SZE-WING TANG

THE (NON-)EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE

A N D I T S I M P L I C AT I O N S F O R T H E
T H E O RY O F G A P P I N G *

It has been claimed in the literature that gapping is prohibited in Chinese. Johnson’s
(1994) theory of gapping receives important support from Chinese. However, Li (1988)
and Paul (1996a, b, 1999) observe some prima facie evidence for gapping in Chinese.
I argue that the examples illustrated by Li and Paul are not canonical gapping sen-
tences that are created by V-to-T movement; instead, I propose that they are empty
verb sentences. Furthermore, I argue that Chinese has some gapping sentences that
result from ATB movement from V to v (LPD). This paper identifies two types of
gapping in natural languages: gapping derived by V-to-T movement and gapping
derived to V-to-v movement. Consequently, gapping should not be an ‘all or nothing’
phenomenon. The data from Chinese affirm Johnson’s (1994) theory of gapping that
gapping occurs in those languages only with verb movement.

1. NON-EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE

Examples (1) and (2) are considered to be gapping sentences in English.

There is a verbal gap in the second conjunct in these sentences, which refers
to the verb in the first conjunct.
(1) John likes apples and Mary [ ] oranges.
(2) John saw Mary and Bill [ ] Susan.
As noted by Tai (1969), M.-D. Li (1988) and Tsai (1994), Chinese dis-
allows gapping, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (3) and (4), which
are the counterparts of English gapping sentences.
(3) * Zhangsan xihuan pingguo, Lisi [ ] juzi.
Zhangsan like apple Lisi orange
‘Zhangsan likes apples and Lisi oranges.’
(4) * Wo kanjian-le Zhangsan, ni [ ] Lisi.
I see-Perf Zhangsan, you [ ] Lisi
‘I saw Zhangsan and you Lisi.’
In this paper, I will show that there are at least two types of gapping
in natural languages, namely ‘canonical gapping’ and ‘LPD’. The former
is created by V-to-T movement whereas the latter is created by V-to-v
movement in ATB fashion in terms of Johnson’s (1994) analysis of gapping.
It is argued that what Chinese lacks is the canonical gapping sentences.

Journal of East Asian Linguistics 10, 201–224, 2001.

 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
202 SZE-WING TANG

The LPD sentences exist in Chinese. Consequently, gapping should not

be regarded as an ‘all-or-nothing’ phenomenon. The data from Chinese
affirm Johnson’s (1994) theory of gapping, that gapping only occurs in those
languages with ATB movement.
The organization of this paper is the following. In section 2 some spurious
gapping sentences in Chinese are illustrated. It is argued that those sentences
do not belong to canonical gapping. They are analyzed as ‘empty verb
sentences’. In section 3 it is argued that one type of gapping, namely LPD,
exists in Chinese. The ATB movement analysis proposed by Johnson (1994)
is introduced in section 4. Under the ATB movement approach, the non-
existence of canonical gapping and the existence of LPD in Chinese are dis-
cussed in section 5.

2. SPURIOUS GAPPING IN CHINESE

2.1. Some Prima Facie Evidence for Gapping in Chinese

Under the ‘traditional’ view, Chinese does not have gapping. However, as
noted by Li (1988) and Paul (1996a,b, 1999), there are some putative
counterexamples to such a view. For example, the verb is missing in the
second conjunct in the following sentences. Paul (1999) notices that the verb
may be non-overt in complements of duration or frequency that occupy
the postverbal position, such as (7). These sentences seem to be evidence
for the existence of gapping in Chinese.
(5) Zhangsan chi-le san-ge pingguo, Lisi si-ge juzi.
Zhangsan eat-Perf three-Cl apple Lisi four-Cl oranges
‘Zhangsan ate three apples and Lisi four oranges.’
(Li (1998, 41))
(6) Wo mai-le nei-bu qiche, ta nei-liang zixingche.
I buy-Perf that-Cl car he that-Cl bicycle
‘I bought that car, and he that bicycle.’ (Paul (1999, 212))
(7) Ta lai-guo wu-ci, wo yi-ci.
he come-Perf five-time I one-time
‘He has been here five times, and I once.’ (Paul (1999, 213))
Although sentences like (5), (6), and (7) are acceptable in Chinese, we
should distinguish between apparent gapping in Chinese and the ‘genuine’
gapping that can be found in English.
First of all, Li (1988) observes that there is a ‘surface filter’ on the output
 THE (NON-)EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE 203

of so-called gapping in Chinese, as formulated in (8), in which ‘∅’ is a gap.

The so-called ‘bare noun heads’ are in fact bare nouns without
determiners and numeral-classifiers, such as juzi ‘oranges’ in (3) and
Zhangsan and (4).
(8) * N ∅ N, where ‘N’ = bare noun heads (Li (1988, 97))

Paul (1996a,b, 1999) points out some degree of observational inade-

quacy of Li’s (1988) surface filter. The ‘bare’ nouns defined in (8) do not
necessarily exclude those modified by an adjective. For example, consid-
ering the grammatical sentences in (5) to (7) and the ungrammatical example
in (9), in which the object noun is modified, ‘bare’ nouns in (8) should
be the nouns without the numeral classifier phrase.
(9) * Wo mai-le hongse de hua, ta lanse de.
I buy-Perf red Mod flower he blue Mod
‘I bought red flowers, and he blue flowers.’

Paul (1996a,b, 1999) proposes that genericity plays a role in gapping.

She claims that gapping in Chinese is possible only in ‘non-generic’ VPs,
assuming that the properties of the object determine the eventuality of the
predicate. Along these lines, (3) is precluded because the eventuality of
the predicate is generic.
Based on the judgments of the examples in (10), which were originally
given by Hankamer (1973), Paul (1996a,b, 1999) claims that genericity is
a relevant factor for gapping in Chinese as well as in English. The following
data seem to suggest that gapping is more felicitious with a ‘generic’
predicate in English.

(10) a. ? Max writes plays in the bedroom, and Harvey in the

basement.
b. ??Max is writing a play in the bedroom, and Harvey in the
basement.
c.???Max is memorizing the play in the bedroom, and Harvey in the
basement.
However, there are still some problems regarding the hypothesis of
genericity. An anonymous reviewer of this paper finds all three examples
fine; in particular, there is no special contrast between (10b) and (10c).
Suppose that there is a contrast among the above examples in English. It
is still a puzzle why Chinese has the opposite situation, in which so-called
gapping seems acceptable with ‘non-generic’ VPs.
Secondly, gapping in English and so-called gapping in Chinese have
204 SZE-WING TANG

different antecedent conditions. (11) shows that the gap must be paired with
an antecedent in the adjacent conjunct in English (Sag (1976), Hankamer
(1973), Johnson (1994)). Interestingly, the judgment of the gap in (12) is
ambiguous. Pragmatics force the gap in (13) to refer to the verb in the
first conjunct because dumplings cannot be drunk.1
(11) Some prepared beans, (and) others ate natto, and the rest e rice.
e = rice/*prepared
(12) Wo chi-le liang-wan fan, Zhangsan zhu-le san-wan
I eat-Perf two-Cl rice Zhangsan cook-Perf three-Cl
tang, Lisi e shi-ge shuijiao.
soup Lisi ten-Cl dumpling
(i) ‘I ate two bowls of rice, Zhangsan cooked three bowls of
soup, and Lisi ate ten dumplings.’
(ii) ‘I ate two bowls of rice, Zhangsan cooked three bowls of
soup, and Lisi cooked ten dumplings.’
(13) Wo chi-le liang-wan fan, Zhangsan he-le
I eat-Perf two-Cl rice Zhangsan drink-Perf
san-wan tang, Lisi e shi-ge shuijiao.
three-Cl soup Lisi ten-Cl dumpling
‘I ate two bowls of rice, Zhangsan drank three bowls of soup,
and Lisi ate ten dumplings.’
Furthermore, a significant difference between English gapping and so-
called gapping in Chinese is that so-called gapping in Chinese can appear
in subordinate constructions, which can be shown by contrasting the Chinese
data in (14) and (15) with their English translations.2 The gap in (14) is
in the sentential subject position whereas the gap in (15) refers to the verb
he ‘drink’ in the subordinate clause. Neither (14) nor (15) should be
analyzed as gapping sentences since canonical gapping in English is
restricted to coordination (Jackendoff (1971)).
(14) Zhangsan chi-le san-ge pingguo. [Wo e liang-ge]
Zhangsan eat-Perf three-Cl apple [I two-Cl
dangran keyi.
certainly possible
‘Zhangsan ate three apples. [That I *(ate) two] is certainly
possible.’
 THE (NON-)EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE 205

(15) Yaoshi ni he si bei, wo ye e si bei.

if you drink four cup I also four cup
Yaoshi ni he san bei, wo jiu e san bei.
if you drink three cup I then three cup
‘If you drink four cups, I also *(drink) four cups. If you drink
three cups, then I *(drink) three cups.’
Although sentences such as (5) to (7) seem to be evidence for gapping
in Chinese, the so-called gapping in Chinese should be different from the
‘genuine’ gapping that can be found in English, and thus they should not
be treated on a par.

2.2. Empty Verb Sentences in Chinese

Notice that in those so-called acceptable gapping sentences in Chinese,

the ‘remnants’ can be used in a context where the verb does not occur in
the antecedent, such as (16).
(16) Zhangsan san-ge pingguo, Lisi si-ge juzi.
Zhangsan three-Cl apple Lisi four-Cl orange
‘Zhangsan [bought, ate, etc.] three apples, and Lisi four oranges.’
(16) is acceptable when there is rich contextual information. If there is
a ‘gap’ between the two nominals in (16), its antecedent is from the dis-
course. This fact suggests that sentences such as (16) should not be derived
by the same operation that forms gapping because gapping should be strictly
a rule of sentence grammar. It does not have the option of finding
antecedents provided by sentences in the discourse, as pointed out by
Williams (1977). For ease of presentation, let us call the clauses in (16)
‘empty verb sentences’.
I assume that the ‘gap’ in empty verb sentences in Chinese is a verbal
category that lacks phonetic features. Let us take (17) to be the structure
of an empty verb sentence in Chinese.3 The empty verb is a transitive
verb. The first nominal XP is the subject of the sentence and the second
nominal VP is the object of the empty verb.
(17) XP [VP [V ∅] YP]
As Chinese allows empty verb sentences independently, the analysis of
empty verb sentences would be an alternative to capture those so-called
‘gapping sentences’ in Chinese, for instance, (18) (= (5)).
206 SZE-WING TANG

(18) Zhangsan chi-le san-ge pingguo, Lisi si-ge juzi.

Zhangsan eat-Perf three-Cl apple Lisi four-Cl oranges
‘Zhangsan ate three apples, and Lisi four oranges.’
I assume that (18) is formed by two independent clauses: a clause that
has a verb and a clause that has an empty verb.

2.3. Characteristics of Empty Verb Sentences

Given that Chinese allows empty verb sentences, we may wonder why those
ungrammatical gapping sentences, such as (3) and (4), repeated below,
cannot be derived from empty verb sentences.
(19) * Zhangsan xihuan pingguo, Lisi juzi.
Zhangsan like apple Lisi orange
‘Zhangsan likes apples and Lisi oranges.’ (= (3))
(20) * Wo kanjian-le Zhangsan, ni Lisi.
I see-Perf Zhangsan, you Lisi
‘I saw Zhangsan, and you Lisi.’ (= (4))
Let us consider the ungrammaticality of (19) first. The second nominal
in the second conjunct in (19), namely juzi ‘orange’, is a bare common noun.
Li (1988) stipulates that bare nouns are prohibited in such sentences.
Considering the contrasts between (21) and (22)4 we may notice that a
bare noun may function as a remnant object, as in (22).
(21) * Wo he-wan-le tang, ni qishui.
I drink-finish-Perf soup you soft.drink
‘I finished the soup, you soft drink.’
(22) Wo he tang, ni qishui.
I drink soup you soft.drink
‘I drink soup, and you soft drink.’
Such a contrast seems to hold in (23) and (24), in which the object
noun is modified. Chinese nouns without the numeral classifier phrase are
still considered to be ‘bare’, regardless of whether they are preceded by
any adjectives.
(23) * Wo mai-le hongse de hua, ta lanse de.
I buy-Perf red Mod flower he blue Mod
‘I bought red flowers, and he blue flowers.’ (= (9))
 THE (NON-)EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE 207

(24) Wo yao hongse de hua, ta lanse de.

I want red Mod flower he blue Mod
‘I want red flowers, and he blue flowers.
The interpretation of Chinese bare nouns depends on the context. The
bare nouns in (21) and (23) are interpreted as indefinites by virtue of the
presence of the perfective marker le (and the resultative verb wan ‘finish’
in (21)). The indefinite bare nouns will have an existential reading.
On the other hand, the bare nouns in (22) and (24) have a generic
interpretation when the predicate is ‘bare’, i.e., without any aspect marker.
The generic nouns in (22) and (24) are used as expressions referring to a
particular kind instead of attributing to an individual of that kind. Along
these lines, generic nouns are treated as definite.5 If the observation here
is correct, the generalization is that the second nominal in the empty verb
sentences cannot be existential/indefinite.
A question arises: if numeral nominals in Chinese normally have an
indefinite interpretation, why is it possible to have a numeral nominal si-
ge juzi ‘four oranges’ in the empty verb sentence in (18)? Note that the
numeral object si-ge juzi ‘four oranges’ in (18) concerns quantity, rather
than the existence of some oranges. Such an expression should be analyzed
as a quantity expression, which is very different from an indefinite indi-
vidual-denoting expression, along the lines of Y.-H. A. Li (1998). Hence,
the non-existential requirement of empty verb sentences is not violated in
(18).
(22) as well as (24) are felicitious only in a so-called ‘restaurant context’,
as noted by Paul (1999, 8ff.). (22) and (24) do not denote habitual readings;
instead, each is true only in a particular moment, for instance, having
lunch in a restaurant (= (22)) or buying flowers in a florist (= (24)). On
the contrary, the predicate xihuan ‘like’ in (19) denotes a habitual reading.
The major difference between (19) and (22) is that the former has a ‘non-
episodic reading’ whereas the latter has an ‘episode reading’. Based on these
facts, I conclude that empty verb sentences in Chinese should be episodic.
Some of the characteristics of the empty verb sentences in Chinese I have
shown are summarized in (25).
(25) Some characteristics of the empty verb sentences in Chinese
a. The empty verb sentences should not be non-episodic.
b. The second nominal should not be existential/indefinite.
Let us now consider (20). What blocks the occurrence of the animate
proper name Lisi in (20)? In the ‘XP YP’ sequence in Chinese, in which
both XP and YP are nominal and YP is an animate proper name, such as
208 SZE-WING TANG

Zhangsan in (26), the salient reading of the animate proper name is the
identity reading, in which Zhangsan is predicated of the first nominal wo
‘I’ (= the (i) reading).6 Actually, (26) is ambiguous. There is still a non-
salient reading in (26), in which Zhangsan is interpreted as the ‘patient’
of an action initiated by the subject wo ‘I’ (= the (ii) reading). In ‘unmarked’
contexts, the (i) reading of (26) is always preferred over the (ii) reading.
(26) Wo Zhangsan.
I Zhangsan
(i) ‘I’m Zhangsan.’
(ii) ‘I have some relation with Zhangsan.’
If (26) has an identity reading, I assume that the second nominal, namely
Zhangsan, is a predicate nominal, which is the head of a bare small clause.
In bare small clauses, the predicate nominal is predicated of the subject
directly without any verbal category (Tang (1998a)). It cannot be analyzed
as an empty verb sentence because (i) the identity reading of bare small
clauses in Chinese is only available in non-episodic contexts (Tang (1998a)),
incompatible with (25a); and (ii) predicate nominals are indefinite
semantically, incompatible with (25b).
Let us return to (20). Given that the identity reading is always pre-
ferred over the non-identity reading in the ‘XP YP’ sequence in Chinese, 7
the second conjunct in (20) will receive an identity reading meaning ‘you
are Lisi’. As the second conjunct in (20) is not related to the first conjunct
semantically, (20) becomes unacceptable.
The observation in (20) can be extended to bare common nouns in
Chinese. If a sentence is non-episodic, the identity reading of the bare
common noun is more salient. Along these lines, the second nominal will
then be regarded as a predicate nominal and the first nominal will become
the subject. For example, the second nominal juzi ‘orange’ in (19) will be
interpreted as a predicate nominal, which is predicated of the subject Lisi.
If (19) means ‘Zhangsan likes apples and Lisi is an orange’, the second
conjunct is not related to the first conjunct at all and thus (19) is rejected.
In some special context, if the non-identity reading of the animate
nominal emerges, so-called ‘gapping’ is possible. For example, compared
with (20), the acceptability of (27) improves.8 The second conjunct can
be treated as an empty verb sentence, in which Lisi is the object of the empty
verb, interpreted as the patient of the action.9
(27) Wo xuan-le Zhangsan, ni Lisi.
I elect-Perf Zhangsan, you Lisi
‘I voted for Zhangsan, and you Lisi.’
 THE (NON-)EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE 209

If the analysis of empty verb sentences in Chinese is correct, many of

the putative gapping sentences in Chinese can be accounted for. Those
so-called gapping sentences in Chinese are actually formed by adding an
empty verb sentence.10

3. EVIDENCE FOR GAPPING IN CHINESE

Based on the observations of Koutsoudas (1971), Zoerner (1995) corre-

lates the possibility of gapping to the possibility of verb-coordination. The
contrast between (28) and (29) shows that unlike English, Chinese does
not allow verb-coordination.
(28) John [hit and kicked] the boy.
(29) * Zhangsan da-le, ti-le na-ge nanhaizi.
Zhangsan hit-Perf kick-Perf that-Cl boy
‘Zhangsan hit and kicked that boy.’
Zoerner (1995) claims that a language’s conjunction either does or does
not licence X conjuncts; and from this it follows whether or not the language
will exhibit gapping. Along these lines, the differences between Chinese
and English regarding the existence of gapping lie in the parametric
variation of the conjunction. If such a parameter is set to ‘off’, both verb-
coordination and gapping should be missing entirely. In other words,
gapping is an ‘all or nothing’ phenomenon.
Although Chinese does not have the type of ‘canonical’ gapping that
can be bound in English, it seems that some sentences in Chinese do not
fall under the empty verb sentences. Consider the following examples.
(30) Laoshi song-le Zhangsan yi-ben shu, Lisi yi-zhi bi.
teacher give-Perf Zhangsan one-Cl book Lisi one-Cl pen
‘The teacher gave Zhangsan a book and Lisi a pen.’
(31) Ta fang-le yi-ben shu zai zuozi-shang, san-zhi bi
he put-Perf one-Cl book on table-top three-Cl pen
zai yizi-shang.
on chair-top
‘He put one book on the table and three pens on the chair.’
(32) Yisheng quan Zhangsan jie yan, Lisi jie jiu.
doctor persuade Zhangsan quit smoke Lisi quit wine
‘The doctor persuaded Zhangsan to quit smoking and Lisi to quit
drinking.’
210 SZE-WING TANG

(33) Zhangsan kan-guo xiao mao yi-ci, xiao gou liang-ci.

Zhangsan see-Exp little cat one-Cl little dog two-Cl
‘Zhangsan has seen the kitten once and the puppy twice.’
(34) Laoban ma-de Zhangsan hen bu kaixin, Lisi hen
boss scold-till Zhangsan very not happy Lisi very
bu manyi.
not pleased
‘The boss scolded Zhangsan and got him unhappy and Lisi and
got him displease.’
All these sentences are analyzed as coordinate constructions. In these
sentences, the verb as well as the subject are missing in the second conjunct.
Notice that in (30–34) the verb has two complements in the argument
structure. In terms of the theory of phrase structure proposed by Larson
(1988), the two complements of the verb are in the specifier of the verb
and the complement of the verb, respectively.11 Hence, it is two VPs that
are conjoined in these sentences. Assuming that in these examples the
second conjunct is a VP, the matrix verb is missing in the second conjunct
and there is a gap in the second conjunct referring to the matrix verb.
Besides the ‘double complement constructions’ in Chinese, sentences
such as (35) are also possible candidates for gapping in Chinese. According
to M.-D. Li (1988), (35) is analyzed as a coordination of VP and there is
a verbal gap in the second VP conjunct.12
(35) Zhangsan huozhe xihuan Mali, huozhe [ ] Amei.
Zhangsan either like Mary either Amy
‘Zhangsan either likes Mary, or Amy.’ (M.-D. Li (1988, 66))
Apparently, these sentences are reminiscent of Sag’s (1976) ‘Left-
Peripheral Deletion’ (LPD), which deletes left peripheral constituents of a
conjunct.13 They seem to be derived from deleting the identical subject
and the identical verb in the second conjunct. For example, (30) could
have the derivation in (36).
(36) the teacher gave Zhangsan a book and the teacher gave Lisi a
pen
Is LPD simply a process of deletion? The ungrammaticality of the
following examples suggests that the derivation of LPD in Chinese should
be subject to constraints imposed on movement.
 THE (NON-)EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE 211

Subject island
(37) * Wo gei Zhangsan yi-ge A,
I give Zhangsan one-Cl A
[wo gei Lisi yi-ge A] ye yinggai meiyou
[I give Lisi one-Cl A also should not
wenti.
problem
‘*I gave Zhangsan an A, and that I gave Lisi an A should not
be a problem.’
Complex NP island
(38) * Laoshi gei Zhangsan yi-ge A, danshi wo bu neng
teacher give Zhangsan one-Cl A, but I not can
jieshou
accept
[[laoshi gei Lisi yi-ge C] de shishi].
[[teacher give Lisi one-Cl C Mod fact
‘*The teacher gave Zhangsan an A but I cannot accept the fact
that the teacher gave Lisi a C.’
Adjunct island
(39) * Yinwei [wo gei Zhangsan yi-ge A],
because [I give Zhangsan one-Cl A
(suoyi) [wo gei Lisi yi-ge C.]
therefore [I give Lisi one-Cl C
‘*Because I gave Zhangsan an A, I gave Lisi a C.’
(37), (38), and (39) are examples of strong islands. The ungrammaticality
of these examples shows that LPD is sensitive to islands. Given that
sensitivity of islands is regarded as diagnostic of movement, these facts
fall out directly under a movement approach to the derivation of LPD in
Chinese.
In the subsequent sections, I will argue that the LPD sentences in (30–34)
are instances of gapping in Chinese, all of which can be derived under
the theory of gapping proposed by Johnson (1994). Evidence from Chinese
shows that gapping should not be an ‘all or nothing’ phenomenon, contra
Zoerner (1995). As research proceeds, we can see that the terms ‘canon-
ical gapping’ and ‘LPD’ become nothing more than handy taxonomic labels;
both of them are actually subsumed under gapping derived by verb
movement in ATB fashion.
212 SZE-WING TANG

4. GAPPING AS ATB MOVEMENT

According to the theory of gapping proposed by Johnson (1994), gapping

is derived by Across-the-Board (ATB) movement rather than as an instance
of deletion or ellipsis of the verb. The verbal gap in (1), repeated in (40),
is derived by verb movement. The verb moves out of the two conjuncts
to a higher functional projection in ATB fashion.
(40) John likes apples and Mary [ ] oranges.
Assuming that there is a functional projection, namely light verb phrase
‘vP’, between TP and VP in the clausal structure (Hale and Keyser (1993),
Chomsky (1995), among many others),14 the verb undergoes movement to
T (= Infl or other comparable functional categories) via v in English
overtly.15 The subject in the first conjunct, i.e., SU1, moves to the speci-
fier of TP, and the subject in the second conjunct, i.e., SU2, remains in-situ.16
The representation of an English gapping sentence is indicated in (41).
(41) TP

SU1 T′

V-v-T vP

vP and vP

tSU1 v′ SU2 v′

tV-v VP tV-v VP

tV OB tV OB
Reducing gapping to ATB movement gives a framework for understandng
the status of movement in natural languages. Johnson’s (1994) theory of
gapping will lead to a typological prediction that the existence of verbal
gapping is correlated with the existence of verb movement in ATB fashion,
which can be summarized as follows.
(42) Gapping is possible only when there is verb movement.
Under Johnson’s (1994) analysis of gapping, I will argue that the non-
existence of the canonical gapping and the existence of LPD in Chinese
follow from the possibility of ATB movement in Chinese.
 THE (NON-)EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE 213

5. EVIDENCE FOR THE ATB ANALYSIS OF GAPPING

5.1. Nonexistence of Canonical Gapping in Chinese

(42) predicts that if a language lacks verb movement, it should not allow
the existence of gapping. According to the theory of gapping proposed by
Johnson (1994), the canonical gapping sentences in English are derived
by V-to-T movement in ATB fashion. Since Chinese lacks canonical
gapping, the implication is that Chinese lacks V-to-T movement. Chinese
can be an ideal language to verify this prediction.
Given that Chinese has T (= Infl, or other comparable functional cate-
gories) (Huang (1982, 1993), Chiu (1994), Ernst (1994)), it has been
independently argued by Cheng (1989), Tang (1990), Huang (1991, 1994a,b,
1997a,b), Tsai (1994), Gu (1995), Li (1997), Fukui and Takano (1998), Tang
(1998a), among many others, that verbs never move to T in Chinese. As
Chinese does not have ATB movement from V to T, canonical gapping is
supposed to be missing. The hypothesis in (42) is correct. Hence, the
linguistic variation between Chinese and English with respect to canon-
ical gapping is attributed to the parametric theory of verb movement in these
two languages. No stipulations are required to account for the non-existence
of gapping in Chinese. The theory of gapping will follow from the general
properties of movement, which seems to be a desirable move.

5.2. Existence of LPD in Chinese

Recall that I have argued that LPD sentences such as (30–34) in Chinese
are subject to constraints on movement. In this subsection, I will argue
that LPD is an instance of gapping, which results from verb movement in
ATB fashion.
Along the lines in Larson’s (1988) analysis, I assume that it is two VPs
that are conjoined in the LPD sentences. What really distinguishes canon-
ical gapping from LPD under the present approach is the conjunct involved,
i.e., vP and VP. Assuming that the second conjunct is a VP, the missing verb
is supposed to be the head of the VP in the second conjunct. The examples
in (30–34) could have the following representation in (43), in which the two
conjoined elements are VPs. The two ‘XPs’ could be direct objects in
(30), locative PPs in (31), controlled predicates in (32), frequency phrases
in (33), and resultative clauses in (34), which are all treated as the com-
plement of the verb.
214 SZE-WING TANG

(43) TP

SU T′

T vP

tSU v′

V-v VP

VP and VP

OB V′ OB V′

tV XP tV XP

Huang (1991 et seq.) has independently argued that verbs undergo

V-to-v movement in Chinese. Along these lines, a promising solution to
derive all the data in (30–34) is to assume that the verb moves out of VP
leaving a ‘gap’ in its original position. The ‘gaps’ in the conjoined VPs
in (43) are traces of the verb created by V-to-v movement in ATB fashion.17
The existence of LPD in Chinese follows from the analysis of verb
movement in Chinese. The data from LPD in Chinese further support
the hypothesis in (42) and thus affirm Johnson’s (1994) theory of
gapping.18
Zoerner (1995) claims that LPD occurs in those languages which also
permit canonical gapping. He predicts that Chinese, for example, which
lacks canonical gapping, should lack LPD. He uses the ungrammatical
example in (44) to support his claim.
(44) * Yi-yue wo kan yi-ben shu, er-yue san-ben
one-month I read one-Cl book two-month three-Cl
shu.
book
‘January, I read one book, and February, (I read) two books.’
(Zoerner (1995, 140))
Contra Zoerner’s observations, I argue that the ungrammaticality of
(44) should be ruled out independently by the theory of phrase structure
in Chinese. Recall that LPD in Chinese involves a coordination of VPs
that stands as a sister of v. To derive the word order in (44), we have to
assume that the temporal adverb er-yue ‘February’ in the second conjunct
 THE (NON-)EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE 215

is adjoined to VP, as illustrated in (45). However, such an ungrammatical

structure falls out from a general prohibition against adjoining any
adverbial phrases to VP in Chinese, for instance, (46).

(45) TP

SU T′

T vP

tSU v′

V-v VP

VP and VP

tV OB ADV VP

tV OB
(46) a.* Wo kan er-yue san-ben shu.
I read two-month three-Cl book
‘I read two books in February.’
b.*. . . [vP V-v [VP XP [VP tV OB]]]

(44) should not be a counterexample to the analysis of LPD sentences

in Chinese presented in this paper. If the discussion in this subsection is
correct, Chinese has LPD sentences, and they are analyzed as instances
of gapping. Hence, Zoerner’s (1995) claim does not hold in Chinese.
Notice that there are some differences between the empty verb sen-
tences and LPD sentences in Chinese. First of all, the remnant object can
be an animate nominal. Consider the contrast between (47) (= (20)) and
(48). The judgment of (48) is much better than (47) although (48) might
sound a little bit unnatural.
(47) * Wo kanjian-le Zhangsan, ni Lisi.
I see-Perf Zhangsan you Lisi
‘I saw Zhangsan, and you Lizi.’ (= (20))
(48) (?) Ta gei wo Zhangsan, ni Lisi.
he give I Zhangsan you Lisi
‘He gave me Zhangsan and you Lisi.’
216 SZE-WING TANG

The ungrammaticality of (47) is expected as canonical gapping is not

allowed in Chinese. On the other hand, assuming that LPD results from ATB
movement of V to v, there should be a verbal gap between the indirect object
ni ‘you’ and the direct object Lisi created by V-to-v movement in (48).
The judgment of (48) improves.
Paul (1996a, b, 1999) claims that there is a constraint on gapping in
(Mandarin) Chinese that the remnant object cannot be a pronoun, as
exemplified by (49). Apparently, her claim seems to hold in Cantonese as
well, as shown in (50).
(49) * Lisi da-le ni, Zhangsan wo. (Mandarin)
Lisi hit-Perf you Zhangsan I
‘Lisi hit you, and Zhangsan me.’
(50) * Siu Ming daa-zo nei, Siu Koeng ngo. (Cantonese)
Siu Ming hit-Perf you Siu Koeng I
‘Siu Ming hit you, and Siu Koeng me.’
I have argued that the examples such as those in (49) and (50) are
ungrammatical because of the lack of canonical gapping in Chinese, regard-
less of whether the remnant object is a pronoun.19
Data from LPD in Cantonese may verify Paul’s claim that pronominal
remnant objects are prohibited in gapping.20
Cantonese allows the so-called ‘inverted’ double object construction,
in which the indirect object follows the direct object without having an overt
preposition, as in (51). Interestingly, if two VPs are conjoined, it is perfectly
acceptable to have a pronominal remnant object, as exemplified by (52). 21
Under Paul’s analysis of gapping, it is not clear why the pronominal con-
straint on gapping applies to (50) but not to (52) in a single language.
Accordingly, such a constraint that prohibits the occurrence of the
pronominal remnant object should not be right.

(51) Siu Ming bei-zo loeng-bun syu ngo.

Siu Ming give-Perf two-Cl book I
‘Siu Ming gave two books to me.’

(52) Siu Ming bei-zo loeng-bun syu nei, saam-bun

Siu Ming give-Perf two-Cl book you three-Cl
syu ngo.
book I
‘Siu Ming gave two books to you and three books to me.’
 THE (NON-)EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE 217

The indirect object in the ‘inverted’ double object construction in

Cantonese is a PP with a null preposition (Tang (1998b)). The PP is analyzed
as the complement of the verb. (52) is grammatical because LPD exists
in Chinese, which is created by V-to-v movement. The grammaticality of
gapping is associated with the possibility of verb movement in ATB fashion.
Johnson’s (1994) theory of gapping is further affirmed by the Chinese
data.
I have suggested that canonical gapping and LPD can be treated on a par,
as both of them are subject to ATB movement. However, an anonymous
reviewer points out that there are still some differences between canon-
ical gapping cases and LPD cases in English.22
First, contrary to canonical gapping, LPD can operate in constructions
with as well as (Sag (1976)).
(53) * I read a book, as well as John a magazine. (gapping)
(54) I read a book on Monday as well as a poem on Tuesday. (LPD)
Second, contrary to canonical gapping, LPD allows scrambling of the
remnants to occur in the second conjunct.
(55) * John gave a book to Peter, and to Max, Sally a magazine.
(56) I read a poem on Monday, and on Tuesday, a novel.
Third, contrary to canonical gapping, LPD allows unlike adverbs to occur
in either conjunct.
(57) * I read the sports section quickly, and Max the business section
slowly.
(58) I read the sports section quickly, and the business section slowly.
Regarding the variation between canonical gapping and LPD with respect
to the as well as coordination, as pointed out by the anonymous reviewer,
as well as cannot conjoin finite clauses, as illustrated in (59).
(59) * I read a book on Monday, as well as I read a poem on Tuesday.
The ungrammaticality of (59) shows that (59) cannot be an input form
from which LPD sentences such as (54) are derived by deleting the subject
and the verb. Consequently, the contrast between (54) and (59) may be
regarded as a piece of evidence showing that LPD cannot be derived by
deletion.
To rule in (54) and rule out (53) and (59), I assume that the projection
of the two conjuncts that as well as conjoins must be lower/smaller than
218 SZE-WING TANG

the functional projection that dominates the two conjoints conjoined by

and in canonical gapping. According to (41), the two conjuncts in canon-
ical gapping in English are vPs. We may assume that as well as conjoins
only VPs in LPD cases.23
To account for the contrast between (55) and (56), I assume with
Fukui (1993) and Takano (1998) that English has ‘short scrambling’, i.e.,
scrambling to VP. Given that the two conjuncts in English LPD sentences
are VPs, on Tuesday in (56) may undergo scrambling within VP preceding
the direct object a novel.
To derive the word order in (55), to Max must undergo scrambling beyond
VP, which is not permitted in English. On the other hand, fronting of to Max
in (55) cannot be regarded as topicalization. It is widely assumed in the
literature that topics in English are adjoined either to TP or to CP. Under
the ATB analysis of gapping in English the two conjuncts in gapping are
projections dominated by TP, as represented in (41). If to Max is analyzed
as a topic, it will be adjoined to a wrong projection, and thus it is ungram-
matical.24
Regarding the contrast between (57) and (58), we may need some addi-
tional assumptions to account for the ungrammaticality of (57). For example,
the descriptive generalization seems to be that no more than two
remnants/items can remain in the second conjunct in English gapping.
(57) is ungrammatical simply because there are three remnants in the second
conjunct, namely the subject Max, the object the business section, and the
manner adverb slowly. To derive the right word order, I assume that Johnson
(1996) that the remnant object undergoes ATB movement out of the two
conjuncts. As noted by an anonymous reviewer of this paper, it seems that
gapping more than LPD serves the function of creating contrastive focus,
which might contribute to the limit on remnants available. An extensive
discussion of these patterns is beyond the scope of this paper, and I leave
these issues open here.
So far, I have shown that there are at least two types of gapping in natural
languages.

(60) Two types of gapping

a. ‘Canonical gapping’ that results from ATB movement of V
to T.
b. ‘LPD’ that results from ATB movement of V to v.

English has canonical gapping, which Chinese lacks. The differences

between these two languages with respect to the existence of canonical
gapping boil down to the parametric variation of verb movement. Under the
 THE (NON-)EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE 219

ATB movement analysis of gapping, English has canonical gapping because

it allows V-to-T movement. Canonical gapping does not exist in Chinese
because verbs never move out of vP in Chinese. On the other hand, as
Chinese and English allow V-to-v movement, both of these languages have
LPD that is derived from ATB movement of V to v. Our discussion here
further affirms Johnson’s (1994) theory of gapping that gapping is reduced
to ATB movement.

6. CONCLUSION

It has been claimed in the literature that gapping is prohibited in Chinese.

Under Johnson’s (1994) theory of gapping, the nonexistence of canonical
gapping in Chinese follows from the nonexistence of V-to-T movement
in ATB fashion. As the prohibition of V-to-T movement in Chinese has been
argued independently by a number of researchers, Johnson’s theory of
gapping receives important support from Chinese.
Li (1988) and Paul (1996a,b, 1999) observe some prima facie evidence
for gapping in Chinese. I have argued that the examples illustrated by Li
and Paul are not canonical gapping sentences. They are analyzed as empty
verb sentences.
Though Chinese does not have canonical gapping, I have argued that
Chinese has some gapping sentences, precisely those that result from ATB
movement from V to v, but none that result from ATB movement from V
to T. Consequently, gapping should not be regarded as an ‘all-or-nothing’
phenomenon.
This paper identifies two types of gapping in natural languages, namely
‘canonical gapping’ that is derived by V-to-T movement and ‘LPD’ that
is derived by V-to-v movement. Differences between Chinese and English
with respect to the existence of gapping are attributed to parametric
variation of verb movement. The data from Chinese once again affirm
Johnson’s (1994) theory of gapping that gapping occurs in those languages
only with ATB movement.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to Jim Huang for his invaluable suggestions and constant

encouragement. I also wish to thank Terri Griffith, Naomi Harada, Yuanjian
He, Kyle Johnson, Richard Kayne, Thomas Lee, Audrey Li, Luther Liu,
Haihua Pan, Waltraud Paul, Dingxu Shi, Jenny Wang and Di Wu for useful
comments, discussions, and help in the writing of this paper. Particularly,
220 SZE-WING TANG

comments and criticisms from three anonymous JEAL reviewers were very
helpful and constructive, making the arguments presented in this paper more
organized. Earlier related versions of this paper were presented at the
IACL-7/NACCL-10 joint conference held at Stanford University, 1998, and
at the Departmental Seminar in the Department of Chinese, Translation, and
Linguistics, City University of Hong Kong, 1999. I also thank the audiences
of those occasions for their comments. Needless to say, all errors are my
own.

NOTES
* The following abbreviations are used in giving glosses for Chinese examples: Cl: classi-
fier, Exp: experiential aspect marker, Mod: modifier marker, and Perf: perfective aspect
marker.
1
In fact, the gap in (12) also has another refernece that is found in the discourse. For
example, what Lisi did could be making (bao ‘wrap’) ten dumplings. Thanks to Di Wu for
helpful discussion on these examples. Furthermore, an anonymous reviewer draws my
attention to the following examples, in which the gap is in the middle conjunct (= (i)) and
in the first conjunct (= (ii)). Though both of them are deviant, (i) is much better than (ii).
The gap in (i) must refer to the verb in the first conjunct. The data in (i) and (ii) seem to
suggest that the gap in so-called Chinese gapping cannot precede its antecedent, similar to
gapping in English (Jackendoff (1971)).
(i) ? Wo chi-le liang-wan fan, Zhangsan e shi-ge shuijiao,
I eat-Perf two-Cl rice Zhangsan ten-Cl dumpling
Lisi zhu-le san-wan tang.
Lisi cook-Perf three-Cl soup
‘I ate two bowls of rice, Zhangsan ate ten dumplings, and Lisi cooked three
bowls of soup.’
(ii) *Wo e liang-wan fan, Zhangsan chi-le shi-ge shuijiao,
I two-Cl rice Zhangsan eat-Perf ten-Cl dumpling
Lisi zhu-le san-wan tang.
Lisi cook-Perf three-Cl soup
2
Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for drawing my attention to subordinate construc-
tions.
3
Whether there are any functional projections in empty verb sentences in Chinese in
irrelevant in the present discussion. If Xu (1993) is right, T (= Infl) exists in all empty verb
sentences in Chinese. I have also argued elsewhere that T must project in episodic
sentences in natural languages (Tang (1998a)).
4
The contrast between (21) and (22) is observed by Jim Huang (personal communica-
tion).
5
The generic nouns in (22) and (24) can be analyzed as ‘d-generics’ à la Gerstner and Krifka
(1993). See also Wilkinson (1995) and the references cited therein for discussion along
these lines.
6
See also Paul (1996a, b) for a similar observation.
7
Why there is such a preference in Chinese is interesting. Perhaps some sort of ‘economy’
plays a role here: bare small clauses are structurally simpler than empty verb sentences.
8
Thanks to Jim Huang (personal communication) for drawing my attention to (27).
 THE (NON-)EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE 221

9
I do not know why the verb xuan ‘elect’ in (27) is easier to be interpreted as episodic
than the verb kanjian ‘see’ in (20), deriving an empty verb sentence instead of a bare small
clause. Perhaps such a preference is influenced by some non-linguistic factors.
10
The episodic interpretation and the definiteness requirement in empty verb sentences may
help the empty verb to find its antecedent by providing some presupposed information.
How to derive the descriptive generalizations in (25) from general principles is beyond the
scope of this paper, and I leave all these issues for my future research. For further
properties of empty verb sentences in Chinese, see a detailed discussion in Tang (1998a, §4).
11
See Huang (1994b) and the references cited therein for details of the application of
Larsonian structure to Chinese.
12
It is not clear what the structure of the huozhe . . . huozhe ‘either . . . or’ sequence
should look like. See Larson (1985) and Schwarz (1999) for different proposals of the
syntax of either . . . or in English, which may shed some light on the huozhe . . . huozhe
sequence in Chinese.
13
Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for drawing my attention to LPD.
14
In the literature, the vP analysis has similar-spirited counterparts, such as ‘VP shell’
(Larson (1988)), predicate phrase ‘PrP’ (Bowers (1993)), voice phrase ‘VoiceP’ (Kratzer
(1996)), and transitivity phrase ‘TrP’ (Collins (1997)).
15
For the claim that verbs move out of vP overtly in English, see Johson (1991, 1994),
Koizumi (1995), Lasnik (1995), Tang (1998a), Kural (1998), and Tanaka (1999). To unify
the analysis of simple gapping and long-distance gapping in English, Johnson (1996) proposes
that gapping is created by movement of XP, which he calls ‘PolP’, in ATB fashion plus
scrambling of remnant. To keep matters simpler, I still follow Johnson’s (1994) analysis of
gapping in this paper.
16
Johnson (1994) argues that A-movement does not violate the coordinate structure
constraint CSC and thus subject raising in (41) is grammatical. The fact that the subject in
the second conjunct does not have nominative Case, as pointed out by Johnson, based on
Siegel’s (1987) observation, suggests that it does not move to TP.
(i) We can’t eat caviar and him/*he can’t eat beans.
An anonymous reviewer of this paper and Richard Kayne (personal communication)
independently note that in some cases the subject in the second conjunct can have
nominative Case, as in (ii). I leave the exploration for the contrast between (i) and (ii) open
here.
(ii) We can’t eat caviar, nor he, beans.
17
After I finished writing this section, Yuanjian He (personal communication) drew my
attention to his work on coordination reduction in Chinese (He (1995)), in which he has a
similar idea of verb movement in Chinese. See also Cheng et al. (1996) for a similar analysis
of ATB movement in the Taiwanese double object construction.
18
An anonymous reviewer points out that the proposed derivation of LPD does not involve
a CSC violation as gapping apparently does (see fn. 16). If gapping involves a CSC
violation but LPD does not, we may have an account for the greater naturalness of LPD in
English and perhaps the lack of canonical gapping in Chinese.
19
What is wrong if the second conjunct in (49) and (50) is an empty verb sentence? It seems
that the salient interpretation of the empty verb sentence in (i) is that the first nominal is
the patient and the pronoun is the possesser. If the second conjunct in (49) is treated as an
empty verb sentence, (49) will mean ‘Lisi hit you, and Zhangsan belongs to me’. The
unacceptability is due to pragmatics.
(i) Zhangsan wo, Lisi ni.
Zhangsan I Lisi you
‘Zhangsan belongs to me, and Lisi you.’
222 SZE-WING TANG

20
Such a constraint in Chinese, if any, should be language-specific as it does not hold in
English. For example, (i) is perfectly acceptable.
(i) I saw John, and Bill her.
21
Notice that (51) and (52) are not available in Mandarin.
22
The data of the differences between gapping and LPD in English and their grammaticality
judgments are due to Neijt’s (1979) observations.
23
See Neijt (1979) for a similar suggestion against Sag’s (1976) analysis of LPD cases.
24
As pointed out by the anonymous reviewer, (55) is far worse than (i). I assume that (i)
is acceptable simply because the topic to Max is adjoined to a legitimate position, i.e.,
either TP or CP.
(i) ? To Max, Sally gave a magazine.

REFERENCES
Bowers, John (1993) “The Syntax of Predication,” Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591–656.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen (1989) “Aspectual Licensing of pro in Mandarin Chinese,” ms., MIT.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., C.-T. James Huang, Y.-H. Audrey Li and C.-C. Jane Tang (1996) “Hoo,
Hoo, Hoo: Syntax of the Causative, Dative, and Passive Constructions in Taiwanese,”
ms., University of California, Irvine, University of Southern California, and Academia
Sinica.
Chiu, Bonnie Hui-Chun (1993) The Inflectional Structure of Mandarin Chinese, PhD
dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Chomsky, Noam (1995) “Categories and Transformation,” in The Minimalist Program, MIT
Press, Cambridge, pp. 219–394.
Collins, Chris (1997) Local Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Ernst, Thomas (1994) “Functional Categories and the Chinese Infl,” Linguistics 32, 191–212.
Fukui, Naoki (1993) “Parameters and Optionality,” Linguistics Inquiry 24, 399–420.
Fukui, Naoki and Yuji Takano (1998) “Symmetry in Syntax: Merge and Demerge,” Journal
of East Asian Linguistics 7, 27–86.
Gerstner, Claudia and Manfred Krifka (1993) “Genericity,” in J. Jacobs et al. (eds.), Handbuch
der Syntax, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 966–978.
Gu, Yang (1995) “Aspect Licensing, Verb Movement and Feature Checking,” Cahiers de
Linquistique Asie Orentale 24(1), 49–83.
Hale, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser (1993) “On Argument Structure and the Lexical
Represention of Syntactic Relations,” in Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.),
The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, MIT
Press, Cambridge, pp. 53–109.
Hankamer, Jorge (1973) “Unacceptable Ambiguity,” Linguistic Inquiry 4, 17–68.
He, Yuanjian (1995) “X Biaogan Lilun yu Hanyu Duanyu Jiegou [X′ – Theory and Chinese
Phrase Structure], Guowai Yuyanxue 2, 36–44.
Huang, C.-T. James (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, PhD
dissertation, MIT.
Huang, C.-T. James (1991) “Verb Movement, (In)definiteness, and the Thematic Hierarchy,”
in Paul Jen-Kuei Li, Chu-Ren Huang and Ying-Chin Lin (eds.), Proceedings of the Second
International Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics, Academia Sinica, Taipei,
pp. 481–498.
Huang, C.-T. James (1993) “Reconstruction and the Structure of VP: Some Theoretical
Consequences,” Linguistic Inquiry 24, 103–138.
Huang, C.-T. James (1994a) “Verb Movement and Some Syntax-Semantics Mismatches in
Chinese,” Chinese Languages and Linguistics 2, 587–613.
 THE (NON-)EXISTENCE OF GAPPING IN CHINESE 223

Huang, C.-T. James (1994b) “More on Chinese Word Order and Parametric Theory,” in
Barbara Lust, Margarita Suñer and John Whitman (eds.), Syntactic Theory and First
Language Acquisiton: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, Volume 1, Heads, Projections, and
Learnability, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Hillsdale, pp. 15–35.
Huang, C.-T. James (1997a) “On Lexical Structure and Syntactic Projection,” Chinese
Languages and Linguistics 3, 45–89.
Huang, C.-T. James (1997b) “Japan Cannot Say ‘No-’,” handout of talk given at Workshop
on Japanese Syntax in a Comparative Context, LSA Linguistic Institute, Cornell University.
Jackendoff, Ray (1971) “Gapping and Related Rules,” Linguistic Inquiry 2, 21–36.
Johnson, Kyle (1991) “Object Position,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9,
577–636.
Johnson, Kyle (1994) “Bridging the Gap,” ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Johnson, Kyle (1996) “In Search of the English Middle Field,” ms., University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Koizumi, Masatoshi (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, PhD dissertation, MIT.
Koutsoudas, Andreas (1971) “Gapping, Conjunction Reduction, and Coordinate Deletion,”
Foundations of Language 7, 337–386.
Kratzer, Angelika (1996) “Severing the External Argument from its Verb,” in Johan Rooryck
and Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, pp. 109–137.
Kural, Murat (1998) “Verb Movement in English and Morphological Transparency,” in
Hidehito Hoshi (ed.), UCI Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 4, Irvine Linguistics
Students Association, Irvine, pp. 105–140.
Larson, Richard K. (1985) “On the Syntax of Disjunction Scope,” Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 3, 217–264.
Larson, Richard K. (1988) “On the Double Object Construction,” Linguistic Inquiry 19,
335–391.
Lasnik, Howard (1995) “A Note on Pseudogapping,” in Rob Pensalfini and Hiroyuki Ura
(eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27: Papers on Minimalist Syntax, MITWPL,
Cambridge, pp. 143–163.
Li, Mei-Du (1988) Anaphoric Structures of Chinese, Student Book Co, Ltd, Taipei.
Li, Xiaoguang (1997) Deriving Distributivity in Mandarin Chinese, PhD dissertation,
University of California, Irvine.
Li, Yen-hui Audrey (1998) “Argument Determiner Phrases and Number Phrases,” Linguistic
Inquiry 29, 693–702.
Neijt, Anneke (1979) Gapping: A Contribution to Sentence Grammar, Foris Publications,
Dordrecht.
Paul, Waltraud (1996a) “Verb Raising in Chinese,” in Chin-chuan Cheng et al. (eds.),
Proceedings of the Eighth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Volume
1, Graduate Students in Linguistics, USC, Los Angeles, pp. 260–276.
Paul, Waltraud (1996b) “Verb Raising in Mandarin Chinese,” Studies in the Linguistics
Sciences 26(1/2), 255–270.
Paul, Waltraud (1999) “Verb Gapping in Chinese: A Case of Verb Raising,” Lingua 107,
207–226.
Sag, Ivan (1976) Deletion and Logical Form, PhD dissertation, MIT.
Schwarz, Bernhard (1999) “On the Syntax of Either . . . Or,” Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 17, 339–370.
Siegel, Muffy E. A. (1987) “Compositionality, Case, and the Scope of Auxiliaries,” Linguistics
and Philosophy 10(1), 53–76.
Tai, James, H. (1969) Coordination Reduction, PhD dissertation, Indiana University.
Takano, Yuji (1998) “Object Shift and Scrambling,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
16, 817–889.
Tanaka, Hidekazu (1999) “Raised Objects and Superiority,” Linguistic Inquiry 30, 317–325.
224 SZE-WING TANG

Tang, Chih-Chen Jane (1990) Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X′ – Theory, PhD
dissertation, Cornell University.
Tang, Sze-Wing (1998a) Parametrization of Features in Syntax, PhD dissertation, University
of California, Irvine.
Tang, Sze-Wing (1998b) “On the ‘Inverted’ Double Object Construction,” in Stephen
Matthews (ed.), Studies in Cantonese Linguistics. The Linguistic Society of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong, pp. 35–52.
Tsai, Wei-Tien (1994) On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependencies, PhD disserta-
tion, MIT.
Wilkinson, Karina (1995) “The Semantics of the Common Noun Kind,” in Gregory N. Carlson
and Francis Jeffry Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago and London, pp. 383–397.
Williams, Edwin (1977) “Discourse and Logical Form,” Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–139.
Xu, Jie (1993) An I-Parameter and its Consequences, PhD dissertation, University of
Maryland, College Park.
Zoerner, Cyril Edward (1995) Coordination: the Syntax of &P, PhD dissertation, University
of California, Irvine.

Received: April 29, 1999 Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies

Revised: September 8, 2000 The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Hung Hom, Kowloon
Hong Kong
E-mail: sw.tang@polyu.edu.hk