Chapter 2 Literature reviews
2.4 Basic Facts about Chinese Equatives
In the previous sections, I have introduced some common views concerning gradable adjectives and comparatives in the literature, which I assumed in this paper.
In the following I will first review two semantic parameters concerning comparative construction (proposed in Huddleston & Pullum 2002), and I will indicate some interesting facts when we consider the Mandarin data with the two semantic parameters.
Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 1099) consider that there are two semantic parameters concerning comparative constructions, namely, (a) whether comparisons are concerned with relative position on some scale, such as that denoted by gradable adjective old or not; and (b) whether comparisons are concerned with equality relation or not. As shown in (23), two semantic dimensions of contrast yield the four types of comparative construction.
(23) Four types of comparative construction
EQUALITY INEQUALITY
SCALAR Kim is as old as Pat. Kim is older than pat.
NON-SCALAR I took the same bus as last time. I took a different bus from last time.
Note that the non-scalar comparison, in Huddleston & Pullum (2002), includes both identity vs. non-identity and likeness vs. unlikeness (i.e., similarity). For another,
when we consider the Mandarin data with two semantic dimensions indicated above, an interesting fact emerges: In Mandarin, comparisons concerned with equality relation (i.e., including both scalar and non-scalar) may all involve yiyang ‘same’; and comparisons concerned with inequality relation (i.e., including both scalar and non-scalar) may all involve buyiyang ‘different’. Examples (24)-(26) illustrate this point.
(24) Comparison of Degrees
a. Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang gao.
Zhangsan with Lisi same tall ‘Zhangsan is exactly as tall as Lisi.’
cf. ‘Zhangsan is equally tall as Lisi.’
b. Zhangsan gen Lisi buyiyang gao.
Zhangsan with Lisi different tall ‘Zhangsan is not exactly as tall as Lisi.’
cf. Lit. Zhangsan is unequally tall than Lisi.
(25) Comparison of Identity and comparison of Similarity (properties)
a. Zhangsan de zhidaojiaoshou gen Lisi de zhidaojiaoshou yiyang ma?
Zhangsan POSS adviser with Lisi POSS adviser same Q ‘Are Zhangsan’s adviser and Lisi’s adviser the same one?’
‘Is Zhangsan’s adviser the same as Lisi’s adviser with respect to some contextually salient properties?’
b. Zhangsan de zhidaojiaoshou gen Lisi de zhidaojiaoshou buyiyang Zhangsan POSS adviser with Lisi POSS adviser different ‘Zhangsan’s adviser and Lisi’s adviser are different ones.’
‘Zhangsan’s adviser is different from Lisi’s adviser with respect to some contextually salient properties.’
(26) Comparison of Similarity (properties)
a. Ta de daan gen wo de daan youdian/ jihu/chabuduo/
His answer with my answer slightly almost/ nearly/
wanquan yiyang.
completely same
‘His answer is slightly/almost/nearly/completely the same as mine.’
b. Ta de daan gen wo de daan youdian/ xiangdang/ hen/ jihu/
His answer with my answer slightly/ quite/ very/almost/
wanquan buyiyang.
completely different
‘His answer is slightly/quite/very/almost/completely different from mine.’
For one thing, in (24a-b), it seems that yiyang and buyiyang in Mandarin serve as degree adverbs (i.e., which saturates the degree argument of a gradable adjective). For another, (25a-b) is truth-conditionally ambiguous between the so-called token-identity reading and type-identity reading in the literature. Last, yiyang and
buyiyang in (26a-b) act like gradable predicates in the sense that they receive degree modifications. In addition to the interesting properties indicated above, consider the semantic contrast in (27a-b) below:
(27) a. Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang gao.
Zhangsan with Lisi same tall ‘Zhangsan is exactly as tall as Lisi.’
cf. ‘Zhangsan is equally tall as Lisi.’
b. Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang hen gao.
Zhangsan with Lisi same very tall
‘Zhangsan is the same as Lisi in that they both are (very) tall.’
The truth condition of (27b) requires that the height of Zhangsan and Lisi must exceed some contextually determined standard of tallness (i.e., they both must be tall and they are not necessarily of the same height), while that of (27a) does not. In other words, Zhangsan and Lisi in (27a) could both be short or tall as long as they are of the same height. On the other hand, it appears that yiyang is followed by an embedded clause in (28a-b). Note that temporal adverbials and evaluative adverbials are normally assumed to be IP-level and CP-level, respectively.
(28) a. Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang mingtian hui qu taibei.
Zhangsan with Lisi same tomorrow will go Taipei
‘Zhangsan is the same as Lisi in that they both will go to Taipei tomorrow.’
b. Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang hen xingyundi zhong le letou.
Zhangsan with Lisi same very luckily win ASP lottery ‘Zhangsan is the same as Lisi in that they both luckily win the lottery.’
Given all contrasts demonstrated above, several questions are immediately raised:
(a) is it possible to propose a unified account for all contrasts illustrated above? (b) If not, how many yiyang and buyiyang are necessary to be semantically and syntactically distinguished in Mandarin? (c) What are the semantic contributions of yiyang and buyiyang to the truth condition of a sentence in Mandarin? (d) What are the syntactic structures of scalar (un-)equatives, (non-)identity comparatives and
(dis-)similarity comparatives in Mandarin? In this thesis I will answer these questions in order.
Chapter 3
SCALAR (UN-)EQUATIVES IN MANDARIN
In this chapter, from section 3.1 to 3.3 I first present several pieces of supporting evidence for the argument that yiyang in Mandarin potentially can occupy two different syntactic positions, specifically, a degree adverb and a predicate position.
Then, in section 3.4, I explore the syntax of predicate yiyang, and examine the syntactic nature of comparative marker gen/he. Finally, in section 3.5 and 3.6, I return to the data about scalar (un-)equatives, and propose a syntax-semantics analysis for them.
3.1 Truth Condition
The first piece of evidence comes from the variation of truth conditions with respect to the two different syntactic positions of yiyang. As pointed out in section 2.4, sentences (27a-b) are truth-conditionally different, here repeated as (29a) and (30a).
The logical representations and truth conditions of (29a) and (30a) are shown in (29b-c) and (30b-c), respectively (Note that c stands for some contextually determined standard of tallness).3
(29) a. Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang gao.
Zhangsan with Lisi same tall ‘Zhangsan is exactly as tall as Lisi.’
3 Notice that the descriptive version (30b) here does not involve the semantics of yiyang “same”. As it will become clear, (30a) actually involves a comparison of similarity. The formal version will be provided in chapter 4.
cf. ‘Zhangsan is equally tall as Lisi.’
b. max [d: Zhangsan is d-tall] = max [d’: Lisi is d’-tall]
c. The degree d such that Zhangsan is d-tall equals the degree d’ such that Lisi is d’-tall.
(30) a. Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang hen gao.
Zhangsan with Lisi same very tall
‘Zhangsan is the same as Lisi in that they both are (very) tall.’
b. [gao(Zhangsan)≥ c ∧∧∧∧ gao(Lisi)≥ c]
c. The degree d such that Zhangsan is d-tall exceeds the contextual standard of tallness and the degree d’ such that Lisi is d’-tall exceeds the contextual standard of tallness.
Descriptively speaking, yiyang in (29a) introduces an equality relation between individuals in terms of degrees (i.e., the sameness of degrees of tallness), while in (30a) in terms of properties (i.e., the sameness of property of being (very) tall). To put it differently, it would be not unreasonable for us to propose that yiyang could potentially occupy two different syntactic positions since (29a) and (30a) are truth-conditionally different. This in turn suggests that (29a) and (30a) should be considered as two different comparative constructions in Mandarin.
3.2 The Deictic Reading
The second piece of evidence stems from the deictic reading of same in English.
Carlson (1987: 532) points out that there are two readings concerning the use of same in English. One is deictic reading. Under such reading, the comparative standard is identified in the previous context. The other is the interpretation of an internal reading,
which requires the comparative standard be identified within the sentence (i.e., without referring to the previous context). The two readings are illustrated in (31c-d) respectively (see also Dowty 1985, Moltmann 1992, Lasersohn 2000, Beck 2000 and Barker 2007 for discussions).
(31) a. Mary read The Old Man and The Sea.
b. John and Bill read the same book. (Ambiguous between two readings) c. John and Bill both read The Old Man and The Sea. (The deictic reading) d. John read the book that Bill read. (The sentence internal reading)
Interestingly, the deictic reading of yiyang in Mandarin yields two different syntactic patterns, which is completely unexpected under the view that yiyang is located in exactly one syntactic position.
(32) a. Zhangsan gao yi bai wushi gongfen, Lisi ye yiyang gao.4
4 Under the unified account, one may argue that the underlying structure of (32a) is indeed (i), which undergoes PF-deletion of the measure phrase yi bai wushi gongfen “one hundred and fifty centimeters”, so that yiyang has the same syntactic status (i.e., a predicate) as in (32b). .
(i) Zhangsan gao yi bai wushi gongfen, Lisi ye yiyang gao [yi bai wushi gongfen].
However, there are both theoretical and empirical problems for this analysis. Theoretically speaking, such a PF-deletion analysis would predict that the degree argument of an adjective such as gao can be saturated simply at LF (i.e., without PF-realization of the degree argument), contrary to the fact, as shown in the empirical data (ii). Alternatively, one may still argue that (i) involves a covert positive morpheme, which saturates the degree argument. However, if that is the case, it would lead to semantic anomaly, since the sentence Zhangsan gao yi bai wushi gongfen ‘Zhangsan is one hundred and fifty
centimeters tall’ does not entail that Zhangsan is tall, and one hundred and fifty centimeters does not constitute as the contextual standard of tallness (i.e., the standard for being tall) in normal situations.
This semantic anomaly is demonstrated in (iii). In short, (i) can not be justified as the underlying structure for (32a).
(ii) *Zhangsan gao yi bai wushi gongfen, Lisi ye gao [ yi bai wushi gongfen].
Zhangsan tall one hundred fifty centimeter, Lisi also same tall ‘Zhangsan is one hundred and fifty centimeters tall, Lisi is equally tall.’
b. Zhangsan gao yi bai wushi gongfen, Lisi ye yiyang Zhangsan tall one hundred fifty centimeter, Lisi also same ( gao yi bai wushi gongfen ).
tall one hundred fifty centimeter
‘Zhangsan is one hundred and fifty centimeters tall; Lisi is the same as Zhangsan, too.’
Crucially, the deictic reading of yiyang in (32a) refers to the contextually salient degree to which Zhangsan is tall, namely, the measure phrase yi bai wushi gongfen
“one hundred and fifty centimeters”. On the other hand, however, the deictic reading of yiyang in (32b) presupposes an individual holding the contextually salient property, namely, being one hundred and fifty centimeters tall. The basic idea here is that the deictic reading of yiyang revealing two different patterns is actually predicted under a non-unified account. Imaginably, a unified account has to make some stipulations in order to explain why this is so.
3.3 The Structural Ambiguity of Yiyang
The final piece of evidence comes from the case of structural ambiguity. Recall that it is argued that yiyang potentially can occupy two different syntactic positions (either degree adverbs or adjectival predicates) in Mandarin. Since a degree adverb is normally incompatible with a non-gradable predicate, it is expected that the
(iii) ??Zhangsan gao yi bai wushi gongfen, Lisi ye yiyang gao [ yi bai wushi gongfen]. .
Intended meaning: Zhangsan is one hundred and fifty centimeters tall; Lisi is the same as Zhangsan in that he is (very) tall, too.
modification of the degree adverb yiyang to a non-gradable predicate would lead to semantic anomaly. Example (33) verifies this expectation.
(33) Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang you yi ge erzi.
Zhangsan with Lisi same have one CL son ‘Zhangsan is the same as Lisi in that they both have a son.’
*’The degree to which Zhangsan has a son is the same as the degree to which Lisi has a son.’
Crucially, if the predicate is gradable, the sentence becomes ambiguous. Compare (33) and (34):
(34) Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang xihuan Mali.
Zhangsan with Lisi same like Mary
‘Zhangsan is the same as Lisi in that they both like Mary.’
‘The degree to which Zhangsan likes Mary is the same as the degree to which Lisi likes Mary.’
Again, the contrast between (33) and (34) is unexpected under a unified account. The important point here is that (34) can be regarded as a case of structural ambiguity.
More specifically, the two different syntactic positions of yiyang structurally contribute to the variation of truth conditions of a sentence.
3.4 The Clausal Complement of Yiyang
In the following several subsections, I present a detailed discussion about the syntax of yiyang. In particular, I will first show two pieces of evidence for the
predicative status of yiyang, and propose that yiyang is a similarity predicate in the sense that it semantically introduces a similarity relation between individuals/objects.
Secondly, I argue that yiyang takes a clause involving control structure, and further that the embedded clause is complement in its syntactic nature since extraction of syntactic elements from the clause does not render island effects (i.e., CED effects, in the sense of Huang, 1982). Next, I argue that the categorial status of gen/he is preposition in nature, when they functions as comparative markers introducing the comparative standard in Chinese Equatives. Importantly, this does not exclude the
possibility for gen/he to be a coordinator in Chinese Equatives. Finally, I propose that the clausal complement functions as a specification of the dimension of similarity, by reviewing McCawley’s (1970) discussion about in that clause in similarity construction in English.
3.4.1 Ellipsis Behavior of Yiyang and the Scope of Question Particle Ma
The first supporting evidence comes from the ellipsis behavior of yiyang. As well observed in the literature, in Mandarin Chinese, sentences involving ellipsis need an operation like the do-support in English to insert an auxiliary after the application of PF-deletion; otherwise, a sentence will be ungrammatical, as the contrast in (35a-b) indicate. Alternatively, some predicative elements but not adverbial elements seem to license the elided elements as well, as the contrast in (36a-b) and (37a-e).5
5 Luther Liu (p.c.) points out that the function of elements (such as shi ‘is’, hui ‘will’ and xihuan ‘like’) may be to support the predicate position in the second conjunct involving ye ‘also’, instead of licensing the elided elements. He provides the following contrast:
(i) a. Zhangsan mingtian qu Taibei, Lisi houtian b. *Zhangsan mingtian qu Taibei, Lisi ye houtian
‘Tomorrow Zhangsan will go to Taipei; the day after tomorrow, Lisi will, too.’
As shown above, (ia) is well-formed despite the fact that there are no supporting elements (i.e., predicative elements) to license the elided elements in the second conjunct. For this moment, I leave
(35) a. Zhangsan xihuan chi pinguo, Lisi ye shi [ e ].
Zhangsan like eat apple Lisi also is ‘Zhangsan likes eating apples, so does Lisi.’
b. *Zhangsan xihuan chi pinguo, Lisi ye [ e ].
Zhangsan like eat apple Lisi also
(36) a. Zhangsan xihuan chi pinguo, Lisi ye xihuan [ e ].
Zhangsan like eat apple Lisi also like ‘Zhangsan likes eating apples, Lisi likes, too.’
b. Zhangsan mingtian hui qu Taibei, Lisi ye hui [ e ].
Zhangsan tomorrow will go Taipei Lisi also will ‘Zhangsan will go to Taipei tomorrow, Lisi will, too.’
(37) a. *Zhangsan changchang qu Taibei, Lisi ye changchang [ e ].
Zhangsan often go Taipei Lisi also often Lit. Zhangsan often goes to Taipei, Lisi often, too.
b. *Zhangsan dashengdi chang zhe ge, Lisi ye dashengdi [ e ].
Zhangsan loudly sing ASP song, Lisi also loudly Lit. ‘Zhangsan is singing songs loudly, Lisi loudly, too.’
c *Zhangsan zai gongyuan chi pinguo, Lisi ye zai gongyuan [ e ].
Zhangsan at park eat apple Lisi also at park Lit. ‘Zhangsan eats apples at park, Lisi at park, too.’
d. *Zhangsan zuotian chi le pinguo, Lisi ye zuotian [ e ].
open the issue whether the function of the elements (such as shi ‘is’, hui ‘will’ and xihuan ‘like’) is to rescue the second conjunct involving ye ‘also’ by supporting the predicate position, or to license the elided elements. The crucial point here is that yiyang resembles shi ‘is’, hui ‘will’ and xihuan ‘like’ in that they all are predicates.
Zhangsan yesterday eat ASP apple Lisi also yesterday Lit. ‘Zhangsan ate apples yesterday, Lisi yesterday, too’
e. *Zhangsan hen xingyundi zhong le letou, Lisi ye hen Zhangsan very luckily win ASP lottery Lisi also very
xingyundi [ e ].
luckily
Lit. ‘Zhangsan luckily wins the lottery, Lisi luckily, too.’
Importantly here, as indicated in (37a-e), adverbial elements cannot license the elided elements regardless of the syntactic levels of the adverbs. More specifically, under normal circumstances, frequency adverbs changchang ‘often’, manner adverbs dashengdi ‘loudly’ and locative adverbial phrases zai gongyuan ‘at park’ are assumed to be VP-level; temporal adverbs zuotian ‘yesterday’ associate with IP-level; and evaluative adverbs hen xingyundi ‘very luckily’ are assumed to be CP-level. In contrast, predicate elements such as shi ‘is’, xihuan ‘like’ and hui ‘will’ can license the elided elements. Given the contrasts above, consider the following examples (38) and (39), where yiyang surprisingly licenses the elided elements.
(38) a. Zhangsan you yi ge erzi, Lisi ye yiyang you yi ge erzi.
Zhangsan have one CL son Lisi also same have one CL son ‘Zhangsan has a son; Lisi is the same as Zhangsan in that he has a son,
too.’
b. Zhangsan you yi ge erzi, Lisi ye yiyang [ e ].
Zhangsan have one CL son Lisi also same ‘Zhangsan has a son; Lisi is the same as Zhangsan, too.’
(39) a. Zhangsan hen gao, Lisi ye yiyang hen gao..
Zhangsan very tall Lisi also same very tall
‘Zhangsan is (very) tall; Lisi is the same as Zhangsan in that he is (very) tall, too.’
b. Zhangsan hen gao, Lisi ye yiyang [ e ].
Zhangsan very tall Lisi also same
‘Zhangsan is (very) tall; Lisi is the same as Zhangsan, too.’
In contrast, without the occurrence of yiyang, the sentences became ungrammatical since ye is an adverbial element, which can not license the elided elements.
(40) a. *Zhangsan you yi ge erzi, Lisi ye [ e ].
Zhangsan have one CL son Lisi also Lit. Zhangsan has a son; Lisi, too.
Intended meaning: ‘Zhangsan has a son; Lisi is the same as Zhangsan, too.’
b. *Zhangsan hen gao, Lisi ye [ e ].
Zhangsan very tall Lisi also Lit. Zhangsan is (very) tall; Lisi, too.
Intended meaning: ‘Zhangsan is (very) tall; Lisi is the same as Zhangsan, too.’
The ability of licensing the elided elements suggests that yiyang in Mandarin be predicative in its syntactic nature, rather than an adverbial element, in these cases.
Additional support comes from the scope of question particle ma. As widely assumed in the literature, the scope of question particles such as ma can not be
embedded, it must take matrix scope. The prediction here is that the question particle ma would scope over the whole comparative construction, since yiyang is employed as the predicate (as previous discussions suggested above) in the matrix clause and question particle ma can not be embedded. Fortunately, example (41) witnessed the prediction.
(41) a. Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang you yi ge erzi ma?
Zhangsan with Lisi same have one CL son Q ‘Is Zhangsan the same as Lisi in that they both have a son?’
b. Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang hen gao ma ? Zhangsan with Lisi same very tall Q
’Is Zhangsan the same as Lisi in that they both are (very) tall?’
Last, the temporal adverbial such as mingtian ‘tomorrow’ and the evaluative adverb such as hen xingyundi ‘very luckily’ are normally assumed to associate IP-level and CP-level respectively. This in turn suggests that the syntactic nature of the element following yiyang ‘same’ be exactly a clause. Example (28) is repeated here as (42).
(42) a. Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang mingtian hui qu taibei.
Zhangsan with Lisi same tomorrow will go Taipei
‘Zhangsan is the same as Lisi in that they both will go to Taipei tomorrow.’
b. Zhangsan gen Lisi yiyang hen xingyundi zhong le letou.
Zhangsan with Lisi same very luckily win ASP lottery ‘Zhangsan is the same as Lisi in that they both luckily win the lottery.’
In short, I have presented two pieces of evidence for the predicative status of yiyang in Mandarin. Also, I show that yiyang in Mandarin indeed takes an embedded clause67. In the next section 3.4.2, I argue that this embedded clause is complement in its syntactic nature by demonstrating the fact that extraction of syntactic elements from the clause does not render island effects.
3.4.2 CED Effect
Huang et al. (2009, Chapter 6) suggest that relatives in Mandarin could be syntactically formed in two ways; one involves movement, whereas the other does not.
In particular, they make the following generalizations (Huang et al. 2009: 225):
(43) a. Relatives with a gap in argument position:
A relative can be derived by directly raising the nominal to be relativized relation is via a relative operator at the peripheral position of the relative clause.
6 In fact, it is not surprising that adjectives can take an embedded clause. In English, an evaluative adjective can take an infinitival clause. Further, this infinitival clause is adjunct in its syntactic nature
6 In fact, it is not surprising that adjectives can take an embedded clause. In English, an evaluative adjective can take an infinitival clause. Further, this infinitival clause is adjunct in its syntactic nature