This article discusses adjectival and nominal predicates in Chinese, focusing on the semantics of adjectives, the completeness effect of adjectival predicates, the principles regulating when a‘measure phrase + adjective’can function as the main predicate or a noun modifier as well as the parallelism between adjectival and nominal predicates. In addition to introducing the contemporary semantic analyses of adjectives within the framework of degree semantics, this article suggests some useful principles in the teaching of adjectival and nominal predicates. The first principle is that the use of an adjective as a predicate is licensed only when it is anchored with respect to the quantity or quality on the measure scale of the adjective. Second, whether a‘measure phrase + adjective’can function as the main predicate or noun modifier is correlated with the monotonicity of the measurement or the direct/indirect beginning point of the measure. Finally, the use of a nominal and an adjectival predicate can both be licensed by contrast or focus, indicating that the two kinds of predicates should be unified under non-verbal predicates, pending for a deeper analysis for such a unification.

It has been quite long ago that Chinese researchers have noticed that adjectives can be divided into “simple” vs. “complex” types (Zhu Dexi, 1956 et al.). This paper focuses on the syntactic behaviors and semantic properties of the complex forms of adjectives. We propose that the so-called “descriptive adjectives” or “complex adjectives” are actually phrases syntactically, with the semantic property of type. Such a view can uniformly explain the various syntactic behaviors of the complex forms of adjectives in Mandarin Chinese and other Chinese dialects. To support our proposal, we have selected the data from four southern Chinese dialects to demonstrate that the use of the function word, namely “de (的)”, in the complex form of adjectives indicates the phrasal status of the complex form in question. It is also shown that the distribution of “的” is heterogeneous in the four dialects investigated and represents different levels of language operation: some use of “的” functions as a word formation suffix in the complex form of adjectives, some, as a semantic type marker at the syntactic level, and some others, as subjective markers driven by a mood requirement observed for Chinese dialects.

Several viewpoints prevail regarding the functions of the Classical Chinese adverb ‘gài (蓋)’; however, its fundamental function still remains unascertained. Thus, in this paper, we argue that ‘gài’ is a modality marker, and its fundamental function is to express a modality that ‘the speaker does not assert the verity of what has happened in the past’; on the basis of this hypothesis, we interpret various examples of ‘gài’ and demonstrate that its multifunctionality depends on the context in which it is used.

There are different limitations on Chinese passive markers due to different grammaticalization processes. As an original passive marker bei, the short passive, in which an action’s result was implied, was first used. After the long passive was derived, the whole event could be described. However, in the new passive form, only the result is profiled. Jiao/rang’s passive usage derives from its causative usage; thus, the whole event including the agent needs to be shown. As a situation trigger gei, the agent can be omitted if its influence is obvious. Only bei is acceptable if there is no direct influence.

This paper explores the differences between two patient-as-subject constructions of “Vzhe” and “Vqilai”. It was discovered that the former usually represents the features of things perceived through bodily sensation, while the later usually represents the properties of things and can denote the prediction of irrealis mood. The differences between “Vzhe” and “Vqilai” are manifested through the intensity of action, the agent’s involvement in the action, and the aspect features of “zhe” and “qilai”. Disyllabic verb cannot be allowed to enter “Vzhe”, because of its weakness in the intensity of action. The differences between “Vzhe” and “Vqilai” are also reflected in stylistics. “Vqilai” is closer to written styles, illuminating abstract features of things, while “Vzhe” is usually used in colloquial styles, expressing personal feelings.

Both ne sentences in interrogative utterances and declarative utterances give prominence to the speaker’s cognitive or emotional state of a certain propositional event to seek the consensus with listener in cognition and to build communication cooperation between them. At the same time, this kind of discourse communication is based on the assumption that the hearer should hold the same cognitive and emotional state as the speaker on the relevant propositional events. Ne induces this pragmatic presupposition and expresses the speaker’s communicative intention in the process of this discourse communication.