台語ka字句的二元分析

Abstract

本篇論文主要探討台語的ka在句中所扮演之功能。普遍認為台語ka為漢語ba之對應詞，兩者在句法上以及語意上所具有的特質都十分類似，唯ka有能力指派論旨角色(thematic role)予其後之論元(argument)及光桿動詞(bare verb)在ka句中不會造成句子的不合法。而ba則不能指派論旨角色予其論元亦不允許光桿動詞出現於句中，此為兩者明顯之不同點。相較於前人將ka單純視為ba的對應詞，我們提出台語的ka具備兩種功能，其一是作為漢語ba句的對應詞。其二是作為施用結構(applicative construction)之標記。當作為施用結構標記時，ka可以引介一個額外的論元(additional argument)進入論元滿足(argument-saturated)的句中。在Pylkkanen(2005)的分析架構下，我們相信台語的ka可歸類為高級施用結構(high applicative construction)。針對光桿動詞可在ka句中出現卻不能在ba句中出現之現象，本文採用Feng(2005)所提出的Government-Nucleus Stress Rule (G-NSR)來解釋何以漢語的ba句不允許光桿動詞在句中出現。我們相信由於台語本身具備了複雜的連調變化系統同時來決定重音，故台語的重音分布並不受該規則所限，而是與連調變化彼此相互牽引。至於ka句允許光桿動詞在句中出現之現象，我們相信追根究底仍舊與動詞本身的boundness有一定之關聯。

The purpose of this thesis is to study the function of the Taiwanese ka in the sentence. It is widely believed that Taiwanese ka is the counter part of Mandarin ba. They share many similar syntactic and semantic features. Although ka is treated as the counter part of Mandarin ba, there still remain differences between them. For instance, ka is able to assign thematic role to its argument, but ba is incapable to assign thematic role to the argument. Also, in the ka construction, bare verb is tolerated under some circumstance. This never happens in the ba construction. Unlike the previous researches simply treat ka as the counter part of ba, we propose that ka has two functions. One is to be the counter part of ba and the other is to be the applicative marker. When ka is treated as an applicative marker, ka is able to introduce an additional argument into an argument-saturated sentence. Based on the analysis proposed by Pylkkanen (2005), we believe that Taiwanese ka construction belongs to the high applicative construction. As for the reason that the bare verb is not tolerated in the Mandarin ba construction, Government-Nucleus Stress Rule (G-NSR) raised by Feng (2005) will be applied to explain the phenomenon. In Taiwanese, we believe that because Taiwanese has a very complicated tone-sandhi system to help speakers to deicide the stress, it need not follow the G-NSR. Therefore, we believe that what really affects the existence of the bare verb in Taiwanese may still be the boundness of a verb.