1887
Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8706
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Quantifier phrases (QP) can co-occur in a single sentence, which may cause ambiguity in terms of scope relation, viz. wide scope and narrow scope interpretations. Aoun & Li (1993) claim that quantifier scope ambiguity also exists in Chinese passive construction, such as ‘a woman was scolded by everyone’. Following Lee (1986)’s proposal, it is argued in this paper that the scopal relations of Chinese QPs are not purely syntactic as in Aoun & Li’s analysis, but should be determined by the interaction between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Based on naturalistic data, it is shown that (i) Chinese QPs can be classified into whQP, distributive-universal QP and group-denoting QP, whose semantic properties determine the scope relations between them; (ii) in general, a QP is devoid of referentiality, yet it can acquire referentiality depending on its co-occurrence with other QPs or contextual factors; (iii) the subject definiteness constraint in Chinese, a language-specific constraint, would affect the interpretation of subject QPs in Chinese passive construction.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijchl.19010.yan
2020-06-30
2020-11-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aoun, J.
    (1985) A Grammar of Anaphora. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aoun, J. & Y.-H. A. Li
    (1993) Syntax of Scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaver, D., Francez, I. & Levinso, D.
    (2005) Bad subject: (Non-)canonicality and NP distribution in existentials. InE. Georgala & J. Howell (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory15 (pp.19–43). Ithaca: Cornell University.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beghelli, F. & Stowell, T.
    (1994) The direction of quantifier movement. GLOW Newsletter (32):56–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (1997) Distributivity and negation: the syntax of each and every. InA. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of Scope Taking (pp.71–108). Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5814‑5_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_3 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bentley, D.
    (2013) Subject canonicality and definiteness effects in Romance there-sentences. Language, 89(4): 675–712. 10.1353/lan.2013.0062
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0062 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cann, R., & Wu, Y.
    (2011) The Bei construction in Chinese. InR. Kempson, E. Gregoromichelaki & C. Howes (Eds.), The Dynamics of Lexical Interfaces (pp.339–380). Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chao, Y.-R.
    (1968) A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chappell, H.
    (1986) Formal and colloquial adversity passives in standard Chinese. Linguistics (24), 1025–1052.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Givón, T.
    (1978) Definiteness and Referentiality, InJ. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4 (pp.291–330). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gundel, J.
    (1988) Universals of topic-comment structure. InM. Hammond., E. A. Moravcsik., & J. Wirth. (Eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology (pp.209–249). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.17.16gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.17.16gun [Google Scholar]
  12. Heim, I.
    (1982) The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts.
  13. Hellan, L.
    (1981) On semantic scope. InF. Heny (Ed.), Ambiguities in Intensional Contexts. Reidel, Dordrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Huang, C. -T. J.
    (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. diss., MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Huang, J. C.-T., Li, A. Y.-H., & Li, Y.
    (2009) The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166935
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166935 [Google Scholar]
  16. Huang, J. C-T., & Liu, N.
    (2014) Xinxing Feidianxing Beidongshi “Bei XX” de Jufa yu Yuyi Jiegou (The syntax and semantics of the new non-canonical bei XX construction). Yuyan Kexue (Linguistic Sciences) (5): 225–241.
  17. Keenan, E. L.
    (2003) The definiteness effect: Semantics or pragmatics?Natural Language Semantics, 11(2): 187–216. 10.1023/A:1024400425028
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024400425028 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kinyalolo, K.
    (1990) Syntactic Dependencies and the Spec-Head Agreement Hypothesis in KiLega. Ph.D. diss, University of California, Los Angeles.
  19. Klaiman, M. H.
    (2011) Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee, T. H.
    (1986) Studies on Quantification in Chinese. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
  21. Lee, T. H., Yip, V., & Wang, C.
    (1999) Rethinking isomorphism as a scope principle for Chinese and English. Proceedings of the Tenth North American Chinese Linguistics Conference (pp.169–186). University of Southern California.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1976) Subject and topic: A new typology of language. InC. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp.457–498). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Löbner, S.
    (1985) Definites. Journal of Semantics4: 279–326. 10.1093/jos/4.4.279
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/4.4.279 [Google Scholar]
  25. May, R.
    (1977) The Grammar of Quantification. Ph. D. diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
  26. (1985) Logical Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Prince, E. F.
    (1992) The ZPG letter: subjects, definiteness, and information status. InS. A. Thompson and W. C. Mann (Eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund Raising (pp.295–325). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.16.12pri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.16.12pri [Google Scholar]
  28. Roberts, C.
    (2003) Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy26: 287–350. 10.1023/A:1024157132393
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024157132393 [Google Scholar]
  29. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1986/1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Strawson, P.
    (1964) Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria30: 96–118. 10.1111/j.1755‑2567.1964.tb00404.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1964.tb00404.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Szabolcsi, A.
    (1994) Quantifiers in pair-list readings and the non-uniformity of quantification. InP. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), (pp.646–664). Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1997) Strategies for scope taking. InA. Szabolcsi. (Ed.), (pp.109–154). Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5814‑5_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5814-5_4 [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, L.
    (1989/2006) Hanyu Yufashi (History of Chinese Grammar). Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
  34. Wu, Yaqing
    (2000) Yinghanyu liangci xiayu de qiyi yanjiu zongshu (Review of the ambiguity of classifiers’ scope in English and Chinese). Dangdai Yuyanxue (Contemporary Linguistics) 2: 168–182.
  35. Wu, Yicheng
    (2011) Towards a dynamic typology of passives. InR. Kempson., E. Gregoromichelaki & C. Howes (Eds.), (pp.131–162). The Dynamics of Lexical Interfaces. Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Wu, Y.
    (2013) On the so-called unbounded passives. Journal of Chinese Linguistics41: 65–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Xu, L., & Lee, T. H.
    (1989) Scope ambiguity and disambiguity in Chinese. InC. Wiltshire., R. Graczyk & B. Music (Eds.), (pp.451–466). CLS25. Chicago: CLS.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Yang, X., & Wang, T.
    (2019) Guanlian Shiyuxia de “Bei XX” Jiegou (A relevance-theoretic account of “Bei-XX” construction). Waiguo Yuwen (Foreign Language and Literature) 35(3): 103–110.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijchl.19010.yan
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): passive construction , quantifier phrase , scope ambiguity and subject definiteness
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