1 Introduction

In Mandarin, gradable predicates can be of various syntactic categories. In (1a), yonggan ‘brave’ is an adjective; and in (1b), yongqi ‘courage, braveness’, which follows you ‘have’, is a noun.

(1)

a.

Awen

hen

yonggan.

b.

Awen

hen

you

yongqi.

  

Awen

very

brave

 

Awen

very

have

courage

  

‘Awen is brave.’

 

‘Awen is brave.’

In some other languages, gradable predicates can also be of various syntactic categories, as seen in the adjective in (2a) and the noun in (2b) (Francez & Koontz-Garboden 2017: 1).

(2)

a.

Krishna

is

wise

b.

Krishna

has

wisdom

This squib first challenges Zhang’s (2020: §4.2) claim that a phrase that contains you ‘have’ and a gradable NP, as in (1b), is an Adjective Phrase. I call this use of you Pre-Gradable Noun you (PGN-you hence). Second, it challenges the popular belief that the degree word hen ‘very’ is not obligatory when the non-comparative predicate is a VP in Mandarin, such as xihuan Lisi ‘like Lisi’ (e.g., Grano 2012: 536, 558). The goal of this squib is not to argue for or against a particular view, but rather to clarify certain empirical issues regarding the syntactic properties of PGN-you and the interactions between various types of gradable predicates and the presence of hen, and to motivate generalizations which any adequate theory must account for.

In Sect. 2, I argue that PGN-you is a verbal element. In Sect. 3, I demonstrate the cross-categorial patterns of the presence of hen with gradable predicates. Sect. 4 is a conclusion.

2 You ‘have’ as a verb in gradable NP constructions

In this section, I argue for the verbal category of PGN-you. PGN-you is not a substantial word, since it has no obvious semantic role other than to support a gradable nominal to function as a predicate. Thus, the AP construction in (1a) and the NP construction in (1b) are truth-conditionally identical (also see Francez & Koontz-Garboden 2015, 2017 for the semantics of the examples in (2) and their counterparts in other languages). If PGN-you does not occur, a gradable NP can neither be a predicate, as seen in (3a), nor be selected by a degree word, as seen in (3b) (cf. (1b)).

(3)

a.

Awen

*(you)

yongqi

ma?

b.

Awen

hen

*(you)

yongqi.

  

Awen

have

courage

q

 

Awen

very

have

courage

  

‘Is Awen brave?’

 

‘Awen is brave.’

Zhang (2020: 425) tries a semantic approach to the category of PGN-you. Since the combination of PGN-you and an NP is truth-conditionally equivalent to its correlated AP, she claims that the combination is also an AP. However, syntactic category can only be identified by morpho-syntactic evidence. If semantics could decide the category of the you+NP string, where you plays no semantic role, the string would be an NP, instead of the alleged AP.

The category of a phrase is determined by the head of the phrase. Zhang admits that PGN-you and the gradable NP are sisters (p. 431). If their mother node is not NP, the category of the mother must be decided by PGN-you. If Zhang claims that the phrase is an AP, she assumes that this you is an adjective. I falsify this assumption and argue that this you is a verb, with four arguments: negation, control, reduplication, and stranding.

First, all verbs allow mei ‘not’, whereas all adjectives allow bu ‘not’, in their negative forms. For example, the verb chouyan ‘smoke’ can occur with mei in (4a), and the adjective gao ‘tall’ can occur with bu in (4b). PGN-you allows mei, but rejects bu, as seen in (5).

(4)

a.

Awen

{mei/bu}

chouyan.

b.

Awen

{*mei/bu}

gao.

  

Awen

not/not

smoke

 

Awen

not/not

tall

  

Awen does not smoke.’

 

‘Awen is not tall.’

(5)

Wo

renwei

Awen

{mei/*bu}

you

zhihui.

 

I

think

Awen

not/not

have

wisdom

 

‘I think Awen is not smart.’

If PGN-you is a verb, the acceptability of the mei-version in (5) is expected (cf. (4a)). If PGN-you were an adjective, it would allow bu, as in the adjective construction in (4b), contrary to the fact. Thus, the adjective analysis of PGN-you makes a wrong prediction.

Second, only verbs can control the dependent subject of an embedded clause, whereas no adjective can do so. A clause introduced by the complementizer lai ‘come’ is a purposive clause that has a PRO subject (Liao & Lin 2019), as seen in (6a). An adjective can never control a lai-clause. As seen in (6b), yonggan ‘brave’ cannot control the lai-clause. Like the verb in (6a) and unlike any adjective, PGN-you can control the dependent subject of a lai-clause, as seen in (6c).

(6)

a.

Ta

mai-le

yi

zhang

caipiao

[lai

shi

yixia

shouqi].

  

he

buy-prf

one

cl

lottery.ticket

to

try

once

luck

  

‘He bought a lottery ticket to try his luck.’

 

b.

Ni

yonggan

(*lai

shi

yixia)

ma?

   
  

you

brave

to

try

once

q

   
  

‘Are you brave?’

   
 

c.

Ni

you

yongqi

[lai

shi

yixia]

ma?

  
  

you

have

courage

to

try

once

q

  
  

‘Are you brave enough to have a try?’

  

It needs to be clarified that in (6c), the lai-clause does not form a complex nominal with yongqi ‘courage’, since the cluster yongqi lai shi yixia does not behave like a nominal. (7a) shows that the cluster cannot function as subject, unlike zhe jian shi ‘this matter’; and (7b) shows that it cannot follow a possessor, unlike the noun yongqi ‘courage’.

(7)

a.

Wo

renwei

{zhe

jian

shi/

*yongqi

lai

shi

yixia}

hen

zhongyao.

  

I

think

this

cl

matter

courage

to

try

once

very

important

  

‘I think this matter very important.’

 

b.

Wo

peifu

tade

{yongqi/*yongqi

lai

shi

yixia}.

    
  

I

admire

his

courage/courage

to

try

once

    
  

‘I admire his courage.’

    

Verbs such as xihuan ‘like’, and, as pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, some other stative verbs such as tang ‘lie’ and verbs with the imperfective aspect marker zai, do not control an embedded subject in a lai-clause. But these constraints do not affect the categorial contrast that no adjective but some verbs can do so. Since PGN-you can do so, it is not an adjective.

Third, adjectives and verbs have different reduplication patterns in Mandarin, as recognized by Zhang (2020: 424). However, Zhang does not consider a reduplication test, because she wants to identify the category of the whole [you + NP] phrase, rather than that of PGN-you (p. 424). As we stated above, only when the category of PGN-you is identified, can the category of its combination with an NP be decided. Since PGN-you itself is not a phrase, reduplication can be used to check its category.

For a monosyllabic adjective, its reduplication form is XX-de. In (8a) (see Liu 2010: 1012), the reduplicate adjective occurs as a predicate; and in (8b), it occurs as an attributive.

(8)

a.

Awen

gaogao-de.

b.

Wo

kanjian-le

na

ge

gaogao-de

nanhai.

  

Awen

tall.red-de

 

I

see-prf

that

cl

tall.red-de

boy

  

‘Awen is tall.’

 

‘I saw that tall boy.’

But no monosyllabic verb can appear in an XX-de form, as seen in (9a). Like a verb and unlike an adjective, the monosyllabic PGN-you never appears in such a form, as seen in (9b).Footnote 1

(9)

a.

*Awen

ai-ai-de

hua.

b.

*Awen

you-you-de

yongqi.

  

Awen

love-red-de

flower

 

Awen

have-red-de

courage

Also, Zhang’s adjectival analysis of the cluster you N wrongly predicts that the cluster should behave like an adjective if it were reduplicated. In (10a), the adjective is reduplicated in an AABB-de form; and (10b) shows that the you N cluster cannot be in this form. In (11a), the adjective is reduplicated in an ABAB-de form; (11b) shows that the you N cluster cannot be in this form. If the cluster were adjectival, it would follow the adjectival pattern of reduplication, contrary to the fact. Thus, neither PGN-you nor the you N cluster behaves like an adjective.

(10)

a.

gaoxing =>

gaogao-xingxing-de

b.

you

qian => *youyou-qianqian-de

  

glad

 

have

money

(11)

a.

xue-bai =>

xuebai-xuebai-de

b.

you

qian => *youqian-youqian-de

  

snow-white

 

have

money

Fourth, in Mandarin, if a functional or lexical verbal element has a complement, it can be stranded, as seen in (12); in contrast, an adjective has no complement to its right. Zhang (2020: 426) assumes that PGN-you might behave like the derivational suffix -ful in English, “which combines with a nominal and renders an adjective, such as beauty → beautiful”. However, like the verbal elements in (12), PGN-you can be stranded, as seen in (13). This shows that PGN-you is a verbal element, taking the noun as its complement.

(12)

a.

Putao,

Awen

xihuan,

lizhi,

ta

ye

xihuan.

  

grape

Awen

like

litchi

he

also

like

  

Grapes, Awen likes, and litchis, he also likes.’

 

b.

Awen

hui

lai,

Ali

ye

hui.

 
  

Awen

will

come

Ali

also

will

 
  

‘Awen will come, and so will Ali.’

 

(13)

a.

Zhihui,

Awen

you.

Yongqi,

ta

ye

you.

  

wisdom

Awen

have

courage

he

also

have

  

‘Wisdom, Awen has, and courage, he also has.’

 

b.

Awen

you

caihua,

Lili

ye

you.

 
  

Awen

have

talent

Lili

also

have

 
  

‘Awen has talent, and so does Lili.’

 

It needs to be pointed out that the strandability of PGN-you supports Zhang’s claim that the PGN-you cluster is a phrase, not a complex word that is composed of an affix and a noun.

Based on the above four arguments, I conclude that PGN-you is a verbal element. Nevertheless, I call the predicate supported by PGN-you gradable NP predicate, to distinguish it from the predicate headed by a substantial verb such as xihuan ‘like’.

One anonymous reviewer asked whether the word you has different flavors and whether in this particular flavor, i.e., PGN-you, it is an adjective, rather than a verb, which is seen in other constructions such as a possessive one. It is true that v has been claimed to have “different semantic flavors” (Arad 2005: 197; also see Folli & Harley 2007), which correlate with different argument structures. However, the semantic variation is within the same verbal category. If an element can be used as either an adjective or a verb, it shows systematic syntactic contrasts in the two uses. What we have seen is that PGN-you simply does not show any adjective properties. Moreover, Koontz-Garboden (2016) and Koontz-Garboden and Francez’s (2010) diachronic and typological research shows that one and the same HAVE-morpheme is used in possessive and property concept constructions in many languages.

3 The presence of hen ‘very’ with gradable predicates of various categories

3.1 A categorial contrast?

There seems to be a haunting question in Mandarin: in non-comparative readings, why is it the case that “degree expressions are not obligatory when the predicate is verbal” (Grano 2012: 535; also see Zhang 2020: 422), as seen in (14c), but obligatory when the gradable predicate is adjectival, as seen in (14a), and nominal, as seen in (14b)?Footnote 2

(14)

a.

Zhangsan

*(hen)

gao.

 

b.

Zhangsan

*(hen)

you

zhihui.

  

Zhangsan

very

tall

  

Zhangsan

very

have

wisdom

  

‘Zhangsan is tall.’ (Liu 2010: 1018)

  

‘Zhangsan is wise.’ (Zhang 2020: 395)

 

c.

Zhangsan

(hen)

xihuan

Lisi.

     
  

Zhangsan

very

like

Lisi

     
  

‘Zhangsan (very much) likes Lisi.’

 

(Grano 2012: 536; Zhang 2020: 395)

The contrast between gradable APs and VPs has been well-assumed and extensively discussed in works such as Grano (2012), and the parallel contrast between gradable NPs and gradable VPs is discussed in Zhang (2020). However, the acceptability pattern assumed in this haunting question is not accurate. We show that the distribution of hen is sensitive to the context. Following the Gricean maxim of relevance, interlocutors deliver the utterance meaning that is intended to address the question under discussion (QUD) (Roberts 2012; Koev 2018). In fact, in all three (i.e., AP, NP, VP) constructions, the following three generalizations hold in Mandarin.

(15)

a.

If the QUD is to provide the content of a gradable property, hen must occur.

 

b.

If the QUD is about a comparison between individuals with respect to a gradable property, hen does not occur.

 

c.

If the QUD is not about either of the above two, hen can be optional.

(15a) addresses the issue WHAT P (P = property) X has; (15b) addresses the issue WHICH ONE has more P; and (15c) does not address either of the two issues. (15a) and (15b) are based on works such as Sybesma (1999: 26–27), Liu (2010), and Grano (2012: 516) for AP constructions, and Zhang (2020: 395) for NP constructions. We show the cross-categorial nature of these three generalizations in the following subsections. Note that in this section, examples with * are unacceptable only in the given context.

3.2 QUD A: a gradable property

Context: No comparison between individuals is available; instead, the speaker provides the content of a gradable property. For example, the question in (16a) can be answered in the AP construction in (16b), or the NP construction in (16c), or the VP construction in (16d). In this context, hen is obligatory in the answers. (15a) is thus confirmed.

(16)

a.

Awen

dui

zhe

jian

shi

 

de

taidu

zenmeyang?

   
  

Awen

to

this

cl

issue

 

mod

attitude

how

   
  

‘How does Awen react to this issue?

       
 

b.

Ta

*(hen)

keqi.

\({\boxed{{\text{AP}}}}\)

  

c.

Ta

*(hen)

you

limao.

\({\boxed{{\text{NP}}}}\)

  

he

very

polite

    

he

very

have

politeness

 
  

‘He is polite.’

    

‘He is polite.’

 
 

d.

Ta

*(hen)

danxin

zhe

jian

shi.

 

\({\boxed{{\text{VP}}}}\)

    
  

he

very

care

this

cl

matter

      
  

‘He is worried about the matter.’

      

(15a) is also seen in complememt clauses. If a person asks about the characteristics of an individual, without a comparison with anyone else, the following are possible answers. In addition to faxian ‘discover’, tingshuo ‘hear’ can also be the matrix verb in these constructions.

(17)

a.

Women

faxian

[ta

*(hen)

congming].

(Grano 2012: 551)

  

\({\boxed{{\text{AP}}}}\)

  

we

discover

he

very

smart

    
  

‘We discovered he’s smart.’

    
 

b.

Women

faxian

[ta

*(hen)

you

caihua].

  

\({\boxed{{\text{NP}}}}\)

  

we

discover

he

very

have

talent

   
  

‘We discovered he’s talented.’

   
 

c.

Women

faxian

[ta

*(hen)

danxin

zhe

jian

shi].

\({\boxed{{\text{VP}}}}\)

  

we

discover

he

very

care

this

cl

matter

 
  

‘We discovered he’s worried about the matter.’

 

(15a) is also seen in the modifiers of nominal predicates. If one talks about a letter and asks what kind of a letter it is, the following are possible answers. Hen is required in all of them.

(18)

a.

Na

shi

yi

feng

*(hen)

chang

de

xin.

 

\({\boxed{{\text{AP}}}}\)

  

that

be

one

cl

very

long

de

letter

  
  

‘That is a long letter.’

  
 

b.

Na

shi

yi

feng

*(hen)

you

shuiping

de

xin.

\({\boxed{{\text{NP}}}}\)

  

that

be

one

cl

very

have

level

de

letter

 
  

‘That is a high-leveled letter.’

 
 

c.

Na

shi

yi

feng

wo

*(hen)

xihuan

de

xin.

\({\boxed{{\text{VP}}}}\)

  

that

be

one

cl

I

very

like

de

letter

 
  

‘That is a letter that I like.’

 

If an expression directly provides the answer to the question that asks about the property of an individual, the expression follows QUD A, regardless whether the expression is the matrix or embedded predicate. For such an expression, hen is obligatory.

3.3 QUD B: comparison between individuals

Context: A comparison of individuals occurs. To answer the questions in the a-forms in (19) through (22), hen is rejected, as seen in the answers in the correlated b-forms. (19b) is an AP construction, (20b) is an NP construction, and (21) and (22) are VP constructions.

(19)

a.

Lili

gen

Awen,

shei

bijiao

keqi?

 
  

Lili

and

Awen

who

comparatively

polite

 
  

‘Who is politer between Lili and Awen?’

 
 

b.

Awen

(*hen)

keqi.Footnote 3

   

\({\boxed{{\text{AP}}}}\)

  

Awen

very

polite

    
  

‘Awen is politer.’

    

(20)

a.

Lili

gen

Awen,

shei

bijiao

you

limao?

 
  

Lili

and

Awen

who

comparatively

have

politeness

 
  

‘Who is politer between Lili and Awen?’

 
 

b.

Awen

(*hen)

you

limao.

   

\({\boxed{{\text{NP}}}}\)

  

Awen

very

have

politeness

    
  

‘Awen is politer.’

    

(21)

a.

Lili

gen

Awen,

shei

bijiao

xihuan

manhua?

 
  

Lili

and

Awen

who

comparatively

like

comics

 
  

‘Between Lili and Awen, who likes comics more?’

 
 

b.

Awen

(*hen)

xihuan

manhua.

   

\({\boxed{{\text{VP}}}}\)

  

Awen

very

like

comics

    
  

‘Awen likes comics more.’

    

(22)

a.

Lili

gen

Awen,

ni

xihuan

nayige?

 
  

Lili

and

Awen

you

like

which

 
  

‘Between Lili and Awen, which one do you like more?’

 
 

b.

Wo

(*hen)

xihuan

Awen.

  

\({\boxed{{\text{VP}}}}\)

  

I

very

like

Awen

   
  

‘I like Awen more.’

   

In all of these dialogues, a comparison of individuals occurs: either the individual denoted by the subject, as in the first three dialogues, or the individual denoted by the object, as in the last one, is compared with another individual. These answers can also be preceded by wo juede ‘I think’, functioning as embedded clauses. Hen is banned in the answers consistently.

In addition to the overt individuals given in the questions, the individuals to be compared can also be salient individuals in the context (I thank an anonymous reviewer for asking me to address this). Imagine that one needs to choose a taxi or a subway to go to a place as soon as possible. When he realizes that the former is faster, he can say (23), where hen is rejected.

(23)

(Wo

juede)

jichengche

(*hen)

kuai.

 

I

think

taxi

very

fast

 

‘(I think) a taxi is faster.’

Thus, if the QUD is a comparison of individuals, hen is banned systematically. (15b) is confirmed. (15b) is expected, since a comparative predicate rejects hen (e.g., L. Zhang 2019):

(24)

Awen

bi

Lili

(*hen)

keqi.

 

Awen

than

Lili

very

polite

 

‘Awen is politer than Lili.’

3.4 QUD C: neither QUD A nor QUD B

Context: If the QUD is not about either the content of a gradable property or a comparison of individuals, hen can be optional. For instance, a polar question that contains a gradable expression can, but does not have to, have hen, as seen in (25a). This is also true of its answer, as seen in (25b). In this context, the speaker wants to confirm the existence or absence of a certain gradable property of an individual, rather than provide the content of any property or compare different individuals with respect to any property. When hen occurs and bears a stress, it functions as an intensifier. This can be seen in the elaborated answer in (25c). The same optionality is true of NP and VP constructions, as seen in (26) and (27), respectively.

(25)

a.

Awen

(hen)

yonggan

ma?

b.

Ta

(hen)

yonggan.Footnote 4

\({\boxed{{\text{AP}}}}\)

  

Awen

very

brave

q

 

he

very

brave

 
  

‘Is Awen very brave?’

 

‘He is (very) brave.’

 
 

c.

Ta

hai

suan

yonggan

ba,

buguo

shuo-bu-shang

hen

yonggan.

  

he

yet

count

brave

prt

but

say-not-up

very

brave

  

‘He can be counted as brave, but is not yet up to very brave.’

(26)

a.

Awen

(hen)

you

xinxin

zuo

zhe

jian

shi

ma?

\({\boxed{{\text{NP}}}}\)

  

Awen

very

have

confidence

do

this

cl

job

q

 
  

‘Is Awen (very) confident in doing that job?’

 
 

b.

Ta

queshi

(hen)

you

xinxin

zuo

zhe

jian

shi.

 
  

he

indeed

very

have

confidence

do

this

cl

job

 
  

‘He is indeed (very) confident in doing this job.’

 

(27)

a.

Awen

(hen)

xihuan

Lili

ma?

b.

Ta

(hen)

xihuan

Lili.

\({\boxed{{\text{VP}}}}\)

  

Awen

very

like

Lili

q

 

he

very

like

Lili

 
  

‘Does Awen like Lili (very much)?’

 

‘He likes Lili (very much).’

 

See Liu (2010: 1019, 1046) for more gradable AP examples like those in (25a, b), and Zhang (2020: 427–428) for more gradable NP examples like those in (26).

QUD C is also seen in other contexts. The conditional clauses in (28) and the noun-modifiers in (29) are neither intended to compare any individuals, nor to answer any what P question. The QUD of the examples is addressed by the matrix predication. For example, the QUD of (28a) is addressed by the predicate headed by gua ‘hang’, rather than by a comparison between the coat denoted by the subject of the conditional and another coat with respect to the degree of wetness. The QUD of (29a) is also addressed by the matrix predicate, headed by gua, rather than by a comparison between the coat denoted by the modifiee of chaoshi ‘wet’ and another coat with respect to the degree of wetness. In these constructions, hen occurs if the embedded gradable predicate is emphasized. In all of these gradable predicates, hen can be optional. (15c) is thus confirmed.

(28)

a.

[Ruguo

dayi

(hen)

chaoshi],

jiu

ba

ta

gua

zai

shu-shang.

\({\boxed{{\text{AP}}}}\)

  

if

coat

very

wet

then

ba

it

hang

at

tree-on

 
  

‘If the coat is (very) wet, hang it up on the tree.’

 
 

b.

[Ruguo

ta

(hen)

you

nengli],

ni

jiu

bie

dangxin

la.

\({\boxed{{\text{NP}}}}\)

  

if

he

very

have

ability

you

then

not

worry

prt

 
  

‘If he is (very) diligent, you should not be worried.

 
 

c.

[Ruguo

ta

(hen)

xihuan

Lili],

ni

jiu

bie

dangxin

la.

\({\boxed{{\text{VP}}}}\)

  

if

he

very

like

Lili

you

then

not

worry

prt

 
  

‘If he likes Lili (very much), you should not be worried.’

 

(29)

a.

Awen

ba

na

jian

[(hen)

chaoshi]

de

dayi

gua

zai

shu-shang.

\({\boxed{{\text{AP}}}}\)

  

Awen

ba

that

cl

very

wet

mod

coat

hang

at

tree-on

 
  

‘Awen hung up that (very) wet coat on the tree.’

 
 

b.

Awen

jiang-le

yi

ju

[(hen)

you

zheli]

de

hua.

  

\({\boxed{{\text{NP}}}}\)

  

Awen

say-prf

one

cl

very

have

philosophy

mod

sentence

   
  

‘Awen said a sentence that is (very) philosophical.’

   
 

c.

Awen

mai-le

yi

kuai

[ta

(hen)

xihuan]

de

dangao.

  

\({\boxed{{\text{VP}}}}\)

  

Awen

buy-prf

one

piece

he

very

like

mod

cake

   
  

‘Awen bought a piece of cake that he likes (very much).’

   

This QUD analysis applies to other constructions in which the absence of hen does not have to trigger a comparison reading (see Liu 2010 for such constructions).

Eventually, there is no contrast between gradable predicates of different syntactic categories, with respect to the presence of hen (contra Grano 2012 and Zhang 2020). We have thus achieved unified generalizations, seen in (15), from the perspective of QUD.

4 Conclusions

First, PGN-you is a verbal element, and thus it heads a VP, rather than an AP. Second, cross-categorially, the presence and absence of hen correlate with the QUD of the construction: if the QUD is about a comparison of individuals with respect to a gradable property, hen is banned; if the QUD is about the content of a gradable property of an individual, hen must occur; and finally, if the QUD is not about either of the above two, hen is optional.