A+N constructions in Mandarin and the ‘compound vs. phrase’ debate

Abstract

Mandarin Chinese has three A+N constructions with distinct formal properties. One construction is clearly phrasal, one clearly constitutes a compound. The status of the third construction is controversial, being analysed either as a compound or as a phrase. Frequently drawing on data from Germanic A+N constructions for comparison, I show in this article that this issue is undecidable on the basis of the Mandarin data. On the other hand, I argue that the third construction cannot be collapsed with either of the other two constructions, regardless of whether it is analysed as a compound or a phrase.