本研究旨在探討中文補語標記詞及言談標記詞「說」的言談功能。過去的文獻已證實在很多語言中，當使用不同的補語標記詞時，補語子句的解釋也會因而不同。以同樣的角度來說，本研究將藉由討論中文補語標記詞「說」的言談功能，我們試著指出，在面對面的口語談話中，中文補語標記詞「說」的出現與不出現的確會在言談的解讀上產生差異。本研究指出：當說話者使用補語標記詞「說」時，說話者的主要目的是想要營造「心理距離」（psychological distance），藉由心理距離的產生，說話者可達到預期的言談功能：標示說話者對於訊息來源的不確定性、降低說話者評價的主觀性以及維持對話間的禮貌原則。這些言談功能皆與面對面的對話情境有很大的相關性。
本研究發現中文補語標記詞「說」會與三大類的主要動詞共現：話語動詞（utterance verb）、認知動詞（cognition verb）以及其他一般動詞。當「說」與不同類動詞共現的時候，所表現的言談功能也略有不同。由於補語標記詞「說」衍生於話語動詞，因此它最常與話語動詞共同出現，而形成一個報導話語框架（reported speech frame）。語料指出「說」常出現在報導話語框架中來表示說話者對於訊息價值的不確定性，其不確定性來自於第三人稱的主要主詞，當消息來源為第三人稱，而非說話者本身時，說話者對於訊息價值便會產生不確定性，這樣的不確定性同時也表現在言談中其他一起共現的不確定話語。此外，「說」也常與認知動詞共現，組成報導思維框架（reported thought frame），在這樣的框架中，「說」的出現常為了表現出說話者想要降低自己評價主觀程度的意圖，或者是說話者想在解讀對話者意志時，維持對話間的禮貌。「說」的言談功能同樣也出現在一般的動詞框架中，雖然程度上不如前兩類動詞明顯，本研究發現，補語標記詞「說」的言談功能也開始在一般的動詞框架中出現。
本研究也指出，由於語用功能的相似，「說」不僅可以當作補語標記詞，同樣也可以當作言談標記詞與其他連接詞共現，而且也標記了言談功能。資料顯示，言談標記詞「說」最常與假設連接詞（conditional connective）共現，由於話語動詞「說」可能代表著訊息價值的不確定性，它最可能與假設連接詞共現來表達說話者的不確定性。此外，「說」也常與闡述連接詞（clarification connective）「就是」一起出現，同樣也是表達說話者對於自己的說明內容的不確定感。當「說」與結果連接詞（resultative connective）「所以」或者否定連接詞（negation connective）共現時，它的功能常是用來降低說話者在處理言談中產生衝突的可能性，因此，「說」的出現代表著說話者對於對話間禮貌原則的考量。
本研究試圖指出中文補語標記詞「說」的使用與不使用並非真如傳統文法家所認定的，毫無任何解讀上的差異。語言的功能時常是在口語對話互動中逐漸顯現出來的，中文補語標記詞及言談標記詞「說」在口語言談中所表現的言談功能便是其中一項例證。

The present study aims to examine the discourse functions of Chinese complementizer and discourse marker shuo. Previous studies have argued that in many languages the use of different complementizers yields different interpretations of the complements. Along this line, by investigating the discourse functions of shuo, we attempt to point out that the presence and the absence of Chinese complementizer shuo in spoken discourse lead to different interpretations of the complement proposition. We argue that when shuo is used, the speaker mainly aims to mark a psychological distance by which the speaker can create certain discourse meanings: marking the speaker’s uncertainty about the source of information, and lessening the speaker’s assertiveness to maintain politeness in a face-to-face conversation. These discourse functions are subject to the nature of face-to-face conversations.
We find that Chinese complementizer shuo tends to co-occur with three main types of matrix verbs: utterance verb, cognition verb and other common verbs. When co-occurring with different types of verbs, the discourse functions of shuo vary. Complementizer shuo is most likely to co-occur with utterance verbs to form reported speech frames because it derives from a saying verb. Our data suggests that the presence of shuo in reported speech frames tends to function to indicate the speaker’s uncertainty about the information value, which mostly results from the use of third person subjects. When the matrix subject is third person instead of the speaker himself/herself, the information could be unreliable, which results in the speaker’s uncertainty. The speaker’s uncertainty is also manifested in other expressions with uncertain interpretation occurring in the discourse. Furthermore, complementizer shuo also often co-occurs with cognition verbs to form reported thought frames, in which the presence of shuo functions mainly to signal the speaker’s intention of lessening his/her assertiveness or concern about politeness when paraphrasing the interlocutor’s intention. The discourse functions of shuo are also observed in common verbal frames. Although shuo tends not to co-occur with verbs other than utterance verbs and cognition verbs, the data suggests that the discourse functions of shuo are extending to more constructions.
We also find that due to pragmatic inferencing, shuo can function not only as a complementizer but also a discourse marker co-occurring with other connectives. This type of shuo also performs discourse functions. Discourse marker shuo is most likely to co-occur with conditional connectives to express the speaker’s uncertainty. In addition, shuo may also co-occur with clarification connectives jiushi to express the speaker’s uncertainty in his/her clarification. Furthermore, when shuo co-occurs with resultative connective suoyi or negation connectives, it mainly functions to lessen the possibility of confrontation in speaker’s giving a seemingly demanding suggestion or negating the interlocutor’s opinion. In a word, the presence of shuo expresses the speaker’s concern about politeness.
The present study aims to point out that the optionality of Chinese complementizer shuo is not arbitrary or renders no difference of interpretation, as argued by traditional grammarians. The presence and the absence of shuo actually have different implications. The function of language often emerges in spoken discourse and the discourse functions of Chinese complementizer shuo can be a good example.

Aksu-Koc, Ayhan A., Slobin, Dan I. 1986. A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Chafe, W., Nichols, J. 159-168. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Biq, Yung-O. 2000. Recent development in discourse-and-grammar. Chinese Studies 18:357-394.
Biq, Yung-O. 2001. The grammaticalization of Jiushi and Jiushishuo in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics 27.2: 103-124.
Bresnan, Joan. 1970. On complementizers: Toward a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6.3:297-321.
Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. Ph. D Dissertation. MIT.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. New York : Cambridge University Press.
Chang, Miao Hsia. 1998. The discourse functions of Taiwanese kong in relation to its grammaticalization. Selected Papers from the Second International Symposium on Language in Taiwan, ed. by Shuanfan Huang, 111-128. Taipei: Crane.
Cheng, Robert L. 1997. The constructional marker shuo ‘say’ and kan ‘see’ in Taiwanese and Taiwan Mandarin. Taiwanese and Mandarin Structures and their Developmental Trends in Taiwan II: Contacts between Taiwanese and Mandarin and Restructuring of their Synonyms, ed. by Robert L. Zheng , 105-131. Yuan-Liou Publishing Co. Ltd, Taipei.
Chui, Kawai. 1994. Grammaticalization of the saying verb wa in Cantonese. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 5:1-13.
Du Bois, et al., 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. Talking Data, ed. by J.A. Edwards & M.D. Lamport, 45-89. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Givon, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar: A Functional-based Introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1991. The de dicto domain in language. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1, ed. by Traugott, E.C., Heine, B. 219-251. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1995. A functional theory of complementizers. Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by J. Bybee and S. Fleixchman, 475-502. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt and R. Jasperson. 1991. That-clauses and other complements. Lingua 83: 137-153.
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Shuanfan. 1982. On the (almost perfect) identity of speech and thought: Evidence from Chinese dialects. Paper presented at Fourteenth International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics. 171-186.
Huang, Shuanfan. 2003. Doubts about complementation: A functional analysis. Language and Linguistics 4.2: 429-455.
Hwang, Jya-Lin. 1998. A comparative study on the grammaticalization of saying verbs in Chinese. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Joint Conference of the International Association of Chinese Linguisitcs/10th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Vol. 2. 574-584. GSIL Publications, Univ. of Southern California.
Jacobsen, William H. Jr. 1986. The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, ed. by Chafe, W., Nichols, J. 3-28. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Kajita, M. 1967. A Generative-Transformational Study of Semi-Auxiliaries in Present-Day American English. Sanseido, Tokyo.
Kao, Ko. 1998. Communicating Effectively with the Chinese. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
Klamer, Marian. 2000. How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers. Lingua 110:69-98.
Lakoff, G. 1965. On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity, Report NSF-16. The Computation Laboratory, Harvard University.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lin, Hsueh-o. 1998. Reported speech in Mandarin conversational discourse. Ph. D dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University.
Lin, Hsueh-o. 2004. Grammaticalization of the Reported Speech Frames Wo shuo and Ni shuo in Mandarin Conversation. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 30.2:157-182.
Liu, Yuehua. 1986. Special use of say, think and see in conversations. Zhongguo Yuwen V.3:168-172.
Liu, Yuehua et. al. 1996. Modern Chinese Grammar. Taipei: Shi-Da Bookstore.
Lord, Carol. 1976. Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: From verb to complementizer in Kwa. Papers from the Parassession on Diachronic Syntax, ed. by Sanford B. Steever, 179-191. CLS, Chicago.
Lu, Shuxiang. 1980. Xian Dai Han Yu Ba Bai Ci [Eight Hundred Words in Contemporary Mandarin Chinese]. Beijing: Xang-Wu Bookstore.
Meng, Zong. 1982. A mini-collection of the uses of say in spoken language. Zhongguo Yuwen V.5:337-346.
Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementation. Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Complex Constructions ed. by Timothy Shopen.
Ransom, Evelyn N. 1986. Complementation: Its Meaning and Forms. Amsterdam: Johan Benjamins.
Ransom, Evelyn N. 1988. The grammaticalization of complementizers. The Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 364-374. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Saxena, Anju. 1988. On syntactic convergence: The case of the verb ‘say’ in Tibeto-Burman. The Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 375-388. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Su, Lily I-wen. 2002. I say what I mean: Between speech and thought. Paper presented at 3rd Symposium on Chinese Lexical Semantics. Academia Sinica, Taipei: Taiwan.
Su, Lily I-wen. 2004. Subjectification and the Use of the Complementizer SHUO. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 30.1: 19-40.
Suzuki, Satoko. 2000. De dicto complementation in Japanese. Complementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives, ed. by Kaoru Horie, 33-57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26:125-163.
Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony Mulac. 1991a. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15:237-251.
Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony Mulac. 1991b. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. Grammaticalization II, ed. by Elizabeth Traugott and Bernd Heine, 313-339. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel, 245-272. Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65.1: 31-55.
Wang, Yu-Fang, Aya Katz and Chi-Hua Chen. 2000. From “prepositional” to “expressive” meanings --- Shuo (‘say’) in Chinese BBS talk and conversation produced by young people in Taiwan. Paper presented at IsCLL VII, Dec. 22-24. 192-212.
Wang, Yu-Fang, Aya Katz and Chi-Hua Chen. 2003. Thinking as saying – shuo (‘say’) in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and BBS talk. Language Sciences 25: 457-488.