In this thesis, I test Cinque’s (1999) cartographic theory that grammatical items with the same meaning appear in the same relative position in any natural language. I focus on the sequence of sentence-final particles (SFPs, also geoi3mut6 zo6ci4 句末助詞 or mei5jam1 尾音), words which are normally found at the end of sentences in certain languages and express various meanings, from grammatical time to surprise and annoyance.

My data comes largely from Yue Chinese, which is rich in SFPs. Comparing the sequence of SFPs in four Yue varieties (Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Singapore Cantonese, alongside Tangxia Siyi Yue) with that in other Chinese and non-Chinese languages, I find that in different languages, SFPs similar in meaning can sometimes appear in different positions. This empirical...[ Read more ]

In this thesis, I test Cinque’s (1999) cartographic theory that grammatical items with the same meaning appear in the same relative position in any natural language. I focus on the sequence of sentence-final particles (SFPs, also geoi3mut6 zo6ci4 句末助詞 or mei5jam1 尾音), words which are normally found at the end of sentences in certain languages and express various meanings, from grammatical time to surprise and annoyance.

My data comes largely from Yue Chinese, which is rich in SFPs. Comparing the sequence of SFPs in four Yue varieties (Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Singapore Cantonese, alongside Tangxia Siyi Yue) with that in other Chinese and non-Chinese languages, I find that in different languages, SFPs similar in meaning can sometimes appear in different positions. This empirical observation does not fit in with Cinque’s theory that grammatical items are assigned to one position based on the meaning they express.

I work out a theoretical explanation for this apparent deviation and propose that SFPs with similar meanings but occupying different positions may in fact belong to different grammatical classes. The label “SFP” would therefore refer to several grammatical classes, instead of just one. To support this theory, I discuss how languages with SFPs borrow these words from each other. I show in the process that borrowing affects SFPs differently if they occupy different positions, even though they may be similar in meaning. A case is also made for SFPs in multiple phases, following Erlewine (2017) and contra Pan (2019) a.o.

(250 words)