Journal of East Asian Linguistics最新文献

This article addresses the issue of how nominal countability is grammatically encoded and how the counting function is realized in classifier languages by investigating classifier phrases in Donglan Zhuang, a Tai-Kadai language. According to the prevailing individuation account, classifiers are required to individuate nouns, which can then be counted by numerals. Under this approach, countability and counting are conflated. Donglan Zhuang has two syntactically distinct types of classifiers, namely, numeral classifiers CL_num and noun classifiers CL_nom. CL_num performs the counting/measuring function, comparable to the cardinality function proposed in Scontras (The semantics of measurement, Harvard University, Cambridge, 2014), and CL_nom encodes syntactic countability by singling out sortal nouns from the mass domain, whereby sortal nouns are, meanwhile, turned into (taxonomic) kind terms. Noun classifiers in Donglan Zhuang pose a challenge to Chierchia’s (Nat Lang Semant 6(4):339–405, 1998) “bare argument hypothesis” and suggest that bare nouns in classifier languages are not uniform with respect to the [±argument] parametric setting.

This paper offers new evidence for covert focus movement in two areas of Chinese syntax, concerning A’-extraction and the distribution of anaphoric definite bare nouns. A left-right asymmetry in Mandarin topic and relative structures has long been observed (since Huang in Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574, 1984) whereby apparent extraction from an island is possible if the island occurs as a subject or fronted object, but not if it occurs postverbally. The definite interpretation of a bare noun exhibits a similar asymmetry (Jenks in Linguistic Inquiry 49:501–536, 2018): a bare noun may have anaphoric definite interpretation if occurring as a subject or topic, but not as a postverbal object. In both patterns, the occurrence of focus may exceptionally cancel the asymmetry, allowing extraction from a postverbal island and the anaphoric definite interpretation of a postverbal bare noun. We argue that these patterns of exception are explained if the phrases associated with focus undergo covert movement in LF.

Pseudo-partitive constructions give rise to multiple interpretive ambiguities including a container interpretation (i.e. individuating) and a contents (i.e. measuring) one. There are two competing analyses: one based on structural ambiguities (Landman in Indefinites and the types of sets, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004; Rothstein in Brill’s J Afroasiat Lang Ling 1:106–145, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1163/187666309X12491131130783, a.o.) and one based on a uniform syntax (Lehrer in Lingua 68:109–148, 1986; Matushansky and Zwarts in Lamont and Tetzloff (eds) North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 47, Volume 2, pp 261–274, GLSA, Amherst, 2016, a.o.). I contribute to this debate with data from Alasha Mongolian (Mongolic), which differentiates each interpretation via case marking on the quantizing noun: glass-comitative = individuating vs. glass-genitive/Ø = measuring. I argue that there is no large-scale structural ambiguity: the numeral and the quantizing noun always form a constituent introduced in the specifier position of a null functional head (Schwarzschild in Syntax 9(1):67–110, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00083.x; Svenonius in McNally and Kennedy (eds) Adjectives and adverbs: syntax, semantics and discourse, Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, pp 16–42, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008; Ott in J Comp Ger Ling 4:1–46, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-010-9040-x). I propose that (i) case differences on the quantizing constituent boil down to the presence or absence of a case probe on a higher Agr head; (ii) and, the interpretive differences between the individuating and measuring pseudo-partitives are the result of a more subtle syntactic distinction in the feature content of the quantizing noun, i.e. an interpretable [±Container] feature.

The primary goal of this paper is to understand the information structure of right dislocation (RD). I report a variation in RD in Asian languages with regard to the information structural status of the right dislocated elements. The discussion focuses on Alasha, a Mongolic language spoken in Mongolia. Through a comparative perspective on right dislocation, I show that RD languages come in two types: one that allows focused elements to be right dislocated, and one that disallows focused elements to be right dislocated. I argue that Alasha belongs to the former type, and I propose a bi-clausal analysis of Alasha RD, where Focus movement may occur in the second clause. Drawing on these findings, I further argue that the variation in RD is due to the parametric difference on the licensing condition of Focus Projection in Asian languages. Ultimately, the findings of this paper strengthen a non-uniform approach to RD in natural languages in both syntactic structure and information structure, despite their surface similarities.

This paper examines and provides a unified analysis for the interaction between ECM and (hspace{1.27777pt}overline{hspace{-1.27777pt}text {A}hspace{-1.27777pt}}hspace{1.27777pt})-operations such as thematic topicalization and wh-licensing at the Mongolian embedded clausal periphery. Building on a previous proposal that ECM targets Spec CP, which can be an A-position in Mongolian (Fong 2019), I argue that thematic topicalization and wh-licensing are associated with an (hspace{1.27777pt}overline{hspace{-1.27777pt}text {A}hspace{-1.27777pt}}hspace{1.27777pt})-domain projected below CP. Furthermore, I advance an analysis in which the A- and (hspace{1.27777pt}overline{hspace{-1.27777pt}text {A}hspace{-1.27777pt}}hspace{1.27777pt})-properties of syntactic dependencies are the result of different features involved in Agree relations. The Agree-based analysis allows for a flexible account for the intricate patterns of the A/(hspace{1.27777pt}overline{hspace{-1.27777pt}text {A}hspace{-1.27777pt}}hspace{1.27777pt})-interactions at the Mongolian clausal periphery, while also making concrete predictions confirmed by independent facts from this language. I then compare the Mongolian case with typical cases of improper movement, and discuss the implications of the current account for a general theory of movement typology.

This article explores a restriction on non-local binding in Vietnamese—the blocking effect—including a systematic comparison with its Mandarin Chinese counterpart. Our finding is that the blocking effect in Vietnamese appeared to be rather different from that in Mandarin but, in fact, employs essentially the same syntactic mechanism. While binding of Mandarin ziji is governed by a [+participant] feature, binding of the Vietnamese anaphor mình is governed by a [+author] feature. Together with the assumption of the presence of a silent performative frame, this derives that binding of Vietnamese mình yields what one may call an Author effect.