To appear in Proceedings of the 25th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-25).

Sentence-final particles at the vP phase edge
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I propose that the low class of Sentence-Final Particles (SFPs) in Mandarin
Chinese (sentence-final le, éryǐ, láizhe...) are head-final heads in the extended vP
periphery, rather than in the CP domain as previously analyzed, substantiating a
prediction made by Hsieh & Sybesma (2011). Evidence for the proposal comesfrom the semantic scope of sentence-final éryǐ and le with respect to negation andmodals. Consequences for the syntax of Chinese SFPs and for the Final-overFinal-Constraint (FOFC) are discussed.*

1. Introduction
The syntactic status of Sentence-Final Particles (SFPs) in Mandarin Chinese haslong been an area of active debate in Chinese linguistics. SFPs have been analyzed as C0
heads (Lee, 1986; a.o.) which are linearized on the right. However, given the rigidly
head-initial character of Mandarin clause structure (Huang, 1982; a.o.), the sentence-final
position of these items is conspicuous.
In this paper I propose that a subset of Mandarin SFPs are in the extended vP
periphery, rather than in the CP periphery as commonly assumed. Specifically, thisinvolves the “low” class of SFPs, including sentence-final le, éryǐ, and láizhe. Unlike
other SFPs, which are clause-typing (Force) and Attitude markers that clearly correspondto CP-peripheral heads cross-linguistically, the low class includes aspectual and focussensitive operators. I present data from the literature that shows that sentence-final le andéryǐ ‘only’ takes scope below the high negation búshì, and le scopes below certain
modals. This data from the compositional semantic scope of these low SFPs is
incompatible with the assumption that they are in the extended CP periphery.
In a final section, I discuss important consequences of this work for the theory of
the Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC; Holmberg, 2000; Biberauer et al 2008, 2009), a
proposed universal constraint on structure-building, and I show how my proposal for the
low class of SFPs substantiates a prediction made by Hsieh & Sybesma (2011).
*

I thank Tingchun Chen, Noah Constant, Thomas Grano, Hadas Kotek, Jo-Wang Lin, ChenSheng Luther Liu, David Pesetsky, Norvin Richards, and the audience at NACCL 25 forcomments on this work and for discussion of the data. I especially thank Waltraud Paul for aseries of engaging conversations that led me down this path. All errors are my own.

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLES

2. Background on Mandarin Chinese SFPs
SFPs in Mandarin has traditionally been organized into three classes (Chao, 1968;
Hu, 1981; Zhu, 1982; a.o.). Descriptively, I will refer to these classes here as SFP1, SFP2,
and SFP3. The items within each class are in complementary distribution with one
another, and the relative word order between these classes is fixed: SFP1 < SFP2 < SFP3.
I refer the reader to Paul (2014) and references therein for demonstrations of these basic
distributional facts.1 The table in (1), based on Paul (2014), gives some representative
members for each class:(1)

Three classes of Mandarin Chinese SFPs
SFP1
SFP2: clause-type
le currently relevant state ma interrogative
láizhe prior knowledge
ba imperativeéryǐ only
ne follow-up question…
…

SFP3: attitude
ou warning(y)a astonishment
ne exaggeration…

Among these three classes, SFP2 has received both the earliest and the widest
attention. Theoretically, Lee (1986) first proposed that the sentence-final ma is aninterrogative clause-typing C head and Tang (1988) and Cheng (1991) extend this claim
to other SFP2. Paul (2014) analyzes all Mandarin SFPs as head-final heads, and proposesthat each class of SFP corresponds to a distinct head in a split CP system, following thework of Rizzi (1997) and others. She proposes that SFP1 occupies a head in the split CP
called “Clow,” SFP2 realizes Force, and SFP3 realizes Attitude.2(2)Paul’s (2014) proposal for Mandarin SFPs in a three-layer split CP:[ [ [ TP Clow ] Force ] Attitude ]SFP1 SFP2
SFP3
There are a number of clues that SFP1 differs categorically from SFP2 and SFP3.
First, the items in SFP2 and SFP3 each seem to form a natural class: SFP2 includes
primarily clause-typing markers, and items in SFP3 express speaker attitude. Both ofthese functions are cross-linguistically commonly realized by heads in the extended CP
domain (Rizzi, 1997; a.o.). In contrast, the items in SFP1 resist a unified semantic

1

The arguments for éryǐ being an item in SFP1 are in Erlewine (2010).
It has been argued that head-initial complementizers exist for embedded complement clauses,
e.g. shuō (Simpson & Wu, 2002; Hsieh & Sybesma, 2011), although this characterization has
been contested, for example in Paul (2014) footnote 26. The proposal and arguments presented
here do not hinge on the status of these items. But see section 5 below for discussion of therelation of my proposal to the theory of Hsieh & Sybesma (2011).
2

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLES

characterization. Many items in SFP1 can be characterized primarily as tense or aspectmarkers, but SFP1 also includes the focus-sensitive operator éryǐ ‘only’ (Erlewine, 2010).
Second, items in SFP2 and SFP3 are only available in root clauses, while SFP1 is
not restricted to root contexts.3 This contrast is illustrated below in example (3) with thesentence-final ‘only’ éryǐ (SFP1) and example (4) with the interrogative ma (SFP2):
(3)

(4)

SFP1 éryǐ ‘only’ can be part of the matrix or embedded clause:Wǒ gàosù le yīge háizi tā kěyǐ chī yīge dàngāo éryǐ.
(Erlewine, 2012)
I
told PRF one child s/he can eat one cake
ONLY✓
‘I told one child that he can only eat [one cake]F.’✓‘I only told [one child]F that he can eat one cake.’
Interrogative SFP2 ma must be interpreted as part of the matrix clause:Nǐ bù zhīdào tāláima?
(Li & Thompson 1981, p. 557)
you NEG know s/he come INTERROGATIVE✓‘Do you not know that s/he’s coming?’* ‘You don’t know whether or not s/he’s coming.’

In examples (3) and (4), there is an embedded complement clause and a SFP at
the end of the utterance. We observe an attachment ambiguity in (3): the sentence-final
éryǐ could be attached to the matrix clause, associating with ‘one child;’ or it can be partof the embedded complement clause of ‘tell,’ associating with ‘one cake.’ In contrast,
example (4) with sentence-final ma in a similar configuration exhibits no such ambiguity.
The interrogative clause-typing ma must be part of the matrix clause, even though theembedding predicate ‘know’ can embed both declarative and interrogative clauses. See
Paul (2014) for further discussion of this difference.
A third difference—that SFP1, but not SFP2 or SFP3, interacts scopally withnegation and modals4—will form the motivation for the proposal presented in this paper.

3

Paul (2014) also discusses items that may be analyzed as exclusively non-root SFPs, such as thedehuà of conditional clauses and the particle de in relative clauses and the shi…de “cleft”
construction (Paul & Whitman, 2008). I will not discuss such items here.
4
Paul (2014) additionally notes that the SFP1 láizhe, a marker referring to the recent past or aprior state of knowledge, is also incompatible with the high negation méi(yǒu). I will not
reproduce these arguments here for reasons of space.

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLES

3. Proposal
I propose that the items in SFP1 occupy a head in the extended vP periphery of
Mandarin clauses,5 in contrast to SFP2 and SFP3 which are in the extended CP periphery.
(See section 5 for discussion of an alternative where SFPs are right-adjoining adverbs.)
This proposal is schematized in (5) below. The heads Force and Attitude are heads in a
split CP, following Rizzi (1997) and Paul (2014). Due to the lack of a unified
characterization of SFP1—in particular due to the sentence-final ‘only’ éryǐ being a partof this class—I will refrain from naming the head, labeling it simply SFP1.
(5)[ [ [ [TP … [SFP1P vP SFP1 ] ] Force ] Attitude ]
SFP1
SFP2
SFP3

The proposal is a refinement of Paul’s (2014) proposal, the first comprehensive
theory for Mandarin Chinese SFPs which addresses all three classes of SFPs, reviewed
above and schematized in (2). The difference is the placement of SFP1 in a position inside
TP, above vP but below the CP domain. This difference is motivated by the scope ofoperators in SFP1, which I will present in section 4.
This proposal for SFP1 accords structurally with previous analyses of the SFP1 le
as a head-final head below the CP-domain (Asp for Hsieh, 2001, Grano, 2012; T in Tang,
1998) and Paul & Whitman’s (2008) analysis of the SFP1 de in the shì…de construction
as an Asp head “in a position directly above the base position of the subject (Spec,vP).” Italso substantiates a prediction made by Hsieh & Sybesma’s (2011) analysis of SFPs,
which I will discuss in section 5.
The heads SFP1, Force, and Attitude are linearized on the right of theircomplements, unlike other heads in the clausal spine. Here I will stay agnostic towards
how these heads are linearized to the right: these heads may be lexically specified to behead-final, as illustrated in (5), or may alternatively be head-initial but then obligatorily
front their complements (Simpson & Wu, 2002; Lin, 2006; Hsieh & Sybesma, 2011;a.o.). I will, however, address the question of why it is these positions in the clause, andonly these positions, which allow clausal heads to be linearized to the right. I argue that
this follows from a phase-based characterization of the Final-Over-Final Constraint, to be
discussed in section 5.

5

What is important here is that SFP1 be at the edge of the lower phase in Mandarin clauses. Here
I use the common label vP to refer to this lower phase. See footnote 11 and section 5.

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLES

4. Motivation
If the items in SFP1 are in the extended CP, we predict that they necessarily scopeover all scope-bearing operators in the clause’s TP (6). In contrast, the proposal put
forward in section 3, schematized above in (5), makes the prediction that the items in
SFP1 will take scope above vP-internal operators (7a), but under operators above vP (7b).
(6)(7)

If SFP1s are in CP, we predict scope over all TP-internal operators:✓[ [TP … Op … ] Clow = SFP1 ]è
SFP1 > Op, *Op > SFP1
If SFP1s are at vP edge, we predict scope over some and under others:✓a. [TP [SFP1P [vP … Op … ] SFP1 ] ]èSFP1 > Op, *Op > SFP1
b. [TP … Op … [SFP1P vP SFP1 ] ]è*SFP1 > Op, ✓Op > SFP1

In the following subsections I will show that SFP1 participates in scopealternations of the form predicted by (7), supporting the current proposal.
4.1. The scope of sentence-final éryǐ ‘only’
I begin with a discussion of the sentence-final ‘only’ word, éryǐ. In Erlewine(2010), I showed that éryǐ is a member of the first class of SFPs: it is in complementary
distribution with other items in SFP1 such as sentence-final le and is strictly ordered
before the clause-typing (SFP2) and attitude (SFP3) markers. The semantics of ‘only’ is
scope-bearing and affects the truth conditions of the utterance (Horn, 1969; a.o.), making
it a good item to use to diagnose the structural scope of SFP1. I observed that éryǐ takes
obligatorily wide scope with respect to the negation bù, but takes obligatorily narrow
scope with respect to the higher negation búshì:(8)

SFP éryǐ ‘only’ takes scope above bù but below búshì (Erlewine, 2010):✓
a. Wǒ bù xǐhūan chī RÒUBĀOF éryǐ.
éryǐ > NEG, *NEG > éryǐI
NEG likeeat [meat buns]F ONLY✓
‘I only don’t like to eat [meat buns]F ... I eat everything else.’* ‘I don’t only like to eat [meat buns]F ... I also eat (some) other things.’b. Wǒ búshì xǐhūan chī RÒUBĀOF éryǐ.
*éryǐ > NEG, ✓NEG > éryǐI
NEG’ likeeat [meat buns]F ONLY* ‘I only don’t like to eat [meat buns]F ... I eat everything else.’✓‘I don’t only like to eat [meat buns]F ... I also eat (some) other things.’

The only difference between (8a) and (8b) is the form of the negation chosen: bùand búshì, respectively. The word orders in (8a–b) indicate no difference in the relative
structural position of the negation with respect to ‘only.’ Under the view that all SFPs arein the extended CP, éryǐ taking scope below negation in (8b) is an unexpected syntaxsemantics mismatch.

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLESThe proposal put forth here for the position of SFP1 including éryǐ in the extended
vP periphery offers a simple solution to the contrast observed in (8). The contrast in (8) istransparently explained by the different structural heights of bù and búshì. The proposed
structures for (8a) and (8b) are schematized below in (9). In this way, a fixed position foréryǐ can be adopted and no syntax-semantics mismatch occurs.
(9)

Explaining the contrast in (8):[TP … (búshì = NEG’) … [ [vP … (bù = NEG) … VP ] éryǐ ] ]a. “... bù ... éryǐ ” (8a)èéryǐ > NEG
b. “... búshì ... éryǐ ” (8b)è
NEG > éryǐIndependent evidence corroborates the structural positions of bù and búshì in (9).
The lower negation bù is adjoined to vP/VP and cliticizes to the verb (Hsieh, 2001, andreferences therein), and therefore is below the position of éryǐ. In contrast, búshì isstructurally higher than vP (Yeh, 1992; a.o.) and, I argue, necessarily above éryǐ.6 Thatbúshì is higher than bù can be straightforwardly observed in clauses with both negations:(10)Wǒ búshì bù xǐhūan chī ròubāo.
I
NEG’ NEG likeeat meat buns
‘I don’t not like to eat meat buns… I’d just rather have something else.’

It has been independently argued that exclusive operators such as ‘only’ must
associate with material in their c-command domain at LF (Tancredi, 1990; Erlewine, toappear). One prediction of this analysis is that éryǐ can only associate with material in vP,and therefore cannot associate with subjects. This prediction is borne out:7
(11)

a.

✓

Wǒ aì
NǏF
éryǐ.
I
love [you]F ONLY
‘I only love [you]F.’b. * WǑF aìnǐ éryǐ.
[I]F love you ONLY
Intended: ‘[I]F only love you.’

However, at the NACCL meeting, Jo-Wang Lin pointed out that éryǐ is able toassociate with subjects in sentences such as (12) below with the additional pre-subject‘only’ operator, zhǐyǒu:6

Assuming that SFPs are clausal heads, this relationship between búshì and éryǐ is independently
necessitated by the Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC). Assuming that búshì and éryǐ are bothwithin the same Spellout domain (above vP and below CP), FOFC requires that búshì be
structurally higher than éryǐ. If the heads were in the other order, éryǐ would form a head-final
projection above the head-initial projection headed by búshì or its component shì, in violation of
FOFC. See section 5 for more on FOFC.
7
Tang (1998, p. 44ff) makes a similar claim regarding the Cantonese sentence-final ‘only’ zaa3.

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLES

(12)

✓

Zhǐ

yǒu

WǑF aìnǐ éryǐ.
love you ONLY
‘Only [I]F love you… no one else loves you.’ (cf 11b)
ONLY exists [I]FI propose that the zhǐyǒu in (12) involves the addition of another vP layer above
the subject, headed by the existential verb yǒu, thereby hosting a position for éryǐ which
does c-command the subject. It therefore is not a counterexample to the proposal put
forward here for the position of SFP1, and therefore of éryǐ. Without the higher zhǐyǒu,subject association with sentence-final éryǐ is not possible, as observed in (11) above.
4.2. The scope of sentence-final le
Similar evidence comes from the scope of sentence-final le, which is often
referred to as a Currently Relevant State marker following Li & Thompson (1981) and is
one of the best-studied items in SFP1.8 As with sentence-final éryǐ, we will see that letakes scope above operators in the vP domain, but below scope-bearing operators higher
in the clause. This is unexpected under the view that all SFP1 are in the CP periphery but
is predicted by the proposal that SFP1, unlike higher SFPs, are in the extended vP
periphery.
There are a variety of proposals for characterizing the semantic contribution ofsentence-final le. Here for concreteness I will follow the proposal of Soh & Gao (2006),
which is also elaborated on in Soh (2009):(13)

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

Consider a basic example with le in (14), below. The sentence asserts that the
speaker now likes papaya. In addition, the sentence-final le contributes the presupposition
that the speaker did not like papaya at an immediately prior point.
(14)8Wǒ xǐhūan mùguā le.
(Soh & Gao, 2006)
I
likepapaya LE
Asserts:‘I (now) like papaya.’Presupposes: ‘I did not like papaya in the immediate past.’

Tradition dictates that at this point a footnote state that this sentence-final le is distinct from theverbal suffix le. In all examples here, le is placed after a postverbal object to avoid this confound.

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLESWith this basic semantic description in mind, we now turn to a contrast observedin Soh & Gao (2006) regarding the interpretation of sentence-final le with respect to highand low negation. Examples (15a) and (15b) below differ only in the choice of negation
used, leading to a subtle difference in interpretation: the two express identical assertions
but carry different presuppositions. Note that in terms of linear order, the sentences are
identical in terms of the relative position of negation and sentence-final le.
(15)

SFP le takes scope above bù but below búshì (Soh & Gao, 2006):✓
a. Tā bù xiǎng jiā
le.
le > NEG, *NEG > les/he NEG miss home LE
Asserts:‘S/he does not miss home now.’
Presupposes: ‘S/he did miss home before.’b. Tā búshì xiǎng jiā
le.
*le > NEG, ✓NEG > les/he NEG’ miss home LE
Asserts:‘S/he does not miss home now.’
Presupposes: ‘S/he did not miss home before.’

Soh & Gao (2006) argue that the difference between (15a) and (15b) should bethought of as a difference in scope between negation and le. In example (15a), le takes
scope over negation, and therefore we yield the presupposition that “s/he does not misshome” was false in the immediate past, i.e. that s/he did miss home in the immediate past.
In contrast, in example (15b), negation takes scope over le. The presupposition
introduced by le therefore is that “s/he did miss home” was false in the immediate past,i.e. that s/he did not miss home in the immediate past. This presupposition will thenproject through the higher negation. These assertions and presuppositions can becomputed compositionally as follows:(16)

Semantic interpretations of (15), based on (13):a.
15a= LE(p), where p = NEG(‘s/he misses home’)
Asserts:
p is true now ⇔s/he does not miss home now
Presupposes: in the immediate past, p was false ⇔s/he did miss home immediately beforeb.
15b= NEG(LE(p)), where p = ‘s/he misses home’
Asserts:
NEG(p is true now) ⇔s/he does not miss home now
Presupposes: in the immediate past, p was false ⇔s/he did not miss home immediately before

The contrast between the presuppositions in (15) shows us that sentence-final lemust take scope above the lower negation bù but below the higher negation búshì, andERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLES

parallels the contrast observed with éryǐ in the previous section. These scope relations are
predicted by the proposal put forward here, where SFP1 including le occupies a positionin the extended vP periphery, necessarily above the lower negation bù but below thehigher negation búshì. In contrast, if le were in the CP periphery, we predict it to takescope over both forms of negation.
(17)

Explaining the contrast in (15):[TP … (búshì = NEG’) … [ [vP … (bù = NEG) … VP ] le ] ]a. “... bù ... le ” (15a)èle > NEG
b. “... búshì ... le ” (15b)è
NEG > leLin (2011) observes a similar contrast regarding the scope of le with respect todifferent modals. Consider the following pair of sentences in (18), varying only in the
choice of existential modal: the circumstantial ability modal néng ‘able to’ and theepistemic modal kěnéng ‘may.’9(18)

SFP le takes scope above néng but below kěnéng (Lin, 2011):10✓
a. Zhāng Sān néngqù Táiběi le.
le > ABLE TO, *ABLE TO > leZhang San is able to go Taipei LE✓‘It has become the case that Zhang San is able to go to Taipei.’
Asserts:‘Zhang San is able to go to Taipei.’
Presupposes: ‘ZS was not able to go to Taipei in the immediate past.’* ‘Zhang San is able to have gone to Taipei.’b. Zhāng Sān kěnéng qù Táiběi le.
*le > MAY, ✓MAY > leZhang San may
go Taipei LE* ‘It has become possible that Zhang San goes to Taipei.’✓‘Zhang San may have gone to Taipei.’
Asserts:‘Zhang San may have gone to Taipei.’
Presupposes: ‘Zhang San had not gone to Taipei in the immediate past.’

While le takes scope over the circumstantial modal néng ‘able to’—reflected by
the presupposition introduced by le commenting on the previous inability of Zhang San
to go to Taipei—it takes scope under the epistemic modal kěnéng ‘may.’ Grano (2012:section 5.4.4) argues that both (18a) and (18b) are monoclausal and that this contrast is
best explained by these modals occupying different positions in the clause, with le in a
9

Lin (2011) presents the contrast in (18) as an argument for a finite/non-finite distinction in
Mandarin Chinese, and his characterization of the contrast is more complex. See Lin (2011) for
the details of this view and Grano (2012) for arguments against this approach.
10
One-line translations here are from Lin (2011). The phrasing ‘It has become the case that’ inthe faithful English translation for (18a) reflects le taking scope over the modal.

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLES

structural position above néng and below kěnéng. This accords with the structural
hierarchy of modals observed crosslinguistically: epistemic modals (here, kěnéng) are
structurally higher in the clause, whereas circumstantial modals (here, néng) are
structurally lower in the clause (see Grano, 2012, and references therein).
Grano’s (2012) analysis of this contrast requires that SFP1 such as sentence-final
le occupy a position above some modals such as néng but below others such as kěnéng. If
le were in the CP domain, we would expect it to take scope over all modals and we would
not predict the contrast in (18). In contrast, the correct scope relations for (18) are
predicted by the proposal put forward here, if we analyze the modal néng within thelower (vP) phase and kěnéng above it.11 This is independently motivated by Tsai’s (2012)
work on the cartography of modals in Mandarin Chinese, which identifies ability modals(néng) within vP and epistemic modals (kěnéng) in a higher position in the clause.
(19)

Explaining the contrast in (18):[TP … (kěnéng = MAY) … [ [vP … (néng = ABLE TO) … VP ] le ] ]a. “... néng ... le ” (18a)è
le > ABLE TO
b. “... kěnéng ... le ” (18b)èMAY > le4.3. Summary of motivations
In this section I presented evidence that the items in SFP1 interact scopally withmaterial in the TP. These contrasts support the view that SFP1 (éryǐ, le, etc.) occupies ahead in the extended vP periphery, illustrated schematically in (7), repeated here as (20):(20)

SFP1 scopes over some and under others, supporting the proposal:✓
a. [TP [SFP1P [vP … Op … ] SFP1 ] ]èSFP1 > Op, *Op > SFP1
b. [TP … Op … [SFP1P vP SFP1 ] ]è*SFP1 > Op, ✓Op > SFP1

Having motivated that the low class of sentence-final particles, SFP1, occupy a
position in the extended vP periphery, important questions remain regarding the syntax of
SFPs. Given the overwhelmingly head-initial nature of Mandarin Chinese clausestructure (Huang, 1982; a.o.), why are apparently head-final heads allowed at these
positions—at the edge of the vP periphery (SFP1) and the edge of the CP periphery (SFP2and SFP3)—and not at other positions in the clause? I will explore this question in thenext section.

11

My analysis here relies on this boundary coinciding with a phase boundary, though the precise
label for this phase edge is not crucial for my proposal. Recall that “vP” is used here as a label torefer to the first phase in Mandarin clauses (footnote 5).

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLES

5. SFPs and the Final-Over-Final Constraint
Here I have proposed that the the low class of Mandarin SFPs occupy a positionin the vP periphery and presented evidence from the semantic scope of SFP1 to support
this view. In this section I will discuss some consequences of this proposal.
I follow the common view that Chinese SFPs are head-final heads in the clausal
spine (Lee, 1986; Tang, 1988; Cheng, 1991; Paul, 2014; and references therein). An
alternative would be to analyze SFP as right-adjoining adverbs. However, I believe thisapproach is untenable for three reasons: (a) SFPs are a small, closed class; (b)uncontroversially adjoined adverbs are not linearized on the right in Mandarin clausestructure, except low in the VP (Ernst, 2002); and (c) the items in each of the threeclasses of SFPs are in complementary distribution with other items in their class; i.e. aclause may only have one SFP1 at a time (Paul, 2014; Erlewine, 2010 for éryǐ).
Adjunction should be able to apply recursively, as long as the adjuncts are independently
licensed in the position and they lead to a meaningful semantic interpretation. Given thatthe semantics of various items in SFP1 are compatible with one another, theircomplementary distribution is unexpected under an adverb analysis.
Under the view that they are head-final heads, Chinese SFPs are an anomalous
creature given the otherwise head-initial clause structure of Chinese (Huang, 1982; a.o.).
Moreover, Chinese SFPs would instantiate a cross-linguistically rare configuration withhead-final heads taking head-initial projections as their complements. In fact, thisconfiguration is precisely what is predicted to be impossible under the Final-over-Final
Constraint, a universal constraint on structure building and word order proposed by
Holmberg (2000) and supported by Biberauer, Holmberg, & Roberts (2008) and
Biberauer, Newton, & Sheehan (2009):(21)

The Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC) (Holmberg, 2000):
If α is a head-initial phrase and β is a phrase immediately dominating α, then βmust be head-initial. If α is a head-final phrase, and β is a phrase immediately
dominating α, then β can be head-initial or head-final.

Informally, FOFC allows for the existence of three types of linguistic structure:strictly head-initial (HI), strictly head-final (HF), and mixed structures with head-initialprojections above head-final projections. This is schematized as follows:(22)

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

3
3
;3

3

d. * HF over HI:

3
3
;3

3
3

;3

3
;3

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLESThe effects of FOFC can be observed both across languages and within individual
languages with relatively free word orders. See Biberauer et al (2008, 2009) for examples
supporting FOFC from both synchronic and diachronic grammar.
That Chinese SFPs might counterexemplify the proposed universal FOFC has notgone unnoticed (Biberauer et al, 2008, 2009; Bailey, 2010; Paul, 2014; a.o.). Biberauer etal (2008, 2009) discuss the clause-typing Mandarin SFP2 in this light, and propose that
SFP are not counterexamples to FOFC because they are at a boundary between major
categories (nominal versus verbal). The insight here is that FOFC does not hold acrossstructures of all sizes. For example, consider the German in (23). If the entire tree were
subject to evaluation by FOFC all together, we would predict the structure in (23) to beungrammatical, given the head-final VP that dominates a head-initial DP.
(23)

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

Biberauer et al propose that FOFC should hold only within the spine of extended
projections of the same major category—nominal or verbal—but not across majorcategory boundaries. The grammaticality of the German structure in (23) is therefore dueto the object DP being nominal and therefore categorically distinct from the verbal
projection above it. Discussing the Mandarin clause-typing SFP2, Biberauer et al (2008)
propose that the Mandarin “C is nominal,”12 since CPs can be selected by verbs just as
nominals are. This allows C to select for a head-initial TP, which is an extended verbal
projection, without violating FOFC.
This approach to reconciling Chinese SFPs with FOFC may work for the high,clause-typing SFP2. However, the existence of head-final heads (SFPs) at the vP edge
position, as I have proposed here, is unexpected and problematic for Biberauer et al’s
characterization of FOFC, which is designed specifically to hold across material in boththe vP and CP domains. The existence of SFP at the vP edge has the consequence that
FOFC cannot apply across the entire CP and vP phases together, at least in Chinese.
A possible solution is to adopt a characterization of FOFC that holds only within
individual Spellout domains, as in Richards (2013).13 Consider a dynamic view of phaseboundaries (Bošković, 2013), where the highest head in an extended projection will

12

In Biberauer et al (2009), it is instead stated that Chinese SFPs are “categorically deficient.”
For Richards (2013), this characterization of FOFC limited to Spellout domains follows from aparticular view of the linearization that allows the derivation of head-final heads in some contexts
but not others. I refer the reader to Richards (2013) for details.
13

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLES

behave as the phase head.14 The head SFP1 that I propose is the highest head in the verbal
extended projection, and will therefore act as the phase head of the lower phase of theclause. FOFC holds within each Spellout domain. As the lowest head in its Spellout
domain, SFP1 can be head-final without violating FOFC, even though its complement is ahead-initial projection. Once a head-initial projection is built above it, though, FOFC
ensures that the rest of the Spellout domain above it will stay head-initial.
(24)

The Mandarin clausal spine (hierarchical):phase headê

… [TP T … [SFP1P SFP1
Spellout domain[vP v [VP V …
Spellout domain

In this way, the linearization of SFP1 can be reconciled with a version of FOFC.
What’s more, this Spellout-based characterization of FOFC offers an explanation for why
head-final heads (SFP) can only occur at the vP edge or CP edge in Mandarin Chinese.
However, this proposal that FOFC only applies within individual Spellout
domains has the effect of severely weakening FOFC. Much of the original motivation for
FOFC stemmed from a gap in the possible word orders of heads in both the vP and CP
domains. For example, consider the Finnish wh-question below, originally fromHolmberg (2000). This wh-question allows for various word orders between theauxiliary, V, and O, which correspond to a head-initial or head-final auxiliary and a headinitial or head-final verb. Just one of the four possible orders is unavailable: the FOFCviolating V-O-Aux order.
(25)

14

Word orders in Finnish wh-questions (Biberauer et al, 2008):
a. ✓ Milloin Jussi olisi
kirjoittanut romaanin?
when
Jussi would.have written
novel-DEF‘When would Jussi have written the novel?’b. ✓ Milloin Jussi olisi
romaanin kirjoittanut?
when
Jussi would.have novel-DEF writtenc. ✓ Milloin Jussi romaanin kirjoittanut olisi?
when
Jussi novel-DEF written
would.haved. * Milloin Jussi kirjoittanut romaanin olisi?
when
Jussi written
novel-DEF would.have

Aux-V-O
Aux-O-V
O-V-Aux*V-O-Aux

This dynamic view of phasehood is also independently predicted by the idea that heads in an
extended projection are related by head movement (Shimada, 2007), combined with the idea thatphase boundaries are extended by head movement (Den Dikken, 2007).

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLES

If FOFC holds within the vP Spellout domain and separately within the CP
Spellout domain, FOFC no longer explains this pattern. Richards (p.c.) suggests that thisdifference may lie in the morphological status of v. Richard's (2013) derivation of FOFC
is based on a theory that heads are by default head-initial and become head-final only if
the head is an affix which can then be adjacent to a host. If v is an affix which is linearlyadjacent to a possible host V, v will necessarily stay head-initial, and therefore the effectof FOFC will apply across the entire vP and CP domains. Therefore the apparent
difference between Chinese on the one hand and many other languages on the other hand
may be attributed to a difference in the morphological status of v: the (arguably
unpronounced) v head in Chinese is not an affix, unlike many other languages. I refer thereader to Richards (2013) for more details.
Although not explicitly designed to address FOFC, Hsieh & Sybesma (2011)
similarly analyze SFPs as heads whose complements are Spellout domains.15 For Hsieh& Sybesma, SFPs then invoke complement-to-specifier movement as a symmetrybreaking operation—following Uriagereka (1999), the Spelled-out complement will be asyntactic atom with no internal structure, and therefore will not be linearizable using
Kayne’s LCA without this movement of the complement. Their analysis therefore
predicts head-final heads in the clausal spine—i.e. SFPs—can only occur at phase edges.
Without additional restrictions, Hsieh & Sybesma’s Spellout-based analysis
predicts the existence of SFPs at the vP edge as well as the CP edge. Hsieh & Sybesma
discuss this prediction as a potential problem for their analysis:“A question reviewers have raised has to do with vP, also a phase. On the basis of
our treatment of CP, we expect that with vP, we will also run into symmetry
problems, as soon as a higher functional head (e.g., Asp, T) is merged after it has
been spelled out, with subsequent movement to the spec of this head. The
reviewers raising this important point imply that this never happens.”

Far from being a problem, following the view that SFPs are clausal heads, thisprediction made by the theory of Hsieh & Sybesma (2011) is borne out by the low classof SFPs, such as le, éryǐ, láizhe, etc., which I argue are in the extended vP periphery.
15

The details of Spellout and phasehood in Hsieh & Sybesma (2011) differ from what I presented
here in section 5. Hsieh & Sybesma propose that Spellout targets the entire phase, including thephase head and its specifier, instead of the complement of the phase head as is common in phasetheory. Therefore under their conception, the highest head in the complement of the SFP is aphase head, rather than the SFP itself as described here. Hsieh & Sybesma’s proposal can berestated without difficulty into the terms I present here. The key is to allow the highest head
within an extended projection to be the phase head, as proposed by Bošković (2013). (See also
the footnote 14 above.) This allows us to keep the common conception of Spellout domains as thecomplement of phase heads.

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLES

6. Conclusion
Sentence-final particles (SFPs) have long been a puzzle for Chinese syntax.
Previous approaches have analyzed all SFPs as heads in a head-final split CP. In thispaper I propose that the low class of Mandarin SFP—SFP1: sentence-final le, éryǐ, láizhe,
etc.—occupy a position in the extended vP periphery. Evidence for this view comes fromthe semantic scope of SFP1 with respect to negation and modals: rather than taking scopeover all operators in TP, as would be expected if they were in the extended CP, items in
SFP1 take scope under negations and modals higher in the clause. Such evidence fromsemantic scope sheds light on the position of these items in the structure of the Mandarin
clause, particularly as the linear position of these SFPs does very little to communicate
their structural position.
The sentence-final linear position of Chinese SFPs, in contrast to the otherwise
strictly head-initial clausal spine, has made them notorious as a possible counterexample
to the Final-over-Final Constraint (Biberauer et al, 2008; Bailey, 2010; Paul, 2014; a.o.).
Rather than view SFPs as a challenge to FOFC as a cross-linguistic universal of structurebuilding, I view Mandarin SFPs as an important empirical testing ground for FOFC, inlight of its otherwise broad coverage. The structural distribution of Mandarin SFPs that I
argue for here—with SFPs at both the vP and CP peripheries—can be explained by acharacterization of FOFC which holds only within individual Spellout domains, as inRichards (2013). Because of FOFC, only the heads right above a Spellout domain, e.g.
the phase heads, are able to be linearized on the right (be head-final) while taking a headinitial projection as their complement.
REFERENCES
BAILEY, LAURA R. 2010. Sentential word order and the syntax of question particles. In
Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 16.
BIBERAUER, THERESA, ANDERS HOLMBERG, and IAN ROBERTS. 2008. Structure andlinearization in disharmonic word orders. In Proceedings of WCCFL 26.
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.
BOŠKOVIĆ, ŽELKO. 2013. Now I'm a phase, now I'm not a phase: On the variability ofphases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45.
CHAO, YUEN REN. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California Press.
DEN DIKKEN, MARCEL. 2007. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head
movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33.
ERLEWINE, MICHAEL YOSHITAKA. 2010. Sentence-final only and the interpretation of
focus in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of NACCL-22 & IACL-18. URL
http://naccl.osu.edu/sites/naccl.osu.edu/files/NACCL-22_2_33_erlewine.pdf .

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLESERLEWINE, MICHAEL YOSHITAKA. 2012. Structurally distant haplology. In Snippets 26.
URL http://www.ledonline.it/snippets/allegati/snippets26002.pdf .
ERLEWINE, MICHAEL YOSHITAKA. To appear. Explaining leftward focus association witheven but not only. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18.
ERNST, THOMAS. 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge University Press.
GRANO, THOMAS ANGELO. 2012. Control and restructuring at the syntax-semantics
interface. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago.
HOLMBERG, ANDERS. 2000. Deriving OV order in Finnish. In The Derivation of VO andOV.
HSIEH, FENG-FAN and SYBESMA, RINT P. E. 2011. On the linearization of Chinese
sentence-final particles: Max spell out and why CP moves? Korea Journal of
Chinese Language and Literature.
HSIEH, MIAO-LING. 2001. Form and meaning: negation and question in Chinese. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Southern California.
HU, MINGYANG. 1981. 北京话的语气助词和叹词 (Mood particles and interjections in
the Beijing dialect). Zhongguo Yuwen 5.
HUANG, CHENG-TEH JAMES. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and The Theory ofGrammar. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
LEE, HUN-TAK THOMAS. 1986. Studies on quantification in Chinese. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
LI, BOYA. 2006. Chinese sentence-final particles and the syntax of the periphery.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Leiden.
LIN, TZONG-HONG JONAH. 2006. Complement-to-specifier movement in Mandarin
Chinese. Manuscript, National Tsing Hua University.
LIN, TZONG-HONG JONAH. 2011. Finiteness of clauses and raising of arguments in
Mandarin Chinese. Syntax 14:48–73.
PAUL, WALTRAUD. 2014. Why particles are not particular: sentence-final particles in
Chinese as heads of a split CP. Studia Linguistica 68.
PAUL, WALTRAUD, and JOHN WHITMAN. 2008. Shi... de focus clefts in Mandarin Chinese.
The Linguistic Review 25:413–451.
RICHARDS, NORVIN WALDEMAR III. 2013. Uttering theory. Manuscript, MIT.
RIZZI, LUIGI. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, ed.
Liliane Haegeman. Kluwer.
SHIMADA, JUNRI. 2007. Head-movement, binding theory, and phrase structure.
Manuscript, MIT.
SIMPSON, ANDREW and ZOE WU. 2002. IP-raising, tone sandhi and creation of s-final
particles: evidence from cyclic spell-out. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11:67–
99.
SOH, HOOI LING. 2005. Wh-in-situ in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry 36:143–155.

ERLEWINE: SENTENCE-FINAL PARTICLESSOH, 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.
TANCREDI, CHRIS. 1990. Not only even, but even only. Manuscript, MIT.
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 (Studies on
Chinese morphology and syntax), volume 2. Taipei: Student Book Company.
TSAI, WEI-TIAN DYLAN. 2012. On the topography of Chinese modals. Presented at
Syntactic Cartography: where do we go from here?, University of Geneva.
URIAGEREKA, JUAN. 1999. Multiple Spell-Out. In Working Minimalism, eds. S.D. Epsteinand N. Hornstein, 251-282. Cambridge, MA, 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).
Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue 32-D808
Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
mitcho@mitcho.com