Mandarin V-V resultatives have greater flexibility in argument realisation than English resultatives.
In English, a verb projects the same obligatory arguments in simple
sentences like (1) and in resultatives like (2).
(1)
John hammered the metal.
(2)
John hammered the metal flat.
In English resultatives, a verb cannot omit an obligatory agent, as in (3), or an obligatory theme, as in (4).
(3)
*The metal hammered flat.
(4)
*John hammered his back sore.
In Mandarin V-V resultatives, however, the first verb, or V1, can omit its agent, as in (5), or its theme, as in (6).
(5)
Yīfú xǐ-gānjìng-le.
clothes wash-clean-PFV
‘The clothes got clean from washing [i.e. being washed].’ (Williams 2005:161)
(6)
Lǎo Wèi qiē-dùn-le càidāo.
Lao Wei cut-dull-PFV knife
‘The knife became dull as a result of Lao Wei cutting something.’ (adapted from Williams 2005:61)
Why are Mandarin V-V resultatives more flexible than English resultatives?
Researchers have claimed that this difference between English and Mandarin resultatives arises because English verbs always project their arguments whereas Mandarin verbs never do (Williams 2005; Huang 2006).
In contrast, I claim that this difference arises because Mandarin V-V resultatives are compounds whereas English resultatives are not.
What is the syntactic structure of a compound resultative?
I propose that compound resultatives like the Mandarin V-V resultative qiē-dùn ‘cut-dull’ are built in morphology, before being inserted as a terminal node in syntax, as in (7).
(7)
I propose that compound resultatives contain a null affix ∅ that inherits all the arguments of V2 but none of the arguments of V1.
Consequently, the arguments of the null affix – and by extension, those of the compound resultative – can, but need not, be interpreted as arguments of V1.
This is why V1 in compound resultatives can omit its otherwise obligatory arguments.
What is the syntactic structure of a non-compound resultative?
I propose that non-compound resultatives like the English resultative cut dull are built entirely in syntax, as in (8).
(8)
Since the verb cut is merged in syntax, it must project the same arguments in a resultative as it does in a simple sentence.
Thus, if Al cuts a cutlet and his knife becomes dull as a result, cut cannot omit its otherwise obligatory internal argument, i.e., the cutlet.
Implications for Mandarin V-V and V-de resultatives
My proposal explains the difference between compound vs non-compound resultatives within the same language, e.g. Mandarin Chinese. Click here to find out more about compound and non-compound resultatives in Mandarin.
Implications for Japanese V-V and ku/ni-resultatives
My proposal also explains the difference between compound vs non-compound resultatives in Japanese.
In a simple sentence, the verb sime ‘choke’ must take kubi ‘neck’ as its internal argument. But in a compound resultative like (9), V1 sime- ‘choke’ need not project its otherwise obligatory internal argument kubi ‘neck’.
(9)
John-wa niwatori-o sime-korosi-ta.
John-TOP chicken-ACC choke-kill-PST
‘John choked the chicken to death.’ (Nishiyama 1998:194)
In a non-compound resultative like (10), however, V1 nur- ‘paint’ must project its internal argument. If John painted a wall and his clothes became blue as a result, the internal argument of nur- ‘paint’, i.e. kabe ‘wall’, cannot be omitted.
(10)
*John-ga huku-o {ao-ku/ buruu-ni} nut-ta.
John-NOM clothes-ACC blue-KU/ blue-NI paint-PST
Intended: ‘John painted something (e.g. the wall) and as a result his clothes became blue.’
How can I find out more?
You can read more about my work here:
Presentations:
- Wenkai Tay. Compound vs phrasal resultatives: the view from Mandarin Chinese. LF Reading Group, MIT, 18 Sep 2024. [abstract] [handout]
- Wenkai Tay. Compound vs phrasal resultatives: the view from Mandarin Chinese. Syntax & Semantics Reading Group, Queen Mary University of London, 6 Dec 2023. [handout]
- Wenkai Tay. Compound vs phrasal resultatives: the view from Mandarin Chinese. 2023 Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (LAGB), Anglia Ruskin University, 29 Aug-1 Sep 2023. [abstract] [handout]
- Wenkai Tay. On the flexibility of argument realisation in Mandarin V-V resultatives. Resultatives: new approaches and renewed perspectives, National University of Singapore, 20-22 Mar 2023. [abstract] [handout]
References:
- Huang, C.-T. James. 2006. Resultatives and unaccusatives: A parametric view.
Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan 2006:1–43. - Nishiyama, Kunio. 1998. V-V compounds as serialization. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7:175–217.
- Williams, Alexander. 2005. Complex causatives and verbal valence. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.