Derivation of the Apparent Narrow Scope of Sentence-Final Particles in Chinese: A Reply to Erlewine (2017)

Open access


Erlewine (2017) suggests that certain sentence-final particles (SFPs) in Mandarin Chinese such as “sentential le” and eryi are located lower than the C-domain, using a number of arguments relating to the scopal interaction of these SFPs, subjects, and other verb phrase (vP) level elements. The present paper proposes an alternative view of the phenomena considered by Erlewine (2017) and maintains the claim that sentential le and eryi are C-domain elements. First, I argue that shi ‘be’, in the negative form – bu shi ‘not be’ – should be analyzed as an independent verb, which takes a clausal complement headed by le or eryi. The apparent narrow scope of le and eryi is due to the biclausal analysis of the entire sentence. Second, the sentence-initial determiner phrase (DP) cannot be analyzed as the real subject of the verb shi ‘be’ but must be analyzed as the matrix topic of the entire sentence and, therefore, is higher than the complementizer phrase (CP) headed by le or eryi. This explains why sometimes le or eryi does not have scope over the subject. Third, the wh-subject cannot get an indefinite reading in a sentence with a final particle le because the ∃-closure triggered by le applies at the I′-level by excluding the subject systematically (Huang 1982). The ∃-quantifier, which is introduced in a position lower than the surface subject position, cannot bind the wh-subject as a variable. The position where ∃ is generated remains independent of whether the ∃-closure is triggered by low particles, such as le, or by high particles, such as the yes–no question particle ma. Therefore, the low peripheral particles le and eryi are still within the CP domain and thus higher than vP.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bailey Laura. 2012. The syntax of question particles. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle University dissertation.

  • Bailey Laura. 2015. Word order and the syntax of question particles. In Sylvie Hancil Alexander Haselow & Margje Post (eds.) Final particles 407–426. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

  • Chomsky Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.) Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik 89–156. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Chomsky Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A life in language 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

  • Chomsky Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti Adriana (ed.) Structures and beyond 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Cinque Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Cinque Guglielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2008. The cartography of syntactic structures STiL – Studies in Linguistics Vol. 2 CISCL Working Papers. 42–58.

  • Erlewine Michael Yoshitaka. 2011. Sentence-final only and the interpretation of focus in Mandarin Chinese. In Louis Liu & Lauren Eby (eds.) Proceedings of the 22nd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-22) and the 18th annual meeting of the International Association of Chinese Linguistics (IACL-18) Volume 2. 18–35. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.

  • Erlewine Michael Yoshitaka. 2017. Low sentence-final particles in Mandarin Chinese and the final-over-final constraint. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 26(1). 37–75.

  • Hsieh Feng-fan & Rint Sybesma. 2011. On the linearization of Chinese sentence-final particles: Max spell out and why CP moves. Korea Journal of Chinese Language and Literature 1(1). 53–90.

  • Huang Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge MA: MIT dissertation.

  • Huang Cheng-Teh James. 1989. Pro-drop in Chinese. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Kenneth Safir (eds.) The null subject parameter 185–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Lee Thomas Hun-tak. 1986. Studies on quantification in Chinese. Los Angeles CA: University of California Los Angeles dissertation.

  • Li Yen-hui Audrey. 1992. Indefinite wh in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1. 125–155.

  • Pan Haihua. 1998. Closeness prominence and binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16. 771–815.

  • Pan Victor Junnan. 2015. Mandarin peripheral construals at syntax-discourse interface. The Linguistic Review 32(4). 819–868.

  • Pan Victor Junnan. 2016. Resumptivity in Mandarin Chinese: A minimalist account (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 298). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

  • Pan Victor Junnan. 2017. Optional projections in the left-periphery in Mandarin Chinese. In Fuzhen Si (ed.) Studies on syntactic cartography 216–248. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.

  • Pan Victor Junnan. 2019. Architecture of the periphery in Chinese: Cartography and minimalism (Routledge Studies on Chinese Linguistics). London & New York: Routledge.

  • Pan Victor Junnan & Waltraud Paul. 2016. Why Chinese SFPs are neither optional nor disjunctors. Lingua 170. 23–34.

  • Paul Waltraud. 2014. Why particles are not particular: Sentence-final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP. Studia Linguistica 68(1). 77–115.

  • Paul Waltraud. 2015. New perspectives on Chinese syntax (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 271). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

  • Paul Waltraud & Victor Junnan Pan. 2017. What you see is what you get: Chinese sentence-final particles as head-final complementizers. In Josef Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds.) Discourse particles – Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics (Linguistiche Arbeiten) 49–77. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

  • Rizzi Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.) Elements of grammar 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Rizzi Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Belletti Adriana (ed.) Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures vol. 3 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Simpson Andrew & Zoe Wu. 2002. IP-raising tone sandhi and creation of S-final particles: Evidence for cyclic spell-out. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11(1). 67–99.

  • Soh Hooi Ling & Meijia Gao. 2006. Perfective aspect and transition in Mandarin Chinese: An analysis of double -le sentences. In Pascal Denis Eric McCready Alexis Palmer & Brian Reese (eds.) Proceeding of the 2004 Texas Linguistics Society conference: Issues at the Semantic-Pragmatics Interface 107–122. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

  • Su Lily I-Wen. 2004. Subjectification and the use of the complementizer SHUO. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 30(1). 19–40.

  • Tang Sze-Wing. 1998. Parametrization of features in syntax. Irvine CA: dissertation. University of California Irvine dissertation.

  • Tang Sze-Wing. 2015a. Cartographic syntax of pragmatic projections. In Audrey Li Andrew Simpson & Wei-tien Dylan Tsai (eds.) Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective 429–441. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Tang Sze-Wing. 2015b. A generalized syntactic schema for utterance particles in Chinese. Lingua Sinica 1(3). 1–23.

  • Tang Sze-Wing. 2016. Zhitu lilun yu zhuci de lianhe jiegou shuo [Sentence-final particles as conjuncts under the cartographic approach]. Yuyan Yanjiu Jikan [Bulletin of linguistic studies] 16 1–10.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 555 452 24
PDF Downloads 495 385 15