第五章 總結
5.3 結論與展望
從本實驗誘發性語料所得到的結果我們可以下這樣的結論：臺灣地區國
語的確會透過聲學特徵來呈現焦點，像是時長以及基頻範圍。這兩項聲學特
徵的確可以區辨出焦點詞組以及無焦點詞組的差別，也可以辨別出窄焦點以
及再現焦點的不同 (雖然有少數例外)。
最後，回到本實驗中最重要的主題「再現焦點」。臺灣地區國語當中，究
竟主要是透過何種聲學參數來呈現出再現焦點呢？根據第四章的結果可以發
現：絕大多數再現焦點詞組之常態化時長都長於窄焦點主詞的常態化時長，
即使存在著無顯著差異，也只有極少數如此而已。另外，雖然說絕大多數再
現焦點詞組的常態化基頻範圍也大於窄焦點主詞的常態化基頻範圍，但是只
有極少數的結果存在著顯著差異。總而言之，本實驗的主題『再現焦點』，在
臺灣地區的國語中，主要還是透過時長增長這項聲學參數來呈現的。
至於未來針對再現焦點的研究，針對句型上有以下幾點建議與看法：
1. 可針對 pre-nuclear 再現焦點進行研究。
2. 重新設計句型，並增加再現焦點在句首，也就是焦點在主詞位置的
設計。
3. 在詞組的使用上可改用單音節詞，以避開雙音節詞組因前後音節互
相影響而造成結果失真。若要使用雙音節詞組，應避免三聲變調的
現象。
4. 各焦點位置詞組的詞性要有一致性，以降低不同詞性詞組所造成的
差異。
5. 實驗中所用之詞組最好每個音節都有相同數量的音素，避免因為詞
組先天時長就不一致而造成對結果的影響。
6. 本實驗中每位發音人要錄製的語料數量實在過於龐大，很可能會因
為對於句型太過熟悉而產生練習效應，結果導致語料失真。改進方
式可以減少每位發音人要錄製的語料數量，增加發音人的人數，這
樣子得到的結果會比較貼近現實語言。
除了句型上的建議之外，針對聲學特徵的量測，可多加入音強這項聲學
參數，並針對基頻最大值與最小值做近一步探討，看看除了基頻範圍之外，
基頻最大值與最小值是否也產生了變化。最後，有了設計的產生實驗後，再
進一步透過產生實驗所得的結果設計出相關的感知實驗，也會有助於近一步
了解臺灣地區國語中再現焦點的聲學特徵。
參考書目
葉軍 (2001)。 漢語語句韻律的語法功能。 華東師範大學出版社。
潘建華 (2000). 每個句子都有焦點嗎。 山西師大學報 (社會科學版)，17(3), 123-126
熊慎敬 (2002). 臺灣華語語句焦點. 國立新竹師範學院臺灣語言與語文教 育研究所碩士論文
Bolinger, D. (1972). Accent is predictable (if you’re a mind reader). Language, 48, 633-644
Beaver, D., Clark, B. Z., Flemming, E. S., Jaeger, T. F., & Wolters, M. (2007).
When semantics meets phonetics: Acoustical studies of Second Occurrence Focus. Language, 83(2), 245-275.
Bishop, J. (2008, September). The effect of position on the realization of second
Occurrence focus. Poster presented at Interspeech, Brisbane, Australia.
Büring, Daniel (1997). The Meaning of Topic and Focus. The 59th Street
Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.
Cooper, W. E., Eady, S. J., & Mueller, P. R. (1985). Acoustical aspects of contractive stress in question-answer context. Acoustical Society of America, 77(6), 2142-2156.
Cruttenden, A. (1997). Intonation Second Edition. Cambridge University Press
de Jong, K., & Zawaydeh, B. (2002). Comparing stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus: patterns of variation in Arabic vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics, 30(1), 53-75.
Dryer, Matthew (1994). The pragmatics of association with only. 1994 Winer
Meeting of the LSA. Boston, Massachusetts.
Eady, S. J., & Cooper, W. E. (1986). Speech intonation and focus location in matched statements and questions. Acoustical Society of America,80(2), 402-415.
Eady, S. J., Cooper, W. E., Klouda, G. V., Mueller, P. R., & Lotts, D. W. (1986).
Acoustic characteristics of sentential focus: narrow vs. broad and single vs.
dual focus environments. Language and Speech, 29(3), 233-251.
Féry, C., & Ishihara, S. (2009). Interpreting Second Occurrence Focus.
Journal of Linguistics, 45(2), 258-313.
Gussenhoven, C. (1983). Testing the reality of focus domains. Language and Speech, 26, 61-80.
Gussenhoven, C. (1984). On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Gussenhoven, C. & Rietveld, A.C. M. (1992). Intonation contours, prosodic structure and preboundary lengthening. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 283-303 Halliday, M.A.K. (1967). Intonation and Grammar in British English. The
Hague: Mouton.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2.
Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199-244.
Heldner, M. & Strangert, E. (2001). Temporal effects of focus in Swedish.
Journal of Phonetics, 29, 329-361.
Huang, Y. H. (2004). Focus Condition is Spontaneous Taiwanese Mandarin.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Graduate Institute of Linguistics and Cultural
Studies, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. Available from
http://etd.lib.nctu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs/tugsweb.cgi?o=dnctucdr
Howell, Jonathan (2008). Second Occurrence Focus and the Acoustics of
Prominence. In Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp.
252-260). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Jackendoff, Ray (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Jaeger, Florian (2005). Only always associates with audibly. Even if only is
repeated. The prosoic properties of second occurrence focus in English.
Stanford University.
Jin, S. (1996). An Acoustic Study of Sentence Stress in mandarin Chinese.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Available
from
http://library.ohio-state.edu/search~S7?/fthe%3AEAL/fthe+eal/101%2C226
%2C226%2CE/frameset&FF=fthe+eal1996phdj56&1%2C1%2C
Ladd, R. (1980). The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ladd, R. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge University Press.
Maekawa, K. (1997). Effects of focus on duration and vowel formant frequency
in Japanese. In Y. Sagisaka, N. Campberll, & M. Higuchi (Eds.),
Computing Prosody (pp. 129-153). New York, Spinger.
Pan, H.H. (2009, September). Discourse Context, Semantic Markers, and
Prosodic Cues of Taiwan Min Narrow Focus and Second Occurrence Focus.
Poster presented at IDP 09, Paris, France.
Partee, B. H. (1991). Topic, Focus and Quantification. In Adam Wyner and
Steven Moore (Eds.), Proceedings of First Annual Conference on Semantics
and Linguistic Theory (pp. 213-231). Linguistics Working Papers, Cornell
University.
Partee, B. H. (1999). Focus, quantification, and semantics-pragmatics issues.
In P. Bosch, & R. V. Sandt (Eds.), Cambridge University Press (pp.
213-231). Cambridge.
Roberts, Craige (1996). Information structure in discourse: towards an
integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Jae Hak Yoon and Andreas
Kathol (Eds.), OSUWPL Volume 49: Papers in Semantics, 1996. The Ohio
State University Department of Linguistics.
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretaion. Natural Language
Semantics, 1(1), 75-116.
Rooth, M. (1996). On the interface principles for intonational focus. In T.
Galloway, & J. Spence (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic
Theory (SALT) 6 (pp. 202-226). Cornell University.
Selkirk, E.O. (1984). Phonology ad syntax: the relation between sound and
structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Xu, Y. (1999). Effects of Tone and Focus on the Formation and Alignment of F0 Contours. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 55-107.