The Quantification Accessibility Hierarchy for Affixal Quantifiers

  • Peppina Po-lun Lee
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 87)


Previous analyses of -hoi, -saai and -maai emphasize their non-aspectual nature, separating them from verbal suffixes like perfective marker -zo, experiential marker -gwo, imperfective marker -zyu and progressive marker -gan, which are generally considered to be falling under the aspectual group. However, the problem is even if it is correct to claim for their non-aspectual nature, the basic semantics of -hoi, -saai and -maai remains unknown. As discussed in  Chap. 2, despite that previous analyses do correctly describe some meanings of these suffixes, no unified meaning has been provided to any of them, with the underlying semantics of these suffixes yet to be revealed. What is peculiar about -hoi, -saai and -maai is that although they are morphologically attached to the verb, they can interpret with all verbal arguments. These suffixes are essentially quantificational, since it is from the suffix that the quantificational meaning of the sentence in question is derived. Hence, any analyses which aim to adequately capture the semantics of these verbal suffixes must account for their quantificational meaning.


Part Structure Direct Object Hierarchical Order Restrictive Domain Direct Argument 
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.


  1. Cheng, Lisa, and Rint Sybesma. 2004. Postverbal ‘can’ in Cantonese (and Hakka) and agree. Lingua 114: 419–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cheung, Hung Nin. 2007. Xianggang Yueyu Yufa de Yanjiu [A study on Cantonese grammar]. Rev. ed. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  3. de Swart, Henriëtte. 1993. Adverbs of quantification: A generalized quantifier approach. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ernst, Thomas, and Chengchi Wang. 1995. Object preposing in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4(3): 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Francis, Elaine J., and Stephen Matthews. 2006. Categoriality and object extraction in Cantonese serial verb constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 751–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guéron, Jacqueline, and Teun Hoekstra. 1988. T-chains and the constituent structure of auxiliaries. In Annali di Ca’ Foscari, ed. A. Cardinaletti, G. Cinque and G. Giusti, 35–100. Special Issue, Constituent Structure.Google Scholar
  9. Guéron, Jacqueline, and Teun Hoekstra. 1995. The temporal interpretation of predication. In Syntax and semantics 28: Small clauses, ed. A. Cardinaletti and M.T. Guasti, 77–108. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hamm, Fritz, and Erhard Hinrichs (eds.). 1998. Plurality and quantification. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Hoeksema, Jack. 1983. Plurality and conjunction. In Studies in model-theoretic semantics, ed. A.G.B. Ter Meulen, 63–83. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  12. Huang, Shuanfan. 1981. On the scope phenomena of Chinese quantifiers. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 9(2): 226–243.Google Scholar
  13. Huang, C.T.James. 1982b. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Iljic, Robert. 1994. Quantification in Mandarin Chinese: Two markers of plurality. Linguistics 32: 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 197–236. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  17. Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–392.Google Scholar
  18. Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, Thomas Hun Tak. 1986. Studies on quantification in Chinese. Unpublished PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
  20. Lee, Thomas Hun Tak. 1994. Yueyu ‘saai’ de luojitedian [The logical properties of Cantonese -saai]. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Yue Dialects, ed. Sin Chou Yiu, 131–138. Hong Kong: XianDa Jiaoyu Yanjiush.Google Scholar
  21. Lee, Thomas Hun Tak. 1995. Postverbal quantifiers in Cantonese. Paper presented at the 10th workshop on Asian Oriental Linguistics, May 16–17, 1995. Paris: Centre de Recherches Linguistiques L’Asie Orientale.Google Scholar
  22. Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. R. Bäuerle et al., 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Luke, Kang Kwong, and Adams Bodomo. 2001. A comparative study of the semantics of serial verb constructions in Dagaare and Cantonese. Languages in Contrast 2: 165–180.Google Scholar
  24. Matthews, Stephen. 2006. On serial verb constructions in Cantonese. In Serial verb constrictions: A cross-linguistic typology, ed. Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon, 69–87. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Milsark, Gary Lee. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. Mo, Hua. 1993. Shi lun ‘saai’ yu ‘maai’ de yitong [A comparative study between -saai and -maai]. In Guangzhouhua Yanjiu yu Jiaoxue, ed. Tingou Cheng and Zhou Xiaobing, 74–84. Guangzhou: University of Zhongsan Press.Google Scholar
  27. Moltmann, Friederike. 1997. Parts and wholes in semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pan, Haihua. 1993. Interaction between adverbial quantification and perfective aspect. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Linguistics Society of Mid-America Conference, Northwestern U, ed. L.S Stvan, 188–204. Bloomington: Indiana U Linguistics Club Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Quine, Willard. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1996. Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  31. Sharvy, Richard. 1980. A more general theory of definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 89: 607–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simons, Peter. 1987. Parts: A study in ontology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  33. Tang, Sze Wing. 1996. A role of lexical quantifiers. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 26(1/2): 307–323.Google Scholar
  34. Tang, Sze Wing. 2003. A parametric theory of Chinese dialectal grammar. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  36. Yue-Hashimoto, Anne. 1993. Aspects. In Collection des Cahiers de Linguistique d’ Asie Orientale 1: Comparative Chinese Dialectal Grammar – Handbook for investigators, 69–88. Paris: Centre de Recherches Linguistiques sur l’ Asie Orientale.Google Scholar
  37. Zhan, Bohui. 1958. Yue fangyan zhong de xuci ‘qin, zhu, fan, mai, tian’. Zhongguo Yuwen 3: 119–122.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peppina Po-lun Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chinese, Translation and LinguisticsCity University of Hong KongKowloon TongHong Kong

Personalised recommendations