Article In:
Language and Linguistics: Online-First Articles

未來不等於非現實語氣

以幾個台灣南島語為例

ORCID logo | Academia Sinica
台灣南島語言在構詞上沒有顯性的時制範式，但有不同形式的未來標記，在時間系統上呈現非未來和未來二分。過去文獻因為這些未來標記具有情態性，認為非未來/未來的區分可由真實/非真實事態的區分來推導，主張它們代表非現實語氣且台灣南島語言是所謂的非現實語氣顯著語言。本文根據泰雅語的第一手語料、以及詳細檢視鄒語和邵語的材料，證明這些語言的未來標記是帶有未來性的情態詞，不適宜分析為非現實語氣這個語法範疇。迥異於跨語言非現實語氣的表現，這些未來標記在各種非真實環境不是不能出現就是侷限於未來性，它們也不能出現或不必然使用在反事實條件句的結論句。跨南島語來看，台灣南島語言與具有現實/非現實語氣範式的大洋洲語言在焦點和語氣的有無上形成顯著對比。在理論分析的意義上，真實性是結合時間與情態的廣義語法範疇，但在這三個台灣南島語言，未來標記的功能僅為非現實語氣的下位詞。釐清未來標記不等於非現實語氣後，未來更多的研究可關注其他可能表達非真實事態的標記及時制的有無。
Keywords: 台灣南島語, 未來, 非現實, 語氣, 情態, 時制
Article outline
  • 1.前言
  • 2.語言和理論背景
    • 2.1語料來源和書寫
    • 2.2時制、動貌、情態和語氣的定義
  • 3.台灣南島語中非現實語氣的假設與問題
    • 3.1焦點和語氣系統
    • 3.2非現實語氣的假設與問題
  • 4.非現實語氣的環境、跨語言異同與判斷標準
    • 4.1非現實語氣的使用環境
    • 4.2非現實語氣的語法特徵
      • 4.2.1範式/形態變化表
      • 4.2.2時間和情態對於非現實語氣的必要性
      • 4.2.3跨語言非現實語氣的差異
    • 4.3小結：非現實語氣的測試標準
  • 5.三個台灣南島語中未來標記的語法範疇
    • 5.1泰雅語
    • 5.2鄒語和邵語
      • 5.2.1鄒語
      • 5.2.2邵語
    • 5.3小結
    • 5.4不符合「非現實語氣顯著語言」的類型
    • 5.5未來情態詞分析
  • 6.對語言類型與理論分析的重要性
    • 6.1對語言類型的重要性
    • 6.2三分情態理論與下位詞的議題
  • 7.結語
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • List of abbreviations
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.

Article language: Chinese

References (76)
References
Aldridge, Edith. 2016. Ergativity from subjunctive in Austronesian languages. Language and Linguistics 17(1). 27–62.Google Scholar
Barbour, Julie. 2011. Exploring mood in Neverver. Oceanic Linguistics 50(1). 198–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. 1999. The prominence of tense, aspect and mood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert. 2003. Three notes on early Austronesian morphology. Oceanic Linguistics 42(2). 438–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The Austronesian languages. Revised edn. ([URL]) (Accessed 2024-06-18.)
Bugenhagen, Robert D. 1993. The semantics of irrealis in Austronesian languages of Papua New Guinea: A cross-linguistic study. In Reesink, Ger P. (ed.), Topics in descriptive Austronesian linguistics (Semaian 11), 1–39. Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1998. “Irrealis” as a grammatical category. Anthropological Linguistics 40(2). 257–271.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Pagliuca, William & Perkins, Revere D. 1991. Back to the future. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 21, 17–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2017. The implicatures of optional past tense in Tlingit and the implications for ‘discontinuous past’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 351. 635–681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1995. The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian languages, and English. In Bybee, Joan & Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 349–365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Henry Y. (張永利) & Pan, Chia-jung (潘家榮). 2018. Zouyu yufa gailun 鄒語語法概論. 2nd edn. Taipei: Council of Indigenous Peoples.Google Scholar
Chang, Henry Y. (張永利) & Zheng, Zheng-zong (鄭政宗). 2010. Yuanzhuminzu yuyan xianshangcidian (Zouyu) 原住民族語言線上辭典(鄒語) Taipei: The Council of Indigenous Peoples. ([URL]) (Accessed 2024-04-12.)
Chen, Sihwei. 2018. Finding semantic building blocks: Temporal and modal interpretation in Atayal. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Chen, Sihwei & Hohaus, Vera & Laturnus, Rebecca & Louie, Meagan & Matthewson, Lisa & Rullmann, Hotze & Simchen, Ori & Turner, Claire K. & Vander Klok, Jozina. 2017. Past possibility cross-linguistically: Evidence from twelve languages. In Arregui, Ana & Rivero, Maria Luisa & Salanova, Andres (eds.), Modality across syntactic categories, 236–287. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Sihwei & Jiang, Haowen. 2020. Ways of talking about the past: The semantics of -in- and =in in Bunun. In Chang, Henry Y. & Huang, Hui-chuan J. (eds.), Papers from the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association 25 (JSEALS Special Publication 5), 1–21. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & Timberlake, Alan. 1985. Tense, aspect, and mood. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 31, 202–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: Modals for the present and for the past. In Beaver, David I. & Casillas Martínez, Luis D. & Clark, Brady Z. & Kaufmann, Stefan (eds.), The construction of meaning, 59–87. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2012. Irrealis: Fact or fiction? Language Sciences 34(2). 107–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egerod, Søren. 1999. Atayal-English dictionary. 2nd edn. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.Google Scholar
Elliott, Jennifer R. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology 4(1). 55–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enç, Murvet. 1996. Tense and modality. In Lappin, Shalom (ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 345–358. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huang, Shuanfan & Huang, Huei-ju. 2003. On the status of reality marking in Tsou. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 1(2). 1–34.Google Scholar
Huang, Huei-ju. 2003. The tense, aspect and reality in Tsou and Saisiyat. Taipei: National Taiwan University. (Master’s thesis.)
. 2010. The syntax and pragmatics of clausal constituents in Tsou discourse. Taipei: National Taiwan University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Huang, Lillian M. (黃美金). 1995. A study of Mayrinax syntax 汶水泰雅語語法. Taipei: Crane.Google Scholar
. 2000. Taiyayu cankaoyufa 泰雅語參考語法. Taipei: Yuan-Liou.Google Scholar
Huang, Lillian M. (黃美金) & Hayung, Tali’ (吳新生). 2018. Taiyayu yufa gailun 泰雅語語法概論 (Series on Formosan Languages 2臺灣南島語言叢書2). 2nd edn. Taipei: Council of Indigenous Peoples.Google Scholar
. 2012. Yuanzhuminzu yuyan xianshangcidian (Taiyayu) 原住民族語言線上辭典 (泰雅語). Taipei: The Council of Indigenous Peoples. ([URL]) (Accessed 2024-04-12.)
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2). 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jean, Shih Lang (簡史朗). 2018. Shaoyu yufa gailun 邵語語法概論. 2nd edn. Taipei: Council of Indigenous Peoples.Google Scholar
Jean, Shih Lang (簡史朗) & Kilash, Ama (石阿松). 2010. Yuanzhuminzu yuyan xianshangcidian (Shaoyu) 原住民族語言線上辭典 (邵語). Taipei: The Council of Indigenous Peoples. ([URL]) (Accessed 2024-04-12.)
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krajinović, Ana. 2020. Tense, mood, and aspect expressions in Nafsan (South Efate) from a typological perspective: The perfect aspect and the realis/irrealis mood. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Kratzer, Angelika. 2012. Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2006. More on counterfactuality, and on categories in general. Linguistic Typology 10(1). 61–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 2011. Thao texts and songs. (Language and Linguistics Monograph Series 44). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1983. A grammar of Manam. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
. 2016. Modality and mood in Oceanic. In Nuyts, Jan & van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 330–361. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, John & Ross, Malcolm & Crowley, Terry. 2011[2002]. The Oceanic languages. Reprint. London & New York: Routledge. (Originally published in 2002 by Curzon Press.)Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2006. Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 291. 673–713. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B. & Wagner, Tamsin. 2006. The semantics and pragmatics of irrealis mood in Nyulnyulan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 45(2). 339–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1995. On the relativity of irreality. In Bybee, Joan & Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 367–388. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan & van der Auwera, Johan (eds.). 2016. The Oxford handbook of modality and mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pan, Chia-jung. 2012. A grammar of Lha’alua, an Austronesian language of Taiwan. Townsville: James Cook University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1990. Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages. Journal of Linguistics 26(2). 363–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2009. Proto Austronesian verbal morphology: A reappraisal. In Adelaar, Alexander & Pawley, Andrew (eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: A festschrift for Robert Blust, 295–326. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2015. Reconstructing Proto Austronesian verb classes. Language and Linguistics 16(3). 279–345.Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze, & Matthewson, Lisa. 2018. Towards a theory of modal-temporal interaction. Language 94(2). 281–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sansò, Andrea. 2020. Routes towards the irrealis. Transactions of the Philological Society 118(3). 401–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Hongyuan. 2014. Temporal construals of bare predicates in Mandarin Chinese. Utrecht: LOTGoogle Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2007. The irrealis category in rGyalrong. Language and Linguistics 8(3). 797–819.Google Scholar
Teng, Stacy Fang-ching. 2008. A reference grammar of Puyuma, an Austronesian language of Taiwan (Pacific Linguistics 595). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith. 2011. The Paraguayan Guaraní future marker -ta: Formal semantics and cross linguistic comparison. In Musan, Renate & Rathert, Monika (eds.), Tense across languages, 207–232. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ultan, Russell. 1978. The nature of future tenses. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 31, 83–123. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
van Gijn, Rik & Gipper, Sonja. 2009. Irrealis in Yurakare and other languages: On the cross-linguistic consistency of an elusive category. In Hogeweg, Lotte & de Hoop, Helen & Malchukov, Andrej L. (eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect and modality, 155–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. The semantics and pragmatics of composite mood marking: The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia. Linguistic Typology 9(2). 223–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Prince, Kilu. 2019. Counterfactuality and past. Linguistics and Philosophy 421. 577–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Prince, Kilu & Krajinović, Ana & Krifka, Manfred. 2022. Irrealis is real. Language 98(2). 221–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Prince, Kilu & Krajinović, Ana & Krifka, Manfred & Guérin, Valérie & Franjieh, Michael. 2019. Mapping irreality: Storyboards for eliciting TAM contexts. In Gattnar, Anja & Hörnig, Robin & Störzer, Melanie & Featherston, Sam (eds.), Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2018: Experimental Data Drives Linguistic Theory, 187–207. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Wang, Shan-Shan. 2004. An ergative view of Thao syntax. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Weng, Cuixia (翁翠霞). 2000. A contrastive study of tense, mood and aspect systems in Tsou and Thao 鄒語和邵語的時、態、貌系統之比較與研究. Chiayi: National Chung Cheng University. (Master’s thesis.)
Yang, Gloria Fan-pei. 2001. Evidentiality in Tsou. Taipei: National Taiwan University. (Master’s thesis.)
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2000. Zouyu cankao yufa 鄒語參考語法. Taipei: Yuan-Liou.Google Scholar
. 2005. Tsou. In Adelaar, Alexander & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 259–290. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2024. Tense, aspect, and mood in Formosan languages. In Li, Paul Jen-kuei & Zeitoun, Elizabeth & De Busser, Rik (eds.), Handbook of Formosan languages online: The indigenous languages of Taiwan. Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, & Huang, Lillian M. 1997. Toward a typology of tense, aspect and modality in Formosan language: A preliminary study. In Tseng, Chiu-yu (ed.), Proceedings of the IsCCL4, Symposium Series of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 595–618. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Huang, Lillian M. 2000. Concerning ka-, an overlooked marker of verbal derivation in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 39(2). 391–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Huang, Lillian M. & Yeh, Marie M. & Chang, Anna H. & Wu, Joy J. 1996. The temporal, aspectual, and modal systems of some Formosan languages: A typological perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 35(1). 21–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeitoun, Elizabeth & Teng, Stacy F. 2016. Reassessing the position of Kanakanavu and Saaroa among the Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics 55(1). 162–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar