Remarks on the word-ordi;r typology of Late Zhou Chinese

I. Introduction:

The Chinese, or Sinitic, languages are widely, if not unanimously, regarded as genetically

related to the Tibeto-Burman (IB) family whose major members are described in this volume.

Evidence adduced for the Sino-Tibetan (ST) hypothesis consists of phonologIcal and semantic

con'cspondences between the basic word-stocks and reconstructed morpholOgical systems of Old

Chinese (-llc -- 3c) and the carlI est TB languages, Old Tibetan (9c) and Old Burmese (12c).

Helpful recent discussions of these aspects of the ST hypothesis can be found in Baxter (1995)

for "T lexicon and Baxter and Sagart (1998) for morphology.

The morphology so far reconstructed for Old Chinese (OC) is exclusively derivational.

While the analysis of OC and later data reveals some evidence of regular phonological

alternations that derive nouns from verbs, or intransitives from transitives, etc., no traces have

been fO)lnd of subsyllabic markers of tense, number (singular vs. plural) or core "participant

relations" (subject vs. direct object). Languages such as OC, Mandarin and modem English that

fail to mark such relations by either morphology or case particles make up for that lack by

requiring "strict word order" within the clause -- more precisely, by robust regularities of

alignment among the phrasal units of the clause, those regularities stated in tenns of the

otherwise unmarked participant relations between the verb and its most closely associated

phrases. (Cf Latin or Japanese where the regular marking of subject and object permits greater

freedom of ordering.) On this definition of "word order", the basic alilo'l1ll1entfor both modem

English and OC can be characterized as "S(ubject)V(erb)O(bject)".

Alllanlo'11ages for which a basic word can be established also exhibit alternate orders in

"non-basic" clauses. The major word-order alternations (such as topicalization and "wh question"

formation in English) constitute a set of principled exceptions to the basic order, motivated by

specifiable conditions which may be dIscourse-pragmatic, semantic, phonological, or a

combination nfthese. After brief remarks about the Late Zhou Chinese (LZC) corpus (If) and

limits on the data cited in this brief study (Ul), we provide a principled account of the major

deviations from basic SVO in LZC. In surveying the data, continued comparison with English

will help claritY major differences between two unquestionably SVO languages in both the

number and functions of their respective non-SVO clause-types. Our general claim is that LZC

word-order alternations are largely motivated by the semantic scope of non-subject phrases.

· -,"

II. Late Zhou Chinese:

LZC is not the earliest form of written Chinese, but the language preserved in texts dating

from the Warring States period (-475 -- -22i), the iast historiographic division within the long

Zhou dynasty (-iic -- -221). Chinese is attested at least as early as -12c, late in the Shang

dynasty, (-16c -- -llc), but the extant corpus of pre-Warring States times consists of a very

limited number of relatively formulaic discourse genres, chiefly divinatory, ceremonial and

poetic texts. For two reasons this corpus fails to provide a comprehensive picture of the syntactic

resources of early Chinese: (a) certain constructions are apparently not well represented among

the surviving text-types, and (b) there are often considerable problems in the decipherment and

interpretation of what data exists. It is only from Warring States times that a rich corpus of

narrative and expository prose texts has survived sufficiently intact to allow a relatively detailed

account of early Chinese syntax.

III. The basic transitive clause and NP reference:

Given our interest in constraints on SVO order in LZC, our data is confined primarily to

transitive clauses. However, to demonstrate clearly our claim about the importance of scope in

motivating non-SVO orders, we also consider clauses with one additional phrase, an adjunct (A,

roughly, "prepositional phrase") whose canonical position is postverbal. As exemplified in (1),

the basic template for clauses of this type is SVOA in both LZC and English.

_S__ V ~ A _

1. ~1EE ~"%;'-1- 1J;' §'',§ Me 2.4/9.3

PN king see PN LOC PN

King Xuan of Qi received Mencius in the Snow Palace.

Note at the outset that in (1), each of the nouns, S, 0 and in A, is a name, i.e. each refers in a

straightforward way to a specific entity in the textual and, in this case, (presumably) historically

real world. The proper-name status of the nouns in (1) means that none has semantic scope over

any other, where "semantic scope" refers to "the influence exerted by one expression on our

construal of a second expression". Obviously, nouns in SVOA sentences in LZC are not always

proper names. An example like (i), however, furnishes a clear antithesis to examples of non-

2

SVOA ordering to be presented in VIII -< XIII below. There, the abandonment of basic SVOA

in favor of [... O/A ... V ...] \'"ili be attributed to the tendency of LZC to represent scope relations

syntactlcaJJy, those relations arising from the complex reference of certain non-naming nominal

expressions.

(2) is a schema ofthe canonical template that introduces some terms used in the analysis

and allows us to further define the present object of study.

P R E V E ij B P 0 S T V E R B

_1_- (2 " _4_ _5 ___ (6-j--

2. Subject Adjunct' VERB Object Adjunct Secondary predicate

0 B L I Q u E

• For reasons already given. sites [2] and [6] are of no immediate relevance to the issues

investigated here, though they are instantiated in some of our examples. [2] is the canonical site

for some adpositional phrases (AP), such as comitative y~ ~x 'with x', and benefactive wii ffii1x 'for x'. ("Adposition" is the cover term for "preposition" and "postposition". LZC has both; for

the latter, see (17). (23), (26) and (27) below.) As such, [2] must be distinguished from (51, the

basic position for other adj uncts, such as locatives, as shown in example (l).

Non-subject argument and adjunct phrases of the verb, occupants of sites [2], (4] and [5],

are referred to as "oblique". As will be shown below, the preverb is expandable through the

addition of "non-canonical positions" for two sorts of topic, for wide-scope circumstantials and

for operator phrases, but such preverb sites are not occupied in what we have defined as the

canonical transitive clause. The postverb is not further extendable, accommodating a maximum

of three phrase-types, arguably always in the order shown. Given these provisos, "SVOA"

represents an exclusively particlpant-relations-based account of canonical word order in LZC

transitive clauses that include a single, postverbal adjunct. It is, in fact, the initial generalization

we would wish to make about ordering in such clauses in both LZC and English.

IV. Beyond grammatical relations:

A clause, however, consists of rather more than a system of participant relations

obtaining between the verb and its associated phrases. While in English, quite uncontroversially,

3

word orcieris largely determined by suc~ relations, elsewhere ordering can be affected by the

referential properties of individual participant phrases, i.e. the "grounding" of noun phrases in

epistemic notions such as (in)definiteness (Langacker 1991:89-1] 8). In English, rather

ambiguous grounding along parameters such as 'definite (specific vs. generic)' vs. 'indefinite

(specific vs. non-specific)' vs. 'non-referential' is realized through NPs which include determiners

('the', 'a', NULL, etc.) and other superficially determiner-like elements ('some', 'any', 'no', etc.).

Entire "detenniner phrases" are then regimented, largely irrespective of their internally marked

referential properties, into clause positions already defined in terms of participant relations,

those relations thus d~ternlining basic alignment more or less single-handedly.

In LZC, the verb-to-participant relation 'oblique' is a far less general determinant of

ordering than it is in English. In particular, the default assignment of objects and most adjuncts

to postverbal sites in LZC can be overridden by a small number of specifiable referential

considerations. Crucial to the elucidation of interactions between oblique NP reference and order

is the 'notion of scope, to which we turn in the next sections. Our data will demonstrate two

correlations between non-canonical position and reference. First, bare NPs in canonical

positions, [1,4,5], gain reference "structurally", by occurring within the scope of (i.e. "lower

than") definite, non-canonically positioned phrases in the same clause, e.g. [0, A] in (4) below.

Second, oblique phrases of a very different type gain higher, non-canonical positions

"semantically", by virtue of the wide scope inherent in their reference (VII-XIII).

Though the first claim is uncontroversial, it can be demonstrated more clearly for LZC

than for languages with English-like determiner systems. The second correlation between NP

reference and ordering has recently been described in detail for a number of languages, none of

which is likely to be familiar to specialists in LZC, Chinese or western (our Hungarian

sinological colleagues the obvious exception). In numerous ways we can only hint at here, the

general principle "semantically dependent nodes later" (Hawkins 1998:759-762) seems to play

a crucial role in determining non-canonical LZC phrase order.

V. Semanto-pragmatic conditions on SVOA:

Canonical SVOA order as described above occurs under default semantic and discourse-

pragmatic conditions most easily stated in the negative. A LZC transitive clause with a locative

adjunct will assume SVOA order as long as it contains:

4

3. a. no "gapped" topic phrase or other definite domain-setter,

b. no wide-scope oblique phrase: 'any x', 'every x', 'even x', and often 'only x',

c. no phrase targeted by identificational ("narrow") focus,

d. no constituent ("wh") question phrase;---------------------.----------------------------------------------------e. no exclamatory, subject-predicate inversion,

f no object pronominalization within the scope of negation.

Deviations from canonical word order occur when the settings ill (3) are altered, resulting in

clauses with semanto-pragmatic functions distinct from the positive, declarative, predicate-focus

default in which sites [1], [3], [4] and, optionally, [5] are occupied by scope less NPs functioning

as names, as in (1). In English as well, of course, "topicalization", "clefting" (an identificational

focus construction; see (21 b» and constituent interrogation form a set of constraints on SVOA

order at least superficially similar to (3a, c, d) for LZc. In what follows, each of the operations,

(3a-d), affecting SVOA in LZC will be exemplified and discussed. As conditions (3e, f) are

irrelevant to the ordering of canonically postverbal full NPs, they will not be treated here. (For

some details, see Pulleyblank 1995:84-85, 146-47.)

VI. Topics and other definite domain setters:

A definite NP may occupy a site, [0], to the left of [1] as the topic of a lower predication.

Such a "base of predication" (Sasse 1987:555) is "gapless" if there is no lower position from

which it can be thought of as "fronted". (A "gapped" topic is exemplified in (23) below.)

_0_ A _1__ 3 4 _

4. -f-~ m ~ iii: -f:!2. m ~::f 1)1J pIT L: Zz230.1

PN LOC this job PRT OREL bag NEG be. like OREL disappear

(Zichong on this campaign the caught did not equal the 10st=)

On this campaign, Zichong's gains did not equal his losses.

In addition to the gapless topic in [0], (4) shows an adjunct between [0] and [1]. Sites for phrases

which seem "fronted" into the preverb from the postverb are identitled by capital letters.

5

In this construction, a lower predication, II 34] 'the.caught not equal the. lost', is predicated of

a topic phrase in [0], that phrase referentially dominating the clause that it introduces. Thus, as

predication base, 'Zichong' refers to the entIty characterized by the lower predication and

determines the precise reference of the two bare object nominalizations, 'the caught' and 'the1'Tl•. !:YC)l

lost', subject and object of the negated verb fro n:'be the equal of. The. two relativized verbs, 'Ciltck'(

cannot be construed as unconnected w~h the topic, the most likely connection that of (in)direct ' lqe.',agency, 'that which was gained Ilost by Zichong'.

Similarly, the circumstantial in [A], 'on this campaign', gains from its position left of the

lower predication unambiguous scope over the same two nominalized verbs in [I] and [4]. 'The

gained' and 'the lost' are "Zichong's" (in some sense) and both NPs name the assessed outcome

of events on the occasion of 'this campaign' (4) is thus an example of nested scope, phrases with

wider scope, in [0] and [A], preceding those with narrower referential range, in [I] and [4]:

{O, [A, (1,,3 4"J]).

'English does not have gapless topics, preferring to make explicit a "possessive" relation

between the LZC topic NP and the lower NPs, as in the idiomatic translation of (4). The English

version thus takes the form of a canonical subject-predicate structure, the Sand 0 phrases

"grounded" through possessive modification. This sort of phrase-internal grounding by a

determiner-like possessive obviates the need for a notion of reference bern'een phrases, such as

clearly obtainS between [0] and [I, 4] in the LZC example.

Note, however, the LZC-like fronting of the circumstantial in the translation of(4). An

alternative alignment, 'Zichong's gains did not equal his losses on this campaign', leaves the

scope of the circumstantial ambiguous; it could be construed as the setting for 'his losses' only.

Tnboth languages, the circumstantial advances to the left of the subject for the same reason, to

express unambiguous scope over the entirety of the lower predicatation, [I 3 4].

Both phrases left of the lower predication in (4) have definite reference. Neither the

subject [I] nor the postverbal oblique [4] is marked for definiteness; rather, they gain definite

construals from theIr posItion to the right of the initial, definite phrases. As already observed

in connection with the nominals in (I), wide referential scope does not inhere in the semantics

of definite phrases Nor are gapped topics "exposed" ahead of the subject just in order to fix the

reference ofJower phrases. Topicalization is most probably to be explained by other factors. (Cf.

the circumstantial, which does appear to be fronted to a dominant position expressly to confer

6

unambiguous reference on both following APs.) The facts imply rather that referential scope

accrues to phrases in sites [0] and [A] by virtue of their precedence within the clause. The

construal of the bare NPs in (4) demonstrates more clearly than is possible in English the

tendency for ordering to determine clause-internal reference. Having illustrated the wide

referential scope conferred on definite phrases by prominent non-canonical sites in the clause,

we turn to other, phrase-internal semantic factors that trigger the advancement of postverbal

oblique phrases into preverbal positions.

'lll. Semantically complex obliques in the preverb:

The referential effect of definite topics and presubject circumstantials is the same: by

delimiting the domain of assertion, such phrases determine the interpretation of bare NPs within

their scope. While definite NPs in preverbal sites [0] and [A] thus by virtue of their prominence

confer reference on lower NPs, special LZC preverbal sites are also allotted to canonically

postverbal phrases targeted by the operators listed in (3b-d): 'any', 'every', 'even', 'only' (under

certain conditions), identificational focus and constituent interrogation. A post-verbal oblique

phrase targeted by any of these expressions inverts to appear in a preverbal position, as in (5).

(Small 'f is a place-holding "trace" in the canonical site vacated by the inverted phrase.)

5. [[ .. V O/A ...] + (operator targeting O/A)] > [.. O/A,+operator ... V ... t, ...].

A canonically postverbal AP, a locative [:0-;- x] for instance, inverts again, the preposition

becoming a postposition.

6a. [ .. V .. o-;-x] + (operator targeting 'x') > [...~x,+operator ... V ... t, ...J

b. [ .. M-x,-'-operator ... V .. t, ...J > [ .. x,+operator 0-;- ... V ... t, ...].

For canonically preverbal APs, those already in site [2J, only the second inversion, prepositional

to postpositional phrase, (6b), is observed (See example (27) below)

Before reviewing the data, we propose a unified explanation for [ .. A/O ... V ...J order

m terms of the meaning of the expressions that condition the realignment. Why is it only these

operators that trigger inversion and not others, such as 'all', 'several', or markers of mood?

7

The targeting of an NP by any of th~ six operators in (3b-d) introduces complications into

the relatively straightforward referential relation that obtains between a definite NP and the

individual or set it denotes. In referential terms, such an operator-targeted NP is construed

againstthe backdrop of a more inclusive class of entities, Langacker's "reference mass" (1991:

81, 551). Thus, 'We drink only red' means more than just 'We drink red' as 'only' explicitly

excludes non-reds from the evoked reference mass "types of wine". In 'They even tip BUSboys',

'even' targets 'busboys', marking its referent as occupying a low position on an implicit scale of

predictability, the scalar reference mass in this case "service providers more and less ordinarily

tipped in accordance with local convention (cab drivers, room boys, sommeliers, etc.)".

In terms of scope, oblique expressions of the type 'only red' and 'even busboys' set the

quantiticational scene for the entire predicate along the barbarous, Old Chinglish (neo-Fregean

dialect) lines of "We", of {[only] (red),} assert '</Jw drink te'''. The semantic extension of 'drink

(something)' is here delimited by 'only red', the predicate lying within the semantic scope of the

restrict'ing phrase. The restrictive scope conferrable on 'red' through the quantifYing of its

reference by the operator ONLY "raises" the phrase 'red' out of its scopeless postverbal object

slot, allowing it to join wide-scope ONLY to loom iconically over the predicate, all the while

continuing to participate at one remove in that predicate as the object of 'drink" 'We {[only]

(red),) drink t,'.

English displays other strategies for dealing with the cont1icting claims on ordering of

scope vs. participant relations. In 'We only drink RED', 'red' does not budge trom its direct object

slot, the relation 'operator to target' expressed,jaute de mICUX, discontinuously as 'only ... red'.

In 'We drink only red', the semantic relation 'scope over' is completely covert, the operator, in

spite of its wide scope, smuggled detenniner-like into a postverbal site. (ef Yiddish-English

'Even the BUSboy they tipped" for a variety of English in which operator phrases may be shifted

leftwards as in LZC.)

The linear design of human language is inherently incapable of mediating entirely

equitably between the competing demands of participant- vs. scope-based sequencing. One or

the other gains the upper hand on linearization, though precise conditions on "who wins when"

certainly vary across languages, and perhaps across operators, registers and historical stages

within languages. (See our preliminary correlation ofLZe operator movement with tense/aspect!

mood below and in note 2.) What the data make abundantly clear is that the LZe pm,1verb,

8

unlike that of English, tends not to accommodate obliques with the domain-setting function of

'only red' or 'even busboys'. Because they "delimit the referential domain of the predicate, such

operator phrases are found, [(operator +) target), in the LZC preverb.

Free-choice 'any(one/thinglwhere)' sets a quantificational scene of a somewhat different

sort. 'Anyone who . .' is equivalent to an existential conditional clause that picks out a set as

domain for the assertion of the activity named by the predicate. Thus, 'The ombudsperson sees

anyone with a complaint' means '!fthere is/are (a) person(s) \.ith a complaint, the ombudsperson

sees that/those person(s); no aggrieved party, no seeing' In languages like English, of course, a

phrase like 'anyone with a complaint' will occur in whatever position is associated with its

grammatical role, its wide quantificational scope ih'110redin a strictly participant-relation-based

system of alignment. In LZC, however, scope relations are represented iconically, a wide-scope-thL-

expression tending strongly to preced~expression(s) within its scope. I

The examples below have been chosen to substantiate two claims about the scope-based

motivation for much [... OIA ... V ...J order in LZC: (i) APs as well as postverbal NPs are

atTected by "operator inversion" (as in (17) and (23», and (ii) this type of.inversion is triggered

not by an arbitrary list of lexical items, but by the set of abstract meanings {ANY, EVERY,

EVEN}, no matter what lexical shape those meanings may assume and even lf1 cases where no

lexica! exponent of ihe operator appears in the clause (as in (9) and (15». ONLY presents a

more complex descriptive problem, touched on in note 2 below. The link between scope over

the predicate and the two remaining operators, identificational focus and constituent questions,

will be treated brietly in XII and XIII.

Attention to the rendering oftense/aspectlmodality in the translations will further reveal

that single-instance narrative assertions are conspicuous by their absence. (Hence the choice of

habitual/generic present for our English examples about 'red', 'busboys' and 'anyone with a

complaint'.) Operator movement in LZC is found in sentences that express some sort of

generality, making them clearly distinct from the one-time specificity of situation evoked by our

first examples, (I) and (4) The types of generalizing contexts in which operator movement

occurs include replicative past (9), "habitual present" (16), (I 8), (20), (23), hypothetical (7), (13),

(J 5), and hypothetical-concessive (II), (12). Such sentences evoke situation types rather than

token instances.'

9

The translations make clear that English need never deviate from SVOA under the

semantic conditions which trigger (... O/A' ... V ...J in LZC. The grammar ofLZC thus includes

a set of "movement rules" absent from English and other familiar lanl,'1lages whose word-order

is largely determined by participant relations. We continue below to represent prosodic

prominence by capitals; such prosodic marking is often the sole indicator of operator targeting

in English. (Words capitalized in the exposition represent abstract meanings.) Operators not

adjacent to their targets are underlined.

VEl. Free-choice indefinites:

Oblique NPs construed as 'any x' or 'what-/who- ever', etc. may be marked by FLjiln, as

in (7), or may be bare, as in (9). The most common meaning of fL is, in fact, 'whenever', as

Harbsmeier (1981:153-166) has carefully shown. As such a usage targets a clause rather than an

NP, it is not relevant to the sort of operator movement discussed here. The case of'iij: mel

'(when).ever(y)' is similar; see IX.

A

7. fL OJ.L-J- ~ ~ :§-

1 ? 3 4

Me 11.10/59.28

any can get life SREL why NEG use PRT

Why should one fail to exploit any means by which life can be preserved?

This strict scope-iconicity, wide scope always preceding narrow, entails that position

alone will disambiguate free-choice from definite oblique phrases. Compare (8) with (9).

8. i:±JN g A • ~«:'J'-) :A pff l' lkexit old palace person place 3.LOC tire OREL NEG reach

9. )( fiff 71': ~ W- IJ, §'l ~ *- §'l

Zz 368.28

Zz 241.23

fire OREL NEG arrive raze small house daub big house

8. (They) evacuated the inmates of the former sire's harem and placed them where the fire would

not reach (= somewhere out ohange, not 'wherever the tire would fail 10 reach').

9. Wherever the fire had not yet arrived, (they) razed the smaJ] structures and smeared the

large ones with mud.

10

In (3), the position of the locative phrase guarantees that it does not have wide scope. Its

reference may well be non-specific in thatthe writer may not know the precise location to which

the inmates were evacuated -- 'some area or other not likely to be ravaged by the blaze'. The

phrase, however, does not express a condition on the performance of the actions named by the

two verbs 'evacuate' and 'place'. Note that checking the truth of assertion (8) would involve

simply finding out whether the imnates had in fact been moved to an unravaged spot. Assessing

the truth of (9), however, would be considerably more complicated, involving checking all areas

as yet unvisited by the flames at the relevant time to see if all the houses in such areas had in fact

been either razed or daubed with mud. Initial "where the fire had not arrived" in (9) stipulates

the scope of the named activities in a way that postverbal "where the fire would not reach" in (3)

cannot.

IX Every:

• Oblique phrases targeted by ffl;m¥i 'every' always occur preverbally. 3 LZC ffl;seems not

to be used in single-instance narrative clauses (as in 'Pat blessed every child'), the verb rather

naming a habitual or generic type of activity, a feature perhaps related to the operator's more

common use as a conjunction, 'whenever'. (10) shows that 'every' phrases occur between subject

and verb, the subject here a free-choice indefinite.

Bd

3 4 _5__

10. fL ~ ~ A 13 ffl; r~ ~ td m- ~ Lj 2.27

any COM guest enter SREL every door yield LOC guest

Anyone entering in the company ofa guest yields (the right of way at) every doorway

to the guest.

X. LZC exponents of EVEN:

EVEN is expressed by several lexical items inLZC: pre-NP jiEsul, t1zeng and post-NP

.EL qie. Each triggers the same sort of inversion ofa targeted postverbal phrase into the preverb

we have observed above, though the individual operator phrases differ in terms of position with

respect to the subject, resumption and probably finer shades of meaning, details whose

investigation must be left to another occasion.

11

II. Ni ffifoJ* 1:!1.' Ifit were permissible to seek wealth,

A i3 4

!HlE ¥J\ ~ ;(: ± :g. # ~;(:; Ly7.12/1520

even grasp whip POS officer I also do it

I would even serve as a WHIP-bearing OFFicer (i.e. as a charioteer for the establishment).

(12) clearly demonstrates that 'even x' eschews canonical complement position in APs.

A ~ 3

12... !RtE ~ ~;(: 9iD QJ ::f !ig tJ, t; ~ Sjs 23/28.28

even PN PN POS wisdom NEG able INS govern

(Under such conditions,) one cannot govern even with the wisdom of Yao and Shun.

t\--i 3 4

13. 7E ~ £!. ~ ;(:;

_6 __

liB ~'VL Zc 418/201.3

die horse even buy it 5 100 gold let.alone live horse PRT

(You'd) buy even a DEAD horse for 500 gold, let alone a live one!

In (14), the target, 'dog (or) pig', of1!t z"(mg 'even' is resumed preverbally by the oblique pronoun

Z zht'it' in a pattern associated with ONLY and identificational focus (see XI - XII).

A 3 4

14 ~ A 1:!1. TIff 1!t ~ ~ ;(:;::f ;g= t; 1:!1. Xz41l3.5

this man PRT and even dog pig it NEG be.like PRT

This is to be a man, yet not ~ as good as a DOG or a PIG (Graham 1977:32b; emphasis

added).

EVEN may target an oblique covertly, as in (15), where the operator's presence is implied

by the unpredictability of ,chin' as object of 'forget'. The semantics implicit in the very idea of

'forgetting one's CHIN' motivates the fronting of the oblique NP, which, as focused object, is

then resumed preverbally by ;(:.

12

A 3 4 A? 3'

chin it forget FUT what NEG forget PRT

Hf2l1826

Ifhe (even) forgets his own CHIN (i.e. that he has one), what will he fail to forget?1

XL LZC exponents ofONL Y:

The English quantified verb phrase, 'VERB only x' inverts in LZC to [oft we; Xi :*,/;Z.i

shi /::hi VERB], exploiting the same preverbal resumptive strategy lor objects observed in the

two previous examples'. (Of the two resumptives attested in this construction, :* appears to be

the earlier lorm.)

I A-- 3

16 #i Oft tlJ; :*i m Zz210.13

I only profit this scrutinize

I focus on advantage alone.

A canonically postverbal prepositional phrase becomes, in the scope of Oft, a preverbal

Pos/positional constituent. In fact, there appears to be no contextual support for construing Oftin (17) literally as 'only'; here, the operator simply marks identificational focus (see XlI below).

_A__ 3

17. cjJ Oft ~ 1t: ® (construed as standard f!ilihlm) Zz 348.16

only PN LOC be. upset

It is with us (US,) CAI, that (the King of Chu) is disgruntled.

Cf (12), where the complement, 'wisdom of Yao and Shun', is separated from its adposition by

an Implicit subject, as well as polarity and modal operators.

Double negation provides a second, well-attested way of expressing 'VERB only x' in

r,lc. 'ifnot x, not-VERB'. (18)demonstrates that, like 'even x' in (12), 'ifnot x' avoids canonical

oblique positions.

13

A L- 3 _5 _

18.:J~ ~F ~ §if::?.. ~ l' iW J..:J, <Pi ~~ 1t, ± iW Me 42/19.32

NEG PN PN POS way NEG dare INS lay.out LOC kfng before

r do not presume to expound anything but the way of Yao and Shun before the king.

The meanings ofLZC 7ifj g'fm 'mere(ly)' and iiE Ili Just (adv)' are clearly related to that

of ONL Y The next two examples show that oblique NPs targeted by these two morphemes

behave similarly to those targeted by iil wei 'only', fronting to preverbal position, though

differing from the latter and from each other in details of resumption and linkage to the verb.

A 3 _1___ 3'

19.tCJ: A Ji5j ~,:?..,ffl ~':E ~ £, JE Xz 19/90.16

thus man mere life it PRT see be.like SREL must die

(Tljus, (if) a man looks to mere survival, (such a one=) he will surely perish=)

Thus a man who looks to mere survival will surely perish.

Notice how English can collapse the meaning of biclausal (19) into a single clause because it

can easily relativize an ONLY phrase in situ ('a man who looks to mere survival ... ').

(20) is an elaborate equational clause, [x~, y t/!,] 'situation x is (attributable to) y', with

operator inversion in the x constituent.

x v

A 3 4 I' 3' 4'

20. F; 1.iEiJJ J..:J, 11;J flj fffi ffl:?..p ~, ~..t W:?.. t/!, Sjs 23/29.6

fo.lk just can get profit and do it SREL now superior give them PRT

People do only what can secure profit because now then superiors afford them (that

opportunity).

Here again observe the telescopmg ofa sesquielausaJ LZC structure, 'lolkjust [can obtain profit] I'

and do it,:, into a single English clause.

14

XII. Identificational focus:

As suggested in our treatment of(17) above, the meaning 'only x' is very closely related

to that of "identificational focus" (E. Kiss J998a; 1998b:7l 0-715). The examples below illustrate

the two marking strategies available in English: (2Ia) with the focused oblique in situ, identified

by stress, and (2Jb) with the same focused oblique advanced ahead of the subject in the non-

canonical, 'it-cleft' construction.

21a. narrow locus: We saw LOU(, not PAT).

b. it-cleft: It was LOU (who(m)/that) we saw(, not PAT).

Predictably, LZC does not allow identificational focus in situ. (22) shows the fronting of a

focused direct object, which is then resumed pre verbally.

1 _A , 3

Zz 3J5.1

1 NEG able this take.hard

It is not being able that I take hard.

(23) provides an example of the inversion of the instrumental AP t:J, - yYyf 'by.means.

of one' to - j;), 'by.means. of ONE SINGle (thing)' following a "gapped" topic, 'my way', resumed

in its canonical position by the third-person pronoun ::hl;:::.

l2..-", !L-23. ~ iI[ Ql - j;),

3 4.~ ;:::w Ly 415/8.7

my way one INST link it

My way, (I) link it together with a SINGle (principle).

Taken together, (22) and (23) demonstrate clearly that gapped topic (T+), subject (S),

identificational locus (F) and T+ and F resumptives (t, f), if any, each have a distinct position

within the LZC clause, as shmvn in (24). (In the case ofa preverbal AP, as in (23), focusing is

realized as simple adpositional inversion.)

15

B ·1 A 3 4/5

24. T+ S F (f) VERB (t)

XIII. Constituent questions:

When asking for identification of the referent of a canonically postverbal oblique phrase,

words like fiif he'what', iiislufi 'who(m)' and lJ\shu'which one' always precede the verb. fiif he

'what' has already occurred in the second clause of (15) above. fiif he also functions as the

interrogative determiner 'which, what kind of, the entire phrase (fi'iJxJ occuring in the preverb

together with a case-marked resumptive: Zfor objects, as in (25), andyan ~(=!f:+Z (LOC

+ anaphor), lit. 'at it/them', etc.) for locatives, as in (26).

_A__rn

3

25 . .:E fiif ~ Zrn FJl t!J.. Me 10.9/55.27

kin,g what minister this ask PR T

What (sort of) ministers is your Majesty asking about?

_A__ ,

26. fiif if~,3

1¥ Mo 61.37.22

what text there.in survive

In which writings are (they) preserved?

The position of the locative resumptive in (26), following its interrogated complement, fiif if'what writings', is paralleled by the focus-induced inversion of the ~-adjunct in (17) above.

Finally, when an interrogative operator targets the complement of an adposition,

predictably, we find inversion of the adposition, as in (27). Compare (23) for focus targeting the

object of an adposition in a declarative clause.

A 3 _4__

27 . .:E iii W. ~ /f' ~ Me 6.6/33.28

king who COM do NEG good

With whom will the king do mischief?

16

· "

Although constituent questions are rarely answered by more than the phrase asked for,

without a focus marker, the syntactic paraltel between such questions and identificational focus

is revealed very clearly in fuller sequences like (28).

A 3 complement

28. fOJ "'" IJZiii'3what call chin

B ,Fj Z lti Zi ~ IJZ Zz 34025-26

sun moon POS meet it

"What is it (we) refer to as chen?"

"It is the conjunction of the sun with the moon (we) refer to as chen"

LZC is one of a number of languages, including Basque, Hungarian, Omaha, Quechua

and Somali, in which focused and interrogated oblique phrases receive similar syntactic

treatment (E. Kiss 1995:23), immediately preverbal position a well-attested landing site for both

types of phrase. This commonality is explained by the fact that both phrase-types encode the

focused part of their respective clauses, the meaning of the rest of the clause being presupposed.

Thus, in asking 'What is it we refer to as chen?', a speaker presupposes that members of the

speech community are referring to something when they use the term chen; the unpresupposed

element is precisely "what?", both the interrogative itself and the semantic content of the

corresponding constituent in the answer. Similarly, by using identificational focus in 'It is with

CAl that the king ofChu is disgruntled', the speaker identifies unmistakably (and perhaps to the

surprise of the hearer) the object of discontent, that mood of discontent on the part of the king

already obvious to both speech-act participants. Compare the canonical 'The king of Chu is

disgruntled with Cai', where none of the information may be obvious, familiar to or presupposed

by the hearer. (See Lambrecht ]994 for a full account of the notions employed here.)

17

XlV. Conclusions:

We have surveyed the principle nen-SVOA patterns in LZC, claiming that each can be

correlated with operator scope. Inherently wide-scope operator phrases occur in the preverb to

set a quantificational domain for the situation named by the predicate. The inversion of oblique

operator phrases in the interests of preserving scope iconicity accounts for the greater number

ofnon-SVOA clause types in LZC than in English. In the latter, basic word-order is controlled

solely by participant relations, leaving the language far less free to represent operator scope

iconically'

In the cross-linguistic typology of non-canonical orderings and the factors that motivate

them, LZC appears to be a "discourse configurational" language, similar to Hungarian with its

distinct preverbal positions for topic and operator phrases. (See papers in E. Kiss (ed) 1995,

where the editor's earlier work on Hungarian is cited, also E. Kiss 1998b.) If valid, the scope-

related principles we claim govern non-SVOA word order in LZC may offer a new perspective

from v.;hich to clarify issues in the typology, pre-history and evolution of early Chinese.

18

NOTES

I. For brief overviews of the set-theoretic analysis of some of these operators, see Martin (1987:

123-132) and Larson (1990:30-34); for much greater detail, Heim and Kratzer ( 1998131-238);

for scalar 'even', with some discussion of ,only', Kay (1997:82-86, and references); for analyses

of identificational focus, Lambrecht (1994:206-333) and E. Kiss (1998a707-715). Cf also

Langacker's cognitive grammar approach to "relative quantifiers" ([99I:S1-141), source of the

notIons "epistemic grounding" and "reference mass" used here. For the historical background to

modern quantification theory, see Kenny (1995:12-49).

2. The negative correlation between operator movement and single-instance narrative may help

to explain both the otherwise puzzling absence of ALL from the roster of LZC "movement

operators" as well as some of the messiness of ONLY. Harbsmeier (1981 :49-87, 116-l35)

insightfnlly discusses a wide range of relevant data. He shows that the commonest word for all,

W lie, is a prepredicate particle which typically targets the subject to its left. His "counter-

examples" to this typical behavior target postverbal obliques (both direct and indirect objects),

but only when the reference of the target is definite. In each of the counterexamples he cites,

definiteness is evoked by a single-instance narrative context, the sort of context in which only

weak quantification is predicted. (Cf. Pulleyblank 1995: 128-129.) A similar observation seems

to apply in at least some of the numerous cases ofLZC prepredicate 'only' targeting postverbal

obliques: the targeted NP has (contextually induced) definite rderence. In one intriguing

instance (1981: 126.57), [il!l!x VERB X] occurs in the scope of a negative sentential operator,

(NOT [onlv VERB X]), the co-occurrence of operators perhaps blocking movement ofthe target

oflower 'only'. Finally, as the data cited both in Harbsmeier and here range over several hundred

years oflin),'Uistic history, there may be as yet undefined diachronic factors to be integrated into

a full account of OC quantification by ONLY.

3. See Heim and Kratzer (1998: 178 IT.) for the model·theoretic problem created by wide-scope

items like 'every' in the English VP, where the issue is treated without reference to possible

interactions with aspect.

19

4. We have treated syntactic topics exclusively in terms of their intraclausal referential attributes.

Several of the phrase-types discussed here, ~pped topics and identificational focus phrases most

obviously, can be fully accounted for only by attending to their (not necessarily predictable)

functions in discourse structuring. Prince (1998) and Roberts (1998) provide valuable models

for this sort of investigation.

ABBREVIATIONS

A = adjunct

AP = adpositional phrase

COM = comitative

F = focus

f= focus resumptive

FUT =future

INS = instrumental

LOC = locative

NEG = negative

0= object

OREL = object relativizer

PRT = particle

POS = possessive

PN = proper noun

S = subject

SREL = subject relativizer

T=topic

t = trace

V=verb

20

Further reading on Old Chinese morphology and syntax

Baxter, William H. (1995) "'A stronger affinity ...than could have been produced by accident':

a probabilistic comparison of Old Chinese and Tibeto-Burman", in William S- Y. Wang

(ed). The ancestry of the Chinese language, (Journal of Chinese Linguistics monograph

series, 8.) Berkeley, CA: Journal of Chinese Linguistics.

--- and Sagart, Laurerit. (1998) 'Word formation in Old Chinese', in J. 1. Packard (ed) New

approaches to Chinese wordformation, Berlin: Mouton.

Cikoski, John S. (1978) 'Three essays on classical Chinese grammar: (One) An outline sketch

of word-classes and sentence structure in classical Chinese', Computational analyses of

Asian and African languages 8: 17-152.

Gabelentz, Georg von der. (1 [881 ]960) Chinesische Grammatik, 4th ed. Halle: Niemeyer.

Harbsmeier, Christoph. (1981) Aspects of classical Chinese syntax, London & Malmo: Curzon

Press.

Peyraube, Alain. (1988) Syntaxe diachronique du Chinois: evolution des constructions datives

duX/V" siecle avoJ-c. auXVIIl' stecle [Memoires de l'Institut des Hautes Etudes

Chinoises, V. XXIX], Paris: College de France.

Pulleyblank, Edwin G. (1995) Outline of classical Chinese grammar, Vancouver, BC: University

of British Columbia Press.

21

Primary Sources

References to most LZC texts cited here are to the editions of The Chinese University of Hong

Kong Institute of Chinese Studies Ancient Chinese Text Concordance Series :m= m 9=l)(1\.~

9=l1lf&l)(1tl;}H'GPJT7t~jjjjji~~~IH~'¥*51~HIJ,(hereafter ACT) edited by D. C. Lau ~j

~Et,} and Chen Fong Ching ~:1JiE, and published by The Commercial Press, Hong Kong iW

~EP'll!Ug(:m=m), 1992 --. Passages cited from ACT are identified according to the following

convention: (chapter[.verseJl)page.line.

Hf=Hanfeizi. ~:;l~-=f.The Han Fei corpus. fIil~IUjjj~jj'g,m:tlJf±~. ~:;l~-=f*51·

~t~: 9=l¥~f,'ij, 1982.

Lj = LYi. :m~c.The Record of rites. ACT, 1992

Ly = Lunyu. ffiIlf~. The Confucius corpus. ACT, 1995.

Me = Mengzi.1ii:-=f. The Mencius corpus. ACT, 1995.

Mo = Mozi. ~-=f. The Mozi corpus. ~-=f511!}.Peiping: Yenching University Press, 1948. Rpt.

Ll:e: Ll:eE~1±l)tJH±, 1986.

Sjs = Shangjunshu. iW ~~. The Writings of Lord Shang. ACT, 1992.

Xz =Xunzi.1ifj -=f. The Xunzi corpus. ACT, 1996.

Zc = Zhanguoce. ~llf&Im. Intrigues of the Warring States. ACT, 1992.

Zz.= Zuozhuan. ~ttb:~. The Spring and autumn annals, with the Zuo tradition. ACT, 1995.

22

Bjbliography

Culicover, Peter W. and McNally, Louise (eds). (1998) Syntax and semantics, v. 29: The limits

of syntax, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Graham, A. C. (1977) 'The Chinese particle tzeng fff', Early China 3: 31-35.

Hawkins, John A. (1998) 'Some issues in a performance theory of word order', in Siewierska

(ed).

Heim, Irene and Kratzer, Angelika. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar, Oxford, UK:

Blackwell.

Kay, Paul. (199[0]7) 'Even', in P. Kay Words and the grammar of context, Stanford, CA: CSLI.

« Linguistics and philosophy 13: 59-Ill.)

Kenny: Anthony. (1995) Frege, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books

E. Kiss, Katal.in. (1995) 'Introduction', in E. Kiss (ed) Discourse configurational languages,

New York: Oxford University Press.

-- (1998a) 'Identificational focus versus information focus', Language 74: 245-273.

-- (1998b) 'Discourse configurationality in the languages of Europe', in Siewierska (ed).

Krifka, Manfred. (1992) 'Definite NPs aren't quantifiers', Linguistic Inquiry 23.156-163.

Lambrecht, Knud. (1994) Information structure and sentence form: topicJocus and the

mental representation of discourse referents, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.

Langacker, Ronald. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, volume II: Descriptive

application, Stanford, CA: Stanford UP.

Larson, Richard K. 'Semantics', in D. N. Osherson and H. Lasnik (eds) Language: an invitation

to cognitive science, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Martin, Robert M. (1987) nJe meaning of language, Cambridge, MA: The !vl1T Press.

23

Prince. Ellen F. (1998) 'On the limits, of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and

topicalization', in Culicover and McNally (eds).

Roberts, Craige. (1998) 'Focus, the flow of information, and universal grammar', in CuJicover

and McNally (eds).

Sasse, Hans-Jurgen. (1987) The thetic/categorical distinction revisited', Linguistics 25: 511-580.

Siewierska, Anna (ed) (1998) Constituent order in the languages of Europe, Berlin: Mouton.

Derek Herforth

School of Asian Studies, AI8

University of Sydney

NSW 2006

Australia

derek. herforth@asia.usyd.edu.au

24