Chapter 3 Preliminaries
3.2 Contrary versus Contradictory
In addition to aspectuality, the two logical notions, contrary and contradictory, are used to distinguish a lexical negation marker from a sentential one. Teng (1978) uses these two notions to determine negations as lexical or sentential negation markers. For example, if a negative sentence denotes contradictory meaning, the negation marker is classified as a syntactic construction. Alternatively, a negative sentence indicating contrary meaning is considered as lexical facts. In other words, the negation in the former represents a sentential negation marker, while that in the latter behaves as a lexical one.
Also, Teng illustrates that only contrary terms can function as comparative predicates, like (26a) which specifies a definite property. By contrast, when contradictory terms occur in comparative constructions, negation must precede the comparative markers or preposition, as gen ‘and’ given in (26b); else the sentence will be ungrammatical, such as (26c). As a result, a negation marker in contrary terms is a negative prefix, being a part of the state verbs, formed as a lexicon.
(26) a. ZhangSan meiyou LiSi neme bu young-gong ZhangSan not LiSi that not studious ‘Zhang San is not as lazy (in study) as Li Si.’
b. Ni bu gen ta yiyang gao You not and he equal gao ‘You are not as all as he is.’
c. *Ni gen ta yiyang bu gao you and he equal not tall
18
‘You and he are equally not tall.’ (cf. Teng, 1978 (6b) (7a) (8a)).
The studies of Taiwanese negation markers yield similar results upon examination by these two notions. Claire (1992) postulates that m with a state verb denotes either a contrary or a contradictory meaning. According to, Teng (1992) m occurring with adjectives denotes contrary meaning such as m ho ‘not good = bad,’
while bo occurs with adjectives, denoting contradictory meaning such as bo ho ‘not good ≠ bad ’. However, to examine negations through semantics is insufficient. It is difficult for us to interpret a sentence having a contrary or a contradictory meaning.
This is especially so when the sentence does not have gradable predicate, such as (19) where Claire provides an incorrect classification. In fact, m si goa kok phin ‘not a foreign movie’ means the movie is not a foreign movie, and it must be a domestic movie. Hence, (19) denotes a contrary reading, but not a contradictory one. This kind of problem can be found in MC as well, as seen in Teng’s opinions in (26a) and (26b) where bu yong gong ‘not studious’ and bu gao ‘not tall’ do not equally mean ‘lazy’ or
‘short’. In other words, these predicates are gradable, and the sentences have contradictory meanings, but not contrary ones. Thus, the negation markers in (26a-b) are sentential markers.
From the sentences discussed above, defining m and bo as a lexical or sentential negations by the contrary or contradictory interpretation is not sufficient, especially, as the predicate does not have gradability. Thus, I propose an alternative to determine whether negation markers are lexical or sentential by the examination of comparative construction. If the negative predicate can occur in the comparative construction, the
19
negation marker represents as a lexical one, and the negation and the following element are considered as a lexical word. In the next chapter, the properties of Taiwanese negation markers will be presented first; then both semantic and syntactic methods will be used to determine negation markers as lexical or a sentential.
20
Chapter 4
_____________________________________________________________________
The Syntactic and Semantic Properties of Taiwanese Negation Markers
In order to investigate the number of primitive negation markers in TSM, I reexamine the basic properties of Taiwanese negation markers such as m ‘not,’ bo
‘not,’ mai ‘not,’ buai ‘not,’ beh ‘not,’ and mmo ‘not’ to generalize their distributions.
From this analysis, the primitive marker will be determined. The properties of the negation markers are provided in this chapter.
4.1 The properties of negation m
The data concerning m can be divided into two subgroups based on the volitional and non-volitional readings of the negative sentences. When m occurs with either action verbs or certain adjectives, the ‘intention of not to’ meaning is interpreted, for example.
A. m + action verbs (27) a. i m lai he not come
‘He did not want to come.’
21
b. i m khi hahao he not go school
‘He did not want to go to school.’
c. i m chia ben he not eat meal
‘He did not want to eat.’
B. m + adjectives
(28) a. i m lausit he not honest
‘He did not want to be honest.’
b. i m ching-gin he not decent
‘He did not want to be decent.’
c. i m kiam he not frugal
‘He did not want to be frugal.’
Lin (2004) proposes m is in an NEG node, subcategorizing a ModalP headed by either beh or an abstract modal (Huang 1988a), so that the volitional meaning is denoted from the attachment of m to a modal/modal verb with [+volition] feature. In addition to action verbs, m can precede auxiliary, non-gradable adjectives, state verbs, and [si/si…e] structures. When m occurs with these elements, the negative sentence does have volitional meaning. Examples are as follows.
22
C. m + Aux
(29) a. li m bien hiao-yi you not have to doubt
‘You have not to doubt.’
b. li m thang yiabie laogang you not shoud oppress labors
‘You should not to oppress the labors.’
c. i m khing khi haho he not willing go school
‘He is not willing to go to school.’
d. i m ka chia hiam he not dare eat spicy
‘He dare not to eat spicy food.’
e. woa m kia kua I not afraid cold
‘I am not afraid of cold weather.’
D. m + adjectives
(30) a. chi-e yi-gian m ho This suggestion not good ‘This suggestion is not good.’
b. li gong e ue m tio you say E speech not correct
‘What you say is not correct.’
23
E. m + state verbs
(31) a. woa m cai-iann I not know
‘I did not know.’
b. i m kam-sim he not willing
‘He is not willing.’
c. i lao m lienhun he old not acknowledge ‘He did not acknowledge his old age.’
F. m + si
(32) a. i m si haksing he not is student.
‘He is not a student.’
b. hit-cu dianyian m si woa-go phi this movie not is foreign flim
‘That movie is not a foreign film.’
G. m + [si…e]
(33) a. hit rui hue m si ang e that CL flower not is red E.
‘That flower is not red.
b. i-e ming m si o e his face not be black E
24
‘His face is not black.’
4.2 The property of bo
Like m, bo can be followed by action verbs, auxiliary, statives, and adjectives.
Yet, the meanings of the sentences negated by bo are different from those negated by m. For example, both of them can negate action verbs and certain adjectives such as ho ‘good’ and lau-si ‘honest’. Yet, the sentences negated by m carry volitional meanings (27) or indicate that the situation is controllable, as shown in (28). bo is only used to express an event which is not carried out such as (34). Otherwise, both m and bo can co-occur with the adjective ang ‘red,’ as in (33a) and (37d), but the meanings of these negative sentences are different. In (33a), m negates a color type, specifying the opposite state of red; indicating the flower is not red, but other kinds of colors. Whereas, in (37d), there is a standard of color red, but the color of the flower does not reach that standard; so what bo negates is a degree sense, showing the flower is red but does not reach the standard of redness. This kind of distinction shows that although m and bo co-occur with the same adjective, their meanings are extremely distinct. The other distinct property separating m and bo is that the auxiliaries which are compatible with them are different. That is, m precedes the auxiliaries, bien ‘not have to’, thang ‘should’, king/wan ‘willing’, and ka ‘dare’ shown in (29), while bo co-occurs with the auxiliaries, beh ‘want to,’ as well as yingkai ‘should’ in (35). This contrast implies that there are at least two kinds of auxiliaries in TSM. One is compatible with m while the other is congruent with bo. In other words, TSM has different projections of modalities.
25
H. bo+action verbs
(34) a. i bo ying-sia he not reply ‘He did not reply.’
b. i cioo ku bo tng khi tai-uan he very long not back to Taiwan ‘He has not gone back to Taiwan for a long time.’
c. i bo chiang sa tio cau chu-khi a he not wear clothes then go out PL ‘He did not wear clothes before going out.’
d. A-ming bo khi hahau A-ming not go school
‘A-ming did not go to school.’
e. i bo cia ku-bah he not eat beef ‘He does/did not eat beef.’
I. bo+Aux
(35) a. woa bo beh khi taiba I not want go Taipei ‘I would not like to go to Taipei.’
b. woa bo yingkai coo hi kia tai-ci I not shold do that CL thing ‘I should not do that.’
26
J. bo + state verbs (36) a. i bo hua-hi he not happy ‘He is not happy.’
b. i bo liau-kai woa e siu-huah he not understand my Pos thinking ‘He did not understand my thinking.’
c. woa bo kayi hit e lang I not like that CL person ‘I do not like that person.’
K. bo+adjecive
(37) a. A-ming e biau-hian bo cing-cung A-ming Pos performance not usual ‘A-ming’s performance is not as usual’
b. i e kanghu bo ho he Pos skill not good ‘His skill is not good.’
c. hit e ko-niu bo sui that CL girl not pretty
‘That girl is not pretty.’
d. hit rui hue bo ang that CL flower not red
27
‘That flower is not red.’
Another property of bo clamed by Teng (1992) is the generic interpretation which differs from m, as shown in (34e) where cia ku-bah ‘eat beaf’ can be interpreted as a generic reading or a episodic reading. However, the counter examples given in (38) indicate that the negation marker m also can have the generic reading. Hence, the generic property is not unique to bo.
(38) a. A-ming tia-tia m sei sing-khu A-ming usually not wish bath
‘It is often the case that Xiaoming does not want to take a bath.’
b. A-ming m tia-tia sei sing-khu A-ming not usually wish bath
‘It is often the case that Xiaoming does not take a bath.’
Furthermore, Teng (1992) states that bo is only used for present and past generic situations. In fact, bo differs from this interpretation; it can be used for future situations as well, for instance:
(39) ming-a-cai hue-chia bo kau Taipah tomorrow train not arrive Taipei ‘Tomorrow, the train will not arrive at Taipei.
28
(39) means that the train will not arrive at Taipei tomorrow. Obviously, the adverb tomorrow manifests the future situation. Thus, bo is able to occur in a future situation as well.
4.3 The properties of mai, buai, beh, and mmo
The remaining four negation markers in Taiwanese are now discussed. First is beh ‘not’. When beh precedes action verbs, state verbs, and adjectives, the negative sentence expresses the degree of ‘unlikelihood’ as shown in (40).
(40) a. min-a-chai ing-kai beh lo-ho tomorrow should not rain
‘It will not rain tomorrow.’
b. lau-si beh pha haksing teacher not hit student ‘Teachers will not hit students.’
c. A-mi beh ka-yi A-ming A-mi not like A-ming
d. hit cang huei cing beh sui that CL flower cultivate not beautiful
‘That flower is not well-cultivated.’
mai signifies ‘not,’ which is used to advise, warn, threaten someone, or express an opinion about what should not happen, for instance:
(41) a. li mai kong-ka hiap-phai thiaN you not talk nasty listen
29
‘You had better not talk so nastily!’
b. li mai lai bo woa e ka li kua chu-khi you not come or I will ka you kick out ‘You had better not come or I will kick you out.’
Third is buai ‘not’. When the agent does not like something or does not want that event to happen, the negation marker buai ‘not’ will be used, such as (42).
(42) a. A-ming buai khi hahau A-ming not go school
‘A-ming would not like to go to school.’
b. i buai tua Taipah he not live Taipei
‘He would not like to live in Taipei.’
The last one is mmo, which is used to advise someone not to do something. The following elements are usually action or state verbs, as shown in (43).
(43) a. li mmo toa peN-iN la!
you not stay hospital PL
‘Don’t stay in the hospital.’
b. li mmo kua tian-si you not watch TV ‘Don’t watch TV.’
4.4 The Sentential Negation Markers
30
Taiwan negation markers are divided into two types-the sentential negation marker and the lexical negation marker, according to their phonological composition, semantic interpretation, and syntactic distribution. In this section, the argument of m as a sentential negation marker is discussed.
M represents a sentential negation marker when it negates action verbs and certain adjectives; for example, what m negates in (27) and (28) is a predicate led by an abstract modal [+beh] which carries a volitional meaning. In fact, when m negates a covert volitional abstract or any abstract4 phrase, m is located in Neg head and the scope of negation is wider than that of MP which is headed by the modal beh ‘want to’. Moreover, m in [m si/si…e] constructions represented a sentential negation marker, as can be seen in (43).
(43) A-ming m dio si Taiuan lang A-ming not dio be Taiwan person ‘A-ming is Taiwanese.
In (432), the insertion between m ‘not’ and si ‘be’ is allowed; this proves that m si is not a lexical word; and m here serves as a sentential negation marker, negating the whole predicate si ‘be’. Comparative construction is also used to examine m. If the negative marker can occur after the comparative marker in the comparative construction, it is treated as a lexical word, but not a predicate. Taking (44) as an example, the negation marker bo ‘not’ in (44a) is unable to follow the comparative marker ka ‘more,’ while in (44c) the comparative marker ka ‘more’ can precede the
4 In addition to the explicit feature [+volitional] of modals, Ernst (1995) suggests that the abstract modal in habitual sentences may have the feature [+HAB].
31
32
negation marker bo ‘not’. In other words, what (44a) compares is a predicate bo sui
‘not pretty;’ whereas what (44c) compares is a lexical word bo huahi ‘unhappy’.
(44) a. i bo bi woa ka sui she not than I more pretty ‘She is not prettier than me.’
b. * i bi woa ka bo sui she than I more not pretty
‘She is not prettier than me.’
c. i bi woa ka bo huahi she than I more not happy ‘She is not happier than me.’
d.* i bo bi woa ka huahi she not than I more happy ‘She is not happier than me.’
From this observation, it can be inferred that when the negation is a lexical one, it can occur in the comparative construction. The same examination is used to determine whether such negation can occur in the comparative construction. If so, the negation must be a lexical one. The examples are given below.
(45) a. *i bi woa go-ka m si haksing he more me than not be student ‘He is more unlike a student than me.’
b. i bi woa go-ka m si lang
he more me than not be human ‘He is not like human more than me.’
(45a) shows that m si haksing ‘not a student’ cannot occur in the comparative sentence, whereas m si lang ‘not be a human’ occurs in the comparative sentence, and (45b) is grammatical. It seems that m si ‘not be’ can represent either a lexical or a sentential negation marker. In fact, (45b) is grammatical because m-si lang here is argued as the usage of idiom, so it can occur as a lexicon in the comparative construction. On the other hand, the ungrammaticality of (45a) indicates that m si haksing ‘not be a student’ is not a lexicon; therefore, it cannot occur in the comparative construction. Hence, m here is treated as a sentential negation marker which negates si haksing ‘be a student,’ a specificational copula sentence implying class membership (Huang 1988b) 5.
In Teng (1992), m si ‘not be’ is analyzed as a lexicon since m cannot stand alone to answer questions, as seen in (46). Yet, based on the following covert modal beh, I argue against this statement and attribute it to m, which behaves as a bound morpheme, and must attach to a stem or a word such as si ‘be’ so that the volitional m can stand alone.
(46) li si m si haksing you be not be student
5 Huang (1988b) proposes that there are two kinds of shi in MC--one is transitive and the other one is intransitive; rather, the transitive shi and the following arguments form identificational or specificational copulative sentences. The intransitive shi is a raising auxiliary that subcategorizes a clause. Various "cleft sentences" are formed with the intransitive shi depending on whether subject raising has taken place. Applying this proposal to TSM, si haksing ‘be a student’ belongs to a specificational copula sentence, implying class membership. Thus when it is negated by m, what m negates is a copula sentence, forming a syntactic negation, but not a lexical negation.
33
34
‘Are you a student?’
a. m si.
not be
‘I am not.’
b. *m.
not ‘Not.’
(47) li beh khi taipak bo?
you want go Taipei PRT ‘Do you want to go?’
a. m khi.
not-want go
‘Do not want to.’
b. m.
not-want
‘Do not want to.’
4.5 The Lexical Negation Markers
The date indicates that m not only functions as a sentential negation marker, but also represents a lexical one, especially when it co-occurs with adjectives. Examples are given in (48).
(48) a. cng-kha hakhao m ho.
countrysie school not good ‘The school in the countryside is not good.’
b. i gong e wue m tio.
35
he say E speech not correct
‘What she says is not correct.’
The classification of the adjectives is based on their inherent properties: gradable (relative) and non-gradable (absolute) (Hamann 1991, Bolinger 1967, etc). 6 The truth value of adjectives, ho ‘good’ and tio ‘correct’ are determined independently; so they are classified as non-gradable adjectives and denote contrary meanings As the previous analyses have stated, if the combination of the negation marker and the following elements conveys a contrary reading, then the negation is sorted lexically.
As a result, m in (48) represents a lexical negation. Otherwise, when m co-occurs with state verbs and auxiliaries, m is also analyzed as a lexicon. Comparative sentences are used to distinguish the lexical m- from the sentential m. In (49), m and the following state verbs can occur in the comparative construction; thus, m here is counted as lexical negation.
6 We assume Taiwanese Southern Min counterparts of the adjectives can be sorted in the same way as well.
36
Another way to determine m as a lexical negation marker is to determine whether the negative term carries a contrary meaning or not. When m precedes state verbs, such as cai-iann ‘know,’ kam-sim ‘willing,’ or lienhun ‘acknowledge,’ the contrary meaning is conveyed. Thus, m represents a negative prefix m-, attached to the following state verbs, and forming a negative lexicon. For example, m cai-iann ‘not know
=unknown’, m kam-sim ‘not be willing to =unwilling’, and so on.
Besides m-, bo- can serve as a lexical negation maker as well. Taking (50a) for example, bo hua-hi ‘unhappy’ in the comparative construction does represent a lexicon. Thus, bo- is undoubtedly a lexical negation marker.
(50) a. i bi woa ka bo hua-hi.
he than I more not happy
‘He is not happier than me.’
b.*i bi woa ka bo khi hahau.
he than I more not go shcool
‘He did not go to school more than me.’
4.6 The Derived Sentential Negation Markers
Unlike (49a), bo in (50b) is incompatible with the comparative construction.
Therefore, bo here functions as a sentential negation marker. Along the same lines as
Therefore, bo here functions as a sentential negation marker. Along the same lines as