汉语分裂句“是”穷尽程度的语用研究
A Pragmatic Study of the Exhaustivity of Chinese “shi” Clefts
摘要: 本文探究了分裂句“是”在句中起强调作用时的穷尽性大小。通过线上问卷星调查的方式，从兰州大学55名大一新生中收集了有关“是”分裂句的相关语料，分析并对比了“是”分裂句、主谓宾句型和排他句的穷尽性大小。结果发现“是”分裂句和主谓宾句型属于不完全穷尽且穷尽性相似，排他句的穷尽性最强。本研究结果支持了Destruel的分裂句语用穷尽理论和格莱斯的会话含义理论。
Abstract: This paper studies the exhaustivity of the “shi” clefts with the function of emphasis. By means of online questionnaires, we collected relative materials from 55 freshmen in Lanzhou University about “shi” clefts. At the same time, this paper also analyzes and contrasts the exhaustivity of the shi-clefts, canonical sentences and exclusive sentences. It found that the first two sentences are not completely exhausted, and shi-clefts have the similar exhaustivity with canonical sentences. Exclusive sentences have the strongest exhaustivity. The results support the Destruel’s pragmatic exhaustivity theory of clefts and Grice’s conversational implicature.
文章引用：张水云, 周梦茹. 汉语分裂句“是”穷尽程度的语用研究[J]. 现代语言学, 2020, 8(1): 6-14. https://doi.org/10.12677/ML.2020.81002

参考文献

[1] Destruel, E. (2017) The Pragmatics of French (Non-)Prototypical Clefts: Influence of the Type of Question on Naturalness and Interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 58-75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[2] Kiss, K.E. (1998) Identificational Focus versus Information Focus. Language, 74, 245-273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[3] Laurence, H. (1981) Exhaustiveness and the Semantics of Clefts. In: Burke, V.E. and Pustejovsky, J., Eds., Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS), University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 125-142.
[4] Onea, E. and Beaver, D. (2009) Hungarian Focus Is Not Exhausted. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 19, 342-359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[5] Destruel, E. and DeVeaugh-Geiss, J. (2018) On the Interpretation and Processing of Exhaustivity: Evidence of Cross-linguistic Variation in Clefts. Journal of Pragmatics, 138, 1-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[6] Byram-Washburn, M., Kaiser, E. and Zubizarreta, M.L. (2013) The English It-Cleft: No Need to Get Exhausted. Poster Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA) Meeting, 1-46.
[7] Destruel, E., Velleman, D., Onea, E., Bumford, D. and Beaver, D. (2015) A Cross-Linguistic Study of the Non-At-Issueness of Exhaustive Inferences. In: Schwartz, F., Ed., Experimental Perspectives on Presuppositions, Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics Series, Springer, Berlin, 135-156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[8] 王萍. “是”字强调焦点句 的语调实验研究[J]. 汉语学习, 2015(3): 78-88.
[9] 赵先旗. 浅论汉语焦点问题和焦点标记形式[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 河南: 河南大学, 2010.
[10] 丁广华. 浅析汉语分裂句中的“是”[J]. 芜湖职业技术学院学报, 2008, 10(2): 31-33.
[11] 白蓝. 现代汉语分裂句焦点分析[J]. 吉首大学学报(社会科学版), 2017, 38(2): 125-130.
[12] 王宏军. 论汉英“焦点”与“预设”的表现手段[J]. 外国语文, 2009, 25(2): 79-82.
[13] 蒯振华. 信息焦点研究的语用视角[J]. 重庆工商大学学报, 2007: 24(6): 136-139.
[14] 张斌. “汉语语法学”[M]. 上海: 上海教育出版社, 1998.
[15] 张豫峰. 关于汉语句子焦点问题的两点研究[J]. 中州学刊, 2006(2): 245-247.
[16] 徐烈炯, 刘丹青. “话题的结构与功能”[M].上海: 上海教育出版社, 1998.
[17] 陈香. It分裂句的穷尽性语义解读[J]. 开封教育学院学报, 2016, 36(12): 48-49.
[18] DeVeaugh-Geiss, J., Zimmermann, M., Onea, E. and Boell, A.-C. (2015) Contradicting (Not-)at-Issueness in Exclusives and Clefts: An Empirical Study. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) Conference, 25, 373-393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[19] 冯予力, 潘海华. 再论“都”的语义——从穷尽性和排他性谈起[J]. 中国语文, 2018(2): 177-194.
[20] 刘林. 现代汉语焦点标记词研究——以“是”“只”“就”“才”为例[D]: [博士学位论文]. 上海: 复旦大学, 2013.
[21] 祁峰. 现代汉语焦点研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 上海: 复旦大学, 2012.