Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University
UST Working Papers in Linguistics, Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University, Volume 3, Pages 35-42
This paper shows that Lin’s (2003, 2006) argument that Mandarin Chinese has not TP is fallacious in logic, and hence is invalid. It is pointed out that some of his analyses are based on semantic rules and principles and also hold in languages like English. As a result, if MC doesn’t have TP simply because those rules and principles may help to derive the temporal interpretations of MC sentences without recourse to the function of T, English shouldn't have TP as well, since those rules and principles apply to English too. Thus Lin’s (2003, 200) analyses are based on a wrong assumption: T in English determines the temporal interpretation of sentences. The contrary is more correct; that is, the choice of tense in English is determined by those semantic rules and principle.