並用。
最後我們探討焦點與名物化的關係及動詞名詞在賽夏語的劃分。和上述工具名詞的情形一樣，賽夏語的受事名物化或處所名物化與受事焦點或處所焦點的未來式動詞同形，此外，從屬的目的子句和未來式的動詞也同形。換言之，句法層次的名物化與詞彙層次的名物化以及動詞的未來式在構詞上是相同的。透過語意關係的檢視我們發現其發展是由動詞未來式至句法層次的名物化，再詞彙化到詞彙層次的名物化。此外，我們也發現，表完成貌的-in-亦展現相似的功能及語法演變歷程。因此我們主張焦點是一種動詞的特質，名物化帶的焦點功能仍然是標示語意角色，且名物化是由動詞語法化而來的。

關鍵字

賽夏語 ； 動詞的語意 ； 動詞的語法

並列摘要

This dissertation seeks to explore the interaction between syntax and semantics through a study of the relationship between form and meaning (including grammatical meaning) exhibited by Saisiyat verbs. Under the framework of cognitive-functional grammar adopted in this dissertation, efforts are made to trace the relationship between multiple meanings conveyed by one form as well as to find out the subtle difference for one meaning expressed in different forms.
First, forms and meanings of focus affixes in Saisiyat are examined. An asymmetry in form-meaning mismatch between AF and NAF constructions is observed. The mismatch manifested in AF constructions belongs to one function/meaning in different forms – at least four AF prefixes are found to serve the function of marking the Agent/Actor as the subject, and it is argued that they imply some differences pertaining to transitivity. In NAF constructions, I/BF marks a variety of thematic roles as the subject. These thematic roles are shown to be cognitive contiguous and resulted from semantic extensions.
Then, form-meaning mismatches exhibited in reduplication, morphological causativization and reciprocality are discussed. It is found that multiple meanings/functions expressed by the same reduplication pattern can be related in some way. For example, the two functions of Ca- reduplication – Ca- verb forms and Ca- instrumental nouns, which are regarded as unrelated (Blust 1998), are shown to bear connection of some sort. For morphological causativization and reciprocality, which manifest the mismatch of one meaning/function in different forms, it is found that different forms appear in different contexts and imply subtle differences.
Finally, the relationship between focus and nominalization and the question on the viability of noun-verb distinction in Saisiyat are discussed. At first glance, Saisiyat appears to have a marker ka- for nominalization. However, taking into consideration of the whole verbal paradigm in Saisiyat, we find that lexical nominalizations are identical in form to the future verb forms. The same form is also found to function in purpose clauses (a kind of syntactic nominalization). In other words, the future verb form, syntactic nominalization and lexical nominalization are morphologically identical. A grammaticalization from verb forms to syntactic nominalization to lexicalization is proposed to account for the morphological identity of the three. Besides, it is argued that ka- is a functional equivalent of Ca- in other Formosan languages, whose function of indicating purpose has been grammaticalized and therefore its use can be extended to other focus constructions.

參考文獻

Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1973. Rukai Structure. Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica Special Publication No. 64. Taipei.

Wu, Joy J. 1995. Complex Sentences in Amis. MA Thesis, Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.

---------. 2000d. Reduplication in Bunun and Saisiyat. Taiwan Humanity No. 5: 359-384. Center of Human Education and Research, National Taiwan Normal University. (in Chinese)

Adelarr, K. Alexander. 1997. Grammar notes on Siraya, an extinct Formosan language. Oceanic Linguistics 36.2: 362-397.

Anderson, J. M. 197. The Grammar of Case: Toward a Localist Theory. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.