Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-qq8pn Total loading time: 0.314 Render date: 2021-06-20T07:05:40.460Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Comparative syntax of argument ellipsis in languages without agreement: A case study with Mandarin Chinese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2018

YOSUKE SATO
Affiliation:
Seisen University
Corresponding

Abstract

This paper investigates the cross-linguistic distribution of argument ellipsis (AE) with an emphasis on Chinese, an Asian language well-known for its lack of overt morphological agreement. It is observed in the literature that Japanese permits AE in both null subject and null object positions whereas Chinese permits it in null object positions, but not in null subject positions. Adopting Saito’s (2007) hypothesis that the presence of $\unicode[STIX]{x03C6}$ -feature agreement associated with v or T blocks AE, Miyagawa (2013) and Takahashi (2014) argue that the absence of subject AE in Chinese follows from abstract subject agreement. After presenting three empirical arguments against this analysis from the Chinese literature, I propose that the distribution of AE is better predicted by topichood and link this proposal to Saito’s (2017) recent analysis of AE developed for Japanese, whereby AE, analyzed as LF Copy, cannot apply to an operator–variable configuration. My analysis is supported by the novel observation that the null subject position in Chinese actually allows AE when it is not linked to the topic position, as in hanging topics, relative clauses and conditional clauses.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

Various versions of this paper were presented at the 10th GLOW in Asia conference at National Tsing Hua University (May 2014), at the linguistic colloquia held at Tohoku University (September 2014), Niigata University (September 2014), University of British Columbia (October 2014), Sophia University (December 2014), Mie University (December 2014), and Nanzan University (October 2015), at the 4th Cambridge Comparative Syntax Meeting (CamCos 4) at the University of Cambridge (May 2015), as well as at my advanced syntax seminar at the National University of Singapore (Fall 2016). I thank three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees, Byron Ahn, Zhiming Bao, Mike Barrie, Theresa Biberauer, Rose-Marie Déchaine, Yoshi Dobashi, Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, Naoki Fukui, Kenshi Funakoshi, Nobu Goto, Jim Huang, Ewa Jaworska, Yoshiaki Kaneko, Taka Kato, Shin-Ichi Kitada, Si Kai Lee, Masako Maeda, Shigeru Miyagawa, Keiko Murasugi, Masaru Nakamura, Hiroki Narita, Keely Zuo Qi New, Jian Gang Ngui, Satoshi Oku, Myung-Kwan Park, Matthew Reeve, Mike Rochemont, Yuta Sakamoto, Motoki Sato, Etsuro Shima, Andrew Simpson, Koji Sugisaki, Daiko Takahashi, Kensuke Takita, Martina Wiltschko, and Dwi Hesti Yuliani for invaluable comments and discussions. Special thanks to Mamoru Saito for many useful discussions on argument ellipsis and for warm support since I embarked on this project in 2014. All remaining errors are my own. This research was originally supported by the Singapore Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund Tier 1 grant (R-103-000-124-112) for the period of 2015–2018 while I was affiliated with the National University of Singapore before I started working for Seisen University with effect from 1 September 2018. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.

The following abbreviations are used in this paper: 3 $=$ third person; acc $=$ accusative; asp $=$ aspect; clf $=$ classifier; comp $=$ complementizer; cont $=$ continuation; cop $=$ copula; ct $=$ contrastive topic; dat $=$ dative; dec $=$ declension; dem $=$ demonstrative; gen $=$ genitive; inch $=$ inchoative; loc $=$ locative; m $=$ masculine; mod $=$ modification; neg $=$ negation; nom $=$ nominative; pass $=$ passive; pfv $=$ perfective; pol $=$ politeness; prs $=$ present tense; pst $=$ past tense; ptcl $=$ particle; q $=$ question; refl $=$ reflexive; sg $=$ singular; top $=$ topic.

References

Abe, Jun & Park, Myung-Kwan. 2017. An NP-substitute approach to null arguments in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Ms., Tohoku Gakuin University & Dongguk University.Google Scholar
Battistella, Edwin. 1989. Chinese reflexivization: A movement to INFL approach. Linguistics 27, 9871012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2012. On NPs and clauses. In Grewendorf, Günther & Zimmermann, Thomas Ede (eds.), Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories, 179242. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, Hsu-Te Johnny. 2013. Argument ellipsis, classifier phrases, and the DP parameter. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chou, Min-Chieh. 2004. Chinese learners’ overgeneration of English existential constructions. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 30, 183214.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella & Sung, Li-May. 1990. Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 122.Google Scholar
Constant, Noah. 2014. Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Duguine, Maia. 2008. Silent arguments without pro: The case of Basque. In Biberauer, Theresa (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation, 311329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duguine, Maia. 2012. Ellipsis of DPs and the typology of pro-drop. Presented at 15th Workshop of the International Research Project on Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition, Nanzan University.Google Scholar
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2012. On headless XP-movement/ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 519562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2013. Disjunction and object drop in Japanese. In Huber, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings from 4th Annual Tampa Workshop in Linguistics (TAW 4): Special issue of Tampa Papers in Linguistics 4, 1120. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Department of World Languages.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Sag, Ivan A.. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391426.Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime. 1998. Null object and sloppy identity in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 127152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531574.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1987. Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. In Reuland, Eric & ter Meulen, Alice G. B. (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness, 226253. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1991. Remarks on the status of the null object. In Freidin, Robert (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 5676. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James & Liu, Luther C.-S.. 2001. Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface. In Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella & Huang, C.-T. James (eds.), Long distance reflexives, 141196. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James & Tang, Jane C.-C.. 1991. The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. In Koster, Jan & Reuland, Eric (eds.), Long-distance anaphora, 263282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Stowell, Tim. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687720.Google Scholar
Li, Charles & Thompson, Sandra. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li, Charles (ed.), Subject and topic, 457490. New York, San Francisco, CA & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles & Thompson, Sandra. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 2014. Born empty. Lingua 151, 4368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2013. Surprising agreements at T and C. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Oku, Satoshi. 1998. A theory of selection and reconstruction in the minimalist perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Otaki, Koichi. 2014. Ellipsis of arguments: Its acquisition and theoretical implications. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Otaki, Koichi, Sugisaki, Koji, Yusa, Noriaki & Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2013. The parameter of argument ellipsis: The view from Kaqchikel. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Studies in Kaqchikel grammar (MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 8), 153162. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Otani, Kazuyo & Whitman, John. 1991. V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 345358.Google Scholar
Pan, Haihua & Hu, Jianhua. 2002. Representing topic–comment structures in Chinese. Ms., City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43, 203227.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 2017. Ellipsis. In Shibatani, Masayoshi, Miyagawa, Shigeru & Noda, Hisashi (eds.), Handbook of Japanese syntax, 701750. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Şener, Serkan & Takahashi, Daiko. 2010. Ellipsis of arguments in Japanese and Turkish. Nanzan Linguistics 6, 7999.Google Scholar
Shi, Dingxu. 1992. The Nature of topic–comment constructions and topic chains. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Shi, Dingxu. 2000. Topic and topic–comment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Language 76, 383408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Andrew, Choudhury, Arunima & Menon, Mythil. 2013. Argument ellipsis and the licensing of covert nominals in Bangla, Hindi and Malayalam. Lingua 134, 103128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Ryan Walter. 2017. Argument ellipsis in Zazaki: A problem for the anti-agreement theory. Presented at the first North American Conference on Iranian Linguistics (NACIL 1), April 28–30, State Univeristy of New York (SUNY), Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 2007. Argument ellipsis from a cross-linguistic perspective: An interim report. Presented at GLOW in Asia VI, 27–29 December, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. [Handout]Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 2008a. Noun phrase ellipsis. In Miyagawa, Shigeru & Saito, Mamoru (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics, 394422. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 2008b. Quantificational null objects and argument ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 307326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 2013a. Comparative syntax of argument ellipsis. Presented at the NINJAL project meeting, Linguistic Variations within the Confines of the Language Faculty: A Study in Japanese First Language Acquisition and Parametric Syntax, 21–22 December, NINJAL.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 2013b. Argument ellipsis in Japanese and Malayalam. Nanzan Linguistics 9, 173192.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 2014. Argument ellipsis, anti-agreement, and scrambling. In Saito, Mamoru (ed.), Japanese syntax in comparative perspective, 88116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, C.-C. Jane. 1985. A study of reflexives in Chinese. MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.Google Scholar
Tang, C.-C. Jane. 1989. Chinese reflexives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7, 93121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2014. Micro-parameters in discourse pro-drop languages: Comments on ‘Born empty’ by Yen-Hui Audrey Li. Lingua 151, 6977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsao, Feng-Fu. 1977. A functional study of topic in Chinese: The first step towards discourse analysis. Taipei: Student Book Company.Google Scholar
Xu, Liejiong & Langendoen, Terrence. 1985. Topic structures in Chinese. Language 61, 127.Google Scholar
Xue, Ping, Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. A new perspective on Chinese ziji . In Aranovich, Raul, Byrne, William, Preuss, Susanne & Senturia, Martha (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 13), 432447. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparative syntax of argument ellipsis in languages without agreement: A case study with Mandarin Chinese
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Comparative syntax of argument ellipsis in languages without agreement: A case study with Mandarin Chinese
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Comparative syntax of argument ellipsis in languages without agreement: A case study with Mandarin Chinese
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *