Chapter published in:
New Explorations in Chinese Theoretical Syntax: Studies in honor of Yen-Hui Audrey Li
Edited by Andrew Simpson
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 272] 2022
► pp. 331–356

Noncanonical arguments via the high applicative

| University of Wisconsin
This article develops a new account of Chinese NCAs. The representative analyses of the phenomenon in the literature were evaluated, accompanied with facts, some new, that help sort out the linguistic and extra-linguistic properties of the NCAs. The proposed account consists of two core elements: bare lexical roots without light verbs (in their popular sense) at either lexical or syntactic level of derivation, and the conditional use of the high applicative. All relevant facts are derived from the collaboration of these two elements once extra-linguistic factors are duly recognized and either incorporated into the analysis or set aside to avoid unnecessary distractions.
Article outline
  • 0.Introduction
  • 1.On the facts and the existing analyses
    • 1.1Lin’s (2001) original theory: Bare roots plus s-syntactic light verbs
    • 1.2My own analysis: Bare roots with no light verbs at all
    • 1.3A. Li’s theory: A thematic hierarchy via light verbs
    • 1.4Zhang’s (2018) ergative verb approach
  • 2.An applicative-based alternative account
    • 2.1High applicatives and their use in a low-applicative language
    • 2.2How does syntax deal with a bare lexical root?
    • 2.3ApplH vs. light verbs
  • 3.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 April 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.272.12yaf
References
Baker, Mark
1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
1996 The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit
2005 The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Lioba Moshi
1993 Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. In Theoretical Aspects of Banta Grammar, Sam Mchombo (ed), 47–91. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Chen, Zhe and Yafei Li
2016 Looking at vP from the Chinese perspective. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 4: 483–497.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth and Jay Keyser
1993 On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The views from Building 20, K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Her, One-soon
2009 Apparent subject-object inversion in Chinese. Linguistics 47(5): 1143–1181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James
1985 On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–593.Google Scholar
Huang, James, Audrey Li and Yafei Li
2009 The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1996 Severing the external argument from the verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y.
1972 The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.Google Scholar
Li, Audrey
Thematic hierarchy and derivational economy. Language & Linguistics 15(3): 295–339.
Li, Yafei.
2005 X0: A Theory of the Morphology-Syntax Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, Yafei
(2021) Universal Grammar and Iconicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Yafei, Rebecca Shields and Vivian Lin
2012 Adverb classes and the nature of minimality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 217–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Jonah
2001 Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Marantz, Alec
1993 Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, Sam A. Mchombo (ed), 113–150. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–225.Google Scholar
Pacchiarotti, Sara.
2017 Bantu applicative construction types involving *-id: Form, function and diachrony. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego
2004 Tense, case and the nature of syntactic categories. In The Syntax of Time, Jaqueline Guéron and Jaqueline Lecarme (eds), 495–538. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina
2008 Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian.
2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1990 Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sun, Tianqi, and Yafei Li
2010 Licensing non-core arguments in Chinese. Chinese Language Studies 334: 21–33.Google Scholar
2020 An analysis on the mechanism of oblique object constructions in Chinese: The monosyllabic constraint and the “bare root” theory. Contemporary Linguistics 22(2): 199–216.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno.
1967 Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Niina
2018 Non-canonical objects as event kind-classifying elements. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36: 1395–1437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar