English Pro-verb Do

The novel usage of YONG in Taiwan Mandarin is reminiscent of a significant case: the English pro-verb do. Do is termed as “pro-verb” in virtue of its two particular functions:

verbal anaphora (cf. Spears, 1991; Trask, 1993; Biber et al, 1999; Matthews, 2007; Crystal, 2008; Richards and Schmidt, 2010 etc.) and process referring (cf. Halliday, 1977; Biber et al, 1999).

In terms of its verbal anaphora function, do is termed as “pro-verb” due to the fact that it can be used to substitute a forementioned antecedent verb phrase in context. It functions as a VP pro-form to avoid redundant repetition of an identical VP expression in discourse. Briefly, do is termed as “pro-verb” for its substitution use. For instance, Spears (1991) defined a “pro-verb” as “a verbal construction using some form of the verb do to stand for a full verb phrase”. Biber (1999) further indicates that “In one common pattern, do combines with a following pronoun it or this/that to form a transitive pro-verb construction”.

The following examples illustrate the verbal anaphora function of “pro-verb” do:

(1) a. I like films and John does too. [Crystal, 2008]

b. I asked Lisa to proofread the typescript, and she did so/did it. [Trask, 1993]

c. Angela spills her coffee every morning. John does that too. [Spears, 1991]

In (1a), the verb do substitutes the forementioned VP like films. In (1b-c), do further combines with so, it and that, forming the phrases do so, do it and do that, to substitute the forementioned VP proofread the typescript in (1b) and spills her coffee every morning in (1c) respectively. Noteworthily, a “pro-verb” do substitutes for a full VP rather than for a single verb in the preceding context, as illustrated in the following example:

(2) A: Can you buy the book for me?

B: OK, I’ll do (it)/*I’ll do the book for you.

As shown in the examples above, it is the full VP buy the book for me that is substituted, not the single verb buy. Therefore, some linguists such as Trask (1993) suggested that the term

“pro-VP” would be more recommended for this verbal anaphora function.

The Taiwan Mandarin YONG has such verbal anaphora function parallel to the English do as well, as illustrated in the following:

(3) 我實在很懶得洗碗，就叫我老公去用。 [Google, 2012/8/11]

wo shizai hen lan de xi wan, jiu jiao wo laogong qu yong

I really very lazy DE wash dish, CEM Caus. I husband Purp. YONG

‘I was too lazy to wash dishes, so I asked my husband to do it.’

(4) A:你可以幫我買書嗎？

A: ni keyi bang wo mai shu ma A: you can help I buy book QM

‘Can you buy the book for me?’

B1:好，我來用/*我來用書。

B1: hao, wo lai yong/*wo lai yong shu B1: okay, I Purp. YONG/I Purp. YONG book

‘OK, I’ll do (it)/I’ll do the books.’

As shown above, YONG replaces the forementioned VP 洗碗 xi wan ‘wash dishes’ and 買 書 mai shu ‘buy a book’. Similar to the case of do, in (4) YONG substitutes for the full VP mai shu ‘buy a book’, rather than for the single verb 買 mai ‘buy’. In sum, the examples above show that YONG and do are similar in terms of their verbal anaphora function.

In addition to the verbal anaphora function, do is also termed as “pro-verb” in virtue of its another significant function: process referring. When do is used for process-referring function, it does not specify the actual event or action fulfilled in the clause. Instead, do here express “any unidentified or unspecified process” (Halliday and Hasan, 1977). Namely, it serves for the function of “conveying a broad and undifferentiated meaning” (Quirk et al., 1985). Besides, since do here is not used for verbal anaphora, there is no “replaced verb” in the context. That is, do here “substitutes for a series of actions or events, rather than referring to a specific preceding verb” (Biber et al, 1999). The occurrence of do “does not necessarily involve an anaphoric or cataphoric reference” (Halliday and Hasan, 1977).

Consider the following example from Biber et al (1999):

(5) A: Even Miss <teacher’s name> hates him. – Now, well you see, she o~, we was having this discussion about education and she goes Are you cynical about education Terry? He goes no. She goes oh! She goes why? And he goes I don’t know what cynical means.

B: <laughs>

A: I was saying ah no. And everyone in the class just cracked up. – Sometimes you woth—er whe— you wonder whether he does it on purpose. – He must do it on purpose, no one could be that thick.

Biber et al (1999) clarified that “In this conversation, the pro-verb expressions does it and do it refer to Terry’s actions and speech, rather than substituting for a specific preceding verb”.

Similarly, YONG has such process-referring function parallel to do as well. As shown in the following example, YONG here does not substitute a specific verb in context. Instead, it expresses an unspecified event in the sentence. The intended reading ‘to cook’ is obtained via contextual inference.

(6) 我今天就用了一鍋咖哩 準備明天來吃~~~ [PixNet Blog, 2013/4/12]

wo jintian jiu yongle yiguo gali zhunbei mingtian lai chi

I today CEM YONG-PF one-pot curry prepare tomorrow Purp. eat

‘I cooked a pot of curry today for tomorrow.’

To summarize the discussion above, it is clear that the English do is termed as a

“pro-verb” in terms of its two crucial functions: verbal anaphora and process referring.

Considering the comparison between do and YONG, one crucial question is raised: if do is termed as a “pro-verb” by virtue of its verbal anaphora and process-referring function, can YONG also be termed as a “pro-verb” in the same way since, like English do, it also has these two functions?