slides - corpora@parles.upf - Universitat Pompeu Fabra

A Parametric Account of Chinese and 

English Synthetic Compounds 

Xuhui Freddy Hu 

Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 

University of Cambridge 

 

JeNom 5, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 21/07/2013

1 Chinese Syn-Compounds: Data & Issues 

a. The unavailability of the nominalizing functors 

(1) English Syn-Compound: 

Truck repairing 

(2) Chinese Syn-Compound: 

Qi-che xiu-li 

Truck repair 

‘truck repairing’


b. Compatibility with the external argument, 

contra Roeper and Siegel (1978), Selkirk 

(1982), Borer (2012, forthcoming) 

(3) English Syn-Compounds: 

truck driving VS. *man driving (of trucks) 

(4) Chinese Syn-Compounds: 

Qi-che xiu-li VS. Xiaowang xiu-li 

Truck repair VS. Xiaowangrepairing 

‘truck repairing’ ‘repairing conducted by 

Xiaowang’


c. Word order 

Unlike the English Syn-Compounds, which invariably 

exhibit the N-V order, Chinese have two orders, N-V and V- 

N: 

(6) V-N order 

Xiu che xiu che gong 

Repair truck 

repair truck labourer 

‘trucking repairing’ ‘truck repairer’


d. Optional ORIGINATOR interpretation 

Borer (2012, forthcoming) points out that for the 

English ING Syn-Compounds, if the non-head is the 

internal argument of verb, then the verb should have a 

transitive reading. But this is not the case in Chinese: 

(7) No one knows when the boat sinking happened. 

(8) Ta jingli guo chen chuan 

he experience Perf. sink boat 

‘He once experienced the sinking of the boat’ (the 

boat either sank by itself or was sunk by someone.)

2 The Theoretical Framework 

Borer’s (forthcoming) XS model is taken in this 

research. The following points are relevant to our 

purpose: 

2.1 The function of C(ategorial)-functors 

Lexical items are only phonological indices with no 

categorial features (thus are “roots”), and the C-functor 

plays the role of providing categories to the roots. The 

root can take categories via two ways. 

The first way is to take a C-functor. For example, 

beautiful is an adjective due to its C A -functor “ful”.


The second way is to resort to the Category 

Complement Set (CCS). A C-functor projects a syntactic 

node, which divides a categorial space (CCS). A root 

will get a corresponding categorial value due to the 

CCS determined by the C-functor. For example, the C- 

functor ING will on the one hand project a N node, 

which means that the output of the syntactic 

computation from this projection will take a N category, 

and also, it will define a V type CCS, which basically 

means that the item put in the CCS takes a V category.


ING is thus put as ING N (V). Two possibilities will occur for the 

derivation to converge: firstly, an item with a C V -functor will be 

qualified. For example, enable takes a C V -functor en, and can be 

merged in the complement of ING N (V) . Secondly, an acateogrial root 

can be merged in the complement position, and in this case, the 

syntactic environment will make this root V-equivalent, that is, this 

root will take a V category: 

 

Borer (forthcoming)


2.2 On Syn-Compounds 

Borer argues that the Syn-Compound is in nature identical like other 

simple event nominals (R-Nominal) such as class, lecture, etc. This 

type of compound is formed via two steps: N and V are combined first, 

and then the non-head part N is moved to the left side of V, so that V 

can combine with the C-functor (ING/ER), with the whole compound 

being nominalised. 

Borer also assumes that ING/ER in Syn-Compounds take an 

ORIGINATOR function, which explains why when the non-head part of 

the compound is taken as the internal argument of the verb, the verb 

has to be transitive.

3 Accounting for Chinese Syn-Compounds 

3.1 The N-V type 

The two issues have to be explained. The first one is how 

Chinese Syn-Compounds are nominalised, considering that 

there is no ING type nominaliser in Chinese. 

Follwoing Borer’s XS model we assume that Chinese roots 

are categorised in the relevant syntactic environment. For 

example, a root will become A(or ADV)-equivalent when 

preceded by hen (very), N-equivalent in [Spec TP] or 

complement of V , and V-equivalent in the complement of 

little v (or complement of Asp in Borer (2005a,b)) .


This predicts that a root might have different 

categories, in line with the real data in Chinese: 

(9) Tade fengge hen Jay Chou. 

His style very Jay Chou 

‘His style is very much of Jay Chou’s type.’ 

(10) zhebu dianying hen da (Chinese Wu dialect). 

This movie very fight. 

‘This movie is full of fighting.’


Unlike English which takes ING to provide the N 

category, Chinese Syn-Compounds get their 

categories from their syntactic positions, such as 

[Spec TP] and the complement of V: 

(11) ta meitai douzai gao qi-che xiu-li. 

He every day always do truck repair. 

‘Every day, he is engaged in truck repairing.’


Another issue is the ‘compatibility with the external 

argument’. 

Borer’s analysis implies that interpretation is from the 

language-specific affix ING, not from the abstract and 

perhaps universal structure of Syn-Compounds. 

Since Chinese Syn-Compounds are categorised in the 

syntactic environment, not from C-functors, the immediate 

consequence then is that no obligatory ORIGINATOR 

interpretation is required.

3.2 The V-N Type Compound 

A question to be addressed: 

If roots can get their categories from the syntactic 

environment, why are C-functors required anyway? 

A theoretical foundation: 

Only those lexical items with independent phonological 

forms can attain content via encyclopedia search (ensearch) 

(Borer forthcoming). 

So if a root has no independent phonological form, it can 

only appear with a C-functor to take a full phonological 

realization, with content being assigned via en-search.


(12) A tentative parameter of roots: 

The language on the end of extreme syntheticity does 

not have roots with independent phonological 

realizations; the roots of the language on the end of 

extreme analyticity always have independent 

phonological realizations.


(12) predicts that 

ª in a highly synthetic language, the root has to take 

a C-functor, because the lack of the independent 

phonological realization will block the en-search of the 

root for content; 

ª in a highly analytical language like Chinese, a root 

can be categorised without a C- functor, because 

the root already has independent phonological 

realization, thus C-functors are not necessarily needed; 

ª if a language is in between the two ends of the 

parameter, only some roots can realise different 

categorial features, confirmed by the data in English.


The parameter in (12) also predicts that root 

incorporation is productive in Chinese, with the 

perspective of head movement in Roberts (2010). 

 

(13) Head Movement Conditions 

X and Y are minimal categories. 

The features of Y are a proper subset of the features 

of X. 

Roberts (2010) 

Head movement and incorporation also take place if 

neither X nor Y has feature, which is the case of 

roots.


So we assume a new root can be created via root 

incorporation with the following conditions: 

a. The root in Chinese has independent phonological 

realization and thus can provide content for further 

content combination. 

b. Roots in general have no categorial feature. 

ROOT+ROOT = A New ROOT


The new root has the following properties: 

a. Its content is based on the combination of the content 

of the atomic roots. 

b. Its content is not a sole result of the content 

combination, but can have idiosyncratic meaning via ensearch 

c. There is no clear boundary between the two atomic 

root (i.e. we can’t determine which is head or non-head, it 

is indivisible) 

d. The syntactic (or perhaps morphological ) rules in the 

sense of Roeper (1999), Ackema & Neeleman (2004) etc. 

involved in compounding do not hold in root incorporation.


Examples: 

(14)a. Qiu zheng zhejian shiqing 

seek proof this fact 

“prove this fact” 

b. he jiu (Chinese Wu dialect) 

drink wine 

‘attend a wedding ceremony’


Why are the N-V type Syn-Compounds still attested? 

Both N and V in this type consist of two roots, i.e. both 

N and V are the result of root incoporation. 

We assume recursive root incorporation is banned. So 

when the N and V are the outcome of root 

incorporation, the other way is to resort to the strategy 

of N-V compounding, which is also allowed by the 

syntactic principles.

Conclusion 

ª All the variation can be reduced to a single factor: the status of the 

root, which is accompanied with the availability of C-functors. 

ª Chinese roots always have independent phonological realization, 

and thus can be categorially valued in syntactic environment 

without resorting to C-functors. 

ª The lack of ING C-functor thus explains the optional 

ORIGINATOR interpretation. 

ª A new lexical ROOT can be formed whose content is attained via 

en-search based on the combination of the roots’ contents, and 

syntactically acategorial nature of the roots enables the head 

movement and incorporation. This explains why Chinese has the 

V-N type Syn-Compounds. 

ª This analysis is also in line with the general spirit of Borer- 

Chomsky Conjecture (Baker 2008), and the “Hierarchy of 

Parameters” in the sense of Roberts & Holmberg (2010).

References 

Ackema, P. & A. Neeleman (2004) Beyond Morpology. Oxford: OUP. 

Baker, M. (2008) The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Borer, H. (2005a) Structuring Sense, Vol. 1. In Name Only. Oxford: OUP. 

Borer, H. (2005b) Structuring Sense, Vol. 2. The Normal Course of Event. Oxford: OUP. 

Borer, H. (forthcoming) Structuring Sense, Vol 3. Taking Form. Oxford: OUP 

Roberts, I. (2010) Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation and Defective 

Goals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 

Roberts, I. & A. Holmberg (2010) Introduction. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & 

M. Sheehan (eds.). Syntactic Variation in the Minimalist Program: the Null 

Subject Parameter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-58. 

Roeper,T. (1999) Leftward movement in morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 

34, 35-66. 

Roeper, T. & D. Siegel (1978) A Lexical Transformation for Verbal Compounds, Linguistic 

Inquiry 9, 199-260. 

Selkirk, E. (1982) The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

slides - corpora@parles.upf - Universitat Pompeu Fabra

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?