Cheng (1997) observes that certain elements can be inserted between the verb and u/bo, as exemplified in (139-142) ((43-46) repeated here), which leads us to the analysis that these two verbs are phrasal.11
(140) Yi boo choa ia-be u leh.
Furthermore, since the verbs preceding u/bo always denote activity, we propose that the light verb head is occupied by DO, as represented by the tentative diagram in (143).
(143)
But what would be the light verb in the head of the lower VP? We should consider its semantic interpretation.
Let us look at the following sentences first. The (a)-examples are meant to show that ...VP
the postverbal noun phrase can serve as the argument of its preceding verb. The (b)-examples all involve the [V u/bo NP] construction, and some of them are grammatical (144-145b);
some are not (146-151b).
(144) a. Abing te lia hi-a.
Abing ASP catch fish ‘Abing is catching the fish.’
b. Abing lia bo hi-a.
Abing catch NEG fish i) ‘Abind failed to catch the fish.’
ii) ‘Abing is unable to catch any fish.’
(145) a. Abing te yionn cui.
Abing ASP scoop water ‘Abing is scooping up the water.’
b. Abing yionn bo cui.
Abing scoop NEG water ‘Abing failed to scoop up the water.’
(146) a. Abing te long meng.
Abing ASP knock door ‘Abing is knocking on the door.’
b. *Abing long bo meng.
Abing knock NEG door
Intended: ‘Abing failed to knock on the door.’
(147) a. Abing te ching lai-min.
Abing ASP clean interior
‘Abing is cleaning the interior (of the house).’
b. *Abing ching bo lai-min.
Abing clean NEG interior
Intended: ‘Abing is unable/failed to clean the interior of the house.’
(148) a. Abing te se sin-khu.
Abing ASP wash body ‘Abing is washing his body.’
b. *Abing se bo sin-khu.
Abing wash NEG body
Intended: ‘Abing failed to wash his body.’
(149) a. Abing te khuann ten-si.
Abing ASP watch television ‘Abing is watching television.’
b. *Abing khuann bo ten-si.
Abing watch NEG television
Intended: i) ‘Abing failed to see the television.’
ii) ‘Abing is unable to understand the TV programs.’
(150) a. Abing te ying ten-naunn.
Abing ASP use computer ‘Abing is using the computer.’
b. *Abing ying bo ten-naunn.
Abing use NEG computer
Intended: ‘Abing failed to use the computer.’
(151) a. Abing te khui meng.
Abing ASP open door ‘Abing is opening the door.’
b. *Abing khui bo meng.
Abing open NEG door
Intended: ‘Abing failed to open the door.’
In fact, after comparing the grammatical sentences with the ungrammatical ones in the (b)-examples, we are offered a clue: the light verb under u/bo must engage the meaning of GET.
To be more specific, in those (b)-examples which are grammatical, we observe that the activity denoted by verbs preceding u/bo entails a GETTING-something result; hence in the lower VP layer we need a light verb GET, which takes the lexical verb u/bo. On the contrary, the activity denoted by verbs in those ungrammatical (b)-examples does not entail such a GETTING-something result, and therefore we do not need a lower VP layer, which is headed by the light verb GET holding u/bo. This is the reason why we do not see such verbs construe with u/bo in the predicate [V u/bo NP] construction. As for the question why some verbs denoting activity have the requirement for GETTING something as their result and some do not, we assume that this piece of lexical information is already encoded in the verbs, and that it simply gets reflected in the light verb syntax.
Further evidence comes from idioms. As shown in (152-153), the verbs such as phah
‘hit’ in the idiom phah phok-a ‘clap’ and khuann ‘see’ in khuann yi-sing ‘see a doctor’ can never entail a GETTING-something result, so the associated [V u/bo NP] construction in the
(b)-examples will lead to ungrammaticality.
(152) a. Abing te phah phok-a.
Abing ASP hit clap ‘Abing is clapping his hands.’
b. *Abing phah bo phok-a.
Abing hit NEG clap
Intended: ‘Abing failed to clap his hands.’
(153) a. Abing te khuann yi-sing.
Abing ASP see doctor ‘Abing is seeing the doctor.’
b. *Abing khuann bo yi-sing.
Abing see NEG doctor
Intended: ‘Abing failed to see the doctor.’
The meaning of GET is indeed not trivial, although the postverbal noun phrase might seem to blur interpretation of the predicate [V u/bo NP]. So let us elucidate it more. When the postverbal noun phrase is regarded as referential interpretation by means of previous principles, the interpretation of the result entailed by the activity verb is a GETTING of a concrete object denoted by the NP. Take sentence (154) for example. The postverbal NP cio-thau-a ‘stone’ is interpreted as referential, and the interpretation of the GETTING result entailed by the preceding verb o ‘dig up’ is to get the stone.
(154) Abing o bo cio-thau-a.
Abing dig-up NEG stone
‘Abing failed to dig up the stone.’
On the other hand, if the postverbal NP gets a non-referential interpretation, we see that interpretation of the result entailed by the activity verb is a GETTING of a reward, which is an abstract object denoted by the NP. As shown in (155), the postverbal NP tai-ci ‘thing’ is interpreted as non-referential, and the interpretation of the GETTING result entailed by the preceding verb co ‘do’ is to get the reward.
(155) Abing co bo tai-ci.
Abing do NEG thing
‘Abing cannot do anything well.’
Despite the discussion, someone with scrutiny might still point out a problem for the proposed analysis so far. That is, when the activity verbs preceding u/bo also involve perception, such as thak ‘study’, khuann ‘see’, thiann ‘hear’ and phinn ‘smell’, the meaning of the predicate [V u/bo NP] does not readily come out right as what we have predicted. See examples in (156-159).
(156) Abing thak bo che.
Abing study NEG book
‘Abing cannot study well.’
(157) Abing kuann bo opang e jih.
Abing see NEG blackboard POSS word
‘Abing failed to see the words on the blackboard.’
(158) Abing thiann bo tian-we hit-ping lau-pe kong e we.
Abing listen NEG telephone that-side father talk POSS word
‘Abing failed to hear the words his father said on the other side of the phone.’
(159) Abing phinn bo bi.
Abing smell NEG odor
‘Abing failed to smell the odor.’
Indeed, we do not need to postulate another light verb to accommodate this problem as long as we make use of the essential property of perception verbs. Being perception verbs, they can involve perception meanings. Accordingly, when they are associated with u/bo, the interpretation of the result entailed by the [V u/bo NP] is a GETTING of the understanding, sight, hearing or smelling of the NP. And, this analysis also makes a sound prediction: if a verb like khuann ‘see’ involves two types of perception, i.e. sight and understand, it is possible for the associated [V u/bo NP] predicate to have at least two interpretations, as shown in the English interpretations of example (160).
(160) Abing khuann bo hia e jih.
Abing see NEG that POSS word i) ‘Abing failed to see those words.’
ii) ‘Abing failed to understand those words.’
In this example, the postverbal noun phrase hia e jih ‘those words’ is simply interpreted as referential, while we still get two meanings based on the two possible interpretations of the
verb khuann ‘see’. What if now we have a postverbal noun phrase which can be interpreted as referential and non-referential alongside the same verb khuann ‘see’? In fact, we will get four possible meanings, as shown by the example in (161).
(161) Abing khuann bo opang e jih.
Abing see NEG blackboard POSS word
i) ‘Abing failed to see the words on the blackboard (, because the words were too
small.)’
ii) ‘Abing cannot see words on the blackboards (, because he is blind.)’
iii) ‘Abing failed to get the understanding of the words on the blackboard (, because
the words were unintelligible.)’
iv) ‘Abing cannot understand words on the blackboard (, because words are always
unintelligible.)’
Therefore, we do need a light verb GET that heads the lower VP in the predicate [V u/bo NP] construction. The analysis that lower VP is headed by the light verb GET can also account for the previously addressed verbal restriction that verbs which denote ‘disposing’
meaning such as be ‘sell’, chit ‘erase’, or tan ‘throw’ cannot co-occur with u/bo in the [V u/bo NP] construction (i.e. (35)), since these two meanings are naturally incompatible with each other. Now the settled syntactic representation of the predicate [V u/bo NP] involving two VP layers is illustrated by the diagram in (162).
(162)