論漢語正反問句裡的兩種存在性主語

On Two Types of Existential Subjects in Chinese A-not-A Questions

本文探討兩種存在性主語為何皆無法在漢語正反問句當中出現的原因，其中一種是極項 wh 主語，另一種則是「有」字名詞主語。關於前者，文獻上有兩種不一樣的句法分析，本文比較之後指出，定指分析 (Cheng 1991, 1994) 僅解釋部分語言事實，而沒有解釋為何正反問句裡的 wh 主語加上「有」字之後，已被量化，符合定指條件，但句子依舊不合法。相對的，這個問題並不存在於統制分析 (C.-T. Huang 1982, Li 1992, Lin 1998, R.-H. Huang 2009)。至於「有」字名詞組為何無法成為正反問句的主語，本文反駁語用分析 (Lin 1998)，改從句法角度切入，認為這個問題跟干涉效應有關，而跟主語指認無關。綜言之，上述兩種存在性主語不被漢語正反問句所接受的原因，跟正反運符的兩個句法特性有密切關係，分別是層級位置低於主語以及邏輯形式移位。

This paper examines why an existential polarity wh-subject or a you-NP subject is not allowed in Chinese A-not-A questions. Two kinds of syntactic approaches proposed in the literature that deal with unacceptable existential polarity wh-subjects in A-not-A questions are reviewed. The definiteness approach (Cheng 1991, 1994) only partially explains relevant facts but raises a question which does not arise under the c-command approach (C.-T. Huang 1982, Li 1992, Lin 1998, R.-H. Huang 2009): Why are A-not-A sentences which involve an existentially quantified youwh- subject without violating the definiteness constraint on Chinese NP subjects still ungrammatical? As for why A-not-A questions cannot involve a you-NP subject, this paper proposes a syntactic solution based on feature intervention effects, while arguing against a pragmatic solution based on subject identity (Lin 1998). It is concluded that the unacceptability of existential polarity wh-subjects and you-NP subjects in Chinese A-not-A questions is closely tied to two syntactic properties of the A-not-A operator: the lower-than-the-subject position and LF movement, respectively.