Chinese cleft structures and the dynamics of processing

Abstract

This paper addresses the challenge of Chinese cleft structures, involving a pairing of the particles shi and de, which in different combinations display a variety of focus-related effects and different potentials for ambiguity: clefts and pseudo-clefts in particular differ only in order of the elements. We argue that retaining conventional assumptions necessarily involves positing unrelated structures and multiple ambiguities, leaving the systematicity of variation unexplained; and we go on to argue that it is only by turning to a dynamic framework in which syntax is defined as mechanisms for incremental build-up of interpretation that an integrated characterisation of these effects is made possible. Adopting the Dynamic Syntax framework (Cann et al 2005), we argue that shi and de induce procedures for incremental build-up of construal which feed and can be fed by other such procedures; and we show how the array of effects both in clefts and pseudo-clefts can be shown to follow from the dynamics of building up interpretation reflecting online processing. What Zhangsan bought were books [pseudo-cleft] the book(s) which Zhangsan bought [relative-modified NP]All of these are understood as cleft structures, with (1e) and (1f) having in addition alternative interpretations; and previous analyses have proposed distinct structures for the distinct wordsequences, invoking multiple homonymy. We will argue to the contrary, that these constructions and their interpretation should be explained in terms of how interpretation is progressively built up from the words uttered, with shi and de determining how incrementally that process takes place. On this account (broadly following that of Kempson et al. 2011;Seraku 2013), the difference between the various types of construal emerges from the different order in which structure is built up. Shi, we will argue, is a specialised demonstrative anticipating an update effect provided by the constituent following it. De, we will argue, is also a specialised anaphoric element whose task is to confirm the completion of this update effect. Upon our analysis, this de is the same de which marks the final position of relative clauses, which canonically precede the head. These two particles together will then be seen to interact in ways reflecting their variant orders to yield the different interpretations. The presentation will be informal throughout. Nonetheless, we shall demonstrate, at least in principle, how and why an integrated account of this range of constructions is made possible by adopting a dynamic procedural perspective. PREVIOUS STUDIES shiShi as a lexical item first occurred in Archaic Chinese (around 1200 BC to 220 AD) as a demonstrative pronoun (Zhao 1989). During the transition from Archaic Chinese to Middle Chinese (220 AD to 1279 AD), shi is however said to have developed into an assertive or copula verb, at least partly because such a use of shi is associated with the meaning of making an assertion (Xiao 2006). According to Xiao (2006), it was in the early Song dynasty...

A self-paced reading study of context effects in the processing of aspectual verbs in Mandarin

“…For example, in (6), a constitutive reading could be John is the last character in the novel, which is much easier to access in (6b) than (6a). Shi in Mandarin Chinese was classified as a verb or a focus marker, and the sentence structure SHI… was named the bare shi construction (Liu & Kempson, 2018). This construction was regarded similar to the cleft structure in English and the function of shi was claimed to put an emphasis on the focused part following it (Tang, 1983;Xu, 2003).…”

Focus interpretation in L1 and L2: The role of prosodic prominence and clefting

“…There are other types of cleft constructions in both languages, but we use SHI : : : DE clefts in Mandarin and it-clefts in English, since both are claimed to be canonical cleft constructions in the respective languages (Hole, 2012;Liu & Kempson, 2018) and have been studied for their focus properties. They are similar in function and have been compared in previous studies on focus processing (e.g., Yan & Calhoun, 2020).…”