光山方言的全称量化——兼论汉语方言中个体全量的表达

Universal quantifications in the Guangshan dialect with a preliminary cross-dialectalcomparison

"下"和"就"是光山方言中的两个全量形式,二者分布互补,主要体现在:1)"下"主要用于个体量化,"就"主要用于事件量化和个体量化;2)用于个体量化时,"下"用于实指性的个体量化,"就"主要用于非实指性的个体量化,这一倾向性差异在谓语类型等相关参项上都有表现。基于邻近方言和汉语史的相关材料,文章从历时来源角度对二者的共时差异进行解释。在此之上,文章对汉语部分方言中的同类成分展开了初步考察。已有材料显示,方言中用于个体量化的全量副词等常呈现分化表现,跨方言中显现出一定的多样性和倾向性。

This paper describes two complementarily distributed universal quantifiers"[x?^(31)]"(下) and "[ ts?u^(31)]"(就)in the Guangshan dialect, a variety of Zhongyuan Mandarin spoken in Henan province. It is found that:(i) In contrast to "x?^(31)]",which is used for universal quantification over individuals,"[ts?u^(31)]"may universally quantify over events, or individuals when accompanied by classifier reduplication, wh-words or Anot-A structures;(ii) For universal quantification over individuals, the quantified expressions of "[ x?^(31)]" can only be associated with specific individuals, whereas the quantified expressions of "[ts?u^(31)]" are mostly associated with non-specific ones. This on referentiality distinction also correlates with other syntactic differences between these two quantifiers,such as types of predicates. Both stage-level and individual-level predicates can be found in clauses containing the quantifier "x?^(31)]", while typically only individual-level predicates are allowed in clauses containing the quantifier "[ts?u^(31)]". "[ xc^(31)]" and "[ts?u^(31)]" also differ with respect to subjective modality in that the former may be used in the description of an event or a characteristic, while the latter is employed usually in commentaries. Based on the evidence from neighboring dialects and diachronic Chinese texts, this paper argues that the syntactic differences of the two quantifiers might be attributed to their diachronic sources. The origin of "x?^(31)]" can be traced to the word yixia(一下),which indicates the completion of an action within a short period, while "[ts(?)u^(31)]" may derive universal quantificational reading from its co-occurrence with concessive conditional clauses. Finally, this paper extends the investigation to universal quantifiers across Chinese dialects and offers an account of the general tendencies and variability found in the collected data.