量名短語有定解讀的共時與歷時考察

THE DEFINITE INTERPRETATION OF [CL+N] EXPRESSIONS IN SINITIC LANGUAGES: SYNCHRONIC AND DIACHRONIC PERSPECTIVES

過去三十年來，一些學者根據漢語方吉中「量+名」短語可作有定理解的現象，認為量詞在功能上相當於英語的定冠詞。本文通過對幾種南方方言（吳、湘、閩、粵等）的調查以及漢語量詞發展歷史的梳理指出：（1）英語定冠詞the是語法他了的有定標記，［the＋N］結構無需語境支持即可作為有定表達式，體現了定冠詞行使語法功能的恆常性；（2）南方方吉中「量＋名」結構或光杆量詞脫離語境時與「有定性」沒有任何關係，而在語境中既可作有定亦可作無定理解，具有很強的隨機性；（3）光杆量詞、光杆名詞、「量＋名」短語與「數＋量＋名」短語做有定解讀時，不能把「有定性」強記在某一成分如量詞、名詞或數詞名下，因為這些表達式本質上都是依賴語境表達指稱意義的語用現象。

It has been claimed in the linguistic literature that numeral classifiers in some Sinitic languages are functionally equivalent to the definite article in the English language, based on the observation that bare classifiers or [Cl+N] expressions can be interpreted as definite under some circumstances. Based on our fieldwork on several Southern dialects in Mainland China, such as Wu, Xiang, Min and Yue dialect, and the evolutionary process of Chinese numeral classifiers, it has been found that (i) the alleged ＂definiteness＂ is actually not the inherent property of numeral classifiers themselves, but is expressed via the pragmatic contexts; (ii) [Cl+N] expressions or bare classifiers have nothing to do with ＂definiteness＂ out of context, and if placed in a certain context, can be stochastically understood as either definite or indefinite. (iii) it is certainly wrong to ascribe ＂definiteness＂ to a certain linguistic element such as ＂classifier＂, ＂nominal＂ or even ＂numeral＂ when a bare classifier, a bare nominal, a [Cl+N] or a [Numeral +Cl+N] expression is construed as definite in a communicative context, since they constitute an essentially pragmatic phenomenon.