|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2014)04-0270-05 |
| |
|
阻隔效应与汉语原位疑问词的允准 |
| |
薛小英 |
| |
|
（中南大学外国语学院，湖南长沙，410083） |
| |
| 摘 要： 关于汉语原位疑问词的允准问题，有两种截然不同的观点。“移位说”认为疑问词本身是算符，逻辑式移位到辖域位置；“原位说”认为疑问词是变量，由处于辖域位置的疑问算符约束并赋予其疑问性质。近年来，国外语言学界对韩语、德语等语言的研究表明，量词或焦点阻隔原位疑问词的逻辑式移位。本研究探讨了汉语原位疑问词的阻隔效应现象，认为疑问词在向辖域位置逻辑式移位的过程中受到弱式量词或焦点的阻隔，弱式量词具有焦点的特征；阻隔效应是“移位说”强有力的事实依据，“原位说”无法解释与阻隔效应相关的语言现象。跨语言的证据表明，疑问词的非疑问用法不能作为“原位说”的事实依据。 |
| |
| 关键词： 汉语原位疑问词；阻隔效应；逻辑式移位 |
| |
|
| |
Intervention effects and licensing of Chinese Wh-in-situ |
| |
XUE Xiaoying |
| |
（College of Foreign Languages, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China） |
| |
| Abstract: There exist two competing approaches explaining why Chinese wh-in-situ can be interpreted in its scope position. Movement approach regards wh-in-situ as an interrogative operator which moves covertly to its scope position at LF while non-movement approach views it as a variable which is bound by an interrogative operator. Cross-linguistic data from many languages such as Korean and German show that LF-movement of wh-in-situ is blocked by a quantifier or a focus. This paper discusses Chinese intervention effects systematically and draws the conclusion that LF-movement of Chinese wh-in-situ is intervened by a weak quantifier or a focus and a weak quantifier tends to be focalized. Intervention effects form a strong piece of evidence for movement approach but can not be explained by non-movement approach. Cross-linguistic data show that non-interrogative use of wh-in-situ is irrelevant to non-movement approach. |
| |
Key words: Chinese wh-in-situ; intervention effects; LF-movement |
| |
|
