On syntactic tense in Mandarin Chinese - Linguistics

On syntactic tense in Mandarin Chinese
NACCL 27 (April 5, 2015) - Nick Huang - University of Maryland, College Park∗
1
• Is Mandarin Chinese tenseless?
– Yes: Huang (1982), Li (1985), Tang (1990), Tang (2000), Lin (2012)
(among others) – syntactic evidence from control constructions, distribution of auxiliaries and aspect; Sybesma (2007) — adverbial distribution.
Preliminaries
1.1
Outline
• Four reasons to think why jiang is syntactic tense:
– Appears in a syntactically “high” position, but . . .
– No: Hu et al. (2001) – no tense morphology, syntactic evidence from
control constructions; Smith and Erbaugh (2005); Lin (2006; 2010)
– semantic evidence (aspect + temporal interpretation rules + discourse).
– Not an auxiliary
– Not an adverb
– Not irrealis mood
– Arguments are built on indirect evidence.
• A proposal on tense and clause structure
– This talk: Yes, Mandarin Chinese has syntactic tense, alternating between future jiang ( ) and an unpronounced non-future.
將
• Discussion
– Why is this question important?
– Prediction 1: Verb always required with jiang, even if semantically
vacuous
∗ Chinese is frequently thought of and described as a tenseless
language. To what extent is this description adequate or fair?
∗ How similar or different is clause structure in Chinese, relative
to other languages that have tense / have been analyzed as having tense?
∗ Influential discussions of tense systems in natural languages e.g.
Klein (1994) and Comrie (1985) suggest that very few languages
make a future vs. non-future distinction1 — if this proposal is
on the right track, to what extent can we still say that this distinction is typologically rare?
– Prediction 2: A finite vs. non-finite distinction
– Issues with a syntactic tense analysis of jiang
• Conclusion
1.2
What is tense?
• “Tense” actually is shorthand for two closely-related concepts:
1. Syntactic tense: e.g. a syntactic node + morphological manifestations — scope of today’s presentation
∗ Special
thanks to the NACCL-27 organizers. I am grateful to the help and feedback by Valentine Hacquard, Howard Lasnik, Colin Phillips, Alexander Williams, and other members of the
UMD S-Lab community. Comments welcome at [email protected]
1 Comrie (1985) reports only one language (Hua, a Papuan language) known to have a future
vs. non-future distinction.
2. Semantic tense: temporal interpretation
1
1.3
What does the literature say about future time marking
and jiang?
• Jiang is compatible with a large range of future time references
• The future-marking particles typically discussed in the literature are hui
and yao . Typically glossed as “will” or “have to” or “must” depend(2) (a)
ing on context.
會
要
• To the best of my knowledge, the literature has not said much about jiang.
– Wu and Kuo (2010) contains the first published detailed discussion
(to my knowledge) of the semantics of jiang. Claim is that jiang, hui,
yao are all modals, but with different modal bases.
(b)
2.2
– Smith and Erbaugh (2005): only comment on jiang is that it is
a modal verb conveying future time and is used for “scheduled,
planned situations” (p. 322).
• Jiang is structurally high – it precedes hui (and yao), but not the other way
round.
紅巨星。
Is it true for jiang?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
• Occurs only with a verb (ellipsis contexts notwithstanding), therefore not
an intransitive verb:
會 去 北京。
(4)
Lisi jiang hui qu Beijing.
L
JIANG HUI go Beijing
- Lisi will go to Beijing.
去 北京。
李四 {將
會
要
去 北京 。
/
/
} *(
)
Lisi {jiang / hui / yao} *(qu Beijing).
L
JIANG
HUI
YAO go
Beijing
- Lisi will go to Beijing.
• Cannot take a direct object, therefore not a transitive verb.
Lisi hui jiang qu Beijing.
L
HUI JIANG go Beijing
- Lisi will go to Beijing.
2 “Epistemic”
成為
不
Appears in a syntactically high position
李四 會 將
年 後 將
Diagnostics
Occur only with a main verb
Cannot take a direct object
Cannot take aspect markers
Can form A-not-A questions
Can be negated with bu
“not”
License ellipsis
(3)
Four reasons to think why jiang is syntactic tense
(b) *
五十億
爆炸。
Not an future-marking auxiliary
詞
李四 將
太陽
後 將
• Ren excludes ellipsis-licensing as a diagnostic; it is included here because
future-marking hui and yao do license ellipsis.
• However, jiang is used productively. Academia Sinica treebank (361,834
words (ci ), 61,087 trees): 827 instances of epistemic2 and deontic hui,
942 instances of epistemic and deontic yao, 559 instances of jiang).
(1) (a)
一 分鐘
fenzhong hou jiang baozha.
Zhadan yi
after JIANG explode
one minute
bomb
- The bomb will explode in a minute.
• Adopt Ren’s (2008) criteria for auxiliaries, which were in turn adopted
from diagnostics previously proposed by Chao (1968); Li and Thompson
(1981); Li (2004) to distinguish auxiliaries from main verbs and adverbs.
• Possibly because of the formal register with which jiang is associated; not
usually used in casual speech.
2.1
炸彈
nian hou jiang chengwei hongjuxing.
Taiyang wu-shiyi
red.giant
five-billion year after JIANG become
Sun
- The sun will become a red giant after five billion years.
– Ren (2008) (dissertation on future time interpretation in Mandarin)
presents a comprehensive discussion of modal auxiliaries, futureoriented main verbs, grammatical and lexical aspect, but not jiang.
2
– Note that (2 b) contradicts the claim in Smith and Erbaugh (2005)
that jiang is for “scheduled” events
(5) *
李四 {將
會
要 北京。
/
/
}
Lisi {jiang / hui / yao} Beijing.
L
JIANG
HUI
YAO Beijing
- no meaningful translation available
and “deontic” as defined by the Academia Sinica.
2
• Cannot take aspect markers (6 a), therefore unlike some control verbs
(6 b).
(6) (a) *
李四 {將了
會了
要了
(b) *
我 請過
去 北京。
她 吃 飯。
Lisi
L
? }
? yao}.
要。
YAO
(b) *
李四 明天
將
去 北京， 我 也 將。
Lisi mingtian jiang qu Beijing, wo ye jiang.
also JIANG
L
tomorrow JIANG go Beijing I
- ‘Lisi will go to Beijing tomorrow, and so will I.’
李四 會 不 會 唱歌？
hui changge?
Lisi hui bu
HUI NEG HUI sing
L
- Will Lisi sing?
2.3
Not an adverb
李四 能 不 能 唱歌？
• Another hypothesis is that jiang is a adverb that denotes certain points in
time, such as jianglai
“in the future”, mingtian
“tomorrow” etc.,
or even a speaker-oriented time adverb, like hai
“still/yet”, zai , you
“again” etc.
李四 將
• Jiang does not pattern after either type of adverb.
不 將
將來
又
Lisi neng bu
neng changge?
L
can NEG can sing
- Can Lisi sing?
唱歌？
Lisi jiang bu
jiang changge?
L
JIANG NEG JIANG sing
- Will Lisi sing?
(10)
Adverb diagnostics
Appears sentence-initially
Appears in imperatives
明年
(11) (a)
– Note that future-marking yao also cannot be negated with bu.
李四 明天
還
明天
再
Is it true for jiang?
No
No
• Adverbs denoting points in time may appear sentence-initially; jiang does
not.
• Auxiliaries can be negated with bu “not”, but not jiang (also noted by Wu
and Kuo (2010)).
(8) (a)
/
{
/
}
{
mingtian {hui / yao} qu Beijing, wo ye {hui /
also HUI
YAO go Beijing I
tomorrow HUI
- ‘Lisi will go to Beijing tomorrow, and so will I.’
– Also note (as Li and Thompson (1981) did) that future-marking yao
does not undergo A-not-A. Yao can appear in an A-not-A construction, but only with the “to want” reading.
(c) *
要 去 北京， 我 也 會
會
李四 明天
(9) (a)
• Auxiliaries can form A-not-A questions, but not jiang.
(b)
唱歌。
• Jiang does not license ellipsis, unlike hui (or yao).
Wo qing-guo ta chi fan.
I
invite-EXP her eat meal
- I invited her to a meal.
(7) (a)
不 將
Lisi mingtian bu
jiang changge.
L
tomorrow NEG JIANG sing
- Lisi won’t sing tomorrow.
/
/
}
Lisi {jiang-le / hui-le / yao-le} qu Beijing.
L
JIANG - PF
HUI - PF
YAO - PF go Beijing
- Lisi would be going to Beijing.
(b)
李四 明天
李四 去 北京。
Mingnian Lisi qu Beijing.
next.year L
go Beijing
- ‘Lisi goes to Beijing next year.’
不 會 唱歌。
Lisi mingtian bu
hui changge.
L
tomorrow NEG HUI sing
- Lisi won’t sing tomorrow.
(b) *
將
Jiang
李四 去 北京。
Lisi qu Beijing.
L
go Beijing
- ‘Lisi goes to Beijing (in the future).’
JIANG
3
• Adverbs can appear in imperatives; jiang cannot.
(12) (a)
別
再
去 美國
了。
別
將
去 美國
了。
Bie
• Jiang cannot occur in yes-no questions about past situations.
(15) (a)
zai
qu Meiguo le.
NEG . IMP again go America PRT
- Don’t go to America again.
(b) *
(b)
qu Meiguo le.
go America PRT
- Don’t go to America.
Bie
JIANG
NEG . IMP JIANG
2.4
將
喜歡 吃 蔬菜
李四 昨天
將
去 跑步 嗎？
嗎？
(* )
Lisi yiqian
(*jiang) xihuan chi shucai
ma?
L
in.the.past JIANG like
eat vegetables Q
- Did Lisi like to eat vegetables in the past?
(* )
Lisi zuotian
(*jiang) qu paobu ma?
L
yesterday JIANG go run
Q
- Did Lisi go running yesterday.
• Jiang cannot appear in conditionals on past events.
Not irrealis mood
• A third hypothesis is that jiang is an irrealis mood marker; i.e., there is (16)
a phonologically-null realis morpheme used for describing events that
have happened or are ongoing, while jiang is used for all other contexts.
• Because the future by definition has not happened, jiang as an irrealis
marker can be used to describe scenarios set in the future.
• Adopt diagnostics for irrealis mood in Matthewson (2006).
能夠
參賽，
(* )
(*jiang) nenggou can-sai,
Ruguo Neima’er zuotian
participate
Neymar yesterday JIANG can
if
或許
巴西隊
就 不 會 輸 給 德國隊
了。
• Jiang cannot occur in imperatives.
Is it true for jiang?
No
No
No
No
Irrealis diagnostics
Can appear in negation
Can appear in yes-no questions
Can occur in conditionals
Can occur in imperatives
將
如果 內馬爾 昨天
le.
bu hui shu gei Deguo-dui
huoxu jiu
Baxi-dui
Brazil-team perhaps then NEG HUI lose to Germany-team PRT
If Neymar were able to play yesterday, perhaps Brazil wouldn’t have
lost to Germany.’ e.g. said the day after Germany beat Brazil in the 2014 FIFA
World Cup
• This hypothesis also predicts that jiang appears in non-future irrealis contexts.
(13)
李四 以前
(17) (a) *
別
Bie
將
來
了。
lai
le.
come PRT
- Don’t come. (= 12 b)
JIANG
NEG . IMP JIANG
• Does not occur in non-future negation
2.5
– We have seen earlier that negation cannot precede jiang to negate a
statement about the future.
(14) (a)
(b)
李四 以前
將
不
將
• Jiang indicates some kind of future time reference, but syntactically, . . .
喜歡 吃 蔬菜。
(* )
(* )
Lisi yiqian
(*jiang) bu (*jiang) xihuan chi shucai.
L
in.the.past JIANG NEG JIANG like
eat vegetables
- Lisi didn’t like to eat vegetables in the past.
李四 昨天
將
沒
將
Interim summary
– It is not an auxiliary,
– Nor an adverb,
– Nor an irrealis mood particle.
去 跑步。
(* )
(* )
Lisi zuotian
(*jiang) mei (*jiang) qu paobu.
L
yesterday JIANG NEG JIANG go run
- Lisi didn’t go / hadn’t gone running yesterday.
4
3
Proposal
4
Two predictions
• Jiang is syntactic tense.
4.1 Jiang as verbal affix: Verb always required with jiang,
even if semantically vacuous
• More specifically, I propose the following syntactic architecture for Mandarin clauses:
• Assuming that jiang is Tense, then we might expect it to require a verblike host, as English tense morphemes do.
(18) C [. . . T [. . . Neg-1 [. . . Aux(iliary) [. . . Neg-2 [. . . Aspect [. . . VP
• Lin (2010) observes that Mandarin allows bare nominal predicates, without the copula.
• Having two negation heads allows the following sentence to be generated:
(19)
李四 將
不 會 不 理睬
(20) (a)
我。
今天 星期天。
Jintian xingqitian.
today Sunday
- Today is Sunday. (ibid., ex. 30a)
(b)
320
Wode yue
gongzi 320 yuan.
my
month salary 320 dollar
- My monthly salary is 320 dollars. (ibid., ex. 30c)
(c)
ren.
cai liang-qian
Women quan cun
whole village only two-thousand people
we
- There are only two thousand people in our village. (ibid., ex. 30d)
wo.
licai
hui bu
Lisi jiang bu
JIANG NEG HUI NEG pay.attention.to me
L
- Lisi won’t ignore (i.e. will pay attention to) me.
我的 月
• This ordering of syntactic heads in (18) is consistent in part or in whole
with the clausal structure for Mandarin cited in e.g. Soh (2007), Sybesma
(2007), and Lin (2012), and, not surprisingly, in direct variance with the
accounts of Hu et al. (2001) as well as Lin (2006), which claim that there
is no syntactic tense in Mandarin3
我們
• This clausal structure, where T scopes over negation and aspect, is not
unique to this account; similar analyses have been developed for other
languages with recognised tense paradigms, such as English, French,
Malagasy (see van Gelderen (2013), Adger (2003), Pollock (1989), Pearson (2001), a.o.). Also syntactically similar to Matthewson’s proposal
for St’át’imcets, which she considers to be a “superficially tenseless” language.
全
工資
元。
村
才 兩千
人。
• Similar sentences in English need the copula be, even though it is arguably
semantically vacuous: the predicate can be predicated from the subject
semantically.
(21) (a) Yesterday was Saturday.
(b) * Yesterday (-ed) Saturday. (cf. Lin (2010) ex. 29 *Today Wednesday.)
• This proposal enables us to easily account for most of the syntactic properties examined above. Among others:
• Presumably because English has tense, and tense needs to be expressed
on a verb.
1. Jiang precedes hui and yao in a clause, assuming that in Chinese in
general, linear precedence reflects c-command relations.
– Same logic as do-support in ellipsis and question formation, e.g.
Chomsky (1957), Lasnik (1995).
2. Jiang cannot be negated nor undergo A-not-A (assuming A-not-A is
triggered by a Neg with a question feature): jiang (as T) c-commands
Neg, so a Neg-T linear order is not available (pace Wu and Kuo (2010)
who attribute this to semantics; jiang is “not defeasible”) (p. 66).
• The absence of an equivalent semantically vacuous verb is argued to be
evidence against the presence of tense in Mandarin: no verb ⇒ no requirement for a verbal host ⇒ no tense morpheme.
• However, similar sentences in Mandarin set explicitly in the future with
jiang behave like English, requiring a semantically vacuous verb. (This
property is not unique to jiang. Auxiliaries also require the presence of a
semantically vacuous verb.)
3 Note that Lin’s (2006) proposal is essentially (18) but with an I in place of T between C and
Modal (= Aux) (pp. 2–3).
5
• Adopting Lin’s reasoning leads us to conclude that verbs obligatorily ap- (24)
pear with jiang because jiang, as T, has features that only verbs can check.
(22) (a)
(b)
(c)
明天
將
是 星期一。
*( )
Mingtian jiang *(shi) xingqiyi.
tomorrow JIANG be
Monday
- Tomorrow will be Monday.
我的 月
工資 將
是
我們
全
村
有 兩千
將
5.1
人。
勸
鼓勵
李四 將
去 美國。
Why jiang is not obligatory on all sentences set in the future
• If jiang is future tense, one might expect it to be present in all sentences
that describe events in the future.
*( )
ren.
jiang *(you) liang-qian
Women quan cun
whole village JIANG exist two-thousand people
we
- There will be two thousand people in our village.
• This is evidently not the case: a sentence about the future is acceptable
without jiang.
(25)
4.2
叫
{
/
/
}
(* )
Tamen {jiao / quan / guli}
Lisi (*jiang) qu Meiguo.
they
tell
urge
encourage L
JIANG
go America
- They told / urged / encouraged Lisi to go to America.
Some issues related to a tense analysis of jiang
5
元。
*( ) 320
gongzi jiang *(shi) 320 yuan.
Wode yue
320 dollar
month salary JIANG be
my
- My monthly salary is 320 dollars.
他們
A finite vs. non-finite distinction in clauses
李四 明天
會 去 北京。
Lisi mingtian hui qu Beijing.
tomorrow HUI go Beijing
L
- Lisi will go to Beijing tomorrow.
• If there is a future vs. non-future distinction within tense in Mandarin
Chinese, is there also a tense vs. non-tensed distinction? i.e., are there
finite and non-finite clauses?
– Note that the claim so far is that there is a future vs. non-future
distinction; nothing said about a tense vs. non-tensed distinction.
• Speakers have several options available – tense, aspect, and modal –
when they wish to make an assertion about the time of a situation; this is
true in English (and all languages) as well as in Mandarin Chinese.
• Jiang provides evidence to think that there is also a finite vs. non-finite
distinction, contra Hu et al. (2001).
• No a priori reason to expect a exclusive one-to-one correspondence between future time interpretation and tense morphology.
– If so, then the clausal syntax of Mandarin Chinese is really very
much similar to that of languages with overt tense morphology.
• A language with tense morphology has several ways to talk about the
present and the past. Comrie (1985) and Klein (1994): English past tense
can be used in non–past contexts.
• Observe that jiang can appear in embedded clauses.
(23)
他們
認為
希望
否認
李四 將
(26) I wanted to ask you about your car. (meaning “I want to ask you about
your car.”, not “In the past I wanted to ask you about your car.”)
去 美國。
{
/
/
}
Tamen {renwei / xiwang / fouren} Lisi jiang qu Meiguo.
they
think
hope
deny
L
JIANG go America
- They think / hope / denied that Lisi will go to America.
(27) That’s perfect. (that referring to some event in the recent past.)
• Events that have taken place in the past can be felicitously described using the present tense (albeit with perfect aspect).
• Jiang cannot appear in the complements of control constructions; this is
expected if jiang is tense, and complements of control constructions are (28) She has gone to the station.
infinitive.4
4 Compare with the observation in Li (1985) that future-marking hui in clausal complement is
unacceptable (pp. 48-49).
6
5.2
• Presented above were arguments for treating jiang as a syntactic future
tense.
• If jiang is future tense, then it should be compatible with all predicates
• Possible counterexamples:
(29) (a) *
每個
病人
都 將
死。
• Wu and Kuo (2010), for example, argue that jiang is semantically modal,
like hui and yao are. Smith and Erbaugh (2005) also claim that jiang is
modal in nature.
Mei-ge
bingren dou jiang si.
every-CL patient all JIANG die
- Every patient will die.
(b) ?
我們
下星期
將
Some issues for a semantic tense analysis of jiang
5.3
Incompatibility with certain predicates
• However, proposals of temporal interpretation by Smith and Erbaugh
(2005) and Lin (2006; 2010) are mostly concerned with how aspect can
produce a present vs. past interpretation.
回。
Women xia-xingqi jiang hui.
we
next-week JIANG go.back
- We will go back next week.
• It is possible to develop an account that is consistent with these claims:
jiang is syntactically tense but semantically has modal properties — in the
sense that jiang involves some kind of operation over possible worlds.
• However, there is a marked improvement in acceptability when there is
something appearing after the verb – an adjunct or a direct object:
(30) (a)
每個
病人
– In this account, jiang is not necessarily semantic tense.
– Empirical parallels: In English, modals are syntactically T.
死 於 癌症。
都 將
– Theoretical argument by Matthewson (2006): languages have options in terms of what semantic features to bundle in a single syntactic node
bingren dou jiang si yu aizheng.
Mei-ge
every-CL parient all JIANG die of cancer
- Every patient will die of cancer.
(b)
我們
下星期
將
回
– One such implementation in Lin (2006): tense relations can be encoded in aspect.
韓國。
Hanguo.
Women xia-xingqi jiang hui
next-week JIANG go.back Korea
we
- We will go back to Korea next week.
• -
6
• The adjunct requirement above is somewhat similar to what has been
observed for certain middle and passive verbs in English (Grimshaw and
Vikner (1993); Goldberg and Ackerman (2001)):
Conclusion
• Laid out new evidence and arguments that Mandarin has:
– Syntactic tense,
(31) This house was built #(in 1819 / in ten days / with straw).
– A future vs. non-future distinction in terms of syntactic tense, and
– A finite vs. non-finite distinction.
• A pragmatic account (e.g. Goldberg and Ackerman (2001)) attributes
(30 a) to the lack of new information. But this fails to explain (30 b).
• Typologically interesting, since most languages do not make a future vs.
non-future distinction.
• Perhaps a phonological or prosodic requirement (Omer Preminger, p.c. ):
jiang requires some kind of a multi-syllabic unit to appear after it.
• Clause structure proposed for Chinese is similar to unrelated languages.
• But whatever the constraint might be, it is unlikely to be syntactic – therefore does not affect the analysis of jiang as syntactic tense.
– Additional evidence supporting the notion that there is a universal
clause structure in which Tense is a core component.
7
References
Ren, Fei. 2008. Futurity in Mandarin Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at
Austin.
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: a Minimalist approach. Oxford University Press.
Smith, Carlota S., and Mary S. Erbaugh. 2005. Temporal interpretation in Mandarin Chinese.
Linguistics 43:713–756.
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter.
Soh, Hooi Ling. 2007. Ellipsis, last resort, and the dummy auxiliary shi ’be’ in Mandarin Chinese.
Linguistic Inquiry 38:178–188.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge University Press.
Sybesma, Rint. 2007. Whether we Tense-agree overtly or not. Linguistic Inquiry 38.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2013. Clause structure. Cambridge University Press.
Tang, Chih-Chen Jane. 1990. Chinese phrase structure and the extended X’-theory. Doctoral
Dissertation, Cornell University.
Goldberg, Adele E., and Farrell Ackerman. 2001. The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts. Language
77:789–814.
Tang, Ting-Chi. 2000. Hanyu de xianding ziju yu fei xianding ziju (Finite and nonfinite complement clauses in Chinese). Language and Linguistics 1:191–214.
Grimshaw, Jane, and Sten Vikner. 1993. Obligatory adjuncts and the structure of events. In Knowledge and language, vol ii, Lexical and conceptual structure, ed. Eric Reuland and Werner Abraham,
volume II, 143–155. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wu, Jiun-Shiung, and Jenny Yi-Chun Kuo. 2010. Future and modality: A preliminary study of
jiang, hui, yao and yao. . . le in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 22nd North American
Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-22) and the 18th International Conference on Chinese
Linguistics (IACL-18), ed. Lauren Eby Clemens and Chi-Ming Louis Liu, volume 2, 54–71.
Hu, Jianhua, Haihua Pan, and Liejiong Xu. 2001. Is there a finite vs. nonfinite distinction in
Chinese? Linguistics 39:1117–1148.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral
Dissertation, Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. Routledge.
Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic Structures meets The Minimalist Program. In
Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory: essays in honor of Carlos Otero, ed. Hector Campos
and Paula Kempchinsky, 251–275. Georgetown University Press.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Li, Renzhi. 2004. Modality in English and Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Antwerp.
Li, Y.-H. Audrey. 1985. Abstract case in Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern
California.
Lin, Jo-Wang. 2006. Time in a language without Tense: The case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics
23:1–53.
Lin, Jo-Wang. 2010. A tenseless analysis of Mandarin Chinese revisited: a response to Sybesma
2007. Linguistic Inquiry 41:305–329.
Lin, T.-H. Jonah. 2012. Multiple-modal constructions in mandarin chinese and their finite properties. Journal of Linguistics 48:151–186.
Matthewson, Lisa. 2006. Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and
Philosophy 29:673–713.
Pearson, Matt. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: A minimalist approach. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA.
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic
Inquiry 20:365–424.
8