C.-T. James Huang

Complex Predicates in Control

One of the most important results of early research in generative grammar is the discovery that superficially very similar constructions should be distinguished on the basis of whether they involve a construal rule of Control, or a movement rule of Raising. Thus, although the sentences in (1) are respectively very similar to those in (2) in their unanalyzed surface forms, it is generally agreed that they should be analyzed in different ways, as indicated below: (1)(a) John i tried [PRO i to be honest]. (b) John persuaded Bill i [PRO i to be honest]. (c) Bill was persuaded t i [PRO i to be honest]. (d) Who did you persuade t i [PRO i to be honest]? (2)(a) John i seemed [t i to be honest]. (b) John believed [Bill to be honest]. (c) Bill i was believed [t i to be honest]. (d) Who i did you believe [t i to be honest]?

Two types of donkey sentences

Mandarin Chinese exhibits two paradigms of conditionals with indefinite wh-words that have the semantics of donkey sentences, represented by ‘bare conditionals’ on the one hand and ruguo- and dou-conditionals on the other. The bare conditionals require multiple occurrences of wh-words, disallowing the use of overt or covert anaphoric elements in the consequent clause, whereas the ruguo- and dou-conditionals present a completely opposite pattern. We argue that the bare conditionals are cases of unselective binding par excellence (Heim 1982, Kamp 1981) while the ruguo- and dou-conditionals are most naturally accounted for with the traditional E-type pronoun strategy of Evans (1980). We thus argue partly for a return to the E-type strategy (along with Heim 1990) but maintain the need for unselective binding in UG (cf. Kratzer 1989, Chierchia 1992). It is further shown that these two paradigms do not differ with respect to the proportion problem and the distribution of symmetric and asymmetric readings of Kadmon (1987), though they differ with respect to ∀ and ∃ readings (discussed in Chierchia 1992) in a non-trivial way that provides further support for the proposed approach. Finally, evidence is given that the bare conditionals should be kept apart from correlative constructions in languages like Hindi, and treated differently from the latter.

Modularity and Chinese A-not-A Questions

In theoretical linguistics, a common type of explanation takes the form of a proposal that ties together observed similar phenomena whose related-ness would otherwise be obscured. The generative treatment of passive sentences and their active counterparts is a simple example, according to which the observed similarities between such constructions (with respect to their ‘argument structure’, etc.) are explained given the idea that they have a common or similar D-structure source. Chomsky’s Subjacency is another example, as it ties together a number of Ross’ island constraints, thus providing an explanation for their clustering in a way that the individual constraints do not.

The Syntax and Semantics of Prenominals: Construction or Composition?

Although the adjunct–complement dichotomy has long been recognized in traditional Chinese linguistic study for the analysis of clausal and verb-phrase structure, research on nominal structure has t...