SyntacticPhrases,SyntacticCompounds,orLexicalCompounds?:AnExploration

oftheNatureandtheTheoreticalImplicationsoftheMandarinVOForms

JingGao

MPhilthesis,UniversityofOxford

April2016

1

TABLEOFCONTENTS1Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………...3

1.1FormationoftheModernChineselexicon…………………………………......41.2Definitionof“word”and“compound”…………………………………………...41.3ApplyingtheLexicalIntegrityHypothesistoChinese………………….....51.4TheVOconstructions…………………………………………………………….........7

2Literaturereview………………………………………………………………………………………82.1Chao’swork…………………………………………………………………………………82.2Li&Thompson’swork……………………………………………………………........92.3Huang’swork……………………………………………………………………………....102.4Packard’work……………………………………………………………………………...102.5Yip’swork……………………………………………………………………………………112.6Boundvs.freemorphemes…………………………………………………………...13

3Criteriaforidentification…………………………………………………………………………...143.1Phrasalcriteria…………………………………………………………………………….15

3.1.1Objecttopicalization……………………………………………………….163.1.2Ellipsis…………………………………………………………………………...173.1.3Coordination…………………………………………………………………..18

3.2Syntacticcompoundcriteria…………………………………………………………193.2.1Aspectmarking……………………………………………………………....193.2.2Objectmodification………………………………………………………...243.2.3Reduplication…………………………………………………………………24

3.3Lexicalcompoundcriteria…………………………………………………………....253.3.1Reduplication…………………………………………………………………253.3.2PhraseStructureCondition……………………………………………..25

3.4Idiomaticmeaning…………………………………………………………………….....264Acontinuum…………………………………………………………………………………………......28

4.1Gradienceandfeatures………………………………………………………………...284.2Whereonthescale……………………………………………………………………....30

4.2.1Frequency……………………………………………………………………...304.2.2Context…………………………………………………………………………..314.2.3Levelofeducation…………………………………………………………..324.2.4Summary………………………………………………………………………..32

5ModelingtheMandarinVOconstructions…………………………………………………...325.1Constructionmorphology……………………………………………………………..325.2UsingtheCMtomodeltheMandarinVOforms……………………………...34

6MandarinVOcompoundingasnounincorporation……………………………………..366.1ThenatureoftheMandarinVOcompounding…………………………….....366.2PreviousworkonincorporationinChinese…………………………………...40

6.2.1Hsu’swork……………………………………………………………………...406.3Typesofnounincorporation…………………………………………………………426.4“Subjectincorporation”andcontinuuminnounincorporation……....446.5TypesofNIinMandarin……………………………………………………………….456.6Implicationsonmorphologicaltypology………………………………………..46

7Futurework………………………………………………………………………………………………468Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………...47Selectedbibliography……………………………………………………………………………………49

2

ListofabbreviationAdj adjectiveASP aspectAUX auxiliaryBB boundboundBF boundfreeCL classifierCM constructionmorphologyFB freeboundFF freefreeGEN genitiveIA item-and-arrangementIN incorporatednounIP item-and-processLIH theLexicalIntegrityHypothesisLC LexicalcompoundNEG negationN nounNI nounincorporationO objectOM objectivemakerPSC thePhraseStructureConditionRES resultativeSC syntacticcompoundSFP sentencefinalparticleSP syntacticphraseSUF suffixV verbVO verb-objectVP verbphrase

3

1 IntroductionModernChineseMandarinhaslonghadareputationforbeingalanguage

that“doesnothavemorphology”.Thoughitindeedlackssomeofthemoresalientmorphological expressions commonly found inmany of themore-studied andbetter-understood Indo-European family members, such as grammatical casemarkersandverbaldeclension,thelanguagedisplaysanumberofmorphologicalphenomena (and/or syntacticwhen it is not quite so clear inwhich domain aparticular expression should be analyzed) that pose problems of a mostinterestingsort;andcompetentnativespeakersofChinese,likespeakersofanyotherlanguage,haveimplicitknowledgeaboutwhatrulesandconstraintsthereare and how their language follows its massive inventory of morphosyntacticrules.Forexample,Mandarinpossessesarangeofderivationalsuffixes.Oneoftheseis–hua,whichfunctionsasaverbalsuffix(somewhatsimilartotheEnglish–fy) 1 . It can follow nouns, adjectives, and verbs to create a whole list ofderivational verbs, as in [cheng-shi]-hua town-city-SUF “[city]-SUF” “urbanize”,[fu-za]-huacompound-miscellaneous-SUF“[complicated]-SUF”“complicate”,andjian-huasimplify-SUF“simplify”.Asanotherexample,Mandarinmakesactiveandextensiveuseofzero-derivation,as innide lianhong leyouGENfaceredSFP2“yourfacebecomesred”,wheretheadjectivehong“red”isconvertedintoaverbmeaning“redden”,andin[jiao-bian]rerenfancrafty-arguecausepersonannoyed“[arguinginanunreasonablemanner]annoyspeople”,wherejiao-bian“toargueunreasonably”,originallyaverb,isconvertedtoanounthatrepresentstheactionofwhattheverbembodies.

SuchphenomenaclearlyprovethatMandarinisbynomeansmorphology-deprived.3AnevenmoreintriguingphenomenonliesintheMandarinVerb-Object(VO) forms.TheVO formsareof particular interestbecause theyoften exhibitbehaviorsthatresembleaverbphrase(VP)ratherthanoneholisticmorphologicalunit,yetatthesametimeshowatightersyntactic/semanticconnectionbetweenthe constituting morphemes (the verb and the object). Consequently, in non-formalworksonChinesemorphology,mostprominentlyinteachingChineseasaforeign language (see, for example,ChineseGrammarwithoutTears, IntegratedChinese,NewPracticalChineseReader),theVOformsaregranted“word”statuswithadistinctnameli-he-ciseparate-unite-word“separableword(compound)”,reflecting theVO forms’ idiosyncrasyofhavingbothphrase-like andword-likeproperties.ThepurposeofthisthesisistoexplorethisparticularaspectofChinese

1Unlessotherwise specified, thedictionary referred to forallChinese lexemes in this thesis isOxfordFLTRPEnglish-ChineseChinese-EnglishDictionary.2“SFP”isshortfor“sentence-finalparticle”.PrevalentinallvarietiesofChinese,theseparticlesoccurattheendofasentencetoexpressmodality,register,orotherpragmaticeffects.Theyareconsidered minimal lexemes and carry no referential meaning. Most commonly seen SFPs inMandarin include a, ba, le, la, ma, ne, ou, and ya. Chao (1968: 149) describes SFPs as “inconstructionwith a preceding phrase or sentence, though phonetically closely attached to thesyllableimmediatelyprecedingit”.3 Nor does the history of Chinese present a morphology-impoverished picture. In fact, somelinguists(see,forexample,Baxter&Sagart1997,Karlgren1956)hypothesisethatChineseinitsearlierstageshadperhapsmoremorphologicalexpressionsthancontemporaryChinese.ThoughhowearlierChinesemanifests itsmorphology isoutof the scopeof this thesis, Iwould like toquickly name an example: in Classical Chinese, it is rather common to change a word’s classthrough tone modulation, some of which are preserved and are the origin of many of thepolyphonesinthemodernlanguage.

4

morphology:theindeterminacyofaVOform’sstatusasacompoundorasaverbphrase.Thisthesiswilllookthroughasubstantialnumberofexamplesanddiscussthenature,possibleexplanations,andconsequencesofthisindeterminacy.

IshallpresentindetailstheproblemstheVOformsposeformorphosyntaxinlaterpartsoftheintroduction.Beforethat,IshallfirstgiveabriefexplanationofthegenesisoftheModernChineselexicon,andwhatitmeanstosay“word”and“compound”inthisthesis.1.1 FormationoftheModernChineselexicon ModernChinese’s lexicon isderivedprimarily fromClassicalChinese. InClassicalChinese,whichisthelanguageoftheclassicliteraturefromtheendofthe Spring andAutumnperiod (5th centuryBC) through to the endof theHanDynasty(2ndcenturyAD)andwhichalsowasusedforalmostallformalwritinginChinauntil theearly20thcentury(Norman1988),wordsaremonomorphemicandmonosyllabic,with one syllable corresponding to onemorpheme and onemorphemeformingoneword(Baxter1992,Masini1993).Whilethereweresomepolysyllabicwords,theirexistencewasrare:monosyllabicwordsoverwhelminglyoutnumberedpolysyllabicwords.ButamongChinesespeakers,ClassicalChinesehasbeenlargelyreplacedbywrittenvernacularChinese(a.k.a.baihua),astyleofwritingthatissimilartomodernspokenMandarinChinese.BaihuastarteditsfastevolutionstartingfromtheQinDynasty(221BC).DuringMingandQingdynasties(1368–1912),baihuabegantobeusedextensivelyinnovels,butformalwritingcontinuedtouseclassicalChinese.Aprominentfeatureofthebaihualiteratureisits substantial use of polysyllabic words (compared with Classical Chinesewritings),and,amongthese,disyllabicwords.Inastudyofpolysyllabicwords’riseto predominance, Masini (1993) takes some excerpts from three Ming/Qingnovels – Romance of the Three Kingdoms (1321), Dream of the Red Chamber(1791),TheHeroesandHeroines(ca1860)–andcountsthattheratiobetweenmonosyllabicandpolysyllabicwordswasapproximately1:1(p.121).Dependingontheexcerptschosen,statisticscanvary.DifferentextractsfromJourneytotheWest(1592)andDreamoftheRedChamber(1791)forexample,yieldaroughratioof 7:3 for monosyllables versus polysyllables (p. 122). This ratio increaseddramatically in the literaryworkswritten after1949,where thepercentageofmonosyllabicandpolysyllabicwordswas14.2and85.8respectively(73.7%ofthelatterbeingdisyllabic)(p.121).1.2 Definitionof“word”and“compound” Thelexiconencompasseshuman’sknowledgeofwords.Yet,whatexactlyis“word”?Identifying“word”hasneverbeeneasy.Manymorphologicaltextbooksdevoteanentirechaptertoexplainingwhat“word”is.Matthews(1991:208)thusremarkswhenhebeginshissection“Whatarewords?”:“therehavebeenmanydefinitionsoftheword,andifanyhadbeensuccessfulIwouldhavegivenitlongago,insteadofdodgingtheissueuntilnow.”Linguistsrecognizethat“word”hasassociated with it a variety of features: phonological features, grammaticalfeatures, semantic features, among others. Attempts have thus been made toidentify “word” using a combination of lists of phonological, grammatical, andsemanticcriteria,asreflectedinWells(1947:99):“becauseoftheirinsufficiency,thephonemiccriteriaofawordmustbesupplemented,foreveryornearlyeverylanguage,bycriteriaofthesecondkind…thegrammatical.”

5

Butitisnotthecasethatphonologicalcriteriaandgrammaticalcriteria(orother criteria) always coincide and map onto an identical unit. Combiningdifferentlistsofcriteriathus“lead(s)toconflictsandambiguities”(Dixon2010:2).Recentlinguisticworksacknowledgesuchaproblem,anddecidethat“(the)bestpracticeisnottotrytocombinecriteriaofdifferenttypes,buttoapplythemseparately and then compare the results” (ibid.). That is, we should draw onphonological principles to determine only a “phonological word”, andgrammaticalprinciplesa“grammaticalword”.

InAronoff and Fudeman (2011), a “phonologicalword” is defined as “astringofsoundsthatbehavesasaunitforcertainkindsofphonologicalprocesses,especiallystressoraccent”.Yet,witha“phonological”definition,wemighteasilyconfusesomephraseswithwords,asmultiplewordsareoftencollapsedtogetherintoalargepronunciationunitinactualspeechandaffectshowstress/accentisassigned.Inaddition,mythesisisfocusedonthemorphosyntacticpropertiesofwordforms.Thus“phonologicalword”willnotbethedefinitionofwordIadoptforthisthesis.

Asyntacticwordisaformthatcantakeup,independently,asyntacticslot.Intreerepresentations,asyntacticwordisoftendesignatedasX0.AccordingtoPackard (2000: 12), syntactic word might be “the most current linguisticcharacterizationofthenotion‘word’”.Inthisthesis,alotofmydiscussionswillcenteronhowmuchsyntacticfreedomanelementhas,whatsyntacticroleitcantakeorproject,etc.,andIexamine“wordhood”primarilybylookingathowaformbehavesinalargerphraseand/orasentencesyntactically.“Syntacticword”willbemyprimaryreferencewhenItalkaboutwords. A morphological word is usually understood as the result of a word-formationrule(p.11).Thisunderstandingishelpfultothenotionofcompounds,which, by definition, are derived from some formation process. Di Sciullo andWilliams(inPackard2000:11)describemorphologicalwordsas“thesetofitemscomprisingmorphemesandtheoutputoftherulesofmorphemecombination.”TheconceptofmorphologicalwordcanbeveryusefulforstudyingChinesewords,asthemajorityoftheMandarinwordsarepolymorphemicandMandarinoperatesvariousderivationalrules(cf.section1).However,inthisthesisIexaminewordsbylookingattheirsyntacticbehaviors. Aswith“word”,thereisnosingledefinitionof“compound”.Onethingtokeepinmind,however,isthatacompoundisalexeme.InMinkova&Stockwell’s(2009)studyonEnglishwords,compoundsaredividedintosyntacticcompoundsandlexicalcompounds.Booij(2010)alsodividescompoundsintosyntacticandlexicalcompoundsinhisdiscussionofDutch.Syntacticcompoundisaconvenientintermediatestagebetweensyntacticphrasesand lexicalcompounds;syntacticphrasesshowconsiderableflexibilityinmanipulatingsyntacticroles,whilelexicalcompoundsexhibitlittlesyntacticfreedom.Inthisthesis,Ialsomakeadistinctionbetweensyntacticcompoundsandlexicalcompounds,whichwillprovetobeveryprofitablefordiscussionsontheVOforms.Inmanyearlierworks,however,nocleardistinctionisdrawnbetweensyntacticcompoundsandlexicalcompounds,andlinguisticconstructsareroughlydividedintowordsandphrases.Thus,whenIrefertoapreviousworkwhichdoesnotspecifywhichtypeofcompoundisbeingdiscussed,Itakeits“compound”aslexicalcompound.1.3 ApplyingtheLexicalIntegrityHypothesistoChinese

6

In the generative tradition, the opacity of the morphological realm tooperationsofsyntaxisphrasedastheLexicalIntegrityHypothesis(LIH):syntactictransformationsarenot applicable toword-internal structures (Aronoff2012).Forexample,weknowthatgreenhouse isonewordrathera jointstringof twoseparatewords,because*averygreenhouseisnonsensical,andagreenandbluehousemeanssomethingcompletelydifferent(examplefromAronoff2012).TheLIH isverymuch likelyapplicablecross-linguistically,andhasbeenusedasanimportanttooltodeterminewordhoodinmanylanguages(cf.DutchexamplesinBooij2004).

TheLIHalsoholdsinChinesecompounding.Allformsofcompounds,withtheexceptionoftheVOforms,areshowntofollowtheLIH.Examplesfromfourdifferent compound categories are presented below to demonstrate the LIH’sgeneralapplicabilityinChinese.Theexamplesare:(1)lü-shilaw-teacher“lawyer”andyi-shimedicine-teacher“physician”([NN]N);(2)jie-juesolve-execute“solve”([VV]V); (3) chang-zhu often-live “permanently reside” ([AdvV]V); (4) tong-kusad-painful “painful” ([Adj Adj]Adj) and tong-kuai sad-happy “satisfying” ([AdjAdj]Adj).

(1)a. Lisishiyige[lü-shi]jian[yi-shi]

LisiAUXoneCLlaw-teacherandmedicine-teacher“Lisiisalawyerandphysician.”

b. *Lisishiyige[[lü-jian-yi]-shi]

*LisiAUXoneCLlaw-and-heal-teacher

(examplesadaptedfromHandbookofChineseLinguistics)

(2)a. Lisi[jie-jue] lezhege[wen-ti] Lisisolve-executeASPthisCLAask-problem “Lisisolvedthisproblem.”b. *Lisi[jie-le-jue] zhege[wen-ti] *Lisisolve-ASP-executethisCLAask-problem(3)a. wo[chang-zhu]zai[ying-guo] Ioften-liveinEngland-country IresideinBritain.b. *wohenchang-zhuzai[ying-guo] *Iveryoften-liveinEngland-country(4)a. xie[lun-wen]rangwo[tong-ku]bing[tong-kuai]zhe writediscuss-essayletIsad-painfulandsad-happyASP “Writingmythesisisbothdistressingandgratifying.”b. *xie[lun-wen]rangwo[tong[ku-bing-kuai]]zhe *writediscuss-essayletIsadpainful-and-happyASP

7

Examples (1)-(4) suggest that the LIHholds universally in Chinese. If ithappensthatacompoundwordcanbreaktheLIH,itismuchmorelikelythatthecompoundisnotfullylexicalizedandthusstillmaintainssomesyntacticfreedom,ratherthanthattheLIHcouldbelesseffectivetocertainwordtype/word.Ifweclaimthelatter,wewouldthenneedtoexplainwhyitisthattheLIHisrigoroustoallotherwordtypes/wordsbutsuddenlylosesitsrigorundersomecircumstance.

It might be helpful to make an additional note here that in works onChinesemorphology(andinthisthesisaswell),notationssuchas“NN”and“VV”donotrepresentanagglutinationofanytwonouns/verbs.Averbcancomprisean indefinitenumberofmorphemes,oneormore thanone. “V” in“VV”,on theotherhand,referstojustoneverbalmorpheme.“VV”thenrepresentsacompoundwhichiscomposedoftwomorphemesbothoftheverbformclass;eachofthetwomorphemesmightbeeitherfreeorbound,andmayormaynotstandasawordalone.

1.4 TheVOforms

Inthisthesis,theterms“VOforms”,“VOconstructions”,and“VOstructures”are used neutrally as umbrella terms to refer to any type of “verb + object”combination;theyhavenoimplicationsforwhetheranindividual“verb+object”combinationisaphraseoracompound.Ichoosetousethetermsinsuchawaybecausethisisindeedhowtheyareusedinlinguisticsstudyingeneral:wehavebothmorphologicalformsandsyntacticforms,morphologicalconstructionsandsyntacticconstructions,morphologystructuresandsyntacticstructures.

Thisclearlyisnotthecaseinpreviousdiscussions.Inhis1968workforexample,Chaouses“VOconstructions”todenoteonlysyntacticVPphrases.Unlessquotingapreviouswork,Ishalluse“constructions”,“forms”,“structures”ascoverterms,andaVOformislabeled“phrase”or“compound”onlywhenitsstatusasaphraseorasacompoundisconfirmed(inthecontextinwhichitappears).

AVOformconsistsofaverbandanobject-likeNP,bothcontributingtothemeaningofthecompoundstructure.ModernChineseislargelyanSVOlanguage,andtheVOformreflectsthiswordorder:themorphemeontheleftisoftheformclassverb, themorphemeon the right isof the formclassnoun.VO formsaremostlybimorphemicanddisyllabic.CasesofmultimorphemicandmultisyllabicVOformssometimesoccur(e.g.,tiao-[shan-yang] jump-goat“playleapfrog”),aswithothertypesofcompounds(e.g.,[lian-he]-guojoint-nation“UnitedNations”,an[AdjN]Ncompound).ExamplesofVOformsaregivenbelowtodemonstratethiscompoundstructure:

tiao-wu跳舞 jump-dance“todance”chi-fan吃饭 eat-meal“toeat”sheng-bing生病 grow-disease“togetill”

WhiletheVOconstructiontakesontheformofacompoundverb,itoften

maintains some syntactic freedom and exhibits phrase behaviors. Take, forexample,theVOformcao-xincarry-heart“toconcern”.

(5) Lisihencao-xinzhejianshi

Lisimuchcarry-heartthisCLmatter“Lisiconcernedhimselfwiththismatter.”

8

(6) Lisiweizhejianshicaoleyi-bei-zixin

LisiforthisCLmattercarryASPone-lifetime-SUFheart“Lisispenthiswholelifetimeworryingaboutthismatter.”

In the example of the VV compound jie-jue in sentence (2a), the aspectmarker –le can only follow jie-jue; when it separates the two morphemesconstituting the compound, as in (2b), the result becomesungrammatical. Theinseparabilityoftheconstitutingmorphemessuggeststhatthetwomorphemesform a holistic unit, a lexical compound which is inaccessible to syntacticmovement per the LIH. This is not the case with cao-xin. In (6), the twoconstitutingmorphemescaoandxinareseparatednotonlybyanaspectmarker,but also by a time modifier yi-bei-zi. Yet the resulting sentence is completelygrammatical.Itmaythusbeverytemptingtoclaimthatcao-xin,unlikejie-jue,isnotusedasacompound,butasaverbphrase.However,in(5)cao-xinshowswordpropertiesandfunctionsasoneholistictransitiveverb,followedbyanobjectzhejianshi.Itisnotpossibletointerpretthissentencestructureastwoobjects,xinandzhe jianshi, followingoneverbcao,because itwouldbeungrammatical tohave a direct object following a verb and then an indirect object immediatelyfollowingthedirectobject.Compare,forexample,thetwodifferentwaysofusingxie-xinwrite-letter“writealetter”:(7)a. wohuixiexingeita Iwillwritelettertohim “I’llwritehimaletter.”b. *wohuixiexinta IwillwriteletterhimTheVOformsthusposeaseriousproblemtothestudyofsyntaxandmorphology:theyexhibitbothwordandphrasebehaviors.2 Literaturereview

TheindeterminacyofaVOform’sword/phrasestatusnaturallysuggeststhreepossibilities: (a) aVO form is stored in speakers’ lexiconas a (syntactic)word (i.e., a lexical compound), but is analyzed as a phrase under somecircumstances;(b)aVOformisasyntacticphrasebutislexicalizedundersomecondition;(c)aVOformisstoredinspeakers’lexiconbothasacompoundandasaphrase.Allthreepossibilitieshavebeenexploredbypreviouslinguistsandtheirpositionsvary.2.1 Chao’swork

The first modern linguistic study on the problems of the Mandarin VOforms started with Chao (1968). In his seminal work, Chao gives a detaileddiscussionon“VOcompounds”.AccordingtoChao,aVOformachieveswordhoodstatus under one or more of the following conditions: (a) at least one of theconstituting morphemes is bound; (b) the object is in neutral tone; (c) thecompoundisexocentric;(d)thecompoundhas“lexicality”,i.e.,themeaningofthecompoundisspecialized;and(e)theconstitutingmorphemesareinseparable.

9

Particularlyinterestingamongtheseiscriterion(b),asitisaphonologicalcriterion.Chao’sexamplesofVOcompoundsdefinedbyneutraltoneontheobjectincludexiu-xing cultivate-conduct “topracticeBuddhismorTaoism”andde-zuiget-offense“tooffend”.Ipersonallyfindtheseexamplestobeveryunconvincing,asisthiscriterion,becauseMandarinspeakersnowadayspronouncethexinginxiu-xingandzuiinde-zuijustinthesamewaytheypronouncethesemorphemesindependently.SinceChao’swritingisfromthe1970sandtheChineselanguageunderwentsomemajorchange(Mandarinasthestandardnationallanguagedidnotcomeintobeinguntil1932followingtheNewCultureMovementandcametobepopularized in thenext fourdecades), it couldbe verypossible thatChao’sdiscussionsonthelanguage’sphonologyarelessrelevantthanhisdiscussionsonmorphosyntax.

Inadditiontothefivecriteria,Chaoalsodiscussesthepotentialityofusing“frequency of association” as a criterion for determiningwordhood, thoughhedoes not place it along with the five criteria presented above. In discussing“frequencyofassociation”,ChaomakesthepointthatVOformsthatoccurmorefrequentlysuchasfang-xindrop-mind“torelax”tendtolexicalizeaswords.

WhatisspecialaboutChao’sworkisthathesuggestsathereisadegreeof“wordhood”/“phrasehood”amongtheVOforms.OnthecriterionoftheseparationoftheverbandobjectintheVOform,Chaopositsfive“degrees”ofseparability(1968:426),anddeemstheVOformsthatareleastseparabletobethemostword-like.Intheorderofincreasingseparabilityandhencedecreasing“wordhood”andincreasing“phrasehood”,Chaopositsthefollowing:(a)“solid”VOformsthatare“trulyinseparable”(e.g.,yan-shiloathe-world“tobeworld-weary”);(b)VOformsthatadmitsuffixesandcomplementstotheverb(e.g.,zu-georganize-cabinet“toorganize a cabinet” and zu-le-ge organize-ASP-cabinet “to have organized acabinet”);(c)VOformsthatadmitmodifierstotheobject(e.g.,zhu-yipour-mind“topayattention”andzhu-[yi-dian]-yipour-a-little-mind“topayalittleattention”);(d)VOformsthatallowinversionoftheverbandobject;and(e)VOformsthatallowtheseparationoftheverbandobjectinquestionsandanswers.However,Chaodoesnotspecifywhyhechoosestorankthefivedegreesintheparticularorderhegives.2.2. Li&Thompson’swork Li&Thompson(1981:73-81)generallyfollowChao’scriteriabutexcludeChao’sneutraltonecriterion.TheyalsogiveanexplicitdiscussiononthecriterionthatVOwordsusuallydonottakedirectobjects(pp.76-77).Li&Thompsonusethe word ge-ming remove-mandate “to revolutionize” as an example of a VOcompoundasitsatisfiesthefollowingcriteria:it(a)hasaboundmorphemege;(b)hasanon-compositionalmeaning;and(c)allowsnothingtoinsertin-betweenthetwoconstitutingmorphemes.

Li & Thompson seem to hold the view that all VO forms should berecognized as compounds, but the VO-type compound is different from othertypes in that the vast majority of the VO compounds are separable, and howseparableeachVOcompoundisissubjecttoindividualexamination(p.75).WhatismostsignificantaboutLi&Thompson’swork,Ithink,isthattheyacknowledgethediachronicdevelopmentofChinesethattheVOindeterminacyencapsulates.SincemostVOcompoundscomefromsyntacticphrasesinClassicalChinese,theirsimultaneously being compounds and phrases reflect a gradual lexicalization

10

process:phrasesbecomeincreasinglymoreinseparablemorphosyntacticallyandmore idiomatic inmeaningover time (p.80).Becausediachronic change takestime to show its full effect, Li&Thompson suggest that changes in the forms’morphosyntacticandsemanticpropertiescannotbediscrete.Ononeendofthechangeprocesswefindphrase(withfeaturesofseparabilityandcompositionality)and on the other endwe find compounds (with features of inseparability andidiomaticity). Furthermore, Li & Thompson correctly note that the degree ofdevelopment is different in different VO compounds, and how separable andidiomatic any particular VO compound is cannot be predicted and has to belearnedindividually(ibid.).2.3 Huang’swork Huang(1984)challengesallfiveofChao’scriteria.First,Huangsinglesoutone criterion out of Chao’s criteria (a), (b), (c), and (e): the Lexical IntegrityHypothesis.Inessence,HuangtakesanyactthatseparatesthetwoconstitutingmorphemesofaVOformasanindicationofphrasehood.Huang(pp.62-66)alsoexcludescompositionalityofmeaningasausefulcriterionforidentifyingwords,since, he argues, there are plenty of examples of idiomatic phrases (Huang’sexample:guayang-tou,maigou-rouhanggoat-head, selldog-meat “tobaitandswitch”). Huang’ssolution(pp.68-69)totheVOproblemisthatsuchforms“haveadualstatus,eitheraswordsorasphrases…determinedbyindependentprinciplesofgrammarandbythecontextofitsoccurrence.”The“contextofoccurrence”thatHuangparticularlyisreferringtoinvolvesanobjectfollowingtheVOform,whichHuangterms“thePhraseStructureCondition”(PSC)(p.54).Essentially,thePSCstates that when a VO form is followed by an object, it is then used as onecompound,asthePSCdoesnotallowaverbtobefollowedbytwoobjects.Ontheotherhand,whentheVOformisnotfollowedbyanobject,thePSCdoesnotapply,andtheVOformmakesaphrase.Later linguists(e.g.,Dai1997,Packard2000)largelyacceptthevalidityofthePSC.However,theyfindHuang’sparticularuseofthePSCtoostrict,asthereisnoreasontoclaimthataVOformisabsolutelynotacompoundifitappearssentence-finally(andthusnotbeingfollowedbyanobject),noristhereanyreasontoclaimthataVOformcannotbeacompoundwhenitappearsinthemiddleofasentenceandisnotfollowedbyadirectobject. 2.4 Packard’swork FollowingHuang,Packardgivesthreecriteriafordeterminingwordstatus,“any of which is independently sufficient to indicate wordhood”: (a) (adaptedfromHuang’sPSC:)whentheVOformmaybefollowedbyanobject;(b)whenoneoftheconstitutingmorphemesisaboundmorpheme;and(c),whenthemeaningof the VO form is specialized (2000: 118). Along with the wordhood criteria,Packardgivetwophrasecriteria:aVOformisasyntacticphrasewhenitsobjectis(a)modified(e.g.,byexpressionsoftimeorquantification)or(b)moved(e.g.,viatopicalization)(ibid.).

PackardmakesaspecialnotethathehasnotincludedthemodificationoftheVOverbbyaspectmarkerssuchas–leand–guoasanindicationofsyntacticidentity because Packard considers thesemorphemes to be “part of thewordformation component rather thanpart of syntaxbecause they are examplesofword-internalinflectionalmarkingthatoperatesontheheadoftheVOword,viz.,

11

the verb.” (p. 119) This claim, however, seems to be rather Indo-Europeancentered;itdoesn’tapplywellinChinese.AnimmediateproblemPackardwouldneedtoexplainiswhyitisthecasethatsomeaspectmarkerscanoperateontheheadofaVOformwhilesomeothermarkerscannotoperateontheheadofthesameVO form.Forexample,chu-guo-chai exit-ASP-errand “havebeenawayonbusiness” and chuo-chai-le exit-errand-ASP “have gone away on business” areboth grammatical, but *chu-le-chai exit-ASP-errand and *chu-chai-guo exit-errand-ASParenot.Ishallgivemoredetailsinsection3.2.1toclarifywhyIamagainsttreatingtheV-ASP-Oformasword-internalinflection. PackardalsosuggeststhattheVOformlexicalizationprocessiscruciallylinkedwiththeprocessof“solidifying”morphemes(2000:115).HethinksthatthemoreoftentimesaVOformisusedasaword,toagreaterextentwilltheVOformbelexicalized,andtheconstitutingmorphemesofaVOformwill,eventually,becomeboundmorphemes.Yet,evenwhen“theVOformhasbeenlexicalizedtothe point where the verb or object are not free morphemes and is thereforetechnically not available as syntactic phrase”, the VO form is “still subject toreanalysisasaphrase,becausevirtuallyanytwo-syllableverbinMandarinmaybereanalyzedasalimited,‘ersatz’VOsyntacticphrasalstructure.”TheexamplePackardusestodemonstratethisisthereanalysisofthewordyou-mo,“tease”,aphoneticborrowingof theEnglishword “humor” (2000:116).Thisword goesthroughreanalysisinthefollowingsentences(fromHuang1984:65).(8) wochang-changyou-mota Ioften-oftenteasehe “Ioftenteasehim.”(9) woyou-letayimo Ihu-ASPheone-mour “Iteasedhimonce.” (lit.“Ihu-edhimone–mour”)

Like Huang, Packard (2000: 115) claims that VO forms are capable ofhavingdualstatusesasbothwordsandphrases.But,contrarytoHuang,PackardproposesthattheunderlyingidentityofallVOformsis“aswords(italicsPackard’s)listedinthelexicon”,andthat“onceaVOformattainswordstatus, it isalwayslistedasaword,eventhoughitmaystilloccurinsyntaxasaVOphrase.”2.5 Yip’swork

ThoughnotfocusedontheproblemsoftheVOforms,Yip’swork(2002:90-93)givesa clearpresentationof thegeneralpictureof the syntacticversuslexical analyses ofMandarin compound forms, some of which are particularlyrelevanttotheVOforms.Yipemphasizesthesyntacticoriginsofmanycompounds,and subsequently claims that “[t]he origin of themodernChinese lexicon thusgrantsthepossibilityofanalyzingtheinternalcompositionofaChinesewordinsyntactic terms” (2000: 90). Yip also uses a quote from Selkirk (1982: 2) tosupport his view, who proposes that Chinese word structure “has the samegeneralformalpropertiesassyntacticstructure”,andis,moreover,“generatedbythesamesortofrulesystem.”

12

Suchacknowledgementdoesnotmeanthatwemay“equateasyntacticallyorienteddi-(orpoly-)syllabiclexemewithafreesyntacticconstructionofsimilararrangementormotivation”(Yip2000:90),however.Infact,asBaxterandSagart(1998) notes, the differences between words and their paraphrastic syntacticphrasesaremanifold.Yip(2000:90-92)compilesfivetypesofdifferences.

First,anestablished lexemehasnon-compositionalmeaning,or, inYip’swords, it is “semantically non-additive of its constituent elements” (p. 90).ExamplesYipusestosupportthisclaimincludethecompoundci-yanpierce-eye“offensive to theeye”andthe idiomchi-niu-piblow-ox-hide“tobrag,boast”. Inneitherofthetwoisthemeaningoftheholisticlexemesynchronicallyrelatabletothesemanticsoftheindividualconstitutingmorphemes.Yipnotesthatinsomecases this non-compositionality comes from “meaning retrieved from implicitculturalunderpinnings”being“addedontotheexplicitliteralmeanings”(p.91).Forexample,lang-yanwolf-smokeisnotamere“wolfsmoke”,but“smokefromburningwolves’dungatnorthernborderpostsinancientChinatosignalalarmofforeign attack” (p. 91). In other cases, a lexeme’s meaning may “deviatedramatically(andevenmisleadingly)”fromitsliteralmeaning.Examplesincludewawa-yubaby-fish“salamander”,whichcertainlyisnotafishnorlookslikeone.Regardlessofwhichcaseitis,thepointis:speakers“rightlyregistertheintendedmeaningsoftheseestablishedwordsintheirmindsasholisticunits”(p.91).

Second, when a morpheme has two meanings (we may also take theapproachthattheyaretwohomomorphicmorphemes),oneofwhichreferstoabroader,moregeneralcategory,andtheothertoamorespecifictypeunderthegeneral category, the syntactic phrase usually chooses the narrower meaningmorpheme, and the compound, though sharing the same form, takes on thebroader meaning 4 (p. 91). In Yip’s words, the morpheme in a morphologicalconstructionis“tocaterfortheoreticallyendlesscasesofasimilarnature(sic)”,whereasthemorphemeinasyntacticconstructionis“onlyusedtospecifyaone-offcase”(p.91).Forexample,thecompoundchi-faneat-meal“toeatameal”referstotheeatingofallmealsalike,regardlessofwhatoneactuallyeats,beitnoodles,rice,pizza,orporridge,etc.;whereasthephrasechifan“toeatcookedrice”refersparticularlytoanactofeatingcookedriceasopposedtootherpossibilitiessuchaschimianeatnoodles“toeatnoodles”5.Similarly,thecompoundmai-caibuy-dish means “to buy (any kind of) non-staple food (particularly food which isusuallyeatentogowithrice)”,whilethephrasemaicaimeans“tobuyvegetables”,asopposedtobuyingmeat,chicken,etc.

Third,acompounddoesnotnecessarilytakeonthewordclassofanyoneofitsconstitutingmorphemes/lexemes,whileasyntacticphrasealwaysreflectsthe word class of one of its constituents (p. 91). Yip’s examples include he-liconform with-reason (V N) “be reasonable” (adjective), xing-wei do-do (V V)“behavior”(noun),andwu-sesubstance-color(NN)“toseekout(qualifiedpeople)”(verb).

Fourth,acompoundwhichshowsaninternalstructureofacertaintypeofsyntacticmake-updoesnotnecessarilyfollowthesamegrammaticalrulesasthe

4Anotherwayoflookingatitwouldbetothinkthatthemeaninggetsbroadenedinthecompound(cf.discussionsonintensionalversusextensionalmeaningsinsection6).5Hyphenisherebyusedonlytoexplicitlyindicatewordstatus;thereisnodifferentiationinformsatallinactualwriting.

13

correspondingsyntacticphrase(p.91).Thisobservationisparticularlyrecordedfor the VO constructions. Yip notices that compound verbs which are “intra-lexicallyalreadyofa ‘verb+object’structure”(p.92)suchasdong-yuanmove-members“tomobilize”andfu-zeshoulder-responsibility“beresponsiblefor”are,nevertheless, commonlyused as transitive verbs to formverbphrases such asdong-yuan qun-zhong “to mobilize the masses” and fu-ze zhe jian shi “beresponsibleforthismatter”6.

Finally,Yipnotesthat“anestablishedlexemeiscapableofmovingbetweendifferentorevencontradictorysemanticandsyntacticplanesorlevels”(p.92).Forexample,gumeans“buy”ingu-jiu“buywine”but“sell”inshi-jia-er-gu“waittosellatagoodprice”,nameans“accept”incai-na“toadopt”but“pay”inna-shui“paytaxes”,andqianrefersto“past”inqian-renprevious-person“predecessor”but“future”inqian-jingfuture-situation“prospect”.This,Yipclaims,alsoexplains“theseemingirrationalitybuilt intosuchfixedyetcontradictorypairsofwordsandsetexpressions”(p.92),asseen in[jiu-huo]-cherescue-fire-car“firetruck”versus[mie-huo]-qi[distinguish-fire]-equipment“fireextinguisher”.2.6 Boundvs.freemorphemes

Inalltheworks,itisagreedthattheproblemofindeterminacyonlyoccurswhenatleastoneofthemorphemesoftherelevantVOformisbound.Thiscouldseemtrueintuitivelyandevenratherself-explaining:whenbothmorphemesarefree,wecanalwaysmaneuveraroundtheVOform’sconstitutingmorphemessoastoapplysyntacticmovement.However,mydatahaveconvincedmethatthissimplyisnottrue.ThereareexamplesofVOformsthataremadeupoftwofreemorphemesbutnonethelessarealwaysusedaslexicalcompounds.Itisjustnotpossibletoapplysyntactictransformationstothem.Oneexampleischeng-gongaccomplish-success “to succeed”. Except in contextswhich simulate a ClassicalChinesefeel,orinsetphraseswhichareinheritedfromClassicalChinese,cheng-gongisalwaysaninseparablebimorphemiccompound.

(10)a.wocheng-gong guo

Iaccomplish-achievementASP“I(once)succeeded.”

b.*wocheng-guo-gong(11)a.nicheng-gonglema?

youaccomplish-achievementASPSFP “Didyousucceed?”b.*gong,nichenglemac. *nigongchenglema(12)((a),(c),and(e)areallsetphrasesfromClassicalChinese)6Inearlierdiscussions(cf.section3.2),Italkaboutusing“beingfollowedbyanobject”asawordcriterion.Thisproblemwillbefurthercommentedoninsection4.3,inwhichIarguethiscriterionworksbecausetherearedifferenttypesofnounincorporation,oneofwhichproducestransitiveverbs,andsomeoftheMandarinVOcompoundsareofsuchtype.

14

a.gong-cheng-bu-ju achievement-accomplish-NEG-claim “claimnocreditforone’smeritoriousservice”b.*cheng-gong-bu-juc. gong-cheng-ming-jiu achievement-accomplish-fame-attain “achievesuccessandwinrecognition”d.*cheng-gong-ming-jiue.gong-cheng-shen-tui achievement-accomplish-oneself-withdraw “retireoncemissionhasbeencompleted”f. *cheng-gong-shen-tui

ItisalsoagreeduniversallythattheVOindeterminacyonlyhappenswithdisyllabicVOforms,otherwisespeakerswillreadilyrecognizethegivenVOformasaphrase.ThisprobablyhasalottodowithMandarin’sgeneralpreferencefordisyllabicwords,whichIshalldiscussinmoredetailsinsection3.3.3 Criteriaforidentification

Asshownin literaturereview,previousanalyseshaveall takenabinaryapproach: criteria have been proposed for identifying VO compounds and VOphrases.Theactualpicture,however,ismorecomplicatedthanadichotomy.ThiscomplexityisalsonotedbyChao(1968:426-8).Thoughhefollowsthe“compoundvs.phrase”path,hesuggeststhatthereisadegreeof“wordhood”/“phrasehood”amongtheVOforms.Thereare,Chaoposits(p.426),five“degrees”ofseparability,and the VO forms that are least separable are themost word-like (a detailedaccount on Chao’s position is given in section 2.1). The findings of my ownanalyses converge to Chao’s insights to some extent. Many VO forms can begenericallyclassifiedas“compounds”or“phrases”accordingtoanysetofcriteriadiscussedintheliterature,butevenfortwoVOformswhicharebothconsidered“compounds”,howcloselyeachresemblesawordmaydiffergreatly.Forexample,chu-ban (FB) emit-edition “publish” and shang-feng (FB) injure-disease.causing.element“catchacold”arebothconsideredtobe“compounds”byPackard’s criterion of specialized meaning, yet they exhibit hugely divergingbehaviors which suggest that they are better thought of as different types ofcompounds:

(13)a.Lisichu-banguoliangbenshu Lisiemit-editionASPtwoCLbook

“lisihaspublishedtwobooks.”

b.*lisichu-guo-banliangbenshuc. *lisichu-guo-ban

15

(14) lisishang-guo-feng lisiinjure-ASP-disease.causing.element “lisicaughtacold.”

I shall argue that aMandarinVO formmay take on one ormore of the

following three identities: aVOphrase (aVP), a syntactic compound (SC),oralexical compound (LC). Asmentioned in section 1.2, syntactic compound is anintermediate stage between phrase and lexical compound: strong cohesion isformed between its constituents, yet it remains subject to certain syntacticmovement.Thistripartiteapproachdosenotequatetosayingthattherearethreeclear-cut categories and a VO form is always assigned to one of the threecategories without any ambiguity. Rather, the three categories are betterunderstood as constituting a continuum,with “phrase” at one end and “lexicalcompound”attheother.Eachofthecategoriesitselfismorelikeaclinethanlikearigorouscutting-pointonthecontinuum. ItisveryimportanttonotethataVOformhasonlyoneidentityatonetime.EverytimeaVOformisused,itisusedeitherasalexicalcompound,orasyntacticcompound,or aVPphrase; ambiguityof formstatusdoesnot exist in anyonesingleutterance.Thus,theindeterminacy,takeagaintheexampleofcao-xincarry-heart“toconcern”,comesfromthefactthatitisusedasalexicalcompoundin(5)butmovesawayfrombeingalexicalcompoundin(6).Inotherwords,nomatterwhat status(es) a VO form is capable of having, it is never simultaneously acompoundandaphraseinaspecificsentence.

ThequestionthennaturallyarisesthathowwecanrecognizethedifferentidentitiesofaVOform.Inthefollowingpartsofthissection,IprovidemyowncriteriaforidentifyingifaVOformisaverbphrase,asyntacticcompound,oralexicalcompoundinthesentenceitappears. 3.1 Phrasecriteria Averbphraseisthe“freest”formaVOconstructioncanbe;aVPshouldbeable topermitvarioussyntacticmovements, including, forexample,having theobjecttopicalized.AprerequisiteforaMandarinVOformtobeaphraseisthatitstwoconstitutinglexemes/morphemesmustbothbefree.Thisrequisiteshouldbefairlyself-explanatory:if,forexample,theverbmorphemeofaVOformisabondmorphemeandthuscannotstandalone,thenitisnotpossibletomovetheobjecttothefirstpositionofthesentence(topicalizetheobject)asthiswouldleavetheverbmorphemebyitself;inthesamevein,ifthenounmorphemeofaVOformisabondmorphemeandhastoco-occurwiththeverbmorpheme,thenitwillnotbeavailablefortopicalization.

WhileaVOformcannotpossiblyassumeaphrasestatusunlessitismadeupof two freemorphemes/lexemes, the reverse is notnecessarily true, as theexampleofcheng-gong (cf. sentences (10)-(12))shows. It ispossible thataVOformconstitutedoutoftwofreemorphemeshasbecomefullylexicalizedandthatitsVPformisnolongerinuse.Whileitsconstitutingmorphemesarefreeperse,thewholeVOformisnotavailableforbeingusedasaVPanymore.Comprisingtwofreemorphemesthuscannotbeanindicationofphrasehood.TodetermineaVOform’sVPstatus,Iproposethefollowingthreecriteria:topicalization,ellipsis,andcoordination.

16

3.1.1 Objecttopicalization Topicalization is a phenomenon observed widely across languages. Itinvolvestheprocessofmakingaconstituentintothetopicofasentencebymovingthe constituent, which canonically would have been further to the right (in alanguagethatwritesandreadsfromlefttoright),toamoreprominentpositionatthefrontofthesentence(Radford2009).IntheEnglishexample“ThismanIdonotknow.”,thismanistopicalizedandfrontedtothefirstpositionofthesentence.In Mandarin, topicalization is also an active syntactic process. The followingexample shows how topicalization can be used in Mandarin. In (15b), theconstituentzhegerenistopicalizedandmovedtothefirstposition:(15)a.wogen-benburen-shizhegeren

ItotallyNEGrecognize-knowthisCLperson“Idon’tevenknowthisperson.”

b.zhegeren,wogen-benburen-shi “Thisperson,Idon’tevenknow.”

Theappropriatenessofusingtopicalizationasanindicationofphrasehoodisrootedinitsverynature:pertheLexicalIntegrityHypothesis,theinternalpartsofawordmaynotbeavailableforsyntacticmanipulation;andtopicalizationisamechanism of syntax. Topicalization indicates phrase status and not syntacticcompound because the verb and the object are no longer within the samehierarchicalstructure(otherthanthesentence),i.e.,inatreerepresentation,thetopicalized object and the verb are not under the same branch node. If in aparticularsentencetheobjectofaVOformistopicalized,thenthatVOforminthatsentenceisaverbphrase.

Intheliterature,Chao’scriterion(d)–inversionoftheverbandtheobject–comesveryclosetotopicalization.Itdiffersfromtopicalizationinthatamereswitchofpositionbetweentheverbandtheobjectdoesnotresultintheobjectbeingmovedtothefirstpositionofthesentence.Butinversionreallyshouldberecognizedasatypeoftopicalization,sinceevenwhentheobjectandtheverbaremerelyinversed,theobjectisdefactotopicalized,withtheobjectbeingmovedtoamoreprominentpositionclosertothefrontofthesentence.Anadditionaltypeof evidence in favorof inversionbeinga typeof topicalization is thatwhenaninversionoccurs, a clearlyperceivable stress isplacedonto theobject, and theobject oftentimes receives themain stress of the entire sentence. Examples oftopicalization by moving the object to the first position and topicalization byinversingtheverbandtheobjectaregivenbelow.In(16b),fanisassignedastressandthemainstressofthesentence.Alexicalcompound,ontheotherhand,maynothaveitsobjecttopicalized.

(16)a.fan,wohaimeichine mealIstillnoteatSFP “Meal,Ihaven’thadyet.”b.wofanhaimeichine ImealstillnoteatSFP

17

“Ihaven’thad(my)mealyet.”3.1.2 Ellipsis

Like topicalization, ellipsis is a highly active syntactic mechanism in avarietyoflanguages.Thepeculiarityofellipsisisthatwhileoneormorewordsareomitted, their meaning seems to stay, as the omitted words are neverthelessunderstood in the context of the remaining elements.Multiple typesof ellipsishavebeenacknowledgedintheoreticalsyntax,includinggapping(e.g.,IcastmyvoteforTomandyoucastyourvoteforJerry),VPellipsis(e.g.,ShecanreadChinese;IcanreadChinese,too),answerellipsis(e.g.–Whatdidyouhaveforlunch?–IhadSaladforlunch),nounellipsis(e.g.,Ireadthreebooksandshereadtwobooks),tonameafew.ParticularlyrelevanttomydiscussionsontheMandarinVOformsstatusareanswerellipsis,gapping,andnounellipsis.

Answer ellipsis may conform to many speakers’ intuitive idea of what“word” is: elliptical constructionwhich resolves in a single-word answer oftencoincideswithgeneralspeakers’intuitiontocharacterize“word”asthesmallestunitofthatlanguagethatcanstandalone.Thisvaguecharacterizationcertainlyhasitsproblems:syntacticrestraintscanaffectwhetherawordcanformasingle-wordanswerornot.Forexample,wedonotfinditacceptabletoanswerto“whosebookisthis”with“my”,eventhoughweagreethatmyisaword.Itsohappensthatpersyntacticrules,my isadeterminerandgenerallyappearsalongsideanoun(examplefromAronoff2010).

InmycaseoftheMandarinVOforms,however,thisisnotaproblem,sincethephenomenonofellipsisistakenasanindicatorofword/phrasestatus,butnottheotherwayaround,i.e.,beingaword/phrasedoesnotequatetobeingabletobeomittedorhaveapartofitomitted.Specifically,iftheverbortheobjectofaVOformisomittedinasentence,thentheVOforminthatsentenceisaverbphrase.Ellipsissignalsphrasehoodbecausetheomittedverb/objectisnotdominatedbythesamebranchnodeastheremainingobject/verbiswheretheVOformappears.In the literature, Chao’s criterion (e) – separating the verb and the object inquestions andanswers – is in linewith answer ellipsis. Examplesof ellipsis inMandarinareasbellow.Answerellipsis:(17) –nichifanhaishimian youeatriceorAUXnoodle “Wouldyoulikericeornoodles?”/“Doyou(usually)eatriceornoodles?” –mian noodle “Noodles.”Nounellipsis(inquestionsentence)andanswerellipsis:(18) –nichouyanbuchou? youtake.incigaretteNEGtake.inORnichoubuchouyan? youtake.inNEGtake.incigarette “Doyousmokeornot?”

18

–buchou NEGtake.in “Idon’tsmoke.”3.1.3 Coordination Anothercommonsyntacticmechanism,coordinationjoinstogethertwoormoreelements(whichusuallyareconstituents,thoughnotalways)toproduceacomplexsyntacticstructure.Thejointelementsare,formostofthetimes,ofthesame syntactic category (e.g., V + V shewill eat and sleep), butmismatch alsohappens(e.g.NP+VPsheisateacherandlovesherpupils).

ThoughcoordinationiscommoninMandarin,whenitisusedtolinktwoobjectstogetherafteraverb,itisusedrelativelyinfrequently.Thishappensverylikelyowningto,Ithink,theMandarinlanguage’sgeneralpreferencefordisyllabicwords. This preference is demonstrated in corpus study. Masini (1993) forexample, notes that in Mandarin, disyllabic words assume a predominantpresenceamongpolysyllabicwords,whilepolysyllabicwordsheavilyoutnumbermonosyllabicwords(cf.section1.2).Mandarin’sdisyllabicitypreferencecanalsobemanifestedthroughthecuriousphenomenonofelasticwordlength.Ithasbeenwellnotedthatmany“Mandarinwords”haveelasticlength(Guo1938,Duanmu&Lu1991,Duanmu1998,2002):theycanbeeitherdisyllabicormonosyllabic,e.g.,meicoal“coal”vs.mei-tancoal-charcoal“coal”andxuestudy“study”vs.xue-xi study-study“study”.Naturally, linguistsrecognizethatmeiandmei-tan,withdifferentmorphologicalandphonologicalstructures,i.e.,differentforms,aretwodistinctlexemes.Inalessformalway,Mandarinlinguists(ibid.)refertothemas“words having elastic length” because semantically, they are not distinguishedfromeachother.Speakers’choiceofwhichlexemeistobeusedisthereforenotsomuchbasedontheirmeaning,butmoreonthephonologicalcontext.Forexample,when choosing betweenmei andmei-tan to link with a morpheme to form acompound,speakersprefermeiovermei-tan,andproducemei-kuangcoal-mine“coal mine”,mei-qi coal-gas “gas”, andmei-zha coal-dregs “coal cinder”, butnot??mei-tan-kuang,*mei-tan-qi,and??mei-tan-zha.Inasimilarvein,forcreatinga phrase consisting of two disyllabic compounds,mei-tan gong-ren “coalmineworkers”andmei-tanji-tuan“coalminecompany”arechosenover*mei-gong-renand*mei-ji-tuan.Thispreferencemightalsobe the reasonbehind the fact thatindeterminacyhappensonlywithdisyllabicVOforms,astrisyllabicVOformsareautomaticallyruledoutasbeingcapableofbeinglexicalcompounds.

Anexampleofcoordinationoftheobjectisgivenbelow:(19) –nichifanhaishimian youeatriceorAUXnoodle “Wouldyoulikericeornoodles?”/“Doyou(usually)eatriceornoodles?”

Coordinationoftheverbhappensevenlessfrequently,verypossiblydueagain to the language’s preference for disyllabicwords. Aswe shall see in thefollowingsentences,coordinationispossiblefortwodisyllabicwords,butnotfortwomonosyllabicwords.(20)a.wobian-paibinglu-zhiyan-chu

Iarrange-orderandrecord-makeperformance-CLA

19

“Ichoreographedandrecordedtheshow.”b.*wopaibingluyan-chu

Iarrangeandrecordperformance-CLA3.2 Syntacticcompoundcriteria

Betweentheverbphrasesandthelexicalcompoundswefindthesyntacticcompounds.Asthenamesuggests,anSCshowssomesyntacticfluiditybutatthesametimemaintainsthecohesionbetweentheVandtheO.TheLIHisviolatedtoa certain extent, usually by having some constituent inserting into the SC,separatingtheVandtheO.ThisisnotthecaseinanLC.ButSCsarenotVPseither:theydonothave full syntactic freedom,and thecohesionbetweenanSC’s twoconstituentsispreserved.

I suggestasetof threecriteria for identifyingaVOform’sSCstatus: (a)aspectmarking;(b)objectmodification;(c)reduplication.Eachandeveryoneofthethreecriteria is independentofanyother,andanyoneofthethreecriteriashouldbe sufficient for indicating an SC identity. If aVO form showsbehaviorwhich is captured by any one of the three criteria, then the VO form, in thatparticularenvironment,isproducedand/orreceivedasanSC.Criteria(a)and(b)havealreadybeendiscussedratherextensivelyinearlierworks.Criterion(a)hasespeciallybeena topicofdebate.Packard (2000)dismissesconsideringaspectmarkingasanindicationofnon-wordhoodandtreatstheformV-ASP-Oas“word-internalinflection”.IwouldliketoaddnewinformationaboutMandarinaspectmarkers to challenge the “internal inflection” treatment and show that aspectmarkingisactuallyaveryeffectivecriterionforidentifyingSCs.Ialsoproposethatcriterion(c)isanadditionalusefultoolforidentifyingSCs.3.2.1 Aspectmarking

AspectmarkinginChineseisachievedgenerally,ifnotexclusively,throughaffixingaspectmarkers.InmostliteratureworksonChinesegrammar,onlythreeparticlesaregenerallyrecognizedandresearchedonasaspectmarkers,namely,–le,–guo,and–zhe(Chu1998,Xiao&McEnery2004).Whetherthereexistotheraspectmarkers, or to put itmore precisely,whetherwe should identify othermorphemesthatalsohavethefunctionofmarkingaspectbutbehaveindifferentmorphosyntacticwaysfromthewidelyacknowledgedthreehaslargelybeenanissueofcontroversy.Inmorerecentresearch,mostlinguists(ibid.)taketheviewthat–le,–guo,and–zhearenottheonlyaspectmarkers,butopinionsdifferhugelyonhowmanymoreareout there.Chu(1998)opines that therearemore thanthree,butprobablynotthatmanyaspectmarkersinChinese.Additionalaspectmarkersidentifiedbyhiminclude–zaiand–qilai.Xiao&McEnery(2004)however,includeninemore types of aspectmarkers. I specify that Xiao&McEnery talkabout“othertypesofaspectmarkers”ratherthan“otheraspectmarkers”becausetheygroupsomeaspectmarkerstogetherasformingonetypeofaspectmarking.Xiao&McEnery(p.6)notethatsomefeaturesoftheiradditionalaspectmarkersdeviatefromthegeneralizationsmadefor–le,–guo,and–zhe,butbecausetheyencodeaspectinformationnevertheless,theyshouldbeaccordinglylabeled.

Asanexample,themarker–zai,whichasanaspectmarker(itcouldhaveother uses, e.g., to express being at a location, somewhat similar to Englishprepositions“in”or“at”,asinwozaiShanghaiIinShanghai“IaminShanghai.”)

20

expresses that an action is ongoing, and is placed ahead of a verb rather thanbehind it, e.g.,wozai [chang-ge] IASP sing-song “I’m singing.”, contrary to theregularpost-verbpositionofMandarinaspectmarkers.Iadopt,nonetheless,themarker–qilaiformySCcriteria,forthereasonthatitisdeemedtofitverywellinto the system of aspect-marking despite its behaving morphologically andsyntacticallydifferentfromtheotherthree,andalsothatitfitsverywellintoourparticularcaseonhand.ThefouraspectmarkersIincludeforindicatingSCstatusarebrieflydiscussedbelow:

The aspectmarker –le is the perfective aspectmarker and expresses a“perfective”viewpointinthesensethatthespeakerviewsaspecificeventasanintegralwhole(Chu1998:25),e.g.,lisiquleBeijinglisigoto-ASPBeijing“LisihasgonetoBeijing.”;lisimaileyigewan-julisibuyASPoneCLplay-tool“Lisiboughtatoy.”

The aspect marker –guo is the experiential marker in Chinese and itresemblestheEnglishperfectinthatitmarkssomepastevent(s)asrelevanttothepresentstate(Xiao&McEnery2004:260),e.g.,LisiquguoBeijingLisigoASPBeijing“LisihasbeentoBeijing.”;Lisimaiguoyigewan-juLisibuyASPoneCLplay-tool“Lisi(once)boughtatoy.”

Theaspectmarker–zheexpressesadurativeviewpoint; it indicatesthatthespeakerviewstheprogressionofaneventasthemostsalient(Chu1998:182),e.g., huang-di zuo zhe jiao-zi chu-xing emperor-emperor sit ASP sedan.chair-SUFFIX“Theemperorlocomotes(by)sittinginasedanchair.”–zhecanexpressboththecontinuationofastateandthecontinuationofanaction.

Theaspectmarker–qilai is the inchoativeaspectmarker. Specifically, itsignals the inceptionofanevent rather thana changeof state (Chu1998:38).Using –qilai indicates that the speaker is concerned with the starting andcontinuation of an event, e.g. ta shuo zhe ku qi-lai he talk ASP cry ASP “Whiletalking, he started to cry.” A fascinating idiosyncratic particle, –qilai can onlyappearintheformofVerb-qi-Object-laiorVerb-qilai.Compare,forexample,theVOformchang-gesing-song“sing”andtheVVcompoundxing-dongpractice-move“takeaction”.Thecorrespondingphrasesofthetwowordswith–qilaiarechang-qi-ge-lai and xing-dong-qilai, respectively, while *chang-ge-qilai and *xing-qi-dong-laiareungrammatical.

Examples above have shown that in Mandarin, aspect markers appearimmediatelyafterverbs(inthepeculiarcaseof–qilai,–qiand–laiareseparatedwhenanobjectispresent,andonly–qiimmediatelyfollowstheverb).IfaVOformisusedasanLC,thenaspectmarkers,whenemployed,shouldfollowthewholeVOform,insteadofsplittingtheVandtheO.

Whileearlierlinguists(Chao1968,Li&Thompson1981)usethepositionof aspect markers as an indication of wordhood/phrasehood, Packard (2000)dismisses this practice. Packard claims that aspect markers are “properlyconsidered part of word formation, specifically that aspect of word formationcomprisinginflection”(p.118-9);andthattheyshouldbeconsidered“partofthewordformationcomponentratherthanpartofsyntaxbecausetheyareexamplesofword-internalinflectionalmarkingthatoperatesontheheadoftheV-Oword,viz.,theverb”(p.119).IfPackardwerecorrect,wewouldthennotbeabletoinferanythingaboutthestatusofaVOformwhenweseeanaspectmarkerinsertedintoitbetweentheVandtheO,aswemightbelookingataninternallyinflectedword,oraVPwithitsverbinflected.

21

In addition to Packard’s claim of word-internal inflection, anotherchallenge to the validity of the aspect marker criterion comes from recentmorphologystudyonhowinflectedverbsarestoredandaccessedbyspeakers.Traditionallylinguistshaveconsideredthataspectmarkersworkinarule-basedmanner to form inflected verbs, but empirical evidence from experimentssuggeststhatinflectedverbforms,inatleastsomeoftheworld’slanguages,aremore like independent word-forms that are learned by speakers using rotememory and are individually stored in speaker’s lexicon, just like theircorrespondingnon-inflectedforms(Bybee1985).

General discussions on word-internal inflection and rote learning ofinflected forms are sound and valid in their own right. But neither of the twohypothesesappliestotheMandarinVOforms,becauseaspectmarkerinsertioninMandarinisnotword-internalinflectiononthehead.Infact,itisdoubtfulwhetherMandarinaspectmarkingshouldbeconsideredinthesamewayasthecanonicaltypeof inflection.Thereseemsto littlesupport–other than intuitionspawnedlargelyoutofunderstandingoftheIndo-Europeanlanguages–fortheclaimthattheMandarinaspectmarkersareactuallyinflectionalmorphemes.Ipresentthefollowingevidencetosupportmyview.

Evidencei.Chineseaspectmarkersarealotmore“versatile”than,say,theEnglish inflectionalmorphemes–ed (past tensemarker) and–ing (progressivemarker). In (21) and (22), for example, the aspectmarkers aremodifying theentireVPs(qilaimodifyingbiandekai-xin,guomodifyingbaworeku),ratherthanjusthavingsomeverbsinflected:

(21) ru-herangzi-jibiandekai-xinqilai?

as-howmakeself-selfbecomeAUXopen-heartASP“Howcanonemakeoneselfhappy?”

(22) zhangsanbaworekuguo

zhangsanOMmecausecryASP“Zhangsanmademetocry.”

(23) fanhairezhe,kuaichiba

mealstillhotASP,quickeatSFP“Foodisstillwarm.Bequickandeatit.”TheMandarinaspectmarkersalsoshowlittleselectivityastowhichtypes

ofwordstheyareprecededby.Theydonotneedalwaysfollowverbs.In(21)and(23),forexample,aspectmarkersqilaiandzheareeachprecededbyanadjective.Thiscontrastswiththemorecanonicalinflectionalmorphemes,whichhaveahighselectivity and consistently appear after/before one type of words only, e.g.,English–edonlyappearsafterverbs(Zwicky&Pullum1983).

Evidence ii. The function of an inflectional morpheme is to assign agrammatical property to a word. The English past participle inflectionalmorphemes–enandnounplural inflectionalmorpheme–s, forexample,assignaspectandpluralitytoaword,respectively.Ultimately,inflectionshouldgivebacktousaword.NowconsidertheMandarinaspectmaker–qilai:onwhatbasiscanweclaimthatchang-qi-ge-laiisaword?If–qilaiisaninflectionalmorpheme,whyisitthatweareproducednon-wordsthroughtheuseof–qilai?

22

Evidence iii. Though it is not entirely impossible, it is quite rare cross-linguisticallyforalanguagetohaveonlyonetypeofinflection.Normallywewouldseeinflectionsforseveralgrammaticalfeaturesinalanguagewhichactuallyhasinflectioninitsgrammar,e.g.,alanguagemayshowinflectionfortense,person,number, and case. InMandarin, however, other than thedubious “inflectional”aspectmarkers,noothertypesofinflectionhavebeenidentified.Itisveryunusualforalanguagetohaveinflection,butonlyforverbtenseandnothingelse.Ontopof that,Mandarin is ingeneralnotparticularlyknown forbeingan inflectionallanguage.Ifthatisthecase,why,then,areweconfidentthattheaspectmarkersinMandarinrepresentinflection,and,theonlytypeofinflection?

Evidenceiv.Incontrasttohowinflectionalmorphemesareusuallyhandledin lexicography, all of theMandarin aspectmarkers are listedout inMandarindictionaries7, i.e., theyhave their ownentries as lexemes (anote for themoreinquisitivereaders:theyarelistedasauxiliaries).Thesedictionaries,writtenbynativespeakerswhomostlikelydonothavethesametypeofknowledgeofthelanguageastheoreticallinguists,probablybetterreflecttheintuitiveknowledgethenativespeakershaveabouttheirlanguage.ThismaysuggestthatthewaytheaspectmarkersarerecognizedbynativeMandarinspeakersisverydifferentfromthewaythemoreestablishedexamplesofinflectionalmorphemesarerecognizedbytheirnativespeakers.

Based on these four types of evidence, I am strongly against treatingMandarin aspect markers as inflectional morphemes. They could, potentially,becomeinflectionalmorphemesinthefuture.Somelinguistshaveproposedthatthe traditionally recognized three aspectmarkers, i.e., –le, –guo, and –zhe, areresultsofgrammaticalization(Xiao&McEnery2004).Whileweknowfromthehistoryofthelanguagethatthisistruediachronically,myevidencesuggeststhatas of now, themarkershavenot been grammaticalized to the extent that theybecomefullinflectionalmorphemes.Whiledeterminingwhattheyareiftheyarenotinflectionalmorphemesrequiresmuchmoreevidenceandisoutofthescopeofthisthesis,mypositionisnotaffected:theseaspectmarkersarenotinflectionalmorphemes. It would then make little sense to see V-ASP-O as word-internalinflection. Even if the aspect markers represented inflection, I find the word-internal inflectionapproachproblematic. Ipresent twoarguments tochallengethisapproach.

First,itisrathercommoninMandarinthattheVandtheOofaVOformareseparatednotjustbyanaspectmarker,butalsoothertypesofobjectmodifier,suchasatimemodifier,anumeralplusaclassifier,agenitivemodifier,orjustanadjective.Herearesomeexamples:

(24) duguoyibenshu

readASPoneCLbook“havereadonebook”

(25) mailetayidabaocai

buyASPhis/heronehugeCLvegetable“boughtonehugepacketofveggiesfromhim/her”

7Dictionaryreferredto:TheContemporaryChineseDictionary.

23

If, asPackardclaims, theexamplesaboveconsistof ahead-inflectedVOwordratherthanaverbphrase,weareessentiallyclaimingthatitispossibletoconstructawordinMandarinthathaswithinitallsortsofsyntacticstructures,whichclearlyviolatesoutunderstandingof“word”.Theconceptof“word”maynotevenexistinMandarinanymore,asvirtuallyanyphrase,onceinflected,canbecalledaword.If,ontheotherhand,werecognizetheaboveexamplesasVPs,thenPackardwouldneedtoexplainwhatmakestheinflectioninthemsospecialthattheyarenothead-inflectedVOs.Wewouldneedabetterexplanationthan“aslongastherearenootherconstituentsfollowingtheaspectmarkerin-betweentheVandtheO,itisword-internalinflectiononthehead,otherwisetheVOformrepresentsnotaninternally-inflectedwordbutaninflectedVP”.

Perhapsthebiggestquestiontheword-internalinflectionapproachwouldneedtoexplainiswhywehavethefollowingresults:(26)a.wodan-xinguozhejianshi

Icarry-heartASPthisCLmatter“Ihaveworriedaboutthismatter.”

b.*wodan-guo-xin zhejianshi*Icarry-ASP-heartthisCLmatter

(27)a.woweizhejianshidan-xin guoIforthisCLmattercarry-heartASP“Ihaveworriedaboutthismatter.”

b.woweizhejianshi danguoxinIforthisCLmattercarryASPheart“Ihaveworriedaboutthismatter.”In(26a),theVOformdan-xinisfollowedbyanotherobject,whichsuggests

thattheVOformhasbeenfullylexicalizedanddan-xinisnowoneholisticword,alexicalcompound(cf.section1.4).Whenthishappens,i.e.,dan-xinisusedasanLC,a“bonafide”complexword,and“internalinflectional”ontheheaddanbecomesungrammatical,asin(26b).Thissuggests,ironically,thatwhenaVOformtakeson“word-internalinflection”,itisthennota“word”.Thisisfurthersupportedbythesentencepairin(27).Both(27a)and(27b)aregrammatical:whendan-xinisnotusedasanLC(itsotherwisedirectobjectnowbecomesanadjunctargumentanddoesnotimmediatelyfollowdan-xin),itispossibletohaveanaspectmarkereitherafterdan-xinorsplittingit. Insummary,theideaofword-internalinflectiondoesnotworkwellwithMandarin; and we have various types of evidence supporting that Mandarinaspectmarkingwouldbebetterunderstoodnotas inflection.Havinganaspectmarkerinsertedin-betweentheVandtheOindicatesthattheVOformcanhavesomesyntacticfluidity,whileatthesametimemaintainsstrongcohesionbetweenthe two constituents. Thus, aspect marker insertion is, I think, an effectiveindicationofSCstatus.3.2.2 Objectmodification

24

As mentioned briefly in 3.2.1, object modification is oftentimes seencombiningwithaspectmarking.ThevalidityofusingobjectmodificationasanSCcriterion is built pretty much on the same ground as that of aspect markingcriterion.Objectmodificationmeansthatadditionalconstituent(s)areinsertedin-betweentheVandtheO,signalingsomesyntacticfluidityforthetwomorphemes.YettheVandtheOalsoshowstrongcohesionbetweenthem,astheOdoesnotmove out of the object position projected by the V.Mandarin sees a range ofpossible modifiers in object modification (cf. section 3.2.1). Two examples ofobjectmodificationaregivenbelow:(28) (genitivemodifier)

kannideshu!lookyouGENbook“Readyourbook!(Donotmindotherbusinesses.)”

(29) (adjectivemodifier)

chihao-chidefaneatgood-eatAUXmeal“eatdeliciousfood”

(30) (timemodifier)

shuisantian(de)jiaosleep(v.)threeday(AUX)sleep(n.)“takeasleepforthreedays”

3.2.3 Reduplication Reduplication is a fascinating phenomenon in Chinese, and hassurprisingly been much underrepresented regarding its implications in theword/phraseindeterminacyprobleminpreviousdiscussions.Linguistswhohaveworkedontheproblemofreduplicationhavemostlyincludeditasatypeofaspectmarking.Xiao&McEnery(2004:151)callit“delimitative”,whichindicatesthatasituationlastsforonlyasmallamountoftime.Theyalsonotethatonlyvolitionalverbsgobeassignedthisaspect.

Though reduplication is often considered a type of aspect marking, itsmorphosyntactic idiosyncrasiesarecertainlyverymuchdifferentfromthoseoftheaspectmarkersdiscussedin3.2.1.Reduplicationdoesnotinvolveonefixedmarker.Instead,itworksbyfollowingaformat:WVàWVWV.Forexample,foraVVcompoundhuo-donglive-move“toexercise”wecanderivehuo-dong-huo-dong“toexercisealittlebit”.Insomesense,theaspectmarkerinthiscaseistheworditself.TherelevanceofreduplicationtoSCcanbedemonstratedbythefollowingexample:(31) zhejianshinicaocaoxin

thisCLmatteryoucarrycarryheart“lit.Concernyourselfalittlebitforthismatter.”“Spendsometimeattendingtothismatter.”Sincereduplicationworksbyapplyingtotheword,whenaVOformisused

as an SC, i.e., the V and the O are recognized as separate verb and noun,

25

reduplicationresultsinaVVOform.ThisimpliesthatthetwoconstituentsofanSCaregrantedsomesyntacticfreedomandareprocessedasaverbprojectinganoun.3.3 Lexicalcompoundcriteria

IncomparisonwithbeingusedasphrasesorSCs, theVO formsare lessfrequently used as LCs, and thenumber of indications of LC status is perhaps,coincidentally,proportionallysmaller.Mysetofcriteriacontainstwo:thefirstisreduplication, the second is drawn from Huang’s (1984) Phrase StructureCondition.AswiththephraseandtheSCcriteria,thetwocriteriaareindependentofeachother,andaVOformshowinganyofthetwosignalsisusedasanLCintheenvironment.3.3.1 Reduplication As shown in 3.2.3, reduplication reduplicates the verb in an SC, andproducesaVVOpattern.WithanLC,ontheotherhand,reduplicationproducesaVOVOpattern, sinceanLC is a fully lexicalized item(cf. theexampleof theVVcompoundhuo-donginsection3.2.3).Forinstance,inadditionaltobeingaVPandan SC, cao-xinmay also be used as an LC. (This should not be surprising. Asmentionedearlier,theMandarinVOproblemsarecomplicatedpreciselybecausethe VO forms often show different identities in different contexts, “morphing”fromaphrase to a compoundorvice versa.)When cao-xin is used as anLC, itproducestheexpressioncao-xin-cao-xin,themeaningofwhichisnotessentiallydifferent from cao-cao-xin: cao-xin-cao-xin “spend some time and effort (onsomething)”. TheVOVOreduplicationpatternconformswelltotheLIH.InanLC,eachofthe two constitutingmorphemes no longermaintains its syntactic status; theyformatight,holisticlexicalunit.TheinternalstructureinanLCisobscuredandinaccessibleforotherprocesses.Anysyntactic/morphologicalprocessrecognizesonlyoneitemwhenitisappliedtoanLC.HencetheVOVOpattern.3.3.2 PhraseStructureCondition ThoughHuang’sPhraseStructureCondition(1984)hasbeenquestionedandcriticizedinsucceedingworksbysomelinguists(Dai1997),Ifindittobeaverypowerful tool in identifyingLCs. In fact, I think thatnootherrule ismorereliablethanHuang’sPSC.PSCessentiallystatesthatwhenaVOformisfollowedbyanobject,theVOformhastobebeingusedasanLC(Huang1984).

Huang’s PSC is particularly effective in explaining why we have thefollowingsentencepairs.Thedifferenttypesofsentencesshowthatdan-xinisaveryversatileVOform,andcanbeusedeitherasaVP,anSC,oranMC.Ifdan-xincantakeoneithertheSCandtheLCidentity,whywould(33b)beungrammatical?NoothercriterioncangiveasatisfyingexplanationotherthanthePSC:ifdanisseparated from xin, dan is then used as an individual verb and projects anargument,thepositionofwhichisfilledbyxin.Whendan-xinisusedasanLC,dan-xinasoneverbprojectsanargument,andthepositionisfilledbyzhejianshi.Viceversa,whenbeingfollowedbyanotherargument,dan-xininthiscontextisanLC,which,undertheLIH,doesnotallowitsinternalstructuretobemanipulated.Theinsertionofanaspectmarkerhencemakesthesentenceungrammatical.Whentheobliqueargumentzhejianshiisrearrangedasanadjunctandprecedesdan-xin,

26

theVOformcanthenagainbeeitheranSCoraVP,andaspectmarkerinsertiondoesnotresultinungrammaticality(cf.setion1.4).(32)a.wo[dan-xin]guo Icarry-heartASP “Iwasworried.”b.wodanguoxin

IcarryASPheart “Iwasworried.”(33)a.wo[dan-xin]guozhejianshi

Icarry-heartASPthisCLmatter“Iwasworriedaboutthismatter.”

b.*wodanguoxin zhejianshi

*IcarryASPheartthisCLmatter

(34)a.woweizhejianshi[dan-xin] guoIforthisCLmattercarry-heartASP“Iwasworriedaboutthismatter.”

b.woweizhejianshi danguoxinIforthisCLmattercarryASPheart“Iwasworriedaboutthismatter.”

3.4 Idiomaticmeaning

In many of the existing discussions (Chao 1968, Li & Thompson 1981,Packard 2000), specialized (other frequently used expressions include “non-compositional”, “idiomatic”, “lexicalized”) meaning has been taken as anindicationofwordstatus(cf.section2).Whilethismaysoundvalid intuitively,there are a coupleof things thatneed tobe explained shouldwe adopt it as awordhood criterion. First, there are numerous examples of idiomatic phraseswhichhavespecializedmeaningbutarenoinwaythoughtofandusedaswords.Huang(1984:62-6)notesthischallengetoowhenherulesoutcompositionalityofmeaningasausefultoolforidentifyingwords,citingthesetphraseguayang-tou,maigou-rou“lit.hangagoat’shead,selladog’smeat”“tobaitandswitch”asanexample. If specializedmeaning stands forwordhood,wewould thenmakewrongunderstandingofthemanyidioms8wefindinChinese.I’dliketoadd,asasecond challenge, that with specialized meaning as a wordhood criterion, we

8WhileitisnotclearhowmanyidiomsintotalthereareinmodernChinese,largelybecauseoftheproblemofdefinition, therearecountson thenumberofchengyu,whichareperhaps themostwell-known type of idioms in Chinese. Often referred to as Chinese idioms or four-characteridioms/expressions–astheyareusuallymadeupoffourcharacters–chengyuwerewidelyusedinClassicalChineseandarestillcommoninvernacularChinesewritingandinthespokenlanguagetoday.ChengyuarenottheonlytypeofidiomsinChinese,buttheydifferfromothertypesinthattheyhaveliteraryorigins,derivingmainlyfromclassical literature,whereasotheridiomscomemostlyfromvernacularspeech.Themoststringentdefinitionyieldsabout5,000chengyu,thoughsomedictionarieslistover20,000(OxfordFLTRPEnglish-ChineseChinese-EnglishDictionary).

27

wouldeasilyrunintotheproblemofassigningconflictingstatusestoaVOforminonesetting.Thefollowingexamplesshowhowcommonitistohaveanon-wordVOformwhichneverthelessmaintainsanon-compositionalmeaning(andwithsome VO forms, for example the VO forms in (35) (37), and (38), the non-compositionalmeaningistheVOform’sonlypossiblemeaning):(35) da-chehit-car“rideacab”

lisibangwodaleliangchelisihelpIhitASPCLAcar“lisihelpedmetogetacab.”

(36) ting-hualisten-words“toobey”

tingma-madehualistenmother-motherGENwords“Followmom’swords.”/“Beobedienttomom.”

(37) zou-shenwalk-spirit“toloseconcentration”

wozouleyixia-wushenIwalkASPallnext-noonspirit“Icouldn’tconcentrationtheentireafternoon.”

(38) yao-lianask-face“haveasenseofshame”

liannidoubuyaolefaceyouevenNEGaskSFP“Youdon’tevenhaveasenseofshame.”Weknowperwordhood/phrasehoodcriteriainearliersectionsthatnone

of the VO forms in (35) through (38) is a lexical compound. Ifwe accept thatspecializedmeaningsignalswordhood,thentheVOformsin(35)to(38)wouldbeanon-wordandawordsimultaneously.

Thus, I strongly oppose the applicability of specialized meaning as acriterion for word status. The problems of idiomatic phrases and conflictingstatuses are clear evidence of specialized meaning being merely a semanticfeatureandnothingelse.

Asamatteroffact,Ihavebecomeincreasinglyconvincedthroughmydataanalyses thatwe should treat a form’smeaning and a form’smorphosyntacticfeatures in such a way that they are separated onto two distinct levels: themeaningofaformbelongstothesemanticlevelandhasnoinfluenceonpropertiesderivedfromotherdomains;thesyntacticand/ormorphologicalpropertiesofaformoriginateonthemorphosyntactic levelandarenotaffectedbyfeaturesofother domains. This is not equated to saying that features from differentlevels/domainscannotinteractwitheachother,however.Theycan,whichiswhytheremaybeverystrongcorrelationbetweenacertainmorphological/syntacticfeatureandacertainsemanticfeature(forexample,alexicalizedVOtendstohaveidiomaticmeaning).Buttheconnectionisacorrelation,notacausation.Wecannote a tendency, but it is very dangerous to say any particular association isentailment,anditwouldbewrongtoclaimthatoneisadefiningcriterionoftheother.Theessenceis:havingornothavingasemanticfeature,oranysemanticfeature, does not alter a construction’s morphosyntactic properties. Similar

28

examples are regularly found in other languages as well. Take English: thesemantic feature of plurality does not, by itself, say anything about whether“books”isawordornot,andhavingaspecializedmeaningpersedoesnottellusif“kick”in“kickthebucket”shouldbeinflectedornot.4 Acontinuum4.1 Gradienceandfeatures

TheVP-LCcontinuumshouldencourageustothinkofthemorphosyntacticcategories(VP,SC,LC)aspossiblemorphosyntacticproperties,whichaVOformcanorcannottakeon,ratherthanstaticstatuses/states.Igivesomeexamplesofexpressionswithfeaturesbelow:tiao-wu跳舞(FF)jump-dance“todance”morphologicalfeatures:[+verbphrase],[+syntacticcompound],[-lexicalcompound]semanticfeatures:[–specializedmeaning]AsVP:wuwobuhuitiaodanceINEGknowjump“Ican’tdance.”ASSC:tatiaoleyitianwushejumpASPoneCLdance“Shedancedtheentireday.”

tiaotiaowu“(Come)dancealittlewhile!”cao-xin操心(FF)hold-heart“tobeconcerned(about)”morphologicalfeatures:[+verbphrase],[+syntacticcompound],[+lexicalcompound]semanticfeatures:[+specializedmeaning]AsVP:xintagen-benbucaoheartheat.allNEGcarry“Hedoesn’tcareatall.”AsSC: tagen-benmeicaoguoxinheat.allNEGcarryASPheart“He’snevercared.”AsLC: tahencao-xinzhejianshiheverycarry-heartthisCLmattershang-feng伤风(FF)injure-disease.causing.element“catchacold”morphosyntacticfeatures:[-verbphrase],[+syntacticcompound],[+lexicalcompound]semanticfeatures:[+specializedmeaning]AsSC: tashangledafengheinjureASPhugedisease“He’sgotaterriblecold.”AsLC:tashangfenghaojiuheinjurediseasewelllong“He’shadacoldforawhile.”sheng-zhi升值(FB)rise-value“appreciate”morphosyntacticfeatures:[-verbphrase],[+syntacticcompound],[+lexicalcompound]semanticfeatures:[-specializedmeaning]AsSC: zhechufang-chanshenglezhi

thisCLhouse-propertyriseASPvalue“Thispropertyhasgainedinvalue.”

AsLC: zhechufang-chansheng-zhisanbei thisCLhouse-propertyrise-valuethreemultiple “Thevalueofthispropertyhastripled.”

29

si-guo思过(BF)think-fault“reflectonone’serrors”morphosyntacticfeatures:[–verbphrase],[+syntacticcompound],[+lexicalcompound]semanticfeatures:[+specializedmeaning]AsSP:nisihaoguolezaihewoshuohua youthinkwellfaultASPagainwithmespeakword “Don’ttalkwithmeuntilyou’verealizedwhatyou’vewronged.”AsLP: si-guo-si-guochao-sheng朝圣(BB)pilgrimage-sage“makeapilgrimage”morphosyntacticfeatures:[–verbphrase],[+syntacticcompound],[+lexicalcompound]semanticfeatures:[+specializedmeaning]AsSC: tadaoXizangchaoguosheng

hearriveTibetpilgrimageASPsage“He’sbeenonapilgrimagetoTibet.”

AsLC: chao-shengXizangpilgrimage-sageTibet“goonapilgrimagetoTibet”chu-ban出版(FB)emit-edition“publish”morphosyntacticfeatures:[–verbphrase],[–syntacticcompound],[+lexicalcompound]semanticfeatures:[+specializedmeaning]AsLC:wochu-banleyibenshu

Iemit-editionASPoneCLbook“I’vepublishedabook.”

shi-wang失望(BB)lose-hope“loseheart”morphosyntacticfeatures:[–verbphrase],[–syntacticcompound],[+lexicalcompound]semanticfeatures:[+/–specializedmeaning]AsLC:buyaoshi-wangNEGwilllose-heart“Don’tlosehope!”4.2 Whereonthescale

WiththeVOformsbeingexpressedastakingondifferentmorphosyntacticfeatures and consequently being placed at different places along the VP-LCcontinuum,immediatelyfollowingisthequestionthatwhereonthecontinuumaVOformstands.OtherthansomeprerequisitessuchasaVOformcannotbeusedasaphraseunlessbothofitstwoconstituentsarefreemorphemes,therearenoset rules thatcandeterminewhereaparticularVO form ison theVP-LCscale:whereaVOisplacedonthecontinuumisverymuchdetermineddiscretely.Andtomakethingsevenmorecomplicated,thesameVOformmaybeinterpretedbyindividualspeakersdifferently:thesameVOformmaytakeonpropertiesofanSCinonespeaker’slanguage,butusedonlyasanLCbyanotherspeaker.Thereare,however, identifiable factorswhich influencehowan individualmaychoose to

30

interpretaVOform.Iproposethatthefollowingthreefactors–frequencyofuse,context inwhichtheVOformappears,andaspeaker’s levelofeducation–canaffectwhereonthecontinuumaspeakerchoosestoplaceaVOform.SincetheMandarin VO compounding essentially represents a language change (fromsyntactic phrase to lexical compound) (cf. section 1.1), some insights fromhistorical linguistics haveproved to be especially helpful in understanding theinfluencingfactors.4.2.1 Frequency

Frequencyhasbeencommonlyrecognizedtoplayanimportantrole–andsometimesaprecondition–inmanylinguisticphenomena,particularlytheonesinvolving language change (Aitchison 2001, Bybee 2003). Yet exactly how itinfluenceschange–whetheritcatalyzesit,orkeepsitincheck–dependsonwhatkindofchangeisbeingtalkedaboutandwhichscholarsaretakingaboutit.Forexample,itisarguedthatthemorefrequentlyaformisused,thelesslikelylesslikely it would be subject to external influence the more likely it will stayunchanged in the language, making them the ideal words for comparativereconstruction (Campbell 2013). In a different case concerning sound change,someotherpeoplearguethatmorefrequentlyusedformsmightbeaffectedbyalanguage changemore quickly, and a sound changemight be actuated earlieramongthemorefrequentlyusedwordsinlexicaldiffusion(Phillips1984).

Linguistsworking on compounding in other languages have noted howfrequently a form is used can correlate with how likely it will go throughcompounding.Forexample,Mithun(1984:848)suggeststhatthereisapositivecorrelation between frequency and compounding (though she never explicitlyusestheword“frequency”).Simplyput,compoundingdoesnotjusthappen,itis“done for a reason” (p. 848). Some entity, quality, or activity becomes “name-worthyinitsownright”becauseitis“recognizedsufficientlyoften”(p.848).Thus,forinstance,“busmoneyorlunchmoneyaremorelikelynominalcompoundsthansockmoneyorscrewdrivermoney”(p.848).Inthesamevein,mount-climbingorberry-pickingaremorepossibleverbalcompoundsthanroof-climbingorcactus-picking. Similarly, Booij notes that “nameworthy and conventional activities”(2010:98)arelikelytobeassociatedwithverb-nouncompounding.

My observations of theMandarinVO forms yield similar findings. A VOformwhichdenotesanactivitythatispracticedonaregularbasisandcommontoaveragespeaker’severydaylifemayconsequentlybecome“nameworthy”andisgivenadesignatedname,i.e.,itbecomesaspecializedLC(asisthecaseinMithun’sandBooij’sdescriptions).Abestexampleofthismightbechi-fan,whicheventuallydevelopsintoacompoundreferstothehabitual,genericactionof“eatingameal”.ThiscontrastswiththeVPchi-fan,whichreferstothespecificactionof“eatingcookedrice”.Unfortunately,how“frequent”isfrequent,however“nameworthy”isnameworthy,etc.,areextremelydifficulttodefine.WhilefrequencymaybeofhelpinexplainingwhyaVOisusedinaparticularway,itmightbeofverylittlehelpinpredictingwhereaVOmaystandontheVP-MCcontinuum.4.2.2 Context

ThecontextinwhichaVOformisusedhasahugeimpactonhowmuchinternalfluidityspeakerswillperceiveintheVOforminthatcontext.IfaVOformappearsinwritingswhichimitateClassicalChinesewritings,thentheVOformwill

31

begivengreaterfluidity,asspeakers(whohavesometraininginClassicalChinese)willstarttoprocesswhattheyreadfollowingamonomorphemicrule,oftentimeswithout themselves realizing it. Now that the new rule says every word ismonomorphemic/monosyllabic,thedisyllabicVOformswillbeprocessedasVPsasaresult.Compare,forexample,thefollowingtwophrases:

(39) *gonghaimeicheng successstillNEGachieve(40) gongweicheng

successNEGachieve“successhasnotbeenachievedyet”In section2, I present cheng-gongas an example of aVO form that has

becomefullylexicalizedandisalwaysusedasanLC;nosyntacticmovementcanbe applied to its two constituting morphemes. This explains why (39) isungrammatical. However, the phrase in (40), which expresses the exact samemeaningas(39)andistheequivalentof(39)inClassicalChinese,isgrammatical.Itshouldbenotedthatevenif(40)isusedinamoderncontext,itstillmaintainsitsgrammaticality,forthenegationmarkerweisimulatesaClassicalChinesestyleandinvokesmonomorphemicprocessing.Itshouldalsobenotedthat(40)isnotjust an obsolete expression cited merely for the sake of some “pre-emptive”linguisticresearch.ModernusagesimulatingClassicalChineseisbynomeansrare.ClassicalChinesepoetry(especiallypoemscomposedduring618-1279)andtheFourGreatClassicalNovels9–theformerwritteninClassicalChineseandthelaterpartlyinClassicalChineseandpartlyinbaihua–arewidelyread,thankstothepreservation of the Chinese characters. Selected classical poems, essays, andexcerptsfromtheFourGreatClassicalNovelsaretaughtinprimaryandsecondaryschool,andmanyMandarinspeakershavesomeknowledgeofClassicalChinese.4.2.3 Levelofeducation

A speaker’s level of education can also play a role in where on thecontinuum the speaker places a VO form. In general, speakers with a moreproficientknowledgeofClassicalChinesearelikelytoperceiveahigherdegreeoffluidityinsomeVOforms.Consider,forexample,thefollowingword:qu-shileave-world“passaway”去世morphologicalfeatures:[-verbphrase],[-syntacticcompound],[+morphologicalcompound]semanticfeatures:[+specializedmeaning]

Thoughitmayseemthatderivingtheword’smeaningfromitsconstituentsshouldbestraightforward,inactuality,themorphemequdenoting“leave”isnotproductive inmodernChinese (it is usually only understood as “go). Thus, forspeakerslessfamiliarwithClassicalChinese,theinternalstructureofqu-shimight

9ThefournovelsareWaterMargin(14thcentury),RomanceoftheThreeKingdoms(14thcentury),JourneytotheWest(16thcentury),andDreamoftheRedChamber(18thcentury).

32

belessvisible.ForspeakerswithamoreproficientknowledgeofClassicalChinese,ontheotherhand,thetwoconstituentsofqu-shimaybegivengreatersyntacticstatus.Asaresult,forsomespeakers,qu-shicanonlybealexicalcompound,andtheexpressionqu-le-shiwouldbeungrammatical.Forsomeotherspeakers,qu-shimaybeallowedsomeSCproperties.Theymight,forexample,acceptexpressionssuch as qu-le-shi leave-ASP-world “have passed away” in addition to qu-shi-le.Furthermore,theymightcreatesomenewexpressionssuchasqu-guo去国 leave-country “leave one’s home country” and qu-jia去家 leave-home “leave one’shome”, based on their understanding of the internal structure of qu-shi. Theinfluenceofaspeaker’seducationinwhere(s)heplacesaVOformalsoechoesaninterestingstatementinlinguisticsthateveryoneusesalanguageabitdifferently.4.2.4 Summary In summary,whereaVO formstandson the continuum ismoreor lessdeterminedindividually.TwoVOformsmaylookverysimilar(e.g.,theycouldbebothmadeupofBBmorphemes,orevenhavingasharedmorpheme),butdifferquite a lot in their morphosyntactic properties. Three factors have a generalinfluence onwhere a VO form is placed on theVP-LC continuum: a VO form’sfrequencyofuse,thecontextinwhichaVOformappears,andindividualspeaker’sknowledgeofClassicalChinese.

ThecaseoftheMandarinVOformsechoesmanyinsightsfromhistoricallinguistics, which is not surprising, considering the fact that theMandarin VOcompounding isoneof themanychanges thathappenedduring the language’sdevelopmentfrombeingmonomorphemictopolymorphemic.5 ModelingtheMandarinVOconstructions

Thebiggestdeficiencyinpreviousdiscussions(Chao1968,Li&Thompson1981,Huang1984,Packard2000)isfoundintheir“isolating”theMandarinVOproblems.Littlereferencehasbeenmadetomorphological theories ingeneral,norhavetherebeenanyattemptstotakeamoreextendedpointofviewandlinktheVOproblemstoothersimilarcompoundingphenomena(inMandarinandinotherlanguages).EachpieceoftheworkssucceedsfairlywellindescribingthecharacteristicsofthevariousMandarinVOforms,butnonetouchesonquestionssuchaswhytherearedifferentdegreesof“separability”,howwecanexplainwhatweseeinMandarinonatheoreticallevel,etc.ThissectionaimstounderstandtheMandarinVOformsfromatheoreticalperspective. IoffermyunderstandingofhowtheVOformsarerepresentedinthelexicon,andsuggestthatConstructionMorphologyisthebesttooltomakesenseoftheMandarinVOproblems.Laterinsection6, I shall show that theMandarinphenomenon feedswell intoa largerpicture,apatternthatinactualityisprevalentinmanyoftheworld’slanguages.IshallexplorethenatureoftheMandarinVOformsandwhytheyshowdifferentdegreesofcohesionbetweentheirconstituents.5.1 Constructionmorphology

InmodelingtheMandarinVOforms,themoretraditionaltheorieswhichfocus on the use ofmorphemes and their combinations such as the item-and-arrangementapproachandtheitem-and-processapproachprobablyallfallshort.Neitherofthetwoapproachescanexplainwell,orperhapsatall,whysomeofthederivedVOformscanmaintainsomesyntacticfreedom,andwhytherearegreat

33

variations in the degrees of syntactic freedom among the individual VO formswhichareallderivedfromthesame“arrangement”or“process”.WewouldneedtousetoolswhichpermithighdegreesoffluidityformodelingtheMandarincase,andIwouldliketoproposethatthebestmodelforanalyzingtheMandarinVOformsisthetheoryofConstructionMorphology(CM).

ConstructionMorphology is built on the idea of ConstructionGrammar.Michaelis&Lambrecht(1996:216)summarizethefundamentalsofConstructionGrammarasfollows:

“InConstructionGrammar,thegrammarrepresentsaninventoryofform-meaning-function complexes, in which words are distinguished fromgrammaticalconstructionsonlywithregardtotheirinternalcomplexity.Theinventoryofconstructionsisnotunstructured;itismorelikeamapthan a shopping list. Elements in this inventory are related throughinheritancehierarchies,containingmoreorlessgeneralpatterns.”Booij,whoworks extensively onbuilding theCM framework, interprets

this quotation as suggesting that “both syntactic patterns andword formationpatternsmightbeseenasconstructions”(2007:34).

CM essentially sees word formation patterns as “abstract schemas thatgeneralize over sets of existing complex words with a systematic correlationbetweenformandmeaning”(p.34).Theschemasdomorethanjustgeneralizingoverexistingwords;theyalsodetailhownewcomplexwordscanbecreated.Forexample,Englishdeverbalnounsendingin–ercanberepresentedinthefollowingschema:(41) [[a]Ver]Nà“onewhoVs”This schema is both a generalization about the form and meaning of the –erdeverbalnounsalready listed in the lexicon,and thebasis for coiningnew–ernouns from verbs (Booij 2010: 2). Speakers coin newwords by replacing thevariableawithaconcreteverb.AccordingtoBooij,thecrucialdifferencebetweenschemasandanalogyisthatspeakersdonotneedtopickoutaspecificwordandcoinanewwordbyanalogywiththeexistentword,buthaveanabstractschematouseasaguidelineforcoiningnewwords(p.2).Therelationbetweenaschemaand the individualwords that conform to the schema is thatof “instantiation”:eachofthenounsendingwith–erfromthegroupof“onewhoVs”instantiatestheschemain(41). The schemas of CM also look somewhat like the generative rules forexplainingproductivewordformation,suchasAronoff’s(1976)wordformationrules.Theequivalentwordformationrulefortheaboveconstructionschema,forexample,canbewrittenas:(42) [x]Và[[x]Ver]NSemantics:“onewhoVshabitually,professionally”(Booij2010:4) Booij arguesCMschemashaveanumberof advantagesovergenerativerules. One key difference is that schemas can be both source-oriented andproduct- or output-oriented while rules are always source-oriented (p. 4).

34

AnotheradvantageisthattheCMcanunifytwoschemaswithouthavingtohaveanintermediatelevel(p.7).Thisispossiblebecause,critically,theCMisafunctionrelating formtomeaning,whileagenerativeword formationrule isa functiontakinginawordformandyieldingawordform.CaballeroandInkelas(2013:107)encapsulatetheessentialsassuch:ConstructionMorphologyisalexicalisttheory“with a rich lexicon or construction composed of product/output-orientedschemasthatrelateformtomeaning”.5.2 UsingtheCMtomodeltheMandarinVOforms UndertheCMframework,MandarinVOcompoundingcanberepresentedbythefollowingschema:(43) [[a]Vk[b]Ni]Vjßà[SEMkwithrelationRtoSEMi]j(bistheargumentofa)(adaptedfromBooij’s(2010)schemaforDutchcompounds) The left-rightarrowstands for“correspondence”.The lower-case lettersstandforvariables.Variablesaandbarearbitrarybutnotcompletelyrandom:arequisiteofthisschemaisthatbfunctionsastheargumentofa.VandNrepresentsyntacticcategories.Variablesk, i,and jarelexicalindexesonthepropertiesofwords,includingaword’sphonological,syntactic,andsemanticproperties.CMisaboutpairing formandmeaning, and the generalmeaning contributionof thiscompoundingschemaisspecified.However,thenatureofRisnotspecified.Itis“determined for each individual compound on the basis of themeaning of thecompoundconstituents,andencyclopedicandcontextualknowledge”(Booij2010:17).

IpromoteusingCMschemastomodeltheMandarinVOformsbecauseIsee the following advantages of applying the CM theory tomake sense of theMandarincase.

First, asamappingbetween formsandmeaning, rather thanamappingbetweenformsandforms(thegenerativewordformationrules,forexample,aremapping relationshipsbetween formsand forms), aCM schemagivesus greatflexibility ininterpretingtheoutcomeoftheschema.Wedonotneedtolabeladerivedforminthefirstplace.Theschemaneversaysitis,forexample,alexicalcompoundthatwewillgetoutofthecompoundingprocess.WhattheschemasaysisthatwegetacertainVNstringofthesyntacticcategoryV.

Second,CMpermitsthatthederivedformscanmaintaintheir“fluidity”andtake on multiple morphosyntactic features. CM assumes that the lexicon listssimplexwords,complexwords,aswellastheabstractschemas.ThisconceptionavoidstheRule-ListFallacy(Langacker1987),theassumptionthattherearetwotypesofmentalrepresentations:abstractdescriptionsofpatterns(whichtheCMschemas are) and lists of exceptions. The rule-list division “was originallydesigned to prevent redundant encoding and achieve economic description”(Harris 1997). An item conforming to a rule would not also be separatelymemorized, whichmeans that a listed construct (be it a complex word or anidiomaticphrase)cannotbelinkedtoaruleatthesametime.Suchdivisionfitsnotaswellwithmodernunderstandingofthebrain,whichrecognizesthat“thebrainhas vast storage resources andmay usemassive redundant encodings” (ibid.).Under the CM framework, a construct can be listed and linked to a schema

35

simultaneously, which allows a Mandarin VO form to remain fluid, capable ofmanifestingbothphrasepropertiesandcompoundproperties.

FollowingCM’s“fluiditypermit”,itbecomesalmostself-explanatorywithCMwhyreanalysiscanhappen.Sincetheabstractschemasarelistedinthelexiconalongwithwords,speakersareconstantlyexposed–whethertheyareawareofitornot–totheschemas,includingschema(43),whichgeneralizesovertheexistingVOformsandgeneratesnewones.Whenaloanwordentersintothelexicon,itbecomespotentially subject to reanalysis if it conforms to the schemapattern.While this does not make CM really stand out from the rest of all possiblemorphologytheories–afterall,wemightaswellinvokereanalysisbyhavinginmindthewordformationrulesormakinganalogy–theCMschemaisfavorableinthat as a correspondence between form and meaning, it also forecasts a“redistribution” of meaning to a VO form’s constituents in addition to themorphological/syntactic reanalysis.When reanalysishappens, it involvesmorethanjustreassigningsyntacticstatuses(e.g.,thenounmorphemewhichoriginallyhadnoindependentsyntacticrolenowbecomesanindependentargumentoftheverbandoftheclause),butalsoreassigningsemantics.Forinstance,thephoneticEnglish loanword you-mo together means “make a humorous comment” (cf.section2.4).Theverbmorphemeyouhasonlyonemeaning in regularuse, “toimprison”, and mo by itself is only used as a verb morpheme. But throughreanalysis,yousomewhatregistersthemeaning“tomake”,andmogetsclosetomean“ahumorouscomment”inyou-ta-yi-mo“makeahumorouscommenttohim”.Inothertheories,onlychangesinformsarepredicted.Wewouldthenneedextraspecificationsforsemanticreanalysis.

Asafourthadvantage,CMeasilyexplainswhythesemanticsofaderivedformandthatoftheindependentcounterpartsofitsconstituentscanvaryfrombeingstraightforwardtobeingidiosyncratic.Asmentionedearlierinthissection,thenatureofR,i.e.,thesemanticrelationshipbetweenthetwoconstituents,isnotspecifiedinthegeneralcompoundingschema,buttobedeterminedindividually,“onthebasisofthemeaningofthecompoundconstituents,andencyclopedicandcontextualknowledge”(Booij2010:17).Thus,despitebeingbornoutofthesameschema,someVOformsmayhavespecializedmeaning,whilethemeaningofsomeotherVOformscanbecompositional.

Lastbutnotleast,withCM,wedonotneedtoworryabouttheunderlyingstatus(es)oftheVOforms.WhileitiseasyforlinguiststoagreethatthesurfacestatusofaVOformcanbeeitherawordoraphrase,theunderlyingstatusoftheVOformhasbeencontentiouslydebated(cf.section2).Amongtheproposedsetofpossibilities,namely(a)asawordbutreanalyzedasaphraseinsomesurfaceforms;(b)asasyntacticallyderivedphrasebutbecomeslexicalized;and(c)storedbothasacompoundwordandasaphrase,morerecentlinguists(Packard2000)havesidedwiththethirdpossibility.

Myresearch,however,hasledmetobecomeincreasinglydoubtfulabouttheassumptionthattheVOformsmusthaveafixedunderlyingrepresentation.Ifwe can just step away from the idea of “definiteness” for a moment, we canimmediatelyseethefollowingquestionscoming:onwhatgroundcanwesaythattheVOformsmusthavesomefixedunderlyingrepresentation(s)?IftheVOformshave“ambiguous”identitiesonthesurfacelevel,whycoulditnotbethecasethattheydonothaveafixed,clearunderlyingrepresentation(orrepresentations)to

36

beginwith?Aclearunderlyingrepresentationbecomesespeciallyquestionablewhenweconsiderthefollowingproblems: WhilethefeaturesandidentifyingcriteriacancharacterizeandcategorizewelltheVOforms’differentidentities,andhelpusunderstandtheVOforms,theyrelyonthefactthatwealreadyknowwhatmorphosyntacticproperties,andthuswhat identities a VO formhas. This is different from, for example, the Englishpluralityrule.WhenwesaythattheEnglishplurals/s/,/z/,and/ɪz/allcomefromthesameunderlyingrepresentation/z/,wehaveaclearsetofrulesthatmapsanunderlyingrepresentationtoanactualoccurrence.ThisisnotthecasewiththeMandarinVOforms.Therehasbeennosuccess in identifyingrulesthatpredictwhat identitiesaVOformcanhave.Perhaps, therehasbeennosuccesssimplybecausewewouldbetakingawrongdirectionifwetriedtofindsuchrules.

Butifchu-ban“topublish”andchi-fan“toeat”havethesameunderlyingstatus(es),withoutadequategroupingrules,howdoweexplainthefactthatchu-banisonlyusedasanLC,whilechi-fancanbeusedeitherasaVP,anSC,oranLC?With the CM, which allows simplex words, complex words, and the abstractschemasallstoredinthelexicon,wecandowithknowingaVOformissomewhereamongthevastamountofstorage–andpossiblyrepresentedmorethanonce–butnothavingtoknowwherepreciselyitis.Infact,Ifeelthis“indifference”isinactualitytherightapproachtounderstandinghowtheVOformsarestoredinthelexicon.Not only are the VO forms themselves “ambiguous” to beginwith, thedegreesof“ambiguity”oftheVOformsalsodifferfromindividualtoindividual.With such variance on the surface level, andwithout adequate grouping rules(whatwehavearedescriptionsoftheirmanifestedproperties),Idoubtifafixedunderlyingformwouldworkwellrepresentingtheactualpicture.

In summary, its permission for “no static identities” andvast individualvariationsmakestheCMschemaamuch-preferredtoolformakingsenseoftheMandarinVOforms.ItcaptureswelltheVOforms’multiplestatuses,availabilityforreanalysis,andindividualdifferences.6 MandarinVOcompoundingasnounincorporation6.1 ThenatureoftheMandarinVOcompounding

TheidentitiesoftheMandarinVOformsmaybehugelydebatable,buttheoriginof theword/phrase indeterminacy isuncontroversial: thewell-recordeddiachronicdevelopmentof theChinese language shows that asChinesemovedfrommonosyllabicandmonomorphemictopolysyllabic10andpolymorphemic,agroupofcompoundverbsformedoutofanobjectcombiningwithitsverbbegantoappearinthelanguage.Yet,theprocessof“thecompoundingofanounstemwithaverbtoformacomplexverb”(Mithun1994:5023)isbynomeansexclusivetoMandarin.Thisprocesshasbeengenerallyreferredtoas“nounincorporation”(NI), andhasbeen found tobeactive in “awiderangeofgeneticallyunrelatedlanguagesscatteredthroughouttheworld”(ibid.).InstantiationsofNIhavebeeninvestigatedinvariouslanguages.Manysurveyslookintopolysyntheticlanguages(cf.examplesofNativeAmericanlanguagesandBantulanguagesinMithun1984),butmoreanalyticlanguagesareincludedaswell(cf.DutchandEnglishexamplesin Booij 2010). In all examples, some commonalities are found regarding thecompounding’soriginanditsstatusinlanguageuse:10“Polysyllabic”referstoChinesewords.Chinesemorphemeshaveremainedmonosyllabic.

37

1) NI originates from the “verb + object” syntactic structure (which promptsMithun(1984:847)toclaimthat“nounincorporationisperhapsthemostnearlysyntactic of all morphological processes”). The N (the object) bears a specificsemanticrelationshiptoitshostV,oftentimesasthepatientoftheverb,butcanalsobelocation,instrument,etc.;2)verbsderivedfromNIareincoexistencewiththeirsyntacticparaphrases;thederivedverbsdonotdrivetheirrespectivesyntacticphrasesoutofuse.

TheexamplesoftheMandarinVOformsdiscussedinsection3haveclearlydemonstratedthatthesecondofthetwoclaimsaboveholdstrueforMandarin:thisiswhyweencountertheproblemofindeterminacyinthefirstplace.WealsoknowfromthebirthofthemodernChineselexicon(cf.section1.1)thatChineseVOcompoundsarederived,too,fromthelanguage’ssyntacticVOphrases.IthusproposethatthenatureofthephenomenonoftheMandarinVOconstructionsisprecisely that of noun incorporation. Though the type of morphology thatMandarinhasisvastlydifferentfromthetypesofmorphologyofthelanguagesinwhichNI has traditionally been studied, divergence inmorphological typologydoesnot inanywaychangethe factsabout theMandarinVOforms’originandstatusofusage:whatweseeinChineseVOformsisnounincorporation.Thereareno fundamentaldifferencesbetween theMandarinVOcompoundingandothercasesofNI.Thisshouldhardlybesurprising,ifwethinkaboutthemanystatisticaltendenciesobservedcross-linguistically, includingwhatHopperandThompson(1980)describesas“ageneraltendencyamonglanguagesforverbstocoalescewith indefinite direct objects”. What is surprising, however, is the dearth ofattemptstotrytolinktheMandarinVOformswiththegeneraldiscussionsofNI,ashasbeendoneinmanyotherlanguages.

Amajorreasonforthis,Ithink,tracesbacktoMandarin’sgenerallackofmarkers.ThefactthattheMandarinnounformsareinflectionallyinert(theydonottakeonmorphologicalmarkersfor,e.g.,case,definiteness,orplurality)yieldsadeceptiveresult:theVOcompoundanditsparallelphrasesharetheexactsameform.This isnot thecase in languageswithovert inflectionalmarkings,whereincorporatednouns (INs)andsyntactically independentnounsareeasilygivendifferentiatedformsanditismuchmorestraightforwardtotellifanounhasbeenincorporated,whetherfullyoratleasttosomeextent.Compare,forexample,theEnglishsentencesheisberry-pickingandheispickingberries.

AnotherconspicuousdifferencebetweenMandarinandothercommonlycited languages for discussingNI, say, Chukchi andMohawk11, is so plain andobviousthatitmayevensoundalittlebanaltopronounceit:Mandarinwordstendtobeconsiderablyshorter.ThevastmajorityofMandarinwordsaredisyllabic(cf.1.1and3.1.3).InChukchiandMohawk,ontheotherhand,oneeasilyencounterslongwords,astheselanguagesregularlyexpressconceptsbyconstructingverylong words out of multiple morphemes. Having been mostly presented withexamples ofmulti-syllabic andmulti-morphemicwords, NI has probably beenmoreorlessassociatedwith“longwords”.Examplesfromlesssyntheticlanguages11ChukchiisaPaleosiberianlanguagespokenbytheChukchipeopleintheeasternmostextremityofSiberia.MohawkisanIroquoianlanguagespokenbytheMohawknationintheUnitedStates(mainlyNewYork,Wisconsin,andOklahoma)andCanada(OntarioandQuebec).Bothlanguagesare synthetic languages: Chukchi is an agglutinative language and Mohawk is a polysyntheticlanguage.

38

donothelpNItomoveawayfromthisimage,either.Mountain-climb,anEnglishNI-derivedcompound,forinstance,certainlydoesnotappeartobeshort.

Thus,thepicturepresentedbytheMandarinVOformsdoesnotlookquiteliketheotherpicturesofNIasseenintheliterature,andpreviousstudieshavenotmadealinkbetweentheMandarincompoundingandthegeneralNIphenomenon.Mandarin’s morphological invariance, which results in little differentiation informsbetweenitssyntacticphrasesandthederivedcompounds,togetherwithalexicon characterizedby “short”words,whichdeviates from themore familiarimageofNI,obscurethenatureofthelanguage’sVOcompoundingprocess,whichisnotfundamentallydifferentfromthatofChukchiorMohawkorEnglish.

AthirdsharedfeatureofNImayfurtherrevealthenatureoftheMandarinVOcompounding:3)theincorporatednounsgenerallyhave“lessindividualsaliencethanseparatenominals”(Mithun1986:33).

Mithun does not elaborate what she specifically means by “individualsalience”.Herexamplessuggestthattherearetwotypesofchangein“individualsalience”.Thefirst typecanbedemonstratedthroughoneofMithun’sMohawkexamples,extractedfromadiscussionontheimportanceofcorn(forthecompletetext, seeMithun 1984: 869).When corn ismentioned for the first time in thediscourse,itisexpressedbyaseparatenoun.Asthediscussionmovesontohowcornwasplantedandhowitgrew,cornbecomes“thematic”,andisincorporatedwiththeverb.Butwhenthetextcontinuesontodescribinghowpeopletakethehusksoffdowntheearinharvesting,theactualkernelsofcornisbroughtbackintothecenterofattention,andthisgaininindividualsalienceisagainsignaledby the use of an independent noun. Thus, in this type of noun incorporation,individual salience revolvesaround the levelof attention the speakerwants toassign to the noun in discourse.When a noun is brought up for the first time,and/orwhenitisintendedtobepaidextraattentionto,ithasgreaterindividualsalienceandisusedinaseparatenominalform.Whenthespeakerperceiveslittleorlessindividualsalienceinthenoun,itislikelytoappearincorporated.

Another type of reduction in saliency occurs when a generic noun isincorporatedtoqualifyaverbratherthanfunctioningastheargumentoftheverbitself,andamorespecificexternalNPfunctionsastheverb’spatient(ibid.).AgainMithunprovidesanexamplefromMohawk(forthefullexample,seeMithun1984:870).Inthisexample,thetopicthattheverbintroduces,rabahbót“bullhead”,isanexternalindependentnoun,whiletheverbitselfappearswithanincorporatedclassifier-itsy-“fish”.Myinterpretationofherexampleisthatthistypeofdifferentdegreesof“individualsalience”centersonthecontrastbetweenintensionalandextensionalmeaning.Insemantics,intensionandextensionarecomparedoftenincorrelativewords that indicate the referenceof a termor concept: “‘intension’indicates the internal content of a term or concept that constitutes its formaldefinition; and ‘extension’ indicates its range of applicability by naming theparticularobjectsthatitdenotes”(definitionfromEncyclopediaBritannica).Forexample,theintensionof“car”asasubstantiveis“roadvehicletypicallywithfourwheels and powered by an internal-combustion engine”; its extension, on theotherhand,embracessuchthingsassalooncars,sportscars,andhatchbackcars.

InMithun’sMohawk example, -itsy- is incorporated and it refers to thebroadconceptof“fish”,i.e.,itexpressesanintensionalmeaning.TheNI-derived

39

verbsrefer tounitaryactions, suchas “fry fish”.Whatparticular typeof fish isbeing friedhas littlebearingon thegeneral referenceof “fry fish”.Bycontrast,rabahbót appears as an independent nominal, and it expresses an extensionalmeaning. Mithun thus suggests that an IN is likely to express an intensionalmeaning,while a separatenominal, being external and independent, canbe asspecificasitneedstobeandislikelytoexpressanextensionalmeaning.

ThesamefeatureisfoundinEnglishNI.Inheisoffberry-picking(examplefromMithun1984:849),theincorporatednounberry“doesnotrefertoaspecificberry,nortoaparticularbushfulofberries:itqualifiestheV,describingthetypeofpickinginprogress”(p.849).Thatis,berryexpressesanintensionalmeaning,referringtoageneralfruittype.

It is important to note that we are looking at a correlation betweenincorporated/independent noun and extensional/intensional meaning. Theautonomyofpropertiesofdifferentlevelsisnotcompromised(cf.section3.4).Weare speaking of general tendencies, not causal relationships, or definitions, orregularities.Wedonothaveevidencesupportingthatwithincorporationanounformmustshiftmeaning,orthatbecauseanounformexpressesanintensionalmeaningithastobeincorporated.Wecannotmakethestatementthataseparatenominalcannottakeonanintensionalmeaning,orthatexpressinganintensionalmeaning indicatesastatusofbeing incorporated. Inaddition,howintensional/extensional is “intensional/extensional” can be an ever-adjusting comparison,variedaccordingtoindividualspeakersandrelevantcontext.

TheMandarinVOformsalsoexhibitthiscorrelationbetweenintensional/extensionalmeaningandincorporated/separatenounforms.InpairsofMandarinwords in which such a comparison can be drawn, we find that the scope ofreferenceofthenounsteminanNI-derivedverbisusuallybroaderthanthatofaseparate noun. More striking is a phenomenonwhich is hard to find in otherlanguages,andwhichisevenmorerevealingthantheMohawkexample(inthe“fish” example, the incorporated formand the separate noundonot share thesamenounstem,andwewouldthenexpect that theirreferenceshoulddiffer):sinceMandarinnounsareinflectionallyinertandtakenomorphologicalmarkersforcase/plurality/definiteness,andhomonymyisprevalentinMandarin,insomepairsoftheVOforms,the“same”nounstem(nochangesinformorpronunciation)expressesanintensionalmeaningasaseparatenoun,andextensionalmeaningasanIN.Anexampleisdiscussedearlieroninsection2.5:theVOformchi-fanreferstotheeatingofallmealsalikeregardlessofwhatoneeats,whenitfunctionsasaword;butwhenitfunctionsasaphrase,itisusedtoreferparticularlytotheactofeating “cooked rice”, as opposed to other possibilities such as chi mian “eatnoodles”.Of course,wemayhesitate to say that it is the samenoun stem thatappearsinthewordchi-fanandinthephrasechi-fan.Instead,wemaywanttocallthetwofanhomonymiclexemes/morphemes,sincetheyhavedifferentmeanings,albeitthesameformandpronunciation.Eitherway,wegetthesameresult:itismorelikelythatthephraseformhasanextensionalreferenceandthewordformhasanintensionalreference.

Inactualspeech,speakersusually inadvertentlysignalwhether theyareusingtheintensionalfanortheextensionalfanbyplacingaveryslightstressontothe latter, or, a more perceivable stress when they are intentionally drawinghearers’attention.Thishappensgenerally,notjustwithfan.Oftentimesitistheonlyoverthintofextensionoverintension.Otheraspectsofthesounds,suchas

40

overallpronunciationandtone,ofthemorphemesarenotcomprisedtoindicateintension/extension.

Thedifferentiationbetweenintensionandextensionprovidesadditionalsupportformytripartiteapproach.Whileallthreeformsofchi-fan–thephrase,the syntactic compound, and the lexical compound–are capableof expressingeitheranintensionalorextensionalmeaning,statisticallythephrasechi-fanandtheLCchi-fanbothmanifestarelativelymorevisiblecorrelationwithextensionaland intensional meaning, respectively. It is less secure to establish a similarcorrelationwiththeSCchi-fan:itismoredifficulttosayiftheSCchi-fanismorelikelytobeusedtoexpressanextensionalmeaningoranintensionalmeaning.(44)and(45)provideexamplesoftheSCchi-fanbeingusedastoexpressintensionalandextensionalmeaning,respectively.Speakersdecidewhichmeaningtheywanttoexpressbasedontheircommunicationalneeds,andhearersmakespontaneousand accurate judgement about which meaning speakers are trying to conveydependingonthecontext.

(44) Intensionalasasyntacticcompound:

nichiguofanleme?youeatASPmealASPSFP“Haveyouhadyourmeal?”

(45) Extensionalasasyntacticcompound:shaochidianfan,duochidiancailittleeatCLcooked.ricemucheatCLdish“Eatlesscarbs,butmorevegetablesandmeat.”

In summary, theMandarin VO compounds are just like VO compounds

fromotherlanguagesintheirsharedfeaturesofsyntacticorigin,co-existencewith“parent” VO phrases, and association with intensional meaning. They are allproductsofthesamecompoundingprocessnamed“nounincorporation”.Becausedifferentlanguageshavedifferentmorphologicalsystems,itisnaturalforeverylanguage todevelop itsownpeculiarities in theprocess,but theessence is thesame.ThenatureoftheMandarinVOcompoundingisnounincorporation.6.2 PreviousworkonincorporationinChinese6.2.1 Hsu’swork

Averysmallnumberofresearchworkshaveatallincludeddiscussionsonthe process of NI in Chinese compound formation. One of these is Kylie Hsu’s(2002:79-90)accountofevidenceofincorporationinChinesemorphosyntax.Hsuidentifiesfivetypesofmorphosyntacticstructures,andclaimsthatNIoccursineach: “adverb compounding”, “adjective compounding”, “verb compounding”,“noun compounding”, and “idioms” (ibid.). Among the five types, “verbcompounding”istheoneofrelevancetomydiscussion.YetHsu’sviewonNIinChineseisclearlygoingintothecompletelyoppositedirection,asdemonstratedby her examples of you-yong swim-swim “to swim” (p. 85, examples slightlymodifiedtomatchtheformatoftheotherexamplesinthisthesis):(46)a.womeitianyou-yongbangexiaoshi

Ieverydayswim-swimhalfCLhour

41

“Iswimeverydayforhalfanhour.”

b.womeitianyou-ban-ge-xiaoshi-yongIeverydayswim-half-CL-hour-swim“Iswimforhalfanhoureveryday.”

AccordingtoHsu,sentence(46b) isderivedfromNI,which involvesthe

implantingofthenounphraseban-ge-xiaoshiintotheverbyou-yongandformsthe“long compound verb you-ban-ge-xiaoshi-yong” (p. 85). Hsu’s claim, in mypersonal view, is simply misguiding. It is true that some of the most strikingexamplesofNIcomefromlanguagesinwhichitispossibletoliterallysplitupaverb tohaveanounplaced inside theverb, yet thatdoesnotmean that everylanguagethathasNIdoesthesamething,nordoesitmeanthatacompoundingprocessisnotNIunlessthenounornounphraseisbreakinguptheverb.Infact,numerousinstanceshaveshownthatalargenumberoflanguagesdonotsplitupaverbtoimplantanoun(cf.examplesinMithun1984).

ThereareseveraltypesofevidenceagainstHsu’streatmentofyoubangexiao-shiyongasaverbalcompoundderivedfromNI.Thebiggestchallenge,firstofall,comesfromthesyntacticstatusofbangexiao-shi.Ananalysisofthesyntacticrolesoftheconstituentsinthefollowingtwosentencesshowsthat“halfanhour”,albeit a noun phrase, functions as an adjectival modifier modifying yong (cf.modifierinsertioninsyntacticcompoundsinsection3.2.2).Sentence(47b)usesaparaphrasticdeexpressionandrevealstheNP’sadjectivalmodifierstatus12:(47)a.womeitianyoubangexiao-shiyong

IeverydayswimhalfCLhourswim“Iswimforhalfanhoureveryday.”

b.womeitianyoubangexiao-shideyongIeverydayswimhalfCLhourGENswim“lit.Itakeahalf-an-hour’sswimeveryday.”“Iswimforhalfanhoureveryday.”

TheNP’sstatusasanadjectivalmodifieralsoexplainswhythe“compound

verb”you-ban-ge-xiaoshi-yong,asHsuphrases,“canalternativelybeanalyzedasaverbphrase”:itisnot“alternatively”analyzedasaverbphrase;itisaverbphrase.

In addition,Hsu’s treatmentwould cause a hugeproblemof identifyingcompoundsinChinese.Ifsplittingyou-yongwithban-ge-xiaoshiwereaninstanceofnoun incorporation, and thederivedconstituentwerea compound, thenwewouldbehavinganinfinitenumberofNI-derivedcompoundsjustbyreplacing“halfanhour”with“oneminute”,“twominutes”,“thirtyhours”(ifwehave“everyyear” in lieu of “every day”), “thirty hours and one minute”, etc. While somedefinitionof“compound”mightsupportthatthenumberofthecompoundsinalanguageisinfinite,itisnotclearwhetherHsubuildsherargumentundersuchaframework.Unlessshedoes,hercurrentargumentwouldbeunsound.12InMandarin,theconstructionsof“adjectivalmodifier+de+noun”and“adjectivalmodifier+noun”canalternatewitheachotherinmanycircumstances.Inwhatcircumstancesisalternationnotpossibleisnotofconcerntomydiscussionhere;whatisofconcernisthatwhenalternationispossible,thetwoalternatingformsexpressthesamemeaning(cf.Xu2016).

42

Unfortunately,Hsudoesnotgiveenoughinformationtomakeclearexactlywhatkindofreferencesheismaking(e.g.,whatisacompound?).Amongthefivetypesofsituations,“verbcompounding”happenstobeleastfeatured–Hsuspareslessthanonepageforbasicallyamerementionofit.Thebiggestpitfallthatmostlikelycausesconfusion,Ithink,isthatHsudoesnotincludeanydiscussionsontheinternalstructureofyou-yong.Shedoesnotclarifyifshethinksthatyou-yonghasaninternalverb+objectstructure,orifsheistreatingitasalexicalcompounddevoidofsuchastructure13.Itlookslikethatthelatteristhecase,andthismayverypossiblybethecauseofHsu’smisleadinganalyses.

In summary, Hsu’s example does present a NI-derived verb, but theincorporatednounisnot“halfanhour”,nor is thederivedverbyou-ge-xiaoshi-yong.Therealincorporationprocessisthecompoundingofthenounstem–yongwiththeverbstem–you,producingyou-yong,whichhasbothanLCrepresentationandanSCrepresentation.6.3 Typesofnounincorporation Since NI is a highly active and productive mechanism, it would not besurprising that there are varied types of NI. Nor would it be surprising thatanytimewelookatalanguage,wemayfindNIaffectingdifferentVOstodifferentdegrees:somemayhavecompletedtheprocess,somemayhavejustbeguntheprocess. In her seminal paper, Mithun (1984) classifies four types of NI. Thedifferent types represent different degrees of incorporation. They are used fordifferentpurposes,andproducecompoundverbsofdistincttypologicalfeatures.Noteverylanguagehasallfourcategories,anditisnotunusualforalanguagetohaveonlyoneorsomeofthefourclassifications.IdrawonMithun’Gunwingguexamples(fromMithun1984)todemonstratewhatthefourtypesareandwhatcharacteristics each of themhas. According toMithun (p. 866), thisAustralianlanguageofwesternArnhemLandexhibitsextensiveNIofallfourtypes. TypeINIcreateslexicalcompounds.ThistypeofNIcreatesnewitemsthatwillactuallyenterthe lexicon(underthetraditionalmorphological framework;undertheCMframework,non-lexicalcompoundsarealsostoredthelexicon).Ityieldscompoundsdenotingunifiedconcepts,andthecompoundsoftenhavenon-compositionalmeanings,astheGunwingguexamples(p.866)show:(48) bo:-ṛe “toflow”

water-go bo:ŋu “todrink”

water-eat wog-benmigda “todisobey” word-forget AfewcharacteristicsofTypeINIarenoted.InTypeINI,anINdiffersfroma “regular”, independent nominal in both its syntactic and semantic features.Syntactically, it does not have the status of a distinct argument of the clause;13Onereasonwhysomepeoplemaytakesuchanapproach,Isuspect,isthatthemorphemeyongis both a verbmorphemeandanounmorpheme, andHsu’s analyses seem tobebasedon theassumptionthatyonginyou-yongisaverbalmorpheme.Yetinspeaker’sactualusage(andmind),itisapparentthatyongisanounmorphemeandthoughtofastheobjectofyou inyou-yong,asprovedbyitscapabilitytobeprecededbyanadjectivalmodifier.

43

semantically, an IN does not refer to a specific entity. The IN thus appearsunaccompaniedbymarkerssuchascasemarkersanddefinitenessmarkers,orsyntacticelementssuchasdemonstrativesandnumerals(p.856).InlinewiththeIN’sgenericreferenceandlossofsyntacticstatus, thederivedverbstendtobeused “in contextswithout specific, individuatedpatients”, andusually describehabitual,conventionalactivities,orinstitutionalizedstate.MithundefinesaTypeINI-derivedverbcompoundtobe“anintransitivepredicatedenotingaunitaryconcept”(p.856).

InTypeIINI,anINalsoshowsnoticeabledifferencesfromastand-alonenominalsyntacticallyandsemantically.TypeIIINsbearacloseresemblancetoType I INs: they do not have their own syntactic status, and appear withoutmorphologicalmarkers.InbothtypesofNI,anINanditsqualifiedverbtogetherformoneunit.ThekeydistinctionbetweenthetwotypesofNIliesin“theireffecton the rest of the clause” (p. 856). Type I NI derives intransitive verbs fromtransitiveones,i.e.,thevalencyoftheverbisthuslowered.TypeIINI,ontheotherhand,doesnotlowertheverb’svalency,becauseit“advancesanobliqueargumentintothecaseposition”originallyheldbythenow-incorporatedobject(p.856).Atransitiveverbisstilltransitiveafterincorporation.Thus,whenatransitiveverbincorporatesitsdirectobject,anotherargumentoftheclause,e.g.,aninstrument,location, or possessor,may “step up” and occupy the object role (a case role)vacatedby the IN.For this reason,MithuncallsType IINI “a lexicaldevice formanipulatingcase relationswithinclauses” (p.859).ExamplesofType IINI inGunwinggu(takenfromMithun1984:866)areasfollows:(49) namegbebiru-dur-aynbom. that(man)he/him-heart-speared “Hespearedthatmanintheheart.” (50) giŋa benedan’-bog-naŋ. crocodilethey.two.near-footprints-saw “Theysawthefootprintsofacrocodile.” In(49),durisincorporatedwiththetransitiveverb“spear”andnamegbeassumestheobjectrole.In(50),bogisincorporatedwiththetransitiveverb“see”andthepossessorargumentgiŋaassumestheobjectrole.

TypeIIINIisusedprimarilyforpragmaticpurposes.AnexampleofTypeIIINIistheearlierMohawkexample,inwhich“corn”becomesincorporated(andalso loses individual salience) after it has been previouslymentioned. Mithundescribesthis typeofNIas“tobackgroundknownor incidental information indiscourse”(p.867).TypeIIINIispragmaticallybased,notlexically.ThistypeofNIisflexibleandoftenhappensimpromptu.Anounwhichisincorporatedunderonecircumstancemaystandasanindependentnominalunderanother.TheCMmodelcanexplainthiswell:sincespeakersareconstantlyexposedtotherelevantconstructionschema,impromptuhappenseasily.

Finally, Type IVNI happenswhen speakers incorporate a generic nounstemtoqualifyaverb,to“narrowthescope”ofaverb(p.867).LikeTypeIIINI,Type IV NI is associatedwith loss of nominal salience. An external NP, whichcontainsdetailedandspecificinformation,followsthederivedverbtofunctionasthepatientoftheverb.TheMohawk“fish”exampledemonstratethistypeofNI.

44

6.4 “Subjectincorporation”andcontinuuminnounincorporation

So faralmostallexamplesofNIseemtoonly involve incorporationofadirectobjectwithatransitiveverb.YetwewouldbewrongtothinkthatNIonlyhappenstotransitiveverbsandtheirobjects.NIaffectsintransitiveverbs,too,inwhichcaseitisthesubjectoftheclausethatbecomesincorporated.AswithTypeIINI,inwhichadirectobjectisincorporatedwithatransitiveverbandanotherargumentfillstheobjectpositionofthenewlyproducedtransitiveverb,asubjectcanalsobeincorporatedwithanintransitiveverb,andanotherargumentmaybepromotedtosubjectstatus.

“Subject incorporation”featuresprominentlyinMandarinalongwithNI.Thederivedcompoundverbsareusuallyintransitiveandneedanotherargumenttotakethesubjectposition.Forexample,lian-hongface-redden“feelawkward”isa“subject-predicate”NVcompoundderivedbyincorporating lianwithhong. Inthefollowingsentence,wo“I”fillsthesubjectrole:(51) wolian-hongle

Iface-reddenASP“Istartedtofeeluneasy.”Thoughcomparativelylesscommon,it isalsopossibletohavetransitive

verbsproduced from“subject incorporation”, i.e., a complexverbderived from“subject incorporation”may require one argument to fill the agent role and asecondargumenttobeitspatient.Xin-tengheart-ache“grudge”providesaniceexample:(52) wobujing-changmaidong-xi,yin-weiwoxin-tengqian INEGregular-oftenbuyitemcause-doIheart-achemoney “Idon’tregularlymakepurchases,becauseI’mnotwillingtospend.”Interestingly,whilexin-tengcanfunctionasatransitiveverbandtakeanobject,itmayalsofunctionasanintransitiveverbandprojectonlyoneargumenttofillthesubjectposition,asinxin-teng“feelupset”:(53) tashangdehenli-hai,womenhenxin-teng hehurtAUXverysevereIPLveryheart-ache “Heisbadlyinjuredandwefeelveryupset.”

Perhapsevenmoreinterestingistheobservationthatthe“indeterminacy

problem”isalsofoundintheMandarinNVforms.In(54)forexample,lian-hongissplitapart,withanadverbinsertingbetweenthetwoconstitutingmorphemes.

(54) woliandouhongle

IfaceevenreddenSFPlit.“Ifeelsoashamedthatmyfacestartstoredden.”

TheproblemsoftheMandarinNVforms,unfortunately,cannotbeafforded

tobediscussedindetailsinthisthesis,butitisadvisabletokeeptheminmind,fortheyseemtosuggestthatanytypeofincorporationprocessislikelytoresult

45

in ambiguities in morphosyntactic identity, for incorporation essentiallyrepresents a change in language use. Like any linguistic change, incorporationdoes not develop overnight. At any given point in a language’s development,incorporationismorelikelytobeanongoingprocessratherthanastaticstatus.Stemsaffectedbyincorporationcannotimmediatelybecomefullyincorporated.Incorporated forms, likewise, donot instantlybecomepermanent. Some formsmayquicklybewidelyadoptedandrapidlybecomelexicalized.Somemayappearandhoveraroundforawhilebeforeeventuallyachievingfullylexicalizedforms,withtheirnon-fullylexicalizedformsinco-existence(e.g.,chi-fan,dan-xin,cao-xin)orwiththemindefinitelyindormancy(e.g.,cheng-gong).Somemayneverbecomecompletely lexicalized and “get stuck” on the incorporation processing ladder,which,reflectedintheMandarincase,isembodiedbythemanyVOformsthatcanbeVPsandSCsbutnotLCs.Atanygiventimewhenweobservealanguage,weareprobablylookingatmanyderivedverbsscatteredeverywherealongthescaleofnot-incorporatedtofully-incorporated.TheirdistributionimpliesthatNIcreatesacontinuumratherthanboundaries,anditispreciselybecauseofthegradiencefeature of the NI process itself that we also have the VPs, SCs, and LCs – theproductsofNI–constitutingacontinuumratherthanthreedistinctcategories.

ItthuscomesasnosurprisethatamongthedifferenttypesofNI,some–namely,TypeIandTypeII–producemorefullyincorporatedformsthantheothertypes.Inthesetwotypes,anINformsaholisticunitwiththeverbandlosesitssyntacticrole.InTypeIIIandTypeIVNI,nounsarerather“loosely”incorporatedwithverbs,inthesensethatthederivedverbsarecreatedforpragmaticuseandthenounsinquestiondonotregularlygothroughincorporation.

NI’s continuum nature is furthermore empirically supported by whatMithun describes as “an implicational hierarchy” (1984: 874). Through anexaminationofover100languages,MithunfindsthatthedifferentNItypesarenotrandombut followahierarchy.LanguageswithproductiveType IVNIalsohaveTypeIIINI.LanguageswithproductiveTypeIIINIalsoshowTypeII.AndlanguageswithproductiveTypeIIalsocontainTypeINI.ThishierarchysuggeststhatNI,onceappears,“developsalongaspecificpath”(p.874).ItstartswithTypeINI,thenproceedstoTypeII.Inpolysyntheticlanguagessystem,NIdevelopmentmayeventuallyextendtothediscourselevel.6.5 TypesofNIinMandarin

Once we establish an understanding of the nature of the Mandarin VOcompoundingasNI,wecanalsounderstandthenatureoftheVOforms’havingambiguousstatuses.Weseeinprevioussectionsthatinall languagesthathavebeendemonstrated tohaveNI,Mandarin included, thereexistsacontinuumofhowmoreorlessfullyanounhasbeenincorporatedwiththeverb.Thedegreeofcohesion between the constituting morphemes of a compound is different indifferenttypesofNI-derivedverbsaswellasindifferentverbsderivedfromthesametypeofNI.Itdoesnothappeninanylanguagethataderivedcomplexverbbecomes instantly and completely lexical. The “indeterminable” statusesof theMandarinVOforms,thus,isinnatureareflectionofthedifferentdegreesofnounincorporation.Thoughuncertaintiesabout theextentof incorporation–and inturnthedegreeofcohesionbetweentheconstituentsofthecompound–occurinother languagesaswell, theundifferentiated formsof theMandarinwordsandphrasessurelyenlargetheambiguity.

46

MandarinVOformsregularlyshowtwotypesofNI:TypeIandTypeIINI.ThisobservationisinlinewithMithun’simplicationalhierarchyandherreflectionthatNIatthediscourselevelusuallyhappensinpolysynthetic language(whichMandarin certainly is not). One interesting and rather unique aspect of theMandarinNIdevelopmentisthataTypeINIcompoundcankeepdevelopingintoaTypeIINIcompoundwithoutlosingitsTypeIform.Thisiswhywordslikecao-xincanbetotallyversatile,capableofbeingeitheraVP,anSC,oranLC.Cao-xinfirstdevelopedintoaTypeINIcompound,itsconstituentslosing(someof)theirsyntacticstatusandformingastrongcohesionbetweenthemselves.Butcao-xindidnotstopatStageI.Itkeptdeveloping:thetwoconstituentslostmoreoftheirsyntactic role; xinbecamemore fully incorporatedwith cao; an even strongercohesion was formed between the two constituents. Eventually, xin becamecompletely incorporated, its syntactic position completely vacated, and a newargumentcouldnowtakeupthevacatedobjectroleleftbyxin.Weseethisincao-xin’scapabilityofbeingfollowedbyanobject(cf.sentence(5)).

With NI, we can now also better understand why it would beungrammaticaltoinsertanaspectmarkerintocao-xinwhenitisfollowedbyanobject.Therealreasonfortheverb’sprojectinganobjectargumentisthatxinhasbecomefullyincorporatedandthusreleasestheobjectpositionitoriginallyheld.Since cao-xin as it is used in the context is a fully incorporated form, it is notpossibletoreachintotheinternalstructureofcao-xinpertheLIH.Theuniquenessof the Mandarin case, however, is that the Type I compound and the Type IIcompoundofthesameformarecurrentlybothstoredinthelexicon,whichfurthervalidatesthesuitabilityofusingtheCMtomodeltheMandarinVOforms,asCMcanpermitstoringtheTypeINIcao-xininthelexicon,andnotlosingitwhenitgoesontodevelopintotheTypeIINIcao-xin,andeventuallyhavingbothTypeIandTypeIIcao-xin,alongwiththeabstractschema(43),storedinthelexicon.6.6 Implicationsonmorphologicaltypology ThephenomenonofNIinChineseshouldperhapsalsopromptlinguiststogiveasecondthoughttothetraditionalmorphologicaltypology.NIisoftentimesthought of as a hallmark of polysynthetic languages (Sapir 1911). Yet it is notunusual for languages of othermorphological types to be perfectly capable ofusingverb+objectasacompoundingprocess,andtheremaybenofundamentaldifferencesbetweentheNIprocessofthepolysyntheticlanguagesandtheverb+object compounding process of the non-polysynthetic languages. The verb +objectcompounding inMandarin, forexample, ispreciselynoun incorporation.The morphology of these different linguistic systems can seem almostincomparablesuperficially,butthe“wrong”typesofmorphologyshouldnotdeterusfromseeingthecommonalitiesofthedifferentlanguages.7 Futurework

Whilemore theoreticalwork is tobe carriedoutwith theMandarinVOforms, I would be very interested in the prospect of combining experimentalstrandsofresearchwiththeoriesoftheMandarinVOforms.Forfurtherworkonthe VO forms, I would like to collect empirical evidence on how effective myproposed influencing factors are. An effective corpus study may be helpful intestinghypothesesontheeffectofcontextandfrequency,whilesomefieldworkcan answer questions regarding the effect of education. Perhaps even more

47

exciting is thepossibilityofbringing insights frompsycholinguistic research. ItcouldbeveryproductivetouseexperimentalmethodstotesthypothesesontheMandarinVOformsandinvestigatehowMandarinspeakersprocesscompounds.Questionsthataretobeexploredinclude,forexample,howandtowhatextentdospeakersrecognizethesyntactic/semanticrelationshipbetweentheconstitutingmorphemeswhentheyusecompounds.

Manyassociatedquestionsarealsolookingintriguing.Forexample,whatshouldwemakeoftheNVforms?IsincorporationtheonlytypeofcompoundingprocessinMandarinthatwouldresultinformswithmultipleidentities,asweseeintheVOformsandverybrieflyintheNVforms?Andwhataboutcompoundswith“fixedstatus”? IfallMandarincompoundswerebornoutofamonomorphemiclexicon,whycan’ttheybeflexible?TheVVcompounds,forexample,aremostlylexical.WhattypeofcompoundingprocessisbehindtheVVcompounds?Allthesequestionsmighteventuallyfeedintoeachother,andofferabetterunderstandingoftheChinesemorphology,which,aswehaveseen,hasimportantcommonalitieswithlanguagesthatseemtohaveincomparablemorphologicalsystemswiththatofChinese.8 Conclusion In this thesis I present the curious case of theMandarinVO forms. TheMandarinVOformsareremarkableinthatmanyofthemarecapableofhavingmultiple morphosyntactic statuses. Many VO forms show properties of lexicalcompounds, syntactic phrases, as well as an intermediate stage, syntacticcompounds.Ithusarguethatratherthanthetraditionalbinaryapproachwhichmakes the vague distinction betweenwords and phrases, a tripartitemodel ismore effective in explaining the many characteristics that the VO forms arecapableofhaving.IthengivemyowncriteriafordeterminingwhenaVOformisusedasaverbphrase,asyntacticcompound,oralexicalcompound.Inparticular,Isupportmakinginferencesaboutaform’ssyntacticidentityfromaspectmarkerinsertionandargueagainsttheinterpretationof“word-internalinflection”,rejectthevalidityofusingidiomaticmeaningtoinferaboutaform’ssyntacticstatus,andadvocatetheautonomyofthedifferentaspectsofalinguisticconstituent. I am also unsatisfied with the “isolation” of the past studies on theMandarinVOforms.Manymorphologicaltheorieshavebeenadvancedinthepastyears,andfewhavebeenappliedtotrytoexplainthephenomenainChinese.IproposethatConstructionMorphologyisapowerfultoolformakingsenseoftheMandarinVOforms.Inaddition,thecompoundingofanounstemandaverbstemto produce a complex verb – known as “noun incorporation” – is a commonmorphologicalprocesscross-linguistically,yet fewattemptshavebeenmadetolinktheMandarincasewiththegeneraldiscussions.IarguethatthenatureoftheMandarin VO compounding is precisely noun incorporation, despite its beingtraditionallyassociatedwithpolysyntheticlanguages. Muchworkisstilltobedone,ofcourse.Apartfromfurtherevidencewhichcanbecollectedtogiveadditionalsupporttosomeoftheargumentsinthisthesis,questionsonrelatedprocessessuchassubject-predicatecompounding,verb-verbcompounding, etc., arise and need to be addressed, and research on thesequestions can in turn shed light on verb-object compounding. This thesis onlyleads to many more exciting questions of the morphology of Chinese, which,interestingly,hasbeenthoughtofforquitesometimeas“non-existent”.

48

Asafinalremark,I’dliketoconcludethisthesiswithaquotebyBernhardKarlgren,frequentlycreditedasthefirstlinguisttostudyChineseusingmodernlinguisticmethods,takenfromoneofhisminormonographstitled“TheChineseLanguage:AnEssayonItsNatureandHistory”(1949).ItremainsoneofthemostbeautifulquotesIknowof.

“Itisawell-knownsayingthatwitheverylanguageyoulearn,youacquireonemoresoul.…[Y]ourthoughtsarecompelledtoleavethetracksmadefamiliartoyoubyyourownlanguageandyouareenabledtoraiseyourselfto a higher vantage point. You can come to realize that fundamentallyidenticalideasmaybegivenforminwidelyvaryingwaysandexpressedincompletelydifferentlanguagecategoriesfromthoseyouareaccustomedtoinyourmothertongue.…Nowwhenwemovetotheothersideoftheglobe, to a language which for thousands of years has been living anindependent lifepracticallyuntouchedbyalieninfluence,andwhichhasgonethroughitsownparticulardevelopmentandformedarichlyfacetedliterarylanguageapartfromitseverydayvernacular,wecanclearlyexpecttoenterintoastrangeworld,deviatingmuchfartherfromallthatweareaccustomedtointheIndo-Europeantongues,whichareallcognatetotheEnglish language. … It is precisely this peculiar nature of the Chineselanguage that we want to give some idea of, some insight, howeverelementary,intotheChinesesoulasitisrevealedinthelanguage,themostpowerfulinstrumentofthought.”

Tomeitservesasaconstantreminder–howeverromanticizedhiswords

areandperhapsevenmore somy interpretation– thatwecannever look toocloselyintoalanguagewhileatthesametimethereisalwayssomethinggranderout there; that even after the logic behind a language is brokendown and thevarious data examined, after the picture gets messy and the magic seeminglywanes,languageshallneverloseitsfascination,foritisimmenselybeautiful,andagenuinewonderofhumanbeingsindeed.

49

Selectedbibliography:Baxter,W.H.1992.AHandbookofOldChinesePhonology.Berlin:Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.Booij,G.2010.ConstructionMorphology.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Caballero,G.,andInkelas,S.2013.“Wordconstruction:Tracinganoptimalpaththroughthelexicon.”Morphology.23:103-143.Chao,Y.R.1968.AGrammarofSpokenChinese.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Chu,C.C.-H.1998.ADiscourseGrammarofMandarinChinese.NewYork:PeterLangPublishing.Dai,X.-L.1992.Chinesemorphologyanditsinterfacewiththesyntax.DoctoralDissertation.OhioStateUniversity.Hopper,P.J.,andThompson,S.A.1980.“TransitivityinGrammarandDiscourse”.Language.56:251-299.Huang,C.-T.J.1984.Phrasestructure,lexicalintegrity,andChinesecompounds.JournalofChineseLanguageTeachersAssociation14:53-78.Huang,S.F.2013.ChineseGrammaratWork,Volume1.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Jin,S.Z.1988.AnIntroductiontoModernChineseVocabulary.Beijing:Sinolingua.Katamba,F.1993.Morphology.Palgrave.Li,C.N.,andThompson,S.A.1981.MandarinChinese:afunctionalreferencegrammar.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Masini,F.1993.TheFormationofModernChineseLexiconandItsEvolutiontowardaNationalLanguage:ThePeriodfrom1840to1898.MonographSeriesNumber6.JournalofChineseLinguistics.Mithun,M.1984.“Theevolutionofnounincorporation”.Language.60:847-894.Mithun,M.1986.“Onthenatureofnounincorporation”.Language.62:32-37.Mithun,M.1994.Word-Formation:Incorporation.TheEncyclopediaofLanguageandLinguistics.R.E.Asher,ed.Oxford:PergamonPress.9:5024-5026.Packard,J.L.2000.TheMorphologyofChinese:ALinguisticandCognitiveApproach.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

50

Spencer,A.1991.MorphologicalTheory.Oxford:BasilBlackwell.Xiao,R.,andMcEnery,T.2004.AspectinMandarinChinese:ACorpus-basedStudy.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Xue,N.2001.DefiningandautomaticallyidentifyingwordsinChinese.DoctoralDissertation.UniversityofDelaware.Yip,P.-C.2000.TheChineseLexicon:AComprehensiveSurvey.London:Routledge.Zwicky,ArnoldandPullum,G.1983."Cliticizationvs.inflection:thecaseofEnglishn't".Language59:502–13.