Abstract
Theoretical linguists claim that the notorious reflexive ziji ‘self’ in Mandarin Chinese, if occurring more than once in a single sentence, can take distinct antecedents. This study tackles possibly the most interesting puzzle in the linguistic literature, investigating how two occurrences of ziji in a single sentence are interpreted and whether or not there are mixed readings, i.e., these zijis are interpretively bound by distinct antecedents. Using 15 Chinese sentences each having two zijis, we conducted two sentence reading experiments based on a modified self-paced reading paradigm. The general interpretation patterns observed showed that the majority of participants associated both zijis with the same local antecedent, which was consistent with Principle A of the Standard Binding Theory and previous experimental findings involving a single ziji. In addition, mixed readings also occurred, but did not pattern as claimed in the theoretical linguistic literature (i.e., one ziji is bound by a long-distance antecedent and the other by a local antecedent). Based on these results, we argue that: (i) mixed readings were due to manifold, interlocking and conflicting perspectives taken by the participants; and (ii) cases of multiple occurrences of ziji taking distinct antecedents are illicit in Chinese syntax, since the speaker, when expressing a sentence, can select only one P(erspective)-Center that referentially denotes the psychological perspective in which the sentence is situated.
Highlights
Theoretical Discussions on the Chinese Reflexive As is well discussed in the theoretical linguistic literature, there is a linguistic puzzle in Mandarin Chinese, the notorious reflexive ziji ‘self’ can take an antecedent across a clausal boundary, which contradicts Principle A of the Standard Binding Theory [1]
We focus on whether or not the referents of two zijis in a single sentence can be determined in a principled way as claimed by HLL, viz. whether or not both zijis in a same sentence have the same antecedent(s), and if mixed readings take place, whether or not they are patterned, albeit chaotic on the surface, out of the so-called blocking effect induced by a 3rdperson noun phrase (NP)
These findings suggest that the construal of multiple occurrences of ziji in a single sentence is largely subject to the Binding Principle A [1]
Summary
Theoretical Discussions on the Chinese Reflexive As is well discussed in the theoretical linguistic literature, there is a linguistic puzzle in Mandarin Chinese, the notorious reflexive ziji ‘self’ can take an antecedent across a clausal boundary, which contradicts Principle A of the Standard Binding Theory [1]. Despite many issues under considerable debate, there appears to be a general consensus that: (i) ziji, albeit notoriously uncharacterized, is subject to syntactic binding [3,4,5]; and (ii) its behavior is not purely syntactic, because semantic The other is nonsyntactic in nature: its referent is ‘‘determined by nonsyntactic factors (semantic, pragmatic, discourse, processing, inter alia) whose nature remains largely obscure’’ The other is nonsyntactic in nature: its referent is ‘‘determined by nonsyntactic factors (semantic, pragmatic, discourse, processing, inter alia) whose nature remains largely obscure’’ ([14], p. 289)
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.
