Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Chinese Linguistics
Vol. 7:1 (2020) ► pp.71–89

On the scope of quantifier phrases in Chinese passive construction

 | Zhejiang University of Finance & Economics
 | Zhejiang University
Quantifier phrases (QP) can co-occur in a single sentence, which may cause ambiguity in terms of scope relation, viz. wide scope and narrow scope interpretations. Aoun & Li (1993) claim that quantifier scope ambiguity also exists in Chinese passive construction, such as yige nűren bei meige ren ma ‘a woman was scolded by everyone’. Following Lee (1986)’s proposal, it is argued in this paper that the scopal relations of Chinese QPs are not purely syntactic as in Aoun & Li’s analysis, but should be determined by the interaction between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Based on naturalistic data, it is shown that (i) Chinese QPs can be classified into whQP, distributive-universal QP and group-denoting QP, whose semantic properties determine the scope relations between them; (ii) in general, a QP is devoid of referentiality, yet it can acquire referentiality depending on its co-occurrence with other QPs or contextual factors; (iii) the subject definiteness constraint in Chinese, a language-specific constraint, would affect the interpretation of subject QPs in Chinese passive construction.
Keywords: quantifier phrase, passive construction, scope ambiguity, subject definiteness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A review of Aoun & Li (1993)
    • 2.1 Aoun & Li (1993)’s analysis
    • 2.2Empirical evidence against Aoun & Li’s analysis
  • 3.Semantic and syntactic properties of QPs
    • 3.1A classification of QPs
    • 3.2Passive construction in Chinese
  • 4.Scope interpretations of QPs in bei construction
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.19010.yan
References (38)
References
Aoun, J. (1985). A Grammar of Anaphora. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. & Y.-H. A. Li. (1993). Syntax of Scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, D., Francez, I. & Levinso, D. (2005). Bad subject: (Non-)canonicality and NP distribution in existentials. In E. Georgala & J. Howell (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory 151 (pp. 19–43). Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Beghelli, F. & Stowell, T. (1994). The direction of quantifier movement. GLOW Newsletter (32):56–57.Google Scholar
(1997). Distributivity and negation: the syntax of each and every. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of Scope Taking (pp. 71–108). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, D. (2013). Subject canonicality and definiteness effects in Romance there-sentences. Language, 89(4): 675–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cann, R., & Wu, Y. (2011). The Bei construction in Chinese. In R. Kempson, E. Gregoromichelaki & C. Howes (Eds.), The Dynamics of Lexical Interfaces (pp. 339–380). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, H. (1986). Formal and colloquial adversity passives in standard Chinese. Linguistics (24), 1025–1052.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1978). Definiteness and Referentiality, In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4 (pp. 291–330). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond., E. A. Moravcsik., & J. Wirth. (Eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology (pp. 209–249). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Hellan, L. (1981). On semantic scope. In F. Heny (Ed.), Ambiguities in Intensional Contexts. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Huang, C. -T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. diss., MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, J. C.-T., Li, A. Y.-H., & Li, Y. (2009). The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, J. C-T., & Liu, N. (2014). Xinxing Feidianxing Beidongshi “Bei XX” de Jufa yu Yuyi Jiegou (The syntax and semantics of the new non-canonical bei XX construction). Yuyan Kexue (Linguistic Sciences) (5): 225–241.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (2003). The definiteness effect: Semantics or pragmatics? Natural Language Semantics, 11(2): 187–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinyalolo, K. (1990). Syntactic Dependencies and the Spec-Head Agreement Hypothesis in KiLega. Ph.D. diss, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. (2011). Grammatical Voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, T. H. (1986). Studies on Quantification in Chinese. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lee, T. H., Yip, V., & Wang, C. (1999). Rethinking isomorphism as a scope principle for Chinese and English. Proceedings of the Tenth North American Chinese Linguistics Conference (pp. 169–186). University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 457–498). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Löbner, S. (1985). Definites. Journal of Semantics 41: 279–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
May, R. (1977). The Grammar of Quantification. Ph. D. diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
(1985). Logical Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: subjects, definiteness, and information status. In S. A. Thompson and W. C. Mann (Eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund Raising (pp. 295–325). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C. (2003). Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 261: 287–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. (1964). Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 301: 96–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (1994). Quantifiers in pair-list readings and the non-uniformity of quantification. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), (pp. 646–664). Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
(1997). Strategies for scope taking. In A. Szabolcsi. (Ed.), (pp. 109–154). Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, L. (1989/2006). Hanyu Yufashi (History of Chinese Grammar). Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.Google Scholar
Wu, Yaqing. (2000). Yinghanyu liangci xiayu de qiyi yanjiu zongshu (Review of the ambiguity of classifiers’ scope in English and Chinese). Dangdai Yuyanxue (Contemporary Linguistics) 21: 168–182.Google Scholar
Wu, Yicheng. (2011). Towards a dynamic typology of passives. In R. Kempson., E. Gregoromichelaki & C. Howes (Eds.), (pp. 131–162). The Dynamics of Lexical Interfaces. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Wu, Y. (2013). On the so-called unbounded passives. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 411: 65–90.Google Scholar
Xu, L., & Lee, T. H. (1989). Scope ambiguity and disambiguity in Chinese. In C. Wiltshire., R. Graczyk & B. Music (Eds.), (pp. 451–466). CLS 251. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Yang, X., & Wang, T. (2019). Guanlian Shiyuxia de “Bei XX” Jiegou (A relevance-theoretic account of “Bei-XX” construction). Waiguo Yuwen (Foreign Language and Literature) 35(3): 103–110.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Wu, Hongchen
2023. An experimental investigation into scope rigidity in written Mandarin. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.