Chapter 2 The Properties of the V-duo Construction
2.5 The Context Sensitivity of the Standard
2.5 The Context Sensitivity of the Standard
Before going into the details, I shall introduce what a context sensitive standard is. For example, (29) could be judged true if asserted in Indonesia, where the average height of males is 158 centimeters, as in (30a), but false in Netherlands, where the average height of males is 184.8 centimeters, as in (30b).5
5 The source of this information is the website Disabled-World.
(http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-chart.shtml)
(29) Zhangsan hen gao.
Zhangsan HEN tall ‘Zhangsan is tall.’
(30) a. Zhangsan is 175 centimeters while the average male height in Indonesia is 158 centimeters.
b. Zhangsan is 175 centimeters while the average male height in Netherlands is 184.8 centimeters.
Now let us return to the V-duo construction. We assume that the reason why the events in the V-duo construction must be atelic (unbounded, cumulative) is attributed to the context dependence property of the standard. For instance, the capacity for liquor varies with people.
Some people can drink ten bottles of wine without getting drunk, while some people will get drunk with only a small glass of wine. Even for the same person, the capacity for liquor may vary on different days depending on the physical condition on that day. If the event quantity provided by the V-duo construction is bounded, the sentence will fail to cover all possibilities, as the ungrammaticality of (31) shows. We assume that the reason why the standard event quantity is context-sensitive is related to the semantics of duo.
(31) *Ni zhe-ping jiu he-duo LE.
2SG this-CL_IN wine drink-much ASP/SFP
All in all, the syntactic and semantic characteristics shown by the V-duo construction can be briefly summarized as follows: (A) V-duo is a verb-complement compound verb and the argument structure of V-duo is derived from the independent argument structure of the head V.
(B) The morpheme duo is compatible with stage-level verbs but incompatible with individual-level verbs. (C) The morpheme duo, in general, modifies the quantity of events. To be more specific, duo can evaluate either the frequency or the duration of events. Basically, what duo evaluates is primarily determined by pragmatic factors. (D) The events modified by the morpheme duo must be atelic, unbounded or cumulative. (E) The semantics of duo implies that the standard event quantity is context-sensitive.
These syntactic and semantic properties shown by the V-duo construction bring us the following questions that this paper has to deal with. First, what is the preverbal NP in the V-duo construction? Second, is the V-duo construction a comparative construction? Third, what is the semantics of duo?
CHAPTER 3
THE SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF THE V-DUO CONSTRUCTION
The preverbal NP in the V-duo construction is a preposed object because there exists postverbal position the preverbal NP could have originated from by movement:
(32) a. Ni jiu he-duo LE.
2SG wine drink-much ASP/SFP
‘You drank wine quite a lot.’
b. Ni he-duo-le jiu.
2SG drink-much-ASP wine ‘You drank wine quite a lot.’
In the literature, there are two major proposals for the objects preposed to the post-subject/pre-verb position. Some linguists consider the preposed object an internal topic, as opposed to the external topic (e.g. Paul 2002). Differently, some linguists regard the preposed object as a focus, based on the contrastive interpretation conveyed by the sentence-internal element (e.g. Shyu 1995). In this section, we will show that the preposed
object in the V-duo construction does not serve as a focus but as an internal topic.
3.1 Against the Preposed Object as a Focus
At first glance, the preposed object in the V-duo construction appears to be a focalized element because it can be used contrastively, as shown by (33).
(33) Ni rou chi-duo LE, danshi cai chi-shao LE.
2SG meat eat-much ASP/SFP but vegetables eat-little ASP/SFP
‘You ate too much meat, but ate too little vegetables.’
However, I adhere to Paul’s (2002) claim that an element used contrastively does not automatically qualify as a focus. Topics can be used contrastively, too. The following discussion will provide evidence against the focus status of the preposed object in the V-duo construction.
3.1.1 Object Preposing vs. the Lian…Ye/Dou Construction
Shyu (1995) argues that the preposed object in (34) is a focus, just like the one in (35).
The only difference between the two examples is whether the lian…dou/ye focus marker is overt or covert.
(34) Geruisen [NP zhe-ben shu]i kan-wan-le ti. Grissom this-CL book read-finish-ASP
‘Grissom finished reading this book.’
(35) Geruisen lian [NP zhe-ben shu] dou/ye kan-wan-le.
Grissom even this-CL book all/also read-finish-ASP
‘Grissom even/also finished reading this book.’
However, Paul (2002) argues that “bare” object preposing has to be distinguished from the obligatory preverbal position of the focalized object in the lian…ye/dou ‘even’ construction both on semantic and syntactic grounds. Adopting Paul’s arguments, I will argue that ‘‘bare’’
object preposing in the V-duo construction and the lian…ye/dou ‘even’ construction are two separate constructions with distinct semantic and syntactic properties.
First of all, the semantics of ‘‘bare’’ object preposing in the V-duo construction is completely different from that of the lian-construction, as shown by the contrast between (36) and (37). The word lian conveys a feature of polarity which implies the least degree of possibility. In addition, the lian…ye/dou construction gives rise to an ‘even’ interpretation for the element quantified over by lian…ye/dou, where the speaker presupposes that there exist
some other elements which hold the same property as that attributed to the quantified element (Paul 2002:698, cited from Paris 1998:144). However, both properties are not shown in (36).
(36) Ni tianshii chi-duo-le ti. 2SG sweet food eat-much-ASP
‘You ate sweet food quite a lot.’
(37) Ni lian gourou ye/dou chi-duo-le.
2SG even dogmeat also/all eat-much-ASP
‘You even ate dog meat quite a lot.’
Second, this semantic difference is reflected in the different question patterns available.
To be precise, in the lian…ye/dou construction the VP itself, being presupposed, cannot be questioned and accordingly, an A-not-A question is ruled out. A particle question where the question operator can have scope over the entire sentence is however acceptable (Paul 2002:698, cited from Paris 1998:142):
(38) a. *Zhangsan lian gourou ye/dou shi-bu-shi chi-duo-le?
Zhangsan even dogmeat also/all be NEG be eat-much-ASP
b. Zhangsan lian gourou ye/dou chi-duo-le ma?
Zhangsan even dogmeat also/all eat-much-ASP PART ‘Did Zhangsan even eat dog meat quite a lot?’
However, an A-not-A question is acceptable in ‘‘bare’’ object preposing in the V-duo construction, as shown in (39). This would be exclude if the preverbal NP in the relevant construction were really a focus, because then the VP would constitute the presupposed part.
(39) Zhangsan tianshii shi-bu-shi chi-duo-le ti? Zhangsan sweet food be NEG be eat-much-ASP
‘Did Zhangsan eat sweet food quite a lot?’
Third, there is a constraint which holds for the preposed object: personal names and pronouns cannot be preposed (cf. Hou 1979). However, this restriction does not hold for the object in the lian…ye/dou construction. This contrast is shown in (40a-b) and (41a-b).
(40) a. *Ta Xiaomingi ma-duo-le ti. 3SG Xiaoming scold-much-ASP
(intended meaning: ‘He scolded Xiaoming quite a lot.’)
b. Ta lian Xiaoming ye/dou ma-duo-le.
3SG even Xiaomig also/all scold-much-ASP ‘He even scolded Xiaoming quite a lot.’
(41) a. *Ta woi ma-duo-le ti. 3SG I scold-much-ASP
(intended meaning: ‘He scolded me quite a lot.’) b. Ta lian wo ye/dou ma-duo-le.
3SG even I also/all scold-much-ASP ‘He even scolded me quite a lot.’
Based on the semantic and syntactic properties, there are obvious discrepancies between object preposing in the V-duo construction and the lian…ye/dou construction.
3.1.2 Object Preposing vs. the Shi…De Focus Clefts
In this section, I will show that the V-duo construction does not involve any focalization at all by comparing object preposing in the V-duo construction with the shi…de focus cleft construction.
First, no bipartition into focus (the preposed object) and presupposition (the VP) exists
for the V-duo construction. Accordingly, the VP itself can be questioned, as illustrated by (42).
(42) Zhangsan tianshi shi-bu-shi chi-duo LE?
Zhangsan sweet food SHI NEG SHI eat-much ASP/SFP ‘Was it true that Zhangsan ate sweet food quite a lot?’
The presence of the A-bu-A question indicates that it is the VP that is questioned here. This would be excluded if the preposed object were really a focus, because then the VP would constitute the presupposed part.
Second, the lack of a bipartition into focus vs. presupposition can be further illustrated by the possibility of object preposing in list contexts:
(43) Ni jiu he-duo LE, tianshi chi-duo LE, 2SG wine drink-much ASP/SFP sweet food eat-much ASP/SFP dianshi ye kan-duo LE.
TV also watch-much ASP/SFP
‘You drank wine quite a lot, ate sweet food quite a lot and also watched TV quite a lot.’
Since it implies the non-existence of any other element satisfying the property in question
Paul 2002:702, cited from Paris 1998:144), to focalize an element is exactly the opposite of listing.
Third, the preposed object in the V-duo construction cannot be clefted by means of shi …de, which would, however, be expected if it really were a focus:
(44) a. Ni jiu he-duo LE.
2SG wine drink-much ASP/SFP ‘You drank wine quite a lot.’
b. *Ni shi jiu he-duo de.
2SG SHI wine drink-much DE
3.1.3 Tests of Exhaustive Identification
Focus can be further divided into two types: IDENTIFICATIONAL FOCUS and INFORMATION FOCUS (cf. Kiss 1988). Kiss claims that IDENTIFICATIONAL FOCUS (or contrastive focus), which performs exhaustive identification on a set of entities given in the context or situation, must be distinguished from INFORMATION FOCUS, which simply marks new information. IDENTIFICATIONAL FOCUS is a function of structural focus: of the immediately preverbal focus in Hungarian, and of the cleft construction in English. By contrast, INFORMATION FOCUS is a function of constituents marked by pitch accents. Tsai
(2004) uses two criteria of exhaustive identification (cf. Kiss 1988), coordination and negation tests, to test whether or not zhi- and lian-constructions involve a contrastive focus.
Following examples illustrate how the two tests work in zhi-construction.
(45) Coordination test: The sentence cannot entail any one of the conjuncts.
Context: red wine, white wine, yellow wine, beer a. A-kiu zhi he hong jiu han bai jiu.
A-kiu only drink red wine and white wine
‘A-kiu only drinks red wine and white wine.’
－X→ b. A-kiu zhi he hong jiu.
A-kiu only drink red wine
‘A-kiu only drinks red wine.’
－X→ c. A-kiu zhi he bai jiu.
A-kiu only drink white wine
‘A-kiu only drinks white wine.’
(46) Negation test: A negative reply is allowed.
A: A-kiu zhi he hong jiu.
A-kiu only drink red wine
‘A-kiu only drinks red wine’
B: Bu, A-kiu ye he bai jiu.
NEG A-kiu also drink white wine ‘No, he also drinks white wine.’
Zhi-construction passes the coordination test because (45a) cannot entail (45b) or (45c). It
also passes the negation test because a negative reply is allowed, as in (46). Zhi-construction passes two tests of exhaustive identification; therefore, it involves a contrastive focus.
So it is expected that the V-duo construction, if it involves a contrastive focus, will pass both the coordination and negation tests. However, this expectation is not borne out, as illustrated by (47) and (48).
(47) Coordination test:
Context: coffee, tea, cola
a. Zhangsan kafei han cha he-duo LE.
Zhangsan coffee and tea drink-much ASP/SFP
‘Zhangsan drank coffee and tea quite a lot.’
→b. Zhangsan kafei he-duo LE.
Zhangsan coffee drink-much ASP/SFP
‘Zhangsan drank coffee quite a lot.’
→c. Zhangsan cha he-duo LE.
Zhangsan tea drink-much ASP/SFP ‘Zhangsan drank tea quite a lot.’
(48) Negation test:
A: Zhangsan kafei he-duo LE.
Zhangsan coffee drink-much ASP/SFP ‘Zhangsan drank coffee quite a lot.’
B: %Bu，Zhangsan cha ye he-duo LE.
no zhangsan tea also drink-much ASP/SFP ‘No, Zhangsan also drank tea quite a lot.’
(47a) entails both (47b) and (47c); therefore, the V-duo construction does not pass the coordination test. It does not pass the negation test, either. We are not sure whether (48A) excludes other elements in the context. It is possible that Zhangsan also drank tea quite a lot.
Hence, a negative response is improper. Consequently, the V-duo construction expresses no exhaustive identification. It indicates that the V-duo construction does not involve a contrastive focus.
Based on Paul’s arguments and the results from the coordination and negation tests, I claim that the preposed object in the V-duo construction is not a focalized element.
3.2 The Preposed Object as an Internal Topic
Paul (2002) argues that the preposed object is an internal topic, and that the internal topic occupies the specifier position of a functional projection below the subject and above vP. This functional projection FP, as Paul (2002) suggests, hosts the sentence-internal topic and is different from the Focus Phrase postulated for the lian…ye/dou construction (cf. e.g. Shyu (1995)). According to Paul (2002), the internal topic resembles the external topic with respect to the existence of both movement and base-generation as derivational possibilities, as shown by (49) and (50).
(49) Wo [mingtian-de richeng]i anpai-hao-le ti. I tomorrow-SUB program plan-finish-ASP
‘I have fixed tomorrow’s program.’
(50) Ta nei-jian shi hai mei zuo jueding ne.
3SG that-CL matter still NEG make decision PART
‘He has not yet come to a decision concerning that matter.’
However, the internal topic position is different from the external topic position in that multiple topics are excluded from the internal topic position, as shown by the contrast between (51) and (52).
(51) Hua, meiguihua, ta zui xihuan flower rose 3SG most like
‘Flowers, roses he likes them best.’
(52) *Ni [huiyuan dahui ] [mingtian-de richeng] anpai-hao-le meiyou?
2SG member meeting tomorrow-SUB program plan-finish-ASP NEG
(Paul 2002: 710; (42), (43))
Paul (2002) argues that this major difference between the external and the internal topic position reflect the different nature of the functional categories involved because Topic Phrase allows recursion (cf. Gasde & Paul 1996).
In the following discussion I will pursue Paul’s proposal that the preposed object is an internal topic. However, departing from Paul, I will argue that multiple internal topics are allowed in the V-duo construction, and that like the external topic, the internal topic occupies
the specifier of the Topic Phrase.
As shown in (53), multiple topics are allowed in the internal topic position in the V-duo construction:
(53) a. Ni zhe-pen hua shuii jiao-duo-le ti. 2SG this-CL flower water pour-much-ASP
‘This flower, you watered it quite a lot.’
b. Ni zhounianqing huazhuangpini mai-duo-le ti. 2SG anniversary sale cosmetics buy-much-ASP ‘The anniversary sale, you bought cosmetic products quite a lot.’
c. Ni weiqi bisai yajuni na-duo-le ti. 2SG go game second place obtain-much-ASP
‘The go games, you got the second place quite a lot.’
Note that here multiple internal topics refer to topics which belong to different types.
According to Del Gobbo and Badan (2007), topics in Chinese can be divided into three subtypes, as shown in (54).
(54) a. Hua, wo zui xihuan baihe. (Aboutness Topic)
flower I most like lily
‘As for flowers, I like lilies most.’
b. Zhe-ge reni, wo hen xihuan tai. (Hanging Topic) this-CL person I very like him
‘This person, I like him a lot.’
c. Zhe-ben shui, Geruisen kan-wan-le ti. (Left Dislocation Topic) this-CL book Grissom read-finish-ASP
‘This book, Grissom finished reading it.’
As to the Aboutness Topic, there is no gap in the comment sentence, i.e. the topic is base-generated. Concerning the Hanging Topic, there is always a pronoun co-indexed with it in the comment sentence. Kuo (2009) assumes that this type of topic is also base-generated in its surface position.Regarding the Left Dislocation Topic, this topic is co-indexed with a trace which is left in the comment sentence. Hence, Kuo (2009) assumes that this type of topic is derived by movement.
In sentences (53a-c) above we have an Aboutness Topic followed by a Left Dislocation Topic. The first NP is an Aboutness Topic since it is derived by base-generation. There exists no postverbal position this constituent could have originated by movement. The second NP is a Left Dislocation Topic since it is derived by movement. This constituent is co-indexed with
a trace in the postverbal position. In other words, sentences (53a-c) each contain both a base-generated and a moved topic which co-occur in the internal topic position. Accordingly, departing from Paul (2002), we assume that multiple topics are allowed in the internal topic position in the V-duo construction, provided that they belong to different types.
Since TopP recursion is available IP-internally in the V-duo construction, we assume that like external topics, internal topics are located in the Spec of TopicP, as shown in (55).
Movement of a constituent which is interpreted as a Topic is basically driven by feature checking. One way of implementing this is to assume that the head Top constituent of the Topic Phrase contains an [EPP] feature and an uninterpretable topic feature, and that these attract a maximal projection which carries a matching interpretable topic feature to move to the specifier position within the Topic Phrase (cf. Radford 2004).
(55)
CHAPTER 4
THE V-DUO CONSTRUCTION AS AN ATYPICAL COMPARATIVE
CONSTRUCTION
In this chapter, I will first introduce the semantics of the positive form as a way to bring us deep into the heart of this study. Then two modes of comparison (i.e., explicit and implicit comparison) will be introduced. Subsequently, I will provide evidence for analyzing the V-duo construction as an implicit comparison construction. After this, I will argue that the V-duo construction contains a covert positive morpheme pos. Finally, I will answer the following questions. (A) Which element provides the meaning of implicit comparison? (B) What is the target of comparison? (C) Which element introduces the standard of comparison?
(D) Which element provides the dimension of comparison? (E) What is the dimension of comparison?
4.1 The Positive Form
According to Barker (2002), Kennedy and McNally (2005), and Kennedy (2007), there are two apparently universal features of the positive form of gradable adjectives (e.g., expensive). The first one which might be putative is that the positive form of gradable
adjectives such as expensive and tall, in contrast with their comparative form (i.e., more expensive and taller), lacks overt morphology.
The second is a semantic one. The interpretation of the positive form is context dependent (with a few important exceptions). For example, whether (56) is true or not depends in large part on the context in which it is uttered.
(56) The coffee in Rome is expensive.
Example (56) could be judged true if asserted as part of a conversation about the cost of living in various Italian cities, as in (57a), but false in a discussion of the cost of living in Chicago vs.
Rome, as in (57b).
(57) a. In Rome, even the coffee is expensive!
b. The rents are high in Rome, but at least the coffee is not expensive!
One account for this variability is that the positive form expresses a relation between the degree to which the subject of the predicate manifests the relevant property and a contextually variable STANDARD OF COMPARISON, whose value is determined both as a function of the meaning of the predicate and of features of the context of utterance — what is being
talked about, the interests/expectations of the participants in the discourse, and so forth (see e.g. Barker 2002; Kennedy & McNally 2005; Kennedy 2007). As Kennedy (2005, 2007) suggests, one option for the compositional semantics of the positive form is to assume a degree morpheme pos with a denotation along the lines of (58), where s is a context sensitive function that takes a gradable predicate meaning as input and returns a standard of
talked about, the interests/expectations of the participants in the discourse, and so forth (see e.g. Barker 2002; Kennedy & McNally 2005; Kennedy 2007). As Kennedy (2005, 2007) suggests, one option for the compositional semantics of the positive form is to assume a degree morpheme pos with a denotation along the lines of (58), where s is a context sensitive function that takes a gradable predicate meaning as input and returns a standard of