We have analyzed Chinese comparative conditionals as a type of bare conditionals.
Both types of conditionals are subject to the anti-c-command condition, and neither of them has the counterfactual reading. They are quantified structures semantically,
consisting of an element providing quantificational force, a restrictive and nuclear scope.
The quantifier can either be the invisible quantifier or an overt adverb of quantification.
The quantifier is unselective, meaning that it can bind different types of variables and a different number of variables. However, Chinese comparative conditionals differ from bare conditionals in the following ways: Syntactically, it is not necessary for the
Chinese comparative conditional morpheme yue’s ‘more’s’ to occur in different clauses (i.e., the antecedent and the consequent clause), but it is necessary for the correlative words in bare conditionals to occur in different clauses. Although more than one pairs of correlative words are allowed in Chinese comparative conditionals, only one yue
‘more’ … yue ‘more’ pair is allowed. Since there is no donkey-pronoun/definite description correspondent for yue ‘more’, no alternation between yue ‘more’ and a donkey pronoun/definite description is allowed.
Assuming Beck’s (1997) proposal that the comparative conditional morpheme denotes a relation between a pair of variables, the comparative morpheme and a relation between variables and degrees, we further argue that the Chinese comparative
conditional morpheme yue ‘more is a polarity-like event variable (i.e., a comparing event) bound by the default operator through unselective binding. Consequently, we suggest that, differing from English comparative conditionals in which the
adjective/adverb/noun is overtly pied-piped along the comparative morpheme to [Spec, CP], Chinese comparative conditionals do not involve any overt movement. This typological difference between Chinese and English in forming comparative conditionals in fact can be reduced as a case of the more important and familiar
parametric variation between Chinese and English: Chinese wh-questions are formed by leaving wh-words in situ while English by moving wh-words to the sentence-initial
position. The syntactic tree structure of Chinese comparative conditionals can be splitted into a tripartite representation by assuming Tsai’s (2001) Extended Mapping Hypothesis. So, the anti-c-command condition and the unboundedness effect shown by the predicate of Chinese comparative conditionals get explained naturally.
Reference
Beck, Sigrid (1997) “On the Semantics of Comparative Conditionals”, Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 229-271.
Chao, Yuen-Ren (1968) A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Cheng, Lai-Shen Lisa (1991) On the Typology of Wh-Questions, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Cheng, Lai-Shen Lisa (1995) “On Dou-Quantification”, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4: 197-234.
Cheng, Lai-Shen Lisa, and Cheng-Teh James Huang (1996) “Two Types of Donkey Sentences”, Natural Language Semantics 4: 121-163.
Chomsky, Noam (1986) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff (1999) “The View from the Periphery: The English Comparative Correlatives”, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 543-571.
Diesing, Moly (1992) Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ding, Sheng-Shu, Shu-Xiang Lu, Rong Li, De-Xuan Sun, Xie-Chu Guan, and Jing Fu (1979) Xiandai Hanyu Yufa Jianghua [Lectures on the Syntax of Contemporary Chinese], Shangwu Yinshuguan, Beijing.
Heim, Irene (1982) The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Heim, Irene (1985) Notes on Comparatives and Ellipsis, Ms., University of Texas, Austin.
Hsiao Su-Ying and Feng-Fu Tsao (2002) “Lun Hanyu Liang-Zhong Guanlian Jushi de Yufa yu Yuyi [On the Syntax and Semantics of Two Correlative Constructions in Mandarin Chinese]”, Language and Linguistics 3: 811-838.
Hornstein, Norbert (1995) Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Huang, Cheng-Teh. James (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Jiang, Yan and Hai-Hua Pan (2004) NP Interpretation and Donkey Sentences in Chinese, Ms., Hong Kong Polytechnic University and City University of Hong Kong.
Kadmon, Nirit (1987) On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
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: 277-322, Mathematical Centre Tracts, Amsterdam.
Kratzer, Angelika (1986) “Conditionals”, in A. M. Farley, P. Farley, and K. E.
McCullough (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory: 1-15, Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.
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.
Li, Charles N. and Sandara Thompson (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional
Reference Grammar, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Li, Yen-Hui Audrey (1992) “Indefinite Wh in Mandarin Chinese”, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 125-155.
Lin, Jo-Wang (1996) Polarity Licensing and Wh-phrase Quantification in Chinese, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lin, Jo-Wang (1998) “On Existential Polarity Wh-phrases in Chinese”, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 219-255.
Lin, Jo-Wang (2003) “Aspectual Selection and Negation in Mandarin Chinese”, Linguistics 41-3: 425-459.
Lu, Jian-Ming and Zhen Ma (1985) Xiandai Hanyu Xuci Sanlun [Studies on Contemporary Chinese Functional Words], Yuwen Chubanshe, Beijing.
Lu, Shu-Xiang et al. (1980) Xiandai Hanyu Ba Bai Ci [Eight Hundred Words of Contemporary Chinese], Shangwu Yinshuguan, Beijing.
Nishgauchi, Taisuke (1990) Quantification in the Theory of Grammar, Kluwer Publications, Dordrecht.
McCawley, James D. (1988) “The Comparative Conditional Construction in English, German and Chinese”, Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 176-187.
Thiersch, Craig (1982) “The harder they come, …: A Note on the Double Comparative Construction in English”, in Werner Welte (ed.), Festschrift fur Alfred Wollmann:
47-65.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan (1994) On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependencies, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan (2001) “On Subject Specificity and Theory of Syntax-Semantics Interface”, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10: 129-168.
von, Fintel, Kai (1994) Restrictions on Quantifier Domains, Ph.D. dissertation, Universtiy of Massachusetts, Amherst.
von, Stechow, Arnim (1984) “Comparing Semantic Theories of Comparison”, Journal of Semantics 3: 1-77.
Xing, Fu-Yi (1985) “‘Yue X Yue Y’ Ju Xing [The Yue X Yue Y Sentence Pattern]”, Zhongguo Yuwen 1985-3: 178-185.
Zhao, Shi-Kai (1999) Han Ying Duibi Yufa Lunji [Essays on the Contrastive Study of Chinese-English Syntax: A Cognitive-functional Approach], Shanghai Waiyu Jiaoyu Chubanshe.
Notes
1 As the semantic interpretation of (1a) indicates, if there is a positive difference in the degree of sweetness between the two apples, then there must be a corresponding or resulting positive difference in the degree of deliciousness of the two apples. In other words, these two difference degrees (one in the antecedent and the other in the consequent clause) are related to each other. Hsiao and Tsao (2002, 812-813) suggest that the two difference degrees in Chinese comparative conditionals are proportional.
However, example (i) is intuitively correct under the following scenario: Suppose that father B is 5 cm taller than father A and father B’s kid is 2 cm taller than father A’s;
father C is 5 cm taller than father B and father C’s kid is 3 cm taller than father B’s. So, we take a stand against Hsiao and Tsao’s (2002) claim, and suggest that for Chinese comparative conditionals the difference degree in the consequent clause is not
functionally dependent on that in the antecedent clause. In addition, given space limit, cases containing yue lai yue ‘more come more’ will not be discussed in this paper.
Please see Chao (1968, 121), McCawley (1988, 187) and Hsiao and Tsao (2002) for further discussion.
Abbreviations used in this paper include: ASP: aspect markers; BA: the disposal marker;
BEI: the passive marker; CL: classifiers; and DE: verbal suffix or marker for modifying phrases like genitive phrases, relative clauses, and noun complement clauses.
2 Since the dou-conditional is not directly related to the mainstream of this paper, we
shall not discuss this construction in the rest of this paper. Besides, since the conditional morpheme ruguo ‘if’ can always be replaced by another conditional morpheme yaoshi
‘if’, in the following we shall use ruguo-/yaoshi-conditionals to represent ruguo-conditionals.
3 Since Cheng and Huang (1996), the syntax and semantics of Chinese donkey
sentences, including bare conditionals and ruguo-/yaoshi-conditionals, has aroused a lot of discussion among scholars either in empirical or theoretical aspects. Cheng and Huang (1996) is challenged by Lin (1996), which is further challenged by Jiang and Pan (2004). The debate among these works, as we shall show, does not significantly
influence the mainstream of our study on Chinese comparative conditionals. So, in this paper discussion on Chinese bare conditionals and ruguo-/yaoshi-conditionals is mainly based on Cheng and Huang (1996) and Lin (1996); Jiang and Pan (2004) will be
mentioned only if necessary.
4 However, Jiang and Pan (2004, 5) point out that a wh-phrase can appear in the consequent clause of bare conditionals, as (i) shows.
(i) Ruguo shei yao zhe puo-chang, *(jiu) rang shei dao bangongshi lai zhao wo.
If wo want this broken-factory then let who to office come find me
‘Whoever wants this broken factory, let him/her come to my office to see me.’
See Cheng and Huang (1996, 149-150) for discussion on examples like (i).
5 The acceptability of (8a) gets much improved if the morpheme jiu ‘then’ is inserted into the consequent clause, as (i) shows. (Ten out of my twelve informants say example (i) is acceptable even without the conditional morpheme jiu ‘then’.)
(i) Ni zuotian (yaoshi) yue zao chufa, jintian *(jiu) keyi yue zao jiandao You yesterday if more early leave today then can more early see ni-de nuer.
your daughter
‘If you had left earlier yesterday, today you will see your daughter earlier.’
And seven out of the ten informants say that example (i) allows the counterfactual reading. The obligatoriness of jiu ‘then’ in (i), as shown by the contrast between (8a) and (i) in grammaticality, however implies that example (i) might be considered a
‘reduced’ yaoshi-/ruguo-conditional (cf. Cheng and Huang (1996, 149-150)). So, we use (8a) here to show that Chinese comparative conditionals do not have the
counterfactual reading. Given the structural ambiguity shown by cases like (i), it is possible for us to have (i) translated as if you ran faster yesterday, you will be more tired today rather than the faster you ran yesterday, the more tired you will be today (cf.
McCawley (1988) and Culicover and Jackendoff (1999)).
6 However, Jiang and Pan (2004, 7) argue that it is not impossible to find a bare conditional that does not carry existential presupposition and is compatible with you
‘have’, as (i) illustrates.
(i) You shei neng gei qian, shei jiu shi qinnian.
Have who can provide money who then is real-mother
‘Whoever can provide money will be the real mother.’
As Cheng and Huang (1996) argue, given the ungrammaticality of (ii), example (i) might be considered a ‘reduced’ ruguo-/yaoshi-conditional. So, it is not so clear whether Jiang and Pan’s (2004) claim stands or not.
(ii) *You shei neng gei qian, shei shi qinnian.
Have who can provide money who is real-mother Besides, all of my thirteen informants say (i) is unacceptable.
7 Chao (1968, 121) suggests that (14a), in which two coordinate yue’s ‘more’s’ are to be correlated with another, is a 2+1 structure because a suspended intonation or pause particle can be inserted between the first two and the third clause. However, (14a) can be understood as a 1+2 structure if an appropriate context is provided, for example one in which your loud voice is the cause that makes your talk becomes longer and less people listen.
8 Lin (1996, 189-191) argues that Cheng and Huang’s (1996) observation that in bare conditionals the donkey wh-word in the consequent clause must be identical to the wh-word in the antecedent clause is not without problems by providing examples like
(19e). Please see section 4 for further discussion on Cheng and Huang (1996) and Lin (1996).
9 Since the degree adverb yue ‘more’ modifies VPs or APs, the reason adverb
weishenme ‘why’, which has either IP or CP as modifying domain, cannot appear in the modifying domain of yue ‘more’. (20d) therefore is ungrammatical.
10 We have to admit that it is not so clear whether the morpheme jiu ‘then’ is always deletable in Chinese comparative conditionals. Seven out of my thirteen informants accept sentences without jiu ‘then’ regardless of whether the dependence between yue’s
‘more’s’ is long-distance or not, but six of them do not accept the long-distance case without jiu ‘then’. This variation on judgment might result from dialectal variation. For ease of exposition, my claim that jiu ‘then’ is deletable in local cases but not in
long-distance cases is simply based on my own dialect. McCawley (1988, 183) argues that Chinese comparative conditionals allow unbounded dependence between yue’s
‘more’s’ by providing examples like (i)-(ii).
(i) Ta yue bu tinghua, fuqin yaoqiu xuexiao pai ren ba ta kan-de yue He more not behave father request school send person BA he look-DE more yan.
strict
‘The more he does not behave, the more strictly his father requests the school to
send people to watch over him.’
(ii) Zhao taitai yue shuo, ziji juede yue you li.
Zhao Mrs. more talk self feel more have reason
‘The more Mrs. Zhao talked, the more right she felt herself to be.’
However, one of the reviewers and six of my thirteen informants say (i)-(ii) are
marginally acceptable. Interestingly, acceptability of example (i)-(ii), as my informants suggest, becomes much improved if we insert the morpheme jiu ‘then’ into the second clause, as (iii)-(iv) illustrate.
(iii) Ta yue bu tinghua, fuqin jiu yaoqiu xuexiao pai ren ba ta kan-de more He more not behave father then request school send person BA he look-DE yue yan.
strict
‘The more he does not behave, the more strictly his father will request the school to send people to watch over him.’
(iv) Zhao taitai yue shuo, ziji jiu juede yue you li.
Zhao Mrs. more talk self then feel more have reason
‘The more Mrs. Zhao talked, then the more right she will feel herself to be.’
The function of jiu ‘then’ in cases like (iii)-(iv) can be roughly described as follows: In correlative constructions like Chinese comparative conditionals, the pair of yue’s
‘more’s’ functions to bind the minimal clauses dominating each of them into the conditional. However, once if the minimal clause dominating the second yue ‘more’ is
further embedded inside another clause, the morpheme jiu ‘then’, which functions to introduce ‘consequence’, must be inserted into the complex clause (e.g., the second clause in (iii)-(iv)) to serve to bind the complex clause with the antecedent clause into the conditional (cf. Lu et al. (1980, 282-283)). In other words, the morpheme jiu ‘then’
is inserted whenever the causal relation between the ‘antecedent’ and the ‘consequent’
clause is not so clear. One reviewer further points out that there are two situations that may make long-distance dependence more acceptable. One situation is when the matrix verb is parenthetical, as (v) shows.
(v) Ni chi-de yue duo, Zhangsan shuo, ni hui zhang-de yue gao.
You eat-DE more more Zhangsan say you will grow-DE more tall
‘The more you eat, Zhangsan says, the taller you will grow.’
However, if we replace the verb shuo ‘say’ by xiangxin ‘believe’, the sentence sounds bad as in (vi).
(vi) *Ni chi-de yue duo, Zhangsan xiangxin ni hui zhang-de yue gao.
You eat-DE more more Zhangsan believe you will grow-DE more tall
‘*The more you eat, Zhangsan believes that the taller you will grow.’
Another situation that may make the embedded yue ‘more’ more acceptable is when the matrix verb is of the kind that can undergo restructuring (e.g., the control verb yaoqiu
‘ask’ as in (i) (cf. Hornstein (1995, 85-86))). That is why some speakers say example (i) sounds acceptable.
11 The grammaticality of (28b) immediately questions Hsiao and Tsao’s (2002, 821) claim that the first yue ‘more’ in Chinese comparative conditionals modifies
quantifiable unbounded situations, including scalar states and quantifiable
activities/semelfactives, but the second yue ‘more’ can only modify a scalar state.
Besides, examples containing achievement and semelfactive verbs are not found in Hsiao and Tsao (2002).
12 However, in contrast with progressive aspect marker –zhe, the progressive marker zai
‘at’ is incompatible with yue ‘more’.
(i) *Pingguo, ni yue zai chi, yue xiang.
Apple you more at eat more fragrant
As one reviewer suggests, zai ‘at’ and yue ‘more’ both operate on the event structure that they modify and compete the same adverbial position that is related to the event structure. So, the complementary distribution between zai ‘at’ and yue ‘more’ makes (i) ungrammatical.
13 Interestingly, if the focus verb shi ‘is’ is inserted in-between the correlative adverb yue ‘more’ and the mei-negated predicate, (31b) becomes acceptable, as (i) shows.
(i) Zhangan yue shi mei chouyan, ni yue bu gai mai yan song ta.
Zhangsan more is not smoke you more not should buy cigarette give him
‘The longer he stops smoking, the more prohibited to buy cigarette for him you
are.’
The same also obtains in cases containing the aspect marker –le and –guo, as (ii)-(iii) illustrate.
(ii) Fanren yue *(shi) he-le jiu, yue rongyi nao shi.
Criminal more is drink-ASP wine more possible make trouble
‘In a series of drinking events, the later it is done by the criminals, the more likely it is for they to make trouble.’
(iii) Yue *(shi) you-guo zhe-zhong jingyan de ren, yue heshi.
More is have-ASP this-CL experience DE person more appropriate
‘The more experience of this kind a person has, the more qualified s/he will be (for this job).’
Since the focus verb shi ‘is’ has a function of adjusting one’s attention or the camera lens to make something or some event into a clear image. An image is a picture formed in a mind, or a picture formed of an object in front of a mirror or lens such as picture formed on the film inside a camera or one’s reflection in a mirror. Hence, an image can be considered as a state. Seen in this light, we suggest that the focus verb shi ‘is’
functions to turn the mei-negated predicate in (i) into a state; therefore, (i) becomes acceptable. As the same reasoning, the grammaticality of (ii)-(iii) gets explained.
14 However, Jiang and Pan (2004, 22) argue that example (32b) in fact is perfectly compatible with the multi-case reading, as indicated by the possibility of using a
wh-word in the consequent clause in (i).
(i) Shang ci shei mei jiang-wan, jintian jiu you shei xian kaishi.
Last time who not talk-finish today then with who first begin
‘Today let us begin with whoever did not finish his talk last time.’
As Jiang and Pan (2004, 22) further argue, even if we have ta ‘him’ in the consequent clause, (32b) still can be used to describe the situation: There are three discussion groups in a class; although each group had some presentations yesterday, none of them finished, and it happened to be true that each group had one person who did not finish his/her presentation. Sentence (32b) therefore can be used to describe different groups.
In this case, the groups will have a different referent for ta ‘him’ in the sentence.
15 Interpretation of (33b) in fact depends on the type of nominal expression co-occurring with the classifier ci ‘time’. If the nominal expression denotes a simple running event (e.g., shang-ci caipao ‘last time running-game’), then only the one-case reading is possible (Remember the unique event here is the unbound running event rather than the comparing event. See section 4 for the details). However, if the nominal expression denotes a multiple-event activity consisting of repeated events (e.g., a series of running games), then the multi-case reading is possible. Since the one-case vs. multi-case reading distinction is beyond the scope of this paper, we shall not go back to this issue in the rest of this paper.
16 Since Hsiao and Tsao (2002) as well as McCawley (1988) do not provide any analysis for the characteristics of Chinese comparative conditionals they point out, we shall not make any remarks on their paper here.
17 Although Beck (1997) claims that in English/German comparative conditionals the comparative conditional morpheme, for example je, is pied-piped along with the
17 Although Beck (1997) claims that in English/German comparative conditionals the comparative conditional morpheme, for example je, is pied-piped along with the