Skip to main content
Log in

The semantic category of the subject NP in Mandarin specificational copular sentences

  • Published:
Journal of East Asian Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I show that in Mandarin specificational copular sentences (sentences headed by the copula shi, in which the subject NP is typically a definite or indefinite description), the subject NP should be treated as a referential, rather than a predicative expression. This conclusion bears on the recent debate on whether specificational copular sentences should be treated as equative or as (inverted) predicational sentences, coming out against the latter. Evidence is adduced from (i) the distribution of the copula in nominal and non-nominal predication sentences, which I show also suggests that the Mandarin copula has a predicate-creation function; and (ii) asymmetries in the interpretation of bare nouns and indefinite NPs in the subject and complement positions of shi.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

Assoc:

Associative particle

CL:

Classifier

Perf:

Perfective marker

Q-prt:

Question particle

sg:

Singular

pl:

Plural

1, 2, 3:

1st, 2nd, 3rd person

References

  • Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Chao Yuan-Ren. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, University of California Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng Lisa, Rint Sybesma. (1999). Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 509–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Chierchia Gennaro. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6:339–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croft William. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft William. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Geach P. (1962). Reference and generality. Ithaca, Cornell University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Heggie, Lorie. 1988. The syntax of copular sentences. PhD diss., University of Southern California.

  • Heycock, Caroline, and Anthony Kroch. 1998. Inversion and equation in copular sentences. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Pseudoclefts, 71–87. Berlin: ZAS.

  • Heycock Caroline, Anthony Kroch. (1999). Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF level. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 365–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heycock, Caroline, and Anthony Kroch. 2002. Topic, focus, and syntactic representations. In Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Line Mikkelsen and Chris Potts, 101–125. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.

  • Higgins F.R. (1979). The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York, Garland

    Google Scholar 

  • Hole Daniel. (2004). Focus and background marking in Mandarin Chinese: System and theory behind cai, jiu, dou and ye. London, Routledge Curzon

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1995. Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of Chinese and English. In The generic book, ed. Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 398–411. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Lambrecht Knud. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPolla, Randy. 1990. Grammatical relations in Chinese: Synchronic and diachronic considerations. PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley.

  • LaPolla, Randy. 1995. Pragmatic relations and word order in Chinese. In Word order in discourse, ed. Pamela Downing and Michael Noonan, 297–329. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Li Charles N., Sandra Thompson. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar, 2nd edition. Berkeley, University of California Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Longobardi Giuseppe. (1994). Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665

    Google Scholar 

  • Lü , Shuxiang. 1941. Zhongguo wenfa yaolüe [Key points of Chinese Grammar]. Beijing: Commercial Press.

  • Lyons John. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • McCawley James D. (1992). Justifying part-of-speech assignment in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 20(2): 112–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelsen, Line. 2002. Specification is not inverted predication. In Proceedings of NELS 32, ed. Masako Hirotani, 403–422. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.

  • Mikkelsen, Line. 2004. Specifying who: On the structure, meaning, and use of specificational copular clauses. PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz.

  • Moro Andrea. (1997). The raising of predicates. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2005. How many bes are there in English? In Polymorphous linguistics: Jim McCawley’s legacy, ed. Salikoko S. Mufwene, Elaine J. Francis, and Rebecca. S. Wheeler, 225–246. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Partee, Barbara. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, ed. Jeroen Groenendijik, Dick de Jongh, and Martin Stokhof, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Partee, Barbara. 2000. Copula inversion puzzles in English and Russian. In Issues in Semantics and its Interface, UMOP 23, ed. Kiyomi Kusumoto and Elisabeth Villalta, 183–208. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Originally published in Katarzyna Dziwirek, Herbert Coats, and Cynthia Vakareliyska, ed., Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Seattle meeting. (Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 1998).

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

  • Ross Claudia. (1984). Grammatical categories in Chinese. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers’ Association 19(2):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross Claudia. (1991). Coverbs and category distinctions in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 19(1): 79–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze Carson. (2003). When is a verb not a verb? Nordlyd 31(2):400–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. In Syntax and semantics: The syntactic structure of Hungarian, ed. Ference Kiefer and Katalin É . Kiss, 179–274. San Diego: Academic Press.

  • Tang, Sze-Wing. 2001. Nominal predication and focus anchoring. In ZAS papers in linguistics, Vol. 22, ed. Gerhard Jä ger, Anatoli Strigin, Chris Wilder, and Zhang Ning, 159–172. Berlin: ZAS.

  • Vallduví Enric. (1992). The informational component. New York, Garland

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams Edwin. (1983). Syntactic vs. semantic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6:423–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, Dexi. 1982. Yufa jiangyi [Lectures on grammar]. Beijing: Commercial Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shiao Wei Tham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tham, S.W. The semantic category of the subject NP in Mandarin specificational copular sentences. J East Asian Linguist 17, 61–82 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-007-9020-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-007-9020-6

Keywords

Navigation