Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 47:4 (2023) ► pp.900–956

A cross-linguistic syntactic analysis of telicity in motion predicates in Southern Tati, Mandarin, and Ghanaian Student Pidgin

ORCID logo | Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
ORCID logo | University of Ghana
This paper proposes an analysis of telicity in motion predicates within the framework of the Exo-Skeletal Model (Borer 2005b). We hypothesize that a motion event is syntactically represented by a Path component, the core of which is a vP that introduces a Figure argument. This Path component is interpreted as quantity in the sense of Borer (2005b) when there is a certain type of morpheme present in the structure, such as a verb that denotes the reaching of an endpoint. A quantity Path component can then assign a semantic value to a functional projection called AspQP, which returns a telic interpretation. Data from Mandarin, Ghanaian Student Pidgin, and Southern Tati show AspQP can be assigned a value either with or without overt head movement. We further propose a distinction between Path and direction, which explains data that were left unexplained in previous studies and seemingly contradict our claim.
Keywords: cross-linguistic, motion predicates, telicity, Mandarin, Tati, Ghanaian Student Pidgin, motion events
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical assumptions and hypothesis
    • 2.1Theoretical framework
    • 2.2Telicity defined
    • 2.3Motion events defined
    • 2.4Hypothesis
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.How telicity arises: Range assignment to [AspQ<e>]
    • 4.1Quantity path as a range assigner for [AspQ<e>]
    • 4.2Seemingly contradictory cases: Quantity argument as range assigner for [AspQ<e>]
  • 5.Theoretical contributions and implications
  • 6.Remaining questions for future research
    • 6.1XP-Loc and feature checking
    • 6.2Why overt head movement?
    • 6.3Syntactic behaviors of other path elements in Mandarin
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 17 January 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.22014.che
References (48)
References
Acedo-Matellán, Víctor & Jaume Mateu. 2014. From syntax to roots: A syntactic approach to root interpretation. In Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer, & Florian Schäfer (eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, 14–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2014. The roots of nominality, the nominality of roots. In Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, 33–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beavers, John. 2012. Lexical aspect and multiple incremental themes. In Louise McNally & Violetta Demonte (eds.), Telicity, change, and state: A cross-categorical view of event structure, 23–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Elizabeth Salomón. 2014. Multiple v-v mono-eventive syntactic complex in Mayangna. WSCLA 171. 15–27.Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena. 2017. Motion predicates: Moving along. Purdue University Research Repository (PURR). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2001. On a frequent misunderstanding in the temporal-aspectual domain: The perfective-telic confusion. In Carlo Cecchetto, Gennaro Chierchia & Maria Teresa Guasti (eds.), Semantic interfaces: Reference, anaphora and aspect, 177–210. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring sense volume I: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. Structuring sense volume II: The normal course of events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Structuring sense volume III: Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Pin-Hsi Patrick, Kwaku O. A. Osei-Tutu & Neda Taherkhani. 2019. The syntactic structure of telicity in motion predicates in Tati, Mandarin, and Ghanaian Student Pidgin (GSP). In Libby Chernouski & David O’Neil (eds.), Conference proceedings of the third Purdue linguistics, literature, and second languages conference: Diversity and divergence, 83–100. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Chen, Pin-Hsi. 2022. Motion predicates in Taiwan Mandarin – A linguistic dataset. Purdue University Research Repository. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. An exo-skeletal analysis of complex-path motion predicates in Taiwan Mandarin. West Lafayette: Purdue University Ph.D. dissertation.
. MS. Motion predicates in Taiwanese Mandarin: Manner, path, and telicity. Unpublished manuscript. (Purdue University).
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2015. The minimalist program: 20th anniversary edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve & Herbert Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 551: 767–811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dadzie, A. B. K. 1985. Pidgin in Ghana: A theoretical consideration of its origin and development. In Frank Okwu Ugboajah (ed.), Mass communication, culture and society in West Africa, 113–21. Munich: Hans Zell Publishers.Google Scholar
Dako, Kari. 2002a. Pidgin as a gender specific language in Ghana. Ghanaian Journal of English Studies 11. 72–82.Google Scholar
. 2002b. Student Pidgin (SP) – the language of the educated male elite. IAS Research Review 18(2). 53–62.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1). 1–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Heidi Harley. 2020. A head movement approach to Talmy’s typology. Linguistic Inquiry 51(3). 425–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fong, Vivienne. MS. Into doing something: Where is the path in event predicates?. Unpublished manuscript. (National University of Singapore).
Huang, C.-T. James, Y.-H. Audrey Li & Yafei Li. 2009. The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Renate Bartsch, John van Benthem & Peter van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Jingxia. 2015. Encoding motion events in Chinese and the ‘Scalar Specificity Constraint’. Lingua Sinica 1(4). 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Encoding motion events in Mandarin Chinese: A cognitive functional study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Gary Fred. 2001. The algebraic mind: integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 371. 69–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osei-Tutu, Kwaku O. A. 2019. A formal syntactic analysis of complex-path motion predicates in Ghanaian Student Pidgin (GSP). West Lafayette: Purdue University Ph.D. dissertation.
2019. A formal syntactic analysis of motion predicates in Ghanaian Student Pidgin (GSP). Purdue University Research Repository (PURR). DOI logo
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Edit Doron, Malka Rappaport Hovav & Ivy Sichel (eds.), Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure, 21–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2014. Building scalar changes. In Artemis Alexiadou, Hagit Borer & Florian Schäfer (eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax, 259–281. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2011. Head movement and the minimalist program. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 195–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soh, Hooi Ling. 2014. Aspect. In C.-T. James Huang, Y.-H. Audrey Li & Andrew Simpson (eds.), The handbook of Chinese linguistics, 126–155. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taherkhani, Neda. 2019. A syntactic analysis of motion predicates in Southern Tati (Takestani Dialect). West Lafayette: Purdue University Ph.D. dissertation.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics volume II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol Lee. 1987. Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. dissertation.
Travis, Lisa DeMena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. dissertation.
UNESCO (2010). Moseley, Christopher & Alexander Nicolas (eds.). Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger (PDF) (3rd ed.). Available at [URL] (last access 26 July 2022).
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66(2). 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J. 1972. On the compositional nature of the aspect. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 121. 39–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Chen. 2018. The syntax of Le in Mandarin Chinese. London: Queen Mary University of London Ph.D. dissertation.
Zheng, Carol Chun. MS. An Analysis of Motion Events across Three Chinese Languages: Suan1Tao5Uê7 (Chaoshan), Mandarin & Cantonese. Unpublished manuscript. (Purdue University).