Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: 漢日語尾助詞對比分析
A Contrastive Analysis of Utterance-Final Particles in Chinese and Japanese
Authors: 陳俊光
Chen, Jyun-gwang
Kuo, Ching-wei
Keywords: 漢日對比分析
contrastive analysis
utterance-final particles
discourse markers
Issue Date: 2011
Abstract:   文獻中許多學者都提到漢語的語尾助詞語義「空靈」,所以對語尾助詞的分析常過於紛雜(如某語尾助詞能表示「種種不同語氣」),其分析成果要在教學上應用也顯得相當困難。有鑑於此,本文試圖為語尾助詞這個詞類找出統一的核心功能,解釋語尾助詞之所以能在語法上體現為一個自然類(natural class)的原因,並且為語尾助詞中最具代表性的五個「啊、呢、吧、嗎、嘛」分別找出個別的核心功能,而這五個核心功能可以自成一個體系。   本文藉由自行建置的口語語料庫觀察語尾助詞的表現,得出一個結論,即漢語語尾助詞是一種「共知標記」(ground markers),其功能是指出交際溝通的基礎──即「共有知識」(common ground)──在溝通進行的當下需要什麼樣的處理,以達成說話者本身的溝通意圖(例如使交際溝通回歸平穩,或希望達到某種語用意圖)。有時說話者著重的是語尾助詞「點出當下共知現況」的功能,有時則著重直接「處理共知」的功能,但這都是語尾助詞核心功能的一體之兩面。而不同的語尾助詞,就表示不同的溝通意圖,標示目前共知所需要的不同處理。據本文討論,「啊」是「共知修補標記」,表示說話者認為當下共知有漏洞落差,需要修補使共知回復應有的狀態;「呢」是「共知推展標記」,表示說話者認為當下共知不夠完整,需要推展使共知更全面深入;「吧」是「共知確定標記」,表示說話者認為當下共知還不是定案或定論,還需要確定共知來達成定案、定論;「嗎」是「共知建立標記」,表示說話者認為某種共知有建立的必要;「嘛」則是「共知喚起標記」,表示說話者認為某部分的共知不在注意範圍當中,有必要使該共知重回注意範圍,以達成種種溝通上的目的。   日語的終助詞如「ね」(ne)、「よ」(yo)等常被視為漢語語尾助詞的對應形式;但觀察本文所建置的漢日對譯語料庫的語料之後,認為不然,漢語語尾助詞和日語終助詞僅在形式上類似,但在功能上是不對等的。本文對比分析的共同對比基礎(tertium comparationis)為「處理共知」,在漢語以語尾助詞體現,在日語則缺少特定的語言形式表現之。本文主張,漢語是傾向「事先於人」的語言,而日語是傾向「人先於事」的語言,所以造成這兩種語言形式在功能上不對等的結果。因此,對日漢語教學應避免這兩種語言形式的簡單對應,而應給予特別設計的教學及訓練,才能有效使日本的漢語學習者能夠避開濫用、迴避語尾助詞甚或直接使用終助詞的問題。
Chinese utterance-final particles (henceforth UFPs) are often described as “elusive” when scholars try to give a unified account for them. As a result, most cases of analyses that have dealt with this topic tend to be fragmentary, and are thus not appropriate for pedagogical purposes. Therefore, the present study seeks to elucidate the core property common to all UFPs that unifies them as a natural class, and to address the more specific core property possessed by each of the five most typical UFPs, viz. 'a', 'ne', 'ba', 'ma1' (嗎) and 'ma2' (嘛), which is in line with the unifying properties of the class as a whole. The present study concludes that UFPs are ground markers in terms of their functions. Ground markers are used to point out what kind of “process” the common ground of communication should need to undergo at that moment, so as to carry out the intentions which the speaker has in mind (e.g. to stabilize communication or to achieve some pragmatic effect). The function may either lean toward “pointing out the current state of the common ground” or “directly processing the common ground,” but these two are actually two sides of the same coin. Moreover, different UFPs embody different communicational intentions, thus different kinds of “processes” that the current common ground needs to undergo. According to the analysis in the present study, 'a' is a ground fixer, used to point out that the common ground between interlocutors needs fixing and to try to have it fixed. 'Ne' is a ground expander which functions to have the incomplete ground expand to its fullness. The ground strengthener, 'ba', demonstrates the need to strengthen the weak common ground and make it final. 'Ma1' is a ground builder, which serves to establish a new common ground. Finally, 'ma2' is a ground evoker used to bring some piece of information woven in the common ground back into attention. Japanese UFPs, i.e. 'shūjoshi', are often considered as the equivalent counterparts of Chinese UFPs, but the present study holds an opposing view. The two are similar in form, but differ in terms of function; the 'tertium comparationis' of this study “processing the ground” does not materialize in any specific linguistic forms in the Japanese language. The issue-centered nature of Chinese and the people-centered nature of Japanese may account for this incongruity. For that reason, the present study suggests Chinese instructors in Japan should design teaching materials specialized for Chinese UFPs.
Other Identifiers: GN0696800018
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.