This thesis explores six TREs in TSM and their various functions in TSM conversation. First, we have examined their truth-descriptive meaning. The describing
TREs are employed to explicitly point out the truth-value of an entity, an event, or a description in order to emphasize the actuality of the proposition. Describing TREs can be attributively, predicatively, pre-predicatively, and sentence-initially used.
Pre-predicative uses make up the majority of occurrences. The truth-value of the descriptions that truth-describing TREs modify can be verified based on the fact or the context. Pointing out a truth-value of a proposition flouts Gricean Maxim of Quantity; thus, speakers must have inferential meanings. For example, descriptive TREs are employed to assert the truth in an emphasizing tone especially when the speaker wants to make a contrast or justify his/her claim to negate any doubts toward the previous statements which sometimes are hyperbolic or less believable.
Expressive TREs, in contrast to the emphasis of actuality, modify those expressions which involve the speaker’s evaluation. That means the truth of the proposition cannot be verified. It has something to do with subjective evaluations.
Concluding from its collocation and situational contexts, we have observed that like a typical epistemic adverb really, an expressive TRE is used to reinforce the force of the proposition, which can be gradable or non-gradable. The modified propositions can be further categorized into positive and negative uses. When the modified proposition is negative in meaning, TREs develop the exasperation function. More often than not, the modified function could be truncated or replaced by utterance final particle honnh.
In this way, TREs themselves do not have the function of emphasizing any more but have that of evaluating. What’s more, some TREs tend not to boost the force of the predicate, but attenuate the force of it when collocating with some concessive construction. Therefore, TREs can be used to show concession when there is a need for the speaker to make a choice or take a stance.
Interactive TREs are related to the concept of intersubjectivity--the speaker regards addressee as an active participant in the conversation (Traugott 2003). In our
data, TREs plus UFP can be used as a responsive token. In a responsive turn, they are used to express emotions such as surprise or unexpectedness or express agreement.
What’s more, when a TRE collocating with a verb of saying kong, it serves like a hedge, prefacing a statement containing counter-expectedness of the interlocutor.
Truth-describing Expressive Interactive
1. Assert the fact 2. Make a contrast 3. Justify one’s claim 4. Negate one’s doubts
1. Emphasize the force the predicate
2. Upgrade the force of the predicate
3. Exasperation 4. Show concession
1. Express surprise 2. Show agreement 3. Prefacing
Table 4. Pragmatic functions of different categories of TREs.
The overall functions of TREs in TSM we have examined are listed in Table 4.
However, each TRE shows its preference for the syntactic position and pragmatic functions. That means some TRE prefers to occur in a rather fixed position and that some TRE won’t serve the function that another TRE will do. All the TREs in question have the truth-describing function. Tsin-tsiann is the most frequently-used TRE to point out the truth value. As for the expressive TREs, half the tokens are sit-tsai, being used for emphasizing, upgrading, and showing exasperation and concession. Tsin-e and u-iann in a responsive turn are used to express surprise and unexpectedness. U-iann typically is employed to show one’s agreement toward the interlocutor’s statement. Sit-tsai collocating with verb of saying kong is used as a discourse marker.
In general, the results conform to those of the previous studies. Generally speaking, TREs in TSM behave similarly to those in English and Mandarin Chinese.
TREs in TSM all exhibit the three readings of really in English that Paradis (2003)
points out. Her truth-attesting of proposition is similar to our truth-describing function;
subjective emphasis of situation and reinforcement of scalar property are part of the functions of our expressive TRE. McCarthy (2003) points out really is the most frequent response in the combined corpus, which serves like the interactive function of u-iann and tsin-e.
Lenker (2007) then argues that the polysemy of the TRE and various syntactic positions can be accounted for as undergoing a developing cline from manner adjunct, sentence adverb, to discourse marker, from truth-conditional to non-truth conditional, and from subjective to intersubjective. TREs in TSM on the whole have developed according to the adverbial cline. However, not every TRE in question is developed according to the cline. It is probably because some TREs like tsin-e and u-iann are predicates in nature. Therefore, they don’t exactly follow the adverbial cline.
Some studies on Mandarin TRE counterparts point out the grammaticalization and lexicalization of TREs. Although our aim does not focus on the grammaticalization of some TRE, we have observed similar grammaticalized and lexicalized usage in TSM. For example, Wu (2010) claims that shizaisi and zhensi are both lexicalized to express one’s evaluative assessment instead of intensification. We can find the same function in TSM such as sit-tsai u-iann, sit-tsai-si, sit-tsai-honnh, tsin-tsiann-honnh.
Therefore, TREs in TSM are similar to TREs in English and Mandarin. They have polysemous meanings and are situated at different syntactic positions. They change from a simple truth-describing expression, an emphasizer, to an evaluation themselves. However, the concessive function of TREs is not discussed in the previous studies. For example, u-iann in TSM is not intended to express intensification; instead, it expresses concessive meanings when combining with concessive devices or adverbials. In that, we could know that in some cases, TREs do
not strengthen the force of the predicate at all.
Based on the stance triangle proposed by (Du Bois 2007), TREs in TSM are descriptively used to position one’s stance, expressively evaluate other’s position, and interactively agree with the interlocutor. The overall discussions of TREs in TSM can be summarized as that TREs in TSM are one of ways that people take their stance.
Chapter Four Conclusion
4.1 Summary of the Analysis
This thesis has investigated six TREs in TSM. We have found that each TRE is not only used to describe the truth-value of a proposition, but also employed to express subjective emphasis, evaluation, and serve an interactive function. Therefore, we can refer to TREs in TSM as a marker of stance rather than a mere truth-describing expression. The results of the analysis help us to frame answers to the research questions at the beginning of this study:
(a) What are the discourse-pragmatic functions of the TRE tsin-e, tsin-tsiann, tsiann-sit, sit-tsai, tsing-king and u-iann in TSM?
(b) How are the functions similar to and different from one other?
(c) What role do the collocational and situational contexts of these TREs play in the interpretation of the meanings?
Generally speaking, the discourse-pragmatic functions of TREs in question are categorized into three: truth-describing, expressive, and interactive functions.
Truth-describing TREs are employed to assert an event or a fact, make a contrast with an unreal scenario, justify the speaker’s claim, and negate any doubts from the listener toward the statement made earlier. Although TREs of this function are termed describing, they often carry an emphasizing tone to assert in order to serve discourse-pragmatic functions such as justifying and making contrast.
Truth-describing TREs can be used attributively such as tsin-tsiann, u-iann, sit-tsai, and tsiann-sit. Tsin-tsiann and tsiann-sit usually point out the truth-value of an event.
Sit-tsai focuses on every segment of an event to be real. U-iann is used to put an
emphasis on the action of happening. Also, truth-describing TREs can be used as a predicate, usually occurring after the mention of an event in order to verify it as real.
U-iann and tsin-e are the two most frequently-used expression of this use. They often collocate with an utterance final particle to justify the truth-value of the description made earlier. Finally, most truth-describing TREs are situated at the position of adverbials. They are used in a hyperbolic or less believable statement to create an emphasis on the truth-value.
In contrast to truth-describing TREs’ truth-reporting function, expressive TREs are used to express subjective and evaluative meanings. They are further divided into four functions: emphasizer, upgrading, exasperation, and concessive. The force of evaluations modified by an emphasizer or an upgrading TRE is augmented or elevated.
They can either emphasize a positive or negative statement. The predication of the statement can either be gradable or non-gradable. Tsin-tsiann is a most frequently-used emphasizer; the most frequently-used upgrading TRE is sit-tsai.
When emphasizers and upgrading TREs are used to modify negative evaluations, they have the function of showing exasperation in some cases. The followed negative evaluations are sometimes omitted. Therefore, a truncated TRE itself can express exasperation. Sit-tsai and u-iann are the two commonest TREs to express exasperation.
They have various ways to express exasperation such as TRE plus focus marker si, TRE plus utterance final particle honnh, and collocating with an excessive construction. Finally, u-iann especially can be used as a concessive device when it collocates with a limiting marker toh or khah or is placed at a contrastive structure.
TREs occur alone in a responsive turn serve the interactive function. For example, tsin-e and u-iann are usually used to express one’s surprise or unexpectedness. U-iann can also be used to show agreement toward the speaker. The judgment of the two functions is made from the intonation. If it’s a rising intonation, it
serves as a marker to express affective attitude. If the intonation is falling, TRE expresses an agreement. Another TRE serves an interesting interactive function.
Sit-tsai usually collocates with verb of saying kong to act as a prefacing device. It is similar to “to tell the truth, truthly speaking” in English. It is used to cataphorically frame an assessment.
In our study, the collocational and situational contexts do play an important role in the interpretation of the discourse-pragmatic function. For example, utterance final particles and sentence structure help us in the interpretation of different functions.
TRE plus a/la is used to justify one’s claim. A TRE plus honnh is used to express one’s exasperation. A TRE plus o then serves an interactive token, expressing surprise or doubts. Also, the function of contrast-making usually is judged from the context and some contrastive conjunction such as m-koh and tan-si. Concessive use needs the help of limiting marker toh or khah to serve the function.
4.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Study
While the present research has investigated the discourse-pragmatic functions of TRE in TSM, there are still several issues remaining to be explored. First, lexicalization of TRE plus si or honnh can be further discussed. Unfortunately, the tokens in our database are not enough to have this claim.
Second, the formation of u-iann ‘having shadow’ is very different from the rest TREs; if we have some diachronic data, it is interesting to explore its original use and see the semantic change into an expressive TRE.
Third, intonation is an important clue for us to differentiate an expressive truncated TRE and an intensifier. Unfortunately, some acoustic information is not available. Therefore, we can only judge from the context to distinguish the two functions.
References
Adamson, Sylvia and Victorina Gonzalez-Diaz. 2004. Back to the very beginning:
The development of intensifiers in Early Modern English. Presented at the Thirteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Vienna.
Athanasiadou, Angeliki. 2007. On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Science 29:554-565.
Berman, Ruth. A. 2004. Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics 37:105-124.
Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English.
Discourse Processes 11.1:1-34.
Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9.1:93-124.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Eward Finegan.
1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1972. Degree Words. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
Bondi, Marina. 2008. Emphatics in academic discourse. Corpora and Discourse: The Challenges of Different Settings, ed. by Annelie Ädel and Randi Reppen, 31-55.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chang, Miao-Hsia and Shin-yi Lin. 2009. Response tokens in MSN conversations.
Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 35.1:111-139.
Chang, Miao-Hsia. 1997. Discourse Functions of Negatives Bo and M in Taiwanese.
Ph.D. Dissertation. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Chen, Lilly Lee. 1995. The Verb Si 是 ‘Be’ in Taiwanese. Proceedings of the
Chen, Ying. [陳穎] 2010. Grammaticalization of Zhende. [“真的”的虛化] Studies in Language and Linguistics 30.4:62-66.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13.3:296-321.
Dong, Zhong-si. [董忠司]. 2001. Taiwanese Min Dictionary. [臺灣閩南語詞典].
Taipei: Wu-Nan. [臺北：五南].
Douglas, Carstairs and Thomas Barclay. 1990. Chinese-English dictionary of the vernacular or spoken language of Amoy. [廈英大辭典]. Taipei: Nan-Tian Bookstore.
Du Bois, John W. 2007. Stance triangle. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 139-182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, John, Stephen Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino, and Susanna Cumming.
1993. Outline of discourse transcription. Talking Data: Transcription and Coding Methods for Language Research, ed. by Jane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert, 45-98. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Englebretson, Robert. 2007. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Field, Margaret. 1997. The role of factive predicates in the indexicalization of stance:
A discourse perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 27.6:799-814.
Givon, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar: A Functional-Based Introduction. Amsterdam;
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, ed.
by P. Cole & J. Morgan. New York: Academic Press.
Hunston, Susan and Geoff Thompson. 2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and The Construction of Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hunston, Susan and John Sinclair. 2000. A local grammar of evaluation. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Hunston, Susan and Geoff Thompson, 74-101. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lenker, Ursula. 2007. Soþlice, forsoothe, truly—communicative principles and invited inferences in the history of truth-intensifying adverbs in English. Methods in Historical Pragmatics, ed. by S. Fitzmaurice & I. Taavitsainen, 81-108. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Li, Chung-min. [李仲民]. 2008. The Glootgram research of degree adverb tsin33 and tsin51 in east-nothern Taiwan. [臺灣東北部程度副詞/tsin33/（真）、/tsin51/（盡）
的 Glottogram 分析研究] Proceedings of the 1st Conference for Young Scholars on Taiwanese Romanization. Tainan: Open-mind Magazine Enterprise.
Li, Ing Cherry. 1999. Utterance-final Particles in Taiwanese: A discourse-pragmatic analysis. The Crane Publishing Co.
Li, Ing Cherry. 2002. Minimization, conversational inference, and grammaticalization in Taiwanese Southern Min. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and
Linguistics 28.2:117-48.
Li, Ji-Jiuan. [厲霽雋]. 2003. Analysis on Zhen and Zhende: Their Syntactic, Semantic, Pragmatic Use and Grammaticalization. [“真” 和 “真的” 論析—句法、語
Lin, Min-Ching. 1996. Discourse Function of TOH and CHIAH in Taiwanese. MA thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Liu, Hsiu-Ying. 2008. A Study of the Excessive Construction in Modern Taiwan Mandarin. Ph. D Dissertation. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Lorenz, Gunter. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers. New Reflections on Grammaticalization, ed. by Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald, 143-161. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lu, Shu-xiang. 1980. Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci. [Eight Hundred Words in Modern Mandarin.] Peking: Shang Wu Yin Shu Guan.
Lyons, J. 1994. Subjecthood and subjectivity. Subjecthood and Subjectivity:
Proceedings of the Colloquim “The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory,” ed.
by M. Yaguello, 9-17. Paris: Ophrys.
MaCarthy, Michael. 2003. Talking back: ‘small’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction36.1:33-63.
Maschler, Yael and Roi Estlein. 2008. Stance-taking in Hebrew casual conversation via be’emet (‘really, actually, indeed,’ lit. ‘in truth’). Discourse Studie 10:283-316.
Mendez-Naya, Belen. 2008. Special issue on English intensifiers. English Language and Linguistics 12.2:213-219.
Paradis, Carita and Nina Bergmark. 2003. Am I really really mature or something:
Really in teentalk. Proceedings from the 8th Conference on English Studies, 71-86.
Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Paradis, Carita. 1997. Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English. Lund:
Lund University Press.
Paradis, Carita. 2003. Between epistemic modality and degree: The case of really.
Modality in Contemporary English, ed. by Roberta Facchinetti, Frank Palmer, and Manfred Krug, 197-220. Berlin: Mouton.
Partington, Alan. 1993. Corpus evidence of language change: The case of intensifiers.
Text and Technology: in Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 177-192. Amsterdam: Benjamins
Psathas, George. 1995. Conversation Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50.4:696-735
Scheibman, Joanne. 2007. Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversations. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 111-138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sia, Chhiong-un. [謝昌運]. 2008. The Study of Taiwanese Intensity Devices: A Corpus Linguistic Analysis. MA thesis. Taitung: National Taitung University.
Sinclair, John. 1990. Collins Cobuild English Grammar. London: Harper Collins Hunston and Geoff Thompson, 1-27. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 1993. Interpretive nodes in discourse: actual and actually.
Texts and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 193-212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Presented at the Twelfth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification.
Motives for Language Change, ed. by R. Hickey, 124-39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, Yao-Ren. 2010. Zhenshi and Shizaishi in Taiwan Mandarin: Intensification and Lexicalization. MA thesis. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University.
Xi, Jianguo and Bing Liu. 2008. Pragmatic Markers: A Cognitive Study. [語用標記功 能認知研究]. Journal of Zhejiang University 38.4:190-199.
Xiao, Xi-qiang. [肖奚強]. 2007. Outlines of syntactic and pragmatic diversities. [略論 “的確” “實在”句法語用差異]. Studies in Language and Linguistics [語言研究]
27.2:74-78.
Appendix
臺灣閩南語羅馬字拼音方案使用手冊
一、臺灣閩南語羅馬字拼音方案
教育部在民國 95 年 10 月 14 日以台語字第 0950151609 號公告了《臺灣閩南語羅馬 字拼音方案》，這個方案簡稱為「臺羅」。分為三部分詳述如下：
(一)臺灣閩南語聲母符號
國際音標 IPA
臺灣閩南語羅馬字拼音
符號 注音符號
[p] p
ㄅ[p
h] ph
ㄆ[b] b
[m] m
ㄇ[t] t
ㄉ[t
h] th
ㄊ[n] n
ㄋ[l] l
ㄌ[k] k
ㄍ[k
h] kh
ㄎ[g] g [ ] ng
[h] h
ㄏ[ts] ts
ㄗ[ts
h] tsh
ㄘ[s] s
ㄙ 聲母[dz] j
(二)臺灣閩南語韻母基本符號
國際音標 IPA
臺灣閩南語羅馬字拼音
符號 注音符號
[a] a
ㄚ[i] i
ㄧ[u] u
ㄨ[e] e
ㄝ[ ] oo
(o·)
ㄛ[ ] o
ㄜ[~] -nn (-
n)
[-m][-n]
[-]
-m -n -ng 韻母
[-p]
[-t]
[-k]
[-]
-p -t -k -h 備註：
1.「注音符號」為教育部針對國語教學所制訂。但因國語與閩南語的語音畢竟不完全相
1.「注音符號」為教育部針對國語教學所制訂。但因國語與閩南語的語音畢竟不完全相