Words pose a theoretical challenge in Chinese, but words pose a challenge in any language. Even though Chinese is written with monosyllabic, monomorphemic characters and no overt word boundaries, there is as much evidence here as there is in English or any other language for a level between the morpheme and the phrase, interfacing between the lexicon and the grammar. Yet their interface role makes words dynamic things, subject to distinct and often conflicting constraints from processing, semantics, phonology, morphology, and syntax. To emphasize the universality of this situation, the chapter starts with a quick look at the dynamic nature of English words before turning to focus on Chinese words, which a wide variety of data reveal as surprisingly English-like, including a strong preference for disyllabicity. The chapter ends by sketching a formalism that may help capture the universal yet dynamic nature of wordhood, showing how it helps account for some of the Chinese facts.

This article compares the presence of some functional categories which are at play in English or in French to their absence in Mandarin. It shows that rather than being ‘absent’ these categories are inactive, due to the analyticity of the language. For instance, Mandarin ‘lacks’ (i) subject–verb agreement, (ii) plural markers on nouns, (iii) a complementizer as a head of a clause in subject or in object position, and (iv) verb gapping.

This chapter provides an overview of scholarship on Chinese sentence-final particles (SFPs) from sociolinguistic and discourse perspectives. The chapter begins with a brief introduction to the typological and areal features associated with SFPs, followed by discussions of studies of this linguistic category in data-based empirical research as well as in descriptive grammars. The goal of the overview is to identify the main strands of theoretical underpinnings as well as to outline the major methodological approaches. The chapter concludes with a discussion of future research directions.

In this chapter, we discuss the Mandarin syllable and recent innovations in its study. The focus will be on the segmentation of the syllable into phonological units, an area of research that features a proposal for the combination of segments into phonological units for almost every permutation possible. At the core of the new work in this area is the combined use of network science and psycholinguistic experimentation. We review exploratory work modeling the lexicon according to phonological networks, wherein words are the nodes of the network and the networks' edges are identified through the addition deletion or substitution of a single segment or lexical tone. We argue that lexical access viewed in light of syllable segmentation modelled through phonological networks sees the lexicon as multiple concurrent networks that, when given the demands of a specific task, activate connections most fit for the goals of the task.

Sentence-final particles are normally assumed to occur in the CP domain, i.e., the domain of the complementizer phrase. Their exact syntactic position varies given the heterogeneity of these elements. The position of these particles usually depends on how they are categorized semantically, and also on how they conform to different syntactic principles. Several distinctive and often competing approaches are addressed here. This chapter also discusses those 'sentence-final particles' that are found in the lower domains and revisits the question of whether some, if not all, elements that are said to belong to the category of sentence-final particles should be construed as non-CP elements.

The primary goal of this chapter is to present the state of the art on Chinese intonation research, with a focus on how tone and intonation interact. To this end, the general functions and forms of intonation observed in (Mandarin) Chinese are first introduced. This is followed by a detailed discussion of the multiplexing of the f0 channel for tone and intonation in varieties of Chinese as well as the different proposals posited for intonation modeling. The secondary goal of this chapter is to highlight open issues and suggest potential points for future research on intonation in Chinese.

Three broad features of modification constructions are the modification--reference continuum, word order of modifiers and head, and anaphoric-head constructions. Nominal modifiers may perform an anchoring function, establishing a referent that helps to pick out the head referent; or they may perform a typifying function, subcategorizing the head referent not unlike prototoypical modifiers. The constructions used for nominal modification vary correspondingly. Numeral and mensural constructions also differ along the modification--reference continuum, albeit with a reversal of head and modifier. Asymmetries in modifier--noun word order obey a number of implicational universals, and also provide evidence that prenominal modifiers are more tightly integrated into the referring phrase than postnominal modifiers. Anaphoric-head modifiers lack a common noun head, and employ either pronominal head or ‘headless’ strategies. Modification constructions may arise diachronically when an anaphoric-head construction comes to be juxtaposed to a common noun and then integrated into a single referring phrase.

The skeletal structure of a sentence is defined by the propositional acts of reference, predication, and modification. Reference is carried out by a referring phrase. The prototypical head of a referring phrase denotes an object; this is a noun. Modifiers are dependents of a noun that form attributive phrases. The prototypical head of an attributive phrase denotes a property; this is an adjective. A clause predicates something of a referent or referents. The prototypical head of a clause denotes an action; this is a verb. Reference, modification, and predication of nonprototypical concepts is possible, and often expressed by distinct constructions. Three principles govern how combinations of information packaging and semantic content are expressed: any concept can be packaged in any way; some ways are more ‘natural’ than others; and how they are packaged is constrained by conventions of the speech community. Nonprototypical constructions often share properties of ‘neighboring’ prototypical constructions. They often differ by having additional forms coding the nonprototypical function, and/or by a lesser potential for expressing associated grammatical categories (e.g., inflections).

Modifiers come in a wide range of semantic types. The prototypical modifiers, property concepts, sort the referents of the noun category into subcategories. Numerals, quantifiers, set-member modifiers (‘next,’ ‘last,’ ordinals), and mensural terms function to select an individual, a set of individuals, or an amount of a nonindividuated object. Nominal modifiers use another referent to situate the head referent, most commonly via relations of possession or location. Modification constructions use a variety of strategies to express the modifier--head referent relation, strategies that are used in many other relations within a construction. Simple strategies do not use any other morphemes to encode the relation, and include juxtaposition and compounding. Relational strategies encode the semantic relation between modifier and referent (more generally, dependent and head), and include adpositions and case affixes. Indexical strategies index a referent, either the head referent or the nominal dependent referent, and include most classifiers. The sources of these strategies are constructions with pronouns, nouns, or verbs; and the strategies may evolve into a linker.

Complex sentences stand at the edge of discourse: they represent conventionalized forms of discourse cohesion. Coordination and adverbial subordination express the same types of semantic relations between events. Coordination packages the related events in a symmetrical, complex figure construal; adverbial subordination packages them in an asymmetrical, figure--ground construal between a matrix clause and a dependent clause. Referents and other concepts may be coordinated as well. Both coordination and adverbial subordination share the same strategies. Both may use conjunctions to express the relation between events, although the semantic categories expressed by coordinating conjunctions differ from those expressed by adverbializers. Both may use either a balanced or deranked strategy for the form of the predicates expressing the events. Crosslinguistically, one can distinguish two types of deranked predicate forms: converbs (for adverbial subordination) and action nominals. Conjunctions typically originate from discourse markers. Deranked coordination appears to originate in deranked subordination; in some languages, both are expressed identically.

Many stretches of discourse typically consist of a sequence of distinct events; but many referents recur across events. The tracking of referents contributes to discourse cohesion but is also an element of complex sentence constructions. The most likely (but not necessarily the only) referents to be tracked are the subject referents of the clauses in a complex sentence construction. Hence, the primary distinction in reference tracking constructions is between same-subject (SS) and different-subject (DS) constructions. Balanced constructions may use the standard discourse reference strategy (Chapter 3), or the SS strategy may use a zero subject strategy not used for general discourse reference (conditional discourse reference). Reference tracking constructions may be distinguished such that the SS construction is deranked and the DS construction is balanced (conditional deranking), or both SS and DS constructions are deranked (absolute deranking). If both SS and DS constructions are deranked, but systematically differentiated, then the absolute deranking system is a switch-reference system.

Predicates may be simple or complex. A broad view of complex predicates is taken here, including the expression of tense, aspect, modality and polarity (TAMP) as well as stative concepts combined with event concepts (see chapter 14). Complex predicates are not as syntactically cohesive as referring phrases. Complex predicates have a variety of diachronic sources, although they tend to converge on a common set of complex predicate strategies. Eventive complex predicates involve the packaging together of two eventive concepts as a single predicate, although one concept may also grammaticalize into the TAMP category(ies) for the other event concept (= auxiliary construction), or into a form expressing a participant role (= flag). Strategies include one in which both concepts are expressed in a verblike form (serial verb constructions) or where one concept is in a nonverbal form (deranked; see chapters 14-15) including a nounlike construction (support verb constructions). Finally, a related type to the latter strategy is the semantic development of a verb-argument complex predicate, where the argument originally expressed an object concept.