Occurrence of Event and Locative Subjects in Mandarin Chinese*
T.-H. Jonah Lin
Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan

Abstract
In this paper I investigate the sentence Wang Mien si-le fuqin ‘(lit.) Wang Mien died father’(‘Wang Mien had his father die’), which is an intriguing sentence in Mandarin Chinese thathas received much attention from researchers of Mandarin Chinese grammar. I argue that thegeneration of this sentence crucially depends on the function of the light verb OCCUR, which
denotes occurrence of an event and introduces a locative subject. Thus the intransitive verb si‘die’ is used in a “transitive” way in this sentence because it permits a locative subject.
According to this analysis, then, the subject of the sentence Wang Mien is a locative
expression. This analysis not only accounts for the “transitive” uses of the verb si ‘die’ but
also generalizes to other verbs. This paper shows that OCCUR is compatible only withchange-of-state verbs with a resultative state, of which the verb si ‘die’ is an instance.

*

Acknowledgements to be added.

1

1.

Introduction

This paper focuses on the following sentence:1(1)

Wang Mien (qisuishang) si-leWang Mien sevenyear.old on

fuqin.

die-PERF father‘(Lit.) Wang Mien died his father (when he was about seven years old)’ =‘Wang Mien had his father die (when he was about seven years old).’
This Mandarin Chinese (henceforth MC) sentence originated from an 18th-century satiricalnovel Ru-lin Wai-shi ‘Anecdotes of Confucian Intellectuals’ (Wu Jingzi, 1701-1754 AD).2 It
is interesting, in fact intriguing, because the intransitive verb si ‘die’ is being used in a way
fairly much like a transitive verb. There have been proposals that try to account for thissentence, but none of them seems to have provided a satisfactory explanation. In this paper I
will propose an analysis for this sentence that is different from all earlier theories. Essentiallywhat I am going to argue for is the following:The sentence in (1) is in fact a locative-subject sentence.



The verb si ‘die’ in this sentence can be used in a “transitive” way precisely because it
permits a locative subject.

The subject Wang Mien in (1), as a result, is a locative subject.

Lin (2008a) points out that, albeit less known to the researchers, MC is actually a locativeprominent language which permits a variety of locative subjects unseen in other languages(also see Lin 2001). In particular, MC has a special type of locative-subject sentence which
Lin (2008a) calls the “occurrence” locative-subject construction. According to Lin (2008a),this type of locative-subject sentence denotes occurrence of an event, and the locative subject
denotes the location in which the event takes place, or to which the event happens or matters.
We argue that the sentence in (1) is such a sentence. The analysis that we propose is that alight verb OCCUR heads the predicate of this type of sentence, which takes the VP projected
1

The abbreviations used in the glosses are: CL: classifier; DAT: dative case marker; DISP: preposed
object disposal marker; DUR: durative aspectual marker; PASS: passive marker; PAST: past morpheme;
PERF: perfective aspectual marker; POSS: possessive marker; PRT: sentence-final mood particle.
2
A different translation of the title of this novel - actually the more popular one, which nonetheless isless precise than the one provided in the text - is The Scholars.

2

by the lexical verb – in the case of (1), si ‘die’ - as complement and a locative expression as
specifier (which becomes the subject of the sentence). It will be shown that this analysis has
advantages over other analyses, and thus is superior to them.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews some of the earlier proposals
dealing with (1). Section 3 proposes an analysis of (1) which treats it as a locative-subject
sentence. Section 4 discusses some further questions bearing on the sentence (1). Section 5
concludes the paper.

2.

Earlier analyses

2.1 Some earlier proposals
The primary question with the sentence (1) is how the verb si ‘die’ can be used in a“transitive” way.3 Different analyses have been proposed for this phenomenon. For example,
Xu (1999, 2001) and Han (2000) propose that the derivation of the sentence in (1) involves
movement of a possessor NP to the subject position:(2)[ Wang Mieni

si-leWang Mien

die-PERF[ ti

fuqin ]]
fatherIn this analysis, si ‘die’ is taken to be an unaccusative verb with ‘Wang Mien’s father’ as its
argument. The possessor NP Wang Mien then raises to the matrix subject position yielding
the sentence in (1).
A different proposal is the light verb analysis by Zhu (2005). According to this proposal,
the verb si ‘die’ takes the NP fuqin ‘father’ as its argument. The VP that si ‘die’ projects isthen embedded under the light verb EXPERIENCE, which selects Wang Mien as its specifier.
The verb si ‘die’ then incorporates to EXPERIENCE yielding the surface form of thesentence in (1).

3

We don’t really mean that the verb si ‘die’ in (1) is being used as a transitive verb. The term“transitive” here and below is used to refer to the phenomenon only.

3

(3)

[ Wang Mien

[ EXPERIENCE [Wang Mien

fuqin

si-le

]]]

fatherdie-PERF

Another analysis is that proposed by Pan and Han (2005), who suggest that the verb si‘die’ is being used as an unaccusative verb with its argument fuqin ‘father’ staying in-situ(namely in the post-verbal position). The NP Wang Mien is a topic NP base-generated in the
CP area and therefore doesn’t have a direct bearing on the verb si ‘die’. The subject positionof the sentence (Spec of TP) is left empty.
(4)[CP Wang Mien
Wang Mien

[TP e

si-le

fuqin ]]

die-PERF

fatherAll these theories have their appeals. Shen (2006) presents a thorough review of theseanalyses and shows that they are problematic in one way or another. For example, theanalysis based on the possessor NP movement ((2)) suffers the problem of double caseassignment of the possessor NP. The possessor NP has already had a genitive case before
movement, but it would get a nominative case after the movement. The analysis that resorts
to the light verb EXPERIENCE ((3)) would over-generate unwarranted sentences (see note 7);
further, the verb movement to the light verb requires justification. The analysis assuming abase-generated topic in the CP area ((4)) has problems too: it cannot account for the casestatus of the post-verbal NP fuqin ‘father’. According to this analysis, the NP fuqin in (4)must have been case-licensed. But if so, the movement of the NP fuqin ‘father’ to the matrix
subject position in the sentence Wang Mien, fuqin si-le ‘Wang Mien, [his] father died.’ would
be puzzling, as there is no motivation for the movement.

2.2 “Blending”
Shen (2006) himself proposes an interesting theory for the sentence in (1), which is based onwhat he calls the “blending” of two different sentence types. Shen observes that the sentencein (1) implies that Wang Mien suffered a great loss. Now consider the verb diu ‘lose’. The
4verb diu ‘lose’ can be used as an intransitive verb as well as a transitive verb; see (5a) and(5b). Shen’s proposal is this: since si ‘die’ implies loss, and since diu ‘lose’ can be transitive,si ‘die’ is then analogized with diu ‘lose’ and develops a transitive use, as in (5d) (= (1)).4(5)

Blending according to Shen (2006):
a.

Wang Mien demou-wudiu-le.

Wang Mien POSS

somethinglose-PERF‘Something possessed by Wang Mien was lost.’b.

Wang Mien diu-lemou-wu.

Wang Mien lose-PERF

something‘Wang Mien lost something.’c.

Wang Mien defuqin

si-le.

Wang Mien POSS

fatherdie-PERF‘Wang Mien’s father died.’

4

Shen (2006) observes that some other sentences are of the same type as (1), including the following
ones (Shen 2006: 291):
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

Ta pao-le yi-shenhan.
he run-PERF one-bodysweat‘He ran to the extent that he sweated all over his body.’
Ta zhang-le
ji-fenyongqi.
he grow-PERF
several-amountcourage‘He got some courage.’
Ta qi-leyi-shenji-pi
geda.
he grow-PERF
one-body
chicken-skin pimple‘He got goose pimples all over his body.’

However, these sentences do not involve loss on the part of the subject argument; furthermore, theverbs in these sentences don’t exhibit “intransitive-transitive alternation.” See the following examples:
(iv)
(v)
(vi)

* Ta-dehe-POSS* Ta-dehe-POSS* Ta-dehe-POSSyi-shenhan
pao le.
one-bodysweat
run PERF
ji-fenyongqi zhang
several-amountcourage growyi-shenji-pi
geda
one-body
chicken-skin pimple

le.
PERF

qi
grow

le.
PERF

Thus these sentences are not susceptible to Shen’s “blending” analysis. It is unclear why Shenconsiders them of the same type as (1). Perhaps it is because these sentences involve inalienable
possession, which some take to be a defining characteristic of the (1)-kind of sentences, as theanalysis in (2). However, we will show in section 4.2 that it is a misconception to regard (inalienable)possession as a defining characteristic of the (1)-kind of sentences. Also see Kliffer 1995.

5

d.

Wang Mien si-lefuqin.

(= Blending of (b) and (c))

Wang Mien die-PERF father‘Wang had his father die.’This analysis is interesting, but it doesn’t have explanatory power. It appears that Shenliterally means that the sentence in (1) derives from a blending of (5b) and (5c). But thestatus of such a derivation poses a problem - is it historical or grammatical in nature? The
operation of blending as suggested by Shen, in fact, looks more like an explanation for theorigin of (1) in history; however, there is no evidence that (1) is indeed historically derived
from (5b)+(5c). Furthermore, even if (1) derives from (5b)+(5c) historically, it has no
relevance to the grammatical analysis of (1). On the other hand, the derivation (1) = (5b)+(5c)cannot be part of the grammar of MC either. One lesson that we have learned from thehistory of grammatical theory is that we cannot permit such powerful transformation thatderives, say, John killed Mary from John caused Mary to become not alive (McCawley 1968,
Fodor 1970). If so, how could we derive the sentence (1) from (5b)+(5c)? Such a derivation
presumes powerful transformations that no grammatical theory would legitimately permit. In
this sense, Shen’s (2006) analysis cannot provide a reasonable account for (1) and hencelacks explanatory power.5
In fact, what Shen (2006) is trying to say, we suppose, is simply the following statement:
the verb si ‘die’ in the sentence (1) is nothing but a transitive verb. The so-called derivation
5

Roger Liao (personal communication) points out that Shen’s “blending” analysis is empiricallyproblematic as well. Consider the following example:
(i)

Wang
Mien
de
fuqin
zai zhangzheng-zhong
si-le.
Wang
Mien
POSS
fatherat war-in
die-PERF
1. ‘Wang Mien’s father died in the war.’ (e.g. killed as a soldier)
2. ‘Wang Mien’s father died during the war time.’

The sentence in (i) is ambiguous: it can mean that Wang Mien’s father was a victim of the war, or that
Wang Mien’s father died at a certain point of time during the war (the cause of his death unrelated to
the war). Now look at the following example:
(ii)

Wang
Mien
zai zhanzheng-zhong si-lefuqin.
Wang
Mien
at war-in
die-PERF father‘Wang Mien had his father die during the war time.’

Liao points out that (ii) only has the “war time” reading but not the “victim of the war” reading. If (ii)
is generated by blending of (i) with the transitive use of the verb diu ‘lose’, the contrast between (i)and (ii) cannot be explained. The contrast between these two sentences indicates that (i) and (ii) most
likely have different generation histories, and this is something that the blending approach cannot
capture. I am grateful to Roger Liao for this observation.

6

(1) = (5b)+(5c) could be just a heuristic explanation. This reduces the problem to the lexical
ambiguity of the verb si ‘die’ and similar verbs. However, if si ‘die’ in (1) is simply atransitive verb, then the notion of argument structure loses much of its sense in the researchof MC grammar. What is more, the “transitive” use of the verb si ‘die’ is not limited to (1).
Consider the following sentences:(6)

Zhan-chang-shangsi-lehenduo ren.

war-field-on

die-PERF many

people.

‘(Lit.) On the war field died many people.’
(7)

1976

nian

si-le

henduo ren.

1976

year

die-PERF many

people‘(Lit.) In the year 1976 died many people.’(6)-(7) are similar to (1) but the subject arguments are different; in (6) the subject is a locative,
and in (7) it is a temporal expression. How are these sentences accounted for? Simply sayingthat they ((1), (6) and (7)) are all “transitive” is not an explanation. Besides, notice that (6)and (7) don’t carry a sense of loss on the subject argument, hence the formula (1) = (5b)+(5c)doesn’t apply to them. Something important is missed if one adopts the “blending” analysis.

2.3 The applicatives
Remember that (1) is intriguing because an additional argument occurs in a sentence whose
main verb is an intransitive verb. Viewed from this perspective, Tsai’s (2007) proposal
deserves some attention. Tsai (2007) suggests that sentences like (8) are applicatives, namely
constructions in which an applicative head introduces an additional argument.
(8)

Zhangsanpao-lelaopo.

Zhangsanrun-PERF

wife‘Zhangsan had his wife run away.’
Now suppose that the sentence in (1) is also an applicative construction. Following Tsai
(2007), we may analyze (1) in the way shown in (9):

7

(9)

TP
Wang Mieni

T’
T

ApplP
ti

Appl’
VP

Appl
fuqin

V

‘father’si-le‘die-PERF

Suppose that a phonetically empty applicative head takes the VP that si ‘die’ projects ascomplement and the NP Wang Mien as specifier. The verb si ‘die’ then incorporates to theapplicative head, and the NP Wang Mien moves to Spec of TP. This yields the surface
structure that we see in (1).
This approach becomes particularly attractive if we look at the applicative constructionsin other languages. Pylkkänen (2000) argues that the adversative passive in Japanese is anapplicative construction. See the following Japanese example:(10)

Taroo-gatitioya-ni

Taroo-NOM father-DAT

sin-are-ta.
die-PASS-PAST‘Taroo had his father die.’
The MC sentence (1) looks very similar to (10). Thus, in a manner of speaking, the MCsentence (1) could perhaps be regarded as an “adversative passive” with the passive
morpheme (actually the applicative head) phonetically empty. An even more striking

8example is the case of Finnish. Pylkkänen (2000) gives the following Finnish sentence ((14a),
Pylkkänen 2000: 408):6(11)

Eetu-lta

kuoli

Eetu-FROMP diedpoika.
son‘Eetu’s son died on him.’
See how similar (1) is to the Finnish sentence (11). Therefore, it seems feasible to analyze (1)as an applicative sentence with an empty applicative head, as Tsai’s (2007) and Pylkkänen’s(2000) theories would lead one to.
This approach, however, is not without problems. Suppose we take the idea seriouslythat the sentence in (1) is basically the same as the Japanese adversative passive in (10), withthe applicative head phonetically empty. Now, how could we account for theungrammaticality of the example in (12)?
(12)* Wang Mien ku-lefuqin.

Wang Mien cry-PERF father‘(Intended) Wang Mien had his father cry.’The ungrammaticality of (12) poses a problem: why is it ungrammatical?7 In the Japanese
adversative passive the verb is quite unrestricted and the sentence corresponding to (12) isfully acceptable:(13)

Taroo-gatitioya-ni

Taroo-NOM father-DAT

nak-are-ta.
cry-PASS-PAST‘Taroo had his father cry.’The only way to solve this problem is to ascribe a specific meaning to the applicative head.
This seems plausible; Pylkkänen (2000) points out that applicatives in natural languages areoften attached with specific meanings. In English the applicative sentence John bought Marya drink has a sense of benefaction; in the Finnish sentence in (11) the applicative has a sense
6

The gloss FROMP stands for the ablative marker meaning ‘possessive from’. See Pylkkänen 2000.
Shen (2006) also observes a similar problem. He takes this problem as evidence against the analysisof (1) based on the light verb EXPERIENCE (see section 2.1).
79

of deprivation. Suppose that the MC sentence (1) patterns with the Finnish case in (11). The
verb ku ‘cry’ is not permitted in this construction because it doesn’t yield a sense ofdeprivation or loss on the subject argument; on the other hand, the verb si ‘die’ is permitted
because it clearly implies some kind of loss on the subject argument. In this way theungrammaticality of (12) may be accounted for.
Unfortunately, this solution doesn’t work. The problem, once again, is that the verb si‘die’ can take a locative or temporal subject, as we have seen in (6)-(7), repeated below.
(14)

Zhan-chang-shangsi-lehenduo ren.

war-field-on

die-PERF many

people.

‘(Lit.) On the war field died many people.’
(15)

1976

nian

si-le

henduo ren.

1976

year

die-PERF many

people‘(Lit.) In the year 1976 died many people.’
In (14)-(15), the subject argument cannot be attributed the sense of deprivation or loss –locative and temporal expressions do not denote sentient beings and hence don’t get deprived
or suffer loss. Thus, unless we consider (14)-(15) totally unrelated to (1), the applicativebased approach to (1) cannot be correct.
In conclusion, none of the analyses we saw above provides a satisfactory account for (1).
In the next section a different proposal is put forth, which takes (1) as essentially a locativesubject sentence.

3.

Locative subject and occurrence of an event

3.1 Locative sentences
We claim that (1) is a locative-subject sentence. In particular, the subject NP of the sentencein (1), Wang Mien, is a locative subject. The motivation for this claim is the following
generalization: if a verb can assume the kind of use that si ‘die’ does in (1), it can also take alocative subject; conversely, if a verb cannot take a locative subject, it cannot assume thekind of use as si ‘die’ in (1). See the following examples for illustration.

10

(16)

Zhangsan

si-le

erzi.

Zhangsandie-PERF son(si ‘die’)‘Zhangsan had his son die.’(17)

Zhan-chang-shangsi-lehenduo ren.

war-field-on

die-PERF many

people.

‘(Lit.) On the war field died many people.’(18)

Zhangsanpao-lelaopo.

Zhangsanrun-PERF

wife(pao ‘run, escape’)‘Zhangsan had his wife run away.’(19)

Jianyu-li

pao-leliang-ge fanren.

jail-inrun-PERF

two-CL prisoner‘(Lit.) In the jail ran away two prisoners.’(20)* Zhangsan

ku-le

erzi.

Zhangsancry-PERF son(ku ‘cry’)‘(Intended) Zhangsan had his son cry.’(21)

henduo ren.8* Wu-liku-lehouse-incry-PERF many

people‘(Intended) In the house cried many people.’(22)* Zhangsan

shu-leerzi.

Zhangsanlose-PERF

son(shu ‘lose, fail’)‘(Intended) Zhangsan had his son lose.’(23)* Wu-li

shu-lehenduo ren.

house-inlose-PERF

manypeople‘(Intended) In the house lost many people.’
In (16)-(17) and (18)-(19), the verbs are si ‘die’ and pao ‘run, escape’; they can assume the(1)-kind of use, and they can also take a locative subject. In (20)-(21) and (22)-(23), theverbs are ku ‘cry’ and shu ‘lose’; they cannot assume the (1)-kind of use, and, correlated withthis fact, they cannot take a locative subject. More examples can be given. (24)-(26) aresome sentences which Shen (2006: 291) observes are of the same type as (1). They can all
take a locative subject, as in (27)-(29) (but see note 4).
8

If the perfective aspectual marker –le in (21) is changed to the durative aspectual marker –zhe, thesentence will become better. But in that case the sentence will be a different construction, that is, an
EXIST sentence, rather than an OCCUR sentence. See section 4.1 for more details.

11

(24)

Ta lan-le

wu-kuang

pingguo.

he get.rotten-PERF

five-basket apple‘He had five baskets of apples rotten.’(25)

Ta fei-le

yi-zhigezi.

he fly-PERF one-CL pigeon‘He had a pigeon fly away.’(26)

Chuanda-shi

dao-leyi-mian qiang.

communication-room fall-PERF one-CL wall
‘A wall in the communication room collapsed.’(27)

Bingxiang-li

lan-leyi-dui-debale.9refrigerator-in

get.rotten-PERF

a-lot-ofguava‘(Lit.) In the refrigerator were rotten a lot of guavas.’(28)

Zhangsan-jia-li

fei-leyi-zhi

jinsique.

Zhangsan-home-in

fly-PERF one-CL canary‘(Lit.) Away from Zhangsan’s home flew a canary.’(29)

Chuanda-shi-li

dao-leyi-mian qiang.

communication-room-in

fall-PERF

one-CL wall‘(Lit.) In the communication room collapsed a wall.’This generalization relates the sentence in (1) to locative-subject sentences. Thus, the verb si‘die’ in (1) can be used in a “transitive” way not because it is really transitive, but because it
has the ability to take an extra locative expression as subject. Of course, this by itself doesn’t
prove that the subject NP Wang Mien in (1) is a locative – Wang Mien in (1) looks more likean experiencer than a locative. We will turn to that point later.10

9Source: http://school.ttjhs.tcc.edu.tw/modules/news/article.php?storyid=357.
Kliffer (1996) also observes that verbs like si ‘die’ can take a locative subject instead of anexperiencer subject. But Kliffer doesn’t relate the two together; he only refers to the locative subject
as an “alternative possibility.”10

12

3.2 The light verb OCCUR
The above discussions show that in addition to the intransitive use, the verb si ‘die’ (andother similar verbs) can assume “transitive” uses taking an NP subject or a locative subject.
(They can also take a temporal subject. We will come back to it later.) See the examples
below.
(30)

Wang Mien si-lefuqin.

(Experiencer subject)

Wang Mien die-PERF father‘Wang Mien had his father die.’(31)

Wang Mien jia-li

si-le

ren

(Locative subject)

Wang Mien home-in die-PERF person‘Someone in Wang Mien’s home died.’
In fact, MC is not the only language that exhibits such alternation. Spanish has similar
constructions as well. In Spanish, verbs that denote existence, change of state, or occurrenceof events may take a locative subject. See (32)-(34) ((1a), (1b), and (2c), Fernádez-Soriano
1999: 103):(32)

En este impreso consta

que eresinthat you-are the responsible

this form

statesel

responsable.

‘In this form it states that you are the responsible one.’
(33)

Aquí

falta

/ sobracafe´ / un vaso.

here

misses / is-extra coffee / a

glass‘Coffee / a glass is missing here.’(34)

En Barcelona

ha ocurrido

un accidente.

inhas happened

an accident

Barcelona‘An accident has happened in Barcelona.’
Strikingly, these verbs can take a dative subject too. The dative subject assumes the role ofexperiencer. See the following example ((30b), (31b), and (32a), Fernádez-Soriano 1999:
121):

13

(35)

Me

pasa

algo.

to-me

happens something‘Something is happening to me.’
(36)

Me

constaque ereselmejor.

to-me

statesthat you-are the best one‘I am sure that you are the best one.’
(37)

Me

falta

café.

to-me

misses coffee‘I am missing coffee.’
The Spanish examples in (32)-(34) and (35)-(37) are parallel to the MC examples (30)-(31).
In the Spanish examples (32)-(37), the subject is a non-nominative NP, i.e. a quirky subject.
We may think of the MC examples in (30)-(31) as taking a “semantically quirky subject” aswell.
Fernádez-Soriano (1999) follows Harley’s (1995) theory (with some changes) andproposes that the quirky subjects in Spanish sentences such as (32)-(37) are licensed by thefunctional category Event. The head Event can host the event predicate CAUSE, in whichcase the sentence is agentive; alternatively, the head Event can host the event predicate
BECOME or HAPPEN, in which case the sentence is inchoative (denoting change of state).11
In this latter case the head Event may take a locative or dative expression as its specifier.
This is the origin of the quirky subjects in sentences like (32)-(37) (see Fernádez-Soriano
1999: 128-129).
(38)

EventP
Event’

Locative
Dative

Event

VP

V

NP

11

In Harley’s (1995) original theory, an inchoative EventP (headed by the event predicate BE in her
theory) doesn’t have a specifier.

14Though details may be somewhat different, it appears that the MC sentence in (1) and the
Spanish quirky-subject sentences (32)-(37) are of the same kind. Our proposal for (1),therefore, is basically the same as Fernádez-Soriano’s (1999) analysis for the Spanish
sentences in (32)-(37). Our analysis of (1) is as follows.
(39)

TP
T’

Wang Mieni
T

vP

ti

v’
VP

v
OCCUR

V

NP

si
‘die’

fuqin
‘father’We employ the light verb OCCUR in the structure; for the use of this event predicate, see
Huang (1997), Lin (2001), and Lin (2008a) (also see the next section). It is basically thesame as HAPPEN in Fernádez-Soriano’s (1999) analysis.12 The light verb OCCUR takes the
VP that si ‘die’ projects as complement, and it also takes Wang Mien as specifier, whichbecomes the subject of the sentence. Since OCCUR denotes occurrence of an event, the12

We do not use the more popular event predicate BECOME because there are complications
regarding the type of verbs that may assume the (1)-kind of use. In section 4.3 we will show that onlychange-of-state verbs with a resultative state may assume the (1)-kind of use; that is, only those verbs
are compatible with OCCUR. As a consequence we need to make a distinction between change-ofstate verbs with a resultative state and those without. The event predicate BECOME only representschange of state and thus is too gross for our purposes.

15sentence in (1), according to the analysis in (39), means “The event of [his] father’s deathoccurred to Wang Mien.”
The analysis of (1) as shown in (39) has the following advantages. The first advantage isthat it accounts for the status of the subject Wang Mien and how it comes into the sentence in(1) – it is a locative introduced by the light verb OCCUR.
Notice that the semantic role of the subject Wang Mien in (1) is an experiencer. What isinteresting is that Landau (2005) argues that experiencers are “mental locatives.” This claim
is not just a metaphorical statement. Landau (2005) points out that experiencers share withlocatives many similarities: semantically both the experiencer and the locative denote a
location (in the mental space or in the physical world), morphologically they both takeoblique case, and syntactically they all undergo “locative inversion” – that is Landau (2005)
argues that an object experiencer moves to Spec of TP in LF. If we follow Landau’s (2005)
theory, then, even though Wang Mien is a proper name and doesn’t look like a locative, it isindeed a locative.13 A further advantage that follows is that, now we have a unified accountfor the subjects that OCCUR licenses. Remember that the verb si ‘die’ can take anexperiencer, a locative, and a temporal expression as subject; see the examples (1), (6)-(7),and (14)-(15). We repeat the relevant examples here.
(40)

Wang Mien si-lefuqin.

Wang Mien die-PERF father‘Wang Mien had his father die.’(41)

Zhan-chang-shangsi-lehenduo ren.

war-field-on

die-PERF many

people.

‘(Lit.) On the war field died many people.’
(42)

1976

nian

si-le

henduo ren.

1976

year

die-PERF many

people‘(Lit.) In the year 1976 died many people.’

13

There are actually two possible ways to conceive of the locative nature of the subject Wang Mien in(1). First, suppose that the light verb OCCUR assigns a location role to Wang Mien. Then Wang
Mien is a locative subject. There is no question with the locative nature of Wang Mien. Second,
OCCUR may assign an experiencer role to Wang Mien. According to Landau’s theory, an
experiencer is a locative. Again, there is no question with the locative nature of the subject Wang
Mien. Either way, Wang Mien is a locative subject in a genuine sense. For this reason we don’t think
it is necessary to explicitly pinpoint the semantic role that OCCUR assigns to the subject Wang Mienin (1).

16

These are all instances of the “transitive uses” of the verb si ‘die’ (see section 2); in ourtheory they are all instances of the function of OCCUR. Now, the subject of (41) is a locative.
If we adopt Landau’s (2005) theory, the experiencer subject of (40) is a locative, too.
Furthermore, the temporal subject in (42) can be regarded as a locative as well. Levin andRappaport Hovav (1995: 301) observe that verbs of happening (such as happen and occur)
can take a temporal PP as subject,14 and they suggest that such a temporal PP subject locatesthe event in time and hence can be regarded as a locative (on the time dimension). So we canthink of the temporal subject of (42) as a locative too. We then reach a unified account forthe subjects that OCCUR licenses – they are all locatives, albeit along different dimensions(the physical world, the mental space, and the temporal dimension).
The second advantage of the analysis in (39) is that it accounts for the verbs that may
assume the (1)-kind of use. The kind of subject alternation as in (40)-(42) is not specific to
the verb si ‘die’; other verbs in MC also exhibit such alternation, for instance pao ‘run,escape’, chen ‘sink’, po ‘break’, dao ‘fall’, and so on (also see the examples in (24)-(29)):(43)

Laowang

pao-lelaopo.

Laowangrun-PERF

wife(Experiencer subject)‘Laowang had his wife run away.’(44)

Jianyu-li

pao-leliang-gefanren.

jail-inrun-PERF

two-CLprisoner(Locative subject)‘Two prisoners ran away from the jail.’

14

Landau (2005: 115) gives the following sentence as an example:(i)

During the first two decades of the 20th century occurred the most significant breakthroughsof modern physics.

Incidentally, verbs of happening in Spanish can also take a temporal subject:(ii)

Durante losdos pirmeros dias de marzo ocurió el asecinato
during those
two firstdays of March occur
the murdermashorrible de la historia.
mosthorrible of the history‘During the first two days of March occurred the most horrible murder in history.’

Thus it appears to be a cross-linguistic universal that verbs of happening can take a temporal subject(in the form of an NP or a PP). I am grateful to Grace Kuo (personal communication) for the Spanish
example in (ii) and relevant discussion.

17

(45)

Zuotianpao-leliang-gefanren.

yesterday

run-PERF

two-CLprisoner(Temporal subject)‘Two prisoners ran away yesterday.’(46)

Zhangsanchen-leliang-saochuan.

Zhangsan

sink-PERF

two-CLboat(Experiencer subject)‘Zhangsan had two of his boats sink.’(47)

Hai-shangchen-leliang-saochuan.

sea-onsink-PERF

two-CLboat(Locative subject)‘Two boats sank in the sea.’(48)

Zuotianchen-leliang-saochuan.

yesterday

sink-PERF

two-CLboat(Temporal subject)‘Two boats sank yesterday.’(49)

Zhangsan

po-le

yi-ge

huapingZhangsanbreak-PERF one-CL vase

(Experiencer subject)‘Zhangsan had a vase broken.’
(50)

Wu-li

po-le

yi-shan chuangzi.

house-inbreak-PERF one-CL window(Locative subject)‘A window broke in the house.’(51)

Zuotianpo-leyi-shan chuangzi.

yesterday

break-PERF one-CL window(Temporal subject)‘A window broke yesterday.’(52)

Zhangsandao-leliang-dongfangzi.

Zhangsanfall-PERF

one-CL

wall(Experiencer subject)‘Zhangsan had two of his houses collapse.’(53)

Zhe-dongwuzi-lidao-leyi-mian qiang.

this-CLhouse-infall-PERF one-CL wall

(Locative subject)‘A wall collapsed in this house.’(54)

Zuotiandao-leyi-mian qiang.

yesterday

fall-PERF

one-CL wall

(Temporal subject)‘A wall collapsed yesterday.’
These verbs are all change-of-state verbs. In the analysis (39), the light verb OCCUR takes a
VP projected by such a verb as complement. The verb ku ‘cry’ (cf. (20)-(21)) is not a18

change-of-state verb, so it is incompatible with OCCUR; thus it cannot assume the (1)-kindof use.
Notice however that not all change-of-state verbs permit the (1)-kind of use. In thefollowing examples the verbs denote change of state, but they cannot take a locative subject(the verb shu ‘lose’ in (22)-(23) belongs to this type as well).
(55)* Chezhan-li

dao-leyi-liang lieche.

station-in

arrive-PERF one-CL train‘(Intended) A train arrived in the station.’(56)* Zhe-changbisaiying-leliang-ge xuanshou.

this-CLgame

win-PERF

two-CL player‘(Intended) two players won in the game.’
The ungrammaticality of (55)-(56) indicates that there are still questions that need to beclarified. We will come back to them in section 4.3.

4.

Some further questions

4.1 Locative subjects in MC
In this subsection we will go through some details about the locative subjects in MC so as toget a better understanding on the light verb OCCUR.
Lin (2008a) classifies locative subjects in MC into four types: the “canonical” locative
subject, the “existential” locative subject, the “occurrence” locative subject, and the“agentive” locative subjects. The following sentences are examples.
(57)

Chunzi-li

lai-leyi-gemoshengren.

village-in

come-PERF

one-CL stranger(The canonical type)‘In the village came a stranger.’(58)

Shan-shang gai-le

yi-dong xiao

muwu.

mountain-on build-PERF

one-CL smallcabin‘A small cabin was built in the mountain.’

19(The existential type)(59)Women chunzi chen-leliang-saochuan.

ourtwo-CL

boat

village sink-PERF(The occurrence type)‘Our village had two boats sink.’(60)

Zhangsan-deshou-li wo-zhe

yi-ba

qiang.

Zhangsan-POSS

hand-in hold-DUR

one-CL gun(The agentive type)‘Zhangsan is holding a gun in his hand.’The canonical locative subjects (e.g. (57)) are so named because they correspond to sentenceswith locative inversion in other languages. The existential locative subject (e.g. (58)) denotes
the location where some individual or individuals exist or end up. The occurrence locative
subject (e.g. (59)) denotes the location where an event occurs or happens. The agentive
locative subject (e.g. (60)) denotes the location at which an event is going on or in progress.
Lin (2008b) argues that these four types of locative subject can be further reduced to twogeneral types: those licensed by the light verb EXIST (the canonical type and the existentialtype), and those licensed by OCCUR (the occurrence type and the agentive type).15 Lin(2008a, b) observes three major differences between EXIST and OCCUR. First, the subjectof an OCCUR sentence can be phonetically empty, but this is not possible with an EXIST
sentence. Compare (62) with (64).
(61)

Hai-shangchen-leliang-saochuan.

sea-onsink-PERF

two-CLboat(OCCUR)‘Two boats sank in the sea.’(62)

Chen-le liang-sao

chuan

le.

sin-PERF two-CL

boat

PRT

(OCCUR)‘Two boats have sunk.’(63)

San-shang

gai-lemountain-on build-PERF

yi-dong xiao

muwu.

one-CL small

cabin(EXIST)‘A small cabin was built in the mountain.’(64)* Gai-leyi-dong xiao

muwu

le.

build-PERF

one-CL small

cabin

PRT

(EXIST)‘A small cabin was built.’
15

Lin (2008a, b) argues that the canonical type of locative subject in MC is not a result of locative
inversion, so their correspondence to sentences with locative inversion in other languages is only
apparent.

20

Second, the subject of an OCCUR sentence can be a temporal expression, but this is notpossible with the EXIST sentences:(65)

Zuotianchen-leliang-saochuan.

yesterday

sink-PERF

two-CLboat(OCCUR)‘Two boats sank yesterday.’(66)* Zuotiangai-leyi-dong xiao

muwu.

yesterday

build-PERF

one-CL small

cabin(EXIST)‘(Intended) A small cabin was built yesterday.’Third, for an OCCUR sentence, the location that the locative subject denotes doesn’t have tobe the location where the event takes place; it can be the location on which the event exerts a
direct impact. But for an EXIST sentence, the locative subject must denote the location
where the event takes place. See (67) and (68). In (67) the subject location is ‘our village’.
Notice that the main verb of the sentence is chen ‘sink’, and we know that boats don’t sink in
the land. This sentence, however, doesn’t mean that the two boats mentioned sank in ‘ourvillage’; it means that ‘our village’ is the location where the event of two-boat-sinking exerts
a direct impact. Let’s call such locative subject the “impact locus” subject. (68), on the other
hand, is unacceptable if we intend the subject ‘our village’ to be an “impact locus” rather thanthe place where the cabin mentioned was built and exists.
(67)

Women chunzi-li

chen-leliang-saochuan.

oursink-PERF

two-CL

boat

village-in(OCCUR)‘Two boats sank which were from our village.’(68)* Women chunzi-li
ourvillage-in

gai-leyi-dong xiao

muwu. (EXIST)

build-PERF

one-CL smallcabin‘A small cabin was built which was from our village.’(Assuming that the cabin was built in the mountain.)
These three differences set OCCUR and EXIST apart. Notice that the verb si ‘die’
patterns with the OCCUR sentences in all the three aspects. We have already seen that si

21‘die’ can take a temporal subject (e.g. (42)). The following examples show that si ‘die’ cantake a phonetically empty subject ((69)) as well as an “impact locus” subject ((70)).16
(69)

Si-le

liang-ge ren

die-PERF two-CL person

le.
PRT.

‘Two people have died.’(70)

Zhangsan-dejia-lisi-leliang-ge ren.

Zhangsan-POSS

home-in die-PERF two-CL person‘Two persons died who were from Zhangsan’s family.’(Assuming that the two people died somewhere else, e.g. in the battle field.)
These examples, once again, indicate that (1) is indeed an OCCUR sentence. Thus ouranalysis of the MC sentence (1), as shown in (39), is fully justified by empirical evidence
from the locative subjects in MC.

4.2 The questions of possession and the sense of loss
In the sentence (1) the subject (Wang Mien) and the individual undergoing change of state(fuqin ‘father’) are in a relation of inalienable possession. That is, the NP fuqin ‘father’denotes Wang Mien’s father. It cannot be some other people’s father. Notice furthermorethat the individual that undergoes change of state cannot be a definite description or a namesuch as Lisi. See (71). In (71) the empty element pro stands for the possessor of the NP
fuqin ‘father’.
(71)

Zhangsanisi-leZhangsandie-PERF[ proi/*j

fuqin ] /*Lisi.

fatherLisi

If we just focus on the sentence in (1), then such inalienable possession may strike one as asalient property. Perhaps this is why some researchers consider it a defining characteristic of
the sentence in (1), and propose theories crucially based on it (e.g. (2)).

16

Li (1990), following Teng (1975), suggests that the phonetically empty subject in sentences like (69)
denotes the spatio-temporal setting of the sentence. So it is still a locative subject.

22However, now we know that (1) is but one example of a more general paradigm. In
addition to the experiencer subject, the verb si ‘die’ can also take a locative subject or atemporal subject (e.g. (41)-(42)), (ignoring the case of the phonetically empty subject, e.g.
(69)). In the latter two cases there is no possession relation. Thus a possession relation(inalienable or not) cannot be a defining characteristic of the “transitive uses” of the verb si‘die’. What is more, even in the case of the experiencer subject, there doesn’t need to be apossession relation. A part-whole relation is acceptable too (Kliffer 1996). See the following
examples.
(72)

Tamen si-le
they

wu-ge

ren.

(Part-whole relation)

die-PERF five-CL person‘Five people died among them.’(73)

Wu-sao chuan

chen-leliang-sao.

five-CL boat

sink-PERF

two-CL(Part-whole relation)‘Two boats sank among the five.’
Notice that the subject Wang Mien in (1), being an experiencer, is also an affectee of theevent.17 In fact, possession and part-whole relations are two major grammatical means that
the MC grammar employs to express affectedness. They are seen in the passive and thedisposal constructions too (cf. Li and Thompson 1981). See the following examples:
(74)

Juzi

bei

Zhangsan

bo-le

pi.

tangerine

PASS

Zhangsanpeel-PERF

skin(Possession)‘The tangerine was peeled off skin by Zhangsan.’
(75)

Juzi

bei

Zhangsanchi-lesan-ge.

tangerine

PASS

Zhangsaneat-PERF

three-CL(Part-whole relation)‘Three of the tangerines were eaten by Zhangsan.’(76)

Zhangsan

ba

juzi

bo-le

pi.

Zhangsan

DISP

tangerine

peel-PERF

skin(Possession)‘Zhangsan peeled off the skin of the tangerine.’

17

Kliffer (1996: 63) says of the subject Wang Mien in the sentence (1): “The initial noun [i.e. WangMien]… is the entity affected by what happens to the post-verbal noun [i.e. fuqin ‘father]…” [italics
by JL].

23

(77)Zhangsanbajuzi

chi-lesan-ge.

Zhangsan

DISP

tangerine

eat-PERF

three-CL(Part-whole relation)‘Zhangsan ate three of the tangerines.’
So, the ungrammaticality of (71) (with the index j or the proper name Lisi) results from thefailure to adopt the grammatical means provided by the language to express affectedness,hence the failure to clearly show the affectedness of the subject NP. It has no direct bearing
on the “transitive uses” of the verb si ‘die’. Possession is not part and parcel of the sentencein (1); it is just one of the means to express affectedness in MC sentences.
Similarly, a sense of loss cannot be a defining characteristic of the sentence (1) either.
We showed in section 2.1 that Shen (2006) considers the sense of loss on the subject
argument an essential part of the sentence in (1). But again, if we take the locative andtemporal subjects into consideration, it is clear that a sense of loss is not necessary for the“transitive uses” of the verb si ‘die’. Therefore, neither the possession relation nor the senseof loss could be taken as a basis to define or generate the sentence (1). The defining
characteristic of (1) is the sense of occurrence of an event, namely the function of OCCUR.18

4.3 Change-of-state verbs
At the end of section 3.2 we showed that OCCUR takes a VP projected by a change-of-stateverb as complement, but we also showed that not all change-of-state verbs are compatible
with OCCUR, for instance (55)-(56), repeated below.
(78)* Chezhan-li

dao-leyi-liang lieche.

station-in

arrive-PERF one-CL train‘(Intended) A train arrived in the station.’18

One might think that perhaps the sentence (1) as a whole denotes an event adversative to the
speaker/hearer (not necessarily to the subject of the sentence). This cannot be correct either.
Consider the following sentence, which could express a positive message to the speaker/hearer:(i)

Zhan-chang-shang si-lehenduo diren.
war-field-on
die-PERF many
enemy‘(Lit.) On the war field died many enemies.’

24

(79)

* Zhe-changbisaiying-leliang-ge shuanshou.

this

game

win-PERF

two-CL player‘(Intended) two players won in the game.’
We need to account for the ungrammaticality of these examples.
Our proposal is this: OCCUR is only compatible with change-of-state verbs with aresultative state. Change-of-state verbs must be distinguished into two types: those with aresultative state and those without. In fact such a distinction has been suggested. Nakajima(2001) argues that verbs that may occur in the locative-inversion construction in English must
be those that yield a resultative state (in his own words, “verbs that can occur in the locative
construction are restricted to those whose lexical representations contain a headed
subeventual structure designating a culminating state…” (Nakajima 2001: 44)). Nakajima(2001) also points out that change-of-state verbs that don’t yield a resultative state cannot
occur in the locative-inversion construction, as in the following examples ((9a) and (9b),Nakajima 2001: 47; his (9b) is adopted from Levin 1993: 246).19(80)* On the line are drying a lot of clothes.

(81)* On the top floor of the skyscraper broke many windows.

Shen (2007) also argues that change-of-state verbs in MC need to be distinguished into thosethat yield a resultative state and those that are “instant,” i.e. those that yield no resultative
state. Shen’s (2007) examples are as follows:(82)

Zhangsandao-leshan-ding.

Zhangsanarrive-PERF mountain-top‘Zhangsan arrived at the top of the mountain.’(83)* Zhangsan

dao-zheshan-ding.

Zhangsanarrive-DUR

mountain-top‘(Intended) Zhangsan arrived at the top of the mountain [and kept in such a state].’19

Nakajima (2001) calls these verbs “verbs of change of state” (also see Landau 2005). We also use
the term “change-of-state verbs,” but we further distinguish those with a resultative state from those
without. In this paper we use the term “change-of-state verbs” to cover both subgroups.
Notice that the MC verbs po ‘break’ is compatible with OCCUR (e.g. (49)-(51)), even though theEnglish verb break is incompatible with locative inversion. This should not pose any problem
because words with similar meanings in different languages may belong to different classes and show
different properties.

25

(84)

Da-menkai-le.

main-gate

open-PERF‘The main gate opened.’(85)

Da-menkai-zhene.

main-gate

open-DUR

PRT‘The main gate is open [and keeps in that state].’Shen (2007) uses the suffixation of the durative aspectual marker –zhe as a test, which
denotes continuation of a (dynamic or static) state. The gist is that if a verb yields a
resultative state, then it can be suffixed with the durative marker –zhe, which has the function
to highlight the continuation of that resultative state. On the other hand, if a verb doesn’tyield a resultative state, it cannot be suffixed with –zhe, since there is no state for –zhe tohighlight. Consider the verbs dao ‘arrive’ and kai ‘open’. Both verbs can denote change ofstate, as shown in (82) and (84). (In these two examples the verbs are suffixed with theperfective aspectual marker –le, which usually goes with change-of-state verbs.) Now look at(83) and (85). The verb dao ‘arrive’ cannot be suffixed with the durative marker –zhe; thisindicates that dao ‘arrive’ doesn’t yield a resultative state. The verb kai ‘open’, on the other
hand, yields a resultative state, thus it can take the durative marker –zhe.
So we have evidence that change-of-state verbs in MC must be distinguished into two
types, namely those with a resultative state and those without (the instant change-of-stateverbs). We may employ Shen’s (2007) test of the durative marker –zhe, and predict thatverbs that are compatible with OCCUR (i.e. all verbs that may assume the (1)-kind of use)
can take –zhe, whereas verbs that are incompatible with OCCUR cannot take –zhe. Thisprediction is partially fulfilled. Look at the following examples.20(86)

Zhangsanpao-zhe.

Zhangsanrun-DUR‘Zhangsan is running [and keeps in that state].’(87)

Chuan chen-zhe.
boatsink-DUR‘The boat is submerged in the water [and keeps in that state].’20

The verb dao ’fall’ in (89) and the verb dao ‘arrive’ in (90) are different words. They havedifferent tones.

26

(88)

Chuang-boli

po-zhe.

window-glass

break-DUR‘The glass of the window is broken [and keeps in that state].’
(89)

Shu

dao-zhe.

tree

fall-DUR.

‘The tree lies on the ground [and keeps in that state].’(90)* Huoche dao-zhe.
trainarrive-DUR‘(Intended) The train is in an arrival state.’(91)* Zhangsan

ying-zhe.

Zhangsanwin-DUR‘(Intended) Zhangsan is in a winning state.’(86)-(89) show that the verbs pao ‘run, escape’, chen ‘sink’, po ‘break’, and dao ‘fall’ cantake –zhe; they are also verbs that can assume the (1)-kind of use (see (43)-(54)). (90)-(91)show that the verbs dao ‘arrive’ and ying ‘win’ cannot take –zhe; we have seen that theycannot assume the (1)-kind of use. So far the prediction is fine. However, we have problems
with the verb si ‘die’: it cannot take the durative marker –zhe, contrary to the prediction.
(92)* Zhangsan

si-zhe.

Zhangsandie-DUR‘Zhangsan died [and keeps in that state].’We showed above that –zhe has to be suffixed to a verb with a resultative state. But Shen
(2007) points out that there is a further condition for the suffixation of –zhe: the state must
potentially have an end. If John is running, then when John stops running, the state ofrunning ends. If the glass of a window is in a broken state, then, as long as the glass is
replaced, the broken state ceases to exist. It is such “endable” states that –zhe applies to.
Shen (2007) gives the following examples for illustration ((10a)-(10b), Shen 2007: 51):
(93)

Zhe-jian

yifu

(hai)

xin-zhene.

this-CL

cloth

still

new-DUR

PRT‘This cloth is (still) new [and keeps in that state].’

27

(94)

* Zhe-jian

yifu

(hai)

jiu-zhene.

this-CL

cloth

still

old-DUR

PRT‘(Intended) This cloth is (still) old [and keeps in that state].’In our world knowledge, a new thing can stop being new and become old, but an old thingcannot stop being old – it can only get older. The (un)acceptability of (93)-(94) reflects thisknowledge. Specifically, (94) is unacceptable because in this example –zhe is suffixed to theverb jiu ‘old’, which denotes a state that doesn’t end. This results in semantic awkwardness.
Now the case of si ‘die’ in (92) is exactly the same. The state of death doesn’t have an end.
This is why the verb si ‘die’ cannot take the durative marker –zhe. The ungrammaticality of(92) doesn’t really indicate that si ‘die’ yields no resultative state.
We have a different test to show the resultative state of the verb si ‘die’. In MC a zai ‘at’
PP can be appended to a verb denoting the state that follows from the verb (Tai 1975). See
the following examples:21(95)

Zhangsantiao

zai zhuo-shang.

Zhangsanjump

attable-on‘Zhangsan jumped on the table.’(The continuing state: Zhangsan being on the table.)(96)

Zhangsanshui

zai chuang-shang.

Zhangsan

sleep

at

bed-on‘Zhangsan is sleeping in the bed.’(The continuing state: Zhangsan being in the bed.)(97)

Zhangsanxieliang-ge zi

zai qiang-shang.

Zhangsanwrite

two-CL characteratwall-on‘Zhangsan wrote two characters on the wall.’(The continuing state: the characters being on the wall.)We can use the zai ‘at’ PP as a test. If a change-of-state verb can be appended with a zai ‘at’phrase, then the verb must have a resultative state; on the other hand, if a change-of-state verb

21

When a zai ‘at’ PP is appended to a verb, it doesn’t require that the verb denote change of state. For
example, (96) doesn’t mean that Zhangsan comes to be in the bed following from a previous “not-inthe-bed” state. The point is that the zai ‘at’ PP denotes continuation of a state, which may or may not
be the result of a change.

28

cannot be appended with a zai ‘at’ PP, then it has no resultative state. Now look at thefollowing examples:(98)

Zhangsanpao zai waimien

duo-zhe,bu ganhui

jia.

Zhangsanrun athide-DUR

not darereturnhomeoutside‘Zhangsan ran away and stayed outside hiding; [he] dare not go home.’(99)

zai chuang-shang.22

ZhangsansiZhangsandie atbed-on‘Zhangsan died in the bed.’(100)

Chuan chenzai hai-li.

Boat

at

sink

sea-in‘The boat is sunken in the sea.’(101)

Huapingpozai di-shang.

vase

break

at

ground-on‘The vase is broken on the ground.’
(102)

Shu

dao zai di-shang.

treefall atground-on‘The tree fell on the ground.’(103) * Huoche dao
train

zai chezhan-li

arriveatstation-in‘(Intended) The train arrived at the station.’(104) * Zhangsan

ying

zai yundong-chang-shang.

Zhangsanwin

atsport-field-on‘(Intended) Zhangsan won in the sport field.’
Now we see that si ‘die’ can take a zai ‘at’ PP, along with those verbs that can take -zhe; andagain, the verbs dao ‘arrive’ and ying ‘win’ cannot take the zai ‘at’ PP. These examples
confirm our proposal, that is, only change-of-state verbs with a resultative state arecompatible with OCCUR and assume the (1)-kind of use.

22This sentence in fact is ambiguous; it has a dynamic reading, meaning that Zhangsan’s life ended in
the bed; and a static reading, meaning that Zhangsan is in the bed dead. It is the second reading thatconcerns us here.

29

5.

Conclusion

In this paper I argued that the MC sentence in (1) is a locative-subject sentence. The
evidence for this claim is the fact that the verb si ‘die’ patterns with verbs that can take alocative/temporal/experiencer subject. It is proposed that a light verb OCCUR is responsible
for the sentence in (1): it takes the VP that si ‘die’ projects as complement, and licenses alocative expression as specifier. Even though the verb si ‘die’ (and other similar verbs) cantake a locative subject, a temporal subject, or an experiencer subject, it is argued that these
expressions are all locative in a nature. Some further questions were discussed too. First, it
is shown that MC has two types of locative subjects, namely those licensed by the light verb
EXIST and those licensed by OCCUR. We showed that the subjects that the verb si ‘die’ cantake are precisely those that the light verb OCCUR licenses. Second, it is shown that thepossession relation observed in sentences like (1) actually is just one of the means that MC
employs to express affectedness. In other words, possession is not a defining characteristic ofsentences like (1). Similarly, the sense of loss is not an essential part of sentences like (1).
Finally, we show that it is necessary to make a distinction between two types of change-ofstate verbs: those with a resultative state, and those without. It is argued that OCCUR is
compatible only with change-of-state verbs with a resultative state.

References
Arad, Maya. 1998. VP-structure and the syntax-lexicon interface. Ph.D. dissertation,
University College London.
Fernádez-Soriano, Olga. 1999. Two types of impersonal sentences in Spanish: locative anddative subjects. Syntax 2.2: 101-140.
Fodor, Jerry. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving "kill" from "cause to die". Linguistic
Inquiry 1: 429-438.
Han, Jingchuan. 2000. Lingyou mingci tusheng yiwei yu ge lilun [Raising of the possessive
NP and the theory of Case]. Xiandai Waiyu 3: 261-272.
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1997. On lexical structure and syntactic projection. Chinese Languages
and Linguistics 3: 45-89.
30

Kliffer, Michael D. 1996. Commonalities of French and Mandarin inalienable possession.
Language Sciences 18:53-69.
Landau, Idan. 2005. The locative syntax of experiencers. Manuscript. Ben Gurion University,
Israel.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Li, Y.-H. Audrey. 1990. Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lin, Tzong-Hong. 2001. Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Lin, T.-H. Jonah. 2008a. Locative subject in Mandarin Chinese. Nanzan Linguistics 4: 69-88.
Lin, T.-H. Jonah. 2008b. Lun Hanyu de “chusuo tuxian” xingzhi [Remarks on the “locativeprominence” of Mandarin Chinese]. Manuscript, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
McCawley, James. 1968. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep
structure. CLS 4: 71-80.
Nakajima, Heizo. 2001. Verbs in locative constructions and the generative lexicon. The
Linguistic Review 18: 43-67.
Pan, Haihua and Jingchuan Han. 2005. Xianxing fei binge dongxi jiegou de jufa yanjiu[Syntactic analysis of constructions with overt unaccusative verbs]. Yuyan Yanjiu 3: 1-13.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. Deriving adversity. WCCFL 19: 399-410.
Shen, Jiaxuan. 2006. “Wang Mien si-le fuqin” de shengcheng fangshi – jian shuo Hanyu“rouhe” zao ju [On the generation of “Wang Mien died father” – remarks on the“blending” as a means for sentence formation in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen 4: 291-300.
Shen, Li. 2007. Zhuangtai bianhua de kenixing yu timao biaoji [Reversibility of change ofstate and aspect markers]. In Li Zhang, Yutaka Furukawa, Ying, Ren, and Sachiko
Shimoji, eds. Riben xiandai Hanyu yufa yanjiu lunwen xuan [Essays on the research ofModern Chinese in Japan], 46-63. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University
Press.
Tai, James. 1975. On the two functions of place adverbials in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of
Chinese Linguistics 3: 154-179.

31

Teng, Shou-hsin. 1975. A semantic study of transitivity relations in Chinese. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 2007. Two types of light verbs in Chinese. Paper presented in Taiwan –Hong Kong – China Forum on Chinese Syntax. City University of Hong Kong, Hong
Kong.
Xu, Jie. 1999. Liangzhong baoliu binyu jushi ji xiangguan jufa lilun wenti [Two types ofretained-object constructions and the related syntactic questions]. Dandai Yuyanxue 1:
16-29.
Xu, Jie. 2001. Pupian yufa yuanze yu Hanyu yufa xianxiang [Principles of Universal
Grammar and the grammatical phenomena in Chinese]. Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Zhu, Xingfan. 2005. Qing dongci han Hanyu bujiwu dongci dai binyu xianxiang [Light verbs
and the phenomena of intransitive verbs taking objects in Chinese]. Xiandai Waiyu 3:
221-231.

32