1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Asian Languages and Linguistics
  4. Volume 3, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2665-9336
  • E-ISSN: 2665-9344
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper makes remarks on the syntactic status of Gapless Relative Clauses (GRCs) in Mandarin Chinese and shows that the arguments for their complement status are not supported by the facts in Mandarin Chinese, as almost all the arguments for the complement clause analysis of GRCs, as presented in Huang (2016), could be argued to be evidence for the relative clause (RC) analysis of GRCs. The following RC recoverability hierarchy, Argument RC > Adjunct RC > GRC, is proposed to explain the contrasts discussed in Huang (2016) and this paper, and the relevant facts and differences could be accounted for if one assumes that the RCs further to the right in the hierarchy above are more difficult to be recovered than the RCs further to the left in the above hierarchy and should thus occur closer to the head noun. This paper demonstrates that GRCs are really RCs licensed by a covert semantic variable, and suggests that the gapless requirement on complement clauses be replaced by the following two conditions: (a) no syntactic gap or semantic variable exists in the relevant clause that is related to the head noun in question and (b) a semantic condition, to be specified in this paper, is necessary on the relationship between the clause in question and the modified head noun.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/alal.21008.pan
2022-07-05
2024-09-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/alal.21008.pan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Chomsky, N.
    (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Furukawa, Y.
    (1989) The structure of “de_s” and its modifiable nouns, Language Teaching and Research, No.1, pp.10–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Hornstein, N. and D. Lightfoot
    (1981) Explanation in Linguistics: the Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Hu, J. H. and H. H. Pan
    (2009) Decomposing the aboutness condition for Chinese topic constructions, The Linguistic Review, 26(9), pp371–384, 10.1515/tlir.2009.014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2009.014 [Google Scholar]
  5. Huang, C. T. James
    (2016) The syntax and semantics of prenominals: construction or composition?Language and Linguistics, 17(4), 431–475.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Li, Qiang
    (2015) Hidden predicates, participant roles, and the structure of NP1 de NP2, Studies in Language and Linguistics, No.4, pp.9–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Lu, S. and H. H. Pan
    (2019) Revisiting the hidden predicate issue from the perspective of “NP de NP” noun phrase structures, Language Teaching and Research, No.3, pp.56–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Pan, H. H. and J. H. Hu
    (2003) Head noun movement, focus, and topicalization in Mandarin Chinese, In: Xu, Jie, Donghong Ji, and K. T. Lau (eds.) Chinese Syntax and Semantics, Singapore, August 2003, pp.119–156.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2008) A semantic–pragmatic interface account of (dangling) topics in Mandarin Chinese, Journal of Pragmatics, 40(11), 10 November 2008, pp1966–1981. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  10. Pan, H. H. and S. Lu
    (2013) The problems of the DeP analysis and its possible solution, Studies in Language and Linguistics33(3): 53–61, October 2013.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Prince, E.
    (1981) Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. InP. Cole, editor, Radical Pragmatics, pages223–56. Academic Press, New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Radford, A.
    (1988) Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 10.1017/CBO9780511840425
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840425 [Google Scholar]
  13. Shi, D. X.
    (2000) Topic and topic–comment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Language76 (2), 383–408. 10.1353/lan.2000.0070
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0070 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2011) Nouns and Nominal Structures. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Yang, C., Y. Yang
    (2013) The licensing conditions of English and Chinese relative structures. Linguistic Sciences, No.4, pp.357–370.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Yuan, Y. L.
    (1995) Hidden predicates and their syntactic effects, Studies of the Chinese Language, No.4, pp.241–255.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhu, D. X.
    (1983) Self-referring and reference shift: the syntax and semantics of Chinese nominalization markers “de, zhe, zhi, suo”, Dialects, No.1, pp.16–31.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/alal.21008.pan
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Chinese; complement clause; relative clauses; semantics; syntax

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error