曾明樺探討台灣閩南語「講」的多功能性

國立清華大學
碩士論文
探討台灣閩南語「講」的多功能性
The multifunction of
Taiwanese Southern Min ‘Kong2’
所別：語言學研究所
學號姓名：924711 曾明樺 Ming-hua Tseng
指導教授：連金發博士 Dr. Chinfa Lien
中華民國 97 年 1 月 29 日
Abstract
My thesis mainly explores the multifunction of polysemous Kong2 in

Taiwanese Southern Min in syntactic, semantic and even pragmatic dimensions. In
this paper, Kong2 function as verbs, complementizers, adverbs, and particles in syntax
and even a discourse marker in different pragmatic context. Besides, each part of
speech will derive its own meanings from the original verbal meaning ‘to say’.
I use construction grammar and grammaticalization to analyze my data which

ties in with investigating its meaning and pragmatics. Kong2 originally a verb of
saying generates the use of being a complementizer, an adverb and a particle. Kong2,
as a verb, can function as an intransitive verb, transitive verb or ditransitive verb
which means telling, mentioning, criticizing/blaming, advising or quoting. As a
sentence-initial adverb Kong2, it is not a VP adverb, but a proposional adverb ranging
over the whole sentence. If Kong2 shows up in the sentence-final position and takes
on the value of high-level tone, it is a sentence-final particle which is gradually
grammaticalized into a discourse marker.
The complementizer Kong2 is the most important part in my thesis that it

functions the same as the English complementizer ‘that’ or ‘if/whether’ in the
declarative sentence or in the interrogative sentence. Semantically, kong2 can
co-occur with many predicates including ‘psych’ predicates, ‘cognition’ predicates,
‘say’ predicates, ‘speech act’ predicates, ‘change of state’ predicates, among others.
Syntactically, the complementizer Kong2 fits the constructions such as S + VK
+CComp, S + Obl + OblO+ VK+ CComp, and S + VK + O + XComp. Moreover, it
also expresses the evidentiality in the construction of the complementizer, such as
tiann1 Kong2 ‘to hearsay’, siunn3 Kong2 ‘to infer,’ and so on. In a cross-linguistic
research of verbs of saying, I find that TSM Kong2 and Hakka Kong3 are more
productive complementizers than their counterparts Shuo1 and Waa6 in Mandarin and
Cantonese in that they can co-occur with a greater number of predicates.
i
摘要
本文主要從句法、語意、跟語用的角度來探討閩南語「講」的多功能用途，
「講」從最初的說話動詞衍生出不同的語意與作用，它可以作用為動詞、副詞、
助詞、或補語，甚至在語用上作為前後文連結的一種標誌。筆者使用構式語法及
語法化理論來做進一步的分析，「講」可以是及物、不及物、或是雙賓動詞，語
意為說話、提及、批評/責罵、建議或引用。
「講」若出現在句首，則為修飾整句
句子的副詞，而非單純修飾動詞的副詞；若出現在句尾，則變調為高平調，作為
語尾助詞。
至於補語標記「講」則是本文主要探討所在，閩南語補語標記「講」作用跟
英語補語標記 ‘that’或是 ‘if/whether’是一樣的，在直述句中「講」對應英文的補
語 ‘that’，而疑問句則對應為英文的補語標記‘if/whether’。另外從語意上分析，
「講」能與大多數的動詞作結合，形成動補結構，這些動詞為心理動詞、感受動
詞、說話動詞、語行動詞、改變狀態動詞、和其他無法歸類動詞；而從語法上分
析，「講」的句型結構主要為三種句型：「主詞+動補+補語句」或是「主詞+斜格
+斜格賓語 +動補+補語句」或是「主詞+動補+賓語+補語句」。此外，「講」還能
表現如何接收到話語訊息的示證式，如「聽講」是道聽塗說而來的訊息，而「想
講」則是推估而來的訊息等等。在跨語言的研究上，筆者還發現說話動詞中，閩
南語「講」和客語「講」比起漢語「說」及粵語「話」具有和動詞搭配上的多產
性，這也值得再多做探討。
ii
List of Abbreviations
1pl first person plural
1sg first person singular
2pl second person plural
2sg second person singular
3pl third person plural
3sg third person singular
Adv adverb
Aff affix
Asp aspect
Attr attributive
CComp clausal complement
Cl classifier
Comp complementizer
Conj conjunction
Det determiner
DO direct object
FP final particle
IO indirect object
Loc location
Mdl Modal
Nam name
NComp Nominal complement
Neg negative
NP noun phrase
O object
Obl oblique
OblO oblique object
Pass passive
Pl plural
Poss possessive
Prep preposition
Prf prefix
Pt particle
S subject
SComp finite clause
SV serial verb
TSM Taiwanese Southern Min
V verb
VP verb phrase
XComp infinite clause
致謝辭
首先要感謝我的家人(還有天上的您們)，感謝你們總是在背後默默支持我，
不管是支持我繼續升學，或是全部出席參加我的畢業典禮，或是在生活上的鼓勵
與分享，你們的每句話都像一滴小水滴落入一口深井般，在我心中發出很大的迴
響，謝謝你們我才能順利取得碩士學位，尤其是辛苦的媽媽，我要特別說聲「謝
謝您」。
還有感謝我的指導教授連金發老師，老師的研究室總是燈火通明，令我們這
些晚輩總是暗暗佩服老師對學問的鑽營與努力，也才會更努力些，還要特別感謝
曹逢甫老師及張妙霞老師對我論文的指教，老師一針見血地點出學生的不足，讓
學生感到十分汗顏。另外還要感謝張月琴老師、蔡維天老師及所辦的方姐，每每
到所辦，兩位前後任所長的關心與問候，都讓學生感到受寵若驚，但卻有一股暖
意在心頭，所辦的方姐也常與我們閒話家常，這樣溫馨的所辦是我最喜歡光臨的
地方，當然時常有各式各樣異國美食、或是所長的咖啡、或是學長、學姊、學弟、
學妹互相問候的閒聊，都是讓我留連不去的原因。也謝謝任教過的黃慧娟老師、
王旭老師、蘇宜青老師、張光宇老師，感謝老師課堂上的教導，還有謝謝林宗宏
老師曾經幫我翻譯一份所上文件。
最後我要感謝我的碩班好友們，婉貞、佳莉、思瑋、玫伶，感謝妳們的陪伴，
讓我渡過有歡笑有痛苦的這些歲月，跟妳們分享心事、跟妳們一同出遊、跟妳們
一起笑一起哭都是我難以忘懷的，也謝謝表姊端雯，高中好友大樹、紅豆，大學
好友恕瑜、大頭、大妹、雅玉、康康，謝謝你們特地跑來新竹看我，陪我四處去
兜風或是吃美食。還要感謝碩班同學方穎、阿諾、叡逸、綺霞、千惠、秉倫、芳
怡、小麥，感謝妳們曾經幫助過我，陪伴著我的碩士生涯，還有學姊小牛，謝謝
妳陪我一起搞笑、一起天南地北地聊，謝謝中玉學長、詩綺學姊，你們總是以清
楚而幽默的方式為我們解惑，這也是讓我感激的。除了這些人之外，還要特別感
謝陪我一起打排球的球友們—通訊所 Lab605，謝謝博碩班的你們願意陪我一起
打排球，讓我在碩班畢業前夕，能以標準體重繼續生活下去，我也要感謝一起工
作的怡君跟月沼，感謝妳們督促我的論文，使它能開花茁壯，剩下沒感謝到的人，
真的很抱歉，在此獻上一併的感謝，這樣就算完美了吧!謝謝大家，畢業後仍要
記得保持聯絡唷!
iii
Table of contents
English abstract -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i
Chinese abstract ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ii
Acknowledgements-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------iii
Abbreviations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------iv
Chapter 1 Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1.1 Aims of this thesis---------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1.2 Data and phonetic transcription------------------------------------------------------------------2
1.3 Theoretical framework----------------------------------------------------------------------------3
1.3.1 Construction grammar----------------------------------------------------------------------3
1.3.2 Grammaticalization-------------------------------------------------------------------------4
1.4 Overview--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
Chapter 2 Literature reviews -------------------------------------------------------------------------7
2.1 A set of verbs of saying---------------------------------------------------------------------------7
2.1.1 Taiwanese Southern Min Kong--------------------------------------------- --------------7
2.1.2 Southern Min in Ming Dynasty ---------------------------------------------------------13
2.1.3 Mandarin Shuo-----------------------------------------------------------------------------15
2.1.4 Cantonese Waa6---------------------------------------------------------------------------17
2.2 Evidentials----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18
2.3 Concluding remarks-----------------------------------------------------------------------------20
Chapter 3 The multifunction of polysemous Kong2--------------------------------------------22
3.1 Verb------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23
3.1.1 The semantic meaning of Kong2--------------------------------------------------------26
3.1.2 Construction of verb Kong2-------------------------------------------------------------27
3.1.2.1 Intransitive Kong2 --------------------------------------------------------------27
3.1.2.2 Transitive Kong2----------------------------------------------------------------29
3.1.2.3 Ditransitive Kong2--------------------------------------------------------------32
3.1.3 Conventional use of verb phrase--------------------------------------------------------37
3.2 Complementizer----------------------------------------------------------------------------------39
3.3 Adverb---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------40
3.3.1 Hearsay/reported speech------------------------------------------------------------------40
3.2.2 Out of Expectation------------------------------------------------------------------------42
3.4 Particle---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------43
3.5 Discourse marker---------------------------------------------------------------------------------46
3.5.1 Conjunctions with discourse marker Kong2-------------------------------------------47
3.5.1.1 Transition-------------------------------------------------------------------------48
3.5.1.2 Subjunctive ----------------------------------------------------------------------49
3.5.1.3 Condition-------------------------------------------------------------------------50
3.5.1.4 Cause-effect----------------------------------------------------------------------51
3.5.1.5 Amplification-------------------------------------------------------------------- 52
3.5.2 Location of the discourse marker Kong2-----------------------------------------------54
3.6 The process of grammaticalized Kong2-------------------------------------------------------55
3.7 Summary------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------58
Chapter 4 Complementizer Kong2-----------------------------------------------------------------60
4.1 Productive Kong2 in TSM----------------------------------------------------------------------61
4.2 Declaratives or interrogatives------------------------------------------------------------------63
4.2.1 Declaratives—Kong2 as ‘that’ ----------------------------------------------------------64
4.2.1.1 Kong2 introducing an object clause-------------------------------------------64
4.2.1.2 Kong2 introducing a subject clause-------------------------------------------66
4.2.2 Interrogatives— Kong as ‘if/whether’ -------------------------------------------------67
4.2.3 The meaning of complementizer Kong2-----------------------------------------------68
4.3 Complement-taking verbs-----------------------------------------------------------------------71
4.3.1 Semantic analysis -------------------------------------------------------------------------72
4.3.1.1 ‘Psych’ predicates ---------------------------------------------------------------73
4.3.1.2 Cognition predicates ------------------------------------------------------------75
4.3.1.3 ‘Say’ predicates------------------------------------------------------------------76
4.3.1.4 ‘Speech act’ predicates----------------------------------------------------------77
4.3.1.5 ‘Change of state’ predicates----------------------------------------------------80
4.3.1.6 State predicates-------------------------------------------------------------------81
4.3.1.7 Other predicates------------------------------------------------------------------82
4.3.2 Syntactic analysis--------------------------------------------------------------------------82
4.3.2.1 Two-argument predicates-------------------------------------------------------90
4.3.2.2 Three-argument predicates-----------------------------------------------------93
4.4 Evidentials of complementizer Kong2--------------------------------------------------------95
4.4.1. Real fact------------------------------------------------------------------------------------97
4.4.2 Psych experience--------------------------------------------------------------------------98
4.4.3 Perceptual experience with inference---------------------------------------------------99
4.4.4 Inference which generates a counterfactual meaning---------------------------------99
4.4.5 Reportative speech-----------------------------------------------------------------------100
4.4.6 Imagination-------------------------------------------------------------------------------101
4.5 Summary-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------102
Chapter 5 Conclusion-----------------------------------------------------------------------------103
5.1 Concluding remarks----------------------------------------------------------------------------103
5.2 Contributions of this thesis--------------------------------------------------------------------105
5.3 Residual problems for further studies--------------------------------------------------------106
References ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------108
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Aims of this thesis
Kong2 is originally a verb of saying in Taiwanese Southern Min as well as others
of its ilk (Seh4) in modern Southern Min. In this thesis, I mainly use construction
grammar to analyze my data which collocate with investigating its meaning and
pragmatics. The coding of grammatical aspects in terms of constructions is shown in
the uses of Kong2 including more productive parts of speech. Thus, we should notice
each interface between syntax, semantics and pragmatics when doing a linguistic
study. The syntactic interface would focus on its parts of speech and its connection of
sentences. Besides, each part of speech will derive its own meanings, maybe more
than one semantic meaning. Therefore, we could judge it through the construction
from contexts.
Kong2 originally a verb of saying developed the use of being a
complementizer, an adverb and a particle. It can also express its evidentiality in the
construction of the complementizer, such as tiann1 Kong2 ‘to hearsay’, siunn3 Kong2
‘to infer,’ and so on. Besides, I also focus on the grammaticalization of the lexeme
Kong2 to discover its derivation in the history.
1
1.2 Data and phonetic transcription
All the data that I use in this paper are from the database built by the institute
of linguistics in National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan, and all the Taiwanese
Southern Min data are from a series of folk stories mainly edited by Wan-Chuan Hu.
These series of folk literature are the product of Taiwanese Southern Min field
investigations and the searching area is almost throughout Taiwan, covering places
like Ilan, Miaoli, Taichung, Changhua, Yunlin, Chiayi, Tainan, Kaohsiung, Pingtung
and so on. The team of field investigations visits the aged who are respected by local
residents and collects what they say about some famous legends handed down from
mouth to mouth; that is to say, these written data are originally oral stories, so our data
have lots of oral particles or some oral lexemes shown in the TSM data. The
complementizer Kong2 is an example that people usually use in the oral medium, but
seldom appears in the formal written forms.
Furthermore, the phonetic transcription of Taiwanese Southern Min in the
thesis is based on the phonetic transcription of Taiwanese Southern Min
Romanization that Ministry of Education endorses as the official phonetic
transcription of TSM. However, we neglect the tonal system because of the problem
of tone sandhi in TSM.
2
1.3 Theoretical framework
The main theoretical frameworks used in this paper are the construction
grammar and grammaticalization and I will dwell on the basic theory of these two
frameworks in the following sections.
1.3.1 Construction grammar
Construction grammar proposes that different constructions can express
different semantic meanings in sentences; that is to say, sentences which show up in
an active form or in a passive form are not the same in content. Construction
grammar takes the relationship between lexical semantics and grammatical patterns
into account. In other words, it integrates form and meaning in often
non-compositional and non-conventionalized ways, so constructionists put emphasis
on linguistic observations about constructions as form-meaning pairings. Any
combination of syntactic, morphological, or prosodic patterns may be one part of
‘form’ in constructions and lexical semantics, pragmatics, and discourse structure may
also be taken as a broad sense of ‘meaning.’
People who opt for construction approach aim to account for the full range of
facts about language, without assuming any subset of these data is the ‘core’ more
privileged than others (Fillmore et al. 1988, Fillmore and Kay 1996, Goldberg 1995,
3
2003, Jackendoff 1997ab, Lien 2002, 2005). This new theoretical approach to
language has emerged in the past twenty years but there are some researchers arguing
that constructions allow variance in size and complexity.
1.3.2 Grammaticalization
The French linguistic Antoine Meillet (1912), a pioneer of grammaticalization,
gives a well-known definition of the term “grammaticalization”- “the attribution of
grammatical character to an erstwhile autonomous word.” People can contend that
when a lexical item, namely a content word, assumes the grammatical characteristics
of a grammatical word, namely a function word, then the process of change is said to
be “grammaticalized.” That is to say, grammaticalization is a process of semantic
change that content word transfers into function word or a weaken form, like affix. In
the process of grammaticalization, a lexeme is often accompanied by phonological
reduction and semantic bleaching.
Moreover, there is a “cline of grammaticality;” that is, “content item >
grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix.” It appears to be a unidirectional
process, where its leftmost component is a content word and advances through stages
to a more grammatical word and finally becomes a morphological affix.
Grammaticalization can be understood in historical and synchronic
4
perspective. The former is thought of as linguistic changes that a content word
changes into a function word or becomes more grammatical. The latter takes
grammaticalization mainly as a syntactic, discourse pragmatic phenomenon from fluid
patterns of language use. In this paper, more emphasis would be laid on the historical
one.
Hopper and Traugott (1993) propose that there is a grammatical process of
categories: major category (> adjective/adverb) > minor category. In a verb-to-affix
cline, a verb will develop into an auxiliary and finally become an affix, the cline is as
follows: full verb > (vector verb >) auxiliary > clitic > affix. According to their
theory, major categories include verbs and nouns, while minor categories include
conjunction, adverbs, auxiliary verbs and demonstrative. There is an intermediate
stage between major and minor categories; that is, adjective and adverb.
Lord (1976) shows the verb meaning ‘say’ function as a complementizer in
lots of languages spoken in Africa and Asia. Lord generalizes the complementizer
‘say’ in different languages such as Yoruba and Telegu grammaticalized from a verb
of saying.
1.4 Overview
The thesis is organized as follows. Chapter one would be a short introduction
5
of the main thesis. Chapter two is an introduction of the theoretical background. In
chapter three, I will exhibit all the parts of speech of Kong2 in modern Taiwanese
Southern Min, including verb, complementizer, particle, and its discourse uses. I also
touch on the syntactic history of the grammaticalization of Kong2. Chapter four
would be devoted to introducing the usage of the complementizer Kong2, including
the preceding connectable verb, the evidentiality of some construction of Kong2, and
the meaning of Kong2. Chapter five concludes my thesis and I will address some
residual problems for further research.
6
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEWS
In this chapter, I will give a short introduction of some papers in connection
with my thesis. Section 2.1, reviews papers which refer to verbs of saying in
Taiwanese Southern Min, Mandarin, Cantonese, English and other related researches.
Section 2.2 addresses a cross-linguistic phenomenon—evidentials, which show how
people get messages from various sources. I n section 2.3, I will give a brief
comparison chart with some papers which are about verbs of saying.
2.1. A set of verbs of saying
A set of verbs of saying easily changes its verbal function into complement
function as a complementizer shown in a number of languages in Africa, Asia,
America, Greek, and so on (Lord 1976, Hopper and Traugott 2003). Since it is a
cross-linguistic phenomenon in the world, several papers discuss this set of verbs of
saying of its grammaticalization process in different languages.
2.1.1 Taiwanese Southern Min Kong2
Southern Min is one of the languages spoken in Taiwan, southeast China, and
some Asian countries. These papers focus on the verb of saying Kong2 in
7
contemporary Taiwanese Southern Min. Some papers use “Taiwanese” to stand for
Taiwanese Southern Min because it is the most popular language spoken in Taiwan.
2.1.1.1 Cheng, Robert L. (1994, 1997)
Cheng (1994) identifies five types of Kong2. The following examples are due
to Cheng (1997:107-08), but they have been rendered into English here for the sake of
clarity:
(1)Verb
A. Statement:
講 ho 伊聽
Kong2 hoo7 i1 thiann1
Say give 3sg listen
say something to him/her,
B. Mentioning:
伊有講著這項代誌
i1 u7 kong2 tioh8 tsit4 hang7 tai7 tsi3
3sg have say this Cl event
He/She has touched on this event
C. Reaching:
講千講萬
Kong2 tshian1 kong2 ban7
Say thousand say ten thousand
Say it over and over again
D. Criticizing/blaming:
伊不時講我
i1 put4 si5 kong2 gua2
3sg no-time say 1sg
He/She often criticizes me
E. Advising:
咱來去 ka 伊講看伊 beh 加入無。
Lan2 lai5 khi3 ka7 i1 kong2 khan3 i1 poh8 ka1 jip8 bo5
1pl come go Obl 3sg say see 3sg want join Neg
Shall we go to persuade him into joining us?
8
F. Quoting:
伊大聲喝，講：「你 beh 造反是無?」
i1 tua7 siann1 hat4 kong2 li2 poh8 tso7-huan2 si7 bo5
3sg loudly shout say 2sg want rebel Positive Neg
He/She shouts loudly, “do you want to rebel against me?”
(2)Adverb: marking speech act = someone says
A. Hearsay:
講伊猶未轉來啦
kong2 i1 ia7 bue7 tng2 lai5 lah8
say 3sg still Neg turn come Pt
says that he has not come back yet)
B. If:
講欲來去看電影你敢有時間?
Kong2 bei lai5 khi3 khan3 tian7 ing2 li2 kam2 u7 si5 kan1
Say want come go watch movie 2sg wonder have time
Do you have time if I invite you to the movies?
C. Introducing a topic:
是講伊敢無想 beh 好好仔做人?
Si7 kong2 i1 kan3 bo5 siunn7 poh8 ho2 ho2 a5 tso3-lang5
Is kong2 3sg wonder Neg think good behave
I say, ‘didn’t he want to be a normal man?’.
D. Introducing a hypothesis:
講欲移民去美國你敢 beh?
Kong2 bei i5-bin5 khi3 bi2-kok li2 kan3 poh8
Say want migrate go America 2sg wonder want
I am talking about migrating to America. Do you want to join us?
(3) Final particle: (a high level tone) denoting a speech
Urging/reminding:
緊做講
kin2 tsue3 kong2
hurry do say
hurry up
無都免閣去講
bo5 to1 bian2 kho3 khi3 kong2
Neg all no need again go kong2
Or you do not need to go
9
(4) Complement clause marker
Marking a sentence:
我想講伊（勿會）來啊
gua2 siunn7 kong2 i1 bue7 lai5 a5
1sg think Kong2 2sg Neg come Pt
I thought that he wouldn’t come.
講今年已經 1991 啊，我不時(勿會)記得
kong2 kin-ni5 i2-king i2 kiu2 kiu2 i2 a5 gua2 bu5 si5 bue7 ki3
It is said that this year is 1991, and I forget all the time.
(5) Quotative: co-occur after the verb of saying, such as shout, ask and answer …
However, Cheng focuses his attention on Kong as a complement clause marker
or rather complemenizer. The complementizer Kong is like ‘that’ in English or ‘koto,’
‘no,’ ‘to ’ in Japanese. That is, it can follow matrix verbs denoting emotional or
mental state and functions as a complemenitiser to initiate clauses.
Cheng fleshes out the important feature of the complementizer Kong2 on three
accounts. First, the complementizer Kong2 has already lost its verbal meaning and
changed into a function word used to mark the following clause (V+SM+SComp),
and syntactically the complementizer Kong2 doesn’t have direct relationship with
subject ‘I’, either. Second, there is no phonetic pause between the previous verb and
the complementizer Kong because of their close relationship. Third, Kong2 and
Khuann31 as two reflexes of 講, are in complementary distribution, in that the
complementizer Khuann3 can only be followed by the interrogative sentence.
Furthermore, Cheng takes the complementizer Shuo1 in Mandarin as a substitution of
1
I will not go into further details discussing the use of the complementizer Kang in Taiwanese
Southern Min, which is beyond the scope of my paper..
10
the complementizer Kong2 in Taiwanese, and he refers to this situation as a
manisfestation of Taiwanese Mandarin.
2.1.1.2 Chang, Miao-Hsia (1998)
Chang (1998) thinks that Kong2 is originally a verb of saying and then becomes
hearsay or a counter-expectation marker, which has nearly or totally lost its original
semantic context. Besides, Kong2 will become a complementizer when it was
followed by a subordinate clause. In her paper, all she cares about is the historical
changes of Kong2 and she also finds out the sense relationship in the polysemy of
Kong2.
She unpacks Kong2 into four functions: complementizing function, the
reparative function, counter-expectation with the initial Kong2, and final Kong2.
When Kong2 serves as a complementizer, it can be preceded by mental verbs and
other verbs to mark an objective clause, to be preceded by negation, to mark the
predicate that follows, or to be followed by a subordinate clause. When Kong2 takes
on the function of reporting, it means that the speaker gets news from a third person.
Chang argues that the counter-expectation Kong2 is concomitant with the hearsay
function, because the entire thing is contrary to the speaker’s expectation, and the
speaker shows surprise about the episode.
11
Furthermore, Chang suggests that example (20)2 is an intermediate stage of an
illustration of Kong2 as both marking hearsay and presenting its pragmatic use of
surprise. So I can see that the initial Kong2 is at two stages: one is that the speaker is
not a participant, and then Kong2 functions as a verb of saying having a pragmatic
counter-factual meaning; the other is that the speaker is a participant, and Kong2
functions purely as a discourse marker of the speaker’s disbelief.
Finally, she observes that no one further explains the linking between the
verbal origin and modal functions of the initial Kong2 and final Kong2. Her research
shows that the final Kong2 is derived from the initial Kong2 under syntactic
reanalysis. If I look at the underlying psychological state of both initial Kong2 and
final Kong2, I find that both of them convey the counter-expectation meaning. The
final Kong2 is left in the boundary position but still can be known just based on the
previous knowledge, because what might be left unsaid is something the same as the
speaker’s expectation. I cite Chang (1998) to show her proposition of the
grammaticalization of Kong2:
2
(20) A:…黑人 IN=kong 兩翁仔某攏鬥陣來買菜 hoN,\
M:heN._
A:啊鬥陣去做加工你知 o.\
M:hio?\
12
Main predication ‘say’
Step I ↓ syntactic reanalysis Step II(b)
Impersonal reportative ‘it is said’----------------------------->complementizer
Step II(a) ↓ pragmatic inference grammatical change
Reportative + counter-expectation
Step III ↓ metaphorical transfer
Counter-expectation marker at the predicate initial position
Step IV ↓ syntactic reanalysis
Counter-expectation marker at the sentence-final position
2.1.2 Southern Min in Ming Dynasty
Li Jing Ji, a sixteenth century Southern Min play, is not only an indispensable
colloquial Southern Min literature written in Chinese characters but also the earliest
document written in Southern Min (Lien 2005). If I study verbs of saying in Li Jing Ji,
I could compare it with the contemporary Southern Min to get a diachronic picture. In
this way, I could also find the process of grammaticalization of verbs of saying.
2.1.2.1 Lien, Chinfa (2005a)
Lien uses the framework of Frame (Fillmore, Johnson, and Petruck 2003), and
establishes a set of frames to capture the related senses of polysemous kio3, as
follows:
1. Communication frame
1.1 Sound-making frame
1.2. Target-oriented frame
1.3. Reported speech frame
2. Counterfactive frame
13
3. Name conferral frame
4. Causation frame
The bare sense of Kio denotes ‘making sounds’; in the latter case, it is used to
report a direct or indirect speech. Finally it will evolve into a construction of a
conflation of ‘cause’ and manner of saying, and the sense of cause is
construction-induced in the sense of construction grammar (Fillmore et al 1988). So
Lien takes the construction grammar as a theoretical basis to form the core thoughts
regarding the mapping of the frames to syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic
constructions, and the interrelationship of each frame.
2.1.2.2 Lien, Chinfa (2005c)
Lien attempts to compare the verbs of saying in Zuo Zhuan, a text of old
Chinese period, with a set of verbs of saying in Li Jing Ji, a sixteen century Southern
Min Play to show the typological change of a synthetic language to a analytic
language.
The coding of grammatical aspects is shown most clearly in the uses of seh4
說 including more productive constructions and a handful of emergent or full-fledged
phrasal or lexical formulas. The polysemous kio 叫 is the same as seh 說 which is a
very productive verb of saying, and it generates a new function works as a quotative
marker.
14
2.1.3 Mandarin Shuo1
Mandarin is a language spoken in Taiwan, China, and some Asian countries,
and Shuo1 is a verb of saying formed as a result of the influence by its counterpart in
Taiwanese Southern Min.
2.1.3.1 Li and Thompson（1981）
Li and Thompson（1981）analyses the use of Mandarin Shuo1 as a serial verb
construction. That is, when the speaker uses this word, it means that the following
sentence is only an indirect discourse frame. They even think whether Shuo1 is
present or not makes no difference.
2.1.3.2 Huang (1982, 2003)
Huang (1982) observes that it is a common situation that the Chinese verb
Shuo1 is preceded by the mental verbs in Chinese dialects. His observation says that
jiushishuo ‘that is to say/ I mean’ functions as coordinating the interaction between
speaker and hearer which suggests that the matrix clause and the sentential
complement are only connected loosely.
15
2.1.3.3 Chang, Jui-fen (2001)
Chang (2001) finds that the Mandarin lexeme of a verb of saying Shuo1 marks
multiple grammatical functions such as a verb, a complementizer, and a discourse
marker. She argues the grammaticalization process of Shuo1 works as follows:
verb(stage1) → verb/complementizer in serial-verb construction (stage 2) →
complementizer (stage3) → sentence/utterance-initial or final discourse marker at
textual level (stage 4) → discourse marker at expressive level (stage 5).
2.1.3.4 Cheng (2007)
Since it is observed that different complementizers show different meaning
and discourse functions in many languages, Cheng (2007) takes it a basic assumption
that whether a sentence has a complementizer Shuo or not will yield different
functions in Chinese.
There is also an example in Frajzyngier’s (1991) research in French where ‘de
dicto’ and ‘de re’ featuring different complementizers indeed perform different
discourse functions because they each are equal to the domain of English ‘that’ and
‘-ing/to.’ The research also mentions Huang’s (2003) theory that the absence of Shuo
in Chinese means that the complement fits in the domain of ‘de re.’
Cheng’s study shows that four types of predicates will co-occur with Shuo,
16
there are utterance verbs (55 times-47.8％), cognition verbs(48 times-41.7％),
perception(2 times-1.7％), and other verbs (10 times-8.7％). Second, the discourse
functions of complementizer Shuo which marks the speaker’s psychological distance
are coding the speaker’s uncertainty and expressing the speaker’s concern with
politeness.
2.1.4 Cantonese Waa6
Cantonese is a dialect mainly spoken in Hong Kong, Macau, and southeast
China. The verb of saying Waa6 functions as the same usage contrast with TSM
Kong2, but it is not as productive as TSM Kong2.
2.1.4.1 Yeung, Ka-Wai (2006)
In many languages, complementizers evolve from the verbs of 'saying' (Lord
1976, Frajzyngier 1991, Hopper and Traugott 1993, Lord 1993). They are generally
known as function words that introduce a clausal complement. Her paper provides a
synchronic analysis of waa6 to argue for the existence of a complementizer
reanalyzed from a verb of 'saying' in Cantonese.
She postulates that waa6 has three kinds of usage in different construction;
thus waa6 is not only a verb. Waa6 can be subcategorized in different situations.
17
Firstly, waa6 means 'say' in the construction of [_ (PP) CP] or [_ PP NP]. Then the
transitive verb waa6 means 'blame/condemn' in the construction of [_ NP CP], and
waa3 is a complementizer which selects a clause [_ IP^2] by.
2.2 Evidentials
There is another arrangement to analyze Taiwanese Southern Min; thus, I
could use evidentials to show the kind of justification for a person to make a factual
claim. People describe things with evidentials to show how they get messages.
2.2.1 Chafe (1986)
There are two interpretations of evidentials. Chafe proposes a narrow
definition of evidentials which restricts evidential meaning to specification of types of
source of information and says little else about the epistemological relationship of the
information to the speaker, and the other is the broad interpretation is that
evidentiality reflects speaker’s attitudes towards knowledge.
The most important differences between them are whether one considers the
core semantics of evidential forms to be about where speakers got their information
from or whether they are about the expression of the speaker’s subjective relationship
to the information they express.
18
2.2.2 Mushin, Ilana (2001)
Subjectivity conveys the speaker’s emotional state and also marks the
following information as brand news so the hearer would wish to know what happens.
In a clause, the deictic use will suggest that the speaker has presupposed that the
hearer already knew something about that person’s situation; that is, the hearer will be
able to decode the pronominal references. It is a significant mutual knowledge
between the speech participants.
Mushin (2001) offers a deictic centre theory which attempts to model the
consequences of shifting deixis out of the here/now, I/you of face-to-face interaction
into the purely textual realm of fiction. There are lots of languages introduced by
Mushin that use the evidentialities to express the situation of the real world.
1. Musin Quachua
“He will go to Huancayo tomorrow.(the clitic –shi “reported/hearsay”)
2. Tuyuca
“He played soccer.(the suffix –wi codes that I saw him play)”
3. Quachua-- the clitic
–shi “reported/hearsay”
-mi “direct experience”
–ch(r)al/-ch “inference”
19
4. Makah
-pi.d “an inference from physical evidence”
-q’adi “in the evidence of hearing”
-waat “hearsay, in the narration of tales and myths”
-xaa…s “general inference from unspecified evidence”
-aa…sk’ub “belated awareness of a fact”
The absence of a form “direct experience”
2.3 Concluding remarks
I put each discovery of saying verbs in some Asian languages into chart one.
Cheng (1994/1997) proposes that Taiwanese Southern Min Kong2 is a verb, a
complementizer, an adverb, a final particle and even a quotative marker with a saying
verb. Chang (1995/1998) argues that TSM Kong2 is a verb, a complementizer and a
particle-like marker. Wang et al. (2000) say that Mandarin Shuo1 is a verb, a
complementizer, and a discourse marker. Chang (2001) proposes that Mandarin
Shuo1 is a verb, a complementizer, and a discourse marker with different functions in
the initial or final position. Yeung (2006) shows that Cantonese Waa6 is a verb and
through a stage of quotative marker and then as a complementizer. Besides, it will be
further grammaticalized into sentential-final particle. But in my opinion, TSM Kong2
20
is originally a verb, and then develops into a complementizer, an adverb and a particle.
It can be a discourse marker when it functions as an adverb or a particle.
Chart one: comparison of various theories about the uses of verbs of saying
Type Comple- Sentence-final

Morpheme Verb Quotative Sentence-initial position
Paper mentizer position
Cheng
Saying verb
(1994/ Kong2 ○ ○ Adverb Particle
+ Kong2
1997)
Chang
Particle-like Particle-like
(1995/ Kong2 ○ ○ X
Counter-expectation marker Counter-expectation marker
1998)
Wang
et al. Shuo1 ○ ○ X Discourse marker Discourse marker
(2000)
Chang Discourse marker Discourse marker

Shuo1 ○ ○ X
(2001) (Organizing discourse) (Expressing emotions)
Yeung
Waa6 ○ ○ ○ X Particle
(2006)
Tseng Adverb particle

Kong2 ○ ○ X (verb)
(2007) Discourse marker
21
CHAPTER THREE
THE MULTIFUNCTION OF POLYSEMOUS KONG2
Kong2, a highly productive verb of saying in Taiwanese Southern Min, has
multiple meanings with the passage of time(Cheng 1994/1997, Chang 1998, Chang
2001). The verb Kong2 not only broadens its meaning but also loses its original
meaning ‘to say’ and changes into a complementizer, even a discourse marker.
This chapter will start to introduce the multifunction of polysemous Kong2;
that is to say, I will exhibit each possible part of speech of Kong2 in this chapter.
Section 3.1 will examine the verbal use of Kong2 in Taiwanese Southern Min. The
constructions of verb Kong2 are clearly exhibited in chart one and there are some
examples cited from our corpus which support every construction in it. In section 3.2,
I give a brief introduction to the complementizer Kong2 in a declarative clause that
functions the same as the English complementizer ‘that’ and it will be the
complementizer ‘if/whether’ in an interrogative clause. There is an integrated version
of the complementizer Kong2 in full chapter 4 due to its importance in my thesis. I
will introduce the use of adverb Kong2, one kind of knowledge that People learn
things from a reportive speech or hearsay, in Section 3.3.
Section 3.4. will deal with Kong2 as a particle in the sentence-initial position
22
or in the sentence-final position. Section 3.5. explores Kong2 as a discourse marker to
introduce, continue, or close a talk. Besides, it may express positive, negative or
abundant messages. Finally, there is a concluding remark in section 3.6.
3.1 Verb
Kong2, which means ‘to say’, is originally a verb of saying but it still has
other meanings derived from its basic sense. No matter what kind of meaning that
Kong2 belongs to, it is mostly a transitive verb that can be followed by a noun, a noun
phrase, or an object clause (Li and Thomson 1981, Wang, Katz, and Chen 2000,
Chang 2001) Cheng (1997) proposes that the verb Kong2 has several meanings:
telling, mentioning, reaching, criticizing/blaming, advising and quoting.
Mandarin Shuo1, a verb of saying, almost functions the same as Taiwanese
Southern Min Kong2. Chang (2001) also argues that there are several meanings of
Mandarin Shuo1 evolving from its original meaning ‘to say’, as shown in the
following examples. However, it seems that her perception of these different
meanings of verb Shuo1 is only constructed by context, not the real meaning of
Shuo1:
23
i. Answering:
你說1
ni3 shuo1
2sg say
You answer that,…
ii. Meaning (Denoting):
我是說,
wo3 shih4 shuo1
1sg is say
I mean
iii. Mentioning:
剛剛才說到你
gang1 gang1 cai2 shuo1 dao4 ni3
a moment ago just talk arrive 2sg
We’ve just mentioned something about you.
iv. Narrating (telling):
說故事
shuo1 gu4 shih4
tell story
tell a story
v. Asking:
他說他可以打這支電話嗎?
Ta1 shou1 ta1 ke3 yi3 da3 jhe4 jhih1 dian4 hua4 ma
3sg say 3sg can beat this Cl phone Pr
He asks if he could use this telephone or not?
vi. Explaining:
我也很難說啊!
Wo3 ye3 hen3 nan2 shuo1 a
1sg also very hard say Pt
It’s hard for me to explain.
vii. Suggesting:
他說等會一起喝杯檸檬梅子吧!
Ta1 shou1 deng3 huei3 yi4 ci3 he1 bei1 ning2 meng2 mei2 zih3 ba
3sg say later together drink Cl lemon greengage Pt
He suggests why not drink a glass of lemon juice with a greengage later.
1
All the Mandarin characters are rendered into Romanized letters in Tongyong Romanization.
24
viii. Criticizing:
觀眾一定會說，你是空的
guan1 jhong4 yi4 ding4 huei4 shuo1 ni3 shih4 kong1 de
audience must will say 2sg is empty
The audience will surely criticize you for your meaningless stage play.
ix. Commenting:
聽你說說我的音樂
ting1 ni3 shuo1 shuo1 wo3 de yin1 yue4
hear 2sg talk 1sg music
I want to hear your comment on my music.
x. Praising:
如果你是女生，我就說你漂亮啊!
Ru2 guo3 ni3 shih4 nyu3 sheng1 wo3 jiou4 shuo1 ni3 piao4 liang4 a
If 2sg is girl 1sg will say 2sg beautiful Pt
If you are female, I would say you are beautiful.
xi. Reciting:
說口白
shuo1 kou3 bai2
say mouth white
deliver the aside
xii. Commanding:
誰說一定要按照教師手冊?
Shei2 shuo1 yi2 ding4 yao4 an4 jhao4 jiao4 shih1 shou3 ce4
Who say must want follow teacher manual
Who said that we must follow the teacher’s manual?
There are lots of meanings as further extensions of its original meaning ‘to
say’ when Kong2 and Shuo1 act as a verb. In other words, Kong2 and Shuo1 are
productive verbs. Besides, these meanings are in keeping with Breal’s (1900) claim
that the types of semasiological changes belongs to pejoration vs. amelioration,
restriction vs. expansion, and metaphor vs. metonymy.
25
3.1.1 The meaning of Kong2
The sum of our corpus in Kong2 is 14,947 and the number of its verbal use is
6,440. The number of its verbal use is around a half of all data. Thus, Kong2 is often
used as a verb since it is originally a verb of saying and then grammaticalizes into
other kinds of parts of speech. I divide the use of verb Kong2 into five groups because
of its semantic difference. In my thesis, I classify the meaning of Kong2 into five
groups mainly due to Cheng (1997), but I delete the use of reaching because it is no
longer used in the modern Taiwanese Southern Min.
i. telling/saying
(1)想啥物仔就講啥物安呢，
Siunn7 sip8-mih8-a2 tsiu7 kong2 sip8-mih8 an2-ni1
Think something Adv KONG2 something so
When he thinks about something, he says something.
ii. Mentioning
(2)因這個子婿亦有講，講呼，
In1 tsit3 e5 kiann2-sai3 ia7 u7 kong2 kong2 hoo7
3pl this Cl son-in-law also have V V Pt
Their son-in-law mentions that
後擺伊的代誌，攏伊卜共負責安呢生啦。
Au7-pai2 i1 e5 tai1-tsi2 long2 i1 beh4 kah4 hu1-tsik4 an2-ni1 sing1 lah4
Afterward 3sg event all 3sg want Obl responsible so live Pt
From now on, her business is my business.
iii. Blaming/Criticizing
(3)聽看 in1 阿兄有得講伊的歹話無，

Thiann1 khuann3 in1 a2 hiann1 u7 teh4 kong2 i1 e1 phainn2 ue7 bo5
Listen watch 3sg Prf brother have Asp KONG2 3sg Attr bad words Neg
He listens and sees whether his elder brother says bad words of him or not.
26
iv. Advising
(4)講袂聽。
Kong2 beh4 thiann3
V Neg listen
He does not listen to what we say.
v. Quoting
「較緊 e 啦！
(5)扭著這个醫生，就對厝裡走，講：
Khiu2 tioh8 tsit4 e5 i1-sing1 tsiu7 tui3 tshu3 nih8 tsau2 Kong2 khah4 kin2 e1 lah4
pull Asp this Cl doctor Adv Obl house inside run KONG2 more fast Attr Pt
(He) pulls this doctor into the house and says ‘hurry up.’
3.1.2 Constructions Featuring the verb Kong2
Constructions featuring Kong2 would fall into three types depending on how
many arguments are involved: intransitive verbs (Vi) carrying only one-place
argument, transitive verbs (Vt) carrying two-place arguments and ditransitive verbs
(Vdi) carrying three-place arguments.
3.1.2.1 Intransitive Kong2
Intransitive Kong2 has only one argument: agent which is also a subject in
the grammatical function.
i. S + Kong2
Kong2 can be an intransitive verb with only one subject. Kong2 in example (6)
functions as an intransitive verb without any object.
27
「好，我講。阮兜飼一隻牛，
(6)「安呢好，就著你講。」
An2-ni1 ho2 tsiu7 tioh8 li2 kong2 ho2 gua5 kong2 gun2 tau1 tshi7 tsit8 tsiah4 giu5
So ok Adv Asp 2sg V ok 1sg V 1pl house breed one Cl cow
‘Ok, it’ s your turn to speak.’ ‘Ok, it’s my turn to say. We keep a cow.’
(7) 叫你(勿愛)講話。
Kio3 lu2 mai3 kong2-ue7
Shout 2sg Neg V
I tell you not to speak.
Kong2 with ue7 appears to be a construction in which the verb occurs with a
nominal object in TSM, but they sometimes combines into one verbal compound
which means ‘speak/talk’, as in example (7), in which the morpheme ue7 is no more a
noun, but is rather like a part of the verbal compound. .
ii. S + Adv + Kong2
As an intransitive verb, Kong2 could also be modified by an adverb. These
adverbs could only be manner adverbs, like slowly, fast, causally and so on.
Frequency adverbs, time adverbs, and place adverbs, such as always, often, now, early,
there, here and so forth, are not grammatical till they are used in the construction of
transitive or ditransitive verb Kong2. Example (8) and (9) are manner verbs ‘so’ and
‘causally’ modifying the intransitive verb Kong2.
(8)啊當這个戇人轉來安爾講
A2 tng1 tsit4 e5 gong7-lang2 tng2-lai5 an2-ni1 kong2
Pt when this Cl fool come back so KONG2
When this fool comes back and says so, his wife …
(9)我講：「你烏白講！」
Gua5 kong2 li2 o o1-peh8 kong2
1sg V 2sg casually KONG2
28
I say, ‘you talk nonsense.’
3.1.2.2 Transitive Kong2
Transitive Kong2 takes two arguments, agent and theme, and the grammatical
interaction takes place between subject and object. Most important of all, the object
would be the message or the addressee depending on what the speaker focuses on.
i. S+Kong2+A(NP: person)
The construction of S+Kong2+ A is ambiguous. One means that a speaker
(subject/agent) is talking about the object/theme, as in (10). The other means that a
speaker (subject/agent) is blaming the addressee (object/patient), as in (11) cited from
Cheng (1997).
(10) 咱講伊這个查某子啦呼，
Lan2 kong2 i2 tsit4 e5 tsa-boo2-kiann2 lah4 hoo7
1pl V 3sg this Cl daughter Pt Pt
We are talking about his daughter.
(11) 伊不時講我。
I2 put4-si5 Kong2 gua5.
3sg often V 1sg.
He often blames me.
ii. S+Kong2+M
A speaker, also a subject, will deliver some messages through their mouth;
therefore, the main construction of transitive Kong2 is S+Kong2+M. However, there
are different types of messages, like non-human events, languages, or direct/indirect
enunciations nominal phrase (NP) or clausal phrase (IP).
29
a. S+Kong2+M (NP: ~person)
A speaker focuses on messages, and the sentence would be translated into ‘A
speaker is talking about/ saying some messages,’ as in (12).
(12)想啥物仔就講啥物安呢，
Siunn7 sip8-mih8-a2 tsiu7 kong2 sip8-mih8 an2-ni1
Think something Adv KONG2 something so
he talks about/says whether he thinks about.
b. S+Kong2+ M (NP: language)
If the object of the transitive verb Kong2 denotes one kind of language in the
world, then it means ‘the speaker speaks this kind of language,’ such as speak
Taiwanese, English, or some other languages. Below is example (13), which means
that the speaker speaks Hakka.
(13)本來是卜講客話，
Pun2-lai5 si7 poh4 kong2 kheh4-ue7
Originally be want KONG2 Hakka
He intended to speak Hakka.
c. S+Kong2+M (IP: direct enunciation)
If the transitive verb Kong2 is followed by a direct clause, then the corresponding
translation is ‘the speaker says, “IP (a direct enunciation). ”’ The easiest way to tell if
the sentence is a direct enunciation or an indirect enunciation is to check its personal
pronoun. If the clausal complement is a direct enunciation, then the personal pronoun,
equal to the agent and patient, must be the first and the second personal pronoun,
whether it is a nominative case or possessive case. If the clausal complement is an
30
indirect enunciation, then the agent and patient will follow the 1st/2nd/3rd person of the
subject and the object of the main sentence. In sentence (14), the personal pronoun of
the complement clause is the second personal pronoun ‘you’ (omitted agent) and the
first personal pronoun ‘me’ (patient), so it is a direct enunciation, not an indirect one.
(14)囝仔就講：「告我不孝啊，這條一定會定案。」
gin2-a2 tsiu7 Kong2 ko3 gua2 put4 hau3 a2 tsi2 tiau5 it4-ting7 e7 ting7-an3
kid Adv KONG2 accuse 1sg Neg piety Pt this Cl must will convict a crime
His kid says, ‘you can accuse me of no piety, and the judge will convict me of this
term.’
d. S+Kong2+M (IP: indirect quote)
In an indirect enunciation of the clausal complement, the agent and patient
will follow the person of the subject and the object of the main sentence. In sentence
(15), Ting1-lan5 is the subject of the main clause who is the third personal noun, so
the agent of the complement clause changes into the third personal pronoun (omitted
she). If the clausal complement is a direct enunciation, then it would be ‘(我)安呢成
對不起我的母親.’ That is, the subject of the complement clause would be the first
personal pronoun ‘I’ and the patient would be a possessive of the first person pronoun
‘my.’
(15)丁蘭講安呢成對不起伊的母親，
Ting1-lan5 kong2 an2-ni1 tsiaN5 tui3-put4-khi2 i1 e1 bu2-tshin1
Ting1-lan5 KONG2 so very sorry 3sg Attr mother
Ting1-lan5 says that she feels so apologetic to her mother.
3.1.2.2 Ditransitive Kong2
31
Ditransitive Kong2 is a verb carrying two objects, direct object (event) and
indirect object (person). In English, the construction with ditransitive verbs falls into
two types: S+Vdi+ IO +DO or S+ Vdi+ DO + to IO. The former construction is a
typical ditransitive construction, and the latter construction involves actually a dative
case. They are different constructions although they share the same elements, subject
and direct/indirect object. Besides, the indirect object is goal, and the direct object is
theme.
i. S +對 unidirection/共 unidirection/合 bidirection (AIO) + Kong2+M DO
In TSM, the construction of S+Vdi+ IO +DO is ungrammatical because
indirect object is easily preposed rather than stays behind the direct object. When the
indirect object (goal) is preposed, an oblique case has to be added to introduce the
indirect object.
a. S +對 unidirection/共 unidirection/合 bidirection (AIO) + Kong2+M DO (NP: person)
The subject (agent) tells the indirect object (goal) about some message
(theme), and in this construction, the message is especially about human beings, as in
example (16). It is also necessary to add a preposition or an oblique when preposing
the indirect object (goal).
(16)彼相師啊，得共我講我這二个子，
He1 siong3-su1 a2 teh4 ka7 gua5 kong2 gua5 tse1 nng7 e5 kiann2
That fortuneteller Pt Asp Obl 1sg KONG2 1sg this two Cl son
The fortuneteller tells me about my two sons…
32
b. S +對 unidirection/共 unidirection/合 bidirection (AIO) + Kong2+M DO (IP: ~person)
In this construction, the message is especially about some events but not
human beings, so it can be a word, as in example (17) or an object, as in example
(18).
(17)我對你講恭禧。
Gua5 tui3 li2 kong2 kiong1-hi2
1sg Obl 2pl V congratulations
I say congratulations to you.
(18)啊你才合伊講錢，將這間厝共伊買起來。
A2 li2 tsai5 kah4 i1 kong2 tsinn5 tsiong3 tsit8 king1 tshu3 ka7 i1 bue2 khi2 lai5
Pt 2sg thus Obl 3sg V money Obl this Cl house Obl 3sg buy up go
So you bargain with him and take this house.
c. S +對 unidirection/共 unidirection/合 bidirection (AIO) + Kong2+M DO (IP: language)
The message of this construction is especially about all kinds of languages.
There is a corresponding construction in English which translates into S + speak +
language + to A.
d. S +對 unidirection/共 unidirection/合 bidirection (AIO) + Kong2+M DO (IP: direct enunciation)
This construction is just a little different from the construction of S +
Kong2+M DO because there is an addressee shown before the main verb Kong2, like
the example (19).
(19)我就共伊講：「我捌你。…」
Gua5 tsiu7 ka7 i1 kong2 gua5 piat4 li2
1sg Adv Obl 3sg KONG2 1sg know 2sg
I tell him, ‘I know you.’
33
e. S +對 unidirection/共 unidirection/合 bidirection (AIO) + Kong2+MDO (IP: indirect
enunciation )
In example (20), if this sentence is a direct enunciation, then the sentence

would be ‘he tells the emperor, “I am sick.”’ Thus, the pronoun would be the first
personal pronoun to describe the situation about him. If the personal pronoun is the
third personal pronoun, it is a bystander’s point of view. Thus, I can say that it is an
indirect enunciation in example (20).
(20) 共皇帝講伊破病啦，
Ka7 hong5-te3 kong2 i1 phua3-pinn7 lah4
Obl emperor V 3sg sick Pt
He tells the emperor that he is sick.
ii. S+Kong2+(MDO)+予 AIO+V(知/聽)
In TSM, the addressee is not preposed in front of Kong2. Instead, it is necessary
to add a dative marker hoo7 予 ‘give’ before the addressee, as in (21) in the second
construction of ditransitive verb Kong2. Furthermore, another verb, tsai1 知 ‘know’
or thiann3 聽 ‘hear/listen’, must be added after the addressee. Otherwise this
construction would be ungrammatical. Hoo7 予 also functions as a verb in TSM in that,
if we don’t add another verb such as tsai1 ‘know’ or thiann3 聽 ‘hear/listen’, then
hoo7 would rather be like a verb and in this case what we get is something that ‘say
something to give someone.’

(21)啊伊就講這个經過予伊聽，
A2 i1 tsiu7kong2 tsit8 e1 king1-ke3 hoo7 i1 thiann1
Pt 3sg Adv KONG2 this Cl process give 3sg listen
He tells him the whole process.
I have mentioned that the verb tsai1 知‘know’ or thiann3 聽‘hear’ will show
up after the addressee. It is reasonable because of the meaning. When someone says
something to somebody, there must be a listener. Thus, a speaker will say something
to make the hearer listen or to know about the event. Sometimes, messages will not
appear if they are old news, as in (22) where the message is already known to the
hearer so it is omitted.
34
(22)啊伊得講予伊聽。
A2 i1 teh8 kong2 hoo7 i1 thiann3
Pt 3sg Asp V give 3sg listen
tell him/her to know about that
iii. S +將 MDO + Kong2 +予 AIO (AIO)+V(知/聽)
The third construction of ditransitive verb Kong2 also puts the addressee after
the verb, but it preposes the message before verb Kong2. Furthermore, there is an
oblique marker or a preposition tsiong3 將 before the message. Not only the addressee
but also the message are not in the grammatical positions of the basic ditransitive
construction S+共 A+ Kong2 +M, but they are grammatical after each of them adding
an oblique marker 將 and 予, as in sentence (23)。
(23)我將這个地理講予你知，
Gua5 tsiong3 tsit4 e5 te7-li2 kong2 hoo7 li2 tsai1
1sg Obl this Cl geography V Obl 2sg hear
I want to tell you the geomancy
Below is a chart exhibiting all the constructions that I have mentioned above.
35
Chart two: Constructions with the verb Kong2
Verb
Structure Example Translation
type
S + Kong2 Jolin 今也得講啊。 Jolin is talking now.
Vi
S + Adv + Kong2 Jolin 慢慢啊講。 Jolin speaks slowly.
(one)
*S + Kong2 + Adv * Jolin 講慢慢。 ☆S + Kong2 ue7+ Kong2 +AdvP
+ NP Jolin 得講 Jay 啊。 Jolin is talking about Jay.
A (person) Jolin blames Jay.
NP Jolin 得講彼件代誌。 Jolin is talking about that event.
(~person)
Vt NP Jolin 講台語。 Jolin speaks Taiwanese.
S+Kong2
(two) + (language)
M IP Jolini 講我 i 才毋相信。 Jolin says, ‘I don’t want to believe.’
(Direct quote)
IP Jolini 講伊 i 才毋相信。 Jolin says that she doesn’t want to

(Indirect quote) believe.
* S+ Kong2+AIO+MDO * Jolin 講彼件代誌 Jay。 ☆TSM needs object preposed.
+ NP Jolin 合 Jay 得講 Mary。 Jolin talksbi to Jay about Mary. (合)
A (person)
NP Jolin 對/共/合 Jay 講彼件 Jolin tellsuni Jay that event. (對/共)
(~person) 代誌。 Jolin talksbi to Jay about that event.
S +對 unidirection
(合)
/共 unidirection
NP Jolin 對/共/合 Jay 講台 Jolin speaks Taiwanese touni/withbi
/合 bidirection (AIO) +
(language) 語。 Jay.
Vdi + Kong2 M
IP Jolini 共 Jayj 講：「我 i 才 Jolini tells Jayj, ‘Ii don’t want to
(three)
(Direct quote) 毋相信。」 believe.’
IP Jolini 共 Jayj 講伊 i 才毋
Jolini tells Jayj that shei doesn’t want
(Indirect quote) 相信。 to believe.
* S+ Kong2 +MDO+予 AIO * Jolin 講彼件代誌予 Jay ☆TSM needs object preposed.
S+Kong2+ (MDO)+予 AIO+V(知/ Jolin 講彼件代誌予 Jay Jolin tellsuni Jay that event.
聽) 知/聽。
S +將 MDO + Kong2 +予 AIO Jolin 將彼件代誌講予 Jay Jolin tellsuni Jay about that event.
(AIO)+V(知/聽) 知/聽。
3.1.3 Conventional use of verb phrases
36
There are lots of frozen forms of verb Kong2 listed below in chart two. If we
use these verb phrases, anyone who knows TSM well would realize what we mean.
These frozen forms mainly appear in two constructions: S + Kong2 + NP and S +對
unidirection/共 unidirection/合 bidirection (AIO) + Kong2+M DO. The message of noun phrases
must not belong to the property of human beings. Some frozen forms, including
Kong2 ~ e5 phainn2-ue7 講~的歹話= Kong2~ e5 ing5-a2-ue7 講~的閒仔話=
Kong2 goo7-si3-sann1 講五四三 ‘say bad words’, Kong2 peh8-tshat8 講白賊 ‘tell a
lie’, Kong2-koo2 講古 ‘tell a story’, Kong2 to7-li2 講道理 ‘talk sense’, Kong2
siau2-ue7 講痟話 ‘talk nonsense’, Kong2-la5-liang5 講拉涼 ‘talk small talk’,
Kong2-sng2-tshio3 講耍笑= Kong2-tshio3 講笑= Kong2-sng2 講耍= Kong2
tshio3-khe 講笑詼 ‘speak in game’, all fit in with these two constructions S + Kong2
+ NP and S +對 unidirection/共 unidirection/合 bidirection (AIO) + Kong2+M DO, but Kong2
si3-ku3 講四句 ‘express good wishes’, Kong2-ke3 講價 ‘bargain’, Kong2
tshin1-tsiann5 講親成 ‘talk about matchmaking’, Kong2-tsing5 講情 ‘plead’ only fit
in with the construction S +對 unidirection/共 unidirection/合 bidirection (AIO) + Kong2+M DO.
That is because Kong2 si3-ku3 講四句 ‘express good wishes’, Kong2-ke3 講價
‘bargain’, Kong2 tshin1-tsiann5 講親成 ‘talk about matchmaking’, Kong2-tsing5 講
情 ‘plead’ all need a target to do these events.
37
Most important of all, the oblique case is an important role because it
expresses the relationship of messages between speaker and listener. I use the oblique
tui3 對 ‘to’ or ka7 共 ‘to’, to indicate unidirectionality in transmitting the speaker’s
message. On the contrary, the oblique kah4 合 ‘with’ involves bidirectionality to
express the mutual messages of the speaker and the hearer.
For the sake of understanding the whole picture, I introduce the frozen forms
with the verb Kong2 in chart two.
Chart two: Frozen forms with the verb Kong2
Jolin 講~的歹話 Jolin says bad words of him.

=講~的閒仔話=講五四三。
Jolin 講白賊。 Jolin tells a lie.
講古。 tells a story.
S + Kong2 Jolin 得講道理。 Jolin is talking sense.
得講痟話。 is talking nonsense.
得講拉涼。 is talking small talk.
Jolin 得講耍笑=講笑=講耍 Jolin is speaking in game.
=講笑詼
S+對 uni Jolin 對/共 Mary 講四句。 Jolin expresses good wishes to Mary.
/共 uni +NP 對/共/合 Jay 講~的歹話 Jolin says bad words of someone touni/with bi Jay.
/合 bi (A) (~person) =講~的閒仔話=講五四三。
+ Kong2 Jolin 對/共 Jay 講白賊。 Jolin tells Jay a lie.
對/共講古。 tells Jay a story.
Jolin 對/共/合 Jay 講道理。 Jolin talks sense touni/with bi Jay.
對/共/合 Jay 講痟話。 talks nonsense touni/with bi Jay.
合 Jay 得講拉涼。 talks small talk with bi Jay.
Jolin 對/共/合 Jay 講耍笑 Jolin speaks in game touni/with bi Jay.
=講笑=講耍=講笑詼
Jolin 合 Jay 得講價。 Jolin bargains with bi Jay.
Jolin 合 Jay 得講親成。 Jolin is talking about matchmaking with bi Jay.
Jolin 合 Jay 講情。 38 Jolin pleads with Jay.
3.2 Complementizer
On account of the importance of the complementizer Kong2, I will discuss it
thoroughly in chapter 4. Here is a brief introduction of complementizer Kong2. It is
apparent that the complementizer Kong2 functions as the English complementizer
‘that’ in a declarative clause and it will be a complementizer meaning ‘if/whether’ in
an interrogative clause. Clauses which are simple statements of fact, say,
non-questions, are called “declarative.” On the contrary, Clauses which are questions
about the fact are said to be “interrogative.” It means that the complementizer Kong2
indicates two kinds of s-selection proposition: one is non-questions, and the other is
questions. (But the complementizer Kuann only indicates one s-selection proposition:
question. (Chen 1997)) Besides, ‘that’ is in complementary distribution to if/whether
in English (Adger 2003).
The function of the complementizer Kong2 in TSM is similar to the function
of complementizers ‘that’ and ‘if/whether’ in English. Furthermore, the frequency of
the complementizer Kong2 (‘that’) and the complementizer ‘that’ used to introduce a
declarative complement clause are overwhelmingly predominant over the frequency
of the complementizer Kong2 (‘if/whether’) and the complementizer if/whether used
to introduce an interrogative complement clause.
39
3.3 Adverbs
There are two kinds of adverbs; one is common VP adverb shown in example
(24) and the other is proposional adverb shown in example (25). Kong2 is a
propositional adverb which adjoins to TP, while a VP adverb adjoins to vP and comes
in between subject and verb:
(24) TP
Subject T’
T vP
Adverb vP
(like quickly)
Verb phrase
(25) TP
Kong2 TP
Subject + VP
3.3.1 Hearsay/reported speech
Lien(2001) claims that seh 說 ‘to say’ in Li Jing Ji, especially in the formula
kien-seh 見說 ‘learn, hear, hear of ’,or seh-si 說是 ‘it is said that’, are both used in
reported speech, and seh-si 說是 is used to quote a previous speech. That is to say,
they are formulas to represent a hearsay or reported speech without exact assurance.
40
Another verb kio 叫 is also used to mark a reported speech in Li Jing Ji . Both seh 說
and kio 叫 are polysemous words that are very productive in Li Jing Ji, and
intriguingly, kio 叫 develops a new function as a quotative marker. Lien also talks
about the morpheme Kong2 講 ‘say, talk…’ in Li Jing Ji. However, Kong2 is quite
few and far between in this play of Ming Dynasty, and the most important of all,
Kong2 has no example to represent as hearsay or a reported speech in Li Jing Ji. In
modern Taiwanese Southern Min, Kong2 has the use of hearsay or a reported speech,
so it seems that in Li Jing Ji, the same word corresponds to Modern TSM Kong2 is
seh 說, and kio 叫, but not Kong2 講 itself in Ming Dynasty.
In example (26) and (27), Kong2 is derived from the construction of tiann3
Kong2 聽講 ‘hearsay’, and abbreviates into Kong2 講 as the meaning of ‘reportative
speech’. Sentence-initial Kong2 as an adverb is not a VP adverb, but is a proposional
adverb (like probably, perhaps and surely) for which the speaker tells us about the
truth of the whole proposition, see example (28). Thus, if the speaker uses the adverb
Kong2 in the sentence-initial position, it means that the speaker wants to express
some messages heard from the third person. In other words, it is only a reported
speech expressing the speaker’s uncertain evidentiality.
(26)講古早啊，有一个真好額的員外啦，
Kong2 koo2-tsa2 a2， u7 tsi2 e5 tsin1 ho2-giah8 e5 uan5-gue7 lah4，
KONG2 early stages have one Cl very rich Pt magnate Pt
People say that there is a very rich magnate in early stages,
41
(27)啊這个阿福仔伊亦真儉用安呢啦，
A2 tsit4 e5 a2-hok4 a2 i1 a7 tsin1 khiam7-ing7 an2-ni1 lah4
Pt this Cl Nam Aff 3sg also very thrifty so Pt
It is said that a2-hok4 a2 is also so thrifty
講賸了一寡錢啊，
Kong2 khng3 liau2 tsit8-kua2 tsinn5 a2
Adv hoard Asp one Cl money Pt
and hoards some money
(28) TP
Kong2 TP
古早啊，有一个真好額的員外啦，…
People say that there is a very rich magnate in early stages,
3.2.2 Out of Expectation
Another kind of the propositional adverb kong2 means ‘to one’s surprise.’ In
example (29), after watching a lamb kneeling down to suckle, a son without filial
piety knows that he was wrong in the past and he should be nice to his mother. When
he notices that his mother is coming this way, he runs to welcome her, but her mother
does not know that her son has completely reformed. She was scared that her son was
running so fast so she jumped into the river trying to escape from her son finally.
Back to my analysis, Kong2 in example (29) is an adverb expressing his mother’s
surprise that his son running so fast is totally out of her expectation. In example (30),
it shows that the subject is so surprised that his father-in-law is also relaxing himself
42
under the tree at that moment. In this case, Kong2 can express the meaning of out of
someone’s expectation.
(29)走卜去迎接 in 母親，in 的母親看一下，

Tsau2 poh4 khi3 ging5-tsiap in1bu2-tshin1 in1 e5 bu2-tshin1 1khan3 tsit8-e7
Run want go welcome 3sg mother 3sg Poss mother see one Cl
He runs to welcome his mother. His mother sees and
講走赫緊，~伊就向湖邊走去，
Kong2 tsau2 hik4 kin2 i1 tsiu2 hiong3 hoo5 pinn1 tsau2 khi3
Adv run so fast 3sg Adv toward lake margin run go
Unexpectedly, he runs so fast, so she runs toward the margin of the lake.
(30)這个時陣啊，講赫抵好啦，
Tsit4 e5 si5-tsun7 a2 Kong2 hik4 tu2-ho2 lah4
This Cl moment Pt Adv so just Pt
Surprisingly, at just this moment,
我這个膨風親家啊，亦在樹腳得納涼，
gua5 tsit4 e5 phong3-hong1 tshin1-ke1 a2 iah4 tsai5 tshiu7-kha1 teh4 lap8-liang5
1sg this Cl rodomontade father-in-law Pt also in tree leg Asp relax
my rodomontade father-in-law is also relaxing himself under the tree.
3.4 Particles
In this section, final particle of polysemous Kong2 in Southern Min will be
discussed. I find that there is a sound inflection; that is, a tone changing in the final
particle Kong2, also proposed by Cheng (1994/1997). He says when Kong2 function
as a final particle in the sentence-final position; it will become a high-level tone and is
used to denote a speech. This finding is in keeping with what Traugott and Dasher
(2002:84) say that there are six characteristics associated with grammaticalization and
one of them is phonological attrition:
43
i. A specific construction
ii. Bleaching
iii. Pragmatic strengthening
iv. Reanalysis
v. Fixing of the construction
vi. Phonological attrition
Traugott and Dasher (2002) propose that there is a phonological attrition
(weakening) in the process of grammaticalization. This indeed happened in Southern
Min Kong2 which transfers from the original tone marked ‘2’ to a high-level tone
marked ‘1’ called “sandhi tone”. For the convenience of understanding the process of
tone sandhi, I put the process below:
Chart three: Tone sandhi of particle Kong2
Original tone phonological attrition tone sandhi
Kong2 Kong12
V, Adv, Comp FP
Lu (2003:111-12) takes sentence/utterance-final Kong2 as a discourse marker,
which means there is something left unsaid. Example (31) as shown below expresses
that the speaker talks to people that oranges are so sweet but ‘why don’t you guys try
2
The following chart features tone sandhi in Southern Min. The arrows stand for the direction of tone
change in non-pausal position. sandhi.
1 → 7
↑ 5 ↗ ∣ 4
∣ ↘ ↓ ↙
2 ← 3 ← 8
44
it?’ or ‘why do they sell for such a low price?’ is left unsaid. Thus, the final particle
Kong2 is a function word showing something which the speaker leaves unsaid, but if I
subdivide it, it can fall into several subtypes according to types of the speech left
unsaid. The first type is to express the content out of speaker’s expectation, as shown
in example (31).
(31)柳丁就甜 e 講
Liu2-ting1 tsioh8 tinn1 e2 Kong2
Orange very sweet say
Oranges are very sweet.
Another type is to show an irrealis situation when using the final particle
Kong2. Sentence (31) is a cited example.
(31)你若卜食我就分你食講
li2 na7 poh8 tsiah8 gua5 tsiu7 pun1 li2 tsiah8 Kong2
2sg. if want eat 1sg. will share 2sg. eat KONG21
If you want to eat, I will share it with you.
In instance (31), it is a legend about ‘ho-ko-po (tiger auntie)’ known by
Taiwanese people. The term ‘ho-ko-po’ is a tigress disguised itself as a female adult to
get children’s trust to open the door and then ho-ko-po eats kids as a big meal. An
elder brother and a sister are cheated and open the door to welcome ho-ko-po. After a
while, when ho-ko-po is eating the younger sister, her brother wonders where his
sister is. He wants to know if ho-ko-po is eating his sister, so he asks ho-ko-po to give
him what ho-ko-po eats now. Ho-ko-po eats with great gusto and liberally says ‘if you
want to eat, I will share it with you.’
45
Having finished introducing the story, let’s return to my analysis that the
second singular person pronoun is the elder brother and the first person pronoun is
ho-ko-po. The second singular person pronoun eats nothing, so the first singular
person pronoun says that she can give something for him to eat. It shows an irrealist
contrast between chiah Kong2 食講 “eat” and the brother have nothing to eat.
One more example is kin-choe Kong2 緊做講 ‘hurry to do something’. You
say this by pushing someone to do an overdue job or to keep working quickly with the
rest of his work. By hearing that, I infer that the addressee is a lazy worker urged by
the addresser. From this semantic change, it is quite obvious that since I get an irrealis
meaning, the final particle will derive the meaning of threatening or urging given by
the following phrase or clause.
(32) Urging: kin2-tso3 Kong2 緊做講
(33) Threatening: lai5 sio1-phah8 Kong2 來相打講
3.5 Discourse marker
Kong2 can function as a discourse marker in Taiwanese Southern Min.
“Discourse marker” or “discourse connective” is a morpheme or a term which
presents all kinds of logical relationship or relationship of time or place between
sentence and sentence or between discourse and discourse, such as and, or, but,
46
however, therefore, as a result, in addition, etc (Schiffrin1987, Frazer1992). The
discourse marker Kong2 can connect with a conjunction, such as and, or, but; it could
also connect with an adverb, like however.
Mann and Thompson(1983) and Schiffrin (1987) thinks that each part of
discourse structure implies all kinds of relationship, such as cause and effect,
contradictory, amplification, and so forth. This connective relationship helps the
speaker and the listener communicate with each other easily due to the convenience of
perceiving. For example, ‘for’ is a cause and effect conjunction, and ‘and’ is a
coordinating conjunction, and others may have different relationships. If we use these
discourse markers to connect sentences or discourses, then it is clear to express what
we think, and make whole context smoothly.
The most important thing is that discourse markers often appear at the
beginning or in the end of an intonation unit (Wang et al. 2000). Thus, they are in the
peripheral position of a sentence or a discourse unit. Besides, some discourse markers
seem to evolve into a conventional and idiomatic use, and there is also a short pause
to separate it from the following clause (Chang 2001). Thus, such kind of discourse
markers helps to bracket a series of talk (Schiffrin 1987).
3.5.1 Conjunctions with discourse marker Kong2
47
“Conjunctions” fall into three types: coordinators (and, or, but …), connectors
(therefore, however, hence), and subordinators (if, although …). They connect
sentences or parts of words in the sentence, as shown in sentence (34) and (35).
(34) Jolin will go to Taipei and Jay will go to Ilan.
(35) Jolin will go to Taipei and do some shopping.
The discourse marker Kong2 co-occurs with these conjunctions featuring a
range of different functions such as transition, subjunctive, condition, and so on.
3.5.1.1 Transition
Transition is an opposite or contrary attitude from the addresser’s point of view,
such as example (36) and (37). The discourse marker Kong2 co-occurs with
sui1-jian5 雖然 ‘although,’ bok8-kuai3 莫怪‘no wonder’ and put4-kuan2 不管‘no
matter,’ ti2-tsik4-si7 抵即是‘or,’ ia2-si7 抑是‘or’, sim7-tsi3 甚至‘even’ and so on to
construct the meaning of transition.
(36) 所以伊這個新郎伊雖然講人矮細，
soo2-i2 i1 tsit4 e5 sin1-long5 i1 sui1-jian5 Kong2 lang5 e2 se3
so 3sg this Cl groom 3sg although KONG2 person short small
Although this groom is exceedingly short,
伊腹內袂 bai 啊
i1 pak4-lai7 bue7 bai2 a2
3sg stomach inside Neg ugly Pt
He is a good person by nature.
48
(37)這个法師身體亦真損。莫怪講，
Tsit4 e5 huat4-su1 sin1-the2 ia7 tsin1 sun2 bok8-kuai3 kong2
This Cl exorcist body also very damage no wonder DM
This exorcist’s body is also damaged badly; no wonder
若問一擺啊，哦彼錢愛足濟的啦。
Na7 mng7 tsit4 pai a2 oo5 he2 tsinn2 ai3 tsiok4 tse3 e5 lah8
If sak one Cl Pt Pt that money want very much Pt
If you want to ask him something, it needs a lot of money about the inquiry.
3.5.1.2 Subjunctive
The subjunctive discourse is formed with a sentence which supposes a
situation, and the latter sentence will express the outcome of making the assumption.
The discourse marker Kong2 will co-occur with na7 若 ‘if,’ na7-si7 若是 ‘if,’
ka2-su2 假使 ‘if,’ say, example (38) and (39).
(38)毋知您厝內底有飼貓仔無？若講有飼貓仔，
m7 tsai1 lin1 tshu3 lai7-tue2 u7 tshi7 niau1-a2 bo na7 Kong2 u7 tshi7 niau1-a2
Neg know 2pl house inside have breed cat Neg if KONG2 have breed cat
I don’t know whether you keep cats or not in your house. If you keep any cat, ….
安呢我佇菜市仔買的魚仔合肉呼，
An2-ni1 gua5 ti7 tshai3-tshi7-a2 bue2 e5 hi5 a5 kah4 bah4 hoo7
So 1sg in market buy Poss fish Surf and meat Pt
I think that fish and meat bought in the market
我看是會予貓仔食掉。
Gua5 khuann3 si7 e5 hoo7 niau1 a2 tsiah8 tiau
1sg see be will give cat eat drop
would be eaten by cats.
(39) 但這項事是卜如何來辦較好安呢？
Tan7 tsit4 hang7 su7 si7 poh4 ju5-ho5 lai5 pan7 khah4 ho2 an2-ni1
But this Cl event be want how come deal more good so
But what is the best way to deal with this matter?
49
若是講咱人啊，那有可能講
Na7 si7 kong2 lan2 lang5 a2 na2 u7 kho2-ling5 Kong2
If be DM 1pl person Pt how have possible KONG2
It is impossible for we human beings
卜來娶這死人來做某安呢？
Poh4 lai5 tshua7 tsit4 si2 lang5 lai5 tsue3 boo2 an2-ni1
Want come marry this dead person come be wife so
to marry a dead person as a wife.
3.5.1.3 Condition
The condition discourse is formed with a conditional sentence and a result
generated from the condition. The discourse marker Kong2 coexists with bo5-lun7 無
論 ‘no matter wh-,’ put4-kuan2 不管 ‘no matter wh-,’ and na7-si7 若是‘if’ to
express the conditional discourse.
(40)平常時啊是住在這个伙房厝的人，
ping5-siong5 si5 a2 si7 tua3 ti7 tist4 e5 he2-pang5 tshu3 e5 lang5
normal time Pt be live in this Cl kitchen house Poss person
Normally, it is people who live in this kitchen that
早暗啊斟茶、燒香啦。
tsa2-am3 a2 thin5-te5 sio1-hiunn1 lah4
morning night Pt pour tea burn joss sticks Pt
will pour a cup of tea and burn incense day and night.
若是講有清明日啦、祭日啦，在外地的兄弟仔
na7 si7 kong2 u7 tshing-bing5jit8 tse3-jit8 lah4 tsai7 gua7 te7 e5 hing-te7 a2
if be DM have clear sun day memorial day Pt in outside ground Poss brother Aff
if there is any tomb-sweeping festival or memorial day, brothers working out of town
才倒轉來安呢啦，統一得祭拜安呢。
Tsai5 to2 tng2 lai5 an2-ni1 lah4 thong2-i2 teh4 tse3-pai3 an2-ni1
Just backward turn come so Pt unite Asp memorialize so
Will come back and memorialize their ancestors.
50
(41)啊無論講，一塊餅、一塊啥，
A2 bo5-lun7 kong2 tsit4 te3 piann2 tsit4 te3 siann2
Pt no matter DM one Cl cookie one Cl anything
Whether it is a cookie or something,
就是愛擘做爿，予 in7 二个食安呢。
Tsiu7 si7 ai3 pho3 tsue3 pian3 hoo7 in7 nng7 e5 tsiah8 an2-ni1
Adv need cut make half give 3pl two Cl eat so
She needs to cut it into two pieces to give both of them.
3.5.1.4 Cause-effect
The cause-effect discourse is a discourse in which the former sentence
explains the reason and the latter one shows the result. It is clear that in sentence (42),
the fortuneteller tells the landowner that it is impossible to tell the geomantic omen
because it needs one more day, say, the hundredth day, to see if there is something
wrong about geomantic omen; that is to say, today is only the ninety-ninth day so it is
impossible to tell the geomantic omen. In example (43), the rat disregards the cat’s
absence without any reminder so the cat is late to join the race of ranking the twelve
animals.
(42)我共你講是一百工才看有這个風水啦，
Gua5 ka7 li2 kong2 si7 tsit4 pah4 kang1 tsai5 u7 tsit4 e5 hong1-sui2 lah4
1sg with 2sg V be one hundred day just see this Cl geomantic omen Pt
I tell you that it is not until the hundredth day later that I can see the geomantic omen.
啊因為講今仔日就九十九工囉，
A2 in-ui7 kong2 kin1-a2-jit8 tsiu7 kau2-tsap8-kau2 kang1 lo1
Pt because DM today Adv ninetieth day Pt
Because it has been ninety days today
51
啊今仔日就看無啊，
A2 kin1-a2-jit8 tsiu7 khuann3 bo5 a2
Pt today Adv see nothing Pt
I can not see anything today.
(43) 啊這个貓仔因為貓鼠仔的失信，伊到位的時，
A2 tsit4 e5 niau1-a2 in1-ui7 niau1-tshu3-a2 e5 sit-sin3 i1 kau3-ui7 e5 si7
Pt this Cl cat because rat Attr lost affiance 3sg arrive Attr time
Due to the rat breaking its promise, when the cat arrives,
十二个生相的名次已經決定好勢啊。
tsap8-ji7 sinn1-siunn3 e5 mia5-tshu5 i2-king1 kuat-ting7 ho2-se3 a2
twelve birth pets Attr rank already decide ok Pt
the rank of the twelve birth pets was already been set.
為著安呢啊，
ui7-tioh8 an2-ni1 a2
for Asp so Pt
For this reason,
所以講貓仔無排著十二个生相啦。
Soo2-i2 Kong2 niau1-a2 bo5 pai5 tioh8 tsap8-ji7 e5 sinn1-siunn3 lah4
so KONG2 cat Neg range Asp twelve Cl birth pet Pt
So the cat is not on the list of twelve birth pets.
3.5.1.5 Amplification
If the speaker thinks that his/her former speech is not so clear, he/she will try
to clarify the former speech into a clear statement. So the speaker will use paraphrase
or instance to make the speech obviously known by the addressee.
i. Paraphrase/In other words
Paraphrasing a speech is to say something in other words which will amplify
what the speaker says in a clearer way. The discourse marker Kong2 will coexist with
tsiu7-si7 就是‘that is to say,’ ting3-u1 等於 ‘equal to’, kho2-pi2 可比 ‘that is.’ That is
52
to say, if we want the listener to understand what we say well, we will say it in
another way to make things clearer, such as example (44) and (45).
(44)就是講你若有才調去做佛，
tsiu7-si7 Kong2 li2 na7 u7 tsai5-tiau7 khi3 tso3 hut8，
be KONG2 2sg if have ability to do Buddha
It is said that if you have the ability to be a Buddha,
後擺就渡我來去安呢。
Au7-pai2 tsiu7 too7 gua5 lai5 khi3 an2-ni1
next time Adv release souls come go so
you would save my soul.
(45)伊共人食彼的，
I1 ka7 lang5 Na7 ka7 lang2 tsiah8 hik4 e5
3sg with people eat those
what he eats
啊就擱來還人一倍安呢啦，
a2 tsiu7 kho3 lai5 hang5 lang5 tsit4 pe7 an2-ni1 lah4
Pt Adv again come return person one times so Pt
Is half than what he gives back.
可比講若共人食一箍，
kho2-pi2 kong2 na7 ka7 lang5 tsiah8 tist4 khoo1
like DM if with person eat one dollar
this is just like that if we gain one dollar,
啊就愛還人二箍銀安呢啦，
A2 tsiu7 ai3 hang5 lang5 nng7 khoo1 gun5 an2-ni1 lah4
Pt Adv need return person two dollars so Pt
We have to pay him back two dollars.
ii. Instantiating/for example
For the reason to make the hearer know what the speaker says clearly, some
speaker will use a strategy to give the hearer more instances to realize what’s going on
right now, such as (46) and (47). The discourse marker Kong2 co-occurs with pi2-ju5
53
比如 ‘for instance,’ phi3-ju5 譬如 for example,’ phi3-lun7 譬論 ‘for instance’ and
ku2-le7 舉例 ‘such as.’
(46) 呼卜用途用啥就來想啥物句讀，
hoo7 poh8 iong7-too5 iong7 siann2 tsiu7 lai5 siunn7 siann2 mih8 ku3-tau7
Pt want purpose use what Adv come think what punctuation
You want to use it in what purpose then you will use what kind of punctuations.
呼比如講娶新娘就寫娶新娘的句讀，
hoo7 pi2-ju5 kong2 tshua7 sin1-niu5 tsiu7 sia2 tshua7sin1-niu5 e5 ku3-tau7
Pt for example marry bride Adv write marry bride’s punctuation
For example, if there is a marriage, then you write some good words for
marrying a bride.
(47) 猶然有童乩，啊亦有得予人請教、
iu5 jian5 u7 tang5-ki1 a2 ia7 u7 teh8 hoo7 lang5 tshing2-kau3
still have exorcist Pt still have Tense give person consult
there are some exorcists to be consulted
予人問這的地方的種種，
hoo7 lang5 bun7 tsit4 e5 te7-hng e5 tsiong2-tsiong2
give person ask this place anything
about this place
譬如講囝仔啥無抵好啦、
Phi3-ju5 kong2 gin2 a2 siann2 bo5 tu2 ho2 lah8
For example kid what Neg right Pt
For example, if kids don’t feel good,
啥物貨啥種種，攏有得予人問。
Siann2 mih8 he3 siann2 tsiong2-tsiong2 long2 u7 teh8 hoo7 lang5 bun7
What thing what anything all have tense give person ask
You want to ask anything, they can handle it.
3.5.2 The location of the discourse marker Kong2
Jakobson (1987) proposes that any act of verbal communication in a speech
event includes six elements: addresser, addressee, context, message, contact, and code.
54
An addresser and an addressee are the same as the speaker and the listener who go
into conversations with each other.
When a speaker begins to give a talk, he/her will use some morphemes or
words to attract hearers’ attention or open a new topic. Thus, Kong2 shows up in the
sentence-initial position. In addition, when a speaker wants to keep his/her speech
going, he/her will hold the voice by using some term, like a transition term, a counter
attitude term, or a continuing point term and so on. In this way, these sorts of
discourse markers will easily appear in the peripheral position of a sentence or a
discourse.
3.6 The process of grammaticalized Kong2
Kong2 originally as a verb of saying has developed other usages with passage
of time, and it is a reasonable access to generate a word.
According to the grammaticalization theory proposed by Hopper and Traugott
(1993: 104) that there is a tendency of grammaticalization: ‘Major category
(> adjective/adverb) >minor category’, I believe the verb of saying Kong2 changes
from verb through complementizer to discourse marker (Chang 1997, Chang 2001),
Verb is a content word while complementizer and discourse marker are only function
words in keeping with Hopper and Traugott’s grammaticalization theory. I go into
55
some details discussing the process of grammaticalization of Kong2 from verb to
complementizer in the following sections.
As time goes by, Kong2 as a verb in a serial-verb construction will gradually
weaken its meaning and change into a meaningless complementizer. The following
examples (48) (49) and (50) will exhibit how this grammaticalization is working.
(48)啊今也伊講：「好啊！我袂去啊！」呼。
A2 kin1-a2 i1 Kong2 ho2 a2 gua5 be7 khi3 a2 hoo7
Pt today 3sg V ok Pt 1sg will not go Pt Pt
Today he says, ‘ok, I won’t to go.’
「in 遮的規矩啊，
(49)就共彼个新子婿講：
tsiu7 ka7 hit4e5 sin1 kiann2-sai3 Kong2 in1 jia1 e5 kui1-ku2 a2
Adv Obl that Cl new son-in-law say their here Pt rule Pt
They say to the new son-in-law, ‘their rules here
就愛食這个金蠅囉，這金蠅號做金子婿，
tsiu7 ai3 tsiah8 tsit4 e5 kim1 sin5 lo1 tsit4 kim1 sin5 ho7-tsue3 kim1 kiann2-sai3
Adv must eat this Cl golden fly Pt this golden fly name golden son-in-law
must eat this golden fly named golden son-in-law.
就愛食這金蠅。」伊聽講：「哦，若安呢規矩，好囉。」
tsiu7 ai3 tsiah8 tsit4 kim1 sin5 i1 thiann1 Kong2 o na7 an2-ni1 kui1-ku2 ho2 lo2
Adv must eat this golden fly 3sg listen V(SV) Pt if this way rule ok Pt
You must eat this golden fly.’ He listens and says, ‘ok, if you say that, that’s fine.’
(50)哇這一工聽講
Oa tse1 tsit8 kang1 thiann1 Kong2
Pt this one day listen KONG2
it is said once that
有人卜來講這个親成啊，
u7 lang5 poh8 lai5 Kong2 tsit4 e5 tshin1-tsiann5 a2
have people want come talk this Cl affinity Pt
someone will come to propose the marriage.
The example (48) ‘today he says, “Ok, I will go.” ’ is the original use of
56
Kong2 講 as a saying verb, and in the serial-verb construction thiann3-Kong2 聽講
‘listen and say’ in sentence (49), Kong2 still acts as a verb of saying. Nevertheless,
Kong2 transfers into the use of complementizer without real meaning in example (50)
which generates a new semantic meaning of thiann3-Kong2 聽講 ‘hearsay’ in this
instance. Interestingly, there is an intermediate section of Kong2 in a serial-verb
construction in (49); that is to say, a serial-verb construction can be either interpreted
as a verb following another verb or a complementizer of preceding verb.
Traugott and Dasher (2002) proposes that ‘every change, at any level in a grammar,
involves not “A>B,” i.e. the simple replacement of one item by another, but rather
“A>A~B” and then sometimes “>B” alone.’ The former meaning will exist at the
same time with later meaning of the same morpheme, and the coexistence of variants
of this morpheme is termed “layering” by Hopper (1991). Polysemous Thiann3
Kong2 substantiates the theory that not only verbal function of Kong2 evolves into
the complement function of Kong2, but also an intersectional use is between the
verbal use and the complementizer use.
Although it is hard to make a distinction of Kong2 in the construction with
serial verb that its grammatical use is a verb or a complementizer one, I can penetrate
it through a sentential construction. If an author writes down a statement with a
quotation marker in printed words, then they can easily be identified as the verb of
57
parts of speech, and the reader gets messages from the author’s direct statement as if
he watches an active show that the speaker talks to the listener before his eyes.
Another construction where it is easy to classify Kong2 under the serial-verb
construction thiann3 Kong2 as a complementizer rather than a verb is the construction
of an indirect speech, especially without a comma to introduce the following talk.
Consequently, a data without a comma to introduce a talk or a data with the third
person’s indirect speech will not function as complementizer, but none the less, there
are some examples remained ambiguous whether it is a verb or a complementizer.
3.7 Summary
I discuss parts of speech of Kong2 in this chapter, including 3.1 verb, 3.2
complementizer, 3.3 adverb, 3.4 particle. In section 3.5, I explore Kong2 as a
discourse marker. Thus, Kong2 can function as four kinds of parts of speech in the
syntactic analysis; while in the pragmatic analysis, it can function as discourse
markers in different context. I introduce the verbal construction and semantic meaning
of Kong2 in section 3.1. In this way, it is easily to understand what construction will
generate what meaning of verb Kong2. For the reason of the importance of
complementizer Kong2, the section 3.2 is only a simple introduction of
complementizer Kong2 and the whole picture would be discussed in next chapter.
58
Section 3.3 examines the adverb Kong2. When Kong2 functions as an adverb, it is not
a common VP adverb, but it is a proposional adverb which is to embellish the whole
sentence. In section 3.4, if Kong2 grammaticalizes into a particle, it will weaken its
sound into high-level tone. In section 3.5, Kong2 grammaticalizes into a discourse
marker and the main function is a connective linking sentences or discourses. In
section 3.6, it is clear that Kong2 has experienced a period that it is grammaticalized
from verb to other kinds of parts of speech and the verbal function is still there now.
59
CHAPTER FOUR
COMPLEMENTIZER KONG2 AND GRAMMATICALIZATION
“Complementizer” as a term is a connective which connects a complement
clause (Crystal 1997). Besides, Ransom (1988) mentions that a complementizer
evolved from a lexical item is a cross-linguistic common phenomenon in the process
of grammaticalization. Hopper and Traugott (2001) propose that some
complementizers evolve from the verbs of saying which expresses the evidence or
inference. Besides, Lord (1976), Cheng (1994, 1997), Hopper and Traugott (2001)
find that many languages have complementizers, for instance: Kwa, Banta, Kera,
Moore, Nepali, Hausa, Jamaican, Telugu, Sinhalese, Ponapean, Greece, Japanese,
African languages and other languages all over the world.
The frequencies of occurrence of Kong2 as a complementizer co-occurring
with lots of predicates in TSM are higher than its counter part in Mandarin and
Cantonese in section 4.1. In section 4.2, I mainly focus on the complementizer Kong2
about its use including declarative use and interrogative use. Besides, the meaning of
complementizer Kong2 is also worthy of discussion. Section 4.3, the main section of
this chapter focuses on the preceding verb coexisting with Kong2 in syntactic and
semantic direction. Section 4.4 deals with the evidentiality of Kong2 which shows the
60
speakers understanding of the world. Finally, there is a short summary to close this
chapter.
4.1 Productive Kong2 in TSM
Kong2, originally a verb of saying, constructs the variety of functions from
only a single lexical morpheme, and one of the most important functions is
complementizer. The complement clause is introduced by the complementizer Kong2
and there is a matrix verb before or after the complement clause. In different
languages, we use different complementizers in our own languages. In Southern Min,
people use ‘Kong21’講 to be a sentential complementizer (Cheng 1994/1997,
Chang1998, Chang 2001, Lien 2005); in Hakka2, people use the same Chinese
character 講 as a complementizer, but it is pronounced as ‘Gong3’. In Mandarin,
people use ‘Shuo1’說 as a complementizer (Li and Thompson 1981, Huang
1982/2003, Mong 1982, Cheng 1997, Chang 2001, Cheng 2007). In Cantonese,
people use ‘Waa6’話 as a complementizer (Yeung 2006). All these four
complementizers are originally verbs of saying which mean ‘to say’ as its basic
meaning, and as time goes by, they evolves from a content word (verb) into a function
1
Taiwanese Southern Min khuann3 is also a verb transferring into a complementizer only preceding
the interrogative sentence, but it is not from the verb of saying. Thus, I leave it without further
discussion in this thesis.
2
Hakka is a dialect spoken in Taiwan, and people who take Hakka as their mother language comprise
about 15% of the population and are descended largely from Guangdong. They form the third largest
population group in Taiwan.
61
word (complementizer).
In this paper, I mainly discuss the complementizer Kong2 in Taiwanese
Southern Min Kong2, but there is an interesting phenomenon that the use of Hakka
Kong3 co-occurring with verbs is almost the same as the use of Southern Min Kong2,
such as ma5-kong3 (Hakka)/ma7-kong2 (TSM) ma7-kong2 罵講 ‘to blame’,
giau5-kong3/kio3-kong2 叫講 ‘to shout’, mun5-kong3/mng7-kong2 問講 ‘to ask’,
siong3-kong3/siunn1-kong2 想講 ‘to think’, son5-kong3/sng3-kong2 算講 ‘to
account as’, ngiam2-kong3/liam7-kong2 唸講 ‘to murmur’, ciong5-kong3/
tshiunn7-kong2 像講 ‘to be like’ and so forth. However, the use of Mandarin Shuo1
is not equal to Taiwanese Southern Min Kong2 and Hakka Kong3(Cheng 1994/1997,
Chang 1998, Chang 2001). Several uses of shuo1 co-occurring with verbs are not
grammatical in Mandarin, such as ma4-shuo1 罵說 ‘to blame’, jiau4-shuo1 叫說 ‘to
shout’, nian4-shuo1 唸說 ‘to murmur ’ and so on, but some are still grammatical like
siang3-shuo1 想說, yi3-wei2-shuo1 以為說. Cantonese Waa6 is not so productive as
Mandarin Shuo1 comparing with TSM Kong2 and Hakka Kong3 (Yeung 2006).
It is rich and productive in the use of complementizers in Hakka and
Taiwanese Southern Min, but not popular in Mandarin and Cantonese yet (Cheng
1997, Chang 1998, Chang 2001, Yeung 2006, Lien and Tseng 2006). Thus the change
from the verb of saying Shuo1 to a complementizer Shuo1 in Mandarin is not so
62
common and productive, but it is a reasonable situation because in Cheng’s (1997)
research, he proposes that the complementizer Shuo1 in Mandarin is a substitute of
the complementizer Kong2 in TSM only happened in Taiwanese Mandarin but not in
Putonghua. When Kong2 becomes a complementizer, it will completely lose its
original meaning ‘to say’ to be a lexicon with vague or even meaningless meaning
(Cheng 1994/1997, Chang 1998, Chang 2001, Yeung 2006).
4.2 Declaratives or interrogatives
Adger (2003: 292) proposes that complementizer is a functional category
rather than a syntactic category, for it does not assign a theta-role. A complementizer
indicates two kinds of s-selection proposition: one is a simple statement of fact, and
the other is a question about the facts. Clauses which are non-questions are referred to
as “declarative”, namely the clausal complement following the complementizer ‘that;’
on the contrary, clauses which are questions are said to be “interrogative”, namely the
clausal complement following the complementizer ‘if/whether’. Besides, ‘that’ is in
complementary distribution to if/whether in English.
Intuitively, it is clear that the function of the complementizer Kong2 in
Taiwanese Southern Min is the same as the use of complementizers that and
if/whether in English. The complementizer Kong2 can be used to introduce an
63
interrogative or a declarative complement, but mostly, kong2 introduces a declarative
complement working as a complementizer ‘that’ in TSM.
4.2.1 Declaratives—Kong2 as ‘that’
Frajzyngier and Jasperson (1991) think that the complementizer that
introduces the following clausal complements as to the semantic domain “de dicto,”
which means reference to the complement expressing the elements of speech not the
elements of reality “de re.” That is, the semantic domain “de dicto” is about the
saying or of the word, for example the sentence (a), but the semantic domain de re is
about the thing or of the thing, for example the following sentence (b).
(a) Jolin believes that Jay is happy.
(b) Jay is such that Jolin believes that he is happy.
4.2.1.1 Kong2 introducing an object clause
Kong2 in TSM works as ‘that’ in English which indicates how the hearer
thinks of the proposition expressed by its clause: a simple statement of proposition.
Almost 90 percent of examples in this chapter belong to this type; in other words,
clausal complements following the complementizer kong2 are almost declarative
sentences, including huat4-hiaan7-kong2 發現講 ‘to find’, tsai1-iann2-kong2 知影講
64
‘to know’, siong1-sin3-kong2 相信講 ‘to believe’, jin7-ui5-kong2 認為講 ‘to
think ’, kam2-kak4-kong2 感覺講 ‘to feel’, ma7-kong2 罵講 ‘to blame’,
kio3-kong2 叫講 ‘to shout’, siunn1-kong2 想講 ‘to think’, sng3-kong2 算講 ‘to
account as’ and so forth.
We take the following sentences as instances. Instance (1) is a husband that
believes his wife is unfair to him, so he tries to find some clues. Instance (2) is from a
famous legend and the leading character is a villain named hoo2-koo1-po5. It is
originally a tiger who pretends as a female adult to make kids open the door; then it
can enjoy its big meal. In these two sentences, the main verb selects a CP and the
complementizer Kong2 appears optional, so the tree structures would be as follows:
(1) VP
信 CP
C—講/0 TP
= that/0
in 某是歹查某
3
(1’) 信講 in 某是歹查某。
Sin3 kong2 in1 boo2 si7 phai7tsa1-boo2
Believe comp 3sg wife be bad woman
He believes that his wife is a bad woman.
3
“In1” is originally a plural pronoun of the third person, but sometime it will transfer into a singular
pronoun of the third person..
65
(2) VP
知影 CP
C—講/0 TP
= that/0
in 大姊去予伊食去啊
(2’) 伊才知影講 in 大姊去4予伊食去啊。
i1 tsaih8 tsai1-iann2 kong2 in1 tua7-tsi2 khi3 hoo7 i1 tsiah8 khi3 a2
3sg just realize Comp 3sg old sister go Pass 3sg eat go Pt
He just realizes that his elder sister is eaten by it.
4.2.1.2 Kong2 introducing a subject clause
The complementizer Kong2 introduces not only object clauses but also subject
clauses. Sentence (3) is a good example that the first complementizer Kong2 is equal
to ‘that’ leading a clause as a subject. In this sentence, the first Kong2 functions as a
complementizer leading a subject clause, and the subject would be hit4 e5 lau5
bak8-sai2 loh8-lai5 e5 thoo5-bin7 ‘彼个流目屎落來的土面’ while the main verb is
‘看.’ The second Kong2 is a complementizer leading an object clause. Finally, u7
sun2 a2 phu5 tshut4-lai5 ‘有筍仔浮出來’ is the object of the whole sentence.
(3)講彼个流目屎落來的土面，
Kong2 hit4 e5 lau5 bak8-sai2 loh8-lai5 e5 thoo5-bin7
Comp that Cl flow tear drop come Poss mud face
That the ground is dropped with tears
看講有筍仔浮出來
khuann3 kong2 u7 sun2 a2 phu5 tshut4-lai5
see Comp have bamboo shoot
germinates bamboo shoots.
4
Khi3 “去” should be khit4 “乞” as a agentive marker(Lien 2005a).
66
4.2.2 Interrogatives— Kong as ‘if/whether’
Cheng (1994/1997), a pioneer in discussing the complementizer Kong2 講 and
Khuann3 看 in Taiwanese Southern Min, proposes that Khuann3 can only introduce
an interrogative clausal complement, while Kong2 introduces both declarative and
interrogative complementizer. The verb mng7 問 ‘ask’ is a verb introducing a
question complement, and I put it in a subcategory form to make it clear in semantics.
When Kong2 co-occurs with such interrogative verb, it works as the function of
English if/whether with the meaning of interrogatory.
(4) mng7 問 ‘ask’, [V, C, Q]
＊
(4’) mng7-kong2 問講 ‘ask that/if’
(5) tsai1-iann2 知影 ‘know’, [V, C, ~Q]
(5’) tsai1-iann2-kong2 知影講 ‘know that/＊if’
From examples (4) and (5), the verb mng7 問 is different from other
declaration verbs for it carries an inquiring meaning. Most important of all, it seems
that these two kinds of verbs carry the same Kong2 as a complementizer in (4’) and
(5’), but in instances (4’), I could not translate Kong2 the same as the English
complementizer that collocating with mng7 問, but it is grammatical to collocate with
‘if’ or ‘whether’ as its complementizer instead. In instance (5’), the result is vice
versa.
67
Next would be some examples searched from our corpus. Example (6) is
talking about an adult who likes to take advantage of other persons. One day, he
cheats a little boy and says that ‘father means brother.’ To his surprise, the little boy
asks him if he has any father instead. If he does not have one, the little boy could be
his father. This example shows that the main verb ‘mng7’ should be followed by a
complementizer Kong2 meaning if or whether, rather than that. In example (7), the
following object is an interrogative sentence so the complementizer also means that.
(6) 煞問講我有令尊無。
Suah4 mng7 kong2 gua2 u7 ling7-tsun1 bo5
Unexpectedly ask Comp 1sg have father Neg
Unexpectedly, he asks me if I have father.
(7) 啊 in1 是卜共試探彼个查某人
A2 in1 si7 poh8 ka7 tshi3-tham3 hit4 e5 tsa1-boo2-lang5
Pt 3pl be want Obl test that Cl woman
They want to test whether that woman
講有聽抑無聽？
kong2 u7 thiann1 ia2 bo5 thiann1
Comp positive hear or Neg hear
Heard their words or not.
4.2.3 The meaning of complementizer Kong2
People often think that complementizer is a meaningless function word, but it
could have some meaning when it co-occurs with some verbs such as think.
68
(8) i. TSM: 我想伊 beh 轉去啊!
Gua2 siunn7 i1 poh8 tng2 khi3 a2
1sg think 3sg want turn go Pt
I think he wants to go home.
ii. Mandarin: 我想他要回去了。
Wo3 siang3 ta1 yao4 huei2 cyu4 le
1sg think 3sg want go Pt
iii. Hakka: 睚5想佢要轉去咧。
Ngai3 siong4 gi3 oi1 zon4 hi1 le
1sg think 3sg want turn go Pt
Inference: he wants to go home
(8’) i. TSM: 我想講伊 beh 轉去啊!
Gua2 siunn7 kong2 i1 poh8 tng2 khi3 a2
1sg think Kong2 3sg want turn go Pt
I thought that he wants to go home.
ii. Mandarin: 我想說他要回去了。
Wo3 siang3 shuo1 ta1 yao4 huei2 cyu4 le
1sg think say 3sg want go Pt
I thought that he wants to go home.
iii. Hakka: 睚想講佢要轉去咧。
Ngai3 siong4 gong3 gi3 oi1 zon4 hi1 le
1sg think gong3 3sg want turn go Pt
I thought that he wanted to go home.
Inference: but why he is here now.
Sentence (8) and (8’) are almost the same, and the only difference between
them is that sentence (8’) has a complementizer in three kinds of dialects, but
messages that the speaker wants to convey is totally different. Sentence (8) is only an
inference of the agent’s indirect or direct evidence from the real situation that one of
the participants wants to go home, and the speaker just conveys the message without
5
This word should be typed as 人+睚(without 目 between them) in one character.
69
doubt.
Then talking about the external argument of siunn7-Kong2 想講 in sentence
(8’), that the agent I thinks the man wants to go home is true, but the speaker thinks
what the agent believes is not true. It will produce counter-expected meaning after
adding a complementizer Kong2, Shuo1, and Kong3. Since the agent and the speaker
is the same one ‘I’, it is easy to confuse in the whole event. If I change the agent into
second or third person pronoun in instance (9) below, it is obvious that the agent
believes the truth value of the sentence is true, but the speaker thinks it is not true.
Finally, the real fact is followed what speaker says, so it is not true that the man
already went home.
(9) i. TSM: 汝想講伊 beh 轉去啊，

Li2 siunn7 kong2 i1 poh8 tng2 khi3 a2
You think that hei wants to go home,
結果伊抑佇遮。
kiat-ko2 i1 ia2 ti7 tsia1
finally 3sg still Asp here
but hei is still here.
ii. TSM: 伊想講伊 beh 轉去啊，
I1 siunn7 kong2 i1 poh8 tng2 khi3 a2
Hei thinks that hej wants to go home,
結果伊抑佇遮。
kiat-ko2 i1 ia2 ti7 tsia1
finally 3sg still Asp here
but hej is still here.
The speaker thinks the participant does not want to go home; however, in the
70
agent’s thought, the participant wants to go home. Thus the construction with
complementizer Kong2, Shuo1 or Kong3 will generate a counter-expected meaning. It
is reasonable to argue that the complementizer Kong2, Shuo1 and Kong3 are not
meaningless function words because they will produce counter-expected meaning
collocating with inferring predicates, like siunn7-kong2 想講 ‘thought that’ and
kio3-si7-kong2 叫是講 ‘thought that’. Finally, this is a cross-linguistic finding that
the counter-expected meaning can be read out not only from Taiwanese Southern Min
siunn7-Kong2 想講, but also from Mandarin siang3-shuo1 想說, and from Hakka
siong3-kong3 想講, see, example (8) and (8’).
4.3 Complement-taking verbs
Preceding verbs of the complementizer Shuo1 in Mandarin are divided into
three classes: mental-state verbs, speech-act verbs, and change-of-state verbs which is
proposed by Wang et al. (2000). Chang (2001) tests if these three classifications
proposed by Wang et al. are really enough for the preceding verbs of the
complementizer. Finally, she finds that there are still some verbs preceding
complementizer Shuo1 not belonging to these three existing types; thus she adds
another type—others.
Besides, the definition of speech-act verbs narrow down to reportative verbs in
71
the paper of Wang et al, so she uses a hereby-test proposed by Crabtree and Powers
(1992). A hereby-test just tests whether verbs can insert into an adverb ‘hereby’ before
it or not. If it is grammatical to collocate ‘hereby’ with the verb, the verb is a
speech-act verb.
Cheng (1997) says that Mandarin complementizer Shuo1 evolves from TSM
complementizer Kong2; hence, I am curious if Kong2 really proves the classification
of what Wang et al classify or TSM may have other classification of preceding main
verbs to carry the complementizer Kong2. Yeung (2006) also thinks that there are four
types of predicates co-occurring with Waa6: the ‘say’ predicates, the ‘cognition and
perception’ predicates, the ‘informative’ predicates, and other predicates.
4.3.1 Semantic analysis
If I follow what Wang et al. (2000), Chang (2001), Yeung (2006) do to analyze
preceding verbs of the complementizer Kong2, it is a semantic analysis. In my
research, these preceding verbs belongs to six groups: ‘psych’ predicates, ‘cognition’
predicates, ‘say’ predicates, ‘speech act’ predicates, ‘change of state’ predicates, and
other predicates (predicates that are hard to classify under other five groups).
These matrix verbs co-occurring with the complementizer Kong2 select a
clausal complement; no matter it is an nonfinite or finite sentence. Although it seems
72
that there are some nominal complements, it is because in Chinese, it is easily to drop
its copulative verb, so the nominal complements are also clauses when we translate
them. Like a1 teh4 khuann3-kong2 to4 tsit8-e5 tsa1-poo1 an2-ni1 hoo7 啊得看講佗
一个查甫安呢呼 ‘girls are watching who is that guy,’ it is a clausal complement
rather than a nominal complement because the copulative verb is deleted. Below
would be my analysis.
4.3.1.1 ‘Psych’ predicates:
The definition of psych verb can be wide or narrow; according to Cheng’s
(2003) book, he mentions that the classification of psych verb is still obscure because
everyone’s viewpoint of the mental scope does not conform to each other. The first
one who separate Chinese psych verbs as a kind of verb is Liu (1942), he thinks that
think, recall, love, hate, complain, regret, appreciate, fear, and so on are one kind of
verbs in all four types of verbs. In my research, I follow what Lien proposes (2005b)
that there are two kinds of mental verbs, one is perceptual verbs (no inference), and
the other one is rational verbs (no emotional response). Only the perceptual mental
verb is the psych predicate, for instance, fear, like, cry, worry, and so forth.
This kind of predicates is famous for its fixed construction— having two
arguments, a subject and an object, and their semantic relationship is experiencer and
73
theme, or vice versa. If the object is experiencer and the subject is theme, this
sentence carries a causative meaning (Yang 2000, Lien 2005b, Lien and Tseng 2006a).
Although there are two constructions of psych verbs, intriguingly I find that only the
construction of subject-experiencer is grammatical to co-occur with the
complementizer Kong2, but the construction of theme as a subject; that is, a causative
psych verb construction is not allowed in Taiwanese Southern Min. There are several
examples, including huan1-lo2-kong2 煩惱講 ‘worry’, huann1-hi2-kong2 歡喜講
‘happy’, phai2-se3-kong2 歹勢講 ‘embarrass’, khau3-kong2 哭講 ‘cry’,
tshio3-kong2 笑講 ‘laugh’, kiann1-kong2 驚講 ‘fear’ and so forth, and I give some
examples (9), (10) and (11) below .
(9)實在毋是得睡，成實講，
Sit8-tsai7 m7 si7 teh8 khun3, tsainn5-si7 kong2
Truly not be asp sleep honestly say
‘Truly, he does not sleep. Honestly,
煩惱講這件事毋知卜安怎排解？
huan1-lo2 kong2 tsit4-kiann7 su7 m7 tsai1 poh8 an1-tsuann2 pai5-kai2
worry Comp this event not know want how solve
he worries about how to solve the problematic case?’
(10)講安呢講歡喜講卜住新厝啊。
Kong2 an2-ni1 kong2 huann1-hi2 kong2 poh8 tua3 sin1 tshu3 a2
Pt so Pt glad Comp want live new house Pt6
He is glad that he is going to live in a new house.
(11)啊伊亦歹勢講安呢共趕伊走安呢啦。
A2 i1 iah8 phai2-se3 kong2 an2-ni1 ka7 khan3 i1 tsau2 an2-ni1 lah8
Pt 3sg also feel embarrass KONG2 so Obl expel 3sg go so Pt
He also feels embarrassed that he expels him out.
6
Chang (1998) mentions that there are lots of particles in TSM.
74
4.3.1.2 Cognition predicates
The term ‘cognition’ means the process of how to get knowledge or apply
knowledge. People know about knowledge from seeing it, from hearing it, from
touching it, from inferring the whole map and so on. Someone says that ‘thinking
is saying,’ we think things through our mind, finally using our own mouth to
speak them out. Here are some cognition predicates collocating with the
complementizer Kong2, such as siunn7-kong2 想講 ‘think’, tsai1-iann2-kong2 知
影講 ‘know’, m7-tsai1-kong2 毋知講 ‘do not know’, siong1-sin3-kong2 相信講
‘believe’, kam2-kak4-kong2 感覺講 ‘feel’, khuann3-kong2 看講 ‘see’,
khuann3-ba7-kong2 看覓講 ‘depend on’, thing3-kong2 聽講 ‘hearsay’ and so on.
I take some examples below.
(12)彼陣人就相信講伊得講的，
Hit4 tin7 lang5 tsiu7 siong1-sin3 kong2 i1 teh8 kong2 e5
That group people Adv believe KONG2 3sg Asp say Pt
That group of people believes that what he says
攏有影就著啊啦
long2 u7-iann2 tsiu7 tioh8 a2 lah8
all true Adv Asp Pt Pt
is all true.
(13)人想講你是妖怪啊，啥人麼驚。」
lang5 siunn7 kong2 li2 si7 iau1-kuai3 a2，siann2 lang5 ma7 kiann1
person think Comp 2sg be hobgoblin Pt any person also fear
People think that you are hobgoblin, and everyone fears you.
(14)伊才知影講 in 大姊去予伊食去啊。
I1 tsaih8 tsai1-iann2 kong2 in1 tua7 tsi2 khi3 hoo7 i1 tsaih8 khi3 a2
3sg until realize Comp 3sg big sister go Pass 3sg eat go Pt
75
He realizes that his elder sister is eaten by her.
4.3.1.3 ‘Say’ predicates
In Cheng’s (1997) revised paper, he adds a new classification of
Kong2—quotative which does not show in his paper of 1994. He proposes that
quotative Kong2 is preceded by the verbs of saying, like kio3 叫 ‘call’, mng7 問
‘ask’, ing3 應 ‘answer’ and so forth. However, I still put this kind of Kong2,
following the matrix verbs of saying, as a complementizer rather than a quotative
because its function is the same as other kinds of matrix verbs with Kong2 that can
introduce the following sentence as a complement marker.
This kind of preceding verbs collocating with the complementizer Kong2 has
an identical character that they are verbs of saying, such as kio3-kong2 叫講 ‘shout’,
po3-ko3-kong2 報告講 ‘report’, mng7-kong2 問講 ‘ask’, hat4-kong2 喝講 ‘shout’,
liam7-kong2 唸講 ‘murmur’, phian3-kong2 騙講 ‘cheat by saying’, ma7-kong2 罵
講 ‘blame’, tsha2-kong2 吵講 ‘quarrel’, the5-gi7-kong2 提議講 ‘advise’, ho7
kong2/ho7-tsue3-
kong2 號講/號做講 ‘name’, tsau3 kong2/pin2-tsau3-kong2 奏講/稟奏講 ‘report’,
and so on. There are some examples below in instances (15), (16) and (17).
(15)啊家己唸講來去總著死，
a2 ka1-ki7 liam7 kong2 lai5 khi3 chong1-tioh8 si2，
Pt himself murmur KONG2 come go in the long run die
76
He murmurs that I will die in the long run,
(16)自安呢才去報告講是 in1 翁刣死 in1 某。

Tsu7 an2-ni1 tsaih8 khi3 po3-ko3 kong2 si7 in1 ang1 thai si2 in1 boo2
from so until go report KONG2 be 3sg husband kill death 3sg wife
From then on, he reports that her husband kills his wife.
(17)啊！我想講卜騙人，
a2 gua5 siunn7 kong2 poh8 phian3 lang5，
Pt 1sg think KONG2 want take advantage of person
I want to take advantage of that boy;
煞問講我有令尊無。
Suah8 mng7 kong2 gua5 u7 ling7-tsun1 bo5
however ask KONG2 me have father Neg
however he asks me if I have a father or not.
4.3.1.4 ‘Speech act’ predicates
Speech act predicates are a kind of verbs or adverbs when you say something
you do something in the meantime (Levinson 2000). Austin (1962) puts them into
three categories: the locutionary act, the illocutionary act, and the perlocutionary act.
First one is the act of saying something, and second one is an act in saying something,
and final one is by saying something and doing something, the speaker really did
something.
The central act focused by Austin is the illocutionary act which is assorted into
five categories: verdictive, exercitive, commissives, behabitive, and explosive. But
Searl (1969) separates the illocutionary act into four types: assertives, directives,
commissives, expressives, and declaration. In this paper, I follow the classification of
77
the illocutionary act proposed by Searl which is much clearer in its meaning of
classification. Next would be my analyses.
i. Assertives
It is the speaker’s belief to the factualness of the proposition, including truth or
false condition, like tsing3-sit8-kong2 證實講 ‘prove’, huat-hian7-kong2 發現講
‘find’, liau2-kai2-kong2 了解講 ‘realize’, siong1-sin3-kong2 相信講 ‘believe’,
tng1-tsue3-kong2 當做講 ‘take as’, and so on. I take some examples here:
(18)啊三日了後來，若會發根，
A2 san1 jit8 liau2 au7 lai5 na7 e5 huat4 kun1
Pt three day Asp after come if Mdl bud root
three days later, if it would bud on the ground,
啊就證實講這塊是吉地，
a2 tsiu7 tsing3-sit8-kong2 tsit4-te3 si7 kiat4 te7
Pt Adv prove KONG2 this Cl be good land
then I can prove that it is a good land.
(19)信講 in 某是歹查某。in 先生
sin3 kong2 in1 boo2 si7 phainn1 tsa1-boo2 in1 sian1-sinn1
believe KONG2 3sg wife be bad woman 3sg husband
He believes that his wife is a bad woman, so her husband
就無共拍著驚，擱再去彼一日，
tsiu7 bo5 ka7 phah8 tioh8-kiann1 kho3 tsai3 khi3 hit4 tsit8 jit8
Adv Neg Obl beat frighten also again go that one Cl
does not disturb her. That day, he goes again…
ii. Directives
The speaker is trying to make the listener do something, but the attitude can be
strong or smooth. There are some possibility like kau1-tai7 kong2 交代/交待講‘leave
words’, tsi2-tiam2 kong2 指點講‘instruct’, tshing2 kong2 請講 ‘please’, kik4 kong2 激
78
講 ‘defy’, tho2 kong2 討講 ‘ask for’, tsham1-siong5 kong2 參詳講 ‘discuss’, tan2
kong2 等講‘wait’, and so on.
(20)阮老父有交待講袂使得失人客，
Gun2 lau2 pe7 u7 kau1-tai7 kong2 bue7 sai2 tik4-sit4 lang5-kheh8
1pl old father have instruct KONG2 Neg make offend customer
My father instructs me not to offend our customer.
(21)老父指點講叫咱著去叫一個和尚
Lau2 pe7 tsi2-tiam2 kong2 kio3 lan2 tioh8 khi3 kio3 tsit4 e5 he5-siun7
old father instruct KONG2 call 1pl Asp go call one Cl monk
My father instructs us to find a monk.
iii. Commissives
The speaker will take the responsibility to do something; in other words, it is a
that the subject promises the object to do something for the object. That is, the subject
of the main verb is the same as the subject of the complement clause, such as
tah8-ing3 kong2 答應講 ‘promise.’
(22)in1 細姑仔擱好心答應講好！
In1 se3 koo1-a2 kho3 ho2-sim1 tah8-ing3 kong2 ho2
3sg little sister-in-law also kindly promise Kong2 ok
His sister-in-law promises kindly.
iv. Expressives
This kind of construction is to express the mental state of the speaker,
including goo7-hue7 kong2 誤會講 ‘misunderstand’, kam2-sia7 kong2 感謝講
‘appreciate’, hi1-bang7 kong2 希望講 ‘hope’, pai3-thok4 kong2 拜託講 ‘request’,
bang7-kinn3 kong2 夢見講‘dream’, ue7-hiau2 kong2 會曉講 ‘know’, and so forth.
(23)IN 日本人誤會講得共行禮、
in1 jit8-pun2 lang5 goo7-hue7 kong2 teh8 ka7 kiann5-le2
79
3pl Japan person misunderstand KONG2 Asp Obl salute
Japanese misunderstand that he salutes to them
共歡迎就著啦。
Ka7 hoan-geng tsiu7 tioh8 lah
Obl greet Adv Asp Pt
and welcome them.
(24)是卜拜託講號做爸爸、媽媽您啊，共我尋一个，
si7 poh8 pai3-thok4 kong2 ho7-tsue3 pa5pa5 ma2ma2 lin2 a2 ka7 gua5 tshe7 tsit4 e5
be want request KONG2 address father mother 2pl Pt Obl me find one Cl
I want to request you, my father and mother, to find a husband for me.
v. Declaration
People have conventional knowledge inside the declaration of speech act
predicates, because when they address a speech of declaration, they also promise that
the proposition is identical to the real world situation. However, I don’t find a fitting
instance in our corpus.
4.3.1.5 ‘Change of state’ predicates
The complementizer Kong2 also likes to show up with verbs which change
their original state into another state, like pian3-sing5 kong2/pian3 kong2 變成講/變
講 ‘change into’, pan7-loh8-khi3 kong2 辦落去講 ‘deal with’, khi3 khi2-lai5 kong2
企起來講 ‘stand up’, thiau3 loh8 kong2 跳落講 ‘jump’, hian1 khi2-lai5 kong2 掀起
來講 ‘take up’, uann7-lai5 kong2 換來講 ‘exchange’, phah8 kong2 拍講 ‘beat’,
tshe7 kong2 尋講 ‘search’, and so on.
80
(25)變成講你若卜出好子孫啦呼，
pian-seng kong2 li na poh8 chhut ho chu-sun lah ho
become KONG2 2sg if want produce good descendent Pt Pt
it becomes that if you want to have good descendents,…
(26)拍講伊袂生安呢。
Phah8 kong2 i1 bue7 sing1 an2-ni1
Beat KONG2 3sg Neg give birth so
He beats her that she can not give birth to a child.
(27)一辦落去講煞攏袂記哩啊，
tsit4 pan7 loh8 khi3 kong2 suah8 long2 bue7 ki3 li a2
one deal drop go KONG2 Adv all Neg remember Pt Pt
Once dealing with trifles, he does not remember at all…
4.3.1.6 State predicates
Besides the change of state verb, the complementizer Kong2 will coexist with
state verb, such as khun3 kong2 睏講 ‘sleep’, sia2 kong2 寫講 ‘write’, tah8 kong2 貼
講 ‘paste’ and so forth. But some native speakers think that this kind of verb is not so
grammatical.
(28)棺柴寫講卜 tue2 彭祖。

Kuann1-tsha5 sia2 kong2 poh8 tue2 phinn5-tsoo2
coffin write KONG2 want pack Nam
The coffin is written with some words-pack Phen-cho
(29)啊就睏講安呢一尾彼號金龍安呢呼，
a2 tsiu7 khun3 kong2 an2-ni1 tsit4 boe8 hit4 ho7 kim1 bue2 liong5 an2-ni1 hoo7
Pt Adv sleep KONG2 so one Cl that Cl golden dragon so Pt
He sleeps and dreams that one golden dragon
共旋對尻脊骿，
ka7 suan1 tui3 kha1-chiah8-phiann1
Obl slip into back
slips into his back
81
4.3.1.7 Other predicates
The matrix verbs preceding the complementizer Kong2 which I can not put
them into any type are in the classification of other predicates, like tsainn5-si7 kong2
成實講 ‘fair’, ke2 kong2 假講 ‘pretend’, m7 thang3 kong2 毋通講 ‘should not be
that’, tsiunn7 kong2 像講 ‘be like’, and so forth.
(30)像講較早的人
tsiunn7 kong2 khah8 tsa2 e5 lang5
like KONG2 more early Pt person
Like people in the early stage,…
(31)啊伊成實講明仔載卜送定兼娶新娘。
A2 i1 tsainn5-si7 kong2 bin5-a2-tsai3 poh8 sang3-tiann7 kiam1 tshua7 sin1-niu5
Pt 3sg really KONG2 tomorrow want present betrothal gifts and marry bride
He really wants to present betrothal gifts and marry the bride.
4.3.2 Syntactic analysis
The above analysis is only a semantic one, so I also use Tsao’s (1996) research
as a model to analyze the matrix verbs preceding the complementizer Kong2 in a
syntactic analysis; moreover I collocate with the framework of Framenet (Fillmore,
Johnson, and Petruck 2003) that Lien (2005a) also applies in his paper to explore the
polysemous kio3 in the Jia-jing edition of Li Jing Ji (1522-1566 AD), a Ming script of
play written in a mixture of Quanzhou and Zhangzhou varieties of Southern Min, as
illustrated below:
I. Communication frame: delivering some message to people
82
i. Sound-making frame: uttering sound
ii. Target-oriented frame: as a quotative marker
iii. Reported speech frame: hearsay from the third person
II. Counterfactive frame: counter to one’s expectation
III. Name conferral frame: giving a name or denominate
IV. Causation frame: being a causative verb
Each frame may have a list of roles such as speaker, addressee, message, topic,
medium, and code in the framework of frame semantics (Johnson and Fillmore 2000),
and it is no need to use every role in each of the above frames. Lien (2005a) proposes
that the communication frame marking Kio3 consists of the main frame in a family of
related frames with other relationship such as counterfactive frame, name conferral
frame and causation frame. I find that there is a correlative relationship between the
situation of Kio3 in Ming Dynasty and the situation of Kong2 in modern Taiwanese
Southern Min. That is to say, Kio3 叫 is replaced by Kong2 in modern TSM rather
than replaced by She 說 or Tann 談, but Kong2 can not be construed as a conflation of
cause while Kio3 can.
I also use the construction grammar (Fillmore et al 1988) as a main frame to
form this part of our thesis accompanying with the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic
properties of constructions. The original sense of Kong2 denoting ‘say’ which
83
gradually grammaticalizes into a marker to introduce the complement clause as a
complementizer. The latter instances introduced by the complementizer Kong2 all
belong to indirect speeches while the direct talks are along with the verb of saying
Kong2, not a complementizer.
Since the complementizer Kong2 can only introduce the clausal complement, I
propose that there is a clear distribution in Tsao’s (1996) model of verbal
classifications in Taiwanese Southern Min that some kinds of constructions of the
matrix verb are grammatical with the complementizer Kong2 while the other
constructions are ungrammatical with the complementizer Kong2. The basic
framework is that the matrix verb preceding a complementizer Kong2 can only be
two-argument predicates or three-argument predicates, so one-argument predicates are
not possible showing in the construction of a matrix verb with a complementizer
Kong2, say, state verbs, action verbs, ergative verbs, weather verbs, raising verbs7,
and frequency verbs, because these verbal types are intransitive predicates. Besides,
the example of the type of four-argument predicates is too little, so I try to give a
reasonable explanation that four-argument predicates is also ungrammatical when it
was inserted a complementizer Kong2.
7
‘Raising verb’ is a one-argument verb, notably seem and appear, which allow not only non-finite
clausal argument but also finite clausal argument (Adger 2003).
84
If the matrix verb is a two-argument predicate, then one argument is a subject
and the other argument is a clausal complement. If the matrix verb is a three-argument
predicate, then there are two kinds of possibilities: firstly, the first one argument is a
subject, the second one is an oblique object, and the final one is a clausal complement.
Secondly, the first argument is a subject, the second one is an object, and the final one
is a clausal complement. The difference between these two possibilities is whether the
speaker uses an ‘oblique’ to prepose an oblique object or not.
Tsao (1996) follows Her’s (1990) theory and rectifies the shortcomings of Her
to set a new model to classify the Mandarin verbs and the TSM verbs. There are
fourteen categories of verbs in TSM which are introduced below.
I. One-argument predicates
i. 〈S + V〉
ii. 〈CComp (Raising verb) 〉
II. Two-argument predicates
iii. 〈→S + Oblique + OblO + V〉
iv. 〈S + V + O〉
v. 〈S (Location) + V + NComp〉
vi. 〈S + V +Obl +OblO (Loc) 〉
vii. 〈S + V + NComp〉
85
viii. 〈S + V + CComp (SComp/XComp)〉
III. Three-argument predicates
ix. 〈S + Obl + OblO + V + O〉
x. 〈S + V + O + Obl + OblO (Loc) 〉
xi. 〈S + V + DO+ IO〉
xii. 〈S + V + O + CComp (XComp) 〉
xiii. 〈S + Obl + OblO + V + CComp (SComp) 〉
IV. Four-argument predicates
xiv. 〈S + Obl + OblO + V + O + CComp (SComp) 〉
In these fourteen types, I find that only six types are grammatical when I add
a complementizer Kong2 after a matrix verb to introduce a clausal complement. They
are construction (iii), (iv), (viii), (ix), (xii), and (xii). It is also grammatical to add
Kong2 after a verb in construction (vii) which has one kind of verb named equational
verbs; however, this Kong2 does not function as a complementizer, but rather like an
adverb because it connects a nominal complement not a clausal complement. In the
remaining seven groups (i), (ii), (v), (vi), (x), (xi), (xiv) it is grammatical to tag on to a
complementizer Kong2 after a verb which can connect a sentential clause. The point
that I would like to make is given in the following chart.
86
Chart three: Constructions with the complementizer Kong2
Previous stage Following stage
V V K (K: Complementizer Kong2)
◇ Two-argument
iv. 〈S + V + O iv’. S + V K +CComp〉 Two-
viii.〈S + V + CComp viii’. S + V K + CComp SComp argument
XComp〉 predicates
iii. 〈S + Oblique + OblO + V iii’. S + Obl + OblO+ V K+ CComp〉
◇ Three-argument Three-
ix.〈S + Obl + OblO + V + O ix’. S + Obl + OblO + V K+ CComp〉 argument
xii. 〈S + V + O + C(X)Comp xii’. S + V K + O + XComp (S=PRO) predicates
xiii. 〈S + Obl + OblO xiii’. S + Obl + OblO
+ V + C(S)Comp + V K + SComp〉
87
The sentential complement abbreviated as CComp has two kinds of
complement; one is a non-finite sentence abbreviated as XCOMP and the other is a
finite sentence abbreviated as SCOMP. The subject of the finite sentence is an
optional subject, and the subject of the nonfinite sentence is “PRO” that can be a
subject-controlled or an object-controlled depending on the subcategorization of
verbal types.
I discover several interesting phenomena. In the first step, when I go over this
chart, I find that adding a complementizer Kong2 after the matrix verb will generate a
new argument, a sentential complement, which makes a two-argument transitive
predicate into a three-argument predicate, as in the construction (iii) S + Oblique +
OblO + V changing into (iii’) S + Obl + OblO+ V K+ CComp. For this kind of
transitive predicates it is easily to prepose the object as an oblique object.
Second, it is grammatical to insert Kong2 as a verbal complementizer to a
simple construction of (iv) S + Vt +O (Vt: transitive verb) which turns the object into
clausal complement, but it is ungrammatical to insert a verbal complementizer to the
construction (i) S + Vi (Vi: intransitive verb), (ii) CComp (Raising verb) and a
subcategorized construction S + O +Vt of the construction (iv) that the object must be
preposed. That is because an intransitive predicate is not allowed to connect a phrase.
Thus, there is no place for a complementizer to introduce a clausal complement. A
88
subcategorized construction S + O +Vt is also not allowed in that if I want to prepose
the object, I need an oblique to be with it.
Third, if a predicate of the construction is followed by a nominal complement,
say, the construction (v) S (Loc) + V + NComp and the construction (vii) S + V +
NComp, they are ungrammatical types after inserting a verbal complementizer Kong2,
but if a predicate of the construction is followed by a sentential complement, say, the
construction (viii) S + V + CComp(finite clausal subject or infinitive clausal subject),
it is a grammatical construction after inserting a verbal complementizer Kong2.
Fourth, if a predicate of the construction is followed by an oblique and an
oblique object complement, and the theta role of the oblique object is ‘location’, then
it is not grammatical to insert a verbal complementizer Kong2, as in the construction
(vi) S + V + Obl + OblO (Location) and the construction (x) S + V + O + Obl + OblO
(Location). However, it is grammatical to add Kong2 as a verbal complementizer, as
the object is preposed by an oblique, as in the construction (iii) S + Obl + OblO + V,
the construction (ix) S + Obl + OblO + V + O and the construction (xiii) S + Obl +
OblO + V + CComp (SComp).
Fifth, it is ungrammatical to insert a verbal complementizer into the
construction of a complex object (double objects), as in the construction (xi) S + V +
DO+ IO and the construction (xiv) S + Obl + OblO + V + O + CComp (SComp). It
89
seems that there is a counter example to our observation, as in (xii) S + V + O +
CComp (XComp), which has a complex object while it is still grammatical. Let me
elaborate on it a little bit. The subject of the sentential complement is the same as the
object of the main verb. It is necessary to delete this clausal subject marked as ‘PRO’
to be a substitution of an omitted object-controlled subject. Due to the omission of the
object-controlled subject of the sentential complement, after I insert a verbal
complementizer Kong2 introducing a sentential complement, the object of the main
verb will be coerced as a subject of the sentential complement rather than taking it as
an object.
Now I will give real examples of each type in detail which are all culled from
the corpus.
4.3.2.1 Two-argument predicates
Two-argument predicates are transitive verbs carrying one object and we know
the basic form of this construction is S+V+O.
I. (iv) S + V + O → (iv’) S + V K +CComp
In this construction, if the object is the same cognate or range with its verb
(often a compound now), such as sue2-sing1-khu1 洗身軀 ‘take a bath’, tsaih8-png1
食飯 ‘eat’, tshiunn3-kua1 唱歌 ‘sing a song’, then it is ungrammatical to insert a
90
complementizer Kong2 as a connective. So the grammatical predicates that can
co-occur with Kong2 are bue7 kong2 賣講 ‘sell’, phah8 kong2 拍講 ‘beat’, sia2
kong2 寫講 ‘write’, lai5 kong2 來講 ‘come’ and so forth.
(32)拍講伊袂生安呢。
Phah8 kong2 i1 bue7 sing1 an2-ni1
Beat KONG2 3sg Neg give birth so
He beats her that she can not give birth to a child.
II. (viii) S + V + CComp → (viii’) S + V K + CComp
A clausal complement includes non-finite clause (XComp) and finite clause
(SComp). The subject of the former nonfinite clause is a deleted PRO which can not
appear in the sentence while the subject of the latter finite clause is an optional subject.
Adger (2003) proposes that PRO is a null element receiving a theta role from the verb
in the non-finite clause, and this whole clause then gets a theta role from the matrix
verb.
A. Non-finite sentence: ing1-kai1 kong2 應該講 ‘should’, ue7 sai2 kong2 會使講
‘can’, bue7 sai2 kong2 袂使講 ‘can not’, ue7 tang2 kong2 會當講 ‘can’, bue7
tang2 kong2 袂當講 ‘can not’, thang3 kong2 通講 ‘can’, ue7 hiau2 kong2 會曉講
‘know’, bue7 hiau2 kong2 袂曉講 ‘do not know’, kam1-guan7 kong2 甘願講
‘would rather’, pinn3-tsue3 kong2 變做講 ‘change into’, pinn3 kong2 變講
‘change’, ….
91
(33)過去應該講愛幾個月啦，
Ke3-khi3 ing1-kai1 kong2 ai3 kui2 ko3 geh8 lah8
go should KONG2 need several Cl month Pt
It should need several months to go there,
過去愛三個月啦。
Ke3-khi3 ai3 sam1 ko3 geh8 lah8
go need three Cl month Pt
It needs several months to go there.( 6.60.2)
(34)逐个亦毋敢講提起這个紅嬰仔的代誌啦呼。
Tiok8 e5 ia7 m7 kan2 kong2 the5-khi2 tsit4 e5 ang5-inn1-a2 e5 tai7-tsi3 lah8 hoo7
Every Cl also Neg dare KONG2 mention this Cl baby Pt event Pt Pt
Everybody does not dare to mention the baby, either.
B. Finite sentence: huat4-hiaan7-kong2 發現講 ‘to find’, po2-tsing3-kong2 保證講
‘promise’, tsai1-iann2-kong2 知影講 ‘to know’, siong1-sin3-kong2 相信講 ‘to
believe’, kam2-kak4-kong2 感覺講 ‘to feel’, kam1-guan7 kong2 甘願講 ‘would
rather’, jin7-ui5-kong2 認為講 ‘to think’, siunn7-kong2 想講(‘認為’) ‘to think’,
huann1-hi2-kong2 歡喜講 ‘happy’, tshio3-kong2 笑講 ‘laugh at’, thing3-kong2 聽
講‘hearsay’ .
(35)伊才知影講 in 大姊去予伊食去啊。
I1 tsaih8 tsai1-iann2 kong2 in1 tua7-tsi2 khi3 hoo7 i1 tsaih8 khi3 a2

3sg until realize KONG2 3sg old sister go Pass 3sg eat go Pt
He realizes that his elder sister is eaten by her.
(36) )彼陣人就相信講伊得講的，
Hit4 tin7 lang5 tsiu7 siong1-sin3 kong2 i1 teh8 kong2 e5
That group people Adv believe KONG2 3sg Asp say Pt
That group of people believes that what he says
攏有影就著啊啦
long2 u7-iann2 tsiu7 tioh8 a2 lah8
all true Adv Asp Pt Pt
is all true.
92
(37)啊得看講佗一个查甫安呢呼
a2 teh8 khuann3-kong2 tah8 tsit4-e5 tsa1-poo1 an2-ni1 hoo7
Pt TS see which one CL boy so P
‘She is watching which boy is the one.’(7.236.06)
III. (xii) S + V + O + C(X)Comp → (xii’) S + V K + O + XComp (S=PRO)
In this construction, the original construction is a transitive verb with an object
(SVO), and after adding the complementizer Kong2 onto the main verb, the object of
the main sentence will become the subject of the subordinate sentence, like kau1-tai7
kong2 交待講/交代講 ‘leave words.’ In example (38), this sentence is originally “my
father instructs me and I cannot offend our customer,” but after adding Kong2, the
object of the main sentence will also become the subject of the subordinate sentence.
(38)阮老父有交待講袂使得失人客，
Gun2 lau2 pe7 u7 kau1-tai7 kong2 bue7 sai2 tik4-sit4 lang5-kheh8
1pl old father have instruct KONG2 Neg make offend customer
My father instructs me not to offend our customer.
4.3.2.2 Three-argument predicates
Three-argument predicates mean that these predicates are ditransitive verbs
carrying a direct object and an indirect object.
IV. (iii) S + Oblique + OblO + V → (iii’) S + Obl + OblO+ V K+ CComp
In this construction, the object can be easily preposed before the verb, and this
kind of construction is often found in Taiwanese Southern Min. The oblique case can
be expressed by prepositions such as ham 含‘with’, kah ‘with’, tui 對‘to’ and so forth,
93
while the preceding predicates would be tshio3-kong2 笑講‘laugh at’, pi2-kong2 比講
‘point’, an-ui3 kong2 安慰講 ‘console’ and so on. The example (39) preposes the
object by an oblique 共 and the example (40) also preposes the object 伊 by the
oblique 共..
(39)卜共伊恥笑講伊真細漢就著啦
poh8 ka7 i1 thi2- tshio3 kong2 i1 tsin1 se3-han3 tsioh8 tioh8 lah8
want Obl 3sg laugh at KONG2 3sg very short Adv Asp Pt
He wants to laugh at him for being so short.
(40)共伊比比咧比講：死啊，死啊。
Ka7 i1 pi2 pi2 le pi2 kong2 si2 a2 si2 a2
Obl 3sg point point Pt pointKONG2 dead Pt dead Pt
He points to those sheep with a hand gesture that you are dead, you are dead.
V. (ix) S + Obl + OblO + V + O → (ix’) S + Obl + OblO + V K+ CComp
In Taiwanese Southern Min, it is easy to prepose the indirect object, human
beings, before the predicate, like predicates mng7-kong2 問講 ‘ask’,
sann1-su1-kong2 相輸講 ‘bet’, kai2-suik-kong2 解釋講 ‘explain’, po3-ko3-kong2 報
告講 ‘report’, phian3-kong2 騙講 ‘cheat’. this construction S + V + Comp + IO+ DO
is ungrammatical in TSM.
(41)「啊伊共我騙講伊無娶某、無生子。」
a2 i1 ka7 gua2 phian3 kong2 i1 bo5 tshua7 boo2 bo5 sinn1 kiann2
Pt 3sg Obl 1sg cheat KONG2 3sg Neg marry wife Neg give birth child
He cheats me that he does not marry and has no child.( 27.136.57)
94
VI. (xiii) S + Obl + OblO+ V + C(S)Comp
→ (xiii’) S + Obl + OblO + V K + SComp〉
This construction is similar with the above construction because the predicate
is a transitive one but the main verb subcategories a CP in this construction, as in
mng7-kong2 問講 ‘to ask’, sann1-su1-kong2 相輸講 ‘to bet’, po3-ko3-kong2 報告講
‘to report’, while the above construction connects a NP. Thus, the construction would
be the same after adding the complementizer Kong2 because Kong2 only carries
clausal complement.
(42)共問講情形到底是安怎、
ka7 mng7 kong2 tsing5-hing5 tau3-te2 si7 an1-tsuann2
Obl ask KONG2 situation to the end be what’s wrong
He asks exactly what the situation is..
(43)伊共相輸講伊彼隻狗有才調犁園啦
i1 ka7 sann1-su1-kong2 i1 hit4 tsiah8 kau2 u7 tsai5-tiau7 le5 hng5 lah8
3sg Obl bet that 3sg that Cl dog have ability furrow field Pt
He bets that his dog can till the land.
4.4 Evidentials as expressed by the complementizer Kong2
In this paper, I am curious about the evidentials in Taiwanese Southern Min.
“Evidentials” are one kind of morphemes that a speaker uses to express how he or she
gets the information. Different languages have different ways to show their
understanding from the world. The evidentials of some languages show up as a suffix
form in each sentence. If there is no suffix form of evidentials, then it would be a
95
direct experience, like Makah, a language spoken by an American Indian tribe.
Besides, there are some languages using a clitic or an affix to show its
source-based origin, such as Quachua, a language spoken in Inca in South America,
and Tuyuca, a language spoken in South America. Some languages, say Macedonian
and Bulgarian, express their speakers’ attitude, such as certainty, confirmation and
commitment, as an evidential. A language like Lhasa Tibetan famous for its
evidentiality uses tense/aspect, person, intentionality and volitionality in sentences as
evidentials. In Taiwanese Southern Min, I use some morpheme to express the
evidentiality, such as na7-si7 若是 ‘if’, khuann3-khi2-lai5 看起來 ‘look like’,
thing3-khi2-lai5 聽起來 ‘sound like’, e5-khuan2 的款 ‘possible’, kan1-na7 干若 ‘if’,
thing3-kong2 聽講 ‘hearsay’, khak4-ting7-kong2 確定講 ‘certainly’ and so forth. I
mainly discuss what is involved when Kong2 is used to denote evidentials.
The construction with the complementizer Kong2 following a matrix verb
which can introduce a clausal complement is rather productive in TSM compared with
Mandarin and Cantonese (Cheng 1997, Chang 1998, Chang 2001, Lien 2005a, Yeung
2006). There is another arrangement to analyze these matrix verbs that co-occur with
the complementizer Kong2 in TSM. Thus, I could use evidentials to show the kind of
justification from a person’s point of view to make a factual claim.
Chafe (1986) defines “evidentials” as five groups: direct evidence with
96
objective observation (no need to infer), evidence with inference, inference (with
unclear evidence), a reasonable expectation due to logic or other facts, or hearing or
visual evidence. People describe things with evidentials to show how they get
messages in what way. In addition, this is named as “epistemological stance.” Types
of epistemological stance proposed by Mushin (2001) are given below:
i. Personal experience: private states and perceptual experience, like emotions and
sensations.
ii. Inferential: information as inferred or deduced is based on some body of evidence.
iii. Reportive: information as acquired by virtue of what someone else has said.
iv. Factual: world truth.
v. Imaginative: fictional storyworld
I propose a new classification rectified from Chafe and Mushin and these six
groups will express the evidentiality of Kong2 in TSM.
4.4.1. Real fact
The factual and unchanged world truth is known by human beings without
further suspect. So I can give a speech from my own thoughts with evidential
expressions, such as su7-sit8-kong2 事實講 ‘the fact is that’, pun2-lai5
tsiu7-si7-kong2 本來就是講 ‘the fact is that’, u7-iann2-Kong2 有影講 ‘it is real that’,
97
bo5-iann2-kong2 無影講 ‘it is not real that’ and so on. Examples (44) and (45) are a
positive form and a negative form to express the evidentiality of the real fact.
(44)有影我實在無影講會安怎樣抵安怎樣，
u7-iann2 gua2 sit8-tsai7 bo5-iann2 kong2 ue7 an1-tsuann2 tu2 an1-tsuann2
real I really not real Kong2 will do so again do so
It is real that I will not do so.
(45) 啊伊成實有影講創一條帶仔呼
a2 i1 tsainn5-si7 u7-iann2 kong2 tshong3 tsit8 tiau5 tua3 a5 hoo7
Pt he really real Kong2 make one Cl band Pt
It is real that he makes a band.
4.4.2 Psych experience
I am talking about the psychological feeling of the speaker’s own thoughts. The
subject is the experiencer to undergo the process of an event, including 勇敢講
‘bravely’, huann1-hi2-kong2 歡喜講 ‘happily’, huan1-lo2-kong2 煩惱講 ‘worry
about’, kiann1-kong2 驚講 ‘fear’, phai2-se3-kong2 歹勢講 ‘embarrass.’ Thus, we
can see that example (46) denotes an experience with worry, example (47), an
experience with happiness, and example (48), an experience with embarrassment.
(46)實在毋是得睡，成實講，
Sit8-tsai7 m7 si7 teh8 khun3 tsainn5-si7 kong2
Truly not be asp sleep honestly say
‘Truly, he does not sleep. Honestly,
煩惱講這件事毋知卜安怎排解？
huan1-lo2 kong2 tsit4-kiann7 tai7-tsi3 m7 tsai1 poh8 an1-tsuann2 pai5-kai2
worry Kong2 this event not know want how solve
he worries about how to solve the problematic case’
(47)講安呢講歡喜講卜住新厝啊。
Kong2 an2-ni1 kong2 huann1-hi2 kong2 poh8 tua3 sin1 tshu3 a2
Pt so Pt be glad Kong2 want live new house Pt8
8
Chang (1998) mentions that there are lots of particle in TSM.
98
He is in high spirits that he is going to live in a new house.
(48)啊伊亦歹勢講安呢共趕伊走安呢啦。
A2 i1 ia7 phai2-se3 kong2 an2-ni1 ka7 kuann2 i1 tsau2 an2-ni1 lah8
Pt 3sg also feel embarrass KONG2 so Obl expel 3sg go so Pt
He is also embarrassed that he expels him.
4.4.3 Perceptual experience with inference
Sometimes, we get messages from the physical evidence; that is, from our own
sensory organs to capture the direct evidence, such as from seeing it
khuann3-khi2-lai5 看起來, from listening to it thing3-khi2-lai5 聽起來, from smelling
it phinn7-khi2-lai5 嚊起來, from tasting it tsiah8-khi2-lai5 食起來, and from touching
it bong1-khi2-lai5 摸起來. Examples are as follows: kam2-kak4-kong2 感覺講 ‘feel’,
kinn3-kong2 見講 ‘see’, khuann3-kong2 看講 ‘see’, khuann3-bai7-kong2 看覓講
‘depend on’ and so on. The example (49) is an inference made by the speaker through
his eyes.
(49)啊得看講佗一个查甫安呢呼
a2 teh8 khuann3-kong2 tah8 tsit4-e5 tsa1-poo1 an2-ni1 hoo7
Pt Ts see which one CL boy so P
‘She is watching which boy is the one.’
4.4.4 Inference which generates a counterfactual meaning
The speaker gets information from the direct and indirect evidence and adds
his/her own opinion in an inferential way. Some of this kind of evidentials will
99
change into a counterfactual meaning and takes on an opposite meaning in the
progress of semantic change, such jin7-ui5-kong2 認為講 ‘think’, siunn7-kong2 想
講 ‘think’, siong1-sin3-kong2 相信講 ‘believe’, kio3-si7-kong2 叫是講 ‘think’,
kio3-kong2 叫講 ‘think’ and so on. Cheng (1994, 1997) thinks that it is no
difference whether the complementizer Kong2 appears or not. His declaration is
true in most examples and the sentence does not change its surface meaning as we
insert a complementizer Kong2 to introduce a clausal complement, but I argue that
the absence of Kong2 and the attendance of Kong2 are different in the meaning of
the example (50) and (51) given below.
(50)人想講你是妖怪啊，啥人麼驚。」
lang5 siunn7 kong2 li3 si7 iau-kuai3 a2 siann2 lang5 mah8 kiann3 。」
person think KONG2 2sg be hobgoblin Pt which person all fear
People think that you are hobgoblin, and anyone will fear you.
(51)人叫講嘿是狗仔，人摃死。
Lang5 kio3 kong2 he1 si7 kau2-a2 lang5 kong2-si2
People shout KONG2 that be dog people bit to death
‘People suppose it is a dog and was beaten to death.
後來號做打狗。
Au7-lai5 ho7-tsue3 phah8-kau2
after that name ta-kau
Finally it is called taN-kau.’
4.4.5 Reportative speech
It is a gossip or rumor from the third person about what happens to someone
about something. When people use this group of morphemes or phrases, it means that
100
the speaker does not have assurance, as in thing3-kong2 聽講 ‘hearsay’, si7-kong2 是
講 ‘hearsay’, and so on. So this kind of experience such as example (52) is more
objective than other groups.
(52)主考官聽講是福建人，
tsu2-kho2-kuann1 thing3-kong2 si7 hok-kian3-lang5,
Proctor hearsay be Fukienese
‘People say that the proctor is a Fukienese,
佮考生同是福建人，
kah8 kho2-sing1 kang5 si7 hok-kian3-lang5
and examinee same be Fukienese
and the examinee is also a Fukienese.’
4.4.6 Imagination
The event is not real, only imaged by someone’s fancy thoughts, like
siunn7-kong2 想講 ‘image’, bin5-bang7-kong2 暝夢講 ‘dream.’
(53) 我昨暗暝夢講 in1 彼的

Gua5 tsa7-am3 bin5-bang7 kong2 in1 hit4 e5
1sg yesterday night dream Kong2 they that
I dreamed yesterday that they
攏共咱運錢來得予咱啊。
long2ka7 lan2 un7 tsinn5 lai5 teh8 hoo7 lan2 a2
all Obl we transit money come Ts give us Pt
all transit money to us.
All the above conform to what Chafe (1986) says that there are a narrow
definition and a broad interpretation which restricts evidential meaning to
specification of types of source of information or reflects speaker’s attitudes towards
knowledge. In addition, Mushin (2001) proposes a deictic centre theory; hence I could
101
model the consequences from shifting deixis out of the here/now, I/you of face-to-face
interaction into the purely textual realm of fiction.
I could also rely on a deictic word as a clue to know the evidentiality. If I
quote somebody’s word as a first person pronoun, then it is a direct citation of
someone’s words, but if I use a third person pronoun, then it is apparently a
transcription of their speech in our viewpoint.
4.5 Summary
In section 4.1, I talk about Kong2 of its productive meaning and syntactic uses.
In section 4.2, I find that the meaning and uses of the complementizer Kong2 is the
same as English ‘that’ and ‘if/whether’ when Kong2 is declarative sentence or in
interrogative sentence. In section 4.3, I mainly discuss the semantic and syntactic
analyses of the complementizer Kong2. It can co-occur with many verbs, but only
‘psych’ predicates, ‘cognition’ predicates, ‘say’ predicates, ‘speech act’ predicates,
‘change of state’ predicates, and other predicates are grammatical in semantic analysis.
In syntactic analysis, the constructions with the complementizer Kong2 are
grammatical in three constructions of S + VK +CComp, S + Obl + OblO+ VK+
CComp, and S + VK + O + XComp. Besides, I also tackle the evidentiality of
complementizer Kong2 in section 4.4.
102
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
5.1 Concluding remarks
In this thesis, I mainly explore the multifunction of polysemous Kong2 in
syntactic, semantic and even pragmatic analyses in Taiwanese Southern Min. In
chapter one, I touch on some finding regarding TSM Kong2, and introduce the
translation system that I used in my study. In chapter two, I give a literature review of
previous works. Kong2 is originally a verb of saying, but as time goes by; it is
grammaticalized into other parts of speech and broadens its meaning in the mean
time.
In chapter three, I continue to introduce all parts of speech to which Kong2
belongs. They are verbs, complementizers, adverbs, and particles in syntax and even a
discourse marker in different context in pragmatics. In terms of constructional types
Kong2 can function as an intransitive, transitive or ditransitive verb, and its semantic
meanings are telling, mentioning, reaching, criticizing/blaming, advising and quoting.
As for its adverbial function, it is not a common VP adverb, but a proposional adverb
ranging over the whole sentence.
As a particle Kong2 shows up in the sentence-final position and takes on the
103
value of high-level tone. Furthermore, it grammaticalizes into a discourse marker and
functions as a connective linking sentences or discourses. It is evident that Kong2
grammaticalizes from verb to other parts of speech while the verbal function is still
working now.
According to my study, the complementizer Kong2 is the most important part
that needs to be discussed, so a whole chapter is devoted to doing full justice to it.
TSM Kong2 is a more productive complementizer than its counterparts Shuo1 and
Waa6 in Mandarin and Cantonese in that it can co-occur with a greater number of
predicates.
On the other hand, the meanings of the complementizer Kong2 is the same as
‘that’ or ‘if/whether’ in English when it occurs in a declarative sentence or an
interrogative sentence. Besides, I propose the semantic and syntactic analyses of the
complementizer Kong2. Semantically, kong2 can co-occur with many predicates
including ‘psych’ predicates, ‘cognition’ predicates, ‘say’ predicates, ‘speech act’
predicates, ‘change of state’ predicates, among others. Syntactically, the
complementizer Kong2 fits the constructions such as S + VK +CComp, S + Obl +
OblO+ VK+ CComp, and S + VK + O + XComp. Finally, in terms of evidentiality the
complementizer Kong2 can represent how we get information from various sources.
104
5.2 Contributions of this thesis
The verbal use of the Kong2 is manifested both in its semantic and
constructional aspect. Thus, Kong2 can be a intransitive verb (S+Kong2 or S+ Adv+
Kong2), a transitive verb (S+Kong2+A or S+Kong2+M), or a ditransitive verb (S+對/
合/共+A+Kong2+M or S+Kong2+M+予+A 聽/知 or S+將+M+Kong2+予+A 聽/知).
Besides, I also introduce the conventional uses of verb Kong2, as shown in the two
constructions: S + Kong2 + NP and S +對 unidirection/共 unidirection/合 bidirection (AIO) +
Kong2+M DO.
Furthermore, the adverbial use of Kong2 denoting hearsay or out of
expectation is a propositional adverb adjoining to TP modifying the whole sentence
rather than a VP adverb adjoining to vP.
In addition to verbal and adverbial Kong2, I propose that the meaning and the
function of the complementizer Kong2 is the same as English complementizer ‘that’
or ‘if/whether.’ If the main clause is a declarative sentence, then the meaning and the
function of the complementizer Kong2 is ‘that.’ On the contrary, if it is an
interrogative sentence, then the meaning and the function of the complementizer
Kong2 works as ‘if/whether.’ An interesting finding is that Kong2 can introduce not
only the object clause, but also the subject clause. Besides, the constructions of the
complementizer Kong2 are only grammatical in S + VK +CComp, S + Obl + OblO+
105
VK+ CComp, and S + VK + O + XComp constructions.
5.3 Residual problems for further studies
In my thesis, I mainly focus on the construction of Kong2 no matter what
parts of speech it belongs to. What is more, my research probes into the multifunction
of Kong2 in syntactic, phonological, semantic and pragmatic perspective. In addition,
the whole picture of the process of grammaticalization of Kong2 has yet to be
constructed. Kong2, originally a verb of saying, transfers into a complementizer,
adverb, particle in syntax and even a discourse marker in pragmatics .It is evidently
clear that Kong2 undergoes a change from verb to complementizer.
For the issues that remain to be solved. I would like to mention two points.
First of all, it is hard to find out other evidence to prove the validity of
grammaticalization of Kong2. Linguistics has an empirical basis since linguists make
conclusions in terms of evidence rather than inference. Thus, there is still ample space
for people to work out a solution to this question. Besides, in view of the interesting
discovery that Kong2 in sentence-final position as a particle takes on the value of high
level tone Kong1, I venture that in the process of grammaticalization, the particle
Kong1 is possibly the end product of grammaticalization.
Secondly, the grammatical category of Kong2 is not so difficult to identify in
106
terms of its syntactic position and the context. In particular, if Kong2 appears in the
sentence-initial position then it could be a verb meaning ‘say’, an adverb meaning
‘hearsay or surprisingly’ which depends on the context. If Kong2 shows up in the final
position, it could be a sentence-final particle or a verb that ends up in the
sentence-final position. If it co-occurs with a conjunction, then it is clear that Kong2
functions as a discourse marker. If it occurs with a main predicate, then it is a
complementizer carrying a clausal complement. So we could decide the grammatical
function of Kong2 from the construction and the context in which it occurs. However,
there is a cloudy area that Kong2 could also coexist with a main verb as a serial-verb.
In this way, sometimes it is hard to tell if Kong2 works as a verb or a complementizer.
107
REFERENCES
Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Aikhenvald, A. IU. 2004. Evidentiality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chafe, Wallace L. and Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of
epistemology. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Chang, Jui-fen. 2001. Grammaticalization process reflected in Chinese lexemes Shuo
and Kan. MA thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Chang, Miao-Hsia.1998. The discourse functions of Taiwan Kong in relation to its
grammaticalization. Papers on Selected Papers from the Second International
Symposium on Languages in Taiwan, ed. by Huang, Shuanfan, 111-27. Taipei:
The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Chen, Chang-lai(陳昌來).2002. Siandai hanyu dongcih de jyufa yui shusing yanjiou.
Shanghai: Syuelin Press.
Chen, Aaron Hsin-Hua. 2007. The discourse functions of Chinese complementizer
Shuo. Handout presented at the National Conference in Linguistics, Taiwan.
Cheng, Robert L. (鄭良偉). 1994. 台語與台灣國語裡的子句結構標誌「講」與「看」.
第三屆第三屆世界華語文教學研討會論文集—理論與分析篇(上冊).49-71.台
北:世界華文出版社.
______. 1997.台語與台灣華語裡的子句結構標誌「講」與「看」.台、華語的接觸
與同意語的互動. 105-32.台北：遠流出版社.
Crabtree, M. and J. Powers. 1992. Language files. Columbus: the Ohio State
University Press. Taiwan: Bookman Books, LTC.
Crystal, D. 1997. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul, and O'Connor, Mary Kay. 1988. Regularity and
Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language 64:
501-538.
Fillmore, Charles J. & Paul Kay 1996. Construction Grammar. Manuscript,
University of California at Berkeley Department of linguistics.
Fillmore, CJ, CR Johnson and MRL Petruck. 2003. Background to Framenet.
International Journal of Lexicography. Oxford University Press.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and R. Jasperson. 1991. That-clauses and other complements.
Lingua 83: 137-153.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1995. A functional theory of complementizer. Modality in
Grammar and Discourse, ed. by J. Bybee and S. Fleischman, 473-502.
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Garrett, Edward John. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan.UCLA
Dissertation.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to
Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Vol. 7 No5: 219-224
Her, One Soon. 1990. Grammatical functions and verb subcategorization in Mandarin
Chinese. Taipei: the Crane Publishing Co.
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993, 2001.Grammaticalization.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Shuanfan. 1982. On the (almost perfect) identify of speech and
thought: Evidence from Chinese dialects. Paper presented at Fourteenth
International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics.
______________________. 2003. Doubts about complementation: a functionalist
analysis. Language and Linguistics 4.2. 429-455.
______________________.1998. The story of heads and tails—on a sequentially
sensitive lexicon. National Taiwan Univeristy working papers in Linguistics
1:75-98. Taipei: Nation Taiwan University.
Jakobson, Roman. 1987. Linguistics and Poetics. Roman Jakobson: Language in
Literature, ed. by Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy, 62-94. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997a. Twistin’ the night away. Language 73: 534-559.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997b. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional
Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, Cherry Ing. 1999. Utterance-final particles in Taiwanese: A discourse-pragmatic
analysis. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
___________. 2000.漢語研究中的語用面向.漢學研究 18.323-56.
Lien, Chinfa. 2001. Verbs of saying in Li Jing Ji.
__________. 2002. Interface between construction and lexical semantics: a case study
of the polysemous word kek4 激 and its congeners tin3, chng1 裝 and ke3 假
in Taiwanese Southern Min. Language and Linguistics 3: 569-588. (NSC
9-2411-H-007-050)
__________.2004. Li Jing Ji dongcih fenlei han dongsiang geshih.
__________. 2005. Families of Ditransitive Constructions in Li Jing Ji. Language and
Linguistics 6.4: 707-737.
__________ 2005a. The Polyfunctionality of Kio3 in Li Jing Ji: A Framenet-based
Approach. Paper presented at the New Direction in Cognitive Linguistics, Brighton,
UK.
__________.2005b.Minnan siwun Li Jing Ji ganshou dongcih ji ci jyushih de tantao.
Lien, Chinfa and Tseng, Ming-hua(連金發.曾明樺). 2006a.國科會計畫心理述語
Lien, Chinfa and Tseng, Ming-hua(連金發.曾明樺). 2006b.國科會計畫示證式
Lord, C.1976. Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: from verb to complementizer in Kwa.
Paper from the Parasession on diachronic syntax, ed. by S.B. Steever, C.A.
Walker, and S. S. Mufwene, 179-91.
Lu, Guang-cheng(盧廣誠).2003.台灣閩南語概要.台北:南天書局有限公司.
Lyu, Shu-siang(呂叔湘).1980.現代漢語八百詞.北京商務印書館
Mei, Kuang(梅廣).國語語法中的動詞組補語.屈萬里先生七秩榮慶論文集.
Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L'evolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia 12/26
(Milan). (Reprinted 1951, Linguistique historique et linguistique generale,
130-48. Paris: C. Klincksieck.)
Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and epistemological stance: narrative retelling.
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Ong Iok-tek(王育德). 2002. 台灣語常用語彙.台北：前衛出版社.
Ransom, Evelyn N. 1988. The grammaticalization of complementizers. BLS14:
367-74.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John. 1969. Speech act: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
__________. 1975. Indirect speech act. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by
Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 59-82. New York: Academic Press.
Talmy, L., 1985. Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In T.
Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol.3:
GrammaticalCategories and the Lexicon, 57-149. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsao, Feng-fu(曹逢甫).1996.台灣閩南語動詞分類研究.台灣閩南語概論講授資料
彙編.董忠司編.台北：台灣語文學會.
Wang, Y. F., A. Katz, and C. H. Chen. 2000. From “propositional” to “expressive”
meanings-shuo(‘say’) in Chinese BBS talk and conversation produced by young
people in Taiwan. Paper presented at the meeting of 7th ISCLL, Taiwan.
Yang, Su-Fen (楊素芬).2000. On Chinese psych verb Taiwan: MA thesis, National
Tsing Hua University.
Yeung, Ka-Wai(楊家慧).2006. On the Status of the Complementizer WAA6 in
Cantonese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 4.1.1-48.

曾明樺 探討台灣閩南語「講」的多功能性

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

曾明樺 探討台灣閩南語「講」的多功能性

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

國立清華大學

Taiwanese Southern Min ‘Kong2’

指導教授：連金發博士 Dr. Chinfa Lien

My thesis mainly explores the multifunction of polysemous Kong2 in

I use construction grammar and grammaticalization to analyze my data which

The complementizer Kong2 is the most important part in my thesis that it

1.1 Aims of this thesis

Kong2 is originally a verb of saying in Taiwanese Southern Min as well as others

pragmatics. The coding of grammatical aspects in terms of constructions is shown in

Kong2 originally a verb of saying developed the use of being a

Kong2 to discover its derivation in the history.

seldom appears in the formal written forms.

Furthermore, the phonetic transcription of Taiwanese Southern Min in the

thesis is based on the phonetic transcription of Taiwanese Southern Min

Romanization that Ministry of Education endorses as the official phonetic

of tone sandhi in TSM.

frameworks in the following sections.

1.3.1 Construction grammar

Construction grammar proposes that different constructions can express

different semantic meanings in sentences; that is to say, sentences which show up in

into account. In other words, it integrates form and meaning in often

non-compositional and non-conventionalized ways, so constructionists put emphasis

on linguistic observations about constructions as form-meaning pairings. Any

combination of syntactic, morphological, or prosodic patterns may be one part of

also be taken as a broad sense of ‘meaning.’

that constructions allow variance in size and complexity.

The French linguistic Antoine Meillet (1912), a pioneer of grammaticalization,

gives a well-known definition of the term “grammaticalization”- “the attribution of

grammatical character to an erstwhile autonomous word.” People can contend that

be “grammaticalized.” That is to say, grammaticalization is a process of semantic

the process of grammaticalization, a lexeme is often accompanied by phonological

reduction and semantic bleaching.

Moreover, there is a “cline of grammaticality;” that is, “content item >

grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix.” It appears to be a unidirectional

to a more grammatical word and finally becomes a morphological affix.

Grammaticalization can be understood in historical and synchronic

grammaticalization mainly as a syntactic, discourse pragmatic phenomenon from fluid

Hopper and Traugott (1993) propose that there is a grammatical process of

categories: major category (> adjective/adverb) > minor category. In a verb-to-affix

conjunction, adverbs, auxiliary verbs and demonstrative. There is an intermediate

Lord (1976) shows the verb meaning ‘say’ function as a complementizer in

The thesis is organized as follows. Chapter one would be a short introduction

touch on the syntactic history of the grammaticalization of Kong2. Chapter four

would be devoted to introducing the usage of the complementizer Kong2, including

residual problems for further research.

In this chapter, I will give a short introduction of some papers in connection

Section 2.2 addresses a cross-linguistic phenomenon—evidentials, which show how

2.1. A set of verbs of saying

function as a complementizer shown in a number of languages in Africa, Asia,

saying of its grammaticalization process in different languages.

2.1.1 Taiwanese Southern Min Kong2

2.1.1.1 Cheng, Robert L. (1994, 1997)

However, Cheng focuses his attention on Kong as a complement clause marker

or rather complemenizer. The complementizer Kong is like ‘that’ in English or ‘koto,’

mental state and functions as a complemenitiser to initiate clauses.

Khuann31 as two reflexes of 講, are in complementary distribution, in that the

complementizer Khuann3 can only be followed by the interrogative sentence.

Furthermore, Cheng takes the complementizer Shuo1 in Mandarin as a substitution of

manisfestation of Taiwanese Mandarin.

2.1.1.2 Chang, Miao-Hsia (1998)

semantic context. Besides, Kong2 will become a complementizer when it was

She unpacks Kong2 into four functions: complementizing function, the

When Kong2 serves as a complementizer, it can be preceded by mental verbs and

曾明樺探討台灣閩南語「講」的多功能性

曾明樺探討台灣閩南語「講」的多功能性