Object Scrambling in Chinese
, H. L. Soh 1998
This thesis examines the role of prosody and semantics in word order variations in Chinese. In particular, I address the conrtoversial issue of whether overt object scrambling is available in Chinese. I argue that overt object scrambling exists in Chinese on the basis of (i) scope evidence, and (ii) the similarities between the distribution of the object in Chinese and object scrambling in Dutch and German. I show that the distribution of the object in Chinese exhibits prosodic, semantic and discourse information structure effects, similar to object scrambling in Dutch and German (Neeleman and Reinhart, to appear). I suggest that certain differences between Chinese and Dutch/German in the distribution of the object follow from the different word orders in these languages and how the word orders interact with the possibility of stress shift. There is evidence from the distribution of the object(s) in serial verb constructions and double complement constructions that the scrambled object occupies a position within the VP. This study places Chinese among languages such as Dutch and German which allow object scrambling and by doing so, enriches the data base for determining why scrambling occurs.
Thesis supervisor: Noam Chomsky
Title: Institute Professor
Table of Contents
Chapter One Introduction 9
1 Background 9
1.1 The distribution of the object in relation to the duration/
frequency phrase 9
2 Theoretical assumptions: the Minimalist Program 15
2.1 Feature checking 16
2.2 "Copy theory" of movement 17
3 Overview 17
Chapter Two Is there object scrambling in Chinese? 31
1 Introduction 31
2 Cases of object scrambling in Chinese and some possible analyses 32
3 Scope evidence 36
4 Problems with alternative analyses 40
5 Why not scrambling? 44
5.1 Previous proposals 44
5.2 Nominal or verbal status for [V DFP DE object] and verbal
status for [V DFP object] 47
6 Conclusions 57
Chapter Three The distribution of the object in relation to duration/frequency
phrases: a comparison with object scrambling in Dutch and
German 58
1 Introduction 58
2 Object scrambling in Dutch and German 61
2.1 Diesing (1992, 1997), Diesing and Jelinek (1995) 61
2.1.1 Descriptive generalizations 61
2.1.2 Account/theory 65
2.2 Neeleman and Reinhart (to appear) 68
2.2.1 Descriptive generalizations 68
2.2.2 Account/theory 70
2.3 van der Does and De Hoop (1998) 76
2.3.1 Descriptive generalizations 76
2.3.2 Account/theory 80
2.4 Points of agreement 82
3 Object scrambling in Chinese 84
3.1 Scrambling of definite noun phrases 85
3.2 Scrambling of indefinite noun phrases 93
3.3 Stress and the post-DFP position 98
4 Object scrambling in Chinese and theories of scrambling 103
4.1 Diesing (1992, 1997), Diesing and Jelinek (1995) 103
4.2 Neeleman and Reinhart (to appear) 106
4.3 van der Does and De Hoop 109
5 An account of scrambling 111
5.1 Scrambling and stress shift 111
5.2 Some differences between Chinese and Dutch scrambling 119
6 An apparent problem 125
6.1 Cliticization of the bare object: evidence from phonological
phrasing in Hokkien 125
6.2 Dialect A 129
6.3 Dialect B 132
6.4 Evidence for cliticization 136
7 A real problem? 137
8 Some previous analyses 142
8.1 Tang (1990, 1994) 142
8.1.1 The proposal 142
8.1.2 Some problems 144
8.2 Kung (1993) 146
8.2.1 The proposal 146
8.2.2 Some problems 147
8.3 Feng (1995) 148
8.3.1 The proposal 148
8.3.2 Some problems 151
9 Conclusions 153
Chapter Four Where is the scrambled object? 154
1 Introduction 154
2 DFPs in serial verb constructions 157
2.1 Serial verb constructions in Chinese 157
2.2 The distribution of the DFP in serial verb constructions 159
3 DFPs in double complement constructions 165
3.1 Double complement constructions in Chinese 165
3.2 The distribution of the DFP in double complement
constructions 166
3.2.1 Double object constructions: V DP DP 167
3.2.2 Dative constructions: V DP GEI DP 169
3.2.3 Shift constructions: V GEI DP DP 172
3.3 Summary 175
4 An analysis 175
4.1 The structures of double object/shift constructions and
dative constructions 175
4.2 An analysis of the distribution of the duration/frequency
phrase 178
4.2.1 Double object and shift constructions 178
4.2.2 Dative and constructions 180
4.3 Further support 185
4.3.1 Evidence from scope 185
4.3.2 Evidence from GE "each" 187
5 Structures of double complement constructions in Chinese:
previous analyses 192
5.1 Aoun and Li (1989) 193
5.1.1 The proposal 193
5.1.2 Some problems 196
5.2 Yang (1991) 199
5.2.1 The proposal 199
5.2.2 Some problems 200
5.3 Kung (1993) 202
5.3.1 The proposal 202
5.3.2 Some problems 206
6 Conclusions 208
Appendix to Chapter Four: GE "each" in Chinese 210
1 Introduction 210
2 Basic properties of GE 211
2.1 Licensing conditions of GE 211
2.2 Adjunction sites of GE 215
2.3 GE-quantification: leftward and rightward 219
3 Apparent cases of GE adjoining to V-bar: a possible analysis 220
4 Domain 225
5 GE in double complement constructions 230
5.1 The puzzle 230
5.2 T.H. Lin (1998): a tentative structural analysis 231
5.3 Expanding the data: the goal argument and binding 233
6 Conclusions 239
Chapter Five Towards a crosslinguistic perspective on Minimal Quantified
Structure Constraint: some notes from Chinese 240
1 Introduction 240
2 Background 242
2.1 Beck (1996a,b) 242
2.2 Cross-linguistic differences 244
2.2.1 Where does MQSC apply? 244
2.2.2 What counts as a QUIB in each language? 246
2.3 The typology of QUIBs 248
3 Beck-effects in Chinese 251
3.1 Duration/frequency phrases as QUIBs 251
3.1.1 DFPs block wh-movement 251
3.1.2 DFPs block QR and movement for focus
association 253
3.2 zhi "only" as a QUIB 255
3.2.1 zhi "only" blocks QR 255
3.2.2 zhi "only" does not block LF wh-movement 260
3.3 Negation as a QUIB 263
3.3.1 Negation blocks QR 264
3.3.2 Negation does not block LF wh-movement 268
3.4 Summary 270
4 Why are certain object noun phrases not allowed in the post-DFP
position? 271
4.1 The puzzle 271
4.2 A possible account 273
5 Conclusions 274
Chapter Six Conclusions 276
1 Summary 276
2 Implications 276
2.1 Verb-raising in Chinese 277
2.2 Holmberg"s generalization 278