Liu Mingming
Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
J East Asian Ling. 2021;30(3):277-316. doi: 10.1007/s10831-021-09227-x. Epub 2021 Nov 22.
Mandarin universal terms such as -NPs in preverbal positions usually require the presence of 'all/even'. This motivates the widely accepted idea from Lin (Nat Lang Semant 6:201-243, 1998) that Mandarin does not have genuine distributive universal quantifiers, and -NPs are disguised plural definites, which thus need -a distributive operator (or an adverbial universal quantifier in Lee (Studies on Quantification in Chinese. Ph. D. thesis, UCLA), Pan (in: Yufa Yanjiu Yu Tansuo [Grammatical Study and Research], vol 13, pp 163-184. The Commercial Press)-to form a universal statement. This paper defends the opposite view that -NPs are true universal quantifiers while is not. is truth-conditionally vacuous but carries a presupposition that its prejacent is the strongest among its alternatives (Liu in Linguist Philos 40(1):61-95, 2017b). The extra presupposition triggers Maximize Presupposition (Heim in: Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenssischen Forschung, pp 487-535. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1991), which requires [ ] block [] whenever 's presupposition is satisfied. This explains the - co-occurrence, if -NPs are universal quantifiers normally triggering individual alternatives (thus stronger than all the other alternatives). The proposal predicts a more nuanced distribution of obligatory-, not limited to universals and sensitive to discourse contexts.
普通话中，位于动词前位置的 -NPs 这类全称性词语通常需要有“都/连”。这引发了林（《自然语言语义学》6：201 - 243，1998）提出的一个被广泛接受的观点，即普通话没有真正的分配性全称量词，-NPs 是伪装的复数限定词，因此需要一个分配算子（或如李（《汉语量化研究》，加州大学洛杉矶分校博士论文）、潘（《语法研究与探索》第13辑，商务印书馆，第163 - 184页）中的状语全称量词）来构成全称陈述。本文捍卫相反的观点，即 -NPs 是真正的全称量词而 不是。 在真值条件上是空洞的，但带有一个预设，即其前件在其替代项中是最强的（刘，《语言哲学》40(1)：61 - 95，2017b）。这个额外的预设触发了最大化预设（海姆，《语义学：当代国际手册》，第487 - 535页，德古意特出版社，柏林，1991），该原则要求当 的预设得到满足时，[ ] 阻止 [ ]。这就解释了 - 的共现情况，如果 -NPs 是通常触发个体替代项的全称量词（因此比所有其他替代项更强）。该提议预测了强制性 - 的更细微的分布，不限于全称性词语，并且对语篇语境敏感。
