In , we saw that the inconsistency between the data and the hypotheses as well as that between hypotheses can be resolved by paraconsistent tools.raises the problem of how to evaluate the paraconsistent treatment of inconsistency.will be devoted to a case study exemplifying the emergence and the usefulness of paraconsistency in generative syntax. In , we will discuss another two case studies that highlight the limits of paraconsistency. Finally, in , we will draw the conclusions from the case studies that evaluate the use of paraconsistency in linguistic theorising.

The Introduction to this chapter raises the problem of how to distinguish between tolerable and intolerable inconsistencies in linguistic theorising. In , Rescher and Brandom’s () logic will be introduced, which differentiates between paraconsistency, allowing for a special kind of inconsistency without ex contradictione quodlibet, and strong inconsistency, which is exposed to logical chaos. The workability of this distinction in theoretical linguistics will be exemplified by two case studies in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. They will illustrate, first, that tolerable inconsistency can be represented as paraconsistency, while the unavailability of a paraconsistent resolution may leave us with an intolerable strong inconsistency. Second, they will also show that in the cases examined the emergence of inconsistencies is closely related to the data handling techniques applied.summarises the solution to the problem raised in this chapter and highlights that there is a need to re-evaluate the way data are treated in theoretical linguistics; but tackling the question of how this should be done will be postponed to later chapters.

Chapter 8 presents a summary of the findings. The limitations of the study are also discussed, including the subtle nature of function, more cross-linguistic verification, comparisons in greater detail, the need for both diachronic and synchronic investigations, and so on. More significantly, spoken language should also be taken into consideration for further improvement.

With a sketch of the debate over the finite/non-finite distinction, Chapter 1 introduces the motivation, purpose, research questions, methodology and L10layout of this study. After pointing out the controversy over non-finiteness in linguistics, four research questions are raised: In what way is the finite and non-finite distinction universal? In what context can non-finiteness be positioned and identified? How does non-finiteness function for inter-clausal connectivity? How will the controversial issues of non-finiteness in English and Chinese be dealt with?

Clause combining, or clause linkage, is traditionally analysed on the syntactic, semantic and prosodic (spoken) levels, and the combinations are called complex sentences in many popular grammars. What is widely accepted today is that clause combining or clause linkage should be understood as mechanisms of connecting clauses rather than sentences. Since the clause is the most fundamental grammatical unit, Chapter 5 considers how non-finiteness plays its role in clause combining from the process-relation perspective. Three types of clause relations are proposed: paratactic, circumstantial and participantial. Non-finite clauses act as the bridges in clause combining viewed from the perspective of metaphoric syndrome. Thus, an answer to the third research question (How does non-finiteness function for inter-clausal connectivity?) is provided.

It is pervasive today in studies of the Chinese language for spoken instances to be used to support both spoken and written grammars. As made clear in Chapter 3, spoken and written languages require different grammars. Based on the process relations, controversial constructions in written Chinese are analysed in Chapter 7. These constructions include the following in which non-finiteness plays an indispensable role: serial verb construction, the so-called pivotal construction, existential construction, and other controversial constructions. In Chapters 6 and 7, the controversial issues of non-finiteness in English and Chinese are dealt with from the process-relation perspective and new findings are presented. Thus, the answer to the fourth research question is given.