1. Introduction

This article introduces the definition and function of additional questions, and points out that there are significant differences between English and Chinese in the positive/negative polarity of the final sentence of additional questions. The polarity of declarative clauses and interrogative clauses in English is relative, while the polarity of interrogative clauses in Chinese is not affected by declarative clauses. Existing syntactic research often uses English analytical approaches to handle Chinese, making it difficult to explain the differences between the two languages. This article will introduce the topic interaction relationship and explore the structural differences of English and Chinese additional questions, as well as their implications for the study of question answering structures. The article will analyze the structural characteristics of typical additional questions in English and Chinese, propose different structural analyses, and point out that English and Chinese have consistent questioning methods, but different questioning objects lead to differences in form.

2. Syntactic Differences in Typical Additional Questions between English and Chinese

Explored the syntactic differences between typical additional questions in English and Chinese languages. There is a clear dependency relationship between the interrogative clause and the declarative clause in terms of polarity, subject, and auxiliary verb. The polarity of the interrogative clause is opposite to that of the declarative clause, with the subject referring to the same and the auxiliary verb consistent. However, there is no formal attachment between the interrogative clause and the declarative clause in Chinese supplementary questions. The polarity, subject, and auxiliary verb of the interrogative clause are not directly related to the declarative clause, and are usually composed of response markers. This indicates that there are fundamental differences in syntactic structure between English and Chinese additional questions.

3. Research Review

Reviewed the syntactic analysis of additional question structures in English and Chinese. The early analysis of English attached questions used the copy method, but there were issues of form mismatch and polarity opposition. Sailor (2009) proposed that the interrogative clause is structurally independent of the declarative clause. The interrogative clause is a yes no question sentence that omits the verb phrase, and introduces VP ellipsis (VPE) to explain the consistency of auxiliary verbs and the appearance of extra do. The analysis of Chinese additional questions involves two approaches: VPE and empty pronoun anaphora. The relationship between interrogative clauses and declarative clauses is handled through CoP or TagP. Deng Siying (2016) distinguishes between the "yes" type and the "right, good, action" type interrogative clauses, with the former using omission analysis and the latter using anaphora analysis, both forming parallel phrases. Hsin (2016) and Chiu (2023) used empty pronoun anaphora analysis, with Chiu forming a CoP consisting of interrogative clauses and declarative clauses, and Hsin adding TagP projection. However, there are problems with the existing analysis: the omission analysis of Chinese "yes" type interrogative clauses is worth discussing, and there are significant differences between the omission structure and the "yes" type interrogative clauses; The final sentence of Chinese interrogative questions, whether using "yes" or "yes, good, or okay", is aimed at questioning the entire proposition and has no essential difference in form, so it is not appropriate to treat them differently; The existing analysis is difficult to simultaneously reflect the relationship between clauses in English and Chinese interrogative sentences. In English, CoP can be used, while in Chinese, the interrogative clause is aimed at the entire proposition and is not a simple parallel relationship, making it difficult to analyze using CoP; TagP seems to be suitable for Chinese, but when used in English, it requires more specialized rules and does not reveal the essence of seeking confirmation in interrogative clauses, making it impossible to generalize to other structures. In response to these issues, this article attempts to introduce a structural model of proposition interaction, reflecting the questioning function of Chinese interrogative clauses on the entire declarative clause, characterizing the structural relationship between interrogative clauses and declarative clauses, and fundamentally revealing the differences between English and Chinese additional interrogative clauses.

4. Propositional interaction and the structure of additional questions in English and Chinese

Explored the differences in structure and function between English and Chinese additional questions, and how they reflect propositional interaction through syntactic structure. The main function of an additional question is to seek confirmation, involving the interrogator's bias, the respondent's judgment, and the interaction between the two parties in the conversation. In recent years, research on syntactic pragmatic interfaces has focused on how to construct structural models to reflect the connections and interactions between internal and external components of propositions. Speas u0026 Tenny (2003) extended the sentence structure model to speech act phrases and cognitive domains, introducing conversation roles and contextual information. Wiltschko (2021) further proposed the "Interactive Ridge Hypothesis", which analyzes sentence edge components from the perspective of proposition interaction, and uses whether the proposition content overlaps with the speaker's background knowledge as the basis for judging whether the speaker confirms or agrees with the proposition. In terms of syntactic structure, she constructed a background layer and a response layer on top of the propositional structure, introduced the background knowledge of the speaker and listener, and connected them through the overlapping feature [coin] to reveal the interaction process between the two parties in the conversation.

5. Conclusion

A new syntactic structure analysis of English Chinese attached questions was proposed, which pointed out that English attached questions generate interrogative endings through verb omission, while Chinese attached questions adopt a propositional interactive structure. The structural differences between English and Chinese additional questions stem from the different questioning objects: when questioning the polarity of the proposition, verb omission is involved, and when questioning the relationship between propositions, response markers reflect the coincidence of propositions. This analysis helps to explain the structural similarities and differences between English and Chinese biased question and answer sentences.