The aspectual light verb u

A review of the previous studies on u in TSM will shed light on u as a light verb.

Tsao (1998) claims that, as opposed to as generally assumed, –le in MC corresponds to u in TSM. U is able to emphasize any present time points in the context while –le only occurs when the referential time is in the past. In fact, what corresponds to –le is the null form “φ” in TSM, not u. For example:

(69) a. cang ji-ki sia sa tiam ciang.

yesterday dairy write three CL clock ‘Yesterday, (he/she) kept diary covering three hours.’

b. Zuo-tiang ri-ji xie le san xiao-shi.

Yesterday dairy write PF three hours ‘Yesterday, (he/she) kept a diary for three hours.’

Occurring with action verbs, u asserts the event did happen or was realized, and the event need not be completed. Occurring with states, u affirms or emphasizes the states.

In addition, u is considered to be a modal verb, forming A-not-A questions and negative sentences, combining with m, and appearing with ‘teh/ti,’ which indicates progressive aspect. Also, Lin (1974) considers u to be an auxiliary verb which is used to assert the existence of a certain event or state expressed by a sentence such as (70).

In Cheng (1997), u is treated as an auxiliary verb and functions as an operator which is similar to English ‘do/did’; emphatically asserting the occurrence of an event such as the following (cf. Cheng, 1997 (9a) (13a)).

(70) gua u khi bikok.

48

I have go USA ‘I did go to the United States.’

(71) a. Li u chiah hun bo?

you Op smoke cigarette not

‘Do you smoke?’

b. Cha-hng kui-jit long u loh-ho.

yesterday all-day all Op rain ‘It did rain all day yesterday.’

Moreover, u is also called an aspect marker because it shows a certain relationship between the event and the time setting. Particularly, when preceding a verb, it is either an emphatic assertive of the existence of an event or an existential aspectual marker.

U is not a modal verb/auxiliary. Based on Li and Thompson (1981), an auxiliary verb can be negated, cannot take aspect markers, and so on. However, u cannot be negated, but can take aspect markers as shown in (72). The result contrasts sharply with how modal verbs represent action.

(72) a. *i bo/m u.

he Neg aux ‘He does not have.’

b. i u ti cu ne.

he aux Asp house inside ‘He is at home.’

49

Furthermore, I think it is not correct to argue that u functions as an operator which is similar to English ‘do/did’, or even ‘be’.

(73) a. A-ming u kuan.

A-ming OP tall *‘A-ming does be tall.’

‘A-ming is tall.’

b. A-ming u kuan bo?

A-ming OP tall Neg *‘Does A-ming be tall?’

‘Is A-ming tall?’

The above instances indicate that not all sentences including u in TSM represent the English operator ‘be.’

u is neither a modal verb nor an operator as do is in English, it is an aspectual light verb according to Shen (2004)’s definition of light verbs, also stated by Huang (1997) and Lin (2001), and specified in (74).

(74) Light verbs:

Light verbs are predicates of aspects of eventualities. Syntactically they are verbs, with or without phonetic realization; semantically they are predicates of aspects that compose eventualities.

50

As with the definition of light verbs, u represents the predicate of the aspectual event, and its meaning derives from its combination with the main predicate.

Syntactically, it is a verb with the phonetic form; at PF it fuses with the sentential negation marker m. Semantically, it is a predicate of aspect composing eventuality.

Being an aspectual light verb, u has substantial thematic functions, functioning as a trigger that determines the aspect based on the event type to bind an event or a situation variable which associates with aspects, as shown in example (75). In (75), u and the following predicate are negated by the primitive negative marker m ‘not’

shown as the symbol ¬, and the various aspects determined by u function as a existential operator ∃x, binding the hidden argument e (event) in (75a) as well as s (situation) in (75b).

(75)a. A-ming bo khi hahau.

A-ming not go school

‘A-ming did not go to school.’

Æ ¬[∃s: khi hahau (A-ming, e)]

b. woa bo kayi hit e lang.

I not like that CL person ‘I do not like that person.’

Æ ¬[∃s: kahyi (woa, hit-e lang, s]

51

Besides event and situation variables, when preceding gradable adjectives such as sui

‘pretty,’ guan ‘tall,’ etc., u can trigger an aspect to serve as an affirmative operator that binds a degree variable, as in (76). ⁸

8 Many linguists propose that gradable adjectives denote the relations between individuals and degrees as in Kennedy (1999), Kennedy & McNally (2005), etc. Semantically, a gradable adjective represents a function taking an entity as its argument and outputs its ‘pretty’ in terms of a degree on the scale associated with a gradable adjective. Therefore, the semantic function of a gradable adjective sui

‘pretty’ is shown below:

i. [[sui]] = λdλx. pretty (x) ≥ d

The semantic function of pretty is to indicate a relation between a degree of pretty and an entity such that the pretty is at least equal to that degree (cf. Liu 2006:11).

52

b. = (75b) NegP

Neg AspectP m OPs Aspect'

Aspct vP

v ' v VP

u [kayi hit e lang,s]

c. = (76) NegP

Neg AspectP m OPd Aspect'

Aspct vP

v ' v VP u [sui,d]

In (77), u represents an aspectual light verb, associating with the aspect and then determining the type of the aspect depending on the event type of the predicate. When the event, state, or degree has been determined, the aspect functions as an ∃e, ∃s, or

∃d, unselectively binding the hidden argument of the predicate. The argument could be an event, a situation, or a degree variable. Through the binding mechanism, the

53

value of the predicate is defined at the linguistic level LF, and after u combines with the negative marker m, it spells out as bo at PF.

54

Chapter 6

_____________________________________________________________________

Conclusion

In Taiwanese Southern Min, there are six negation markers: m ‘not’, beh ‘not’, bo ‘not’, buai ‘not’, mai ‘not’, and mmo ‘not’. Only three of them are primitive negative markers: the sentential negation marker m, the lexical negation m-, and the lexical negation bo-. The others are derived: bo, beh , mai, buai, and mmo. For instance, bo ‘not’ is derived by fusing the sentential negation marker m with the aspectual light verb u. Beh ‘not’ is the combination of the sentential negation marker m and the modal e ‘will’. Mai ‘not’ is generated by fusing the sentential negation marker m with the auxiliary ai ‘would like;’ and buai ‘not’ is the combination of m, u, and ai. Mmo ‘not’ is the fusion of the sentential negation marker m and the auxiliary ho ‘should.’ From these derivations, I have determined that the sentential negation marker m must occur with u and modals. Otherwise, the sentential negation marker m is able to precede a covert abstract modal beh ‘not’ and the verb si ‘be’. These elements following the sentential negation marker m show that m must occur in a structure such as [m X predicate] in which X could be u, covert/overt modals, and si.

These three elements serve as triggers that trigger an aspect to bind the hidden argument of the predicate. For example, si ‘be’ triggers a state to bind the referential argument of the nominal expression that functions as the predicate. The covert or

55

overt auxiliary also determine the aspect as a state to bind the situation argument. u determines the aspect based on the event type; the bound variable can be an event, a situation, or a degree argument of the verbal or the adjectival predicate.

56

References

Barwise, J. and J. Perry. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Bradford Books. Cambridge.

Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Bolinger, Dwight. 1987. Adjectives in English: Attribution and Predication. Lingua18:

1-34.

Cheng, Robert Liang-wei. 1997. Taiwanese U and Mandarin You. Taiwanese and Mandarin Structures and Their Developmental Trends in Taiwan III: Temporal and Spatial Relations, Questions and Negatives in Taiwanese and Mandarin, 191-229. Taipei: Yuan Liou Pulishing Co., Ltd..

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Davison, David. 1980. The Logical Form of Action Sentences. Essays on Actions and Events, 105-122. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Ernst, Thomas. 1995. Negation in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 665-707.

Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester. 1988. Light Verbs and θ-Marking. Linguistic Inquiry19: 205–232.

Hale, Kenneth and Samuel J. Keyser. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. The View from Building 20, eds. by K. Hale and S. J. Keyser. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Hamann, Cornelia. 1991. Adjectives. Semantik: Ein internationals handbuch der zeitgenossischen forschung: 657-673, eds. by Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

57

Higginbotham, James. 1983. Logical From, Binding, and Nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14.3: 395-420.

Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. New Directions in Semantics, eds. by Ernest Lepore, 1-54. Orlando: Academic Press.

Huang, C.-T. James. 1988a. Wo pao de kuai and Chinese Phrase structure. Language 64: 274-311.

Huang, C.-T. James. 1988b. On ‘Be’ and ‘Have’ in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica 59.1: 43-64.

Huang, C.-T. James. 1997. “On Lexical Structure and Syntactic Projection,” Chinese Languages and Linguistics 3, 45–89.

Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale Structure, Degree Modification, and the Semantics of Gradable Predicates. Language 81: 345-381.

Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the Adjectives. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.

Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. The Representation of Focus. Semantik/Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, eds. by A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, 804-882. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Languages and Linguistics 3, 45–89.

Larson, Richard. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:

335–391.

Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1971. Two negative markers in Taiwanese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 43: 201-20.

58

Lin, Huei-Lin. 2004. Lexical vs. Syntactic Negation in Taiwanese. Concentric:

Studies in Linguistics 30.1: 107-128.

Lin, Jo-Wang. 2003. Aspectual selection and negation in Mandarin Chinese.

Linguistics 41: 425-459.

Lin, Shuang-fu. 1974. Reduction in Taiwan A-not-A questions. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2:37-78.

Lin, T.-H. Jonah. 2001. Light Verb Syntax and the Theory of Phrase Structure. Ph.D.

dissertation. University of California, Irvine.

Liu, Chi-Ming. 2006. Degree Modification of Adjectives in Mandarin Chinese.

Taiwan: National Tsing Hua University M.A. thesis.

Saillard, Claire. 1992. Negation in Taiwanese: Syntactic and Semantic Aspects.

Taiwan: National Tsing Hua University M.A. thesis.

Shen Li. 2004. Aspect Agreement and Light Verbs in Chinese: A Comparison with Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 141-179.

Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of Pharase Structure. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

Tang, Ting-chi. 1993. Min-Nan-Yu Fou-Ding-Ci De Yuyi Nehan Yu Jufa Biaoxian.

Proceedings of the National Science Council, Republic of China part c:

humanities and social sciences: V.3N2, 224-243. Taipei: National Science Council.

Tang, Ting-chi. 1994. On the semantic and syntax of negatives in Southern Min.

Studies on Chinese Morphology and Syntax: 5, 119-69. Taipei: Student Book Co., Ltd..

Teng, Shou-hsin. 1978. Negation in Chinese. Journal of the American Oriental Society 98.1: 50-60.

59

Teng, Shou-hsin. 1992. Diversification and unification of negation in Taiwanese.

Symosium Series of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica.

Chinese Languages and Linguistics I: 609-629.

Tsao, Fen-fu. 1998. Taiwan Minnanyu Zung Yu Shimao You Guang De Yu Chi

“you”、”φ”hen “a” Shi Xi. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese studies 28.3: 299-334.

Wang, Shi-yu. 1998. Negation in Mandarin Chinese. Taiwan: National Tsing Hua University M.A. thesis.

60