Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 24:3 (2023) ► pp.469–501

再談漢語「是」字句及幾類相關結構的語義

| Fudan University,
| Zhejiang University,
本文通過兩項實證性的研究，再談漢語分裂式「是」句及幾類相關結構的語義。研究發現(i)不同於Paul & Whitman (2008)、Cheng (2008)等分析，句首、句中「是」字句以及「是」字句和「是……的」結構在焦點標記方式和窮盡性的表達等分裂句相關語義屬性上具有一致性，因此應該進行統一化的處理。(ii)分裂式「是」字句的核心語義表達唯一性識別，其預設焦點候選項集合中有且只有一個唯一為真的候選項並斷言其自身表達的命題(prejacent)為真。「是」字句的窮盡性來自於預設和斷言共同作用下的語義推理，而對比性則來自於語篇在此基礎上的進一步限制作用。(iii)「是」字句同幾類相關結構（如斷言命題句，真值焦點句等等）具有共同的語義內核，即表達唯一性識別，而其區別則主要來自於各類句型中焦點成分屬性的不同。這樣的分析不但有助於更精確的語言事實描寫，也可以幫助我們更加系統化的理解漢語分裂句系統。
Keywords: 分裂句, 「是」字句, 「是……的」句, 唯一性識別
Article outline
  • 1.引言
  • 2.分類處理的語義依據
    • 2.1句首「是」和句中「是」
    • 2.2「是」字句和「是……的」結構
  • 3.實證研究
    • 3.1「是」與「是……的」的焦點標記方式相同
      • 3.1.1理論背景
      • 3.1.2實驗設計
      • 3.1.3結果討論
    • 3.2「是」與「是……的」的窮盡性相同
      • 3.2.1理論背景
      • 3.2.2實驗設計
      • 3.2.3結果討論
    • 3.3小結
  • 4.「是」字句、相關結構與唯一性識別
    • 4.1「是」字句的語義分析
      • 4.1.1「是」與唯一性識別
      • 4.1.2「是」的語義推導
      • 4.1.3窮盡性的屬性
    • 4.2「是」字句語義的一致性
    • 4.3「是」、「是……的」和「的」字句
  • 5.總論
  • 謝辭
  • 筆記
  • 參考文獻
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 10 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00137.che
References (47)
參考文獻
Büring, Daniel & Križ, Manuel. 2013. It’s that, and that’s it! Exhaustivity and homogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics and Pragmatics 61. 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byram-Washburn, Mary & Kaiser, Elsi & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 2014. The English it-cleft: No need to get exhausted. (Paper presented at the Questions in Discourse Conference, Göttingen, 18–20 September 2014.)
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 2008. Deconstructing the shì…de construction. The Linguistic Review 25(3–4). 235–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2013. Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth & Beaver, David. 2014. Principles of the exclusive muddle. Journal of Semantics 31(3). 371–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Destruel, Emilie & Deveaugh-Geiss, Joseph. 2018. On the interpretation and processing of exhaustivity: Evidence of variation in English and French clefts. Journal of Pragmatics 1381. 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Destruel, Emilie & Beaver, David & Coppock, Elizabeth. 2018. Clefts: Quite the contrary! Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21(1). 335–346.Google Scholar
DeVeaugh-Geiss, Joseph & Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar & Boell, Anna-Christina. 2015. Contradicting (not-)at-issueness in exclusives and clefts: An empirical study. In D’Antonio, Sarah & Moroney, Mary & Little, Carol Rose (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 25 (SALT 25), 373–393. Ithaca: Cornell University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drenhaus, Heiner & Zimmermann, Malte & Vasishth, Shravan. 2011. Exhaustiveness effects in clefts are not truth-functional. Journal of Neurolinguistics 24(3). 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2). 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2015. In defense of Closeness: focus-sensitive adverb placement in Vietnamese and Mandarin Chinese. Montréal: McGill University. (Manuscript.)Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. A. 1991. On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27(2). 405–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 2000. The referential status of clefts. Language 76(4). 891–920. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hole, Daniel. 2011. The deconstruction of shì…de clefts revisited. Lingua 121(11). 1707–1733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1981. Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. In Burke, Victoria & Pustejovsky, James (eds.), NELS 11: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 125–142. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 2016. Information structure and the landscape of (non-)at-issue meaning. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 108–127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hsu, Yu-Yin. 2019. Associations between focus constructions and levels of exhaustivity: An experimental investigation of Chinese. PLOS ONE 14(10). e0223502. DOI logo Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James (黃正德). 1988. Shuo shi he you 說「是」和「有」. The Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philosophy 中央研究院歷史語言研究所集刊 59(1). 43–64.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4(2). 169–193.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri & Peters, Stanley. 1979. Conventional implicature. In Oh, Choon-Kyu & Dinneen, David A. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 11: Presupposition, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István. 2006. Focus as identification. In Molnár, Valéria & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), The architecture of focus, 137–168. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4). 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Križ, Manuel & Chemla, Emmanuel. 2015. Two methods to find truth-value gaps and their application to the projection problem of homogeneity. Natural Language Semantics 23(3). 205–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39(3). 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landman, Fred. 1991. Structures for semantics. Dordrecht: Springer Dordrecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Hui-Chi. 2005. On Chinese focus and cleft constructions. Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
Lin, Jo-wang (林若望). 2016. De-construction, modality and counterfactual reasoning 「的」字結構、模態與違實推理. Zhongguo Yuwen 中國語文 2016(2). 131–151.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretic approach. In Bäuerle, Rainer & Schwarze, Christoph & von Stechow, Arnim (eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, 302–323. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Mingming. 2017. Varieties of alternatives: Mandarin focus particles. Linguistics and Philosophy 40(1). 61–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Ying & Yang, Yu’an. 2017. To exhaust, or not to exhaust: An experimental study on Mandarin shi-clefts. In Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka (ed.), Proceedings of GLOW in Asia XI, vol. 21 (MITWPL 85), 103–117. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Paul, Waltraud & Whitman, John. 2008. Shi…de focus clefts in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistic Review 25(3–4). 413–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying open the cleft. In Kusumoto, Kiyomi (eds.), NELS 27: Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 27 1, 337–351. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2016. Contrast: Dissecting an elusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), Oxford handbook of information structure, 270–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1). 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shen, Jiaxuan (沈家煊). 2008. Moving what? On emotional movement in Ta shi qunian sheng de haizi 「移位」還是「移情」？——析「他是去年生的孩子」 Zhongguo Yuwen 中國語文 2008(5). 387–395.Google Scholar
Shyu, Shu-ing. 2017. Shi … (de) sentences. In Sybesma, Rint & Behr, Wolfgang & Gu, Yueguo & Handel, Zev & Huang, C.-T. James & Myers, James (eds.), Encyclopedia of Chinese language and linguistics, vol. 41, 40–46. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Simpson, Andrew & Wu, Zoe Xiu-Zhi. 2002. From D to T – Determiner incorporation and the creation of tense. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11(2). 169–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teng, Shou-hsin. 1979. Remarks on the cleft sentences in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 7(1). 101–114.Google Scholar
Dan Velleman, & Beaver, David & Destruel, Emilie & Bumford, Dylan & Onea, Edgar & Coppock, Elizabeth. 2012. It-clefts are IT (inquiry terminating) constructions. In Chereches, Anca (ed.), Proceedings of the 22nd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 22), 441–460. Ithaca: Cornell University. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wan, Quan (完權). 2013. De in state-of-affairs sentences 事態句中的「的」. Zhongguo Yuwen 中國語文 2013(1). 51–61.Google Scholar
Xu, Liejiong. 2004. Manifestation of informational focus. Lingua 114(3). 277–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yue-Hashimoto, Anne. 1969. The verb “to be” in modern Chinese. In Verhaar, John W. M. (ed.), The verb “be” and its synonyms: Part 4 (Foundation of Language Supplementary Series 9), 72–111. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Yulin (袁毓林). 2003. On the syntactic and semantic function of de in the sentence final position: From a viewpoint of the modern focus theory 從焦點理論看句尾「的」的句法語義功能. Zhongguo Yuwen 中國語文 2003(1). 3–16.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & Onea, Edgar. 2011. Focus marking and focus interpretation. Lingua 121(11). 1651–1670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte & De Veaugh-Geiss, Joseph & Tönnis, Swantje & Onea, Edgar. 2020. (Non-)exhaustivity in focus partitioning across languages. In Hegedűs, Veronika & Vogel, Irene (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian volume 16: Papers from the 2017 Budapest Conference, 207–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar