排灣語疑問詞語意範疇及其延伸途徑

The Semantic Domains and the Semantic Extension of the Paiwan Interrogative Words

10.6710/JTLL.201904_14(1).0001

謝富惠(Fuhui HSIEH)

疑問詞 ； 語意範疇 ； 語意間隙 ； 延伸途徑 ； 類型學 ； interrogative words ； semantic domains ； semantic gap ； extension paths ； typology

臺灣語文研究

14卷1期（2019 / 04 / 01）

1 - 44

繁體中文

疑問詞的主要功能是用來詢問特定範疇中的世界現象，例如，排灣語疑問詞ima「誰」用來詢問「事件參與者」，而'aku「為什麼」則是詢問「理由」或是「原因」。本論文主要目的有二。首先，本論文對排灣語疑問詞的詞類、語意功能、語法行為、以及疑問詞所表徵的語意範疇均做詳細描述與探究。接著，將排灣語疑問詞的語意範疇與亞里斯多德的世界範疇以及Heine et al.（1991）的疑問範疇做一比較，希冀呈現排灣語疑問詞所呈現的語意間隙。本論文的第二個目的是討論排灣語疑問詞的主要延伸途徑，並參照其他台灣南島語言疑問詞之語意延伸現象做類型學上的比較。本研究發現，排灣語疑問詞語意範疇及其語意延伸呈現兩點類型學上獨特之處。排灣語疑問動詞kuda「做什麼」是一個語意重量相當重（semantically heavy）的疑問詞，其所承載的語意範疇不僅限於「動作（ACTION）」，更進一步擴及至「方式（MANNER）」、狀態「（STATE）」以及「影響（AFFECTION）」等範疇。另外一個獨特之處就在於排灣語用同一個疑問詞inu來詢問「空間（PLACE）」以及「選擇（SELECTION）」這兩個範疇的訊息：本論文也從認知語言學的角度，對此現象提出解釋。

This paper sets out to investigate the word classes, the semantic domains and the semantic extensions of the Paiwan interrogative words. First, this study examines the semantic domains linguistically manifested in each Paiwan interrogative word and makes a comparison between the findings in the study with Aristotle's ten categories and the domains of interrogative words reported in Heine et al. (1991). The second purpose is to discuss the semantic extensions of each Paiwan interrogative word, and intents to make a typological comparison between what we have observed in this study with those reported in other Formosan languages. This study has found that the semantic domains of the Paiwan interrogative words display two unique typological features. The Paiwan interrogative verb kuda 'do.what', a semantically heavy word, is encoded with various meanings ranging from 'action', to 'manner', 'state' and 'affection'. Moreover, Paiwan uses the same interrogative word inu to elicit information in both domains of 'place' and 'selection'. This paper also provides a cognitive linguistic explanation to such an intriguing phenomenon.

1. Li, Paul Jen-kuei(2016).Verbs or adverbs in Thao.Concentric: Studies in Linguistics,41(2),31-44.
   連結：
2. 葉美利(2018)。賽夏語疑問詞及其疑問範疇研究。清華學報，48(3)，595-629。
   連結：
3. 劉創馥(2010)。亞里士多德範疇論。臺大文史哲學報，72，67-95。
   連結：
4. Alloway, Tracy Packiam,Corley, Martin(2004).Speak before you think: The role of language in verb concepts.Journal of Cognition and Culture,4(2),319-345.
5. Edghil, Ella M. (trans). 1928. Categories. (Translated from Aristotle, Ten Categories) Accessed 2018/1/8 http://classics.mit.edu./Aristotle/categories.1.1.html
6. Marshal, Taylor (trans). 2009. Ten Categories. (Translated from Aristotle, Ten Categories). Accessed 2018/1/8 http://philofbeing.com/2009/07/aristotle%E2%80%99s-ten-categories/
7. Barcelona, Antonio(ed.)(2000).Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads: A Cognitive Perspective.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
8. Boroditsky, Lera(2001).Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time.Cognitive Psychology,43,1-22.
9. Brown, Penelope(2008).Verb specificity and argument realization in Tzeltal child language.Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure,New York:
10. Chang, Anna Hsiou-chuan(2006).Canberra,The Australian National University.
11. Chang, Henry Y.(2006).The guest playing host: Adverbial modifiers as matrix verbs in Kavalan.Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages,Berlin:
12. Chang, Henry Y.(2010).On the syntax of Formosan adverbial verb constructions.Austronesian and Theoretical Linguistics,Amsterdam:
13. Chang, Henry Y.(2009).Adverbial verbs and adverbial compounds in Tsou: A syntactic analysis.Oceanic Linguistics,48(2),439-473.
14. Cysouw, Michael(2004).Interrogative words: an exercise in lexical typology.The Workshop ‘Bantu Grammar: Description and Theory 3: Session on question formation in Bantu,Berlin:
15. Cysouw, Michael(2005).The typology of content interrogatives.6th Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology,Padang:
16. Early, Robert(ed.),Whitehorn, John(ed.)(2003).One Hundred Paiwan Texts.Canberra:The Australian National University.
17. Ernst, Thomas(2002).The Syntax of Adjuncts.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
18. Fauconnier, Gilles,Turner, Mark(2003).The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities.New York:Basic Books.
19. Ferrell, Raleigh(1982).Paiwan Dictionary.Canberra:The Australian National University.
20. Hagége, Clause(2008).Towards a typology of interrogative verbs.Linguistic Typology,12,1-44.
21. Heine, Bernard,Claudi, Ulrike,Hünnemeyer, Friederike(1991).Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
22. Hengeveld, Kees(1992).Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
23. Holmer, Arthur(2010).Seediq adverbial verbs: A review of the evidence.Austronesian and Theoretical Linguistics,Amsterdam:
24. Holmer, Arthur(2006).Seediq-Adverbial heads in a Formosan language.Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages,Berlin:
25. Hsieh, Fuhui(2016).On the development of the lexeme aya in Paiwan.Oceanic Linguistics,55(1),225-245.
26. Huang, Lillian. M.,Yeh, Marie M.,Zeitoun, Elizabeth,Chang, Anna H.,Wu, Joy J.(1999).Interrogative constructions in some Formosan languages.Chinese Languages and Linguistics V: Interactions in Language,Taipei:
27. Joseph, Brian D.(ed.),Janda, Richard D.(ed.)(2003).The Handbook of Historical Linguistics.Oxford:Blackwell Publishing Ltd..
28. Lakoff, George(1993).The contemporary theory of metaphor.Metaphor and Thought,Cambridge:
29. Lakoff, George,Johnson, Mark(1980).Metaphors We Live By.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
30. Lakoff, George,Turner, Mark(1989).More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
31. Levinson, Stephen C.(1994).Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description.Linguistics,32,791-855.
32. Levinson, Stephen C.(2003).Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
33. Levinson, Stephen C.,Kita, Sotaro,Haun, Daniel B. M.,Rasch, Björn H.(2002).Returning the tables language affects spatial reasoning.Cognition,84(2),155-188.
34. Li, Paul Jen-kuei(2008).The great diversity of Formosan languages.Language and Linguistics,9(3),533-546.
35. Lin, Dong-yi(2015).The syntactic derivations of interrogative verbs in Amis and Kavalan.New Advances in Formosan Linguistics,Canberra:
36. Lin, Dong-yi(2013).Gainesville,University of Florida.
37. Lin, Dong-yi(2012).Interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis.Oceanic Linguistics,51(1),182-206.
38. Nadel, Lynn(ed.)(2003).Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science.London:MacMillan Press.
39. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen(1993).Syntactic phenomena in the world's languages I: Categories and relations.Syntax: An international Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1,Berlin:
40. Shopen, Timothy(ed.)(1985).Language Typology and Syntactic Description.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
41. Starosta, Stanley(1988).A grammatical typology of Formosan languages.Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology,59,541-576.
42. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs(2003).From subjectification to intersubjectification.Motives for Language Change,Cambridge:
43. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs(1995).Subjectification in grammaticalization.Subjectivity and Subjectivisation,Cambridge:
44. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs(2010).(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment.Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization,Berlin:
45. Tsai, Wei-Tien D.,Chang, Melody Yayin(2003).Two types of wh-adverbials: A typological study of how and why in Tsou.The Linguistic Variations Yearbook III,Amsterdam:
46. 吳靜蘭(2018).阿美語語法概論.台北:原住民族委員會.
47. 李佩容,許韋晟(2018).太魯閣語法概論.台北:原住民族委員會.
48. 屈承熹(2010).漢語功能篇章語法—從認知、功能到篇章結構.台北:文鶴.
49. 張秀絹(2000).排灣語參考語法.台北:遠流出版社.
50. 張秀絹(2018).排灣語語法概論.台北:原住民族委員會.
51. 黃慧娟,施朝凱(2018).布農語語法概論.原住民族委員會.
52. 葉美利(2018).賽夏語語法概論.原住民族委員會.