Nominal Modification in Chinese and Thai

While the proper analysis of de has been a topic of intense debate (Simpson 2003, Huang 2006, Li 2008, Saito, Lin & Murasugi 2008, Cheng & Sybesma 2009, a.o.), there is much less work on the Thai markers, except for relative clauses (Hoonchamlong 1991, Ruangjaroon 2005, Jenks to appear). In this paper we adopt the analysis of de as a type-shifter (i.e., <,e>, proposed by Huang (2006) to account for the distribution of simple and complex adjectives in modificational environments, an analysis which we review in Section 2. In Section 3 we demonstrate that this analysis cannot be extended to the Thai markers of modification, which we show are predicate-forming operators; we conclude that nominalization performed by de is done covertly in Thai. In Section 4 we demonstrate how dialectal data reveals that de might be the fusion of two distinct functional markers (Zhu 1961, 1993, Huang 2006), one for predication/abstraction, just like the Thai modifier markers, and one for nominalization, as Huang (2006) claimed. We show in section 5 that by unpacking de into two distinct functions, namely predication and nominalization, and by positing a silent nominalizer in Thai modification structure, adopting the Type-Matching Constraint for Thai, some apparent differences between Chinese and Thai modifier markers in their ability to license NP-ellipsis (e.g. Simpson 2003, Saito et al 2008, ans Cheng & Sybesma 2009) can be explained. We present some challenges at the end of the paper.