本論文主要從製圖理論 (Cartographic Approach) 觀點 (Rizzi 1997, Cinque 1999)探討文樂排灣語模態詞的語法特性，從結構以及分佈探討排灣語模態詞分層現象。本論文將排灣語模態詞區分為知識性模態詞 (epistemic modals)、義務性模態詞 (deontic modals)、能願模態詞 (dynamic modals) 三類，並提出以下觀點： (一) 排灣語模態詞有其語言內部普遍性語法階層 (universal hierarchical )：知識性＞義務性＞能願性。(二) 依據Tang (1999)的分析我們將a分析為補語連詞(complementizer) 而非格位(case markers)，並依據句中補語成分能否帶有時制動貌以及語態變化，提出中排灣語的補語連詞a不只引介「限定子句」(finite clause)也引介「非限定子句」(nonfinite clause)。(三) 排灣語模態詞可以區分成CP層 (CP-layer)、TP層 (TP-layer) 和vP層 (vP-layer)三個區塊。知識性模態詞位置坐落在大句子 (CP phase)，藉由高層補語連詞ahigh引介限定子句，義務性模態詞分布於TP層，藉由中層補語連詞amid引介「限定子句」，而能願模態詞則分佈在vP層次，藉由低層補語連詞alow引介「非限定子句」，子句內的詞彙動詞不帶有時貌變化，且必須遵守主事者語態限制 (AV-only)。
就句法測試而言，我們有以下發現：(一) 內、外主語的互動上我們發現知識模態詞、義務模態詞比內主語來得高因此位在輕動詞組 (vP) 之上，能願模態詞則低於輕動詞組。(二) 否定詞的互動上，我們先確立了未然否定ini可出現兩個位置，並進一步界定模態詞之間的相對位置依序為：知識模態詞 > 義務模態 > 否定詞 > 義務模態 > 能願模態詞。 (三) 從動詞組刪略的測試中，我們確立了知識模態詞位於指示詞位置，而義務模態詞 (maqati, na’uya) 與能願模態詞位於為中心語位置。(四) 從時體詞的證據上，高於時貌詞組可進一步區別屬知識模態詞表可行性 (possibility) 的maqati「可以」以及低於時貌詞組的義務模態表保證 (commissive)。 (五) 疑問與無定用法的測試上，我們確定了唯有知識模態、義務模態「應該」以及表可行性的義務模態，其句法高度能帶句子層次的隱性偏稱運符，表保證用法的義務性模態、能願性模態則無法認可無定用法反而認可疑問用法。最後針對動後模態詞現象進行討論，並提出動後模態詞的表層語序乃是藉由句法上的操作而來，在本論文的分析下並非反例，而我們將排灣語的句法階層分佈定位如下：[知識模態 > 否定詞 > TP > 義務模態 (commissive) > vP > 能願模態 > VP > V]

This thesis adopts the Cartographic Approach to examine the syntactic behavior of modals in Paiwan while providing an explanation for the correspondence between their distribution and interpretation along the line of Rizzi (1997), Cinque (1999) and Tsai (2010). The proposal is that modality in Paiwan is composed of three layers: Epistemic modals, Deontic modals, and Dynamic modals.
Our findings are as follows: (A) We observe an universal hierarchy: Epistemic modals > Deontic modals > Dynamic modals. (B) Against Tang’s (1999) analysis, a is better analyzed as a complementizer rather than a case marker. Following this idea and further applying it to modal constructions, we find that a introduces either a finite or a non-finite clause in Pucunug Paiwan. (C) The modals can be structurally divided into three groups. One group is in the CP-layer, including epistemic modals, which select high complementizer ahigh that introduces a finite clause. Another group lies in the TP-layer, including deontic modals, which co-occur with amid, introducing a finite clause. The third group is in the vP-layer, including dynamic modals, which co-occur with alow introducing a non-finite clausal structure that is subject to the AV-only restriction on the lexical verb. In terms of syntactic analysis, we obtain the following facts: (A) We consider the availability of the inner and outer subject; an inner or outer subject may occur in an epistemic/deontic modal sentence, while the inner subject is not permitted in dynamic modal sentences. In other words, epistemic/deontic modals are higher than vP. (B) The scope of negation is a clear test for the structural position of the modals. Epistemic modals cannot appear within the scope of negation ini. On the other hand, dynamic modals cannot appear outside the scope of ini. However, there is no restriction on deontic modals with respect to the scope of ini; they can be inside or outside the scope of ini. (C) VP ellipsis provides a good test too, which requires head-government. We find that epistemic modals do not license VP ellipsis. On the other hand, there is no restriction on VP ellipsis with deontic modals (maqati, na’uya) and dynamic modals. (D) TAM can be used to distinguish the epistemic modal maqati (possibility) from the deontic modal maqati (commissive). (E) Indefinite wh licensing can play a vital role in helping identifying the syntactic structure of modal constructions. In Paiwan, only epistemic modals may license indefinite wh. (F) The surface order of postverbal modals are not base-generated as such but is a result of syntactic operations. Finally, we combine the lexical and syntactic aspects of modals together, and propose a syntactic hierarchy as follows: [epistemic > NEG > TP > deontic (commissive) > vP > dynamic > VP > V]

英文部分：
Anna H. Chang. 2006 . A reference grammar of Paiwan. Ph. D. dissertation, Australian National University.
Bhat, D.N. Shankara. 1999. The Prominence of Tense, Aspect and Mood. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamin.
Biskup, Petr. 1990. The Phase Model and Adverbials. MA. thesis, University of Leipzig.
Biskup, Petr. 2011. Adverbials and the Phase Model. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo and Luigi Rizzi. 2008. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. CISCL Working Papers on Language and Cognition, vol 2, 43-59.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Early, Robert, and John Whitehorn. 2003. One Hundred Paiwan Texts. Pacific Linguistics 542. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Australian National University.
Egli, Hans. 1990. Paiwangrammatik. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. [in German]
Ferrell, Raleigh. 1982. Paiwan Dictionary. Pacific Linguistics C-73. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Australian National University.
Henry Y. Chang. 2006. The guest playing host: Adverbial modifiers as matrix verbs in Kavalan. Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages 43-82. ed. by Hans-Martin Gaertner et al., Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Henry Y. Chang. 2009. Adverbial verbs and adverbial compounds in Tsou. Oceanic Linguistics 48(2): 339-376.
Henry Y. Chang. 2010. On the syntax of Formosan adverbial verb constructions. by Lisa Travis et al., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Holmer Arthur. 2006. Seediq—Adverbial Heads in a Formosan Language, In Hans-Martin Gaertner at al. eds., Clause Structure and Adjuncts in Austronesian Languages, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 83-124.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar.Cambridge: MIT dissertation.
Huang, Lillian. M., M. M. Yeh, E. Zeitoun, A. H. Chang and J. J. Wu. 1999. Interrogative constructions in some Formosan languages. Chinese Languages and Linguistics, V:Interactions in Language, ed. by Yin Yuen-mei, Yang I-li, Chan Hui-chen, 639-680.Symposium Series of the Institute of Linguistics (Preparatory Office) No. 2. Taipei:Academia Sinica
Huang, Wei-chen. 2012. A Study of Verbal Morphology in Puljetji Paiwan. MA thesis. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Kao, Hsiao-Lin. 2010. A study of Particles in C'uli Atayal. MA thesis. National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2013. VoiceP and vP. Paper presented at A Minimalist Workshop on Austronesian Verbal Syntax, Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, Nov. 15, 2013.
Li, Chao-lin. 2004. The Spatial Representations in Paiwan. MA thesis. Chiayi: National Chung Cheng University.
Li, Chao-lin. 2007. Adverbial verbs and argument structure. Nanzan Linguistic 3:165-202.
Li, Chao-lin. 2008. On grammaticalization of motion verbs in Paiwan. Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures .18:65-107.
Li, Chao-lin. 2009. The Syntax of Prefix Concord in Saaroa: Restructuring and Multiple Agreement. Oceanic Linguistics 48.1: pp 172-212.
Li, Chao-lin. 2010. The Syntax and Semantics of Eventuality in Paiwan and Saaroa. Ph.D. dissertation. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Lin, Jo-wang, and C. -C. Jane Tang. 1995. Modals as verbs in Chinese: A GB perspective. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 66.1:53-105. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Lin, T.-H. Jonah. 2012. Multiple-modal constructions in Mandarin Chinese and their finiteness properties. Journal of Linguistics 48: 151-186.
Liu, Dorinda Tsai-hsiu.1999. Cleft Constructions in Amis. MA thesis. National Taiwan University.
Melody Y. Chang. 1998. Wh-Constructions and The Problem of Wh-Movement in Tsou. Taiwan, MA thesis: National Tsing-hua University.
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pei, T.-L, C-M Wu & C-H Tai. 2010. On modals in Mayrinax Atayal. AFLA-17.Stony Brook, New York, 07-09-2010.
Rizzi, L., 1997, The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery, in: Haegeman, L. (Ed.), Elements of Grammar, Kluwer Amsterdam, 281-337.
Rizzi, L., 2001, On the position of Int(errogative) in the Left Periphery of the Clause, in: G. Cinque, G. Salvi (Eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax, ElsEVIer, Amsterdam, 287-296.
Shih, Chao-Kai. 2013. Double applicative in Takibakha Bunun. present at A Minimalist Workshop on Austronesian Verbal Syntax, Institute of Linguistica, Academia Sinica, Nov. 15, 2013.
Shih, Chao-Kai. 2014. On Restructureing in Takibakha Bunun. present at Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic, June. 6, 2014
Song, Chia-Hsing. 2006. Temporal Expressions in paiwan. MA thesis. National Chung Cheng University.
Tang, Chih-chen Jane, Yung-li Chang, and Dah-an Ho. 1998. On noun phrase structures in Paiwan. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 28.3:335-384.
Tang, Chih-chen Jane. 1999. On clausal complements in Paiwan. In Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, edited by Elizabeth Zeitoun and Paul Jen-kuei Li, 529-578. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Tang, Chih-chen Jane. 2002. On Negative Constructions in Paiwan. Language and Linguistics 3.4: 745-810.
Tang, Chih-chen Jane. 2006. Case marking, reference and DP structure: A comparative study of Paiwan, Atayal and Chamorro. Edited by Henry Y. Chang, Lillian M. Huang and Dah-an Ho. In Streams converging into an ocean: Festschrift in honor of Prof. Paul Jen-kuei Li on his 70th birthday,.143-183. Language and Linguistics Monograph W-5. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2003. Lexical Courtesyrevisited: Evidence from Tsou and Seediq Wh-Constructions. Gengo Kenkyu 123:331-361.
Zeitoun, Elizabeth, and Lillian M. Marie M. Yeh, Anna H. Chang and Joy J. Wu. 1996. The Temporal, Aspectual and Modal Systems of some Formosan Languages: A Typological Perspective. Oceanic Linguistics 35.21-56
Zeitoun, Elizabeth. 2000. Squib: Dynamic vs. stative verbs in Mantauran (Rukai). Oceanic Linguistics 39(2):415-427.
Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-Structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 255-292
Weng, Tracy Cui-Xiz. 2000. Preliminary Study of Tense, Aspect and Mood in Paiwan. Manuscript. Chia-Yi: National Chung Cheng University.
Wu, Hsiao-hung Iris. 2013. Restructuring and Clause Structure in Isbukun Bunun. Oceanic Linguistics 52.1:36-52.
Wu, Chun-ming. 2004. A study of lexical categories in Paiwan. MA thesis, National Chung Cheng University.
Wu, Chun-ming. 2006. Adverbials in Paiwan. Paper presented at the Tenth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Palawan, Philippines, January 17-20, 2006.

中文部分：
小川尚義，1930，《パイワン語集（排灣語集）》，台北：臺灣總督府。
林姣君，2006，〈泰雅語賽考利克方言疑問詞研究〉。碩士論文，新竹：國立清華大學。
李壬癸，2010，《珍惜台灣南島語言》。台北：前衛出版社。
何大安，1992，《排灣語語法概述（上編）》。未出版。
何大安，1978，〈五種排灣方言的初步比較〉。《中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊》，第49卷，第4期，頁565-618。
莊惠如，2002，《排灣語名詞組的指涉》。碩士論文，嘉義：國立中正大學。
塔里古‧菩迦如仰（華愛），2002，《排灣語入門》。台北市：作者自行出版。
教育部，2005，原住民族語言書寫系統。網路連結：http://www.edu.tw/userfiles/url/20121127164752/aboriginal.pdf
作者不詳，1941，《高砂族慣習法語彙》。帝國學士院編。東京：ヘラルド社。
張永利，2010，〈台灣南島語言語法：語言類型與理論的啟示〉。《人文與社會科學簡訊》，第12卷，第1期，頁112-127。
張仲良，1996，《賽德克語疑問詞的研究》。碩士論文，新竹：國立清華大學。
張秀娟，2000，《排灣語參考語法》。台北：遠流出版社。
蔡維天，1997，〈臺灣南島語疑問詞的無定用法－噶瑪蘭語、鄒語及賽德克語的比較研究〉。《清華學報》，新27卷，第4期，頁381-422。
蔡維天，1998，〈語言學的常與變〉。《中國語言學論叢》。第2輯，頁25-38。
蔡維天，2000，〈為甚麼問怎麼樣，怎麼樣問為甚麼〉。《漢學研究》，第18卷，第1期，頁209-235。
蔡維天，2010，〈談漢語模態詞其分佈與詮釋的對應關係〉。《中國語文》，第3期，頁208-221。
蔡維天，2011，〈從「這話如何說起？」〉。《語言學論叢》，第43輯，頁194-208，北京：商務印書館。
魏廷冀，2009，〈阿美與疑問詞研究〉。《語言暨語言學》，第10卷，第2期，頁315-374。
陳康、馬榮生，1986，《高山族語言簡志：排灣語》。北京：民族出版社。
翁翠霞，2000a，〈排灣語的時制、動態、動貌系統初探〉。期末報告，嘉義：國立中正大學。
翁翠霞，2000b，〈鄒語和邵語的時、態、貌系統之比較與研究〉。碩士論文，嘉義：國立中正大學。
中華民國聖經公會編譯，1993，《kai nua Cemas a pinayuanan排灣語聖經》台北：中華民國聖經公會。