现代汉语焦点结构研究

【作者】 张全生；

【导师】 马庆株；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 汉语言文字学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 本文通过梳理和评述文献中对焦点和信息结构的关系、焦点界定和分类、焦点表现形式的研究,明确了焦点信息结构的表现形式,重新界定了焦点的概念,并给出了一个“两层三分”的全新分类体系,讨论了汉语中焦点和焦点结构的句法表现形式。在此基础上以语义功能语法理论为指导,借鉴信息结构理论、认知语言学、形式语义学和形式语用学的分析手段,探讨了焦点标记词“来”的语法化历程、否定句的焦点关联、“还”字句的焦点结构、焦点副词的连用等问题,论证了焦点结构的变化在焦点标记词产生过程中的作用、否定句的解释规则、否定词的释义条件和一句一焦点原则。第一章引言说明了全文的理论前提和研究方法,概要介绍了所要讨论的主要内容,指出了可能存在的问题和不足以及今后研究的方向。第二章从语言信息结构出发,讨论分析了焦点信息结构的两个来源,即主位—述位结构、已知信息—新信息结构,和两种表现形式,即话题—焦点结构、预设—焦点结构。第三章首先梳理评述了现有焦点概念和焦点类别的研究;然后,以信息结构关系为标准重新界定了焦点概念,即焦点是言语交际中说话人着力传递给听话人并假定听话人可以用来对其原有知识信息进行更新的、具有突出性的信息,这一更新过程表现为添加信息或替换信息;提出了一个关于焦点的“两层三分”的全新分类体系,即先分出以整句为焦点的句子焦点,然后再以“突出、对比、穷尽性、排他性、预设类型、标记性、辖域”等参项特征为标准把由句法成分充当的焦点分为常规焦点和对比焦点,由此还从焦点的角度得到一个关于句子的分类体系;最后讨论了句子中的焦点数量问题,通过分析“多个焦点论”的三种情况和“单一焦点论”的相关表述,认为单句遵循一句一焦点原则。第四章首先对焦点和句法上的焦点结构做出认定,焦点本质上是一个表达范畴,承载一定的语义内容,总是实现为一定的句法成分,表现为特定的语法结构形式,即与句子中其他成分形成焦点结构;句法上的焦点结构是焦点表达在句法层面上形成的语义结构,如“尾焦结构”、焦点关联“三分结构”等,往往对应于信息传递和接收过程中形成的焦点信息结构。然后主要讨论分析了焦点的语言表现形式,分别为焦点重音、焦点标记词、焦点敏感算子及其焦点关联结构、特定句法位置上的句法成分和语序变化等句法结构,特别是例释分析了汉语中的焦点标记词,比较分析了英语和汉语焦点敏感算子的异同。第五章通过讨论分析“来”从趋向动词到焦点标记词的语法化历程,确认其内因是动词结构“VP1+(NP1)+来+VP2+(NP2)”提供的句法格式以及“来”在该结构中表空间位移义的语义消退;在与“是”语法化为焦点标记的过程简单比较后,认为句子焦点的位置和焦点结构的变化是促成焦点标记产生的一个重要因素。第六章通过评述“否定无辖域说”、“否定和焦点分离说”等有关否定和焦点的讨论,指出“否定词是有辖域的”、“句子中否定跟焦点相关联”基本上是一种研究共识,并在此基础上提出了否定句的解释规则和否定词的释义条件(修正版)。最后结合“否定不改变原句的预设”进一步讨论了句子中焦点和预设的关系,预设和焦点的对应关系是建立在语义信息层面上的,预设没有直接的句法体现,而焦点在句法上实现为一定的焦点成分进而形成焦点结构;一个单句只有一个焦点,可以有多个预设,其中有一个预设是和焦点相对应的,常规焦点和对比焦点可以有相对应的预设,而句子焦点是没有预设的。第七章通过讨论认为“还”字句“(W[Y]),还W[X]”的焦点结构是一个焦点关联“三分结构”,而“X比Y还W”是句子焦点,没有焦点结构。在认定“还”的基本语义是延续增量后,指出在“(W[Y]),还W[X]”的焦点关联结构中,焦点副词“还”的关联方向与其表达增量的类别有着密切的联系,即如果表示“一般增量”是左向关联,则“元语增量”是右向关联,如果表示“一般增量”是右向关联,则“元语增量”是左向关联。此外还辨析了“X比Y还W了”句式,对其合法性表示怀疑。第八章首先通过语料库考察认为汉语焦点副词“也、还、又、都、只”的连用基本遵循“也＞还/又＞都＞只,顺序组合时只能连续连用,不能间隔连用;逆序组合时可以间隔连用,不能连续连用”。然后结合这一考察结果,在第三章第三节认定单句遵循一句一焦点原则的基础上进一步说明单句不受句中焦点算子数量的影响始终遵循一句一焦点原则;由于信息结构具有一定的层次性,而焦点算子的辖域、关联方向和层次又是不一样的,因此根据象似性原理,即便句子中出现多个焦点算子,在句法结构中连用时也只有占据最广辖域的最外层算子所关联的成分才是句子表达的突出信息(prominent/highlighted),即句子的焦点信息。最后,通过比较Krifka(1992)的研究、讨论“Sue also2 only1 introducedBill1 to John2.”的汉语表述、分析否定词与其辖域外句子焦点的关系,进一步指出一句一焦点原则是具有语言共性的原则,可以确保不同语言之间焦点表达的翻译准确性。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation first makes a general survey of the research on the relationship between focus and information structure, the definition and categorization of focus, and the manifestation of focus, and then clarifies the manifestation of focus information structure and the redefinition of focus. On the basis of such a clarification and redefinition, a new system of categorization with two levels and three divisions is formulated, and the syntactic manifestation of focus structure in Chinese is also discussed. Taking semantic functional grammar as the basic theoretical device and with resort to theories on information structure, cognitive linguistics, formal semantics and formal pragmatics, this dissertation then makes a research on a lot of relating problems, such as the history of grammaticalization of "lai来" as a focus marker in Chinese, the association with focus in negative sentences, the information structure of sentences with "hai还", the sequential combinations of focusing adverbs, and demonstrates the effect of the shift of focus structure on the evolution of focusing markers, the interpretation rule of negative sentences, the interpretation condition ofnegators, and one sentence-one focus principle.Chapter One gives an illustration of the theoretical basis and approaches employed in the research, and outlines the basic problems to be discussed, and then pinpoints the likely flaws involved in the research and possible further research orientations.Chapter Two is devoted to an analysis of the two basis of focus information structure and two manifestations, the former consisting of the theme-rheme structure and given-new structure, and the latter of topic-focus structure and presupposition -focus structure.Chapter Three first comments the existing researches on the definition and categorization of focus, and then redefines the concept of focus from perspective of the information-structural relation. Focus, after this sort of redefinition, is the prominent information items the speaker tries to deliver to the hearer in a given communication, and thus is assumed capable for the hearer to renew the given knowledge; such a renewal process is represented by information addition and replacement. A new system of categorization with two levels and three divisions is then formulated, in which sentence focus is first determined under sentence units, and then the syntactic focus is further divided into regular focus and contrastive focus, with "prominent", "contrastive", "exhaustive", "exclusive", "presupposition type", "marked" and "scope" as the primary parameter characters. Thus a sentence-based categorization system is achieved concerning the focus. A discussion then is allocated to the quantity of focus in a sentence. Here a survey is given to three types of multiple focus and the related discussion of unique focus, and then it is concluded that single sentences are unique focused.Chapter Four first asserts that focus by its nature is category of representation, carrying certain semantic content, and is always realized by certain syntactic elements, and represented by certain grammatical structure, and is combined with other syntactic elements into focus structure. The syntactic focus structure is the semantic structure formed at the syntactic level with the representation of focus at the syntactic level, such as end focus structure, tripartite structure, and is always contrasted with the focus information structure formed in the process of information transmission and reception. Then an analysis is allocated to the linguistic manifestations of focus, including accent, focus marker, focus-sensitive operator and its associated structure, and syntactic structures, such as syntactic elements at certain position and shift of syntactic order. An illustration is made especially on focus markers in Chinese, and a contrastive analysis is made on the difference and similarities between English and Chinese in terms of focus-sensitive operator.Chapter Five discusses first the grammaticalization process of the turning of the Chinese verb "lai来" from a directional verb to a focus marker, and then ascertain that the inner motivation of the process is the syntactic formula of "VP1+ （NP1） +lai来+VP2+ （NP2） " and the semantic bleaching of the meaning of " lai来" for spatial motion. After a simple comparison between the process and the grammaticalization of "shi是" into a focus marker, we conclude that the position of syntactic focus and the change of focus structure is an important factor inducing the evolution of focus marker.Chapter Six is devoted first to comments on some statements on negation and focus, such as the scopelessness of negation, the separation of negation and focus, and then it points out that it is basically a consensus that negators have their scope, and that negation is association with focus, on the basis of which a interpretation rule of negative sentence and the modified interpretation conditions of negators are proposed. With resort to the statement that negation makes no shift of the presupposition of a sentence, this chapter also discusses the relationship between focus and presupposition, which should be constructed at the semantic information level; presupposition is not syntactically manifested, and focus is syntactically manifested by certain focus elements that can be developed into focus structure; single sentences are unique focused, but can be multiple presupposed, one of which is corresponded with the focus. Regular focus and contrastive focus are presupposition-corresponded, and syntactic focus is presupposition-free.Chapter Seven proposes that the focus structure of the sentence type of "（W[Y]）, hai还W [X] )" is a focus-associated tripartite structure, while " （X bi比Y hai还W）" is a sentence focus, thus does not have a focus structure. After an ascertainment that the basic semantic meaning of "hai还" is to express continuing increment, the dissertation argues that, in the focus-associated structure of the sentence "（W[Y]）, hai还W [X] )", the direction of association of the focusing adverb "hai还" is closely related to the type of the increment expressed: suppose that the ordinary increment is left-associated, the meta-linguistic increment is right-associated; if the ordinary increment is right-increment, the meta-linguistic increment is left-associated. A further debate is made on the sentence type of " （X bi比Y hai还W le了）", whose validity is challenged.Chapter Eight first argues on the basis of corpus searches that the combination of Chinese focusing adverbs "ye也, hai还, you又, dou都, zhi只" can only be used successively in sequential combinations, without any interval, while in reverted sequences they can be used with intervals, but not successively. With resort to this conclusion, this chapter makes a further statement, on the basis of the proposition in the 3^rd section of Chapter Three that single sentences are unique-focused, that single sentences are exempted from the number of focus operators, and thus are always unique-focused. Information structure is to some extent hierarchical, and the focus operators "ye也, hai还, you又, dou都, zhi只" are different in scope, associated direction and hierarchy, it is inferred, according to the iconicity principle, that when these focus adverbs are used successively in a construction, only the component associated with the most outer operator that has the widest scope are the prominent information, that is the focus of a sentence. After a comparison with the study of Krifka （1992）, a discussion on the Chinese expression of "Sue also2 onlyl introduced Bill1 to John2.", and an analysis of the relationship between negators and the syntactic focus beyond its scope, this chapter finally concludes that the one sentence-one focus principle is language universal, thus is a guarantee of the translative precision of focus manifestation between different languages.更多还原