台閩語「對」的雙重功能與語法化研究

Abstract

在當代台閩語中，「對」有雙重語意—它同時是來源標記(SOURCE marker)以及方向標記(DIRECTION marker)。本研究旨在探討台閩語「對」的雙重語意以及其歷時語法化的現象。 在荔鏡記中，「對」具有數個不同的語法及語意功能， 例如名詞「一對」(a pair)、形容詞「相敵的」(opposing)、動詞「配對」(to match)和「面對」(to face)。本文指出，在語法化的歷程中，「對」經歷了句法上及語意上的變化。就句法上而言，「對」由一個動詞虛化成為介系詞﹔就語意上而言，「對」在當代台閩語中作為方向標記的用法是經由語用功能強化(pragmatic strengthening)的過程，從「面對」(to face)此動詞用法語法化(grammaticalize)而來。此外，本文主張「對」作為方向標記的用法又進一步地引申出作為來源標記的用法，此種演變是受到認知上(cognitive)以及言談語用上(discourse-pragmatic)的動因所影響﹔就認知而言，「來源」及「方向」此兩個概念是不易區分的﹔就言談語用而言，動機有三者，第一，「對」與空間移動動詞(spatial movement verbs)的搭配使用使得「來源」這個參與者角色(participant role)有詳述的必要；第二，語言使用中的轉喻推論(metonymic inferencing)也促使了此演變的發生；第三，此二者的區別在某些語境下是非必要的。在演變的過程中，「對」也經歷了語意淡化(semantic bleaching)以及隱喻衍生(metaphorical extension)的過程，故原始的語意被弱化(weakened)，新的語意功能也有轉移到抽象領域(abstract domains)的現象。 本研究也指出，音韻弱化(reduced)變體「ui」的出現是為了區別「來源」及「方向」此二合併(conflated)於「對」的參與者角色，「ui」主要的功能是作為來源標記，故使得「對」逐漸專化為方向標記，此種分化的現象應證了語言變遷過程中所產生的原型效應(prototype effect)。由此可見，閩語中「來源」及「方向」此二參與者角色在語法化的歷程中經歷了合併與分化的過程；在語法化的初期(即荔鏡記)，「來源」及「方向」是以不同的介系詞來標示，而在當代台閩語中，兩者皆以「對」這個介系詞來表達，但經歷了一段合併的時期後，又開始有了分化的現象。In modern Taiwanese Southern Min, tui displays double functions as both a SOURCE and a DIRECTION marker. The present study explores the motivations underlying the conflation of the two functions within the marker tui as well as its grammaticalization path. In the historical text Li Jing Ji, tui expresses various senses, including a noun ‘a pair’, an adjective ‘opposing’, verbs ‘to match’ and ‘to face’. In its diachronic evolution starting from the 16th century to the contemporary, tui undergoes syntactic and semantic changes. Syntactically, tui decategorizes from a full-fledged verb into a preposition. Semantically, it is argued that tui’s function as a DIRECTION marker in contemporary Taiwanese grammaticalizes from its erstwhile verbal function ‘to face’ as motivated by the force of pragmatic strengthening. Moreover, we propose that the function of marking DIRECTION further gives rise to the function as a SOURCE marker, a process which is driven by cognitive and the discourse-pragmatic motivations. In terms of cognition, the notions of SOURCE and DIRECTION are hard to differentiate without profiling. In terms of discourse-pragmatics, the motivations may be threefold. First, the collocation of tui with the spatial movement verbs provides a context in which the participant role SOURCE may need to be specified. Second, the conflation is facilitated by the operation of use-based, metonymic inferencing in language use. Third, the differentiation of the two notions is dispensable in some contexts. Along the pathway of change, tui also undergoes the processes of semantic bleaching and metaphorical extension, its original meaning ‘to face’ being weakened and the new functions of SOURCE and DIRECTION being transferred to abstract domains. It is observed that the motivation underlying the emergence of the phonologically reduced variant ui is to differentiate the two conflated roles SOURCE and DIRECTION, which manifests the prototype effect in grammaticalization. Ui arises as a specialized SOURCE marker, which allows DIRECTION to be mainly represented by tui. Therefore, the diachronic development of SOURCE and DIRECTION in Southern Min can be characterized as undergoing both the processes of conflation and differentiation. In Li Jing Ji, SOURCE and DIRECTION are distinguished by separate markers. In contemporary Taiwanese Southern Min, however, the two roles are conflated within tui. The conflation is succeeded by the process of differentiation, as tui begins to be specialized as a DIRECTION marker and ui a SOURCE marker.