1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language and Linguistics
  4. Volume 26, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 26, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Mandarin ordinal phrases demonstrate an ambiguity between a definite reading and an indefinite quantity reading, first observed by Tsai (2011). However, contra Tsai (2011)’s lexical-ambiguity view, this paper presents a compositionally unified semantic analysis of the ambiguity of Mandarin ordinal phrases. Specifically, the ambiguity of Mandarin ordinals under discussion is derived from the semantic application of type-shifting rules and the pragmatic restriction on the domain of the ordinal morpheme (which is reminiscent of the in-situ approach to the ambiguity of superlatives), coupled with the semantic requirements of ; therefore, a unified semantics of the ordinal morpheme is maintained under either reading. Furthermore, this paper suggests two important felicity conditions in general on the use of an ordinal phrase in discourse. Besides theoretical contributions, this paper also presents empirical discoveries showing that some generalizations in Tsai (2011) are not entirely correct. For instance, it is false that all ordinal phrases in Mandarin Chinese denote a singular entity (contra Tsai 2011). Instead, the semantics of classifiers matters for the denotation of an ordinal phrase: a Mandarin ordinal phrase denote a plural entity when a group classifier is used. Furthermore, the presence of measure classifiers or certain predicates such as ‘give birth’ is not a reliable diagnostic for teasing apart the two readings; the role of contexts and world knowledge in determining the (un)availability of a given reading is identified and discussed. Finally, this paper illustrates how the proposed analysis explains three puzzling properties of Mandarin ordinal phrases: (a) why the indefinite quantity reading is missing in the subject position; (b) why the indefinite quantity reading is missing when the experiential aspect marker occurs; and (c) why an ordinal phrase with canonical sortal classifiers has to denote a singular entity.

© ILAS
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00198.che
2025-02-14
2026-07-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lali.00198.che
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lali.00198.che.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00198.che&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ahn, Dorothy
    2022 Indirectly direct: An account of demonstratives and pointing. Linguistics and Philosophy45(6). 1345–1393. 10.1007/s10988‑022‑09350‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-022-09350-5 [Google Scholar]
  2. Buccola, Brian & Spector, Benjamin
    2016 Modified numerals and maximality. Linguistics and Philosophy39(3). 151–199. 10.1007/s10988‑016‑9187‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9187-2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bylinina, Lisa & Nouwen, Rick
    2018 On “zero” and semantic plurality. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics3(1). 1–23. (Article 98.) 10.5334/gjgl.441
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.441 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bylinina, Lisa & Ivlieva, Natalia & Podobryaev, Alexander & Sudo, Yasutada
    2015 A non-superlative semantics for ordinals and the syntax and semantics of comparison classes. (Manuscript.)
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chao, Yuen Ren
    1968 A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chierchia, Gennaro
    1998 Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics6(4). 339–405. 10.1023/A:1008324218506
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008324218506 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2010 Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese174(1). 99–149. 10.1007/s11229‑009‑9686‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9686-6 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2015 How universal is the mass/count distinction? Three grammars of counting. InLi, Yen-hui Audrey & Simpson, Andrew & Tsai, Wei-Tian Dylan (eds.), Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective, 147–176. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Dayal, Veneeta
    2004 Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy27(4). 393–450. 10.1023/B:LING.0000024420.80324.67
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000024420.80324.67 [Google Scholar]
  10. Farkas, Donka F. & Kiss, Katalin É.
    2000 On the comparative and absolute readings of superlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory18(3). 417–455. 10.1023/A:1006431429816
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006431429816 [Google Scholar]
  11. Filip, Hana & Sutton, Peter R.
    2017 Singular count NPs in measure constructions. InBurgdorf, Dan & Collard, Jacob & Maspong, Sireemas & Stefánsdóttir, Brynhildur (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 27), 340–357. Ithaca: Cornell University. 10.3765/salt.v27i0.4277
     https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v27i0.4277 [Google Scholar]
  12. Greenberg, Yael
    2016 A novel problem for the likelihood-based semantics of even. Semantics and Pragmatics91. 1–28. (Article 2.) 10.3765/sp.9.2
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.2 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2018 A revised, gradability-based semantics for even. Natural Language Semantics26(1). 51–83. 10.1007/s11050‑017‑9140‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-017-9140-0 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hackl, Martin
    2001 Comparative quantifiers. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Heim, Irene
    1982 The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts at Amherst. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 1985 Notes on comparatives and related matters. Austin: University of Texas at Austin. (Manuscript.)
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 1999 Notes on superlatives. Cambridge: MIT. (Manuscript.)
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
    1998 Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Herdan, Simona
    2008 Degrees and amounts in relative clauses. Storrs: University of Connecticut. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Huang, C.-T. James
    1982 Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: MIT. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang, C.-T. James & Li, Yen-hui Audrey & Li, Yafei
    2009 The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166935
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166935 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jackson, Brendan Balcerak & Penka, Doris
    2017 Number word constructions, degree semantics and the metaphysics of degrees. Linguistics and Philosophy40(4). 347–372. 10.1007/s10988‑017‑9213‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-017-9213-z [Google Scholar]
  23. Jenks, Peter
    2018 Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry49(3). 501–536. 10.1162/ling_a_00280
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00280 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jenks, Peter & Konate, Rassidatou
    2022 Indexed definiteness. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics7(1). 1–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Karttunen, Lauri
    1976 Discourse referents. InMcCawley, James D. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, volume 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, 363–385. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368859_021
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368859_021 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kennedy, Christopher
    2015 A “de-Fregean” semantics (and neo-Gricean pragmatics) for modified and unmodified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics81. 1–44. (Article 10.) 10.3765/sp.8.10
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.10 [Google Scholar]
  27. Krifka, Manfred
    1995 Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of Chinese and English. InCarlson, Gregory N. & Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (eds.), The generic book, 398–411. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.
    1981 Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520352858
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520352858 [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, Yen-hui Audrey
    1998 Argument determiner phrases and number phrases. Linguistic Inquiry29(4). 693–702. 10.1162/ling.1998.29.4.693
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.1998.29.4.693 [Google Scholar]
  30. Liao, Wei-wen Roger
    2011 The symmetry of syntactic relations. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2018 Bare numeral phrases in Mandarin and the minimalist mapping hypothesis. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics5(1). 33–58. 10.1075/ijchl.17002.wen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.17002.wen [Google Scholar]
  32. Lin, Jo-wang
    2006 Time in a language without tense: The case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics23(1). 1–53. 10.1093/jos/ffh033
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffh033 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2007 Predicate restriction, discontinuity property and the meaning of the perfective marker Guo in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics16(3). 237–257. 10.1007/s10831‑007‑9013‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-007-9013-5 [Google Scholar]
  34. Nouwen, Rick
    2010 Two kinds of modified numerals. Semantics and Pragmatics31. 1–41. (Article 3.) 10.3765/sp.3.3
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3.3 [Google Scholar]
  35. Partee, Barbara H.
    1987 Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. InGroenendijk, Jeroen & de Jongh, Dick & Stokhof, Martin (eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783112420027‑006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112420027-006 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rett, Jessica
    2014 The polysemy of measurement. Lingua1431. 242–266. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2018 The semantics of many, much, few, and little. Language and Linguistics Compass12(1). 1–18. (e12269.) 10.1111/lnc3.12269
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12269 [Google Scholar]
  38. Sağ, Yağmur
    2019 The semantics of number marking: Reference to kinds, counting, and optional classifiers. New Brunswick: Rutgers University. (Doctoral dissertation.) 10.7282/t3‑7dny‑mz84
     https://doi.org/10.7282/t3-7dny-mz84 [Google Scholar]
  39. Scontras, Gregory Charles
    2014 The semantics of measurement. Cambridge: Harvard University. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Sharvit, Yael & Stateva, Penka
    2002 Superlative expressions, context, and focus. Linguistics and Philosophy25(4). 453–504. 10.1023/A:1020875809794
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020875809794 [Google Scholar]
  41. Solt, Stephanie
    2015 Q-adjectives and the semantics of quantity. Journal of Semantics32(2). 221–273. 10.1093/jos/fft018
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft018 [Google Scholar]
  42. Szabolcsi, Anna
    1986 Comparative superlatives. InFukui, Naoki & Rapoport, Tova R. & Sagey, Elizabeth (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, volume 8: Papers in theoretical linguistics, 245–265. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Tomaszewicz, Barbara Maria
    2015 Superlative ambiguities: A comparative perspective. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. (Doctoral dissertation.)
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Tsai, Cheng-Yu Edwin
    2021 Exhaustivity and bare numeral phrases in Mandarin. Language and Linguistics22(1). 111–165. 10.1075/lali.00079.tsa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00079.tsa [Google Scholar]
  45. Tsai, Hui-Chin
    2011 On Chinese ordinal constructions. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics9(1). 89–122. 10.6519/TJL.2011.9(1).3
     https://doi.org/10.6519/TJL.2011.9(1).3 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan
    2001 On subject specificity and theory of syntax-semantics interface. Journal of East Asian Linguistics10(2). 129–168. 10.1023/A:1008321327978
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008321327978 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wilson, E. Cameron
    2021 The most, the fewest and the least: On the relative readings of quantity superlatives. Semantics and Pragmatics141. 1–51. (Article 9.) 10.3765/sp.14.9
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.14.9 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wu, Jiun-Shiung
    2008 Terminability, wholeness and semantics of experiential guo. Journal of East Asian Linguistics17(1). 1–32. 10.1007/s10831‑007‑9018‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-007-9018-0 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wu, Yicheng & Li, Xuping
    2021 On indefinite subjects in Mandarin: A semantic account. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics8(1). 1–34. 10.1075/ijchl.00011.wu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.00011.wu [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00198.che
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): degree semantics; numerals; ordering relation; ordinals; superlatives

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