Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis explores subject/non-subject relativization in Late Archaic Chinese, indicating structural differences.
This paper proposes an analysis of the subject/non-subject relativization asymmetry in Late Archaic Chinese (LAC). The primary focus is the non-subject relativization marker 所 suǒ, which surfaces between the subject and the VP within the relative clause. This marker does not appear in subject relative clauses. I propose that the difference between subject and non-subject relatives in LAC is in the number of projections in the C/TP layer. If only the subject undergoes movement, it targets the specifier of an amalgamated C/T head. In other words, C-T Inheritance does not take place. This is the case in unmarked declarative clauses and also in subject relative clauses. But if both the subject and a non-subject undergo movement, then Inheritance takes place, the subject moving to [Spec, TP] and the other constituent moving to [Spec, CP]. This is the situation in non-subject relative clauses, since both the subject and an operator must undergo movement. In order to account for the appearance of the marker SUO in non-subject relative clauses, I propose that this morpheme is spelled out on T which has separated from C, in other words the T which has been inherited from C/T. In this way, my analysis accounts for the position of SUO and also the fact that it surfaces in non-subject but not subject relative clauses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edith Aldridge (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: