本文主要是從音韻,句法,語義及言談分析四部門的介面關係來探討閩南副詞的各種變調現象.副詞的句法及語義修飾功能可能影響閩南語重疊副詞的變調行為.當重疊副詞的句法與語義功能呈現差異時.它則單獨形成一個音韻片語.副詞內在的語義特性與閩南語一般副詞的變調有密切的關連.副詞可以是副語修飾語或句子修飾語.述語修飾語在語義上修飾述語或述語內的成份,因此與述語共同形成一個音韻片語;句子修飾語在語義上修飾主詞,句子或說話者,其必須單獨形成一個音韻片語.最後,我們從言談分析的角度重新分析閩南語的副詞.訊息結構中的焦點,主題及評論等結構會促成副詞音韻片語的重組.當副詞構成整個主題或評論時,它必須單獨形成一個獨立片語 / This thesis explores the adverbial phrasings in Southern Min from the interface among phonology, syntax, semantics, and discourse. The syntactic andsemantic modification functions of the adverbs may affect the tonal phrasings of there duplicated adverbs in this language. When an adverb shows a syntax-semanticmismatch, it would form a separate phonological phrase. The intrinsic semanticproperties of the adverbs are crucial to tonal phrasings of the general adverbsSouthern Min. An adverb may serve as a predicate modifier, a sentence modifier, or both. A predicate modifier joins with the predicate to form aphonological phrase;a sentence modifier forms a separate phonological phrase.Finally, we reanalyzethe adverbs in question from the viewpoint of discourse information structure. An adverb which is a focus, topic, domains. Specifically,a topic or commentcoincides with the phonological phrase.

傳統的研究將臺灣話的「人」視為人稱代名詞，並著重於它的指示代名詞使用。但出現於言談中的「人」卻多不做此用。因此，本研究旨在探討這種不做指示代名詞用的「人」，及其在言談上的功能。 　　根據Schiffrin提出的言談分析模式，「人」在五個層面--語意結構、行為結構、交談順序結構、訊息狀態、及交談者關係--都有其功能。大體而言，「人」的主要功能是在語意結構上，它在言談間作為一個「逆向承接標記」，它的出現顯示著上下文有著相反或對比的關係。藉由這種承接的作用，能使說話者更明確地表達語意，並使聽話者更精確地掌握語意，因而使得言談更為順暢。 / The present study investigates the behavior of the non-referential lang and the functions it performs in Taiwanese spoken discourse. 　　Based on　Schiffrin's (1987) model of discourse coherence, lang. plays roles on the five planes of discourse. The predominant function of lang is found in the ideational structure, where it explicitly marks contrastive relations between propositions.　In the action structure, it prefaces speech acts like defense, dispute, and refutal when a speaker disagrees the other participant's accusation, assertion, and request.　In the exchange structure, it is employed to claim/fight for or retain the turn.　In the information state, it signals contrasts between the upcoming proposition and speaker knowledge or speaker/hearer meta-knowledge.　In the participation framework, it functions to change the relative relations between interlocutors in a conversation and to indicate a discrepancy between interlocutors in the subjective attitude toward an event. As a whole, lancr serves as a contrastive marker, thus informing a discontinuity in a discourse. 　　The syntactic distribution of lang and its co-occurrence restrictions with Taiwanese sentence-final particles further support our analysis that lang functionsas a marker of contrast.

人們常因為禮貌或其他因素避免對立的情況發生。然而，異議在我們日常溝通中又扮演了不可或缺的角色。之前，眾多對於異議及其相關語言活動的研究均未曾探究異議內容的本質(對於事實內容的異議或對於議題評估的異議)與異議的建構有何關係。此外，台灣鮮少研究社會因素對異議建構方式的影響。基於上述不足，本研究旨在探討何種異議(內容異議或評估異議)在日常生活中較常出現，不同異議類別的語言形式與語用策略為何，以及年齡是否會影響異議的數量多寡與建構方式。本研究採用言談分析(conversational analysis, CA)作為研究框架，並以言語行為理論(speech act theory),合作原則(Cooperative Principles)及禮貌理論(Politeness Principles)為理論基礎。 本研究以12份日常交談為語料，進行異議分析。在這12份語料中，8組對話者為同齡(4組年長者，4組年輕者)，4組對話者為跨齡。在分析過程中，先依異議的本質進行分類，進而分析討論異議中所使用的語言形式、語用策略、社會因素(年齡)，以及四者彼此之間的互動。 研究結果顯示，第一，人們使用評估異議的頻率為內容異議的兩倍之多。個人主觀式遠多於社會文化評估的異議。第二，就語言形式而言，在異議的建構中，否定句、預告詞及肯定句(依此順序)的使用頻率高於其他語言形式。然而，語言行式的選擇會隨異議的本質而有所改變。內容異議通常使用直接句型，如否定句與肯定句；評估異議則平均使用直接性的否定句與間接性的預告詞。第三，就語用策略而言，更正、解釋與質疑(依此順序)的使用頻率高於其他語用策略。語用策略的選擇亦隨異議本質的不同而有所改變。超過一半的內容異議使用更正策略，但在評估異議中，更正、解釋與質疑的使用頻率相當。第四，在評估異議中，在各個語用策略中，語言形式的種類比內容異議多。這個結果影射著評估異議對面子的威脅程度可能比內容異議來得嚴重。因此，在進行評估異議時，語言形式與語用策略的挑選用必須格外注意。第五，年齡與異議的建構有顯著的相關性。同齡組比跨齡組更容易產生異議。最後，在異議中，聽話者的角色比說話者的角色更具有影響力。 / Although people try to avoid opposition for the sake of politeness or other reasons, disagreement, which may threaten interpersonal relationship and the success of communication, is inevitable in our daily life. Previous studies on disagreement (including dispute, argument, conflict, etc.) have not probe into the nature of the referential content—whether it is content-based (in this study, C-disagreement) or evaluation-based (in this study, E-disagreement), and the influences of social factors on disagreement have rarely been examined in Taiwan. Therefore, the purposes of this study are to see what type of disagreement are most likely to occur in daily conversations and to examine whether age is an influential factor on linguistic choices for in disagreement in Chinese society. This study uses the framework of conversational analysis (CA), and adopts speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975), Cooperative Principles (Grice, 1975) and Politeness Principles (Brown and Levinson’s, 1978, 1987; Leech, 1983) as the theoretical foundations. 12 conversations by speakers of 8 same-age groups (including 4 old groups and 4 young groups) and 4 cross-age groups were examined for disagreement. Related data are categorized, analyzed, and discussed by types of disagreement, linguistic markers, pragmatic strategies, social variable (in this study, age), and the interaction among the four. The results of the data analyses show, first, people adopt nearly twice more E-disagreement than C-disagreement; moreover, E-disagreement based on personal judgment emerges more often than E-disagreement based on socio-cultural evaluation. Second, for linguistic markers, negation, pre-announcement marker, and affirmative (in this order) are adopted more in disagreement. However, preferences for linguistic markers change according to types of disagreement. In C-disagreement, direct syntactic markers, such as negation and affirmative, are used more frequently than the others; however, in E-disagreement, direct negation (syntactic) and indirect pre-announcement (lexical) are used with equal frequencies. Third, among pragmatic strategies, correction, account, and challenge (in this order) are adopted more frequently than the others. The usage of pragmatic strategies varies with types of disagreement. In C-disagreement, correction is highly adopted. But in E-disagreement, correction, account, and challenge are used with equal percentages. Fourth, the fact that more varieties of linguistic markers are used in each pragmatic strategy in E-disagreement than in C-disagreement may imply impoliteness, since face-threatening force is more serious in E-disagreement than in C-disagreement, which, in turn, indicates that more careful manipulation is needed in using E-disagreement. Fifth, age is influential in disagreement. More disagreements are found in the same-age groups than in the cross-age groups. Last, the hearer’s role is found to be more influential than the speaker’s role.