Taiwanese Sī ＂Be＂ as a Common Ground Marker

台灣話的「是」做為共知背景標記

10.6242/twnica.16.2

劉承賢(Lau, Seng-hian)

pragmatic marker ； Taiwanese ； Southern Min ； copula verb ； focus ； 語用標記 ； 台語∕台灣話 ； 閩南語 ； 繫詞∕連繫動詞 ； 焦點

台灣學誌

16期（2017 / 10 / 01）

49 - 83

英文

This paper intends to investigate a usage of sī ＂be＂ in Taiwanese, which occurs higher than speaker-oriented adverb(ial)s and need not adjoin to vP in a wh-question, contrary to its non-copular homonyms (Lee, 2005). I suggest that it can be analyzed based on the denotation of FOR-SURE really, which conveys the meaning: ＂it is for sure that we should add to Common Ground that p,＂ proposed in Romero and Han (2004). The analysis not only explains all the empirical disparity observed between this sī and other non-copular usages of sī but also reveals the existence of a pragmatic marker in Sinitic languages, which indicates a result of high degree of grammaticalization of sī, an item whose cognates have also evolved into a wide spectrum of functions / distribution in today's Sinitic languages.

本文以台灣話的「是」為目標，特別是在結構上高於言者中心狀語（speaker-oriented adverb(ial)），且於疑問詞問句當中無需鄰接輕動詞詞組（vP）的用法；基於其位置，此一用法實有別於其他非繫詞用法（non-copular homonyms）（Lee, 2005）。文中提議可由「FOR-SURE really」的語意做為基礎來進行分析，根據Romero與Han（2004）的主張，「FOR-SURE really」的語意為「我們應該把p命題加入共知背景（Common Ground）裡」。本文的分析不僅可解釋該用法與其他非繫詞「是」的用法在語言現象上的差異，同時也明確指出漢語當中語用標記的存在，而這也佐證了「是」的高度語法化，其同源成分在今日的其他漢語裡頭，也於功能及句法分布上有了相當分歧的演化。

1. Tsai, W. -T. Dylan (蔡維天). (2012). Lun Judiao Zhongyīn tui Yǔfǎ Quanshi Jīzhi de Yǐngxiǎng [On the Influences from Intonation and Stress on the Syntactic Interpretation]. Hsinchu, Taiwan: National Tsing Hua University. Unpublished manuscript.
2. Wang, Li (王力). (1937). Zhōngguo Wenfǎ Zhōng de Xici [The Copula in Chinese Grammar]. Qīnghua Xuebao [Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies], 12(1), 1-67.
3. Frege, Gottlob. (1891). Funktion und Begriff [Function and Concept]. Lecture presented at the Jenaischen Gesellschaft fur Medizin und Naturwissenschaft [Jenaic Society for Medicine and Science]. Jena, Germany. January 9
4. Frege, Gottlob. (1923). Logische Untersuchungen, Dritter Teil: Gedankengefuge [Logical Investigations, Third Part: Thought Structure]. Beitrage zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus [Contributions to the Philosophy of German Idealism], 3, 36-51
5. Li, Jinxi (黎錦熙). (1925). Xīn Zhu Guoyǔ Wenfǎ [New Mandarin Grammar]. Shanghai: The Commercial Press (商務印書館).
6. Cheng, Lisa Lai-shen & Rooryck, J. (2002). Types of Wh-in-situ. Leiden, Netherlands: Leiden University. Unpublished manuscript..
7. Aikhenvald, A. Y.(2004).Evidentiality.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
8. Chao, Yuen Ren(1968).A Grammar of Spoken Chinese.Berkeley:University of California Press.
9. Cheng, Lisa Lai-shen(2008).Deconstructing the shi...de construction.The Linguistic Review,25,235-266.
10. E. Kiss, Katalin(1998).Identificational Focus versus Information Focus.Language,74(2),245-273.
11. Ernst, Thomas(2009).Speaker-Oriented Adverbs.Natural Language & Linguistic Theory,27,497-544.
12. Gao, Ming-kai(1970)。Guoyǔ Yǔ Fǎ。Taipei:樂天出版社=Letian Publishing。
13. Geach, P.,Black, M.(1980).Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege.Oxford:Blackwell.
14. Giannakidou, Anastasia(1999).Affective Dependencies.Linguistics and Philosophy,22,367-421.
15. Haegeman, Liliane(2003).Conditional Clauses: External and Internal Syntax.Mind & Language,18(4),317-339.
16. Halliday, M.(1970).Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a Consideration of Modality and Mood in English.Foundation of Language,6,322-361.
17. Han, Chung-hye(2002).Interpreting Interrogatives as Rhetorical Questions.Lingua,112,201-229.
18. Heim, Irene,Kratzer, Angelika(1998).Semantics in Generative Grammar.Hoboken, NJ:Wiley-Blackwell.
19. Hsu, Shi-ying(1973)。Zhōngguo Wenfǎ Jiǎnghua。Taipei:台灣開明書店=Taiwan Kaiming Shudian。
20. Huang, C. -T. James(1990)。Shuō "Shi" han "Yǒu"。Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica，59(1)，43-64。
21. Jackendoff, Ray(1972).Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
22. Jacobs, J.(Ed.)(1992).Informationsstruktur und Grammatik.Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag.
23. Lee, Hui-chi(2005).Hsinchu, Taiwan,National Tsing Hua University.
24. Li, Charles N.,Thompson, Sandra A.(1981).Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar.Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.
25. Maienborn, C.(Ed.),von Heusinger, K.(Ed.),Portner, P.(Ed.)(2012).Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning.Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
26. Mereu, Lunella(Ed.)(1999).Boundaries of Morphology and Syntax.Amsterdam, Netherlands:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
27. Reimer, Marga(Ed.),Bezuidenhout, Anne(Ed.)(2004).Descriptions and Beyond.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
28. Romero, Maribel,Han, Chung-hye(2004).On Negative Yes / No Questions.Linguistics and Philosophy,27,609-658.
29. Rooth, Mats(1985).Amherst, USA.,University of Massachusetts.
30. Searle, John(1969).Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
31. Searle, John(1983).Intentionality.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
32. Soh, Hui-ling(2005).Wh-in-situ in Mandarin Chinese.Linguistic Inquiry,36,143-155.
33. Tsai, W. -T. Dylan(2008).Left Periphery and How-Why Alternations.Journal of East Asian Linguistics,17(2),83-115.
34. von Prince, Kilu(2012).Predication and Information Structure in Mandarin Chinese.Journal of East Asian Linguistics,21(4),329-366.
35. Yang, Barry(2008).Hsinchu, Taiwan,National Tsing Hua University.
36. 王力(1954)。Zhōngguo Yǔfǎ Lǐlun。Beijing:中華書局=Chung Hwa Book Company。
37. 湯廷池(1979)。Guoyǔ Yǔfǎ Yanjiu Lunji。Taipei:台灣學生書局=Taiwan Student Publishing Company。

1. (2020).A comparative study of how and why in Taiwan Southern Min and Mandarin Chinese.語言暨語言學,21(2),254-284.