示證性「應該」與認知性「可能」的同與異

The Similarity and Difference between Evidential ＂Yinggai＂ and Epistemic ＂Keneng＂

10.6242/twnica.10.3

余信賢(Xin-Xian Yu)

情態詞 ； 示證性 ； 認知性 ； 「應該」 ； 製圖理論 ； modal ； evidential ； epistemic ； yinggai ； cartographic approach

台灣學誌

10期（2014 / 10 / 01）

61 - 97

繁體中文

語言中的情態詞主要用以表達說話者主觀的語氣及觀點，日常生活的言談語句中更是眾多情態詞百花齊放的舞台，傳達各式各樣的訊息。然而，情態詞的種類之繁雜程度卻讓傳統語法的分類及分析難以望其項背。本文聚焦「應該」與「可能」兩詞，並討論其語意呈現上的差異及句法分布上的限制，主張「應該」具有示證性及義務性語意，而與「可能」的認知性語意略有不同。藉由不同的語意詮釋，嘗試將「應該」與「可能」兩詞區分並再細分類，以符合實際語言事實，並對比各細類情態詞的分布情形及句法限制，進一步劃分界線。對於中文的情態詞而言，語意對比的呈現與句法階層的位置上，強化了製圖理論（Cartographic Approach）對語言共同性的看法。

Modals in a language convey speaker's attitudes and viewpoints. Conversations in daily life provide a stage for modals to express various kinds of information. The various types of modals, however, have defied classifications and analyses of modals. Focusing on yinggai and keneng in Mandarin Chinese, this article mainly deals with the difference of their semantic interpretations and the constraints on their syntactic distributions. It is claimed that, with either evidential or deontic reading, yinggai should be separated from keneng, which belongs to epistemic modality. By their various interpretations and distributional constraints, these two modals are divided and sub-classified. The interface between semantic readings and syntactic hierarchy of these modals positively reinforces the concept of generality among languages proposed in Cartographic Approach.

1. Cinque, G.(1999).Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.New York:Oxford University Press.
2. Cinque, G.(2004).Issues in Adverbial Syntax.Lingua,114,683-710.
3. Cinque, G.,Rizzi, L.(2008).Cinque, G. & Rizzi, L. (2008). The Cartography of Syntactic Structure. Manuscript..
4. Ernst, T.(1994).Conditions on Chinese A-not-A Questions.Journal of East Asian Linguistics,3,241-264.
5. Faller, M.(2002).Stanford, California,Stanford University.
6. Faller, M.(2006).Faller, M. (2006). Evidentiality Below and Above Speech Acts. Manuscript..
7. Garrett, J.(2001).University of California, Los Angeles.
8. Haegeman, L.(Ed.)(1997).Elements of Grammar.Amsterdam:Kluwer.
9. Hsin、 Ai-li(1999).Hsin-chu, Taiwan,National Tsing Hua University.
10. Huang, C.-T. J.(1991).Modularity and Chinese A-not-A Questions.Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda,Dordrecht:
11. Jaeggli, O.(Ed.),Safir, K.(Ed.)(1989).The Null Subject Parameter.Reidel:Dordrecht.
12. Law, P.(2006).Adverbs in A-not-A Questions in Mandarin Chinese.Journal of East Asian Linguistics,15,97-136.
13. Lin, J.,Tang, J.(1995).Modals as Verbs in Chinese: A GB Perspective.The Bulletin of Institute of History and Philology,66,53-105.
14. Lin, T.-H. J.(2007).Lin, T.-H. J. (2007). Multiple-Modal Constructions in Mandarin Chinese and Their Finiteness Properties. Manuscript..
15. Lyons, J.(1977).Semantics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
16. Matthewson, L.,Davis, H.,Rullmann, H.(2006).Evidentials are Epistemic Modals in St'at'imcets.UBC Working Papers in Linguistics,18,221-263.
17. Palmer, F.(2001).Mood and Modality.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
18. Papafragou, A.(2006).Epistemic Modality and Truth Conditions.Lingua,116,1688-1702.
19. Papafragou, A.(2000).Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface.Amsterdam:Elsevier.
20. Rizzi, L.(2004).Locality and Left Periphery.Structures and Beyond,New York:
21. Rizzi, L.(2001).On the Position "Int(errogative)" in the Left Periphery of the Clause.Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi,Amsterdam:
22. Rizzi, L.(1990).Relativized Minimality.Cambridge:Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
23. Schaffar, W.,Chen, L.(2001).Yes-no Questions in Mandarin and the Theory of Focus.Linguistics,39,837-870.
24. Tsai, Wei-tien(2008).Left Periphery and How-Why Alternations.Journal of East Asian Linguistics,17,83-115.
25. Tsai, Wei-tien(1999).On Lexical Courtesy.Journal of East Asian Linguistics,8,39-73.
26. Tsai, Wei-tien(1994).Cambridge,Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
27. Tsai, Wei-tien,Yang, Ching-yu(2014).Mandarin A-not-A Questions Revisited: A Cartographic Analysis.IACL-22 & NACCL-26,Maryland, USA:
28. Yu, Xin-xian(2012).Modals and Sentence Final Particles in Mandarin Chinese.7th International Workshop on Theoretical East Asian Linguistics (TEAL-7),Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan:
29. Yu, Xin-xian(2006).Chia-yi, Taiwan,National Chung Cheng University.
30. 方立范莉(2005)。“應該”及其否定句式。現代外語，28(4)，331-340。
31. 呂叔湘(1980)。現代漢語八百詞。北京:商務印書館。
32. 忻愛莉(2000)。華語情態詞的語意與句法成分之互動。第六屆世界華語文教學研討會論文集：語文分析組，台北:
33. 張永利(2000)。現代漢語情態詞“會”的多義現象。第九屆國際漢語語言學會議
34. 彭利貞、劉翼斌(2007)。論“應該”的兩種情態與體的同現限制。語言教學與研究，6，30-37。
35. 湯廷池、湯志真(1997)。華語情態詞序論。第五屆世界華語文教學研討會論文集：語文分析組，台北:
36. 蔡維天(2010)。談漢語模態詞的分布與詮釋之對應關係。中國語文，336，208-221。
37. 蔡維天、楊謦瑜(2014)。漢語正反問句的製圖理論分析。季風亞洲與多元文化專題（121）
38. 謝佳玲(2006)。華語廣義與狹義情態詞的分析。華語文教學研究，3(1)，1-25。
39. 謝佳玲(2001)。國語表強調的“是”與表預斷的“會”。清華學報，31(3)，249-300。
40. 謝佳玲(2001)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立清華大學語言學研究所。