英文摘要 |
This paper focuses on the non-interrogative existential interpretation of an A-not-A form. Such an A-not-A form in Chinese is argued to occur in the complement of a polarity determiner that needs to be licensed in an appropriate context. This explains why an existential A-not-A form cannot be licensed in the same clause with a licenser. Evidence supporting this analysis comes from island effects, the selection of verbs, the use of connectors, the use of daodi ‘indeed’ and, finally, the use of shenme ‘what’ as a determiner. This analysis, in turn, supports the Determiner Phrase (DP) Hypothesis proposed by Abney (1987) and the DP analysis proposed for Chinese (Tang 1990, Li 1998, among others).
中文的A-Not-A形式,正如其他的wh詞語 (wh-word) 一樣,在特定的語意情境下如:否定句、假設句或其他,有非疑問的解讀(interpretation),也就是說他們是兩極化詞語 (polarity item),需要有認可語 (licenser) 來認可 (license) 而得到不同的解讀。本文討論有關A-Not-A 形式之非疑問用法的認可問題,他們的存在解讀(existential interpretation) 的認可和wh詞語有所不同:前者與其認可語不可以出現在同一個子句中。本文的分析是此種A-Not-A 形式的認可,並非直接認可,乃是由一表示兩極的指示詞 (polarity determiner) 做為媒介,而A-Not-A 形式所在的子句則是此指示詞的補語。此分析的證據來自孤島作用 (island effect),動詞的選擇(selection),連接詞的使用,「到底」的用法,以及「什麼」作為指示詞的使用。這樣的分析支持DP(指示詞片語)的假說,也就是支持中文有DP的說法。 |