台語句首言談標記「啊」

Sentence-Initial Ah in Taiwanese

10.6710/JTLL.202004_15(1).0003

劉承賢(Seng-hian LAU)

啊 ； 發語詞 ； 連詞 ； 言談標記 ； ah ； introductory element ； conjunct ； discourse marker

臺灣語文研究

15卷1期（2020 / 04 / 01）

77 - 123

繁體中文

本文旨在對台語（台灣閩南語）當中出現在句首、呼高平調且後面沒有停頓的「啊」進行全面考察。本文認為，這個句首「啊」是一個篇章功能上的連詞，語意上承接語境／前句，句法上則要求前後具呈現對比、具替代成份的焦點性質（Krifka 2006，Rooth 1985）。本文在句法的製圖理論架構下，分析句首「啊」僅只低於雙層言語行為短語殼（Haegeman 2014，Haegeman and Hill 2013，Hill 2007及Speas and Tenny 2003）。經由本文的剖析，我們確認了句首「啊」並非只限於高層全面性的連接功能（比較李櫻等人1998）；且本分析指出句首「啊」並不中性，反之，其具有明確的功能，雖然其對於命題內容無所更動，但並非沒有作用。本研究除了明晰地說明了句首「啊」的功能、使用條件及使用限制，並且也解釋了句首「啊」使用限制背後的原因。

This study aims to investigate the sentence-initial ah in Taiwanese in the framework of the Cartographic Approach, including the conditions and restrictions of its use and the possible reasons for the restrictions. The sentence-initial ah, bearing a high level tone but without a following pause, is a discoursal conjunct connecting to the context or a preceding sentence and it requires a contrastive focus between what it connects. We illustrate how the function of the sentence-initial ah works in different sentence patterns and propose that the discourse marker is only lower than the speech-act shell (Haegeman 2014, Haegeman and Hill 2013, Hill 2007, Speas and Tenny 2003). In sum, we argue that the sentence-initial ah, which connects a following sentence either with the context or a preceding sentence (cf. Li, Chen and Lin 1998), does not change the proposition at all, but serves as a discourse marker.

1. 呂珍玉(2007)。《詩經》「維」字用法與詞義研究。興大人文學報，38，33-72。
   連結：
2. 舒志翔(2019)。程度結構的焦點成分─以「太」字結構為例。臺灣語文研究，14(2)，177-215。
   連結：
3. Arita, Setsuko(2009)。Hadakano wa nitsuiteno oboegaki。Reports of the Osaka Shoin Women’s University Japanese Language Research Center，16，95-107。
4. Arita, Setsuko(2005)。Taiwa niokeru buntoono wa no kinoo nituite。Proceedings of the Pragmatics Society of Japan，1，1-8。
5. Beck, Sigrid(2007).The grammar of focus interpretation.Interfaces + Recursion ,Berlin:
6. Beck, Sigrid(2006).Focus on again.Linguistics and Philosophy,29,277-314.
7. Beck, Sigrid(2006).Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation.Natural Language Semantics,14,1-56.
8. Chen, Chiou-mei(1989).Taipei,National Taiwan Normal University.
9. Cheng, Lisa Lai-shen(1991).Cambridge, Massachusetts,Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
10. Cheng, Robert L.(1978).Tense interpretation of four Taiwanese modal verbs.Proceedings of Symposium on Chinese Linguistics, 1977 Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America,Taipei:
11. Cheng, Robert L.(1980).Taiwanese u and Mandarin you.Yǎtài Dìqū Yǔyán Jiāoxué Yántǎohuì Lùnwénjí,Taipei:
12. Chiu, Lian-hui(2012).Kaohsiung,National Kaohsiung Normal University.
13. Fraser, Bruce(1990).An approach to discourse markers.Journal of Pragmatics,14,383-395.
14. Gabriel, Sandu,Carlo, Proietti,François, Rivenc(2018).Bivalence and future contingency.Introduction to Formal Philosophy,Cham:
15. Green, Georgia M.(1976).Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses.Language,52(2),382-397.
16. Grosz, Patrick(2010).German ‘doch’: An element that triggers a contrast presupposition.Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society,46(1),163-177.
17. Gundel, K. Jeanette(1999).On different kinds of focus.Focus, Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives,Cambridge:
18. Haegeman, Liliane(2012).Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and the Composition of the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
19. Haegeman, Liliane(2006).Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD and the left periphery.Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture: Crosslinguistic Investigations,Washington, D.C.:
20. Haegeman, Liliane(2014).West Flemish verb-based discourse markers and the articulation of the speech act layer.Studia Linguistica,68(1),116-139.
21. Haegeman, Liliane,Hill, Virginia(2013).The syntacticization of discourse.Syntax and Its Limits,Oxford:
22. Hamblin, Charles Leonard(1973).Questions in Montague English.Foundations of Language,10,41-53.
23. Hill, Virginia(2007).Romanian adverbs and the pragmatic field.The Linguistic Review,24,61-86.
24. Hsieh, Feng-fan,Sybesma, Rint(2011).On the linearization of Chinese sentence-final particles: Max spell out and why CP moves.Korea Journal of Chinese Language and Literature,1,53-90.
25. Huang, C.-T. James(1984).On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns.Linguistic Inquiry,15,531-574.
26. Jacobs, Joachim(1983).Fokus und skalen: Zur syntax und semantik der gradpartikeln im Deutschen.Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
27. Karttunen, Lauri(1977).Syntax and semantics of questions.Linguistics and Philosophy,1,3-44.
28. Kim, Shin-sook(2005).Focus intervention effects in questions.Theoretical East Asian Linguistics Workshop (TEAL 3),Cambridge, MA:
29. Kim, Shin-sook(2002).Intervention effects are focus effects.Japanese/Korean Linguistics,10,615-628.
30. Krifka, Manfred(1998).Additive particles under stress.Proceedings of the 8th Semantics and Linguistics Theory Conference,Ithaca, NY:
31. Krifka, Manfred(1995).The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items.Linguistic Analysis,25,209-257.
32. Krifka, Manfred(2006).Association with focus phrases.The Architecture of Focus,Berlin:
33. Lau, Seng-hian(2017).Hsinchu,National Tsing Hua University.
34. Lee, Hui-chi(2005).Hsinchu,National Tsing Hua University.
35. Lee, Thomas Hun-tak(1986).Los Angeles,University of California.
36. Li, Ing Cherry(1999).Utterance-Final Particles in Taiwanese: A DiscoursePragmatic Analysis.Taipei:Crane Publishing.
37. Lien, Chinfa(1988).Taiwanese sentence-final particles.The Structure of Taiwanese: A Modern Synthesis,Taipei:
38. Müller, Simone(2005).Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse.Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
39. Nasu, Norio(2012).Topic particle stranding and the structure of CP.Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons,Amsterdam:
40. Oritz de Urbina, Jon(1993).Feature percolation and clausal pied-piping.Generative Studies in Basque Linguistics,105,189-219.
41. Prior, Arthur Norman(1967).Past, Present and Future.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
42. Rooth, Mats(1996).Focus.The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory,Oxford:
43. Rooth, Mats(1985).Amherst, MA,University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
44. Rooth, Mats(1992).A theory of focus interpretation.Natural Language Semantics,1,75-116.
45. Schaffar, Wolfram,Chen, Lansum(2001).Yes-no questions in Mandarin and the theory of focus.Linguistics,39(5),837-870.
46. Shi, Dingxu(1994).The nature of Chinese emphatic sentences.Journal of East Asian Linguistics,3,81-100.
47. Speas, Peggy,Tenny, Carol(2003).Configurational properties of point of view roles.Asymmetry in Grammar, Vol. 1: Syntax and Semantics,Amsterdam:
48. Tang, Sze-Wing(2015).A generalized syntactic schema for utterance particles in Chinese.Lingua Sinica,1,3.
49. Thurmair, Maria(2013).Satztyp und modalpartikeln.Satztypen des Deutschen,Berlin:
50. Yang, Barry C.-Y.(2009).Hsinchu,National Tsing Hua University.
51. Yoshida, Tomoyuki(2004)。Syudai no syooryaku gensyoo: Hikaku toogoron teki koosatu。Nihongo Kyookugaku no Siten，Tokyo:
52. Zimmermann, Malte(2007).Contrastive focus.The Notions of Information Structure,Potsdam:
53. 宋金蘭(1994)。談談「阿」和「寧」的語法性質。中學語文教學，7，34。
54. 李廣明(1997)。說「阿」。天水師專學報，17(2)，34-37。
55. 李獻璋(1950).福建語法序說.東京:南風書局.
56. 李櫻,陳秋梅,林敏靜(1998)。台灣閩南語言談標記 a 試析。第二屆台灣語言國際研討會論文選集，台北:
57. 周晨磊(2012)。從語篇到人際—「話說」的意義和功能演變。語言科學，11(5)，499-508。
58. 陳輝龍. 1934. 《台灣語法全》。台北：台灣語學社。
59. 曾平東(1994)。也談「阿」和「寧」的語法性質。中學語文教學，12，38-39。
60. 湯廷池(1989).漢語詞法句法續集.台北:台灣學生書局.
61. 鄭良偉(1997).台華語的時空、疑問與否定.台北:遠流出版社.