從文獻資料看台灣平埔族群的語言

Plain Languages as Seen from Written Documents

10.6710/JTLL.201003_5(1).0001

李壬癸(Paul Jen-Kuei LI)

平埔族 ； 語言關係 ； 音變 ； 合併 ； 消失 ； plain tribes ； language relationships ； phonological innovations ； merger ； loss

臺灣語文研究

5卷1期（2010 / 03 / 01）

1 - 14

繁體中文

本文將先說明平埔族群語言的各種文獻資料，從十七世紀荷蘭傳教士所做的記錄，到十九世紀歐美人士的零星資料，直到日治時期的有計畫的調查，都為我們留下了珍貴的語言資料。可惜有清一代二百多年間，並沒留下多少語言資料：一則中國傳統文人並不重視田野調查，二則他們也沒有適當可用的記錄工具。根據我們所能掌握的各種平埔族群語言資料，所有的平埔族群語言可以分為這三個支群：(一) 西部平埔族群：Taokas、Babuza、Papora、Hoanya、Thao，(二) 北部Kavalan、Basay 和南部Siraya 平埔族群，(三) 巴宰語（Pazih）。西部平埔族群，有二種共同的音變並不見於其他任何台灣南島語言：(1) *n 跟*ŋ 合併，(2) *s 跟*t 合併。其中Taokas、Babuza、Papora 跟Hoanya 又有另外二種共同的音變：(3) *k 消失，(4) 語詞尾的*-y消失。根據各種音韻演變規則，我們繪出這五種語言的親疏遠近樹圖。北部的Kavalan和Basay，南部的Siraya 語群，事實上也跟東部的Amis 都有一種共同的音變：(1) *j跟*n 合併，並不見於任何其他南島語言。其中Basay 跟Kavalan 又有二種共同的音變：(2) *j、*n 又進一步跟*N 合併，(3) *k 分化為k 和q，因此這兩種語言的關係最近。對於南部平埔族群的三種語言（Siraya, Taivuan, Makatau），我們也比較它們之間的異同和親疏遠近關係，並且發現荷蘭時期的聖經翻譯都是以Taivuan 語為主，而不是Siraya語。

Many Formosan languages were spoken in the Taiwan plains; most are now extinct. For data on them, we must rely on the writings of 17^(th) century Dutch missionaries, of early 20^(th) century Japanese field workers, and of a few Chinese or other Western observers from the 17^(th) through 19^(th) centuries. For Siraya in the southwestern plains and Favorlang on the central west coast, there is a fair amount of documentation. For all the other western plain languages, however, we have less than 400 lexical items. We still have informants for only three plain languages: Pazih, Thao, and Kavalan. For these, language data and linguistic information are much more abundant and reliable. All the plain languages can be classified into three main subgroups based on phonological innovations: (1) Western Plains: Taokas, Papora, Babuza, Hoanya, and Thao; (2) the so-called ＂East Formosan＂: Basay, Kavalan, Siraya, and Amis; and (3) Pazih. The five western plain languages share exclusively two phonological innovations: (1) merger of Proto-Austronesian *n and *ng, and (2) merger of *s and *t. The western plain languages, except for Thao, lost word-final *-s. Thao is, therefore, somewhat less closely related to the other four languages. Proto-Austronesian *j and *n have merged in the four East Formosan languages, a merger not found anywhere else. Basay and Kavalan share two innovations, indicating a closer relationship: (1) merger of *j, *n and *N, and (2) split of *k into k and q (*_a), so they are more closely related to each other. It is interesting to note not only that geographically adjacent languages may be closely related, as is the case with the five western plain languages, but also that geographically distant languages can likewise be closely related, as in the case of the four so-called ＂East Formosan＂ languages. In Li 2009, I examine the language data of the southwestern plains in greater detail and sort out the linguistic differences among Siraya, Taivuan, and Makatau. As it turns out, the Dutch biblical translations are based on Taivuan rather than Siraya.

1. Ogawa, Naoyoshi (小川尚義). 1917. Siraia, Makatao, Taivoan. Unpublished manuscripts. (kept at Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies).
2. Happart, Gilbertus. 1650. Woord-boek der Favorlangsche taal, waarin het Favorlangs voor, het Duits achter gestelt is. Reproduced in W. R. van Hoëvell (1842), Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap 18: 382-430.
3. Campbell, Rev. William. 1888. The Gospel of Formosan (Sinkang Dialect), with Corresponding Versions in Dutch and English Edited from Gravius's Edition of 1661. London: Trübner and Co.
4. Campbell, Rev. William. 1896. The Articles of Christian Instruction in Favorlang Formosan, Dutch and English from Vertrecht's Manuscript of 1650. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co.
5. Gravius, Daniel. 1662. Patar Ki Tna-'msing-an Ki Christang, ka Taukipapatar-en-ato tmaeu'ug tou Sou KA MAKKA-SIDEIA, 't Formulier des Christendoms Met de Verklaringen van dien, Inde Sideis-Formosaansche Tale. Amsterdam: Michiel Hartogh.
6. Murakami, Naojirô (村上直次郎). 1933.《新港文書》. 台北帝國大學文政學部紀要第二卷第一號. Formosa: Taihoku Imperial University.
7. 馬淵東一. 1931.〈研海地方に於ける先住民の話〉，《南方土俗》，1. 3。
8. Gravius, Daniel. 1661. Het Heylige Euangelium Matthei en Johannis Ofte Hagnau Ka D'llig Matiktik, Ka na sasoulat ti Mattheus, ti Johannes appa. Amsterdam: Michiel Hartoch Boekverkoper, inde Oude Hoogstraat, inde Boeck en Papier-winckel.
9. Utrecht Manuscripts. 1650?. (烏忒稿本) Utrecht University Library.
10. Blust, Robert(1999).Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics.Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics,Taipei:
11. Li、 Paul Jen-kuei(1985).The position of Atayal in the Austronesian family.Austronesian Linguistics at the 15th Pacific Science Congress
12. Li、 Paul Jen-kuei(1999).Some problems in the Basay language.Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics,Taipei:
13. Li、 Paul Jen-kuei(2008).Time perspective of Formosan aborigines.Past Human Migrations in East Asia and Taiwan: Matching Archaeology Linguistics and Genetics,London:
14. Li、 Paul Jen-kuei(2008).The great diversity of Formosan languages.Language and Linguistics,9(3),523-546.
15. Li、 Paul Jen-kuei(2003).Notes on Favorlang, an extinct Formosan language.POLA Forever: Festschrift in Honor of Professor William S.-Y. Wang on His 70th Birthday,Taipei:
16. Li、 Paul Jen-kuei(2004).Origins of the East Formosan peoples: Basay, Kavalan, Amis and Siraya.Language and Linguistics,5(2),363-376.
17. Li、 Paul Jen-kuei(2009).Linguistic differences among Siraya, Taivuan and Makatau.Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History, a Festschrift for Robert A. Blust
18. Li、 Paul Jen-kuei(2003).The internal relationships of six western plains languages.Bulletin of the Department of Anthropology,61,39-51.
19. Li、 Paul Jen-kuei,土田滋, Shigeru(2001).Pazih Dictionary.Taipei:Academia Sinica.
20. Li、 Paul Jen-kuei,土田滋, Shigeru(2006).Kavalan Dictionary.Taipei:Academia Sinica.
21. Ogawa, Naoyoshi、Li, Paul Jen-kueied.、Toyoshima, Masayukied.(2006)。台灣蕃語蒐錄。Tokyo University of Foreign Studies。
22. 土田滋(1992)。平埔族諸語研究雜記。中央研究院臺灣史田野研究通訊，22，9-22。
23. 土田滋(1991)。平埔族諸語研究雜記。東京大學言語學論集，12，146-179。
24. 土田滋(1992)。平埔族諸語研究雜記。中央研究院臺灣史田野研究通訊，23，26-42。
25. 土田滋, Shigeru(1985).Kulon: Yet another Austronesian language in Taiwan?.Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology,60,1-59.
26. 土田滋, Shigeru(1985).A Comparative Vocabulary of Austronesian Languages of Sinicized Ethnic Groups in Taiwan, Part I: West Taiwan.
27. 土田滋、山田幸宏、森口恆一(1991)。台灣‧平埔族の言語資料の整理と分析。東京:東京大學=University of Tokyo。
28. 何大安(1998)。台灣南島語的語言關係。漢學研究，16(2)，141-171。
29. 李壬癸(1992)。台灣平埔族的種類及其相互關係。臺灣風物，42(1)，211-238。
30. 李壬癸(2007)。台灣南島語言的回顧和展望。原住民族語言發展論叢：理論與實務，台北:
31. 李壬癸(2001)。邵族的地位—兼評白樂思（Blust 1996）的邵族地位說。平埔族群與臺灣歷史文化論文集，台北:
32. 李壬癸(2009)。新港文書研究。台北:中央研究院語言學研究所。

1. 簡文敏(2019)。大武壠研究與「大武壠族」正名的省思。民族學界，44，139-168。