University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Form and meaning: Negation and question in Chinese

(USC Thesis Other)

Form and meaning: Negation and question in Chinese

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content FORM AND MEANING:
NEGATION AND QUESTION IN CHINESE
by
Miao-Ling Hsieh
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(LINGUISTICS)
May 2001
Copyright 2001 Miao-Ling Hsieh
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3027726
Copyright 2001 by
Hsieh, Miao-Ling
All rights reserved.
___ ( § >
UMI
UMI Microform 3027726
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
The Graduate School
University Park
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 900894695
This dissertation, w ritten b y
Miao-Ling Hsieh
U nder th e direction o f h.£x.. D issertation
C om m ittee, an d approved b y all its members,
has been p resen ted to and accepted b y The
Graduate School, in p a rtia l fulfillm ent o f
requirem ents fo r th e degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
'&ean o f Graduate Studies
D ate M ay 11, 2001
DISSER TA TIO N COMMITTEE
Chairperson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe a special debt to the members of my dissertation committee: Y.-H. Audrey
Li, Hajime Hoji and George Hayden. Without their help, it would not have been
possible for me to finish this dissertation. My committee chair, Audrey, deserves a
special credit for her support from the beginning through the end of my study at the
University of Southern California (USC). She painstakingly read through every
draft of this dissertation and provided detailed comments. She always made herself
available when I needed her. I also thank her and the department of East Asian
Languages and Cultures for offering me a teaching assistantship. Hajime is a
respectful syntactian. I thank him for his comments on my dissertation and the
excellent Japanese Linguistics classes that I took from him. My outside member
George Hayden has been a great source for the data in early Chinese. I thank him
for his help and encouragement.
I would also like to thank Joseph Aoun, Barry Schein, and Namkil Kim for
serving as the committee members for my qualifying exam. I thank Joseph for his
patience in listening to some of my crazy ideas and for his guidance along the way.
Barry is fun to talk to and always shows interests in what I want to say. My
gratitude extends to my other teachers at the USC: Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Maria-
Luisa Zubizarreta, and Bernard Comrie. Jean-Roger and Maria-Luisa are always
enlightening. Bernard is an excellent person to talk to about different types of
languages. I thank him for his help and for his discussion with me on the issues of
tense and aspect. I also benefited greatly from Yuki Kuroda's seminar at USC and
from the discussion with Hagit Borer.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
I am grateful for the staff members of the linguistics department, especially our
Student Affairs Advisor Laura Reiter and Administrative Coordinator Linda W.
Culver. Laura understands the difficulty that a graduate student has to undergo. She
does her best to accommodate each graduate student's needs. Linda also makes
things easier for graduate students.
I also want to thank the following graduate students at USC: Hiroshi Aoyagi,
Nancy Atrim, Robert Bell, Lina Choueiri, Jose Camacho, Chih-Ping Chang, Sylvia
Chen, Dae-Ho Chung, Abdesslam Elomari, Gorka Elordieta, Jin-Man Guo, Roland
Hinterholzl, Kaoru Horie, Charles Kim, Ibtissam Kortobi, Uffe Larsen, Fang Li,
Hui-Ju Grace Li, Bingfu Lu, Elabbas Benmamoun, Yuki Matsuda, Keiko Miyagawa,
Hiro Oshita, Hong-Keun Park, Liliana Sanchez, Patricia Schneider-Zioga, Tim
Dingxu Shi, Shu-Ing Ingrid Shyu, Shaoyi Sun, Ayumi Ueyama, Maki Watanabe,
Shin Watanabe, Xiu-Zhi Zoe Wu, Emily Xiao Yu, and Ke Zou. They wrap me up
with their friendship and advice over those years.
I would also like to thank linguists outside of USC, including Kathleen Ahrens,
William Baxtor, Yung-0 Biq, Claire Chang, Sam Epstein, Tom Ernst, Francesca
Del Goboo, Teresa Griffith, One-Soon Her, Chu-Ren Huang, Ruoh-Mei Hsieh, Hui-
I Kung, Chingkwei Lee, Mei Li, Xiaoguang Li, Tzong-Hong Lin, Chen-Sheng Liu,
Hui-Chuan Lu, Sui-Sang Mok, John Moore, Shawn O'Connell, Sandra Thompson,
Waltraud Paul, Eric Potsdam, Ljiljana Progovac, Duanmu Shan, Guo-Ming Sung,
Wei-Tien Tsai, Yuzhi Shi, Andrew Simpson, Sze-Wing Tang, Di Wu, Sue-Mei Wu,
and Hongming Zhang. Special thanks go to Ljiljana Progovac for her comments on
my dissertation and to Sam Epstein for allowing me to sit in his syntax class.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
I am also indebted to C.-T. James Huang, Lisa L.-S. Cheng and Moira Yip. The
Workshop at the University of California at Irvine was a memorable experience for
me to meet other researchers in this field.
During my teaching at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD), the
Chinese instructors, Ping Chang, Qian He and Xiaogong Cha, made my stay there
very pleasant. Special thanks also go to the Chair of the Chinese program at UCSD,
Paul Pickowicz, for his confidence in me as a language instructor and for his
gracious friendship. In addition, I would also like to thank my colleagues at the
University of Michigan, Qinghai Chen, Hsin-Hsin Liang, Hilda Tao and Laura
Grande, for their help.
My three wonderful teachers at the University of Hawaii at Manoa deserve my
sincere thanks: Robert L. Cheng, Hsin-I Hsieh, and Ying-Che Li. I thank Robert and
Ying-Che for offering researchship, and Hsin-I for encouraging me to pursue my
interest in generative grammar. Without them, my one-year study at the University
of Hawaii at Manoa would not be as rewarding as it was. Back in Taiwan where it
all began, I thank my teachers, I-Chin Fu, P. Jen-Kuei Li, and Joseph H. Hsu. I also
owe almost everything to Shuan-Fan Huang, who has always been a mentor for me.
I shall never forget my classmates at Fu Jen Catholic University and their support of
my study in the U.S. They are Dorothy Hung, Doris Hwang, Suzy Su, Lucy Tsai,
Yu-Fang Wang, Chui Ka-Wai, and Ming-Nuan Yang.
I also have to thank Pastor Tsung-Cheh Lai and his wife from Taiwanese
Presbyterian Church in San Diego and Pastor Lyian-Syian Chiohh and his wife from
Taiwanese Presbyterian Church in Ann Arbor. I want to thank my other friends
Gerry DiCarlo, Susan Lin, Hifumi Ito, Jack Wang, Li-Chi Huang, Ching-Fang Yang,
Wen-Wei Chang, and Miranda Kato for their support. For those who helped me
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
during the final stage of the dissertation, I want to thank Anita Adhikary, Jianyin
Chen, Hueichun Chu, Xiaoxin Li, and Lineke Zuiderweg.
Finally, I reserve my deepest thanks for my family. My wholehearted thanks go
to my husband Kuo-Min Tseng and my daughter Sharon. Without their sacrifice,
love and support along the long journey, it would not be possible for me to finish my
Ph.D. and to be "the best Mom in the whole universe" for Sharon. I thank God for
all the wonderful things that happen to me and His mercy on me.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................. ................. ......................................................... ii
ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................. viii
ABSTRACT ........................................ .............................................................ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Affinity between Negation and Question ............................................................... 1
1.2 The Scope of Our Study..................... .......................................................................3
1.3 Framework.......................................... 11
1.3.1 Computational System ........ 12
1.3.2 Types of Features....................... 13
1.3.3 Feature Checking and Feature Mismatch..................................................... 13
1.4 Overview of the Thesis....................................................... ..14
CHAPTER 2: AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT BETWEEN NEGATION AND
VERB/ASPECT
2.1 Introduction....................................... 17
2.2 Problems with Previous Analyses ........................................................................18
2.2.1 Completion vs. Incompletion........................................................................18
2.2.2 Telicity vs. Atelicity Situations.....................................................................19
2.2.3 Boundedness vs. Unboundedness Situations............................................... 20
2.2.4 Realis vs. Irrealis Mood................................................................................. 22
2.2.5 Realized vs. Unrealized Situations...............................................................25
2.2.6 Past vs. Non-past......................... 29
2.2.7 Summary.........................................................................................................30
2.3 Ontological Issues.........................................................................................................30
2.4 Negation and Verb/Aspect............................................................................................ 33
2.4.1 Negative Markers are Independent from Aspectuality...............................33
2.4.2 Two Hypotheses............................................................................................ 37
2.5 Tense Interpretations of Negative Sentences...............................................................52
2.6 Conclusions ................ 54
CHAPTER 3: A SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF NEGATION
3.1 Introduction....................................... 56
3.2 Previous Analyses................................................... 56
3.3 Our Syntactic Proposal..................................................................................................59
3.3.1 Negation is Lower than TP and AspP ..........................................61
3.3.2 NegP or not.....................................................................................................66
3.3.2.1 Clausal Negation vs. Constituent Negation............................ 67
3.3.2.2 You in Meitvou) is not a Verb...................................................... 72
3.3.3 PredP vs. V P ............... 74
3.3.4 Adjunction to V'................................................................................... 84
3.3.5 Summaries....................... 91
3.4 Conclusions.................. 91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4: NEGATIVE PARTICLE QUESTIONS AND A-NOT-A
QUESTIONS
4.1 Introduction.................. .............................................................................................. 92
4.2 Problems with Previous Analyses ........................................................... 95
4.3 Two Possible Analyses................... 102
4.4 Our Unified Analysis........................... 105
4.4.1 The Projection of Question and Operator Movement..................................105
4.4.3 A More Elaborate Structure for Negative Particle Questions....................128
4.4.4 Summary......................................................................................................... 135
4.5 Bu as a Negative Question Particle in Other Varieties of Mandarin......................... 136
4.6 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 142
CHAPTER 5: NEGATIVE QUESTION PARTICLES AND PREDICATE-INITIAL
QUESTION MARKERS IN SOUTHERN MIN AND OTHER DIALECTS
5.1 Introduction........................................... 143
5.2 Previous Analyses of Negative Question Particles in Southern M in ........................145
5.3 Our Analysis of Negative Question Particles in Southern M in ....................150
5.3.1 Negative Question Particles Generated in the Regular Negation
Position...................................................................................................... 151
5.3.2 Q Position........................................................................................................155
5.3.3 Tag Questions.................................................................................................162
5.4 [A not AB] Type of A-not-A Question in Southern M in............................................167
5.5 Predicate-Initial Question Markers in Suzhou and Southern Min..............................170
5.6 Comparison between Singapore Teochew and Southern M in................................... 178
5.7 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................187
CHAPTER 6: NEGATION EXPRESSED BY A FORM OF QUESTION
6.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................189
6.2 Distribution of the Naff) Rhetorical Question............................................................ 190
6.3 Two Possible Analyses.................................................................................................. 196
6.4 Our Syntactic Analysis........................................ 202
6.4.1 Overt Realization of the Operator................................................................ 202
6.4.2 The Interpretation of a Wh-word in a NafrVRhetorical Question
and the Licensing of a Minimizer............................................................................203
6.4.3 Our Feature System vs. Aoun and Li's Feature System............................. 209
6.4.4 The Problem with N e .................................................................................... 216
6.5 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 219
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUDING REMARKS
7.1 The Results of Our Study...................... 221
7.2 Theoretical Contributions....................................................................................... 222
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 223
APPENDIX A: ASPECT IN CHINESE............................................................................. 234
APPENDIX B: TENSE AS A GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY IN
CHINESE............................................................................. 261
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABBREVIATIONS
A: predicate-initial question marker A in Souzhou
ASP: aspectual marker
BA: object marker ba in Mandarin Chinese
CL: classifier
DE: structural particle de in Mandarin Chinese
E: structural particle e in Southern Min
KA: object marker ka in Southern Min; predicate-initial
question marker ka in Singapore Teochew
KAM: predicate-initial question marker kam in Southern Min
PRT: sentence-final particle
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
This dissertation examines the issue of form and meaning as manifested in
negation and question in Chinese. The affinity between negation and question is
investigated. We are interested to see what it means when negation implies question,
and when question implies negation. The former refers to the case where question
employs a form of negation, and the latter to the case where negation is expressed by
a form of question. For the first purpose, we study negative particle questions
(NEG-PRT-Q) and A-not-A questions in Mandarin Chinese and other dialects. As
for the second purpose, we investigate a Mandarin question form that expresses a
negative proposition obligatorily.
According to Thompson (1998), the marking of clausal-level interrogation tends
to occur in sentence peripheral positions (with exceptions like A-not-A questions in
Chinese and continental southeast Asian Languages); in contrast, standard negation
for clauses is generally indicated by a special word or an affix that is positioned with
regards to, and must be described, in terms of the predicate. However, negation and
question seem to be closely related as exhibited in cases where negation implies
question, and question implies negation. The study of NEG-PRT-Qs and A-not-A
questions shows that a locus of negation and question is a position between TP and
PredP. We call it QP, adopting from Aoun & Li (1993, and references cited there).
The question at this level is a wh-question. It is marked with the [+WH] feature at
Q, and it contains an operator in the Spec of QP. This [+Q] operator raises to the
appropriate Spec of CP for its scope. We assume the movement is driven by the
feature checking with the strong [+Q] feature of the appropriate C°.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
X
Our QP analysis provides a unified analysis for NEG-PRT-Qs and A-not-A
questions. They fall into three major categories under a QP analysis: one has a
morphologically complex word, one contains a coordinate structure including the
positive conjunct and the negative conjunct (with anaphoric ellipsis or VP ellipsis),
and one contains a question particle that sits in Q. The morphologically complex A-
not-A form is marked with the [+WH] feature, and raises to Q for feature checking
its [+WH] feature with Q. This conforms to the spirit of Minimalist Program
(Chomsky 1995), which postulates that words are assigned to structures in their full,
surface morphological form. The existence of a QP is further supported by the study
of the question form that necessarily implies a negative proposition, i.e. the nafr)
question in Mandarin. It is argued that natrl is an overt realization of the operator of
the Spec of QP. This operator has the [+NEG] feature, which is responsible for
licensing a special type of negative polarity items, i.e. the minimizers such as ban-
dian donexi 'half bit of thing.'
Following the split-INFL hypothesis originated with Pollock (1989), we have
established the existence of QP, AspP and NegP. The hierarchy between the latter
two is AspP and NegP, and QP occurs higher than AspP. Postulating the above
functional categories and employing a feature checking mechanism allow us to
characterize the syntax of negation and question in Chinese in a precise way. They
provide a way to articulate the non-one-to-one correspondence between form and
meaning as exhibited in negation and question.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Affinity between Negation and Question
In this study we examine the affinity between negation and question.
Semantically speaking, a yes-no question is more closely related to negation than a
wh-question.1 Consider a wh-question first. A wh-question is a many-valued
function, which presupposes the disjunction of a set of propositions. Each member
of the set differs from the others in that it supplies a different value for the variable.
For example,
(1) Who left the door open?
The wh-question in (1) presupposes the disjunction of the set of propositions
expressed by the statements that could be made by uttering (2a)- (2c) and others.
(2) a. John left the door open.
b That little boy left the door open,
c. Uncle Harry left the door open.
In particular, (1) presupposes the proposition expressed by (3).
(3) Someone left the door open.
1 The discussion of this section is based on Lyons (1977).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
The indefinite pronoun 'someone' in (3) can also be thought of as a variable whose
range of possible values depends upon the universe-of-discourse.
An open yes/no question can also be treated as a function that contains a two
valued variable.2 Consider the yes/no question in (4).
(4) Is the door open?
The question in (4) is equivalent to the bipartite disjunctive question as given in
(5).
(5) Is the door open or not?
The appropriate answer to (4) is either 'Yes' or 'No.' The 'Yes' answer implies the
proposition expressed by the statement in (6a), and the 'No' answer implies the
proposition expressed by (6b).
(6) a. The door is open.
b. The door is not open.
Thus just as the wh-question in (1) presupposes the truth of the proposition
expressed by the indefinite statement in (3), a yes/no question presupposes the truth
of the disjunction of (6a) ('p') and (6b) ('~p'). In this sense, a yes/no question seems
to be more closely related to negation.
2 Questions are open in the following senses: (i) they are neutral with respect to any indication of
the speaker's beliefs as to the truth-value of the preposition 'p,' when they are asked of an addressee,
unless they are given a particular prosodic or paralinguistic modulation, they convey no information
to the addressee that the speaker expects him to accept 'p ' or reject 'p.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
From a different point of view, negation and question are marked at different
positions. According to Thompson (1998), marking of clause-level interrogation
(except A-not-A questions in Chinese and continental Southeast Asian Languages)
tends to occur in sentence-peripheral positions. In contrast, standard negation for
clauses is generally indicated by the use of a special word or affix that is positioned
with respect to, and must be described, in terms of the predicate. The difference in
marking seems to suggest that negation is independent from question. However,
there are question types in Chinese that clearly indicate that a negative form can
contribute to the formation of a question. They are the so-called negative particle
question and A-not-A question. The former contains a negative question particle at
the end of a sentence, while the latter is composed of a negative part and an positive
part. Furthermore, there is a question form in Chinese that necessarily implies a
negative proposition. The question is then how negation is related to question and
how to characterize such a relation. Thus our study concerns the form and meaning
of question and negation, and ultimately none one-to-one correspondence between
form and meaning.
In the section that follows, we will introduce the scope of our study. Section 1.3
is a brief introduction of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), a framework that
we rely on for our study. The overview is included in Section 1.4.
1.2 The Scope of Our Study
There are five forms of negation in Mandarin Chinese: bu 'not,' meifvou)
'not(have),' bu shi 'not be,' buvao 'don't' and bie 'don't.' The latter two are prohibitive
markers. Shi in bu shi is a focus marker when it is not used as a copulative verb.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
We will only focus on the two main negative markers, i.e. bu and mei(vou). in this
dissertation.
Descriptively speaking, as S. Ding (1963) notes, bu is used before adjectives,
verbs and modal verbs:
(7) a. Zhe-tiao malu bu ping, (bu + adjective)
this-CL road not level
'This road is not level'
b. Zilaishui bu qing. (bu + adjective)
tap:water not clear
'The tap water is not clear.'
(8) a. Ta bu da ren, ye bu ma ren. (bu + verb + )
he not hit person also not scold person
'He does not hit people, nor does he scold people.'
b. Ta shenme ye bu shuo. (bu + verb + .....)
he what also not say
'He did not want to say anything.'
(9) a. Wo bu neng zheme zuo. (bu + modal verb + )
I not can this:way do
'I cannot do so.'
b. Ta bu ken qu.
he not willing go
'He is not willing to go.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
<
Bu negates an adjective in (7), a verb in (8) and a modal verb in (9). It can also
precede certain preverbal elements such as the object marked by ba as in (10a), or a
prepositional phrase as in (10b):
(10) a. Ta bu ba dongxi gei ta. (bu + BA NP + ....)
she not BA thing give he
'She did not want to return the thing to him.'
b. Ta conglai bu xiang ren yao yi-dian dongxi. (bu + PP + .... )
he ever not from person ask one-bit thing
'He never asks anything from other people.'
Finally, it can be inserted in a resultative compound, meaning 'not possible':
(11) a. Wo ting-bu-jian tamen shuo shenme. (V+bu+V)
I listen-not-arrive they say what
'I couldn't hear what they said.'
b. Wo na-bu-dong. (V+bu+V)
I take-not-move
'I cannot move it.'
Meifvou). according to S. Ding, has two functions. One function of mei(vou) is
to negate the possessive verb you 'have':
(12) a. Ta mei (you) pengyou.
he not have friend
'He does not have friends.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
b. Ta you pengyou.
he have friend
'He has friends.'
The other function of meitvou) denies that an action (xmgwei) has taken place. In
this case, the counterpart of (13a) is (13b).
(13) a. Ta meitvou) lai.
he not(have) come
'He didn't come.'
b. Ta lai le.
he come ASP
'He came.'
J. Wu (1982, p. 157) contends that bu and meitvou) are used to deny the
occurrence of an action tdongzuo xingwei de fasheng) (bu can deny the existence of
a state as well). But their meanings are different. Bu, when used with certain
predicates, can be the negation of the subjective desire (zhuguan vivuari). or the
negation of objective possibility (keguan keneng). The former means the subject is
not willing to have an action tdongzuo xingwei). In contrast, meitvou) is the
negation of an existing action. It is not subjective. For example,
(14) a. Ta meitvou) si. = Ta huo-zhe.
he not(have) die he live-ASP
'He didn't die.' 'He is alive.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
b. Tabu si. = Tayao huo.
he not die he want live
'He does not want to die.' 'He wants to live.'
For J. Wu, when meifvou) is used, what is denied is an action that has been
realized. It either denies the perfective aspect or the experiential aspect. Thus a
meitvou') sentence has a past or a present interpretation, but not a future
interpretation:
(15) Ta zuotian meitvou) qu. jintian you meitvou) qu, mingtian jiu
he yesterday not(have) go today again not(have) go tomorrow then
suoxing bu/*meitvou) qu le.
go:all:the:way not/not(have) go ASP
'He didn't go yesterday. He didn't go today again. And he will not go
tomorrow.'
Bu. in contrast, is used to deny the actual txianshi) existence of an action or a
state, or to deny that of a habitual action. It is independent of aspect and tense.
Thus, it can be used to denote present, past or future.
(16) Ta zuotian bu qu. jintian bu qu, mingtian ye bu qu.
he yesterday not go today not go tomorrow not go
'He did not want to go yesterday. Neither did he want to go today.
He does not want to go tomorrow either.’
Given the above descriptions, we know bu can be used to denote present, past or
future, while meitvou) only has a past or present interpretation. We also know that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
in contrast to a bu sentence, a meitvou) sentence does not describe a subjective
desire. However, it is still not clear why the two negative markers behave differently
in these ways. In Chapter 2, we will show that crucial distinction is between a
dynamic and a non-dynamic situation.
As far as questions are concerned, Chinese has the so-called negative particle
questions and A-not-A questions. A negative particle question employs only a
negative marker to mark it as a question:
(17) Ni kan-wan na-ben shu meivou?
you read-finish that-CL book not.have
'Did you finish reading that book?'
On the other hand, according to C.-T. Huang (1991), the A-not-A paradigm
includes examples like (18):
(18) a. Ta xihuan zhe-ben shu ('haishil ta bu xihuan zhe-ben shu?
he like this-CL book or he not like this-CL book
'Does he like this book or doesn't he like this book?'
b. Ta xihuan zhe-ben shu bu xihuan zhe-ben shu?
he like this-CL book not like this-CL book
'Does he like this book or doesn't [he] like this book?'
c. Ta xihuan bu xihuan zhe-ben shu?
he like not like this-CL book
'Does he like or doesn't [he] like this book?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
d. Ta xihuan zhe-ben shu bu xihuan?3
he like this-CL book not like
'Does he like this book or doesn't [he] like [it]?'
e. Ta xi-bu-xihuan zhe-ben shu?
he like-not-like this-CL book
'Does he like or not like this book?'
The A part in an A-not-A form can be part of a verb, a verb, a verb phrase, or
even a clause. C.-T. Huang refers to the four question types in (18b-e) as A-not-A
questions, and to the type in (18a) as disjunctive question.
In their analysis of negative particle questions, Cheng, Huang and Tang (1997)
argue that this kind of question is formed by the movement of a negative marker
from its preverbal position to the sentence-final position. On the other hand, C.-T.
Huang (1991) argues for a modular approach for A-not-A questions. The modular
approach breaks up the paradigm in (18) into three separate sub-paradigms.
Sentence (18a) is a true disjunctive question that may undergo coordinate deletion,
resulting in reduced haishi 'or' questions. Sentences (18c) and (18e) are [A not AB]
questions that are derived via reduplication from a simplex D-structure. Sentence
(18d) is an [AB not A] question with a base-generated coordinate VP which
undergoes a process of anaphoric ellipsis. And sentence (18b) may be analyzed
either as type [A not AB] or as type [AB not A] (where B is null). From now on, we
3 Conversely, C.-T. Huang (1982, p. 280) marks the same sentence by '*?.' In fact, according to J.
Shao (1996, p .lll), this type of sentence (the one using mei) is rarely used, except when the verb is
monosyllabic:
(i) Lingyun, ni daodi qu le mei qu?
Lingyun you indeed go ASP not go
'Lingyun, did you go?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
follow C.-T. Huang in referring to the four question types in (18b)-(18c) as A-not-A
questions, and the first type in (18a) as disjunctive questions.
In our study, we are interested in where the negative question particle occurs and
how to characterize all the question types involving negation. We shall argue against
Cheng, Huang and Tang's analysis for negative particle questions. Given the
similarities of negative particle questions and A-not-A questions (e.g. the way they
are answered and island effects), we will propose a QP analysis to unify both A-not-
A questions and negative particle questions. This analysis will be shown to be able
to characterize the relevant data from Southern Min and other dialects of Chinese.
Our study also concerns a type of question that obligatorily implies a negative
proposition, the naff) rhetorical question as exemplified in (19).
(19) a. Ta naff) zhidao?!
he where know
'How would he know?!'
b. Wo na(r) qu-guo Zhongguo?!
I where go-ASP China
'How can I have been to China?!'
Generally speaking, such a question is called a rhetorical question because the
speaker knows the answer, and does not intend to elicit an answer from the
addressee. It is true that other questions can be used rhetorically:
(20) Ta zhidao shenme?
he know what
'What does he know?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
However, unlike other wh-questions that are used rhetorically, the naff) question can
only be a rhetorical question. We are concerned with the position of naff) and how
to characterize the relation between negation and question as exhibited in this kind of
question. We propose that naff) is an overt realization of the negative operator in the
Spec of QP. It is marked with the [+NEG] feature.
1.3 Framework
The framework that we adopt for our study is the Minimalist Program as in
Chomsky (1995). In this section we will briefly discuss some important features of
the framework, and the assumptions that are relevant to our study.
The Minimalist Program is derived from the Principles and Parameter framework
(see Chomsky and Lasnik 1993). It aims at a minimalist design for linguistic theory.
The components and operations of the theory of grammar are "conceptually
necessary." The only levels of representations are the (conceptually necessary)
interface levels: the articulatory-perceptual (PF) and conceptual-intentional (LF)
interfaces. The levels known as D-Structure and S-Structure in earlier frameworks
are eliminated. The overall design of the framework is exhibited in (21) (Taken
from Abraham, Epstein, Thrainsson and Zwart 1996):
(21)
Merge & Move
Lexicon-
Spell Out T
PF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
The most noticeable feature of this framework is that movement is
morphologically driven (i.e. by feature-checking). Movement takes place only when
certain morphological features cannot be checked otherwise (Chomsky 1995, p.
199). The Minimalist Program is a strong lexical approach in the sense that words
are assumed to emerge from the Lexicon fully inflected. Thus there is no affixation
of inflectional morphemes via the application of syntactic head-adjunction. Instead,
lexical heads are fully inflected, and they must move to functional heads to check
their matching functional features in the syntactic structure. Language variation is
expressed solely in terms of the features of functional heads.
1.3.1 Computational System
The computational system of human language recursively constructs syntactic
objects from items listed in a numeration and from syntactic objects already formed.
Its purpose is to map the numeration onto the only two interfaces: PF and LF. The
term 'numeration' refers to an array of items that can potentially be joined to form a
larger syntactic object and ultimately a grammatical sentence formed from a
convergent derivation. Derivations are viewed as a series of the operations Select
and Merge followed by the operation Attract/Move. Select chooses a lexical item
from the numeration and introduces it into the derivation. Merge combines the
newly selected lexical items with syntactic objects already formed to create a new
syntactic object. The derivation converges when these two operations have
exhausted all the items listed in the original numeration. Movement is an operation
by which a word, phrase or set of features is moved from one location in a structure
to another. Attraction is an operation by which features carried by one constituent
percolate up to (and are inherited by) another constituent.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
1.3.2 Types of Features
Movement is driven by feature checking. Features can be interpretable or non-
interpretable. Interpretable features include the ^-features of nouns, and categorial
features such as [V] and [N]. Some uninterpretable features are the Case features of
nouns, the Case assigning features of T, and the O-features of verbs and adjectives.
A [+interpretable] feature does not need to be checked, unless it is [+strong]. But
it can still take part in checking relations. While [-interpretable] features must be
erased, [+interpretable] features are not deleted when checked.
1.3.3 Feature Checking and Feature Mismatch
Features are checked by entering into a checking relation with a targeted
element's sublabel, or list of features. There are three configurations in which
features can be checked: substitution, adjunction to an XP, and adjunction to a head.
(22) a.
b.
[F]
Substitution (a specifier position is created)
XP
Adjunction to XP (a two-segment XP is created)
XP
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
c. Adjunction to X° (new zero-level maximal projection is created)
X°max
For covert checking, features can only be adjoined to X°.
1.4 Overview of the Thesis
The rest of the dissertation is organized as follows:
Chapter 2 addresses the agreement requirement between negation and
verb/aspect. We first categorize the previous analyses into six categories, and point
out the problem(s) with each category. We then discuss two hypotheses. According
to one, the distinction between the two negative markers bu and mei(vou') is sensitive
to situation types. According to the other, these markers are sensitive to grammatical
aspect. We conclude that the distinction between the two negative markers should
be characterized as a distinction between a dynamic and non-dynamic situation. A
non-dynamic situation is an unchanged situation, which can express volition,
habituality, or future reference.
Chapter 3 explores the syntax of the two negative markers. It begins with a brief
summary of the previous syntactic analyses on negation. These analyses differ with
respect to syntactic categories, scope properties, and syntactic positions. In contrast
to all previous analyses, we argue that meifvou') heads NegP, which is lower than
AspP and higher than PredP. We assume AspP is headed by the sentence-final
particle ]e. On the other hand, bu is adjoined to Pred' or V.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
In Chapter 4, we discuss negative particle questions and A-not-A questions in
Chinese. We argue against Huang, Cheng and Tang's (1997) raising proposal in
which negative question markers in Mandarin move from the base-generated
preverbal negation position to the sentence-final position. We propose a QP analysis
for negative particle questions as well as A-not-A questions. The Q is marked with
the [+WH] feature and the Spec of QP is occupied by an operator because these
question types are wh-questions and they respect islands. We argue that the negative
particle question involving meivou in Mandarin consists of a QP that takes a
coordinate structure with VP ellipsis. In contrast to C.-T. Huang (1982), we propose
that the [A not AB] type of A-not-A questions contains a word that is marked with
the [+WH] feature. The [+WH] feature raises to Q in order to check its [+WH]
feature with the Q head.
Chapter 5 discusses negative question particles and predicate-initial question
markers in Southern Min and other Chinese dialects. Southern Min has quite a few
negative question particles. We argue that m with a prolonged mid-level tone (mm).
si-ro- 'be-not,' and si-bo- 'be-not.have' mark tag questions, as opposed to boe-
'not.yet,' be- 'not.able,' and m-, and bo- 'not.have.' The latter four Neg-particles
exhibit island effects and are answered like wh-questions. We propose that all of
them involve a QP. Boe- and be- consist of a QP that takes a coordinate structure
with VP ellipsis, whereas bo- heads a QP and m- moves from a regular negative
position to Q. The predicate-initial question marker kam in Southern Min is argued
to mark a yes/no question, and is generated in T. It is marked with the [+Q] feature,
and raises to C ° to check its strong [+Q] feature with C°. In contrast, the predicate-
initial question marker A in Suzhou is generated in Q, and is marked with [+WH]
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
feature because it marks a wh-question. Data from Singapore Teochew is also
discussed.
Chapter 6 studies the naff) rhetorical question as a case in which negation is
expressed by a question form. We argue that naff) is an overt realization of the
negative operator. This negative operator, which is marked with the [+NEG] feature,
is responsible for the licensing of a special type of negative polarity item (i.e.
minimizers like the ban 'half phrase). This negative operator captures the relation
between negation and question in a naff) rhetorical question.
Finally, Chapter 7 concludes the dissertation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
CHAPTER 2
AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT
BETWEEN NEGATION AND VERB/ASPECT
2.1 Introduction
As we have noted, there are two primary negative markers in Mandarin Chinese,
bu and meitvou). The agreement requirement between negation and verb/aspect has
been an object of study for a long time, and a great deal of proposals has been made
to explain it. However, there is still very little consensus among Chinese linguists as
to the best way to characterize the difference between the two negative markers.
Part of the reason for this is the complexity of the interaction between aspect/tense
and negation. A more unfortunate reason, in our opinion, is the difference in
terminology. To avoid this problem and to facilitate my presentation, we have
included two appendices. In Appendix A, we include a discussion of four common
situation types (states, achievements, accomplishments, and activities in the sense of
Vendler (1967)) and grammatical aspect in Chinese. In Appendix B, we argue that
hui 'will,' but not yao 'want,' should be considered a (relative) future tense marker. In
this chapter we will only focus on the interaction between negation and verb/aspect.
We will argue that the best way to characterize the aspectual difference of the two
negative markers is the opposition between a dynamic and non-dynamic situation.
That is, meitvou) is used to deny a dynamic situation, while bu is used to deny a
non-dynamic situation. A non-dynamic situation is defined as an unchanged
situation, which can express volition, habituality, or future reference.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
This chapter is organized as follows. Section 2.2 discusses the problems of
previous analyses. Section 2.3 discusses ontological issues raised by our study. This
is followed by a discussion of our two hypotheses about the agreement requirement
between negation and verb/aspect in Section 2.4. In Section 2.5, we discuss the time
references of the two negative sentences. Finally, Section 2.6 concludes the chapter.
2.2 Problems with Previous Analyses
In this section, we will divide the relevant literature into six categories, and
discuss one or two representative works within each category.
2.2.1 Completion vs. Incompletion
One view regarding negation in Chinese is that meitvoul denies the completion
of a situation, and bu has no relation with completion. For example, Li and
Thompson (1981) claim that bu is a neutral negative marker, whereas mei(vou)
denies the completion of a situation. According to Li & Thompson, bu in (la)
simply denies the existence of a state, and meifyou) in (lb) denies the completion of
an event or an action.
(1) a. Zhangsan bucongming.
Zhangsan not intelligent
'Zhangsan is not intelligent.'
b. Zhangsan meifvou) he jiu.
Zhangsan not(have) drink wine
’ Zhangsan didn't drink wine.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
This position, however, cannot be maintained. As X. Liu (1988) points out, if
meifvou) denies the completion of a situation, sentence (lb) would mean Zhangsan
stopped in the middle of the process of drinking without completing it. In other
words, it should be able to mean that the action started but was not completed.
However, this is not the case— meitvou) in (lb) denies action entirely (S. Lti 1983).
2.2.2 Telicity vs. Atelicity Situations
Another view that is common in the literature is that the distinction between bu
and meifvou) lies in telicity. The claim that the two negative markers can be
distinguished by telicity is exhibited in M. Li (1999). Utilizing features to contrast
meifvou) with bu, Li claims that bu is marked with a [-telic] feature, while meifvou)
has a [+telic] feature.
Telicity is a notion that distinguishes an accomplishment (’ John is making a
chair') from an activity ('John is singing.')4 The former refers to a telic situation
because it has a terminal point.5 The situation automatically terminates when the
chair is complete (Comrie 1976, pp. 44-48). The latter describes an atelic situation
because it lacks such a terminal point, and can be protracted indefinitely or broken
off at any point.
However, M. Li's line of analysis is not satisfactory for the following reason.
Consider the examples in (2).
4 See Appendix A for the discussion of situation types in more details.
5 For Comrie (1976), only accomplishments can be telic because telicity requires a process
leading to the terminal point as well as a terminal point. Thus, 'John reached the summit,' which
describes an achievement, is not telic because we cannot speak of the process leading up to John's
reaching the summit by saying 'John is reaching the summit.' In contrast, both accomplishments and
achievements are marked with [+telic] in Smith (1991) because both contain natural end points,
rather than arbitrary end points. To be safe, we will restrict our discussion to accomplishments.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
(2) a. Zhangsan kan-le vi-ben shu.
Zhangsan read-ASP one-CL book
'Zhangsan read a book.'
b. Zhangsan meifvou) kan shu/*vi-ben shu.6
Zhangsan not(have) read book/one-CL book
'Zhangsan didn't read a book.'
The event denoted by (2a) is telic because it contains a natural end point as denoted
by the specific object. When the book is read, the event is over. In contrast, the
meifvou) sentence in (2b) does not denote a telic situation. It is thus dubious to say
that meifvou) denies a telic situation or it can change a situation from atelic to telic,
as M. Li would argue.
Thus, the claim that a distinction between the two negative markers is related to
telicity cannot be maintained.
2.2.3 Boundedness vs. Unboundedness Situations
Some have argued that the difference between bu and meifvou) is related to the
notion of boundedness. Specifically, they claim that bu denies an unbounded
6 C.-T. Huang (1987, p. 253) notes that specific NPs are positive polarity items and thus the
object NP in (i) must be construed as having wide scope with respect to negation.
(i) John didn't see a certain man.
The Chinese equivalent of (i) as given in (ii) is ungrammatical because the inversed scope reading is
generally not possible in Chinese as C.-T. Huang (1982) points out.
(ii) *Zhangsan meiCyoul kanjian vi-ge ren.
Zhangsan not(have) see one-CL person
'Zhangsan didn't see a certain man.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
situation, while meifvou) denies a bounded situation. Most noticeably, such a claim
is seen in J. Shen (1995).7
Let us consider the notion of 'boundedness.' If 'unbounded' is understood to be
'atelic' as in Dahl (1981), then 'bounded' is telic. This faces the same problem we
have seen in examples such (2b), where meifvou) denies an atelic situation. Even if
a 'bounded' situation can have an arbitrary final point, it is still hard to say that
meifvou') denies a bounded situation in (2b). One might argue what meifvou) denies
in (2b) is a bounded situation because a meifvou) sentence seems to deny the
existence of a positive bounded event, which is indicated by the perfective marker -
|e.8 However, it should be noted that (2b) can simply denote the non-existence of an
event. It does not have to deny the existence of a positive bounded situation. More
importantly, the positive counterpart of (2b) is ungrammatical:
(3) *Zhangsan kan-le shu.9
Zhangsan read-ASP book
’ Zhangsan read.'
Furthermore, meitvou) can be used to negate a progressive sentence, which
should not be considered bounded in any sense.
7 In Ernst (1995), while he claims that the occurrence of bu requires 'an unbounded aspectual
situation,' he does not explicitly claim that meivou requires a bounded situation. For him, the
presence of mei depends on the perfective marker you.
8 W. Wang's (1965) syntactic proposal is based on this assumption.
9 This sentence becomes grammatical if the sentence-final le is added. See Appendix A.
(i) Zhangsan kan-le shu le.
Zhangsan read-ASP book ASP
'Zhangsan has read.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
(4) Zhangsan meifvou) zai tiaowu.
Zhangsan not(have) in dance
'Zhangsan is not dancing.'
Thus the claim that the distinction between bu and meifvou) lies in boundedness
cannot be maintained.
2.2.4 Real is vs. Irrealis Mood
L. Liu (1997) explicitly argues that the distinction between the two forms of
negation in Chinese, bu and meifvou). is one of mood. That is, bu or bu hui is used
for an irrealis situation, while meifvou) is used for a realis situation only. She
proposes the following correspondences:
(5) positive negative
realis le meifvou) 'not(have)'
irrealis hud 'will,' 0 bu 'not,' bu hui 'not will'
Le in (5), for L. Liu, can be the verb final perfective -le or the sentence-final particle
le.1 0 Furthermore, as given in (5), a positive sentence and its negative counterpart
have the same realis or irrealis categorization.
Let us consider the notion of mood first. Mood is concerned with the actuality of
an event or a state. According to Bhat (1999, p. 63), there are three parameters that
are used by languages in establishing modal distinctions:
10 The use of the two aspectual markers is discussed in Appendix A. For a recent discussion of the
distinction between the two le's, see Sybesma (1997).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
(6) a. a speaker's opinion or judgement regarding the actuality of an event
b. the type of evidence that is available for the speaker to form this
judgement
c. the type of need or requirement which forces the speaker (or someone
else) to get involved in an event (or to carry out an action)
The first two parameters establish 'epistemic' (knowledge-based) moods, and the
third one establishes 'deontic' moods. The most important distinction in the category
of epistemic is the one between realis and irrealis. According to Mithun (1995), this
is a distinction between events or states that are portrayed as actualized or as actually
occurring on the one hand, and the ones that are still within the realm of thought, on
the other. In a language that distinguishes realis from irrealis mood, situations that
are portrayed as having occurred or are actually occurring are marked by the realis
marker(s), while all other situations are marked by the irrealis marker(s).
The distinction does not have to correspond to reality. As pointed out by Bybee,
Perkins and Pagliuca (1994), the grammatical categories referred to by realis and
irrealis are far from uniform cross-linguistically. Construction types marked as
irrealis in one language may be marked as realis in another or vice versa. Negative
constructions, as Mithun (1995, pp. 380-384) points out, generally show the same
irrealis or realis categorization as their positive counterparts. However, the situation
is quite different in a language called Caddo. In this language, questions and
negatives are systematically categorized as irrealis, irrespective of the irrealis/realis
types of their non-question, positive counterparts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
The question is then whether the distinction of the two negative markers in
Chinese is actually the manifestation of the realis/irrealis mood distinction, as L. Liu
claims. Now let us move back to L. Liu's proposal.
Under L. Liu's proposal, the realis of a positive sentence is marked by le, and the
irrealis of a positive sentence is marked by the modal hui 'will' or by the zero marker.
This proposal predicts that sentences that contain other modals should be divided
into two categories. They are irrealis when their positive counterpart has no le (verb
-le, or sentence-final le), and they should be realis when there is le. And given the
correspondence provided by L. Liu above, bu should be used in the former situation,
while meifyouf should be used in the latter situation. The prediction is borne out for
modals such as nenggou 'can.'
(7) a. Zhangsan nenggou lai.
Zhangsan can come
'Zhangsan can come.'
b. Zhangsan bu nenggou lai.
Zhangsan not can come
'Zhangsan cannot come.'
(8) a. Zhangsan nenggou lai le.
Zhangsan can come ASP
'Zhangsan can come now.'
b. Zhangsan meifvou) nenggou lai. (Y.-R. Chao 1968, p. 666)
Zhangsan not(have) can come
'Zhangsan couldn't come.’
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
However, the prediction fails for modals such as kevi 'may':
(9) a. Zheli kevi gai fangzi.
here may build house
'Houses may be built here.'
b. Zheli bu kevi gai fangzi.
here not may build house
'Houses are not allowed to be built here.'
(10) a. Zheli keyi gai fangzi le.
here may build house ASP
'Houses may be built here now.'
b. *Zheli meifvou) keyi gai fangzi.
here not(have) may build house
'Houses were not allowed to be built here.'
The examples in (10) show keyi 'may' can occur with the sentence-final le, which
indicates a change of state, but meifvou) cannot occur with keyi. This thus
constitutes evidence against L. Liu's proposal.
2.2.5 Realized vs. Unrealized Situations
Some believe that meifvou) denies an actually realized situation, while bu denies
a situation that is not actually realized. This realized/unrealized distinction is based
on reality. It is thus different from the realis/irrealis mood analysis discussed above
because the realis/irrealis mood distinction depends on how a language makes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
a distinction between a realized and an unrealized situation, and may not correspond
to reality.
This proposal, however, cannot be on the right track. The first piece of evidence
against this proposal comes from the observation that a bu sentence can occur as the
complement of a perception verb such as kanjian 'see.' For example,
(11) a. Wo kanjian ta bu chi yu.
we see he not eat fish
I saw him not eat fish.'
b. Wo kanjian ta bu gan xia shui youyong.
I see he not dare descend water swim
I saw him dare not to go in the water to swim.'
Crucially, the sentences in (11) denote direct perception. If abu sentence denotes an
unrealized situations, it should not be able to be directly perceived. Thus the fact
that a bu sentence can occur as the complement of kanjian 'see' as shown in (lib )
clearly indicates that bu does not necessarily denote unrealized situations.
More examples along this line are given in (12).
(12) a. Wo kanjian ta yi-dong ye bu dong.
I see he one-move also not move
I saw him not budge.'
b. Wo kanjian ta mei(vou) dong.
I see he not(have) move
I saw him not move.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Sentence (12a) further shows that abu sentence can describe a realized situation
just like the meifvou) sentence in (12b).
The second piece of evidence concerns factive verbs such as vavi 'surprised' and
vihan 'regret.' Bu, as shown in (13), can negate the complement of factive verbs.
(13) a. Wo hen yayi ta bu hui youyong.
I very surprise he not can swim
I was surprised that he could not swim.'
b. Wo hen yihan ta bu neng lai.
I very regret he not can come
I regretted that he couldn't come.'
Since complements of factive verbs denote 'realized' situations, the situation
denoted by the bu complement should be considered 'realized.' Therefore, not all bu
sentences denote 'unrealized' situations. Thus the 'realized' and 'unrealized'
distinction does not distinguish the use of the two negative markers bu and meifvou).
A similar view, which makes reference to aspectual markers, is proposed in D.
Xu (1997). According to D. Xu, the distribution of bu is characterized in the form of
the following constraint:
(14) Bu and aspect markers
The Mandarin negative marker bu 'not' is semantically incompatible with
aspect markers denoting 'realization.'
The statement in (14) implies the existence of two types of aspect markers— one
denotes 'realization,' and the other does not or has nothing to do with realization. It
says that bu can only occur with those aspect markers that do not denote 'realization.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
This view, again, faces problems very similar to what we have discussed.
Consider the two examples in (15).
(15) a. *Na-ke shu bu dang-zhe.
that-CL tree not block-Asp
'That tree is not blocking.'
b. Ni zhua-zhe wo de shou.
you grab-ASP I DE hand
(i) 'You are holding my hand.'
(ii) 'Hold on to my hand.'
In order to rule out (15a), -zhe has to be an aspect marker that denotes realization.
The sentence in (15b), however, is ambiguous. As pointed out by F.-H. Liu (1997, p.
78), (15b) can have a realized reading, or an unrealized reading. It describes either a
resultative state or a command to bring about a change of a state. The former is
realized, while the latter is clearly not. If -zhe denotes ‘realization’ as D. Xu would
claim, it is not clear why (15b) is ambiguous.1 1
Furthermore, bu can indeed occur with -zhe in some cases:
(16) Ta bu zuo-zhe.
he not sit-ASP
'He does not want to sit.'
1 1 One might think that the use of -zhe in a command also indicates a realized situation. However,
this cannot be an actual realized situation because the situation is yet to happen and can only be in
the realm of the speaker's mind, hoping that this situation will be realized.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Similarly, the occurrence of -le cannot determine a situation to be realized or not.
For example,
(17) a. Wo xie-le yi-shou ge.
I write-ASP one-CL song
1 wrote a song.'
b. Women mingtian chi-wan-le zaofan, jiu chufa.
we tomorrow eat-fmish-ASP breakfast then setoff
'We will set off after we eat our breakfast tomorrow morning.'
Sentence (17a) denotes a realized situation, while sentence (17b) denotes an
unrealized situation. The event that is denoted by the first clause in (17b) is at best
'realized' as relative to the event that is denoted by the second clause. But this is
different from saying that it denotes a realized situation.
2.2.6 Past vs. Non-past
Finally, another analysis that has been suggested in the literature is that bu denies
a non-past event, or a state, and meifvou) a past event. B. Chiu (1993), based on
(18a), argues such a position. However, this position cannot be maintained in view
of sentences like (18b):
(18) a. Zhangsan mingtian bu/*meifvou) qu.
Zhangsan tomorrow not/not(have) go
'Zhangsan will not go tomorrow.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
b. Zhe-ge difang yiqian bu qiong.
this-CL place before not poor
'This place was not poor before.'
Example (18b) shows that a bu sentence can have a past time reference. Thus, the
past/non-past distinction does not distinguish the two negative markers.
2.2.7 Summary
We have shown above that the aspectual notions such as 'telicity' and
'boundedness' do not characterize the difference between the two negative markers.
We have also shown that the distinction between the two negative markers also does
not lie in tense or mood. In Section 2.4, we will discuss two hypotheses that address
the relation between negation and verb/aspect. According to one, the distinction
between bu and meifvou) is sensitive to situation types, and according to the other
the two markers are different in terms of grammatical aspect as marked by aspectual
markers. However, before we can discuss the two hypotheses, we must first discuss
ontological issues related to negation.
2.3 Ontological Issues
Ontologically speaking, there are several different kinds of entities: first-order
entities, second-order entities and third-order entities.1 2 All first-order entities
(persons, animals and things) are relatively constant as their perceptual properties;
are located in time and space; and are publicly observable. Events, processes, and
states-of-affairs, according to Lyons (1977), are second-order entities, which are
12 The discussion of the three kinds of entities is based on Lyons (1977).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
located in time. Finally, abstract entities such as propositions, which are outside
space and time, are third-order entities. Whereas second-order entities, just like first-
order entities, are observable and, unless they are instantaneous events, have a
temporal duration, third-order entities are unobservable and cannot be said to occur
or to be located either in space or in time. Third-order entities are such that 'true,'
rather than 'real,' is more naturally predicated of them; they can be asserted or
denied, remembered or forgotten, and they can be reasons, but not causes. Lyons
(1977, p. 445) assumes that the notion of existence applies primarily to first-order
entities. Second-order entities in English are said to occur or take place, rather than
to exist. On the other hand, Lyons (1977, p. 723) claims that a proposition cannot be
true, of some world (or world-state), unless the situation that it describes actually
exists in the world (or world-state) in question. Truth is the third-order correlate of
what for first-order entities is existence in space, and a statement like 'That is so'
(where 'that' refers to a proposition) is structurally comparable with a statement like
'X exists' (where X refers to a first-order entity).
With this perspective, let us consider some relevant Chinese data. As shown in
(19), meifvou') can be used to describe the non-existence of both first-order entities
and second-order entities:
(19) a. Ta meifvou') pingguo.
he not(have) apple
'He does not have apples.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
b. Ta meifvou) chi pingguo.
he not(have) eat apple
'He didn't eat the apple.'
More abstractly, meivou can be used to deny the truth of a proposition:
(20) a. Ta meivou bu qu.1 3
he not.have not go
'I didn't not go.'
b. Wo meivou bu xihuan xiandai yinyue.
I not.have not like modem music
I don't not like modem music.'
Unlike in (19b), meivou in (20) is not used to deny the existence of a second-
order entity. Thus, while it is possible for the former use to occur with the aspect-
sensitive adverb you 'again' as shown in (21a), this is not possible for the latter use as
shown in (21b).
(21) a. Ta zuotian mei(you) qu, jintian you meifvou) qu.
he yesterday not(have) go today again not(have) go
'He didn't go yesterday and he again didn't go today.'
b. *Ta you meivou bu qu.
he again not.have not go
'He didn't not go again.'
1 3 In the studies of negation, some researchers include this kind of sentence, while others reject
them. For example, Cheng and Li (1991) is an example of the former, while L.-H. Yeh (1995) is
one of the latter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
Besides this, unlike (19b), sentences like (20) do not occur as context-free
assertions. Similar examples from English are given in (22).1 4
(22) a. I don't not like modem music.
b. I don't dislike modem music.
In what follows, we will not include the third use of mei(vou). When we say that
distinction between bu and mei(vou) is sensitive to the situation type of a sentence,
we mean the use of either bu or meifvou) depends on the situation type that is
located in time.
2.4 Negation and Verb/Aspect
Before we can characterize the relation between negation and verb/aspect, we
must ensure that the negative markers bu and mei(vou) are independent from
aspectuality. We undertake this task in Section 2.4.1. The discussion of the two
hypotheses is in Section 2.4.2.
2.4.1 Negative Markers are independent from Aspectuality
Following W. Wang's (1965) well-known work, many assume that mei(vou)
marks the perfective aspect. W. Wang proposes that the verb -je and you are
allomorphs of a perfective morpheme, based on the fact that meifvou) is in the
complementary distribution with the perfective -le as given in (23):
14 This is noted in Lyons (1977, p. 773).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
(23) a. Zhangsan kan-te na-ben shu.
Zhangsan read-ASP that-CL book
'Zhangsan read that book.'
b. Zhangsan meifvou) kan-(*le) na-ben shu.
Zhangsan not(have) read-ASP that-CL book
'Zhangsan didn’ t read that book.'
This approach has been met with a great deal of criticism. Li and Thompson
(1981, p. 435), for example, provide two pieces of evidence challenging this
analysis. First, they point out that there are cases in which -le does not alternate with
meifvou):
(24) a. Ta he-ie jiu yihou, wo jiu gen ta shuo hua.
he drink-ASP wine after I then with he talk speech
'After he drinks, I'll talk to him.'
b. Ta bu/*meifvou) he jiu yihou, wo jiu gen ta shuo hua.
he not/not(have) drink wine after I then with he talk speech
"After he stops drinking, I will talk to him.'
For Li and Thompson, the verbal -le indicates a bounded event. It can signal that an
event is bounded by a following event. Meifvou). however, cannot be used this way.
Secondly, they note that there are a number of verbs that do not occur with -le,
but they can be negated by meifvou). For example,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
(25) a. Wo tingshuo(*-!e) ta lihun le.
I hear-ASP he divorce ASP
I heard that he got divorced.'
b. Wo meifvou) tingshuo ta lihun le.
I not(have) hear he divorce ASP
I didn't hear that he got divorced.'
Thus, W. Wang's analysis of -vou and 4e is untenable. The most serious
problem with this analysis, in our opinion, is its empirical inadequacy. Consider the
following sentences:
(26) A: Tamen zai tiaowu ma?
they in dance PRT
'Are they dancing?'
B: Tamen meifvou) tiaowu. Tamen chang ge ne.
they not(have) dance they sing song PRT
'They are not dancing. They are singing.'
(27) Zhangsan shou shang meifvou) na dongxi.
Zhangsan hand top not(have) take thing
'Zhangsan is not holding anything.'
The sentences in (26) appear in 'Practical Chinese Reader (p. 253),' which is a
standard Chinese textbook. The context shows that meityou) sentences are used to
denies the existence of an imperfective situation despite the fact that the imperfective
marker zai does not appear in the negative sentence. Similarly, (27) can be used to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
describe a situation in the present. Thus, meifvou') itself does not indicate
perfectivity.
Another analysis that is relevant here is to treat meifvou) as a Perfect marker,
which is a category between aspect and tense according to Comrie (1976). Such a
view is advocated by Y. Shi (1999). According to Y. Shi, the meifvou) sentence in
(28a) has a past time reference because meifvou). as a Perfect marker, indicates that
the situation occurs prior to the reference time, which is ’ now' in (28a). Similarly,
when the reference time refers to a future time reference as shown in (28b), meifvou)
indicates that the situation occurs prior to the future reference time.
(28) a. Zhangsan meifvou) biye.
Zhangsan not(have) graduate
'Zhangsan didn't graduate.'
b. Mingnian zhe-ge shihou Zhangsan yiding *fhai) meifvou) biye.
next:year this-CL time Zhangsan definitely still not(have) graduate
'Zhangsan will definitely still have not graduated by this time next
year.'
However, (28a) is different from the grammatical (28b) because hai 'still' is required
in the latter. If mei(vou) marks Perfect, it is not clear why hai is required.
Furthermore, if meifvou) really marks Perfect, it should not be restricted at all
with respect to the type of predicate it can negate. However, this is not the case.
Consider the examples in (10), repeated here as (29). While le can occur with the
predicate headed by the auxiliary keyi 'can' to indicate a change of state, mei(vou)
cannot negate it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
(29) a. Zheli keyi gai fangzi le.
here may build house ASP
'Houses may be built here now.'
b. * Zheli meifvou) keyi gai fangzi.
here not(have) may build house
'Houses were not allowed to be built here.'
The restriction on the type of predicate that meifvou) can negate is unexpected if
meifvou) were a Perfect marker.
2.4.2 Two Hypotheses
In this section, we will move on to the discussion of our two hypotheses: one
argues that the two negative markers are sensitive to situation types, and the other
relates the difference to the grammatical aspect as indicated by aspectual markers
(e.g. perfective and imperfective).1 5 The two hypotheses can be formed as follows.
(30) a. Situation-Type Hypothesis (STH)
Negation is sensitive to the situation type of a sentence,
b. Grammatical-Aspect Hypothesis (GAH)
Negation is sensitive to the grammatical aspect of a sentence.
First, let us start with GAH by considering how sentences with two perfective
markers -le and -guo are negated:
1 5 Traditionally, aspect refers to the presentation of events through grammaticalized viewpoints
such as perfective and imperfective. It is only recently that the notion of aspect has been broadened
to include the temporal properties of the situations themselves, internal event structure or Aktionsart
(cf. Smith 1991).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
(31) a. Zhangsan kan-le na-ben shu ma?
Zhangsan read-ASP that-CL book PRT
'Did Zhangsan read that book?’
b. Ta meifvou') kan(*-le) na-ben shu.
he not(have) read-ASP that-CL book
’ He didn't read that book.'
(32) a. Zhangsan qu-guo Zhongguo ma?
Zhangsan go-ASP China PRT
'Has Zhangsan been to China?'
b. Ta meifvoul qu-guo Zhongguo.
he not(have) go-ASP China
'He hasn't been to China.'
GAH correctly rules out the following sentences because it predicts that bu
cannot occur with aspectual markers.
(33) a. *Ta bu jingchang na-cuo-le shu.
he not often take-wrong-ASP book
'He does not take the wrong book often.'
b. *Ta cong bu qu-guo Zhongguo.
he ever go-ASP China
'He has never been to China.'
However, consider the examples in (34). While the stative adjective xian Tree'
cannot occur with the perfective -le, and cannot be negated by meifvou). it can occur
with -guo. and be negated by meifyou) when -guo is present. For example,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
(34) a. *Ta xian-le yi-dian.
he free-ASP one-bit
'He is freer.'
b. *Ta mei(vou) xian.
he not(have) free
H e is not free.’
c. Ta mei(you) xian-guo.
he not(have) free-ASP
He has never been free.'
Under GAH, if we want to rule out (34a), we must assume that xian 'free' cannot
occur with a perfective marker, and thus cannot be negated by meitvoul. However,
this does not explain why the same verb can occur with the perfective -guo as in
(34c) unless different types of perfective aspect are distinguished. Thus GAH fails
to make a distinction between (34b) and (34c).
Furthermore, consider the sentences with the imperfective marker -zhe. As we
discuss in Appendix A, the imperfective marker has two different uses: one focuses a
resultative state, and the other indicates a progressive situation. For the first use,
consider verbs of position and location as exemplified in (35) and (36).
(35) a. Ta mei(vou) zuo-zhe.
he not(have) sit-ASP
'He is not sitting.'
b. Ta bu zuo-zhe.
he not sit-ASP
'He does not want to sit.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
(36) a. Ta jia de men meifvou) guan-zhe.
he home DE door not(have) close-ASP
'The door of his home is not closed.'
b. Tajia de men cong bu guan-zhe.
he home DE door ever not close-ASP
'The door of this home is never closed.'
The fact that sentences with the resultative -zhe can be negated either by
meifvou) or bu in (35) and (36) shows that the presence of -zhe does not play a role
in deciding which negative marker to use.
Now consider the stative verbs or adjectives that occur with the resultative -zhe
as shown in (37)-(39).1 6 They can also be negated by either bu or meifyou).
(37) a. Zhangsan meifvou) xian-zhe.
Zhangsan not(have) free-ASP
'Zhangsan wasn't free.'
16 Note that stage-level predicates, but not individual-level predicates, can occur with -zhe. as
pointed out by M. Yeh (1993).
(i) a. *Ta yixiang chengshi-zhe.
he always honest-ASP
'He is always honest.'
b. *Ta zhidao-zhe zhe-ge huida.
he know-ASP this-CL answer
'He knows the answer.'
c. *Ta conghui-zhe.
he intelligent-ASP.
'He is intelligent.'
M. Yeh (1993) gives two question markers for the grammaticality of (ia) and (ib). However, we feel
both of them are unacceptable.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
b. Zhangsan cong bu xian-zhe.
Zhangsan ever not free-ASP
'Zhangsan is never free.'
(38) a. Tamen meifvou) ge-zhe yiding juli.
they not(have) separate-ASP certain distance
'They didn't separate from each other by a certain distance.'
b. Tamen cong bu ge-zhe juli.
they ever not separate-ASP distance
'They are never separated by any distance.'
(39) a. Tamen meifvou) mianlin-zhe xiangtong de wenti.
they not(have) face-ASP same DE problem
'They are not facing the same problems.'
b. Tamen bu jingchang mianlin-zhe xiangtong de wenti.
they not often face-ASP same DE problem
'They do not often face the same problems.'
Both bu and meifvou) sentences are grammatical. Similarly, the progressive use
of the imperfective marker -zhe can be negated by meifvou) or bu:
(40) a. Na-ge yanjiang zhongjian de difang wo mei(vou) renzhen de
that-CL talk middle DE place I not(have) careful DE
ting-zhe. suoyi houlai jiu ting-bu-dong le.
listen-ASP therefore later then listen-not-understand ASP
'I wasn't listening carefully in the middle of the talk, so I couldn't
follow it later on.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
b. Wo jiushi bu renzhen de ting-zhe. ni neng ba wo zenmeyang?
I just not careful DE listen-ASP you can BA I how
'I just don't want to be listening carefully, what can you do with me?'
Note that for the both uses of -zhe. meifvoul can be simply used to deny the
existence of an event. This can be shown by the use of the aspect-sensitive adverb
you 'again':
(41) a. Men zuotian meifvoul suo-zhe. jintian you meifvou) suo-zhe.
door yesterday not(have) lock-ASP today again not(have) lock-ASP
'The door was not locked today and it again wasn't locked today.'
b. Zuotian yanjiang de shihou, ta meifvou) renzhen de ting-zhe. j intian
yesterday talk DE time he not(have) careful DE listen-ASP today
you meifyou) renzhen-de ting-zhe.
again not(have) careful DE listen-ASP
'During yesterday's talk, he wasn't listening carefully and he again
wasn't listening carefully today.'
Now let us consider the imperfective marker zai. A sentence with imperfective
aspect is negated by meifvou). as shown in (42) (Taken from Practical Chinese
Reader, p. 253):
(42) A: Tamen zai tiaowu ma? (=(26))
they in dance PRT
'Are they dancing?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
B: Tamen meifvou) tiaowu. Tamen chang ge ne.
they not(have) dance they sing song PRT
'They are not dancing. They are singing.'
The imperfective marker does not show up when mei(vou) occurs. However,
Beijing speakers easily accept (43a) while they reject (43b).1 7
(43) a. Tamen mei(vou) zai tiaowu. (=(4))
they not(have) in dance
'They aren't dancing.'
b. *Tamen bu zai tiaowu. (Taiwanese Mandarin: V)1 8
they not in dance
'They are not dancing.'
This use of mei(vou) carf also be used to deny the existence of an event:
(44) Wo zuotian huijia de shihou, ta mei(vou) zai lian qin, j intian
I yesterday returmhome DE he not(have) in practice piano today
huijia de shihou ta you meifvou) zai lian qin.
returmhome DE time he again not(have) in practice piano
'He wasn't practicing piano when I came home yesterday and he again
wasn't practicing piano when I came home today.'
17 Standard Mandarin is based on the Beijing dialect.
18 It has been noted in the literature that progressive can change a progressive situation into stative
(Vlach 1981), or progressive presents a dynamic situation in a static way (Smith 1991). As we will
argue in the text below that bu negates a non-dynamic situation, the fact that bu is used for negating
a progressive sentence in Taiwanese Mandarin is not surprising since a progressive sentence can be
viewed non-dynamic.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
We summarize what we have so far in the following table:
(45)
resultative ^
zhe
progressive -
zhe
imperfective zai perfective ^
guo
perfective -
M
bu
V V
* * *
mei (-
you)
V V V V
*
Table 1: Aspectual Markers and Negative Markers
The results displayed above indicate that the existence of a particular aspectual
marker does not determine which negative marker to use. Therefore, the GAH is
untenable.
Now let us move on to STH. Generally speaking, predicates that describe states
can be negated by bu:
(46) a. Ta bu congming.
he not intelligent
'He is not intelligent.'
b. Ta bu xiang ta mama,
he not resemble he mother
'He does not resemble his mother.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
(47) a. Tabu pang.
he not fat
'He is not fat.'
b. Ta bu gaoxing.
he not happy
'He is not happy.'
However, while some of them cannot be negated by meifvou). some can:
(48) a. *Ta meifvou') congmlng.
he not(have) intelligent
'He isn't intelligent.'
b. Ta mei(you) pang,
he not(have) fat
*'He is not fat.'
'He didn't gain weight.'
Note that (48b) is not a simple negation of a state. It means that the change of a
state does not occur. Compare the type of predicates that can be negated by
meifvou) and the one that cannot. The former denotes transitory properties, while
the latter type seems to refer to more permanent properties. This is reminiscent of
the distinction between a Stage-Level Predicate (SLP) and an Individual-Level
Predicate (ILP) (Milsark 1974, Carlson 1977). ILPs describe semi-permanent traits
of individuals, while SLPs describe more or less temporary properties of individuals.
They are exemplified as follows:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
(49) Individual-Level Predicates
a. Adjectives like 'tall,' 'intelligent'
b. Stative verbs like 'know,' 'love'
c. All the predicative NPs like 'be a lawyer,' 'be a mammal.'
(50) Stage-Level Predicates
a. Adjectives like 'available,' 'angry'
b. Stative verbs like 'be in the garden'
c. Non-stative verbs like 'sleep,' 'destroying my viola da gamba'
The distinction between the two types of predicates has ramifications for the
grammar of English. The distinction is also shown to be relevant for the use of the
durative marker -zhe in Chinese by M. Yeh (1993). She argues that only SLPs can
occur with the durative -zhe. Along this line, Chinese predicates can be divided into
ILPs and SLPs as exemplified below:
(51) ILPs in Chinese
a. Adjectives like congming 'intelligent,' piaoliang 'pretty,'
vonggan 'brave'
b. Stative verbs like zhidao 'know,' pa 'fear'
c. All the predicate NPs like shi vi-ge xuesheng 'be a student,'
shi wusui 'be five years old'
(52) SLPs in Chinese
a. Adjectives like pang 'fat,' lap 'old'
b. Stative verbs like zai huavuan li 'be in the garden'
c. Non-stative verbs like paobu 'run,' kan na-ben shu 'read that book'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
However, this distinction does not seem to account for the distribution of the two
negative markers. First, we have seen in (46) and (47) above that an adjective, ILP
or SLP, can be negated by bu. Second, while predicative NPs are negated by bu shi.
stative verbs, either ILPs or SLPs, are negated by bu:
(53) a. Ta bu shi vi-ge xuesheng.
he not be one-CL student
'He is not a student.'
b. Ta bu shi wusui.
she not be five :years: old
'She is not five years old.'
(54) a. Wo bu zhidao na-jian shi.
I not know that-CL matter
'I don't know that matter.'
b. Ta bu ai ta.
he not love she
'He does not love her.'
Third, as far as non-stative verbs are concerned, they can be negated by either bu
or meifvou):
(55) a. Ta meifvou) paobu.
he not(have) run
'He didn't run.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
b. Ta meifvou) kan na-ben shu.
he not(have) read that-CL book
'He didn't read that book.'
(56) a. Tabupaobu.
he not run
He does not/does not want/will not run.'
b. Ta bu kan na-ben shu.
he not read that-CL book
He does not read/does not want/will not read that book .'
Thus the distinction between SLPs and ILPs is not relevant for the distinction
between the two negative markers.
On the other hand, note that there is a fundamental difference between the bu
sentences in (47) and the meifvou) sentences in (48). They are repeated as follows:
(57) a. Ta bu pang.
he not fat
'He is not fat.'
b. Tabugaoxing.
he not happy
'He is not happy.'
(58) a. *Ta meifvou) congming.
he not(have) intelligent
H e isn't intelligent.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
b. Ta meifvou) pang,
he not(have) fat
'He didn't gain weight.'
While (57a) refers to a state, (58b) denotes that a change of a state, a dynamic
situation, does not happy. The latter can be used felicitously in the following
context. Suppose everyone gains weight in the winter. We can use (58b) to report
that Mr. Wang did not gain weight in the past winter. However, we cannot use the
same sentence when comparing weight. Thus, the crucial distinction seems to lie
between stative and dynamic situations (including accomplishment, achievement and
activity in the sense of Vendler (1967)). However, if we take the notion of
markedness into account, we should have the following possibilities (cf. Lyons
1977):
(59) a. stative vs. non-stative
b. dynamic vs. non-dynamic
c. stative vs. dynamic
Now closely examine the bu sentences in (56), they can be at least three-ways
ambiguous. It can have a volitional, habitual or future interpretation. According to
Li and Thompson (1981, p. 423), the volitional interpretation is 'the natural inference
from the fact that if someone does not do something over which s/he has control,
s/he is generally unwilling to.'1 9 The volitional interpretation is possible only when
1 9 Note that an 'intentionality/volition/conscienceness' interpretation does not have to be associated
with 'action/activity.' Consider the following definition of 'agency' by Dowty (1975, p. 580): '...a
verb or adjective is agentive whenever it denotes or implies an action or state that obtains by virtue
of the immediate conscious of volition of its subject.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
there is an animate subject, and the subject has the control of the action. This gives
rise to the different interpretations of the bu sentences in (56) and their meifvoul
counterparts in (55). The former but not the latter express subjective desire (zhuguan
vivuan) as claimed by J. Wu (1982, p. 157).
From the volitional interpretation, the future interpretation can be easily derived.
If one is not willing to do something, nothing will happen at a later time (including
the future). Crucially in the future interpretation there must be a subject who has
control of the action in the sentence. For example, none of the following sentences
have the future interpretation because their subjects do not have control of the action.
(60) a. Ta bu zhidao na-jian shi.
he not know that-CL matter
'He does not know that matter.'
b. Ta bu e.
he not hungry
'He is not hungry.'
Finally, if the situation happens more than once, it should be considered to be
habitual.
According to Comrie (1976, p. 49), the distinction between a state and a dynamic
situation is characterized as follows:
With a state, unless something happens to change that
state, then the state will continue... With a dynamic
situation, on the other hand, the situation will only
continue if it is continually subject to a new input of
energy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
If we define a non-dynamic situation as an unchanged situation, while a dynamic
situation as a changed situation, the volitional/future/habitual interpretation should
be considered 'unchanged.' A situation is unchanged in at least three different ways.
First, it is unchanged if the subject is unwilling to carry out the action denoted by the
verb. Second, it is not changed at a later time if the subject is unwilling to change
the action. Third, it is not changed over time if it stays the same over time. This
would lead us to (57b), the opposition between a dynamic situation and a non
dynamic situation.
The dynamic/non-dynamic opposition is exhibited in the -zhe sentences as
follows. Compare (61a) with (61b):
(61) a. Ta bu zuo-zhe. (=(35b))
he not sit-ASP
'He does not want to sit.'
b. *Qiang shang bu gua-zhe yi-fu hua.
wall top not hang-ASP one-CL painting
'There is no painting hanging on the wall.'
The imperfective marker -zhe in (61a) focuses a resultative state. If what is
relevant is the opposition between dynamic/state, or state/non-state, bu should be
able to negate any sentence with -zhe. However, this is not the case, as shown in
(61b). In contrast, if we maintain the dynamic/non-dynamic opposition, we can
claim that bu can be used only if the situation is non-dynamic. A resultative state is
not classified as a non-dynamic situation because it implies an event that leads to the
state. Thus, unless a sentence with -zhe has a volitional, habitual or future
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
interpretation, it cannot be negated by bu. This explains the contrast between (61a)
and (61b).
Finally, let us point out that just as with a habitual situation, a generic situation
also denotes a pattern that occurs repeatedly. Thus bru instead of meifvou). should
be used in this kind of sentences. This is indeed the case:
(62) a. Gou bu chi laoshu.
dog not eat mouse
'Dogs do not eat mice.'
b. Gou meifvou) chi laoshu.
dog not(have) eat mouse
'The dog didn't eat the mouse.'
While the bu sentence in (62a) denotes a generic situation, (62b) cannot.
In summary, in this section we argue that the use of bu and meifvou- ) is sensitive
to situation types: while meifvou') denies dynamic situations, bu denies non-dynamic
situations.
2.5 Tense Interpretations of Negative Sentences
We have discussed above that the distinction between bu and meifvou') does not
lie in the one between non-past and past. However, what we are going to see in this
section is that the tense interpretations of bu sentences and meifvou) sentences are
limited. We will show this is due to the fact that Chinese has a (relative) future tense
marker, as we argue in Appendix B.
Generally speaking, the bu sentence in (63a) is three-way ambiguous— volitional,
habitual and future. There are two possible tense interpretations, i.e. present and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
future. In contrast, a meifvou) sentence in (63b) is usually given the past tense
interpretation.
(63) a. Tabu qu.
he not go
'He does not go/He does not want to go/He will not go.’
b. Ta meifvou) qu.
he not(have) go
He didn't go.'
However, bu is compatible with a past time adverb, and a meifvou) sentence can
have a present tense interpretation:
(64) a. Ta zuotian bu qu.
he yesterday not go
'He didn't want to go yesterday.'
b. Ni kan! Zhe xinfeng meifvou) xie-zhe jixin ren de dizhi.
you look this envelope not(have) write-ASP send person DE address
'Look! There is no address of the sender on this envelope.'
As we have discussed above, the future time reference of (63a) may derive from
the volitional interpretation. When a volitional interpretation is not available, a
future time reference is not possible. For example, the bu sentence in (65) is only
two-way ambiguou: it is either present or past. The contrast between the two types
of bu sentences can be seen in (66).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
(65) Zhe-ben shu bu gui.
this-CL book not expensive
'This book is/was not expensive.'
(66) a. Ta zuotian/xianzai/mingtian bu qu.
he yesterday/now/tomorrow not go
'He didn't/does not/does not want to/he will not go yesterday/now/
tomorrow.’
b. Zhe-ben shu na shihou/xianzai/*mingtian bu gui.
this-CL book that time/now/tomorrow not expensive
'This books was/is/will be not expensive at that time/now/tomorrow.'
Thus, a bu or a meitvou) sentence is in general either past or present. Why is this
the case? The answer, we think, lies in the fact that it is not marked by a (relative)
tense marker. A future time interpretation of (65) has to be expressed by hm 'will':
(67) Zhe-ben shu bu hui gui.
this-CL book not will expensive
'This book won't be expensive.'
2.6 Conclusions
In this chapter, we have shown that a difference between the two negative
markers bu and meifvou) is best characterized as one between different types of
situation types, that is, dynamic vs. non-dynamic. In other words, mei(vou) is used
to deny a dynamic situation, while bu is used for denying a non-dynamic situation.
While a dynamic situation necessarily involve change, a non-dynamic situation is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
defined to be an unchanged situation as in Comrie (1976). An unchanged situation
may result from the unwillingness of the subject to change the situation, or it may
also be the result of a repetitive behavior pattern over a period of time. The former
gives rise to the volitional/future interpretation, and the latter gives rise to the
habitual/generic interpretation. In the next chapter, we will propose a syntactic
analysis for the two negative markers, i.e. bu and meifyoul. in Chinese.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
CHAPTER 3
A SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF NEGATION
3.1 Introduction
In Chapter 2, we argued that the distinction between bu and meifvou') is one
between dynamic and non-dynamic. That is, meifvou') is used to deny a dynamic
situation, while bu is used to deny a non-dynamic situation. In this chapter, we will
first provide an overview of the literature discussing the syntactic categories, scope
properties and syntactic positions of the two negative markers. We will then propose
our syntactic analysis for these two negative markers. We argue that meifvou) heads
a NegP, which occurs in a position between AspP (Aspect Phrase) and PredP
(Predication Phrase). We assume an AspP is headed by the sentence-final le* and
PredP indicates predication. In contrast, bu is adjoined to Pred' or V'.
The chapter is organized as follows. In Section 3.2 we discuss the previous
analyses. Our syntactic proposal is given in Section 3.3. The conclusions of this
chapter are in Section 3.4.
3.2 Previous Analyses
Chinese linguists do not agree on the syntactic categories, scope properties, or
syntactic positions of the two negative markers. First, consider the syntactic
categories of the two negative markers. Traditionally, both meifvou) and bu are
considered to be adverbs, although some researchers disagree with this
characterization. For example, in S.-H. Teng (1973b) both you in meifvou) and bu
are higher predicates that take sentential complements. In L. Cheng and Y. Li
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
(1991) you in meifvou) is treated as an auxiliary, and bu is an alternant of mei. In
some works such as Ernst (1995) you is treated as a perfective marker. Mei is a
prefix realizing [+NEG] on you. Similarly, M. Li (1999) proposes that mei is a
prefix to you, which is base-generated under Asp0.
The scope properties and syntactic positions of the two negative markers also
vary according to different linguists. S. W. Chan (1973) argues that bu can express
either VP-negation or S-negation. For S.-H. Teng (1973a, 1973b, 1974), both bu and
meifvou) are S-negation markers, while bu shi 'not be' marks S-refutation. Bu can
also be Constituent(C)-negation. L. Li (1991) argues that bu can be S-negation or
node-negation. A node can be a VP, a NP or an adverb. For L.-H. Yeh (1992) bu
and mei (you) are Predicate negation markers as opposed to bu shi 'not be,' which is
the true S-negation marker.
As for syntactic positions, in W. Wang (1965) bu and mei (the alternant of bu)
are attached to VP. You or vou-guo (you plus the experiential marker) is generated
under Asp, which is adjoined to a position lower than VP. In L. Cheng and Y. Li
(1991), the Neg headed by bu or mei can select either VP or AuxP. L.-H. Yeh
(1992) propose that bu shi. which marks clausal negation, heads a NegP, while bu
and meifvou). which mark predicate negation, are adverbials internal to a VP. B.
Chiu (1993) projects the NegP (bu and mei) higher than the AspP, which is headed
by the experiential marker -guo. The AspP headed by you, which is above the AspP
headed by guo. is optionally projected. In Ernst (1995), bu is generated either in the
Spec of AuxP (Aspect and Modal are taken to be the two types of auxiliary verbs in
Chinese) or Spec of VP. Mei is a prefix realizing [+NEG] on the perfective you. D.
Xu (1997) proposes that bu heads a NegP, which takes an AspP. Finally, in a recent
study given by M. Li (1999) it is argued that there is no NegP. The negative marker
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
meifvou) or the progressive zai is base-generated in Asp. Bu, on the other hand, is
an adverblike element adjoined to the X’ level of the head Predication in default
cases, and to other heads in specific cases. M. Li assumes with Travis (1988), C.-C.
Tang (1990), and Rizzi (1997) that preverbal adjuncts of different types are licensed
by different heads, and that they occur at the level of X.' The three types of
preverbal adjuncts are as follows. Type I adjuncts include those that occur in
sentence initial positions; Type II adjuncts are those that occur immediately
following the subject; and Type HI adjuncts are those that occur immediately before
the predicate.
(1) a. Type I sentence initial: adjuncts of reason, point-time
adjuncts, external locative adjuncts
b. Type II postsubject: sentence manner adjuncts, adjuncts of reason,
temporal adjuncts, external locative adjuncts
c. Type III immediately preverbal: manner adjuncts, adjuncts of source,
benefactive, instmment and reason, indefinite time
adjuncts, inner locative adjuncts
Syntactically, Type I adjuncts are claimed to be adjoined to Top,' Type II to T,'
and Type III to Pr' (Predicate). The negative marker bu, according to M. Li, belongs
to the class of Type III adjuncts. It is generated under Pr' in the default case, and is
adjoined to other X's in specified cases, e.g. to Asp' in the presence of overt
aspectual markers, and to Mod' (modal) when modals are present in negative
sentences. The hierarchy among the above-mentioned projections is as follows:
TopP, TP, AspP, ModP, PrP, and VP.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
In the next section we will propose our syntactic analysis, which differs
substantially from the above analyses.
3.3 Our Syntactic Proposal
We have argued that meifvou! is used to deny a dynamic situation, while bu is
used to deny a non-dynamic situation. Syntactically, we propose that meifvou)
heads a NegP, which occurs between an AspP and a PredP. We assume that an AspP
is headed by the sentence-final particle le, and PredP encodes predication. A
meifvou) sentence is partially represented in (2).
(2) Partial Representation of a meifvou) sentence2 0
TP
Spec T'
T AspP
Specf^sp'
^NegP Asp
Spec Neg'
Neg PredP
meifyou)
Spec Pred'
Pred VP
20 We do not take a position regarding the question whether T is head-initial or head-final.
However, given the lack of evidence for a head-final proposal, we will assume that T is head-initial.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
On the other hand, bu is adjoined to Pred' or V'.
(3) Two possible positions for bu
TP
Spec T'
T'< AspP
,
Spec Asp
PredP Asp
Spec Pred'
(bu) Pred'
Pred^yp
S p c -T >
(I
Thus, there are four important features associated with our syntactic proposal:
(4) a. Negation is lower than TP (Tense Phrase) and AspP. We assume that
TP is projected in all languages, and AspP in Chinese is headed by the
sentence-final particle ]e.
b. Mei(vou) heads a NegP, while bu does not.
c. Mei(you) sits in a position higher than a PredP, and the highest
position that bu can be adjoined to is Pred'.
d. Bu can also be adjoined to a V' position.
We will provide evidence for each of the above features in what follows.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
3.3.1 Negation is Lower than TP and AspP
In this section, we will show that negation in Chinese should occur in a position
lower than TP and AspP.
Suppose that TP is projected in all languages. That negation occurs lower than
TP is supported by the fact of NPI (negative polarity items) licensing. It has been
proposed in Progovac (1988, p. 257) that the possibility of having NPIs in preverbal
subject position is related to negation placement: languages that allow preverbal
NPIs place negation under INFL, i.e. TP in the current theory, while in languages
where these elements are not allowed to occur in that position, negation is adjoined
to VP. Serbo-Croatian belongs to the former type. As shown in (5), classmate
negation licenses NPIs in both subject and object position.
(5) a. Milan ne voli niko-ga.
Milan not loves no-one-ACC
'Milan does not love anyone.'
b. Niko ne voli Milan-a.
no-one not loves Milan-ACC
'No one loves Milan.'
On the other hand, English belongs to the latter type. In English NPIs are
licensed only in the object position:
(6) a. John does not love anyone,
b. * Anyone does not love John.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
Consider the NPI renhe 'any' phrase in Chinese. An NPI has to be licensed as
shown in (7):
(7) *Ta shuo renhe hua.
he speak any word
'He wants to speak anything/He says anything/He will say anything.'
Sentences (8a) and (8b) show that post-subject negation can license an NPI in the
object position.
(8) a. Ta meifvou) shuo renhe hua.
he not(have) speak any word
'He didn't say anything.'
b. Tabu shuo renhe hua.
he not speak any word
'He does not want to say anything/He does not say anything/He will
not say anything.'
However, as shown in (9), negation that occurs in the post-subject position does
not license an NPI in the subject position.
(9) a. *Renhe ren meifyou) lai.
any person not(have) come
'No one came.'
b. *Renhe ren bu lai.
any person not come
'No one came.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
Thus, if the correlation between the licensing of a subject NPI and negation place
as established by Progovac is correct, it follows that negation in Chinese should not
occur in a position higher than TP (Under the assumption that the 'surface position'
of the subject NP is in the Spec of TP). This also conforms to Laka's (1990) Tense
C-Command Condition.
(10) TENSE C-COMMAND CONDITION
Tense must c-command at S-structure all propositional operators of the
clause.
Now let us move on to AspP. We assume AspP is headed by the sentence-final
particle le. The general impression that native speakers have toward the interaction
between meifyou). and -le or le is that meifyou) does not occur with either of them.
However, while it is true that meifyou) does not occur with the verbal -le, it can
occur with the sentence-final particle le. For example, both sentences in (11) contain
meifvou) and le.
(11) a. Ta houlai jiu meifyou) zai qu tushuguan le.
he later then not(have) again go library ASP
'He didn't go to library again later on.'
b. Women haojiu meifvou) jian mian le.
we longtime not(have) see face ASP
'We haven't seen each other for a long time already.'
Consider (11a). There are two possible structures for (11a) as given in (12). In
(12a) le has scope over meifyou) as represented in (2), whereas in (12b) meifyou)
has scope over le.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
(12) a. Ta houlai jiu I Tmei(you) zai qu txishuguan] le]
he later then not(have) again go library ASP
b. Ta houlai jiu fmeifvouHzai qu tushuguan le]]
he later then not(have) again go library ASP
However, the structure in (12b) is not a possible one because zai 'again' is not
compatible with the sentence-final le. As shown in (13), you 'again,' instead of zai
'again,' has to be used when le is present:
(13) a. *Ta zai qu tushuguan ]e.
he again go library ASP
'He went to the library again.'
b. Ta you qu tushuguan ]e.
he again go library ASP
'He went to the library again.'
Thus (12a) is the correct structure of the two in (12), and this shows that the
sentence-final ]e has scope over meifvou').
Similarly, bu should also occur within the scope of ]e, as indicated by the
structure below:
(14) a. Ta [[bu zai gei ta qian] le].
he not again give she money ASP
He no longer gives her money.’
b. Ta [[bu zai gan shuo da hua] le]..
he not again dare speak big word ASP
'He doesn't dare brag any more now.’
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Assume that le heads its own projection, i.e. AspP.2 1 Then it follows that the AspP
has to occur in a position higher than both bu and meifvou).
Now let us consider verbal aspect. Do we need to have an AspP that represents
verbal aspect? Our answer to this is no. The existence of such an AspP should not
distinguish bu from meifvou):
(15) a. Ta bu zuo-zhe.
he not sit-ASP
'He does not sit.'
b. Ta meifvou) zuo-zhe.
he not(have) sit-ASP
'He is not sitting'
The fact that negation has wide scope with respect to grammatical aspect can be
shown in the following sentences.
(16) a. Ta ai-zhe ta.
he love-ASP she
'He loves her.'
b. Ta bu ai-(*zhe) ta.
he not love-ASP she
'He does not love her.'
21 D. Xu (1997) divides sentence-final particles into two groups. The first group, which includes
ma 'Question Particle,' ne 'Response to Expectation,' ba 'Solicit Agreement,' ou 'Friendly Warning,'
and a/va 'Reduced Forcefulness (Li and Thompson 1981), should be analyzed as complementizers.
The remaining sentence-final particle le, namely le 'Current Relevant State,’ is generated under an
independent functional project, i.e. DeicticP. This projection has the function of linking
propositions and the events which are described in the sentence to the real world.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6 6
The examples in (16) show that ai 'love' can be followed by -zhe. but this is not
possible when bu is present. If -zhe has scope over bu ai, there is no reason why
(16b) is ungrammatical when -zhe is present. Just as -zhe can attach to ai to indicate
the state of loving, it should be able to have scope over bu ai to indicate the state of
not loving. Thus, -zhe does not have wide scope with respect to bu.
Similarly, the fact that (17b) is ungrammatical shows that mei(vou) cannot
negate ai. Thus, mei(vou) has to take wide scope with respect to -guo in (17a).
(17) a. Ta mei(vou') ai-guo ta.
he not(have) love-ASP she
’ He has never loved her.'
b. *Ta mei(voul ai ta.
he not(have) love she
'He didn't love her.'
Return to our examples in (15). Either bu or mei(vou') should take wide scope
with respect to the verbal aspect. If verbal aspect does project, it has to be within the
scope of negation, and whether this projection is present or not does not have an
effect on which negative marker is used. If this is on the right track, whether one
assumes AspP or not, verbal aspect is irrelevant in terms of negation.
3.3.2 NegP or not
In this section, we will first discuss the claim that mei(vou) marks clausal
negation, while bu does not. We will show that you in mei(vou) cannot be analyzed
as a verb.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
3.3.2.1 Clausal Negation vs. Constituent Negation
In recent years, a great deal of theoretical work has been devoted to negation in
various languages (See Pollock 1989, Ouhalla 1990, 1991, Laka 1990, Zanuttini
1991, Mitchell 1994, Potsdam 1997, Progovac 1988, among others). Since Pollock
(1989), many studies have claimed that clausal negation heads a NegP, while
constituent negation does not (Iatridou 1990). If we can prove that meifvou) marks
clausal negation, and bu does not, this will support the analysis that meifvou) heads a
NegP, while bu does not. This is exactly what we will undertake in this section.
First, let us consider the distinction between clausal negation and constituent
negation. Klima's (1964) definition of clausal negation relies on the convergence of
a set of diagnostic tests specific to English. For example, sentences with clausal
negation are those that permit positive rather than negative tag questions: 'He could
not have heard the news, could he?' In contrast, constituent negation does not affect
the polarity of the sentence: 'You can simply not leave, can't you?' Unfortunately,
these tests are specific to English and cannot be used in Chinese.
The unavailability of those tests in Chinese does not mean there is no way for us
to determine the scope of the two negative markers. There does exist a valid test that
we can use. In what follows, we shall use the 'Presupposition'-denials cases to
defend our position. The so-called 'Presupposition'-denying cases are exemplified in
(18):
(18) a. The King of France is not bald— (because) there is no King of
France.
b. I haven't given up smoking; I've never smoked.
c. I didn't regret telling her my secrets; I haven't told her anything.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
The interpretation of negation in the above cases would not generally be the one
that came to mind if the first negative sentence in each case were presented in
isolation. For example, without the second clause (18a) would usually be taken to be
predicating non-baldness of an existing King of France. The continuation in (18a)
makes the listener reprocess the first clause and cancel the presupposition that there
is a King of France.
The two readings in (18a), according to Horn (1989, p. 484), are the so-called
'internal negation' reading, and 'external negation' reading. They are represented in
the logical forms below:
(19) The King of France is not bald.
a. INTERNAL: 3x(Kx a V y(Ky — > y = x) a ~ B x
[= 'The King of France is not-bald']
b. EXTERNAL: ~3 x(Kx a V y(Ky --> y = x) a B x)
[= 'not (The king of France is bald)']
Crucially, the two readings differ in presupposition. The internal reading, as
represented in (19a), is presuppositional, while the external one, as indicated in
(19b), is not. The internal negation is either false or without truth value if France is a
republic, whereas the external negation is true in the same circumstances. This
function of negation, according to Horn, is metalinguistic (as opposed to truth-
functional negation), and is characterized as having fall-rise intonation contour and a
rectification clause.2 2 For Horn (1989, p. 363), '[metalinguistic negation is] a device
for objecting to a previous utterance on any grounds whatever, including the
22 According to Horn, the use of the internal negation is truth-functional in the sense that it
changes a proposition 'p' into a proposition '~p.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
conventional or conversational implicata it potentially induces, its morphology, its
style or register, or its phonetic realization.'
For our purpose here, it is sufficient to point out that the negation form that
cancels presuppositions in English is clausal negation (Carston 1998). Clausal
negation in English is typically affixed to the first auxiliary verb and pronounced
[nt], as in ( 18b) and (18c) above, although it may also occur as the free morpheme
pronounced [not], as in (18a). Constituent negation, in contrast, necessarily
maintains presuppositions. Compare (20) with (18a).2 3
(20) #The King of France could have not heard the news— (because) there
is no King of France.
'Not' in (20) is an instance of constituent negation because it does not follow the first
auxiliary 'could.' The fact that (20) is odd shows that constituent negation cannot
cancel the presupposition that the King of France exists.
With this in mind, let us consider the following Chinese examples.
(21) a. Xianren Faguo Guowang meifvou) juan na-bi qian— yinwei
current France King not(have) donate that-CL money because
xianzai Faguo genben jiu mei(you) guowang
now France after: all then not(have) king
'The present King of France didn't donate that money— because there
is no King in France now.'
23 We follow Horn (1989) in using '#' to signify pragmatic anomaly.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
b. Wo meifvou') jie na-zhong yan; wo conglai mei(you) xi-guo
I not(have) quit: smoke that-CL cigarette I ever not(have) smoke-ASP
yan.
cigarette
I haven't given up smoking that kind of cigarette; I've never smoked.'
c. Wo meifvou) houhui gaosu-guo ta wo de mimi; wo shenme ye
I not(have) regret tell-ASP she I DE secret I what also not(have)
mei(you) gen ta shuo.
not(have) with she say
' I didn't regret that I told her my secrets; I haven't told her anything.'
d. Ta mama mei(you) zancheng zhe-jian shi— yinwei ta mama zao
he mother not(have) approve this-CL matter because he mother early
jiu guoshi le.
then die ASP
'His mother didn't approve this— because his mother died long time
ago.'
Sentences in (21) show that meifvoul in Chinese can be used to deny the
presuppositions that are associated with those sentences. Therefore, as in the English
cases, meifvoul should mark clausal negation.2 4
24 Note that clausal negation does not have to license a negative polarity item (NPI) that is located
in a subject position. As shown in (i), the negative polarity items cannot be licensed by 'not.'
(i) a. * Anybody didn't come.
b- *Renhe ren roeityou- ) lai.
any person not(have) come
'Anyone didn't come.'
See Uribe-Echevarria (1994) for arguments that NPI licensing takes place at LF, and that LF c-
command of the NPI by Neg is a necessary condition for licensing.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Now let us consider bu. There is a contrast between the sentences with meifvou)
in (21), and the sentences with bu in (22). The forme are felicitous, whereas the
latter are not.2 5
(22) a. #Xianren Faguo Guowang bu qingchu zhe-jian shi— yinwei
current France King not clear this-CL matter because
xianzai Faguo genben jiu mei(you) guowang.
now France at: all then not(have) king
'The present King of France is not clear about this matter because
there is no King in France now.'
Meifvou). however, is different from 'not' in English in terms of scope. Consider the examples
in (ii). While the clausal negation can take scope over the subject, meifvou) cannot.
(ii) a. All that glitters isn't gold.
b. Mei-ge nanhai dou meifvou) xizao.
every-CL boy all not(have) bathe
'Everyone didn't bathe.'
However, this is not surprising because in Chinese, the scope requirement is stricter than in English.
The following condition is proposed by C.-T. Huang (1982, p. 137) for Chinese:
(iii) The Hierarchical Condition
If a quantificational or logical expression A c-commands another quantificational or logical
expression B at SS, then A also c-commands B at LF.
Given (iii), meifvou) in (iib) cannot have scope over the universal quantifier mei-ge nanhai 'every
boy' at LF because it does not have scope over the quantifier at SS.
25 For some speakers, there is no contrast between bu and meifvou) as discussed in the text. Some
accept both, while others reject both. For the second kind of speaker, we surmise that subjects for
them are implicit topics, and thus the existence of the entity denoted by the subject is presupposed
when the sentence is not a generic one. The first type of speaker does not perceive any
contradiction. Y. Yuan (2000) is such a speaker. He argues against the analysis that presupposition
can be negated. Thus, for him, the presupposition is not denied given the first clause. The
contradiction is resolved because the presupposition is denied as a focus given the second clause.
For this kind of speaker, the second clause is required. If the first clause is presented without the
second clause, the presupposition associated with the first clause can never be canceled. Thus, it is
possible that the first kind of speaker also considers the subject NP to be a topic just like the second
kind of speaker.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
b. #Wo bu jie na-zhong yan; wo conglai mei(you) xi-guo
I not quit: smoke that-CL cigarette I ever not(have) smoke-ASP
xianzai
cigarette
'I don't want to quit smoking that kind of cigarette because I have
never smoked.'
c. #Wo bu houhui gaosu-guo ta wo de mimi; wo shenme ye mei(you)
I not regret tell-ASP she I DE secret I what also not(have)
gen ta shuo.
with she say
' I didn't regret telling her my secrets; I haven't told her anything.'
d. #Ta mama bu zancheng zhe-jian shi— yinwei ta mama zao jiu
he mother not approve this-CL matter because he mother early
guoshi le.
then die ASP
'His mother did not approve this— because his mother die long time
ago.'
Sentences (22) thus show that bu should not be considered to be a marker of clausal
negation. This supports the analysis that meifvou) heads a NegP, while bu does not.
3.3.2.2 You in Meifvou) is not a Verb
Note that the negative marker meifvou) or you in meifvou) cannot be analyzed as
a verb. Compare the two sentences in (23). Sentence (23a) is a sentence negated by
meifvou). while (23b) is one with the possessive verb you 'have' negated by mei.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
There is a contrast between them— the former but not the latter is felicitous.
(23) a. Xianren Faguo Guowang meifvou) juan na-bi
Faguo current France King not(have) donate that-CL
qian— yinwei xianzai genben jiu mei(you) guowang
money-because now France after: all then not(have) king
'The present King of France didn't donate that money— because there
is no King in France now.'
b. #Xianren Faguo Guowang mei (you) qian— yinwei xianzai Faguo
current France king not have money because now France
genben jiu mei(you) guowang
after: all then not(have) king
, 'The present king of France doesn't have money— because there is no
King in France now.'
The contrast in (23) shows that you in the negation form meifvou) should not be
taken to be the possessive verb you 'have.' Thus you in meifvou) cannot be analyzed
as a verb as Hashimoto (1971) and S.-H. Teng (1973b) claim. Indeed, if you in
mei(vou) can be considered to be a verb, there is no reason why guvi 'deliberately'
can modify meifvou) in (24a) but not mei (you) in (24b).
(24) a. Ta guyi meifvou) qu kan ta.
he deliberately not(have) go see she
'He didn't go to see her deliberately.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
b. *Ta guvi mei (you) pengyou.
he deliberately have friend
'He does not have friends deliberately.'
On the other hand, there is evidence suggesting that the possessive meifvou) is a
verb just like the possessive you 'have' because the former can be followed by the
perfective -le just like the latter. Consider the following examples taken from X. Liu
(1988, p. 322).
(25) a. You-le xifu, wang-le niang.
have-ASP wife forget-ASP mother
'One forgets one's mother, when one has a wife.'
b. Mei-le shei, diqiu ye zhaoyang zhuan.
not.have-ASP who earth also the:same move
'The earth moves the same even when someone is missing.'
In summary, the negative counterpart of the possessive you 'have' should be
treated as a verb just like the possessive you 'have.' The contrast between the
negative marker meifvou) and the possessive meifvou) in (23), however, indicates
that negative marker meifvou) cannot not be a verb. On the other hand, the fact that
meifvou) marks clausal negation and bu does not supports the different analyses of
the two negative markers: meifvou) heads a NegP, while bu does not.
3.3.3 PredP vs. VP
In this section we will show that NegP takes a PredP, and bu is adjoined to a
position as high as Pred'. Bowers (1993) has shown that predication involves
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
syntactic PredPs. Many, following Bowers' work, have assumed the existence of a
PredP. In particular, C.-C. Tang (1990) argues for the existence of PredP in Chinese.
She proposes a theory of adjunct licensing, which says that the distribution of
adjuncts is dependent on the possible domains of modification of adjuncts. Under
this licensing theory, reason and conditional clauses are generated under the
projection of C, sentential adverbs under I, temporal and locative expressions under I
and Pred, manner adverbs under Pr, duration and frequency phrases under V, and
different PP's under different heads.
Consider the two examples in (26). The p category in both of the two sentences is
supposed to be PredP, which captures the similarity between the two. The
representation of (26a) is given in (27).
(26) a. I consider [p John a fool],
b. John] seems [p t] sick].
(27)
PredP
NP Pred'
Pred NP
I [+tense] consider John e a fool
In analyzing negation, do we have evidence suggesting that PredP exists? In
what follows, we will present VP ellipsis cases to support this line of analyses.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
Consider the VP ellipsis cases in (28)-(31).
(28) a. Zhangsan mai-le na-ben shu, Lisi meivou.2 6
Zhangsan buy-ASP that-CL book Lisi not. have
'Zhangsan bought that book, (but) Lisi didn't.'
b. Zhangsan mei(you) kan na-ben shu, Lisi ye meivou.
Zhangsan not(have) read that-CL book Lisi also not.have
'Zhangsan didn't read that book, and Lisi didn't either.'
(29) A: Ni zhen nianqing!
you really young
'You look really young!'
B: Bu (nianqing) le.2 7 Haizi dou ji-ge le.
not young ASP child already how:many-CL ASP
'Not any more. See how many children I have already.'
(30) A: Ni xianzai hai qu nar ma?
you now still go there PRT
'Do you still go there now?'
26 In licensing VP ellipsis, meivou cannot be replaced by its variant mei:
(i) a. Zhangsan mai-le na-ben shu, Lisi meivou/*mei.
Zhangsan buy-ASP that-CL book Lisi not.have/not
'Zhangsan bought that book, (butt) Lisi didn't.'
b. Ta mei(you) kan na-ben shu, wo ye meivou/*mei.
he not(have) read that-CL book I also not.have/not
'He didn't read that book, and I didn't either.'
27 It has been noted in Chinese literature that bu cannot occur freely except when it is used as 'no':
Bu. ta mei lai ' No. he didn't com e.' See L.-S. Yang (1971) and C.-T. Huang (1988), among others.
However, as shown in the text, we do find acceptable examples of VP ellipsis with bu.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
B: Bu (qu nar) le.
not go there ASP
'Not any more.'
It is clear that VP ellipsis does not affect any phrase smaller than a VP.2 8 Thus
the data in (29) and (30) suggests that this use ofbu has to be higher than VP. Now
the question is how the empty VP in those grammatical cases is licensed. Note that
there is a clear contrast between the bu sentences in (29) and (30) above, and those in
(32) below. The first one is taken from C.-T. Huang (1988, p. 288).
(32) a. Zhangsan xihuan zhe-ben shu, Lisi bu xihuan/*[vp e].
Zhangsan like this-CL book Lisi not like
'Zhangsan likes this book, (but) Lisi does not.'
28 Consider the examples of VP ellipsis (Lightfoot 2000):
(i) a. Max left on Wednesday but Mary didn't [yp e].
b. *Max left for Rio but Mary didn't [\rp e for Naples].
c. Max left for Rio, although Mary didn't [yp e].
d. Although Max couldn't [yp e], Mary was able to leave for Rio,
e. Susan went to Rio. Yes, but Jane didn't [yp e].
f. The man who speaks French knows DP [the woman who doesn't [yp e].
g.Don't ty p e ].
VP ellipsis apply sentence-finally, as in (ia), and it cannot apply to anything smaller than a full VP
(ib). It may occur in a subordinate clause (ic), the elided VP may precede its antecedent (id), it may
occur across sentence-boundaries (ie), and within complex NPs (if). The elided VP may even have a
non-overt antecedent (ig).
Lobeck (1995) identifies the following properties of VP ellipsis:
(ii) a. VP ellipsis may be clause-final
b. VP ellipsis may occur in a subordinate or coordinate clause
c. VP ellipsis may precede its antecedent
d. VP ellipsis is a phrase
e. VP ellipsis may occur across a sentence-boundary
f. VP ellipsis may violate the Complex NP constraint
g. VP ellipsis is introduced by a filled INFL.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
b. Zhe-zhang zhuozi da, na-zhang bu da/*[yp e].
this-CL table big that-CL not big
'This table is big, (but) that one is not.'
The fact that the former sentence has the sentence-final particle le, which is
located in Asp, while the latter does not have any INFL element might lead one to
assume that the unfilled INFL in (32b) contributes somehow to the sentence's
ungrammaticality. Perhaps, for example, the ungrammaticality is due to the
violation of some version of ECP (cf. Lobeck 1995). However, the fact that both VP
ellipsis cases in (33) are quite acceptable indicates that filled INFL might not be
relevant to the ungrammaticality of (32b).
(33) a. Dajia dou yiwei Zhangsan hen kuaile, keshi ta shuo ta bu
everybody all think Zhangsan very happy but he say he not
kuaile/? [yp e].
happy
'Everybody thought Zhangsan was happy, but he said he was not.'
b. Zhangsan keyi qu, keshi ta pian bu qu/[yp e].
Zhangsan can go but he just not go
'Zhangsan can go, but he just don't want to.'
Closely comparing the three sets of data, we find the crucial factor is the focus.
For the grammatical sentences in (29), (30) and (33), the negative marker bu is the
focus element, while in the ungrammatical sentences in (32), the subject of the bu
clause is the focus element. This factor does not seem to matter in the meivou cases,
as shown in (28).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
The relevance of focus in bu cases points us to Winkler's (2000) analysis of VP
ellipsis.2 9 Winkler proposes that in the unmarked case VP ellipsis is characterized
by pitch accent assigned to the negative/affirmative term, hence called polarity
focus, which licenses VP ellipsis at PF. In other words, the function of VP ellipsis is
not to signal contrastivity on the subject as suggested by Rooth (1992) (also
Tomioka 1995 and Fox 1998), but to mark an event of a similar type as D(iscourse)-
linked.
Winkler proposes a single PF economy principle, Silent Copy, as stated in (34).
Silent copy favors leaving a syntactic copy unpronounced if focus is assigned to the
head of the sentence internal polarity phrase (PolPi). The execution of Silent VP
Copy is given in (35).
(34) Silent Copy:
Do not pronounce copies.
(35) Execution of Silent VP Copy:
Silent Copy applies iff (i) The copy is coherently [-F];
(ii) There is an antecedent VP of the same
type;
(iii) Polf0 is [+F];
(In all other cases, the copy must be pronounced but may be partially
deaccented.)
29 There are two different accounts of VP ellipses. One is the proform account (Hardt 1993,
Lobeck 1995), and the other is the PF-deletion account (Chomsky and Lasnik 1993, Tancredi 1992,
among others).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
As shown in (35iii), Winkler assumes a PolPi, which incorporates the
negative/affirmative feature. It can license a VP ellipsis if the PolPl is marked with
the [+F] feature, which is typically realized by a pitch accent in English.3 0 Thus, it
follows from (35iii) that (36b), (37b), and (37c), as opposed to (36a) and (37a), are
ruled out because Pol0 is not focused and is not realized with a pitch accent on the
auxiliary.
(36) a. Ben said that he has read The MP, but he HASN'T,
b. *Ben said that he has read The MP, but he hasn't.
(37) a. Ben said that he hasn't read The MP, but he HAS.
b. *Ben said that he hasn't read The MP, but he has.
c. *Ben said that he hasn't read The MP, but he's.
The sentence in (38) is also correctly ruled in by (35iii):
(38) Jan said that he has read Dostoyevsky's Idiot, but he's NOT.
In (38), the auxiliary is contracted, but the licensing element for the VP ellipsis is
the negation, which is assigned [+F], here realized by a pitch on 'not.'
30 It is proposed that negation and (emphatic) affirmation are the two values of one and the same
phrase: a Polarity Phrase (Laka 1990). Such a view, however, is challenged by Cinque (1999, p.
127). He points out that both negation and (emphatic) affirmation appear to be marked values. They
can (marginally) co-occur in a fixed relative order (in Italian), with emphatic affirmation (si)
preceding negation finical:
(i) a. (?) Gianni non ci ha si mica detto tutto (ma ce lo ha lasciato capire).
'G. not us has yes not told everything (but he has let us understand it)'
b. *Gianni non ci ha mica si detto tutto (ma ce lo ha lasciato capire).
Cinque (1999, p. 127) suggests the existence of two separate projections for negation and
(emphatic) affirmation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
Winkler claims that (35iii) is active even in Rooth’ s symmetric focus and
deaccentuation cases as given in (39):
(39) A: Whose coach thinks he has a chance?
B: [JOHN'sjp coach thinks he has a chance, and [BILL's]f coach does
too.
Before we can discuss (39), consider the following example first. It is 'John' and not
the auxiliary 'do' that is stressed or emphatic in (40) (William 1977, p. 107):
(40) A: Who left?
B: JOHN did.
Winkler claims that utterances like B in (40), in which the auxiliary is deaccented,
are typically confined to wh-question-answer sequences, which require a completive
focus on the subject. Following Drubig (1998, p. 29), she considers wh-questions to
be a 'special focusing device that sets up the local (temporary) focus-background
structure by specifying the constituent that must be focused in the answer.' Given
this, answers to wh-questions like A in (40) show a focus-background structure that
overrides the intonational realization of focus on the polarity item. Despite this,
Winkler claims that the [+F] feature on polarity is still responsible for the non-
contractability of the auxiliary in sequences, as given in the B of (41).
(41) A: Who's left?
B: * JOHN'S.
B': JOHN probably HAS.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
When the subject and the auxiliary are separated as in the B' of (41), it is clear to see
that both are prosodically marked by a pitch accent. The subject in the answer is a
completive focus, while the accent on the auxiliary licenses VP ellipsis. Similarly,
according to Winkler, polarity focus is also active in cases like B of (39) since it is
an answer to a wh-question.
Now consider the Chinese cases. As we have noted above, meivou does not have
to be focused in order to license VP ellipsis. We assume that either the NegP can
serve the same function as PolPi, or our NegP may be PolPi in a more general
sense.
Now consider the bu cases. The sentence with VP ellipsis in (33a) is perfect
with the presence of a minimizer vi-dian 'a little' plus ve/dou 'also/all.'
(42) Dajia dou yiwei ta hen kuaile, keshi ta shuo ta vi-dian ve/dou bu
everybody all think he very happy but he say he one-bit also/all not
kuaile/[vp e].
happy
'Everybody thought he was happy, but he said he was not at all.'
As shown in (43), the minimizer is a negative polarity item because it must be
licensed by negation.
(43) Ta vi-dian ve/dou *(bu) kuaile.
he one-bit also/all not happy
'He is not happy at all.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
One might argue that bu also heads a PolPi. However, if this were the case, we
will not be able to distinguish the dissimilar behaviors of bu and meivou in VP
ellipsis cases. Thus in the most economical analysis, whether or not VP ellipsis can
be licensed by bu depends on the focus status of bu. In other words, bu can license
VP ellipsis only if it is focused. If our analysis is correct, what is crucial in licensing
a VP ellipsis in bu cases is focus. We will follow Lee and Pan (1999) in assuming
that bu is a focus-sensitive operator (cf. Rooth 1985). When there is a focus in the
sentence, a focus-sensitive operator will induce a tripartite structure including the
operator, the background and the focus. Whether a null VP can be licensed by bu
depends on whether bu can carry the [+F] feature. In the grammatical cases, bu itself
is marked with [+F]. This will make the null VP become part of the background, and
will license VP ellipsis.
Considering the bu and meivou cases, we can revise (35) as follows:
(44) Execution of Silent VP Copy:
Silent Copy applies iff (i) The copy is coherently [-F];
(ii) There is an antecedent VP of the same
type;
(iii) The negative/affirmative term is
projected as PolPi or is [+F].
(In all other cases, the copy must be pronounced but may be partially
deaccented.)
Alternatively, one may say that meivou in Chinese is always [+F], However, this
is not a viable analysis because it is not clear why this has to be the case.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
In this section, we have presented VP ellipsis cases to show that both bu and
meifvou) must be higher than VP. Furthermore, we have shown that while meifvou)
heads a NegP, which licenses a null VP when it is focused, bu cannot head a NegP as
meifvou) can. In bu cases, VP ellipsis is licensed only when bu is focused. This
evidence supports our analysis, in which bu does not head a NegP, and is adjoined to
a category that is higher than VP, i.e. Pred'.
3.3.4 Adjunction to V'
In the above section, we argued that bu can adjoin to a position as high as Pred'.
In this section, we will use the data involving negative derived nominals to show that
bu can occur in a position as low as V'. Consider the sentences in (45), and note the
manner in which they are negated in (46) and (47).
(45) a. Ta dui wo hen xinren.
he to I very trust
'He trusts me very much.'
b. Ta dui zhe-iian shi hen zaihu.
he to this-CL matter very care
'He cares about this matter very much.'
(46) a. Ta dui wo bu xinren.
he to I not trust
'He does not trust me.'
b. *Ta bu dui wo xinren.
he not to I trust
'He does not trust me.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
(47) a. Ta dui zhe-zhong shi bu zaihu.
he to this-CL matter not care
'He does not care for this kind of thing.'
b. *Ta bu dui zhe-zhong shi zaihu.
he not to this-CL matter care
'He does not care this kind of thing.'
According to J. Fu (1994), the projection of a dui phrase, i.e. a PP, must be
generated within a VP. In particular, it is adjoined to a V'. J. Fu studies derived
process nominals as the underlined word in (48).
(48) ta dui zhe-jian shi de diaocha
he to this-CL matter DE investigation
'his investigation of this matter'
J. Fu shows that Chinese process nominals, but not ordinary nouns, have a mixture
of nominal and verbal properties. First, they exhibit both nominal and verbal
selectional properties. Second, they exhibit both nominal and verbal structure. For
example, they have both nominal and verbal modification and word order. J. Fu
proposes an underlying VP for the verbal properties. A process nominal such as
diaocha in (48) is derived from an underlying VP, and the V ends up in the N
position as a result of V-to-N raising. The relevant structure is given in (49).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 6
(49)
A / \
N P X M *
The structure in (49) captures the fact that a dui phrase can occur in a derived
nominal as shown in (48), and in a YP as in (50a), but not in an underived nominal
as in (50b):
(50) a. Ta dui zhe-jian shi diaocha-guo.
he to this-CL matter investigate-ASP
'He has investigated that matter.'
b. Ta guanyu/*dui Lisi de zhuanji hen youyisi.
he about to Lisi DE biography very interesting
'His biography about Lisi is very interesting.'
The structure in (49) also captures the fact that IP adjuncts, as opposed to VP
adjuncts, do not occur in a derived nominal. Fu assumes that VP adjuncts occur
adjoined to VP or V', while IP adjuncts occur adjoined to IP or I'. As shown in (51),
IP adjuncts occur before the subject and an auxiliary verb, and VP adjuncts occur
between an auxiliary verb and the verb. VP adjuncts include manner adverbs,
temporal adverbs, and various PPs. IP adjuncts include sentence adverbials and
temporal phrases, instrumental PPs and locative PPs. The last three also occur as VP
adjuncts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
(51)
IP
IP-adjuncts
AUX VP
/ \
VP-adjuncts
Let us consider again our examples in (46) and (47). Both verbs can form
derived nominals:
he to I DE trust
'his trust of me'
b. ta dui zhe-jian shi de zaihu
he to this-CL matter DE care
'his concern about this matter'
Furthermore, both verbs can form negative derived nominals:
(53) a. ta dui wo de bu-xinren
(52) a. ta dui wo de xinren
he to I DE not-trust
'his being trustless of me'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 8
b. ta dui zhe-jian shi de bu-zaihu
he to this-CL matter DE not-care
'his being careless toward this matter'
If J. Fu's V-to-N analysis of derived nominals is correct, then negative derived
nominals must be considered as having raising from a lower position to N. Given
the fact that bu in those cases of derived nominals occurs below a dui phrase, it has
to be adjoined to V or to a position lower than a V'. Note that it cannot be adjoined
to V because degree adverbs such as hen 'very' occur between bu and the verb:
(54) a. Ta dui wo bu hen xinren.
he to I not very trust
'He does not trust me very much.'
b. Ta dui zhe-jian shi bu hen zaihu.
he to this-CL matter not very care
'He does not care about this matter very much.'
Thus, bu must adjoin to V' rather than to V. The question is why the
combination moves as a unit:
(55) a. *ta dui wo bu de xinren
he to I not DE trust
'his being trustless toward me'
b. *ta dui zhe-jian shi bu de zaihu
he to this-CL matter not DE care
'his being careless toward this matter'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
We propose that a reanalysis has incorporated bu into the verb. This reanalysis is
forced when raising takes place. Assuming bu is adjoined to V', we predict that VP
ellipsis is not possible in this case because it does not delete anything smaller than a
VP. The prediction is borne out as shown in (33a) and (42), repeated here.
(56) a. Dajia dou shuo ta dui dianying hen liaojie, keshi ta shuo ta bu
everybody all say he toward movie very understand but he say he not
liaojie/? [vp e].
understand
'Everybody said he was familiar with movies, but he said he was not.'
b. Dajia dou shuo ta dui dianying hen liaojie, keshi ta shuo ta vi-dian
everybody all say he toward movie very understand but he say one-bit
ve/dou bu liaojie/[yp e].
also/all not understand
'Everybody said he was familiar with movies, but he said he was not
at all.'
When the dm 'for' phrase is present, the sentences with VP ellipsis become
ungrammatical:
(57) a. Dajia dou shuo ta dui dianying hen liaojie, keshi ta shuo ta
everybody all say he toward movie very understand but he say he
dui dianying bu liaojie/* [yp e],
toward movie not understand
'Everybody said he is familiar with movies, but he said he is not.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
b. Dajia dou shuo ta dui dianying hen liaojie, keshi ta shuo ta
everybody all say he toward movie very understand but he say he
dui dianying vi-dian ve/dou bu liaojie/* [yp e].
toward movie one-bit also/all not understand
'Everybody said he is familiar with movies, but he said he is not at
all.’
The presence of the dui phrase forces bu to take a lower position in the tree
structure and makes VP ellipsis impossible.
We have argued above that bu can adjoin to V'. This use of bu should be
separated from the cases in which bu is part of a lexical word. For example,
(58) a. Ta dui wo bucuo.
he to I not:bad
'He is good to me.'
b. Ta dui wo bunaifan.
he to I impatient
'He is impatient to me.'
The adjectives bucuo and bunaifan in the above examples should be treated as
words because, unlike verbs such as xinren 'trust' and zaihu 'care,' the non-negation
morphemes, i.e. cuo and naifan. are not words:
(59) a. *Ta dui wo hen cuo.
he to I very bad
'He is bad to me.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
b. *Ta dui wo hen naifan.
he to I very patient
'He is very patient to me.'
Thus bu in this case should be considered a subpart of a lexical word.
We have shown that bu can adjoin to Pred' in the section above, and bu can be
adjoined to V' in this section. This analysis predicts that one should be able to iterate
bu. This prediction is borne out:
(60) Ta cong bu zheme wan hai bu hui jia.
he ever not this late still not return home
'It is never the case that he still does not come home when it is so late.'
3.3.5 Summaries
In summary, in this section we have provided evidence for our syntactic analysis
of the negative markers. First, we show that negation has narrow scope with respect
to TP and AspP. Second, the contrast between clausal negation and non-clausal
negation leads support to the NegP analysis for meifvou) as opposed to bu. Third,
we have used the data of VP ellipsis to show that an analysis assuming PredP is
better than a bare VP analysis. Mei(vou) is supposed to take PredP, whereas bu can
be adjoined to a position as high as Pred'. Finally, using the data related to derived
process nominals, we were able to show that bu can occur in a position as low as V'.
3.4 Conclusions
In this chapter, we propose that meifvoul is generated in Neg under NegP, which
occurs between AspP and PredP. The former is headed by the sentence-final ]e, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
the latter indicates predication. On the other hand, bu is argued to be adjoined to
PredP' or V'. In the next chapter, we will discuss negative particle questions and A-
not-A questions, for which our analysis of negation plays an important role.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
CHAPTER 4
NEGATIVE PARTICLE QUESTIONS AND A-NOT-A QUESTIONS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter concerns two types of questions. The first one is the well-known A-
not-A question, as in (l)-(3) below.
(1) a. Ni xithuanVbu-xihuan ta?
you like-not-like he
'Do you like him?'
b. Ni xihuan ta bu xihuan ta?
you like he not like he
'Do you like him?'
(2) Ta chang-bu-chang lai?
he often-not-often come
'Does he come often?'
(3) Ta shi-bu-shi lai le?
he be-not-be come ASP
'Is he here?'
An A-not-A question is constituted by two parts: a positive part and a negative
part. The negation can be either bu or mei. The repeated part can be part of a verb, a
verb, a verb-like adverb, or the whole VP (C.-T. Huang 1982). Sentence (la)
illustrates the type of A-not-A question that either repeats the verb or part of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
verb, while sentence (lb) has the whole VP repeated. The A-not-A question in (2)
repeats the adverb. However, not all adverbs can form an A-not-A question:
(4) *Ta guyi-bu-guyi qu?
he deliberately-not-deliberately go
'Did he not go deliberately?'
Moreover, an A-not-A question be formed by a copula as shown in (3).
The second type of question contains a negative particle that occurs at the end of
a sentence. This is the so-called negative particle question. For example,
(5) a. Ta mai-le na-ben shu meivou?
he buy-ASP that-CL book not.have
'Did he buy that book?'
b. Ta mei(vou') mai na-ben shu.
he not(have) buy that-CL book
’ He didn't buy that book.'
The negative question particle in (5a) occurs at the end of sentence, in contrast with
the typical preverbal position of a negation marker, as given in (5b). We will use
NEG-PRTs to refer to the negative question particles, and NEG-PRT-Q (negative
particle question) to refer to this type of question.
An NEG-PRT-Q is generally believed to be a particular type of yes-no
construction. In fact, the typical yes-no question marker ma in Mandarin is claimed
to be etymologically related to a negated modal verb (W. Li 1958, p. 45):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
(6) Ni mai-le na-ben shu ma?
you buy-ASP that-CL book PRT
'Did you buy that book?'
A question that immediately arises is whether the NEG-PRT occurs in the same
position with other sentence-final particles. A recent study of NEG-PRT-Qs in
generative grammar done by Cheng, Huang and Tang (1997) (CH&T), considers
NEG-PRT-Qs to be a type of yes/no question, and argues that NEG-PRT-Qs in
Mandarin Chinese are formed by the movement of a negation marker from its
preverbal position to the sentence-final position. Following CH&T, N. Zhang (1997)
keeps the essence of the raising analysis, and argues that raising is for the checking
of the strong [Q] feature of C in line with feature checking theory in the Minimalist
Program (Chomsky 1995).
As far as A-not-A questions are concerned, it is first established by C.-T. Huang
(1982) that A-not-A questions pattern like wh-questions. In this chapter, we will
show that NEG-PRT-Qs also pattern like wh-questions. We propose a unified
analysis for both NEG-PRT-Qs and A-not-A questions. Adopting Aoun and Li
(1993), the unified analysis assumes the existence of a QP (question phrase), and an
operator in the Spec of QP. Specifically, we argue against CH&T’ s raising analysis
for NEG-PRT-Qs in Mandarin Chinese.
This chapter is organized as follows. Section 4.2 discusses the problems with
CH&T's analysis of NEG-PRT-Qs. The same criticism is carried over to N. Zhang's
(1997) analysis. Section 4.3 discusses two possible analyses. It is followed by a
unified analysis of A-not-A questions and NEG-PRT-Qs in Section 4.4. Section 4.5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
discusses bu as a Neg-PRT in Standard Mandarin and in other varieties of Mandarin.
Section 4.6 concludes the chapter.
4.2 Problems with Previous Analyses
It is reported in Cheng, Huang and Tang (CH&T)) (1997) that both negation
markers meivou and bu in Mandarin Chinese can function as NEG-PRTs, as shown
in (7):
(7) a. Ta kan-le na-ben shu meivou? (=(5a))
he read-ASP that-CL book not.have
’ Did he read the book?'
b. *Ta chang qu bu?
he often not
'Does he go often?'
Sentence (7b), however, is not Standard Mandarin. We will discuss this in Section
4.5.
CH&T (1997) propose that NEG-PRT-Qs are formed by the movement of a
negation marker from its preverbal position to the sentence-final position. They
claim that their analysis captures the observation that the use of the two NEG-PRTs
respects the typical agreement requirement between negation and aspect/verb.
Consider the examples in (8) and (9).
(8) Ta qu-guo meivou/*bu?
he go-ASP not.have/not
'Has he been (there)?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
(9) T a meifyouV*bu qu-guo.
he not(have)/not go-ASP
'He has not been (there).'
This requirement, as we have characterized in Chapter 2, is that meifvou) denies the
existence of a dynamic situation, while bu denies a non-dynamic situation.
CH&T (1997) propose that both NEG-PRTs, bu and meifvou). raise from their
preverbal position to the sentence-final position.
This analysis, however, is problematic in many ways. First, when the sentence-
final te is present, the agreement requirement between negation and verb/aspect is
not directly observable. Consider the examples in (10). While a modal such as hui
'can' cannot be negated by mei(vou). it can form a NEG-PRT-Q with meifvou).
(10) a. Ta hui youyong le meivou?
he can swim ASP not.have
'Can he swim?'
b. Ta bu/*meifvou) hui youyong.
he not/not(have) can swim
'He cannot swim.'
Meivou in (10a) cannot move from its negation position because it cannot be
base-generated there as shown in (10b). This poses a problem for CH&T's raising
analysis.
In addition, the raising analysis faces another problem. Consider the contrast in
(11).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
(11) a. Ta kan-le na-ben shu meivou? (=(5a))
he read-ASP that-CL book not.have
'Did he read that book?'
b. *Ta meifvou) kan-le na-ben shu.
he not(have) read-ASP that-CL book
'He didn't read that book.'
Sentences (11) show that while meivou cannot negate a sentence with the perfective
-le, it can occur as a NEG-PRT when -le is present. If meivou raises from its
negation position as claimed by CH&T, then an explanation is needed as to why
meivou can occur with -]e in NEG-PRT-Qs, but not in regular negative sentences.
Thus, the raising analysis appears problematic.
More serious problems with CH&T's analysis concern the position of NEG-
PRTs. CH&T claim that NEG-PRTs are in a C° position on par with sentence-final
question particles such as ne and ma. which are claimed to occur in a C° position by
C.-C. Tang (1990). If what CH&T claim were true, NEG-PRTs should not occur
with sentential particles. Indeed, this is what CH&T claim in their paper. CH&T
claim that both sentences in (13) are ungrammatical.3 1
3 1 CH&T (1997) argue against deriving a NEG-PRT-Q from other A-not-A questions based on
two pieces of evidence. First, they claim that NEG-PRTs cannot occur with ne, while other A-not-A
questions can have ng.
(i) a. Ta qu-bu-qu ne?
he go-not-go PRT
'Does he go?'
b. Ta xihuan ni bu xihuan ni ne?
he like you not like you PRT
'Does he like you?'
However, as we have shown in the text, ne can occur in a NEG-PRT-Q. Therefore, this argument
cannot be maintained. Second, they claim that non-temporal/locative preverbal adjuncts can appear
in NEG-PRT-Qs (ii) but not in A-not-A questions (iii).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
(12) a. *Ta qu bu ne?
he go not PRT
'Is he going?'
b. Ta you qian meivou ne?
he have money not.have PRT
'Does he have money?'
However, while sentence (12a) is indeed unacceptable, this is not the case with
(12b). Meivou in (12b) is the negation of the possessive verb you 'have.' The
negative marker meifvou') can also occur with ne:
(13) Ni gei-le ta qian meivou ne?
you give-ASP he money not.have PRT
'Did you give him money?'
(ii) Ta viiing kan-wan shu meivou?
he already read-finish book nothave
'Did he already finish reading the book?'
(iii) a. *Ta viiing you-meivou kan-wan na-ben shu?
he already have-not.have read-finish that-CL book
'Did he already finish reading that book?'
b. *Ta vijing kan-wan na-ben shu meifvou) kan-wan?
he already read-finish that-CL book not(have) read-finish
'Did he already finish reading the book?'
This, however, does not necessarily constitute a valid argument against proposing the same
derivation for NEG-PRT-Qs and A-not-A questions. First, (iiia) might be unacceptable because of
something else. It might be the case that viiing 'already' cannot modify an A-not-A form. As shown
in (iv), viiing also cannot modify an A-not-A form that contains bu.
(iv) *Ta vijing qu-bu-qu?
he already go-not-go
'Has he already go?'
Second, as we have noted in Chapter 1, according to J. Shao (1996, p. 111), (iii) is a pattern that is
rarely used unless the verb is very simple. Thus, the two pieces of evidence against a common
derivation for NEG-PRT-Qs and A-not-A questions are not convincing.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
N. Zhang (1997, p. 134) also points out that ne can occur in a NEG-PRT-Q.
The examples she gives include the following:
(14) a. Ta chi-le fan meiyou ne?
he eat-ASP meal not.have PRT
'Has he eaten?'
b. Ta kan-le nei-ben shu meiyou ne?
he read-ASP that-CL book not.have PRT
'Has he read the book?’
Moreover, unlike sentence-final particles, the NEG-PRT can occur in an
embedded clause:
(15) a. Ta xiang zhidao [ta lai le meivoul.
he want know he come ASP not.have
'He wants to know whether he came.'
b. Ta xiang zhidao [shei lai-le (*ne)l.
he want know who come-ASP PRT
'He wants to know who came.'
The sentences in (16) provide further examples of NEG-PRT occurring inside an
embedded clause.
(16) a. Tabu zhidao ta ziji pang le meivou.
he not know he self fat ASP not.have
'He does not know whether he gained weight.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
b. Ta lian ta ziji pang le meiyou dou bu zhidao.
he even he self fat ASP nothave all not know
'He does not even know whether he gained weight.'
The entire CP that follows the focus marker M an should be considered a constituent
because it can be replaced by an NP such as zhe-ge 'this.'
(17) Ta lian zhe-ge dou bu zhidao.
he even this-CL all not know
'He did not even know this.'
Last but not least, there is a piece of evidence that indicates the NEG-PRT does
not occur as high as C°. Consider (18).
(18) Ni daodi gei-le ta qian meiyou?
you indeed give-ASP he money not.have
'Did you indeed give him the money?'
It is well known that the question word of a sentence has to be c-commanded by
daodi 'indeed' (cf. S. Lii 1983, p. 128) when daodi is present. For example,
(19) a. Ta daodi shuo-le shenme?
he indeed say-ASP what
'What did he indeed say?'
b. Ta daodi kan-mei-kan na-ben shu?
he indeed read-not-read that-CL book
'Did he indeed read that book?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 0 2
(20) a. *Shei daodi kan-le na-ben shu?
who indeed read-ASP that-CL book
'Who indeed read that book?'
b. *You-mei-you ren daodi kan-le na-ben shu?
have-not-have person indeed read-ASP that-CL book
'Did anyone indeed read that book?'
The sentences in (19) are grammatical, whereas the sentences in (20) are not because
daodi is higher than the interrogative word in the former but not in the latter. The
fact that (18) is grammatical shows the NEG-PRT cannot occur as high as the C°
position. One may argue that the NEG-PRT does occupy the C° position and daodi
occurs in a position higher than the C°. However, this would force the NP preceding
daodi to take a position as high as the Spec of CP, which is not a welcome
consequence because such a position is usually considered to contain topic phrases
or focused elements.
In short, our discussion of CH&T's analysis shows that the raising analysis of the
NEG-PRT does not seem to be on the right track, and NEG-PRTs cannot occur as
high as the C° position. The same criticism also applies to N. Zhang's (1997)
analysis, which adopts the raising analysis of CH&T. She argues that the overt
raising is to check the uninterpretable feature [Q] of the yes-no interrogative C. In
the next section, we will discuss two possible analyses, which replace the raising
analysis of NEG-PRT-Qs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
4.3 Two Possible Analyses
Given what we have discussed above, we see only two possible analyses for
NEG-PRT-Qs. In one analysis, we assume that an NEG-PRT is base-generated
under a functional head, which is lower than C°. In the other analysis, we assume
that an NEG-PRT-Q has a coordinate structure, in which VP ellipsis has applied.
Let us consider the first possible analysis, as exhibited in (21). The NEG-PRT is
base-generated under the F head. This analysis captures the fact that the NEG-PRT
does not occur as high as the C° position.
(21)
F
NEG-PRT
In this analysis meiyou must take scope over the perfective marker -le or the
sentence-final le:
(22) a. Ta kan-le na-ben shu meiyou? (=(5a))
he read-ASP that-CL book not.have
'Did he read that book?'
b. Ni gei ta shu ]e meivou?
you give he book ASP not.have
'Have you given him the book?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
As we discussed in Chapter 3, this contradicts the fact that meifvou) cannot have the
perfective -le within its scope and the sentence-final le has to take scope over
meifvou).3 2 A solution is to follow N. Zhang's (1997, p. 154) suggestion that NEG-
PRT is not a real negative marker. However, this approach cannot explain why the
agreement requirement between negation and verb/aspect obtains in (8) and (9),
repeated here in (23). Thus, this analysis does not seem to be viable.
(23) a. Ta qu-guo meivou/*bu?
he go-ASP not.have/not
'Has he been (there)?'
b. Ta meifvou)/*bu qu-guo.
he not(have)/not go-ASP
'He has not been (there).'
Now let us consider the second possible analysis as exhibited in (24). The XPs
in (24) must be some projections higher than VP, and the second coordinate XP must
contain the negative marker. Furthermore, in this proposed structure the NEG-PRT
is located in a regular negative position, and the relevant structure is a coordinate
structure selected by a functional head. Semantically, the coordinate structure
should denote disjunction because only one conjunct is true.
32 See Section 3.3.1 in Chapter 3.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This structure captures the fact that the NEG-PRT does not occur as high as the C°
position. It also has an advantage over the first analysis in that it predicts agreement
between negation and verb/aspect.
This analysis assumes that the application of VP ellipsis leaves the negative
marker behind in the second conjunct. Given this analysis, the question is why bu
cannot license VP ellipsis as opposed to meiyou:
(25) a. Ta kan-le na-ben shu meiyou [vp e]? (=(5a))
he read-ASP that-CL book not.have
'Did he read that book?'
b. *Ta chang qu bu [yp e]? (=(7b))
he often go not
'Does he go often?'
We will come to this in Section 4.5 below.
To summarize, the analysis of NEG-PRT-Q utilizing a coordinate structure with
VP ellipsis seems to be on the right track. However, the coordinate structure does
not explain why when le is present, the alleged requirement fails as shown in (10).
This problem does not seem to be without remedy, however. In Section 4.4.3, we
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
will propose a more detailed coordinate structure to resolve the problem posed by the
simple coordinate structure here.
4.4 Our Unified Analysis
We have assumed there is a functional category for a NEG-PRT-Q. A question
remains as to the identity of this functional category. Could this functional head be
INFL or a different functional head instead? Or, more fundamentally, can we justify
the existence of this functional category? In this section, by comparing NEG-PRT-
Qs with A-not-A questions, we suggest that this head is a Q (question), which is
marked with the [+WH] feature, and A-not-A questions also involve such a QP
(question phrase).
4.4.1 The Projection of Question and Operator Movement
As we mentioned in Chapter 1, C.-T. Huang (1991) argues for a modular
approach for the A-not-A questions:
(26) a. Ta xihuan zhe-ben shu fhaishi) ta bu xihuan zhe-ben shu?
he like this-CL book or he not like this-CL book
'Does he like this book or doesn't he like this book?'
b. Ta xihuan zhe-ben shu bu xihuan zhe-ben shu?
he like this-CL book not like this-CL book
'Does he like this book or doesn't [he] like this book?'
c. Ta xihuan bu xihuan zhe-ben shu?
he like not like this-CL book
'Does he like or doesn't [he] like this book?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
d. Ta xihuan zhe-ben shu bu xihuan?
he like this-CL book not like
'Does he like this book or doesn't [he] like [it]?'
e. Ta xi-bu-xihuan zhe-ben shu?
he like-not-like this-CL book
'Does he like or not like this book?'
This modular approach breaks up the paradigm in (26) into three separate sub
paradigms. Sentence (26a) is a true disjunctive question that may undergo
coordinate deletion, resulting in reduced haishi 'or' questions. Sentences (26c) and
(26e) are [A not AB] questions that derive via reduplication from a simplex D-
structure. Sentence (26d) is an [AB not A] question that has a base-generated
coordinate VP, which undergoes a process of anaphoric ellipsis. And sentence (26b)
may be analyzed as an example of either [A not AB] or [AB not A] (where B is
null). This, however, is a redundancy. As will be shown later, this redundancy can
be avoided in our analysis. Let us start with (26d). C.-T. Huang claims that (26d)
has the form [[AB] [not AB]], which undergoes a process of anaphoric ellipsis
deleting the second occurrence of B. Anaphoric ellipsis, according to C.-T. Huang
(1991), applies in a way consistent with general principles of anaphora (involving
precedence and/or C-command). It is distinguished from coordinate deletion, which
is subject to a severe Directionality Constraint (DC) (Ross 1967). In essence, the DC
requires that deletion must go forward if the identical elements in a coordinate
structure occur on a left branch of a tree, but backward if they each occur on a right
branch. Thus, when it is applied to the (a) sentences of (27) and (28), DC correctly
rules in the (b) sentences, and rules out the (c) sentences below:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(27) a. John waited and John left.
b. John waited and left.
c. *waited and John left.
(28) a. John left and Mary left.
b. John and Mary left.
c. *John left and Mary.
It is clear that the [AB not A] type of A-not-A Question in (26d) does not obey the
DC. The object zhe-ben shu 'this book' occurs in a right branch, but the deletion is
forward. Thus, it does not undergo coordinate deletion.
Anaphoric ellipsis, on the other hand, can occur also in non-coordinate
constructions:
(29) Ruguo ni bu xihuan zhe-ben shu, jiu bie mai.
if you not like this-CL book then don't buy
'If you don't like this book, then don't buy it.'
Or, it can occur across a fragment of discourse:
(30) A: Zhangsan piping-le Lisi le ma?
Zhangsan criticize-ASP Lisi ASP PRT
'Did Zhangsan criticize Lisi?'
B: Meiyou, ta meiyou piping,
nothave he not.have criticize
No, he did not criticize [him].'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
Now let us move on to the [A not AB] questions. C.-T. Huang (1982) proposes
that both sentences in (26c) and (26e) are derived from a simplex D-structure with a
[+Q] feature in INFL as represented in (31).
(31)
NP
NP
ni [+Q] xihuan zhe-ben shu
you like this-CL book
According to C.-T. Huang (1982, p. 282), the interrogative INFL is realized by a
reduplication rule as given in (32). This rule copies a sequence that immediately
follows INFL, and inserts the morpheme bu between the original and its copy.
(32) A-not-A Reduplication
[+A-not-A] [yp XY] - > [yp [[X] [bu X]] Y]
not
Thus, depending on whether xi 'like' or xihuan 'like' is taken to be the X in (32),
(26c) or (26e) can be generated. Sentence (26b) can be generated via (32) if X in
(32) is considered to be xihuan zhe-ben shu 'like this book.'
The rule in (32) is criticized by McCawley (1994, p. 180). Among the reasons he
gives is the following. Since the negative form does not appear in the deep structure,
bu or me| that appears in an A-not-A form is not a true negative form. The syntax
and semantics of an A-not-A form would not be materially different if the element
that (32) inserts were not bu or mei but ye 'also' or jiangyou 'soy sauce.’ As a matter
of fact, the negative form in an A-not-A form has to preserve the agreement
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
requirement between negation and verb/aspect. For example, with the presence of -
guo. mei but not bu can be used:
(33) a. Ni qu-mei-qu-guo Zhongguo?
you go-not.have-go-ASP China
'Have you been to China?'
b. Ni qu-mei/*bu-qu-guo Zhongguo?
you go-not.have/not-go-ASP China
'Have you been to China?'
Thus, the negative form in an A-not-A form must be a tme negative form.
Another difficulty with C.-T. Huang's analysis, as pointed out by J.-M. Guo
(1992, pp. 17-20), is that the rule in (32) will overgenerate ungrammatical sentences
such as those in (34). This is because what the reduplication rule is subject to is only
the condition that the sequence that reduplicates must be a phonological unit (Guo
1992, p. 331).
(34) a. *Ta keneng xi bu keneng xihuan Lisi?
he might like not might like Lisi
'He might like or might not like Lisi?'
b. *Ta keneng xihuan Li bu keneng xihuan Lisi?
he might like Lisi not might like Lisi
'He might like or might not like Lisi?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I ll
J.-M. Guo (1992) proposes (35) to replace (32):
(35) [nego [neg° +WH][yO X,Y]] - > [[X] [bu X] Y]
In Guo's analysis, there is a [+WH] feature and a [+V] feature under NEG and V
respectively. In the syntax, [+V] elements raise to the [+WH] element, which
triggers the reduplication rule (35) at PF, and satisfies the morphological requirement
of [+WH]. The raising itself must satisfy the Empty Category Principle (Chomsky
1981), which requires an empty category to be either lexically governed or
antecedent governed. In this analysis, sentences (34) will not be generated because
only [+V] heads can raise to Neg.
J.-M. Guo's analysis is appealing. However, it does not explain why predicates
vary in their ability to form the [A not AB] type of questions. Consider the
following examples given in McCawley (1994, p. 182):
(36) a. *Zhe-ge wenti wei/weiding-bu-weiding?
this-CL question undecided not undecided
'Is this question undecided?'
b. ??Zheyang zuo wu-bu-wuli?
thus do un-not-reasonable
'Is it unreasonable to do this?'
c. ?Zheyang zuo fei-bu-feifa?
thus do in-not-illegal
'Is it illegal to do this?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Here we would like to propose a feature checking analysis for A-not-A questions.
As we discussed in Chapter 1, feature checking theory in the Minimalist Program
(Chomsky 1995) postulates that words are assigned to structures in their full, surface
morphological form. They are then "checked" to ensure that they have the
appropriate form for the structure that they are embedded in. Adopting the feature
checking theory, we propose that xi-bu-xuhuan 'like-not-like' in (26c) and xihuan-bu-
xihuan 'like-not-like' in (26e), as opposed to elements such as keneng xi bu keneng
xihuan in (34a) or wei/weiding-bu-weiding in (36a), are morphologically complex
words generated and marked with the [+WH] feature in the lexicon. We assume this
feature is uninterpretable, and has to move to a higher head for checking.
That an A-not-A form is a word is supported by the fact that an A-not-A form as
a whole can be followed by the perfective marker -guo as shown in (33) above.
Furthermore, the different degrees of acceptability in (36) can be explained by this
analysis. In theoretical terms, our analysis conforms to the spirit of the Minimalist
Program (Chomsky 1995), which proposes that words are fully inflected before they
enter syntactic computation. We also assume that the checking takes place at LF in
accordance with the Procrastinate Principle (Chomsky 1995), which states that LF
movement is 'cheaper' than overt movement. However, we deviate from Chomsky in
assuming that what drives movement is the features of the moved element, rather
than features on the target of movement. In other words, it is the [+WH] feature on
the A-not-A form that motivates the raising, rather than the [+WH] feature on the F
head. This assumption is crucial for us as will become clear later.
Now the question is what is the higher functional head that contains the [+WH]
feature. In Guo's analysis, this head is Neg. However, it is problematic to assume
that the [+WH] feature occurs under the Neg for the following theoretical reasons.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
First, consider negative polarity items (NPI). In Guo's analysis, an NPI such as
conglai 'ever' has to be licensed under the NegP projection:
(37) a. *Ta conglai qu na-zhong difang.
he ever go that-CL place
'He ever goes to that kind of place.'
b. Ta conglai bu qu na-zhong difang,
he ever not go that-CL place
'He never goes to that kind of place.'
By assuming that the [+WH] feature occurs in a Neg, the sentence in (38) is
wrongly predicted to be grammatical because conglai 'ever' should be licensed in the
NegP.
(38) *Ta conglai qu-bu-qu na-zhong difang?
he ever go-not-go that-CL place
'Does he ever go to that kind of place?'
If the functional category in question is not a NegP, what is it? It has been
suggested in Aoun and Li (1993) that a certain QP, or more generally, an XP,
distinguishes different types of sentences such as questions, indicatives, and
suggestions. This XP occurs lower than IP. The X can have four combinations of
the features [+/-Qu] and [+/-WH]. If the features are [+Qu, +WH], a [+WH]
question will be generated, and a Qu-operator can occur in the Spec of this
projection. This operator subsequently moves to the Spec of Comp inside or outside
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
the clause. [+Qu, -WH] will generate yes/no questions. [-Qu, -WH] will produce
statements. [-Qu, +WH] may be related to exclamatory sentences.
Adopting the QP analysis, though not the feature systems of Aoun and Li (1993),
we assume that the higher head in the [A not AB] type of A-not-A question is Q,
which is marked with the [+WH] feature.3 3 As for NEG-PRT-Qs, we propose that
they also contain a QP with a Q head marked with the [+WH] feature. However,
unlike in the [A not AB] type, in this type of question feature checking of the [+WH]
feature does not take place. This is the reason why we must assume it is the [+WH]
feature of the A-not-A that motivates the raising. When there is no [+WH] feature in
the A-not-A form, no raising takes place.
Furthermore, we adopt the QP analysis for the [AB not AB] and [AB not A] type
of A-not-A questions and for disjunctive questions without haishi 'or.' In this way,
we can reduce the redundancy for the derivation of the [AB not AB] type that exists
in C.-T. Huang's analysis.
That both A-not-A questions and NEG-PRT-Qs contain the [+WH] feature can
be justified as follows. As shown in (39), a yes/no question, which anticipates
affirmation or rejection, can be answered by shi de 'yes' for affirmation.
Yes-No question
(39) A: Shu huan-le ma?
book return-ASP PRT
'Did you return the book?'
33 See our discussion in Chapter 6 for the reason why we do not adopt Aoun and Li's feature
system.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
B: Huan le/Meivou/Shi de.
return ASP not.have/yes DE
'I did/I didn't/Yes.'
By contrast, for a NEG-PRT-Q and an A-not-A question, just as for a wh-
question, shi de 'yes' is not a possible answer:
NEG-PRT-Q
(40) A: Ta kan-]e na-ben shu meivou [vp e]? (=(5a))
he read-ASP that-CL book not.have
'Did he read that book?'
B: Kan le/Meivou/#Shi de.
read ASP not.have/yes DE
'I did/I didn't/Yes.'
A-not-A Questions
(41) A: Ni xihuan-bu-xihuan/xi-bu-xihuan zhe-ben shu? (=(26c&e))
you like-not-like this-CL book
'Do you like this book?'
B: Xihuan/Bu xihuan/#Shi de.
like/not like/yes DE
'I do/I don't/Yes.'
(42) A: Ni xihuan zhe-ben shu bu xihuan zhe-ben shu? (=(26b)
you like this-CL book not like this-CL book
'Do you like this book?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
B: Xihuan/Bu xihuan/#Shi de.
like/not like/yes DE
I do/I don't/Yes.'
(43) A: Ta shi-bu-shi lai le?
he be-not-be come ASP
Is he here?'
B: Lai le/Meivou/Shi de.
come ASP/not.have/yes DE
'He did/He didn't/Yes.'
(44) A: Ni chi fan chi mian?
you eat rice eat noodle
'Do you eat rice, (or) do you eat noodle?'
B: Wo chi fan/Wo chi mian/#Shi de.
I eat rice/I eat noodle/yes DE
I eat rice/I eat noodles/Yes.'
Wh-question
(45) A: Ni mai-le shenme?
you buy-ASP what
'What did you buy?'
B: Shu/#Shi de.
book/yes DE
'(I bought) books/Yes.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
As can be seen above, the only exception is the shi-bu-shi question in (43).
However, the fact that this question can be answered by shi de is not surprising since
shi-bu-shi uses sM as part of the question form. Assuming that both A-not-A
questions and NEG-PRT-Qs contain a [+WH] feature under a Q head, we have a
natural explanation of the pattern in which NEG-PRT-Qs behave like A-not-A
questions and wh-questions.
The QP analysis for both NEG-PRT-Qs and A-not-A questions are further
supported by the fact that they behave alike with respect to islands. Consider wh-
questions first. Among wh-words. it has been observed that there is a contrast with
respect to islands between shei 'who.' shenme 'what.' shenme shihou 'what time,'
shenme difang 'what place,' weile shenme 'for what,' on the one hand, and A-not-A
question forms and wei shenme 'why,' on the other. This is exemplified as follows
(C.-T. Huang 1982, W.-T. Tsai 1994a, J.-M. Guo 1992, among others):
Sentential subject condition
(46) a. IShei qu Meiguo] bijiao hao?
who go America more good
'Who (x) such that x goes to America is better?'
'Who should go to America?'
b. [Wo mai shenmel bijiao hao?
I buy what more good
'What (x) such that I buy is better?'
'What is it that I should buy?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
c. [Wo shenme shihou qu Meiguo] bijiao hao?
I what time go America more good
When (x) such that I go to America is better?'
When is it better that I go to America?'
d. [Xuesheng weile shenme gongzuo] bijiao hao?
student for what work more good
'What (x) such that students work for x is better?'
'What should students work for?'
e. * [Zhangsan qu-bu-qu Meiguol bijiao hao?
Zhangsan go-not-go America more good
'Zhangsan goes to America or does not go to America is better?’
f. *[Wo weishenme qu Meiguo] bijiao hao?
I why go America more good
'Why (x) such I go to America x is better?'
'Why is it better that I go to America?'
Complex NP condition
A. object position
(47) a. Ni bijiao xihuan Ishei xie de shu]?
you more like who write DE book
'Who (x) such that you like the book x writes better?'
Whose book do you like best?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
b. Ni bijiao xihuan [zuo shenme de ren]?
you more like do what DE person
'What (x) such that you like the people who do x better?'
'You like people who do what best?'
c. Ni bijiao xihuan [Zhangsan shenme shihou xie de shu]?
you more like Zhangsan what time write DE book
'What time (x) such that you like the book that Zhangsan wrote at x
better?'
'What period of Zhangsan's books do you like best?'
d. Ni bijiao xihuan [Zhangsan zai shenme difang xie de shu]?
you more like Zhangsan at what place write DE book
What place (x) such that you like the book that Zhangsan wrote at x
better?'
'Those books by Zhangsan written at what place do you like best?'
e. Ni bijiao xihuan [Zhangsan weile shenme xie de shu]?
you more like Zhangsan for what write DE book
'What (x) such that you like the book that Zhangsan wrote for x
better?'
'Those books what Zhangsan wrote for what purpose do you like
best?'
f. *Ni bijiao xihuan fzun-bu-zuniing ni de ren]?
you more like respect-not-respect you DE person
'Who do you like better, the people who respect you or the people
who do not?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
g. *Ni bijiao xihuan [ta weishenme zhao de xiangpian]?
you more like he why take DE picture
'Why (x) such that you like the picture that he took for x better?'
'You like best the picture he took for what reason?'
B. subject position
(48) a. IShei xie de shu] bijiao youqu?
who write DE book more interesting
'Who (x) such that the book that x writes is more interesting?'
'Whose books is more interesting?'
b. [Zuo shenme de ren] bijiao youmo?
do what DE man more humorous
'What (x) such that the people who do x are more humorous?'
'People doing what are more interesting?'
c. [Zhangsan shenme shihou xie de shu] bijiao youqu?
Zhangsan what time write DE book more interesting
'What time (x) such that Zhangsan wrote the book at x is more
interesting?'
'Zhangsan's book written at what time are more interesting?'
d. [Zhangsan zai shenme difang xie de shu] bijiao youqu?
Zhangsan at what place write DE book more interesting
'What place (x) such that Zhangsan wrote the book at x is more
interesting?'
'Zhangsan's books written at what place are more interesting?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
e. [Zhangsan weile shenme xie de shu] bijiao youqu?
Zhangsan for what write DE book more interesting
'What (x) such that Zhangsan wrote the book for x is more
interesting?'
'Zhangsan's books written for what purpose are more interesting?'
f. *fZun-bu-zunjing ni de ren] bijiao youmo?
respect-not-respect you DE man more humorous
'Who is more interesting, the person who respects you or the person
who does not?'
g. *[Ta weishenme zhao de xiangpian] bijiao youqu?
he why take DE picture more interesting
Why (x) such that the picture that he took x is more interesting?'
'The pictures taken for what reason are more interesting?'
Adjunct island:
(49) a. Zhangsan [yinwei shei lai], suoyi hen shengqi?
Zhangsan because who come therefore very angry
'Who (x) such that Zhangsan got angry because x came?'
'Whose coming made Zhangsan angry?'
b. Zhangsan [yinwei ni mai-le shenmel. suoyi hen shengqi?
Zhangsan because you buy-ASP what therefore very angry
’ What (x) such that Zhangsan got angry because you bought xT
'What did you buy that made Zhangsan angry?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 2
c. Zhangsan [yinwei ni shenme shihou dezui ta], suoyi hen shengqi?
Zhangsan because you what time offend he therefore very angry
'What time(x) such that Zhangsan got angry because you offend him
at x?'
'When did you offend Zhangsan to make him so angry?'
d. Zhangsan [yinwei ni zai shenme difang chi fan], suoyi hen shengqi?
Zhangsan because you at what place eat rice therefore very angry
What place (x) such that Zhangsan got angry because you ate at x?'
'Where did you eat to make Zhangsan so angry?'
e. Zhangsan [yinwei weile shenme gen ta chaojia], suoyi hen shengqi?
Zhangsan because for what with he argue therefore very angry
'Zhangsan got very angry because you argued with him about x?'
'Zhangsan got very angry because you argued with him about what?'
f. *Zhangsan [yinwei ni qu-bu-qu Meiguo], suoyi hen shengqi?
Zhangsan because you go-not-go America therefore very angry
'Zhangsan got very angry because you wanted to go to America or
you didn't want to go to America?'
Assuming the LF movement of the question constituents, C.-T. Huang (1982) claims
that the island effects exhibited by A-not-A questions and weishenme 'why'
questions are readily derivable from a general principle, namely the Empty Category
Principle (ECP) (Chomsky 1981). According to the original formulation by
Chomsky, a trace needs to be governed either by a lexical category (e.g. a verb), or
by its antecedent (the moved category). A trace can be governed by a verb only if it
occurs within the maximal projection of the verb (i.e. in VP). Since adjuncts like
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
weishenme 'why' and the A-not-A forms (INFL constituents, in C.-T. Huang's
analysis) do not occur within VP, they are not lexically governed. Thus they cannot
move across islands.
Aoun and Li (1993), however, argue that there is no LF movement of the wh-
questions in Chinese, a wh-in-situ language. Neither do wh-elements in-situ in
English move. What wh-questions have is operator movement from the Spec of the
QP to the appropriate Spec of Comp by S-Structure.3 4 The [+Qu] operator that is
generated in the Spec of QP binds the wh-in-situ:
(50)
CP
Qu VP
Z X
...wh...
In English, Qu, which is a part of a wh-in-situ. raises to the Spec of Qu and then
to the Spec of Comp as represented in (51):
34 Kim (1989, 1991) and Benmamoun (1991a, b) also propose QuP projections.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ti Qu v p
...X.j.
As a consequence of the existence of this operator, the wh-element in Chinese
functions as, a polarity item, while its counterpart in English functions as an operator.
With respect to the contrast between arguments, and weishenme 'why' and A-not-
A forms, Aoun and Li characterize the difference as follows:
(52) a. A wh-in-situ such as 'why' in adjunct position must have an
antecedent (i.e. must be antecedent-governed) in the minimal clause
in which it occurs,
b. A wh-in-situ such as 'who' or 'what' in argument position need not
have a local antecedent in the minimal clause in which it occurs.
Furthermore, Aoun and Li argue that a Qu-operator that serves as an antecedent
for a wh-in-situ element will never be generated within an island. If it is generated,
its extraction will violate constraints such as the ECP (Chomsky 1981). Thus, a wh-
in-situ element such as 'why' cannot escape an island.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
Now consider NEG-PRT-Qs and other types of A-not-A questions. Sentences
(53) show that NEG-PRT-Qs also cannot take scope outside of islands:
(53) a. *[You qian meivoul bijiao hao?
have money nothave more good
'Whether to have money is better?'
b. *Ni bijiao xihuan [you qian meivou de ren]?
you more like have money not.have DE person
'Who do you like better, the people who have money or the people
who do not?'
c. *[You qian meivou de ren] bijiao youmo?
have money not.have DE person more humorous
'Who are more humorous, the people who have money or the people
who do not ?'
d. *Zhangsan [yinwei ni chi-le fan meivoul. suoyi hen shengqi?
Zhangsan because you eat-ASP rice not.have therefore very angry
'Zhangsan got angry because whether you ate or not?'
Similarly, questions of the [AB not AB] type and [AB not A] type, and the
disjunctive questions without haishi 'or' also exhibit island effects:
(54) a. *Ni xihuan fhe kafei bu he tkafei) de ren]?
you like drink coffee not drink coffee DE person
'Do you like people who drink coffee or people who do not?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
b. *Ni xihuan fchi fan chi mian de ren]?
you like eat rice eat noodle DE person
'Do you like people who eat rice or people who eat noodles?'
Following Aoun and Li's proposal, we assume that NEG-PRT-Qs and A-not-A
questions have a [+Q] operator at the Spec of QP, which is raised to the appropriate
Spec of Comp by S-Structure. Under the assumption that movement is motivated by
feature checking in the Minimalist framework, we assume the purpose of the raising
is to check the strong [+Q] feature of C°. As for weishenme 'why,' we assume that it
occurs in a position higher than QP, and is bound by the base-generated operator in
the Spec of CP.3 5
Finally, let us note that in contrast to A-not-A questions and NEG-PRT-Qs,
disjunctive questions with haishi 'or' do not exhibit island effects, as is first pointed
out by C.-T. Huang (1991). For example, as shown in (55), embedded questions can
take scope outside of islands:
(55) a. Ni xihuan [he kafei haishi bu he kafei de ren]?
you like drink coffee or not drink coffee DE person
'Do you like people who drink coffee or people who do not?'
b. Ni xihuan [chi fan haishi chi mian de ren]?
you like eat rice or eat noodle DE person
'Do you like people who eat rice or people who eat noodles?'
35 See Chapter 6 for further discussion of this.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
Another difference between A-not-A questions and haishi disjunctive questions
lies in the order of conjuncts. As McCawley (1994) points out, haishi disjunctive
questions allow the negative conjunct to precede the positive conjunct, but in A-not-
A questions this is impossible:
(56) a. Ni bu xihuan zhe-ben shu haishi xihuan zhe-ben shu?
you not like this-CL book or like this-CL book
'Do you like this book?'
b. *Ni bu xihuan zhe-ben shu xihuan zhe-ben shu?
you not like this-CL book like this-CL book
'Do you like this book?'
If no conjunction marker is present, the positive part must precede the negative part.
Also, as is pointed out by N. Zhang (1997), the same verb must appear in each VP
conjunct, unlike the case in haishi alternative questions. Consider the following
examples take from N. Zhang (1997, p. 162).
(57) a. Ni chi fan haishi he zhou?
you eat rice or drink porridge
'Do you eat rice or drink porridge?'
b. *Ni chi fan he zhou?
you eat rice drink porridge
'Do you eat rice or drink porridge?'
Finally, a disjunctive question with haishi 'or' can have the sentence-final particle
ne at the end of each conjunct, while the other questions discussed above cannot:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
(58) Ta qu (ne) haishi bu qu (ne)?
he go PRT or not go PRT
'Does he want to go/Does he go/Will he go?'
(59) a. *Ta qu ne bu qu (ne)?
he go PRT not go PRT
'Does he go?'
b. *Ta qu le ne meiyou?
he go ASP PRT not.have
'Did he go?'
c. *Ta chi fan (ne) chi mian (ne)?
he eat rice PRT eat noodle PRT
'Does he want to eat rice or eat noodles?'
Thus, we assume that disjunctive questions with haishi do not have a QP, as
opposed to A-not-A questions, NEG-PRT-Qs, and disjunctive question without
haishi.3 6 However, we assume they have a base-generated operator in the Spec of
the appropriate CP in order to fulfill 1% selectional requirement of verbs that take
indirect questions as their complements. Independently this operator is needed for
the binding of wh-elements such as weishenme 'why.'
36 In C.-T. Huang's (1991) analysis disjunctive questions with haishi are derived from true
disjunctive questions by conjunction reduction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
4.4.3 A More Elaborate Structure for Negative Particle Questions
We have proposed above that a NEG-PRT-Q has a coordinate VP structure.
Moreover, a QP must be a constituent in the structure. Combining the two, the
representation for an NEG-PRT-Q is thus as follows:
(60)
XP Q
X P ^ ^ X P
However, this simple coordinate structure faces a problem in situation where the
agreement requirement between negation and verb/aspect appears to fail. In this
section, we will show that this problem is only apparent, but we propose a more
elaborate structure based on the above simple coordinate structure. We will show
that this more elaborate structure has advantages over the simple coordinate
structure.
First, let us consider the analyses proposed in Progovac (1999) for the following
examples in (61).
(61) a. I read the paper, and quickly.
b. *1 read the paper, and fortunately.3 7
37 Cinque (1999) has argued that sentential adverbials across languages, such as 'fortunately,'
'obviously,' 'of course' may not be adjoined to a clausal projection in an arbitrary position. They
occur in the specifier position of a uniquely specified functional projection of a clause, such as Mood
Phrase, Tense Phrase, etc.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
As shown in (61), there is a contrast between VP adverbials and sentential
adverbials with respect to coordination. The former but not the latter is possible in
coordinate structure. Following Davidson (1967) and other studies such as Parsons
(1980, 1990) and Dowty (1989), Progovac (1999) assumes that VP adverbials are
analyzed as predicates of events, conjoined with the main predicate. Thus (61a)
receives the semantic representation in (62a), which informally reads as in (62b).
(62) a. 3e (R(i, p, e) & (Q, e))
b. There is an event e of reading R of the paper (p) by me (i) in the event
e, and the event was quick Q.
According to Progovac, (61a) necessarily involves the interpretation of multiple
events/states— more precisely, one event (my reading the paper) and one state (that
event being quick). Also adopting the Bowers' (1993) idea of PredP, Progovac
(1999) proposes the following structure for (61a).
PredP
t ■ v p and e Pred'
^ Pred AP
read the paper
quickly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
In (63), the subject raises out from the Spec of PredP in the first conjunct,3 8
while the Spec of PredP in the second conjunct is occupied by an event variable e.3 9
Furthermore, in (63) it is assumed that conjunctions, such as 'and' and 'or,' head
Conjunction Phrases (&P) (Thiersch 1985, Munn 1987, Collin 1988, etc.)
Postulating an &P attempts to capture two important facts about coordination (cf.
Progovac 1998). First, the first conjunct (in VO languages) is a separate constituent
from the conjunction and the rest of the conjuncts, and it does not c-command the
rest of &P. Second, the conjunction and the non-initial conjuncts (in VO languages)
form a constituent.
Crucially, (61a) cannot be viewed as a result of clausal coordination with
subsequent ellipsis. That is, (61a) cannot be generated from (64) with the deletion of
the underlined part. If this were the case, (65a) should be derivable from (65b). But
the former is ungrammatical, as opposed to the latter.
(64) I read his paper, and I read it quickly.
(65) a. *(Both) I (both) read (both) his paper and quickly,
b. ?I both read his paper, and (I) read it quickly.
38 'Left-peripheral deletion' as in (i) is widely analyzed in terms of small conjuncts and across-the-
board (ATB)-derivations as shown in (ii), as opposed to the deletion analysis in (iii).
(i) Mary came in and sat down.
(ii) [IP Mary 1° [VP t came in] and [VP t sat down]]
(iii) [IP Mary 1° [VP t came in] and [IP Mary 1° [VP t sat down]]
See Wilder (1997) for an analysis of left peripheral deletion.
39 The term 'event' here is used in a broad sense, including both states, and events in the narrow
sense.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
The analysis in (63) was proposed for adverbials introduced by conjunctions.
But it may also be carried over to VP adverbials that are not introduced by
conjunctions, e.g. (66). As represented in (67), the conjunction in this case is empty.
(66) I read the paper quickly.
(67)
&P &'
I
PredP £
e Pred'
, , P r e c T '^ 'X p
read the paper
quickly
The sentence in (66), unlike (61a), is ambiguous. In addition to the reading that
it shares with (61a), it also has the following reading:
(68) I engaged in a quick reading of his paper (as opposed to a thorough
reading).
According to Progovac, the contrast between the two sentences naturally follows
from the following generalization on coordination:
(69) n-coordination: Where n-coor is unspecified for the number of
events/states, (n+l)-coor necessarily implies multiple-events/states.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
While sentence (66) is unspecified for the number of events/states, sentence (61a)
necessarily implies multiple-events/states.
With the above analysis in mind, let us return to our NEG-PRT-Qs. We propose
the coordinate structure in (71) for the NEG-PRT-Q in (70).
(70) Ta kan-le na-ben shu meivou? (=(5a))
he read-ASP that-CL book not.have
'Did he read that book?'
(71)
r+W H
AspP
Spec Asp
Spec Asp'
PredP Asp
N eg P ^ Asp
Spec Neg’
kan-le na-ben shu
Neg PredP
meiyou
Spec Pred'
Pred VP
e z k
e
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
With this structure, it is apparent that the requirement between negation and
verb/aspect fails only when the sentence-final le is present. The relevant examples
given in (10) are repeated here:
(72) a. Ta hui youyong le meivou?
he will swim ASP not.have
'Can he swim?'
b. Ta bu/*mei(voul hui youyong.
he not/not(have) can swim
'He cannot swim.'
When le is present, a change of situation is involved. That is, despite the fact that
hui vouvong 'can swim' indicates a non-dynamic situation, hui youyong le clearly
denotes a beginning of a new situation, and should be considered a dynamic
situation. The event variable in Spec of PredP in the second conjunct thus denotes a
dynamic situation as it anaphorically refers to the type of event denoted by the first
conjunct. We assume the null YP is licensed by meivou. The structure for the
sentence in (72b) is given as follows:4 0
40 Note that we have AspPs in both conjuncts. A question that one may ask is how to guarantee
that the second conjunct contains a NegP. A possible solution to this is to say that the & head
selects a head that is negative and this requirement is satisfied by the raising of meitvoul to Asp. We
assume selection is a head to head relation: A head selects the head of its sister.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
(73)
[+WH]
AspP &
Spec Asp' Spec A ^ p ^
^N e^P^ Asp
Spec Neg'
Neg PredP
PredP Asp
le
hui youyong
meiyou
Spec Pred'
This analysis is consistent with Hankamer and Sag (1976) and William (1977),
who argue that null VPs must be interpreted by operations other than those of
sentence grammar. One piece of evidence is from the grammaticality of (74), in
which the null VP is interpreted pragmatically based on the context of utterance.
(74) Don't [ype].
41
41 For Hankamer and Sag (1976), this sentence is not among the core cases of VP ellipsis with
surface anaphors.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
Similarly, there is no single constituent that acts as an antecedent for the null VP
in (75). The null VP is interpreted to mean 'visit Rio or see Rome.'
(75) Susan wants to visit Rio and Jane wants to see Rome, but neither of
them can [vpe].
Similarly, the null VP in our (73) can be interpreted as a dynamic situation, and
thus meivou is used.
4.4.4 Summary
To sum up, in C-.T. Huang's analysis only the [A-not-AB] type of A-not-A
questions is on par with wh-questions. In our analysis, both NEG-PRT-Qs and all A-
not-A questions (except disjunctive questions with haishi 'or') are on par with wh-
questions. They both contain the [+WH] feature in the Q head of a QP. The [A not
AB] type of A-not-A questions are different from NEG-PRT-Qs, [AB not A(B)]
types, and the disjunctive questions without haishi 'or' in that the former have
morphologically complex verbs with the [+WH] feature. This feature raises to the Q
head for feature checking. For the latter three types, the [+WH] feature is base
generated under Q, which selects an & head. Both NEG-PRT-Qs and A-not-A
questions (except the disjunctive questions with haishi 'or') contain operators that are
generated under the Spec of QP, and that raise to the appropriate Comp for marking
the scope.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
4.5 Bu as a Negative Question Particle in Other Varieties of Mandarin
In this section, we will discuss bu as a NEG-PRT in other varieties of Mandarin.
Recall that meivou. but not bu* functions as a NEG-PRT in Standard Mandarin. We
argue that a NEG-PRT-Q in Mandarin Chinese contains a QP with a coordinate
structure, which undergoes VP ellipsis. The question is why (7b), repeated here as in
(76), is not allowed.
(76) *Ta chang qu bu [yp e] ?
he often go not
'Does he go often?'
We have seen in Chapter 3 that a null VP can be licensed by bu only if bu is the
focus element. The crucial sentences are repeated here. Bu in (77a) is focused, as
opposed to bu in (77b).
(77) a. Dajia dou yiwei ta hen kuaile, keshi ta shuo ta bu
everybody all think he very happy but he say he not happy
kuaile/? [yp e].
happy
'Everybody thought he was happy, but he said he was not.'
b. Zhangsan xihuan zhe-ben shu, Lisi bu xihuan/* [yp e].
Zhangsan like this-CL book Lisi not like
'Zhangsan likes this book, (but) Lisi does not.'
We assume that focus on negation can make the null VP part of the background, and
makes VP ellipsis possible; if bu is not focused, however, VP ellipsis is not licensed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
Now note that as shown in (78) and (79), bu in an A-not-A question cannot be
stressed.4 2
(78) a. Ni qu-bu-qu?
you go-not-go
'Do you go?'
b. *Ni qu-BU-qu?
you go-not-go
(79) a. Ta xihuan zhe-ben shu bu xihuan zhe-ben shu?
he like this-CL book not like this-CL book
'Does he like or doesn't [he] like this book?'
b. *Ta xihuan zhe-ben shu BU xihuan zhe-ben shu?
he like this-CL book not like this-CL book
'Does he like or doesn't [he] like this book?'
This means that bu cannot receive focus in an A-not-A question. This,
nevertheless, might be part of a more general phenomenon. As shown in (80) and
(81), there is a sharp contrast between meifvou) and bu in a disjunctive question with
haishi 'or,' just as we have seen in NEG-PRT-Qs.
42 According to X.-Z. Z. Wu (p.c.), a focus element in Chinese cannot be destressed. For example,
the wh-word in (ia) is the focus element and thus it must be stressed. This contrasts with the
indefinite interpretation of a wh-word in (ib).
(i) a. Ta mai-le SHENME?
he buy-ASP what
'What did he buy?'
b. Ta yiding mai-le shenme.
he definitely buy-ASP what
'He must have bought something.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
(80) a. Ni ba dongxi gei ta le, haishi meivou ba dongxi gei ta?
you BA thing give he ASP or not.have BA thing give he
'Did you give the thing to him, or didn't you?'
b. Ni ba dongxi gei ta le, haishi meiyou [yp e]?
you BA thing give he ASP or not.have
'Did you give the thing to him, or didn't you?'
(81) a. Ni zhidao haishi bu zhidao?
you know or not know
'Do you know or not?'
b. *Ni zhidao haishi bu [yp e]?
you know or not
'Do you know or not?'
On the other hand, in some varieties of Mandarin Chinese, in addition to meiyou.
bu can also occur as a NEG-PRT. Consider some examples from J. Shao (1996, pp.
111-112), all from the same source.
(82) a. Kuai guonian le, shuashua qiang bu? (Non-standard)
soon Chinese:New:Year ASP paint wall not
'The Chinese New Year is coming, do you want to paint the wall?'
b. Wo qu qiuqiu sun shaoye shu bei-wan bu.4 3 (Non-standard)
I go see grandson youngrmaster book recite-finish not
I will go see whether young master has finished reciting his book.'
43 In J. Shao (1996), this sentence has a question mark at the end, which indicates a direct
question. But we think this sentence is an indirect question.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
c. Ni ziji you ge jueding bu? (Non-standard)
you self have CL decision not
'Do you have a decision?'
(83) a. Ni kan-qingchu meiyou?
you see-clear not.have
'Did you see clearly?'
b. Ni he le meiyou?
you drink ASP not.have
'Did you drink?'
According to my informants, bu is never stressed in this use.4 4 We have seen in
(77) that in VP ellipsis cases bu cannot license VP ellipsis if it cannot be focused. It
follows that bu in (82) cannot license VP ellipsis. Thus the analysis that suggests VP
ellipsis is not possible.
Now compare sentences (82b) and (82c) with (84). The latter exhibits the
standard type of agreement in Mandarin. Thus the NEG-PRT bu in this variety of
Mandarin does not observe agreement with aspect/verb.
44 An informant told us this use of bu is common in the variety of Mandarin spoken in Shandong
(a province in the northeast region of China). This is not implausible because the counterparts of (i)
in Yexian dialect, a Shandong dialect, are acceptable (D. Zhu 1991, p. 323).
(i) a. Da-bu-da qiu?
play-not-play ball
Do you play ball?1
b. Da qiu bu (da)?
play ball not play
'Do you play ball?'
From the example in (ib), we can see that this dialect allows its bu counterpart to occur alone at
the end of a sentence. This suggests that this dialectal feature may be carried over to the Mandarin
Chinese spoken in that area.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
(84) a. Ta shu meifyouV*bu bei-wan.
he book not(have)/not recite-finish
'He didn't finish reciting his book.'
b. Wo dao xianzai hai mei/*bu you ge jueding.
I till now still not/not have CL decision
'I don't have a decision yet.'
J. Shao also includes a similar example with daodi 'indeed,' although this is from
a different source.
(85) Ni daodi teng wo bu? (Non-standard)
you indeed cherish I not
'Do you cherish me?'
Based on the above observations, we speculate that this use of bu is an overt
realization of Q of the QP. This use of bu can be considered a true question marker
since it does not have any agreement relationship with verb/aspect. However, more
data is required to justify this statement.
In addition to the above data, J. Shao quotes two examples of bu from yet another
source.4 5 Interestingly, this use of bu co-occurs with negation:
(86) a. Ni bu hui jiao bu? (Non-standard)
you not can water not
'You don't know how to water, do you?!'4 6
45 According to J. Shao, these examples are found only in children's language. J. Shao claims
them from Y. Li and Z. Tang (1991).
46 We use '?!' to mark a rhetorical question. See Chapter 6 on the nafrl rhetorical question.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
b. Ni zhuo-bu-zhu wo bu? (Non-standard)
you catch-not-up I not
'You won't catch me, will you?!'
Both of them are intended as rhetorical questions. J. Shao, in fact, suggests that this
use of bu is equivalent to the sentence-final particle ba. The speaker of this type of
question does not anticipate an answer that is different from what he/she has in mind.
Thus bu in this use may be in the C° position just like other sentence-final paticles.
4.6 Conclusions
Cheng, Huang and Tang (1997) claim that negative particle questions (NEG-
PRT-Qs) are yes/no questions, which have the movement of a negative marker from
its preverbal position to sentence-final position. On the other hand, C.-T. Huang
(1991) proposes a modular approach to the various types of A-not-A questions. In
contrast to the above analyses, we propose a unified analysis for NEG-PRT-Qs and
A-not-A questions (excluding the disjunctive questions with haishi 'or') based on the
fact that all of them exhibit island effects and may be answered like wh-questions.
In our proposal, these question forms have two characteristics in common. First,
they all have the [+WH] feature that is generated under the functional head Q.
Second, the [+Q] operator from the Spec of QP moves to an appropriate Spec of CP
to take scope. The [A not AB] type of the A-not-A questions is different from the
others in being a morphologically complex word that is marked with the [+WH]
feature. The [+WH] feature raises to Q for checking with Q. A negative particle
question, in contrast, contains a QP taking a coordinate construction with VP ellipsis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
CHAPTER 5
NEGATIVE QUESTION PARTICLES AND PREDICATE-INITIAL
QUESTION MARKERS IN SOUTHERN MIN AND OTHER DIALECTS
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter we will study data from three dialects of Chinese: Southern Min,
Suzhou and Singapore Teochew. Our discussion will emphasize the data from
Southern Min, a dialect spoken in Taiwan and southern Fujian province. We have
seen in Chapter 4 that Standard Mandarin only allows one negative question particle
(NEG-PRT). Southern Min has quite a few NEG-PRTs. It also has the [A not AB]
type of A-not-A questions, though this form is only available for a limited number of
verbs and adjectives. More interestingly, in addition to these two forms, it has a
predicate-initial question marker kam.4 7 According to D. Zhu's (1991) study, this
dialect is an instance of 'mixed' cases.4 8 The study of D. Zhu shows that the ke VP'
type and the 'VP bu VP' type of questions are counterparts of each other across a
47 In using the term 'predicate,' we refer to verbs, adjectives or modal verbs.
48 Note that Southern Min is not the only counterexample. Malmqvist (1986) gives the following
counterexamples from Xiyouji (XYJ), a colloquial novel of the sixteenth century.
(i) a
b
c
d
Ye hai bu zhi shi ta bu shi ta li. (XYJ, 24.334)
also still not know be he not be he PRT
'(I) don't know where it is he.'
You ge shenme Qitian Dasheng cai lai zheli fou? (XYJ, 6.79)
have CL what Qitian Dasheng just come here not
'Was someone called Qitian Dasheng just here or not?'
Ni ba Shifu tuo-guoqu bu shi? (XYJ, 22.229)
you BA Master pull-over not be
'Did you pull the Master over or not?'
see KE invite Laosun not invite
'See if we could invite Laosun?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
wide range of Chinese dialects. The kam question is a variant of the 'ke VP' type,4 9
which has a question marker preceding VP, while the negative particle questions
(NEG-PRT-Qs) and A-not-A questions belong to D. Zhu's 'VP bu VP' type. In this
chapter, we will use the 'Q VP’ type to refer to the former type and the 'VP not VP'
type to refer to the latter. The data from Suzhou and Singapore Teochew is
presented primarily for purposes of comparison. Suzhou is a dialect that has only the
'Q VP' type. On the other hand, Singapore Teochew, which is a variety of Teochew
(Chaozhou) and is another form of Southern Min, is also a mixed case because it has
both the [Q VP] type and the [VP not VP] type.
A question that arises immediately as to the nature of the syntactic structures for
these question types. Cheng, Huang and Tang (1997) (CH&T) claim that all NEG-
PRTs in Southern Min (/Cantonese) are base-generated negation markers in
sentence-final position, i.e. the C° position. On the other hand, C.-T. Huang (1991)
claims that kam questions and the [A not AB] type of questions are different
realizations of the same element, i.e. the INFL with [+Q]. He claims that his
analysis is partially supported by the fact that kam can occur with the [AB not A(B)]
type but not [A not AB] type. Under this analysis, the kam question is just a variation
of the [A not AB] type, which is a wh-question. In contrast, C.-T. Tang (1999)
claims that the kam question marks a yes/no question.
In Chapter 3 we have proposed that the [A not AB] type of an A-not-A question
in Mandarin projects QP that is marked with the [+WH] feature. Is it possible that
kam occupies the head position of QP? This is the analysis that Cole and Lee (1997)
49 In early modern colloquial Chinese, ke is used. See (id) above.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
(C&L) have proposed for kam's counterpart in Singapore Teochew. If this is the
case, what is the nature of the NEG-PRTs and the A-not-A form in Southern Min?
In this chapter, we attempt to answer the above questions. We argue against
CH&T's claim that all NEG-PRTs in Southern Min are base-generated in the C°
position. We will show that some NEG-PRTs in Southern Min mark wh-questions,
while some mark tag-questions. For the former, they can occur in a regular negation
position or under the head of QP. Furthermore, the [A not AB] type, just like its
Mandarin counterpart, projects a QP that is marked with the [+WH] feature, and the
A-not-A form is marked with [+WH], As for the predicate-initial question markers,
we argue for a QP analysis for A in Suzhou, whereas we argue against a QP analysis
for kam in Southern Min. We will show that kam marks a yes/no question (cf. T.-C.
Tang 1999) and is generated under T.
This chapter proceeds as follows. In Section 5.2 we introduce NEG-PRTs in
Southern Min and discuss some previous analyses. In Section 5.3 we give our
analysis of the various NEG-PRTs in Southern Min. Section 5.4 includes the
discussion of the [A not AB] type in Southern Min. The discussion of predicate-
initial makers in Suzhou and Southern Min is given in Section 5.5. In Section 5.6,
we include the comparison between Cole and Lee's analysis of Singapore Teochew
and our analysis of Southern Min. Finally, Section 5.7 concludes the chapter.
5.2 Previous Analyses of Negative Question Particles in Southern Min
P. Li (1971) distinguishes four negative markers in Southern Min: bo 'not have,'
be 'unable,' volitional m-1 'not want, will not' and non-volitional m-2 'not.'
According to him, except m-2, which is a pure negation marker, all the other
negative markers are verbs derived from their corresponding affirmatives:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
(m-1)
(m-2)
Only a limited number of verbs may be negated by m-2. In addition to the two
verbs in (Id), other verbs include chaif'iaNl 'know,' tioh 'right,' 'bat 'know,' bat 'ever,'
ho 'good' and thang 'can.' The words that can be negated by m-2 do not seem to form
a natural class. Thus they must be marked in the lexicon.
Examples for the four negative markers are given respectively as follows:
(2) a. I chang u lai. (Southern Min)
he yesterday have come
'He did come yesterday.'
b. I chang bo lai. (Southern Min)
he yesterday not.have come
'He didn't come yesterday.'
(3) a. I e lai. (Southern Min)
he will come
'He will come.'
(1) a. Neg + u_ have ------> bo 'not-have
b. Neg + e 'able' -----> be 'not-able'
c. Neg + beh50 > m 'not-want'
d. Neg + < j> -----> m 'not' / si 'is,' kaN 'dare'
50 Contra P. Li's discussion, not all uses of beh are volitional:
(i) a. Iu-kiok beh an-chuaN kiaN?
post:office want how go
'How can I go to the post office?'
b. Sa-bun beh chhong sim-mih?
soap want do what
'What does soap do?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
b. I be lai. (Southern Min)
he not.will come
'He will not come.'
(4) a. I beh chiah hi. (Southern Min)
he want eat fish
'He wants to eat fish.'
b. I m chiah hi. (Southern Min)
he not.want eat fish
'He doesn't want to eat fish.'
(5) a. I kaN khi. (Southern Min)
he dare go
'He dares to go.'
b. I m kaN khi. (Southern Min)
he not dare go
'He does not dare to go.'
Let us now consider the possible choices of NEG-PRTs with respect to the modal
verb in the affirmative part of the sentence as given by R. L. Cheng (1977, p. 162):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
(6) Affirmative
modal verb
Negative
modal verb
Final
particle
Possib
positic
A e possible,
probable
be be-, bo S
beh want m rn-, bo- S
u exist, have bo bo- s
B e-(hiau) able be(-hiau) be-, bo- s
e-sai permissible be-sai be-, bo- s
e-tit-tang, can
/e-tit/e-tang
be-tit-thang,
/be-tit/be-tang
be-, bo s
C ai(-beh) want m-ai rn-, bo s
thang may m-thang rn-, bo s
kaN dare m-kaN rn-, bo 8
ho good m-ho rn-, bo S
si be m-si rn-, bo I.F.S.
tioh(-ai) must m-bian rn-, bo- S
D eng-kaiobliged bo-eng-kai bo- S.F.
kho-leng possible bo-kho-leng bo- S.F.
eng-tong obliged bo-eng-tong bo S.F.
E tioh correct m-tioh rn-, bo- F
F i-keng already iau-boe....le boe-, ?bo- S
N.B: S = Split A-not-A question form5 1
I = Predicate-initial A-not-A question form
F = Sentence-final A-not-A question
AMV +VERB +NMV
AMV + NMV + VERB
VERB + AMV + NMV
5 1 For R. L. Cheng, an A-not-A question is formed by pairing a positive modal verb or aspect
marker with its negative counterpart. All questions that use NEG-PRTs are also A-not-A questions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
The four NEG-PRTs, i.e. be-, boe-. m-, and bo-, receive a neutralized tone, which
is short and weak.5 2 According to R. L. Cheng, they alternate with the dimorphemic
but monosyllabic full-toned negated verbs without greatly changing the meaning of
the sentence. For us, while we agree with R. L. Cheng that varying the tones of be.
boe and bo does not have much of an effect on the meaning of these particles, we
will show the tone of m does have an effect on meaning.
From the above table, we can see that bo- is able to occur with any modal verb,
while be-, boe- and m- do not. This observation is different from CH&T's (1997).
They claim all of the following sentences are grammatical:5 3
52 R. L. Cheng (1977) marks this neutralized tone by a period.
53 Our judgement is that if m here is pronounced with the prolonged mid-level tone (indicated by
mm) as in the following sentence, the sentence in (7) is grammatical.
(i) I e lai, mm?
he will come not
'Will he come?'
For speakers like CH&T, this use ofm can have a neutralized tone. S.-F. Lin (1974) gave the
following data based on the variety of Southern Min used in the Daqiu Village, about nine miles
north of Pindong City in southern Taiwan.
(i) a. Li u khi Tai-pak m?
you have go Taipei not
'You went to Taipei, didn't you?'
b. Li e khi Tai-pak m?
you will go Taipei not
'You will go to Taipei, won't you?'
c. Li si khi Tai-pak m?
you are go Taipei not
'You went to Taipei, don't you?'
S-.F. Lin reported that there is no agreement requirement between negation and aspect/verb. He also
points out that this type of sentence conveys a considerable degree of certainty. The question is
asked in anticipation of affirmation or denial. Also, this m can occur at the end of a negative
sentence. This use is the same as our mm as will be discussed in Section 5.3.3. We argue there that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
(7) a. I e lai *m-/bo7*boe- /be• ? (Southern Min)
he will come not/not.have/not.yet/not.will
'Will he come?'
b. I kaN chhut khi m-/bo-/*boe7*be-? (Southern Min)
he dare out go not/not.have/not.yet/not.will
'Does he dare to go out?'
(8) a. I u khi hak-hau *m-/bo-? (Southern Min)
he have go school not/not.have
'Did he go to school?'
b. I lai boe-? (Southern Min)
he come not.yet
'Has he come yet?'
Based on this judgement, they claim that there is no agreement requirement between
negation and verb/aspect for NEG-PRTs and propose that all negative question
particles are base-generated in the C° position. However, as we understand, some of
the above sentences are unacceptable. Thus we need to re-evaluate CH&T's
proposal.
5.3 Our Analysis of Negative Question Particles in Southern Min
In this section, we will show that be-, boe-. and m- in Southern Min do respect
the agreement requirement between negation and verb/aspect, and even bo- exhibits
mm marks a tag question. We assume our analysis of mm can be applied to this use of m by those
speakers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
some degree of agreement with its complement. In contrast, m 'not' with the mid
level prolonged tone (indicated by mm), as well as si-m- 'be-not' and si-bo- 'be-
not.have,' does not. We will show that they occur in various syntactic positions.
5.3.1 Negative Question Particles Generated in the Regular Negation
Position
In this section we will first consider be- and boe-. We will show that they behave
like meivou in Mandarin, and thus they have the same structure that we have
proposed for meiyou in the previous chapter, i.e. a QP taking the coordinate structure
with VP ellipsis.
From the above table in (6) and the examples in (7), we can see the use of be-
depends on the affirmative modal verb that is used. Be- can only be used when e is
present in the sentence. Table (6) and the examples in (7) and (8) also show that
boe- is selective. Moreover, as shown in (9) below, boe as a negative marker has to
be preceded either by the perfective marker a or iau 'still.'
(9) A: Li se seng-khu a boe-? (Southern Min)
you watch body ASP not.yet
'Have you taken a bath?'
B: Goa i-keng se a. (Southern Min)
I already watch ASP
'I have taken a both.'
B': Goa *(a/iau) boe se le. (Southern Min)
I ASP/still not.yet watch body PRT
I haven't taken a bath yet.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
Note that the example in (7b) becomes grammatical if the aspectual marker a is
present, despite the fact that a/iau boe does not occur with kaN 'dare':
(10) a. I kaN chhut khi a boe-? (Southern Min)
he dare out go ASP not.yet
'Does he dare to go?'
b. *1 a/iau boe kaN khi. (Southern Min)
he ASP/still not.have dare go
'He has not yet dared to go.'
This, however, is similar to what we have found in Mandarin. In Mandarin,
while meifyou) 'not(have)' cannot negate hui 'will,' it can occur as a NEG-PRT when
the sentence-final particle ]e is present:
(11) a. Ta hui youyong le meiyou? (Mandarin)
he will swim ASP not.have
'Can he swim?'
b. Ta bu/*mei(vou) hui vouvong. (Mandarin)
he not/not(have) can swim
'He cannot swim.'
We have argued in Chapter 4 that what meivou denies here is a change of state, i.e. a
dynamic situation. Similarly, we can say what boe- denies in (10a) is a change of the
state. Thus, boe- does respect the agreement requirement between negation and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
verb/aspect in those cases. Overall, the NEG-PRTs be- and boe- observe the
agreement requirement.5 4
In addition to agreement, boe- and be- also behave like meiyou in other aspects.
First, as shown in (12), the two NEG-PRTs can co-occur with tau-te 'indeed':
(12) a. Li tau-te e-hiau phah kiu be-? (Southern Min)
you indeed can play ball unable
'Do you indeed know how to play ball?'
b. Li tau-te chiah-pa a boe-? (Southern Min)
you indeed eat-full ASP not.yet
'Have you eaten indeed?'
Tau-te. just like daodi 'indeed' in Mandarin, must c-command a question word:
(13) a. I tau-te u sim-mih? (Southern Min)
he indeed have what
'What indeed does he have?'
b. * Sim-mih lang tau-te chai? (Southern Min)
what person indeed know
'Who indeed knows it?'
54 The exact characterization of the agreement between negation and verb/aspect may be different
in Mandarin and Southern Min. What is crucial here is that the agreement is respected.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
Second, the way questions with boe- are answered is like a wh-question:
(14) A: Li e-hiau phah kiu be-? (Southern Min)
you can play ball unable
'Do you know how to play ball?'
B: E/Be-hiau/#HeN. (Southern Min)
can/cannot/yes
I can/I cannot/Y es.'
(15) A: Li chiah-pa a boe-? (Southern Min)
you eat-full ASP not.yet
'Have you eaten?'
B: Chiah-pa a/A boe/#HeN. (Southern Min)
eat-full ASP/ASP not.yet/yes
'I am full/I haven't/Yes.'
Finally, both questions must have an operator movement because island
constraints are observed.
(16) a. *1 ai [e-hiau phah kiu be-] e lang? (Southern Min)
she love can play ball unable E person
'Does she love who can play ball or who cannot play ball?'
b. * [Chiah-pa boe-] khah ho? (Southern Min)
you indeed eat-full more good
'Which is better, having eaten or not?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
Thus just like meiyou in Mandarin, we assume both be- and boe- project a QP,
which has a coordinate structure and undergoes VP ellipsis. The Q head is marked
with the [+WH] feature, and this structure has operator movement.
5.3.2 Q Position
In this section, we will show that bo- is located under Q, while m- moves from
the regular negative position to Q.
Consider bo- first. From the table in (6) above and the examples in (17) and (18)
below, we can clearly see that bo- can be used with any verb/aspect.
(17) a. Li kaN khi bo-? (Southern Min)
you dare go not.have
'Do you dare to go?'
b.’ Goa m/*bo kaN khi. (Southern Min)
I not/not.have dare go
'I don't dare to go.'
(18) a. Li bat khi hia bo-? (Southem Min)
you ever go there not.have
'Have you ever been there?'
b. Goa m/*bo bat khi hia. (Southern Min)
I not/not.have ever go there
'I have not been there.'
This indicates that bo- does not have to agree with verb/aspect. According to R.
L. Cheng, bo- has become a modal-neutral question marker.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
Now consider the following tests. First, bo- can co-occur with tau-te 'indeed.'
(19) Li tau-te beh khi & q- ? (Southern Min)
you indeed want go nothave
'Do you indeed want to go?'
Second, it can be answered as a wh-question.
(20) A: Li beh khi bo-? (Southern Min)
you want go not.have
'Do you want to go?'
B: Beh/Bo ai/#HeN. (Southern Min)
want not want yes
I do/I don't/Yes.'
B': *U/*Bo/#HeN. (Southern Min)
have/not.have/yes
'I do/I don't/Yes.'
Note that the fact that questions with bo- cannot be answered by either u or bo
shows that beh is still the main verb (T.-C. Tang 1999, p. 6).
Finally, this question form observes island constraints.
(21) *Li ai fhit-pun chheh kuaN-wan bo- 1 e lang? (Southern Min)
you love that-CL book read-finish not.have E person
'Do you like the people who finished reading the book or the people who
do not?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
Judging from the above facts, we propose that bo- occurs in the Q head. In other
words, it is an overt realization of the Q head of QP as represented in (22).
(22)
PredP Q
Despite the fact that this use of bo- does not respect agreement between negation
and verb/aspect, bo- seems to require the presence of its positive counterpart u in
some cases. Consider the following examples.
(23) a. I chang koh khi khoaN i. (Southern Min)
she yesterday again go see he
'She went to see him again yesterday.'
b. I chang *(u) koh khi khoaN i bo-? (Southern Min)
she yesterday have again go see he nothave
'Did she go to see him again yesterday?'
(24) a. ChhiuN si a. (Southern Min)
elephant die ASP
'The elephant died.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
b. ChhiuN *(u) si bo-? (Southern Min)
elephant have die nothave
'Did the elephant die?'
In (23a) and (24a), u is not required. But when bo- is present as a NEG-PRT, the
presence of u is required, as shown in (23b) and (24b). This, however, does not have
to be the case in the examples (17)-(20). Compare those examples with those in (23)
and (24). It seems that bo- requires an element that can be negated. This is
reminiscent of P. Li's analysis of negative markers in Southern Min. Recall that
according to P. Li (1971), with the exception of m-2, a pure negation marker, all the
negative markers are verbs derived from their corresponding affirmatives as in (1),
repeated here:
(ffi-1)
(m-2)
The presence of bo- requires the presence of one of the following elements that
can be negated by Neg: u, e, beh or < |> . This can be captured by an analysis in which
bo- selects a head that can be negated directly.
Now consider m-. The m that concerns us here carries the neutralized tone.
According to the table in (6), m- respects the agreement requirement between
negation and verb/aspect. More examples are given in (26) and (27).
(25) a. Neg + u_ 'have' ------> bo 'not-have'
b. Neg + e 'able' -----> be 'not-able'
c. Neg + bgh-----> m 'not-want'
d. Neg + (|> ----- > m 'not' / si 'is,' kaN 'dare'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
(26) a. Li ai(-beh) (khi) m-? (Southern Min)
you want go not
'Do you want to go?'
b. Goa tang (khi) m-? (Southern Min)
I may go not
'May I go?'
(27) a. Li beh khi m-? (Southern Min)
you want go not
'Do you want to go?
b. Li tiohfail ka mih-kiaN theh ho- i m-? (Southern Min)
you must KA thing take to he not
'Do you have to take the thing to him?'
Note the negative counterpart of tioh(aT) in (27b) is m-bian. which still contains
m. Now consider the following tests. The tau-te 'indeed' test shows the NEG-PRT
cannot occur as high as C°.
(28) a. Li tau-te beh khi m-? (Southern Min)
you indeed want go not
'Do you indeed want to go?
b. Li tau-te tioh(ai) ka mih-kiaN theh ho- i m-? (Southern Min)
you indeed must KA thing take to he not
'Do you indeed have to take the thing to him?'
Furthermore, this question type observes island constraints and is answered as a
wh-question.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
(29) a. *[Goa beh khi Bi-kok m-] khah ho? (Southern Min)
I want go U.S. not comparatively good
'Which is better for me, going to the U.S. or not?'
b. *Li ai [kaN khi m-] e lang? (Southern Min)
you love dare go not E person
'Do you like people who dare to go or people who do not dare to go?'
(30) A: Li beh khi Bi-kok m-? (Southern Min)
you want go U.S. not
'Do you want to go to the U.S.?
B: Beh/M/#HeN. (Southern Min)
want/not.want/yes
I do/I do not/Yes.'
Does this mean that the m- question contains a QP with a coordinate structure
that undergoes VP ellipsis? If this is the case, an interesting question arises as to
why m- can be left alone after VP ellipsis takes place, while its counterpart in
Standard Mandarin, i.e. bu, cannot. We suggest that m- sits in Q, but it does not
project a QP with a coordinate structure. The reasons for this are as follows. First,
the negative marker m does not license VP ellipsis even when m is focused.5 5
(31) a. *1 kong i kaN khi, goa kong i m. (Southern Min)
he say he dare go I say he not
'He said he dared to go, but I said he did not.'
55 See the discussion of focus and VP ellipsis in Section 3.3.3 of Chapter 3.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
b. *1 kong che ho, goa kong che m. (Southern Min)
he say this good I say this not
'He said this was good, but I said this was not.'
Second, unlike bu in Mandarin, m does not occur alone in an answer to a
question:
(32) A: Li kaN khi m ? (Southern Min)
you dare go not
'Do you dare to go?'
B: *M, goa m kaN. (Southern Min)
not I not dare
'No, I do not dare.'
Furthermore, in a disjunctive question with an overt disjunction marker, m- is just
as unacceptable as its counterpart bu in Mandarin. The following example is taken
from S.-F. Lin (1974, p. 52).
(33) Li i-cheng bat chiah chiu a-si m*(-baf)? (Southern Min)
you before ever eat wine or not
'Has you ever drunk wine before?'
We thus assume that m- as a NEG-PRT projects a QP with no coordinate
structure. However, given the fact that m- in this use still respects the agreement
requirement between negation and verb/aspect, we suggest it moves from its
preverbal position to Q.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
Finally, we assume m- in this use is marked with the [+WH] feature, just like bo-:
(34) A: Li beh khi m-? (Southern Min)
you want go not
'Do you want to go?
B: Beh/M/#HeN. (Southern Min)
want/not. want/yes
I want to/I don't want to/Yes.'
(35) A: Li tioh(ai) ka mih-kiaN theh ho- im-? (Southern Min)
you must KA thing take to he not
'Do you have to take the thing to him?'
B: Ai/M-bian/#HeN. (Southern Min)
must/no need/yes
'I must/I need not to/Yes.'
In summary, we argue that both bo- and m- are under Q, which is marked with
the [+WH] feature. But unlike bo-, m- is raised from its preverbal position to Q.
5.3.3 Tag Questions
In this section, we argue that mm. as well as si-m- and si-bo-. marks tag
questions. Consider the following example.
(36) Li chiah-pa a, mm? (Southern Min)
you eat-full ASP not
'You have eaten, haven't you?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
Mm has a mid-level prolonged tone.5 6 According to R. L. Cheng (1977), it is
derived from m-si 'not-be.'
Mm is different from the NEG-PRTs that we have seen in the above sections in
the following ways. First, it occurs in a higher position than tau-te 'indeed,' as the
following example shows:
(37) *Li tau-te chiah-pa a, mm? (Southern Min)
you eat-full ASP not
'Have you indeed eaten, haven't you?'
Second, as shown in (39), mm. in contrast to be% boe-. bo- and m- as given in
(38), cannot occur in an embedded clause:
(38) a. Goa m-chai [i e-hiau phah kiu be-]. (Southern Min)
I not know he can play ball unable
'I don't know whether he can play ball.'
b. Goa m-chai [i ka mih-kiaN theh ho- i a boe- ]. (Southern Min)
I not-know he KA thing take to he ASP not.yet
I don't know whether he has given the thing to him.'
c. Goa m-chai [i chiah-pa bo-]. (Southern Min)
I not know he eat-full not.have
'I don't know whether he is full.'
d. I siuN beh chai-iaN [li beh khi m-]. (Southern Min)
he think want know you want go not
'He wants to know whether you want to go.'
56 R. L. Cheng (1977) marks this prolonged tone by >.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
(39) *Goa m-chai [i chiah-pa a mm]. (Southern Min)
I not-know he eat-full ASP not
‘I don’t know whether he has eaten.’
Third, unlike all the NEG-PRTs discussed above, a sentence with mm can be
answered by heN 'yes.' Furthermore, the question in (40) does not appear to be a
neutral question because a negative answer is not expected.
(40) A: Li chiah-pa, mm? (Southern Min)
you eat-full not
'Are you full, aren't you?
B: Chiah-pa a/#Iau boe/HeN. (Southern Min)
eat-full ASP/yet not.yet/yes
I am full/I am not full yet/Yes.'
On the other hand, when mm occurs in a negative clause, a possible answer is not
expected:
(41) A: Li bo chi ah. mm? (Southern Min)
you nothave eat not
'You didn't eat, did you?'
B: #Chiah a/Bo/HeN. (Southern Min)
eat ASP/not.have/yes
I am full/I am not/Yes.'
It is well-known that while a yes/no question can be used for genuine requests for
information, a tag question is used for the confirmation of the truth of the proposition
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
denoted by the clause preceding the tag question. Compare the following yes/no
question and tag question in English (Cole and Lee 1997).
(42) a. Neutral Question
Q: Did you read the paper?
Expected Answer 1: Yes, I did.
Expected Answer 2: No, I didn't,
b. Tag Question
Q: You read the paper, didn't you?
Expected Answer: Yes, I did.
Unexpected Answer: No, I didn't.
Based on this, mm should mark a tag question. Mm. however, is not the only
NEG-PRT that can mark a tag question in Southern Min. Si-bo- and si-m- are
possible candidates. Consider the tau-te and answer tests:
(43) a *Li tau-te si hak-seng, si-bo-? (Southern Min)
you indeed be student be-not.have
Are you indeed a student?'
b. *1 tau-te si hak-seng, si-m-? (Southern Min)
he indeed be student be-not
'Is he indeed a student?'
(44) A: Li si hak-seng, si-bo- /si-m-? (Southern Min)
you be student be-not.have/be-not
'Are you a student?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
B: Si/#M-si/HeN. (Southern Min)
be/not-be/yes
'Yes.'
Furthermore, both si-bo- and si-m- can co-occur with negation:
(45) a I m-si hak-seng, si-bo-? (Southern Min)
you be student be-not.have
'He isn't a student, is he?'
b. I m-si hak-seng. si-m-? (Southern Min)
he indeed be student be-not
'He isn't a student, is he?'
I thus propose that si-m- and si-bo- can also mark a tag question. R. L. Cheng
(1977) claims that si-bo- etymologically derives from si-m-si. But note that (46) is
ungrammatical. Thus it is unlikely that si-bo- is derived from si-m-si.
(46) *Li beh khi si-m-si? (Southern Min)
you want go be-not-be
'Is it true that you want to go?'
Note that although (47) is grammatical, si m-si in (47) has a different structure.
(47) Li beh khi si m-si? (Southern Min)
you want go be not-be
'Is it true that you want to go?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
The evidence for this comes from tone sandhi facts. The first si in (47), unlike that
in the A-not-A form in (46), bears the citation tone, which suggests that si m-si in
(47) should be analyzed differently. We suggest that the string si m-si in (47) should
be analyzed as a coordinate structure, which undergoes VP ellipsis:
(48) Li beh khi [qp [&p [pred si [vp e]] &[ [[Pred m-si [yp e]]]]]? (Southern
Min)
In summary, we claim that mm. s i-b o and si-m- mark tag questions.
5.4 [A not AB] Type of A-not-A Question in Southern Min
In this section, we will consider the [A not AB] type of question in Southern
Min. We will show that it behaves like the [A not AB] type in Mandarin and thus
should also project a QP and contains a morphologically complex word.
In Southern Min, only those verbs and adjectives that can be negated by m-2
(non-volitional m) can take the A-not-A form. Consider the following examples.
(49) a. *Li e-be phah kiu? (Southern Min)
you can-not.can play ball
‘Do you know how to play ball?’
b. *Li u-bo chiah-pa? (Southern Min)
you not-not.have eat-full
‘Are you full?’
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
(50) a. Li bat-m-bat khi Bi-kok? (Southern Min) (C.-T. Huang 1991)
you have-not-have go America
'Have you been to America?'
b. Li si-m-si Tan Sian-siN? (Southern Min)
you be-not-be Tan Mr.
'Are you Mr. Tan?'
Tau-te 'indeed' can occur with this type of question:
(51) a. Li tau-te bat-m-bat khi Bi-kok? (Southern Min)
you indeed have-not-have go America
'Have you been to America indeed?'
b. Li tau-te si-m-si Tan Sian-siN? (Southern Min)
you indeed be-not-be Tan Mr.
'Are you Mr. Tan indeed?'
This type of question can be answered like a wh-question. and it also observes
island constraints:
(52) A: Li bat-m-bat khi Bi-kok? (Southern Min)
you have-not-have go America
'Have you been to America?'
B: Bat/M~bat/#HeN. (Southern Min)
I have/I have not/yes
'I have/I haven't/Yes.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
(53) a. * (Bat-m-bat khi Bi-kok] khah ho? (Southern Min)
have-not-have go America more good
'Which is better, having been to America or not?'
b. *1 ai rbat-m-bat khi Bi-kok] e lang? (Southern Min)
she love have-not-have go America E person
'Does she love the person who can play ball or who cannot play ball?'
It thus appears that this question form behaves like its counterpart in Mandarin.
It should be analyzed the same. That is, the A-not-A form is a morphologically
complex word, and the question contains a QP with operator movement. This
analysis is also supported by the fact that not all verbs that can be negated by the
non-volitional m can form the [A not AB] type of question. As shown in (54a), chai-
m-chai is not possible. Chai m-chai is possible because there is a tone sandhi
between chai and m-chai. which indicates a different structure. Similarly, as shown
in (54b), the volitional m cannot form the [A not AB] type.
(54) a. Li *chai-m-chai/chai m-chai? (Southern Min)
you know-not-know not-know
'Do you know?'
b. Li *khi-m-khi/beh khi m-khi? (Southern Min)
you go-not-go/want go not.want-go
'Do you go?'
The fact that bo, be and the volitional m in Southern Min cannot have the [A not
AB] type is different from Singapore Teochew, which will be discussed in Section
5.6.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
5.5 Predicate-Initial Question Markers in Suzhou and Southern Min
In this section, we will show that the predicate-initial question markers in Suzhou
mark wh-questions and are generated in Q, while kam in Southern Min marks a
yes/no question and is located in T.
According to D. Zhu (1985), Suzhou (as well as Kunming and Hefei) has the 'Q
VP' type of question, but not 'VP not VP' type. There are two predicate-initial
question markers in Suzhou. We will represent both as A: the use of one or the other
is determined by aspect (perfective vs. imperfective):5 7
(55) a. Nai A xiaode?
you A know
'Do you know?'
b. A yao chi dian cha?
A want eat some tea
'Do you want some tea?'
c. Nai A chi le?
you ever A eat ASP
'Have you eaten?'
The 'Q VP' type behaves like a wh-question. First, it cannot be answered by the
positive response marker shi ge 'yes' (the counterpart of shi de in Mandarin) except
in a question that contains the verb 'to b e .'
57 Instead of typing the Chinese characters used in Suzhou, we will use Mandarin pronunciation
for indicating them.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
(56) Nai A xiaode?— Xiaode ge.
you A know know PRT
'Do you know?' 'Yes.'
(57) Nai A chi fan le?— Chi guo zai.
you A eat meal ASP eat ASP ASP
'Have you eaten?' 'I had.'
(58) Li A shi nai ge xiongdi?— Shi ge.
you A be you PRT brother be PRT
'Is he your brother?' 'Yes.'
Second, it can occur with the final particle sha that occurs in
questions with 'or' (the counterpart of ne in Mandarin).
(59) a. Nai shi chi fan haishi chi zhou sha?
you be eat rice or eat porridge PRT
'Do you eat rice or porridge?'
b. Nai A chi-de-luo sha?
you A eat-PRT-down PRT
'Can you finish eating it?'
Third, it does not allow negation to occur in its complements:
(60) a. Li A qu?
he A go
'Does he go?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
disjunctive
172
b. *Li A wu qu?
he A not go
'Does he not go?'
Now compare the use of A with kam in Southern Min. According to R. L. Cheng
(1977, p. 167), kam is derived from kaN-mng 'dare to ask,' which occurs sentence-
initially. Kam is modality-neutral. It can be used with any predicate and can occur
with a negative predicate:
(61) a. I kam si lin ma-ma? (Southern Min)
she KAM be you mother
'Is she your mother?'
b. I kam m si lin ma-ma? (Southern Min)
you KAM not be you mother
'Isn't she your mother?'
It cannot be modified by tau-te. Sentence (62b) is quite marginal.
(62) a. *1 kam tau-te e lai? (Southern Min)
he KAM indeed will come
'Will he come indeed?'
b. ?*I tau-te kam e lai?5 8 (Southern Min)
he indeed KAM will come
'Will he indeed come?'
58 T.-C. Tang (1999, p. 7) marks this sentence by and makes the following remarks: 'Most
people reject the collocation of tau-te with kam. but a few people reluctantly accept the wide-scope
use of tau-te over kam (i.e. 'tau-te kam...?') while no speakers accept the wide-scope use of kam over
tau-te.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
Furthermore, unlike questions with NEG-PRTs such as be-, boe-. bo- and m-, a
kam-question can be answered by heN 'yes' (Wang and Lien 1995, p. 52).5 9
(63) A: Li kam beh khi? (Southern Min)
you KAM want go
'Do you want to go?'
B: Beh/Bo ai/HeN. (Southern Min)
want/not like/yes
I do/I don't/Yes.’
(64) a. *[Goa kam khi] khah ho? (Southern Min)
I KAM go more good
'Which is better, I go or not?'
b. *Li ai (kam kaN khi e lang]? (Southern Min)
you like KAM dare go E person
'Do you like people who dare to go or who dare not to go?'
Thus, in contrast to A in Suzhou, a kam question marks a yes/no question (cf. T.-
C. Huang 1999). We propose that A in Suzhou is generated in Q and is marked with
the [+WH] feature, while kam in Southern Min is located in T and is marked with
the [+Q] feature. The structures are given in (65) and (66) respectively.
59 In literary Southern Min, kam can occur with the yes/no question marker mah. The following
sentence is taken from Matthew Chapter 6, verse 25 of the Bible ("T he Holv Bible: Taiwanese Han
Character Edition. 1996. Translated by The Rev. Thomas Barclay from Amoy Romanized Bible
1993.)
(i) Lin e seng-khu kam bo khah toa ti i-chiuN mah? (Southern Min)
you's body KAM not.have comparatively big than clothes PRT
'Isn't the body worth more than clothes?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Q PredP
A
[+WH]
(66)
CP
S ]
TP C
I
si
kam
[+Q]
We assume that the [+Q] feature raises from T to C° to check its feature with the
strong [+Q] feature of C°. We assume the [+Q] feature of C° can also be checked
by merging a yes/no question marker such as ma in Mandarin or by moving an
operator from a lower position.
One piece of evidence that supports our analysis of A and kam is that kam cannot
be preceded by e 'can,' while A can be preceded by huide 'can.'
(67) ?Li huide A chi yan jie? (Suzhou)
he can A smoke cigarette PRT
'Can he be a smoker?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
(68) a. I kam e chiah hun? (Southern Min)
he KAM can eat cigarette
'Can he smoke?'
b. *1 e kam chiah hun? (Southern Min)
he can KAM eat cigarette
'Can he smoke?'
Assume that modals do not take any complement with a covert element
indicating tense, or an overt element in T. We can rule out (68b) by saying that kam
sits in T.6 0 Note that T.-C. Tang (1999, p. 7) claims that a kam question can only be
used as a direct question. If this is the case, the fact that kam cannot occur in the
complement of e may be due to the fact that it cannot be embedded. However, we
found speakers' judgements vary with respect to the following sentence.
(69) %Goa m-chai-iaN [i kam si Tai-oan lang]. (Southern Min)
I not-know he KAM be Taiwan person
'I don't know whether he is a Taiwanese.'
In contrast, we found the following sentence to be perfectly grammatical.
(70) [I siuN beh chai-iaN (*#) [goa kam beh khi]]. (Southern Min)
he think want know I KAM want go
'He wants to know whether I want to go.'
60 A fair question that one may ask is why a question word can occur in a non-question position.
A possible solution to this is to say that kam occurs in a functional projection that is projected
between CP and TP.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176
Importantly, there is a tone sandhi between chai-iaN and goa which indicates that
"siuN beh chai-iaN' and the following phrase starting with 'goa' form a constituent.
Thus 'I siuN beh chai-iaN' cannot be analyzed as a parenthetical expression. That is,
kam is in an embedded clause.
The contrast between (69) and (70) may be somehow related to the nature of the
main predicate.6 1
(71) I siuN beh chai-iaN goa si-m-si beh khi. (Southern Min)
he think want know I be-not-be want go
'He wants to know whether I want to go.'
Despite the fact that speakers' judgements vary on (69) and (70), no speakers can
accept the sentence in (68b). Thus our claim based on (68b) is still valid.
An analysis in which kam is located in T is incompatible with C.-T. Huang's
(1991) claim that kam occurs in INFL. For C.-T. Huang (1991), both the [A not AB]
type of A-not-A question and kam-questions are different realizations of the INFL in
different dialects. C.-T. Huang argues that his analysis is partially supported because
while it is possible for kam to occur with the [AB not A] type for some speakers, it
does not occur with the [A not AB] type.
(72) a. %Li kam e lai be-?6 2 (Southern Min)
you KAM will come not.have
'Will you come or won't?'
61 At the present time we do not have a better explanation than this.
62 One of our informants told us it is more polite to use both kam and an A-not-A form in one
sentence.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
177
b. %Li kam bat chit-e lang (a) m-bat? (Southern Min)
you KAM know this-CL person not-know
'Do you know this person or don't know [him]?'
(73) %Li kam si-m-si ai khi hak-hau? (Southern Min)
he KAM be-not-be must go school
'Don't you have to go to school?'
However, we found that the very same speakers who accept (72) also accept (73).
If this is correct, this challenges C.-T. Huang's claim that the [A not AB] type of A-
not-A questions and kam-questions are different realizations of INFL in different
dialects. Furthermore, (72) and (73), unlike questions marked by kam only, cannot
be answered by 'HeN.' This shows that the sentences (72) should not be categorized
as questions marked by kam only. We propose that this use of kam functions as an
adverb that emphasizes a wh-question.
If we are correct in our above analysis of negative question particles and
predicate-initial question markers, an QP is restricted to wh-questions. It does not
denote a yes/no question. A yes/no question must be marked in a higher position,
either T or C.
Finally, before we leave this section, let us point out that although Suzhou
(Kunming, and Hefei as well) does not have the 'VP not VP' type of question, the
'VP not VP' form can nevertheless be used. For example,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
(74) a. Mai-le wu mai suibian nai. (Suzhou)
buy ASP not buy whatever you
'Buy or not buy, it is up to you.'
b. Hao-bu-hao bu yaojin. (Hefei)
good-not-good not matter
'Either it is good or not, it does not matter.'
In this case, we assume this form does not project a QP. The example in (74b)
clearly shows that the A-not-A form in this dialect cannot be marked with the [+WH]
feature.
5.6 Comparison between Singapore Teochew and Southern Min
In this section we will compare Singapore Teochew with Southern Min. Our
discussion of Singapore Teochew will be based on Cole and Lee (1997). Like
Southern Min, Singapore Teochew is also a counterexample to D. Zhu's (1985)
claim because it has the [VP not VP] type of question and the [Q VP] type as
exemplified in (75)-(76) respectively.
(75) a. A Meng oi b-oi sukaji bun zi? (ST: Singapore Teochew)
Ah Meng will not-will like this CL book
'Will Ah Meng like this book?'
b. Ah Meng su m suka ji bun zi? (ST)
Ah Meng like not like this CL book
'Does Ah Meng like this book?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
c. Ah Meng (oi) sukaji bun zi b-oi? (ST)
Ah Meng will like this CL book not-will
'Will Ah Meng like this book?'
(76) Ah Meng ka sukaji bun zi? (ST)
Ah Meng KA like this CL book
'Does Ah Meng like this book?1
The examples in (75b) and (75c) are NEG-PRT-Qs. Cole and Lee (1997) call this
type of question Postposed Negative Auxiliary Question. The verbs that can occur in
such a question include oi/b-oi ’can’ /’ not-can,' ai/m-ai 'want'/'not-want,' u/b-o
'have'/'not-have,' si/m-si. m-i 'be'/'not-be' and 'tio?/miang 'have to'/'not have to. The
NEG-PRTs must attach to the sentences with the same modal verb, overt or not:
(77) a. Ah Meng ai lai m-ai? (ST)
Ah Meng want come not-want
'Does Ah Meng want to come?'
b. * Ah Meng oi lai m-ai? (ST)
Ah Meng will come not-want
'Does Ah Meng want to come?'
c. Ah Meng oi lai b-oi? (ST)
Ah Meng will come not-will
'Will Ah Meng come?'
Furthermore, as shown in (78) and (79) below, the predicate-initial question
marker ka can occur in an A-not-A question and a NEG-PRT-Q respectively,
whereas the latter two cannot co-occur. Based on this, Cole and Lee propose that the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180
latter two question types are derived from the same source, as opposed to the ka
question.
(78) a. Ah Meng ka oi b-oi sukaji bun zi? (ST)
Ah Meng KA will not-will like this CL book
Will Ah Meng like this book?'
b. Ah Meng ka su m suka ji bun zi? (ST)
Ah Meng KA like not like this CL book
'Does Ah Meng like this book?'
c. Ah Meng ka (oi) sukaji bun zi b-oi? (ST)
Ah Meng KA will like this CL book not-will
'Will Ah Meng like this book?'
(79) a. *Ah Meng su m suka ji bun zi b-oi? (ST)
Ah Meng like not like this CL book not-will
’ Will Ah Meng like this book?'
b. Ah Meng oi suka ji bun zi b-oi? (ST)
Ah Meng will like this CL book not-will
'Will Ah Meng like this book?'
c. *Ah Meng oi su m sukaji bun zi b-oi? (ST)
Ah Meng will like not like this CL book not-will
'Will Ah Meng like this book?'
d. *Ah Meng oi b-oi sukaji bun zi b-oi? (ST)
Ah Meng will not-will like this CL book not-will
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181
A structure like (80) is a common source for A-not-A and NEG-PRT-Qs:
(80) [Ah Meng [ tp oi [yp e]] [ tp b-oi [yp sukaji bun zi]]] (=(75a))
Ah Meng will not-will like this CL book
It will derive (75a). When a modal verb occurs, it can optionally raise to the
sentence-final position. Thus, (80) can also derive the NEG-PRT-Q in (75c):
(81) [Ah Meng [pp oi [yp e]] [ tp ti [yp suka ji bun zi] b-oiill]
Ah Meng will like this CL book not-will
The modal verb can also be optionally deleted:
(82) [Ah Meng [ Tp e [yp e]] [ tp t [ [yp suka ji bun zi] b^oii]]]
Ah Meng like this CL book not-will
On the other hand, ka is argued to head a QP. Sentence (83a) is represented in
(83b).
(83) a. Ah Meng ka oi b-oi suka ji bun zi? (=(78a)) (ST)
Ah Men KA will not-will like this CL book
'Will Ah Ming like this book?'
b. [Ah Meng [ q p ka [ tp oi [ y p e]] [ tp b-oi [ y p suka ji bun zi]]]]
Ah Meng KA will not-will like this CL book
The structure in (83b) can also derive (78c) when the modal is postposed to the
sentence-final position.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 8 2
Let us start with the derivation of the NEG-PRT-Q in (75c) first. The structure in
(81) captures the fact that the modal verb in an NEG-PRT-Q must be the same with
the NEG-PRT. However, this analysis faces several problems. First, optional
movement should not be possible in the theoretical framework of the Minimalist
Program (Chomsky 1995). This is because movement is driven by feature checking:
a feature either needs to be checked or does not need to be checked. Thus such an
analysis does not seem to be desirable. Second, it is not clear what position that b-oi
in (81) is postposed to is.
More seriously, A-not-A questions and NEG-PRT-Qs do not behave the same
with respect to islands. While an island effect is detected for NEG-PRT-Qs and ka
questions as well, A-not-A forms that contain a verb, but not a modal verb, do not
exhibit island effects. The examples for NEG-PRT-Qs and ka questions are given in
(84) and (85), while those for the two types of A-not-A questions are given in (86)
and (87). Cole and Lee assume there is operator movement occurs in ka questions,
whereas operator movement does not occur in all A-not-A questions and NEG-PRT-
Qs. However, if all A-not-A questions and NEG-PRT-Qs project the same structure,
the above contrast remains a mystery.
(84) a. *[Ah Meng oi suka ji bun zi b-oil you hor? (ST)
Ah Meng will like this CL book not-will better
'Is it better for Ah Meng to like this book or not?'
b. *Ah Meng suka [oi tiaobu b-oi gai nang]? (ST)
Ah Meng like know dance not-will PRT person
'Does Ah Meng like someone who can or cannot dance?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
183
(85) a. *TW a ka kih Pakiahl you hor? (ST)
I KA go Beijing better
'Is it better for me to go to Beijing?'
b. *Le suka [ka kih Pakiah] gai nang? (ST)
you like KA go Beijing PRT person
'Do you prefer people who go to Beijing?'
(86) a. [Wa kih m kih Pakiah] you hor? (ST)
I go not go Beijing better
'Is it better for me to go to Beijing or not?'
b. Le suka ftiao m tiaobu gai nang]? (ST)
you like dance not dance PRT person
'Do you prefer those who dance or those who don't?'
(87) a. *[Ah Meng oi b-oi sukaji bun zi] you hor? (ST)
Ah Meng will not-will like this CL book better
'Is it better for Ah Meng to like this book or not?'
b. *Ah Meng suka foi b-oi tiaobu gai nang]? (ST)
Ah Meng like will not-will dance PRT person
'Does Ah Meng like someone who can or cannot dance?'
We propose that the A-not-A forms of the modal verbs are morphologically
complex words, and are marked with the [+WH] feature. The [+WH] feature raises
to check its feature with the Q head, which is also marked with the [+WH] feature.
The island effects can be explained by assuming operator movement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
(88) a. Ah Meng oi b-oi suka ji bun zi? (=(75a)) (ST)
Ah Meng will not-will like this book
'Will Ah Meng like this book?'
b. Ah Meng [q p e [+WH] [predP oi-b-oi [+WH] [yp sukaji bun zi]]]
Ah Meng will-not-will like this book
In contrast, the A-not-A forms of verbs or adjectives are not morphologically
complex words. There is no operator movement. They are closer to disjunctive
questions because disjunctive questions do not violate island constraints. We
maintain Cole and Lee's analysis in (89b) for (89a).
(89) a. Ah Meng su m suka ji bun zi? (=(75b)) (ST)
Ah Meng like not like this CL book
'Does Ah Meng like this book?'
b. [Ah Meng [ tp e [yp su e]] [ tp e h/pm sukaji bun zi]]]
Ah Meng like not like this CL book
As for NEG-PRT-Qs, we propose that they contain a QP just like be- and boe-
questions in Southern Min. The proposed structure of (90a) is given in (90b). This
analysis captures the fact that the same modal verb must be used in the NEG-PRT
and it does not run into the problems that we noted with Cole & Lee's raising
analysis.
(90) a. Ah Meng (oi) suka ji bun zi b-oi? (=(75c)) (ST)
Ah Meng will like this CL book not-will
'Will Ah Meng like this book?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
185
b. Ah Meng [ q p OP [ q - e [+WH] [&p [predP (oi) sukaji bun zi] &
Ah Meng will like this CL book
[NegP b-oi]fyp ejjQl
not-will
In our analysis, the A-not-A form of an adjective or a verb does not occur with a
NEG-PRT as in (79a) and (79c), repeated here in (91a) and (91b). This is because
the two are assigned different structures. The latter but not the former takes a QP.
(91) a. *Ah Meng su m sukaji bun zi b-oi? (ST)
Ah Meng like not like this CL book not-will
'Will Ah Meng like this book?'
b. *Ah Meng oi su m suka ji bun zi b-oi? (ST)
Ah Meng will like not like this CL book not-will
'Will Ah Meng like this book?'
Also, the A-not-A form of a modal verb will not occur with an NEG-PRT as
shown in (79d), repeated here, despite the fact that both types of question contain a
QP. This is because we assume a QP either has a coordinate structure that undergoes
VP ellipsis or it has a morphologically complex word.
(92) *Ah Meng oi b-oi sukaji bun zi b-oi? (ST)
Ah Meng will not-will like this CL book not-will
Finally, let us consider ka questions. Cole and Lee have proposed a QP analysis
for them. As we have seen in (78), repeated here, ka can occur with an A-not-A
form or a NEG-PRT.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
186
(93) a. Ah Meng ka oi b-oi sukaji bun zi? (ST)
Ah Meng KA will not-will like this CL book
Will Ah Meng like this book?'
b. Ah Meng ka su m suka ji bun zi? (ST)
Ah Meng KA like not like this CL book
'Does Ah Meng like this book?'
c. Ah Meng ka (oi) suka ji bun zi b-oi? (ST)
Ah Meng KA will like this CL book not-will
'Will Ah Meng like this book?'
It can also occur alone as shown in (76), repeated here in (94a). There are two
possible structures for a ka question as represented in (94b) and (94b').
(94) a. Ah Meng ka sukaji bun zi? (ST)
Ah Meng KA like this CL book
'Does Ah Meng like this book?'
b. Ah Meng [ tp ka [prep sukaji bun zi]]
Ah Meng KA like this CL book
b'. Ah Meng [ q p OP [ q - ka [+WH] [predP sukaji bun zi]]]
Ah Meng KA like this CL book
One possibility is that ka in this case is like kam in Southern Min. It marks a
yes/no question, and it functions as an emphasizer when other question forms occur.
If this is the case, ka should occur in T. The other possibility is that ka, unlike kam
in Southern Min, is an overt realization of Q, marking a wh-question, just like the
predicate-initial question marker A in Suzhou. The choice between (94b) and (94b')
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
187
will depend on how such a question is answered and how it behaves with respect to
islands. More data is needed to determine the viable analysis.
In summary, while we cannot decide the structure for a ka question in Singapore
Teochew, we propose that NEG-PRT-Qs and A-not-A questions formed by modal
verbs contain a QP and thus respect island effects. We argue against Cole and Lee's
raising analysis for the NEG-PRT-Qs. On the other hand, we maintain Cole and
Lee's proposal for the A-not-A questions formed by verbs or adjectives. That is,
they involve two conjoined TPs and thus show no island effects. Our analysis
resolves a problem that Cole and Lee face. That is, the two types of A-not-A
questions behave differently with respect to islands.
5.7 Conclusions
Southern Min is a counterexample to D. Zhu's (1985) claim that there is no
dialect in which the 'VP bu VP' type and the 'Q VP' type both exist. We show that
both of them exist in Southern Min because they mark different types of question—
the former marks wh-questions. while the latter marks yes-no questions. Our study
details the various syntactic positions in which NEG-PRTs in Southern Min occur.
Suzhou (Kunming and Hefei as well), on the other hand, has only the 'Q VP' type of
question. This type of question marks a wh-question. We have also proposed that
the predicate-initial question marker kam has the [+Q] feature. The [+Q] feature
raises from T to check the strong [+Q] feature of C°, while the predicate-initial
question marker A in Suzhou is generated in Q, which is marked with the [+WH]
feature. The data from Singapore Teochew is interesting in that the A-not-A form of
a modal verb behaves differently from that of an adjective/a verb. The former but not
the latter exhibits island effects. We propose that the former has a QP with a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
188
morphologically complex word, while the latter involves a coordinate TP. If our
analysis is correct, it suggests that QPs are restricted to wh-questions. It does not
occur in yes/no questions. A yes/no question must be marked in a higher position, a
TorC.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
189
CHAPTER 6
NEGATION EXPRESSED BY A FORM OF QUESTION
6.1 Introduction
In Chapters 4 and 5, we studied the question forms that are expressed by a form
of negation. This chapter is devoted to another issue that is related to the affinity
between negation and questions. Here we are concerned with the opposite of what
we dealt with in Chapter 4 and 5— it is the case in which negation is expressed by a
question form. In particular, we study a special type of question that employs the
question form naff) 'where.' This question is used to deny what is said or implied,
and it implies a negative proposition obligatorily, unlike other rhetorical questions.
Throughout the discussion we use 'question' for utterances with a particular
illocutionary force, and 'interrogative' for sentences with a particular grammatical
structure.6 3
The interrogative form naff) does not exhibit agreement with verb/aspect. We
will show that its position is different from the wh-word naff) 'where' or zenme
'how,' and that it is not located in a position where a negative marker is. We will
63 This is adopted from Lyons (1977), who uses 'statement,' 'question' and 'command' for
utterances with a particular illocutionary force, and 'declarative,' 'interrogative' and 'imperative' for
sentences with a particular grammatical structure.
Illocutionary force is one of the three speech-acts, first distinguished by Austin (1962):
(i) A locutionary act is an act of saying: the production of a meaning utterance.
(ii) An illocutionary act is an act performed in saying something: making a statement or
promise, issuing a command or request, asking a question, christening a ship, etc.
(iii) A perlocutionary act is an act performed by means of saying something: getting someone
to do something, moving someone to anger, consoling someone in their distress, etc.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190
argue that naff) is generated in the Spec of QP. It is an overt realization of an
operator that has the [+NEG] feature (cf. Progovac 1988). This provides further
testimony to the existence of a QP.
This chapter is organized as follows. In Section 6.2 we discuss the distribution
of naff) questions. In Section 6.3 we proceed to discussing two possible analyses.
Our syntactic proposal is detailed in Section 6.4. Finally, Section 6.5 concludes this
chapter.
6.2 Distribution of the Na(r) Rhetorical Question
As a question word, nar 'where' can occur in an object position, a subject position
or as a complement of zai 'in':
(1) a. Ni qu nar?
you go where
'Where do you go?'
b. Nar you shu?
where have book
Where are there books?'
c. Ta zai nar kan shu?
he in where read book
'Where is he reading?'
The use of natr) that concerns us here is shown in (2a), (3a), and (4a), each of
which implies a negative proposition as in (2b), (3a), and (4a) respectively.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
191
(2) a. Wo naff) zhidao ta lai-bu-lai?!6 4
I where know he come-not-come
'How do I know whether he is coming or not?!'
b. Wo bu zhidao ta lai-bu-lai.
I not know he come-not-come
I don't know whether he is coming or not.'
(3) a. Ta naff) qu-guo Zhongguo?!
he where go-ASP China
'How is it possible that he has been to China?!'
b. Ta meifvou) qu-guo Zhongguo.
he not(have) go-ASP China
'He hasn't been to China.'
(4) a. Ta naff) xian-zhe?!
he where free-ASP
'How is possible that he is free?!'
b. Ta meifvoul xian-zhe.
he not(have) free-ASP
'He is not free.'
Unlike the nar 'where' in (1), this use of naff) only occurs in a post-subject and
preverbal position, and cannot be modified by zai 'in.'
64 We will mark an obligatory rhetorical question with'?!.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
192
(5) *Wo zai na(r) zhidao ta lai-bu-lai?!
I in where know he come-not-come
'How do I know whether he comes or not?!'
Furthermore, the na(r) question must be construed as a rhetorical question
obligatorily. Generally speaking, a question is termed rhetorical when the speaker
knows the answer, and does not intend to elicit an answer that is different from what
he/she has in mind. A yes/no question can be a rhetorical question. In this case, a
positive rhetorical question implies a negative proposition, whereas a negative one
implies a positive one. Consider the examples in (6).
(6) a. Ta nandao zhidao zhe-jian shi ma?
he could:it:be know this-CL matter PRT
'How could it be that he knows about this matter?'
b. Ni nandao bu zhidao zhe-jian shi ma?
you could:it:be not this-CL matter PRT
'How could it be that you do not know?'
A person who utters (6a) and (6b) has a certain degree of certainty that the opposite
of what is stated is true.
As for constituent questions, they can also be used as rhetorical questions as
shown in (7) and (8).
(7) a. Shei xihuan ta?
who like he
'Who likes him?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
193
b. Ta zuo-le shenme?
he do-ASP what
'What did he do?'
(8) a. Zhe you shenme hao?
this have what good
'What good is this?'
b. Ni kan shenme kan?
you look what look
'What are you looking at?'
Note that such rhetorical questions do not necessarily imply negative
propositions. For example, the person who utters (7a) can have a certain person in
mind that answers his question. However, the questions in (8) have a stronger
negative implication than those in (7). This may be because the wh-words in (8)
cannot be replaced by the answers, unlike those in (7):
(9) a. Zhangsan xihuan ta.
Zhangsan like he
'Zhangsan likes him.'
b. Ta zuo-le henduo shi.
he do-ASP many thing
'He has done a lot.’
(10) a. *Zhe you qian hao.
this have money good
'This is good for money.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
194
b. *Wo zai kan ni kan.
I in look you look
I am looking at you.'
Crucially, there is a contrast between naff) questions and other rhetorical
questions that use wh-words. The latter but not the former can occur with daodi
'indeed,' the function of which is to elicit an answer from the addressee no matter
whether the speaker has an answer or not. The fact that a nafr) question cannot
occur with daodi shows that the speaker of a naff) question does not intend to elicit
an answer from the adressee.
(11) *Ta daodi nafr) zhidao?
he indeed where know
'How did he know?'
(12) a. Zhe daodi you shenme hao?
this indeed have what good
'What good is this indeed?'
b. Ni daodi zai kan shenme kan?
you indeed in look what look
’ What are you looking at indeed?’
(13) a Ta daodi zuo-le shenme?
he indeed do-ASP what
’ What did he do indeed?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
195
b. Daodi you shei xihuan ta?
indeed have who like he
'Who likes him indeed?'
While (11) is ungrammatical, both (12) and (13) are grammatical and can still be
used as rhetorical questions.
Furthermore, while a nafr) question can be embedded, it cannot be an indirect
question.
(14) a. Zhangsan yiwei wo nafr) qu-guo Zhongguo.
Zhangsan think I where go-ASP China
'Zhangsan thought I hadn't been to China.'
b. *Ta xiang zhidao wo naff) qu-guo Zhongguo.
he want know I where go-ASP China
'He wants to know how I can have been to China.'
The ungrammaticality of (14b) shows that a nafr) question cannot occur as the
complement of a verb that requires its complement to be interrogative. In other
words, it is not a true interrogative sentence.6 5
In summary, a nafrVrhetorical question has the following characteristics:
(15) a. Unlike a wh-question, a nafrVrhetorical question has to be
rhetorical obligatorily and it always implies a negative proposition.
65 We follow Cole and Lee (1997, p. 208) in assuming that this selection must be related to
interpretation rather than to the occurrence of a particular element in Spec of CP.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
196
b. A nafrVrhetorical question cannot occur with daodi 'indeed.'
c. A nafrVrhetorical question cannot serve as the complement of a verb
that requires the complement to be interrogative.
The three characteristics are interrelated. Given the fact that the nafrVrhetorical
question always implies a negative proposition, it follows that it cannot occur with
daodi. which requires a sentence to be interrogative, and that it cannot serve as a
complement of a verb that requires an interrogative complement. Then the crucial
question is how to capture the relation between negation and question as exhibited in
this type of question. An equally important question is in which position nafr)
occurs. Thus the two main questions that we address in this chapter are as follows:
(16) a. Where is nafr) located in a tree structure?
b. How do we capture the relation between negation and question as
exhibited in a nafrVrhetorical question?
In the next section, we will consider possible syntactic positions of nafr).
6.3 Two Possible Analyses
There are two possibilities regarding the position of nafr). First, nafr) is in the
position of zenme 'how.' Second, it is assumed to be in the position of either bu or
meifvou).
Consider the first possibility. J. Shao (1996, p. 176) claims that nafr) in a
question can be replaced by the question word zenme 'how' without changing the
meaning of the sentence:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
197
(17) a. Name duo dongxi, women nafr) chi-de-wan?!
that much thing we where eat-DE-finish
'How can we finish eating so many things?!'
b. Name duo dongxi, women zenme chi-de-wan?
that much thing we where eat-DE-finish
'How can we finish eating so many things?'
Indeed (17b) can mean 'we cannot finish eating so many things.' One might claim
that natr) occupies the same position as zenme. However, this kind of analysis faces
several problems. First, as we have shown above, the nafr) rhetorical question is
different from other rhetorical questions that employ a wh-word. The latter do not
have to be interpreted as rhetorical questions and they do not have to imply only
negative propositions when they are used rhetorically. This is a problem if natr) is
analyzed in the same fashion as zenme.
Second, the syntactic distributions and interpretations of zenme are different
from nafr). Consider the positions and interpretations of zenme. It has two
interpretations: cause and manner.6 6 W.-T. Tsai (1999) argues that different
interpretations are associated with different syntactic positions. For example, when
zenme precedes a modal, only the cause reading is possible, and when it follows a
modal, only the manner reading is possible:
66 We are only concerned with the cause and manner interpretations because the result
interpretation is obtained only when zenme is post-verbal:
(i) Ta zuo-de zenme-vang?
he do-DE how
'How did he do?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
198
(18) a. Ta zenme neng zou?
he how can leave
'How can he leave?'
b. Ta neng zenme zou?
he can how go
'How can he leave?'
W.-T. Tsai attributes the two interpretations, i.e. cause and manner, to the types
of syntactic projection zenme modifies, roughly corresponding to I' and V'.
In terms of positions, nafr). unlike zenme. can only precede a modal as shown in
(19).
(19) a. Ta na(r) neng zou?!
he where can leave
'How can he leave?!'
b. *Ta neng nafr) zou?!
he can where leave
'How can he leave?'
Moreover, the interpretations of zenme and nafr) are quite different. While (18a) has
the cause reading of zenme. (19a) has the manner reading of nafr). Now consider the
manner use of zenme as given in (20).
(20) Wo zenme shuijiao?
I how sleep
"How do I sleep?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
199
When zenme in (20) is replaced by nafr) as shown in (21a), this sentence
obligatorily implies (21b).
(21) a. Ta nafr) shuijiao?!
he where sleep
'How can it be that he sleeps?!'
b. Ta bu shuijiao.
he not sleep
'He does not sleep.'
The interpretation of (21a) is different from the manner interpretation of (20). In
other words, nafrj is different from zenme in terms of positions and interpretations.
Thus it is difficult to argue that they are located in the same position in a syntactic
tree.
Given the fact that the use of nafr) is so closely related to negation, one might be
tempted to assume that nafr) occurs in a position where either bu or meifvou) occurs.
This is the second possibility that we will discuss now.
First, consider the resultative compounds that indicate potentiality as given in
(22). The compounds are underlined:
(22) a. Ta ting-de-dong laoshi shuo de hua.
he listen-DE-understand teacher say DE word
'He could understand what the teacher said.'
b. Ta ting-bu-dong laoshi shuo de hua.
he listen-not-understand teacher say DE word
'He couldn't understand what the teacher said.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
200
As shown in (23), nafr) only occurs in a preverbal position and it cannot occur in
the position of bu.
(23) a. Ta nafr) ting-de-dong laoshi shuo de hua?!
he where listen-DE-understand teacher say DE word
'How could he understand what the teacher said?!'
b. *Ta ting-nafr)-dong laoshi shuo de hua?!
he listen-where-understand teacher say DE word
'How could he understand what the teacher said?!'
On the other hand, neither bu nor meifvou) occurs in the position where nafr)
occurs:
(24) *Ta bu/meifvou) ting-de-dong laoshi shuo de hua.
he not/not(have) listen-DE-understand teacher say DE word
'He couldn't understand what the teacher said.'
Thus, it is unlikely that nafr) occurs in the same position as bu or meifvou). If
indeed negation is expressed, it is an abstract negative feature. This abstract
negative feature should not be sensitive to verb/aspect as a negative marker:
(25) a. Ta meifvou) chi-(*|e) san-wan fan.
he not(have) eat-ASP three-CL rice
'He didn't eat three bowls of rice.'
b. Ta nafr) chi-le san-wan fan?!
he where eat-ASP three-CL rice
'How is it possible that he ate three bowls of rice?!'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
201
As shown in (25), meifvou) cannot occur with the perfective -le, whereas nafr)
imposes no constraint on its complement.
Further evidence shows that nafr) does not sit in the same position as meifvou).
Consider the contrast in (26) and (27).
(26) a. Tamen dou meifvou) qu-guo Zhongguo.
they all not(have) go-ASP China
'None of them has been to China.'
b. Tamen meifvou) dou qu-guo Zhongguo.
they not(have) all go-ASP China
'Not all of them have been to China.'
(27) a. *Tamen dou nafr) qu-guo Zhongguo?!
they all where go-ASP China
'How is it possible that all of them have been to China?!'
b. Tamen nafr) dou qu-guo Zhongguo?!
they where all go-ASP China
'How is it possible that all of them have been to China?!'
The above examples show the position of nafr) is restricted: while dou can occur
either before or after meifvou). nafr) can only precede it.
In summary, evidence shows that nafr) can occur neither in a position where
zenme is located nor is located in the same position as either negative marker. In the
next section, we will move on to the discussion of our proposal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
202
6.4 Our Syntactic Analysis
In this section, we will propose a syntactic analysis which allows us to avoid the
problems faced by the two analyses above, and which captures the affinity between
negation and question.
6.4.1 Overt Realization of the Operator
We propose that nafr) is an overt realization of the operator in the Spec of QP.
This idea stems from Progovac's (1988) proposal that negative polarity items (NPIs)
are licensed by a negative operator in the Spec of CP. By establishing that the
polarity operator is negative, Progovac is able to unify the set of NPI triggers: NPIs
can only be licensed by negation, be it overt or covert (in the form of a null negative
operator).6 7 The negative operator is responsible for NPI licensing when there is no
overt negation.
Progovac assumes that an operator has a [+/-] switch. We propose that a nafr)-
rhetorical question is expressed by a QP. The operator in the Spec of QP is marked
with [+NEG] and is realized as nafr).6 8 We assume a QP takes a PredP as its
complement as illustrated in (28).
67 Progovac (1988) claims that contexts that license NPIs involve a negative operator: yes-no
questions, alternative questions, and wh-questions. For the arguments that such an operator is
negative, see Progovac (1988, pp.172-187).
68 Presumably, a negative marker is also marked with the [+NEG] feature.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
203
(28)
TP
>p6cT'
T QP
O I^ ^ Q '
[+NEG]
n a ( r ) Q
The proposal captures the three characteristics of a nafrVrhetorical question as
we discussed above. Since the operator can only be negative and thus unlike a wh-
question, the nafr) question cannot be an interrogative and it always implies a
negative proposition.
6.4.2 The Interpretation of a Wh-word in a Na(r)-Rhetorical Question
and the Licensing of a Minimizer
In this section we will present data that supports our claim that nafr) is an overt
realization of the negative operator in the Spec of QP. This operator is marked with
a [+NEG] feature.
Let us discuss the interpretation of wh-words in Chinese first. It is well-known
that in Chinese and many other languages, wh-words can have a non-interrogative
indefinite (or indeterminate) interpretation, as well as an interrogative one. L. Cheng
(1991) claims that wh-words in Mandarin Chinese are indefinite NPs (or polarity
items), which do not have inherent quantificational force (cf. Kuroda 1965). In (29a)
the wh-word has an existential reading induced by the yes/no question particle ma.
In (29b) it has a universal reading induced by the universal quantifier
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
204
dou 'all.' And in (29c) it has a negative polarity reading induced by the negative
marker.
(29) a. Ni zai xiang shei ma?
you in think who PRT
'Are you thinking of someone?'
b. Ta shenme dou chi,
he what all eat
'He eats everything.'
c. Ta bu xiang chi shenme.
he not want eat what
'He does not want to eat anything.'
Similarly, Y.-H. Li (1992) claims that the occurrence of an indefinite wh is
licensed by a licenser, which is defined in terms of its effect on the truth value of a
proposition. The relation between an indefinite wh and its licenser is characterized
as a binder-variable relation, much like the one that exists between an interrogative
wh and a question operator.
With this in mind, now consider the following examples. Note that in a nafr)
sentence a wh-word cannot be construed as an interrogative wh-element.
(30) a. *Shei na(r) chi-guo na zhong dongxi?
who where eat-ASP that kind thing
'Who can possibly have eaten that kind of thing?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
205
b. *Ta nafr) chi-guo shenme dongxi?
he where eat-ASP what thing
’ What can he have possibly eaten?1
A wh-word can have a non-interrogative interpretation if it is under the scope of
nafr):
(31) a. *Shei nafr) chi-guo na zhong dongxi?!
who where eat-ASP that kind thing
'How can it be possible that anybody has eaten that kind of things?'
b. Ta nafr) chi-guo shenme dongxi?!
he where eat-ASP what thing
'How can it be the case that he has eaten anything?!'
The reason why a wh-word in a nafr) question cannot be construed as an
interrogative could possibly be due to the nature of nafr) questions. The function of
a nafr) question is to deny something that has been previously thought or implied.
Thus it is not possible for nafr) to occur with an interrogative wh-word. Assume the
interrogative interpretation of a wh-word is licensed by a positive question marker,
then the wh-word in a nafr) question can never be licensed as an interrogative
because the positive operator is missing. Our analysis in which nafr) is an overt
realization of a negative operator thus captures this fact nicely.
What is also interesting to us here is the subject-object contrast shown in (31).
That is, the object but not the subject can be interpreted as non-interrogative. Given
our analysis that nafr) is an overt realization of the operator with the [+NEG] feature,
the asymmetry between an object and a subject can be explained.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
206
Now let us consider a similar subject-object asymmetry in an A-not-A question.
(32) a. *Shei xiang-bu-xiang ta?
who think-not-think he
'Does anyone think of him or not?'
b. Ni xiang-bu-xiang chi shenme?
you want-not-want eat what
'Do you want to eat anything?'
*'What do you want to eat and what do you do not want to eat?'
Note that the pair reading for multiple constituent questions is not available for
(32). Wachowicz (1974, 1975) observes that multiple constituent questions are
requests for information on how to pair elements from the sets over which the wh-
words range, rather than requests for the identity of wh-words. Therefore, a proper
answer to a multiple question has to be a list of at least two pairs. For example,
(33) Q: Who brought what?
A l: Monica brought her teddy-bear and Herbert brought his dolls.
A2: #Monica brought her teddy-bear.
The semantics of an A-not-A question requires that one and only one of the
presented alternatives is true. Thus it is not possible for it to be paired with an
interrogative wh-word. In this way, a wh-word can only be construed as a non-
interrogative. The contrast in (32) shows that the object but not the subject is within
the scope of the licenser.
Now let us move on to the licensing of a special type of NPI, i.e. minimizers such
ban-dian dongxi 'half-bit of thing.' This type of NPI behaves differently from NPIs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
207
such as renhe 'any' NPs. Examples in (34) and (35) show thatban-dian dongxi 'half
bit of thing' and renhe dongxi 'anything' are NPIs because they can be licensed by
negation and they cannot occur without negation.
(34) a. *Ta chi-le ban-dian dongxi.
he eat-ASP half-bit thing
'He has eaten half-bit of thing.'
b. Ta meifvou) chi ban-dian dongxi.
he not(have) eat half-bit thing
'He didn't eat anything.'
(35) a. *Ta chi-le renhe dongxi.
he eat-ASP any thing
'He ate anything.'
b. Ta meifvou) chi renhe dongxi.
he not(have) eat any thing
'He didn't eat anything.'
The renhe phrase in (35a) only has the free choice 'any' reading.
The two types of NPIs can also be licensed in yes/no questions, in A-not-A
questions and in conditional clauses:
(36) a. Ni xiang renhe ren ma?
you think any person PRT
'Do you miss anyone?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
208
b. Ni xiang-bu-xiang renhe ren?
you think-not-think any person
'Do you miss anyone?'
c. Yaoshi ni you renhe wenti, qing lai zhao wo.
if you have any question please come look: for I
'If you have any question, please come and see me.'
(37) a. Ta gei-guo ni ban-mao qian ma?!
he give-ASP you half-cent money
'Did he give you any money?!'
b. Ta gei-mei-gei-guo ni ban-mao qian?!
he give-not-give-ASP half-cent money
'Did he give you any money?!'
c. Yaoshi ni gan gei ta ban-mao qian dehua, wo jiu gen ni duanjue
if you dare give he half-cent money thatxase I then with you cut
guanxi.
relationship
'If you dare to give him any money at all, I will cut off relation with
you.'
Despite this, we judge (37) but not (36) to bear a strong negative implication.
Sentences (37a) and (37b) imply that 'he didn't give you any money at all.' Thus
they are rhetorical questions. Sentence (37b) is a threat, meaning 'no money can be
given to him.'
The licensing of the minimizer in the (a) and (c) sentences of (36) and (37) is not
a problem for Progovac because there is an operator that is located in the Spec of CP
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
209
licensing the minimizer. As for A-not-A questions, Progovac claims it is the
negation in the A-not-A form itself that licenses an object NPI. She argues that an
object NPI can be licensed by an A-not-A form because an A-not-A form has
negation embedded within it. In contrast, a subject NPI cannot be licensed by
negation because it is too low in the tree structure. This analysis, however, seems to
miss an observation that can be made about licensing a minimizer. That is, a
minimizer is licensed only if there is a strong negative interpretation. Note that the
strong negative interpretation cannot come from the Spec of CP. If it were the case,
we could not explain why the minimizer cannot be licensed in subject position:
(38) *You ban-ge ren gei-mei-gei-guo ni qian?!
have half-CL person give-not-give-ASP you money
'Is there anybody who has given you money at all?!'
On the other hand, if we assume that what licenses a minimizer is a negative
operator, then we can distinguish the licensers for a minimizer from those for a renhe
NP. While the former requires a negative operator, the latter does not impose such a
requirement.
6.4.3 Our Feature System vs. Aoun and Li's Feature System
We have proposed above that an operator can be negative and be marked with
[+NEG] feature. Also, as we have discussed in Chapter 4, an operator can have a
[+Q] feature. This [+Q] feature can raise to the Spec of CP to check the strong [+Q]
feature of C°. This [+Q] feature indicates the existence of an interrogative sentence
and thus is not compatible with a negative operator.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
210
In addition to the above values and features, we also propose that the
morphologically complex A-not-A forms are marked with the [+WH] feature and
this feature raises to check its feature with the [+WH] feature of Q. We will discuss
this feature more below. For the time being, let us compare our system with Aoun
and Li's (1993), which uses two features to distinguish four types of sentences:
(40) a. [+Qu, +wh] — > [+wh] question
b. [+Qu, -wh] — > yes/no question
c. [-Qu, +wh] — > exclamatory sentence
d. [-Qu, -wh] — > statement
Our system is different from Aoun and Li's because in our system we attempt to
capture the affinity between negation and question. One consequence of our
proposal is that there is no yes/no question that is marked at the level of QP. A
yes/no question has to be marked at a higher level, e.g. TP or CP. This then
converges with the result that we obtained in Chapter 5 for the kam question in
Southern Min. We claim that the predicate-initial question marker kam. which
marks a yes/no question, occurs in T.
Finally, let us compare an A-not-A form with weishenme 'why.' Consider the
following examples:
(41) *Ta nafr) xihuan-bu-xihuan zhe-ben shu?
he where like-not-like this-CL book
'How is it possible that he likes this book?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
211
(42) a. *Ta nafr) weishenme zhidao?!
he where why know
'Why did he know?!'
b. *Ta weishenme nafr) zhidao?!
he why where know
'Why is it possible that he knows it?'
We have seen in the above section that a wh-word in a Hairi-rhetorical question
cannot have an interrogative interpretation. Now the question is why the two
question forms cannot have the non-interrogative interpretation. Our system can rule
out (41) readily if we assume that the [+WH] feature of the A-not-A form will
necessarily trigger the [+Q] feature of the operator in the Spec of QP thus making
impossible a non-interrogative interpretation. It is also clear that weishenme in (42b)
is ruled out because it is not c-commanded by nafr). Now the problem is that
weishenme in (42a) is not licensed. In fact, as shown in (43), weishenme. unlike
zenme 'how,' cannot be licensed by negation either. Both of the two wh-words are
treated as adverbs traditionally, so the licensing distinction cannot somehow derive
from the syntactic categories of these wh-words.
(43) a. *Ta meifvou) weishenme lai.
he not(have) why come
'He didn't come for any reason.'
b. *Ta bu weishenme xihuan ta.
he not why like he
'He does not like him for any reason.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
212
(44) Tabu zenmexifauan ta.
he not how like she
'He does not like her very much.'
One solution to this problem that is available in our QP analysis is that
weishenme 'why,' just like the subject wh-word. occurs in a higher position than QP.
Thus it is not possible for sentence (42a) to be generated. Similarly, neither example
in (43) can be generated because weishenme 'why' must be higher than negation if it
is higher than QP. This analysis is supported by the fact that when a licenser is
available, licensing becomes possible. Consider the examples in (45) and (46).
(45) a. Nafr) you shenme ren weishenme lai zhao ta?!
where have what person why come look he
'Is there any person who came to look for him for any reason?!'
b. Ta you weishenme bu hui jia ma?
he again why not return home PRT
'Did he not want to go home for any reason again?'
c. Yaoshi ta you weishenme bu hui jia dehua, ni jiu lai gaosu wo.
if he again why not return that:case you then come tell me
'If he does not want to go home for any reason again, come and tell
me.'
(46) a. Shei qu, wo jiu da shei.
who go I then beat who
'For every person x, if x goes, I will beat x.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
213
b. Zuotian Akiu weishenme mei(you) hui jia, wo jiu weishenme mei
yesterday Akiu why not.have return home I then why not.have
hui jia.6 9
return home
'For every reason x, if for x Akiu didn't go home yesterday, then for x
I didn't go home yesterday.'
Note that in (45) weishenme can be interpreted non-interrogatively, meaning 'for
any reason.' We assume that naff) in this case is the negative operator in the Spec of
CP, which c-commands weishenme 'why.' Sentence (46a) belongs to one example of
the so-called wh-donkev sentences in Chinese (Cheng and Huang 1996), in which
the two identical in-situ wh-words in separate clauses are analyzed as bound by a
necessity operator.7 0 The necessity operator expresses conditional necessity and
contributes universal force. It is available when no adverb of quantification is
present. Cheng and Huang, however, exclude such a non-interrogative interpretation
of weishenme in (46b).
69 This example is taken from W.-T. Tsai (1999), where he claims this sentence is marginal.
However, as W.-T. Tsai notes in his paper, some people find it completely acceptable.
70 This is referred to as a bare conditional. The other two types are the dou-conditional and ruguo-
conditional as exemplified below respectively:
(i) a. Ni jiao shei jinlai. wo dou jian ta.
you call who enter I all see he
'Whomever you ask to come I will see.'
b. Ruguo ni kandao shei. qing jiao ta lai jian wo.
if you see who please tell he come see I
'If you see someone, please ask him to come to see me.'
For the different properties of these conditionals and their analyses, see Cheng and Huang.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
214
Cheng and Huang's position is similar to those of W.-T. Tsai (1994a) and
Reinhart (1998). For these researchers, unselective binding is claimed to be not
possible for wh-adverbials. For W.-T. Tsai, wh-adverbials are operators, whereas for
Reinhart wh-adverbials cannot be interpreted via choice functions, which the
interpretation of a wh-in-situ employs, and therefore, cannot be interpreted in situ.
In fact, W.-T. Tsai (1999) also argues that (46b) is marginal, and it is only acceptable
if it is analyzed on par with wei(-le) shenme 'for what.' According to him, wef-le)
shenme 'for what,' zenme 'how' and zenme-yang 'how-manner,' unlike weishenme
'why,' can be construed as a wh-donkev sentence:
(47) Akiu hui wei(-le) shenme zi-sha, wo jiu hui web-1 el shenme zi-sha.
Akiu will for(-ASP) what self-kill I then will for(ASP what self-kill
'For every purpose x, if Akiu will kill himself for x, then I will kill myself
for x.'
(48) a. Akiu zenme-vang qu, wo jiu zenme-yang qu.
Akiu how-manner go I then how-manner go
'For every means/way x, if Akiu will go by x, then I will go by x.'
b. Akiu hui zenme qu, wo jiu hui zenme qu.
Akiu will how go I then will know go
'For every means/way x, if Akiu will go by x, then I will go by x.'
(49) Akiu weishenme hui zi-sha, wo jiu weishenme hui zi-sha.
Akiu why will self-kill I then why will self-kill
'For every purpose x, if Akiu will kill himself for x, then I will kill myself
for x.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
215
Adopting Cheng and Huang's unselective binding analysis for the above cases,
W.-T. Tsai argues that in (47) and (48a) a variable can be introduced by the head
noun shenme 'what' and -yang 'manner' respectively. Zenme is analyzed on par with
zenme-yang 'how-manner.' It is argued to be headed by an empty noun, just as
zenme-yang is headed by -yang 'manner.' It is this head and its overt counterpart that
make the unselective bounding possible.
However, we find (49) to be grammatical. Furthermore, duo 'how' can also be
present in a wh-donkev sentence. It is difficult to argue that duo is also headed by an
empty head noun just like zenme 'how.'
(50) Ta shuo you duo gao, jiu you duo gao.
he say have how tall then have how tall
'He is as tall as what he said.'
Therefore, the adverb weishenme 'why' should be able to be unselectively bound
by a necessity operator.
Interestingly, an A-not-A form, as opposed to weishenme. can never be
interpreted non-interrogatively:
(51) a. *Yaoshi ta lai-bu-lai. wo jiu lai-bu-lai.
if he come-not-come I then come-not-come
'If he comes, I will come; if he does not come, I won't come either.'
b. *Ta lai-bu-lai. wo jiu lai-bu-lai.
he come-not-come I then come-not-come
'For either he comes or not, I came or not.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
216
Once again, we would like to contribute to this the fact that an A-not-A form is
marked with the [+WH] feature. Raising of this feature to Q for feature checking
will trigger the [+Q] feature of the operator in the Spec of QP. This will thus only
give rise to an interrogative interpretation.
6.4.4 The Problem with Ne
Finally, in this section let us deal with an apparent problem with our analysis of
the nafrVrhetorical question. We have seen in Chapter 4 that the sentence-final
particle ne can appear in wh-questions. A-not-A questions and negative particle
questions:
(52) Ni chi-le shenme (ne)?
you eat-ASP what PRT
'What did you eat?'
(53) a. Ta qu-bu-qu (ne)?
he go-not-go PRT
'Does he go or not?'
b. Ta qu le meiyou (ne)?
he go ASP not.have PRT
'Has he gone?'
This particle is treated as a question marker in works such as Aoun and Li
(1993), and Cheng and Rooryck (2000). In Aoun and Li (1993), ne that surfaces in
the head Comp position is generated by the mechanism of Spec-head agreement with
the Qu-operator that occurs in the Spec of CP. On the other hand, Cheng and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
217
Rooryck (2000), who try to explain why Chinese is a wh-in-situ language, suggest
that ne checks the strong Q-feature in the matrix C°, and as a consequence, the wh-
feature of a wh-word will is not attracted to C°. Analyses that takene as a question
marker are problematic for us because naff) rhetorical questions can occur with ne as
shown in (54).
(54) Wo nafr) zhidao (ne)?!
I where know PRT
'How do I know?!'
We have argued that nafr) is an overt realization of the operator in the Spec of
QP. This is a negative operator, and if it is negative, it does not mark a question.
Then one question that arises is how it is possible for nafr) to occur with ne. To
answer this, we have to know whether ne is truly a question marker. Before we try
to answer this question, let us point out that ne is always optional. This is
problematic for Cheng and Rooryck because they cannot explain why Chinese does
not allow numerations without wh-particles, and permits overt wh-movement.
Now let us consider the distribution of ne. In addition to occurring in
interrogative sentences, ne can be found in non-interrogative sentences. S. Lu
(1983) has classified three uses of ne in non-interrogative sentences. The first use of
ne as exemplified in (55), according to S. L ii, refers to a piece of fact, and carries a
tone of exaggeration.
(55) a. Zhe tang li de yu ke da ne-
this pond inside DE fish indeed big PRT
The fish in the pond are big.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
218
b. Wo mei(you) shenme, nimen cai xinku ne.
I not(have) what you only industrious PRT
'I didn't do anything. You are the ones who are industrious.'
The second use of ne expresses a continuous state:
(56) a. Waibian xia-zhe yu ne.
outside fall-ASP rain PRT
"It is raining outside.'
b. Tamen dou zai gan huo ne.
they all in do job PRT
'They are all working.'
S. Lu claims that the third use of ne indicates a pause inside of a sentence.
(57) a. Shang shi zhi-hao le, shenti ne, hai you dian xuruo.
wound be treat-good ASP body PRT still have a:little weak
'The wound is healed. As far the body is concerned, it is still a little
weak.'
b. Ni yaoshi fei zou bu ke ne, wo ye bu liu ni.
you if not go not possible PRT I also not detain you
'If you must go, I will not detain you.'
The most recent paper on this issue is that of Shi and Chang (1995). They
enumerate the three analyses of ne in interrogative sentences common in the
literature:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
219
(58) a. Both ne and wh-words are interrogative.
b. Wh-words in Chinese are not interrogative. They are negative
elements, and only when they occur with ne can they be interrogative.
c. Ne is not interrogative no matter whether it occurs in an interrogative
sentence or in a non-interrogative one. It represents 'reminding' or
'probing.'
They refute the first and second analyses, and accept the third analysis, which
claims there is only one ne. The meaning of ne, according to them, is the
confirmation of a fact.
Now let us return to nafr) sentences. When nafr) occurs with ne, it does not
change the rhetorical nature of the question. Thus, we will follow Shi and Chang
(1995) in treating ne as confirmation of a fact.
(59) a. Wo nafr) zhidao?
I where know
'How do I know?'
b. Wo nafr) zhidao ne?
I where know PRT
'How do I know?'
6.5 Conclusions
In this chapter, we argue that nafr) in a rhetorical question is an overt realization
of the negative operator in the Spec of a QP. This negative operator captures the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
220
relation between negation and question in a nafr) rhetorical question. It is also
shown to be relevant for the licensing of a special type of NPIs, i.e. minimizers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
221
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUDING REMARKS
7.1 The Results of Our Study
This dissertation deals with the issue of form and meaning as manifested in
negation and question in Chinese. We study question forms that consist of a positive
part and a negative part, and the question form that expresses negation obligatorily.
The study of the former shows that the locus of negation and question is the QP
between IP and PredP. Our analysis provides a unified analysis for the different
patterns of questions formed by a positive part and a negative part. They all contain
a QP, which is marked with the [+WH] feature, and they have an operator in the
Spec of QP. This operator is marked with the [+Q] feature and raises to the
appropriate Spec of C° for its scope. We assume this movement is driven by feature
checking with the strong [+Q] feature of the appropriate C°. The strong [+Q] feature
can also be checked by the [+Q] feature of a different element. We show kam in
Southern Min is such an element. It is marked with the [+Q] feature, and it is
located in T. Finally, we assume that the strong [+Q] feature can also be checked by
merging a yes-no question marker such as ma in Mandarin.
Based on our analysis of Mandarin, Southern Min, and other dialects, A-not-A
questions and negative particle questions fall into three subcategories. The first
subcategory contains a morphologically complex word, which is marked with the
[+WH] feature. The [+WH] feature raises to Q for feature checking with Q. This
conforms to the spirit of Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), in which words are
fully inflected before they enter syntactic computation. The second subcategory has
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
222
a QP taking a coordinate structure with the positive conjunct and the negative
conjunct (with anaphoric ellipsis or VP ellipsis), and the third subcategory contains a
negative particle that is located in Q.
The existence of a QP is further supported by our study of the question form that
necessarily implies a negative proposition, i.e. nafr) 'where.' It is argued that naff) is
an overt realization of the operator of the Spec of QP. This operator has the [+NEG]
feature, which is responsible for licensing a special type of negative polarity item,
i.e. minimizers such as ban-dian dongxi 'half-bit thing.' This [+NEG] feature
captures the relation between negation and question in a naff) rhetorical question.
Other results of our study are as follows. The agreement requirement between
negation and verb/aspect is characterized as a distinction between a dynamic and a
non-dynamic situation: meifvou) denies a dynamic situation, while bu denies a non
dynamic situation. We propose that there is a NegP for meifvou). which marks
clausal negation, and sits in a position higher than PredP. Bu is adjoined to either
Pred' and V’.
7.2 Theoretical Contributions
On a theoretical level, this study has explored functional categories at the INFL
level. We have established QP, AspP and NegP, and the hierarchy among them.
AspP, which is headed by the sentence-final particle le, is higher than NegP. QP is
higher than AspP. The postulation of the above functional categories allows us to
characterize the syntax of negation and question in Chinese in a precise way. The
features that we employ in this dissertation, i.e. [+NEG], [+Q] and [+WH], capture
the non-one-to-one correspondence between form and meaning.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
223
REFERENCES
Abraham, Werner, Samuel David Epstein, Hoskuldur Thrainsson and Jan-Wouter
Zwart. 1996. Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the M inimalist Framework.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Aoun, Joseph and Y.-H. Audrey Li. 1993. Wft-Elements in Situ: Syntax or LF?
Linguistic Inquiry 24: 199-238.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How To D o Things With Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bach, Emmon. 1986. The Algebra of Events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 5-16.
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1991a. Do-support: Functional Categories— Representation
and Derivation. Ms., University of Southern California.
Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1991b. On the Interaction between W/i-Movement, Verb
Movement, and the QuP Projection. Ms., University of Southern California.
Bhat, D. N. S. 1999. The Prom inence o f Tense, A spect and M ood.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. New
York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bowers, John. 1993. The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591-656.
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evaluation o f
Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and M odality in the Languages o f the World.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Carston, Robyn. 1998. Negation, 'Presupposition' and the Semantics/Pragmatics
Distinction. Journal o f Linguistics 34: 309-350.
Chan, S. W. 1973. Review of Alleton: Les adverbs en Chinois modeme. Journal
o f Chinese Linguistics 1: 323-33.
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A Grammar o f Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. 1991. On the Typology o f Wh-questions. Doctoral Dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
224
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and C.-C. Jane Tang. 1996. On the Syntactic Projection of Tense
in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at The Eighth North American
Conference on Chinese Linguistics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and C.-T. James Huang. 1996. Two Types of Donkey Sentences.
Natural Language Semantics 4: 121-163.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., C.-T. James Huang and C.-C. Jane Tang. 1997. Negative
Particle Questions: A Dialectal Comparison. In M icroparametric Syntax and
D ialect Variation, eds. James Black and Virginia Motapanyane, 41-78.
Amersterdam: John Benjamins.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. and Johan Rooryck. 2000. Licensing Wft-in-situ. Syntax 3: 1-19.
Cheng, Lisa L.-S. and Yafei. Li. 1991. Double Negation in Chinese and Multi-
Projections. Paper presented at The Third North America Conference in Chinese
Linguistics. Cornell University, Ithaca.
Cheng, Robert L. 1977. Taiwanese Question Particles. Journal o f Chinese
Linguistics 5: 153-185.
Chiu, Bonnie H.-C. 1993. The Inflectional Structure o f Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1993. Principles and Parameters Theory. In
Syntax: An International Handbook o f Contemporary Research, eds. Joachim
Jacobs, Amim von Stechow, Wolfgang Stemefeld and Theo Vennemann, Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, M ass.: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1993. Principles and Parameters Theory. In
Syntax: An International Handbook o f Contemporary Research 1, eds. Joachim
Jacobs, Amim von Stechow, Wolfgang Stemfeld and Theo Vennemann, 506-
569. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted in Chomsky, Noam
1995.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Head?,: A Cross-Linguistic
Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cole, Peter and Cher Leng Lee. 1997. Locality Constraints on Yes/No questions in
Singapore Teochew. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 189-211.
Collin, Chris. 1988. Part I: Conjunction Adverbs. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
225
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. On Identifying Future Tenses. Tempus-Aspekt-Modus: Die
Lexikalischen and Grammatischen Formen in den Germanischen Sprachen.
Herausgegeben von Werner Abraham und Theo Janssen. Tubingen: Max
Niemeyer Verlag.
Dahl, Osten. 1981. On the Definition of the Telic-Atelic (Bounded-Unbounded)
Distinction. In Syntax and Semantics: Tense and Aspect4 eds. Philip Tedeschi
and Annie Zaenen, 79-90. New York: Academic Press.
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The Logical Form of Action Sentences. In The Logic o f
Decision and Action, ed. Nicholas Rescher, 81-95. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Ding, Shusheng el. 1963. Xiandai Hanyu Yufa Jianghua. Shangwu Yinshuguan.
Dowty, David R. 1975. The Stative in the Progressive and Other Essence/accident
Contrasts. Linguistic Inquiry 6: 579-588.
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Boston: D.
Reidel.
Dowty, David R. 1989. On the Semantic Content of the Notion of 'Thematic Role.'
In Properties, Types and Meaning, Vol. 2, eds. Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H.
Partee, and Raymond Turner, 69-129. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Drubig, Han Bernhard. 1998. Focus and Connectedness: Towards a Typology of
Focus Constructions. Ms., University of Tubingen.
Ernst, Tom. 1995. Negation in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Languages and
Linguistic Theories 13: 665-707.
Fox, Danny. 1998. A Note on Parallelism, Focus and Accommodation. Paper
presented at 'Workshop on Ellipsis in Conjunction,' Berlin, Zentrum fiir
Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
Fu, Jingqi. 1994. On Deriving Chinese D erived Nominals: Evidence fo r V-to-N
Raising. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Guo, Jin-Man. 1992. Hanyu Zhengfan Wenju de Jiegou he Jufa Yunzuo [The
Structure and Syntactic Movement of Chinese A-not-A Questions]. M.A. thesis,
National Tsing Hua University.
Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan. Sag. 1976. Deep and Surface Anaphora. Linguistic
Inquiry 1: 391-428.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
226
Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning, and Processing.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Hashimoto, Ann. 1971. Mandarin Syntactic Structures. Unicom 8: 1-154.
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History o f Negation. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory o f
Grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1987. Existential Sentences in Chinese and (In)definiteness.
In The Representation o f (In)definiteness, eds. Eric J. Reuland and Alice G. B. ter
Meulen, 226-253. Cambridge, M ass.: MIT Press.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1988. Wo pao de kuai and Chinese Phrase Structure.
Language 64: 274-311.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1991. Modularity and Chinese A-not-A Questions. In
Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor o f S.-Y. Kuroda,
eds. Carol Georgopoulos and Roberta Ishihara, 305-332. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Iatridou, Sabine. 1990. About Agr(P). Linguistic Inquiry 21: 551-577.
Kenny, Anthony. 1963. Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge.
Kim, Soowon. 1989. Wh-phrases in Korean and Japanese are QPs. In M IT Working
Papers in Linguistics 11: 119-138.
Kim, Soowon. 1991. Chain Scope and Quantification Structure. Doctoral
Dissertation, Brandeis University.
Klima, Edward S. 1964. Negation in English. In The Structure o f Language:
Readings in the Philosophy o f Language, eds. J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz, 246-
323. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language.
Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Reprinted, New York: Garland
Press, 1979.
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature o f Functional Categories
and Projections. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Lee, Peppina and Pan Haihua. 1999. Chinese Negation Marker Bu and Its
Association with Focus. Linguistics and Applied Linguistics 2: 111-127.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
227
Li, Charles and Sandra Thompson. 1981. M andarin Chinese: A Functional
R eference Gram m ar. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of
California Press.
Li, Charles N., Sandra A. Thompson, and R. McMillan Thompson. 1982. The
Distinction for The Perfect Aspect: The Mandarin Particle Le. In Tense-Aspect:
Between Semantics and Pragm atics, ed. Paul J. Hoppen. John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Li, Ligang. 1991. Syntactic Negation in Mandarin Chinese. Part II: the Parasession
on Negation. CLS 27: 156-164.
Li, Mei. 1999. N egation in Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Manchester.
Li, P. Jen.-Kuei. 1971. Two Negative Markers. Bulletin o f the Institute o f History
and Philology 43: 201-220. Taipei: Academic Sinica.
Li, Y.-H. Audrey. 1990. O rder and Constituency in M andarin Chinese.
Dordrecht/B oston/London: Kluwer.
Li, Y.-H. Audrey. 1992. Indefinite Wh in Mandarin Chinese. Journal o f East Asian
Linguistics 1: 125-155.
Li, Yuming and Zhidong Tang. 1991. Hanzu Ertong Wenju Xitong Xide Tanwei.
Huazhong Shida Publishing Company.
Lightfoot, David. 2000. Ellipsis as Clitics. In Ellipsis in Conjunction, eds. Kerstin
Schwabe and Ning Zhang, Linguistische Arbeiten 418. Tubingen: Max
Niemeyer Verlag.
Lin, J.-W., and C.-C. J. Tang. 1991. Modals in Chinese. Paper presented at The
Third North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Cornell University.
Lin, Shuang-Fu. 1974. Reduction in Taiwanese A-not-A Questions. Journal o f
Chinese Linguistics 2: 37-78.
Liu, Feng-Hsi. 1997. An Aspectual Analysis of B a. Journal o f E ast Asian
Linguistics 6: 51-99.
Liu, Linda H-M. 1997. Guo Min Ke yu de Dongtai Wenfa Tixi ji Dongtai ci de
Shangjia Dongmao Yuyi [The Mood System in Mandarin, Southern Min and
Hakka, and the Aspect Meaning Posted on the Modals]. Taipei: The Crane
Publishing Co., LTD.
Liu, Xunning. 1988. Xiandai Hanyu Ciwei 'Le' de Yufa Yiyi. Zhongguo Yuwen 5:
321-330.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
228
Lobeck, Anne. 1995. Ellipsis. Oxford UP.
Lu, Yingshun. 1991. Tantan "Lei" He "Le2" De Qubie Fangfa. Zhongguo Yuwen
4: 275-278.
Lii, Shuxiang. 1991. Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci. Hong Kong: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Vol. 2. London: Cambridge University Press.
Malmqvist, N. G. D. 1986. On the Modalities of Obligation and Epistemic
Necessity in the Shiyoujih. Paper presented at the Second International
Conference on Sinology. Taipei: Academic Sinica.
McCawley, James D. 1994. The Syntax of Mandarin Yes-No Questions. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 3: 179-194.
Metchell, Erika. 1994. On the Position of NegP in English and the Status of 'Not.'
Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 94-126.
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, Mass.
Mithun, Marianne. 1995. On the Relativity of Irreality. In M odality in Grammar
and D iscourse, eds. Joan Bybee and Suzanne Fleischmen, 367-388.
Amersterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company:
Munn, Alan. 1989. 1987. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry
19: 335-391.
Ogihara, Toshiyuki. 1996. Tense, Attitudes, and Scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1990. Sentential negation, relativized minimality and the aspectual
status of auxiliaries. The Linguistic Review 7: 183-231.
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1991. Functional categories and parametric variation. London:
Routledge.
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1986. M ood and M odality. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
Parsons, Terence. 1980. Modifiers and Quantifiers in Natural Languages.
Canadian Journal o f Philosophy, Supplementary 6: 29-60.
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics o f English: A Study in Subatomic
Semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
229
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure
of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424.
Potsdam, Eric. 1997. NegP and Subjunctive Complements in English. Linguistics
Inquiry 28: 533-541.
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1988. A Binding Approach to Polarity Sensitivity. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1998. Structure for Coordination. Glot International 3.7 and
3.8.
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1999. Events and Economy of Coordination. Syntax 2: 141-
159.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1998. W7*-in-situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program.
Natural Language Semantics 6: 29-56.
Rescher, Nicholas. 1967. The Logic o f Decision and Action. Pittsburgh: University
of Pittsburgh Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Elem ents o f
Grammar, ed. L. Haegeman. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. Ellipsis Redundancy and Reduction Redundancy. In
Proceedings o f the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, eds. Steve Berman and Arild
Hestvik. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340: Sprachtheoretische
Grundlagen fur die Computerlinguistik 29. Tubingen: University of Stuttgart.
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variable in Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Ross, Claudia. 1995. Temporal and Aspectual Reference in Mandarin Chinese.
Journal o f Chinese Linguistics 23.1.
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The Concept o f Mind. London: Bames and Noble.
Shao, Jingmin. 1996. Xiandai Hanyu Yiwenju Yanjiu. Huadong Shifan Daxue
Chubanshe.
Shen, J. 1995. You Jie Yu Wu Jie. Zhongguo Yuwen 5: 367-380.
Shi, Yuzhi and Ping Chang. 1995. Ne De Yufa Yiyi Ji Yu Yiwen Daici Gongxian
De Tiaojian. Journal o f Chinese Language Teachers Association 30: 71-83.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
230
Shi, Yuzhi. 1999. The Formation of the Negative Perfect— M ei-VP. Paper
presented at The Eleventh North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics,
Harvard University.
Shi, Ziqiang. 1990. Decomposition of Perfectivity and Inchoativity and the
Meaning of the Particle Le in Mandarin Chinese. Journal o f Chinese Linguistics
18: 95-124.
Smith, Carlota S. 1991. The Parameter o f Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sybesma, Rint. 1997. The Mandarin VP. HIL/Leiden University.
Tai, James H.-Y. 1984. Verbs and Times in Chinese: Vendler's Four Categories.
In Lexical Semantics, eds. Testen Mishra and Drogo, 289-296. Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society.
Tancredi, Christopher. 1992. Deletion, Deaccenting and Presupposition. Doctoral
Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Tang, C.-C. Jane. 1990. Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X'-Theory.
Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.
Tang, Ting-Chi. 1999. On the Kam-question in Southern Min. Paper presented in
The Eleventh North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Harvard
University.
Teng, Shou-Hsin. 1973a. Scope of Negation. Journal o f Chinese Linguistics 1:
475-478.
Teng, Shou-Hsin. 1973b. Negation and Aspects in Chinese. Journal o f Chinese
Linguistics 1: 14-37.
Teng, Shou-Hsin. 1974. Negation in Chinese. Journal o f Chinese Linguistics 2:
125-140.
Thiersch, Craig. 1985. VP and Scrambling in the German Mittelfeld. Ms.,
University of Connecticut, and University of Koln.
Thompson, Sandra A. 1998. A Discourse Explanation for the Cross-Linguistic
Differences in the Grammar of Interrogation and Negation. In Case, Typology
and G ram m aru eds. Anna Siewierska and Jae Jung Song, 309-341.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tomioka, Satoshi. 1995. Focusing Effects and NP Interpretation in VP Ellipsis.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
231
Travis, Lisa. 1988. The Syntax of Adverbs. In M cG rill Working P apers in
Linguistics: Proceedings o f the IVth Workshop in Com parative Germanic
Syntax. McGill University, Montreal.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 1994a. On Nominal Islands and LF Extractions in Chinese.
Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 12: 121-175.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 1994b. On Economizing the Theory o f A -bar Dependencies.
Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. 1999. The Hows of Why and The Whys of How. Ms., National
Tsing Hua University.
Tsang, Chui Lim. 1978. A Semantic Study of Six Grammaticalized Aspectual
Markers in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at the Seminar on Tense and
Aspect at Stanford University.
Tsang, Chui Lim. 1981. A Semantic Study o f M odal Auxiliary Verbs in Chinese.
Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.
Uribe-Echevarria, Maria. 1994. Interface Licensing on Negative Polarity Items: A
Theory o f Polarity and Tense Interactions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Connecticut.
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University Press.
Vlach, Frank. 1981. The Semantics of the Progressive. In Syntax and Semantics:
Tense and Aspect* eds. Philip Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen, 271-292. New York:
Academic Press.
Wachowicz, Krystyna. 1974. On the Syntax and Semantics o f Multiple Questions.
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas/Austin.
Wachowicz, Krystyna. 1975. Multiple Questions. Linguistica Silesiana 1: 145-151.
Wang, Li. 1958. Hanyu Shiga. Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe.
Wang, Pen-Ying and Chin-Fa Lien. 1995. Taiwan Minnanyu zhong de Fanfu
Wenju. In The 1994 Conference on Language Teaching and Linguistics in
Taiwan. Vol. I: Southern Min. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Wang, William S.-Y. 1965. Two Aspect Markers in Mandarin. Language 41: 457-
470.
Wekker H. Chr. 1976. The Expression o f Future Time in Contemporary British
English: An Investigation into the Syntax and Semantics o f Five Verbal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
232
Constructions Expressing Futurity. Amsterdam, New York and Oxford: North-
Holland Publishing Company.
Wilder, Chris. 1997. Some Properties of Ellipsis in Coordination. In Studies on
Universal Grammar and Typological Variation, eds. Artemis Alexiadou and T.
Alan Hall, 59-107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Winkler, Susanne. 2000. Silent Copy and Polarity Focus in VP Ellipsis. In Ellipsis
in Conjunction, eds. Kerstin Schwabe and Ning Zhang, Linguistische Arbeiten
418, 221-246. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
William, Edward. 1977. Discourse and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 101-
139.
Wu, Guo. 2000. The Origin of the Mandarin Particle LE. Journal o f the Chinese
Language Teachers Association 35: 29-60.
Wu, Jiemin. 1982. Fouding Fuci 'Bu' he 'Meiyou' Shixi. Yuyanxue Niankan.
Zhejiangsheng Yuyanxuehui Bianjibu and Huangzhou Daxue Xuebao Bianjiebu.
Xu, Ding. 1997. Functional Categories in Mandarin Chinese. Holland Institute of
Generative Linguistics. Netherlands.
Yang, L.-S. 1971. Hanyu Foudingci Zatan. Tsing Hua Journal o f Chinese Studies 9:
160-191.
Yeh, Ling-Hsia. 1992. On Sentential Negation in Chinese. Ms., University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Yeh, Meng. 1993. The Stative Situation and the Imperfective Zhe in Mandarin.
Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association 1: 69-98.
Yeh, Ling-Hsia. 1995. Focus, Metalinguistic Negation, and Contrastive Negation.
Journal o f Chinese Linguistics 23: 42-75.
Yuan, Yulin. 2000. Lun Foudingju De Jiaodian, Yushe De Xiayu Qiyi [On the
Meaning of Focus, Presupposition and Scope]. Zhongguo Yuwen 2: 99-108.
Zanuttini, R. 1991. Syntactic Properties o f Sentential Negation: A Comparative
Study o f Rom ance Languages. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania.
Zhang, Ning. 1997. Syntactic Dependencies in M andarin Chinese. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Toronto.
Zhu, Dexi. 1984. Yufa Jiangyi. Beijing: Commercial Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
233
Zhu, Dexi. 1985. Hanyu Fangyan Li De Liang-Zhong Fanfu Wenju. Zhongguo
Yuwen 1: 10-20.
Zhu, Dexi. 1991. "V-neg-VO" Yu "VO-neg-V" Liang-Zhong Fanfu Wenju zai
Hanyu Fangyan li de Fenbu [The Dialectal Distribution of the Interrogative
Sentence Patterns: "V-Neg-VO" and VO-neg-V1 ' in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen
5: 321-332.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
234
APPENDIX A
ASPECT IN CHINESE
Aspect, according to Comrie (1976), is concerned with the internal temporal
constituency of a situation. Grammatical aspect, which is usually expressed by a
grammatical morpheme, refers to notions such as perfective and imperfective.
Perfectivity views a situation in its entirety or as a whole, whereas imperfectivity
does not. Imperfectivity may include habitual and continuous, and continuous can
be further divided into Non-progressive and progressive.
A notion that is similar to, but different from, aspect is Aktionsarten. They are
similar in the sense that they are marked by differences in verb stems, and both have
to do with the internal structures of events or situations. Nevertheless, while aspect
grammaticalizes relevant semantic distinctions, Aktionsarten lexicalize them by
means of derivational morphology (Comrie, 1976, pp. 6-7). Binnik (1991, p. 170)
compares aspect with Aktionsarten as follows:
Aspect is a fully grammaticalized, obligatory,
systematic category of languages, operating with
general oppositions such as that of perfective and non-
perfective, while Aktionsarten are purely lexical
categories, nongram maticalized, optional and
unsystematic, defined in very specific terms such as
inceptive and resumptive.
A yet different notion from Aspect and Aktionsarten is Aristotelian aspect
(usually called the Vendlerian category), an unmarked category, which deals with
the structure of situations. This categorization is originated from the distinctions
between being (state) and doing (activity) made by Aristotle. Later scholars, such as
Ryle (1949), Kenny (1963) and Vendler (1967), further distinguish four types of
verbs: states, activities, accomplishments, and achievements. The time schemata for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
235
the four categories of English verbs are given in (1), and Yendler's examples are
given in (2).
(1) Activities: Continuous tenses with no set terminal point.
Accomplishments: Continuous tenses with set terminal point.
Achievements: Lacking continuous tenses, predicated only for single
instants of time.
States: Lacking continuous tenses, predicated for a shorter or longer
period of time.
(2) Activities Accomplishments Achievements States
run paint a picture recognize know
walk draw a circle find love
write run a mile lose have
drive a car write a letter die desire
It is later shown by Verkuyl (1972) that this is a classification of sentences, not
verbs. More recently, the four situation types are distinguished by three features
'static,' 'durative' and 'telic' in Smith (1991) as follows:7 1
(3) Accomplishments are dynamic, durative, telic events consisting of a
process with successive stages and an outcome ('build a house,' 'walk
to school,' 'learn Greek')
71 In addition the four usual Vendler's situation types, Smith (1991) has a situation type called
Semelfactive. It refers to dynamic, atelic, and instantaneous events ('tap,' 'knock'). The distinction is
not crucial to the choice between the two negative markers, so we do not include this situation type
for the sake of simplicity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
236
Achievements are dynamic, telic, instantaneous events ('win the race,'
'reach the top')
Activities are dynamic, durative, atelic events ('laugh,' 'stroll in the park')
States are static, durative ('know the answer,' 'love Mary')
The distinction between accomplishments and achievements, on the one hand,
and activities on the other is telic vs. atelic. A telic event contains a natural end
point, while an atelic event contains an arbitrary one. Two kinds of events are
durative, i.e. accomplishments and activities, because they are not viewed as
instantaneous as are achievements. The notion of 'durative,' however, also applies to
states. Despite the fact that they do not have an initial point or an end point, they are
also not instantaneous as are achievements. Instead of the four situation types in (3),
some linguists distinguish three situation types: events, process, and states (e.g.
Lyons 1977). Events are non-extended dynamic situations that occur, momentarily,
in time; processes are extended dynamic situations that last, or endure, through time;
states are like processes in that they too last, or endure, through time, but they differ
from processes in that they are homogenous throughout the period of their existence.
Some may use 'acts' and 'activities' to refer to agent-controlled events and processes,
respectively. For our purpose, what is more crucial is the distinction between state
and dynamic. We will follow Comrie (1976) in contrasting 'states' with 'dynamic
situations.' A stative/dynamic distinction is characterized by Comrie (1976, p. 49) as
follows. A state involves no change, whereas a dynamic situation necessarily
involves change. For example, 'John knows where I live' describes a state because
all phases of the situation are identical. 'John is running' refers to a dynamic
situation because different phases of the situation are different: at one moment John
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
237
will have one foot on the ground, at another moment neither foot will be on the
ground, and so on. A more precise characterization of the stative/dynamic
distinction, according to Comrie, is as follows:
With a state, unless something happens to change that
state, then the state will continue... With a dynamic
situation, on the other hand, the situation will only
continue if it is continually subject to a new input of
energy.
According to this definition, the start or end of a state is dynamic, 'since for a
state started or stopped something must come about to bring about the change into or
out of this state.' Finally, since a punctual situation automatically involves a change
of state, it is automatically dynamic.
Note there are nonlinguistic things in the world corresponding to the linguistic
items classified above: there are, in the world, accomplishments, achievements,
activities, and states. Those are called 'eventualities' by Bach (1986).
In this appendix, we will discuss how Aktionsarten, Aristotelian aspect and
grammatical aspect are manifested in Chinese.
1. Aktionsarten
Chinese has Aktionsarten. For example, completion is expressed by a resultative
verb compound. A resultative verb compound is composed of a verb and a
complement. The verb indicates action, and the complement indicates the result.
Consider the contrast between the simple verb hua 'paint' and the resultative verb
compound hua-wan 'paint-finish' in the following sentences (J. Tai 1984, p. 290):
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
238
(4) a. Wo zuotian hua-le yi-zhang hua, keshi mei(you) hua-wan.
I yesterday paint-ASP one-CL picture but not(have) paint-finish
'I painted yesterday, but I didn't finish the picture.'
b. *Wo zuotian hua-wan-le yi-zhang hua, keshi mei(you) hua-wan.
I yesterday paint-ASP one-CL picture but not(have) paint-finish
'I finished painting a picture yesterday, but I didn't finish it.'
The latter but not the former contains a contradiction. Tai points out when the
English expressions such as 'to paint a picture' and 'to write a letter' are in past or
perfect tenses, they necessarily imply attainment of the goal, but this is not the case
in Chinese. To unambiguously indicate completion, Chinese resorts to a resultative
verb compound.
Similarly, sha 'kill' and sha-si 'kill-die' function the same way (J. Tai 1984, p.
291):
(5) a. Zhangsan sha-le Lisi liangci, Lisi dou mei(you) si.
Zhangsan kill-ASP Lisi twice Lisi all not(have) die
'Zhangsan performed the action of attempting to kill Lisi twice, but
Lisi didn't die.'
b. *Zhangsan sha-si-le Lisi liangci, Lisi dou mei(you) si.
Zhangsan kill-die-ASP Lisi twice Lisi all not(have) die
'*Zhangsan killed Lisi twice, but Lisi didn't die.'
In addition to completion, there are other verb complements that are related to
notion relevant to the internal structure of a situation. Here are some examples.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
239
Continuation:
(6) Ni kan-xiaqu jiu zhidao le.
you read-down then know ASP
'You will know when you continue to read it.'
Inception:
(7) T a yijing chang-qilai le.
he already sing-up ASP
'He started to sing already.'
2. Aristotelian aspect (Situation Types)
Situation types are covert categories in Chinese; they are expressed by
independent verbs and their arguments. In this section, we will identify several tests
for differentiating situation types.
2.1 ZaL.Nei Phrase vs. Durational Phrase
The first test is the use of an 'in' phrase and a 'for' durational phrase. Both an 'in'
phrase and a 'for' durational phrase mark duration. But the former indicates
completion at an interval, while the latter marks the duration of an action. Thus, an
accomplishment verb such as 'to learn' can only occur with the former, whereas an
activity verb such as 'to study' can only occur with the latter:
(8) a. *He has studied Chinese in five years,
b. He has learned Chinese in five years.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
240
(9) a. He has studied Chinese for five years,
b. *He has learned Chinese for five years.
Now consider the test applied to Chinese data. According to Smith (1991, p.
373), in Chinese there is no adverbial that indicates completion at an interval, in the
sense of 'in' in English. The closest equivalent is the zai. ..nei 'in' phrase, which may
express either completion within an interval, or completion at an interval. Thus, both
an accomplishment and an achievement can occur with a zai...nei 'in' phrase as
shown in (10) and (11). The situation type given at the end of each sentence is based
on the verb and the argument(s) underlined in each sentence.
(10) a. Ta zai vi-tian nei hua-le na/vi-zhang hua. (accomplishment)
he in one-day in paint-ASP that one-CL picture
'He painted that/a picture in one day.'
b. Ta zai wu-nian nei faxian-le na/vi-ge difang, (achievement)
he in five-year in discover-ASP that one-CL place
'He discovered that/a place in five years.'
In contrast, an activity and a state cannot be modified by a zai...nei phrase.
(11) a. ?*Ta zai vi-tian nei hua-le hua. (activity)
he in one-day in paint-ASP picture
'He painted in a day.'
b. *Ta zai wu-nian nei ai Wang xiaojie. (state)
he in five-year in love Wang miss
'He loves Miss Wang within five years.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
241
On the other hand, a durational phrase can distinguish an activity from other
situation types:
(12) a. *Ta hua-le vi-tian de na/vi-zhang hua. (accomplishment)
he paint-ASP one-day's that one-CL picture
'He painted that/a picture for a day.'
b. *Ta faxian-le wu-nian de na/vi-ge difang, (achievement)
he discover-ASP five-year's that-CL place
'He discovered the place/a place for five years.'
(13) a. Ta hua-le vi-tian de hua. (activity)
he paint-ASP one-day's picture
'He painted for a day.'
b. *Ta zhidao wu-tian de zhe-jian shi. (state)
he know five-day's this-CL matter
'He has known this for five days.'
An achievement cannot occur with a durative phrase because it is instantaneous.
However, a durational phrase can occur with an achievement verb if it is followed by
the sentence-final ]e, as shown in (14). It is possible because it means 'it has been
five years since....'
(14) a. Na-jian fangzi ta-le wu-xiaoshi *(le). (achievement)
that-CL house fall-ASP five-hour ASP
'It has been five hours since the house collapsed.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
242
b. Ta faxian na-ge difang wu-nian *fle). (achievement)
he discover that-CL place five-year ASP
'It has been five years since he discovered that place.'
2.2 Hua 'cost'
The test using the verb hua 'cost' is very similar to the above test. An
accomplishment can occur with hua 'cost,' but an activity cannot.
(15) a. *It took him five years to study Chinese,
b. It took him five years to learn Chinese.
Consider the Chinese data. Hua 'cost' can occur with an accomplishment, but not
others:
(16) a. Hua na-zhang hua hua-le ta wu-nian. (accomplishment)
paint that-CL picture cost-ASP he five-year
'It took him five years to paint that picture.'
b. *Si hua-le ta yi-ge xiaoshi. (achievement)
die cost-ASP he one-CL hour
'It took one hour for him to die.'
(17) a. *Paobu hua-le ta wu-ge xiaoshi (activity)
run Chinese cost-ASP he five-CL hour
'It took him five hours to run.'
b. *Zhidao na-jian shi hua-le ta yi-tian. (state)
know that-CL matter cost-ASP he one-day
'It took him one day to know that matter.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
243
2.3 Jihu 'almost'
As Dowty (1979, p. 58) points out, when 'almost' occurs with an accomplishment
verb, it has two possible readings as illustrated in (18). In one reading, John had the
intention of painting a picture but changed his mind, and did nothing at all. In the
second reading, John did begin work on the picture, and he almost but not quite
finished it. This is because an accomplishment has two parts: the process and the
outcome. Either one can be focused.
(18) John almost painted a picture.
Similarly, when jihu 'almost' occurs in an accomplishment in Chinese, it is also
ambiguous.
(19) Zhangsan jihu hua-le vi-zhang hua. (accomplishment)
Zhangsan almost paint-ASP one-CL picture
'Zhangsan almost painted one picture.'
However, when a resultative verb compound is used, only the second meaning is
available. That is, in (20) Zhangsan started painting the picture, but did not finish it.
(20) Zhangsan jihu hua-wan-le vi-zhang hua. (accomplishment)
Zhangsan almost paint-finish-ASP one-CL picture
’ Zhangsan almost painted one picture.'
A possible explanation for the contrast between Chinese and English is that in a
Chinese verb resultative compound, the verb part is presupposed and the
complement part is asserted. Thus only the result complement can be focused (J. Tai
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
244
1984). What this means is that the event in the Chinese sentence in (20) has started,
but has not yet finished.
When jihu 'almost' occurs in an achievement or in an activity, which does not
consist of two parts as does an accomplishment, the sentence is thus not ambiguous.
(21) a. Ta jihu faxian na-ge difang. (achievement)
he almost discover that-CL place
'He almost discovered that place.'
b. Ta jihu zoulu qu. (activity)
he almost walk go
'He almost walked there.'
Finally, jihu can never occur in a state.
(22) *Ta jihu ai Wang xiaojie. (state)
he almost love Wang miss
'He almost loves Wang.'
2.4 Progressive aspect
Finally, the progressive aspect distinguishes an accomplishment and an activity
from an achievement and a state as shown in (23)-(24).
(23) a. Ta (zheng) zai gai san-jian fangzi. (accomplishment)
he right in build three-CL house
'He is building three houses.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
245
b. *Ta (zheng) zai faxian na-ge difang, (achievement)
he right in discover that-CL place
'He is discovering that place.'
(24) a. Ta (zhheng) zai paobu. (activity)
he right in run
'He is running.'
b. *Ta fzhengl zai xihuan Wang xiaojie. (state)
he right in like Wang miss
'He is liking Miss Wang.'
Nevertheless, if an accomplishment is expressed by a resultative complement,
then it cannot occur in a progressive aspect (I. Tai 1984):
(25) *Ta (zhengl zai kan-wan na-ben shu. (accomplishment)
he right in read-finish that-CL book
'He is finishing reading the book.'
In contrast, an accomplishment in English can occur in the progressive aspect as
shown in (26).
(26) a. He is building a house,
b. He is painting a picture.
This also indicates that Chinese focuses on the result in a resultative verb
compound, not the action part. Thus an accomplishment does not occur with the
progressive aspect.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
246
2.5 Summary
In summary, we have the results in (27).
(27) Accomplishment Achievement Activity State
a. zai...nei 'in' phrase V V ?* *
durational phrase * * V *
b. hua 'cost' V * * *
c. jihu 'almost' V V V *
d. progressive aspect V * V *
The significant of test c is that only an accomplishment is ambiguous.
3. Aspect (Grammatical Aspect)
For marking aspect, Chinese has two perfective markers (-le and -guo). two
imperfective markers (zai and -zhe), and a sentence-final particle le. There is a large
body of literature on those aspectual markers. However, what we do here is merely
to serve as a background for our discussion of the issues in the main text.
3.1 The Perfective Marker -Le
The perfective marker -le is used to mark a situation as a whole. It, however,
conveys an arbitrary final point as shown in (4a), repeated here.
(28) Wo zuotian hua-le yi-zhang hua, keshi mei(you) hua-wan.
I yesterday paint-ASP one-CL picture but not(have) paint-finish
I painted yesterday, but I didn't finish the picture.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
247
In other words, what the perfective marker -le marks is termination rather than
completion.
Compare the two sentences in (29). The former has a bare NP, while the latter
has an NP that denotes quantity. While the latter is complete as a sentence by itself,
the former is not a complete sentence without the presence of the sentence-final
particle ]e.
(29) a. Ta chi-le fan *(le).
he eat-ASP meal ASP
'He has eaten.'
b. Ta chi-le san-wan fan.
he eat-ASP three-CL rice ASP
'He ate three bowls of rice.'
According to Li & Thompson (1981), -le can only occur in a bounded event. In
(29b) the event is bounded because the object NP denotes quantity. In contrast,
(29a) is not bounded because of the bare NP. It can be bounded by being the first
event in a sequence:
(30) Wo chi-le fan jiu zou.
I eat-ASP meal then go
I will go after I eat.'
Similarly, (28a) is possible because the existence of the sentence-final particle le
should make the whole event a bounded one.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
248
3.2 The Perfective Marker -Guo
The perfective marker - guo presents a situation as a whole just like the perfective
marker -le. However, unlike -le, -guo indicates that the final state of that situation
no longer obtains. Compare the following examples from Y.-R. Chao (1968).
(31) a. Wo shuai-duan-le tui.
I fall-break-ASP leg
'I broke my leg (it's still in a cast).'
b. Wo shuai-duan-guo tui.
I fall-break-ASP leg
'I have broken my leg (it has healed since).'
The latter but not the former indicates a discontinuity with the present.
According to Smith (1991, pp. 349-352), sentences with -guo have the essential
properties of a perfect construction. They present a situation which occurs prior to
the reference time, and ascribes to an experiencer the property of having participated
in the situation.
3.3 The Imperfective Marker Zai
Zai indicates the internal interval of a durative situation. It is a typical
progressive marker. For example,
(32) a. Ta zai paobu.
he in run
'He is running.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
249
b. Ta zai gai san-jian fangzi.
he in build three-CL house
'He is building three houses.'
3.4 The Imperfective Marker -Zhe
The imperfective marker -zhe indicates a continuous and stable situation without
referring to end points. Its basic meaning, according to Smith (1991), is a resultative
state. It focuses typically on states of position and location:
(33) a. Qiang shang gua-zhe yi-zhang hua.
wall top hang-ASP one-CL painting
'There is a painting hanging on the wall.'
b. Ta zai chuang shang tang-zhe.
he in bed top lie-ASP
'He is lying on the bed.'
The imperfective marker -zhe occurs with some stative predicates but not others:
(34) a. Ta yizhi xian-zhe.
he all:the:time free-ASP
'He has nothing to do the whole time.'
b. Women bici shen ai-zhe. bici yilai-zhe. (Smith ibid., p. 359)
we each: other deep love-ASP each:other rely-ASP
'We deeply loved each other, and relied on each other.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
250
(35) a. *Ta congming-zhe.
he intelligent-ASP
'He is intelligent.'
b. *Ta vonggan-zhe.
he brave-ASP
'He is brave.'
M. Yeh (1993) attributes the contrast to the distinction between individual-level
predicates (ILP) and stage-level predicates (SLP)— the latter but not the former can
occur with -zhe. According to Carlson (1977), ILPs roughly correspond to more or
less permanent states such as 'unsuitable for eating,' 'intelligent,' and 'having six legs,'
and SLPs correspond to temporary states such as 'available' and 'lying on the floor,'
and transitory activities such as 'destroying my viola da gamba' and 'falling down the
stairs.'
The imperfective -zhe has an extended use as a progressive marker— it can focus
on internal stages. In this usage, the two imperfective markers can co-occur:
(36) Ta zai renzhen de kan-zhe shu, ni bie qu chao ta.
he in diligent DE read-ASP book you don't go distract he
’ He is studying diligently. Don't distract him.'
3.5 Sentence-Final Particle Le
The function of the sentence-final particle le is characterized as indicating
'inchoativity' (Y.-R. Chao 1968), 'the occurrence of a new situation' (D. Zhu 1984),
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
251
'changes in a situation' (S. Lii 1991), and 'currently relevant state' (Li & Thompson
1981).
Overall, the function of the sentence-final ]e is to indicate that a new situation is
relevant to the current situation. For example,
(37) Wo chi-le san-wan fan le.
I eat-ASP three-CL rice ASP
I have eaten three bowls of rice.'
By uttering (37), the speaker of (37) indicates a new situation in which s/he has eaten
three bowls of rice, and the situation is relevant to the current situation, which may
mean he/she is very full and can no longer eat.
If the situation has not previously occurred either in reality or in the mind of the
speaker, then the presence of the sentence-final le indicates the beginning of a new
situation. For example,
(38) a. X iayuie.
fall rain ASP
'It started to rain.'
b. Tabuzhusushele.
he not live dorm ASP
'He no longer lives in the dorm.'
Sentence (38 a) may be used to report a new situation that the speaker just
discovered. Similarly, (38b) indicates the beginning of a new situation: he lived in
the dorm, but he does not now. Note that the sentence-final le can indicate the
beginning of a situation regardless of the status of a predicate.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
252
The sentence-final le can also be used to indicate a new situation that is about to
take place, i.e. imminent future:
(39) Huoche yao kai le.
train want leave ASP
'The training is leaving.'
Overall, according to Li, Thompson & Thompson (1982), the sentence-final
particle le performs many of the functions of the Perfect aspect. The essence of the
Perfect is its function of relating events/states to a reference time, either to the time
of the narrative or to the time of the speech act. G. Wu (2000) points out that
among the four categories of English Perfect depicted by Comrie (1976, p. 56): 1)
the Perfect of result, 2) the experiential Perfect, 3) the Perfect of persistent situation
and 4) the Perfect of recent past, Chinese Je Perfect overlaps with the English Perfect
of result, of persistent situation and of recent past, but not with the experiential
Perfect. G. Wu (2000) suggests that there is a contrast between English and
Chinese in Perfect: while English Perfect looks into the past from the present, the
sentence-final le extends the past into the present. The three categories of English
Perfect, i.e. the Perfect of result, the Perfect of persistent situation, and the Perfect of
recent past, all involve a state extending up to the speech time or a reference time,
and are thus compatible with L e. The experiential Perfect, however, cannot be
expressed by le because what is related is some experience from previous situations,
not the state resulting directly from previous situations. This, according to G. Wu, is
possibly why Chinese developed a separate experiential Perfect marker guo.
The hypothesis that English Perfect looks into the past from the present while the
sentence-final L e extends into the present also explains why Chinese L e can refer to a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
253
situation that is about to happen as in (39) above, but English Perfect cannot.
Furthermore, it also explains why Chinese le is compatible with expressions of past
time, but English Perfect is not.
(40) a. Ta zuotian hui xuexiao le.
he yesterday return school ASP
'He returned to the school yesterday already.'
b. *1 have got up at five o'clock this morning. (Comrie 1976, p. 54)
Chinese Je begins a past situation, and expresses the resulting state of this
situation that lasts into the present.
This hypothesis may be extended to the negative counterpart of the sentence-final
le. If Je extends past into present (or the reference time), its negative counterpart
may be the mirror image of this. That is, it should look into the past from the present
(or the reference time). Consider the 'before' clauses in (41). While one of them is
positive, and the other is negative, the result of the interpretation is the same.
(41) a. Zai ta hai mei(voul zhidao zhenxiang zhiqian, ni zuihao xian
in he not(have) know truth before you had:better first
ba dongxi huan ta.
BA thing return he
'Before he knows the truth, you had better return the thing to him.'
b. Zai ta zhidao zhenxiang zhiqian, ni zuihao xian ba dongxi huan ta.
in he know truth before you had:better first BA thing return he
'Before he knows the truth, you had better return the thing to him.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
254
This is rather puzzling. But if we assume that hai meifvou') looks into the past
from the present (or the reference time), then what is in the front is the time before
the situation takes place. As a result of this, the negative and the positive ’ before1
phrase would have the same meaning.
Finally, there is an extended use of the sentence-final le. Consider the following
sentences. The first one is taken from Li & Thompson (1981), and the second one is
from .T inri Taiwan, which is a Chinese textbook.
(42) a. (a 3-year-old child who has just noticed the parrot in the zoo)
Zhe shi yingwu ]e!
this be parrot ASP
’ This must be a parrot!’
b. Luan jiu shi yeshi zui da de tese le-
mess then is nightrmarket most big characteristics PART
’ Mess must be the most distinctive feature of a night market.’
The function of le here is to mark inference (cf. Y.-H. Li 1992, p. 133). For
example, in the essay in which (42b) is used, the author was talking about the
characteristics of night markets in Taiwan, and concludes that mess must be the most
distinctive feature of a night market as such a feature is evident.
4. Interaction between Grammatical Aspect and Situation Types
In this section, we will discuss the interaction of grammatical aspect and situation
type. Grammatical aspect can change the situation type denoted by the verb and the
argument(s). For example, the imperfective marker zai usually does not occur with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
255
an achievement. Given appropriate contexts, (43) is possible, but it no longer
denotes an achievement. It denotes a multiple-event activity.
(43) Hen duo fangzi yi-jian yi-jian de zai ta. (achievement— > activity)
very many house one-CL one-CL DE in collapse
'A lot of houses are collapsing one after another.'
Now consider the perfective marker -le. It can occur with all of the three
dynamic situation types.
(44) a. Wo zuotian xie-le yi-feng xin. (accomplishment)
I yesterday write-ASP one-CL letter
I wrote a letter yesterday.'
b. Zhangsan zai zhongwu dao-le shanding. (achievement)
Zhangsan at noon arrive-ASP hilltop
'Zhangsan reached the hilltop at noon.'
c. Tamen zuotian zai gongyuan chao-le vi-via. (activity)
they yesterday in park quarrel-ASP one-CL
'They quarreled in the park yesterday.'
As for a state situation type, in some cases the presence of the verbal -le seems
completely unacceptable (e.g. (45)), but in others le seems to be very much
acceptable (e.g. (46)):
(45) a. * Zhangsan ai-le Lisi. (state)
Zhangsan love-ASP Lisi
'Zhangsan loved Lisi.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
256
b. *Zhangsan zhu-le Meiguo. (state)
Zhangsan live-ASP America
'Zhangsan lived in the U.S.'
(46) a. Chenshan xiao-le san cun. (state— > dynamic; state)
shirt small-ASP three inch
'The shirt is smaller by three inches.'
b. Wo zai nali zhu-le liang-ge yue. (state— > dynamic)
I in there live-ASP two-CL month
I lived there for two months.'
Consider (46a) first. Sentence (46a) can have two possible readings, depending
on different contexts. Li & Thompson (1981, p. 188) give the following contexts:
(47) a. (talking about a laundry mishap)
Chenshan xiao-le san cun.
shirt small-ASP three inch
'The shirt got smaller (i.e. shrank) by three inches.'
b. (trying on clothes)
Chenshan xiao-le san cun.
shirt small-ASP three inch
'The shirt is (too) small by three inches.'
It is clear that the first use involves a change of state. According to Comrie
(1976), when the perfective marker -le occurs with a stative predicate, it denotes the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
257
beginning of a situation, i.e. a change into a state. Comrie (1976, pp. 19-20) reports
the following:
In many languages that have a distinction between
perfective and imperfective forms the perfective forms
of some verbs, in particular of some stative verbs, can
in fact be used to indicate the beginning of a situation
(ingressive meaning)...
Thus the first use refers to a dynamic situation. On the other hand, if Li &
Thompson are correct, the second use refers to a state. This seems to be on the right
track since the same construction can occur in a comparative sentence that requires a
stative predicate.
(48) a. Ta bi ta duo-le san kuai.
he than she more-ASP three dollar
'He has three dollars more than she.'
b. Ta bi ta gao-le liang cun.
he than she tall-ASP two inch
'He is taller than she by two inches.'
This use of de has a sense of "excessiveness" (Y.-R. Chao, 1968). This
meaning, according to Z. Shi (1990), comes from the comparison of the speaker's
expectations with the norm. We will thus treat this use as a special use of -le and
assume this use does not change the situation type of the sentence.
Now recall the example in (46b). The relevant situation type is no longer a state
because it is a situation which has an initial point and an end point as indicated by
the durational phrase. Comrie (1976, p. 50) gives two similar examples of this: One
means I stood there for an hour' in Russian, and the other means 'He reigned for ten
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
258
years' in Ancient Greek. Both of them involve states that are referred to by the forms
with perfective meaning. However, the form describing the state refers not only to
the state, but also to its inception and termination. Thus, these sentences should be
considered dynamic.
Now recall (45). Compare (45) with the sentences in (49). A stative verb such as
you 'have' can occur with -le when the sentence-final particle |e is present.
(49) a. Ta vou-le haizi *(le). (state— > dynamic)
he have-ASP child ASP
'He has a child now.'
b. Ta vou-le san-ge haizi *(lek (state— > dynamic)
he have-ASP three-CL child ASP
'He has three children now.'
Note that both (49a) and (49b) are ungrammatical without the sentence-final Je,
despite the fact that the latter but not the former has a NP that denotes quantity. This
is unlike what we have seen in (28), repeated here.
(50) a. Ta chi-le fan *(le)
he eat-ASP meal ASP
'He has eaten.'
b. Ta chi-le san-wan fan.
he eat-ASP three-CL rice ASP
'He ate three bowls of rice.'
The presence of the sentence-final particle le in (49) indicates that the state remains
at the reference time, i.e. the speech time. The contrast between (49) and (50) also
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
259
shows that only when a stative predicate is present can the verbal -]e indicate a
change of state. This is different from the sentence-final particle le because it
indicates a change of state regardless what kind of predicate it occurs with.
Note that not all stative predicates can occur with the verbal de and the sentence-
final le:
(51) *Ta zhu-le Meiguo le.
he live-ASP U.S. ASP
'He has lived in the U.S.'
The lexicon may determine which verb or adjective can occur in such a
construction.
Finally, consider the perfective -guo. It can occur with any situation type.
(52) a. Ta viqian gai-guo yi-jian fangzi. (accomplishment)
he before build-ASP one-CL house
'He has built one house before.'
b. Zhe-ge fangzi yiqian ta-guo. (achievement)
this-CL house before collapse-ASP
'This house has fallen before.'
c. Ta yiqian zai he li you-guo vong. (activity)
he before in river inside swim-ASP swim
'He has swum in a river before.'
d. Ta yiqian zhu-guo Meiguo. (state— > dynamic)
she before live-ASP America
'She has lived in the U.S. before.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
260
However, when it occurs with a stative verb as in (52d), it also indicates a change
out of a state, and thus it is dynamic.
In summary, considering the interaction between the two perfective markers and
a stative predicate, we can say that the relevant situation is dynamic (with the
exception of the excessive use of the verbal -le).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
261
APPENDIX B
TENSE AS A GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY IN CHINESE
In some recent studies of Chinese syntax, Y.-H. Li (1990) and B. Chiu (1993)
claim that Chinese sentences bear tense. Y.-H. Li distinguishes finite from non-
finite (i.e. infinitives) clauses. Following C. L. Tsang (1981), she takes the two
modals hui 'will' and yao 'want, surely' to be future tense markers, and claims that
they cannot occur in infinitives because infinitives do not have tense. On the other
hand, B. Chiu (1993) claims that the verbal suffix -]e is a past tense marker, which
heads a TP (Tense Projection).
In contrast, Cheng & Tang (1996) (C & T) argue against the view that Chinese
has tense, and claim there is no syntactic projection of Tense. The three arguments
that they provide are as follows. First, not all verbs can occur with hui. vao and -]e.
For example,
(1) a. *Ta mingtian hui/vao neng lai.
he tomorrow will/surely can come
'He will can come tomorrow.'
b. *Ta qunian zai-je Meiguo.
he lastyear be:located-ASP America
'He was in America last year.'
Sentence (la) contains the modal neng 'can,' which can occur with neither hui nor
vao. This is not surprising because the English counterparts are ungrammatical.
Modals do not seem to be able to be marked with future tense. Sentence (lb) shows
that the verbal suffix -le is not compatible with a stative verb such as zai 'be located.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
262
This is also expected because not all of the stative predicates can occur with the
verbal -|e as we have discussed in Appendix A.
Another argument is based on the contrast between (2) and (3).
he yesterday/now/tomorrow be:located home
'He were/is/will be home yesterday/now/tomorrow.'
b. Ta zuotian/xianzai/mingtian keyi/vinggai/keneng/bixu/neng lai.7 2
he yesterday/now/tomorrow can/should/may/need/can come
'He can/should/may/need/can come yesterday/now/tomorrow.'
According to C & T, if Chinese does have overt tense markers, the difference
between Chinese and English cannot be accounted for in a principled way. We will
discuss the contrast between (2a) and (3a) below. The contrast between (2b) and
(3b) is potentially problematic. However, if we treat modals as verbs as Lin & Tang
(1991) do, then they are not predicted to behave like modals in English.
72 One difference between the modals in Chinese and those in English is that some modals in
Chinese can precede hid 'will,' while this is not possible in English:
(2) a. He was at home yesterday/*right now/*tomorrow.
b. John would/should/might/can/must go to school *yesterday/now/
tomorrow.
(3) a. Ta zuotian/xianzai/mingtian zai jia.
(i)
he tomorrow may/should will come
'It may/should be the case that he will come tomorrow.'
(ii) *He mav/should will come tomorrow.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
263
Finally, C & T claim that 'the fact that epistemic modals themselves carry the
meaning of future possibility does not mean that they should be analyzed as tense
morphemes.' In what follows, we will show that hui, but not vao. should be analyzed
as a tense morpheme, marking (relative) future tense.
1. (Relative) Future Tense
There are two modals in Chinese, hui 'will' and vao 'surely,' which refer to future
tense:7 3
(4) Nar hui hen leng.
there will very cold
'It will be cold there.'
(5) a. Huoche kuai vao lai le.
train soon surely come ASP
'The train will soon be coming.'
b. Kan yangzi mingtian yao xia yu.
see appearance tomorrow surely fall rain
'Looks like it will rain tomorrow.'
73 Jiang 'be going to,' which is often seen in formal writings also has future reference. It behaves
like an adverb, rather than a modal verb:
(i) a. Ta jiang tiqian li Tai.
he be:going:to ahead:of:schedule leave Taiwan
'He is leaving Taiwan ahead of schedule.'
b. *Ta jiang-bu-iiang tiqian li Tai.
he be:going:to-not-be:going:to ahead:of:schedule leave Taiwan
'Is he going to leave Taiwan ahead of schedule?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
264
C. L. Tsang (1981) claims that both hui and vao should be considered relative future
tense markers. In this section, we will argue that the former but not the latter can be
considered a (relative) future tense marker.
Like Chinese, the so-called future tense in English is indicated by modals, i.e.
'will' and 'shall.' It is a controversial issue in the literature on English whether these
expressions of future time reference are in fact distinct tense forms or merely forms
with more general meanings subsuming future time reference. While some agree
that English has a future tense, this view is rejected either explicitly or implicitly by
others.7 4 This issue is discussed in Comrie (1985, pp. 47-48; 1989), in which it is
suggested that English has a separate grammatical category of future time reference,
i.e. future tense. Comrie (1985) points out that the so-called future tense is clearly
distinct from the modal use because the former makes a clear prediction about some
future state of affairs, while the latter only makes reference to alternative worlds.
Compare (6a) with (6b).
(6) a. It will rain tomorrow.
b. It may rain tomorrow.
Sentences (6a) and (6b) are distinct because the former is 'a very definite statement
about a state of affairs to hold at a certain time subsequent to the present moment,1
and the latter is 'simply a claim about a possible world in which there is rain
tomorrow.' (p.44) The two are different in the way their truth conditions are
evaluated. According to Comrie, the truth conditions of the former can be tested at
that future time by seeing whether it does in fact rain or not, yet those of the latter
74 For a review of early literature on this subject, please see Wekker (1976).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
265
cannot be evaluated in the same manner. Thus future tense is distinct from the
modal use.
In addition, Comrie gives two pieces of evidence that suggest that English marks
future tense. The first piece of evidence has to do with the distinction between
scheduling and future time reference. In English, a matrix clause which bears future
time reference does not have to be marked by the auxiliary 'will' if it refers to a
situation which is scheduled to happen. Thus, (7a) is acceptable because departing
can be scheduled, while (7b) is not since raining cannot be scheduled.
(7) a. The train departs at five o'clock tomorrow morning,
b. It will rain/*rains tomorrow.
The ungrammatical example in (7b) would be acceptable if, according to Comrie,
one imagines a context in which rain is scheduled, e.g., if God is talking, or advances
in meteorology make it possible for human beings to schedule rain. Crucially, the
contrast between (7a) and (7b) cannot be explained if one does not make explicit
separate references to scheduling and future time reference.
The second piece of evidence comes from the use of the auxiliary 'will' in
temporal and conditional clauses. In general, the auxiliary 'will' with future time
reference is normally excluded from these contexts even when scheduling is not
possible. For example, as shown in (8a), the auxiliary 'will' cannot occur in a
conditional clause. Sentence (8b) is possible only with the modal meaning of 'will.'
(8) a. If it *will rain/rains tomorrow, we will get wet.
b. If he will go swimming in dangerous waters, he will drown.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
266
Thus, the uses of 'will' with future time reference are GRAMMATICALLY distinct
from the modal uses of 'will' in these subordinate clauses. This again suggests that
the grammar must refer to future time reference independent of the modal meaning.
Now let us consider Chinese data. There are cases where neither hui nor yao is
required for the indication of future time reference:
(9) Wo qu.
I go
'I go/want to go/I will go.'
(10) a. Huoche wu dian kai.
train five o'clock leave
'The train departs at five o'clock.'
b. Wo zai jia.
I in home
'I am at home.'
One might want to argue that Chinese, like many European languages, simply
does not distinguish present and future. In those languages, the so-called present
tense, the normal verb form, can be used to indicate future time reference, despite the
fact that these languages do also have specific constructions with exclusively future
reference (Comrie 1985). For example, in German both (11a) and (lib) are
acceptable:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
267
(11) a. Ich gehe morgen.
I go tomorrow
'I will go [literally: I go] tomorrow.'
b. Ich werde gehen.
I will go
'I will go.'
Sentence (lib) is normally only used where there would otherwise be danger of
misunderstanding in the direction of present time reference. In these languages,
then, it is reasonable that the only tenses distinguished grammatically are past and
non-past.
However, Chinese is different from these European languages because there are
clear cases in which a future tense marker is required:
(12) a. Mingtian *(hui) xia yu.7 5
tomorrow will fall rain
'It will rain tomorrow.'
b. Ta mingtian *(hui) zhidao na-jian shi.
he tomorrow will know that-CL matter
'He will know that matter tomorrow.'
Note that in the above cases the presence of the time adverb mingtian 'tomorrow' is
insufficient to indicate future time reference.
75 The sentence without hud might be acceptable if it were uttered by a weatherman.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
268
Now the question is why in the earlier examples neither hui nor vao is needed for
indicating future time reference. In (9), it is reasonable to believe that the future
time reference derives from the volitional interpretation.7 5 Now consider the
contrast between the sentences in (10) and the sentences in (12). The former but not
the latter can be scheduled. Thus, the former do not need an auxiliary, while the
latter are ungrammatical without the presence of hui 'will.'
In what follows we will provide evidence to show that hui, but not vao. is a
relative future tense marker.
1.1 Hui
Hui 'will,' just like 'will' in English, is excluded in conditional clauses:
(13) a. *(Yaoshi) mingtian hui xia yu dehua, women jiu hui linshi.7 7
if tomorrow will fall rain thatxase we then will get:wet
'If it rains tomorrow, we will get wet.'
75 For more discussion of this issue, see Section 2.5 in Chapter 2.
77 The sentence in (i) is good in contrast to the sentence discussed in the text.
(i) Yaoshi mingtian hui xia yu dehua, wo jiu gei ni yiqian kuai qian.
if tomorrow will fall rain if I then give you one:thousand money
'If it is possible to rain tomorrow, I will give you one thousand dollars.'
However, unlike the sentence in the text, example (i) refers to a highly hypothetical situation. While
the former is neutral about whether it will rain tomorrow, (i) strongly implies it is not possible for it
to rain tomorrow. Thus, the use of hui in (i) should be considered a modal one.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
269
b. *(Yaoshi) ta mingtian hui zhidao na-jian shi dehua, ta hui hen
if he tomorrow will know that-CL matter thatxase he will very
shengqi.
angry
'If he knows that matter tomorrow, he will be very angry.'
The fact that hui is not allowed in these contexts strongly suggests that in
Chinese, just as in English, future time reference must be referred to independently
of the modal meaning.
On the other hand, there is evidence suggesting that the future tense in Chinese
is relative. We follow Comrie (1985) in defining tense as the grammaticalization of
location in time and in distinguishing two subtypes: absolute and relative tense. The
former locates the situation in question at, before, or after the present moment, while
the latter locates it at, before, or after a point of reference given by the context. The
examples in (14) show that hui can locate the situation after a point of reference in
the past. Given this possibility, hui should be considered a relative future tense
marker rather than an absolute one.
(14) a. Zhangsan qiantian hen danxin zuotian Lisi hui
Zhangsan the:day:before:yesterday very worried yesterday Lisi will
zhidao na-ge mimi.
know that-CL secret
'Zhangsan was worried the day before yesterday that Lisi would know
about that secret yesterday.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
270
b. Wo qiantian zai dianshi li kandao zuotian taifeng hud
I the:day:before:yesterday in TV inside see yesterday typhoon will
lai de baodao.
come DE report
'I saw on TV the day before yesterday the report that the typhoon
would come yesterday.'
In summary, if 'will' and 'shall' in English can be considered future tense markers,
hui in Chinese is qualified to be a relative future tense marker. Now the question is
why hui has the absolute tense reading in matrix clauses such as (12). We will return
to this in Section 3.
1.2 Yao
It is commonly held that yao 'be going to' in Chinese also indicates future tense.
Yao. however, behaves differently from hui 'will' in several ways. First, yao. but not
hui. can occur with the sentence-final particle le indicating imminent future as shown
in the examples below:
(15) a. Huoche kuai yao lai le.
train soon be:going:to come ASP
'The train is coming soon.'
b. *Huoche hui lai le-
train will come ASP
'The train is coming.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
271
However, as shown in (16), yao in this pattern is not obligatory as long as there
are adverbs such kuai 'soon' or jiu 'immediately':
(16) a. Huoche kuai lai le.
train soon come ASP
'The train is coming soon.'
b. Huoche jiu lai le.
train immediately come ASP
'The train is coming in no time.'
In the cases where the sentence-final particle le does not occur, this use of yao
indicating future time reference is highly restricted. Yao must occur in contexts in
which there is some indication in the present that the future event in question will
happen, a constraint which hui is not subject to. Consider the contrast between hui
and yao in (17), and that between (17) and (18).
(17) a. Mingtian hui/*vao xia yu.
tomorrow will/surely fall rain
'It will rain tomorrow.'
b. Ta mingtian hui/*vao danxin.
he tomorrow will/surely worried
'He will be worried tomorrow.'
c. Ta mingtian hui/*vao shengbing.
he tomorrow will/surely sick
'He will get sick tomorrow.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
272
(18) a. Kan yangzi mingtian yao xia yu.
see appearance tomorrow surely fall rain
'Looks like it will rain tomorrow.'
b. Ta mingtian you yao danxin.
he tomorrow again surely worried
'He will be worried again tomorrow.'
c. Ta mingtian kending yao shengbing.
he tomorrow definitely surely sick
'He will definitely be sick tomorrow.'
The fact that yao co-occurs when expressions such as kan yangzi. you, and kending
in (17) suggests that a felicitous occurrence of yao may require some present
indication of the future event. This difference between yao and hui is very similar to
the difference between 'will' and 'be going to' in English as exemplified in (19):
sentence (19a) is oriented toward the future, while (19b) focuses on the preparatory
state which leads to a future state.
(19) a. It'll rain this afternoon.
b. It's going to rain this afternoon.
Comparing the difference between the two sentences, Wekker (1976, p. 124)
observes that while ( 19a) sounds odd as it stands, (19b) sounds perfectly normal. He
points out when (19a) is used, there would normally be at least some implication of
an association with something else in the context of the situation. For this reason,
(19a) is felicitous if it is followed by a discourse fragment such as 'so don't go out
without a good raincoat.' In contrast, (19b) does not have this same implication. Its
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
273
implication, according to Wekker, is that some present situation indicates the future
event in question will occur. Present indications are 'facts and circumstances
existing at the present moment, from which the speaker infers a future happening, or
on which he bases his prediction.' Wekker points out that this is the reason why
(19b) tends to be preceded by the following sentences: 'Look at those clouds,' or I
can see the black clouds gathering.' In other words, (19a) is a simple prediction, and
its orientation is toward the future, whereas (19b) refers to the preparatory state that
characteristically precedes the event described by the predication of the sentence.
The difference between yao and hui is further demonstrated by the contrast in
(20).
(20) a. Zhangsan qinyan kanjian huoche you yao kai.
Zhangsan with:own:eye see train again surely leave
'Zhangsan with his own eyes saw the train about to depart again.'
b. *Zhangsan qinyan kanjian huoche hm kai.
Zhangsan with:own:eye see train will leave
'Zhangsan with his own eyes saw the train will leave.'
While (20a) is perfectly grammatical with the interpretation involving direct
perception, sentence (20b) is ungrammatical. Sentence (20a) shows again that yao
does not mark a future event. If yao denoted future tense, Zhangsan would not be
able to see anything. In contrast, sentence (20a) is possible because the preparations
leading to a future situation could be seen.
Thus far, we have pointed out several differences between hui and vao. These
differences do not necessarily disqualify the latter from being a tense marker.
However, there is indeed evidence that suggests that only the former, but not the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
274
latter, should be treated as a future tense marker. First, yao can occur in conditional
clauses as shown in (21).
(21) a. Mingtian yao xia yu dehua, women jiu hui linshi.
tomorrow surely fall rain thatxase we then will getrwet
'If it rains tomorrow, we will get wet.'
b. Ta mingtian yao zhidao na-jian shi dehua, ta hui hen shengqi.
he tomorrow surely know that-CL matter thatxase he will very angry
'If he knows that matter tomorrow, he will be very angry.'
This contrasts with hui in (13), repeated here.
(22) a. *(Yaoshi) mingtian hui xia yu dehua, women jiu hui linshi.
if tomorrow will fall rain thatxase we then will get: wet
If it rains tomorrow, we will get wet.'
b. *(Yaoshi) ta mingtian hui zhidao na-jian shi dehua, ta hui
if he tomorrow will know that-CL matter thatxase he will
hen shengqi.
very angry
'If he knows that matter tomorrow, he will be very angry.'
Thus, unlike hui, the future time reference uses of yao do not seem to be distinct
from its modal uses.
Further evidence that suggests yao should not be treated as a tense marker comes
from negation and question formation. First, when yao is negated by bu 'not' as
shown in (23), it does not have the future reference reading. Instead, it only has the
imperative reading:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(23) a. Danyuan mingtian bu-vao xia yu.
hopefully tomorrow don't fall rain
'I hope it will not rain tomorrow.'
*'It will not rain tomorrow.'
b. Ni jinnian dongtian bu-vao shengbing.
you this:year winter don't get:sick
'Don't get sick this winter.'
*'You will not get sick this winter.'
Moreover, yao cannot form A-not-A questions directly:
(24) a. *Mingtian yao-bu-vao xia yu?
tomorrow surely-not-surely fall rain
'Will it rain tomorrow?'
b. *Tajinnian dongtian vao-bu-vao sheng bing?
he this:year winter surely-not-surely grow sickness
'Will he be sick this winter?'
An A-not-A question with yao can only be formed using the copula shi 'be'
(25) a. Mingtian shi-bu-shi yao xia yu?
tomorrow be-not-be surely fall rain
'Will it rain tomorrow?'
b. Huoche shi-bu-shi yao kai le?
train be-not-be surely leave ASP
'Is the train going to leave?'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
276
In contrast, hui can be negated directly, and it can be used to form an A-not-A
question:
(26) a. Mingtian bu hui xia yu.
he tomorrow not will fall rain
'It will not rain tomorrow.'
b. Ta mingtian hui bu hui zhidao na-jian shi?
he tomorrow will not will know that-CL matter
'Will he know about that matter tomorrow?'
The above evidence suggests yao is not a future tense marker. If it were, there
would be no reason why it could not be negated, or form an A-not-A question
directly. These facts can be explained, however, if it is analyzed as a modal, since
modals tend to act differently from verbs with respect to negation and question
formation. To compare, let us consider the modal del 'must.' As shown in (27), dei
cannot be negated by bu, or form an A-not-A question directly.
(27) a. Wo f*bu) dei qu.
I not must go
'I must go.'
b. *Ni dei-bu-dei qu?
you must not must go
'Must you go?'
Finally, consider (28), which shows that when both hui and yao are present in a
sentence, the former must precede the latter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
277
(28) a. Kan yangzi hui yao xia yu. (S. Lu 1991)
see appearance will surely fall rain
It looks like it will rain.'
b. Bu guan shiji yiwei man gan hui yao shibai de. (S. Lii 1991)
not care reality obstinate hard do will surely fail DE
'You will fail if you disregard reality and persist obstinately.'
This fact cannot be accounted for if both hui and yap mark future tense. If hui marks
relative future tense as we have argued above, yap cannot be a relative tense marker.
In summary, the above study suggests that yao should not be treated as a future
tense marker, in contrast to C. L. Tsang's (1981) position in which both hui and yao
are considered relative future tense markers.
2. Tense Interpretations and Time Adverbs
In this section, we consider the manners in which time adverbs interact with hui.
If our claim that hui marks (relative) future tense is correct, the time adverb should
be able to denote a point of reference in time, and hui should be able to locate the
situation before this point of reference denoted by the time adverb (cf. Comrie 1985,
p. 64). However, as shown in the example below, hui cannot locate the situation
relative to the reference point denoted by a time adverb in the same clause.
(29) a. Ta mingtian hui zhidao na-jian shi.
he tomorrow will know that-CL matter
'He will know about that matter tomorrow.'
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
278
b. Ta zuotian benlai hui you weixian.
he yesterday originally will have danger
'Originally he was in danger yesterday.'
The time adverb mingtian 'tomorrow' in (29a) cannot be taken to be a point of
reference in time, and thus the situation referred to cannot be located after the
reference point denoted by the time adverb. Similarly, the relative future reading in
(29b) is also missing. The only reading that is possible is the epistemic possibility
reading. The results are the same when the time adverb is detached from the rest of
the clause.
(30) a. Mingtian ta hui zhidao na-jian shi.
tomorrow he will know that-CL matter
'He will know about that matter tomorrow.'
b. Zuotian ta hui you weixian.
yesterday he will have danger
'It is possible that he was in danger yesterday.'
A possible analysis explaining why relative tense makers do not take time
adverbs in the same clause as their reference point is that there is a general tendency
in language for the present moment to be taken as the reference point.7 8 This
accounts for the fact that in the following hui behaves like an absolute tense marker.
78 This suggestion is due to B. Comrie.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
279
(31) Ta hui zhidao na-jian shi.
he will know that-CL matter
'He will know about that matter.'
In embedded clauses, as in the sentences in (14), repeated here, the tense of the
closest verb can be taken as a point of reference:
(32) a. Zhangsan qiantian hen danxin zuotian Lisi hui
Zhangsan the:day:before:yesterday very worried yesterday Lisi will
zhidao na-ge mimi.
know that-CL secret
'Zhangsan was worried the day before yesterday that Lisi would know
about this secret yesterday.'
b. Wo qiantian zai dianshi li kandao zuotian taifeng hui
I the:day:before:yesterday in TV inside see yesterday typhoon will
lai de baodao.
come DE report
I saw on TV the day before yesterday the report that the typhoon
would come yesterday.'
In summary, hui is a relative tense marker. In sentence with hui in the matrix
clauses, the time of utterances is the reference time, and the tense of the closest verb
serves as the reference time when these relative tense markers occur in embedded
sentences.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
280
3. Aspect and Tense Interpretations
In the case of sentences in which there are no tense markers, it is conceivable that
time reference is determined by several distinctions, including time adverbs, verbal
aspect (stative vs. eventive), grammatical aspect (progressive vs. perfective), mood,
and clause type (finite clause vs. infinitive). Take Japanese as an example. Japanese
has a basic past/non-past distinction because it lacks any verb form that specifically
refers to future time. According to Comrie (1989), in the absence of other contextual
indicators, the most likely interpretation of sentences with non-past tense is
determined mainly by grammatical aspect and verbal aspect. Thus the form in (33a)
below will usually be assigned present time reference and thus means '(he) is going.'
On the other hand, (33b) can either have a habitual interpretation, or it can be
assigned future time reference and mean '(he) will go.' This future time reference is
assigned because it is not possible for a complete act of going to take place entirely
in the present.
(33) a. it-te i-ru
go-progressive-nonpast
'(he) is going'
b. ik-u
go-nonpast
'(he) will go'
Stative sentences with no overt adverbial can have both possible time references, as
in the following sentence:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
281
(34) Taroo-ga koko-ni i-masu. (Ogihara 1996)
Taro-NOM here-at be-PRES (progressive)
'Taro is here now' or 'Taro will be here.'
Note that sentence (34) is considered by Ogihara (1996) to be genuinely ambiguous.
This is because it cannot be used to assert that John is here at some non-past time. In
other words, the speaker must decide whether a claim is being made about the
current time or about some future time.
We have argued above that hui is a (relative) future tense marker in Chinese. In
the case that hui does not appear (nor other modals), then a sentence must have either
past time reference or present time reference. In the following, we will discuss the
manner in which aspect and situation type determine the tense interpretations of a
sentence in Chinese.
3.1 Sentences with Perfective Markers
As shown in (35), sentences with the perfective marker -le or -guo denote past:
(35) a. Ta kan-le san-ben shu.
he read-ASP three-CL book
'He read three books.'
b. Ta qu-guo Beijing,
he go-ASP Beijing
'He has been to Beijing.'
This is expected because both -le and -guo are perfective, and it is not possible for a
complete event to take place entirely in the present.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 8 2
When a resultant state is involved, the most natural interpretation of a sentence
with -le is present time reference, though past time reference is still an available
interpretation.
(36) a. Nar gua-ie yi-zhang hua.
there hang-ASP one-CL painting
'Here is/was a painting hanging on the wall.'
b. Nar ting-man-le che.
there park-full-ASP car
'That place is/was full of cars.'
Contrasting with (35a), the sentences in (36) refer to the resultant state of a relevant
action. The present time reference interpretation, in addition to the past time
reference interpretation, is available because the resultant state may still be ongoing
at the time of utterance.
English uses different tenses for similar situations. For example, seeing a broken
window lying on the floor, (37a) can be used if it is the resultant state that is focused.
On the other hand, if it is the event that is focused, (37b) is more appropriate. One
difference between the two sentences lies in tense. The former sentence is in present
tense because the resultant state is ongoing. The second sentence, however, is in
past tense because for the sentence to be felicitous the event must have taken place.
(37) a. The window is broken.
b. The window was broken by John.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
283
3.2 Sentences with Imperfective Markers
The most natural tense interpretation for sentences with the imperfective marker
zai or -zhe is the present tense. However, these sentences can also have past time
reference:
(38) a. Ta zai renzhen de kan shu.
he ASP diligent DE read book
'He is/was studying diligently.'
b. Na-kuai heiban shang xie-zhe zi.
that-CL blackboard top write-ASP word
'There are/were a lot of words written on the blackboard.'
That imperfectives can have present time reference is expected because they do not
have the same restriction as perfectives. Thus imperfective sentences can have either
present or past time reference.
3.3 Sentences with no Overt Aspectual Markers
In Chinese, some of the sentences that are not overtly aspectually marked are
stative sentences, including habituals and generics. Generic sentences are considered
to be true at all time, and thus the issue of tense does not arise. Habitual sentences,
on the other hand, can be interpreted as either in the past or in the present, just like
other stative sentences:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
284
(39) a. Ta tiantian kai che.
he everyday drive car
'He drove/drives everyday.'
b. Na-ben shu hen gui.
that-CL book very expensive
'That book is/was expensive.'
As for non-stative types of sentences, there are two subtypes that do not bear
aspectual markers. In one subtype the presence of perfective markers is prohibited
or marginal. In the other subtype perfective markers and imperfective markers are
optional. As an example of the first subtype, consider (40).
(40) a. Wo tingshuo(*-ie) ta zou le.
I hear-ASP he leave ASP
I heard that he left.'
b. Ta hen limao de ba ta jieshao(?-le) gei women,
he very polite DE BA he introduce-ASP to us
'He introduced him to us very politely.’
There are several reasons that (40a) should be considered to bear past time reference.
First, it is unlikely that the sentence in (40a) is something that will be scheduled.
This may have something to do with the manner adverb hen limao de 'politely.'
Second, it is unlikely that (40a) refers to a habitual situation because there are no
adverbs such as changchang 'often.' Finally, the imperfective reading is also
unlikely. Given these, past time reference is the only possibility remaining.
Similarly, the matrix verb in (40b) can only bear past time reference.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
285
For the second subtype, consider the examples in (41). The examples in (41)
show that aspectual markers can be optional.
(41) a. Ni mai (-le) shenme shu?7 9
he buy-ASP what book
'What book did you buy?'
b. Ni nar (zai) xia(-zhe) yu ma?
you place in fall-ASP rain PART
"Is it raining at the place where you are?'
c. Ni shou shang na(-zhe) shenme?
you hand top take-ASP what
'What are you holding in your hand?'
The first sentence in (41a) can be used when the speaker presupposes that the hearer
has bought book(s), and when the speaker wants to know what book(s) the hearer
bought. Sentence (41b) can be used felicitously when the speaker is interested in
knowing the current weather condition in the hearer's location. The former sentence
is perfective, whereas the latter sentence is imperfective. Thus the former bears past
time reference, and the most natural interpretation for the imperfective sentence is
the present time reference. Finally, (41c) can be used when the speaker presupposes
that the hearer is holding something and thus the sentence bears present time
reference.
79 Without -l^ this sentence can refer to a future situation since the volitional interpretation is
available.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Form and meaning: negation and question in Chinese

PDF

Grammaticalization and the development of functional categories in Chinese

PDF

Ellipsis constructions in Chinese

PDF

Beyond words and phrases: A unified theory of predicate composition

PDF

A comparative study of focus constructions

PDF

Asymmetry of scope taking in wh -questions

PDF

Children's scope of indefinite objects

PDF

Connectionist phonology

PDF

Issues in the syntax of resumption: Restrictive relatives in Lebanese Arabic

PDF

Algorithms for streaming, caching and storage of digital media

PDF

"Insane passions": Psychosis and female same -sex desire in psychoanalysis and literary modernism

PDF

Aspects of questions in Japanese and their theoretical implications.

PDF

Children in transition: Popular children's magazines in late imperial and early Soviet Russia

PDF

Locatives in Chinese and Japanese: distribution, case assignment and c-command

PDF

Gossip, letters, phones: The scandal of female networks in film and literature

PDF

Discourse functional units: A re-examination of discourse markers with particular reference to Spanish

PDF

A descriptive grammar of San Bartolome Zoogocho Zapotec

PDF

A cut above: Fashion as meta -culture in early -twentieth -century Russia

PDF

"Master of many tongues": The Russian Academy Dictionary (1789--1794) as a socio -historical document

PDF

An anaphoric approach to clitic position in Spanish

Asset Metadata

Creator Hsieh, Miao-Ling (author)

Core Title Form and meaning: Negation and question in Chinese

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Linguistics

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag language, linguistics,Language, Modern,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Li, Y.-H. Audrey (committee chair), Hayden, George (committee member), Hoji, Hajime (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-99656

Unique identifier UC11337918

Identifier 3027726.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-99656 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3027726.pdf

Dmrecord 99656

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hsieh, Miao-Ling

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA