1887
Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8706
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Instead of classifying natural languages in terms of their answering systems for polar questions, this study investigates how languages construct the answering system for the polar questions with a special concentration on the answering system of the Chinese particle question and English polar questions. We argue that the primarily mechanism that natural languages adopt to construct an answering system is the focus mechanism which is based on the relationship between a focus sensitive marker and its association of focus. The different answering patterns to polar questions result from different scopes of focus. In a polar question, what is being focused by the focus sensitive marker or focus operator falls into question scope (focus association). The respondent answers the polar question based on the proposition in the question scope. Answering with a positive particle expresses agreement with that question proposition while answering with a negative particle conveys that the question proposition is not true.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijchl.19018.lio
2020-06-30
2020-12-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Büring, D. and Gunlogson, C.
    (2000) Aren’t Positive and Negative Polar Questions the Same?Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, and Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chao, Y.-R.
    (1968) A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Claus, B., Meijer, A. M., Repp, S. and Krifka, M.
    (2017) Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system”, Semantics & Pragmatics10, Article 19. 10.3765/sp.10.19
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.19 [Google Scholar]
  4. Farkas, D. and Roelofsen, F.
    (2012) Polar Initiatives and Polarity Particle Responses in an Inquisitive Discourse Model. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz, and University of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Goodhue, D. and Wagner, M.
    (2018) Intonation, yes and no, glossa. Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 5. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.210
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.210 [Google Scholar]
  6. Han, C.-H.
    (1998) Deriving the interpretation of rhetorical questions, inCurtis, E., Lyle, J. and Webster, G.editors, Proceedings of West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics16: 237–253, Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1999) The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
  8. Höhle, T.
    (1992) Ueber verum fokus in deutschen. Linguistische Berichte.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Holmberg, A.
    (2013) ‘The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish’. Lingua128: 31–50. 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.018 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2016) The syntax of yes and no. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Jackendoff, R.
    (1972) Semantics in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jones, M.
    (1999) The Welsh Answering System. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800593
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800593 [Google Scholar]
  13. Kramer, R. and Rawlins, K.
    (2010) Polarity Particles and Ellipsis: A (Somewhat) Cross-linguistic Perspective. Handout of paper presented at thePolarity Particle Workshop, University of California, Santa Cruz.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Krifka, M.
    (2006) Association with focus phrases. InV. Molnr and S. Winkler (Eds.), The Architecture of Focus, pp.105–136. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110922011.105
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922011.105 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2014) Ja, nein, doch als sententiale anaphern und deren pragmatische optimierung. InPriemer, A., Nolda, A. & Sioupi, A. (eds.), Zwischen Kern und Peripherie: Untersuchungen zu Randbereichen in Sprache und Grammatik: 41–68. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1524/9783050065335.41
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050065335.41 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kuno, S.
    (1978) Japanese: A characteristic OV language, inLehmann, W. (ed.). Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Sussex: The Harvester Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ladd, R.
    (1981) A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. InPapers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 164–171. Chicago Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Li, C. and Thompson, S.
    (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Liu, Y.-H., Pan, W.-Yu. and Gu, W.
    (2001) Shiyong Xiandai Hanyu Yufae [Modern Chinese Grammar]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
  20. McCawley, J.
    (1994) Remarks on the syntax of mandarin yes-no questions. Journal of East Asian Languages3(2): 179–194. 10.1007/BF01736126
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01736126 [Google Scholar]
  21. Pope, E. [Google Scholar]
  22. Roelofsen, F. and Farkas, D.
    (2015) Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language91(2):359–414. 10.1353/lan.2015.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0017 [Google Scholar]
  23. Romero, M. and Han, C.-H.
    (2002) Verum focus in negative yes/no questions and Ladd’s p / p ambiguity. InProceedings of Semantics and Linguistic TheoryXII: 204–224. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2004) On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy27(5): 609–58. 10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000033850.15705.94 [Google Scholar]
  25. Rooth, M.
    (1985) Association with Focus. University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.
  26. (1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics1.75–116. 10.1007/BF02342617
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1996) Focus. InS. Lappin, ed., Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sadock, J. and Zwicky, A.
    (1985) Speech act distinctions in syntax. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause structure, 155–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Servidio, E., Bocci, G., and Bianchi, V.
    (2018) (Dis)agreement, polarity, and focus: Answering negative polar questions in Italian. A Journal of General Linguistics3(1): 3. 1–28, doi:  10.5334/gjgl.360
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.360 [Google Scholar]
  30. Yabushita, K.
    (1998) Why do Japanese hai and iie not behave like English yes and no all the way?Consequences of the non-sentential operation of the Japanese negative morpheme nai, Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics23, 1: 59–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhu, D.-X.
    (1982) Yufa jiangyi (Lecture notes on grammar). Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijchl.19018.lio
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): answering particles , focus , ma particles , negative polar questions and syntax
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error