Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Chinese Linguistics
Vol. 8:1 (2021) ► pp.1–34

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

On indefinite subjects in Mandarin

A semantic account

 | Zhejiang University
 | Zhejiang University
Published online: 1 June 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.00011.wu
Abstract
This study investigates the licensing conditions and interpretational variability of indefinite subjects in Mandarin. Against the ‘definiteness’ constraint of subject in Mandarin (Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Li, C. and S. Thompson. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), three types of indefinite subjects are identified in the subject position, but they exhibit different scope behaviors: (i) you-nominals are ambiguous between a wide scope and a narrow scope, and (ii) thetic subjects are narrow-scope taking, and (iii) ‘cardinal’ subjects are scopeless. Following Cohen, A. and N. Erteschik-Shir. (2002). Topic, focus and the interpretation of bare plurals. Natural Language Semantics 101: 125–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, we propose that the former two types of indefinite subjects are focus elements and they fall into the position of nuclear scope, where they receive an existential interpretation, and cardinal subjects are topics and they serve as restrictor to some generic operator. Moreover, the wide/narrow scope readings of you-nominals are distinguished from each other in terms of whether a topic domain is available or not, which may serve a domain restrictor to the existential quantifier bound to you-nominals (Portner, P. (2002). Topicality and (non-)specificity in Mandarin. Journal of Semantics 191: 275–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).
Article outline
  • 1.The issues
  • 2.What are the facts of indefinite subject?
    • 2.1Individual-denoting nominals with or without YOU
    • 2.2Quantity-denoting nominals
    • 2.3A unified analysis: A feature-checking approach
  • 3.Scopal behaviors of indefinite subjects
    • 3.1Scope of individual-denoting nominals with or without YOU
    • 3.2Scope of quantity-denoting nominals
  • 4.Correlating indefinite subjects with topic/focus
    • 4.1Cohen and Erteschik-Shir’s account
    • 4.2Indefinite subjects with an existential or a generic reading
  • 5.Semantics of cardinal subjects in modal sentences
    • 5.1Modal sentences with cardinal subject as generic sentences
    • 5.2Group reading and cumulativity
    • 5.3Teasing apart modality and genericity: A modal-based analysis of genericity
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • The abbreviations used in this article are enumerated as follows
  • References
References (59)
References
Beck, S., Uli Sauerland. (2000). Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 81: 349–371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to kinds in English, Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Truth conditions of generic sentences: two contrasting views. In Gregory Carlson and Jeffry Pelletier (eds), The Generic Book, 224–237. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, P. (2003). Indefinite determiner introducing definite referent: a special use of ‘yi ‘one’+classifier’ in Chinese. Lingua 1131: 1169–1184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Identifiability and definiteness. Linguistics 42(6): 1129–1184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, L.-S. L. (1991). On the Typology of wh-Questions. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 201, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, A. (2001). On the generic use of indefinite singulars. Journal of Semantics 181: 183–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, A. and N. Erteschik-Shir. (2002). Topic, focus and the interpretation of bare plurals. Natural Language Semantics 101: 125–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenberg, Y. (2007). Exceptions to generics: where vagueness, context dependence and modality interact. Journal of Semantics 24 (2): 131–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasegama, N. (2010). Thetic judgments as presentationals. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 26(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. and G. Ramchand. (1997). The stage-level/individual-level distinction and the mapping hypothesis. IN D. Willis (ed.), Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, vol 21, pp.55–83.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge. Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, Eric J. Reuland and Alice G. B. ter Meulen, (eds.), 226–253. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J., A. Y.-H. Li and Y. F. Li. (2009). The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jäger, G. (1999). Stage levels, states and the semantics of the copula, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 141: 63–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kadmon, N. and F. Landman. (1993). Any. Linguistics and Philosophy. 161: 353–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamp, H. and U. Reyle. (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiss, E. (1995). Discourse Configurational Languages. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality, IN Hans-Jurgen Eikmeyer and Hannes Rieser (eds.), Words, Worlds and Contexts. New Approaches to World Semantics. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates, IN G. Carlson and F. Pelletier (eds.), pp. 125–175.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1986). Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution. Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Plurltermen, und Aspektklassen. Doctoral dissertation, University München.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Parameterized sum individuals for plural anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 191: 555–598. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Bare NPs: kind referring, indefinites, both or neither. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 13:180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Gregory N. Carlson, ter Meulen, A., Link, G., and Chierchia, G. (1995). ‘Genericity: An introduction’. In Gregory Carlson and Francis Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, pp.1–124. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). The categorical and the thetic judgment. Foundations of Language 91:153–185.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Milsark’s generalization and categorical judgments. R. Young and Y. Zjou (eds.), SALT XIII1: 204–221. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laca, B. (1990). Generic objects: some more pieces of the puzzle. Lingua 811: 25–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landman, F. (2003). Predicate-argument mismatches and the adjectival theory of indefinites. In Martine Coene and Yves D’hulst (eds.), From NP to DP, Vol. 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases, 211–237. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Indefinites and the type of sets. Blackwell Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, T. H.-T. (1986). Studies on quantification in Chinese, Doctoral dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, C. and S. Thompson. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, X. P. (李旭平). (2020). 汉语‘有’字句和存在命题Hanyu you zi ju he cunzai mingti [On you-existentials and existential propositions in Mandarin]. 《当代语言学》Dangdai yuyanxue [Contemporary Linguistics]. 22(2): 182–198.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Y.-H. A. (1998). Argument determiner phrases and number phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 291: 693–702. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liao, W.-W. (2011). The symmetry of syntactic relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Bare numeral phrases in Mandarin and the minimalist mapping hypothesis. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 5(1): 33–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, J.-W. (2004). Choice functions and scope of existential polarity wh-phrases in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics and Philosophy 271: 451–491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Link, G. (1987). Generalized quantifiers and plurals, IN P. Gardenfors (ed.), Generalized quantifiers: linguistics and logical approaches, Reidel, Dordrecht, 151–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, F.-H. (1997). Scope and Specificity. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 251: 609–666.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names. Natural Language Semantics 2001.9(4): 335–369. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, S. (陆烁)., and H. Pan (潘海华). (2009). 汉语无定主语的语义允准分析 Hanyu wuding zhuyu de yuyi yunzhun fenxi [The semantic licensing conditions of indefinite subjects in Mandarin Chinese]. 《中国语文》 Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Languages]. (6): 528–537.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. (1999). On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 71: 79–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portner, P. (2002). Topicality and (non-)specificity in Mandarin. Journal of Semantics 191: 275–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portner, P. and K. Yabushita. (2001). Specific indefinites and the information structure theory of topics. Journal of Semantics 181: 271–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritter, E. (1988). A head-movement approach to construct-state noun phrases. Linguistics 261: 909–929. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. (2010). Counting and the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 27(3): 343–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scha, R. J. H. (1981). Distributive, collective, and cumulative quantification. In Jeroen A. G. Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Janssen and Martin B. J. Stokhof (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, 483–512. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shen, Y. (1999). Sentences with indefinite subjects and their information structures. In Baozhang, He and Wenze Hu (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Harvard University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T. D. (2001). On subject specificity and theory of syntax-semantics interface. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 101: 129–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). On economizing the theory of A-bare dependencies. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J.-R. and M. L. Zubizarreta. (1992). The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 231: 595–652.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ward, G. and E. Prince. (1991). On the topicalization of indefinite NPs. Journal of Pragmatics. 16(2): 167–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, L. J. (1997). Limitation on subjecthood of numerically quantified noun phrases: a pragmatic approach. In Liejiong Xu, (ed.), The referential properties of Chinese noun phrases, Paris: EHESS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, R. (2001). Common nouns, classifiers and quantification in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Chen, Yi-Hsun
2025. A unified semantic account of Mandarin ordinal phrases. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 26:2 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue