The locus of Mandarin
sentence-final particles andthe Final-over-Final Constraint
Michael Yoshitaka ERLEWINE (mitcho)
National University of Singapore

Workshop on Word Order of Heads
Chinese University of Hong Kong, October 2016

TodayPrevious work on Mandarin Chinese sentence-final particles (SFPs) haveproposed or assume that SFPs are uniformly in the high clause periphery,such as in (a split) CP (see e.g. Lee, 1986; Tang, 1988; Cheng, 1991; Paul,
2014, 2015).
☞ I show that a subset of Mandarin SFPs are in a dedicated,clause-medial position between TP and vP, rather than in the CP
periphery (cf Tang, 1998).
I identify this as the head of the lower phase of the clause (traditionally vP;
Chomsky 2000 a.o.).
Specifically, I investigate sentence-final le and ‘only’ éryǐ . Because word
order alone does not teach us about the structural height of SFPs, myevidence comes from semantic scope.
2

Today• SFPs have been well-discussed as a challenge to the Final-over-Final
Constraint (FOFC). The presence of SFPs in a clause-medial position,
as well as the clause periphery, sharpens the challenge to FOFC.
☞ I propose that the distribution of Mandarin SFPs is best explained byembracing FOFC but refining it so FOFC does not apply across Spell
Out domains (in analytic languages such as Mandarin).

3

Roadmap§1 Proposal§2 Evidence§3 SFPs and FOFC

4

Roadmap§1 Proposal§2 Evidence§3 SFPs and FOFC

5

Mandarin SFPs
Mandarin SFPs come in three classes (Chao, 1968; Hu, 1981; Zhu, 1982,a.o.). They are strictly ordered (SFP1 < SFP2 < SFP3 ) and SFP in each classare in complementary distribution.
(1)

Three classes of Mandarin Chinese SFPs:
a. SFP1 : low SFP
sentence-final le, recent past láizhe, durative ne, ‘only’ éryǐb. SFP2 : clause-type
polar question ma, imperative ba
c. SFP3 : speaker/addressee attitude
impatient ou, softening a, gentle reminding ei

6Mandarin SFPs

I follow the common view that all SFPs are head-final heads in the clausal
spine (Lee 1986; Tang 1988; Cheng 1991; Tang 1998; Paul 2014, 2015 andreferences there), but return to this assumption at the end.
Tang (1998) and Paul (2014, 2015) motivate a first-order split between the
low SFP (SFP1 ), which can be embedded, and high SFP (SFP2 and SFP3 ).
Paul (2014, 2015) proposes that SFPs realize a three-layer split CP,
following Rizzi (1997) a.o.

7

Proposal☞ The low SFPs (SFP1 ) are clause-medial, between vP and TP.
SFP1 is the head of the lower phase of the clause.

(2)

AttitudePCP
TP
subject

Attitude ← head-final
SFP3
C
SFP2

..
.
SFP1 P

T

..
.
vP
..
.

SFP1

← head-finalhead-initial← head-finalhead-initial

8

Roadmap§1 Proposal§2 Evidence§3 SFPs and FOFC

9

Evidence for clause-medial SFPs
Because of their sentence-final position, the linear position of SFPs does
not clearly reflect their structural position. I study the semantic scope of
two low SFPs, le and ‘only’ éryǐ.
(3)

If low SFPs are in CP, predict scope over all Ops in TP:⇒ ✓SFP1 > Op, *Op > SFP1
[CP [TP ... Op ... ] SFP1 ](4)

If low SFPs are clause-medial, predict scope over some, not all:a. “... Op ... SFP1 ” with a lower operator (Op):⇒ ✓SFP1 > Op, *Op > SFP1
[CP ... [SFP1P [ ... Op ... ] SFP1 ] ]b. “... Op ... SFP1 ” with a higher operator (Op):⇒ *SFP1 > Op, ✓Op > SFP1
[CP ... Op ... [SFP1P ... SFP1 ] ]10Sentence-final le

The function of sentence-final le is often described as expressing a changeof state or that the assertion is somehow unexpected (Li and Thompson,
1981, a.o.):(5)

The semantic contribution of SFP le (ex Soh, 2009, p. 625):
Tāmen dàodá-le shān-dǐngle.
they reach-PERF mountain-top LE‘They reached the top of the mountain, {which they hadn’t done
before, contrary to what one may expect}.’

11

Sentence-final leHere I follow the proposal of Soh and Gao (2006); Soh (2009):(6)

Semantics for sentence-final le (Soh and Gao, 2006; Soh, 2009):
Given a proposition p:Asserts: p is true; andPresupposes: there is “an immediate past event or state” where p
is false.

(7)

Example from Soh and Gao (2006):
Wǒ xǐhūan mùguā le.
I likepapaya LE
Asserts: ‘I (now) like papaya.’Presupposes: ‘I did not like papaya in the immediate past.’

12

Negation

Consider two sentential negations, búshì and bù. Búshì is higher than bù(Huang, 1988; Yeh, 1992; Hsieh, 1996).
(8)búshì can precede hái ‘still’ but bù cannot:a. Tā {*bu hái, ✓hái bù} xǐhuān Zhōngguó cài.
s/he NEG still still NEG like
China
dish
‘S/he still does not like Chinese dishes.’

L&T p. 345

b. Tā búshì hái zài hǎi-biān, tā shì hái zài xuéxiào.
s/he NEG still at sea-side s/he SHI still at school‘S/he isn’t still at the beach, she’s still at school.’(Ibid p. 348)

13

Negation(9)

SFP le scopes above bù but below búshì (Soh and Gao, 2006):
a. bù...le:✓LE > NEG, *NEG > LEWǒ bù xiǎng jiāle.
I NEG miss home LE
Asserts: ‘I do not miss home now.’
Presupposes: ‘I did miss home before.’b. búshì...le:*LE > NEG, ✓NEG > LEWǒ búshì xiǎng jiāle.
I NEG miss home LE
Asserts: ‘I do not miss home now.’
Presupposes: ‘I did not miss home before.’

14

Negation(10)

Semantic interpretations of (9), based on (6):a. J(9a)K = LE(p), where p = NEG(‘I miss home’)
Asserts: p is true now ⇐⇒ I do not miss home now
Presupposes: in the immediate past, p was false ⇐⇒I did miss home immediately beforeb. J(9b)K = NEG(LE(p)), where p = ‘I miss home’
Asserts: NEG(p is true now) ⇐⇒ I do not miss home now
Presupposes: in the immediate past, p was false ⇐⇒I did not miss home immediately before☞ SFP le is below búshì but above bu.
15Modals
Epistemic modals are structurally higher than deontic and circumstantial
modals (Cinque, 1999; Hacquard, 2010, a.o.).
(11)

Le scopes above néng but below epistemic kěnéng (Lin, 2011):a.

ABLE néng...le:✓LE > ABLE, *ABLE > LE

Zhāngsān néng qù Táiběi le.
Zhangsan ABLE go Taipei LE✓‘It has become the case that Zhangsan is able to go to Taipei.’* ‘Zhangsan is able to have gone to Taipei.’b.

MAY kěnéng...le:*LE > MAY, ✓MAY > LE

Zhāngsān kěnéng qù Táiběi le.
Zhangsan MAY
go Taipei LE* ‘It has become possible that Zhangsan goes to Taipei.’✓‘Zhangsan may have gone to Taipei.’
16Modals
A similar contrast with universal modals:(12)

Le scopes above deontic xūyào but below epistemic yào(Santana-LaBarge, 2016, p. 413):
a. Deontic MUST xūyào...le:Wǒ míngtiān xūyào qù Chéngdū le.
I tomorrow MUST go Chengdu LE✓

LE > MUST, *MUST > LE✓

‘It’s now the case that tomorrow, I must go to Chengdu.’* ‘It will be the case that tomorrow, I must go to Chengdu.’b.

WILL yào...le:*LE > WILL, ✓WILL > LEWǒ míngtiān yào qù Chéngdū le.
I tomorrow WILL go Chengdu LE* ‘It’s now the case that tomorrow, I will go to Chengdu.’✓‘Tomorrow, I will be going to Chengdu.’☞ Epistemic modals scope over le, but le scopes over deontic andcircumstantial modals.

17

Subjects
Mandarin simplex wh-words can function as indefinites in the scope of
certain operators, such as negation (Huang, 1982; Li, 1992; Cheng, 1994;
Lin, 1998).
(13)Interrogative and indefinite wh:a. Tā xiǎng chī shénmes/he want eat whati.

‘What did s/he want to eat?’ii.

* ‘S/he wanted to eat
something/anything.’b. Tā bù xiǎng chī shénmes/he NEG want eat whati.

‘What didn’t s/he want to eat?’ii.

‘S/he didn’t want to eat anything.’
18

Subjects(14)

Wh-word outside of the scope of negation:
Shéi bù xiǎng chī fàn
who not want eat rice

(15)

a.

‘Who doesn’t want to eat?’b.

* ‘Anyone/someone doesn’t want to eat.’

Wh-indefinite licensed by sentence-final le (Li, 1992, p. 133):a. Tā kàndào shénmes/he seewhat
i.

‘What did s/he see?’ii.

* ‘S/he saw something.’b. Tā kàndào shénme le.
s/he seewhat LE‘S/he saw something.’¹

19Subjects(16)

le licenses wh-indefinites as object but not subject:a. Tā shūo shénme les/he say what LEi.

‘What did s/he say?’ii.

‘S/he said something.’

b. {Shéi, shénme ren} shūo huà
lewho what person say speech LEi.

‘Who spoke?’ii.

* ‘Someone spoke.’☞ Subjects are outside of the scope of le.

20

Alternative question disjunction(17)

Examples of háishì alternative questions from Erlewine (2014a):a. Object DP disjunction:
Nǐ (shì) xiǎng hē [[DP kāfēi] háishi [DP hóngchá]] (ne)?
you SHI want drink
coffee HAISHI
tea
NE‘Do you want to drink coffee or tea?’b. vP disjunction:
Nǐ (shì) [[vP xiǎng hē kāfēi] háishi [vP xiǎng hē hóngchá]] (ne)?
NE
you SHIwant drink coffee HAISHI
want drink tea‘Do you want to drink coffee or want to drink tea?’ (=a)

c. TP disjunction:(Shì) [[TP nǐ nòng-cuò-le]háishi [TP diànnǎo zìjǐ dāngjī-le]] (ne)?
you make-wrong-PERF HAISHI
computer self crash-PERF NE
SHI‘Did you make a mistake or did the computer crash by itself?’21

Alternative question disjunction
Two features to note:• Different size constituents can be disjoined by háishì.²• The focus marker shì optionally precedes the left edge of the
disjunction.
(18)

Sub-TP disjunction can include sentence-final le:Context: The addressee is crying.
Nǐ (shì) [[xiǎng jiāle] háishì [gēn nánpéngyǒu fēnshǒu-le] (ne)?
you SHImiss home LE HAISHI with boyfriend break.up-PERF NE‘Did you start to miss home or break up with your boyfriend?’

22

Alternative question disjunction
We might imagine if this is a CP or TP disjunction with a pro-dropped
subject in the second disjunct:(19)

Hypothetical CP disjunction derivation for (18):[[CP Nǐi xiǎng jiāle] háishì [CP proi gēn nánpéngyǒu fēnshǒu-le] (ne)?
you miss home LE HAISHI
with boyfriend break.up-PERF NE

But this analysis would predict an incorrect placement of shì:(20)

Incorrect placement of shì predicted by (19):* Shì [[CP nǐi xiǎng jiāle] háishì [proi gēn nánpéngyǒu
SHI
you miss home LE HAISHI
with boyfriend
fēnshǒu-le] (ne)?
break.up-PERF NE☞ SFP le can be included in the disjunction of sub-TP constituents.
23

Summary: leSentence-final le is in a fixed, clause-medial position• Between higher and lower negation• Below epistemic modals but above deontic and circumstantial
modals• Below the subject

24

Sentence-final ‘only’ éryǐMandarin has (at least) two ‘only’ words introducing exhaustivity:(21)

Two ‘only’s in Mandarin:
Context: “What does he do on Saturdays?”a.

Tā zhǐ [kàn diànshì]F .
He ONLY watch TV‘He only watches TV.’ ⇒ He doesn’t do anything else.

b.

Tā [kàn diànshì]F éryǐ.
He watch TV
ONLY‘He only watches TV.’ ⇒ He doesn’t do anything else.

‘Only’ associates with focus, presupposing the truth of the prejacent(stated value) and asserting the negation of other focus alternatives.³ See
Tsai (2004) on zhǐ and Erlewine (2010) on éryǐ.
25

Sentence-final ‘only’ éryǐ(22)

The focus-sensitivity of sentence-final ‘only’ éryǐ :a. Wǒ hùi [nìan]F Yīngwén éryǐ.
I can read English ONLY
‘I can only [read]F English.’ ⇒ I cannot speak it, write it, etc.
b. Wǒ hùi niàn [Yīngwén]F éryǐ.
ONLY
I can read English‘I can only read [English]F .’ ⇒ I cannot read other languages.

Here I concentrate on this focus-sensitive exhaustive ‘only’ éryǐ as in (22).
There is also a use of éryǐ which seems to associate with the entire
utterance and mean “It’s just that...” or “It’s just because...” I will notconsider this utterance-level éryǐ here.
26

Negation(23)

The scope of negation and only in English:a.

ONLY > NEG:
I only don’t drink [tea]F . ⇒ I drink everything else.

b.

NEG > ONLY:

I don’t only drink [tea]F ⇒ I also drink other things (notnecessarily everything else).

27

Negation
We again consider the higher búshì and lower bù negations:(24)

SFP éryǐ ‘only’ scopes above bù but below búshì (Erlewine, 2010,
p. 23):a. bù...éryǐ :Wǒ bù hē [chǎ]F éryǐ.
I NEG drink tea ONLY✓

ONLY > NEG, *NEG > ONLY✓

‘I only don’t drink [tea]F .’ ⇒ I drink everything else.
* ‘I don’t only drink [tea]F .’ ⇒ I also drink other things.
b. búshì...éryǐ :*ONLY > NEG, ✓NEG > ONLY
Wǒ búshì hē [chǎ]F éryǐ.
I NEG drink tea ONLY* ‘I only don’t drink [tea]F .’ ⇒ I drink everything else.
✓‘I don’t only drink [tea]F .’ ⇒ I also drink other things.
☞ Éryǐ is below búshì but above bu.
28Modals(25)

SFP éryǐ takes scope above néng but below kěnéng:a.

ABLE néng...éryǐ :✓ONLY > ABLE, *ABLE > ONLY

Zhāngsān néng shūo [Fǎwén]F éryǐ.
Zhangsan ABLE speak French ONLY✓

‘Zhangsan is only able to speak [French]F .’* ‘Zhangsan is able to only speak [French]F .’b.

MAY kěnéng...éryǐ :*ONLY > MAY, ✓MAY > ONLY

Zhāngsān kěnéng shūo [Fǎwén]F éryǐ.
Zhangsan MAY
speak French ONLY
* ‘It’s only possible that Zhangsan speaks [French]F .’✓‘It’s possible that Zhangsan only speaks [French]F .’☞ Éryǐ takes scope below epistemic modals but above circumstantial
modals.
29

Subjects
The semantics of ‘only’ requires a focused constituent in the scope of‘only’ (Jackendoff, 1972; Rooth, 1985; Tancredi, 1990; Aoun and Li, 1993).
(26)

(27)

Only must associate with a focused constituent in its scope:a.

I can only [read]F English.

b.

I can only read [English]F .

c.

* [I]F can only read English.
Intended: ‘Only [I]F can read English.’Sentence-final éryǐ is unable to associate with the subject:* [Wǒ (yī ge rén)]F hùi niàn Yīngwén éryǐ.
I one CL person can read English ONLY
Intended: ‘Only [I (one person)]F can read English.’Tang (1998, p. 45–47) shows the same with Cantonese sentence-final zaa:
“The subject and any adverbs preceding the subject are always excluded
from focalization of zaa.”
30

Subjects
If a subject stays in a postverbal position, as is possible with indefinite
subjects of unaccusatives (Travis, 1984), it can be the focus of éryǐ :(28)

Sentence-final éryǐ can associate with a postverbal subject:
Lái-le[(wǒ) yī ge rén]F éryǐ.
come-PERF I one CL person ONLY
‘Only [(I) one person]F came.’

Subject quantifiers also take scope over éryǐ :(29)

Distributive subject with dōu takes scope over éryǐ :Wǒmen dōu hē [hēi]F kāfēi éryǐ.
we
DOU drink black coffee ONLY✓✓
‘Each of us only drinks [black]F coffee.’
subject DOU > ONLY
* ‘Only [black]F coffee is such that we all drink it.’*ONLY > subject DOU☞ Preverbal subjects are outside of the scope of éryǐ.

31

Alternative question disjunction(30)

Háishì disjunctions of different sizes:a.

Disjunction of extended VP:Nǐ (shì) [[vP yào yī wǎn fàn] háishì [vP yào liǎng wǎn fàn]] (ne)?
you SHIwant one CL rice HAISHI
want two CL rice NE‘Do you want one bowl of rice or two bowls of rice?’b.

DP disjunction:
Nǐ (shì) yào [[DP yī wǎn fàn] háishì [DP liǎng wǎn fàn]] (ne)?
you SHI want
one CL rice HAISHI
two CL rice NE‘Do you want one bowl of rice or two bowls of rice?’ (=a)

32Alternative question disjunction(31)

Disjunction of extended VP can include sentence-final éryǐ ; DPdisjunction cannot:a.

Disjunction of extended projections of VP:Nǐ (shì) [[yào [yī]F wǎn fàn éryǐ] háishì [yào liǎng wǎn
you SHIwant one CL rice ONLY HAISHI want two CLfàn]] (ne)?
rice NE‘Do you want only [one]F bowl of rice or two bowls of rice?’b.

Disjunctions of DPs:
* Nǐ (shì) yào [[DP [yī]F wǎn fàn éryǐ] háishì [DP liǎng wǎn
you SHI want
one CL rice ONLY HAISHI
two CLfàn]] (ne)?
rice NE☞ Éryǐ can be included in the disjunction of sub-TP extended VPs.
33

Summary: éryǐSentence-final éryǐ is in a fixed, clause-medial position• Between higher and lower negation• Below epistemic modals but above circumstantial modals• Below the preverbal subject

34

Roadmap§1 Proposal§2 Evidence§3 SFPs and FOFC

35

SFPs and FOFC

Chinese SFPs have been important in the discussion of the Final-over-Final
Constraint (FOFC), a proposed universal on structure-building andlinearization.
(32)

The Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC) (Holmberg, 2000, p. 124):
If a phrase α is head-initial, then the phrase β immediately
dominating α is head-initial. If α is head-final, β can be head-finalor head-initial.

36

The Final-over-Final Constraint(33)

Predictions of the Final-over-Final Constraint:a. ✓HF over HF:
b. ✓HI over HI:
βP
βP
αP

β

XP α
c. ✓HI over HF:
βP
β

β

α XP
d. *HF over HI:
βP
αP

αP
XP

αP

α

α

β

XP

37

The Final-over-Final Constraint(34)

Word orders in Finnish wh-questions (Holmberg, 2000, p. 128):
a.
✓

b.

Aux-V-O:
Milloin Jussi olisi
kirjoittanut romaanin?
when Jussi would.have written
a novel‘When would Jussi have written a novel?’

Aux-O-V:
Milloin Jussi olisi
romaanin kirjoittanut?
when Jussi would.have a novel written
O-V-Aux:✓
Milloin Jussi romaanin kirjoittanut olisi?
when Jussi a novel written
would.have
V-O-Aux:* Milloin Jussi kirjoittanut romaanin olisi?
when Jussi written
a novel would.have
✓

c.

d.

*V-O-Aux also holds across modern and historical Germanic languages
Biberauer, Holmberg, and Roberts (2008, 2014), and at many other levelsof syntactic structure.
38

FOFC domains

At the same time, we know FOFC does not hold over entire utterances:(35)

A potential exception to FOFC, in German (Biberauer, Holmberg,
and Roberts, 2008):
Johann hat [VP [DP den Mann] gesehen].
John hasthe man seen
‘John has seen the man.’

A common intuition for accounting for such data is that FOFC holds only
over certain domains. I call these FOFC domains.

39

Reactions to FOFC exceptions☞ Given the otherwise head-initial Mandarin Chinese clausal spine,
SFPs potentially counterexemplify FOFC (Biberauer, Holmberg, andRoberts, 2008, 2014; Biberauer, Newton, and Sheehan, 2009; Bailey,
2010; Paul, 2009, 2014, 2015; Chan, 2013).
(36)

Possible reactions to an apparent exception to FOFC:
Given a FOFC-violating structure [βP [αP α XP ] β ], one could
conclude:a. FOFC is not a real constraint on grammar (or not active in mylanguage);b. The head β is not subject to FOFC evaluation; orc. The heads β and α are in different FOFC domains andtherefore FOFC does not apply over them (but FOFC isobserved upwards for β and downwards for α).
40

Reactions to FOFC exceptions• Waltraud Paul notably takes the first approach (36a).
• Most previous work on Chinese SFPs and FOFC have taken thesecond approach, by somehow exempting SFPs (36b).
☞ I advocate for the third approach (36c): SFPs occur at the edges of
FOFC domains, which coincide with phase edges.

41

The proposal(37)

Proposed structure: (=2)
AttitudePCP
TP
subject

Attitude ← head-final
SFP3
C
SFP2

..
.
SFP1 P

T

..
.
vP

SFP1

← head-finalhead-initial← head-finalhead-initial

..
.
42

SFPs and phases

Let C (SFP2 ) and SFP1 be phase heads; the latter heading the lower phaseof the clause, traditionally called vP. I take complements of phase heads tobe Spell-Out domains (Chomsky, 2000, 2001).
(38)

Spell-Out domains of the Mandarin clausal spine (hierarchical):phase headphase head
[CP C(=SFP2 ) [TP T ... [SFP1P SFP1 ... [vP v [VP V ...
Spell-Out domain Spell-Out domain

43

Spell-Out and FOFC domains
The mechanism of cyclic Spell-Out naturally motivates these positions as
break points for FOFC: Spell-Out makes subtrees opaque for introspection
from above (Uriagereka, 1999; Chomsky, 2000, 2001).
(39)

Spell-Out leads to a natural break in FOFC enforcement:
a. Merge αP with PH β: → b. αP undergoes Spell-Out:βP
βαP“α...”
β
phase
phase
head
α XP
head

(40)

FOFC domains = Spell-Out domains: (also in Richards 2016)
FOFC holds only within individual Spell-Out domains.
44

Explaining the positions of SFPs

☞ This approach gives a principled explanation for why SFPs appear inthese two positions of the clause: the clause periphery (higher phaseedge) and a fixed clause-medial position (lower phase edge).
• An alternative is, for example, that SFPs are adjuncts. The very
restricted distribution of SFPs is then difficult to explain.

45

A potential problem: *V-O-Aux again

Much of the initial motivation for FOFC was word order gaps between
main verb, object, and auxiliary. This is most likely a FOFC-effect acrossthe higher and lower phases of the clause.
Idea: This reflects morphological differences of the heads involved.
If the lower phase’s phase head head-moves or morphologically merges
with higher material, this shifts or suspends the Spell-Out boundary (seee.g. Den Dikken, 2007; Gallego, 2007, 2010).

46

A potential problem: *V-O-Aux again
Prediction: (Apparent) FOFC violations might be more likely inisolating/analytic languages and less likely in agglutinating/synthetic
languages.
• Philip (2013, p. 206) cites Matthew Dryer (p.c.) in stating that “formany of the VO languages exhibiting final uninflected tense or aspectparticles, there is simply no verbal inflection in the language at all.”• The FOFC-violating V-O-Aux order is attested by an ability modal in
Middle Chinese and in a number of Southeast Asian languages(Simpson, 2001), with are indeed very analytic.
This explains the observation that “FOFC violations may cluster”(Biberauer et al., 2008, p. 100) in certain language families or in certain
parts of the clause.
47

Conclusion• The low SFPs le and éryǐ are in a dedicated clause-medial position,
between higher and lower negations, epistemic and deontic modals,
preverbal subjects and the VP.
☞ Low SFPs realize the lower phase head.
• The limited distribution of SFPs in Mandarin is best explained byembracing FOFC, with SFPs being head-final heads in the clausal
spine.
☞ Spell-Out domains are FOFC domains. Extended stretches of
FOFC enforcement (e.g. in languages with richer verbal
inflection) reflect shifts in Spell-Out boundaries.

48

Thank you!

Thank you! Questions?
I thank Sze-Wing Tang and organizers for this opportunity to present this work.
This work expands on Erlewine (2010, 2014b) and will appear as Erlewine (toappear). For valuable comments and discussion, I thank Tingchun Chen, Noah
Constant, Thomas Grano, Irene Heim, Cheng-Teh James Huang, Hadas Kotek, Paul
Kroeger, Jo-Wang Lin, Chen-Sheng Luther Liu, Victor Junnan Pan, Waltraud Paul,David Pesetsky, Norvin Richards, Robert Santana-LaBarge, Michelle Sheehan,
Hooi-Ling Soh, audiences at the IACL 18 / NACCL 22 joint meeting at Harvard
University (2010) and NAACL 25 at the University of Michigan (2013). I additionally
thank Grace Chen-Hsiu Kuo, Chi-Ming Louis Liu, Iris Ouyang, Pamela Pan, Jiajia Su,
Ning Tang, Cheng-Yu Edwin Tsai, Yimei Xiang, Tianxiao Wang for extensive
discussion of data and judgments. All errors are my own.

49

References I
Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993. Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF?
Linguistic Inquiry 24:199–238.
Bailey, Laura R. 2010. Sentential word order and the syntax of question particles.
In Newcastle working papers in linguistics 16, 23–43.
Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, and Ian Roberts. 2008. Structure andlinearization in disharmonic word orders. In Proceedings of WCCFL 26, 96–104.
Biberauer, Theresa, Anders Holmberg, and Ian Roberts. 2014. A syntactic universal
and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45:169–225.
Biberauer, Theresa, Glenda Newton, and Michelle Sheehan. 2009. Limiting
synchronic and diachronic variation and change: The Final-over-Final
Constraint. Language and Linguistics 10:701–743.
Chan, Brian Hok-Shing. 2013. Sentence-final particles, complementizers,
antisymmetry, and the Final-over-Final Constraint. In Theoretical approaches todisharmonic word orders, ed. Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan,
445–468. Oxford University Press.

50References II
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. University of California Press.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions. Doctoral
Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1994. Wh-words as polarity items. Chinese Languages and
Linguistics 2:615–640.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step:
Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Roger Martin, David
Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed.
Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford.
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2007. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role ofhead movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33:1–41.

51

References III
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2010. Sentence-final only and the interpretation of
focus in Mandarin Chinese. In The Proceedings of the 22nd North American
Conference of Chinese Linguistics (NACCL 22) and the 18th Annual Meeting of theInternational Association of Chinese Linguistics (IACL 18), 18–35.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2014a. Alternative questions through focus
alternatives in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 48th Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 48), ed. Andrea Beltrama, Tasos
Chatzikonstantinou, Jackson L. Lee, Mike Pham, and Diane Rak, 221–234.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2014b. Sentence-final particles at the vP phase edge.
In Proceedings of the 25th North American Conference of Chinese Linguistics(NACCL 25).
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. to appear. Low sentence-final particles in Mandarin
Chinese and the Final-over-Final Constraint. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
URL .
Gallego, Ángel. 2007. Phase theory and parametric variation. Doctoral
Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

52

References IV
Gallego, Ángel. 2010. Phase theory. John Benjamins.
Hacquard, Valentine. 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural
Language Semantics 18:79–114.
Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Deriving OV order in Finnish. In The derivation of VO andOV, ed. Peter Svenonius, number 31 in Linguistic Aktuell, 123–152. John
Benjamins.
Horn, Laurence Robert. 1969. A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In
Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting, ed. Robert I. Binnick, Alice Davison,
Georgia M. Green, and J.L. Morgan, 98–107. Chicago Linguistic Society.
Hsieh, Miao-Ling. 1996. On the functions of three forms of negation in Chinese.
Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 26:161–174.
Hu, Mingyang. 1981. 北京话的语气助词和叹词 (Mood particles and interjections in
the Beijing dialect). Zhongguo Yuwen 347–350, 416–423.
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory ofgrammar. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

53

References V
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1988. Wo pao de kuai and Chinese phrase structure.
Language 64:274–311.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press.
Lee, Hun-tak Thomas. 1986. Studies on quantification in Chinese. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functionalreference grammar. University of California Press.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1992. Indefinite wh in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 1:125–155.
Lin, Jo-Wang. 1998. On existential polarity wh-phrases in Chinese. Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 7:219–255.
Lin, Tzong-Hong Jonah. 2011. Finiteness of clauses and raising of arguments in
Mandarin Chinese. Syntax 14:48–73.
Paul, Waltraud. 2009. Consistent disharmony: Sentence-final particles in Chinese.
Manuscript, CRLAO/CNRS.

54

References VI
Paul, Waltraud. 2014. Why particles are not particular: sentence-final particles in
Chinese as heads of a split CP. Studia Linguistica 68:77–115.
Paul, Waltraud. 2015. New perspectives on Chinese syntax. De Gruyter Mouton.
Philip, Joy. 2013. (Dis)harmony, the Head-Proximate filter, and linkers. Journal of
Linguistics 49:165–213.
Richards, Norvin. 2016. Contiguity theory. MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar,
ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Santana-LaBarge, Robert. 2016. The grammaticalization of 要 yao and the future
cycle from Archaic Chinese to Modern Mandarin. In Cyclical change continued,
ed. Elly van Gelderen, 395–418. John Benjamins.
Simpson, Andrew. 2001. Focus, presupposition and light predicate raising inSoutheast Asian languages and Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
10:89–128.

55

References VII
Soh, Hooi Ling. 2009. Speaker presupposition and Mandarin Chinese
sentence-final -le: a unified analysis of the “change of state” and the “contrary
to expectation” reading. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27:623–657.
Soh, Hooi Ling, and Meijia Gao. 2006. Perfective aspect and transition in Mandarin
Chinese: an analysis of double -le sentences. In Proceedings of the 2004 Texas
Linguistics Society conference, 107–122.
Tancredi, Chris. 1990. Not only EVEN, but even ONLY. Manuscript, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Tang, Sze-Wing. 1998. Parametrization of features in syntax. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of California, Irvine.
Tang, Ting-Chi. 1988. 普遍語法與漢英對比分析 (Universal Grammar and acomparative analysis of Chinese and English). In 漢語詞法句法論集 2 (Studies on
Chinese morphology and syntax 2), 213–256. Taipei: Student Book Company.
Travis, Lisa deMena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation.
Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

56

References VIII

Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2004. 談「只」與「連」的形式語義 [On the formal semantics
of only and even in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen 2:99–111.
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Working minimalism, ed.
Samuel David Epstein and Norbert Hornstein, 251–282. MIT Press.
Yeh, Ling-Hsia. 1992. On sentential negation in Chinese. Manuscript, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst.
Zhu, Dexi. 1982. 語法講義 (On grammar). Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan.

57