@article {4560, title = {Why Chinese SFPs are neither optional nor disjunctors}, journal = {Lingua}, volume = {170}, year = {2016}, month = {01/2016}, pages = {23-34}, chapter = {23}, abstract = {

In a recent paper,\ Biberauer et al. (2014b)\ claim that the Chinese sentence-final particles (SFPs)\ ne\ and\ ma\ only \“double\” the information encoded elsewhere in the sentence and are to be analyzed as \“acategorial\” conjunctions. This contrasts with the current analysis of, e.g.\ ma\ as an interrogative force head. The present article provides evidence in favour of the SFPs\ ma\ and\ ne\ as C-elements and challenges some of the preconceived ideas commonly encountered in the literature. Within the head-final split CP proposed for Chinese \‘Low C\ \<\ Force\ \<\ Attitude\’,\ ma\ instantiates a Force head, whereas\ ne\ realizes the discourse-related AttitudeP, not a\ wh-question typing particle (paceLisa L.-S. Cheng\&$\#$39;s, 1991). Furthermore, evidence is provided to show that the surface sentence-final position of SFPs in Chinese must be taken at face value.

}, keywords = {Mandarin Chinese; Sentence-final particles (SFPs); Head-final split CP; Yes/no questions; Final over Final Constraint (FOFC)}, issn = {0024-3841}, doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.005}, author = {Pan, Victor Junnan and Paul, Waltraud} }