臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：漢語示證和態度語式探討
作者：蕭佩宜
作者(外文)：Hsiao, Pei-Yi Katherine
校院名稱：國立清華大學
系所名稱：語言學研究所
指導教授：連金發
林宗宏
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2015
主題關鍵詞：示證性；態度；漢語；台灣閩南語；Evidentiality；Attitudes；Mandarin Chinese；Taiwanese Southern Min
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:40
這本論文主要是要探討台灣國語和閩南語的說話者如何表達他們對外界世界的知識和態度。論文中主要討論三個議題：(i) 知識性模態詞：本文以三個漢語的知識性模態詞「一定」、「應該」、「可能」、為例，(ii) 態度動詞：以台灣閩南語的「拍算」為例，(iii) 言談助詞：本文以漢語的句末助詞「的」和台灣閩南語的「千萬」和「絕對」為個案研究。這三個不同的議題都和示證性(evidentiality)有關。本文所採用的示證性概念是廣義的，包含了說話者的態度，並不侷限在證據來源本身。
這本論文主要分成兩個部分，第一個部分討論模態示證式(modal evidentials)的句法和語意；第二個部分則討論非模態示證式(non-modal evidentials)，亦即態度動詞和言談助詞。模態示證式和非模態示證式大致上可以依它們所作用的語意層面不同來區分為命題層面(propositional level)和非表意層面(illocutionary level)。首先，本文論證，在漢語的三個模態詞中，「一定」和「可能」是屬於命題層面的示證式，而「應該」雖然為模態示證詞，但其語意貢獻卻是作用在非表意層面上。這三個模態詞的句法位置根據它們的示證特性不同而呈現結構上的高低分佈，本文認為這個結構上的高低分佈可以歸因於兩個不同的語意因素，即示證模態詞的偏稱或全稱量化力，以及「一定」語意中的另一個成分—說話者的意志(speaker intention)。此外，這三個模態示證詞的句法特性也是造成它們在結構和示證行為表現上的差異。
在第二部分中，本文首先討論態度動詞作為示證詞使用的議題，本文以台灣閩南語的「拍算」為例，探討知識性情態(Epistemic Modality)和示證性(Evidentiality)之間的互動，並討論「拍算」這個動詞如何衍生出可能性情態和推論的間接事證語意，以及「拍算」的三個用法—意志動詞用法(intentional verb)、命題態度動詞用法(propositional attitude verb)和插入語用法(parenthetical)—的語意及句法特性。本文提出二維的語意分析來說明命題態度動詞用法和插入語用法之間的關聯及差異，同時論證「拍算」這三種用法之間的衍生關係。
接著，本文以漢語的句末助詞「的」與台灣閩南語的「千萬」和「絕對」為個案研究，探討言談助詞的句法、語意和語用功能。本文論證「的」是CP層次的言談助詞，其語意作用在非表意層面上。「的」有兩種相對應的功能，即對立功能(antithetic)和強調功能(emphatic)，這兩種功能貢獻了非核心的語意(non-at-issue content)。此外，「千萬」和「絕對」則是屬於IP層次的言談助詞，「千萬」和「絕對」的義務情態用法皆有雙重功能，它們一方面選擇命令句式，另一方面又修飾這類句型所表達的指示語言行為 (directive speech act)。
在言談助詞的討論中，本文發現命題和非表意這兩個層面的語意可以在句子中互動。本文提出句末助詞「的」可以和句子中出現的表弱必然性的義務模態詞「應該」或其他帶有選擇語意的義務模態詞互動產生違實語意(counterfactuality)；而「千萬」和「絕對」在作義務情態用法時，則必須與句子中所出現的義務模態詞產生「情態協和」(modal concord)的關係。本文主張句子的語意是由多面向的語意塑造而來的，由命題層面和非表意層面的語意構成(cf. Scheffler 2009, Potts 2012)。
The aim of this dissertation is to provide an empirically driven, theoretically informed investigation of how speakers of Chinese Languages which are used mostly in Taiwan, namely Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese Southern Min, express knowledge about the world around them. Three main issues are discussed: (i) epistemic modality, in which we focus on the three modality expressions in Mandarin Chinese—yiding ‘mustepi.’, yinggai ‘shouldepi.’, and keneng ‘be likely to’, (ii) propositional attitude verbs, in which we take phah4-sng3 ‘intend; think’ in Taiwanese Southern Min as an example, and (iii) discourse particles, in which the two maximizers in Taiwanese Southern Min, tshian1-ban7 and tsuat8-tui3, and the sentence-final particle de in Mandarin Chinese are investigated. These three issues, though distinct, are actually related with respect to evidentiality, the notion not restricted to the expression of ‘evidence’ per se but used in a broader sense to involve attitudes towards knowledge and truth (Chafe 1986).
The first part of this dissertation is devoted to the investigation of the syntax and semantics of modal evidentials. The second part is contributed to non-modal evidentials in Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese Southern Min, viz. attitude verbs and discourse particles. The two types of evidentials roughly correspond to a distinction between propositional and illocutionary evidentials, defined by the level of meaning they operate on. However, evidentials which have a static semantics (e.g. they are epistemic modals) may implicate other kinds of meaning in conversation, operating on an illocutionary level. The epistemic modal yinggai ‘shouldepi.’ in Mandarin Chinese is such an example.
In the first part, I argue that among the three modals, yiding ‘mustepi.’, and keneng ‘be likely to’ are propositional evidentials and yinggai ‘shouldepi.’ is an illocutionary evidential. The properties of the three modal evidentials rendered them hierarchically ordered. I argue that this ordering can be attributed to two distinct semantic factors—the quantificational force of evidentiality ( or ) over evidential-belief worlds, and a coordinate of speaker intention (see Giorgi 2009) in the semantics of yiding ‘mustepi.’ but not in that of yinggai ‘shouldepi.’. The syntactic statuses of the three modals also constitute another crucial key to the puzzle about their distinct evidential behavior and the hierarchical ordering.
In the second part, I discuss the issue of attitude verbs as evidentials with a case study of phah4-sng3 ‘intend; think’ in Taiwanese Southern Min. I show the multiple functions of phah4-sng3, and argue that it derives the use as a propositional attitude verb from the intentional-verb use, and becomes a slifting verb, which is regarded as an evidential, expressing epistemic propability and lowering the epistemic threshold. Moreover, I deal with the issue of discourse particles. I take the sentence-final particle de in Mandarin Chinese and tshian1-ban7 and tsuat8-tui3 in Taiwanese Southern Min as case studies. I argue that de is a CP-type discourse particle, operating on the illocutionary level of meaning. It has two opposite discourse functions—antithetic and emphatic, contributing to the non-at-issue content. In addition, tshian1-ban7 and tsuat8-tui3 (in its deontic use) are treated as IP-type discourse particles. They are argued to display twofold behavior, selecting the jussive clause types on the one hand, and modifying the directive force of these clauses on the other.
The two levels of meaning (i.e. propositional and illocutionary) may interact in a sentence. This is shown in discussing the discourse particles in question. I argue that the sentence-final particle de in Mandarin Chinese cooperates to generate the sense of counterfactuality with the weak necessity modal yinggai ‘ought’ or other modals that can derive an alternative reading like yinggai ‘ought’, and that tshian1-ban7 and tsuat8-tui3 (in its deontic use) in Taiwanese Southern Min show a concord relation with the modal required in the same sentence.
This propositional-illocutionary distinction suggests a multidimentional model of meaning (cf. Scheffler 2009, Potts 2012), whereby sentence meaning is modeled by the at-issue dimension, and the rest, which constitute the non-at-issue dimension (viz. the Conventional Implicature dimension).
References

Abraham, Werner. 1991. Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about? In Werner Abraham (ed.), Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German, 203-252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Abusch, Dorit. 2012. Circumstantial and temporal dependence in counterfactual modals. Natural Language Semantics 20, 273-297.
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. I think—an English modal particle. In Toril Swan and Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, 1-47. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. The expectation marker actually. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus, pp. 251-275. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anand, P. and A. Brasoveanu. 2010. Modal concord as modal modification. In M. Prinzhorn, V. Schmitt, and S. Zobel (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14.
Anand, P. and V. Hacquard. 2013. Epistemics and Attitudes. Semantics & Pragmatics 6, 1-59.
Anderson, Alan. 1951. A note on subjunctive and counterfactual conditionals. Analysis 12, 35-38.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon.
Bazzanella, Carla. 2006. Discourse markers in Italian: Towards a “compositional” meaning. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles, 449-464. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bolinger, D. 1968. Post-posed main phrases: An English rule for the Romance subjunctive. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 14. 3-30.
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge University Press.
Caton, Charles E. 1969. On the general structure of the epistemic qualification of things said in English. Foundations of Language 2, 37-66.
Chafe, Wallace. 1986. Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing. In W. Chafe and J. Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, 261-272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Chalmers, David J. 2006. Two-dimensional semantics. In Ernest LePore and Barry C. Smith (eds.), Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chao, Fang-Yu. 2007. A Study on Taiwan Southern Min and Mandarin Modals ‘X-ding’ from Grammaticalization and Compounding Perspectives. MA Thesis, National Hsinchu University of Education.
Chappell, Hilary. 2008. Grammaticalization of verba dicendi in East and Southeast Asian languages: a (recursive) case of clause integration. Paper presented at the Workshop on New Directions in Historical Linguistics, Université Lumière Lyon II.
Chen, I-Hsuan. 2013. Subjectivity encoding in Taiwanese Southern Min. In R. Kikusawa, and L. A. Reid (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2011: Selected Papers from the 20th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Osaka, 25-30 July 2011, 83-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: In Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: modals for the present and for the past. In D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark, and L. Casillas (eds.), The Construction of Meaning, 59-88. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Coniglio, Marco and Iulia Zegrean. 2010. Splitting up Force, evidence from discourse particles. Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Venice 20, 7-34.
Crossley, John N. and Lloyd Humberstone. 1977. The Logic of ‘Actually’. Reports on Mathematical Logic 8, 11–29.
Davis, C., C. Potts and M. Speas. 2007. The pragmatic values of evidential sentences. Proceedings of SALT 17.
Davis, C. 2009. Decisions, dynamics, and the Japanese particle yo. Journal of Semantics 26, 329-366.
Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2007. The syntax of time arguments. Lingua 117, 330-366.
Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 2001. On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. Manuscript, University of Tübingen.
Emonds, J. 1970. Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Enç, Mürvet. 1996. Tense and modality. In Shalom Lappin (ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, 345-358. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ernst, Thomas. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27, 497-544.
Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.
Faller, Martina. 2006. Evidentiality below and above speech acts. Unpublished manuscript, the University of Manchester.
von Fintel, Kai. 1998. The presupposition of subjunctive conditionals. In U. Sauerland and O. Percus (eds.), The Interpretive Tract, MITWPL 25, 29-44. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.
von Fintel, Kai. 2003. Epistemic modals and conditionals revisited. Handout from a colloquium talk at UMass Amherst, December 12, 2003.
von Fintel, Kai. 2004. Would you believe it? The King of France is back! (Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions). In A. Bezuidenhout and M. Reimer (eds.), Descriptions and Beyond: An Interdisciplinary Collection of Essays on Definite and Indefinite Descriptions and Other Related Phenomena, 315-341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Fintel, Kai and Sabine Iatridou. 2003. Epistemic containment. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 173-198.
von Fintel, Kai and Anthony S. Gillies. 2006. Epistemic Modality for Dummies. Draft, to appear in Tamar Szabó Gendler and John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Volume 2.
von Fintel, Kai and Sabine Iatridou. 2008. How to say ought in foreign: the composition of weak necessity modals. In J. Guéron and J. Lecarme (eds.), Time and Modality, 115-141. Dordrecht: Springer.
von Fintel, Kai and Anthony S. Gillies. 2010. Must…stay…strong! Natural Language Semantics 18, 351-383.
Geurts, Bart and Janneke Huitink. 2006. Modal Concord. In Concord Phenomena and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. ESSLLI.
Giorgi, Alessandra. 2009. Toward a syntax of the subjunctive mood. Lingua 119, 1837–1858.
Green, Georgia M. 1976. Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language 52, 382-397.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, 43-58. New York: Academic Press.
de Haan, F. 1999. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting the boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18, 83-101.
de Haan, F. 2005. Typological approaches to modality. In William Frawley (ed.),
Modality. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions. In D. J. Allerton, E. Carney, and D. Holdcroft (eds.), Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas, 57-79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts.
Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9, 183–221.
Hiraiwa, K. 2000. Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40, 67-80.
Hsiao, P.-Y. 2015. On counterfactual attitudes: A case study of Taiwanese Southern Min. Paper presented at the 10th International Workshop on Theoretical East Asian
Linguistics (TEAL-10).
Hsieh, Chia-Ling. 2002. Modal Verbs in Chinese. Ph.D. Dissertation, National Tsing Hua University.
Huitink, Janneke. 2008. Modal concord: a case study of Dutch. Manuscript, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31.2, 231-270.
Ippolito, Michela. 2003. Presuppositions and implicatures in counterfactuals. Natural Language Semantics 11, 145-186.
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. Proceedings of SALT VII, Stanford University, 222-239.
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk,
T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Karttunen, Lauri. 1972. Possible and must. In J. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 1, 1-20. New York: Academic Press.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. What ‘‘must’’ and ‘‘can’’ must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1:337–55.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In H. J. Eikmeyer and H. Rieser (eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics, 38-74. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Dieter Wunderlich and Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 639-650. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. 2012. Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.
Laca, Brenda. 2012. Temporal orientation and the semantics of attitude verbs. Paper presented in International Meeting on Syntax, Semantics, and their Interfaces, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Lewis, David. 1976. Probabilities of conditionals and conditional probabilities. Philosophical Review 85, 297-315.
Lim, Dong Sik. 2010. Evidentials and Interrogatives: A Case Study from Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.
Lin, T.-H. Jonah. 2011a. Finiteness of clauses and raising of arguments in Mandarin Chinese. Syntax 14.1, 48-73.
Lin, T.-H. Jonah. 2011b. Multiple-modal constructions in Mandarin Chinese and their finiteness properties. Journal of Linguistics, 1-36.
Lindner, Katrin. 1991. ‘Wir sind ja doch alte Bekannte’ The use of German ja and doch as modal particles. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German, 163-201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Löbner, S. 1986. Quantification as a major module. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, 53–85. Foris: Dordrecht.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, Volumes I and II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Masuoka, Takashi. 1991. Modaritii no Bunpoo [The Grammar of Modality]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Matsui, Tomoko. 2000. Linguistic encoding of the guarantee of relevance: Japanese sentence-final particle YO. In G. Andersen & T. Fretheim (eds.), Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude, pp. 145-172. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Matthewson, Lisa, Henry Davis and Hotze Rullmann. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from Sťáťimcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7, 201-254.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2010. Evidential restrictions on epistemic modals. Paper presented at the Workshop on Epistemic Indefinites, University of Göttingen.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2011. Evidence type, evidence location, evidence strength. Submitted to a volume edited by C. Lee and J. Park.
McCready, Eric and Norry Ogata. 2007. Evidentiality, modality and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 30, 147-206.
McCready, Eric. 2009. Particles: dynamics vs. utility. In Yukinori Takubo, Tamohide Kinuhata, Szymon Grzelak, and Kayo Nagai (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 16. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.
McDowell, J. 1987. Assertion and Modality. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Nevins, Andrew Ira. 2002. Counterfactuality without past tense. In M. Hirotani (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 32, vol. 2, 441-450. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA.
Nilsen, . 2004. Domains for adverbs. Lingua 114, 809-847.
Nimtz, Christian. 2009. Semantics (two-dimensional). In Marc Binder, Nobutaka Hirokawa, and Uwe Windhorst (eds.), The Encyclopedic Reference of Neuroscience. Berlin: Springer.
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 2000. Counterfactuals, temporal adverbs, and association with focus. In B. Jackson and T. Matthews (eds), Proceedings of SALT 10, 115-131. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1990. Modality and the English Modals, Second Edition. London and New York: Longman.
Papafragou, Anna. 2006. Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua 116, 1688-1702.
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Paul, Waltraud and John Whitman. 2008. Shi…de focus clefts in Mandarin Chinese. The Linguistic Review 25: 413-451.
Peterson, Tyler R. G. 2010. Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in Gitksan at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Portner, Paul. 2006. Comments on Faller’s paper. Paper presented at the Workshop on Philosophy and Linguistics at the University of Michigan.
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Potts, Christopher. 2006. Clausal implicatures via general pragmatic pressures. In E. McCready (ed.), Proceedings of Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics 2006. Tokyo: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
Potts, Christopher. 2007. Pragmatic dimensions: quality and expressivity. Talk at the Penn Linguistics Speaker Series, University of Pennsylvania.
Potts, Christopher. 2012. Conventional implicature and expressive content. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Volume 3, 2516-2536. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rooryck, Johan. 2001. Evidentiality, Part I. GLOT International 5, 125-133.
Ross, John Robert. 1973. Slifting. In M. Gross, M. Halle, and M. P. Schützenberger (eds.), The Formal Analysis of Natural Language, 133-169. Mouton.
Scheffler, Tatjana. 2009. Evidentiality and German attitude verbs. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15.1, 183-192.
Searle, J. R. 1975. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. Language, Mind, and Knowledge 7, 344-369.
Simons, Mandy. 2007. Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117.6, 1034-1056.
Simpson, Andrew and Zoe Xiu-Zhi Wu. 2002. From D to T - Determiner incorporation and the creation of tense. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11, 169-209.
Stalnaker, Robert. 1984. Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9, 315-332.
Stalnaker, Robert. 2004. Assertion revisited: on the interpretation of two-dimensional modal semantics, Philosophical Studies 118, 299-322.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics 32, 257-306.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 2010. Tan hanyu motaici qi fenbu yu quanshi de duiying guanxi [On the correlation between the interpretation and the distribution of modal adverbs in Mandarin Chinese]. Zhongguoyuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language] 3, 208-221.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 2015. On the Topography of Chinese Modals. In Ur Shlonsky (ed.), Beyond Functional Sequence, 275-294. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tseng, Ming-hua. 2008. The Multifunction of Taiwanese Southern Min ‘Kong2’. MA Thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Waldie, Ryan, Tyler Peterson, and Hotze Rullmann. 2009. Evidentials as epistemic modals or speech act operators: testing the tests. In Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Structure and Consituency in Languages of the Americas (WSCLA). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.
Wang, Yuying. 2012. The Ingredients of Counterfactuality in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Westmoreland, Robert R. 1998. Information and Intonation in Natural Language Modality. Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University.
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12, 51-97.
Yalcin, Seth. 2013. Introductory notes on dynamic semantics. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
Zanuttini, R., M. Pak, and P. Portner. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30, 1231-1274.
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2008. Modal auxiliaries are empty. Proceedings of SALT XVII.


 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：481（臺灣：477，外國：4） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1753550 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67567439
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上