HLL (2009)

In order to explain the flexible thematic relations in Mandarin Chinese observed by Lin (2001), HLL (2009) argues that Chinese transitive verbs can choose to contain the root only in the lexical specification, creating the effect of thematic liberality.

Under HLL’s (2009) theory, a lexical verb consists of the root √ and a number of light verbs (Lv) which specify the event type. The lexical root already contains the information about the participants involved in the event, which sifts through the light

71

verbs and remains accessible to syntax. Hence, the thematic roles of a verb are determined by the type of the event conceptualized in the root. For HLL (2009), the function of a light verb is just to select theta roles and to spell out that information coded in the lexical root. A light verb does not add any semantic meaning to the lexical root. The origin of the theta roles is the combination of the light verbs with the lexical root. HLL’s (2009) theory is explicitly illustrated as follows.

(102) Vϵ{(√),[L1 √], [Lv2 √], [Lv2 [Lv1 √]]}, where the option of V = √ is available only in Mandarin.

(103) Let E stand for a dynamic event, S for a state, and R for a relation, then:

a. Lv1 manifests the type of event which happens without an external cause and may be approximately described as “enter S” or “enter R.” The participant that enters the state or relation is interpreted as Theme.

b. Lv2 manifests the type of event which happens with an external cause which may be approximately described as “bring about E” or “bring about R.” The external cause, interpreted as Agent, is implicated by Lv2 but is not an argument of V because, as an external factor, it is not conceptualized as part of the event described by V.

c. Other intrinsic participants of E, S, and R are manifested as optional or obligatory theta-roles, as determined by √.

d. The choice of an Lv must not conflict with the type of event already coded in

√. (HLL 2009)

According to (102), the lexical root is merged with Lv1 first and is subsequently combined with Lv2 at the lexical level. It should be noted that the external cause of an event, implicated by Lv2, is not taken as part of the event and thus is not an argument

72

of the verb.

Now we shall look back the basic facts behind Lin’s (2001) theory. Lin (2001) observes that Mandarin thematic relations are more flexible than English. As shown below, in Mandarin Chinese, the subject is not limited to agent and the object is not restricted to theme.

(104) a. Laowang kai-le yi-liang tankeche.

Laowang drive-PER one-CL tank

‘Laowang drove a tank.’

b. Gaosugonglu-shang kai-zhe yi-pai tankeche.

expressway-top drive-DUR one-line tank

Lit. ‘On the expressway drive a line of tanks.’

c. Zhe-liang poche kai-de wo xia-si le.

this-CL broken car drive I scare-dead Particle

‘Driving this broken car made me scared to death.’

(105) a. chi niurou mian (Obj = Theme)

eat beef noodle

‘eat beef noodle’

b. chi da-wan (Obj = Instrument)

73

eat big-bowal

‘use a big bowl to eat’

c. chi guanzi (Obj = Location)

eat restaurant

‘dine at some restauratn’

(Lin 2001, Chapter 3, example (2))

In order to account for the English-Mandarin distinction, HLL (2009) proposes that Mandarin differs from English in allowing the option of not having any light verb in V. In English, a lexical verb must contain the root and the light verbs. When the lexical root combines with the light verbs, the participants involved in the event are realized via the theta roles. The semantic relation between the event and its participants must obey the theta criterion. In contrast, a Mandarin transitive verb can choose to have the lexical root only. Without light verbs, the theta roles of a given verb would not be spelt out and thus the semantic relation is not subject to the theta criterion anymore. Consequently, a DP can function legitimately as the subject or the object of a verb provided that it bears some compatible participant-relation with the lexical root. From the following examples taken from HLL (2009: 69), we can find that the mapping of theta roles to the syntax appears to be free in Mandarin.

(106) a. Xiao bei he lucha. (Subj = Instrument, obj = Theme)

small cup drink green tea

‘Use the small cup to drink the green tea.’

74

b. Lucha he xiao bei. (Subj = Instrument, obj = Theme)

green tea drink small cup

‘Use the small cup to drink the green tea.’

(107) a. Ni-de keren shui na-zhang chuang ba.

your guest sleep that-CL bed SFP

‘Let your guest sleep on that bed.’

(Subj = Experiencer, obj =Location)

b. Na-zhang chuang shui ni-de keren ba.

that-CL bed sleep your guest SFP

‘Let your guest sleep on that bed.’

(Subj = Location, obj =Experiencer)

HLL’s (2009) theory appears to provide a plausible explanation for the liberal thematic relations found with the subject and object in Mandarin. Under HLL’s (2009) theory, location and theme can be freely mapped to the subject and object position in Mandarin LIC, as exhibited in (108), when the transitive verb takes the Lv-less option.

In (108), without light verbs specified in the lexical representation, the semantic relation between the lexical root kai ‘drive’ and its participants are no longer subject to the theta-criterion. The locative DP zhetiaohe ‘this river’ and the theme DP motuoting ‘motorboat’ can be alternatively mapped to the subject and object position as long as they are understood as being the participants involved in the driving event.

75

(108) a. Zhe-tiao he bu neng kai ni-de na-sou po motuoting.

this-CL river not can drive your that-CL shabby motorboat

Lit. ‘On this river can’t drive that shabby motorboat.’

(Subj = Location, obj =Theme)

b. Ni-de na-sou po motuoting bu neng kai zhe-tiao he.

your that-CL shabby motorboat not can drive this-CL river

‘Your shabby motorboat can’t be driven on this river.’

(Subj = Theme, obj =Location)

However, as we look into other instances of transitive verbs, we find that the free mapping cannot apply in all instances in Mandarin LIC. Let’s consider the following examples.

(109) a. Zhuozi-shang xie-le na-ge zi.

table-top write-PER that-CL character

Lit. ‘On the table was written that word’

b. *Na-ge zi xie-le zhuozi-shang

that-CL character write-PER table-top

‘That character was written on the table.’

As the sentences in (109) suggest, the locative DP zhuozi-shang ‘table’ and the theme

76

DP nagezi ‘character’ bear some semantic relation with the event of writing encoded in the lexical root xie ‘write’. However, as (109a) suggests, location is shown to be mapped to the structurally higher position than theme; reversely, if theme is placed above location in the syntax, the sentence would be unacceptable, as shown in (109b).

Similarly, if we do map participants freely in other constructions, ungrammatical sentences would sometimes arise as well, as demonstrated in the following sentences.

(110) a. Maobi xie zi.

brush write character

Lit. ‘The brush is used to write characters.’

b. *Zi xie maobi.

character write brush

Lit. ‘The characters are written with a brush.’

(111) a. *zhuo-shang xie maobi.

table-top write blush

Lit. ‘On the table is written with a brush.’

b. *maobi xie zhuo-shang.

blush write table-top

Lit. ‘The blush is used to write on the table.’

77

Given the examples (109)-(111), we find that the mapping of participants is not liberal in the syntax. Therefore, we conclude that some constraints should be imposed on the thematic relations even when the lexical verb has no light verb in it.

4.2.6 Overall Remarks

We have reviewed previous literature on Mandarin LIC, which mainly focus on the study of the transitive type. Pan (1996) and Wu (2008) assume that the transitive verbs such as fang ‘put’ and xie ‘write’ contain internal locative argument. With respect to the suppression of the agent in the transitive type of Mandarin LIC, Pan (1996) proposes the zhe operation, by which the agent of a transitive verb is eliminated in Mandarin locative inversion. Hsiao-hung Iris Wu (p.c. 2012), like Pan (1996), suggests that locative inversion with a transitive verb must depend on some morphological rule involving the aspect markers. In Mandarin LIC, once the external agent role is somehow deleted or suppressed, the structurally lower locative DP is directly mapped to the subject (Pan 1996), or is moved to the subject position (Wu 2008). In contrast, Lin (2001) argues that such transitive verbs do not have any argument as a result of the unselective properties of Mandarin subject and object. The existence of a locative subject is licensed by the light verb, not by the main verb. Tsai (2008) analyzes Mandarin LIC from a different perspective. He argues that Mandarin LIC is derived by raising the verb to an implicit existential light verb. HLL (2009) proposes that the transitive verbs in Mandarin can choose to take Lv-less option and allows more flexible semantic relations with its arguments. Mandarin LIC is analyzed as one of the syntactic realizations resulting from free mapping of participants.

Although much research has attempted to account for the derivation of Mandarin LIC, there are still some limitations. Pan (1996) and Tsai (2008) only discuss those

78

locative inversion sentences with the durative marker -zhe. Wu’s (2008) movement approach cannot explain why some postverbal locative phrases cannot raise to the grammatical subject position to derive Mandarin LIC. The light verb analysis proposed by Lin (2001) cannot exclude those action verbs which cannot take locative subjects. Under HLL’s (2009) theory, Mandarin LIC is derived from free mapping of location and theme when the transitive verb takes the Lv-less option. However, as discussed in section 4.2.5, the mapping of participants is not as free as expected by HLL’s (2009) theory. In the next section, we will give a unified analysis for different types of Mandarin LIC.