SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES OF COMPLEX SENTENCES
IN MANDARIN CHINESE*
Jonah Lin
National Tsing Hua University

1.

Introduction

This paper analyzes complex sentences in Mandarin Chinese. There are quite a number ofpuzzles associated with the complex sentences in Mandarin Chinese, one of them being theword order problem. It is known that, in English, the word order of a complex sentence withan adverbial clause is quite free; the adverbial clause may precede or succeed the main clause,
as in (1) and (2).
(1)

After John entered the room, Bill turned on the TV.

(2)

Bill turned on the TV after John entered the room.

Mandarin Chinese, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have this option. Typically an adverbial
clause has to precede the main clause. Look at the following examples for illustration (alsosee Tang 1990).
(3)

ZhangsanZhangsan

jinru
enter

fangjian zhihou, Lisi dakai dianshi.
room after
Lisi turn-on TV‘After Zhangsan entered the room, Lisi turned on the TV.’
(4)

*Lisi dakai dianshi,
Lisi turn-on TV

ZhangsanZhangsan

jinru
enter

fangjian zhihou.
room after‘(Intended) Lisi Turned on the TV after Zhangsan entered the room.’
Gasde and Paul (1996: 272) comments: “The order in a Chinese complex sentence is always‘adjunct clause – main clause’, a fact well established in the literature.” Unfortunately,
however, there have been very few works that deal with the complex sentences in Mandarin
from a generative perspective. This paper attempts to fill the gap, providing analyses ofvarious kinds of complex sentences. It is shown that the complex sentences in Mandarin
Chinese are predominantly of the “left-adjunction” structure, namely the structure in which aclause adjoins to another clause from the left. Sometimes conjunction structures are found,*

I am grateful to Barry Yang, Louis Liu, Tim Chou, and Grace Kuo for comments and suggestions.
All errors are mine. This paper is partially supported by the project NSC 94-2411-H-007-022, National
Science Council, Taiwan.

- 63 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

but none of the constructions that we examine employs “right adjunction” structures. Thisphenomenon, in fact, is part of a larger generalization that I call the “left proliferation” of thephrase structures in Chinese, which states that there is no right adjunction in Mandarin
Chinese syntax.
In what follows we will discuss the following complex sentence:• The conditional constructions.
• The telic construction.
• The reason construction.
• The concessive construction.
• The ‘unless’-‘otherwise’ construction.
Each of these constructions, in fact, deserves an individual paper, thus this paper does notpretend to be exhaustive and all covering. Instead, this paper focuses on the phrase-structural
aspects of these constructions and certain related questions, with the hope to shed more lighton the structure building of natural language.
Each of the following sections will deal with a particular construction. The last section isthe concluding remarks, in which we will speculate on certain theoretical consequences that
follow from the analyses of this paper.
2.

The Conditional Constructions

We start with the conditionals in Mandarin Chinese. We will discuss three conditional
constructions in this section: the jiu-conditional, the modal conditional, and the caiconditional.
2.1. The Jiu-Conditional
A typical conditional sentence in Mandarin Chinese looks like (5), in which the element
ruguo ‘if’ occurs in the antecedent clause, and the element jiu ‘then’ occurs in the consequentclause.
(5)

Ruguo Zhangsan
ifZhangsan

lai,
come,

Lisi
Lisi

jiu
then

lai.
come

‘If Zhangsan comes, Lisi [will] come.’
There are other elements that have the meaning ‘if’, and they can replace ruguo ‘if’ in (5):(6)

Tangruoif/ yaoshiif/ruoshiif

ZhangsanZhangsan‘If Zhangsan comes, Lisi [will] come.’- 64 -

lai,
come,

Lisi
Lisi

jiu
then

lai.
come

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)

The morpheme ruguo / tangruo / yaoshi / ruoshi (all meaning ‘if’) doesn’t have to occur inthe initial position of the antecedent clause; they may occur between the subject and thepredicate of the antecedent clause.
(7)

ZhangsanZhangsantangruoif/yaoshiif/ruoshi
if

lai,
come,

Lisi
Lisi

jiu
then

lai.
come

‘If Zhangsan comes, Lisi [will] come.’
In Mandarin Chinese, a conditional can be formed with the morpheme de-hua (which may
also be glossed ‘if’) appended to the end of the antecedent clause, as in (8). The morphemede-hua may co-occur with those words meaning ‘if’ (which may occur in the initial position
or between the subject and predicate of the antecedent clause). See (9).
(8)

ZhangsanZhangsan

lai
come,

de-hua,
if

Lisi
Lisi

jiu
then

lai.
come

‘If Zhangsan comes, Lisi [will] come.’(9)

Ruguo / tangruo /
if
if
Lisi
jiu
lai.
Lisi
then
come

yaoshiif

ZhangsanZhangsanlai
comede-hua,if‘If Zhangsan comes, Lisi [will] come.’
Note that the element jiu ‘then’ occurs in all the conditional sentences above. In fact, theoccurrence of the element jiu suffices to make a (complex) sentence conditional, as in (10).
(10)

ZhangsanZhangsan

lai,
come,

Lisi
Lisi

jiu
then

lai.
come

‘[If] Zhangsan comes, Lisi [will] come.’
What is more, if all those elements meaning ‘if’ occur but jiu doesn’t, the sentence isungrammatical, as in (16-19).
(11)*Ruguoif/tangruo
if

/

(12)

*Zhangsan
Zhangsan(13)*Ruguo /tangruo
if
if
Lisi
lai.
Lisi
come

yaoshi
if

lai
come

de-hua,
if

Lisi
Lisi

/

ZhangsanZhangsanyaoshiif

ZhangsanZhangsan- 65 -

lai,
come

Lisi
Lisi

lai.
come
lai
come

de-hua,
if

lai.
come

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

Of course, if none of these morphemes occurs, the sentence is ungrammatical (that is, thesentence doesn’t make a legitimate conditional).
(14)*Zhangsan
Zhangsan

lai,
come,

Lisi
Lisi

lai.
come

In view of the crucial role of the element jiu ‘then’, we propose that jiu is the realconditional morpheme. The antecedent clause itself is a syntactic adjunct. All thosemorphemes meaning ‘if’ are not real conditional operator; they are just adverbial elements
freely adjoined to the antecedent clause. We call conditional sentences licensed by jiu the jiuconditionals. The jiu-conditional can be analyzed as in (15).
(15)

CP
C’
C
IP
IP
CP
Subj

I’
jiu

I’
I

VP

The antecedent clause

The consequence clause
We need to provide syntactic evidence to show that the antecedent clause in the jiuconditional is indeed a syntactic adjunct. In what follows we will use two tests to show the
adjuncthood of a clausal structure.
The first test is to see if a clause may contain a wide-scoped A-not-A operator. A Chinese
sentence can be turned into a yes-no question by having its verb changed to an “A-not-A”
form. See the following examples:(16)

ZhangsanZhangsanxihuan Lisi.
like
Lisi

‘Zhangsan likes Lisi.’- 66 -

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)

(17)

ZhangsanZhangsanxi-bu-xihuan
like-not-like

Lisi?
Lisi

‘Does Zhangsan like Lisi?’
In (17) the first syllable of the verb xihuan ‘like’ is reduplicated, and the negation bu ‘not’ isinserted between the reduplicated part and the base form of the verb. The resulting form has
the meaning of ‘like or not like’. Huang (1982) postulates an I0-level question operator, called
the A-not-A operator, to handle this phenomenon. Morphologically, the A-not-A operator
incorporates with the verb of the sentence and converts it into the A-not-A form as in (17).
Syntactically and semantically, the A-not-A operator moves to CP Spec in LF and make thesentence a yes-no question. Of special interest to us is that the movement of the A-not-A
operator is subject to the general locality constraints. For example, the A-not-A operator in(18) can assume the sentential scope even though it is base-generated in the embedded clause,
but the A-not-A operator in (19) and (20) cannot assume the sentential scope, because it
occurs in a relative clause ((19)) and a sentential subject ((20)), both being syntactic adjuncts.
The CED (Huang 1982) is violated when the A-not-A operator moves to the matrix CP Specin LF.
(18)

ZhangsanZhangsanrenwei [Lisi
think
Lisi

xi-bu-xihuan
like-not-likeAmei]?
Amei‘Does Lisi like Amei—what does Zhangsan think?’
(19)

(20)

*Zhangsan
Zhangsanrenshi
know

[Lisi
Lisi

*[Zhangsan
Zhangsanxi-bu-xihuan
like-not-like

xi-bu-xihuan
like-not-like
Lisi]
Lisi

e de]
MOD

nage
that

ren?
persondui dajia
to everyone

zui
most

hao?
good

Now, if a clause cannot take a wide-scoped A-not-A operator, we may conclude that theclause is a syntactic adjunct, as the extraction of the A-not-A operator violates the CED.
The second test is the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC) effect. Though the CSC
was proposed as an island to syntactic movement, we find that it also affects dependencies
other than syntactic movement. In Mandarin Chinese topicalization doesn’t have to besyntactic movement; it can be licensed by an empty resumptive pronoun. Now the gist is that,
topicalization out of a conjunct is ungrammatical:1
1

If (22) is re-parsed in the following way, the sentence become grammatical:(i)[Naweithatjiaoshou, xueshengprofessor student

xihuanlikee ], dan laoshi
but teacher

taoyanhate

xiaozhang].
principal‘[That professor, the students like [him]]; but the teachers late the principal.’But this is no more topicalization out of a conjunct. We need to separate the two structures. This
caution also applies to other complex sentences that we will discuss later.

- 67 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

(21)

Xuesheng
student

xihuan nawei
like
that

jiaoshou,professor

dan laoshi taoyan xiaozhang.
but teacher hates
principal‘The students like that professor, but the teachers hate the principal.’(22)*Naweithatjiaoshou,professor[xuesheng
student

xihuan elikedan laoshi taoyan xiaozhang].
but teacher hateprincipal

The ungrammaticality of (22) is the result of the CSC effect.2 Notice that the across-theboard effect can be seen as well: if the topicalized element finds a gap in both of the conjuncts,
the sentence is acceptable.
(23)

Nawei
that

jiaoshou,professor[xuesheng
student

xihuan elikedan laoshi taoyan e].
but teacher hate‘That professor, the students like [him] but the teachers hate [him].’
Remarkably, the CSC effect doesn’t show up in adjunction structures:
(24)

Naben
that

shu,
book

[[Zhangsan mai
Zhangsabuy

e de-shihou]
when

Lisi
Lisi

bu zai jia].
not at home‘That book, when Zhangsan bought [it] Lisi wasn’t home.’
So, we conclude that if a complex sentence permits topicalization out of one of its clauses, thecomplex sentence must have an adjunction structure.3
Now we return to the jiu-conditional. We find that the antecedent clause of the jiuconditional cannot take the A-not-A operator.

2

The consensus among syntacticians has been that the CSC has no effect on non-movement
dependencies such as binding. However, there has been no discussion on the effect of the CSC on thecontrol of the empty resumptive pronouns. See Lin (2002) (among others) for a general discussion on
the CSC effect. It seems that the canonical kind of control submits to the CSC effect. For example, (i)is significantly better than (ii):(i)

John wants [{Bill to leave} and [Mary to stay]].

(ii)*John wants [[Bill to leave] and [PRO to stay]].

The across-the-board effect is also attested:(iii)

John wants [[PRO to stay] and [PRO assert himself]].

3

In what follows these two tests will be frequently employed. But a caution word is needed. The
grammatical judgments resulting from these tests sometimes are relative but not categorical; what we
intend to show is the contrast. We do not claim that all grammatical examples are grammatical in theabsolute sense. However, as long as the contrast is clear, the point made should be considered valid.

- 68 -

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)

(25)*(Ruguo)if

ZhangsanZhangsanmai-bu-mai shu,buy-not-buy book,Lisi jiu
Lisi thenqu xuexiao?
go school

On the other hand, the consequent clause of the jiu-conditional can take the A-not-A operator.
(26)(Ruguo)if

ZhangsanZhangsanmai shu, Lisi jiu
buy book, Lisi thenqu-bu-qugo-not-go

xuexiao?
school‘Is Lisi going to school if Zhangsan buy or doesn’t buy the book?’
There doesn’t seem to be any semantic factor that would independently block the A-not-A
operator in the antecedent clause of the jiu-conditional—the question would be asking whichanswer is the prerequisite for the fulfillment of the consequent clause. Thus theungrammaticality of (25) results from syntactic islandhood of the antecedent clause, and thisindicates that the antecedent clause of the jiu-conditional is an adjunct.
The CSC effect also shows that the jiu-conditional involves an adjunction structure. Lookat the following example.
(27)

Naben
that
Lisi
Lisi

shu,
book,
jiu
then

wo renwei [(ruguo) Zhangsan
I thinkif
Zhangsanfu qian].
pay money

mai
buy

e,

‘That book, I think if Zhangsan buys [it], Lisi [will] pay the money.’
In conclusion, the jiu conditional in Mandarin Chinese is an adjunction structure, as theanalysis in (15).
The jiu-conditional in Mandarin Chinese is very different from the English conditional.
In the English conditional the morpheme if makes a (complex) sentence a conditional. Clearly
the conditional force comes exclusively from if, but not some other element, such as then(though then may contribute specific semantics to the conditional; see Iatridou (1994)).
(28)

If John enters the room, Bill will turn on the TV.

(29)*John enters the room, then Bill will turn on the TV.

Cheng and Huang (1996) may have been partially influenced by the function of the English if
when they suggest that a conditional in Chinese with jiu only is a “reduced conditional.” They
also suggest that in such sentences a phonetically null (conditional) necessity operator occurs
in the sentence providing the conditional force. Their proposal accounts for the “donkey
sentences” in Mandarin Chinese in which two wh-elements occur in a sentence (one in theantecedent clause and the other in the consequence clause) serving as bound variables (alsosee Lin (1996) and Chierchia (2000) for further discussion).

- 69 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

(30)

ZhangsanZhangsanzanmei shei,
admire who

Lisi
Lisi

jiu
then

zanmei shei.
admire who‘Lisi admires whoever Zhangsan likes.’
But Cheng and Huang’s analysis may be problematic in some aspects. For example, Cheng
and Huang argue that the ruguo ‘if’ conditional and the “bare” conditional (i.e. conditional
sentences with wh-variable that may optionally take jiu) exhibit different properties. (30) is an
examples of the bare conditional. In a ruguo ‘if’ conditional, the consequent clause cannot
take a wh-variable; it must take a definite description or a pronominal anaphoric to the whvariable in the antecedent clause.
(31)

Ruguo
if
Lisi
Lisi

Zhangsanzanmei shei,
Zhangsanadmire who
jiu
xihuan *shei/
thenzanmei who

nage
that

ren
/
personta
him‘If Zhangsan admires someone, Lisi [will] admire that person / him.’
However, on our analysis, the ruguo ‘if’ conditional and the bare conditional with jiu are notsubstantially different. The real conditional operator is jiu, and ruguo ‘if’ is just an adverbial
element freely hinged on the antecedent clause. As a consequence the analysis of this paper isincompatible with Cheng and Huang’s theory, since the difference between these two kinds ofconditional is crucial to their analysis.
This question deserves a different article and we will leave the relevant questions aside.
Here we will simply note that, as a matter of fact, it doesn’t seem to be the case that ruguo ‘if’is never compatible with a wh-variable in the consequent clause. One only needs to check
Google to find examples like the following one:4(32)

Ruguo sheiifwho

chi-leta,
eat-PERF it

shei
who

jiu
then

hui biencheng gaolicai.
will becomecabbage‘Whoever eats it will become a cabbage.’This kind of examples, don’t necessarily invalidate Cheng and Huang’s theory, but theabundance of sentences like (32) somehow needs explanation. Cheng and Huang argue that in
the ruguo ‘if’ conditional, situations are quantified over, and in the wh donkey sentence, thewh-variables are bound (see Chierchia (2000) for detailed discussion). These two seem to becomplementary to each other. Is it possible that these two ways of quantification/binding are
simultaneously performed in sentences like (32)? At this point we are not sure, though wesuspect that one might be able to get something along this approach. We will leave thequestions to future investigation.

4

From http://www.ylib.com/kids/inf02-LB.asp.

- 70 -

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)2.2. The Modal Conditional
Sometimes a conditional sentence in Chinese doesn’t need jiu; a modal suffices.
(33)

ZhangsanZhangsan

mai
buy

shu,
book

Lisi
Lisi

hui fuwill pay

qian.
money

‘[If] Zhangsan buys books, Lisi will pay the money.’In the modal conditional, the modal can be an epistemic modal or a deontic modal, as in (34)and (35). The modal element doesn’t have to be a syntactic modal; it can be a modal adverbial,
as in (36).
(34)

ZhangsanZhangsanmai shu,buy book

Lisi yinggai /Lisi should

bishü
must

/ keneng fu
may
pay

qian.
money

‘[If] Zhangsan buys books, Lisi should / must / may pay the money.’(35)

ZhangsanZhangsanmai shu,buy book

Lisi nenggou
Lisi can/ keyimay/ yuanyi
fu qian.
be-willing pay money‘[If] Zhangsan buys books, Lisi can / may / is willing to pay the money’(36)

ZhangsanZhangsanmai shu,buy book

Lisi
Lisi

juedui/ biding
absolutely definitely

fu qian.
pay money‘[If] Zhangsan buys books, Lisi absolutely / definitely [will] pay the money’
The modal conditional can optionally take those morphemes meaning ‘if’, as in the case of the
jiu-conditional.
(37)

Ruguo Zhangsan
ifZhangsanmai shubuy bookde-hua, Lisi
if
Lisi

hui fu qian.
will pay money‘If Zhangsan buys books, Lisi will pay the money.’
It is easy to see why modal elements license conditionals. Modals and conditionals have
universal force. In modal constructions, the modal base—namely the kind of possible worlds
quantified over—restricts the universal quantification; in conditionals, the antecedent clauseprovides the restriction (see Kratzer (1986); but see Higginbotham (2003)). Thus it is naturalthat a modal element licenses a conditional.
The modal conditional, again, involves left adjunction. Empirical evidence supports thisclaim. The antecedent clause of the modal conditional cannot take the A-not-A operator, but
the consequence clause can.
(38)*(Ruguo) Zhangsan
ifZhangsanmai-bu-mai shu,buy-not-buy book- 71 -

Lisi
Lisi

bidingdefinitely

fu qian?
pay money

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

(39)

(Ruguo) Zhangsan
ifZhangsanmai shu,buy book

Lisi
Lisi

bidingdefinitely

fu-bu-fu
qian?
pay-not-pay money‘If Zhangsan buys books, then, will Lisi pay the money or not?’
The CSC effect also shows that the modal conditional has an adjunction structure, since
topicalization out of the antecedent clause is acceptable.
(40)

Naben
that
Lisi
Lisi

shu,
wo renwei [ruguo Zhangsan
book
I thinkif
Zhangsanbidingfu qian].
definitely
pay money

mai
buy

e,

‘That book, I think if Zhangsan buys [it], Lisi definitely [will] pay the money.’
Modal conditionals can support the wh donkey sentences as well, though only those witha necessity modal adverbial can do so; see (41). If the modal element is a syntactic modal,
then jiu must be inserted; see (42).
(41)

Shei
who

bu yonggong,
not work-hard

shei
who

bidingdefinitely

bei dang.
get flunk‘Whoever doesn’t work hard [will] definitely be flunked.’
(42)

Shei
who

bu yonggong,
not work-hard

shei
who

*(jiu)
then

hui
will

bei dang.
get flunk‘Whoever doesn’t work hard will be flunked.’
At this point we have no explanation as to why there is such a distinction. We will leave therelevant questions to future research.
2.3.

The Cai Conditional

The element cai, which means ‘just’, ‘only when’ or ‘only if’, can license a conditionaltoo, just like jiu. See the following examples.
(43)

ZhangsanZhangsanqu, Lisi
go Lisicaiqu.
only-if go‘Lisi [will] go only if Zhangsan goes.’
The cai-conditional can take those elements meaning ‘if’, though, again, they are optional.
(44)

Ruguo Zhangsan
ifZhangsanqu de-hua, Lisi
go if
Lisi

‘Lisi [will] go only if Zhangsan goes.’- 72 -

caiqu.
only-if goSyntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)Cai and jiu have a number of uses other than marking conditionals; see Lai (1999). Simply
put, both cai and jiu presuppose a change of state of the truth value of a proposition; caimarks that the asserted value of change is “farther up” than the expected value, while jiu
marks that the asserted change of value is “farther down” than the expected value (Lai 1999).
See the examples below.
(45)

(46)

Xianzai cai sannowjust threedian.
o’clock‘It’s just three o’clock now.’(Implication: It is still early.)

Zeme
this

dian!
o’clock

kuai
fast

jiu
then

san
three

‘It’s three o’clock—so fast!’(Implication: It is later than expected.)

Used as conditional markers, cai marks the necessary condition, and jiu marks the sufficientcondition.
(47)

ZhangsanZhangsan

lai,
come

Lisi
Lisi

jiu
then

lai.
come

‘If Zhangsan comes, Lisi [will] come.’(Implication: Zhangsan’s coming suffices to bring about Lisi’s coming.)(48)

ZhangsanZhangsan

lai,
come

Lisi
Lisi

cai
lai.
only-if come

‘Only if Zhangsan comes will Lisi come.’(Implication: Only if Zhangsan comes is there a possibility of Lisi’s coming.)
The syntax of the cai-conditional, again, involves left-adjunction of the antecedent clauseto the consequent clause, exactly as the structure (15). The consequent clause is the mainclause of the construction. The tests of the A-not-A operator and the CSC effect confirm thisanalysis.
(49)*(Ruguo) Zhangsan
ifZhangsanmai-bu-mai shu,buy-not-buy book

Lisi
Lisi

(50)

(Ruguo) Zhangsan
ifZhangsanmai shu,buy bookcai
fu-bu-fuqian?
only-if pay-not-pay money

Lisi
Lisi

cai
fu qian?
only-if pay money‘If Zhangsan buys books, then, will Lisi pay the money or not?’- 73 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

(51)

Naben
that
Lisi
Lisi

shu,
book
cai
only-if

wo tingshuo
I heardfu qian].
pay money[ruguo Zhangsan
ifZhangsan

mai
buy

e,

‘That book, I heard that only if Zhangsa buys [it] [will] Lisi pays the money.’
Conclusion: All the three types of conditionals have the consequent clause as the major
constituent of the construction. The antecedent clause is licensed by some element in theconsequent clause. The conditional constructions in Mandarin Chinese, therefore, cruciallydepend on left-adjunction of the antecedent clause.
3.

The Telic Constructions

As we said above, the elements cai and jiu have a number of uses in Chinese sentences.
However, there is a special use of cai which has not received specific analysis in the literature.
We call this use of cai the “telic” use, because it resembles the telic result clause in English(see Whelpton (1995)). Look at the following example for illustration (in this example, cai is
glossed as ‘only’.)(52)

Zhangsanmai-leyiben xiaoshuo,
Zhangsanbuy-PERF
one
novel
cai
faxian ta taitai
bu xihuan wenxue.
only
find
his wife
not like
literature‘Zhangsan bought a novel, only to find that his wife doesn’t like literature.’

This construction is of interest for two reasons. First, though it resembles the cai-conditionalin form, it is not a conditional. Both clauses are meant to denote real events, and the second
clause (henceforth the cai-clause) denotes certain consequence or result following the event
denoted by the first clause. Second, though this construction looks as if the first clause is themain clause and the cai-clause an appendix (as the English gloss might suggest), thisconstruction, in fact, involves left adjunction of the first clause to the cai-clause, exactly thesame as the conditionals discussed in the previous section.
The cai-clause can have an overt subject of its own. This indicates that the cai-clause is afull-fledged clause.
(53)

Zhangsanmai-leZhangsanbuy-PERF
Lisi
cai
faxian
Lisi
only
find

yiben xiaoshuo,
one
novel
ta taitai
bu xihuan wenxue.
his wife
not like
literature‘Only after Zhangsan bought a novel did Lisi find that his wife doesn’t likeliterature.’- 74 -

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)

Furthermore, the first clause can be appended with the temporal adverbial marker zhihou‘after’. This indicates straightforwardly that the first clause of this construction is an adjunct.
(54)

ZhangsanZhangsanmai-lebuy-PERF(Lisi)
Lisi

cai
only

yiben
one

faxianfind

xiaoshuonovelta taitai
his wife

zhihou,after
bu xihuan wenxue.
not like
literature‘Only after Zhangsan bought a novel did he / Lisi find that his wife doesn’t likeliterature.’
All this confirms our claim: the first clause of the telic construction is an adverbial clauseadjoined to the cai-clause, as follows.
(55)

CP
C’
C

IP
IP

CP

pro

I’

Lisi
ZS mai-le yiben xiaoshuo (zhihou)‘(After) Zhangsan bought a novel’

cai faxian ta taitai bu xihuan wenxue‘only find his wife didn’t like literature’Jiu also has such telic use. However, in the case of jiu, the adverbial marker cannot be
dispensed with. only
(56)

Zhangsanmainaben xiaoshuo*(zhiqian),Zhangsan
buy
that
novel
before(Lisi) jiu
zhidao ta taitai
bu xihuan wenxue.
Lisi
then
know his wife
not like
literature‘Before Zhangsan bought that novel, he / Lisi [already] knew that his wife doesn’tlike literature.’

In addition to zhiqian ‘after’ in (56) some other marker can be used as well, like zhihou ‘after’,de-shihou ‘when’, or yi ‘as soon as’. We will not go into the detailed phenomena of thisconstruction. Our point is clear, however. In the telic construction, left adjunction is involved.
The right clause is the main clause of the construction.

- 75 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

4.

The Reason Constructions

4.1. Two Sentence Connectors in One Complex Sentence
In this section we discuss the reason construction in Mandarin Chinese, namely thosesentences introduced by yinwei ‘because’ and suoyi ’so’. The interesting point about thisconstruction is that Mandarin Chinese permits the following kind of sentence.
(57)

Yinwei Zhangsan
because Zhangsan

mai
buy

shu,
book

suoyi
so

Lisi
Lisi

fu qian.
pay money‘Because Zhangsan buys books, Lisi pays the money.’ or‘Zhangsan buys books, so Lisi pays the money.’
Notice that the “sentence connectors” yinwei ‘because’ and suoyi ‘so’ occur in one and thesame (complex) sentence. Taiwanese students are most likely influenced by such sentences
when they produce erroneous English sentences like:(58)*Because John entered the room, so Bill turned on the TV.

This is, of course, an ungrammatical English sentence, because the sentence connectors
because and so are both conjunctions. A conjunction is a dyadic operator that takes twoarguments, in the present case two propositions. The appearance of because excludes so, andvice versa.
As yinwei ‘because’ and suoyi ‘so’ can occur in one and the same (complex) sentence,
they cannot be genuine conjunctions. So, what are they?
Consider the following paradigm.
(59)

Yinwei Zhangsan
because Zhangsan

qu Taipei, suoyi
go Taipei solaoshiteachjintian
today

yao
want

kaoshi.
exam‘Zhangsan goes to Taipei, so the teacher is going to give an exam today.’(60)

ZhangsanZhangsanqu Taipei, suoyi
go Taipei solaoshiteachjintian
today

yao
want

kaoshi.
exam‘Zhangsan goes to Taipei, so the teacher is going to give an exam today.’(61)

Yinwei Zhangsan
because Zhangsan

qu Taipei, laoshi
go Taipei teachjintian
today

yao
want

kaoshi.
exam‘Zhangsan goes to Taipei, so the teacher is going to give an exam today.’(62)*Zhangsan
Zhangsanqu Taipei, laoshi
go Taipei teachjintiantoday- 76 -

yao
wantkaoshi.
exam

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)

Either yinwei ‘because’ or suoyi ‘so’ suffices to make a (complex) sentence a reason
construction; only when both elements are gone is the sentence unacceptable (namely, not alegitimate reason construction anymore).
Yinwei ‘because’ may also occur in the second clause of the construction.5(63)

Laoshi jintian
teach today

yao
want

kaoshi, yinwei Zhangsan
examin because Zhangsan

qu Taipei,
go Taipei‘The teacher is going to give an exam today, because Zhangsan goes to Taipei.’
Now the real intriguing thing about this construction is that the second clause seems to bealways the main clause, and the first clause is an adjunct. First, in the yinwei A suoyi B
construction, the first clause cannot take the A-not-A operator, but the second clause can.
(64)

*Yinwei Zhangsan
qu-bu-qubecause Zhangsan
go-not-go
suoyi
laoshi jintian yaosoteachtoday want

(65)

Yinwei
ZhangsanbecauseZhangsansuoyilaoshi jintian
so
teach
today

Taipei,Taipeikaoshi?
exam

qu Taipei,
go Taipei
yao-bu-yao
want-not-wantkaoshi?
exam‘Because Zhangsan goes to Taipei – is the teacher going to give an exam today?’Also, the test of the CSC effect shows that the two clauses of the yinwei A suoyi B
construction involves adjunction rather than conjunction.
(66)

Naben
that
suoyi
so

shu,
book
Lisi
Lisi

wo tingshuo[(yinwei)
I heard
becausehen
bu gaoxing]very
not happy

ZhangsanZhangsanmai-lee,buy-PERF‘That book, I heard that [because Zhangsa bought [it], Lisi is is not pleased].’Second, in the B yinwei A construction, the first clause appears to be an adjunct as well.

5

Suoyi ‘so’ can precede yinwei ‘because’ only when it occurs in an embedded context, as in (i), where
the clause that suoyi ‘so’ occurs in is the sentential subject of the copula shi ‘be’.
(i)

ZhangsanZhangsansuoyi
soqu Taipei,
go Taipei

shi yinwei laoshi
be because teacher

yao
want

kaoshiexam‘That Zhangsan goes to Taipei is because the teacher is going to give an exam.’
We will not go into this type of construction in this paper.

- 77 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

(67)

*Laoshi
teach

(68)

Laoshiteachjintian yao-bu-yao
today want-not-wantjintian yao
today wantkaoshi.
yinwei Zhangsa
examination because Zhangsan

kaoshi.
yinwei Zhangsan
examination because Zhangsan

qu Taipei?
go Taipei

qu-bu-qugo-not-go

Taipei?
Taipei‘The teacher is going to give an exam today—is it because Zhangsan goes to Taipei
or because he doesn’t go to Taipei?’(69)

Naben shu,
that
book
yinwei Lisi
because Lisi

wo tingshuo[Zhangsan
I heardZhangsanhenbu gaoxing].
very
not happy

mai-lee,buy-PERF‘That book, I heard that [Zhangsan bought [it], because Lisi is not pleased.]’
These phenomena indicate that yinwei ‘because’ and suoyi ‘so’ are not conjunctions. They
license a syntactic adjunct. The syntactic adjunct, furthermore, always adjoins from the left,
and the clause at the right is always the major constituent of the construction, regardlesswhich “sentence connector” is used.
4.2. The Analysis
What are yinwei ‘because’ and suoyi ‘so’? There have been two analyses in literature,Tang (1990) and Gasde and Paul (1996).
(70)

Tang (1990: 122)
CP
C’
CP

C’
C

yinwei…

IP

suoyi- 78 -

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)

(71)

Gasde and Paul (1996: 271)
C’
C0

TopP
Adjunct clause

Top’
Top0

IP

yinwei…
suoyi…
Both analyses regard the yinwei-clause as some sort of adjunct; this agrees with the evidence
presented above. However, the two analyses have different treatments on the morphemes
yinwei ‘because’ and suoyi ‘so’. In Tang (1990), yinwei ‘because’ and suoyi ‘so’ are bothanalyzed as complementizers; on the other hand, Gasde and Paul (1996) consider yinwei‘because’ a conjunction and suoyi ‘so’ an adverb. The reason to treat yinwei ‘because’ as aconjunction, according to Gasde and Paul (1996), is that yinwei ‘because’ may occur between
the subject and the predicate of the yinwei-clause, as in the following example.
(72)

Ta yinwei yao
he because want

mai
buy

fangzi, suoyi …
house so‘Because he plans to buy a house, …’
Gasde and Paul suggest that yinwei ‘because’, as a conjunction, takes the reason-clause as its
complement conjunct. Yinwei ‘because’ occurs between the subject and the predicate in (72)because the subject argument of the reason clause raises to the specifier of the conjunction
phrase. (73) is a finer representation of Gasde and Paul’s analysis (adapted from (22), Gasde
and Paul 1996: 273).

- 79 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

(73)

C’
C0

TopP
ConjP

Top’
SPEC
tai
he

Top0

Conj’
CONJ0

IP

IP
suoyi…

yinwei‘because’
ti

yao

mai

fangzi

want

buy

house

But this analysis is problematic. The reason expression that yinwei ‘because’ introduces canbe a clause, but it can also be a nominal. When yinwei ‘because’ takes a nominal, it can still
occur between the subject and the predicate.
(74)

Yinwei najian
because that

shi,
event

ZhangsanZhangsanbu neng
not canlai.
come‘Because [of] that event, Zhangsan cannot come.’(75)

ZhangsanZhangsanyinwei najian
because that

shi
event

bu neng
not canlai.
come‘Zhangsan cannot come because [of] that event.’
Sentences like (75) doesn’t seem likely to involve raising of any kind from within the nominal
najian shi ‘that event’. Further evidence against Gasde and Paul’s analysis comes from suoyi‘so’. Suoyi ‘so’ may appear when yinwei ‘because’ occurs between the subject and thepredicate, but in that case the suoyi-clause cannot take an independent subject.
(76)

Zhangsanyinwei [najian shi] / [ e yao
Zhangsanbecause that
event
want
suoyi
bu nenglai.
so
not cancome

hui jia ]go home‘Zhangsan cannot come because [[of] that event] / [[he] plans to go home.’- 80 -

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)(77)

*Zhangsan
yinwei [najian
Zhangsanbecause that
suoyi
Lisi
bu nengso
Lisi
not canshi] / [ e yao
event
want
lai.
come

hui jia ]go homeIf the yinwei-clause is a ConjP, why would a raising movement internal to this ConjP affects
the subject-taking ability of the clause introduced by suoyi ‘so’, which is presumably an
independent clause under Gasde and Paul’s analysis? In conclusion, Gasde and Paul’sanalysis doesn’t seem to be on the right track.
All these phenomena, we believe, indicate that yinwei is an adverbial marker that takes aclause or a nominal as complement, similar to for in English. So yinwei has a dual status: it
can be a preposition or a complementizer, depending on its complement.6 It heads anadverbial phrase, which adjoins to the main clause of the construction. The adjunction site canbe either IP (when the yinwei-expression occurs in the initial position of the sentence) or I’(when the yinwei-expression occurs between the subject and the predicate). This analysis
accounts for the two problems that we raised against Gasde and Paul’s analysis. First, there is
no raising in the first palce, so there is no problem when yinwei ‘because’ takes a nominal ascomplement. Second, (77) is ungrammatical because the yinwei-expression is adjoined
between the subject and the predicate of the main clause, and, consequently, Lisi becomes anunlicensed subject.
In the B yinwei A construction, yinwei is a complementizer. It semantically licenses a
result clause, namely B. In the yinwei A (suoyi) B construction, (suoyi) B provides therequired result. This licensing is semantic in nature, because this licensing does not determine
the syntactic structure, nor is it determined by the syntactic structure.
Notice that in the B yinwei A construction yinwei ‘because’ has to be a complementizer,
not a preposition, because in this construction A is the main clause of the construction, and anominal cannot be the main clause of a construction. A piece of evidence is that in the B

6

Sometimes the yinwei-clause behave as an independent conjunct in a conjunction structure:(i)

ZhangsanZhangsanbu hui [[yinwei
not will because

meiyouhaven-notluqu ]
admitteder [buand not

kaixin] ]happy‘Zhangsan will not [feel unhappy for not being admitted].’This kind of example has certain restriction, though. For instance, subject extraction seems to be arequired condition for the conjunctive yinwei-clause.
(ii)

ZhangsanZhangsanyinwei hen
because very

youqian, er bu yuanyi
rich
and not willing

zuo
take

gongche.
bus‘Zhangsan doesn’t want to take a bus because he is rich.’(iii)*YinweibecauseZhangsanZhangsanhen youqian, er Lisi bu yuanyi
ery richand Lisi not willing

zuo gongche.
take bus‘(Intended) Lisi doesn’t want to take a bus because Zhangsan is rich.’- 81 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

yinwei A construction, the position of yinwei ‘because’ is fixed. This is what we expect of acomplementizer.
(78)

ZhangsanZhangsanbu neng
not canlai,
comeyinwei Lisi
becaue Lisiqu Taipei.
go Taipei‘Zhangsan cannot come, because Lisi goes to Taipei.’(79)*Zhangsan
Zhangsanbu neng
not can

lai,
come

Lisi
Lisi

yinwei qu Taipei.
becaue go Taipei

Only in the yinwei A (suoyi) B construction can yinwei ‘because’ occur between the subject
and the predicate, since in that case the yinwei-expression as a whole is an adjunct, adjoined
between the subject and the predicate of the main clause.
What about suoyi ‘so’? Since yinwei ‘because’ alone suffices to make a (complex)
sentence a reason construction, suoyi looks redundant. It is likely that suoyi is an adverb. It
needs an antecedent reason expression. In the (yinwei) A, suoyi B construction, A is therequired reason expression. The reason expression can entirely precede the main clause, as in(80). It can also occur between the subject and the predicate of the main clause, as in (81)(80)

Yinwei Zhangsan
chu-lebecause Zhangsan
have-PERF
suoyi Lisi qu-leTaipeiso
Lisi go-PERF Taipei

wenti/
problemZhangsan-deZhangsan’s

wenti,
problem‘Because Zhangsan is having a problem / because of Zhangsan’s problem, Lisi went
to Taipei.’
(81)

Lisi
Lisi
suoyi
so

yinwei Zhangsan
because Zhangsan
qu-leTaipeigo-PERF Taipei

chu-lehave-PERF

wenti/
problemZhangsan-deZhangsan’s

wenti,
problem‘Because Zhangsan is having a problem / because of Zhangsan’s problem, Lisi went
to Taipei.’
In (81) the yinwei-expression adjoins to the I’ of the main clause. Suoyi ‘so’ in this sentence,
therefore, cannot be in the initial position of the sentence; it probably adjoins to I’ as well. But
this poses a problem. If I’-adjunction is possible for suoyi ‘so’, why is (82) ungrammatical?

- 82 -

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)(82)

*Yinweibecause
Lisi
Lisi

ZhangsanZhangsansuoyi
sochu-lehave-PERF
qu-lego-PERF

wenti/
problemTaipeiTaipei

Zhangsan-deZhangsan’s

wenti,
problem‘Because Zhangsan is having a problem / because of Zhangsan’s problem, Lisi went
to Taipei.’
A possible explanation is that suoyi ‘so’ must be adjacent to the reason expression. Under this
explanation, (82) is ungrammatical because Lisi intervenes between the reason expression andsuoyi. This explanation also accounts for the contrast between (83) and (84).
(83)

Yinwei Zhangsan
chu-lewenti,
because Zhangsan
have-PERF problem,
wo tingshuo
Lisi
qu-le
TaipeiI heardLisi
go-PERF Taipei‘Because Zhangsan is having a problem, I heard that Lisi went to Taipei.’(84)*Yinweibecausewo
I

ZhangsanZhangsantingshuo
heard

chu-lewenti,
have-PERF problem,
suoyi Lisi
qu-leTaipeiso
Lisi
go-PERF Taipei

There is no reason for the ungrammaticality of (84) except that suoyi ‘so’ is separate from thereason expression introduced by yinwei ‘because’.
Here we provide the structural analyses for the various reason constructions in Mandarin
Chinese. (In (85) and (86), the CP headed by yinwei ‘because’ can be replaced by PP withyinwei ‘because’ as P taking a DP complement).
(85)

Yinwei A (suoyi) B

IP
IP

CP
suoyi
C

IP

IP

‘so’

yinwei‘because’- 83 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

(86)

Subj-[yinwei-A]-Predicate
IP
Subj

I’
I’
CP
suoyi

C

IP

I’

‘so’
I

yinweivP‘because’(87)

B yinwei A
CP
C’
CP

C’
C

IP

yinwei‘because’
In conclusion, the reason constructions in Mandarin Chinese involve left adjunction. The
right clause is the main clause of the construction, regardless of the “sentence connectors”
employed in the construction.
5.

The Concessive Constructions

In this section we look at the concessive construction in Mandarin Chinese. Below are
examples of this construction.
(88)

Suiran Zhangsan
though Zhangsan

qu Taipei, laoshi rengran yao
go Taipei teacher stillwantkaoshi.
exam‘Though Zhangsan goes to Taipei, the teacher still wants to give an exam.’- 84 -

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)

(89)

Jishi
Zhangsaneven-if Zhangsan

qu Taipei, laoshi rengran yao
go Taipei teacher stillwantkaoshi.
exam‘Even if Zhangsan goes to Taipei, the teacher still wants to give an exam.’
The element rengran ‘still’ can be substituted with haishi ‘still’ without change in meaning.
The concessive construction comes in two types. The first type is the concessive
construction in the narrow sense, such as (88). In this type the element suiran ‘though’ is used.
The clause introduced by suiran ‘though’ is presumed to denote a real event. The second typeis exemplified by (89), which can be called the “concessive conditional.” In the concessive
conditional a different introducing element is used, either jishi ‘even if’ or jiusuan ‘even if’.
The clause they introduced doesn’t denote a real event; it corresponds to the antecedent clauseof a conditional.7 The common feature of these two types of concessive is the occurrence ofthe element rengran ‘still’ in the second clause.
Rengran ‘still’ can only occur between the subject and the predicate. Suiran ‘though’ andjishi ‘even if’, on the other hand, can occur in the initial position, or between the subject andthe predicate, of the concessive clause.
(90)*Suiran /thoughjishi
even-if

ZhangsanZhangsanqu Taipei, rengran laoshi yao
go Taipei stillteacher wantkaoshi.
exam(91)

ZhangsanZhangsansuiranthough/jishi
qu Taipei, laoshi rengran yao
even-if go Taipei teacher stillwantkaoshi.
exam‘Though / even if Zhangsan goes to Taipei, the teacher still wants to give an exam.’
The A-not-A test indicates that the first clause (i.e. the concessive clause) is a syntactic
adjunct.
(92)

(93)

*Suiran / jishi
Zhangsanqu-bu-quTaipei,though even-if Zhangsan
go-not-go Taipei
laoshi rengran yao
kaoshi?
teacher still
want
exam
Suiran / jishi
Zhangsanthougheven-if Zhangsan
laoshi rengran yao-bu-yao
teacher stillwant-not-wantqu Taipei,
go Taipei
kaoshi?
exam‘Though / even if Zhangsan goes to Taipei, does the teacher still wants to give an
exam?’
7

Jishi doesn’t necessarily means ‘even if’; sometimes it can mean ‘even though’ or ‘even when’. In
such cases the clause jishi introduces denotes a real event. We ignore this complication in thefollowing discussion.

- 85 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

The test of the CSC effect also confirms that the concessive construction involves adjunction.
(94)

Naben shu,wo tingshuo [suiran / jishi
Zhangsan mai-le
e
that
book
I heardthougheven-if Zhangsan buy-PERF
Lisi
rengran hen
bu gaoxing].
Lisi
still
very
not happy‘That book, I heard that [though / even if Zhangsan buys [it], Lisi is still not
pleased.]’In the concessive construction, the concessive force appears to originate from the element
rengran ‘still’. That is, the element rengran ‘still’ alone can make a (complex) sentence a
concessive construction. The presence of suiran ‘though’ or jishi ‘even of’ alone doesn’t
make a grammatical concessive construction.
(95)

ZhangsanZhangsanqu Taipei, laoshi rengran yao
go Taipei, teacher stillwantkaoshi.
exam‘[Though / even if] Zhangsan goes to Taipei, the teacher still wants to give an exam.’(96)*Suiran / jishi
thougheven-if

ZhangsanZhangsanqu Taipei, laoshi
go Taipei teach

yao
want

kaoshi.
exam

Note incidentally that (95) is ambiguous; it can be a suiran ‘though’ concessive or a jishi‘even if’ concessive. Which one is meant by the speaker depends on the context.
The above facts indicate that the concessive clause is an adjunct clause licensed by theelement rengran ‘still’. Suiran ‘though’ and jishi are adverbs on the concessive clause.
Rengran ‘still’ is an I’-adverb licensing a concessive clause, on a par with the conditional
morpheme jiu discussed in section 2.

- 86 -

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)

(97)

CP
C’
C
IP
IP

CP
Subj

I’

Suiran/ jishi …

rengran‘though’‘even if’‘still’I’I

VP

Now we move to a different set of phenomena. Some concessive sentences can be“reversed,” for instance the concessive conditional, as in (98). The suiran ‘though’ concessive
doesn’t seem apt for reversion; the resulting sentence is somewhat degraded, and the suiranclause sounds like a supplementary epithetic expression. See (99).
(98)

Laoshi yao
teacher wantkaoshi, jishi
Zhangsanexam even-if Zhangsan

qu Taipei.
go Taipei‘The teacher wants to give an exam, even if Zhangsan goes to Taipei.’(99)?Laoshi yao
teacher wantkaoshi, suiran Zhangsan
exam though Zhangsan

qu Taipei.
go Taipei‘The teacher wants to give an exam—though Zhangsan goes to Taipei.’
But even if we consider the jishi ‘even if’ concessive only, such “inversion” still doesn’t seemto originate from a syntactic operation of inversion. There are several reasons for this claim.
First, rengran ‘still’ doesn’t appear in these sentences. If a syntactic operation of inversion is
at work, the appearance of rengran ‘still’ would be acceptable, because it is an indispensable
part of the “underlying structure” of the concessive. But the fact is that the appearance ofrengran causes the sentence to become seriously degraded.
(100) ??Laoshi rengran yao
teacher stillwantkaoshi, jishi
Zhangsanexam even-if Zhangsan

qu Taipei.
go Taipei‘The teacher wants to give an exam, even if Zhangsan goes to Taipei.’
Second, both clauses of the “reversed” concessive conditional can take the A-not-A operator.

- 87 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

(101)

Laoshi yao-bu-yao
teacher want-not-wantkaoshi, jishi
Zhangsanexam even-if Zhangsan

qu Taipei?
go Taipei‘Does the teacher want to give an exam, even if Zhangsan goes to Taipei?’(102)

Laoshi yao
teacher wantkaoshi, jishi
Zhangsanexam even-if Zhangsan

qu-bu-qugo-not-go

Taipei?
Taipei‘The teacher wants to give an exam—even if Zhangsan goes to Taipei or not?’Third, the test of the CSC effect shows that the “reversed” concessive conditional involves a
conjunction structure. In other words, non-across-the-board topicalization of an element outof the construction leads to ungrammaticality.
(103) *Naben
that
jishi
even-if

shu,
book
Lisi
Lisi

wo tingshuo
I heardbu gaoxing].
not happy[Zhangsan
Zhangsanmai-lee,buy-PERF

All these phenomena indicate that in such “inversed” concessive, the two clauses areconjuncts of a conjunction structure. Though the suiran ‘though’ concessive is somewhat
degraded when “inversed,” it exhibits the same result when tested; namely it has a
conjunction structure (in spite of the less clear-cut grammatical judgments).
(104) ?Laoshi yao-bu-yao
teacher want-not-wantkaoshi, suiran Zhangsan
exam though Zhangsan

qu Taipei?
go Taipei‘Does the teacher want to give an exam—though Zhangsan goes to Taipei?’(105) ?Laoshi yao
teacher wantkaoshi, suiran Zhangsan
exam though Zhangsan

qu-bu-qugo-not-go

Taipei?
Taipei‘The teacher wants to give an exam—though Zhangsan goes to Taipei or not?’(106) *Nabenthatsuiranthough

shu,
book
Lisi
Lisi

wo tingshuo
I heardbu gaoxing].
not happy[Zhangsan
Zhangsanmai-lee,buy-PERF

So, the “inversed” concessive construction does not really originate from a syntactic operationof inversion; instead, it has its own way of structure building, namely, conjunction of the twoclauses.
One last issue about the concessive construction is the following. Sometimes one finds
sentences like (107):- 88 -

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)(107)

Suiran laoshi yao
though teacher wantdanshi /raner
buthoweverkaoshi,exam
ZhangsanZhangsanhaishistill

qu Taipei.
go Taipei‘Though the teacher wants to give an exam, yet Zhangsan still goes to Taipei.’
One may quickly conclude that, since danshi ‘but’ and raner ‘however, yet’ are apparently
conjunctions, (107) must involve conjunction of the two clauses. However, tests show that
(107) still has an adjunction structure.
(108) *Suiran laoshi yao-bu-yao
kaoshi,though teacher want-not-want examdanshi /raner
Zhangsanhaishibut
however
Zhangsan
still
(109)

Suiran laoshi yao
though teacher wantdanshi /raner
buthoweverkaoshi,exam
ZhangsanZhangsanhaishistill

qu Taipei?
go Taipei

qu-bu-qugo-not-go

Taipei?
Taipei‘Though the teacher wants to give an exam, does Zhangsan still go to Taipei?’
(110)

Naben
that
danshibutshu, wo tingshuo
book I heard
/
raner
Lisi
howeverLisi[suiran Zhangsan
mai-lee,though Zhangsan
buy-PERF
haishi bu gaoxing].
still
not happy‘That book, I heard that [though Zhangsan bought [it], yet Lisi is still not pleased].’Danshi ‘but’ and raner ‘however, yet’ do not necessarily perform conjunction functions. In
fact, we suspect that they are complementizers like yinwei ‘because’. Semantically they
license an antithetic proposition, but syntactically they are monadic.
In conclusion, the concessive constructions in Mandarin Chinese are still predominantlyof the left adjunction structure. Those “inversed” cases don’t result from syntactic movement;
instead, they are of the conjunction structure.
6.

The ‘Unless’-Conditional

The ‘unless’-conditional refers to the following kind of sentence, which contains theelements chufei ‘unless’ and fouze ‘otherwise’.

- 89 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

(111)

Chufei laoshi yao
unless teacher wantkaoshi, fouze
exam otherwise

ZhangsanZhangsanyao
want

qu Taipei.
go Taipei‘Unless the teacher wants to give an exam, Zhangsan wants to go to Taipei.’
This construction is a conditional construction because the chufei ‘unless’ clause doesn’t
denote a real event. In the chufei A fouze B construction, A is a pre-condition for ¬B to betrue (Higginbotham 2003).
In English unless and otherwise are sentence connectors that connect two sentences. They
do not occur in the same (complex) sentence, just like because and so.
(112)

Unless John is in his room, Bill will not turn on the TV.

(113)

John has to turn on the TV, otherwise Bill will not be pleased.

But in Mandarin Chinese chufei ‘unless’ and fouze ‘otherwise’ can occur in the same
(complex) sentence, as in (111).
Chufei ‘unless’ or fouze ‘otherwise’ alone can make a (complex) sentence an ‘unless’conditional.8(114) Laoshi yao
kaoshi, fouze
Zhangsanyao
qu Taipei.
teacher want
exam otherwise
Zhangsanwant
go Taipei‘The teacher has to give an exam, otherwise Zhangsan wants to go to Taipei.’(115)

Chufei laoshi yao
unless teacher wantkaoshi, Zhangsan
exam Zhangsan(yiding)definitely

hui
will

qu Taipei.
go Taipei‘Unless the teacher wants to give an exam, Zhangsan definitely will go to Taipei.’
In addition, the chufei ‘unless’ clause can be “reversed.”

8

There is a complication here. When an ‘unless’-conditional contains fouze ‘otherwise’ only but not
chufei ‘unless’ (as in (114)), the antecedent clause has to be interpreted as an imperative. If chufei‘unless’ is present, the antecedent clause doesn’t have to be an imperative. The contrast between thefollowing two examples illustrate this point clearly: in (i) and (ii) the predicate of the antecedentclause is si ‘die / be dead’, which cannot be construed as an imperative (to make an imperative, one
has to say qu si ‘go die’).
(i)Chufei
unlessZhangsanZhangsansi, fouzedie otherwise

Lisi
Lisi

na-bu-daocannot-get‘Unless Zhangsan dies, Lisi cannot get the money.’(ii)*Zhangsan
Zhangsansi, fouzedie otherwise

Lisi
Lisi

na-bu-daocannot-get

We will not deal with this complication here.

- 90 -

qian.
money

qian.
money

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)

(116)

ZhangsanZhangsanyao
want

qu Taipei, chufei
go Taipei unlesslaoshi yao
teacher wantkaoshi.
exam‘Zhangsan wants to go to Taipei, unless the teacher wants to give an exam.’As expected, tests show that the ‘unless’-conditional involves left adjunction. First we
look at the test of the A-not-A operator. The left clause invariably resists taking the A-not-A
operator, but the right clause can take it. This is the case with the chufei A fouze B
construction:(117) *Chufei laoshi yao-bu-yao
unless teacher want-not-wantfouze
Zhangsanyaootherwise
Zhangsan
want
(118)

Chufei laoshi yao
unless teacher wantfouze
Zhangsanotherwise
Zhangsankaoshi,exam
qu Taipei?
go Taipei

kaoshi,exam
yao-bu-yao
want-not-wantqu Taipei?
go Taipei‘Unless the teacher wants to give an exam—does Zhangsan want to go to Taipei?’
This is also the case with the B chufei A construction:(119) *Zhangsan
yao-bu-yao
qu Taipei,
Zhangsanwant-not-want go Taipei
chufei laoshi yao
kaoshi?
unless teacher want
exam
(120)

Zhangsanyao
qu Taipei,
Zhangsanwant
go Taipei
chufei laoshi yao-bu-yao
kaoshi?
unless teacher want-not-want exam
‘Zhangsan wants to go to Taipei, unless the teacher wants to give an exam—or not?’

The test of the CSC effect also indicates that these two constructions have an adjunction
structure.
(121)

Naben shu,wo tingshuo
that
book
I heardfouze
Lisi
hui buotherwise
Lisi
will not[chufei Zhangsan
unless Zhangsan
gaoxing].
happy

mai-leebuy-PERF‘That book, I heard that [unless Zhangsan buys [it], Lisi will not be pleased].’- 91 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

(122)

Naben
that
chufei
unless

shu,
book
Lisi
Lisi

wo tingshuo
I heardbu gaoxing].
not happy[Zhangsan
Zhangsanhui maiwill buye,‘That book, I heard that [Zhangsan will buy [it], unless Lisi is not pleased].’Now we examine the grammatical categories of chufei ‘unless’ and fouze ‘otherwise’.
The above discussions suggest that the chufei A fouze B construction is quite parallel with theyinwei A suoyi B construction. But in fact there are important differences. For instance, yinwei‘because’ can take a nominal as complement, but chufei ‘unless’ can only take a clause. Also,
we notice that (123) is an acceptable sentence, but (124) is not (cf. (77) in section 4.2).
(123)

ZhangsanZhangsanchufei
unlessxian fu
first pay

qian,
fouze
money otherwise

Lisi na-bu-dao shu.
Lisi cannot-get book

‘Unless Zhangsan pays the money first, Lisi will not get the book.’(124) *Zhangsan
Zhangsanyinwei xian
because first

fu qian,suoyi
pay money soLisi na-bu-dao shu.
Lisi cannot-get book

‘Because Zhangsan pays the money first, Lisi cannot get the book.’(124) is unacceptable because when the yinwei-expression occurs between a subject and a
predicate, it is in fact adjoined to the subject and the predicate of the main clause, and thisrenders Lisi in (124) an unlicensed subject (see the discussion in section 4.2). But in (123) the
appearance of Lisi is acceptable. This indicates that the chufei-expression in (123) doesn’tadjoin to a position between the subject and the predicate of the main clause. Thus Zhangsanin (123), most likely, is a topicalized element out of the chufei ‘unless’ clause, with no direct
bearing on the internal makeup of the fouze ‘otherwise’ clause.
We suggest that both chufei ‘unless’ and fouze ‘otherwise’ are complementizers. They
introduce a clause and license an adjunct clause. We therefore propose the following analyses
for the ‘unless’-conditional in Mandarin Chinese.
(125)

CP

CP
C

CP
IP

C

chufei‘unless’fouze‘otherwise’- 92 -

IP

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)

(126)

CP

CP
CP
C

IP

chufei‘unless’

7.

Concluding Remarks

In this paper we examined a number of complex sentences in Mandarin Chinese, andshowed that they are predominantly of the left adjunction structure. Interesting theoreticalquestions follow from this discovery. In the beginning of this paper we showed that in
Mandarin Chinese, an adverbial clause can only occur to the left of the main clause; inversion
is by and large disfavored (see (3) and (4)). Now we can formulate a tentative hypothesis toaccount for this phenomenon. If the complex sentences in Mandarin Chinese are generally of
the left adjunction structure, it is natural that “inversion” is not permitted, since the raising of
the main clause will result in a presumably ungrammatical structure, as demonstrated in thefollowing diagrams:
(127)
XP
XP
YP

XP

XP

XP
YP

t

Now the resulting structure would be in such a situation that the adverbial clause YP isadjoined to a maximal projection whose substantial content is gone. Presumably this is not agood structure. An adverbial needs licensing from certain head; if the head is gone, it isdoubtful that the licensing would still remain in force.
This is only be part of the story, however. Remember that some complex sentences in
Mandarin Chinese permit “inversion,” for instance the alternation between the yinwei A suoyi
B (‘becaue A so B’) construction and the B yinwei A (‘B because A’) construction. We
showed that these “inversions” do not involve syntactic movement. These alternations can be- 93 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

derived in part from the fact that those “sentence connectors” such as yinwei ‘because’, are
not real sentence connectors; they are just added to the clauses as extra material, so to speak.
The “inversion” constructions have their own ways of merger and structure building.
However, why is right adjunction not an option? For example, why doesn’t the yinwei‘because’ clause simply adjoin from the right in the B yinwei A construction, on a par with theyinwei A suoyi B construction, in which it adjoins from the left? This question reminds one of
an intriguing phenomenon that Tai (1985) points out: a locative expression in Mandarin
Chinese is construed as an locative adverbial in the pre-verbal position but is construed as acomplement-like goal expression in the post-verbal position:(128)

Zhansagn
Zhangsanzai chuang-shangat bed-on

tiao.
jump

‘Zhangsan was jumping in the bed.’(129)

ZhangsanZhangsan

tiao
jump

zai chuang-shang.
at bed-on‘Zhangsan jumped into the bed.’
It has long been observed that adverbials do not occur in post-verbal position in Chinese
sentences (see, for example, Tang 1990, 2001 and references cited therein). Why can’t thelocative expression zai chuang-shang ‘in the bed’ remains an adverbial in (129)? It looks as if
some kind of “configurational” or “topographic” requirement imposes itself upon the
Mandarin Chinese sentences, which mandates that all elements following the main verb of thesentence be merged lower than the main verb as complement. Such requirement—if itexists—seems to be responsible for the left adjunction of the clauses in Chinese complex
sentences.
Of course we don’t need to make it so mysterious. One simple way to look at thequestion is to suppose that Kayne’s (1994) Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) is at workin mandarin Chinese in a transparent way. The merger of elements in the Chinese phrase
structure has to be this way so as to result in successful linearization. See Moro (2000) for theclaim that linearization can be a substantial force that helps to shape the structure of asentence.
But the problem now shifts to English. English permits “inversion” of adverbial clause(see (1) and (2)). One possibility is to adopt the Kanyean approach (see in particular Cinque(1999)) and assume that an adverbial clause is hosted by certain functional projection FP as
specifier. When inversion applies, the complement of FP adjoins to this FP, which the head F
remain unmoved. This idea is illustrated in the following diagrams.

- 94 -

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)

(130)

FP
YP

FP
F’

FP

XP

F

YP

XP

F’
F

t

If` this idea is feasible, then the difference between Mandarin Chinese, on the one hand, andEnglish, on the other, boils down to the difference between pure adjunction and the functionof FP. (See Tang (2001) for a claim similar to this.) But again, problems do not stop here.
Some researchers have argued that certain adverbial clauses in English, such as theconditional clause, is based-generated to the right of the main clause (see, for example,
Iatridou (1994), Haegeman (2003), and Higginbotham (2003) for details and references).
Haegeman (2003), in particular, proposes that the English conditional John will buy the bookif he finds it should be analyzed as in (131) (adapted from (22a) of Haegeman (2003)), in
which the conditional clause adjoins to vP (cf. Nissenbaum 2000).
(131)

IP
NP

I’
I

John

vP
vP

Conditional Clausebuy the bookif he finds it

will

Now, when the if-clause raises, there is no problem; it simply adjoins to IP/CP. But when it
stays within the vP, it will cause problems with linearization, since it is a right-adjunct.
Considering this difficulty, we tentative suggest the following derivation on the basis of (131).

- 95 -

Nanzan Linguistics 3: Research Results and Activities 2005

(132)

IP
NP

I’
I

John

vP

will

vP

vP

buy the book

Conditional Clause

tvP
if he finds it

Since the elements of a phrase structure are unordered in core computation, we assume that(131) is the right underlying structure, with the understanding that the conditional clause andthe vP are unrodered. To meet linearization, however, something must be done: the vP raises
up and adjoins to itself, crossing the conditional clause. (We need to assume that if raisingdoesn’t take place, the intervention of the conditional clause between the modal will and thevP will somehow result in ungrammaticality. The nature of such ungrammaticality remains
unclear to us, though.) Now the vP is hierarchically higher than the conditional clause; thecorrect word order is derived.
This analysis has the following features. The raising of the vP to adjoin to itself is aminimal movement. It doesn’t go any higher. Thus we assume that this movement meets thegeneral requirement of least effort in grammatical derivation. This movement is motivated by
the need for successful linearization (cf. Moro 2000); therefore it is not an arbitrary action.
The resulting structure in (132) still maintains the essential characters of the different
constituents: the conditional clause is still an adjunct—and a syntactic island for that matter—and the vP is a complement prior to the raising. Look at the following examples:(133)

What will John buy t if he finds a supermarket?

(134) *Which supermarket will John buy bottle waters if he finds t?
The ungrammaticality of (134) can be readily accounted for. As to (133), one could supposethat the wh-word what has been moved away when the vP undergoes raising—a case ofremnant movement.

- 96 -

Syntactic Structures of Complex Sentences in Mandarin Chinese (J. Lin)

But there are still problems, of course. One of them is that the structure in (132) has
precisely the same defect for which we said that (127) is bad. We don’t have an answer to thischallenge. But notice that there is an important difference between (127) and (133). In (133),
the adjunct YP is adjoined to a higher functional projection, a CP- or IP-level category. It
does not play any role in the constitution of the event structure of the main clause. The ifclause in (133), on the other hand, is part of the event structure of the main clause and forms acomplex predicate with the vP (Haegeman 2003). Being part of a complex predicate, theconditional clause is not licensed by the functional head v, but by composition with thecategory vP. This may make a difference. Certainly the technical details have to be worked
out and justified. We will leave them to future research.

References
Cheng, L. and C.-T. Huang (1996) “Two Types of Donkey Sentences.” Natural Language Semantics 4,
121-163.
Chierchia, G. (2000) “Chinese Conditionals and the Theory of Conditionals,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 9, 1-54.
Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press, New York.
Gasde, H.-D. and W. Paul (1996) “Functional Categories, Topic Prominence, and Complex Sentencesin Mandarin Chinese,” Linguistics 34, 263-294.
Haegeman, L. (2003) “Conditional Clauses: External and Internal Syntax,” Mind and Language 18,
317-339.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation,
MIT.
Higgin bothan, J. (2003) “Conditionals and Compositionality,” Philosophical Perspectives 17, 181-1
94.
Iatridou, S. (1994) “On the Contribution of Conditional Then,” Natural Language Semantics 2, 171199.
Kayne, R. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kratzer, A. (1986) “Conditionals,” in Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society,
1–15.
Lai, H.-L. (1999) “Rejected Expectations: the Scalar Particles Cai and Jiu in Mandarin Chinese,”
Linguistics 37, 625-661.
Lin, J.-W. (1996) Polarity Licensing and Wh-Phrase Quantification, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lin, V. (2002). Coordination and Sharing at the Interfaces, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Moro, A. (2000) Dynamic Antisymmetry, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Nissenbaum, J. (2000) Investigations of Covert Phrase Movement, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Tai, J. (1985) “Temporal Sequence and Chinese Word Order,” in Iconicity in Syntax, ed. by John
Haiman, 49-72, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Tang, C.-C. J. (1990) Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X’-theory, Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University.
Tang, C.-C. J. (2001) “Functional Projections and Adverbial Expressions, in Chinese,” Language andLinguistics 2, 203-241.
Whelpton, M. (1995) The Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives of Result in English, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Oxford.

- 97 -