Cover not available
Part of
Current Issues in Syntactic Cartography: A crosslinguistic perspective
Edited by Fuzhen Si and Luigi Rizzi
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 267] 2021
► pp. 183–216

Chapter 9
Quantifictional binding without surface c-command in Mandarin Chinese

| Harvard University
| Academia Sinica
This article discusses quantificational binding without surface c-command in Mandarin Chinese. Jin (1998) pointed out that Chinese quantificational NPs (Q-NPs) headed by mei ‘every’ are capable of binding out of containers such as sentential subjects, relative clauses or adverbial clauses and there is a subject/object asymmetry with respect to such binding. This asymmetry, if correct, is reminiscent of the non-coreference rule on pronominal anaphora which also displays an effect of subject/object asymmetry (cf. Huang 1982 and Teng 1985) and would call for a unifying treatment of the two phenomena. However, contrary to Jin’s observation, this article shows that universal Q-NPs in object position may actually bind out of their containers just like universal Q-NP subjects, thus making it infeasible to define a common locality domain to which both quantificational binding and referential pronominal anaphora are sensitive. Instead, this article argues that quantificational binding is an LF phenomenon constrained by LF mechanisms. A minimum requirement for quantificational binding is that the pronoun bound by a given quantifier must be within the scope of that quantifier at LF. Though this minimum requirement in principle enables Q-NPs to have high scope, they are subject to other conditions such as the general Condition on Scope Interpretation, which prevents a Q-NP from taking scope over another one that c-commands it at surface structure. The interaction of the two conditions explains why in some cases Q-NPs may take high scope and bind a pronoun that they do not c-command but not in some other cases. Backward quantificational binding, on the other hand, is a result of the interaction of several independently motivated mechanisms, including the possibility of reconstruction at LF, the Chinese-specific non-coreference rule and Chomsky’s Leftness Condition.
Keywords: quantificational binding, c-command, Chinese, mei , subject/object asymmetry, LF
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The case of Chinese: Previous literature
  • 3.A preliminary first attempt to account for QBWC in Chinese
  • 4.Problems of the preliminary attempt
  • 5.Scope requirement on quantificational binding
  • 6.Scope ambiguity and quantificational binding
  • 7.Weak crossover and the c-command requirement
  • 8. Dou and the scope of universal NPs
  • 9.Conclusions, implications and residues problems
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.267.09hua
References (46)
References
Aoun, Joseph & Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1989. Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2): 141–172.Google Scholar
. 1990. Minimal disjointness. Linguistics 28(2): 189–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2005. Remark on Jacobson 1999: Crossover as a local constraint. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(4): 447–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Reconstruction as delayed evaluation. In Theory and Evidence in Semantics, Erhard Hinrichs & John Nerbonne (eds), 1–28. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2012. Quantificational binding does not require c-Command. Linguistic Inquiry 43(4): 614–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2001. Antisymmetry and the leftness condition: Leftness as anti-c-command. Studia Linguistica 55(1): 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Linear order vs. syntactic rank: Evidence from weak crossover. In CLS 30: Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 1: The main Session, Katharine Beals, Jeannette Denton, Bob Knippen, Lynette Melnar, Hisami Suzuki & Erika Zeinfeld, 57–89. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
. 1998. Morphology competes with syntax: Explaining typological variation in weak crossover effects. In Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis & David Pesetsky (eds), 59–92. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press & MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Precede-and-command revisited. Language 90(2): 342–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A Grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2: 303–351.Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 1977. Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses (I). Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7(3): 467–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2): 337–362.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Sauerland, Uli. 1996. Illusive scope of universal quantifiers. In Proceedings of NELS 26, Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), 71–86. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 2006. (In)definiteness, polarity, and the role of wh-morphology in free choice. Journal of Semantics 23(2): 135–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds), 31–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1980a. Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 11(4): 679–708Google Scholar
. 1980b. Anaphora and GB: Some preliminary remarks. In Proceedings of NELS 9, J. Jensen (ed.), 223–236. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
. 1983. Logical form, binding, and nominal. Linguistic Inquiry 14(3): 395–420.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 1983. On the representation of scope in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 11(1): 36–91.Google Scholar
. 1994. Logical form. In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, Gerd Webelhuth (ed.), 127–175. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1998. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
. 2010. Between Syntax and Semantics. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James & Lin, Jo-Wang. 2016. Quantificational binding in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at IACL24, Beijing Language University, 17–19 July, Beijing, China.
Huang, Shi-Zhe. 2005. Universal Quantification with Skolemization as Evidenced in Chinese and English. Lewiston NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Jin, Hui-hui. 1998. A Study of Chinese Bound Pronouns. MA thesis. National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
. 2009. Where Does the Binding Theory Apply? Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Jo-Wang. 1998. Distributivity in Chinese and its implications. Natural Language Semantics 6(2): 201–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003/2004. On restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Tsing hua Journal of Chinese Studies 33(1): 199–240.Google Scholar
Lin, Jo-Wang & Huang, C.-T. James. 2015. Quantificational binding in Chinese. Paper presented at the Theoretical Linguistics Conference: 30 Years of Linguistics at Tsing Hua, September 4, Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
. 2018a. Quantificational binding without c-command in Mandarin Chinese. Invited paper presented at the International Forum on Frontiers in Linguistics, Beijing Language and Culture University, October 29–30, Beijing, China.
. 2018b. Constraints on anaphoric and bound pronouns in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at the 10th international conference of the European Association of Chinese linguistics, 28–29 September, Università degli Studi di Milano and Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Luo, Qiong-peng. 2011. Mei and dou in Chinese: A tale of two quantifiers. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 9(2): 111–158.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1978/2004. Bound variables and other anaphors. In Proceedings of TINLAP-2, David Waltz (ed.), 79–85. University of Illinois. Also published as Partee, Barbara. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee, 110–121. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1971. Cross-over Phenomenon. New York NY: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 1983a. Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 6(1): 47–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983b. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shan, Chung-chieh & Barker, Chris. 2006. Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(1): 91–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teng, Elvin T.-H. 1985. Pronominal Anaphora in Chinese. MA thesis. National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric Relations in English. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Zhu, Shensheng. 1997. A Dynamic Semantic Theory of Chinese Anaphora. PhD dissertation, The University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lyu, Jun, Zuzanna Fuchs & Elsi Kaiser
2024. Anticipatory processing of cataphora is constrained by binding principles in L2 English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.