Yuhao Dai

@kangfrancoliu Currently I know almost nothing about relative clauses but definitely interested in learning more :)

@utsusemideikiru I’m intrigued!! Are you also working on internally headed RCs?

I haven't used twitter for a long time... But does anyone know any language where tense/aspect features are encoded in the relativizer instead of being encoded within the relative clause?

@LuoNangfa Congratulations !!!

Happy to announce that I have accepted the position of Assistant Professor & Researcher at the National Researcher Centre for Foreign Language Education at Beijing Foreign Studies University! I am sincerely grateful for the GREAT support from my advisors, family and friends🥰

Modality is hard yet so fun

@seb_mancha Elaborate?

Advice for political correctness you didn't ask me but important: When meeting someone from China, or of Chinese descent, don't ever ask 'Do you speak Mandarin or Cantonese?' Ask, 'Which language do you speak?' If they've said they speak Chinese - 'Which variety do you speak?'

Usually I am only a Jpop person but I have been so addicted to old Kpop songs (80s-90s) these few days

@aprettyaday The ‘burn’ predicate will be still telic when it takes quantified/definite DP as ‘I burned three houses’ can take ‘nei’ time phrase which is a hallmark of telicity. Maybe it patterns more like consumption verbs such as ‘eat’ for me, so their VPs can vary between telic vs atelic

@aprettyaday I would predict that the anticausative ‘burn’ is fine to take progressive aspect for them but I need to ask first

@aprettyaday For me the anticausative ‘open’ is instantaneous and therefore naturally incompatible with progressive aspect. ‘Burn’ is more complicated I discussed with several other people about this verb before and they think it has an anticausative use just like ‘open’ (I don’t)

@aprettyaday Also 54a is bad for me even if the outer aspect is 'le' instead of progressive. I think that has to do with the numeral quantifier in the sentence which is generally dispreferred in topicalization. Only a definite or generic argument can be the topic according to Sybesma 2021

@aprettyaday I don't know whether other native speakers will concur but topicalization might be aspect-sensitive in my Mandarin. Also I read 31-33b with a topicalization interpretation (and a job-is done reading as a by-product), just like in 47-48

The more I read Mandarin literature the more I doubt whether Mandarin is truly my L1…

@aprettyaday And these ‘anticausative’ sentences in the paper have an accomplished task reading by default in my judgement just like the sentence ‘the cat is touched/patted’. I am wondering how accomplished task reading can be teased apart from anticausative reading through certain tests

@aprettyaday I just read this paper! One question I have is how topichood vs subjecthood might impact the anticausative analysis here. Since it seems fine to me that ‘subjects’ of verbs like wash, kill, burn etc can be analyzed as topic perfectly just like cat with the ‘touch’ predicate

@YLMYang Keep in mind that even in Sweden parenting was very harsh and corporal punishment was widely accepted and used before 1970s. So i think progressive legislation can bring about positive changes of parent-child relation and parenting practices are not immutable in any culture

@YLMYang Not entirely related but this map might be somewhat informative on parenting practices across different countries reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comm…

In western culture, is it difficult to peacefully communicate with your parents, without they being condescending, emotional, afraid of hurting their own dignity, or unwilling to (be made to) apologize for their mistakes?

@YLMYang @oli_0331 Also the pi affix in 14-3c, can it be analyzed as causative or is it something else?

@oli_0331 @ymoonshishi However, in other Formosan languages, such as Amis (Wu 2018), the relativizer “a”looks different from the NOM case. Notice that in Amis, some demonstratives has the feature of case, compare ko ‘NOM’ in (14-3a) & koya ‘that.NOM’ in (14-3b&c).

Austronesian researchers, is it possible for an applied object in a causative sentence to be pivot? In Tagalog non-causative sentences a circumstantial voice marker i- can pivot an applied object like an instrument, but in a causative sentence it can only pivot a causand