排序语义与“能”和“可以”的语义和句法分析

Ordering Semantics and the Semantic and Syntactic Analysis of Neng and Keyi

本文首先采用情态的经典排序语义(ordering semantics)解释方法(Kratzer 1981, 1991)分析了“能”和“可以”在不同语境下产生不同解读的来源和差别。然后,结合目前汉语情态词的句法研究,指出了“能”和“可以”的上述语义与其句法的不匹配问题,并通过区分S-算子和VP-算子的情态词来解决该问题。前者包括表达认知情态、应然性优先情态及纯环境情态的情态词;后者包括表达应为性优先情态和倾向情态的情态词。这一区分揭示了目前汉语情态词句法研究(如胡波 2015)中存在的一些问题,我们基于情态词的语义特性为其提出了修正意见。

It is a rather robust cross-linguistic generalization that a single modal expression can be used to express a range of readings in different contexts, e.g., epistemic, deontic and so on (Palmer 1979;Coats 1983;Nauze 2008). In formal semantics, the seminal work done by Kratzer (1981, 1991) ascribes this variability to two kinds of conversational backgrounds, i.e., the modal base and the ordering source. In this paper, we demonstrate how the different readings of the two typical possibility modal verbs neng and keyi in Chinese can be derived by resorting to these two contextual parameters. However, in light of the recent syntactic research on Chinese modal verbs, we find that there is a serious problem with the above Kratzerian analysis of neng and keyi , i.e., the mismatch between their semantic interpretations and their argument structures. More specifically, the findings in the field of generative grammar, either using the control vs. raising approach (Lin and Tang 1995;Tsao 2005;Huang, et al. 2009;Hu 2015) or using the cartographic approach (Cinque 1999;Tsai 2010), indicate that modals of different types should have different argument structures, which is inconsistent with Kratzer s uniform treatment of all modals as a sentential operator. To solve this problem, we adopt Brennan s (1993) distinction between S-operator and VP-operator modals and classify the occurrences of neng and keyi into the following two types: the epistemic, ought-to-be priority and pure circumstantial ones as an S-operator, and the ought-to-do priority and dispositional ones as a VP-operator. Semantically, the latter is mainly different from the former in their modal base rather than ordering source, which consists of a set of subject-oriented properties, instead of a set of propositions. Based on this two-way distinction, we also point out the problems involved in the current syntactic analyses of Chinese modals. For instance, we do not find Hu s (2015) criteria on the distinction between the raising and control modal verbs in Chinese quite convincing. Particularly, we do not find its compatibility with inanimate subjects to be a test on whether a modal verb is a raising verb or not. Instead we argue that when a modal sentence with neng or keyi is used to express the properties of its inanimate subject (e.g.,“Dasuan neng shajun (garlic can kill germs)”), the modal verb involved in this sentence should be treated as a control but not a raising verb, due to its ‘in virtue of’ reading (e.g.,“Dasuan neng shajun” means ‘in virtue of its intrinsic properties, garlic can kill germs’).