Sentence-final particles in multiple phases? Some evidence from language contact
Cinque’s (1999) cartographic theory associates one meaning with one functional head. As such, if applied to sentence-final particles (SFPs), cartographic assumptions ought to group semantically similar SFPs onto the same functional head cross-linguistically (cf. Pan 2019; Sybesma Li 2007). However,...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting Vol. 7; no. 1; pp. 1 - 41 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Adam Mickiewicz University
25.09.2021
Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza |
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 2449-7525, 2449-7525 |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Cinque’s (1999) cartographic theory associates one meaning with one functional head. As such, if applied to sentence-final particles (SFPs), cartographic assumptions ought to group semantically similar SFPs onto the same functional head cross-linguistically (cf. Pan 2019; Sybesma Li 2007). However, I show that aspectual and restrictive focus SFPs in Cantonese and Mandarin (Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan) seemingly contradict Cinque by occupying different structural positions despite their semantic closeness. To shed light on the problem, I adduce novel data from Guangzhou Cantonese and Singapore Cantonese, demonstrating that SFPs borrowed into these varieties are treated differently according to their structural height. Likewise citing scopal and other facts, I ultimately make a case for placing SFPs in multiple phases (Chomsky 2000 etc.), following Erlewine (2017) and Biberauer (2017), but contra Pan (2019), a.o. To accommodate Cinque (1999), I ultimately submit that different-phase SFPs constitute distinct lexical classes, which each cluster separately, but in the same semantically determined sequence compatible with cartographic assumptions. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2449-7525 2449-7525 |
| DOI: | 10.14746/yplm.2021.7.1 |