霧台魯凱語言談中的指稱表達式研究

Abstract

在言談中，同一個指涉對象 (referent)可能會以不同的語言形式 (syntatic form)出現。而影響言談中的說話者挑選不同語言形式的關鍵究竟為何，也成為近年來認知與功能語言學領域研究的一大重點。 此篇論文將透過兩個主要的研究方法:分別為 Givón (1983)的Theory of Topic Continuity 以及 Gundel (1980)的Givenness Hierarchy，來分析霧台魯凱語言談中不同的語言形式。 正如同其他許多不同的語言一樣，在魯凱語當中，語言外觀形式的複雜性以及說話者的認知狀態都會影響到指稱表達式(referential expression)的挑選。其中，我們發現四種主要的指稱表達式: 零指示詞(zero anaphora)、代名詞(pronoun)、 定名詞(definite noun) 以及不定名詞(indefinite noun)，都符合Givón所提出的Topic Continuity Scale，亦即零指示詞具有最高的主題連續性，代名詞次高，定名詞次低，而不定名詞為最低。四者當中，擁有較高主題連續性的零指示詞以及代名詞通常會用來指涉在言談中較為重要的主題，相反地，定名詞 以及不定名詞具有較低的主題連續性，指涉之主題也相對較不重要。 此外，在霧台魯凱語中我們也發現，當指涉對象存在於說話者不同的認知狀態當中時，其指稱表達式也會跟著不同，這也符合Gundel所提出的 Givenness Hierarchy之假設。具體來說，當一個指稱對象處在In Focus的認知狀態當中，其通常會以零指示詞或代名詞的樣態出現。另一方面，處在Referential或Type Indentifiable等認知狀態的指稱對象則通常會以不定名詞的樣態呈現。值得一提的是，定名詞在幾乎所有認知狀態中的指稱對象上都可以看見；而尤其當指稱對象處在Activated、Familiar 或Uniquely Identifiable這三種認知狀態時，基本上都是以定名詞的樣態展現。

In the discourse, the same referent can be encoded by various kinds of syntactic forms. This current thesis attempts to provide some analysis on syntactic coding devices of NPs in the discourse of Budai Rukai. Two major approaches, Givón’s theory of topic continuity (1983) and Gundel’s hypothesis of the Givenness Hierarchy (1980), are mainly applied to our analysis. The same as many other langueges, both the quantity of the syntactic coding devices and the cognitive status of a certain referent play a key role in the referential choice in Budai Rukai. The four major types of syntactic coding devices, zero anaphora, pronoun, definite noun, and indefinite noun, are found to follow the Givón’s scale of topic continuity, with zero anaphora having the highest degree of topic continuity, pronouns the second highest, definite NP the second lowest, and indefinite NP having the lowest one. The two most continuous NP coding devices, zero anaphora and pronoun are often used to refer to the more important referents in the discourse, while the two least continuous NP coding devices, definite noun and indefinite noun, tend to refer to relatively unimportant topics. Also, we found that referents in different cognitive statuses are coded differently in Budai Rukai, consisting with the Gundel’s Givenness Hierarchy. A referent in the status of in focus can be coded as zero anaphora and pronoun. On the other hand, referential and type indentifiable refernts are in the grammatical device of indefinite noun. Interestingly, definite noun can be seen to code referents in almost every cognitive status except for type identifiable. Furthermore, the activated, familiar and uniquely identifiable referents are all primarily expressed in the form of definite noun.