閩南語動詞後否定句式「V 有/嘸 NP」之再探究

國

立

交

通

大

學

外國語文學系外國文學與語言學碩士班

碩 士 論 文

閩南語動詞後否定句式「V 有/嘸 NP」之再探究

A Reinvestigation of the so-called Taiwanese

Postverbal Negation [V u/bo ‘have/not-have’ NP]

研 究 生：黃惠瑜

指導教授：劉辰生 教授

閩南語動詞後否定句式「V 有/嘸 NP」之再探究

A Reinvestigation of the so-called Taiwanese

Postverbal Negation [V u/bo ‘have/not-have’ NP]

研 究 生：黃惠瑜 Student：Hui-Yu Huang

指導教授：劉辰生 Advisor：Chen-Sheng Liu

國 立 交 通 大 學

外 國 語 文 學 系 外 國 文 學 與 語 言 學 碩 士 班

碩 士 論 文

Submitted to Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures Institute of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics

National Chiao Tung University in partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Master

in

Institute of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics June 2009

Hsinchu, Taiwan, Republic of China

閩南語動詞後否定句式「V 有/嘸 NP」之再探究

學生：黃惠瑜

指導教授

劉辰生 教授

國立交通大學外國語文學系外國文學與語言學碩士班

摘

要

此篇論文主要探討閩南語「V 有/嘸 NP」謂語的語義歧異現象及句法結

構。此「V 有/嘸 NP」謂語結構主要涉及兩種語義：(一) 指涉恆常的特

性，例如「阿明做嘸歹誌。」；(二) 指涉某單一事件的發生，例如「阿明

坐嘸位。」本論文首先論證吾人可以藉由動詞後名詞組的有指/無指

(referential/non-referential) 之語意特性來決定此「V 有/嘸 NP」謂語的語

義。亦即，當名詞組有指時，句子涉及某單一事件的發生；當名詞組無指

時，句子則指涉某恆常的特性。此外，本論文亦提出五項原則來輔助判斷

在「 V 有/嘸 NP 」謂語裡，動詞後名詞組何時可以作為有指，何時可以作

為無指。

本論文並探討「V 有/嘸 NP」謂語的句法結構，以林宗宏 (2001) 之輕動

詞分析為架構，論證此一謂語結構乃是由兩層動詞組 (two VP layers) 結合

而成。其中，上層動詞組之核心為輕動詞 DO，用來統括只有動態動詞

(activity verb) 才能出現在此謂語結構的限制；下層動詞組，即「有/嘸」，

所涉及之核心為輕動詞 GET，用來說明為何有些動態動詞與「有/嘸」可

以同時出現在「V 有/嘸 NP」結構中，而有些卻不行。

A Reinvestigation of the so-called Taiwanese Postverbal Negation

[V u/bo ‘have/not-have’ NP ]

student: Hui-Yu Huang

Advisor: Chen-Sheng Liu

Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures

Institute of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics

National Chiao Tung University

ABSTRACT

This thesis investigates the semantic ambiguity and syntax of the predicate [V

u/bo NP] configuration in Taiwanese Southern Min. Semantically the sentence

involving the [V u/bo NP] construction is ambiguous between a generic reading

and an episodic reading, and we propose that its being generic or episodic is

determined by the referential/non-referential interpretation of the associated

postverbal noun phrase: the sentence is generic if and only if the postverbal

noun phrase is interpreted as non-referential, and the sentence is episodic if and

only if the postverbal noun phrase is interpreted as referential. We further

provide five principles to pin down the referentiality of the postverbal noun

phrase with respect to the predicate [V u/bo NP] construction.

Syntactically we will show that the predicate [V u/bo NP] is not a resultative

verbal compound (Huang 2003, Wang 2008). Instead, based on Lin (2001), we

argue that the predicate [V u/bo NP] is a phrasal structure composed of two VP

layers, where the higher V is headed by the light verb DO and that the lower V

is headed by the light verb GET.

Acknowledgement (誌謝)

於此論文完成之際，我也不知一時之間錯綜複雜的心情該以怎麼樣的

文字才能完整表達，唯一想得到的詞彙，就是「謝謝!」二字吧。

這三年來，我最感謝並尊敬的人，就是指導教授劉辰生老師。劉老師

是個很奇妙的人，他為人處世柔細的態度跟慈愛的心腸，以及給予學生很

大自由空間來發揮的教學方式，都令我相當折服；而他孜孜不懈的求知精

神，也讓我時時警惕自己要更認真。

另一位深深要感謝的人，是林宗宏老師。林老師是個做研究的好夥

伴，總是能一針見血點出我研究的盲點在哪裡， 讓研究語言學變成一件

很有趣的事。而生活上老師對學生的關心與照顧，讓人研究的路走來不那

麼顛簸驚心。

我也感謝百忙之中抽空來為我口試的林惠玲老師；更再次謝謝所上許

慧娟老師帶我進入音韻學的領域，給我們很大的空間來思考問題；謝謝林

若望老師帶我進入語意學的領域；謝謝潘荷仙老師引領我們進入語音世界

的奧妙，也謝謝劉美君老師帶我們認識功能句法學有趣之處。

我也謝謝清交大的學長姐、學弟妹，謝謝你們願意抽空來跟我討論，

因為有你們，研究的生涯才會那麼有趣不枯燥。

最後，我謝謝我摯愛的家人、朋友們，有你們，我人生才完整。

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Previous Analyses, Problems, and More about the [V u/bo NP]……….. 5

2.1 Huang (2003)………... 5

2.2 Wang (2008)………...8

2.3 Problems Faced by Previous Analyses……….. 11

2.4 More about the [V u/bo NP] Construction………... 16

Chapter 3………. 22

Semantic Ambiguity of the Predicate [V u/bo NP]……….. 22

3.1 General Review: the Generic/Episodic Distinction………. 22

3.1.1 Carlson (1977)………. 23 3.1.2 Kratzer (1995)………. 26 3.1.3 Chierchia (1995)……….. 32 3.2 Proposal………... 36 3.2.1 Preliminary of NPs in Taiwanese……….. 36 3.2.2 Proposal………... 41 3.2.3 Residual Problems……….. 52 Chapter 4………. 53

Syntax of the Predicate [V u/bo NP]………. 53

4.1 Lin’s Light Verb Analysis……….. 53

4.2 Syntactic Analysis of the Predicate [V u/bo NP]……….. 58

4.3 Comparison: Mandarin [V-de/bu-dao NP] vs. Taiwanese [V u/bo NP]…. 67

Chapter 5………. 72

Conclusion………... 72

Chapter 1

Introduction

In English, a negative noun phrase like nobody is free to occur in the object position, as seen in (1). In Taiwanese Southern Min (henceforth Taiwanese), one can observe a similar phenomenon.1 A negative marker bo preceding a noun occurs in the object position, as seen in (2).2,3

(1) John found nobody.

(2) Abing chue bo lang.

Abing search NEG person

‘Abing failed to find the person.’

Such a phenomenon in Taiwanese was already discussed in Huang (2003) and Wang (2008). They have shown that the negative marker bo does not form a constituent with the following noun phrase, hence not a postverbal negative NP. Instead, they argued that bo, literally ‘not-have’, and its affirmative counterpart u ‘have’ alike serve as a resultative verbal complement

1 _{Taiwanese Southern Min is a dialect of the Chinese language.}

2 _{The TLPA (Taiwanese Language Phonetic Alphabet) is used for the transcription of Taiwanese data in this}

thesis; irrelevant tones are omitted here.

3 _{The abbreviations used in this article as glossed as follows: AFFIRM: affirmative marker; ASP: aspect; AUX:}

auxiliary; CL: classifier; EXT: extension marker; NEG: negation; POSS: possessive marker; Q: question particle; SFP: sentence final particle.

of their preceding verb. This idea is also held among other linguists (cf. Teng 1992, Li 1996, Tang 1996, Cheng 1997).

However, sentences which involve u/bo in terms of the [V u/bo (NP)] construction still have an intriguing phenomenon that has not been investigated. That is, the sentence is ambiguous between a generic reading and an episodic reading (cf. ‘potential modality’ and ‘existential aspect’ in Cheng’s terminology), as illustrated in (3) and (4), respectively.

(3) Abing lia u/bo hi.

Abing catch AFFIRM/NEG fish

‘Abing can/cannot catch fish.’

(4) Abing chue u/bo sosi.

Abing search AFFIRM/NEG key

‘Abing found/failed to find the key.’

The English interpretation in (3) indicates that the original sentence is associated with a potential property. It states that the agent Abing has or does not have the ability to catch fish. Unlike the potential sentence which indicates a permanent state or truth, the example with a so-called existential aspect u/bo in (4) refers to a completed event. The agent Abing was searching for the key, and ended up having or not having the key at some reference time.

In light of the above findings, we are curious about why there is such an ambiguity here. Regarding the stative, or potential interpretation, one might turn to its Mandarin counterparts [V-de/bu-V] construction as a step toward a possible explanation. The example in (5) below is the Mandarin counterpart of sentence (3).

(5) Aming zhua de/bu dao yu.

Aming catch DE/NEG get fish

‘Aming can/cannot catch fish.’

We notice that the English interpretation of both (3) and (5) unequivocally utilizes a modal element can which appears to be inherent in the verbal complement u/bo or de/bu in the original sentences. Indeed, de/bu in Mandarin and u/bo in Taiwanese alike are taken to be modal elements in certain works, whether in an explicit or implicit manner (cf. see Tsai 2001a,b and Wu 2004 for Mandarin Chinese; also see Cheng and Sybesma 2004 for Cantonese and Hakka). Though previous studies have gained insights into the complex problem of postverbal affirmative/negative elements in various aspects, the episodic interpretation involved in Taiwanese is still left unaccounted for. This hence calls for reconsideration of both syntactic and semantic statuses of u/bo.

Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to reinvestigate sentences involving the [V u/bo NP] configuration in Taiwanese. Regarding the semantic ambiguity, we argue that their being generic or episodic is determined by the referentiality/non-referentiality of the postverbal noun phrase and propose five principles to help judge the referentiality of the noun phrase. Furthermore, this thesis will deal with syntax of the predicate [V u/bo NP] structure. Based on the framework of Lin (2001), we propose that the predicate consists of two VP layers, where the higher V is headed by a light verb DO and that the lower V is headed by a light verb GET. The thesis proceeds as follows: Chapter 2 will review previous studies of the [V u/bo NP] structure, revealing their problems, and also provide more observations concerning this structure. Chapter 3 will start from a general literature review of the generic/episodic distinction and set out to deal with the semantic ambiguity involved in the [V u/bo NP]

structure. In Chapter 4, we will discuss the syntax of [V u/bo NP] construction and offer a cursory comparison between Taiwanese [V u/bo NP] and its Mandarin counterpart [V de/bu

Chapter 2

________________________________________________________________

Previous Analyses, Problems, and More about the [V u/bo NP]

Previous studies have looked at the [V u/bo NP] contour from different points of view. Some of them consider it a resultative verbal compound without any argumentation (cf. Teng 1992, Li 1996, Tang 1996, Cheng 1997 among others). From another standpoint, Huang (2003) insightfully adopts a cross-linguistic point of view to discuss the distribution of negative noun phrases and then looks into the Taiwanese data currently discussed. He concludes that the latter two elements in the [V u/bo NP] construction do not form a constituent, hence not a negative noun phrase. Instead, he suggests that u/bo is the resultative verbal complement of its preceding verb. We will discuss his ideas in Section 2.1. In addition to the above discussions, Wang (2008) regards the [V u/bo (NP)] construction as a main verb taking a small clause as its complement. In her analysis, the affirmative u and the negation marker bo serve as an adjunct AffirmP/NegP of the lower VP in the syntactic structure. We will also discuss her work in Section 2.2. In Section 2.3, we will point out the remaining problems of previous analyses and in Section 2.4 we will see there are more about the [V u/bo NP] configuration.

2.1 Huang (2003)

Examining the distribution of negative NPs in English, Japanese, Mandarin and Taiwanese, Huang (2003) argues that the postverbal negative NPs in Taiwanese as in (6-7) are just apparent.

(6) Goa caikhi thak bo che

I morning read no book

‘I read no book this morning.’

(7) I ti kong sann, goa long sa bo liao-a mng.

he at say what, I all grasp no cottage door

‘Whatever his is talking about, I am grasping no cottage door. (I got totally lost.)’

Indeed, it is said that Taiwanese patterns with Mandarin with respect to the distribution of negative NPs in that they can occur in the position of a topic, a subject, or a preverbal adjunct but not occur as a postverbal object of the verb, the object of a preposition, a postverbal complement, or as a possessive determiner. The so-called postverbal negative NPs in Taiwanese are then suggested to be viewed as separate parts rather than as a whole. More precisely, he suggests that the postverbal negative marker bo and its affirmative form u may each form a resultative compound with the preceding verb instead of forming a negative NP with the following bare nominal. One piece of his evidence comes from the following example:

(8) Li cinn than bo, thaolo a chue bo, mainkong

you money earn not-have, job also find not-have, needless-say

boo ma chua bo.

wife and marry not-have

‘You have been unsuccessful in money-making, also in job-hunting, then needless to say you are also unsuccessful in [your efforts to] get married.’

nominals such as cinn ‘money’, thaolo ‘job’ and boo ‘wife’ alone can be extracted into the preverbal position.

Another piece of evidence for the postverbal negative NPs to be apparent is that the ostensible negative NPs are preceded only by accomplishment verbs; statives are always ruled out, as shown in (9-10).

(9) *Goa ai bo lang.

I love no person Intended: ‘I love no one.’

(10) *Yi bat go-e lang, goa bat bo lang.

he know 5-CL person, I know no person

Intended: ‘He knows 5 people, but I know none.’

More importantly, he observes that the distribution of negative NPs in Chinese languages, including Mandarin and Taiwanese, resembles the Norwegian pattern. He therefore argues that both Chinese and Norwegian languages allow negative NPs only where they could be derived from the conflation between a sentential negation Neg and a polarity item like anybody which is adjacent to it. Under the circumstances a postverbal meiyou ren ‘nobody’ in Chinese is never allowed because the verb does not move to I and, therefore, not to C. The unavailability for verbs to move to I, contra to certain verbs in Norwegian, in turn precludes a negation meiyou ‘not’ from being adjacent to a polarity item renhe ren ‘any person.’ The result is that a postverbal polarity item renhe ‘any’ and the the negative licensor

(11) [IP Zhangsani [I’...meiyou [VP ti kanjian renhe ren]]]

Zhangsan not see any person

‘Zhangsan did not see anyone.’

In brief, Huang takes a broad view of negative NPs cross-linguistically and offers a neat explanation of why Chinese languages do not allow negative NPs in certain syntactic positions. Due to his clarification, we understand that to look upon the postverbal [bo NP] as a negative NP in Taiwanese cannot be true, but how to get to the bottom of its status, say, u/bo in that regard? This has not been fully elucidated in Huang’s analysis and we will come back to this issue later.

2.2 Wang (2008)

Regarding the negation marker bo, Wang (2008) notices that when bo occurs in the postverbal position, the sentence pertains to an abilitative deontic modal meaning (i.e. we take as a ‘generic interpretation’ throughout this article). As illustrated in (12), the negation marker bo negates the agent’s ability to find a job.

(12) Li-e che bo thaoloo.

Li-e find NEG job

‘Li is unable to find a job.’

This is taken as a contrast to bo occurring in the preverbal position, where the negation marker serves to negate the verb, as in (13).

(13) Li-e bo che thaoloo. Li-e NEG find job

‘Li did not apply for the job(s).’

In order to account for the abilitative deontic meaning, she first follows Huang’s (2003) idea by taking [V u/bo NP] as a resultative verbal compound (henceforth RVC) construction. It is then proposed that there is a phonetically null verbal head ACHIEVEresponsible for the abilitative deontic meaning in this construction. The syntactic representation is as shown in (14).

(14)

In this analysis, the affirmative u and negation marker bo each adjoin to the verbal phrase headed by the null ACHIEVE, deriving the meaning that the agent has or does not have the competence to achieve the requirement.

Basically, her argument for the RVC status of the [V u/bo NP] construction comes IP I’ DP VP I SC=Small Clause V DP VP VP NegP NP V Li-e che ‘find’ _t i bo ACHIEVE _thaoloo ‘job’ I

from the syntactic parallelism between the [V-u/bo-V] and [V-u/bo-NP] sentences in terms of the verb copying construction and ka-construction, as in (15) and (16), respectively.

(15) Verb Copying

a. A-Bi ca ponn ca bo pa. (V-u/bo-V)

A-Bi eat rice eat NEG full

‘A-Bi ate but didn’t feel full.’

b. Li-e che thaoloo che bo. (V-u/bo-NP )

Li-e find job find NEG

‘Li-e is unable to find a job.’ (16) Ka-Construction

a. *A-Bi ka ponn ca bo pa. (V-u/bo-V)

A-Bi KA rice eat NEG full

‘A-Bi ate but didn’t feel full.’

b. *Li-e ka thaoloo che bo. (V-u/bo-NP ) Li-e KA job find NEG

‘Li-e is unable to find a job.’

Through analogy, she argues that the [V-u/bo-NP] and [V-u/bo-V] sentences belong to the same type of subject-result RVC construction.

Furthermore, she provides a circumstantial evidence for the existence of a null head in Taiwanese [V-u/bo-NP] sentences. It is argued that the [V-u/bo-NP] construction corresponds to the [V-de/bu-V] construction in Mandarin Chinese because they both also share similar

properties in relation to the verb copying and ka-construction/ba-construction.4 Consequently, the null head ACHIEVE as in (18) is assumed to be like its Mandarin counterpartdao ‘reach’

as in (17), which she classifies into the ACHIEVEMENT event type of verbs.

(17) Mandarin Chinese

Zhangsan zhao de/bu dao gongzuo.

Zhangsan find DE/NEG reach job

‘Zhangsan is (un)able to find a job.’

(18) Taiwanese

Li-e che u/bo ø thaoloo.

Li-e find AFFIRM/NEG ø job

‘Li is (un)able to find a job.’

To put it in a nutshell, Wang provides us with a detailed analysis of the Taiwanese [V

u/bo NP] and also captures the abilitative deontic modal (or generic interpretation) by means

of the null verb ACHIEVE that heads the lower VP. Nonetheless, the other possible interpretation, that is, the episodic reading, has been excluded from this approach. In the following section, we will reexamine both previous analyses under scrutiny and specify the problems in their analyses.

2.3 Problems Faced by Previous Analyses

Huang (2003) and Wang (2008) have shown a keen awareness of the issue posed by the [V

u/bo NP] construction, but upon closer inspection we will find their analyses are still

challenged by the following problems.5 First we will raise two questions for Huang’s analysis. For one thing, if [V-u/bo (NP)] were a compound in Taiwanese, how come we can still insert adverbs like tih-be ‘almost’ , long ‘always’ between the verb and u/bo, as illustrated in (19-20)?

(19) Abing che tih-be u thaoloo a.

Abing find almost have job SFP

‘Abing is almost getting a job.’

(20) Abing che long bo thaoloo.

Abing find always not-have job ‘Abing is always unable to find a job.’

For another thing, if Chinese languages do not allow postverbal negative NPs for the precondition that a postverbal negation is never adjacent to the polarity item that it licenses, how do we offer an explanation when in effect Taiwanese allows a postverbal negation marker bo immediately followed by such polarity items as puann ‘any’ and sann ‘any’, as shown in (21-22)?

(21) Cin ki-kuai, nai khuann bo puann e lang?

really strange, how-come see not-have any CL person

‘How strange! Why didn’t we see anyone (here)?’ (22) Abing thak bo sann che.

Abing study not-have any book

‘Abing is unable study well.’

Next we provide a few arguments against Wang (2008). The first counterexample, despite being partial, is still worthy of consideration. In Taiwanese, there is another negative marker be ‘not-able’, and it can replace bo ‘not-have’ in [V bo V] sentences to denote an abilitative deontic meaning, as shown in (23-24). According to this, on one hand since the null head ACHIEVEserves to derive an abilitative deontic meaning, intuitively the [V be N] with the abilitative meaning would have been taken as the essential construction. On the other hand, if [V bo N] sentences parallel [V bo V] ones as argued by Wang, we would predict [V be N] sentences to be as grammatical as [V be V] ones. However, the test results in (25-26) bear none of our predictions.

(23) Abing cia be pa. Abing eat not-able full

‘Abing eats but cannot feel full.’ (24) Abing cao be kin.

Abing run not-able fast

‘Abing runs but cannot run fast.’ (25) *Abing che be thaoloo.

Abing search not-able job Intended: ‘Abing cannot find any job.’

(26) *Abing thak be che. Abing study not-able book

Intended: ‘Abing cannot study well.’

In addition, if the null verbACHIEVE, which heads the lower VP, is to account for the potential interpretation of the [V u/bo NP] construction, as in (27-28), then clearly the episodic interpretation involved in the sentences in (29-30) would be left unaccounted for.

(27) Abing kam cia u leng-wann peng?

Abing Q eat AFFIRM two-CL rice

‘Is Abing able to eat two bowls of rice?’ (28) Abing cing bo chai.

Abing grow NEG vegetable

‘Abing cannot grow any vegetable.’ (29) Abing jim bo so-si.

Abing take NEG key

‘Abing failed to take out the key (from his pocket).’ (30) Abing ka bo cin-ka.

Abing trim NEG nail

‘Abing failed to trim his nails.’

Moreover, the RVC in Chinese refers to those which consist of a verb and a particle that denotes the result brought about by the main verb.6 As the name suggests, it is also important that semantically it reveals a certain type of causal relation (cf. Kratzer 2004). Shen

and Lin (2006) observe that Taiwanese generally does not permit RVCs to be of the V1-V2

compounding form, which corresponds to the Mandarin pattern as in (31). To express the same causal proposition, the causative morpheme ho must be inserted between the two verbs, as seen in (32). Under the circumstances we would expect the RVC [V u/bo NP] to have a causative morpheme ho between V and u/bo. However, the illicit examples in (33-34) do not bear out Wang’s hypothesis.

(31) Laowang tui-kai le men. Laowang push-open ASP door

‘Mr. Wang pushed the door and caused it open.’ (32) Ong-e (wu) sak ho meng kui.

Laowang have push CAUSE door open

‘Ong-e pushed the door and caused it open.’ (33) *Abing thak ho bo che.

Abing study CAUSE not-have book

Intended: ‘Abing studied the book and caused it to disappear.’

(34) *Abing tio ho u hi-a.

Abing catch CAUSE have fish

Intended: ??‘Abing caught the fish and caused it to appear.’

To recap, in this section we have seen that there are still some remaining problems for both previous analyses. In Section 2.4 we will demonstrate more properties which have not even been noticed.

2.4 More about the [V u/bo NP] Construction

First of all, Cheng (1997) observes that verbs which denote ‘disposing’ meaning such as be ‘sell’, chit ‘erase’, or tan ‘throw’ are not compatible with the [V u/bo NP] construction as seen in (35) unless what follows them has the interpretation pertaining to quantity or quality, as in (36).

(35) *Abing chit bo opang.

Abing erase not-have blackboard

Intended: ‘Abing failed to clean any blackboard.’

(36) Abing chit bo leng-te opang. Abing erase not-have two-CL blackboard

‘Abing failed to clean two blackboards.’

Second, as already mentioned in the previous section yet still repeated here for the reader’s sake, Huang (2003) observes that the verbs preceding u/bo are restricted to accomplishment verbs, or activity verbs which can be turned into accomplishments by the addition of the resultative portion u/bo, as shown in (37-38). Statives are not allowed to occur before u/bo, as seen in (39-40).

(37) Abing be u chai. Abing buy have vegetable ‘Abing bought vegetables.’ (38) Abing than bo cinn. Abing make not-have money

‘Abing cannot make any money.’ (39) *Abing ai bo lang.

Abing love not-have person Intended: ‘He does not love anyone.’

(40) *Abing sin bo kao.

Abing believe not-have religion

Intended: ‘Abing does not believe in any religion.’

Third, we notice that u/bo has not lost its lexical meaning completely and in some cases we still get two clear-cut meanings concerning u/bo. These include ‘obtain’ and ‘understand’, as exemplified by (41) and (42) in the order given.

(41) Abing than bo cinn.

Abing earn not-obtain money

‘Abing attempts to earn money but fails to earn any.’ (42) Abing thak bo che.

Abing study not-understand book

‘Abing cannot study well. (Abing does not understand any book.)’

Fourth, adverbs or other negation markers which indicate irrealis property can occur before u, as indicated by Cheng’s (1997) examples in (43-46).7

(43) Yi choa tih-be u boo a. he marry almost have wife SFP

‘He is about to have a wife.’

(44) Yi boo choa ia-be u leh. he wife marry not-yet have SFP

‘He has not been able to get a wife yet.’ (45) Li an-ne tai-ci co be u.

you this-way thing do cannot have ‘In doing so, you cannot get anything done.’ (46) Li an-ne tai-ci co nae-e u?

you this-way thing do how-can have ‘In doing so, how can you get anything accomplished?’

(Cheng 1997: 213)

Fifth, the morphemes tio and ka, which refer to ‘achieve’, are allowed to occur between u/bo and the object NP. When the postverbal NP is a bare nominal or a definite NP,

tio is employed like (47-48); when the postverbal NPs are quantifier NPs, ka is employed as

exemplified in (49). Nonetheless, there are cases where neither tio nor ka is allowed, as in (50-51).

(47) Abing pha bo tio mang-a. Abing hit not-have achieve mosquito ‘Abing failed to hit the mosquito.’

(48) Abing be u tio hit-pun che. Abing buy have achieve that-CL book

‘Abing bought the book.’

(49) Abing cia bo ka leng-wann peng. Abing eat not-have achieve two-CL rice

‘Abing did not finish two bowls of rice.’ (50) *Abing khuann bo tio/ka jit-gi.

Abing read not-have achieve Japanese

Intended: ‘Abing cannot read Japanese.’

(51) *Kiao-gonn e lang co bo tio/ka leng-hang taici.

proud POSS person do not-have achieve two-CL thing

Intended: ‘Haughty people hardly accomplish more than two things.’

Sixth, we notice that there is a contrast for the occurrence of a numeral NP with respect to different argument positions. In (52-53), we see that a numeral NP cannot occur in subject position; in (54-55), there is no such restriction in the object position.8

(52) *Sann-e lang thak bo che.

three-CL person study not-have book Intended: ‘Three people cannot study well.’

8

However, as pointed out by Luther Liu (p.c.), under certain circumstances it is possible for a numeral NP to occur in subject position with respect to this construction, as shown in (i).

(i) Sann-e lang pha bo mann-chok.

three-CL person hit NEG mah-jongg

‘Three people are not enough to play mah-jongg.’

We will not attempt to offer an explanation of the relative restrictions on numeral NPs in this thesis. But also see Tsai (2001a,b) for a different story of the numeral NP in Mandarin [V-de/bu-V] sentences.

(53) *Go-e gin-na chue bo Abing.

five-CL child find not-have Abing Intended: ‘Five children cannot find Abing.’

(54) Abing cai-khi thak bo sann-pun che. Abing morning study not-have three-CL book

‘This morning Abing read less than three books.’ (55) Abing kam cia u leng-wann peng?

Abing Q eat have two-CL rice

‘Did Abing eat two bowls of rice?’

Moreover, both referential and non-referential interpretations of a bare NP are allowed in object position, as illustrated in (56).

(56) Abing lia bo hi-a.

Abing catch not-have fish

Intended: i) ‘Abing failed to catch the fish.’ (referential) ii) ‘Abing cannot catch any fish.’ (non-referential)

Finally, it is demonstrated by Krifka et al. (1995) that kind-referring NPs (but not objects) render sentences generic. In the [V u/bo NP] construction this argument is born out, too. The kind-referring NPs in subject position render the sentences generic as in (57-58), but kind-referring NPs in object position do not show the characteristic as exemplified in (59-61).

(57) Bai hahau co bo haksing.

bad school get not-have students

‘Bad schools cannot get any student.’

(58) Phua-penn e chiu-a kam senn u kue-cih?

sick POSS tree Q produce have fruit

‘Can sick trees produce any fruit?’

(59) Aying be bo sui sann. Aying buy not-have beautiful clothes i) ‘Aying failed to buy any beautiful clothes.’

ii) ‘Aying cannot buy any beautiful clothes that fit her.’ (60) Abing kam lia u tua-cia hi-a?

Abing Q catch have big-CL fish

i) ‘Did Abing catch any big fish?’ ii) ‘Can Abing catch any big fish?’

(61) Cit-king hahau co bo he hakseng.

this-CL school get not-have good student

i) ‘This school failed to get any good student (this year).’ ii) ‘This school (is too bad that it) cannot get any good student.’

To be brief, Section 2.4 has shown us various properties in sentences involving [V

u/bo NP] construction. In the following chapters we will come up with a proposal to

Chapter 3

________________________________________________________________

Semantic Ambiguity of the Predicate [V u/bo NP]

In this chapter, we will provide a novel analysis of the distinction between a generics and an episode in sentences involving [V u/bo NP] construction. In Section 3.1, we will review the generic/episodic distinction in the literature, and focus especially on Carlson (1977), Kratzer (1995) and Chierchia (1995). In Section 3.2, the analysis of how to distinguish a generic interpretation from an episodic interpretation will be spelled out.

3.1 General Review: the Generic/Episodic Distinction

That John was singing is a report of a specific event or occasion. But the statement that the earth turns around the sun is about a general property. In the literature, the former has been taken to be an episodic expression, while the latter a generic expression (Krifka et al. 1995). Though there may be other terms with slightly different definitions (e.g. characterizing, habitual, etc.) for the generic sentences, or even some argue that these terms should be treated differently, in this thesis we lay aside the diversity and concentrate on how either one of the interpretations is obtained.9

Before proceeding with the details of recent analyses of episodic and generic sentences, we would like to make a few things clear, so let us digress briefly to think about to what

extent the episodic/generic distinction has interacted with the tense-aspect system in the grammar of an individual language. Let’s look at the following English sentences, where (62-64) exemplify episodes and (65-67) exemplify generics.

(62) John slept well. (63) John kissed Mary.

(64) John is singing a song now. (65) John sings well.

(66) John kisses Mary every morning. (67) John liked Mary.

Sentences (62) and (63) are in a Simple Past form while (64) is in a Present Progressive form. Sentences (65) and (66) are in a Simple Present form and (67) is in a Simple Past form. It can be seen that, though (62-64) are episodes there seem to be no single property or grammatical form that generalize them, and the same situation applies to the generic sentences in (65-67), too. Also, after investigating 65 languages, Dahl (1995) concludes that it is not an easy task to find clear illustrations of grammatical forms that serve to differentiate episodes from generics. Now the question is, how does an individual language express the temporal information of generics and episodes, when it has no grammatical form to encode either one or both? The following approaches have shed some light on this issue.

3.1.1 Carlson (1977)

Carlson (1977) has tried to tackle this problem of generic/episodic distinction by proposing that predicates, including verbs and adjectives, should be divided into individual-level

predicates and stage-level predicates. We will look at some examples to explain the two types of predicates. In Carlson’s terminology, the sentence in (68) would be called a “happening” and the sentence in (69) a “characteristic”. The first sentence specifies that there was an occasion on which John engaged in a particular activity; conversely, the second example says that John has some characteristic or property.

(68) John ate an apple. (69) John sings well.

Furthermore, for predicates that are predicated of bare plurals, Carlson finds that by means of there-inserted structures two types of predicates can be detected: those which can occur as the predicates of there-inserted structures, as in (70), and those which cannot, as in (71).

(70) There are doctors available. (71) *There are doctors intelligent.

Thus, the predicate available can select only the existential reading of a bare plural, whereas the bare plural predicated by a predicate like intelligent has only the universal reading. And, indeed those predicates that select the existential reading of the bare plural are taken as speaking of “happenings”; those which select the universal reading of the bare plural are used to speak of “characteristics”.

To formalize these observations, Carlson then applies the individual-level and stage-level predicates to the interpretation of characteristic and happening, respectively. Here is

how they are applied with the examples taken from Carlson. The sentence in (72) is ambiguous between a “characteristics” and a “happening”. When concentrating on the characteristic interpretation, we see that running is a general property of Bill. In such case, we look upon the predicate run of the sentence as a set of individuals, and the NP Bill is treated as denoting the set of properties that Bill has. The semantic interpretation is represented in (73).

(72) Bill ran. (73) run (b)

So b represents the individual Bill, and the formula makes certain that b belongs to the set of individuals which is named run.

Now we focus on the other reading of (72), that is, the happening. This time, the predicate run does not apply to Bill, the individual, but to one of his stages. It can be paraphrased as: There is a stage of Bill which is engaged in running. In order to express the meaning we want, Carlson postulates a “realization” relation R, which is a two-place relation that holds between stages and individuals. Accordingly, R(s, Bill) means that s is a stage of the object Bill. This makes the happening reading of Bill ran be like the following representation.

(74) ﾖys [R(ys,b) & run(ys)]

To summarize, the proposed individual-level predicates have something contributing to the characteristic, or generic, interpretation, while the stage-level predicates are taken to be

how the happening, or episodic, interpretation is derived. This is the basic idea that we learn about individual-level and stage-level predicates. Next we shall discuss how Kratzer (1995) and Chierchia (1995) have further developed the idea of the two types of predicates.

3.1.2 Kratzer (1995)

In Kratzer (1995), she has a different view from Carlson on the essential property of the two types of predicates. It is argued that stage-level predicates and individual-level predicates differ in argument structure. Following Davidson (1967), she proposes that stage-level predicates have an extra argument position for events or spatiotemporal locations; individual-level predicates do not have such a position. So, for Carlson the predicates are sets of different types of entities: individual-level predicates have individuals as their members and stage-level predicates have stages (of individuals) as their members. As for Kratzer’s proposal, the difference is more like a syntactic one. The followings are the three evidences that she uses to argue for an extra argument position in stage-level predicates.

The first evidence comes from locatives, with data taken from German sentences.

Stage-level predicates

(75) ...weil fast alle Flüchtlinge in dieser Stadt umgekommen sind.

since almost all refugees in this city perished are

a. ‘...since almost all of the refugees in this city perished.’

b. ‘...since almost all the refugees perished in this city.’

(76) ...weil ihn fast alle Flöhe in diesem Bett gebissen haben.

since him almost all fleas in this bed bitten have

b. ‘...since almost all the fleas bit him in this bed.’

(77) ...weil fast alle Antragsteller in diesem Wartesaal saßen.

since almost all petitioners in this waiting room sat

a. ‘...since almost all of the petitioners in this waiting room were sitting.’

b. ‘...since almost all the petitioners were sitting in this waiting room.’

Individual-level predicates

(78) ...weil fast alle Schwäne in Australien schwarz sind.

since almost all swans in Australia black are

a. ‘...since almost all swans in Australia are black.’

(79) ...weil fast alle Lebewesen auf diesem Planet von der

since almost all living beings on this planet from the

Amöbe abstammen. amoebe descend

a. ‘...since almost all living beings on this planet descend from the amoeba.’

(80) ...weil fast alle Schüler in dieser Schule Französisch können.

since almost all students in this school French know

a. ‘...since almost all of the students in this school know French.’

The above examples show that there are two meanings for the sentences with stage-level predicates and that there is only one interpretation for the sentences with individual-level predicates. The meaning difference relies on the roles modified by spatial and temporal expressions such as in this city or today. In the (a)-readings, we see that the spatial or temporal expression modifies the restricting predicate of the quantifier fast alle. In the

(b)-readings, it is the main predicate of the sentence that is modified by the spatial or temporal expression. Therefore, it is assumed that, if stage-level predicates have a Davidsonian argument whereas individual-level predicates do not, then there is an explanation for why temporal and spatial expressions can modify stage-level predicates but not individual-level predicates.

When-clauses are provided as the second evidence for an extra argument position in

stage-level predicates. Let’s look at the following English sentences taken from Kratzer.

(81) a. *When Mary knows French, she knows it well. b. When a Moroccan knows French, she knows it well. c. When Mary knows a foreign language, she knows it well. d. When Mary speaks French, she speaks it well.

e. *When Mary speaks French, she knows it well. f. *When Mary knows French, she speaks it well.

In this case, the variable binding mechanism is used to explain the phenomenon. It is assumed that the antecedents of conditionals simply serve as a function to restrict the domain of some operator. Compared with if-clauses, which is also a device for restricting the domain of some operator, when-clauses do not seem to be able to restrict epistemic modals, as the contrast shown in (82).

(82) a. *When the library has this book, it must be on the second floor. b. If the library has this book, it must be on the second floor.

Bearing this contrast in mind, we further learn that whenever a conditional sentence introduced by if or when lacks an overt operator (i.e. a determiner quantifier, an adverb of quantification, or any kind of modal operator), non-overt operators will be stipulated. The available options are assumed to be an adverb of quantification like always or an epistemic necessity operator. So, if when-clauses cannot restrict epistemic modals, the only option for

when in sentences (81a-f) is always. The analysis is shown as follows.

(83) a. *Always [knows(Mary, French)] [knows-well(Mary, French)] b. Alwaysx[Moroccan(x) & knows(x, French)] [knows-well(x, French)]

c. Alwaysx[foreign-language(x) & knows(Mary, x)] [knows-well(Mary,x)]

d. Alwaysl[speaks(Mary, French, l)] [speaks-well(Mary, French, l)]

e. *Alwaysl[speaks(Mary, French, l)] [knows-well(Mary, French)]

f. *Always[knows(Mary, French)] l[speak-well(Mary, French, l)]

As the assumption says that stage-level predicates do but individual-level predicates do not introduce a variable which can be bound by always, we shall be able to explain why sentences (81a,e,f) are ungrammatical, along with the natural prohibition against vacuous quantification as stated in (84).

(84) Prohibition against Vacuous Quantification

For every quantifier Q, there must be a variable x such that Q binds an occurrence of x in both its restrictive clause and its nuclear scope.

vacuous quantification. Since the main predicate in the antecedent and in the consequent is individual-level, there is no Davidsonian argument introducing a variable. Moreover, so long as there is no other expression introducing variables, we see that the quantifier always in this sentence so far has no variable to bind, hence violating the prohibition against vacuous quantification. Similarly, the sentences in (81e) and (81f) lack a bindable variable in the consequent and in the antecedent respectively. In (81b) and (81c), the sentences are grammatical since the indefinite in the antecedent and the same one in the consequent introduces variables. As for (81d), we see that it is almost like (81a), but while the former contains a stage-level predicate speak, the latter contains an individual-level predicate know. If stage-level predicates are to introduce a free variable but individual-level predicates are not, it will be (81a) but not (81d) to violate the prohibition against vacuous quantification.

The third evidence for the extra argument position in stage-level predicates is a syntactic one, which concerns the extraction facts from German. In this argument, Kratzer adopts the theoretical assumption that there are two possible positions for a subject to occupy: one is in the specifier-of-VP and the other is in the specifier-of-IP. The syntactic structure of simple sentences is assumed to be as follows:

(85)

This kind of structure is concerned with the extraction facts of German as shown in (86-87). IP I’ VP V’ NP (Spe c IP) _I NP (Spe c VP) V NP

(86) a. ...weil uns viele Lehrer geholfen haben.

since us many teachers helped have

‘...since many teachers helped us.’

b. Lehrer haben uns viele geholfen.

teachers have us many helped

‘As for teachers, many of them helped us.’

(87) a. ...weil das viele Lehrer wissen.

since this many teachers know

‘...since many teachers know this.’

b. *Lehrer wissen das viele.

teachers know this many

‘As for teachers, many of them know this.’

These examples belong to the ‘quantifier split’ construction in German. In the (a)-sentences, the subordinate clauses contain unsplit quantifier phrases. In the corresponding (b)-sentences, the main clauses employ the verb-second process, allowing the quantifier phrase to split. The verb help in (86) is a stage-level predicate, whereas the verb know in (87) is individual-level. Through these cases, it is seen that quantifier split is possible with subjects of stage-level predicates but impossible with subjects of individual-level predicates. If subjects of individual-level predicates are base-generated in SpecIP, they will have some options at S-structure. One way is to stay in the original position; the other way is to scramble, which is to adjoin to IP. In neither case are the subjects governed, hence leading to a CED (Huang 1982) violation whenever subjects move. On the contrary, assume that subjects of stage-level predicates are base-generated within VP, they also have several alternatives at S-structure.

When they stay in their original position, they are governed and thus no CED violation occurs when these subjects are moved. But if they move on to Spec IP or scramble, they are ungoverned. In this case, CED violation occurs when there is movement from these subjects.

The above discussions are about Kratzer’s idea of the distinction between individual-level predicates and stage-individual-level predicates, and in the next section we are going to see Chierchia (1995)’s discussion on these predicates from another point of view.

3.1.3 Chierchia (1995)

Unlike Kratzer, Chierchia argues that all predicates have a Davidsonian argument ranging over occasions, but that in individual-level predicates there is a generic operator which will bind this argument. Indeed, this argumentation will take individual-level predicates to be inherently generic and the followings show a list of six key properties which are used as criterial for the characterization of individual-level predicates.

The first property of individual-level predicates is that they express stable states. They have similar properties to statives, such as being ungrammatical in the progressive (cf. Vendler 1967, Dowty 1979). There are statives which express episodic qualities, such as tired, happy and so forth. To decide whether a state is generic or episodic, one can use the temporal adverbials as a test. The difference will manifest itself in the behavior of temporal adverbials, as seen in (88).

(88) a. John was drunk yesterday/ last month/ a year ago. b. ??John was tall yesterday/ last month/ a year ago.

The sentence in (88a) is grammatical, but the one in (88b) requires some complex or special ramifications of the scenario.

The second property of individual-level predicates concerns their co-occurrence with locative modifiers. It has been noticed that modification of an individual-level predicate by a locative is generally impossible but that there may be no such restriction for stage-level predicates, as shown by the following contrast.

(89) a. ??John is a linguist in his car. b. ??John is intelligent in France. c. ??John knows Latin in his office. (90) a. John is always sick in France.

b. John works in his office.

(p. 178, ex 4-5)

Third, perception sentences seem to exclude individual-level predicates but no stage-level predicates, as shown in (91) and (92) respectively.

(91) a. *I saw John a linguist. b. *I saw John tall.

c. *I heard John like Mary. (92) a. I saw John drunk.

b. I heard Mary beat John.

Fourth, we take there-sentences into consideration and find that this kind of sentences can occur with stage-level adjectives but not with individual-level predicates, as in (93).

(93) a. There are two men drunk/sick/available,....

b. ??There are two men intelligent/white/altruistic,....

(p. 179, ex (8))

Fifth, we come to the interaction between bare plurals and individual-level predicates. While individual-level predicates select the universal reading of the underlined bare plurals in (94), stage-level predicates select the existential reading of the underlined bare plurals in (95) instead.

(94) a. Humans are mammals. b. Firemen are altruistic. c. Dogs hate cats. (95) a. Firemen are available.

b. Dogs are barking in the courtyard.

(p. 179, ex 10-11 )

The sixth property has to do with the interaction between individual-level predicates and adverbs of quantification. Consider the contrast between (96) and (97).

(96) a. ??When John knows Latin, he always knows it well. b. ??When John is intelligent, he is always pleasant.

(97) a. When John speaks Latin, he always speaks it well. b. When John is drunk, he is always obnoxious.

(p. 180, ex 15-16)

As shown in (96), the sentences which involve individual-level predicates are awkward, but in (97), the sentences with stage-level predicates are quite natural.

To be brief, Chierchia’s six ‘natural’ properties are taken to argue for a generic operator in the syntax; nonetheless, it does not seem that the properties can also neatly be applied to the other languages.

In fact, the generic/episodic distinction has earned itself a notorious reputation in the literature since the distinction varies from language to language and there is dramatic discrepancy among different proposals. The aforementioned approaches to the distinction between a generics and an episodic interpretation have focused upon syntactic or semantic aspects. There are, however, other researches trying to crystallize to what extent the concept of a generics is or should be (Dahl 1975, Geurts 1985, Heyer 1990, Declerck 1991, among others). Furthermore, the more languages we observe (Dahl 1995), the more difficult for us to find a clear-cut distinction between generics and episodics with respect to their grammatical forms. Here in Taiwanese we encounter exactly the same problem. As the sentence in (98) itself can express both generic and episodic interpretations, it seems that no simple test can be used to tell them apart from each other.

(98) Abing lia bo hi-a.

Abing catch NEG fish

ii) ‘Abing is unable to catch any fish.’

Yet, were we to take this sentence as a random case, we would find no way out when considering other sentences with the same predicate configuration [V u/bo NP], in which the same pattern exists, as shown in (99-100).

(99) Abing ban bo kam-a.

Abing pick NEG tangerine

i) ‘Abing failed to pick the tangerine(s).’ ii) ‘Abing is unable to pick any tangerine.’ (100) Abing be bo sann.

Abing buy NEG clothes

i) ‘Abing failed to buy the clothes.’ ii) ‘Abing is unable to buy any clothes.’

So, what is it that determines the interpretation of the sentences? In what follows we would like to point out the possibility of a referential/non-referential noun phrase in the object position to play a role in deciding on the episodic/generic interpretation of sentences of such configurational structure.

3.2 Proposal

3.2.1 Preliminary of NPs in Taiwanese

While investigating the divergence between a generics and an episode with respect to the [V

referentiality of the postverbal noun phrase and the generic/episodic interpretation of the sentence. Consider the following examples.

(101) Abing lia bo hi. Abing catch NEG fish

‘Abing is unable to catch any fish.’ (102) Abing jim bo so-si.

Abing take NEG key

‘Abing failed to take the key (out of his pocket).’

In (101), the postverbal noun phrase hi ‘fish’ is interpreted as non-referential and what the sentence denotes is the subject Abing’s lack of ability to catch any fish rather than an event on which Abing engaged in a catching-fish-activity. On the other hand, the sentence in (102) involves a noun phrase so-si ‘key’ which is interpreted as referential, and the denotation of this sentence is about an activity of taking the key out which is done by the subject (despite the fact that Abing did not get that key).

It is therefore shown by the above examples that there is an interaction between the referentiality of postverbal nouns and an episodic meaning of a sentence. But, under close inspection it seems that this observation is based more on the intuition than on any ‘observed’ forms since the noun phrases under discussion are all bare nouns. So, what we are going to do now is to take a look at the general behaviors of noun phrases in Taiwanese first, and later on postulate a promising method for deciding when a noun phrase in [V u/bo NP] can be interpreted as referential and when cannot. In doing so, we hope to preserve our original hypothesis on the distinction between a generic and an episodic interpretation regarding

sentences involving [V u/bo NP] construction.

To pave the way for our discussions, we will first provide an overview of how a noun phrase in different syntactic distributions is interpreted concerning its referentiality in Taiwanese.10 We will take both numeral phrases and bare noun phrases into consideration. The first type to be discussed is the numeral noun phrase. Numeral phrases can be interpreted as referential or non-referential in preverbal position, as seen in (103a-e). In postverbal position, it is also possible for a numeral phrase to be interpreted as referential or non-referential, as shown in (104a-e).

(103) a. Go e lang lai a. (referential)

five CL person come SFP

‘The five people came.’

b. Go e lang long-phua po-le. (referential)

five CL person break glass

‘The five people broke the glass.’

c. Go e gin-a ho lang pha. (referential)

five CL child PASS person hit

‘The five children were hit by some person(s).’

d. Go e lang cia peng, chun-e lang cia minn. (non-referential/referential)

five CL person eat rice, rest-CL person eat noodle

i) ‘The five people ate rice, and the rest of people ate noodles.’ ii) ‘Five people shall eat rice, and the rest of people eat noodles.’

10 _{Regarding Mandarin Chinese, Hsieh (2008) argues that both NP and DP layers are needed in a noun, where}

the former is associated with non-referentiality and the latter is the locus of referentiality. In this article, we do not look further into the structure of a noun, but simply concentrate on the interpretation of a noun (i.e. numeral phrases, bare nouns) with respect to referentiality.

e. Sap e lang cia cia e liau hit thang peng. (non-referential)

ten CL person perhaps eat can finish that CL rice

‘Perhaps ten people can eat up that bucket of rice.’

(104) a. Abing cia go wann peng. (non-referential/ referential) Abing eat five CL rice

i) ‘Abing eats five bowls of rice.’

ii) ‘Abing ate (the) five bowls of rice.’

b. Abing cia go wann peng a. (referential) Abing eat five CL rice SFP

‘Abing ate five bowls of rice.’

c. Abing u cia go wann peng. (referential)

Abing AUX eat five CL rice

‘Abing ate five bowls of rice.’

d. Abing ka-i leng e co-gin-a. (referential)

Abing like two CL girl

‘Abing likes the two girls.’

e. Abing long-phua leng te po-le. (referential)

Abing break two CL glass

‘Abing broke two pieces of glass.’

Next we consider the bare nouns. Bare noun phrases behave almost the same as numeral phrases. In preverbal position, bare nouns can have a referential interpretation or a non-referential interpretation, as seen in (105a-e). In postverbal position, a bare noun can also be interpreted as referential or non-referential, as in (106a-d).

(105) a. Niaonn-a pe-khi chu ting. (referential) cat climb house roof

‘The cat crawled to the roof of the house.’

b. Niaonn-a te cia hi-a. (referential) cat ASP eat fish

‘The cat is eating the fish.’

c. Niaonn-a ai cia hi-a. (non-referential)

cat love eat fish

‘Cats love to eat fish.’

d. Niaonn-a cin ai cit cia niaonn-chi. (referential) cat very love this CL mouse

‘The cat loves this mouse very much.’

e. Niaonn-chi-a thao cia ke-leng. (referential)

mouse stealthily eat egg

‘The mouse ate the egg(s) stealthily.’

(106) a. Abing pha-si niaonn-chi-a. (referential)

Abing hit-dead mouse

‘Abing killed the mouse by smacking it.’

b. Abing cia gu-bah. (non-referential) Abing eat beef

‘Abing eats beef.’

c. Abing u cia gu-bah. (referential/non-referential) Abing AUX eat beef

ii) ‘Abing eats beef.’

d. Abing the-yia kao-a. (non-referential)

Abing hate dog

‘Abing hate dogs.’

It is seen from the above examples that a noun phrase in Taiwanese can be referential or non-referential no matter it is in subject or object position. So, how do we know when a numeral phrase or a bare noun is interpreted as referential and when as non-referential, especially in the cases involving [V u/bo NP], where V is always concerned with activity and that no explicit temporal marker is employed? The following section demonstrates how the principles proposed shall help us to determine the referential interpretation of a postverbal noun phrase in [V u/bo NP], whose determination consequently settles the generic/episodic interpretation of the sentence.

3.2.2 Proposal

In sentences involving the [V u/bo NP] construction, we suggest that their being generic or episodic be determined by the referentiality/non-referentiality of the postverbal noun phrase: the sentence is generic if and only if the postverbal noun phrase is non-referential, and the sentence is episodic if and only if the postverbal noun phrase is referential. We provide five principles which can help us to pin down the referentiality of the postverbal noun phrase.

First, we should consider whether an activity denoted by [V-NP] can be taken as the profession of the agent. To see the result, we can make use of the predicate structure […si V-NP e] ‘…is a person who specializes in a certain activity’. Compare the examples in (107) with those in (108).

(107) Yi [si {lia-hi/chio-kua/cing-chann/kong-kiu} e ].

he is catch-fish/sing-song/grow-field/hit-ball of

‘He is a {fisher/singer/farmer/hitter}.’

(108) *Yi [si {jim so-si/the kha-bang/be au-a/o co-thau/co che} e].

he is take-out key/take bag/buy cup/dig-up stone/borrow book of

Intended: ‘He is a person who specializes in *{taking out keys/taking bags/buying cups/digging up stones/borrowing books}.’

This is a principle that is taken to detect whether the NP can be non-referential in [V u/bo NP]. In other words, if the NP can occur in […si V-NP e] structure, it can be interpreted as non-referential in [V u/bo NP]. The reason is that, when the [V-NP] can be realized as an occupation, [V u/bo NP] is intuitively realized as a property to denote the agent’s ability/inability to do a good job. Therefore, if such kind of [V-NP] is involved in [V u/bo NP], the sentences are interpreted as generic, as in (109a-d).

(109) a. Abing lia bo hi-a.

Abing catch NEG fish

‘(As a fisher,) Abing is uable to catch any fish.’ b. Abing chio bo kua.

Abing sing NEG song

‘(As a singer,) Abing is uable to sing any song.’ c. Abing cing bo chann.

Abing grow NEG field

d. Abing kong bo kiu.

Abing hit NEG ball

‘(As a hitter,) Abing is uable to hit any ball.’

Contrarily, if the [V-NP] predicates are not found to have this kind of ‘occupational’ usage, the NP can only be interpreted as referential when it occurs in [V u/bo NP], hence the sentence will only be taken to denote an episode, as in (110a-e).

(110) a. Abing jim bo so-si Abing take-out NEG key

‘Abing failed to take the key out.’ b. Abing the bo kha-bang Abing take NEG bag

‘Abing failed to take the bag.’ c. Abing be bo au-a. Abing be NEG cup

‘Abing failed to buy the cup.’ d. Abing o bo cio-thau.

Abing dig-up NEG stone

‘Abing failed to dig up the stone.’ e. Abing cio bo che. Abing borrow NEG book