极向敏感与极项允准机制
摘要
极向敏感是指某些词语表达倾向于只出现于否定性或肯定性命题所创造的语境中的一种语言现象，根据敏感方向的不同，这些极向表达可分为负极项和正极项。自Klima（1964）开始研究自然语言中的极向敏感现象至今，近五十年来国外语言学界从句法、语义、语用、认知等层面对这一语言现象进行了深入系统的研究，并建立了一些成熟的理论。相比之下，汉语这方面的研究显得比较单薄。本文在语义学的框架内，以汉语为主要语料，并且通过英汉对比研究极向敏感现象。
首先，根据前人的研究，将极项的允准语境划分为真实性语境和非真实性语境，二者之间是一种对立的关系。在非真实性语境中，可进一步划分出向下蕴涵语境、逆递加语境和逆态（逆真实）语境。这些语境具有层级性，是上下集的集合关系，表现为：非真实性语境向下蕴涵语境逆递加语境逆态（逆真实）语境。在此基础上，负极项和正极项被重新定义：负极项是被真实性算子反允准的表达；正极项是被逆态（逆真实）算子反允准的表达。根据允准语境范围，两种极项都可分为四种类型：超弱、弱、强和超强。本文以负极项为研究重点，提出负极项（NPI）的允准法则：a．超弱负极项被非真性实语境允准，但被真实性语境反允准；b．弱负极项被向下蕴含语境允准，但被非真实性语境与真实性语境反允准；c．强负极项被逆递加语境允准，但被向下蕴含语境、非真实性语境与真实性语境反允准；d．超强负极项被逆态（逆真实）语境允准，但被逆递加语境、向下蕴含语境、非真实性语境与真实性语境反允准。由于四种类型的负极项是通过跨语言考察总结出的，所以就某一特定语言来说，有些类型或许会缺失，但跨语言考察，四种类型都可以被例证。本文以汉语语料为主，英语语料为辅，来验证四种类型负极项的语境分布。我们发现汉语不定WH-词是典型的超弱负极项，英语any是典型的弱负极项，汉语不定代词“任何”是典型的强负极项，汉语极量词是典型的超强负极项，这四种负极项的允准条件依次是非真实性语境、向下蕴涵语境、逆递加语境和逆态（逆真实）语境。
其次，在允准语和被允准语的主导关系上，本文认为，是被允准语决定允准语，而不是相反，即负极项的词汇语义特征决定其语境分布。弱负极项any被向下蕴涵语境允准是由其语用/语义特征“扩展”和“增强”决定的；超弱极项WH-词被非真实性语境允准是由其所指的不确定性决定的；强负极项“任何”被逆递加语境允准是由其具有“排除例外”涵义的义素“无论”决定的；超强负极项极量词被逆态（逆真实）语境允准是由其语义特征“存在否定”决定的。
最后，本文探讨了不同语言间相似的概念用负极项表达时是否存在对等关系。我们通过讨论英汉负极项之间的互译，包括不定代词any与“什么”和“任何”之间的互译，英汉副词负极项之间的互译和英汉习语负极项间的互译，可以看出概念相似的英汉负极项之间不存在着一一对应的关系，在涵义、形式和语境分布方面有着不同程度的差异。一种语言中某种类型的负极项在另一种语言中可能是另一类型的负极项，或者不存在相应的负极项。我们认为，两种语言中的负极项匹配程度从不定代词到副词再到固定习语依次降低，any与“什么”和“任何”之间存在着一定的对应关系，但英汉习语负极项之间很难找到在涵义、形式和语境分布方面都相似的对应项。
Polarity Sensitivity is a linguistic phenomenon that some expressions tend to occuronly in negative context or only in positive context. These expressions are labeled PolarityItems (PIs), which can be divided into Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) and Positive PolarityItems (PPIs) according to the preference they show for different polarity distribution. SincePolarity Sensitivity was first introduced by Klima (1964)50years ago, it has beensystematically studied from syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and cognitive perspectives, andsome mature theories concerned have been formulated based on western languages. Bycontrast, studies on Polarity Sensitivity in Mandarin Chinese are relatively rare. Mainlybased on Chinese data, in comparison with English, this dissertation makes an intensiveresearch of Polarity Sensitivity from semantic approach.
First, based on former researches, the licensing contexts of PIs are divided intoveridical context and nonveridical context. The two contexts contradict each other. As fornonveridical context, it can be further distinguished as downward-entailing context,anti-additive context and antimorphic context. These contexts form the proper subsetrelation: nonveridical context downward-entailing context anti-additive context antimorphic (or anti-veridical) context. According to the distribution of PIs, NPI is definedas an expression that is anti-licensed by veridical operators; while PPI is defined as anexpression that is anti-licensed by antimorphic (or anti-veridical) operators, and both NPIsand PPIs can be further classified into four types: superweak, weak, strong and superstrong.Superweak NPI is licensed by nonveridical context, but anti-licensed by veridical context;weak NPI is licensed by downward-entailing context, but anti-licensed by nonveridical andveridical context; strong NPI is licensed by anti-additive context, but anti-licensed bydownward-entailing, nonveridical and veridical context; superstrong NPI is licensed byantimorphic (or anti-veridical) context, but anti-licensed by anti-additive,downward-entailing, nonveridical and veridical context. For a particular language, it maynot contain all the four types of NPI, but a cross-linguistic survey shows that all the fourtypes of NPI exist. Indefinite WH-phrases in Chinese are typical superweak NPIs which are licensed in nonveridical context;“any” in English is a typical weak NPI which is licensedin downward-entailing context; indefinite pronoun “renhe” in Chinese is a typical strongNPI which is licensed in anti-additive context; and Chinese minimizers and maximizers aretypical superstrong NPIs which are licensed in antimorphic (or anti-veridical) context.Since the dissertation mainly focuses on the NPIs, different types of PPI are left out withoutdiscussion.
Second, the dissertation holds that the motivation of the phenomenon of PolaritySensitivity roots in licensees (PIs) rather than licensors (licensing contexts), that is, it is thelexical meaning of PIs that decides their distribution. There is a matching requirementbetween semantic property of each type of PI and its licensing context. Taking each type ofNPI for example, a superweak NPI WH-phrase is licensed by nonveridical context becauseof nondeterminacy of its referent; weak NPI “any” is licensed by downward-entailingcontext because of its pragmatic property “widening” and semantic property“strengthening”; strong NPI “renhe” is licensed by anti-additive context because thesememe “no matter” it contains has the meaning of “no exception”; superstrong NPIminimizers and maximizers are licensed by antimorphic (or anti-veridical) context becauseof the semantic property “nonexistence” they have.
Lastly, the research reveals that a NPI in one language hardly finds its equivalent NPIin another language that has the same concept. Through inter-translation of NPIs betweenChinese and English，including that between Chinese WH-phrase “shenme”,“renhe” andEnglish “any”, that between Chinese and English NPI adverbs, and that between Chineseand English NPI idioms, we find that there is no one-to-one correspondence between NPIsin the two languages. They diverge in many respects such as connotation, form anddistribution. A certain type of NPI in one language may be another type of NPI in the otherlanguage, or may not be a NPI at all in that language. In other words, the degree ofcorrespondence between NPIs in the two languages varies from one type to another, forexample, Chinese WH-phrase “shenme”,“renhe” and English “any” are similar to someextent in distribution, while Chinese and English NPI idioms are quite different indistribution.
首先，根据前人的研究，将极项的允准语境划分为真实性语境和非真实性语境，二者之间是一种对立的关系。在非真实性语境中，可进一步划分出向下蕴涵语境、逆递加语境和逆态（逆真实）语境。这些语境具有层级性，是上下集的集合关系，表现为：非真实性语境向下蕴涵语境逆递加语境逆态（逆真实）语境。在此基础上，负极项和正极项被重新定义：负极项是被真实性算子反允准的表达；正极项是被逆态（逆真实）算子反允准的表达。根据允准语境范围，两种极项都可分为四种类型：超弱、弱、强和超强。本文以负极项为研究重点，提出负极项（NPI）的允准法则：a．超弱负极项被非真性实语境允准，但被真实性语境反允准；b．弱负极项被向下蕴含语境允准，但被非真实性语境与真实性语境反允准；c．强负极项被逆递加语境允准，但被向下蕴含语境、非真实性语境与真实性语境反允准；d．超强负极项被逆态（逆真实）语境允准，但被逆递加语境、向下蕴含语境、非真实性语境与真实性语境反允准。由于四种类型的负极项是通过跨语言考察总结出的，所以就某一特定语言来说，有些类型或许会缺失，但跨语言考察，四种类型都可以被例证。本文以汉语语料为主，英语语料为辅，来验证四种类型负极项的语境分布。我们发现汉语不定WH-词是典型的超弱负极项，英语any是典型的弱负极项，汉语不定代词“任何”是典型的强负极项，汉语极量词是典型的超强负极项，这四种负极项的允准条件依次是非真实性语境、向下蕴涵语境、逆递加语境和逆态（逆真实）语境。
其次，在允准语和被允准语的主导关系上，本文认为，是被允准语决定允准语，而不是相反，即负极项的词汇语义特征决定其语境分布。弱负极项any被向下蕴涵语境允准是由其语用/语义特征“扩展”和“增强”决定的；超弱极项WH-词被非真实性语境允准是由其所指的不确定性决定的；强负极项“任何”被逆递加语境允准是由其具有“排除例外”涵义的义素“无论”决定的；超强负极项极量词被逆态（逆真实）语境允准是由其语义特征“存在否定”决定的。
最后，本文探讨了不同语言间相似的概念用负极项表达时是否存在对等关系。我们通过讨论英汉负极项之间的互译，包括不定代词any与“什么”和“任何”之间的互译，英汉副词负极项之间的互译和英汉习语负极项间的互译，可以看出概念相似的英汉负极项之间不存在着一一对应的关系，在涵义、形式和语境分布方面有着不同程度的差异。一种语言中某种类型的负极项在另一种语言中可能是另一类型的负极项，或者不存在相应的负极项。我们认为，两种语言中的负极项匹配程度从不定代词到副词再到固定习语依次降低，any与“什么”和“任何”之间存在着一定的对应关系，但英汉习语负极项之间很难找到在涵义、形式和语境分布方面都相似的对应项。
Polarity Sensitivity is a linguistic phenomenon that some expressions tend to occuronly in negative context or only in positive context. These expressions are labeled PolarityItems (PIs), which can be divided into Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) and Positive PolarityItems (PPIs) according to the preference they show for different polarity distribution. SincePolarity Sensitivity was first introduced by Klima (1964)50years ago, it has beensystematically studied from syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and cognitive perspectives, andsome mature theories concerned have been formulated based on western languages. Bycontrast, studies on Polarity Sensitivity in Mandarin Chinese are relatively rare. Mainlybased on Chinese data, in comparison with English, this dissertation makes an intensiveresearch of Polarity Sensitivity from semantic approach.
First, based on former researches, the licensing contexts of PIs are divided intoveridical context and nonveridical context. The two contexts contradict each other. As fornonveridical context, it can be further distinguished as downward-entailing context,anti-additive context and antimorphic context. These contexts form the proper subsetrelation: nonveridical context downward-entailing context anti-additive context antimorphic (or anti-veridical) context. According to the distribution of PIs, NPI is definedas an expression that is anti-licensed by veridical operators; while PPI is defined as anexpression that is anti-licensed by antimorphic (or anti-veridical) operators, and both NPIsand PPIs can be further classified into four types: superweak, weak, strong and superstrong.Superweak NPI is licensed by nonveridical context, but anti-licensed by veridical context;weak NPI is licensed by downward-entailing context, but anti-licensed by nonveridical andveridical context; strong NPI is licensed by anti-additive context, but anti-licensed bydownward-entailing, nonveridical and veridical context; superstrong NPI is licensed byantimorphic (or anti-veridical) context, but anti-licensed by anti-additive,downward-entailing, nonveridical and veridical context. For a particular language, it maynot contain all the four types of NPI, but a cross-linguistic survey shows that all the fourtypes of NPI exist. Indefinite WH-phrases in Chinese are typical superweak NPIs which are licensed in nonveridical context;“any” in English is a typical weak NPI which is licensedin downward-entailing context; indefinite pronoun “renhe” in Chinese is a typical strongNPI which is licensed in anti-additive context; and Chinese minimizers and maximizers aretypical superstrong NPIs which are licensed in antimorphic (or anti-veridical) context.Since the dissertation mainly focuses on the NPIs, different types of PPI are left out withoutdiscussion.
Second, the dissertation holds that the motivation of the phenomenon of PolaritySensitivity roots in licensees (PIs) rather than licensors (licensing contexts), that is, it is thelexical meaning of PIs that decides their distribution. There is a matching requirementbetween semantic property of each type of PI and its licensing context. Taking each type ofNPI for example, a superweak NPI WH-phrase is licensed by nonveridical context becauseof nondeterminacy of its referent; weak NPI “any” is licensed by downward-entailingcontext because of its pragmatic property “widening” and semantic property“strengthening”; strong NPI “renhe” is licensed by anti-additive context because thesememe “no matter” it contains has the meaning of “no exception”; superstrong NPIminimizers and maximizers are licensed by antimorphic (or anti-veridical) context becauseof the semantic property “nonexistence” they have.
Lastly, the research reveals that a NPI in one language hardly finds its equivalent NPIin another language that has the same concept. Through inter-translation of NPIs betweenChinese and English，including that between Chinese WH-phrase “shenme”,“renhe” andEnglish “any”, that between Chinese and English NPI adverbs, and that between Chineseand English NPI idioms, we find that there is no one-to-one correspondence between NPIsin the two languages. They diverge in many respects such as connotation, form anddistribution. A certain type of NPI in one language may be another type of NPI in the otherlanguage, or may not be a NPI at all in that language. In other words, the degree ofcorrespondence between NPIs in the two languages varies from one type to another, forexample, Chinese WH-phrase “shenme”,“renhe” and English “any” are similar to someextent in distribution, while Chinese and English NPI idioms are quite different indistribution.
引文
Aoun, Joseph and Yen-Hui Audrey Li. Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF?[J]. LinguisticInquiry241993:199-238.
Atlas, Jay D. The Importance of Being Only: Testing the Neo-gricean versusNeo-entailment Paradigms [J]. Journal of Semantics1993(10):301-318.
Atlas, Jay D. Only Noun Phrases, Pseudo-negative Quantifiers, Negative Polarity Items,and Monotonicity [J]. Journal of Semantics,1996(13):265-328.
Baker, Carl Lee. Double Negatives [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1970,(1).
Boucher, Jerry. and Osgood, Charles. E. The Pollyanna hypothesis [J]. Journal of VerbalLearning&Verbal Behavior,1969, Vol8(1):1-8.
Brown, Sue E. Russian Polarity Items. Manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington,1989.
Carlson, Greg. Polarity any is existential [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1980(11):799-804.
Carlson, Greg. The Distribution of Free Choice “any”[A]. In Papers from the SeventeenthRegional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society[C].1981:8-23
Cheng, Lisa Lai-shen.(程立珊) On the Typology of WH-questions [D]. Ph.D. dissertation,MIT,1991.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-shen.(程立珊) WH-words as Polarity Items [J].中国境内语言暨语言学,1994:615-640.
Chomsky, Noam. Syntactic Structures [M]. The Hague: Mouton,1957.
Chomsky, Noam. Lectures on Government and Binding [M]. Dordrecht: Foris,1981.
Chomsky, Noam. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation [A]. MITWorking Papers in Linguistics, Vol.10, Functional Heads and Clause Structure [C].(eds.) Itziar Laka and Anoop Mahajan,1989.
Cole, Peter. Referential Opacity, Attributiveness, and the Performative Hypothesis [A].Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic Society [C]．Chicago,Illinois．April18-20,1975．
Dayal, Veneeta. Quantification in Correlatives [A]. In Quantification in NaturalLanguage[C]. ed. by Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer and BarbaraPartee. Dordrecht: Kluwer,1995:179-205.
Dayal, Veneeta. Any as Inherently Modal [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy21,1998:433-476.
Diesing, Molly. The Syntactic Roots of Semantic Partition [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Massachusetts, Amherst,1990.
Dowty, David R. The Role of Negative Polarity and Concord Marking in Natural LanguageReasoning[A]. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV [C], ed. byMandy Harvey and Lynn Santelmann, Ithaca: Cornell University Department ofModern Languages and Linguistics.1994:114-144.
Ducrot, Oswald. La preuve et le dire [M]. Paris: Maison Mame,1973..
Eisner, Jason.-less in wonderland? Revisiting any [A], in Janet Fuller, Ho Han andDavid Parkinson.(eds), Proceedings of ESCOL11[C],1994:92-103.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Polarity and the Scale Principle [J]. CLS11.1975a:188-199.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structures [J]. Linguistic Inquiry6.1975b:353-75.
Fauconnier, Gilles.(1976). Etude de certains aspects logiques et grammaticaux de laquantification et de l’anaphore en Fran ais et en Anglais [D]. Thèse presentée devantL’Université de Paris VII. Lille: Atelier Reproduction des Thèses,1980.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Implication Reversal in a Natural Language [A]. In Formal Semanticsand Pragmatics for Natural Languages [C]. F. Guenther and S. J. Schmidt, eds.,289-301. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company,1978.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. Regularity and Idiomaticityin Grammatical Constructions: The Case of ‘Let Alone’[J]. Language64,1988:501-538.
Gerstner-Link, Claudia and Manfred Krifka. Genericity [A]. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim vonStechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An InternationalHandbook of Contemporary Research [C], Berlin: De Gruyter,1993:966-978.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. Subjunctive, habituality and negative polarity [A]. In MandySimons, and Teresa Galloway (eds.). Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) V [C],CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.1995:94-112.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency [M].Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pubilsher,1998.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. Negative...Concord?[J] Natural Language and Linguistic Theory18,2000:457-523
Giannakidou, Anastasia. Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: from downwardentailment to nonveridicality [A]. In Maria Andronis, Anne Pycha and KeikoYoshimura (eds), CLS38: Papers from the38th Annual Meeting of the ChicagoLinguistic Society, Parasession on Polarity and Negation [C].21pp,2002.
Givon, Talmy. Opacity and Reference in Language: An Inquiry into the Role of Modalities[A]. in John Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.2[C]. New York: SeminarPress,1973:95-122.
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. Studies on the Semantics of Questions and thePragmatics of Answers [D]. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam,1984
Haegeman, Liliane. The syntax of negation [M]. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UniversityPress,1995.
Hamblin, Charles L. Questions in Montague English [J]. Foundations of Language,1973(10):41-53
Haspelmath, Martin. Indefinite Pronouns [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1997
Heim, Irene. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Massachusetts, Amherst,1982.
Heim, Irene. A Note on Negative Polarity and Downward Entailingness [J]. NELS,1984(14):98-107.
Heinamaki, Orvokki Tellervo. Semantics of English temporal connectives [D], Ph.D. thesis,University of Texas, Distr. IULC,1978
Hintikka, Jaakko. Quantifiers in Natural Languages: Some Logical Problems II [J].Linguistics and Philosophy.1977(1):135-172.
Hintikka, Jaakko. Answers to Questions[A]. in H. Hiz (ed.), Questions [C]. Dordrecht:Reidel,1978:279–300.
Hintikka, Jaakko. Quantifies vs. Quantification Theory [A]. In Saarinen, Esa (eds.), GameTheoretical Semantics [C], Reidel Publishing Company,1979:49-80.
Higginbotham, James. Interrogatives [A]. In Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser（Eds.). TheView from Building20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger [C].Cambridge: MIT Press,1993:195-227.
Higginbotham, James. The Semantics of Questions [A]. In Shalom Lappin（Ed.). TheHandbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory [C]. Oxford: Blackwell,1996:361-383.
Hoeksema, Jack. Negative polarity and the comparative [J]. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory,1983(1):403-434.
Hoeksema, Jack. Monotonie en superlatieven [A]. In: C. Hoppenbrouwers et al.(eds.).Proeven van taalwetenschap [C]. Groningen: Instituut RUG,1986:38-49.
Hoeksema, Jack. Negative polarity items: triggering, scope and c-command [A]. InLaurence R. Horn and Yasuhiko Kato. eds. Negation and Polarity.-Syntactic andSemantic Perspectives (Oxford Linguistics)[C]. New York: Oxford University Press,2000:115-146.
Hoeksema, Jack and Hotze Rullmann. Scalarity and Polarity: A Study of Scalar Adverbs asPolarity Items [A]. In Jack Hoeksema, Hotze Rullmann, Víctor Sánchez-Valencia, andTon van der Wouden (eds.) Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items [C], p.129-171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.2001.
Horn, Laurence R. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English [D].Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA,1972
Horn, Laurence R. Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity [J]. Language,1985(61):121-174.
Horn, Laurence R. Exclusive company: Only and the Dynamics of Vertical Inference [J].Journal of Semantics,1996(13):1-40.
Horn, Laurence R. and Young-Suk Lee. Progovac on polarity [J]. Journal of Linguistics31,1995:401-424
Huang, Shi-zhe.‘Dou’ as an Existential Quantifier [A]. Proceeding of the Sixth NorthAmerican Conference on Chinese Linguistics [C]. Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia,1994.
Huang, James C. T.(黄正德) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar [D].Ph.D. dissertation, MIT,1982.
Israel, Michael. Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy19,1996:619-66.
Israel, Michael. The Rhetoric of Grammar: Scalar Reasoning and Polarity Sensitivity [D].Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego,1998.
Israel, Michael. Minimizers, maximizers and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning [J]. Journal ofSemantics18,2001:297-331
Israel, Michael. The pragmatics of polarity [A]. In Laurence R. Horn and Gregory. Ward(eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. MA: Blackwell Publishing Limited,2004.
Jackendoff, Ray S. An interpretive theory of negation [J]. Foundations of Language5,1969:218–41.
Jackendoff, Ray S. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar [M]. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press,1972.
Jackson, Eric. Negative Polarity, Definites under Quantification and General Statements[D]. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, CA,1994.
Jespersen, Otto.(1917) Negation in English and Other Languages [A]. Reprinted inSelected Writings of Otto Jespersen [C]. London: Allenand Unwin,1962.
Jespersen, Otto. The Philosophy of Grammar [M]. London: Allen&Unwin Ltd.,1924.
Kadmon, Nirit, and Fred Landman.‘Any’[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy16,1993:353–422.
Karttunen, Lauri. Syntax and semantics of questions [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1977(1):3-44.
Kas, Mark. Essays on Boolean Functions and Negative Polarity [D], Ph.D. Dissertation,Groningen University, Groningen: Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics11.1993.
Kay, Paul. Even [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy13,1990:59-111.
Katz, Jerrold J. Semantic Theory [M]. New York: Harper and Row,1972.
Keenan, Edward. Quantifier Structures in English [J]. Foundations of Language7,1971:225–284.
Krifka, Manfred. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Weak and Strong Polarity Items inAssertions[A]. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV [C], CornellUniversity,1994:195-220
Krifka, Manfred. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items [J]. Linguistic Analysis25,1995:209-257.
Krifka, Manfred. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items in assertion [J]. LinguisticAnalysis15.1995:209-257.
Krifka, Manfred, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter. Meulen, GennaroChierchia, Godehard Link Genericity: an introduction [A]. In Gregory N. Carlson andFrancis J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book [C], Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.1995:1-124.
Klima, Edward. Negation in English [A]. In Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz(eds), TheStructure of Language [C]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1964.
Kroch, Anthony S. The Semantics of Scope in English [D], Doctoral Dissertation. MIT,1974.
Kuo, Chin-man. Three Types of Negative Polarity Items in Mandarin Chinese. Ms.University of Southern California,2000
Kuo, Chin-man. The Licensing Contexts of renhe ‘any’: Anti-additive. Ms. University ofSouthern California,2000
Ladusaw, William A. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations [D]. Ph.D.dissertation. University of Texas. Published by Garland Publishing Inc.,1980.
Ladusaw, William A. On the notion of affective in the analysis of negative polarity items[J]. Journal of Linguistics,1980(1):1-16.
Lahiri, Utpal. Negative Polarity in Hindi [A]. in M. Simons and T. Galloway, eds.,Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Semantics and Linguistics Theory [C]. Dept. ofLinguistics, Cornell University,1995:168-185.
Lahiri, Utpal. Focus and Negative Polarity in Hindi [J]. Natural Language Semantics6,1998:57–123.
Laka, Itziar. On the syntax of negation [M]. New York and London: Garland Publishing,1994.
Lakoff, Robin. Some Reasons Why There Can't Be Any ‘some-any’ Rule [J]. Language,1969(45):608-615.
Langacker, Ronald W.(1966) On pronominalization and the chain of command [A]. InModern Studies in English. Readings in Transformational Grammar [C], ed. David A.Reibel and Sanford A. Schane, pp. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,1969:160-200.
Lasnik, Howard. Analyses of Negation in English [D], Doctoral Dissertation. MIT,1972.
Lasnik, Howard. On the semantics of negation [A]. In Contemporary research inphilosophical logic and linguistic semantics [C]. ed. by Donald James Hockney et al.,Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel Publishing.1975:279-311.
Lees, Robert B.(1960) The grammar of English nominalizations [J]. Supplement toInternational Journal of American Linguistics26. Also: The Hague: Mouton,1968.
LeGrand, Jean E. Or and Any: The Syntax and Semantics of Two Logical Operators [D],Doctoral Dissertation. University of Chicago,1975.
Lewis, David. Adverbs of quantification [A]. In E. Keenan (eds.), Formal Semantics ofNatural Language [C]. Cambridge University Press,1975.
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra, A. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional ReferenceGrammar [M]. Berkeley: University of California Press,1981.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey.(李艳惠) Indefinite WH in Mandarin Chinese [J]. Journal of EastAsian Linguistics1,1992:125-156.
Lin, Jo-wang.(林若望) Polarity Licensing and Wh-phrase Quantification in Chinese [D].Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachuesetts, Amherst,1996.
Lin, Jo-wang.(林若望) On Existential Polarity WH-phrases in Chinese [J]. Journal of EastAsian Linguistics7,1998:219-255.
Linebarger, Marcia C.(1980). The Grammar of Negative Polarity [A]. published byIndiana University Linguistics Club, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,1981.
Linebarger, Marcia C.(1980). The Grammar of Negative Polarity.[D], DoctoralDissertation. MIT, Distributed by IULC, Bloomington, Indiana,1981.
Linebarger, Marcia C. Negative polarity and grammatical representation [J]. Linguisticsand Philosophy1987(10):325–87.
Linebarger, Marcia C. Negative Polarity as Linguistic Evidence [A]. Papers from theParasession on Negation [C]. Chicago Linguistic Society: CLS (27),1991:165-188.
Mahajan, Anoop K. LF conditions on negative polarity item licensing [J]. Lingua80.1990:333-48.
Malone, Joseph L. Generative Transformational Studies in English Interrogatives [A]. in H.Hiz (ed.), Questions[C]. Dordrecht: Reidel,1978:37–85.
Mathew, Thomas, and Graham Katz. Supervised Categorization For Habitual VersusEpisodic Sentences [A]. Paper presented at The Sixth Midwest ComputationalLinguistics Colloquium [C]. Indiana University Bloomington,2009.
Montague, Richard. On the nature of certain philosophical entities [J]. Monist,1969(53):161-94.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar [M]. Kluwer AcademicPublishers,1990.
Ning, Chunyan.(宁春岩) A Minimalist approach to English and Chinese Wh-questions.Ms,1997.
Pan, Haihua.&Jiang, Yan (潘海华和蒋严). NP interpretation and Chinese donkeysentences [A]. Proceedings of the Workshop on Interface Strategies in Chinese:Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases,1997
Progovac, Ljiljana. A Binding Approach to Polarity Sensitivity [D], Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Southern California, Los Angeles,1988.
Progovac, Ljiljana. Nonnegative polarity must involve Comp [J]. Linguistic Inquiry23,1992:341–7.
Progovac, Ljiljana. Negative polarity: entailment and binding [J]. Linguistics andPhilosophy16,1993:149–180.
Progovac, Ljiljana. Negative and Positive Polarity. A Binding Approach [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
Quine, Willard Van Orman. Word and Object [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,1960
Reichenbach, Hans. Elements of Symbolic Logic [M]. New York: Free Press,1947.
Rooth, Mats. Association with focus [D]. Doctoral Dissertation, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst, MA,1985.
Rooth, Mats. A theory of Focus Interpretation [J]. Natural Language Semantics,1992(1):75-116.
Rooth, Mats. Focus [A]. In Shalom Lappin (eds.), The Handbook of ContemporarySemantic Theory [C]. London: Blackwell Publishers,1996:271-297.
Ross, John Robert.(1967) Constraints on variables in syntax [D]. MIT dissertation.Published as Infinite Syntax [M], Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company,1986.
Rullmann, Hotze. Maximality in the Semantics of Wh-Constructions [D]. DoctoralDissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Sapir,1995
Rullmann, Hotze. Two Types of Negative Polarity Items [A]. In Kiyomi Kusumoto (eds.)Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society NELS26[C].1996:335-350.
Sag, Ivan A. Deletion and Logical Form [D]. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge Mass,1977.
Sanchez Valencia, V ctor, Ton van der Wouden and Frans Zwarts. Polarity and the flow oftime [A]. in Ale de Boer, Jelly de Jong, and Rita Landeweerd (eds.), Language andCognition3. Yearbook1993of the research group for Theoretical and ExperimentalLinguistics of the University of Groningen [C]. Tenk, Groningen,1993:209–18
Seuren, Pieter A.M. The comparative [A]. In Generative Grammar in Europe [C], ed.Ferenc Kiefer and Nicolas Ruwet, Dordrecht: Reidel,1973:528-64..
Seuren, Pietera A.M. The Comparative Revisited [J]. Journal of Semantics,1984(3):109-141.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford:Blackwell,1986/1995.
Stalnaker, Robert C. Pragmatics [A]. In Donald Davidson&Gilbert Harman (eds.),Semantics of Natural Language [C], Dordrecht: North-Holland,1972:380-397.
Tang, Ting-Chi (邓守信) Hanyu Cifa Jufa Lunji (Essays on Chinese Syntax andMorphology)[M], Taipei: Student Book Company,1987
Thomason, Richmond H. and Robert C. Stalnaker. A Semantic Theory of Adverbs [J].Linguistic Inquiry,1973(4):195-220.
Tovena, Lucia M. Exploring an algebraic semantic analysis of negative polarity. Ph.D.summer project, University of Edinburgh,1993.
Tovena, Lucia M.(1996) Studies on Polarity Sensitivity [D]. Ph.D. thesis, University ofEdinburgh. published by Garland Outstanding Dissertations Series,1998.
Van der Wald, Sjoukje. Negative Polarity Items and Negation: Tandem Acquisition [D].Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, Dissertations in Linguistics17,1996.
Van der Wouden, Ton. Negative Contexts [D]. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Groningen,1994a.
Van der Wouden, Ton. Polarity and “illogical negation”[A]. In Dynamics, Polarity, andQuantification [C], ed. Makoto Kanazawa and Christopher J. Pi ón, Vol.48of CSLILecture Notes, pp.17–45. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language andInformation,1994b.
Vasishth, Shravan. Quantificational Elements and Polarity Licensing in Japanese. Ms. TheOhio State University,1998.
Vendler, Zeno. Linguistics in Philosophy [M]. Ithaka, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,1967
Von Fintel, Kai. NPI-licensing, Strawson-entailment, and Context-dependency [J]. Journalof Semantics,1999(16):97-148.
Williams, Edwin S. Discourse and Logical Form [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1977(8):101-139.
Witkowski, Stanley R. and Cecil H. Brown. Marking Reversals and Cultural Importance [J].Language59.1983:569-582.
Zimmer, Karl E. Affixal Negation in English and Other Languages: An Investigation ofRestricted Productivity [J]. Word, Vol.20, No.2,1964.
Zwarts, Frans. Categoriale Grammatica en Algebraische Semantiek. Een Studie naarNegatie en Polariteit in het Nederlands [D]. Doctoral dissertation, University ofGroningen,1986.
Zwarts, Frans. The syntax and semantics of negative polarity. ms. University of Groningen,1991.
Zwarts, Frans. Three types of polarity. ms. University of Groningen,1993.
Zwarts, Frans. Nonveridical contexts [J]. Linguistic Analysis25,1995:286-312.
Zwarts, Frans. Three Types of Polarity [A]. In Fritz Hamm and Erhard Hinrichs(eds.),Plurality Quantification [C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer,1998.
陈晓湘，罗琼鹏．负极词的极端敏感性及允准条件研究[J]．外语与外语教学，2005，（4）：8-13．
陈秀明．英汉语中负极词的句法及语义研究[D]．湖南大学硕士学位论文，2006．
丁声树等．现代汉语语法讲话[M]．北京:商务印书馆，1961，（1999年版）．
范莉．负极项：一个多层面的研究课题[J]．现代语文（语言研究版），2009，（11）：9-13．
龚卫东．极向性表达的认知研究及思考[J]．国外外语教学，2006a，（4）：6-14．
龚卫东，蒋勇．国外极性词语的梯级研究[J]．外语学刊，2006b，（6）：23-29．
龚卫东．广义梯级含义理论及其应用[D]．上海外国语大学博士论文，2006c．
蒋勇，李佳丽，徐慧馨．疑问词语弱言用法中的极性和含义[J]．修辞学习，2009a，（2）：44-51．
蒋勇，祝克懿．负极词的曲言功能及其语用定位[J]．外语教学与研究，2009b，（6）：410-416．
李佳丽．疑问不定词语的极性敏感特征探索[D]．复旦大学硕士学位论文，2010．
林祥媚．代词[M]．上海:新知识出版社出版，1958．
刘月华．实用现代汉语语法[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1983．
吕叔湘．中国文法要略[M]．北京：商务印书馆，1942，（1982年版）．
吕叔湘．汉语语法论文集[M]．北京：商务印书馆，1984．
吕叔湘．疑问肯定否定[J]．中国语文，1985，（4）：241-250．
吕叔湘．吕叔湘文集（第三卷）[M]．北京：商务印书馆，1992．
吕叔湘．近代汉语指代词[M]．上海：学林出版社，1985．
吕叔湘．现代汉语八百词[M]．北京：商务印书馆，1980．
宁春岩．什么是生成语法[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2011．.
邵敬敏．现代汉语疑问句研究[M]．上海:华东师范大学出版社，1996．
石毓智．肯定和否定的对称与不对称[M]．台北：台湾学生书局，1992．
石毓智．肯定和否定的对称与不对称[M]．北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，2001．
石毓智．汉语语法[M]．北京：商务印书馆，2010．
沈家煊．不对称和标记论[M]．南昌：江西教育，1999．
沈家煊．语用否定考察[J]．中国语文，1993，（5）：321-331.
汤廷池．国语疑问句研究[J]．师大学报，1981，26:219-277．
王松茂等．汉语代词例解[M]．北京：书目文献出版社，1983．
王力．中国现代语法[M]．北京：商务印书馆，1943（2000年版）．
王力．中国现代语法[M]．北京：商务印书馆，1985．
伍雅清．特殊疑问句研究[J]．现代外语，1999a，（1）：75-107．
伍雅清．否定与汉语WH-词的语义解释[J]．现代外语，1999b，（4）：362-378．
伍雅清．汉语特殊疑问词的非疑问用法研究[J]．语言教学与研究，2002a，（2）：41-49．
伍雅清．疑问词的句法和语义[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，2002b．
邢福义．汉语语法学[M]．长春：东北师范大学出版社，1997．
徐烈炯．生成语法理论[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1988．
余小强，邹颖娟．语境无定性：任选义Any的允准条件[J]．外国语，2006，（5）：42-47．
赵元任．中国话的文法（丁邦新译）[M]．香港：中文大学出版社，1980．
赵元任．汉语口语语法[M]．吕叔湘译，北京：商务印书馆，1968（2001年版）．
张立茂，陆福庆．动词逆序词典[M]．福州：福建人民出版社,1986．
张尹琼．疑问代词的非疑问用法[D]．复旦大学博士学位论文，2005．
朱德熙.汉语方言里的两种反复问句[J]．中国语文，1985，（1）：10-20．现代汉语词典．北京：商务出版社，2005．
现代汉语频率词典．北京：北京语言学院出版社，2010．
Atlas, Jay D. The Importance of Being Only: Testing the Neo-gricean versusNeo-entailment Paradigms [J]. Journal of Semantics1993(10):301-318.
Atlas, Jay D. Only Noun Phrases, Pseudo-negative Quantifiers, Negative Polarity Items,and Monotonicity [J]. Journal of Semantics,1996(13):265-328.
Baker, Carl Lee. Double Negatives [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1970,(1).
Boucher, Jerry. and Osgood, Charles. E. The Pollyanna hypothesis [J]. Journal of VerbalLearning&Verbal Behavior,1969, Vol8(1):1-8.
Brown, Sue E. Russian Polarity Items. Manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington,1989.
Carlson, Greg. Polarity any is existential [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1980(11):799-804.
Carlson, Greg. The Distribution of Free Choice “any”[A]. In Papers from the SeventeenthRegional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society[C].1981:8-23
Cheng, Lisa Lai-shen.(程立珊) On the Typology of WH-questions [D]. Ph.D. dissertation,MIT,1991.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-shen.(程立珊) WH-words as Polarity Items [J].中国境内语言暨语言学,1994:615-640.
Chomsky, Noam. Syntactic Structures [M]. The Hague: Mouton,1957.
Chomsky, Noam. Lectures on Government and Binding [M]. Dordrecht: Foris,1981.
Chomsky, Noam. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation [A]. MITWorking Papers in Linguistics, Vol.10, Functional Heads and Clause Structure [C].(eds.) Itziar Laka and Anoop Mahajan,1989.
Cole, Peter. Referential Opacity, Attributiveness, and the Performative Hypothesis [A].Papers from the Eleventh Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic Society [C]．Chicago,Illinois．April18-20,1975．
Dayal, Veneeta. Quantification in Correlatives [A]. In Quantification in NaturalLanguage[C]. ed. by Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer and BarbaraPartee. Dordrecht: Kluwer,1995:179-205.
Dayal, Veneeta. Any as Inherently Modal [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy21,1998:433-476.
Diesing, Molly. The Syntactic Roots of Semantic Partition [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Massachusetts, Amherst,1990.
Dowty, David R. The Role of Negative Polarity and Concord Marking in Natural LanguageReasoning[A]. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV [C], ed. byMandy Harvey and Lynn Santelmann, Ithaca: Cornell University Department ofModern Languages and Linguistics.1994:114-144.
Ducrot, Oswald. La preuve et le dire [M]. Paris: Maison Mame,1973..
Eisner, Jason.-less in wonderland? Revisiting any [A], in Janet Fuller, Ho Han andDavid Parkinson.(eds), Proceedings of ESCOL11[C],1994:92-103.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Polarity and the Scale Principle [J]. CLS11.1975a:188-199.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structures [J]. Linguistic Inquiry6.1975b:353-75.
Fauconnier, Gilles.(1976). Etude de certains aspects logiques et grammaticaux de laquantification et de l’anaphore en Fran ais et en Anglais [D]. Thèse presentée devantL’Université de Paris VII. Lille: Atelier Reproduction des Thèses,1980.
Fauconnier, Gilles. Implication Reversal in a Natural Language [A]. In Formal Semanticsand Pragmatics for Natural Languages [C]. F. Guenther and S. J. Schmidt, eds.,289-301. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company,1978.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. Regularity and Idiomaticityin Grammatical Constructions: The Case of ‘Let Alone’[J]. Language64,1988:501-538.
Gerstner-Link, Claudia and Manfred Krifka. Genericity [A]. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim vonStechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An InternationalHandbook of Contemporary Research [C], Berlin: De Gruyter,1993:966-978.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. Subjunctive, habituality and negative polarity [A]. In MandySimons, and Teresa Galloway (eds.). Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) V [C],CLC Publications, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.1995:94-112.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency [M].Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pubilsher,1998.
Giannakidou, Anastasia. Negative...Concord?[J] Natural Language and Linguistic Theory18,2000:457-523
Giannakidou, Anastasia. Licensing and sensitivity in polarity items: from downwardentailment to nonveridicality [A]. In Maria Andronis, Anne Pycha and KeikoYoshimura (eds), CLS38: Papers from the38th Annual Meeting of the ChicagoLinguistic Society, Parasession on Polarity and Negation [C].21pp,2002.
Givon, Talmy. Opacity and Reference in Language: An Inquiry into the Role of Modalities[A]. in John Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.2[C]. New York: SeminarPress,1973:95-122.
Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. Studies on the Semantics of Questions and thePragmatics of Answers [D]. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam,1984
Haegeman, Liliane. The syntax of negation [M]. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UniversityPress,1995.
Hamblin, Charles L. Questions in Montague English [J]. Foundations of Language,1973(10):41-53
Haspelmath, Martin. Indefinite Pronouns [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1997
Heim, Irene. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases [D]. Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Massachusetts, Amherst,1982.
Heim, Irene. A Note on Negative Polarity and Downward Entailingness [J]. NELS,1984(14):98-107.
Heinamaki, Orvokki Tellervo. Semantics of English temporal connectives [D], Ph.D. thesis,University of Texas, Distr. IULC,1978
Hintikka, Jaakko. Quantifiers in Natural Languages: Some Logical Problems II [J].Linguistics and Philosophy.1977(1):135-172.
Hintikka, Jaakko. Answers to Questions[A]. in H. Hiz (ed.), Questions [C]. Dordrecht:Reidel,1978:279–300.
Hintikka, Jaakko. Quantifies vs. Quantification Theory [A]. In Saarinen, Esa (eds.), GameTheoretical Semantics [C], Reidel Publishing Company,1979:49-80.
Higginbotham, James. Interrogatives [A]. In Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser（Eds.). TheView from Building20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger [C].Cambridge: MIT Press,1993:195-227.
Higginbotham, James. The Semantics of Questions [A]. In Shalom Lappin（Ed.). TheHandbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory [C]. Oxford: Blackwell,1996:361-383.
Hoeksema, Jack. Negative polarity and the comparative [J]. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory,1983(1):403-434.
Hoeksema, Jack. Monotonie en superlatieven [A]. In: C. Hoppenbrouwers et al.(eds.).Proeven van taalwetenschap [C]. Groningen: Instituut RUG,1986:38-49.
Hoeksema, Jack. Negative polarity items: triggering, scope and c-command [A]. InLaurence R. Horn and Yasuhiko Kato. eds. Negation and Polarity.-Syntactic andSemantic Perspectives (Oxford Linguistics)[C]. New York: Oxford University Press,2000:115-146.
Hoeksema, Jack and Hotze Rullmann. Scalarity and Polarity: A Study of Scalar Adverbs asPolarity Items [A]. In Jack Hoeksema, Hotze Rullmann, Víctor Sánchez-Valencia, andTon van der Wouden (eds.) Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items [C], p.129-171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.2001.
Horn, Laurence R. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English [D].Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA,1972
Horn, Laurence R. Metalinguistic Negation and Pragmatic Ambiguity [J]. Language,1985(61):121-174.
Horn, Laurence R. Exclusive company: Only and the Dynamics of Vertical Inference [J].Journal of Semantics,1996(13):1-40.
Horn, Laurence R. and Young-Suk Lee. Progovac on polarity [J]. Journal of Linguistics31,1995:401-424
Huang, Shi-zhe.‘Dou’ as an Existential Quantifier [A]. Proceeding of the Sixth NorthAmerican Conference on Chinese Linguistics [C]. Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia,1994.
Huang, James C. T.(黄正德) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar [D].Ph.D. dissertation, MIT,1982.
Israel, Michael. Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy19,1996:619-66.
Israel, Michael. The Rhetoric of Grammar: Scalar Reasoning and Polarity Sensitivity [D].Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego,1998.
Israel, Michael. Minimizers, maximizers and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning [J]. Journal ofSemantics18,2001:297-331
Israel, Michael. The pragmatics of polarity [A]. In Laurence R. Horn and Gregory. Ward(eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. MA: Blackwell Publishing Limited,2004.
Jackendoff, Ray S. An interpretive theory of negation [J]. Foundations of Language5,1969:218–41.
Jackendoff, Ray S. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar [M]. Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press,1972.
Jackson, Eric. Negative Polarity, Definites under Quantification and General Statements[D]. Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford, CA,1994.
Jespersen, Otto.(1917) Negation in English and Other Languages [A]. Reprinted inSelected Writings of Otto Jespersen [C]. London: Allenand Unwin,1962.
Jespersen, Otto. The Philosophy of Grammar [M]. London: Allen&Unwin Ltd.,1924.
Kadmon, Nirit, and Fred Landman.‘Any’[J]. Linguistics and Philosophy16,1993:353–422.
Karttunen, Lauri. Syntax and semantics of questions [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy,1977(1):3-44.
Kas, Mark. Essays on Boolean Functions and Negative Polarity [D], Ph.D. Dissertation,Groningen University, Groningen: Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics11.1993.
Kay, Paul. Even [J]. Linguistics and Philosophy13,1990:59-111.
Katz, Jerrold J. Semantic Theory [M]. New York: Harper and Row,1972.
Keenan, Edward. Quantifier Structures in English [J]. Foundations of Language7,1971:225–284.
Krifka, Manfred. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Weak and Strong Polarity Items inAssertions[A]. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV [C], CornellUniversity,1994:195-220
Krifka, Manfred. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items [J]. Linguistic Analysis25,1995:209-257.
Krifka, Manfred. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items in assertion [J]. LinguisticAnalysis15.1995:209-257.
Krifka, Manfred, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter. Meulen, GennaroChierchia, Godehard Link Genericity: an introduction [A]. In Gregory N. Carlson andFrancis J. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book [C], Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.1995:1-124.
Klima, Edward. Negation in English [A]. In Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz(eds), TheStructure of Language [C]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1964.
Kroch, Anthony S. The Semantics of Scope in English [D], Doctoral Dissertation. MIT,1974.
Kuo, Chin-man. Three Types of Negative Polarity Items in Mandarin Chinese. Ms.University of Southern California,2000
Kuo, Chin-man. The Licensing Contexts of renhe ‘any’: Anti-additive. Ms. University ofSouthern California,2000
Ladusaw, William A. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations [D]. Ph.D.dissertation. University of Texas. Published by Garland Publishing Inc.,1980.
Ladusaw, William A. On the notion of affective in the analysis of negative polarity items[J]. Journal of Linguistics,1980(1):1-16.
Lahiri, Utpal. Negative Polarity in Hindi [A]. in M. Simons and T. Galloway, eds.,Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Semantics and Linguistics Theory [C]. Dept. ofLinguistics, Cornell University,1995:168-185.
Lahiri, Utpal. Focus and Negative Polarity in Hindi [J]. Natural Language Semantics6,1998:57–123.
Laka, Itziar. On the syntax of negation [M]. New York and London: Garland Publishing,1994.
Lakoff, Robin. Some Reasons Why There Can't Be Any ‘some-any’ Rule [J]. Language,1969(45):608-615.
Langacker, Ronald W.(1966) On pronominalization and the chain of command [A]. InModern Studies in English. Readings in Transformational Grammar [C], ed. David A.Reibel and Sanford A. Schane, pp. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,1969:160-200.
Lasnik, Howard. Analyses of Negation in English [D], Doctoral Dissertation. MIT,1972.
Lasnik, Howard. On the semantics of negation [A]. In Contemporary research inphilosophical logic and linguistic semantics [C]. ed. by Donald James Hockney et al.,Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel Publishing.1975:279-311.
Lees, Robert B.(1960) The grammar of English nominalizations [J]. Supplement toInternational Journal of American Linguistics26. Also: The Hague: Mouton,1968.
LeGrand, Jean E. Or and Any: The Syntax and Semantics of Two Logical Operators [D],Doctoral Dissertation. University of Chicago,1975.
Lewis, David. Adverbs of quantification [A]. In E. Keenan (eds.), Formal Semantics ofNatural Language [C]. Cambridge University Press,1975.
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra, A. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional ReferenceGrammar [M]. Berkeley: University of California Press,1981.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey.(李艳惠) Indefinite WH in Mandarin Chinese [J]. Journal of EastAsian Linguistics1,1992:125-156.
Lin, Jo-wang.(林若望) Polarity Licensing and Wh-phrase Quantification in Chinese [D].Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachuesetts, Amherst,1996.
Lin, Jo-wang.(林若望) On Existential Polarity WH-phrases in Chinese [J]. Journal of EastAsian Linguistics7,1998:219-255.
Linebarger, Marcia C.(1980). The Grammar of Negative Polarity [A]. published byIndiana University Linguistics Club, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,1981.
Linebarger, Marcia C.(1980). The Grammar of Negative Polarity.[D], DoctoralDissertation. MIT, Distributed by IULC, Bloomington, Indiana,1981.
Linebarger, Marcia C. Negative polarity and grammatical representation [J]. Linguisticsand Philosophy1987(10):325–87.
Linebarger, Marcia C. Negative Polarity as Linguistic Evidence [A]. Papers from theParasession on Negation [C]. Chicago Linguistic Society: CLS (27),1991:165-188.
Mahajan, Anoop K. LF conditions on negative polarity item licensing [J]. Lingua80.1990:333-48.
Malone, Joseph L. Generative Transformational Studies in English Interrogatives [A]. in H.Hiz (ed.), Questions[C]. Dordrecht: Reidel,1978:37–85.
Mathew, Thomas, and Graham Katz. Supervised Categorization For Habitual VersusEpisodic Sentences [A]. Paper presented at The Sixth Midwest ComputationalLinguistics Colloquium [C]. Indiana University Bloomington,2009.
Montague, Richard. On the nature of certain philosophical entities [J]. Monist,1969(53):161-94.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar [M]. Kluwer AcademicPublishers,1990.
Ning, Chunyan.(宁春岩) A Minimalist approach to English and Chinese Wh-questions.Ms,1997.
Pan, Haihua.&Jiang, Yan (潘海华和蒋严). NP interpretation and Chinese donkeysentences [A]. Proceedings of the Workshop on Interface Strategies in Chinese:Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases,1997
Progovac, Ljiljana. A Binding Approach to Polarity Sensitivity [D], Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Southern California, Los Angeles,1988.
Progovac, Ljiljana. Nonnegative polarity must involve Comp [J]. Linguistic Inquiry23,1992:341–7.
Progovac, Ljiljana. Negative polarity: entailment and binding [J]. Linguistics andPhilosophy16,1993:149–180.
Progovac, Ljiljana. Negative and Positive Polarity. A Binding Approach [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
Quine, Willard Van Orman. Word and Object [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,1960
Reichenbach, Hans. Elements of Symbolic Logic [M]. New York: Free Press,1947.
Rooth, Mats. Association with focus [D]. Doctoral Dissertation, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst, MA,1985.
Rooth, Mats. A theory of Focus Interpretation [J]. Natural Language Semantics,1992(1):75-116.
Rooth, Mats. Focus [A]. In Shalom Lappin (eds.), The Handbook of ContemporarySemantic Theory [C]. London: Blackwell Publishers,1996:271-297.
Ross, John Robert.(1967) Constraints on variables in syntax [D]. MIT dissertation.Published as Infinite Syntax [M], Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Company,1986.
Rullmann, Hotze. Maximality in the Semantics of Wh-Constructions [D]. DoctoralDissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Sapir,1995
Rullmann, Hotze. Two Types of Negative Polarity Items [A]. In Kiyomi Kusumoto (eds.)Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society NELS26[C].1996:335-350.
Sag, Ivan A. Deletion and Logical Form [D]. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge Mass,1977.
Sanchez Valencia, V ctor, Ton van der Wouden and Frans Zwarts. Polarity and the flow oftime [A]. in Ale de Boer, Jelly de Jong, and Rita Landeweerd (eds.), Language andCognition3. Yearbook1993of the research group for Theoretical and ExperimentalLinguistics of the University of Groningen [C]. Tenk, Groningen,1993:209–18
Seuren, Pieter A.M. The comparative [A]. In Generative Grammar in Europe [C], ed.Ferenc Kiefer and Nicolas Ruwet, Dordrecht: Reidel,1973:528-64..
Seuren, Pietera A.M. The Comparative Revisited [J]. Journal of Semantics,1984(3):109-141.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford:Blackwell,1986/1995.
Stalnaker, Robert C. Pragmatics [A]. In Donald Davidson&Gilbert Harman (eds.),Semantics of Natural Language [C], Dordrecht: North-Holland,1972:380-397.
Tang, Ting-Chi (邓守信) Hanyu Cifa Jufa Lunji (Essays on Chinese Syntax andMorphology)[M], Taipei: Student Book Company,1987
Thomason, Richmond H. and Robert C. Stalnaker. A Semantic Theory of Adverbs [J].Linguistic Inquiry,1973(4):195-220.
Tovena, Lucia M. Exploring an algebraic semantic analysis of negative polarity. Ph.D.summer project, University of Edinburgh,1993.
Tovena, Lucia M.(1996) Studies on Polarity Sensitivity [D]. Ph.D. thesis, University ofEdinburgh. published by Garland Outstanding Dissertations Series,1998.
Van der Wald, Sjoukje. Negative Polarity Items and Negation: Tandem Acquisition [D].Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, Dissertations in Linguistics17,1996.
Van der Wouden, Ton. Negative Contexts [D]. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Groningen,1994a.
Van der Wouden, Ton. Polarity and “illogical negation”[A]. In Dynamics, Polarity, andQuantification [C], ed. Makoto Kanazawa and Christopher J. Pi ón, Vol.48of CSLILecture Notes, pp.17–45. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language andInformation,1994b.
Vasishth, Shravan. Quantificational Elements and Polarity Licensing in Japanese. Ms. TheOhio State University,1998.
Vendler, Zeno. Linguistics in Philosophy [M]. Ithaka, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,1967
Von Fintel, Kai. NPI-licensing, Strawson-entailment, and Context-dependency [J]. Journalof Semantics,1999(16):97-148.
Williams, Edwin S. Discourse and Logical Form [J]. Linguistic Inquiry,1977(8):101-139.
Witkowski, Stanley R. and Cecil H. Brown. Marking Reversals and Cultural Importance [J].Language59.1983:569-582.
Zimmer, Karl E. Affixal Negation in English and Other Languages: An Investigation ofRestricted Productivity [J]. Word, Vol.20, No.2,1964.
Zwarts, Frans. Categoriale Grammatica en Algebraische Semantiek. Een Studie naarNegatie en Polariteit in het Nederlands [D]. Doctoral dissertation, University ofGroningen,1986.
Zwarts, Frans. The syntax and semantics of negative polarity. ms. University of Groningen,1991.
Zwarts, Frans. Three types of polarity. ms. University of Groningen,1993.
Zwarts, Frans. Nonveridical contexts [J]. Linguistic Analysis25,1995:286-312.
Zwarts, Frans. Three Types of Polarity [A]. In Fritz Hamm and Erhard Hinrichs(eds.),Plurality Quantification [C]. Dordrecht: Kluwer,1998.
陈晓湘，罗琼鹏．负极词的极端敏感性及允准条件研究[J]．外语与外语教学，2005，（4）：8-13．
陈秀明．英汉语中负极词的句法及语义研究[D]．湖南大学硕士学位论文，2006．
丁声树等．现代汉语语法讲话[M]．北京:商务印书馆，1961，（1999年版）．
范莉．负极项：一个多层面的研究课题[J]．现代语文（语言研究版），2009，（11）：9-13．
龚卫东．极向性表达的认知研究及思考[J]．国外外语教学，2006a，（4）：6-14．
龚卫东，蒋勇．国外极性词语的梯级研究[J]．外语学刊，2006b，（6）：23-29．
龚卫东．广义梯级含义理论及其应用[D]．上海外国语大学博士论文，2006c．
蒋勇，李佳丽，徐慧馨．疑问词语弱言用法中的极性和含义[J]．修辞学习，2009a，（2）：44-51．
蒋勇，祝克懿．负极词的曲言功能及其语用定位[J]．外语教学与研究，2009b，（6）：410-416．
李佳丽．疑问不定词语的极性敏感特征探索[D]．复旦大学硕士学位论文，2010．
林祥媚．代词[M]．上海:新知识出版社出版，1958．
刘月华．实用现代汉语语法[M]．北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1983．
吕叔湘．中国文法要略[M]．北京：商务印书馆，1942，（1982年版）．
吕叔湘．汉语语法论文集[M]．北京：商务印书馆，1984．
吕叔湘．疑问肯定否定[J]．中国语文，1985，（4）：241-250．
吕叔湘．吕叔湘文集（第三卷）[M]．北京：商务印书馆，1992．
吕叔湘．近代汉语指代词[M]．上海：学林出版社，1985．
吕叔湘．现代汉语八百词[M]．北京：商务印书馆，1980．
宁春岩．什么是生成语法[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2011．.
邵敬敏．现代汉语疑问句研究[M]．上海:华东师范大学出版社，1996．
石毓智．肯定和否定的对称与不对称[M]．台北：台湾学生书局，1992．
石毓智．肯定和否定的对称与不对称[M]．北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，2001．
石毓智．汉语语法[M]．北京：商务印书馆，2010．
沈家煊．不对称和标记论[M]．南昌：江西教育，1999．
沈家煊．语用否定考察[J]．中国语文，1993，（5）：321-331.
汤廷池．国语疑问句研究[J]．师大学报，1981，26:219-277．
王松茂等．汉语代词例解[M]．北京：书目文献出版社，1983．
王力．中国现代语法[M]．北京：商务印书馆，1943（2000年版）．
王力．中国现代语法[M]．北京：商务印书馆，1985．
伍雅清．特殊疑问句研究[J]．现代外语，1999a，（1）：75-107．
伍雅清．否定与汉语WH-词的语义解释[J]．现代外语，1999b，（4）：362-378．
伍雅清．汉语特殊疑问词的非疑问用法研究[J]．语言教学与研究，2002a，（2）：41-49．
伍雅清．疑问词的句法和语义[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，2002b．
邢福义．汉语语法学[M]．长春：东北师范大学出版社，1997．
徐烈炯．生成语法理论[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1988．
余小强，邹颖娟．语境无定性：任选义Any的允准条件[J]．外国语，2006，（5）：42-47．
赵元任．中国话的文法（丁邦新译）[M]．香港：中文大学出版社，1980．
赵元任．汉语口语语法[M]．吕叔湘译，北京：商务印书馆，1968（2001年版）．
张立茂，陆福庆．动词逆序词典[M]．福州：福建人民出版社,1986．
张尹琼．疑问代词的非疑问用法[D]．复旦大学博士学位论文，2005．
朱德熙.汉语方言里的两种反复问句[J]．中国语文，1985，（1）：10-20．现代汉语词典．北京：商务出版社，2005．
现代汉语频率词典．北京：北京语言学院出版社，2010．