上古漢語選擇問句連詞研究

Abstract

本文以上古漢語選擇問句連詞為研究對象，分別探討「意（抑）」、「其」、「將」、「且」的功能及歷時變化，另外也附帶探討「孰與」一詞的特性與功能。 選擇問句是疑問句的一種，提問內容包含兩個選項供受話人選擇，連接這兩個選項的功能詞即為選擇連詞。從過去研究可知，上古漢語的選擇問句非必用選擇連詞，前後分句也可以以無標記並列的方式構造，本文由此推論上古漢語的選擇連詞經歷了從無到有的過程，是在語言發展中產生的一個句法範疇。本文的核心關懷即在於這些選擇連詞是如何形成，以及各詞形成的時代。我們挑選了「意（抑）」、「其」、「將」、「且」這四個選擇連詞，以及功能上和選擇連詞有關連的「孰與」，分成三組進行討論。 第一章介紹研究目的、動機、範圍與方法。 第二章進行文獻回顧，一一說明關於疑問句研究的各個方面，包含結構形式和語氣的分類、上古漢語選擇問句的句式、過去學者稱作「選擇連詞」的成員等，並詳細討論了其間遭遇的問題，作為本文往後討論的基礎。 第三章討論「意（抑）」的來源與發展，除了論證選擇連詞來源於推測義副詞、而推測義副詞來源於名詞作話題的用法外，也釐清了「抑」轉折用法有兩個來源，包含推測義副詞和強調副詞。 第四章探討「其」、「將」、「且」三詞作選擇連詞的來源，也討論過去學者對於「其」、「將」多種功能的來源路徑，此外，本章在討論「且」時也一併關注它的姑且義、尚且義用法來源，以補過去研究之不足。 第五章探討「孰與」的來源、形成動因以及它在功能方面的特殊表現，包含它過去被認為有具有選擇、比較、反詰的功能卻未能說清楚彼此間的界線，以及「孰與」本身和特指問、選擇問之間的糾葛；本文從語體角度發現「孰與」的不少特殊之處，為日趨重要的語體語法研究提供一個例證。 第六章藉前三章的研究結果討論兩個爭議問題：第一，上古漢語有無選擇問句？第二，上古漢語有無選擇連詞？另外，本章也討論了漢語史中選擇連詞的主要來源，發現各時期都有來源於認識情態義的選擇連詞。 第七章總結本文成果，包含對過去爭議的釐清以及本文各章之貢獻，最後說明本文的不足之處。本文的討論當可補過去上古漢語研究之不足。

This study aims to explore the functions and developments of the disjunctions of alternative questions in Old Chinese. The disjunctions include yi意（抑）, qi其, jiang將, qie且 and shuyu孰與. An alternative question is a kind of questions that provides two or more options for the addressee to choose, optionally featured with a disjunction to link the two or more options. The present study focuses on how, why and when these disjunctions were formed. The first chapter introduces the goal, motivation and the area of research. The second chapter is literature review. In this chapter I introduce the latest research progress on disjunctions in Old Chinese. The third chapter discusses the source and the development of yi意（抑）. I argue that the disjunction yi意（抑）has originated from the usage of epistemic modal adverb (that is, the epistemic modality), with a further discussion about the sources of the adversative use of yi意（抑）. The fourth chapter discusses the source and the development of qi其, jiang將, and qie且. In this chapter, I argue that disjunction qi其 were most likely sourced from its speculative use as a modal adverb. On the other hand, both jiang將 and qie且 were sourced from both speculative use and future tense as adverbs. The fifth chapter discusses the source, forming motivation and functions of shuyu孰與. I find that shuyu孰與 usually distribute in specific register. The sixth chapter deals with the two previous issues. First, were there alternative questions in Old Chinese? Secondly, where there alternative question disjunctions in Old Chinese? The result suggests that the answers were both positive. Besides, this chapter also take disjunctions in other periods into account. It turns out that Chinese disjunctions in all periods have originated from epistemic modality more or less. The seventh chapter is conclusion.