Compound vs phrasal resultatives: the view from Mandarin Chinese

Abstract This paper argues against a uniform syntactic analysis of V-V compound resultatives and V- de phrasal resultatives in Mandarin Chinese. I propose instead that V-V resultatives are built in morphology while V- de resultatives are built in syntax. My proposal predicts that V-V and V- de resultatives will exhibit distinct behaviour with respect to a number of syntactic processes. (i) V- de resultatives are accessible to syntactic operations while V-V resultatives are not. (ii) Since obligatory arguments must be projected in a syntactic structure, V1 must project its arguments in V- de resultatives but not in V-V resultatives. Furthermore, it seems that these differences in argument structure between compound and phrasal resultatives are observed in languages other than Mandarin. These differences cannot be captured within a theoretical framework that makes no reference in syntax to some notion of a “word”. Therefore, to the extent that it is on the right track, my proposal provides evidence for a distinction between word syntax and phrasal syntax.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of East Asian Linguistics
Published
2026-03-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-025-09318-z
Primary Topic
Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Compound vs phrasal resultatives: the view from Mandarin Chinese

Wenkai Tay
Journal of East Asian Linguistics
Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
article

Compound vs phrasal resultatives: the view from Mandarin Chinese

Wenkai Tay
article en

Abstract

Abstract This paper argues against a uniform syntactic analysis of V-V compound resultatives and V- de phrasal resultatives in Mandarin Chinese. I propose instead that V-V resultatives are built in morphology while V- de resultatives are built in syntax. My proposal predicts that V-V and V- de resultatives will exhibit distinct behaviour with respect to a number of syntactic processes. (i) V- de resultatives are accessible to syntactic operations while V-V resultatives are not. (ii) Since obligatory arguments must be projected in a syntactic structure, V1 must project its arguments in V- de resultatives but not in V-V resultatives. Furthermore, it seems that these differences in argument structure between compound and phrasal resultatives are observed in languages other than Mandarin. These differences cannot be captured within a theoretical framework that makes no reference in syntax to some notion of a “word”. Therefore, to the extent that it is on the right track, my proposal provides evidence for a distinction between word syntax and phrasal syntax.

Journal of East Asian LinguisticsVol. 35(2)
Language Science (South Korea) (KR), University College London (GB)
Queen Mary University of London, National University of Singapore
Openalex Percentile: Top 28%
Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.