 Strawson exploits facts peculiar to languages like English … in Chinese, Strawson’s criteria are inapplicable … [his] … Aristotelian arguments based upon the pecularities of English and its relatives … [Strawson’s notion of] ‘assertive ties’, and subject-predicate ‘congruence’ only works for languages with sufficient inflection …. Strawson’s silence [about other languages] can be interpreted in only two ways. He must either have thought that they conform to his criterion or that they are irrelevant. But the grammatical facts of Chinese do not conform to his criterion … and to say that they are irrelevant is to claim that English is the paradigm of all languages. What justification can Strawson, or any of his colleagues, offer for this act of linguistic imperialism? (Mei 1961 p157, most truncation and interpolation is Pelletier’s)