泰語比較句之句法語意研究｜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：	吳承勳 Wu, Cheng-Shiun
論文名稱：	泰語比較句之句法語意研究 On the Syntax and Semantics of Thai Comparatives
指導教授：	謝易達 Hsieh, I-Ta Chris
口試委員:	廖秀娟 Liao, Hsiu-chuan 吳曉虹 Wu, Hsiao-Hung Iris
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：	2020
畢業學年度：	108
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	80
中文關鍵詞：	泰語、比較句、比較句刪略、次比較刪略、縮減分析
外文關鍵詞：	Thai, Comparative construction, Comparative deletion, Sub-deletion, Reduction Analysis
相關次數：	點閱：3 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

本論文探討一類帶有程度引介詞(standard marker)語素「kwàa」的泰語比較句。這類比較句可以進一步細分成兩種子類，兩種子類的差別在於句子當中是否出現另一個語素「thîi」：無「thîi」的子類稱作「kwàa-比較句」，在此類比較句中，出現在kwàa後的成分類似於限定詞詞組(DP)；有「thîi」的的子類稱作「kwàa-thîi-比較句」，在此類比較句中，出現在kwàa-thîi後面的結構成分則類似子句。

本研究的第一部分討論kwàa-比較句的結構。在約束現象(binding effect)以及與量化詞的轄域關係的證據支持下，本文主張在泰語kwàa-比較句中，kwàa後面的結構成分實際上類似子句，因此大過於其表層形式的限定詞詞組。據此，本文提出以傳統比較句研究的「刪略分析」之法來分析此類句型的結構相對合適。此外，本文指出這一類比較句當中缺乏「次比較刪略(sub-deletion)」的現象可以從Hsieh (2017)對於中文比較句刪略的分析來解釋。

本研究的第二部分討論kwàa-thîi-比較句的結構和語意。本文指出類似於thîi出現在其他關係子句的用法，kwàa後面的結構成分可以當作是一個帶有隱藏的中心語的關係子句。本文採取Jenks (2014)的分析，將thîi視為標句詞(complementizer)，其在語意上功能為述語抽象化(predicate abstraction)。因此，程度引介詞kwàa的補語可能是完整的標句詞詞組，或者是限定詞/名詞詞組帶有一個隱藏的代表程度的中心語。

In this thesis, I investigate Thai comparative sentences with the morpheme kwàa, which has been seen as a standard marker. There are two types of such comparative sentences depending the presence of another morpheme thîi. In this study, the one without the presence of thîi is termed kwàa-comparative, as the constituent that follows kwàa appears as a DP on the surface; on the other hand, the one with thîi is termed kwàa-thîi-comparative, and the constituent that follows kwàa thîi may be clause-like.

The first part concerns structure of Thai kwàa-comparatives; Given the evidence from binding effects and scope interactions between quantifiers, I suggest that in a Thai kwàa-comparative, the post-kwàa constituent in fact is clause-like and hence is larger than a DP. Therefore, a deletion-based account of comparatives (e.g., Bhatt and Takahashi 2011; Merchant 2009) fares better in characterizing the structure of this type of comparative sentences. Furthermore, I show that the lack of sub-deletion in this type of comparative may be accounted for with Hsieh’s (2017) feature-based analysis of comparative deletion in Mandarin, which is built on the idea that the unvalued T-feature carried by the embedded adjective cannot be elided at PF (Hsieh 2017).

The second part of this thesis concerns the kwàa-thîi-comparative. I first show that given the presence of thîi, which also appears in a relative clause, the post-kwàa constituent in this type of comparative may be seen as a relative clause with a covert nominal head. Following Jenks (2014), I see thîi as a complementizer, which semantically functions as a predicate abstractor. The complement of the standard marker kwàa hence can be a full-fledged CP or a DP/NP with a covert degree-denoting nominal head.

Chinese Abstract....................................................i
English Abstract...................................................ii
Acknowledgements..................................................iii
List of Abbreviations...............................................v
List of Tables...................................................viii

Chapter 1  Introduction.............................................1
1    Objectives of this Research..................................1
2    Data Sources.................................................2
3    Previous Studies on Comparative Constructions in Thai........4
4    The Organization of the Thesis...............................7

Chapter 2  Theoretical Background...................................9
1    Elements in Comparative Constructions........................9
2    The Syntax of Degree Phrases and Comparatives...............10
2.1  Comparative Deletion and Comparative Subdeletion............10
2.2  Wh-movement in Comparatives.................................11
2.3  The Syntax of Extended Adjectival Projection................12
3    The Semantics of Comparatives...............................14
3.1  Degree and Scale............................................14
3.2  Gradable Predicates.........................................15
3.3  Degree morphemes in Comparative Constructions...............16

Chapter 3  Comparative Constructions in Thai.......................20
1    A Basic Description.........................................20
1.1  The Meaning of mâak and kwàa................................21
2    Categories of Standard Constituents.........................22
3    Conditions on Associates and Standards......................26
4    Interim Summary.............................................27

Chapter 4  A Deletion-Based Account for Thai kwàa-comparatives.....28
1    Approaches to Phrasal Comparatives..........................28
1.1  The Reduction Analysis and The Direct Analysis..............28
1.2  The Small Clause Analysis...................................29
2    Proposal: The Small Clause Analysis to Thai kwàa-comparatives ...................................................................31
3    Evidence for Reduction Operation in Thai....................33
3.1  Evidence from Binding Effects...............................33
3.2  Evidence from Scopal Interaction............................36
4    Potential Arguments against the Small Clause Account........39
4.1  Single Standard Restriction.................................39
4.2  The Lack of the Subcomparative..............................41
4.2.1  Hsieh’s (2017) Account....................................42
5    Interim Summary.............................................48

Chapter 5  A Clausal Account for Thai kwàa-thîi-comparatives.......50
1    Accounts for Clausal Comparatives...........................50
1.1  Accounts for English Clausal Comparatives...................50
1.2  Accounts for Japanese Clausal Comparatives..................51
1.2.1  Clausal Accounts for Japanese Clausal Comparatives........52
1.2.2  Phrasal Accounts for Japanese Clausal Comparatives........54
1.3  Interim Summary.............................................58
2    Parallel between Relative Clauses and Comparatives in Thai..59
2.1  The Particle thîi in Thai Relative Clauses..................59
2.2  The Particle thîi in Thai kwàa-thîi-comparatives............63
3    Proposal....................................................63
3.1  An Analysis of thîi.........................................63
3.2  Two Possible Accounts.......................................65
3.2.1  The Standard Account......................................65
3.2.2  The Nominal Account.......................................67
3.3  The Disadvantages of Free Relative Accounts.................69
4    Interim Summary.............................................70

Chapter 6  Conclusion..............................................71
1    Summary.....................................................71
2    Contributions of the thesis.................................72
3    Directions for Future Research..............................73

References    75
                                

Agbayani, Brian, and Ed Zoerner. 2002. Gapping and pseudogapping: The same, but different. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL), volume 12, ed. by Vida Samiian, 1-8. Fresno, CA: CSU Fresno.
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentntial aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Beck, Sigrid, Sveta Krasikova, Daniel Fleischer, Remus Gergel, Stefan Hofstetter, Christiane Savelsberg, John Vanderelst, and Elisabeth Villalta. 2009. Crosslinguistic variation in comparison constructions. In Linguistic variation Yearbook 2009, ed. by Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Johan Rooyck, 1-66. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Beck, Sigrid, Toshiko Oda, and Koji Sugisaki. 2004. Parametric variation in the semantics of comparison: Japanese vs. English. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13:289–344.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2014. Many or more: the Hindi-Urdu degree word zyaadaa and the analysis of bare comparatives. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 69: Proceedings of the MIT Workshop on Comparatives, ed. by Michael Erlewine and Yasutada Sudo, 1-18. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA.
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2004. Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 1-46.
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Shoichi Takahashi. 2007. Direct comparisons: Resurrecting the Direct Analysis of phrasal comparatives. Proceedings of semantics and linguistics theory (SALT) XVII, edited by Masayuki Gibson and Tova Friedman, 19-36.
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Shoichi Takahashi. 2011. Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(3): 581-620.
Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 275-343.
Bresnan, Joan. 1975. Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Analysis 1: 25-74.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On Wh-movement. In Formal syntax, edited by Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71-132. NewYork, NY: Academic Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, edited by Roger Martin, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka, and Samuel Jay Keyser, 89-115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, edited by Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Corver, Norbert. 1990. The syntax of left branch extractions. Ph.D. thesis, Tilburg University.
Corver, Norbert. 1993. A note on subcomparatives. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4): 773-781.
Diller, Anthony V.N. 2008. Resources for Thai Language Research. In The Tai-Kadai languages, ed. by Anthony V N. Diller, Jerold A. Edmondson, and Yongxian Luo, 31-82. New York: Routledge.
Donati, Caterina. 1997. Comparative clauses as free relatives: A raising analysis. Probus 9: 145-166.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Ms., Brandeis University.
Hass, M.R. 1964. Thai-English student’s dictionary. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press.
Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related Matters. Ms., University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Heim, Irene. 2000. Degree operators and scope. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistics theory (SALT) X, edited by Brendan Jackson and Tanya Matthews, 40-64.
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Higbie, James, and Snea Thinsan. 2002. Thai reference grammar: The structure of Spoken Thai. Bangkok: Orchid Press.
Hofstetter, Stefan. 2013. Comparison in Thai: European patterns in a language from Southeast Asia. PhiN (Philologie im Netz) 66: 1-20.
Hoonchamlong, Yuphaphann. 1991. Some issues in Thai anaphora: A government and binding approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Hsieh, I-Ta Chris. 2017. On arguments against comparative deletion in Mandarin. Tsing-Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 47(2): 255-287.
Hudak, Thomas John. 2018. Thai. In The world’s major languages, Third edition, ed. by Bernard Comrie. NY: Routledge
Iwasaki, Shoichi, and Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2005. A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1995. A solution to the subcomparative paradox. In West coast conference on formal linguistics (WCCFL) 14, edited by José Camacho, Lina Choueiri, and Maki Watanabe, 203-219. Stanford: CSLI Publications,.
Jacobson, Pauline. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In Quantification in natural language, ed. by Bach et al, 451-486. Springer: Dordrecht.
Jenks, Peter. 2011. The hidden structure of Thai noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Jenks, Peter. 2014. Generalized clausal modifiers in Thai noun phrases. Syntax 17(4): 299-342.
Johnson, Kyle. 2014. Gapping. Unpublished manuscript.
Kennedy, Christopher. 1997. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Ph.D. dissertation, US Santa Cruz.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2005, November. Variation in the expression of comparison: Implication for the semantics of comparatives and gradable predicates. Talk Handout. Cornell University.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2009. Modes of comparison. In Proceedings of Chicago linguistics society (CLS) 43(1): 141-165. University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Kullavanijaya, Pranee. 2008. A Historic Study of /thîi/ in Thai. In The Tai-Kadai Languages, ed. by Anthony V N. Diller, Jerold A. Edmondson and Yongxian Luo, 445-467. New York: Routledge.
Kuno, S. and P. Wongkhomthong. 1981. Relative clauses in Thai. Studies in Language 5: 195-226.
Lechner, Winfried. 2001. Reduced and Phrasal Comparatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(4): 683-735.
Lechner, Winfried. 2004. Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lechner, Winfried, and Norbert Corver. 2017. Comparative Deletion and Comparative Subdeletion. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition, ed. by Martin Everaert and Henk C. van Riemsdijk. John Wiley & Sons.
Merchant, Jason. 2009. Phrasal and Clausal comparatives in Greek and the abstractness of syntax. Journal of Greek Linguistics 9(1): 134-164.
Morev, Lev N. 1998. Expressing comparison in the Tai languages. Mon-Khmer Studies 28: 91-100.
Morzycki, Marcin. 2016. Modification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oda, Toshiko. 2008. Degree constructions in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Slavic. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14: The Princeton Meeting, edited by J. Lavine, S. Franks, M.Tasseva-Kurktchieva, and H.Filip, 236-257.
Pancheva, Roumyana. 2010. More students attended FASL than CONSOLE. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18: The Cornell Meeting, 2009, edited by W. Browne, A. Cooper, A. Fisher, E. Kesici, N. Predolac, and D. Zec, 383-400.
Partee, Barbara.1987. Noun phrase Interpretation and Type-shifting Principles. In Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, ed. by J. Groenedijkm, D. de Jongh, and M. Stokhof, 115-143.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Maximality in the Semantics of Wh-constructions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Shimoyama, Junko. 2012. Reassessing crosslinguistic variation in clausal comparatives. Natural Language Semantics 20: 83-113.
Smith, Carlota S. 1961. A class of complex modifiers in English. Language 37(3): 342-365.
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar: An Essay in Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sudo, Yasutada. 2009. Invisible degree nominal in Japanese clausal comparatives. In Proceedings of the 5th workshop on Altaic in formal linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Sudo, Yasutada. 2015. Hidden nominal structures in Japanese clausal comparatives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 24:1-51.
Šimík, Radek. To appear. Free relatives. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, ed. by Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann, Thomas Ede Zimmerman, and Dina Voloshina. Wiley.
van Riemsdijk, Henk C.. 2017. Free relatives. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition (Book 2): 338-382. Wiley.
von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3(1): 1-77.
Warotamasikkhadit, U. 1972. Thai syntax: An outline. The Hauge, Mouton.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文