跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.204.180.223) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/05 23:56
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:謝易達
研究生(外文):I-Ta Chris Hsieh
論文名稱:漢語的泛稱句與副詞量化
論文名稱(外文):Genericity and Adsverbial Quantification: From a Chinese Perspective
指導教授:林宗宏林宗宏引用關係
指導教授(外文):Tzong -Hong Jonah Lin
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立清華大學
系所名稱:語言學研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:語言學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2004
畢業學年度:92
語文別:英文
論文頁數:85
中文關鍵詞:副詞量化泛稱性泛稱漢語
外文關鍵詞:adverbial quantificationgenericitygenericsChinese
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:360
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:56
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
漢語的泛稱句與副詞量化

謝易達
國立清華大學語言學研究所

本篇論文主要在討論泛稱性(genericity)和副詞量化(adverbial quantification)在漢語中表現的情形。從漢語的角度來看,泛稱性可分為兩個層次:一個是動貌的泛稱性(the aspectual generic),另一個為情態的泛稱性(the modalistic generic)。在動貌泛稱性中,其內延性(intensionality)是表現在時間標記(time index)上。換句話說,一個動貌泛稱句在不同的時間間隔上會的到相同的外延。量化副詞在動貌泛稱句中只表示了一種機率的評量(probability judgment),在個體(individual)上並沒有展現量化的效應(quantificational effect)。理論上,中文的動貌泛稱句恰好符合Carlson (1977a, 1977b, 1982)所提出的單元分析法(monadic analysis)。泛稱運符Gn作為AspP的中心語並將謂語提升到一個更高的層次。在動貌泛稱句中的量化副詞則由Gn所應允(license)。
不同於動貌泛稱句,情態泛稱句的內延性則是表現在可能世界(possible world)上。在情態泛稱句中,量化副詞的情態特性(modal property)由泛稱情態助動詞「會」所彰顯。稱情態助動詞「會」作為ModP的中心語並應允量化副詞的出現。在情態泛稱句中的量化副詞所量化的對象為可能世界。情態泛稱句的分析剛好可套用Heim (1982), Kratzer (1995) 和Diesing (1992)所提出的量化分析法(quantificational approach)。
上述對漢語的泛稱性所提出的分析恰巧可解決長久以來的關於泛稱性該由單元分析法抑或量化分析法來處理的爭議。由漢語中的情形可得知,這兩種方法是作用在不同的層次,並非互相違背。在句法上,上述對於漢語泛稱句的分析恰巧為Cinque (1999)所提出的副詞位階(Adverbial Hierarchy)與副詞應允(Adverbial Licensing)提供佐證。
Genericity and Adverbial Quantification: From the Chinese Perspective


I.-Ta Chris Hsieh
Graduate Institute of Linguistics
National Tsing Hua University

Abstract

Thesis focuses on the generics and adverbial quantification in Mandarin Chinese. I propose that there are two levels of genericity in Mandarin Chinese. On is the aspectual generic, and the other is the modalistic generic. The aspectual generic behaves intensionally with respect to time index. It has the same extension on time intervals. In the aspectual generic, Q-adverbs do not have quantificational effect over individuals. They can only have the pure frequency reading and are probability judgments (Cohen (1999)). Theoretically, the aspectual generic fits in the monadic analysis proposed by Carlson (1977a), (1977b) and (1982). And the Operator Gn heads the projection AspP, lifting a predicate into a corresponding higher-level one and licensing the non-relational Q-adverbs. Unlike the aspectual generic, the modalistic generic behaves intensionally with respect to possible worlds. The modal property of the Q-adverbs in the modalistic generic is explicitly realized by the generic modal hui. The generic modal hui heads the projection ModP and licenses the relational Q-adverbs. The analysis is along the line of Dahl (1975), Heim (1982) and Chierchia (1995b).
If the analysis to genericity in Mandarin Chinese is on the right tract, the long-last controversy between the monadic approach (Carlson (1977a), (1977b), (1982)) and the quantificational approach (Heim (1982), Diesing (1992), Kratzer (1995), etc.) can be eased. These two approaches do not contradict each other; they work on different levels. The overt morphological marking of the Chinese generic provides evidence for these two levels of genericity. Moreover, these two levels of genericity also provide a piece of evidence for the adverbial licensing and adverbial hierarchy proposed by Cinque (1999). In addition, I also show that other languages such as English and the Southern Min also exhibits such a two-level genericity.
Table of Contents

Chinese Abstract………………………………………………………………………i
English Abstract……………………………………………………………………...ii
Acknowledgment…………………………………………………………………….iii
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………iv

Chapter 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Basic Data…………………………………………………………...2

Chapter 2. The Aspectual Generic…………………………………………………7
2.1 The Characteristics of the Aspectual Generic……………………….7
2.2 Analysis……………………………………………………………..12
2.2.1 Classical Carlsonian Approach and Derive Kind
Predicate (DKP)……………………………………………...12
2.2.2 Analysis……………………………………………………….15
2.3 Adverbial Quantification in the Aspectual Generic…………………17
2.3.1 Reasons Against Quantifying over Events……………………18
2.3.2 Quantifying over Probabilities………………………………..21
2.4 Summary……………………………………………………………26

Chapter 3. The Modalistic Generic………………………………………………...29
3.1 The Semantic Characteristics of the Modalistic Generic…………...30
3.2 The Generic Hui…………………………………………………….33
3.2.1 The Syntactic Status of the Generic Hui……………………...34
3.2.2 The Semantic Function of the Generic Hui…………………...38
3.3 The Semantics of the Modalistic Generic Sentence………………...42
3.3.1 Theoretical Backgrounds……………………………………...43
3.3.2 Analysis……………………………………………………….44
3.4 Summary……………………………………………………………49

Chapter 4. Two Levels of Genericity and Some Theoretical Consequences…….51
4.1 Two Levels of Genericity and Syntax-Semantics Mapping………...51
4.2 Some Theoretical Consequences……………………………………58

Chapter 5. Comparative Perspective………………………………………………63
5.1 English………………………………………………………………63
5.2 The Southern Min…………………………………………………...67
Chapter 6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………79

References…………………………………………………………………………...81
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977a. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy,1:3, 413-458.
Carlson, Gregory N. 1977b. Reference to Kinds in English. PhD. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Carlson, Gregory N. 1982. Generic Terms and Generic Sentences. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 11:2, 145-181
Carlson, Gregory N. 1989. The Semantic Composition of English Generic Sentences. In Propeties, Types, and Meaning, vol. 2: Semantic Issues, ed. by Gennaro Chierchia, Baarbara Partee, and Raymond Turner. 167-191. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Carlson, Gregory N. 1995. Truth-conditions of generic sentences: Two Contrasting Views. In The Generic Book, ed. by Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 224-237. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carlson, Gregory N. 1999. No lack of Determination. Glot, 4:3, 3-8.
Carnegie Mellon University dissertation. Published 1999, Stanford:
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995a. Individual-level predicates are inherent generics. In The Generic Book, ed. by Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 176-223. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995b. Dynamics of Meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition and the Theory of Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998a. References to Kinds across Languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339-405.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998b. Plurality of Mass Nouns and the Notion of “Semantic Parameter’. In Events and Grammar, ed., by Susan Rothestein. 53-103. Kluwer
Chomsky, Norm. 1995. The minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
Chung, Sandra, and Willaim A. Ladusaw. 2004. Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chung, Sandra. 2000. On Reference to Kinds in Indonesian. Natural Language Semantics 8: 157-171
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press
Cohen, Ariel. 1996. Think Generic: The Meaning and Use of Generic Sentences.
Cohen, Ariel. 1999. Generics, Frequency adverbs, and Probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 221-253.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: an introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge University Press, New York
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge University Press, New York.
CSLI.
de Swart, Henriëtte. 1991. Adverbs of Quantification: A Generalized quantifiers Approach. PhD. Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Gröningen
Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2001. Adverbs of Quantification and Genericity. Ms. Université Paris 7
Filip, Hana and Gergory N. Carlson 1997. Sui generis genericity. Proceedings of the 21st Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 4.2
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun phrases. PhD. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Higginbotham, James. 2000. On Events in Linguistic Semantics. Speaking of Events, ed. by James Higginbotham, Fabio Pianesi, Achille C. Varzi. Oxford University Press, New York.
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, ed. by Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Janssen , and Martin Stokhof, eds., , 227-232. Mathematical Centre Tracts 135, Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and Individual-level Predicates. In The Generic Book, ed. by Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 125-175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Krifka, Manferd, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice Ter Meulen, Gennaro Chierchia & Godehard Link .1995. Genericity :An Introduction. The Generic Book, ed. by Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 1-124
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9:153-185.
Ladusaw, William A. 1994. Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. Proceedings of SALT 4. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Dept. of Modern Languages and Linguistics. 220-229.
Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of Quantification. In Edward Keenan, ed., Formal Semantics of Natural Languages, 3-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Li, Y.-H Audrey. 1998. Argument Determiner Phrases and Number Phrases. Linguistic Inquiry: 693-702.
Lin, Jo-wang and Chi -Chen Jane Tang. 1995. Modals as verbs in Chinese: a GB perspective. Bulletin of Institute of History and Philology 66: 53-105. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
Lin, Tzong-Hong Jonah and I-Ta Chris. Hsieh. 2003. Distributed and Fixed Lexicon. abstract. National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Lin, Tzong-Hong Jonah. 2001. Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure. PhD. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. How Comparative is Semantics? A Unified Parameter Theory of Bare Nouns and Proper Names. Natural Language Semantics 9: 335-369
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its structure and Derivation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of Englis: a study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. PhD. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1994. On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependencies. PhD. Dissertation, MIT.
Yang, Rong. 2001. Common Nouns, Classifiers and Quantification in Chinese. PhD. Dissertation. Rutgers the State University of New Jersy, NJ.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top