为什么问题、话题性与汉语干预效应

Dawei Jin
{"title":"为什么问题、话题性与汉语干预效应","authors":"Dawei Jin","doi":"10.1515/yplm-2016-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper revisits intervention effects in Mandarin Chinese why-questions. I present new data showing that the ability for quantifiers to induce intervention hinges upon their monotonicity and their ability to be interpreted as topics. I then develop a semantic account that correlates topicality with monotone properties. Furthermore, I propose that why-questions in Chinese are idiosyncratic in that why directly merges at a high scope position that stays above a propositional argument. Combining the semantic idiosyncrasies of why-questions with the wide scope behaviors of topicality, I conclude that my account explains a wide range of intervention phenomena in terms of interpretation failure.","PeriodicalId":431433,"journal":{"name":"Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why-questions, topicality and intervention effects in Chinese\",\"authors\":\"Dawei Jin\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/yplm-2016-0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper revisits intervention effects in Mandarin Chinese why-questions. I present new data showing that the ability for quantifiers to induce intervention hinges upon their monotonicity and their ability to be interpreted as topics. I then develop a semantic account that correlates topicality with monotone properties. Furthermore, I propose that why-questions in Chinese are idiosyncratic in that why directly merges at a high scope position that stays above a propositional argument. Combining the semantic idiosyncrasies of why-questions with the wide scope behaviors of topicality, I conclude that my account explains a wide range of intervention phenomena in terms of interpretation failure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":431433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/yplm-2016-0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/yplm-2016-0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要本文回顾了普通话“为什么”问题的干预效应。我提出的新数据表明,量词诱导干预的能力取决于它们的单调性和它们被解释为主题的能力。然后,我开发了一个语义帐户,将话题性与单调性联系起来。此外,我认为汉语中的“为什么”问题是特殊的,因为“为什么”直接合并在一个高范围的位置,保持在命题论证之上。结合“为什么”问题的语义特质和广泛的话题性行为,我得出结论,我的解释解释了解释失败方面的广泛干预现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why-questions, topicality and intervention effects in Chinese
Abstract This paper revisits intervention effects in Mandarin Chinese why-questions. I present new data showing that the ability for quantifiers to induce intervention hinges upon their monotonicity and their ability to be interpreted as topics. I then develop a semantic account that correlates topicality with monotone properties. Furthermore, I propose that why-questions in Chinese are idiosyncratic in that why directly merges at a high scope position that stays above a propositional argument. Combining the semantic idiosyncrasies of why-questions with the wide scope behaviors of topicality, I conclude that my account explains a wide range of intervention phenomena in terms of interpretation failure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Semantic prosody of extended lexical units: A case study London calling (or cooling?): Feature theory, phonetic variation, and phonological change New vs. similar sound production accuracy: The uneven fight A critical look at partial acceptability in English and Polish Foreword to the special section
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1