過去文獻�媢黻篕y及臺灣閩南語時態語的討論雖然不少，但很不幸地卻非常混亂 ，造成混亂的原因之一無疑是大家對所使用的專門術語並沒有共識。本文的目的就是想要釐 清基本概念像什麼是時貌（ aspect ），什麼是完整貌（ perfective aspect ）， 又完整 （ perfective ）與完成（ completive ）的關係為何﹖並藉這些概念來分析閩南語與完整 貌有關的時貌語 " 有 "、" □ " 和 " 啊 "，我們也會附帶地論及國語相對應詞語，如 "- 了 " 和 " 了＃ " 的不同。 說得具體一點，我們根據 Smith （ 1991 ）從普遍語法（ universal grammar ）的觀點對 時貌的討論，先對國語以及臺灣閩南語的情境類型（ situation type ）加以探討。我們發 現這兩種語言跟世界上許多語言一樣都可以把語言所表達的情境分成四類，即狀態情境、活 動情境、完結情境以及瞬成情境。有了這個發現之後，我們再根據四類情境與各時貌語共現 的情形來斷定國語完整貌標誌為 "- 了 "， 如（ 1 ）所示，而臺灣閩南語與之對應是□形 。這可從比較（ 2 ）和（ 1 ）得其梗概。 （ 1 ）他昨天寫了三封信。 （ 2 ） a. 伊昨方寫□三封批。 b. 伊昨方有寫三張批。 （ 2a ）和（ 2b ）都可以用來對應（ 1 ），但（ 2a ）和（ 2b ）並不同義。 （ 2b ） 比（ 2a ）多帶了 " 強調 " 的意思，而這一層意思明顯地來自 " 有 "。 本文並進一步認 定 " 有 " 與其否定詞 " 無 " 基本上為情態詞。它因此和四大類情境都能一起出現。語意 上，它表示某狀態或某事件的確存在或發生。在閩南語中，它被用來表達說話者從現在的觀 點去觀察現在的狀態與過去的狀態或事件，也就是已然（ realis ）的語境，因為它是客觀 情境之外上加的觀察，而且它多多少少含有強調的意味，因此我們認為它基本上是個情態動 詞，只有當它出現在某些特定的情境時，它才具有時貌意義。 " 啊 " 則基本上是個情態語氣詞。 它的基本意義是：句子所表達的命題涉及狀態的改變。 因為狀態改變的認定時常牽涉到說話者主觀的見解，所以 " 啊 " 和 " 有 " 都是閩南語情 態系統的一部份。就這一點而言，他們跟完整貌□形標誌相當不同，而這種差異基本上也反 映在臺灣閩南語跟國語的詞序裡。也就是說，這兩種漢語都有一條戴浩一（ 1985 ）所說的 自然圖像法則（ a natural iconic principle ）。說得更具體些，這條法則告訴我們與動 詞距離越近的越是用來表示客觀情境，反之與動詞距離越遠的則越是用來表示說話者主觀的 看法。 本文最後也觸及方言比較所牽涉的方法學上的問題，並舉國、臺語的實例來探討這種分析法 的用處。

　　　　　The past discussion of aspect and aspect markers in Mandarin and Taiwanese Minnan can be characterized as extremely confusing with so many different, and sometimes conflicting, uses of basic terms such as "aspect", "perfective aspect" etc. To avoid this unnecessary confusion, this paper starts out by defining, as rigorously as we can, such fundamental concepts as "aspect" and "perfective aspect", clarifying the relationship between "aspect" and "tense", "perfective" and "completive" in the process. With these terms now made clear, it goes on to analyze some grammatical markers related to the perfective aspect in Taiwanese, namely, "U", " □ " and "A". To be more exact, we base our analysis on the universal framework proposed by Smith (1991) by classifying the situation types in Mandarin and Taiwanese Minnan into four: state, activity, accomplishment, and achievement. By finding out its compatibility with each of the four types of situation, we are able to identify that "-LE" is a perfective marker in Mandarin as shown in (1), and its corresponding marker in Taiwanese Minnan as " □ ". This can be demonstrated by comparing (2a) and (2b) with (1). (1)Ta zuotian xie-le san-feng xin. He yesterday write-LE three-CL letter 'He wrote three letters yesterday.' (2)a.I cahng sia-□ san-tiunn phe. he yesterday write-□ three-CL letter 'He wrote three letters yesterday.' b.I cahng u-sia san-tiunn phe. he yesterday u-write three-CL letter 'He did write three letters yesterday.' Sentence (1) in Mandarin can be roughly translated as (2a) or (2b) in Taiwanese Minnan, but, as reflected in the English translations, (2b) carries some emphasis which is lacking in (2a). This meaning difference can therefore be safely attributed to 'U' 'EXIST' in (2b). Further examination of TM data reveals that 'U' and its negative counterpart 'BO' are basically modal verbs as it is compatible with all four situation types. It can be interpreted as an aspect marker only when it interacts with the achievement and accomplishment verb types. 'A', on the other hand, is a modal particle. Its basic meaning is to indicate that the proposition expressed by the rest of the sentence involves a change of state. Since in the real world whether a state has changed or not is often subject to personal interpretation. 'A' should be more appropriately considered a modal particle. With the meanings of three aspect-related morphemes clarified, a further examination of their syntactic positions in the sentence reveals what Tai (1985) has termed 'a natural iconic principle' i.e. the more subjective an aspectual-modal morpheme is, the farther away from the main verb it is placed.