Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
Date
Availability
1-1 of 1
Paul Law
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Linguistic Inquiry (2017) 48 (4): 679–696.
Published: 01 October 2017
Abstract
View articletitled, Syntactic Tense from a Comparative Syntax Perspective
View
PDF
for article titled, Syntactic Tense from a Comparative Syntax Perspective
Lin (2010) argues that an analysis without a Tense category for Chinese can better explain four syntactic properties of the language than an analysis with it: (a) no copula verb, (b) no expletive subject, (c) possibly no finite vs. nonfinite distinction, and (d) possibly no case-driven A-movement. In this article, we consider data from a variety of languages as well as some Chinese data that Lin does not take into account. We show that there is no principled reason for relating these four properties to syntactic Tense.