DISJUNCTIONINMANDARINCHINESE:YAOMEXPYAOMEYPByYiChenLinATHESISSubmittedtoMichiganStateUniversityinpartialfulÞllmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofLinguisticsÐMasterofArts2016ABSTRACTDISJUNCTIONINMANDARINCHINESE:YAOMEXPYAOMEYPByYiChenLinYaomeXPyaomeYPisoftentranslatedintoEnglishasÒeitherXPorYPÓ.Bothallowadisjunctiveinterpretationwhentheyoccurinasentence.Thissimilarity,however,endsthere.First,therearerestrictionsonthetypesofsyntacticphrasesthatthepairedyaomeconjoinswhileeitherorisfreetoconjoinphrasesofdi!erenttypesinEnglish.Inparticular,yaomedoesnotconjoinnominalphraseswhileeitherordoesnÕtexhibitsucharestriction.Thisasymmetry(namelytheasymmetrythatyaomedoesnÕtconjoinDPs,whileeitherordoes)showsaninterestingphenomenon,speciÞcallythesentenceÔEitherJohnhitBillorMaryÕisambiguousinEnglishbutnotinMandarin.Second,thepairedyaomeandeitherordi!erintheirplacementinenvironmentsthatlicensesNegativePolarityItems(NPIs).Particularly,pairedyaomedoesnÕtoccurinthescopeofnegation,ininterrogativesandintheantecedentclauseofconditionals,whileeitheroroccursintheseenvironments.ThisbehaviorofyaomeindicatesthatitisaPositivePolarityItemandthereforemustescapefromenvironmentsthatlicenseNPIs.CopyrightbyYICHENLIN2016Tomyparentsandsiblings.ivACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThisthesisistheresultofideasIdevelopedduringmy2-yearstudyatMichiganStateUniversity.IwouldnÕthavegottenthisfarwithoutthehelpofmanypeople.Firstofall,Iwouldliketoexpressmydeepgratitudetomycommittee,CristinaSchmitt,AlanMunnandMarcinMorzycki.SpecialthanksgotomymajoradvisorCristinaforallthetimeshespentdiscussingtheargumentsofthethesiswithmeandlookingovertheerrorsImadeinthethesis.Similarly,IwouldliketothankAlanforinspiringmetoworkonthisissue.IlearnedandbeneÞtedalotineverysyntaxclasshetaught.Also,IthankMarcinforprovidingvaluablesuggestionsfromtheviewofsemantics.Anyfailureinargumentationorlackofvisioninthisthesisisentirelymine.Asidefrommycommitteewhohelpedmeintellectually,Iwouldliketothankmyparentsandsiblingsfortheirmentalsupport.IÕmdeeplygratefultobeadaughterofmyparents.WhenIÞrstdecidedtostudyabroad,theycomplainedaboutnothingbutsupportedthedecisionImade.Eventhoughtheywere7573.3milesawayfromme,theiraltruismmademefeelasthoughtheywererightherewithme.Theywerealwaysreadytolistentome,encourageme,andsupportmyeverydecision.IÕmsoproudofbeingpartofthisfamilyandIonlyhopethatImakethemproudaswell.MyfriendsinTaiwanalsohelpedmealotalongtheway.ThankstothosewhoIÕvebeenbotheringandaskingtheirjudgementsonthedata.ThankyouguysfortextingmeandencouragingmewheneverIlackmotivations.IappreciateallthefacultywhoIÕvetakenclasseswithaswellasallthegradstudentswhoIÕveaskedforhelpalongtheway.Lastbutnotleast,IÕmthankfulfortheopportunityforbeingateachingassistantatMSU.Ilearnedalotfromthispreciousexperience.Mystudyandmyworkherearenodoubtoneofthemostmemorableexperiencesinmylife.vTABLEOFCONTENTSLISTOFFIGURES...................................viiCHAPTER1INTRODUCTION...........................1CHAPTER2THEDISTRIBUTIONANDTHESTRUCTUREOFYAOME....62.1TheDistributionofyaome............................62.1.1YaomeandPredicates..........................62.1.2YaomeandDP..............................202.2Thestructureofyaome..............................262.2.1TP.....................................282.2.2vP&VP.................................282.2.3DP.....................................31CHAPTER3THEDP-PUZZLEANDTHEANALYSISOFTHEPUZZLE....333.1TheDP-puzzle..................................333.2TheanalysisoftheDP-puzzle..........................333.2.1WhyarefocusedDPsnotDPs?.....................333.2.2Uniquestructureofminimalanswerstoaquestion...........343.2.3EvidencefromtheLeftPeriphery....................37CHAPTER4THESUBJECT-OBJECTPUZZLEANDTHEANALYSISOFTHEPUZZLE................................404.1Thesubject-objectpuzzle............................404.2Theanalysisofthesubject-objectpuzzle....................414.2.1AmbiguityoftheinterpretationinEnglish...............414.2.1.1Movement............................424.2.1.2Ellipsis.............................424.2.1.3T-pathprojection........................434.2.2LackofambiguityoftheinterpretationinMandarin..........44CHAPTER5THEPOLARITYPUZZLEANDTHEANALYSISOFTHEPUZZLE545.1DisjunctionandConjunctiveEntailment....................545.2Theanalysisofthepolaritypuzzle.......................58CHAPTER6INTEGRATEDCONCLUSION....................63APPENDIX.......................................64BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................66viLISTOFFIGURESFigure2.1TreeStructure:Degreewordswithverbalprojection...........10Figure2.2TreeStructure:PPhypothesis........................13Figure2.3TreeStructure:SPhypothesis........................14Figure2.4TreeStructure:Yaome............................27Figure2.5TreeStructure:Yaome-TP.........................29Figure2.6TreeStructure:Yaome-vP.........................30Figure2.7TreeStructure:Yaome-VPwhereVisatrace..............31Figure2.8TreeStructure:Yaome-DP.........................32Figure3.1TreeStructure:Yaome-FocP........................39Figure4.1TreeStructure:Yaome-Gapping......................45Figure4.2TreeStructure:ATBmovement.......................47viiCHAPTER1INTRODUCTIONInthesyntaxofcoordinationliterature,eitherandorseemtocombineconjunctsofdi!erentsizes.Asshownin(1),eithercanappeareitheradjacenttotheÞrstdisjunct(underlined)orfarawayfromit.(1){Either}John{either}ate{either}riceorbeans.Twomajortheories,themovementtheory(Larson,1985)andtheellipsistheory(Schwarz,1999),areproposedtoaccountforthevariableplacementofeither.Themovementaccountsuggestsmovementofthecoordinatoreither,whiletheellipsisaccountarguesthateitherisunabletomove,andthattheconjunctsarethesamesizebutpartoftheelementsintheseconddisjunctisbeingelided.Alignedwiththeellipsistheory,denDikken(2006)alsoarguesthateitherisimmobile.However,di!erentfromtheellipsisaccountthateitherovertlymarkstheleftedgeofasentence,theplacementofeitherunderdenDikkenÕsaccounthastodowiththeÔT-pathÕprojectedfromthecontrastivefocusofasentence.Inhissense,eithercanoccuronlyinplaceswhereaT-pathiscreated.Inaddition,eitherorisßexibleinthatitcanbeadjacenttoconstituentsofvariouscategories,asillustratedin(2).BotheitherandorcanbeplacedimmediatelytotheleftofaDPobjectasin(2a).ItÕsalsoÞneforeithertobeadjacenttoaVPwhileorisadjacenttoaTP,asshownin(2b).Finally,thesentencein(2c)showsthateithercanimmediatelyprecedeaTP,whileorprecedesaDP.1Inthesesentences,eitherandorappeartodisplayaßexibilityinconjoiningphrasesofdi!erentsyntacticcategories,yettheyallderivethesameinterpretationthatÔitiseitherriceorbeansthatJohnateÕ.1NotethatthecategoryoftheconstituentsorconjoinscouldvarydependingononeÕstheory.Theexamplesin(2)discussthelinearorderatsurfacestructureandwillleaveitopentowhichtheorybestaccountsforthedistributionofeitheror.1(2)a.Johnateeither[DPrice]or[DPbeans].b.Johnieither[VPaterice]or[TPheiatebeans].c.Either[TPJohnaterice]or[DPbeans].Yaome...yaome...,adisjunctivecoordinatorinMandarin,isoftenbeingtranslatedaseitheror.In(3),thesentencehasadisjunctivereadingsuchthatitÕsoneofthetwothingsthatJohnwilldo:ÔeatriceÕorÔeatnoodlesÕ.Inotherwords,ineachconjunct,wehaveaVP.(3)YuehanJohnyaomeyaome1chieatfanriceyaomeyaome2chieatmian.noodlesÔJohnwilleithereatriceornoodles.ÕAlthoughthepairedyaomederivesadisjunctiveinterpretationaseitherordoes,theybehavedi!erently.Thesentencein(4)isparallelininterpretationtothosein(2).Nonethe-less(4)showsthatsimplytranslating(2)into(4)yieldsunacceptableresults.Particularly,thesentenceisunacceptablein(4a)whenyaome1andyaome2areplacedimmediatelytotheleftofeachoftheobjectsthatarethecontrastivedisjunctsofthesentence.Inaddition,thesentencein(4b)isill-formedwhenyaome1precedesaVP,whileyaome2precedesaTP.Thesameresultisfoundin(4c).SpeciÞcallythesentenceisnotacceptablewhenyaome1precedesaTPwhileyaome2precedesaDP.Thecontrastbetweenthetwosetsofdatain(2)and(4)impliesthatthepairedyaomeisnotasßexibleaseitherordespitebeingsimilarininterpretation.(4)a.*JuehanJohnchieatyaomeyaome1fanriceyaomeyaome2mian.noodlesÔJohnwilleateitherriceornoodles.Õb.*JuehaniJohnyaomeyaome1chieatfanriceyaomeyaome2taihechieatmian.noodlesÔJohnwilleithereatriceorheeatnoodles.Õc.*Yaomeyaome1JuehanJohnchieatfanriceyaomeyaome2miannoodles2ÔEitherJohnwilleatriceornoodles.ÕLotsofanalyseshavebeenproposedonthesyntaxofcoordinationregardingdisjunctioninEnglish(cf.Larson(1985);Munn(1993);Schwarz(1999);denDikken(2006)).Yet,tothebestofmyknowledge,scarceworkhasbeendoneinMandarin,speciÞcallyinthecaseofpairedyaome2.Thegoalofthisthesisistoexamineyaome...yaome...inordertoaccountforthreepuzzles.First,whyisthereajudgementasymmetrybetween(5a)and(5b)?Thisasymmetryisnotexpectedgiventhesimilaritiesbetween(5a)and(5b).Thesentencesin(5a)and(5b)aresimilarinthattheyarebothpossiblecandidatesforbeingananswertothequestionin(5).Furthermore,theyareidenticalinthatbothyaome1andyaome2areplacedimmediatelytotheleftofthecontrastiveobjectsÔriceÕandÔnoodlesÕ.Despitethesimilarities,theresultisquitedi!erentintermsofacceptability,while(5a)isunacceptable,(5b)isacceptable.IwillcallthistheDPpuzzle.(5)Niyouxiangwantchieatshenme?whatÔWhatdoyouwanttoeat?Õa.*WoIchieatyaomeyaome1fan,riceyaomeyaome2mian.noodlesÔIÕlleateitherriceornoodles.Õb.Yaomeyaome1fan,riceyaomeyaome2mian.noodlesÔEitherriceornoodles.ÕSecond,thereisaninterpretationasymmetry,speciÞcally(6)isambiguousinEnglishbutnotin(7)inMandarin.Thesearetwootherwiseidenticalsentencescontainingthreeindividuals,ahittingeventandadisjunctivecoordinator.InEnglish,(6)isambiguousinthatithastwointerpretationsparaphrasedas(6a)and(6b).(7)isaparallelsentenceto(6),howeverithasonlyoneinterpretationtomostnativeChinesespeakers.Particularly,in2Zhang(2007,p.178),whoworksoncoordinationsinMandarinChinese,mentionsyaomeinafootnote.However,IbelievetheexampledoesnÕtstraightforwardlyillustratethecharacteristicsofyaome.Seethefootnoteonp.22inthisthesisformorediscussions.3Mandarin,thesentencecanonlyhavetheinterpretationin(7a)butnottheonein(7b).Inotherwords,theDPÔMaryÕintheseconddisjunctinEnglishcaneitherbetheobjectorthesubjectofthesentence,resultingintwointerpretations.However,inMandarin,ÔMaryÕcanonlybethesubjectbutnottheobjectofthesentence.3(6)EitherJohnhitBillorMary.a.ItwaseitherBillorMarywhoJohnhit.b.ItwaseitherJohnorMarywhohitBIll.(7)YaomeYaomeYuehanJohnda-lehit-perfBier,BillyaomeyaomeMali.Marya.ItwaseitherYuehanorMaliwhohitBier.b.*ItwaseitherBierorMaliwhoYuehanhit.WhyisthesamesentenceambiguousinEnglishbutnotinMandarin?Isthisafactthatresultsfromthesyntacticdi!erencebetweeneitherorandpairedyaomeorisittheresultofamoregeneralsyntacticdi!erencebetweenEnglishandMandarin?Iarguethatthisinterpretationasymmetryfollowsfrombothaspects:ononehandfromasubcategoricationrestrictionimposedbyyaome,and,ontheotherhand,fromthefactthatMandarinChinesedoesnÕtallowtheoperationofverbgapping.Iwillcallthisthesubject-objectpuzzle.Third,itisgenerallyassumedthataconjunctiveentailmentcanbelicensedwhenadisjunctionappearsinthescopeofnegationortheantecedentclauseofconditionals(cf.Szabolcsi(2002);Su&Crain(2010);Suetal.(2012)).(8),forinstance,hasaconjunctivereadingwheneitherorisinthescopeofnegation.3Incasetheinterpretationof(7)isnotclear,Iherebyprovideacontextwhereutteringthesentencein(7)isfelicitous.ImaginethereÕsapersonnamedZhenni.Shehasfourchildren,Yuehan,Mali,BierandBide.Threeofherchildren,Yuehan,MaliandBiergotintoaÞghtwhenshewasout.WhiletheywereÞghtinginthelivingroom,Bidestayedinhisroomreadingbooks.AfterZhenniÕsback,shenoticedsomethingwaswrong,sosheaskedherchildrenwhathadhappenedwhenshewasout.BidedidnÕtobservetheentireeventsincehewasinhisroomreadingbooksduringtheÞght.However,tryingtobehelpful,herepliedtohismomwiththesentencein(7)basedonhisunderstandingofhispeers,speciÞcallytheunderstandingthatYuehanandMalialwaysmakefunofBier.4(8)PeterdoesnÕteateitherriceornoodles.!PeterdoesnÕteatrice"PeterdoesnÕteatnoodles.However,noconjunctiveentailmentcanbederivedwhenyaomeisprecededbynegation.Asillustratedin(9),noconjunctiveinterpretationcanbederivedwhennegationmeiscopesoveryaome.Infact,thesentenceisunacceptable.Whydoesyaomebehavedi!erentlyfromeitherorinenvironmentofthistype?Iarguethatitisaresultofyaomebeingapositivepolarityitem.Iwillcallthisthepolaritypuzzle.(9)*BidePetermeinotyaomeyaome1chieatfan,riceyaomeyaome2chieatmian.noodles*!PeterdoesnÕteatrice"PeterdoesnÕteatnoodles.Inthisthesis,IstartwiththedistributionofyaomeandIproposeastructuretoaccountforitsdistributioninChapter2.Following,inChapter3,IrestatetheDPpuzzleandprovideanaccountforit.Inchapter4,Idiscussthesubject-objectpuzzleandanalysesareprovidedtoaccountforthispuzzle.InChapter5,Iexamineotherpropertiesofyaomeinordertoarguethatitisapositivepolarityitem.Finally,aintegratedconclusionisprovidedinChapter6.5CHAPTER2THEDISTRIBUTIONANDTHESTRUCTUREOFYAOME2.1TheDistributionofyaomeYaomeisoftenfoundprecedingverbalelements,idioms,orattheleftperipheryofaclause.1Nevertheless,itÕsrestrictedtoconjoinedelementsthatarenotnominal.Thissectiondis-cussesthegeneralplacementofyaome,speciÞcallyitsrelationwithpredicatesandwithDPs.InSect.2.1.1,Ishowthatyaomeisabletoconjoinpredicatesofvarioustypes.Following,inSect.2.1.2,IshowthatyaomedoesnÕtconjoinprojectionsthatarenominal.Inparticular,itdoesnÕtconjoinDPs.2.1.1YaomeandPredicatesInMandarin,whenusingpairedyaome,speakerstendtoplaceyaomerightbeforeaverb,asshownin(10a)-(10c),orattheleftperipheryofasentence,asshownin(11a)-(11c).(10)a.KimKimyaomeyaome1[VPnianreadleperfdiyiÞrstzhang],chapteryaomeyaome2[VPnianreadleperfdiersecondzhang].chapterÔKimeitherreadtheÞrstchapterorreadthesecondchapter.Õ1Yaomecanconjoinidiomsasshownin(i)and(ii).However,Iwillnotdiscusstherelationbetweenyaomeandidiomsgiventhatthisisnotthefocusofthisthesis.iTingdaoheardzhe-gethis-clxiaoxinewsdederenpeoepleyaomeyaome1xin-ping-qi-he,heart-ßat-breath-mildyaomeyaome2nu-qi-chong-tian.anger-breath-rise-skyÔThosewhoheardthenews,theyareeithercalmorfurious.ÕiiTahechieatfanriceyaomeyaome1xi-jiao-man-yanthing-bite-slow-swallowyaomeyaome2lang-tun-hu-yan.wolf-swallow-tiger-swallowÔHeeithereatsriceslowlyorquickly.Õ6b.WoIhuibackjiahomezhihou,afteryaomeyaome1[VPkanwatchdianshi],televisionyaomeyaome2[VPwanplaydiandong].video-gameÔAfterIgethome,IÕlleitherwatchtelevisionorplayvideogames.Õc.BillBillzuotianyesterdayyaomeyaome1[VPjiandaoseeZhenni],Janeyaomeyaome2[VPjiandaoseeMali].MaryÔYesterday,BilleithersawJaneorsawMary.Õ(11)a.Yaomeyaome1[TPtahechieatfan],riceyaomeyaome2[TPtahechieatmian].noodlesÔEitherheatericeorheatenoodles.Õb.Yaomeyaome1[TPBierBillxi-lewash-perfyifu],clothesyaomeyaome2[TPMaliMaryxi-lewash-perfkuzi].trousersÔEitherBillwashedtheclothesorMarywashedthetrousers.Õc.Yaomeyaome1[TPBierBillxihuanlikechieatshuiguo],fruitsyaomeyaome2[TPMaliMaryxihuanlikechieatshucai].vegetablesÔEitherBilllikestoeatfruitsorMarylikestoeatvegetables.ÕWecanseethatyaomeconjoinsclausesorverbalpredicates.Inthefollowing,IÕllshowthatitcancombinewithnon-nominalpredicates.Inadditiontocopularanddegreewords,IÕllalsoprovideevidencefromadjectives,adverbsandprepositionalphrases,whicharealsopredicates.Generallyspeaking,thecopulaisassumedtobeaverborverb-likeword.ExamplesinvolvingthecopulabeinEnglishareshownin(12).In(12a),(12b)and(12c),belinksasubjectwithapredicate.(12)a.Johnisadoctor.b.Theskyisblue.c.Thoseßowersarebeautiful.7InMandarin,shicanbecomparedtobeinEnglish.UnlikeininßectionallanguagessuchasEnglish,shidoesnÕtinßectforpersonandnumber.Thesentencesin(13)areparallelsentencestothosein(12).In(13a)shiappearsbetweenthesubjectandthepredicateofthesentence.In(13b)and(13c),insteadofshi,adegreewordhenisusedinthesentences.2(13)a.YuehanJohnshicopyisheng.doctorÔJohnisadoctor.Õb.Tiankongskyhenverylan.blueÔTheskyisveryblue.Õc.Naxiethosehuaßowerhenverypiaoliang.beautifulÔThoseßowersarebeautiful.ÕTheoccurrenceofadjectivalpredicateswithdegreewordsisnotobligatory.Asillustratedin(14),thesentencesaregrammaticalwithoutdegreewords.Thedi!erencebetweenhavingadegreewordornotisintheinterpretation.AsnotedinGrano(2012),apositivereadingisderivedwhenadjectivalpredicatesoccurwithdegreewords.Withoutthedegreewords,theinterpretationisofacomparison.Thesentencesin(14)arefelicitousinacontextwhere2Forshitooccurinsentenceswithadjectivalpredicates,thefunctionalelementdehastobeplacedtotherightoftheadjectiveinthesentences.Asshownin(i)and(ii),theplacementofshiinsentenceswithadjectival-typepredicatesisnotacceptablewhendeisomitted.Therearevariousanalysesforthestatusofde.Itcanbeanalyzedasanominalizer,asasentence-Þnalparticle,orasanelementthatisrequiredinrelativeclauses(cf.Paris(1979);Tang(1983);Waltraud&Whitman(2008)).ThesyntacticstatusofdeisitselfacontroversialmatterandIthereforeglossitasde.Thesentencein(i)and(ii)showthattheoccurrenceofshiwithadjectivesisfelicitousonlyifdeisalsopresentinthesentences.Intheliterature,thiscombinationofshianddeiscalledtheshi...deconstruction.Itisarguedthatthereareatleastfourdistinctconstructionsforshi...de,andtheshi...deconstructionisdistinctfrombareshi(Waltraud&Whitman,2008).Sincethepurposeofthisthesisisnottheshi...deconstruction,Ithereforelimitthediscussiontosentencesinvolvebareshionly.iYuehanJohnshicopzisiselÞsh*(de).deÔJohnisindeedselÞsh.ÕiiZhethisjianclyifuclothesshicopdabig*(de).de.ÔThisclothesisindeedbig.Õ8thereisasalientstandardofcomparisonandinthiscase,theadjectiveshaveacomparativeratherthanapositiveinterpretation(Grano,2012).(14)a.Naxiethosehuaßowerpiaoliang.beautifulÔThoseßowersaremorebeautiful(thanothersaliententitiesinthecontext).Õb.YuehanJohnzisi.selÞshÔJohnismoreselÞsh(thansomesalientpersoninthecontext).Õc.Zhethisjianclyifuclothesda.bigÔThisclothesisbigger(thanothersalientobjectsinthecontext).ÕTheplacementofyaomeinsentenceswithshiisillustratedin(15).SpeciÞcally,(15a)isgrammaticalwhenyaomeconjoinsshi-phrase,whileitisnotacceptablewhenyaomefollowsshiasin(15b).(15)a.YuehanJohnyaomeyaome1shicopyisheng,doctoryaomeyaome2shicophushi.nurseÔJohniseitheradoctororanurse.Õb.*YuehanJohnshicopyaomeyaome1yisheng,doctoryaomeyaome2hushi.nurseÔJohniseitheradoctororanurse.ÕSimilarly,theplacementofyaomeinsentenceswithhenpatternsthesameasthosewithshi.Asshownin(16a),thesentenceisgrammaticalwhenyaomeconjoinsphrasesheadedbydegreewordssuchashenortai.IfollowGrano(2012)inassumingthatdegreewordsprojectafunctionalhead.Furthermore,theyhaveadistinctcharacteristicinthattheyareabletocombinewithverbalandadjectivalprojections,yetuniformlyreturnverbalprojectionsasillustratedin(17).(16)a.Naxiethosehuaßoweryaomeyaome1hen/taivery/toopiaoliang,beautifulyaomeyaome2hen/taivery/toochou.uglyÔThoseßowersareeithervery/toobeautifulorvery/toougly.Õ9Figure2.1TreeStructure:Degreewordswithverbalprojection(17)TPT#V[DegP]APpiaoliangV[Deg]hen/taiTDPNaxiehua(structureadoptedfromGrano,2012,p.532)b.*Naxiethosehuaßowerhen/taivery/tooyaomeyaome1piaoliang,beautifulyaomeyaome2chou.uglyÔThoseßowersarevery/tooeitherbeautifulorugly.ÕAdditionalsupportforGranoÕsargumentareVPsubstitutiontests.InEnglish,dosocansubstituteaVPinadiscourseasshownin(18).(18)a.John[putsomeapplesonthetable]andMarydidsotoo.b.Billwill[walktoschool]tomorrowandPetewilldosothedayafter.InMandarin,yeshipatternssimilarlytodosointhatitcanalsosubstituteaVPinadiscourse.Asshownbelowin(19a)and(19b),thecontrastinthegrammaticalityofthesetwosentencesshowsthatyeshiisasubstitutiontestforVPsbutnotNPs.SpeciÞcally,itcansubstitutetheVPin(19a),butnottheDPin(19b).In(20a)and(20b),yeshiinthesecondclauseofthesentencescansubstitutetheconstituentsheadedbyhen.ThisindicatesthathenprojectsaVP.ItfollowsthatyaomeÕsoccurrencetotheleftofhenandtaiin(16a)iscompatiblewiththeideathatdegreewordsareverbalprojections.(19)a.Niyou[VPailoveta],himwoI[yealsoshi].copÔYoulovehimandsodoI.Õb.*Niyou[VPailove[DPta]],himwoI[VPailove[yealsoshi]].cop10Intended:ÔYoulovehimandIlovehimtoo.Õ(adaptedfromHuangetal.,2009,p.27)(20)a.Niyou[henveryailoveta],himwoI[yealsoshi].copÔYoulovehimverymuchandsodoI.Õb.TaI[henverytongqingsympathizeniyoudedezaoyu],bad-experiencewoI[yealsoshi].copÔIamsympatheticwithyourbadexperienceandsoishe.ÕAsfortheill-formedsentencein(16b),itÕsnotbecauseofyaomenotbeingabletoconjoinadjectivessuchaspiaolianÔbeautifulÕorchouÔuglyÕ.Asshownbelowin(21a)and(21b),withoutthedegreewords,yaomecanconjoinadjectivalpredicates.3Thisindicatesthattheill-formnessof(16b)isnotfromyaome.Instead,theill-formnessof(16b)seemstocomefromthefactthatdegreewordsdonotcombinewithcoordinators.Thisisshownbelowin(22)inEnglish.In(22a),eitherorisabletocoordinatetwoadjectives.However,thesentencebecomesunacceptablewheneitherappearsimmediatelytotherightofvery.(21)a.Naxiethosehuaßoweryaomeyaome1[APpiaoliang],beautifulyaomeyaome2[APchou].uglyÔThoseßowersareeitherbeautifulorugly.Õb.TaHeyaomeyaome1[APpang],fatyaomeyaome2[APshou].thinÔHeiseitherfatorthin.Õ(22)a.Heiseithertallorshort.b.*Heisveryeithertallorshort.Sofar,IÕveshownthatyaomeisabletoconjoinelementsthatprojectaverbalphrasesuchasthecopulashianddegreewordssuchashenandtai.Inaddition,italsoconjoins3ItÕsalsopossiblethatyaomein(21)isconjoiningtwoVPswithzeroverbs.11adjectivalpredicates.Next,IÕllshowthatyaomecancombineadverbialandprepositionalpredicates.InMandarin,anadverbialpredicatecanfolloworprecedeaverb,asshownin(23)and(25)respectively.Certainadjectivescanperformanadverbialfunctionbyaddingthesu"xde(Li&Thompson,1981).Asshownin(23),thefunctionalelementdeisattachedtotheadjectivexunsumodifyingtheVP.(23)WoI[VPxunsu-dequick-de[VPpaorunhuijia]].back.homeÔIquicklyranbackhome.ÕTheplacementofyaomeinsentenceswithadverbialpredicatesisillustratedin(24).Thesentenceshowsthatyaomecanbeplacedtotheleftofxunsu-deÔquicklyÕorhuanman-deÔslowlyÕ.However,whentheadverbispreverbal,itisnotclearwhetheryaomeisconjoiningtheadjunctorthemaximalprojectionoftheverb.(24)WoIyaomeyaome1[xunsu-dequick-depaorunhuijia],back.homeyaomeyaome2[huanman-deslow-dezouwa#khuijia].back.homeÔIeitherquicklyrunbackhomeorslowlywalkbackhome.ÕToclarifythisproblem,thesentencein(25)isprovidedtoexaminetherelationbetweenyaomeandadverbialpredicatesthatarepostverbal.4(25)WoIpao-derun-de(hen)(very)kuai.fastÔIrunveryfast.Õ(adaptedfromHuang,1988,p.274)(26a)and(26b)illustrateyaomeÕsplacementinsentenceslike(25).Intheexamplesbelow,yaomecaneitherconjointhepredicateheadedbypao-deÔrunÕasin(26a)orthepredicateheadedbyhenÔveryÕintheadverbialpositionasin(26b).4ÔPhonologically,deisattachedtotheprecedingverb,eitherasasu!xoraclitic,dependingononeÕstheoryÕ,adirectquotefromHuang(1988).Therefore,inthiscase,deisnotseparabletotheverbthatprecedesit.12Figure2.2TreeStructure:PPhypothesis(27)SVPVPhen.kuaiAdvPpao.deNPwo(adaptedfromHuang,1988,p.276)(26)a.BidePeteryaomeyaome1[pao-derun-dehenverykuai],fastyaomeyaome2[pao-derun-dehenveryman].slowPetereitherrunsveryfastorveryslow.b.BidePeterpao-derun-deyaomeyaome1[henverykuai],fastyaomeyaome2[henveryman].slowPetereitherrunsveryfastorveryslow.Thestructureofthesentencein(25),accordingtoHuang(1988),isasentenceconsistingoftwopredicates,pao-deandhenkuai.Twohypotheses,thePrimaryPredication(PP)hypothesisandtheSecondaryPredication(SP)hypothesis,canaccountforthesyntacticstructureofthissentence.UnderthePPhypothesis,thesecondpredicatehenkuaiistreatedasthemainVPandhasthestructurein(27)inwhichpao-deistreatedasanadverbialadjunctofthemainVP.Ontheotherhand,undertheSPhypothesis,henkuaiistreatedasanadjunctasin(28a).UnderthePPhypothesis,yaomein(26a)and(26b),assumingastructurein(27),con-joinsthehighestVP(ortheadjunct)andtheembeddedVPrespectively.UndertheSPhypothesis,yaomein(26a)and(26b),assumingastructurein(28a),conjoinsthehighestVP(ortheembeddedVP)andtheadjunctrespectively.IfollowHuang(1988)inassumingthattheSPhypothesisiscorrect.Inparticular,Iassume(25)hasthestructurein(28a)andthesecondpredicateistheadjunctoftheVPpao-de.Itfollowsthatyaomein(26b)isconjoiningadverbialconjuncts.AnalternativeanalysisofyaomeÕsplacementin(26b)isto13Figure2.3TreeStructure:SPhypothesis(28)a.SV##AP/S#hen.kuaiV#pao.deNPwo(Huang,1988,p.276)assumethatthephraseheadedbyhenisaverb-likephrase,asshownpreviouslyin(17)and(20).Regardlessoftheanalysis,yaomeÕsdistributionin(26b)canbeaccountedfor.ThelastcasethatIÕmgoingtodiscussistherelationbetweenyaomeandprepositionalpredicates.Asshownbelowin(29),basedsolelyonthetranslation,thereseemstobetwoprepositions,zaiandshang.ItÕsarguedthatpostpositionssuchasshanginMandarinChi-neseareactuallynominalexpressions(Li,2012).Therearedatashowingthattheplacementofthe[NP+localizer]isthesameasDPs.Furthermore,itdoesnÕtoccurinpositionswheretypicalprepositionalphrasesoccur(Li,2012).(29)YuehanJohnzaiatzhuozitableshangontiaowo.danceÔJohnisdancingonthetable.ÕAsshownin(30a)and(30b),the[NP+localizer]occupiesthesubjectandobjectposi-tion,respectively,whichistypicalforDPs.Contrarily,typicalprepositionalphrasesdonÕtoccurinthesepositions,asillustratedin(30c)and(30d).(30)a.Yizi-xiachair-underhenveryganjing.cleanÔUnderthechairisclean.Õb.NiyouxianÞrstjianchaexamineyizi-xia.chair-underÔYouexaminetheareaunderthechairÞrst.Õ14c.*[Zaiatyizi-xia]chair-underhenveryganjing.cleanIntended:ÔUnderthechairisclean.Õd.*NiyouxianÞrstjianchaexamine[zaiatyizi-xia].chair-underIntended:ÔYouexaminetheareaunderthechairÞrst.Õ(adaptedfromLi,2012,p.4)Inaddition,comparethesentencein(31a)tothesentencein(31b)wherethereÕsaprepositionzaiintheformerbutnotinthelater.Theungrammaticalityof(31b)showsthatthe[NP+localizer]needsapreposition.(31)a.Tahezaiatjia-lihome-ingongzuo.workÔHeisworkingathome.Õb.*Tahejia-lihome-ingongzuo.workIntended:ÔHeisworkingathome.Õ(adaptedfromLi,2012,p.5)Thesentencesin(32a)and(32b)illustrateyaomeÕsplacementinsentenceswithpreposi-tionsandtheyareallgrammatical.Contrarily,in(32c)and(32d),havingyaomeconjoiningpostpositionsthatarenominal-likeresultsintheunacceptabilityofthesentence.(32)a.Taheyaomeyaome1[PPzaiatjia],homeyaomeyaome2[PPzaiatxuexiao].schoolÔHeiseitherathomeoratschool.Õb.Pinggouappleyaomeyaome1[PPzaiatzhuozitableshang],onyaomeyaome2[PPzaiatzhouzhitablexia].underÔTheappleiseitheronthetableorunderthetable.Õc.*Pinggouapplezaiatyaomeyaome1[zhouzitableshang],onyaomeyaome2[zhouzitablexia].underIntended:ÔTheappleiseitheronthetableorunderthetable.Õ15d.*Pinggouapplezaiatzhouzitableyaomeyaome1[shang],onyaomeyaome2[xia].underIntended:ÔTheappleiseitheronthetableorunderthetable.ÕSofar,allthedatapresentedsupportstheideaallpredicatesexceptfornominalpredicatesandDPscanbeconjoined.AninterestingquestiontoaskiswhetherthereÕsarestrictiononthetypesofVPsthatcanbeconjoined,whenthesentencehasmorethanone:theexternalVPortheinternalVP.Examplesin(33)arecomposedoftwoverbs,quÕgoÕanddaÕhitÕ.In(33a),yaome1andyaome2eachconjoinanexternalVP,namelythephrasesheadedbyquÕgoÕ,andthesentenceisacceptable.Inadditionto(33a),thesentencein(33b)isalsowell-formedwhenthepairedyaomeeachconjoinsaninternalVP,namelythephrasesheadedbydaÕhitÕ.Giventhesentencesin(33)areallacceptable,thisimpliesthatthereÕsnosuchpreference.(33)a.BanBenyaomeyaome1[VPqugogongyuanparkdahitlanqiu],basketballyaomeyaome2[VPqugoshatanbeachdahitpaiqiu].volleyballÔBeneithergoestotheparktoplaybasketballorhegoestothebeachtoplayvolleyball.Õb.BanBenqugogongyuanparkyaomeyaome1[VPdahitlanqiu],basketballyaomeyaome2[VPdahitpaiqiu].volleyballÔBengoestotheparkeithertoplaybasketballorvolleyball.ÕInadditiontoclausesandthepredicates,yaomealsoconjoinsphrasesheadedbymodalauxiliaries.Thedistributionofyaomeinsentenceswithmodalwordsisshownin(34).Bothyaome1andyaome2aresatisÞedwhentheauxiliariesarepartoftheconjunctsasin(34a)and(34b),whileunacceptablewhentheyareoutsidetheconjunctsandbeingseparatedfromtheverbasin(34c).Theunacceptabilityof(34c)canbeexplainediftheplacementofaverbandmodalshouldbeadjacentandyaomecannotbreakthisunity.16(34)a.Taheyaomeyaome1[{bixu/yinggai/hui}must/should/willqingcleanketing],living.roomyaomeyaome2[{bixu/yinggai/hui}must/should/willqingcleanchufang].kitchenÔHemust/should/willeithercleanthelivingroomorthekitchen.Õb.Yaomeyaome1[tahe{bixu/yinggai/hui}must/should/wilqingcleanketing],living.roomyaomeyaome2[tahe{bixu/yinggai/hui}must/should/wilqingcleanchufang].kitchenÔHemust/should/willeithercleanthelivingroomorthekitchen.Õc.??Tahe[{bixu/yinggai/hui}must/should/willyaomeyaome1[qingcleanketing]],living.roomyaomeyaome2[qingcleanchufang].kitchenIntended:ÔHemust/should/willeithercleanthelivingroomorthekitchen.ÕAnotherpieceofevidencethatsupportstheadjacencyrequirementhastodowithserialverbsinMandarinChinese.(35)isasentenceconsistingoftwosuccessiveverbs.In(35),thetwoverbsarebingÔsickÕandsiÔdieÕ.Syntactically,twosuccessiveverbsareconsideredasanunitaryverbandtheycannothaveanyunsharedargumentsthatcouldbreakthisunity(Hansell,1993).Inotherwords,thetwoverbsin(35)cannotbeseparated.(35)Tahebingsicksidiele.aspÔHegotsickanddied.Õ(Hansell,1993,p.203)Asshownin(36a),yaomecanbeplacedtotheleftoftheserialverbinthesentence.However,asin(36b),separatingthetwoverbsresultsintheunacceptabilityofthesentence.Iftheauxiliariesandtheverbshavetobeadjacent,wecouldaccountfortheunacceptabilityofthesentencein(34c).(36)a.Taheyaomeyaome1[VPbingsicksidiele],aspyaomeyaome2[VPshuaifallduanbreakjiaolegle].aspÔHeiseithersicked-and-diedorhefell-and-brokehisleg.Õ17b.*Tahebingsickyaomeyaome1sidiele,aspshuaifallyaomeyaome2duanbreakjiailegle.aspIntended:ÔHeiseithersicked-and-diedorhefell-and-brokehisleg.ÕInEnglish,havingeitherorconjoiningphrasesofnon-identicalcategoriesyieldsaccept-ableresultsasshownbelowin(37).(37)Heiseithercrazyorinabadmood.InMandarin,havingyaomeconjoiningphrasesofthesamesyntacticcategoryisnotnecessarybutpreferred.Comparethesentencesin(38a)and(38b)tothosein(38c)and(38d),weÞndthatthesentencesarewell-formedwhenthetwoyaome(s)takephrasesofthesamecategory,namelyVPsorTPs,whiletheresultisill-formedwhenthecategoryofthephrasesyaome1andyaome2conjoinarenotthesame.Inthissetofdata,thesemantictypeoftheconjunctsisarguablythesame,andyetthesentencein(38c)isnotacceptable.(38)a.WoIyaomeyaome1[VPkaobakebinggan],cookieyaomeyaome2[VPzuomakepisa].pizzaÔIeitherbakecookiesormakepizzas.Õb.Yaomeyaome1[TPwoIkaobakebinggan],cookieyaomeyaome2[TPwoIzuomakepisa].pizzaÔEitherIbakecookiesorImakepizzas.Õc.*WoIyaomeyaome1[VPkaobakebinggan],cookieyaomeyaome2[TPwoIzuomakepisa].pizzaÔIeitherbakecookiesorImakepizzas.Õd.??Yaomeyaome1[TPWoIkaobakebinggan],cookieyaomeyaome2[VPzuomakepisa].pizzaÔEitherIbakecookiesormakepizzas.ÕInadditiontothedatain(38),thedatain(39)and(40)alsoshowsapreferenceofyaomeconjoiningpredicatesofthesamecategory.SpeciÞcally,in(39a),(39b)and(40a),yaomecoordinatesVPs,phrasesheadedbycopulaandphrasesheadedbyauxiliaryrespectivelyandthesentencesareallgrammatical.However,itispreferredtonothavemismatched18phrasesasin(39c),inwhichyaome1conjoinsaVPwhileyaome2conjoinsaphraseheadedbycopula.Theunacceptabilityof(39c)suggestingthatthecopulamaybemoreauxiliarylikeorthecopulamaybemakingtheDP,namelyhushiÔnurseÕ,afocus.Inaddition,thesentencesin(40b)and(40c)showthathavingoneyaomeconjoiningaphraseheadedbyamodalwhiletheotherisconjoiningaphraseheadedbyaverbisnotpreferred.(39)a.MaliMaryweilaifutureyaomeyaome1[chengweibecomeyisheng],doctoryaomeyaome2[chengweibecomehushi].nurseÔMarywilleitherbecomeadoctororanurseinthefuture.Õb.MaliMaryweilaifutureyaomeyaome1[shicopyisheng],doctoryaomeyaome2[shicophushi].nurseÔMarywilleitherbeadoctororanurseinthefuture.Õc.??MaliMaryweilaifutureyaomeyaome1[chengweibecomeyisheng],doctoryaomeyaome2[shicophushi].nurseIntended:ÔMarywilleitherbe/becomeadoctororanurseinthefuture.Õ(40)a.MaliMaryyaomeyaome1[huiwillchieatfan],riceyaomeyaome2[huiwillhedrinktang].soupÔMarywilleithereatriceorsheÕlleatsoup.Õb.??MaliMaryyaomeyaome1[huiwillchieatfan],riceyaomeyaome2[hedrinktang].soupIntended:ÔMarywilleithereatriceorsheÕllhavesoup.Õc.??MaliMaryyaomeyaome1[chieatfan],riceyaomeyaome2[huiwillhedrinktang].soupIntended:ÔMarywilleithereatriceorsheÕllhavesoup.ÕTherearesomecaseswhereyaomeseemstoconjoinphrasesofdi!erentsyntacticcate-gories(cf.(41)).However,intheseexamples,thesyntacticcategoryofthephraseyaomeconjoinsisnotapparent.In(41a)-(41c),yaomeseemstoconjoinaPPandaVP,aAPandaTPandashi-phraseandaVPrespectively.ItispossiblethatyaomeinthesecasesisconjoiningaVPthathasazerobeverb.Asforthesentencein(41d),yaome1isconjoiningaVP,whileyaome2conjoinsaTPatsurfacestructure.However,JuehancouldbeinTopic19positionwiththepronountareferringbacktoit.Therefore,bothyaome1andyaome2in(41d)couldbeconjoiningTPsbutnotaVPandaTP.Ifthefactsareaswedescribedthenyaomeconjoinsphrasesofidenticalcategory.(41)a.Taheyaomeyaome1[zaiatfangjian-li],room-insideyaomeyaome2[paorunqutowardchufangkitchenle].perfÔHewaseitherintheroomorhewenttothekitchen.Õb.Tahededefangjianroomyaomeyaome1[ganjingcleanzhengqi],neatyaomeyaome2[tahegenbenfundamentallymeinotqing].cleanÔHisroomiseithercleanandneatorhedidnÕtcleanitatall.Õc.Zhi-gethis-clpingguoappleyaomeyaome1[haistillshicoptahede],deyaomeyaome2[yijingalreadysonggivegeitoMaryMaryle].perfÔThisappleiseitherstillhisoritÕsalreadygiventoMary.Õd.JuehanJuehanyaomeyaome1[yijingalreadyhuigojiahomele],perfyaomeyaome2[tahegenbenfundamentallymeinotlikaileavegongsi].o"ceÔJohneitherwenthomealreadyorhedidnÕtleavehiso"ceatall.ÕInthissection,Idiscussedtheoccurrenceofyaomeindi!erentsentences.Thedistribu-tionofyaomeislicitwhenitconjoinspredicates,whenitconjoinsphrasesheadedbymodalsorwhenitisattheleftperipheryofasentence.Inthefollowingsection,IÕlltalkaboutyaomeÕsrelationwithnominalphrasesandIÕllshowthatyaomecannotconjoinnominalphrases.2.1.2YaomeandDPAsshownintheprevioussection,Iarguedthatyaomeconjoinspredicatesofthesamesyntacticcategory.Inthissection,IwillshowthatyaomedoesnÕtconjoinDPs.Asshownin(42a)and(42b),thesentencesaregrammaticalwheneachyaomeconjoinsaVPheadedby20kandaoÔsawÕoraVPheadedbynianÔreadÕ,whereasitÕsnotacceptablein(42c)and(42d)whereeachyaomeconjoinsaDPinthesentence.5(42)a.Taheyaomeyaome1[VPkandaosawgou],dogyaomeyaome2[VPkandaosawmao].catÔHesaweitheradogoracat.Õb.Taheyaomeyaome1[VPnianreadshu],bookyaomeyaome2[VPnianreadzazhi].magazineÔHereadeitherabookoramagazine.Õc.*Tahekandaosawyaomeyaome1[DPgou],dogyaomeyaome2[DPmao].catÔHesaweitheradogoracat.Õd.*Tahenianreadyaomeyaome1[DPshu],bookyaomeyaome2[VPzazhi].magazineÔHereadeitherabookoramagazine.ÕInadditiontobarenouns,yaomedoesnÕtconjoinnounswithnumeral-classiÞer.Asshownin(43a)6,thesentenceisgrammaticalwhenyaomeconjoinsaphraseheadedbyshi,while5NotethatsentenceshavingyaomeconjoiningaDPbecomebetterwhentheDPismadeintothefocusofthesentence.In(i),thesentencebecomesacceptablewhengouandmaoarethefocusofthesentencewithaphonologicalpausebetweentheverbandyaome1.IwillreturntothiswhenIdiscusstheDPpuzzle.iTahekandao,sawyaomeyaome1[FocPgou],dogyaomeyaome2[FocPmao].catÔItiseitheradogoracatthathesawÕ6InMandarin,thenumbercanbeomittedinthenumber-classiÞersetonlyifthenumberisÒoneÓ.Asshownbelow,withouttheclassiÞer,thesentencein(iii)isstillgrammatical.However,itcanonlymeanÒoneappleÓ(cf.(i))butnotÒÞveapplesÓ(cf.(ii)).iTahechieatleperfyi-geone-clpingguo.appleÔHeateanapple.ÕiiTahechieatleperfwu-geÞve-clpingguo.appleÔHeateÞveapples.ÕiiiTahechieatleperfgeclpingguo.appleÔHeateanapple.Õ21in(43b)and(43c),thesentencesarenotacceptablewhenyaomeconjoinsDPs(seealso(15)foryaomeÕsplacementinsentenceswithcopulaandbarenouns).(43)a.Taheyaomeyaome1[shicopyi-weione-clyisheng],doctoryaomeyaome2[shicopyi-weione-clhushi].nurseÔHeiseitheradoctororanurse.Õb.*Taheshicopyaomeyaome1[yi-weione-clyisheng],doctoryaomeyaome2[yi-weione-clhushi].nurseÔHeiseitheradoctororanurse.Õc.*Taheshicopyi-weione-clyaomeyaome1[yisheng],doctoryaomeyaome2[hushi].nurseÔHeiseitheradoctororanurse.ÕTherestrictiononDPsisnÕttheresultofarestrictionontheusageofcertainnounsorverbsorsomeprosodicpropertyassociatedtothesizeofthecomplementsofverbs.ThesizeofaDPdoesnÕta!ectthegeneralizationmadehere.SlightlylongerDPsareprovidedin(44)and(45).Thenominalphrasesthatarethecomplementofaverbin(44)arethemselveslonger,speciÞcallytheDPsexpandtofoursyllablesasopposedto(42)wheretheDPshaveonlyonesyllable.TheDPsin(45)areexpandedbyaddingmodiÞerstothem.Asshownbelow,the(a)sentencesin(44)and(45)areallgrammaticalgiventhatthephrasesyaomeconjoinsareVPs.However,thesentencesbecomeill-formedwhenyaomeconjoinstwonominalphrasesnomattertheseizeoftheNPs.In(44b),thesentenceisnotacceptablewhenyaomeconjoinsafour-syllableDP.Inaddition,asshownin(45b)andin(45c)respectively,yaomedoesnÕtconjoinaheavierDPthatismodiÞedbyanadjectivephrasesuchaskeaiÔcuteÕoranounphrasewithinaDP.Notethateventhoughthe(b)and(c)sentencesin(45)arebothunacceptable,the(c)sseemstobeworsethanthe(b)s.(44)a.Taheyaomeyaome1[VPkandaosawhuang-jin-lie-quan],Golden-Retrieveryaomeyaome2[VPkandaosawma-er-ji-si].MalteseÔHesaweitheraGoldenRetrieveroraMaltese.Õb.*Tahekandaosawyaomeyaome1[DPhuang-jin-lie-quan],Golden-Retrieveryaomeyaome2[DPma-er-ji-si].Maltese22ÔHesaweitheraGoldenRetrieveroraMaltese.Õ(45)a.Taheyaomeyaome1[VPkandaosawkeai-decute-dehuang-jin-lie-quan],Golden-Retrieveryaomeyaome2[VPkandaosawkeai-decute-dema-er-ji-si].MalteseÔHesaweitheracuteGoldenRetrieveroracuteMaltese.Õb.*Tahekandaosawyaomeyaome1[DPkeai-decute-dehuang-jin-lie-quan],Golden-Retrieveryaomeyaome2[DPkeai-decute-dema-er-ji-si].MalteseÔHesaweitheracuteGoldenRetrieveroracuteMaltese.Õc.*Tahekandaosaw[DPkeai-decute-deyaomeyaome1[DPhuang-jin-lie-quan]],Golden-Retrieveryaomeyaome2[DPma-er-ji-si].MalteseÔHesaweitheracuteGoldenRetrieveroracuteMaltese.ÕHowever,notallcoordinatorspatternthesameinMandarin.Unlikeyaome,thedisjunc-tionhouzheÔorÕcancoordinatephrasesofdi!erentsyntactictype.7Asillustratedin(46),houzhecancoordinateTPsin(46a),VPsin(46b)andDPsin(46c)and(46d).(46)a.[TPMamamotherqin-lekiss-perfhuang-jin-lie-quan]Golden-Retrievehouzheor[TPbabafatherqin-lekiss-perfma-er-ji-si]Maltese7Zhang(2007)mentionsacontrastbetweenyaomeandhouzheinthathouzhebutnotyaomecombineswithnounphrasesusingtheexamplesstatedin(i)and(ii).However,theexamplesdonÕtstraightforwardlyillustratethephenomenon.ItÕsnotclearfromtheexamplethattheungrammaticalityof(ii)comesdirectlyfromyaomeÕsinabilityofconjoiningnominals.ItÕsalsopossiblethatthesentenceisungrammaticalbecauseyaomecannotappearaloneinasentence.Inotherwords,ithastoappearinpairs,suchasyaome...yaome....iLaoLaoLiLi{yaome/houzhe}or/orzaiprgdureadxiaoshuo,novel{yaome/houzhe}or/orzaiprgdureadbaozhi.newspaperÔLaoLiisreadinganovelorisreadinganewspaper.ÕiiLaoLaoLiLizaiprgdureadxiaoshuonovel{*yaome/houzhe}or/orbaozhi.newspaperÔLaoLiisreadinganoveloranewspaper.Õ(Zhang,2007,p.178)23ÔMymomkissedaGoldenRetrieverormyfatherkissedaMaltese.Õb.Tahe[VPqin-lekiss-perfkeai-decute-dehuang-jin-lie-quan]Golden-Retrievehouzheor[VPbao-lehug-perfkeai-decute-dema-er-ji-si]MalteseÔHekissedacuteGoldenRetrieverorhuggedacuteMaltese.Õc.Tahekandaosaw[DPkeai-decute-dehuang-jin-lie-quan]Golden-Retrieverhouzheor[DPkeai-decute-dema-er-ji-si]MalteseÔHesawacuteGoldenRetrieveroracuteMaltese.Õd.Tahekandaosawkeai-decute-de[DPhuang-jin-lie-quan]Golden-Retrieverhouzheor[DPma-er-ji-si]MalteseÔHesawacuteGoldenRetrieveroraMaltese.ÕAsnotedinZhang(2007),theplacementofcoordinatorscanbea!ectedbythecate-goriesoftheconjunctstheyconjoin.SpeciÞcally,di!erentcoordinatorscanhavedi!erentcategoricalrequirementsonconjuncts.CoordinationssuchasandinEnglishcaninprinci-plecoordinatephrasesofvariouscategories.Similarly,inRussian,iÔandÕalsocoordinatesphrasesofvariouscategories(cf.(47)).(47)Russiana.AnnaAnna.nomiandPetjaPeter.nompridut.come.3plÔAnnaandPeterarecoming.Õ(DPs)b.AnnaAnnavymilawashediandnarezalacut.upovosci.vegetablesÔAnnawashedandcutupthevegetables.Õ(Vs)c.AnnaAnnabylawasvysokajatalliandstrojnaja.slenderÔAnnawastallandslender.Õ(APs)d.BorisBorisprigatovilpreparedobeddinneriandPetyaPeterprinesbroughtvino.wineÔBorispreparedthedinnerandPeterbroughtthewine.Õ(clauses)24(Zhang,2007,p.177)InsomelanguagessuchasJapaneseandMandarin,certaincoordinatorsaresensitivetothecategoryoftheconjunctstheyconjoin.InMandarin,forinstance,thecoordinatorsgen,tong,yuandji(allmeaningÔandÕ)coordinatenominalsonly,whereasthecoordinatorserqieandyoucannotcoordinatenominals(cf.(48))(Zhang,2007).Therefore,beingincapableofconjoiningnounphrasesisnotarestrictionapplicabletoallcoordinatorsinMandarinbutarestrictionimposedoncertaincoordinatorssuchasyaome.(48)a.DaiDaiJiaoshouProfessorxihuanlikehedrinkpijiubeer{gen/*you}and/andlu-cha.green-teaÔProf.Dailikestodrinkbeerandgreen-teaÕb.DaiDaiJiaoshouProfessorshanliangkind{you/*gen}and/andyoumo.humorousÔProf.DaiiskindandhumorousÕ(Zhang,2007,p.178)ThesamegeneralizationthatyaomedoesnÕtconjoinDPsisfurtherillustratedin(49).Asshownin(49a)and(49b)whereyaomeconjoinsrespectivelyVPsandcomplexNPs,thesentenceisgoodintheformerbutnotinthelater.(49)a.MaliMaryyaomeyaome1[VPmai-lebuy-perf[DPlaoshiteachertuijianrecommenddedeshu]],bookyaomeyaome2[VPmai-lebuy-perf[DPzijiselfxihuanlikekanreaddedeshu]].bookÔMaryeitherboughtthebookthatherteacherrecommendedorsheboughtthebookthatshewouldliketoread.Õb.*MaliMarymai-lebuy-perfyaomeyaome1[DPlaoshiteachertuijianrecommenddedeshu],bookyaomeyaome2[DPzijiselfxihuanlikekanreaddedeshu].bookÔMaryeitherboughtthebookthatherteacherrecommendedorsheboughtthebookthatshewouldliketoread.Õ25TheÞndinghereisnotrestrictedtoparticularverbs.Usingadi!erentverbxiÔwashÕ,(11b)repeatedherein(50a),givesyouthesametheresult.SpeciÞcally,yaomeconjoinsTPsandverbalpredicates(cf.(50a)and(50b)),whereasnominalconjunctionsarenotacceptable(cf.(50c)).(50)a.Yaomeyaome1[TPBierBillxi-lewash-perfyifu],clothesyaomeyaome2[TPMaliMaryxi-lewash-perfkuzi].trousersÔEitherBillwashedtheclothesorMarywashedthetrousers.Õb.Taheyaomeyaome1[VPxi-lewash-perfyifu],clothesyaomeyaome2[VPxi-lewash-perfkuzi].trousersÔHeeitherwashedtheclothesorthetrousers.Õc.*Tahexi-lewash-perfyaomeyaome1[DPyifu],clothesyaomeyaome2[DPkuzi].trousersÔHeeitherwashedtheclothesortrousers.ÕInthissection,IÕveshownthatyaomedoesnÕtconjoinphrasesthatarenominal.Thelength,thesizeorthecomplexityofaDPisnotrelevant.Whatreallymattersistheintrinsicstatusofbeinganominalphrase.Inthefollowingsection,IÕllpositastructureforyaomealongwithsomeexamplesprovided.2.2ThestructureofyaomeFollowingMunn(1993)Õsproposalforcoordination,Ipositthatacoordinationconsistingofthepairedyaomehasthestructureillustratedin(51).In(51),yaome1andyaome2areeachanadverbialelementthatadjoinstoXPandYPrespectively.Inaddition,XPandYPcannotbeDPs.Iclassifyyaome1andyaome2asanadverbbecauseoftheadverbialcharacteristicsitdisplays,speciÞcallythatitcanconjoinconstituentsofvarioussyntactictypesexceptfornounphrases.Furthermore,IassumethattheheadBisphonologicallynull.Forinstance,in(52),therearenoovertconjunctionsbetweenÔriceÕandÔnoodlesÕ,yetithasaconjunctiveinterpretation.Similarly,inMandarinChinese,conjunctionscanbephonologicallynullasshownin(53).26Figure2.4TreeStructure:Yaome(51)XPBPYPYPAdvPAdvyaome2BXPXPAdvPAdvyaome1(52)Iaterice,noodlesandcakes.(53)Tahechieatfan,ricewoIchieatmian.noodlesÔHeatericeandIatenoodles.ÕNotethatbothyaome1andyaome2obligatorilyhavetobepresentinsentencestoderiveadisjunctiveinterpretation(cf.(54a)).Sentenceswithonlyoneyaomearenotacceptable(cf.(54b)).(54)a.Tahezoutianyesterdayyaomeyaome1[henveryzao]earlyyaomeyaome2[henverywan]latequgoxuexiao.schoolÔHewenttoschooleitherveryearlyorverylateyesterday.Õb.*Tahezoutianyesterday[henveryzao]earlyyaomeyaome[henverywan]latequgoxuexiao.schoolIntended:ÔHewenttoschoolveryearlyorverylateyesterday.ÕThisbehaviorcontraststohouzheÔorÕ,anotherdisjunctivecoordinatorinMandarin.SpeciÞcally,houzhecanoccureitherinpairsorinisolation(cf.(55)).88CertaincoordinatorsinFrenchdisplayasimilarbehavior.Forinstance,doublingofcoordinatorssuchasetÔandÕandouÔorÕisoptional(cf.(i)),whileobligatorywithniÔnorÕandsoitÔorÕ(cf.(ii))(Gross,1973;Mouret,2004).iLucLucconnaöõtknows(et)andMaxMaxetandL«ea.L«ea27(55)a.Tahezoutianyesterdayhouzheor[henveryzao]earlyhouzheor[henverywan]latequgoxuexiao.schoolÔHewenttoschoolveryearlyorverylateyesterday.Õb.Tahezoutianyesterday[henveryzao]earlyhouzheor[henverywan]latequgoxuexiao.schoolÔHewenttoschoolveryearlyorverylateyesterday.Õ2.2.1TPThesentencein(56)isaninstanceofyaome1andyaome2conjoiningaTP.Thesyntacticstructureofthesentenceisillustratedin(57).(56)Yaomeyaome1[TPniyouchieatfan],riceyaomeyaome2[TPwoIchieatmian].noodlesÔEitheryoueatriceorIeatnoodles.Õ2.2.2vP&VPThesentencein(58)isaninstanceofyaomeconjoiningaverbphraseeitheratthevPorVPlevel.(58)Niyouyaomeyaome1[vP[VPchieatfan]],riceyaomeyaome2[vP[VPchieatmian]].noodlesÔYoueithereatriceoreatnoodles.ÕWhenconjoiningvPs,thetwoDPsthatarespeciÞersofvundergoacross-the-board(ATB)movement(seeJohnson,1994,2009,forATBmovement)to[Spec,TP]asin(59).(59)Niyaome[vPchifan],yaome[vPchimian]ÔLucknowsnotonlyMaxbutalsoL«ea.ÕiiLucLucconnaöõtknows*(soit)soitMaxMaxsoitsoitL«ea.L«eaÔLucknowseitherMaxorL«ea.Õ(Mouret,2004,p.194)28Figure2.5TreeStructure:Yaome-TP(57)TPBPTPTPT#vPv#VPDPmianÔnoodlesÕVchiÔeatÕvDPtjTDPwojÔIÕAdvPyaome2BTPTPT#vPv#VPDPfanÔriceÕVchiÔeatÕvDPtiTDPNiiÔyouÕAdvPyaome1IthastobeaninstanceofATBmovementsincethepresenceofanovertDPinthesecondconjunctresultsintheungrammaticalityofthesentence(cf.(60)).Twoalternativestructures,(60a)and(9),canbegiventothesentencein(60).9(60)*Niyouyaomeyaome1chieatfan,riceyaomeyaome2ni/wo/Juehanyou/I/Johnchieatmian.noodlesÔYoueithereatriceoryou/I/Johneatnoodles.Õa.*Niyaome[vPchifan],yaome[vPnichimian]b.*Niyaome1[vPchifan],yaome2[TPnichimian].However,theyarebothruledout.First,(60a)isnotpossiblebecauseofaviolationoftheCaseFilter.Giventhestructureproposedhere,theDPoccupying[Spec,vP]inthesecond9Thesentencein(60)isslightlybetterwhenthesubjectintheÞrstdisjunctistopicalized,andyaome1conjoinsaTPwherethesubjectiscovert(cf.(i)).Inthiscase,yaome1andyaome2eachconjoinsaTP.iNiiyaome1[TPtichifan],yaome2[TPnichimian].29Figure2.6TreeStructure:Yaome-vPTPT#vPBPvPvPv#VPDPmianÔnoodlesÕVchiÔeatÕvtiAdvPyaome2BvPvPv#VPDPfanÔriceÕVchiÔeatÕvtiAdvPyaome1TDPNiiÔyouÕconjunctwillbeleftunCasedifitdoesnÕtmove.ThisimpliesthatwhenconjoiningvPs,thetwoDPsin[Spec,vP]havetorefertothesameindividualandundergoATBmovementtoavoidaviolationoftheCaseFilter.Second,yaome2in(60)canbeconjoiningaTPbutnotavP(cf.(9)).ThiscanberuledoutbyyaomeÕspreferencetoconjoinphrasesofthesamesyntacticcategory.ThemovementoftheverbtovisnotclearwhenthephraseyaomeconjoinsisavpandwhenvPshavedi!erentverbs.However,whenthepairedyaomeconjoinstwoVPsthathaveidenticalverbs(cf.(61)),itdoesnotseemtobepossibletohaveverbraisingacrossconjuncts.Asshownin(62),havingyaomeconjoiningatraceofamovedverbresultsintheunacceptabilityofthesentence.ThisindicatesthatyaomecannotconjoinaVPwhoseheadisatrace.(61)Niyouyaomeyaome1[VPchieatfan],riceyaomeyaome2[VPchieatmian].noodlesÔYoueithereatriceoreatnoodles.Õ30Figure2.7TreeStructure:Yaome-VPwhereVisatracevPv#VPBPVPVPDPmianÔnoodlesÕV*tiAdvPyaome2BVPVPDPfanÔriceÕV*tiAdvPyaome1vchiiÔeatÕDPNiÔyouÕ(62)*Ni[vPchiyaome1[VPtifan]yaome2[VPtimian]]2.2.3DP(63)isaninstanceofyaomeconjoiningaDPwiththesyntacticstructureillustratedin(64).Itisneverthelessunacceptable,giventheconstraintthatyaomedoesnÕtconjoinnominalphrases.(63)*Niyouchieatyaomeyaome1[DPfan],riceyaomeyaome2[DPmian].noodlesÔYoueateitherriceornoodles.Õ31Figure2.8TreeStructure:Yaome-DP(64)*VPDPBPDPDPmianÔnoodlesÕAdvPyaome2BDPDPfanÔriceÕAdvPyaome1VchiÔeatÕ32CHAPTER3THEDP-PUZZLEANDTHEANALYSISOFTHEPUZZLE3.1TheDP-puzzleBasedonthediscussioninSect.2,itÕsclearthatyaomeconjoinspredicatesbutnotDPs.However,thesentencein(5b),repeatedherein(65a),seemstochallengethisgeneralization.Inparticular,asananswertothequestionin(65),yaomeseemstoconjoinÔDPsÕ.(65)Niyouxiangwantchieatshenme?whatÔWhatdoyouwanttoeat?Õa.Yaomeyaome1fan,riceyaomeyaome2mian.noodlesÔEitherriceornoodles.ÕDoesthesentencein(65a)implythatyaomehastheabilitytoconjoinDPs?Iarguethatthiscannotbethecasebecausefragmentanswerstoaquestionhaveamorecomplexstructure,speciÞcallythestructureoffragmentanswersinvolveasyntacticoperationoffocusmovementandellipsisofaTP(Merchant,2005;Holmberg,2015).Followingthishypothesis,Iarguethatyaomein(65a)isnotconjoiningDPsbutfocusphraseslocatedhighinthestructurewithTPsbeingelidedaftermovement.Supportforthisargumentaredatashowingthatyaomeisabletoconjoinfocusphrasesattheleftperipheryofasentence.3.2TheanalysisoftheDP-puzzle3.2.1WhyarefocusedDPsnotDPs?TheanalysisfortheDPpuzzleisbasedontwomainobservations.First,thesyntacticstructureofminimalanswerstoaquestionisdistinctinthattheelementsthatarebeing33focusedundergomovementandraisetoapositionaboveTP,higherthanthebasegeneratedposition,followedbytheellipsisoftheTP.Second,thereareexamplesofyaomeconjoiningaFocusphraseattheleftperipheryofasentence,whichsupportstheideathatyaomeisabletoconjoinaDPthatoccupies[Spec,FocP].3.2.2UniquestructureofminimalanswerstoaquestionOneofthecharacteristicsofanswerstoaquestionisthat,insteadofacompletesentence,ashortanswercanbeprovidedinresponsetothetargetquestion.Semantically,aquestioncanbeseenasapropositionfunctionthatcomeswithafreevariablewithpossiblevalues(Holmberg,2015).Theroleofanansweristoassignasatisfyingvaluetoitscorrespondingquestion.Forinstance,in(66)1,thequestionÒWhodidJohnsee?Óhasavariable,namelythewhphraseÔwhoÕ.Inordertoanswerthequestion,theaddresseepicksoutavaluethattheybelievetobetruefromasetcontainingpossibleindividuals,satisfyingtherequirementofthequestion.Inthiscase,eitheracompletesentence(cf.(66)-A)orafragmentanswer(cf.(66)-AÕ)containingavaluethatsatisÞesthevariableinthequestioncanbeprovided.(66)Q:WhodidJohnsee?A:JohnsawMary.AÕ:Mary.Thispropertyholdscross-linguistically.InMandarin,eitherthecompleteanswerin(67b)ortheminimalanswerin(67c)canbeprovidedinresponsetothequestionin(67a).(67)Mandarina.Q:YuehanJohnkandaosawshei?whoÔWhodidJohnsee?Õb.A:YuehanJohnkandaosawMali.Mary1QstandsforÔquestionÕandAstandsforÔanswerÕ.34ÔJohnsawMary.Õc.AÕ:Mali.MaryÔMary.ÕBasedontheexamplesin(66)and(67),therelationbetweenacompleteanswerandafragmentanswerisnotasclearaswhenthefragmentanswerhasgrammaticalmorphologyandismarkedwithovertCase.Asshownin(68),aminimalanswermarja-nmarkedwithAccusativeCasecanbegiveninresponsetothequestionÔWhodidJussisee?Õ.Thisimpliesthatafragmentanswerisnotinprinciplestructureless,giventhatitcanoccurwithovertCase(Holmberg,2015).(68)Finnisha.Q:Kenetwho-accJussiJussitapasi?metÔWhodidJussisee?Õb.A:Marja-n.Marja-accÔMarjan.Õ(Holmberg,2015,p.2)Theminimalanswertotheyes-noquestionin(69)furthersupportstheideathatafrag-mentanswerhasasententialstructure.UnlikeEnglishwhereÔyesÕisgivenasana"rmativeanswertoayes-noquestion(cf.(70)),averbisgiveninlanguagessuchasFinnish,PortugueseandMandarin,asana"rmativeanswertoayes-noquestionwhichisshownin(69),(71)and(72)respectively.Thefactthattheminimalanswercontainingsolelyaverbin(69)isinßectedwithtenseandpersonimpliesthatfragmentanswerstoaquestion,regardlessofitsÔincompletenessÕseenatthesurface,hasasententialstructurejustlikeacompletesentence.(69)Finnisha.Q:Tul-i-vat-kocome-pst-3pl-qlapsetchildrenkotiin?home35ÔDidthechildrencomehome?Õb.A:Tul-i-vat.come-pst-3plÔYes.Õ(Holmberg,2015,p.3)(70)Q:Didyoukisshim?A:Yes.A:#Kissed.(71)EuropeanPortuguesea.Q:Deste-lhegave-himothelivro?bookÔDidyougivehimthebook?Õb.A:Dei.gaveÔYes,Idid.Õ(adaptedfromMartins,1994,p.174)(72)Mandarina.Q:Niyougeigivetahimshubookleperfma?qÔDidyougivehimthebook?Õb.A:Geigivele.perfÔYes.ÕFollowingHolmberg(2015),Iassumethatminimalanswerstoaquestionhaveafullsententialexpression.Thestructureofaminimalanswerlooksroughlylike(73).SpeciÞcally,Mary,thevaluetothevariableinthequestion,isbasegeneratedinsidetheTPandthenundergoesmovementtothespeciÞerofaFocusphrase,ahigherpositioninthestructure.36AfterthemovementoftheDP,thewholeTPoftheansweriselidedsinceitcanberecoveredfromthequestion.(73)Q:WhodidJohnsee?A:[FocPMaryi[TPJohnsawti]].Assumingthisisthecase,thentheminimalanswerin(65a),repeatedherein(74a),isaninstanceofaDPmovingto[Spec,FocP],followedbytheellipsisofthewholeTP.Thestructureof(74a)isshownin(75).Insteadofacompletesentence,theanswertothequestion,fanandmian,arepositionedin[Spec,FocP]followingtheomissionoftheTP.Inotherwords,yaomeinthiscaseisnotconjoiningaDPbutFocPsthatcontainDPs.ThisaccountsfortheplacementofyaomeimmediatelytotheleftofanominalphrasesuchasÔriceÕorÔnoodlesÕwhenitÕsananswertoaquestion.(74)Q:Niyouxiangwantchieatshenme?whatÔWhatdoyouwanttoeat?Õa.A:Yaomeyaome1fan,riceyaomeyaome2mian.noodlesÔEitherriceornoodles.Õ(75)Yaome1[FocPfani[TPwoxiangchiti]]yaome2[FocPmianj[TPwoxiangchitj]]3.2.3EvidencefromtheLeftPeripheryMandarinisalanguagethatallowstheoccurrenceofTopicandFocusattheleftperipheryofasentence.TheorderingofTopic,FocusandTP,followingBadan&DelGobbo(2011),isillustratedin(76a),whereaFocusisbelowTopicandaboveTP.Aviolationintheorderingresultsintheunacceptabilityofthesentence(cf.(76b)).(76)a.[TopPWancan,dinner[FocPyidalimiani,spaghetti[TPwoIhuiwillchieatti]]].37ÔAsfordinner,itÕsspaghettithatIÕlleat.Õb.*[FocPYidalimiani,spaghetti[TopPwancan,dinner[TPwoIhuiwillchieatti]]].ÔAsfordinner,itÕsspaghettithatIÕlleat.ÕTheplacementofyaomeattheleftperipheryisillustratedin(77a).Asshown,yaomeisadjacenttoanominalphrasewhenitisattheleftperipheryofasentence,presumablywhentheDPisthefocusofthesentence.Ontheotherhand,whentheDPisembeddedinaverb,itisneverthelessunacceptable(cf.(77b)).Thecontrastbetween(77a)and(77b)showsthatyaomeisabletoconjoinafocusphrasethatcontainsaDPbutnotanounphraseitself.(77)a.Wancan,dinneryaomeyaome1fanriceyaomeyaome2mian,noodleswoIhuiwillchi.eatÔAsfordinner,itiseitherriceornoodleswhichIÕlleat.Õb.*Wancan,dinnerwoIhuiwillchieatyaomeyaome1fan,riceyaomeyaome2mian.noodlesÒAsfordinner,IÕlleithereatriceornoodles.ÕThestructureof(77a)isillustratedin(78)whereyaome1andyaome2conjoinfocusphrases.Ineachconjunct,theDPthatisacomplementofaverbundergoesmovementto[Spec,FocP].Afterthemovement,theTPintheÞrstconjunctiselidedundertheidentityitshareswiththeTPinthesecondclause(see(79)fortreestructure).(78)Wancan,dinneryaomeyaome1[FocPfanirice[TPwoIhuiwillchieatti]],yaomeyaome2[FocPmianjnoodles[TPwoIhuiwillchieattj]].ÔAsfordinner,itiseitherriceornoodleswhichIÕlleatÕ38Figure3.1TreeStructure:Yaome-FocP(79)FocPBPFocPFocPFoc#TPwohuichitjFocDPmianjÔnoodlesÕAdvPyaome2BFocPFocPFoc#TPwohuichitiFocDPfaniÔriceÕAdvPyaome139CHAPTER4THESUBJECT-OBJECTPUZZLEANDTHEANALYSISOFTHEPUZZLE4.1Thesubject-objectpuzzleAnasymmetryintheinterpretationofasentenceinvolvingdisjunctionisfoundbetweenEn-glishandMandarin.InEnglish,asentencesuchas(6),repeatedherein(80),isambiguous,whileaparallelsentenceinMandarin(cf.(7)repeatedherein(81))isnot.(80)EitherJohnhitBillorMary.(81)Yaomeyaome1YuehanJohndahitleperfBier,Billyaomeyaome2Mali.MaryÔItwaseitherJohnorMarywhohitBill.ÕIntuitively,(80)canbeinterpretedasÔJohnhitsomeoneandtheindividualbeinghitwaseitherBillorMary.ÕOntheotherhand,itÕsalsopossibletointerpretthesentenceasÔBillwashitbysomeoneandthepersonwhohithimwaseitherJohnorMary.ÕTheambiguitycanberesolvedbyusingphonologicalstresstomarkthefocusofthesentence(Han&Romero,2004).1Thetwopossibleinterpretationsofthesentencein(80)areillustratedexplicitlyin(82).Inboth(82a)and(82b),theDPMaryisstressedintheseconddisjunct.Thesentencecanhaveadi!erentinterpretationdependingonwhichDPisbeingstressedintheÞrstdisjunct.IftheobjectpositionDPintheÞrstdisjunctisbeingstressed,ahearerwillinterprettheDPintheseconddisjunctasanobject(cf.(82a)).Ontheotherhand,if1Focusintonationismarkedbystress.Forinstance,in(i)and(ii),theÞrstandtheseconddis-junct/conjunctareparalleltoeachother,thedi"erencesaretheelementsthatarebeingfocused(shownincapitalletters).Thecontrastiveelementsinthesesentencesarestressedtoindicatethattheyarethefocusofthesentence(Han&Romero,2004).iEither[SitaateBEEFfordinner]or[sheatePORKfordinner].(focusincapitals)ii[PATvisitedSueforCHRISTmas]and[JOHNvisitedSueforNEWYEAR](Han&Romero,2004,p.547)40thesubjectDPintheÞrstdisjunctisbeingstressed,anaddresseewillinterprettheDPintheseconddisjunctasasubjectaswell(cf.(82b)).Nevertheless,withoutthehelpoffocusintonation,thesentenceisambiguous.(82)a.EitherJohnhitBILLorMARY.ÔItiseitherBillorMarywhoJohnhit.Õb.EitherJOHNhitBillorMARY.ÔItÕseitherJohnorMarywhohitBill.Õ(81)isneverambiguoustoMandarinspeakers.Theonlypossibleinterpretationofthesentenceistheonein(82b)whereJohnorMaryisthepersonwhohitBill.Thereadingin(82a)isunavailable.Inotherwords,unlikeinEnglish,itisneverambiguouswhethertheDPinthesecondconjunctisasubjectoranobjectinMandarin.WhyisitthecasethatasentenceisambiguousinEnglishbutnotinMandarin?Toanswerthisquestion,Iwouldliketoproposethattheunambiguousinterpretationofthesentencein(81)isaresultfrom(i)yaomeÕsinabilitytoconjoinnounphrases,speciÞcallywhennounphrasesarecomplementsofverbs,and(ii)theimpossibilityofgappingaverbinMandarin,whileanellipsisofaVPispossible.Giventhereasonsprovidedhere,thesentenceisneverambiguousinMandarinChinesebecausetheDPintheseconddisjunctcanneverbetheobjectofthesentence.4.2Theanalysisofthesubject-objectpuzzle4.2.1AmbiguityoftheinterpretationinEnglishTheambiguityoftheinterpretationinEnglishcanbeexplainedviathreeanalysesproposedtoaccountforthedistributionofeitherorintheliterature:movement(cf.Larson(1985)),ellipsis(cf.Schwarz(1999))andT-pathprojection(cf.denDikken(2006)).Regardlessoftheanalysischosen,thesentencein(80),repeatedherein(83),ispredictedtobeambiguous.41Inotherwords,undertheseanalyses,Maryinthesecondconjunctcanbeinterpretedaseithertheagentorthethemeofthesentence.(83)EitherJohnhitBillorMary.4.2.1.1MovementLarson(1985)arguesthatthescopeoforistiedtothesyntaxofscopeindicatorseither,whetherandaphonologicallynullindicatorO.Inaddition,thescopeoforisassignedviathemovementofscopeindicators.Giventhatscopeindicatorscanbedisplacedfromtheirlicensingdisjunctionandappearinapositionfarawayfromit,heproposesthattheyarebase-generatedadjacenttothedisjunctivephraseandundergomovementtothepositionwheretheysurface.Underthemovementtheory,theinterpretationof(83)isambiguousbecausetherearetwopossiblepositionsforeithertobegenerated.Asin(84a),ifthescopeoforisinterpretedatthetrace,theinterpretationofMarybeinganobjectisderived.Ontheotherhand,ifthescopeoforisinterpretedatwhereeithersurfaces,asin(84b),thereadingofMarybeingansubjectisderived.(84)a.EitheriJohnhittiBillorMary.b.EitheriJohnhittiBillorMary.4.2.1.2EllipsisContrarytothemovementtheory,Schwarz(1999)arguesthateitherisunabletomoveandovertlymarkstheedgeofaphraseintheÞrstdisjunct.Furthermore,ortakesthesamescopeindicatedbyeitherandpartoftheelementintheseconddisjunctiselided.Undertheellipsistheory,eitherin(83)overtlymarkstheleftedgeofthesentence,implyingthatoristakingaTPaswell.Twopossiblestructures,(85a)and(85b),canbederived.In(85a),MaryisinterpretedastheobjectofthesentencewiththeellipsisofJohnhit,whilein(85b),42MarybecomesthesubjectofthesentencewiththeellipsisoftheVPhitBill.Theambiguityofthesentenceisexpectedsincetwopossiblestructurescanbederivedunderthisaccount.(85)a.EitherJohnhitBillorJohnhitMary.b.EitherJohnhitBillorMaryhitBill.4.2.1.3T-pathprojectiondenDikken(2006)proposesageneralizationregardingthedistributionofeither.Thede-scriptivegeneralizationisstatedin(86).(86)Eitherisaphrasalconstituentinconstructionswitha.theÞrstdisjunct,attachingtoit;orb.theÞrstcontrastivefocus,attachingtoi.thecontrastivefocusitself,orii.aphrasalnodeontheT-pathprojectedfromtheÞrstcontrastivefocus.(denDikken,2006,p.707)ThedeÞnitionoftheT-pathmentionedin(86b-ii)isstatedasin(87).(87)a.AT-pathisasequenceofnodessuchthateachnodeisT-linkedtothenexthighernodeonthemainprojectionline.b.!isT-linkedtoBi!itsheadassignsaT-roletoBorreceivesatheta-rolefromB(denDikken,2006,p.708)Basedon(86),theplacementofeitherisa!ectedbythescopeofthecontrastivefocusinthesentenceaswellastheT-pathprojectedfromthecontrastivefocus.Underthisaccount,thesentencein(83)isambiguousgiventhatbothBillandJohncanhaveacontrastivefocusintheÞrstdisjunct,whileMaryalwayshascontrastivefocusintheseconddisjunct.WhenthecontrastivefocusisinBill,thestructureofthesentenceistheoneshownin(88a)where43aT-pathiscreatedbytheheadnoun,Bill,T-linkedtotheVPandtheT-pathextendsfurtheruptotheTP.ThisaccountsforthereadingwhereMaryistheobjectofthesentencewhileeithersurfacesattheleftedgeofthesentence.Ontheotherhand,whenthecontrastivefocusisJohn,thestructureistheonein(88b)whereeitherappearsimmediatelytotheleftcontrastivefocusofthesentence,resultingintheinterpretationthatMaryisthesubjectofthesentence.(88)a.{Either}John{either}hit{either}BILLorMARY.b.{Either}JOHNhitBillorMARY.4.2.2LackofambiguityoftheinterpretationinMandarinInMandarin,thesentencein(89)isnotambiguous.(89)Yaomeyaome1YuehanJohndahitleperfBierBillyaomeyaome2Mali.MaryÔItiseitherJohnorMarywhohitBill.ÕThreepossiblestructurescanbepositedforthissentence.In(90a),yaomecoordinatestwovPswiththeverbintheseconddisjunctbeingelided.ThisisnotpossiblebecauseverbgappinginMandarinChineseisnotpossible.Ifgappingwerepossible,theDPintheseconddisjunctwouldbeinterpretedasanobjectofthesentence.Thiswouldthenresultinanambiguousinterpretationofthesentencewhichcontradictsthefactthattheinterpretationofthesentenceistransparent.In(90b),havingyaome2conjoiningaDPisnotpossiblebecauseitcontradictstheobservationthatyaomeisunabletoconjoinnounphrases.Finally,in(90c),yaome1andyaome2conjointwoTPswithanellipsisoftheVPintheseconddisjunct.Iarguethatthisisindeedthecorrectstructureforthesentencein(89)becausethereareinstancesshowingthatVPellipsisisapossibleoperationinMandarinChinese,andinthiscaseonlyasubjectreadingispossible.Inthefollowing,IÕllshowthatgappinginMandarinChineseisnotpossiblewhichwillthenruleoutthestructurein(90a).Inaddition,IÕll44Figure4.1TreeStructure:Yaome-Gapping(91)*yaome1[vPYuehanda-leBier],yaome2[vPda-leMali]vPBPvPvPv#VPDPMaliVda-leÔhitÕvDP{Yuehan}AdvPyaome2BvPvPv#VPDPBierVda-leÔhitÕvDPYuehanAdvPyaome1providedatashowingthatVPellipsisispossibleinMandarinChinese,supporting(90c)asbeingthestructureofthesentencein(89).(90)a.*Yaome1[vPYuehan[da-leBier],yaome2[vPda-le[DPMali]].b.*Yaome1[TPYuehanda-leBier],yaome2[DPMali].c.Yaome1[TPYuehanda-leBier],yaome2[TPMali[VPda-leBier]]First,apossibleanalysiswouldbetohavetwovPconjunctsandgappingofthesecondverbasshownexplicitlyin(91).Thiswouldbecompatiblewiththesubcategoryrestrictionsofyaome.However,thisisruledoutbecauseMandarindoesnÕtseemtoallowcanonicalgappingincoordinatestructures(asopposedtoEnglishwheregappingofaverbisapossibleoperationincoordinations).GappingwasoriginallyproposedbyRoss(1968)toaccountfortheoccurrenceofverbomissionincoordinatestructures.AccordingtoRoss(1968),gappingisagrammatical45processthatinvolvesellipsisofaverbinthesecondconjunctunderidentitywiththeverbintheantecedentconjunct.Theoperationissaidtoberestrictedtocoordinatestructures.(92)isacanonicalgappingsentenceinEnglish.Asillustratedin(92a),theverbhadinthesecondpartoftheconjunctioniselidedundertheidentityitshareswiththeverbintheantecedentclause.Thematerialthatisdeletediscalledagapandelementsthatarenotdeletedarecalledremnants(Han&Romero,2004).Inotherwords,thegapin(92a)istheelidedsiteofÔhadÕandtheremnantsarethesubjectandtheobjectinthesecondconjunct,namelyÔBillÕandÔamugÕ.(92)JohnhadacupandBillamug.a.JohnhadacupandBillhadamug.Anotheraccountfortheomissionofaverbincoordinatedstructuresisacross-the-board(ATB)movementproposedbyJohnson(1994).HedistinguishesVP-ellipsisfromgappingandarguesthattheoperationofgappingisaninstanceofmovement.Baseonthisaccount,themissingverbintheclauseistheresultofmovement,notellipsisofaverb.SpeciÞcally,itÕsaninstanceoftwoverbsmovingoutofaconjuncttoahigherpositioninastructureviaATBmovement.Thestructureofthesentencein(92)isillustratedin(93).Despitethedi!erencesbetweenthesetwoaccounts,theyarebothrestrictedtocoordi-nation.Inthecaseoftheellipsistheory,theelideditemisidenticaltothecorrespondingelementintheantecedentclause,whileinthecaseofthemovementtheory,thetracesindicatethepathfromthebasegeneratedposition.(94a)isaparallelsentencetothegappingsentencein(92).Itis,however,notacceptabletomostMandarinspeakers.AsentenceofthistyperemainsunacceptableregardlessoftheverbthatÕsbeingused.Asshownin(94b)and(94c),astativeverbsuchaslikeisusedintheformerwhileanon-stativeverbsuchasreceiveisusedinthelater.Giventhattheyareallunacceptable,wecanconcludethattheunacceptabilityhasnothingtodowiththetypeofverbs.46Figure4.2TreeStructure:ATBmovement(93)JohnhadacupandBillamugTPT#PerdPPredPvPvPv#VPDPamugVtivDPBillandvPv#VPDPacupVtivDPtjPredVhadiTpastDPJohnj(structureadoptedfromJohnson,2009,p.310)(94)a.*YuehanJohnyouhavechabei,tea-cupBierBillmakebei.mugÔJohnhadateacupandBillamug.Õb.*MaliMaryxihuanlikeyinyue,musicBierBilldianying.movieÔMarylikesmusicandBillmovies.Õc.*MaliMaryshoudaoireceiveweijin,scarfBierBilljiake.jacketÔMaryreceivedascarfandBillajacket.ÕAlthough(94)showsunacceptablesentences,(95)showsacaseofanapparentgappingstructurewhichisacceptable.Thesefactshavebeenapproachedfromdi!erentangles,yetbothTang(2001)andAi(2014)arguethattheseÔgapping-likesentencesÕarenotinstancesofgappinginMandarin.AccordingtoTang(2001),pseudo-gappingsentencesbecomeac-47ceptableifanappropriatecontextisprovided.Inaddition,heproposesthatsentencesofthistypeareinstancesofEmptyVerbSentences.Hisargumentforemptyverbsentencesisbasedonthediscoursein(95).Inthediscourse,uttering(95b)inreplytothequestionin(95a)isperfectlyÞnewhenapersonisorderingadrinkinarestaurant.AccordingtoTang(2001),theÔgapÕinthesentence,namelytheplacewheretheverbisnotphoneticallyrealized,canhaveitsantecedentfromthediscourse.Baseonthisobservation,heconcludesthatMandarinallowssentencescontaininganemptyverb.(95)a.Q:Ni-menyou-plxiangwanthedrinkdianbitsheme?whatÔWhatwouldyouliketodrink?Õb.A:WoI(yi-bei)one-clcha,teatahe(yi-bei)one-clkafei.co!eeÔIwouldliketodrinkacupofteaandheacupofco!ee.ÕThestructureofEmptyVerbSentencesproposedbyTang(2001)isshownin(96).TheXPinthestructureoccupies[Spec,TP]andYPisthecomplementoftheemptyverb.2(96)[TPXP[VP[v¿][YP]]]However,IbelievethisisnotaninstanceofanEmptyVerbSentence.Forinstance,asshownin(97),Englishalsoallowsverbstobeomittedinaquestion-answerdiscourse.Apairedlistanswerwithellipsisoftheverbisgiveninresponsetothequestionin(97).Althoughthereisnoverbinthesentence,thisdoesnotimplythatEnglishallowsastructureinwhichaverbcanbenull.Instead,Iarguethatthisisthepropertyofbeingananswertoaquestion.(97)Q:Whatdidtheyhavefordinner?A:JohnmacnÕcheeseandMarypizzas.AsdiscussedpreviouslyinSect.3.2.2,someportionsoftheanswerscanbeomittedaslongastherestofthecontentisrecoverablefromitscorrespondingquestion.Thatistosay,2Noticethatthecontrastbetween(94)and(95)issimilartothecontrastIassumedbeforeandIbelieveitleadstoasimilaranalysis.48inbeingananswertoaquestion,itisfelicitousforinterlocutorstoprovideonlythemostnecessaryinformation,namelythefocus,thatthequestionasksfor.ThecaseweÕveseenin(95b)issimilartothecasein(97).Theanswersinthesecases,underthisassumption,arenotinstancesoftheoccurrenceofÔemptyverbsÕbutinstancesofTPellipsisafterthemovementoftheDPstoahigherpositioninthestructure.Sofar,IÕvebeenarguingthatEnglish-likegappingisnotpossibleinMandarin.Howeverthesentencesin(98)mayquestionthisassumption.Alltheill-formedsentencesin(94)becomewell-formedwiththeoccurrenceofnumber-classiÞerprecedingtheobjectsasshownin(98a)and(98c)orwiththeoccurrenceofdeterminer-classiÞerprecedingtheobjectsasillustratedin(98b).(98)a.YuehanJohnyouhaveyi-geone-clchabei,tea-cupBierBillyi-geone-clmakebei.mugÔJohnhadateacup.AsforBill,(hehad)amug.Õb.MaliMaryxihuanlikezhe-gethis-clyinyue,musicBierBillna-buthat-cldianying.movieÔMarylikesthismusic.AsforBill,(helikes)thatmovie.Õc.MaliMaryshoudaoireceivelian-tiaotwo-clweijin,scarfBierBillone-jianone-cljiake.jacketÔMaryreceivedtwoscarves.AsforBill,(hereceived)onejacket.ÕFollowingAi(2014),Iarguethatthesepseudo-gappingsentencesaretheresultofaseriesofsyntacticoperationsinvolvingtopicalization,focusmovementandTPellipsis.AccordingtoAi(2014),thesubjectinthesecondconjunctinacoordinatestructureisaninstanceoftopicalizationandtheobjectinthesecondconjunctundergoesfocusmovementto[Spec,FocP]withtheellipsisofaTPafterthemovement.Underhisaccount,thesentencein(98a)hasthestructureshownin(99)inwhichthesubjectBierandtheobjectyi-gemakebeiundergomovementto[Spec,TopP]and[Spec,FocP]respectivley.(99)Yuehanyouyi-gechabei,[TopPBieri[FocP{yi-gemakebei}j[TPtiyoutj]]].49ItisgenerallyassumedintheliteraturethatTopicsinMandarincanbebasegeneratedorundergomovementto[Spec,TopP](Badan&DelGobbo,2011).Inthecaseofpseudo-gappingsentencesinMandarin,theÞrstDPisalreadyatleftperiphery,anditÕsnotobviouswhetheritisbasegeneratedormoved.However,ifweassumethatTPellipsistakesplaceonlywhentheclausesinthetwoconjunctsareparallel,thenthesubjectDPinthesecondconjunctmustbebasegeneratedinvPandraisetoTP(Ai,2014).Furthermore,thesubjectDPinthesecondconjunctalsoundergoesmovementfrom[Spec,TP]to[Spec,TopP].AlthoughTopicmovementinMandarindoesnÕtalwaysdisplaymovementconstraints,aTopic-markersuchasahandnecanbeinsertedbetweenaTopicandtherestofthesentence(Badan&DelGobbo,2011).Asshownin(100),theTopic-markerahcanbeinsertedbetweentheTopicandtheFocusinthesecondconjunct.AiÕsaccountcapturesthephonologicalpausethatisobservedbetweenthesubjectBillandtheobjectyi-gemakabei.(100)Yuehanyouyi-gechabei,Bierahyi-gemakebei.AsnotedinBadan&DelGobbo(2011),weakcrossovere!ectsareobservedinfocusmovementinMandarin,particularlyinlian-doufocusconstructions.Weakcrossovere!ectsareobservedwhendouappearsinaseparateclausefromlian,speciÞcallywhendouisintheembeddedclausewhilelianisinthefocuspositionofthematrixclause,asillustratedin(101a).3In(101a),thephrasethatimmediatelyfollowslian,namelyfanÔriceÕ,isthefocusofthesentence.Topicalizationisalsopossibleinlian-doufocusconstructions.Asshownin(101b),thesubjecttaÔheÕistopicalizedtotheleftperipheryofthesentenceprecedingthefocus.(101)a.Lianevenfanirice[TPtahedouallbunotxiangwantchieatti].3lian-doufocusconstructionderivesameaningsimilartoEnglishÔevenÕ.FollowingBadan&DelGobbo(2011),IassumethefollowingconÞgurationleadstoWeakCrossovere"ects:iWeakCrossoverconÞguration:*Opi...proni...ti(whereproniandtidonotc-commandeachother;Opic-commandsboth)(Badan&DelGobbo,2011,p.64)50ÔThereÕsnothingthathewantstoeat,evenrice.Õb.Tajhelianevenfanirice[TPtjdouallbunotxiangwantchieatti].ÔThereÕsnothingthathewantstoeat,evenrice.ÕIn(102a),thereÕsnoweakcrossovere!ectsincedouisinthesameclauseaslian,while(102b)exhibitsacrossovere!ectwhendouisembeddedinanotherclause.(102)a.LianevenZhangsaniZhangsan[NP[tjpipingcriticizetaihimde]dena-gethat-clnurenj]womandouallxihuanliketi.ÔEvenZhangsani,thewomanthatcriticizedhimilikesti.Õb.*LianevenZhangsaniZhangsanMaliMalirenweithink[CP[pipingcriticizetaihimdedexhe-benthis-clshu]bookdouallhuidestroyleperfti].ÔEvenZhangsani,Marythinksthebookthatcriticizedhimidestroyedti.Õ(Badan&DelGobbo,2011,p.71)Similarly,thesecondconjunctofthepseudo-gappingsentencein(98a)showsidenticalconstraints.Asshownin(103a),thesentenceshowsnoweakcrossovere!ectsincedouisinthesameclauseaslian.Ontheotherhand,thesentencein(103b)showsaweakcrossovere!ectsinceliananddouareinseparateclauses.4ThissupportstheargumentthatthesecondDPinthesecondconjunctofpseudo-gappingsentencesisaninstanceoffocusmovement.54In(103),Ifocusonlyonthesecondconjunctofthepseudo-gappingsentencesincetheconstraintonthetargetclauseisnotrelevanttotheantecedentclauseunderthisaccount.AdirectquotefromAi(2014),ÔIfgappinginModernMandarinisnotderivedvia(ATB)movement,thenwedonothavetoconsiderallconjunctsatthesametime.Õ5Asdiscussedpreviously,thereÕsaninterpretationasymmetryinsentencesofthistypes.Whentheobjectsinthesentencedonotcomewithnumber-classiÞer,thesentenceisill-formed(see(94)forexamples).UnderAiÕsaccount,allpseudo-gappingsentencesarepredictedtobegoodaslongasthesubjectandtheobjectinthesecondconjunctundergotopicalizationandfocusmovementbeforetheTPiselided.HisanalysiscannotaccountfortheasymmetryofNPwithorwithoutanumber-classiÞer.Itmightbethatnumber-classiÞerNPcanberaisedeasilywhilenon-quantiÞedNPcannot.Inthispaper,IÕllleavethequestionopenandwillnotdiscusstheasymmetrybetweenthesetwotypesofnominalphrase.EithermorerestrictionshavetobeaddedtoAiÕsanalysisormoreneedstobesaidaboutelementsthatarerestrictedinmovingtotheleftperipheryofasentenceinMandarin.51(103)a.{XinqingmoodbunothaogooddedeBier}j,Billlianeven{yi-geone-clmakebei}i,mug[TPtajhedouallrenweithink[CP[TP[DPmai-lebuy-perftaiitdederen]personbunotxihuanliketi]].ÔBill,whoisinabadmood,thinksthosewhoboughtthemugdislikeit.Õb.??{XinqingmoodbunothaogooddedeBier}j,Billlianeven{yi-geone-clmakebei}i,mugtajherenweithink[CP[TP[DPmai-lebuy-perftaiitdederen]persondouallbunotxihuanliketi]].ÔBill,whoisinabadmood,thinksthosewhoboughtthemugdislikeit.ÕGiventhediscussionabove,IarguethatMandarindoesnothavegappinglikeEnglishdoes.Itfollowsthat(104)cannotbethestructureofthenon-ambiguoussentencein(89)becauseverbgappingisnotapossibleoperationinMandarin.(104)*Yaome1Yuehanda-leBier,yaome2da-leMali.SincecoordinatingDPsandverbgappingarenotpossible,weareleftwithVPellipsisandasubjectinterpretation.Unlikegapping,whichisnotapossibleoperationincoordinatestructures,thereareinstancesofVPdeletioninMandarin.Asillustratedin(105a)and(105b),aVPcanbedeletedinthesecondconjunctofacoordinationstructure.In(105a),theVPdaonaÔarrivethereÕinthesecondconjunctiselidedwhilethesentenceremainsgrammatical.Furthermore,ellipsisofaVPispossibleevenifitisembeddedinabiggerchunkofVP.Thesentencein(105b)showsthatthelowerVPquMeigouÔgotoAmericaÕcanbeelided,leavingthesecondconjunctwiththeoutmostVPcontaininganadjunct.(105)a.Tahehua-lespend-perfwuÞvetiandaydaoarrivena,therewoIzhionlyhua-lespend-perfsanthreetian[VPdaydaoarrivena].thereÔHespentÞvedaystogettherewhileIonlyspentthreedaystogetthereÕb.TahequgoMeigouAmericaliang-ci,two-timewoI[VP[VPqugoMeigou]America[AdvPyi-ci]].one-timeÔHewenttoAmericatwiceandIwentthereonce.Õ52Giventheexamplesprovidedin(105),theonlypossiblestructureoftheunambiguoussentenceinMandarinistheonein(106),whereyaome2conjoinsaTPwhiletheVPisbeingelided.Asaresult,theDPthatfollowsyaome2canonlybeinterpretedasthesubjectbutnottheobject.(106)Yaome1Yuehanda-leBier,yaome2[TPMalida-leBier]Tosumup,theinterpretationof(89)isnotambiguoussinceonlyonestructurecanbeassociatedtothissentence.Itcannotbeaninstanceofyaome2conjoiningaDPthatisthecomplementofaverbasin(90b)becauseyaomeisbannedfromconjoiningDPs.Inaddition,itÕsnotaninstanceofverbgappingasin(90a)sincecanonicalgappingisnotpossibleinMandarinandpseudo-gappingoperationinvolvesmovingelementstotheleftperiphery.GiventhatVPellipsisistheonlypossibleoperation,thesentenceisthusneverambiguousinMandarin.53CHAPTER5THEPOLARITYPUZZLEANDTHEANALYSISOFTHEPUZZLESofarwehaveseenthatyaomedi!ersfromeitherorinEnglishduetoasubcategorizationrestriction.Inthischapter,IÕllshowthatyaomeisalsodi!erentfromEnglishintermsofentailments.Inaddition,IÕllarguethatyaomeisinfactaPositivePolarityItem(PPI)thatitsdistributionpatternswithotherPPIsinMandarin.5.1DisjunctionandConjunctiveEntailmentItisgenerallyassumedthatconjunctiveentailmentsarelicensedwhennegation(oradown-wardentailingoperator)c-commandsdisjunction(Szabolcsi,2002;Crain,2008;Suetal.,2012).Nobody,forexample,isadownwardentailingoperatorwhileeveryoneisnot.Asshownin(107a),whennobodyc-commandsthedisjunctionor,aconjunctiveinterpretationisderived.Contrarily,in(107b),noconjunctivemeaningisderivedwhenorisinthescopeofeveryone.(107)a.Nobodyinthisclassplaystheviolinortheguitar.!nobodyinthisclassplaystheviolin"nobodyinthisclassplaystheguitar.b.Everybodyinthisclassplaystheviolinortheguitar.*!everyoneinthisclassplaystheviolin"everyoneinthisclassplaystheguitar(Suetal.,2012,p.962)Thisgeneralizationcanbeextendedtoeitherorasillustratedin(108).Aconjunctivemeaningisderivedwheneitherorisinthescopeofnobody(cf.(108a)),butthisisnotthe54casewhenitÕsinthescopeofeverybody(cf.(108b)).Theonlydi!erencebetweenusingorandeitheroristhatthereisasenseofemphasiswhenusingeitheror.1(108)a.Nobodyinthisclassplayseithertheviolinortheguitar.!nobodyinthisclassplaystheviolin"nobodyinthisclassplaystheguitar.b.Everybodyinthisclassplayseithertheviolinortheguitar.*!everyoneinthisclassplaystheviolin"everyoneinthisclassplaystheguitarHouzhe,adisjunctivecoordinatormeaningÔorÕinMandarin,patternsmuchlikeEnglishdisjunction.Houzhealsoallowsaconjunctiveinterpretationinthescopeofadownwardentailingoperator.(109a)and(109b)areMandarinversionsofthesentencesin(107a)and(107b).In(109a),whenhouzheÔorÕisinthescopeofmeiyourenÔnobodyÕ,theinterpretationisthesameasinEnglish.Ontheotherhand,theconjunctivemeaningisnotderivedwhenhouzheisinthescopeofmeigerenÔeverybodyÕ.(109)a.Banclassshang,prepmei-you-rennot-have-personyanzouplayxiaotiqinviolinhouzheorjita.guitar!nobodyintheclassplaystheviolin"nobodyintheclassplaystheguitarb.Banclassshang,prepmei-ge-renevery-cl-persondouallyanzouplayxiaotiqinviolinhouzheorjita.guitar!everyoneinthisclassplaystheviolin$everyoneintheclassplaystheguitar*!everyoneinthisclassplaystheviolin"everyoneintheclassplaystheguitar(Suetal.,2012,p.964)Giventhateitherorpatternsthesameasor,itÕsexpectedthatpairedyaomepatternsthesameashouzhe.Inotherwords,aconjunctivemeaningshouldbederivedwhenyaomeis1ThanksCaraFeldscherforherjudgementontheexamplesin(108).55inthescopeofadownwardentailingoperatorbutnotwhenthereisnodownwardentailingoperator.Asshownin(110b),whenmeigerenÔeveryoneÕscopesoveryaome,noconjunctiveinterpretationisderived.However,theexamplein(110a)showsthatyaomepatternsdi!er-entlyfromthecasesweÕveseensofarinthatitdoesnÕtderiveaconjunctiveinterpretationwhenitÕsinthescopeofmeiyourenÔnobodyÕ.Infact,thesentenceisunacceptable.(110)a.*Banclassshang,prep[mei-you-ren]not-have-personyaomeyaome1yanzouplayxiaotiqinviolinyaomeyaome2yanzouplayjita.guitar*!nobodyintheclassplaystheviolin"nobodyintheclassplaystheguitarb.Banclassshang,prep[mei-ge-ren]every-cl-personyaomeyaome1yanzouplayxiaotiqinviolinyaomeyaome2yanzouplayjita.guitar!everyoneinthisclassplaystheviolin$everyoneintheclassplaystheguitarThiscontrastbetweenhouzheandyaomecanalsobefoundwhentheyoccurwithanegationsuchasmei,meaningÔnotÕ.Thesentencein(111a)hasaconjunctivereadingwhenthenegationmeiscopesoverhouzhe,whilein(111b),thesentenceisnotacceptableandtheconjunctiveinterpretationcannotbederivedwhenyaomeisinthescopeofnegation.(111)a.Tahemeinotyongusediannaocomputerhouzheorshouji.cell-phone!hedidnÕtusecomputer"hedidnÕtusecellphoneb.*Tahemeinotyaomeyaome1yongusediannao,computeryaomeyaome2yonguseshouji.cell-phone*!hedidnÕteatrice"hedidnÕteatnoodlesAconjunctiveentailmentcanalsobelicensedwhendisjunctionappearsintheantecedentclausebutnotintheconsequentclauseofaconditional(Su&Crain,2010).Asshownin(112a),aconjunctiveinterpretationcanbederivedwhenorappearsintheantecedentclauseofconditionals.However,asillustratedin(112b),whenthedisjunctionoccursintheconsequentclauseofaconditional,theconjunctivereadingcannotbederived.56(112)a.Ifaboyboughtcakeorice-cream,thenhegotaplate.!ifaboyboughtcake,thenhegotaplate"ifaboyboughtice-cream,thenhegotaplateb.Ifaboygotaplate,thenheorderedcakeorice-cream*!ifaboygotaplate,thenheorderedcake"ifaboygotaplate,thenheorderedice-cream(Su&Crain,2010,p.190)SimilarobservationsapplytoMandarin.SpeciÞcally,whenhouzheÔorÕoccursintheantecedentclauseofaconditional,aconjunctiveentailmentisderived(Su&Crain,2010).In(113a),aconjunctiveentailmentislicensedwhenhouzheisintheantecedentclauseofaconditional.Ontheotherhand,in(113b),theconjunctivemeaningisnotavailablewhenhouzheisintheconsequentclauseofthesentence.(113)a.Ruguoifxiaonanhaiboymai-lebuy-perfdangaocakehouzheorbingjiling,ice-creamtahejiuthenna-letake-perfdiezi.plateÔIfaboyboughtcakeorice-cream,thenhegotaplate.Õ=conjunctiveb.Rugouifxiaonanhaiboyna-letake-perfdiezi,platetahejiuthenmai-lebuy-perfdangaocakehouzheorbingjiling.ice-creamÔIfaboygotaplate,thenheboughtcakeorice-cream.Õ=disjunctive(Su&Crain,2010,p.191)Interestingly,whenyaometakestheplaceofhouzheintheÞrstclauseofaconditional,theresultisdi!erent.Asillustratedin(114a),yaomedoesnÕtderiveaconjunctiveentailmentintheantecedentclauseofaconditional.Infact,thesentencein(114a)isunacceptable.In(114b),whenyaometakestheplaceofhouzheintheconsequentclause,theresultisthesameas(113b)inthatbothsentencesderiveadisjunctiveinterpretation.57(114)a.*Ruguoifxiaonanhaiboyyaomeyaome1mai-lebuy-perfdangaocakeyaomeyaome2bingjiling,ice-creamtahejiuthenna-letake-perfdiezi.plate*!Ifaboyboughtcakeorice-cream,thenhegotaplate.=conjunctiveb.Rugouifxiaonanhaiboyna-letake-perfdiezi,platetahejiuthenyaomeyaome1mai-lebuy-perfdangaocakeyaomeyaome2bingjiling.ice-creamÔIfaboygotaplate,thenheboughtcakeorice-cream.Õ=disjunctive5.2TheanalysisofthepolaritypuzzleAsdiscussedintheprevioussection,noconjunctiveentailmentcanbederivedwhennegationmeiscopesoveryaomeorwhenyaomeisintheantecedentclauseofconditionals.Infact,thesentencesareunacceptable.Whydoesyaomebehavedi!erentlyfromeitherorinenvironmentofthistype?Iarguethatitisaresultofyaomebeingapositivepolarityitem.Inthefollowing,IÕllshowthatyaomeisapositivepolarityitem.NotonlyisyaomeunabletoderiveaconjunctiveinterpretationwhenitÕsinthescopeofadownwardentailingoperatororintheantecedentclauseofaconditional,theoccurrenceofyaomeintheseenvironmentsisinfactill-formed.Negation,interrogativesandtheantecedentclauseofconditionalsareclassicnegativepolarityenvironments(Ernst,2008).Giventhefactthatyaomecannotbeinthescopeofnegationorintheantecedentclauseofconditionals,IarguethatyaomeisaPPIandcannotoccurinenvironmentswhereNPIsarelicensed.Inthefollowing,IÕllshowthattheplacementofyaomepatternsinthesamewayasotherPPIsinMandarin.Speakerorientedadverbssuchasprobably,unfortunately,andstranglyarePPIs(Ernst,2009).2EnvironmentswherePPIsareallowedandbarredareshownin(115a)and(115)2Ernst(2009)arguesthatspeakerorientedadverbsarePPIsandtheyareusuallyunacceptableinen-vironmentthatlicensesNPIs.Here,Icompareyaomewiththeseadverbsbecausetheyarebannedinthesameenvironment.However,IÕllleaveopenthequestionwhetheryaomeisspeakerorientedornot.58respectively.Inparticular,theirplacementisrestrictedundernegationasin(115b)andtheyareusuallybannedinquestionsandantecedentclausesofconditionalsasin(115c)and(115d).(115)a.George{probably/unfortunately/strangely}hasnotsoldhishouse.b.*Georgehasnot{probably/unfortunately/strangely}soldhishouse.c.*HasGeorge{probably/unfortunately/strangely}soldhishouse?d.*IfGeorgehas{probably/unfortunately/strangely}soldhishouse,thenweshouldbesuretogethisnewaddress.(Ernst,2008,p.70)AdverbssuchasdagaiÔprobablyÕ,xianranÔobviouslyÕandxingkuiÔfortunatelyÕarePPIsinMandarin(Ernst,2008).Theycanappeartotheleftofnegationsuchasmeiorbu,whichisillustratedin(116a)and(116b)respectively.(116)a.DaweiDavid{dagai/probablyxianran/obviouslyxingkui}fortunatelymeinotlai.comeÔDavidprobablydidnÕtcome./Obviously,DaviddidnÕtcome./Fortunately,DaviddidnÕtcome.Õb.DaweiDaive{dagai/probablyxianran/obviouslyxingkui}fortunatelybunotlai-le.come-perfÔDavidisprobablynotcoming./Davidisobviouslynotcoming./Fortunately,Davidisnotcoming.Õ(adaptedfromErnst,2008,p.71)However,sentencesbecomeill-formedwhentheseadverbsappearinthescopeofnegation.Thesentencesin(117a)and(117b)explicitlyshowthattheoccurrenceofdagai,xianranandxingkuiinthescopeofnegationisunacceptable.(117)a.*DaweiDavidmeinot{dagai/probablyxianran/obviouslyxingkui}fortunatelylai.come59ÔDavidprobablydidnÕtcome./Obviously,DaviddidnÕtcome./Fortunately,DaviddidnÕtcome.Õb.*DaweiDaivebunot{dagai/probablyxianran/obviouslyxingkui}fortunatelylai-le.come-perfÔDavidisprobablynotcoming./Davidisobviouslynotcoming./Fortunately,Davidisnotcoming.ÕInadditiontothescopeofnegation,theoccurrenceoftheseadverbsininterrogativesorintheantecedentclauseofaconditionalisbadaswell.Thisisillustratedin(118a)and(118b).(118)a.*DaweiDavid{dagai/probablyxianran/obviouslyxingkui}fortunatelylai-lecome-perfma?qÔHadPeter{probably/obviously/fortunately}come?Õb.*RuguoIfDaweiDavid{dagai/probablyxianran/obviouslyxingkui}fortunatelylai-le,come-perfniyoujideremembergaosutellwo.meÔRemembertotellmeifDavid{probably/obviously/fortunately}hadcome.ÕThesameresultisfoundwithyaome.SpeciÞcallyitdoesnÕtoccurinenvironmentsthatlicenseNPIs.Asillustratedin(119a),thesentencewithnegationscopingoveryaomeisill-formed.Inaddition,itcannotoccurininterrogativesasshownin(119b)orintheantecedentclauseofconditionalsasin(119c).(119)a.*MaliMarymeinotyaomeyaome1jinlai,come.inyaomeyaome2chuquget.outle.perfÔMarydidnÕteithercomeinorgetout.Õb.*MaliMaryyaomeyaome1jinlaicome.inyaomeyaome2chuquget.outleperfma?qÔDidMaryeithercomeinorgetout?Õ60c.*RugouifMaliMaryyaomeyaome1jinlaicome.inyaomeyaome2chuquget.outle,perfniyoujideremembergaosutellwo.meÔRemembertotellmeifMaryeithercameinorgotout.ÕContrarily,whenhouzhetakestheplaceofyaomeinthesesentences,theybecomegram-matical.Thiscontrastcanbeseenifwecomparethesetofsentencesin(119)tothosein(120).3Theexamplesin(120)showthathouzheisnotsensitivetoenvironmentsthatlicenseNPIs.(120)a.MaliMarymeinotjinlaicome.inhouzheorchuquget.outle.perfÔHedidnÕtcomeinorgetout.Õb.MaliMaryjinlaicome.inhouzheorchuquget.outleperfma?qÔDidMarycomeinorgetout?Õc.RugouifMaliMaryjinlaicome.inhouzheorchuquget.outle,perfniyoujideremembergaosutellwo.meÔRemembertotellmeifMarycameinorgotout.ÕInthischapter,Ishowedthatyaomeisdistinctinawaythatitissensitivetoenviron-mentsinwhichNPIsarelicensed.ThisexplainswhyyaomecannotderiveaconjunctiveentailmentlikeotherdisjunctionsinEnglishandMandarin.Althoughyaomeisabletode-3Notethathouzhein(120b)needsthehelpofquestionparticlessuchasmatoderiveaninterrogativemeaning.InMandarin,haishiÔorÕisoftenusedtoderivealternativequestions.Itisacoordinatorthatconveysthemeaningofdisjunctionandtheinterpretationofaninterrogative.In(i),haishiconveystheinterrogativemeaningwithoutthehelpofanyquestionparticles.Mandarindistinguishesdisjunctionsusedinalternativequestionsfromthoseusedindeclaratives(Erlewine,2014).Basedontheobservationsabove,itseemsthatyaomeoccursonlyindeclaratives,whilehouzheisneutralinthatitisabletoappeareitherindeclarativesorinterrogatives.iMaliMaryjinlaicome.inhaishiorchuquget.outle?perfÔDidMarycomeinorgetout?Õ61riveadisjunctivemeaninglikeotherdisjunctivecoordinators,itsdistributionisrelativelyrestrictedbecauseofitsstatusasaPPI.62CHAPTER6INTEGRATEDCONCLUSIONThepairedyaomepatternsdi!erentlyfromdisjunctivecoordinatorssuchaseitheror.Al-thoughtheybothderiveadisjunctiveinterpretation,theydonothavethesamedistribution.Asdiscussedinthisthesis,yaomeconjoinspredicatesorclauses.However,itcannotconjoinnounphrases.Theoccurrenceofyaomeimmediatelytotheleftofanominalphraseinan-swerstoaquestionisnotanexceptionofyaomeconjoiningDPs.Instead,itisapropertyofbeingananswertoaquestion.ItfollowsthatyaomeinthiscaseisnotconjoiningaDPbutFocPscontainingDPs.ThischaracteristicofyaomefurtherexplainswhythesamesentenceinMandarinisnotambiguous.TheunambiguousinterpretationresultsfromyaomenotbeingabletoconjoinDPsandgappingbeinganimpossibleoperationinMandarin.Further-more,unlikeotherdisjunctivecoordinators,yaomeissensitivetoenvironmentsthatlicenseNPIs.Thefactthatyaomecannotoccurinthescopeofnegation,interrogativesandintheantecedentclauseofconditionalsindicatesthatitisaPPI.63!APPENDIX64APPENDIX64APPENDIX64APPENDIX64APPENDIXGloss&Abbreviationareasfollows,accusativeÐACCaspectÐASPclassiÞerÐCLcopulaÐCOPdeÐDEnominativeÐNOMpasttenseÐPSTperfecttenseÐPERFpluralÐPLprepositionÐPREPprogressiveÐPRGquestionsÐQ65BIBLIOGRAPHY66BIBLIOGRAPHY66BIBLIOGRAPHYAi,RuixiRessy.2014.Topic-commentstructure,focusmovement,andgappingformation.LinguisticInquiry45(1).125Ð145.Badan,Linda&FrancescaDelGobbo.2011.OnthesyntaxoftopicandfocusinChinese.Mappingtheleftperiphery63Ð91.Crain,Stephen.2008.Theinterpretationofdisjunctioninuniversalgrammar.LanguageandSpeech51(1-2).151Ð169.denDikken,Marcel.2006.Either-ßoatandthesyntaxofco-or-dination.NaturalLanguageandLinguisticTheory24(3).689Ð749.Erlewine,MichaelYoshitaka.2014.AlternativequestionsthroughfocusalternativesinMan-darinChinese.InProceedingsofthe48thmeetingoftheChicagolinguisticsociety(cls48),221Ð234.Ernst,Thomas.2008.AdverbsandpositivepolarityinMandarinChinese.InProceedingsofthe20thNorthAmericanconferenceonChineselinguistics(naccl-20),vol.1,69Ð85.Ernst,Thomas.2009.Speaker-orientedadverbs.NaturalLanguage&LinguisticTheory27(3).497Ð544.Grano,Thomas.2012.Mandarinhenanduniversalmarkednessingradableadjectives.Nat-uralLanguage&LinguisticTheory30(2).513Ð565.Gross,M.1973.Conjonctionsdoubles:lÕexempledeni...ni.RapportdeRechercheduLADL1.1Ð17.Han,Chung-hye&MaribelRomero.2004.Thesyntaxofwhether/q...orquestions:Ellipsiscombinedwithmovement.NaturalLanguage&LinguisticTheory22(3).527Ð564.Hansell,Mark.1993.SerialverbsandcomplementconstructionsinMandarin:aclauselinkageanalysis.AdvancesinRoleandReferenceGrammar197Ð233.Holmberg,Anders.2015.Thesyntaxofyesandno.OxfordUniversityPress.Huang,C-TJames.1988.Wÿopÿaodeku`aiandChinesephrasestructure.Language64(2).274Ð311.Huang,Cheng-TehJames,Yen-huiAudreyLi&YafeiLi.2009.ThesyntaxofChinese.CambridgeUniversityPressCambridge.Johnson,Kyle.1994.Bridgingthegap.UniveristyofMassachusettsMAthesis.Johnson,Kyle.2009.Gappingisnot(vp-)ellipsis.LinguisticInquiry40(2).289Ð328.67Larson,RichardK.1985.Onthesyntaxofdisjunction-scope.NaturalLanguageandLin-guisticTheory3.217Ð264.Li,Charles&SandraThompson.1981.MandarinChinese:Afunctionalreferencegrammar.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Li,Yen-huiAudrey.2012.OrderandconstituencyinMandarinChinese,vol.19.SpringerScience&BusinessMedia.Martins,Ana.1994.Enclisis,vp-deletionandthenatureofsigma.Probus6(2-3).173Ð206.Merchant,Jason.2005.Fragmentsandellipsis.Linguisticsandphilosophy27(6).661Ð738.Mouret,Franücois.2004.ThesyntaxofFrenchconjunctiondoubling.InProceedingsfromtheannualmeetingoftheChicagolinguisticsociety,vol.402,193Ð207.ChicagoLinguisticSociety.Munn,AlanBoag.1993.Topicsinthesyntaxandsemanticsofcoordinatestructures:TheUniversityofMarylanddissertation.Paris,Marie-Claude.1979.NominalizationinMandarinChinese:themorpheneÒdeÓandtheÒshiÓ...ÒdeÓconstructions.Universit«eParis7D«epartementderechercheslinguistiques.Ross,JohnRobert.1968.Gappingandtheorderofconstituents.IndianaUniversityLin-guisticsClub.Schwarz,Bernhard.1999.Onthesyntaxofeither...or.NaturalLanguage&LinguisticTheory17(2).339Ð370.Su,YiEsther&StephenCrain.2010.DisjunctionandconditionalinchildMandarin.Cam-bridge,MA:HarvardUniversity.Su,YiEsther,PengZhou&StephenCrain.2012.DownwardentailmentinchildMandarin.Journalofchildlanguage39(05).957Ð990.Szabolcsi,Anna.2002.Hungariandisjunctionsandpositivepolarity.InApproachestoHungarian,vol.8,.Tang,Sze-Wing.2001.The(non-)existenceofgappinginChineseanditsimplicationsforthetheoryofgapping.JournalofEastAsianLinguistics10(3).201Ð224.Tang,Ting-Chi.1983.FocusingconstructionsinChinese:Cleftsentencesandpseudo-cleftsentences.StudiesinChineseSyntaxandSemanticsUniverseandScope:PresuppositionandQuantiÞcationinChinese127Ð226.Waltraud,Paul&JohnWhitman.2008.Shi...defocuscleftsinMandarinChinese.TheLinguisticReview25(3-4).413Ð451.Zhang,NiinaNing.2007.Onthecategorialissueofcoordination.LinguaetLinguistica1(1).7Ð46.68