【作者】 麦涛；

【导师】 曹合建；

【作者基本信息】 湖南大学 ， 外国语言学及应用语言学， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 本文研究的是汉语中的“都”量化现象。汉语中的全称量化副词“都”具有独特的句法、语义特征，是海内外汉语言学界的一个热点研究问题。本研究旨在：(1)分析出左向“都”量化和右向“都”量化成分的异同之处；(2)探寻促使左向“都”量化的成分发生左向位移的动因；(3)运用最简方案的新的发展阶段——分语段推导理论(Derivation by Phase)(Chomsky，1999)来分析“都”字句的推导。 文章从指称的有定性和数量两个方面详尽分析了左向“都”量化和右向“都”量化成分的句法、语义属性。经分析发现，左向和右向“都”量化的成分共同具有的属性为：(1)在语义上指示(denote)一个集合(set)，该集合内含有一个以上的成员；(2)该集合中的每一个成员都被“都”量化。两者不同的是，左向“都”量化的成分：(1)出现在“都”的左边；(2)指称上有定，或含有一个准全称量词(a quasi-universal quantifier)。而右向“都”量化的成分：(1)出现在“都”的右边；(2)指称上无定，且不含有准全称量词。 在运用分语段推导理论对“都”子句进行分析时，本文根据戴曼纯(2002a)关于附加语推导的分析，认为“都”的合并位置为AdvC，“都”与其被量化的成分之间的句法关系为成分统制(c-command)关系。全称量化副词“都”所起的作用是一个二级的全称量化词和二级的有定性标义成分(definiteness marker)。它能使原本指称呈中性的成分变为具有有定性，还能使含有准全称量词的成分所表达的量获得强调义，从而使得这些成分获得主题化的强势语义特征，并最终形成了左向“都”量化的现象。然而右向“都”量化的成分，因为具有内在的(inherent)无定性，且不含有准全称量化词，所以“都”不能使这些成分获得主题化的强势语义特征，并形成了右向“都”量化的现象。原因在于“都”作为一个二级的全称量化词和二级的有定性标示语，不能改变一个成分内在的强势属性。在右向“都”量化中，“都”的句法属性与左向“都”量化的句法属性保持一致，也即，“都”依然是在AdvC位置合并，“都”与其量化的对象之间的句法关系仍是成分统制关系。在运用分语段推导理论进行分析时，文章还发现“都”量化的成分必须是外合并(external merge)到“都”所在的强语段CP的成分。 本研究的理论意义在于运用了Chomsky(1999)的分语段推导理论对汉语中的“都”量化现象进行了动态的句法推导分析。通过对“都”及其量化的对象的 栅静人仟酚十夕仙蚌文句法和语义属性的详细分析，本研究探寻出形成左向和右向“都”量化现象的动因。该分析能克服以往的静态表征分析所存在的问题，而且符合当前语言学理论发展的理路。更多还原

【Abstract】 The present thesis is a syntactic and semantic study of dou-quantification in Mandarin Chinese. It aims to: (a) find out the similarities and differences between leftward dou-quantified elements and rightward dou-quantified elements; (b) discover the factor causing the leftward shift of dou-quantified elements; (c) update the syntactic analysis of dou sentences within the framework of Chomsky’s (1995) Minimalist Program in its new spirit of Derivation by Phase (hence, DbP) (Chomsky, 1999). To fulfill these three aims, the thesis addresses itself to four questions.First, what syntactic and semantic properties do the leftward dou-quantified elements have? The generally accepted idea is that dou-quantified elements lie to the left of dou, and must have plural interpretations (Lu, 1980; Lee, 1986; Cheng, 1995; Li, 2002; among many others). According to DPs’ different internal constituents, we classify DPs into three types (bare NPs; Q(C)NPs, and D(Q)(C)NPs), and each receives a careful study on its referentiality, and the quantity it denotes. After a careful discussion of these three types of DP, we observe that those dou-quantified DPs have three semantic properties: (a) Denoting a set of more than one member; (b) Every member in the set is quantified by dou; (c) Definite in reference, or containing a quasi-universal quantifier. All these three properties cannot be omitted in order to guarantee a dou sentence’s grammaticality. It is found that the dou-quantified wh-phrases and AdvPs have shared properties with dou-quantified DPs.Secondly, what properties and functions does dou own? Besides those properties and functions observed in previous literatures, we argue that dou functions as a secondary universal quantifier and secondary defmiteness marker. The reason is that the quantifier in a DP has a closer syntactic and semantic relation with the base NP in this DP than the adverbial quantifier dou does. When dou quantifies a DP, dou does not directly quantify every member in the set denoted by the base NP within that DP. Instead, the quantifier in that DP quantifies the set denoted by the base NP before dou quantifies it, and provides a subset for dou to quantify. Dou also functions as a secondary defmiteness marker, since it cannot change a DP’s inherent indefiniteness, but can convert a referentially neutral DP into a definite one.Thirdly, how to derive dou sentences? This thesis proposes a DbP approach to the derivation of dou sentences. Following Dai’s (2002a) analysis of adjuncts, we argue that the merger position of dou is AdvC which is between subjects and light verbs. It is proposed that c-command should be taken as the modification relation between dou and its quantified element. To derive deu-quantification the dou-quantified elements must be c-commanded by dou. After an analysis of the derivation of dou sentences, we argue that dou can only quantify an element that is externally merged into the CP that dou itself is merged in.Fourthly, what syntactic and semantic properties do the rightward dou-quantified elements have? The rightward dou-quantified elements all lie to the right of dou. They are: (a) Pronouns; (b) Interrogative wh-phrases; (c) Indefinite DPs. We observe that the rightward dou-quantified elements have the following properties: (a) Denoting a set consisting of more than one member; (b) Every member in the set is quantified by dou; (c) Inherently indefinite in reference; (d) Containing no quasi-universal quantifier.As argued in Chomsky (1995), Hatakeyama (1998), Dai (2002a), among others, some strong semantic features can cause topicalization. Since dou plays a role of a secondary universal quantifier and secondary defmiteness marker, we argue that when an element is quantified by dou, it gets an emphasis on the quantity it denotes, or gets a stronger definite interpretation. And it is this strong semantic feature causes the process of topicalization. As to those rightward dou-quantified elements, since they do not contain quasi-universal quantifiers,更多还原