The Role of Focus Alternatives in Mandarin Polar Questions

Abstract

The central topic of this thesis is the relationship between focus, alternatives, and polar questions or, more specifically, the role of focus alternatives in Mandarin polar questions. The semantics of both focus and questions are assumed to make reference to alternatives, but studies on the connections and interactions between the two different kinds of alternatives are mostly concentrated on the close link between wh-phrases and focused constituents, as well as the focus intervention effects in wh-questions. This thesis, however, attempts to cover the long-neglected relationship between focus alternatives and polar questions in Mandarin Chinese, and the influences that focus alternatives exert on polar questions. In this thesis, the shì-construction is chosen as the representative focus-alternative-evoking means, mainly because the diversified alternative types in shì-constructions would facilitate a more thorough analysis. On the other hand, A-not-A questions and ma-questions are chosen as the representative polar questions that evoke question alternatives. The analysis is conducted under the Question under Discussion (QUD) framework because of its applicability to both focus phenomenon and questions. Moreover, by investigating the interaction between different alternatives, we can get a deeper understanding of how the discourse structure is determined by and determines the language use.

By investigating the contextual constraints of some controversial shì sentences, this thesis finds out that they can be regarded as involving a focus; that is, shì-constructions can involve different focus types, thus evoking different sets of alternatives. Apart from the typical contrastive narrow focus, shì-constructions can also mark contrastive broad focus and polarity focus. The broad focus type (i.e., focus on the predicate or the whole proposition) is manifested by non-narrowly-focused bare initial shì sentences and bare medial shì sentences. The polarity focus type (i.e., focus on the polarity head) is mainly marked by a subset of shì…de sentences with de in sentence-final position and sentences with a stressed confirmatory shì. This thesis also provides a unified semantic analysis for shì-constructions with different focus types: shì encoding an identificational relation between the focused constituent and the answer to a presupposed Current Qustion (CQ).

When focus alternatives are interpreted in sentences with question alternatives, these two types of alternatives operate on different dimensions. This is evidenced by the fact that shì-associated contrastive foci are generally compatible with ma-questions but not with A-not-A questions. The focus intervention effect observed in A-not-A questions is explained by a quantificational domain approach. Shì is supposed to quantify over a set of alternatives evoked by the focus on the “focus semantic” dimension, so it resists another set of question alternatives on the “ordinary semantic” dimension inside its scope. Otherwise, it will lead to an illicit quantificational structure and semantic interpretation. The incompatibility of shì in A-not-A questions arises because the open-valued PolP ([±Pol]) spelled out by the A-not-A string falls inside the scope of shì and introduces a set of Hamblin/question alternatives. On the other hand, the Hamblin alternatives evoked by ma-questions are beyond the scope of shì.

By resorting to the QUD model, the thesis specifies the mechanism of the interaction between focus alternatives and question alternatives. With regard to the compositional semantic analysis of focused polar questions (FPQs) in Mandarin (for simplicity, shì…ma questions), the thesis proposes that the question operator Q does not interact directly with the focus-induced alternatives. The Q operator is responsible for the interrogative reading, whereas the focus operator determines the definedness condition of the question. It targets the focus value of the focused constituent and indicates a hierarchically preceding QUD to the current question. Different focus types in shì…ma questions determine the different presupposed preceding QUDs. A narrow-argumental-focused FPQ presupposes a wh-QUD; a broad-focused FPQ generally presupposes a why-QUD; a polarity-focused FPQ presupposes a polar-QUD.

This thesis also investigates the effects that focus alternatives exert on polar questions. This investigation is accomplished from two perspectives. On the one hand, polar questions with foci are different from their canonical counterparts with respect to the question bias. On the other hand, focus alternatives in polar questions influence the way questions are responded to.

FPQs are non-canonical because they do not only seek information but also convey the speaker’s intentions. The thesis makes a more fine-grained classification of speakers’ bias, taking into consideration the bias of different modalities, such as epistemic bias, bouletic bias, and teleological bias. Based on the classification, the bias profiles of shì…ma questions differ according to the different focus types involved. Narrow-focused and broad-focused shì…ma questions presuppose a wh-question, to which the current polar question is a sub-question. Since the current question is in a competitive relationship to its potential alternative questions, the different pragmatic reasonings behind the speaker’s choice lead to a positive bias of different modalities. Polarity-focused shì…ma questions presuppose a polar question, such that the current question is a repetition. In this way, it can be inferred that they convey the speaker’s non-positive epistemic bias, and require that the prejacent proposition had been explicitly or implicitly asserted.

Focus alternatives also affect how the polar question should be responded to. There are two main ways to answer a polar question in Mandarin Chinese: echo answers and response particle shì (de). The acceptability of both response strategies is ultimately determined by the salient alternative set of the triggering question, which, in turn, is dependent on whether a contrastive focus is present in the polar question. The presence of contrastive foci in polar questions presupposes a hierarchically super wh-question as the QUD, thus rendering the salient alternative set from a typical {p, ~p} to a set in the form of {p, q, r…}; the propositions of p, q, r… differ from each other in the constituent that corresponds to the wh-variable in the super QUD. Verb-echo answers are only acceptable to questions with the salient alternatives set of {p, ~p}, whereas adverbial-echo answers are only acceptable to questions with the salient alternatives set of {p, q, r…}. As to the response particle shì (de), its felicity is not determined by whether the question is biased or not, as argued in the literature, but by whether the salient alternative set of the question is {p, q, r…}. Moreover, the thesis makes a semantic analysis of these response strategies, where the verb-echo answer is analyzed by adopting the argument ellipsis approach, and the adverbial-echo answer is derived from a movement and deletion process. Shì (de) is analyzed as taking a Null Complement Anaphor (NCA) that refers to a uniquely salient discourse referent. The function of shì (de) is to confirm the truth of that salient proposition, so it is only felicitous to questions that choose and propose one specific possibility from various alternatives for other interlocutor’s evaluation.

Overall, the thesis finds that focus alternatives and question alternatives should not be considered as both being in the focus semantic dimension and waiting to be bound by certain operators to get ordinary semantic meaning, contrary to what has been argued by some scholars in discussing the interaction between focus and wh-questions. They operate on different dimensions: question alternatives along the ordinary semantic dimension form the question meaning, whereas focus alternatives are in the focus semantic dimension and, in addition, determine the discourse structure. The thesis makes a further contribution to the influences of focus alternatives on questions, by using a QUD model to analyze the interaction between these two alternatives. In effect, their interaction affects not only the appropriateness conditions of polar questions but also the way a polar question can be responded to.

Date of Award	5 Jul 2024
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	City University of Hong Kong
Supervisor	Bin LI (Supervisor), Yuan SHEN (External Supervisor) & Po Lun Peppina LEE (External Co-Supervisor)