Are Topic Constructions Licensed by A’Movement in Mandarin Chinese? - A Preliminary Study

Are Topic Constructions Licensed by A’ Movement in Mandarin Chinese?—A Preliminary Study Hsin-chang Ho Department of English, National Taiwan Normal University No. 162, Sec. 1, Heping East Road, Taipei City 106, Taiwan 69421019@ntnu.edu.tw Abstract. Topic structures are conventionally classified into two types in Mandarin Chinese, namely dangling and non-dangling topics. The present study concurs that non-dangling topics might be licensed by A’ movement (e.g. Chen 1995), in the sense that they might be interpreted as an operator A’-binding their co-indexed variable, usually an empty category, in a corresponding comment clause. As regards so-called dangling topics, this study favors the traditional postulation of an A/A’ position and also lends support to the A’ movement analysis (e.g. Huang and Ting 2006). 1. Introduction It is conventionally suggested that two types of topics exist in Mandarin Chinese: dangling topics (i.e. Chinese-style topics) and non-dangling topics. Non-dangling topics are accounted for in terms of an antecedent-pronominal analysis (e.g. by Xu and Langendeon 1985), but are interpreted as an instantiation of A’-movement (e.g. by Chen 1995, cf. Williams 1980). As for dangling topics, some studies treat them as semantically licensed (Li and Thompson 1976, Chafe 1976, Xu and Langendeon 1985, Tsao 1990), while some analyses propose that so-called dangling topics are syntactically licensed as non-dangling topics are (Shi 2000, Huang and Ting 2006, cf. Chen 1995). Given the controversy, the current study attempts to imply that A’ movement probably could account for both types of topics. 2. Non-dangling Topics Xu and Langendeon (1985) observe that topicalization in Mandarin is not subject to the subjacency condition, as illustrated in (1) where the EC (ei) crosses more than one bounding node, i.e. NP and S (or S’) but the example is acceptable. They advance that the EC (ei) in the comment clause, as in (1), should be interpreted as a non-overt pronominal whose antecedent is the coindexed topic (zhe-ben shui ‘this book’) rather than as a variable. 434 (1) [S’ Zhe-ben shui [S wo renwei [S[NP[S’ e’i [S ej du guo ei de ]] renj] bu duo]]]. This-CL book I think read ASP NOM man not many *‘This book, I think there aren’t many people who read.’ Despite Xu and Langendeon’s analysis, it has been argued that non-dangling topics occupy [Spec, CP] and are subject to the strong crossover condition (SCC) (Huang 1984) and to the empty category principle (ECP) (Chen 1995). The present study also notices some potential discrepancies between an EC coindexed with a topic constituent and a [+pronominal] element. To begin with, Xu and Langendeon regard the EC as a pronominal. There are two possible non-overt candidates associated with [+pronominal], viz. pro and PRO. It seems to turn out that the candidate PRO could be excluded, since the EC (ei) in (1) is not subject to the PRO theorem. The EC is governed by the verb du ‘read’, which violates the PRO theorem but is still grammatical. Hence, what Xu and Langendeon refer to as an empty pronominal is not a PRO but a …

Content truncated to 500 words