Article published In: International Journal of Chinese Linguistics
Vol. 7:1 (2020) ► pp.71–89
On the scope of quantifier phrases in Chinese passive construction
Published online: 30 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.19010.yan
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.19010.yan
Abstract
Quantifier phrases (QP) can co-occur in a single sentence, which may cause ambiguity in terms of scope relation,
viz. wide scope and narrow scope interpretations. Aoun, J. & Y.-H. A. Li. (1993). Syntax of Scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. claim that
quantifier scope ambiguity also exists in Chinese passive construction, such as yige nűren bei meige ren ma ‘a
woman was scolded by everyone’. Following Lee, T. H. (1986). Studies on Quantification in Chinese. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.’s proposal, it is argued in this
paper that the scopal relations of Chinese QPs are not purely syntactic as in Aoun & Li’s analysis, but should be determined
by the interaction between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Based on naturalistic data, it is shown that (i) Chinese QPs can be
classified into whQP, distributive-universal QP and group-denoting QP, whose semantic properties determine the scope relations
between them; (ii) in general, a QP is devoid of referentiality, yet it can acquire referentiality depending on its co-occurrence
with other QPs or contextual factors; (iii) the subject definiteness constraint in Chinese, a language-specific constraint, would
affect the interpretation of subject QPs in Chinese passive construction.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.A review of Aoun & Li (1993)
- 2.1Aoun & Li (1993)’s analysis
- 2.2Empirical evidence against Aoun & Li’s analysis
- 3.Semantic and syntactic properties of QPs
- 3.1A classification of QPs
- 3.2Passive construction in Chinese
- 4.Scope interpretations of QPs in bei construction
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
References
References (38)
Beaver, D., Francez, I. & Levinso, D. (2005). Bad subject: (Non-)canonicality and NP distribution in existentials. In E. Georgala & J. Howell (Eds.), Semantics and Linguistic Theory 151 (pp. 19–43). Ithaca: Cornell University.
Beghelli, F. & Stowell, T. (1994). The direction of quantifier movement. GLOW Newsletter (32):56–57.
(1997). Distributivity and negation: the syntax of each and every. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of Scope Taking (pp. 71–108). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bentley, D. (2013). Subject canonicality and definiteness effects in Romance there-sentences. Language, 89(4): 675–712.
Cann, R., & Wu, Y. (2011). The Bei construction in Chinese. In R. Kempson, E. Gregoromichelaki & C. Howes (Eds.), The Dynamics of Lexical Interfaces (pp. 339–380). Stanford: CSLI.
Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Chappell, H. (1986). Formal and colloquial adversity passives in standard Chinese. Linguistics (24), 1025–1052.
Givón, T. (1978). Definiteness and Referentiality, In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4 (pp. 291–330). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gundel, J. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond., E. A. Moravcsik., & J. Wirth. (Eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology (pp. 209–249). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Heim, I. (1982). The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts.
Hellan, L. (1981). On semantic scope. In F. Heny (Ed.), Ambiguities in Intensional Contexts. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Huang, J. C.-T., Li, A. Y.-H., & Li, Y. (2009). The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, J. C-T., & Liu, N. (2014). Xinxing Feidianxing Beidongshi “Bei XX” de Jufa yu Yuyi Jiegou (The syntax and semantics of the new non-canonical bei XX construction). Yuyan Kexue (Linguistic Sciences) (5): 225–241.
Keenan, E. L. (2003). The definiteness effect: Semantics or pragmatics? Natural Language Semantics, 11(2): 187–216.
Kinyalolo, K. (1990). Syntactic Dependencies and the Spec-Head Agreement Hypothesis in KiLega. Ph.D. diss, University of California, Los Angeles.
Lee, T. H. (1986). Studies on Quantification in Chinese. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Lee, T. H., Yip, V., & Wang, C. (1999). Rethinking isomorphism as a scope principle for Chinese and English. Proceedings of the Tenth North American Chinese Linguistics Conference (pp. 169–186). University of Southern California.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 457–498). New York: Academic Press.
(1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Prince, E. F. (1992). The ZPG letter: subjects, definiteness, and information status. In S. A. Thompson and W. C. Mann (Eds.), Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund Raising (pp. 295–325). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Szabolcsi, A. (1994). Quantifiers in pair-list readings and the non-uniformity of quantification. In P. Dekker & M. Stokhof (Eds.), (pp. 646–664). Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
(1997). Strategies for scope taking. In A. Szabolcsi. (Ed.), (pp. 109–154). Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Wu, Yaqing. (2000). Yinghanyu liangci xiayu de qiyi yanjiu zongshu (Review of the ambiguity of classifiers’ scope in English and Chinese). Dangdai Yuyanxue (Contemporary Linguistics) 21: 168–182.
Wu, Yicheng. (2011). Towards a dynamic typology of passives. In R. Kempson., E. Gregoromichelaki & C. Howes (Eds.), (pp. 131–162). The Dynamics of Lexical Interfaces. Stanford: CSLI.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Fang, Shaohua, Hongchen Wu & Yang Zhao
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.
