Transitive verbs with a Path object

Ramchand (2008) observes that some transitive verbs are characterized by having an object which is not the Undergoer of the Process but a Path (incremental theme). As we have seen, with respect to the traditional classification, these verbs are accomplishments. In this case the DP is not construed as definitional to the process itself but rather is a ‘traveler’ or ‘trajector’ of the path (cf. Ramchand 2008:65). According to Ramchand, when the verb takes a Path object, the property mapped onto the process is inherent to the DP and does not change; the homomorphism with the process of the event is established via the scalar structure of the inherent property, and the process is defined by its progress through the scale provided by the Path object. Therefore, Paths are different from Undergoers: “In the case of UNDERGOERS, the DP’s existence is independently established and it possesses varying degrees of a property as a result of the event. ” (Ramchand 2008:65).

This class includes creation/consumption (or ingestive) verbs, like eat, drink, read,

write, etc. Ramchand (2008) assumes that the specifier position of the proc projection

is not filled by the direct object of the verb (which is a Path), and that it is the Initiator itself which fills the Undergoer position as well, given its status as continuous experiencer of the process53. According to Ramchand (2008:66-67), this predicts that rhematic object verbs require ‘actors’, but never allows pure ‘causes’, e.g. John ate

the apple vs. rust ate the drainpipe.

As highlighted by Krifka (1998), with creation/consumption verbs telicity emerges when the incremental theme arguments are quantized, i.e. when they are countable nouns or measure constructions, such as three apples, a cup of tea, etc.

According to the general opinion in the literature, Chinese should not have this kind of verbs. Huang (2005) claims that Chinese accomplishment verbs are expressed by a light verb or by a compound verb (activity + result). Tai (1984) observes that English accomplishment verbs, if in the past tense or present perfect, necessarily entail the attainment of a goal54, while in Chinese the attainment of a result may be expressed only by compound verbs: Chinese would not have simple accomplishment verbs (cf. also Sybesma 1997). This conclusion comes from examples like that in (34a) (cf. Chu 1976), which contrasts with the English example in (34b):

(34) a. 我 昨天 写 了 一 封 信， 可是 没 写完。

wǒ zuótiān xiě le yī fēng xìn kěshì méi xiěwán

I yesterday write ASP one CL letter but not write-finish ‘I wrote a letter yesterday, but I didn’t finish it.’

b. ?? John wrote a letter yesterday, but he didn’t finish it.

According to Lin (2004), the verb 写 xiě ‘write’ in Chinese never entails a result, the completion of the incremental theme. It appears that the only way to express the attainment of a result in Chinese is by using a compound verb of the resultative type, or more precisely, a compound containing a ‘phase complement’ (cf. Chao 1968, Li & Thompson 1981, Huang 2007, among others), e.g. 写完 xiěwán ‘write-finish’, as in the example in (35):

53 _{Ramchand (2008:66) further observes that the alternative for English would be to relax the} requirement that all specifiers of subevental projections be filled at some stage of the derivation. This relaxation would require a further specification on the roots, which forces the non-projection of a specifier. However, for the sake of theoretical economy, Ramchand tentatively assumes that the subject argument of these verbs is always an Undergoer-Initiator).

54_{It should be noted that this is true with a quantized incremental theme, otherwise the event can be} atelic even at the past tense: e.g. he wrote letters for hours.

55

(35) *我 昨天 写完 了 一 封 信, 可是 没 写完。

wǒ zuótiān xiěwán le yī fēng xìn kěshì méi xiěwán I yesterday write-finish ASP one CL letter but not write-finish ‘I wrote a letter yesterday but I didn’t finish it.’

We do not aim at going in depth into the problem, but here we just want to stress that these verbs behave exactly as in English and that the differences found, following Soh & Kuo (2005), lie in differences in the nominal system of the two languages55. Consider the examples in (36):

(36) a. 他 吃 了 那 个 蛋糕/* 两 个 蛋糕，但是 没 吃完。 wǒ chī le nà ge dàngāo liǎng ge dàngāo dànshì méi chīwán

I eat ASP that CL cake two CL cake but not eat-finish ‘He ate that cake / * two cakes, but he didn’t finish them.’

(Adapted from Soh & Kuo 2005:204)

b. 我 昨天 看 了 一 本 书，可是 没 看完。

wǒ zuótiān kàn le yī běn shū kěshì méi kànwán I yesterday read ASP one CL book but not write-finish ‘I read a book yesterday, but I didn’t finish it.’

(Adapted from Soh & Kuo 2005:202)

c.*他 做 了 一 个 蛋糕/ 两 个 蛋糕/ 那 个 蛋糕,

tā zuò le yī ge dàngāo liǎng ge dàngāo nà ge dàngāo

he make ASP one CL cake two CL cake that CL cake 可是 没 做好。

kěshì méi zuòhǎo

but not make-finish

‘He made a cake / two cakes / that cake, but did not finish making it.’ (Adapted from Soh & Kuo 2005:205)

d.*他 造 了 一 个 房子, 可是 没 造好。

tā zào le yī ge fángzi kěshì méi zàohǎo he build ASP one CL house but not build-finish ‘He built a house, but did not finish building it’

(Adapted from Soh & Kuo 2005:204)

e. 他 画 了 一 副 画/* 一 个 圈圈, 可是 没 画完。

tā huà le yī fù huà yī ge quānquan kěshì méi huàwán

he draw ASP one CL picture one CL circle but not draw-finish ‘He drew a picture / *a circle, but he didn’t finish drawing it.’

(Adapted from Soh & Kuo 2005:201)

f. 他 写 了 一 封 信 /* 一 个 字, 可是 没 写完。

tā xiě le yī fēng xìn yī ge zì kěshì méi xiěwán he write ASP one CL letter one CL character but not write-finish ‘He wrote a letter /*a character, but he didn’t finish writing it.’

(Adapted from Soh & Kuo 2005:202)

55 _{Note also that there is not absolute agreement on the acceptability of a sentence like (34a) among} Chinese native speakers.

g. 他 画 了 *两 副 画 ／ 那 副 画, 可是 没 画完。

tā huà le liǎng fù huà nà fù huà kěshì méi huàwán

he draw ASP two CL picture that CL picture but not draw-finish ‘He drew *two pictures / that picture, but he didn’t finish drawing them/it.’

(Adapted from Soh & Kuo 2005:205)

h. 他 画 了 一 副 画, 可是 没 画完。

tā huà le yī fù huà kěshì méi huàwán

he draw ASP one CL picture but not draw-finish

‘He drew a picture / *one picture, but he didn’t finish drawing it.’ (Adapted from Soh & Kuo 2005:205)

The examples show that, in non-creation verbs followed by an object (36a-b), the completion of the event is not necessary.

Given the examples in (36a) and (36b), Soh & Kuo (2005) claim that the difference in the boundedness of the event between English and Chinese does not have its source in any difference in the perfective aspect (vs. Smith 1994, 1997)56_{, but}

rather in the different nominal systems of the two languages. A numeral object has the feature [+bounded], while a demonstrative object may be [+bounded] or [-bounded]. This difference is responsible for the fact that completion is necessary with a numeral object, but not with a demonstrative object (36a). They assume that English head nouns distinguish count nouns from mass nouns, while Chinese head nouns are mass (Chierchia 1998, Cheng & Sybesma 1999). Therefore, English singular count nouns start out as being bounded ([+b, -i]57_{) and Chinese nouns start out as being unbounded}

(either as [-b, -i] or [-b, +i]). Since Chinese definite/indefinite noun phrases may be [+b] or [-b], completion is not necessary. In contrast, English definite/indefinite singular count noun phrases are [+b], thus completion is necessary.

As far as the numeral 一 yī ‘one’ is concerned, we have seen that it does not necessarily entail completion (cf. 34a). Soh & Kuo (2005) propose an analysis according to which the numeral 一 yī ‘one’ can be interpreted as either a numeral (‘one’) or as an indefinite determiner. When it is interpreted as a numeral, the noun

56 _{Soh & Kuo (2005) suggest that Mandarin perfective aspect behaves like English perfective aspect} in that it indicates the completion of a telic/bounded event, and the termination of an atelic/non- bounded event. Xiao & McEnery (2004) claim that the Chinese aspect marker 了 le only shows a situation as a whole, without providing any final point. These authors conclude that the function of the marker 了 le is “to mark the actuality rather than indicate the boundary of a situation.” (p. 105).

57_{[±b] = ±bounded; [±i] ±internal structure. Note that the [-i] value does not mean lack of internal} structure, but rather the absence of necessary entailment about internal structure (cf. Soh & Kuo 2005: 205)

57 phrase is [+b,+i]; when it is interpreted as an indefinite determiner, the noun phrase is [±b, +i].

With verbs of creation (36c-h), things are slightly different, since the completion/non-completion seems to depend on the kind of created object, i.e. No Partial Objects (NPO) or Allows Partial Object (APO) (cf. Soh & Kuo 2005). In the NPO object class, the object cannot be considered the relevant object until the process of creation has reached its inherent endpoint or has culminated (Parsons 1989); examples of these objects are 一个蛋糕 yī ge dàngāo ‘a cake’, 一 个字 yī ge zì ‘a character’, 一个圈圈 yī ge quānquan ‘a circle’, 一个房子 yī ge fángzi ‘a house’ (36c-

f). In contrast, the objects found in the other class of created objects (APO) can be considered relevant objects before culmination, e.g. 一封信 yī fēng xìn ‘a letter’, 一副 画 yī fù huà ‘a picture’ (36e-h); for example, if the event of drawing a picture is stopped before culmination, the partially created object can be properly called ‘a picture’ (cf. Soh & Kuo 2005).

When the creation event involves an NPO object, the event must reach the end- point, regardless of the form of the object. Therefore, differently from the cases with non-creation verbs (36 a-b), no contrast is found between determiners and numerals: the sentence sounds contradictory both with numeral objects and with determiner objects (36c-f). In contrast, when the sentence contains a creation verb with an APO object, there is a contrast between numerals and demonstrative objects (cf. 36g-h): the sentence is contradictory with a numeral object, but not with a demonstrative object. This contrast is due to the fact that the creation event must reach the point where the partially created object qualifies as the relevant object; there is no requirement that the inherent endpoint of the event be reached (cf. Soh & Kuo 2005:205).

Consequently, Soh & Kuo (2005), contra Tai (1984) (cf. also Lin 2004), assume that Chinese does have simple accomplishment verbs: completion of the event is necessary with numeral objects and with NPO created objects. The differences between English and Mandarin Chinese are due to their different nominal system.

Given these facts, we consider Chinese verbs like 吃 chī ‘eat’, 喝 hē ‘drink’, 写 xiě

‘write’, 画 huà ‘paint’ as transitive verbs with a Path object, as their corresponding

verbs in English; these verbs have the structure in (37)58.

58 _{Note that the aspect marker 了 le is not represented in the structure, since aspect and other} material like tense, etc., are merged above this structure.

(37) a. 我 吃 了 一 个 苹果。

wǒ chī le yī ge píngguǒ

I eat ASP one CL apple ‘I ate an apple.’

b. initP

tu

我 wǒ ‘I’

tu

吃 chī ‘eat’ procP

tu

< 我 wǒ ‘I’>

tu

proc DP < 吃 chī ‘eat’> 4 一个苹果 yī ge píngguǒ ‘an apple’

These verbs, when used intransitively, require the presence of a semantically weak, non-referential object (Ross 1998 calls these objects ‘cognate’ objects, Cheng & Sybesma 1998 terms them ‘dummy object’), in their intransitive/unspecified object reading (cf. Cheng & Sybesma 1998)59, e.g. 看书 kànshū ‘read+books = read’, 吃饭

chīfàn ‘eat + rice/meal = eat’. We can assume that these dummy objects are rhemes

which fill the complement position of proc (cf. also 1.4.1.2).

In document Verbal compounding and causativity in Mandarin Chinese (Page 73-78)