Skolemized topicality for indefinites and universal quantifier mei-phrases in Chinese

Huang, Shi-Zhe

doi:10.1075/la.272.08hua

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With a universal quantifier as the binder, the anaphoric expressions covary with them (S.-Z. Huang 1996Huang , 2022aHuang , 2022b, ensuring an x-y pairing. 11 Turning to the each/every contrast, the fact to be explained is the lack of subject/object asymmetry for each with regard to pair-list answers: each allows pair-list readings even in cases where every does not.…”

Section: The Skolemized Topicality Hypothesis (Sth)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…where data are presented with more context, making the scope interpretations more natural.4 We are not considering ziji 'self' nor the adverbial indefinites for this discussion, as the bound nature of ziji and the quantity nature of, say, the duration phrase prevent them from scoping out of mei.5 The full story of why dou is barred with an object mei is beyond the scope of this paper, but is not problematic to the account of mei adopted here.6 Chinese is well-known as a topic-comment language(Chao 1968;Li & Thompson 1981). S.-Z Huang (2022b). treats all subjects in (1)-(3) as topical.7 For a fuller account with data with topical indefinites, interested readers are referred to S.-Z Huang (2022b)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…S.-Z Huang (2022b). treats all subjects in (1)-(3) as topical.7 For a fuller account with data with topical indefinites, interested readers are referred to S.-Z Huang (2022b)Huang (2022b),.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…treats all subjects in (1)-(3) as topical.7 For a fuller account with data with topical indefinites, interested readers are referred to S.-Z Huang (2022b)Huang (2022b),. topichood is viewed structurally as taking the Spec of TopicP position, which is outside of and above the IP for Chinese.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cross-linguistic comparisons on distributive universal quantification: Each vs. every vs. mei

Huang,

Knowlton,

Schwarz

2024

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses differences between each and every with regard to (a) pair-list readings; (b) subject/object asymmetries seen with every but not with each; and (c) the long-held intuition that each is more individualistic whereas every is friendlier to groups. We propose that these phenomena can be captured by prior accounts of the Mandarin Chinese distributive universal quantifier mei. In particular, we consider the Double Variable Hypothesis (the idea that in DUQ, for every x, there must be a y) (S.-Z. Huang 1995; 1996), and the Skolemized Topicality Hypothesis (the idea that topical quantifiers are Skolemized, resulting in the required x-y pairings) (S.-Z. Huang 2022b). We argue that (a’) pair-list answers to questions with quantifiers are derivable from the Double Variable Hypothesis; (b’) the subject/object asymmetry seen in every is due to its positionally-varied association with the Double Variable Hypothesis, while each is always subject to Skolemized Topicality due to its inherent topicality; and (c’) the individualistic interpretation of each can be described as stemming from its intrinsically Skolemized topicality as well. Results from experimental works will be brought to bear on the theoretical proposals.

show abstract

Section: The Skolemized Topicality Hypothesis (Sth)mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations