本研究旨在探討漢語中強調副詞「可是」的句法、語意及語用特性。與轉折連接詞不同，強調副詞「可是」出現在主語及動詞之間來修飾整個句子。其句法特性有：（一）它不能出現在否定句、疑問句及條件句前提的範圍中。（二）強調副詞「可是」必須出現在主語後，且可置於名詞片語、形容詞片語及動詞片語之前。為了解釋其分布，本研究認為有兩個「可是」。後接名詞或形容詞片語的可是1同時具有整句副詞及繫詞的功能，而後接動詞片語的可是2則只有整句副詞的功能。兩種「可是」處於語法化的不同階段。另外，強調副詞「可是」必位於主語之現象則以Rizzi (2006)提出的判據位置解釋。強調副詞「可是」位於AttP的中心語，具有邊緣特徵以吸引原句主語作為其指示語。語意特性部分，本研究採用了Ernst (2009) 基於極詞的（非）真實理論 (Giannakidou 1999; 2001; 2006; 2007) 的測試來對強調副詞「可是」及其他漢語說者導向副詞作全面地測試。結果顯示強調副詞「可是」於所有非真實情境（一般否定句、疑問句、條件句、否定疑問句、否定條件句及低音調否定）均不能出現，顯示其表達了高度主觀性及說話者堅信命題為真。這些特性也表現在其位於CP的高句法位置及無法與表達不確定或否定的動詞片語共現。另外本研究也發現了英語及漢語評價及示證副詞在非真實情境出現情形的不同之處。語用方面則採用Searle (1969; 1975; 1976)的言語行為理論分析強調副詞「可是」對句子言語行為的影響及其轉折、表現驕傲及諷刺等語用功能。強調副詞「可是」形成的句子主要具有報告的言語行為，而其本身主要是影響言語行為中的心理狀態，然而當用來表達諷刺的語用功能時，則可進一步產生抒發、指引的間接言語行為。

This study aims to explore the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties of the emphatic adverb keshi 可是 in Mandarin Chinese. Unlike the adversative conjunction keshi 可是, the emphatic adverb keshi occurs between the subject and verb to modify the whole sentence. For its syntactic properties, it cannot occur within the scope of negations, interrogatives, or the antecedent of conditionals. Also, keshi 可是 should follow a subject and can precede noun phrases, adjective phrases, and verb phrases. To account for its distribution, two emphatic keshi 可是 are assumed. Keshi1 可是1 which precedes noun phrases and adjective phrases has both sentential adverb and copula functions, while keshi2 可是2 which precedes verb phrases only has a sentential adverb function. The two emphatic keshi 可是 are in different levels of grammaticalization. The requirement of a subject preceding emphatic keshi 可是 is accounted with Rizzi’s criterial position. Emphatic keshi 可是, located at the head of attitude phrase, has the peripheral feature to attract the subject of the sentence to be its specifier. For its semantic properties, the tests of Ernst (2009) based on the (non)veridical theory of polarity (Giannakidou 1999; 2001; 2006; 2007) are adopted to test emphatic keshi 可是 and other types of speaker-oriented adverbs in Mandarin Chinese comprehensively. Results show that emphatic keshi 可是 cannot occur in all nonveridical contexts: regular negation, questions, conditionals, negative questions, negative conditionals and low-tone denials, showing its high subjectivity and strong speaker commitment toward the truth of the proposition. These can also be seen in its high syntactic position in CP and its incompatibility with verb prases expressing uncertainties or denials. The asymmetries of evaluative and evidential adverbs and their Chinese counterparts in nonveridical contexts are also discovered. Finally, for pragmatic analysis, Searle’s (1969; 1975; 1976) speech act theory is used to analyze how emphatic keshi 可是 influences the speech act of the sentence and its functions of adversative, pride-showing, and irony. The speech acts of emphatic keshi 可是 sentences are mainly representatives, emphatic keshi affects the psychological state of the speech act. However, when emphatic keshi 可是 is used to express irony, the sentences can perform indirect speech acts of expressives and directives.

References
Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. In J.O. Urmson (ed.) The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. London: Clarendon Press.
Bellert, Irena. 1977. On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 8.2:337-51.
Chang, Li-Li (張麗麗). 2016. A comprehensive discussion on the formation of the adversatives “ke” and “keshi” (轉折詞「可」與「可是」演變綜論). Journal of Chinese Literature of National Cheng Kung University (成大中文學報) 54.167-206.
Chang, Shu-Min (張淑敏). 2003. The syntactic distribution of Mandarin adverbs and adverbials (漢語副詞與狀語在句法結構上的出現分佈). Journal of Taiwanese Languages and Literature (台灣語文研究) 1.1:147-68.
Chao, Yuan-Jen. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Chen, Ping (陳萍). 2009. Semantic, syntactic and pragmatic comparison of adversative conjunctions “ke” and “keshi” (轉折連詞“可”、“可是”的語意、句法、語用比較). Yuwen Xuekan (語文學刊) 2009.6A:79-81.
Chien, Hong-Ru (錢鴻儒). 2012. “Keshi” and “zhishi” expressing adversative relations (表示轉折關係的「可是」和「只是」). Xiandai Yuwen (現代語文) 2012.6:77-80.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ernst, Thomas. 2008. Adverbs and positive polarity in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented to the 20th North American conference on Chinese linguistics (NACCL-20), Columbus, Ohio, 2008.
Ernst, Thomas. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27.3:497-544.
Ernst, Thomas. 2014. The syntax of adverbs. In A. Carnie, Y. Sato & D. Siddiqi (eds.) The Routledge handbook of syntax, 126-48. New York: Routledge.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1999. Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22.4:367-421.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2001. Varieties of polarity items and the (non) veridicality hypothesis. In J. Hoeksema, H. Rullman, V. Sanchez-Valencia & T.v.d. Wouden (eds.) Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 99-127.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2006. Only, emotive factive verbs, and the dual nature of polarity dependency. Language:575-603.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2007. The landscape of EVEN. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25.1:39-81.
Haumann, Dagmar. 2007. Adverb licensing and clause structure in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Haverkate, Henk. 1990. A speech act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics 14.1:77-109.
Huang, Rui-heng Ray (黃瑞恆). 2017. On the grammatical category of postnominal keshi in Mandarin Chinese (論漢語名詞後「可是」之詞類). Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 15.1:103-39.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jacobson, Sven. 1964. Adverbial Positions in English. Stockholm: AB Studentbok.
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.
Lau, Seng-Hian & Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai. 2020. A comparative study of how and why in Taiwan Southern Min and Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics 21.2:254–84.
Li, Charles N & Sandra A Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar: University of California Press.
Li, Fang (李芳). 2016. A preliminary study of modal adverbs “keshi” (語氣副詞“可是”初探). Journal of Qiqihar University (Phi&Soc Sci) (齊齊哈爾社會學報(哲學社會科學版)) 2016.4:102-04.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. vol. 2: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, Frank Robert. 2001. Mood and Modality: Cambridge University Press.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar, 281-337. Dordrecht: Springer.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In L.L.-S. Cheng & N. Corver (eds.) WH-Movement: Moving On, 97-134. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sadock, Jerrold M & Arnold M Zwicky. 1985. Speech Act Distinctions in Syntax. In T. Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, 155-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saeed, John I. 2009. Semantics. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R. 1975. Indirect Speech Acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics. Vol.3: Speech Acts, 59-82. New York: Academic Press.
Searle, John R. 1976. A cassification of Illocutionary acts. Language in society 5.1:1-23.
Tang, Ting-Chi (湯廷池). 1985. The “conveyed meaning” of English sentences: “Pragmatic explanations” (英語詞句的「言外之意」:「語用解釋」). Teaching and Research (教學與研究) 7.57-111.
Tang, Ting-Chi (湯廷池). 2000. Semantics and syntax of modal adverbs in Chinese (漢語的情態副詞: 語意內涵與句法功能). Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica (中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊) 71.1:199-219.
Travis, Lisa. 1988. The syntax of adverbs. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 20.280-310.
von Fintel, Kai. 2006. Modality and language. In D.M. Borchert (ed.) Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 20-27. Detroit: MacMillan Reference USA.
Wang, Yue-Ping (王月萍). 2010. The grammaticalization of “keshi” (“可是”的語法化). Journal of Anyang Normal University (安陽師範學院學報) 3.102-04.
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2012. Explaining irony. In D. Wilson & D. Sperber (eds.) Meaning and relevance, 123-45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yao, Xiao-Peng (姚小鵬). 2007. Grammaticalization of adverb “keshi” and related issue (副詞“可是”的語法化及相關問題). Chinese Language Learning (漢語學習) 3.45-49.
Yu, Ting-Ting (余婷婷). 2007. The rhetorical functions of adversative conjunction “ke” and “keshi” (轉折連詞“可是”和“可”的修辭作用). Xiandai Yuwen (現代語文) 2007.30:57-58.
Website
Sinica Corpus: http://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw/