台語khi1和khi2的研究

Abstract

此篇論文主要探討台語的khi1 和khi2 在句法與語意上的表現。前人的文獻主要是探討中文的去(位於謂語前的去和位於謂語後的去)和台語的khi2 (位於謂語後的去) (請參閱 柯淑君(1991)，張寧(2001)，陳怡君(2006))。但是，他們的分析和解釋沒有辦法說明所有台語khi1 和khi2 的用法。因此，本論文著重於khi1和khi2 在不同句型中的句法分佈和語義解釋來作深入研究。

首先，我們介紹兩種khi1 的用法，並加以討論。第一種視為意圖標記(purpose marker)，表示主詞做某事的意願或意圖，在句法上的位置如同根情態(root modal)。另一種則為受害者表達標記(affectee voice head)引出一個外加的受害者論元(extra affect argument)，也就是結構上的主詞，為事件的受害關係人。

接著，本論文提出khi2 為完整式標記(lexical perfective marker)，表達某人或某事經過狀態改變之後，呈現其結果狀態(resultant state)。當khi2 和活動動詞(activity verbs)以及靜態動詞(stative verbs)一起出現時，可得到此意。這些動詞和khi2的結合形成瞬成動詞(achievements)。Khi2 在這種特殊結構的用法如同中文的了接在靜態謂語(stative predicates)後面的用法，表示「完整狀態」(perfective states)的完整(perfectivity)和表始(inchoativity)之意義。

最後，我們得知khi1 和khi2 逐漸語法化，原本當成動詞，語義解釋如英文的go，後來變成其他虛詞種類(functional categories)，推衍出不同語義。因此，台語khi1 和khi2 在句法上和語義上的用法擴大了。

This thesis deals with the semantic and syntactic representation of Taiwanese khi1 and khi2. Previous studies have focused on the uses of Chinese pre-predicate qu, post-predicate qu, and Taiwanese khi2, known as the post-predicate khi (cf. Ke (1991), Zhang (2001), Chen (2006)). However, these analyses and interpretations do not fully explain the spectrum of uses of Taiwanese khi1 and khi2. Therefore, this study aims to discuss the syntactic distributions and the semantic interpretations of khi1 and khi2 in various sentential constructions.

First, two types of khi1 are introduced and discussed. One variant acts as a purpose marker to denote the subject’s will or intention of performing an action, and is placed in the position of a root modal. The other is an affectee voice head that introduces an extra affectee argument (the structural subject), as an affectee participant of an event.

Second, this study introduces khi2 as a lexical perfective marker that denotes the resultant state of something after a change of state, when it combines with activity verbs and stative verbs. The verbs and khi2 combination become an achievement. Khi2 in this particular construction is much like the Chinese le, which follows stative predicates. It invokes the perfective and inchoative sense of “perfective states”.

Finally, we conclude that khi1 and khi2 are becoming grammaticalized. They were originally only used as lexical verbs, such as ‘go,’ but now we find that they exist in other functional categories. They present a plethora of diverse meanings. Therefore, the syntactic and semantic uses of Taiwanese khi1 and khi2 are extended.