A puzzle about guò and the complement / modifier distinction

[Sibutlasi]

I am beginning to explore Mandarin and know very few characters as yet. I hope you will excuse my using only pinyin in what follows.

As far as I know, in Mandarin a) complements follow verbs, whereas modifiers precede them; b) "zhù", like English "live", Spanish “vivir”, French “habiter”, German “wohnen”, etc. requires a place complement (i.e., "*I live" is incomplete); and c) "guò" indicates that an event occurred at least once in the past; I hope all that is accurate. However, a native speaker has just provided me with the following puzzling data:

1. Wo3 zhù zài Bei3jing1 = correct

2. *Wo3 zài Bei3jing1 zhù = incorrect

3. *Wo3 zhùguò zài Bei3jing1 = incorrect

4. Wo3 zài Bei3jing1 zhùguò = correct

In view of rules a, b, c) above, I expected 1 to be correct and 2 to be wrong, but I did NOT expect 3 to be wrong, nor 4 correct!

Why is 3) WRONG? Elsewhere "guò" can be directly attached to the verb before a place complement. Why can't it in this case?

Nevertheless, it puzzled me even more to learn that 4) IS CORRECT, because it seems as if the presence of "guò" has the effect of altering the grammatical function of "zài bei3jing1", converting it into a modifier. Notice that in 4) "zài bei3jing1" appears in the position optional modifiers occupy. Now, if "zài bei3jing1" is indeed a modifier in 4), it follows that b) above does not hold in Mandarin: "zhù" may do without a complement and, since modifiers are by definition optional, a bare subject + verb combination like "wo zhù(guò)" should be correct, but I find that instinctively hard to swallow, :-). Is it correct? On the contrary, if “wo3 zhù(guò)” is bad (= incomplete), as I expect, the unacceptability of 3) and the acceptability of 4) ARE UNEXPECTED and require an explanation.

Can you help me out of this conundrum?

Thank you!

[renzhe]

That's actually a good question. I hope somebody will come and give you a very formal answer, but until that, I'll direct you to the Chinese Grammar Wiki and attempt to answer it:

"zhù" (住) is actually an exception. Mandarin has a fairly strict ordering of clauses in a sentence, with location (the zai/在 part) preceding the verb. Some verbs indicating movement or location, however, must precede the location. That's why the zai/在 clause follows zhù/住.

The thing with guò (过) is that it grammatically must immediately follow the verb, but it actually refers to the whole phrase (living in Beijing). So it reverts to the original ordering (location before verb).

wo zhù(guò)

This is grammatically correct, but incomplete. It would be correct if the missing information is implied from the context.

[skylee]

Why is 2 wrong? It seems all right to me.

[anonymoose]

This is something that I have never found a completely satisfactory or definitive answer to. Nevertheless, I tentatively present my understanding here, which is not necessarily correct, and I welcome any comments:

Generally speaking, if the location of the action is incidental and is not directly related to the action, the location phrase comes before the verb. The location phrase simply provides a setting for the action, but is not dictated by the action, and could be omitted from the sentence. Therefore we have sentences such as:

妈妈在厨房烧菜。

→ 妈妈(在)烧菜。

金鱼在池塘里游来游去。

→ 金鱼(在)游来游去。

On the other hand, if the location is central to the action, for example, something ends up in a certain place as a result of the action, then the location phrase tends to come after the verb. In these sentences, the location phrase often cannot be omitted. For example:

他把书放在了书架上。

→ *他把书放。

小孩在用蜡笔乱涂在墙上。

→ 小孩在用蜡笔乱涂。

However, in some instances, whether or not the location phrase is central to the verb is not clearcut. 住 is one of these cases. From one perspective, if you are telling somebody where you live, then the location is an integral piece of information related to 住, and according to the principles outlined above, the location phrase comes after the verb and cannot be omitted:

我住在北京。

→ *我住。

鸟关在笼子里。

→ *鸟关。

On the other hand, everybody is always living somewhere, and the location could be considered just to be the setting of their living. Therefore, the location phrase can be placed before the verb:

我在北京住。(This sounds strange, because it would be unlikely to be uttered as an independent sentence. If the purpose of the sentence is to relate the location, then the location being of central importance would mean the previous construction would be more likely used. If the location is incidental and not of central importance, then there would be more information attached to the sentence.)

鸟在笼子里关着。

→ 鸟关着。

OK, I realised after all that that I haven't addressed the 过 conundrum. I'll leave it here for now until I can think of a better explanation.

[creamyhorror]

2. *Wo3 zài Bei3jing1 zhù = incorrect

I think this is considered less natural because the verb is a single character (i.e. due to prosody). If it were a double-character verb, it would be correct, e.g. Wo3 zai4 Bei3jing1 ju1zhu4.

In other words, the general pattern

[subject] [location phrase] [verb phrase]

still holds, except in such cases where the verb phrase is a single character (which is not preferred).

[daofeishi]

I think this is considered less natural because the verb is a single character (i.e. due to prosody).

This seems like a likely explanation to me too. Chinese is full of prosodic requirements.

[imron]

I am beginning to explore Mandarin and know very few characters as yet. I hope you will excuse my using only pinyin in what follows.

No problem, but please consider using either all tone marks, or all tone numbers. Mixing them up looks messy. There exist tools such as Pinyinput (disclosure: written by me) to help type pinyin with tone marks if you like (personally I find the tone marks easier to read than the numbers).

A slight off-topic aside, if you are serious about learning Chinese, don't shy away from the characters. They're not as hard as most people think and you'll find it makes things easier in the long run.

[Michaelyus]

Elsewhere "guò" can be directly attached to the verb before a place complement.

Really? I can't think of any examples where that would hold true at the moment...

I think the answer in #4 of anonymoose is one key to understanding why 住 behaves in this way. Pre-modifying the verb focuses on the verb; post-verbal modification focuses on resultant location. Yip & Rimmington state that the latter is particularly common with 把 bǎ constructions and notional passives (存、躺、站 are among the examples given), and the two become equivalent with verbs like 住.

But I do think the principal reason is prosody, as creamyhorror has stated in #5. Note that all these examples of post-modification are monosyllabic.

Note also: The use of the monosyllabic 住 with pre-modification, as in 我在北京住, has a special emphasis (it has an expository function rather than a descriptive function, according to Yip & Rimmington); compare 我在北京住 with 我在北京住着 and 我住在北京. I wouldn't be so bold as to call it ungrammatical!

We mustn't forget 我住北京, as 住 can also be a standard transitive verb. This can take 过 of course.

With 过 then, the disyllabic nature of the verb entity seems to preclude the post-modified *我住过在北京, and it must either revert to pre-modified 我在北京住过 or simple object 我住过北京.

The crux is: is location-based (or maybe just 在-based) post-modification only admissible for monosyllabic verbs?

[Sibutlasi]

Thank you all, I'm overwhelmed!

I understand from renzhe's judgment concerning "wo3 zhu4guo4 [ ]" that Chinese also has 'object-drop' (= an object can be left unpronounced when its referent is recoverable from the context), not just 'subject-drop'. Thanks! In what concerns word order, though, I still see no causal connection between the fact that "guo4" is a (syntactic) verb-affix with verb-phrase scope and the unexpected position of the complement in example 4) (assuming "zai4..." is not a modifier). Also, no general rule forces "zai4..." to precede "zhu4", as the correctness of example 1) shows. As to "guo4" triggering the shift of "zai4..." from post-verbal into pre-verbal position, it seems to me a bit suspicious. English tense is clearly a verbal affix, it also has scope over the whole predication, but it does not force a following complement to move into a pre-verbal slot. If the example is invalid due to the strict VO order of English, the same holds of tense in German (where OV is available, as both objects and modifiers precede non-finite forms ("Ich habe Renzhe ein Beispiel davon gegeben"). Chinese "le" in its perfective use also has scope over the whole verb phrase, and yet it can be followed by an object. As I said above, so can "guo4" (> Michaelius) according to Yip & Rimmington, pages 109-110. Although they cite only directional place complements with "qu4" and "lai2", transitive "zhu4" obviously takes both "guo4" and a Locative complement like "bei3jing1", as Michaelius notes.

Thank you very much, too, anonymoose. What you observe is a consequence of the 'complement' (or inherent 'argument') versus 'modifier' (or 'circumstantial complement') distinction, and what you say about the fuzziness of that distinction in the case of "zhu4" may well be right, but it should NOT be enough to BLOCK a "zai4 + noun phrase" after "zhu4guo4", as in 3), but not after just "zhu4", as in 1), because a complement interpretation should always remain available anyway.

Thank you, as well, creamyhorror and daofeishi (and Michaelius) for your prosodic approach. I do not remotely know enough about Chinese rhythm and the correlation between tone and stress to judge whether prosodic factors explain the facts above. However, from the little I do know, I gather that 1) might be rhythmically OK if parsed /x-Xx-Xx/, 2) and 3) probably violate the rules under any sensible parsing, and 4) would be prosodically well-behaved only if parsed as /x-Xxx-Xx/ (I assume that a rendering */Xx-Xx-Xx/ is out of the question). How much sense a phonetic constituent "zhu4zai4" makes in 1) I do not know, it does not seem to me unlikely (see below), but the prominence of the verb/preposition "zai4" along with the LACK of prominence of its complement "bei3jing1" in 4) sounds to me rather implausible on general linguistic grounds. As far as I know, if a complement is necessary, it always receives more stress than the verb (in the unmarked, non-contrastive, reading), and, if an optional modifier is also added, it receives even more prominence than the object (again: in the unmarked, non-contrastive rendering). Michaelius refers to this, too, if I do not misunderstand him. Just think of English "I bought a book" and "I bought a book at Harrod's". Their unmarked prosodic rendering is /I bóught a BÓOK/ and /I bought a bóok at HÁrrod's/. Prominence on the verb or preposition with absence of prominence on their respective complements (that is: /I bóught a book/ and /I bóught a book át Harrod's/) is simply unthinkable unless a contrastive focus rendering is intended. And yet, in "wo3 - zÁi4 bei3jing1 - zhÚ4guo4", it is "zai4", not "bei3jing1", that would have to be more prominent. Of course Chinese might be different, but I still fail to understand why 4) should be prosodically any better than the unacceptable 3) if the latter is parsed /x-Xxx-Xx/ = "wo3 zhÚ4guo4 zai4 bEi3jing1". Any hints as to a really good analysis of Chinese prosody (in English)?

From what has so far been said here, would it make sense to claim that the problem arises only with verbal complements of "zhu4" and that 3) is bad because two consecutive verbs must be 'incorporated' (= fused into one at some level, to put it informally) and an intervening "guo4" blocks incorporation? In 1) there is no problem in this respect. That still leaves us with the contrast between 2) and 4) awaiting an explanation on different grounds, perhaps those anonymoose suggested.

Last, but not ..., thank you, too, imron. I will make an effort to be consistent in my pinyin transcriptions and I will certainly look at your pinyinput as soon as possible. I still don´t know whether I'm serious enough about learning Chinese as to invest years in mastering its characters, but I will follow your advice and try to learn at least a few every day. All I can say so far is that I find the 'substance' of the language (= the sound-meaning correlations at the lexical and syntactic levels) very interesting and worth exploring.

[Michaelyus]

I would most certainly parse sentence 4) as Xx-Xx-Xx prosodically! Why ever would you not!? Rendering it x-Xxx-Xx sounds distinctly odd to my ear.

Parsing sentence 3) as an acephalic foot + dactyl leads to far too great a disruption to the preferred trochaic rhythm, and therefore leads to 3) being considered unrhythmical, and therefore rejected on prosodic grounds. Interesting line of reasoning. But there must still be a morphosyntactical element, probably related to monosyllabicity, as 4) forced into that weird rhythm still sounds more acceptable than 3).

I would hold that it is entirely plausible for pre-modification to be considered the default position, with [most types of(?)] post-modification being semantically motivated (consider also the evidence from resultative complements with 得 and its semantic relationship to intrinsic result in location complements as above).

In general, adverbials of duration and frequency go after the verb, whilst those of time when / point-of-time go before. Both generally lack verbal components; they may even be of the exact same form. It has been posited (Yip & Rimmington again) that the distinction of word order reflects a distinction of definiteness between the pre-verbal and post-verbal positions, hence explaining the emergence of which adverbials go where. Could this have a bearing on this resultative component business? I'm not sure I'd know how to approach such a claim.

The use of 'verbal incorporation' is interesting. A connection or a blocking interaction between 在 (what with its being a coverb) and 过 (a verb-derived 'aspect' particle) could be corroborated with data from 给- and 为-expressions.

The relationship between 2) and 4) is [almost] trivial, surely!? I maintain that 2) is not ungrammatical, just slightly marked. Do you want to discuss how the markedness relates to it (specifically, the expository function of the utterance)?

I used Duanmu's The Phonology of Standard Chinese as my base with respect to starting to understand Mandarin phonology.

Also, it's Harrods. No apostrophe.

[Sibutlasi]

Thanks, Michaelius.

Parsing 4) as /x-Xxx-Xx/ does NOT seem convincing to me either - see end of my fourth paragraph in [#9] - but it is possible according to Yip&Rimmington(pp. 380ff) and, under my phonological assumptions (here: the less unjustified restructuring of constituents occurs at PF the better), it is less implausible than /Xx-Xx-Xx/: "wo3 zài" cannot be a constituent at the syntactic/semantic level; if it is artificially created at phonetic form it must have a (contrastive?) function, but assuming that 4)is a marked sentence is gratuitous. The dactyllic parsing of "zai4 bei3jing1" at least transparently corresponds to a syntactic (and semantic/LF) constituent and requires no marked restructuring at PF, although it still violates other general principles (again, my fourth paragrah in [#9]).

My factual knowledge of Chinese is too small to challenge your 2nd. paragraph, I would like native speakers to say a bit more about the matter, but, if only on theoretical grounds, I'm not convinced.

In paragraphs 3 and 4 you ignore the complement/adjunct (argument/higher-order predicate) distinction. If there were no such distinction the question I raised would not make sense. I'm not willing to do that (although some people are, I know). Even if the distinction is fuzzy in some cases (with some predicates, for certain speakers, in some contexts,...), the cost of abandoning it is just too high - in Chinese, too, I assume, although I do not yet have adequate evidence.

I remember reading the 'definiteness/indefiniteness' story, too, and being rather skeptical as I did.

If 2) is not bad, of course, everything changes.

Thanks for the reference to Duanmu's book(and for *Harrod's, of course; I initially had Dillon's, I think)