scholarly journals The semi-complementizer shuō and non-referential CPs in Mandarin Chinese

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 882
Author(s):  
Jiahui Huang

The empirical focus of this paper is the syntactic status of the semi-complementizer shuō grammaticalized from verbs of saying, in Mandarin Chinese. Such elements have been shown to exhibit atypical patterns compared to that in English, which triggers discussions of whether shuō should be analyzed as a complementizer (Paul, 2014; Huang, 2018). This paper presents novel data surrounding the distributional patterns of shuō and argues that shuō is a C head that introduces a subtype of CPs called non-referential CPs, following de Cuba (2017).

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-186
Author(s):  
Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng ◽  
C. -T. James Huang

Abstract In their article published in this journal, Pan and Jiang (2015) challenge the claims and proposals made in Cheng and Huang (1996) concerning both the distributional patterns and interpretive strategies for donkey anaphora in Mandarin conditional. They claim that all three types of conditionals (rúguǒ-, dōu- and bare conditionals) allow either a wh-phrase or a pronoun in the consequent clause, and that both the wh-phrase and the pronoun may be either unselectively bound or interpreted by the E-type strategy. We show that, except for an observation already mentioned and accommodated in Cheng and Huang’s (1996) analysis of rúguǒ-conditionals, their distributional claims are incorrect. It is also shown that the interpretative flexibility they propose is untenable, as it leaves a number of otherwise well-predicted properties unaccounted for.


2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Jenn-Yeu ◽  
Padraig G. O'seaghdha ◽  
Kuan-Hung Liu
Keyword(s):  

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenn-Yeu Chen ◽  
Padraig G. O'Seaghdha ◽  
Kuan-Hung Liu
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cook

Missing object complements are significant for the grammar and the lexicon. An explanation is called for of their syntactic status, the basis for their “recovery” or interpretation in discourse, constrictions on what type of objects may be missing, and their information-structure status in the context of object marking more generally. In this essay I present a taxonomy of missing complements in Biblical Hebrew from the perspective of information structure, focusing especially on the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic bases of their interpretation in the discourse. In an appendix I briefly explore the applicability of this taxonomy of missing objects to explain the interpretation of missing subjects in Biblical Hebrew discourse.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document