此篇論文主要研究閩南語bàt 和 kuè 差異之處。在之前一些文獻裡面像是Chappell (2001), Lien (2007), Y. Teng (1995) and C.-F. Wu (2012) 等人的研究,在這些文獻裡面大都都沒有仔細探討研究這兩個時貌詞語意上面的差異性。雖然像是Y.Teng (1995) 在她的論文裡面友是提出一些分別之處,但是根據Y.Teng (1995)的比較分析,是無法解釋我們所發現的那些有問題的語料。在這一本論文裡面,我們最主要要去探討這兩個時貌詞在語意上面不同之處。 首先,bàt 是做為一個經驗貌,但是我們發現bàt還有其他的功能。根據一些焦點理論像是Rooth (1992) 和 Von Stechow (1911)所提出的說法,我們提出時貌詞bàt 是一個focus-inducing operator,並且在進一步提出bàt 是視為一個對比焦點。接著我進一步提出差異處是bàt 在時貌表現是在說話時間的決對過去,但是,對於kuè而言,在時貌語意表現是在說話時間的相對過去。接著,在關於閩南語的否定詞方面,我發現也有一些搭配上面的現制性。在這邊我們最主要要去探討是為什麽bàt只能跟否定詞m̄做搭配。而相反的,kuè也只能跟否定詞bô做搭配。所以在否定詞這一部分,主要要去探討為什麽bàt只能跟m̄ 而不能跟bô。相反的,為什麽kuè只能跟bô而不能跟m̄。 除此之外,我們也發現一些相關議題的討論。我們發現閩南語的kuè可以出現在兩個位置。一個位置是出現在動詞之後,而另一個位置則是出現在整個動詞片語之後。根據Y.Teng (1995),她指出因為是kuè處於語法化的過程,所以導致kuè可以出現在這兩個位置。但是根據她的說法,是無法解釋我們所看到語料現像。在來我們要去探討到閩南語時間副詞都出現在動詞左邊,似乎違反到我們提出Interpretation Condition的要求。但是這一類句子都還是合語法的。針對這一部分,我們要提出說明。另外,在ū…kuè的結構裡面,我們提出說明ū不帶有任何時貌語意內涵並且指出他的功用為何。最後一部份提出說明不需進一步區分出不同kuè的原因和提出語意計算的式子。
This thesis investigates the differences between bàt and kuè. In the previous studies like Chappell (2001), Lien (2007), Y. Teng (1995) and C.-F. Wu (2012), most of them do not carefully explore the differences between these two experiential markers. Although some of them like Y. Teng (1995) propose distinctions to account for bàt and kuè. However, based on her analysis, it does not explain the data that we find out. This thesis will propose differences to distinguish bàt with kuè. First, bàt is treated as an experiential marker. We, according to Rooth (1992) and Von Stechow (1991), propose that bàt is a focus-inducing operator and we further point out that bàt can be treated as a contrastive focus. By contrast, kuè is a simple experiential marker. Second, we propose that bàt expresses absolute past and kuè shows relative past. Then, we pay our attention to negative markers. We investigate the interaction between negative markers like m̄ and bô and experiential markers like bàt and kuè. Our goal is to explain why bàt is only compatible with m̄ and why kuè can only go with bô. On the other hand, to discuss related questions, we find out that kuè sometimes is in the postverbal position and sometime is located in the post-VP position. Based on Y. Teng (1995), she mentions that kuè undergoes grammaticalization but her analysis cannot account for counterexamples that we find out. Next, we would like to explain why sentences containing temporal adverbs violate the constraint interpretation condition (Lee and Pan 2001:717) but these sentences are still grammatical. In addition, we would like to demonstrate ū in the construction ū…kuè is an event realization. Finally, we argue that, instead of kuè1 and kuè 2, there is only one variant of kuè, and propose formal semantics for bàt, kuè and bàt… kuè.