Processing relative clauses in Chinese:
Franny Hsiao, Edward Gibson
http://forum.corpus4u.org/upload/forum/2005072402284911.pdf
Franny Hsiao, Edward Gibson
http://forum.corpus4u.org/upload/forum/2005072402284911.pdf
Processing relative clauses in Chinese
- 主题发起人 xiaoz
- 时间
Excerpts from Wong, May Lai-Yin (2005) "Adverbial Clauses in Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-based Study", PhD thesis, Lancaster University-
Relative clauses have long been a source of controversy in Chinese linguistics. Some scholars (e.g. Li and Thompson, 1989:579ff; Aoun and Li, 1993; Chiu, 1993; Wu, 2000) believe that a nominalisation (whereby a verb, verb phrase, or sentence, followed by the particle de, functions as a noun phrase) can be called a relative clause in Chinese if the head noun that it modifies refers to an unspecified element involved in the situation described by the nominalisation. On the other hand, Chao (1968), among others, does not adopt the notion of relative clause in his descriptive grammar of Chinese. Relative clauses may not exist in Chinese for at least two reasons. First, rather than a relativiser, the particle 的 de, as Chao (1968:285) points out, is a marker of explicit modification. It is inserted after the premodifier of a noun phrase to make explicit the modifier-modified structure. Zhu (1982 and 2000) also notes that this particle is “multi-functional” in that it can be a genitive marker, a marker of nominalisation, and an adjectival marker. It is therefore not a proper “counterpart” of the English relative pronoun which is “unifunctional” (except that). The second reason is that some relative clauses do not actually include a gap that the head noun can co-refer to. So far scholars have been considering relative clauses to be clauses in which either the subject or object is missing, thereby producing a gap that co-refers to the head noun the relative clauses modify. Such gaps are used as evidence to prove the existence of relative clauses in Chinese. However, such a gap does not always exist. In this case the so-called relative clause marked by the particle de is a well-formed clause without any missing subject or object. In cases such as this, two conflicting explanations were proposed. Chu and Chi (1999:226) claim that the construction is no longer a relative clause but an appositive clause on the grounds that no gap can be identified in the noun phrase and they use this as a definitive test for distinguishing a relative clause from an appositive clause. Yet, Xue et al. (2000:80ff) and Li and Thompson (1989:582ff) still perceive it as a relative clause though with an PP trace rather than an NP trace; it differs from the relative clause with an NP trace in that the gap is an adjunct position.
Relative clauses have long been a source of controversy in Chinese linguistics. Some scholars (e.g. Li and Thompson, 1989:579ff; Aoun and Li, 1993; Chiu, 1993; Wu, 2000) believe that a nominalisation (whereby a verb, verb phrase, or sentence, followed by the particle de, functions as a noun phrase) can be called a relative clause in Chinese if the head noun that it modifies refers to an unspecified element involved in the situation described by the nominalisation. On the other hand, Chao (1968), among others, does not adopt the notion of relative clause in his descriptive grammar of Chinese. Relative clauses may not exist in Chinese for at least two reasons. First, rather than a relativiser, the particle 的 de, as Chao (1968:285) points out, is a marker of explicit modification. It is inserted after the premodifier of a noun phrase to make explicit the modifier-modified structure. Zhu (1982 and 2000) also notes that this particle is “multi-functional” in that it can be a genitive marker, a marker of nominalisation, and an adjectival marker. It is therefore not a proper “counterpart” of the English relative pronoun which is “unifunctional” (except that). The second reason is that some relative clauses do not actually include a gap that the head noun can co-refer to. So far scholars have been considering relative clauses to be clauses in which either the subject or object is missing, thereby producing a gap that co-refers to the head noun the relative clauses modify. Such gaps are used as evidence to prove the existence of relative clauses in Chinese. However, such a gap does not always exist. In this case the so-called relative clause marked by the particle de is a well-formed clause without any missing subject or object. In cases such as this, two conflicting explanations were proposed. Chu and Chi (1999:226) claim that the construction is no longer a relative clause but an appositive clause on the grounds that no gap can be identified in the noun phrase and they use this as a definitive test for distinguishing a relative clause from an appositive clause. Yet, Xue et al. (2000:80ff) and Li and Thompson (1989:582ff) still perceive it as a relative clause though with an PP trace rather than an NP trace; it differs from the relative clause with an NP trace in that the gap is an adjunct position.
xusun575
高级会员
They are all the de's , but do you mean that there should be different iconic forms of de to indicate different grammatical meanings or relations? Since there is no such "relative word" in Chinese, no space could be there for the so called "Chinese relative clauses". Is there any Chinese scholar who would accept "de" as a relative word or something? We have our own tradition.Chinese language study should not be restrained and polluted by blindly following the imported theory and theories.
'Chinese language study should not be restrained and polluted by blindly following the imported theory and theories' ==i disagree. Language is universal. You should read Chomsky. It's just not convincing to say that only Chinese is different. Whether it is called relative clause or not, something in essence is the same. Hsiao & Gibson's article is a famous one, and the PhD thesis makes sense to me. Only, shouldn't they give an example of the non-existence of the "gap"? I'm lost in that part.
"Language is univerisal" is a categorical statement. (Human) Language is universal in the sense that is based on common human experience, thus a large part of natural language semantics is common. Language is universal also in the sense that it is for communication. HOWEVER, each individual language has itw language specific features.
Another paper on relative clause in Chinese:
Lin, Jo-wang (2003) “On Restrictive and Non-restrictive Relative Clauses in Mandarin Chinese”, Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series, Volume 33 (1): 199-240.
http://www.fl.nctu.edu.tw/~jowang/database/Relative%20Clause.pdf
Lin, Jo-wang (2003) “On Restrictive and Non-restrictive Relative Clauses in Mandarin Chinese”, Tsinghua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series, Volume 33 (1): 199-240.
http://www.fl.nctu.edu.tw/~jowang/database/Relative%20Clause.pdf
Dr. Xiao (ask again). I asked May for a copy of the dissertation. But it doens't seem to have anything to do with relative clauses. I searched the PDF for the first sentence of the excertp and searched for "relative clause" alone; it doesn't seem as if the file has those words. Could it be from someone else's dissertation?