This analysis identifies semantic restrictions of do so and zheme zuo anaphors, suggesting an LF-mechanism, indicating deep anaphora classification.
The purpose of this paper is threefold: (i) to describe the semantic restrictions imposed on English do so (henceforth, DS) anaphor and Chinese zheme zuo ‘so do’ (henceforth, SD) anaphor; (ii) to argue that the DS/SD anaphora are not formed through PF deletion but are instead present in underlying representations—more specifically, to propose that an LF-mechanism that is based on the copying of an appropriate function from the antecedent clause onto DS/SD phrases can systematically explain the (un)grammaticality of DS and SD anaphors; and (iii) to argue that, on the basis on various observations, DS and SD anaphors should be classified as instances of deep anaphora. This LF-mechanism can also explain the reason why Á-movement and passive subject movement sentences are impossible with DS/SD phrases. Furthermore, we reveal that (i) do in DS and zuo ‘do’ in SD function as an intransitive verb and a light verb, respectively; (ii) English so and its Chinese counterpart zheme ‘so’ function as an adverb and an NP placeholder, respectively; and (iii) the English so and the Chinese zheme ‘so’ serve the same grammatical function— namely, replacing the VP of the antecedent clause. The findings of this study contribute to a deeper understanding of the syntactic and semantic properties of DS and SD anaphors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ihm et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: