漢語量化作用及其範域解釋｜國立清華大學博碩士論文庫

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	楊中玉 Barry Chung-Yu Yang
論文名稱：	漢語量化作用及其範域解釋 Quantification and Its Scope Interpretation in Mandarin Chinese
指導教授：	蔡維天 Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai
口試委員:
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 語言學研究所 Institute of Linguistics
論文出版年：	2002
畢業學年度：	90
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	135
中文關鍵詞：	量化作用、量化詞、量化詞提昇、運符、變數、範域、約束
外文關鍵詞：	quantification, quantifier, Quantifier Raising, QR, operator, variable, scope, binding
相關次數：	點閱：1 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本文論證漢語量化詞應視為變數而非量化詞。理由有三：一、這些量化詞在各種孤島(island)結構中可以取得寬域解釋(wide scope reading)卻沒有孤島效應的現象；二、它們通常不能單獨存在而必須與某些顯形或隱形的量化運符(operator)相存；三、這些運符的性質決定了漢語量化詞的解釋。
本文從孤島效應的消失作為起點來探討漢語量化詞的性質。文中討論到三種量化結構：否極詞項「任何」的量化結構、全稱(universal)量化詞「每」的量化結構、以及偏稱(existential)量化中複數數詞如「三」的量化結構。這三種結構都顯示量化詞提昇(Quantifier Raising)這種在邏輯形式(Logical Form)上利用位移來定義量化詞範域的方式在漢語上並不適用，因為在這些量化詞在孤島結構中都可以取得寬域解釋卻不呈現孤島效應。

從更廣的角度來看，我們發現這些漢語量化詞通常無法單獨存在，它們為了取得認證(licensing)，必須與某些量化運符共存，例如否極詞項與否定詞「不」、「沒」共存；全稱量化詞必須與分指(distributive)的「都」、合指(collective)的「共同」共存；偏稱量化中數詞必須與全稱運符「有」共存。在某些結構中即使沒有顯形運符存在，文中認為仍有某些運符存在，只不過它們是隱形的運符。

其次，量化詞的解釋是從它們相對的運符的性質及運符的位置衍生得來的。以全稱量化為例，當全稱量化詞「每」和分指運符一同出現時，分指的解釋相應而生，而當其和合指運符一同出現時，合指的解釋就相應而生。再者，量化詞的量化範域並不是從量化詞本身得來，而是從運符的位置得來。因此，當這運符在複合名詞組之內時，窄域解釋(narrow scope reading)相應而生，而當它在複合名詞組之外時，寬域解釋相應而生。

本文提出「運符-變數約束(operator-variable binding)」的方法來處理把量化詞視為變數的提議。同時，如稍後第四章中所述，漢語中述語(predicate)的種類對於無定主語(indefinite subject)的解釋亦扮演很重要的角色。本文從「句法-語意介面(syntax-semantics interface)」的角度來探討之，並且釐清影響無定主語解釋的三個看似糾纏不清的面向，亦即殊指性(specificity)、集散性(distributivity)、以及範域。

It is argued in this thesis that Chinese quantifiers should be treated as variables instead of quantifiers. Three reasons account for that: 1) these quantifiers do not manifest any island effects in various island constructions while they may take the wide scope reading; 2) they generally can not stand alone and have to co-occur with certain overt or covert quantificational operators; 3) their interpretations depend heavily on the properties of these operators.
The lack of island effects is investigated as a starting point to explore the property of Chinese quantifiers. Three types of quantification are discussed in this thesis. They are the polarity licensing of renhe 'any', the universal quantification of mei 'every', and the existential quantification of numeral plural determiners, e.g., san 'three'. All these three constructions strongly suggest that Quantifier Raising (May 1997,1985), an LF-movement to syntactically define the scopes of quantifiers, is not applicable to Chinese since none of the three above constructions show any island effects while the quantifiers in question may take the wide scope reading.

Then, taking a broader view, we find that these quantifiers generally can not stand alone. To get properly licensed, they have to co-occur with certain operators, e.g., NEG elements bu 'not', mei 'not', or distributive dou 'all' in the polarity licensing, the distributive dou 'all' and the collective gongtong 'together' in universal quantification, and the existential operator you 'have/exist' in existential quantification. In some constructions, though there is no overt operator around to license these quantifiers, it is proposed that there are still certain operators existing, only that they are covert this time.

Further, the interpretation of these quantifiers is derived both from the inherent properties of their corresponding operators and the positions of these operators. For instance, when the universal quantifier mei 'every' goes with the distributive operator dou 'all', a distributive reading is yielded; when it goes with the collective operator gongtong 'together', a collective reading is yielded. What's more, it is the position of the operators that marks the scope of the quantifiers but not the quantifiers themselves that mark the scope of their own. Therefore, when the operator is located within a complex NP, a narrow scope (or NP-internal) reading is yielded, whereas when it is out of the complex NP, a wide scope (or NP-external) reading is yielded.

An operator-variable binding approach is adopted throughout this thesis to account for the proposal that Chinese quantifiers should be treated as variables. Meanwhile, as later suggested in Chapter Four, the predicate type plays an crucial role in determining the interpretation of Chinese indefinite subjects. A syntax-semantics interface is then proposed to account for it with three interactive dimensions, i.e., specificity, distributivity, and scope.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION 1

1 To QR or Not to QR? 1

2 Chinese Quantifiers Are Variables 4

3 The Operator-Variable Binding and Scope Interpretation 6

4 Subject Specificity, Distributivity, and Scope Interpretation 11

5 Chapters Overview 14

CHAPTER TWO

QUANTIFICATIONAL FORCE AND SCOPE OF RENHE 15

1 Introduction 15

2 Two Proposals on the LF Movement of English NPI Any 16

2.1 Specificity Constraint 20

2.2 Coordinate Structure Constraint 21

2.3 Complex NP Constraint (CNPC) 22

2.4 Adjunct island 24

2.5 Wh-Island 25

2.6 Topicalization 25

3 The Lack of Island Effects on Chinese Polarity Renhe 'any' 26

3.1 Specificity Condition 29

3.2 Coordinate Structure Constraint 32

3.3 Complex NP 32

3.4 Adjunct island 33

3.5 Wh-Island 34

3.6 Topicalization 34

3.7 Two Possible Approaches for the Licensing of Renhe 35

4 The Licensing of Quantificational Force for Renhe 'any' 36

4.1 Dou 'all' as an Overt Quantificational Operator 37

4.2 The Detachabilty of Dou 'all' 39

4.3 Dou as a Scope Marker 42

4.4 The Covert Quantificational Operator 44

4.5 Specificity Condition Revisited 48

CHAPTER THREE

ON LICENSING UNIVERSAL QUANTIFICATION 49

1 Introduction 49

2 The QR Problem 51

2.1 Huang (1982b) 52

2.2 Lee (1986) 55

2.3 Feature Percolation 57

2.4 Further Inspection on the Subject/Object Scope Asymmetry 59

3 Mei as a Variable 64

4 How Mei Gets Licensed? 69

4.1 Cheng 1995 69

4.2 A Conjunctive Approach 71

5 The Covert Quantificational Operator 73

6 The Property of the Covert Quantificational Operator 79

7 On Clauseboundedness 82

8 Further Inference 87

CHAPTER FOUR

SUBJECT SPECIFICITY, DISTRIBUTIVITY, AND SCOPE INTERPRETATION 91

1 Introduction 91

2 Diesing's Mapping Hypothesis 95

3 Tsai's Extended Mapping Hypothesis (1999, 2001a) 99

4 Subject Specificity and Predicate Distributivity .104

4.1 The specific reading vs. the collective/distributive reading 105

4.2 The nonspecific reading vs. the collective/ distributive reading 108

4.3 How the collective/distributive reading is derived? 110

4.4 How the specific reading is derived? 115

4.5 A relational notion between the specificity and the distributivity 118

5 The Implicit Modal in the Capacity Construction 119

6 Scope Interpretation vs. Collective/Distributive Reading 124

Aoun, J. (1985) A Grammar of Anaphora, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Aoun, J. (1986) Generalized Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Aoun, J. and Y.-H. Audrey Li (1993) Syntax of Scope, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Aoun, J., N. Hornstein, and D. Sportiche (1981) “Some Aspects of Wide Scope Quantification,” Journal of Linguistic Research 1, Vol 1, No. 3, 69-93.
Baker, C. L. (1970) “Double Negatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 1, 169-86.
Beghelli, F. and T. Stowell (1997) "Distributivity and Negation: the Syntax of Each and Every," in A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, 71-107, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
Carlson, G. (1980) "Polarity Any Is Existential," Linguistic Inquiry. 11.4.
Chao, Y.-R. (1968) A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Cheng. Lisa L.-S. (1991) On The Typology of Wh-questions, Cambridge, MA: MIT Dissertation.
Cheng. Lisa L.-S. (1995) "On Dou-Quantification," Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4, 197-234.
Cheng. Lisa L.-S. (1997) On The Typology of Wh-questions, Garland, New York [MIT Ph.D. Dissertation, 1991].
Chomsky, N. (1973) "Condition on Transformations," in S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
Chomsky, N. (1977a) Essays on Form and Interpretation, Elsevier North-Holand, New York.
Chomsky, N. (1977b) "On Wh-movement," in P. Culicover, T. Wasow ad A. Akmajian, eds., Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York.
Chomsky, N. (1993) "A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory," in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1-52.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIP Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik (1977) "Filters and Control," Linguistic Inquiry 8, 425-504.
Diesing, M. (1992) Indefinites, MIP Press, Cambridge, MA.
Fauconnier, G. (1975) “Polarity and The Scale Principle,” paper from the Eleventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 188-99.
Fengo, R. and J. Higginbotham (1981) “Opacity in NP,” Linugistic Analysis 7, 395-421.
Heim, I, H. Lasnik, and R. May (1991) "Reciprocity and Plurality," Linguistic Inquiry 22, 63-101.
Heim, I. (1982) The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. Dissertation, Umass.
Hintikka, J. (1977) "Quantifiers in Natural Languages: Some Logical Problems II," Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 135-172.
Hornstein, N. (1984) Logic as Grammar, Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hornstein, N. (1995) Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
Huang, C.-T. James. (1982a) “Move WH in A Language without WH-Movement,” The Linguisic Review 1, 369-416.
Huang, C.-T. James. (1982b) Logical Relations in Chinese and The Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Huang, C.-T. James. (1983) "On the Representation of Scope in Chinese," Journal of Chinese Linguistics Vol. 11, No. 1, 37-91.
Kadmon, N. (1987) On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kamp, J. A. W. (1981) "A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation," in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.) formal Methods in the Studey of Language, 277-321, Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam.
Kayne, R. (1981) "Two Notes on the NIC," in A. Belletti, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi, (eds.), Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.
Klima, E. (1964) "Negation in English," in J. Fodor and J. Katz, (eds.), The Structure of Language, 246-323, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Ladusaw, W. A. (1980) Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations, Garland, New York.
Lasnik, H. (1975) "On the Semantics of Negation," in Hockney et al., (eds.) Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics, 179-311. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Lasnik, H. and J. Uriagereka (1988) A Course in GB Syntax, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Lee, Thomas (1986) Studies on Quantification in Chinese, Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA.
Lewis, D. (1975) "Adverbs of Quantification," in E. Keenan (ed.) Formal Semantics of Natural Language, 3-15, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Li, C. and S. A. Thompson (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Li, X. (1997) Deriving Distributivity in Mandarin Chinese, Ph.D. Dissertation. UC Irvine, CA.
Li, Y.-H. Audrey (1992) "Indefinite Wh in Mandarin Chinese", Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1, 125-155.
Lin, Jo-wang. (1996) Polarity Licensing and Wh-phrases Quantification in Chinese, Ph.D. Dissertation, UMA, MA.
Lin, Jo-wang. (1998). “On Existential Polarity Wh-phrases in Chinese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7. 219-55.
Lin, Tzong-Hong (1997) "The Quantificational Force Parameter and the Determiner Ge in Chinese," in Proceedings of Interface Strategies in Chinese: Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases, LSA Linguistics Workshop, Cornell University.
Lin, Tzong-Hong (1998) "On Ge and Other Related Problems," in Liejiong Xu (ed.) The Referential properties of Chinese noun phrases, 209-253. Collection des Cahiers de Linguistique, Asie Oriental 2, Reg. Recettes Cahiers de Linguistique, Paris.
Linebarger, M. C. (1980) The Grammar of Negative Polarity. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Link, G. (1983) "The Logical Analysis of Plurals ad Mass Terms: A Lattice Theoretical Approach," in Bäuerele, Schwarze and von Stechow (eds.) Meaning, Use, and the Interpretation of Language, de Gruyter, Berlin.
Manzini, M. R. (1992) Locality: A Theory and Some of Its Empirical Consequences. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
May, R. (1977) The Grammar of Quantification, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
May, R. (1985) Logical Form. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Milsark, G. (1974) existential Sentences in English, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Partee, B. (1995) "Quantificational Structures and Compositionality," in Bach, Emmon, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara Partee (eds.) Quantification in Natural Languages, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Progovac, L. (1994) Negative and Positive Polarity: A Binding Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Quine, W. (1960) Word and Object, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Reinhart, T. (1983) Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, Croom Helm, London.
Ross, J. R. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Selkirk, E. (1982) The Syntax of Words, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. (1994) On Economizing the Theory of A'-dependencies, Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. (1999b) "On Lexical Courtesy," Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 39-73.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. (2001a) "On Subject Specificity and Theory of Syntax-Semantics Interface," Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10, 129-168.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. (2001b) "On Object Specificity," in Jäger, G., A. Strigin, C. Wilder, N. Zhang (eds), Papers on Predicative Constructions, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 22, 173-190, ZAS, Berlin.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan (1999a) On Economizing the Theory of A-Bar Dependencies, Garland Publishing, New York [MIT Ph.D. Dissertation, 1994].

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (國家圖書館：臺灣博碩士論文系統)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文