International Journal of Chinese Linguistics - Volume 8, Issue 2, 2021

Abstract

The “perfective” (Chinese term: wánzhěngtǐ) and the “perfect”(Chinese term: wánchéngtǐ) seem to be two different terms that are distinguished by definition. But in the description of actual languages, the boundary between them is not clear. The use of these two terms in many literatures is very arbitrary. This arbitrariness frequently causes confusion in typological studies in tense and aspect. This arbitrary use has a lot to do with the classification and definition of Comrie (1976). Based on a description of the perfective/imperfective distinction in Russian, this paper finds that perfective is sensitive to the inner boundaries of events, and perfect is sensitive to the relation between event time and reference time. Based on a description of the four aspectual markers (zhe, le, guo, and zai) in Mandarin Chinese, this paper finds that they respectively express three different event phases (inchoative, durative and terminative) in realization aspect. The present study shows that Mandarin is not a language sensitive to boundaries of events, but to phasal aspect. Phasal aspect also exists in Japanese.

Abstract

This paper aims to explain the development of “zhě” serving as a conditional marker mainly in Late Archaic Chinese and to show that the conditional marker “zhě” derives from the nominalizer “zhě”. The grammaticalization of “zhě” is at the level of pragmatic inference, which shows an interaction of nominalization, topicality, and conditionality. Nominalization directly makes the original clause lose its ability to confirm the factuality of the event, and the nominalized construction then is endowed with a generic meaning, which is in some way related to conditionals. Specifically, the contexts triggering this grammaticalization can be summarized as follows: Firstly, the construction “VP/clause + zhě” always occupies the topic position; secondly, VPs/clauses in that construction always represent a kind of non-factual event, which means that the semantic feature of the VPs/clauses is non-factual or unreal. Furthermore, there are two clues, namely modal auxiliary and negator, which can help identify the non-factual event.

Abstract

This article studies Chinese V-de sentences from the perspective of verb-copying constructions (VCC) and presents some more evidence in favor of the distinction between descriptive V-de constructions and resultative V-de constructions. VCC with descriptive V-de sentences (VCCD) and VCC with resultative V-de sentences (VCCR) are linearly described as [NP1+ V1+ NP2 + V2 + de +XP]. Five asymmetries, though not very sharp, have been observed between VCCD and VCCR: (a) the movement asymmetry of [V1+NP2], (b) the questioning asymmetry between weishenme ‘why’ and shenme ‘what’, (c) the definiteness asymmetry of NP2, (d) the repetition asymmetry of V1, and (e) the asymmetry of subject-oriented adverb guyi ‘intentionally’. To explain these differences, we assume that [V1+NP2] in VCCD is a constituent, acting as an internal topic. While similar analysis cannot be extended to VCCR. We propose instead that [NP1+V1+NP2] is a constituent in VCCR, projecting further into a complex NP and acting as a sentential subject. These structural differences can well explain the five asymmetries from the island effects, and the semantic and pragmatic constraints (on internal topics and subject-oriented adverbs). Meanwhile, based on the restriction of manner adverbial modification, the V2 in VCCD and VCCR is assumed to be externally merged at the morphological level via External Morphological Merger to satisfy the affixal properties of de. The copying of V1 as V2 is not driven syntactically, but morphologically. This morphosyntactic approach to VCCD and VCCR provides a new perspective to explore V-de sentences and VCC, which may shed light on the morphosyntactic studies of Mandarin Chinese from a crosslinguistic perspective.

Abstract

The position of the reason-asking ‘why’ has been under much discussion for the past few years. Although some have suggested that it is situated within the CP domain, its exact position varies depending on different proposals. Meanwhile, a noncanonical why-like ‘what’ has also attracted much attention. Some assume it to be merged to the top of a sentence while some assume it to be merged lower. In this study, new evidence is provided to show that in Chinese the reason-asking ‘why’ should be merged to the Int(errogative)P in the CP zone, confirming Rizzi’s (2001) and Tsai’s (2008) claims, whereas the why-like ‘what’ should be merged as low as in vP but target the topmost of a clause, supposedly ForceP, by covert movement.

摘要

本文分析了河南获嘉方言阳声韵所对应Z变韵形式的语音生成过程，笔者认为获嘉方言阳声韵基本韵母的早期形式在“加缀合音”、“合音变韵”、“韵尾变[-ŋ]”、“韵腹滋生介音[i]”、“音长趋普”、“单元音化”以及“主元音鼻化”规则的按顺序作用下就可以推导出合格的表层Z变韵形式。同时，本文对[-n]尾阳声韵基本韵母在Z变韵过程中发生的韵尾、韵腹主元音及韵头的变化情况分别进行了讨论。笔者认为Z变韵过程中，韵尾[-n]变韵尾[-ŋ]是后缀[u]在合音过程中被前一音节的韵尾鼻化后变音所致；韵腹主元音音质的变化则与Z变韵后期，咸山摄阳声韵所对应的Z变韵母走上与咸山摄阳声韵基本韵母一致的演变道路有关；而韵腹滋生介音[i]是[an]组和[en]组阳声韵基本韵母在合音变韵过程中分别混入[ai]组和[ei]组阴声韵进行演化的结果。通过对咸山摄阳声韵所对应Z变韵母的语音形式进行分析，本文进一步提出“变韵不一定由合音引起”的观点。

This article reviews Contrastive Studies of English and Chinese Phonology9787521322699