A study of the semantic presupposition in modern Chinese = 現代漢語語義預設研究

Abstract

This thesis investigates the semantic presupposition in Modern Chinese. In the 1970s, linguists borrowed the concept of “presupposition (semantic or pragmatic)” from philosophical works, and the classical theories of linguistic presupposition had been established by late 1980s. The study of semantic presupposition in modern Chinese has flourished since 2000. The main focus has been on how certain types of words trigger presupposition, yet many problems remain unsolved. Moreover, the question of how constructions may trigger presupposition is still little explored. Such issues are to be dealt with in this thesis. Chapter 1 introduces the subject, the significance, and the method of the current research. Chapter 2 works out a definition of the semantic presupposition. Different from some versions of classical definition, which are given in formal semantic practice, the definition of the current research is proposed after a pragmatic examination of the factors involved in a language interaction. Chapter 3 studies five issues regarding the presuppositions triggered by certain types of words or phrases, namely (1) when a Chinese noun phrase, with its formation and syntactic role given, may trigger “the presupposition of existence”, (2) what Chinese “factive verbs” and “non-factive verbs” are, (3) what presupposition the anaphor -self in X-self may trigger and how that happens, (4) whether the conjunction but in compound sentences always presupposes that “it is abnormal that A and B both happens”, and (5) what aspect markers “liao” and “guo” following a verb phrase may presuppose of the event referred to by the verb phrase. Chapter 4 surveys what three constructions in modern Chinese may presuppose and how. The three constructions are (1) V+unable, (2) V+also+not+V, and (3) one+Cl+compare+one+Cl+Adj, where V stands for verb, Cl calssifier, and Adj adjective. When the survey ends, we will be convinced that the semantic presupposition is sometimes the only clue we have in hand to analyse the semantics of a construction, or to distinguish constructions of similar or identical forms. Chapter 5 concludes the research and mentions several issues for future investigation.