Abstract
We review two conflicting accounts of the argument-adjunct (a)symmetry found in topic structures in English and in the Romance languages. Based on the contrast, we examine topic structures in Mandarin Chinese, especially the behaviors of adjunct topics in multiple-topic sentences, embedded clauses, and non-declarative sentences. We observe a systematic extraction asymmetry in these environments between argument and circumstantial-adjunct topics, on the one hand, and manner-adjunct topics, on the other. The new findings from Mandarin Chinese suggest that the argument-adjunct asymmetry of the topic structure in English is only apparent, and the extraction asymmetry should be understood cross-linguistically as a movement-merger asymmetry (Haegeman 2012a: Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and composition of the left periphery, OUP). In this respect, we propose that argument topics and circumstantial-adjunct topics in Chinese are base-generated in the fronted topic position, and manner-adjunct topics are results of syntactic movements. The topicalization asymmetry in Mandarin Chinese can be further unified with Tsai’s (1994: On economizing the theory of A-bar dependencies, MIT dissertation) theory of the nominal-adverbial asymmetry of wh-dependencies in Chinese, where argument wh-phrases and circumstantial wh-phrases (including time, location, and instrumental wh-phrases) also resort to the base-generation strategy (through merger and LF binding), and manner-adverbial wh-phrases make use of the movement strategy (through LF movement).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
‘Circumstantial adjunct’ (c-adjunct) is a descriptive term for modifiers that are used to describe the time, location, instrument, or comitative participant of the event (Cinque 1999). While it may include manner adjuncts in descriptive grammars, we argue that, morphosyntactically, manner adverbs do not behave the same way as other types of c-adjuncts, and should not be categorized as a type of c-adjunct (at least in Chinese). In Chinese, such ‘m-adjuncts’ are morphologically distinct from other c-adjuncts. Manner adverbs/m-adverbs are always introduced by the adverbial marker –de, while other types of c-adjuncts are either bare or introduced by a preposition. Syntactically, m-adverbs are closely attached to the verb (unless the m-adverb is topicalized), and m-adverbs cannot be separated from the VP by a negation or any other adverb, while c-adjuncts are not subject to the same conditions. Lastly, m-adverbs block the A-not-A form on the verb, but c-adjuncts, such as temporal or locational adjuncts, do not (Law 2006).
Unless otherwise specified, the grammatical judgments of Mandarin Chinese in this paper are based on the authors’ own native intuitions, and we have confirmed our judgments with four other native speakers.
The adverbial suffix –de (地 in Chinese character) is in complementary distribution with the adjectival suffix –de (的 in Chinese character).
Adopting Starke (2001), Boeckx and Jeong (2004), Rizzi (2004), Endo (2007) and Abels (2012), Haegeman (2012a) proposes that intervention is caused by feature identity (matching features) or feature inclusion (the intervenor carries features in addition to the matching ones). A topic is a stronger intervenor than the world operator movement because it carries a discourse feature [δ] in addition to the shared operator [Op] feature (which triggers the movement).
As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, one aspect where the m-adjunct topic differs from other types of topics is in their clause-boundedness:
(i)
{??*Toutoumomo-de},
[wo
kanjian
[Lisi
{toutoumomo-de}
pao-hui
jia]].
furtively
1sg
see
Lisi
furtively
run-back
home
‘I saw that Lisi ran back home furtively.’
(i) is marginal or even unacceptable for most native speakers we consulted. The reviewer points out that the non-cyclic nature of m-adjunct fronting may argue against a movement analysis. While we do not know what factor leads to the clause-boundedness of adverbial fronting, it is important to note that the clause-boundedness of adverb fronting is not restricted to Mandarin Chinese. For example, Simple Preposing (SP) (e.g., AdvP/PP-topicalization without a clitic) in Italian is also clause-bounded (Rizzi 2004: 249):
(ii)
Rapidamente, (*Gianni dice che) hanno risolto il problema.
‘Rapidly, (Gianni says that) they solved the problem.’
Furthermore, like m-adjunct topics in Chinese, SP is also a main clause phenomenon and does not allow iteration (Cruschina 2010: 64–66; Rizzi and Bocci 2017: 6). Since SP is subject to intervention and does not employ clitic resumption, these facts strongly suggest that SP is also derived from movement. We tentatively follow Rizzi (2004) in assuming that all of these movements target ModP and they interact with various topic phrases through further movements or agreement.
An anonymous reviewer points out that an m-adjunct cannot occur with the A-not-A form on the verb without any displacement to sentence-initial position, as in (i), which might suggest that the movement of the m-adjunct is irrelevant to our question:
(i)
*Ta
manman-de
pao-bu-pao?
3sg
slowly
run-neg-run
While the ungrammaticality of (i) remains an interesting problem (but see Law 2006 and Simpson 2015 for a focus intervention account), we contend that (i) is different from (44)/(46). The A-not-A operator in (44)/(46) is attached to the modal auxiliary, which can form a legitimate A-not-A question when the m-adverb does not move, as shown in (44). Therefore, the ungrammaticality of (46) must have been caused by the movement (and intervention) of the m-adverb.
Badan and Del Gobbo (2011: 74) claim that in a multiple-topic construction, topics cannot be resumed by resumptive pronouns in Chinese:
(i)
*Zhe
jian
yinhang,
Zhangsan,
wo
zhidao
women
keyi
this
clf
bank
Zhagnsan
1sg
know
1pl
can
cong
nali
ti
ta
jiedao
hen
duo
qian.
from
there
for
3sg
borrow
very
much
money
(intended:) ‘From this bank, for Zhangsan, I know we can borrow a lot of money.’
However, the following sentence sounds much better, suggesting that (i) might be infelicitous due to some pragmatic reason:
(ii)
Zhe
jian
yinhang,
xiang
Zhangsan
zheme
this
clf
bank
like
Zhangsan
so
qiong
de
ren,
women
hen
nan
poor
DE
person
1pl
very
hard
ti
ta
cong
nali
jiedao
ban-mao
qian.
for
3sg
from
there
borrow
any
money
‘As for this bank, a poor man like Zhangsan, we can hardly borrow any money for him from
there.’
Two anonymous reviewers point out that a sentence like (55b) is acceptable if we use jiu-zhe-yang ‘just-this-way’ or zhe-yang-de ‘this.way-DE’:
(i)
Yiwuyishi-de,
Lisi
jiu-zhe-yang/?zhe-yang-de
shuo-chu
shihua.
thoroughly
Lisi
just-this-way/this.way-DE
say-out
truth
‘(Just) like this, Lisi told the truth completely.’
However, we contend that jiu-zhe-yang ‘just-this-way’ or zhe-yang-de ‘this-way-DE’ in (i) is not used as a resumptive pronoun, but it has a referential meaning closer to ‘(just) like this/that’ in English, which refers to some aforementioned manner. Evidence for this claim comes from the fact that the manner adverb can co-occur with these expressions when it is not moved, as in (ii) (which may have a referential cataphoric meaning, as pointed out by a reviewer). This is different from the typical resumptive pronouns in (iii), which cannot be used if the target NP is not topicalized:
(ii)
Lisi
jiu-zhe-yang/?zhe-yang-de
yiwuyishi-de
shuo-chu
shihua.
Lisi
just-this-way/this-way-DE
thoroughly
say-out
truth
‘(Just) like this, Lisi told the truth completely.’
(iii)
a.
{Zhangsan},
Lisi
hen
taoyan
tai
{*Zhangsani}.
Zhangsan
Lisi
very
dislike
3sg
Zhangsan
‘Zhangsan, Lisi does not like him very much.’
b.
{Qu-nian
xiatiani},
wo
dangshii
{*qu-nian
xiatiani}
hai
bu-renshi
Lisi.
last-year
summer
1sg
then
last-year
summer
still
neg-know
Lisi
‘I did not know Lisi yet last summer.’
Abbreviations
- SFP:
-
Sentence-final particle
- EXP:
-
Experiential aspect
References
Abels, Klaus. 2012. The Italian left periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2): 229–254.
Alexopoulou, Theodora, Edit Doron, and Caroline Heycock. 2004. Broad subject and clitic left dislocation. In Peripheries: Syntactic edges and their effects, ed. David Adger, Cecile De Cat, and George Tsoulas, 329–358. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey. Li. 1993. Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24(2): 199–238.
Badan, Linda, and Francesca Del Gobbo. 2011. On the syntax of topic and focus in Chinese. In Mapping the left periphery, ed. Paola Benincà and Nicola Munaro, 63–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2006. Conditionals. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 638–687. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bianchi, Valentina, and Mara Frascarelli. 2010. Is topic a root phenomenon? Iberia An Interntional Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2: 43–88.
Boeckx, Cedric, and Youngmi Jeong. 2004. “The fine structure of intervention in syntax.” In Issues in current linguistic theory: A festschrift for Hong Bae Lee, edited by C. Kwon and W. Lee, 83–116. Seoul: Kyungjin.
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4): 519–562.
Chou, Chao-Ting Tim. 2013. Unvalued interpretable features and topic A-movement in Chinese raising modal constructions. Lingua 123: 118–147.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford studies in comparative syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collins, Chris. 1991. “Why and how come.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 31–45.
Cruschina, Silvio. 2010. Syntactic extraposition and clitic resumption in Italian. Lingua 120(1): 50–73.
Culicover, Peter. 1991. Topicalization, inversion, and complementizers in English. In Going Romance and beyond, ed. Denis Delfitto, Martin Everaert, Arnold Evers, and Frits Stuurman, 1–45. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.
Demirdache, Hamida, and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2004. The syntax of time adverbs. In The syntax of time, ed. Jacqueline Gueron and Jacqueline Lecarme, 143–180. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformation approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.
Endo, Yoshio. 2007. Locality and information structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Engels, Eva. 2012. Optimizing adverb positions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ernst, Thomas. 1994. Conditions on Chinese A-not-A questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3(3): 241–264.
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frascarelli, Mara, and Roland Hinterhölzl. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On information structure, meaning and form, ed. Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Frey, Werner. 2003. Syntactic conditions on adjunct class. In Modifying adjuncts, ed. Ewald Lang, et al., 163–209. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2004. Topicalization, CLLD and the left Periphery. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35: 157–192.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116(10): 1651–1669.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. The movement derivation of conditional clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4): 595–621.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2012a. Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and composition of the left periphery. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2012b. The syntax of MCP: Deriving the truncation account. In Main clause phenomena: New horizons, ed. Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman, and Rachel Nye, 113–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haegeman, Liliane. 2014. “Locality and the distribution of main clause phenomena.” In Locality, edited by Enoch Olade Aboh, Maria Teresa Guasti, and Ian Roberts, 186–222. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Han, Chung-Hye. 1998. “The structure and interpretation of imperatives: mood and force in Universal Grammar.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Hooper, Joan B., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4): 465–497.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15(4): 531–574.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1991. Modularity and Chinese A-not-A questions. In Interdisciplinary approaches to languages, ed. Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara, 305–322. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Huang, C.-T. James., Yen-hui Audrey. Li, and Yafei Li. 2009. The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, C.-T. James, and Chen-sheng Liu. 2000. “Logophoricity, Attitudes, and Ziji at the Interface.” In Long-Distance Reflexive, edited by Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, and C. T. James Huang, 141–195. New York: Academic Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kao, Grant Hung-Ta. 2013. “Subjunctive Mood and Main Clause Phenomena in Mandarin Chinese.” MA Thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2012. Interpreting imperatives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4): 243–276.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larson, Richard. 1990. Extraction and multiple selection in PP. The Linguistic Review 7(2): 169–182.
Law, Paul. 2006. Adverbs in A-not-A questions in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15(2): 97–136.
Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 2003. Making sense of language differences. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 22: 23–49.
Maienborn, Claudia. 2001. On the position and interpretation of locative modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 9(2): 191–240.
McCloskey, James. 2006. Resumption. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 94–117. Oxford: Blackwell.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2017. Topicalization. Gengo Kenkyu 152: 1–29.
Pan, Haihua. 1998. Closeness, prominence, and binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16(4): 771–815.
Pan, Victor Junnan. 2016. Resumptivity in Mandarin Chinese: A minimalist account. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27(1): 53–94.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and beyond, ed. Adriana Belletti, 223–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rizzi, Luigi, and Giuliano Bocci. 2017. “Left periphery of the clause: Primarily illustrated for Italian.” In The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, edited by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk. Oxford: Wiley.
Shi, Dingxu. 2000. Topic and topic-comment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Language 76(2): 383–408.
Shyu, Shu-ing. 2014. “Topic and Focus.” In The Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, edited by C. -T. James Huang, Yen-hui Audrey Li, and Andrew Simpson, 100–125. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Simpson, Andrew. 2015. “Verbal answer to yes/no questions, focus, and ellipsis.” In Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective, edited by Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson, and Wei-tien Dylan Tsai, 300–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Starke, Michal. 2001. “Move dissolves into merge: A theory of locality.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.
Tomaszewicz, Barbara. 2012. The syntactic position of Polish by and Main Clause Phenomena. In Main clause phenomena: New horizons, ed. Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman, and Rachel Nye, 257–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1994. “On economizing the theory of A-bar dependencies.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1999. On lexical courtesy. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8(1): 39–73.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. Left periphery and how-why alternations. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17(2): 83–115.
Wu, Hsiao-Hung Iris. 2008. “Generalized Inversion and the Theory of Agree.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
Xu, Liejiong. 2004. Manifestation of informational focus. Lingua 114(3): 277–299.
Xu, Liejiong. 2006. Topicalization in Asian languages. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 137–174. Oxford: Blackwell.
Xu, Liejiong, and Donald T. Langendoen. 1985. Topic structures in Chinese. Language 61(1): 1–27.
Yang, Barry Chung-Yu. 2012. Intervention effects and wh-construals. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21(1): 43–87.
Acknowledgment
This research is supported by the research grant of National Science and Technology Council in Taiwan (then Ministry of Science and Technology) [On the Representation and Derivation of Topicalization: #104-2628-H-001-003-]. Earlier versions of the paper have been presented in the ILAS Faculty Lecture (Academia Sinica), the Workshop on Formal Syntax and Semantics (National Tsing Hua University), the 19th SICOGG (Seoul National University), IACL-25 (Eötvös Loránd University), the 53rd Linguistics Colloquium (Nanzan University), and the 5th NAFOSTED Conference on Information and Computer Science (Ton Duc Thang University). We would like to thank the audience and our colleagues at those venues for their comments and questions. We have also benefited greatly from discussion and correspondence with Nigel Duffield, Miao-ling Hsieh, Sam Jheng, Man-ki Lee, Jonah Lin, Mamoru Saito, Hubert Truckenbrodt, Dylan Tsai, and Iris Wang. The authors would like to thank as well two anonymous reviewers and the Editors of Journal of East Asian Linguistics for their helpful comments and remarks. Our special thanks go to Andrew Simpson, whose detailed suggestions have led to many substantial improvements in our presentation and analysis in the paper. Of course, all errors remain the responsibility of the authors alone.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Liao, Ww.R., Kao, G.HT. Extraction asymmetries in topic structures: a comparative analysis. J East Asian Linguist 32, 63–90 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-023-09252-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-023-09252-y