Manipulating Dependencies with Will and be Going to: A relevance-theoretic and Intensional Semantic Account

對於will及be going to (bgt)之用法，學者們的分析及解釋大不相同（針對兩者是否有明顯的語意差異；他們意涵的順序及概念資訊；他們是多意或者是單意的；兩者被使用於表達將來事件的意思；及他們可歸因於何種意識內含等）。本文審視三種relevance-theoretic（相關理論）之解釋(Haegeman,1989; Klinge, 1993; and Nicolle, 1997)及其他非relevance-theoretic（相關理論）之解釋。本研究支持Nicolle (1997)之論點（will及bgt在語意及語用上有明顯的相異處：will隱涵著對話中關於未確知泛籌之順序資訊，而bgt則隱涵著聽者認知為真實的概念資訊。本文針對bgt意涵的概念資訊提出兩種建議。作者亦並且支持認為bgt所意涵的順序資訊遠超乎其概念意義。本研究之分析結合了可能世界的情態語意分析（情態詞及bgt為世界之修飾詞）及以關聯理論分析法為解釋語意之方法。並且作者針對相關現象對關聯理論分析法提出修改之建議。

關鍵字

will ； be going to ；關聯理論；可能世界語意；相對比較

並列摘要

Accounts differ as to whether will and be going to (bgt) are semantically distinct, whether they encode procedural or conceptual information, whether they are polysemous or monosemous, the differing senses in which they are used to express futurity of an event, and what (if any) conceptual content can ascribed to them. This paper will survey three relevance-theoretic accounts (Haegeman (1989), Klinge (1993) and Nicolle (1997)), as well as other accounts not motivated by Relevance Theory (RT). It will join Nicolle (1997) in asserting that will and bgt are both semantically and pragmatically distinct in the following manner: will encodes procedural information about an irrealis domain of discourse, while bgt encodes some form of conceptual information the hearer is given to accept as being realis. This paper will offer two suggestions about the conceptual information that bgt encodes, while also maintaining that bgt encodes procedural information above and beyond its conceptual meaning. This analysis combines the possible-worlds approach to the intensional semantics of modality (in which modals and bgt act as quantifiers over worlds) with a relevance-theoretic approach to selecting an interpretation of an utterance. Finally, we offer a suggested modification of the relevance-theoretic idea of comparative relevance of a phenomenon.

並列關鍵字

Will ； be going to ； relevance theory ； intensional semantics ； comparative relevance

參考文獻

Bach, K(1997).The semantics-pragmatics distinction: what it is and why it matters.Linguistische Berichte 8.Special Issue on Pragmatics,33-50.

Google Scholar

Bouma, L.(1973).The semantics of the modal auxiliaries in contemporary German.The Hague:Mouton.

Google Scholar

Contini-Morava, E.(1989).Discourse pragmatics and semantic categorization: the case of negation and tense aspect with special reference to Swahili.Berlin:Mouton-DeGruyter.