Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/23572
Title: | 可能表現についての一考察
─無標可能文と有対他動詞の可能表現を中心に─ Japanese Potential Expressions: Focus on Potential Expressions in Intransitive and Transitive Verb Pairs |
Authors: | Yu-Han Chou 周郁涵 |
Advisor: | 林慧君 |
Keyword: | 可能表現,–ar–自動詞,事象成立,動作主的意圖,控制能力, potential expressions,intransitive verbs with -ar- suffix,the completion of an event,the intention of the agent,controlling capability, |
Publication Year : | 2011 |
Degree: | 碩士 |
Abstract: | 本研究之目的,在於比較分析由自動詞所構成的「無標可能文」以及對應的「他動詞可能表現」兩者之差異。與以往的先行研究所不同的是:本研究從形態的觀點,去探討容易成為無標可能文的自動詞所具備的特質。根據本研究的調查發現,超過半數的無標可能文皆是由–ar–自動詞(帶有–ar–接尾詞的自動詞)所表現,由此可知無標可能文與–ar–自動詞有著高度相關。由於–ar–自動詞發生了脫使役化現象,因此該動詞在語構成階段中雖隱含了動作主的存在,但到了構文階段時動作主並未被具像化,而顯現在表層構造的僅有其對象物。本研究認定此特性,即是成為無標可能文之自動詞的意義特性。
本研究中,將自動詞本身的意義特性及動作主的意圖視為構成無標可能文的必要條件。其中,動作主的意圖可經由條件句、否定句、及連用修飾語表達。敘述者則透過該動作主意圖來判斷無標可能文之表現事象是否成立。 最後,本研究將無標可能文及有對他動詞可能表現之比較分析整理如下。其共通點為,兩種可能表現皆可由條件句來表示其動作主的意圖。再者,兩者所表現的事象成立與否,皆有可能受到外在的條件以及動作主自身的內在條件所影響。然而,構成無標可能文的自動詞,其意義特性會反映在兩者可能文之差異點上。形成無標可能文的自動詞,因其動作主被抑制在深層構造中,只有對象物會成為注目的焦點;而在論及事象是否成立之時,自然就不會將重點放在動作主的能力上。因此,兩者的差異乃在於探究事象成立時,敘述者是否為動作主並具備對事象的控制能力。無標可能文成立時,由於敘述者之控制能力被淡化,在事象成立上,動作主的參與將其背景化;所以無標可能文的重點即是事象的結果為何。反之,有對他動詞可能表現,敘述者相當於參與事象的動作主,對於事象具備其控制能力,因而在事象成立時,該動作主的參與將被前景化。基於此理由,有對他動詞可能表現的重點,除了強調動作主的控制能力外,還有動作主對於事象成立與否的責任意識。 The purpose of the current paper is to analyze the discrepancies that may exist between the “potential expressions in the absence of grammatical marking”, where sentences consist of intransitive verbs and the “potential expressions in paired transitive verbs”. This study departs from other previous studies and turns instead to examine the characteristics of intransitive verbs that appear in most of the “potential expressions in the absence of grammatical marking” from the viewpoint of “form”. According to the research of the study, more than half of the “potential expressions in the absence of grammatical marking” are presented by intransitive verbs with -ar- suffix, hence a highly positive correlation of the “potential expressions in the absence of grammatical marking” and “intransitive verbs with -ar- suffix” has so far been confirmed. Since intransitive verbs with -ar- suffix creates “decausativizaion” in a sentence, which suggests that an intransitive verb has implied an agent in a sentence without referring to that agent explicitly. Thus the paper proposes that an intransitive verb which features a potential expressions in the absence of grammatical marking should possess such characteristic. However, a potential expressions in the absence of grammatical marking is manifested in the result produced by the intended actions acted by the agent. Therefore, if a sentence can be qualified as having a potential expressions in the absence of grammatical marking depends not only on the characteristic of the intransitive verb, but also on the intention of the agent explicated in that sentence. The intention of the agent can be expressed by conditional sentences, negative sentences or adverbial phrases which are aimed to describe a verb or an adjective. Thus, a narrator declares the truth of an event by seeing if the intention of the agent is completed. Lastly, the paper compiles the related analysis and contrasts of “potential expressions in the absence of grammatical marking” and “potential expressions in paired transitive verbs” as follows. What both have in common is using conditional sentence(s) to express the agent’s intention(s). Furthermore, the completion of an event can be affected by external conditions in the circumstance and the internal condition of the agent. The characteristic of an intransitive verb appeared in the “potential expressions in the absence of grammatical marking” manifests its difference from the other potential expressions through making the object shown in the sentence whereas the agent is not shown in the surface structure of an article. Thus, when it turns to the discussion of an event, the ability of the agent is overlooked. Therefore the difference of the two lies in whether the narrator is actually the agent who has the controlling capability to influence the development of an event. In sentences that express the “potential expressions in the absence of grammatical marking”, the controlling ability of the narrator skips the attention because the focus is on the changes of an object. Hence, when it turns to the discussion of an event, the capacity of the agent is overlooked. To sum up, the emphasis of the “potential expressions in the absence of grammatical marking” is the result of an event. Conversely, in a sentence that expresses the potential expression in paired transitive verbs, the narrator is actually the agent and has the controlling ability, and thereby when an event is being discussed, the agent’s ability is emphasized. We can thus incur that the emphases of the “potential expressions in paired transitive verbs” are two-fold: 1. the agent’s ability of controlling an event; and 2. the agent should be responsible for an event since the completion of an event lies in the agent’s controlling ability. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/23572 |
Fulltext Rights: | 未授權 |
Appears in Collections: | 日本語文學系 |
Files in This Item:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-100-1.pdf Restricted Access | 1.29 MB | Adobe PDF |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.