中文疑問詞非疑問用法之習得研究

A Developmental Study on the Non-Interrogative Interpretations of Mandarin Wh-words

鄭潔之(Chieh-Chih Cheng)

指導教授 ： 蘇宜青

國立清華大學/人文社會學院/語言學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6843/NTHU.2014.00471

摘要

本論文探討以中文為母語的兒童習得疑問詞非疑問用法的發展歷程。在特定語境下，中文疑問詞能夠許可為非疑問用法。以條件句(conditionals)為例，若疑問詞出現在條件從句內，其可被允准成存在極性詞(existential polarity wh-phrases)，反之若疑問詞出現於結果句內，則其仍然保持疑問詞的語意。除了典型條件句之外，無連詞驢子條件句(bare conditionals)為另一種允准疑問詞非疑問用法的句式。此句式具有類似條件句的語意，由前句和後句所組成，前句和後句需有因果關係。構成要件有三:其一，前句和後句中疑問詞的數目和形式皆須相同，疑問詞被允准成無定代詞(indefinites)。其二，疑問詞受全稱量化運符（universal operator）無擇約束。其三，若無顯性因果關係，助詞「就」的添加是必須的。違反此三項條件，則疑問詞非疑問用法不復存在。實驗一探究四至六歲的兒童是否掌握疑問詞在條件從句與結論句的疑問用法差異。實驗二與三探查兒童是否理解助詞「就」的添加影響了無連詞驢子條件句的語意詮釋。

實驗一的結果顯示雖然四至六歲的兒童尚未完全掌握疑問詞在條件從句與結論句的疑問用法差異，但五至六歲的兒童逐漸開始意會疑問詞的存在極性詞用法。實驗二與三的結果則顯示四至六歲的兒童尚無法理解疑問詞在無連詞驢子條件句的無定用法。本論文三個實驗的結果有兩點貢獻:第一，本論文三個實驗的結果與Zhou (2010)的研究相異: Zhou (2010)的結果歸結出三至五歲的兒童已習得疑問詞在否定單句(mono-clausal negation)中的存在極性詮釋。本論文與Zhou (2010)的不同反應出兒童並非同時全面習得不同語境中的疑問詞非疑問用法。第二，與無連詞驢子條件句的無定用法相比，兒童較早開始理解疑問詞在條件從句的存在極性詞用法。這兩種非疑問用法的習得差別似乎能佐證Lin (1998)的觀察認為存在極性詞與無連詞驢子條件句中的無定疑問詞有所區別。本論文提出允准句式的形式複雜度、形式獨特性影響了兒童獲得疑問詞非疑問用法的先後順序。兒童習得疑問詞非疑問用法的發展歷程存在內部分歧。

關鍵字

母語習得 ； 疑問詞非疑問用法 ； 無定疑問詞 ； 無連詞驢子條件句 ； 條件句

並列摘要

The purpose of this study is to explore whether 4-to-6-year-old Mandarin-acquiring children have adult-like interpretations of non-interrogative indefinite wh-words in conditional constructions, which are interpreted as statements since wh-phrases are used non-interrogatively. Three experiments were conducted. Experiment 1 is designed to assess children’s interpretation of existential wh-words shei ‘who’ and shenmeren ‘who’ in the conditional headed by zhiyao ‘as long as’. We tested whether Mandarin-acquiring children are sensitive to the distinction between the interrogative and non-interrogative use of wh-phrases in conditional constructions. Experiments 2 and 3 are designed to test Mandarin-acquiring children’s interpretation of bare conditionals containing the wh-word shei ‘who’ in both subject and object argument positions (Cheng & Huang 1996). To acquire the adult-like use of bare conditionals as statements, children must be able to recognize the element jiu ‘then’ as the licensing cue of non-interrogative indefinite wh-phrases. Otherwise, they will interpret the two clauses in bare conditionals as two independent interrogative questions. Therefore, Experiments 2 and 3 examined whether children can use jiu as the licensing cue to access the meanings of bare conditionals.

The experimental results demonstrate that 4-to-6-year-old Mandarin-acquiring children exhibit non-adult-like interpretations of wh-words both in zhiyao-conditionals and bare conditionals. Of the two conditionals, children’s performance appears to be more adult-like on zhiyao-conditionals. The current results stand in contrast with Zhou’s (2010) finding that children possess early mastery of existential indefinite wh-phrases under negation. The delay in the acquisition suggests that there exists an acquisition divergence among indefinite wh-phrase of different licensing environments and further may provide evidence for Lin’s (1998) observation that indefinite wh-phrases in bare conditionals may be different from those in typical conditionals.

並列關鍵字

first language acquisition ； non-interrogative wh-phrases ； indefinite wh-phrases ； bare conditionals ； conditionals

參考文獻

Bartos, H. (2004). Daniel P. Hole: Focus and background marking in Mandarin Chinese. Cahiers de linguistique-Asie orientale, 33(2), 283-295.

Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. (1988). Wh-topicalization in Chinese. Ms., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

──────. (1997). On the typology of wh-questions. Taylor & Francis.

Bruening, B. (2007). Wh-in-situ does not correlate with wh-indefinites or question particles. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(1), 139-166.

──────. (2009) Wh‐in‐situ, from the 1980s to Now. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(3), 767-791.