Cover not available
Part of
Current Issues in Syntactic Cartography: A crosslinguistic perspective
Edited by Fuzhen Si and Luigi Rizzi
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 267] 2021
► pp. 183–216

Chapter 9
Quantifictional binding without surface c-command in Mandarin Chinese

| Harvard University
| Academia Sinica

This article discusses quantificational binding without surface c-command in Mandarin Chinese. Jin (1998) pointed out that Chinese quantificational NPs (Q-NPs) headed by mei ‘every’ are capable of binding out of containers such as sentential subjects, relative clauses or adverbial clauses and there is a subject/object asymmetry with respect to such binding. This asymmetry, if correct, is reminiscent of the non-coreference rule on pronominal anaphora which also displays an effect of subject/object asymmetry (cf. Huang 1982 and Teng 1985) and would call for a unifying treatment of the two phenomena. However, contrary to Jin’s observation, this article shows that universal Q-NPs in object position may actually bind out of their containers just like universal Q-NP subjects, thus making it infeasible to define a common locality domain to which both quantificational binding and referential pronominal anaphora are sensitive. Instead, this article argues that quantificational binding is an LF phenomenon constrained by LF mechanisms. A minimum requirement for quantificational binding is that the pronoun bound by a given quantifier must be within the scope of that quantifier at LF. Though this minimum requirement in principle enables Q-NPs to have high scope, they are subject to other conditions such as the general Condition on Scope Interpretation, which prevents a Q-NP from taking scope over another one that c-commands it at surface structure. The interaction of the two conditions explains why in some cases Q-NPs may take high scope and bind a pronoun that they do not c-command but not in some other cases. Backward quantificational binding, on the other hand, is a result of the interaction of several independently motivated mechanisms, including the possibility of reconstruction at LF, the Chinese-specific non-coreference rule and Chomsky’s Leftness Condition.

Keywords: quantificational binding, c-command, Chinese, mei , subject/object asymmetry, LF
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The case of Chinese: Previous literature
  • 3.A preliminary first attempt to account for QBWC in Chinese
  • 4.Problems of the preliminary attempt
  • 5.Scope requirement on quantificational binding
  • 6.Scope ambiguity and quantificational binding
  • 7.Weak crossover and the c-command requirement
  • 8. Dou and the scope of universal NPs
  • 9.Conclusions, implications and residues problems
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.267.09hua
References
Aoun, Joseph & Li, Yen-hui Audrey
1989 Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2): 141–172.Google Scholar
1990 Minimal disjointness. Linguistics 28(2): 189–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris
2005 Remark on Jacobson 1999: Crossover as a local constraint. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(4): 447–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Reconstruction as delayed evaluation. In Theory and Evidence in Semantics, Erhard Hinrichs & John Nerbonne (eds), 1–28. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2012 Quantificational binding does not require c-Command. Linguistic Inquiry 43(4): 614–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina
2001 Antisymmetry and the leftness condition: Leftness as anti-c-command. Studia Linguistica 55(1): 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
1994 Linear order vs. syntactic rank: Evidence from weak crossover. In CLS 30: Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 1: The main Session, Katharine Beals, Jeannette Denton, Bob Knippen, Lynette Melnar, Hisami Suzuki & Erika Zeinfeld, 57–89. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
1998 Morphology competes with syntax: Explaining typological variation in weak crossover effects. In Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis & David Pesetsky (eds), 59–92. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press & MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin
2014 Precede-and-command revisited. Language 90(2): 342–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren
1968 A Grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1976 Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2: 303–351.Google Scholar
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth
1977 Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses (I). Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7(3): 467–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980 Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2): 337–362.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Sauerland, Uli
1996 Illusive scope of universal quantifiers. In Proceedings of NELS 26, Kiyomi Kusumoto (ed.), 71–86. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen
2006 (In)definiteness, polarity, and the role of wh-morphology in free choice. Journal of Semantics 23(2): 135–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2002 Possession and the double object construction. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds), 31–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James
1980a Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 11(4): 679–708Google Scholar
1980b Anaphora and GB: Some preliminary remarks. In Proceedings of NELS 9, J. Jensen (ed.), 223–236. Ottawa: University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
1983 Logical form, binding, and nominal. Linguistic Inquiry 14(3): 395–420.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James
1982 Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1983 On the representation of scope in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 11(1): 36–91.Google Scholar
1994 Logical form. In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, Gerd Webelhuth (ed.), 127–175. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1998 Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
2010 Between Syntax and Semantics. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James & Lin, Jo-Wang
2016 Quantificational binding in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at IACL24, Beijing Language University, 17–19 July, Beijing, China.
Huang, Shi-Zhe
2005 Universal Quantification with Skolemization as Evidenced in Chinese and English. Lewiston NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Jin, Hui-hui
1998 A Study of Chinese Bound Pronouns. MA thesis. National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David
1988 Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
2009 Where Does the Binding Theory Apply? Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Jo-Wang
1998 Distributivity in Chinese and its implications. Natural Language Semantics 6(2): 201–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003/2004 On restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Tsing hua Journal of Chinese Studies 33(1): 199–240.Google Scholar
Lin, Jo-Wang & Huang, C.-T. James
2015 Quantificational binding in Chinese. Paper presented at the Theoretical Linguistics Conference: 30 Years of Linguistics at Tsing Hua, September 4, Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
2018a Quantificational binding without c-command in Mandarin Chinese. Invited paper presented at the International Forum on Frontiers in Linguistics, Beijing Language and Culture University, October 29–30, Beijing, China.
2018b Constraints on anaphoric and bound pronouns in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at the 10th international conference of the European Association of Chinese linguistics, 28–29 September, Università degli Studi di Milano and Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Luo, Qiong-peng
2011  Mei and dou in Chinese: A tale of two quantifiers. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 9(2): 111–158.Google Scholar
May, Robert
1977 The Grammar of Quantification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara
1978/2004 Bound variables and other anaphors. In Proceedings of TINLAP-2, David Waltz (ed.), 79–85. University of Illinois. Also published as Partee, Barbara 2004 Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee, 110–121. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul
1971 Cross-over Phenomenon. New York NY: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1976 The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1983a Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 6(1): 47–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983b Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shan, Chung-chieh & Barker, Chris
2006 Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29(1): 91–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teng, Elvin T.-H.
1985 Pronominal Anaphora in Chinese. MA thesis. National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas
1972 Anaphoric Relations in English. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Zhu, Shensheng
1997 A Dynamic Semantic Theory of Chinese Anaphora. PhD dissertation, The University of Arizona.Google Scholar