Loading…
Revisiting donkey anaphora in Mandarin Chinese: A reply to Pan and Jiang (2015)
In their article published in this journal, Pan and Jiang (2015) challenge the claims and proposals made in Cheng and Huang (1996) concerning both the distributional patterns and interpretive strategies for donkey anaphora in Mandarin conditional. They claim that all three types of conditionals ( rú...
Saved in:
Published in: | International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2020-12, Vol.7 (2), p.167-186 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | In their article published in this journal,
Pan and Jiang (2015)
challenge the claims and proposals made in
Cheng and Huang (1996)
concerning both the
distributional patterns and interpretive strategies for donkey anaphora in Mandarin conditional. They claim that all three types
of conditionals (
rúguǒ-, dōu-
and bare conditionals) allow either a
wh
-phrase or a pronoun in
the consequent clause, and that both the
wh
-phrase and the pronoun may be either unselectively bound or
interpreted by the E-type strategy. We show that, except for an observation already mentioned and accommodated in
Cheng and Huang’s (1996)
analysis of
rúguǒ
-conditionals, their
distributional claims are incorrect. It is also shown that the interpretative flexibility they propose is untenable, as it leaves
a number of otherwise well-predicted properties unaccounted for. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2213-8706 2213-8714 |
DOI: | 10.1075/ijchl.19020.che |