ABSTRACT (Mandarin)
Pope (1976) 指出不同的語言，在是非問句上，有著不同的答句形式；換言之，自然語言在如何為是非問句建構答句上，展現出不同的語法策略。所謂是非問句是要求得到肯定或否定回答的問句，英文的是非問句一直存在著一個歧義現象，這個歧義來自於在一個英文的否定詞not並未與助動詞融合為一，而是停留在主語後頭的否定是非問句，答句的肯定的助詞「是」和否定的助詞「不」後頭的句子可以是肯定句也可以是否定句，而這樣的回答方式却和肯定的是非問句以及否定詞移到句首的是非問句截然不同。許多語言學家，像Pope (1976), Kramer & Rawlins (2009), Krifka (2013), Roelofsen & Farkas (2015), and Holmberg (2016)，紛紛提出不同的理論來解釋這個歧義現象。
本論文就自然語言是如何為是非問句建構答句，或是如何回答是非問句提出一個新的觀點，根據Rooth (1985,1992) 的焦點語意的理論，在一個句子中，因爲焦點運符的不同就會產生相同的句子卻有不同的語意，本論文提出語言的是非問句的答句是由「焦點機制」來建構答句或是導衍出來的，也就是由焦點運符與焦點標記的聯繫關係來決定的。「焦點運符」才是問句的核心，確認了「焦點運符」就能決定「疑問範域」或是「疑問命題」，回答者根據「命題」的真假與否回答問句。當答話者選擇肯定助詞「是」時，表示同意焦點所表示的命題，跟在「是」後頭的便是與焦點所表示的命題相同的形式;當答話者選擇「不」時，表示不同意焦點所決定的疑問命題，因此，跟在「不」後頭的是焦點所表示的命題的否定形式。但是因為不同語言決定焦點運符的機制也不同，就造成是非問句的答句在不同的語言呈現對比的現象。
根據Romero and Han（2002：210）的說法，在英文中否定詞not和助動詞融合之後，移到句首的是非問句，否定詞具有焦點運符的功能，所以焦點運符選擇沒有否定詞的疑問範域作為是非問句的命題，回答者針對肯定命題的真假值來回答問題，若命題為真， 回答者會以肯定的助詞「yes」加上肯定的句子來回答這個命題，若命題為非回答者則以否定的助詞「no」後面跟著的是命題為非的否定的句子來回答這個命題。但是若否定詞not並未與助動詞融合為一，而是停留在主語後頭的否定是非問句，卻有歧義的現象，也就是肯定的助詞「yes」和否定的助詞「no」後面可以同時用肯定的句子和否定的句子來回答，本論文指出這樣的歧義現象是源自於沒有移位的否定詞不一定是焦點運符的雙重用法，也就是否定詞可以作為句子的焦點運符或是不作為句子的焦點運符。當否定詞是句子的焦點運符時，那麼答句的形式就跟否定詞移到句首的答句完全相同 ; 但是當否定詞不是焦點運符時，那可能被選為焦點運符的就是問句中的助動詞，而否定詞就被納入問句的疑問範域中，讓問句的範域成為否定命題，回答者針對否定命題的真假值來回答問題。 若否定命題為真時， 回答者會用肯定的助詞「yes」來同意否定的命題 ; 相反地，若否定命題為非時， 回答者則用否定的助詞「no」來否定問句的否定命題，雙重否定自然就出現肯定句，這就說明為什麼肯定的助詞「yes」後面可以接否定的句子，而否定的助詞「no」後面可以接肯定的句子。簡而言之，英文的否定詞沒有移位到句首的是非問句的歧義現象是源自於沒有移位的否定詞不一定是焦點運符的雙重用法。此外，問句中的助動詞可以作為焦點運符，也闡明了為什麼英語的肯定的是非問句和否定詞not移到句首的是非問句有相同的答句，因為這兩種問句，雖然有不同的焦點運符卻有相同的疑問範域。
漢語最典型的是非問句是「嗎是非問句」又稱語助詞問句，是含有疑問語助詞「嗎 」的疑問句。但是英文不移位的否定詞not所產生的歧義現象卻不會發生在漢語的「嗎是非問句」，因為漢語的否定詞「不」在焦點機制的階層是低於疑問詞「嗎」，所以焦點運符的功能已經由疑問詞所取代，所以「嗎是非問句」的焦點運符功能就由疑問語助詞「嗎」來承擔，這就說明了為什麼漢語肯定的「嗎是非問句」的答句和否定的「嗎是非問句」的答句呈現對比的現象，因為肯定的是非問句焦點運符「嗎」選擇肯定的疑問命題，回答者針對肯定命題的真假值來回答問題，所以肯定的助詞「是」要求後頭的句子必需是肯定的和否定的助詞「不」要求後頭的句子必需是否定的 ; 相反的，在漢語的「否定」是非問句中，焦點運符「嗎」選擇了否定的疑問命題，回答者針對否定命題的真假值來回答問題，助詞「是」表示回答者同意否定的疑問命題，自然要求後頭的句子必需是否定的，助詞「不」表示回答者不同意否定的疑問命題，所以要求後頭的句子必需是焦點所表示的命題的否定形式，雙重否定就形成肯定的句子。
「焦點機制」也可以清楚地闡明母語是中文的說話者在學習英文時，常會面對無法回答否定的是非問句或誤用yes 去表達no的語意，因而造成言談的誤解。這是因為母語是中文的學習者把漢語的「焦點機制」運用到英文否定的是非問句，在英文中否定詞not和助動詞融合之後，移到句首的是非問句，否定詞具有焦點運符的功能，所以焦點運符選擇沒有否定詞的疑問範域作為是非問句的命題，反觀漢語否定的是非問句的焦點運符功能是由疑問語助詞「嗎」來承擔，所以焦點運符選擇有否定詞「不」的疑問範域作為是非問句的命題，用否定疑問範域的回答方式來回答肯定的疑問範域自然產生言談的誤解。
此外，在漢語的「嗎是非問句」中，如果已經帶有肯定的焦點標記「是」或是否定的焦點標記「不是」， 它的答句形式無疑的跟這兩個焦點標記息息相關，所以回答者根據焦點標記運符所選的疑問範域的真假值， 用肯定的助詞「是」表示回答者同意疑問命題和否定的助詞「不」表示回答者不同意疑問命題來回答問題。這也解釋了為什麼帶有焦點標記和不帶有焦點標記的「嗎是非問句」在漢語中呈現的答句形式是一致的。
同樣地，「焦點機制」也運用來解釋漢語的「正反問句」，不同於「嗎是非問句」的是，「正反問句」的焦點運符是「疑問運符」，焦點運符選擇述語的動詞或 繫詞「是」作為它的論元，且焦點運符帶有的屬性是「＋A-not-A」而不是「±pol」，這也闡明為什麼回答者必須從述語的肯定式與否定式中選擇一項來回答，而不能用肯定的助詞「是」或否定的助詞「不」來回答問題。
在漢語中，還有一種特殊的問句，Xu (2017) 將它命名為「難道問句」，在「難道問句」中疑問語助詞「嗎」是可有可無的，因此焦點運符的功能就不會由疑問語助詞「嗎」來承擔，而是由表意內功效的疑問詞「難道」作為問句的焦點運符來決定疑問範域，並建構答句。此外，當一個句子包含多個焦點運符時，表達說話者態度的焦點運符就會排在焦點機制階層的最上層，這也解釋了當表意內功效的疑問詞「難道」和肯定的焦點標記「是」或是否定的焦點標記「不是」同時並存在句子時，焦點運符是由表意內功效的疑問詞「難道」來承擔。

ABSTRACT (English)
Instead of classifying natural languages in terms of their answering systems for polar questions, this thesis analyses how languages construct the answering system for polar questions. The primary mechanism that natural languages adopt to construct an answering system is the focus mechanism that is based on the relationship between a focus sensitive marker and its association of focus. The different answering patterns to polar questions result from different scopes of focus. In a polar question, what is being focused by the focus sensitive marker or focus operator thus falls into question scope (focus association) or becomes the local argument of the question operator. The respondent answers the polar question based on the proposition in the question scope. Answering with a positive particle expresses agreement with that question proposition while answering with a negative particle conveys that the question proposition is not true. Based on Romero and Han (2002:210), the preposed contracted form Aux+n’t has the function of focus marking while the non-preposed-negation not does not always involve the focus function. The ambiguity of the answering patterns to a non-preposed-negation polar question in which the sentence following the particle yes or no can either be positive or negative indeed results from the ambiguous status of the negation not between a focus sensitive marker and a non-focus marker. But when not does not function as a focus marker, the positive auxiliary (do, does etc.) becomes a qualified focus operator. However, this ambiguity does not exist in Mandarin Chinese because bu ‘not’ is not an overt focus operator. It is due to bu ‘not’ being ranked in the lowest position of the focus sensitivity hierarchy in Mandarin Chinese, and lower than the question particle ma. Therefore, the question particle ma suppresses its function as a focus operator. In other words, bu ‘not’ is not a qualified focus marker in Chinese in terms of the answering patterns to a negative ma particle question.
In Mandarin Chinese, shi ‘be’ and bu-shi ‘not-be’ are focus sensitive markers without doubt. As they are focus operators, the question scope does not contain the focus markers and this is the reason why there is no difference found in the answering patterns between Chinese polar questions with a focus marker and Chinese polar questions without a focus marker.
Additionally, if both the positive auxiliary does and preposed-negation doesn’t are focus operators, it explains why the answering patterns to preposed-negation yes-no questions and positive yes-no questions are identical as the two distinctive operators contain the same question proposition. This mechanism also explains why Chinese speakers have great difficulty answering negative polar questions in English. When Chinese speakers learn a foreign language like English, they apply the rules that they use in their native language to the foreign language they are learning. Accordingly, if the two languages have significantly different focus operators and focus associations, then the confusion or difficulties that the learners face is unavoidable.
In addition to Mandarin ma particle questions, the focus mechanism can be correctly applied to derive the answering patterns in both V-not-V and C-not-C questions. But the difference is the focus operator in A-not-A questions is the question operator [Q] containing the feature [+A-not-A] rather than the feature [±Pol], and this explains why A-not-A questions cannot be answered by polarity particles shi ‘yes’ and bu ‘no’.
Lastly, when the focus mechanism is applied to examine nandao-questions, it is found that the question particle ma is optional, so the focus operator is the illocutionary force of interrogation nandao ‘actually’. Further, nandao ‘actually’ is a speech act that expresses a speaker/hearer’s attitude, it is related to the highest position of a CP layer and is located in the highest rank in the focus sensitivity hierarchy in generating answering patterns to Mandarin polar questions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract (English)………………………………………………………………………...……ii
Abstract(Mandarin)………………………………………………………………………......iv
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….…….…...ix
List of abbreviations……………………………………………………….….……….....…xii
Contents……………………………………………………………………...…………..…..…xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………1
1.1 Background………………………………………………………………………...…….…1
1.2 The contrast between English and Chinese answering patterns……………………….....................................................................................…..2
1.3 Purpose of thesis…………………………………………...………………...…………12
1.4 The organization of this dissertation …………………………....................14
Chapter 2 Literature Review…………………………………………...………………..15
2.1 The semantics of polar questions - Hamblin (1973)……………..……16
2.2 Answering systems…………………………………...………………………………..20
2.2.1 Binary Answering systems- Pope (1976)………………………….….…..20
2.2.2 Ternary answering systems……………………………………………….….....24
2.3 Previous studies on negative polar questions…………………………....30
2.3.1 Roelofsen & Farkas 2015- feature model approach…………….....30
2.3.2 Krifka (2013) - discourse referents approach …………………..……..35
2.3.3 Kramer & Rawlins (2009)- negative neutralization……………..…...45
2.3.4 Holmberg (2016)- the syntax of negation…………..……………..…….54
2.3.4.1 Syntactic structure of polar questions……………..……………..…….54
2.3.4.2 Syntax of negation in negative polar questions…………………...62
2.4 Servidio et. al (2018)- answering patterns vs focus…………………….68
2.5 Summary……………………………………………………………….……......………....76
Chapter 3 Properties of polar questions in Mandarin Chinese………...79
3.1 Previous studies on Chinese negative polar questions……….......…85
3.2 Ma particle questions…………………………………………………...…….……...92
3.2.1 The properties of ma particle questions and their answers …….92
3.2.2 The syntactic structure of ma particle questions…………………...113
3.3 A-not-A Questions………………………………………………………......……118
3.3.1 Background……………………………………………………………..……...........118
3.3. 2 Properties of A-not-A Questions………………………………………….122
3.4 The difference between ma particle questions and A-not-A questions.................................................................................................................130
3.5 Summary……………………………………………………………………….………....154
Chapter 4 Answering patterns derived from focus mechanism: English…………….................................................................................................….156
4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………….....……………….156
4.2 The Preliminary: Focus Semantics (Rooth 1985, 1992)……………..163
4.3 Proposal: The focus mechanism in constructing answering patterns to polar questions ……………………………………………….……….…166
4.4 The effect of adverbs taking scope over negation…………………..174
4.5 Bare response particles..…………………………………………………………..176
4.6 Concluding remarks…………………………………………………………………179
Chapter 5 The focus mechanism in generating answering patterns
to Mandarin Polar Questions……………………………………….………............183
5.1 An Overview…………………………………………………………………….………183
5.2 How answering patterns are derived from focus operator in ma particle questions…….........................................................................................185
5.3 Ambiguity in verb-echo patterns …………………………………..…..…...199
5.4 A-not-A questions……………………………………………………………..…….204
5.4.1 V-not-V questions…………………………………………………….......……...204
5.4.2 C-not-C questions…………………………………………………………….......207
5.5 The effect of adverbs taking scope over negation …………….…....209
5.6 Concluding remarks……………………………………………………….………...221
Chapter 6 Concluding remarks and further research ……………….…...226
References……………………………………………………………………...…………......232

REFERENCES
Aihara, M. (2008). Two types of Japanese yes-no questions and their implications for wh-questions. Syntax General Paper, University of Connecticut.
AnderBois, S. (2011). Issues and alternatives. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Aoun, J., & Li, Y.-H. (1993). Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24: 199-238.
Bailey, L. (2013). The syntax of question particles. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.
Bernini, G. (2001). “Le profrasi”, in Salvi, G., Renzi, L., & Cardinaletti, A. (eds.) Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione, 2nd ed., vol. 3, Il Mulino, Bologna, 175-222.
Biezma, M. (2009). Alternative vs. polar questions: The cornering effect. In Proceeding of SALT 19.
Biezma, M. & Rawlins, K. (2012). Responding to alternative and polar questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 35: 361-406.
Biberauer, T., Newton, G., & Sheehan, M. (2009). Limiting synchronic and diachronic variation and change: The final-over-final constraint. Language and Linguistics 10 (4): 699-741.
Büring, D. and Gunlogson, C. (2000). Aren’t Positive and Negative Polar Question the Same? Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, and Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz.
Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Chen, L., & Schaffar, W. (1998): Ja/Nein-Fragen im Chinesischen, im Xiang und im Thailändischen. Arbeitsbericht des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Universität Stuttgart/Tübingen.
Chen, L., & Schaffar, W. (2000). Typology of yes-no questions in Chinese and Tai languages. Paper presentation at ZAS.
Chen, L., & Schaffar, W. (2001). Yes-no questions in Mandarin and the theory of focus. Linguistics 39: 837-870.
Cheng, L.-S. (1991). On the typology of wh-questions. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Cheung, Y.-S. (1973). Negative questions in Chinese, Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2: 325-329.
Chomsky, N. (1976). Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2: 303-350.
Chu, C. (1998). A Discourse Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New York and Bern: Peter Lang Publishing.
Ciardelli, I., & Roelofsen, F. (2011). Inquisitive logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40 (1), 55-94.
Claus, B., Meijer, A., Repp, S., & Krifka, M. (2017). Puzzling response particles: An experimental study on the German answering system”, Semantics & Pragmatics 10, Article 19.
Comrie, B. (1984). ‘Russian’, in W.S. Chisholm (ed.) Interrogativity: a colloquium on the grammar, typology, and pragmatics in seven diverse languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 7-46.
Beaver, D. & Clark, B. (2008). Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Company.
Dai, X. (1990). Some issues on A-not-A questions in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 18, 2: 285-317.
Dong, H. (2009). Issues in the semantics of Mandarin questions. Ph. D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Dryer, M. (2013). Position of polar question particles. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.), http://wals.info/chapter/92.
Ernst, T. (1994). Conditions on Chinese A-not-A questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 241-264.
Farkas, D. (2009). Polarity particles in Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian, volume 11: Papers from the 2007 New York Conference, p. 95-118. John Benjamins.
Farkas, D. (2011). Polarity particles in English and Romanian. In J. Herschensohn, editor, Romance Linguistics, 2010. Selected papers from the 40th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Linguistics, p. 303-328. John Benjamins.
Farkas, D., & Bruce, K. (2009). On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27: 81-118.
Farkas, D., & Roelofsen, F. (2012). Polar Initiatives and Polarity Particle Responses in an Inquisitive Discourse Model. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz, and University of Amsterdam.
Farkas, D., & Roelofsen, F. (2018). Polarity particles revisited. MS.
Gasde, H.-D. (1998). Topics, foci and sentence structure in Mandarin Chinese. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 51 (1): 34-94.
Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. (2000). Interrogative Investigations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Gong, J. (1995). “nandao” de duoyixing yu “nandao”ju de qiyixing (on polysemy of “nandao” and ambiguity of “nandao”-sentences). Cishu Yanjiu (Lexicographical Studies) 2: 125-129.
Gonzalez-Fuente, S., Escandell-Vidal, V., & Prieto, P. (2015). Gestural codas pave the way to the understanding of verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics 90: 26-47.
Goodhue, D., and Wagner, M. (2018). Intonation, yes and no, glossa. Journal of General Linguistics 3 (1): 5. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.210
Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2009). Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. Presented at the Workshop on Language, Communication, and Rational Agency at Stanford, May 2009, available via www.illc.uva.nl/inquisitive-semantics.
Gunlogson, C. (2002). Declarative questions. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 12: 124-143, http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/2860.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman Group.
Hamblin, C. (1958). Questions, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 36: 159-68.
Hamblin, C. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41-53.
Han, C.-H. (1998). Deriving the interpretation of rhetorical questions, in Curtis, E., Lyle, J. and Webster, G. editors, Proceedings of West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics 16: 237-253, Stanford: CSLI.
Han, C.-H. (1999). The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Han, Y. (1988). A pragmatic study of some sentence final and post-verbal particles in Mandarin Chinese P.h.D. dissertation, University of York.
Höhle, T. (1992). Ueber verum fokus in deutschen. Linguistische Berichte.
Holmberg, A. (2003). ‘Yes/no questions and the relation between tense and polarity in English’, in Pierra Pica (ed.) Linguistic Variation Yearbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 43-68.
Holmberg, A. (2013). ‘The syntax of answers to polar questions in English and Swedish’. Lingua 128: 31-50.
Holmberg, A. (2016). The Syntax of Yes and No. Oxford University Press.
Horn, L. (1969). A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In Proceedings of CLS 5. Chicago Linguistics Society.
Hsin A.-L. (2016). An analysis of Chinese tag questions with a cross-linguistic comparison to English tags. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics. 14.1, 67-118.
Huang, C.-T. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. (1991). Modularity and Chinese A-Not-A questions. In Georgopoulos, C. and Ishihara, R., editors, Interdisciplinary Approaches in Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Yuki Kuroda, pages 305-332. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, C.-T., Li, Y.-H., & Li, Y. (2009). The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jones, M. (1999). The Welsh Answering System. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 1-44.
Katz, J., & Postal, P. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
König, E., & Siemund, P. (2007). Speech act in distinctions in grammar, in: Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 276-324.
Kramer, R., & Rawlins, K. (2009). Polarity particles: an ellipsis account. NELS 39.
Krifka, M. (2006). Association with focus phrases. In V. Molnr and S. Winkler (Eds.), The Architecture of Focus, pp. 105-136. Mouton de Gruyter.
Krifka, M. (2012/2017). Negated polarity questions as denegations of assertions, to appear in Chungmin Lee, and Ferenc Kiefer (eds.) Contrastiveness and Scalar Implicatures. Heidelberg: Springer.
Krifka, M. (2013). Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Proceedings of the 23rd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference.
Krifka, M. (2014). Ja, nein, doch als sententiale anaphern und deren pragmatische optimierung. In Priemer, A., Nolda, A., & Sioupi, A. (eds.), Zwischen Kern und Peripherie: Untersuchungen zu Randbereichen in Sprache und Grammatik: 41–68. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language. MIT Press.
Kuno, S. (1978). Japanese: A characteristic OV language, in Lehmann, W. (ed.). Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language. Sussex: The Harvester Press.
Ladusaw, W. (1980). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland Publishing.
Ladd, R. (1981). A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. In Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 164-171. Chicago Linguistics Society.
Laka, I. (1990). Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Law, A. (2006). Adverbs in A-not-A questions in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 15: 97-136.
Leth, P. (2019). Utterance Interpretation and Actual Intentions. Axiomathes.
Li, B. (2006). Chinese Final Particles and the Syntax of the Periphery. Ph.D. dissertation. Leiden University, Leiden.
Li, C., & Thompson, S. (1979) The pragmatics of two types of yes-no questions in Mandarin and its universal implications. CLS 15: 197-206.
Li, C., & Thompson, S. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press
Liing, W.-J. (2014). How to ask questions in Mandarin Chinese. CUNY Academic Works.
Lin, J.-W. (2003). Aspectual selection and negation in Chinese. Linguistics 41(3): 425-459.
Liu, Y.-H., Pan, W.-Yu., & Gu,W. (2001). Shiyong Xiandai Hanyu Yufae [Modern Chinese Grammar]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
Li, Y-H. (1992). Indefinite wh in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 1.2: 125-155.
Lü, S. (1980) [1984]. Xiandai hanyu babai ci [800 words of contemporary Chinese]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
Martin, S. (1962). Essential Japanese - An Introduction to the Standard Colloquial Language. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co., Japan.
Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (1994). Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
Liou, M.-L., & Liu, C.-S. (2020). An analysis of focus and its role in the answering systems of polar questions in Chinese and English, International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 7:1, pp. 45-70. John Benjamins.
McCawley, J. (1994). Remarks on the syntax of mandarin yes-no questions.
Journal of East Asian Languages 3 (2): 179-194.
Merchant, J. (2001). The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press.
Merchant, J. (2003). Remarks on stripping. Manuscript, University of Chicago.
Merchant, J. (2004). Fragments and Ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(6): 661-738.
Merchant, J. (2006). Why no(t)? Style 40: 20-23.
Morgan, J. (1973). Sentence Fragments and the notion of “Sentence”. In: Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renee Kahane. University of Illinois Press.
Paul, Waltraud. 2014. Why particles are not particular: Sentence-final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP. Studia Linguistica 68, 1: 77-115.
Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2001). T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Michael Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 355-426.
Pope, E. (1976). Questions and Answers in English. Mouton, The Hague.
Prince, K. (2012). Predication and information structure in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21.4: 329-366.
Rizzi, L. (1997). The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery, In Liliane M. V. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 281-338.
Roelofsen, F., & Farkas, D. (2015). Polarity particle responses as a window onto the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language 91 (2): 359-414.
Romero, M., & Han, C.-H. (2001). On certain epistemic implicatures in yes/no questions. In Proceedings of the 13th Amsterdam Colloquium, Amsterdam. University of Amsterdam.
Romero, M., & Han, C.-H. (2002). Verum focus in negative yes/no questions and Ladd’s p / ¬p ambiguity. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XII: 204-224. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Romero, M., & Han, C.-H. (2004). On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (5): 609-58.
Romero, M. (2006). Biased yes/no questions: The role of VERUM. Sprache und
Datenverarbeitung 30: 9-24.
Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75-116.
Rooth, M. (1996). Focus. In S. Lappin, ed., Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sadock, J., & Zwicky, A. (1985). Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1: Clause structure, 155-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Servidio, E., Bocci G., & Bianchi, V. (2018). (Dis)agreement, polarity, and focus: Answering negative polar questions in Italian. A Journal of General Linguistics 3 (1): 3. 1–28, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.360.
Su, Y. (2000). “Nandao” ju doushi fanwenju ma? (Are “nandao”-sentences all rhetor- ical questions?). Yuwen Yanjiu (Linguistic Research) 74, 56-60.
Tang, T.-C. (1981). A study of interrogative sentences in Chinese. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University 26: 219-277.
Tang, T.-C. (1989). Hanyu cifa jufa lunji [Studies on Chinese Morphology and Syntax], vol. 2. Taipei: Student Book Co.
Tseng, W.-H. (2009). A post-syntactic approach to the A-Not-A questions. USTWPL 5: 107-139.
Van Rooij, R., & Šafářová, M. (2003). On polar questions. In Young, R., & Zhou, Y. (Eds.) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory (SALT 13), pp. 292-309. CLC Publications.
Wang, L. (1954). Zhongguo Yufa Lilun. [The theories of Chinese Grammar] Chung Hwa Book co.
Wang, W., Song, S., & Bond, F. (2015). A constraint-based analysis of A-not-A questions in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2015), 196-215.
Wu, M.-J. (1997). A model-theoretic approach to A-not-A questions. University of Pennsylvania, Working Papers in Linguistics, 4: 273-289.
Wu, M.-J. (2015). The syntax of polar questions and their answers in Taiwanese. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.
Xu, B.-B. (2017). Question bias and biased question words in Mandarin, German and Bangla. Ph.D. dissertation, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick Rutgers.
Yabushita, K. (1998). Why do Japanese hai and lie not behave like English yes and no all the way? Consequences of the non-sentential operation of the Japanese negative morpheme nai, Working Papers in Linguistics 23, 1: 59-74.
Yaisomanang, S. (2012). The syntax of yes-no questions and answers in Thai. PhD dissertation, Newcastle University.
Yuan, M.-X., & Hara, Y. (2015). Two ways to deploy Hamblin alternatives: Mandarin questions and unconditionals. Ms.
Zeijlstra, H. (2004). Sentential negation and negative concord. Dissertation. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.
Zhu, D.-X. (1982). Yufa jiangyi (Lecture notes on grammar). Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.