(3.236.175.108) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/02/28 03:46
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:劉星辰
研究生(外文):Hsing-Chen Liu
論文名稱:卡那卡那富語焦點系統之語意及言談功能
論文名稱(外文):A Semantic and Discourse Study on the Voice System in Kanakanavu
指導教授:宋麗梅宋麗梅引用關係
指導教授(外文):Li-May Sung
口試委員:洪媽益黃舒屏
口試委員(外文):Michael TanangkingsingShuping Huang
口試日期:2014-07-01
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:語言學研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:語言學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2014
畢業學年度:102
語文別:英文
論文頁數:106
中文關鍵詞:卡那卡那富語焦點系統構詞句法語意角色語用功能
外文關鍵詞:Kanakanavuvoicemorphosyntaxsemantic rolesdiscourse functions
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:224
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本論文旨在探究高雄那瑪夏區卡那卡那富語之焦點系統,以構詞句法、語意角色及語用功能三個面向進行分析。研究認為卡語存在三種使用於直述句的焦點類別,即主事焦點、受事焦點和工具焦點,而表示地方的後綴標記僅出現在名物化結構裡。各焦點句型所引發的語意角色亦不同,其中受事焦點主格論元的種類最為豐富。另外本文也採用Giv&;oacute;n (1983, 2001)將文本主題性量化的研究方法,嘗試一窺卡語焦點系統是否與主題性產生互動。語料庫統計結果使我們發現,無論在主事或受事焦點句型中,主事者論元的主題性皆較受事論元高。受事者論元則主題性中等,在主事焦點句型中甚至更低。如此的語用歧異顯示非主事焦點句型並非被動句,而是句法上擁有兩個論元的及物句。具有雙論元的主事焦點句型則與所謂的延伸性不及物結構(Dixon 1984, Huang and Tanangkingsing 2011)相呼應。最後本研究將納入構句、語意角色及語用功能所得出的結果和鄒語作類型上的比較,進一步檢視鄒語系分支假設。以Huang (2002)提出的南島語言連續性來說,卡語應落於鄒語和賽德克語之間。

This study investigates the voice system in Kanakanavu, a Formosan language spoken in southern Taiwan, primarily from three perspectives—morphosyntax, semantic role, and discourse functions. On the one hand, our analysis reveals that Kanakanavu has three indicative voice types, namely Agent voice, Patient voice, and Instrumental voice, whereas the assumed locative marker occurs only in nominalized structure. The semantic roles triggered in a clause also vary in accordance with each voice type, with Patient voice capable of carrying the largest number of semantics roles on the nominative argument. On the other hand, the quantitative approach proposed by Giv&;oacute;n (1983, 2001) is adopted in the analyses in order to access the notion of topicality reflected in the use of Kanakanavu voice system. By examining the statistical results retrieved from our corpus, we found that the Agent argument, whether in Actor- or Non-actor voice clauses, exhibits higher topicality, whereas the Patient argument in NAV clauses is only moderately topical and is even less so in AV ones. The discrepancy of the topicality rendered in the arguments implies that the NAV construction does not function as passive, but rather as a transitive clause with two core-like arguments. This result corroborates the feasibility of analyzing two-argument AV clauses in Kanakanavu, as well as in some other Formosan languages, as Extended Intransitive Constructions (Dixon 1984, Huang and Tanangkingsing 2011). We will finally incorporate the above results with regard to voice morphology, semantics and discourse behavior, and attempt to compare with Tsou on a typological scale. Our findings reveal that in the continuum of the pragmatics of Austronesian languages, Kanakanavu may be positioned between Tsou and Seediq (cf. Huang 2002).

Chapter 1 Introduction....................1
1.1 Preamble..............................1
1.2 General background....................3
1.2.1 Geography...........................3
1.2.2 Genealogy...........................5
1.2.3 Language and society................8
1.3 Database..............................10
1.4 Organization..........................11
Chapter 2 Literature Review...............13
2.1 Preliminary...........................13
2.2 Some issues about Formosan languages..13
2.2.1 Areal distribution..................14
2.2.2 Genetic relationship................15
2.2.3 Typological characteristics.........16
2.3 Linguistic studies on Kanakanavu......17
2.3.1 Ogawa and Asai (1935)...............18
2.3.2 Tsuchida (1976, 2003)...............19
2.3.3 Mei (1982)..........................21
2.3.4 Ho (1997)...........................22
2.3.5 Wu (2006)...........................22
2.3.6 Other studies.......................23
2.4 Formosan voice system and discourse...24
2.5 Summary...............................24
Chapter 3 Voice Constructions in Kanakanavu...26
3.1 Introduction..........................26
3.2 A sketch of Kanakanavu’s grammar.....26
3.2.1 Phonological inventory..............27
3.2.2 Word order..........................29
3.2.3 Pronominal system...................32
3.2.4 Markers sua, na and ia..............33
3.3 Morphology and syntax of the voice construction...36
3.3.1 Voice in indicative mood............36
3.3.1.1 Agent voice.......................36
3.3.1.2 Patient voice.....................38
3.3.1.3 Instrumental voice (PV-Instrumental Applicative)...44
3.3.1.4 The status of locative voice......47
3.3.2 Integrating into a semantic map and an interim summary...49
3.4 Voice and TAM.........................51
3.4.1 Tense...............................51
3.4.1.1 Present simple....................51
3.4.1.2 Past simple.......................52
3.4.1.3 Future............................53
3.4.2 Aspect..............................55
3.4.2.1 Progressive.......................55
3.4.2.2 Perfective........................56
3.4.2.3 Imperfective......................56
3.4.3 Mood................................57
3.5 Summary...............................58
Chapter 4 Discourse aspects of the voice system...60
4.1 Introduction..........................60
4.2 Austronesian voice, transitivity, ergativity, and discourse.................................61
4.3 Discourse ergativity..................65
4.3.1 Frequency of each voice type........66
4.3.2 NAV and individuation of patients...67
4.3.3 Grounding...........................72
4.4 Voice and aspect......................76
4.5 Topicality............................78
4.5.1 Syntactic coding....................79
4.5.2 Referential distance................83
4.5.3 Topic persistence...................85
4.6 Summary...............................87
Chapter 5 Conclusion......................90
5.1 Review of the study...................90
5.2 Typological comparisons: the ‘Tsouic’ subgrouping revisited.................................91
5.2.1 Voice repertoire and morphology.....92
5.2.2 Semantic roles......................95
5.2.3 Discourse functions.................97
5.3 Concluding remarks....................99
References................................101



Blust, Robert. 1999. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: some issues in Austronesian comparative. Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, edited by Zeitoun, E. and Li, P. J. K., pp. 31–94. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Chang, Yung-li. 2000a. A Reference Grammar of Kavalan [in Chinese]. Taipei:Yuanliu.
Chang, Yung-li. 2000b. A Reference Grammar of Seediq [in Chinese]. Taipei: Yuanliu.
Chang, Yung-li. 2006. Rethinking the Tsouic subgroup hypothesis: a morphosyntactic perspective. In Yung-li Chang, Lillian Huang, and Dah-an Ho eds., Streams Converging into an Ocean: Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Jen-Kuei Li on his 70th Birthday. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
Cheng, Yi-Yang. 2013. Modality in Mayrinax Atayal. M.A thesis. National Taiwan University.
Cheng, Yi-Yang, and Li-May Sung. To appear. The expression of modality in Kanakanavu. Oceanic Linguistics.
Cooreman, Ann, Barbara Fox, and Talmy Giv&;oacute;n. 1984. The discourse definition of ergativity. Studies in Language 8:1-34.
Cumming, Susanna. 1995. Multifunctionality and the realization problem in modelling discourse production. Discourse, Grammar and Typology: Papers in Honor of John Verhaar, ed. by W. Abraham, T. Giv&;oacute;n and S. Thompson, 247-273. Amsterda: John Benjamins.
Dyen, Isidore. 1965. A Lexicostatistical classification of the Austronesian languages. International Journal of American Linguistics, Memoir 19.
Fillmore, C.J. 1968.The Case for Case. Universals in Linguistic Theory, edited by Bach, E. and Harms R.T.
Gibson, Jeanne D. and Stanley Starosta. 1987. Ergativity east and west. In Philip Baldi, ed. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology, 195-210. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Giv&;oacute;n, Talmy. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, Vol. 3. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gruber, J.S. 1965.Studies in Lexical Relations. Ph.D dissertation, MIT. Cambridge: Mass.
Himmelmann, Nikolas P. 2002.VoiceinWesternAustronesian: An Update. The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems. Australia: Pacific Linguistics.
Hopper, Paul. 1982. Aspect between discourse and grammar. Tense-aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, edited by Paul Hopper, pp. 3-18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hopper, Paul. 1986. How ergative is Malay? Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, ed. By Richard McGinn, 441-454. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.
Hopper, Paul, and Sandy Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56:251-299.
Ho, Dah-An. 1997. The Kanakanavu language. Formosan language in Kaohsiung [in Chinese], edited by Li Jen-Kuei, pp. 228-271. Kaohsiung City Government.
Huang, Shuanfan. 2002. The Pragmatics of Focus in Tsou and Seediq. Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 665-694. Nankang: Academia Sinica.
Huang, Shuanfan. 2005. Split O in Formosan Languages—A Localist Interpretation. Language and Linguistics, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 783-806. Nankang: Academia Sinica.
Huang, Shuanfan, and Huei-ju Huang. 2005. Causative and applicative: Their split and syncretism in Formosan languages. Paper presented at Taiwan-Japan Joint Workshop on Austronesian Languages. Taipei: National Taiwan University.
Huang, Shuanfan, and Huei-ju Huang. 2007. Lexical Perspectives on Voice Constructions in Tsou. Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 424-455. University of Hawai’I Press.
Huang, Shuanfan, and Michael Tanangkingsing. 2011. A Discourse Explanation of the
Transitivity Phenomena in Kavalan, Squliq, and Tsou. Oceanic Linguistics, Vol.50, No.1, pp.93-119. University of Hawai’I Press. Jackendoff, R.S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Katagiri, Masumi. 2005. Topicality, ergativity and transitivity in Tagalog: Implications for the Philippine-type system. The many faces of Austronesian voice systems : some new empirical studies, edited by I Wayan Arka and Malcolm Ross. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Lan, Yen-Fen. 2012. Negation in Kanakanavu. M.A thesis. Kaohsiung: National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Li, Chao-Lin. 2009. The syntax of prefix concord in Saaroa: Restructuring and multiple agreement. Oceanic Linguistics 48.1, pp. 172-212.
Li, Chao-Lin. 2010. The Syntax and Semantics of Eventuality in Paiwan and Saaroa. M.A Thesis. Hsing-chu: NTHU.
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei et al. 1997. The Formosan Languages in Kaohsiung [in Chinese]. Kaohsiung: The Government of Kaohsiung.
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 2006. The internal relationships of Formosan languages. Tenth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics.
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 2007. Documentation of the Most Endangered Formosan Languages. Pre-Conference Proceedings of the International Conference of Austronesian Endangered Language Documentation, 1-12. Taichung: Providence University.
Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 2010. Cherish the Formosan Languages in Taiwan [in Chinese]. Taipei: Avanguard.
Lin, Yao-Tung. 2007. Construction, Classification, and Identity: A Study of Ethnic Identity of Kanakanavu in “Southern Tsou”. Ph.D dissertation. National Taiwan University.
Mei, Kuang. 1982. Pronouns and verb inflection in Kanakanavu. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 14: 207-32. Hsingchu: HTHU Press.
Mithun, Marianne. 1994. The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. Voice: Form and function, ed. by Barbara Fox and Paul J. Hopper, 247-277. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ogawa, Naoyoshi and Erin Asai. 1935. The Myths and Traditions of the Formosan Natives Tribes [in Japanese]. Taihoku: Taihoku Imperial University.
Ross, Malcolm. 2002. The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice-marking. The History and Tyology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems, ed. by Wouk Fay and Malcolm Ross, 17-62. Pacific Linguistics, 518. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Ross, Malcolm. 2006. Reconstructing the case-marking and personal pronoun systems of Proto Austronesian. Streams converging into an ocean: Festschrift in honor of Professor Paul Jen-kuei Li on his 70th birthday, pp. 521-63.
Ross, Malcolm. 2009. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: a reappraisal. Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust, pp. 295-326.
Quick, Phil. 2005. Topic continuity, voice, and word order in Pendau. The many faces of Austronesian voice systems: Some new empirical studies, pp. 221-242.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1988. Passive and Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1999. Applicatives and Benefactives: A Cognitive Account. Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, edited by Shibatani, Masayoshi and Sandra A. Thompson, pp. 157-194. New York: Oxford University Press.
Starosta, Stanley. 1995. A grammatical subgrouping of Formosan languages. Austronesian Studies Relating to Taiwan, edited by Paul Li, et al., pp.683-726. Nankang: Academia Sinica.
Starosta, Stanley. 2002. Austronesian ‘Focus’ as Derivation: Evidence from Nominalization. Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 427-479.
Starosta, Stanley, Andrew K. Pawley, and Lawrence A. Reid. 1982. The evolution of focus in Austronesian. Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 2: Tracking the Travelers, ed. by Stephen A. Wurm and Lois Carrington, 145-70. Pacific Linguistics C-75. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Sung, Li-May, Lily I-Wen Su, Fuhui Hsieh and Zhemin Lin. 2008. Developing an Online Corpus of Formosan Languages. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 6.2:70-119. (Corpus website: http://corpus.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw)
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1976. Reconstruction of Proto-Tsouic phonology. Tokyo: Study of Languages &; Cultures of Asia &; Africa, Monograph Series No.5. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Tsuchida, Shigeru. 2003. Kanakanavu Texts (Austronesian Formosan). Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim, No. A3-014. Kyoto.
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 2004. Semantic macroroles in role and reference grammar. Semantische Rollen, edited by R. Kailuweit &; M. Hummel, pp.62-82.Narr: Tubingen.
Wolff, John U. 2010. Proto-Austronesian Phonology with Glossary, pp.125-154. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications.
Wouk, Fay. 1996. Sasak is different: A discourse perspective in voice. Oceanic Linguistics, 38:91-114.
Wu, Chunming. 2006. Verb serialization in Kanakanavu. University System of Taiwan Working Papers in Linguistics2: 109–39.
Yeh, Mei-li. 2000. A Reference Grammar of Saisiyat [in Chinese]. Taipei: Yuanliu.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, Lillian M. Huang, Marie M. Yeh, Anna H. Chang, and Joy J. Wu. 1996. The temporal, aspectual, and modal systems of some Formosan languages: A typological perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 35.1: 21–56.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2000. A Reference Grammar of Tsou, [in Chinese]. Taipei: Yuanlan.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔