國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	王昭慧 Brenda Chao-hui Wang
論文名稱：	從形式與語意的介面看台語假設語氣與假設度 Conditionals and Hypotheticality in Taiwanese: Interface between Form and Meaning
指導教授：	李櫻 Li, Ing
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2006
畢業學年度：	94
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	137
中文關鍵詞：	conditional 、hypotheticality 、forward-linking element 、backward-linking element 、pragmatics
英文關鍵詞：	假設句, 假設度, 前指連接詞, 回指連接詞, 語用
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：190 下載：32
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究旨在探討台語假設語氣形式與語意的關係。台語的假設連接詞有許多種形式。回指(backward-linking)連接詞包含toh和chiah兩種形式。前指(backward-linking)連接詞在本研究裡則出現了二十二種形式。本研究依據每個形式包含的基本連接詞(即na, chun,kasu, banit, e si(chun))數量，將這二十二種形式被進一步歸為四類：單一標記連接詞，雙重標記連接詞，三重標記連接詞，以及多重標記連接詞。回指連接詞以及前指連接詞依照四種不同的排列組合方式出現在台語的假設句中。第一種情形是條件子句(protasis)包含一個前指連接詞，而結果子句(apodosis)包含一個回指連接詞。第二種情形是條件子句包含一個前指連接詞，但結果子句沒有回指連接詞。第三種情形是條件子句沒有前指連接詞，而結果子句包含一個回指連接詞。第四種情形是條件字句沒有前指連接詞，結果子句也沒有回指連接詞。

分析顯示在台語假設句中，假設句的形式與其假設度有密切關聯，而前指連接詞是影響假設度的最重要結構。Na是最原型(prototypical)的台語假設前指連接詞，可用於表示各種假設度。不包含前指連接詞的條件子句，亦是常見的假設句形式，此形式可標示各種假設度，但它在低假設度的假設語句中出現的頻率特別高。除此兩類之外的前指連接詞則較少出現，表現的假設度也較侷限。以e si(chun)來說，它只出現在假設度低的假設句中。而kasu-na、banit-na、banit-chun-na-kong…e si(chun)這些雙重甚或多重標記連接詞則通常用來表示高假設度。當說話者想要表達出愈高度的不確定性時，會傾向使用愈多的假設連接詞。這個傾向與肖像性(iconicity)的觀念符合。

本研究亦發現在假設度的連續體(continuum)上，中假設度的假設句是最常見的，顯示說話者使用假設句的最典型動機是表達其對於假設句命題缺乏足夠的知識與證據。高假設度與低假設度的假設句則不一定起因於使用者的知識缺乏。許多低假設度的假設句實為主題引介句(topic-introducer)，或用來標示使用者對於命題的認知距離(epistemic distance)。高假設度假設句則時常用於表示使用者不希望命題為真的情況，或者用於傳達特殊的溝通功能，如表示禮貌。

The present study explores form-meaning correlations in Taiwanese conditionals. It is found that Taiwanese conditionals have an imposing variety of conditional linking elements. For backward-linking elements, two are identified: toh and chiah. For forward-linking elements, there are twenty-two forms found in the data. These twenty-two forms can be further categorized into four categories: single-marking, double-marking, triple-marking, and multiple-marking, based on the number of basic conditional linking morphemes (i.e. na, chun,kasu, banit, e si(chun)) contained in each form. With the two types of linking elements, the protasis and the apodosis in Taiwanese conditionals are linked in the following four ways: first, each of the two clauses contains a linking element, with the protasis having a forward-linking element and the apodosis a backward-linking element; second, the protasis is marked with a forward-linking element, but the apodosis is not marked with any backward-linking element; third, the protasis in not marked with a forward-linking element, but the apodosis is marked with a backward-linking element; last, neither the protasis nor the apodosis is marked with any linking element.

The analysis shows that the difference in forms leads to the difference in degrees of hypotheticality. Specifically, hypotheticality of different degrees is contributed to mainly by different forward-linking elements in the protasis. Na is the most prototypical forward-linking element in Taiwanese conditionals, which can be used to signal all degrees of hypotehticality in the hypotheticality continuum. A protasis with no linking element is also used often, which is, like na, employed to express hypotheticality of all degrees. However, this structure appears with an exceptionally higher frequency in conditionals of low degree of hypotheticality. The structures other than these two are used less frequently, and tend to be used only in conditionals of certain degree of hypotheticality. E si(chun), for instance, is associated only with low degree of hypotheticality. The other marked double- triple- or multiple-marking elements (e.g. kasu-na, banit-na, banit-chun-na-kong…e si(chun), etc.), contrary to e si(chun), usually appear when the speaker wants to intentionally express his/her extremely low certainty (i.e. high hypotheticality) toward the proposition in the protasis. The analysis seems to show a tendency that the more the number of conditional linking morphemes a conditional protasis has, the higher degree of hypotheticality it is associated with. This tendency conforms to the principle of ‘iconicity’.

In addition, it is found that along the hypotheticality continuum, mid-level certainty is the most frequent one, which proves that the prototypical motivation for conditionality is to signal the speaker’s lack of full knowledge toward the protasis. The less prototypical conditionals on the continuum are not used necessarily to signal the speaker’s lack of knowledge. Rather, they often serve extra functions. For example, a large proportion of conditionals of marked higher certainty are used as topic-introducers, or to mark the speaker’s ‘epistemic distance’ to the protasis. Conditionals of marked lower certainty, in many cases, are used to express the speaker’s evaluative stance such as undesirability, or to serve the communicative function such as being polite.

CHINESE ABSTRACT..........................................i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT.........................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................v
KEY TO TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS......vii
LIST OF TABLES...........................................ix

Chapter One  Introduction.................................1
1.1 Motivation and Goals..................................1
1.2 Data and Methodology..................................3
1.2.1 Data Collection.....................................3
1.2.2 Methodology.........................................3
1.3 Organization of the Thesis............................4

Chapter Two  Literature Review............................5
2.1 Conditional as Non-Assertion..........................7
2.2 Motivation for Non-Assertion.........................13
2.3 Hypotheticality......................................22
2.4 Hypotheticality in Conditional and Temporal Clauses..30
2.5 Studies on Mandarin Conditionals.....................39
2.5.1 Li and Thompson (1981).............................39
2.5.2 Su (2004)..........................................41
2.5.3 Shiao (2005).......................................43

Chapter Three  Conditional Structures in Taiwanese.......45
3.1 Linking Elements.....................................45
3.2 Linking Elements in Conditional Clauses..............50
3.3 Clause Type in Taiwanese Conditionals................58
3.4 Summary of Taiwanese Conditional Structures..........62

Chapter Four  Hypotheticality in Taiwanese Conditionals..64
4.1 Continuum of Hypotheticality in Taiwanese
    Conditionals.........................................65
4.1.1 Explicitly-Expressed Higher Certainty..............70
4.1.2 Implicitly-Inferred Higher Certainty...............86
4.1.3 Unmarked Mid-level Certainty.......................91
4.1.4 Implicitly-Inferred Lower Certainty................97
4.1.5 Explicitly-Expressed Lower Certainty..............101
4.2 Interface between Form and Meaning..................109
4.2.1 Apodoses with/without a Backward-linking Element..118
4.2.2 Protases without a Forward-linking Element........119
4.2.3 Protases with a Single-marking Forward-linking Element
      ..................................................120
4.2.4 Protases with a Double-marking Forward-linking
      Element...........................................123
4.2.5 Protases with a Triple- or Multiple-marking Forward-      linking Element...................................127
4.3 Summary.............................................128

Chapter Five  Conclusion................................130
5.1 Summary of Findings.................................130
5.2 Implication of the Study: Discourse and Grammar.....132
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research....133

References..............................................134
                                

References

Akatsuka, Noriko. 1986. Conditionals are discourse-bound. In Traugott, E.C. et al (eds.), On Conditionals, 333-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

----------. 2002. Negative Conditionality. In Athanasiadou, A. and R. Dirven (eds.), On Conditionals Again, 323-54. Amsterdam, Benjamins.

Athanasiadou Angeliki and Dirven Rene. 2002. Conditionality, hypotheticality, counterfactuality. In Athanasiadou, A. and R. Dirven (eds.), On Conditionals Again, 61-96. Amsterdam, Benjamins.

Chao, Yuen-ren [趙元任]. 1991. Mandarin Grammar: A Grammar of Spoken Chinese [國語語法:中國話的文法]. Taipei: Xuihai [台北:學海].

Cheng, Robert L. et al. [鄭良偉等] (eds) [(編)]. 2000. A Taiwanese Reader: A Collection of Writings for College Students [大學台語文選]. Taipei: Yuan-Liou Publishing Co [台北: 遠流出版社].

Comrie, Bernard. 1986. Conditionals: A typology. In Traugott, E.C. et al (eds.), On Conditionals, 77-99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dancygier, Barbara. 1998. Conditional and Predication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser. 1996. Conditionals, distancing, and alternative spaces. In A.Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 83-98. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser. 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional constructions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985. Mental Spaces: Roles and Strategies. Cambridge: MIT.

Ferguson ,Charles A., Judy Snitzer Reilly, Alice ter Meulen, and Elizabeth Closs Trauhott. 1986. Overview. In Traugott, E.C. et al (eds.), On Conditionals, 3-20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fillenbaum, Samuel. 1986. The use of conditionals in inducements and deterrents. In Traugott, E.C. et al (eds.), On Conditionals, 179-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fillmore, Charles. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘Constrction Grammar.’ In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, and H. Singmaster (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35-55. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

----------. 1990. Epistemic stance and grammatical forms in English conditional sentences. CLS 26: 137-62.

Ford, Cecilia E. and Thompson, Sandra A. 1986. Conditionals in discourse: A text-based study from English. In Traugott, E.C. et al (eds.), On Conditionals, 353-72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Geis, Michael L. and Arnold M. Zwicky, 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2:61-6.

Givon, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.

Givon, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia : J. Benjamins

Grundy, Peter. 2000. Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold.

Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54: 564-89.

Konig, Ekkehard. 1986. Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of contrast overlap and neutralization. In Traugott, E.C. et al (eds.), On Conditional, 229-46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lin, Jill Min-ching. 1996. Discourse functions of TOH and CHIAH in Taiwanese. M.A.thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Mey, Jacob L. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

Reilly, Judy Snitzer. 1986. The acquisition of temporals and conditionals. In Traugott, E.C. et al (eds.), On Conditionals, 309-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest
systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696-735.

Schiffrin, Deborah. 1992. Conditionals as topics in discourse. Linguistics 30: 165-97.

Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shiao, Chi-Hua. 2005. Hypotheticality and Politeness in Discourse: Cases of ruguo, ruguo…de-hua and de-hua constructions. Paper presented at 2005 National Conference of Linguistics. Hsinchu: National Chiao Tung University.

Sperber Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Oxford: Blackwell.

Su, Lily I-wen. 2004. Conditional reasoning as a reflection of mind. In
IsCLL-9:297-312. Taipei: Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Taiwan
University.

Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction. London: Longman.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1985. Conditional markers. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 289-307. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, Alice ter Meulen, Judy Snitzer Reilly, and Charles A. Ferguson (eds). 1986. On conditionals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for Language Change, 124-39. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Van der Auwera, Johan. 1986. Conditionals and speech acts. In Traugott, E.C. et al (eds.), On Conditionals, 197-214. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wang, Yu-Fang. 1996. The information sequences of adverbial clauses in Chinese spoken and written discourse. Dissertation. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.

Wierzbicka, Anna. 2002. Conditionals and counterfactuals. In Athanasiadou, A. and R. Dirven (eds.), On Conditionals Again, 387-414. Amsterdam, Benjamins.

廈門大學中國語言文學研究所漢語研究室 (編) [(ed)]. 1993. 普通話閩南詞典.
台北: 台笠出版社.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文