Encoding QUD congruencein Mandarin Chinese
Michael Yoshitaka ERLEWINE
National University of Singapore
mitcho@nus.edu.sg

Theoretical Linguistics at Keio 2016

TodayI investigate the semantics of shì 是 in its focus marker use (Teng, 1978;
Huang, 1982a,b; Shi, 1994; Cheng, 2008; Paul and Whitman, 2008; Li, 2008; Xu,
2010; Hole, 2011, a.o.).

(1) Can cooccur with narrow focus in declaratives:(Shì) [māo]F tōu-le yú.
SHI
cat steal-PRF fish
≈ ‘The CAT stole the fish.’Described as “emphasis” or “cleft” or “contrastive focus”...
(2) Also appears in questions:(Shì) shéi tōu-le yú (ne)?
SHI who steal-PRF fish NE≈ ‘Who stole the fish?’2

Today• Shì marks a clause as congruent to an accepted Question Under

Discussion (QUD), without a stronger true answer.
• This is (essentially) the semantics of English it-clefts in Velleman,

Beaver, Destruel, Bumford, Onea, and Coppock (2012).
• Constituent questions with shì seem to have a stronger existence

requirement, explained by congruence with an accepted QUD.
• QUD congruence is evaluated at the clause edge, not at shì.
• This explains various restrictions on the distribution of shì, in contrast

to ‘only.’3What this talk is not about

Shì 是 has two other uses which will not be discussed here.
1

The copula shì, although I return to this connection at the end;2

The shì...de construction; see Paul and Whitman (2008); Cheng (2008);
Li (2008) for comparisons of shì...de and the “bare shì” that I describe.

4Roadmap§1 Shì in declaratives§2 Proposal§3 Shì in questions§4 The syntax of shì and QUD congruence§5 Conclusion

5Shì in declaratives

Shì always cooccurs with narrow focus on a constituent in its scope:(3) Zúotiān wǎnshàng shì [Zhāng Sān]F lái-le.
yesterday evening SHI Zhang San come-PRF
literally ‘shi [Zhang San]F came last night.’
The shì focus construction has often been described as a “cleft” andtranslated into English it-clefts since at least Huang (1982a, ch. 4).

6Shì introduces exhaustivity
The addition of shì introduces exhaustivity: the proposition in its scope isthe only true proposition among its focus alternatives. This effect appears
similar to that of ‘only.’(4) Both ‘only’ zhǐ(yǒu) and shì express exhaustivity:
a. Zúotiān wǎnshàng zhǐyǒu [Zhāng Sān]F lái-le.
yesterday evening only
Zhang San come-PRF‘Only [Zhang San]F came last night.’; No one else came last night.
b. Zúotiān wǎnshàng shì [Zhāng Sān]F lái-le.
yesterday evening SHI Zhang San come-PRF
literally ‘Shì [Zhang San]F came last night.’; No one else came last night.
7Shì introduces exhaustivity
Exhaustivity can be tested by setting up contradictions (Szabolcsi, 1981):(5) A test for exhaustivity:a.

✓Zhāng Sān lái-le,Lǐ Sì (yě) lái-le.
Zhang San come-PRF, Li Si also come-PRF‘Zhang San came, and Li Si (also) came.’b.

# Zhǐyǒu [ZS]F lái-le,(yě) zhǐyǒu [LS]F (yě) lái-le.
only
ZS come-PRF, also only
LS also come-PRF# ‘Only [Zhang San]F came and (also) only [Li Si]F (also) came.’c.

# Shì [Zhāng Sān]F lái-le,(yě) shì [Lǐ Sì]F (yě) lái-le.
SHI Zhang San come-PRF, also SHI Li Si also come-PRF

8

A difference between clefts and ‘only’Shì and zhǐ ‘only’ both express exhaustivity. How do they differ?
Note that the behavior of English it-clefts and ‘only’ differ, as made clear
under negation:(6) Cleft vs ‘only’ under negation (Büring and Križ, 2013):
a.

✓

b.

# She invited Fred, but it wasn’t Fred she invited.

She invited Fred, but she didn’t invite only Fred.

The exhaustivity inference of only is negated in (6a), whereas theprejacent is negated in the cleft (6b) (see a.o. Halvorsen, 1978; Horn, 1981;
Büring and Križ, 2013).

9Shì patterns with the English it-cleft(7) Negating shì vs zhǐ ‘only’:a.

✓

ZS yāo LS lái, dàn (ZS) bù zhǐ yāo [LS]F (lái).
ZS invite LS come, but ZS NEG only invite LS come‘ZS invited LS to come, but he didn’t invite only [LS]F .’b.

# ZS yāo LS lái, dàn (ZS) bú shì yāo [LS]F (lái).
ZS invite LS come, but ZS NEG SHI invite LS come‘ZS invited LS to come, but it’s not [LS]F that he invited.’☞

SHI(p) asserts the prejacent p, unlike ONLY(p) which presupposes it.

That zhǐ ‘only’ has the semantics of English only (as in Horn, 1969) has
been shown by Tsai (2004). Here I will use it-cleft translations for shì.
10

More on the contribution of shì

If the focus is in an embedded clause, shì can be in the higher or lower
clause:(8) Higher and lower shì:Zhāng Sān (shì) shuō [Lǐ Sì (shì) dú-le [liǎng]F běn shū].
Zhang San SHI say Li Si SHI read-PRF two CL books≈ ‘Zhang San (SHI) says that Li Si (SHI) read [two]F books.’

11

Evidence for QUD sensitivity
The placement of shì in different clauses is sensitive to the Question Under
Discussion (QUD; Roberts, 1996/2012):(9) Embedded clause congruent to QUD:
Q: (Shàng ge xuéqī,) Lǐ Sì dú-le jǐběn shū?
last CL term, Li Si read-PRF how.many CL books‘How many books did Li Si read (last term)?’
A: I don’t know, but...
Zhāng Sān (#shì) shuō [LS (✓shì) dú-le [liǎng]F běn shū].
Zhang San SHI say LS SHI read-PRF two CL books
Lower shì translation: ‘ZS says that it’s [two]F books that LS
read.’

12

Evidence for QUD sensitivity
The availability of shì in different positions is sensitive to the Question
Under Discussion (QUD; Roberts, 1996/2012):(10) Matrix clause congruent to QUD:
Q: Zhāng Sān shuō [Lǐ Sì dú-le jǐběn shū]?
Zhang San says Li Si read-PRF how.many CL books‘How many books does Zhang San say Li Si read?’
A: ...
Zhāng Sān (✓shì) shuō [LS (#shì) dú-le [liǎng]F běn shū].
Zhang San SHI say LS SHI read-PRF two CL books
Higher shì translation: ‘It’s [two]F books that ZS says that LS
read.’☞

SHI(p) requires p to be congruent to the QUD.

13

Roadmap§1 Shì in declaratives§2 Proposal§3 Shì in questions§4 The syntax of shì and QUD congruence§5 Conclusion

14

Proposal(11) Proposed semantics for shì:SHI(p) asserts the prejacent p and presupposes that:a. p is congruent to an accepted Question Under Discussion;b. there is no stronger true answer.
(12) JSHIK = λp⟨s,t⟩ . λw : ∃Q ∈ QUD ∩ Acc∀p′ ∈ Q[(p′ ⇒ p) → ¬p′ (w)] . p(w)
QUD is the current QUD stack and Acc are accepted moves(Roberts, 1996/2012)
This is essentially the semantics associated with English it-clefts,
according to Velleman et al. (2012). It goes beyond the semantics ofnarrow focus alone, which may mark congruence with a (proposed or
accepted) QUD.
15

Proposed vs accepted QUDs
I generally follow the Roberts (1996/2012) framework for information
structure here, but clarify one detail: proposal of a question does not
impose its acceptance.
(13)

A: Who came last night?
B: I’m not sure but...

(14)

A: Who came last night?
B: Nobody.

← accepted QUD← (implicit) acceptance of QUD← rejected QUD← refusal of proposed QUD☞ In particular, presuppositions of questions (e.g. the existence of ananswer) are not reflected in the Common Ground until the questionis accepted.
16

Proposed vs accepted QUDs
☞ Shì makes reference to accepted QUDs.
This reflects the fact that shì is somewhat degraded in immediate, direct
answers to (shì-less) questions. The answer move simultaneously accepts
and resolves the QUD, but the QUD is not pre-accepted.
The same has been observed for English it-clefts (exx based on Velleman
et al., 2012, 449):(15)

A: What did Mary eat?
B: {✓Mary ate PIZZA., ? It was a PIZZA that Mary ate.}(16)

A: What did Mary eat?
C: I thought she said she was gonna get a pizza, but I might be wrong.
D: And did she also order a salad?
B: Guys, I was there. And C’s right;{✓Mary ate PIZZA., ✓it was a PIZZA that Mary ate.}

17

Explaining exhaustivity
The exhaustivity of shì observed above is modeled as a requirement for a
maximal true answer to the QUD.
(17) Context: Zhang San and Li Si came last night.
Q: Zuótiān wǎnshàng, shéi lái-le?
yesterday evening, who come-PRF‘Who came last night?’
A1:

✓

A2:

✓

[Zhāng Sān]F (lái-le).
Zhang San come-PRF‘Zhang San came.’partial answer but acceptable reply[Zhāng Sān hé Lǐ Sì]F (lái-le).
Zhang San and Li Si come-PRF‘Zhang San and Li Si came.’maximal true answer
18

Explaining exhaustivity
The exhaustivity of shì observed above is modeled as a requirement for a
maximal true answer to the QUD.
(18) Context: Zhang San and Li Si came last night.
Q: Zuótiān wǎnshàng, shéi lái-le?
yesterday evening, who come-PRF‘Who came last night?’
A1:# Shì [Zhāng Sān]F (lái-le).
SHI Zhang San come-PRF

A2:✓‘It’s Zhang San that came.’partial answer

Shì [Zhāng Sān hé Lǐ Sì]F (lái-le).
SHI Zhang San and Li Si come-PRF‘It’s Zhang San and Li Si that came.’maximal true answer
19

Explaining existence
Clefts are also commonly described as having an existential
presupposition, detectable under negation (Dryer, 1996; Rooth, 1999, a.o.):(19) It’s not [John]F that came.
; Someone came.
(20) Bú shì [Zhāng Sān]F lái-le.
NEG SHI Zhang San come-PRF‘It’s not Zhang San that came.’; Someone came.
The existential inference simply reflects the presuppositions of thecongruent, accepted QUD, which requires the existence of a true answer.

20

Licensing by implicit QUDs

Shì can also be licensed in discourses without an explicit preceding QUD:
(21) Example from Lü (1980, p. 374):
Zhè yǎnjīng yǐjīng huà-le liǎng huí,these eyes already draw-PRF two times,
tóu-yī huí shì tài xiǎo, dì-èr huí shì tài dà.
first time SHI too small, second time SHI too big.
‘These eyes have already been drawn twice. The first time they
were too smallF and the second time they were too bigF .’21

Licensing by implicit QUDs
The mention of the eyes being drawn twice before raises the following
family of implicit questions (Roberts, 1996/2012, a.o.):How were the eyes each time?

How were the eyes the first time?

How were the eyes the second time?

Tóu-yī huí (yǎnjīng) shì [tài xiǎo]F .
first time eyes
SHI too small

Dì-èr huí (yǎnjīng) shì [tài dà]F .
second time eyes
SHI too big

∼
=

∼
=

22

Shì is not licensed by contrastive focus

An alternative hypothesis is that shì in (21) above is licensed simply due tocontrastive focus, not QUD congruence. Focus can be licensed simply bycontrastive phrases:(22) Contrasting DPs in Rooth (1992):[DP An [American]F farmer] was talking to [DP a [Canadian]F farmer]...

23

Shì is not licensed by contrastive focus(23) Narrow focus on contrasting constituents:(Yǒu) [DP yī-ge [měiguó]F nóngfū] shuō
EXIST
one-CL American farmer say[CP (yǒu) [DP yī-ge [jiānádà]F nóngfū] lái-le]...
EXIST
one-CL Canadian farmer come-PRF‘An [American]F farmer said a [Canadian]F farmer came...’F-marking on the contrasting ‘American’ and ‘Canadian’ here is licensed,
just as Rooth’s (1992) system predicts, based on English.

24Shì is not licensed by contrastive focus(24) However, shì is not licensed here:* Shì (yǒu) [DP yī-ge [měiguó]F nóngfū] shuō
SHI EXISTone-CL American farmer say[CP shì (yǒu) [DP yī-ge [jiānádà]F nóngfū] lái-le]...
SHI EXISTone-CL Canadian farmer come-PRF
Shì is not a simple marker of narrow/contrastive focus; it is not an overt
version of Rooth’s (1992) ∼ operator.

25

Roadmap§1 Shì in declaratives§2 Proposal§3 Shì in questions§4 The syntax of shì and QUD congruence§5 Conclusion

26Shì in questions

Shì also can appear in constituent questions in a position to associatewith the wh-word or alternative disjunction:(25) (Shì) shéi tōu-le yú (ne)?
SHI who steal-PRF fish NE‘Who stole the fish?’ (=2)(26) (Shì) māo háishì gǒu tōu-le yú (ne)?
SHI cat or
dog steal-PRF fish NE
Alternative question: ‘Did the cat or the dog steal the fish?’(Erlewine, 2014)27

Shì strengthens existence
Questions presuppose the existence of a maximal true answer.
☞ Intuitively, shì seems to make this requirement stronger.

(27) Wǒ bù zhīdào [zuótiān wǎnshàng (#shì) shéi lái-guò wǒ jiā],I NEG know yesterday evening
SHI who come-EXP my houseshíjìshàng wǒ rènwéi [méi-yǒu rén
lái].
actually I think NEG-EXIST person come‘I don’t know who came to my house last night; in fact, I think no
one came.’
Adding shì presupposes that someone did come, in a way that is harder tocancel.
28Shì strengthens existence☞ This is explained by shì’s semantics which requires congruence to an
accepted QUD.
• In (27) without shì, the embedding raises the question ‘who came tomy house last night’ and the continuation immediately rejects it.
• In (27) with shì, shì marks congruence to a pre-existing andaccepted QUD, which in turn reflects prior acceptance of theexistence of an answer.

29

Mention-some questions
Mention-some questions are naturally answered with a partial answer,
and in fact unnatural as requests for complete answers:(28) A mention-some question (Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1984):
Where do they sell Italian newspapers?
(29) Shì blocks mention-some reading of questions:(Wǒ) (#shì) (zài) nǎlǐ kěyǐ mǎi bàozhǐ?
I
SHI
at where can buy newspaper‘Where can I buy a newspaper?’(Shì ok if interpreted as a request for a complete answer.)☞ This is explained by the lack of a (relevant) maximal true answer for
mention-some questions.
30Mention-some questions

Yimei Xiang (p.c.) notes that shì is similarly incompatible with questions
that explicitly encode an expectation for a partial answer.
(30) Shì incompatible with a ‘for example’ question:
Zuótiān wǎnshàng (#shì) shéi lái-le,bǐrúshuō?
yesterday evening
SHI who come-PRF for example‘Who came last night, for example?’

31

Expression frustration with shì questions

The previous example (29) improves in the following context:(31) A frustrating exchange:A:

Can I buy a newspaper at the bookstore?

B:

No.

A:

Can I buy a newspaper at the convenience store?

B:

No.

A:

✓

Nà, wǒ shì (zài) nǎlǐ kěyǐ mǎi bàozhǐ!?
then I SHI at where can buy newspaper‘Well then, where [the hell] can I buy a newspaper!?’

32

Expression frustration with shì questions
More generally, shì can be used in other contexts where it may seem to the
speaker that there is no answer and the speaker is frustrated with this:(32) Shì in frustrated rhetorical question:
Wǒ shì néng zuò shénme!?
I SHI can do what
≈ ‘What [the hell] can I do?’☞ In such contexts, the question itself is an existing (implicit) QUD.
Repeating it emphasizes that an adequate answer has not beenobtained.

33

Roadmap§1 Shì in declaratives§2 Proposal§3 Shì in questions§4 The syntax of shì and QUD congruence§5 Conclusion

34

The distribution of shì(33) Distribution from Huang (1982a, p. 290; 1982b, p. 372):WǒI

míngtiāntomorrowyào mǎi nèi-běn shū.
want buy that-CL book(shì) ⇐⇒(shì) ⇐⇒ [tomorrow]F[buy that book]F or[buy]F or[that book]F(Shì) ⇐⇒ [I]F or entire proposition focus
Huang (1982a,b) claims that shì “immediately precedes” its focus, but thischaracterization cannot be right when the focus is postverbal.
35Shì is a focus-sensitive adverb(34) Two types of focus particles in English:a. David only drinks [red wine]F .

adverbb. David drinks only [red wine]F .

focused-constituent-marking

Shì patterns with the adverb type, always on the clausal spine, notadjoined directly to focused constituents:(35) Shì cannot be inside PPs:
Zhāng Sān ✓shì [PP duì *shì [Lǐsì]F ] rēng-le qiú.
Zhang San SHI
to *SHI Lisi throw-PRF ball‘Zhang San threw a ball at [Lisi]F .’36Shì is a focus-sensitive adverb
English adverb only can associate with multiple foci, but notconstituent-marking only:
(36)

a.

✓

b.

* I saw only [the children]F ask [the adults]F to be quiet.

c.

* Only [the children]F asked [the adults]F to be quiet.

I only saw [the children]F ask [the adults]F to be quiet.

Mandarin shì can associate with multiple foci:(37) Multiple focus with shì (Cheng, 2008):
Shì [érzi]F jiào [dàrén]F bié chǎo, bú shì [dàrén]F jiào [érzi]F bié chǎo.
SHI son ask adultnot noisy NEG SHI adult ask son not noisy‘The son asked the adult not to make noise, not the other way
around.’☞ Shì patterns with adverb only, not with constituent-marking only.
37

Summary: the syntax of shì☞ Shì is a focus-sensitive adverb that must be as as close as possible
to its focus (given a particular syntactic domain; see Erlewine 2015a).
The exact same Closeness effect governs the distribution of ‘only’
zhǐ/zhǐyǒu in Mandarin (Erlewine, 2015a).
This type of Closeness condition on the position of focus-sensitive adverbs
have been independently proposed for German (Büring and Hartmann,
2001) and Vietnamese (Erlewine, 2015b).

38

Limitations on shì☞ The proposal above fails to account for a range of environments
where shì is not allowed, although ‘only’ is.
(38) Generalization:
Clauses where shì is completely disallowed are reduced clauses,
not full CPs. E.g. relative clauses, small clause complements,
restructuring/control complements, etc.
(39) Claim:
That’s because the (high) clause edge is required for evaluating
QUD congruence.

39

No shì in relative clauses
It’s been noted that shì is unavailable in relative clauses (Teng, 1979, a.o.):(40) Wǒ xǐhuān [DP [RC *shì/✓zhǐyǒu [Zhāng Sān]F dú-guo
I

like

SHI/

only

Zhang San read-EXPde] nèi-běn shū].
DE that-CL book* ‘I like the book that it’s ZS that bought.’✓‘I like the book that only Zhang San bought.’(based on Huang, 1982b, p. 374)

But Shi (1994) shows that shì is allowed in embedded clauses inside
relative clauses:(41) Wǒ rènshi nà-ge [DP [RCI

know that-CLyìngshuō [CP shì [wǒ]F bù hǎo] de] rén].
assert
SHI I
NEG good DE person‘I know the person who insists [it is me that is not good].’ (Shi, 1994, p. 93)

Captured by the generalization, assuming relative clauses are reduced,
but the embeddings are full CPs.

40

No shì in small clause complements(42)

Q: Who stole the motorcycle?
A1: Full CP embedding:Wǒ rènwéi [CP ✓shì/✓zhǐyǒu [ZS]F tōu-le nèi-tái mótuōchē].
I think
ZS steal-PRF that-CL motorcycle
SHI/ only‘I think [that {it’s ZS/only ZS} stole the motorcycle].’A2: Small clause complement:Wǒ kàn-dào [SC *shì/✓zhǐyǒu [ZS]F tōu nèi-tái mótuōchē].
I saw
ZS steal that-CL motorcycle
SHI/ only* ‘I saw [it’s Zhang San that stole that motorcycle].’✓‘I saw [only Zhang San steal that motorcycle].’41

No shì in control complements(43)

Q: What do/will you drink?
A1: Wǒ xiǎng [PRO *shì/✓zhǐ hē [kāfēi]F ].
I want PRO SHI/ only drink coffee.
* ≈ ‘I want that it’s coffee that I drink.’✓‘I want to only drink [coffee]F .’A2: Wǒ yīshēng yào [wǒ *shì/✓zhǐ hē [kāi-shuǐ]F ].
My doctor make me SHI/ only drink boiled-water.
* ≈ ‘My doctor makes it so that it’s boiled water that I drink.’✓‘My doctor makes me drink only [boiled water]F .’42

Proposal
A slight modification to the proposal so far:
☞ QUD congruence is evaluated in a specific position high in CP;
assume it’s a CONG feature on declarative and interrogative C.
(44) [CP C[CONG:+] ... [TP ... shì [ ... αF ... ] ] ][CONG:+] has the semantics of SHI described above, and licenses thepronunciation of “shì” in the local clause, in the lowest position possible
while taking all foci in its scope (Closeness).
Reduced clauses (small clauses, relative clauses, etc.) lack C with [CONG].
43

HoweverThis is not pretty. This modification seems motivated, but I find it
inelegant and upsetting. Suggestions welcome.

44One shì per clause☞ This explains the “one shì per clause” generalization:(45) One shì per clause:* Shì [Zhāng Sān]F shì dú-le [zhè-běn shū]F .
SHI Zhang San SHI read-PRF this-CL book(46) No such restriction on ‘only’:✓Zhǐyǒu [Zhāng Sān]F zhǐ dú-le [zhè-běn shū]F .
Zhang San ONLY read-PRF this-CL book

ONLY

‘Only [Zhang San]F read only [this book]F .’45

Roadmap§1 Shì in declaratives§2 Proposal§3 Shì in questions§4 The syntax of shì and QUD congruence§5 Conclusion

46

Conclusion• The Mandarin focus particle shì marks a clause as congruent to an

accepted Question Under Discussion, with no stronger true answers.
• This derives the exhaustivity inference. Dependence on an accepted

QUD explains the existence inference.
• This account explains (apparently strengthened) existence inference ofshì-marked constituent questions.
• This is cleft semantics, à la Velleman et al. (2012).

• The semantics of shì actually operates at the clause edge.
• This accounts for a wide range of data on the semantic contribution

and distribution of shì, and differences between shì and ‘only.’

47

The copula connection

A further question: What is the relation between focus shì and the copula?
• In this proposal, there need not be any connection between these

items in the synchronic grammar of Mandarin.
• Implication: Cleft semantics need not be based on the semantics ofrelativization, definite descriptions, or copular sentences, as
previously proposed primarily based on English (see e.g. Percus,
1997; Büring and Križ, 2013).

48

Thank you!

Thank you! Questions?
For discussion and judgments, I thank Ting-Chun Chen, Chris Davis, Kai
von Fintel, Aron Hirsch, Hadas Kotek, Pamela Pan, Tianxiao Wang, Yimei
Xiang, the audience at the 9th meeting of the European Association ofChinese Linguistics, and especially Ning Tang. All errors are mine.
Handout and slides at https://mitcho.com.

49

References I
Büring, Daniel, and Katharina Hartmann. 2001. The syntax and semantics offocus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
19:229–281.
Büring, Daniel, and Manuel Križ. 2013. It’s that, and that’s it! Exhaustivity andhomogeneity presuppositions in clefts (and definites). Semantics & Pragmatics
6:1–29.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 2008. Deconstructing the shì...de construction. The
Linguistic Review 25:235–266.
Dryer, Matthew S. 1996. Focus, pragmatic presupposition and activatedpropositions. Journal of Pragmatics 26:473–523.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2014. 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.

50

References II
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2015a. In defense of Closeness: focus-sensitive
adverb placement in Vietnamese and Mandarin Chinese. URL
http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002415/current.pdf,
manuscript, McGill University.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2015b. Minimality and focus-sensitive adverb
placement. In Proceedings of NELS 45, ed. Thuy Bui and Deniz Özyıldız,
volume 1, 193–202.
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1984. Studies on the semantics ofquestions and the pragmatics of answers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Amsterdam.
Halvorsen, Per-Kristian. 1978. The syntax and semantics of cleft constructions.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Hole, Daniel. 2011. The deconstruction of Chinese shì…de clefts revisited. Lingua
121.

51

References III
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.
Horn, Laurence Robert. 1981. Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. In
Proceedings of NELS 11, 125–142.
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982a. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory ofgrammar. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Huang, Cheng-Teh James. 1982b. Move wh in a language without wh movement.
The Linguistic Review 1:369–416.
Li, Kening. 2008. Contrastive focus structure in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedingsof NACCL 20, volume 2, 759–774.
Lü, Shuxiang. 1980.

[800 words in Modern Chinese]. Shangwu yin.

Paul, Waltraud, and John Whitman. 2008. Shi... de focus clefts in Mandarin
Chinese. The Linguistic Review 25:413–451.
Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying open the cleft. In Proceedings of NELS 27, 337–351.

52

References IV
Roberts, Craige. 1996/2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an
integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Papers in semantics, ed. Jae-Hak
Yoon and Andreas Kathol, volume 49 of OSU Working Papers in Linguistics.
Reprinted in Semantics & Pragmatics 5(6), 1–69, 2012.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics
1:75–116.
Rooth, Mats. 1999. Association with focus or association with presupposition? In
Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives.
Shi, Dingxu. 1994. The nature of Chinese emphatic sentences. Journal of East
Asian Linguistics 3:81–100.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The semantics of topic-focus articulation. In Formal
methods in the study of language. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam.
Teng, Shou-Hsin. 1978. Negation in Chinese: Mandarin and Amoy. Journal of theAmerican Oriental Society 50–60.
Teng, Shou-Hsin. 1979. Remarks on cleft sentences in Chinese. Journal of Chinese
Linguistics 7:101–113.

53

References V

Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2004.
[On the formal semantics
of only and even in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen 2:99–111.
Velleman, Dan Bridges, David Ian Beaver, Emilie Destruel, Dylan Bumford, Edgar
Onea, and Liz Coppock. 2012. It-clefts are IT (inquiry terminating) constructions.
In Proceedings of SALT 22, 441–460.
Xu, Jie. 2010. The positioning of Chinese focus marker shi and pied-piping in
logical form. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 38.

54