簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 鄭胥德
Hsu-Te Johnny Cheng
論文名稱： 論量化詞範域之歧異性
On Scope Ambiguities of Quantifiers
指導教授： 丁仁
Ting, Jen
蔡維天
Tsai, Wei-Tien
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年： 2002
畢業學年度： 90
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 85
中文關鍵詞： 句法學 、範域 、歧異性 、量化詞 、微言主義
英文關鍵詞： syntax, scope, ambiguities, quantifiers, minimalism
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：200  下載：11 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 在此論文中，我們檢驗了兩量化詞之間以及量化詞與疑問詞組之間的範域歧義性。在第一章裡，我們介紹一些支持邏輯型式這個層次的論點，以及一些量化詞範域歧義性的基本觀念。在第二章裡，我們複習之前與此主題相關的一些重要作品，並指出它們在理論上及實證上的一些缺失。在此論文的主體－第三章裡，我們為「廣範域」下了一個定義並辨別一些可能的語義。根據我們的定義和對語義的分類，我們顯示漢語及英語的主動句在範域上皆無歧義性。接著我們將此理論應用在不同的動詞種類及不同的句子結構裡。在第四章我們甚至在不同的語言中驗證此理論。結果顯示在不同的結構及不同的語言中我們的理論皆能行得通。在第五章裡我們提供了對主要宣稱的摘要，及對未來研究領域的建議。

    In this thesis, we examine the scope ambiguities between two quantifiers as well as those between a quantifier and a wh-phrase. Modifying the definition of Szabolcsi (2001), we propose a conjunctive definition of scope. The definition consists of a syntactic as well as a semantic requirement. In chapter one, we introduce some arguments for the LF level and some basic ideas of scope ambiguities of quantifiers. In chapter two, we review several important works on the related topic and point out some of their theoretical as well as empirical disadvantages. In chapter three, the main body of the thesis, we give a definition of “wide scope” and specify some of the possible readings. Then we show that, under our definition and classification of the readings, active sentences in Chinese and English are both scopally unambiguous. We then examine our theory in sentences containing different verb forms and in different constructions. We even test the theory in different languages in chapter four. The results show that our theory is indeed workable in these constructions and languages. A summary of the main claims and a suggestion for areas of further research are provided in chapter five.

    Table of Contents Abstract．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．i 摘要．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．ii Acknowledgements．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．iii Table of Contents． ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．v Chatper 1 Introduction ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． ．．．．．．． ．．1 1.0 Overview ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．． ．．1 1.1 Purpose ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．1 1.2 Introduction of the LF Component ．．．．．．．．．． ．．．．．．．2 1.3 Introduction of Quantifier Ambiguities ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．9 1.4 Introduction of the Minimalist Program ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．13 1.5 Arrangement of the Thesis ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．16 Chapter 2 Literature Review ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．18 2.0 Introduction ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．18 2.1 May (1977, 1985) ．．．．．．．．．．． ．．．．．．．．．．．．18 2.1.1 Review of May ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．18 2.1.2 Critique of May ．．．．．．． ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．21 2.2 Aoun and Li (1993) ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．23 2.2.1 Review of Aoun and Li ．．．．．．．．．．．．．． ．．．．．23 2.2.2 Critique of Aoun and Li ．．．．．．．．．．．．．． ．．．．．31 2.3 Hornstein (1995) ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．33 2.3.1 Review of Hornstein ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．33 2.3.2 Critique of Hornstein ．．．． ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．36 2.4 Beghelli and Stowell (1997) ．．．．． ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．38 2.4.1 Review of Beghelli and Stowell ．．． ．．．．．．．．．．．．．38 2.4.2 Critique of Beghelli and Stowell ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．40 Chapter 3 Analysis of Scope Ambiguities ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．42 3.0 Introduction ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．42 3.1 Definition and Classification ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．43 3.2 Main Claim ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．45 3.3 Analysis and Discussion ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．46 3.4 Further Evidence ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．57 3.4.1 The Island-Free Effect of Indefinite NPs ．．．．．．．．．．．．．57 3.4.2 Playing Around the Logic ．．．．．．．．．．．． ．．．．．．59 3.4.3 How Many Papers Can You Correct in Three Hours ．．．．．． ．．61 3.5 A Short Conclusion ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．63 Chapter 4 Further Discussions ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．64 4.0 Introduction ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．64 4.1 A Cross-Linguistic Comparison ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．64 4.1.1 Transitive Verbs ．．． ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．65 4.1.2 (Unergative) Intransitive Verbs ．． ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．66 4.1.3 Unaccusative Verbs ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．68 4.2 Passive Constructions ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．70 4.3 Psych-Verb Constructions ．． ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．74 4.4 A Short Conclusion ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．75 Chapter 5 Conclusion ．．． ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．76 5.0 Introduction ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．76 5.1 Summary And Implications ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．76 5.2 Problems and Further Research ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．78 Bibliography．．．． ．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．80

    Bibliography
    Aoun, J. Hornstein, N. And Sportiche, D. (1981) “Some Aspects of Wide Scope Quantification,” Journal of Linguistic Research 1. 67-95.
    Aoun, J., and Li, Y.-H. Audrey. (1989). “Constituency and Scope,” Linguistic Inquiry 20, 141-72.
    Aoun, J., and Li, Y.-H. Audrey. (1991). “The Interaction of Operators.” In R. Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, 163-81. MIT Press, Cambridge.
    Aoun, J., and Li, Y.-H. Audrey. (1993). Syntax of Scope, MIT Press, Cambridge.
    Aoun, J., and Li, Y.-H. Audrey. (2000) “Scope, Structure, and Expert Systems: A Reply to Kuno et al,” Language 76, 133-155.
    Baker, M., K. Johnson, I. Roberts (1989) “Passive Arguments Raised,” Linguistic Inquiry 20, 219-251.
    Bayer, J. (1996) Directionality and Logical Form, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
    Beck, S. and Kim, S.-S. (1997) “On WH- and Operator Scope in Korean.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 339-384.
    Beghelli, F. and Stowell, T. (1997) “Distributivity and Negation: The Syntax of Each and Every,” In A. Szabolcsi (ed.) Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
    Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (1988) “Psych-Verb and θ–Theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 291-352.
    Cheng, L.-S. Lisa. (1995) “On DOU-Quantification,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4, 197-234.
    Cheng, L.-S. Lisa. (1997) On The Typology of Wh-questions, Garland, New York. [MIT dissertation, 1991]
    Chierchia, G. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (2000) Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics, MIT Press, Cambridge.
    Chomsky, Noam. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge.
    Chomsky, Noam. (1991) “Some Notes on the Economy of Derivation,” in R. Freidin (ed.) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press.
    Chomsky, Noam. (1993) “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory,” in K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (ed.) The View From Building 20, MIT Press.
    Chomsky, Noam. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge.
    Culicover, W. P. (1997) Principles and Parameters, Oxford University Press, New York.
    Diesing, Molly (1992) Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge.
    Epstein, S. D. (1989) “Quantification in Null Operator Constructions,” Linguistic Inquiry 20, 647-658.
    Ernst, T. (1991) “On the Scope Principle,” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 750-756.
    Ernst, T. (1998) “Case and the Parameterization of Scope Ambiguities,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 101-148.
    Fiengo, R. and J. Higginbotham. (1981) “Opacity in NP,” Linguistic Analysis 7, 395-422.
    Freidin, R. and Rex, S. (1991) “Lexical Case Phenomena,” in R. Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, 392-416.
    Gao, C.-F. Mobo (1994) “Dou as a Wide Scope Universal Quantifier,” Australian Journal of Linguistics 14, 39-62.
    Haegeman, L. (1994) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, 2nd edition, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge.
    Heim, I. (1982) The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
    Hornstein, N. (1995) Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism, Blackwell, Cambridge.
    Huang, C.-T. James. (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
    Huang, C.-T. James. (1983) “On the Representation of Scope in Chinese,” Journal of Chinese Linguistics 11, 37-91.
    Huang, C.-T. James. and R. May. (1991) Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
    Huang, C.-T James. (1993) “Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: Some Theoretical Consequences,” Linguistic Inquiry 24, 103-138.
    Huang, C.-T. James. (1995) “Logical Form,” Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, ed. by Gert Webelhuth, 125-175. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
    Huang, S.-F. (1981) “On the Scope Phenomenon of Chinese Quantifiers,” Journal of Chinese Linguistics 9, 226-243.
    Huang, S.-Z. (1996) Quantification and Predication in Mandarin Chinese: A Case Study of DOU, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
    Ioup, G. (1975a) The treatment of Quantifier Scope in a Tranformational Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center.
    Ioup, G. (1975b) “Some Universals For Quantifier Scope,” Syntax and Semantics V. 4, ed. by Kimball, P. John. New York, Academic Press.
    Ioup, G. (1977) “Specificity and the Interpretation of Quantifiers,” Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 233-245.
    Jackendoff, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge.
    Johnson, K. (2000) “How Far Will Quantifiers Go?,” in Martin, R. Michaels, D. and Uriagereka J. (ed.) Step by Step, MIT Press, Cambridge.
    Kennedy, B. (1999) “Specific NP in Scope,” in Akio Kamio and Ken-Ichi Takami (ed.) Function and Structure, 251-287. John Benjamins Pub. Amsterdam.
    Kim, H. and Larson, R. (1989) “Scope Interpretation and the Syntax of Psych-Verbs,” Linguistic Inquiry 20, 681-688.
    Kitagawa, Y. (1994) Subjects in Japanese and English, Garland, New York. [U. Mass, Amherst dissertation, 1986]
    Kitahara, H. (1996) “Raising Quantifiers without Quantifier Raising.” In W. Abraham, S. D. Epstein, H. Thrainsson & C. J.-W. Zwart (ed.) Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 189-198.
    Koopman, H., and D. Sportiche (1982) “Variables and the Bijection Principle,” The Linguistic Review 2, 135-170.
    Koopman, H., and D. Sportiche (1991) “The Position of Subjects,” Lingua 85, 211-259.
    Kuno, Susumu (1991) “Remarks on Quantifier Scope,” In H. Nakajima (ed.) Current English Linguistics in Japan, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 261-287.
    Kuno, Susumu Takame, K.-I, Wu, Y.-R. (1999) “Quantifier Scope in English, Chinese, and Japanese,” Language 75, 63-111.
    Kuno, Susumu Takame, K.-I, Wu, Y.-R. (2001) “Response to Aoun and Li,” Language 77, 134-143.
    Kurtzman, H. S. and McDonald, M. C. (1993) “Resolution of Quantifier Scope Ambiguities,” Cognition 18, 243-279.
    Larson, Richard (1988) “On the Double Object Construction,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-391.
    Larson, Richard (1990) “Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff,” Linguistic Inquiry 21, 589-632.
    Lasnik, H. (1999) Minimalist Analysis, Blackwell, Cambridge.
    Lee, H.-T., and Yip, V. (1998) “Rethinking Isomorphism as a Scope Principle for Chinese and English,” paper presented at the Tenth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Stanford University.
    Lin, T.-H. Jonah. (1998) “Rethinking Wh/QP Interaction: Aspect, Distributivity, and Parameterization in Quantification,” In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics, Academia Sinica, Taipei.
    Liu, F.-H. (1996) “Branching quantification and scope independence,” In J. van der Does and J. Van Eijck (ed.) Quantification, Logic and Language. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    Liu, F.-H. (1997) Scope and Specificity, Amsterdam. John Benjamins.
    May, Robert (1977) The Grammar of Quantification, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
    May, Robert (1985) Logical Form, MIT Press, Cambridge.
    May, Robert (1988) “Ambiguities of Quantification and WH: A Reply to Williams,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 118-135.
    Milsark, G. (1974) Existential Sentences in English, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
    Nishigauchi, T. (1990) Quantification in the Theory of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
    Pan, Haihua. (1992) “Interaction Between Adverbial Quantification and Perfective Aspect,” in Laurel Smith Stran et al. (ed.), Papers from the Third Annual Meeting of The Formal Linguistics Society of MidAmerica, 266-280.
    Pesetsky, D. (1982) Paths and Categories, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
    Reinhart, T. (1978) “Syntactic domains for semantic rules,“ in F. Guenthner and S. Schmidt (ed.) Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Langauges. Dordrecht, Reidel.
    Reinhart, T. (1997) “Quantifier Scope: How Labor is Divided between QR and Choice Function,” Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335-397.
    Reuland, E. (1988) “Indefinite Subjects,” in Proceedings of NELS 18, 375-394, GLSA University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
    Rizzi, Luigi (1990) Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge.
    Satoshi O. (1999) “Notes on Quantifier/Wh Interaction,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 143-147.
    Sportiche, D. (1988) “A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure,” Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-449.
    Szabolcsi, Anna (1997) “Strategies for Scope Taking,” in Szabolcsi, Anna (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
    Szabolcsi, Anna (2001) “The Syntax of Scope,” in Baltin M. and Collins C. (ed.) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 607-633. Blackwell.
    Tang, T.-C., Cheng, L. Robert, Li, Y.-C. (1983) Studies in Chinese Syntax and Semantics, Universe and Scope: Presupposition and Quantification in Chinese. Student Books Co., Taipei.
    Ting, J. (1998) “Deriving the Bei-Construction in Mandarin Chinese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7, 319-354.
    Ting, J. (to appear) “The Nature of the Particle Suo in Mandarin Chinese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12.
    Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. (1999a) On Economizing The Theory of A-bar Dependencies, Garland, New York. [MIT dissertation, 1994]
    Tsai, W.-T. Dylan (1999b) “On Lexical Courtesy,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 39-73.
    Tsai, W.-T. Dylan (2001) “On Subject Specificity and Theory of Syntax-Semantics Interface,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10, 129-168.
    Williams, Edwin (1988) “Is LF Distinct from S-Structure? A Reply to May,” Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 135-146.
    Yang, C.-Y. Barry (2002) Quantification and Its Scope Interpretation in Mandarin Chinese, MA thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.

    QR CODE