The article deals with the dynamic, retroactive effects within a clause derivation of various ‘downstream’ specifications (that is, at subsequent levels in the derivation) on the semantic structure and aspectual character of the predicator at the ‘nuclear’, ‘core’ and ‘extended’ predication layers within standard Functional Grammar (Dik 1997a) – specifically, the insertion of given types of argument expressions within the predicate frame and the adjunction of certain semantically marked types of level 1 and level 2 satellites. A third type of retroactive effect is produced via the assignment or otherwise of the pragmatic function ‘Focus’ to the syntactic exponent of a predicate, which results in the singling out of a given part of the latter's semantic structure to act as a predicator.

All these dynamic, retroactive effects on a predicator and the structures it projects assume a semantically transparent underlying predicate structure on which to operate; yet in the standard FG model, no such structure is available via the predicate frame, which forms the initial structure for the derivation of a clause. The article demonstrates the drawbacks of the strict separation of meaning definitions (lexical semantics) and predicate frames (semantically-based syntax) within FG in terms, precisely, of the perspicuous mapping between syntax and semantics. It proposes a semantically transparent alternative to the standard predicate frame, based on Pustejovsky's (1995) ‘Generative Lexicon’ approach to lexico-semantic structure.

This paper studies prenominal reduplicative classifier in Cantonese, which has been argued to be a distributive quantifier on a par with English every/each and Mandarin mei ‘every’, and a plural classifier giving the ‘many’ reading. The analysis I propose draws heavily on ideas introduced in the cover theory proposed by Schwarzschild (1996) and Brisson (1998, 2003), and ideas introduced by Partee (2004) and others on quantifying determiner many. I argue that prenominal reduplicative classifier is a quantifying determiner which is ambiguous between a quantifier type and a modifier type. When it occurs with the distributive quantifier dou1 ‘all’, it serves as a modifier, regulating the domain of dou1-quantification by imposing a maximizing effect on the nominal it modifies (see e.g. Link 1983; Gillon 1987; Schwarzschild 1996; Brisson 1998, 2003). Without the presence of a distributive quantifier, prenominal reduplicative classifier serves either as a modifier or as a quantifier, giving its NP a weak cardinal reading or a strong proportional reading, respectively. The proposed analysis implies that domain restriction in Chinese is overtly realized in grammatical form by means of the reduplicative classifier (when combined with a distributive quantifier) and that Chinese may have determiners, which is at least true in Cantonese.