This paper deals with structural variation in Sheng at the syntactic level by focusing on its relative constructions. Although numeral linguistic studies of Sheng have been published since the beginning of this century (Githiora 2002, Mbaabu & Nzuka 2003, Ferrari 2004, Ogechi 2005, Bosire 2006, 2008, Shinagawa 2006, 2007, Beck 2015, among others), their grammatical descriptions tend to be rather limited to the domain of morphology and the syntactic uniqueness of Sheng has scarcely been brought within the scope of precise linguistic analysis. This paper thus aims to describe the syntactic variation, or structural fluidity, found in relative constructions in Sheng and clarify the syntactic distribution of multiple relativizers. Based on these facts and analyses, the developmental process of the -enye construction, which is widely used in other Swahili contact varieties as well, will be further investigated especially from the perspectives of intra-Bantu language contact and cross- Bantu typology.

自Greenberg (1972) 以來，陸續有學者探討世界語言中的複數標記和分類詞之間的關係，並指出兩者的相似之處(Greenberg, 1972; Sanches and Slobin, 1973; Borer, 2005; Her, 2012)。本文稱這些研究為CL-PM Convergence View。這些研究指出分類詞 (numeral classifier; CL) 與複數標記 (plural marker; PM)呈現互補分布的關係。學者們 (Borer, 2005; Her, 2012) 更進一步認為，分類詞與複數標記在同一名詞組裡呈現互補分布，表示兩者在句法結構上佔據相同的位置，應視為相同的成分。然而本文發現，台灣華語「Num+CL+N們」結構有一定的能產性。若將「們」視為複數標記，則台灣華語對於上述學者的理論就形成了反例。有鑑於此，本文目的在於以句法接受度實驗及語料庫兩項方法，重新檢視台灣華語「們」的各種用法，以期解決文獻上對於「們」的諸多爭議。接著，在建立語言事實後，本文探討「們」對於CL-PM Convergence View的意義，並對於台灣華語「們」與分類詞在歷時和共時上的互動作出新的解釋。 具體來說，本文釐清了下列六項事實，為文獻上的爭議提供新的證據: (一)「們」可用於非指人的名詞；(二)「N們」為定指；(三)「Proper N們」僅表示 ‘多位Proper N’；(四)「¬1群N們」合法；(五)「Num+CL+N們」合法；(六) 在有接受英語教育的前提下，母語者的英語程度越低，對於「Num+CL+N們」的接受度越高，也越容易受到英語句法結構的促發(priming)，表示「Num+CL+N們」的產生與和英語的接觸有密切關係。考慮這些事實及其他台灣華語沒有爭議的特性，本文認為台灣華語「們」應視為一個集合標記(collective plural marker)，而非文獻所說的伴同標記(associative plural, Iljic, 2001,2005; 陳俊光，2009)或是普通複數標記(additive plural, Li, 1999; Hunag et al, 2009)。最後，本文提出兩個論點: 第一，我們根據Her et al (to appear)的洞見，區分「語意複數」(semantic plural)及「語法複數」(grammatical plural)；第二，我們提出新的事實，論證「們」在句法上，台灣華語「們」是一個附綴(clitic)而非詞綴(suffix)。這兩項論點證明台灣華語「們」並不違反CL-PM Convergence View的預測，亦可以解釋「們」與分類詞在歷時(李豔惠、石毓智，2000)和共時上的互動。 / Since Greenberg (1972), there have been many studies addressing the issue of the relationship between numeral classifiers (CL) and plural markers (PM) (Greenberg, 1972; Sanches and Slobin, 1973; Borer, 2005; Her, 2012). These scholars (henceforth CL-PM Convergence View) discovered that CL and PM tend not to co-occur in the same language, and even if they do co-occur, they are complementarily distributed within NP. Some linguists (Borer, 2005; Her, 2012) take this generalization further to propose that CL and PM in fact belong to the same category. However, when we look at Taiwan Mandarin (TM) data, a potential counterevidence can be found: [Num+CL+N-men], in which CL and –men, generally taken to be a plural suffix, co-occur within the same NP. In light of this, this study aims to take a realist look at TM –men, collecting relevant data from grammaticality judgment task and corpora so as to capture the behavior of –men. We then test CL-PM Convergence View against empirical data obtained in the study, showing that [Num+CL+N-men] does not constitute a counterexample to CL-PM Convergence View. The apparent interaction between CL and –men in TM can also be accounted for under our analysis of –men. Specifically, this study establishes the following facts for TM –men: (1) the use of –men is not restricted to human Ns; (2) N-men must be definite; (3) Proper N denotes ‘more than one Proper N’; (4) [¬1 qun N-men] is grammatical; (5) [Num+CL+N-men] is grammatical; (6) native speakers’ acceptability of [Num+CL+N-men] is in negative correlation with their English proficiency, and priming effects of English structure [Num+N-s] are observed on speakers with low English proficiency. Taking these findings into account, this study proposes that TM –men should be best analyzed as a collective plural marker, contra Iljic, (2001,2005) and 陳俊光’s (2009) “associative” analysis on the one hand, and Li (1999) and Hunag et al’s (2009) “additive” analysis on the other. Accordingly, we argue that –men as a collective does not constitute a counterexample to CL-PM Convergence View, citing two further pieces of evidence: Her et al’s (to appear) insight that “semantic plural” and “grammatical plural” should be distinguished and the proposal made there to revise CL-PM Convergence View, and the “clitic” analysis of TM –men proposed in this study. Finally, we show that the distinction between “semantic plural” and “grammatical plural” also nicely explains the synchronic and diachronic interaction between CL and –men in TM.