未來不等於非現實語氣

台灣南島語言在構詞上沒有顯性的時制範式，但有不同形式的未來標記，在時間系統上呈現非未來和未來二分。過去文獻因為這些未來標記具有情態性，認為非未來/未來的區分可由真實/非真實事態的區分來推導，主張它們代表非現實語氣且台灣南島語言是所謂的非現實語氣顯著語言。本文根據泰雅語的第一手語料、以及詳細檢視鄒語和邵語的材料，證明這些語言的未來標記是帶有未來性的情態詞，不適宜分析為非現實語氣這個語法範疇。迥異於跨語言非現實語氣的表現，這些未來標記在各種非真實環境不是不能出現就是侷限於未來性，它們也不能出現或不必然使用在反事實條件句的結論句。跨南島語來看，台灣南島語言與具有現實/非現實語氣範式的大洋洲語言在焦點和語氣的有無上形成顯著對比。在理論分析的意義上，真實性是結合時間與情態的廣義語法範疇，但在這三個台灣南島語言，未來標記的功能僅為非現實語氣的下位詞。釐清未來標記不等於非現實語氣後，未來更多的研究可關注其他可能表達非真實事態的標記及時制的有無。

The Formosan languages may lack an overt tense paradigm, but they do have future markers in various forms. There is a temporal system that distinguishes between non‑future and future. The modality of these future forms, along with the concept that the distinction between non‑future and future may be inferred from the distinction between actual and non‑actual events, has led to the claim that future forms represent irrealis mood and that these languages are mood-prominent. This article refutes this claim. Based on a thorough investigation of Atayal and a critical examination of data from Tsou and Thao, we demonstrate that future markers in these three languages can only be analyzed as future modals rather than as irrealis mood. In contrast to prototypical irrealis mood in other languages, the future markers either do not occur at all in potential non-factual environments or contribute obligatorily to futurity. Furthermore, we identify three specific patterns of future modals in the apodosis of counterfactual conditionals, none of which supports an irrealis analysis. In the realm of mood typology, Formosan languages diverge from Oceanic languages, suggesting a correlation between the loss of voice and the emergence of reality mood. In the theoretical formulation concerning reference to irrealis domains, the Formosan future markers merely serve as a hypernym of irrealis. This study carries implications for further research into potential mood markers and the issue of tenselessness.