In this study, we have examined the correlation between structures and hypotheticality in Taiwanese conditionals. We summarize the findings in the following and propose directions for further research.

130

Chapter Five Conclusion

In this study, we have examined the correlation between structures and hypotheticality in Taiwanese conditionals. We summarize the findings in the following and propose directions for further research.

5.1 Summary of Findings

The study is an attempt to offer an account of form-meaning correlations in Taiwanese conditionals. In order to establish the basis for the analysis, we first review in detail the conditional structures in Taiwanese. We find that Taiwanese conditionals have an imposing variety of structures. With regard to linking elements, two backward-linking elements toh and chiah are identified. As for forward-linking elements, there are twenty-two forms identified. However, with a closer examination, we find that these twenty-two forms can be categorized into four categories:

single-marking, double-marking, triple-marking, and multiple-marking. There are some basic morphemes in these forms, such as na, chun, kasu, banit, and e si(chun).

These morphemes can stand alone as a single-marking linking element, and they can

also be combined with one another to form a double-, triple-, or multiple-marking

linking element. With the two types of linking elements, we find the protasis and the

apodosis in Taiwanese conditionals are linked in the following ways: first, each of the

two clauses contains a linking element, with the protasis having a forward-linking

element and the apodosis a backward-linking element; second, the protasis is marked

with a forward-linking element, but the apodosis is not marked with any

backward-linking element; third, the protasis in not marked with a forward-linking

element, but the apodosis is marked with a backward-linking element; last, neither the

131

protasis nor the apodosis is marked with any linking element. We also examine the types of the conditional clauses and find that while most of the clauses contain full-propositions, some are consisted of simplified propositions.

With regard to hypotheticality, we find that Taiwanese conditionals do exhibit a continuum of hypotheticality. Along the continuum, mid-level certainty is the most frequent one, which proves that the prototypical motivation for conditionality is to signal the speaker’s lack of full knowledge toward the protasis. The less prototypical conditionals on the continuum are not used necessarily to signal the speaker’s lack of knowledge. Rather, they often serve some extra functions. For example, a large proportion of conditionals of marked higher certainty are used to serve as topic-introducers, or to mark the speaker’s ‘epistemic distance’ to the protasis.

Conditionals of marked lower certainty, in many cases, are used to express the speaker’s evaluative stance such as undesirability, or to serve the communicative function such as being polite.

In Taiwanese conditionals, hypotheticality of different degrees, according to our analysis, are mainly distinguished by different structures of the protasis, or, to be more specific, by the choices of the forward-linking element in the protasis. Na is the most prototypical forward-linking element in Taiwanese conditionals, which is able to convey hypotheticality of all degrees. A protasis with no linking element is also used often, and this structure appears with an exceptionally higher frequency in conditionals of low degree of hypotheticality. E si(chun) is associated only with low degree of hypotheticality. The other double- triple- or multiple-marking elements (e.g.

kasu-na, banit-na, banit-chun-na-kong…e si(chun), etc.), contrary to e si(chun), usually appear when the speaker wants to intentionally express his/her extremely low certainty toward the proposition in the protasis.

In sum, in exploring how hypotheticality is reflected, we find a complex and

132

fascinating interaction between form and meaning in Taiwanese conditionals.

5.2 Implication of the Study: Discourse and Grammar

In Construction Grammar (cf. Fillmore 1988), each grammatical construction (whether lexical or syntactic) has a semantic and pragmatic interpretation as part of its description. In cognitive approaches, every aspect of the structure and wording of a given sentence is thus considered to make a contribution to its overall interpretation in ways that are governed by linguistic convention. Therefore, a description of a construction involves an explanation of how its lexical and structural features are mapped onto aspects of interpretation in ways that may be construction-specific.

Conditionals can be best described within such a framework. In our study, we find that in Taiwanese conditionals, the forward-linking elements signal important aspects of the interpretation such as the speaker’s certainty and the speaker’s evaluative stance of desirability. In other words, we have tried to discover the parameters of conditional meaning as well as the parameters of conditional form and see how they correlate. It is through this type of analysis that we can discover what different conditionals share in their meaning and their form and thus reveal both the similarities and the differences.

Our study also suggests that conversational uses of conditionals are closely

connected to context and speakers engaged in naturally occurring interaction. The

study of the use of conditionals, as well as other grammatical forms, requires analyses

grounded in an understanding of the structure of talk-in-interaction. Our investigation

of Taiwanese conditionals thus elucidates the notion that discourse-pragmatics plays a

decisive role in explaining the syntax of human language. Syntactic per se does not

exist. Rather, human language can be described exhaustively only with reference to

the communicative principles that underlie the structure of discourse.

133

5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

While our study provides a unique analysis of hypotheticality in Taiwanese, with respect to its correlation with different structures (especially the structures of protases), several issues still need to be taken for further research.

First of all, in our study we find that the presence/absence of the backward-linking elements toh and chiah does not lead to a significant difference in degree of hypotheticality. Nevertheless, it seems that toh and chiah often appear in conditionals receiving causal interpretation, like Siang-lang aupai na ka goa chhi kau toh bo hoboe 誰人後擺若共我飼狗著無好尾, in which the content of the protasis siang-lang aupai na ka goa chhi kau is the cause of the content of the apodosis bo hoboe. Toh and chiah rarely occur in conditionals without content causality, such as A-goan na u eng hoN, lin esai nng-e lang bong giankui 阿源若有閒 hoN,恁會使兩 個人罔研究. This property of toh and chiah is worth further investigation.

Second, we observe that different forward-linking elements differ in their position in a sentence. The most prototypical linking element na, in most cases, occurs in the post-subject position, like Lan(SUB.) na chaiiaN siaNmih lang teh ka lan piNkui hoN, lan toh ai ka i siuli 咱若知影啥物人 teh 共咱變鬼 hoN, 咱著愛共 伊修理.On the contrary, the less prototypical/more marked linking elements such as kasu and banit, usually appear in the pre-subject position, as such Kasu Toh-e(SUB.) hit khau-chau na si kaN tui lin chit khauchau anchoaN hoN, goa choattui toh ho ho

khoaN 假使卓仔彼口灶

是敢對恁這口灶按怎 hoN,我絕對著予好看 and Banit

i(SUB.) na ka goa kong ho goa toh chiaN hoanlo a.

伊

共我講好我著誠煩惱

矣. What accounts for the differences in positions? Is the post-subject position of na a

result of grammaticalization? Do the differences of position have to do with degree of

hypotheticality? More work can be done to further explore these questions.