Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology

Edited by Jacques Durand, Ulrike Gut, and Gjert Kristoffersen

Offers the first detailed examination of corpus phonology and serves as a practical guide for researchers interested in compiling or using phonological corpora


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History

By Bernard Spolsky

A vivid commentary on Jewish survival and Jewish speech communities that will be enjoyed by the general reader, and is essential reading for students and researchers interested in the study of Middle Eastern languages, Jewish studies, and sociolinguistics.


New from Brill!

ad

Indo-European Linguistics

New Open Access journal on Indo-European Linguistics is now available!


Query Details


Query Subject:   Ability Modality in Mandarin and English
Author:   Zhiguo Xie
Submitter Email:  click here to access email

Linguistic LingField(s):  Semantics

Query:   Dear linguists,

I am trying to convince myself that ability modality in Mandarin has a
temporality presupposition while English does not. Towards this end, I am
looking for help from native speakers of Chinese and native speakers of
English.

In English, is it good if, out of blue, someone utters “John was able to
finish the assignment yesterday’ or “John could finish the assignment
yesterday’ (focusing on the ability reading). Does the sentence convey any
contrastive meaning, like in such contexts as ‘John was able to finish the
assignment, but he cannot do so today.’?

In Mandarin Chinese, are sentences (1) and (2), which both contain
past-denoting zuotian ‘yesterday’, acceptable in their ability reading?

(1) Zhangsan zuotian neng zuo wan zuoye
Z yesterday can do finish homework
(2) Zhangsan zuotian zuo de wan zuoye
Z yesterday do DE finish homework

Some people that I consulted reported to me that (1) and (2) would be
improved if we add elements like hai ‘still’ before neng (for (1)) and zuo
(for (2)), respectively. That seems to suggest that (1) and (2) are
marginal as they stand alone as above. But I really don’t want to jump to
such a conclusion before consulting more native speakers.

Thank you very much.

Best,
Zhiguo
LL Issue: 18.2549
Date posted: 30-Aug-2007



Back

Sums main page