從要求到給予：台灣政論節目中「好不好」與「好嗎」的知識轉換

Abstract

一般人咸同意，一句話語披著疑問結構的外衣並不表示其立意必然是尋求訊息。多虧語用學、言談分析、對話分析、功能主義等等語言學學派的成果，研究者已逐漸揭露由「語言形式」至「互動功能」之間的映射關係並不完美（反之亦然）。本文受到語言中這種有趣的不確定性所驅使，企圖揭露漢語中「失職」的「偽疑問結構」，針對的兩個對象為「好不好」與「好嗎」。雖然此二結構看似疑問，但已有許多研究者（ Chen & Liu, 2009; Hu, 2002; H.-I. Liu, 2008; L. Y. Wang, 2005） 稱其可用作「挑戰」、「反駁」、「駁斥」、「否定」。 在 Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson (1974)與 Levinson (1983)建立並發展的對話分析的框架之下檢視政論節目〈新聞面對面〉裡的談話之後，我辨識出九項經由非正統附加問句用法的「好不好」所執行的社會行為/功能，以及兩項經由似附加問句用法的「好不好」所執行的功能。另一方面，兩項經由非正統附加問句用法的「好嗎」所執行的社會行為也在本文中被辨識出來。總的來說，本文所辨識出來的社會行為/功能如下：(i) 同意、(ii) 糾正、(iii) 散佈新聞、(iv) 不同意、(v) 名詞解釋、(vi) 通知/自我通知、(vii) 協商標記、(viii) 預糾正、(ix) 提醒、(x) 吸引注意力。本文的發現不但證實自然語言對於多義性/多功能性驚人的容忍度，更重要的是根據上述社會行為/功能的共性，我主張「好不好」與「好嗎」此二合成結構經歷了「知識轉換」。也就是說，套用 Halliday 自 1985 年發展的功能語法，我 們可以說，除了由扮演著「要求者」 (demander)的語言角色 (speech role)，以尋求訊息的說話者口中說出來以外，現代漢語的「好不好」與「好嗎」亦可由扮演著「給予者」 (giver)的語言角色，自願傳遞訊息/知識的說話者口中說出

As laypeople can attest, just because an utterance has the appearance of an interrogative structure does not entail that it is indeed intended as in search of information. Thanks to schools of linguistics such as pragmatics, discourse analysis, Conversation Analysis, functionalism, etc. researchers have gradually unearthed the imperfect mappings from linguistic forms to interactional functions (or the other way around). Motivated by this fascinating unpredictability, this thesis aims to disclose “fake” interrogative structures in Mandarin Chinese that “do not do their jobs.” The items selected are hao bu hao and hao ma, two seeming interrogative structures that, some researchers (Chen & Liu, 2009; Hu, 2002; H.-I. Liu, 2008; L. Y. Wang, 2005) claim, can be used for challenges/refutations/rebuttals/negation. Examining naturally occurring talk-in-interaction in the TV talk show Facenews (新聞面對面) under the framework of Conversation Analysis (CA) as launched and developed by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) and Levinson (1983), I identify as many as nine social actions/functions that are implemented through the non-canonical tag uses of hao bu hao, along with two functions that are performed by the quasi-tag uses of hao bu hao. On the other hand, two social actions that get done via the noncanonical tag uses of hao ma are identified. Overall, on the list of all the social actions/functions found in this study are (i) agreeing, (ii) correcting, (iii) delivering news, (iv) disagreeing, (v) explaining jargon, (vi) informing/self-informing, (vii) negotiation marker, (viii) pre-correction, (ix) reminding, and (x) attention getter. The findings not only bear witness to the fact that natural language is unimaginably tolerant of an enormous amount of polysemy/poly-functionality. More importantly, based on the commonalities among these social actions/functions, I argue that the two composite structures hao bu hao and hao ma have undergone an “epistemic transformation.” That is, besides coming from a speaker who plays the speech role of a demander in search of information or knowledge (as is assumed in existing grammars of Chinese) in conversation, hao bu hao and hao ma in Modern Chinese can also be produced by someone who plays the speech role of a giver willing to transmit information or knowledge.