Derivation of the Apparent Narrow Scope of Sentence-Final Particles in Chinese: A Reply to Erlewine (2017)

Abstract

Erlewine (2017) suggests that certain sentence-final particles (SFPs) in Mandarin Chinese such as "sentential le" and eryi are located lower than the C-domain, using a number of arguments relating to the scopal interaction of these SFPs, subjects, and other verb phrase (vP) level elements. The present paper proposes an alternative view of the phenomena considered by Erlewine (2017) and maintains the claim that sentential le and eryi are C-domain elements. First, I argue that shi 'be', in the negative form -bu shi 'not be' -should be analyzed as an independent verb, which takes a clausal complement headed by le or eryi. The apparent narrow scope of le and eryi is due to the biclausal analysis of the entire sentence. Second, the sentence-initial determiner phrase (DP) cannot be analyzed as the real subject of the verb shi 'be' but must be analyzed as the matrix topic of the entire sentence and, therefore, is higher than the complementizer phrase (CP) headed by le or eryi. This explains why sometimes le or eryi does not have scope over the subject. Third, the wh-subject cannot get an indefinite reading in a sentence with a final particle le because the $-closure triggered by le applies at the I′-level by excluding the subject systematically (Huang 1982). The $-quantifier, which is introduced in a position lower than the surface subject position, cannot bind the wh-subject as a variable. The position where $ is generated remains independent of whether the $-closure is triggered by low particles, such as le, or by high particles, such as the yes-no question particle ma. Therefore, the low peripheral particles le and eryi are still within the CP domain and thus higher than vP.

Nobody there? On the non-existence ofnobodyin Mandarin Chinese and related issues

“…For the complete and complex picture of focus cleft and association-with-focus in Mandarin Chinese, see Paul and Whitman (2008) and references therein. Also see Pan (2018). As noted by Erlewine (2015: 24) zhǐ 'only' can "associate with focus" with either the subject or the object DP in the clausal complement, where intonational prominence on the respective DP is required.…”

“…For the complete and complex picture of focus cleft and association-with-focus in Mandarin Chinese, see Paul and Whitman (2008) and references therein. Also see Pan (2018).…”

On finite embedded clauses in Tuparí: their synchrony, diachrony, and typology

“…(For instance, Erlewine 2017 proposes that it is not the vP but rather a slightly higher functional projection, SFP 1 P, that is phasal in Mandarin.) Second, Erlewine's empirical claims concerning the syntax of SFPs in Mandarin have been challenged (Pan 2018(Pan , 2020; I am not, however, in a position to adjudicate between the different accounts of the Mandarin facts. Given the lack of known phasehood diagnostics for Tuparí, the next subsection examines the Tuparí facts only in light of the proposal to restrict FOFC to Extended Projections.…”

A Morphosyntactic Analysis of Patient-Subject Constructions in Chinese

“…Though le locates at the final position in PSC, it should not be analyzed as a sentence-final particle. Following Dong (2015), Yang and Cheng (2018), Paul (2014), and Pan (2017Pan ( , 2019b, we analyze the le in PSC as an aspect (Asp) marker le 1 , which is different from a sentence-final particle le 2 (Chao 1968;Li and Thompson 1981).…”

“…As discussed in Section 3.3, we cannot deny the possibility that the le in PSC may be a conglomeration of the perfective aspect le 1 and sentence-final particle le 2 . Suppose le 2 is there, it could be either that le 2 is head-initial and the whole TP moves leftward (cf.,Kayne 1994) or le 2 is head-final and basegenerated there(Paul 2014;Erlewine 2017;Pan 2017, Pan 2019b). We leave these two possibilities open.…”