台灣閩南語疑問詞的認可

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Master Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 台灣閩南語疑問詞的認可 On the Licensing Contexts of Wh-words in Taiwanese Southern Min. 指導教授：謝妙玲教授 Adviser: Prof. Miao-Ling Hsieh 研究生：莊濬彬 Student: Jiun-Bin Chuang. 中華民國一零三年八月 August, 2014.

(2) 摘要. 本論文研究台灣閩南語中疑問詞的認可，並旁及國語、英語的相關現象。台灣閩南語的疑問詞如: siáⁿ-mi̍ h、 siáng，既是否定連用詞，同時也是不定名詞組 (indefinite NP)。與典型否定連用詞 jīm-hô 不一樣的是，這些疑問詞含有變項 (variable)，需要被一個運符約束。一般來說，否定詞是否定連用詞共同的認可語。然而對疑問詞而言，否定詞需與義務性情態詞 (deontic modal)或是表達完成面向(completive)的時貌 (aspect)才能認可。在不是否定的情況下，本研究發現認知情態詞 (epistemic modal) 以及非事實性動詞(non-factive verb)可以為認可語。本論文亦從句法角度探討疑問詞的認可語境，並發現認可語 c 統制的必要性。當涉及長距離認可時，本論文主張疑問詞無論在表層結構亦或是邏輯結構都沒有移位，只要滿足被認可語 c 統制的條件即可。當存在性認可語 (existential licenser) 與疑問性認可語 (interrogative licenser) 並存時，疑問詞與疑問性認可語 (interrogative licenser)的連結比存在性認可語 (existential licenser)還要來得強勢。除了疑問詞之外，本論文亦探討典型否定連用詞 jīm-hô 的認可語境。與疑問詞不同，認知情態詞 (epistemic modal) 以及非事實性動詞 (non-factive verb) 並非 jīm-hô 的認可語。在分析 jīm-hô 的長距離認可後，本論文發現上層子句的否定語並非認可語，與 jīm-hô 同一子句的向下蘊含 (downward entailing) 才是真正認可 jīm-hô 的認可語，也就是說認可必須是在同一子句內。. 關鍵字：疑問詞、否定連用詞、認可語、認知情態詞、非事實性動詞、義務性情態詞 i.

(3) ABSTRACT This thesis aims to provide an account for the licensing contexts of wh-words in Taiwanese Southern Min (TSM) within the GB framework. The present study argues that existential wh-words are not typical Negative Polarity Items (NPI). Negation is the universal licenser of NPIs. However, the licensing of wh-words by a negation is not as straightforward as that of typical NPIs. It is proposed that negation needs to be combined with a deontic modal or an aspect [+completive] to be the licenser of whwords. An epistemic modal alone and non-factive verbs can license wh-words as well. As for long-distance licensing, the current study proves that there is no movement of wh-words in LF. As long as the c-command requirement is met, the existential whwords are acceptable. Minimality is considered when an interrogative licenser and an existential licenser co-exist. I draw the conclusion that the linking of an interrogative licenser with wh-words is stronger than that of an existential licenser with wh-words. Finally, the licensing context of jīm-hô ‘any’ in TSM is also analyzed to provide a more comprehensive contrast between jīm-hô ‘any’, a typical NPI, and a wh-word, an atypical NPI. Epistemic modals and non-factive verbs cannot license jīm-hô ‘any’ as opposed to wh-words in TSM. In cases where a superordinate negation seems to license jīm-hô ‘any’, the licenser is not the negation but downward entailing implied in the same clause with jīm-hô ‘any’.. Key words: wh-words, Negative Polarity Items (NPI), licenser, epistemic modal, nonfactive verb, deontic verb ii.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would never have been able to finish my thesis without the guidance of my committee members and assistance from friends, and support from my family. My adviser Prof. Miao-Ling Hsieh deserves a special credit for her supervisions from the very beginning through the end of my graduate study, and for her painstakingly perusing and revising through every page of every draft of my thesis. Through her detailed comments, I gradually organize my messy draft into a more readable thesis. Without her excellent guidance, caring, and patience, I could not have completed my thesis on time. I am grateful to my oral defense committee members, Prof. Chun-yin Doris Chen and Prof. Rueih-Lirng Fahn. I benefited from many enlightening discussions with Prof. Chun-yin Doris Chen. Prof. Rueih-Lirng Fahn also provided me plenty of precious suggestions both on my proposal hearing and oral defense. Thanks to their great help, I could strengthen my reasoning and arguments. Thanks also go to my friend, Jûn-juk Chhài. He helped me check and revise the spellings of Taiwanese characters in my thesis. I appreciate his patience and support. I would also like to thank my parents, whom I am deeply indebted to. Without their sacrifice, love and support along the long journey, it would not be possible for me to finish my thesis.. iii.

(5) Table of Contents Chinese Abstract .......................................................................................................... i English Abstract .......................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... iv List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1 1.1 Motivation ............................................................................................................1 1.2 Theoretical Assumptions ......................................................................................6 1.2.1 Government and Binding Theory ...............................................................7 1.2.2 Cheng’s (1994) analysis of Wh-words in Mandarin Chinese .....................8 1.3 Outline of the Thesis ............................................................................................8 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................10 2.1 The Licensing of Negative Polarity Items in English ..................................10 2.2 The Licensing of Existential Wh-words in Mandarin Chinese ...........................15. 2.2.1 Li’s (1992) Analysis ..................................................................................15 2.2.2 Cheng’s (1994) Analysis ...........................................................................19 2.2.3 Lin’s (1996) Analysis ................................................................................23 2.3 The Licensing Wh-words in Taiwanese Southern Min ....................................24 2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................28. CHAPTER 3 TOWARD A SOLUTION...................................................................29 3.1 The Licensing Contexts of Wh-words in TSM ...................................................29 3.1.1. The Licensing Contexts of Interrogative Wh-words in TSM .................29. 3.1.2. The Licensing Contexts of Existential Wh-words in TSM .....................32. 3.1.2.1 Yes-no Question Particles .....................................................................32 3.1.2.2 (Negation) + Modality...........................................................................33 iv.

(6) 3.1.2.3 Non-Factive Verbs .................................................................................45 3.2 Structural Requirements on Wh-words...............................................................46 3.2.1. C-command at S-structure ........................................................................46. 3.2.2. Long-Distance Licensing ..........................................................................48. 3.2.3. Minimality ................................................................................................52. 3.3 The Licensing Contexts of Jīm-hô ‘any’ ............................................................58 3.4 Summary ............................................................................................................63 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................65 REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................67. v.

(7) List of Abbreviations. ASP: aspect marker CL: classifier NEG: negative Q: question marker. vi.

(8) List of Tables. Table 1 The interrogative and existential readings of wh-words in Mandarin Chinese………………………………………………………………………….20 Table 2 Various readings of wh-words and their licensers (triggers) and binders proposed in Cheng (1994) .................................................................................... 23 Table 3 Wh-elements in English, Mandarin Chinese and TSM (Hsiao 2003) ............. 25 Table 4 The Licensing Contexts of Wh-words in TSM................................................ 65. vii.

(9) Chapter 1. Introduction. 1.1 Motivation. Like Mandarin wh-words, the wh-words in Taiwanese Southern Min (TSM), should be licensed by certain licensers. The most typical one is negation, as shown below:. (1) a. Tā (s)he. méi-yǒu xǐhuān. shéi.. NEG. who. like. ‘(S)he does not like anyone.. b. I (s)he. bô. kah-ì. siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng.. NEG-have. like. what. (TSM). people. ‘(S)he doesn’t like anyone.’. In contrast, without negation, only an interrogative reading is obtained:. (2) a. Tā (s)he. xǐhuān. shéi?. like. who. ‘Who does (s)he like?’. b. I (s)he. kah-ì. siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng?. like. what. (TSM). people. ‘Who does (s)he like?’ 1.

(10) This thesis focuses on the licensing of the existential wh-words in TSM. The licensing of wh-words in TSM has not drawn much attention so far. Due to their being licensed by negation, wh-words are similar to polarity items, which have been researched considerably. Polarity items have received much attention in linguistic research. A polarity item is an expression which is sensitive to the presence, in the same sentence, of certain other expressions, known as ‘licensing’ expressions. A ‘licensing’ expression can also be referred to a ‘triggering’ expression (Portner 2005). There are two types of polarity items depending on their ‘licensing’ expressions. The first type is Negative Polarity Items (NPI), which are sensitive to negation and related expressions. These polarity items must co-occur within the c-command domain of negative sentences, those containing negative words such as not or nobody. In English, examples of NPIs include any, at all, etc. If they occur in a sentence without a ‘negative’ expression, they would be ungrammatical. For example,. (3) a. John doesn’t have any potato. b. I didn’t like the cake at all.. (4) a. *John has any potato.*1 b. *I like any cake at all.. (3a) and (3b) are considered to be grammatical while (4a) and (4b) are ungrammatical.. As for Positive Polarity Item (PPI), consider the word somewhat in. (4a) has a free choice reading, meaning ‘any potato’ in the world. This reading is not discussed in the thesis. 2 1.

(11) sentences below,. (5) a. Mary liked it somewhat. b. *John didn’t like somewhat.. In this case, somewhat is a lexical element that can appear in the environment of a certain ‘licensing context.’ That is, an affirmative environment licenses somewhat, but a negative environment, on the other hand, anti-licenses it. Now return to the licensing of NPIs. While negation is sufficient, it is not necessary. In addition to negation, the environments where the polarity sensitive (PS) any in English is licensed include conditionals, yes-no questions, certain determiners such as at most N and the first argument of the determiner every, and others (Progovac 1993). Consider the following examples, some of the licensing contexts are exemplified below:. (6) Does Mary have any cakes?. (7) a. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. b. *You have any questions.. (8) At most two of the visitors had seen anything.. The NPIs are licensed in yes-no question in example (6) and conditionals in examples (7). As for the last example, at most N is the licenser. 3.

(12) The corresponding TSM examples of (5) and (6) using siáⁿ-mi̍ h ‘what’ but not that of (8) are acceptable as shown below:. (9) a. A-káu A-káu. kám ū Q. chia̍h. have eat. siáⁿ-mi̍ h ke-nn̄g-ko? what. (TSM). cake. ‘Did A-káu eat any cakes?’ b. Nā-sī if. lí. ū. siáⁿ-mi̍ h būn-tê,. you have what. chhiáⁿ. question please. liân-lo̍k góa. contact. (TSM). I. ‘If you have any questions, please contact me.’ (TSM) c.. Lú-kheh. tang-tiong. siāng-chē ū. visitor. among. at most. nn̄g-ê. have two. lâng. khòaⁿ-tio̍h. people see-arrive. siáⁿ-mi̍ h? what ‘What did at most two of the visitors see?’. The wh-word siáⁿ-mi̍ h ‘what’ in (9c), the corresponding example of (8) in TSM, is interrogative. The existential reading is lost. In addition to the discrepancy between (8) and (9c), existential siáⁿ-mi̍ h ‘what’ also appears in A-not-A questions and sentences ending with negative question particles such as bô, which exist in TSM but not English:. (10) a. Lí you. sī-m̄-sī. tú-tio̍h. siáⁿ-mi̍ h khùn-lân?. BE-NEG-BE encounter -arrive. ‘Have you encountered some difficulties?’. 4. what. difficulty. (TSM).

(13) b. Lí. siáⁿ-mi̍ h. ài. you want what ‘Do you want anything?’. bô?. (TSM). Q. However, in addition to the existential reading and interrogative reading, whwords also have another reading: universal reading.. (11) Siáⁿ what. lâng lóng cháu bô. i. hiah kín.. man all. (s)he. that fast. run NEG-have. (TSM). ‘Nobody runs faster than he does.’. The three readings set wh-words apart from typical NPIs such as any in English and renhe in Mandarin Chinese. That is, only parts of the characteristics of wh-words overlap with those of typical NPIs. In addition, the licensing of wh-words by a negation is not as straightforward as that of typical NPIs as shown below: (Hsiao 2003) (12) I. m̄. (khéng). chia̍h. siáⁿ?. (s)heNEG be-willing-to eat ‘What is (s)he not willing to eat?’. (TSM). what. The reading of siáⁿ(-mi̍ h) ‘what’ in (12) is interpreted as interrogative. No existential reading is entailed.. 5.

(14) Inspired by the characteristics of the usage and the pattern, this thesis aims to explore the licensing contexts of wh-words and provide an analysis under the Government and Binding theory (Chomsky 1981, 1982, 1986a and 1986b). This thesis argues that an existential wh-word is not a typical Negative Polarity Item. Yes-no questions, conditionals, and negations are the universal licensers of existential NPIs. However, the licensing of wh-words by a negation is not as straightforward as that of typical NPIs. It is proposed that negation attached by a deontic modal or an aspect [+completive] should be the licenser of wh-words. An epistemic modal alone and non-factive verbs can license wh-words as well. As for long-distance licensing, the current study proves that there is no movement of whwords in LF. As long as the c-command requirement is met, wh-words are acceptable. Minimality is considered when an interrogative licenser and an existential licenser coexist. I draw the conclusion that the linking of an interrogative licenser with wh-words is stronger than that of an existential licenser with wh-words. Finally, the licensing context of jīm-hô ‘any’ in TSM is also probed into in order to provide a more comprehensive contrast between jīm-hô ‘any’, a typical NPI, and a wh-word, an atypical NPI.. 1.2 Theoretical Assumptions. This thesis adopts the GB theory developed by Chomsky (1981, 1982, 1986a and 1986b) and is based on Cheng’s (1994) analysis of wh-words in Mandarin Chinese. In. 6.

(15) what follows, I will first briefly state the main notions of GB theory assumed in the thesis and review Cheng’s (1994) analysis of wh-words in Mandarin Chinese.. 1.2.1 Government and Binding Theory. Chomsky (1986b) defines the notion of c-command as follows:. (13) C-command A node A c-commands a node B if and only if (i). A does not dominate B;. (ii). B does not dominate A;. (iii). The first branching node dominating A also dominates B.. Besides, the constraint on the interpretation of reflexives is as follows:. (14) Principle of reflexive interpretation A reflexive must be bound by a clause-mate antecedent. Binding is defined in terms of c-command as in (15):. (15) Binding A binds B if and only if (i). A c-commands B;. (ii). A and B are coindexed.. 7.

(16) 1.2.2 Cheng’s (1994) analysis of wh-words in Mandarin Chinese. In Cheng’s (1994) analysis of wh-words in Mandarin Chinese, wh-words are polarity items, which need to be licensed. Moreover, she also claims that wh-words in Mandarin Chinese are indefinite NPs, which do not have inherent quantificational force, and require a binder. Consequently, wh-words in Mandarin Chinese need both a licenser and a binder. Notice that the binder mentioned in Cheng’s (1994) analysis is different from that in Chomsky’s (1986b) analysis. The former offers wh-words quantificational force while the latter refers to the item which c-commands and is coindexed with another item in syntax. To avoid misunderstanding, it should be clarified that all the binders in this study refer to that in Cheng’s (1994) sense. Further review of Cheng’s (1994) analysis is in chapter 2.. 1.3 Outline of the Thesis. In chapter 2, I will discuss properties and previous analyses of licensing contexts of NPIs and the limits of these hypotheses. The semantic constraints and the syntactic patterns of the construction will be delved into. Existential wh-words with their own distinctive properties require different analyses of their own distributions. In chapter 3, I will revise Cheng’s (1994) analysis of wh-words and make it suitable to wh-words in TSM. The licensing of wh-words by negation is not as 8.

(17) straightforward as that of typical NPIs. The types of modality/aspect should be put into consideration. Structural requirements as well as long-distance licensing will also be examined. Minimality comes into play when interrogative and existential licensers co-exist. Finally, I also deal with the licensing of the NPI jīm-hô ‘any’. In chapter 4, I will sum up this study by giving a chart of the licensing contexts of the wh-words in TSM.. 9.

(18) Chapter 2 Literature Review. In this chapter, I will discuss the properties and previous analyses of NPIs in English from the perspective of both semantics and syntax in section 2.1. Then I will present previous analyses of existential wh-words in Mandarin Chinese in section 2.2 and the analysis of the wh-words in TSM in section 2.3. Finally, a brief summary will be given in section 2.4.. 2.1 The Licensing of Negative Polarity Items in English. Below I will delve into licensing contexts including negation, downward-entailing triggers, and nonveridicality as well as their limits and then Progovac’s binding approach will be probed into as well. The well-known Fauconnier-Ladusaw (1975) hypothesis claims downwardentailing environments license most English NPIs.. Given a close look at those data shown in NPI items, we find that downwardentailing environments seem to be a necessary condition, as the example (1) shows:. 10.

(19) (Portner 2005) (1) a. I don’t have a dog. entails b. I don’t have a Keeshond.. As Portner (2005) points out, the fact that negation not creates entailments from properties to sub-properties can be described by saying that what is involved is downward entailing. However, there are some counterexamples to this classic downward-entailing analysis in English. For instance, NPIs can appear in the scope of the generalized quantifier ‘only DP’, which is by no means downward-entailing trigger, as illustrated below (Xie 2007):. (2) Only John ate any fruit. (3) apple ⊆ fruit (4) Only John ate fruits. ! 2 (5) Only John ate apples.. Here ‘Only John ate fruits’ does not entail ‘Only John ate apples.’ John could eat something else like bananas, grapes, etc. Von Fintel (1999) also provides some counterexamples. One of them is as follows:. 2. The symbol ‘! ’ means not entail. 11.

(20) (Von Fintel 1999) (6) Only John ever ate any kale for breakfast.. (7) Only John ate vegetables for breakfast. !  Only John ate kale for breakfast.. On the other hand, Giannakidou (2002) proposes that NPIs appear in environments:. (8) where the propositions of the sentences are either negated or not asserted.. Giannakidou (1998, 2002) further proposes that the licensing of NPIs is contingent upon whether the environment in which the NPI appears is nonveridical or not. Given the wide range of nondownward entailing environments, the notion of nonveridicality has gradually replaced Fauconnier-Ladusaw Hypothesis. The polarity licensers form the hierarchy as follows (Ernst 2008):. (9). Nonveridicality theory evaluates a speaker’s commitment and the truth of the proposition Q. The licensers in the hierarchy above do not preserve truth value and thus the environments are nonveridical. The empirical data shows that downward12.

(21) entailing is not workable for some sentences. Instead, nonveridicality is a better one to account for the licensing of NPIs. The licensing contexts range from typical negation to quantifiers, downward-entailing, and finally to nonveridical sentences like questions and conditionals. The following examples attest to this claim:. (Portner 2005) (10) a. Does Shelby ever bite? b. Does Noah have any money?. (11) a. If Shelby ever bites you, I’ll put him up for adoption. b. If Noah has any money, he can buy some candy.. Despite the fact that the nonveridicality theory seems to cover a wider licensing context for NPIs, it remains a purely semantic one and still needs further revision in terms of locality conditions. Progovac (1993) proposes an interactive model combining a modified version of Ladusaw’s (1980) downward entailment (DE) theory and the binding approach advocated in Progovac (1988). The inadequacies of the DE have been clarified in previous sections. The binding approach, however, takes into consideration the locality conditions. Progovac (1988) proposes that NPIs are governed by essentially the same principles as that of reflexives and pronouns. That is, they are subject to the Binding Theory of Chomsky (1981). The relevant principles are as follows: (Progovac 1993) (12) Principle A: An NPI must be bound in its governing category. (13) Principle B: A PPI must be free in its governing category. 13.

(22) An NPI needs to be bound in its governing category. Their binders are negation and Op in Comp. Both of them are in A'-positions. If a NPI can’t find its binder in its own governing category, it raises in LF and thus satisfies their locality requirement in LF so long as it bears quantificational properties. Chinese NPIs are well-known to be bound by superordinate negation, while the NPIs of other languages including English are assumed to be not (Wang 1996). The following examples (Progovac 1993), however, prove that some NPIs in English are licensed long distance:. (14) I am not saying that [IP John saw anyone]. (15) Peter denied Op that [IP John saw anyone]. (16) Op Did [IP John see anyone]? (17) *I am not saying that [IP John arrived until 7 o’clock].. Among all the examples above, only the NPI until in example (17) is not licensed long distance. Progovac thus claims that ‘being quantificational in nature NPIs any/ever can raise in LF, thus satisfying their locality requirement in LF (cf. Progovac (1988).’ And then adjoining to the local IP would suffice to bring the NPI within the same IP domain with Op in [Spec, CP] and raising to the Spec of Comp to be licensed by superordinate negation in the matrix Infl. (Progovac 1993). Note that there are always quantificational NPIs and being quantificational makes raising possible. Until, being an NPI, is not able to raise in LF because it lacks quantificational quality. Further exploration of superordinate licensing will be included in chapter 3.. 14.

(23) 2.2 The Licensing of Existential Wh-words in Mandarin Chinese. So far the theoretical frameworks mentioned above have mainly dealt with any in English. In this section, I will review the previous analysis of existential wh-word in Mandarin Chinese, including Li (1992) in 2.2.1, Cheng (1994) in 2.2.2 and Lin (1996) in 2.2.3 respectively.. 2.2.1 Li’s (1992) Analysis. Li (1992) has dealt with indefinite wh-words in Mandarin Chinese. In her analysis, wh-words can have a non-interrogative indefinite interpretation as well as an interrogative one. She also argues that wh-words are variables that need binders and that yes-no question markers, negation markers, and other negative-like operators are binders of indefinite wh-words and give them non-interrogative readings (quantificational readings). On the other hand, if a wh-element is bound by a whquestion operator, it is interpreted as interrogative. In addition to semantic constraints, an indefinite wh-word in Mandarin Chinese is subject to syntactic constraints as well. Semantically, the licensing context of an indefinite wh-word in Mandarin Chinese is affected by the truth value of the proposition containing the indefinite wh. The licensing contexts of an indefinite wh-word include negation in (18) - (19), yesno questions in (20), conditionals in (21), A-not-A questions in (22), complements of non-factive verbs in (23), and sentences that express uncertainty in (24).. 15.

(24) Negation (18) a. Tā (s)he. bù. xǐhuān. shéi.. NEG. like. who. ‘He does not like anyone.. b. *Tā. xǐhuān. (s)he like. shéi. who. ‘He likes anyone.’. (19) a. Tā bù. wéi shéi gōngzuò.. he NEG. for who work. ‘He does not work for anyone.’ b. *Tā wéi he for. shéi gōngzuò. who work. ‘He works for anyone’. Yes-No Questions (20) a. Yǒu have. shéi xǐhuān. nǐ. who like. you Qu. ma?. ‘Does someone like you?’. b. Měiguó America. hé. Yīngguó yǒu shénme bùtóng. and England have what. difference. ‘Is there any difference between America and England?’. 16. ma? Qu.

(25) Conditionals (21) a. Rúguǒ yǒu if. have. shéi tǎoyàn. tā,. nǐ. who hate. him you then tell. jiù gàosù. wǒ. me. ‘If anyone hates him, then (you) tell me.’. b. Rúguǒ tā if. he. tǎoyàn. shéi,. jiù gàosù. wǒ.. hates. who. then tell. me. ‘If he hates someone, then tell me.’. A-not-A Questions (22) a. Nǐ you. zuótiān. yǒu-méi-yǒu qù shénme. dìfāng?. yesterday. have-not-have go what. place. ‘Did you go to any place yesterday?’. b. Yǒu-méi-yǒu have-not-have. shéi zài kàn? who ASP watch. ‘Is anyone/someone watching?’. Non-factive Verbs (23) a. * Nǐ xǐhuān shénme (dōngxī). You like what (thing) ‘You like something/anything.’. (Li 1992). (Li 1992) b. Wǒ yǐwéi /rènwéi/cāi/xīwàng nǐ xǐhuān I think/think/guess/hope you like ‘I think/guess/hope that you like something.’. 17. shénme dōngxī. what thing.

(26) Modals that Express Uncertainty (24) a. *Tā xǐhuān shénme. he like what ‘He likes something.’. (Li 1992). b. Tā dàgài/kěnéng xǐhuān shénme. he probably like what ‘He probably likes something.’. (Li 1992). To summarize all the contexts indefinite wh-words occur, Li (1992) lists the followings: (25) a. contexts where the truth value is negated: negation b. contexts where the truth value is not fixed: questions, conditionals, non-factive verb complements c. contexts where the truth value is not asserted directly: seem, probably contexts, circumstantial le Syntactically, the c-command is the relevant structural notion. This could be corroborated by the unavailability of the indefinite wh-word in (26) where the negation occurs within a sentential subject, in (27) where the negation is part of the adverb:. (26) *Tā bù lái duì shénme rén zuì hǎo. he not come to what man most good ‘That he does not come is the best for someone.’. (Li 1992). (27) *Tā bù-gāoxìng dì zuò shénme. he not-happy DE do what ‘He did something unhappily.’. (Li 1992). 18.

(27) Thus, Li concludes that an indefinite wh-word must be c-commanded by its licenser at S-Structure.. 2.2.2 Cheng’s (1994) Analysis. Cheng (1994), following Nishigauchi’s (1986, 1990) work on wh-words in Japanese and Heim’s (1982) work on indefinites, proposes that wh-words in Mandarin Chinese are indefinite NPs, which do not have inherent quantificational force. She further claims that judging from the environments in which the indefinite readings of wh-words are in, wh-words are polarity items. That is, wh-words are like indefinite NPs but need a licenser. In Mandarin Chinese, wh-words can be interpreted as interrogative-words, existential quantifiers and universal quantifiers. Cheng assumes that a polarity item is an existential quantifier. Table 1 below illustrates both the interrogative and existential reading of wh-words in Mandarin Chinese:. 19.

(28) Table 1 The interrogative and existential readings of wh-words in Mandarin Chinese examples. as question words. as quantifiers. shéi. ‘who’. ‘anybody’. shénme. ‘what’. ‘anything’. nǎ. ‘which’. ‘any’. héshí. ‘when’. ‘any time’. nǎlǐ. ‘where’. ‘any place’. zěnme. ‘how’. ‘any way’. wéishénme. ‘why’. ‘any reason’. A-not-A. ‘whether A or not’. ‘no matter whether A or not’. The existential reading of wh-words is either optional or obligatorily depending on the existence of yes-no questions. In other words, the interpretation of a wh-word varies depending on another element in the sentence. Cheng (1994) summarizes the environments of wh-words as follows:. (28) a. Qwh----wh (interrogative reading) b. Qyes/no----wh (polarity/existential reading) c. Neg----wh (interrogative or polarity/existential reading) d. wh----dou (universal reading). Cheng agrees with Li (1992) in treating wh-words in Chinese as variables. But she argues against Li’s (1992) analysis and treats the yes-no question particles, A-no20.

(29) A question markers, negation markers, and other negative-like operator as binders determining the quantificational force of indefinite wh-words. In her reasoning, if these operators are binders, then the indefinite wh-words must have a sentential scope just like these operators do. Thus, a wh-word requires both a licenser and a binder to determine its meaning. That is, a wh-word in Mandarin Chinese requires a licenser. At the same time, it also needs a binder to determine its own quantificational force. The wh-question-particle ne, for example, is not only licenser but also serves as the binder of the wh-word(s) in its scope. Thus, when ne is present, the existential reading of whwords is not possible. Crucially, when the existence of ne is not precluded, the existential reading is possible. This is why the existential reading of wh-words is either optional or obligatory in the presence of negation since negation does not preclude the existence of ne. Overall speaking, the existential reading of wh-words is attainable only when there is no other binder. The lack of quantificational force of wh-words thus explains why subject whwords are not allowed in Mandarin Chinese. Indefinite NPs could not occur in subject position in Mandarin Chinese and so are wh-words, given the fact that they both lack quantificational force. Wh-words or indefinite NPs, as Cheng claims, are never quantificational and thus cannot undergo Quantificational Raising. To receive quantificational force, wh-words have to be bound by existential closure, which only applies to the VP domain. Lowering of the subject NP to VP, however, is not possible in Mandarin Chinese. An A-not-A question is such an example. An A-not-A question can license indefinite wh-words in object position but not in subject position. Such subject-object asymmetries exist in A-not-A questions in Chinese Mandarin as well as TSM as illustrated below:. 21.

(30) (29) a. Zhāngsān xǐ-bù-xǐ-huān. shénme?. Zhangsan like-NEG-like what ‘Does Zhangsan like something/anything?’ b. * Shéi mǎi-bù-mǎi zhè běn shū? who buy-not-buy this CL book ‘Did someone buy this book or not?’ (Intended reading) c. A-káu sī-m̄-sī kah-ì siáⁿmi̍ h? A-káu BE-NEG-BE like what ‘Does A-káu like something/anything?’. (TSM). d. *Siáng sī-m̄-sī kah-ì chit pún chheh? who BE-NEG-BE this CL book. (TSM). ‘Does someone like this book? (Intended reading) The ungrammaticality of (29b) and (29d) stems from the lack of quantificational force as well as the failure of meeting the structural requirement. Wh-words in these examples are not c-commanded by their licensers. Recall that Li (1992) proposes that the occurrence of a non-interrogative wh-element is subject to a syntactic constraint: It needs a c-commanding licenser in overt syntax. Another argument turns on a yes-no question with a wh-word as its subject as shown below:. (30) *Shéi xiǎng chī shuǐguǒ who want eat fruit 'Does anyone want to eat fruits?'. ma? Q. The yes-no question marker ma in C(omplementizer) c-commands wh-word shei ‘who’ in subject position, but the sentence is ungrammatical. An indefinite wh-word needs both a binder and a licenser and ma can only serves as a licenser. This is why subject wh-words cannot have an existential reading. Subject wh-words fall out of 22.

(31) existential closure which applies to VP only. As a result, subject wh-words cannot receive quantificational force and the sentence remains ungrammatical even if the ccommand requirement is met. Cheng (1994) claims that the licensers for wh-words in Mandarin Chinese are the wh-question-particle, dou, the yes-no question particle, a A-not-A question marker, and negation for different readings of wh-words as demonstrated in Table 2 below:. Table 2 Various readings of wh-words and their licensers (triggers) and binders proposed in Cheng (1994) Readings. Licensers. Binders. Interrogative. Wh-question-particle. Wh-question-particle. Universal. dōu. dōu. Existential. Yes-no particle, A-not-A. VP existential closure. question marker, Negation. Although Cheng’s (1994) analysis mainly deals with the existential wh-words in Mandarin Chinese, it sheds light on the understanding of licensing contexts of whwords in TSM. Whether Cheng’s (1994) analysis can be adopted completely to cover the existential wh-words in TSM will be probed into in the next chapter.. 2.2.3 Lin’s (1996) Analysis. ‘No Entailment of Existence Condition’ (NEEC) proposed by Lin (1996:119(46)) is given below: (EPW stands for Existential Polarity Wh-words.). 23.

(32) (31) Non-Entailment-of-Existence Condition on EPWs The use of an EPW is felicitous if the proposition in which the EPW appears does not entail existence of a referent satisfying the description of the EPW.. NEEC constraint roughly amounts to Giannakidou’s Nonveridicality analysis. They are different only because NEEC deals exclusively with EPWs. Lin further points out that if this hypothesis is correct, it will be plausible to regard Chinese EPWs as the weakest type of NPIs in natural language in that they only need to satisfy the non-entailment-of-existence condition. Non-factive verb complements are examples of NEEC as illustrated by the following examples in Mandarin Chinese:. Non-factive verb complements:. (32) a. Lǐsì. yǐwéi. nǐ. dǎpò. shénme (dōngxī)?/.. Lisi think you break what (thing) ‘What did Lisi think you broke?’ ‘Lisi mistakenly thought you broke something.’ b. Lǐsì huáiyí nǐ dǎpò shénme (dōngxī)?/. Lisi suspect you break what (thing) ‘What does Lisi suspect you have broken?’ ‘Lisi suspects you have broken something.’. 2.3 The Licensing Wh-words in Taiwanese Southern Min. Although the studies of wh-words in TSM are relatively rare, Hsiao (2003) provides insights into the mechanisms of wh-words in TSM. Hsiao (2003) gives a list of wh-elements in English, Mandarin Chinese and 24.

(33) Taiwanese3:. Table 3 Wh-elements in English, Mandarin Chinese and TSM (Hsiao 2003). English. Mandarin Chinese. Holo Taiwanese. ‘who’. shéi, shénme rén. siáng, siáⁿ(-mi̍ h) lâng. ‘what’. shénme/shá (colloquial). siáⁿ(-mi̍ h). ‘when’. shénme shíhòu. siáⁿ(-mi̍ h) sî-chūn, tang-sî, tī (tang)- sî. ‘where’. shénme dìfāng, nǎér, nǎlǐ. siáⁿ(-mi̍ h), só͘-chāi, tó(-ūi). ‘how’. zěn(me)yàng, zěn(me). chóaⁿ-iūⁿ, àn-chóaⁿ-( iūⁿ), ànchóaⁿ, àn-ná. ‘how(many)’. duō(me). gōa. ‘why’. wéishénme, zěnme. ūi-siáⁿ-mi̍ h, àn-chóaⁿ, ná, thah4. Taiwanese wh-words, like their counterparts in Mandarin Chinese, also have whinterrogative readings, universal readings, and existential readings in Hsiao’s (2003) analysis:. Interrogative Reading (33) a. Chi-beng tī tó(-ūi)/ siáⁿ-mi̍ h só͘-chāi?. (TSM). Chibeng at which place/what place ‘Where is Chibeng?’. 3. Hsiao (2003) uses ‘Holo Taiwanese’, while ‘Taiwanese Southern Min’ is employed in this research. 25.

(34) Universal Reading b. Siáⁿ lâng lóng cháu bô what man all run NEG-have ‘Nobody runs faster than he does.’. i (s)he. hiah kín. that fast. (TSM). Existential Reading c. Lí ài siáⁿ-mi̍ h you want what ‘Do you want anything?’. bô? Q. (TSM). (TSM) d. Lí nā khòaⁿ-tio̍h siáⁿ-mi̍ h, ài you if see-arrive what have-to ‘If you see anything, do tell me.’. kā góa kóng. KA I tell (TSM). e. I bô kah siáng/ siáⁿ -lâng ū kim-chîⁿ lâi-ong. (s)he NEG-have with who/what person have money come-go ‘(S)he doesn’t have any financial affairs with anyone.’. (33a) and (33b) display a wh-interrogative reading and a universal reading respectively. As for the existential readings, the licensing contexts include yes-no question in (33c), conditionals in (33d), and negation in (33e). Seemingly, (34a) seems to be a yes-no question, but the answer to it will not be either yes or no as shown below:. (34) A: Lí ài siáⁿ you want what ‘Do you want anything?’. bô? Q. B: *Ū/bô. have/NEG-have ‘Yes, I do/No, I don’t.’. 26. (TSM).

(35) Among the licensing contexts, Hsiao (2003) points out that it is not always easy for a wh-word occurring with m̄ to get an existential reading: (Hsiao 2003) (35) I m̄ (khéng) chia̍h siáⁿ? (s)he NEG be-willing-to eat what ‘What is (s)he not willing to eat?’ (preferred reading) ‘(S)he won’t eat anything.’. (TSM). On the other hand, she also indicates that not all cases of m̄ are defective in licensing an indefinite wh-word. (Hsiao 2003) (36) a. I m̄-bat khì tó chhit-thô. (s)he NEG-ever go where travel-for-pleasure ‘(S)he has never gone to any place special to travel for pleasure.’. (TSM). b. Kin-á-ji̍ t chin sio-jo̍ah, (m̄-)bián ke chhēng siáⁿ. today very warm (NEG-)need more wear what ‘It is warm today; it’s not necessary to wear anything special more.’. ‘Volition’ is mentioned to be the key factor in her analysis. The negation m̄ with volition cannot license an indefinite wh-word easily. Sound as the analysis is, we find that m̄ without volition does not necessarily license wh-words.. (37) a.*I (s)he. m̄-bat NEG-know. siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng. what people. (TSM). ‘(S)he does not know any people.’ (Intended meaning) b.*I m̄-chai-iáⁿ siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng. (s)he NEG-know what people ‘(S)he does not know any people.’ (Intended meaning) 27. (TSM).

(36) If ‘volition’ is what determines whether a wh-word is interpreted as existential or not, then the contrast between (36) and (37) cannot be explained. This issue still needs further investigation in the next chapter.. 2.4 Summary. In this chapter, I have discussed properties and previous analyses of the licensing contexts such as downward-entailing and nonveridicality for NPIs in English. The latter proves to be a better theory in covering the licensing contexts of NPIs. The syntactic approach is also introduced to deal with long-distance licensing. As for the licensing of wh-words in Mandarin Chinese, Li’s (1992), Cheng’s (1994) and Lin’s (1996) analyses are reviewed. Cheng (1994) argues against Li’s (1992) analysis and treats the yes-no question particles, A-no-A question markers, negation markers, and other negative-like operator as binders determining the quantificational force of indefinite wh-words. She differentiates the licenser and the binder to explain the limited scope of wh-words. However, the requirement of c-command at S-structure proposed by Li (1992) is also insightful. Lin’s (1996) ‘No Entailment of Existence Condition’ (NEEC) corroborates nonveridicality. Hsiao’s (2003) analysis on wh-words in TSM is also valuable. The licensing by negation is not as straightforward as Mandarin Chinese. In the next chapter, I will examine the Taiwanese data under previous analyses and propose a more comprehensive account.. 28.

(37) Chapter 3 Toward a Solution. In this chapter I will revise the analyses of the licensing contexts of wh-words in TSM. In section 3.1, the licensing contexts of interrogative, universal and existential wh-words will be discussed. In section 3.2, the structural requirements of wh-words will be taken into consideration. I also deal with the licensing of the NPI jīm-hô ‘any’ in section 3.3. Finally, a brief summary will be given in section 3.4.. 3.1 The Licensing Contexts of Wh-words in TSM. In this section, I will first deal with the licensing contexts of interrogative whwords in TSM.. 3.1.1 The Licensing Contexts of Interrogative and Universal Whwords in TSM. So far Cheng’s (1994) classifications of various readings of wh-words and their licensers and binders have explained most of the data. It applies to Taiwanese whwords as well. The following examples show that the interrogative readings and the universal readings of Taiwanese wh-words exist in different licensing contexts with their respective licensers:. 29.

(38) (Hsiao 2003) (1) Cha-hng siáng/siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng lâi? yesterday who/what man come ‘Who came yesterday?’. (TSM). (2) Siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng lóng cháu bô what man all run NEG-have ‘Nobody runs faster than he does.’. i (s)he. hiah kín. that fast. (TSM). Taiwanese wh-words siáng/siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng ‘any people’ gets an interrogative reading in (1) and a universal reading in the scope of a universal licenser such as lóng ‘all’ in (2). This study follows Cheng’s (1994) in assuming the universal licenser lóng ‘all’ is also the binder of wh-words in TSM. Note that while Mandarin Chinese has a wh-question-particle, i.e. ne, there is actually no wh-question-particle in TSM, as shown in (3):. (3) a. Lí you. tiong-tàu chia̍h noon eat. siáⁿ? what. (TSM). ‘What did you eat for lunch?’ b. Lí beh khì tó-ūi? you want go where ‘Where do you want to go?’. (TSM). In Cheng’s analysis, a wh-question-particle serves as both a licenser and a binder for wh-words in Mandarin Chinese. By contrast, no such a particle exists on the surface structure of (3) in TSM. The attainment of the interrogative reading can’t be explained. Following Hsiao’s (2003) approach, I propose that there exists a null whquestion-particle in C(omplementizer) to license and bind the wh-word since the first wh-word in (4) is always interpreted as an interrogative: 30.

(39) (4) Shéi bù. xiǎng. mǎi shénme?. (Hsiao 2003). who NEG want buy what ‘Who didn’t want to buy what?’ ‘Who didn’t want to buy anything?’. The same applies to TSM.. (5) Siáng bô beh who NEG-have want ‘Who didn’t want to buy what?’. bé siáⁿ? buy what. (TSM). ‘Who didn’t want to buy anything?’. In such a sentence, a null wh-question-particle is there to license the wh-word in both subject and object positions. As for the second wh-word in (5), the attainment of the existential reading depends on the other licenser, negation. The tree structure of (5) below demonstrates that the null interrogative particle under C c-commands the wh-words in both subject and object positions. This explains why the subject wh-word is always interpreted interrogative and the object wh-word either interrogative or existential. Note that the subject wh-word is out of the domain of the negation bô and is thus interpreted only as interrogative.. 31.

(40) (6). 3.1.2 The Licensing Contexts of Existential Wh-words in TSM. 3.1.2.1 Yes-no Question Particles. As mentioned in chapter 2, Taiwanese wh-words with an existential reading appear in the same negative polarity contexts, such as yes-no questions, conditionals and negations. The analysis of the licensing contexts involving a yes-no question needs a revision as well.. 32.

(41) Yes-no Question. (7) Lí kám beh chia̍h siáⁿ? you Q want eat what ‘Do you want to eat something?’. (TSM). As (7) illustrates, kám ‘Q’ is another licenser for an existential wh-word. Without kám ‘Q’, the existential reading is not possible to attain:. (8). Lí beh you want. chia̍h eat. siáⁿ? what. (TSM). ‘What do you want to eat?’. The existential reading is lost once kám ‘Q’ is not present in (8).. 3.1.2.2 (Negation) + Modality. On the other hand, the licensing of wh-words by negation in TSM is not as simple as Cheng’s (1994) analysis proposes for Mandarin. As mentioned in the previous chapter, an existential reading for a wh-word licensed by m̄ cannot be easily attained. For example, the wh-word siáⁿ(-mi̍ h) ‘what’ is not interpreted as existential in (9):. (Hsiao 2003) (9) I m̄ (khéng) chia̍h (s)he NEG be-willing-to eat ‘What is (s)he not willing to eat?’. siáⁿ? what. 33. (TSM).

(42) It has also been mentioned in the last chapter that ‘volition’ does not license existential wh-words. The contrast between (10a) and (10b), on the one hand, and (11a) and (11b), on the other, below shows that some modality or aspect plus a negation play a role in licensing existential wh-words: (Hsiao 2003) (10) a. I. m̄-bat. khì tó. chhit-thô.. (TSM). (s)he NEG-ever go where travel-for-pleasure ‘(S)he has never gone to any place special to travel for pleasure.’ (TSM) b. Kin-á-jit today. chin sio-jo̍ah, (m̄-)bián very warm (NEG-)need. ke chhēng more wear. siáⁿ. what. ‘It is warm today; it’s not necessary to wear anything special more.’. (11) a.*I m̄-bat siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng. (s)he NEG-know what people ‘(S)he does not know any people.’ (Intended meaning). (TSM). b.*I m̄-chai-iáⁿ siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng. (s)he NEG-know what people ‘(S)he does not know any people.’ (Intended meaning). (TSM). M̄-bat ‘NEG-ever’ and (m̄-)bián ‘(NEG-)need’ in (10a) and (10b) involve modality/aspect plus a negation while m̄-bat ‘NEG-know’ and m̄-chai-iáⁿ ‘NEGknow’ in (11a) and (11b) are verbs plus a negation. Among all the other negations which license existential wh-words in TSM, bô ‘NEG-have’ also licenses existential wh-words while bē ‘NEG-will’ cannot. The examples of bô ‘NEG-have’ and bē ‘NEG-will’ are as follows:. 34.

(43) (12) a. I. bô. khì tó-ūi./?. (TSM). (s)he NEG-have go where ‘(S)he did not go anywhere.’ ‘Where did (s)he not go?’ b. I bē khì tó-ūi?/*. (s)he NEG-will go where ‘Where won’t (s)he go?’. (TSM). From the examples (10a), (10b), (12a), and (12b), we find that negations that license existential wh-words are: m̄-bat ‘NEG-ever’, (m̄-)bián ‘(NEG-) need’, and bô ‘NEGhave’. What makes them qualified licensers of existential wh-words? Hsiao’s (2003) analysis of Mandarin Chinese helps to shed some light on the problem. In her analysis, the types of modal do play an important role in licensing negative polarity items. According to Hsiao, Mandarin modals like bùmiǎn/miǎn bùliǎo/nánmiǎn ‘hard to avoid’, and nándé/hěnshǎo ‘rarely’ are EPISTEMIC modality and can license existential wh-words. She further indicates that these modals involve inherent negations and the licensers in the sentences with inherent negations are not negation but modality. A relevant example is provided below: (Hsiao 2003) (13) Xiàng tā zhèyàngzǐ, bùmiǎn /nánmiǎn /miǎnbùliǎo like (s)he this-way hard-to-avoid shéi yào shuō xiánhuà. who want say gossip ‘For a person like him, it is hard to avoid that somebody gossips about him.’. The corresponding sentence in TSM is acceptable, too.. 35.

(44) (14) Chhin-chhiūⁿ i. án-ne,. lân-bián/bōe-bián--tit.. (TSM). like (s)he this-way hard-to-avoid siáng ē kóng êng-á-ōe. who will say gossip ‘For a person like him, it is hard to avoid that somebody gossips about him.’. Hsiao (2003) also mentions that positive modals referring to epistemic possibility or probability can license existential wh-words as shown below:. (15) a. Zhāngsān zhēnde dézuì-le shéi. Zhangsan really offend-ASP who ‘It is true that Zhangsan offended someone.’ b. Zhāngsān yīdìng dézuì-le shéi. Zhangsan must offend-ASP who ‘Zhangsan must have offended someone.’. (Hsiao 2003) (probability). (probability). The corresponding sentences in TSM are as follows: (16) a. A-káu chiâⁿ-si̍ t tek-chōe-tio̍h siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng. A-káu really offend-arrive what people ‘It is true that A-káu offended someone.’ b. A-káu it-tēng tek-chōe-tio̍h A-káu must offend-arrive ‘A-káu must have offended someone.’. siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng. what people. (TSM). (TSM). As shown in (16a) and (16b), the positive modals chin-tiuⁿ ‘really’ and it-tēng ‘must’ do not need to be attached by the negation m̄. Looking back at the four negations m̄-bat ‘NEG-ever’, (m̄-)bián ‘NEG-need’, and bô ‘NEG-have’, we find that none of them are epistemic modals. The negation (m̄-)bián ‘NEG-need’ involves necessity in Hsiao’s (2003) analysis. Besides, the positive counterpart of (m̄-)bián ‘NEG-need’ is pit-su ‘must’, which is a 36.

(45) deontic modal4. The negation m̄ is optional, which is a fact not discussed in Hsiao’s (2003) analysis. On the other hand, bat in m̄-bat ‘NEG-ever’, is not an epistemic modal, either. Using Hsiao’s (2003) proposal of epistemic modals cannot explain it. We need to refer to Li’s (1992) analysis of indefinite wh-words in Mandarin Chinese mentioned in chapter 2. In her analysis, the circumstantial le is said to be one of the licensers. Among the many uses of le, according to Li and Thompson (1981), one is to denote the speakers’ realization that a change of state has occurred or an event has happened. Bat ‘ever’ is semantically similar and defined as ‘to have done a thing’ by Douglas (1873:13). I will show this has to do with the [+completive] aspectual meaning below. Still, bat ‘ever’5 needs to be attached by a negation m̄ to license existential wh-words. To explain why bô ‘NEG-have’ licenses existential wh-words in TSM, we need to refer to Lin’s (2004) analysis of negations in TSM. She proposes that the negation m̄, which is a syntactic negation, contains a modal, which could be beh ‘want’ or something else abstract as shown in (17):. 4. In Hsiao’s (2003) analysis, epistemic modality is concerned with the speaker’s judgments about the. probability of the truth of the proposition expressed. Deontic modality refers to the logic of obligation, forbidden and permission, command. Dynamic modality refers to ability, willingness, and intention. 5. Though there are some disagreements as to whether the modal bat ‘ever’ should license existential. wh-words or not, this study treats the modal bat ‘ever’ as a licenser of existential wh-words. However, there is no consensus on whether the dynamic modal khéng ‘willing’ can license existential wh-words or not. The following sentence is not universally accepted.. (i). %I m̄ khéng chò siáⁿ-mi̍ h tāi-chì, lí pài-thok i (s)he NEG willing do what thing you request (s)he ‘(S)he is not willing to do anything; Thus, it is useless to request him/her.’. mā ma. bô-hāu. vain. The problem still needs further research. In this study, I take epistemic modals as the licensers of existential wh-words in TSM. 37.

(46)  m̄. (17) a. m̄ + beh. Lin (2004).  m̄. m̄ + abstract modal.  bô  bē  mài. b. m̄ + ū m̄ + ē m̄ + ài. On the other hand, bô ‘NEG-have’ is composed of m̄ and the modal ū ‘have’. Li (1971) also mentions that the modal ū ‘have’ is the affirmative counterpart of bô ‘NEG-have’. If we refer to Li’s (1971) analysis of negations in TSM as demonstrated below, why bô ‘NEG-have’ serves as the licenser for an existential wh-word is clearly answered:. (Li 1971) (18) bô ‘NEG-have’ +neg +completive +existence +V -___[-transition] +___Adj +___NP +___PP +___Aux +___VM. m̄-1 ‘not-want’ +neg -completive. m̄-2 ‘not’ +neg -completive. -existence +V -___[-transition] +___Adj -___NP +___PP. -existence -V +___[-transition] -___Adj -___NP -___PP -___Aux -___VM -volition +Neg. In Li’s (1971) analysis of negations in TSM, the semantic features of bô ‘NEG-have’ contains the aspectual feature [+completive]. Bô ‘NEG-have’ is semantically similar to m̄-bat ‘NEG-ever’. They both mean something has not been done, which explains why bô ‘NEG-have’ licenses existential wh-words. 38.

(47) Notice that the negation bē ‘NEG-will’ is composed of m̄ and the modal ē ‘will’. The semantic features of the modal e ‘will’ are mentioned in Li’s (1971) analysis as follows:. (19) ē ‘will’ +v +probability +neg. (Li 1971). Probability is one of the semantic features of epistemic modals. Why the negation bē ‘NEG-will’ cannot license existential wh-words may be due to the attachment of negation. That is, an epistemic modal alone is enough to license existential wh-words. Further investigation is needed. From the analysis of m̄-bat ‘NEG-ever’ and bô ‘NEG-have’ mentioned above, we conclude that the negation m̄ plus an aspectual feature labelled [+completive] is a licenser of existential wh-words and from (m̄-)bián ‘NEG-need’ we reason that the negation m̄ plus a deontic modal is also a licenser of existential wh-words. The licensing contexts of existential wh-words which involve modals in TSM are summarized as follows:. (20) epistemic modals e.g. lân-bián/bōe-bián--tit ‘hard to avoid’, chiâⁿ-si̍ t ‘really’ m̄ + aspect [+completive] e.g. m̄-bat ‘NEG-ever’, bô ‘NEG-have’. m̄ + deontic e.g. (m̄-)bián ‘NEG-need’. 39.

(48) It’s obvious that unlike epistemic modals, deontic modals and aspectual bat ‘ever’ and ū ‘have’ need to be attached by the negation m̄ to license existential whwords. Tsai (2010) investigates various syntactic properties of Chinese modals and their correspondence in the interpretative component. The spectrum of modality across functional projections is as follows: (Tsai 2010) (21). In (21), the epistemic modals occupy the top position while the other two modals, deontic and dynamic, are at lower positions. The former, but not the latter may involve VP closure, which serves a binder for the wh-word in an object position. This may explain why epistemic modals without negation can license existential wh-words which serve as objects while deontic modals must be attached by a negation m̄. Dynamic modals, at the lowest position of the tree, cannot license existential whwords either with or without a negation m̄. 40.

(49) There are some counterexamples in which a deontic modal with a negation cannot license existential wh-words.. (22) I bô èng-kai (s)he NEG-have should ‘What must (s)he not eat?’. chia̍h eat. siáⁿ-mi̍ h?/*. what. (TSM). As shown in (22), the deontic modal èng-kai ‘should’ with the negation bô ‘NEGhave’ cannot license siáⁿ-mi̍ h ‘what’. In fact, there is some nuance between èng-kai ‘should’ and (m̄-)bián ‘NEGneed’. As Radford (2009) points out, the interpretations of the following negative sentences in English below are different: (Radford 2009) (23) a. You must not do that (=’It is necessary for you not to do that’) b. You need not do that (=’It is not necessary for you to do that’). The weak type of deontic modal (m̄-)bián ‘NEG-need’ is like ‘it is not necessary for you to do that’ while the strong type bô èng-kai ‘NEG should’ is tantamount to ‘it is necessary for you not to do that’. It seems that the modality needs to license existential wh-words before it combines with negation. Further research is needed. As for m̄-bat ‘NEG-know’ and m̄-chai-iáⁿ ‘NEG-know’, they are considered to be lexical negations6. The answers to questions (24a) and (24b) below prove that m̄bat ‘NEG-know’ and m̄-chai-iáⁿ ‘NEG-know’ are lexical negations.. 6. Lin (2004) claims that while on the surface there seem to be two m̄’s, underlyingly only the simple m̄. exists and she points out that ‘the simple m̄ attaches to some exceptional verbs in the lexicon and is inserted as a whole under a V node in syntax. M̄ can also be inserted alone under a NEG node that is subcategorized for an MP headed by beh ‘want’ or other abstract modals.’ 41.

(50) (24) a. A: I kám bat siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng? (s)he Q know what people ‘Does (s)he know any people?’. (TSM). B: M̄-bat. NEG-know ‘No, (s)he doesn’t.’ *M̄. NEG ‘No, (s)he doesn’t.’. b. A: I. kám chai-iáⁿ siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng?. (s)he Q know what ‘Does (s)he know any people?’. (TSM). people. B: M̄-chai-iáⁿ. NEG-know ‘No, (s)he doesn’t.’ *M̄. NEG ‘No, (s)he doesn’t.’. c. A: I kám bat khì tó chhit-thô? (s)he Q ever go where travel-for-pleasure ‘Has (s)he ever traveled anywhere for pleasure?’. (TSM). B: M̄-bat. NEG-ever ‘No, (s)he has not.’ *M̄. NEG ‘No, (s)he has not.’ d. A: Bîn-á-chài kám ài ke chhēng tomorrow Q must more wear ‘Is it necessary to wear more clothes?’ 42. saⁿ? clothes. (TSM).

(51) B: (M̄-)bián. (NEG-)need ‘No, it’s not necessary.’ *M̄. NEG ‘No, it’s not necessary.’. Notice that m̄-bat ‘NEG-ever’ and (m̄-)bián ‘(NEG)-need’ in (25c) and (25d) cannot be separated, either. Then the question comes to whether m̄-bat ‘NEG-ever’ and (m̄-)bián ‘NEGneed’are lexical negations or epistemic modals. After all, if m̄-bat ‘NEG-ever’ as well as (m̄-)bián ‘NEG-need’ in (10a) and (10b) and m̄-bat ‘NEG-know’ as well as m̄-chaiiáⁿ ‘NEG-know’ in (11a) and (11b) are all lexical negations, then why the former can be the licensers for wh-word in TSM while the latter cannot. My answer is that m̄-bat ‘NEG-ever’ and (m̄-)bián ‘NEG-need’ involve lexical negations and epistemic modals at the same time. Following Lin’s (2004) spirit7, I assume m̄-A is inserted under any node that is suitable for A. The node is subcategorized for by an NEG node so that the [+NEG] feature of m̄-A can be checked by the NEG node. The tree structure of (10a) and (11a) should be (25a) and (25b) below respectively:. 7. In Lin’s (2004) analysis, among the lexical negations in TSM, m̄ in A-m̄ is the head. As for m̄-A, it is. headed by A and thus has the same category as A. 43.

(52) (25) a.. b.. As for (9), the reason why the wh-word in (9) is not interpreted existentially is that khéng ‘willing’ is a dynamic modal, which does not license existential wh-words. (Hsiao 2003) More examples of deontic and dynamic modals are listed below. As demonstrated below, the deontic modality èng-kai ‘should’ alone in (26a) and dynamic modal ē-tàng ‘can’ in (26b) cannot license siáⁿ-mi̍ h ‘what’:. (26) a. *Lí èng-kai pôe góa siáⁿ-mi̍ h sún-sit. you should pay I what damage ‘You should pay me for any damage.’ 44. (TSM).

(53) b. *Lí ē-tàng pê góa siáⁿ-mi̍ h sún-sit. you can pay I what damage ‘You can pay me for any damage.’. (TSM). As for another negation mài ‘NEG-want’, which involves an imperative reading, the wh-word siáⁿ-mi̍ h ‘what’ simply cannot fit in with it.. (27) a.*Lí. chia̍h. mài. siáⁿ-mi̍ h.. (TSM). you NEG-want eat what ‘Don’t eat anything.’ (Intended reading). b.*Kiò i ask (s)he. mài. khì tó-ūi.. NEG-want. go. (TSM). where. ‘Ask him/her not to go anywhere’ (Intended reading). Based on (17), the negation mài ‘NEG-want’ can be divided into m̄ and ài. À i ‘willing’ involves dynamic modality, which explains why mài ‘NEG-want’ cannot be a licenser of existential wh-words.. 3.1.2.3 Non-Factive Verbs. In fact, not only positive epistemic modals like chin-tiuⁿ ‘really’ and it-tēng ‘must’ license existential wh-words, some non-factive verbs do as well. Consider the non-factive verbs kioh-sī/ioh ‘assume/guess’ in (28) below:. 45.

(54) (28) I. kioh-sī /ioh. lí. khòaⁿ-tio̍h. siáⁿ-mi̍ h mi̍ h-kiāⁿ.. (s)he assume/guess you see-arrive what ‘(S)he assume/guess you have seen something.’. (TSM). thing. Notice that modals like chin-tiuⁿ ‘really’ and it-tēng ‘must’ and verbs like kiohsī/ioh ‘assume/guess’ are all non-factive. We draw the conclusion that among all the licensers of existential wh-words, non-factive modals or verbs need not be attached by the negation m̄, and neither do kám ‘Q’. Only a deontic modal and aspect with the feature [+completive] must be attached by the negation m̄. It is also obvious that the licensers of existential wh-words do not necessarily contain a negation. We then consider wh-words the weakest type of NPIs or we can call them polarity items instead of NPIs. This point of view conforms to Lin’s (1996) NEEC mentioned in 2.2.3.. 3.2 Structural Requirements on Wh-words. 3.2.1 C-command at S-structure. As mentioned in 2.2.1, Li (1992) proposes an S-structure c-command requirement between licensers and wh-words in Mandarin Chinese. That is, the availability of existential wh-words hinges on their occupying a certain structural position with the presence of licensers. Examples in TSM are as follows:. (29) a. Siáng bô lâi? who NEG-have come ‘Who did not come?’ *‘Anyone did not come.’. (TSM). 46.

(55) b. Siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng bô what people NEG-have ‘Who does not like this book?’ *‘Anyone does not like this book.’. c. Lí ài siáⁿ-mi̍ h you want what ‘Do you want anything?’. kah-ì like. chit pún chheh? this CL book. bô? Q. (TSM). (TSM). In (29a) and (29b), wh-words siáng ‘who’ and siáⁿ-mi̍ h ‘what’ are situated at [Spec, IP] and thus fall out of the domain of negation bô ‘NEG-have’. Since the negation bô ‘NEG-have’ does not license the wh-words, the null wh-question-particle becomes the only licenser. Therefore, the interrogative reading is derived. As for (29c), since the negative question particle bô appears at the same position as the null wh-questionparticle does, bô c-commands siáⁿ-mi̍ h ‘what’. The existential reading is thus derived. Besides negation, the other licensers such as conditionals also observe the structural requirement.. (TSM) (30) a. Nā-sī ū siáng kah-ì i, lí ài if have who like him you must ‘If someone likes him, you must tell me.’. kā góa kóng. KA I tell (TSM). b. *Nā-sī góa chhòng-tī i,. i. ē. kā. siáng. kóng góa-e pháiⁿ-ōe.. if I tease him he will KA who tell ‘If I tease him, he will speak ill of me to someone.’. my bad words. The c-command requirements also apply to another licenser, the non-factive verbs in (31): 47.

(56) (TSM) (31) a. I kioh-sī /ioh lí khòaⁿ-tio̍h (s)he assume/guess you see-arrive ‘(S)he assume/guess you have seen something.’. siáⁿ-mi̍ h mi̍ h-kiāⁿ. what thing (TSM). b. Siáⁿ-mi̍ h lâng kioh-sī /ioh góa chhòng-tī i. what people assume/guess I tease him ‘Who assume/guess I tease him?’. 3.2.2 Long-Distance Licensing. As mentioned in chapter 2, Progovac’s (1994) binding approach includes two raising options8. Seemingly, the existential wh-words in TSM can be granted one of the raising options: to move through the Spec of Comp. The contrast between (32a) and (32b) shows that the licenser of the existential wh-word siáⁿ-mi̍ h ‘what’ is the superordinate negation bô ‘NEG-have’.. 8. In Mandarin Chinese, a superordinate negation cannot license a wh-word as follows:. (ii) *Wǒ I. méiyǒu. gàosù-guò tā. did-not. tell-ASP. nǐ. zuò rènhé shìqíng.. (s)he you do. (Progovac 1988). any matter. ‘I did not tell him that you did anything.’ To deal with such inconsistency between NPIs in these two languages, Progovac (1988) proposes that there exist two raising options: to move through the Spec of Comp, or to IP-adjoin. She further proposes some NPIs are not granted both options. Renhe in Mandarin Chinese is granted only the option of IP-adjoining and thus superordinate negation falls out of the domain of renhe.. 48.

(57) (32) a. *Góa kìm-chí. i. chia̍h. siáⁿ-mi̍ h mi̍ h-kiāⁿ.. I forbid (s)he eat ‘I forbid him/her to eat any food.’. b. Góa bô. kìm-chí i. I NEG-have forbid (s)he ‘I forbid him/her to eat any food.’. (TSM). what. thing. chia̍h. siáⁿ-mi̍ h mi̍ h-kiāⁿ.. eat. what. (TSM). thing. On the other hand, a wh-word can be licensed without negation as well.. (TSM) (33) I kioh-sī /ioh lí khòaⁿ-tio̍h siáⁿ-mi̍ h mi̍ h-kiāⁿ./? (s)he assume/guess you see-arrive what thing ‘(S)he assume/guess you have seen something.’ ‘What does (s)he assume/guess you have seen?’. Example (33) shows that the licensers kioh-sī /ioh ‘assume/guess’ outside the local CP license siáⁿ-mi̍ h ‘what’. So far the data in TSM are consistent with Progovac’s (1994) binding approach. However, no movement of shenme ‘what’ in Mandarin Chinese is evident since they do not show island effects as shown below:. (34) Wǒ bù I NEG shuōfǎ]]].. xiàngxìn [NP[CP[IP tā qù-guò believe (s)he go-ASP. shénme dìfāng what place. statement ‘I don’t believe the claim that (s)he has been to any place.’. 49. DE de.

(58) The corresponding sentence in TSM is demonstrated below: (TSM) (35) Góa (bô) siong-sìn i ū khìsiáⁿ-mi̍ h só͘-chāi I (NEG-have) believe (s)he have go what place ‘I (don’t) believe the claim that (s)he has been to any place.’. ē e. kóng-hoat. statement. As proven above, no island effects exist. Thus, movement of siáⁿ-mi̍ h ‘what’ is not possible, either. Note that movement of an in-situ interrogative wh-word at LF is being challenged in the literature. Lin (2014) indicates that there is no satisfactory answer to the long-standing question of why covert movement is not constrained in the same way as overt movement. For example, it has been widely acknowledged that covert LF movement appears to be insensitive to certain regular constraints on overt whmovement, such as subjacency. Lin (2014) further provides some arguments against LF wh-movement. For instance, it has been observed that the focus adverb only may not be associated with a phrase moving across it in overt syntax as the contrast between (36a) and (36b) shows.. (36) a. Maryi, he only like xi. b. *Whoi does he only like xi? (Aoun and Li 1993:206). Aoun and Li (1993) observe that a wh in situ may be associated with zhi ‘only’ as in (37).. 50.

(59) (37) Tā zhī. xǐhuān. shéi?. he only like who ‘Who does he only like?’. Such examples are taken as evidence that in situ wh-words do not undergo covert movement to SpecCP. A second argument against LF wh-movement comes from Wu’s (1999) discussion of patterns of across-the-board interpretation.. (38) Zhāngsān xǐhuān Zhangsan like (i) (ii). shénme, Lǐsì bù xǐhuān what Lisi not like. shénme? what. (Wu 1999). ‘*What does Zhangsan like but Lisi does not like?’ ‘What does Zhangsan like and what does Lisi not like?’. (39) Shénmei Zhāngsān xǐhuān ei, Lǐsì bù xǐhuān ei. what Zhangsan like Lisi not like (i) ‘What does Zhangsan like but Lisi does not like?’ (ii) ‘*What does Zhangsan like, what does Lisi not like?’. Wu points out that if covert wh-movement exists, it is surprising that (38) lacks the across-the-board interpretation that is licensed by overt movement in (39). Given the fact that no movement exists for the interrogative reading, Progovac’s (1994) movement analysis of the existential reading may be dubious as well. The licensers should be the non-factive verbs kioh-sī ‘assume’ and ioh ‘guess’. And as long as the non-factive verbs kioh-sī ‘assume’ and ioh ‘guess’ c-command the existential wh-words, the sentences are grammatical.. 51.

(60) 3.2.3 Minimality. In section 3.1, I adopt Cheng’s (1994) analysis to deal with the distribution of existential wh-words in TSM and make revisions in the analyses of the licensers. It has been mentioned that bô ‘NEG-have’ serves as the licenser for existential whwords. In (40a) and (40b) below, however, not only the existential but also the interrogative reading is attained. The phenomenon is natural since two licensers coexist: negation and the null interrogative particle.. siáⁿ-mi̍ h./? what. (40) a. I bô kah-ì (s)he NEG-have like ‘(S)he doesn’t like anything.’ ‘What doesn’t (s)he like?’. b. I. bô. chia̍h. (s)he NEG-have eat ‘(S)he does not eat anything.’ ‘What does (s)he not eat?’. siáⁿ-mi̍ h./?. (TSM). (TSM). what. In (40a) and (40b), the wh-word siáⁿ-mi̍ h ‘what’ is in the domain of negation and bound by the VP existential closure. Alternatively, it can also be licensed by a null interrogative particle. The availability of both existential and interrogative readings is thus explained. The two readings, however, will not always be available in the following constructions9:. 9. There are some examples in which the interrogative reading is lost. For example,. 52.