In classical Chinese, the distinction between a rhetorical question and a simple question may not be readily clear when interrogative words are used. This paper aims to investigate factors that may determine whether a question formed with an安, yan焉, or heyi何以is a simple question or a rhetorical question; they include the presence of (1) a modal verb; (2) a negative marker in the main clause; (3) condition in the subordinate clause; and (4) a final exclamatory particle. Based on an analysis of these factors, a set of markers is proposed to distinguish a rhetorical question from a simple question and the extent of their reliability is discussed. Furthermore, a scale will be proposed to measure the strength of a rhetorical question based on the set of said markers.

Compared with modern Chinese, the inquiry sentences of the unearthed Warring States documents occupied an important position in oral communication at that time, and their expression methods were quite distinctive. Through exhaustive corpus investigation and systematic description, four types of inquiry sentences in the excavated Warring States literature, such as specific finger questions, right and wrong questions, positive and negative questions, and choice questions, are discussed, and the special questions used in them are discussed, and the grammar of the special question sentences used in them is explained and analyzed. The study found that the interrogative sentences in the form of questions and answers in the excavated documents mainly include two types: Chujian quotation style corpus and Qinjian Zhongluling corpus. Finally, the different distribution characteristics and regional relationships of the interrogative sentences in the Chujian and Qinjian corpuses were answered.

Abstract: Rhetorical modal adverbs are a special kind in both Chinese and Korean languages. They have flexible syntactic positions and empty sematic meanings. Therefore, they are one of the difficulties in teaching Chinese as a foreign language and Korean language. Taking Chinese and Korean students as the research object, this paper makes a questionnaire survey on the use of Chinese and Korean rhetorical modal adverbs, and analyses the errors of Chinese and Korean rhetorical modal adverbs from the perspective of syntax and semantics. The syntactic distribution errors include the wrong ordering at the beginning and middle of the sentence. The syntactic combination errors include the misuse of modal particles and auxiliary verbs. The semantic errors include the misunderstanding of rhetorical meaning and the misunderstanding of realistic and non-realistic meaning. Among these, the error rate of syntactic combination is the highest. This is because the differences between Chinese and Korean are reflected most in the combination characteristics of rhetorical modal adverbs. Students are influenced by their mother tongue and have many errors. This part is the key and difficult point in the teaching of rhetorical modal adverbs. It is necessary to carry out targeted teaching for individual rhetorical modal adverbs with high error rate.

본고는 현대중국어의 의문문에 쓰인 ‘呢’의 의미자질을 아래와 같이 구명(究明)하였다. 현대중국어의 의문문을 선택 의문문(정반 의문문 포함함.), 설명 의문문, 판정 의문문, 진술 의문문으로 네 가지로 나누어 분석하면서 위 표와 같은 결론을 얻었다.

Okamura, Kana. 2017. “Korean Native Speakers’ Perception of and Responses to Interrogative Greetings”. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 25(1). 143~165. This research examines (1) if native speakers of Korean perceive phrases such as “어디 가 (Where are you going)?” and “밥 먹었어 (Have you eaten)?” as questions or as greetings, and (2) how speakers respond to these phrases. Various expressions are used as greetings in Korean, but interrogative greetings in particular are considered to be widely favored because they express personal interest in the interlocutor. Previous studies claim that because the phrases function more as greetings than questions, it is enough to respond with a general answer rather than an honest or detailed answer. To verify this claim, a questionnaire was distributed to 144 native Korean speakers in their 20s. The degree of intimacy between the speakers and the circumstances of the interaction were used to investigate the perception of and responses to interrogative greetings. The statistical analysis of the questionnaire results found that while the phrases do function as greetings, they still retain their interrogative function, and as such, many native speakers give honest answers such as “응, 먹었어 (Yes, I ate).” Additionally, interlocutor intimacy and situation did indeed influence how the phrases are perceived and answered.

现代汉语疑问代词除了表示疑问外还具有几种表示非疑问的功能，在现实语言活动中，其使用频率也十分高。汉语语法学界对疑问词的非疑问用法一直关注，而迄今为止在非疑问用法的名称和再次划分的划分标准上存在分歧。因此本文以 ‘哪’，‘哪儿’，‘哪里’ 为主要分析对象，从认知量的角度对疑问词的非疑问用法，尤其是一般所说的任指用法和虚指用法进行描写和划分，也介绍表示遍指用法的一种句法形式。 本文研究的结果如下： 第一，邵敬敏（1996）对疑问代词“什么”的非疑问用法进行细致分析而得出八种引申用法。文章中明确表明以语法意义为划分标准，而研究结果却表示用了语法意义和句子结构两种划分标准。石毓智（2001）以句法结构为划分标准对疑问词的两种引申用法——遍指和虚指进行了分析。他的说法相当一部分跟汉语的实际使用情况一致，但表虚指的疑问代词只能出现于动词之后的观点只限于受事用法，因此在解释汉语语言现象上仍然具有限制性，缺少说服力。 第二，任指用法也称为‘全指’、‘遍指’、‘周遍性’，从认知量的角度看这种引申用法具有两种不同的量——全量和单一量（或部分量）。因此，本文认为表示不同认知量的这种用法应该划分开来，表全量的就是说所指的范围内无一例外的应该称为‘遍指’用法，表单一量（或部分量）的就是说指示范围内的任何一个成员或者部分成员的应该称为‘任指’用法。 第三，特指反问句中的疑问代词—— ‘哪’，‘哪儿’，‘哪里’，无论其指示功能强还是弱都表示范围内的所有成员。因此可以说反问句是疑问代词非疑问用法表示遍指意义的句法形式之一。

Interrogative sentences can reveal not only questions but also various pragmatic meanings such as conjecture, doubt, confirmation, request, command, irony, emphasis, and admiration, etc. in the usual communication. They are commonly used as a syntactic down-grader in order to prevent pragmalinguistic failures and also reinforce the effect of utterance in communication The Indirect Speech Acts of Korean interrogatives are studied in this paper. In particular, the nature of semantics of interrogatives, the correlation of interrogatives and epistemic modality, the subclassification of its' semantics, and also, the conception of Indirect Speech Acts, the discourse function of interrogatives were included in this paper based on a critical analysis on the previous studies. He semantics of interrogatives are context-depended. So future studies about the correlation of pragmatic factors and the specific expressions of languages will be continued.

Interrogative is a type of sentences that conveys a question for people in the process of recognizing the world. Interrogative sentences can reveal not only questions but also various pragmatic meanings such as conjecture, doubt, confirmation, request, command, irony, emphasis, and admiration, etc. The usage patterns of Directive Speech Acts of Korean Interrogatives are studied in this paper. They are commonly used as a syntactic down-grader in order to prevent pragmalinguistic failures and reinforce the effect of utterance in communication. In this research, the aspects of the usage of Directive Speech Acts of Korean Interrogatives by Chinese Korean learner are investigated by methods of Discourse Completion Tests(DCT) and Follow-Up Interview. According to the results comparing between Korean native speaker and Chinese intermediate and advanced Korean learner, we can draw a conclusion that the native speakers use the indirect directive functions of interrogatives actively in order to express their intention effectively and exert the illocutionary force while the Chinese speakers can not use them appropriately.

This paper provides the specific procedure of the label projection in the C space for wh-movement under the split CP hypothesis (Rizzi 1997). I argue that wh-phrases have the features [Q, wh] by means of the N-to-D head raising, which makes wh-items, simple or complex, be labeled as phrasal DPs. This means that the reprojection of the CP to the DP by the wh-head cannot occur along the lines of Donati (2006). Under the assumption that the complementizer only has the E(dge)F(eature), the English C acquires the Q-feature by means of Internal Merge of a wh-phrase bearing the [Q, wh] to [Spec,C]. The Q-feature is not base-generated on the C, whose Q is inherited from the wh-phrase occupying [Spec,C]. The transmission of the Q-feature to the C plays a part in making the C reprojected to the FocusP(or QP) during the derivation.