What is the best way to explain the grammar of 吗 ?

[mirgcire]

I have never been comfortable using the phrase "Yes-no question"  to describe sentences that end with 吗 and I wonder if anyone else shares this opinion.  The main reason is that yes-no questions are seldom answered with anything as simple as "yes" or "no".  

 

I teach some beginning mandarin classes, and recently discovered another way to describe this grammar pattern that seems to be more clear.  How about "confirmation question"?  The structure of the 吗 question is always a statement, followed by the 吗 particle.  So, this nomenclature would be more clear to the students because it more accurately describes the pattern of both the question and the response.

 

It is also useful when introducing other question words, because saying "only confirmation questions end in 吗" is succinct and memorable.

 

Having used this terminology for the last two quarters, I have found that students have no trouble getting it.  Although that is hardly proof of the validity of a teaching method, I am hoping it adds a little credibility to my conjecture.

 

Possible reasons why one might favor "yes-no" include: "confirmation" might be too abstract for some learners, and "confirmation" might make it sound like the speaker always assumes that answer will be affirmative.

 

I would love to hear the perspective of others.  If there is positive response, maybe it would be worth changing the "Chinese Grammar Wiki" to use this proposed terminology. 

[Vildhjerp]

I honestly can't think of a better word to describe 吗 sentences. "Confirmation" is amazingly spot-on when it comes to their general functionality, but at the same time, I can't help but think that to somebody who just began studying Chinese, having them introduced as "yes-no questions" makes the concept and usage of 吗 much easier to grasp. Personally, I'm not sure how this change in terminology would have affected my own learning. Perhaps it's just the blunt simplicity and transparency of the name that helps it sink in so quickly.

 

I do, however, think it would be fine to eventually transition from the primal "yes-no" to a more expansive definition such as "confirmation". When you feel that your students have mastered the most basic usage of 吗 sentences (straightforward questions that call for nothing but a mere "yes" or "no"), introduce this secondary definition. When they begin practicing responding to 吗 sentences with more volume and explanation, they'll see that their initial idea of "yes-no" questions hasn't suddenly changed into this brand new concept, but rather expanded into a wider range of selection.

 

Of course, for us that understand 吗 in its entirety, "confirmation" makes more than complete sense. But to those unfamiliar with the particle, "yes-no" seems like the smoothest method in which to introduce its most fundamental operation. Then again, if your results in the classroom prove otherwise, maybe you really are on to something...

 

I must say, I admire your progressive thinking. I wish I had teachers that thought outside the textbook.

[Demonic_Duck]

Calling them "yes-no questions" is fundamentally incorrect, as there's no direct equivalent for "yes" or "no" in Chinese. The most straightforward answer is typically “[verb]” or “不/没[verb]”. I guess you could make the case that “嗯” and “不” are more straightforward, but they're not really grammatical (and “嗯” barely even counts as a word), so calling them "嗯-不 questions" would certainly not be right.

 

I like your idea of "confirmation questions", and I think it'd make the most sense to introduce them as "confirmation questions - the type of question that you might answer with a 'yes' or a 'no' in English". It's clear, it won't confuse students, and thereafter they can be referred to as "confirmation questions" without need for re-explaining.

[Lu]

Sounds very sensible to me. The only possible downside is that, according to my grammar book, 吗-questions are used more often when the speaker is expecting a negative reply, while 是不是/有没有-questions are used more often when the speaker is expecting confirmation. So in that sense, 'confirmation question' might be slightly misleading. But perhaps not enough to reject the word.

[Demonic_Duck]

I guess "confirmation questions" really should apply to the broader category that includes “吗” questions, “[main verb]不[main verb]” questions,  “是不是” questions, “对不对” questions etc. whereas more specific forms could simply be referred to by the form that they take.

[Shelley]

I don't think of it as anything but an indicator that the preceding sentence is a question. One of my teachers said to think of 吗 as a question mark.

 

IMHO there is no need to over complicate it with anymore info.

 

Yes/no questions are the 是不是 structures,  which to me are similar to the English - are you coming or not? - structure.

[Demonic_Duck]

@Shelley:

 

“你叫什么名字？”

“这是什么东西？”

“你去哪里？”

“这件多少钱？”

“今天是星期几？”

 

^ The above sentences are all questions, and all should be written with question marks, but none of them can be written with “吗”. The reason is because they aren't confirmation questions.

[Vildhjerp]

The most straightforward answer is typically “[verb]” or “不/没[verb]”.

In both Chinese and English, really.

 

你想去吃饭吗？   Do you want to go eat?

 

我想去吃饭。       Yes, I want to go eat.

 

我不想去吃饭。   No, I don't want to go eat.

 

@Demonic_Duck

 

With respect to answering 吗 questions with [verb] or not-[verb], there's no denying that English sets itself up the same exact way. But what English has that Chinese doesn't are two words that serve no other purpose but to answer yes-no questions. Seriously, that's all they do. You can't find one of those just laying around not answering some question. "Yes" is simply a quick indicator we throw onto the front of our responses to reveal that later in the sentence we are, in fact, going to [verb], and "no" is a quick indicator that reveals we are not going to [verb]. These two words are just shortcuts that allow us to express the information without repeating the question. In Chinese, the equivalent shortcut is the simple [verb] or 不/没[verb]. That's why I see a connection between the two; they are both each language's take on compacting information.

 

And I understand why you think 嗯 and 不 don't relate to "yes" and "no", because honestly, I feel the exact same way. Don't forget that 不 plays a vast amount of roles in the Chinese language, so if you look at the character by itself, the function of answering yes-no questions is only a small fraction of what this character is actually capable of. As for "no", that's all it knows how to do. "No" lives and breathes yes-no questions. 不 is not equivalent to "no" and it never will be. But once you take that 不 and attach a verb, then it's a whole different story.

 

To an English speaker with no Chinese knowledge whatsoever, I couldn't see a more appropriate connection to make.

 

Don't think of it as English : Chinese :: yes/no : [verb]/不[verb], like most textbooks suggest.

 

Instead, think of it as English : yes/no :: Chinese : [verb]/不[verb]. I'm sure you'll be able to find a more meaningful connection.

[Shelley]

I wasn't saying that 吗 was a question mark but to think of it as a question indicator. It is an interrogative particle.

 

3 question forms:

 

1) Sentences with interrogative words how many, how much, what etc. these are also "question words" so no need for 吗 but they do have a 么 which is also a interrogative particle.

 

2) You have the 是不是/有没有 format.

 

3) And you have the "statement" followed by 吗 which turns that statement into a question.

 

Pleco - 吗 / 么 question particle for yes-no questions

 

I just don't think the form of the question should be defined/described by the answer.

[Demonic_Duck]

“什么” and “怎么” are words in their own right, there's no need to deconstruct them into “什” or “怎” + “么” (yes, “吗” is sometimes replaced with “么” [ma], but that's just a character substitution, it doesn't imply that the function is the same). Also, “多少”、“几”、“哪里”、“谁” etc. don't contain this character.

 

I just don't think the form of the question should be defined/described by the answer.

I don't think calling them "confirmation questions" is defining them by the answer at all (more like defining them by the intention behind asking them). Calling them "yes-no questions", on the other hand, is.