Coordination versus separation: difference of gapping between Chinese and English and its prosodic attribution

IF 0.7 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Baopeng Ma, Di Zhang
{"title":"Coordination versus separation: difference of gapping between Chinese and English and its prosodic attribution","authors":"Baopeng Ma, Di Zhang","doi":"10.1515/tlr-2023-2005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper, we have analyzed a whole set of data of gapping in Mandarin Chinese from a novel point of view and fleshed out a bi-sentential derivation analysis for the formation of this construction. While taking the canonical gapping in English as a reference, we have explored some idiomatic properties of the relevant structures in Chinese and summarized core differences: the gapping constructions in English follow a strict rule of sentence grammar while those of Chinese have demonstrated kind of inter-sentential effect. We propose that such differences can be attributed to the prosodic factors: The Constraint on Sentential Intonation in Chinese (CSIC for short), firstly proposed in Feng (Feng, Shengli. 2017. Hanyu jufa zhongyin yudiao xianghu zuoyong de yufa xiaoying. ‘On grammatical effects of interactions between intonation, stress and syntax’. Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu [Language Teaching and Linguistic Study] (1). 1–15), bans the occurrence of the coordinate [VP & VP] structures, and thus two parallel but separate sentences are used in the contexts where a sentence with VP coordination in English is used. Then, the verb in the second sentence is deleted at PF under the identity condition. Consequently, the gapping structures thus formed demonstrate their own unique properties and are different from the canonical gapping in English. The result of our discussion indicates that prosody can play a role in accounting for language specificities as well as cross-linguistic variations.","PeriodicalId":46358,"journal":{"name":"Linguistic Review","volume":"50 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linguistic Review","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2023-2005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In this paper, we have analyzed a whole set of data of gapping in Mandarin Chinese from a novel point of view and fleshed out a bi-sentential derivation analysis for the formation of this construction. While taking the canonical gapping in English as a reference, we have explored some idiomatic properties of the relevant structures in Chinese and summarized core differences: the gapping constructions in English follow a strict rule of sentence grammar while those of Chinese have demonstrated kind of inter-sentential effect. We propose that such differences can be attributed to the prosodic factors: The Constraint on Sentential Intonation in Chinese (CSIC for short), firstly proposed in Feng (Feng, Shengli. 2017. Hanyu jufa zhongyin yudiao xianghu zuoyong de yufa xiaoying. ‘On grammatical effects of interactions between intonation, stress and syntax’. Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu [Language Teaching and Linguistic Study] (1). 1–15), bans the occurrence of the coordinate [VP & VP] structures, and thus two parallel but separate sentences are used in the contexts where a sentence with VP coordination in English is used. Then, the verb in the second sentence is deleted at PF under the identity condition. Consequently, the gapping structures thus formed demonstrate their own unique properties and are different from the canonical gapping in English. The result of our discussion indicates that prosody can play a role in accounting for language specificities as well as cross-linguistic variations.
协调与分离:中英文衔接的差异及其韵律归属
摘要本文从一个全新的角度分析了汉语汉语中gap的全部数据,并对该结构的形成进行了双句衍生分析。我们以英语中的典型间隔为参照,探讨了汉语中相关结构的一些习惯特征,总结出了核心差异:英语中的间隔结构遵循严格的句子语法规则,而汉语中的间隔结构则表现出一种句间效应。我们认为这种差异可以归因于韵律因素:《汉语句子语调约束》(简称CSIC),首次提出于Feng (Feng, Shengli. 2017)。汉译英:汉译英,汉译英,汉译英。“语调、重音和句法相互作用的语法效应”。《语言教学与语言研究》(1)(1 - 15)中禁止出现并列式的[VP & VP]结构,因此在英语中使用副动词配合句的语境中,会出现两个平行但独立的句子。然后,在同一性条件下,第二句中的动词在PF处被删除。因此,由此形成的间隙结构表现出其独特的性质,与英语中的规范间隙不同。我们的讨论结果表明,韵律可以在解释语言特殊性和跨语言差异方面发挥作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Linguistic Review
Linguistic Review Multiple-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Linguistic Review aims at publishing high-quality papers in syntax, semantics, phonology, and morphology, within a framework of Generative Grammar and related disciplines, as well as critical discussions of theoretical linguistics as a branch of cognitive psychology. Striving to be a platform for discussion, The Linguistic Review welcomes reviews of important new monographs in these areas, dissertation abstracts, and letters to the editor. The editor also welcomes initiatives for thematic issues with guest editors. The Linguistic Review is a peer-reviewed journal of international scope.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信