論現代漢語疑問詞疑問句片段回應之句法分析

Abstract

現代漢語中的疑問詞疑問句片段回應是一種由短語或單詞構成的句型結構。此結構表面 上雖非完整句子，卻可被解釋為對該疑問句的完整回應。這種結構是一種跨語言現象，根據現有文獻，針對現代漢語中，疑問詞疑問句片段回應之分析方法主要可歸納為兩類: 移位加刪略法與基底生成法。本論文旨在探討現代漢語中，針對疑問詞疑問句片段回應的句型結構，並將其與英 語對應結構進行比較，以進一步提出對該句構的分析。漢語與英語在此結構上存在關鍵 差異:英語的疑問詞疑問句片段回應受到孤島效應的限制，且不允許特定由「任何」(any) 引入的負極項詞作為片段回應;相較之下，漢語的疑問詞疑問句片段回應不受孤島效應 影響，並且允許由「任何」引入的負極項詞充當片段回應。本論文主張以原位刪略法解釋漢語疑問詞疑問句片段回應的句型結構。從句法角度 而言，我們認為該句構的生成並不涉及移動，而是透過音韻層面的刪略來實現。與其他 語言的原位刪略分析不同，本研究進一步關注片段回應與疑問詞疑問句之間的對應關係， 並藉著從片段回應的角度進行解釋，對 Aoun& Li (1993) 所提出的非選擇性綁定方法 (unselective binding approach)中的漢語疑問句生成進行了一些修正。 此外，本研究注意到，在現代漢語中，並非所有類型的負極項詞都能充當疑問詞疑 問句的片段回應。這進一步引出一個問題:是否所有可能的完整回答都能產生片段回應。 透過比較含有不同類型負極項詞的完整回答，我們認為片段回應與其對應的疑問詞疑問 句之間存在嚴格的對應關係，並主張並非每一個完整回答都能形成片段回應。研究結果 顯示，現代漢語中的疑問詞疑問句片段回應與其對應之疑問句之間語義關係應為語義包 含，而非語義一致。此觀點與 Weir (2018) 對英語片段回應的分析相近。 最後，本研究認為，現代漢語中，疑問詞疑問句片段回應可透過音韻上的原位刪略 與語義上的包含關係共同衍生，而英語疑問詞疑問句片段回應則涉及移動機制。Fragment answers to wh-questions (hereafter FAWs) in Mandarin Chinese (hereafter Chinese) refer to a syntactic construction that consists of a phrase or a single word rather than a complete sentence on the surface but is interpreted as a full response to the question. FAWs are observed cross-linguistically, and approaches to fragment answers to wh-questions in Chinese can be categorized into two types: movement plus ellipsis and base generation.This thesis aims to investigate FAWs in Chinese by comparing them with their English counterparts and offering an account for Chinese FAWs. Our comparison reveals key differences: English exhibits island effects and does not allow certain negative polarity items (NPIs) introduced by any to function as FAWs, while Chinese FAWs lack island effects and permit NPIs introduced by renhe ‘any’ to function as FAWs.We propose an in-situ ellipsis approach to account for Chinese FAWs. Syntactically, we argue that the derivation of FAWs does not involve movement; instead, deletion applies at PF to derive FAWs. Unlike previous in-situ ellipsis analyses applied to other languages, this study specifically highlights the correspondence between FAWs and their corresponding wh-questions. By examining FAWs from this perspective, we also provide some revisions to the derivation of Chinese wh-questions in Aoun& Li’s (1993) unselective binding approach. In addition, we explore the observation that not all types of NPIs in Chinese can function as FAWs, raising the question of whether all possible full answers can yield FAWs. We compare full answers across different types of NPIs and reveal a strict relationship between FAWs and their corresponding wh-questions, arguing that not every full answer can yield a fragment answer. Our findings suggest that semantic inclusion is preferred over semantic identity in Chinese FAWs, consistent with Weir’s (2018) observations on English FAWs.In conclusion, we argue that Chinese FAWs result from in-situ deletion with a semantic inclusion condition, while the derivation of English FAWs may involve movement.