A generalized syntactic schema for utterance particles in Chinese

Tang, Sze-Wing

doi:10.1186/s40655-015-0005-5

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have shown that there is a correlation between SFPs and intonation (Zhang 2014;Tang 2015;Wakefield 2016). For instance, SFPs and some specific intonation are in complementary distribution.…”

Section: Mandarin Clause Type Anticipation and The Clausal Typing Mecmentioning

confidence: 94%

Clause type anticipation based on prosody in Mandarin

Yang

Gryllia

Pablos

et al. 2019

IJChL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mandarin wh-words such as shénme are wh-indeterminates, which can have interrogative interpretations (‘what’) or non-interrogative interpretations (i.e., ‘something’), depending on the context and licensors. For example, when diǎnr (‘a little’) appears right in front of a wh-word, the string can have either a wh-question or a declarative interpretation (henceforth, wh-declarative). Yang (2018) carried out a production study and the results showed that wh-questions and wh-declaratives have different prosodic properties. To investigate whether and when listeners make use of prosody to anticipate the clause type (i.e., question vs. declarative), we conducted a sentence perception study and an audio-gating experiment. Results of the perception study and the gating experiment show that (1) Participants can make use of prosody to differentiate the two clause types; (2) Starting from the onset of the first word of the target sentence (wh-question/wh-declarative), participants already demonstrate a preference for the clause type that was intended by the speaker. The current study also sheds light on the clausal typing mechanism in Mandarin (e.g., how to mark a clause as a wh-question) by providing evidence of the role of prosody in marking clause types in Mandarin.

show abstract

Section: Mandarin Clause Type Anticipation and The Clausal Typing Mecmentioning

confidence: 94%

Clause type anticipation based on prosody in Mandarin

Yang

Gryllia

Pablos

et al. 2019

IJChL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The question particle "ne" at the end of the sentence does not carry any lexical meaning of interrogation; therefore it cannot be an interrogative head. This understanding of the syntactic behavior of particle as non-head also follows Kayne (2015) and Tang (2015). The wh-questions in the earliest found version of Tao Te Ching do not carry any question particles at the end of the sentences, and this also shows that question particles are not likely to be the heads of the sentence CP (Ma, 2017a).…”

Section: Null Spec Languagementioning

confidence: 81%

Typology and Feature Checking of Wh-Questions

2018

PAROLE J. Linguist. Edu.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the perspective of the syntactic behavior of wh-questions, natural languages can be classified into four types: Null Spec Language, Single Filled Spec Language, Multiply Filled Spec Language and Non-Multiply Filled Spec Language. Data were collected according to the relevance to the present research from each representative of the four types of languages, namely, Chinese, English, Bulgarian and Czech. Some of the data in the thesis were taken from the previous literature. Others were from self-introspection. The collected data were analyzed from the point of typology and feature checking. Feature checking in wh-questions of these four types of languages seem to be operated quite differently. Pied-piping of the formal features of the wh-words or wh-phrases occur in English, Bulgarian and Czech but not in Chinese. However, feature movement in wh-questions of these four types of languages is universal. This finding proves Chomsky’s biological linguistic belief that language is mainly an optimal solution to conditions it must satisfy.

show abstract

“…11 See Matthews and Yip (1994, chap. 18) and Tang (2015). then right in (3)/(5) is not a sentence-final particle in the usual sense of the term but rather an adjective akin to the adjective correct as in:…”

Section: Sentence-final Particlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Silence of Heads

Kayne

2016

Studies in Chinese Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the basis of considerations involving complementizers, sentence-final particles, need, aspect, tense, focus and topic, agreement morphemes, determiners, verbrelated particles and adpositions, I reach the conclusion that many more heads in the sentential projection line (and elsewhere) must be taken to be silent than is usually thought. I then argue that this state of affairs ultimately reflects the fact that every projecting head is silent. 提要本文探討的對象包括標句詞、句末助詞、“need”、體、時、焦點與話題、一致關係語素、限定詞、與動詞有關的助詞、介詞，得出的結論是：在句子投射系列及其他位置上，無聲中心語的數目應該遠多於過去所理解。本文進而指出，以上的情況都說明一個事實，那就是中心語都是無聲的成分。

show abstract

A generalized syntactic schema for utterance particles in Chinese

Cited by 17 publications

References 11 publications

Clause type anticipation based on prosody in Mandarin

Clause type anticipation based on prosody in Mandarin

Typology and Feature Checking of Wh-Questions

The Silence of Heads

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About