Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis contrasts compound and phrasal resultatives in Mandarin, suggesting distinct syntactic implications.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wenkai Tay (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: