Protases with a Double-marking Forward-linking Element

Protases with double-linking elements are less central structures of Taiwanese conditionals. Their occurrences are relatively few compared with the unmarked forms like the protasis with na and the protasis with no linking element. In addition, they in general denote higher hypotheticality than protases unmarked or marked with a single-marking linking element.

Na-kong, for example, is of comparatively higher degree of hypotheticality than na, as Table 4.7 below shows. The placement of kong in front of a proposition

indicates the ‘hearsay’ property of that proposition. When a speaker chooses to signal a proposition as hearsay, s/he wants to convey a message: I am not responsible for the factuality of the proposition. In other words, the speaker is not ready to back up his/her utterance with evidences or any strong ground. This property of kong explains the higher degree of hypotheticality associated with it.

Table 4.7 All forms VS. [na, +/-backward linking] VS. [ na kong, +/-backward linking] in the continuum of hypotheticality

Certainty

※ [+/-]: either presence or absence

Chun-na/na-chun ¹¹ is another double-marking forward-linking element.

Chun-na/na-chun, as Table 4.8 shows, can appear in conditionals of higher, mid-level, or lower certainty. Therefore, though it is a marked structure (with a low frequency of occurrence), it is not associated with a certain degree of hypotheticality along the

11 chun alone can mark conditionality, though we do not find such examples in our data. In 普通話閩 南詞典 (廈門大學中國語言文學研究所漢語研究室 1993: 327-28), the following examples are given as illustration of the conditional meaning of chun.

(1) chun cho i be-tit lai, ma e kio lang lai kong. 準作伊勿會得來,嘛會叫人來講.

hypotheticality continuum.

Table 4.8 All forms VS. [na, +/-backward linking] VS. [chun-na, +/-backward linking] in the continuum of hypotheticality

Certainty

※ [+/-]: either presence or absence

Kasu-na¹² is also a marked linking-element, whose frequency of occurrence is very low. However, unlike chun-na/na-chun (, which are employed to signal all levels of hypotheticality), kasu-na is used mainly to express the speaker’s low degree of certainty, as shown in Table 4.9 below. The low degree of certainty is not necessarily resulted from the speaker’s evidence of the falsity of the protasis. Rather, the low certainty is often derived from the speaker’s evaluative stance toward the protasis—the speaker doesn’t want p to happen, or the speaker knows that the hearer does not want p to happen (see example 4.19). In such cases, the marked form kasu-na serves a marked function other than showing the speaker’s lack of knowledge toward p, but to express the speaker’s evaluation of the desirability of p.

12 kasu alone can express conditionality. In our data, we find one such conditional sentence.

Table 4.9 All forms VS. [kasu-na, +/-backward linking] in the continuum of

※ [+/-]: either presence or absence

Similar to kasu-na, banit-na¹³, in most cases, occurs in situations when the speaker is uttering a protasis which contains state of affairs which is undesirable, especially to the hearer. By employing the marked form banit-na to mark the conditional as highly hypothetical, the speaker shows his/her concern for the hearer’s undesirability of p and therefore achieves a certain communicative function such as being polite.

Table 4.10 All forms VS. [banit-na, +/-backward linking] in the continuum of

※ [+/-]: either presence or absence

Examples of kasu-na and banit-na convey one important notion: the choice of one or the other conditional structures of different hypotheticality is not dictated by any straightforward evaluation of what is possible or impossible in reality. The only explanation that seems to account for how different structures are used is the one which focuses on how the speaker chooses to present the situation, not on what the actual situation is. In other words, by choosing a given degree of hypotheticality within conditionals, the speaker expresses a certain degree of hypotheticality; this expressed degree of hypotheticality need not correspond to his/her actual belief, much less to the real world (cf. Comrie 1986: 91, Dancygier 1998: 56).

4.2.5 Protases with a Triple- or Multiple-marking Forward-linking Element Protases with triple- or even multiple-marking forward-linking elements, like kasu-kong-na and na-chun-kong…e si(chun), are highly marked structures whose frequency of occurrence is quite low in our data. Such protases, as Table 4.2 shows, are associated with higher degree of hypotheticality. And as pointed out in the

preceding section, in such conditionals, high degree of hypotheticality is usually derived from the speaker’s evaluative stance toward the protasis—the speaker doesn’t want p to happen, or the speaker knows that the hearer does not want p to happen. As shown in example 4.22, the multiple-marking forward-linking element banit-chun-na-kong…e si(chun) is employed to show the speaker’s ‘intended’ low degree of certainty toward the protasis, for the state of affairs is very undesirable to the hearer.

4.3 Summary

With the goal of studying how hypotheticality of different degrees are distinguished in Taiwanese conditionals, this chapter has characterized that the choice of the forward-linking element in the protasis is the main vehicle for conveying speakers’ different degrees of hypotheticality.

A protasis with the single-marking linking element na, among all types of protases, is the most prototypical protasis structure in Taiwanese conditionals. Its prototypicality is reflected in two respects. First, it ranks first in its frequency of occurrence among all structures. Second, it is used to express all degrees of hypotheticality along the continuum.

A protasis with no linking element is the second frequently-used structure in Taiwanese conditionals. The reason accounting for its frequency is believed to be related to the characteristic syntactic structure of Taiwanese—Taiwanese does not obligatorily require an overt linking element (i.e. conjunction) for interclausal linking.

Without an overt linking element, the intended meaning of a complex sentence is mainly inferred from the context. The analysis shows that such structure has a tendency to convey low degree of hypotheticality.

si(chun) is associated with low degree of hypotheticality, which is believed to be attributed to the e-nominalization structure which brings more nounhood to proceeding propositions and consequently makes them closer to facts. The other marked structures, such as protases with double-, triple-, or multiple-marking elements (e.g. kasu-na, banit-na, banit-chun-na-kong…e si(chun), etc.), usually appear when the speaker wants to intentionally express his/her extremely low certainty toward the proposition in the protasis, often in order to convey politeness.

One more point to note about the correlation between forms and hypotheticality is the notion of ‘iconicity’—it is observed that there is a tendency showing that the more the number of conditional linking morphemes a conditional protasis has, the higher degree of hypotheticality it is associated with.