Abstract
How is the (in)-dependence (or finiteness) of a clause identified in a language that has no tense, case, or agreement morphology, such as Chinese? This paper investigates the control verb construction and the generic sentential subject construction, bringing to light the special forms and interpretations of the subjects of the dependent clauses in the constructions. The special properties are not found in the subjects of independent clauses. Therefore, contrasts between dependent and independent clauses are attestable in the language. The paper also proposes a derived predication analysis of the interpretation patterns of embedded empty subjects of the language.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Abbreviations: BA: causative marker; CL: classifier; DE: modification/nominalization marker; DPP: derived predicate predication; EXP: experiential aspect; PRF: perfect aspect; PRT: sentence-final particle; TOP: topic.
Hu et al. (2001, pp. 1130–1134) also give some examples in which the matrix verb is quan ‘urge’ or bi ‘force’ and the subject of the complement clause can be overt. However, in English, an object-control verb construction may have a counterpart in which the clausal argument is a finite clause. The clausal complement of persuade is non-finite in (ia), but finite in (ib). Thus, their examples do not necessarily show properties of dependent clauses under a control verb. Therefore, I will focus on unambiguous control verbs such as zhunbei ‘prepare’ and shefa ‘try’.
(i)
a.
Mary persuaded [John] [PRO to feed the baby].
b.
Mary persuaded [John] [that he should feed the baby].
When a cpro and ziji function as adverbials, they are not always exchangeable (I thank Zhiren Adam Zheng for (i)). More in depth research must be undertaken to explain their contrast.
(i)
Lian
Lili
{ziji/*ta
yi
ge
ren}
dou
qu
duchang.
even
Lili
self/3sg
one
cl
person
also
go
casino
‘Even Lili herself goes to a casino.’
In the movement theory of control (Hornstein 1999), since the controller and the controllee form a movement chain, there is no issue of identifying the binder of the controllee. In this movement approach, Grano (2015, pp. 147–149) claims that the overt subject of a complement clause of a control verb in Chinese is resumptive. For arguments against the movement theory, see Landau (2003, 2016), Bobaljik and Landau (2009), Ndayiragije (2012), Doliana and Sundaresan (2016), and the references therein.
Chomsky (1981, p. 312) assumes that in a tough construction, the matrix adjective (e.g., tough) and its following infinitive undergo ‘reanalysis’. Fleisher (2015, p. 91 fn. 27) correctly points out that this is “a rather ad hoc process whose chief outcome is to allow the reanalyzed predicate to assign a θ-role to the matrix subject.” See Landau (2011) and Heycock (2013), pp. 331–332) for discussions on how a derived predicate licenses the matrix subject in a tough construction and other constructions. Moreover, Williams (1983) and Napoli (1989) claim that predication does not have to be represented by a constituent. I however assume that this freedom is for a DPP only, which is parasitic on another predication. Non-DPP must be represented by an RP.
The expression ziji yi ge ren (ia) (Zhiren Adam Zheng, p.c.) behaves like an adverbial, since it rejects the focus marker lian dou ‘even…also’. However, the reflexive pronoun complex ta ziji in (ib) looks like a variant of the ziji controllee. The general properties of the ziji controllee discussed in the text can cover this form.
(i)
a.
A-Lin
dasuan
jintian
(*lian)
ziji
yi
ge
ren
(*dou)
qu
duchang.
A-Lin
plan
today
even
self
one
cl
person
also
go
casino
b.
A-Lin
dasuan
jintian
(lian)
ta
ziji
(dou)
qu
duchang.
A-Lin
plan
today
even
3sg
self
also
go
casino
Both: ‘A-Lin planned to go to a casino alone today.’
Topicalization in the non-finite clause under a control verb is also possible in Italian and French, as seen in the Italian example in (i) (Haegeman 2004, p. 82; Adger 2007, p. 31). Haegeman (2004, p. 82) suggests that it is the existence of ϕ-features on Fin in the Roman languages, but not in English, that license topicalization in control structures. Adger (2007, pp. 30–32) argues that the non-finite complementizer di is in Fin and the topic to its left is hosted in TopP. Chinese has no ϕ-agreement. Examples like those in (39) show that the availability of TopP is independent of ϕ-features on Fin (see Sect. 2.4 for further discussion of the issue).
(i)
Credo,
il
tuo
libro,
di
apprezzar-lo
molto.
think.1sg
the
your
book
that[-fin]
appreciate-it
much
I think that they will appreciate your book very much.’
In Chinese, a relative clause may also host a topic, which does not block the movement of the relative operator.
(i)
a.
He’s a man to whom liberty we could never grant. (Baltin 1982, p. 17; Bianchi 1999, p. 179)
b.
na
ge
fangzi
yijing
mai-le
de
xuesheng
that
cl
house
already
buy-prf
de
student
‘the student who has already bought a house’
c.
na
ge
shucai
zhi
chi
qincai
de
xiaohai
that
cl
vegetable
only
eat
celery
de
kid
‘the kid who eats only celery among various vegetables’
The fact that a subject may, but a topic may not, be a controllee shows that subject has its unique syntactic status, distinguished from topic, in the language (contra Li and Thompson 1981; see Paul and Whitman, to appear, for a recent doubt on the so-called topic prominent language status of Chinese).
In European Portuguese, an overt pronominal subject occurs with an infinitive verb that shows agreement inflection. Raposo (1987) thus links the overtness of such a subject with agreement. In languages such as Korean and Chinese, there is no verb agreement. Thus, Raposo’s claim does not apply to these languages.
Based on an acquisition study, Yang and Yang (2015) also conclude that control dependency is attestable in Mandarin Chinese.
As in many other languages, Chinese also has a subject clause in which the subject is referential, such as Lulu in (i) (see Zhang 2008: Sect. 5.3 for a discussion of such an independent (or finite) subject clause of the language).
(i)
[Lulu
qu
Riben]
hen
heshi.
Lulu
go
Japan
very
appropriate
‘That Lulu goes to Japan is very appropriate.’
The null subject of the subject clause in (i) can be interpreted in the discourse context, e.g., referring to a robot or the speaker. The fact that the empty subject has no generic reading shows that a null subject in a subject clause need not have a generic reading.
(i)
[pro
you
liang
zhi
shou]
hen
zhongyao.
_
have
two
cl
hand
very
important
‘It is important for this to have two hands.’
References
Adger, David. 2007. Three domains of finiteness: A minimalist perspective. In Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, ed. Irina Nikolaeva, 23–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
Baltin, Mark. 1982. A landing site theory of movement rules. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 1–38.
Baltin, Mark. 2012. The Structural Signature of Pronouns. Ms. New York University.
Baltin, Mark, Rose-Marie Dechaine, and Martina Wiltschko. 2015. The Irreducible Syntax of Variable Binding. lingbuzz/002425. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002425. Accessed 23 Mar 2016.
Battistella, Edwin, and Xu Yonghui. 1990. Remarks on the reflexive in Chinese. Linguistics 28(2): 205–240.
Belletti, Adriana. 2005. Extended Doubling and the VP Periphery. Probus 17: 1–35.
Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Bianchi, Valentina. 2003. On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. In Temps et point de vue/tense and point of view, ed. Jacqueline Guéron, and L. Tasmovski, 213–246. Nanterrem: Université Paris X.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Idan Landau. 2009. Icelandic control is not A-movement: The case from case. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 113–132.
Borer, Hagit. 1989. Anaphoric AGR. In The null subject parameter, ed. Osvaldo Jaeggli, and Kenneth J. Safir, 69–109. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government and binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1999. Italian emphatic pronouns are postverbal subjects. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 59–92.
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. Anaphors and attitudes de se. In Language in context, ed. Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem, and Peter van Emde Boas, 1–32. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 77–132. New York: Academic Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Clark, Robin. 1990. Thematic Theory in Syntax and Interpretation. London: Routledge.
Contreras, Heles. 1993. On Null Operator Structures. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 1–30.
Creissels, Denis. 2013. The generic use of the second person singular pronoun in Mandinka. In Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, ed. Dik Bakker, and Martin Haspelmath, 53–67. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Déprez, Viviane. 1992. Raising constructions in Haitian Creole. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10(2): 191–231.
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Doliana, Aaron, and Sandhya Sundaresan. 2016. Proxy control: a new species of obligatory control under modality. To appear in Replicative Processes in Grammar, Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 93, University of Leipzig.
Ernst, Thomas, and Chengchi Wang. 1995. Object preposing in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4(3): 235–260.
Fleisher, Nicolas. 2015. Rare-class adjectives in the tough-construction. Language 91(1): 73–108.
Fodor, Jerry A. 1975. The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fu, Jingqi. 1994. On deriving Chinese derived nominals: evidence for V-to-N raising. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Gast, Volker, and Johan van der Auwera. 2013. Towards a distributional typology of human impersonal pronouns, based on data from European languages. In Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, ed. Dik Bakker, and Martin Haspelmath, 119–158. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Grano, Thomas Angelo. 2012. Control and restructuring at the syntax-semantics interface. PhD dissertation, The University of Chicago.
Grano, Thomas Angelo. 2013. Control without finiteness contrasts: PRO, aspect, and complementation size in Mandarin Chinese. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001908. Accessed 23 Mar 2016.
Grano, Thomas Angelo. 2015. Control and Restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2001. Anti-locality and clause types. Theoretical Linguistics 28(1): 43–72.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gu, Yang. 2007. Shitai, shizhi lilun yu hanyu shijian canzhao [Studies of tense, aspect and Chinese time reference]. Yuyan Kexue [Language Sciences] 29: 22–38.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2004. The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalisation. Manuscript: University Charles de Gaulle, Lille.
Hendrick, Randall. 1988. Anaphora in Celtic and Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Heycock, Caroline. 2013. The syntax of predication. In The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, ed. Marcel Den Dikken, 322–352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hicks, Glyn. 2009. Tough-constructions and their derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4): 535–566.
Hooper, Joan, and Sandra Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465–497.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic inquiry 30(1): 69–96.
Hornstein, Norbert, and David Lightfoot. 1987. Predication and PRO. Language 63: 23–52.
Hu, Jianhua, Haihua Pan, and Liejiong Xu. 2001. Is there a finite vs. nonfinite distinction in Chinese? Linguistics 39(6): 1117–1148.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1989. Pro-drop in Chinese: a generalized control theory. In The null subject parameter, ed. Osvaldo Jaeggli, and Kenneth Safir, 185–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1992. Complex predicates in control. In Control and grammar, ed. R. Larson, Utpal Lahiri, Sabine Iatridou, and J. Higginbotham, 109–147. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huang, C.-T. James, and Chen-Sheng Luther Liu. 2000. Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface. In Long-distance reflexives, syntax and semantics, vol. 33, ed. Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, and C.-T. James Huang, 141–195. New York: Academic Press.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo, and Ken Safir (eds.). 1989. The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2): 245–273.
Koster, Jan. 1984. On binding and control. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 417–459.
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2): 187–237.
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Ladd, D.Robert. 1980. The structure on intonational meaning: evidence from English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Landau, Idan. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–498.
Landau, Idan. 2011. Predication vs. aboutness in copy raising. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(3): 779–813.
Landau, Idan. 2015a. Direct Variable Binding and Agreement in Obligatory Control (Sept. 2015; to appear in an edited volume, Springer).
Landau, Idan. 2015b. A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Landau, Idan. 2016. Against the null comitative analysis of partial control. Linguistic Inquiry 47(3) (forthcoming).
Lang, Ewald. 1984. The semantics of coordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lee, Kum Young. 2009. Finite control in Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa.
Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Li, Yafei. 1999. Cross-componential causativity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17(3): 445–497.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1990. Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 2014. Born empty. Lingua 151: 43–68.
Lin, Tzong-Hong Jonah. 2011. Finiteness of clauses and raising of arguments in Mandarin Chinese. Syntax 14(1): 48–73.
Lin, Tzong-Hong Jonah. 2015. Tense in Mandarin Chinese sentences. Syntax 18(3): 320–342.
Livitz, Inna. 2011. Incorporating PRO: A defective-goal analysis. In NYU working papers in linguistics, vol. 33, ed. Neil Myler, and Jim Wood, 95–119. New York: New York University.
Madigan, Sean. 2008. Control constructions in Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.
Mahajan, Anoop K. 2000. Relative asymmetries and Hindi correlatives. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses, ed. Artemis Alexiadou, Andre Meinunger, Chris Wilder, and Paul Law, 201–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manzini, M. Rita. 1983. On Control and Control Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 421–446.
McFadden, Thomas, and Sandhya Sundaresan. 2014. Finiteness in South Asian languages: An introduction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(1): 1–27.
Mensching, Guido. 2000. Infinitive constructions with specified subjects: A syntactic analysis of the romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moltmann, Friederike. 2006. Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Natural language semantics 14(3): 257–281.
Morgan, Jerry L. 1970. On the criterion of identity for noun phrase deletion. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society, vol. 6, ed. Mary Ann Campbell, J. Lindholm, A. Davison, W. Fisher, L. Furbee, J. Lovins, E. Maxwell, J. Reighard, and S. Straight, 380–389. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1989. Predication theory: a case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ndayiragije, Juvénal. 2012. On raising out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 275–299.
Neeleman, Ad, and Kriszta Szendrői. 2007. Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4): 671–714.
Paul, Waltraud, and John Whitman. To appear. Topic Prominence. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn, chapter 117, ed. Martin Everaert, and Henk van Riemsdijk. MA: Malden.
Percus, Orin, and Uli Sauerland. 2003. On the LFs of Attitude Reports. In Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung 7, ed. Matthias Weisberger, 228–242. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.
Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9: 171–192.
Postal, Paul. 1966. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In Report of the 17th Annual Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, 177–206. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. [Reprinted in Modern Studies in English, ed. David Reibel and Sandford A. Schane. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969].
Ramchand, Gillian. 2014. Deriving variable linearization. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(1): 263–282.
Raposo, Eduardo P. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 85–109.
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Martina Wiltschko. 2009. Varieties of INFL: TENSE, LOCATION, and PERSON. In Alternatives to cartography, ed. Hans Broekhuis, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 153–201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Netherlands: Springer.
Sag, Ivan, and Carl Pollard. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67: 63–113.
Sandler, Wendy, and Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of Logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–480.
Sheehan, Michelle, and Jenneke van der Wal. 2016. Do we need abstract case? In Proceedings of WCCFL 33, ed. Kyeong-min Kim, et al., 351–360. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2010. A Phase-Based Account of the PRO/Anaphor Distinction. Proceedings of ConSOLE XVIII, 1–19.
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2014. Making sense of silence: finiteness and the (OC) PRO vs. pro distinction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(1): 59–85.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2009a. Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements in Hungarian. Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 11: Papers from the 2007 New York Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2009b. Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements: data, diagnostics, and preliminary analyses. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 2: Papers in Syntax, ed. Patricia Irwin, and Violeta Vasquéz Rojas Maldonado. New York: New York University.
Tang, Chih-chen Jane. 1990. Chinese phrase structure and extended X’-theory. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.
Tang, Ting-Chi C. 1979. Guoyu Yufa Yanjiu Lunji [Studies in Chinese Syntax]. Taipei: Student Book Co., Ltd.
Tang, Ting-Chi C. 2000. Finite and nonfinite clauses in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 1(1): 191–214.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2014. Micro-parameters in discourse pro-drop languages: Comments on ‘Born Empty’ by Yen-hui Audrey Li. Lingua 151: 69–77.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. Tense Anchoring in Chinese. Lingua 118: 675–686.
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203–238.
Williams, Edwin. 1983. Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 287–308.
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a Formal Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, Yicheng, and Adams Bodomo. 2009. Classifiers ≠ determiners. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3): 487–503.
vanden Wyngaerd, Guido J. 1994. PRO-legomena. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yang, Dong-Whee. 1985. On the Integrity of Control Theory. In Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistic Society 15, ed. Stephen Berman, Jae-Woong Choe, and Joyce McDonough, 389–408. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
Yang, Xiaolu, and Cheng Yang. 2015. Control in Mandarin-speaking children’s early naturalistic production. Lingua 163: 1–22.
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2008. Gapless relative clauses as clausal licensors of relational nouns. Language and Linguistics 9(4): 1005–1028.
Zhang, Niina Ning. 2016. A study note on the state-denoting GE construction. Lingua Sinica 2: 3. doi:10.1186/s40655-016-0012-1.
Zhang, Niina Ning. To appear. Unifying two general licensors of completive adverbials in syntax. Linguistics.
Acknowledgments
Thanks (but not remaining inadequacies) are owed to the three reviewers of JEAL for their advice and suggestions, and to Liching Chiu, Shih-peng Shih, Yi-ling Patricia Su, Hsuan-Hsiang Sam Wang, and Zhiren Adam Zheng, for their comments on the ideas found in this paper. This research has been supported by grants from the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, ROC.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, N.N. Identifying Chinese dependent clauses in the forms of subjects. J East Asian Linguist 25, 275–311 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-016-9146-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-016-9146-5