Noncanonical arguments via the high applicative
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
References (29)
References
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function
Changing. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baker, Mark. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Borer, Hagit. 2005. The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chen, Zhe and Yafei Li. 2016. Looking at vP from the Chinese
perspective. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 4: 483–497.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Her, One-soon. 2009. Apparent subject-object inversion in
Chinese. Linguistics 47(5): 1143–1181. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–593.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huang, James, Audrey Li and Yafei Li. 2009. The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1972. The categorical and the thetic
judgment. Foundations of Language 9: 153–185.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Li, Yafei. (2021) Universal Grammar and Iconicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Li, Yafei, Rebecca Shields and Vivian Lin. 2012. Adverb classes and the nature of
minimality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 217–260. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marantz, Alec. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase
Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sun, Tianqi, and Yafei Li. 2010. Licensing non-core arguments in
Chinese. Chinese Language Studies 334: 21–33.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sun, Tianqi, and Yafei Li. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zhang, Niina. 2018. Non-canonical objects as event kind-classifying
elements. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36: 1395–1437. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Lin, Jo-wang
2024.
名物化與「的」字結構.
Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 25:3
► pp. 454 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.