言談標記
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2011/08-2012/07
Authors
畢永峨
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
言談標記的過往研究成果豐富，此次擬深入探討中文口語中之言談標記，特別是人稱代詞與副詞形成的言談標記與其功能。人稱代詞為非典型之功能詞，副詞亦為非典型之實詞，然而本次研究將把人稱代詞與副詞視為虛詞到實詞這一連續統上較易形成言談標記的兩端代表。本次計畫的目的，是想透過對這兩種不同詞類的研究，能對言談標記的形成有更深入的認識，特別是有關言談標記形成與語法化，詞彙化，習語化（構式化）等概念之關係的理論探討。 近來的理論環繞於兩個問題。第一個問題是，言談標記的形成，對語法化理論有何影響？言談標記與傳統定義的語法化概念不盡符合的最大關鍵在於言談標記的形式是相對自由的。然而言談標記的形成跟語法化的機制類似，即語用推理在語境的運作與高頻使用的效應將語用推理過程規約化。而且傳統語法化的例子與言談標記的形成都是功能擴展的範例。再者，兩類都各有與共現成分習語化（構式化）甚至最終詞彙化的例子。所以，言談標記的研究提供了讓我們進一步釐清語法化與詞彙化理論問題的機會。另外一個問題，即言談標記發生位置與其言談功能是否有對應關係。在句首（左邊）都表達主觀性，而在句末（右邊）都表達交互主觀性嗎？左邊與右邊具有不對稱性，實肇因於語流的先後性，所以先說的（左邊）為說話人導向，而後說的（右邊）為聽話人導向的分佈，是合理的假設。然而，這個理論上的典型，尚須更多的語料來印證，實際情況可能因其他因素使事情比這個假設要複雜。針對人稱代詞，我們會研究它們在變成言談標記的過程中，有無習語化（構式化）的現象。若無，則此過程為廣義的語法化嗎？甚至是狹義的語法化？另一方面，針對具有實詞意義的副詞，我們會檢視其與共現成分（基本上就是其所修飾之動詞或形容詞）的交互運作，形成構式，最終習語化或詞彙化的過程。哪些次類的形容詞與動詞容易與副詞搭配？有無固定的模式與原則？有何音韻及構詞和句法上的特色？另外，針對人稱代詞及副詞，我們也都會檢視言談標記發生位置（句首或句末）及其言談功能（主觀性及交互主觀性）是否有清楚的對應關係？ 我們希望透過這份研究，彰顯功能學派的立場，即語意及語法都是動態的。語言使用對語言結構而言至關重要，因為它們彼此影響，彼此型塑。詞彙跟語法也不是各自為政，它們實為同一連續統之兩端，都是構式，只有複雜度的分別。最後，語言範疇，如詞類的劃分，也不可能黑白分明，詞類的歸屬其實是具有流動性的。
We will study third person pronouns and focus on whether such (near-)function words display idiomitization (contructionalization) in their development into a discourse marker, and if not, how we should understand the process, as broadly-defined grammaticalization, or even as traditionally-defined grammaticaliation. We will study adverbs that are lexically oriented and examine how they interact with elements occurring around them (mainly those they modify, such as adjective or verbs), form collocation patterns, get constructionalized, and eventually lexicalized. What are the types of verbs or adjectives that tend to work well with adverbs and help them develop into discourse markers? Are there patterns and tendencies in terms of phonology and morphosyntax? In addition, for both the study of personal pronouns and the study of adverbs, we will examine whether there is a correlation between the position of occurrence (LP vs. RP) and the function of the discourse marker (subjectivity vs. intersubjectivity). Through this study, we hope to point to the functionalist perspective towards language, i.e., both meaning and grammar are emergent. First, language use is important to language structure. The former and the latter feed and shape each other. Second, lexis and grammar are not two distinct ’ingredients’ for language. They are two ends of one single continuum, which can be seen as consisting of constructions of various sizes. Finally, linguistic categories, such as word classes, do not have clear boundaries between one another. Category membership is often a floating matter.
We will study third person pronouns and focus on whether such (near-)function words display idiomitization (contructionalization) in their development into a discourse marker, and if not, how we should understand the process, as broadly-defined grammaticalization, or even as traditionally-defined grammaticaliation. We will study adverbs that are lexically oriented and examine how they interact with elements occurring around them (mainly those they modify, such as adjective or verbs), form collocation patterns, get constructionalized, and eventually lexicalized. What are the types of verbs or adjectives that tend to work well with adverbs and help them develop into discourse markers? Are there patterns and tendencies in terms of phonology and morphosyntax? In addition, for both the study of personal pronouns and the study of adverbs, we will examine whether there is a correlation between the position of occurrence (LP vs. RP) and the function of the discourse marker (subjectivity vs. intersubjectivity). Through this study, we hope to point to the functionalist perspective towards language, i.e., both meaning and grammar are emergent. First, language use is important to language structure. The former and the latter feed and shape each other. Second, lexis and grammar are not two distinct ’ingredients’ for language. They are two ends of one single continuum, which can be seen as consisting of constructions of various sizes. Finally, linguistic categories, such as word classes, do not have clear boundaries between one another. Category membership is often a floating matter.