Cover not available
Article published In:
Asian Languages and Linguistics
Vol. 2:2 (2021) ► pp.167–216

Judge-dependence in quality nouns

A semantic analysis of the Mandarin Chinese “you NP” structure

 | Michigan State University
By combining the idea of property concepts and the kernel-based theory of subjectivity, this paper proposes an analysis of the otherwise mysterious behavior of the Mandarin “you” predicates, where subjectivity/evidentiality and possessive/attributive readings come and go in an intricate way. The paper presents a phenomenon of Mandarin called possessive Property Concept predicates, involving a possessive morpheme you “have” and a bare NP. Studying the subjectivity puzzle in Chinese advances our understanding of information source and information force in the following way. The Chinese fact, as a separate element, is part of the bigger picture about subjectivity. To explain how the subjectivity predicate as a natural class connects with evidentiality, this paper provides an approach to probe subjectivity through examining the information source change, which is derived from removing or adding evidential morpheme(s).
Keywords: quality noun, subjectivity, evidentials, information source versus information force, possessive constructions, Chinese ‘you’ structure, relative truth, formal semantics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous studies on judge-dependence
    • 2.1Diagnostics of taste predicates
    • 2.2Non-indexical relativism and other alternatives
    • 2.3Key assumptions
  • 3.A natural class expressing relative truth
    • 3.1Identifying the ssubjective ‘you NP’
    • 3.2More about subjectivity, evidentiality, and directness
    • 3.3Evidentiality and the ganjue-dao test
  • 4.Quality denoting noun
    • 4.1Quality noun vs. non-quality noun
    • 4.2Quality noun vs. mass noun
    • 4.3Expansion to the Chinese data
  • 5.Theoretical landscape
    • 5.1Connecting possessive property concept with you NP
    • 5.2Using kernel to formalize the ‘direct’ proposal
  • 6.Proposed analysis
    • 6.1Denotations and computations
    • 6.2Predictions and complications
  • 7.Summary and future studies
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • Abbreviations and gloss conventions used
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 27 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/alal.21007.con
References (64)
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anand, P. (2006). De de se. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Anand, P., and N. Korotkova. (2017). Adjudicating theories of taste: an argument from ‘non main-predicate’ position. UC Santa Cruz and University of Tubingen.Google Scholar
. (2018). Acquaintance content and obviation. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anand, P., and A. Nevins. (2004). Shifty operators in changing contexts. R. B. Young (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 14, R. Young, Ed., 20–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baccianella, S., A. Esuli, and F. Sebastiani. (2010). Sentiwordnet 3.0: An enhanced lexical re-source for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10)(LREC).Google Scholar
Bhatt, R., and R. Pancheva. (1998). Genericity, implicit arguments, and control. Proceedings of Student Conference in Linguistics 7.Google Scholar
Boye, K., and P. Harder. (2009). Evidentiality. linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language, 161, 9–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bylinina, L. (2014). The grammar of standards: Judge-dependence, purpose-relativity, and comparison classes in degree constructions. Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.
(2017). Judge-dependence in degree constructions. Journal of Semantics, 341, 291–331.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H., and J. Hawthorne. (2009). Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, K., and H. Tao. (2014). The rise of a high transitivity marker ‘dao’ in contemporary chinese: Co-evolvement of language and society. Chinese Language and discourse, 5 (1), 25–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S., and R. Sybesma. (1999). Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of np. Linguistic Inquiry, 30 (4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Haan, F. (2013). Semantic distinctions of evidentiality. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, M. S. Dryer, and M. Haspelmath, Eds., Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, URL [URL]
Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). ‘Where Have All the Adjectives Gone?’ and other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
Egan, A. (2010). Disputing about taste, chap. Disagreement, 247–286. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egan, A., J. Hawthorne, and B. Weatherson. (2005). Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning and truth. Epistemic modals in context, G. Preyer, and G. Peter, Eds., Oxford University Press, 131–169.Google Scholar
Faller, M. T. (2002). semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in cuzco quechua. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
Fang, H. (2016). Subjectivity and evaluation in standard setting: a study on mandarin ‘hen’. Proceedings of the West coast conference on formal linguistics 34 1, A. Kaplan, A. Kaplan, M. McCarvel, and E. Rubin, Eds.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. F., and K. B. Bruce. (2010). On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics, 27 (1), 81–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernald, T. (2000). Predicates and temporal arguments. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Fleisher, N. (2013). The dynamics of subjectivity. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT-23), T. Snider, Ed.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foolen, A., H. de Hoop, and S. Mulder. (2018). Evidence for Evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francez, I., and A. Koontz-Garboden. (2015). Semantic variation and the grammar of property concepts. Language, 91 (3), 533–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2017). Semantics and Morphosyntactic variation: qualities and the grammar of property concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, L. (2013). African american vernacular english. Language in the USA: Themes for the 21st Century, E. Finegan, and J. R. Rickford, Eds., Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (2015). On syntactic analyticity and parametric theory. Chinese Syntax in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Izvorski, R. (1997). The present perfect as an epistemic modal. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1977). Demonstratives. Themes from Kaplan, J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein, Eds., Oxford: OUP, 481–563.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2013). Two sources of subjectivity: qualitative assessment and dimensional uncertainty. Inquiry: an interdisciplinary journal of philosophy, 56:2–3 (258–277). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C., and M. Willer. (2016). Subjective attitudes and counterstance contingency. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT-26). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolbel, M. (2003). Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society 104 1, 53–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korotkova, N. (2016). Disagreement with evidentials: a call for subjectivity. JerSem: The 20th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, J. Hunter, M. Simons, and M. Stone, Eds., 65–75.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28 (6), 643–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Subjectivity and Perspective in Truth-Theoretic Semantics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, X. (2018). Measurement scales and gradability: on the semantics of the possessive property concept construction in mandarin chinese. North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics 30 1, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. (2014). Assessment sensitivity: relative truth and its applications. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, C. (2005). A discourse-based account of spanish ser/estar. Linguistics, 43 (1), 155–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, L., H. Davis, and H. Rullmann. (2007). Evidentials as epistemic modals: evidence from statimcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 71, 203–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2010). Relative truth and the first person. Philosophical Studies, 1501, 187–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Two kinds of first-person-oriented content. Synthese, 184 (2), 157–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morzycki, M. (2016). Modification–Key Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Murray, S. E. (2010). Evidentiality and the structure of speech acts. Ph.D. thesis, The State University of New Jersey, New Jersey.
(2017). The Semantics of Evidentials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ninan, D. (2014). Taste predicates and the acquaintance inference. Semantics and linguistics Theory. LS., T. Snider, S. D’Antonio, and M. Weigand, Eds., 241.Google Scholar
Nutys, J. (2001). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearson, H. (2013). A judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste. Journal of Semantics, 30 (1), 103–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saebo, K. J. (2009). Judgment ascriptions. Linguist and philosophers, 321, 327–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2011). Perspective in taste predicates and epistemic modals. Epistemic modality, A. Egan, and B. Weatherson, Eds., Oxford University Press, 179–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2011). Indexicality and de se reports. Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning, K. V. Heusinger, C. Maienborn, and P. Portner, Eds., Vol. 21, Mouton de Gruyter, 1561–1604.Google Scholar
(2020). The semantics/pragmatics interface. Cambridge Handbook of Formal Philosophy, Aloni, and Dekker, Eds., Springer.Google Scholar
Stephenson, T. (2002). Toward a theory of subjective meaning. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
(2007). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and philosophy, 30 (4), 487–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stojanovic, I. (2007). Talking about taste: Disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguistics and philosophy, 30 (6), 691–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tovena, L. M. (2001). Neg-raising: Negation as failure. Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items, V. S.-V. Jack Hoeksema, Hotze Rullmann, and T. van der Wouden, Eds., Vol. 401, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 331–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K., and A. Gillies. (2008). An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. Oxford studies in epistemology, T. Gendler, and Hawthorne, Eds., Vol. 21, Oxford: OUP, 32–62.Google Scholar
. (2010). Must…stay…strong! Natural language semantics, 181, 351–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). ‘might’ made right. Epistemic modality, A. Egan, and B. Weatherson, Eds., Oxford University Press, 108–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willet, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12 (1), 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xun, E., G. Rao, X. Xiao, and J. Zang. (2016). Development of bcc corpus in the context of big data. Corpus Linguistics, 11.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic modals. Mind, 116 (464). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Nonfactualism about epistemic modality. Epistemic modality, A. Egan, and B. Weatherson, Eds., Oxford University Press, 295–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zakkou, J. (2015). Tasty contextualism. Ph.D. thesis, Humboldt University of Berlin.
Zhang, Y. (2019). Nominal property concepts and substance possession in chinese, unpublished PhD qualifying paper, Indiana University.Google Scholar