In this section, important properties of ka as a patient marker related to the present study will be discussed in detail.7 First, in 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, Referentiality and Omission constraints on the ka NP will be presented, and then in 2.3.3, and 2.3.4 Dynamicity, and Progressive constraints will be discussed.
2.3.1 Referentiality Constraint on the Ka-NP
The NPs following ka are generally definite or generic (Cheng and Tsao 1995, Li 1995, Tsao 2003).
(31) a. Ka hit king chu sau-sau le! (definite NP) KA that CL house sweep-sweep PT
‘Clean that house!’
7 Except for the properties examined in section 2.3, there are other properties of the patient ka. For example, chiong is another patient marker in Taiwanese. The chiong phrase and the ka phrase can co-occur in the same sentence (Cheng and Tsao 1995, Li 1995, Hung 1995, Tsao 2003). Also, in the retained object construction, the ka-NP and the retained object have either a whole-part or a possessor-possessee relationship. Furthermore, only the NP that serves as a whole but not part and the NP that serves as a possessor but not possessee can occur as a ka-NP. These two properties are beyond the scope of this study and will not be examined in the present study.
b. Muemue tianntiann ka cheh oopeh tan. (generic NP) little sister often KA books randomly throw
‘The little sister often puts books in disorder.’
c. *Ka cit king chu sau-sau le! (indefinite NP) KA a CL house sweep-sweep PT
‘Clean a house!’
According to Li and Thompson (1981), a noun phrase with a classifier and a demonstrative is definite because the demonstrative serves to indicate an entity which is known to the speaker and the hearer. In (31)a, hit king chu ‘that house’ contains a demonstrative hit ‘that,’ hence it is a definite NP. Also, according to Li and Thompson (1981), a noun phrase with no modifier is generic if it denotes a class of entities instead of any specific members in that class. Thus, cheh ‘books’ in (31)b is a generic NP. In (31)c, cit king chu ‘ a house’ is an indefinite NP since the speaker does not refer to a specific room that is known to the speaker and the hearer and cit king chu in Taiwanese cannot refer to a class of houses. The grammaticality of (31)a and (31)b and the ungrammaticality of (31)c show that an indefinite NP cannot occur in the ka construction.
2.3.2 Omission Constraint on the Ka-NP
It is often observed that a ka-NP does not have to be syntactically present (Teng 1982, Li 1995, Hung 1995). However, not all ka sentences allow a missing ka-NP.
Only when the ka NP is third person singular can the ka NP be syntactically absent.
Considering the following sentences:
(32) a. Asam oh, bo lang e ka __ tausannkang.
Asam PT NEG person will KA help ‘As for Asam, nobody will help him.’
b. *Li oh, bo lang e ka __ tausannkang.
li PT NEG person will KA help ‘As for you, nobody will help you.’
c. *Gua oh, bo lang e ka __ tausannkang.
I PT NEG person will KA help
‘As for me, nobody will help me.’ (Hung 1995, p. 7) In (32), only the ka-NP in a can be missing but never the ka-NPs in b and c. The ka-NP in a is third person singular, in b it is second person singular and in c it is first person singular. The sentences in (32) show that only a third person singular ka-NP can be syntactically absent.
2.3.3 Dynamicity Constraint on the Ka-Verb
Not every type of verb is compatible with the ka construction. Generally speaking, a stative verb cannot show up in the construction.
(33) a. Muemue ka hue tantiau. (nonstative verb) the little sister KA flowers throw away
‘The little sister throws away the flowers.’
b. *Muemue ka hue kahi. (stative verb) the little sister KA flowers like
‘The little sister likes the flowers.’
2.3.4 Progressive Constraint on the Ka-Verb
The situation with the Taiwanese ka construction and the present progressive marker teh is rather complicated. According to Hung (1995), the ka sentences without a verbal complement can have a progressive form while those with a verbal complement cannot. She claims that a bare action verb only indicates an action but
not the accomplishment of an action whereas a verb with a complement always indicates the accomplishment of an action. Given this, the progressive marker can only occur in ka sentences without a verbal complement but not with it. Besides, for the ka sentences without a complement, Hung focuses only on the monosyllabic verb.
Hung’s analysis is right but not precise enough. Bisyllabic verbs like siuli ‘fix’
can co-occur with a progressive marker, too. Also, since the occurrence of a progressive marker depends on the telicity of the ka verb, a more precise way to state this constraint is that a progressive marker can only show up in the ka construction with an atelic verb but not in those with a telic verb.
(34) a. I teh ka in kiann me.
he PROG KA his son scold
‘He is scolding his son.’
b. Papa teh ka titi siuli.
father PROG KA little brother hit ‘Father is hitting the little brother.’
c. *I teh ka png chia-liau.
he PROG KA rice eat-finish
‘He is eating the rice all up.’
In (34)a the verb me ‘scold’ is a bare monosyllabic verb and in (34)b the verb siuli
‘fix’ is bisyllabic. Both of the verbs do not indicate accomplished actions, that is, they are atelic verbs, and the sentences are compatible with the progressive marker.
However, in (34)c, a verbal complement liau ‘finish’ signifies the accomplishment of the action and makes the verb become a telic verb, which is contradictory to the meaning of the progressive marker, resulting in the ungrammaticality.
2.3.5 Summary
In this section, four major constraints on the ka construction are discussed:
Referentiality, Omission, Dynamicity, and Progressive constraints. The Referentiality constraint states that only definite or generic NPs can show up in the construction. The Omission constraint states that only when the ka-NP is a third person singular pronoun can it be syntactically absent. As for the Dynamicity constraint, a stative verb cannot occur in the ka construction. Finally, the Progressive constraint states that a progressive marker can only show up in the ka sentences with an atelic verb.