漢語疑問詞「怎麼」之左緣結構分析｜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：	陳彥叡 CHEN, YAN-RUEI
論文名稱：	漢語疑問詞「怎麼」之左緣結構分析 On Zenme 'How-come' in Mandarin Chinese: A Left Periphery Analysis
指導教授：	葉瑞娟 Yeh, Jui-chuan 楊中玉 Yang, Barry C.-Y.
口試委員:	黃漢君 Huang, Han-Chun 黃瑞恆 Huang, Rui-heng Ray
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	竹師教育學院 - 臺灣語言研究與教學研究所 Taiwan Languages and Language Teaching
論文出版年：	2018
畢業學年度：	106
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	130
中文關鍵詞：	非典疑問詞、怎麼、左緣結構、否定、否認
外文關鍵詞：	non-canonical wh-phrase, zenme, left periphery, negative, denial
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

本論文以句法製圖的方式分析漢語疑問詞「怎麼」句法位置。本研究主要聚焦位於 CP 層次中的疑問詞「怎麼」。在先前的研究中，已關注到位於模態詞之前的疑問詞有兩種功能，一種功能可作為疑問句詢問「起因」，另一種功能則作為答覆表達「否認」(Tsai 1999, 2000, 2007, 2008)。

然而，本篇認為疑問詞「怎麼」尚有兩個新的「怎麼」功能，這兩種「怎麼」的語力(illocutionary force)皆高於「否認」怎麼。一種「怎麼」為「強否認」，作為表達更高的語力，因此原先否認「怎麼」於本篇重新定義為「弱否認」。另一種「怎麼」表達否定語意，作為否定句子的命題。

本論文研究四種疑問詞「怎麼」: (1)「起因」怎麼 (2) 「弱否認」怎麼 (3) 「強否認」怎麼 (4)「否定」怎麼。根據CP切割假說 (Split-CPhypothesis)(Rizzi 1997, 1999)，本篇認為疑問詞「怎麼」吻合 Tsai (1994, 1999, 2000, 2007, 2008)的研究，可繪製出清晰的句法與語意位址定位圖。

This thesis aims to map out the syntactic distribution of the wh-phrase zenme ‘how-come’ in Chinese under the cartographic approach. In this thesis, I focus on zenme which occurs in the CP domain. It has been observed that zenme in the pre- modal position can either serve as a question to ask the cause of an event (i.e., the causal zenme), or serve as a reply to deny the occurrence of an event (i.e., the denial zenme) (Tsai 1999, 2000, 2007, 2008).

However, there are two more new usages of the wh-phrase zenme ‘how’ which both demonstrate even stronger illocutionary force than the denial zenme. One kind of zenme denotes a stronger degree of denial interpretation (hereafter the ‘strong denial or ‘s-denial’ for short) than that of denial zenme and thus the original denial zenme is henceforth viewed as the weak denial zenme (‘w-denial’ for short) in this thesis. Another usage of zenme denotes negative interpretation so as to negate the whole proposition that the sentence denotes.

In this thesis, I investigate the four wh-phrase zenme's ‘how-come’: (1) the causal zenme, (2) the w-denial zenme, (3) the s-denial zenme, and (4) the negative zenme. Following Rizzi’s (1997, 1999) Split-CP hypothesis, I propose that the wh-phrase zenme ‘how-come’ in Chinese demonstrates a transparent mapping of syntax and semantics in line with Tsai (1994, 1999, 2000, 2007, 2008).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

摘要                       I
ABSTRACT                II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS    III
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS    VII
LIST OF TABLES            VIII

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1
1. THE BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY                                 1
1. THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS                                        3
1.1. The existence of weak denial zenme ‘how-come’ (w-denial zenme)    3
1.2. The existence of strong denial zenme ‘how-come’ (s-denial zenme)    7
1.3. The existence of negative zenme ‘how-come’                        8
2. THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY                                    11

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW                                    12

1. THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE                                    12
1.1. Collins (1991)                                                12
1.2. Ochi (2004)                                                    15
2. CARTOGRAPHIC APPROACH                                    18
2.1. Tsai (1994, 1999, 2000, 2007, 2008)                            18
2.2. Tang (2015)                                                    25
3. SUMMARY                                                    33

CHAPTER 3 THE DISTINCTION OF THE FOUR WH-PHRASE ZENME’S        35

1. THE CONTEXT-BASED DISTINCTION                                40
1.1. Causal zenme                                                40
1.2. Weak denial zenme (w-denial zenme)                            41
1.3. Strong denial zenme (S-denial zenme)                            43
1.4. Negative zenme                                                45
2. THE MODAL-BASED DISTINCTION                                45
2.1. The Spectrum of Modality                                        45
2.2. Modal Distinction                                            50
3. THE FEATURE-BASED DISTINCTION                                53
3.1. Disagreement                                                53
3.2. Cancellation                                                54
3.3. Actuality Entailment (AE)                                        56
3.4. Reality Status (RS)                                            61
3.5. Summary                                                    63
4. THE DEFINITION OF WH-PHRASE ZENME                            64
5. SUMMARY                                                    65

CHAPTER 4 CARTOGRAPHY APPROACH                                67

1. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK (THE SPLIT-CP HYPOTHESIS (RIZZI 1997, 1999))    67
2. INTERROGATIVE ADVERB DAODI                                70
3. THE EMBEDDED CONTEXT                                        76
3.1. The Verb Xiang-Zhidao ‘Want-Know’                            78
3.2. The Verb Renwei ‘Think’                                        80
3.1. The Factive Verb Faxian ‘Find-Out’                                82
4. NPI LICENSING                                                87
5. TOPICALIZATION                                                91
6. PROJECTION OF THE FOUR ZENME                                96
6.1. Subject In-Between Zenme and Modal                            97
6.2. Pre-Subject Modal Test                                        100
7. INTERVENTION EFFECT                                        107
8. SUMMARY                                                    116

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND FURTHER REMARKS                    119

1. CONCLUSION                                                    119
2. FURTHER REMARKS                                            121
REFERENCES                                                        128


                                

Beck, Sigrid. and Shin-Sook Kim. 1997. On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6:4, 339-384.

Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999. ‘Actuality Entailments of Ability Modals’. In: ‘Proceedings of the 17th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics’, CSLI, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 74–87.

Butler, Jonny. 2003. A minimalist treatment of modality. Lingua, 113(10), 967-996.

Bybee, Joan L. 1998. ‘Irrealis’ as a grammatical category. Anthropological Linguistics 40. 257–271.

Cheung, Yam-Leung. 2008. The Negative Wh-Construction, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.

Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press.

Collins, Chris. 1991. Why and How come. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 31-45. Cambridge: MIT.

Elliott, Jennifer R., 2000. Realis and Irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology 4: 55–90.

Emonds, Joseph. 1970. Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.

Hacquard, Valentine. 2009. ‘On the interaction of aspect and modal auxiliaries’. Linguistics and Philosophy 32, pp. 279–315.

Han, Chung-hye, and Laura Siegel. 1996a. Syntactic and Semantic Conditions on NPI Licensing in Questions. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.

Ochi, Masao. 2004. How Come and other Adjunct Wh-phrases: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Language and Linguistics 5.1: 29-57.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.) Elements of grammar, p. 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad. Publishers.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1999. On the Position “Int(errogative)” in the Left Periphery of the Clause. Ms. Università di Siena.

Tang, Sze-Wing. 2015. “Adjunct Wh-Words in Left Periphery,” In Essays in the Cartography of Chinese Syntax, ed., Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai. Oxford University.

Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1994. On Economizing the Ttheory of A-bar Dependencies. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Tsai,W.-T. Dylan. 2008. Left periphery and how-why alternations, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17:2, 83-115.

Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1999. ‘The Hows of Why and the whys of How’. In: Francesca Del Gobbo & Hidehito Hoshi (eds.), ‘UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 5’, pp. 155–184.

Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 2000. Weishenme wen zenmeyang, zenmeyang wen weishenme [The hows of why and the whys of how]. Hanxue Yanjiu [Chinese Studies] 18.1, 209-235.

Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. 2007. Chongwen “Weishenme wen zenmeyang, zenmeyang wen weishenme”: tan Hanyu yiwenju he fanshenju zhong de nei, wai zhuangyu [“The hows of why and the whys of how” revisited: on inner and outer adverbials in Chinese interrogative and reflexive sentences]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Chinese Language] 3, 195-207.

Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. ‘Left periphery and how-why alternations’. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, pp. 83–115.

Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2011. Cong ‘zhe hua cong he shuo qi?’ shuo qi [On atypical wh-expressions in Chinese]. Yuyanxue Luncong, vol. 43, 194–208. Beijing: Commercial Press.

Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2012. On the topography of Chinese modals. Presented at Syntactic Cartography: where do we go from here?, University of Geneva.

Yang, Barry C.-Y. 2014. “Shenme gen Shenme “What and What””, The 10th Workshop on Formal Syntax & Semantics (FOSS-10), National Quemoy University, Kinmen, Nov. 22-23, 2014.

Yang, Barry C.-Y. 2015. “Locating Wh-intervention Effects at CP,” In Essays in the Cartography of Chinese Syntax, ed., Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai. Oxford University Press.

Yang, Barry C.-Y. 2018. Higher and higher: a probe into speaker force, The 12th Workshop on Formal Syntax & Semantics (FOSS-12), National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan, Apr. 27-28, 2018.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文