本文提供了台灣話中非動詞「講」的詳細分析，並指出其中至少應區分為三種不同的成份。緊隨在溝通或認知性動詞之後者，屬補語連詞（標句詞），不具實質語意內涵；句中的「講」則是位處於補語短語中的主題化成份，這個成份可提升到句首以表達額外的示意語力；至於句末的「講」則為一言據性標記（Chang, 1998; Hsieh & Sybesma, 2007）。此外，文中亦指出，句末的「講」生成於屈折短語的左緣，而非傳統指涉的補語短語範域之內。在日語及韓語中也有主題化標記，但其位置低於補語連詞，透過跨語言比較，可知台灣話裡頭同音異義的主題化標記與言據性標記並非特例，日語中亦存在同樣的情況，前述的觀察顯示兩種語言可能在此類成份上有著雷同的語法化過程。

This paper provides a fine-grained analysis of Taiwanese non-verbal kóngs and points out that there are at least three different kóngs in Taiwanese. A complementizer immediately follows a verb representing communication or a cognitive state and is semantically vacuous; the intra-sentential kóng is a topic marker in a CP, which can raise to the sentence-initial position to express additional illocutionary force; and the sentence-final kóng is an evidential marker (Chang, 1998; Hsieh & Sybesma, 2007). The sentence-final kóng is generated in the left periphery of an IP, but not in the conventional CP domain.Topic markers are also found in Japanese and Korean, but, unlike Taiwanese kóngs, they occur lower than the complementizer. The homonymous topic marker and evidential marker found in Taiwanese is not a unique case. In Japanese, there is also a sentence-final evidential marker, which is homonymous with the intra-sentential topic marker. This coincidence may indicate similar grammaticalization processes in these two languages, respectively.