Abstract
Taking up an early observation by Y.-H. Audrey Li (1985) stating the systematic lack of Chinese equivalents for English small clauses (SC) with nominal predicates (They elected John president), this article demonstrates that Chinese lacks SCs altogether. This holds independently of the approach adopted, be it the analysis of SCs as lexical projections with different category labels (cf. Stowell 1981, Matushansky 2019) or the uniform analysis of SCs as PredP (cf. Bowers 1993). In Chinese, there is no root vs non-root asymmetry for predicates: If a category X is not licit as an autonomous predicate in matrix sentences, then it is not licit as predicate elsewhere, i.e. in non-root clauses, either. Furthermore, Chinese has no exceptional case marking verbs, i.e. verbs selecting SC-complements. Claims to the contrary in the literature are based on Chinese translations of English SCs and involve completely different structures. Given the lack of SCs in non-root contexts in Chinese, an analysis postulating SCs for non-verbal predication in matrix sentences does not seem to be warranted.
Highlights
This asymmetry is exactly the opposite of what is observed for small clauses (SC) predicates in e.g. English, where an NP is licit without a copula only in the non-root SC context, but requires the copula in root contexts
This article has provided extensive evidence to show that there is no root vs non-root asymmetry for predicates in Chinese: if an XP is not licit as an autonomous predicate in root contexts, X is not licit as predicate elsewhere, i.e. in non-root contexts, either
There are no special non-root contexts in the form of SCs where a non-predicative XP can exceptionally function as predicate
Summary
Against this backdrop, the remaining sections provide ample evidence that alleged SCs in Chinese bear at most a superficial resemblance with SCs in e.g. English and are not as “reduced” as expected for SCs; on the contrary, they represent full-fledged clauses likewise acceptable in matrix contexts. It demonstrates that it was inter alia the misparsing of double object constructions and of sentences where the matrix verb selects a clausal complement that led to postulating SCs for Chinese (cf a.o. Sybesma 1999; Tang Sze-Wing 1998; Niina Zhang 2016).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
