2.2 Previous Theoretical Studies of Chinese Conditionals
2.2.3 Cheng and Huang (1996)
Cheng and Huang (1996) discuss Mandarin Chinese conditionals with indefinite wh-words that have the semantic meanings of donkey sentences. They argue that Chinese conditionals with donkey anaphora can be classified into two paradigms. One type is called bare conditionals and the other is further divided into two subtypes, ruguo- and dou- conditionals.
Bare conditionals are conditionals without a clause-initial conditional adverbial such as ruguo ‘if’ in an antecedent clause or a quantifier like dou ‘all’ in a consequent clause, as shown in (9):
Conditional clauses Consequent clauses
1. The typical conditional
ruguo/ yaoshi ‘if’ jiu ‘then’
2.Clause-final particle, with optional ‘if’
Ruguo/yaoshi 'if' ... dehua jiu ‘then’
3. Adverbial conjunction in the consequent clause,
without ‘if’ ……. jiu ‘then’
4. No linking element, with a pause between the two clauses
……., (pause)……..
5. Negative in one or both clauses
Bu-shi/ mei-you ‘not; no’ Bu-shi/ mei-you ‘not; no’
16
(9) Shei xian lai shei xian chi. (Cheng and Huang 1996:127) who first come who first eat
‘If X comes first, X eats first.’
In their opinion, the wh-words in the antecedent and the consequent clauses must be identical, as in (9). Conditionals will be ill-formed if the wh-word in the consequent clause is substituted by an overt pronoun like ta ‘he,’ covert pronoun [e] or a definite NP like nageren ‘that person’.
Based on the Discourse Representation Theory (DRT), Cheng and Huang suggest that wh-words are indefinite NPs without inherent quantification force.
Therefore, an external licenser, called a necessity operator with the force of universal quantification, licenses and binds two distinct wh-words simultaneously. This kind of quantification, therefore, is called ‘unselectively’ binding. In addition, wh-words, treated not as quantifiers but variables, are independent in nature and neither of them is syntactically anaphoric to another.
As mentioned before, wh-words in Chinese bare conditionals must appear in pairs. Cheng and Huang, then, adopt Kratzer’s Prohibition Against Vacuous Quantification to explain the tempting occurrence of wh-words.
(10) Prohibition Against Vacuous Quantification (Kratzer 1989:155) For every quantifier Q, there must be a variable x such that Q binds an
occurrence of x in both its restrictive clause2 and its nuclear scope3.
The argument indicates the necessity of two identical wh-words in bare conditionals. If we just use one wh-word in either the antecedent or consequent clauses, (10) will be violated.
To avoid overt pronouns in the consequent clause, they state that the overt
2 A restrictive clause is an antecedent clause in conditionals.
3 A nuclear scope is a consequent clause in conditionals.
17
pronouns can be considered as: (1) bound variables or (2) E-type pronouns4 (Evans 1980). If the overt pronoun in the consequent clause is a bound variable, the accessibility condition will be violated since the wh-word in the antecedent clause does not c-command it and none of its element is accessible. As for the status of E-type pronouns, it will also lead to vacuous quantification since E-type pronouns are not variables.
Considering the constraint on empty pronouns and definite NPs in the consequent clause, Cheng and Huang apply the Parallelism Constraint on Operator Binding (PCOB), as in (11) to account for their unavailability.
(11) The Parallelism Constraint on Operator Binding (PCOB) (Safir 1984:607) If O is an operator and x is a variable bound by O, then for any y, y a variable of O, x and y are [α lexical].
The [α lexical] stands for the identical occurrence of variables. In this case, the variables in bare conditionals must be either all lexical [+lexical]5 or all empty [-lexical].
The second type conditionals with donkey anaphora, ruguo- and dou-conditionals, nevertheless, display the complementary scenario compared with bare conditionals.
Briefly speaking, if there is a wh-word in the antecedent clause, the identical wh-word cannot be used. Nonetheless, a pronoun, an empty category, or a definite NP are welcomed in the consequent clause. Under these circumstances, the grammatical properties are discussed for the complementary distribution between the two main conditional types, as shown in (12) and (13):
4 E-type pronouns, as Evans states (1980:340) refer to “the objects that verify the antecedent quantifier-containing clause,” and “the truth of the clause containing them requires that all the relevant objects satisfy the predicate…” In addition, E-type pronouns cannot take negative quantifiers like no one or nobody as their antecedents.
5 ‘[+lexical]’ refers to the same word usage in either the antecedent or consequent clauses.
18
To begin with, Cheng and Huang expound on the ungrammaticality of the wh-word in a consequent clause of ruguo and dou conditionals. In ruguo conditionals, ruguo ‘if’
licenses the wh-word in an antecedent clause. The wh-word, hence, is considered as an existential quantifier in the scope of the antecedent clause. It represents that a complete tripartite conditional structure is manifested in the antecedent clause through Quantifier Raising. On account of the property, there is no need for wh-word to occur in the consequent clause. If it does appear in the consequent clause, the binding and the licensing problems will result in the ungrammaticality of these conditionals.
Dou-conditionals, however, seem to be interpreted in different ways. The
antecedent clause of a dou conditional is claimed to be an embedded question, inherently having the force of existential quantification. Given the existential nature of the clause, the wh-word in it is treated as an existential quantifier just like that in a ruguo conditional. Similar to ruguo conditionals, the grammatical movement in the
antecedent clause of dou conditionals definitely denies the availability of another wh-word in the consequent clause.
Second, Cheng and Huang illustrate why anaphoric elements can appear in the consequent clause of ruguo and dou conditionals. They propose that the anaphoric forms can be regarded as E-type pronouns. In aforementioned discussion, one feature of E-type pronouns is that they cannot occur in a negative-quantification sentence.
With the nature, the ungrammatical example shown in the following clearly verifies
19
that the anaphoric form in the conditional is an E-type pronoun.
(14 ) *Ruguo meiyo shei ma ni (Cheng and Huang 1996:144) if not-have who scold you
ni jiu jiao ta lai jian wo.
you then ask him/her come see me
‘*If no one scolds you, then you ask him/her to come see me.’
To sum up, Cheng and Huang only discuss the donkey conditionals, which have not been mentioned in the previous studies. Because of the relatively peculiar forms of these conditional types, they employ two constraints on the interpretation of these conditionals. The bare conditionals are accounted for by unselective binding while ruguo and dou conditionals are analyzed as a construction with E-type pronouns.
Wh-words, in this case, show different status in these two types of conditionals. Cheng and Huang’s approach skillfully solved the unspecified status of wh-words. However, whether or not the occurrence of wh-words in conditionals may cause the acquisition difficulty for children is not addressed in their study.