臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要

本篇論文主要藉由「原則參數語法」(the principles-and-parameters-approach)來探討漢語排除性副詞和焦點結構之間的關係，企圖釐清焦點結構在句法上的定位。並且參考「最簡方案」(the minimalist program)，檢視華語「只」和閩南語kan-na的語法運作；除了意圖找出排除性副詞的語意結構以及語用限制外，焦點機制在人類語言中如何運作，在句法和語意的呈現都是我們關心的重要課題。根據本文對焦點結構的探索，以及不同語言中，排除性副詞的比較分析，我們發現了一些焦點機制運作的句法基礎。賦與焦點結構在句法上具體的位置是有必要的。藉由句法的運作，可以連結語意和語用層面，可以提供合理解釋焦點機制的基礎。「多焦點結構」的假設可以比較合理的解釋「主題焦點」、「對比焦點」和「常規焦點」在句法語意層面的運作。主題焦點架在曲折詞組上面，在「分裂的大句子」中有自己的焦點投射；對比焦點在曲折詞組和動詞組之間，在「動詞組殼」裡有自己的焦點投射；常規焦點內嵌在句末最深處。排除性副詞和焦點結構是共同體。排除性副詞所帶來的強烈對比性，讓焦點機制的運作更加鮮明活耀。為了更準確的掌握排除性副詞的語意，尋求一種比較形式化的方式來把焦點意義結構化是有必要的。我們採用Krifka(1995)的結構化語意表徵，再加上一條語用限制，就可以很清楚的呈現排除性副詞的意義。像「只」和kan-na這一類的排除性副詞，它們的語意帶有强烈的「排他性」，最有個性的是，它們所約束的焦點部分必須是主觀小量的部分。主題是漢語重要的語法現象。我們發現，由一些排除性副詞所形成的詞組進入句首主題結構時，因為排除性副詞固有的排除性格，連帶的把對比的性質也帶進了主題結構。

目錄

第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究內容和範圍 1
1.2 研究方法 3
1.3 研究結果 3
1.4 內容大綱 4

第二章 文獻探討 6
2.1 Aoun and Li (1993) 6
2.2 顧志成 (1994) 10
2.3 蔡維天 (2004) 17

第三章 句法和語意層面 24
3.1 閩南語kan-na的句法語意特徵 24
3.1.1 kan-na出現的句法環境 25
3.1.2 kan-na的語意聯係 26
3.1.3 kan-na的焦點功能 30
3.2 華語「只」的句法語意 31
3.2.1 華語「只」出現的句法環境 32
3.2.2 「只」的語意聯係 35
3.2.3 右向聯係vs.左向聯係 35
3.3 焦點範疇在句法上的定位 38
3.3.1 焦點的表徵 38
3.3.2 焦點結構的句法位置 39
3.4 焦點詞組架構 43
3.5 結論 48

第四章 語意和語用層面 49
4.1 語意結構 49
4.1.1 聯係成分 49
4.1.2 結構化語意表徵 54
4.2　 語意特徵和語用限制 59
4.3　 主題焦點 62
4.3.1 對比焦點和信息焦點 62
4.3.2 主題化 64
4.4 「只」「才」「就」的比較 66
4.4.1 簡介 66
4.4.2 「只」「才」「就」邏輯的比較 67
4.4.3 「只」「才」「就」的共同性 69
4.4.4 「只」「才」「就」的差異性 70
4.5 結論 74

第五章 結論 75
5.1 研究的限制和進一步分析 75
5.2 總結 77
5.2.1 焦點也是句法範疇 77
5.2.2 排除性副詞的語意特徵和語用限制 78
5.2.3　 主題也有對比性質 78
5.2.4 排除性副詞家族的共性和個性 79

參考文獻 80

參考文獻

一、中文書目

王　力 (1985)《中國現代語法》北京：商務印書館。
王育德 (2002)《台灣語常用語彙》陳恆嘉　黃國彥譯，台北市：前衛。
方　梅 (1995)〈漢語對比焦點的句法表現手段〉，《中國語文》1995年第4期。
沈陽、何元建、顧陽 (2000)《生成語法理論與漢語語法研究》哈爾濱：黑龍江教育出版社。
李榮(主編) (2002)《厦門方言詞典》南京：江蘇教育出版社。
呂叔湘(主編) (1980)《現代漢語八百詞》北京：商務印書館。
徐烈烱 (2002)〈漢語是話題概念結構化語言嗎？〉，《中國語文》第5期，400-410頁。
徐 杰 (2001)《普遍語法原則與漢語語法現象》北京：北京大學出版社。
郭進屘 (1992)《漢語正反問句的結構和句法運作》清華大學碩士論文。
張斌(主編) (2001)《現代漢語虛詞詞典》北京：商務印書館。
湯廷池 (1992)《漢語詞法句法三集》台北：台灣學生。
湯廷池 (1999)《閩南語語法研究試論》台北：台灣學生。
黃正徳 (1989)〈說“是”和“有”〉，《李方桂先生紀念論文集》，台北。
趙元任 (1980)《中國話的文法》丁邦新譯，香港：香港中文大學出版社。
齊滬揚、張誼生、陳昌來（2002）《現代漢語虛詞研究綜述》合肥：安徽教育出版社。
鄭良偉 (1997)〈台、華語的代詞、焦點與範圍〉，《台語、華語的結構及動向》台北：遠流。
蔡維天 (2004)〈談「只」與「連」的形式語義〉，《中國語文》，第299期，99-111頁。
劉丹青、徐烈烱 (1998)〈焦點與背景、話題及漢語“連”字句〉，《中國語文》1998年第4期。
劉月華、潘文娛、故韡 (2001)《實用現代漢語語法》北京：商務印書館。
盧英順 (1995)〈副詞”只”和”only”的句法語義和語用比較〉，《漢語學習》，1995年第1期(總第85期)，32-36頁。
顧志成 (1994)《論漢語”只”的句法結構》台灣師範大學碩士論文。　

二、西文書目

Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audry Li. (1993a). Syntax of scope. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press.
Aoun, Joseph and Yen-hui Audry Li. (1993b). Wh-Elements in Situ: Syntax or LF?. Linguistic Inquiry 24.2:199-238.
Baker. M. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago University Press.
Baker. M. (1997). Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure. In Haegeman (ed) Element of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Grammar. 7-34. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bayer, Josef (1999). Bound Focus or How can Association with Focus be Achieved without Going Semantically Astray? In Georges Rebuschi, Laurice Tuller (Eds.), The Grammar of Focus (pp.55-82). John Benjamins B.V. 1999.
Bosch, P. and Sandt, R. van der (eds.) (1999) Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brody, Michael (1990). Remarks on the Order of Elements in the Hungarian Focus Phrase. In I. Kenesei (Eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 3 (pp. 95-122). Szeged: József Attila Tudományegyetem.
Cheng, L. Robert (1983). “Focus devices in Chinese,” Studies in Chinese Syntax and Semantics, Universe and Scope: Presupposition and Quantification in Chinese, ed. Ting-Chi Tang, Robert Cheng, Ying-Che Li. Taipei: Student Book Co.,1983.
Chomsky, Noam (1971). Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Semantic Interpretation. In Danny D. Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology (pp. 183-215). Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1977). On Wh-Movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax New York: Academic Press. (pp. 417-454). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lecture on Government and Binding.Dordrecht:Foris.
Chomsky, Noam (1993). A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1-52). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1995). Categories and Transformations. ms. MIT.
Cinque, Guglielmo (1993). A Null Theory of Phrase and Compound Stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24.2:239-297.
Culicover, Peter W. (1993). Focus and Grammar. ms. The Ohio State University.
Diesing, Molly (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, mass.:MIT Press.
Drubig, H. Bernhard (2003). Toward a typology of focus and focus constructions. Linguistics 41-1 (2003),1-50.
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Gundel, K. Jeanette (1999) On Different Kinds of Focus, in Bosch and Sandt(eds.), 293-305.
Heim, Irene (1982). The semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Herburger, Elena (2000). What counts Focus and Quantification. Cambridge, mass.:MIT Press.
Hole, Daniel P. (2004). Focus and background marking in Mandarin Chinese. System
and theory behind cái, jiù, dōu and yě. Number 5 in Asian Linguistics. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon.
Horn, Laurence R. (1969). A Presuppositional Approach to Only and
Even. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), 5: 98–107.
Horvath, Julia (1986). FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Foris Publications.
Huang, C.-T. James and C.-C. Jane Tang (1991). The local nature of the longdistance reflexive in Chinese. In Jan Koster and Eric Reuland (Eds.), Long- Distance Anaphora (pp. 263-282). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray S. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Jacobs, Joachim (1983). Fokus und Skalen: Zur Syntax und Semantik von Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Jacobs, Joachim (1991). “Focus Ambiguities.” Journal of Semantics 8:1-36.
Kadmon, Nirit (2001). Formal Pragmatics: semantics, pragmatics, presupposition, and focus. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers.
Karttunen, Lauri and Stanley Peters (1979). Conventional Implicature. In Choon-Kyu Oh and and D. A. Dineen (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 11: Presupposition (pp. 1-55). New York: Academic Press.
Kenesei, István (1993). On the Syntax of Focus. ms.
Kennedy, Christopher (1999). Polar Opposition and the Ontology of ‘Degrees’. Kluwer Academic Publishers. (1999).
Kiss, Katalin É. (1994). Sentence Structure and Word Order. In Syntax and Semantics: The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian (pp. 1-89). Academic Press, Inc.
Kiss, Katalin É. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. In language 74: 245-273.
König, E. (1991). The meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective.
London: Routledge.
Krifka, Manfred (1995). “Focus and the Interpretation of Generic Sentences.” In Carlson,N, and Pelletier, Jeffry. eds., The generic book, 238-264. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1965). Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). The Categorical and the Thetic Judgment. Foundations of Language 9, 153-185.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1992). Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Collected Papers. In Rochemont, Michael S. (1986). Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Laka, Mien Itziar (1990). Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-391.
Lee Hun-tak Thomas (2000). The acquisition of additive and restrictive focus in Cantonese. Presentation at the ‘Semantics Meets Acquisition’ workshop held at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, March 31-April 2, 2000.
Lee, Youngjoo (2005). Exhaustivity as agreement: The case of korean MAN ‘only’. Natural Language Semantics (2005) 13: 169–200.
May, Robert (1985). Logical Form: It’s structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Partee, H. Barbara (1999) Focus, Quantification and Semantic-Pragmatic Issues, in Bosch and Sandt(eds.), 213-231.
Radford, Andrew (1997a). Syntax Theory and the Structure of English. Cambridge University Press.
Radford, Andrew (1997b). Syntax: A Minimalist introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Radford, Andrew (2004). English Syntax an introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Riester, Arndt (2004). Compositionality Issues in Focus Semantics. IMS, Universität Stuttgart, February 28 – March 3, 2004
Rizzi, L. (1997). The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, pp. 281–337. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Rooth, Matt (1985). Association with Focus. Ph.D. dissertation, UMass.
Rooth, Matt (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics,
1:75–116.
Rooth, Matt (1996). Focus. In Lappin, S., editor, The Handbook of Contemporary
Semantic Theory, pages 271–297. London: Blackwell.
Selkirk, Elizabeth (1984). Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Shyu, Shu-ing.(徐淑瑛) (1995). The Syntax of Focus and Topic in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Tancredi (1990). Not only even, but even only. ms. MIT.
Gast, Volker (2004). Scalar and quantificational only – a unifying analysis. Free University of Berlin.
von Fintel, K. (1997). Bare plurals, bare conditionals, and only. Journal of
Semantics, 14:1–56.