1887
Volume 24, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067

Abstract

抽象的

本文通過兩項實證性的研究,再談漢語分裂式「是」句及幾類相關結構的語義。研究發現(i)不同於Paul & Whitman (2008)Cheng (2008)等分析,句首、句中「是」字句以及「是」字句和「是……的」結構在焦點標記方式和窮盡性的表達等分裂句相關語義屬性上具有一致性,因此應該進行統一化的處理。(ii)分裂式「是」字句的核心語義表達唯一性識別,其預設焦點候選項集合中有且只有一個唯一為真的候選項並斷言其自身表達的命題(prejacent)為真。「是」字句的窮盡性來自於預設和斷言共同作用下的語義推理,而對比性則來自於語篇在此基礎上的進一步限制作用。(iii)「是」字句同幾類相關結構(如斷言命題句,真值焦點句等等)具有共同的語義內核,即表達唯一性識別,而其區別則主要來自於各類句型中焦點成分屬性的不同。這樣的分析不但有助於更精確的語言事實描寫,也可以幫助我們更加系統化的理解漢語分裂句系統。

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00137.che
2023-05-25
2024-06-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lali.00137.che.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00137.che&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Büring, Daniel & Križ, Manuel
    2013 It’s that, and that’s it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics and Pragmatics61. 1–29. 10.3765/sp.6.6
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.6.6 [Google Scholar]
  2. Byram-Washburn, Mary & Kaiser, Elsi & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa
    2014 The English it-cleft: No need to get exhausted. (Paper presented at theQuestions in Discourse Conference, Göttingen, 18–20 September 2014.)
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen
    2008 Deconstructing the shì…de construction. The Linguistic Review25(3–4). 235–266. 10.1515/TLIR.2008.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TLIR.2008.007 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chierchia, Gennaro
    2013Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697977.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Coppock, Elizabeth & Beaver, David
    2014 Principles of the exclusive muddle. Journal of Semantics31(3). 371–432. 10.1093/jos/fft007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft007 [Google Scholar]
  6. Destruel, Emilie & Deveaugh-Geiss, Joseph
    2018 On the interpretation and processing of exhaustivity: Evidence of variation in English and French clefts. Journal of Pragmatics1381. 1–16. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.009 [Google Scholar]
  7. Destruel, Emilie & Beaver, David & Coppock, Elizabeth
    2018 Clefts: Quite the contrary!Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung21(1). 335–346.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DeVeaugh-Geiss, Joseph & Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar & Boell, Anna-Christina
    2015 Contradicting (not-)at-issueness in exclusives and clefts: An empirical study. InD’Antonio, Sarah & Moroney, Mary & Little, Carol Rose (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 25 (SALT 25), 373–393. Ithaca: Cornell University. 10.3765/salt.v25i0.3054
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v25i0.3054 [Google Scholar]
  9. Drenhaus, Heiner & Zimmermann, Malte & Vasishth, Shravan
    2011 Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional. Journal of Neurolinguistics24(3). 320–337. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  10. É. Kiss, Katalin
    1998 Identificational focus versus information focus. Language74(2). 245–273. 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  11. Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka
    2015 In defense of Closeness: focus-sensitive adverb placement in Vietnamese and Mandarin Chinese. Montréal: McGill University. (Manuscript.)
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hawkins, John. A.
    1991 On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics27(2). 405–442. 10.1017/S0022226700012731
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700012731 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hedberg, Nancy
    2000 The referential status of clefts. Language76(4). 891–920. 10.2307/417203
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417203 [Google Scholar]
  14. Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
    1998Semantics in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hole, Daniel
    2011 The deconstruction of shì…de clefts revisited. Lingua121(11). 1707–1733. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Horn, Laurence R.
    1981 Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. InBurke, Victoria & Pustejovsky, James (eds.), NELS 11: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 125–142. Amherst: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Horn, Laurence
    2016 Information structure and the landscape of (non-)at-issue meaning. InFéry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 108–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hsu, Yu-Yin
    2019 Associations between focus constructions and levels of exhaustivity: An experimental investigation of Chinese. PLOS ONE14(10). e0223502. 10.1371/journal.pone.0223502
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223502 [Google Scholar]
  19. Huang, C.-T. James (黃正德)
    1988 Shuo shi he you說「是」和「有」. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philosophy中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊59(1). 43–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Karttunen, Lauri
    1973 Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry4(2). 169–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Karttunen, Lauri & Peters, Stanley
    1979 Conventional implicature. InOh, Choon-Kyu & Dinneen, David A. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 11: Presupposition, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kenesei, István
    2006 Focus as identification. InMolnár, Valéria & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), The architecture of focus, 137–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Krifka, Manfred
    2008 Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica55(3–4). 243–276. 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.2
    https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 [Google Scholar]
  24. Križ, Manuel & Chemla, Emmanuel
    2015 Two methods to find truth-value gaps and their application to the projection problem of homogeneity. Natural Language Semantics23(3). 205–248. 10.1007/s11050‑015‑9114‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-015-9114-z [Google Scholar]
  25. Lambrecht, Knud
    2001 A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics39(3). 463–516. 10.1515/ling.2001.021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.021 [Google Scholar]
  26. Landman, Fred
    1991Structures for semantics. Dordrecht: Springer Dordrecht. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3212‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3212-1 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee, Hui-Chi
    2005On Chinese focus and cleft constructions. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lin, Jo-wang (林若望)
    2016De-construction, modality and counterfactual reasoning「的」字結構、模態與違實推理. Zhongguo Yuwen中國語文 2016(2). 131–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Link, Godehard
    1983 The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretic approach. InBäuerle, Rainer & Schwarze, Christoph & von Stechow, Arnim (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110852820.302
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.302 [Google Scholar]
  30. Liu, Mingming
    2017 Varieties of alternatives: Mandarin focus particles. Linguistics and Philosophy40(1). 61–95. 10.1007/s10988‑016‑9199‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9199-y [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, Ying & Yang, Yu’an
    2017 To exhaust, or not to exhaust: An experimental study on Mandarin shi-clefts. InErlewine, Michael Yoshitaka (ed.), Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI, vol.21 (MITWPL 85), 103–117. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Paul, Waltraud & Whitman, John
    2008Shi…de focus clefts in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistic Review25(3–4). 413–451. 10.1515/TLIR.2008.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TLIR.2008.012 [Google Scholar]
  33. Percus, Orin
    1997 Prying open the cleft. InKusumoto, Kiyomi (eds.), NELS 27: Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society271, 337–351. Amherst: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Repp, Sophie
    2016 Contrast: Dissecting an elusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. InFéry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), Oxford handbook of information structure, 270–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rooth, Mats
    1985Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics1(1). 75–116. 10.1007/BF02342617
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  37. Shen, Jiaxuan (沈家煊)
    2008 Moving what? On emotional movement inTa shi qunian sheng de haizi「移位」還是「移情」?——析「他是去年生的孩子」Zhongguo Yuwen中國語文 2008(5). 387–395.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Shyu, Shu-ing
    2017 Shi … (de) sentences. InSybesma, Rint & Behr, Wolfgang & Gu, Yueguo & Handel, Zev & Huang, C.-T. James & Myers, James (eds.), Encyclopedia of Chinese language and linguistics, vol.41, 40–46. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Simpson, Andrew & Wu, Zoe Xiu-Zhi
    2002 From D to T – Determiner incorporation and the creation of tense. Journal of East Asian Linguistics11(2). 169–209. 10.1023/A:1014934915836
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014934915836 [Google Scholar]
  40. Teng, Shou-hsin
    1979 Remarks on the cleft sentences in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics7(1). 101–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Dan Velleman, & Beaver, David & Destruel, Emilie & Bumford, Dylan & Onea, Edgar & Coppock, Elizabeth
    2012It-clefts are IT (inquiry terminating) constructions. InChereches, Anca (ed.), Proceedings of the 22nd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 22), 441–460. Ithaca: Cornell University. 10.3765/salt.v22i0.2640
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v22i0.2640 [Google Scholar]
  42. Wan, Quan (完權)
    2013De in state-of-affairs sentences事態句中的「的」. Zhongguo Yuwen中國語文 2013(1). 51–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Xu, Liejiong
    2004 Manifestation of informational focus. Lingua114(3). 277–299. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00031‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00031-7 [Google Scholar]
  44. Yue-Hashimoto, Anne
    1969 The verb “to be” in modern Chinese. InVerhaar, John W. M. (ed.), The verb “be” and its synonyms: Part 4 (Foundation of Language Supplementary Series 9), 72–111. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑9804‑2_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9804-2_2 [Google Scholar]
  45. Yuan, Yulin (袁毓林)
    2003 On the syntactic and semantic function of de in the sentence final position: From a viewpoint of the modern focus theory從焦點理論看句尾「的」的句法語義功能. Zhongguo Yuwen中國語文 2003(1). 3–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar
    2011 Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua121(11). 1651–1670. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  47. Zimmermann, Malte & De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph & Tönnis, Swantje & Onea, Edgar
    2020 (Non-)exhaustivity in focus partitioning across languages. InHegedűs, Veronika & Vogel, Irene (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian volume 16: Papers from the 2017 Budapest Conference, 207–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/atoh.16.10zim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.16.10zim [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00137.che
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00137.che
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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