Hung (1995)

Hung examines the four functions of the ka construction: a source, a goal, a patient and a benefactive marker. She further divides ka as a patient marker into two types according to the (non-)existence of a verbal complement: ka with a transitive verb but without any verbal complement and ka with a transitive verb and a verbal complement.

Ka without a verbal complement has the following sentence pattern: NP1 ka NP2 V, as in (14).

(14) Guan kiann ka gua cim.

my son KA I kiss

‘My son kissed me.’ (pp. 70-71) The features of this type of ka are discussed in the study. First, the ka-NP is usually a definite NP as in (15)a or a specific NP as in (15)b. However, Hung further claims that a non-specific NP is sometimes possible in this construction as in (15)c⁴.

4 Hung uses example (15)c to show that a ka-NP can sometimes be non-specific. Latter in this section we will show that her analysis may be inappropriate.

(15) a. Alun ka in kiann that.

Alun KA his son kick ‘Alun kicked his son.’

b. Alun ka cit e lang me.

Alun KA one CL person scold ‘Alun scolded a person.’

c. M-tang oopeh ka lang me.

NEG-may randomly KA person scold.

‘Don’t scold others randomly.’ (pp. 72-73) Second, verbs of this construction are always transitive action verbs. Stative verbs are forbidden in this construction as shown in (16).

(16) a. *I ka cinn u.

he KA money have ‘He has money.’

b. *Asam ka Ang senn.

Asam KA Ang surname

‘Asam’s surname is Ang.’ (p. 73) Third, the ka construction of this type can be in progressive forms, as in (17):

(17) Asam teh ka in kiann me.

Asam PROG KA his son scold

‘Asam is scolding his son.’ (p. 75) Finally, Hung claims that the function of this construction is to make the verb become the semantic focus. There is no obvious semantic difference between this type of the ka construction and its non-ka counterpart. However, in this construction, the action expressed by the verb seems to become a semantic focus. A piece of evidence for this claim is that when the object of the verb is a pronominal NP, the ka

construction is usually used instead of its non-ka construction. A pronoun usually carries old information which is rarely a semantic focus. Thus, ka preposes the object NP to make the verb become the focus.

The second type of ka as a patient marker is ka with a verbal complement. It has the following sentence pattern: NP1 ka NP2 V complement. (18) is a ka sentence of this type. The verb consists of kong ‘hit’ and a complement phua

‘break.’

(18) I ka puea kong-phua a.

he KA cup hit-break ASP

‘He broke the cup.’

According to Hung, the ka construction of this type corresponds to the Mandarin ba construction, and it shares many features with the ba construction such as taking a definite or generic NP, taking a transitive action verb and a verbal complement.

The function of the disposal ka construction is to make the verb with its complement become the semantic focus, and most ka sentences with a verbal complement do not have non-ka counterparts, as in (19):

(19) a. Gua ka sann se chingkhi a.

I KA clothes wash clean PT ‘I washed the clothes clean.’

b. *Gua se chingkhi sann a.

I wash clean clothes ASP

‘I washed the clothes clean.’ (p. 94) Sentences in (19) can only exist in ka sentences. The ungrammaticality makes the preposing of the object NP become necessary. The object NP sann ‘clothes’ can move to the position before or after the subject. Also, when it is placed after the subject, it can be marked by ka or nothing. The preposing of an object NP marked

by ka makes the verb with its complement become the semantic focus.

According to Hung, ka as a source marker, a goal marker and a patient marker (the ka construction without a complement) are similar in that they all mark an object of an action, hence they can be categorized into an object marker⁵. Ka as a benefactive marker always marks a non-argument NP, which is often an entity indirectly affected by the action. Because other types of ka always mark an argument NP, ka as a benefactive marker is argued to be a different morpheme. The final type of ka is a disposal marker, that is, the patient marker ka occurring in the ka construction with a complement. This type of ka shares many characteristics with the disposal ba construction. Also, it has many features which are different from the other types of ka; hence, it is argued to be a different morpheme. According to these arguments, there are actually three types of kas in Taiwanese: ka as an object marker, ka as a disposal marker and ka as a benefactive marker.

Though Hung systematically compares the four functions of ka, her constraint on the progressive marker in the ka construction is not precise enough⁶. Also, her claim that a non-specific NP is sometimes possible in the ka construction seems to be ungrounded. Example (20), taken from Hung (1995), is used to show that a ka-NP can sometimes be non-specific NP.

(20) M-tang oopeh ka lang me.

NEG-may randomly KA person scold.

‘Don’t scold others randomly.’

5 In light of Jackendoff’s (1987) view that a thematic relationship can be more than one tier, Hung argues that “whether ka is a source marker, a goal marker, or a patient marker in another tier, in action tier, it has an identical function: to mark the object of an action (Hung 1995, p. 160).”

6 Her analysis implies that a progressive marker can only occur in the ka construction with a monosyllabic verb. Nevertheless, a bisyllabic verb like siuli ‘hit’ is also consistent with the progressive marker.

(i) Koko teh ka titi siuli.

brother PROG KA little brother hit ‘The brother is hitting the little brother.’

The NP lang ‘person’ in (20) is considered non-specific in Hung’s study. However, it seems to us that a more natural interpretation of the NP lang ‘person’ is to consider it as a generic NP. Thus, to claim that a non-specific NP is compatible with the ka construction based on an example like (20) may be inappropriate.