1887
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8706
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Cheng and Huang (1996) argue that both unselective binding and E-type pronoun strategies are necessary for the interpretation of natural language sentences and claim that there exists a correspondence between two sentence types in Chinese and the two strategies, namely that the interpretation of the “wh … wh” construction (which they call “bare conditional”) employs the unselective binding strategy, while the ‘if’ and ‘all’ conditionals use the E-type pronoun strategy. They also suggest that there is a complementary distribution between bare conditionals and / conditionals in the sense that the latter allows all the NP forms, e.g. (empty) pronouns and definite NPs, except for wh-phrases in their consequent clauses, and can even have a consequent clause with no anaphoric NP in it, while the former permits only the same wh-phrase appearing in both the antecedent clause and the consequent clause. Although we agree with Cheng and Huang on the necessity of the two strategies in natural language interpretation, we see apparent exceptions to the correspondence between sentence types and interpretation strategies and the complementary distribution between wh-phrases and other NPs in bare conditionals and / conditionals. We think that the claimed correspondence and complementary distribution are the default or preferred patterns, or a special case of a more general picture, namely that (i) bare conditionals prefer the unselective binding strategy and the ‘if’ and ‘all’ conditionals, the E-type pronoun strategy; and (ii) wh-phrases are more suitable for being a bound variable, and pronouns are more suitable for being the E-type pronoun. This paper proposes a Bound Variable Hierarchy to help account for the distribution of wh-phrases and pronouns in Chinese conditionals and claims that any deviation from the preferred patterns will require additional contexts or accommodation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijchl.2.2.01pan
2015-12-30
2019-12-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aoun, J. , & Li, A
    (1990) Minimal Disjointness. Linguistics, 28, 189–203. doi: 10.1515/ling.1990.28.2.189
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1990.28.2.189 [Google Scholar]
  2. Cheng, L
    (1995) On dou-quantification. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 4, 197–234. doi: 10.1007/BF01731509
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01731509 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cheng, L. , & Huang, J
    (1996) Two types of Donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics, 4, 121–163. doi: 10.1007/BF00355411
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00355411 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chierchia, G
    (1992) Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 111–183. doi: 10.1007/BF00635805
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00635805 [Google Scholar]
  5. (1995) Dynamics of meaning: Anaphora, presupposition, and the theory of grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226104515.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226104515.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chomsky, N
    (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. de Swart, H
    (1991) Adverbs of quantification: A generalized quantifier approach. Ph.D thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. de Hoop, H. , & de Swart, H
    (1989) Over Indefiniete Objecten en te Relatie tussen Syntaxis en Semantiek. Glot, 12.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Evans, G
    (1980) Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 337–362.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Heim, I
    (1982) The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D thesis, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1990) E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 137–177. doi: 10.1007/BF00630732
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00630732 [Google Scholar]
  12. Huang, S.-Z
    (1996) Predication and quantification in Mandarin Chinese: A case study of Dou. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvannia.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Jiang, Y
    (2000) Hanyu tiaojian ju de weishi jieshi (On Counterfactual Interpretation of Chinese Conditionals). In M. Fang , B. Zhang , & G. Shi (Eds.), Yufa Yanjiu he Tansuo, 10. (Analyses and Explorations in [Chinese] Grammar), Vol. 10 (pp. 257–279). Beijing: Commercial Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jiang, Y. , Pan, H. , & Zou, C
    (1997) On the semantic content of noun phrases. In L.-J. XU (Ed.), The referential properties of Chinese noun phrases (pp.3–24). Paris: Ecole des Hautes Estudes en Sciences Sociales.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jiang, J.Z. , & Pan, H
    (2013) How many dou’s do we really need?Studies of the Chinese Language, (1), 38–53. Beijing: The Commercial Press
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kamp, H
    (1981) A theory of truth and discourse representation. In J. Groenendijk , T. Janssen , & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 277–322). Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kamp, H. , & Reyle, U
    (1993) From discourse to logic: Introduction to model-theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kratzer, A
    (1986) Conditionals. Chicago Linguistics Society, 22(2), 1–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Li, X
    (1997) Deriving distributivity in Mandarin Chinese. UCI dissertations in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lin, J.-W
    (1996) Polarity licensing and wh-phrase quantification in Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1998) Distrbutivity in Chinese and its implications. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 201–243. doi: 10.1023/A:1008299031574
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008299031574 [Google Scholar]
  22. Pan, H.-H. , & Jiang, Y
    (1997) NP interpretation and Chinese donkey sentences. In Proceedings of the workshop on interface strategies in Chinese: Syntax and semantics of noun phrases, Summer Institute of Linguistics of the Linguistic Society of America, Cornell University, July 12.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Pan, H
    (2006) Focus, tripartite structure and the semantic interpretation of Mandarin dou . InYufa yanjiu yu tansuo (13) (pp. 163–184). Beijing: The Commercial Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Roberts, C
    (1987) Modal subordination: Anaphora and distributivity. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Wang, Y. , & Jiang, Y
    (2011) Hanyu weishi yuyi de goucheng yinsu (The Ingredients of Chinese Counterfactuality). In Y. Jiang (Ed.), Zoujin Xingshi Yuyongxue (Approaching Formal Pragmatics) (pp.366–412). Shanghai Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Xu, L.-J. , & Shao, J.-M
    (1997) The resumptive pronoun in Shanghainese. Presented at the 1997 Annual Research Forum of the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong , December, University of Hong Kong.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Yu, X.L
    (1965) Yiwen daici de renzhi yongfa (On the “wh-ever” use of interrogative pronouns). Zhongguo Yuwen, 1, 30–35.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijchl.2.2.01pan
Loading
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