「『嗎』疑問句」與「正反問句」之語義、語用、篇章功能及日語疑問句的對比分析

Abstract

「疑問」為人們在日常生活中普遍具有的心理作用。在漢語中，詢問是非的語法手段有兩種—「『嗎』疑問句」與「正反問句」。本研究之主要目的為找出這兩種疑問句的語用功能、使用上的規則、母語者如何辨別使用及日語如何與這兩種疑問句相對應。 本文以語義回顧為基礎，從預設與禮貌的角度分析兩種疑問句之差異。這兩種語法手段與預設之間的關係，本文藉由筆者所建置之漢日語料庫分析「『嗎』疑問句」與「正反問句」出現的語境進行探討。結果發現說話者有預設或無預設的狀況都使用「『嗎』疑問句」和「正反問句」。但是「正反問句」用於無預設的比例比有預設的比例高，「『嗎』疑問句」用於有預設時的比例比「正反問句」的例多。但是筆者發現使用「『嗎』疑問句」或「正反問句」與說話者發問時是否有預設有關之外，還禮貌有關係。 本文以Brown and Levinson（1987）的取決一個行為對面子威脅程度的三個因素：「社會距離」（social distance）、「相對權勢」（relative power of addressee over speaker）和「言語行為本身固有的強加的絕對級別」（absolute ranking of imposition）的不同，提出兩種句子在使用上出現差異。向「相對權勢高」的人「請求允許」的時候，積極的態度詢問能表示出更有禮貌的態度。不過，詢問對方的意向時，使用「『嗎』疑問句」表示禮貌。但是值得一提的是，本文從母語者使用趨勢所找出的這個規則並不是絕對的。 用重疊語法手段的「正反問句」的疑問焦點不全都在於「Ａ不Ａ」。但是「Ａ不Ａ」的前面能使用的副詞限制為焦點上不與「Ａ不Ａ」衝突的副詞。 日語疑問句與「『嗎』疑問句」和「正反問句」之間，並未存有個別特定相對應的疑問句型。但是，從相對應的「のだ(noda)」功能中，存在兩種疑問句的差異。此外，日語的「傾向」疑問句詢問說話者的判斷是否正確，與漢語「『嗎』疑問句」和「正反問句」相對應的並不多。 教學應用上，本文以研究得出的規則為依據，揭示「『嗎』疑問句」與「正反問句」能使用的狀況和適當的用法。This study focuses on the difference of the two types of yes-no question forms in Chinese, including semantic, pragmatic and discourse functions and its counterparts in Japanese. The approach in this study is twofold; one is Presupposition, the other is Politeness. .According to Brown and Levinson (1987) Politeness is based on the measures of weightiness of a face-threatening act (FTA) which includes three factors: “the social distance of speaker and addressee”, “the relative power of speaker and addressee” and “the absolute ranking of impositions in the particular culture proposed”. The findings of present research show that “ma-particle question” and“A-not-A question” are used in both situations where the speaker does and does not have a presupposition. “A-not-A question”, however, is more used in situations where speaker does not have presupposition. When the speaker has presupposition the “ma-particle question” is used more frequently has than “A-not-A question”. Different ways of politeness, in use with, which question form vary according to three social parameters. Normally “A-not-A question” is a positive attitude question form, therefore it is more polite to use it for asking permission. On the other hand, when asking the intensions of others, it is more polite to use “ma-particle question”. Additionally, this paper aims to explore the question focus of “A-not-A question”. ‘A-not-A’ is not always a focus, including object or all sentence can be focus depending on context. The results of these two types of questions compared to its counterparts in Japanese show that there are no special Japanese question forms for “ma-particle question” and “A-not-A question”. While the function of Japanese question particle“のだ(noda)” shows the difference. At the end of this study, the researcher, based upon results of pragmatic analysis presented in this paper, provides some suggestions for improving Chinese language pedagogy.