中文『去』與『來』以及義大利文『andare』與『venire』指示趨向動詞的對比分析研究

Abstract

中文的「去」與「來」以及義大利文的「andare」與「venire」趨向動詞表達的意義為在具體空間中發生的位事件作之「方向」成分。這兩個動詞在中文和義大利文中原型義相當接近：「去」與「andare」表示遠離發話者位置的位移動作；「來」與「venire」表示靠近發話者位置的位移動作。雖然意思似乎非常相近，不過用法仍有所不同，似乎不是在每一個情況下都能夠完全對應。在相同或者相似的情景和語境中，義大利文母語者似乎較常產出「venire（來）」的句子；中文母語者相比之下，則似乎較常產出「去」的句子。本研究探討中文「去」跟「來」與義大利文的「andare」跟「venire」使用習慣是否不同，以及是否受到位移動作發生的時間(實驗一)、聽者是否在位移目的位置(實驗二)、以及發話者的位移意願(實驗三)等因素的影響。實驗材料為兩兩一組的句子，每組的兩句只有趨向動詞的差別(一句用「去」或「andare」，一句用「來」或「venire」)，受試者對這些句子進行0~4分的語感判斷。 實驗一操弄發話者提到的位移動作相較於發話的發生時間，分別是尚未發生，已經發生，及正在或即將發生。25位華語母語者及25位義大利母語者的語感判斷的結果顯示，在位移動作尚未發生的情況裡，華語母語者偏好「去」的用法，義大利母語者則偏好「venire (來)」的用法，在位移動作已經發生的情況裡，華語母語者仍偏好「去」的用法，義大利母語者則稍微偏好「venire (來)」的用法，但是「andare (去)」的用法也能接受，在位移動作正在或即將發生的情況裡，華語母語者稍微偏好「去」的用法，但是「來」的用法也能接受，義大利母語者則明顯偏好「venire (來)」的用法。實驗二除了操弄發話者提到的位移動作相較於發話的發生時間外（分別有尚未發生和已經發生兩種情況），也操弄聽者所在的位置（分別有在家、暫時不在家、長期不在家三種情況）。25位華語母語者及25位義大利母語者的語感判斷的結果顯示，不論位移動作是尚未發生還是已經發生，也不論聽者的位置是在家、暫時不在家、或是長期不在家，華語母語者都偏好「去」的用法；義大利母語者的偏好則受到位移動作發生的時間以及聽者所在位置的交互影響，在位移動作尚未發生的情況裡，聽者在家時，義大利母語者偏好「venire (來)」的用法，但是如果聽者不在家（暫時或長期）的話，義大利母語者則偏好「andare (去)」的用法。在位移動作已經發生的情況裡，聽者的位置是在家時，義大利母語者偏好「venire (來)」的用法，如果聽者的位置是暫時不在家時，義大利母語者也會接受「andare (去)」的用法，而如果聽者的位置是長期不在家時，義大利母語者就偏好「andare (去)」的用法。實驗三操弄發話者執行位移動作的意願（願意、不願意、反事實）以及說話態度（客氣），25位華語母語者及25位義大利母語者的語感判斷的結果顯示，華語母語者都偏好「去」的用法，義大利母語者都偏好「venire (來)」的用法，不受發話者執行位移動作的意願的影響。整體而言，華語母語者偏好「去」的用法；義大利母語者雖有偏好「venire (來)」用法的傾向，但是會受到位移動作發生的時間以及聽者所在位置的交互影響，當聽話者在位移目的位置時，偏好「venire (來)」的用法，當聽話者不在位移目的位置時，偏好「andare (去)」的用法，但是如果聽話者不在位移目的位置且位移動作已經發生時，則兩種用法都能接受。 義大利文的「venire」（來）用法比較像英文的「come」，有時候用來表達非靠近發話者位置的位移動作。按照Fillmore（1971），Levinson（1983、1987）以及Lyons（1977）的所謂禮貌指示轉換（polite deictic shift）理論較可能的原因是，「come」其實表達的不是靠近發話者的位置，而是靠近發話者認知空間系統中的參照原點。一般來說，此系統的參照原點就是發話者本人與他自己的位置。不過在特殊情況，為了對參加溝通事件的對方表達禮貌，發話者似乎可以把參照系統的原點轉換到其他溝通事件參加者的身上。因此，位移動作靠近參照系統原點不一定等於靠近發話者的位置。不過，華語的「來」較少可以如此使用。只有在發話者提到的位移動作正在發生或者即將發生的語境情況下，華語母語者才覺得「來」適合表達非靠近發話者位置的位移動作。發話者對位移動作的態度（是否願意進行此動作）以及發話者對對方的態度（是否需要比較禮貌地對對方講話）比較不會影響到華語和義大利語母語者對「去」和「來」動詞的選擇。這或許表示，禮貌指示轉換理論無法用來解釋此種語言現象。In the context of the expression of a motion event unfolding within a tangible space, the Chinese verbs “去” and “來” and the Italian verbs “andare” and “venire” are used to indicate the semantic element of direction. Their basic meaning in Chinese and Italian is actually very similar: the Chinese verb “去” and the corresponding Italian verb “andare” describe motion away from the physical position of the speaker, while the Chinese verb “來” and the corresponding Italian verb “venire” describe motion toward the physical position of the speaker. Although the meaning of these verbs appears to be very similar, nevertheless preliminary observation suggests that their usage in these two languages is not completely identical. In the same or similar communicative context or utterance situation, Italian native speakers tend to prefer the use of the verb “venire” (come), while Chinese native speakers show a different tendency by preferring the verb “去” (go). The object of this research is to confirm whether there is a consistent difference in the use of these verbs in Chinese and Italian and to test some contextual variables in order to determine which non-verbal elements can influence the selection of these deictic directional verbs: the relation between utterance time and the time of the occurrence of the motion event (Experiment 1), the position of the addressee (Experiment 2), and the attitude of the speaker (Experiment 3). The experiments consist of grammatical judgement tasks, in which the subjects grade, from 0 to 4, the acceptability of sentence pairs containing either directional verbs. For each experiment, the subject pool consists of 25 native speakers of Chinese and 25 native speakers of Italian. Experiment 1 concerns the relation between utterance time and the time of the occurrence of the motion event, considering situations in which the motion event has yet to occur, already occurred, or is occurring/going to occur, in reference to the utterance time. For situations in which the motion event has not yet occurred, Chinese speakers strongly prefer the verb “去” (go), while Italian speakers strongly prefer the verb “venire” (come). Where the motion event has already occurred, Chinese speakers strongly prefer the verb “去” (go), while Italian speakers slightly prefer the verb “venire” (come). Where the motion event is occurring/going to occur, Chinese speakers prefer the verb “去” (go), but can also accept the verb “來” (come), while Italian speakers strongly prefer the verb “venire” (come). Experiment 2, apart from considering the relation between utterance time and the time of the motion event (motion events that have not occurred or have already occurred in respect to utterance time), also concerns the position of the addressee at reference time (at home, temporarily not at home or permanently not at home). The results show that Chinese speakers prefer the verb “去” (go) in each situation, regardless of the time of the occurrence of the motion event and the position of the addressee. Italian speakers’ preference is instead influenced by these different contextual situations. If the addressee is at home at reference time, both when the motion event has yet to occur or has already occurred, Italian speakers strongly prefer the verb “venire” (come). If the addressee is temporarily not at home at reference time, when the motion event has yet to occur, Italian speakers strongly prefer the verb“andare” (go), but on the other hand accept both “andare” (go) and “venire” (come) where the motion event has already occurred. If the addressee is permanently not at home at reference time, both when the motion event has yet to occur or has already occurred, Italian speakers strongly prefer the verb “andare” (go). Experiment 3 concerns the speaker’s attitude toward the motion event (willingness, unwillingness, counterfactual thinking) and toward the addressee (politeness). For each situation, Chinese speakers strongly prefer the verb “去” (go), and Italian speakers strongly prefer the verb “venire” (come). In general, the results of the three experiments show a preference for the verb “去” (go) in Chinese and for the verb “venire” (come) in Italian, with some contextual factors being able to influence the speakers’ default selection. This means that the Italian verb “venire” (come) can also be used, and most of the time is strongly preferred, to describe motion not toward the position of the speaker. This usage has been already observed concerning the English verb “to come”. According to the “polite deictic shift” theory expressed in Fillmore (1971),Levinson (1983, 1987) and Lyons (1977), a possible explanation for this linguistic phenomenon is that the actual meaning of the verb“to come” cannot be simply defined as motion toward the speaker. Instead, it needs to be interpreted as motion toward the point of reference of the cognitive spatial system that the speaker uses to represent and describe a specific motion event. Generally speaking, this point of reference corresponds to the speaker themselves and, by association, to the position that they physically occupy. But this is not always the case: under some contextual conditions, it is possible for the speaker to shift the point of reference on other participants of the communication act to express politeness and the willingness to adopt their point of view. As a consequence, a motion toward the point of reference does not necessarily equal to a motion toward the position of the speaker. However, the Chinese verb “來” (come) cannot generally be used to express motion away from the speaker. The only situation in which this usage is allowed is when the motion event is occurring or going to occur at the time of utterance. The speaker’s attitude toward the motion event and the addressee, instead, does not influence the Chinese language general tendency of using the verb “去” (go) to describe motion away from the speaker, therefore suggesting that the “polite deictic shift” theory might not be the correct explanation for this linguistic phenomenon.