A Semantics-Pragmatics Approach to the Interpretations of Mandarin Bare Nouns
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractBare nouns are nouns that occur without demonstratives, numerals or articles. Mandarin bare nouns, like English bare plurals, can have a generic or existential interpretation. But unlike English bare plurals, they can also have definite reference. There have been proposals to account for the interpretations of Mandarin bare nouns in terms of syntactic structure (Audrey Li, 1997; Cheng and Sybesma, 1999) and predicate types (Jie, 1997).The present paper attempts to account for different interpretations of Mandarin bare nouns by relating the kind referring vs. object referring interpretations to the semantic distinction between individual-level and stage- level predicates (Kratzer, 1989) and shows that Mandarin bare nouns have a generic interpretation with individual- level predicates. With stage-level predicates, they have a definite interpretation when they are in topic position and an existential interpretation when they are not in topic position.However, bare nouns often do not appear as arguments of any predicates in natural discourse. The current paper attempts to reconstruct sentence fragments based on contexts and show that the Givenness Hierarchy (Gundel et al., 1993) restricts possible interpretations of Chinese bare nouns and that Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1995) is needed to explain how people choose the intended interpretation from the possible ones.Key words: Mandarin Bare nouns; semantic distinction; Givenness hierarchy; Relevance theory(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)INTRODUCTIONMost human languages allow nominal phrases headed by nouns without demonstratives,numerals or articles, such as English 'dogs' in 'Dogs bark' or 'sugar' in 'Sugar is sweet'. These are referred to as 'bare nouns.' The interpretations of bare nouns in Mandarin Chinese vary by contexts. For example, in (1) and (2), shu 'book' is generic. It refers to the type.(1) Shu hen gui....''Books are very expensive.''(2) a. Wo xihuan shu....''I like books.''b. Shu wo xihuan....''I like books.''In example (3), shu 'book' refers to a specific book or books that the hearer is expected to identify.(3) a. Shu dao-le.''The book has arrived.''''The books have arrived.''An overt existential marker is needed for an existential reading here. For example,(3) b. You shu dao-le.''Some books have arrived.''In (4a), shu 'book' yields an existential/indefinite interpretation, while it yields a definite interpretation when it is fronted as in (4b) and (4c).(4) a. Ta mai le shu.... indefinite/existential''He has bought a book/books.''b. Shu ta mai-le... definite''He has bought the book (s).''A Semantics-Pragmatics Approach to the Interpretations of Mandarin Bare Nounsc. Ta shu mai-le....''He has bought the book (s)''This paper attempts to account for different interpretations of Mandarin bare nouns and will show that the kind referring vs. object referring interpretations can be accounted for in terms of the semantic distinction between individual-level and stage-level predicates, while the distinction between definite and indefinite object referring bare nouns will be handled by pragmatics. I will start with previous syntactic accounts and predicate type accounts of Mandarin bare nouns and the deficiency of the previous researches is also pointed out and analyzed and then propose a new account based on predicate types supplemented by a pragmatic account.Next is a general picture of what has been accomplished in approaches to the interpretations of Mandarin bare nouns.1. LITERATURE REVIEWDiesing (1992) propose that Mapping Hypothesis links semantic representation with syntactic structures. That is, material from VP is mapped into the nuclear scope and material from IP is mapped into a restrictive clause. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».