本論文是關於漢語光桿名詞在帶次級述語存現句(NP1 V NP2 XP,有字句除外)中的語意研究,根據Rothstein (2004)所提出之句法測驗,賓語後之修飾片語可定為次級述語。 Chierchia (1998 b)所提出之“類屬衍生述語”(Derived Kind Predication)也可以在漢語存現句中因應述語所需,將類屬指涉(kind-referring)論元轉變為物體指涉(object-referring)論元。根據李杰(1997)與沈圓(2005)關於漢語句子之屬性分類會影響光桿名詞在主語與賓語位置所呈現的指涉語意之分析,本論文提出事件性(event)次級述語可使光桿名詞得到不定指(indefinite)的指涉語意,而靜態性(stative)次級述語則強迫光桿名詞得到定指(definite)或類屬(kind)的指涉語意,並且皆在名詞片語之外延中指涉其最大集合(supremum)。此外,再結合黃正德(1987)關於漢語存現句若帶次級述語,此結構中之賓語需為有指性不定指(referentially indefinite),以及Hawkins (1991)關於不定指之指涉物在語用集合(pragmatic set)中需為非單一元素之分析,本論文提出在句型結構與次級述語之限定發生語意衝突時,光桿名詞的使用為不合語法。亦即,在帶任何次級述語之存現句中,光桿名詞賓語都不能在名詞片語之外延中指涉其惟獨僅有的最大集合。
This thesis deals with the semantic interpretation of bare noun phrases (BNPs) in Chinese existential sentences of the form (NP1) V NP2 XP (excluding YOU-sentences). I show, via Rothstein’s (2004) entailment test, that the post-NP2 XP is a secondary predicate, and that ‘Derived Kind Predication’ (Chierchia 1998 b) plays an important role in shifting kind-denoting BNPs into object-denoting arguments. Furthermore, following Li (1997) and Shen (2005) that sentence types affect BNP subjects and objects interpretations, I show that BNPs with event secondary predicates can receive indefinite readings but BNPs with stative secondary predicates are forced to receive definite or kind readings, which denote uniquely the supremum in the extension of the NP denotation. Incorporating proposals that Chinese existential sentences with secondary predicates require an referentially indefinite NP2 (Huang 1987) and referent(s) of indefinite NPs must be non-unique in a pragmatic set if one is present (Hawkins 1991), I propose that BNPs are unacceptable when there is a semantic clash between requirements of the secondary predicate and that of the construction. It follows that BNP-objects cannot denote uniquely the supremum in the extension of the NP denotation with any kind of secondary predicate in such constructions.