3.2 Proposal
3.2.2 Semantics of Ye
Along the line of Rooth’s (1985, 1992, 1997) alternative semantics, we shall suggest that semantically an additive particle ye presupposes that there is at least one contextually salient proposition P that is distinct from the sentence with ye is true (cf.
Rullmann (2003), Tsai (2004)). This proposal can explain the following questions:
(A) how to represent the ambiguous interpretations of a single clause with ye, such as (74); (B) how to define previous descriptions of ye formally: (i) ye means ‘listing’ (cf.
Zhu (1982)), (ii) ye signifies the similarity between the two expressions (cf. Lu (1980), Ma (1982)), and (iii) the similarity will not be significant unless there is certain difference between two expressions (cf. Shen (1983)); and (C) why ye rather than erqie occurs in certain sentence patterns.
Assuming Rooth’s (1985, 1992, 1997) alternative semantics, we first assign ye a lexical semantic value with quantificational force. The focus semantic value is derived from making a substitution in the position corresponding to the focus semantic value of the ordinary semantic value. In other words, the focus semantic value and the ordinary semantic value are equivalent except for the substitution part,
turning out to be a variable introduced by the focus, and thus the semantics of ye is spelled out as (73).
(73) [[ye]]= a set of expressions P∈{[[α]]f－[[α]]o}
Simply put, the semantics of ye denotes a set of expressions P belonging to a set of expressions of the focus semantic value other than the ordinary semantic value.
Namely, ye presupposes that there is at least one contextually salient expression P that is distinct from the sentence with ye is true.
Assuming this way of analysis, we would be able to represent the ambiguous interpretations of (74) in a formal way. On condition that the focus is on VP, ye presupposes an alternative set of ‘Lisi qu-guo Meiguo’, as shown by ‘Lisi P’, and at least one member from that set is true, as shown in (76a). Namely, P can be Lisi qu-guo Yingguo ‘Lisi has been to England’, Lisi qu-guo Riben ‘Lisi has been to Japanese’, Lisi qu-guo Deguo ‘Lisi has been to German’, and etc, illustrated by (77).
(74) Lisi ye qu-guo Meiguo.
(75) Lisi ye [VP qu-guo Meiguo]f. Lisi also go-ASP America
‘Lisi has been to someplace (≠America)), and Lisi has also been to America.’
(76) a. [[ye]]= a set of propositions of P∈{[[qu-guo Meiguo]]f－[[qu-guo Meiguo]]o} b. Focus-determined constraint: C∈[[qu-guo Meiguo]]f, where C serves as a
domain of quantification
(77)
On condition that the focus is on subject NP, the semantic nature of ye in (79) is to presuppose that there is at least one proposition with the form ‘P qu-guo Meiguo’, where P is not ‘Lisi’ is true, as represented by (80). By analogy with (75), P can be Zhangsan ‘Zhangsan’, Wangwu ‘Wangwu’, Zhaoliu ‘Zhaoliu’. What is imperative is that the level at which the operator ~ interprets focus disposes two different interpretations, as exemplified by configurations (77) and (80).
(78) Lisif ye qu-guo Meiguo.
Lisi ye qu-guo Meiguo
‘Someone (≠Lisi) has been to America, and Lisi has also been to.’
(79) a. [[ye]]= a set of propositions of P∈{ [[Lisi]]f qu-guo Meiguo－[[Lisi]]o qu-guo Meiguo }
b. Focus-determined constraint: C∈[[Lisi]]f, where C serves as a domain of quantification
(80)
Second, the proposal also helps us to account for the characteristics of ye reviewed in Chapter Two: ye signifies the similarity between two expressions; the similarity will not be significant unless there is certain difference between the two expressions (cf.
Lu (1980), Ma (1982), and Shen (1983)). This phenomenon is exemplified by the ungrammaticality of (81) with more than one variable introduced by focus, and (82) without any variable.
(81) *Zhangsan qu-guo Yingguo, Lisif ye qu-guo Meiguof. Zhangsan go-ASP England Lisi also go-ASP America
‘Zhangsan has been to England, and Lisi has also been to America.’
(82) *Lisi qu-guo Meiguo, Lisi ye qu-guo Meiguo.
Lisi go-ASP America Lisi also go-ASP America
‘Lisi has been to America, and Lisi has also been to America.’
Simply put, the second clause of (81) with two foci, which introduces two variables:
C1 and C2; however, there is only one ye that introduces domain of quantification.
Thus, either C1 or C2 will be vacuously quantified and it results in the ungrammaticality of (81). In (82), no contrast between the two clauses yields the outcome that no variable for ye to quantify over. So, either (82) is ungrammatical.
Furthermore, the idea that ye denotes ‘listing’ can be realized as the choice of alternatives that are members in the set of proposition P, the focus semantic value other than the ordinary semantic value.
Third, in the light of the facts above, the semantics of ye in (73) also explains the following questions: (A) in …(erqie)…ye construction, erqie is optional while ye is obligatory; (B) ye not erqie precedes the wh…dou construction; (C) ye can occur in sentences with two contradictory predicates, while erqie cannot do so; (D) ye instead of erqie appears in sentences containing shi ‘be’; and (E) when a modal occur in the coordinated structure, it has to occur in both conjuncts, as shown in (83)-(91), respectively (cf. Simons (2005)).
(A) In …(erqie)…ye construction, erqie is optional while ye is obligatory, as shown in the contrast between (83) and (84).
(83) Zhangsan qu-guo Meiguo, (erqie) Lisi ye qu-guo Meiguo.
Zhangsan go-ASP America and Lisi also go-ASP America
‘Zhangsan has been to America, and Lisi also has been to.’
(84) *Zhangsan qu-guo Meiguo, erqie Lisi qu-guo Meiguo.
Zhangsan go-ASP America and Lisi go-ASP America
‘Zhangsan has been to America, and Lisi also has been to.’
In (83), erqie is optional because it can be replaced by a zero coordinator. In contrast, ye is obligatory because the speaker’s presupposition that there is at least one more
person who has been to America must be saturated by the presupposition of ye.
For ease of exposition, we shall first explain why ye is used in the following sentences;
whereas why erqie is not used will not be illustrated until the semantic nature of erqie is proposed in Chapter Four.26
(B) Ye not erqie precedes the wh…dou construction, as shown in (85).
(85) Wo jiao-guo hao xuesheng, ye/*erqie jiao-guo huai I teach-ASP good students also/*and teach-ASP bad xuesheng, shenmeyiang de xuesheng wo dou keyi
students what kind DE students I all can yingfu.
handle
‘I have taught good students, and also taught bad students; I can handle all kinds of students.’
(86) [[ye (α)]] presupposes that there is at least one contextually salient expression P∈{teach [[bad]]f students－teach [[bad]]o students} such that P is true.
According to Lin (1997), Cheng (1991), and Cheng and Huang (1996), wh phrases obtain the universal interpretation when they occur with dou. With the presupposition of ye in (85), it is desirable for ye to precede the wh…dou construction because the combination of the ordinary semantic value of ‘teaching bad students’ and the focus semantic value of that is the denotation of universal interpretation.
26 Erqie can proceed the wh…dou construction, occur in shi ‘be’ clauses, conjoin two contradictory conjuncts, providing that it is followed by proper adverbs, such as ye ‘also’, hai ‘even’.
(C) Ye can occur in sentences with two contradictory predicates, while erqie cannot do so, as shown in (87).
(87) Laoshi zanmei women, ye/*erqie piping women.
Teacher praise us also/*and criticize us
‘The teacher not only praises us, he also criticizes us.’
(88) [[ye (α)]] presupposes that there is at least one contextually salient expression P∈{ [[criticize us]f － [[criticize us]]o } such that P is true.
A similar way of presupposition also obtains from ye in (87), as demonstrated by (88).
Ye presupposes an alternative set of ‘criticize us’. Namely, there is at least one contextually salient property P∈{ [[criticize us]f － [[criticize us]]o } such that P is true.
(D) Ye instead of erqie appears in sentences containing shi ‘be’ in (89).
(89) Zhangsan shi Mali xinzhong de hao baba, ye/*erqie shi linju Zhangsan is Mary at heart De nice father, also/*and is neighbor xinzhong De haohao xiansheng.
at heart DE nice sir
‘Zhangsan is a good father at Mary’s heart, and also a nice person at neighbor’s heart.’
(90) [[ye (α)]] presupposes that there is at least one contextually salient expression
P∈[[ nice person at neighbor’s heart]]f－[[nice person at neighbor’s heart]]o
such that P is true.
The denotations of ye in (89) is represented in (90). The second shi ‘be’ clause reveals the identification relationship of ‘Zhangsan’ and ‘nice sir at the neighbor’s heart’ (cf. Huang (1979)). The use of ye presupposes that besides the identification of ‘Zhangsan’ and the ordinary semantic value of ‘nice person at neighbor’s heart’ is true; there is also at least one contextually prominent identification between P∈[[ nice person at neighbor’s heart]]f－[[nice person at neighbor’s heart]]o and ‘Zhangsan’ is
‘You can either sleep on the bed, or sleep on the sofa.’
27 This is only applicable when the relation of the two conjuncts is exclusive (cf. Quirk et al. (1985)).
For example, in (i) one is implausible to sleep on the sofa and on the bed, simultaneously. However, if the relation of the two conjuncts is inclusiveness, either the modal of the first conjunct or that of the second conjunct can be omitted, but the interpretation has been altered, as shown in (i)-(iii).
(i) Ni keyi he ca, ye keyi he kafe.
You can drink-tea also can drink coffee
‘You can drink tea or you can drink coffee.’
(ii) Ni keyi he ca, ye he kafe.
You can drink tea also drink coffee
‘You can both drink tea and coffee (at the same time).’
(iii) Ni he ca, ye keyi he kafe.
You drink-tea also can drink coffee
‘When you drink tea, you can also drink coffee.’
Simply put, in (i) the speaker provides two choice: ‘drinking tea’ and ‘drinking coffee’ to the listener.
The interpretation of (ii) is similar to that of (i) because the modal carries the widest scope. However, in (iii) the second conjunct is just like an adjunct; it is likely to be a subordinate clause rather than the coordinated construction.
28 Thanks to Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai, Zhong-Yu Yang, and Yi-Da Xie for pointing out this point.
(92) [[ye (α)]] presupposes that there is at least one contextually salient expression P∈[[the choice of sleeping on the sofa]]f－[[the choice of sleeping on the
sofa]]o such that P is true
The semantics of ye in (91) is represented in (92). Ye is an additive particle which presupposes that besides the ordinary semantic value of the choice of sleeping on the sofa’ is true; there is at least one contextually salient proposition P∈[[ the choice of sleeping on the sofa]]f－[the choice of sleeping on the sofa]]o such that P is true. If the modal of the second clause is deleted, the ordinary semantic value of the focus part turns out to be the proposition of ‘sleeping on the sofa’, rather than ‘the choice of sleeping on the sofa.’ That is to say, ye turns out to presuppose that besides the ordinary semantic value of ‘sleeping on the sofa’ is true, there is at least one contextually salient proposition P∈[[sleeping on the sofa]]f－[[sleeping on the sofa]o
such that P is true. In this way, the presupposition of ye is not compatible with the first conjunct. Thus, the modal of the second conjunct is obligatory.
To sum up, the proposal that ye presupposes that there is at least one contextually salient expression P that is distinct from the sentence with ye is true can provide explanations for the following questions raised in Section 2.5: (A) ye rather than erqie is used in the following sentence patterns: (i) preceding the wh…dou construction, (ii) sentences with contradictory predicates, and (iii) shi ‘be’ clauses; (B) in …(erqie)…ye…construction, erqie is optional while ye is obligatory; (C) when a modal occurs in the coordinated structure, it has to occur in both conjuncts. After the demonstration of the semantic nature of ye, we shall next compare ye with too/also
in English.