政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/152958
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113311/144292 (79%)
造訪人次 : 50925582      線上人數 : 977
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152958


    題名: 中文兩種析取詞：選擇問句和直述句
    Two Disjunctions in Mandarin Chinese: Alternative Question and Declarative Sentence
    作者: 洪政哲
    Hong, Zheng-Zhe
    貢獻者: 陳奕勳
    Chen, Yi-Hsun
    洪政哲
    Hong, Zheng-Zhe
    關鍵詞: 還是
    或者
    選擇問句
    Hamblin Semantics
    是…還是
    Haishi
    Huozhe
    Alternative questions
    Hamblin Semantics
    Shi…haishi
    日期: 2024
    上傳時間: 2024-08-05 15:05:51 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本篇論文主要探討中文的連接詞「還是」和「或者」的句法及語意特質。在中文的語法中，「還是」和「或者」都可以用來連接兩個選項。Liing(2014)、Liu 等 (2019)、Zhao(2002)和Huang等(2009)指出「還是」和「或者」在句法上有所區別。只有「還是」可以用來表達選擇問句，讓聽話者對於連接的兩個選項做出選擇，而「或者」則用來表達陳述句，但是並沒有要求聽話者對於連接的兩個選項做出選擇。然而，Shao(1994)、Zhang(2008)、Mashima(2019)和Li(2020)認為「或者」也可以用來表達選擇問句。本文不同意這觀點，並通過分析回應方式來反駁這些反例。我們認為這些反例屬於不同類型的問句，而不是選擇問句。
    我們採用Hamblin語義學（1973）的框架來解釋關於陳述句和各種問句類型。根據這理論架構中「還是」和「或者」的區別在於：「或者」由於其詞彙語意中具有存在閉鎖的特徵，形成一個非開放集合，因此無法表達選擇問句。而「還是」在其詞彙項中缺乏存在閉鎖同時仍有一個Q特徵，最後形成一個開放集合。
    論文前半部分是針對「還是」和「或者」的差異進行探討，之後我們針對「還是」的相似句型「是…還是」兩者間句法上和語意上的差異。有趣的是，兩者雖都屬於選擇問句，但在句法及語意上都還是存在著差異，「是…還是」是帶有分裂句特性的選擇問句，在語意上有排他性跟存在性預設的特點，這兩個特點都是「還是」句型沒有的。然而，也正是因為有這些特性差異才導致「是...還是」和「還是」在回答上有所差異。
    本文的貢獻在於釐清「還是」和「或者」在語意及句法上差異，儘管「還是」和「或者」都可以連接兩個選項，但它們在句法和語義上仍有區別。我們為這兩個析取詞提出了具體的形式語意。在以往的研究中，Liing(2014)、Liu 等(2019)、Zhao(2002)和Huang等(2009)表明「還是」和「或者」之間的區別在於前者可以表達選擇問句的意思，而後者則表達陳述句的意思。我們贊同學者們的說法也提出這兩個析取詞在Hamblin Semantics的差異。我們認為只有「還是」可以表達選擇問句的意思；「或者」不能。然而，當「或者」也可以表達其他類型的問題，但問句類型不會是選擇問句。
    In Chinese syntax, both haishi and huozhe can be used to conjoin two disjuncts. Liing (2014), Liu et al. (2019), and Huang et al. (2009) indicate that haishi and huozhe have syntactic differences. Only haishi can be used to convey the meaning of an alternative question, while huozhe is used to convey the meaning of a declarative sentence. However, Shao (1994), Zhang (2008), Mashima (2019), and Li (2020) argue that huozhe can also convey the meaning of an alternative question. In this thesis, we disagree with the perspectives proposed by Shao (1994), Zhang (2008), Mashima (2019), and Li (2020) and analyze the responses to refute these counterexamples. We propose that these counterexamples are different types of questions, unlike alternative question. In this thesis, I adopt the framework of Hamblin Semantics (1973) to explain how declarative sentences and various question types are demonstrated in Hamblin Semantics.
    Adopting the framework of Hamblin Semantics, I propose that the difference between huozhe and haishi is as follows: huozhe is incapable of conveying alternative questions due to its lexical entry which has an existential closure that forms a non-open set. Then, haishi lacks an existential closure in its lexical entry while still maintaining a Q feature which accounts for its presence in interrogative forms that denote an open set.
    This thesis has also investigated the differences between the disjunction haishi and its related construction shi...haishi, with respect to their syntax and semantics. In particular, both are considered alternative questions. Although shi…haishi is regarded as an alternative question, its syntactic characteristics are like clefts. Only shi…haishi has two characteristics that clefts have. Semantically, shi…haishi has the meanings of exclusive condition and existential presupposition, unlike haishi. These two characteristics make different response between shi…haishi and haishi because of this feature.
    The contribution of this thesis is that although the disjunctions haishi and huozhe can both connect two disjuncts, they still have differences in syntax and semantics. We present a concrete compositional semantics for these two disjunctions. In previous studies, Liing (2014), Liu et al. (2019), and Huang et al. (2009) show that the difference between haishi and huozhe is that the former conveys the meaning of an alternative question, while the latter conveys the meaning of a declarative sentence. In this thesis, we agree with the perspectives proposed by Liing (2014), Liu et al. (2019), and Huang et al. (2009) and also explain the difference between the disjunctions haishi and huozhe under the framework of Hamblin Semantics. We argue that only haishi can convey the meaning of an alternative question, while huozhe cannot. However, if huozhe can also convey the meaning of other types of questions, it is not an alternative question.
    參考文獻: Alonso-Ovalle, L. 2005. Distributing the disjuncts over the modal space. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Amherst, pp.75-86.
    Alonso-Ovalle, L. 2006. Disjunction in alternative semantics. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
    Biezma, M., & Rawlins, K. 2012. Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 35: 361-406.
    Beck, S., & Kim, S. S. 2006. Intervention effects in alternative questions. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9:165-208.
    Beck, S. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14(1): 1-56.
    Büring, D., & Kriz, M. 2013. It's that, and that's it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics and Pragmatics 6:1-29.
    Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 2008. Deconstructing the shì … de construction The Linguistic Review 25:235-266.
    Delin, J. 1992. Properties of it-cleft presupposition. Journal of Semantics, 9(4): 289-306.
    Delin, J. 1995. Presupposition and shared knowledge in it-clefts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(2): 97-120.
    Dayal, V. 2016. Questions. Oxford University Press.
    Erlewine, Michael Y. 2017. Two disjunctions in Mandarin Chinese. National University of Singapore.
    Erlewine, Michael Y. 2024. Interrogative and standard disjunction in Mandarin Chinese. National University of Singapore.
    Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In speech acts. Leiden: E Brill.
    Hamblin, Charles L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10 (1):41-53.
    Huang, C. T. J., Li, Y. H. A., & Li, Y. 2009. The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Huang, C. T. J. 1991. Modularity and Chinese A-not-A questions. In Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, eds. Georgopoulos C. Ishihara Roberta, pp.305-332. Berlin: Springer.
    Hedberg, N. 2000. The referential status of clefts. Language 76:891-920.
    Hedberg, Nancy. 2013. Multiple focus and cleft sentences. In The structure of clefts, eds. Tonjes Veenstra & Katharina Hartmann, pp.227-250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    Karttunen, L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:3-44.
    Kratzer, A. 2005. Indefinites and the operators they depend on: From Japanese to Salish. Reference and quantification: The Partee effect 173:113-142.
    Kratzer, Angelika & Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Proceedings of the Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics 3, Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo, pp.1-25.
    Kim, Shin-Sook. 2002. Focus Matters: Two Types of Intervention Effect. Paper presented at WCCFL XXI, April 5–7, 2022, UC Santa Cruz.
    Lin, C. H. 2008. Disjunctions in Mandarin Chinese: A Case Study of Haishi ’or’. Natinal Kaohsiung Normal University: Master’s dissertation.
    Li, H., & Cheung, C. C. H. 2015. Focus intervention effects in Mandarin multiple wh-questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 24:361-382.
    Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California Press.
    Liing, W. J. 2014. How to ask questions in Mandarin Chinese. University of New York: Ph.D. thesis.
    Mashima, Jun. 2019. Analysis of Why Japanese Students Misuse “或者”與”還是”. 九州國際大學社會文化研究所紀要. 81:77-118
    Partee, B., & Rooth, M. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Formal semantics: The essential readings, eds. Barbara H. Partee, Mats Rooth, pp.334-356. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, eds. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy K. Wilkins, pp.262-294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    Paul, Waltraud and Whitman, John. 2008. Shi … de focus clefts in Mandarin Chinese. The Linguistic Review 25:413-451.
    Pan, V. J., & Liu, C. 2023. Focus Construction Involving shì in Mandarin Chinese. Language 8(2):103.
    Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge: MIT Ph.D. thesis.
    Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, ed. Adriana Belletti, vol. 3, pp.104-131. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Simons, M. 2001. Disjunction and alternativeness. Linguistics and Philosophy 24(5): 597-619.
    Simons, M. 2005. Dividing things up: The semantics of or and the modal/or interaction. Natural Language Semantics 13(3): 271-316.
    Xu, B. 2012. Nandao-questions as a special kind of rhetorical questions. In Proceedings of the 22nd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, Chicago, pp.508-526.
    Xu, B. 2018. Dedicated bias word nandao as an illocutionary modifier. In 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, April 28-30, 2017, Calgary University, Calgary, Canada.
    Wu, Hofa Meng-Jung. 2015. The syntax of polar questions and their answers in Taiwanese. Newcastle University: Ph.D. dissertation.
    Vercauteren, A. 2016. A conspiracy theory for clefts: The syntax and interpretation of cleft constructions. Ghent University: Ph.D. dissertation.
    Zeng, X., Martin, P., & Boulakia, G. 2004. Tones and intonation in declarative and interrogative sentences in Mandarin. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages: With Emphasis on Tone Languages, March 28-31, 2004, Beijing, China.
    劉月華, 潘文娛, 故韡. 2019.《實用現代漢語語法》（增訂第三版）。上海：商務印書局。
    邵敬敏. 1994.現代漢語選擇問研究。《語言教學與研究》，2: 49-67。
    李杰. 2020.《「或者」「還是」的偏誤分析語教學》，河南大學漢語國際教育碩士論文。
    張晉濤. 2008. 〈略論連詞 “或者” 在疑問句中的使用〉，《吉林師範大學學報: 人文社會科學版》，36(3): 41-43。
    邵敬敏. 2013. 〈疑問句的結構類型與反問句的轉化關系研究〉，《漢語學習》2: 3-10.
    湯廷池. 1981.〈國語疑問句的研究〉，《師大學報》，26: 219-277。
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    語言學研究所
    110555003
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110555003
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[語言學研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    500301.pdf1245KbAdobe PDF2檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋