Parallelism

Parallelism refers to a phenomenon in bare conditionals where Cheng & Huang (1996) propose that a wh-word in the antecedent clause should have a parallel wh-word in the consequent clause, as shown below.

(6) Shei xian lai, shei/ *ta/ *[e]/ *na-ge-ren xian chi.

who come first who/ (s)he/ [e]/ that-CL-person first eat

‘If X comes first, X eats first.’ (Cheng & Huang 1996:127) (7) Ni xihuan shei, wo jiu piping shei/ *ta/ *[e]/ *na-ge-ren.

you like who I then criticize who/ (s)he/ [e]/ that-CL-person

‘If you like X, I then criticize X.’ (Cheng & Huang 1996:128) In (6) and (7), a pronoun, an empty category or a definite noun phrase cannot occur in the consequent clause of bare conditionals. According to Cheng & Huang, only shei ‘who’ can appear in the antecedent clause and another shei in the consequent clause.

Two opposite voices arise concerning this parallelism constraint on bare conditionals.

Cheng & Huang (1996) are those who propose such an analysis of bare conditionals, but other studies (Pan & Jiang 1997, Cheung 2007, Wang 2007) disagree with this constraint.

Cheng & Huang (1996) state that taking a wh-word or not in the consequent clause is the way to distinguish bare conditionals from other conditionals. Hence, as in (6) and (7), they argue that in the consequent clause, shei ‘who’ is more grammatical than other forms of NPs.

Also, they adopt the Parallelism Constraint on Operator Binding (PCOB) to support their analysis of bare conditionals. The PCOB is a constraint which illustrates that for x and y which are both variables bound by the same operator, x and y must be phonetically realized, and the variables must be identical. Hence, sentence (6) and (7) can be interpreted as in (8) and (9) respectively, where the two x-s in both clauses should be phonetically pronounced and are wh-words:

(8) NECx [x comes first] [x eats first] (Cheng & Huang 1996:135) (9) NECx [you likes x] [I criticize x]

Such anaphoric wh-words can be analyzed by the unselective binding approach, where the two wh-words are bound together by the same necessity operator, NEC, as shown in (8) and (9).

Nevertheless, disagreements concerning the parallel wh-words occur (Pan & Jiang 1997, Cheung 2007, Wang 2007). Pan & Jiang (1997) and Wang (2007) argue that bare conditionals with pronouns, empty categories, or definite noun phrases substituting wh-words in the consequent clause are not as ill-formed as Cheng & Huang have stated. They argue that in bare conditionals, either a wh-word or a pronoun can occur in their consequent clause, as in sentence (10).

(10) Shei bu dui, wo jiu shuo

shei/ta

who not correct I then say who/he(she) not correct

‘Whoever is incorrect, I will then say he/she is incorrect.’ (Wang 2007:71) As seen in (10), both shei ‘who’ and ta ‘he(she)’ can be present in the consequent clause.

Consequently, against Cheng & Huang’s (1996) analysis, Pan & Jiang and Wang argue that the necessity of taking a wh-word only for bare conditionals is problematic and hardly relevant to natural language.

Moreover, Cheung (2007) offers another counterexample against Cheng & Huang’s parallelism. Cheung (2007) explores a syntactic and semantic analysis of bare conditionals in Mandarin Chinese and argues that the wh-word in the consequent clause as in (11a) can be omitted, and the number of the wh-words can be inconsistent as in (11b). Both examples are taken from Cheung (2007:151).

Hence, Cheung argues that the unselective binding approach to analyzing bare conditionals is with flaws, and such flaws come from Cheng & Huang’s parallelism constraint, the Parallelism Constraint on Operator Binding (PCOB).

For example, since the PCOB only constrains the wh-words to be parallel in the antecedent and consequent clauses, a phenomenon where wh-words are in islands⁵ or

4 The original gloss for qing in Cheung (2007:151) was ‘must,’ but the researcher considered it more appropriate to translate qing into ‘please.’

5 An island refers to a constituent where phrases and their features that stay inside this island cannot move out of it. As in (12a), in principle, the first shei ‘who’ in the antecedent clause should be anaphoric to the second one in the consequent clause, yet the first shei ‘who’ is in an wh-island, that is, an island headed by a wh-word;

hence, referentiality is blocked by this island.

coordinate structures is excluded since they block the binding of wh-words, as shown in

Intended: ‘If Zhangsan believes in the rumor that X has stolen the money, then Lisi

will arrest X.’ (Cheung 2007:153)

b. Zhangsan xiangxin [shei tou-le qian de shuofa], Lisi jiu Zhangsan believe who steal-LE money DE rumor Lisi then xiangxin [ shei tou-le qian de shuofa/xiaoxi].

believe who steal-LE money DE rumor/news

‘If Zhangsan believes in the rumor that X has stolen the money, then Lisi will believes in the rumor/news that X has stolen the money’ (Cheung 2007:154) Cheung argues that the unselective binding approach fails to explain the above sentences and proposes that it is essential for wh-words to occur in the position (either subject or object) in the antecedent clause identical and parallel to that position in the consequent clause of an island or a coordinate structure⁶.

Overall, concerning parallelism of wh-words in bare conditionals, although Cheng &

Huang (1996) offer a solid analysis (i.e., parallelism), three out of the four theoretical studies

6 Cheung states that the sideward movement is an approach that can solve the situations where the unselective binding approach fails to explain (i.e. unbalanced number of wh-words and wh-words in islands or coordinate structures). It is proposed that sideward movement is licensed by theta-role assignment and the parallelism constraint. In order to fulfill the requirement of the theta-role, the sideward movement would apply to the vacuous position that needs theta-role assignment. Also constrained by the Parallelism Constraint, the movement of the wh-expressions must be identical in form; therefore, it is the whole form that undergoes Copy and Merge with the mechanism of sideward movement. The following example is taken from Cheung (2007:157).

(i) Shei jinlai, wo da shei.

who enter I hit who

‘If X comes in, I hit X.’

In order to satisfy the theta-role requirement, shei ‘who’ merges with the transitive verb da ‘hit,’ and becaue jinlai ‘enter’ is an intransitive verb that lacks a subject, undergoing Copy of shei and Merge with jinlaii, it forms a grammatical sentence like (i).

on bare conditionals provide counterexamples (Pan & Jiang 1997, Cheung 2007, Wang 2007) showing problems of Cheng & Huang’s analysis. Since previous studies focus on a theoretical aspect of parallelism, this study aims to probe into this factor to see which side of analysis can be supported from an empirical aspect.