Mandarin peripheral construals at the syntax-discourse interface

Abstract

Inspired by the split-CP hypothesis, different orders of the functional projections in the left periphery are proposed for Chinese. Based on previous studies, this paper proposes the following hierarchy for Chinese: AttitudeP1 > AttitudeP2 > Special QuestionP > Illocutionary ForceP > Only-focusP > Sentential.AspectP > TP. These projections host sentence final particles (SFP) or null operators. When the compared projections are both head-final, the syntactic word order reflects the relevant hierarchy; when the compared projections are not uniformly head-final, their scope interaction reflects the order. This study shows that the higher a projection, the more subjective its interpretation and the harder it can be embedded. For instance, being subject-oriented sentential aspects and only-type focus are not directly linked to the speaker's attitude and therefore, they can be embedded and be interpreted within the subordinate clause. As for the SFPs linked to illocutionary forces, some can be embedded, while others cannot. Special questions and the SFPs expressing the speaker's mood, interjection and attitude cannot be embedded at all. This fact is regarded as an indirect argument in favor of my proposal.Keywords: left-periphery, sentence final particles, Mandarin Chinese, root, Main Clause Phenomena IntroductionAdopting the split-CP hypothesis (Rizzi 1997, among others), a number of generative linguists have been working on the "cartography" of the left-periphery with the aim of establishing a map, as detailed as possible, of the functional projections in the CP domain. The study of Italian (Cinque 1999, Rizzi 2004, Benincà and Poletto 2004, Cinque and Rizzi 2008 shows that functional projections which host elements such as topics, foci, interrogative words, different adverbs, etc. are hierarchically ordered in precise ways. Whether these heads/projections whose existence has been argued for in Italian are universally true is still an issue. However, this hypothesis helps us to study the left periphery in many other languages, for instance, Chinese (Paul 2002, 2015, Badan 2007, Stepanov and Tsai 2008, 2011, 2015, Pan 2011b. Based on the previous work, this article intends to establish an even more fine-grained cartography of the Mandarin left-periphery. It will also show in what way the hierarchy of the functional projections proposed here is compatible with the previously established orders. The general conclusion of this study reveals that the

On the “one+verbal classifier” sequence as a delimitative aspect marker in Taiwanese Southern Min

“…C1 is mainly related to aspect/tense meaning, while C2 marks sentence types and C3 spells out the speaker's subjective tone. Along the same line, Pan (2015) shows that the higher a functional projection is, the more subjective its interpretation is. Subjectivity refers to the speaker's evaluation or commitment or opinion.…”

“…asp Intended meaning 'She only does not go to Paris anymore, (but she will (Pan 2015: 13) still visit France.)' Pan (2015) proposes the following hierarchy of sentence-final particles in MC, including those that mark various types of questions.…”

Against the Low Periphery as Phrase Markers: Two Types of Contrastive Dislocations in Mandarin Chinese*

“…The property of the short CD suggests that the preposed object represents a contrastive topic (Badan & Del Gobbo 2015;Paul 2005, Xu & Langendoen 1985. Nevertheless, one might argue that the preposed object in (4b) is a contrastive or corrective focus (Ernst & Wang 1995;Pan 2015;Shyu 2001). Here we adopt the notion of the contrastive topic in Lee (1999Lee ( , 2003, where 'a Topic in the discourse is divided into partitions and a contrastive topic is about one partition in contrast with the rest of the partitions and the speaker has the alternative contrast in mind' (Lee 1999:317).…”

Remarks on the Final-over-Final Condition: A View from Chinese Head-Final Structures

“…Specifically, Pan (2015), Paul (2016a, 2016b) and Paul (2014Paul ( , 2015 propose that the SFPs in Chinese are base-generated as the head-final C 0 in the split CP system (Rizzi 1997). Since Chinese is otherwise head-initial in the verbal extended projection, the structure gives rise to a FOFC violation, as given in (2): (2) The FOFC-violating structure of SFPs Notice that in order to generate a FOFC-violating structure, SFPs must be a syntactic head that selects the IP complement.…”

“…), which argues that a head-initial phrase (YP) cannot be the complement of a head-final phrase (XP) when X and Y share the same categorial feature (i.e., in the spine of an extended projection), as given in (1) It has been argued that sentence-final particles (SFPs) in Mandarin Chinese pose a threat to the universality of FOFC because SFPs are claimed to be head-final functional heads that take a head-initial complement clause (Erlewine 2017;Lee 1986;Pan 2015;Paul 2016a, Pan andPaul 2016b;Paul 2014, Paul 2015, among many others). The claim is critically reviewed and eventually dropped because there is no strong empirical motivation for us to adopt the head analysis of SFPs.…”