Projecting adjectives in Chinese - link.springer.com · Abstract Chinese has the comparative morpheme and the positive ... (2010a) considers the unstressed degree word hěn ‘HEN’

Projecting adjectives in Chinese

Chen-Sheng Luther Liu1

Received: 21 January 2016 / Accepted: 12 December 2017 / Published online: 12 February 2018

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract Chinese has the comparative morpheme and the positive morpheme, both

of which project in syntax. The covert comparative morpheme is the covert allo-

morph of the comparative morpheme bǐjiào ‘more’. The covert bǐjiào ‘more’ can

only occur in a comparative construction where an overt standard of comparison is

syntactically available, but the overt one occurs in a comparative construction where

an overt standard of comparison is syntactically unavailable. The positive mor-

pheme also has two allomorphs. One is the unstressed hěn ‘HEN’ and the other is itscovert counterpart. The covert one can only occur in a focus sensitive domain where

the bare gradable adjective is focus-anchored, but the overt one occurs elsewhere.

The covert allomorph, regardless of whether it is the comparative or the positive

morpheme, is used to avoid violating the Constraint on Multiple Foci. Accordingly,

the proposal of the comparative morpheme and the proposal of the positive mor-

pheme can reinforce each other by establishing a theoretical relationship through the

Nonhead Stress rule and the Constraint on Multiple Foci.

Keywords Comparative morpheme · Constraint on multiple foci ·

Covert · Nonhead stress rule · Overt · Positive morpheme

1 Introduction

The interpretation of bare gradable adjectives in Chinese has long been a puzzle to

linguists. In Chinese, a bare gradable adjective receives a positive interpretation in

some cases [e.g., (1a–b)] while other cases receive a comparative interpretation [e.

& Chen-Sheng Luther Liu

[email protected]

1 Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, National Chiao Tung University, 1001 Ta

Hsueh Road, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan

123

J East Asian Linguist (2018) 27:67–109

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-018-9166-4

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10831-018-9166-4&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10831-018-9166-4&domain=pdf

g., (2)] (Chao 1968: 683; Xiandai Hanyu Xucı Lıshı 1982: 243–244; Sybesma 1999:

26–27; Huang 2006; Huang and Li 2008; Gu 2008; Liu 2010a; Grano 2012).1

(1) a. Zhangsan xiao nı ben.

Zhangsan deride you stupid

‘Zhangsan derided you as being stupid.’

b. Zhangsan gao, Lısı ai.

Zhangsan tall Lısı short

‘Zhangsan is tall, but Lısı is short.’

(2) Q: Tamen, shei gao (ne)? (Chao 1968: 683)

They who tall SFP

‘Which of them is taller?’

A: Lao Er gao.

Lao Er tall

‘Lao Er is taller.’

Concentrating on the interpretation of bare gradable adjectives in examples like

(1a–b), Liu (2010a) considers the unstressed degree word hěn ‘HEN’ as the overt

realization of the polarity-like covert positive morpheme (henceforth POS), which

projects in syntax. The syntactic distribution of POS, as he suggests, is subject to a

condition as follows:

(3) In Chinese, the covert positive morpheme only occurs in a predicate-accessible

operator[-wh] domain with a structure like [Op[-wh] … X[-wh-operator]0 [DegP … Deg0

[AP …]]], where the head X0, carrying the predicate-accessible operator[-wh] feature,

not only introduces a predicate-accessible operator[-wh] but also functions to license

the occurrence of a degree phrase headed by the covert positive morpheme (i.e.,

Deg0). And this domain must be contained in the smallest clause that contains the

adjectival predicate and the operator.

This analysis not only explains why, in a simple declarative sentence like (4), the

unstressed hěn ‘HEN’ is obligatorily required, but also correctly predicts that the

bare gradable adjective with the POS morpheme is acceptable in constructions like

(5a–h).

(4) Zhangsan *(hen) gao.

Zhangsan HEN tall

‘Zhangsan is tall.’

1 Abbreviations used in this paper include: ASP: aspect markers, BA: the disposal marker, CL:

classifiers, DE: the marker for modifying phrases like genitive phrases, relative clauses, and noun

complement clauses in Chinese, HEN: the semantics associated with the positive morpheme, and SFP:

sentence-final particles. The boldface bǐjiào is used to represent the overt allomorph of the Chinese

comparative morpheme and the non-boldface bǐjiào is used to represent the covert allomorph of the

Chinese comparative morpheme. Please see (73)–(74) for further discussion of example (2).

68 C.-S. L. Liu

123

(5) a. Zhe-ge zhong, na-ge qıng.

This-CL heavy that-CL light

‘This one is heavy, but that one is light.’

b. Nı mai de dongxı gui ma?

You buy DE thing expensive SFP

‘Are the things you bought expensive?’

c. Yıngtao bu gui.

Cherry not expensive

‘Cherries are not expensive.’

d. Zhangsan yaoshı lıngse dehua, jiu bu hui qıng

Zhangsan if stingy SFP then not will invite

nı chı fan.

you eat rice

‘If Zhangsan is stingy, he will not treat you to dinner.’

e. Wo yıwei ta wugu.

I consider he innocent

‘I consider him innocent.’

f. Ta keneng wugu.

S/He possible innocent

‘He is probably innocent.’

g. Qıyou pianyı ou!

Gas cheap SFP

‘The gas is cheap!’

h. Qıyou pianyı le.

Gas cheap SFP

‘The gas has become cheap.’

However, assuming that the covert positive morpheme can only occur in a

predicate-accessible operator[-wh] domain with a structure like [Op[-wh] …

X[-wh-operator]0 [DegP … Deg0 [AP …]]], Liu (2010a) incorrectly excludes the positive

interpretation from the adjectival predicate in an A-not-A question like (6), which is

always considered as a type of wh-question.2

(6) Wo-de shuofa qı-bu-qıte?

I-DE argument unique-not-unique

‘Is my argument unique?’

In addition, Liu (2010a) also fails to explain why a comparative interpretation

arises in examples like (2) because his analysis can only tell us that the covert

positive morpheme cannot occur in (2).

2 Given space limitations, I will not review Huang (2006), Huang and Li (2008) and Gu (2008). Please

see Liu (2010a) and Grano (2012) for discussions on these studies.

Projecting adjectives in Chinese 69

123

Grano (2012) adopts a view opposite to Liu (2010a) and tries to reconcile the

facts found in Chinese with the Universal Markedness Principle and the T[+V]

constraint, as shown below.

(7) Universal Markedness Principle: Universally, comparative semantics is provided

by an explicit morpheme in syntax which is overt in some languages and null in

others, whereas positive semantics is provided by a type-shifting rule that does

not project in syntax.

(8) The T[+V] constraint: In Mandarin, the direct complement to T(ense) must

either be (an extended projection of) a verb or a functional morpheme that

can in principle combine with (an extended projection of) a verb.

Namely, the positive degree semantics is provided by a type shifting rule that does

not project in syntax but merely changes the semantic type of a degree relation to

that of a property. Besides, the direct complement of T, as he argues, must be a

verbal projection in Chinese. So, between TP and AP, there must be a functional

morpheme that can change the categorial status of an adjective into a verb. In

Chinese, such functional morphemes include degree adverbs and other elements like

the silent ∅whether morpheme.

Resorting to the assumption that the degree adverb hěn ‘HEN’ projects a DegP

which in turn is an acceptable complement for T, Grano (2012) successfully

explains why the degree adverb hěn ‘HEN’ is obligatory in (4). This analysis also

works nicely for A-not-A questions as in (6), where the silent ∅whether morpheme

intervenes between T and AP satisfying the T[+V] constraint (Laka 1990).

Grano’s (2012, 539) analysis also explains why the adjectival predicate in (2) can

only receive a comparative interpretation. As he argues, in an interrogative question

like (2), the sentence-final particle ne is outside the domain of TP. So, it cannot

prevent a violation of T[+V] because no other functional projection occurs between

TP and AP. Given this, the insertion of the null comparative morpheme ∅COMP is

required to satisfy the T[+V] constraint.

(9) ∅COMP Insertion Principle: Insert ∅COMP only if (a) there is an overt standard

of comparison in the structure or (b) it can save a violation of T[+V].

However, Grano (2012) is not without problems. First, as he argues, in an

interrogative question like (2), the sentence-final particle ne is outside the domain of

TP. The insertion of the null comparative morpheme ∅COMP, therefore, is required

to overcome a violation of T[+V]. Surprisingly, an interrogative question such as

(10) is acceptable with a positive interpretation.

(10) Zhe-xie shuofa dangzhong, na-xie lıpu ne?

This-some argument among which-some too-far-stretched SFP

‘For these arguments, which are too far stretched?’

70 C.-S. L. Liu

123

Second, assuming the observation made by Huang et al. (2009) that “unless

preceded by a demonstrative, relative clauses but not attributives can appear to the

left of a numeral-classifier sequence”, Grano (2012: 545) suggests that, in (11a), the

relative clause projects T and, thus, hěn ‘HEN’ is required to satisfy the T[+V]

constraint. However, this account does not exclude the possibility of having a

structure like (11b) because the second condition of the ∅COMP Insertion Principle

allows us to insert ∅COMP in the relative clause.

(11) a. [NumP [RC1 [TP T [DegP [Deg hen] [AP congmıng]]] [C de]]

HEN smart DE

[NumP [Num yı]

one

[ClP [Cl ge]

CL

[NP t1 [NP haizi]]]]]

child

‘a child who is smart’

Third, as Zhang (2015: 22–23) points out, the cluster hěn-XP ‘HEN-XP’ may not

occur in certain positions where XP may. For example, the combination of hěn‘HEN’ and an AP may not occur in a position that is exclusively reserved for a

nominal in Chinese (e.g., the causee position following the causative marker bă) butthe same AP may, as (12a) illustrates.

(12) a. Zhangsan ba (*hen) chengshı dang-zuo yı zhong meide.

Zhangsan BA very honest regard-as one CL virtue

‘Zhangsan regards being honest as a virtue.’

b. Zhangsan ba (*hen) xıhuan shıge dang-zuo yı zhong youdian.

Zhangsan BA very like poem regard-as one CL merit

‘Zhangsan regards liking poems as a merit.’

Likewise, as (12b) shows, the combination of hěn ‘HEN’ and a VP may not occur,

but the same VP may occur in the causee position following the marker bǎ. Giventhis, Zhang (2015) argues that the word hěn ‘HEN’ must be hosted by a category

different from AP or VP.

Relevantly here, suppose that the degree word hěn ‘HEN’, as Grano (2012) argues,can change the categorial status of an adjective into a verb in order to satisfy the T[+V]

constraint. It is expected that a ‘hěn-AP’ combination can occur in the causee position

following the causativemarker bă because, as Grano (2012) argues, it can be analyzedas aVP.However, as (12a) shows, this expectation is not borne out. So,Grano’s (2012)

b. *[NumP [RC1 [TP T [DegP [Deg ∅COMP] [AP congmıng]]]

smart

[C de]]

DE

[(na)

that

[NumP [Num yı]

one

[ClP [Cl ge]

CL

[NP t1 [NP haizi]]]]]]

child

‘a/that child who is smarter’


123

claim that, in Chinese, a functional morpheme, like degree adverbs, can change the

categorial status of an adjective into a verb needs further consideration.3

Although neither Liu (2010a) nor Grano (2012) can solve the problematic

interpretation of Chinese bare gradable adjectives, they remind us of the following

questions that any study on the interpretation ofChinese bare gradable adjectives cannot

evade. First, does Chinese have a comparative morpheme, either overt or covert,

especially without looking beyond a bǐ comparative construction like the one in (13)?4

(13) Zhangsan bı Lısı gao.

Zhangsan than Lısı tall

‘Zhangsan is taller than Lısı.’

Second, does Chinese have a positive morpheme, either overt or covert?

Third, why does a comparative interpretation arise in examples like (2)?

The organization of this paper is as follows. In Sect. 2 I include the theoretical

background I assumed on the semantics of adjectives. In Sect. 3 I argue three points.

First, Chinese has the covert comparative morpheme (i.e., bǐjiào ‘more’), which is

the covert allomorph of the degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’ (the boldface bǐjiào is used

to represent the overt allomorph of the Chinese comparative morpheme and the non-

boldface bǐjiào is used to represent the covert allomorph of the Chinese comparative

morpheme). Second, the covert comparative allomorph can only occur in a

comparative construction where an overt standard of comparison is syntactically

available, but the overt one occurs in a comparative construction where an overt

standard of comparison is syntactically unavailable. Third, the complementary

distribution shown by the overt and the covert comparative allomorph is a

3 Based on the following two facts, Zhang (2015: 26–27) further argues that the Chinese degree word hěn‘HEN’ is a functional head with two allomorphs: a covert one and an overt one. First, parallel to the free

and bound comparative or superlative degree markers in other languages, the degree word hěn ‘HEN’ andthe adjectival reduplication morphology are in complementary distribution, as attested below.

(i) Zhangsan (*hen) gaogaode.

Zhangsan HEN tall-tall

Second, the degree word hěn ‘HEN’, as (ii) shows, can be stranded at the sentence-final position, like

other head elements in the language.

(ii) Na dao qiang gao de hen.

That CL wall tall DE HEN

‘That wall is tall.’

However, Chao (1968: 443) suggests that “it will be simpler to regard hěn ‘HEN’ in (ii) as an adjective

rather than an adverb”. So, examples like (ii) will not be discussed in this study.4 Assuming that there is no covert comparative morpheme in the bǐ comparative construction, Lin (2009)

suggests that it is the marker bǐ ‘than’ that encodes the comparative semantics for the bǐ comparative

construction. However, Lin (2014) revises his position by saying that Chinese has the covert comparative

morpheme.

72 C.-S. L. Liu

123

manifestation of avoiding the violation of the Constraint on Multiple Foci. In Sect. 4

I make the following three points. First, Chinese has the positive morpheme, which

has two allomorphs. One is the unstressed hěn ‘HEN’ and the other is its covert

counterpart (i.e., POS). The covert one can only occur in a focus-sensitive domain

where the bare gradable adjective is focus-anchored by the focus-sensitive

expression. Second, it is the Constraint on Multiple Foci that excludes the overt

positive morpheme from occurring in a focus-sensitive domain with a focus-

anchored gradable adjective. Third, the covert allomorph, regardless of whether it is

the comparative or the positive morpheme, is used to avoid violating the Constraint

on Multiple Foci. Finally, in Sect. 5 I make some concluding remarks.

2 The background: the semantics of adjectives

Following Cresswell’s (1976) degree-based approach to adjectives, I assume that

gradable adjectives of the semantic type \d, \e, t[[ denote ‘functions from

degrees to properties’, while non-gradable adjectives of the semantic type \e, t[denote ‘properties of individuals’ (Seuren 1973; Cresswell 1976; Hellan 1981; von

Stechow 1984; Heim 1985; Bierwisch 1989; Kennedy 1999; Rett 2014: 8–9).

Accordingly, gradable adjectives, like tall with a semantic denotation as in (14a),

do not start out as predicate of type \e, t[ and, thus, have to be turned into

predicates before being merged with an external argument. So, degree adverbs are

required to saturate the degree argument, as (14b) illustrates.

(14) a. ⟦tall\d, \e, t[[⟧ = λw.λd∊Dd.λx∊De.HEIGHTw(x)≧db. Eve is very/really tall.

However, non-gradable adjectives of semantic type \e, t[, for example correctwith a semantic denotation as in (15a), can function independently as a predicate, as

(15b) shows.

(15) a. ⟦correct\e, t[⟧ = λx.correct(x)b. The answer is (*very/*really) correct.

Along the line of Kennedy and McNally (2005: 29), I further assume that degree

modifiers, semantically functioning to saturate the degree argument of gradable

adjectives, denote functions from gradable adjective meanings to properties of

individuals. Hence, degree adverbs have an interpretation that matches the template

in (16), where R is a property of degrees (i.e., the way in which they restrict the

adjective’s degree argument).

(16) ⟦Deg⟧ = λGλx.∃d[R(d)∧G(d)(x)]

With these preliminary assumptions, the semantics of comparatives can be

captured via truth conditions in which a degree is existentially bound and holds for


123

one individual (i.e., the target of comparison) but not for another individual (i.e., the

standard of comparison) with respect to the relevant dimension, as (17) illustrates

(Seuren 1973; Klein 1980; Schwarzschild 2008).

(17) ⟦COMP⟧ = λg\d, \e, t[[λyλx.∃d[g(d)(x) ∧ ¬g(d)(y)]

So, the semantic computation of (18a) can be shown as follows:

(18) a. Adam is taller than Eve.

b. = ⟦COMP⟧(⟦tall⟧)(⟦Eve⟧)(⟦Adam⟧)c. = ∃d[height(a) = d ∧ ¬height(e) = d]

That is, there exists some degree d such that Adam is d-tall and Eve is not d-tall.In spite of this, Cresswell’s (1976) semantics of (gradable) adjectives runs into

difficulties in dealing with cases like (19) because directly combining the type

\e[ denoting DP subject Adam with the type \d, \e, t[[ denoting AP predicate

tall would result in a type mismatch.

(19) Adam is tall (compared to Eve).

For this reason, Kennedy and McNally (2005) suggest there exists a null degree

morpheme with a semantic denotation like (20) (i.e., POS), and they argue that, in

cases like (21a), POS functions to turn an adjective into a property through

combining itself with the adjective first, as (21b–c) illustrate (von Stechow 1984).

(20) ⟦POS⟧ = λg\d, \e, t[[λx.∃d[standard(d)(g)(C) ∧ g(d)(x)]

(21) a. Adam is tall (compared to Eve).

b. = ⟦POS⟧(⟦tall⟧)(⟦Adam⟧)c. = ∃d[standard(d)(⟦tall⟧)(C) ∧ height(a) = d]

They postulated that “POSencodes the relation standard, which holds of a degreed justin case itmeets a standardof comparison for the adjective tall [i.e.,g in (20)]with respectto a comparison class determined by C. C is a variable over properties of individuals

whose value is determined contextually” (Kennedy and McNally 2005: 305). Thus, in

(21a) there exists some degree d that counts as tall in context C, and Adam is d-tall.5

In short, according to Cresswell (1976), there is a basic degree-based meaning for

a gradable adjective from which the positive and the comparative meaning of a

5 As Rett (2014) points out, the POS morpheme has two functions. First, it changes the semantic type of a

gradable adjective (i.e., \d, \e, t[[) into that of a predicate (i.e., \e, t[). Second, it requires the

degree of the property that an individual carries to exceed the salient contextual standard (i.e., the

evaluation meaning). However, the evaluative meaning, as Rett (2014) and Zhang (2015) point out, can

not only be found in constructions other than the positive construction but can also be contextually

sensitive; therefore, issues about the evaluative meaning related to the POS morpheme are beyond the

scope of this paper and will not be discussed in this study.

74 C.-S. L. Liu

123

gradable adjective, as (22a–b) illustrate, are derived by combining it with POS and

COMP, respectively.

(22) a. gradable adjective + POS → positive meaning

b. gradable adjective + COMP → comparative meaning

Besides this degree-based semantics of adjectives, I also assume Kennedy’s

(2007) implicit versus explicit distinction in the modes of comparison. That is, the

implicit comparison is expressed by the combination of a gradable adjective with

POS, while the explicit comparison is expressed by the combination of a gradable

adjective with COMP. The implicit comparison, like that denoted by (21a), requires

the differential degree between the target of comparison (i.e., the height of Adam)

and the contextually determined norm (e.g., the height of Eve) not to be ‘crisp’. For

example, (21a) is felicitous in Context A but not in Context B because the

differential degree in Context B is crisp (Graff 2000; Barker 2002).

(23) Context A: Adam is 195 centimeters tall and Eve is 175 centimeters tall.

Context B: Adam is 195 centimeters tall and Eve is 194 centimeters tall.

In contrast, the explicit comparison, like that denoted by (18a), simply requires an

asymmetric ordering between the target of comparison (i.e., the height of Adam)

and the standard of comparison (i.e., the height of Eve) along the dimension

involved, regardless of whether the differential degree is crisp or not. So, (18a) is

felicitous in either Context A or Context B.

Taking these as the theoretical background, in Sect. 3, I shall argue that Chinese

has the comparative morpheme. Then, in Sect. 4 I argue that Chinese has the

positive morpheme.

3 The comparative morpheme in Chinese

In this section, I first argue that, in Chinese, the covert comparative morpheme (i.e.,

bǐjiào ‘more’) is the covert allomorph of the degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’. Namely,

the comparative morpheme bǐjiào ‘more’ has two allomorphs: one has a phonetic

form but the other does not. Then, I argue that the complementary distribution

shown by these two allomorphs is a manifestation of avoiding the violation of the

Constraint on Multiple Foci.

3.1 The covert comparative morpheme in Chinese

The phenomena highlighted by the contrast between (24) and (25) provide a good

starting point for us to discuss the question of whether Chinese has the comparative

morpheme, either overt or covert, especially without looking beyond the bǐcomparative construction like (24a).


123

(24) a. Zhangsan bı Lısı gao.


‘Zhangsan is taller than Lısı, and it is not necessary for Zhangsan and

Lısı to be tall.’

b. Zhangsan bı Lısı (*bǐjiào) gao.

Zhangsan than Lısı more tall

‘Zhangsan is taller than Lısı, and it is not necessary for Zhangsan and

Lısı to be tall.’

c. Zhangsan bı Lısı geng gao.

Zhangsan than Lısı even-more tall

‘Zhangsan is even taller than Lısı, and both Zhangsan and Lısı

must be tall.’

(25) a. Zhangsan bǐjiào gao.

Zhangsan more tall

‘Zhangsan is taller than somebody, but it is not necessary for Zhangsan

and that person to be tall.’

b. Zhangsan geng gao.

Zhangsan even-more tall

‘Zhangsan is even taller than somebody, and both Zhangsan and that

person must be tall.’

First, (24a) and (25a) have the same semantic interpretation (i.e., the explicit

comparison meaning without the presupposition that both the target of comparison

(i.e., Zhangsan) and the standard of comparison (i.e., Lısı or somebody) are tall),

except that (i) the standard of comparison is overtly introduced in (24a) but not in

(25a), and (ii) (25a) contains the degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’ but (24a) does not.6

6 The fact that example (ii) is felicitous either in Context A or in Context B but example (iii) is felicitous

only in Context B confirms that the degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’ denotes the explicit comparison meaning.

(i) Context A: Zhangsan is 175 centimeters tall and Lısı is 174 centimeters tall.

Context B: Zhangsan is 175 centimeters tall and Lısı is 165 centimeters tall.

(ii) Zhangsan bǐjiào gao.

Zhangsan more tall

‘Zhangsan is taller.’

(iii) Gen Lısı bı-qılai, Zhangsan hen gao.

With Lısı compare-qilai Zhangsan HEN tall

‘Compared with Lisi, Zhangsan is tall.’

More importantly, the degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’ cannot be compared to the English adverb

comparatively because the latter can occur in a positive construction, a comparative construction or a

superlative construction, as shown by (iva–c), respectively.

(iv) a. Comparatively, John is tall.

b. Comparatively, John is taller than Bill.

c. Comparatively, John is the tallest.

76 C.-S. L. Liu

123

Second, an overt standard of comparison, as the contrast between (24b) and (25a)

shows, is incompatible with the degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’.

Third, an overt standard of comparison, as (24c) shows, is compatible with the

degree adverb gèng ‘even-more’ in the bǐ comparative construction.

Theoretically speaking, we would expect that the degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’,

which denotes the explicit comparison meaning, can occur in the bǐ comparative

construction as other explicit-comparison-denoting degree adverbs (e.g., gèng ‘even-more’) do. However, as the contrast between (24b) and (24c) shows, this expectation

is not borne out. Hence, what attracts our attention here is the following question:

what makes the degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’, which denotes an explicit comparison

meaning, so particular that it cannot occur in the bǐ comparative construction?

Significantly here, the first two phenomena shown by the contrast between (24)

and (25) provide a good way for us to puzzle out the question of what makes the

degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’ so particular that it cannot occur in the bǐ comparative

construction. Namely, the degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’ is a comparative morpheme

that has two allomorphs: the overt bǐjiào ‘more’ and the covert bǐjiào ‘more’. The

covert one can only occur in a comparative construction where an overt standard of

comparison is syntactically introduced by the marker bǐ ‘than’, whereas the overt

one occurs in a comparative construction without an overt standard of comparison.

However, this prima facie answer for the question of whether Chinese has the

covert comparative morpheme is just a generalization. Behind this generalization is

the theoretical question: why does this condition hold? I will argue that the

following two sets of data provide the answer for this theoretical question.7

(26) a. Zhangsan bǐjiào gao.

Zhangsan more tall


b. #Zhangsan jiao gao. (jiào ‘more’ is unstressed.)

Zhangsan more tall


Footnote 6 continued

However, the Chinese degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’ can only occur in a comparative construction. So,

instead of taking (ii) as the Chinese counterpart of (iva), the English ‘comparatively’ constructions can

have (va–c) as their Chinese counterparts.

(v) a. Gen zhouzao ren bı-qılai, Zhangsan hen qiong.

With around people compare-qilai Zhangsan HEN poor.

‘Compared with people around, Zhangsan is poor.’

b. Gen zhouzao ren bı-qılai, Zhangsan bǐjiào qiong.

With around people compare-qilai Zhangsan more poor

‘Compared with people around, Zhangsan is poorer.’

c. Gen zhouzao ren bı-qılai, Zhangsan zui qiong.

With around people compare-qilai Zhangsan most poor

‘Compared with people around, Zhangsan is the poorest.’

7 The marker # indicates that the sentence marked by it is less preferred by the native speaker.


123

(27) a. *Zhangsan bı Lısı bǐjiào gao.



b. Zhangsan bı Lısı geng gao.


‘Zhangsan is even taller than Lısı.’

c. Zhangsan bı Lısı shaowei gao yi-xie.

Zhangsan than Lısı a-little tall a-little

‘Zhangsan is a little taller than Lısı.’

On the one hand, the contrast between (26a) and (26b) clearly shows the

preference: the disyllabic degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’ is much more preferred by the

native speaker than the mono-syllabic degree adverb jiào ‘more’ is, especially when

the latter is unstressed. This preference brings to mind Duanmu’s (2000: 130–131)

Nonhead Stress rule.

(28) Nonhead Stress (NHS):

In a syntactic head-nonhead (or a nonhead-head) relation, the nonhead has

greater stress than the head.

Relevant to the Nonhead Stress rule is Lu’s (1963) observation that, in Chinese,

the trisyllabic verb-object structure strongly prefers 1-2 rhythm over 2-1 while the

trisyllabic modifier-noun structure strongly prefers 2-1 over 1-2, as illustrated by

(29a–b), respectively.

(29) 2-2 rhythm 1-1 rhythm 2-1 rhythm 1-2 rhythm

a. yuedu-baozhı du-bao *yuedu-bao du-baozhı

read-newspaper read-newspaper read-newspaper read-newspaper

b. jıshu-gongren jı-gong jıshu-gong *jı-gongren

skill-worker skill-worker skill-worker skill-worker

This preference, as Lu (1989) argues, is related to the placement of the syntactic

head. Along this line, Lu and Duanmu (1991) further trace this preference to the

Nonhead Length rule (Lu and Duanmu 2002).

(30) Nonhead Length (NHL)

In a syntactic head-nonhead (or a nonhead-head) relation, the head cannot

have greater length than the nonhead.

As Duanmu (2000) further points out, although stress is phonetically signaled by

properties such as increased loudness and vowel length, full articulation of the

vowel, and changes in pitch, stress in Chinese is always signaled by loudness and

length because as a tone language, Chinese uses pitch (i.e., fundamental frequency)

to distinguish lexical or grammatical meaning (Chao 1968: 35; Shih 1988: 93; Shen

78 C.-S. L. Liu

123

1989: 59–60; Lin 2007: 224–225). Given this, Duanmu (2000: 130–131) reinterprets

the Nonhead Length rule in terms of the Nonhead Stress rule, which requires YP and

ZP to carry stress under the framework of the standard X-bar syntax in (31).8

(31) [XP ZP [X’ X YP]]

Accordingly, in (26a) the degree modifier bǐjiào ‘more’, being a nonhead, is

stressed by lengthening. However, in (26b), the nonhead mono-syllabic degree

modifier jiào ‘more’ is neither stressed nor lengthened, which violates the Nonhead

Stress rule. So, the preference shown by (26a–b) can be regarded as a manifestation

of the Nonhead Stress rule.

Relevant to the preference shown by the contrast between (26a) and (26b) is that

the Nonhead Stress rule also correctly predicts that, in a comparative construction

like (32), the bǐ-phrase bí Lǐsì ‘than Lısı’, being the nonhead modifier for the

adjectival head, is always stressed and focalized (Feng 1997: 71).9

8 As Duanmu (2000: 132) argues, the Nonhead Stress rule in some sense is rooted in the Information

Stress Principle, as shown below (Duanmu 2004: 88).

(i) A syntactic constituent that carries more information than its neighbor(s) should be stressed.

In standard X-bar syntax, the head is a word or an affix, and a nonhead is a phrase. There are more

possible phrases than possible words or affixes. Given this, the occurrence of a nonhead is less

predictable than the occurrence of a head (word or affix). According to Shannon and Weaver’s (1949)

Information Theory, the more predictable an expression is, the less information it carries. So, a syntactic

nonhead carries more information than its syntactic head. Accordingly, the syntactic nonhead is stressed.

Furthermore, following Cinque’s (1999) specifier approach to the syntax of adverbs, Duanmu (2000)

suggests that a non-affix-like degree adverb occurs in the specifier position of the degree phrase. So, the

degree adverb, being the modifier of the adjective, forms a nonhead-head relation with the adjective.9 Compatible with Duanmu’s (2000) Nonhead Stress rule, Feng (1997: 71) proposes a theory with two

conditions for stress assignment in Chinese. The first condition is the Nuclear Stress Rule in Chinese

(Chao 1968; Tang 1988). Namely, in an ordinary clause, the normal stress is assigned to the right-edge

constituent of the VP prosody domain (i.e., [IP … [VP … Vweak Ystrong]]), and the normal stress is used in a

neutral context. An ordinary clause simply consists of subject, verb, object and complement. Second, the

normal stress must be distinguished from the stress carried by an adjunct. Adjuncts can freely appear in a

clause. The normal stress assigned by the Nuclear Stress Rule in Chinese can be replaced by the stress

carried by adjuncts if doing so can rescue the sentence from being unacceptable. This proposal can be

demonstrated by the contrast below.

(i) *Ta [VP [PP ba wan]weak [V shua]strong].

He BA bowl brush

‘He brushes the bowls.’

(ii) Ta [VP [PP ba wan] [VP [AdvP yı-ge-yı-ge-de]strong [V’ [V shua]weak]]].

He BA bowl one-CL-one-CL brush

‘He brushes the bowls one by one.’

Namely, according to the Nuclear Stress Rule in Chinese, the normal stress has to be assigned to the right-

edge constituent (Chao 1968: 35). So, in (i), the verb shuā ‘brush’, being the right-edge constituent, receivesthe normal stress. However, the VP prosody domain is formed by the branching PP constituent bá wăn ‘BAbowl’ and the non-branching verb shuā ‘brush’. The non-branching right-edge constituent shuā ‘brush’ is solight structurally that it cannot receive the normal stress. So, inserting the adverbial adjunct yī-ge-yī-ge-de‘one-CL-one-CL’, as (ii) shows, becomes a way to rescue (i) from being unacceptable.


123

(32) Zhangsan [[PP bı Lısı] gao].

Zhangsan than Lısı gao.


On the other hand, the contrast between (27a) and (27b–c) is reminiscent of the

Constraint on Multiple Foci, which is implied by Tang’s (2001) study on the contrast

in grammaticality between (33a) and (33b–c) (Li 1988; Paul 1999; Wei 2016).10

(33) a. *Zhangsan song Lısı gou, Wangwu mao.

Zhangsan give Lısı dog Wangwu cat

‘Zhangsan gives Lısı a dog, but gives Wangwu a cat.’

b. Zhangsan song Lısı yi-tiao gou, Wangwu liang-zhı mao.

Zhangsan give Lısı one-CL dog Wangwu two-CL cat

‘Zhangsan gives Lısı a dog, but gives Wangwu two cats.’

c. Zhangsan song Lısı zhe-tiao gou, Wangwu na-zhı mao.

Zhangsan give Lısı this-CL dog Wangwu that-CL cat

‘Zhangsan gives Lısı this dog, but gives Wangwu that cat.’

In Chinese, if a construction contains more than one focus, each of the foci must be

‘definite’ enough (Wei 2016). For example, in (33a), the remnants gŏu ‘dog’ and

māo ‘cat’ are existential and indefinite, which violates the Constraint on Multiple

Foci. Thus, (33a) is ungrammatical. In contrast, in (33b), the remnant liǎng-zhī māo‘two-CL cat’ denotes the ‘definite’ quantity of two; in (33c), the remnant nà-zhīmao ‘that-CL cat’ is definite. Thus, (33b–c) are both grammatical.

Taking the Constraint on Multiple Foci as preliminary, let us consider how the

degree adverb gèng ‘even-more’, shāowéi ‘a little’ and bǐjiào ‘more’ differ from

each other in semantic meaning. For one, the degree adverb gèng ‘even-more’, in

addition to denoting the comparison meaning, further requires both the standard of

comparison (i.e., Lǐsì) and the target of comparison (i.e., Zhāngsān) to be tall, as

shown by the contrast in interpretation between (34a) and (34b).

(34) a. Zhangsan bı Lısı geng gao.


‘Zhangsan is even taller than Lısı, and both Zhangsan and Lısı are tall.’

b. Zhangsan bı Lısı gao.



10 The Constraint on Multiple Foci actually can be derived from Duanmu’s (2004: 88) Information Stress

Principle, according to which a syntactic constituent should be stressed if it carries more information than

its neighbor(s).

80 C.-S. L. Liu

123

Similarly, the degree adverb shāowéi ‘a little’ also denotes the comparison

meaning and requires the difference between the standard of comparison and the

target of comparison to be very small, as attested by the contrast in interpretation

between (35a) and (35b).

(35) a. Zhangsan bı Lısı shaowei gao *(yi-xie).

Zhangsan than Lısı a-little gao a-little

‘Zhangsan is a little taller than Lısı.’

b. Zhangsan bı Lısı gao.



On the contrary, the degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’, as the interpretation of (36)

indicates, simply requires Zhāngsān (i.e., the target of comparison) to be taller than

someone (i.e., the contextually-determined standard of comparison) without further

specifying how tall they are or how large the difference is.

(36) Zhangsan bǐjiào gao.

Zhangsan more tall

‘Zhangsan is taller (than someone).’

Based on the semantic distinctions among gèng ‘even-more’, shāowéi ‘a little’

and bǐjiào ‘more’, it is not implausible for us to suggest that, compared with gèng‘even-more’ and shāowéi ‘a little’, the degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’ is not so

‘definite’ in semantic meaning. In view of this, let us go back to (27a), repeated here

as (37).

(37) *Zhangsan bı Lısı bǐjiào gao.


According to the Nonhead Stress rule, in (37), the bi-phrase bí Lǐsì ‘than Lısı’ andthe overt degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’, both functioning as the adjunct modifier of

the adjective gāo ‘tall’, are in a nonhead-to-head relation to the adjectival head gāo‘tall’. So, both of them are stressed and focalized. As Tang (2001) argues, in

Chinese, in a construction with multiple foci, each has to be ‘definite’ enough.

However, compared with gèng ‘even-more’ and shāowéi ‘a little’, the default degreeadverb bǐjiào ‘more’ is not so ‘definite’ in semantic meaning. Given this, (37)

violates the Constraint on Multiple Foci’. So, it is the Constraint on Multiple Foci

that prohibits the overt comparative morpheme bǐjiào ‘more’ from occurring in a

comparative construction where the overt standard of comparison is syntactically


123

introduced by the marker bǐ ‘than’. Hence, to saturate the degree argument of the

adjective in a comparative with an overt standard of comparison, the default

comparative morpheme bǐjiào ‘more’ has to occur in its covert form (i.e., bǐjiào).11

11 One might challenge my analysis by saying that, although examples like (i) might contextually provide

an overt standard of comparison, the overt bǐjiào ‘more’ is still obligatorily required.

(i) Zuotian hen re, jiantian *(bǐjiào) leng.

Yesterday HEN hot today more cold

‘Yesterday was hot, but today is colder.’

Example (i) reminds us of an English comparative construction like (ii), which is constructed out of the

‘positive’ and ‘negative’ pair of adjectives.

(ii) My watch is faster than yours is slow.

One important semantic property shown by this type of comparative constructions is that it involves a

comparison of deviation, which compares the relative extents to which the two objects deviate from some

standard value associated with the adjective (Hale 1970; Bierwisch 1989; Kennedy 2001). As Liu (2010b)

points out, the same is also found in Chinese. For instance, the meaning of (iii) can be paraphrased as in

(iv).

(iii) Zhao Mın, pıfu hen bai, toufa geng hei.

Zhao Min skin HEN white hair GENG black

‘The skin of Zhao Mın is white, and her hair is even blacker than her skin is white.’

(iv) The degree to which the blackness of Zhao Mın’s hair exceeds the contextually determined

standard of blackness of female hair is greater than the degree to which the whiteness of Zhao

Mın’s skin exceeds the contextually determined standard of whiteness of female skin.

If zuótiān ‘yesterday’ in the first conjunct clause of (i) serves as the overt standard of comparison, then

example (i) is expected to involve a comparison of deviation. However, this expectation does not come

out. In other words, zuótiān ‘yesterday’ in (i) cannot be taken as the overt standard of comparison for

jiāntiān ‘today’. So, instead of treating the whole sentence of (i) as a comparative construction, I would

like to suggest that (i) is a contrastive focus construction in which the second conjunct clause is a

comparative construction by itself but the first one is not because (i) can have (v) as a syntactic variant.

(v) [Zuotian]F [hen re]F’, danshı [jıntian]F [bǐjiào leng]F’.

Yesterday HEN hot but today more cold

‘[Yesterday]F was [hot]F’, but [today]F is [colder]F’.’

Since no overt standard of comparison is available in the second conjunct clause of (i), the overt bǐjiào‘more’ is obligatorily required in the second conjunct clause. By the same reasoning, the overt

comparative morpheme bǐjiào ‘more’ is also obligatorily required in the second conjunct clause of (vi).

(vi) Zhangsan gen Lısı dou hen gao, keshı Lısı *(bǐjiào) ai.

Zhangsan and Lısı all very tall but Lısı more short

‘Zhangsan and Lısı are both very tall, but Lısı is shorter.’

82 C.-S. L. Liu

123

Or, to put it another way, the covert comparative morpheme is used simply to avoid

violating the Constraint on Multiple Foci.12

Simply put, my proposal, though similar to previous studies on Chinese

comparative constructions like Liu (2010a, b, 2012), Grano (2012), Grano and

Kennedy (2012) and Lin (2014) in assuming the existence of the covert

comparative, is completely new and different from them in originally pointing

out that the Chinese covert comparative morpheme (i.e., bǐjiào ‘more’) is the covert

allomorph of the comparative morpheme bǐjiào ‘more’. Furthermore, for the

comparative morpheme bǐjiào ‘more’, its covert allomorph can only occur in a


introduced by the marker bǐ ‘than’, while its overt allomorph occurs in a


unavailable. The complementary distribution of these two allomorphs in fact is a

manifestation of avoiding the violation of the Constraint on Multiple Foci.

3.2 The implications

My proposal on the Chinese comparative morpheme bǐjiào ‘more’ meets the

following theoretical and empirical consequences. First, according to Xiandai

Hanyu Xucı Lıshı (1982: 243–244) and Sybesma (1999: 26–27), Chinese adjectives

differ from their European counterparts in that the latter choose the unmarked

option for the positive degree while the former selects the unmarked option for the

comparative. However, according to my analysis, the morphological comparative

form of Chinese adjectives is derived from the adjectival base with which the

comparative morpheme is combined (Stassen 1985; Bobaljik 2012). This implies

that there is no difference between Chinese and European languages in the way of

making the comparative form of gradable adjectives. Therefore, my proposal is

more convincing in terms of typology.

12 One might challenge my proposal by saying that examples like (i), which contains two adjuncts (i.e.,

xiăoshíhòu ‘teenage-year’ and bǐjiào ‘more’), are acceptable for native speakers.

(i) Zhangsan xiaoshıhou bǐjiào pang.

Zhangsan teenage-year more fat

‘Zhangsan was fatter in his teenage years.’

However, the contrast between (ii) and (iii) in acceptability clearly indicates that the two adjuncts cannot

be stressed simultaneously.

(ii) *Zhangsan XIAOSHIHOU BIJIAO pang, XIANZAI GENG pang.

Zhangsan teenage-year more fat now even-more fat

(iii) Zhangsan XIAOSHIHOU FEICHANG pang, XIANZAI GENG pang.

Zhangsan teenage-year extremely fat now even-more fat

‘Zhangsan was EXTREMELY FAT in his TEENAGE YEARS, but NOW is EVEN fattER.’

As I have argued, the default explicit-comparison-denoting degree adverb bǐjiào ‘more’ is not so ‘definite’

in semantic meaning; therefore, example (ii) will violate the Constraint on Multiple Foci if the two

adjunts xiăoshíhòu ‘teenage-year’ and bǐjiào ‘more’ are stressed simultaneously.


123

Second, the analysis proposed here also correctly predicts that it is extremely

difficult for a bare gradable adjective to receive a comparative interpretation in an

interrogative sentence with a topic NP containing more than three entities/items and

a plural interrogative phrase containing just two entities/items, as in (38a–b).

(38) a. Zhexie dongxı dangzhong, na xie gui (ne)?

These thing among which some expensive SFP

‘For these things, which of them are expensive?’

b. Zhe-xie shuofa dangzhong, na-xie lıpu ne?


‘For these arguments, which are too far stretched?’

Namely, in (38a), the topic NP zhèxiē dōngxī ‘these thing’, for example, contains adiamond, a car, a cherry and an apple, and the plural interrogative phrase nă xiē‘which some’, for example, forces the addressee to choose a diamond and a car asher/his answer. This context, thus, makes (38a) an example where no overt standard

of comparison is syntactically available because it is difficult for the addressee to

determine which of the other two things, a cherry or an apple, is the overt standardof comparison. So, it is extremely difficult for the bare gradable adjective in (38a) to

receive a comparative reading.

Third, my analysis is also compatible with Chao’s (1968: 683) observation that

the ‘bare gradable adjective’ gāo ‘tall’ in examples like (2), repeated here as (39),

can “only” receive a comparative interpretation.

(39) Q: Tamen, shei gao (ne)?

They who tall SFP


A: Lao Er gao.

Lao Er tall


For (39Q), if the topic NP tāmen ‘they’ consists of only two persons: Lăo Dà and

Lăo Èr, then taking Lăo Èr as the answer implies that Lăo Dà is chosen as the overt

standard of comparison. So, the covert comparative allomorph bǐjiào ‘more’ is

allowed in (39). Accordingly, it can be said that (39) has a syntactic structure like

(40), which contains a degree phrase headed by the covert comparative allomorph

bǐjiào ‘more’.

(40) Q: Tamen, [CP shei … [DegP bǐjiào [AP gao]] (ne)]?

They who tall SFP


A: Lao Er [DegP bǐjiào [AP gao]].

Lao Er tall


84 C.-S. L. Liu

123

However, in her penetrating observation, Huang (2016) points out the data in (41)

not only challenges Chao’s (1968) observation, but also calls into question all the

previous studies on the interpretation of Chinese adjectives.13

(41) Q: Tamen shei gao?

They who tall

‘Which of them are tall?’

A: a. Tamen dou gao.

They both/all tall

‘They are both/all tall, as opposed to short.’

b. Tamen dou bu gao.

They both/all not tall

‘Neither of them/None of them is tall.’

That is, contra Chao’s (1968) observation, a positive reading, as (41) shows, is

indeed available for examples like (39Q). Given this, Huang (2016) further points

out “the following must be at least one available meaning for the bare gradable

adjective in a contrastive context”:

(42) Q: Tamen, shei gao (ne)?

They who tall SFP

‘Which of them is tall?’ (Imagine this being a question asked by

a volleyball scouting agency looking for tall players)

A: Lao Er gao.

Lao Er tall

‘Lao Er is tall.’ (Implying she might be the next Lang Pıng,

the legendary Chinese volleyball player and coach)

These serious and challenging implications, brought about by Huang’s (2016)

keen observation, inevitably draw our attention to the question of how a bare

gradable adjective gets its positive interpretation in Chinese.

4 The positive morpheme in Chinese

According to the previous studies on the interpretation of Chinese bare gradable

adjectives, constructions where a positive interpretation is available for a bare

gradable adjective include the following (Zhu 1980, 1982; Huang and Li 2008; Gu

2008; Liu 2010a; Grano 2012).

13 Many thanks go to one of the anonymous reviewers for reminding me of Huang’s (2016) observation.


123

(43) a. Zhe-ge zhong, na-ge qıng.

This-CL heavy that-CL light

‘This one is heavy, but that one is light.’

b. Nı mai de dongxı gui ma?

You buy DE thing expensive SFP

‘Are the things you bought expensive?’

c. Wo-de shuofa qı-bu-qıte?

I-DE argument unique-not-unique

‘Is my argument unique?’

d. Zhe-xie shuofa dangzhong, na-xie lıpu ne?


‘Among these arguments, which are too far stretched?’

e. Yıngtao bu gui.

Cherry not expensive

‘Cherries are not expensive.’

f. Zhangsan yaoshı lıngse dehua, jiu bu hui qıng

Zhangsan if stingy SFP then not will invite

nı chı fan.

you eat rice

‘If Zhangsan is stingy, he will not treat you to dinner.’

g. Wo yıwei ta wugıu.

I consider he innocent

‘I consider him innocent.’

h. Ta keneng wugu.

S/He possible innocent

‘He is probably innocent.’

i. Yıngtao gui ou!

Cherry expensive SFP

‘Cherries are expensive!’

j. Qıyou pianyı le.

Gas cheap SFP

‘The gas has become cheap.’

The data in (43) elicit the following two questions. First, what makes these

constructions similar to each other in licensing a positive interpretation of a bare

gradable adjective?

Second, are they the only constructions that allow a Chinese bare adjective to

receive a positive interpretation?

In the following, I argue for the following points. First, Chinese does have the

positive morpheme.

Second, like the comparative morpheme bǐjiào ‘more’, the positive morpheme

also has two allomorphs in Chinese: one is the unstressed hěn, and the other is its

covert counterpart (i.e., POS). The latter can only occur in a focus-sensitive domain

where the bare gradable adjective is focus-anchored.

86 C.-S. L. Liu

123

Third, like the covert comparative morpheme, the covert positive morpheme is

also used to avoid violating the Constraint on Multiple Foci.

Before detailing my proposal on the Chinese positive morpheme, I will take as

preliminary Beaver and Clark’s (2008: 8) definition of focus-sensitive expressions.

4.1 The preliminary

According to Beaver and Clark (2008: 8), an expression is focus-sensitive if its

interpretation correlates with the location of focus. Although all focus-sensitive

expressions, as they argue, are not homogeneous, focus-sensitive expressions at

least include the following: the contrastive focus, interrogatives, negations,

counterfactuals, belief operators, possibility modals, attitudinal verbs, emotive

factives, exclusives, additives, scalar additives, sentential connectives, the statement

of reason, quantificational adverbs, quantificational determiners, generics, partic-

ularizers and intensifiers. How the focus shift affects the interpretation of focus-

sensitive expressions can be illustrated by the examples below (Partee 1991; Heim

1992; Rooth 1992, 1996; von Final 1999; Kadmon 2001).

(44) The Contrastive Focus14

a. ZHANGSAN qu MEIGUO nianshu, LISI qu YINGGUO.

Zhangsan go America study Lısı go Britain

‘ZHANGSAN goes to AMERICA for studying, and LISI goes

to BRITAIN for studying.’

Implicature: Somebody goes somewhere for studying.

b. ZHANGSAN qu meiguo NIANSHU, LISI qu meiguo LYUXING.

Zhangsan go America study Lısı go America travel

‘ZHANGSAN goes to America for STUDYING, and LISI goes

to America for TRAVELING.’

Implicature: Somebody goes to America for doing some activity.

(45) Interrogatives: The Ma Particle Question15

a. Q: Zhangsan MAI shu ma?

Zhangsan buy book SFP

‘Does Zhangsan BUY books?’

A: Bu, Zhangsan MAI shu.

Not Zhangsan sell book

‘No, Zhangsan SELLS books.’

14 According to Kiss (1998: 268), a focus is contrastive if there is a complementary alternative set with

‘clearly identifiable elements’. For example, in (44a) the contrastively focalized Zhāngsān has Lǐsì as theclearly identifiable element of the alternative set.15 The focus shift in a ma particle question like (45a–b) affects their answers.


123

b. Q: Zhangsan mai SHU ma?

Zhangsan buy book SFP

‘Does Zhangsan buy BOOKS?’

A: Bu, Zhangsan mai CHE.

Not Zhangsan buy CARS

‘No, Zhangsan buys CARS.’

(46) Interrogatives

a. Shei MAI-le shu?

Who buy-ASP book

‘Who BOUGHT books?’

Implicature: Somebody has done some activity related to books.

b. Shei mai-le SHU?

Who buy-ASP book

‘Who bought BOOKS?’

Implicature: Somebody has bought something.

(47) Negations

a. Zhangsan mei MAI shu.

Zhangsan not buy book

‘Zhangsan did not BUY books.’

Inference: The speaker does not deny that Zhangsan does some activity

related to books.

b. Zhangsan mei mai SHU.

Zhangsan not buy book

‘Zhangsan did not buy BOOKS.’

Inference: The speaker does not deny that Zhangsan buys something.

(48) Counterfactuals16

Scenario: President Wang has two daughters, Xiao Mei and Xiao Lı. He

wishes Xiao Lı to take over his business. President Lın has two sons. The

elder son is Lın Yı and the younger one is Lın Er. President Wang promises

President Lın to marry one of his daughters to one of his sons. According to

the custom, an elder son has to marry before his younger brothers.

a. Yaoshı Wang dongshızhangi bu ba XIAO MEI jia

If Wang president not BA Xiao Mei marry

gei Lın Yı dehua,

to Lın Yı SFP

Xiao Lı jiu bu neng jie zıjıi-de shıye. (True)

Xiao Lı then not can take-over self-DE business

‘If President Wangi does not marry XIAO MEI to Lın Yı,

then Xiao Lı cannot take over hisi business.’

16 The focus shift changes the truth value of counterfactuals.

88 C.-S. L. Liu

123

b. Yaoshı Wang dongshızhangi bu ba Xiao Mei jia

If Wang president not BA Xiao Mei marry

gei LIN YI dehua,

to Lın Yı SFP

Xiao Lı jiu bu neng jie zıjıi-de shıye. (False)

Xiao Lı then not can take-over self-DE business

‘If President Wangi does not marry Xiao Mei to LIN YI, then Xiao Lı

cannot take over hisi business.’

(49) Belief Operators

a. Wo yıwei ZHANGSAN mai che.

I think Zhangsan buy car

‘I think that ZHANGSAN bought a car.’

Implicature: Somebody bought a car.

b. Wo yıwei Zhangsan mai CHE.

I think Zhangsan buy car

‘I think that Zhangsan bought A CAR.’

Implicature: Zhangsan bought something.

(50) Possibility Modals

a. Zhangsan keneng MAI che.

Zhangsan possible buy car

‘It is possible that Zhangsan BOUGHT a car.’

Inference: Zhangsan has done some activity related to cars.

b. Zhangsan keneng mai CHE.

Zhangsan possible buy car

‘It is possible that Zhangsan bought A CAR.’

Inference: Zhangsan has bought something.

(51) Emotive Factives

a. Xuesheng xıwang ZHANGSAN jiao jufaxue.

Student hope Zhangsan teach syntax

‘Students hope that ZHANGSAN teaches syntax.’

Implicature: The students prefer Zhangsan to teach syntax than for

someone else to.

b. Xuesheng xıwang Zhangsan jiao JUFAXUE.

Student hope Zhangsan teach syntax

‘Students hope that Zhangsan teaches SYNTAX.’

Implicature: The students prefer Zhangsan to teach syntax than for

him to teach something else.


123

(52) Attitudinal Particles17

a. ZHANGSAN mai che ou!

Zhangsan buy car SFP

‘ZHANGSAN bought a car!’

Implicature: Someone bought a car.

b. Zhangsan mai CHE ou!


‘Zhangsan bought A CAR!’

Implicature: Zhangsan bought something.

(53) Attitudinal Particles18

a. Zhangsan MAI che le.


‘Zhangsan BOUGHT a car.’

Implicature: For a car, what Zhangsan did not do right before

now is buy it.

b. Zhangsan mai CHE le.


‘Zhangsan bought A CAR.’

Implicature: What Zhangsan did not buy right before now is a car.

(54) Exclusives: zhǐ ‘only’a. Zhangsan zhı MAI che.

Zhangsan only buy car

‘Zhangsan only BUYS cars.’

Implicature: Zhangsan does not sell cars.

b. Zhangsan zhı mai CHE.

Zhangsan only buy car

‘Zhangsan only buys CARS.’

Implicature: Zhangsan does not buy books.

(55) Additives: fēidàn ‘not only’ and érqiě ‘but also’

a. Zhangsan feidan MAI shu, erqie MAI shu.

Zhangsan not-only buy book but-also sell book

‘Zhangsan not only BUYS books, but also SELLS books.’

Implicature: Zhangsan does some activity related to books other

than the buying activity related to books.’

b. Zhangsan feidan mai SHU, erqie mai QIANBI.

Zhangsan not-only buy book but-also buy pencil

‘Zhangsan not only buys BOOKS, but also buys PENCILS.’

Implicature: Zhangsan buys something other than books.

17 Following Chao (1968) and Zhu (1982: 211), I treat the sentential-final particle ou ‘SFP’ as an

attitudinal particle, which functions to signal the speaker’s warning attitude.18 As Chao (1968) and Zhu (1982: 209) suggest, the sentence-final particle le signals a situation new to

the speaker. So, the sentence-final particle le can be regarded as an attitudinal particle.

90 C.-S. L. Liu

123

(56) Additives: yě ‘also’

a. Zhangsan ye MAI shu.

Zhangsan also buy book

‘Zhangsan also BUYS books.’

Implicature: Zhangsan does some activity related to books other

than the buying activity related to books.

b. Zhangsan ye mai SHU.

Zhangsan also buy book

‘Zhangsan also buys BOOKS.’

Implicature: Zhangsan buys something other than books.

(57) Additives: yòu ‘again’

a. Zhangsan you MAI shu.

Zhangsan again buy book

‘Zhangsan BOUGHT books again.’

Implicature: Zhangsan has done some activity related to books

before, and it is a purchasing activity.

b. Zhangsan you mai SHU.

Zhangsan again buy book

‘Zhangsan bought BOOKS again.’

Implicature: Zhangsan bought something before, and it is a book.

(58) Scalar Additives: shènzhì ‘even’a. Zhangsan shenzhı MAI shu.

Zhangsan even buy book

‘Zhangsan even BOUGHT books.’

Implicature: Purchasing books is the activity related to books that

it is most impossible for Zhangsan to do.

b. Zhangsan shenzhı mai SHU.

Zhangsan even buy book

‘Zhangsan even bought BOOKS.’

Implicature: It is books that it is most impossible for Zhangsan to buy.

(59) Sentential Connectives: zhīqián ‘before’

a. Zhangsan MAI shu zhıqian, Lısı yıjıng lai le.

Zhangsan buy book before Lısı already come SFP

‘Lısı had arrived before Zhangsan BOUGHT books.’

Inference: Zhangsan has done some activity related to books.

b. Zhangsan mai SHU zhıqian, Lısı yıjıng lai le.

Zhangsan buy book before Lısı already come SFP

‘Lısı had arrived before Zhangsan bought BOOKS.’



123

(60) Sentential Connectives: zhīhòu ‘after’

a. Zhangsan MAI shu zhıhou, Lısı cai lai.

Zhangsan buy book after Lısı then come

‘Lısı arrived after Zhangsan BOUGHT books.’

Inference: Zhangsan has done some activity related to books.

b. Zhangsan mai SHU zhıhou, Lısı cai lai.

Zhangsan buy book after Lısı then come

‘Lısı arrived after Zhangsan bought BOOKS.’


(61) Statements of Reason: yīnwèi ‘because’19

Scenario: President Wang has two daughters, Xiao Mei and Xiao Lı. He

wishes Xiao Lı to take over his business. President Lın has two sons. The

elder son is Lın Yı and the younger one is Lın Er. President Wang promises

President Lın to marry one of his daughters to one of his sons. According

to the custom, an elder son has to marry before his younger brothers.

a. Wang dongshızhangi ba XIAO MEI jia gei

Wang president BA Xiao Mei marry to

Lın Yı yınwei Xiao Lı bıxu jie

Lın Yı because Xiao Lı must take-over

tai-de shıye. (True)

he-DE business

‘President Wangi married XIAO MEI to Lın Yı because Xiao Lı has

to take over hisi business.’

b. Wang dongshızhangi ba Xiao Mei jia gei

Wang president BA Xiao Mei marry to

LIN YI yınwei Xiao Lı bıxu jie

Lın Yı because Xiao Lı must take-over

tai-de shıye. (False)

he-DE business

‘President Wangi married Xiao Mei to LIN YI because Xiao Lı

has to take over hisi business.’

19 The focus shift changes the truth value of statements of reason.

92 C.-S. L. Liu

123

(62) Quantificational Adverbs: dōu ‘all’20

a. XUESHENG dou lıkai le.

Student all leave SFP

‘All THE STUDENTS have left.’

Implicature: Everyone who has left is A STUDENT.

b. Xuesheng dou LIKAI le.

Student all leave SFP

‘All the students have LEFT.’

Implicature: Everyone who is a student has LEFT.

(63) Generics21

a. NANREN shı mı.

Southerners eat rice

‘SOUTHERNERS eat rice.’

Implicature: Generically, a person who eats rice is A SOUTHERNER.’

b. Nanren shı MI.

Southerner eat rice

‘Southerners eat RICE.’

Implicature: Generically, a person who is a southerner eats RICE.’

(64) Particularizers: bǐ rú ‘for example’

a. Bı ru, Zhangsan gei-le LISI shu.

Compare as Zhangsan give-ASP Lısı book

‘For example, Zhangsan gave LISI books.’

Implicature: Zhangsan gave someone in addition to Lısı books.

b. Bı ru, Zhangsan gei-le Lısı SHU.

Compare as Zhangsan give-ASP Lısı book

‘For example, Zhangsan gave Lısı BOOKS.’

Implicature: Zhangsan gave Lısı something in addition to books.

20 As Partee (1991) and Hendriks (2004) point out, focus (i.e., stress) can be a factor in determining the

two argument sets of a quantificational determiner or a quantificational adverb. That is, the non-focal part

of the sentence gives us the first argument set of the quantifier, and the focal part of the sentence gives us

the second argument set of the quantifier, as shown by examples below

(i) Most ships unload AT NIGHT

(ii) Most people SLEEP at night

Namely, the preferred reading of (i) under the assignment of stress as indicated is that most ships that

unload, do it at night. However, the preferred reading of (ii) is that what most people do at night is sleep.21 As Carlson and Pelletier (1995) suggest, generics are often analyzed in terms of an implicit

quantificational operator, though the quantificational force of this operator is vague or supplied by

context. So, the focus shift in generics affects their interpretation (Partee 1991).


123

(65) Intensifiers: tā-mā-de ‘fucking’

a. Ta-ma-de, Zhangsan gei LISI shu.

He-mother-DE Zhangsan give Lısı book

‘Zhangsan fucking gave LISI books.’

Implicature: It is particularly notable that Zhangsan gave the books

to Lısı, as opposed to someone else.

b. Ta-ma-de, Zhangsan gei Lısı SHU.

He-mother-DE Zhangsan give Lısı book

‘Zhangsan fucking gave Lısı BOOKS.’

Implicature: It is particularly notable that Zhangsan gave Lısı books,

as opposed to something else.

Taking as preliminary Beaver and Clark’s (2008) definition of focus sensitive

expressions, in the following, I will go back to (43a–j), in which a positive

interpretation is available for the bare gradable adjective.

4.2 Proposal: the positive morpheme in Chinese

What is unusual and easy enough to notice in (43a–j) is that they all contain a focus-

sensitive expression. This striking characteristic shared by (43a–j) leads us to reach

the following generalization. The Chinese positive morpheme has two allomorphs:

one is the unstressed hěn and the other is its covert counterpart (i.e., POS). The

covert one can only occur in a focus-sensitive domain where the bare gradable

adjective is focus-anchored, and the overt one occurs elsewhere. However, this

generalization immediately prompts the following question. Do we have any

concrete independent diagnostic(s) for establishing whether or not, for any given

construction, anchoring by focus is available? Moreover, it would be particularly

effective if we could identify constructions that FAIL the diagnostics for focus and

that concomitantly disallow the covert positive morpheme.

The preference for the disyllabic degree adverb shāowéi ‘a little’ rather than the

unstressed mono-syllabic degree adverb shāo‘a little’ shown by (66a–i) can be used

as the most convincing way to diagnose (43a–j) as constructions where the bare

gradable adjective is focus-anchored.

94 C.-S. L. Liu

123

(66) a. Zhangsan shaowei/#shao gao yi-xie, Lısı geng gao.

Zhangsan a-little/a-little tall a-little Lısı even-more tall

‘Zhangsan is a little taller, but Lısı is even taller.’

b. Zhangsan shaowei/#shao gao yi-xie ma?

Zhangsan a-little/a-little tall a-little SFP

‘Is Zhangsan a little taller?’

c. Zhe-xie xuesheng dangzhong, na-xie shaowei/#shao

This-several student among which-several a-little/a-little

gao yi-xie?

tall a-little

‘For these students, which of them are a little taller?’

d. Zhangsan meiyou shaowei/#shao gao yi-xie.

Zhangsan not a-little/a-little tall a-little

‘Zhangsan is not a little taller.’

e. Zhangsan yaoshı shaowei/#shao gao yi-xie dehua, jiu

Zhangsan if a-little/a-little tall a-little SFP then

keyı bei xuanshang.

can BEI select

‘If Zhangsan is a little taller, then he can be selected.’

f. Wo yıwei Zhangsan shaowei/#shao gao yi-xie.

I think Zhangsan a-little/a-little taller a-little

‘I think Zhangsan is a little taller.’

g. Zhangsan keneng shaowei/#shao gao yi-xie.

Zhangsan possible a-little/a-little tall a-little

‘Zhangsan is probably a little taller.’

h. Zhangsan shaowei/#shao gao yi-xie ou!


‘(The speaker reminds you of the warning that) Zhangsan is a little taller’

i. Zhangsan shaowei/#shao gao yi-xie le.


‘Zhangsan is a little taller now.’

That is, the disyllabic shāowéi ‘a little’ is much more preferred by the native speaker

than the unstressed mono-syllabic shāo ‘a little’ is. This empirical fact reminds us of

Duanmu’s (2000: 130–131) Nonhead Stress rule and the Constraint on Multiple

Foci implied by Tang (2001).

(67) Nonhead Stress (NHS):

In a syntactic head-nonhead (or a nonhead-head) relation, the nonhead

has greater stress than the head.

(68) Constraint on Multiple Foci

In Chinese, a construction with multiple foci requires each of the foci to be

‘definite’ enough.


123

According to the Nonhead Stress rule, the adjectival head in (66a–i) is unstressed,

but the degree adverb, being the nonhead modifier of the adjectival head, is stressed.

The nonhead post-verbal constituent yi-xiē ‘a little’, being existential and indefinite,

is unstressed. Given these, the nonhead degree adverb has the priority to carry stress.

Since Chinese is a tone language, stress is always signaled by loudness or length. Of

these two, lengthening is perceived much more easily. This specific feature of

signaling stress in Chinese, thus, well explains why the disyllabic degree adverb

shāowéi ‘a little’ is much more preferred than the unstressed monosyllabic degree

adverb shāo‘a little’.

Relevant to the question of whether we have any concrete independent diagnostic

(s) for establishing whether or not, for any given construction, anchoring by focus is

available is that the preference for the disyllabic degree adverb shāowéi ‘a little’

shown by (66a–i), all of which contain a focus-sensitive expression, can be

reinterpreted in the following way. If a bare gradable adjective occurs in a focus-

sensitive domain but is not focus-anchored, the degree adverb must be stressed (i.e.,

lengthened or loudened). Seen in this light, the phonetically contentless covert

positive morpheme, which cannot be stressed, is expected not to be allowed in a

focus-sensitive domain where the bare gradable adjective is not focus-anchored. In

other words, examples like (66a–i) effectively provide a context where the bare

gradable adjective FAILS to be focus-anchored and which concomitantly disallows

the covert positive morpheme.22

Even though we provide a convincing way to diagnose (43a–j) as a construction

where the bare gradable adjective is focus-anchored, the claim that the Chinese

22 One might notice that my diagnosis of whether or not, for any given construction, anchoring by focus

is available does not include example (43c), which is an A-not-A question. The crux of the matter here is

that the adjectival predicate in an A-not-A question cannot be modified by a degree adverb. As Law

(2006) suggests, in Chinese A-not-A questions, a base-generated abstract [+Q] feature is adjoined to VP,

and undergoes movement to the specifier position of CP. So, it is not implausible for us to consider this

abstract [+Q] feature as an interrogative expression. An interrogative expression, as Beaver and Clark

(2008) suggest, is a focus-sensitive expression. Hence, it can be said that, in Chinese A-not-A questions,

the bare gradable adjective is focus-anchored by the abstract [+Q] feature. Given this, the phonetically

contentless covert positive morpheme, which cannot be stressed, is expected to be allowed in an A-not-A

question, and the facts bear out this expectation, as (i) illustrates.

(i) Zhangsan gao-bu-gao?

Zhangan tall-not-tall

‘Is Zhangsan tall or not?’

This assumption gets supporting evidence from (ii), in which the presence of adverbs (e.g., degree

adverbs) results in unacceptability.

(ii) Zhangsan (*feichang) gao-bu-gao?

Zhangsan extremely tall-not-tall

As Law (2006) argues, the antecedent-trace relation created by the movement of the abstract [+Q] feature

may be blocked by the intervening presence of adverbs. The intervention effect shown by (ii) can actually

be reinterpreted as the focus effect noticed by Beck (2006: 11). According to the Nonhead Stress rule, the

degree adverb fēicháng ‘extremely’ in example (ii) is stressed and focalized, which thus induces the focus

effect. So, (ii) is ungrammatical.

96 C.-S. L. Liu

123

covert positive morpheme can only occur in a focus-sensitive domain where the

bare gradable adjective is focus-anchored but the overt one (i.e., hěn ‘HEN’) occurs

elsewhere is just a generalization, not an explanation. Why does this condition hold?

Why should it hold that Chinese has the covert positive morpheme?

To answer these two questions, I argue that it is the Constraint on Multiple Foci

that excludes the overt positive morpheme hěn ‘HEN’ from occurring in the focus-

sensitive domain where the bare gradable adjective is focus-anchored. Semantically,

the positive morpheme, either overt or covert, is the default degree adverb. So, it is

not implausible for us to say that, compared with other degree adverbs, the positive

morpheme is not so ‘definite’ in semantic meaning. As Tang (2001) argues, in

Chinese, a construction with multiple foci requires each of the foci to be ‘definite’

enough (Wei 2016). Hence, the overt positive morpheme hěn ‘HEN’ is not expected

to be allowed in a construction with multiple foci. The facts indeed bear out this

expectation, as attested by the contrast between (69) and (70) in grammaticality.

(69) *Zhe-ge xiangzi zhong sui zhong, haihao bu ZHONG,

This-CL box heavy though heavy not-bad not heavy

wo keyı zıjı ban.

I can self carry

‘Although this box is heavy, it is not heavy. So, I can carry it by myself.’

(70) Zhe-ge xiangzi zhong sui zhong, haihao bu HEN ZHONG,

This-CL box heavy though heavy not-bad not very heavy

wo keyı zıjı ban.

I can self carry

‘Although this box is heavy, it is not very heavy. So, I can carry

it by myself.’

That is, if the stressed HĚN in (70) is analyzed as the overt positive morpheme hěn‘HEN’ rather than the stressed intensifier hěn ‘very’, (70) is expected to be the same

as (69), in which the adjective ZHÒNG ‘heavy’ is modified by the covert positive

morpheme (in denoting a contradictory meaning) contrary to fact. This implies that

it is the Constraint on Multiple Foci that prohibits the overt positive morpheme hěn‘HEN’ from occurring in the focus sensitive domain where the bare gradable

adjective is focus-anchored.23 Hence, to saturate the degree argument of a focus-

anchored bare gradable adjective, the positive morpheme has to occur in the form of

its covert allomorph. Simply put, assuming Duanmu’s (2000) Nonhead Stress rule,

the complementary distribution shown by the two allomorphs of the Chinese

positive morpheme can be regarded as a manifestation of avoiding the violation of

the Constraint on Multiple Foci.

23 According to Xiandai Hanyu Xucı Lıshı (1982: 243–244) and Sybesma (1999: 26–27), the overt

positive morpheme hěn ‘HEN’ must be phonetically unstressed. This will not be a problem for my

proposal if we take a gradient view on the notion of ‘being phonetically stressed’. That is, the unstressed

overt positive morpheme hěn ‘HEN’, though being less ‘stressed’ than the intensifier hěn ‘very’, is more

‘stressed’ than the covert positive morpheme (i.e., POS).


123

One consequence of this analysis is that, contra Grano (2012), I assume that, in

Chinese, the positive degree semantics of gradable adjectives comes from the

semantically contentful null degree morpheme POS, rather than from a type shifting

rule that does not project in syntax. This implication is evidenced by the following

empirical fact. As is widely accepted, the Chinese yòu … yòu … coordination

construction requires parallelism not only in the lexical category of the conjuncts

but also in the functional structure that projects over the lexical category, as shown

by the contrast between (71a) and (71b) in grammaticality (Zhu 1982: 156; Liu et al.

2004: 340).24

(71) a. Zhangsan you [VP [V tiao] [NP shui]] you [VP [V da]

Zhangsan again raise water again hit

[NP shui]].

water

‘Zhangsan not only carries water with a pole on his shoulder

but also fetches water.

b. *Zhangsan you [V tiao] you [VP [V da [NP shui]].

Zhangsan again carry again hit water

Although both of its conjuncts are verbal, (71b) is ungrammatical because the first

conjunct, being a bare verb, is not structurally parallel to the second conjunct (i.e., dáshǔi ‘hit water’), which is a functional structure (i.e., the light verb phrase headed bythe light verb dǎ ‘hit’) that projects over the lexical noun shǔi ‘water’ and provides theverbal interpretation for shǔi ‘water’ (Huang 2009, 2014: 4; Feng 2014).

Given this syntactic characteristic of the yòu … yòu coordination construction,

the grammaticality of (72) NOT ONLY implies that the two conjuncts xiǎoqì‘stingy’ and hěn nàge ‘HEN that’ are parallel to each other in the lexical category as

well as in the functional structure that projects over the lexical category, BUT

ALSO is reminiscent of the relation between nàge ‘that’ pronominalization and hěn‘HEN’ support in Chinese clauses with an adjectival predicate.

(72) Zhangsan you xiaoqı you hen nage, zhen shı lıng

Zhangsan again stingy again HEN that really is cause

ren shoubuliao.

people intolerable

‘Zhangsan is not only stingy but is also so much so (e.g., rude), which

makes him really intolerable.’

That is, in (72), hěn nàge ‘HEN that’, as Liu (2010a: 1050) argues, is a degree phrase

in which the overt positive morpheme hěn ‘HEN’ not only functions to support the

degree morphology but also functions as a last resort to identify the pro-form nàge

24 In (71a), the first conjunct tiāo shǔi ‘raise water’ actually is a light verb phrase (i.e., vP) because the

V-to-v movement is obligatory in Chinese.

98 C.-S. L. Liu

123

‘that’ as an adjective.25 So, in (72), the conjunct xiăoqì ‘stingy’ with a positive

interpretation should be a degree phrase rather than an adjective phrase in syntax, and

this degree phrase is syntactically headed by the covert positive morpheme POS.26

Assuming that the Chinese positive morpheme has two allomorphs and the

complementary distribution shown by these two allomorphs is a manifestation of avoiding

theviolationof theConstraint onMultipleFoci,myproposalhas the followingempirical and

theoretical advantages.First, althoughChao (1968: 683) says that a ‘baregradable adjective’

like gāo ‘tall’ in example (73) can only receive a comparative interpretation, Huang (2016)

pointsout that thedata in (74)challengesChao’s (1968)widely-acceptedclaimandcalls into

question all the previous studies on the interpretation of Chinese adjectives.

(73) Tamen, shei gao (ne)?

They who tall SFP

‘For them, who is taller?’

(74) Q: Tamen shei gao?

They who tall

‘Which of them are/is tall?’ (Imagine this being a question asked

by a volleyball scouting agency looking for tall players)

A: a. Tamen dou gao.

They both/all tall

‘They are both/all tall, as opposed to short.’

b. Tamen dou bu gao.

They both/all not tall

‘Neither of them/None of them is tall.’

25 The yòu … yòu coordination construciton is a kind of additive construction; therefore, the covert

positive allomorph is allowed to occur inside. However, in (72), the ‘covert’ positive allomorph in the

second conjunct of the yòu … yòu coordination construction has to be overtly realized as hěn ‘HEN’ in

order to function as a last resort to identify the pro-form nàge ‘that’ as an adjective, as attested by the

contrast between (i) and (ii) in acceptability.

(i) Zhangsan you shangxın you shıwang.

Zhangsan again sad again disappointed

‘Zhangsan is sad and disappointed.’

(ii) ??Zhangsan you shangxın you hen shıwang.

Zhangsan again sad again very disappointed

26 Grano’s (2012) other assumption that a degree word like hěn ‘HEN’ can change the categorial status ofan adjective into a verb is also challenged by the yòu … yòu ‘again … again’ coordination structure, as

the grammatical contrast between (i) and (ii) illustrates.

(i) *Zhangsan you bian gao you hen zhuang.

Zhangsan again become tall again HEN strong

(ii) Zhangsan you tiaowu you changge.

Zhangsan again dance again sing

‘Zhangsan not only dances but also sings.’

Besides, as Zhang (2015: 22–23) argues, the AP modifier analysis of hěn ‘HEN’ for cases like (12a–b) is

not plausible because the cluster hěn-XP may not occur in certain positions where XP may.


123

c. Lao Er gao.

Lao Er tall

‘Lao Er is tall.’ (Implying she might be the next Lang

Pıng, the legendary Chinese volleyball player and coach)

That is, contra Chao’s (1968) observation, the positive reading actually is available

for examples like (73).

According to my proposal on the Chinese positive morpheme, the interrogative

word shéi ‘who’, as Beaver and Clark (2008) suggest, is a focus-sensitive

expression, and the adjective gāo ‘tall’ in (74Q) is focus-anchored by it. The covert

positive allomorph, therefore, is allowed to occur in (74Q). So, the adjective gāo‘tall’ gets its positive interpretation through combining with the covert positive

morpheme. Hence, (74Aa–c) are natural answers to the question ‘which of them are/

is tall?’.27

However, the situation becomes more complex if (74Q) is asked under a context

where the topic NP tāmen ‘they’ only consists of two persons, for example Lăo Dàand Lăo Èr; the interpretation of (74Q), then, rewritten as (75Q), might change from

speaker to speaker.

On the one hand, five out of thirteen native speakers accept a positive

interpretation for (75Q) and consider the adjective gāo ‘tall’ as being focus-

anchored by the focus sensitive expression shéi ‘who’. For them, the answer to (75Q)

is one like (75A), which denotes a contrastive reading between tall and not-tall.

(75) Q: Lao Da he Lao Er, shei gao?

Lao Da and Lao Er who tall

‘For Lao Da and Lao Er, who is tall?’

A: Lao Er gao, Lao Da bu gao.

Lao Er tall Lao Da not tall

‘Lao Er is tall, but Lao Da is not tall.’

Furthermore, two of these five native speakers cannot get the comparative

reading for (75Q) unless the overt comparative morpheme bǐjiào ‘more’ is inserted,

as (76) illustrates.

(76) Lao Da he Lao Er, shei bǐjiào gao?

Lao Da and Lao Er who more tall

‘For Lao Da and Lao Er, who is taller?’

On the other hand, for the other eight native speakers, (75Q) can only have a

comparative reading like (77Q).

27 Since (74Aa–b) both contain the quantification adverb dōu ‘all’, they both can be analyzed as a focus-

sensitive domain with a focus-anchored adjective.

100 C.-S. L. Liu

123

(77) Q: Lao Da he Lao Er, shei gao?



A: Lao Er gao.

Lao Er tall


These eight native speakers, as (77) shows, have Lăo Èr as the answer and, thus,take the residual Lăo Dà, which syntactically occurs as one of the two conjuncts of

the topic NP, as the overt standard of comparison. In light of this, (77Q) can be

considered as a construction where the occurrence of the covert comparative

allomorph bǐjiào ‘more’ is allowed; therefore, the comparative reading is available

for it. Accordingly, I suggest that (77) has (78) as its syntactic structure, which

contains a degree phrase headed by the covert comparative allomorph bǐjiào‘more’.28

(78) Q: Lao Da he Lao Er, [CP shei … [DegP bǐjiào [AP gao]]]?



A: [CP … Lao Er … [DegP bǐjiào [AP gao]]].

Lao Er tall


Moreover, for the eight native speakers who can only get the comparative

reading for (77), the more difficult it is for them to identify some specific

individual as the overt standard of comparison in a sentence, the more difficult it

is for that sentence to get the comparative reading. For example, it is extremely

difficult for them to get the comparative reading for (79), in which the topic NP

contains ten persons and the interrogative word shéi ‘who’ can be understood as

ná-jǐ-ge ‘which-several-CL’.29

28 For those five native speakers who accept (75A) (i.e., the positive reading) as an answer for (75Q), the

bare gradable adjective in (75Q) must be stressed. In addition, three out of the five native speakers who

accept the positive reading agree that (75Q) is ambiguous between the positive and the comparative

reading. However, all the thirteen native speakers accept (74Aa–b) as answers for (74Q).29 Only three out of the thirteen native speakers accept the comparative reading for (79) in the following

specifically designed context. Namely, the ten students denoted by the topic NP nà shí-ge xúeshēng ‘that

ten-CL student’ are divided into two sets: {student a, student b, student c, student d, student e} and

{student f, student g, student h, student i, student j}, and the interrogative phrase shéi/ná jǐ-ge ‘who/whichseveral-CL’ denotes either the set {student a, student b, student c, student d, student e} or the set {studentf, student g, student h, student i, student j}. In other words, it is possible for these three native speakers to

take one of the two sets as the overt standard of comparison. Frankly speaking, it is extremely difficult for

me to get this interpretation. Perhaps there might be other specifically designed contexts where (79) might

receive a comparative interpretation. Given the space limitations, I will not discuss them here.


123

(79) Na shı-ge xuesheng dangzhong, shei/na-jı-ge gao?

That ten-CL student among who/which-several-CL tall

‘For those ten students, who are tall?’

Second, my proposal for the Chinese positive morpheme can cover more

structures that allow a bare gradable adjective to receive a positive interpretation

than all the previous studies can. According to Beaver and Clark (2008), exclusives,

additives, scalar additives, sentential connectives, the statement of reason,

quantificational adverbs, quantificational determiners, generics, particularizers and

intensifiers are all focus-sensitive expressions. So, we would expect (80a–l) all form

a focus-sensitive domain in which the bare gradable adjective is focus-anchored.

This expectation indeed is borne out by the preference shown by (81a–l), in which

the mono-syllabic degree adverb is unstressed.

(80) a. Zhangsan zhı dui nı KEQI.

Zhangsan only to you polite

‘Zhangsan is only POLITE to you.’

b. Zhangsan feidan GAO erqie PANG.

Zhangsan not-only tall but-also fat

‘Zhangsan is not only TALL but also FAT.’

c. Zhangsan shenzhı dui nı KEQI.

Zhangsan even to you polite

‘Zhangsan is even POLITE to you.’

d. Zhengtı lai shuo, jiage ye HELI.

Whole come say price also reasonable

‘On the whole, the price is also REASONABLE.’

e. Zhangsan you dui nı KEQI.

Zhangsan again to you polite

‘Zhangsan was POLITE to you again.’

f. Tian HEI zhıqian, gankuai chufa.

Sky dark before immediately leave

‘You had better leave before it gets DARK.’

g. Tian HEI zhıhou, cai hui jia.

Sky dark after then return home

‘He returned after it got DARK.’

h. Yınwei tian HEI, suoyı kan bu dao lu.

Because sky dark so see not arrive road

‘We cannot find the road because it is DARK.’

i. Tamen dou PINGAN.

They all safe

‘All of them are SAFE.’

j. Xiaohai TIANZHEN.

Children naıve

‘Children are NAIVE.’

102 C.-S. L. Liu

123

k. Bı ru, Zhangsan CONGMING.

Compare as Zhangsan smart

‘For example, Zhangsan is SMART.’

l. Ta-ma-de, Zhangsan QIONG.

He-mother-DE Zhangsan poor

‘Zhangsan is fucking POOR.’

(81) a. Zhangsan zhı shaowei/#shao gao yi-xie.

Zhangsan only a-little/a-little tall a-little

‘Zhangsan is a little taller.’

b. Zhangsan feidan shaowei/#shao gao yi-xie, erqie

Zhangsan not-only a-little/a-little tall a-little but-also

shaowei/#shao pang yi-xie.

a-little/a-little fat a-little

‘Zhangsan is not only a little taller, but is also a little fatter.’

c. Zhangsan shenzhı shaowei/#shao pang yi-xie.

Zhangsan even a-little/a-little fat a-little

‘Zhangsan is even a little fatter.’

d. Zhengtı lai shuo, jiawei ye

Whole come say price also

shaowei/#shao helı yi-xie.

a-little/a-little reasonable a-little

‘On the whole, the price is also a little more reasonable.’

e. Jiage you shaowei/#shao gui yi-xie.

Price again a-little/a-little expensive a-little

‘The price is a little more expensive again.’

f. Tian shaowei/#shao hei yi-xie zhıqian,

Sky a-little/a-little dark a-little before

gankuai chufa.

immediately leave

‘You had better leave before it gets dark.’

g. Tian shaowei/#shao liang yi-xie zhıhou, cai chufa.

Sky a-little/a-little light a-little after then leave

‘You had better leave after it gets lighter.’

h. Yınwei tian shaowei/#shao liang yi-xie, suoyı

Because sky a-little/a-little light a-little so

kan de dao lu.

see DE arrive road

‘We can find the road because it has gotten a little lighter.’

i. Tamen dou shaowei/#shao pang yi-xie.

They all a-little/a-little fat a-little

‘All of them are a little fatter.’


123

j. Xiaohai bıjiao/#jiao tianzhen.

Children more/more naıve

‘Children are more naıve.’

k. Bı ru, jiage bıjiao/#jiao helı.

Compare as price more/more reasonable

‘For example, the price is more reasonable.’

l. Ta-ma-de, Zhangsan bıjiao/#jiao qiong.

He-mother-DE Zhangsan more/more poor

‘Zhangsan is fucking poorer.’

Third, my analysis also explains why, in a nominal structure with the

modification marker de ‘DE’ like (82a–b), the positive reading is available for

the prenominal bare gradable adjective (i.e., féipáng ‘corpulent’).30

(82) a. yı-ge feipang de xuesheng

one-CL corpulent DE student

‘a corpulent student’

b. feipang de xuesheng

corpulent DE student


According to Huang (1982, 62), the marker de is a “grammatical marker […] which

marks subordination” of peripheral elements to the head noun (Li and Thompson

1981; Aoun and Li 2003; Paul 2012).31 In light of this, the marker de, being a

30 Based on the data below, Grano (2012: 542–543) reaches a descriptive generalization as follows.

(i) yı-ge (hen) congmıng de haizi

one-CL very smart DE child

‘a (very) smart child’

(ii) *(hen) congmıng de yı-ge haizi

very smart DE one-CL child

‘a (very) smart child’

(iii) (hen) congmıng de na-yı-ge haizi

very smart DE that-one-CL child

‘that very smart child’

An ‘adjective de’ sequence cannot occur in a position before a numeral-classifier sequence unless the

adjective is modified by an overt degree marker. However, this generalization is not without

counterexamples, as shown by the data below.

(iv) Zuowan you shı chenggong de yı-chang yanchu.

Last-night again is successful DE one-CL performance

‘The performance last night was a successful one again.’

(v) Hen hao! Congmıng de yı-ge jueze!

Very good smart DE one-CL decision

‘It is very good! What a smart decision it is!’

31 Following Li and Thompson (1981: 113), Aoun and Li (2003: 250) treat de as an “associative marker”

which functions to “associate” a phrasal category with the head noun.

104 C.-S. L. Liu

123

sentential or a phrasal connective, can be regarded as a focus-sensitive expression, as

attested by the preference shown by the contrast below (Beaver and Clark 2008: 8).

(83) a. bıjiao feipang de xuesheng

more corpulent DE student

‘a more corpulent student’

b. #jiao feipang de xuesheng (jiào ‘more’ is unstressed)

more corpulent DE student

So, it can be said that, in (82a–b), the prenominal bare gradable adjective féipàng‘corpulent’, as (84a–b) show, is focus-anchored by the focus sensitive expression de.

(84) a. yı-ge FEIPANG de xuesheng

one-CL corpulent DE student


b. FEIPANG de xuesheng

corpulent DE student


Given this, (82a–b) can be analyzed as a focus-sensitive domain where the

prenominal bare gradable adjective is focus-anchored. So, the occurrence of the

covert positive allomorph is licensed in (82a–b); a positive interpretation, therefore,

is available for the prenominal bare gradable adjective féipàng ‘corpulent’.

Last, but not least, my proposal for the positive morpheme and my proposal for

the comparative morpheme can reinforce each other by establishing a theoretical

relationship through Duanmu’s (2000) Nonhhead Stress rule and the Constraint on

Multiple Foci implied by Tang (2001).

5 Concluding remarks

In this study, four major points about the projections of Chinese adjectives have

been made. First, the Chinese covert comparative marker is the covert allomorph of

the comparative morpheme bǐjiào ‘more’. The covert bǐjiào ‘more’ can only occur

in a comparative construction where an overt standard of comparison is

syntactically available, while the overt one (i.e., bǐjiào ‘more’) occurs in a


unavailable.

Second, the Chinese positive morpheme has two allomorphs. One is the

unstressed hěn ‘HEN’ and the other is its covert counterpart. The covert one can

only occur in a focus-sensitive domain where the bare gradable adjective is focus-

anchored, and the overt one occurs elsewhere.

Third, a covert allomorph, regardless of whether it is the comparative or the

positive morpheme, is used simply to avoid violating the Constraint on Multiple

Foci. So, the complementary distribution shown by the overt and the covert


123

allomorph of either the comparative or the positive morpheme can be regarded as a

manifestation of avoiding the violation of the Constraint on Multiple Foci.

Fourth, my proposal for the comparative morpheme and my proposal for the

positive morpheme can reinforce each other by establishing a theoretical

relationship through Duanmu’s (2000) Nonhead Stress rule and the Constraint on

Multiple Foci implied by Tang (2001).

The interaction of the first three points has the following theoretical implication:

in Chinese, the morphological comparative form of an adjective is derived by

combining the adjective with the comparative morphology, and the morphological

positive form of an adjective is derived by combining the adjective with the positive

morphology. So, both the positive form and the comparative form of adjectives are

marked in Chinese (Stassen 1985; Sybesma 1999: 26–27; Bobaljik 2012).32

Acknowledgements The impetus for this study comes from the rigorous but constructive comments onLiu (2010a) from Thomas Grano, Christopher Kennedy, Waltraud Paul, Jessica Rett and Ning NiinaZhang, to all of whom I want to express my deep gratitude. A part of the earlier version of this paper hasbeen presented in Thirty Years of Linguistics at Tsing Hua held by National Tsing Hua University inSeptember 2015. I would like to thank the audiences there, especially Chin-Fa Lien, Jo-Wang Lin, GuangMei, Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai and Ning Niina Zhang, for their stimulating questions and suggestions.Moreover, I express my immense gratitude to James Huang and Shi-Zhe Huang for their constructivecomments and inspiring suggestions which bring the paper into a more readable state than it otherwisewould have been. I am also indebted to Yi-Hsun Chen, Chin-Man Kuo, Hsiu-Chen Liao, Chi-Ming Liu,Yu-An Lu and Ting-Chi Wei for their substantive feedback, and the anonymous reviewers for theirrigorous but helpful comments at various stages of this study. Added to these, I gratefully acknowledgethe research Grant MOST105-2410-H-009-054 from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.Finally, any errors or inconsistencies that have persisted, of course, are my responsibility.

References

Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-Hui Audrey Li. 2003. Essays on the representational and derivational nature ofgrammar: The diversity of wh-constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Barker, Chris. 2002. The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(1): 1–36.

Beaver, David I., and Brady Z. Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines meaning.Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics14(1): 1–56.

Bierwisch, Manfred. 1989. The semantics of gradation. In Dimensional adjectives, ed. Bierwisch Manfred

and Ewald Lang, 71–261. Berlin: Springer.

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology: Suppletion, superlatives, and thestructure of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Carlson, Gregory, and Francis Pelletier. 1995. The generic book. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.

Chao, Yen-Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Cresswell, Max John. 1976. The semantics of degree. In Montague grammar, ed. Barbara Partee, 261–

292. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Duanmu, San. 2000. The phonology of standard Chinese. New York: Oxford University Press.

32 Since this study only concentrates on the relevant issues in Chinese, I would not say that, universally,

the morphological comparative form and the morphological positive form of an adjective are derived by

combining the adjective with the comparative morphology and the positive morphology, respectively.

106 C.-S. L. Liu

123

Duanmu, San. 2004. Left-headed feet and phrasal stress in Chinese. Cahiers de Linguistique—AsieOrientale 33(1): 65–103.

Feng, Sheng-Li. 1997. Hànyǔ de yùnlyù, cífă yǔ jùfă [Interactions between morphology, syntax andprosody in Chinese]. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Feng, Sheng-Li. 2014. Light-verb syntax between English and classical Chinese. In Chinese syntax in across-linguistic perspective, ed. Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson, and Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai, 229–250.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Graff, Delia. 2000. Shifting sands: An interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical Topics 28(1):45–81.

Grano, Thomas. 2012. Mandarin hěn and universal markedness in gradable adjectives. Natural Language& Linguistic Theory 30(2): 413–565.

Grano, Thomas, and Christopher Kennedy. 2012. Mandarin transitive comparatives and the grammar of

measurement. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21(3): 219–266.Gu, Yang. 2008. Shıtai, shızhı lılun yu hanyu shıjian canzhao [Studies of tense, aspect and Chinese time

reference]. In Dāngdài yǔyánxúe lĭlùn hé hànyǔ yánjiù [Contemporary linguistic theories and relatedstudies of Chinese], ed. Yang Shen and Shengli Feng, 97–117. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.

Hale, Austin. 1970. Conditions on English comparative clause pairings. In Readings in Englishtransformational grammar, ed. Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum, 30–55. Washington:

Georgetown University Press.

Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related issues. Ms., Austin: University of Texas.

Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3): 183–221.

Hellan, Lars. 1981. Towards an integrated analysis of comparatives. Tubingen: Narr.Hendriks, Petra. 2004. Optimization in focus identification. In Optimality theory and pragmatics, ed.

Reihnard Blutner and Henk Zeevat, 42–62. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoraldissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 2009. Lexical decomposition, silent categories, and the localizer phrase.

Yǔyánxúe lùncóng [Collected Essays on Linguistics] 39: 86–122.Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 2014. On syntactic analyticity and parametric theory. In Chinese syntax in a

cross-linguistic perspective, ed. Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson, and Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai, 1–48. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Huang, Cheng-Teh James, Yen-Hui Audrey Li, and Ya-Fei Li. 2009. The syntax of Chinese. New York,

NY: Cambridge University Press.

Huang, Shi-Zhe. 2006. Property theory, adjectives and modification in Chinese. Journal of East AsianLinguistics 15(4): 343–369.

Huang, Shi-Zhe. 2016. Adjectives. In Encyclopedia of Chinese language and linguistics, ed. Rint

Sybesma, Wolfgang Behr, Yueguo Gu, Zev Handel, C.-T.James Huang, and James Myers. Herndon,

VA: Brill.

Huang, Shi-Zhe, and Yen-Hui Audrey Li. 2008. A new issue in the semantic analysis of modificationstructure in Chinese. Paper presented in the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the International

Association of Chinese Linguistics, May 30th to June 1st 2008, Peking University.

Kadmon, Nirit. 2001. Formal pragmatics: Semantics, pragmatics, presupposition and focus. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.

Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability andcomparison. New York, NY: Garland.

Kennedy, Christopher. 2001. Polar opposition and the ontology of ‘degrees’. Linguistics and Philosophy24(1): 33–70.

Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Modes of comparison. In Chicago linguistic society, vol. 43(1), ed. Malcolm

Elliot, James Kirby, Osamu Sawada, Eleni Staraki, and Suwon Yoon, 141–165. Chicago, IL:

Chicago Linguistic Society.

Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the

semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2): 345–381.

Kiss, Katalin E. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2): 245–273.

Klein, Ewan. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(1):1–45.

Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Doctoraldissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


123

Law, Paul. 2006. Adverbs in A-not-A questions in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics15(2): 97–136.

Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Li, Mei-Du. 1988. Anaphoric structures of Chinese. Taipei: Student Book Company.

Lin, Jo-Wang. 2009. Chinese comparatives and their implicational parameters. Natural LanguageSemantics 17(1): 1–27.

Lin, Jo-Wang. 2014. The adjective of quantity duō ‘many/much’ and differential comparatives in

Mandarin Chinese. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1(2): 163–191.Lin, Yen-Hwei. 2007. The sounds of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther. 2010a. The positive morpheme in Chinese and the adjectival structure. Lingua120(4): 1010–1056.

Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther. 2010b. The Chinese gèng clausal comparative. Lingua 120(6): 1579–1606.

Liu, Chen-Sheng Luther. 2012. Two notes on Chinese bi comparatives. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics38(1): 69–91.

Liu, Yue-Hua, Wen-Yu. Pan, and Gu Wei. 2004. Shíyòng xiàndài hànyǔ yúfă [Modern Chinesegrammar]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.

Lu, Bing-Fu. 1989. Jiegou, jiezou, song-jın zai hanyu zhong de xianghu zuoyong [The interaction among

structure, rhythm, juncture, stress in Chinese]. Hànyǔ xúexí 3: 25–29.Lu, Bing-Fu, and San Duanmu. 1991. A case study of the relation between rhythm and syntax in Chinese.

Paper presented in the Third North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, May 3rd to 5th

1991, Cornell University, Ithaca.

Lu, Bing-Fu, and San Duanmu. 2002. Rhythm and syntax in Chinese: A case study. Journal of theChinese Language Teachers Association 37(2): 123–136.

Lu, Shu-Xiang. 1963. Xiandai hanyu dan-shuang yınjie wentı chutan [A preliminary research on mono-

disyllabic combinations in modern Chinese]. Zhōngguō Yǔwén 1: 11–23.

Partee, Barbara H. 1991. Topic, focus and quantification. In Proceedings of SALT 1, ed. Steven K. Moore

and Adam Zachary Wyner, 159–187. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Paul, Waltraud. 1999. Verb gapping in Chinese: A case of verb raising. Lingua 107(3/4): 207–226.

Paul, Waltraud. 2012. Why Chinese de is not like French de: A critical analysis of the predicational

approach to nominal modification. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 33(3): 183–210.Rett, Jessica. 2014. The semantics of evaluativity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1(1): 75–116.Rooth, Mats. 1996. Focus. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. Shalom Lappin, 271–

297. London: Basil Blackwell.

Schwarzschild, Roger. 2008. The semantics of comparatives and other degree constructions. Languageand Linguistics Compass 2(2): 308–331.

Seuren, Pieter A.M. 1973. The comparative. In Generative grammar in Europe, ed. Ferenc Kiefer and

Nicolas Ruwet, 528–564. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Shannon, Claude E., and Warren Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL:University of Illinois Press.

Shen, Xiao-Nan. 1989. Interplay of the four citation tones and intonation. Journal of Chinese Linguistics17(1): 61–74.

Shih, Chi-Lin. 1988. Tone and intonation in Mandarin. Working Papers of the Cornell PhoneticsLaboratory 3: 83–109.

Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Sybesma, Rint. 1999. The Mandarin vP. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Tang, Sze-Wing. 2001. The (non-)existence of gapping in Chinese and its implications for the theory of

gapping. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10(2): 201–224.Tang, Ting-Chi. 1988. Studies on Chinese morphology and syntax. Taipei: Student Book Co., Ltd.

von Final, Kai. 1999. NPI licensing, Strawson entailment. Journal of Semantics 16(2): 97–148.von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3(1): 1–

77.

Xiandai hanyu xucı lıshı [Examples and explanation of the functional words of modern Chinese]. 1982.

eds. Class 1955 and 1957 of Department of Chinese Language and Literature of Peking University,

Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.

108 C.-S. L. Liu

123

Wei, Ting-Chi. 2016. Ellipsis and gapping. In Encyclopedia of Chinese language and linguistics, ed. RintSybesma, Wolfgang Behr, Yueguo Gu, Zev Handel, C.-T.James Huang, and James Myers. Herndon,

VA: Brill.

Zhang, Niina Ning. 2015. Functional head properties of the degree word hěn in Mandarin Chinese.

Lingua 153(1): 14–41.

Zhu, De-Xi. 1980. Xiàndài hànyǔ yúfă yánjiù [Studies on syntax of modern Chinese]. Beijing: ShangwuYinshuguan.

Zhu, De-Xi. 1982. Yúfă jiăngyì [Lectures on Chinese syntax]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.


123

Documents

Projecting adjectives in Chinese - link.springer.com · Abstract Chinese has the comparative morpheme and the positive ... (2010a) considers the unstressed degree word hěn ‘HEN’