Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Chinese Linguistics
Vol. 6:1 (2019) ► pp.46–75

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

Q-adjectives in Mandarin and the interpretation of nominal phrases

 | National Tsing Hua University
Published online: 2 July 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.18006.hsi
Abstract
In Mandarin, predicative quantity adjectives (henceforth, Q-adjectives; e.g., duō ‘many’ and shăo ‘few ’; henceforth, predicative Q-adjectives), but not ordinary adjectives (e.g., cōngmi̇́ng ‘smart’), may influence the interpretation of the nominals they are predicates of; while the Mandarin counterpart of speaking of the students one taught, Zhangsan many can (and only can) mean that the students that Zhangsan taught are many, that of speaking of the students one taught, Zhangsan smart can only mean that Zhangsan, but not the student/s that Zhangsan taught, is/are smart. This paper is to show how this previously unnoticed contrast may be accounted for in current theories of degree syntax and semantics. The proposal is couched on Solt, S. (2015). Q-adjectives and the semantics of quantity. Journal of Semantics, 32(2):221–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar analysis of Q-adjectives, according to which measurement of cardinality is introduced via a covert functional head rather than the Q-adjectives per se. The main idea is that in Mandarin the covert functional head that introduces measurement of cardinality semantically encodes a contextually provided function from individuals to individuals. Crucially, although the content of this function is context-dependent, various syntactic and semantic factors may be at play.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Mandarin Q-adjectives and the association effect
    • 1.2The quantity vs. quality distinction
    • 1.3The association effect in a comparative
    • 1.4Not due to deletion; not due to coercion
    • 1.5Roadmap
  • 2.Locating the source of the association effect
    • 2.1The rise of the association effect
    • 2.2Predictions and seemingly loose ends
  • 3.The association effect in a comparative
    • 3.1 e-givenness and the association effect
    • 3.2Direct analysis and the association effect
  • 4.Some theoretical and empirical implications
    • 4.1The context dependency of the association effect
    • 4.2The Q-adjectives vs. ordinary adjectives
    • 4.3Predication vs. prenominal modification
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (28)
References
Barker, C. (1995). Possessive Descriptions. CSLI Publications, Standford, CA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Possessives and relational nouns. In Maieborn, C., Portner, P., and von Heusinger, K., editors, Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, volume 21, pages 1109–1130. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W. (1973). Syntax of the comparative clause construction in english. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(3):275–343.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creswell, M. (1976). The semantics of degree. In Partee, B., editor, Montague Grammar, pages 261–292. Academic Press., New York. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erlewine, M. Y. (2007). A New Syntax-Semantics for the Mandarin bi-Comparative. Master thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibson, E. and Wu, H.-H. I. (2013). Processing chinese relative clauses in context. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2):125–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hackl, M. (2000). Comparative Quantifiers. Doctoal dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, I. (2006). Little. In Gibson, M. and Howell, J., editors, Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVI, volume 161, pages 35–58. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hsieh, I.-T. C. (2015). Long-distance reflexives, blocking effects, and the structure of mandarin comparatives. Syntax, 18(1):78–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (2005). A note on the syntax of quantity in english. In Kayne, R. S., editor, Movement and Silence, pages 176–214. Oxford University Press, New York. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford ; New York. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, J.-W. (2009). Chinese comparatives and their implicational parameters. Natural Language Semantics, 17(1):1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, C.-S. L. (1996). A note on chinese comparatives. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 261:217–235.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). The chinese bi comparative. Lingua, 121(12):1767–1795. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maienborn, C. (2001). On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Lan-guage Semantics, 9(2):191–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merchant, J. (2001). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morzycki, M. (2013). Modification. Book manuscript. In preparation for the Cambridge University Press series Key Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nakanishi, K. (2007). Measurement in the nominal and verbal domains. Linguistics änd Philosophy, 30(2):235–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1997). Uniformity vs. versatility: The genitive, a case study. appendix to theo janssen (1997), compositionality. In van Benthem, J. and ter Meulen, A., editors, The Handbook of Logic and Language, pages 464–470. Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rett, J. (2008). Degree modification in natural language. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sawada, O. and Grano, T. (2011). Scale structure, coercion, and the interpretation of measure phrases in japanese. Natural Language Semantics, 19(2):191–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (2006). The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax, 9(1):67–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solt, S. (2015). Q-adjectives and the semantics of quantity. Journal of Semantics, 32(2):221–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Swart, H. (1998). Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 16(2):347–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Stechow, A. (2005). Temporal comparatives: früher ‘earlier’/später ‘later’.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wellwood, A., Hacquard, V., and Pancheva, R. (2012). Measuring and comparing individuals and events. Journal of Semantics, 29(2):207–228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xiang, M. (2005). Some topics in comparative constructions. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther
2022. The quantity adjectiveduōin Chinese and the event quantity construction. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 9:2 ► pp. 197 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