台語因為和所以的言談功能

Abstract

本研究以言談分析的方法研究台灣閩南語因為和所以在口語中的言談功能。研究語料長達7.5小時，內容包括電視連續劇、電話聊天、電視訪談以及親戚朋友間的日常對話。雖然因為和所以的根本功能是標示因果關係中的因和果，兩者在言談中所扮演的角色並不對稱。為了互動上不同的需求，因為和所以各自發展出各式功能。

因為的言談功能具有高度互動性(interactional)，而且大部分是以聽話者為考量(other-attentive)。因為的功能分為兩大類：標示因果關係(causal marking)和非標示因果關係(non-causal marking)。標示因果關係的因為有四種功能：(1) 標示單純原因(pure-cause marking)、(2) 標示解釋 (explanation marking)、(3) 標示正當性 (justification marking)、(4)表達理解(understanding display)。標示正當性的因為又可分為三種：(1)標示衝突性言論的正當性(justifying conflicting statement)、(2)標示面子威脅行為的正當性(justifying FTA)、(3)減輕尷尬(mitigating embarrassment)。非標示因果關係的因為，其功能為標示資訊插入(information-insertion marking)。研究發現，在一般敘事時要表達原因的時候，絕大部分的情況不會使用因為。雖然大多數的因為仍標示某種因果關係，因為只在特定的對話情境中使用，亦即只有當說話者認為需要特別地強化提供對話者更好更友善的對話情境時，才會使用因為。整體而言，嚴肅的談話主題、對話者間疏遠的社會關係、說話者對於要用因為導入的資訊所抱持的態度，這些和因為的使用有密切的關係。

相對的，所以的言談功能比較不以聽話者為考量，而比較偏向以內容為考量(content-based)。所以的功能分為兩大類：標示因果關係(consequential marking)和非標示因果關係(non-consequential marking)。標示因果關係的所以又分為基層言談層次(local level)和高層言談層次(global level)二種。在高層言談層次標示因果關係的所以有兩種功能：(1)標示結論(conclusion marking)和(2)標示評論(comment marking)。非標示因果關係的所以又有兩種功能：(1) 標示談話主題切換(topic transition marking)、(2) 形塑(framing)。雖然超過百分之八十的所以都帶有其最根本的意思—標示因果關係，但所以不是為了語法上的理由而使用，而是為了修辭及言談結構上的需求而使用。說話者使用所以以增加談話的嚴肅性，並且用所以來建構言談結構以達成其表達上的各種需求。只有在說話者對於談話有特定的目的，而且渴望能夠以此談話達到目的時，說話者才會使用所以。

本研究也探討因為和所以在言談功能上的差異。並且，研究他們有標記(markedness)及無標記 (unmarkedness)的情況以釐清此二者不同的言談語用動機。除此之外，研究中也比較了因為所以和其英文及台灣華語同義字在言談功能上的差別。因為的大部分言談功能在其英文及台灣華語同義字中都可以找到相似的用法，差別在於使用頻率、使用動機和功能比例。而所以的言談功能雖然和其英文同義字相似，卻在互動上應用更廣。所以的使用和嚴肅且有特定目的性的談話關係密切，但其英文同義字卻沒有這樣的關連。經由這樣的比較，更能清楚發現因為和所以不同的使用動機。

The present study analyzes and discusses the functions of Taiwanese inui and soyi in spoken discourse through the approach of Conversation Analysis (CA). The analysis is based on seven and a half hours’ recording of natural spoken data, including native speakers’ conversation in soap opera on TV, telephone dialogues, TV interviews, as well as daily conversations among family members and friends. While the canonical functions of inui and soyi are used to mark cause and consequence respectively in a causal-consequential relation, their discourse functions are asymmetric. The various functions that evolve from these two markers serve different interactional purposes. The functions of inui are highly interactional and mostly other-attentive. These functions are first categorized into causal-marking and non-causal marking. The uses of causal-marking inui are further classified into four, including (1) pure-cause marking, (2) explanation marking, (3) justification marking, and (4) understanding display. The justification-marking inui is further categorized into three types: (1) justifying conflicting statement, (2) justifying FTA and (3) mitigating embarrassment. The non-causal inuis perform the function of information-insertion marking. It is found that in most cases where a cause is to be expressed in a narrative, inui is not used. Although most of the inuis still signal a certain type of causal-relation, inui is under a speaker’s disposal for significant conversational situations. Inui is called for when a speaker recognizes the need to provide the addressee with a better and friendlier ground for conversation as particularly significant and as meriting special emphasis. The employment of inui is sensitive to serious topics, the distant social relation between interlocutors and a speaker’s attitude to the information introduced by inui. In contrast, the functions of soyi are less other-attentive and more content-based. The various functions of soyi are categorized into two major groups: consequential and non-consequential. The consequential uses of soyi can be further classified into local level and global level. The global consequential soyi includes functions of (1) conclusion marking and (2) comment marking. The functions of non-consequential soyi include (1) topic transition marking and (2) framing. Although over eighty percent of the instances of soyi carry a canonical reading—the consequential function, soyi is used more as a rhetoric or a structuring device, rather than a grammatical one, for a speaker to add the tone of seriousness to a speech situation, and to structure the discourse for the speaker’s various expressive purposes. Soyi is only used when a speaker has a specific goal for the talk and is eager to achieve the goal through the talk. The functional distinction between inui and soyi is further discussed and the markedness and unmarkedness of inui and soyi are also addressed to reveal the discourse-pragmatic factors that motivate the use of these two markers. In addition, the study also compares their discourse functions with their English and Taiwan Mandarin equivalents. Most of the functions of Taiwanese inui have corresponding uses of its English and Taiwan Mandarin equivalent. The difference lies in the overall frequency, the motivation of use and the functional distribution. The functions of soyi have similar uses with its English equivalent but wider application for interactional needs. While soyi is closely associated with serious and purposeful talk, its English equivalent does not exhibit such an association. The motivations that trigger the employment of inui and soyi are salient with the comparison.