Advertisement

Journal of East Asian Linguistics

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 241–264 | Cite as

Conditions on Chinese A-not-A questions

  • Thomas Ernst
Article

Abstract

The main goal of this paper is to account for the ungrammaticality of adjuncts likeyiding ‘definitely’ orluan ‘chaotically’ in Chinese A-not-A questions. This restriction can be accounted for via the Isomorphic Principle, by which S-structure scope relationships must be preserved at LF. In A-not-A questions the question operator [+Qu] raises at LF; any adjunct which c-commands [+Qu] at SS must therefore also raise to c-command it at LF, in order to respect the Isomorphic Principle. Butyielding andluan, like most adjuncts, cannot modify [+Qu], so such sentences are semantically anomalous.

Certain other adjuncts, such as time and locative expressions, do not show this effect, though they also cannot modify [+Qu]. It is argued that adjuncts of this class are argument-like and thus that their trace may count for scope at LF, following a version of Aoun and Li's (1989) Scope Principle making reference to chains. Thus they are not forced to modify the question operator and may co-occur with A-not-A questions.

To the extent that this analysis is successful, it supports the validity of the Isomorphic Principle and the Scope Principle as important mechanisms for mapping S-structure to LF.

Keywords

Locative Expression Theoretical Language Scope Relationship Scope Principle Isomorphic Principle 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aqvist, Lennart (1965)A New Approach to the Logical Theory of Interrogatives, Part I, Analysis, Almqvist and Wiksell, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  2. Aoun, Joseph (1986)Generalized Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  3. Aoun, Joseph and Audrey Y.-H. Li (1989) “Scope and Constituency,”Linguistic Inquiry 20, 141–172.Google Scholar
  4. Aoun, Joseph and Audrey Y.-H. Li (1991) “The Interaction of Operators,” in R. Freidin (ed.),Principles and Parameters of Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 163–181.Google Scholar
  5. Aoun, Joseph and Audrey Y.-H. Li (1993) “WH-elements in Situ: Syntax or LF,”Linguistic Inquiry 24, 199–238.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, Mark (1988)Incorporation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  7. Belnap, Nuel (1969) “Aqvist's Corrections-Accumulating Question Sequences,” in J. W. Davis et al. (eds.),Philosophical Logic, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Benmamoun, Elabbas (1991) “On the Interaction between WH-movement, Verb Movement, and the Qu Projection,” unpublished ms., University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  9. Chao, Yuen-Ren (1968)A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam (1981)Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam (1986a)Knowledge of Language, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam (1986b)Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik (to appear)Principles and Parameters Theory, in J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, and T. Vennemann (eds.),Syntax: an International Guidebook of Contemporary Research, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  14. Dowty, David (1979)Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  15. Ernst, Thomas (1984)Towards an Integrated Theory of Adverb Position in English, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  16. Ernst, Thomas (1991a) “On the Scope Principle,”Linguistic Inquiry 22, 750–756.Google Scholar
  17. Ernst, Thomas (1991b) “A Phrase Structure Theory for Tertiaries,” in S. Rothstein (ed.),Syntax and Semantics 25, Academic Press, New York, pp. 189–208.Google Scholar
  18. Ernst, Thomas (1992a) “Chinese A-not-A Questions and the ECP,” unpublished ms., University of Delaware, Newark.Google Scholar
  19. Ernst, Thomas (1992b) “The Pharase Structure of English Negation,”Linguistic Review 9, 109–144.Google Scholar
  20. Ernst, Thomas (to appear) “Negation in Mandarin Chinese,”NLLT.Google Scholar
  21. Guo, Jin-Man (1992)Hanyu Zhengfan Wenju de Jiegou he Jufa Yunzuo [The Structure and Syntactic Movement of Chinese A-not-A Questions], M.A. thesis, National Tsing Hua University.Google Scholar
  22. Guo, Jin-Man (1993) “The Interaction between ‘Daodi’ and Wh-Phrases in Mandarin Chinese,” unpublished ms., National Tsing Hua University.Google Scholar
  23. Hegarty, Michael (1992) “Adjunct Extraction without Traces,”WCCFL 10, Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, CSLI, Chicago, pp. 209–222.Google Scholar
  24. Higginbotham, James (1985) “On Semantics,”Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–594.Google Scholar
  25. Hornstein, Norbert (1987) “Levels of Meaning,” in J. Garfield (ed.),Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural-Language Understanding, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. Huang, C.-T. James (1982)Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  27. Huang, C.-T. James (1989) “Modularity and Explanation: the Case of A-not-A Questions,” in M. Chan and T. Ernst (eds.),Proceedings of the Third Ohio State Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, pp. 141–169.Google Scholar
  28. Huang, C.-T. James (1993) “Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: Some Theoretical Consequences,”Linguistic Inquiry 24, 103–138.Google Scholar
  29. Karttunen, Lauri (1978) “Syntax and Semantics of Questions,” in H. Hiz (ed.),Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 165–210.Google Scholar
  30. Laka, Itziar (1990)Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  31. Lang, Rainer (1978) “Questions as Episternic Requests,” in H. Hiz (ed.),Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 301–318.Google Scholar
  32. Law, Paul (1992) “On the Base Pasition ofwh-Adjuncts and Extraction,” paper presented at LSA annual meeting, Los Angeles; ms, University of Quebec at Montreal.Google Scholar
  33. May, Robert (1985)Logical Form, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  34. McCawley, James (1992) “Remands on the Syntax of Mandarin Yes-No Questions,” ms., University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
  35. Nakamura, Masanori (1992)Move Alpha, Scope, and Relativized Minimality, M.A. thesis, McGill University.Google Scholar
  36. Rizzi, Luigi (1990)Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  37. Speas, Margaret (1990)Phrase Structure in Natural Language, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  38. Tang, C.-C. Jane (1990)Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X′ Theory, Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  39. Tang, C.-C. Jane (1993) “Adjunct Licensing, Wh-in-situ and the Checking Theory in Chinese,” paper presented at ICCL 2, Paris; ms., Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
  40. Tang, Ting-Chi (1988)Studies on Chinese Morphology and Syntax: 1, Student Book Co., Taipei.Google Scholar
  41. Tang, Ting-Chi (1989)Studies on Chinese Morphology and Syntax: 2, Student Book Co., Taipei.Google Scholar
  42. Travis, Lisa (1984)Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  43. Wachowicz, Krystyna (1978) “Q-Morpheme Hypothesis, Performative Analysis, and an Alternative,” in H. Hiz (ed.),Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 151–163.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Ernst
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of DelawareNewark

Personalised recommendations