3.2 Proposal
3.2.1 Preliminary of NPs in Taiwanese
While investigating the divergence between a generics and an episode with respect to the [V u/bo NP] construction, we find that there is an interesting correlation between the
referentiality of the postverbal noun phrase and the generic/episodic interpretation of the sentence. Consider the following examples.
(101) Abing lia bo hi.
Abing catch NEG fish
‘Abing is unable to catch any fish.’
(102) Abing jim bo so-si.
Abing take NEG key
‘Abing failed to take the key (out of his pocket).’
In (101), the postverbal noun phrase hi ‘fish’ is interpreted as non-referential and what the sentence denotes is the subject Abing’s lack of ability to catch any fish rather than an event on which Abing engaged in a catching-fish-activity. On the other hand, the sentence in (102) involves a noun phrase so-si ‘key’ which is interpreted as referential, and the denotation of this sentence is about an activity of taking the key out which is done by the subject (despite the fact that Abing did not get that key).
It is therefore shown by the above examples that there is an interaction between the referentiality of postverbal nouns and an episodic meaning of a sentence. But, under close inspection it seems that this observation is based more on the intuition than on any ‘observed’
forms since the noun phrases under discussion are all bare nouns. So, what we are going to do now is to take a look at the general behaviors of noun phrases in Taiwanese first, and later on postulate a promising method for deciding when a noun phrase in [V u/bo NP] can be interpreted as referential and when cannot. In doing so, we hope to preserve our original hypothesis on the distinction between a generic and an episodic interpretation regarding
sentences involving [V u/bo NP] construction.
To pave the way for our discussions, we will first provide an overview of how a noun phrase in different syntactic distributions is interpreted concerning its referentiality in Taiwanese.10 We will take both numeral phrases and bare noun phrases into consideration.
The first type to be discussed is the numeral noun phrase. Numeral phrases can be interpreted as referential or non-referential in preverbal position, as seen in (103a-e). In postverbal
10 Regarding Mandarin Chinese, Hsieh (2008) argues that both NP and DP layers are needed in a noun, where the former is associated with non-referentiality and the latter is the locus of referentiality. In this article, we do not look further into the structure of a noun, but simply concentrate on the interpretation of a noun (i.e. numeral phrases, bare nouns) with respect to referentiality.
e. Sap e lang cia cia e liau hit thang peng. (non-referential) ten CL person perhaps eat can finish that CL rice
‘Perhaps ten people can eat up that bucket of rice.’
(104) a. Abing cia go wann peng. (non-referential/ referential) Abing eat five CL rice
i) ‘Abing eats five bowls of rice.’
ii) ‘Abing ate (the) five bowls of rice.’
b. Abing cia go wann peng a. (referential) Abing eat five CL rice SFP
‘Abing ate five bowls of rice.’
c. Abing u cia go wann peng. (referential) Abing AUX eat five CL rice
‘Abing ate five bowls of rice.’
d. Abing ka-i leng e co-gin-a. (referential) Abing like two CL girl
‘Abing likes the two girls.’
e. Abing long-phua leng te po-le. (referential) Abing break two CL glass
‘Abing broke two pieces of glass.’
Next we consider the bare nouns. Bare noun phrases behave almost the same as numeral phrases. In preverbal position, bare nouns can have a referential interpretation or a non-referential interpretation, as seen in (105a-e). In postverbal position, a bare noun can also be interpreted as referential or non-referential, as in (106a-d).
(105) a. Niaonn-a pe-khi chu ting. (referential) cat climb house roof
‘The cat crawled to the roof of the house.’
b. Niaonn-a te cia hi-a. (referential) cat ASP eat fish
‘The cat is eating the fish.’
c. Niaonn-a ai cia hi-a. (non-referential) cat love eat fish
‘Cats love to eat fish.’
d. Niaonn-a cin ai cit cia niaonn-chi. (referential) cat very love this CL mouse
‘The cat loves this mouse very much.’
e. Niaonn-chi-a thao cia ke-leng. (referential) mouse stealthily eat egg
‘The mouse ate the egg(s) stealthily.’
(106) a. Abing pha-si niaonn-chi-a. (referential) Abing hit-dead mouse
‘Abing killed the mouse by smacking it.’
b. Abing cia gu-bah. (non-referential) Abing eat beef
‘Abing eats beef.’
c. Abing u cia gu-bah. (referential/non-referential) Abing AUX eat beef
i) ‘Abing ate the beef.’
ii) ‘Abing eats beef.’
d. Abing the-yia kao-a. (non-referential) Abing hate dog
‘Abing hate dogs.’
It is seen from the above examples that a noun phrase in Taiwanese can be referential or non-referential no matter it is in subject or object position. So, how do we know when a numeral phrase or a bare noun is interpreted as referential and when as non-referential, especially in the cases involving [V u/bo NP], where V is always concerned with activity and that no explicit temporal marker is employed? The following section demonstrates how the principles proposed shall help us to determine the referential interpretation of a postverbal noun phrase in [V u/bo NP], whose determination consequently settles the generic/episodic interpretation of the sentence.
3.2.2 Proposal
In sentences involving the [V u/bo NP] construction, we suggest that their being generic or episodic be determined by the referentiality/non-referentiality of the postverbal noun phrase:
the sentence is generic if and only if the postverbal noun phrase is non-referential, and the sentence is episodic if and only if the postverbal noun phrase is referential. We provide five principles which can help us to pin down the referentiality of the postverbal noun phrase.
First, we should consider whether an activity denoted by [V-NP] can be taken as the profession of the agent. To see the result, we can make use of the predicate structure […si V-NP e] ‘…is a person who specializes in a certain activity’. Compare the examples in (107) with those in (108).
(107) Yi [si {lia-hi/chio-kua/cing-chann/kong-kiu} e ].
he is catch-fish/sing-song/grow-field/hit-ball of
‘He is a {fisher/singer/farmer/hitter}.’
(108) *Yi [si {jim so-si/the kha-bang/be au-a/o co-thau/co che} e].
he is take-out key/take bag/buy cup/dig-up stone/borrow book of
Intended: ‘He is a person who specializes in *{taking out keys/taking bags/buying cups/digging up stones/borrowing books}.’
This is a principle that is taken to detect whether the NP can be non-referential in [V u/bo NP].
In other words, if the NP can occur in […si V-NP e] structure, it can be interpreted as non-referential in [V u/bo NP]. The reason is that, when the [V-NP] can be realized as an occupation, [V u/bo NP] is intuitively realized as a property to denote the agent’s ability/inability to do a good job. Therefore, if such kind of [V-NP] is involved in [V u/bo NP], the sentences are interpreted as generic, as in (109a-d).
(109) a. Abing lia bo hi-a.
Abing catch NEG fish
‘(As a fisher,) Abing is uable to catch any fish.’
b. Abing chio bo kua.
Abing sing NEG song
‘(As a singer,) Abing is uable to sing any song.’
c. Abing cing bo chann.
Abing grow NEG field
‘(As a farmer,) Abing is uable to grow any crops.’
d. Abing kong bo kiu.
Abing hit NEG ball
‘(As a hitter,) Abing is uable to hit any ball.’
Contrarily, if the [V-NP] predicates are not found to have this kind of ‘occupational’ usage, the NP can only be interpreted as referential when it occurs in [V u/bo NP], hence the sentence will only be taken to denote an episode, as in (110a-e).
(110) a. Abing jim bo so-si Abing take-out NEG key ‘Abing failed to take the key out.’
b. Abing the bo kha-bang Abing take NEG bag ‘Abing failed to take the bag.’
c. Abing be bo au-a.
Abing be NEG cup ‘Abing failed to buy the cup.’
d. Abing o bo cio-thau.
Abing dig-up NEG stone ‘Abing failed to dig up the stone.’
e. Abing cio bo che.
Abing borrow NEG book ‘Abing failed to borrow the book.’
The second principle concerns whether the predicate [V u/bo NP] itself has been taken to denote a property of a particular kind. In this case we take as a test the sentence type [Sia-mi khuan e X [V u/bo NP]?] ‘What kind of X have/do not have sufficient qualities to do the [V-NP]-thing?’ If the postverbal NP can survive the sentences, as in (111a-d), it can be interpreted as non-referential when the associated V and u/bo co-occur, as shown in (112a-c).
As a result, these sentences will be interpreted as generic.
(111) a. Sia-mi khuan e lang chua bo boo?
what kind of person marry NEG wife
‘What kind of people do not have sufficient qualities to marry a woman?’
b. Sia-mi khuan e lang co bo tai-cih?
what kind of person do NEG thing
‘What kind of people do not have sufficient qualities to do things well?’
c. Sia-mi khuan e chu-a cia senn u kue-cih?
what kind of tree just bear AFFIRM fruit ‘What kind of plants have sufficient qualities to bear fruits?’
d. Sia-mi khuan e ke-a senn bo leng?
what kind of hen produce NEG egg
‘What kind hens do not have sufficient qualities to produce eggs?’
(112) a. Abing chua bo boo.
Abing marry NEG wife
‘Abing does not have sufficient qualities to marry any woman.’
b. Abing co bo tai-cih.
Abing do NEG thing
‘Abing does not have sufficient qualities to do anything.’
c. Cit-cia ke-a senn bo leng.
this-CL hen produce NEG egg
‘This hen does not have sufficient qualities to produce eggs.’
On the other hand, if the postverbal NP cannot occur in the sentence type [Sia-mi khuan e X [V u/bo NP]?], as in (113a-c), it can only be interpreted as referential when the associated V and u/bo co-occur, as in (114a-c). Under these circumstances, the sentences involving this kind of [V u/bo NP] will denote episodes.
(113) a. *Sia-mi khuan e lang ce bo wi?
what kind of person sit NEG seat
‘What kind of people do not have sufficient qualities to take a seat?’
b. *Sia-mi khuan e lang cao bo loo?
what kind of person run NEG way
‘What kind of people do not have sufficient qualities to escape?’
c. *Sia-mi khuan e lang puann bo yi-a?
what kind of person take NEG chair
‘What kind of people do not have sufficient qualities to take chairs?’
(114) a. Abing ce bo wi.
Abing sit NEG seat
‘Abing failed to have the seat to sit on.’
b. Abing cao bo loo.
Abing run NEG way
‘Abing failed to find the way to run.’
c. Abing puann bo yi-a.
Abing take NEG chair
‘Abing failed to take the chair away.’
There is one more principle that can also be taken as a test to decide whether the postverbal noun phrase can be non-referential or not. Here is the mechanism: we juxtapose two clauses, where the former one containing the [V-NP] is associated with an individual-level predicate, mnn-si khun-nan e tai-cih ‘...is not a difficult thing,’ and that the latter one directly takes this suspected [V u/bo NP] as its predicate, as shown in (115a-b).
(115) a. Sui-len lia hi-a mnn-si khun-nan e tai-cih, tan-si yi
although catch fish not difficult POSS thing, but he
tio-si lia bo hi-a.
just catch NEG fish
‘Although catching fish is not a difficult thing, he is just unable to catch any fish.’
b. Sui-len man te mnn-si khun-nan e tai-cih, tan-si yi tio-si although pick tea not difficult POSS thing, but he just man bo te.
pick NEG tea
‘Although picking tea is not a difficult thing, he is just unable to pick any tea.’
If the output of the compound sentence is grammatical, then the NP under discussion can be
non-referential; hence the sentence involving the [V u/bo NP] will refer to a generic property of the agent, as seen in (116a-b).
(116) a. Abing lia bo hi-a.
Abing catch NEG fish ‘Abing is unable to catch any fish.’
b. Abing man bo te.
Abing pick NEG tea ‘Abing is unable to pick any tea.’
However, if the output of the compound sentence is ungrammatical, as in (117a-c), the NP involved can only be interpreted as referential when it occurs with the associated V and u/bo, as seen in (118a-c).
(117) a. *Sui-len yionn cui mnn-si khun-nan e tai-cih, tan-si yi although scoop water not difficult POSS thing, but he tio-si yionn bo cui
just scoop NEG water
Intended: ‘Although scooping out water is not a difficult thing, he is just unable to scoop out any water.’
b. *Sui-len ka cin-ka mnn-si khun-nan e tai-cih, tan-si yi although trim nail not difficult POSS thing, but he tio-si ka bo jin-ka.
just trim NEG nail
Intended: ‘Although trimming nails is not a difficult thing, he is just unable to trim any nail.’
c. *Sui-len me au-a mnn-si khun-nan e tai-cih, tan-si yi tio-si although buy cup not difficult POSS thing, but he just be bo au-a.
buy NEG cup
Intended: ‘Although buying cups is not a difficult thing, he is just unable to buy any cup.’
(118) a. Abing yionn bo cui.
Abing scoop NEG water
‘Abing failed to scoop out the water.’
b. Abing ka bo cin-ka.
Abing trim NEG nail
‘Abing failed to trim the nail.’
c. Abing be bo au-a.
Abing buy NEG cup
‘Abing failed to buy the cup.’
The above three principles are all used to test whether a postverbal noun phrase involved in [V u/bo NP] can be interpreted as non-referential or not. For those NPs which can pass any of the three principles, we have shown that they can be non-referential. As for those NPs which pass none of the tests, they can only be interpreted as referential, as illustrated by the examples in (119a-d).
(119) a. Yi ce bo wi.
he sit NEG seat
‘He failed to have the seat to sit.’
b. Yi jim bo so-si.
he take NEG key ‘He failed to get the key.’
c. Yi be bo au-a.
he buy NEG cup
‘He failed to get the cup that he intended to buy.’
d. Yi the bo kha-bang.
he take NEG bag ‘He failed to take the bag.’
Now we turn to the fourth principle, based on which we can decide when a noun phrase can be referential. The first thing to consider is the verbal phrases which we have already talked about in the previous principles. We should point out a possibility that, although the NPs that survive the three principles can be interpreted as non-referential, there are normal circumstances under which these NPs can also be interpreted as referential. To explain more clearly, some of the verbal phrases not only depict an occupation or a specific property, but denote an activity which can still be done by ordinary people. For instance, lia hi-a ‘catch fish’ can also mean a catching-fish activity, khio leng ‘pick up eggs’ a picking-up-eggs activity , or ban kam-a ‘pick tangerines’ a picking-tangerines activity. In other words, since this kind of activities are not like the ones which are so specialized that only a certain group of people can do, normal people can simply take them as their pastimes or hobbies in
this regard. Allowing this possibility, we see that the postverbal NP involved might turn up to be referential when it occurs with the associated V and u/bo. As a result, sentences containing such kind of verbal phrases might be ambiguous between a generic and an episodic meaning.
To make such a sentence be focusing upon the referential usage of the postverbal noun phrase, we can insert a temporal adverb such as cang ‘yesterday’, in which manner we are brought about a supplement to disambiguate the sentence at the same time, as shown in (120a-b).
(120) a. Yi cang lia bo hi.
he yesterday catch NEG fish ‘He failed to catch the fish yesterday.’
b. Yi cang kong bo kiu.
he yesterday hit NEG ball ‘He failed to hit the ball(s) yesterday.’
The temporal adverb insertion is thus taken as the fourth principle to help decide the referential interpretation of the postverbal noun phrase in the [V u/bo NP] construction.
So far, there is still one more thing that we would like to clarify. The principles that we use to determine the referentiality of a postverbal noun phrase are not as rigid as they should be once we implement a context by force. In a sentence like (121) we usually think of not having the seat to sit on as a stage-level predicate since we do not expect a person to search for a seat all the time. However, if we insert a frequency adverb such as tiann-tiann
‘often’, then the meaning of the sentence is changed into the denotation of a habitual event.
To be more specific, the sentence in (122) means that the event of his finding no seat to sit on
often takes place.
(121) Yi ce bo wi.
he sit NEG seat
‘He did not have the seat to sit on.’
(122) Yi tiann-tiann ce bo wi.
he often sit NEG seat
‘He often has no seat to sit on.’
But, is the insertion of frequency adverbs always available as long as we implement a context?
Say, for a sentence like (123a), would it be felicitous if we insert tiann-tiann ‘often’ to get a sentence like (123b)? In the second sentence we intended to have a meaning that he often takes no key from his pocket, but since to make up such a scenario is almost impossible in our daily life, we therefore get an infelicitious sentence.
(123) a. Yi the bo so-si.
he take NEG key
‘He failed to take the key (from his pocket).’
b. *Yi tiann-tiann the bo so-si.
he often take NEG key
Intended: *‘He often takes no key (from his pocket).’
We take this context implementation as the fifth principle, which can also subdue the other four principles.