Kim Nayoun, Li Ziying, Lu Jiayi
Department of English Language and Literature, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.
Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Front Psychol. 2023 Jan 20;13:1059823. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1059823. eCollection 2022.
It has been assumed that the -element "why" in Chinese has two distinct interpretations: a reason reading, which typically yields "because"-answers, and a purpose reading, which typically triggers "in order to"-answers. It is claimed that the two interpretations differ in island sensitivity: the reason is sensitive to islands while the purpose is not. Assuming that the reason is a -adverb without finer internal structure, while the purpose is a -PP consisting of the preposition "for" and a -DP "what," this contrast in island sensitivity can be considered as an instance of a broader generalization: the so-called argument-adjunct asymmetry (or the DP-adverb asymmetry) of - island sensitivity. However, recent experimental studies provided mixed findings on whether the argument-adjunct asymmetry of - island sensitivity actually holds. The current study focuses on the two interpretations of "why/for what" in Chinese, and provides evidence using a formal acceptability judgment experiment that the two s are both sensitive to islands, contrary to previous generalizations. Our results provide further empirical challenge to the so-called argument-adjunct asymmetry of - island sensitivity.
人们一直认为,汉语中的“为什么”这个成分有两种不同的解释:一种是原因解读,通常引出以“因为”开头的回答;另一种是目的解读,通常引出以“为了”开头的回答。据称,这两种解读在对孤岛的敏感性上存在差异:原因解读对孤岛敏感,而目的解读则不敏感。假设原因解读是一个没有更精细内部结构的副词,而目的解读是一个由介词“为了”和一个疑问短语“什么”组成的目的短语,那么这种在对孤岛敏感性上的差异可以被视为一个更广泛概括的实例:即所谓的疑问孤岛敏感性的论元-附加语不对称(或疑问短语-副词不对称)。然而,最近的实验研究对于疑问孤岛敏感性的论元-附加语不对称是否真的成立给出了不一致的结果。本研究聚焦于汉语中“为什么/为何”的两种解读,并通过一项形式上的可接受性判断实验提供证据表明,与之前的概括相反,这两种解读对孤岛都敏感。我们的结果对所谓的疑问孤岛敏感性的论元-附加语不对称提出了进一步的实证挑战。