Finiteness, opacity, and Chinese clausal architecture
Although languages differ considerably in the way they encode finiteness syntactically or morphonology, the
‘finiteness distinction’ exists as a universal grammatical phenomenon. This chapter will re-affirm the claim that the distinction
exists in Chinese, with robust clustered properties that diagnose the different clause types on several scales, with respect to
temporal (in)dependence, clausal opacity/transparency, inter-clausal integration, etc. I address how finiteness is encoded,
considering the hypothesis that finiteness is related to surface clause sizes (e.g., CP, IP, vP). As for the origin of the clause size
differences it is suggested that they arise from the fundamental (in)ability of a clause to make deictic temporal reference. Under a
pronominal theory of tense semantics, the nature of a syntactic T0 (being an anaphor, a pronominal or an r-expression)
determines its binding properties as well as its possible clause size, with ensuing signature properties that mark the finiteness
distinction.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Finiteness distinctions in Chinese and properties that diagnose
them
- 2.1Scale of independence
- 2.2Scale of opacity
- A.Aspect lowering
- B.
Before-collocation
- C.Internal topicalization
- D.Verb copying
- E.Focus fronting
- F.Clitic climbing of suo
- G.Long distance passivization
- H.Scope skipping of you ‘again’
- 2.3Scale of integration
- 3.Finiteness and clausal architecture
- 3.1Finiteness as clause size
- 3.2On C-selection and clause-size reduction
- 4.Finiteness and syntactic coding
- 4.1Finiteness in nominal complementation
- 4.2Finiteness beyond complement types
- 4.3Finiteness and syntactic encoding
- 5.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgments
-
Notes
-
References