華語的「就算」條件句作為英語「even if」條件句的對應句型，至今在文獻中仍未受到太多關注，而本論文旨在為「就算」條件句提供一個語意和語用的分析。在形態句法上，「就算」條件句的特徵是位於句首的「就算」詞素，以及在後果子句（consequent）中的表附加性助詞（additive particle）——「也」或者「還是」。與文獻中的假設不同，本論文觀察到 「也」和「還是」並沒有辦法在「就算」條件句中任意的交替使用。具體而言，在「就算」句裡，「也」的使用可以被「還是」取代，但反之則未必然。而本研究的主要任務就是解釋 「也」和「還是」這兩個表附加性助詞，在「就算」條件句中交替使用的情況。
在論文裡，我提出可以用 Heim（1991）的「前設最大化」原則（Maximize Presupposition!）來解釋這兩個詞之間交替使用的情況。根據該理論，當兩個句子在給定的語境中都能如實地表達語意時，說話者應使用具有更強的前設（presupposition）的選項（alternative）來表達。本文透過假設「也」跟「還是」在前設方面，僅於量化（quantification）的強度上有所差異，來解釋了為什麼在「就算」條件句中，「還是」並不總是能被「也」取代。另外，論文也提到了當「也」可以在「就算」句中使用時，該「就算」句的選項集合（alternative set）中會出現一個被稱之為「縮減」(truncation)的機制，而該機制的發生取決於在給定的語境中，選項之間的關聯性。本論文也試著將上述的分析方法，引入對於「連...都/也」結構中，「都」和「也」之間交替使用的情況的分析。

This thesis aims to provide a compositional account for the Mandarin counterpart of English even-if-conditionals, which has not received much attention in the literature. Morpho-syntactically, the Mandarin counterpart of an English even-if-conditional is characterized with the morpheme jiusuan in sentence-initial position and an additive particle ye ‘also’ or haishi ‘still’ in the consequent. Contrary to what have been assumed in the literature, it is further observed that the two particles ye ‘also’ and haishi ‘still’ are not in free alternation. To be more specific, there are cases where haishi ‘still’ cannot be replaced with ye ‘also’; on the other hand, the presence of ye ‘also’ in this construction may be substituted for haishi ‘still’. Hence, the major task in this project to account for the alternation between ye ‘also’ and haishi ‘still’ in this construction.
In this thesis, I propose that the alternation between these two particles may be accounted for with Heim’s (1991) Maximize Presupposition!, according to which when two expressions may be truthfully used in a given context of utterance, the one with a stronger presupposition should be chosen. Assuming that ye ‘also’ and haishi ‘still’ merely differ in their quantificational strength in their presuppositional content, this accounts for why the use of haishi in this construction is not always replaceable with ye ‘also’. I further suggest that in the cases where the presence of ye is felicitous, there is a truncation of the alternative set which is subject to the relevance of each of the alternatives in a given context of utterance. Some further implications of this proposal are discussed as well, including a possible account for the alternation between dou ‘all’ and ye ‘also’ in the lian…dou/ye construction and a possible experimental design for the quantitative research of the jiusuan-conditional.

摘要
致謝辭
目錄
1 Introduction 1
2 Reviews of the Previous Analyses and the Theoretical Backgrounds of the Proposal 9
2.1 Previous Analyses of Even-If-Conditionals and the Concessive Meaning of Conditionals 10
2.1.1 Previous Analyses of English Even-If-Conditionals 10
2.1.1.1 Bennett’s (1982) Theory 10
2.1.1.2 Lycan’s (1991, 2001) Theory 14
2.1.1.3 Guerzoni & Lim’s (2007) Theory 16
2.1.1.4 Interim Conclusion 20
2.1.2 English Concessive Conditionals of still 21
2.1.2.1 Ippolito’s (2007) Theory: Concessive Still 22
2.1.2.2 Tellings’ (2017) View of Concessive Still 24
2.1.2.3 Interim Conclusion 25
2.2 Modality and Construction of Conditionals 26
2.2.1 Modality and Composition of Conditionals 26
2.2.2 Construction of English Conditionals 27
2.2.2.1 The Conditionals without Then 27
2.2.2.2 The Conditionals with Then 30
2.2.2.3 Interim Conclusion 34
2.3 Interim Conclusions of Chapter 2
3 Compositional Analysis of Jiusuan-Conditionals: Jiusuan, Haishi and Ye 37
3.1 Jiusuan 38
3.1.1 Fixed Pattern of Mandarin Jiusuan-Conditionals 38
3.1.2 Scalarity of Jiusuan 40
3.1.3 Universality of Jiusuan 41
3.1.4 Proposal for the Semantics of Jiusuan 44
3.2 The Additive Particles in Jiusuan-Conditionals: Haishi and Ye 45
3.2.1 Overlapping Distribution of Haishi and Ye 46
3.2.2 Different Distribution of Haishi and Ye 49
3.2.3 Proposal for Haishi and Ye’s Denotation 51
3.3 Compositional Account for the Jiusuan-Conditional 53
3.3.1 Previous Accounts about the Composition and Construction of Concessive Conditionals 54
3.3.2 Proposal for the Composition and Construction of Jiusuan-Conditionals 55
3.3.3 Semantic Composition of a Jiusuan-Conditional 57

4 The Alternation of Haishi and Ye in Jiusuan-Conditionals 61
4.1 Observation of the Alternation between Haishi and Ye 62
4.2 Pragmatic Analyses of How the Alternation of Haishi and Ye Works in Jiusuan-Conditionals 65
4.2.1 Maximize Presupposition! in Jiusuan-Conditionals 66
4.2.1.1 Theoretical Background: Maximize Presupposition! 66
4.2.1.2 The Application of Maximize Presupposition! to Jiusuan-Conditionals 68
4.2.2 Scale Truncation in Jiusuan-Ye-Conditionals 72
4.2.2.1 Theoretical Background: Alternative Pruning 72
4.2.2.2 The Application of Scale Truncation to Jiusuan-Ye-Conditionals 74
4.2.3 Interim Conclusions and Theoretical Implications 80
4.3 Further Discussion: The Influence of Using Ye on the Focalization of Jiusuan-Conditionals 82
5 A Brief Discussion of the Alternation of Ye and Dou in Lian-Phrases 86
5.1 A Brief Introduction to Lian, Ye and Additive Dou 89
5.2 Lack of Universal Force 91
5.3 A Brief Analysis of the Ye-Dou-Alternation in Lian-Phrases 93
5.4 Interim Conclusion & Open Question 94
6 Conclusions 96
References 99

Abusch, D. (2005). Triggering from Alternative Sets and Projection of Pragmatic Presuppositions. Ms. Cornell University
Alonso-Ovalle, Luis (2009). Counterfactuals, correlatives, and disjunction. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (2):207-244.
Bhatt, R., & Pancheva, R. (2006). Conditionals. In M. Everaert, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax Volume 1, chapter 16 (pp. 638–687). Blackwell Publishing.Bennett, Jonathan. (1982). “Even If.” Linguistics and Philosophy 5, no. 3: 403–18.
Chierchia, Gennaro. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. First edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On Wh-Movement. In Formal Syntax, ed. Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow and Adrian Akmajan. New York: Academic Press.
Collins, C. (1998) “A note on Extraction from Conditionals,” in N. AdisasmitoSmith and T. Doeleman, eds., Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 16, CLC, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 57–66.
Crnic, L. (2019). Any, alternatives, and pruning. Manuscript, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
von Fintel, Kai (1994). Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
von Fintel, Kai (2001). ‘Counterfactuals in a Dynamic Context’. In: M. Kenstowicz (ed.): Ken Hale. A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 123–153.
Fox, D. (2007). Free Choice and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures. In: Sauerland, U., Stateva, P. (eds) Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Fox, D. & Katzir, R. (2011). On the characterization of alternatives. Nat Lang Semantics 19, 87–107.
Fox, D. & Spector, B. (2018). Economy and embedded exhaustification. Nat Lang Semantics 26, 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9139-6
Fraser, Bruce. (1969). “An Analysis of Concessive Conditionals,” Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Volume 5, Number 1, April 1969, pp. 66-75(10)
Guerzoni, E. (2003). Why even ask?: on the pragmatics of questions and the semantics of answers.
Guerzoni, E. (2004). Even-NPIs in YES/NO Questions. Natural Language Semantics. 12. 319-343.
Guerzoni, E., & Lim, D. (2007). Even if, factivity and focus. Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung, 11, 276-290.
Heim, I. (1983). On the Projection Problem for Presuppositions. In P. Portner & B. H. Partee (eds.), Formal Semantics - the Essential Readings. Blackwell. pp. 249--260.
Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 487–535. Mouton de Gruyter
Hole, D. (2003). Focus and Background Marking in Mandarin Chinese: System and Theory behind cai, jiu, dou and ye (1st ed.). Routledge
Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Iatridou, S. (1991). Topics in Conditionals, Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Ippolito, M. (2007). On the meaning of some focus-sensitive particles. Nat Lang Semantics 15, 1–34.
Ippolito, M. & Su, J. (2014). Counterfactual, negation and polarity. In: Luka Crnic and Uli Sauerland (eds.), The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim, vol. 1, MITWPL 70, pp. 225–243
Ivlieva, Natalia. (2011). Obligatory Implicatures and Grammaticality. 381-390. 10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_39.
Kaufmann, M. & Kaufmann, S. (2015). “Conditionals and Modality.” The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 237–270.
Kratzer, A. (1991a) Conditionals, in von Stechow and Wunderlich (1991), pp. 651–656.
Lycan, William G. (1991). “‘Even’ and ‘Even If.’” Linguistics and Philosophy 14, no. 2: 115–50.
Lycan, William G. (2001). Real Conditionals. Oxford, England: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nicolae, Andreea C.. (2016). Simple disjunction PPIs: a case for obligatory epistemic inferences. Proceedings of NELS 46 (Vol. 3), 49-63.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. PhD dissertation at University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Sauerland, Uli. (2007) "Implicated Presuppositions". The Discourse Potential of Underspecified Structures, edited by Anita Steube, Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, pp. 581-600.
Singh, R. (2011). “Maximize Presupposition!” and local contexts. Natural Language Semantics, 19(2), 149–168. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43550285
Tellings, Jos. (2017). "Still" as an additive particle in conditionals. Semantics and Linguistic Theory. 27. 1-21.