Affiliation:
1. CRLAO, CNRS-EHESS-INALCO, 105, Bd Raspail, 75006 Paris
Abstract
Taking up an early observation by Y.-H. Audrey Li (1985) stating the systematic lack of Chinese equivalents for English small clauses (SC) with nominal predicates (They elected John president), this article demonstrates that Chinese lacks SCs altogether. This holds independently of the approach adopted, be it the analysis of SCs as lexical projections with different category labels (cf. Stowell 1981, Matushansky 2019) or the uniform analysis of SCs as PredP (cf. Bowers 1993). In Chinese, there is no root vs non-root asymmetry for predicates: If a category X is not licit as an autonomous predicate in matrix sentences, then it is not licit as predicate elsewhere, i.e. in non-root clauses, either. Furthermore, Chinese has no exceptional case marking verbs, i.e. verbs selecting SC-complements. Claims to the contrary in the literature are based on Chinese translations of English SCs and involve completely different structures. Given the lack of SCs in non-root contexts in Chinese, an analysis postulating SCs for non-verbal predication in matrix sentences does not seem to be warranted.
Publisher
Open Library of the Humanities
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics
Reference94 articles.
1. Lexical Categories
2. Balazs, Julie Elizabeth. 2012. The syntax of small clauses. MA Thesis, Cornell University. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/31215. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511615047
3. Basciano, Bianca. 2010. Verbal compounding and causativity in Mandarin Chinese. Verona: Unversità degli Studi di Verona dissertation. https://iris.unive.it/handle/10278/39707#.YBrjjvnjLcs.
4. Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 591–656. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178835.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献