透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.94.102.228
  • 學位論文

原始布農語音韻系統與詞彙的重建

A Reconstruction of Proto-Bunun Phonology and Lexicon

指導教授 : 廖秀娟

摘要


本論文以比較方法(the Comparative Method)重建原始布農語並重新檢視布農語五個方言(卡社方言、卓社方言、巒社方言、丹社方言、郡社方言)之分群關係。原始布農語共有十六個輔音音位(*p, *t, *k, *q, *ʔ, *b, *d, *g, *s, *c, *h, *v, *ð, *m, *n, *ŋ, *l)及三個元音音位(*a, *i, *u)。本文之重建有三處異於李壬癸(1988)之重建:首先,李(1988)僅重建原始布農語之音韻系統,並未觸及原始布農語詞彙的重建。本論文除了重建音韻系統之外,亦重建原始布農語的詞彙。其次,本論文不重建*b和*d於原始布農語的詞尾位置。最後,本文論證原始南島語的*l在原始布農語中發生兩種不同的變化: (i)在詞首位置,*l變為*h,(ii)在其餘位置則完全脫落。 本論文依原始布農語重建的結果及各方言在音韻或詞彙上的創新將布農語的五個方言分為三群:(i)卡社和卓社方言因有數個共同的詞彙創新(如: lakda 『石頭』等)而組成北部布農語群;(ii)巒社和丹社方言也因具有共同的詞彙創新(如: simaq 『誰』等)而組成中部布農語群;(iii)郡社布農語則單獨組成南部布農語群。除此之外,三個方言群中的任兩個方言群並無法組成更大的方言群因為任兩個方言群之間並未具有明確可做為分群依據的共同的音韻創新或詞彙創新。 此外,本論文也檢視原始布農語詞彙與白樂斯(Blust and Trussel, ongoing)所重建的原始南島語詞彙之間的關係,指出從原始南島語到原始布農語的規律音變。不規則的音變主要可歸因於兩個因素:(i)原始布農語中來自其他台灣南島語(特別是西部平埔語群)的借詞;(ii)白樂斯所重建的原始南島語詞彙形式不正確。 本論文主要有三個貢獻: (i)原始布農語音韻系統之重建; (ii)指出原始布農語內的借詞及其對於重建的影響; (iii)原始布農語450多個詞條的重建。

並列摘要


This thesis provides a reconstruction of Proto-Bunun based on the five extant Bunun dialects: Takituduh, Takibakha, Takbanuaz, Takivatan, and Isbukun. The reconstructed phonemic inventory consists of the consonants *p, *t, *k, *q, *ʔ, *b, *d, *s, *c, *h, *v, *ð, *m, *n, *ŋ, and *l, with a three-vowel system consisting of *a, *i, and *u. This reconstruction improves upon Li’s (1988) reconstruction in several key ways. First, a wordlist of reconstructed forms is provided, while Li focused mostly on the reconstructed phonology. Second, word-final *b and *d are not reconstructed at the Proto-Bunun level, and an alternative explanation involving paradigmatic regularization in verbs is provided to account for their appearance in the Isbukun dialect. Third, Proto-Austronesian *l is shown to be reflected as Proto-Bunun *h in word-initial position, and deleted elsewhere.  Based on this reconstruction, the subgrouping of Bunun dialects is reconsidered, and new evidence, based primarily on shared lexical innovations, is provided to justify a subgrouping which is more theoretically sound than that provided by Li (1988). The subgrouping of Takituduh and Takibakha as a Northern Bunun subgroup is justified by several lexical innovations (e.g. lakda ‘stone’), and the subgrouping of Takivatan and Takbanuaz as a Central Bunun subgroup is also justified by lexical innovations (e.g. simaq ‘who’). The final subgroup, Southern Bunun, consists solely of Isbukun. Further subgrouping is not supported by sufficient phonological or lexical evidence. The relationship of Proto-Bunun and Proto-Austronesian as reconstructed by Blust (Blust and Trussel, ongoing) is also considered in detail. Regular reflexes of Proto-Austronesian phonemes in Proto-Bunun are identified more clearly, and apparent exceptions are shown to be a result of loans into Proto-Bunun from neighboring Austronesian languages, or flawed reconstructed forms in Proto-Austronesian.

參考文獻


Blust, Robert. 1996. Some remarks on the linguistic position of Thao. Oceanic Linguistics 35 (2): 272-294.
Blust, Robert. 1999a. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 1, ed. by Elizabeth Zeitoun and Paul Jen-kuei Li, 31-94. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica.
Blust, Robert. 1999b. Notes on Pazeh phonology and morphology. Oceanic Linguistics 38: 168-174.
Blust, Robert. 2003. Thao dictionary. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office), Academia Sinica.
Blust, Robert, and Stephen Trussel. Ongoing. Austronesian comparative dictionary, web edition. Website: http://www.trussel2.com/acd/ (Last accessed: June 2020).

延伸閱讀