Motivation

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Motivation

Like Mandarin wh-words, the wh-words in Taiwanese Southern Min (TSM), should be licensed by certain licensers. The most typical one is negation, as shown below:

(1) a. Tā méi-yǒu xǐhuān shéi.

(s)he NEG like who

‘(S)he does not like anyone.

b. I bô kah-ì siáⁿ-mi̍h lâng. (TSM) (s)he NEG-have like what people

‘(S)he doesn’t like anyone.’

In contrast, without negation, only an interrogative reading is obtained:

(2) a. Tā xǐhuān shéi?

(s)he like who

‘Who does (s)he like?’

b. I kah-ì siáⁿ-mi̍h lâng? (TSM) (s)he like what people

‘Who does (s)he like?’

2

This thesis focuses on the licensing of the existential wh-words in TSM. The licensing of wh-words in TSM has not drawn much attention so far. Due to their being licensed by negation, wh-words are similar to polarity items, which have been

researched considerably.

Polarity items have received much attention in linguistic research. A polarity item is an expression which is sensitive to the presence, in the same sentence, of certain other expressions, known as ‘licensing’ expressions. A ‘licensing’ expression can also be referred to a ‘triggering’ expression (Portner 2005).

There are two types of polarity items depending on their ‘licensing’ expressions.

The first type is Negative Polarity Items (NPI), which are sensitive to negation and related expressions. These polarity items must co-occur within the c-command

domain of negative sentences, those containing negative words such as not or nobody.

In English, examples of NPIs include any, at all, etc. If they occur in a sentence without a ‘negative’ expression, they would be ungrammatical. For example,

(3) a. John doesn’t have any potato.

b. I didn’t like the cake at all.

(4) a. *John has any potato.*¹ b. *I like any cake at all.

(3a) and (3b) are considered to be grammatical while (4a) and (4b) are

ungrammatical. As for Positive Polarity Item (PPI), consider the word somewhat in

1 (4a) has a free choice reading, meaning ‘any potato’ in the world. This reading is not discussed in the thesis.

3

sentences below,

(5) a. Mary liked it somewhat.

b. *John didn’t like somewhat.

In this case, somewhat is a lexical element that can appear in the environment of a certain ‘licensing context.’ That is, an affirmative environment licenses somewhat, but a negative environment, on the other hand, anti-licenses it.

Now return to the licensing of NPIs. While negation is sufficient, it is not necessary.

In addition to negation, the environments where the polarity sensitive (PS) any in English is licensed include conditionals, yes-no questions, certain determiners such as at most N and the first argument of the determiner every, and others (Progovac 1993). Consider the following examples, some of the licensing contexts are exemplified below:

(6) Does Mary have any cakes?

(7) a. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

b. *You have any questions.

(8) At most two of the visitors had seen anything.

The NPIs are licensed in yes-no question in example (6) and conditionals in examples (7). As for the last example, at most N is the licenser.

4

The corresponding TSM examples of (5) and (6) using siáⁿ-mi̍h ‘what’ but not that of (8) are acceptable as shown below:

(9) a. A-káu kám ū chia̍h siáⁿ-mi̍h ke-nn̄g-ko? (TSM) A-káu Q have eat what cake

‘Did A-káu eat any cakes?’

b. Nā-sī lí ū siáⁿ-mi̍h būn-tê, chhiáⁿ liân-lo̍k góa. (TSM) if you have what question please contact I

‘If you have any questions, please contact me.’

(TSM) c. Lú-kheh tang-tiong siāng-chē ū nn̄g-ê lâng khòaⁿ-tio̍h visitor among at most have two people see-arrive siáⁿ-mi̍h?

what

‘What did at most two of the visitors see?’

The wh-word siáⁿ-mi̍h ‘what’ in (9c), the corresponding example of (8) in TSM, is interrogative. The existential reading is lost.

In addition to the discrepancy between (8) and (9c), existential siáⁿ-mi̍h ‘what’

also appears in A-not-A questions and sentences ending with negative question particles such as bô, which exist in TSM but not English:

(10) a. Lí sī-m̄-sī tú-tio̍h siáⁿ-mi̍h khùn-lân? (TSM) you BE-NEG-BE encounter -arrive what difficulty

‘Have you encountered some difficulties?’

5

b. Lí ài siáⁿ-mi̍h bô? (TSM) you want what Q

‘Do you want anything?’

However, in addition to the existential reading and interrogative reading, wh-words also have another reading: universal reading.

(11) Siáⁿ lâng lóng cháu bô i hiah kín. (TSM) what man all run NEG-have (s)he that fast

‘Nobody runs faster than he does.’

The three readings set wh-words apart from typical NPIs such as any in English and renhe in Mandarin Chinese. That is, only parts of the characteristics of wh-words overlap with those of typical NPIs.

In addition, the licensing of wh-words by a negation is not as straightforward as that of typical NPIs as shown below:

(Hsiao 2003) (12) I m̄ (khéng) chia̍h siáⁿ? (TSM) (s)heNEG be-willing-to eat what

‘What is (s)he not willing to eat?’

The reading of siáⁿ(-mi̍h) ‘what’ in (12) is interpreted as interrogative. No existential reading is entailed.

6

Inspired by the characteristics of the usage and the pattern, this thesis aims to explore the licensing contexts of wh-words and provide an analysis under the Government and Binding theory (Chomsky 1981, 1982, 1986a and 1986b).

This thesis argues that an existential wh-word is not a typical Negative Polarity Item. Yes-no questions, conditionals, and negations are the universal licensers of existential NPIs. However, the licensing of wh-words by a negation is not as straightforward as that of typical NPIs. It is proposed that negation attached by a deontic modal or an aspect [+completive] should be the licenser of wh-words. An epistemic modal alone and non-factive verbs can license wh-words as well. As for long-distance licensing, the current study proves that there is no movement of wh-words in LF. As long as the c-command requirement is met, wh-wh-words are acceptable.

Minimality is considered when an interrogative licenser and an existential licenser co-exist. I draw the conclusion that the linking of an interrogative licenser with wh-words is stronger than that of an existential licenser with wh-words. Finally, the licensing context of jīm-hô ‘any’ in TSM is also probed into in order to provide a more comprehensive contrast between jīm-hô ‘any’, a typical NPI, and a wh-word, an atypical NPI.