A refinement of the analysis of the resultative V-de construction in Mandarin Chinese

Yehao Hu; Gong Cheng

doi:10.1515/lingvan-2023-0018

Article

A refinement of the analysis of the resultative V-de construction in Mandarin Chinese

Yehao Hu and Gong Cheng

Published/Copyright: May 9, 2024

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Linguistics Vanguard Volume 10 Issue 1

Abstract

This paper proposes two major modifications to previous analyses of the resultative V-de construction in Mandarin Chinese. First, while -de is argued to be prepositional in nature, it is shown at the same time that -de is different from other regular prepositions in that the former, but not the latter, undergoes head movement in a resultative. To reconcile these apparently conflicting observations, we propose to treat -de as the exponent of a prepositional categorizer. Second, we argue that a small clause analysis of the resultative V-de construction is not only conceptually motivated by the Direct Object Restriction but also empirically supported by the fact that it can participate in the bǎ alternation, as with constructions that are canonically assumed to contain a small clause.

Keywords: resultative V-de construction; -de ; prepositional categorizer; small clause

Corresponding author: Yehao Hu, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, E-mail: hyh198708@hotmail.com

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments. All errors are our own.

Appendix A: A critical review of some recent works on the resultative V-de construction

Li (1998) treats -de as a preposition that takes a CP complement (the post-de clause). The resulting PP functions as the complement of the matrix verb. The abstract structure he provides for the resultative V-de construction is given in (29); a detailed discussion of his analysis can be found in Section 3.

(29)

… [_VP (DP) V [_PP -de CP]]

Sybesma (1999) adopts a small clause approach to Mandarin resultatives, and analyzes -de as what he labels Extent⁰. Thus, a resultative V-de construction has a structure as shown in (30). A brief remark about Sybesma’s (1999) analysis can be found in Section 3.4.

(30)

Zhāngsān	[_VP	kū	[_ExtP	-de	[_SC	shǒujuàn	shī	le]]].
Zhangsan		cry		de		handkerchief	wet	le
(Sybesma 1999: 19)

Building on Rappaport Hovav and Levin’s (2001) event templates, Huang (2006, 2015) classifies resultative V-de constructions into causative ones and inchoative ones. According to Huang (2006: 23), “de can be paraphrased as bian-de ‘become’ or shi-de ‘cause.’” The meaning of (caused) change of state is thus expressed by -de but not by the matrix verb. Given this, -de is analyzed as a light verb become or cause and the matrix verb as a manner modifier that adjoins to -de. The structure of the inchoative is given in (31). Causative resultative V-de constructions can be further divided into “pure causative” ones and “canonical transitive” ones. And there is a derivational relationship between the inchoative and the causative. With the canonical transitive ones, the light verb cause (instantiated as -de) is itself modified by V1 and embeds an unmodified become template, as shown in (32). When it comes to the pure causative ones, an unmodified light verb cause, together with a causer, is added to the structure of (31), with V1-de subsequently raising to cause, as illustrated in (33).

(31)

(Huang 2006: 24)

(32)

(Huang 2006: 25)

(33)

Zhè	xiàohuà	xiào-de _i	Lǐsì	t_i	dùzi	téng.
this	joke	laugh-de	Lisi	t	stomach	ache
‘This joke got Lisi to have stomach ache from laughing.’
(Huang 2006: 25)

This analysis provides some revealing insight into the syntactic structure of the resultative V-de construction: the treatment of the matrix verb as a modifier that adjoins directly to little v is also incorporated into our own analysis (see Section 3.3). Nevertheless, there are also problems with Huang’s (2006) analysis. First of all, as has been argued in Section 2, the second predicate is contained in a CP, rather than a bare VP. A second and perhaps more serious problem lies in his treating -de as the phonological realization of little v: it would be unexpected under such a treatment (unless by making some stipulations) that little v can never be realized as -de in a resultative compound, considering that resultative compounds also convey the meaning of ‘become’ or ‘cause’ and that the position of v (see (31) and (32)) does not intervene between the primary predicate (the matrix verb) and the secondary predicate (the second predicate) so that the insertion of -de in v does not at all block the head movement of the secondary predicate to the primary predicate to form a V-V compound. As we show in Section 3, there is ample evidence that -de is prepositional in nature, rather than verbal.

Cheng (2007) gives an analysis of the verb copying involved in the resultative V-de construction. To illustrate, sentence (34) has two different readings: the object-result reading and the subject-result reading. Cheng (2007: 155–161) proposes that these two readings are derived via two different strategies of verbal movement: the former via standard movement and the latter via sideward movement, as illustrated by (35a) and (35b) respectively. According to her, the lower copy of the verb undergoes fusion with -de and is thus invisible to the Linear Correspondence Axiom. Accordingly, chain reduction will not apply, and thus both copies of the verb can be spelled out.

(34)

Tā	qí	nèi-pī	mǎ	qí	de	hěn	lèi.
he	ride	that-cl	horse	ride	de	very	tired
(i) ‘He rode the horse and the horse got very tired.’ (object-result)
(ii) ‘He rode the horse and became tired as a result.’ (subject-result)
(Cheng 2007: 155)

(35)

Object-result

Subject-result

This analysis of the verb copying seems to be reasonable, with perhaps only one minor flaw: if the complement of -de (i.e., the XP in (35a) and (35b)) is a CP, as suggested above, then it will constitute a phase and prohibit mǎ ‘horse’ in (35a) and tā ‘he’ in (35b) from undergoing A-movement due to the Phase-Impenetrability Condition (Chomsky 2001). Therefore, it is perhaps best to posit a pro in the subject position of the complement of -de (cf. Section 2).

Huang et al. (2009) do not explicate the categorial nature of -de, but suggest that verb-de enters syntax as a complex word, in a way parallel to a resultative compound, with its argument structure being the combination of that of the verb and that of -de (-de takes the post-de clause as complement). The structure of a transitive resultative V-de construction under their analysis can be illustrated as:

(36)

… [_vʹ v [_VP DP_i [_Vʹ V-de [_CP pro_i XP]]]]

However, treating verb-de on a par with a resultative compound fails to capture the stark contrast between them: while true resultative compounds generally take at most one complement, verb-de can take two complements (e.g., the DP and CP in (36)) much more freely.

Appendix B: Argument against Paul (2021).

In this appendix, we make a brief argument against Paul’s (2021) claim that Chinese lacks SCs altogether. For the convenience of illustration, the examples from Paul (2021) that we assume to be SC constructions are given in (37) and (38). Note that the embedded predicates in (37), namely chǔn ‘stupid’ and lǎn ‘lazy’ in (37a) and dà ‘big’ in (37b), are adjectival, and those in (38), namely Wáng lǎoshī ‘Prof. Wang’ in (38a), shǎguā ‘fool’ in (38b), and shǎguā ‘fool’ in (38c), are nominal.

(37)

Wǒ	dāng	tā	[_AdjP	chǔn/lǎn].
I	consider	he		stupid/lazy
‘I consider him stupid/lazy.’
(Paul 2021: 26)

Wǒ	rènwéi/zhīdào	zhōngguó	[_AdjP	dà].
I	think/know	China		big
‘I think/know that China is big.’
(Paul 2021: 14)

(38)

Wǒmen	jiào	tā	[_DP	Wáng	lǎoshī].
we	call	he		Wang	teacher
‘We call him Prof. Wang.’
(Paul 2021: 25)

Wǒ	mà	tā	[_NP	shǎguā].
I	abusively.call	he		fool
‘I (abusively) called him a fool.’
(Paul 2021: 25)

Wǒ	dāng	tā	[_NP	shǎguā].
I	consider	he		fool
‘I consider him a fool.’
(Paul 2021: 26)

One of Paul’s (2021) major arguments for the nonexistence of SC constructions in Mandarin Chinese is that “there is no root versus non-root asymmetry for predicates: if a category X is not licit as an autonomous predicate in matrix sentences, then it is not licit as predicate elsewhere, i.e. in non-root clauses, either” (Paul 2021: 1). This is nonetheless defied by the stark contrast between (37a) and (37b), on the one hand, and (39a) and (39b), on the other: whereas a bare gradable adjective, such as chǔn ‘stupid,’ lǎn ‘lazy,’ and dà ‘big,’ can be used to convey the positive degree meaning in a non-root clause, as shown in (37a) and (37b), it cannot in a matrix sentence, as shown in (39a) and (39b).

(39)

*Tā	[_AdjP	chǔn/lǎn].
he		stupid/lazy
Intended reading: ‘He is stupid/lazy.’
(Not: ‘He is stupider/lazier.’)

*Zhōngguó	[_AdjP	dà].
China		big
Intended reading: ‘China is big.’
(Not: ‘China is bigger.’)

In fact, according to Paul (2021), one of her reviewers pointed out the same problem with her analysis. Paul (2021: 14) responds by giving examples (40) and (41) and claiming that these examples show that bare adjectives can also indicate the positive degree in matrix clauses.

(40)

Zhèi	běn	shū	guì,	nèi	běn	piányi.
this	cl	book	expensive	that	cl	cheap
‘This book is expensive, that one is cheap.’
(Not: ‘This book is more expensive, that one is cheaper.’)

(41)

Zhèi	běn	shū	guì	ma?	(Zhèi	běn	shū)	bú	guì.
this	cl	book	expensive	qp	this	cl	book	not	expensive
‘Is this book expensive? This book is not expensive.’
(Not: ‘Is this book more expensive? This book is not more expensive.’)

However, the problem is that the adjectives in (40) and (41), namely piányi ‘cheap’ and guì ‘expensive,’ are not truly bare, but are positioned in the context of coordination ((40)), question (first part of (41)), and negation (second part of (41)), which, according to Tsai (2008), are all able to introduce some kind of operator. More importantly, Paul’s (2021) response does not account for the contrast between (39a) and (39b), on the one hand, and (37a), (37b), (40), and (41) on the other. If a bare gradable adjective must combine with a semantic operator to express the positive degree meaning (see, among many others, Grano 2012; Liu 2010; Tsai 2008), this contrast follows naturally from an SC analysis of (37a) and (37b), because a canonical SC, like those contexts in (40) and (41), can introduce an epistemic operator (cf. Liu 2010).

Paul (2021) argues against an SC analysis of (38a) and (38b) only by classifying them, without specifying why, as ditransitives that are analogous to the English take NP ₁ for NP ₂ construction as well as to the double object construction. Since the latter two constructions have been shown by Bruening (2018) and Marelj and Matushansky (2015) respectively not to involve an SC, Paul (2021) concludes that (38a) and (38b) are not SC constructions either. Here, we do not take a stance on whether the English take NP ₁ for NP ₂ construction and the double object construction contain an SC or not. But it just seems unfeasible to consider (38a) and (38b) as the equivalents of these two constructions. First, from both the form and meaning, (38a) and (38b) are more analogous to what Matushansky (2019) calls the naming construction in English, as illustrated by (42), than to the take NP ₁ for NP ₂ construction. And Matushansky (2019) does assume the naming construction to contain an SC.

(42)

Carroll named [_SC his heroine Alice].

(Matushansky 2019: 66)

Second, there are several distinctions between (38a) and (38b) and the double object construction as represented by the Mandarin example (43). For one thing, it is the first post-verb nominal phrase in the former, but the second post-verb nominal phrase in the latter, that is the theme DP, as can be observed from their bǎ variants shown in (44). For another, the second post-verb nominal phrase is a predicate in the former but an argument in the latter, as evidenced by the fact that, as shown in (45), the second post-verb nominal phrase in the latter, but not in the former, can be modified by zhè ‘this’ or nà ‘that,’ which is often found in a DP argument. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that (38a) and (38b) are SC constructions.

(43)

Wǒ	gěi-le	tā	yī-běn	shū.
I	give-vsuf	he	one-cl	book
‘I gave him a book.’

(44)

Wǒmen	bǎ	tā	jiào-zuò	Wáng	lǎoshī.	(bǎ variant of (38a))
we	ba	he	call-zuo	Wang	teacher
‘We call him Prof. Wang.’

Wǒ	bǎ	tā	mà-zuò	shǎguā.	(bǎ variant of (38b))
I	ba	he	abusively.call-zuo	fool
‘I (abusively) called him a fool.’

Wǒ	bǎ	*yī-běn*	*shū*	gěi-le	tā.	(bǎ variant of (43))
I	ba	one-cl	book	give-vsuf	he
‘I gave him a book.’

(45)

Wǒmen	jiào	tā	*(zhè/nà-wèi)**	Wáng	lǎoshī.
we	call	he	this/that-cl	Wang	teacher
‘We call him Prof. Wang.’

Wǒ	mà	tā	*(zhè/nà-gè)**	shǎguā.
I	abusively.call	he	this/that-cl	fool
‘I (abusively) called him a fool.’

Wǒ	gěi-le	tā	(zhè/nà-běn)	shū.
I	give-vsuf	he	this/that-cl	book
‘I gave him this/that book.’

But Paul (2021) argues that if (38a) and (38b) are indeed SC constructions, then “other XPs besides NP would be expected as predicates” as well. And she claims that this prediction is not borne out. While we do agree that (38a) does not allow other categories as predicates, which we attribute to the encyclopedic knowledge associated with the matrix verb jiào ‘call,’ example (46) shows that at least some adjectival predicates are allowed under the verb mà ‘abusively.call.’

(46)

Wǒ	mà	tā	[_AdjP	chǔn/lǎn].
I	abusively.call	he		stupid/lazy
‘I criticized him for being stupid/lazy.’

Finally, Paul (2021) assumes that the complement of the matrix verb dāng ‘consider’ in (38c) is a full-fledged clause, rather than an SC. This assumption, however, can neither explain the aforementioned contrast that a bare adjectival predicate in the complement of dāng ‘consider,’ but not in a root clause, can convey a positive degree meaning (see (37a) and (39a)), nor account for the fact that (38c) can participate in the bǎ alternation, as shown in (25) in Section 4.2.^[5]

References

Acedo-Matellán, Víctor. 2010. Argument structure and the syntax-morphology interface: A case study in Latin and other languages. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3). 373–415.Search in Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 591–656.Search in Google Scholar

Bowers, John. 2001. Predication. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 299–333. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756416.ch10Search in Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. Depictive secondary predicates and small clause approaches to argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 49(3). 537–559. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00281.Search in Google Scholar

Chéng, Gōng & Yángqín Chí. 2017. “De” = biàndé + shǐdé? [De = become + cause?]. Wàiyǔ Jiàoxué Yú Yánjiū [Foreign Language Teaching and Research] 49(4). 514–525.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen 2007. Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese. In Norbert Corver & Jairo Nunes (eds.), The copy theory of movement, 151–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.107.07cheSearch in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phrase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.223.01choSearch in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2019. Some puzzling foundational issues: The Reading program. Catalan Journal of Linguistics (special issue on Generative Syntax). 263–285. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.287.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2020. Puzzles about phases. In Ludovico Franco & Paolo Lorusso (eds.), Linguistic variation: Structure and interpretation, 163–168. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781501505201-010Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2022. Genuine explanation and the strong minimalist thesis. Cognitive Semantics 8. 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10040.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, Ángel Jesús Gallego & Dennis Ott. 2019. Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics (special issue on Generative Syntax). 229–261. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.288.Search in Google Scholar

Dèng, Sīyǐng. 2010. Xíngshì hànyǔ jùfǎxué [Formal Chinese syntax]. Shanghai: Shanghai Education Publishing House.Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, Nick James. 2003. Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Grano, Thomas. 2012. Mandarin hen and universal markedness in gradable adjectives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(2). 513–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9161-1.Search in Google Scholar

Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Unpublished manuscript. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University.Search in Google Scholar

Haselbach, Boris & Marcel Pitteroff. 2015. A morphological case approach to PPs. Linguistische Berichte 244. 425–460.10.46771/2366077500244_4Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1988. Wǒ pǎo de kuài and Chinese phrase structure. Language 64(2). 274–311. https://doi.org/10.2307/415435.Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1989. Pro-drop in Chinese: A generalized control theory. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Ken Safir (eds.), The null subject parameter, 185–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-009-2540-3_6Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1992. Complex predicates in control. In Richard Kurth Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri & James Higginbotham (eds.), Control and grammar, 109–147. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-94-015-7959-9_4Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 2006. Resultatives and unaccusatives: A parametric view. Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan 253. 1–43. https://doi.org/10.7131/chuugokugogaku.2006.1.Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 2015. On syntactic analyticity and parametric theory. In Yen-Hui Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson & Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai (eds.), Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective, 1–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945658.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Cheng-Teh James, Yen-Hui Audrey Li & Yafei Li. 2009. The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5Search in Google Scholar

Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lí, Jǐnxī. 1924. Xīnzhù guóyǔ wénfǎ [A new book on Mandarin grammar]. Beijing: Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Yafei. 1993. Categories and barriers. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles, 7–10 January.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Yafei. 1998. Chinese resultative constructions and the Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis. In Jerome Lee Packard (ed.), New approaches to Chinese word formation: Morphology, phonology and the lexicon in modern and ancient Chinese, 285–310. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110809084.285Search in Google Scholar

Li, Yafei. 1999. Cross-componential causativity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(3). 445–497. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006236828263.10.1023/A:1006236828263Search in Google Scholar

Lín, Tāo. 1957. Xiàndài hànyǔ bǔzúyǔ-lǐ de qīngyīn xiànxiàng suǒ fǎnyìng chūlái de yǔfǎ hé yǔyì wèntí [The grammatical and semantic issues reflected in the neutral tones of Mandarin complements]. Běijīng Dàxué Xuébào [Journal of Peking University] 3(2). 61–76.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther. 2010. The positive morpheme in Chinese and the adjectival structure. Lingua 120(4). 1010–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.001.Search in Google Scholar

Liú, Zǐyú. 2006. Shìlùn yuè fāngyán “V dào C” shùbǔ jiégòu de yǔfǎhuà jí qí yú “V de C” shùbǔ jiégòu de hùbǔ fēnbù [On the grammaticalization of the verb-complement construction V dào C in Cantonese and the complementary distribution between it and the verb-complement construction V de C]. Yǔyán Yánjiū [Studies in Language and Linguistics] 26(3). 50–56.Search in Google Scholar

Marelj, Marijana & Ora Matushansky. 2015. Mistaking for: Testing the theory of mediated predication. Linguistic Inquiry 46(1). 43–76. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00175.Search in Google Scholar

Mateu, Jaume. 2005. Arguing our way to the direct object restriction on English resultatives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8. 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-004-0294-z.Search in Google Scholar

Matushansky, Ora. 2019. Against the PredP theory of small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 50(1). 63–104. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00301.Search in Google Scholar

Paul, Waltraud. 2021. De-constructing small clauses: The case of Mandarin Chinese. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1). 1–35. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1211.Search in Google Scholar

Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486319Search in Google Scholar

Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77(4). 766–797. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0221.Search in Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, Peter Steven. 1970. A principle governing deletion in English sentential complementation. In Roderick Arnold Jacobs & Peter Steven Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 20–29. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Search in Google Scholar

Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. In Lori Levin, Malka Rappaport & Annie Else Zaenen (eds.), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 143–157. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar

Sybesma, Rint. 1997. Why Chinese verb-le is a resultative predicate. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6(3). 215–261. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008238319773.10.1023/A:1008238319773Search in Google Scholar

Sybesma, Rint. 1999. The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-015-9163-8Search in Google Scholar

Sybesma, Rint. 2008. Zhuang: A Tai language with some Sinitic characteristics. In Pieter Muysken (ed.), From linguistic areas to areal linguistics, 221–274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.90.06sybSearch in Google Scholar

Sybesma, Rint. 2021. Voice and little v and VO-OV word-order variation in Chinese languages. Syntax 24(1). 44–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12211.Search in Google Scholar

Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. 1990. Chinese phrase structure and the extended Xʹ-theory. Ithaca: Cornell University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Tang, Sze-Wing. 1997. The parametric approach to the resultative construction in Chinese and English. UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 3. 203–226.Search in Google Scholar

Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. Tense anchoring in Chinese. Lingua 118(5). 675–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.002.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Chyan-An Arthur. 2010. The microparametric syntax of resultatives in Chinese languages. New York: New York University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Wood, Jim & Alec Marantz. 2017. The interpretation of external arguments. In Roberta D’Alessandro, Irene Franco & Ángel Jesús Gallego (eds.), The verbal domain, 255–278. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wú, Fúxiáng. 2001. Nánfāng fāngyán jǐgè zhuàngtài bǔyǔ biāojì de láiyuán [On the source of those state complement markers in southern dialects]. Fāngyán [Dialects] 23(4). 344–354.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Niina Ning. 2001. The structures of depictive and resultative constructions in Chinese. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 22. 191–221. https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.22.2001.107.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Niina Ning. 2007. A syntactic account of the direct object restriction in Chinese. Language Research 43(1). 53–75.Search in Google Scholar

Zhāng, Yíshēng. 2014. Shìlùn dāngdài hànyǔ xīnxīng de bǔyǔ biāojì “dào” [A study of the newly developed complement marker dào in Mandarin]. Dāngdài Yǔyánxué [Contemporary Linguistics] 16(1). 49–61.Search in Google Scholar

Zhū, Déxī. 1982. Yǔfǎ jiǎngyì [Lectures in Grammar]. Beijing: Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-05-16

Accepted: 2023-11-17

Published Online: 2024-05-09

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2023-0018

Keywords for this article

resultative V-de construction; -de; prepositional categorizer; small clause