中文的疑問不定詞（wh-indefinite）在文獻上有很多討論。本論文旨在研究中文疑問不定詞的地位和他們在所謂的驢子句（donkey sentence）中的表現。以下是一個典型的例子：

(1) Ta bu xiang zai shuo shenme le
he not want again say what LE
‘He does not want to say anything again.’
他不想再說什麼了。

在本論文，來自黃（1982）、李（1992）、鄭（1991, 1994）和林（1996, 1998）等關於疑問不定詞的變數（variable）、極性詞項（polarity item）和量化詞（quantifier）的論述會一一介紹：本文也會分別提出這些論述的問題所在。不同於李（1992），本論文認為像是「怎麼樣」和「為什麼」這兩個疑問代名詞就不能直接當作變數。他們僅在驢子句中助動詞之後的位置表現猶如變數（在這種情況下，他們表達目的（purpose）或方法（method））（見蔡 1999, 2000的討論）。請參看以下例子：

(2) a. Akiu hui wei (le) shenme cizhi wo jiu hui wei (le) shenme cizhi　
Akiu will for LE what resign I then will for LE what resign
‘If Akiu will resign for the purpose x, I will then also resign for the purpose x.’
阿Q會為（了）什麼辭職，我就會為（了）什麼辭職。
b. *Akiu wei (le) shenme hui cizhi wo jiu wei (le) shenme hui cizhi
Akiu for LE what will resign I then will LE what will resign
Intended ‘If Akiu will resign because of the reason x, I will then also resign because of the reason x.
*阿Q為了什麼會辭職，我就為了什麼會辭職。
(Tsai’s 2000, 15 glossed and translated by the author)

若不將疑問不定詞看作變數，根據黃的觀察，或許可以把它視為量化詞。但是黃（1982）的量化詞論述也應該被否決掉，因為本文作者觀察到疑問不定詞並不會表現出對孤島效應的敏感（island sensitivity）。因此，我們轉而認為它是極性詞項，這是因為它對極性語境是敏感的。林（1996）認為若是一個句子受制於NEEC（non-entailment of existence condition），疑問不定詞就會獲得許可（licensed）。NEEC的意思是，若是一個句子不會預設（presuppose）物件的存在，則疑問詞可以被許可為疑問不定詞。這個論述是有問題的，因為預設物件存在卻又許\可疑問不定詞的句子是存在的。
在第三章中，鄭和黃（1996）的論文中確認了兩種類別的驢子句並分別予以不同的解釋：無擇約束（unselective binding）和E型分析（E-type analysis）。雖然大抵上同意他們的觀點，林認為驢子句有單例（one-case）和多例（multi-case）兩種語意之別，他也認為「如果」-假設句（ruguo-conditional）中語意是可以為全稱（universal）的。本章後部，本文作者介紹間接約束（indirect binding）這種分析來解釋這兩種驢子句。間接約束這種分析認為某些量化的表達語（quantified expression）在驢子句中充作聯繫不定詞和反指元素（anaphoric element）的角色：

(3) [Everyone who ti keeps a dogj]i like itj.

這個例句抓住了間接約束分析最基本的概念：將不定詞a dog制約在其範域（scope）的表達語，c-統御（c-command）了代名詞it因而讓不定詞和代名詞產生了聯繫。本文作者延伸了這種分析，並且認為雖然間接約束並不是針對某種不定詞地位而產生的分析，但是間接約束者（indirect binder）須c-統御在其範域內的不定詞的這種現象似乎呼應了李（1992）和鄭（1991, 1994）論文中認為c-統御為認可疑問不定詞手段的這個觀點。
在第四章，本文作者分別介紹日文韓文中的疑問不定詞並下結論認為量化力（quantificational force）來自語境而非疑問詞本身，也反駁了黃（1982）的觀點。最後，我也認為經由相關算符（operator）c-統御的方式為許可疑問不定詞的手段。不僅是因為鄭和李的分析，也是基於間接約束中間接約束者需要c-統御不定詞以使後者落在前者範域的這個條件。因此，本文認為，若考量間接約束這樣的分析，或許疑問不定詞可以一致地被認作為極性詞項。同時，或許\用間接分析來處理其他語言的疑問不定詞是可行的。
關鍵字：疑問不定詞、極性詞項、變數、量化詞、驢子句現象、間接約束

Wh-indefinites in Chinese have received great attention and discussion in the literature. This thesis investigates the status of Chinese wh-indefinites and their behaviors in the so-called donkey sentence. A typical example of wh-indefinite will be like the following:

(4) Ta bu xiang zai shuo shenme le
he not want again say what LE
‘He does not want to say anything again.’
他不想再說什麼了。

In this thesis, accounts of wh-indefinites as variables, polarity items and quantifiers from Huang (1982), Li (1992), Cheng (1991, 1994) and Lin (1996, 1998) are provided and this thesis discusses the problems each account presents. Countering Li’s (1992) work, this work argue that wh-indefinite like zenmeyang ’how’ and weishenme ‘why’ cannot be directly treated as variables since they feature variables only if they appear after an auxiliary (under which situation they will express purpose or method) in a donkey sentence according to Tsai (1999, 2000), see the following examples:

(5) a. Akiu hui wei (le) shenme cizhi wo jiu hui wei (le) shenme cizhi　
Akiu will for LE what resign I then will for LE what resign
‘If Akiu will resign for the purpose x, I will then also resign for the purpose x.’
阿Q會為（了）什麼辭職，我就會為（了）什麼辭職。
b. *Akiu wei (le) shenme hui cizhi wo jiu wei (le) shenme hui cizhi
Akiu for LE what will resign I then will LE what will resign
Intended ‘If Akiu will resign because of the reason x, I will then also resign because of the reason x.
*阿Q為了什麼會辭職，我就為了什麼會辭職。
(Tsai’s 2000, 15 glossed and translated by the author)

Avoiding treating wh-indefinites as variables, we may treat them as quantifiers according to Huang’s observation. But Huang’s (1982) quantifier account of wh-indefinites is also rejected because I observe that wh-indefinites do not exhibit island sensitivity. Then we are led to another treatment: treating wh-indefinites as polarity items because they are sensitive to polarity environment. Aside from the sensitivity to polarity environment, Lin’s (1996) work argues that wh-indefinites are licensed as polarity items if the sentence is subject to NEEC- non-entailment of existence condition. NEEC tells us that if (part of) a sentence does not have the existential import of object; wh-words can be licensed as wh-indefinites. This faces challenge because there are cases presupposing existential import yet the wh-indefinite is licensed.
In chapter 3, two types of donkey sentences are identified in Cheng and Huang’s (1996) work and are accounted with different approaches-Unselective Binding and E-type analysis. Though accepting their viewpoint generally, Lin (1996) makes a distinction between one-case and multi-case reading and opens the possibility of universal interpretation in ruguo-conditionals. Later I introduce Indirect binding approach to account both types of donkey sentences. Indirect Binding argues that some quantified expression plays the role as associating the indefinite with the anaphoric element in donkey sentences:

(6) [Everyone who ti keeps a dogj]i like itj.

The example here captures the very basic idea of Indirect Binding: the chunk of expression, which has the indefinite a dog in its scope, c-commands the pronoun it and hence relates it to the indefinite. I extend it to the analysis of Chinese donkey sentences and discover that although Indirect Binding does not target at a particular status, the condition that the indirect binder must c-command the indefinite seems to suggest that c-commanding is the way of licensing a wh-indefinite, which echoes Li’s and Cheng’s analyses.
In Chapter 4, I introduce wh-indefinites in Japanese and Korean respectively and conclude that quantificational force comes from the environment but not from wh-indefinites themselves, countering Huang (1982). Finally, I suggest that licensing a wh-word as a wh-indefinite is through being c-commanded by the relevant operators. It is so because of Li’s and Cheng’s observation of wh-indefinites licensing and also of a condition in Indirect Binding that indirect binders must c-command the indefinite in order to have it as in its scope, as I have mentioned. This thesis then provides a viewpoint that perhaps, wh-indefinites can be treated uniformly as polarity items considering that Indirect Binding approach explains their behavior in donkey sentences. This thesis also opens the door for analyzing wh-indefinites in donkey sentences under Indirect Binding in other languages.
Keywords： Wh-indefinite, polarity item, variable, quantifier, donkey phenomenon, Indirect Binding

摘要............................................................................................................................................i
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgement …………………….……………………………………………..……..vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………..……………1
1.1. Motivation………………………………………………………………………...……....1
1.2. Theoretical Assumption……………………………………………………………..……1
1.3. Main Claims………………………………………………………………………………1
1.4. Overview……………………………………….……………………………....………....2
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………….……..4
2.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….………4
2.2. Is the Wh-indefinite a Variable, a Polarity Item or an Existential Quantifier?....................5
2.2.1. The Wh-Indefinites as Variables……………….………………………………………..5
2.2.1.1. Cheng’s analysis: Existential closure…………………………………………………6
2.2.1.2. Li’s Analysis: C-command, Blocking Effect and Specificity Effect…………………6
2.2.1.3. Blocking Effect in Multi-wh Licensing and Specificity Effect…………...…………14
2.2.1.4. Problems of Li’s Analysis………………………………....……...………………....23
2.2.2. The Wh-Indefinites as Existential Quantifiers................................................................26
2.2.2.1. Huang’s Analysis: polarity items as existential quantifiers.........................................26
2.2.2.2. Problems of Huang’s Analysis....................................................................................26
2.2.3. The Wh-Indefinites as Polarity Items.............................................................................27
2.2.3.1. Li’s Analysis: sensitivity to polarity environment: negated, unfixed and unasserted truth contexts..............................................................................................................27
2.2.3.2. Cheng’s Analysis: sensitivity to polarity environment................................................29
2.2.3.3. Lin’s Analysis: non-entailment of existence condition (NEEC).................................32
2.2.3.4. Problems of Lin’s NEEC.............................................................................................36
CHAPTER 3: DONKEY PHENOMENON.........................................................................38
3.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................38
3.2. Cheng and Huang (1996)..................................................................................................38
3.2.1. A Brief Summary of Cheng and Huang.........................................................................38
3.2.1.1. Bare Conditionals........................................................................................................39
3.2.1.2. Bare Conditionals under Unselective Binding............................................................41
3.2.1.3. Ruguo/dou-conditionals..............................................................................................42
3.2.1.4. Ruguo/dou-conditionals under E-type Analysis..........................................................44
3.3. Lin (1996)..........................................................................................................................48
3.3.1. Differences between Bare Conditionals and Ruguo-conditionals..................................48
3.3.2. Availability of Unselective Binding Accounting for Ruguo-conditionals.....................55
3.3.3. Donkey Sentences are Comparative in Nature..............................................................57
3.3.4. Summary........................................................................................................................59
3.4. Donkey Patterns They Recognize: Cheng and Huang (1996) and Lin (1996)..................59
3.5. Indirect Binding Approach................................................................................................62
3.5.1. Basic Ideas about Indirect Binding................................................................................62
3.5.2. Some Conditions on the Indirect Binders......................................................................68
3.5.3. Extending the Analysis to if-conditional Donkey Sentences.........................................70
3.5.4. Explaining Some Data under Indirect Binding..............................................................75
3.5.4.1. Bare Conditionals under Indirect Binding..................................................................76
3.5.4.2. One-case Bare Conditionals........................................................................................78
3.5.4.3. Mixed Cases................................................................................................................80
3.5.4.4. Ruguo-conditionals under Indirect Binding................................................................81
3.5.4.5. Universal Reading in Ruguo-conditionals...................................................................82
3.5.4.6. At which level Indirect Binding Take Place?..............................................................84
3.5.4.7. Spec-head Agreement Licensing.................................................................................87
3.5.4.8. Binders May or May not be Licensers........................................................................89
3.6. Summary...........................................................................................................................90
CHAPTER 4: WH-INDEFINITE IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES................................92
4.1. Introduction......................................................................................................................92
4.2. Wh-indefinites in Korean..................................................................................................93
4.3. Wh-indefinites in Japanese................................................................................................94
4.4. Similarities and Differences between these Two Languages............................................97
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION.............................................................................................99
REFERENCE.......................................................................................................................102

Abusch, Dorit. (1994). The Scope of Indefinite. Natural Language Semantics 2: 83-135.
Aoun, J. and Audrey Y.-H. Li. (1989). Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20:141-172
Aoun, J. and Audrey Y.-H. Li. (1993). Wh-Elements in Situ: Syntax or LF?. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 199-238.
Aoyagi, Hiroshi, and Toru Ishii. (1994). On NPI licensing in Japanese. In Noriko
Akatsuka (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 4. Stanford, CSLI,
Stanford Linguistics Association, 295–311.
Boeckx, Cedric. (2003). (In)direct Binding. Syntax 6: 213-236.
Carnie, Andrew. (2004). Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Blackwell Publishing.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. (1991). On the Typology of wh-questions. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. (1994). "Wh-words as Polarity Items, " in Chinese Languages and Linguistics 2, Academia Sinica, Taipei, 615-640
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. and C.-T. James Huang (1996)“Two Types of Donkey Sentences,” Natural Language Semantics 4, 121–163.
Chierchia, G. (1992). Anaphora and Dynamic Binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 111-183.
Chierchia, G. (2000). Chinese Conditionals and the Theory of Conditionals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9, 1-54.
Chomsky, Noam. (1981). Lecture on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, Noam. (1995). The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Diesing, M. (1990) The Syntactic Roots of Semantic Partition. PhD
Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Elbourne, Paul. (2001). E-type Anaphora as NP-Deletion. (2001). Natural Language Semantics 9: 241-288.
Evans, G. (1980). Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337-362.
von Fintel, Kai (1999). NPI-Licensing, Strawson-Entailment, and Context-Depedency. Journal of Semantics 16:1
Giannakidou, A. (2006). (In)Definiteness, Polarity, and the Role of Wh-morphology in Free Choice. Journal of Semantics 23: 135-183.
Haegeman, Liliane. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding. 2nd edition. Blackwell Publishing.
Haegeman, Liliane. (2003). Conditional clauses: external and internal syntax. Mind and Language. 18.
Haik, I. (1984). Indirect Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 15:185-223
Haik, I. (1987). Bound VPs that Need to Be. Linguistics and Philosophy 10, 503-530.
Heim, Irene. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Heim, Irene. (1990). E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora. Linguistic and Philosophy 13, 137-178
Huang, C.-T. James. (1981). Move wh in a Language without wh Movement. The Linguistic Review 1:369-416.
Huang, C.-T. James. (1982). Logical Relation in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Huang, C.-T. James. (1987). Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. In Eric. J. Reuland and Alice G. B. ter Meulen, eds., The representation of
(in)definiteness, 226-253. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Kadmon, Nirit. (1990). Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 273-324.
Kim, Young-wha. (2006). Q-particles V.S I-particles: Licensors of the Question and the Indefinite Wh-words. Studies in Generative Grammar 16:461-490.
Kawashima, Ruriko. (1993). Indefinite wh Pronouns and the Morpheme Mo in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics.
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. (1965). Generative Grammatical in the Japanese Language. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Lin, Jo-wang (1996) Polarity Licensing and Wh-phrase Quantification in Chinese, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lin, J.-W. (1998a). On existential polarity Wh-phrases in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 219–255.
Lin, J.-W. (1998b). Distributivity in Chinese and its Implications. Natural Language Semantics 6: 201-243.
Li, Y.-H. Audrey (1992). "Indefinite wh in Mandarin Chinese," Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1. 125-155
May, Robert. (1977). The Grammar of Quantification, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
May, Robert. (1985). Logical Form: It’s Structure and Derivation, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Radford, Andrew. (2004). Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. University Press, Cambridge.
Reinhart. T. (1976) The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Rizzi, Luigi. (2000). The Fine Structure of Left Periphery. in Luigi. R. ed., Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition. London and New York: Routledge.
Sharvit, Yael. (1999). Resumptive Pronouns in Relative Clauses. Natural Languages and Linguistic Theory 17: 587-612.
Shlonsky , U. (1987). Donkey parasites. In Proceedings of NELS 17, ed. J.
McDonough & B. Plunkett, 569±579. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA Publications.
Tsai, Wei-tien Dylan. (1999). ‘The Hows of why and The whys of How’, in Francesca Del Gobbo and Hidehito Hoshi (eds.), UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 5, University of California at Irvine, pp. 155-184.
Tsai, Wei-Tien. (2000). 為什麼問怎麼樣，怎麼樣問為什麼. 《漢學研究》，第18卷第一期，209-235頁.