Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 121–163 | Cite as

Two types of donkey sentences

  • Lisa L. S. Cheng
  • C. T. James Huang


Mandarin Chinese exhibits two paradigms of conditionals with indefinite wh-words that have the semantics of donkey sentences, represented by ‘bare conditionals’ on the one hand and ruguo- and dou-conditionals on the other. The bare conditionals require multiple occurrences of wh-words, disallowing the use of overt or covert anaphoric elements in the consequent clause, whereas the ruguo- and dou-conditionals present a completely opposite pattern. We argue that the bare conditionals are cases of unselective binding par excellence (Heim 1982, Kamp 1981) while the ruguo- and dou-conditionals are most naturally accounted for with the traditional E-type pronoun strategy of Evans (1980). We thus argue partly for a return to the E-type strategy (along with Heim 1990) but maintain the need for unselective binding in UG (cf. Kratzer 1989, Chierchia 1992). It is further shown that these two paradigms do not differ with respect to the proportion problem and the distribution of symmetric and asymmetric readings of Kadmon (1987), though they differ with respect to ∀ and ∃ readings (discussed in Chierchia 1992) in a non-trivial way that provides further support for the proposed approach. Finally, evidence is given that the bare conditionals should be kept apart from correlative constructions in languages like Hindi, and treated differently from the latter.


Opposite Pattern Multiple Occurrence Proportion Problem Donkey Sentence Unselective Binding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aoun, Joseph and Audrey Li: 1993, ‘Wh-Elements in Situ: Syntax or LF?’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 199–238.Google Scholar
  2. Berman, Stephen: 1987, ‘Situation-based Semantics for Adverbs of Quantification’, in University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 12, pp. 45–68.Google Scholar
  3. Chao, Wynn and Peter Sells: 1983, ‘On the Interpretation of Resumptive Pronouns’, in P. Sells and C. Jones (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 13, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 47–61.Google Scholar
  4. Cheng, Lisa L.-S.: 1991, On the Typology of Wh-Questions, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Cheng, Lisa L.-S.: 1995, ‘On Dou-quantification’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4(3), 197–234.Google Scholar
  6. Chierchia, Gennaro: 1992, ‘Anaphora and Dynamic Binding’, Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 111–183.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam: 1976, ‘Conditions on Rules of Grammar’, Linguistic Analysis 2(4), 303–351.Google Scholar
  8. Cole, Peter: 1987, ‘The Structure of Internally Headed Relative Clauses’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 277–302.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper, Robin: 1979, ‘The Interpretation of Pronouns’, Syntax and Semantics 10, 61–92.Google Scholar
  10. Diesing, Molly: 1992, Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  11. Engdahl, Elisabet: 1986, Constituent Questions, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Evans, Gareth: 1980, ‘Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 11(2), 337–362.Google Scholar
  13. von Fintel, Kai: 1994, Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  14. Hamblin, C. L.: 1973, ‘Questions in Montague English’, Foundations of Language 10, 41–53.Google Scholar
  15. Heim, Irene: 1982, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  16. Heim, Irene: 1990, ‘E-type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 137–178.Google Scholar
  17. Higginbotham, James: 1980a, ‘Pronouns and Bound Variables’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 679–708.Google Scholar
  18. Higginbotham, James: 1980b, ‘Anaphora and GB: Some Preliminary Remarks’, in J. Jensen (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 9, pp. 223–236.Google Scholar
  19. Higginbotham, James: 1985, ‘On Semantics’, Linguistic Inquiry 16(4), 547–593.Google Scholar
  20. Huang, C.-T. James: 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  21. Huang, C.-T. James: 1984, ‘On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–574.Google Scholar
  22. Huang, C.-T. James: 1987, ‘Existential Sentences in Chinese and (In)definiteness’, in E. J. Reuland and A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, pp. 226–253. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ito, Junko: 1986, ‘Head-Movement at LF and PF’ in University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11, pp. 109–138.Google Scholar
  24. Kadmon, Nirit: 1987, On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  25. Kadmon, Nirit: 1990, ‘Uniqueness’, Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273–324.Google Scholar
  26. Kamp, Hans: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’ in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Mathematical Centre Tracts, Amsterdam, pp. 277–322.Google Scholar
  27. Karttunen, Lauri: 1977, ‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3–44.Google Scholar
  28. Koopman, Hilda and Dominique, Sportiche: 1982, ‘Variables and the Bijection Principle’, The Linguistics Review 2, 139–160.Google Scholar
  29. Kratzer, Angelika: 1986, ‘Conditionals’, Chicago Linguistic Society 22(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
  30. Kratzer, Angelika: 1989, ‘Individual-level vs. Stage-level Predicates’, in E. Bach, A. Kratzer, and B. Partee (eds.), Papers on Quantification, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  31. Lahiri, Utpal: 1991, Embedded Interrogatives and Predicates That Embed Them, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  32. Lewis, David: 1975, ‘Adverbs of Quantification’, in E. Keenan (ed.), Formal Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  33. Li, Xiao-guang: 1994, ‘Dou as Event Quantifier’, ms., University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  34. Li, Y.-H. Audrey: 1992, ‘Indefinite Wh in Mandarin Chinese’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1(2), 125–156.Google Scholar
  35. Lü, Shu-Xiang: 1980, Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci (Eight Hundred Words in Modern Chinese), Commercial Press, Beijing.Google Scholar
  36. Montalbetti, Mario M.: 1984, After Binding, On the Interpretation of Pronouns, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  37. Neale, Stephen: 1991, Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  38. Nishigauchi, Taisuke: 1990, Quantification in the Theory of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  39. Parsons, Terry: 1978, ‘Pronouns as Paraphrases’, ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  40. Pelletier, Francis J. and Lenhart, K. Schubert: 1989, ‘Generically Speaking, or Using Discourse Representation Theory to Interpret Generics’, in G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee, and R. Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning, vol. 2, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  41. Pesetsky, David: 1987, ‘Wh-in situ: Movement and Unselective Binding’, in E. J. Reuland and A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  42. Platero, Paul: 1978, Missing Noun Phrases in Navajo, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  43. Safir, Ken: 1985, Syntactic Chains, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sells, Peter: 1984, Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  45. Srivastav, Veneeta: 1991, ‘The Syntax and Semantics of Correlatives’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 637–686.Google Scholar
  46. Tsai, Wei-Tien: 1994, ‘To Move or Not to Move, That Is the Question’, paper presented in Theoretical East Asian Linguistics Workshop, UC Irvine, January 1994.Google Scholar
  47. Yu, Xi-Liang: 1965, ‘Yiwen daici de renzhi yongfa’ (On the “wh-ever” use of interrogative pronouns), Zhongguo Yuwen 1, 30–35.Google Scholar
  48. Zaefferer, Dietmar: 1990, ‘Conditionals and Unconditionals in Universal Grammar and Situation Semantics’, in R. Cooper, K. Mukai, and J. Perry (eds.), Situation Theory and Applications 1, CSLI, Stanford, pp. 471–492.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa L. S. Cheng
    • 1
  • C. T. James Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations