Cover not available

Article In: International Journal of Chinese Linguistics
Vol. 13:1 (2026) ► pp.38–68

Mandarin donkey conditionals

In defense of the null hypothesis

 | The Chinese University of Hong Kong
 | The Chinese University of Hong Kong
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This paper examines recent advancements in the study of donkey sentences in Mandarin. Cheng, L.-S., & Huang, C.-T. (1996). Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics, 41, 121–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar seminal work distinguishes two types of donkey conditionals — bare conditionals and ruguo-/dou-conditionals — based on an alleged complementary distribution between wh-phrases and other anaphoric forms in the consequent clause. They argue that anaphoric wh-phrases function as bound variables, whereas anaphoric pronouns are interpreted as E-type pronouns. (2015). The bound variable hierarchy and donkey anaphora in Mandarin Chinese. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 2(2), 159–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar challenge this account by demonstrating that both wh-phrases and pronouns can function as either bound variables or E-type pronouns in both types of conditionals. In response, (2020). Revisiting donkey anaphora in Mandarin Chinese: A reply to Pan and Jiang (2015). International Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 7(2), 167–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar revise their original dichotomy in an effort to accommodate various counterexamples. This paper argues that their revised account remains inadequate, thereby supporting Pan and Jiang’s null hypothesis. We also evaluate a recent proposal that treats both wh-clauses in a bare conditional as wh-questions, and show that it faces significant problems. Finally, we situate Mandarin bare conditionals in a cross-linguistic context by highlighting their similarities with correlatives.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Defending Pan and Jiang’s null hypothesis
    • 2.1Cheng and Huang’s (2020) revised account
    • 2.2Problems with Cheng and Huang’s new account
      • 2.2.1Problems with covert ruguo
      • 2.2.2Problems with the new dichotomy
      • 2.2.3Bare conditionals without jiu
      • 2.2.4Dou-conditionals with wh/pronoun alternations
      • 2.2.5The referential-universal ambiguity
    • 2.3Section summary
  • 3.Recent development: The question-based approach to bare conditionals
    • 3.1The main idea
    • 3.2Problems with the question-based approach
      • 3.2.1Interrogative adverbs
      • 3.2.2Singular-marked wh-expressions
      • 3.2.3Lack of maximality inference
      • 3.2.4The obligatory anaphoric link
      • 3.2.5Lack of wh-based free relatives in Mandarin
      • 3.2.6Cross-linguistic variations
      • 3.2.7Co-occurring NPs other than wh-expressions
    • 3.3Section summary
  • 4.A correlative perspective on bare conditionals
    • 4.1Similarities between bare conditionals and correlatives
    • 4.2Wh-based correlatives and demonstrative-based correlatives
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • The following abbreviations are used for glossing Mandarin examples in this paper
  • References
References (46)
References
Belyaev, O., & Haug, D. (2020). The genesis and typology of correlatives: Supplementary materials. Language, 96(4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, A. (2008a). Uniqueness effects in correlatives. In A. Grønn (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12 (pp. 47–65). ILOS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008b). Comparative correlatives as Anaphora to differentials. In T. Friedman & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (pp. 126–143). Linguistic Society of America. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Correlatives. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(1), 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Y. (2019). Deriving wh-correlatives in Mandarin Chinese: Wh-movement and (island) identity. In M. Asatryan, Y. Song, & A. Whitmal (Eds.), Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 101–110). GLSA Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, S. (2015). Ruguo “shei” tiaojian ju de zhaoying he jushi yanjiu [Anaphora and sentence patterns in if-who conditionals]. Yuwen Xuekan [Journal of Language and Literature Studies], 121, 10–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, L.-S., & Huang, C.-T. (1996). Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics, 41, 121–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Revisiting donkey anaphora in Mandarin Chinese: A reply to Pan and Jiang (2015). International Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 7(2), 167–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheung, C.-H. (2007). The syntax and semantics of bare conditionals in Chinese. In L. McNally & E. Puig-Waldüller (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 111 (pp. 150–164).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1995). Dynamics of meaning. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Chinese conditionals and the theory of conditionals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 9(1), 1–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dayal, V. (1996). Locality in wh-quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dekker, P. (1993). Existential disclosure. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(6), 561–588. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Demirok, Ö. (2017). Free relatives and correlatives in wh-in-situ. In A. Lamont & K. Tetzloff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 271–284). GLSA Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geach, P. (1962). Reference and generality: An examination of some medieval and modern theories. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. (1973). Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language, 10(1), 41–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Hua, D. (2000). On wh-quantification. Doctoral dissertation, City University of Hong Kong.
Huang, A. (2003). A DR-theoretic account of Chinese donkey sentences. Master’s thesis, Hunan Normal University.
Huang, Y. (2010). On the form and meaning of Chinese bare conditionals: Not just whatever. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 277–322). Mathematical Centre Tracts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1981). The national category of modality. In H. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, worlds and context (pp. 109–158). de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, A., & Shimoyama, J. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (vol. 31, pp. 1–25). Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In E. Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics of natural language (pp. 3–15). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, H. (2020). A dynamic semantics for wh-questions. Doctoral dissertation, New York University.
(2021). Mandarin wh-conditionals: A dynamic question approach. Natural Language Semantics, 291, 401–451. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, J.-W. (1996). Polarity licensing and wh-phrase quantification in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
(2020). Correlatives. In Gutzmann et al. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lipták, A. (2009). The landscape of correlatives: An empirical and analytical survey. In A. Lipták (Ed.), Correlatives cross-linguistically (pp. 1–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, M. (2016). Mandarin wh-conditionals as interrogative conditionals. In M. Moroney et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (pp. 814–835). Linguistic Society of America. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Varieties of alternatives: Focus particles and wh-expressions in Mandarin. Springer; Peking University. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, T. (2021). Chinese co-variation anaphora and English donkey sentences. Paper presented at The 8th Symposium on Recent Advances in Chinese Syntax and Semantics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Luo, Q., & Crain, S. (2011). Do Chinese wh-conditionals have relatives in other languages? Language and Linguistics, 12(4), 753–798.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pan, H., & Kuang, H. (2023). Another look at Chinese donkey sentences: A reply to Cheng & Huang (2020). In D. Deng et al. (Eds.), Dynamics in Logic and Language: Proceedings of Third Tsinghua Interdisciplinary Workshop on Logic, Language and Meaning (pp. 25–51). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pan, H., & Jiang, Y. (1997). NP interpretation and Chinese donkey sentences. Paper presented at the Workshop on Interface Strategies in Chinese: Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases, Cornell University.
(2015). The bound variable hierarchy and donkey anaphora in Mandarin Chinese. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 2(2), 159–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1987). Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jong, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Croom Helm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ren, Q., & Pan, H. (2023). The semantics of Chinese wh-phrases. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Šimík, R. (2021). Free relatives. In D. Gutzmann et al. (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T. (2008). Left periphery and how-why alternations. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 171, 83–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, G. (2006). Liang zhong tiaojian jushi de jufa yuyi jieshi [On the syntax and semantics of two types of conditionals]. Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic Sciences], 5(6), 42–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wen, B. (1997). Yingyu lüju yu hanyu de shenme…shenme ju [Donkey sentences in English and wh…wh construction in Chinese]. Xiandai Waiyu [Modern Foreign Languages], 31, 1–13.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Shenme…shenme ju: Yi zhong guanxi jiegou [A relative analysis of Mandarin wh…wh construction]. Xiandai Waiyu [Modern Foreign Languages], 821, 1–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wen, W. (2006). Ying han lüzi ju yanjiu [Studies on donkey sentences in English and Chinese]. Doctoral dissertation, Beijing Language and Culture University.
Xiang, Y. (2021). A hybrid categorial approach to question composition. Linguistics and Philosophy, 441, 587–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue