University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The syntax of focus and topic in Mandarin Chinese

(USC Thesis Other)

The syntax of focus and topic in Mandarin Chinese

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI film s the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be fi’ om aity type of conçuter printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afiect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for aity photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, fvll 48106-1346 USA 313.-761-4700 800.'521-0600 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE SYNTAX OF FOCUS AND TOPIC IN MANDARIN CHINESE by Shu-ing Shyu A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERIM CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Linguistics) August 1995 Copyright 1995 Shu-ing Shyu R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UMI Number: 9614068 UMI Microform 9614068 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, M l 48103 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089 This dissertation, written by S h u - i n g S h y u under the direction of ..... Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re quirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dean D ate.... DISSERTATION COM M ITTEE Chairperson R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS I am glad to come to this stage to express my gratitude. First I want to thank my com m ittee chair Yen-Hui Audrey Li, who has been very encouraging and supportive both academically and personally. She is willing to spend time listening to my ideas, helping me develop them, and giving me detailed com m ents on the every draft of this thesis. I am very fortunate to be advised by her. The influence of her ideas can be seen in this dissertation. I, also, would like to thank Joseph Aoun. He is a remarkable teacher and he has enlightened my linguistic study. It is also very inspiring whenever I had appointments with him. I owe much to my outside member George Hyden, who was very helpful with reading my drafts and giving me detailed comments. I wonder how many packs of cigarettes he has smoked while reading my very rough drafts. He is so knowledgeable about classical Chinese. I did not notice until he told me that the lian..dou/ye structure can be traced back to Jin Ping M ei in the Ming Dynasty (the 17th century), and its equivalent lexical forms occurred even earlier in Zi Zhi Tong Jian in the Tang Dynasty. I am also indebted to my other two guidance committee members, Hajime Hoji and Barry Schein. Hajime has been very patient and willing to spend time discussing with me and helping clarify my points. I have benefited a lot from the discussions with him especially with regard to the comparisons between Japanese and Chinese. I also thank Barry for his insights and suggestions, which opened doors for my exploration toward new areas of Chinese. I’d like to thank Jean-Roger Vergnaud and M aria-Luisa Zubizzareta. The classes they offered, both in general and Romance linguistics, have greatly inspired R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. me to investigate Chinese linguistics. The starting point of this thesis originated from their seminar on focus. I also owe much to Yuki Kuroda. I have learned a lot from his extensive works as well as his seminar class at USC in Spring 1995. There are a number of past and present fellow students here who I would like to acknowledge for their support, friendship and their consistent willingness to discuss syntax. I cannot forget my friendship with Miao-Ling Hsieh, and the happy days and the ordeals that we have gone through together both in Hawai’i and in L.A. I am also grateful for the encouragement from my fellow senior students at USC: Sylvia Sheng-Yun Chen, Dong-In Cho, Daeho Chung, Liliana Sanchez, Patricia Schneider-Zioga, Tim Dingxu Shi, Virginia Yip, and Ke Zou. I also thank my fellow Chinese students for their discussion with me about linguistic data: Chih-Ping Chang, I-Chun Huang, Hui-Ju Li, Bingfu Lu, Xiu-Zhi W u, and Emily Xiao Yu. I am very fortunate to know the Japanese fellow students: Hiroshi Aoyagi, Yuki M asuta, Keiko Miyagawa, Shin Watanabe, and Maki W atanabe. They have been very generous, patient and willing to teach me Japanese: both the language and linguistics. I also thank Nancy Antrim for proofreading my draft. I would like to acknowledge the following fellow students for their academic support: Pablo Albizu, Jose Cam acho, Lina Choueiri, Abdesslam Elomari, Elena Herburger, Roland Hinterholzl, Charles Kim, Karine Megerdoomian, and Hong-Keun Park. I am grateful for James C.-T. Huang and M arie-Claude Paris for their comments on my study and discussions with me. I also thank Lisa Cheng for letting me present an early draft of my thesis in the East Asian W orkshop at the University of California at Iiwine in 1994. I thank Audrey Li and Peter Nosco in the Departm ent of East Asian Languages and Culture for offering me a teaching assistantship during these four III R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. years al USC. Our secretary Hazel Bates in EALC is so kind and makes my working there so enjoyable. I am indebted to the administrative staff in the linguistics department: Linda Culver, Laura Reiter, Kathy Stubaus, and Don Bui. They are very conscientious and efficient. I want to thank Evelyn Hatch, Marianne Celce-Murcia, Earl Rand, and Janet Goodwin for their assistance during my m aster’s study in Teaching English as a Second Language at the University of California, Los Angeles. I also cannot forget the first GB syntax course that I took from Hilda Koopman at UCLA where I was attracted by her lectures on formal linguistics. I’d like to thank the professors at the University of Hawai’i: Byron Bender, Robert Cheng, George Grace, Hsin-I Hsieh, Richard Jacobs, A. V. Lyovin, and Stanley Starosta. Their kind assistance made my one-year in H aw ai’i very enjoyable. I am indebted to Professor Heng-Hsiung Jeng at the National Taiwan University for introducing me to linguistics and supporting me as a research assistant the year after I graduated from college. I would like to thank my friends for their help when I was at the University of Haw ai’i: Sharon Fanh, Rong-Rong Kao, Samuel Leung, and Cathy Sin-Ping W ong. I also benefitted a lot from discussions with Jo-W ang Lin and Jen Ting on the net. They were very generous to spend time corresponding with me. Finally, I thank God for His grace and the brothers and sisters in our church for their prayers for me. Last but not the least, my deepest gratitude goes to my family and my husband’s family for their unfailing love and support: to my parents for bringing me up, and to my father and mother-in-law for their love, to my sister and brother-in-law, to my brother and sister-in-law, to my newphews and my lovely IV R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. nieces, to my two sisters-in-law for their constant prayers, and to my husband Ing- Jer, who has been patient and supportive. I know I have gained much more than a Ph.D. degree. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION........................................................................... 1 1.1. Theoretical Assumptions........................................................................... 1 1.2. Focus D evices.............................................................................................3 1.3. Outline of the Thesis.................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER TWO: THE L1AN...D0U/YE CONSTRUCTION............................... 7 2.0. Introduction................................................................................................. 7 2.1. The Generalization of Lian...Dou/Ye.......................................................10 2.1.1. The Categories of the Phrases Following Lian................ 12 2.1.1.1. NPs and V P s ............................................................ 12 2.1.1.2. C om plem entation................................................16 2.1.1.3. BA-NPs and B E l-N Ps?..........................................21 2.1.1.4. Descriptive and Resultative Expressions?........... 23 2.1.2. The Categorial Status of L ia n ................................................. 25 2.1.2.1. Lian is not a Preposition.................................. 26 2.1.2.2. Lian Does Not Head a Functional Projection.................................................................................. 29 2.1.2.3. Focalizer?.................................................................. 30 2.1.2.4. Syntactic Adjective or A dverb............................... 32 2.1.3. Dou as a Predicate Q uantifier..........................................33 2.1.4. The Interpretation of Lian...D ou.....................................37 2.1.4.1. Lian-NPs and Universal Quantificational N P s.............................................................................................38 2.1.4.2. Are There Two Different D ous?............................ 43 2.1.4.3. Lian + Indefinite NP = A ny.............................48 2.2. Strict Preverbal Position as a Focus Position.........................................52 2.2.1. The A nalysis..............................................................................52 2.2.1.1. Epistemic and Deontic M odals.........................56 2.2.2. The Distribution of the Lian-Phrase in the Spec of F P ......................................................... , . ................................................58 2.2.2.1. M o d als............... .'.............. 58 2 .2 .2 .2 . N eg atio n ............................................................... 59 2.2.2.3. A dverbs..................................................................... 60 2 .2 .2 .4 . P P s......................................................................... 62 2.3. Sum mary......................................................................................................63 CHAPTER THREE: FOCALIZATION AS SYNTACTIC MOVEM ENT 64 3.0. Introduction................................................................................................. 64 3.1. Focalization: Syntactic Movement to the Strict Preverbal Focus Position.................................................................................................... 66 3.1.1. Obeying Locality Conditions...................................................69 3.1.2. Movement in Double Object Constioiction............................ 73 3.1.3. Idiom Chunks.............................................................................76 VI R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3.1.4. Clause-Boundedness................................................................. 79 3.1.5. No R econstruction E ffects...............................................82 3.1.6. Remedy of W eak Crossover E ffects......................................84 3.2. Focalization vs. Topic/Major Subject Structure.................................... 86 3.2.1. “Aboutness” R elation................................................................88 3.2.2. No Resumptive Pronoun in Focalization Stincture............90 3.2.2.1. In Simplex C lauses..................................................90 3.2.2.2. In Complex C lau ses................................................ 93 3.2.3. Reconstruction E ffects............................................................. 96 3.2.4. W eak Crossover Effects?..........................................................98 3.3. Focalized Objects and Preposed O bjects.................................................100 3.3.1. Comparison between Focalized and Preposed O bjects...................................................................................................... 101 3.3.1.1. Similar D istribution...................................................101 3.3.1.2. Object Preposing as A-M ovem ent.....................104 3.3.1.3. Semantic Restrictions on Preposed O bjects................................... 107 3.3.2. Object Preposing or Double Topicalization?.................... 110 3.4. Previous Analyses of Object Preposing...................................................118 3.4.1. Ernst and W ang’s and Fu’s A nalyses.....................................118 3.4.2. Q u’s A nalysis..............................................................................121 3.5. Sum m ary........................................................................................................123 CHAPTER FOUR: SENTENCE INITIAL LIAN-PHRASES AND TO PIC S...............................................................................................................................125 4.0. Introduction................................................................................................... 125 4.1. Moved (Lian-)Topic....................................................................................127 4.1.1. M ovement Structure................................................................... 127 4.1.2. Complex C lauses........................................................................130 4.1.3. W C O ............................................................................................. 134 4.1.4. Simplex C lauses......................................................................... 135 4.2. Non-M oved S-In.dal (L ian-)N Ps............................................................. 138 4.2.1. Simplex C lauses......................................................................... 138 4.2.2. Complex C lauses........................................................................142 4.2.3. B ase-G eneration S tructure................................................ 145 4.2.4. Sum m ary and D iscussion................................................. 148 4.3. Topic, M ajor Subject and Syntactic S ubject...........................................150 4.3.1. Subject vs. T opic........................................................................151 4.3.1.1. Chinese Num eral Subject N P........................... 152 4.3.1.2. Japanese NP-ga and N P -w a................................... 156 4.3.1.3. Categorical and Thetic Judgm ent............................159 4.3.2. M ajor Subject and Topic .'.................................................164 4.3.2.1. Double N om inative...................................................164 4.3.2.2. The So-called Base-Generated “Topic” .............176 4.3.3. Identification of the Empty Category and Pseudo- Resumptive Pronoun..............................................................................182 4.3.3.1. Topicalization as a Movement D erivation............ 183 4.3.3.2. Base-Generated M ajor Subject and S- In itial (lian) N P .................................................................. 185 VII R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4.3.4. Does Chinese Have Resumption Pronouns?......................196 4.4. Summary and Discussion....................................................................... 200 4.4.1. Base-Generated Major Subject vs. English IP- adjoined T o p ic ..................................................................................202 4.4.2. Scope of W h-InteiTogative...................................................... 204 CHAPTER FIVE: RELATED ISSUES........................................................................ 208 5.1. Focalization, Topicalization vs. Scram bling.......................................... 208 5.2. Focus Issues................................................................................................ 218 5.2.1. Association with Focus............................................................ 218 5.2.2. F ocus S cope........................................................................223 5.2.3. Focus Adverbs........................................................................... 228 5.2.4. Focus M ovem ent.......................................................................231 5.3. Concluding R em arks................................................................................. 235 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................236 Vlll R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. LIST OF TABLES T ab le 3-1:..................................................................................................................87 T ab le 4-1:.................................................................................................................. 155 T ab le 4 -II:.................................................................................................................158 T ab le 4 -III:.............................................................................................................. 201 T ab le 5-1:..................................................................................................................209 IX R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ABSTRACT This dissertation investigates topic and focus constructions in M andarin Chinese with particular emphasis on understanding their structural representations. Structural focus involving overt focus movement is manifested in lian...dou/ye ‘even...all/also’ and object dislocation constructions in Chinese. Chapter two first provides detailed discussion of the categorial status of lian, dou/ye and focused constituents that admit movement, the interpretation of lian...dou/ye sentences, and Chinese clausal structure. I propose a post-subject, strict preverbal focus projection, which is structurally distinct from topic. Post-verbal elem ents undergo focus m ovem ent to the strict preverbal focus projection, called (lian-) fo ca liza tio n . Focalization is triggered by formal [+Focus] feature checking in Spec-Head configuration, adopting Chomsky (1993; 1995). Chapter three presents movement diagnoses and a unified account for both lian..dou/ye and object preposing cases. The Chinese cleft construction with shi ‘be’ behaves like other focus adverbs or operators, in contrast to the cleft focus movement attested in English and Hungarian (Culicover (1993), Horvath (1986), Kiss (1994), etc.). Focus and topic are grammatical distinguished with respect to the strict post subject and preverbal position. Nevertheless, a focus constituent can occur in sentence-initial position. In chapter four I propose that the focus constituent can either be topicalized to be contrastively interpreted or base-generated sentence-initially to denote whole sentence focus scope. Consequently, the traditionally assumed discourse distinction of “new” and “old” information in focus and topic cannot R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. adequately account for the Chinese facts in this regard. Namely, a focus can be topicalized. Thus, a merged grammatical representation for both topic and “focused topic” is called for. I argue that Chinese does display movement of topicalization. The genuinely moved topic moves to the Topic? Spec position in root contexts. The topicalized sentence represents predicational judgment, in the sense of Kuroda (1965; 1972; 1992). Moreover, I argue for a base-generated IP-adjoined m ajor subject position for the so-called base-generated “topic” with or without a gap. The base- generation structure also hinges on the presence of major subject in Chinese, on a par with that in Japanese. Hence, the proposed structure provides a unified account for the long-standing debate of (non-) movement of topic sU'ucture, and the identification of empty categories and overt pronominal copies. Chapter five discusses related issues of scrambling and focus scope. Chinese movement structures do not correspond to Japanese scrambling. Evgu-focus scope is represented in the overt syntax in Chinese but at LF in English (e.g. Karttunen and Peters (1979) and Rooth (1985)). XI R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION The distinction between focus and topic is often grounded in the discourse notions of new and old information, or the dichotomy o f rhem e and theme. This dissertation, however, argues that focus and topic can be grammatically represented. By investigating Chinese Uan...dou/ye ‘even...all/also’ construction and inverted word order, I will address the following research questions. (i) W hat is the gram m atical representation of bare object preposing to post subject/preverbal position? How can the study of this structural focus throw light on Chinese clausal structure? (ii) Can focus position be structurally distinguished from topic? (ii) In what circumstances do focus and topic overlap? W hat is topic stnacture? (iv) W hat are the movement diagnoses attested in Chinese? (v) Does Chinese have “major subject” like Japanese? 1.1. Theoretical Assum ptions This thesis presupposes the theoretical fram ew ork of G overnm ent and Binding as developed in Chomsky (1981; 1986; 1991, and others), and Bare Phrase Structure in the spirit of the minimalist program in Chomsky (1993; 1994; 1995). The following will briefly outline the assumptions. In Chomsky’s minimalist program, there are only two interface levels LF and PF specified for rules, elim inating D (eep)-structure and S(urface)-structure. Moreover, according to Chomsky’s (1994; 1995) Bare Phrase Structure framework. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. projection is minimal and only basic grammatical (thematic) relations aie projected. Minimal and maximal projections are relational properties of categories, not inherent to them. Namely, they are determined from the structure in which they appear without any specific marking (see Muysken’s (1992)). Consequently, the standard X-bar template is not assumed at the stage of forming the structure; rather it is a by product, the output of the derivation-the computational system (Chl)- There are no non-branching projections. The computation system is based on two operations, merge and move. Merge is a concatenation of contiguous items selected from the lexicon, say a 2 and p in (1). The label for these two items is determ ined derivationally and either one of them projects (sec Chomsky 1995: 22). ( 1 ) a l / \ o2 P M ove concerns non-local dependency. A chain CH = (a , t (a)) formed by Move should meet the following conditions: (1) a must c-command its trace; hence, movement is raising. (ii) Uniformity condition: (2) A chain is uniform with regard to phrase structure status. (iii) Last Resort condition. Movement, Attract, is driven by feature-checking. Overt m ovem ent is forced by feature-strength. Chomsky (1995) lists several formal features: (i) categorial features (ii) f-features (iii) Case feature (iv) strong F, where F is categorial. 1 will also adopt Horvath's (1986) parameterization' to tieat [Focus] as a foiTnal feature. ' However, the formal [Focus] feature in Chinese that triggers syntactic focus m ovem ent is attested in lian...dou/ye 'even...all/also' and contrastively focused preposed object, rather than in the cleft shi ‘be’ constiuction. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. I will also adopt the VP-internal Subject Hypothesis for Chinese (cf. Kuroda 1988, Koopman and Sportiche 1990, among others), in which subject raises to [Spec IP] for nominative Case assignment. In discussion of topicalized sentences, I will adopt K uroda’s fram ework (1965; 1972; 1992). Topicalized and non-topicalized sentences, although having the same truth condition, express different logical judgments. Topicalized sentences represent predicational (categorical) judgm ent while non-topicalized sentences express nonpredicational (existential, thetic) judgm ent. Categorical judgm ent consists of two distinct cognitive acts: one is recognizing (apprehending) something as substance, termed as “Subject,” another is attributing to the Subject the property perceived in a situation (called Predication) and acknowledging or disavowing a Predicate of a Subject. Thetic judgment, a simple judgment and a unitai-y cognitive act, is expressed by nontopicalized, existential and impersonal sentences which do not associate a Subject with a Predicate. It simply expresses recognition of the existence of (a) specific entity (entities) or a specific situation. Topicalized sentences only occur in root contexts, whereas major subject, the non-them atic subject in double nominative construction, may occur in non-root contexts. 1.2. Focus Devices Languages employ various strategies to mark focus. Often it is related to the pitch accent of elements in sentences, the phonological focus (e.g. Selkirk (1984), Rochemont (1986)). The study of the syntax of focus generally categorizes focus devices into the following types (cf. Kenesei (1993), Culicover (1993)): (i) in-situ focus, such as in English (e.g. Chomsky (1977)), R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (ii) focus movement, such as in Basque (Ortiz (1989), and Hungarian (Horvath (1986; 1993), Brody (1990), Kiss (1994), etc.), (iii) mixed types: applying both (i) and (ii) in a language (e.g. Italian and Finnish mentioned in Kenesei (ibid.), (iv) focus operator and focus association in Jackendoff (1972), Rooth (1985), and among others, in relation to presupposition and focus (see Chomsky (1971)). Chinese also employs the above focus devices (cf. Cheng (1983)).^ The most studied one is the so-called cleft shi...cle construction (see Teng (1979), Huang (1982), Shi (1992), Chiu (1993), and Paris (1994)). Focus adverbs receive less attention except for a detailed pragmatic and semantic study of cai ‘ just, only’ and jiu ‘then, only’ in Biq (1984). This thesis will concentrate on the lia n ...d o u /ye ‘even...all/also’ construction and argue that a focus projection is attested in this construction, instead of in shi.de sentences as argued by Chiu (1993). 1.3. Outline of the Thesis In chapter two, I will present a detailed discussion of the lian...dou/ye construction. First, 1 will show the categories of focus constituents that can follow lian, i.e. NPs, VPs and CPs. Second, I argue that lian behaves like an adverb or adjective to modify its following VP/CP or NP respectively. Dou is considered to be a predicate modifier. It does not only quantify the element to its left as traditionally assumed, it also subcategorizes an aspect or verb phrase. The interpretations of lian..dou/ye and //a/i-phrases are presented to show the parallelism between lian-NPs 2 I will not be concerned with phonological stress and intonation for marking focus in this thesis. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. and universal QPs. The structure containing the focus projection is proposed in section 2.2. Chapter three provides evidence for the movement of focalization to a post verbal and strict preverbal position. Assuming the canonical word order of Chinese clauses is SVO in (3), an object can be preposed to a preverbal position, either in the lian..dou/ye (2a) or by bare object preposing (2b). I argue that the surface word order of SOV is derived by movement, caWtd focalization. Our proposal provides a unified account for both types of object preposing. It will be shown that focalization observes A-movement properties. (3) Zhangsan mai le zheben shu^ Zhangsan buy Asp this-CL book ‘Zhangsan bought this book.’ (4) a. Zhangsan lian zheben shu dou/ve mai le Zhangsan even this-CL book all/also buy Asp ‘Zhangsan bought even this book.’ b . Zhangsan zheben shu mai le Zhangsan this-CL book buy Asp ‘Zhangsan bought THIS BOOK.’ In addition to the strict preverbal focus position, chapter four focuses on sentences where //an-phrases occur sentence initially, as in (5). These are cases where focus constituents overlap with topic (6). 3 The following symbols are used in this paper: Asp aspect marker Exp experience aspect marker CL classifier DE a moipheme functioning as complementizer and NP modifier marker PART particle Q question marker R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (5) Lian zhehen shu Zhangsan don/ye mai le. even this-CL book Zhangsan all/also buy Asp ‘Even for this book, Zhangsan also bought.’ (6) Zheben shu Zhangsan mai le. this-CL book Zhangsan buy Asp ‘This book Zhangsan bought.’ By examining the data in detail, both movement and base-generation of the sentence- initial /mn-phrases are called for, just as with topic structures. Specifically, I argue that a genuine topic is derived by movement to a root TopicP Spec position, higher than CP. Movement evidence is drawn from binding reconstruction effects, weak crossover effects, and syntactic vv/z-island conditions. A base-generated S-initial object (or //««-object) is argued to occur in an IP-adjoined position, distinct from the directly the moved topic. This base-generated IP-adjoined position hinges on the presence of “major subject” in Chinese, in contrast to the widely held view of a base generated “topic” in Chinese literature. 1 will also compare the C hinese m ajor subject/ topic structures with those in Japanese and show that the complicated facts can be accounted for by adopting Kuroda’s framework. The identification of an empty category and an overt pronominal copy is discussed afterw ards. The proposed unified account helps resolve the long-standing debate over the (non-) movement of topic stmctures in the literature. Chapter five discusses related issues, including a comparison of the proposed Chinese movement structures with Japanese scrambling. The result indicates that Chinese lacks a scrambling mechanism. Another issue is related to focus scope and the association with focus in the lian..dou/ye sentences. The proposed structures in chapter four match the eve«-focus scope. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CHAPTER TWO: THE L IA N ...D O U /Y E CONSTRUCTION 2.0. Introduction In this chapter, I study one type of focus construction—lia n ...d o u /ye ‘even...all/also’ in M andarin Chinese. Lian...dou/ye is limited to a preverbal position, shown in (2). When an object as in (1) is focused by lian...dou/ye, it has to be preposed preverbally, as in (2b). Failure to prepose results in ungrammaticality, as shown in (3). ( 1 ) Zhangsan mai le zheben shu Zhangsan buy Asp this-CL book ‘Zhangsan bought this book.’ (2) a. Lian Zhangsan dou mai le zheben shu LIAN Zhangsan DOU buy Asp this-CL book ‘Even Zhangsan bought this book.’ b . Zhangsan lian zheben shu dou/ye mai le Zhangsan LIAN this-CL book DOU/YE buy Asp ‘Zhangsan bought even this book.’ (3) *Zhangsan dou/ye mai le lian zheben shu Zhangsan DOU/YE buy Asp this-CL book In section 2.1 I will closely examine the distribution and categorial status of lian..dou/ye. Specifically, in section 2.1.1 I will demonstrate that only NPs, VPs or CPs can occur after lian. This generalization helps clarify the categorial status of verbal complements. In section 2.1.2 I will argue that lian syntactically functions as an adjective or an adverb to modify its focused constituents. Other logically possible R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. categories for lian, such as preposition, functional projection head, or focalizer as well as Paris’ (1979) arguments will be compared. It will be concluded that lian should be an adjective or an adverb. In section 2 .1 .3 ,1 will adopt Dowty and Brodie’s (1984) view that dou/ye is a predicate modifier, in addition to the traditional view of rfo«-quantification of elements to its left. In section 2 .1 .4 1 propose that the interpretation of lian..dou/ye denotes a universal quantifier reading, adopting Lycan (1991). This view is supported by the similar distribution of lian-NPs and universal quantifier phrases- meige-N, and their interaction with dou. In section 2.2 I propose a phrase structure containing lian..dou/ye for Chinese. I will argue that dou or ye heads the functional projection of Focus Phrase FP, a maximal head in the sense of Chomsky’s (1994) Bare Phrase Structure. This FP is projected with a strong [Focus] feature which has to be checked in syntax. A lian phrase is attracted by this [+Focus] feature; hence it undergoes overt focus m ovem ent (//an-focalization) to be licensed by dou/ye syntactically. After this movement takes place, the F’ (F^ with its complement) further projects to a maximal projection FP in the sense of Chomsky’s Generalized Transformation. This is the case where both the lian phrase and dou/ye appear within the same FP, as shown in (2). A focalized (moved) object yields the surface order of SOV as in (4). (4) subject [ f p //««-object r/ow] VP I assume that the subject is base-generated inside the VP, i.e. the Internal Subject Hypothesis proposed by Kuroda (1988), Koopman and Sportiche (1990), among others, /./««-subject then journeys through Spec of AspP, Spec of FP, and finally to Spec of IP to receive abstiact nominative Case. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Besides the Focus position where the //a«-phrase sits, the //««-phrase can also occur in a sentence initial position, such as S-initial lian zheben shu ‘even this book’ in (5). (5) Lian zheben shu Zhangsan dou/ye mai le. LIAN this-CL book Zhangsan DOU/YE buy Asp ‘Even this book, Zhangsan bought.’ In chapter four I will argue that the S-initial lian phrases are stmcturally ambiguous between movement and base-generation, on a par with topic suuctures. For the time being, we will concenU'ate in chapters two and three on the lian phrase occuring in an immediate preverbal position. Although the focus projection often refers to “cleft” focus, such as in Hungarian, the focus projection proposed in Chinese is limited to lian..dou/ye or bare object preposing. Unlike the lian..dou/ye construction in quesion, the Chinese cleft sh i..de ‘be’ construction does not display ‘syntactic’ focus constituent m o v e m e n t . b 2 This dissertation, however, will concentrate on the lian..dou/ye ^ Huang (1982) and Shi (1992) have argued for the ‘in-situ-focus’ in syntax, and focus operator shi movement at LF by applying Quantifier Raising. Chiu (1993) argues for focus constituent LF movement to the Spec of a Focus Projection headed by shi instead. 2 Although both shi and lian bear focal functions, they are not identical with respect to their syntactic properties. Unlike shi, lian does not display verbal properties. It cannot form A-not-A question, or be negated. Com pare (ia, b) with (iia, b). However, one similarity between lian and shi is that both cannot take any other aspect marker. Hence both (ic) and (iic) are bad. (i) a *Zhangsan lian-bu-llan xingqitian dou/ye gong-zuo Zhangsan LIAN-not-LIAN Sunday DOU/YE work b. * Z h a n g s a n x i n g q i t i a n r/o/i/ye gong-zuo Zhangsan not-LIAN Sunday DOÜ/YE work c. *Zhangsan lian le/guo xingqitian dou/ye gong-zuo Zhangsan LIAN Asp/Exp Sunday DOU/YE work (ii) a. Zhangsan shi-bu-shi xingqitian gong-zuo Zhangsan be-not-be Sunday work ‘Is it Sunday that Zhangsan work?’ b. Zhangsan bu-shi xingqitian gong-zuo R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. construction which displays focus constituent movement. B rief com parisons between lian..dou/ye and shi..de will be presented in section 5.2.3. 2.1. The Generalization of L ia n ...D o u /Y e Lian means even, including.^ When lian occurs, dou ‘all,’ or ye ‘also’ has to co-occur with it. There is an adjacency requirement between lian and a focused element. Lian can be optional under the condition that the immediately following focused NP is singular or a bare NP, as zheben shu ‘this book’ in (6). In contrast, a plural NP without lian, as in (7) cannot be interpreted as lian zhexie shu ‘even these books,’ the reading in (7a), rather it is read as all the books, tlie reading in (7b). Zhangsan not-be Sunday work ‘It is not Sunday that Zhangsan works.’ c. *Zhangsan xingqitian shi le/guo qu gong-zuo Zhangsan Sunday be Asp/Exp go work ‘It is to work that Zhangsan did on Sunday.’ 3 Another related meaning of lian is lian..(yiqi) ‘w ith...together.’ Lian in (i) is interpreted as together with. I will not discuss this conjuntive lian in this dissertation. (i) Qing ni ba zhefeng xin, lian (tong) neizhang zhitiao (dou/ye/yiqi) dailai please you BA this-CL memo, with that-CL letter all/ also/ together bring ‘Please bring this memo altogether with that letter.’ There aie two reasons to separate this conjunctive lian from the /la/i-even in question. First, note that dou, or ye is optional in (i) where lian is interpreted as together with, while dou/ye is obligatory in the lian-even construction. The second reason is that //an-even can be followed only by NPs, VPs or CPs. This point will be explicated later in this chapter. However, here //an-together does not seem to be able to be followed by clauses; rather it is only followed by NPs, as the unaccptable (ii) indicates. (ii) *Zhangsan lian [s Lisi kan dianying] tong [gMali kan shu] kanjian le Zhangsan together Lisi see movie with Mali read book see ‘Zhangsan saw Lisi saw movies together with Mali read books.’ Furthermore, this conjunctive lian is on a par with other ‘and, together’ conjuncts, such as tong, he. All of these conjunctives can only be followed by NPs. This may suggest that these conjunctives are prepositions. 10 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (6) Zhangsan (lian) zheben shu dou meikan. Zhangsan LIAN this book DOU not read ‘Zhangsan didn’t read even this book.’ (7) Zhangsan zhexie shu dou kan le. a. ‘*Zhangsan read even these books.’ b. 'Zhangsan read all of these books.’ The constituent immediately following lian is interpreted as the most prominent elem ent in a sentence, though it does not necessarily bear stress.'^ This focused element is picked out by speakers to be the unexpected one in discourse contexts as understood by speakers and hearers. Unlike English even which can appear in several positions in a sentence (Kuroda 1965, 1969), lian and its focused element have to precede a verb in Chinese.^ For example, in (8a) Zhangsan is the least likely person to buy this book, and even he did it. Compare (1) and (8b). Note that in (8b) Note that phrses dominated by dou/ye can be focus associates. 1 will discuss this point in chapter four. 5 There is another even expression in Chinese, the adverb shenzhi. Like other focus adverbs, shenzhi has to appear in a preverbal position (ia). Shenzhi and lian..doii/ye can co-occur in a sentence, but it differs from lian..dou/ye in two ways. First, movement of the focus constituent is not obligatory with shenzhi, so both (ia) and (ib) are good. However, if the object does move to the preverbal position, dou/ye has to be present. Second, dou/ye is optional in shenzhi sentences, except for subjects being focused by shenzhi. (i) a. Zhangsan shenzhi mai le {*shenzhï) zheben shu Zhangsan even buy Asp (even) this-CL book ‘Zhangsan even bought this book.’ b . Zhangsan shenzhi Qian) zheben shu dou/ye mai le. Zhangsan even (LIAN) this-CL book DOU/YE buy Asp (ii) Shenzhi Zhangsan *Qlou/ye) mai le zheben shu. even Zhangsan all/also buy Asp this-CL book ‘Even Zhangsan also bought this book.’ This study only concentrates on lian..dou/ye constmction. 11 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the object this book is preposed to a preverbal position which immediately follows lian and precedes dou/ye.^ (1) Zhangsan mai-le zheben shu Zhangsan buy Asp this-CL book ‘Zhangsan bought this book.’ (8) a. Lian Z hangsan dou/ye mai le zheben shu even Zhangsan all/also buy Asp this-CL book ‘Even Zhangsan bought this book.’ b. Zhangsan lian zheben shu dou/ye mai le^ Zhangsan even this-CL book all/also buy Asp ‘Zhangsan bought even this book.’ 2.1.1. T he C ategories o f the P h rases Follow ing L ia n Elem ents imm ediately following lian are limited to NPs or VPs. This generalization will shed some light on the controverial categorial status of PPs, ba, bei, descriptive and rcsultative phrases. 2.1.1.1. N Ps a n d V Ps Constituents immediately following lian have to be maximal projections, and they can be N Ps, VPs® or C Ps, including duration, frequency, temporal phrases, and complement clauses of factive verbs, modal verbs, etc. ^ D ou and ye can be used interchangeably in lian...dou/ye constructions. For the sake of discussion, I will use dou only from now on. " 7 Like its English translation, (8b) is ambiguous. Either the object is the focus or elements dominated by dou/ye are associated with lian..dou/ye. ® Tsao (1990) proposes that elements following lian are always NPs. He considers VPs as nominalizcd NPs. 12 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Sentences (9) and (10) indicate that duration and frequency phrases occur after lian respectively. They are categorized as NPs by Li (1990), due to their nominal properties.^ (9) (Zhangsan)//a/j [n yi fenzhongl (Zhangsan) dou/ye bu xiuxi LIAN one minute DOU/YE not rest 'Zhangsan doesn’t rest even for a minute.’ (10) Zhangsan lian In zheci iihuil dou/ve bu cuo-guo Zhangsan LIAN one-CL opportunity DOU/YE not miss ‘Zhangsan didn’t miss even this opportunity.’ Temporal phrases can immediately follow lian, as in (11). I assume that they are nouns as well, cf. Larson (1985). (11) (Zhangsan)//an Itv shangke de shihoul dou/ve chi tang Zhangsan LIAN at class’s time DOU/YE eat candy ‘Zhangsan eats candy even during class.’ Sentences (12) and (13) show that clauses and ’ VPs can occur after lian. (12) Zhangsan//a/î [y p ed a o Alasijia wan] J oh m eng-xiang/bu xiang Zhangsan LIAN go-to Alaska tiavel DOU dream/ not willing ‘Zhangsan dreams even of going/doesn’t even want to go to Alaska.’ 9 The nominal properties of duration/frequency phrases noted by Li (1990: 9-10) include: (i) they can occur in a subject position, (ii) they can take demonstratives or other modifiers. Li concludes that they need to receive Case, like other NPs. 13 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (13) Zhangsan lian [vp e zai cesuol dou kan shu^° Zhangsan LIAN at restioom DOU read book ‘Zhangsan reads even in the restroom.’ Having shown that only NPs/VPs can occur after lian, I will further demonstrate that elements other than NPs or VPs cannot be directly focused by lian. The ungram m tical examples in (14), including head v e rb s i n (14a), manner adverbials in (14b) and reason a d v e r b i a l s ' 2 in (14c), are from Paris (1979). I further show that PPs cannot immediately follow lian and precede dou/ye\ thus, sentences in (15) are unacceptable. Locative phrases, such as zai cesuo ‘in the restroom’, behave like a prepositional VP, since zai ‘at’ can function as a verb as well. Simple sentences which do not contain a copular verb can have zai, Ta zai xuexiao meaning ‘he (is) at school’. To be more sophisticated, I would consider zai cesuo ‘in the restroom’ in (13) to be a predicate, rather than a locative PP. The word zai in locative phrases and in temporal phrases do not function the same way. Although we can say Ta zai xuexiao ‘he (is) at school’, we cannot say Ta zai xingqitian ‘he on Sunday’. Furthermore, zai optionally precedes temporal phrases in regular sentences, as in (i). Nevertheless, it cannot occur after lian, as in (ii). (i) Wo (zai) xingqi tian kan dianying. I (at) Sunday watch movie ‘I watch movies on Sunday.’ (ii) Wo lian (*zai) xingqi tian dou kan dianying. I LIAN (*at) Sunday DOU watch movies ‘I watch movies even on Sunday.’ An apparent counterexample, in (i), was brought to my attention by James Huang (1994 p.c.), and cf. Paris (1994). (i) Ta lian kan dou/ye bu kan yiyan he LIAN see DOU/YE not see one eye ‘He didn’t even take a look at it.’ (ii) Ta lian geming dou ge (zuo) le he LIAN revolution DOU do Asp ‘He did even revolution.’ Although sentence (i) seems to focus on the verb kan ‘see’, in contrast to (14a), Huang notes that kan ‘see’ in (i) is actually a nom inalized verb (cf. J. Huang (1993)), on a par with geming revolution’ in (ii). Consequently, what is given in (i) is actually an NP. If we adopt this view, then we can maintain the generalization that only NPs can follow lian. I will leave this open here. Sentence (14c) from Paris should be inteipreted as a reason adverbial, by airplane, the verbal interpretation oi' zuo ‘take’ is irrelevant for the present discussion. 14 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (14) a. *Lisi lian Iv likail cioii/ve leyouju. (Paris 1979) Lisi LIAN go Perf DOU/YE post office ‘Lisi even went to the post office.’ b. *Lisi lian iM anner Adv hen xiaoxini don/ye fan le sanci cuowu. Lisi LIAN veiy carefully DOU/YE make Perf three mistake ‘*Lisi made three mistakes even very carefully.’ c. *Ta lian fu^ncnn a h v ?.uo feijil dou/ve lai kan ni. he LIAN take airplane DOU/YE come see you ‘?He came to see you even by taking the airplane.’ (15) a. lian fn p cong dixia-qianzhuang1Jot</ve iie-le qian le.^^ Lisi LIAN from black-market bank DOU/YE bonow Asp money LE ‘Lisi borrowed money even from a black-market bank.’ b. ?*Lisi lian [pp ti wo] dou bu xie gongke. Lisi LIAN for me DOU not write homework ‘Lisi does not write homework even for me.’ This thesis will not further compare lian...dou/ye with the adverb shenzhi, both of which mean even', however, I will mention another difference between them (also see * 3 Li (1993 p.c.) notes that did ‘toward, treat’ is not a real preposition in Chinese. First, it has die verbal meaning of ‘treat.’ Second, it allows a subject-like element in the phrase, as shown in (ia). For a regular preposition, such as cong ‘from ,’ the subject is not allowed to occur within the PP, thus (ib) is bad. (i) a. women dui ta (de taidu) we treat he DE atdtude ‘(the attitude with which) we tieat him’ b . *women cong yinhang (de qian) we from bank DE money ‘*(the money) that we from the bank’ Moreover, wei ‘for’ is not a pure preposition either. It can be followed by the aspect marker le, whieh is a general property of verbs. (ii) wo wei le ta fangqi le gongzuo I for Asp he givc-up Asp job ‘For him, I gave up the job.’ 15 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. footnote 5). Namely, even though verb heads, manner and reason adverbs, and PPs cannot follow lian, they can be associated with even by using the adverb shenzhi. The above unacceptable sentences become well-formed in (16) and (17) respectively by using shenzhi. (16) a. Lisi shenzhi Iv likail le youju. Lisi even leave Perf post office ‘Lisi even left (the post office).’ b. Lisi shenzhi [Manner Adv hen xiaoxini iye) fan le sanci cuowu. Lisi even very carefully make Asp three mistake 'Lisi even very caiefully (still) made three m istakes.’ c. Ta shenzhi [Reason Adv %uo feiiil lai kan ni. he even take airplane come see you ‘He even came to see you by airplane.’ (17) Lisi shenzhi fppcong dixia-qianzhuangl jie-le qian le. Lisi even from black-market bonow Asp money LE ‘Lisi even borrowed money from the black market.’ Moreover, the contrast between (14), (15) and (16), (17) respectively nullifies the hypothesis that V^, manner, and reason adverbials cannot be associated with even semantically, since (16) and (17) are well-formed. 2.1 .1 .2 . C o m p le m e n ta tio n This section discusses three types of complements: com plem ents of (i) modals, (ii) persuade-type verbs, and (iii) tell-type verbs. It will be concluded that VPs and CPs can be preposed in lian..doit/ye constructions. 16 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. • M odals: I will argue that epistemic and deontic modals do not have the identical structure, (details are discussed also in sections 2.2 and 3.4.1). Epistemic modals, including yinggai ‘should,’ hui ‘possibly,’ keneng ‘possibly, m aybe,’ etc., make judgm ents about the possibility or necessity of propositions. Deontic modals, including ken ‘w illing,’ gan ‘dare,’ hui ‘able to,’ etc., indicate perm ission, obligation, ability or disposition. The phrase structure for Chinese will be proposed and discussed in more detail in section 2.2.1. I will adopt the proposal that treats epistemic modals as raising verbs (also see Huang (1988)). They head an jO which selects either another IP or AspP. Deontic modals, which head an MP, select a VP and are structurally lower than epistemic modals. Moreover, I argue that it is VP complements, rather than IPs, that can be preposed and emphasized by lian. In their paper, Lin and Tang (1991), henceforth L&T, argue that epistemic modals in Chinese select CPs and deontic modals select IPs. They observe that “//«« seem s able to emphasize only the complement of control m odals,” rather the com plem ent of epistemic modals. Their sentences are given in (18) and (19). Preposing the complement of deontic modals in (18b) is better than preposing the complement of epistemic modals, as in (I9b). (18) a Lisi bu ken/yuanyi/gan/hui jiegei Zhangsan vibai quai Lisi not willing to/ dare not/ able to lend Zhangsan 100 dollars ‘Lisi is not willing/ dares not/ is able to lend Zhangsan $101.’ b Lion iiegei Zhangsan vibai quai Lisi dou bu ken/yuanyi/ gan/ hui LIAN lend Zhangsan 100 dollars Lisi DOU not willing to/daie not/able to ‘(lit) Even lend Zhangsan $101, Lisi is not willing to/ dare not/ able to.’ 17 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (19) a Lisi bu yinggai/ keyi/ keneng/ hui jiegei Zhangsan vibai quai. Lisi not supposed to/permitted/ possible lend Zhangsan 100 dollars ‘Lisi is not supposed to/ may/ possibly/ will lend Zhansan $101.’ b *Uan jiegei Zhangsan vibai qiiai Lisi dou bu yinggai/ keyi/ keneng LIAN lend Zhangsan $101 Lisi DOU not supposed to /peiTnitted/possible ‘(lit.) Even lending Zhangsan $101, Lisi is not supposedto/permitted to/ possible to.’ According to L&T, the unacceptability of (19b) is due to an ECP violation. There exists a trace in the preposed CP selected by epistemic modals. This trace is not theta-governed by a verb, nor is it antecedent-governed by the matrix subject Z h angsan. As for the gram m aticality of (18b), they argue that the preposed complement of the deontic modals (an IP for them) contains a base-generated PRO in its subject position. Since PRO is irrelevant to ECP, sentence (18b) is well-formed. Nevertheless, there are two problems in L& T’s analysis. The contrast between (18b) and (19b) should not be due to the (ir)relevance of ECP, rather it should be subsumed under the general properties of the preposed categories in lian..dou/ye construction. It is VP, instead of IP, that can be preposed in the construction in question. Considering (20), we can improve (19b) by adding a negation or a dummy verb zuo ‘do’ in the Asp® position, (also see footnote 11). Hence, the grammaticality of (20) cannot be accounted for by L&T’s analysis. I'* Also see Ernst and W ang’s (1995) arguments against Lin and T ang’s (ibid.) analysis. However, note that Ernst and Wang do not distinguish the structural position of epistemic and deontic modals. They consider that both of these types select VPs as their complements. Instead, 1 will argue in section 2.2 that epistemic modals are stiucturally higher than deontic modals. 18 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (20) [vp Lian jiegei Zhangsan vibai quail; Lisi keneng dou m eiyou/ zuo-Ie LIAN lend Zhangsan $101 Lisi possible DOU not-have/do-Asp ‘(lit.) Even lending Zhangsan $101, Lisi possibly didn’t/ did.’ Second, as noted before, //fl/j-phrases can occur either in the Spec of FP position or in a sentence initial position. Consider L&T’s sentence in (19b) again. They place this //o/j-phrase in sentence initial position by saying the trace inside is not antecedent-governed by the matrix subject. Suppose we place this //on-phrase in the Spec of FP (post-subject) position, as in (21), their conjunctive ECP violations should be alleviated. However, 1 think (19b) and (21) have the same unacceptability. Thus, their ECP account of the preposed complement of epistemic m odals is not grounded. (21 ) *Lisi lian jiegei Zhangsan vibai quai chu bu yinggai/ keyi/ keneng Lisi LIAN lend Zhangsan $3 DOU not supposed to /permitted/possible • P ersiia d e-typ e verbs: Now, let us consider complements of persuade-lypc verbs. Li (1990: 21) has argued that persiiade-iypt verbs in Chinese take infinitives as their complements, as in (22). Assume infinitives are IPs. As discussed above, VP-complements can be preposed in lian..dou/ye sentences, but IPs cannot. This account can be extended to the preposed complements of persuade-lype verbs. Consider the contrast in (23). The VP .xiyan ‘smoke’ in the complement infinitive can be preposed as shown in (23a); whereas the IP in (23b) cannot. Preposing the object in the infinitival clause is also allowed, as in (23c). 19 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (22) Lisi bi [ip Zhangsan kan zheben shu] Lisi force Zhangsan read this-CL hook ‘Lisi forces Zhangsan to read this hook.’ (23) a. Lisi lian [vi> kan zheben shuJi (bu hi Zhangsan (zuo)fi Lisi LIAN read this-CL hook DOU force Zhangsan (do) 'Lisi forces Zhangsan even to read this hook.’ h. *Lisi//an [ipZhangsan kan zheben shu] 1 hi Lisi LIAN Zhangsan read this-CL hook DOU force ‘Lisi forces even [Zhangsan to read this hook].’ c. Lisi lian [n p zheben shu ]i dou hi Zhangsan kan t\ Lisi LIAN this-CL hook DOU force Zhangsan read • Tell-type verbs: Complements of factive verbs, namely CPs, can he preposed to precede dou, as illustrated in (24h).*^ (24) a. Zhangsan zhidao/xiangxin [cp ni zai women xuexiao da le ren] Zhangsan know/helieve you at our school hit Asp people ‘Zhangsan knows/helieves that you hit people in our school.’ h. Zhangsan lian [cp ni zai women xuexiao da le ren]i (bu zhidao/xiangxin n ‘Zhangsan even knows/helieves that you hit people in our school.’ M oreover, factive verbs can select NPs, as in (25a) and (26a), which can he preposed as well, as in (25h) and (26h) respectively. Audrey Li (1993 p.c.) suggests that constituents that can follow lian are basically parallel with those categorized as ‘prenominal modifiers.’ In other words, they are fundamentlly clauses or NPs that need Case. CPs in relative clause can modify the head noun, and NPs can modify nouns too. 20 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (25) a. Zhangsan zhidao/xiangxin [n p zhejian shi] Zhangsan believe/know this-CL matter b. Zhangsan lian [ n p zhejian shi] dou zhidao/xiangxin Zhangsan LIAN this-CL matter DOU know/believe ‘Zhangsan knows/helieves even this matter.’ (26) a. Zhangsan zhidao [n p [ni zai women xuexiao da le ren] de zhejian shi] Zhangsan know you at our school hit Asp people Comp this-CL matter ‘Zhangsan knows the matter that you hit people in our school.’ b . Zhangsan lian [n p [ni zai women xuexiao da le ren] de zhejian shi]i dou zhidao t\ Zhangsan LIAN you at our school hit Asp people Comp this matter DOU know ‘Zhangsan knows even the matter that you hit people in our school.’ Therefore, the above discussion shows that only NP, VP or CP complements can be preposed. This observation also helps understand the categorial status of certain phrases in Chinese, such as the categories selected by epistemic modals, deontic modals, persuade-typo verbs and tell-lypc verbs. 2.1.1.3. BA -N Ps and BEI-NPs? This section demonstrates that ba-NPs and bei-NPs cannot directly follow lian, so the unaceeptability of (27b) and (28b). Ba literally means ‘take,’ the construction denotes a ‘disposable’ reading, e.g. the NP after ba is affected by the event. There are two typical cases; one involves preposing of the logical object to a preverbal position and the other bears inalienable relation between the two objects, shown in (ib) and (iib). Also see Zou’s (1993) study and references cited there. (i) a. Ta sha le tufei he kill Asp bandit 21 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (27) a. Zhangsan meiyou [[ba shu] na-chulai ] Zhangsan not-have BA book take-out ‘Zhangsan didn’t take out the books.’ b. *Zhangsan lian [ba shu] dou/ye meiyou/bu yuanyi na-chulai. LIAN BA book DOU/YE not / not willing take-out (28) a. Zhangsan meiyou [[bei laoshi] jiajiang] Zhangsan not-have BY teacher praise ‘Zhangsan wasn’t praised by the teachers.’ b. *Zhangsan//flrt [np bei laoshi] dou/ye meiyou / bu keneng jiajiang''^ Zhangsan LIAN BEI teacher DOU/YE not/ not possible praise Sentences (27b) and (28b), however, can be made possible when the whole ba or bei predicates are preposed to follow lian and precede dou/ye. Compare (27b), (28b) b. Ta BA tufei shale he BA bandit kill Asp ‘He killed the bandits.’ (ii) a. Ta bo le juzi peel he peel Asp orange skin b. Ta BA iuzi bo le peel he BA orange peel Asp skin ‘He peeled the skin of the orange.’ B ei roughly conesponds to ‘by’ in English. The 6g;-phrase has to occur in a preverbal position, and the NP after bei can be optional, as shown in (iii). The subject ta ‘he’ undergoes A-movement, see NP-movement analysis of direct passives in Li (1990). (iii) Tai BEI (laoshi) da le ti he by teacher hit Asp ‘He was hit by teachers.’ Another type of bei sentence is the indirect/adversative passive, as in (iv). I will suggest that the subject, ta ‘he’, in indirect passives does not result from NP- movement like direct passives. (iv) Ta BEI tufei qiangzuo le qian. he by bandit rob-away Asp money ‘He was (affected) robbed of money by bandits.’ Although Paris’s (1979) sentence, repeated in (i), allows W -N P s to co-occur with lian, native speakers that I consulted do not like it. (i) ?*Ta lian [bei tade airen] dou bu neng kanjian. she even by her husband all not can see ‘She cannot be seen even by her husband.’ 22 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. and (29), (30) respectively. Preposing the whole predicate containing ba-NP and bei-NP in (29) and (30) needs an additional modal, negation or verb. (29) Zhangsan lian [[ba shu] na-chulai] i tbu/ye meiyou/bu yuanyi l \ . Zhangsan LIAN BA book take-out DOU/YE not/ not willing ‘Zhangsan didn’t even take out the book.’ (30) Zhangsan//an [[bei laoshi] jiajiang] 1 m eiyou/bu keneng ri Zhangsan LIAN BEI teacher praise DOU/YE not/ not possible ‘Zhangsan even wasn’t / is impossible to be praised by the teacher.’ The unacceptability of (27b) and (28b) suggests that ba and bei are prepositions (cf. Mei (1972), Li (1990)^^ and references cited there), on a par with PPs discussed previously, which cannot be preposed. 2.1.1.4. D escriptive and R esultative Expressions? The structure and an example of descriptive and resultative expressions are given in (31) and (32), respectively. The unacceptability of (33) indicates that descriptive and resultative phrases cannot be preposed to occur between lian and dou/ye. (31) N PX V de Descriptive/Resultative (32) Zhangsan zou de hen kuai/ lei Zhangsan walk DE vei"y fast/ tired ‘Zhangsan walks veiy fast/ (to a result of being) tired.’ Li (1990: 186) argues that ba is a preposition, see her arguments. She also argues that bei is a passive moipheme. The reason that bei cannot be a preposition is that the NP after bei can be null and Chinese does not allow preposition stranding in general, (ibid. p. 167). I will leave this issue aside and consider 6a and bei as prepositions. 1 9 Hashimoto (1971) and recent studies (e.g. Zou 1993) suggest that ba heads a functional projection with the following NP occupying the Spec position of the XP sister to ba, so is bei. 23 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (33) *Zhangsan lian hen kuai/ lei dou zou Ic. Zhangsan LIAN veiy fast/ tired DOU/YE walk Asp It is, however, possible to have lian...dou/ye occur in a preverbal position in descriptive/ resultative contexts. Either a preverbal predicate, like chi fan 'eat rice’ in (35)=(34a), or the whole chunk of V -de-D /R , in (36)=(34b) occurs between lian..dou/ye. (35) means that Zhangsan often does things fast or to a state of getting tired, even for eating rice. (36) implies that anything would happen to Zhangsan, even for eating veiy fast or to a state of being tired. (34) a. NP lian Y dm i V de Descriptive/Resultative b. NP lian IV de Descriptive/Resultative] dou V (35) Zhangsan lian chi fan dou/ye chi de hen kuai/lei. Zhangsan LIAN eat rice DOU/YE eat DE very fast/tired ‘Even for eating, Zhangsan eats very fast/ tired.’ (36) Zhangsan lian chi de hen kuai/ lei dou hui Zhangsan LIAN eat DE very tired DOU/YE will In the literature, descriptive and resultative expressions have been analyzed either as main predicates (Chao (1968), Huang and M angione (1985)) or as complements (Mei (1972), Huang (1982; 1988), Ross (1984), and Li (1990)). The former argues for V as an adjunct; whereas the latter argues for V as a main verb. Li (1990: ch 3) further argues for distinct structures for descriptive (APs) and resultative expressions (Ss), shown in (37). (37) a. Descriptive Expressions (Li 1990:44) N P Y V de A P b. Resultative Expressions NP X V de S 24 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (38) *Zhangsan zou de fs^ip hen leil Zhangsan walk DE very tired ‘Zhangsan walks (to a result of being) tired.’ Adopting Li’s analysis, the ban on preposing APs of descriptive expressions is predicted by our generalization, since only NPs, VPs or CPs can be focalized. M oreover, the ungrammatieality of (38) is on a par with the ban on preposing IPs selected by epistemic modals and persuade-iy^e. verbs. In summai-y, there is a restiiction on the constituents that can occur after lian. Only the categories NPs, VPs or CPs are allowed. Bo-N Ps and 6g/-N Ps are considered to be prepositional phrases, since their occurrence between lian and dou/ye is prohibited. It is possible to prepose a VP/CP to the position following lian and preceding dou/ye only when there is an additional modal verb, negation, or dummy verb like zuo ‘do’ available in the main clause. 2.1.2. The Categorial Status o f L ia n Having shown that only NPs, VPs or CPs can follow lian, we will now discuss the categorial status of lian. I will claim that lian is either an adjective or an adverb, instead of a functional head. Syntactically it functions as a m odifier to modify its focused constituents. Semantically, it is like the quasi-quantifier that Paris proposes. In her article, Paris (1979) argues that lian is not a preposition, nor a localizer, but a ‘quasi-quantifier.’ I think Paris’ intuition is conect. In section 2.1.2 I will provide more evidence to substantiate this claim. 25 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2.1.2.1, L ia n is n o t a P reposition L/a/i-NPs do not function like regular PPs. Paris (ibid.) notes that while the object NPs of regular prepositions can function as the heads of relative clauses and pseudo-cleft sentences, the NPs that follow lian cannot. Here I use prepositions cong ‘from,’ ti ‘for’ to test this. The object NP, yinhang ‘bank,’ of the preposition cong ‘from ’ in (39a) can function as the relative head noun as in (39b). In contrast, the NP that follows lian, neige xiaohai ‘that child’ in (40a) cannot function as the head of the relative clause as in (40b). (39) a. Ta [pp cong ji«/m /ig] jie-le yiwan kuai. he from bank bonow Asp ten thousand dolloar ‘He borrowed ten thousand dollars from the bank.’ b. [NP [Ta t jie-le yiwan kuai] de yinhang] dao \c he borrow Asp ten thousand dollar DE bank close-down LE ‘The bank that he borrowed money from has closed down.’ (40) a. Mali lian neige xiaohai dou bu xihuan even that-Cl child all not like ‘Mali doesn’t like even that kid.’ b. *[np [Mali e dou bu xihuan de] neige xiaohai] jiao Wang er. Mali all not like DE that-CL child named Wang-er ‘The child that (even) Mali doesn’t like is called W ang-er.’ Similarly, it is possible for the object NP of a regular preposition, such as ti ‘for’ in (41), to appear in the italicised head noun position in pseudo-cleft sentences. However, the NP that follows lian is banned in that position, as shown in (42). 26 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (41) [NP [Mali [pp t: ta] xiexin ] â tre n ] shi neige xuesheng^o Mali for him write-letter DE person is that-CL student ‘The person that Mali wrote letters for is that student.’ (42) * [ n p [ Mali [lian ta dou] bu xihuan] de ren\ shi neige xiaohai. Mali even he all not like DE (man) is that-CL student 'The person that even Mali doesn’t like is that student.’ Second, Paris (ibid.) notes that negation and modal verbs must precede regular PPs, but not /mn-NPs. Compare (43a, b) and (44a, b). The PP in (43) appears after negation or modals, but the PP in (43) has to precede negation or modals. (43) a. *Zhangsan [pp xiang Lisi] meiyou / yingai jieqian Zhangsan from Lisi not-have /should borrow money b. Zhangsan m eiyou/yingai [pp xiang Lisi] jieqian Zhangsan not-have /should from Lisi borrow ir.oney ‘Zhangsan didn’t/ should boiTow money Lisi.’ (44) a. Ni [lian gongke] dou meiyou/dei xie wan you even homework all not-have/ must write finish ‘You didn’t/ must finish writing even your homework.’ b. *Ni mei / dei [lian gongke] dou xie wan you not /should even homework all write finish Consequently, the different properties between //a«-N Ps and PPs, shown above, argue against lian as a preposition. Note that even though lian apparently seems to have complementary distribution with prepositions (also noted by Hagège cited by Paris), based on the sentences in (15) and repeated in (45), lian is n o t a 20 Chinese does not allow preposition stranding, so an overt pronoun is used here. 27 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. preposition.21 Another piece of evidence is from the coordination test. Consider (46) and (47). Since only identical cateogories can be conjoined, if lian were a preposition, a lian-NP could conjoin with a PP. However, the unacceptable (46) indicates that it is not the case: a lian-NP cannot conjoin with a PP. In contrast, in (47) where two PPs are conjoined is acceptable. Thus, the unacceptability of (46) further nullifies the claim that lian is a preposition. (45)=(15) a. ?*Lisi lian Inn cong dixia-qianzhiiang1r/ot//ve iie-le qian le. Lisi LIAN from black-maiket bank DOU/YE bonow Asp money LE ‘Lisi boiTowed money even from black-market bank.’ b. ?*L isi/ / o h [ p p t i wo] dou bu xie gongke. Lisi LIAN for me DOU not write homework ‘Lisi does not write homework even for me.’ (46) *Ta [pp gei yinhang] haishi [lian Lisi] dou huan le qian?22 He to bank or even Lisi all return Asp money ‘*Did he return money to the bank or even Lisi?’ 2 1 Paris’ argument against lian as a preposition is that that lian can co-occur with zai- NPs ‘at’ and bei-NPs ‘by’, repeated in (i) and (ii). If lian were a preposition, it would violate a constraint of Chinese syntax which forbids an NP to be marked by two prepositions. The data that Paris gives does not argue for this point. First, as noted in footnote 16, sentence (i) is unacceptable for the native speakers I consulted. Second, as noted in fooUiote 11, zai ‘at’ in Oi) is not a preposition; rather it functions as a verb. (i) ?*Ta lian [bei tade airen] dou bu neng kanjian. she even by her husband all not can see ‘She cannot be seen even by her husband.’ (ii) Ta lian [zai fanguan] dou bu chifan. he even at restaurant all not eat ‘He even doesn’t eat in the restaurant.’ 22 H aishi ‘or’ can conjoin major categories: NPs, VPs, PPs, APs, etc., whereas he ‘and’ in Chinese only conjoins NPs. Thus haishi is used here. 28 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (47) Ta [ p p xiang Lisi] haishi [p p cong yinhang]] jie le qian? he to Lisi or from bank bonow Asp money ‘Did he b o iT o w money from Lisi or from the bank?’ 2 .I.2 .2 . L ia n Does N ot H ead a F u n ctio n al P ro jectio n In section 2.1.3, I will propose that dou/ye in lian..dou/ye constructions heads a functional projection. A natural question may be raised as to whether lian could head a functional projection, a LianP that selects DouP. There are two reasons not to adopt this proposal. First, note that the D ouP selected by lian could be conjoined, as in (48), thus DouP is a constituent. (48) Ta lian dianhua dou/ye bu da, xin dou/ye bu xie^3 he LIAN phone call also not make, letter also not write ‘He didn’t even make phone calls, didn’t even write letters.’ On the surface, it seems that lian could select two conjoined DouPs in (48), rather than forming a constituent with the NP that follows it. In fact, (48) does not definitely permit this proposal. Recall that lian can be optional when its following NP is a bare NP or a singular noun. The correct structure of (48) should be (49). In other words, lian indeed forms a constituent with its following NP and this constituent occurs in the Spec of DouP position, instead of being a functional head that selects DouP. (49) S [DouP [np (/'««) NP] dou [vp..]], [DouP [NP Uian) NP] dou [ v p ..]] Another problem in claiming lian heads a functional projection is that a subject can intervene between a lian-NP and dou. If lian were to head LianP that 23 I owe this sentence to Audrey Li. 29 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. selects Doii?, the discontinuity of //a«-NP and dou in (50) could not be accounted for. (50) Lian zheben shu Z hangsan dou mei kan. LIAN this-CL book Zhangsan DOU not read ‘Even this book, Zhangsan didn’t read.’ In brief, lian does not display the same properties o f prepositions. Lian does not head a functional projection that selects DouP, because of the lack of a reliable coordination test and the intervention of the subject between lian-NP and dou. 2 .1 .2 .3 . F o c a liz e r? Paris translates C. Hagège’s (1975) remark accordingly: “localizers do not allow the presence of a pronominal copy of the element on which they put focus.’’ Since pronominal copies in (51) can be construed with sentence-initial lian-NPs, Palis rejects lian as a focalizer. (51) a. Lian Zhangsani Mali ye ti ta; zuofan LIAN Zhangsan Mali also for he cook ‘Mary even cooks for Zhangsan.’ b. Lian Lisi, wo yg bei tai dabai le. LIAN Lisi I also by he defeat Perf. ‘1 even was defeated by Lisi.’ In chapter four, I will give a detailed account for sentence (51). I will claim that the S-initial lian-NP in (51) is distinct from a lian-NP in a strict preverbal position in (52). I will claim that the former is base-generated in an S-initial position; whereas (52) is solely derived by syntactic focus movement to the strict preverbal FP position. Like (base-generated) topics, sentence in (51) allows pronominal copies in 30 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the comm ent clauses. In contrast to (51), lian-NPs occuring in the Spec of FP position as in (52) do n o t allow pronominal copies. The unacceptability of (52) seems to support Hagège's insight (also see sections 3.2.2 and 4.3.4). (52) a. *Mali lian Zhangsan; ye ti ta; zuofan Mali LIAN Zhangsan also for he cook b. *vjo lian Lisi; ye bei ta; dabai le. I LIAN Lisi also by he defeat Perf. In chapter three I will discuss in more detail cases where pronominal copies cannot be interpreted with focused NPs. This point will become clear when we see the movement analysis of focalization later. . Paris’ other argument against lian as a focalizer is based on the assumption that if a focalizer is deleted, the sentence changes meaning. Since in Paris’ sentence (53) lian can be deleted without causing any change of meaning, she concludes that lian is not a focalizer. (53) (Lian ) shuye cbu bu dong even tiee-leaf all not move ‘Even the leaves didn’t move.’ It should be also noted that it is not because lian is not a focalizer that the absence of lian in sentence (53) has no change in meaning. In fact, it is because dou is not deleted together with lian. Compare (53) and (54). The interpretation of (54) is different from (53) after the deletion of both lian and dou. (54) Shuye bu dong tree-leal' not move ‘Leaves don’t move.’ 31 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. W hat can we conclude from (53) and (54) is that lian by itself cannot serve a focus function, since it can be phonologically null. It is the co-occurrence of lian and clou that constitutes focus interpretation. 2.I.2.4. Syntactic A djective or Adverb As we have seen in sections 2.1.2.1-3, lian is neither a preposition, a head of a functional projection, nor a focalizer by itself. Recall that lian is optional, while dou/ye is obligatory. I will consider lian as an adjective or adverb, because of its properly of being able to modify NPs or VPs/CPs respectively. One thing I would like to note is that although modifers in Chinese generally allow stacking, lian cannot be stacked by other prenominal modifiers. In (55a) and (55b), there is no hierarchical resmiction for adjectives such as piaoliangcle ‘beautiful’ and hongsede ‘red’ to modify the head noun dayi ‘overcoat.’ Lian, on the contraiy, has to occur in the beginning of its modified phrases. The occurence of lian in the middle position within an NP as in (56) is not allowed. This may be due to lian's scope of modifying the whole NP/CP/VP that is focused by it. (55) a. lian zhejian piaoliang de hongse de d a y i... LIAN this-CL beautiful red overcoat b. lian zhejian hongse de piaoliang de d a y i... LIAN this-CL red beautiful overcoat (56) *zhejian lian hongse de (*//««) piaoliang de d a y i... this-CL LIAN red (LIAN) beautiful overcoat 32 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. After lian is drawn from the lexicon, it adjoins to its modified NP/VP/CP to form a constituent,^'* (cf. Rooth’s (1985) discussion of crosscategorial status of even/only). This Han phrase bears a focus interpretation and quantifies every member of relevent worlds, see section 2.1.4.1. Then it needs to be licensed by dou/ye. There are two ways of achieving licensing; either in syntax or at LF. In syntax, licensing of a lian phrase with dou can be done by Spec Head agreement. This is the case where focalization movement takes place, which will be discussed in chapter three. A lian-X P moves to and merges with F ’, then projects to FP. Licensing at LF will be discussed in chapter four. It is the case where //««-phrases are base-generated in the S-initial position. Licensing requirement is done by the LF m ovem ent of dou maximal head to I^, in which domain dou is able to check or discharge its [Focus] feature to the base-generated S-initial //««-phrase. 2.1.3. Dou as a Predicate Q uantifier In this section I will discuss the nature of dou. Doifi^ has been considered to be a quantificational adverb (Lee (1986), Cheng (1991)) to quantify elements to its 2 '* A constituent can undergo movement, so does a //««-phrase. A //««-phrase can be coordinated with another //«/j-phrase (coordination test of constituency), as in (48’). It can also serve as sentence-fragment, as in (i). (48’) Ta lian dianhua dou/ye bu da, (lian) xin dou/ye bu xie he LIAN phone call also not make, letter also not write ‘He didn’t even make phone calls, didn’t even write letters.’ (i) A Zhangsan shi-bu-shi lian huangce xiaoshuo dou mai le ne? Zhangsan be-not-be LIAN pornographic novel DOU bought Q ‘Did Zhangsan buy even novel?’ B: Bu shi, shi lian zaochi... no, be LIAN magazine 25 I will not further distinguish ye from dou. Paris (ibid.) notes that the scope of ye; is not limited to elements placed on its left, although she also states that “r/o« can only take in its scope NPs or PPs which are placed to its left.” Nevertheless, I will argue that both dou and ye have to be related to their following predicates, not only quantify to elements on their left. 3 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. left (Paris (1979), Huang (1982), Liu (1990) and among others). Adopting Dowty and Brodie’s (1984) (D&B hereafter) proposal of English all as a VP quantifier (besides English determiner all), I suggest that Chinese dou functions as a VP (or predicate) quantifier, in addition to left quantification. This V P/predicate quantification property is syntactically realized as being a head of a functional projection which selects an VP or AspP. I will return to this in section 2.2. In other words, dou has a function of relating a VP (or a predicate) to its left element (also see Li (1992) and 4oyagi (p.c.)). Dou is not identical to English determiner all. Although both deteiTniner and VP-quantifier in English have the same form, all, Chinese has distinct lexical items for determiners and VP-quantifiers. Dou cannot function as a prenominal modifier, in (57a). For NP determiners, it is either ineige 'evei"y' or suoyou ‘all’ that serves this function, as in (57b). Dou is obligatorily required and can co-occur witb meige/ suoyou. (57) a. * [ n p D o u xuesheng] lai le. DOU student come Asp b. [ n p Meige/Suoyou de xuesheng] zuotian * ( d o u ) lai le. evei-y-CU all student yesterday *(DOU) come Asp M oreover, dou cannot occur in a post verbal position to quantify the object, as indicated in (58). Rather, a universal QP object m eiben/ suoyou de shu ‘every/all books’ has to be preposed to a preverbal position to be quantified by dow,^^ see the contrast between (58) and (59). (58) *Zhangsan zuotian kan le [n p meiben/suoyou de shu] d o u Zhangsan yesterday read AsP eveiy-CL/all DE book DOU 26 See footnote 35. 3 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (59) Zhangsan zuotian [n p meiben/suoyou de shu] dou kan le Zhangsan yesterday eveiy-CUall DE book DOU read Asp 'Zhangsan read eveiy book yesterday.’ According to D&B (1984), the determiner a// and the denotation of the VP quantifier all in English are of different logical types, under the fram ework of Montague Grammar. The syntax of determiner and VP-quantifier all as proposed by them is repeated in (60). They state that a determiner, as in (60a), m ust map comm on noun (CN)-denotations (i.e. sets of individuals) into N P-denotations, whereas the VP-quantifier in (60b) must relate VP-denotations to NP-denotations. This VP containing all is a function applying to an NP-denotation, not vice-versa. (60) a. Determiner o//: VP’ ([all’ (CN’)]) b. VP-quandfiero//: [a//’ (VP’)] (NP’) Take the student in (61) and the VP-quantifier all for example, VP-all first examines the NP-denotation and extracts the set of contextually relevant students. NPs are determined by taking the intersection of all the sets in the NP-denotation. The resulting sentence must then assert that every individual that is a m em ber of this intersection has the property denoted by the VP. Their formal rule is repeated in (62). (61) [[the students]] = the family of all sets that contain eveiy contextually- relevant student = [X I [[student]] n Rel ç X) (62) [[[aU V P v p ]]] = { /te Dn p Io P ç [ y l y * e [[VP]] }} “n P ' = the intersection of all the sets in P (power s e t), "y*” = (X I y e X ] (i.e. the maximal filter generated by y) “Dnp” = the domain of NP-denotations (Dowty and Brodie 1984) 35 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The semantics of the VP-quantification adopted from D&B and the existence of two distinct lexical items in Chinese (equivalent to English all) stiongly argue for distinct representations of VP-quantifier all and determiner all. I will argue in section 2.2 that dou heads a functional projection (i.e. FocusP) and selects a predicate or a VP.2'^ My position of VP modifier dou is further supported by Bow ers’ (1993) claim that English floating quantifiers (vs. determiner all) are base-generated as XP adjuncts only to the “propositional” categories PrP and IP, instead of being base generated inside NPs as Sportiche (1988) has argued. Bowers’ argument is drawn from the unacceptability of (63). (63) a. *The professors were fired all. (Bowers 1993: #89) b. *The books have disappeared all.^^ In other words, the sentences in (63) show that it is impossible to raise object NPs and leave the quantifier stranded in object position in E nglish.29 Bowers argues that it is because the stranded quantifier is not part of the moved NPs in D-structure. If it were, we would wrongly allow floating quantifiers to occur in any position from which an NP can move. Bow ers’ sentences in (63) are on a par with the Chinese unacceptable sentence in (64). The object in (64) is preposed and dou is left stranded. Thus, dou, like English (VP)-quantifier all, cannot occur in an object position, since it has to modify a predicate. 2'^ This proposal is in contrast with the view of treating the so-called floating quantifier, all to be base-generated within an NP, as in Sportiche (1988) and the similar analysis for Chinese by Chiu (1993). Many Chinese facts suggest that dou is not a floating quantifier; see Cheng (1991), Li (1992) among others. 28 Fiengo and Lasnik (1976) also note that (i) is unacceptable in English. (i) *He hates the men all. 29 According to Bowers (1993 fn. 22), the acceptability of the French counterpart of (63) is due to the fact that French allows sentence-final quantifiers anyway, but English does not. 36 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (64) *Zhangsan (lian) ?,hexie shu kanwan le dou. Zhangsan LIAN these book read-finish Asp DOU ‘Zhangsan all finished reading books.’ Although Bowers treats the English floating quantifier all as a PreP/IP adjunct, what concerns us here is the ‘predicate modifier’ nature of all and dou. In other words, dou in Chinese should not be treated as being within an NP. Intead of treating dou as an adverb, I will argue that dou heads a functional projection that selects AspP or ’ VP in order to account for its distribution relative to universal QPs in section 2.2. 2.1.4. The Interpretation o f L ia n ...D o u This section first presents the conventional im plicature denoted by lian...dou/ye, similar to the English even sentences discussed by Karttunen and Peters (1979), Rooth (1985) among others. Second I will show that //«n-NPs and universal quantificational noun phrases (QPs) have similar properties in relation to dou. It will be concluded that the apparent differences between //a/;-NPs (as well as universal QPs) and referential NPs, which will be discussed in section 2.1.4.2, are not due to two distinct dous, as Gao (ibid.) argues: one for focalizer dou for lian- NPs and one for quantificational dou for referential NPs . Instead, I suggest that the differences lie in differnt types of NPs: QPs in general and referential NPs.^*^ I will come to this point in section 2.1.4.2. 3° Li (1992) has observed different distributions among referential NPs, QPs, and W h-indefinites in relation to dou. It seems to me that it is a more plausible research methodology to account for properties of different types of NPs related to dou, instead of postulating three distinct dous. 37 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The semantics of even contains two implicatures: existential and scalar. The examples in (65) are Rooth’s (ibid.) reformulation of Karttunen and Peters’ (ibid.) conventional implicature. (65) Existential implicature a. 3 pC (p) & “ p & p?t " a] & Scalai- implicature b. Vp [[C(p) & p?* " a] ->exceed’ (likelihood’ (p) likelihood’ Ç a))] (65a) says that there is a proposition, p, whose form is determined by the context, which is true, and p is not equal to a, the assertation (the proposition without even). The scalar implicature in (b) says for every proposition, if the proposition is of the form deteiTnined by the contextual variable, C, and is not the proposition given the assertion, a, then the likelihood of that proposition exceeds the likelihood of a (also see Wilkinson (1994)). Take (66) for example; (66) Sara read even ULYSSES. the existential implicature says that there is a proposition, p, e.g. Sara read other books, and p is not equal to “Sara read Ulysses.” The scalar implicature says the likelihood of every proposition related to the things that Sara read exceeds the likelihood of Sara’s reading of Ulyssess. Namely, Ulyssess is the least likely book that Sara read. 2.1.4.1. L ia//-N P s an d U niversal Q u an tifica tio n a l N Ps The claim of the universal QP likeness of lian-NPs is supported by Lycan’s (1991) semantics of English even. He argues that even denotes ‘everything... including’ and it adds a universal quantification over the members of contextually 38 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. specified (real-and-relevant) events.3i.32 Compare sentence (67a) without even and (67b) with even (67b) implicitly refers to a group and entails that everyone in that group put on his or her coat; while no such entailment is in (67a). (67) a. Grannie put on her coat. b. Even GRANNIE put on her coat. The interpretation of lian..dou/ye in question exactly mirrors English even meaning: ‘everything... including.’ Licm literally means ‘including, connecting,’ which exhaustively quantifies all members in an understood domain. The VP- quantifier dou/ye ‘all/ also’ relates relevant events in discussion with //a/j-elements. Hence, based on this similar semantic interpretation: exhaustively screening elements in given discourse domains, it is reasonable to claim that lian-NPs behave like universal Q P s . 3 3 The only difference is that lian..dou/ye presupposes the existence of a pragmatic likelihood scale associated with the sentence (see Horn (1969), Fauconnier (1975), Karttunen & Peters (1979) among others), but regular universal QPs do not. 3' Lycan argues that even affects truth-conditions. Kuroda (1965) and Anderson (1972) mention the effect of even on interpretation. Rather, Karttunen and Peter’s (1979) claim that the Uoith-conditional aspect of meaning and meaning conventionally implicated by (67b) should be distinguished and treated differently. I will leave this issue open as to whether the interpretation of even contributes to truth-condition or conventional implicature. 32 Lycan’s semantic analysis of even is in (i). Instead of adopting ‘conventional implicature’, he leaves the attitude of counterexpectation in even sentences as being expressed by the use of ‘conversational implicature’. (i) Where 5 is a sentence containing even, C is the constituent of S and of its conesponding S* that is the focus of even in S, unsaturated dashes “............. ” indicate the result of subtracting even and C from 5, and G is a contextually detenuinded class containing at least one member ^ C : S \s tiue iff eveiy member x of G including the referent of C is such that -— x-— . 33 Huang (1982:311), and Liu (1990:121) consider lian..dou and dou as having similai" quantification force. 3 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Having seen the similar interpretation between //««-NPs and universal QPs, the following will provide syntactic evidence for this view that lian-N P s are equivalent to universal QPs. First, like universal QPs (and W;-indefinites quantified by dou to interpret universally), lian-NPs have to be quantified by a predicate modifier: dou or ye, shown in (68). Dou has a collective or distributive reading in Chinese. Moreover, lian and ineige/ suoyou ‘every’ cannot co-occur. This in fact indicates that lian-NPs and universal QPs have complementary distribution. This is demonstrated in (69), which is similar to (78a).34.35 (68) Lian Lisi/Meigeren/Shei *{dou) ai chi chou-doufu LIAN Lisi/ everyone/who DOU love eat smelly-beancurd ‘Even Lisi/Everyone loves eating smelly beancurd.’ (69) (*Lian ) Meigeren/Shei dou ai chi chou-doufu =(78a) (LIAN) everyone/who DOU love eat smelly-beancurd ‘(*Even) Everyone loves eating smelly beancurd.’ Second, both lian-NPs and universal QPs do not enter into a scope interaction with negation or (deontic) modals. Compare (70a) and (70b). Dou has to occur This complementary distribution between universal QPs with lian-NPs is similar to the point made by Fraser (1970) that even cannot be inteipreted with quantifiers, like someone, eveiyone, noone. (i) *We want to see even everybody. 35 Universal QPs tend to occur preverbally to be quantified by dou. However, there are limited cases of object universal QPs. Consider (i). According to Cheng (1991), universal QPs such as meige ren ‘every person’ cannot occur in object position unless it is a contrast focus. (i) *Oiaofong renshi meige xuesheng. (Cheng 1991: 161) Qiaofong know every-CL student Another case is the universal QPs as a postverbal indirect object. The inteipretation of this universal QP might be the same as (i), bearing conuasdve focus. (ii) Zhangsan gei le meige xuesheng yizhi hi. Zhangsan give Asp every-CL student one-CL pen ‘Zhangsan gave every student one pen.’ 1 have no account for this point. However, note that even though universal QPs might occur postverbally, /(on-NPs can never do so. 40 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. before negation/modals in order to quantify over //an-NPs and universal QPs and for this exhaustively quantified element(s) to be related to relevant quantified event(s). (70) a. Zhangsan lian zhehen shu/meihen shu dou m eiy o u /x ian g kanwan. Zhangsan LIAN this book/every book DOU not/ want read-finish ‘Zhangsan didn’t/ doesn’t want to finish reading even this/every book.’ b. *Zhangsan lian zheben shu/meiben shu m eiyou/ xiang dou kanwan. Zhangsan LIAN this book/every book not / want DOU read-finish However, there exists a difference between dou quantifying over universal QPs/lian-NPs and referential NPs. Dou associated with regular referential NPs can either precede or follow negation/modals, resulting in the different inteipretations in (71). (71) a. Zhangsan zhexie shu dou meiyou kanguo/gan kan. V-i Zhangsan these book DOU not read Exp / dare read 'Zhangsan didn’t read these books at all/ dares to read all these books.’ b. Zhangsan zhexie shu meiyou/ xiang dou kan guo/ kanwan -iV Zhangsan these book not/ want DOU read Exp/ read finish ‘Zhangsan didn’t/ wants to finish reading all these books.’ Dou has scope over negation/modal in (7 la), but negation/modal has scope over dou in (71b). I suggest that the difference between (70) and (71) is because different types of NPs, QPs/lian-NPs vs. referential NPs, interact with dou, rather than two distinct dous as argued by Gao (1994). Second, Lee (1986), Chiu (1993) and Cheng (1993) have noted that dou cannot quantify an NP intei’ vened by ba- or 6g/-phrases. This blocking effect of bo or 6e/-phrases also applies to dou quantification of lian-NPs and universal QPs. In 41 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (72) and (73), in order for dou to be interpreted with the subject zhexie xuesheng ‘these students,’ it has to precede the 6a-phrase and 6e/-phrase. (72) Zhexie xuesheng dou [ba zheben shu] i*dou) song gei LisP^ these student BA this-CL book DOU give Lisi ‘These students all gave Lisi this book.’ (73) Neixie xiaohai dou\hei Lisi] i*dou) qi-fu-quo those kid DOU by Lisi exploit-Exp ‘Those kids were all exploited by Lisi.’ Similarly, (74) and (75) demonstrate that a 6a-phrase or 6e/-phrase cannot intervene between a //an-NP/QP and dou. (74) Meigeren / Lian Zhangsan dou [ba zheben shu] {*dou) kanwan le. Everyone/ LIAN Zhangsan DOU BA this book read-finish Perf ‘Everyone/ Even Zhangsan finished reading this book.’ (75) Meigeren / Lian Zhangsan dou [bei laoshi] (*dou) da le yidun. Eveiyone/ LIAN Zhangsan DOU by teacher hit Perf once ‘Everyone/ Even Zhangsan was hit by the teacher.’ To summarize, lian-NPs behave like universal QPs both semantically and syntactically. They all exhaustively quantifies members in understood domains. They are in complementary distribution and obligatorily require dou. D ou co occurring with them does not enter into scope interaction negation or modals. The only difference is the scalar implicature denoted in lian..dou sentences. 3^ The underlied NPs are the elements quantified by dou. 42 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2.I.4.2. Are There Two Different Dous"! Having disscussed the predicate modifier nature of dou, one question arises as to whether the dou quantifying over referential NPs is the same as the dou quantifying over //an-NPs/QPs. It will be shown that these two dous can be ueated alike. The following will show apparent differences between the dou related to referential NPs and lian-NPs. It will be suggested that these differences result from the different types of NPs involved, rather than two distinct dous as Gao^^ (1994) proposes. First, it has been known that referential NPs quantified by dou should be plural. Zhangsan, a singular NP, is not interpreted with dou in (76) with the intended collective reading. However, sentence (76) can be interprétable when this singular NP is understood as eve/j-NP as in (77). Recall that lian can be optional. (76) Tamen/*Zhangsan dou mai le zheben shu. they/ Zhangsan DOU buy Perf this book They/*Zhangsan all bought this book.’ (77) {Lian) tamen/ Zhangsan dou mai le zheben shu even they/ Zhangsan DOU buy Perf this-CL book ‘Even they/ Zhangsan bought this book.’ Therefore, both singular and plural referential NPs can be quantified by dou. In this case, singular NPs have even implicature. This is accountable under the current proposal of treating //a«-N Ps as universal QPs. A universal QP, as well as a //aM4-singular NP (or a non-G-specific NP, see below) screens each individual exhaustively in an understood domain to be related to the VP. In other words, it is Gao (1994) argues for two different dous: one for regular quantificational dou, and the other for a focalizer dou in lian..dou. 43 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. not because the dou that quantifies plural referential NPs is different from the dou related to //a/j-singular NP. Rather, dou is related to both plural referential NPs and //cf/j-singular NP exhaustively quantifying all members in the domain in discussion, except for the scalarity being implied in lian-NPs. Related to the above point, Liu (1990) proposes that dou only co-occurs with G-specific NPs,^*’^^ such as universal QP meigeren ‘everyone,’ but not non-G- specific NPs. This observation, however, is not carried over to lian..dou sentences; see (78). On one hand, G-specific NPs do not follow lian as in (78a). On the other hand, non-G-specific NPs like proportional NPs with a lower end ‘less than N’ meaning as in (78b), can occur in lian...dou sentences. (78) a. *Lian meigeren dou ai chi chou-doufu^^ G-specific NP LIAN everyone DOU love eat smelly-beancurd ‘*Even everyone loves eating smelly beancurd.’ b. Lian wufen zhi yi de ren dou chu-xi le non-G-specific even one fifth of person DOU present Perf ‘Even one fifth of the people were present.’ 38 G-specific NPs in Chinese categorized by Liu (1990) include proper nouns, pronouns, locative phrases, bare NPs, NPs with deictic determiners, bare numerical NPs, logical NPs. Non-G-specific NPs are NPs with m odified num erical determiner: zhishao, budao, approximative det. shiduo ge, shi-ji ge, ‘more than ten,’ proportional NPs (with lower end), sanfen zJii yi ‘one-third of.’ 39 In fact, non-G-specific NPs can occur with either dou. In this context, it denotes a lower scale in the speaker’s expectation, in the sense of the pragamatic scalarity proposed by Fauconnier (1975). I thank Bany Schein (1993 p.c.) for bringing my attention to this point. ^0 Although every in (i) occurs in lian-NP, it is not a counter-argument, (i) is comparing my every student with other sets of people, such as teachers, kids, etc. (i) Lian wode meige xuesheng dou ai chi chou-doufu LIAN my every student DOU love eat smelly-beancurd ‘Even my every student loves eating smelly beancurd.’ 4 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The possibility of co-occurrence of lian and non-G-specific NPs follows from our previous discussion. A lian-NP screens all the members in a dom ain under discussion and even includes members at the lower end of the pragmatic scale in the sense of Fauconnier (1975). Universal QPs, since they have internal NP quantification, do not co-occur with lian.^^ IT/j-phrases, which are licensed by dou yield a universal reading as in (79), behave like universal QPs related to lian in this respect, shown in (80). N am ely, wA -phrases follow ing lian and preceding d o u in (80) denote interrogation,'*^ and lack universal interpretation. (79) a. Shei r/oH xihuan Mali. Who DOU like Mali ‘Everyone likes Mali.’ b. Ta nar r/owxihuan qu. he where DOU like go ‘He likes to go everywhere.’ (80) a. Lian shei dou lai le (ne /*ma)? LIAN who DOU come Perf (Q/yes-no Q) ‘Even who came?’ ‘*Even everybody came.’ Lian could co-occur with universal QPs as in (i), but lian ineizhi houzi ‘even every/each monkey’ quantified by dou includes not only monkeys themselves, but other kinds of animals, say human beings. The speaker compares monkeys with other kinds of animals in his/her mind. A sim ilar point is also made by James Huang. (i) Lian meizhi houzi dou hui yong chazi LIAN evei-y-CL monkey DOU can use fork ‘Even eveiy (each) monkey can use forks.’ '* 2 It seems that the interpretation is that of an echo question when even co-occurs with tv/j-phrases. 4 5 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. b. Lian shenmci ta Joj< yao ti (ne / *ma)? LIAN what he DOU want Q ‘Even what does he want?’ ‘*Even everything he wants.’ Another argument that Gao (1994) points out to argue for two distinct dous is the possibility of multiple dous within a sentence, as shown in (81). He states that the first dou in (81) is the focalizer dou (co-occurring with lian), and the second dou is the regular quantificational cbu. (81) Lian tamen dou meiyou dou mai zheben shu even they DOU not-have DOU buy this-CL book 'Even they have not all bought this book.’ However, we can come up with sentences like (82) and (83), which both contain two dous of the same type in each sentence. If the co-occunence of two dous indicates that these two dous were distinct types of dou, one would consider the two dous in each following sentence are different types. This is by no means plausible. (82) Lian Zhangsan dou lian manhua dou taoyan'*^ LIAN they DOU LIAN comic strips DOU dislike ‘Even Zhangsan dislikes even comic strips.’ (83) Tamen (dou) meiyou dou taoyan manhua they DOU not-have DOU dislike comic strips ‘Not all of them dislike comic strips.’ (i) is another example of having two lian..dous. (i) L ian Zhangsan dou lian yiben shu dou meiyou kan. LIAN Zhangsan DOU LIAN one-CL book DOU not-have read ‘Even Zhangsan also didn’t read even one book.’ 46 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. It is possible to create contexts in which (82) is acceptable.'*'* Anderson (1972) has noted that even is not limited to one occurrence per sentence (Fraser (1970) and see even attachment transformation in Kuroda (1965)). This is also true in Chinese. Suppose comic strips in (82) are the most popular thing for the general population. Suppose in addition that there exists a group of anti-comics radicals. Zhangsan is a level-headed person, whom one would not expect to be mixed up with this group of people, but even he was influenced by their protest. In this situation one can utter (82), im plying that the idea of anti-com ics finally had influenced Zhangsan. Consequently, the recurrence of dous in (82) should not be considered as two different types of dou. It is also possible to utter (83) emphasizing ‘all of them .’ The recurrence of dou in this sentence does not argue for two distinct dous either. In summary. The apparent differences between referential NPs and lian-NPs quantified by dou, discussed above, can be explained in terms of different NP types and the interpretations implied, instead of proposing that there exist two different r/oM S.'*^ Referential NPs quantified by dou are plural in order to have a collective reading. This (exhaustively) collective reading is obtained when singular NPs (or non-G-specific NPs) denote lian-NPs and scalarity is implied. '* '* The acceptability of (82) and (83) suggests that we can project two DouPs in a sentence, and the higher DouP selects another DouP. '* 5 There exists another difference in dou quantifying between regular PPs and lian- PPs. As discussed in section 2.1.1.1, lian does not precede a PP, hence (ii) is unacceptable, but there is no such restriction for regular PPs. (i) a. Zhangsan [ p p ba zhexie shu I dou kanwan le. Zhangsan BA these books DOU read-finish Perf ‘Zhangsan finished reading these books.’ b. Zhangsan fppcong zhexie yinhangl dou jie le bushao qian. Zhangsan from these banks DOU boiTOw Perf a lot of money ‘Zhangsan borrowed a lot of money from these banks.’ (ii) *Zhangsan lian [ba shu] dou meiyou / bu yuanyi na-chulai. =( 16b) Zhangsan LIAN BA book DOU not / not willing take-out 4 7 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2.1.4.3. L ian + Indefinite NP = A n y This section shows that lian + indefinite is equivalent to any, interpreted either as universal free choice any or existential any (a negative polarity sensitive item, NPI-(7«y). Any is licensed by the existence of a pragamatic scale of some sort. This view avoids the problem of existential lian-NP not being syntactically c- commanded by negation. Indefinite NPs can occur after lian in either affirmative or negative sentences, as in (84) and (85) respectively. (84) Zhangsan lian vi/hankou fan dou chi-xiaqu le Zhangsan LIAN one/half-CL rice DOU eat-down Asp ‘Zhangsan ate even a/half mouthful of rice.’ (85) Zhangsan lian vi/hankou fan dou meivou chi. Zhangsan LIAN one/half-CL rice DOU not-have eat ‘Zhangsan didn’t eat even a/half mouthful of rice, (didn’t eat any rice).’ These indefinites are non-specific. When these indefinite NPs are in positive contexts, they denote a minimal quantity (the low end in a pragmatic scale discussed above); when they occur in negative contexts, the negation m eiyou negates the minimal quantity, hence the sentences denote no quantity at all.'*^ It has been discussed previously that lian+NPs are equivalent to universal QPs. Lee and Horn (1995) (L&H hereafter) propose that NPI and FC any are semantically equivalent to the indefinite determiner a and contain an incoipraled even (also noted by Lahiri (1995)). Hence, we can equate /mn+indefinite NP with any. One conjecture is that the //an-indefinite NP occuning in negative contexts might be a Bolinger (1972), noted by Horn (1989; 400), calls this type of minimal quantity items “minimizers,” like English a bit, care a fig, drink a drop, etc. 48 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. negative polarity sensitive item, NPI henceforth. This view is based on the assumption of two homophonous anys made by Ladusaw (1979) and Carlson (1980; 1981).'*^ Under this proposal, a//an + in d efin ite, when occurring in positive contexts, would be like free choice (FC-) any. When it occurs in negative contexts, it becomes a negative polarity NPI-any, putting aside the syntactic c-command of NPI-licensing. This view, however, runs into the problem of why a //on-indefinite NP can occur in the same position either in positive or negative contexts. The view of two homophonous anys does not seem to solve the problem. Instead of treating any as two homonyms, L&H argue that FC and NPI any are semantically equivalent to the indefinite determiner a and contain an incorprated even (cf. Schmerling (1971)). They can be interpreted either existentially or universally in the same position, and paraphrased by either even a single or gvgn+superlative respectively. The context that licenses this possibility presupposes the existence of a pragmatic scale; see (86) and (87). (86) Even presupposes the existence of a pragmatic likelihood scale associated with the sentence. (87) a. A sentence containing any CN presupposes the existence of a pragmatic scale of a particular sort, b. The nature of the scale is equivalent to the one constructed for a sentence containing the indefinite a CN, in which the potential focus of even is a, i.e. a is the focused element. Take any boy in a negative context in (88a) for example, it is inteipreted existentially in (88b), or universally in (88c). The existential reading of (88b) denotes a minimal Ladusaw (1979) proposes that existential any (polarity sensitive, NPI-o/iy) occurs within the scope of a downward entailing operator. Calrson (1981) argues that the universal any (the so-called free-choice any) occurs in generic/intentional contexts. 49 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. quantity, and the universal, generic reading of ev^n+superlative in (88c) denotes a kind scale. L&H note that a kind scale is “whatever kind of CN for which the proposition schema is least likely to hold in the given context.” (88) a. I didn’t like any boy. b. I didn’t like even a single boy. -existential c. I didn’t like even the most handsome boy. — universal Furthermore, if a pragamatic scale is presupposed, L&H argue that any can be interpreted either existentially or universally (generically) in a positive context. Consider Carlson’s sentence repeated in (89). Any is interpreted existentially in (90a), denoting a minimal quantity. It is interpreted generically in (90b), presupposing a quality that is the least likely held, even+superlative. (89) For anyone to leave the room now would be a disaster. (Carlson 1981:25) (90) a. For even a single person to leave the room now would be a disaster. b. For even the most inconsequential person to leave the room now would be a disaster. (Lee and Horn 1995) L& H’s study is supported by the Chinese data in question. Sentence (84) has an existential reading, presupposing a low scale in quantity. We can come up universal interpretation to denote a low scale in quality, as shown in (84’). Zhangsan is too hungry and he even ate a/half mouthful of spoiled leftover. (84’) Zhangsan lian vi/hankou zhou le de shengfan dou chi-xiaqu le Zhangsan LIAN one/half-CL spoiled leftover DOU eat-down Asp ‘Zhangsan ate even a/half mouthful of spoiled leftover.’ 50 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Similarly, we can come up with a universal reading in (85’) in comparsion with the existential (minimal quantity) reading of (85). (85’) Zhangsan lian vi/hankou zuigaoii de iiu dou meivou he. Zhangsan LIAN one/half-CL highest class wine DOU not-have drink ‘Zhangsan didn’t drink even a/half mouthful of the highest class of wine.’ The consequence of this current proposal is that /zo/j+indefinite NP, i.e. ban+N ‘half,’'* ^ does not have to be Ueated as an NPI. W henever a pragmatic scale, quantity or quality, is presupposed, /zVzzz+indefinite NP can occur either in negative or positive contexts. Therefore, the unacceptability of (91) is not because ban CN is an NPI that has to be licensed by negation. Rather it is because it is impossible to construe a universal (kind) interpretation with this particular head noun man. Hence only negating a minimal quantity can be consUoied with this head noun. (91) Zhangsan lian bange ren dou *(bu) xihuan. Zhangsan LIAN half-CL man DOU not like 'Zhangsan doesn’t like even half man, (doesn’t like anyone).’ A consequence of L&H’s proposal concerns the licensing of any. If any, FC and NPI, is uniformally licensed by a pragamatic scale and interpretation, what is the status of c-commanding NPI licensing that has been widely studied in the literature (see syntactic licensing in Progovac (1988), LF licensing in Uribc-Etxebania (1993) and references cited there)? As Li (1992a: fn 25) notes dou licensing w/z-indefinites is different from syntactic c-commanding indefninite licensing.'**-^ I will not give a full account here but will leave this for future research. According to Hsieh (1994), ban CN, an NPI, has a stricter licensing requirement than renhe ‘any’ or iv/z-indefinites. Please also see chapter four, footnotes 16 and 18. 51 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2.2. Strict Preverbal Position as a Focus Position 2.2.1. The A nalysis A lian-NP in post-subject preverbal position undergoes syntactic movement - focalization. The structure is as follows: (92) IP lian- AspP/ NP. Dou/ AspV 2 Ye ^ iv r ^ Asp/ y k . V In (92) dou/ye is the head of a Focus Projection (PP). This head selects a perfective aspectual phrase, or a modal phrase, or a negation phrase.^° Phrases selected by this F can be subsumed under a broader categoi-y, S P in the sense of Laka (1990), which includes an affirmation marker or negation.^^ IP, instead of AgrSP, is proposed here for Chinese. The Spec of IP position is for abstract nominative Case checking (cf. English structure in Pollock (1989), Chomsky (1993; 1994), Huang (1993), and no subject raising in Aoun and Li (1993)). When an Asp is projected with the perfective marker /e,52 the verb inside the VP raises to and adjoins AspO, because of the affix nature of the aspectual marker. If Section 2.2.1.1 will provide evidence for the proposal that AspP, MP and NegP compete for the same projection. It is not my concern whether the VP in (92) corresponds to a Predicate Phrase as proposed by Tang (1990) for Chinese (cf. Bowers (1993)). 52 I will not further consider the details of the experience aspectual marker guo. It seems that guo does not conform with the perfective aspectual marker le. In negative sentences guo can co-occur with negation meiyou ‘not-have’, in the order {mei)you- 5 2 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. a deontic modal is projected, the main verb does not raise to MP. I assume that Chinese lacks V-to-I movement in syntax (cf. Huang (1993), Tsai (1994)).^^ A subject is base-generated in the Spec of VP position, following the Internal Subject Hypothesis (Kuroda (1988), Koopman and Sportiche (1990) among others). The subject raises from Spec of VP to target AspVM’; then further raises to IP Spec. This intemiediate step, in [Spec AspP/MP] of raising the subject from [Spec VP] to [Spec IP] is needed for the subject to be licensed as the subject of AspP/M P. Finally, the subject moves to Spec of IP for subject abstract Case-marking. Subject raising to [Spec IP] in Chinese is obligatory, even though Infl is defective in Chinese. I assume this subject raising is for assignment of nominative Case. Object abstract Case is checked by verb government in Chinese. In Chom sky’s (1994; 1995) Bare Phrase Structure, he prohibits non branching projections (cf. K itahara’s (1995) em ploym ent of non-branching projection). The X -bar template is not assumed in this fram ework and phrase stmctures aie formed by Generalized Transformation (GT). Projections are relational properties of categories, not inherent to them. Projections (maximal or minimal) are determined from the structure in which they appear without any specific marking (Chomsky 1994: 9) and Muysken (1982). V-giw, whereas meiyou cannot co-occur with perfective le. This contrast is given in (i). (i) a. Wo m eiyou qu-guo Meiguo. I not-have go-Exp USA T have nevtsr been to the U.S.A.’ b. Wo m eiyou qu-(*Ie) Meiguo. I not-have go-Asp USA T didn’t go to the U.S.A.’ Tsai (1994: 197) assumes no V-to-I movement both in overt syntax and in the LF component. Tsai’s reason for a lack of V-to-I at LF aims to explain the definiteness effect of the Chinese subject, which is absent in English. English undergoes V-to-I raising at LF. The definiteness effect of the subject will be discussed in chapter 4. I will show that Tsai’s observation is only partially true. Chinese allows indefinite subjects in certain contexts; also see Lee (1986). Thus, Tsai’s argument for the lack of V-to-I at LF does not seem to be grounded. 53 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Consider (93). (93) A P 2 AspP/MP Adopting the generalized transformation discussed in Chomsky (1993; 1994), F, including lexical items of dou/ye or a formal strong [+Focus] feature^'^ (labeled F2 ), is selected and merges with AspP/MP. F 2 projects and is the head of the newly m erged node F p If no other derivation happens to F i, Fi is labeled as FP, a m aximal projection. In contrast to X-bar template, it is crucial that a specifier position is not formed if no GT (merge or move) applies. In other words, dou, like functional heads, does not require a Spec position to be projected, since there is no external argument for these heads. Moreover, the Spec-Head Agreement relation within functional projections does not represent basic grammatical relations, in contrast to lexical heads such as V; rather it is for feature checking. Hence, (93) is a legitimate syntactic object. As for the post-subject preverbal localized constituent in question, it undergoes move (target a category of) a . Focalization here is attracted by the projected lexical Focus head with a stong [+Focus] form al feature^^ an overt movement that has to be checked in overt syntax in the sense of Chomsky (1995). Consider (94). Object preposing will be discussed in sections 3.4 and 3.5. 1 will argue that bare object preposing (SOV) is derived from a strong [+Focus] feature projected, which tiiggers object movement. The distinction between the so-called object shift and this object preposing will be discussed at the same time. 55 [+Focus] formal feature refers to a syntactic feature. It is different from a phonological focus feature which should not be treated in the same way, e.g. Culicover (1993). 54 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (94) FP n T ' f F MP/AspP The focalized NP moves and merges with F’ (=Fi in (93)). F ’ further projects and forms the category labeled as FP. This NP-movement targets F’ and creates a branching category FP immediately dominating both NP and F ’. This is the substitution^^ mechanism that the focalized constituent finally becomes in [Spec FP], to check the strong [+Focus] feature via Spec Head agreement. This focus movement is triggered by the strong Focus formal feature in the sense of ‘attract a ’ in Chomsky (1995). This strong Focus feature has to be checked prior to Spell-Out to avoid PF crash. The whole NP is pied-piped,^^ which conforms to the overt movement mechanism outlined in Chomsky (ibid.). When a subject is attached (modified) by lian, this //««-subject has to raise through [Spec AspP/MP] to [Spec of FP], and finally becomes in [Spec IP]. When a (postverbal) object is focused by //««-attachment, it has to be moved and targets the F ’ projection. Sentences with //««-subject, in (5a), and //««-object, in (5b), are repeated here. For //««-object, the canonical SVO order in Chinese becomes S-lian- 0-dou-V . (5) a. Lian Zhangsan dou/ye mai le zheben shu even Zhangsan all/also buy Perf this-CL book ‘Even Zhangsan bought this book.’ 56 According to Chomsky (1994:16), substitution forms a new category, whereas adjunction forms a two-segment category. 5 '^ Chomsky (1995) states that subject and object raising are raised overtly as full categories or covertly as features, in accord with the minimalist program. 55 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. b. Zhangsan lian z h e b e n s h u dou/ye mai le Zhangsan even this-CL book all/also buy Perf ‘Zhangsan bought even this book.’ 2.2.1.1. Epistem ic and Deontic M odals In (92) I propose that that Asp and deontic modals are included in the same more broadly temaed projection,^*^ cf. the ZP in Laka (1990). The motivation is that aspectual affix le, and deontic modals are in complementary distribution. The co- occunence of both is bad as in (95). (95) *Xiaohui yao/gan mai le zheben shu. Xiaohui want/dare buy Perf this-CL book In section 2.1.1.2,1 have shown that epistemic modals and deontic modals should be structurally distinct. Lu (1994) does not distinguish the structural positions of epistemic and deontic modals. She proposes that both types of modals are in Modal^ which is selected by AspP, as in (96). She has to assume no verb raising to the Asp^, because there is an intervening Modal. However, if epistemic 58 Furthermore, this Z P may contain sentence negation as well. Sentential negation meiyou. Perfective marker le, and deontic modals are in complementary distribution, shown in (i). Thus, in affirmative sentences, this Z P is an AspP or a MP, and in negative sentences, NegP is projected. No further justification of Z P will be discussed here. What concerns us here is that the FP should be structurally higher than ZP. (i) a. *Xiaoying meiyou mai le zheben shu. Xiaoying not-have buy Asp this-CL book b. *Xiaoying meiyou yao/gan mai zheben shu Xiaoying not-have want/dare buy this-CL book Note that although negator bu ‘not’ in (ii) can precede a modal and a verb, bu does not head a NegP. It can form an immediate consUuction with a verbal head, such as ModalO, VO (cf. Huang (1988)). (ii) Xiaoying (bu) yao/gan (bu) mai zheben shu. Xiaoying not want/dare not buy this-CL book 5 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. modals were in as Lu suggests, she cannot explain why a perfective verb can follow an epistemic modal as in (97). (96) [AspP ... [ModalP ... [VP ... ]]] (97) Xiaohui keneng/yinggai mai le zheben shu. Xiaohui possibly/should buy Perf this-CL book. ‘Xiaohui possibly/ should have bought this book.’ Moreover, I think that epistemic and deontic modals should be distinguished structurally. This is because the whole FP, lian-'^V-dou, can follow epistemic modals, but cannot follow deontic modals, as shown in (98a) and (98b) respectively. (98) a. Lisi keneng/hui lian huangse xiao shuo dou mai (le). Lisi possible/will LIAN pornographic novel DOU buy Perf ‘Lisi possibly have bought/ will buy even pornographic novels.’ b. *Lisi gan/yao lian huangse xiao shun dou mai. Lisi dare/want LIAN pornographic novel DOU buy Perf ‘Lisi dares/wants to buy even pornographic novels.’ Specifically, epistemic modals are structurally higher than deontic modals. The contrast in (99a) and (99b) further illustrates that epistemic modals can precede deontic modals, but not vice versa. (99) a. Lisi keneng/hui lian huangse xiaoshuo dou gan/yao mai. Lisi possible/will LIAN pornography novel DOU dare/want buy ‘Lisi possibly will dare to buy even pornographic novels.’ b. *Lisi gan/vao linn huangse xiaoshuo dou keneng/hui mai. Lisi dare/want LIAN pornography novel DOU possible/will buy In order to explain the asymmetrical properties of epistemic and deontic modals, I adopt the proposals made by Huang (1988) and Li (1990; 128) for treating 57 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. epistemic modals as raising verbs. They will occur in and select another IP. Hence, this proposal can naturally account for sentence (99a). 2.2.2. T he D istrib u tio n o f the L ia //-P h ra se in the Spec o f F P This section will provide evidence for my proposal of structure (92), in terms of the word orders of the whole FP, lian-N P-dou, in relation to sentential negation, modals, (non)movable adverbs, m anner adverbs, PPs, etc. It will be concluded that structure (92) conectly predicts the word order of FP in relation to these phrases. 2 .2 .2 .1 . M o d als Structure (92) also predicts that the whole FP, lian-NP-dou, cannot occur after deontic modals. Sentence (100a) shows that this is the case. This FP should precede modals instead, as illustrated in (100b) and (101). There is a complication when a full projected FP can precede epistemic modals, as in (i) and (101). (i) Zhangsan 1 lian zheben shin dou keneng/yinggai [ip /i[kan-le san-bian tj]] Zhangsan LIAN this-CL book DOU possibly/should read three times ‘Zhangsan possibly/ should have read even this book three tim es.’ I will assume (i) is sim ilar to (ii) in the sense of their biclausal structures and preposed infinitival objects, (also see the discussion in section 2.1.1.2 with respect to the prohibition against preposing IPs that are selected by epistemic modals and persuade-typQ verbs). (ii) Lisi lian zheben shui dou bi Zhangsan kan t\ Lisi LIAN this-CL book DOU force Zhangsan read 'Lisi forces Zhangsan to read even this book.’ In other words, the FP that is in the matrix clause in (i) has matrix focusing scope, meaning Zhangsan even has the possibility of having read this book three times, in contrast to the narrow scope of //V///-NP in (iii). This analysis can not only explain why the FP can precede and follow epistemic modals, but also provides a natural and unified account for both espistemic modals and persuade-type verbs. (iii) Zhangsan 1 keneng/yinggai lian y.heben shu? d m [AspP kan-le san-bian t2]] Zhangsan possibly/should LIAN this-CL book DOU read tliree times ‘It is possible that Zhangsan should have read even this book three times.’ 5 8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (100) a. *Lisi gan/keng/yao lian guigushi dou ting Lisi dare/willing/want LIAN ghost stoi"y DOU listen 'Lisi dares/ is willing/wants to listen to even a ghost story.’ b. Lisi lian guigushi dou gan/ken/yao ting Lisi LIAN ghost story DOU dare/willing/want listen (101) Lisi lian guigushi dou keneng/hui ting Lisi LIAN ghost-story DOU possibly/will listen ‘Lisi possibly/ will listen(s) to even a ghost story.’ For localized subjects, modals should follow the FP as predicted, shown in (102). Sentence (103) is not acceptable since the (deontic) modal precedes FP. (102) Lian Lisi dou hui/gan ting guigushi Lisi LIAN DOU hui/dare listen ghost-story ‘Even Lisi will/dares to listen to ghost story.’ (103) Lisi gan dou ting guigushi® Lisi LIAN DOU daie listen ghost-story 2 .2 .2 .2 . N e g a tio n Structure (92) predicts that FP has to precede negative meiyou.^^ This is in fact true, as shown in (104a). W hen the (sentence) negation occurs before //a/i-NP- 60 Compare (103) with (i). Although deontic modals cannot intervene between lian- subject and dou (the badness of (103), epitemic modals in (i) can. As discussed in the previous footnote, epstem ic modals are in I^ as a raising verb. Lian Lisi is moved to Spec of IP. (i) Lian Lisi keneng dou ai ting guigushi LIAN Lisi possibly DOU love listen ghost-story ‘Even Lisi possibly loves to listen to ghost stories.’ 611 have assumed Neg and Asp are base-generated in a more general projection, ZP. 59 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. dou, the sentence is out, as shown in (104b). A focalized subject sentence is given in (105), by way of contrast. (104) a. Zhangsan lian kewen dou meiyou kan-wan Zhangsan LIAN text DOU not-have read-finish ‘Zhangsan didn’t finish reading even texts.’ b. *Zhangsan m eiyou lian kewen dou kan-wan Zhangsan not-have LIAn text DOU read-finish (105) Lion Zhangsan (*meiyou) dou m eiyou kan-wan kewen LIAN Zhangsan DOU not-have read-finish text ‘Even Zhangsan didn’t finish reading texts.’ It is also the case that when the subject is focalized, sentential negation should follow the FP. Thus (106a) is grammatical, but (106b) is n o t. (106) a. Lian Zhangsan dou m eiyou kan-wan kewen LIAN Zhangsan DOU not-have read-finish the lesson ‘Even Zhangsan didn’t finish reading the lesson.’ b. * M eiyou lian Zhangsan dou kan-wan kewen not-have LIAN Zhangsan DOU read-finish the lesson 2 .2 .2 .3 . A d v e rb s Preverbal adverbs are classified into two types by Li and Thompson (1981). The first type of adverbs can occur either between the subject and modals or in a sentence-initial position (“movable”). These include haoxiang ‘apparently,’ turan ‘suddenly,’ xianran de ‘obviously,’ dagai ‘probably,’ qishi ‘actually,’ yexu ‘maybe,’ dangran ‘of course,' fanzheng ‘anyway,’ yuanlai ‘originally,’ among others. The 60 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. second type is obligatorily post-subject (“non-movable”) adverbs, which include yijing ‘already,’ yizhi ‘always,’ changchang ‘often,’ bai ‘in vain,’ etc. If we adopt Tang’s (1990) proposal that the first type of adverbs are licensed by fO or IP, structure (92) predicts that FP should follow the adverbs, and cannot precede them. This is in fact borne out. The sentences in (107) show that qishi ‘actually’ or xianran ‘obviously’ cannot occur lower than FP. Thus, (107b) is unacceptable. (107) a. (qishi/xianran) Zhangsan (qishi/xianran) lian dianving doii bu kan (actually/ obviously) Zhangsan (actually/obviously) LIAN movie DOU not see ‘Zhangsan actually/obviously doesn’t see even movies.’ b. ?*Zhanssan lion dianving Hoii qishi/xianran bu kan^z (Shyu 1994) Zhangsan LIAN movie DOU actually/obviously not see As for obligatorily post-subject adjuncts, they are licensed by I or VP (see Tang 1990); thus, they should be able to either precede or follow the FP. This is in fact correct, as shown in (108). (108) Zhangsan (yijing) lian wan dnit (yijing) xi-hao le. Zhangsan (already) LIAN dishes DOU (already) wash-ready Part ‘Zhangsan already finished washing even the dishes.’ The FP in (92) is predicted to precede manner adverbs, since manner adverbs are licensed by VP, according lo Tang (1990). This is indeed borne out. (109a) is ^2 It is also the same for focalized subjects. Compare (i) with (107) (i) a. l* Lian Zhangsan dou qishi/xianran bu kan dianying LIAN Zhangsan DOU actually/obviously not see movie ‘Even Zhangsan obviously doesn’t see movie.’ b. Lian Zhangsan qishi/xianran dou bu kan dianying LIAN Zhangsan DOU actually/obviously not see movie 61 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. well-formed, whereas (109b) is ruled out because the m anner adverb henhende ‘harshly’ precedes the FP. (109) a. Xiaoying lian Lisi dou henhende ma le Xiaoying LIAN Lisi DOU harshly scold Perf ‘Xiaoying scolded even Lisi harshly.’ b. *Xiaoying henhende lian Lisi dou ma le Xiaoying harshly LIAN Lisi DOU scold Perf 2 .2 .2 A . F P s Some prepositional phrases closely related to verbs should be licensed by VP. In this case, FP should be higher than these phrases. This is in fact correct. Sentence (1 10a) is good since FP is higher than PP, but (110b) is not. (110) a. Zhangsan lian bi dou [pp cong bangongshi] na-huijia Zhangsan LIAN pen DOU from office take-home ‘Zhangsan lakes home even pens from the office.’ b. ?*Zhangsan I p p cong bangongshil lian bi don na-huijia Zhangsan from office LIAN pen DOU take-home In brief, a maximal projection FP precedes negation, deontic modals, PPs, and manner adverbs. FP can be preceded by a limited class of non-movable adverbs which are licensed either by I^ or IP. The distribution of the maximal FP supports the proposed structure in (92). 62 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2.3. Summary In this chapter I have studied in great detail the structure and interpretation of lian..dou/ye construction. This study helps explicate the categorial status of lian, clou/ye, various verbal complements and the moved constituents, as well as understand the quantificational function of dou. I have proposed a Focus projection for Chinese, particularly in lian...dou/ye and object preposing sentences, as shown in the structure of (92). A //n/i-object as occurring inside the Focus position is the result of syntactic movement to the Spec of Focus position. Movement evidence will be presented in the next chapter. 63 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CHAPTER THREE: FOCALIZATION AS SYNTACTIC M OVEM ENT 3.0. Introduction I have proposed a FocusP which is headed by lexical items such as dou/ye ‘all, also.’ Focused constituents move to and merge with the already formed [p F AspP/M P]. F ’ further projects to a maximal projection (FP). I will call this m ovem ent derivation ‘focalization.’ This chaper concentrates on //«//-focalized objects occurring in the Spec of FP position resulting in the word order S-lian-0- dou-V, coiTesponding to sentence (2). (1) Zhangsan mai-le zheben shu -canonical order Zhangsan buy Asp this-CL book ‘Zhangsan bought this book.’ (2) Zhangsan lian zheben shu dou/ye mai le -S-lian-O-doii-V Zhangsan LIAN this-CL book DOU/YE buy Asp ‘Zhangsan bought even this book.’ Evidence of focalization as overt movement comes from obeying locality conditions, which will be discussed in section 3.1. In section 3.2 I will further demonstrate the A-movement properties of this focalization in terms of clause-boundedness, lack of o b lig a to r binding reconstmction effects, and remedy of weak crossover effects. In Section 3.3 I compaie focalization with topic structure, namely (2) vs. (3). (3) Zheben shu Zhangsan mai-le -O S V this-CL book Zhangsan buy Asp ‘This book, Zhangsan bought.’ 64 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. It will be shown that a strict preveral focus position is structurally distinct from topic or major subject (the so-called base-generated “topic” ). Focalization does not have the ‘aboutness’ relation, which holds in sentences with a major subject. Focalization does not permit overt pronominal copies in gap positions, but major subject structure does. Focalization observes the properties of A-movement, whereas topicalization displays A ’-movement. Topic structure will be discussed in detail in chapter four. In addition to this lexically realized focus head doii/ye which triggers overt focus movement— focalization, Chinese also displays bare object^ preposing which lacks an overt lexical focalizer, such as in (4). (4) Zhangsan zheben shu mai-le -SO V Zhangsan this-CL book buy Asp ‘Zhangsan bought this book.’ In section 3 .4 1 will compare bare object preposing with focalization. Based on their sim ilar distribution and properties, it will be concluded that object preposing, on a par with focalization, undergoes overt focus movement. Overt bare object preposing is possible inasmuch as a strong [+Focus] feature is projected, which triggers the movement to the Spec of this FP. In section 3.5 I will examine previous analyses of object preposing and conclude that the analysis proposed in this chapter provides a unified account for syntactic focus movement in Chinese. 1 Bare objects here simply mean objects without involving lian..clou interpretation, instead of the standard tenri of “baie NPs” or “bare plurals” without determiners. 65 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3.1. Focalization: Syntactic Movement to the Strict Preverbal Focus Position In section 2.2 I have proposed a focalization structure like (5) for Chinese, which is repeated as follows. (5) IP N P, -----. FP 1 T F lian- AspP/ NP Don/ M P ^ / ML. “ .. '•2 The focus head with a strong [+Focus] feature triggers (attracts in the sense of Chomsky (1995)) the object lian zheben shu ‘even this book’ in (2) to move to and become in the [Spec FP] position. (2) Zhangsan lian zhehen shu dou/ye mai le Zhangsan LIAN this-CL book DOU/YE buy Asp ‘Zhangsan bought even this book.’ Notice that this movement (focalization) is attracted by a projected lexical Focus head with a strong [+Focus] formal feature that has to be checked in overt syntax in the sense of Chomsky (1995). Futhermore, feature checking is satisfied since the checked (moved) NP is in the checking domain of the Focus projection, that is, the Spec-Head relation in (6). 66 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (6) FP F MP/AspP I assume that this type of Spec-Head [+Focus] formal feature checking is included in the general feature checking, on a par with checking ^-features. Case features, and strong categorial F(eatures) as listed in Chomsky (1995). Keeping this in mind, let us look at Gao’s (1994) Focus Criterion proposal, given in (7). (7) The Focus Criterion (Gao 1994) A; The focused element must be in a Spec-Head configuration with the F[+FOC]. B: The F[+FOC] must be in a Spec-Head configuration with the focused element. Gao proposes that the Focus Ciiterion is satisfied at S-structure or at LF. When a lexical head dou/ye, which carries strong FOC feature, is projected, overt focus constituent movement takes place in order for the strong FOC feature to be checked at S-structure. In additon to syntactic focus constituent movement, Chinese has in-situ focus. He states that in-situ focus, carrying a weak FOC feature, will be checked at LF because of Procrastinate, an Economy Principle (Chomsky (1991)). On the surface Gao’s Focus Criterion seems to be sim ilar to my current proposal, yet mine differs from his empirically and conceptually. Empirically, it is not clear how he handles bare object preposing cases resulting in a surface SOV order. If the in-situ focus object zheben shu ‘this book’ in (8) were to undergo covert movement in order to satisfy the Focus Criterion and Procrastinate Principle as 67 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Gao proposes, he needs to explain why overt focus movement indeed takes place in (4). (8) Zhangsan mai le ZHEBEN SHU. -covert focus movement for Gao Zhangsan buy Asp this-CL book (4) Zhangsan zheben shu mai-le -SO V Zhangsan this-CL book buy Asp 'Zhangsan bought this book.’ O f course he can modify his proposal by allowing an empty F® to be projected and bare object preposing in (4) to satisfy his Focus Criterion in syntax. Then he needs to explain the overt option of object raising, since he also adopts the Procrastinate Principle in his proposal.^ In addition to the above question, if in-situ foci had to satisfy the Focus Criterion at LF as Gao proposes, how can he execute other in-situ foci, such as a subject in (9a), a verb in (9b), or any element in a sentence, like (9c)? W hat is moved at LF,^ and moved where for these cases? - If one insists that in-situ object focus involves LF object raising, (or feature raising in the sense of Chomsky (1995)), according to the Last Resort and Procrastinate Principles of the Economy Principle (Chomsky (1993; ibid.)), LF raising is presumably more economical than overt raising. In this situation overt raising will be blocked anyhow even if it converges. Since Chinese does allow overt object preposing, this conjecture of object raising solely at LF is by no means correct. M oreover, according to Kitahara (1995), the possibility of optional overt object raising in Icelandic cnacially relies on an extra obligatory overt V-to-AgrO raising in Icelandic. This extra syntactic V-raising derivation equates numbers of move a overtly and covertly. Chinese, however, does not utilize this type of overt verb raising. 3 Gao might be able to circumvent this problem by saying that a focus feature moves at LF, in the sense of Chomsky (1995). A more detailed mechanism needs to be developed in order to argue for this. 6 8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (9) a. ZHANGSAN mai le zheben shu. Zhangsan buy Asp this-CL book ‘ZHANGSAN bought this book.’ b. Zhangsan M A Ile zheben shu. ‘Zhangsan BOUGHT this book.’ c. Zhangsan m aile ZHE-ben shu. ‘Zhangsan bought THIS book.’ Instead of adopting covert object movement as proposed by Gao, I suggest that in- situ foci in (8) and (9) should belong to phonological focusing device. This kind of focusing device and syntactic focus need not be homogeneous, e.g. Culicover (1993). Therefore, I will only concentrate on syntactic focusing device here. There seems to be a conceptual redundancy for G ao’s claim. If Focus features can be checked and satisfied by a more general Spec-Head checking relation, there is no need for postulating such a specific criterion. Moreover, it does not seem to be appealing to propose a ‘Focus Criterion’ solely based on a specific Han..dou/ye construction. Therefore, I will not assume the need for Focus Criterion; instead, //fln-focalization (move to [Spec FP]) is subsumed under the Spec-Head feature checking relation in general. The preposed object cases like (4) are similar to lian- focalization, except for the projection of a null head in F^. Arguments will be provided in section 3.4. 3.1.1. O beying Locality Conditions Focalization obeys locality conditions. A /mn-phrase cannot be extracted from a relative clause, an adjunct clause or a sentential subject and stays in [Spec FP] 69 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. of the main clause. Moreover, a //an-NP in the Spec of FP cannot be interpreted as an extracted object possessor. Thus, the data to be discussed immediately will support my claim that //on-focalization (//an-phrase in [Spec of FP]) involves movement. A lian-NP cannot be extracted from a complex NP and further merges with F to be in the [Spec FP] in a main clause. (10) is a regular sentence without focusing. Sentence (11) is ungrammatical, since lian Mali is extracted from a relative clause to the matrix FP Spec position.'^ (10) Zhangsan taoyan [[ C 2 kua-jiang Mali de] reii2 ] Zhangsan dislike praise Maiy DE person ‘Zhangsan dislikes the person who praises Mary.’ (11) *Zhangsan lian M alii dou taoyan [n p[cp C2 kua-jiang (tai) de] ren2 ] Zhangsan LIAN Mary DOU dislike praise DE person ‘*Even for M alii, Zhangsan dislikes the person who praises h eri.’ Note that although (11) is ungrammatical, a lian phrase can occur inside the relative clause, as given in (12).^ Moreover, the whole complex NP, the person who Mary praises can be focalized, as in (13). Sentence (13) means that Zhangsan is a cynical person and dislikes even the person(s) who praises Mary. (i) is on a par with (11), and (ii) is similar to (12). (i) *Zhangsani lian Chomsky? dou wen-le wo[[r (ta2 ) huida bu chu-lai] de wenti] Zhangsan LIAN Chomsky DOU ask Asp I he answer not DE question (ii) Zhangsan 1 wen wo vigeff/Z r? /? Chomskv? dou huida bu chu-lai] de wenti] Zhangsan ask me one-CL LIAN Chomsky DOU answer not DE question ‘He asked me a question that even Chomsky cannot answer.’ 5 Sentence (12) is ambiguous. The phrase, lian Mali, can be inteipreted as either the subject or the object inside the relative clause. 70 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (12) Zhangsan taoyan [n p[cp lion Mali dou kua-jiang de] ren] Zhangsan dislike LIAN Maiy DOU praise DE person ‘Zhangsan dislikes the person who e praises even Mai-y/ 'Zhangsan dislikes the person whom even Mary praises e.' (13) Zhangsan lian [[ ei kua-jiang Mali de] reni] dou/ye taoyan t\ Zhangsan LIAN praise Mary DE person DOU/YE dislike 'Zhangsan dislikes even the person who praises M ary.’ Lian..dou can appear inside adjunct clauses, as shown in (14b) and (15b). (14b) means Zhangsan can still work although he did not eat anything, even meals. (15b) means Zhangsan is not happy becuase Lisi criticized even Wangwu. Suppose W angwu is Zhangsan’s best friend whom Zhangsan does not allow anybody to criticize. (14) a. Zhangsan [suiran mei chi ^m] hai neng gongzuo Zhangsan although not-have eat rice still able work 'Zhangsan although not having eaten is still able to work.’ b. Zhangsan [suiran lian I'an dou mei chi f] hai neng gongzuo Zhangsan [although LIAN rice DOU not-have eat] still able to work 'Zhangsan although not having even eaten, still can work.’ (15) a. Zhangsan [yinwei Lisi piping le Wangwul hen bu gaoxing Zhangsan because Lisi criticize Perf Wangwu very unhappy 'Because Lisi criticized Wangwu, Zhangsan is not happy.’ b. Zhangsan [yinwei Lisi lian Wangwu i dou piping le ti] hen bu gaoxing Zhangsan because Lisi LIAN Wangwu DOU criticize Asp very unhappy 'Because Lisi criticized even Wangwu, Zhangsan is not happy.’ 71 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. However, lian fan ‘even meals’ and lian Whangwu ‘even W angwu’ in (16) and (17) cannot be extracted from their originial adjunct clauses to sit in the matrix [Spec FP] position with the intended readings of (14b) and (15b), respectively. (16) *Zhangsan lian fani dou [suran mei chi riJ hai neng zhuanxin Zhangsan LIAN rice DOU although not-have eat, yet able concentrate (17) *Zhang lian W angwui dou [yinwei Lisi piping le (tai)J hen bu gaoxing. Zhang LIAN Wangwu DOU because Lisi criticize he Asp very unhappy ‘Lit. *Zhang, even W angwui, is not happy because Lisi criticized ti.’ A //fl/j-object possessor cannot be preposed to sit in the [Spec FP]; see the ungrammaticality of (18).^ 6 The contrast between (ib) and (ii) has been observed by Huang (1982). Huang (1989) accounts for this subject/object possessor asymm etry in term s of a Generalized Control Rule (OCR), rather than Left Branch Condition. However, I will still retain the Left Branch Condition in Chinese. I will propose in chapter four that Zhangsan in (ib) and Lisi in (iii) actually are major subjects, base-generated in an IP-adjoined position, and construed with the pseiulo-resumpli've pronoun ta. The genuine topic Lisi in (iia) is a directly moved topic in [Spec TopicP] position and the gap is a genuine trace t, in violation of Subjacency. See the detailed discussion in section 4.3.3. (i) a [Zhangsan de nüpengyou] chu shu le Zhangsan’s girl friend publish book PART ‘Zhangsan’s girlfriend has published books.’ b. Zhangsan [;p (ta de) nüpengyou chu shu le] Zhangsan (his) girlfriend publish book PART ‘Zhangsan, (his) girlfriend published books.’ (ii) *Lisii, Zhangsan bu xihuan [t\ shu] Lisi Zhangsan not like book ‘*Lisii, Zhangsan doesn’t like t\ book.’ (iii) Lisii Zhangsan bu xihuan [ toi de shu] Lisi Zhangsan not like his book ‘Lisii, Zhangsan doesn’t like his book.’ 72 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (18) *Zhangsan lian Lisii dou bu xihuan [np (tadei) shu] Zhangsan LIAN Lisi DOU not like (his) book ‘Zhangsan doesn’t like even Lisi’s book.’ Note that an overt pronominal copy in (18) cannot improve its grammaticality. The pronoun ta in (18) cannot be interpreted with the focalized even Lisi. Thus, the unacceptability of (18) supports our movement claim for focalization. The sentences in (19) demonstrate that a lian phrase cannot be moved out of a sentential subject. Furthermore, having a pronominal copy in the gapped position in (19b) does not improve its acceptability. (19) a. *liplNplrpLisi mei kan n il lian neiben shuu/on ling ta bugaoxing LIAN that-Cl book DOU Lisi not read DE fact make he unhappy ‘*Even that book, the fact that Lisi didn’t read makes him unhappy.’ b. *llM ali jia (tai)ll lian zhege reni dou bu heshi Mali mairy (him) LIAN this-CL man DOU bu appropriate ‘(lit.)*Maiy marnes him, even this man, is not appropriate.’ In section 3 .2 ,1 will claim that //an-focalization to the Spec of FP is an A- movement and focalization of this sort is clause bound. This clause-boundedness accounts for the above Subjacency violations. 3.1.2. M ovem ent in Double O bject Construction Only the lian-themc phrase (direct object, hence DO) can be focalized in [Spec FP] position. This is shown in (21a), in contrast to the ungrammaticality of moving a /fan-indirect object (10) in (21b). Note that (21b) cannot be improved with a resumptive pronoun in the gap position. 73 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (20) Zhangsan bu song-gei Mali shu Zhangsan not give Mali book (21) a. Zhangsan lian shu dou hu song-gei Mali Zhangsan LIAN book DOU not give Mali ‘Zhangsan does not give Mali even books.’ b. *Zhangsan lian M alii dou bu song-gei ta i//i shu Zhangsan LIAN Mali DOU not give book ‘Zhangsan doesn’t give books even to Mali.’ One might conjecture that the contrast between (21a) and (21b) is on a par with \vh- movement of direct objects and indirect objects, rather than NP-movement of both objects as in English double object constructions, such as the pair of English sentences in (22) and (23). W/z-moved DO is allowed (22a), but vv/z-moved lO is not (22b). DO cannot be passivized, NP-moved (23a), but 10 can (23b).^ (22) a. What did you give John e'l b. * Who did you give a book? (23) a. *The book was given John, b. John was given a book. However, this asymmetry of Wz/NP-moving DO and 10 does not occur in Chinese. Compare Chinese NP-movement and w/z-movement of both indirect and direct objects in (24) and (25) respectively. Li (1990) has noted that a direct object can be either passivized as in (24a), or w/z-moved as a relative head as in (25a), assuming that passivization and relativization in Chinese involve movement. On the ^ Detailed analyses proposed in the literature cannot be discussed because of time limitations. Sec Stowell (1981), Larson (1988) and among others. 74 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. contrai-y, an indirect object cannot be moved in either case, as shown in (24b) and (25b) respectively. (24) a. Nahen shu bei wo song tamen le (Li 1990: 85) that book by me send them Asp ‘That book was sent to them by me.’ b. *Tamen bei wo song naben shu le they by me send that book Asp (25) a. [[wo dasuan qing ni ji gei ta] de shu] -Relativizing DO I plan ask you mail to him DE book ‘the book that I planned to ask you to mail to him’ b. *[[wo dasuan qing ni ji shu] de ren] -Relativizing 10 I plan ask you mail book DE man ‘the man that I planned to ask you to mail the book’ (Li 1990:78) The point here is that an indirect object cannot be NP-moved or vr//-m oved syntactically.^ The ungrammaticality of (21b) indicates that /m/i-lbcalization involves movement, whereas the indirect object cannot be moved.^ * Li’s detailed technical account of this phenomenon in contrast to the English facts is not a concern for the current discussion. 9 Paris (1994 p.c.) mentions that sentence (i) might be a counter-example of our claim based on (21). The overt pronominal copy in (i) could refer to the //a/t-indirect object. (i) Wo lian laoshi i dou jie-le shikuai qian gei tai Paris (1979, #14) I even teacher all lend Asp $10.00 give he ‘I lent ten dollars even to the teacher.’ I think there are other factors going on in sentence (i). First, if I change wo ‘I’ of Paris’ example in (i) into M ali as in (ii), the pronoun can no longer refer to lian laoshi, rather it has to refer to the first NP, Mali. In other words, the reading in (ii) becomes totally different from (i), meaning that ‘as for Mali, even teachers also lent her ten dollars.’ (ii) *M ali lian laoshii dou jie-le shikuai qian gei tai 75 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3.1.3. Idiom C h u n k s A nother piece of evidence for focalization movement comes from the possibility of preposing the object of V + 0 idiom chunks, shown in (27). For the idiom chunks, zhan-pianyi ‘get off cheaply, take advantage of,’ zhan and pianyi must co-occur (28) and pianyi can be modified (26) (see the discussion of idiom chunks, such as youm o ‘humor’ in Huang (1983) and using them as a movement test in Li (1990:126)). 1 0 Mali even teacher all lend Asp $10.00 to she Second, compare (i) with (iii). The native speakers that I asked think that (iii) is worse than (i). (iii) */??W o lian laoshi i dou jie-le ta i shikuai qian I even teacher all lend Asp he $10.00 This contrast seems to be on a par with the English double object sentences in (iii). (iv) a. Whom did you give the book *(to) e ? b. *Whom did you give e a book? (i) can be acceptable for the same reason as (iva): the gapped position has to be Case- m arked by a preposition (i.e., gei ‘give, to’ as a preposition in Li (1990)). M oreover, Chinese does not allow preposition stranding (Huang 1982), so a pronoun has to be filled in. Moreover, in sentence (i), since only laoshi ‘teacher’ is possible as the antecedent of ta ‘s/he’ in (i), a speaker may try hard to find a coreference for ta. Even so, the native speakers that I consulted still find ta in sentence (i) strange when interpreted with laoshi. It is also possible that the pronoun he refers to another person. Then, it seems to suggest that this pronoun does not behave like a true spell-out of a moved trace, but may be a referential pronoun which can have its own reference (e.g. lacking inner index in the sense of Heim 1991). Even though some native speakers cast doubt on (i), they do not accept (iii). Therefore, the movement claim made here still holds. •0 The object ino in you-ino ‘humor’ can be focalized as well. (i) Mali you le Lisi yi mo Mali hit- Asp Lisi one mor ‘Mali pulled Lisi’s leg.’ (ii) Mali lian mo dou you le Lisi yixia. Mali LIAN -mor DOU hu- Lisi once ‘Mali pulled even Lisi’s leg once.’ 76 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (26) Mali zhan le Lisi de pianyi Mali take Asp Lisi DE advantage ‘Mali took advantage of Lisi.’ (27) a. Mali lian zhege/Lisi de pianvi dou yao zhan. Mali LIAN this/Lisi’s advantage DOU want take ‘Mali wants to take advantage of even this /Lisi.’ b . Mali zhege/Lisi de pianvi yao zhan. ‘This /Lisi Mali wants to take advantage of.’ (28) a. *Wo bu xihuan zheige pianyi I not like this advantage b. *Wo bu hui zhan. I not can take. Paris (1979) has pointed out that some objects of the verbs cannot be preposed, such as (29) and (30), while some objects of idiomatic expressions, like pia n yi in zhan pianyi ‘take advantage of’ can be preposed after lian, as in (27a). She states that since not all the objects can be preposed, the logical object following preverbal lian is not due to movement. (29) a. Ta zai 1986 nian bi le ye. he in 1986 year finish Asp profession ‘He graduated in 1986.’ b. *Ta zai 1986 lian y^d o u mei bi. he in 1986 LIAN profession DOU not finish 77 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (30) a. Zhangsan gen Lisi tan guo lian le Zhangsan with Lisi talk Exp sky Pai t ‘Zhangsan has chatted with Lisi.’ b. *Zhangsan gen Lisi lian tian ye mei tan guo. Zhangsan with Lisi LIAN sky YE not talk Exp Paris’ observation needs further examination. In Tang’s (1988) study of different types of C hinese V -0 compounds, one type of compound already contains morphological objects. It does not need a syntactic object, and it behaves like (agglutinate into) intransitive verbs. This type of V -0 compound does not allow pronominal m odifiers inside the compounds, as in (31). Compounds like bi-ye (graduate), tan-tian (chat) in (29) and (30) mentioned by Paris should fall in this categoiy of V -0 compounds. Hence, that objects of this type of compound cannot be proposed is not due to non-movement as suggested by Paris, but due to the nature of these compounds.** (31) a. bi (*lew ode) ye finish (Asp my) profession '^graduate my profession’ b. tan (*le yici) tian talk (Asp once) sky ‘chat once’ c. qiao (*ta do) bianzi warp (his) braid ‘kick the bucket’ * * Fraser (1970) notes that parts of an idiom cannot be in the scope of even. (i) a. *We shot even the breeze last night. b. *They have a computer even at their disposal. The unacceptability of (i) may be because the scope of even is not extended to VP. However, this point also raises a problem for LF on/y-N P/em i-N P raising to have VP scope as discussed by Taglicht (1984), Rooth (1985), Kratzer (1989b) among others. 1 will leave this problem here. 78 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. In another type of V -0 compound discussed by Tang (ibid.) the object is compounded with the verb through reanalysis. Thus, the object can be a syntactic object and can have prenominal modifiers. Examples are like zhan pianyi ‘get off cheaply, take advantage o f in (26), chi-cu ‘eat-vinegar, be jealous’ (32), chi-fan ‘eat-rice, eat,’ all of which allow prenominal modifiers. This type of com pound allows its object to be preposed, as shown in (27) and (33), respectively. (32) Zhangsan chi le ta taitai de eu Zhangsan eat Asp his wife’s vinegar ‘Zhangsan is jealous toward his wife.’ (33) Zhangsan lian ta taitaide cu ye bu hui chi Zhangsan LIAN his wife’s vinegar YE not will eat ‘Zhangsan won’t be jealous even toward his wife.’ Therefore, the possibility of moving elements inside idiom chuncks discussed above lends further support for our movement claim of focalization. 3 .1.4. C lau se-B ou n d ed ness Now that a movement derivation of focalization has been argued for, the following sections will demonstrate that focalization displays A -m overnent properties. It is clause bound.^2 Binding type reconstruction effects are not forced, and it remedies weak crossover effects. 12 In Shyu (1994), I suggested that //on-focalization is an A’-movement that can undergo long-distance movement. I did not distinguish a lian phrase in [Spec FP] from that in a sentence-initial position at that time. I think that movement to [Spec FP], the strict preverbal post-subject position, is a type of A-movement; sec next section. 79 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. A //a/i-phrase cannot cross a finite embedded clause (34) and stay in a position immediately preceding the matrix verb and following the matrix subject, as in (35). (34) Zhangsan renwei [cp Lisi hen xihuan Mali] ‘Zhangsan think Lisi very like Mali’ (35) *Zhangsan//an Mali; 6/aw renwei [cp Lisi hen xihuan (taOJ. Zhangsan LIAN Mali DOU think Lisi very like (her) ‘Zhangsan thinks that Lisi does likes even Mali.’ The ungrammaticality of (35) indicates that //a/j-focalization is clause bound, which is considered a type of A-movement. Note that the //a/?-phrase in (36) can stay in the embedded FP Spec position. (36) Zhangsan renwei [cp Lisi lian M alii dou bu xihuan ri] Zhangsan think Lisi even Mali all not like ‘Zhangsan thinks that Lisi doesn’t like even Mali.’ Note that when //«//-phrases display unbound dependency, they have to appear in the sentence-initial position. Compare (37) with (35). M oreover, dou in (37) stays in the embedded clause. (37) Lion M alii Zhangsan renwei [cp Lisi dou bu xihuan fi]^3,i4 LIAN Mali Zhangsan think Lisi all not like t ‘Even Mali, Zhangsan thinks that Lisi also doesn’t like (her).’ * 3 Sentence (i) is the case where lian-NP moves across more than one embedded clause. This sentence is well-formed. Although native speakers have a little difficulty in processing the long sentence, (i) is still acceptable. (i) Lian Mali Zhangsan xiang Lisi (*dou) renwei Wangwu dou hen xihuan. LIAN Mali Zhangsan think Lisi think Wangwu all very like Native speakers have different degrees of preference for (37) with the resumptive pronoun in the embedded object position. Although having a resumptive pronoun is not totally acceptable, they tend to deemphasize it. 80 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Tn chapter four, I will compare (37) with long-distance topicalization, and show that sentence-initial lian phrases are subsumed under topic stmcture. Now consider focalization in relation to infinitival complements. They include complements after persuade-lype verbs, like bi ‘force,’ qiian ‘persuade,’ etc.^^ An object in an infinitival clause can be preposed to the matrix [Spec FP] position, in contrast to focalization to matrix clause with finite complements. (39) and (40b), as opposed to (35), are well-formed. (38) Lisi bi [ip Zhangsan kan zhehen shul Lisi force Zhangsan read this-CL book ‘Lisi forces Zhangsan to read this book.’ (39) Lisi lian zheben shui dou bi T ip Zhangsan kan til Lisi LIAN this-CL book DOU force Zhangsan read ‘Lisi forces Zhangsan read even this book.’ (40) a. Lisi rang Zhangsan pai Wangwu diaocha le naiian shi Lisi ask Zhangsan send Wangwu investigate Asp that-CL matter ‘Lisi asked Zhangsan to send Wangwu to investigate that matter.’ b. Lisi lian naiian shi dou rang[ipi Zhangsan pai [iP2 Wangwu diaocha le (]] Lisi LIAN that matter DOU ask Zhangsan send Wangwu investigate Asp ‘Lisi asked Zhangsan to send Wangwu to investigate even that matter.’ Li (1990) and Ernst and Wang (1995) note that nonfinite complements are subject to clause union phenomena. We can also assume that clause union takes place before focalization m ovem ent-m oving the most embedded //an-object and targeting the matrix FP Spec position. After clause union takes place, focalization cnnot move this See Li (1990:18) in distinguishing finite/infinitival clauses in Chinese, and a discussion of clause union with passivization on page 200. 81 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. m ost embedded //««-object to the already united clauses; otherwise, it will violate Lexical Integrity, such as the unacceptability of (41). ( 4 1 ) a. *Lisi rang [ ip i Zhangsan lian najian shi dou pai Ftp? W angwu diaocha le t]] Lisi ask Zhangsan LIAN that matter DOU send Wangwu investigate Asp b. *Lisi rang [ipi Zhangsan pai [iP2 Wangwu lian naiian shi dou diaocha le t]] Lisi ask Zhangsan send Wangwu LIAN that matter DOU investigate Asp In summary. Focalization is clause bound. A focalized object cannot be m oved to the matrix [Spec FP] position with a finite complement clause. But it can cross infinitive complements to occur in the matrix [Spec FP] position. 3.1 .5 . No R econstruction Effects This section shows that focalization does not force obligatory reconstruction effects. Consider (42). It is possible to coindex the compound reflexivein (42a) with Zhangsan, the NP after bei ‘by’ in indirect/adversative passives.*^ When the direct object ‘a book about himselF is preposed to the Spec of FP, as in (42b), taziji does not seem to be able to refer to Zhangsan. Chinese compound taziji is subject-oriented, see (i). Thus, the test o f binding A reconstruction cannot use double objects of ditransitive verbs in Chinese, (cf. A- m ovem ent properties tests of clause-internal scram bling conducted by Nemoto (1993) and Saito (1994)). (i) Zhangsani gaosu Lisi2 [d O taziji]/*2 de shenshi] Zhangsan tell Lisi him-selFs life-story ‘Zhangsani told Lisi] his owni/* 2 life-story.’ (Huang and Tang (1991): fn. 9) Here we use ^^/-construction (6y-phrasc) to test reconstruction effects, since the compound reflexive can reconstruct in general (see Huang and Tang (1991)), and its antecedent can be ambiguous between the main subject and the NP after bei. I thank Audrey Li for pointing this out to me. 82 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (42) a. Wo bei Zhangsani qiang-zou le lo o jib e n guanyu tazijk de shu] I by Zhangsan rob-away Perf one-CL about himself’s book ‘(lit.) I was robbed by Zhangsan of a book about himself.' b. ??W o lian fviben guanvu taziih de shul? dou bei Zhangsani qiang-zou le tl I LIAN one-CL about himselFs book DOU by Zhangsan rob-away Perf ‘(lit.) I was robbed of [even a book about himself] by Zhangsan.' The unacceptability of (42b) indicates that there is no reconstruction (or connectivity in Higgins’ (1973) term) of the //n/i-NP containing taziji. According to Chomsky (1993: 37), reconstruction effects hold only for A ’-chain, not for A -chain.'* Therefore, it is naturally concluded that focalization to a strict preverbal position is a type of A-movement. Furthermore, binding condition C type reconstruction effects are not forced in //an-focalization. In (43a) the pronoun ta cannot co-refer with Zhangsan, since it c- commands the R-expression in violation of binding principle C. W hen the direct object containing the R-expression is preposed to the Spec of FP position as in (43b), coreference becomes possible. (43) a. *Wo bei tai qiang-zou le lyiben Zhangsani de shu] 1 by him rob-away Perf one-CL Zhangsan’s book ‘(lit.) I was robbed by him of a book of Zhangsan.' Belletti and Rizzi (1988) note that reconstruction for principle A is a property of X-chains (X=A or A’), and not only of A’-chains. Independently Kitagawa and Kuroda (1992) point out that Japanese n/vott<?-passivization observes reconstruction effects. 83 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. b . ?Wo ÜM \2^an^sam_ de shul? dou bei ta\ qiang-zou le t2 1 LIAN Zhangsan’s book DOU by him rob-away Perf ‘I was robbed of [even Zhangsan’s book] by him.’ Sentence (43b) is parallel to (44), a case of A-movement. A-movement in (44) does not reconstruct obligatorily. (44) [Johni’s mother] 2 seems to himi t2 to be smart (Saito 1992:90) 3.1.6. Rem edy o f W eak C rossover Effects Focalization remedies weak crossover (WCO) effects. The preposed direct object ineiniei in [Spec FP] in (45) can corefer with the pronoun inside the (be/-NP. Therefore, the acceptability of (45) indicates that /mn-focalization does not display W CO effects. (45) Wo lian meimei^ dou bei [xihuan tai de ren] qiang-zou le 2° I LIAN sister DOU by [like her DE man] rob-away Asp '(lit.) 1 was robbed of even my sister; by the person that likes her;.’ One thing I would like to note is the contrast in (46) and (47). Coreference between the pronoun and Zhangsan is possible in (46). *9 Actually some A’-movement does not show obligatory reconstruction effects either; see Chomsky (1993; 1994). 20 There seems to exist an asymmetry between pronoun ta occurring in a bei-NP, as in (i), and in a subject NP (ii). Speakers do not seem to allow coreference in (i), though they accept (ii) where the backward pronoun is in the subject position. (i) *Wo bei [xihuan ta\ de ren] qian-zou le meimei\ I by [like her DE man] rob-away Perf sister '(lit.) I was robbed away sister; by the person that likes h er;.’ (ii) [[Kanjian ta de] neige nuren] ai-shang le Zhangsan. see him Comp that-CL woman fall-in-love Perf Zhangsan 'The woman that saw him fell in love with Zhangsan.’ Huang’s (1982) cyclic-c-command and Shyu and Hsieh’s (1992) CFC command stories do not seem to be able to account for (i). I will leave this problem here. 84 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (46) [[Piping tai de] shu] 2 hui-le Zhangsan\. criticize him DE book destroy Asp Zhangsan ‘The book that criticized himi destroyed Zhangsani.’ Coreference in (47) with focalized lian ZJiangsan is unacceptable. (47) ?*[[Piping ta\ de] shu] 2 lian Zhangsan\ dou hui-le t2- criticize him DE book LIAN Zhangsan DOU destroy Asp ‘?*The book that criticizes himi destroyed even Zhangsani.’ There are two logical possibilities for this contrast. First, one might suggest that lian Zhangsan in (47) undergoes LF raising, thus it exhibits LF W CO effects, if W CO is defined with respect to the “bound reading’’^* between lian Zhangsan and the pronoun. This proposal, however, seem s to contradict reconstruction effects observed in topicalized /ioH -N P s which will be discussed in section 4.2. Namely, if LF is the interpretive level, and since sentence initial lian-NPs reconstruct at LF, it will be a puzzle as to why the strict preverbal/post subject lian-NPs raise at LF, whereas sentence initial lian-NPs reconstr uct at LF. The other alternative is that it may not be the case that (47) is the standard case of W CO effects. Rather it is an instance of violating a condition on proper- binding. Structure (48) from Reinhart (1983) states this condition regardless of the level at which this restriction applies. An example of pronominal binding violation in English is given in (49). (48) A pronoun must be c-commanded by its binder in order to be interpreted as a bound variable.22 21 I thank Hiroshi Aoyagi for this point. 22 Lasnik (1976) has proposed a similar condition. 85 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (49) *[Hisi mother] wonders whoi Mary likes t. Thus, the ungrammaticalily of (49) is on a par with (47), in that the pronoun inside the subject NP is not c-commanded by its antecedent. I will adopt the second proposal. In other words, the apparent W CO effects in (47) stems from a violation of proper binding conditions, rather than LF raising of //an-NP inducing LF W CO effects. One might conjecture that the lack of binding reconstmction and WCO effects in sections 3.1.5-6 suggests the base-generation of focalization, //an-N P in [Spec FP] position. If focalization were a base-generation mechanism, one could not explain the facts that I have discussed in sections 3.1.1-3. Namely, island sensitivity is respected and a resumptive pronoun is not allowed in gap position. Consequently, 1 contend that the lack of reconstruction and W CO effects are A-m ovem ent properties. Our analysis of A-movcment of focalization to post-subject/preverbal position also naturally accounts for the clause-boundedness discussed in section 3.1.4. 3.2. Focalization vs. Topic/M ajor Subject Structure In this section 1 compare focalization, as in (50), with sentence-initial bare object structure, as in (51). (50) Zhangsan Han Hong-Lou-Meng dou du-guo le Zhangsan LIAN Red Chamber Dream DOU read Exp Perf ‘Zhangsan has read even Red Chamber Dream.’ 8 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (51) Hong-Lou-Meng Zhangsan du-guo le Red Chamber Dream Zhangsan read Exp Perf ‘Red Chamber Dream (a novel), Zhangsan has read.’ In section 4.2 I will demonstrate that a //V/n-phrase can also be topicalized to function as a contrastively focused topic. For the time being, let us concentrate on the com parison between focalization and strictly moved topicalization.23 It is summarized in the following Table 3-1. Table 3-1: F o c a liz a tio n iSlian-Oclou V) T o p ic a liz a tio n (OSV) 1. Subjacency obey obey 2. Allowing overt pronominal copy fa no no 24 3. W eak Crossover Effects no yes in long-distance movement; see 4.1.2. no in simplex clauses 4. Binding Reconstruction not obligatory yes 23 Chapter four will discuss in more detail the Chinese topic structure. 1 will propose that genuine topicalization lands in a root [Spec Topic?] position, whereas major subject or base-generated sentence-initial {Han-) NP is generated in an IP-adjoined position. The properties of topicalization in Table 3-1 refer to the former. 24 In this thesis, topic refers to a directly topicalized elem ent in the root [Spec Topic?] position, which does not seem to allow for a genuine resumptive pronoun (see section 4.3.3). Chapter four will demonstrate that the so-called "base-generated topic” is actually not a genuine topic; rather they are base-generated in a position distinct from a directly moved topic and they are major subjects. An overt pronoun ta can be inserted and refer to the base-generated major subject. 1 will also propose that under certain environments major subject can locally raise to the topic position in the sense of Kuroda (1988); hence the locally raised topic A ’-binds the pronoun. 1 will return to this in chapter four. 87 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Both focalization and topicalization obey locality conditions. Focalization (to a post subject preverbal position) does not allow resum ptive pronouns, or show reconstruction effects. However, topicalization shows reconstruction effects. W CO effects occur in long-distance topicalized lian-NPs when dou is in embedded clauses; see section 4.1.2. Table 3-1 strongly argues for a strict preverbal focus position in Chinese, which is distinct from a sentence initial position, either topic or major subject position. 3.2.1. “A boutness” R elation Focalization lacks an aboutness or whole-part relation, which, on the contrai-y, is denoted in double nominative sentences.^s This first NP is considered in this thesis as a base-generated major subject without a gap. (Chapter four will provide arguments for m ajor subject in contrast to the so-called base-generated “topic”). There is a membership (aboutness) relation between the major subject chezi ‘cars’ and the object kache ‘truck’ in the main predicate, in which tiojcks are members (or a kind) of cars. (52b) illustrates the same point except for the possibility of having a gap in the object head noun position, and it means that ‘in terms of cars, Zhangsan likes Japanese cars,’ in which Japanese cars are m em bers of cars in general. (52) Chezi a, Zhangsan xihuan kache car Pause PART Zhangsan like tmck ‘As for cars, Zhangsan likes trucks.’ 25 In chapter four I will discuss in more detail that the first NP bearing an “aboutness” relation with the second NP or the rest of the sentence is a major subject, which is base-generated in an IP-adjoined position. It, however, can conditionally raise locally to topic position. 88 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. b. Chezi a, Zhangsan xihuan riben de (che) car Pause PART Zhangsan like Japan’s (car) ‘As for cars, Zhangsan likes Japan’s (cars).’ If our argument of the movement analysis of focalization is coiTcct, this type of base generated, gapless major subject cannot be /m/j-focalized in [Spec FP] position. This is in fact born out. In (53), this aboutness relation does not hold anymore when the NP, cars, is focalized and occurs in the FP Spec position. L/an-focalized sentences in (53), thus, do not have the same interpretation as in (52). (53) a. ?*Zhangsan lian chezi doii/ye xihuan kache Zhangsan LIAN car DOU/YE like tmck ‘?*Even cars, Zhangsan likes truck.’ b. Zhangsan//fl/î chezi clou/ye xihuan riben de (*chezi) Zhangsan LIAN car DOU/YE like Japan’s ‘Zhangsan likes even Japan’s cars.’ A larger contextual domain is implied in (53a) than topic counterpart in (52a), namely, Zhangsan’s liking in general instead of the membership relation between cars and trucks. Despite this, it is still difficult to interpret ‘even for cars that Zhangsan likes, Zhangsan likes trucks’ in (53a).^^ Now consider (53b). Although 26 It will be discussed in chapter four that a //a«-NP can occur sentence intially, syntacticaly on a par with base-generated a major subject or moved topic. Compare (53) to (i) with S-initial lian-NPs. It seems that (i) can be interpreted to have an aboutness relation provided with the reading that the whole sentence is focused. When uttering (ia), the speaker is so suiprised that as for CAR Zhangsan EVEN likes truck. The subtle difference between (i) and (53) is also due to their different focus scopes (see section 5.2), patterning with different structures. (i) a. ILian chezi Zhangsan dou/ye xihuan kache LIAN cai' Zhangsan DOU/YE like tmck b. Lian chezi Zhangsan r/on/yg xihuan riben de (*chezi) LIAN cai" Zhangsan DOU/YE like Japan’s 89 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. it is a good sentence, the interpretation is different from that in (52b). Semantically, the presupposition implicated in (53b) is that Zhangsan likes every Japanese product, and what is asserted is ‘Zhangsan likes even Japanese cars.’ Japanese cars are expected by the speaker to be the least thing that Zhangsan would like among Japanese products, but to one’s surprise Zhangsan even likes them. Thus, the assertion of sentence (53b) is no longer the membership relation between cars and Japanese cars as the topic counterpart in (52b); rather it is the relation between Japanese cars with other Japanese products. Syntactically, it is argued that chezi ‘car’ in (53b) is moved out of the object NP. Repeating the moved head noun chezi (like resumption strategy) in the gap is ill-formed with the intended m em bership relation reading. It will become evident in the next section that an overt pronominal copy in the gap cannot be interpreted with //a«-focalized NPs. 3.2.2. No Resum ptive Pronoun in Focalization Structure In this section I demonstrate that focalized gap positions do not allow resumptive pronouns both in simplex and complex clauses. This point supports our movement analysis. 3 .2 .2 .I. In Sim plex C lauses Consider (55), derived from (54), with the order of NPI-//a/j-NP2-^/oM-V, and two NPs are animate. Sentence (55a) is ambiguous.^^ NP] can be interpreted as either the subject of the sentence, or the preposed focalized object. W hen NP], Zhangsan, is read as the focalized object, equivalent to the (55b) reading, N Pi Mali 27 The ambiguity is also noted by James Huang. 90 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. is the subject of the sentence. When NP2 is interpreted as the subject, NPi becomes an object topic, as in the (55c) reading. (54) Zhangsan xihuan Mali ‘Zhangsan likes Mali.’ (55) a. Mali lian Zhangsan dou xihuan --NPi lian NP2 dou V Mali LIAN Zhangsan DOU like ‘Mali likes even Zhangsan .’ = (b) ‘(NPi) Mali as the subject’ ‘Mali, even Zhangsan likes.’ = (c) ‘(NPi) Mali as the topic’ b. Mali lian Zhangsanz dou xihuan (*taz) ‘Mali as the subject’ Mali LIAN Zhangsan DOU like he/she ‘Mali likes even Zhangsan .’ c. M alii lian Zhangsanz dou xihuan (tai) ‘Mali as the topic’ ‘Even Zhangsan likes Mali.’ Note that even though (55a) is ambiguous, the ambiguity is canceled when there is a pronominal copy in the gap position.^s The pronoun ta in (55b) can n o t occur at all if refening to the //an-focalized object Zhangsan. However, (55c) is felicitous only when this overt pronoun refers to the first NP, Mali.^^ I have discussed in section 3.1.2 that focalizing the goal (indirect) object is baned. (21b) is repeated below as (56). Now compare (56) and the major subject/ 28 There is no gender distinction in pronouns for Chinese, so ambiguity exists. 29 Clause-initial //an-phrases allow pronominal copies in gap positions, as in (i) and (ii). This will be discussed in chapter four. (i) ILian Zhangsau2 Mali dou/ye xihuan ta2 LIAN Zhangsan Mali DOU/YE like he (ii) Lian Zhang 1 zheme youqian ren, Mali dou bu jia tai, hekuang jia gei ni. LIAN Zhang such a rich man Mali all not marry him, let alone m any you ‘Even such a rich man as Zhangsan, Mali doesn’t want to m any; let alone to marry you.’ 91 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. topic sentence in (57). (57) can be well-formed unless there is an overt pronominal copy being interpreted with the S-initial indirect object. Therefore, no resumptive pronoun is allowed at all to be interpreted with a focalized indirect object. (56) *Zhangsan lian M ali, dou bu song-gei (ta i) shu =(2lb) Zhangsan LIAN Mali DOU not give book ‘Zhangsan doesn’t give books even to M ali.’ (57) M alii. Zhangsan bu song-gei *(tai) shu. Mali Zhangsan not give *(her) book ‘Mali, Zhangsan doesn’t give *(her) books to.’ A -m oved NPs in general do not allow resum ptive pronouns in gap positions.30 The example in (58) from Xu and Langendoen (1985, fn.l 1) illurstrates this point. An overt copy of a retlexivc in an NP trace is not allowed either. (58) Zhangsan bei Lisi da le (*ta/taziji) Zhangsan by Lisi hit Asp him/himself ‘Zhangsan was hit by Lisi.’ 30 Although it is possible to come up with sentence like (i) with an overt pronominal copy following a passive verb, note that a duration or frequency phrase is necessary. I suggest that ta in (ii) may be an object expletive in the sense of Lin (1993), rather than a resumptive pronoun. (i) Zhangsan bei Lisi da le ta yixia. Zhangsan by Lisi hit Perf him once ‘Zhangsan was hit by Lisi once.’ Another possibility may be due to this ta being an object clitic in the sense of Chiu (1993), as suggested by A. Li. If the passive verb is more than one syllable, such as (ii), this may make object cliticization more difficult. Thus, (ii) is worse than (i). (ii) ?*Zhangsan bei Lisi chu-fa le ta liangci. Zhangsan by Lisi punish Perf him two times ‘Zhangsan was punished by Lisi twice.’ The point here is that there are no resumptive pronouns in the passive gap position. 92 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. The same point also holds in English raising cases as in (59) and (60).3> (59) John seems (*him) to be likely (*him ) to marry Mary. (60) John seems {*him self) to be likely (*him self) to marry Mary. As for the adversative passives in (61) (cf. (45)), the postverbal object nieiniei ‘sister’ is focalized to the preverbal FP Spec position. No resumptive pronoun is allowed in the gap position. (61) Zhangsan lion meimeii clou bei qiangdao qiang-zou le (*tai) Zhangsan LIAN sisiter DOU by bandit abduct Perf she ‘Zhangsan was robbed of even his sister by a bandit.’ Therefore, the A-movement nature of focalization to the strict preverbal Spec of FP position can account for the prohibition against resumptive pronouns. 3.2.2.2. In C om plex C lauses The above section has shown that overt pronominal copies are banned in simple clauses when they are construed with /mn-focalized NPs. If one argued for the base-generation of focalization, one might also argue that the impossibility of overt pronominal copies being related to focalized lian-NPs is due to a Binding Principle B violation. This conjecture, however, is not warranted. If the ban on overt pronominal copies were due to Binding Principle B, one would wrongly allow coreference when lian-NPs and overt pronouns are in different binding domains. 31 Com pare (i) and (60). Although (i) is good, it does not have the sam e interpretation as that in (60). (i) V ohn seems to himself to be likely to m a iT y Mary. The intended meaning in (60) (without himself) is that “it seems to others (maybe John too) that John is likely to m any Mary. It does not necessarily denote that John has the same opinion. However, if (i) is possible, the only inteipretation is that John is the only person who thinks that he could marry Mary, but others do not think so. 1 owe these judgments to Nancy Antrim. 93 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Having seen in section 3.1.1 that focalization obeys island conditions, this section illustrates that even when a //an-focalized NP and an overt pronominal copy are in different clauses, the pronoun still cannot be construed with //a/?-focalized NPs (in post-subject/preverbal of matrix clauses). Sentence (11) is repeated below as (62) to show this point. The overt pronominal copy ta inside the complex NP does not remedy a Subjacency violation by focaliztion. (62) *Zhangsan lian Mali? dou taoyan [n p [cp eg kua-jiang (ta 2 ) de] ren^] = (1 1 ) Zhangsan LIAN Maiy DOU dislike praise DE person ‘*Even for Mali2 , Zhangsan dislikes the person who praises her2 .’ However, compare the topic sentence in (63) with the focalized sentence in (62). In (63), the occurrence of an overt pronominal copy inside the relative clause can remedy the Subjacency violation, and it obligatorily refers to the first NP, the major subject Zhangsan. (63) Zhangsani Mali? taoyan [np[cp G 3 kua-jiang *(tai) de ] rensJ Zhangsan Maiy dislike praise (she) DE person ‘As for Zhangsani, Mali2 dislikes the person who praises him ].' More examples of the island sensitivity of focalizatoin are repeated in the following. Note that neither a resumptive pronoun inside an adjunct clause nor a sentential subject are pemiitted to be construed with the focalized NP in (64=17) and (65= 19b) respectively. 94 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (64) *Zhang lian Wangwu? dou [yinwei Lisi piping le (ta 2 )] hen bu gaoxing. Zhang LIAN Wangwu DOU because Lisi criticize he Asp very unhappy ‘Lit. *Zhang, even W angwui, is not happy because Lisi criticized him i.’ (65) *[[Mali jia (tai)]] Han zhegeiem dou bu heshi Mali maiTy (him) LIAN this-CL man DOU bu appropriate ‘(lit.)*Mary m anies him, even this man, is not appropriate.’ However, compare (64) and (64'). (64’) becomes acceptable if the overt pronominal copy in the adjunct island is related to the first NP, the major subject Zhang. (6 4 ’) Zhangi lian Wangwu% dou [yinwei Lisi piping le *(ta%)] hen bu gaoxing. Zhang LIAN Wangwu DOU because Lisi criticize he Asp very unhappy 'Lit. *Zhangi, even Wangwu is not happy because Lisi criticized him i.’ Similarly, (66) and (67) witli bare object preposing, indicate that an overt pronominal copy inside an adjunct clause or a sentential subject, respectively, is only related to the major subject. (66) Zhangsani Wangwu2 [yinwei ni piping le *(tai)] hen bu gaoxing Zhangsan Wangwu because you criticize Asp (he) veiy unhappy ‘Because you criticized Zhangsan, Wangwu is not happy.’ (67) Zhegeiem [[Mali jia *(tai)] zui heshi] this-CL man Mali marry (him) most appropriate ‘*This man, Mary m anies him, is the most appropriate.’ As noted in section 3.2.2, the movement of lian phrase to the Spec of FP position is clause-bound. Hence (35), repeated as (68) here, is ungrammatical. Note 95 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. that in (68), no overt pronominal copy is construed with the focalized NP, lian Mali, is possible. (68) *Zhangsan lian M alii dou renwei [cp Lisi bu xihuan (tai)]. =(35) Zhangsan LIAN Mali DOU think Lisi not like (her) ‘Zhangsan thinks that Lisi doesn’t like even Mali.’ In contrast, (69) shows that the overt pronominal copy in the embedded clause can be construed with the major subject in the matrix clause. (69) M alii Zhangsan renwei [cp Lisi hen xihuan tai] Mali Zhangsan think Lisi very like her ‘As for Mali, Zhangsan thinks that Lisi likes her very m uch.’ To recapitulate, this section has shown that a //fln-focalized NP in [Spec FP] position c a n n o t allow overt pronominal copying, either in sim plex or complex clauses. This prohibition against overt pronominal copying strongly argues for a movement analysis of focalization. This discussion also raises the issue of whether there exists genuine “resumptive pronouns’’ in Chinese. I will discuss this issue in sections 4.3.3-4. 3.2.3. R e c o n stru c tio n E ffects In section 3.1.5 I have demonstrated that /mn-focalization to the Spec of FP position does not force Principles A or C reconstmction effects. Sentences (42) and (43) are repeated below as (70) and (71) respectively. (70) a. Wo bei Zhangsani qiang-zou le [do yiben guanyu tazijii de shu] =(42) I by Zhangsan rob-away Perf one-CL about himself’s book ‘(lit.) I was robbed by ZJmngsan a book about himself.' 96 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. b. ??Wo lian rvihen guanvu ta7.iii\ de shub dou bei Zhangsani qiang-zou le (2 I LIAN one-CL about him self s book DOU by Zhangsan rob-away Perl' ‘(lit.) I was robbed of [even a book about himself] by Zhangsan.' (71) a. *Wo bei tai qiang-zou le [yiben Zhangsani de shu] =(43) I by him rob-away Perf one-CL Zhangsan’s book ‘(lit.) I was robbed by him of a hook of Zhangsan.' b. ?Wo lian \Zhang.san\_ de shub dou bei tai qiang-zou le t2 I LIAN Zhangsan’s book DOU by him rob-away Perf ‘I was robbed of [even Zhangsan's book] by him.' It has been argued by Huang (1993) that topicalization in Chinese observes Binding- type reconstruction effects. His sentences are given in (72) and (73). The compound reflexive taziji in (72) is ambiguously interpreted with the matrix subject or the embedded subject. In (73), coreference between the R-expression Zhangsan inside the topic NP and the pronoun in the comment clause is barred. This indicates that topics arc inteipreted in their original position. (72) Tazijim de shi, Zhangsani xiwang Lisi2 neng guan-yi-guan him se lfs matter Zhangsan hopes Lisi can handle-a-little ‘His 1/2 own business, Zhangsani hopes Lisi] will handle for a while.’ (73) a. ?*Zhangsani de pengyou, tai changchang piping Zhangsan’s friend he often criticize ‘Zhangsan’s friend, he often criticizes.’ 97 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. b . l*Zhangsan \ de pengyou, ta zhidao [cp wo changchang piping] Zhangsan’s friend he know I often criticize ‘Zhangsan’s friend, he knows I often criticize.’ In section 4 .1 1 will further compare the reconsU uction effects of topicalized S-initial lian-NPs and bare NPs in simplex and complex clauses. Obligatory reconstruction is observed, especially when dou occurs in embedded clauses. To summarize, based on the discussion in sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.3, focalization (in the FP Spec position) differs from regular topicalization in the following aspects. Focalization does not employ a resumption strategy, but overt pronominal copying can occur in major subject/ topic structures. Topicalization displays reconstruction effects, but focalization lacks. Focalization is clause-bound, whereas topicalization is unbounded. 3.2.4. W eak C rossover E ffects? In section 3.1.6 1 have shown the remedy of the W CO effects of lian- focalization; (45) is repeated as follows. (45) Wo lian meimei\ dou bei [xihuan ta\ de ren] qian-zou le t\ 1 LIAN sister DOU by [like her DE man] rob-away Perf ‘(lit.) 1 was robbed away even sisteri by the person that likes heri.’ It has been noted in the literature that topicalization lacks weak crossover effects in English (see Lasnik & Stowell 1991, and references cited there), as in (74). Chinese (75) seems to be on a par with English (74). (74) This book;, 1 expect [its, author] to buy t\ 98 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (75) Zhangsani [[piping tai de] ren]] bu xihuan ei Zhangsan criticize him DE person not like ‘Lit: Zhangsani people that criticize himi don’t like.’ Lasnik and Stowell (ibid.) suggest that the absence of W CO effects in topicalization is because the topic is not a true quantifier phrase (QP), but rather a referential NP. According to them, WCO effects occur only when the pronoun and the trace are locally A ’-bound by a tioie QP (or by a trace of a tine QP). Although (75) does not explicate the nature of topicalization, one thing I would like to mention is that in section 4.1.2 I will show that certain cases do display W CO effects. They are long-distance topicalized lian-NPs, in which dou occurs in embedded clauses, as illustrated in (76). (76) a. *Lian-N Pi Sub ...V ... [cP [N P-r^l-l dou V t\] b. *Lian Zhangsani Mali renwei [cp[piping tai de zheben shu] dou hui le t\] LIAN Zhangsan Mali think criticize him DE this book DOU desüoyed ‘Lit. Even Zhangsani, Mali thinks that the book that criticizes himi destroyed.’ Recall that in chapter two 1 discussed certain parallel properties of lian-NPs and universal QPs. Hence, the ungrammaticality of (76) indicates that topicalization does show WCO effects when the topicalized element is a QP. Therefore, the properties discussed in section 3.2 and summarized in Table 3- I strongly argue that the strict preverbal focus position should be structurally distinct from the sentence-initial major subject or topic position. This focalization is tiiggered 99 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. by a lexically realized Focus head dou/ye. In the following section I will discuss object preposing and argue that it undergoes a process similar' to focalization. 3.3. Focalized Objects and Preposed Objects Object preposing results in a surface SOV word order. An example is given in (77b), in which no overt dou or ye occurs. The preposed object in (77b) bears a contrastively focused interpretation. (77) a. Lisi kan-guo le naben shu Lisi read-Exp Perf that-CL book 'Lisi has read that book.’ b. Lisi naben shui kan-guo le t\ Lisi that-CL book read-Exp Asp For ease of discussion, I will call this strict preverbal and post-subject object a "preposed bare object” and the //a/i-object in the FP Spec position a "focalized object.” I will contend that (77b) is derived from (77a) by object movement similar to the focalization discussed previously. Syntactic object preposing is triggered by a strong formal [+Focus] feature, a lexically null head, being projected. Like lian- focalization, an object is moved, targeting an already formed [p’ F AspPj. The F’ further projects to a maximal projection; thus, the moved object is in [Spec FP] position. The strong [+Focus] feature hence is checked in the checking domain of pO. The derivation converges. This proposal provides a natural unified account for deriving SOV order, in both localization and object preposing cases. 1 0 0 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. As noted in section 3.1, although an in-situ object can be phonologically stressed without overt movement, I assume it is in the realm of a phonological focusing device, independent of any syntactic focusing device discussed here (see the discussion of G ao’s proposal in section 3.1). 3.3.1. C om parison between Focalized and Preposed O bjects 3.3.1.1. S im ilar D istribution The following will compare the distribution of preposed objects and focalized objects. It will be concluded that the position of a preposed object is on a par with that of a /mn-object as discussed in section 2.2.2, namely, in the [Spec FP] position. Like lian-NPs, preposed bare objects cannot be structurally low er than negation m eiyou. Sentences (78) from Lu (1994) and Qu (1994) and (79), the focalized sentence from chapter two, show this parallelism. (78) Lisi (*meiyou) naben shu (meiyou) kan-guo -(L u 1994) Lisi (not-have) that-CL book (not-have) read-Exp ‘Lisi hasn’t read that book.’ (79) Zhangsan (*meiyou) lian kewen dou (meiyou) kan-wan Zhangsan LIAN not-have text DOU not-have read-fmish ‘Zhangsan didn’t finish reading even the lesson.’ Like focalized //««-NPs, preposed objects cannot occur lower than deontic modals. This is shown in (80).^^ The preposed object in (80) is on a par with focalized object in (81) from section 2.2.2. 32 However, epistemic modals can precede this preposed object. See the discussion in section 2.2.2. (i) Lisi (yinggai) naben shu (yinggai) du-guo le - L u (1994) Lisi (should) that book (should) read-Exp Part 1 0 1 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (80) Lisi ('*hui) zhexie wenti (hui') jiejue — Lu (1994) Lisi (will) these question (will) solve ‘Lisi is able to/can solve these problems.’ (81) Lisi (*gan/lten/vao) lian puipushi dou (gan/ken/yao) ting Lisi dare/willing/want LIAN ghost story DOU listen ‘Lisi dares/ is willing/wants to listen to even a ghost story.’ The obligatory post-subject (non-m ovable) adverbs yijin g ‘already,’ changchang ‘often’ can either precede or follow a preposed object, as shown in (82). Compaie (82) with the focalized object in (83); the parallelism holds. (82) a. Zhangsan (yijing) wan (yijing) xi-hao le. Zhangsan (already) dishes (already) wash-read Perf ‘Zhangsan has finished washing the dishes.’ b. Zhangsan (yizhi/changchang) iiaokeshu (yizhi/ ch an g ch an g ) bu mai. Zhangsan (always/often) textbook (always/often) not buy ‘Zhangsan never buys/often doesn’t buy textbooks.’ (83) Zhangsan (yijing) lian wan dou (yijing) xi-hao le. Zhangsan (already) LIAN dishes DOU (already) wash-ready Part ‘Zhangsan has already finished washing even the dishes.’ Like focalized objects, preposed objects have to precede m anner adverbs. (84) with a preposed object and (85) with a focalized object illustrate this point. ‘Lisi should have read that book.’ 102 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (84) Xiaoying (*xixide) jiu (xixide) he le Xiaoying (gently) wine gently drink Perf ‘Xiaoying drank wine gently.’ (85) Xiaoying (*henhende) lian Lisi dou (henhende) ma le Xiaoying (harshly) LIAN Lisi DOU harshly scold Perf ‘Xiaoying scolded even Lisi harshly.’ Lu (1994) observes that preposed objects should follow PPs. Her example is given in (86), which is on a par with the lian-NP of (87), repeated here from section 2 .2 .2 . (86) Lisi (*ti wo) naben shu (ti wo) mai le -L u (1994) Lisi (for me) that-CL book (for me) buy Perf ‘Lisi bought that book for me.’ (87) Zhangsan (*cong bangongshi) lian hi dou (cong bangongshi) na- huijia Zhangsan (from office) LIAN pen DOU from office take-home ‘Zhangsan takes home even pens from office.’ The above distribution of preposed and focalized objects is summarized in (88). (88) S u b_ _ non-movable ad v_ _ VP a. lian-NP-dou ok ok preposed object ok ok Negation/deontic m odals VP b. S-lian-NP-dou ok * preposed object ok * 103 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. [VP Manner A dv V] c. S-lian-NP-dou ok * preposed object ok * (88) clearly demonstrates the parallelism between focalized objects and preposed objects in the FP positon. Hence it further supports our unified account for both types of object preposing. In short, object preposing and focalization can be accounted for uniformly, as their sim ilar structural distribution summarized in (88) shows. In the following sections I will present further arguments for a unified account of focalization and object preposing movement. This strictly preverbal focus position can indeed be distinguished from IP-adjoined topics. 3.3.1.2. O bject Preposing as A -M ovem ent In section 3.2 I have argued for A-movement of //an-focalization. If the preposed object undergoes a similar movement mechanism to focalization, we will predict that it is an A-movement as well. This is indeed correct. The A-movement properties of object preposing include (i) weak binding type reconstruction effects, (ii) remedy of weak crossover effects and (iii) clause-boundedness (cf. the following data with Q u’s (1994) similar proposal, and Japanese VP-external scrambling in Saito (1985; 1992), Nemoto (1993), or Takano’s (1995) VP-intemal scrambling). Sentences in (42) repeated as (89) indicate the lack of obligatory Principle A reconstruction effects in focalization discussed in section 3.1.5. (89) a. Wo bei Zhangsani qiang-zou le Ldq yiben guanyu tazijii de shu] =(42) I by Zhangsan rob-away Perf one-CL about himself’s book '(lit.) I was robbed by Zhangsan of a book about himself.'' 104 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. b . ??Wo lian Fvihen guanvu toziiii de shiib dou bei Zhangsani qiang-zou le n I LIAN one-CL about him self s book DOU by Zhangsan rob-away Perf ‘(lit.) I was robbed of [even a book about himself] by Zhangsan.' Compare focalization in (89b) and object preposing in (90).^^ (90) ??W o fnaxie ta7.iii\ de shub yijing jiao Zhangsani xian na-zou le t2 I those him selfs book already ask Zhangsan first take-away Asp 'I have asked Zhangsan to take away his own books.’ The reflexive inside the preposed direct object is not interpreted with the intended antecedent Zhangsan either. Therefore, the unacceptability of both (89b) and (90) further supports a unified account for both focalization and object preposing. Reconstruction effects with respect to Principle C are not forced both in focalization (in section 3.1.5) and object preposing. The R-expression Zhangsan in a direct object is c-commanded by a pronoun in (43a), in violation of binding principle C. However, focalizing or preposing the direct object improves the acceptability, as shown in (91a) and (92) respectively. (91) a. *Wo bei qian-zou le [yiben de shu] =(43) I by him rob-away Perf one-CL Zhangsan’s book '(lit.) I was robbed by him of a book o f Zhangsan.' 33 Also see Qu’s (ibid.) examples given in (i), which illustrate the same point, (i) a. Wo gei Johni kan-guo Itaiziii; de zhaopian] I to John see Asp himself’s photo ‘I showed John his own photos.’ b. *Wo Itaizijii de zhaopianjj gei Johni kan-guo le ty I himself’s photo to John see-Asp 105 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. b. Wo lian {Zhangsan} de shiil? dou bei tm qiang-zou le h I LIAN Zhangsan’s book DOU by him rob-away Perf 'I was robbed of [even Zhangsan's book] by him.'' (92) a. *Wo jiao ta\ na-zou le \Zhangsan^ de shu] I let him take-away Asp Zhangsan’s book ‘I let him to take away Zhangsan's book.’ b. Wo \Zhangsan\ de shub jiao ta\ na-zou le ti I Zhangsan’s book let him take-away Perf In section 3.1.6 I have shown that focalization remedies weak crossover effects; (45) is repeated as (93) here. (93) Wo lian lneimei^ dou bei Ixihuan rai de renl qiami-zou le t\ =(45) I LIAN sister DOU by [like her DE man] rob-away Perf ‘(lit.) I was robbed away even sister; by the person that likes h er;.’ Consider (94b) and (93). Although the pronoun inside an NP is not bound by a universal postverbal object QP in (94a), it may be bound by a preposed universal QP in (94b).34 34 Qu (ibid.) also notes the ability remedying W CO in object preposing. His sentences are given in (i). (i) a. *Wo [pp zai tamende\ jiaoshile] jiandao le siioyoiide xuesheng\ I at their classroom see Asp all student ‘I have met all the students in their classroom.’ b . Wo siioyoude xueshengi dou [pp zai tamenût\ jiaoshili] jiandao le t; I all student at their classroom see Asp 'I have met all the students in their classroom.’ However, there are three problems related to his sentence (i) in testing W CO effects. First, he uses suoyoii ‘all,’ which denotes plural or group reading. It is more referential than the real universal determiner meige ‘every.’ Hence it is not qualified as an operator, see Hoji (1985b) and the lack of scopal interpretation in group reading of QPs in Williams (1986). Qu also uses the plural pronoun tainen ‘they’ rather than the singular pronoun ta ‘he’ to test a bound pronoun interpretation. This is not in accord with the standard view of bound pronouns, since plural pronouns denote coreference, rather than a bound reading. 106 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (94) a. *Wo bei [youguai rai de ren] pian-zou le Wé;/ge//a/z/l I by [abduct him DE person] kidnap-away Asp every-CL child b. Wo mei^e haizi dou ei [youguai ta\ de ren] pian-zou le t\ I every-CL child DOU by [abduct him DE person] kidnap-away Asp ‘(lit.) I was affected by every child (of mine) being kidnapped by the person who abducted him.' 3 .3 .I.3 . S em antic R estrictio n s on P rep o sed O b jects Although preposed objects obey certain semantic constraints, as has been pointed out by P. Lu (1994), Z. Lu (1991) and Qu (1994) among others, yet such a constraint does not seem to apply to lian..dou sentences. As mentioned in section 3.2.2.1, NPl-//fln-NP2-r/o«-V order can be ambiguous. Sentence (55a) is repeated here as (95). NP2 can have either the focalized object (b) reading or the subject (c) reading. Second, the pronoun contained inside an NP is an adjunct in Q u’s examples. Lasnik and Stowell (1991) have noted an asymmetry of argum ent/adjunct NP containing pronouns in weak crossover configurations. The contrast is shown in (ii) and (iii). W CO effects occur when the pronoun is inside an argument NP, rather than in an adjunct NP. Their generalizations are repeated in (iv) and (v). (ii) *Whoi does hisi boss dislike (iii) a. Whoi did you say [cp t, was a liar] [pp before you met him,] b. Whoi did Jan say [cp she admired ti ] [pp in order to please him,] Lasnik and Stowell (1991) (iv) In a configuration where a pronoun P and a trace T are both A ’-bound by a category C, T must c-command P. (Koopman and Sportiche (1983) and Safir (1984)) (v) In a configuration where a category C A’-binds a pronoun P and a trace T, P may not be contained in an argument phrase XP that c-commands T. (Lasnik and Stowell (1991)) Third, the unacceptability of (i) may be independently due to a cyclic-c-command coreference requirement in Chinese discussed by Huang (1982). A backward pronoun needs to be further embedded within an NP to avoid cyclic-c-commanding its antecedent. 107 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (95) Mali lian Zhangsan don xihuan -N P i lian NP2 dou V =(55a) Mali LIAN Zhangsan DOU like b: ‘Mali likes even Zhangsan ‘(NP;) Mali as the subject’ c: ‘Mali, even Zhangsan likes.’ ‘(NPl) Mali as the topic’ As for NP1-NP2-V sentences without lian..dou, no such ambiguity exists when both NPs are (human) anim ate. This is shown in (96), where only the (b) reading is licit; namely, NPI is a topic and NP2 is a subject. (96) Mali Zhangsan kanjian le. Mali Zhangsan see Asp a: ‘*Mali saw Zhangsan.’ -SO V b; ‘Malii, Zhangsan saw ei.' -O SV Lu (1994) thus proposes the following constraint (97) to rule out the reading of (96a), since both the subject and object in (96) are animate. (97) ^Subject NP + Object NP + V -L u (1994) [+animate] [+animate] Qu (1994:71) revises the constraint proposed by Z. Lu (1991) in consideration of predicate types, and a similar point has also been made by Tsao (1977: 99).35 His revision and descriptive generalization are given in (98) and (99) respectively. 35 Qu (ibid.) disagrees with F. Lu’s animacy constraint by giving the following example in (i). He states that even if both NPI and NP2 are inanimate, NP2 still cannot be interpreted as a preposed object, hence the unacceptability of (ib). (i) niuyue shibao, tade w enzhang yijing piping-guo le. N.Y. times, his aiticle already criticized Asp a. The New York Timesj, his article; has criticized tj.’ -T opic object b. *The New York Times has criticized his article.’ — Preposed object It seems to me that the unacceptability of (ib) is not what Qu originally meant. Rather it is because the canonical order of sentence (i), shown in (ii), is as unacceptable, or unnatural as (ib) anyhow. Hence, after the object is preposed (SOV), (ib) is not 1 0 8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (98) *NPs + N Poi + V + fi (when NPs and NPq can switch 6-roles) (99) a. If NPs and NPq cannot switch 0-roles, NPq can be either fronted to the S-initial position or preposed to a position after the subject, b. If NPs and NPq can switch 6-roles, then NPq can only be fronted to the S-initial position, not preposed. ‘Sw itching 6-roles’ here roughly refers to those predicates where the result of switching subject and object is still interpretable, such as ‘symmetric predicates.’ Sentence (96) allows switching 6-roles and according to (99b), only the topic object is interpreted. In contrast, in (100) the 6-roles of the subject and object cannot be switched. Following (99a), both topicalizing the object and preposing the object are well-formed, as in (lOIa) and (lOIb) respectively. (100) a. Zhangsani iian-guo zhezhong hua?. Zhangsan see-Asp this-kind flower ‘Zhangsan has seen this kind of flower.’ b . *Zhezhong hua? jian-guo Zhangsani. this-kind flower see-Asp Zhangsan (101) a. Zhezhong him?. Zhangsani jian-guo -topic object this-kind flower, Zhangsan see-Asp felicitous either. Thus, Q u’s example can not be used to argue against Lu’s generalization. (ii) *T ade w enzhang yijing piping-guo le niuyue shibao. his aiticle already criticized Asp New York times 109 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. b. Zhangsani zhezhong hua? jian-guo -preposed object Zhangsan this-kind flower see-Asp I have no formai account for this asymmetiy of focalized object and preposed object with respect to both arguments involved being animate. 3.3.2. O bject Preposing or Double Topicalization? It has been argued above that object preposing, on a par with lia n - focalization, undergoes movement to be in a preverbal/ post-subject [Spec FP] position (cf. VP-adjunction in Lu (1994) and Ernst & Wang (1995)). This analysis is in contrast to the 'double topicalization’ (DT) analysis assumed by Xu and Langendoen (1985), Tang (1990) and Lin (1992). The DT hypothesizes that SOV order results from topicalizing the object first, i.e. IP-adjunction, then topicalizing the subject again. Nevertheless, it has been argued that focalized/ preposed objects (SOV) and topic objects (OSV) have different structures. The following will present arguments for the post-subject preverbal Focus position in object preposing and focalization, in contrast to a topic object position. The result of this discussion lends further support to our unified account of focalization and object preposing. First, I think Chinese generally does not allow the multiple application of genuine topicalization, contrary to the widely held view. A reliable test is given in (102) and (103), in which involves PP topicalization. Multiple topicalization in (102b) becomes unacceptable, whereas single topicalization is good in (103); also see section 5.1. 110 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (102) a. Zhangsan cong Meiguo ji le yiben shu gei Lisi. Zhangsan from USA send Asp one-CL book to Lisi ‘Zhangsan sent a book to Lisi from the USA.’ b. *Gei Lisi?. Cong M eiguoi. Zhangsan t\ ji le yiben shu t2- to Lisi from USA Zhangsan send Asp one-CL book ‘To Lisi, from the USA, Zhangsan sent a b o o k .’ (10.3) a. Cong Meiguoi. Zhangsan ti ji le yiben shu gei Lisi. from USA Zhangsan send Asp one-CL book to Lisi b. Gei Lisi?. Zhangsan cong Meiguo ji le yiben shu t2- to Lisi, Zhangsan from USA send Asp one-CL book If Chinese allowed mutliple topicalization, one cannot explain the contrast between (102b) and (103). Furthermore, although it has been assumed that temporal and locative adverbials in Chinese can be fronted, Shi (1992a: 211-5) has correctly pointed out that it is undesirable to assume that adverbials could be topicalized or fronted. Temporal or locative adverbials occur either in a position between the subject and verb or in the sentence initial position, and the scope of adverbials usually coincides with their linear order in Chinese (cf. Huang 1982). The positions that the adverbials occur show different scope interpretations. Take (104) for an example, the locative phrases in (104a) and (104b) have different scopes. Sentence (104a) is three-way ambiguous: negation has scope either over the adverbial and the verb separately, or over the combination of the adverbial and the verb. Sentence (104b) only has the reading that the negation has scope over the verb but not the adverbial. I l l R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (104) a. Wo meiyou zai Zhangsan iia da Lisi. I not-have at Zhangsan's home hit Lisi I didn’t hit Lisi at Zhangsan’s home.’ b . Zai Zhangsan iia wo meiyou da Lisi. at Zhangsan’s home I not-have hit Lisi ‘At Zhangsan’s home I didn’t hit Lisi.’ Thus, the examples in (102) and (104) indicate that the widely assumed double topicalization in Chinese literature is not that well-grounded as people have thought. The second piece of evidence considers the relative order among adverbs, focalized/preposed objects and topics. Obligatorily post-subject (“non-movable”) adverbs,3^ like yijing ‘already’ and zao ‘early, already,’ cannot precede the subject, as shown in (105). (105) a. * Yijing Guorong ye ziji feng yifu le. already Guorong also self sew clothes Asp ‘Guorong already sews clothes himself.’ b. *Zao ta mai-hao-le piao early s/he buy-good-Asp ticket ‘S/he got the tickets quite early.’ In their article arguing against the DT hypothesis, Ernst and W ang (hence E&W) (1995) note that if preposed objects were strictly topicalized as the DT hypothesis assumes, preposed objects would always precede “non-movable” (jO-licensed) adverbs. However, their sentences in (106) show that preposed objects can follow See Li and Thompson’s (1981) adverb classes discussed in section 2.2.2.3. 112 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. these adverbs. Hence, preposed objects should not be solely derived by topicalization. (106) a. Guorong yijing yifu *(ye) ziji feng le. Guorong already clothes also self sew Asp b. Ta zao piao *(dou) mai-hao-le s/he early ticket also buy-good-Asp (E&W 1995) The sentences in (106) show that there should be a post-subject/ preverbal position possible for bare object preposing. It is the same for focalized objects. (83) is repeated here as (107). (107) Zhangsan yijing lian wan chu xi-hao le. =(83) Zhangsan already LIAN dish DOU wash-ready Part ‘Zhangsan already finished washing even the dishes.’ Focalized objects either precede or follow obligatorily post-subject adverbs. In other words, if the order of S-lian-O-dou-'V were a result of first topicalizing lian-O, then topicalizing S, the DT hypothesis cannot explain the grammaticality of (107). The third argument against the DT analysis of object preposing discussed by E&W (ibid.) is related to embedded contexts (also noted by Lu (1994), Pu (1994)). It is known that topicalization can be unbounded in Chinese. Sentence (108) indicates that the embedded object Mali of (34) is topicalized to the mauix clause. (34) Zhangsan renwei [cp Lisi bu xihuan Mali] ‘Zhangsan thinks Lisi doesn’t like Mali.’ 113 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (108) Mali; Zhangsan renwei [cp Lisi bu xihuan ri]. ‘Malii, Zhangsan thinks Lisi doesn’t like ti.’ Now consider (109), in which the embedded object M ali is preposed to a position after the matrix subject and before the matrix verb. (109) *Zhangsan M ali; renwei [cp Lisi bu xihuan tiJ. ‘Lit: Zhangsan, Mali] think Lisi doesn’t like ti.’ If (109) resulted from topicalizing the embedded object to the matrix clause (and topicalizing the matrix subject aftei-wards), then (109) would be predicted to be as acceptable as (108). On the contrary, the ungrammaticality of (109) in turn proves that there should be distinct positions for bare preposed objects and topic objects. Moreover, the ungrammaticality of (109) indicates that the object preposed is clause bound. The clause-boundedness of //cm-focalization has been discussed in section 3.2.1. Sentence (35) is repeated as (110) here to iterate this point. Thus, the ungrammaticality of (110) patterns with (109), namely, both focalization and object preposing are clause bound. (110) *Zhangsan //on Mai W ow renwei [cp Lisi bu xihuan ei]. =(35) Zhangsan LIAN Mali DOU think Lisi not like (her) ‘Zhangsan thinks that Lisi doesn’t like even M ali.’ In relation to this point of embedded contexts, Fu (1994) notes that CSV order is less acceptable than SOV order inside relative clauses; also see Tsai (1994). The acceptable sentence in (11 la) involves a preposed object inside a relative clause. In contrast, (111b) with a topic object inside a relative clause is unacceptable. 114 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (111) a. Qing zai [[ta neibenshu kan-wan] de shihou] lai zhao la. (Fu (1994)) please at he that-CL book read-finish of time come seek him ‘Please come to see him when he finishes reading that book.’ b. *Qing zai [[neibenshu ta kan-wan] de shihou] lai zhao ta please at that-CL book he read-finish of time come seek him ‘Please come to see him when that book, he finishes reading.’ If SOV order were solely denved from CSV order as the DT hypothesis assumes, the contrast between (11 la) and (11 lb) can not be accounted for. Like object preposing, focalization can occur inside relative clauses as in (112) (also see focalization in adjunct clauses in sections 3.1.1.2). (112) Zhangsan taoyan [np[cp (j yizhi lian Mali; dou piping (i de] renj] Zhangsan dislike LIAN always Mary DOU criticize DE person ‘Zhangsan dislikes the person who always ciiticizes even Mary.’ M oreover, E&W (ibid.), based upon Tsai’s (1994) observation, explictly state that pre-subject objects and post-subject objects have “differing pragmatic requirements: the latter must display some sort of contrast while the former need not (though it may be contrastive).’’ The first NP in (113) is not necessaiily contrastive, but preposed objects in (114)3? have to be contrastively focused. 37 Although sentence-initial NPs tend to be definite in Chinese (cf. Li and Thompson (1981), Tsai (1994) among others), numeral subject NPs are possible in certain situations; also see Lee’s (1986) data. In section 4 .3 ,1 will discuss numeral subjects in different predicate types in more detail. If numeral subjects occur in stage-level predicates, they are interpreted ‘specific, presuppositional.’ If they occur in individual-level predicates, they have to denote contrastive focusing as the cardinal reading. They can be interpreted non-referentially if there are modal licensors or embedded in conditional contexts. Let us examine (i). Tsai (1994) states that yipian liinwen in (i) is not necessarily contrastively focused. (i) Yi-pian lunwen wo hai keyi yingfu (liang-pian, najiu tai duo le) one-CL paper I still can handle (two-Cl, that then too much PRT) 115 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (113) Zhe-pian lunwen. wo hen xihuan. (Tsai (1994)) this-CL paper I very like ‘This paper I like very much.’ (114) a. Wo zhe-pian lunwen xihuan *fna-pian lunwen bu xihuan) (Tsai (1994)) 1 this-CL paper like that-CL paper not like 'This paper 1 like (but that paper, 1 don’t).’ b. Wo vi-pian lunwen keyi yingfu *(liang-pian jiu bu xing le) I one-CL paper can handle two-CL then not possible PRT ‘One paper I can handle (but two papers, I can’t).’ Besides the obligatoiy contrastive reading of the preposed object, note that a preposed object can be either indefinite (114), definite or generic as in (115). (115) a. Wo zhehen shu; vijinp kan-wan le ti. — definite NP 1 this-CL book already read-finish Asp ‘I have finished reading this book.’ b. Wo pijiui he-guo t;. — generic NP I beer drink Asp I have had beer.’ Qu (1994), in contrast to Tsai’s (ibid.) and E&W ’s (ibid.) observation, states that preposed objects show definiteness effects. According to him, definite or generic NPs in (115) can be preposed, but indefinite NP cannot, given in (116). ‘One paper 1 can handle (two papers, that’s too much).’ According to my observation in chapter four, 1 consider the underlined NP to be in major subject position. Like indefinite subject NPs, it is felicitous when the generic interpretation can be received, either by modals or in conditional clauses. 116 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (116) *W o yihen shu kan-wan le. -indefinite NP I one-CL book read-finish Asp I have finished reading one hook.’ (Qu 1994:90) Nevertheless, I think Tsai’s and E&W ’s observation is correct in the sense that preposed objects denote contrastive focus. Indefinite preposed objects are allowed if they are contrastively focused. Consider (117), a modification of Qu’s sentence of (116). Sentence (117), on a par with (114h), is felicitous, since a contrastive reading is expressed. (117) Wo vihen shu kan-wan le. yipian wenxhang mei kan-wan I one-CL hook read-finish Asp, one-CL article not-have read-finish T finished reading a hook hut didn’t finish reading an article.’ Similar to the contrastive reading of preposed objects, //a/i-focalized objects can he indefinite as well, as shown in (118) (also see the discussion of /mn+indefinite NP in section 2.1.4.3). (118) Zhangsan (lian) yikou shengfan dou chi-xiaqu le Zhangsan LIAN one-mouthful leftover DOU eat-down Asp ‘Zhangsan ate even a mouthful of leftovers.’ The indefinite /w/i-focalized object denotes an exhaustive reading. When this kind of indefinite NP occurs in positive contexts, it denotes a minimal quantity; when it occurs in negative contexts, the absence of this minimal quantity equals no quantity at all (see Schmerling (1971), Fauconnier (1975), Horn (1989), Lee & Horn (1995) and references cited there). 117 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3.4. Previous Analyses of Object Preposing Lu (1994), Qu (1994) and Ernst and W ang (1995) have argued for a m ovem ent analysis of bare object preposing to the post-subject and preverbal position. The following will first briefly examine their proposals and discuss how their insights are incorporated and their problems are avoided in my present proposal. 3.4.1. E rnst and W ang’s and F u’s Analyses E&W propose that preposed objects undergo VP (or M odal?) adjunction. They consider bare preposed objects to be distinct from preposed //an-objects, in contrast to my unified account for both objects. They revise G ao’s (1994) Focus Criterion, given in (119). (119) The Focus Criterion (E&W (1995)) A. The focused element must be checked with a head beaiing [+Foc] B . A Focus head of Focus? must be in a Spec-head configuration with the focused element. (119) means that while the landing site of //on-objects is eventually in [Spec F?], preposed objects, according to E&W, are adjoined to a V ? with the verb head bearing [+Foc]. Therefore, the V?-adjoined preposed object m oves into the checking domain (Chomsky (1993)) of the verb head. They also state that the emphatic negation marker bu ‘not’ differs from the lexical focus head dou/ye. It does not head a Focus?. ( 120) *Guorong lian xiaohaizi bu taoyan. Guorong LIAN children not dislike ‘Guorong even doesn’t dislike children.’ 1 1 8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. I have been arguing for a unified account for focalization and object preposing, based on tbeir sim ilar distribution and semantic properties. (120) can be naturally accounted for under our current proposal, if we adopt the proposal that bu adjoins to a verbal or inflectional bead (see Huang (1988)), rather than beading an FP as E&W assume. Object preposing in a negative sentence like (120) patterns with that in an affirmative sentence such as (121). (121) Lisi [f p (lian) xiaohaizi; (dou)] [yp ( b u ) taoyan r,] Lisi (LIAN) children (DOU) not dislike ‘Lisi doesn’t dislike (even) children.’ E&W suggest that languages like Korean and Chinese are classified as perm itting a [+TopC] feature^^ which licenses a preposed object and “triggers its interpretation as a sort of topic.” In the meantime, they correlate object preposing in Chinese with scrambling in Korean (or Japanese). English does not pennit [+TopC] in VP; thus, no overt object preposing is allowed. There seems to exist an empirical problem with respect to this correlation . Chinese object preposing differs from Korean/Japanese scrambling in the multiple application of object fronting (either topicalization or focalization). As noted by Saito (1985), Hoji (1985) and others, m ultiple scrambling and topicalization are grammatical in Japanese. However, multiple topicalization and focalization are not allowed in Chinese; see the previous discussion in section 3.3.2. If preposed objects were VP-adjoined, it is not clear how E&W would rule out multiple adjunction, as in (122b). 38 E& W ’s (ibid.) parameter is given in (i). (i) a. Languages are parameterized as [±TopC]. b. [+TopC] potentially occurs in both IP and VP; c. If [+TopC] is allowed in a given projection, then so is [+Foc]. 119 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (122) a. Zhangsan huangei Mali zhehen shu Zhangsan return Mali this-CL book ‘Zhangsan returned this book to Mali.’ b. *Zhangsan Mali zheben shu huangei (ta) le Zhangsan Mali this-CL book return (she) Asp On the contraiy, the present substitution movement mechanism avoids this problem. Lu (1994) also proposes a similar VP-adjunction analysis, and her structure is given in (123). W ith an aim to explain the animacy constraint in (97), she postulates a pro in [Spec VP], which is co-indexed with the IP Spec subject. Sentences with structure (123) become uninterpreted if a VP-adjoined object is a possible antecedent (animate NP) for the pro to be identified with. (123) Lu (1994) naben xiaoshuo2 pro i L u’s pro-identification still has to explain why this identification is not necessary in lian..dou/ye. Her animacy constraint is not a logical consequence of adjunction or substitution analysis. 120 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3.4.2. Q u ’s A nalysis Qu (1994) proposes the following sli'ucture (124) for Chinese. (124) Qu (1994:94) CP AgrSP AgrOP MP) spP VP subj. obj. Accordijng to him, the SOV and CSV word orders are derived as follows: (underlined mine) SV G : the canonical word order: The subject is base-generated in [Spec VP], and m oves overtlv to [Spec AspP] for Case assignment. It can further move to [Spec AgrSP] for feature checking. The object undergoes covert LF movem ent to [Spec AgrOP] for feature/Case checking. SOV: object preposed: Both the subject and the object overtlv raise to [Spec AgrSP] and [Spec AgrOP] respectively. C S V : A-type fronting: The object raises overtlv to [Spec AgrOP]. The subject moves to and remains in [Spec AspP] at S-structure, but it later covertlv moves to [Spec AgrSP] for feature checking.^^ Q u’s proposal captures the A-movement properties of object preposing by adopting Pollock (1989), Mahajan (1990), Chomsky and Lasnik (1991). Besides, object preposing is a substitution movement mechanism for him. 39 OSV order includes A-move and A’-move in Qu’s analysis. For A ’-movement of OSV order, he proposes that the object overtly raised to [Spec AgrOP] is further adjoined to CP, inducing A’-movement properties, such as reconstruction effects. 121 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Although Qu’s postulating ArgPs in Chinese adopts the object shift analysis in the literature (cf. Pollock 1989, Chomsky 1994; 1995), it is not without problems when implementing it into Chinese. First, assuming Procrastinate Principle and Last Resort of Econom y considerations proposed by Chosm ky (1993; 1995), covert movement is preferable to overt movement if no derivation crashes prior to Spell- Out. Movement is tiiggered by feature checking in a checking domain. According to Qu, an object raises either overtly or covertly to [Spec AgrOP] for feature and Case checking (so does the subject). Nevertheless, he does not specify what kind of feature is required for checking. For expositoi-y puiposes, if Q u’s raising to [Spec AgrP] is for checking (j)-features (as well as Case), he needs to provide further constraints to explain why the raising to [Spec AgrP] can freely occur either at S- structure or at LF within one single language. This is by no means in the spirit of Chom sky’s (1993; 1994) attempt to parameterize the levels of applying raising to [Spec AgrP]. Chomsky’s parameterization aims to account for different word orders among languages, rather than free application within a single language. Moreover, if one considers the Procrastinate Principle, it is not clear why overt raising has to take place, since covert raising is always obligatory in Qu’s analysis. Although the optionality of object raising in overt syntax within a single language is attested in Icelandic (see Thrainsson (1993)), Kitahara’s (1995) account of Icelandic optional overt object raising crucially relies on the claim that an extra derivation of the verb raises overtlv to AgiO in this language, in contrast to covert verb raising in English. This extra derivation (overt V-to-AgrO) makes Icelandic LF and overt object raising have equal cost. Hence, this language allows optional raising either overtly or covertly. Let us come back to Q u’s (ibid.) proposal. 122 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. According to him, there is no overt verb raising to AgrO and AgrS. It is not clear how the optionality of overt object raising proposed by Kitahara can be executed in Q u’s framework. In relation to the lack of V-to-AgrO and AgrS as Qu proposes, it is also not clear how [Spec AgrSP] and [Spec AgrOP] become A-positions. Let us consider again Q u’s feature checking. Suppose it is a [+definite] feature to be checked, since he states a correlation between the definiteness of the fronted NP and the availability of [Spec AgrP] (p. 51 and pp. 97-100). According to him, both overtlv and covertlv raised objects eventually sit in [Spec AgrOP] at LF and are interpreted at LF, Qu will predict that objects, overtly moved or unmoved, are uniformally interpreted as ‘definite’ NPs at LF. This is obviously wrong in Chinese. Objects in Chinese can be both definite and indefinite without any morphological maiking. 3.5. Summary This chapter has concentrated on lian-NP and baie object movement to a post subject, strict preverbal focus position. They are contrastively focused. I have proposed a unified account for both types of object fronting. This focus triggered movem ent (i) is clause bound, (ii) remedies WCO, (iii) does not have resumptive pronouns in gap positions, and (iv) does not force binding reconstruction effects. This focus position is structurally distinguished from m ajor subject and topic positions that will be discussed in chapter four. Furthermore, the movement is a substitution mechanism. Previous analyses of bare object preposing have also been 123 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. compared with our current proposal. It is concluded that the current proposal not only incorporates their insights but also avoids their problems. 124 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CHAPTER FOUR: SENTENCE INITIAL L M N -PH R A SE S AND TOPICS 4.0. Introduction In chapter three I have proposed that focalizing a postverbal object is a syntactic movement, resulting in the word order of S-lian-O-ciou-V. The proposed structure is repeated in (1), and a corresponding sentence is given in (2). (1) [ip Subj. []’ I [f p lian-NPi [p F [yp .../] ... ]]]]] (2) Zhangsan lion zheben shui dou kan guo le ti Zhangsan LIAN this book DOU read Exp Part ‘Zhangsan has read even this book.’ Moreover, in chapter three I have shown that //fl/j-focalization is on a par with object- preposing sentences like (3). (3) Zhangsan zheben shin kan guo le t\ Zhangsan this book read Exp Part ‘Zhangsan has read THIS BOOK.’ This chapter focuses on //an-objects or bare objects occurring in sentence (S)- initial position. Examples are given in the sim plex sentences of (4) and (5) respectively. (4) Lian M alii Zhangsan don piping guo e\ LIAN Mali Zhangsan DOU criticize Exp ‘Even Mali, Zhangsan has criticized.’ 125 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (5) M alii Zhangsan piping guo e\ Mali Zhangsan criticize Exp ‘Mali, Zhangsan has criticized.’ Particularly I argue that these S-initial //on-objects or bare objects are derived either by movement or base-generated. In section 4.1 I present arguments for a movement derivation based upon Binding reconstruction effects being observed in sim plex and complex clauses and weak crossover effects occuning in complex sentences. The Spec of Topic position, above CP, is the movement landing site. In section 4.2 I demonstrate non-moved S-initial //a/j-objects and bare objects with respect to overt pronominal copies and the lack of weak crossover effects. The base- generation site, however, is an IP-adjoined position. In section 4.3 I further argue for tlie existence of “major subject” in Chinese. The major subject is base-generated in an IP-adjoined position, which can be stioicturally distinguished from the moved topic in [Spec CP] position. This distinction between topic and base-generated major subject resolves the long-standing debate on the movement vs. non-movement of topic structures in Chinese literature. The major subject can further locally raise to topic position in root contexts, adopting Kuroda (1986). In section 4.3.3 I discuss the identification of empty categories and overt pronominal copies in the gap position related to major subject and topic. Particularly the so-called resumptive pronoun in the topic gap position in Chinese is not a genuine resumptive pronoun. Rather I call it a pseudo-resumptive pronoun. A summary of all the constructions discussed in chapters three and four will be provided in section 4.4. A bare topic NP is a thematic topic, an entity of which the rest of clause is predicated. If it is phonologically stressed, it can behave like a contrastive topic, to contrast with other entities in a discourse context. An S-initial lian-NP is a focused 126 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. topic, w hich alw ays bears a contrastive interpretation. The focus scope inteipretations will be discussed in chapter five. 4.1. M oved (Lian-)Topic Let us first concentrate on S-initial /m«-objects and bare objects in complex clauses in sections 4.1.2-3. Specifically, dou, the head of the FP, can occur in a embedded clause, as in (6). (6) Lian M ALI: Zhangsan renwei [ci» Lisi dou bu xihuan t\], LIAN Mali Zhangsan think Lisi all not like ‘Even Mali, Zhangsan thinks that Lisi also doesn’t like t.' It will be shown in sections 4.1.2-4 that weak crossover effects are observed in long distance moved S-initial /m/j-phrases and binding reconstmction effects aie displayed in both simplex and complex clauses. The observations made in these subsections argue for the movement structure of an S-initial /m/i-phrase, whose structure is on a par with the topicalization structure. 4.1.1. M ovem ent Structure The movement structure, proposed in (7), is a root phenomenon. In root contexts, an S-initial //a«-phrase first moves to the [Spec FP] to satisfy [+Focus] feature checking in a Spec-Head agreement configuration. Then it further moves to the [Spec TopicP] position. 127 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (7) TopP «■ÎPP' lian- - T O N P2 Topic j, NPj / \ F P t’ / \ V P Dou/ V This [Spec TopicP] position is a non-L-related position (cf. Chomsky (1986; 1993)). M ovement of this sort also displays A’-movem ent properties. It will become evident in section 4.1.2-4 that binding reconstruction effects are observed in this type of S-initial //««-phrases. The Specifier of Comp position in (7) is reserved for w/i-interrogatives: either iv/i-phrases move there at LF (Huang (1982)) or the Q u(estion)-operator moves there at syntax (Aoun and Li (1993)). Sentences containing S-initial (//««-)NPs and iv/i-interrogatives will be discussed in section 4.4. I will assume that TopicP is not projected in embedded or non-root contexts due to the non-asserted (non-judgmental) function of embedded complements in the sense of Kuroda (1986; 1992) (cf. the lack of embedded TopicP in Lasnik and Saito (1993).! Moreover, I will assume that embedded [Spec CP] is an escape hatch for moving a long-distance //««-phrase or topic to the matrix [Spec Topic] position. Hence, the long-distance moved S-initial //««-phrase first moves to the [Spec FP] position of the embedded clause, then moves to embedded [Spec CP], finally lands ^ A topic can occur relatively easily in the complement to bridge verbs (see Hooper and Thompson (1973)), such as Japanese topic w« in this context. However, it is impossible for Japanese topic wa to occur in a relative clause or non-root contexts; see Kuroda (1986) and Hoji (1985: 208 fn. 24). It is so because certain bridge verbs behave like matrix sentences (cf. Emonds (1976) and Fiengo and Lasnik (1976)). Because of this concern, I will not use the complement of bridge verbs to test topic structures in embedded contexts. 128 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. in the matrix [Spec TopicP]. The structure given in (8), corresponds to sentence (6). Note that dou is in the embedded clause. (8) L/fl/j-NPi Subj [ci*t"l Subj. r'l dou V riJ] Î __________________ lT ________ IÎ_________ I A fronted bare object, the so-called (A’-) moved topic, moves through the embedded [Spec CP] and lands in [Spec TopicP] in the matrix clause. If a topic is contrastively focused, it results in an embedded null Focus projection being projected, through which the moved topic has passed. Structure (8) predicts that if there is a w/;-phrase in the em bedded clause, a long-distance topicalized //a/i-phrase will observe Wz-island effects. This is indeed borne out. The unacceptability of (9) indicates that wA-island effects are in fact observed in Chinese.^ (9) l* U an zheben shui. Zhangsan xiangzhi dao Ishei dou kan le fi]. LIAN this-CL book, Zhangsan wonder who DOU read Asp ‘Even this book, Zhangsan wonders who has read.’ Assuming Chomsky (1986), a Wz-phrase or the A’-moved element in question here may not adjoin to IP (cf. Lasnik and Saito 1993). Thus (9) is a weak Subjacency violation resulting from crossing the embedded CP.^ 2 Note that the lack of iv/i-island effects in the topic structure (i) mentioned by Huang (1982) results from being considered here as a base-generated structure. (i) Zheben ren Zhangsan xiangzhi dao Ishei kan le] this-CL book Zhangsan wonder who read Asp ‘This book Zhangsan wonders who has read.’ 3 This point assumes that Subjacency operates at syntax, since Huang (1982) argues that there is no LF wA-island effect in Chinese. 129 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 .1.2. C o m p lex C lauses In his article, Huang (1993) argues that fronted predicates obligatorily reconstruct. A reflexive contained in a fronted argument, as in (10a) and in the Chinese counterpart of (11a), can be interpreted with either matrix subject or em bedded subject. A fronted VP, as in (10b) and (lib) argued by Huang (ibid.), has to reconstruct to its original position since the reflexive has to be interpreted with the embedded subject to satisfy Binding Principle A.* (10) a. Which picture of himself i/2 did Johni think 601% saw t ? b. Criticize himself *1/2, John; thought Bill2 would not t. (11) a. Tazijii/2 de shi, Zhangsan^ xiwang Lisii neng guan-yi-guan him selfs matter Zhangsan hopes Lisi can handle-a-little 'H is 1/2 own business, Zhangsan 1 hopes Lisi2 will handle for a while.’ b. Piping taziji*i/2 , Zhangsan] zhidao Lisi2 juedui bu huf" criticize himself Zhangsan knows Lisi definitely not will ‘Criticize himself* 1/2 , Zhangsan] knows Lisi2 definitely will not.’ (Huang 1993: #53) Despite this asymmetry of argument-predicate fronting discussed by Huang, S-initial //fl/i-phrases, whether predicate or argument, need to reconstruct when dou occurs in There are three reconstruction mechanisms discussed in the literature, (i) Chom sky’s (1977) genuine reconstruction at LF, (ii) Barss’s (1986) chain-binding, and (iii) Chomsky’s (1993) copy and deletion. 1 will leave these meachanisms open here without further justifying any of the approaches. 5 Huang (ibid.) notes that there is no such predicate/argum ent asymm etry with respect to the fronted long-distance anaphor ziji. (11’) a. zijii/2 de shi, Zhangsan] xiwang Lisi2 neng guan-yi-guan se lf s matter Zhangsan hopes Lisi can handle-a-litüe 'His 1/2 own business, Zhangsan] hopes Lisi2 will handle for a while.’ b. Piping ziji ] / 2 de pengyou, Zhangsan] zhidao Lisi2 juedui bu hui criticize self s friend Zhangsan knows Lisi definitely not will 'Criticize hiS]/2 own friend, Zhangsan] knows Lisi2 definitely will not.’ 130 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. embedded clauses. Sentences (12) and (13), in which the compound reflexive taziji is inteipreted with the embedded subject, illustrate this point.® (12) Lian [(guanyu) taziji?*i/2 de wenzhangjg Zhangi renwei Lisi2 dou piping guo Ï3 LIAN about he-selfs article Zhang think Lisi DOU criticize Exp ‘Even about his own 1 /2 article, Zhangsan 1 thinks Lisi2 has made criticism.' (13) Lian piping taziji *1 /2 de wenzhang, Zhang 1 renwei Lisi2 dou bu hui LIAN criticize self’s article, Zhangsan know Lisi DOU not will ‘*Even criticizing his own* 1/2 aiticle, Zhangi thinks Lisi2 also won’t.’ Similarly, Huang (ibid.) argues that this fronted argument/adjunct asymmetiy holds with respect to Principle C type reconstruction effects; see the sentences in (15b) and (16) respectively. The referential noun Zhangsan in (14) is not free, violating Principle C. After the embedded object containing Zhangsan is preposed, coreference between Zhangsan and ta ‘he’ in an argument (15a) is still not possible. Although strong crossover effects are considerably weakened in (15b) if a pronoun is ® Here I use anaphor to test reconstruction effects. A bound pronoun does not seem to display the “connectivity” effect on binding (see Higgins (1973)) in this structure. (i) Zhangsan gei meigei xuesheng jiqu [laoshi gei tai de pingyu] Zhangsan to every student mail-to teacher give him DE comment ‘Zhangsan mailed every 1 student the comments that the teacher gave him i.’ (ii) ?*[Lian laoshi gei ta i de pingyu]2 Lisi renwei Zhangsan dou gei meigei xuesheng jiqu le (2 LIAN teacher to him DE comment Lisi think Zhangsan DOU give eveiy student mail-out Asp ‘Even the comments that the teacher gave himi Lisi thinks Zhangsan also have mailed to eveiy studenti.’ The unacceptability of (ii) may be due to the weak crossover effect of QP raising at LF, as suggested by A. Li. LF raised QPs usually do not reconstruct, so the QP in (ii) does not fuction as the antecedent of the pronoun anymore. 131 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. sufficiently embedded, noted by Huang (1993:119), fronted predicates obligatorily reconstruct inasmuch as (16a) and (16b) are unacceptable. (14) *Ta zhidao [cp wo changchang piping Zhangsan i de pengyou] ‘*Hei knows I often criticize Zhangsani’s friend.’ (15) a. ?*Zhangsani de pengyou, tai zhidao [cp wo changchang piping] Zhangsan’s friend he know I often criticize ‘Zhangsan’s friend, he knows I often criticize.’ b. ?Zhangsani de pengyou, wo zhidao [tai changchang piping]^ Zhangsan’s friend I know he often criticize ‘Zhangsan’s friend, 1 know he often criticizes.’ (Huang 1993: #54b, c) (16) a. *Piping Zhangsani de pengyou, tai zhidao wo juedui bu hui ‘Criticize Zhangsan’s friend, he knows I definitely will not.’ b. *Piping Zhangsani de pengyou, wo zhidao tai juedui bu hui ‘Criticize Zhangsan’s friend, I know he definitely will not.’ (Huang 1993: #55b, c) D espite the bare argument/predicate fronting asymm etry, there does not appear to be such an asymmetry when lian-NPs or Han-WPs are long-distance fronted to topic position. Compare (15b), (16) and (17), (18) respectively. These long distance fronted lian-NPs and lian-VPs in (17) and (18) obligatorily reconstmct. 7 1 think the improvement of (15b) is due to the fact that the S-initial embedded object can be base-generated (vs. (18)). Since an S-initial bare object does not require an overt dou, hence we cannot decide whether this S-initial bare object is moved from the em bedded clause or base-generated. On the contrary, whether S-initial lian- phrases are base-generated or long-distant moved can be determined by the position of dou. U' dou is in the embedded clause, the S-initial //on-phrase is moved. If dou is in the matrix clause, S-initial /mn-phrase is base-generated. I will come to this shortly, and their different interpretations will be discussed in section 5.2. 132 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (17) a. *Lian Zhangsani de pengyou, tai zhidao wo dou changchang piping LIAN Zhangsan’s friend he know I DOU often criticize ‘*Even Zhangsani’s friend, hei knows that I often criticize.’ b. *Lian Zhangsani de pengyou, wo zhidao tai rfow changchang piping LIAN Zhangsan’s friend I know he DOU/YE often criticize ‘*Even Zhangsani’s friend, I know hei often criticizes.’ (18) *[Lian piping Zhangsani de pengyou]], wo yiwei Lisi2 zhidao tai dou juedui bu hui (3 LIAN criticize Zhangsan’s friend, I think Lisi know he DOU definitely not will ‘*[Even criticizing Zhangsani’s friend]], I think Lisi2 knows hei definitely will not /].’ Further embedding the referential expression in preposed lian-NPs still observes reconstmction effects, as shown in (19). (19) a. *[Lian Zhangsani gege de zhaopian], tai renwei [cp ni dou hui xihuan] LIAN Zhangsan’s picture he think you DOU will like ‘Even pictures of Zhangsani’s brother’s , hei thinks you also will like.’ b. *{Lian Zhangsani mai de zhaopian] tai meixiangdao [ni dou hui xihuan] LIAN Zhangsan buy DE picture he not think-of you DOU will like 'Even the picture that Zhangsani bought, hei didn’t think that you also will like.’ On the one hand, this predicate/argument asymmetry does not appear when //fln-phrases are long-distance fronted to the matrix topic position and dou occurs in the em bedded clauses. On the other hand, in section 4.2 I will show cases where S-initial /mn-phrases may be base-generated when dou occurs in m atrix clauses, in 133 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. which no obligatory reconstruction effects are observed. Since the position of the focus head dou disambiguates movement/non-movement structures of S-initial lian- phrases in complex clauses, an S-initial bare argum ent may be structurally ambiguous in the same fashion except that no overt dou can show definitely if it is moved or base-generated. Hence the weak reconstruction effects of bare objects discussed by Huang in (15b), repeated here, are ascribed to the base-generation of the S-initial objects. (15b) ?Zhangsani de pengyou, wo zhidao [tai changchang piping] Zhangsan’s friend 1 know he often criticize In other words, S-initial bare arguments are ambiguous between movement and base- generation possibilities, whereas fronted predicates are strictly moved; hence they obligatorily reconstmct. 4.1.3. W CO A long-distance //««-phrase fronted to the topic position observes weak crossover effects. Relevant structures and their corresponding sentences are given in (20) and (21) respectively.^ The pronoun inside the matrix or embedded subject NPs cannot be bound by the long-distant preposed //««-phrases. 8 The unacceptablility of both (20a) and (20b) is not parallel with H indi’s counterparts of long-distance scrambling. Mahajan (1990) shows that long-distance scrambling remedies weak crossover effects as in (i). W hen the pronoun occurs inside the embedded subject NP, long-distance scrambling first A-moves, then A’- moves. The first move (A-move) does not observe W CO effects; hence sentence (i) is acceptable in Hindi. (i) w hoi/evervonei (EDO) Ram (Sub) thinks [t’ hisi sister (ESub) saw t]l Î ________ A’-movcmeiU______________IÎ___________ A-move_____ I He also notes that when the pronoun is inside the matrix subject NP, the long distance scrambled constituent directly undergoes A ’-movement. W CO effects are observed, as in (ii). (ii) *w hoi/evervonei hisi sister (Sub) thought that Ram (ESub) had seen Û T____________ A'-movement________________________________ I 134 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (20) a. *L/fl«-NPi Sub ... V...[cp [np-^ûI-] dou V ri] b. ?*Lta/j-NPi [n P "^ « 1 "] ..V.. [c p •• dou V t\\ (21) a. *Linn Zhanpsani Mali renwei [cp[piping tai de zheben shu] dou hui le 0 ] LIAN Zhangsan Mali think criticize him DE this book DOU destroyed ‘Lit. Even Zhangsani, Mali thinks that the book that criticizes himi destroyed.’ b. ?*Lian Zhangsani [[piping tai de] nage nuren] renwei [cp Mali dou xihuan ti] LIAN Zhangsan criticize him DE that woman think Mali DOU likes ‘Lit. Even Zhangsani, the woman who criticizes himi thinks that Mali likes.’ 4.1.4. Sim plex C lau ses S-initial //a/i-objects as well as bare objects in simplex clauses observe Binding reconstruction effects. Compare (22) with (23) and (24). The reflexive taziji is bound by Zhangsan in (22). Reconstruction is forced in order for taziji, contained in the S-initial NP in (23) and (24), to be interpreted with subject Zhangsan. (22) Zhangsani diu-diao le Iguanvu tazijii de shui Zhangsan throw away Asp about himselTs book ‘Zhangsani all threw away books about him selfi.’ Chinese long-distance topicalization does not seem to show such a contrast. 135 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (23) rOuanvu taziiii de shui Zhangsani diu-diao le about him self s book Zhangsan throw away Perf ‘Books about himselfi, Zhangsani threw away.’ (24) Lian fguanvu tazijii de shui Zhangsani dmi diu-diao le LIAN about him self s book Zhangsan DOU throw away Perf ‘Even the book about himselfi Zhangsan| threw away.’ (25) and (26) illustrate the same point of Principle A reconsUnction effects. (25) ITaziiii/*? de shul Zhangsani ji-gei Lisi] t3 lo. him self s book Zhangsan send-to Lisi Asp ‘His own book Zhangsan sent to Lisi.’ (26) Lian r ta / i j i i /*-? de shul Zhangsani dou ji-gei L isii t3 le. LIAN him self s book Zhangsan DOU send-to Lisi Asp ‘Evne his own book Zhangsan sent to Lisi.’ M oreover, consider the ungrammaticality of (27) and the grammaticality of (28) and (29). Taziji ‘him self in (27) is not bound by its antecedent Zhangsan. However, S-initial taziji in (28) and (29) is interpreted with the subject Zhangsan. Hence, {lian) taziji in (28) and (29) does reconsUoict. (27) *Tazijii piping Zhangsani. himself criticize Zhangsan ‘*Himself criticizes Zhangsan.’ (28) Tazijii, Zhangsani changchang piping (*tai).^ himself, Zhangsan often criticize ‘Himself, Zhangsan often criticizes.’ 9 1 owe this sentence to Xiu-Zhi Wu. 136 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (29) Lian Tazijii, Zhangsani dou changchang piping (*tai). LIAN himself, Zhangsan DOU often criticize ‘Even himself, Zhangsan often criticizes.’ Note that an overt pronominal copy is not allowed in the gap position of (28) and (29). This strongly indicates that the S-initial lian-NP and bare object in (28) and (29) are derived from movement. Specifically this is a type of A ’-movement. Reflexive reconstruction is forced and cannot be blocked by an pseudo-resumptive pronoun. Now consider Principle C reconstruction effects in simplex clauses. The pronoun ta in (30) c-commands the referential expression Zhangsan in violation of Princple C. (30) *Tai changchang piping Zhangsani de pengyou. ‘Hei often criticizes Zhangsani’s friend.’ Topicalized object///fl/j-object containing Zhangsan in (31) and (32) cannot refer to the pronoun either. The unacceptability of (31) and (32) is due to the fact that these moved S-initial phrases are obligatorily undone at LF (reconstrtiction).^* 10 One might aigue that it can be A-movement, namely taziji moves to an A-position to be interpreted with Zhangsan; and A-chain could undergo reconstruction in the sense of Belletti and Rizzi (1986). In section 4 .2 .1 1 show that NP-fronting does not accord completely with scrambling in Japanese and Hindi. Particularly, the so-called clause-internal A-scrambling in those languages can be accounted for by base- generation in Chinese. (28) and (29) undergo A’-movement in accord with the long distance A ’-movement discussed in previous sections. Consequently, S -in itial N Ps in Chinese are derived either by A’-movement or base-generation, and no A- movement is involved. 1 1 Fronting predicates in Huang’s examples, repeated in (i) and (ii), reconstruct. (i) *Piping Zhangsani de pengyou, tai juedui bu hui (Huang 1993:55a) ‘Criticize Zhangsan’s friend, he definitely will not.’ (ii) *Lian piping Zhangsani de pengyou, tai dou juedui bu hui LIAN criticize Zhangsan’s friend, he DOU definitely not will ‘Even for criticizing Zhangsan’s friend, he definitely will not.’ 137 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (31) ?*Zhangsani de pengyou, tai changchang piping. (Huang 1993:54a) Zhangsan’s friend he often criticize ‘Zhangsan’s friend, he often criticizes.’ (32) *Lian Zhangsani de pengyou, tai dou changchang piping LIAN Zhangsan’s friend he DOU often criticize ‘Even Zhangsan’s friend, he also often criticizes.’ (Shyu 1994) Therefore, the above data concerning weak crossover effects in complex clauses and binding reconstruction effects naturally follow from the movement analysis of S-initial //an-phrases/bare objects as proposed in section 4.1.1. 4.2. Non-Moved S-Initial {Lian~)NFs Section 4.1 has demonstrated that S-initial //an-objects can be further topicalized from [Spec FP] to (matrix) [Spec TopicP] position, yet the whole picture of S-initial (//aa-)NPs is not that simple. If S-initial //an-phrases were uniformally derived by further raising from the Spec of FP position (i.e. Gao (1994)), several facts cannot be accounted for. After the discussion in subsections 4.2.1-2, I will propose in section 4.2.3 that S-initial (lian-) objects may be base-generated in an IP- adjoined position. 4.2.1. Sim plex Clauses It has been shown in section 3.3.2 that a focalized lian-NP, moving to the strict preverbal [Spec FP] position, does not allow an overt pronominal copy in its gap position. Sentence (33) is ungrammatical because lian Lisi is moved out of 138 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. object possessor position to the [Spec FP] position. Moreover, an overt pronominal copy in the object possessor position does not improve the unacceptability. (33) *Zhangsan lian Lisi? dou bu kan [n p ta 2 de shu] Zhangsan LIAN Lisi DOU not read (his) book ‘Zhangsan doesn’t read even Lisi’s book.’ However, when lian-NP occurs S-initially with a p 5t?M^/o-resumptive pronoun in the object possessor position, (34) is good. If S-initial //««-phrases were only derived by further moving from [Spec FP] position, one cannot explain why the lian-NP in [Spec FP] in (33) is ill-formed while the S-initial lian-NP in (34) is acceptable. (34) Lian Lisi? Zhangsani dou bu kan [ta 2 de shu]. LIAN Zhangsan Mali DOU not read his book ‘lit: Even Lisi, Zhangsan does not read his book’ Similarly, a lian indirect object focalized to [Spec FP] position does not allow an overt pronominal copy in the gap position; see the ungrammaticality of (35). (35) *Zhangsan lian Mali-) dou bu song-gei ta 2 shu Zhangsan LIAN Mali DOU not give she book ‘lit: Zhangsan doesn’t give even Mali books.’ On a par with (34), the S-initial //««-indirect object in (36) allows a pseudo- resumptive pronoun in the gap. (36) Lian Mali? Zhangsan dou bu song-gei ta 2 shu LIAN Mali Zhangsan DOU not give she book ‘lit: Even Mali, Zhangsan doesn’t give her books.’ 139 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Therefore, the conti'ast between ungrammatical (33), (35) and grammatical (34), (36) indicates that S-initial lian-NPs are not solely derived by further movement from [Spec FP] to an S-initial position.i^ In addition to the moved topic [Spec TopicP] position discussed in section 4.1, in section 4.2.3 I will discuss the base-generated IP-adjoined position for S- initial //an-phrase or bare object in more detail. One might argue that the proposed base-generated S-initial bare object or //a«-object could be derived by A-movement (cf. Qu (1994)), on a par with clause-interal A-scrambling in Japanese (Saito (1992) and Yoshimura (1992)) and Hindi (Mahajan (1990)). However, I think that Chinese does not display such clause-internal A-scrambling; also see the discussion in section 5.1. The reasons are as follows. First, it is not clear if S-initial //an-objects or bare objects in Chinese accord with scrambling in Japanese and Hindi inasmuch as there are no overt case markers in Chinese to distinguish topic and scrambled elements, which Japanese and Hindi have. Second, the following will compare Chinese data with those in Japanese that are used to argue for A-scrambling in the literature. It will be shown that the Chinese data can be readily explained by my proposed base-generated IP-adjunction position without further burdening the grammar by postulating clause-internal A-movement. Chinese (37a) and Japanese (38a) from Saito (1992) are ungrammatical because taziji or otagai is not bound by its antecedent. W hen Zhangsan occurs S- initially, (37b) is acceptable, on a par with Japanese (38b). 12 Overt ta in gap positions in (34) and (36) are obligatory. (i) *Lian Lisi2 Zhangsani dou bu kan e i shu. LIAN Lisi Zhangsan DOU not read e book ‘lit: Even Lisi, 2Thangsan does not read *(his) book’ (ii) *Lian Mali-, Zhangsan dmi bu song-gei €2 shu LIAN Mali Zhangsan DOU not give e book 140 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (37) a. *Tazijii piping le Zhangsani. himself criticize Asp Zhangsan ‘*HimseIfi criticized Zhangsani.’ b. ?Zhangsani tazijii piping le. Zhangsan himself criticize Asp ‘Zhangsani himselfi criticized.’ (38) a. ?*[[Otagaii-no sensei]-ga [karerai-o hihansita]] (koto) each other-Gen teacher-Nom they Acc criticized fact ‘*Each other’si teachers criticized them i.’ b. ?[karerai-o [[otagaii-no sensei]-ga] [ t\ hihansita]]]] (koto) they Acc each other-Gen teacher-Nom criticized fact ‘Themi, each other’si teachers criticized ti.' Traditionally the acceptability of (38b) in Japanese is employed to argue for clause- internal A-scrambling in the l i t e r a t u r e . * 3 .1 4 Nevertheless, the acceptablity of Chinese (37b) is explained by the proposed base-generated IP-adjoined position for S-initial //ârt-objects or bare objects. Thus, Zhangsan in (37b), the antecedent of the reflexive, occurs in the IP-adjoined position which can A-bind taziji. Consider the Chinese data in (39-42). S-initial //an-phrases and bare objects in sim plex clauses do not observe weak crossover effects. (39) Lian-NPi [N P-tai-] - dou - V -ec\ * 3 Saito (1992), Yoshimura (1992) among others use scrambled wA-phrases to test A /A ’-m ovem ent Since there are no clear data of overt vv/i-movement in Chinese, I cannot compare Japanese and Chinese in this respect. I'* Hoji ((1995) and 1994 class notes), however, provides counter-arguments against the validity of previous A-movement tests with respect to the use of otagai and WCO. His arguments suggest that no A-scrambling is attested in Japanese and scrambling uniformally displays A ’-properties. 141 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (40) [[e2 Piping tai de] nege nürcn2] faner xihuan Zhangsani. criticize he DE that-CL woman unexpectedly like Zhangsan ‘The woman that criticizes himi likes Zhangsani.’ (41) Lian Zhangsani [Np[e2 piping tai de] nage nüren2 ] dou xihuan ec\] LIAN Zhangsan criticize he DE that-CL woman DOU like ‘Lit. Even Zhangsani, the woman who criticizes himi likes.’ (42) Zhangsani. [[piping tai de] ren] 2 bu xihuan ei Zhangsan criticize him DE book does not like ‘Zhangsani, people that criticize himi don’t like.’ There are three logical possibilities to explain the acceptability o f Chinese (41) and (42). The S-initial (//a«-)NPs, such as (lian) Zhangsan in (41) and (42) can be: (i) base-generated S-initially, (ii) A ’-moved non-operators, in the sense of Lasnik and Stowell (1991), or (iii) moved to an A-position, hence an A-movement. The second possibility (ii) would not be consistent with the WCO effects observed in the long distance fronted lian-NPs discussed in section 4.1.3. Theoretically, both (i) and (iii) proposals are possible. Empirically, if (iii) were adopted, it could only account for limited data like (41) and (42). Although remedying weak crossover effects has been used to argue for clause-internal A-scrambling in Japanese and Hindi, proposal (i), however, can account for all the Chinese data discussed in sections 4.2.1-3. Due to this empirical concern, 1 will argue that S-initial (//a«)-objects may be base-generated in the IP-adjoined position, rather than undergoing A-movement. 4.2.2. C om plex C lauses Base-generated S-initial //a/z-phrases in complex clauses differ from moved ones in the position of dou. Moved S-initial /zA/z-phrases in com plex clauses are 142 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. those where dou occurs in the embedded clauses, as discussed in section 4.1.1 and (6 ) repeated here as (43). In contrast, base-generated S-initial //an-phrases have dou in the matrix clause (44). (43)=(6) Lion MALI i Zhangsan renwei [cp Lisi dou bu xihuan ‘Lit: Even Mali, Zhangsan thinks that Lisi also doesn’t like r.’ (44) Lian MALI? Zhangsan dou renwei [cp Lisi bu xihuan (ta2 )] LIAN Mali Zhangsan all think Lisi not like ‘Lit: Even Mali, Zhangsan all thinks that Lisi doesn’t like.’ Besides the dissimilar syntactic properties that will be discussed shortly, (43) and (44) observe different scope interpretations. I will return to this in section 5.2. Unlike the WCO effects observed in long-distance fronting of bare NPs and lian-NPs discussed in section 4.1.2, no WCO effects are displayed when dou occurs in matrix clauses, as shown in (45), (46) and (47). (45) a. L/a«-NPi S .. dou-W .. [cp [n p — tai...] V ec\ ] b. L /aa-N P i [n p ...rai...]-doH-V.. [cp S-V-«?ci] Sentence (43’) with overt ta in embedded object position seem s to be more degraded than (44). (43’) ‘ !*Lian MALI % Zhangsan renwei [qp Lisi dou bu xihuan tai]. ‘Even Mali, Zhangsan thinks that Lisi also doesn’t like t.' Li (1992) also notes that in (i) dou can occur in the matrix clause associated with meigeren ‘everyone’ and a iv/i-indefinite to be interpreted with a universal reading. (i) Meigeren/Shei, wo dou renwei [bu hui lai] everyone/who I DOU think not will come ‘Lit: Everyone, I think will not come.’ (i) is on a par with (ii) in question with S-initial //an-phrase and dou in matrix clause. (ii) Lian ta wo dou renwei [bu hui lai]. LIAN he I DOU think will not come ‘Lit: Even he 1 think *(he) will not come.’ 143 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (46) Lian Zhangsani Mali dou renwei [cp [np piping ta \ de zhege nüren] bu xihuan {ta\)\ LIAN Zhangsan Mali DOU think criticize him DE this-CL woman dislike ‘Even Zhangsani, Mali thinks that the woman that criticizes himi dislikes.’ (47) Lian Zhangsani [n p piping ta\ de nage nüren] dou renwei [cp Mali xihuan (mi)] LIAN Zhangsan criticize him DE that-CL woman DOU think Mali likes ‘Even Zhangsani, the woman who criticizes himi ulso thinks that Mali likes.’ Similar to the simplex clauses in (41) and (42), the proposal of base-generating S- initial objects or /mn-objects can account for the lack of W CO effects in (46) and (47). Note that (46) and (47) allow the overt pseiido-rcsumplwc pronoun ta in the gap position. I will return to this p^ewr/o-resumptive pronoun in section 4.3.3.2. A /75eHf/o-resumptive pronoun can occur in the gap position inside a relative clause to be interpreted with the base-generated S-initial lian-NP; note that dou appears in the main clause. (48) Lian Malii Zhangsan dou taoyan [np[cpC 2 kua-jiang tai de] ren2 ] LIAN Mary Zhangsan DOU dislike praise she DE person ‘Even for M alii, Zhangsan dislikes the person who praises h eri.’ Thus, the grammaticality of (48) supports our proposal of base-generating S-initial lian-NPs. 144 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4.2.3. B ase-G eneration Structure Having seen the necessity of base-generating the S-initial //««-object or bare object, I propose that this position is an IP-adjoined position (cf. Ernst and W ang’s (1995) insight of correlating this extra position with languages allowing double nominatives). The relevant structure is given in (49). (49) IP IP lian- r NP2 NPj FP* I VP Dou/ / \ v ' Y e ^ V ^2 An immediate question that arises with respect to this proposal is how the S-initial //««-object is checked with the [+Focus] feature with the lexical FP head doii/ye. I propose that the S-initial //««-phrase is licensed by dou after dou adjoins to P at LF (cf. Cheng 1991), or merely the [4-Focus] feature in F moves to adjoin to 1^ at LF, in the sense of feature movement in Chosmky (1995). 1 also assum e that a verb raises covertly to dou and the amalgamated [V dou\ further raises and adjoins to 1 ® , which lexically m arks I® . This lexically marked I® allows the IP-adjoined NP to be L- related in the sense of Chom sky (1993). Therefore, the focus interpretation of lian..dou/ye is derived, since the base-generated IP-adjoined position of //««-object is in the checking domain (Chomsky 1993) o f IP. It is checked with the LF raised [4-Focus] feature or dou. Furthermore, it is dou or the [4-Focus] feature that raises at LF, rather than the base-generated S-initial //««-object lowering to the F and merging Note that for base-generated S-initial bare objects, FP is not necessarily projected if no contrastively focused interpretation is involved. 145 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. with FP to occur in the [Spec FP]. If lowering were to take place, the trace of Uan- NP could not be identified in the sense of an Empty Category Principle violation. The possibility of lacking the specifier position in a functional projection follows from Chomsky’s (1994; 1995) Bare Phrase Structure. In section 2.2.1 the functional projection (Focus phrase) is derived as follows: (50) Fi =FP ^spP/MP The F (labeled F2 ), including a lexical item like dou/ye or a formal strong [+Focus] feature, is selected from lexicon and merges with its selected complement, AspP/MP. F2 projects and is the head (F^) of the newly merged node F% . If no other derivation targets F i, F i is labeled as FP, a maximal projection. Crucially in Chom sky’s Bare Phrase Structure, no X-bar template is assumed prior to generalized transformation (GT). Hence in (50) specifier is not formed since no GT (merge or move) further applies to the head. In other words, dou, like other functional heads, does not require a Spec position to be projected, since there is no external argument for these heads (vs. X-bar template). M oreover, the Spec-Head Agreement relation within functional projections does not represent basic grammatical relations, in contrast to lexical heads like V; rather it is for feature checking. Hence, (50) is a legitimate syntactic object. The following will discuss a couple of predictions from sU ucture (49). First, (49) naturally explains why only the subject and Infl-licensed adverbs can intervene between S-initial //an-object and dou, as illustrated in (51) and (52).’* ’* It is also possible for an S-initial meige ‘eveiy’-object to be inteipreted with dou. (i) M eigeren Zhangsan qishi/xianran dou bu xihuan everyone Zhangsan actually/obviously DOU not like 146 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (51) Lian dianying Zhangsan (qishi/xianran) dou bu kan Zhangsan actually/obviously LIAN movie DOU not see ‘Lit: Even movies, Zhangsan actually/obviously doesn’t see.’ (52) Lian wan Zhangsan (yijing) dou xi-hao le. LIAN dishes Zhangsan already DOU wash-ready Part ‘Lit: Even the dishes, Zhangsan already finished washing.’ Second, structure (49) predictes that the base-generated IP-adjoined S-intial //««-object or bare object can be an A-binder. Consider the ungrammaticality of (53). The compound reflexive tazjij is within the subject NP and is not c-commanded by Zhangsan within the same domain, violating Binding Principle A (54). (53) *rTa-zijii de mama]2 hen aihu Zhangsani himself’s mother very love Zhangsan ‘*Hisi own mother loves Zhangsan;.’ (54) An anaphor must be A-bound in a ceiiain domain. (Chomsky (1981; 1986b)) ‘Evei-yone, Zhangsan actually/obviously doesn’t like.’ W/i-indefinites can be interpreted universally if they are licensed by dou. They require a closer relation with dou than universal QPs do (cf. Li (1992b) and (1992b)). Thus, (ii) is worse than (i) when adverbs intervene between the wh- indefinite and dou. (ii) ?*Shei Zhangsan qishi/xianran dou bu xihuan who Zhangsan actually/obviously DOU not like ‘Everyone Zhangsan actually/obviously doesn’t like.’ I suggest that the asymmetry between universal QPs (also //««-NPs) and wh- indefinites may be due to the syntactic licensing requirement of w/i-indefinites. Unlike the dou which raises covertly to P in (51) and (i) to ‘discharge’ its Focus feature to //««-NPs or universal QPs at LF, dou in (ii) needs to raise overtly to I^ in order to license a iv/j-indefinite universal reading in syntax. IT/i-indefinites, once licensed syntactically, will not be interpreted as w/j-interrogatives in a later computation system. 147 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Compare (55a) and (55b) with (53). Zhangsan or lian Zhangsan occurs in the S- initial (IP-adjoined) position, serving as an A-binder position, and can bind the reflexive taziji contained in the subject position, assuming strict binary c-command. (55) a. Zhangsani. fta-zijii de mamajz hen aihu ‘Zhangsani, hisi own mother loves.’ b. Lian Zhangsani Fta-zijii de mama] 2 dou hen taoyan LIAN Zhangsan, himself’s mother DOU veiy dislike ‘Even Zhangsani, hisi own mother dislikes.’ To recapitulate, in section 4 .1 1 argue for a matrix [Spec TopicP] position for moved S-initial (/ia/i)-objects based on binding reconstruction effects and WCO effects, especially when dou occurs in the em bedded contexts of com plex clauses. This movement of (lian-) objects to [Spec TopicP] is the so-called topicalization. In section 4.2 I argue for the need of base-generating S-initial (//an)-objects in the IP- adjoined position when dou stays in the m atrix of complex clauses. (L/a/i-)objects in simplex clauses can be ambiguous with respect to these two positions. 4.2.4. S u m m ary an d D iscussion Section 4.1.1 has shown that in long-distance topicalization cases when there is no [+WH] feature on the Comp selected by the matrix verb, the em bedded [Spec CP] position can serve as an escape hatch for successively cyclic topicalized (//««- )NP to the matrix clause. W hen there is a [+WH] selected by the matrix verb, the Spec of CP is reserved for w/i-elements. Hence, long distance movement of lian-NP respects the w/i-island condition, as in (9) repeated here. Note that dou is in the embedded clause. 148 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (9) ‘ ï* Lian zheben shui. Zhangsan xiangzhi dao Fshei dou kan le /,]. LIAN this-CL book, Zhangsan wonder who DOU read Asp ‘Even this book, Zhangsan wonders who also has read.’ Com pare (9) with (56) in which dou occurs in the matrix clause. As discussed in section 4.2, this //an-NP is base-generated in the IP-adjoined position. Thus, the w/t-island condition is irrelavant in (56). (56) Lian zheben shu Zhangsan dou xiangzhidao [shei yijing mai le]. LIAN this-CL book Zhangsan DOU wonder who already read Asp ‘Even this book Zhangsan also wonders who has already read.’ S-initial bare object in (57), e.g. Huang (1982: 461), is on a par with (56), which is insensitive to w/z-island conditions. (57) Zheben shu Zhangsan xiangzhidao [shei yijing mai le]. this-CL book Zhangsan wonder who already read Asp ‘Even this book Zhangsan also wonders who has already read.’ TopicP occurs only in matrix clauses of asserted contexts, and expresses a categorical judgm ent and “Predicational” relation with its following clause in the sense of Kuroda (1972). I will come to this in section 4.3. The current proposal, on the one hand, follows the observation made by Baltin (1982) and Lasnik and Saito (1993) that IP-adjoined position, but not a topic in Topic position (higher than CP for them), is allowed in the embedded contexts. On the other hand, my proposal differs from theirs in one aspect. Note that for Baltin and L&S, the IP-adjoined position is the landing site of the moved topic and the Topic position is for base-generated topics. However, I propose that the matrix Topic position is the landing site for Lasnik and Saito (1993: 78) propose that matrix topicalization can involve either movement to Spec of CP (as in Chomsky’s (1977) analysis) or IP-adjunction, and embedded topicalization only involves IP-adjunction. 149 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. m oved topics, but the IP-adjoined position is for base-generated S-initial {lian-) phrases, the so-called base-generated “topic” with a gap in the literature. It will be suggested that the difference between English and Chinese lies in the existence of m ajor subject in Chinese. I will postpone this discussion until section 4.4 after studying the Chinese major subject and topic in the following section. 4.3. Topic, Major Subject and Syntactic Subject I have argued that the Chinese topic does undergo movement to [Spec Topic?]. The S-initial (lian-) NPs discussed in section 4.2, the so-called base generated “topic,” occurs in IP-adjoined position, distinct from the moved topic position. This section will first distinguish the structural positions of topic, major subject^o and syntactic subject in Chinese. Namely, topics occur in root [Spec TopicP] position, major subject is base-generated in an IP-adjoined position, and regular subject sits in the [Spec IP] position. After the discussion in sections 4.3.1- 2, it will become evident that the base-generated IP-adjoined S-initial (lian-) NP or major subject may further locally raise to [Spec TopicP] position in root contexts^* to express a “substance” of a categorical judgment, in the sense of Kuroda (1992). The proposal made here, thus, can account for the often confused notions of topic, major subject, base-generated “topic,” and syntactic subject. The identification of empty category and what I call pseuc/o-resumplive pronouns related to topic and major subject/S-initial NP will be studied in section 4.3.3. 20 Major subject roughly corresponds to the so-called base-generated “topic” without gap. The IP-adjunction position in which the major subject sits could be the same position for the S-initial //an-objects discussed in section 4.2. 2* They can locally raise to topic position with the proviso that they are definite, generic in root contexts. 1 50 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4.3.1. Subject vs. Topic Before beginning the discussion of major subject in Chinese, I would first like to present the distinctions between subject and topic. Especially in the following subsections the so-called “definiteness effect” in Chinese subject will he reconsidered in com parison with the Japanese data. I will adopt K uroda's fram ework to distinguish topic and (syntactic) subject. Once this background is established, the task of differentiating major subject from topic can he conducted, which will come into play in section 4.3.2. Although it is well-known that subject tends to he definite in Chinese (Chao 1968, Li and Thompson 1981 among others), this section demonstrates that the definiteness effect of suhjects^^ is limited to the subject of individual-level predicates (first termed by Carlson (1977), discussed in Kratzer (1989)) or generic sentences (Kuroda 1992)) in root, asserted contexts. I will also summarize the interpretations of Japanese topicalized (NP-vva) and nontopicalized (with NP-ga) sentences in the literature and compare those with Chinese.^^ It will he concluded that this dichotomy also exists in Chinese, although there are no overt morphological case topic and nominative case markers in Chinese. Let us first look at some well-know distinctions between subject and topic (also see Chafe (1976), Keenan (1976), Li and Thompson (1976; 1981) and Tang 22 I am also grateful for the discussions and participants in A. Li’s course (Fall 1994) with respect to the facts concerning the definiteness effect of subjects. 23 The discussion about Japanese is drawn largely from Kuroda (1992; 1995) and discussions in Hoji’s course in Spring 1995. I thank Hajime Hoji for helping me understand the issues here. I also thank Hiroshi Aoyagi, Keiko Miyagawa, Yuki Masuta, Shin Watanahe and Maki W atanahe for their discussions with me about these issues. 151 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (1979), Tsao (1977), among others). A topic has to be definite or generic (refem ng to a class) (58a), rather than (non-contrastive) indefinite (58b). (58) a. (Zheyizhong) yu, wo hen xihuan chi. ‘(This kind of) fish, I like to eat.’ b. *Yizhong yu, wo hen xihuan chi. one-CL fish I very like eat ‘A kind of fish, I like to eat.’ A subject bears selectional restriction with verbs. In (59) it is wo ‘I,’ the subject, who got sick. (59) Qunian ^ zhi bing le yici ‘Last year I was only sick once.’ A subject may serve as an antecedent of a reflexive as in (60). (60) Zhangsan piping taziji. ‘Zhangsan criticizes himself.’ Chao (1968) notes that topic has to be in the S-initial position, but logical subjects of unaccusative (presentational) verbs may not necessarily be, as in (61). (61) Lai le keren come Asp guest ‘Guests have come.’ 4.3.1.1. C hinese Num eral Subject NP Although a topic has to be definite or generic, Lee (1986: 86-95) correctly points out that a numeral indefinite NP can occur clause initially as in (62) when it functions as a non-referential subject of a hypothetical clause. 152 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (62) [Ruguo vige ren zhong le caipiao], ta hui biande hen fuyou if one-CL man hit Asp lottery, s/he will be very rich ‘If a man wins the lottery, he will become very rich.’ (Lee 1986:90) Note that the numeral NP of Lee’s example (62) is a non-referential subject in a stage-level predicate (SLP hereafter, in the sense of Carlson (1977), Kratzer (1989)) in a non-root, conditional clause.^'^ Besides this non-root context, an indefinite NP can also occur S-initially as a subject of a stage-level predicate in a root clause, as shown in (63).^^ (63) Yige ren lai le/zheng zai nian shu.^^ -indefinite referential one-CL man come Asp/ Progressive at read book ‘A man came/is reading.’ The indefinite NP subject in (63) has to be interpreted referentially (Kuroda 1995 class note), specifically (Eng (1991)), or presuppositionally (Diesing (1992)), meaning that a specific person in the speaker’s mind came or is reading books. 24 Non-root contexts include conditional clauses, relative clauses and embedded clauses of non-bridge verbs. See footnote 1. 25 Lee (1986: 82) notes that numeral subjects can occur referentially if they are preceded by a topic; also see Fan (1985). Note that their sentences are SLPs. (i) Beijing [sanshi ge qingnian] fangwen le riben Beijing thirty CL youtli visit Asp Japan ‘Thirty youths from Beijing visited Japan.’ 26 More examples similar to (63) are given by Fan (1985). (i) a. Yiwei yisheng xiang wo jieshao tamen de bingren. one-CL doctor to me introduce their patient ‘A doctor introduced their patients to me.’ b. Ershiliuwei vouxiu xuesheng yi bei xuan song-dao Shanghai nong xueyuan twenty-six excellent student already BEI choose send to Shanghai agriculture school ‘Twenty-six excellent students have been sent to a Shanghai agriculture school.’ 153 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Despite allowing an indefinite subject NP in SLPs, an indefinite numeral NP does n ot appear as a subject of an individual-level predicate (ILP henceforth or generic sentences in Kuroda’s (1992) sense) in ro o t contexts (64), but it can occur in non-root contexts (e.g. conditional) such as in (65).^^’^ ® (64) *Yige ren hen congming/gao. one-CL man very smart/tall ‘A/One man is very smart/ tall.’ (64) can be felicitous if it is conuastively focused and has a cardinal inteipretation, in which this numeral subject is understood as 'the number is one (rather two or three, etc.).’ I will suppress this contrastive reading, since it is independent o f our cunent consideration of presuppositional indefinites. However, consider (64’). The contrast in Chinese (64) and (64’) is exactly on a par with Japanese bare NP-ga in ILPs, which is obligatorily focused in such root contexts. (64’) (Shi) Yige nanren hen congming/gao, *(bushi yige nüren hen congming/gao). (be) one-CL man veiy smart/tall, not one-CL woman very smart/tall. ‘It is one MAN who is smart/tall, not one W OMAN.’ An indefinite NP cannot be a “Subject” (topic) of a sentence; see Kuroda (1992: 36). The referent of an indefinite NP is “presubstantive,” and its cognitive existence does not extend beyond the confines of perception in making judgments; namely, it cannot be apprehended as “substance.” Kuroda’s judgment as related to the use of topic wa will be discussed in section 4.3.1.3. 28 The unacceptability of (64) may also be due to the lack of a generic interpretation licensor. Compare (64) with (6 6 ) and (i). It is possible for numeral subjects of ILPs to occur in sentences having a non-referential and im plicit free choice a n y interpretation, which is either licensed by modals or in conditional (non-root) contexts. (i) Yige ren key! hen congming dan bu shanliang. one-CL man may very smart but not kind. ‘A man can very smart but not kind.’ Thus, the acceptability of (65) may also be ascribed to the non-referential, conditional interpretation licensed in an //clause. If this is conect, Chinese numeral y/'-CL is in fact ambiguous between English a and cardinal one. The cardinal reading of (64) can be obtained, but it needs to be focused in root ILPs; see previous footnote. The free choice any reading cannot be obtained due to the lack of modals or not being in embedded contexts. If a modal is added as in (i), a (non-referential) numeral subject can occur in such a context and be interpreted generically. 154 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (65) Ruguo vige ren hen congming dan bu yonggong, hai shi meiyou yong. if one-CL man vei-y smart but not hard-working, still not useful ‘If a person is smart but not hard-working, it still is no use.’ Besides non-root contexts, an indefinite NP subject may be licensed with a non- referential reading by modals verbs in root generic sentences (ILPs); see (6 6 ) from Lee (1986). (6 6 ) a. Liangge ren *(keyi) chi shiwan fan two-CL person can eat ten-bowl rice ‘Two persons can eat ten bowls of rice.’ b. W uge ren zhun *(neng) wancheng renwu five CL person definitely complete task ‘Five persons can definitely complete the task.’ Chinese indefinite subjects occurring in ILPs and SLPs are summarized in table 4-1. Table 4-1: Chinese Clause-initial Numeral NPs Individual-Level Predicates (Generic Ss) * in root contexts, but interpretable when it is contrastively focused or denotes cardinality, (64). OK in non-root contexts, interpreted non-referentially, (65) Stage-Level Predicates (Specific Ss) OK in root contexts, but obligatorily interpreted as specific indefinite, (63) OK in non-root contexts, interpreted non-referentially, (62) Table 4-1 clearly shows that the so-called definteness effect of subjects in the literature only happens to the (non-focused) subjects of ILPs (or generic sentences) in root contexts (vs. Tsai 1994). 155 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. In the following section I will compare Japanese (bare) NP-ga with Chinese indefinite numeral NP subjects. It will be concluded that the properties of Chinese indefinte NPs in table (64) are on a par with Japanese nominative bare NP-ga. 4.3.1.2, Ja p a n e s e N P -ga a n d N F-m ’o A topic NP, such as neko-wd^^ in (67), can occur in generic sentences (or ILPs), which only denote definite or generic reading (see Kuroda (1992) and (1995 class notes)). (67) Neko wa yoku nemuru. — *indef/ def/ generic cat-wa a lot sleep ‘Cats sleep a lot.’ Neko-ga does not occur in root SLPs unless it is focused as in (6 8 ) or in non-root contexts, such as the coordinate clause in (69). M oreover, neko-ga in (6 8 ) is interpreted as definite (referential) in such a context.3° 29 A bare NP in Japanese like neko-ga is ambiguous among (the) cats, a cat, or one cat readings. 3° Unlike English generic NPs which can be either plural or o-Ns, generic NPs in Japanese are expressed only by bare NPs. Moreover, a numeral NP such as ippki no inu ‘one-CL dog’ and floated inu-ga ippiki ‘dog one’ only expresses cardinal or partitive readings. The Japanese sentence (i) from Kuroda (1995 class lecture) is felicitous only when the indefinite (floated) subject neko-ga nihiki ‘two cats’ is inteipreted as a focused cardinal NP, Keiko Miyagawa (1995 p.c.). (i) Neko ga nihiki yoku nemuru -*indef/*def/*gen cat-Nom two-CL a lot sleep Compare Japanese (i) with Chinese (64). As mentioned in footnote 27, y/-CL in Chinese is ambiguous between English a-N and one-N. When y/-CL is interpreted generically, certain lisensors, such as modals or embedded contexts, are needed. Hence, (64) cannot be interpreted generically, since there is no non-referentiality licensor. However, (64) is felicitous under the focused cardinal reading. (64) Yige ren hen congming/gao. — *indef/*def/*gen one-CL man very smaiVtall ‘A man is very smait/ tall.’ The generic reading of a numeral subject in root ILPs can be obtained when a modal is added, as in (ii). (ii) Yige ren key: hen gao. 156 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (6 8 ) N eko ga yoku nemuru — *indef/ definite cat-Nom a lot sLep ‘(The) cat sleeps a lot.’ (69) Neko ga inu o oikakeru ka inu ga neko o oikakeru cat-Nom dog-Acc chase or dog-Nom cat-Acc chase ‘Cats chase dogs or dogs chase cats.’ (Kuroda 1992: 51) Kuroda (ibid.) further notes that such restrictions on NP-ga in root ILPs are lifted when nominative NP-ga appears in stage-level predicates (specific sentences). Hence neko-ga in SLP (70) is interpreted as either definite or (referentially) indefinite, on a par with Chinese as in (63), repeated here. (70) Neko ga asoko de nemutte iioi — definite/indefinite ref. cat-Nom there-at sleeping is (63) Yige ren lai le/zheng zai nian shu. — indefinite referential one-CL man come Asp/ Progressive at read book Again, topic neko-wa in (71) has to be definite. (71) Neko wa asoko de nemutte iru -defmite/*indefinite cat-iva there-at sleeping is The above discussion of Japanese bare NP-ga in ILPs and SLPs is summarized in Table 4-II. one-CL man may vei-y tall ‘A man can be very tall.’ The point illustrated here indicates that Chinese numeral NPs differ from Japanese ones in that Chinese numeral NPs can express either cardinality or generality provided there are appropriate licensing elements, such as modals or embeding in non-root contexts. However, Japanese numeral NPs only denote cardinality. I have benefited by discussing this issue with Keiko Miyagawa and Shin Watanahe. 157 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Table 4-II: Japanese Bare NP-ga Individual-Level Predicates (Generic Ss) In root clause, O K only when it is contrastively focused, (68) OK in non-root contexts, inteipreted generically, (69) Stage-Level Predicates (Specific Ss) OK in root contexts, but obligatorily interpreted as definites, or specific indefinites (70) OK in non-root contexts, interpreted non-referentially . Compare the Japanese Table 4-II with the Chinese Table 4-1. Both languages have similar restrictions on the subject occurring in a root ILP (or generic sentence). The Chinese numeral subject in such a context is possible only when it is contrastively focused and denotes cardinality. The Japanese bare NP-ga is obligatorily focused. A cardinal reading is expressed by a floated NP; see footnote 30. The Chinese data observed here calls for a reconsideration of the so-called “definiteness effect” in subjects. It is not that indefinite subjects cannot occur in subject position (cf. Tsai 1994); rather it can do so as long as certain licensors and inteipretations are available. Indefinite (numeral) subjects can occur relatively freely in both root and non-root stage-level predicates. In root individual-level predicates, numeral subjects, if allowed, have to be rendered as a contrastively focused cardinal interpretation. Moreover, if there are modals that can licence a non-referential interpretation of these root ILPs, numeral subjects are also possible. In non-root ILPs, they are allowed and interpreted non-referentially. How these semantic properties match the syntactic representation of subjects is beyond the scope of this thesis and must await future research. 158 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 .3.I.3. Categorical and Thetic Judgm ent In his extensive work on “judgm ent,” Kuroda (1975; 1992) proposes a logical distinction between topicalized (with NP-wa) and non-topicalized (with NP- ga) sentences. Topicalized and non-topicalized sentences express different “cognitive acts” or “judgm ents,” although they represent the same proposition, or the same tmth-condition. The definition of “judgment” is given as follows: A judgment is meant to be a cognitive act. It is externalized by a speech act of stating.... A statement, as well as a judgment, a cognitive act externalized by it, is said to be expressed by an utterance of a sentence. An utterance of a sentence is said to represent the intentional object of the cognitive act it expresses. (Kuroda 1992: 20) According to Kuroda, a topicalized sentence expresses categorical Judgment (double judgm ent), which consists of two distinct cognitive acts: one is recognizing (apprehending) something as substance, termed as “Subject,”^* another is attributing to the Subject the property perceived in a situation (called Predication) and acknowledging or disavowing a Predicate of a Subject. Categorical judgm ent is expressed by the Subject-Predicate form, and this Predication associates an attribute represented by a Predicate with the referent of the Subject. Thetic judgment, a simple judgm ent, a unitary cognitive act, is expressed by nontopicalized, existential and impersonal sentences which do not associate a Subject with a Predicate. It simply expresses recognition of the existence of (a) specific entity (entities) or a specific situation.32 31 Kuroda (1992:19) uses capital “Subject” to refer loosely to what is teimed “topic.” 32 In addition to categorical and thetic judgment, Kuroda (1992; 1995) also discusses ‘quantificational’ judgment and ‘response’ judgment. Quantificational judgment can be a simple judgment if a perception of an event cannot be recalled any more, but the effect of the thetic judgm ent is retained. In (i) the speaker does not perceive an entity, but just utters a thetic judgment that s/he made before. (i) There is a cat sleeping there. 159 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Kuroda (1992: 43) states that generic judgm ents are only expressed by sentences with topicalized wa phrases. (67a) expresses a cognitive act (categorical judgm ent) of apprehending the existence of an entity neko, recognizing it as a substance, and attributing to the Subject neko the perceived property of sleeping a lot. In order to perceive an entity as a substance (topic), it has to be definite or generic, such as in Japanese (67) and (72). (67) Neko wa yoku nemuru. cat-iva a lot sleep ‘Cats sleep a lot.’ (72) Kuzyaku wa osu no hoo ga kirei da peacock WA male side Nom beautiful ‘As for the peacock, the male is more beautiful.’ As mentioned before, non-topicalized generic sentences (ILPs) are possible only when NP-ga is obligatorily focused in root contexts, such as (69) and kuzyaku-ga in (73). (73) Kuzyaku ga osu no hoo ga kirei da -obligatorily focused peacock Nom male side Nom beautiful Japanese NP-iva (72) and NP-ga (73) are both translated into Chinese (74). (74) Kongque gong de bijiao piaoliang. peacock male DE comparatively beautiful ‘With peacocks, the male is more beautiful.’ Quantificational jugement can be a double judgment as well. In (ii), the speaker may perceive an entity of ‘some cats are sleeping there’ (thetic judgment). Then, s/he further judges that the number of cats is many. (ii) Many cats are sleeping there. 160 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. It is easy to inteipret the first NP kongque ‘peacock’ in (74) as a topic, recognizing it as a substance, i.e. Japanese kiizyaku-wa. However, we should not preclude the possibility that the first NP in (74) can be a non-topicalized subject as in generic sentences, like the Japanese focused kuzyaku-ga in the same context. Unlike generic sentences (ILPs), specific sentences (SLPs) exhibit a contrast between topicalized and non-topicalized sentences. (71) with neko-wa expresses a categorical judgment, but (70) with neko-ga expresses a thetic judgment. (71) Neko wa asoko de nemutte iru -definite/*indefinite cat-vvfl there-at sleeping is (70) Neko ga asoko de nemutte iioi -definite/indefinite cat-Nom there-at sleeping is Kuroda states that an indefinite noun phrase can refer in a specific sentence without wa, but the NP-wa in a specific sentence (SLP) must be definite. An indefinite referring noun cannot be a Subject (topic). Compare Chinese (75) root SLP with Japanese (71) and (70).33 (75) Mao zhengzai nar shuijiao cat Progressive there sleep (75) is ambiguous between topicalized (equivalent to Japanese (71)) and non- topicalized (Japanese (70)) sentences, although there are no m orphological topic/subject case markers in Chinese to distinguish topicalized and nontopicalized sentences. When (75) expresses a “categorical (double) judgm ent,’’ a topicalized sentence, it involves a “cognitive act” of apprehending mao ‘cat’ as substance and Kuroda (1988) proposes that syntactic subject NP-ga position is within VP in Japanese, without further raising out of VP. Here 1 propose that the position of syntactic subject in Chinese is raised to [Spec IP]. 1 6 1 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. attributing to it/them the property perceived as the event of sleeping there. This can also be expressed by inserting a pause particle, as in (76). (76) Mao a. zhengzai nar shuijiao ne! cat Pause Part, Progressive there sleep Part The nontopicalized reading of (75) contains no such cognitive act of apprehending the “substance” of the cat(s). It expresses a thetic judgm ent which is a simple recognition or perception of the existence of an actual situation (sleeping there) with par ticipants (cat) in that event. Non-root clauses, such as conditional or embedded contexts, do not express categorical Judgments inasmuch as there is no apprehension of an entity as substance involved. Thus, Japanese NP-wa does not occur in these contexts. Consider (77). The NP-ga of a ILP in a conditional clause is not necessarily focused. This non-root context does not express a categorical judgment. (77) mosi kuzyaku ga/*wa osu no hoo ga kireida nara... 'If the peacock is more beautiful on the male side...’ (Kuroda 1986a: #117) Kuroda (1988) further proposes that Japanese topicalization uniformally involves movement. It is derived in two ways. One is that wa phrases are directlv moved to the topic position ([Spec CP] in Kuroda’s framework) leaving an empty site in the comment clause, as in (78). (78) [s' Eigo wa [s Masao ga t hanasu]]. English WA Masao Nom speak ‘English, Masao speaks.’ The other way is to locally move a definite major subject NP-ga to the topic position. For exam ple, the definite NP-go in (73), the thetic judgm ent, non-topicalized 162 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. sentence, can be topicalized to the topic position to express a categorical judgment by wa attachment as in (72). In short, according to Kuroda, a topic wa phrase is derived either by directly moving it to the topic position, or by locally raising nominative NP-ga to the topic position to express categorical judgm ents. I will adopt K uroda's view of topicalization. The raised topic (either directly raised from Predicate clause or from major subject position) involves a categorical judgment in which a particular entity is apprehended as Subject (topic) to which the property of the Predicate clause is attributed.^'* 3 '* Kuroda (1986) points out three types of NP-iva in Japanese: (a) a wa phrase which obviously binds an empty site, (b) a wa phrase which does not, or does not appear to, bind an empty site but alternates with a ga phrase, and (c) a wa phrase which does not bind an empty site and does not alternate with a ga phrase. According to him, type (a) is the directly moved topics. Type (b) topics are derived from major subjects. Nevertheless, he excludes type (c) from his proposed semantic Subject-Predicate Predication relation. It is because a type (c) wa phrase, such as in (i), and its following clause have very loose relation, and “loose enough almost to verge on vacuity.” (Kuroda 1986: 285) This wa phrase cannot be relativized as a relative head, as shown in (ii). (i) sinbun-o yomi tai hito wa, koko ni aiimasu newspaper read want person WA here be ‘those who want to read newspapers, (you find) them here.’ (ii) *koko ni aru sinbun-o yomi tai hito ‘those who want to read newspapers such that newspapers are here’ Chinese also witnesses this kind of loose related topic; also see the famous firefighter exam ple originated from Chao (1968) and adopted by Li and Thompson (1976; 1981). Consider Shi’s (1992: 135) example in (iii). Shi (ibid.) excludes this type of “topic” from his discussion of topic. He states that the acceptability of (iiia) is because it is an incomplete form of (iiib). The adverb xingkui ‘fortunately’ is a conjunctive adverb, which introduces an adverbial clause of cause, reason or condition. The result of uttering (iiia) is implicitly understood. However, if the adverb is deleted to eliminate this contextual clue, (iiic) becomes unacceptable. (iii) a. Neizuo fangzi. xingkui qunian mei xia xue that CL house fortunately last-year not fall snow ‘That house, fortunately it didn’t snow last year.’ b. Neizuo fangzi. xingkui qunian mei xia xue, cai meiyou daodiao that CL house fortunately last-year not fall snow consequently not collapse ‘That house, fortunately it didn’t snow last year, consequently (it) didn’t collapse.’ c. *Neizuo fangzi. qunian mei xia xue. 163 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4.3.2. M ajor Subject and Topic In this section I will argue that there exists a position for major subject^^ which is often considered a base-generated non-gap “topic” in Chinese literature (cf. “main subjects” in Chao 1968: 95). Instead I will propose that major subject can be structurally distinguished from moved topic, although their properties overlap to a great extent. Specifically, I argue that major subject in Chinese is base-generated in the IP-adjoined position, distinct from directly moved topic to the [Spec Topic?] position. M ajor subject may be raised further to [Spec Topic?] position to become the topic of a categorical judgment in root contexts. 4 .3 .2 .I. D ouble N om inative A typical case of major subject is shown in (79) which contains two (or more than two) nominatives. The first nominal element bears a certain “aboutness, whole- part” relation with the second N ? or the rest of clause. The verbal element can be a stative intransitive, such as an adjectives or copulative predicate (79) (e.g. Teng (1974)), or an eventive verb, as in (80). that CL house last-year not fall snow This loosely related “topic” does not seem to be able to be relativized as a relative head noun as in (iv), cf. Kuroda's example in (ii). Under these considerations, I will not include this type of “topic” in the current discussion. (iv) *(xingkui) qunian mei xia xue de neizuo fangzi fortunately last-year not fall snow Comp that CL house ‘*that house that fortunately it didn’t snow’ 35 I adopt the term “major subject” used in Japanese by Kuno (1973) and Kuroda (1978). 164 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (79) a. Daxiang hizi hen chang^^ elephant trunk long ‘Lit: Elephant, nose very long.’ b. Ta ton teng. he head painful ‘He has a headache.’ (80) Daxiang hizi shen-chu le langan. elephant trunk stretch-out Asp tense ‘(An) elephant’s trunk stretched across the fense.’ Although there are no overt case markers in Chinese to distinguish major subject from topic, we can gain insight by comparing Chinese data with those in Japanese. The notion of “major subject’’ has been well studied in Japanese literature; see Kuno (1973), Kuroda (1978; 1986a; 1986b; 1988) among others. It is proposed that the major subject zoo-ga in Japanese (81) is derived either by Subjectivation (Kuno (1973)) or by base-generation (Kuroda (1986)). (81) Zoo ga hana ga nagai elephant-Nom trunk-Nom long According to Kuno (ibid.), Subjectivation adjoins the possessor NP to the maximal phrase^? domintaing the original subject NP leaving a trace t. However, Kuroda (1988) suggests that major subject can also be base-generated in an adjoined position dominating the original subject NP with an empty categoi-y e in the subject possessor position rather than a trace, as shown in (82). 36 There could be more than two nominative NPs. The genitive m arker de can be inserted between two NPs. (79’) Daxiang (de) bizi hen chang. elephant Gen trunk very long (ii) Zhangsan (de) diannao (de) cidieji hui le. Zhangsan Gen computer Gen drive break Par t ‘Zhangsan, computer, floppy drive broke.’ 37 It is to adjoin to VP as suggested by Kuroda (1988). 1 6 5 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (82) [vp [np zooi ga [vp [np ei hana ga ]] [vp nagai]] In other words, major subject, according to Kuroda (1988), can be either base generated or moved to an adjoined position. W hat concerns us here is that there exists an additional position for major subject, distinct from topic vra phrases. This point of an independent position for major subject is supported by the intervention of sentential adverbs between the major subject and the syntactic subject (also see footnote 37). The first two nominative NPs do not have to form a constituent. Consider (83). A genitive de may be inserted between the first and the second NPs in (83b). (83) a. (Ouzhou a) xianiin euoiia nanren bi niiren pingjun-shouming duan (Europe) civilized countries male compare with women average-life-span shorter 'In Europe, in civilized counti ies the average life-span of men is shorter than that of women.’ b . (Ouzhou a) xianiin euoiia de nanren bi niiren pingjun-shouming duan (Europe) civilized DE countries male compare with women average-life- span shorter However, double subjects in (83a) do not obligatorily form a single constituent. It is because these two NPs can be separated by adverbs, as shown in (84a). Furthermore, in (84b) it is impossible to insert the genitive de in between these two nominative NPs when a sentential adverb intervenes. The sharp contrast between (84a) and (84b) clearly shows that two nominative subjects do not have to form a single NP constituent.^®’ 3 ® I refer readers to T eng’s (1974) and T sao’s (1977) discussion of double nominative structure. Teng claims that the two nominative NPs are generated in separate positions. He tries to separate two types of possession nouns. His 166 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (84) a. Ouzhou a. xianiin guoiia zuijin nanren bi niiren pingjun-shouming duan ‘In Europe, in civilized countries recently the average life-span of men is shorter than that of women.’ b. *Ouzhou a, Ixianiin guoiia de zuijin nanren! bi niiren pingjun- shouming duan ‘In Europe, men of civilized countries recendy have shorter average life span than women.’ Notice that a topic with a pause partcle is added in (83) and (84) to ensure the major subject, xianjin guojia ‘civilized countries,’ is not being overtly topicalized. The point of an independent position for the m ajor subject is further supported by cases where the major subject does not correspond to any argument or adjunct in the following predicate. As noted by Kuroda (1986a), the major subject Tokyo-wan no sakana-ga in (85), from Kuno (1973), does not bind an empty site. (85) Tokvo-wan no sakana ga koozyoo-haisui ni yom kaisui no Tokyo bay-Gen fish-Nom factory-effluent-due-to sea-water-Gen osen de moo-sudeni sisya ga san-mei deteiru pollution-by already dead-person Nom three-CL come-out ‘It is fish of Tokyo Bay that due to the pollution of sea water by factory effluent the death of three people already happened.’ arguments are based on the positions of adverbials hai ‘still’ and ye ‘also,’ and equi- NP deletion. Tsao provides counter-examples for Teng’s data. I refer readers for the detailed discussion. Despite Tsao’s arguments, I think some adverbs do occur either between two nominative NPs or after the second NP, such as zuijin ‘recently’ in (84), or renran ‘still’ as in (i). This indicates that these two nominative NPs do not have to form a single constituent. Hence the first NP is not necessarily derived from the possessor of the subject. (i) Ta {renran) tou/shou (renran) hen teng. he still head/ hand still very painful ‘He (is such that) head/hand is still very painful.’ Compare Hey cock’s (1993:175-7) argument against Tateishi’s (1991) obligatory constituency of double nominative ga-phrases in Japanese. The Chinese data in (83) and (84) seem to be parallel to the Japanese counterparts discussed in Heycock (ibid.). Namely, sentential adverbs can intervene between double subjects. 167 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. It is sim ilar to (86), the Chinese counterpart of (85). Sentence (87) is another example where no gap is related to the major subject. (86) Dong-jing wan de vu youyu gongchang paishui yin-qi de haishui Tokyo bay DE fish due to factory effluent release DE sea-water wuran yijing chuxian sizhe san ran. pollution already appear dead-person three-CL man. (87) Hua meigui hua zui piaoliang. flower rose most beautiful '(Among) flowers roses are most beautiful.’ It is generally assumed in the literature that in double nominative sentences the first NP is the topic and second one the subject of the comment clause; see Teng (ibid.), Li and Thompson (1976; 1981), Huang (1982) among others, vs. Tsao’s (1977) analysis of double topic constructions. Since Chinese does not have overt case markers to distinguish major subject from topic, arguments for or against a m ajor subject position in Chinese can not be solely based upon sentences (79), (86) and (87). Furthermore, given the alternation of NP-iva (topic) and major subjects NP-go in Japanese (81) and (85),'*° and their Chinese counterparts in (79) and (86) respectively, one cannot simply jump to the conclusion that the major subject cannot be distinct from topic in Chinese either. The following will examine the data and arguments discussed in the literature and provide further arguments and motivation for postulating this base-generated IP-adjoined major subject position, besides the [Spec TopicP] topic position. The Japanese wa counterparts of (81) and (85) are given in (i) and (ii) respectively. (i) Zoo wa hana ga nagai elephant-Topic trunk-Nom long (ii) Tokyo-wan no sakana wa koozyoo-haisui ni yom kaisui no osen de moo- sudeni sisya ga san-mei deteiru ‘Fish of Tokyo Bay, due to the pollution of sea water by factory waste water, the death of three people has already happened.’ (Kuno (ibid.)) 168 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. One of Li and Thompson’s (1976) arguments for the first NP as topic comes from the lack of selectional restriction between the first NP and the verb. In (79), repeated below, it is the syntactic subject bizi ‘trunk’ being long, rather than the first NP (bxiang ‘elephant’ being long. (79) a. Daxiang bizi hen chang elephant trunk long ‘Lit: Elephant, nose very long.’ However, it does not seem to be always the case. Kuroda (1988) notices another type of major subject, in which the 0-role is distributed to both nominative NPs as in (88). Namely, both kono koma ‘this top’ and iro ‘color’ can be the subject of being beautiful.'^! (88) Kono koma ga iro ga kirei da this top-Nom color-Nom beautiful ‘this top is a pretty color.’ Similarly, we can come up with a Chinese counterpart as in (89) which allows the first NP to be interpreted with the verb as well. (89) Zhuomian y anse hen piaoliang table-surface color very beautiful (79b) is repeated below to further show that both ta ‘he’ and ton ‘head’ can be the subject of the predicate, being painful. (79) b. T atou teng. he head painful ‘He has a headache.’ Seeing that major subject can also be interpreted as the subject of the verb, Li and Thompson’s argument against major subject is weakened. According to Kuroda (1988), the structure of (88) is like (i),. (i) [n p [n p kono koma ga] [np [n p e] iro ga]] kirei da 169 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Another piece of evidence of a major subject position distinct from topic position comes from the contrast between root and non-root contexts. Consider (90). Yizhi daxiang ‘one elephant, an elephant’ is n ot interpreted as generic or referentially indefinite (specific) in such a root ILP.'^^ (90) *Yizhi daxiang bizi hen chang. one-CL elephant trunk very long One might say the unacceptability of (90) is because the first NP is a topic which has to be definite or generic. However, if topic were the only possibility for the first NP, why is it the case when (90) is embedded in a non-root (conditional) context (91) becomes well-fonned? (91) Ruguo vizhi daxiang bizi hen chang, na yiding hen keai if one-CL elephant trunk very long, then definitely lovely ‘If an elephant’s trunk is vei-y long, then (it) must be lovely.’ Yizhi daxiang in (91) is interpreted as non-referential generic indefinite; see the discussion of Chinese indefinite subjects in section 4.3.1.1. Therefore, the contrast between (90) and (91) strongly argues that there exists a major subject position distinct from topic position. A major subject in non-root context is not perceived as a “Subject” (topic) to express categorical judgement, although it can do so in root contexts (by further raising to topic position). Recall that categorical judgm ent is expressed by topicalized sentences, non-root contexts generally do not allow topic. Let us look at sim ilar contexts in Japanese. As pointed out by Kuroda (1986a), the NP-ga of individual level predicates generally does not occur in root contexts without being obligatorily focused. Hence, kuzyaku-ga in (92)‘ ^ 3 is ^ * 2 (90) is felicitous under a contrastively focused cardinal interpretation. 42 Recall that the bare NP kuzyaku is ambiguous among English the peacock, a peacock, or peacocks. 170 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. obligatorily focused, and has a definite or generic instead of an indefinite (referential) reading. A topicalized sentence with kuzyaku-wa is given in (93). (92) K uzyaku ga osu no hoo ga kireida — generic/ def/ *indef ‘the peacock is that of which the male is more beautiful’ (Kuroda 1986a: #116) (93) Kuzyaku wa osu no hoo ga kireida — generic/ del/ *indef ‘as for the peacock, the male is more beautiful.’ (Kuroda 1986a: #115) When (92) appears in a non-root context like (77), repeated here, kuzyku-ga^^ does not have to be focused and is interpreted either a generic or defninte NP (see regular subject NP-ga in section 4.3.1). Note that NP-wû does not occur in such a non-root context. (77) mosi kuzyaku ga/*w a osu no hoo ga kireida nara..... ‘If the peacock is more beautiful on the male side...’ The contrast between major subjects of ILPs in root and non-root contexts in Japanese (92) and (77) are parallel to Chinese (90) and (91) respectively. Hence, it strongly argues for a major subject position in Chinese, independent of the topic position. Heycock (1993) explicitly argues for syntactic predication'’^ between a major subject and the rest of the sentence.'*® Its position is not licensed by 0 -ro le '* '* According to Kuroda (ibid.), NPs attached by mo ‘also,’ clake ‘only’ and sue ‘even’ can occur in non-root contexts as well. '* 5 Heycock’s syntactic predication does not totally conespond to Kuroda’s notion of (logical) Predication between Subject (topic) and Predicate. As Yuki Masuta points out, Heycock’s predication refers to a syntactic relation between major subject and the rest of the sentence, which does not necessarily assert “categorical judgment” as in topicalized sentences (Predication in Kuroda’s logical sense). '* ® Cf. VP-adjoined major subject position in Japanese in Kuroda (1988) and Heycock (ibid.). 171 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. assignment, but by syntactic predication. Moreover, the “aboutness” relation of major subject and regular subject is the semantic coiTelate of this syntactic predication relation. One of her arguments is that major subject may serve as an A-binder in Japanese (94). A major subject occurs in an A-position given the general assumption that binding of anaphors is only possible from A, rather than A’-positions. (94) sono hitoi-ga kodomo-ga zibuni-yori atama-ga ii (koto) that person-Nom child-Nom self-than head-Nom ii (fact) ‘That person; [is such that her] child is more intelligent than she;.’ Major subject in Chinese can serve an A-binder as well, as illustrated in (95). (95) a. Zhangsan; chezi zhuang-dao le ziji;. Zhangsan car hit-result Asp self ‘Zhangsan’si car hit himself;.’ b. Nagereni haizi bi ziji; hai congming. that-CL man child than self still smart ‘That person [is such that his] child is more intelligent than he;.’ Furthermore, the reflexive can be A-bound by the m ajor subject preceded by licin, such as lian Ilmngsan and lian nageren in (96a) and (96b) respectively. (96) a. Lian Zhangsan; chezi clou zhuang-dao le ziji;. LIAN Zhangsan car DOU hit Asp self ‘Even Zhansan; (is such that his) car also hit him self;.’ b. Lian nageren; haizi clou bi ziji; hai congming. LIAN that-CL man child DOU than self still smart ‘Even that person [is such that his] child is more intelligent than he;.’ 172 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. In section 4.2.3 I have argued that an S-initial //nn-object, on a par with a bare object, can be base-generated in the IP-adjoined position. In the next section I will propose that major subject is also base-generated in an IP-adjoined position.'*^ I have argued that the m ajor subject in the Chinese double subject construction patterns like that in Japanese. Adopting Kuroda’s fram ework for Japanese, I contend that major subject is base-generated IP-adjunction in Chinese, which is distinct from topic and regular subject positions.'*^ In addition, this major subject may be raised to [Spec TopicP] topic position to express Subject of categorical judgment in root contexts. This is why it often bears similarities to topic in such contexts. The following presents more data to support this proposal of distinct positions for topic and major subject. Consider Shi’s (1992) examples in (9 7 ) 49 xhe empty category ec of the second clause in (97a) refers to either the major subject n i ‘you’ or the regular subject haizi ‘child.’ However, when the major subjeet of (97a) is overtly topicalized by adding a pause particle as in (97b), the ec only refers to the first NP, namely the topic. Kuroda (1986b: 21) notes that Japanese fuku-zyosi particles, like sae ‘cven’,mo ‘also’ and dake ‘only’, can be attached to major subject. (i) mosi ano tetugakusya m o/dake Masao ga seizen silteita hito o mitukereba,... if that philosopher also Masao-Nom knew person-Acc find-if 48 For Kuroda, movement to major subject position occurs in tough sentences and K uno’s Subjectivization cases. As mentioned before, Kuroda does not commit him self to movement for Subjectivization, and he allows base-generation as well. I will assume that major subject is base-generated in major subject position in Chinese. The tough sentence is not relevant to our current discussion. 49 Shi (ibid.) is not concerned about major subject; rather he claim s that the two nominative NPs are constituents of one single NP. According to him, the first NP is the specifier. When the first NP is overtly topicalized, it becomes the topic and the second NP is a subject, not a topic. This leaves a variable in the specifier position. As discussed previously, these two nominative NPs do not obligatorily form a single NP. This should involve a major subject position. 17 3 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (97) a. N il haiziz dou zheme dale, e c y i hai zhemo ainao.^o you child even so big Part, still so like-play-prank i. ‘You (are such that) the child is already big enough, but still (you) like to play pranks.’ ii. ‘Your child is already big enough, but (he) still likes to play pranks.’ b. Nil a, haiziz dou zheme dale, e c y*2 hai zhemo ainao. you child even so big Part, still so like-play-prank ‘As for you, (your) child is already big enough, but (you) still like to play pranks.’ (Shi (1992: 199)) The contrast between (97a) and (97b) mentioned by Shi (ibid.) can be naturally explained by the current proposal. In other words, topic and major subject positions can be distinguished structurally. Another piece of evidence for major subject raising to topic position is presented in the following. In (98) the object pronoun ta, like regular pronouns, can refer to either Zhangsan or someone else. (98) Zhangsani ntipengyouz zhengzai ma ta '> 11*213- ‘Zhangsani girlfriend2 is scolding him/her ?i/*2/3-’ However, when a pause particle is inserted or Zhangsan is interpreted as a topic in (99), the object pronoun only refers to the raised topic Zhangsan. (99) Zhangsani a, niipenyou2 zhengzai ma tai/*2/*3- ‘Zhangsani, girlfriend2 is scolding him/heri/*2 /* 3 ' 50 The reading of (97a-i) is received with no pause between these two NPs. (97a) could be analysized as involving subordinate or coordinate clauses, as shown in (i) and (ii) respectively (H. Hoji and A. Li p.c.). (i) [ip Ni; haizij [dou zheme dale], EC|/j hai zhemo ainao]. -subordination (ii) [ipNij haizij dou zheme dale], [ipECj/j hai zhemo ainao] -coordination you child even so big, still like-play-prank 174 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. W hen the pronoun is further embedded in another NP, (100) is ambiguous between structures (101) and (102). Ta in (101) can refer to the m ajor subject Zhangsan. Nevertheless, ta in (102) only refers to (A’-bound by) the topicalized Zhangsan. (100) Zhangsan niipengyou piping le [ta de baba] Zhangsan girlfriend criticize Asp his/her father (101) [ip Zhangsani [ip nüpengyoui piping le [tai/2/3 de baba]]] (102) [cp Zhangsani a, [ip nüpengyou2 piping le [tai/*2/*3 de baba]]] I will return to the identification of the empty category and overt pronominal copy in section 4.3.3. To recapitulate, this section has argued that the first NP in double nominative sentences can be a m ajor subject, not totally identical to topic. One sharp contrast betw een major subject and topic is in non-root contexts, w here major subject is allowed but topic is not. Chinese is on a par with the Japanese ga/wa distinction in this aspect. Consequently, 1 posit that major subject in Chinese is base-generated in the IP-adjoined position, which is distinct from the moved [Spec TopicP] topic position. A major subject, however, shares similar properties with topic in root contexts inasmuch as m ajor subjects (definte or generic NPs) can raise to topic position to become the “Subject” of a categorical judgm ent in such contexts; see Kuroda (1986b). Raising to [Spec TopicP] position and becoming a “Subject” (topic) takes place when speakers are making a categorical judgm ent to express a perception of an entity as a substance. Moreover, only definite NPs can be raised to become topics. Indefinite major subjects in Chinese (90) and Japanese (92) fail to raise, since they are not qualified to be the “Subject” of a categorical judgment.^^ I suggest that this kind of topic raising to express categorical judgment can be extended to shared topic in topic chains (cf. Shi (1992)). 175 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4.3.2.2. The So-called B ase-G enerated “T opic” In the previous section I have argued that Chinese does have major subjects. They are base-generated (EG) in an IP-adjoined position, distinct from the moved topic [Spec TopicP] position and the regular subject position. This section will extend this EG IP-adjoined position to the so-called EG “topics” both with and without gaps in the predicates. Let us first consider a EG major subject without a gap, as in (87) and (103). The first NP bears an “aboutness” relation with either the regular subject or the object of the predicates, which contain no gaps. (87) Hua meigui hua zui piaoliang. flower rose most beautiful '(Among) flowers roses are most beautiful.’ (103) Chezi Zhangsan xihuan riben che car Zhangsan like Japanese car ‘(As for) cars Zhangsan likes Japanese cars.’ This EG major subject in the IP-adjoined position can be overtly topicalized to the [Spec TopicP] position in root clauses, as illustrated in (104). (104) Chezi a. Zhangsan xihuan kache car Pause PART Zhangsan like truck I have proposed in section 4.1 that a topic position is not projected in em bedded or non-root contexts. Hence, this analysis prohibits a directlv moved topic to the [Spec TopicP] position. This is indeed conect; see the unacceptable (105) from Fu (1994). (105) *Qing zai flneiben shui ta kan-wan de shihou] lai zhao ta please at that-CL book he read-finish of time come seek him ‘Please come to see him when that book, he finishes reading.’ 176 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Moreover, the current analysis predicts that it is possible for an IP-adjoined NP to occur in embedded contexts. This is also horned out. The acceptability of sentence (106) indicates that the major subject chezi can occur inside the relative clause because it is actually base-generated IP-adjunction. Crucially Chinese does not allow movement adjunction to IP. (106) a. W o kandao [nage [cp F t p chezi [ip ti (zhi) xihuan kache de] reni] I see that-CL car only like trunk Comp person T saw the person who only likes trucks.’ b. W o jide [nage [cp F t p chezi [ip tamen (zhi) xihuan kai kache de] niandai] I remember that-CL car they only like drive tmck DE age T remember the time that cars (are such that) they only liked driving trucks.’ Furtherm ore, a directly topicalized PP can occur in root contexts, but not in embedded contexts. Hence, (107b) is acceptable, but the sentences in (108) are not.^2 (107) a. [ i p Chezi [i p w o song le kache gei Zhangsan]]] car I give Asp tmck to Zhangsan ‘Lit: Car I gave truck to Zhangsan.’ b. Frp gei Zhangsani [ipchezi [i p w o song le kache /i]]] to Zhangsan car I give Asp truck ‘Lit: To Zhangsan, car (is such that) I gave a truck.’ • ‘ ’2 Sentence (i) is acceptable, since kafei inside the «/-clause is also base-generated in the IP-adjoined position with a gap. (i) Ruguo kafei Zhangsan bu gan he pro, wo jiu qing ta he cha. if coffee Zhangsan not dar e drink, I then treat he drink tea ‘Lit: If coffee (is such that) Zhangsan daie not drink. I’ll treat him tea.’ 177 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (108) a. *Ruguo gei Zhangsani I tp chezi Ti p wo song kache ?i]], Lisi hui checu if to Zhangsan car I send/give truck, Lisi will jealous ‘Lit: If to Zhangsan, car (is such that) I give a truck, Lisi will be jealous.’ b. *Lisi kanjian [n p naliang f r p eei Zhangsani [ip chezi [ i p w o song t\ ti]] de] kache2 ]. Lisi see that-CL to Zhangsan cai-1 send/give DE truck 'Lit: Lisi saw the truck that to Zhangsan, car (is such that) I gave to.’ In addition to the major subject cases discussed above, it also seems to be plausible that the base-generated IP-adjunction is also the site for the S-initial Qian-) NPs discussed in section 4.2, which are the so-called base-generated “topics” with gaps in the comment clauses. I argue that they are originally base-generated in the IP-adjoined position, rather than being base-generated in the topic position. The IP- adjunction position is L-marked after the verb moves to I® at LF. The only difference between S-initial IP-adjoined (lian-) NPs and major subject is that the former contains an empty site in the predicate, but the latter may or may not. In other words, S-initial (lian-) NPs should be structurally distinguished. If they result from direct topicalization, they occur in (root) [Spec TopicP] position as the cases shown in section 4.1. If they display base-generation properties, they are generated in IP- adjoined position as the cases discussed in section 4.2. It has also been posited that base-generated IP-adjoined (lian-) NPs can further locally raise to [Spec TopicP] position and be interpreted as topics under the conditions that they are definite or generic, occur in root contexts, and are perceived as “substance,” e.g. ( 1 1 2 ).^^ jf ihis base-generated lian-NP is not qualified to be a 53 Namely, an IP-adjoined base-generated object with an action main verb may further raise to the topic position. Hoji (1995 class notes) mentions the following 178 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. topic, not perceived as “substance” in Kuroda’s sense, it is not raised to topic position. E.g. lian banben shu in (109a) is interpreted as existential (negative polarity) any, which is not perceived as a “substance” (109a), noted by Hsieh (p.c.). Since (109a) is not a categorical judgment, it is predicted that it does not occur in a non-root, non-assertive context. It is borne out, as shown in (109b). Lian banben shu in (109b) occurs in the IP-adjoined position rather than the topic position. (109) a. Lian banben shu ta dou mei mai LIAN half-CL book he DOU not buy ‘Lit: Even a book he didn’t buy.’ b. Yaoshi lian banben shu ta dou mei mai de hua, ta shizai tai xiaoqi le if LIAN half-CL book he DOU not buy, he indeed vei-y stingy 'If he didn’t buy a book, he is indeed very stingy.’ Before ending this section, I would like to point out that the structural ambiguity of S-initial lian-NP in Chinese is supported by the Japanese data. Kuroda (1995 p.c.) notes that NP-^ae ‘even’ can be either topicalized or scrambled, as given in (110c) and (1 11c) respectively. (110) a. ika-wa kujira-ga taberu squid-Topic whale-Nom eat ‘Squids, whales eat.’ b . ebi-wa kujira-ga taberu shrimp-Topic whale-Nom eat ‘Shrimps, whales eat.’ Japanese sentence (i) where John-ga occurs in the major subject position related to an object gap. He suggests that (i) could be acceptable if John-ga is heavily stressed. (i) ?John-ga Mary-ga ec butta John-Nom Mary-Nom hit ‘Mary hit John.’ If his remark is correct, topic sentence (ii) does not exclude the possibility of further raising the major subject of (i) to topic position, in addition to direct topicalization from object position. (ii) John-wa Maiy-ga butta John-Topic Maiy-Nom hit 17 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. c. unagi-sae kujira-ga taberu eel-even whale-Nom eat ‘Even eels, whales eat.’ (111) a. ika-o ano kujira-ga tahe-ta squid-Acc that whale-Nom eat-Past ‘That whale ate squids.’ h . ehi-o ano kujira-ga tahe-ta shrimp-Acc that whale-Nom eat-Past ‘That whale ate shrim ps.’ c. unagi-o-sae ano kujira-ga tahe-ta eel-Acc-even that whale-Nom eat-Past ‘That whale ate even eels.’ NP-5<ae ‘even’ in (110c) occurs in topic position, which is different from the scrambled NP-5oe in (11 Ic). The above Japanese sentences correspond to Chinese (112) and (113) respectively. Despite different markers for Japanese to indicate different positions, Chinese S-initial {lian) NPs is also structurally ambiguous between topics (1 12) or base-generated NPs (113). (112) a. Yiuyu a, jingyu ai chi squid Pause, whale love eat ‘Squids, whales love to eat.’ h . Xiazi a, jingyu ai chi. shrimp Pause, whale love eat ‘Shrmips, whales love to eat.’ c. Lian manvu a . jingyu dou chi. LIAN eel Pause, whale DOU love eat ‘Even for eels, whales love to eat.’ (113) a. Yiuyu zhezhi jingyu chi le. squid this-CL whale eat Asp ‘Squids this whale has eaten.’ h . Xiazi zhezhi jingyu chi le. shrimp this-CL whale eat Asp ‘Shrimps this whale has eaten.’ c . Lian manvu zhezhi jingyu dou chi le. LIAN eel this-CL whale DOU eat Asp 'Even eels this whale has eaten.’ 180 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. To summarize, subsections 4.3.1-2 have argued for a major subject position which is base-generated in the IP-adjoined position. Instead of calling it the so-called base-generated “topic” without gap, I consider it to be a m ajor subject, since its position and properties can be distinguished from topic. Furthermore, I suggest that this base-generated IP-adjunction position also hosts the base-generated S-initial {lian-) NPs discussed in section 4.2 in addition to major subjects. Traditionally the debate over (non-)movement of topic structure assumes only one position for topic; see the movement proposals by Huang (1982; 1992), Liu (1986), Li (1990), Shi (1992), Ning (1993), Qu (1994) and the non-movement proposals by Xu and Langendoen (1985), Cheng (1989), Chiu (1993) among others. However, the current proposal distinguishes the base-generated major subject position from the m oved topic position. Hence, it can resolve this long-standing debate. By comparing Chinese with Japanese, the analysis proposed in this thesis can shed some light on our understanding of Universal Grammar. 181 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4.3.3. Identification o f the Em pty Category and f& ew do-R esum ptive Pronoun S-initial (lian-) NPs, on the one hand may be derived from directlv moving to [Spec TopicP] position as discussed in section 4.1. A movement analysis is called for due to island sensitivity, and the reconstruction and weak crossover effects discussed above. The gap related to the directly moved topic is a genuine trace. In section 4.3.3.1 I will present the island sensitivity observed in this type of direct topicalization. On the other hand, I have suggested that the so-called base-generated “topic” actually is not a genuine topic originating in topic position. Rather they are base-generated in the IP-adjoined position.^'* I will posit in section 4.3.3.2 that the empty categoiy ec related to the base-generated IP-adjoined NP is a pro, vs. a trace t related to the directly moved topic. The identification of pro follows from a general Full Interpretation principle.^^ An overt pronominal copy in the gap position, called /i^eHr/o-resumptive pronoun, becomes obligatorily A’-bound by the locally raised major subject to the topic position. The conclusion of this study not only incorporates our previous discussion of major subject/ moved topic distinctions, it also explicates the complex phenomena of Chinese topic, major subject and base-generated S-initial NP. A complicated analysis cannot simply reduce one approach to another. This complicated situation is due to this extra major subject in Chinese, base-generated IP-adjoined position. 5 '* Recall that base-generated IP-adjoined (lian-) NPs could be further locally raised to root [Spec TopicP] position when they are qualified to express “substance” in root contexts; see section 4.3. A principle which can inteipret this pro with the base-generated S-initial (lian-) NP under a certain “aboutness” relation, or by H uang’s (1984; 1989) Generalized Contiol Rule (when it occurs in subject position), Cheng’s (1989) aspectual licensing (when it occurs in object position), or N ing’s (1993) covert p ro possessor in inalienable NPs. 182 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 .3 .3 .I. T o p icalizatio n as a M ovem ent D erivation The follow ing will present argum ents for topicalization m ovem ent. Topicalization means an NP (or predicate) directly moves from gap position to the topic [Spec TopicP] position. One piece of evidence for topicalization as a movement comes from the possibility of topicalizing a PP.^^ (114) a. Cong M eipuoi. Zhangsan renwei Lisi ji le yiben shu gei Lisi ti. from USA Zhangsan think Lisi send Asp one-CL book to Lisi ‘From the USA, Zhangsan thinks that Lisi sent a book to Lisi.’ b. Gei Lisi?. Zhangsan renwei Lisi cong Meiguo ji le yiben shu fi- to Lisi Zhangsan think Lisi from USA send Asp one-CL book ‘To Lisi, Zhansan thinks that Lisi sent a book from the USA.’ Moreover, topicalizating PPs obeys the Complex NP Condition. Sentence (1 15a) is well-formed, but (115b) is ungrammatical due to a Subjacency violation. (115) a. Zhangsan renshi le [Npnage \rph cong vinhang jie le shiwan kuai de] ren]] Zhangsan know Asp that-CL from bank bonow Asp $10,000 Comp man ‘Zhangsan knew the man who bonowed $10,000 from the bank.’ b. *Cong vinhangi. Zhangsan renshi le [n p nage [cp t2 0 jie le shiwan kuai de] reu2] from bank Zhangsan know Asp that-CL borrow Asp $10,000 Comp person ‘*From the banki, Zhangsan knew the man who bonowed $10,000 ti.' Recall that in section 3.3.2 I have pointed out that Chinese does not allow genuine double topicalization. Also see Shi’s (1992a: 211-5) arguments against adverbial topicalization. 183 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. There are plenty of examples in the literature showing a Subjacency violation in complex NPs environments. Topics in (116), (117), and (118) are related to the subject gaps in complex object NPs. (116) *Lisii, wo hen xinhuan [n p[s H changge] de shengyin] Lisi, I very like sing song Comp voice ‘Lisi, I like the voice that *(he) sings.’ (Huang 1987: #28b) (117) *Zhangsani, wo mai-le yixie [[ t\ xihuan] de shu]. Zhangsan, I buy Asp some like Comp book ‘*Zhangsan, I bought some books t likes.’ (Liu (1986)) (118) *Zhangsani, wo kan-guo [[ t\ mai] de shu]. Zhangsan 1 read-Exp t buy Comp book ‘*Zhangsani, I have read books that t\ bought.’ (Tang (1990: 353)) The gaps in (119), (120) and (121) are in object positions inside the complex object N Ps. (119) *Neige reni,[sw o bu xiangxin [Np[sLisi kanjian n ] de zheju hua]] that man I not believe Lisi see Comp this statement ‘*That man, 1 don’t believe the statement that Lisi has seen t.' (Huang 1982:459) (120) *Nage xueshengi, wo zhengzai zhao [[ jiao-guo ri] de laoshi]. that-CL student, I Progressive look-for [teach-Exp Comp teacher] ‘*That students 1, 1 am looking for the teacher who has taught ri.’ (Qu (1994:14)) 184 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (121) *Zhangsani, wo renshi [[ da t\ ] de ren]. Zhangsan, I know hit t Comp person ‘*Zhangsani, I know the person who hit ri.’(Tang (1990: 353)) All the above sentences are unacceptable due to island sensitivity. The ungrammaticality of (122) is due to extraction from an object possessor; see Huang (1984). (122) *Lisii, Zhangsan bu xihuan [/ shu]^^ Lisi Zhangsan not like book ‘*Lisii, Zhangsan doesn’t like t\ book.’ The topics in (123) and (124) are sensitive to adjunct islands. (123) *Wangwui Zhangsan [yinwei Lisi piping le t[] hen bu gaoxing. Wangwu Zhangsan because Lisi criticize Asp very unhappy ‘*W angwui, because Lisi criticized t\, Zhangsan is unhappy .’ (124) *Qiani, huodong ban bu hao, [ruguo n bu duo] (Tang 1990) money activity hold not good, if t not much ‘Money, activities cannot be well prepared, if *(it) is not enough.’ The above data of an island sensitivity in topicalization strongly argues for a m ovement analysis; i.e. topics are directly moved from inside the islands to the topic position. The ecs inside islands are traces t. 4.3.3.2. Base-G enerated M ajor Subject and S-Initial (lian) NP An ec related to IP-adjoined base-generated S-initial (lian-NP) is a pro or Pro, adopting Huang (1984). This pro, can be identified under a certain loosely related Li (1990: 198) rules out Left Branch Condition (extraction of object possessor) for Case reason. Variables from w/z-movement (topicalization in Chinese) need Case. 185 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. “aboutness, belonging” semantic relation that can be established between the major subject or {lian-) NP and the rest of the sentences or the pro, fulfilling the Full Interpretation principle (adopting Chomsky (1991)).^* This “aboutness” relation not only captures Huang’s (1984; 1987) Generalized Control Rule (GCR)5^>^° of pro identification, it also identifies the pro that occurs in other positions such as object possessor, object positions or the gap position inside an island. In other words, a pro in the gap position related to the base-generated IP-adjoined position is licensed when an “aboutness” relationship is understood. A major subject or NP in the IP- adjoined position may further locally raise to [Spec TopicP] position as long as it is recognized as a substance and expresses categorical judgment in root contexts. This local topic raising from the major subject position corresponds to the following structure (125): (125) [TopP NPi [ip ti [ip .... pro\ ]]] How this “aboutness, whole-part” relation is formulated is beyond the scope of this thesis. 1 will leave it for future research. 59 The Generalized Control Rule (GCR) proposed by Huang (1984, 1987) is as follows: (i) An empty pronominal is controlled in its control domain (if it has one). (ii) a is the control domain for (3 iff it is the minimal category that satisfies both (a) and (b): a. a is the lowest S or NP that contains (i) p, or (ii) the minimal maximal category containing p. b. a contains a SUBJECT accessible to p. 50 Huang’s GCR can only account for limited cases; see Ning’s (1993) modification and Q u’s (1994: 58-63) objection to Huang’s proposal. (i) ?Nage ren; wo bu zhidao [ ip[n p [ ip ei jian-guo John] zhege xiaoxi] shi dajia name chijing] that man 1 not know e see-Exp John this news make everyone surprised ‘That man, 1 don’t know that the news that [he] has met John makes everybody so surprised.’ (ii) ?Zhexie xueshengi wo bu zhidao [[[ tj jiao-guo ei] de laoshij] yijing tuixiu le. Qu (1994: 63) these students 1 not know see-Exp e Comp teacher already retired Part ‘These studentsi, 1 don’t know the teacher who have taught (them)i is retired.’ 186 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Stmcture (125) is reminiscent of English control sentences, such as (126) and (127). (126) John; promised Maiy PRO; to come. (127) Whoi t\ promised Mary PRO; to come? M oreover, if an ec inside an island can be identified with a base-generated major subject or NP, it is a pro, and locality constraints can be alleviated to a certain extent. When an ec is related to a directly moved topic, it is a trace t and it will be subject to locality constraints. Let us first compare (128) and (122). (128) ?Zhangsani tufei dasi [pro\ baba] le. Zhangsan bandit hit-die father Part ‘*Zhangsan, bandit killed e father.’ (Huang 1984: 564) (122) *Lisii, Zhangsan bu xihuan [t shu] Lisi Zhangsan not like book The acceptability of (128) is due to the fact that the "aboutness, belonging" relation can be established:^^ the inalienable NP baba ‘father’ contains a pro in the sense of Ning (1993) and this pro is identified with the major subject Zhangsan, which is base-generated in the IP-adjoined position. In contrast, the ungram m aticality of (122) is due to a Subjacency violation; i.e. the object possessor position is a genuine trace related to the directly moved topic Lisi in [Spec TopicP] position. The pro in (129) and (130) occurs in a subject position inside a sentential s u b j e c t ' ^ 2 and a subject relative clause respectively. Both sentences are acceptable because this major subject means “as for..,’’ and the pro is semantically related to it. 61 Hoji (1995 p.c.) has observed a sim ilar contrast between (128) and (122) in Japanese. 62 The Sentential Subject Condition is weakened in Chinese (see Huang (1984; 1989), Tang (1990), and cf. Qu (1994)). The ungrammaticality of (i) from C.-R. Huang (1991) does not indicate that topicalization observes SSC, since elements inside predicate nominals cannot be topicalized in general (see Tsao (1977: 65)). (i) *Zhuxii, [[ta dang-xuan t\ ]] hen gong-ping. 1 8 7 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (129) Nage reni [np[s/?^oi nian Yinwen ]] zui heshi that-CL man study English most appropriate ‘Lit: That man [ pro studies English] is appropriate.’ (130) L isii [n p[s P^o i changge] de shengyin] hen haoting Lisi, sing song Comp voice very good ‘Lisi, the voice with which (he) sings is good.’ (Huang 1987: #28a) Pro can also occur in the object position of a subject relative clause as in (131), and in the subject posessor position as in (132). (131) Zhejian chenyii [np[s Lisi chuanpro\]] hen heshi (ya) this-CL shirt Lisi wears e veiy suitable particle ‘Lit: This shirt that he wears ec is very suitable.’(Qu 1994: 28) (132) Zhangsan 1, p ro 1 niipengyou chu shu le Zhangsan (his) girlfriend publish book PART ‘Zhangsan, (his) girlfriend published books.’ The point I would like to make here is that the identification of p ro should be understood in a broader sense than Huang’s GCR. Pro is able to be identified even if it is inside islands, as long as an “aboutness, belonging” relation between the major subject and the rest of the sentence or the pro is established by certain understood contexts. The current proposal can also cover the Aspect licensed object pro in the sense of Cheng (1989); namely, object pro in (133) can be interpreted with the first NP, the major subject Hiumgrong. chaiiperson s/he act-elect very just-fair ‘*Chaiiperson, that s/he elected t is just and fair.’ 188 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (133) Huangrongi Guojing shuo Botong kandao le pro\ H . G . say B. see-Asp ‘Huangrong, Guojing said Botong saw.’ W hat Cheng (ibid.) calls “base-generated topic” is indeed base-generated m ajor subiect. with which the construction pro can be identified when the major subject is the elem ent that the rest of the clause talks about, reminiscent of the “aboutness” predication relation. There is one more piece of evidence for major subject position that is related to pro in the gap inside a sentential subject, such as in (134) and (135). Notice that the numeral major subjects in these sentences are not interpreted generically, referentially or as “substance,” although they could be understood with a cardinal focused interpretation which I will suppress here. (134) Nage/*Yige reni [np[s PfO\ nian Yinwen ]] hen heshi that/one-CL man study English very appropriate ‘That man/a man [ e studies English] is appropriate.’ (135) Nage/*Yige reni [np[s Lisi xihuan pro\ ]] bu qiguai that/*one-CL man Lisi like e not strange ‘That man/ a man [ Lisi likes (him)] is not strange.’ As noted in section 4.3.2, an indefinite major subject of an individual level predicate (ILPs) may appear in non-root (e.g. conditional) contexts to have a generic nonreferential interpretation. Similarly, in (134) and (135) indefinite major subjects related to the gaps inside the sentential subjects of ILPs can be embedded in 189 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. conditional contexts as in (136) and (137) and do not express categorical judgments.®^ Yige ren ‘a man’ in these contexts is non-referential generic. (136) Ruguo vige reni [\pro\ nian Yinwen]] heshi, na jiu bu xuyao laoshi le if one-CL man study English appropriate, then not need teacher ‘If a man [[e studies English]] is appropriate, then there is no need of teachers.’ (137) Ruguo (lian) yige reni [[Lisi kuangjiang pro\]] (dou) qiguai de hua, na shijieshang meiyou qiguai de shi le if (LIAN) one-CL man Lisi praise e also strange, then world-on no strang thing ‘Lit: If (even) a man [Lisi praises e] is strange, then there is no str ange thing in the world.’ In other words, although indefinite major subjects are not interpreted as non referential or generic in root ILPs in (134) and (135), they are allowed in conditional clauses (non-root contexts). Therefore, the non-referential interpretation in (136) and (137) suggests that y/gg ren ‘one man’ in question occurs in the IP-adjoined (major subject) position, since topic is not allowed in non-root contexts. In biief, the so-called base-generated “topic” is actually “major subject.” The empty site related to the major subject is a pro, which is identified by an “aboutness, belonging” predication relation with the major subject. Moreover, the major subject may further locally raise to the root [Spec TopicP] position. In contrast, the directlv moved topic from gap position to [Spec TopicP] as discussed in section 4.3.3.1 leaves a genuine trace, rather than a pro. The major subjects in conditional clauses in (136) and (137) tend to be interpreted as even NP. Actually lian-NPs can occur in these contexts as well. 190 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. One question immediately raised regards the status of the overt pronominal copy ta related to the S-initial NP.®‘ * I will suggest that ta is the overt manifestation of the pro discussed above. It can be interpreted with the major subject or NP when a certain predication relation is established between the major subject and the IP containing ta. Moreover, this ta in gap position is obligatorily A’-bound by the topic which has been locally raised from the major subject to the topic position, although it is not necessarily bound by the major subject in certain cases. For the ease of discussion hereafter, I will call this ta a pseiu/o-resumptive pronoun. This pseudo- resum ptive pronoun is not a spell-out variable as resumptive pronouns that are traditionally understood. Let us first see the sentences where pro is replaced with ta, and ta refers to the major subject in (128'), (129’), (130’) and (132’). (128’) Zhangsan 1 tufei dasi [ta\ de baba] le. Zhangsan bandit hit-die his father Pai t ‘Zhangsan, bandit killed his father.’ (129’) Nage reni [ n p [ s ^« 1 nian Yinwen ]] zui heshi that-CL man he study English most appropriate ‘Lit: That man, [he studies English] is appropriate.’ (130’) Lisii [np[s ta\ changge] de shengyin] hen haoting Lisi, he sing song Comp voice very good ‘Lisi, the voice with which he sings is good.’ Inanimate pronouns are vei-y limited in Chinese, and occur only after prepositions. Hence, animated topic and major subject are used here for discussion. 191 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (132’) Zhangsani ta\ de niipengyou chu shu le Zhangsan his girlfriend publish book PART ‘Zhangsan, his girlfriend published books.’ However, subjacency violations can be circumvented by base-generating the NP in the major subject position and having ta in the gap position. The presence of fa makes an “aboutness” relevance more easily interpreted than pro. For example, (138) is sensitive to islands,^^ since the trace is inside the complex NP. In contrast, the acceptability of (139) is due to the fact ihtai Zhangsan is base-generated in the IP- adjoined position, like a major subject with an overt ta in gap position. (138) *Zhangsani, wo renshi [[ da t\ ] de ren]. =(121) (139) Zhangsani wo renshi [[ da ta\\ de ren]. Zhangsan I know hit he Comp person ‘Zhangsani I know the person who hit him i.’ Similarly, sentences are improved when a predication relation between the major subject and its following clause can be established; namely, the major subject is a possessor or what the following clause is talking about. Lisi in (122’) and (116’) is the person that the following clauses aie talking about. (122’) Lisii Zhangsan bu xihuan [/ai de shu] Lisi Zhangsan not like his book (116’) Lisii wo hen xinhuan [np[s ta\ changge] de shengyin] Lisi, I very like sing song Comp voice ‘Lisi, I like the voice that he sings.’ Recall that the major subject can be locally raised to [Spec TopicP] to express a categorical judgment in a root clause. The originally identified ta in (139) then refers Recall that the directly topicalized NP is subject to island conditions. 192 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. to Zhangsan in topic position. (139) corresponds to the structure in (140). A similar structure can be found in English (141), except that ta in Chinese (57) is obligatorily A '-bound by the topic, while him in (141) is not necessarily bound by who. (140) [TopicP N P li [ ip t i ... [ ...toi]]] (141) Who I hates the person that praised him 1? However, it is not the case that the overt to can always enable a predication relation between the major subject and the rest of the clause. Consider (119’). Although to occurs inside the complex NP in (119’), this sentence is not as good as those above. It is difficult for the first NP neigeren ‘that man’ to be inteipreled as the major subject of the sentence. The sentence is about a certain statement that I do not believe, rather than about that person. (119’) ?*Neige reni [gwo bu xiangxin [n p [s Lisi kanjian toi] de zheju hua]] that man I not believe Lisi see him Comp this statement ‘Lit: That man, I don’t believe the statement that Lisi has seen him.’ If the presence of ta in the gap position were to be the resumption strategy of remedying the island sensitivity of (119) as traditionally assumed, tlie unacceptabiliiy o f (119’) could not be explained. Therefore, (119) is bad due to a subjacency violation, whereas (119’) is due to the failure of establishing a predication relation. (119) *Neige reni,[gwo bu xiangxin [NP[sLisi kanjian /]] de zheju hua]] that man I not believe Lisi see Comp this statement ‘*That man, I don’t believe the statement that Lisi has seen /.’ There is complication with respect to the relation between major subject and to. First, to can occur in the subject position to be interpreted with the major subject in the embedded contexts as in (142). 193 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (142) a. Ruguo Zhangsani ta\ bu nianshu, ... if Zhangsan he not study,... b. [n p Nage [cp [ip Zhangsani [iptoi bu xihuan]] de] haizi] I ai le that Zhangsan he not like Comp kid come Asp ‘The kid that Zhangsan doesn’t like came.’ Second, consider (128’) and (143). The predication relation in (128’) is between the major subject Zhangsan and the event of his father being hit, rather than the relation between Zhangsan and tufei ‘bandit.’ Hence, fa refers only to ZIumgsan. However, fa in object possessor position of (143) can refer to either the major subject Zhangsan, the girlfriend or someone else. This may be because the “aboutness” predication relation has been established locally between Zhangsan and girlfriend; hence, ta behaves like a regular pronoun. (128’) Zhangsani tufei dasi [toi de baba] le. Zhangsan bandit hit-die his father Pai't ‘Zhangsan, bandit killed his father.’ (143) [ip Zhangsani [jp nüpengyou2 piping le [ta 1/2 /3 de baba]]] Zhangsan girlfrind criticize Asp his/her father It is similar to the pair in (144) and (145).^® Ta in the object gap position of (144) is interpreted with Zhangsan. In (145) it behaves like a referential pronoun, and can refer to either the major subject or someone else. The contrast is the same for embedded contexts as in (i) and (ii). (i) Rugou Zhangsani Lisi2 zhengzai ma tai/*2/*3 , ni bu yao shuo hua if Zhangsan Lisi Progressive scold him, you not talk ‘Lit: If Zhangsan (is such that) Lisi is scolding him, you don’t talk.’ (ii) a. Ruguo Zhangsani nüpengyoug zhengzai ma ta i/*2 /3 , ... if Zhangsan girlfriend Progressive scold s/he... ‘If Zhangsan’s girlfriend is scolding her/him....’ b. Wo jide nage Zhangsani niipengyou2 ma guo ta i/*2/3 de difang. I remember that Zhangsan girlfriend scold s/he Comp place 194 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (144) Zhangsani Lisiz zhengzai ma ta i/*2/*3 - Zhangsani Lisi Progressive scold himi (145) Zhangsani nüpengyou2 zhengzai ma la i/*2/3 - ‘Zhangsani girlfriend2 is scolding him/her i/*2/3 -’ The above contrast disappears after the major subject locally raises to the topic position in root contexts. Com pare (143) and (145) with (146) and(147) respectively. A pause particle is inserted in (146) and (147), and ta only refers to the topic Zhangsan. (146) [cp Zhangsani a, [ip niipengyou2 piping le [ta i/*2 /* 3 de baba]]] Zhangsan Fai t, girlfriend criticize Asp his father (147) Zhangsani a, niipengyou2 zhengzai ma ta i/*2 /*3 - ‘Zhangsani, girlfriend2 is scolding him/her i/*2/*3 -' This section has presented the identification of pro and ta in the gap position related to the IP-adjoined base-generated major subject or {lian-) NPs. It is suggested that in most of the cases ta is the overt form of pro. However, certain cases show that the presence of ta helps the predication relation between the major subject and the rest of the sentence. It has also been proposed that the so-called “resumptive pronoun” is actually a p 5tf//r/o-resumptive pronoun to be inteipreted with the major subject under a certain “aboutness, belonging” predication relation. It is obligatorily A ’-bound, when the major subject is locally raised to the root [Spec TopicP] position. It is not a spell-out of a movement variable. ‘1 remember the place that ZhangsanI's girlfriend2 has scolded him 1/3 .’ 1 9 5 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4.3.4. Does Chinese Have Resum ption Pronouns? The previous discussion suggests that there is no genuine resum ptive pronoun as a free spell-out of the variable in Chinese topic structures, as well as in focalization as discussed in chapter three (cf. the genuine resum ptive pronouns in languages like Hebrew in Sells (1984), Vata in Koopman and Sportiche (1981), etc.). In section 3.2 I have demonstrated that no resumptive pronoun is allowed in the gap position related to the focalized NP in [Spec FP]. I also have mentioned that in general A-moved NPs do not leave pronominal copies. The lack of a resumption strategy in focalization reflects C. Hagège’s (1975:218) insight: “il ne peut y avoir de reprise dans le cas de la focalisation” (“focalizers do not allow the presence of a pronominal copy of the element on which they put focus,” (translated by Paris (1979)). In the previous section I propose that overt pronouns in topic sentences are not simply spell-outs of variables; rather they are related to major subjects (but A-free from m ajor subjects). After the major subject raises to topic position, it is obligatorily A ’-bound by the topic. Hence, /7 A ’e»r/o-resumptive pronouns can be construed with major subjects but not focalized phrases in [Spec FP] position inasm uch as major subjects have to bear a certain predication relation with the comment clause, but there is no such requirement for focalization. The prohibition against construing resumptive pronouns with syntactic foci seem to be attested to in English as well. According to Culicover (1993), sentence (148a-2) is well-formed. This is because the association of a focus constituent with the operator o/j/v is subject to a locality requirement, and clefting Robin in (148a-2) does not cross any islands. However, sentence (148b-2) is unacceptable because Robin crosses the relative clause and violates the Subjacency. 196 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (148) a-1 Kim only likes pictures of ROBIN. a-2 It’s only Robin that Kim likes pictures of t b -1 Kim only knows people who like ROBIN b-2 *It’s only Robm\ that Kim knows people who like ti (Culicover 1993:#26, 27) If focus-moved phrases do not allow resumption as mentioned above, I predict that C ulicover’s sentences (148a-2) and (148b-2) will be out even with pronominal copies in the gapped positions. This is in fact borne out. Consider (149a) and (149b). (149) a. *It’s only Robin\ that Kim likes pictures of him\ b. *It’s only Robin\ that Kim knows people who like him\ Sentence (148a-2) becomes illicit when a resumptive pronoun is inserted as in (149a). (148b-2) cannot be improved by inserting a pronoun copy as in (149b). Furthermore, the real topicalized sentences (e.g. which show reconstmction effects) discussed in section 4.1 do not allow resumptive pronouns. Sentences (28) and (29) are repeated as following. (28) ?Tazijii, Zhangsani chang piping (*tai). himself, Zhangsan often criticize ‘Himself, Zhangsan often criticizes.’ (29) Lian Tazijii, Zhangsani dou chang piping (*tai). - j LIAN himself, Zhangsan DOU often criticize ‘Even himself, Zhangsan also often criticizes.’ They indicate that a directly moved topic from the gap position does not allow a resumptive pronoun. Similarly, the reflexive taziji in (150a) can refer to either the 197 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. m atrix o r th e embedded subject. This is a d ire c tly to p ic a liz e d NP; see section 4.1. H o w ev er, com pare (150) and (151). (150) [Taziji 1 /2 de niipengyouja, Zhangsani x i w a n g L isÎ2 neng quan-yi-quan t3 him selfs girlfriend Zhangsan hopes L is i c a n p acify ‘H isi/2 own girlfriend, Zhangsani h o p e s L i s i 2 c a n pacify.' (151) [Tazijii/* 2 de nüpengyoujs Zhangsani x i w a n g L isi2 neng quan-yi-quan t3 3 him selfi’s girlfriends Zhangsani hopes L i s i c a n pacify hers A lth o u g h the pronoun ta in the embedded object p o s i t i o n refers to the first NP taziji de n iip en g y o u ‘his own girlfriend,’ the reflexive in t h e N P only refers to the matrix su b je c t Z h a n g sa n , in contrast to (150). T h e re fo re , t h e first NP in (151) is base- g en erated , rather than a directly moved topic fro m t h e e m b e d d e d clause. Therefore, the p ro n o u n to in (151) is not a spell-out of a m o v e d v a r ia b le . A n o th er example is (119’), repealed b e lo w . H e r e , neigeren ‘that man’ is d ire c tly m oved from the complex NP, instead o f b e in g interpreted as a base- g en erated m ajor subject; see section 4.3.3.2. T h e p r e s e n c e of to does not save this sentence. (1 1 9 ’) ?*Neige reni [gwo hu xiangxin [n p[s L i s i k a n jia n toi] de zheju hua]] that man 1 not believe Lisi see h i m C o m p this statement ‘Lit: That man, 1 don’t believe the s ta t e m e n t th a t Lisi has seen him.’ L e t us look at overt pronominal copies in r e l a t i v e clauses in (152) and (153) and c o m p a re them with the pienJo-resum ptive p r o n o u n s in (154) and (155). While the o v e rt pronom inal copies show a su b ject/o b ject a s y m m e tr y in (152) and (153), there is n o such asymmetry in the topic sentences o f ( 1 5 4 ) and (155). 198 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (152) ? [ n p [c p w o xihuan tai de] neige reni]] I like him Comp that-CL person ‘?*the person 1 that I like him i’ (153) * [ n p [c p tai cong-bu gen wo shuohua de] neige reni]] he never with me talk Comp that-CL person ‘*the person 1 who hei never talks with me’ (154) Zhangsani wo xihuan tai Zhangsan I like him ‘Zhangsani I like him i’ (155) Zhangsan tai cong-bu gen wo shuohua Zhangsan he never with me talk ‘Zhangsani he% never talks with me’ W ith respect to the overt pronominal copies in gaps inside relative clauses, I suggest that they are on a par with bound pronouns, both of which seem to obey an A ’- disjointness requirement in the sense of Aoun and Li (1990) and McClosky (1990). Ta inside relative clauses is bound by a relative operator proposed by Ning (1993). Bound pronouns are bound by QPs in A-positions. Hence we limit A ’-disjointness to bound pronouns related to an operator element, a QP, or a relative head (operator). The pA ’ÉfW(/o-resumptive pronoun in major subject/topic structures is A ’-bound by the topic and can be referentially interpreted with the major subject. Another occurrence of an overt pronominal copy is after prepositions. Ning (1993: 35) states that this pronoun aims to escape ECP violations (e.g. Tellier (1991)). 199 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (156) [n p [cp wo [pp gen la; tiaowu de] neige ren;]] I with he dance Comp that-CL person 'the person that I dance with him’ Nevertheless, I think the overt pronominal in (156) does not really argue for the existence of resumptive pronouns, since languages do not allow preposition stranding in general as in (157). (157) W o gen *{ta) tiaowu I with (him) dance ‘I dance with *(him).’ To sum up, in Chinese genuine resumptive pronouns as free spell-outs of variables do not seem to exist. Genuinely moved topic gaps do not allow overt pronominal copies in Chinese. The so-called resumptive pronouns are actually pseudo-rcsum plive pronouns. They are A’-bound if there is a topic, and can be referentially interpreted with the major subject. Overt pronominal copies in relative clauses behave like bound pronouns which are subsumed under an A ’-disjointness requirement in the sense of Aoun and Li (ibid.). 4.4. Summary and Discussion Therfore, the discussion of chapters three and four can be summarized in the following Table 4-III. 200 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Table 4-III: I n m IV Focalization to [Spec FP] (S-lian-Odou-W) T opicalization to [Spec TPjl (OSV) (lian-O-S-doii-'V) BG S-initial (lia n -) NP (OSV) (lian-O-S-dou-y) Major Subject 1. Subjacency obey obey not obey not obey 2. Allowing ta no no yes t t t yes t t t 3. WCO Effects no yes no N/A 4. Binding Reconstraction no yes no N/A direct topicalization from gap to [Spec TP] especially in long-distance topicalization ttt; if “aboutness, belonging” predication relation can be established Colum n 1 is the focalization discussed in chapter three. This is a clear case of syntactic Focus constituent movement in Chinese. Columns II, III, IV are the cases discussed in sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 respectively. It is shown that genuine m ovem ent diagnoses are relevant for Chinese, such as island sensitivity. Binding reconstruction effects, weak crossover effects and lack of resumption strategy. This analysis also suggests that [Focus] should be included as a formal feature (cf. Hovarth 1986), in addition to other formal features, such as categorial features, < [ ) - features. Case feature, and strong F, where F is categorial, listed in Chom sky (1995). Movement is feature attracted, triggered in the sense of Chomsky (1993; 1994). The analysis presented here not only resolves the long-standing problem of (non-) movement of topic structure in Chinese, it also naturally accounts for a wide range of data. Moreover, the comparison between Chinese and Japanese can provide m ore insight for our understanding of Universal Grammar, particularly with respect to (non-) topicalized sentences in the so-called topic-prominenet languages. 201 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4.4.1. B ase-G en erated M a jo r S u b ject vs. E nglish IP -a d jo in e d T opic As noted in sections 4.1 and 4.2.4, long-distance topicalized Han-NPs are sensitive to wh-islands, repeated in (158). Syntactic rv/z-island is observed in English vv/z-movement and topicalization, as given in (159) and (160).^^ (158) 2*Lian neiben shu; wo xiangzhi dao [ni dou shenmeshihou yao ti\. LIAN that-CL book, I wonder you DOU when want ‘Even that book, 1 wonder when you want.’ (159) ??W hati do you wonder whether John put f; (160) ??this book, Mary wonder whether John bought f, 1 have argued that the IP-adjoined position is for the base-generated major subject. Topicalization in Chinese is nol moved IP-adjunction. In contrast, Baltin’s (1982) and Lasnik and Saito’s (1993), L&S hereafter, argue that English topicalization involves movement IP-adjunction. Although our current proposal and theirs allow IP-adjunction (especially in embedded contexts), Chinese and English display different properties. 1 suggest that the difference between base-generation/ movement of IP-adjunction between Chinese and English respectively is due to the possibility of having major subjects in Chinese. 67 In this analysis, I do not adopt movement of IP-adjunction, since IP-adjunction is already reserved for base-generated NP or major subject. Chom sky’s (1986) stipulation of barring IP-adjunction of vv/z-phrases is because the em bedded CP would not inherit barrierhood if a vv/z-phrase adjoins to IP, the newly formed IP will not be a blocking category, since the adjoined element is not excluded by IP. According to him, the embedded IP is only a relevant bai rier for in (i). (i) ..[vp wonder [cp whether [jp [ip .. t T_________________________________ iT I In contrast, Lasnik and Saito (1993) observe that the w/z-island condition holds for topicalization as well. Since they allow IP-adjunction of topicalization, they revise the B arrier’ s system by positing that adjoined IP and original IP are separate maximal projections in order to rule out both w/z-movement and topicalization in w/z-island cases. Hence for them the long-distance extraction crosses only one CP banier. 202 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. In English Baltin (1982) has noted that embedded topicalization is possible but embedded left-dislocation is not, repeated in (161) and (162). (161) the man to whom liberty, we could never grant (=Baltin’s (69)) (162) *the man to whom liberty, we could never grant it (=Baltin’s (86)) However, recall that Chinese allows a base-generated IP-adjoined “m ajor subject” in relative clauses, or non-root contexts, and a p^enr/o-resumptive pronoun to be interpreted with it. Hence, the sentences in (163) are acceptable. (163) a. W o renshi [n p neige [cp[ip Zhangsani [IP wo jue bu huijieshao gei toi t2 ]] de] reni] that-CL Zhangsan 1 absolutely not will introduce he Com p person ‘Lit: 1 know the man to whom 1 would never introduce Zhangsani.’ b. Ruguo Zhangsan ni bu ting to] de hua, ni jiu yao shou chufa ‘Lit: Zhangsan (is such that) you don’t listen to his word, then you will be punished.’ In short, while a left-dislocated topic in English relative clauses is barred (162), base-generated (IP-adjoined) major subjects in Chinese can appear in non-root contexts and pem iit a pjgwr/o-resumptive pronoun to be interpreted w ith the major subject. That is, English allows topicalization through IP-adjunction, especially in embedded contexts, Chinese does not have this movement IP-adjunction. Rather, the S-initial NP or major subject is base-generated in IP-adjoined position. The difference between these two languages is due to the existence of an extra major subject position in Chinese. 203 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4.4.2. Scope of V K /î - I n te rr o g a tiv e I have proposed that a topic sits in [Spec TopicP] which is sti uclurally higher than C P in root contexts, repeated in (164a), (cf. C hom sky (1977), H uang ( 1 9 8 2 ) ) . Major subjects or base-generated S-intial (lian-) NPs are in the IP- adjoined position either in root or non-root contexts, as in (164b). (164) a. [Topic? [C P [lP ]]] b [cP [IP major subject [ip .. ]]] Spec o f CP position is reserved for n'/?-phrases raised there at LF (Huang 1982) or w/z-operators raised there in syntax (e.g. Aoun and Li (1993)). Let us consider (165), (166) and (167). Recall that only major subjects, rather than topics, can appear in non-root contexts without expressing categorical judgment; in particular see the generic numeral major subject in (166). M ajor subjects in these sentences are base-generated in the IP-adjoined position in the embedded clauses. The embedded [Spec CP] is reserved for the covertly or overtly moved vv/z-arguments.®^ (165) Wo xiangzhidao [cp lip Zhongpuo F t p nar zuihao warn]]] I wonder China where most fun ‘I wonder which part of China is most fun.’ I refer readers to Ning’s (1993) com parisons between N P-m ovem ent of topicalization and operator movement of relativization. T ang (1990) argues that Zhongguo in (165) is not in the scope of the iv/z-phrase at LF because it is not China to be asked about; rather it is the places in China that are asked about. (She then proposes to base-generate topic in CP-adjoined position.) I think her point is not relevant to the scope of iv/z and major subject; rather it is due to different restrictions within vv/z-phrases. Let us look at other plausible cases. Com pare (i) and (ii). They differ in their restriction clauses, rather than in different scopes of vv/z. (i) jiaoshi de nar elassroom Gen. where ‘which place x, x in the classroom’ (ii) nar de jiaoshi where Gen. classroom ‘which place x, classroom(s) in x’ 2 0 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ( 166) Zhangsan xiangzhidao [cp [ip vizhi kongque [ip shenshang nar zui piaoliang]]] Zhangsan wonder one-CL peakcock body where most beautiful ‘Zhangsan wonders which part of a peakcock is the most beautiful’ (167) Zhangsan xiangzhidao zheben shui shei mai le p /o i? ‘Lit: Zhangsan wonder this book who bought’ As for weishenme ‘why,’ I will assume that it can occur either inside IP or in the Spec of CP in syntax (cf. Lin (1992)).’ ^° The sentences in (168) are predicted to be well-foiTned by the current proposal. '7 0 The following will present arguments that permit weishenme to be generated inside IP (I-adjunctionX in addition to the Spec of CP position argued for by Lin (1992). First, Lin (ibid.) ascribes the ungrammaticality of (i) to the reason that weishenme only occurs in [Spec CP]. (i) *rrWeishenme ta chuli nei-bi qian] de shuofa] bijiao kexin? why he handle that-CL money Comp story more reliable ‘What is the reason x such that the story that he handles the money for x is more reliable.’ (Lin 1992: 296) Nevertheless, compare (i) with (ii). If [Spec CP] were the only position for weishenme, he cannot explain why in the same relative clause but when weishenme follows the subject ta, sentence (ii) becomes perfect. (ii) [[ta weishenme chuli nei-bi qian] de shuofa] bijiao kexin? he why handle that-CL money Comp story more reliable ‘What is the reason x such that the story that he handles the money for x is more reliable.’ Moreover, according to Lin, weishenme in (iii) is in [Spec CP] and the subject ta is topicalized to Spec of Topic position or CP-adjunction; hence, (iv) is ruled out. (iii) Ta weishenme yinggai/bixu zuo nei-jian shi? (iv) *Ta yinggai/bixu weishenme zuo nei-jian shi? he should/must why do that-CL thing ‘Why should/must/would he do that?’ (Lin 1992: 294) Besides this possibility, I think the contrast between (iii) and (iv) may also be due to the I-adjunction of weishenme. (iv) is bad because weishenme is generated lower than I® , assuming espitemic modals can occur in I^. Therefore, under closer examination of the positions of w eishenm e, there is no reason to bar the possibility of I-adjunction. 205 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (168) a. W o xiangzhidao f r p [ i p Zhongguo IChanpcheng weishenm e voum inlll I wonder China Great Wall why famous b. W o xiangzhidao [cp weishenm e iipZhongguo [Changcheng youmin]]] I wonder why China Great Wall famous I wonder why in China Great Wall is famous.’ Lin (ibid.) argues that weishenme is generated in the Spec of CP, (168a) is derived from topicalizing NPs, either by CP-adjunction or Spec of Topic substitution (also see Tang (1990)). If topicalization were able to adjoin to CP in embedded contexts or move to a higher position than CP, then we could not prevent extraction from embedded contexts involving Subjacency cases, i.e. CP would always be able to be debarrierized. Without running into Lin’s and Tang’s problem, our IP-adjunction analysis can naturally account for the acceptability of (168). The last point is related to the lack of wh interaction with lian-NPs. For regular universal QPs, Aoun and Li (1993) point out that they interact with wh- interrogatives. According to them, sentence (169) is ambiguous between a same object that everyone bought or different objects that aie distributed to eveiyone. (169) M eigeren dou (gei Zhangsan) maile shem e? (ambiguous) everyone all for Zhangsan buy Asp what 'W hat did everyone buy (for Zhangsan)?’ Although there exists such an interaction between regular universal QPs and wh, it does not can y over to lian..dou sentences. (170) with //a/i-subject and vv/i-object is not am biguous. It only means that others bought something, and the speaker is 2 0 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. questioning whether even Lisi bought that thing. It seems that (170) is an echo qeustion.^i (170) L ian Lisi dou (gei Zhangsan) maile shem e? (unambiguous) LIAN Lisi DOU for Zhangsan bought what ‘W hat did even Lisi buy (for Zhangsan)?’ In section 2 .1 .4 .1 ,1 have demonstrated that lian-NPs behave like universal QPs syntactically. The only difference between them is in the conventional implicatures in lian...dou sentences. Similarly, the contrast between (169) and (170) may be because in uttering (170) a speaker already has a certain implication. Hence, the wh cannot be non-specific. Since the wh is always specific, no interaction holds. To conclude, the analysis proposed in this chapter, summarized in Table 4- III, naturally explains the difference between the English moved IP-adjoined topic and the Chinese base-generated IP-adjoined major subject. It also correctly predicts the w/z-interogative scope in topic/ major subject sentences. The lack of interaction between an gvg/z-NP and a w/z-element also exists in English. 2 0 7 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. CH A PTER FIVE: RELATED ISSUES In section 5.1 I first outline the distinctions with respect to inverted word order between Chinese and Japanese, and concludes that Chinese lacks scrambling properties. In section 5.2 I will discuss the scope interpretation of lian..dou/ye sentences in Chinese. It will be shown that the structures proposed in chapter four match the scope interpretations and the association with focus in lian...clou/ye construction. 5.1. F ocalization , T opicalization vs. Scram bling Scrambling has been well-studied in the literature; see Hoji (1985), Mahajan (1990), Nemoto (1993), Saito (1985; 1992; 1993), Tada (1990), Yoshimura (1992) and references cited there. The issue at stake is the A/A’-distinction of different types of scrambling: Sm all' (VP-external), Medium (simplex clause internal) and Long scrambling. Assuming the basic word order in Japanese is S-IO-DO-V (see Hoji 1985), (lb ), (2b) and (3b) are the results of M-scrambling, S-scrambling and L- scrambling respectively. (1) a. Michael-ga hon-o kaita (koto) M. -Nom book-Acc wrote ‘Michael wrote a book.’ b. [ip hon-oi [ip Michael-ga [yp ti kaita ]]] (koto) book-Acc M.-Nom wrote ' 1 am also aware of VP-internal scrambling as proposed by Takano (1995). W hether his VP-internal scrambling is the same as the Small-scrambling discussed by Nemoto (1993), Saito (1994) and Tada (1990) is beyond the scope of this thesis. For ease of discussion, 1 use S-scrambling (VP-extrenal) scrambling here. 208 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (2) a. Michael-ga Kate-ni hon-o okutta (koto) M . -Norn K.-Dat book-acc sent ‘Michael sent Kate a book.’ b. [ i p Michael-ga [yp hon-oj [Kate-ni okutta]]] (koto) M.-Nom book-Acc K.-Dat sent (3) a. [Taroo-ga [cp Hanako-ga sono hon-o yonda to] itta] (koto) T. -Norn H.-Nom that book-Acc read Comp said fact ‘Taro said that Hanako read that book.’ b. [Sono hon-o 1 [TaiTO-ga [cp Hanako-ga t\ yonda to] itta] (koto) that book-Acc T. -Nom H.-Nom read Comp said fact ‘That booki. Taro said that Hanako read /].’ (Saito 1992: 83) The properties of the three types of scrambling discussed in the literature are sum m arized in Table 5-1. I will refer readers to this literature w ithout further repeating the data here. Table 5-1: S - sc ra m b lin g M - sc ra m b lin g L - s c ra m b lin g 1. Subjacency N/A yes yes 2. Allow pronominal copy no no no 3. WCO effects^ no no no+t 4. Binding Reconstioiction no yes yes 5. Anaphor Binding N/A yes no 1 " : WCO = weak crossover t t; Mahajan (1989) obseiwes that long-distance scrambling in Hindi does not remedy WCO violations when the pronoun is in an embedded clause. However, Yoshimura (1989) shows that Japanese long-distance scrambling remedies WCO violations. Also see Saito (1992: fn. 39). 209 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Tada and Saito (1991), and Nemoto (1993) have argued that S-scrambling to the post subject position is A-movement based on the examples in (4) and (5),^ which lack reconstruction effects Principle A and C respectively. (4) a. Michael-ga [Kate-to Joe]i-ni otagaii-o syookaisita -nom and dat each other-acc introduce ‘Michael introduced Kate and Joe to each other.’ b. *Michael-ga otagaii-o FKate-to Joeli-ni t\ syookaisita M.-Nom each other-Acc K-and-J.-Dat introduced (5) a. *Joe-ga karei-ni [Michaeli-no fan-o] syookaisita (koto) Joe-Nom he-Dat Michael-Gen fan-Acc introduced (fact) ‘Lit: Joe introduced, to him, Michael’s fan.’ b. Joe-ga [Michael 1-no fan]2 -o karei-ni syookaisita (koto) ‘Joe introduced Michael’s fan to him.’ Tada (1990) observes that S-scrambling remedies WCO violations. (6) ?John-ga darei-o [[soitui-ni aitagatteiru] hito]-ni t\ syookaisita no John-Nom who-Acc he-Dat want-to-meet person-Dat introduced Q ‘Who did John introduce to the person who wanted to see him?’ 2 Takano (1995), however, gave (i) and (ii) to show the connectivity observed in this type o f scrambling (VP-internal scrambling for him). Compare with (4b), the reflexive is further embedded in (i). The sentences in (ii) shows the bound reading of the bound pronoun soitu ‘that guy, he.’ I will not linger on this issue here. (i) a. Mai-y-ga John-to Bill-nii [otagaii-no sensei]-o syookaisita -Nom -and -Dat each-other-Gen teacher-Acc intioduced ‘?Mary introduced each other’s teacher to John and Bill.’ b. ?Mary-ga [otagaii-no sensei] - 0 2 John-to Bill-nii t2 syookaisita Mai-y-Nom each-other-Gen teacher-Acc John-and Bill-Dat introduced (ii) a. Mai-y-ga subete-no gakuseii-ni [soitui-no sensei]-o syookaisita -Nom all-Gen student-Dat he-Gen teacher-Acc intioduced ‘?Mary introduced hisi teacher to every studenti.’ b. Mai-y-ga [soitui-no sensei]2-o subete-no gakuseii-ni t2 syookaisita -Nom he-Gen teacher-Acc all-Gen student-Dat intioduced 210 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Moreover, Saito (1994) notes that scrambling out of a finite embedded clause to a matrix post-subject position is not permitted, as in (7b).^ A possible landing site for long-distance scrambling is the sentence initial position as in (7c). (7) a. John-ga Bill-ni [cp Mary-ga sono hon-o motteiru to] itta (koto) John-Nom B.-Dat M.-Nom that book-Acc have that said fact ‘John said to Bill that Mary has that book.’ b. ??John-ga sono hon-oi Bill-ni [cp Mai-y-ga t\ motteiru to] itta (koto) book-Acc John-Nom B.-Dat M.-Nom that have that said fact c. Sono hon-o 1 John-ga Bill-ni [cpM aiy-ga t\ motteim to] itta (koto) book-Acc John-Nom B.-Dat M.-Nom that have that said fact The above Japanese S-scrambling with A-movement properties is reminiscent of Chinese focalization. As discussed in chapter three, focalization to a strict preverbal position rem edies weak crossover effects, does not force binding reconstruction effects, and is clause-bound. It has been argued previously that Chinese focalization is a strong [+Focus] feature attracted movement. W hether Japanese scrambling is also triggered by the same mechanism is beyond the scope of this thesis. I will leave this for further research. Let us now consider inverted word order to a S-initial position. In Japanese it is derived by either topicalization or scrambling with distinguishable case markers and properties (e.g. Hoji 1985, Saito 1985). However, Chinese does not have morphological case markers to distinguish both, and inverted word order can be analyzed in Chinese as either topicalization (m ovem ent) or base-generation 3 However, Saito’s (1994) VP-adjunction (S-)scrambling can be moved out of a non-finite embedded clause, e.g. control complement. 211 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. structures. The following will provide more data to show that Chinese lacks the properties of Japanese scrambling. As noted by Hoji (1985), and the intuition from Kuroda (1970: 138), scrambling creates scope ambiguity. (9a), corresponding to (10a), is unambiguous with the scope everyone over someone. Scope ambiguity results from the scrambled QP object in (9b) equivalent to (10b). (9) a QP-ga QP-o V (unambiguous) b QP-o QP-ga V (ambiguous) (10) a. Daremo-ga dareka-o semeta (unambiguous) eveiy/one-Nom someone-Acc criticized b. Dareka-o Daremo-ga semeta (ambiguous) someone-Acc everyone-Nom criticized Chinese (11a) is on a par with Japanese (10a), in which everyone has scope over someone. Nevertheless, in contrast to Japanese (10b), some book in (1 lb) does not interact with meigeren ‘everyone,’ instead it only denotes a specific book bought by everyone. (11) a. Meigeren dou mai le yiben shu (V>3) evei-yone DOU buy Asp one book ‘Everyone bought a book.’ b. You yiben shu meigeren dou mai le. (3>V) % have one-CL book everyone DOU buy Asp ‘(There is) one book everyone bought.’ Related to this point, Hoji (1985; 1994-5 class notes) has shown that Japanese scrambling displays a bound variable dependency (connectivity). Hence 212 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. the scrambled object containing a bound variable in (12b) is interpreted as though it is in its original position. (12) a. Subetei-no syookengaisya-ga [sokoi-no daini kumiai]-o tubusimasita all-Gen stock company-Nom its-Gen 2nd union-Acc destroyed ' Every 1 stock company destroyed itsi 2nd labor union.’ b. [Sokoi-no daini kumiai]2 -o subetei-no syookengaisya-ga ?2 tubusimasita its-Gen 2nd union-Acc all-Gen stock company-Nom destroyed Nevertheless, inverted word order in Chinese does not seem to have such a clear dependency relation with "bound pronouns.’'^ Although ta/ziji in (13a) can be inteipreted as bound variables, it is hard to interpret a bound reading in (13b) when they occur in an S-initial position. (13) a. Meigeren 1 dou bu manyi Zhangsan gei zijii/tai de chengji everyone DOU not satisfied Zhangsan give self’s/his grade ' Everyone 1 is not satisfied with the grades that Zhangsan gave to him i/him selfi.’ b. *?[Zhangsan gei zijii/tai de chengji] meigeren; dou bu manyi Zhangsan give self’s/his grade eveiyone DOU not satisfied Second, Chinese topic/major subject structures differ from Japanese (M/L)- scrambling in that the pronoun kare is not allowed in the gap positions related to scrambled phrases, as in (14), but the pseudo-vcsumplWc pronoun ta is allowed in Chinese in the gap position related to the major subject, or to be A ’-bound by a locally raised topic in root contexts; see the discussion in chapter four.^ 4 This point is based on the discussions in Hoji and Li’s 1995 summer class. 5 Recall that Chinese focalization docs not allow resumption at all. 213 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (14) Johni-o [Mary-ga [Bill-ga (*karei-o) butta to] omotteita -top -nom -nom he-acc hit COMP was thinking ‘Johni, Mary thought that Bill hit ti.' Third, while Japanese allows multiple application of scrambling (Saito 1985; 1992), Chinese does not seem to allow multiple fronting. Japanese (15b) from Saito (1992) is acceptable, but multiple fronting of PP in Chinese (16b, c) is not good.^ (15) a. Taroo-ga [cp Hanako-ga Masao-ni sono hon-o watasita to] omotteim (koto) T.-Nom H.-Nom M.-Dat that book-Acc handed Comp think fact T aro thinks that Hanako handed that book to M ary.’ b . Sono hon-Oi Masao-ni% Taroo-ga [cp Hanako-ga t2t\ watasita to] omotteim (koto) ‘That booki, to Masao2 , Taro thinks that Hanako handed (Saito 1992: #30) (16) a. Wo xiang Zhangsan cong Meiguo ji le yiben shu gei Lisi. 1 think Zhangsan from USA mail Asp one book to Lisi I think that Zhangsan mailed one book to Lisi from the USA.’ b. *Cong Meiguo 1, gei Lisii, wo xiang Zhangsan 0 ji le yiben shu t2- from USA to Lisi I think Zhangsan mail Asp one book c. *Gei Lisi2 , cong M eiguoi, wo xiang Zhangsan t\ Ji le yiben shu t2- to Lisi from USA 1 think Zhangsan mail Asp one book In addition to multiple scrambling in Japanese, it is possible to overtly scramble w/?-phrases, which are different from covert iv/j-movement (see Takahashi 6 I use PP-fronting here to exclude the possibility of base-generating either argument from Saito’s example. I thank Hoji (p.c.) for this point. 214 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (1993) and references cited there). Chinese does not allow overt tv/t-scrambling, although both languages are w/t-in-situ languages which display LF iv/;-movement properties. Takahashi (ibid.) notes that Japanese (17b) and (17c) are acceptable, with wh in the intermediate embedded clause and in the matrix clause respectively. (17) a. Kimi-wa [John-ga [Mary-ga nani-o tabetaka] sitteiru to] omotteim no? you-Top J.-Nom M.-Nom what-Acc ate Q know Comp think Q ‘Do you think that John knows what Mary ate?’ ‘What do you think that John knows whether Mary ate?’ b. Kimi-wa I r p nanii-o John-ga [Mary-ga t\ tabeta kajsitteim to] omotteim no? Do you think what, John knows (Q/whether) Maiy ate? c. Nanii-o kimi-wa [cpJohn-ga [Mary-ga 1 \ tabeta ka] sitteim to] omotteim no? ‘W hat do you think that John knows whether Mary ate?’ In contrast to Japanese, Chinese shenm e ‘what’ does not seem to be able to be topicalized, although one may use shenme dongxi ‘what thing’ to make it more D(iscourse)-linked. What is more important is that a w/;-phrase cannot occur in the intermediate embedded clause, as the ungrammaticality of (18b) shows. (18) a. Ni xiang [cp Zhangsan renwei [cp Mali chi le shenmell ‘Lit: you think Zhangsan thinks Mali ate what’ b. *Ni xiang I r p shenmei Zhangsan renwei [cp Mali chi le ?i]] ‘Lit: you think what Zhangsan thinks Mali ate.’ c. ?*shenmei ni xiang [cp Zhangsan renwei [cp Mali chi le ri]] ‘Lit: What you think Zhangsan thinks Mali ate.’ 215 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Recall the discussion in section 4.1; fronting to an S-initial position displaying A ’-movement properties is the genuine case of topicalization in Chinese. Base-generated S-initial (//o/j)-objects can accommodate Japanese A-movement of M- scrambling (see section 4.2). Under these considerations with the above different properties between both languages, there is no need to postulate the presence of a scrambling mechanism in Chinese. Let us consider the A-movement properties of Japanese M -scram bling discussed by Saito (1992; 1994) and others; namely, anaphor binding and remedy of weak crossover violations. According to Saito (ibid.), the contrast between (19a) and (19b) is because the reciprocal otagai in (19a) is not bound by its antecedent, but in (19b) it is bound by the scrambled karera ‘they,’ which occurs in an A-position.^ (19) a. ?*[Otagaii-no senseil-ga karerai-o hihansita (koto) each other-Gen teacher-Nom they-Acc criticized (fact) ‘Each other’si teachers criticized them i.’ b. ? lkarerai-o [[otagaii-no sensei]-ga t\ hihansita]] (koto) they-Acc each other-Gen teacher-Nom criticized (fact) The remedy of WCO violations as argued by Saito is that (M )-scrambling may involve A-movement, shown in (20) from Saito (1992) and Yoshimura (1992). (20) a. ?*Masao-wa Fp p Hanako-ga gi yomu mae-nilfdono honi-o vondal no Masao-Top Hanako-Nom read before which book-Acc read Q ‘[Masao [read which booki][before Hanqako read e i]]’ However, Hoji (1995a), (1995b) argues that Japanese otagai is not a local reciprocal anaphor. It need not have its antecedent in its local domain. It need not have a reciprocal interpretation of the sort typically associated with each other in English. It need not be c-commanded by its antecedent, and it allows split antecedence. 2 1 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. b. D onoM û-oi [Masao-wa [Hanako-ga é?i yomu mae-ni][ri-o yonda]] no which book-Acc -Top -Nom read before read Q ‘Which booki, [Masao [read fi][before Hanako read e i]]’ I have shown in section 4.2 that IP-adjoined S-initial {Han-) NPs remedy W CO violations, and allow p^et/c/o-resumptive pronouns. They are analyzed as base- generation without further postulating an A-movement fronting to a S-initial position. Furthermore, Chinese topicalization can accommodate the A ’-movement of both (M)- and (L)-scrambling cases. Namely, fronting is A ’-movement to tlie topic position. They exhibit binding reconstmction effects, as (21) and (22). (21) Zibunzisin-oi [Hanako-ga t \ criticized] (koto) himself Hanako-Nom criticize (Saito 1992: #17) (22) ?*Masao-no hahaoya-o [kare-ga t aisiteiru] (koto) Masao-gen mother-acc he-nom love fact ‘Masao’s mother, he loves.’ (Saito 1985) Therefore, the above data indicates that Chinese does not display identical scrambling properties to Japanese. One reason may be because Chinese does not have overt case markers to indicate whether the dislocated element is topicalized or scrambled. Furthermore, movement in Chinese is less free than that in Japanese. Namely, movement in Chinese is either triggered by a [+Focus] feature or topic structure. This may be related to the different clausal stmctures in the two languages. As suggested by Fukui (1993), Japanese is a head final language both in NPs and clauses, thus scrambling is free. Clause structure in Chinese and English is not head final, hence movement is more costly. How this correlation is attested needs further empirical support. 1 will leave this issue for future research. 217 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5.2. Focus Issues 5.2.1. A ssociation with Focus It has been noted in the literature (see Anderson (1972), Jackendoff (1972), Rooth (1985) among others) that focus adverbs, such as even, only or just, can associate focus elements as long as the focus/foci fall(s) within the domain (or scope) of the focus adverbs, and they can be phonologically stressed. This is the idea of Jackendoff’s (ibid.) association with focus rule, repeated in (23). Association with focus will be able to take place only if the focus is within the scope (‘range’ in Jackendoffs term) of even. (23) Range of even If even is directly dominated by a node X, the range of even includes X and all nodes dominated by X to the right of even , plus the subject if X is an S. His examples in (24) indicate that when even occurs before a VP, all the elements including the subject are in the range oieven.^ (24) a. JOHN even gave his daughter a new bicycle. b. John even gave his DAUGHTER a new bicycle. c. John even gave HIS daughter a new bicycle. d. John even gave his daughter a NEW bicycle. e. John even gave his daughter a new BICYCLE. f . John even GAVE his daughter a new bicycle. W hen even occurs before the subject, it only associates the subject John in (25). Phonologically suessed focus associates are shown with capital letters. 218 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (25) a. Even JOHN gave his daughter a new bicycle. b. *Even John GAVE c. * HIS d. * DAUGHTER e. * NEW f. * BICYCLE In addition to association with focus, a sentence may allow m ultiple focus devices.^ For example, a sentence can have a focus adverb associating a focus, and at the same time contain a str uctural focus, such as English cleft sentences. Consider (26) and (27). (26) It is John that likes even Marv. (27) It is only Marv that John likes. In (26), the structural focus is the cleft head NP John. The focus operator even associates the focus to Mary which is not the same as the structural focus. The stiTJctural focus and focus associate coincide in (27), where the focus M a/y is marked by different focusing d e v i c e s , The point I would like to make here is that when there exist multiple focusing devices in a sentence, they do not necessar ily fall on the same focus, although they may do so. In Han..dou/ye sentences a //««-phrase bears m ajor stress (noted by Paris (1979)). This structural focus requires a syntactic [4-Focus] licensing mechanism which has been discussed in the previous chapters. In addition to the structural 9 Culicover (1993) states that there are at least three types of focusing devices: (i) stress focus, (ii) operator focus, such as wh, only, and even in English, and (iii) structural focus. He states that they cannot all be reduced to a uniform focusing device (cf. Rooth (1992)). 10 W hat I am concerned about here is the possibility of mutliple focusing devices within a sentence. My current concern is different from Krifka’s (1991), in which a sentence may have multiple focus adverbs and focus associates. 219 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. f o c u s , clou/ye, the head of the functional FocusP, functions as a focalizer (focus o p e ra to r) . The VP/AspP subcategorized by clou/ye falls within its scope (range). H e n c e elem ents inside the VP or the whole VP can be interpreted as focus associates w h e n th ey are contrastively interpreted or phonologically stressed. Note that the a s s o c ia tio n with focus is optional, since there is already a m ajor focus, /m n-NP. T a k e (28) for example, lian Hong-Loii-Meng is in FP Spec position. ( 2 8 ) Zhangsan I f p lian Hong-Lou-Meng doul du le Zhangsan LIAN Red Chamber Dream all read Asp ‘Zhangsan read even Red Chamber Dream.’ O n th e one hand, this FP Spec lian-NP is the major focus. The novel of Hong Lou M e n g is expected to be the least possible book that Zhangsan would read, in contrast w ith o th e r books in an understood context. On the other hand, the verb or the whole V P d om inated by dou may be associated with it. Consider (29b). The verb du ‘r e a d ’ is the focus associate (or could be phonologically stressed). Under the context o f (2 9 a ), (29b) is rendered as: Zhangsan even READ Hong-Lou-M eng to one’s s u rp r is e , not just bought it.’ ( 2 9 ) a. Zhangsan zuotian bu zhi lian Hong-Lou-Meng dou mai le, Zhang yesterday not only LIAN Red Chamber Dream DOU buy Asp, b . ta lian Hong-Lou-Meng dou DU le ne! he LIAN Hong-Lou-Meng DOU read Asp ‘Zhangsan not only bought even Red Chamber Dream, he also READ even Red Chamber Dream.’ W h e n the whole VP is the focus associate in a context like (30a), (30b) asserts an u n e x p e c te d event: Zhangsan’s reading of Hong-Lou-M eng, in contrast with other e v e n ts that Zhangsan did yesterday; e.g. washing dishes, writing letters, etc. 220 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (30) a. Zhangsan zuotian xi-le wan, xie-le hen duo xin, Zhangsan yesterday wash Asp dishes, write Asp many letters b. ta lian Hong-Lou-Meng dou du le ne! he LIAN Red Chamber Dream DOU read Asp ‘He even read Red Chamber Dream.’ In other words, when a //a«-phrase occurs in the FP position (focalized phrase discussed in chapter three), focus scope can include any elements dominated by the head of the FocusP, i.e. V, AspP or VP. Therefore, the sentences in (31) are felicitous, since the stressed elements are either inside the //on-phrases (31a, b), or within the scope of FP (31c, d). (31) a. Zhangsan [pp lian yiliang XINDE zixingche dou [vp song gei le Mali]], (er bu shi JIUDE) Zhangsan LIAN one NEW bike DOU give Asp Mali, rather not OLD DE ‘Zhangsan gave Mali even a NEW bike, (rather than an OLD (one)).’ b. Zhangsan [pp lian yiliang xinde ZIXINGCHE dou [ypsong gei le Mali]], (er bu shi wanju che). Zhangsan LIAN one new BIKE DOU give Asp Mali, rather a TOY CAR ‘Zhangsan gave Mali even a new BIKE, (rather than a TOY CAR).’ c. Zhangsan [pp lian yiliang xinde zixingche dou [yp SONG gei le Mali]], (er bu MAIGEI ta). Zhangsan LIAN one new bike DOU GIVE Asp Mali, not SELL him ‘Zhangsan even GAVE Mali a new bike, (rather than selling to her).’ 221 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. d. Zhangsan [pp lian yiliang xinde zixingche dou [yp song gei le MALI]], (er bu shi tade NÜER). Zhangsan LIAN one new bike DOU give Asp MALI, not his daughter ‘Zhangsan gave a new bike even to MALI, (rather than to his daughter).’ The subject Zhangsan in (32) is not within the scope of the focalizer, hence it is not likely to be interpreted as a focus associate.^* (32) *ZHANGSAN [f p lian yiliang xinde zixingche dou [yp song gei le Mali]], (er bu shi Lisi gei de.) Zhangsan LIAN one-CL new bike DOU send-give Asp Mali, but not Lisi give Asp ‘*ZHANGSAN gave Mali even a new bike, (not Lisi gave (her)).’ However, when the subject is the structural focus, elements in the range of doii/ye can be focus associates as in (33a, b). (33) a. Lian ZHANGSAN dou mai le shu. LIAN Zhangsan DOU buy Asp book ‘Even ZHANGSAN bought the books.’ b. Lian Zhanesan dou mai le SHU, (er bu shi zazhi). LIAN Zhangsan DOU buy Asp this-CL book, (but not be magazine) ‘Even Zhangsan also bought the BOOKS, (but not magazines).’ In addition to lian-even, Chinese also has focus adverb shenzhi ‘even.’ The adverb shenzhi can co-occur with Iian..doii/ye. Hshenzhi occurs before FP as in (i), the subject can be a focus associate, (i) is on a par with English (24a). The adverb shenzhi extends the focus scope (range) to the whole sentence. (i) Zhangsan shenzhi [pp lian yiliang xingde zixingche dou [yp song gei le Mali]], (er bu shi Lisi gei de.) Zhangsan even LIAN one-CL new bike DOU send-give Asp Mali, but not Lisi give Asp ‘Zhangsan even gave Mali even a new bike, (not Lisi gave (her)).’ Shenzhi differs from lian..dou/ye in that overt focus constituent movem ent is not obligatory. 222 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Therefore, when the //««-phrase occurs in the FP position focus scope covers the elements dominated by the head of the FocusP. Moreover, it seems that when a //««-phrase is base-generated in the S-initial IP-adjoined position (in section 4.2), the focus scope ranges over the whole sentence; e.g. the subject, the verb, and the object in (34a), (34b) and (34c) respectively can be focus associates. (34) a. [ip[ip Lian yiliang zixingche [ZHANGSAN dou song gei le Mali]]], (er bu shi Lisi song de). LIAN one bike ZHANGSAN DOU give Asp Mali ( not Lisi gave) ‘Z hangsan even gave a bike to Mali, rather Lisi gave (her).’ b. [ip[ip Lian yiliang zixingche [Zhangsan dou [yp SONG gei le Mali]]], (er bu MAIGEI ta). LIAN a bike Zhangsan DOU GAVE Mali, (rather than SELLING to her).’ ‘Zhangsan even GAVE a bike to Mali, rather than SELLING to her.’ c. [ip[ip Lian yiliang zixingche [Zhangsan dou [yp song gei le MALI]]], (er bu shi tade nuer). LIAN a new bike Zhangsan DOU gave MALI, not to his DAUGHTER ‘Zhangsan gave a bike even to MALI, rather than giving his DAUGHTER.’ To recapitulate, when a lian-NP appears inside the FP, the focus scope includes the elements dominated by the head of FP. W hen a lian-N P is base generated in the IP-adjoined position, the focus scope can extend to the whole sentence, as the contrast between (32) and (34a) indicates. 5.2.2. F ocus Scope W hen //««-NPs are topicalized to occur in root [Spec TopicP], they are contrastively focused. The following will show that while the focus scope of 223 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. English focus even or only adverbs is interpreted at LF, focus scope is represented in the syntax in Chinese. It has been known that when an English focus adverb modifies a VP, their scope is fixed, i.e. the VP; see Taglicht (1984) Rooth (1985), Kratzer (1989b) and Tancredi (1990). Sentence (35a) with only modifying VP is rendered as: like M ary is true of John, and for any x if likes x is true of John then x=Mary (from Tancredi (ibid.)). However, when the focus adverb modifies an object NP in a simplex clause (35b), either the object M aiy or the whole VP, like Maty, is in the scope of only. (35) a. John only likes Mary, b. John likes on/y Mary. M oreover, Taglicht (ibid.) has pointed out that in a complex clause when the embedded object is modified by a focus adverb, its scope may be extended across clause boundaries. Taglicht’s examples are repeated here. (36) a. I knew he had only learnt SPANISH. i. [embedded scope] OK ii. [matrix scope] * b. I knew he had learnt only SPANISH. i. [embedded scope] I knew he hadn’t learnt any other language. ii. [matrix scope] I didn’t know he had learnt any other language. (Taglicht, 1984:150) Only in (36a) modifies the embedded VP learnt Spanish. This VP is the only focus scope. When only modifies the embedded object Spanish as in (36b), the sentence is ambiguous between (b-i) and (b-ii) readings. Hence, the data suggests that the scope ambiguity in (36b) is interpreted in a post syntactic level, e.g. the proposed LF movement of focus adverbs. 224 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. P o c u s scope in Chinese is r e p r e s e n t e d in the stru ctu re o f lia n ..d o u /ye s e n te n c e s - Consider long-distance m o v e d lian Mali in (37) w h e r e dou occurs in the e m b e c i c i e d clause. Recall that i n s e c t i o n 4.1 this is a case o f long-distance t o p ic a li z e d //on-N P . (37) L ia n MAL11 Zhangsan r e n w e i (rnL isi dou bu x ih u an r i ] . L IA N Mali Zhangsan think: L i s i all not like (her) ‘ E ven Mali, Zhangsan t h i n k s t h a t Lisi also doesn’t like ( h e r ) . ’ i . [em bedded scope] Z h a n g s a n th in k s that Lisi doesn’t lik e a n y b o d y , even Tsdlary. i i - [m atrix scope] * In s e n t e n c e (37), the em bedded o b j e c t NP scope read in g i s achieved by r e c o n s t r u c t i n g the//on-NP at LF.'^ I t t h u s denotes that Zhangsan t h i n k s that Lisi is 12 The f o c u s adverb shenzhi ‘even’ o n l y occurs preverbally, in c o n t r a s t to English even w h i c h c a n modify postverbal e l e m e n t s . See the contrast b e t w e e n (ia) and (ib). (i) a . Z h a n g s a n fAgnz/?/ du le H o n g L o u Meng. Z h a n g s a n even read Asp R e d C h a m b e r Dream ‘ Z h a n g s a n even read Red C h a m b e r Dream.’ b . = * = Z h a n g sa n du le shenzhi H o n g L o u Meng. Z h a n g s a n read Asp even R e d C h a m b e r Dream Thus, o b j e c t N P focus scope like E n g l i s h (35b) and (36b) is e x p r e s s e d in Chinese only b y p r e p o s i n g the object to [S p e c F P ] in lian..dou/ye s e n te n c e s . U sing shenzhi only g i v e s r i s e to an unambiguous V P s c o p e . 1 3 S e n t e n c e s (i) and (ii) further i l l u s t r a t e t h i s point that the lo n g - d i s ta n c e moved lian- NP in ( i B ) only has an em bedded o b j e c t focus scope r e a d i n g , ra th e r than an e m b e d d e d V P focus scope. Thus, ( i B ) is a felicitous reply to q u e s t i o n (iA), to c o n tra st JF d o n g Lou Meng with o th e r b o o k s that Zhangsan th in k s t h a t Lisi bought y e s t e r d a y - H ow ever, (iiB) is not a n a p p r o p r i a t e reply to q u e s tio n (iiA ), since the u tte r a n c e o f (iiB ) does not have an e m b e d d e d VP focus scope r e a d i n g to contrast the events t h a t Z hangsan thinks Lisi did y e s t e r d a y . (i) A : Z h a n g s a n renwei Lisi z u o tia n m a i le hen dou dongxi. ‘ Z h a n g s a n thinks that Lisi y e s t e r d a y bought many th in g s.’ B : S h i a! Lian Hong Lou M e n g , Z h a n g s a n renwei Lisi dou m a i le. ‘ V e a h ! Even for Red C h a m b e r D re a m , Zhangsan thinks L i s i also bought.’ (ii) A : Z h a n g s a n renwei Lisi z u o tia n b a n le hen dou shi. ‘ Z h a n g s a n thinks that Lisi y e s t e r d a y did many things.’ B : # S h i a! Lian H ongLouM eng. Z h a n g s a n renwei Lisi dou m a i le. ‘ ’V e a h ! Even for Red C h a m b e r D ream , Zhangsan thinks L i s i also bought.’ 2 2 5 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. a picky person who does not like even Mali who is considered to be the most likely person to be loved by Lisi. Let us now consider (38) when dou occurs in the matrix clause. As discussed in section 4.2, lian Mali in (38) is base-generated in a matrix IP-adjoined position. Consequently, (38) only has matrix scope reading. It is to contrast an unexpected situation of Zhangsan’s opinion (of Lisi’s disliking Mary). At the same time lian Mali is contrastively focused. (38) Lian MALIi Zhangsan dou renwei [cp Lisi bu xihuan pro\]. LIAN Mali Zhangsan all think Lisi not like (her) ‘Lit. Even Mali, Zhangsan all thinks that Lisi doesn’t like her.’ i. [embedded scope] ?* ii. [matrix scope] Other people also think that Lisi doesn’t like even Mali. The scope ambiguity of eve«-NP in complex clauses has been observed by Karttunen and Peters (1977), K&P hereafter, Rooth (1985), and the discussion of both proposals in W ilkinson (1993). K&P have proposed that (39) contains both existential implicature (40a) and scalai' implicature (40b). (39) Bill likes even Mary. (40) a. There are other x under consideration besides Mary such that Bill likes x, and b. For all x under consideration besides Mary, the likelihood that Bill likes x is greater than the likelihood that Bill likes Mary. They further notes that (41) is scope ambiguous between a narrow scope reading in (42) and a wide scope reading in (43). The existential implicature in (42a) says that “there is something other than Syntactic Structure (S.S.) that Bill can understand.’’ The scalar implicature is rendered as: S.S. is the least likely thing for Bill to understand. That is, S.S. is a difficult book for Bill to understand. 2 2 6 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (41) It is hard for me to believe that Bill can understand even SYNTACTIC STRUCTURE. (42) existential implicatures a. Bill can understand x scalar implicature b. For all x under consideration besides S.S, the likelihood Bill can understand x is greater than the likelihood that Bill can understand S.S. SS is the least likely thing for Bill to understand. The wide scope interpretation of the existential implicature in (43a) says that "there is something other than S.S. that it is hard for me to believe that Bill understands.” The scalar implicature is; "S.S. is the least likely thing that it is hard for me to believe that Bill understands.” This implies that S.S. should be easy for Bill to understand. (43) existential implicatures: a. It is hard for me to believe that Bill can understand x. scalar implicature b. For all x under consideration besides S.S, the likelihood that it is hard for me to believe that Bill can understand x is greater than the likelihood that it is hard for me to believe that Bill can understand S.S. In Chinese the two inteipretations of English (41) are expressed by (44) and (45) syntactically, in reminiscence of isomorphism. ■ '* (44) corresponds to a narrow scope interpretation of English (42), meaning that this book is difficult for Zhangsan to understand. (44) Lian y.hehen shu wo hen nan xiangxin [Zhangsan dou neng liao-jie] LIAN this-CL book I hard believe Zhangsan DOU can understand ‘It’s hard for me to believe that Zhangsan can understand even this book.’ (45), with dou in the matrix clause, is equivalent to the wide scope interpretation of English (43). It implies that this book is relatively easy for Zhangsan to understand. That is LF interpretations are detcnnined by syntactic stmctures. 227 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (45) Lian zhehen shu wo dou hen nan xiangxin [Zhangsan neng liao-jie] LIAN this-CL book I DOU hard believe Zhangsan can understand ‘Even this book, it’s hard even for me to believe that Zhangsan can understand.’ The different interpretations between (44) and (45) are naturally and consistently accounted for by our discussion in chapter four. The lian-NP in (44) is overtly topicalized and reconstruction gives rise to its narrow scope interpretation. In contrast, the lian-NP in (45) is base-generated in the matrix clause. Hence, wide focus scope is interpreted. Thus, our data seems to favor the scope theory proposed by K&P (1977) and defended by Wilkinson ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Namely, the ambiguity of even NP is attributed to the different scopes interpreted at LF in English, whereas the scope interpretations are represented syntactically in Chinese. 5.2.3. F ocu s Adverbs 1 have ignored the so-called cleft shi ‘be’ focus construction in this thesis.'® The following will first briefly summarize its properties and then compare those with the focus adverbs zhi ‘only’ and shenzhi ‘even.’ 1 will suggest that shi functions as a focus adverb (although it is a verb syntactically), (cf. Huang 1982, Shi 1992b), rather than heading a Focus projection as argued by Chiu (1993). I refer readers to W ilkinson’s (1994) arguments for scope theory, in contrast to Rooth’s analysis of two evens: NPI-eve/j and regular even. '® I refer readers to this widely discussed shi..de constm ction in Chinese literature: Cheng (1983), Chiu (1993), Huang (1982; 1988), Paris (1979), Shi (1992b), Teng (1979) and references cited there. Specifically Huang (1982) and Shi (1992) have argued for the ‘in-situ-focus’ in syntax, and focus operator shi movement at LF by applying Quantifier Raising. Chiu (1993) argues for focus constituent LF movement to the Spec of a Focus Projection headed by shi instead. 228 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. It has been observed that shi occurs only preverbally. The focused element is either the constituent immediately following shi or the entire sequence following shi. U shi is immediately preverbal, it can focus a postverbal XP (for detailed disu ibution see Chiu (1993; 130) among others). The restriction of preverbal positions for shi is on a par with other focus adverbs.*’ (46a) with postverbal shi and (46b) with postverbal zhi ‘only’ or shenzhi ‘even’ are ungrammatical. (46) a. *Zhangsan mai shi zheben sbu. Zhangsan buy SHI this book ‘It is the book that Zhangsan bought.’ b. *Zhangsan mai zhi-{you)l shenzhi zheben sbu. Zhangsan buy only-you/ even this book ‘Zhangsan bought only/even this book.’ W hen shi, shenzhi or zhi directly precedes the verb, sentences like (47a) and (47b) have ambiguous focus scopes. Elements inside tbe VPs: either the verb, the object or the whole VP can be focus a s s o c i a t e s . * ® - * 9 *’ Focusing an object NP can be expressed by tbe so-called pseudo-cleft constructions. The verb you is obligatorily attached to zhi in (ii) to focus an NP. (i) Zhangsan mai de {shenzhi) shi zheben shu. Zhangsan buy DE (even) SHI this book ‘W hat Zhangsan bought is (even) this book.’ (ii) Zhangsan mai de zhi-*(you) zheben shu. Zhangsan buy DE only-have this book ‘W hat Zhangsan bought is only this book.’ * ® The scope (range) of shenzhi ‘even’ is similar to that in English discussed by Jackendoff (1972). Compare (i), (ii) with (24), (25) respectively. W hen even precedes the verb, its scope can extend to the subject, whereas when it immediately precedes the subject, its scope is limited to the subject. (i) a. Zh angsan shenzhi gei tade niier yilang xin zixingche ‘Zh a n g san even gave his daughter a new bicycle.’ b. Zhangsan shenzhi gei tade NÜER yilang xin zixingche c. Zhangsan shenzhi gei tade niier yilang xin ZIXINGCHE (ii) a. Shenzhi ZHANGSAN gei le tade niier yilang xin zixingche 'Even Zh a n g san gave his daughter a new bicycle.’ b. *Shenzhi Zhangsan gei le tade NÜER yilang xin zixingche 2 2 9 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (47) a. Zhangsan shi mai le zheben shu. Zhangsan SHI buy Asp this book. ‘It is to buy this book that Zhangsan did.’ ‘It is this book that Zhangsan bought.’ b. Zhangsan zhi-{you)l shenzhi mai zheben shu. Zhangsan only (have)/ even buy this book ‘Zhangsan only/even bought this book.’ Sentences (48) and (49) behave the same with this respect. M oreover, both ski and zhi can focus preverbal elements provided that zhi ‘only’ has to be follow ed by the verb you ‘have’ w hen it precedes a noun phrase, as shown in (48) and (49). (48) a. Shi Zhangsan mai le zheben shu. SHI Zhangsan buy Asp this book ‘It is Zhangsan that bought this book.’ ‘it is the case that Zhangsan bought this book.’ b. Z hi-*(you)l Shenzhi Zhangsan m ai le zheben shu. only-have/ even Zhangsan buy Asp this book ‘Only/Even Zhangsan bought this book.’ (49) a. Zhangsan shi zuotian mei lai. Zhangsan SHI yesterday not come ‘It is yesterday that Zhangsan didn’t come.’ c. *Shenzhi Zhangsan gei le tade NÜER yilang xin ZIXINGCHE Although the adverb even can have scope over the subject when it im m ediately precedes the verb, the adverb only does not extend its focus scope to the subject; see Jackendoff (1972). 230 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. b. Zhangsan zhi-*(you)/ shenzhi zuotian mei lai. Zhangsan only-have/ even yesterday not come ‘Zhangsan didn’t come only/even yesterday.’ W e have seen the parallelism between shi and the focus adverbs zhi, shenzhi. They have to occur preverbally. The association with focus of shi, zhi and shenzhi follows naturally from the discussion in section 5.2.1, and patterns with English focus adverbs except that Chinese adverbs do not occur postverbally. 5.2.4. Focus M ovem ent In this section I would like to point out certain differences between Hungar ian focus movement and Chinese focalization and topicalization (for the discussion of Hungarian see Hoiwath (1986), Kiss (1994) and references cited there). First, the Chinese focus construction in question is lia n ..c lo u /y e ‘even...all/also’ sentences. The Chinese cleft construction is treated like a focus adverb rather than heading a focus projection, as discussed in the previous section. However, the Hungarian focus position corresponds to the cleft construction. In her extensive work on Hungarian focus constructions, Horvath (1986) has proposed a strict pre-V(erb) focus position (see Kiss (1994), etc. and cf. Brody (1990)) and syntactic focus constituent movement. She argues that like \vh- movement Hungarian focus movement can undergo long-distance movement to the matrix pre-V focus position following the matrix subject. Sentences involving focus and iv/j-movement from Horvath (ibid.) are given in (50a) and (50b) respectively. 231 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (50) a. [s Janos [vp melvik fiunaki gondolta [s’ hogy Péter [yp A'/jelentetle John which boy-toi thought that Peter out-reported [S’ hogy a hazigazda mdr [yp6emutatta Marit 0?]]]]]] that the host already in-showed Mary-acc t\ ‘To which boy did John think Peter delcared that the host had already introduced Mary?’ b. [s Jdnos [yp At TILAn a Ki gondolta [s* hogy Péter [yp A:/jelentette [s’ John ATTELA-TOi thought that Peter out-reported hogy a hazigazda mdr [yp èemutatta Mai'it ri?]]]]]] that the host already in-showed Mary-acc /i ‘It’s Attila to whom John thought Peter delcared that the host had already introduced Mary?’ Horvath (1986: 223) In chapter three I have demonstrated that //an-focalization (movement to strict preverbal and post-subject position) is clause-bound.^o Namely, it is not acceptable to move long distantly out of a finite embedded clause to the strict pieverbal and post subject position in a matrix clause (51b). (51) a. Zhangsan renwei [c p Lisi hen xihuan Mali] ‘Zhangsan think Lisi very like Mali’ b. *Zhangsan//<7n M a lh rfof/ renwei [cpLisi bu xihuan/i]. Zhangsan LIAN Mali DOU think Lisi not like (her) ‘Zhangsan thinks that Lisi doesn’t like even Mali.’ However, focalization out of a infinitival embedded clause is possible; see the acceptability of (52b).^^ 20 In chapter two I have discussed the similar properties between Han-NPs and universal QPs. The clause-boundedness of focalization is reminiscent of that in the standard Quantifier raising QR. 2' Saito (1994) observes the (non-)finite distinction with respect to scrambling to the matrix post-subject position, (ii) is worse than (iii). (ii) is scrambling to the matrix post-subject position out of a finite embedded clause, whereas (iii) is scrambling out of an infinitival embedded clause. (i) John-ga Bill-ni [cp Mary-ga sono hon-o motteiru to] itta (koto) John-Nom B.-Dat M.-Nom that book-Acc have that said fact 232 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. (52) a. Lisi rang [jpi Zhangsan pai [iP2 Wangwu diaocha le najian shill Lisi ask Zhangsan send Wangwu investigate Asp that-CL matter ‘Lisi asked Zhangsan to send Wangwu to investigate that matter.’ b. Lisi lian naiian shi dou rang [Zhangsan pai [Wangwu diaocha le t\] Lisi LIAN that matter DOU ask Zhangsan send Wangwu investigate Asp ‘Lisi asked Zhangsan to send Wangwu to investigate even that matter.’ In chapter four I have further proposed that the unbound dependency of S-initial lian- NP is either base-generated in the mati'ix clause (53) or involves directly topicalizing the embedded lian Mali (54). Recall that the position of dou is a diagnosis. (53) Lian Main Zhangsan dou renwei [cp Lisi bu xihuan e\]. LIAN Mali Zhangsan DOU think Lisi not like (her) ‘Zhangsan even thinks that Lisi doesn’t like MALI.’ (54) Lian Main Zhangsan renwei [cp Lisi dou bu xihuan ri]. LIAN Mali Zhangsan think Lisi DOU not like (her) ‘Zhangsan thinks that Lisi doesn’t like even Mali.’ The point I would like to make here is that whether base-generation or topicalization, unbound dependency (with embedded finite clauses) is possible only when lian- phrases occur in the sentence-initial position, on a par with topic structure, rather than in the mati ix strict preverbal post-subject position. ‘John said to Bill that Mary has that book.’ (ii) ??John-ga sono hon-o; Bill-ni [cp Mary-ga ti motteiru to] itta(koto) book-Acc John-Nom B.-Dat M.-Nom that have that said fact (ii) John-ga sono hon-oi Bill-ni [ip PRO t\ mottekuru yooni] itta (koto) Jonn-nom that book-acc Bill-to bring to said fact ‘John told Bill to bring tliat book.’ 233 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Even if we admit an object in the S-initial position preceded by zhiyou, shenzhi or shi, as in (55), the unbound dependency of the cleft object or the object following focus adverbs is always to the S-initial position. (55) a. Zhi-*{you)l Shenzhi zheben shu Zhangsan mai le. only-have/ Even this book Zhangsan buy Asp ‘Only/ Even this book Zhangsan bought.’ b. Shi zheben shu Zhangsan mai de.^2 SHI this book Zhangsan buy DE ‘It is this book that Zhangsan bought.’ In addition to the acceptable (55), an embedded object in (56) can occur in matrix topic or major subject position, as indicated in (57a). Although (57a) is good, (56b) is neveitheless uninterpretable with the intended reading of (57a). (56) Wo tingshuo/xiangxin tamen yao kaichu Zhangsan. ‘I heard/believe that they want to fire Zhangsan.’ (57) a. Shi/zhiyou Ishenzhi Zhangsani wo tingshuo/xiangxin tamen yao kaichu t\. SHI/ only/ even Zhangsan I heai/believe they want fire ‘It is/ Only/ Even Zhangsan (that) I heard/believe that they want to fire.’ b. *Wo shi/ zhiyou/shenzhi Zhangsani tingshuo/xiangxin tamen yao kaichu t\- I SHI/ only/ even Zhangsan heai/believe they want fire Therefore, we have seen that although the long-distance moved (cleft) focus constituent or wA-phrases in Hungarian occur in the matrix pre-V post-subject position, unbound dependency in Chinese is limited to sentence-initial position only. 22 Chiu (1993) docs not allow (55b), but I think it is acceptable. 2 3 4 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. on a par with topicalization or major subject structures. I have no account for the difference between these two languages. It may be due to different clause stioictures (e.g. free word order in Hungarian) or the presence of overt case-m arking in Hungarian. I will leave this problem for future research. 5.3. Concluding Remarks The proposed structural Focus position (chapters two and three), together with topic/ major subject structures (chapter four), has thrown new light on Chinese clause structure and the long-standing debate over topic structure in the literature. The proposed analyses are comparable to Japanese topic/ major subject structures, except for the lack of overt m orphological case m arkers in Chinese. The comparisons between these two languages provide insights for our understanding of Universal Grammar, particularly with respect to (non-) topicalized sentences in the so-called topic-prominent languages. 235 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. i • • te REFERENCES Anderson, Stephen R. 1972. How to Get ‘Even.’ Language 48:4. Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1990. Minimal Disjointness. Linguistics 28, 189-203. Aoun, Joseph and, and Yen-Hui Audrey Li. 1993. W/j-Elements in Situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24:2,199-238. Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993. Syntax o f Scope. M IT Press. Baltin, M ark R. 1982. A Landing Site Theory of Movement Rules. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 1-38. Barss, Andrew, and Howard Lasnik. 1986. A Note on Anaphor and Double Objects. LI 17, 347-354. Belletti, A., and L Rizzi. 1988. Psych-Verbs and Theta-Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theoty'6:29l-352. Big, Y ong-0. 1984. The Semantics and Pragmatics o f ‘CaT and ‘ Jiu ’ in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Bowers, John. 1993. The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24:4, 591-656. Brody, Michael. 1990. Remarks on the Order of Elements in the Hungarian Focus Phrase. In I. Kenesei (Eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 3 (pp. 95-122). Szeged: Jôzsef Attila Tudomdnyegyetem. Carlson, Greg N. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts. Carlson, Greg N. 1980. Polarity Any Is Existential. Linguistic Inquir\ 11:4, 799- 804. Carlson, Greg N. 1981. Distribution of Free-Choice Any. In Masek and Miller Hendrick (Ed.), The Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 17 (pp. 8-23). University of Chicago. Chafe, W allace. 1976. Giveness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View. In Charles N. Li (Eds.), Subject and Topic (pp. 27-55). New York: Academic Press. Chao, Y.-R. 1968. A Grammar o f Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press. 236 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Cheng, Lisa L. S. 1989. Aspectual Licensing of pro in Mandarin Chinese, ms. MIT. Cheng, Lisa L. S. 1991. On the Typology ofW h-Questlons. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Cheng, Robert L. 1983. Focus Devices in Mandarin Chinese. In Ting-Chi Tang, Robert L. Cheng, and Ying-Che Li (Eds.), Studies in Chinese Syntax and Semantics Taipei, Taiwan: Students Book Co. Chiu, H.-C. Bonnie. 1993. The Inflectional Structure o f Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA. Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Semantic Interpretation. In Danny D. Steinberg & Leon A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinaiy Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology (pp. 183-215). Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On WA-Movement. In P. Culicover, T. W asow, and A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal Syntax New York: Academic Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foiis. Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Barriers. MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge o f Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation. In Robert Freidin (Ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar (pp. 417-454). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor o f Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 1-52). Cambridge: MIT Press. Chomsky, Norm. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure, ms. MIT. , Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Categories and Transfonnations. ms. MIT. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1991. Principles and parameters Theory. In Joachim Jacobs,et al (Eds.), Syntax: An International Handbood o f Contemporaiy Research (pp. 5.6-569). Berlin: W alter de Gruyter. Culicover, Peter W. 1993. Focus and Grammar, ms. The Ohio State University. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 237 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Dowty, David, and Belinda Brodie. 1984. The Semantics of ‘Floated’ Quantifiers in a Transformational Grammar. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press. Enç, Miirvet. 1991. The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22:1, 1-25. Ernst, Thomas, and Chengchi Wang. 1995. Object Preposing in Mandarin Chinese. Journal o f East Asian Linguistics 4:3,235-260. Fan, J. 1985. Sentences with Indefinite NP subjects (Wuding NP zhuyu ju). Zhongguo Yuwen (Chinese Language) 1985:5, 321-328. Fauconnier, G. 1975. Pragmatic Scales and Logical Structures. Linguisticlnquiry 6, 353-75. Fiengo, Robert, and Howard Lasnik. 1976. Some Issues in the Theory of Transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 7:1. Fu, Jingqi. 1994. SOV Word Order in Chinese and IP Specifier. In Proceedings of the Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. University of Southern California. Fukui, Naoki. 1993. Parameters and Optionality. Linguistic Inquiiy 24:3, 399-420. Fraser, Bruce. 1970. An Analysis of “Even” in English. In Charles Fillmore & Terence Langendeon (Eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics (pp. 151-180). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Gao, Qian. 1994. Focus Criterion: Evidence from Chinese. Proceedings of the Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. University of Southern California. Hashimoto, Anne. 1971. Mandarin Syntactic Structures. Unicorn 5. Higgins, Francis Roger. 1973. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Hagège, Claude. 1975. Le problème linguistique de prépositions et la solution chinoise. Louvain: Peeters. Heim, Irene. 1992. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation: A Reinteipretation of Reinhart’s Approach, ms. MIT. Heycock, Car oline. 1993. Syntactic Predication in Japanese. Journal o f East Asian Linguistics 2, 167-211. 238 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Hoji, Hajime. 1985a. Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. Hoji, Haijme. 1985b. Scope Interpretation in Japanese and its Theoretical Implication. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Foitnal Linguistics, 5 (pp. 87-101). The University of Washington: Standford Linguistics Association. Hoji, Hajime. 1995a. Otagai is NOT a Reciprocal Anaphor. m.s. University of Southern California. Hoji, Hajime. 1995b. Movement and Dependency: On the Landing Site of Scrambling. Presentation. University of Southern California. Hooper, Joan B. and, and Sandra A. Thompson. 1973. On the Applicability of Root Transfonnations. Linguistic Inquiry 4:4, 465-497. Horn, Laurence R. 1969. A Presuppositional Analysis of Only and Even. CLS 5, 98-107. Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History o f Negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Horvath, Julia. 1986. FOCUS in the Theo/y o f Grammar and the Synta.xof Hungarian. Foris Publications. Hsieh, Miao-Ling. 1994. On the Three Types of Nominal Polarity Items in Mandarin Chinese. In The 68th Annual Meeting of Linguistic Soceity of Arareica. Boston. Huang, Chu-Ren. 1991. Certainty in Functional Uncertainty. Journal o f Chinese Linguistics 20:2, 247-287. Huang, Chu-ren and, and Louis Mangione. 1985. A Reanalysis of de\ Adjuncts and Subordinate Clauses. In W CCFLIV, University of California, Los Angeles: Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory o f Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Huang, C.-T. James. 1983. Phrase Structure, Lexical Integrity, and Chinese Compounds, m.s. Tsing Hua University. Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns. Linguisticlnquiry 15:4, 531-574. Huang, C.-T. James. 1987. Remarks on Empty Categories in Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry 18:2, 321-337. 239 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Huang, C.-T. James. 1988. shuo ‘shi’ he ‘you’: jiantan zhongwen de dongci fenlei. ms. Cornell University. Huang, C.-T. James. 1988. ‘Wo pao de kuai’ and Chinese Phrase Structure. Lxinguage 64, 274-311. Huang, C.-T. James. 1989. Chinese pro Drop: A Generalized Control Theoi-y. In Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth Safir (Eds.), Vie Null Subject Parameter Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Huang, C.-T. James. 1991. Remarks on the Status of the Null Object. In Robert Freidin (Eds.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar (pp. 56- 76). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: Some Theoretical Consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24:1, 103-138. Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Verb Movement and Some Syntax-Semantics Mismatches in Chiense. ms. University of California, Irvine. Huang, C.-T. James, and C.-C. Jane Tang. 1991. The local nature of the long distance reflexive in Chinese. In Jan Koster and Eric Reuland (Eds.), Long- Distance Anaphora (pp. 263-282). New York: Cambridge University Press. Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Karttunen, Lauri and, and Stanley Peters. 1979. Conventional Implicaturc. In Choon-Kyu Oh and and D. A. Dineen (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume II: Presupposition (pp. 1-55). New York: Academic Press. Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a Universal Definition of “Subject.” In Charles Li (Eds.), Subject and Topic (pp. 305-333). New York: Academic Press. Kenesei, Istvdn. 1993. On the Syntax of Focus, ms. Kiss, Katalin É. 1994. Sentence Structure and Word Order. In Syntax and Semantics; The Syntactic Structure o f Hungarian (pp. 1-89). Academic Press, Inc. Kitagawa, Yoshihisa, and S.-Y. Kuroda. 1992. Passive in Japanese, m.s. University of Rochester, and UCSD. Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1995. Target a . Linguistic Inquiry 26:1,47-76. Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1983. Variables and the Bijection Principle. The Linguistic Review 2, 139-160. 240 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1990. The Position of Subject, ms. UCLA. Kratzer, Angelika. 1989a. Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates. In Papers on Quantification University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Kratzer, Angelika. 1989b. The Representation of Focus, ms. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Krifka, Manfred. 1991. A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Construction. In Proceedings from Semantics and Logic Theoi-y. I (pp. 127- 158). Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics. Kuno, Susumo. 1973. The Structure o f the Japanese Language. Cambridge, Mass.: M IT Press. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. The Categorical and the Thetic Judgment. Foundations o f Language 9, 153-185. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1978. Case Marking, Canonical Sentence Patters, and Counter Equi in Japanese. In John and Irwin Howard Hinds (Eds.), Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics (pp. 30-51). Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1986a. Movement of Noun Phrase in Japanese. In Takashi and Mamorti Saito Imai (Eds.), Issues in Japanese Linguistics Dordrecht: Foris. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1986b. What Happened after the Movement of Noun Phrases in La Jolla. In Working Papers from the First SDF Workshop in Japanese Syntax UCSD. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. W hether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese. In William J. Poser (Eds.), Japanese Syntax Standford: CSLI. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1992. Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Collected Papers. In Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ladusaw, W illiam. 1979. Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Texas, Austin. Lahiri, Utpal. 1995. On Negative Polarity Items in Hindi. In West Coast Conference on FoiTnal Linguistics. University of Southern California. Laka, Mien Itziar. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature o f Functional Categories and Projections. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Larson, Richard K. 1985. Bare-NP Adverbs. Linguistic Inqyiryl6, 595-621. 241 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiiy. 19, 335-391. Lasnik, Howard. 1976. Remarks on Coreference. Linguistic Analysis 2:1, 1-22. Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1993. Move a: Conditions on Its Application and Output. Cambridge: MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard, and Timothy Stowell. 1991. W eakest Crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22:4. Lee, Thomas. 1986. Studies on Quantification in Chinese. PhD dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles. Lee, Young-Suk, and Laurence Horn. 1995. Any as Indefinite plus Even. m.s. Yale University. Li, Charles and Sandra Thompson. 1976. Subject and Topic: a New Typology of Language. In Charles Li (Eds.), Subject and Topic (pp. 459-489). New York: Academic Press. Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1990. Order and Constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1992a. Indefinite WH in Mandarin Chinese. Journal o f East Asian Linguistics 1, 125-155. Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 1992b. On ‘Dou’-licensing: Syntax or LF? Paper presented at the Fourth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Lin, Jo-wang. 1992. The Syntax of zenmeyang ‘how’ and weishenme ‘why’ in Mandarin Chinese. Journal o f East Asian Linguistics 1, 293-331. Lin, Jo-wang. 1993. Object Expletives in Chinese. In North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. University of Delaware: Lin, Jo-wang, and C.-C. Jane Tang. 1991. Modals in Chinese. Paper presented in the Third North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Cornell University. Liu, Feng-hsi. 1986. On Topic-Traces in Chinese. In Wesi Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 5 (pp. 142-153). The University of Washington: Standford Linguistics Association. 242 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Liu, Feng-hsi. 1990. Scope Dependency in English a n d C hinese. PhD dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles. Lu, Hui-chuan. 1994. Second Preverbal NPs in C h in ese. In Proceedings of the Sixth North American Conference on C hinese Linguistics. University of Southern California. Lu, Zhong-ying. 1991. The Preverbal NPs in C hinese. M A thesis. Memorial University of New Foundland, St. John’s. Lycan, William G. 1991. Even and Even If. L inguistics a n d Philosophy 14, 115- 150. Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. 1990. The A/A-bar D istinction a n d M ovem ent Theoiy. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive Pronouns, A -b a r B inding, and Levels of Representation in Irish. In R. Hendrick (E ds.), The S yn ta x o f the M orderu Celtic Languages Academic Press. Mei, Kuang. 1972. Studies in the Transformational G ram m ar o f M odern Standard Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard U niversity. Nemoto, Naoko. 1993. Chains and Case Position: A Study fr o m Scrambling in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation. University o f C onnecticut. Ning, Chunyan. 1993. The Overt Syntax o f R elativization a n d Topicalization in Chinese. Ph.D. Dissertation, University o f C alifornia, Irvine. Paris, Marie-Claude. 1979. Some Aspects of the S yntax and Sem antics of the lian...ye/dou Construction in Mandarin. In S hou-H sin Teng (Eds.), Readings in Chinese Transformational S yn ta x Taipei: T he Crane Publishing CO. Paris, Marie-Claude. 1979. Nominalization in M andarin C hinese. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris VII. Paris, Marie-Claude. 1994. The Interaction B etw een F ocus O perators and Types of VPs in Mandarin. Proceedings of the Sixth N orth A m erican Conference on Chinese Linguistics. University of Southern C alifornia. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:3, 365-424. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1988. A Binding Approach to P o la rity Sensitivity. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern C alifornia. Qu, Yanfeng. 1994. Object Noun Phrase D islocation in M andarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation. University of British Colum bia. 243 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Coreference and Bound Anaphora: A Restatement of the Anaphora Questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 6,44-87. Rochemont, Michael S. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Rooth, Matt. 1985. Association with Focus. Ph.D. dissertation, UMass. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A Theory of Focus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75-116. Ross, Claudia. 1984. Adverbial Modification in Mandai in. Journal o f Chinese Linguistics 12, 207-234. Safir, Kenneth. 1984. Multiple Variable Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 603-638. Saito, Mamoru. 1985. Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Ph. D. disseration, MIT. Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Long Distance Scrambling in Japanese. Journal o f East Asian Linguistics 1:1. Saito, Mamoru. 1994. Improper Adjunction. Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics. Schmerling, S. 1971. A Note on Negative Polarity. Papers in Linguistics 4,200- 206. Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Sells, Peter. 1984a. Syntax and Semantics o f Resumptive Pronouns. UMass- Amherst. Shi, D.-X. Tim. 1992a. The Nature o f Topic Comment Constructions and Topic Chains. Ph.D., University of Southern California. Shi, Dingxu Tim. 1992b. The Nature of Chinese Emphatic Sentence. USC and UCl. Shyu, Shu-ing. 1994. Focalization: a case in Mandarin Chinese. Proceedings of the Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. University of Southern California. Shyu, Shu-ing and, and Miao-Ling Hsieh. 1992. Backward Pronominalization in Mandarin Chinese. In The Fourth North America Conference on Chinese Linguistics. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: Sportiche, Dominque. 1988. A Theory of Floating Quantifiers. LI 19, 425-449. 244 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origin o f Phrase Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Tada, Hiroaki. 1990. Scrambling(s). A talk presented at the Japanese Syntax workshop. University of Ohio, Columbus. Tada, Hiroaki, and Mauora Saito. 1991. VP-lntemal Scrambling. A talk presented at University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Taglicht, Joseph. 1984. Message and Emphasis. London and New York: Longman. Takahashi. 1993. Movement of WH-Phrases in Japanese. Natural Languages and Linguistic Theory 11, 655-678. Takano, Yuji. 1995. Object Shift within VP. In West Coast Conference on Fomial Linguistics. University of Southern California: Standford Linguistics Association. Tancredi, Chris. 1990. Syntactic Association with Focus. In The First Meeting of Fomial Linguistics Society of Mid-America. Tang, C.-C. Jane. 1990. Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X ’-Theoty. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Tang, Ting-Chi. 1979. Studies in Chinese Syntax. Taipei, Taiwan: Student Book Co., Ltd. Tang, Ting-Chi. 1988. “Mandarin Moiphology and Children Language Acquisition.” Tateishi, Koichi. 1991. The Syntax o f ‘Subjects’. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Teng, Shou-Hsin. 1974. Double Nominatives in Chinese. Language 50:3, 455-473. Teng, Shou-Hsin. 1979. Remarks on Cleft Sentences in Chinese. Journal o f Chinese Linguistics 7:1, 101-114. Thrainsson, Hoskuldur. 1993. On the Structure of Infinitival Complements. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 181-213. Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 1994. On Economizing the Theory o f A-Bar Dependencies. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Tsao, Feng-fu. 1977. A Functional Study o f Topic in Chinese: The First Step Toward Discourse Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern California. Uribe-Etxebania, Myriam. 1993. Intetface Licensing Conditions on Negative Polarity Licensing: A Theoiy o f Polarity and Tense Interactions. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Connecticut. 245 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Xu, Liejiong, and Terence Langendoen. 1985. Topic Stmclure in Chinese. Language 61, 1-27. Yoshimura, Noriko. 1989. Parasitic Pronouns. In Southern California Conference on Japanese/Korean Linguistics. UCLA. Yoshimura, Noriko. 1992. Scrambling and Anaphor in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern California. W ilkinson, Karina. 1993. Towards a Unified Semantics of Even: A Reply to Rooth. In S. Moore & A. Z. Wyner (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT III. Cornell University, Ithaca: Cornell Working Papers. W illiams, Edwin. 1986. A Reassignment of the Functions of LF. Linguistic Inquiry 17:2, 265-300. Zou, Ke. 1993. The Syntax of the Chinese BA Construction. Linguistics 31, 715- 736. 246 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

In the event of focus

PDF

The syntax of clitic doubling in modern Greek

PDF

The syntax of the Chinese BA-constructions and verb compounds: A morphosyntactic analysis

PDF

On the representation and licensing of Q and Q-dependents

PDF

Frequency in sentence comprehension

PDF

Representation of focus and presupposition in Japanese

PDF

On the status of possessives

PDF

Finite field arithmetic operations in VLSI: Algorithms, realizations, and applications.

PDF

The life and literary and artistic activities of Robert Baldwin Ross, 1869-1918

PDF

The puritan funeral sermon in seventeenth century England

PDF

Language and context: toward a model of psycholinguistic competence

PDF

The genre of "Ling-kuai yen-fen": The sexual politics of Chinese supernatural stories.

PDF

Satirical social criticism in the novels of John Dos Passos

PDF

Ernest Hemingway and the doctrine of true emotion

PDF

Cathay revisited: The Chinese tradition in the poetry of Ezra Pound and Gary Snyder

PDF

The syntax of NP coordination.

PDF

On the nature of particles in Japanese and its theoretical implications

PDF

Emotions: Linguistic representation and cultural conceptualization

PDF

Metaphor and metonymy: A comparative study of Chinese and Western poetics

PDF

Syntactic structures in nominals: A comparative study of Spanish and Southern Quechua

Asset Metadata

Creator Shyu, Shu-ing (author)

Core Title The syntax of focus and topic in Mandarin Chinese

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Linguistics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag language, linguistics,Language, Modern,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-472809

Unique identifier UC11351959

Identifier 9614068.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-472809 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9614068-0.pdf

Dmrecord 472809

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Shyu, Shu-ing

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA