The dissection and structural mapping of Cantonese sentence final particles

Sybesma, Rint; Li, Boya

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2006.10.003

Cited by 55 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…My proposal is to extend this analysis in terms of C to all SFPs in Mandarin, drawing on research within the split CP approach of Rizzi (also cf. Li Boya , Hsieh & Sybesma for Mandarin, and Sybesma & Li Boya for Cantonese) . We will see that SFPs are not categorially deficient, as claimed by Biberauer et al.…”

Section: The Internal Architecture Of the Split Cp In Chinesementioning

confidence: 99%

Why particles are not particular: Sentence‐final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP

Paul

2014

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceBiberauer, Newton & Sheehan (2009) claim that clause-final particles are categorially deficient. This move is motivated by the fact that a number of VO languages-among them Mandarin Chinese-display sentence-final particles (SFPs), which, when analysed as complementisers, violate the purportedly universal Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC). The FOFC excludes structures where a head-final projection dominates a head-initial one. In contrast, the present article argues that SFPs in Chinese instantiate C in a three-layered split CP a la Rizzi (1997, 2004) and hence are " visible " for the FOFC. Furthermore, to equate The World Atlas of Language Structures' (WALS) label adverbial subordinator with complementiser as Biberauer et al. (2008, 2009) do is shown to be problematic, given that it turns out to be a cover term for different categories. Accordingly, WALS' results for the distribution of adverbial subor-dinator cannot be mechanically used as testing ground for the predictions made by the FOFC for the category C

show abstract

Section: The Internal Architecture Of the Split Cp In Chinesementioning

confidence: 99%

Why particles are not particular: Sentence‐final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP

Paul

2014

Studia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the line of this approach, proposals have been made to accommodate discourse particles in the left or right periphery in functional projections, cf. Poletto (2009) for Old Italian, Li (2006), Sybesma & Li (2007) and Sybesma (2010) for Chinese, and Haegeman & Hill (2010) for Rumanian and West Flemish (a Dutch dialect in the west of Belgium). Haegeman & Hill (2010) observe that wè and zè express a speaker attitude, whereas zé (with rising intonation) and né are hearer oriented.…”

Section: The Right Periphery In Dutch Linguisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For Japanese Lee (2007), Haugh (2008), McGloin & Konishi (2010), Saigo (2011) andHayano (2013). For (different varieties of) Chinese, see Li (2006), Lin (2010), Sybesma & Boya (2007), Sybesma (2010), Strauss & Xiang (2009), Lee & Pan (2010), Yap, Wang and Lam (2010).…”

Section: Utterance Final Particles In Other Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

10. Dutch particles in the right periphery

Wouden¹,

Foolen²

2015

Final Particles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThis exploratory paper deals with sentence final particles in Dutch. By particles, we mean pragmatic particles: those elements that don't contribute to the propositional content of the sentence (cf. Foolen 1993). As is well known from pragmatic research, such particles are more typical for spoken than for written language. It would, thus, be better to say 'utterance final' than 'sentence final'. The syntagmatic placement of pragmatic particles is variable, within languages (for Dutch, see section 6) and cross-linguistically. English discourse markers typically occur at the beginning of an utterance, German and Dutch modal particles are positioned in the middle field, in classical Greek the particles where attracted by the second position, whereas East Asian languages typically have their pragmatic particles at the end of the utterance. In section 5 we address the question whether there is any typological logic in such language specific preferences. We will argue that it is too early for typological conclusions, as not enough language specific descriptive work has been done. This lack of descriptive research became more and more clear for us while working on the present project: Dutch is not known for its utterance final particles, not even among Dutch linguists, but while searching for the phenomenon in the Spoken Dutch Corpus (CGN), we discovered that in fact there is a wide variety of pragmatic particles to be found at the end of Dutch utterances, as we will show in section 4, where we will illustrate our findings with many examples from this corpus.Given the title of this paper, we should briefly dwell upon the question what do we mean with the term 'right periphery'? At least since Koster (1975), Dutch is considered to be an SOV language. In subordinate clauses, the verbal elements, i.e. the finite verb and/or participles and infinitives, cluster at the end of the clause. In main clauses, this is also the case, albeit with the exception of the finite verb which moves to a position at the beginning of the clause (in generative terms: the C-position, "Verb second"). The SOV character of Dutch does not mean, however, that the verb cluster always constitutes an absolute end of the utterance, as has been shown by a wealth of studies, especially within generative

show abstract

“…2 Fung (2000) and Sybesma and Li (2007) represent two recent studies on the overall system of Cantonese SFPs. Although their analyses do not include (7) Keoi houci hou zungji ngo zung sung-maai faa tim.…”

Section: A Brief Description Of Cantonese Sentence-final Particle Timmentioning

confidence: 99%

The landscape of additive particles—with special reference to the Cantonese sentence-final particle tim

Lee

Pan

2010

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dissection and structural mapping of Cantonese sentence final particles

Cited by 55 publications

References 12 publications

Why particles are not particular: Sentence‐final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP

Why particles are not particular: Sentence‐final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP

10. Dutch particles in the right periphery

The landscape of additive particles—with special reference to the Cantonese sentence-final particle tim

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About