本論探討越南語中四個最常 的D-量詞（即 tất-cả、cả、mọi 和 mỗi）以及 兩個複數標記 các 和 những 的分布與詮釋， 研究架構採般化量詞理論 （Barwise & Cooper 1981）， 並結合具類型彈性的 neo-Carlsonian 語意學 （Chierchia 1998b；2013）。

因此，我主張，在這種分類詞語中，所有全稱限定詞的特殊語法特徵 （例 如 cả/*tất-cả/*mọi/*mỗi Nam và Mi đã tới「Nam 和 Mi 都來了」）， 特別是它們與複數標記在顯性或隱性的定義域限制上的互動，都可以透過 它們對限制語所施加的基數性、原性、逐指性與均性預設 （presupposition）加 以解釋，與 Chierchia（2010）的理論精神相符合。

同時，我提出，複數標記 các 和 những 之間的相似性遠超過表 所 。 兩者在句法上皆可視為 Wiltschko（2008）所定義的複數修飾語，在語意上 則皆為 Chierchia（2010）所述的包容性複數運算（inclusive PL operator） 的反映，但其預設略有不同：những 帶有原 性與定義域擴展的預設，các 則以語境決定的賦值函數取代定義域擴展預設， 但在原性選擇上與 những 致。基於這套 các 與 những 的預設理論，兩者的四種基本法——（ ）謂 語法（如 Nam và Mi là những/ các sinh-viên「Nam 和 Mi 是學」）、 （ ）論元法（如 Các/những sinh-viên đó đã có-mặt「那些學來了」）、 （三）類指法（如 Các/những con khủng-long đã tuyệt-chủng「恐已經滅絕 了」）、（四）疑問不定法（如 Nam đã gặp những ai? 「Nam遇了哪 些？」）——皆可系統性地加以說明。

This dissertation investigates the distributions and interpretations of the four most common D-quantifiers (viz., tất-cả, cả,, mọi, and mỗi), and the two plural markers các and những in Vietnamese from the standard framework of generalized quantifiers (Barwise & Cooper 1981) enhanced with a type-flexible neo-Calsonian semantics (Chierchia 1998b; 2013).

Thus, I argue that all particular features of universal determiners (e.g. cả/*tất-cả/*mọi/*mỗi Nam và Mi đã tới ‘Nam and Mi both arrived’) in this classifier language, especially their interaction with plural markers as an overt/covert means of domain restriction, can be characterized by their different cardinality, atomicity, uniformity, and distributivity presuppositions imposing on their restrictors, along the lines of Chierchia (2010).

Meanwhile, I propose that the two plural markers các and những resemble each other more than they might look from the surface. Thus, both of them can be assumed to be syntactically modifying plurals in the sense of Wiltschko (2008), and semantically instantiations of the inclusive PL operator in the sense of Chierchia (2010) with slightly different presuppositions: những is encoded with atomicity and domain widening presuppositions, whereas các is encoded with a contextually determined assignment function instead of the domain widening presupposition, but sharing the atomicity selection in aligning with những. Given this presuppositional account of các and những, all of their four essential uses, including (i) the predicative use (e.g. Nam và Mi là những/các sinh-viên ‘Nam and Mi are students’), (ii) the argumental use (e.g. Các/những sinh-viên đó đã có-mặt ‘Those students arrived’), (iii) the generic use (e.g. Các/những con khủng-long đã tuyệt-chủng ‘Dinosaurs were extinct’), and (iv) the wh-indefinite use (e.g. Nam đã gặp những ai? ‘Who did Nam meet?’), can be captured in a systematic way.