透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.221.43.88
  • 學位論文

是非疑問句的新觀點: 焦點機制的應用在漢語和英文

A New Perspective on Polar Questions: The Focus Mechanism in Generating Answering Patterns in Mandarin Chinese and English

指導教授 : 林宗宏博士 劉辰生博士

摘要


ABSTRACT (Mandarin) Pope (1976) 指出不同的語言,在是非問句上,有著不同的答句形式;換言之,自然語言在如何為是非問句建構答句上,展現出不同的語法策略。所謂是非問句是要求得到肯定或否定回答的問句,英文的是非問句一直存在著一個歧義現象,這個歧義來自於在一個英文的否定詞not並未與助動詞融合為一,而是停留在主語後頭的否定是非問句,答句的肯定的助詞「是」和否定的助詞「不」後頭的句子可以是肯定句也可以是否定句,而這樣的回答方式却和肯定的是非問句以及否定詞移到句首的是非問句截然不同。許多語言學家,像Pope (1976), Kramer & Rawlins (2009), Krifka (2013), Roelofsen & Farkas (2015), and Holmberg (2016),紛紛提出不同的理論來解釋這個歧義現象。 本論文就自然語言是如何為是非問句建構答句,或是如何回答是非問句提出一個新的觀點,根據Rooth (1985,1992) 的焦點語意的理論,在一個句子中,因爲焦點運符的不同就會產生相同的句子卻有不同的語意,本論文提出語言的是非問句的答句是由「焦點機制」來建構答句或是導衍出來的,也就是由焦點運符與焦點標記的聯繫關係來決定的。「焦點運符」才是問句的核心,確認了「焦點運符」就能決定「疑問範域」或是「疑問命題」,回答者根據「命題」的真假與否回答問句。當答話者選擇肯定助詞「是」時,表示同意焦點所表示的命題,跟在「是」後頭的便是與焦點所表示的命題相同的形式;當答話者選擇「不」時,表示不同意焦點所決定的疑問命題,因此,跟在「不」後頭的是焦點所表示的命題的否定形式。但是因為不同語言決定焦點運符的機制也不同,就造成是非問句的答句在不同的語言呈現對比的現象。 根據Romero and Han(2002:210)的說法,在英文中否定詞not和助動詞融合之後,移到句首的是非問句,否定詞具有焦點運符的功能,所以焦點運符選擇沒有否定詞的疑問範域作為是非問句的命題,回答者針對肯定命題的真假值來回答問題,若命題為真, 回答者會以肯定的助詞「yes」加上肯定的句子來回答這個命題,若命題為非回答者則以否定的助詞「no」後面跟著的是命題為非的否定的句子來回答這個命題。但是若否定詞not並未與助動詞融合為一,而是停留在主語後頭的否定是非問句,卻有歧義的現象,也就是肯定的助詞「yes」和否定的助詞「no」後面可以同時用肯定的句子和否定的句子來回答,本論文指出這樣的歧義現象是源自於沒有移位的否定詞不一定是焦點運符的雙重用法,也就是否定詞可以作為句子的焦點運符或是不作為句子的焦點運符。當否定詞是句子的焦點運符時,那麼答句的形式就跟否定詞移到句首的答句完全相同 ; 但是當否定詞不是焦點運符時,那可能被選為焦點運符的就是問句中的助動詞,而否定詞就被納入問句的疑問範域中,讓問句的範域成為否定命題,回答者針對否定命題的真假值來回答問題。 若否定命題為真時, 回答者會用肯定的助詞「yes」來同意否定的命題 ; 相反地,若否定命題為非時, 回答者則用否定的助詞「no」來否定問句的否定命題,雙重否定自然就出現肯定句,這就說明為什麼肯定的助詞「yes」後面可以接否定的句子,而否定的助詞「no」後面可以接肯定的句子。簡而言之,英文的否定詞沒有移位到句首的是非問句的歧義現象是源自於沒有移位的否定詞不一定是焦點運符的雙重用法。此外,問句中的助動詞可以作為焦點運符,也闡明了為什麼英語的肯定的是非問句和否定詞not移到句首的是非問句有相同的答句,因為這兩種問句,雖然有不同的焦點運符卻有相同的疑問範域。 漢語最典型的是非問句是「嗎是非問句」又稱語助詞問句,是含有疑問語助詞「嗎 」的疑問句。但是英文不移位的否定詞not所產生的歧義現象卻不會發生在漢語的「嗎是非問句」,因為漢語的否定詞「不」在焦點機制的階層是低於疑問詞「嗎」,所以焦點運符的功能已經由疑問詞所取代,所以「嗎是非問句」的焦點運符功能就由疑問語助詞「嗎」來承擔,這就說明了為什麼漢語肯定的「嗎是非問句」的答句和否定的「嗎是非問句」的答句呈現對比的現象,因為肯定的是非問句焦點運符「嗎」選擇肯定的疑問命題,回答者針對肯定命題的真假值來回答問題,所以肯定的助詞「是」要求後頭的句子必需是肯定的和否定的助詞「不」要求後頭的句子必需是否定的 ; 相反的,在漢語的「否定」是非問句中,焦點運符「嗎」選擇了否定的疑問命題,回答者針對否定命題的真假值來回答問題,助詞「是」表示回答者同意否定的疑問命題,自然要求後頭的句子必需是否定的,助詞「不」表示回答者不同意否定的疑問命題,所以要求後頭的句子必需是焦點所表示的命題的否定形式,雙重否定就形成肯定的句子。 「焦點機制」也可以清楚地闡明母語是中文的說話者在學習英文時,常會面對無法回答否定的是非問句或誤用yes 去表達no的語意,因而造成言談的誤解。這是因為母語是中文的學習者把漢語的「焦點機制」運用到英文否定的是非問句,在英文中否定詞not和助動詞融合之後,移到句首的是非問句,否定詞具有焦點運符的功能,所以焦點運符選擇沒有否定詞的疑問範域作為是非問句的命題,反觀漢語否定的是非問句的焦點運符功能是由疑問語助詞「嗎」來承擔,所以焦點運符選擇有否定詞「不」的疑問範域作為是非問句的命題,用否定疑問範域的回答方式來回答肯定的疑問範域自然產生言談的誤解。 此外,在漢語的「嗎是非問句」中,如果已經帶有肯定的焦點標記「是」或是否定的焦點標記「不是」, 它的答句形式無疑的跟這兩個焦點標記息息相關,所以回答者根據焦點標記運符所選的疑問範域的真假值, 用肯定的助詞「是」表示回答者同意疑問命題和否定的助詞「不」表示回答者不同意疑問命題來回答問題。這也解釋了為什麼帶有焦點標記和不帶有焦點標記的「嗎是非問句」在漢語中呈現的答句形式是一致的。 同樣地,「焦點機制」也運用來解釋漢語的「正反問句」,不同於「嗎是非問句」的是,「正反問句」的焦點運符是「疑問運符」,焦點運符選擇述語的動詞或 繫詞「是」作為它的論元,且焦點運符帶有的屬性是「+A-not-A」而不是「±pol」,這也闡明為什麼回答者必須從述語的肯定式與否定式中選擇一項來回答,而不能用肯定的助詞「是」或否定的助詞「不」來回答問題。 在漢語中,還有一種特殊的問句,Xu (2017) 將它命名為「難道問句」,在「難道問句」中疑問語助詞「嗎」是可有可無的,因此焦點運符的功能就不會由疑問語助詞「嗎」來承擔,而是由表意內功效的疑問詞「難道」作為問句的焦點運符來決定疑問範域,並建構答句。此外,當一個句子包含多個焦點運符時,表達說話者態度的焦點運符就會排在焦點機制階層的最上層,這也解釋了當表意內功效的疑問詞「難道」和肯定的焦點標記「是」或是否定的焦點標記「不是」同時並存在句子時,焦點運符是由表意內功效的疑問詞「難道」來承擔。

並列摘要


ABSTRACT (English) Instead of classifying natural languages in terms of their answering systems for polar questions, this thesis analyses how languages construct the answering system for polar questions. The primary mechanism that natural languages adopt to construct an answering system is the focus mechanism that 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 thus falls into question scope (focus association) or becomes the local argument of the question operator. 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. Based on Romero and Han (2002:210), the preposed contracted form Aux+n’t has the function of focus marking while the non-preposed-negation not does not always involve the focus function. The ambiguity of the answering patterns to a non-preposed-negation polar question in which the sentence following the particle yes or no can either be positive or negative indeed results from the ambiguous status of the negation not between a focus sensitive marker and a non-focus marker. But when not does not function as a focus marker, the positive auxiliary (do, does etc.) becomes a qualified focus operator. However, this ambiguity does not exist in Mandarin Chinese because bu ‘not’ is not an overt focus operator. It is due to bu ‘not’ being ranked in the lowest position of the focus sensitivity hierarchy in Mandarin Chinese, and lower than the question particle ma. Therefore, the question particle ma suppresses its function as a focus operator. In other words, bu ‘not’ is not a qualified focus marker in Chinese in terms of the answering patterns to a negative ma particle question. In Mandarin Chinese, shi ‘be’ and bu-shi ‘not-be’ are focus sensitive markers without doubt. As they are focus operators, the question scope does not contain the focus markers and this is the reason why there is no difference found in the answering patterns between Chinese polar questions with a focus marker and Chinese polar questions without a focus marker. Additionally, if both the positive auxiliary does and preposed-negation doesn’t are focus operators, it explains why the answering patterns to preposed-negation yes-no questions and positive yes-no questions are identical as the two distinctive operators contain the same question proposition. This mechanism also explains why Chinese speakers have great difficulty answering negative polar questions in English. When Chinese speakers learn a foreign language like English, they apply the rules that they use in their native language to the foreign language they are learning. Accordingly, if the two languages have significantly different focus operators and focus associations, then the confusion or difficulties that the learners face is unavoidable. In addition to Mandarin ma particle questions, the focus mechanism can be correctly applied to derive the answering patterns in both V-not-V and C-not-C questions. But the difference is the focus operator in A-not-A questions is the question operator [Q] containing the feature [+A-not-A] rather than the feature [±Pol], and this explains why A-not-A questions cannot be answered by polarity particles shi ‘yes’ and bu ‘no’. Lastly, when the focus mechanism is applied to examine nandao-questions, it is found that the question particle ma is optional, so the focus operator is the illocutionary force of interrogation nandao ‘actually’. Further, nandao ‘actually’ is a speech act that expresses a speaker/hearer’s attitude, it is related to the highest position of a CP layer and is located in the highest rank in the focus sensitivity hierarchy in generating answering patterns to Mandarin polar questions.

參考文獻


REFERENCES
Aihara, M. (2008). Two types of Japanese yes-no questions and their implications for wh-questions. Syntax General Paper, University of Connecticut.
AnderBois, S. (2011). Issues and alternatives. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Aoun, J., & Li, Y.-H. (1993). Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24: 199-238.
Bailey, L. (2013). The syntax of question particles. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.

延伸閱讀