Article published In:
International Journal of Chinese LinguisticsVol. 7:1 (2020) ► pp.45–70
An analysis of focus and its role in the answering systems of polar questions in Chinese and English
Instead of classifying natural languages in terms of their answering systems for polar questions, this study investigates how languages construct the answering system for the polar questions with a special concentration on the answering system of the Chinese ma particle question and English polar questions. We argue that the primarily mechanism that natural languages adopt to construct an answering system is the focus mechanism which is based on the relationship between a focus sensitive marker and its association of focus. The different answering patterns to polar questions result from different scopes of focus. In a polar question, what is being focused by the focus sensitive marker or focus operator falls into question scope (focus association). The respondent answers the polar question based on the proposition in the question scope. Answering with a positive particle expresses agreement with that question proposition while answering with a negative particle conveys that the question proposition is not true.
Keywords: negative polar questions, ma particles, answering particles, focus, syntax
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The syntactic and semantic properties of the Chinese ma particle question
- 3.The literature review: Roelofsen and Farkas (2015)
- 4.The preliminary: Focus semantics (Rooth 1985, 1992)
- 5.Proposal: The focus mechanism in constructing answering patterns to polar questions
- 6.Answering patterns in Mandarin ma particle questions
- 7.Concluding remarks
- Notes
- Abbreviations used in this paper include
-
References
References
Büring, D. and Gunlogson, C.
(2000) Aren’t Positive and Negative Polar Questions the Same? Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, and Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz.
Chao, Y.-R.
(1968) A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Claus, B., Meijer, A. M., Repp, S. and Krifka, M.
(2017) Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system”, Semantics & Pragmatics 101, Article 19. 
Farkas, D. and Roelofsen, F.
(2012) Polar Initiatives and Polarity Particle Responses in an Inquisitive Discourse Model. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz, and University of Amsterdam.
Goodhue, D. and Wagner, M.
(2018) Intonation, yes and no, glossa. Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 5.
Han, C.-H.
(1998) Deriving the interpretation of rhetorical questions, in Curtis, E., Lyle, J. and Webster, G. editors, Proceedings of West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics 161: 237–253, Stanford: CSLI.
(1999) The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Höhle, T.
(1992) Ueber verum fokus in deutschen. Linguistische Berichte.
Holmberg, A.
(2013) ‘The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish’. Lingua 1281: 31–50.
(2016) The syntax of yes and no. Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, R.
(1972) Semantics in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jones, M.
(1999) The Welsh Answering System. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kramer, R. and Rawlins, K.
(2010) Polarity Particles and Ellipsis: A (Somewhat) Cross-linguistic Perspective. Handout of paper presented at the Polarity Particle Workshop, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Krifka, M.
(2006) Association with focus phrases. In V. Molnr and S. Winkler (Eds.), The Architecture of Focus, pp. 105–136. Mouton de Gruyter.
(2014) Ja, nein, doch als sententiale anaphern und deren pragmatische optimierung. In Priemer, A., Nolda, A. & Sioupi, A. (eds.), Zwischen Kern und Peripherie: Untersuchungen zu Randbereichen in Sprache und Grammatik: 41–68. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kuno, S.
(1978) Japanese: A characteristic OV language, in Lehmann, W. (ed.). Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Sussex: The Harvester Press.
Ladd, R.
(1981) A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. In Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 164–171. Chicago Linguistics Society.
Li, C. and Thompson, S.
(1981) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liu, Y.-H., Pan, W.-Yu. and Gu, W.
(2001) Shiyong Xiandai Hanyu Yufae [Modern Chinese Grammar]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
McCawley, J.
(1994) Remarks on the syntax of mandarin yes-no questions. Journal of East Asian Languages 3(2): 179–194.
Pope, E.
Roelofsen, F. and Farkas, D.
(2015) Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language 91(2):359–414.
Romero, M. and Han, C.-H.
(2002) Verum focus in negative yes/no questions and Ladd’s p / p ambiguity. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XII1: 204–224. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
(2004) On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5): 609–58.
Rooth, M.
(1985) Association with Focus. University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.
(1992) A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 11.75–116.
(1996) Focus. In S. Lappin, ed., Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sadock, J. and Zwicky, A.
(1985) Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause structure, 155–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Servidio, E., Bocci, G., and Bianchi, V.
(2018) (Dis)agreement, polarity, and focus: Answering negative polar questions in Italian. A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 31. 1–28,
Yabushita, K.
(1998) Why do Japanese hai and iie not behave like English yes and no all the way? Consequences of the non-sentential operation of the Japanese negative morpheme nai, Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 23, 1: 59–74.
Zhu, D.-X.
(1982) Yufa jiangyi (Lecture notes on grammar). Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.