<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This article proposes a <italic>pro</italic> analysis for split questions (SQs) in Chinese, dissimilar to the biclausal account employing focus movement and deletion in Arregi 2010 and the one employing the silent head in Kayne 2015 and Tang 2015. SQ consists of a <italic>wh</italic>-clause and a tag clause. We argue that the entire SQ is an information/confirmation-seeking question, represented by a Speech Act Phrase (SAP)-shell structure (Speas and Tenny 2003; Oguro 2017, etc.) with <italic>wh</italic>-clause in its specifier and the tag in its complement. The tag of Chinese SQ is a base-generated clause, [<italic>pro</italic> (copula) tag <italic>ma/ne</italic>], composed of an empty subject <italic>pro</italic>, an optional copula, a tag, and a final particle, instead of being derived from a fully-fledged structure parallel to the <italic>wh</italic>-part akin to those of English and Spanish SQs. Such a <italic>pro</italic> analysis overcomes difficulties encountered in the other accounts regarding the distribution of the final particles and their clause-typing, the optionality of the copula, the ubiquitous uses of tag, the connectivity effects, and the island-insensitivity. Analytically, two seeming variants of SQ imply that the derivation of an SQ depends on whether its tag moves and whether a copula exists.</abstract>

The Structure of Split Questions in Mandarin Chinese

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">The exact nature and derivation of patient-subject constructions (PSC) in Chinese are still at dispute in literature. Based on the restriction of manner adverbial modification and the nonexistence of the manner reading <italic>of zenme</italic> ‘how’ observed in Chinese PSC, a morphosyntactic analysis has been provided. We argue that the seeming action verb V in PSC is not a real main verb, but a verbal root to be introduced into the derivation after syntax via external morphological merger. The real main verb of PSC in syntax is a covert light verb ∅BEC, which selects a nominal phrase (NP) as its specifier (Spec) and a resultative phrase (RP) as its complement. BECP is further selected by an aspect (Asp) head <italic>le</italic>. To satisfy the extended projection principle (EPP), the NP at [Spec, BECP] moves to the [Spec, TP] in syntax. After syntax, the resultative (R) head-moves to ∅BEC at the phonological form (PF) to satisfy the phonological requirement of ∅BEC, forming R-∅BEC; then, a bare verbal root merges with R-∅BEC at PF to denote the manner of the change of state. Due to the phonological requirement of <italic>le</italic>, V-R-∅BEC head-moves to <italic>le</italic>, producing the right order of PSC. The two elided forms of PSC can be derived similarly. This research suggests that covert light verbs and morphology may play an interactive role in the derivation of some “typical” constructions in Chinese.</abstract>

A Morphosyntactic Analysis of Patient-Subject Constructions in Chinese

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">This paper analyzes verb reduplication in Mandarin Chinese under a lexicalist framework. By adopting the Lexicalist Hypothesis proposed by Chomsky (1970), a distinction has been made between syntactic and morphological verb reduplications by means of five tests: productivity, <italic>le</italic> insertion, categorial stability, transitivity, and input/output constraints. It is found that the AA and ABAB patterns of verb reduplication have relatively high productivity and regular syntactic behaviors, whereas the AABB pattern of verb reduplication shows extremely low productivity and syntactic idiosyncrasy. Given these observations, this paper proposes that the AA and ABAB patterns should be syntactic verb reduplications derived at the syntactic level, whereas the AABB pattern should be morphological verb reduplication formed in the lexicon. The two types of verb reduplications have different generative mechanisms.</abstract>

Two Types of Verb Reduplications in Mandarin Chinese

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 44 (2023): Issue 1 (June 2023)

Volume 43 (2022): Issue 2 (December 2022)

Volume 43 (2022): Issue 1 (June 2022)

Volume 42 (2021): Issue 2 (December 2021)

Volume 42 (2021): Issue 1 (June 2021)

Volume 41 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)

Volume 41 (2020): Issue 1 (June 2020)

Volume 40 (2019): Issue 2 (December 2019)

Volume 40 (2019): Issue 1 (June 2019)

Volume 39 (2018): Issue 2 (December 2018)

Volume 39 (2018): Issue 1 (June 2018)

Volume 38 (2017): Issue 2 (December 2017)

Volume 38 (2017): Issue 1 (June 2017)

Volume 37 (2016): Issue 2 (December 2016)

Volume 37 (2016): Issue 1 (June 2016)

Volume 36 (2015): Issue 2 (December 2015)

Volume 36 (2015): Issue 1 (May 2015)

Studies in Chinese Linguistics

 STUDIES IN CHINESE LINGUISTICS (ISSN 1017-1274) is an international academic journal devoted to comparative study of Chinese language and linguistics and a platform for research of comparative linguistics and dialectal grammar under a comparative approach. It was first published in 1980 by T.T. Ng Chinese Language Research Centre (CLRC) of the Institute of Chinese Studies at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. The journal is edited by CLRC, published and distributed by Sciendo (formerly De Gruyter Open) since 2015, with a single volume yearly containing two issues, three articles in each issue on average. We especially welcome synchronic or diachronic comparative works on any aspects of the syntax, semantics, and morphology among Chinese dialects or between a Chinese language/dialect and any languages that contribute to theoretical linguistics or have significant theoretical implications.  The journal does not have article processing charges (APCs) nor article submission charges.  Rejection Rate   64%   Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism Policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. 

Studies in Chinese Linguistics

Volume 41 (2020): Issue 1 (June 2020)

The Structure of Split Questions in Mandarin Chinese

A Morphosyntactic Analysis of Patient-Subject Constructions in Chinese

Two Types of Verb Reduplications in Mandarin Chinese

Search

All Volumes and Issues in this Journal