Focus Manifestation in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese: A Comparative Perspective 1138568112, 9781138568112

Citation preview

 i

Focus Manifestation in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese

One prominent function of natural language is to convey information. One peculiarity is that it does not do so randomly but in a structured way, with information structuring formally recognized to be a component of grammar. Among all information structuring notions, focus is one primitive needed to account for all phenomena. Focus Manifestation in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese: A Comparative Perspective aims to examine from a semantic perspective how syntactic structures and focus adverbs in Mandarin Chinese and semantic particles in Cantonese conspire to encode focus structures and determine focus manifestation in Chinese. With both being tonal languages, Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese manifest different morpho-​syntactic configurations to mark focus. A general principle governing focus marking in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese is given in the book, which aims to give a better understanding of the underlying principles the two use to mark additive and restrictive meanings, and related focus interpretations. Particular attention is also drawn to the co-​occurrence of multiple forms of restrictive and additive particles in Cantonese, including adverbs, verbal suffixes, and sentence-​final particles. Linearity has been shown to be an important parameter to determine how focus is structured in Cantonese. This book is aimed at advanced graduate students, researchers, and scholars working on Chinese linguistics, syntax and semantics, and comparative dialectal grammar. Peppina Po-​lun Lee is Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Translation at City University of Hong Kong. She has published more than 40 research papers in refereed journals and edited books. Her major publications have appeared in Lingua, Linguistics, Journal of Pragmatics, and Language and Linguistics, as well as ZhongguoYuwen (Studies of the Chinese Language) and Dangdai Yuyanxue (Contemporary Linguistics). Specializing in theoretical linguistics, her research interests cover semantics, syntax-​semantics interface, and Chinese and Cantonese linguistics. She has worked on a variety of research topics, including focus and information structure, negation, eventuality, quantification, and particles.

ii

Routledge Studies in Chinese Linguistics Series Editor: Hongming Zhang

Dimensions of Variation in Written Chinese Zheng-​Sheng  Zhang The Semantics of Chinese Classifiers and Linguistic Relativity Song Jiang Mandarin Chinese Words and Parts of Speech A Corpus-​Based Study Chu-​Ren Huang, Shu-​Kai Hsieh, Keh-​Jiann Chen A Study of Sino-​Korean Phonology Its Origin, Adaptation and Layers Youyong Qian Partition and Quantity Numerical Classifiers, Measurement and Partitive Constructions in Mandarin Chinese Jing Jin Mandarin Loanwords Tae Eun Kim Intensification and Modal Necessity in Mandarin Chinese Jiun-​Shiung  Wu The Architecture of Periphery in Chinese Cartography and Minimalism Victor Pan Focus Manifestation in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese A Comparative Perspective Peppina Po-​lun Lee For more information about this series, please visit:  www.routledge.com/​ languages/​series/​RSICL

 iii

Focus Manifestation in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese A Comparative Perspective Peppina Po-​lun Lee

iv

First published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Peppina Po-​lun Lee The right of Peppina Po-​lun Lee to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Lee, Peppina Po-lun, author. Title: Focus manifestation in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese : a comparative perspective / Peppina Po-lun Lee. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2019. | Series: Routledge studies in Chinese linguistics | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018058061 (print) | LCCN 2019001578 (ebook) | ISBN 9781351339674 (pdf) | ISBN 9781351339650 (mobi) | ISBN 9781351339667 (epub) | ISBN 9781138568112 | ISBN 9781138568112q(hardback :qalk. paper) | ISBN 9780203705223q(ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Mandarin dialects–Syntax. | Cantonese dialects–Syntax. Classification: LCC PL1893 (ebook) | LCC PL1893 .L44 2019 (print) | DC 495.15–dc 3 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018058061 ISBN: 978-1-138-56811-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-70522-3 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Newgen Publishing UK

 v

Contents

List of tables  Acknowledgements  List of abbreviations 

viii ix xi

1

Introduction  1.1  The problem  1 1.2  Scope of the study and major ideas to be proposed  3 1.3  Organization  8

1

2

Theoretical background  2.1  Information structure and focus particles  9 2.2  Focus representation and interpretation  13

9

2.2.1  Association with focus  13 2.2.2  Syntax-​semantics mapping of focus  18

2.3  What is special about Cantonese?  22 2.3.1  Some basic facts about Cantonese  22 2.3.2  Post-​verbal particles in Cantonese  24

2.4  The meaning of focus particles in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese: An overview  30 2.4.1  Additives and restrictives in Mandarin  30 2.4.2  Additives and restrictives in Cantonese  33

3

Additive focus particles  3.1  Introduction  37 3.2  Additive focus adverbs in Mandarin Chinese  37 3.2.1  Additive focus adverbs you ‘again’, ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and zai ‘again’  38 3.2.2  A comparison of Mandarin additive adverbs with their Cantonese counterparts  45

3.3  Additive particles in Cantonese  53 3.3.1  Additive Cantonese sentence-​final particle tim1 ‘add’  53 3.3.2  Cantonese additive adverb gau3 ‘enough’  70 3.3.3  Additive verbal suffix -​maai4 ‘also’  96

37

vi

vi Contents 3.4  Summary: What do Cantonese additives and Mandarin additives tell you?  98

4

Restrictive focus particles  4.1  Introduction  103 4.2  Restrictive focus adverbs in Mandarin Chinese  103

103

4.2.1  Restrictive focus adverbs cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’  106 4.2.2  Restrictive focus adverbs zhi (-​you/​-​shi) ‘only (-​have/​-​be)’  118

4.3  Cantonese restrictive sentence-​final particles zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’  120 4.3.1  Previous analyses of the Cantonese restrictive SFPs zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’  121 4.3.2  Reanalysing zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’ under relativist semantic theory  128 4.3.3  A comparison of zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’ with the Mandarin cai ‘only’/​jiu ‘only’ and the Cantonese adverb sin1 ‘only then’  139

4.4  Cantonese restrictive verbal suffix -​dak1 ‘only’  144 4.4.1  Previous analyses of -​dak1 ‘only’  145 4.4.2  Unresolved issues of -​dak1 ‘only’  150 4.4.3  A unified account of -​dak1 ‘only’  152 4.4.4  Focused readings of -​dak1  160

4.5  Restrictive adverbs in Cantonese  162 4.6  What can restrictive particles and additive particles in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese tell you?  167 4.6.1  Restrictive particles in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese  167 4.6.2  Generalizing the picture of focus particles in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese  168

5

Distribution of additives and restrictives in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese  5.1  Introduction  170 5.2  Co-​occurrence of additives in Mandarin and Cantonese and the linearity principle  172 5.3  Distribution of additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles in Mandarin and Cantonese  179 5.3.1  A comparison among gau3 ‘enough’, dou1 ‘also/​even’, -​maai4 ‘also’ and tim1 ‘add’  180 5.3.2  A comparison with the Mandarin dou ‘even/​also’, ye ‘also’, and hai ‘still’  187 5.3.3  The division of labour among Mandarin and Cantonese additives  190

5.4  Co-​occurrence of restrictives in Mandarin and Cantonese and the linearity principle  195 5.5  Distribution of restrictive adverbs and post-​verbal particles in Mandarin and Cantonese  202

170

 vii

Contents vii 5.6  Deriving a general principle of focus marking in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese  208 5.6.1  Shishi…(de) construction in Mandarin – the role of syntax in focus marking  209 5.6.2  Generalizing a principle of focus marking in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese  217

6

Conclusions: Theoretical consequences and implications  6.1  Summary of major findings  220 6.2  Revisiting the general principle of focus marking in Mandarin and Cantonese: What does it imply?  222

220

6.2.1  A matter of interface –​Cantonese versus Mandarin  222 6.2.2  Linearity in focus interpretation in Cantonese  224

6.3  More on the role of syntax in focus manifestation in Mandarin and Cantonese  228 6.4  Future research  233 References  Index 

235 249

viii

Tables

2 .1 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 .1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5 .2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5 .7 5.8 6.1

Uses of Cantonese SPFs The three variants of ye ‘also’ Major categorization of the Mandarin hai ‘still’ The meaning of the Cantonese dou1 ‘also/​even’ in comparison with Mandarin adverbs A summary of different uses of cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ A summary of zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’ Three classes of Mandarin Chinese SFPs Additives in Mandarin and Cantonese and their co-​occurrence patterns Co-​occurrence patterns of additives in Cantonese A comparison among additives gau3, dou1, -​maai4, and tim1 The meaning of the Cantonese dou1 in comparison with Mandarin adverbs The division of labour among Mandarin and Cantonese additives Restrictives in Mandarin and Cantonese and their co-​occurrence patterns Co-​occurrence patterns of restrictives in Cantonese The division of labour among Mandarin and Cantonese restrictives D-​quantification, A-​quantification, and affixal quantification under the two-​process mechanism for quantification

30 40 44 50 117 129 130 173 174 186 188 191 195 197 204 231

 ix

Acknowledgements

My intense interest in the study of focus phenomena grew from my PhD study when I started to examine facts in Chinese. My intention in writing this book was to provide a reliable guide for people who are interested in knowing how syntactic structures and focus particles conspire to encode focus structures and influence focus manifestation in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese. This book gives more emphasis to Cantonese and focus particles, as Cantonese has given lots of interesting facts, which are unattested in Mandarin Chinese. Many people have contributed to the field of Cantonese linguistics in different ways and to different degrees. My desire and aspiration to conduct further research on Cantonese grew because of these people. To begin with, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the group of Cantonese scholars who have been working hard for years to figure out the picture behind Cantonese through generalizing facts at different levels, though I  cannot mention all their names here. Sincere and particular thanks go to Cheung Hung-​nin and Thomas Hun-​tak Lee. Cheung Hung-​nin wrote the first comprehensive book on Cantonese from a structural perspective, and Thomas Hun-​tak Lee contributes to Cantonese and Chinese linguistics from all perspectives, not limited just to language acquisition but including syntax and semantics as well. Their superb standards of scholarship have inspired every student in this field, including myself. Moreover, over the years, Cantonese studies have been benefited from comprehensive work on Cantonese grammar, from the early study by Stephen Matthews and Virginia Yip to the recent examination by Tang Sze-​wing. Comprehensive research on specific topics has also contributed a lot to the field, including the invaluable studies on sentence-​final particles by Helen Kwok, Leung Chung-​sum, Law Sam-​po, Luke Kang-​kwong, and Roxanna Fung, and on Cantonese particles and nominals by Lisa Lai-​shen Cheng and Rint Sybesma. Furthermore, at different stages of my research, tremendous support has been given by Cantonese peers in whatever way. Special words of gratitude go to Kwok Bit-​chee, Paul Law, Andy Chin, and Carine Yuk-​man Yiu, as I have learnt a lot from their enthusiasm towards Cantonese and dialectal studies. Special thanks also go to Lai Yin-​yee and Li Yee-​na, my PhD graduates

x

x Acknowledgements of Cantonese linguistics. As first readers of the manuscript, their feedback meant a lot to me. Additionally, over the years, many people have helped in verifying the Mandarin analysis at different exchanges. I want to thank them all, particularly Pan Haihua, Liu Danqing, Hu Jianhua, and Zhang Lei for the collaborative work with them in papers or edited volumes, and Shi Ding-​xu, Gu Yang, Tsai Wei-​tien Dylan, Lin Jo-​wang, Liu Chen-​sheng, Zhang Qing-​wen, and Shen Yuan for their valuable suggestions at various conferences. It is through the dedicated work of these scholars that the field of Chinese linguistics can continue to develop and grow. Furthermore, grateful and sincere thanks go to the three anonymous reviewers who read the proposals for Routledge and wrote extensive reports. Their invaluable comments have led to significant improvements in the final version. Importantly, sincere and special thanks go to the series editor, Zhang Hong-​ming, who has given me the opportunity to write the book, and for his feedback on and support of my work. Of course, all remaining errors are my own. This book would never have been completed without the financial support for my research provided by City University of Hong Kong through the grants SRG-​Fd 7004738 and SRG-​Fd 7004945, and I would also like to express my gratitude to the editorial assistants, Claire Margerison and Zoe Meyer, who have helped me in many ways until the final stage of publishing. And last, but certainly not least, I want to express my deepest love for my parents. This book is dedicated to them with love and gratitude. Peppina Po-lun Lee August 2018

 xi

newgenprepdf

Abbreviations

CL CLPL COMP DE

Classifier –​ singular Classifier –​  plural Comparative marker Pre-​nominal modification marker or postverbal resultative marker EXP Experiential marker GE Genitive marker [ ]F Focus IMP Imperfective marker NEG Negation marker PASS Passive marker PERF Perfective marker PROG Progressive marker PRT Particle QAH Quantification Accessibility Hierarchy RES Resultative complement SFP Sentence-​final particle ´x Stressed words

xii

 1

1  Introduction

1.1  The problem One prominent function of natural language is to convey information, and one peculiarity is that it does not do so randomly but in a structured way, with information structuring formally recognized to be a component of grammar. There is general consensus that the linear order of constituents is to a certain extent determined by what is contextually known and what is not, which is what is captured under the concept of givenness and newness proposed as early as in the Prague School in the late 1920s. In the case of Chinese, Liu and Xu (1998) proposed that for every sentence, the sentence-​final position in Chinese is by default the position where new information is located, hence the syntactic structural position for informational focus. Apart from linear order and other structural notions, intonation and other tonal events interact with word order to determine the information structure of the sentence. While English employs intonational tonal events as a salient cue, Standard Chinese manifests focal-​prominence more in the distinctive realization of lexical tones, since the addition of pitch accents is prohibited (see Chen, Lee, and Pan 2016). Various acoustic cues have been recorded to be involved in focus-​marking. For example, lexical words under focus generally having longer duration (see e.g. Jin 1996, Xu 1999, Chen 2006) and higher mean intensity (see e.g. Shih 1988, Chen et al. 2009). The effect of focusing and givenness is not only an issue of accenting and deaccenting. In a sentence, expressions within the focus domain which are not focused are said to be in the background of the focus domain, with the focus within the focus domain generally to be replaced by some alternatives, which has led to various theories, purely semantic or pragmatic, to account for the relation between the focus and the focus alternatives. This includes association of focus considered under the semantic representation of focus-​background partition in line with Partee 1991; Hajićová, Partee, and Sgall 1998; and many others, which assumes that in semantics, the background is mapped onto the restrictor, and the focus onto the nuclear scope of tripartite quantification structures. Pragmatic theories of focus association are represented by Rooth (1985, 1992, 1995) and von Fintel (1994) for focus interpretation.

2

2 Introduction The pragmatic definition of focus may differ from the semantic one in that the complement of the focus, that is, the background part, may not always be presupposed. An example is cited from Erteschik-​Shir to illustrate this. (1)  Q: Where is the book?    A: I gave it to Mary. (cited from Erteschik-​Shir 2007, p.39) According to Erteschik-​Shir, the focus of answer A  is “to Mary”, but A  does not necessarily presuppose that “I gave it to someone”. Therefore, even though focus may be argued to be syntactically anchored or be semantically interpreted, it is closely related to pragmatic and contextual/​discourse factors as well. According to Dik (1997), “the focal information in a linguistic expression is that information which is relatively the most important or salient in the given communicative setting, and considered by [the] S[peaker] to be most essential for [the] A[ddressee] to integrate into his pragmatic information” (cited from Dik 1997, p.326). The above shows that focus is a phenomenon intertwined with different levels of linguistics and context/​discourse. Along the above line of argument, it is widely acknowledged that natural language appeals to four ways to mark focus: (i) syntactic structures, (ii) focus markers, (iii) pitch accents, or (iv) the combination of these devices, with Chinese mainly adopting (i) and (ii). Although much work on focus structure has been conducted, covering a wide range of languages from different linguistic families, an overall picture of how Chinese marks focus is still lacking, despite individual studies on a few isolated phenomena. The current work is based on Mandarin Chinese (henceforth “Mandarin”) and Cantonese, which have been selected for the following reasons. Mandarin appeals to a wide range of syntactic constructions to mark focus, whilst for the use of focus markers, it is restricted to pre-verbal focus adverbs and is not very productive or unattested in post-​verbal particles. Cantonese fills in the gap of Mandarin data due to its two unique features: (i) a particularly rich inventory of post-​verbal particles, including verbal suffixes and sentence-​final particles (SFPs), with the number identified ranging from 30 (see e.g. Kwok 1984; Law S. P. 1990; Luke 1990) to 70 (see Leung 1992/​ 2005), and only around seven in Mandarin (see Hu 1981; Li and Thompson 1981); and (ii) frequent co-​occurrence of multiple forms of additive and restrictive adverbs and post-​verbal particles, with no redundancy in meaning. The occurrence of multiple forms of focus particles can also be observed in the SFP positions, as Cantonese is relatively free in forming SFP clusters defined as [[IP + SFP1]+SFP2…], possibly consisting of up to seven monosyllabic SFPs, with Mandarin allowing only two, that is, le and ba (see e.g. Leung 1992/​2005). Therefore, despite the fact that both Mandarin and Cantonese fall within the Chinese family, they may not be exactly the same in the way they mark focus, at least in terms of their focus markers, which vary in their morpho-​syntactic properties.

 3

Introduction 3 In this light, this book aims to examine from a semantic perspective how (i) focus adverbs in Mandarin; (ii) focus adverbs, verbal suffixes, and sentence-​ final particles in Cantonese; and (iii) the co-​occurrence of multiple forms of focus adverbs and post-​verbal particles conspire to encode focus structures and influence focus manifestation in Chinese. Although I  will concentrate more on focus particles, to generalize the overall strategies Mandarin and Cantonese adopted for focus manifestation, syntactic constructions for focus marking will be included. This book also attempts to study focus marking in Mandarin and Cantonese from a comparative perspective, with the ultimate aim to find out how Mandarin and Cantonese differ in representing focus meaning. Association of focus will be considered under the semantic representation of focus-​background partition in line with Partee 1992; Hajičová, Partee, and Sgall 1998; and many others, which assumed that in semantics, the background is mapped onto the restrictor, and the focus onto the nuclear scope of tripartite quantification structures. On the other hand, SFPs would be a definable factor in affecting focus interpretation in Cantonese, and taking into consideration their scalar interpretations, various contextual discourse factors, and how speakers’ attitudes affect the semantic meaning of the sentence would be considered under Lasersohn’s (2009) relativist semantic theory.

1.2  Scope of the study and major ideas to be proposed As mentioned, an important topic of the present study is “focus particles”, which is a category that has never been defined clearly. “Focus particles” are either regarded as a subclass of particles (cf. Helbig 1988, Foolen 1993) or as a subclass of adverbs (cf. König 1991, Hoeksema and Zwarts 1991), which are quite heterogeneous and differently defined in the literature. Gast and van der Auwera (2011) used the general term “operator” for scalar additive particles because “many of the relevant items do not exhibit properties typical of adverbs. Even the term ‘particle’ is too specific, as it entails that the items in question are (uninflected) words, and in many languages, scalar additive operators can be found that are not single independent words, and which therefore cannot be classified as ‘particles’, since they are really ‘particle groups’ ” (cited from Gast and van der Auwera 2011, p.4). Cantonese involves verbal suffixes and SFPs in such a group of “focus particles”, which are bounded and may not be taken as single independent words. Therefore, without going into the morphological definition of “particles”, the term “particles” in this book is used in a broad sense, which include adverbs, verbal suffixes, and SFPs. Moreover, it is customary to identify two broad classes of focus particles: additive particles and restrictive particles, and adverbs and particles of these two types are therefore included in the current study. Mandarin has at least four additive adverbs, namely you1 ‘again’, ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and zai ‘again’, which vary in the meanings expressed by their stressed and unstressed form, showing that Mandarin to a certain extent relies on prosodic

4

4 Introduction stress to express focus meanings. If this is the case, what role does prosodic stress play in focus interpretation? These four additive adverbs correspond to the Cantonese additive adverbs jau6 ‘again’, dou1 ‘even/​also’, zung6 ‘still’, and zoi3 ‘again’, and a comparison will be made between Cantonese and Mandarin additive adverbs to find out whether they are absolute equivalents or not. For example, the Cantonese dou1 ‘all’, which has been assumed to be equivalent to the Mandarin dou ‘all’, does not show a one-​to-​one mapping to the Mandarin dou, making the two not absolute equivalents. Moreover, Cantonese has the additive adverb gau3 ‘enough’, which needs to be licensed by an assertive SFP. The use of “gau3…SFPassert” requires the predicate to mark a downwards movement of the scale. An immediate question is whether it is due to the semantics of the SFPassert, and previous analyses consider gau3 as an analogy to the Cantonese dou1, which again needs to be further examined. Furthermore, Mandarin hai ‘still/​even/​also’ is highly polysemous in its uses, conveying the meanings of the English “still”, “even”, and “also”, and if Mandarin rests on one hai to convey all these meanings, will Cantonese be the same or different? The above picture becomes more complicated if the use of Cantonese verbal suffixes and SFPs is considered. Besides additive adverbs, Cantonese appeals to the additive verbal suffix -​maai4 ‘also’ and the additive SFP tim1 ‘too/​as well’ to express additivity. If Cantonese already has four additive adverbs corresponding to those of Mandarin and “gau3…SFPassert”, why does Cantonese still rely on -​maai4 and tim1? If additive verbal suffixes and SFPs are lacking in Mandarin, in what way does Mandarin express the same meanings? Is a syntactic construction like lian… dou ‘even…also’ a typical way Mandarin uses to express focus meaning? On the other hand, for restrictive adverbs in Mandarin, there is a list of publications on the restrictive adverbs cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’, stressed and unstressed, but many questions have not been fully answered, with a unified and distinct analysis of the two yet to be worked out. I am not in a better position to give a comprehensive and satisfactory account of cai and jiu, and the current focus is more on how the relevant meanings are represented in Cantonese. Moreover, Mandarin also appeals to restrictive adverbs like zhi(-​ you/​-​shi) ‘only(-​have/​be)’ to express restrictive meaning, through the adjunction of the exclusive adverb zhi ‘only’ to shi ‘be’, with exclusiveness conducted by a grammatical mechanism. If this is the case, would it lead to the conclusion that Mandarin relies on focus adverbs with prosodic stress and grammatical mechanisms for restrictive focus structuring? For restrictive adverbs in Cantonese, Cantonese has zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​be’, zaai1 ‘only’, and sin1 ‘only then’, and the question is how these adverbs are semantically comparable to Mandarin restrictive adverbs. Aside from this, Cantonese also appeals to the restrictive verbal suffixes -​dak1 ‘only’ and the SFPs zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’. If this is the case, what is their role in expressing Cantonese restrictiveness, and in what way does Mandarin convey the same meanings? The picture of SFPs zaa3 and ze1 is

 5

Introduction 5 complicated in the sense that although both express the basic meaning of “restrictiveness”, they vary in their syntactic positions, with one projected as the head of IP/​ TP and the other as the head of Attitude P.  Under Lasersohn’s relativist semantic theory, the two differ in their speaker stances or the speakers’ attitudes. Therefore, an immediate question is how speakers’ attitudes determine syntactic projection and the semantic meaning of these focus SFPs, and in what way would Mandarin express similar meanings if they lacked SFPs? Moreover, as mentioned, the number of Cantonese SFPs is identified in previous studies ranging from approximately 30 (see e.g. Kwok 1984, Law 1990, Luke 1990) to 95 (see Leung 1992/​2005). The great variation in terms of numbers is due to the fact that a change in the tonal property of Cantonese would result in a change in lexical meaning, leaving the question of whether they are the same or distinct SFPs debatable. This to a certain extent does not only apply to a change in tonal property but to a change in vowels as well, leading Fung (2000) to propose the numerous manifestations of SFPs be analysed as evolving from three families, labelled Z-​, L-​, and G-​. In relation to the current study, it seems that not only a variant in tones but also in vowels would give a change in the lexical meaning of the SFPs, which necessarily influence the encoding of focus in Cantonese. This is at least true in the case of restrictive SFPs, which is an issue to be examined. Additionally, while the Z-​family is considered to mark the feature [+restrictive] in Cantonese SFPs, Mandarin SFPs do not have focus SFPs, be it the additive or the restrictive type. If this is the case, how does such a morpho-​syntactic difference affect focus structuring and marking in Mandarin and Cantonese, and in what way does Mandarin expresses the same meaning as that of Cantonese focus SFPs? All these are issues to be further examined in the remaining parts of the book. Therefore, through a comparative study between Mandarin and Cantonese additives and restrictives, one objective of the study is to find out the underlying principles the two use to mark additive and restrictive meanings, and related focus interpretations. The issues raised so far seem to suggest that while Mandarin appeals to pre-verbal focus adverbs or grammatical mechanisms to mark additive and restrictive focus, Cantonese appeals more to its particularly rich inventory of verbal suffixes and SFPs, though grammatical mechanisms do play some role in Cantonese focus marking. If grammatical mechanisms play a role in Mandarin or Cantonese in marking focus, does it mean that syntax is crucial in the two? This is particularly the case if one also considers the additive verbal suffix -​maai4 ‘add’, of which its interpretation is governed by a Quantification Accessibility Hierarchy (QAH-​maai4, see P.  Lee 2012) determined according to the distance of the verbal arguments from the verb. Xu (2004, p.277) states that “Chinese is a language which exhibits a reverse relationship between syntactic positioning and phonological prominence of focus, making it different from European languages, while in West Germanic languages, focus has a systematic manifestation via pitch accent”. While Xu’s syntactic positioning is based on his claim that informational focus in Chinese is always located at the final position, and that in languages such as English,

6

6 Introduction focus has a systematic manifestation via pitch accent, regardless of whether the focused element is situated in the syntactically favoured focus position or not. It can be said that Xu is the first one who formally recognized the importance of syntax in determining information structure in Chinese. To further consolidate the role of syntactic constrictions and grammatical mechanisms in marking focus, aside from zhi(-​you/​-​shi) ‘only(-​have/​be)’ and zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​ be’, the study will also include focus syntactic or grammatical constructions, for example, lian…dou ‘even…also’, lin4…dou1 ‘even…also’, and shi…de ‘be…DE’ constructions. Further examination of these constructions, together with focus particles in Mandarin and Cantonese, would shed light on the role of syntax in focus manifestation in Chinese. Besides examining and comparing the semantics of additive and restrictive particles and focus syntactic constructions in Mandarin and Cantonese, to further reveal the role of grammar in focus interpretation, another important issue to be studied in this book is the co-​occurrence of multiple forms of restrictive and additive particles in Cantonese. As mentioned, such co-​ occurrence sequence can be as complicated as “[[determiner + NP + adverb + verb + verbal suffix + … + SFP1] + SFP2…]]”, which is found not only in quantifiers of restriction or addition but in universal quantification as well. Theoretical implications resulting from such a sophisticated co-​occurrence phenomenon play a crucial role in determining the overall system of focus manifestation in Chinese, which can be extended to other semantic notions. It is assumed that the complicated scope interpretation of the restrictive and additive focus particles is facilitated by the linearity principle for Chinese scope interpretation, which is stated in the Isomorphic Principle in Huang S.  F. (1981):  “the surface word order among the quantificational NPs and logical elements directly corresponds to their scope order in a standard predicate calculus presentation of sentences containing such elements”. A similar linearity principle can also be gleaned from child language, based on experiments conducted in T. Lee (1991). Moreover, although whether sentence particles are head-​final or head-​initial has been a subject of debate, the co-​occurrence of Cantonese SFPs suggests that with the surface word of SFPs in the clause-​final positions, the scope relation of Cantonese SFPs is linearized on the right, positioned as the heads of SFP1, C, or Attitude (see e.g. Paul 2014, 2015; Erlewine 2017). All in all, there are grounds to hypothesize that Cantonese relies on the linear order of restrictive and additive particles to convey focus interpretations, which to a certain extent, can account for its rich repertoire of post-​verbal particles and their complicated yet natural co-​occurrence patterns. To verify such a hypothesis, I will examine the co-​occurrence patterns of additives, followed by restrictives. With a less sophisticated co-​occurrence pattern, in what way would Mandarin appeal in order to convey the same or similar meanings? Therefore, a study of relevant co-​occurrence patterns would help us come up with a division of labour among additive and restrictive adverbs, verbal suffixes, and SFPs in Mandarin and Cantonese.

 7

Introduction 7 On the basis of results obtained from the current work, it is generalized that Mandarin and Cantonese manifest different morpho-​syntactic configurations to express focus structural distinctions, and that the distributional differences between Mandarin and Cantonese in terms of focus particles would lead to the general principle as follows: (2)  General principle of focus marking in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese manifest different morpho-​syntactic configurations as follows: (i) Mandarin Chinese appeals to syntax through grammatical mechanisms or syntactic constructions, and focus markers accompanied by prosodic stress in focus marking, with prosodic stress in a certain way compensating for its lack of post-​verbal focus particles. (ii) The presence of a particularly rich inventory of focus particles in Cantonese makes the use of prosodic stress optional. Cantonese therefore relies on focus adverbs and post-​verbal particles, and their scope order, to determine its focus meaning, which can be achieved morpho-​ syntactically through multiple occurrences of focus adverbs and post-​ verbal particles, with their scope interpretation determined as (3). (3)  Scope interpretation of focus adverbs and post-​verbal particles in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese The scope interpretation of focus adverbs and verbal suffixes is determined by the surface word order of focus particles and their associates, hence the linearity principle (see e.g. Huang S. F. 1981 and T. Lee 1991), under their individual interpretation conditions. With their surface word order in the clause-​final positions, the scope relation of Cantonese focus SFPs is linearized on the right, positioned as the heads of IP, CP, or AttitudeP (see e.g. Paul 2014, 2015; Erlewine 2017), determined by the semantics of individual SFPs. The term “stress” used in this book is used synonymously with “prominence”, which is a more abstract concept than pitch accent, with prominence taken as a speaker’s intuitive sensation of strength in an utterance he or she hears (see Büring 2016). What is indicated by the principles in (2) and (3) may be too early to be elaborated or understood, and I would not attempt to go into detail at this point. However, the objective of putting forward principles along this line is to give a better understanding of the underlying differences between Mandarin and Cantonese in focus manifestation. With both as tonal languages, the two manifest different morpho-​syntactic configurations to mark focus. The relevant findings can be extended to other dialects in Chinese in order to derive a general system of focus manifestation in the Chinese language. To answer the question of how more complex tonal systems in a variant necessarily influence the encoding of focus, this would rely on more data and further studies on more dialects and languages.

8

8 Introduction

1.3  Organization The book consists of six chapters. Chapter  1 is the introduction, and Chapter  2 covers the theoretical approach taken in this book. Chapter  3 examines and compares the semantics of additive particles in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese, and Chapter 4, that of restrictive particles. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings of Chapters  3 and 4 by identifying the underlying differences between Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese in marking additivity and restrictiveness, and determining the division of labour among the additive and restrictive particles when they co-​occur in Cantonese, so as to derive a general principle of focus marking in Mandarin and Cantonese. The book concludes in Chapter 6, which sums up the findings made in previous chapters and explores the theoretical implications that the current work brings to focus interpretation and manifestation in Chinese and natural language at large.

Note 1 Throughout this work, the Romanization system for Mandarin Chinese is Hanyu pinyin, and that for Cantonese is Jyut6ping3 (with tones indicated), a Cantonese Romanization scheme proposed by the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong in 1993 (2nd edition published in 2002). For the sake of easier differentiation, romanizations without tones marked are Hanyu pinyin, and those with tones are Cantonese romanization. Hanyu pinyin and jyut6ping3 are italicized in the text.

 9

2  Theoretical background

2.1  Information structure and focus particles The status of Information Structure (IS) as a component of grammar was not formally recognized until Lambrecht (1994), who takes IS as a determining factor in the formal structuring of sentences. This is further stated in Vallduví (1995), who argues for a cross-​linguistically uniform abstract level of representation (IS) mediating between surface syntax and the informational component. Molnár and Winkler (2006) regard IS as an interface issue, whereas Mereu (2009) stated that IS is not an exclusive matter of syntax as generative grammar seems to imply with the architecture of the left periphery in the recent “cartographic” literature (Rizzi 1997, 2004). Jackendoff (1972) mentioned that “focus” is a theoretical notion which is used to account for the correlation between certain prosodic patterns and pragmatic and semantic effects. This is explicitly mentioned in Erteschik-​Shir (2007), who stated that among all IS notions, focus is one of the only two primitives needed to account for all IS phenomena. As mentioned in Chapter 1, “focus particles” are regarded either as a subclass of particles (cf. Helbig 1988, Foolen 1993) or as a subclass of adverbs (cf. König 1991, Hoeksema and Zwarts 1991). König (1991) pointed out two properties as a way of making a distinction between focus particles and other types of particles:  their positional variability and their interaction with the focus-​background partition of the sentences in which they occur. Below are examples cited from König (1991, p.10). (1)  (a) Only [Fred]F could have shown the exhibition to Mary. (b) [Fred]F ónly could have shown the exhibition to Mary. (c) Fred could only have [shown]F the exhibition to Mary. (d) Fred could have shown only [the exhibition]F to Mary. (e) Fred could have shown the exhibition only to [Mary]F. Different positions of “only” correlate with different locations of the sentence stress and different interpretations of the relevant sentence. König stated that, “depending on their position and that of the nuclear tone, focus particles ‘relate to’ different parts of a sentence” (cited from König 1991, p.10). The

10

10  Theoretical background focus structure of a sentence would result in a partitioning of the sentence into a focused part and a background part, which is generally assumed to be one aspect of its grammatical structure, with both giving a phonological and a semantic interpretation. König (1991) has taken additives as focus-​sensitive particles that interact with the focus of an utterance. A vast amount of previous literature on additives centres on the English “too” (see e.g. Kaplan 1984, van der Sandt and Geurts 2001, Rullmann 2003, Winterstein and Zeevat 2012) and the scalar additive “even” (see e.g. Kay 1990, Franscescotti 1995, Kalerikos 1995, Wilkinson 1996, Rullmann 1997, Giannakidou 2007, Yoshimura 2007). Much of the previous research focuses on only one language. Limited studies examine and compare additives in two, three, or even more languages, with some examples including Hoeksema and Zwarts (1991), who investigate “focus adverbs” in English, Dutch, and German; König (1991), Gast, and van der Auwera (2011), who present an impressive typological study of scalar additives in 40 European and 15 Transeurasian languages; and Forker (2016), who provides a comprehensive account which encompasses a wider semantic spectrum of additives on cross-​ linguistic comparison, based on 42 languages from all over the world. The interaction of focus particles with the focus-​background structure is an important property of focus particles and, as pointed in Sudhoff (2010), focus particles establish a specific relation between the meaning of their domain and its relevant alternatives, where the particles’ domain is equated with the focus (see e.g. Dimroth 2004; Hajičová, Partee and Sgall 1998; König 1991). Focus particles can be distinguished between their quantificational use and their scalar use (see Altmann 1976, Bayer 1996, Helbig 1988, Jacobs 1983, Sudhoff 2010). According to Sudhoff, quantificational focus particles quantify over the set of alternatives of the focus, as shown by “nur” ‘only’ and “auch” ‘also’ in (2a) and (2b), and scalar focus particles assign their domain an extreme position on a scale formed of its contextually relevant alternatives, as shown by “sogar” ‘even’ in (2c). (2)  (a) Maja    Maja (b) Maja    Maja (c)  Maja    Maja

hat nur [FElix]F beleidigt. auxp only Felix insulted hat auch [FElix]F umarmt. auxp also Felix hugged hat sogar [FElix]F eingeladen. auxp even Felix invited

(cited from Sudhoff 2010)

While (2a) says that Maja insulted Felix and that she did not insult any other contextually relevant person, (2b) says that Maja hugged Felix and that there is at least one proper alternative to Felix, who was hugged by Maja. The scalar focus particle “even” in (2c) characterizes Felix as an unlikely person for Maja to invite.

 11

Theoretical background 11 Moreover, the scope of a focus particle is characterized by König (1991) as “the semantic counterpart of that part of a sentence that is relevant for seeing out [the particle’s] contribution” (cited from König 1991, p.31). Thus scope means the scope of the operator corresponding to the focus particle, which probably would be ∀ for restrictive quantifiers and ∃ for additive quantifiers. When focus particles are in their quantificational use, their quantificational structure is generally assumed to resemble that of adverbial quantifiers. Adverbial quantifiers and determiner/​nominal determiners (“most”, “no”, “some”, etc.) differ drastically in how they find their restrictions. Adverbial quantifiers generally get their restriction through the mediation of focus, except for cases like the if-​clause and the when-​clause where syntax plays a more important role. In contrast, the quantificational structure of determiners is held to be shaped by syntactic structures, with the standard observation being that a determiner D has to be restricted by the predicate that is denoted by its internal argument, which corresponds to the accompanying NP in question. However, Herburger (2000) pointed out that sentences with “only” and “even” turn out to play an interesting role in the classification of adverbial quantification vis-​à-​vis determiner quantification. When they surface in an adverbial position (e.g. adjoined to a verb phrase (VP)), they pattern semantically with adverbial quantifiers –​their quantificational structure depends directly on focus. However, when “even” and “only” adjoin to noun phrases, instead of behaving like determiners and taking their surface-​ syntactic internal argument as their restriction, “only” and “even” have a quantificational structure that is shaped by focus. Herburger accounted for this by positing that, when they do not already surface in an adverbial position, “only” and “even” covertly rise to such a position (Q-​raising). Focal mapping then straightforwardly accounts for their quantificational structure. Herburger distinguishes Q-​raising from Quantifier Raising (QR), as the former only involves the movement of determiners to the clause-​initial position and the latter, the movement of the whole determiner phrase, including the common noun phrase (CNP) in the phrase. Hence, contrary to the standard view, Herburger argues that determiners sometimes pattern with “only” and “even”. They behave like adverbial quantifiers in the sense that a CNP, which is their internal argument in the surface syntax, does not have to be interpreted as their restrictor; rather, their restrictor and scope depend only on focus. Such a reading is referred to as “focus-​affected” reading by Herburger, which involves Q-​raising, in particular, the local raising of the determiner to a position that neutralizes the distinction between internal and external arguments. Subsequent focal mapping produces the right quantificational structure. The only difference between the focus-​affected reading of determiners and the effects of focus on adverbial quantifiers and “only” and “even” lies in the kinds of things they are quantifying over. In the case of determiners, they are often individuals, though not all noun phrases can have such a focus-​affected reading, and only those exhibiting the definiteness effect (DE) can.

12

12  Theoretical background Moreover, as mentioned, semantic focus is defined as focus which will affect the truth condition of a sentence, as the relevant truth condition will vary with the location of the focus. The interpretation of focus with the focus particle is generally termed as “focus association” in Partee (1991, 1999), and these focus particles are generally regarded as focus-​sensitive particles. Unlike additives, for which focus association will not affect the truth condition of a sentence, restrictives will. Some examples are given below. (3)  (a) John only introduced [Bill]F to Sue. (b) John only introduced Bill to [Sue]F. The truth condition of (3a) and (3b) differs, which is given by the association of “only” with different semantic foci, namely Bill in (3a) and Sue in (3b). Assume that John introduced Bill and David to Sue, but he did not introduce Bill to someone other than Sue. Under such a scenario, only (3b), and not (3a), will be true, as (3b) asserts that John introduced Bill to no other persons than Sue. Contrarily, assume that John introduced Bill to Mary and Sue, but he did not introduce people other than Bill to Sue. Under such a scenario, (3a) but not (3b) will be true, as (3a) asserts that John introduced no other persons but Bill to Sue. Based on examples like (1), previous studies like Jackendoff 1972; Rooth 1985, 1992, 1995; Bonomi and Casalegno 1993; Herburger 2000; Beaver and Clark 2003; Krifka 2006; and Sudhoff 2010 consider that the interpretation of adverbs like the English “only” and the German “nur” ‘only’ depends on the position of semantic focus, which is lexically encoded in these adverbs, and refer them as focus-​functional or focus-​sensitive adverbs. Adverbs like “only” are referred to as restrictives or exclusives in these analyses. Unlike restrictive particles, additives do not contribute to the truth value of the sentence containing them. Unlike “only”, the semantic focus of additives will not affect the truth condition of sentences, as shown below. (4) (a) John also introduced [Bill]F to Sue. (b) John also introduced Bill to [Sue]F. The additive adverb “also” in (4a) and (4b) will trigger an existential presupposition of a set which consists of entities triggered by the semantic focus, with the semantic focus added to such a set. However, while the position of the focus may affect such a presupposition, the prejacent which gives the assertion remains the same for both sentences. Krifka (1999) has given the representation of additive particles as follows. (5) [ADD1 […F1…]]: […F…]1(∃F’≠F[…F’…]) (cited from Krifka 1999) where F stands for the expression in focus, if it is marked by accent, or if it is not, the associated constituent […F…] stands for the scope of the particle.

 13

Theoretical background 13 The additive particles in (5) express that “the predication holds for at least one alternative of the expression in focus” (see König 1991 as well). With the prejacent asserted to be true, additives can be considered “presupposition triggers” which presuppose the existence of at least one alternative of the focus that satisfies the complex predicate of the focus (see Hole 2004 as well). Stressed additives have also been an issue in the study of additives. As stated by Krifka (1999), while exclusive and scalar particles typically precede their focus, additive particles may follow it, in which case they are stressed. (6) is an example given in Krifka (1999). (6)  Peter invited Pia for dinner, tòo /​as wèll. This is also observed in the German additive particles “sogar” and “auch”, but studies on movement analysis for the associated element argued that under such a case, the associated element has the status of a contrastive topic, which enforces its movement to the left periphery, with the additive particle, for example, the German “auch”, to be stressed to become the focusable element in the focus domain (see e.g. Krifka 1999; Steube 2003; Sudhoff, Steube, and Hogrefe 2004; Sudhoff 2010).

2.2  Focus representation and interpretation 2.2.1  Association with focus During the last 20  years, the study of focus representation and interpretation has been a major issue in semantics and syntax cross-​linguistically. Semantically, frameworks for the interpretation of focus in natural language can be categorized into two major types:  (i) frameworks involving focus movement, usually referred to as the Focus LF Movement approach (see Chomsky 1977), and (ii) those having focus interpreted in-​situ, including (a)  Structured Meanings Semantics (see e.g. Jackendoff 1972), (b)  Higher-​ order Replacive Theory (see Pulman 1997), (c)  In-​situ Binding Semantics (see e.g. Kratzer 1991, Wold 1996), and (d) Alternative Semantics (see Rooth 1985, 1992, 1995). Krifka (2006) proposes a hybrid model for focus interpretation and argues that the association should not be with focus, but with focus phrases (FP). Focus association was first introduced by Jackendoff (1972), who refers to the semantic effects of focus on the truth conditions of sentences, as exemplified below. (7) (a) I only introduced [Bill]F to Sue. (b) I only introduced Bill to [Sue]F. The truth condition of (7a) and (7b) varies with the locations of focus. Assume that the speaker introduced Bill and Tom to Sue, and performed no

14

14  Theoretical background other introductions. (7a) is false and (7b) would be true. “Association with focus” then becomes a term referring to the phenomena that there is variation in the truth condition of sentences according to the location of focus in the sentence. Along the same lines, theories of association with focus can be classified into syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic theories. Syntactic theories of association with focus either assume that the relevant restrictions must be fulfilled at some underlying structural level, and that the particle is subsequently moved to its surface structure position, or that the required configuration is only formed after the surface structure has been spelled out, for example by LF movement (see e.g. Anderson 1972; Chomsky 1976; Drubig 1994; Karttunen and Peters 1979; Sgall, Hajičová, and Panevová 1986; Sudhoff 2010). Focus association is syntactically encoded, with semantic interpretation based on their configuration. According to Sudhoff, semantic and pragmatic theories of association with focus are similar in that they do not presuppose a certain syntactic configuration that identifies the element(s) associated with a focus particle, and movement operations adopted by syntactic theories would not be needed under such a case; hence, they are in-​situ theories of association of focus. Semantic theories of focus association can be dated back to Jackendoff (1972)’s Structured Meaning Semantics (see Jacobs 1983, Rooth 1985, König 1991, and Krifka 1992, 1993 as well), which assumes that it is different focus-​ background partitions of a given structure in the scope of a focus particle that give rise to different semantic representations of that structure. Such an approach also assimilates the focus effect of quantifiers, with the background or non-​focus part syntactically mapped to a restrictive clause and the focus to a nuclear scope (see Partee 1999). Association of focus under such a case can be seen as a phenomenon of compositional semantics: semantic representation of the focus-​background partition of a given structure would be combined with the semantic representation of the focus particle, and the encoded information about focus and background can be used to specify the meaning contribution of the particle. The meaning of an expression containing a focus is represented as , where α corresponds to the background and β to the focus, and focus particles operate in the form . Taking “only” as an example, (8) shows how “only” operates under Structured Meaning Semantics. (8) [[onlyS]] = λ [α(β) & ∀A [(A∈ALT(β) & α(A)) → A=β]]

Example (8) means that α applies to β is true, with all alternatives to β that yield a true proposition identical to β. Contribution of focus to sentence meaning is expressed by different focus-​background partitions. On the other hand, pragmatic theories of focus association are represented by Rooth (1992) and von Fintel (1994). As pointed out by Sudhoff (2010), unlike semantic accounts, pragmatic theories do not assume a direct, grammatical link between focus and semantics. The interpretation of a focus

 15

Theoretical background 15 particle is specified pragmatically. Von Fintel stated that “pragmatics is seen to supply the value of a free variable quantifier domain and various factors, among them topic/​focus-​articulation and presuppositional information, are simultaneously at play that function as partial clues as to what domain is intended. There are no rules of grammar that make reference to focus or presuppositions” (cited from von Fintel 1994, p.36). Focus is more likely to play a role in restricting the domain of quantification, indirectly through an anaphoric link between a variable introduced by focus and a free variable in the lexical meaning of the focus sensitivity operator (see Rooth 1992). Rooth (1992) considered this approach a theory which does not contemplate construction-​specific stipulation of focus effects, which is unlike the strong theory of association with focus proposed in Rooth (1985), which assumes focus is used semantically. Besides Structured Meaning Semantics, alternative semantics are also adopted in the current study. The basic idea as introduced by Rooth (1985, 1992, 1996, 2016) is that focus evokes alternatives, meaning that every linguistic expression α has two different denotations: its ordinary sematic value [|α|]o and its focus semantic value [|α|]f. The focus semantic value of an expression α is a set of denotations with the same type as the ordinary semantic value of α, a so-​called p-​set or alternative set (see also Kratzer 1991, Wold 1996). Focus semantic values have the same type as ordinary semantic values and have the focused expressions in α substituted by elements of the same semantic type, as indicated in an example cited from Rooth (2016). In (9), the u variables with subscripts are used for the special focus variables. (9) (a) [Aretha]F introduced [Bertha]F to Clyde. (b) phrase   introduced   [Bertha]F    introduced [Bertha]F   Clyde    introduced [Bertha]F to Clyde   [Aretha]F   [Aretha]F introduced [Bertha]F to Clyde

focus semantic value λyλzλx introduce(x,y,z) ue,1 λzλx introduce(x, ue,1,z) c λx introduce(x, ue,1,c) ue,2 introduce(ue,2, ue,1,c)

Rooth stated that “alternatives” (in (9)) are introduced in defining the ~operator, by making substitutions for the special focus variables. Under Alternative Semantics, it is assumed that focus semantic values which have the same type as ordinary semantics are given by any linguistic expressions containing focus values, with an alternative set that contains alternatives triggered by variables in the focus positions. When the restrictive focus particle “only” is associated with the focus, semantic interpretation is derived by combining the meaning of “only” with the focus semantic value of a constituent, that is, focus semantic value [|α|]f under Rooth’s Alternative Semantics. Along this line, Rooth gives the basic meaning for “only” as (10).

16

16  Theoretical background (10)  [[onlyS]] = λp [p & ∀q [(q∈C & q) → q=p]] (cited from Rooth 1985, p.120)

According to (8), “only” is applied to a proposition p, meaning that p is true, and that all true propositions q from a set C of propositions are identical to p. C is the quantification domain of “only” denoting the set of elements the operator “only” quantifies over. On the other hand, if “only” is assumed to adjoin to a VP, the representation will be as (11). (11) [[onlyVP]] = λPλx [P(x) & ∀Q [(Q∈C & Q(x)) → Q=P]]

Regardless of (10) or (11), it must be the focus that controls the domain restriction, with “only” quantifying over the alternatives evoked by focus. Under Rooth’s rationale, the alternative set would be a subset of the set of elements matching the denotation of the particle’s sister constituent in type. To show Rooth’s mechanism, (12) is cited from Rooth (1985) (see also Sudhoff 2010). (12) John only introduced [Bill]F to Sue. (13) [|John|]o = john  [|John|]f = {john} [|BillF|]o = bill  [|BillF|]f = {bill, john, sue, mary, …} o [|Sue|]  = sue  [|Sue|]f = {sue} o [|introduced|]  = λzλyλx INTR(x, y, z) [|introduced|]f = {λzλyλx INTR(x, y, z)} [|introduced [Bill]F to Sue|]o = λx INTR(x, bill, sue) [|introduced [Bill]F to Sue|]f   = {λx INTR(x, bill, sue), λx INTR(x, john, sue), λx INTR(x, sue, sue), λx INTR(x, mary, sue), …} [|only introduced [Bill]F to Sue|]o  = λx [INTR(x, bill, sue) & ∀Q[(Q∈[|introduced [BILL]F to Sue|]f & Q(x)) → Q=λx INTR(x, bill, sue)]]  = λx [INTR(x, bill, sue) & ∀Q [(Q∈{λx INTR(x, bill, sue), λx INTR (x, john, sue), λx INTR(x, sue, sue), λx INTR(x, mary, sue), …} & Q(x)) → Q=λx INTR(x, bill, sue)]] [|John only introduced [BILL]F to Sue|]o   = INTR(john, bill, sue) & ∀Q [(Q∈[|introduced [BILL]F to Sue|]f & Q(john)) → Q=λx INTR(x, bill, sue)]   = INTR(john, bill, sue) & ∀Q [(Q∈{λx INTR(x, bill, sue), λx INTR (x, john, sue), λx INTR(x, sue, sue), λx INTR(x, mary, sue), …} & Q(john)) → Q=λx INTR(x, bill, sue)] Example (13) is derived under the assumption that “only” is adjoined to a VP, hence adopting (11). On the other hand, if the focus is on “Sue”, as in (14a), the derivation would be (14b).

 17

Theoretical background 17 (14)  (a) John only introduced Bill to [Sue]F. (b) [|John only introduced Bill to [SUE]F |]o   = INTR(john, bill, sue) & ∀Q [(Q∈[|introduced Bill to [SUE]F|]f & Q(john)) → Q=λx INTR(x, bill, sue)]   = INTR(john, bill, sue) & ∀Q [(Q∈{λx INTR(x, bill, sue), λx INTR (x, bill, bill), λx INTR(x, bill, john), λx INTR(x, bill, mary), …} & Q(john)) → Q=λx INTR(x, bill, sue)] The contrast between (13) and (14b) thus shows that they differ in the domain of quantification of the focus particle “only”, affecting the truth conditions of (12) and (14a) correspondingly. Additionally, an important approach has to be mentioned, mainly proposed by Beaver and Clark (2002, 2003), concerning a comparison between focus particle “only” and the quantificational adverbial “always”. Both “only” and “always” are analysed as universals, and are both standardly taken to be focus sensitive. (15) (a) Sandy always feeds [Fido]F Nutrapup. (b) Sandy only feeds [Fido]F Nutrapup. (c) ∀x [feed(sandy, x, nutrapup) → x = fido]    “Everything Sandy feeds Nutrapup to is Fido.” (d) ∀  e [feeding(e) ∧ AGENT(e)=sandy ∧ THEME(e)=nutrapup → GOAL(e)=fido]    “Every event of Sandy feeding Nutrapup to some recipient is one of doing so to Fido.” (cited from Beaver and Clark 2003) (16) (a) Sand always feeds Fido [Nutrapup]F. (b) Sandy only feeds Fido [Nutrapup]F. (c) ∀x [feed(sandy, x, nutrapup) → x= nutrapup]    “Everything Sandy feeds to Fido is Nutrapup.” (d) ∀  e [feeding(e) ∧ AGENT(e)=sandy ∧ GOAL(e)=fido → THEME(e)= nutrapup]    “Every event of Sandy feeding Fido is one of doing so with Nutrapup.” (cited from Beaver and Clark 2003) (17) Mary always managed to complete her [exam]F. (a) “Whenever Mary took exams, she completed them.” (b) ?“Whenever Mary completed something, it was invariably an exam.” (cited from Beaver and Clark 2003) (18) Mary only managed to complete her [exams]F. (a) *“What Mary did when taking exams was complete them and do nothing else.” (b) “What Mary completed was an exam and nothing else.” (cited from Beaver and Clark 2003)

18

18  Theoretical background Semanticists tended to assume that “always” and “only” are analysed similarly based on a single mechanism, association with focus, to account for the meaning difference between (15a) and (16a) and between (15b) and (16b). However, as argued by Beaver and Clark, unlike “only”, “always” occurs in constructions where it is not associated with focus. In (17), “always” shows the so-​called “association-​with-​presupposition” effect (see also Rooth 1999), which is not possible for “only” in (18). This is also observed in Cohen (1999), who pointed out that contrary to the predictions of an association with focus account, the (a)  reading is preferred in the case of “always” in (17), which involves association with presupposition. (19)  Mary always managed to complete her [exam]F, and she always managed to complete her [assignments]F. If (18) has only the association with focus reading, (19) should be contradictory, which is not the case. (19) is consistent with the reading that whenever Mary took an exam, she completed it, and whenever she did an assignment, she completed it. Following this type of argument, Beaver and Clark concluded that something along the lines of association with presupposition reading should be available, or that at least association with focus cannot go through here. On the basis of the above, Beaver and Clark argue that, while “only” lexically encodes a dependency on the placement of focus, “always” does not. Rather, the focus sensitivity of “always” results from its dependency on context. Therefore, focus-​sensitive expressions do not form a homogeneous class regarding their focus sensitivity and should be split into two categories, namely focus-​ functional operators and non-​ focus-​ functional operators. “Only” represents the subgroup of focus-​functional operators in the sense that it encodes a lexicalized dependency on focus marking with focus sensitivity based on a grammatical mechanism. “Always” represents the subgroup of non-​focus-​functional operators, with effects of focus sensitivity resulting from pragmatic processes. 2.2.2  Syntax-​semantics mapping of focus The syntax-​ semantics mapping of focus is also a central part of focus representation and interpretation. As mentioned earlier, focus particles can be distinguished between their quantificational use and their scalar use (see e.g. Altmann 1976, Bayer 1996, Helbig 1988, Jacobs 1983, Sudhoff 2010). Heim (1982) proposes that all quantifiers have a tripartite structure of quantifier/​operator, restrictor, and matrix, and implements such a concept to demonstrate the commonalities between D-​quantification and A-​quantification. While D-​and A-​quantifications are both quantifications semantically, they represent different syntactic structures:  a determiner combines with CNPs, while a Q-​adverb, being adverbial in nature, combines with the entire clause or

 19

Theoretical background 19 a VP. Hence, the only way to assimilate these two kinds of quantifications is to have a semantic representation unifying them, which is explicated as follows: (20) (21)

S Operator Restrictor Nuclear Scope S Operator A must not almost every mostly Generic

Restrictor Nuclear Scope main clause “cases” if-clause assertion common NP focus consequent topic main predication presuppositions domain antecedent context

Example (20) shows that a tripartite structure consists of an operator, a restrictor, and a nuclear scope (the matrix). Heim uses such a structure to describe all quantification features and, most importantly, D-​and A-​ quantification. (21) is a suggestive diagram proposed by Partee (1991) for possible tripartite structures in English. Based on the quantificational structures of different quantifiers, Partee (1987, 1991, 1995) states that one important point distinguishing D-​ quantification from A-​quantification is that in the case of A-​quantification, focus affects its truth conditions due to distinct tripartite structures. (22)  (a) Mary always takes John to the [movies]F.   “Always, when Mary takes John somewhere, she takes John to the movies.” (b) Mary always takes [John]F to the movies.   “Always, when Mary takes someone to the movies, she takes John to the movies.” (c) [Mary]F always takes John to the movies.   “Always, when someone takes John to the movies, Mary takes John to the movies.” The three sentences above differ in the positions of focus. According to Partee, the nuclear scope “Mary takes John to the movies” is the same in all three sentences and what differs is the restrictor, which provides or restricts the domain of situations being quantified over. In (22a), the restrictor is situations where Mary takes John somewhere; in (22b), the restrictor is situations where Mary takes someone to the movies; and in (22c), the restrictor is situations where someone takes John to the movies. Hence, focus affects the truth

20

20  Theoretical background conditions of these sentences by mapping different constituents, that is, the non-​focused parts of the sentences, to the restrictors. Diverted from the pure semantic analysis of focus, von Fintel’s (1994) analysis on domain restriction emphasizes the pragmatic sources of quantifier restrictions. He claims that there are no grammatical processes that fill the domain of a quantifier by local operators. In other words, for quantifier restrictions, there exists no association with focus, no local presupposition accommodation, and no semantic partition. The phenomena are seen as being anaphoric to the discourse context, which in turn affects the understanding of quantifiers. Moreover, following Rooth (1985) and others, von Fintel, Krifka (1992), and Roberts (1995), among others, claim that it is not focus that helps determine or restrict the domain of quantification; rather, it is topic. Examples given by them are sentences like the following. Quantifying if-​clause (23)  If it was sunny out, Jessie generally ran in the park. Modal if-​clause (24) If I can afford to buy plants, I might buy a Reine de Violettes rose bush. When-​clause (25) When Alice called her to dinner, Gertrude gladly put aside her papers and left her desk. Unless-​clause (26) Unless I miss the bus, I never walk home from school. The above are all biclausal sentences, and the relevant tripartite partition is determined syntactically. All antecedent clauses, that is, “if it was sunny out”, “if I  can afford to buy plants”, “when Alice called her to dinner”, “unless I  miss the bus”, are mapped to the restrictor and the main or consequent clauses to the nuclear scope. The operator depends on the meanings of the sentences, with a quantifying operator in (23) and (26) (triggered by “generally” in (23) and “never” in (26)), a modal operator in (24) (triggered by “might”), and an assertion operator in (25). Despite the claim of von Fintel (1994), Krifka (1992), and Roberts (1995) that the role of conditional clauses as sentence-​adjoined restrictors of a sentence-​internal quantificational element, the link between the antecedent-​ clause and quantifier does not appear to be as tight as the one between the common noun phrase and determiner. In other words, even though von Fintel considers that the antecedent-​clause, no matter whether it is due to its being the topic of the conditional sentence or its being a sentence-​adjoined restrictor syntactically, determines the restrictor of A-​quantifiers, his analysis relies on pragmatics as the crucial factor determining quantifier restrictions. No grammatical processes are involved here, which to a certain extent diverts from the grammatical approach adopted in Partee’s study on A-​and D-​quantifications. However, despite the cases shown in (23) to (26), which make A-​ quantification sound more grammaticalized than the other cases, it is obvious

 21

Theoretical background 21 that D-​quantification by determiners like “every”, “each”, “most”, “some”, “many”, and “at least three” is more grammaticalized than A-​quantification. The tripartite structure of determiner quantification is syntactically determined: the determiner (D) as the operator, the post-​determiner CNP as the restrictor, and the VP as the nuclear scope. The entire partition of D-​ quantification relies crucially on syntax, which is even more obvious when we consider the role of focus in D-​quantification. (27)  (a) Most [nice]F logicians like linguistics.    MOST ([nice]F logicians) (like linguistics) (b) Most nice logicians like [linguistics]F.    MOST (nice logicians) (like [linguistics]F) Examples (27a) and (27b) share the same tripartite structures, even though the location of focus varies. Focus effects seem to be less strong, and a variation in focus position does not result in distinct truth conditions. If the semantics of quantificational structures is determined by tripartite structures, we can say that (27a) and (27b) share the same truth conditional value. The contribution of the focus adds additional meaning to the sentence by triggering an alternative set relative to the focused constituent, in terms of Rooth (1985, 1992, 1996). From the above we can see that the distinction between A-​and D-​quantifiers is significant not just syntactically, but also that they represent different mechanisms of how surface syntax is mapped to semantic representation. The dichotomy between A-​and D-​quantification can be summarized in the following way. In the case of D-​quantification, syntax makes visible which constituent is mapped to the restrictor and the nuclear scope: the determiner (D) as the operator, the CNP, the restrictor, and the VP, the nuclear scope (the matrix). The insensitivity of D-​quantifiers towards focus demonstrates their highly syntacticized nature, with focus failing to override the relevant syntactic partition. Contrarily, A-​quantification is less syntacticized, with grammatical relations or syntax not playing the determining role. Except in some explicitly structured cases where there exists an explicit operator or an explicit marking to indicate a division into the restrictor and the matrix, for example, if-​clauses and topic-​focus structures (see e.g. von Fintel 1994, Berman 1994), in simple clauses, syntax is not the sole and crucial factor in determining its tripartite partition, as it is obvious that a positional variability in focus will affect the partition of the tripartite structure. The non-​ focused part will be mapped to be the domain of quantification, with the focus mapped to the matrix, thus determining the mapping triggered to be focal mapping. Regarding the syntax-​semantics mapping of focus structure, pure syntactic ways of partition have also been proposed. Diesing (1992) claims that all the constituents in the VP are mapped to the matrix and the rest to the restrictor, while Tsai (1994, 2001) suggests that all the constituents in the maximal

22

22  Theoretical background projection of a predicate be mapped to the matrix. Arguing against such a syntactic approach to partition, Rooth (1985), von Stechow (1991), and de Swart (1991) argue for a tripartite structure of focus-​background partition, with focus to the matrix and background to the restrictor. The meaning of a sentence containing a focus particle varies with the focus-​background partition or focal mapping of the sentence. To find out how focus structures are encoded in Chinese, I  focus on the focus-​background partition to examine how focus is structured in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese. In semantics, the background is mapped onto the restrictor, and the focus onto the nuclear scope of tripartite quantification structures (see e.g. Partee 1992; Hajićová, Partee, and Sgall 1998). Information structure therefore would directly affect the semantic representation and may have truth-​conditional effects. As stated in Sudhoff (2010), the effects of information are found in word order and accent placement in German, and German shows word order variability in relation to information structure. Along such a line, in the remaining chapters of the book, it will be argued that although focus markers and syntactic structures are the two basic ways of focus marking in Chinese, Mandarin appeals more to focus adverbs and syntactic structures for marking focus, which is richer than Cantonese, to compensate its lack of a rich repertoire of post-​verbal focus particles. In contrast, Cantonese relies on post-​verbal focus particles and their co-​occurrence to convey focus meaning, with scope interpretations of focus particles strictly governed by a linearity principle.

2.3  What is special about Cantonese? The present work aims to conduct a systematic overview of the focus manifestation in Mandarin and Cantonese. As mentioned, Mandarin and Cantonese are selected due to the following reasons. Mandarin appeals more to preverbal adverbs to express additivity and restrictiveness, and their high degree of multifunctionality has made their meanings very complex and diverse. Besides additive and restrictive adverbs, Cantonese demonstrates two unique features either not very productive or unattested in Mandarin: (i) a particularly rich inventory of post-​verbal particles, including verbal suffixes and sentence-​final particles (SFPs), with the number identified ranging from 30 (see e.g. Kwok 1984, Law S. P. 1990, Luke 1990) to 70 (see Leung 1992/​2005), and only around seven in Mandarin (see Hu 1981, Li and Thompson 1981); and (ii) frequent co-​occurrence of multiple forms of additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles, with no redundancy in meaning. In what follows, I will give a brief overview of Cantonese regarding these two respects. 2.3.1  Some basic facts about Cantonese Mandarin in this book is referred to as the official language of the People’s Republic of China. As mentioned in P. Lee (2017), if one further considers

 23

Theoretical background 23 Mandarin as a natural variety in the language map of China, it is considered “the Northern-​Chinese dialect”, and is spoken in the area north of the Yangtze River and the southern provinces of Yunan and Guizhou. Chinese is a language which is very rich in dialects, and it is generally assumed that there are seven major groups of dialects: Gan, Guan, Kejia (Hakka), Min, Wu, Xiang, and Yue. While Mandarin is briefly considered to represent the Guan group, Cantonese belongs to the Yue group, and with it being the prestige variety of Yue, Cantonese is the most widely known and influential variety of Chinese other than Mandarin. The Yue group is the dialect spoken in the southern provinces of Guangdong and Guangxi. According to the Language Atlas of Chinese, Yue dialects are further divided into seven groups, and Cantonese is classified under Guangfu (or under Yuehai in Yuan Jiahua’s dialect manual 1983), which includes Cantonese spoken in Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Macau, as well as dialects of surrounding areas in the Pearl River Delta and Xi River valley, such as Zhongshan, Foshan, Dongguan, and Shenzhen. When Cantonese and the closely related Yuehai dialects are classified together, there are about 80 million speakers, and Cantonese is the majority language or a lingua franca of Hong Kong, Macau, and the Pearl River Delta region of China. Like Mandarin, Cantonese has basic word order [subject –​verb –​object], or is said to be an SVO language. Whilst Mandarin and Cantonese are not mutually intelligible in terms of phonology and vocabulary, the grammatical structures of the two are similar in most major aspects. However, Cantonese has two features that are either not very productive or unattested in Mandarin, giving rise to various quantification-​ related phenomena not shared by Mandarin: (i) its particularly rich inventory of post-​verbal particles, including verbal suffixes and sentence-​final particles, with 30 or up to 95 sentence-​final particles (see e.g. Leung 1992/​2005) and only around seven sentence-​final particles in Mandarin (see Hu 1981, Li and Thompson 1981); and (ii) multiple forms of quantifiers, including determiners, adverbs, verbal suffixes, and sentence-​final particles, co-​occurring in the same sentence, with no redundancy in meaning, which is uncommon in Mandarin. Cantonese in this book refers to the variety known as Standard Cantonese, which usually includes the Cantonese spoken in Hong Kong, Guangzhou, and areas around Guangzhou, although there are slight differences in the lexicon and the phonology between Hong Kong speakers and their northern neighbours in Guangdong province. To make the description more accurate, I  assume that the descriptions of Cantonese in this book, particularly for post-​verbal particles and the interpretation of multiple forms of adverbs and particles in the same sentence, only apply to Hong Kong Cantonese. The Romanization system used in this book is “The Linguistic Society of Hong Kong Cantonese Romanization Scheme” or Jyut6ping3, which is a Romanization system for Cantonese developed by the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong in 1993. Both Mandarin and Cantonese are tonal languages, and tones are distinguished by their contours, with each tone having a different

24

24  Theoretical background internal pattern of rising and falling pitch. Many words in Mandarin and Cantonese, especially monosyllabic ones, are differentiated solely by tone. However, the tonal system of Cantonese is considerably more complex than that of Mandarin. Mandarin is generally considered to have four distinct tones: (1) high level ([55] in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)), (2) mid-​rising ([35] in the IPA), (3) low dipping ([214] in the IPA); and (4) high falling ([51] in the IPA). However, there are nine tones, with six tones clearly distinctive in Cantonese, including the following, with the high-​level and high-​ falling tones assumed to be not distinctive (see e.g. Cheung H. N. 1972/​2007, Cheung K. H. 1986 , Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011). (i) high level ([55] in IPA; Tone 1 in Jyut6ping3) (ii) high rising ([35] in the IPA; Tone 2 in Jyut6ping3) (iii) mid level ([33] in IPA; Tone 3 in Jyut6ping3) (iv) low falling ([21] in the IPA; Tone 4 in Jyut6ping3) (v) low rising ([13] in the IPA) (Tone 5 in Jyut6ping3); and (vi) low level ([22] in the IPA) (Tone 6 in Jyut6ping3). What is complicated in Cantonese is that its tonal system influences the lexical meaning of many of its SFPs. As mentioned, the number of Cantonese SFPs is identified in previous studies as ranging from approximately 30 (see e.g. Kwok 1984, Law S. P. 1990, Luke 1990, Fang 2003) to 95 (see Leung 1992/​2005). However, Wakefield (2010) pointed out that as a change in the tonal property of Cantonese would yield a change in lexical meaning, various types of speech acts, speaker stances, and epistemic modalities are encoded in lexical items rather than intonation in Cantonese. If it is considered that a change in the tonal property would give a distinct SFP, the number of SFPs can be up to 95. Fung (2000) proposed that the numerous manifestations of SFPs can be analysed as evolving from three families, labelled Z-​, L-​, and G-​, with the feature [+restrictive] for Z-​, [+realization of state] for L-​, and [+situation given, +focus, +deictic] for G-​. This shows that not only tones affect the meanings of the SFPs but the consonant families as well. Although the current study focuses on neither the tonal system of Cantonese nor intonation, SFPs falling under the Z-​family are included, with different vowels giving two distinct restrictive SFPs, with speaker stances involving in presuppositional meaning of the SFP. What has been described is intended to give an overall review of Cantonese, and in the next subsection, I  present a quick overview on Cantonese verbal suffixes and SFPs. 2.3.2  Post-​verbal particles in Cantonese Cantonese has a rich repertoire of post-​verbal particles, which include verbal suffixes and sentence-​final particles. To begin with, verbal suffixes are defined as suffixes that follow the resultative verb compounds, forming the

 25

Theoretical background 25 construction “V + R + suffix”. Cheung (1972/​2007) is the first scholar who conducted a comprehensive study into Cantonese grammar, and his study includes 19 verbal suffixes (see seven aspectual verbal suffixes in Gao (1980) and 16 aspectual verbal suffixes and complements1 in Yue-​ Hashimoto (1993)). Cheung’s verbal suffixes are referred to as “verbal particles” in Matthews and Yip (1994/​2011), who include 6 aspect markers and 29 verbal particles in their study. Despite the unusually rich repertoire of Cantonese verbal suffixes, so far, only a few isolated studies have been conducted on the semantics and syntax of these verbal suffixes, and their meanings still remain unclear, with some even unknown. Despite these verbal suffixes interacting among the four linguistic domains, namely quantification, focus, modality, and aspect, previous studies on verbal suffixes generally provide an overall description of these suffixes as part of the Cantonese grammar (see e.g. Cheung H. N. 1972/​2007, Gao 1980, Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011, Tang 2015). These studies stress heavily the aspectual nature of verbal suffixes and classify them into two major groups:  aspectual markers and non-​aspectual markers, with the former group further divided into different subtypes, based on different viewpoint aspects. However, the viewpoint aspects recognized by Cantonese grammarians are far more numerous than the imperfective-​perfective dichotomy adopted by the previous literature on viewpoint aspects (see e.g. Comrie 1976, Smith 1997). Cheung categorized his seven aspectual verbal suffixes according to seven viewpoint aspects: zero aspect, perfective aspect, experiential aspect, progressive aspect, continuative aspect, durative aspect, and inchoative aspect, which are represented by seven verbal suffixes, namely Ø, -​zo2, -​gwo3, -​gan2, -​hoi1, -​zyu6, and hei2(soeng5)lei4, respectively, with Ø included only in Cheung’s study. Apart from these seven aspectual verbal suffixes, Cheung also included two controversial cases in his study, namely -​faan1 and -​lok6heoi3. For -​faan1, Cheung takes it to be a recovery complement and, although it is considered to be an aspectual marker (see Gao 1980, Yue-​Hashimoto 1993, and Yuan 1983), Cheung thinks that -​faan1 resembles properties of complements rather than suffixes, despite the fact that “recovery of states or situations” can constitute an aspectual class. On the other hand, for -​lok6heoi3, although Wang (1959) and Chao (1968) consider the “continuative” meaning expressed by -​lok6heoi3 to be aspectual in nature, which marks that the action continues, Cheung thinks that such a use is contributed by the grammaticalization of the directional complement -​lok6heoi3 and cannot be considered as a genuine aspectual verbal suffix. Gao’s study differs from Cheung’s in three ways:  (1) in not having Cheung’s “durative aspect”, but adding a “delimitative aspect” (represented by -​can1, -​hah5 in Gao’s term) and an “iterative aspect” (represented by -​faan1 in Gao’s term); (2)  in grouping -​ hoi1, -​zyu6 and -​gan2 under the same aspectual class “progressive aspect”, on a par with “monosyllabic verb + gung3”; and (3)  in treating -​can1 as another perfective marker. Matthews and Yip’s analysis is the closest to Cheung’s except that they (1) consider -​hoi1 as a habitual marker instead of a

26

26  Theoretical background continuative marker; (2) do not have “inchoative aspect”, and do not include hei2soeng5lei4 as one of the aspect markers; and (3) include the “delimitative aspect” (represented by -​hah5). Yue-​Hashimoto’s 16 aspects, represented by 13 suffixes and 3 complements, include Cheung’s 6 aspects (except Ø), and add habitual (represented by -​hoi1), tentative (represented by verb reduplication), affirmative (represented by jau5 and mou5), instantive (represented by -​can1), partitive (represented by -​gam2), compensative (represented by -​gwo3), change (represented by –​ha5), incessant, resumative (represented by -​faan1), and completive (represented by -​maai4). Two distinctive features of her study are the inclusion of the affirmative aspect markers jau/​mou and the compensative aspectual suffix -​gwo. Focus verbal suffixes fall under the group “non-​aspectual markers”, of which Cheung included ten in his study, which are -​can1, -​maai4, -​saai3, -​hei12, -​hei22, -​dei6, -​ha5, -​hah5, -​di1, and -​faat3. However, whether these suffixes are really non-​aspectual is debatable among Cantonese grammarians. Among these ten non-​aspectual suffixes, some of them are considered to be aspectual by others, for example, -​can1 (see Gao 1980, Yue-​Hashimoto 1993, and Yuan 1983), -​ha5 (equivalent to Mandarin V(yi)V construction, see Chao 1968, Yue-​Hashimoto 1993, Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011), -​hei2 (see Gao 1980), and -​maai4 (see Gao 1980 and Yue-​Hashimoto 1993). The above is a general distribution of Cantonese verbal suffixes. Studies conducted on these verbal suffixes are sparse and restricted to individual suffixes only. T. Lee (1995) pointed out that Cantonese is particularly rich in its devices for A-​quantification by post-​verbal particles from universal quantification (e.g., -​saai3, -​hoi1), domain restriction (e.g., verbal suffix -​dak1 ‘only’, sentence-​final particle -​zaa3 ‘only’), addition (e.g. -​maai4, sentence-​ final particle tim1 ‘add’), and so on. Despite this, studies conducted on quantifying verbal suffixes are as yet few (see e.g. Mo 1993 on a comparative study of -​saai3 and -​maai4; T.  Lee 1994, Shi 1996, Tang 1996, Teng 1996, Auyeung 1998; Pan and Man 1998, P. Lee 2004, 2012), with an integrative study still lacking. The one which has drawn the most theoretical attention is -​saai3, which is related to universal quantification and will not be discussed in detail here. Additionally, adverbs and post-​verbal particles in Cantonese are found to be naturally co-​occurring without any redundancy in meaning. Such a co-​occurrence sequence can be as complicated as “[[determiner + NP + adverb + verb + verbal suffix + … + SFP1] + SFP2…]]”, which is found not only in quantifiers of restriction or addition but in universal quantification as well. Theoretical implications resulting from such sophisticated co-​ occurrence phenomena play a crucial role in determining the overall system of focus manifestation in Chinese, which can be extended to other semantic notions. To give a clearer picture, an example showing the co-​occurrence of the restrictive verbal suffix -​dak1 “only” and the restrictive SFP zaa3 “only” is given below.

 27

Theoretical background 27 (28)  (Nei5 gam1ziu1  sik6-​jyun4 zou2caan1 jau5-​dak1 jam2-​maai4 bui1 gaa3fe1,) you  this-​morning eat-​finish  breakfast  have-​can  drink-​maai4 CL coffee ngo5 gam1ziu1  sik6-​jyun4 jam2-​dak1 bui1 seoi2 zaa3. (Cantonese) I  this-​morning eat-​finish  drink-​DAK CL  water ZAA Meaning “(This morning after breakfast, you can (the “can” meaning by -​dak1) enjoy a cup of coffee too (additive meaning contributed by -​maai4), and) for me, I only (restrictive meaning contributed by -​dak1) had a cup of water, (which is less than you/​less good than you (restricted meaning contributed by scalar zaa3) this morning).” Direct translation into English: ??“(This morning after breakfast, you can enjoy a cup of coffee too (additive meaning contributed by -​maai4), and) for me, after breakfast, I only (zaa3) can have only (-​dak1) a cup of water.”

Example (28) is unnatural if it is translated into English. The complicated scope interpretation of the restrictive and additive focus particles is facilitated by the linearity principle for Chinese scope interpretation, which is stated in the Isomorphic Principle in Huang S. F. (1981), which says that “the surface word order among the quantificational NPs and logical elements directly corresponds to their scope order in a standard predicate calculus presentation of sentences containing such elements”. Example (28) is only a simple example of a restrictive verbal suffix co-​occurring with a restrictive SFP. With the more complicated co-​occurrence patterns, it will be shown that Cantonese relies on the linear order of restrictive and additive particles to convey focus interpretations, which to a certain extent can account for its rich repertoire of post-​verbal particles and their complicated yet natural co-​occurrence patterns. As mentioned, besides verbal suffixes, post-​verbal particles in Cantonese also include sentence-​final particles, which give a more complicated picture. As mentioned in Section 2.3.1, Wakefield (2010) pointed out that as a change in the tonal property of Cantonese would give a change in lexical meaning, various types of speech acts, speaker stances, and epistemic modalities are encoded in lexical items rather than intonation in Cantonese. Bauer and Benedict (1997) also said that Cantonese relies on SFPs to perform different kinds of speech acts and to express the speaker’s emotional attitudes towards situations and his/​her interlocutor’s utterances. This to a certain extent does not only apply to a change in tonal property but also a change in vowels. Fung (2000) proposed that the numerous manifestations of SFPs can be analysed as evolving from three families, labelled Z-​, L-​, and G-​, with the feature [+restrictive] for Z-​, [+realization of state] for L-​, and [+situation given, +focus, +deictic] for G-​. The context-​independent meanings then give rise to

28

28  Theoretical background different senses of the SFPs through semantic extension and pragmatic inference among various linguistic domains, such as sentential, prepositional, discourse, epistemic, speech act, de re, and de dicto. Fung’s analysis is a very good attempt to systematize the complex system of SFPs, whose senses seem to be quite random in other previous studies. However, in what way a variant in tonal systems would influence the encoding of focus in a language, which relies on more complex tonal system in more languages or dialects, is an issue for which the current study of Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese is not able to give a satisfactory and comprehensive answer. However, in the remaining parts of the book, the findings do show that this is true at least in additive and restrictive SFPs in Cantonese, where a change in vowels or tones does yield SFPs with different lexical meanings, resulting in different positioning in the syntactic projections. Moreover, SFPs can combine into clusters of two or more particles, forming more than a hundred combinations. Leung (1992/​2005) claimed that an SFP cluster can contain up to at least five particles, as shown below. (29)  Nei5 waa6 zeoi3-​do1 to1-​do1  go3-​ling4-​jyut6 you  say  at-​most  delay-​additional one-​something-​month tim1-​ge3-​zaa3-​laa3-​maa3. SFP-​SFP-​SFP-​SFP-​SFP (Cantonese) Intended: “Didn’t you say that you would at most only need one more month or so?” Tang (1998, 2002a) argued that there are only two positions for SFPs, “type one”, which is positioned at the head of the tense phrase (TP), and “type two”, which is positioned at the head of the complementizer phrase (CP). Syntactic studies of SFPs are not restricted to Cantonese, but apply to Mandarin as well, and disputed issues arise concerning whether SFPs should be head-​final or head-​initial. In a similar direction as Tang, previous work on SFPs has assumed that all SFPs are very high, in the CP periphery. As mentioned in Paul (2005, 2014), SFPs are traditionally divided into three distributional classes (see e.g. Chao 1968, Zhu 1982, Hu 1981), which can be recast as a split CP in Rizzi (1997), and Paul (2015) proposed a three-​layered CP in the order of Attitude > Force > C(low) > TP. In line with this, recent studies like Erlewine (2017) argued that SFPs contain subsets, with some in a lower, clause-​medial position, which is derived based on the scopal interaction of SFPs with negation, modals, quantificational subjects, and alternative question disjunction. However, without going into detail regarding the syntactic structure of SFPs, regardless of whether it is a three-​layered CP or, as mentioned by Tang, the two-​type SFP, it seems that Cantonese SFPs may not be allowed up to five SFPs in a cluster, leaving some of them probably as postposed adverbs. Putting aside whether some SFPs are indeed adverbs or not, what Cantonese SFPs reveal to us is their complicated scope relations. If they occur with the adverbs, it will describe a very sophisticated scope relation

 29

Theoretical background 29 in Cantonese scope-​related expressions, which can reveal the relation between surface word order and scope interpretation in Cantonese, or Chinese at large. This will be an important issue to be examined in Chapter 5, but our focus will be more on co-​occurrence adverbs, verbal suffixes, and SFPs. We will not be able to touch upon the issue of SFP clusters when studying co-​occurrence patterns, which will be left for future research, with the tones of SFPs having to be taken into consideration as well. The meanings of SFPs are relatively abstract and diverse, which makes it difficult to capture their exact meanings under any theoretical framework. Detailed descriptions of meanings and functions of SFPs include Kwok (1984), Leung (1992/​2005), Fung (2000), Luke (1990), and studies by Cheung (1972/​2005), Matthews and Yip (1995/​2011), and Tang (2015), which focus on Cantonese grammar as a whole. Luke’s (1990) study focuses on the conversational use of SFPs, which he termed “utterance particles”. His study is based on excerpts of conversations, providing a detailed analysis of Cantonese utterance particles, particularly of the SFP lo1. Another study is the one by Fung (2000), which as mentioned above, adopted a pragmatic approach. Fung classified Cantonese SPFs into three families, namely the families of Z-​, L-​, and G-​, which are considered to bear the feature [+restrictive] for Z-​, [+realization of state] for L-​, and [+situation given, +focus, +deictic] for G-​. More recently, studies on SFPs have generally focused more on formal syntactic analyses, with SFPs analyzed within the framework of generative grammar. Putting aside all these, the meanings of SFPs have generally been captured based on their classification. As early as Cheung H. N. (1972/​2007), he already classified Cantonese SFPs according to their uses, such as (i)  describing the emergence of a new situation or state, for example, lo3, laa1; (ii) affirming or asserting, for example, laa3 and lek3; (iii) conveying a command, for example, laa1; (iv) listing a sequence of events, for example, laa1, lo3, lok1, and bo3; and (v) giving reassurance, for example, aa3. Matthews and Yip (1994/​2011) grouped Cantonese SFPs into five categories: (1) question particles, for example, aa3, me1, and haa2; (ii) assertive particles, for example, ge3, wo3, laak3, and lak3; (iii) imperative and persuasive particles, for example, laa1 and lo3; (iv) epistemic particles, for example, gwa3 and aa1maa3; and (v) exclamatory and affective particles, for example, bo3, sin1, zek1, and tim1. On the basis of previous studies, Tang (2015) classified Cantonese SFPs into seven types. Tang included compound SFPs, or SFP clusters, which according to him, contain at most two SFPs according to the two syntactic positions he argued for, as shown in Table 2.1. Generalizing from previous analyses, it can be concluded that Cantonese SFPs can be seen as expressing five major meanings, namely (i) focus, including assertive or affirmative type; (ii) modal; (iii) interrogative; (iv) imperative; and (v) exclamatory and affective. Li and Thompson (1981) included six sentence particles in Mandarin, consisting of (i) le, indicating currently relevant state; (ii) ne, giving response to expectation; (iii) ba, soliciting agreement; (iv) ou,

30

30  Theoretical background Table 2.1 Uses of Cantonese SPFs (see Tang 2015) Types of SFPs

Some examples cited from Tang

(a)

Event SFPs2

sin1, tim1, mat1zai6, lei4, faat3, haa5

(b)

Temporal SFPs

zyu6, gam3zai6, lei4, laa3

(c)

Focus SFPs

zaa3, ne1, lo1, aa1maa3

(d)

Modal SFPs

ze1, gwaa3, tim1, le5, be6, dak1gaa2, ding2laa1

(e)

Interrogative SFPs

maa3, me1, aa4, waa2, ge2, he2, o3ho2, haa6waa5

(f)

Imperative SFPs

laa1, le4, wo5, bo3, sin1, baa2laa1, hou2gwo3, hai2laa1, hou2wo3, la3wei3, aa1laa4, a3haa2

(g)

Emotional SFPs

aa3, -​k

giving friendly warning; (v)  a/​ya, reducing forcefulness; and (vi) ma, asking questions. Apart from being more restricted in terms of number of occurrences of sentence particles, Mandarin SFPs do not have focus SFPs, be it additive or restrictive type, which is at least a major difference between Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese in the way the two mark focus morpho-​syntactically, and will be an issue to be further examined in the remainder of this book. Since the current study examines focus marking in Mandarin and Cantonese in terms of additivity and restrictiveness, in the case of Cantonese, I  will focus on verbal suffixes and SFPs which are related to focus marking, with particular attention given to its co-​occurrence with additive and restrictive adverbs. Studies would also be on the issue that if focusing SFPs are nearly missing in Mandarin counterparts, in what way Mandarin would express the same focus meaning. Reciprocally, in what way are the meanings of multifunctional additives and restrictives in Mandarin expressed in Cantonese?

2.4  The meaning of focus particles in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese: An overview In general, the meaning contribution of focus particles is generally considered to be variable, due to the lexical meaning denoted by the focus particles. While Mandarin relies on focus adverbs, aside from its adverb counterparts, Cantonese has a rich repertoire of focus verbal suffixes and SFPs. In what follows, I will give a quick sketch of some additives and restrictives which are special to Mandarin or Cantonese, with a more complete picture to follow in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. 2.4.1  Additives and restrictives in Mandarin Mandarin has four typical additive adverbs, namely ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, you ‘again/​too’, and zai ‘again’, which when translated into English, will appear

 31

Theoretical background 31 as adverbs in a pre-verbal or sentence-​final position. Studies which attempt to unify their semantics are still lacking. Isolated studies on additive adverbs (see e.g. Yang 1985; Ma 1984, 2000, 2001; Shen 2001; Zhang 2003; Shi 2005) are deemed inadequate when a comprehensive set of data regarding Mandarin additive adverbs is considered. The high degree of multifunctionality of Mandarin adverbs has made their meanings very complex and diverse. For ye ‘also’, its diverse interpretations arise from its sensitivity to stress, which is not peculiar to focus adverbs. As mentioned in Krifka (1999), while exclusive and scalar particles typically precede their focus, additive particles may follow it, in which case they are stressed. Stressed ye and unstressed ye react differently to focus. Unstressed ye ‘also’ serves just like a focus particle and will associate with the focused constituent, which has to be stressed. When it is a focus particle, the tripartite structure of focus-​background partition will be triggered. On the other hand, Liu (2009) considered that stressed ye ‘also’ is not a focus particle but a scope particle taking scope over the entire sentence. Under such a case, no focus-​background structure is triggered. While stressed and unstressed ye ‘also’ gives rise to a distinction between scope particle and focus particle, the highly diverse meanings of hai ‘still’ have made it the most complicated and controversial adverb among all Mandarin additive adverbs. Chao (1968) treats hai as an adverb with three uses: adverb of time “still”; adverb of evaluation (the moderate sense in other literature); and adverb of degree, which can be “fairly” and “still more”. Following Chao, different analyses have been proposed, such as Lü (1980), Li and Thompson (1981), and Yeh (1998), which basically agree on the following uses of hai: (i) temporal use, on a par with the English “still”; (ii) additive focus, on a par with the English “also”/​”even”; (iii) repetition, on a par with the English “again”; (iv) used in a comparative construction; and (v) the moderate use, like Zhe ge banfa hai keyi “This way is still acceptable”. Based on the above uses, two views have been taken to identify the core meanings of hai ‘still’. The first view is to take hai as a scalar operator. Michaelis (1993) suggested that the abstract notion of persistence is the core meaning of the various uses of “still” (assumed to be equivalent to hai), which is taken to be a scalar operator compatible with scales on which time points or entities are ordered (König 1977). A similar line of argument is also taken in Gao (2002), which analysed hai as an adverb of continuance. The second view is to consider the additive function of hai as the core meaning, with hai as an additive adverb (see Min 1997). The sense of temporal persistence is considered to be derived from adding up states of the same kind, and the repetitive use of hai is extended from the additive function by adding identical events, which leads to “repetition” (see e.g. van der Auwera 1993,Yeh 1998). Relying on the scalar model of Fillmore, Kay, and O’Connor (1988), Liu F. H. (2000) argued that hai is a scalar adverb which associates with the stronger proposition marking a higher value on a scale, which can be provided within the predicate-​scope of hai. The proposition asserted by the sentence containing hai makes a stronger proposition than another proposition in the

32

32  Theoretical background context, with the former entailing the latter, which marks a lower value on the scale. As scalar particles are a subset of focus particles (König 1991), Liu F. H. considered hai as a focus particle. Like ye ‘also’, the interpretation of hai ‘still’ varies between whether hai is stressed or not stressed, an issue which has been further examined in Shen (2001). Shen additionally argues that hai is an increment adverb carrying an increment meaning. Such an increment meaning is differentiated between “normal increment” and “metalinguistic increment”, depending on whether hai can be replaced by geng ‘(even)-​more’ or can be stressed. For “normal increment”, hai marks an increment meaning through addition, which is taken to be non-​scalar. Under such a case, hai can be replaced by geng ‘(even) more’ and needs to be stressed. For “metalanguage increment”, hai marks an increment meaning in terms of degree of informativeness. Under such a case, the meaning of hai is scalar, with the scale to be identified in context or in discourse. Hai cannot be replaced by geng ‘(even)-​more’ and cannot be stressed. In sum, although different uses have been proposed for hai, “persistence” and “addition” are generally considered to be two of its underlying meanings. Analyses vary depending on whether they consider (i) persistence as the basic meaning, with addition derived; (ii) addition as the basic meaning, with persistence derived; or (iii) both persistence and addition are basic meanings. Finally, for you ‘again/​ too’ and zai ‘again’, Liu (2009) categorized Mandarin additive adverbs into three groups, namely the “too” group, the “still” group, and the “again” group. You and zai will be classified under the “again” group, and the two are classified as “non-​movable adverbs”, whose positions in the sentence are relatively fixed, that is, “the position immediately following the subject or topic and before the verb” (Li and Thompson 1981, p.322). In his pioneering work, Chao (1968) treats you as an adverb of time or a coordination/​correlative conjunction marker in some contexts. Three uses of you are mainly discussed in Lü (1980):  temporal you; accumulative you, and mood you. The function of you in a sentence is to “relate an event to another event”, and it “can be seen as expressing progress in an extensive project encompassing both events” (cited from Li and Thompson 1981, p.272). Among its different uses, the “also” or additive meaning of you ‘again/​too’ has drawn more attention in later studies. Shao and Rao (1985) provide a unified account of the meanings of you: different senses of you are reduced to one meaning, that is, the additive meaning, differing in what is added, such as actions of the same type, state, or properties. In line with the “additive” approach, Shi (1990) considers the basic meaning of you as increasing, which can be divided into two groups:  group 1 places the increment sense on the after-​you constituent and always contains one you in the sentence; and group 2 is always in the form of ‘you…you’, expressing the meaning of the increment in both constituents. Moreover, Biq (1988) has taken you ‘again/​too’ to be an operator applied to an entity and to have “the function of accumulating different yet relevant properties of that entity”, and you functions to denote

 33

Theoretical background 33 the “accumulation of relevance”. “Relevance” is captured by the concept of “conversation topic”, which is used as the focus entity, and the comments are the accumulated properties. Like ye ‘also’ and hai ‘still’, stressed you ‘again/​too’ and unstressed you do have different interpretations. When you is stressed, the focusing scope is the whole eventuality. Various constituents can enter the scope of stressed you. Stressed you can be in the temporal environment. Besides the temporal use, stressed you can also be used to demonstrate an addition of the amounts of the eventuality. Like stressed ye and hai, stressed you serves as a scope particle and takes the entire proposition into its scope. Mandarin has a restrictive focus particle zhi(-​you/​-​shi) ‘only(-​have/​-​be)’, which is treated on a par with English “only”, to perform neutral or simple restriction. However, what has drawn the most attention is jiu ‘only’ and cai ‘only’. With both translated as English “only”, cai and jiu are seemingly interchangeable. Lü (1980) presented five meanings of cai:  (i) a temporal meaning of “just”, indicating that the event happened not long ago; (ii) the late occurrence of an event; (iii) the signalling of the meaning of “small in quantity” or “low in degree”; (iv) use in the apodosis of a conditional construction to give a meaning of “only under some condition, then…”; and (v)  emphasis on the mood of affirmative. Later studies on cai and jiu were conducted by Lu (1984), Biq (1984, 1988), Paris (1987), and Lai (1995, 1999), among others. Lu (1984) has given a unified account to explain different uses of jiu. He considers the basic meaning of jiu is restricting scope, and that it takes the mood of emphasizing “small quantity”. Biq (1984, 1988) investigates cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ from both semantic and pragmatic perspectives, and generalizes four uses of cai and jiu, namely temporal use, emphatic use, parametric use, and limiting use. First, in the temporal use, cai indicates both “immediate past” and “later than expected”, while jiu indicates “immediate future” and “earlier than what is expected”. Lai (1995, 1999) argues that cai and jiu are scalar particles, which indicate ‘rejected expectation’, and both presuppose ‘a change of state of the truth value of a proposition’: while cai indicates that the asserted value is located ‘further up’ than expected on the relevant scale, jiu signals that the asserted value is located ‘farther down’ than expected. 2.4.2  Additives and restrictives in Cantonese As mentioned, Cantonese demonstrates a unique feature that is either not very productive or unattested in Mandarin –​a particularly rich inventory of post-​verbal particles, including verbal suffixes and SFPs. In terms of additive post-​verbal particles, at least two are widely acknowledged in previous studies of Cantonese, namely the SFP tim1 ‘too’ and the verbal suffix -​maai4 ‘also’. The semantics of tim1 ‘too’ has already aroused much attention in previous studies of Cantonese, with no concrete conclusion reached. To begin with, it is widely acknowledged that when the verbal tim1 appears in

34

34  Theoretical background the sentence-​final position, its lexical meaning of “add” is preserved (see e.g. Zhan 1958, Cheung H. N. 1972/​2007, Kwok 1984, Law S. P. 1990 , Leung 1992/​2005, and Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011, and see e.g. Luke 1990, Fung 2000, A.  Law 2004, Sybesma and Li 2007, and Wakefield 2010 for more studies on Cantonese SFPs). The meaning of sentence-​final particles in Cantonese remains complicated and elusive, and it is not surprising that besides its additive use, SFP tim1 is claimed to have another use, namely as a mood particle (see e.g. Zhan 1958, Cheung 1972/​2007, Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011). The semantics of tim1 remains controversial, with detailed and unified semantic studies lacking, except for P.  Lee and Pan (2010) and Winterstein et al. (2018). P. Lee and Pan proposed a unified study for tim1. Based on Giannakidou’s study of the Greek akomi ke, oute, and esto (counterparts to English “even”, 2007), P. Lee and Pan (2010) concluded out that the seemingly dual function of tim1 can be unified by its three special properties: (a) tim1 does not rely on the extreme ends of the scale, be it relative or absolute; (b) tim1 is flexible in its scale selection; and (c) tim1 is not sensitive to polarity. The three properties make tim1 “too/​as well” demonstrate diverse readings in its occurrence, and also make it distinct from additive particles like English “also/​too” and English “even” and similar items in Greek. Contrarily, following Zhan (1958), Winterstein et al. (2018) argued for two tim1’s, with one being an additive tim1 and the other a mirative tim1 (“mood particle” in Zhan’s term). Moreover, besides SFP tim1 ‘too’, Cantonese has an additive verbal suffix -​maai4 ‘also’, and Matthews and Yip (1994/​2011) consider one meaning of -​maai4 to be “in addition to”. Along the same lines, others (see Zhan 1958, Cheung 1972/​2007, Mo 1993, and Li et al. 1995) consider the crucial meaning of -​maai4 as marking an extension of an action to either the object (in case of transitive verbs) or the subject (in case of intransitive verbs). Under the assumption that Cantonese -​maai4 is an additive quantifier, P.  Lee (2012) takes -​maai4 as a focus-​sensitive quantifier, which interprets with the focus, and focal mapping is triggered, with the focus possibly expanding the scope of -​maai4 from vP to TP. Moreover, Zhan (1958), Cheung (1972/​2007), Mo (1993), Li et  al. (1995), and Yue-​Hashimoto (1993) claim that -​maai4 can be used to mark the completion of the relevant action. Taking -​maai4 to be a quantifier, P.  Lee’s (2012) study focuses more on its syntax-​semantics mapping, which has argued that syntax has taken an unexpectedly more important role in determining the mapping of -​maai4 as compared with usual A-​quantifiers. Regarding restrictives, Cantonese is unique in having the restrictive verbal suffix -​dak1 ‘only’, which is complicated in its multiple roles as (a) a descriptive phrase marker, (b) a mood particle, or (c) a restrictive particle. It has been acknowledged that when -​dak1 associates with a nominal with [+quantity] feature, it will be restrictive -​dak1; otherwise, it will be a deontic or a descriptive one (see T. Lee 1995; Luke 1999; Tang 2000, 2002b; Cheng and Sybesma 2004;

 35

Theoretical background 35 P. Lee and Pan 2007). Yet, what is more complicated is the presence of its two restrictive SFPs, zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’, with their interpretation counting on the speakers’ judgement. Lasersohn (2009, 2017) argued that the role for context is not only for fixing the contents of sentences on particular occasions of use but also in determining the truth values of those contents once they are fixed. Put another way, as early as Kaplan (1989), it was pointed out that context plays a role not just in determining content but also in assigning truth values to contents. To illustrate how contexts play a role in assigning truth values to contents, Lasersohn appeals to examples like (30). (30)  Licorice is tasty. (cited from Lasersohn 2009) Lasersohn pointed out that if John says, “Licorice is tasty” and Mary says, “No, licorice is not tasty”, examples like (30) would be a challenge to conventional semantic theories. While Mary is negating the very same content that John asserts, one of them must be saying something false, or they would not seem to be contradicting one another. To account for this, Lasersohn proposed a framework of relativist semantic theory. It suggests a system where context plays a role not just in assigning contents to sentences but also in assigning truth values to contents. Contexts are assumed to provide an individual on whose judgement may depend. As will be shown in Chapter 3, the basic meaning of the SFP tim1 is an increment or additive particle, but it shows an interesting feature of an association with speaker stances when expressing additivity, giving rise to the unexpected or mirative reading. Along the same lines, as will be discussed in Chapter 4, cases of the restrictive SFPs zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’, and the licensing of gau3 ‘enough’ by SFPassert reveal that interpretation of Cantonese SFPs tends to depend very much on speaker and addressee stances, with the element of subjective judgment or opinion involved in the interpretations of some focus adverbs and SFPs, as observed in some previous studies (see e.g. Fung 2000,Wong 2010, Lau 2013). If speaker and addressee stances do contribute to the interpretation of these adverbs and SPFs, it would be predicted that their semantics would need to be captured under the framework of relativist semantic theory, as such a framework assumes that context will provide an individual on whose judgement may depend and play a role in assigning truth values to contents. Moreover, previous analyses of Mandarin SFPs distinguish three classes (see e.g. Paul 2014, 2015, Erlewine 2017): (a) SFP1:  low SFP; (b)  SFP2:  clause-​type; (c)  SFP3:  speaker/​addressee attitude. If the speaker’s and addressee’s attitude are involved in sentences containing SFPs and adverbs, the way in which their semantics is to be mapped to their syntax would also be a question to be looked into. Points made here are still preliminary, and the role of speaker/​addressee stances in the interpretation of focus particles will be an issue to be further investigated in the remaining parts of the book.

36

36  Theoretical background

Notes 1 Traditional studies of Chinese refer verbal complements to everything that can follow the verb, and they are not restricted to objects or subordinate clauses. 2 Tang’s classification is in Chinese, and the translation presented in Table 2.1 is my translation.

 37

3  Additive focus particles

3.1  Introduction Mandarin generally appeals to syntactic constructions and additive adverbs, and is less productive in semantic post-​verbal particles. As mentioned, apart from additive adverbs, Cantonese is particularly rich in post-​verbal particles, including verbal suffixes and sentence final particles (SFPs). Mandarin and Cantonese demonstrate a nice division of labour when accounting for data in additive quantifications between the two. This chapter examines the semantics of additives in Mandarin and Cantonese, and begins with additive adverbs in Mandarin, followed by additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles in Cantonese. Section 3.2 focuses on Mandarin additive adverbs, particularly you ‘again/​too’, ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and zai ‘again’, with comparison made between Mandarin additive adverbs and their Cantonese counterparts in Section 3.2.2. Cantonese additive particles will be discussed in Section 3.3, with Section 3.3.1 on SFPs tim1 ‘too’; Section 3.3.2 on the construction gau3…SFPassert ‘enough…SFPassert’, with comparison made between gau3 ‘enough’ and dou1 ‘also/​even’, which are claimed to be analogous; and Section 3.3.3 on verbal suffix -​maai4 ‘also’. The chapter concludes in Section 3.4, with an overall comparison between Mandarin and Cantonese additives.

3.2  Additive focus adverbs in Mandarin Chinese As I am not in a better position to provide a comprehensive and satisfactory analysis of all Mandarin additives, before starting this section, what needs to be emphasized is that instead of proposing a comprehensive analysis of the Mandarin additive adverbs you ‘again/​too’, ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and zai ‘again’, which is beyond the scope of this book, the focus of the current section is to compare Mandarin additives with their Cantonese counterparts. However, before doing this, previous studies on these four Mandarin additive adverbs are generally discussed. As compared with other languages, Chinese lacks a comprehensive study on additive markers, with sparse studies, like Liu (2009), who focuses more on child language, and Hole (2004), who studies focus and backgrounding

38

38  Additive focus particles in Mandarin, not limited to dou ‘all/​also’ and ye ‘also’ but also including the restrictive particles cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’. To the extent that Chinese additive markers receive any coverage, it is approached as isolated studies on particular additive markers (see e.g. Yang 1985; Ma 1984, 2001; Shen 2001; Zhang 2003; T. Lee 1995, 2005; Shi 2005), predominantly on Mandarin and sparsely on Cantonese. Typical additives in Mandarin are distinguished from their scalar and non-​scalar parameters: you ‘again/​too’, ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and zai ‘again’ as non-​scalar additives, and (lian)…dou/​ye/​hai ‘even’ and shenzhi ‘even’ as scalar additives. As pointed out by Reis and Rosengren (1997), plain additive particles like the German “auch” occur equally unmarked to the left as well as to the right of the focus-​related constituent (RC), exhibiting the following accentuation pattern: if to the left of the RC, the RC bears the main stress and the additive particle does not; if to the right, it is the other way around, with main stressed additive particles being no more contrastive or marked than their unstressed counterparts. In other words, unstressed versus stressed additive particles are in complementary distribution with respect to position and stress of the RC: whichever comes later, the additive particle or the RC, will bear the nuclear accent. In spite of lexical variations, the main regularity also holds in English: unstressed “also” and stressed occurrences of particles (ALso, TOO, EITHer) are in complementary distribution with respect to position and stress of the RC. Like the German “auch” and the English “also/​ too/​either”, Mandarin additives like you, ye, hai, and zai are also sensitive to focus which precedes or follows them, and are distinguished in terms of stressed additives and unstressed additives. When you, ye, hai, and zai are stressed, the focus associates generally precede the stressed additives, with the associated item preceding them. Unstressed you, ye, hai, and zai are typical focus particles, which precede and interpret with the focused constituent within their c-​commanding domain. 3.2.1  Additive focus adverbs you ‘again’, ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and zai ‘again’ You ‘again/​too’, ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and zai ‘again’, when translated into English, will appear as adverbs in a pre-verbal or sentence-​final position. However, studies which have attempted to unify their semantics are still lacking. Isolated studies on additive adverbs (see e.g. Yang 1985; Ma 1984, 2001; Shen 2001, Zhang 2003; Shi 2005) are deemed inadequate when a comprehensive set of data regarding Mandarin additive adverbs is considered. Focusing on child language, Liu (2009) was the first to conduct a unified account of the semantics of you ‘again/​too’, ye ‘also’, and hai ‘still’, and categorized them into three groups, namely the too-​group, the still-​group, and the again-​group, in comparison with their English counterparts. Liu claims that interpretation of these additive adverbs is sensitive to stress, with stressed and unstressed forms triggering different focus structures. Each group of additive particles should therefore be further distinguished into three variants:  (i) stressed additives, (ii) additives with a following focus, and (iii) additives with a preceding focus, with each triggering different tripartite structures. At this point,

 39

Additive focus particles 39 the sensitivity of you, ye, and hai to stress seems to suggest that Mandarin appeals to additive adverbs accompanied by prosodic stress to express its additive focus meaning, and in what way Cantonese expresses a similar or the same meaning is an issue for investigation in the remaining parts of the book. Assuming that ye ‘also’ belongs to the ‘too’ group of additives, Liu mentioned three variants of ye ‘also’ below. (3)  (a) Zhangsan ye  mai-​le   [yi     ben  shu]F. (Mandarin)   Zhangsan YE buy-​ PERF one CL book    “Zhangsan bought a book too.”    YE [Zhangsan bought x] [x = a book] (b) Zhangsan [ye]F  mai-​ le  yi      ben shu. (Mandarin)   Zhangsan YE buy-​ PERF one CL book    “Zhangsan bought a book too.” (c) [Zhangsan]F ye mai-​ le  yi  ben shu. (Mandarin)   Zhangsan YE buy-​ PERF one   CL book    “Zhangsan as well bought a book.” Example (3a) has the central stress put on yi-​bun-​shu ‘one-​CL-​book’, which is within the c-​commanding domain of ye ‘also’, hence unstressed ye. Under such a case, the unstressed ye acts just like a focus particle, triggering the tripartite structure as given in (3a). Like the case of the English “too” (see Kaplan 1984), ye is subject to “single-​difference” constraint which requires that (i) in the case of a contrast between individuals, the contrasting individual to be added needs to share the same property; and (ii) in the case of a contrast between properties, the contrasting property to be added needs to belong to the same individual. Under such a case, the occurrence of ye is obligatory (see Liu 2009), and its scope in fact resembles a c-​commanding domain. For the stressed ye ‘also’ in (3b), Liu considered stressed ye not a focus particle but instead a scope particle. The constituent c-​commanded by stressed ye is required to be identical materials in the discourse, which also accounts for the following sentences. (4) (a) Zhangsan  zai-​jiali  chi-​le      yi  ge  pingguo,    Zhangsan   at-​home  eat-​PERF one CL apple    Lisi [ye]F zai-​jiali  chi-​le       yi  ge  pingguo. (Mandarin)   Lisi YE at-​ home  eat-​ PERF one CL apple     “Zhangsan ate an apple at home, and Lisi ate an apple at home too.” (b)  *Zhangsan [zai-​jiali  chi-​le   yi  ge  pingguo],    Zhangsan  at-​home  eat-​PERF one CL apple    Lisi [ye]F [zai-​xuexiao  chi-​le   yi  ge  pingguo]. (Mandarin)    Lisi YE  at-​school   eat-​PERF one CL apple   Intended: “Zhangsan ate an apple at home, and he ate an apple at school too.” (cited from Liu 2009)

40

40  Additive focus particles Based on the above, Liu proposed the following constraint for stressed ye ‘also’. (5) ID (identical materials) requirement of stressed ye All the constituents in the c-​command domain of stressed ye are identical materials. Recall the case in (3c), which demonstrates a pattern different from the German “auch” ‘also’. The German “auch” is stressed in order to associate with elements preceding it. In the case of ye ‘also’ in (3c), it is unstressed, and the preceding constituent must carry a central accent and associates with a contrastive element, either a focus or a contrastive topic, according to Liu (2009). Like the case of stressed ye, the constituent to the right of ye must be identical materials. (6) *[Lisi]F  xihuan tiaowu,  [Zhangsan]F ye  xihuan  huahua. (Mandarin) Lisi   like  dancing  Zhangsan  YE  like   drawing Intended: “Lisi likes dancing, and Zhangsan like drawing too.” (cited from Liu 2009) Unlike the stressed ye ‘also’, the unstressed ye is considered a focus particle and will associate with the focused constituent to its left, which has to be stressed. Ye under such a case is considered to be associated with the focus or the contrastive topic. As a focus particle, the tripartite structure of Table 3.1 The three variants of ye ‘also’ (see Liu 2009) Unstressed ye ‘also’

Stressed ye ‘also’

Particle type

Focus particle

Scope particle

Scope

Focus domain of ye

With ye itself in focus, the entire sentence is within its scope

Associates

Associate with focused constituent within its c-​commanding domain or the contrasting constituent to its left, with focus-​background structure triggered

Ye itself is in focus, and no association triggered by stress or focus, with no focus-​ background structure triggered

Identical requirement /​ “single-​ difference” constraint

Subject to identical requirement, which requires constituents within its domain to be identical materials. Or subject to the “single-​difference” constraint requires sentences to be different in the contrasting items only.

Constituents c-​commanded by stressed ye required to be identical materials

 41

Additive focus particles 41 focus-​background partition will then be triggered. Such a ye may be considered as lian…ye, which, according to Liu, can also be found in lian…dou and lian… hai, and lian under such a case is taken as optional, with lian…ye giving the “even” meaning and ye the “also” meaning. Therefore, in a case like (3c), it is in fact ambiguous between the “also” meaning of ye and the “even” reading of lian…ye, which is interpreted with alternatives ordered in the set of members. Based on the above, readers are referred to Table 3.1 for a summary of the three variants of ye proposed by Liu (2009). While ye ‘also’ belongs to the “too” group of additives, hai ‘still’ belongs to the “still” group, which is considered to be the counterpart of “still” in English or “noch” in German. As with other additive particles, hai or the German “noch” does not contribute to the assertion part. Chao (1968) treats hai as an adverb with three different uses: adverb of time “still”; adverb of evaluation (the moderate sense in other literature); and adverb of degree, which can be “fairly”, and “still more”. Following Chao, different analyses have been proposed, such as Lü (1980), Li and Thompson (1981), and Yeh (1998), who basically agreed on the following uses of hai. (7)  Temporal use (“still”): Lao Zhang  hai   zai    shui-​jiao. (Mandarin) LaoZhang  HAI  PROG sleep “Laozhang is still sleeping.” (8) Additive focus (“also”/​”even”): Ta hai   mai-​ le   yi  ge huaping. (Mandarin) s/​he HAI  buy-​PERF one  CL  vase “S/​he also/​even bought one vase.” (9) Repetition (“again”): Ta zuotian qu youyong,  jintian hai  hui/​ yao  qu. (Mandarin) s/​ he yesterday go swim   today HAI will/​ want go “S/​he went swimming yesterday, and today he will go/​still wants to go again.” (10)  In a comparative construction: Xiao Wang bi     Lao Zhang ´hai  gao. (Mandarin) XiaoWang   COMP  LaoZhang  HAI   tall “Xiao Wang is even′ taller than Lao Zhang.” (11) The moderate use: Zhe ge   banfa  hai   keyi. (Mandarin) this CL  way    HAI  can “This way will still work.” Except for the moderate use, these uses are related to the English “still”, “again”, “also”, and “even”. Based on the above uses, unified accounts have been proposed to capture the semantics of hai by recognizing its core meanings, with

42

42  Additive focus particles others taken as derived meanings. In line with this, two views have been taken. The first view is to take hai as a scalar operator. Michaelis (1993) suggested that the abstract notion of persistence is the core meaning of the various uses of “still”, which is taken to be a scalar operator compatible with scales on which time points or entities are ordered (see König 1977), and a similar line of argument is also taken in Gao (2002), who analysed hai as an adverb of continuance. The second view is to consider the additive function of hai as the core meaning, with hai as an additive adverb (see Min 1997). The sense of temporal persistence is considered to be derived from adding up states of the same kind, and the repetitive use of hai is extended from the additive function by adding identical events, which leads to “repetition” (see e.g. Van der Auwera 1993, Yeh 1998). Relying on the scalar model of Fillmore, Kay, and O’Connor (1988), Liu F. H. (2000) suggested that all of the occurrences of hai ‘still’, including all five meanings mentioned above, and a meaning of “counter to expectation”, have a basic meaning:  it is persistent and it evokes a relation between two propositions to be evaluated in a scalar model. For the temporal use, hai relates two temporal points, namely “now” and “just now”, and since hai also has the property of being persistent, hai is interpreted as “still”. (12)  Laowang gangcai shi-​ bu-​ shi zai  kan  dianshi. (Mandarin) Laowang  just-​now  be-​NEG-​be  PROG watch  TV “Was Laowang watching TV just now?” [Dui], ta  xiangzai ye  (hai) zai   kan. yes  he now  YE HAI PROG watch “Yes, he is still watching now.” (cited from Liu F. H. 2000) As mentioned, Liu F. H. considered hai as carrying two basic meanings, namely, persistence and relating the text proposition and the context proposition, and tried to relate the temporal use of hai along this line. In (12), hai relates two temporal points, now and just now, and since hai also has the property of being persistent, hai is interpreted as “still”. The derivation of the “still” meaning can also be extended to the “again” meaning. Under the “again” meaning, hai relates two instances of the same activity, but as mentioned in previous studies, the repeated event is restricted to the future context. Therefore, (9) cannot be written as (13) below. (13) *Ta zuotian   qu youyong, jintian hai qu you-​ le. (Mandarin) s/​ he yesterday go swim  today HAI go  swim-​ PERF Intended: “S/he went swimming yesterday, and today he went again.” As seen, the basic meaning of hai ‘still’ is persistent, and it induces a relation between two propositions: a proposition understood from the background and a proposition asserted by the sentence containing hai. To account for other

 43

Additive focus particles 43 uses of hai, Liu F. H. argued that hai is scalar adverb which associates with the stronger proposition marking a higher value on a scale, which can be provided within the predicate scope of hai, be it given by a temporal reference, an ordinal reference, or a degree reference. The proposition asserted by the sentence containing hai makes a stronger proposition than another proposition in the context, with the former entailing the latter, which marks a lower value on the scale. As scalar particles are a subset of focus particles (see König 1991), Liu F. H. considered hai as the scalar and additive type of focus particles, with its interpretation varying between whether hai is stressed or not stressed. Along the lines of Liu F.  H. (2000), Shen (2001) further argues that hai ‘still’ is an increment adverb carrying an increment meaning, which he differentiated between “normal increment” and “metalinguistic increment”, depending on whether hai can be replaced by geng ‘(even)-​more’ or can be stressed. For “normal increment”, as in (14) below, hai marks an increment meaning through addition, which is taken to be non-​scalar. Under such a case, hai can be replaced by geng ‘(even) more’ and needs to be stressed. For “metalanguage increment”, hai marks an increment meaning in terms of degree of informativeness, as in (15). Under such a case, the meaning of hai is scalar and like the English “even” or “let alone”, with the scale to be identified in context or in discourse. Hai cannot be replaced by geng and cannot be stressed. (14) Zhe liang che bi   na liang che ´hai xiao. (Mandarin) this CL   car COMP that CL   car HAI small “This car is even smaller than that car.” (cited from Shen 2001) (15) Xiao-​che hai  tong bu   guo  ne  (, jiu   bie ti     da-​che le). small-​car HAI  go   NEG  pass  SFP (, then not mention big-​car  SFP “Even small cars yet cannot pass through. Don’t mention big cars then.” (Mandarin) (cited from Shen 2001) Example (14), which marks a normal increment, represents cases where hai is found in comparative construction in form of X COMP Y, with the exact increment possibly marked by a phrase marking quantity or degree. Example (15) marks a metalanguage increment, and hai is found frequently co-​occurring with the SFP ne. The hai…ne ‘still…SFP’ clause is considered the main clause, with the clause without hai…ne as the contrastive clause given by the discourse or context. Hai in (15) associates with the stressed phrase to its left, making xiao-​che ‘small-​car’ in contrast with da-​che ‘big-​car’, with the scale to be the degree of informativeness. Encoding a higher degree of informativeness, the hai…ne clause would entail the clause without hai…ne. However, regardless of which approach mentioned above is taken, as mentioned in Yeh (1996), some core meanings of hai ‘still’ fail to be covered. If hai is taken as a pure scalar operator, it will be difficult to account for its

44

44  Additive focus particles Table 3.2 Major categorization of the Mandarin hai ‘still’ Persistence

Addition (additive function)

Scalar adverb

Basic meaning of hai: persistence and scalarity (1) Persistence is the core meaning of the various uses of “still” (2)  Hai is scalar. The notion of persistence is expressed through a scale on which time points or entities are ordered.

Addition: not the basic meaning of hai (1) Addition does not denote the sense of persistence. (2) Additive use has no implication of a scale.

Additive adverb

Persistence: not the basic meaning of hai

Basic meaning of hai: addition (1) The sense of temporal continuance is derived from adding up states of the same kind.

Focus adverb (Scalar and additive type)

Basic meanings of hai: scalarity and addition (1) Scalar Hai interpreted in a scalar model It is used to relate two propositions, with hai associated with the stronger proposition (2) Additive Hai includes the alternatives, as its presence implies that the proposition containing hai, when replaced by a lower value, is also true (3) Focus adverbs Scalar particles are a subset of focus particles whose focus is not always overtly expressed. Stressed and unstressed hai give different pragmatic forces.

Increment adverb

Basic meaning of hai: Increment (1) Normal increment Non-​scalar use of hai which is stressed (2) Metalanguage increment Scalar use of hai…ne, with hai unstressed. Hai is used to relate two positions giving a higher degree of informativeness as compared with a context proposition.

additive function and its use as a connective marker. On the other hand, if the additive function is considered the basic meaning of hai, although the temporal continuance or the persistence meaning of hai can be said to be derived from adding up states of the same kind, it will be difficult to account for the moderate use of hai. Therefore, Yeh proposed that the basic meanings of hai can only be concluded by diachronic data which reveal that the two functions of hai, a connective marker and the indication of

 45

Additive focus particles 45 temporal continuance, were derived from the meaning “repetition” around the seventh or the eighth century. More importantly, from the meaning of repetition, the two functions were extended through separate paths of semantic change, and each gained different sets of properties. Therefore, instead of searching for the core meaning of hai, the two functions should be analysed differently. In sum, although different uses have been proposed for hai, persistence, viz, “still”, and addition, viz. “even” or “also”, are generally considered the two basic meanings of hai. Analyses vary depending on whether they consider (i)  persistence as the basic meaning, with addition derived, (ii) addition as the basic meaning, with persistence derived, or (iii) both persistence and addition as the basic meanings. Along this direction, major claims are summarized in Table 3.2. 3.2.2  A comparison of Mandarin additive adverbs with their Cantonese counterparts As mentioned, the focus of the current study is to compare Mandarin additives with their Cantonese counterparts. On the basis of previous analyses on Mandarin additives, while Cantonese additive adverbs like jau6 ‘again’, dou1 ‘even’/​‘also’, zung6 ‘still’, and zoi3 ‘again’ are generally equivalent to the Mandarin you ‘again/​too’, ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and zai ‘again’, when one compares Mandarin with Cantonese, it can be observed that Cantonese demonstrates some patterns which are distinct from Mandarin. I will begin with hai, which represents the most controversial among all Mandarin additives. Consider the temporal use of hai ‘still’ as shown below. (16) Temporal use of hai ‘still’: corresponding to Cantonese zung6 ‘even’ + hai6dou6 ‘at-here’/​gan2 ‘PROG’ (a) Lao Zhang  hai  zai  shui-​ jiao. (Mandarin) Laozhang HAI  PROG sleep “Laozhang is still sleeping.” (b) Lou5Zoeng1  zung6 fan3-​gan2-​gaau3 /​ zung6 hai2-​dou6 fan3gaau3. (Cantonese) Louzoeng   even  sleep-​ PROG /​  even at-​ here  sleep “Louzoeng is still sleeping.” For the temporal use of hai, in line with Liu H.  F., when hai is stressed in (16), there is a sense that Laozhang is expected to have stopped sleeping. Without stress, hai is used to relate two temporal points, now and just now. Hai has the property of being persistent, and (16) says what Laozhang is sleeping now entails that he was sleeping since an earlier point of time. However, Cantonese does not appeal to the stressed particle, and in the case of (16), it will appeal to the focus additive particle zung6 ‘even’ to express the

46

46  Additive focus particles meaning of stressed hai, signifying that Laozhang is expected to have stopped sleeping, while persistence is expressed by the pre-verbal progressive marker hai6-​dou6 ‘at-​here’ or the post-​verbal progressive gan2. Moreover, consider the other uses of hai claimed in previous analyses. (17) Hai ‘also/​even’ expressing additive focus: corresponding to Cantonese zung6/​lin1…dou1 ‘even...all’ (a) Ta   hai  mai-​ le    yi  ge   huaping. (Mandarin) s/​ he HAI buy-​ PERF one   CL vase “S/​he also/​even bought one vase.” (b) Keoi5  zung6   maai5-​zo2  go3  faa1zeon1. (Cantonese) s/​ he  ZUNG buy-​ PERF CL  vase   “S/​he even bought a vase.” (18) Hai ‘again’ marking repetition: corresponding to the Cantonese dou1 ‘also’ /​zung1 ‘even’ (a) T  a   zuotian   qu  youyong, jintian  hai   hui/​yao  qu. (Mandarin) s/​ he yesterday  go swim  today HAI will/​ want go “S/​he went swimming yesterday, and today s/​he will go/​still want to go again.” (b) Keoi5 kam4jat6  heoi3-​ jau4seoi2  gam1jat6 zung6/​dou1    wui6/​jiu3  heoi3. (Cantonese) s/​ he  yesterday go-​ swim    today  ZUNG/​ DOU will/​ want go    “S/​he went swimming yesterday, and today s/​he will still go again.” For hai ‘also/​even’, which gives the additive meaning, be it stressed or unstressed, unlike ye ‘also’, which may appeal to dou1 ‘also’, Cantonese generally appeals to zung6 ‘even’, giving a meaning on a par with English “even”. Under such a case, the associate will generally be constituents within the predicate. Lin4…dou1 will be used if the associate is the subject NP. When hai is not stressed, its two uses, namely additive focus and repetition, are the normal non-​scalar additive meaning, and while the additive focus may have its associate with the direct object within the predicate, prosodic stress on the subject is needed when the additive associate is the subject. For the repetition meaning, hai resembles the English “again”, with hai associating with the predicate, giving a reading of the recurrence of the event in question. In other words, when hai is not stressed, it expresses a meaning of “even” or “also”, which is the lexical meaning of the adverb, with Cantonese appealing to zung6 for “even”, giving a scalar or non-​scalar reading, or dou1 for “also”, giving a non-​scalar additive meaning. Like normal additive focus, an existential presupposition to an alternative relative to the associate will be triggered in additive focus, with the associate added to the presupposed set. Relevant examples are again shown below.

 47

Additive focus particles 47 (19) Normal increment (a) Zhe  liang che bi       na  liang   che ´hai da (zhishao  sanfen-​zhi-​ yi). (Mandarin) this   CL  car COMP that CL  car HAI big  (at-​least one-​third)    “This car is even bigger than that car (, at least one third bigger).” (b) Nei1  gaa3 ce1 bei2   go2  gaa3 ce1  zung6  daai6. (Cantonese)   this CL car COMP that CL car ZUNG  big    “This car is even′ bigger than that car.” (c) Nei1 gaa3 ce1  zung6  daai6-​gwo3 go2  gaa3 ce1. (Cantonese)    this CL  car  even   big-​(g)er   that  CL   car    “This car is even′ bigger than that car.” (20) In a comparative construction (a) Xiao Wang  bi   LaoZhang  ´hai  gao. (Mandarin) Xiao Wang COMP Lao Zhang  HAI  tall    “Xiao Wang is even′ taller than Lao Zhang.” (b) Siu2  Wong6 bei2   Lou5Zoeng1  zung6  gou1. (Cantonese)   Little Wong COMP Old-​ Cheung  ZUNG tall    “Old Cheung is even taller than Little Wong.” (21) Metalanguage increment (a) ´Xiao-​che hai  tong bu  guo  ne (, jiu   bie  ti      da-​che le). (Mandarin)   small-​car HAI  go  NEG pass  SFP (, then  NEG  mention big-​car SFP   “Even small cars yet cannot pass through. Don’t mention big cars then.” (b) Lin4   sai3-​ce1  dou1  gwo3-​ng4-​dou2,   mai5  tai4   daai6-​ ce1. (Cantonese)    even   small-​car  DOU  pass-​NEG-​arrive  NEG  mention big-​car    “Even small cars yet cannot pass through. Don’t mention    big cars.” If one relates the additive focus to the concepts of normal increment and metalanguage increment proposed by Liu F. H., Shen and others, hai in (19) will be stressed, giving normal increment (to use Shen’s terminology), with comparison made along the dimension of the size of a car. Paris (1988) pointed out that in the construction “x bi y Predicate” with bi being the comparative marker in Mandarin Chinese, with hai, the comparative is accompanied by the presupposition that the property is positively attributed to x. This is the same in the case of (20), where hai will be stressed for conveying a comparative reading. In (20), both X and Y will be understood to be tall, and with prosodic stress falling on hai, the comparative is accompanied by the presupposition that the property is positively attributed to Laozhang, who is presupposed to be in the positive degree, viz tall.

48

48  Additive focus particles In contrast, hai ‘still’ in (21) is used to mark metalanguage increment, with the hai-​proposition giving a higher degree of informativeness in contrast with the context proposition, hence with the former entailing the latter. Hai cannot be stressed under such a case, with stress falling on the item made in contrast, namely xiao-​che ‘small-​car’ and hai generally occurs with the SFP ne. Unlike Mandarin, which uses prosodic stress to differentiate the two readings of hai ‘still’, Cantonese appeals to different additive particles to convey the same meaning. For metalanguage increment, instead of contrasting it with normal increment by putting the additive particle under stress or not, Cantonese appeals to normal comparative construction X-​bei2-​Y Predicate or X-​Predicate-​gwo3-​Y, as shown in (19b) and (19c), with normal non-​scalar superiority reading given. If the additive adverb zung6 is added, a scalar reading is triggered, giving a metalanguage increment which presupposes that both this car (x) and that car (y) are big in size, with y having a lower value than x on the dimension of car size, hence the stronger proposition P(x) entailing the weaker one, P(y). This is more obvious in the case of (21), which when translated into Cantonese, appeals to lin1…dou1 ‘even’, marking additive or inclusive focus on the subject NP, on a par with the unstressed hai in Mandarin Chinese. In sum, in the case of hai ‘still’, it seems that while Mandarin Chinese appeals to additive markers accompanied by prosodic stress to convey different additive focus meanings, Cantonese uses different adverbs or post-​verbal particles to convey the same meanings. This seems to suggest that the presence of a particularly rich inventory of focus particles in Cantonese has made the use of prosodic stress optional, as Cantonese relies on different additive markers to give different additive focus meanings. Mandarin appeals to focus adverbs accompanied by prosodic stress in focus structuring, with prosodic stress in a certain way compensating for its lack of post-​verbal focus particles. For the one last use of hai, namely the moderate use, the relevant example is repeated below, with its Cantonese counterpart included for comparison. (22) The moderate use (a) Zhe  ge  banfa  hai  keyi. (Mandarin) this  CL way  HAI can   “This way will still work.” (b) Nei1  go3  baan6faat3 dou1-​zung6   dak1. (Cantonese) this  CL way    DOU-​ ZUNG can   “This way will also work.” Mandarin hai ‘still’ is not stressed in (22), with its meaning conveyed lexically by dou1-​zung6 ‘also-​even’ in Cantonese, with dou1 stressing the “also” meaning and zung6 the “even” meaning. Cantonese appeals to adverbs and particles to convey additive meaning. Adverbs or particles tend to stack up on one another, with more sophisticated meaning conveyed by the scopal relations of the adverbs/​particles and their lexical meaning, which is also true in the case of Cantonese sentence-​final particles.

 49

Additive focus particles 49 While Mandarin appeals to you ‘again’, ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and zai ‘again’, apart from what has been discussed above for the case of hai, the again group in Cantonese assimilates that of Mandarin, namely jau6 ‘again’ and zoi3 ‘again’. What makes Cantonese distinct from Mandarin is the “also” group represented by the Mandarin ye “also”. To represent such a meaning, Cantonese generally appeals to dou1 ‘also/​even’; however, the mapping of the Cantonese dou1 to Mandarin does not represent a one-​to-​one mapping but instead a mapping to the Mandarin dou ‘even/​also’ and ye ‘also’. While Mandarin appeals to both ye and dou to convey additivity, with the former conveying the “also” meaning and the latter in the form of (lian)…dou giving the “even” meaning, Cantonese appeals only to dou1 to convey both “also” and “even” meanings, with no counterparts of the Mandarin ye. Relevant examples are given below. (23) (a) T  amen  dou    qu  Meiguo. (dou as a universal quantifier) (Mandarin)     they    DOU  go  US    “They will all go to the US.” (b)  Keoi5dei6 dou1  heoi3 Mei5gwok3. (dou1 as a universal quantifier) (Cantonese)   they   DOU go  US    “They will all go to the US.” (24) (a) (Lian) ta  dou   qu  Meiguo. ((lian)…dou as an additive adverb meaning “even”) (Mandarin)   even s/​ he DOU go US    “Even s/​he will go to the US.” (b) (Lin4) keoi5 dou1  heoi3 Mei5gwok3. ((lin4)…dou1 as an additive adverb meaning “even”) (Cantonese)    even  s/​he  DOU  go  US     “Even he will go to the US.” (25) (a) Ta  ye  qu Meiguo. (ye as an additive adverb meaning “also”) (Mandarin)     s/​ he YE  go US     “S/​he as well will go to the US.” /​“She will also go to the US.” (b) Keoi5  dou1  heoi3  Mei5gwok3. (ye as an additive adverb meaning “also”) (Cantonese)     s/​ he  DOU go  US     “S/​he as well will go to the US.” /​“S/​he will also go to the US.” As shown in (23a) and (23b), while the Mandarin dou and the Cantonese dou1 can serve as universal quantifiers, (24) and (25) reveal that their additive use is not exactly the same as each other. Mandarin appeals to (lian)…dou to convey the additive meanings of “even” and ye the “also” meaning, as shown in (24a) and (25a), while the Cantonese dou1 serves as both (lian)…dou ‘even’

50

50  Additive focus particles and ye ‘also’ in Mandarin, as shown in (24b) and (25b), conveying the “also” or “even” meaning. The picture of dou1 is not that simple, and there are two additional uses of dou1, which are mapped to additive adverbs in Mandarin that are not dou. Consider the examples below. (26) (a) Ngo5  dou1-​hai6 m4-​ heoi3 laa3. (Cantonese)   I   DOU-​ be  NEG-​ go  SFP    “I am NOT going!” (b) Wo hai-​shi bu  qu le. (Mandarin)   I  HAI-​ be NEG go SFP   “I am NOT going.” (27) (a) Ngo5 dou1-​waa6-​zo2  laa1. (Cantonese)   I   DOU-​ say-​ PERF SFP    “I HAD said so!” (b) Wo jiu-​shuo-​le. (Mandarin)   I   JIU-​say-​PERF    “I HAD said so!” (c) Ngo5 waa6-​zo2  laa1. (Cantonese)    I  say-​ PERF  SFP    “I had said so.” The use of the Cantonese dou1 in (26a) and (27b) resembles neither that of the universal dou nor of the additive “even/​also”. When it is expressed in Mandarin, Mandarin employs the moderate use of hai, meaning “still” in (26b) and jiu in its emphatic use in (27b). Generalizing, the use of dou1 in Cantonese is much more complicated than the Mandarin dou, which is restricted to universal quantification or “even”. Table 3.3 summarizes the above findings. Table 3.3 The meaning of the Cantonese dou1 ‘also/​ even’ in comparison with Mandarin adverbs Cantonese

Meaning of dou1 ‘all/​also/​even’

Mandarin ‘all/​even’

dou1 ‘all’

universal quantification

dou ‘all’

dou1 ‘even’

“even”

(lian)…dou ‘(even)…also’

dou1 ‘also’

“also”

ye ‘also’

dou1-​hai6 ‘DOU-​be’

emphatic

hai-​shi ‘still-​be’

dou1-​waa6 ‘DOU-​say’

emphatic

jiu ‘just’

 51

Additive focus particles 51 Table  3.3 shows that while Cantonese appeals to dou1 in all five uses, Mandarin uses dou and other focus adverbs like ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and jiu ‘just’. One speculation may be that Mandarin tends to appeal to focus adverbs and prosodic stress, while Cantonese relies more on its rich repertoire of focus adverbs and particles. To show that this speculation is on track, consider more examples below. (28) (a) Keoi5 dou1  heoi3  Mei5gwok3. (Cantonese)     (Cantonese dou1 equivalent to the Mandarin ye ‘also’)   s/​ he DOU  go   US    “S/​he as well will go to the US.” /​“S/​he will also go to the US.” (b) Keoi5 jau6 heoi3 Mei5gwok3. (Cantonese)    (Cantonese jau6 equivalent to the Mandarin you ‘again’)   s/​ he JAU go   US    “S/​he went/​will go to the US again.” (c) Keoi5 heoi3-​maai4 Mei5gwok3. (additive meaning to the US) (Cantonese)   s/​ he go-​ MAAI  US    “S/​he will go to the US as well.” (d) Keoi5 heoi3 Mei5gwok3 tim1. (additive meaning resembling the English “too”) (Cantonese)   s/​ he go  US    TIM    “S/​he went to/​will go to the US too.” (29) (a) Ngo5  dou1-​hai6 m4-​heoi3 laa3. (Cantonese)    I   DOU-​be  NEG-​go  SFP    “I am NOT going!” (b) Wo  hai-​shi   bu  qu  le. (Mandarin)    I   HAI-​be  NEG go  SFP    “I am NOT going.” (c) Ngo5 hai6  m4-​heoi3 gaa3  laa3. (Cantonese)    I    be   NEG-​go  SFP  SFP    “I am NOT going!” (30) (a) Ngo5 dou1-​waa6-​zo2  laa1. (Cantonese)    I   DOU-​say-​PERF  SFP    “I HAD said so!” (b) Wo jiu-​shuo-​le. (Mandarin)    I   JIU-​say-​PERF    “I HAD said so!” (c) Ngo5  waa6-​zo2  laa1. (Cantonese)    I  say-​PERF  SFP    “I had said so.” Example (26b) with the Mandarin counterpart being ye ‘also’ is repeated as (28a). Like the Mandarin ye, (26b) associates with the subject NP keoi5 ‘s/​he’.

52

52  Additive focus particles However, if the additive meaning is associated with the predicate, Cantonese would appeal to jau6 ‘again’, corresponding to you ‘again’ in Mandarin, as in (28b). What is peculiar in Cantonese is that it can also use -​maai4 ‘also’, as in (28c), where the additive associate will be the object NP Mei5gwok3 ‘US’, or use tim1 ‘add’, as in (28d), where the additive associate can be the predicate heoi3-​Mei5gwok3 ‘go-​US’ or the object Mei5gwok3, depending on the focus associate. In other words, Mandarin appeals to different adverbs, namely ye for the “also” meaning and (lian)…dou for the “even” meaning with the associated subject, or you for the “again” meaning with the predicate. Contrarily, while the Cantonese jau6 ‘again’ resembles that of the Mandarin you, Cantonese uses dou1 for both ye and (lian)…dou and, and has an additional additive verbal suffix -​maai4 ‘also’ and a sentence-​final particle tim1 ‘add’ to show additive meaning associated with the predicate or arguments within the predicate. In other words, while Mandarin relies on different adverbs like (lian)…dou ‘even’, ye ‘also’, and you ‘again’ to show the additive meanings, Cantonese opts for both adverbs like (lin4)…dou1 ‘even’, and jau6 ‘again’ and has additional post-​verbal particles like -maai4 ‘also’ and tim1 ‘add’. Moreover, what is interesting is (29) and (30). Without dou1-​hai6 ‘also-​ be’, the sentence-​final particle laa3 has alone already conveyed the same meaning as that of (29a). For (29a), without dou1 ‘also’, the same affirmative meaning can be conveyed by the affirmative or the assertive sentence-​ final particle gaa3 (see Cheung 1972/​2007, Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011, Tang 2015), as in (29c), showing that dou1 in (29a) is simply for emphatic use. The SFP laa3 suggests finality (see Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011), and (29a) has a sense that the speaker has finally made up his/​her mind about not going, which is the meaning from laa3. Without dou1 ‘also’, what is lost is the emphatic meaning of finality, for which Cantonese has another way of expressing the same meaning, the use of SFP gaa3 in (29c). The emphatic use of dou1 ‘also’ in (30a) is further confirmed in (30b), with the use of jiu ‘then’ in its emphatic sense in the Mandarin counterpart in (30b). Without dou1 ‘also’, as in (30c), what is missing is the emphatic meaning of dou1, but the affirmative meaning is still retained with the presence of the SFP laa1. Generalizing all five uses of dou1, except for (lin4)…dou1, the universal quantifier dou1 ‘all’ with both Mandarin and Cantonese using dou/​dou1, the other three uses in Cantonese have separate adverb counterparts in Mandarin, with “also” as ye and the two emphatic uses by hai ‘still’ and jiu ‘then’. For the two emphatic uses of dou1, without the presence of dou1, the same assertive or affirmative meaning can be conveyed by SFPs like gaa3 or ge3, making dou1 optional. At this point, the above seems to suggest that Mandarin and Cantonese manifests different morpho-​syntactic configurations to express additivity:  while Mandarin appeals more to focus adverbs accompanied by prosodic stress in additivity, Cantonese rests on its rich inventory of focus adverbs and particles, including verbal suffixes and SFPs and their scope order to determine additive meaning. An interim conclusion regarding Mandarin and Cantonese additives can be reached as follows:

 53

Additive focus particles 53 (31) Additivity in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese To express additivity, Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese manifest different morpho-​syntactic configurations as follows: (i) Mandarin Chinese appeals to grammatical mechanisms and focus markers accompanied by prosodic stress in expressing additive meanings, with prosodic stress in a certain way compensating its lack of post-​verbal focus particles. (ii) The presence of a particularly rich inventory of focus particles in Cantonese makes the use of prosodic stress optional. Cantonese therefore relies on focus adverbs and post-​verbal particles, and their scope order, to determine its additive meaning, which can be achieved morpho-​ syntactically through multiple occurrences of additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles. The above conclusion will be further proven in the next section when discussing additive particles in Cantonese.

3.3  Additive particles in Cantonese As mentioned, unlike Mandarin, Cantonese has a rich repertoire of post-​ verbal particles, which refer to additive verbal suffixes and sentence-​final particles (SFPs), and these post-​verbal particles are found to co-​exist with their additive adverb counterparts, with a neat division of labour among them. Following a comparison between Mandarin additive adverbs with their Cantonese counterparts, to fill in the data gap of Mandarin, the focus of this section will be on Cantonese post-​verbal additive particles and adverbs which have no direct counterparts in Mandarin, namely the additive SFP tim1 ‘add’ in Section 3.3.1, the additive adverb gau3 ‘enough’ in Section 3.3.2, and the additive verbal suffix -​maai4 ‘also’ in Section 3.3.3. 3.3.1  Additive Cantonese sentence-​final particle tim1 ‘add’ The sentence-​final particle (SFP) tim1 ‘add’ is argued to be a scalar particle like ‘even’ or an additive particle like ‘also’ or ‘too’ in the literature.1 Unlike previous analyses, the semantics of tim1 can be treated as neither the English ‘even’ nor an enriched ‘even’ under Giannakidou’s (2007) landscape account, and it cannot be analysed as an additive particle like “also” or the sentence-​final “too”, either. The “even” items and additive particles like “also” and “too” are more restricted in terms of scale selection and/​ or the relative position on the scale: “also” and “too” require the quantity scale, while all the “even” items, except for the Greek esto, rely on the likelihood scale and have their associated item occupying the extreme end of the scale.

54

54  Additive focus particles It is widely acknowledged that when the verbal tim1 appears in the sentence-​ final position, its lexical meaning of “add” is preserved (see e.g. Zhan 1958, Cheung H.  N. 1972/​2007, Kwok 1984, Law S.  P. 1990 , Leung 1992/​2005, Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011, Tang 2015, Winsterstein et  al. 2018, and see e.g. Luke 1990, Fung 2000, A. Law 2004, Sybesma and Li 2007, Wakefield 2010 for more studies on Cantonese SFPs). (32) Haang4 jat1-​zan6 tim1. (Cantonese) walk  one-​while  TIM “Walk for a while longer.” (33) Keoi5 gou1 gwo3 nei5 tim1. (Cantonese) s/​ he tall COMP you  TIM “S/​he is (even) taller than you too.” SFP tim1 in (32) and (33) carries the meaning of “in addition to”, which is equivalent to addition or extension. However, the meanings of sentence-​ final particles in Cantonese remain complicated and elusive, and it is not surprising that besides its additive use, SFP tim1 is claimed to have another use, namely as a mood particle (see e.g. Zhan 1958, Cheung H.  N. 1972/​ 2007, Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011). In (34), tim1 is argued to have an emphatic or exaggerating function, unambiguously triggering a sense of “unexpectedness”. (34) Keoi5 sei2-​zo2 tim1. (Cantonese) s/​he  die-​PERF TIM “S/​he is dead!/​S/​he died! (unexpected)” Grammarians like Zhan consider tim1 in (34) as a mood particle, which ought to be separated from the additive tim1. The semantics of tim1 remains controversial, with detailed and unified semantic studies lacking, except for P. Lee and Pan (2010). Based on Giannakidou’s study of the Greek akomi ke, oute and esto (counterparts to the English “even”, 2007), P. Lee and Pan (2010) concluded that the seemingly dual function of tim1 can in fact be unified into one tim1. Their analysis rests on the assumption that as an additive SFP, tim1 requires an upwards movement of a scale to satisfy its increment requirement, with such an increment demonstrating three special properties: (a) tim1 does not rely on the extreme ends of the scale, be they relative or absolute ends; (b) tim1 is flexible in its scale selection; and (c) tim1 is not sensitive to polarity. These three properties of tim1 “too/​as well” result in its diverse readings and also make it distinct from additive particles like the English “also/​too”, the English “even” and similar items in Greek. The Cantonese tim1 is found to be distinct from the aforementioned additive particles in both aspects. It does not impose any restriction on the scale it selects and can appear at any position on the scale as long as

 55

Additive focus particles 55 its associated item occupies a higher position than the presupposed one. The distinction of tim1 with the English “even”, the Greek “even” items, and additive particles like “too” and “also” reveal the necessity of further refining the class of additive particles. I will start by briefly describing the properties of tim1 below. 3.3.1.1  A brief description of the Cantonese sentence-​final particle tim1 ‘add’ The Cantonese SFP tim1 “add” has attracted the attention of Cantonese grammarians since the seminal work of Zhan (1958). Tim1, as one of the 30 basic SFPs in Cantonese, is claimed to be an element postposed to the sentence-​ final position from the verbal or adverb position, cf. (35) and (36) below. (35) Tim1 wun2 faan6 laa1. (Cantonese) add  CL  rice  SFP Intended: “Let’s add one bowl.”2 (36) Keoi5 tim1  jam5-​zo2   bui1 gaa3fe1. (Cantonese) s/​he  add   drink-​PERF  CL  coffee Intended: “S/​he has additionally drunk one cup of coffee.” When the verbal tim1 is postposed, its lexical meaning of “add” is preserved (see e.g. Zhan 1958, Cheung 1972/​2007, Kwok 1984, Law S. P. 1990, Leung 1992/​2005, Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011, Tang 2015). Relevant examples are given below. (37) Tai2  jat1zan6 tim1,  sin1  zau2. (cited from Zhan 1958) (Cantonese) watch a-​while  TIM    then  go “Watch for a while longer, and then we go.”3 (38) Keoi5 m4-​zi2    fei4  gwo3   nei5, zung6 gou1 gwo3  nei5 tim1. (cited from Cheung H. N. 1972/​2007) (Cantonese) s/​ he NEG-​ only fat  COMP  you even tall COMP you TIM “S/​he is not only fatter than you, but even taller than you too.” (39) Keoi5 heoi3-​gwo3 hou2do1 dei6fong1, sam6zi3lin4 Fei1zau1 dou1  heoi3-​ gwo3 tim1. (cited from Cheung H. N. 1972/​2007) (Cantonese) s/​ he go-​ EXP a-​ lot place even Africa DOU go-​ EXP TIM “S/​he has been to a lot of places, including even Africa as well.” The occurrences of tim1 in the above sentences carry the meaning of “in addition to”, which is equivalent to addition or extension. Tim1 gives (37) a meaning of watching something for a longer duration, hence extending the duration, according to Zhan. Tim1 adds “being taller” to the properties s/​

56

56  Additive focus particles he has with respect to the hearer in (38) and “Africa” to the many places s/​he has visited in (39), according to Cheung. The analysis of tim1 as an additive particle is a very important basis for later studies like those by Kwok (1984), Leung (1992/​2005), Matthews and Yip (1994/​2011), and A. Law (2004). Besides the meaning of “in addition to”, Cantonese grammarians like Kwok (1984), A. Law (2004), and Matthews and Yip (1994/​2011) have another view of tim1, namely that tim1 is analogous to the English “even”, a scalar additive particle (to use König’s (1991) terminology), which carries both additive and scalar meanings. Relevant examples are given in (40) and (41). (40) Zung6 dong3 keoi5 jau5 bou2  tim1. (Cantonese) (cited from Kwok 1984) even  think he  have precious TIM “(Not only is she not angry with him), she even thinks he is quite a precious little darling.” (41) Keoi5 hou2ci5  hou2  zung1ji3 ngo5 zung6  sung3-​maai4  faa1  tim1. (cited from Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011) (Cantonese) he   seem   much  like   me   even  send-​MAAI flower TIM “He seems to like me. He even sends flowers to me.” In (40), Kwok explicitly includes the clause “not only is she not angry with him” to indicate the presupposed situation of tim1, and the scalar and additive meanings of tim1 are expressed by “even” in the translation of the sentences in question. However, some “exceptions” to the “additive” approach have been observed, as shown in (42) and (43) (see e.g. Zhan 1958, Cheung H. N. 1972/​ 2007, Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011). (42) (a) Keoi5  sei2-​zo2  tim1. (Cantonese)    s/​he    die-​PERF TIM    “S/​he is dead!/​S/​he died! (unexpected)” (b)  Keoi5 m4  lai4  tim1. (Cantonese)    s/​he NEG  come TIM    “S/​he is not coming! (unexpected)” In (42a) and (42b), instead of conveying an “in addition to” meaning, tim1 has an emphatic or exaggerating function, unambiguously triggering a sense of “unexpectedness”. Based on such examples, grammarians like Zhan (1958) consider this tim1 as a mood particle and claim that it ought to be separated from the additive tim1. This is followed by later studies like Winterstein et al. (2018), who argued for two tim1’s, namely additive tim1 and mirative tim1. Summarizing the above, we can see that previous analyses adopt two approaches to analyse SFP tim1: (i) as a scalar additive particle like English “even” and (ii) as a particle carrying the meaning of extension or performing

 57

Additive focus particles 57 simple addition like the English “too” and “also”, with both revealing the additive nature of tim1. Although these analyses can account for some facts of tim1, empirical problems still arise, which suggests that the semantics of tim1, though additive in nature, cannot be considered as an equivalent to “even”, “too”, or “also”. Furthermore, one complication of tim1 is that Cantonese SFPs are assumed to be associated with speech acts, speaker stances, and modalities, and as an SFP, tim1 cannot be a sole additive particle, and previous analyses consider one other use of tim1 as a mood particle. Whether the sense of “unexpectedness” conveyed could be related to its additive meaning is a debatable issue, and previous studies are divided between adopting a unified one-​tim1 approach and a two-​tim1’s approach, namely an additive tim1 and a mood particle expressing unexpectedness or mirativity (see e.g. Delancey 1997, Aikhenvald 2012). Adopting a unified analysis for tim1, P.  Lee and Pan (2010) argued that tim1 is an additive particle which imposes no restriction on the scale it selects or the position it occupies on the scale, hence the non-​restricted type of additive particles. Such a non-​restricted additive particle exhibits the following properties: (i) it relies on neither the top nor the bottom end of the scale, be it an absolute or a relative end, hence the non-​extreme-​end property; (ii) it is not polarity sensitive, hence the non-​polarity-​sensitive property. It can occur in both positive and negative sentences, and its occurrence in negative sentences would not cause any reverse presupposition on the scale; and (iii) it can adhere to various scales, be it a degree or a quantity scale, triggered linguistically or accommodated contextually, hence the flexible-​ scale property. The above properties, particularly (i) and (ii), will lead to their conclusion that tim1 can be analysed as neither the English “even” nor its Greek counterparts under Giannakidou’s (2007) landscape account, since these items, being polarity sensitive, all rely on the top or the bottom of the scale for their interpretation, while tim1 does not. Furthermore, property (iii) will lead to our conclusion that tim1 and additive particles like “too” and “also” cannot be alike, since only the latter is not flexible towards scale selection and requires a quantity scale. Therefore, we can see that both “even” items and additive particles like “too” and “also” impose some restriction on the scale they select and/​or the position they occupy on the scale concerned, while no such restriction is imposed by tim1. Moreover, they have shown that tim1 allows its scalar presupposition to be satisfied in two ways: (a) having the degree or quantity marked by tim1 being greater or larger than the presupposed one, hence the > operation, and (b) adding the additional quantity marked by tim1 on top of some presupposed quantity, hence the + operation.

58

58  Additive focus particles As this chapter focuses on the semantics of SFP tim1, I will not go into detail regarding its contrast with the English “even” and its Greek counterparts, or the English “too” and “also”. Readers may refer to P.  Lee and Pan (2010) for a detailed comparison. In what follows, I will further argue for a unified account of tim1, on the basis of P. Lee and Pan’s (2010) analysis of tim1 as an increment SFP, and the unexpected reading of the mood particle tim1 can in fact be accounted for by scalar accommodation, or alternatively, by speaker stance presupposition, described along the lines of Stephenson (2007) and Lasersohn (2005, 2009, 2017). 3.3.1.2  Tim1 “add” requires an upwards movement on the scale As mentioned in Section 3.3.1.1, the basic meaning of tim1 is to convey a “more” meaning. As the “more” meaning of tim1 involves the basic function “addition”, tim1 can be considered a member of the family to which these particles belong –​additive particles. To capture the meaning of “more” in a more formal way, we need to examine how such an upwards movement is realized on different scales. As stated in P.  Lee and Pan (2010), like other additive particles, tim1 also triggers an existential presupposition, which requires the existence of a contrasting item. To make an upwards movement on the scale possible, the two items to be contrasted must be related. Potential positive existential presuppositions triggered by tim1 are exemplified below: (43) Potential positive existential presuppositions triggered by tim1: (a) ∃y [y≠x ∧ C(y) ∧ P(y)] (b) ∃P’ [P’≠P ∧ C(P’) ∧ P’(x)] Or (c) ∃p’ [p’ ≠ p ∧ C(p’) ∧ p’]

Example (43) shows that tim1 triggers a positive existential presupposition, which presupposes the existence of a contrasting item, be it an individual y (see (43a)), a property P’ (see (43b)), or a proposition p’ (see (43c)), depending on what is in contrast. Moreover, such an item can be accommodated, as indicated by C(y), C(P’), or C(p’) in (43a), (43b), and (43c), respectively, as evidenced by the example below, cited from P. Lee and Pan (2010). (44) Keoi5 hou2 lek1  tim1. (Cantonese) she  very  smart  TIM (a) “(She is very pretty,) and is very smart as well.” Existential presupposition: ∃P’ [P’≠P ∧ C(P’) ∧ P’(x)], where x = s/​he; P=Smart (b) “(Mary is very smart,) and she is also very smart.” Existential presupposition: ∃y [y≠x ∧ C(y) ∧ P(y)], where x = s/​he; P=Smart

 59

Additive focus particles 59 (c) “(Mary is already smart,) but she is smarter (very smart in fact).” Existential presupposition: ∃y [y≠x ∧ C(y) ∧ P(y)], where x=s/​he; P=Smart. (d) “(The fact that John is tall is already unexpected, considering that both of his parents are particularly short), her being particularly smart is more unexpected(, considering that she was very slow in learning when she was a child)!” Existential presupposition: ∃p’ [p’≠p ∧ C(p’) ∧ p’], where p=She is very smart. With tim1, an existential presupposition of a contrasting item, be it an individual, a property, or even a proposition, is triggered. Since no presupposed item is explicitly provided in the sentence, it has to be accommodated contextually, leading to four possible readings which can be accounted for in the following way. For (44a), C(P’) accommodates the existence of another property of hers, namely her being pretty, such that her being very smart represents an additional one. Both (44b) and (44c) involve the same existential presupposition, accommodated by C(y). The C(y) in (44b) accommodates the existence of another individual, “Mary”, who is also very smart, such that “she” marks an additional individual to be as smart as “Mary”. The C(y) in (44c) accommodates the existence of an individual, “Mary”, who is less smart, such that “she” is smarter than “Mary”. The C(p’) in (44d) accommodates the existence of another proposition, namely “John is tall”, which is less unexpected than “She is very smart”, and under such a case, tim1 is assumed to select the scale of unexpectedness, which is accommodated contextually. Therefore, generalizing from these readings, we can see that tim1 triggers an existential presupposition, which is a property shared by all additive particles. However, what is interesting is the existential presupposition triggered can be made in relation to a contrasting NP, predicate, or even proposition, and different contrasting items may be related to the items being contrasted in different senses, depending on what is accommodated. What makes tim1 unique to other additive particles is its scalar presupposition which requires an upwards movement on the scale. What is debatable is whether an increase in quantity should be scalar or non-​scalar. If one considers tim1 to convey plain additive addition in terms of quantity on a par with English “too”, it would assume that tim1 does not impose any constraint on the scalarity of its associate, hence non-​scalar. However, most current work on the semantics of quantity expressions does assume either explicitly or implicitly that their meaning must be stated with reference to scales. Number words and modified numerals are analysed in a scalar semantics. Partee (1987) and Krifka (1999, 2007) among others posit a counting measure function as a part of the lexical meaning of the numeral itself, while others take numerals at the most basic level to denote degrees, with the measure function

60

60  Additive focus particles encoded elsewhere, perhaps in a phonologically null syntactic element (see e.g. Landman 2004, Nouwen 2010), or perhaps in the plural noun itself (see Krifka 1989). Moreover, it is a fairly common view (see e.g. Kennedy 2007) that a scale S is a triple of the following form: (45) S = , where • D is a set of degrees, • is an ordering relation on that set, and • DIM is a dimension of measurement In other words, what is argued here is that whether a particle is scalar or not depends to a certain extent on whether the set of degrees involved an ordering relation on it. What tim1 needs is an increment sense, which is an upwards movement in the scale, and the basic assumption is that scales can be divided into two major types, namely degree and quantity. There are two ways in which the scalar presupposition of tim1 can be satisfied: either having the associated degree/​quantity marking a higher position on the scale through directly comparing it with its presupposed counterpart, or by adding the associated quantity on top of the presupposed quantity, on a par with simple addition, giving an increase by at least one in quantity. Which operation is, or whether both operations are, possible to be undertaken to satisfy the scalar presupposition of tim1 depends on whether or not the item associated with tim1 is linguistically associated with or related to a quantity or degree. If the operation of tim1 is simple addition, which is performed by adding the associated item to a presupposed set, the added item can be an NP, a predicate, or the entire proposition. This would naturally lead to three cases, namely the addition of individuals/​objects, properties/​events, and propositions. Relevant examples below are cited from P. Lee and Pan (2010). (46) Keoi5  sik1    [Pou4man4]F  tim1. (Cantonese) s/​ he   know Portuguese  TIM “What s/​he knows, besides some other language(s), is Portuguese (but not others).” Example (46) gives a reading of Portuguese representing an additional language known by him/​her, with quantity being the dimension of measurement, DIM in (45), and number or quantity being the ordering relation on that set, in (45). Unlike quantized NPs, the NP Pou4man4 “Portuguese” is not linguistically associated with or related to a quantity. In the framework of scalar semantics, to get the quantity reading, a measure function would map Pou4man4 as “one” entity, which is then added on top of the number of languages presupposed to be known by Bob, giving (46) the reading of “What Bob knows, besides some other language(s), is Portuguese”. The mapping performed can then satisfy the scalar presupposition of tim1, which eventually leads to the quantity reading given in (46).

 61

Additive focus particles 61 If this is true, when the NPs are quantized NPs, quantized NPs inherently trigger a quantity scale to which tim1 adheres. A direct comparison is generally made between the quantity associated with tim1 and the presupposed one, with the former being required to be greater than the latter, as shown in (47a) and (47b), which involves quantized NPs. (47) (a) *Keoi5 jam2-​zo2 loeng5 bui1; ngo5 jam2-​zo2     jat1 bui1 tim1. (Cantonese)    s/​he  drink-​PERF  two  CL  I   drink-​PERF  one CL  TIM    Intended: “S/​he has drunk two cups, and I have drunk one.” (b) Keoi5 jam2-​zo2 loeng5 bui1; ngo5 jam2-​zo2 saam1 bui1 tim1. (Cantonese)    s/​he  drink-​ PERF two CL I drink-​ PERF three CL TIM    “S/​he has drunk two cups, and I have drunk three.” The quantity associated with tim1 marks a decrease in quantity in (47a), and the sentence is not acceptable, if they are interpreted on a quantity scale. However, it is possible for tim1 to resort to context and attach to the scale of unlikelihood or unexpectedness by accommodation, and the grammaticality of the relevant sentence can then be improved. Assume the following scenario for (47a): the speaker never drinks and a sip of beer will reach his/​her maximal capacity, while the individual who is in contrast with the speaker is not a heavy drinker either, though s/​he can drink one cup of beer. The degrees of unlikelihood in contrast are indirectly induced through a direct comparison between the actual quantity consumed by the individual and his/​her usual capacity, that is, the quantity s/​he is supposed to consume. Adhering to such a scale will not be a problem for tim1 as long as an increase reading can be sought on a scale. Sentences like (47a) show that tim1, as an additive SFP, is flexible towards scale selection (see P. Lee and Pan 2010). Example (47b) represents an unmarked case of tim1, as a direct comparison has been made between the two quantities, namely two cups in the first clause and three cups in the second clause. The higher quantity of the latter marks a higher position of a scale ordered along the dimension of quantities, hence satisfying the semantics of tim1 as an additive SFP which requires an upwards movement in a scale. From the above discussion, a welcoming conclusion is that when the associated NP fails to be linguistically associated with or related to a quantity or degree, the associated item would be added to the presupposed set and mark an increase by (at least) one in quantity. In other words, simple addition would occur for non-​quantized NPs after the application of the measure function. In cases where direct comparison between the quantity or degree associated with tim1 with some contrasted point can mark an upwards movement in a scale to satisfy the semantics of tim1 as an increment particle or an additive particle in the same sense, no measure function will be needed to do the mapping from entity to quantity. A similar operation can also be

62

62  Additive focus particles found in predicates and propositions as well, as long as the measure function can be applied. Two relevant examples are cited from P. Lee and Pan (2010) for illustration. (48) Ngo5 daa2-​ zo2 bo1,   (ngo5) sik6-​ zo2 faan6 tim1. (Cantonese) I    play-​PERF ballgame I   eat-​PERF  rice  TIM “I have played ballgames, and have had meal too.” They share one property: the event denoted by the VP in the tim1-​clause is added to the presupposed set given explicitly in the preceding clause. This can be readily predicted. The verbal predicate in question is not linguistically associated with or related to a quantity or degree. In order to satisfy its scalar presupposition, in the framework of scalar semantics, to get a quantity reading, a measure function would map the VP sik1-​zo2-​faan6 as “one” event, which is then added on top of the number of events presupposed to have been performed by Bob, giving (48) the reading of “Besides having played ballgames, I  have done one more event, namely having had meal”. Under such a case, tim1 adheres to the quantity scale, and the event denoted by the predicate is added to the presupposed set to mark an increase by one, satisfying the semantics of tim1 as an increment particle which requires an upwards movement in a scale. This leads to the readings indicated in (48). (48) thus reveals that like the non-​quantized NPs, when the verbal predicate is not linguistically associated with or related to a quantity or degree, no direct comparison between two quantities or degrees will be invoked. What is triggered will be a measure function which maps the VP as “one” event, which is then added on top of the number of events presupposed to have been performed, and an upwards movement on the quantity scale is then guaranteed. When tim1 associates with the entire proposition, besides the scale of unlikelihood or unexpectedness, is it possible for the scale depicted to be the quantity scale? Consider (49) below, which is cited from P. Lee and Pan (2010). (49) Ngo5 sik6-​gwo3 [kit3zi2]f, Aa3mei5 sik6-​gwo3 [caam4jung2]F tim1. (Cantonese) I    eat-​EXP  scorpion  Aamei  eat-​EXP  pupae  TIM “Here is one disgusting fact –​I tried scorpions. And here is another –​ Aamei tried pupae.” What is interesting is whether it is possible for (49) to have a quantity reading. When tim1 associates with the entire proposition and adheres to the quantity scale, the tim1-​clause and its presupposed clause should be related to each other in order to make their attachment to the quantity scale natural. The two clauses in (49) are related by both having a disgusting object NP, making their relation apparent. With tim1 adhering to the quantity scale,

 63

Additive focus particles 63 (49) would give a reading, namely “Aamei tried pupae” being one “more” disgusting fact to be true, on top of the presupposed one “I tried scorpions”, the ordering relation in (45) would operate on the number of disgusting facts, with the proposition in question mapped to “one” disgusting fact by a measure function. Since tim1 adheres to the quantity scale instead of the disgusting degree, (49) only requires the proposition denoted by the tim1-​ clause to describe a disgusting fact, and it does not have to be more disgusting than the presupposed one. This is because the scalar presupposition of tim1 is satisfied in terms of quantity, not in terms of the disgusting degree, which is different from the degree reading. With tim1 adhering to the disgusting scale, (49) requires the proposition denoted by the tim1-​clause to describe a more disgusting fact than the presupposed one; otherwise, the scalar presupposition of tim1 would fail to be satisfied. Moreover, as mentioned earlier in (43a), the contrasting proportion p’ can be accommodated by C(p’). In case what is accommodated is the scale of unlikelihood or unexpectedness, the proposition associated with tim1 would give a more “unexpected/​unlikely” reading. Such an accommodation helps satisfy the scalar presupposition of tim1, which gains strong support in the so-​ called “exceptional” examples mentioned in Section 3.3.1.1, repeated below. (50) Keoi5 sei2-​zo2  tim1. s/​he  die-​PERF   TIM “S/​he is dead!/​S/​he died! (unexpected)” (51) Keoi5 m4  lai4 tim1. s/​he  NEG   come TIM “S/​he is not coming! (unexpected)” Examples (50) and (51) are considered to be exceptional cases by the previous analyses due to the absence of a clear scale or additive meaning, and what remains salient is a strong sense of unexpectedness triggered by tim1. Previous analyses like Zhan (1958) and Winterstein et al. (2018), which opt for an analysis of two tim1’s, consider such an “unexpected” tim1 as a mood particle or a mirative particle, and separate it from the additive tim1. However, in line with P. Lee and Pan (2010), I would further argue for the unified account. To begin with, if we examine (50) and (51) closely, we can see that they demonstrate a common feature –​both involve a non-​gradable predicate which fails to invoke a scale by itself. Owing to this, scalar accommodation is needed in order to satisfy the semantics of tim1. In (50), since an individual can only be either dead or alive, the predicate sei ‘dead’ is non-​gradable and thus fails to introduce an ordered set of degrees. The scalar presupposition of tim1 thus has to be accommodated in some other way, with the scale of degree of unlikelihood or unexpectedness being the most accessible. Notice that the sentence requires that his/​her being dead be more unexpected than at least one situation

64

64  Additive focus particles which is presupposed to exist, hence marking an upwards movement on the scale employed. This explains why (50) has a reading of “(as compared with a contrasting situation,) his/​her being dead represents a more unexpected one”. Likewise, in (51), an introduction of the negator m ‘not’ makes the natural focus of the sentence fall on the negator, resulting in a polar contrast between the negative proposition “the individual did not come” and its affirmative counterpart “the individual came”. Such a contrast in polarity is binary in nature, hence non-​scalar. Like (50), a scale of unexpectedness is invoked to accommodate the scalar presupposition of tim1, and it is required that his/​ her not coming is a more unexpected situation than some presupposed one. This eventually gives (51) the reading of “(as compared with a contrasting situation,) his/​her not coming represents a more unexpected one”. Such an account to (50) and (51) would thus make the analysis of tim1 as a “mood particle” unnecessary, and allow the two tim1’s, namely the mood particle tim1 and the additive tim1, to be unified as one –​increment or additive particle tim1. In other words, the so-​called “unexpected” reading is derived solely to satisfy the scalar presupposition of tim1. The seemingly “exceptional” examples will then become “normal”, once tim1’s flexibility towards scale selection is recognized. Moreover, (50) and (51) also demonstrate the possibility of tim1 to associate with propositions. In fact, given the syntactic position of tim1 occupying the periphery of a sentence, it is expected that tim1 scopes over the entire proposition (following A. Law, 2004), hence facilitating its possible association with the entire proposition. Consider (52), which gives another example of tim1 associating with the entire proposition to give a degree reading. (52) Hai2  Bak1ging1 go2   zan6  ngo5 sik6-​gwo3 kit3zi2, in   Beijing  that   while I  eat-​ EXP scorpion Aa3mei5 heoi3-​gwo3 Coeng4sing4 tim1. (Cantonese) Aamei  go-​ EXP  Great-​ Wall TIM “When we were in Beijing, I tried scorpions, and as for Aamei, she went up to Great Wall!” The two clauses Ngo5 sik6-​gwo3 kit3zi2 ‘I eat-​EXP scorpion’ and Aa3mei5 heoi3-​gwo3 Coeng4sing4 ‘Aamei go-​EXP Great-​Wall’ differ from each other in both the subject NP and the predicate. The introduction of tim1 serves to relate the two linguistically unrelated clauses, which otherwise would not have been possible. Under such a case, instead of associating with a particular phrase within the clause, tim1 associates with the entire clause and contrasts with its preceding one. Accommodation is then needed to satisfy the scalar presupposition of tim1, which is manifested in the following way. Since the two clauses share no common constituent, instead of having the scale determined linguistically, some kind of scale has to be accommodated contextually. Like (50) and (51), the scale of unlikelihood is accommodated,

 65

Additive focus particles 65 giving (52) the interpretation of “When we were in Beijing, I tried scorpions, and for Aamei, she went up to the Great Wall”. Example (52) is an example where the two clauses are unrelated linguistically, as they differ in both subjects and predicates, and the scale accommodated serves an important function of relating the two through placing them onto the same scale, namely the scale of unlikelihood, for evaluation. Notice that, following P. Lee and Pan (2010), what needs to be restated is that, although the scale of unlikelihood or unexpectedness can be easily accommodated in the context, when a relation is made between two propositions, tim1 is not restricted to such a scale. Contrast can be explicitly placed on items within the propositions to induce relatedness, and a scale can then be indirectly triggered to satisfy the scalar presupposition of tim1. In order to illustrate this point, let us consider (53). (53) Ngo5  sik6-​gwo3 [kit3zi2]f, Aa3mei5 sik6-​gwo3 [caam4jung2]f tim1. (Cantonese) I   eat-​ EXP scorpion Aamei   eat-​ EXP pupae    TIM “I tried scorpions, and as for Aamei, pupae!” The two clauses, namely the first clause Ngo5 sik6-​gwo3 kit3zi2 ‘I eat-​EXP scorpion’ and the second clause Aa3mei5 sik6-​gwo3 caam4jung2 tim1 ‘Aamei eat-​EXP pupae TIM’, contrast in what was eaten by the subject. Example (53) has the reading of “I tried scorpions, and as for Aamei, pupae!”, which has the contrastive focus falling on the two object NPs that are related by both being disgusting, and a degree scale is indirectly triggered to which tim1 can adhere, namely the disgusting degree of objects to be consumed. Since “Aamei having eaten pupae” is more disgusting than “my having eaten scorpions”, the proposition that goes with tim1 occupies a higher position on the disgusting scale than the contrasting one. Example (53) thus would not have any problem in satisfying the scalar presupposition of tim1. For gradable adjectival predicates, they linguistically trigger a scalar reading, which provides a scale for tim1 to attach to. The NP associated with tim1 is then required to occupy a higher position on the degree scale than the presupposed NP, in order to satisfy its scalar presupposition. To see how this works, consider (54). (54) Keoi5 bei2   Aa3mei5 lek1   tim1. (Cantonese) (cited from P. Lee and Pan 2010) s/​ he COMP Aamei smart TIM “S/​he is smarter than Aamei.” The presence of Aa3mei5 lexically provides a contrasting item on which an evaluation can be based, satisfying the existential presupposition of tim1. On the other hand, comparatives like the bei2-​construction in (54) express an ordering between two objects (see Kennedy 1999), and they denote a

66

66  Additive focus particles relation between two sets of degrees such that the maximal element of the first is ordered above the maximal element of the second (see Heim 2000). In (54), the evaluation is made with respect to the degrees of smartness denoted by the gradable adjectival predicate lek1 ‘smart’, and the bei2-​construction indicates that the NP associated with tim1, i.e., keoi5 ‘s/​he’, is smarter than the contrasted NP Aa3mei5, which satisfies the scalar presupposition of tim1. Since the relevant presupposition of tim1 is satisfied, the well-​formedness of (54) can be predicted. Like the case of quantized NPs, when the predicate involved is a gradable adjectival predicate which linguistically triggers a scalar reading, a direct comparison will be made between the associated degree with a presupposed degree, and tim1 requires the former to take a higher position on the degree scale than the latter. Tim1 does not affect the truth condition of the host sentence, which asserts the truth of his/​her being smart. The existential presupposition presupposes the existence of a contrasting individual, “Aamei”, who is assumed to be smart as well. The two individuals are related by the same scale, namely the degree of smartness, and the NP associated with tim1, namely “s/​he”, has to be smarter than the presupposed individual, “Aamei”, such that the scalar presupposition of tim1 is satisfied. As pointed out in P. Lee and Pan (2010), the upwards movement requirement of tim1 would lead to a natural consequence that the degree in contrast must go in the same direction on the scale concerned such that the degree marked by tim1 marks a higher position on the scale. Consider (55), cited from P. Lee and Pan (2010), which involves the same adjectival predicate lek1 ‘smart’. (55) (a)  *Aa3mei5 hou2 lek1, keoi5 zau6 mou5 gam3 lek1  tim1. (Cantonese)    Aamei   very   smart  s/​he   then NEG that  smart  TIM    Intended: “Aamei is very smart, and s/​he is not that smart.” (b) ??Aa3mei5 hou2 lek1,  keoi5  zau6  tung4 Aa3mei5  jat1joeng6 gam3 lek1  tim1. (Cantonese)    Aamei  very smart  s/​he  then  with Aamei   same   that smart TIM    Intended: “Aamei is very smart, and s/​he is as smart as Aamei.” In (55a), the adjectival predicate mou5-​gam3-​lek1 ‘not that smart’ marks a downwards movement on the scale of smartness, which means that what is manifested is a deduction. This clashes with the scalar presupposition of tim1, hence the ill-​formedness of (55a). On the other hand, the adjectival predicate tung4-​Aa3mei5-​jat1-​joeng6-​gam3-​lek1 ‘as smart as Aamei’ in (55b) indicates the same degree of smartness between the two individuals. Hence, no movement on the scale is involved, and the occurrence of tim in such a clause induces semantic oddity. This shows that tim1 strictly selects predicates which facilitate an upwards movement on the scale. The patterns shown in (55a) and (55b) thus echo with the results demonstrated in (47a) and (47b). Like (47a)

 67

Additive focus particles 67 and (47b), (55a) and (55b) can be interpreted if a scale which facilitates an upwards movement for the tim1-​sentence can be accommodated, such as the scale of unlikelihood. Since the relevant possibility has been explored in (47a) and (47b), the details will not be repeated here. Generalizing the above, P.  Lee and Pan (2010) made the first attempt at providing a unified account for the two tim1’s, with the additive tim1 merging with the “unexpected” tim1 through scalar accommodation. However, what will be argued here is that even when one does not go along the direction of scalar accommodation, as tim1 is an SFP, it is natural that it would be associated with speaker stances when expressing its additive meaning. This represents another alternative to account for the unexpected reading of tim1, which further reveals that on a theoretical level, it is unnecessary to propose two tim1’s. Recall the examples proposed by Zhan (1958). (50) Keoi5  sei2-​zo2    tim1. (Cantonese) s/​he   die-​PERF TIM “S/​he is dead!/​S/​he died! (unexpected)” (51) Keoi5  m4  lai4  tim1. (Cantonese) s/​he   NEG come TIM “S/​he is not coming! (unexpected)” “Expectedness” can be considered as consisting of some kind of hidden attitude predicates like “expect”, which is in the form of Ex,t,w, meaning the set of worlds compatible with what x expects at time t in world w (see Lasersohn 2017). If the truth value of a sentence depends on parameters fixed by the context of assessment or the context of use, along the line of Stephenson (2007) and Lasersohn (2005, 2009, 2017), every sentence can consist of a value of an individual index, j, fixed to the judge of the context. Consider (52). (52) The roller coaster is fun (for Mary). (cited from Lasersohn 2017) Example (52) involves a sentence with personal taste, and in Stephenson’s analysis, predicates of personal taste have an argument place which can be filled by a prepositional phrase headed by for, which according to Lasersohn, the judge of the context, under which (52) is true relative to a context (of assessment) if roller coasters are fun for the judge of that context. This is in fact what is proposed under Lasersohn’s framework of relativist semantics (2009, 2017) (see Section 4.1 of Chapter 4 on the discussion of the restrictive SFPs zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’ for more details). Along the line of the relativist semantic theory, if a hidden attitude predicate Ex,t,w which is interpreted in a triple of x, t, and w is assumed for (50) or (51), and if the speaker is the judge j of both sentences, one can say that (50) and (51) are false for the judge of that context, as in all the worlds compatible with what the speaker expects at the time of utterance, s/​he is in the state of being alive or s/​he is coming.

68

68  Additive focus particles Or put another way, one can also say that for the unexpected reading, what is needed is to induce a speaker stance presupposition, which is described along such a line, namely that the speaker presupposes that in all the worlds compatible with what s/​he expects at the time of utterance, ~p is true, where p stands for the sentence under discussion in the context, that is, (50) and (51) under such a case. Putting all the pieces together, the “expected” reading can be accounted for through scalar accommodation, or by assuming some kind of speaker stance presupposition, taken into consideration individual-​possible world pair at time t. I will not go into arguments about which way will fare better, as either way supports the unified account of tim1. In conclusion, following the tradition of alternative semantics (see Rooth 1985, 1992, 1996), I  assume that the effect of focusing consists in relating the denotation of a given constituent to a set of alternative (contrasting) denotations from the common ground. Unlike restrictive particles, additives do not contribute to the truth value of the sentence containing them. The additive would trigger an existential presupposition of a set which consists of entities triggered by the semantic focus, with the semantic focus added to such a set. However, while the position of the focus may affect such a presupposition, the prejacent would give the assertion. With the prejacent asserted to be true, additives can be considered “presupposition triggers”, which presupposes the existence of at least one alternative of the focus that satisfies the complex predicate of the focus (see Hole 2004 as well). Along such a line of argument and on the basis of P. Lee and Pan’s proposal, I will now rewrite the semantics of tim1 as follows. (53) T  he semantics of the Cantonese sentence final particle tim1 ‘add’ as an increment particle The Cantonese sentence-​final particle tim1 ‘add’ is an increment particle which requires an upwards movement on a degree or a quantity scale. Such a requirement is satisfied by either the > operation or the + operation, as defined below: (I) The > operation Assertion: [tim […NPx…]]: λPλx [P(x) ∧ P(x) = 1], where P stands for predicate; and x for the individual argument associated with tim1. Existential presupposition: ∃y ∈ALT(x) [y≠x ∧ C(y) ∧ P(y)], where P stands for predicate; x, y for individual arguments; and C for contextual variable. Scalar presupposition: [∃P∃x∃d (P(d)(x)) ∧ ∃P’∃y∃d’ (P’(d’)(y)) ∧ ((d)(SP) < (d’)(SP’))], where P, P’ stands for predicates; x,y for individual arguments; d, d’ for degree variables; and S for scale.

 69

Additive focus particles 69 Or [∃P∃x∃q (P(q)(x)) ∧ ∃P’∃y∃q’ (P’(q’)(y)) ∧ ((q)(SP) < (q’)(SP’))] where P, P’ stands for predicates; x,y for individual arguments; q, q’ for quantity variables; and S for scale. (II) The + operation Assertion: [tim [ … NP x …]]: λ P λ x [P(x) ∧ P(x) = 1], where P stands for predicate; and x for the individual argument associated with tim1. Existential presupposition: ∃y∈ALT(x) [y≠x ∧ C(y) ∧ P(y)], where P stands for predicate; x, y for individual arguments; and C for contextual variable. Scalar presupposition: QUAΣ (λx[μ(x) = n]) + QUA’Σ (λy[μ(y) = n’]), where μ is a measure function compatible with a lattice sort Σ, n and n’ are numbers, x is the presupposed object(s), and y is the associated object. (Example (53) is a revised version of P. Lee and Pan (2010)) For the > operation, the representations share one central property that, as long as the item associated with tim1 ‘add’ is linguistically associated with or related to a degree or quantity scale, a direct comparison will be made, with the associated degree d’ or quantity q’ being greater or larger than the presupposed one d or q, hence d’>d or q’>q.For + operation, with Krifka (1990) adopted, the scalar presupposition would require the associated quantity n’, mapped from the proper noun y to a quantity QUA’Σ by a measure function μ, to be added onto a presupposed quantity QUAΣ, given by the mapping of its alternatives x to quantity QUAΣ by the same measure function μ. Such an operation would eventually lead to a reading of an increase in quantity of the presupposed quantity. One may argue that under such a case, what tim1 ‘add’ performs is non-​ scalar simple addition. However, under the analysis of tim1 as an increment particle, tim1 is considered a scalar particle, which requires an upwards movement on a scale. This is obvious in the case of proper noun, for which quantity mapping would be involved to make the output an accumulated ­quantity [QUAΣ + QUA’Σ], which holds a > relation with the presupposed quantity [QUAΣ], as shown in (53). Simple addition or expansion, defined as (54), may be considered as a way to satisfy the increment requirement of tim1. (54) Simple addition P(a⊕b⊕c⊕d) ∧ P(e) ⇒ P(a⊕b⊕c⊕d⊕e), where P is the predicate; a, b, c, d are members in the presupposed set; and e is the item associated with tim1.

70

70  Additive focus particles Example (54) gives a rough definition of “simple addition”. The output a⊕b⊕c⊕d⊕e as an individual sum represents an expansion of the presupposed sum a⊕b⊕c⊕d, which is compatible with the increment requirement of tim1, but no ordering relation is necessarily involved in the summation under such a case. Generalizing, SFP tim1 requires an upwards movement on the scale, and as an additive particle, tim1 triggers an existential presupposition and a scalar presupposition, as shown in (53). The scalar presupposition of tim1 can be satisfied by either adding the associated quantity on top of the presupposed one or having a larger quantity or a greater degree as compared to that of the presupposed one. While SFP tim1, as a scalar additive SFP, requires an upwards movement on the scale, another additive adverb, gau3 ‘enough’, shows the requirement of a downwards movement on the scale, which, as will be discussed in the next section, is due to its licensing relation with an SFPassert. 3.3.2  Cantonese additive adverb gau3 ‘enough’ Gau3 ‘enough’ can be used as an adverb expressing the meaning of addition, which is treated on a par with the Cantonese dou1 ‘also’ or the English ‘too’ and ‘also’, but (55) reveals that gau3 ‘enough’ and dou1 ‘all’ may not be absolute equivalents (see Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011). (55) Nei5  heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2  sap6-​ci3, you   go-​EXP   Japan    ten-​times ngo5  gau3/​?dou1 heoi3-​ gwo3 Jat6bun2 ng5-​ ci3  lok3/​ laa1. (Cantonese) I     GAU/​DOU go-​EXP    Japan    five-​times  SFP/​SFP “You have travelled Japan for ten times and I have travelled Japan too, but for five times.” Moreover, what makes gau3 ‘enough’ distinct from other additive particles is that it requires its co-​occurring predicate to denote a decrease in degree/​quantity, with its addition restricted to the NP on its left or the topic (see (56)). (56) Nei5  heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2 ng5-​ci3, you   go-​EXP   Japan   five-​times ngo5 gau3  heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2 saam1-​ci3 /​??sap6-​ci3  lok3. (Cantonese) I   GAU go-​EXP   Japan  three-​times/​ten-​times SFP “You have been to Japan five times and I have been there too three times/​??ten times.”

 71

Additive focus particles 71 The case of additive adverbs like gau3 ‘enough’ has also brought up an important issue in studies of additives. If they are additive particles, the ways in which they interact with different scales, as in the case of gau3, clearly demonstrate a decrease in scale given by the predicate. This contrasts significantly with tim1, ‘add’, which requires an increase in quantity/​degree in the scale. On the other hand, one property which is shared by both but distinct from other additives is their flexibility towards scale selection, which leads to an interesting feature that, as long as their scalar interpretation is satisfied, the two tend to be readily contextually or pragmatically accommodated for their scale. The question is, within the same family of additives, what makes their semantic properties and scalar interpretations distinct from one another? In what follows, along this line, I will look at the semantics of  gau3. 3.3.2.1  A brief introduction of the Cantonese additive adverb gau3 ‘enough’ Gau3 ‘enough’ in Cantonese carries two meanings, namely ‘enough’ and a meaning similar to ‘also’ or ‘too’ (see e.g. Rao et al. 1981, Li et al. 1995, Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011, Mai and Tan 1997, Liang 2005, Shin 2006, Shan 2008). While expressing its lexical meaning of ‘enough’, gau3 is used as an adverb of degree modifying a predicative adjective (see (57a)), or used as a predicate (see (57b)). What is being enough can be either the degree (see (57a)) or the quantity (see (57b)). (57) (a) Li1 go3 jan2  gau3  gou1. (Cantonese)   this CL  person GAU tall   “This guy is tall enough.” (b) Si4gaan3  m4-​gau3. (Cantonese)  time   NEG-​ GAU    “Time is not enough.” (cited from Matthews and Yip 2011) Gau3 ‘enough’ can also convey additive meaning, and in particular, the situation described is claimed to be equal to the situation known in the discourse (see Mai and Tan 1997). Under such a use, gau3 frequently co-​occurs with the SFP lok3 (see Leung 2005) and laa1. (58) (a) Nei5 dak1 ngo5  gau3  dak1  lok3. (Cantonese)   you  able  I    GAU  able   SFP   “You are able to do it. I am also able to do it.” (cited from Mai and Tan 1997) (b) Nei5 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2  sap6-​ci3,   you go-​EXP   Japan    ten-​times

72

72  Additive focus particles      

 go5 gau3  heoi3-​gwo3  Jat6bun2  ng5-​ci3  lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese) n I   GAU go-​EXP   Japan  five-​times SFP “You have travelled Japan for ten times and I have travelled Japan for five times.”

Moreover, gau3 ‘enough’ is often treated on a par with the Cantonese adverb, dou1 ‘also/​even’, and the English “too” and “also”. (59) A: Nei5  bou2zung6 aa3. (Cantonese)    you  take-​care  SFP   “You take care!” B: Nei5  dou1  hai6.   you   DOU  be   “You too.” (60) A: Ngo5 hou2 gui6  aa3. (Cantonese)   I   very  tired  SFP   “I am very tired!” B: Ngo5 gau3 hai6 lok3.   I   GAU  be  SFP   “Me too.” As both dou1 ‘also’ in (59) and gau3 ‘enough’ in (60) would lead to the translation of “you/me too” in Speaker B’s response, Matthews and Yip (1994/​2011) pointed out that dou1 and gau3 should be semantically analogous. However, as mentioned in Lee and Lai (2016), (61) and (62) suggest that dou1 and gau3 may not be absolute equivalents. (61) A:  Nei5 bou2zung6  aa3. (Cantonese)   you  take-​care   SFP “Take care.” B: Nei5  dou1/​???gau3 hai6.   you   DOU/​GAU  be “You too.” (62) A: Ngo5 hou2 gui6  aa3.   I   very tired SFP “I’m very tired.” B:  Ngo5 gau3  hai6 lok3./​Ngo5 dou1  hai6???lok3. (Cantonese)   I   GAU   be  SFP I  DOU be  SFP “Me too.” For (61), it is unnatural for speaker B to respond nei5-​gau3-​hai6-​lok3 ‘you-​ enough-​be-​SFP’. For (62), gau3 can be replaced by dou1, but the meaning has changed: if speaker B answers ngo5-​dou1-​hai6 ‘I-​also-​be’, a simple addition

 73

Additive focus particles 73 is performed, meaning that s/​he is added to the set of persons who are tired, with both Speaker A and Speaker B as members. Moreover, under such a case, in contrast to gau3, dou1 does not co-​occur with the SFP lok3, as seen in the oddness of ngo5-​dou1-​hai6-​???lok3 ‘I-​also-​be-​SFP’ in (62). Gau3 ‘enough’ has not drawn much attention, with sparse studies, like Shin (2006), Shan (2008), and Lee and Lai (2016), conducted. As the study of Lee and Lai (2016) focuses more on semantics, I will go into more detail their study. Lee and Lai (2016) argued that gau3 is a subject-​oriented additive adverb with its interpretation subject to two conditions: (i) the Leftness Condition, which requires gau3 to associate with the NP on its left; and (ii) a decrease in degree/​ quantity, which requires its co-​occurring predicate to denote a decrease in degree/​quantity. To illustrate the two conditions, consider the examples given by Lee and Lai (2016). (63) Ngo5 gau3 (b) tung4-​keoi5 (c) heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2 lok3. (Cantonese) I   GAU  with-​him    go-​EXP    Japan  SFP (a)  “I also had travelled Japan with him.” (b)  %“I had travelled Japan also with him.” (c)  %“I had also travelled Japan with him.” Assume that gau3 ‘enough’ associates with the subject NP ngo5 ‘I’, with the NP to its right keoi5 ‘him’ and with the predicate heoi3-​gwo3-​Jat6bun2 ‘go-​ EXP-​Japan’, as shown in (63a), (63b), and (63c), respectively. As only (63a) gives the desired reading of the sentence, there are grounds to claim that gau3 ‘enough’ is restricted to associating with the NP to its left, with the subject NP ngo5 added to the presupposed set of individuals having travelled Japan. The Leftness Condition has made gau3 ‘enough’ a subject-​oriented adverb, with what is added to be the individual denoted by the subject NP. For Condition (ii) proposed by Lee and Lai (2016), consider (64). (64) Nei5  heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2  ng5-​ci3. (Cantonese) you   go-​ EXP  Japan   five-​ times Ngo5 gau3 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2 saam1-​ci3/​ng5-​ci3/​??sap6-​ci3  lok3. I   GAU go-​EXP  Japan three-​times/​five-​times/​ten-​times SFP Intended meaning: “You have been to Japan for five times. And I have been there too for three times/​five times/​??ten times.” When gau3 is used, it follows that the degree/​quantity denoted in the predicate is to be compared with some degree/​quantity presupposed in the context. The use of gau3 requires that the degree/​quantity x which the subject has obtained (in the sentence where gau3 occurs) must be lower than or at most equal to the degree/​quantity obtained by the referent in previous discourse, with the existence of an event of the same type to be the minimal requirement, as shown in (65).

74

74  Additive focus particles (65) ?? Nei5  heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2  sap6-​ci3,  you   go-​ EXP  Japan   ten-​ times ngo5 gau3  mei6  heoi3-​gwo3 lok3. (Cantonese) (cited from Lee and Lai 2016) I  GAU NEG go-​EXP  SFP As what is added is the subject involved in the event denoted by the predicate, the event is naturally presupposed to exist, and denial of its existence would lead to the unacceptability of (65). 3.3.2.2  Two conditions governing the occurrence of gau3 ‘enough’ Lee and Lai (2016) have given a preliminary description of gau3 ‘enough’, without going into its detailed semantics. In what follows, I  will argue that gau3 ‘enough’ is an additive adverb, and the two conditions which govern its interpretation will be further refined. Although gau3 is an additive adverb, it demonstrates properties distinct from Mandarin additive adverbs, with no corresponding counterparts found. Moreover, the two conditions shown in this section also reveal that gau3 cannot be the same as other Cantonese additives. Lee and Lai (2016) argued that gau3 ‘enough’ suggested that the Leftness Condition has restricted what is added by gau3 ‘enough’ to be the subject NP. It is generally stated in the literature that the Mandarin dou ‘all’ is subject to the Leftness Condition, which has constrained it to quantify over the NP to its left at S-​structure (see e.g. T. Lee 1986, Liu F. H. 1990). Under the assumption that the Cantonese dou1 ‘even/​also’ is also subject to the same Leftness Condition, previous analyses considered dou1 ‘also/​even’ and gau3 ‘enough’ to be analogous, and examples have been given as (59) and (60) above. However, regarding the Leftness Condition, while dou1 ‘even/​also’ strictly selects the subject NP, if one reconsiders the item with which gau3 associates, what is added may not be the subject NP but a constituent higher in position syntactically, though it remains to be some constituent to the left of gau3. Consider the sentences below. (66) Kam4jat6 ngo5 gau3 heoi3-​zo2 Ou3mun4 lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese) yesterday I  GAU go-​PERF Macau  SFP/​SFP “Yesterday, I also had gone to Macau.” (67) (i) Ngo5 (ii) kam4jat6  gau3  heoi3-​zo2  Ou3mun4 lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese)     I    yesterday GAU  go-​PERF   Macau  SFP/​SFP   Association of gau3 ‘enough’ with (i): “Yesterday, I also had gone to Macau.” (preferred reading)   Association of gau3 ‘enough’ with (ii): “(Not only last week,) I had also gone to Macau yesterday.”

 75

Additive focus particles 75 Examples (66) and (67) suggests that gau3 ‘enough’ tends to associate with the individual NP, as evidenced by its natural association with ngo5 ‘I’ in (66) and (67). While it is natural for gau3 in (66) to associate with ngo5, the subject NP, (67), shows that, although ngo5 and gau3 are intervened by the time phrase kam4jat6 ‘yesterday’, gau3 can still associate with the individual NP ngo5, which can be regarded as occupying a position on a par with the topic position. The two sentences show that syntactically gau3 can associate with the NP which occupies a position higher than the subject position, and (67) suggests that NPs with [+animate] feature are prioritized over temporal phrases for gau3’s association. Yet, unlike dou1, which has to select the subject NP, gau3 can associate with temporal/​locative phrases, as shown in (68). (68) A: Soeng6 sing1kei4 go2-​bin1 baai2-​zo2

sing4-​sap6 dong3 siu2faan2-​dong3. (Cantonese)   last   week    that-​side bawl-​PERF almost-​ten CL   street-​vendor-​stall   “Last week, almost ten street-​vendor stalls bawled on that side of the road.” B: (a) Gam1jat6 (b) nei1dou6 gau3/​*dou1 baai2-​zo2 gei2 dong3 lok3/​laa1.   (a) today    (b) here GAU/​DOU bawl-​PERF several CL SFP/​SFP Association of gau3 ‘enough’ with (b) locative phrase: (a) “Today, several stalls have also bawled here.” Association of gau3 ‘enough’ with (a) temporal phrase: (b) “(Not only last week,) several stalls have bawled here today too.”

Example (68) will result in being ungrammatical if dou1 ‘also/​even’ is used, in contrast to gau3 ‘enough’. Either the temporal phrase or the locative phrase can associate with gau3, giving a meaning of (68a) and (68b) respectively, which is determined contextually. However, what should be noted here is that (i) association of gau3 ‘enough’ is not restricted to NPs with [+animate] feature, and (ii) both the temporal phrase and the locative phrase occupy an IP position, showing that gau3 is likely to take a sentential scope. The IP scope of gau3 is again obvious if one considers its occurrence with a long passive construction. Consider (69) and (70). (69) *Ngo5 bei2-​keoi5 gau3 daa2-​dou3  soeng1-​saai3. (Cantonese) I   PASS-​s/​he GAU beat-​arrive  hurt-​all (70) Ngo5 gau3 bei2-​keoi5  daa2-​dou3  soeng1-​saai3. (Cantonese) I    GAU PASS-​s/​he  beat-​arrive  hurt-​all   “I have also been beat up by him/​her.” Examples (69) and (70) involve long passive constructions. If one adopts a complementation analysis (see e.g. Hashimoto 1987, Wei 1994), bei2 ‘PASS’ is taken as a verb and is a two-​place predicate taking the subject and the IP as its arguments. If it is linearity that determines the scope order of Chinese expressions, the acceptability of (70) reveals that gau3 ‘enough’ needs to

76

76  Additive focus particles take scope over bei2-​keoi5 ‘PASS-​s/​he’. If bei2-​NP takes the IP as one of its arguments, there are grounds to assume the position of gau3 ‘enough’ to be at least IP. Moreover, the additive focus associated with gau3 is not restricted to the phrases within the top VP, and can in fact reach the topic position, as seen in (71) and (72), with sentences cited from Shin (2006). (71) (a) Ngo5 (b) je5mei2   gau3  sik6-​gwo3 laa1. (Cantonese)   I    game-​ food GAU eat-​ EXP  SFP   Association of gau3 with (a): “I also have tried game food before.”   Association of gau3 with (b): “I have tried game food before as well.” (72) (a) Je5mei2 (b) ngo5 gau3  sik6-​gwo3 laa1. (Cantonese)   game-​ food I  GAU eat-​ EXP SFP   Association of gau3 with (a): “I also have tried game food before.”   Association of gau3 with (b): “I have tried game food before as well.” Je5mei2 ‘game-​food’ takes the subtopic position in (71) and the topic position in (72). Chinese has a canonical order of SVO, and object preposing is common in Chinese, leading to the alternative word order SOV in (71). For (71), the commonly adopted analysis is double topicalization (see e.g. Xu and Langendoen 1985, T.  Lee 1986, Tang C.  C. 1990, Lin 1992), in which the object first adjoins to IP, producing the sentence in (72). The subject ngo ‘I’ may subsequently be topicalized across the object, giving (71). On the other hand, Ernst and Wang (1995) argue against the double topicalization analysis and propose that sentences like (71) are derived by adjoining the object directly to VP. They argue that besides the default sentence-​final position for focus in Chinese, the pre-verbal position has also been argued to be a focus position. When the object is preposed to a position between the subject and the verb, it occupies a special position for “focused” expressions. If the preposed object je5mei2 ‘game-​food’ in (71) is taken to be the focus, as in Ernst and Wang, association of gau3 ‘enough’ with the additive focus is natural to be accounted for. I  will not go into detail regarding the arguments of these two analyses. What is crucial here is that the ambiguity of (71) and (72) shows that whether gau3 associates with the subtopic/​focus in (71) or the topic in (72), the two sentences show that gau3 can associate with phrases in the topical position, revealing its scope of at least IP. This reveals its basic difference with dou1, which is restricted to association with the subject NP. Furthermore, Shin (2006) has also given two sentences below, which reveal the association of gau3 ‘enough’ with the right dislocated phrase. (73) Gau3  sik6-​gwo3 je5mei2   laa1, ngo5. (right dislocated subject) (Cantonese) enough eat-​EXP game-​food SFP I “I also have tried game food before.”

 77

Additive focus particles 77 (74) Ngo5 gau3 sik6-​gwo3 laa1, je5mei2. (right dislocated object) (Cantonese) I   GAU eat-​EXP SFP game-​food “I have tried game food before as well.” Following the head-​initial CP hypothesis of sentence particles in Chinese adopted by Simpson and Wu (2002), Heish and Sybesma (2011), L. Cheung (2005), and others, if one adopted L. Cheung (2009) and assumed that in dislocation focus construction sentences, an XP has to undergo movement into a C-​domain SpecFocP in order to check off focus features on the functional head Foc0 (see Chomsky 1995), the right dislocated subject NP or object NP would be moved to the Spec position of FocP, which takes scope over IP. Or if one goes along the lines of Kayne and Pollock (2001) and Munaro, Poletto, and Pollock (2001), right dislocated DPs are to be analysed as left dislocation of the prosodically emarginated constituent to the specifier of a Topic projection, followed by remnant movement of the whole clause. According to del Gobbo, Munaro, and Poletto (2015), the XPs occurring after the particle are left dislocated to a CP position lower than the one occupied by the particle itself. Without going into the details of these analyses, if gau3 can associate with the additive focus, namely the right dislocated subject NP in (73) and the right dislocated object NP in (74), this further supports the claim that gau3 takes at least an IP scope. Finally, as gau3 ‘enough’ is licensed by an assertive SFP, it would be interesting to see whether this would restrict gau3 to occurring in root or main clauses only. Consider the sentences below. (75) (a) Keoi5 (*gau3) ceot1-​zo2    ng5  pin1 hou2-​ging6  ge3 man2   s/​ he  GAU publish-​ PERF five CL very-​ bright GE paper   (gau3)   hai6 cyun4  sai3gaai3 dou1 zi1  ge3  si6sat6 *(lok3). (Cantonese)   enough be whole world  all  know GE fact   SFP   “The fact that s/​he has published five brilliant papers has also been known by the entire world.” (b) Keoi5  hei1mong6/​gu2/​hang2ding6/​zi1dou6/​soeng1seon3 nei5   s/​he    hope/​guess/​be-​certain/​know/​believe  you (*gau3) heoi3 lok3. (cited from Shan 2008) (Cantonese) GAU go  SFP   Intended: “S/​he hopes/​guesses/​is certain/​knows/​believes that you will also go.” (76) (a) Ngo5 (gau3) maai5-​zo2 zek3 (*gau3)   hou3 gwai3 ge3    I   GAU buy-​ PERF CL GAU  very  expensive GE biu1  bei2 keoi5 lok3. (Cantonese) watch to  s/​ he  SFP   “I also bought him/​her a very expensive watch.”

78

78  Additive focus particles (b) Ngo5 gin3-​gwo3 keoi5 (*gau3) gin3-​gwo3 ge3 daai6-​fung1-​daai6-​long6   I see-​EXP  s/​he  GAU see-​EXP GE big-​wind-​big-​waves lok3. SFP   (cited from Shan 2008) (Cantonese)   Intended: “I have experienced the test of violent storms and waves which has also experienced by him/​her.” (77) (a) Jan1wai6  keoi5   fu6mou5 (*gau3) hai6 lou5si1,   because  his/​ her parents GAU  be  teachers   keoi5 (gau3) tai2   m4-​siu2  syu1 *(lok3). (Cantonese)   s/​ he GAU read  NEG-​ few book SFP   Intended: “As his/​her parents are teachers, s/​he has also read many books.” (b) Seoi1jin4 lok6 daai6-​jyu5, bat1gwo3 keoi5 (*gau3) lei4-​zo2. (cited from Shan 2008) (Cantonese)   although pour heavy-​ rain but   s/​ he GAU come-​ PERF   “It is raining heavily, but s/​he has also come.” Examples (75a) and (75b) show that gau3 ‘enough’ cannot occur in the embedded clause, whilst (76a) and (76b) demonstrate its failure to occur in the relative clause. SFPs like lok3/​laa1 are assertive SFPs, which do not occur in an embedded domain but rather in main or root clauses only. If the occurrence of lok3/​laa1 is obligatory, it is natural to predict that gau3 cannot occur in subordinate clauses, as borne out in (77a) and (77b). Generalizing from what we have so far, we can come up with (78). (78) Existential presupposition and the Leftness Condition of gau3 ‘enough’ ∃y [y ≠ x ∧ y∈{Z} ∧ P(y)], where x is the NP or phrase associated with gau3 ‘enough’ under the Leftness Condition, as explicated below, and Z is the presupposed set with y as a member. The Leftness Condition of gau3 The Cantonese additive adverb gau3  ‘enough’ associates with additive focus within IP and to its left at the surface structure. Example (78) states that gau3 ‘enough’ associates with the NP or phrase to its left at the surface structure, and can be any item within the IP scope. The association of gau3 with its associates, the additive focus, triggers a positive existential presupposition, and presupposes the existence of a contrasting item, which is a member of a set which could be accommodated contextually, with the associated item added to such a set. Example (78) only captures the association of gau3 as an additive adverb, with the additive focus considered the item to the left of gau3 (the Leftness Condition). However, what makes gau3 unique from other additives like dou1 and even tim1 is its scalar presupposition triggered by its obligatory co-​ occurrence with sentence-​final particles like laa1 and lok3. Leung (1992/​2005)

 79

Additive focus particles 79 mentioned that gau3 cannot be used if SFPs like laa1 or lok3 are absent, as in (79). Apart from laa1 and lok3, no other SFPs which are non-​assertive in nature can appear with gau3, as in (80). (79) Nei5 heoi3-​ gwo3 Jat6bun2 ng5-​ci3 you   go-​EXP     Japan    five-​times ngo5 gau3  heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2??sap6-​ci3 /​saam1-​ci3 *(lok3/​laa1). (Cantonese) I   GAU  go-​EXP  Japan  ten-​times /​three-​times SFP/​SFP Intended: “You have been to Japan for five times and I have been there too for??ten times/​three times.” (80) (a) *Keoi5 gau3 heoi3-​ gwo3 Jat6bun2 gaa3/​aa3/​ze1. (Cantonese)   s/​he  GAU go-​EXP    Japan   SFP/​SFP/​SFP   Intended: “S/​he has also been to Japan.” (b) ???Keoi5 gau3  heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2  aa4/​me1/​ho2? (Cantonese)   s/​he GAU go-​EXP  Japan   SFP/​SFP/​SFP   Intended: “Is it true that s/​he has also travelled to Japan?” Example (79) shows that lok3 or laa1 is obligatory, with its presence rendering a well-​formed sentence. Sentence-​final particles like lok3 and laa1 are considered assertive sentence-​final particles (SFPassert, see e.g. Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011). Contrarily, (80a) and (80b) are not acceptable, as they occur with non-​assertive SFPs like gaa3, aa3, and ze1 in (80a), and aa4, me1, or ho1 in (80b) (see Shin 2006 as well). The licensing relation between gau3 and SFPassert is therefore confirmed, which also gains support in (75) to (77), where gau3 fails to occur in embedded domains. Moreover, the licensing relation between gau3 ‘enough’ and SFPassert requires the predicate to give a downwards movement in the quantity or degree scale, which marks the assertion of the sentence. Example (64) is repeated as (81). (81) Nei5  heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2  ng5-​ci3 you   go-​ EXP  Japan   five-​ times ngo5 gau3 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2 (a) saam1-​ci3/​ng5-​ci3 /​ (b)??sap6-​ci3 lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese) I  GAU go-​EXP  Japan (a) three-​times/​five-​times /​(b) ten-​times  SFP/​SFP Intended: “You have been to Japan for five times and I have been there too for three times/​five times/​??ten times.” Licensed by SFPassert, it is observed that the degree/​quantity denoted in the predicate to be compared with some degree/​quantity presupposed in the context, and the use of gau3 requires that the degree/​quantity which the subject has obtained (in the sentence where gau3 occurs) must be lower than or at most equal to the degree obtained by the referent in previous discourse. A  direct comparison between two contrasting quantities, namely ng5-​ci3

80

80  Additive focus particles ‘five-​times’ with sap6-​ci3 ‘ten-​times’ and saam1-​ci3 ‘three-​times’/​ng5-​ci3 ‘five-​ times’, is made. While ng5-​ci3 ‘five-​times’ with saam1-​ci3 ‘three-​times’/​ng5-​ci3 ‘five-​times’ is acceptable, that with sap6-​ci3 ‘ten-​times’ is not. This reveals that for the predicate co-​occurring with gau3 and SFPassert lok3/​laa1, the associated quantity q’ must mark a lower or at most equal quantity with the presupposed quantity q, hence holding a q’≤q relation. The same pattern is observed in degree scale, as shown in (82). (82) Nei5  hou2  fei4, ngo5 gau3 hou2 fei4/​fei4/​*ciu1  fei4  lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese) you  very  fat  I GAU very fat/​ fat/​  super fat  SFP/​ SFP “You are very fat and I am also very fat/​fat/​super fat.” With the scale being the scale of fatness, a direct comparison is made between two degrees of fatness, namely the presupposed degree d in the first clause, and the degree d’ mentioned in the second clause. The degree d’ can only at most be the same degree or lower in degree, as hou2fei4 ‘very-​fat’ and fei4 ‘fat’ in (82a), as the subject in the first clause, but not greater, as revealed by the unacceptability of the use of ciu1-​fei4 ‘super-​fat’, hence a relation of d’≤d. However, a reading of the same degree is claimed to be unacceptable in some studies, as revealed in (83). (83) (a) Keoi5  jyun3   ngo5?   s/​he  blame  me   ?Ngo5 gau3  jyun3 keoi5  lok3! Daai6gaa1 daa2-​ping4 laa1! (cited from Shan 2008) (Cantonese)   I  GAU blame him/​ her SFP we   break-​ even SFP Intended: “S/​he blamed me, and so did I. This makes us even!” (b) *Nei5 dak1, ngo5 gau3  dak1  lok3,   you   can  I   GAU  can   SFP   ngo5dei6 paak3dong3 zau6  zeoi3-​ngaam1 laa1. (Cantonese)   we   partner   then  best-​ fit    SFP (cited from Shan 2008) Intended: “You are so capable, and so do I. We would become perfect match if we work together.” Moreover, what is added is the NP to the left of gau3, for example, x, involved in the event or the property denoted by the predicate, and the relevant addition would presuppose the existence of at least one individual who is not x and with the same property, or be involved in an event of the same type. Therefore, while the topmost bound of the quantity or degree is the same quantity or degree as that denoted by the contrasting item, the additive meaning to the NP on the left would indirectly make the existence of the property or the event of the same type be the minimal requirement for

 81

Additive focus particles 81 the occurrence of the “gau3…SFPassert” construction. Examples (84) and (85) show that the denial of such an existence would lead to the unacceptability of gau3-​sentences. (84) ??Nei5  heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2  sap6-​ci3, you   go-​ EXP  Japan   ten-​ times ngo5 gau3  mei6  heoi3-​gwo3 lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese) I  GAU NEG go-​ EXP  SFP/​ SFP Intended: “You have been to Japan ten times, and I have not been there.” (85) *Nei5 hou2  fei4, ngo5 gau3 m4   fei4  lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese) you very fat  I GAU not fat SFP/​ SFP Intended: “You are very fat and I am also not fat.” Existential meaning as the basic requirement of gau3 ‘enough’ can further be revealed by the second clause of the sentences below. (86) Nei5 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2, you go-​EXP Japan ngo5 gau3 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2  lok3(, jat1 ci3   gam3 do1  laa1). (Cantonese) I  GAU go-​ EXP  Japan   SFP one time that much SFP “You have been to Japan and I have been there too(, though only once).” (87) Nei5 jau5,   keoi5  gau3  jau5 lok3/​ laa1. (Cantonese) you have  s/​ he   GAU have SFP/​ SFP “You got (it), and so did s/​he.” With no quantity or degree embedded in the meaning of the predicate, what is required for (86) and (87) would be at least one occurrence of the same type of event as denoted in the second clause. Additionally, a scalar reading of the “gau3…SFPassert” construction demonstrates flexibility towards scale selection, which can be satisfied by adhering to various scales triggered linguistically or accommodated contextually, as long as a downwards movement on the quantity or degree scale is satisfied. Consider the examples below. (88) Nei5  ci4-​zo2  sap6 fan1zung1, you   late-​PERF ten  minutes ngo5 gau3 ci4-​zo2    sap6ng5 fan1zung1  lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese) I  GAU late-​ PERF fifteen  minutes  SFP/​ SFP “I was late for ten minutes, and I was also late for fifteen minutes.” (89) Nei5  jat1  caan1  sik6-​zo2 loeng5 wun2 faan6, you   one   meal   eat-​Perf  two  bowl rice

82

82  Additive focus particles  go5 gau3 sik6-​zo2 saam1 wun2 faan6 lok3/​laa1, jau6 m4 gin3 ngo5 fei4. n (Cantonese) I  GAU eat-​PERF three bowl rice SFP/​SFP even NEG see I fat “You have eaten two bowls of rice and I also have had three bowls. Did you see me growing fat?” The well-​formedness of (88) and (89) seems to suggest that gau3 ‘enough’ is compatible with a predicate, which suggests an increase in scalar reading. However, if one considers the reading of (88), the scale of (88) is in fact accommodated to the degree of punctuality, with the gau3-​clause giving a reading of a lower degree of punctuality x of the speaker (the subject of the gau3-​clause) as compared with the degree y of the addressee (the subject of the first clause), hence accounting for the natural occurrence of gau3 with such a predicate. On the other hand, for (89), with the clause jau6-​m4-​gin3-​ngo5-​fei4 ‘even-​not-​see-​me-​fat’ added to the gau3-​clause, the scale of (89) is accommodated to the likeliness to gain weight or become fat, and the gau3-​clause indicates a less likely degree x for the individual in question, even with a greater quantity of rice taken into consideration, as compared with the degree y of the addressee (the subject of the first clause). The flexibility of scale selection is obvious when one considers (90). (90) Nei5  hou2  fei4, ngo5 gau3  hou2  sau3 lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese) you   very   fat  I  GAU  very  thin  SFP/​SFP “You are very fat and I am also very thin.” While the first clause is about the degree of fatness, the second clause is about the degree of thinness. Gau3 can occur in (90), with the presence of SFPassert lok3/​laa1. The scale of (90) is accommodated to the degree of unhealthiness or from the degree of deviation from the normal weight. The degree x denoted by the predicate in the second clause is compared with the degree y denoted in the first clause. With the use of gau3 in the second clause, the degree x which the subject has obtained is again required to be lower than or at most equal to the degree y. 3.3.2.3  Interpretation of “gau3…SFPassert”: A twofold semantics of “gau3…SFPassert” The semantics of “gau3…SFPassert” involves at least two issues, namely the respective contribution of gau3 ‘enough’ and SFPassert to the interpretation of “gau3…SFPassert”. For gau3, like dou1, its additive nature will trigger an existential presupposition, and for its additive meaning, its Leftness Condition makes it distinct from dou1. What makes the “gau3…SFPassert” construction distinct from other additives is that gau3 needs to be obligatorily licensed by SFPassert, which contributes to the scalar interpretation of “gau3…SFPassert”. On the basis of the above, I will hypothesize a twofold semantics of “gau3 …SFPassert” as follows:

 83

Additive focus particles 83 (91)  Interpretation of “gau3 …SFPassert” (a) Semantics of gau3 ‘enough’: Assertion: [GAU […NPx…]]: λPλx [P(x) ∧ P(x) = 1] where P stands for predicate; and x for the individual argument associated with gau3. Existential presupposition: ∃y [y ≠ x ∧ y∈{Z} ∧ P(y)], where P stands for predicate; x is the NP or phrase associated with gau3 ‘enough’; and Z is the presupposed set with y as a member. (b) Semantics of “gau3 …SFPassert”: Scalar presupposition:   (i) [∃P∃x∃d (P(d)(x)) ∧ ∃P’∃y∃d’ (P’(d’)(y))],    where P, P’ stands for predicates; x,y for individual arguments; and d, d’ for degree variables. Or (ii) [∃P∃x∃q (P(q)(x)) ∧ ∃P’∃y∃q’ (P’(q’)(y))],    where P, P’ stands for predicates; x,y for individual arguments; and q, q’ stand for quantity variables. Assertion:   (i) ASSERT [λPλxλd (P(d)(x)) ∧ λP’λyλd’ (P’(d’)(y)) ∧ ((d)(SP) ≤ (d’)(SP’))],    where P, P’ stands for predicates; x,y for individual arguments; d, d’ for degree variables; and S for scale. Or (ii) ASSERT [λPλxλq (P(q)(x)) ∧ λP’λyλq’ (P’(q’)(y)) ∧ ((q)(SP) ≤ (q’)(SP’))],    where P, P’ stands for predicates; x,y for individual arguments; q,q’ for quantity variables; and S for scale. From the above, we can see that the “gau3…SFPassert” in fact gives a twofold semantics, contributed by (a)  gau3 ‘enough’ and (b)  “gau3…SFPassert” respectively. For gau3, as shown in (91a), its semantics is on a par, though distinct, from other additives, which adds its associate to a presupposed set, and in the case of gau3, the NPx on its left. Therefore, like other additives, gau3 does not contribute to the truth condition of the proposition, and the proposition still asserts its prejacent to be true. Like other additives, gau3 triggers the presupposition of the existence of at least one individual y which is not the associate x, where y can be determined contextually or in the discourse. On the other hand, what makes gau3 distinct from other additives is its obligatory licensing by the SFPassert. As shown in (91b), the presence of “gau3… SFPassert” triggers a scalar presupposition which requires a point for contrast, with both the contrasting point and the point denoted by the co-​occurring of gau3 and SFPassert to be interpreted on the same scale. SFPassert then is required to assert that the point denoted marks a decrease in quantity or degree from the contrasting point in the scale. The twofold semantics of “gau3…SFPassert”

84

84  Additive focus particles has at least captured why the occurrence of gau3 needs to be licensed by an assertive SFP, and it is because of the division of labour between the two, which marks “gau3…SFPassert” as distinct from other additive particles in Cantonese and Chinese at large.

3.3.2.4  Determination of the contrasting point under the Question under Discussion framework If the proposed semantics in (91) is correct, questions to be answered will be (i) how is the contrasting point for “gau3…SFPassert” determined; and (ii) why does the co-​occurring predicate need to denote a decrease in quantity/​degree? In what follows, I will try to answer these two questions. First of all, gau3 ‘enough’ needs to be licensed by an assertive sentence-​final particle, with the SFPassert asserting a decrease in degree/​ quantity in comparison with a contrasting point. Under the assumption that discourse is founded on questions, assertions and questions can be considered as edges connecting discourse states. As in Hamblin’s (1973) account, a question will denote a set of alternatives. Von Stechow (1991) further assumes that the Q-​alternatives of a question are all asked by the interlocutors, and that this fact influences the common ground. This is further brought into the Question under Discussion framework, which analyses discourse in terms of the strategy of inquiry pursued by the interlocutors. Individual utterances are interpreted relative to the question being addressed, which will in turn determine the focus semantic value. To mark a decrease in quantity or degree, the point denoted in the predicate of the “gau3…SFPassert” sentence must be related to a contrasting point in the discourse. If the interlocutor who uttered the “gau3…SFPassert” sentence is in response to the first clause, the first clause and the “gau3… SFPassert” can be considered to be on the same common ground, with the reference point given in the first clause serving as a contrasting point for “gau3…SFPassert”, or the focus semantic value. To further elaborate along this line of argument, following Carlson (1983), Roberts (1996, 2004) distinguishes two types of moves, questions and assertions, which provide (at least partial) answers to some questions under discussion. Each assertion is regarded as an answer to some (more or less specific) question under discussion, which if accepted, will become the immediate topic of discussion, according to Roberts (1996). The question to which a given declarative move/​assertion is intended to provide an answer –​Roberts’s (1996) “immediate question under discussion” –​we call the “quaestio” (see Klein and von Stutterheim 1987, 1992), defined as (92): (92) The QUAESTIO of an assertion A is the (potentially implicit) question under discussion to which A is intended to provide a (partial or full) answer.

 85

Additive focus particles 85 The question, or goal of discourse, in Stalnaker (1979)’s analysis serves to set up a partition on the context set at the point of utterance, with each cell the set of worlds in which one complete answer to the question is true (see Groenendijk and Stokhof 1984, Roberts 1996). The context set represents the ultimate set of alternatives, making the selection of the actual world our ultimate goal. Following Stalnaker, common ground is a set of propositions for which the interlocutors in a discourse behave as if they all hold to be true. Assertions are choices among alternatives, and if accepted, the assertions will then be added to the common ground, shrinking the context set. The occurrence of gau3 ‘enough’ needs to be licensed by an assertive sentence-​ final particle, turning the “gau3…SFPassert” sentence into an assertion, which according to (92), is uttered to provide a (partial or full) answer, with the first clause becoming the quaestio, or the immediate question under discussion. To be specific, if the focus of the declarative sentence containing gau3… SFPassert, is “the answer to the question being addressed”, given Roberts’ QUD constraint below, the focus of a declarative sentence turns out to provide an answer to the question or issue currently under discussion in the discourse. (93) The Question-​Under-​Discussion constraint on Focus (QUD constraint) An utterance B whose logical translation is of the form β or ?[β], where β is a formula, is felicitous only if [|β|]f = last(QUD[|B|]o) Example (93) is presented in the logical form of a question, which is assumed to include a wide-​scope interrogation operator, ? , with |β| being the regular denotation of β. Roberts proposed that (93) imposes a focal presupposition which consists of the following:  any utterance B presupposes that the last question under discussion (in the context immediately preceding B) denotes precisely that set of propositions which constitutes the focus semantic clause of B. The declarative sentence, namely the “gau3…SFPassert” sentence, presupposes that a constitute in the first clause is identical to a focus semantic value given by a related constitute in the “gau3…SFPassert” sentence, namely a reference point made in contrast with that indicated in the first clause or the speaker’s clause. Roberts (1996) proposes a constraint on the use of focus which is formulated in terms of the relationship to some preceding move in the same discourse. Following the above, let us answer questions (i) and (ii) mentioned above. The proposition marked by the “gau3…SFPassert” construction gives a reference point in terms of degree or quantity, which is made in contrast to a point given by the predicate in the first clause. The reference point given in the “gau3…SFPassert” construction, taken to be utterance B in (93), can be considered to give a focal presupposition that the last question under discussion (QUD) (in the context immediately preceding B, namely the first clause) denotes precisely that set of propositions which constitutes the focus semantic clause of B. Additionally, the question raised by the first clause will be added to the set of questions under discussion, and such a question will also be considered to be the last question under discussion (last QUD). The

86

86  Additive focus particles last QUD may also be understood as the last issue under discussion, as what is important is the focus semantic value which can be determined on a par with the wh-​word in a question. It is then answered by the addressee, which has focus corresponding to the questioned item given by the speaker, which can be defined by the notion of relevance as follows. (94) Each move α in the discourse is required to be directly relevant to last(QUD(α)). (cited from Roberts 1996) The proposition expressed by the declarative sentence necessarily constitutes a (partial or complete) answer to that question, in the sense of the definition below. (95) A proposition p is a partial answer to a question Q iff p contextually entails the truth value of at least one element of the denotation of Q. A proposition p is a complete answer to a question Q iff p contextually entails the truth value of each element of the denotation of Q. (cited from Roberts 1996) The above analysis would be able to account for the division of labour between gau3 and the SFPassert. Gau3 is responsible for the additive meaning to the constitute to its left. The SFPassert gives an assertion and presupposes that the first clause, which is the context immediately preceding it, belongs to the set of propositions which constitutes the focus semantic clause of the gau3…SFPassert, namely the degree or quantity which is made in contrast with the reference point given in the first clause. The focus semantic clause therefore serves as a discourse-​regulating device, and when an assertion marked by the SFPassert is accepted by the interlocutor, it gets added to the common ground (see Stalnaker 1979).Such an addition will be subject to contextual accommodation, which accounts for the flexibility of gau3…SFPassert towards scale selection. I will not go into the detail regarding whether tim1 adopts the same mechanism to facilitate its flexible scale selection, but if it does, it would be assumed that there also exists a focus semantic clause which serves as a discourse-​regulating device. The presence of a focus semantic clause would be more obvious in the case of the SFPassert, due to its assertive meaning. In the case of tim1, what is required is a scale which allows tim1 to mark an increment value. To account for the presence of a focus semantic clause in “gau3… SFPassert” sentences, relevant examples are repeated below. (81) Nei5 heoi3-​ gwo3 Jat6bun2 ng5  ci3 you   go-​EXP     Japan    five  times

 87

Additive focus particles 87 ngo5 gau3 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2 (a) saam1-​ci3/​ng5-​ci3 /​(b)??sap6-​ci3 /​ lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese) I   GAU go-​EXP Japan    (a) three-​times/​five-​times /​(b) ten-​times SFP/​SFP Intended meaning: “You have been to Japan for five times and I have been there too for three times/​five times/​??ten times.” (82) Nei5 hou2 fei4, ngo5 gau3 hou2 fei4/​fei4/​* ciu1   fei4 lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese) you   very  fat  I   GAU very fat/​ fat/​  super fat  SFP/​SFP “You are very fat and I am also very fat/​fat/​*super fat.” Examples (81) and (82) give two examples which we have used to illustrate the scalar presupposition of gau3…SFPassert. For (81), following Klein and von Stutterheim (1987, 1992), the first clause has become the QUD, though implicit, of the assertion made by the gau3…SFPassert in the second clause. According to the QUD constraint stated by Roberts (1996), a focal presupposition will be imposed on the assertion, which consists of the utterance B made by the gau3…SFPassert sentence, and in (81), the number of times the speaker of B has gone to Japan. As an assertion, it presupposes that the last QUD denotes precisely that set of propositions which constitutes the focus semantic clause of B. Such a focus semantic value will be identical to a focus semantic value given by a related constitute in the first clause, namely the number of times the speaker or the addressee has gone to Japan. Similarly, for (82), the first clause has become the QUD, though again implicit, of the assertion made by the gau3…SFPassert in the second clause. According to the QUD constraint stated by Roberts (1996), a focal presupposition will be imposed on the assertion, which consists of the utterance B made by the gau3… SFPassert sentence, and in (82), the degree of fatness of the speaker of B. As an assertion, it presupposes that the last QUD denotes precisely that set of propositions which constitutes the focus semantic clause of B. Such a focus semantic value will be identical to a focus semantic value given by a related constitute in the first clause, namely the degree of fatness of the speaker or the addressee. As mentioned, as the assertion to be added to the common ground is the content which is agreed between the speaker and the addressee, the scalar presupposition given by the gau3…SFPassert can be very flexible. It can be achieved through question accommodation, with the question added to QUD to be something which has not been explicitly raised. This is shown in (90), an example mentioned earlier. (90) Nei5 hou2  fei4, ngo5 gau3 hou2  sau3 lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese) you very  fat I  GAU very  thin SFP/​ SFP “You are very fat and I am also very thin.” The first clause of (90), nei5-​hou2-​fei4 ‘you-​very-​fat’, is about the degree of fatness, and the second clause, ngo5-​gau3-​hou2-​sau3 ‘I-​GAU-​very-​thin’, about

88

88  Additive focus particles the degree of thinness. Nei5-​hou2-​fei4 will give the last QUD of “how fat are you?”, and in order to accommodate a common scale for interpretation, the speaker of the gau3-​clause needs to accommodate questions into the QUD. (90) can then be interpreted under such a contextually accommodated scale, and the answer given by the speaker of the gau3 clause has to have the focus corresponding to the questioned item given by the first clause, which can be defined by the notion of relevance below. (96) Each move α in the discourse is required to be directly relevant to last(QUD(α)) (see Roberts 1996). The degree scale of unhealthiness or that of deviation from the normal weight can be considered as directly relevant to the last (QUD(α)) given in the first clause, satisfying (96). The scale of (90) is therefore accommodated to the degree of unhealthiness or to the degree of deviation from the normal weight, with the QUD “how unhealthy are you?” accommodated into the set of questions, such that the two clauses can be interpreted on the same scale for the “gau3…SFPassert” sentence to occur. The role of the last QUD is obvious if one considers (97). (97) Nei5 maai5-​zo2  gam3 do1  syu1, you buy-​PERF  that  many book ngo5 gau3 maai5-​zo2 (??gam3-​siu2)/​ gam3-​do1  lok3/​laa1. I   GAU buy-​ PERF   that-​ few /​ that-​ many SFP/​ SFP “You have bought that many books. I have bought (*quite few/​that few) that many/​quite many as well.” For (97), the first clause gives the last QUD of “how ‘that many’ books have you bought”, which is added to the common ground of the two interlocutors. The “gau3…SFPassert” sentence will be appropriate if it is expressed under the same scale, with the semantic focus value on “that many” books. “That few” books represents a reversed scale of “that many”, making the response of “I have also bought quite few/​that few books” infelicitous. Under such a case, a decrease in the scale is still required in the “gau3…SFPassert” clause, under the interpretation that the speaker of gau3…SFPassert has also bought many books, but still fewer or at most the same quantity as that bought by the first interlocutor. As stated at the very beginning, another question arises:  why does the assertion made in the “gau3…SFPassert” sentence need to denote a decrease in degree/​quantity, with the existence of the event to be the minimal requirement? (86) Nei5  heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6gbun2, you   go-​ EXP  Japan Ngo5 gau3 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6gbun2 lok3. I   GAU go-​EXP   Japan   SFP “You have been to Japan and I have been there too.”

 89

Additive focus particles 89 (90) Nei5 hou2 fei4, ngo5 gau3 hou2  sau3  lok3/​laa1. you   very   fat   I  GAU very   thin  SFP/​SFP “You are very fat and I am also very thin.” Notice that Section 3.1 brought up an issue of the role of speaker stance in accounting for the unexpected reading in the tim1-​sentences. At that point, it was stated that the role of context would affect the truth value of the sentence, which I  have not gone into in detail. I  will now try to answer the question of why the assertion made in gau3…SFPassert needs to denote a decrease in degree/​quantity, and the role of context will be in the picture again. To begin with, when doing the contextual accommodation, the role of context may not just for fixing the contents of sentences on particular occasions of use, but may also determine the truth values of those contents which are fixed by the addressee. As early as Kaplan (1989), it was pointed out that context plays a role in not just determining content but also in assigning truth values to contents. To illustrate how contexts play a role in assigning truth values to contents, Lasersohn (2009, 2017) appeals to examples like (98). (98) Licorice is tasty. (cited from Lasersohn 2009, 2017) Lasersohn pointed out that if John says “Licorice is tasty” and Mary says “No, licorice is not tasty”, examples like (98) would be a challenge to conventional semantic theories. As Mary is negating the very same content that John asserts, one of them must be saying something false, or they would seem to be contradicting one another. In order to account for this, Lasersohn proposed a framework of relativist semantic theory. (99) A sentence ϕ is true in context c iff its content in c maps the world and judge of c onto 1, that is, iff [|ϕ|] (W(C), J(C)) = 1 Applying (99) to (98), if two contexts have different judges, that is, if J(c) ≠ J(c’), it might be happen that [|tasty(the-licorice)|]C(w, J(c))  =  1 and [|tasty(the-​licorice)|]C’(w, J(c’))  =  0. In a system where context plays a role not just in assigning contents to sentences but also in assigning truth values to contents, and where contexts are also assumed to provide an individual on whose judgement of the contents may depend, it is possible for two sentences to express contradictory contents, yet for each to be true in its context. Under such a theoretical assumption, let us go back to (86). (86) Nei5 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2, ngo5 gau3 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2 lok3. (Cantonese) you go-​ EXP  Japan  I  GAU go-​ EXP  Japan  SFP “You have been to Japan and I have been there too.”

90

90  Additive focus particles The lexical meaning of gau3 is “enough”, which emphasizes sufficiency. Therefore, the presence of the SFPassert would assert that the degree or quantity denoted by the co-​occurring predicate reaches the same point as the maximal point, in contrast or in comparison with the focus semantic value given in the first clause, the last QUD. Any point lower than the reference point in the scale is considered to be compatible with the lexical meaning of sufficiency required by gau3, as long as the same type of event or property exists, which is the minimal requirement. Context plays an important role in determining the level of sufficiency by the speaker and the addressee, not just in assigning contents to sentences but also in assigning truth values to contents. As mentioned earlier when Lasersohn’s relativist semantics was discussed, it is assumed that contexts will provide an individual on whose judgement of the contexts may depend. Assuming that the interlocutor of the “gau3… SFPassert” clause is the speaker, the following stance presupposition will be triggered. (100) Stance presupposition of the speaker For c, w:  [|Sufficient(ϕ)|](W(c), J(c))  =  1, where ϕ is the proposition asserted by the speaker and it is assumed that the speaker is the interlocutor who utters the “gau3…SFPassert” clause; Judge J is the speaker; c is a contextual variable, and w is a world variable. In the c provided by the speaker, c does not just take a role in determining the content but in assigning truth values to contents in c (see Kaplan 1989). In the context c to the speaker, under the scalar presupposition SP ≤ SP’, if ϕ (the “gau3…SFPassert” clause) is the proposition asserted by the speaker, ϕ encodes something that is “sufficient” to be made comparable with the proposition δ denoted in the first clause, the last QUD. The content of [|ϕ|] in c maps the world w and judge J, the speaker, of c onto 1. The stance presupposition which exists in the interpretation of “gau3… SFPassert” requires the predicate to mark a decrease reading. The predicate only marks a point which, for the speaker of “gau3…SFPassert”, is sufficient enough to make it comparable with what is stated in the first clause. Under the relativist semantics proposed by Lasersohn, the addressee, on the other hand, can hold a contradictory sentence, “it is not sufficient to make it comparable to the degree or quantity given by me”, assumed to be the d’/​q’ given in the proposition δ, under the scalar presupposition SP ≤ SP’. This can then map the value of (101) to 0 under a different context c’, a different world w’, and a different judge J’ (the addressee), as shown below. (101) Stance presupposition of the addressee For c’, w’: [|Sufficient(ϕ)|](W’(c’), J’(c’)) = 0, where ϕ is the proposition asserted by the speaker and it is assumed that the addressee is the interlocutor who gives the last question under discussion (QUD); Judge J’ is the addressee; c’ is a contextual variable, and w’ is a world variable.

 91

Additive focus particles 91 The above would be more obvious if we went back to the example below, which involves high degree of scalar accommodation. (90) Nei5  hou2  fei4, ngo5 gau3  hou2  sau3 lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese) you   very   fat  I   GAU  very   thin  SFP/​SFP “You are very fat and I am also very thin.” The scale of (90) is accommodated to the degree of unhealthiness or to the degree of deviation from the normal weight, with the QUD “how unhealthy are you?” accommodated into the set of questions, such that the two clauses can be interpreted on the same scale for “gau3…SFPassert” in the second clause to occur. Under the relativist semantic theory, to satisfy the scalar presupposition of “gau3…SFPassert”, which requires the predicate to denote a downwards movement on the scale, the scale accommodated by the speaker of the “gau3…SFPassert” clause is expected to satisfy the stance presupposition of the speaker mentioned earlier in (100). Only those QUDs which satisfy (100) would be accommodated by the interlocutors in the discourse, and put into the set of questions to be shared in the common ground, hence the degree of unhealthiness in the case of (90). In the context c to the speaker in (100), under the scalar presupposition SP < SP’, if ϕ (the “gau3…SFPassert” clause) is the proposition asserted by the speaker, that is the second clause in (90), ϕ encodes the weight of the speaker is “sufficient” to be made comparable with the degree of unhealthiness implied by the proposition δ denoted in the first clause, the last QUD. The content of [|ϕ|] in c maps the world w and judge J, the speaker, of c onto 1, as shown in (100). On the other hand, the addressee can hold a contradictory sentence, and presupposes that “it is not sufficient to make it comparable to my degree of unhealthiness”, assumed to be the d’ given in the proposition δ, under the scalar presupposition SP IO indirect arguments (with covert or overt dative markers)/​post-​verbal PPs > pre-verbal PPs > predicates, where “x > y” means that x is more accessible to -​maai4 than y, when both x and y satisfy the definiteness requirement of -​maai4. (cited from P. Lee (2012), p.110) Examples (110a) and (110b) contrast the use of -​maai4 ‘also’ with gau3 ‘enough’ and dou1 ‘even/​also’. (110) (a) Keoi5 tai2-​maai4  go2  bun2 syu1 laa3. (Cantonese)   s/​he  read-​MAAI   that  CL  book SFP   “She read that book as well.” (b) Z  aa3ceon1gyun2 gau3 mou5    yik1 lok3,    nei5   dou1 sik6 laa1. (Cantonese)   fried-​spring-​roll GAU NEG-​have benefit SFP   you   DOU eat SFP   “Fried spring rolls are also not healthy. Yet you eat it too.” (c) Z  aa3ceon1gyun2 dou1 mou5   yik1     laa1, nei5 jau6 sik6. (Cantonese)   fried-​spring-​roll  DOU NEG-​have benefit  SFP   you JAU eat   “Fried spring rolls are also not healthy. You still eat it.” As predicted by the QAH-​maai4, what is added in (110a) is the direct object bun2-​syu1 ‘that-​book’ to a presupposed set of items read by him/​her, while that of gau3 ‘enough’ in (110b) and dou1 ‘also’ in (110c), will be the subject NP zaa3-​ceon1gyyn2 ‘fried-​spring-​rolls’. -​Maai4 ‘add’ is not constrained by the Leftness Condition, and to perform simple addition, it generally associates with the verbal arguments within the predicate. (111) (a) Keoi5 seng2-​maai4. (Cantonese)   s/​he  wake-​MAAI   “S/​he has also woken up.”

98

98  Additive focus particles (b) Ngo5 cung1-​maai4-​loeng4 laa3. (Cantonese)   I  bathe-​MAAI    SFP   “I have taken a bath as well.” (c) (Lin4)…ngo5…(dou1) cung1-​maai4-​loeng4 laa1. (Cantonese)   LIN… I    DOU bathe-​MAAI    SFP   “Even I have taken a bath as well.” The QAH-​maai4 shows that -​maai4 “also” will not associate with the subject NP unless the verb is an unaccusative verb (see P.  Lee 2012), as in (111a). Under such a case, the syntactic subject is regarded to take the position of the specifier of VP, making its selection by -​maai4 possible. Contrarily, (111b) shows an example with an agentive subject, and the sentence is predicted to have -​maai4 associated with the predicate, the last item in the QAH-​maai4. Moreover, it may be argued that for (111c), association of -​maai4 with the subject NP is in fact possible. However, under such a case, the interpretation is in fact with the subject NP associated with lin4…dou1 “even…also”, giving the sentence a reading of “Even I have taken a bath (as well)”. With the subject NP associated with lin4…dou1, -​maai4 remains to select the predicate, giving an additive reading to the action taken by the subject NP, with the sentence having an additional “even” meaning on the subject NP. Additionally, unlike gau3 ‘enough’, which requires a decrease reading in the predicate, or tim1 ‘add’, which requires an increment reading of the predicate, -​maai4 ‘also’ is not sensitive to such a constraint. This may be due to the scopal constraint of -​maai4, which is within the predicate. Non-​ scalar simple addition is performed by -​maai4, with its associate added to a presupposed set of entities which is of the same type as that of -​maai4’s associate.

3.4  Summary: What do Cantonese additives and Mandarin additives tell you? The additive verbal suffix -​maai4 ‘also’ is relatively simple in Cantonese. When conveying the same meaning in Mandarin, Mandarin tends to appeal to additive adverbs and grammatical mechanisms to represent the same meaning. (112) (a) Keoi5 sik6-​maai4 zeoi3hau6 go2 faai3. (Cantonese)   s/​ he  eat-​ MAAI last   that piece   “S/​he has eaten the last piece as well.” (b) Ta zuihou na  yi   kuai  ye chi-​le. (Mandarin)   s/​he last   that one  piece YE eat-​PERF   “S/​he has eaten the last piece as well.” (c) Zuihou na yi   kuai   ye   gei  ta  chi-​le. (Mandarin)   last  that one  piece YE  give s/​he eat-​PERF   “S/​he has eaten the last piece as well.”

 99

Additive focus particles 99 Example (112a) gives an example in Cantonese. The repertoire of Cantonese post-​verbal particles allows Cantonese to have direct association of the additive verbal suffix with the direct object. Contrarily, Mandarin appeals to the additive adverb ye ‘also’ in (112b), and in (112c), with the additive associate zuihou-​na-​yi-​kuai ‘last-​that-​one-​CL’ preposed and moved to the left of  ye. A similar picture is found in Mandarin, when sentence-​final particles, which are relatively less attested in Mandarin, are involved in Cantonese. First, consider the case of tim1 ‘add’. (113) Keoi5 sik6-​zo2  saam1  wun2 faan6 tim1. (Cantonese) s/​ he  eat-​ PERF three  CL  rice TIM (a) “(S/​he not just has had those), but s/​he has had three bowls of rice (as well).” (b) “S/​he has had three bowls of rice, (which is more than John).” (c) “S/​he has had three bowls of rice, (which is more than presupposed).” (114) Keoi5 sei2-​zo2  tim1. (Cantonese) s/​he  die-​PERF TIM “S/​he is dead!/​S/​he died! (unexpected)” As mentioned above, tim1, as an increment particle, can either mark an increment in quantity or degree, or an increment in the degree of unexpectedness. In line with the case of -​maai4 ‘also’ and examples given in Section 3.2 when we discussed Mandarin additive adverbs, one would predict that Mandarin would appeal to additive adverbs to give similar meanings as tim1. Such a prediction is borne out in the examples below. (115) (a) Ta  ´ye  chi-​le   san   wan   fan. (Mandarin)   s/​he  YE  eat-​PERF three   CL  rice   “S/​he has also even three bowl of rice.” (b) Ta  ´hai  chi-​le   san  wan   fan. (Mandarin)   s/​he  HAI  eat-​PERF three bowl  rice   “S/​he has even eaten three bowl of rice.” (c) Ta   hai   chi-​le   ´san  wan   fan   ne. (Mandarin)   s/​ he HAI eat-​ PERF three  bowl rice  SFP   “S/​he has eaten three bowl of rice, and is more than presupposed/​ expected.” (116) (a) (Ta  yi-​zhi   wei   hao-​guo,  zuihou) hai   ´si-​le  ne. (Mandarin)   s/​he for-​long NEG recover-​PERF  lastly  HAI  die-​PERF SFP   “S/​he has not recovered, and finally even passed away.” (b) Ta  juran    si-​ le. (Mandarin)   s/​he unexpectedly  die-​PERF   “Unexpectedly, s/​he died.”

100

100  Additive focus particles From (115), we can see that Mandarin generally uses the additive adverb hai, stressed or unstressed, or ye, to represent meanings given by Cantonese tim1. For a normal increment or non-​scalar additive, stressed ye or hai will be used, as shown in (115a) and (115b), which correspond to (113a) and (113b) in Cantonese. In other words, if Mandarin expresses a normal increment, stressed additive adverbs are used. On the other hand, for scalar use or additive meaning expressed through a context proposition or expressed contextually, Mandarin will either appeal to metalanguage increment through hai…ne in (115c) and (116a), or adverbs expressing “unexpectedness”, like juran ‘unexpectedly’, as shown in (116b). Regardless of which way Mandarin is used to express the meaning of tim1 or -​maai4, as stated earlier, prosodic stress and adverbs will be the main strategies of Mandarin. While tim1 ‘add’ marks an increment reading, one may consider the case of “gau3…SFPassert”, which asserts a decrease reading. Consider the examples below. (117) Nei5  jat1 nin4  heoi3-​zo2  Jat6bun2 ng5-​ci3. you   one year   go-​PERF   Japan   five-​ times Ngo5 gau3 heoi3-​zo2  saam1-​ci3/​??luk6-​ci3  lok3. (Cantonese) I   GAU go-​PERF   three-​times/​six-​times   SFP “You have been to Japan for five times. And I have been there too (for three times).” (118) (a) Ta  qu-​guo   Riben wu-​ci,  wo ye/​dou/​hai  qu-​guo Riben ´san-​ci  ne.   s/​he  go-​EXP  Japan five-​times  I  YE/​DOU/​HAI go-​EXP Japan three-​times SFP   “You have been to Japan for five times, and I also have been there for three times.” (b) Ta qu-​guo   Riben wu-​ci,  wo ye/​dou/​hai qu-​guo Riben, ´shi-​ci  ne.   s/​he go-​EXP  Japan five-​times  I  YE/​DOU/​HAI  go-​EXP Japan  ten-​times SFP   “You have been to Japan for five times, and I also have been there for ten times.” ((118a) and (118b) in Mandarin) Like the case of tim1, it is not surprising that Mandarin will again appeal to adverbs. In (118), although the SFP ne may be involved, it does not serve to licence ye ‘also’, and is optional. To express the same meaning as (117), Mandarin uses ye ‘also’, dou ‘also’, or hai ‘still/​even’ to express the additive meaning of gau3 ‘enough’, as shown in (118a), and the focal presuppositional meaning will be conveyed by placing prosodic stress on san-​ci ‘three-​times’, with emphasis put on the number of times the speaker has been to Japan. However, the predicate here does not necessarily indicate a decrease reading. As shown in (118b), although the predicate marks an increase in the number

 101

Additive focus particles 101 of times of the speaker having been to Japan, it does not affect the acceptability of the sentence. I will not go into detail here, but what can be shown in the case of the Cantonese “gau3…SFPassert” is that, although Mandarin counterparts can be found for Cantonese gau3 to express additivity, the licensing relation of gau3 ‘enough’ with the assertive SFP has given additional restriction to the predicate. Mandarin may not have direct correspondence to, and may need to appeal to implicature meaning in the context to express such a meaning. The Mandarin additive adverbs you ‘again’, ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and zai ‘again’ show that Mandarin appeals to additive markers accompanied by prosodic stress and syntactic structures/​grammatical mechanisms to convey focus additive meaning, and that prosodic stress in a certain way seems to be able to compensate for its lack of post-​verbal additive particles. In contrast, generalizing from -​maai4 ‘also’, tim1 ‘add’, and “gau3…SFPassert” ‘enough…SFPassert’, it is obvious that Cantonese tends to rely on additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles to determine its focus additive meaning. The presence of a particularly rich inventory of particles in Cantonese seems to make the use of prosodic stress on additive adverbs optional, which is at least true in the case of additive markers. Moreover, Chapter 5 of this book will examine the natural co-​occurrence of Cantonese adverbs and post-​verbal particles, and will show that the scope interpretation of the co-​occurring particles is governed by a linearity principle. For a more thorough comparison between Mandarin and Cantonese in focus marking, I will come back to this after the picture of restrictives has been discussed in the next chapter. Additionally, sentence-​final particles, whether they serve as the additive particle itself or as the licensor of the additive adverb, will result in more complex meanings due to semantic extension to propositional or discourse domains, which is evidenced in the case of “gau3…SFPassert”. On the one hand, while the association of gau3 ‘enough’ with additive focus is determined by surface structure, on a par with the Mandarin dou ‘also’, the licensing relation between gau3 and the SFPassert gives the scalar presupposition of the construction, with the focal presupposition of the propositions determined through discourse devices. Such a licensing relation, though possible, is not obligatory in the Mandarin dou ‘also’, a language which does not rely on post-​verbal particles for meaning expressions. Furthermore, a related issue which is found in gau3 ‘enough’ and tim1 ‘add’ is the role of lexical meaning in determining the meaning of Cantonese additive particles. Lexical meanings of tim1 and gau3 are retained in their occurrence as adverbs or sentence-​final particles, and a similar feature is also found in the Cantonese universal affixal quantifier -​saai3 ‘all’, which is found to be originated as a verb. Whether grammaticalization is a factor which leads to the rich repertoire of particles in Cantonese will need more diachronic data to support, but at this point, it seems that this is not a feature which is particularly prominent in Mandarin.

102

102  Additive focus particles

Notes 1 An earlier version of the analysis of tim1 ‘add’ appears in my co-​authored paper with Pan Haihua, “The Landscape of Additive Particles –​with Special Reference to the Cantonese Sentence Final Particle ‘tim1’.” Lingua 120 (2010), pp. 1777–​1804. The analysis of tim1 in this chapter (see Sections 1 to Section 4) is adapted from the paper, but has been revised to fit the objective of the book. To compare tim1 with other Cantonese additive adverbs and particles, my focus will be on the scalar interpretation of tim1. 2 Sentences (35) and (36) are translated in a way that the original syntactic category of Cantonese tim1 is preserved in the translation: the verbal tim1 in (35) is translated as the verb “add” in English and the adverb tim1 in (6), as the adverb “additionally”, with both glossed as “add”. Tim1, which appears elsewhere e as a sentence-​final particle, will be glossed as “TIM”. 3 The translations of (37) to (39) are mine.

 103

4  Restrictive focus particles

4.1  Introduction In Chapter  3, we discussed additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles in Mandarin and Cantonese. This chapter examines another subgroup of focus particles, namely restrictive focus particles. A  similar distributional pattern can be observed in restrictive adverbs and post-​verbal particles in Mandarin and Cantonese, and the conclusions drawn in Section 3.4 of Chapter  3 for additives will gain further support from restrictives in this chapter. Restrictive adverbs in Mandarin are found either to demonstrate more polysemous properties or to be more syntactic in nature. Along this line, restrictive adverbs in Mandarin include at least the following: (i) cai ‘only’, (ii) jiu ‘only’, and (iii) zhi(-​you/​shi) ‘only(-​have/​be)’. On the other hand, while restrictive adverbs exist in Cantonese, e.g. sin1 ‘only then’, zaai1 ‘only/​just’, zing6(-​hai6) ‘only(-​be)’, and zau6 ‘only’, Cantonese restrictive SFPs, for example, zaa3 and ze1, demonstrate more complicated presuppositional meanings, with speaker stances illustrating a more obvious role. I will begin by reviewing restrictive adverbs in Mandarin in Section 4.2, followed by Cantonese restrictive SFPs in Section 4.3, restrictive verbal suffixes in Section 4.4, and Cantonese restrictive adverbs in Section 4.5. Incorporated with findings from additives in Chapter 3, the chapter will be concluded in Section 4.6 with an interim conclusion on additives, restrictives, and focus particles.

4.2  Restrictive focus adverbs in Mandarin Chinese Previous studies of Mandarin restrictives which have drawn the most attention are cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’, with them translated as the English “only”. However, their polysemous meanings have made neither cai nor jiu an absolute equivalent to the English “only”. As mentioned in Chapter 2, a vast amount of the previous literature on restrictives centres on the English “only” or the German “nur” ‘only’ which are traditionally analysed as focus-​ sensitive operators (see e.g. Horn 1969, 1972; Jackendoff 1972; Rooth 1985, 1992, 1996; Atlas 1993; Bonomi and Casalegno 1993; Herburger 2000; Beaver

104

104  Restrictive focus particles and Clark 2003; Geurts and van der Sandt 2004; Klinedinst 2004; Krifka 2006; Ippolito 2007; Sudhoff 2010), in the sense that it affects the truth condition of a sentence when associating with different choices of focus. Such a single mechanism of focus sensitivity is then counterargued by Beaver and Clark (2003), who pointed out that while semanticists consider both “only” and “always” as focus-​sensitive, the focus sensitivity of “always” results from its dependency on context. Therefore, focus-​sensitive expressions should be split into two categories, namely focus-​functional operators, including “only”, and non-​focus-​functional operators, including “always”, putting aside the underlying difference between “only” and “always” as focus particles and quantificational adverbials. Before I move on to discuss Mandarin restrictive adverbs, I  will first define in more detail the meaning of “restrictive” or “exclusive” through the English “only”. To begin with, the English “only” excludes alternatives that correspond to the focused element, by saying that none of the alternatives to the focus it associates with satisfies the relevant open sentence if substituting a variable for the focus expression, as shown in the following logical forms, depending on whether “only” is taken as an existential quantifier, as in (1a), or as a universal quantifier, as in (1b). (1) (a) ~∃x [α(x) ∧ ¬(x=β)] where α is a propositional schema and β is the focus. (b) ∀x [α(x) → (x=β)] where α is a propositional schema and β is the focus.

Kӧnig (1991) considered that the logical form in (1b) under the universal approach does not adequately represent the essentially negative character of the truth conditions of most uses of “only”. Although the “negated existential” approach and the universal approach are logically equivalent, following Kӧnig, I will adopt the negated existential representation to be the representation of “only”, which will appear when deriving the semantic representations of the Cantonese zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’ under the current analysis. Moreover, (1a) gives an exhaustive interpretation of “only”, where the focused element denotes the unique (or maximal) entity having the property ascribed to it by the propositional schema. Such an exhaustive meaning is generally found in the non-​scalar use of “only”, which is also the definition used in this chapter and in Chapter 5 when saying a restrictive is non-​scalar. In addition to the non-​scalar use, “only” is said to have a scalar use as well. It induces an ordering for the focus value and its alternatives in question, and thus a scalar reading is involved in the interpretation, as illustrated in (2). (2) He is only a [research assistant]F. What (2)  suggests is not only that “he is a research assistant”, but it is presupposed that “he is a research assistant but no higher rank than that”. Under such a context, one can say that the scale adopted is a scale of academic rank in a university. The occurrence of “only” in (2), which receives a

 105

Restrictive focus particles 105 scalar interpretation, induces such an ordering and rules out alternatives that are higher than the focused element. Along this line of argument, the scalar meaning of restrictives is defined as the following notation, following Rooth (1985), Bonomi and Casalegno (1993), and Herburger (2000), among others. (3) [[only φ]] = {w ∈ [[φ]]: ¬∃p ∈ [[φ]]f: w ∈ p and p > [[φ]]}

To put it simply, (3)  states that the scalar “only” asserts that no alternative higher on a relevant scale than the focus value is true. On the other hand, König (1991) proposes that “only” inherently marks the focus value as ranking the lowest on the relevant scale, as shown in (4). (4) (a) only (λx(α), β) (b) Minc (λx(α), β) (cited from König 1991: 101) Example (4) would give an evaluative presupposition that (i)  higher values than the one given are excluded, and (ii) the denotation of the focus is evaluated as minimal. In other words, this would mean that the scalar “only” is generally analysed as marking the focused element on a (relatively) low position on the relevant scale. As long as the alternatives associated with the focused element are higher than it, the upwards exclusion of “only” would be satisfied, hence an exclusive particle under König’s analysis. However, one might ask whether there is any restriction in the position which “only” should attach to in the scale, or say, the number of higher alternatives that “only” requires. I will follow some assumptions generally acknowledged in previous studies, namely that the scalar use of “only” requires the focused element not being at the highest rank on the relevant scale, meaning that there must exist some (or at least one) alternative higher than the focused element. As pointed out in Beaver (2004), this is more like a presupposition, as illustrated in (5b). (5) (a) Jane is only a lieutenant. (b) Perhaps Jane is only a [lieutenant]F. The implied meaning in (5a) that the focused element (‘lieutenant’) is not the highest rank on the relevant scale is said to survive in the embedding clause in (5b), hence a scalar presupposition of “only”. Therefore, for a scalar interpretation of restrictives, I will go with the assumption that the restrictive requires at least one alternative higher than the focused element, which is what will be adopted particularly when going through Cantonese restrictive SFPs and the generalization in Chapter 5, as mentioned. On the basis of the definitions of restrictive particle and non-​scalar and scalar restrictives given in line with the English “only”, in what follows, we will start with Mandarin restrictives, followed by Cantonese ones.

106

106  Restrictive focus particles 4.2.1  Restrictive focus adverbs cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ While the Mandarin restrictive focus adverb zhi(-​you/​shi) ‘only(-​have/​be)’, which will be discussed in Section 4.2.2, gives a relatively simple restrictive meaning, the Mandarin adverbs jiu ‘only’ and cai ‘only’ represent the most controversial ones within the family of Mandarin restrictives, due to their polysemous meanings. With both translated as the English “only”, cai and jiu are seemingly interchangeable in some cases like (6). (6) Ta  cai/​jiu  mai-​le    san  ben  shu. (Mandarin) he  CAI/​JIU buy-​PERF three CL   book “He only bought three books.” However, it is well acknowledged that cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’, though both are focus particles, are distinct in their semantics, and although much research has been conducted on them, a unified account is yet to be provided. Lü et al. (1980) stated five meanings of cai: (i) a temporal meaning of “just”, indicating that the event happened not long ago, as in (7a); (ii) the late occurrence of an event, as in (7b); (iii) signalling a meaning of “small in quantity” or “low in degree”, as in (7c); (iv) used in the apodosis of a conditional construction to give a meaning of “only under some condition, then…”, as in (7d), and (v) emphasizing the mood of affirmative, as in (7e). (7) (a) Ta   cai   hui-​lai. (Mandarin)   s/​he CAI  come-​back   “S/​he just came back.” (b) Ta zuotian  cai   lai. (Mandarin)   s/​he yesterday  CAI  come   “S/​he did not come until yesterday.” (c) Ta   cai   san  sui. (Mandarin)   s/​he CAI  three years old   “S/​he is only three years old.” (d) Ni  qu, wo cai   qu. (Mandarin)   you go, I  CAI  go   “Only if you go, I will go.” (e) Ta  cai  bu  sha  ne. (Mandarin)   he CAI  NEG  foolish SFP   “He is not foolish!” (8) (a) Wo  jiu  zou. (Mandarin)   I   JIU leave   “I am about to leave.” (b) Ta  shiwu   sui   jiu  likai  jiali. (Mandarin)   s/​he fifteen  years old  JIU  leave home   “S/​he left home when s/​he was just fifteen.”

 107

Restrictive focus particles 107 (c) Ta   shuo   wan  jiu  zou  le. (Mandarin)   s/​he speak  finish JIU  leave  SFP   “S/​he left right after s/​he finished talking.” (d) Wo ´jiu bu  zou. (Mandarin)   I  JIU NEG leave   “I will not leave.” (e) Ta ´jiu   dong  Yingyu. (Mandarin)   s/​he JIU  speak  English   “S/​he only speaks English.” (f) Ta ´jiu   mai-​le  san  zhang piao. /​´Ta jiu mai-​le  san  zhang piao. (Mandarin)   s/​he JIU buy-​PERF three CL  ticket /​s/​he JIU buy-​PERF three CL ticket   “S/​he only bought three tickets (, which are not enough).” /​“S/​he bought three tickets, (which are too many).” (g) (Ruguo) ni yaoqiu, wo jiu  qu. (Mandarin)   if   you ask   I JIU go   “If you ask, I will go.” Although both cai and jiu can be translated as the English “only” in the above sentences, the meanings conveyed by jiu are not the same. Lü et  al. (1980) pointed out seven uses of jiu: (i) signalling the immediate occurrence of the event in the near future, as in (8a); (ii) stating that an event occurred some time ago, relative to the time denoted by a temporal phrase, as in (8b); (iii) indicating a quick succession of two events, as in (8c); (iv) strengthening affirmation, as in (8d); (v) giving a meaning of “only”, as in (8e); (vi) emphasizing the quantity marked by jiu to be small or large, as in (8f), and (vii) connecting a preceding context with a conclusion, as in (8g). Later studies on cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ were conducted by Lu (1984), Biq (1984, 1988), Paris (1987), and Lai (1995, 1999), among others. Lu (1984) has given a unified account to explain different uses of jiu. He considered the basic meaning of jiu is to restrict scope, taking the mood of emphasizing a “small quantity”. Arising from this basic meaning, different meanings of jiu can be derived, and Lu’s study is important in stating that meanings of jiu are affected by whether it associates with elements preceding it or following it. For cases where jiu associates with elements preceding it, prosodic stress is generally put on such an element, while for cases where association is with elements following it, prosodic stress is put on jiu. Five uses of jiu can be derived under such a case, and jiu is used to (i) stress that the time span is short, as in (9a); (ii) indicate that the time in which one event happened is close to the time in which another event happened, as in (9b); (iii) indicate that the premise is directly related to the conclusion given by the jiu-​proposition, as in (9c); (iv) restrict the scope of what the relevant sentence is about, implying that the hearer does not have to consider any further, as in (9d), and (v) indicate that the quantity given by the associated item of jiu is small, as in (9e).

108

108  Restrictive focus particles (9)

(a) Wanfan mashang   jiu  hao-​le. (Mandarin)   dinner  very-​ soon JIU ready-​ PERF   “Dinner will be ready very soon.” (b) Ta  gang  xia   feiji  jiu qu shang-​ban-​le. (Mandarin)   s/​he  just  land  plane JIU go work-​PERF   “He went to work right after he landed.” (c) Ni   nuli  dushu, jiu  keyi na gao-​fen. (Mandarin)   you  hard  study   JIU  can get high-​mark   “As long as you study hard, you can get high marks.” (d) Ta jiu  xue-​ guo  Fayu. (Mandarin)   s/​he JIU learn-​EXP French   “S/​he has learnt French (before, and there is no need to do anything further).” (e) Women gongsi    jiu  san  ge  ren. (Mandarin)   we    company  JIU  three CL person   “Our company only has three people.”

As mentioned, for cases where association is with elements after jiu, prosodic stress is put on jiu, and it generally shows two uses: (i) jiu indicates that the quantity denoted by the associated item is small, as in (10a); and (ii) jiu emphasizes the subjective attitude of the speaker, as in (10b). (10) (a) Tamen yi  ge  ban ´jiu  shi  ge  xuesheng. (Mandarin)   they   one   CL  class  JIU  ten  CL  student   “Their class only has ten students.” (b) Ni bu   rang wo shuo, wo ´jiu yao   shuo. (Mandarin)   you NEG  let   I   say   I   JIU want  say   “You won’t let me say it; (but) I will.” Although it is difficult to conclude how different meanings of jiu can be derived from the basic meaning claimed by Lu, which is to restrict scope, Lu’s study shed light on how the interpretation of jiu is related to its direction of association and the role of prosodic stress. While the former is always a major issue not only in jiu but also in cai, the latter reflects regularity with additives. Biq (1984, 1988) investigates cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ from both a semantic and a pragmatic perspective, and generalizes their four uses, namely temporal use, emphatic use, parametric use, and limiting use. First, in the temporal use, cai indicates both “immediate past” and “later than expected”, as in (11a), while jiu indicates “immediate future” and “earlier than what is expected”, as in (11b). (11) (a) Zaofan  cai  hao. (Mandarin)    breakfast CAI  ready   “Breakfast is just ready.”

 109

Restrictive focus particles 109 (b) Zhangsan qichuang de shihou, zaofan jiu yao hao   le. (Mandarin)   Zhangsan   get-​up DE  time   breakfast JIU  then ready SFP   “When Zhangsan got up, breakfast was almost ready.” Second, for the emphatic use, cai and jiu interact with the whole proposition: cai is used to refute the assumption or expectation provided in the previous discourse or to express beyond the expectation of the speaker; and jiu is used to confirm the old information, meaning that the other values are not asserted by the speaker. (12) Wo zuotian  kan-​le 

yi  chang bisai. Na chang bisai cai jingcai ne! (Mandarin) I  yesterday watch-​PERF one CL game that CL   game CAI great  SFP “Yesterday I watched a game. That game was great!”

(13) Wo jiu  zhidao jintian you  taifeng! (Mandarin) I  JIU  know  today have typhoon “I knew typhoon would come today!”

Biq pointed out that cai in (12) expresses the unexpectedness of the greatness of the game, and the use of cai is to draw the attention of the hearer or addressee to the proposition “the game was great”. However, it should be noted that under such a case, the SFP ne, an affirmative SFP, is obligatory. Jiu in (13) is used to confirm what the speaker believes rather than provide a strong sense of refutation. However, if the scope of (12) and (13) is on the entire proposition, cai and jiu, as focus adverbs, may be in stress, on a par with the additive ye ‘also’, with stressed ye argued to be a scope particle by Liu (2009). Finally, for the parametric use and the limiting use, both are related to the event. The parameter use has cai or jiu associated with the phrase or the clause preceding cai or jiu, with the function of setting a “frame”, which is the parameter that determines the actuation of the relevant event. The limiting use has cai or jiu associating with the focus to the right of cai or jiu, which is part of the event, due to their occurrence in the post-​verbal position, hence deriving the limiting interpretation or “only” interpretation. Relevant examples are given below. (14) (a) Ni lai, wo jiu  zou. (Mandarin)   you come I   JIU  leave   “If you come, I will leave.” (b) Ta  mingnian  cai  jing  daxue. (Mandarin)   s/​he next-​year  CAI enter  university   “He will not enter the university until next year.” (15) Ta  cai/​jiu  xie-​ le    [liang-​ye]F. (Mandarin) s/​he   CAI/​JIU write-​PERF  two-​page “S/​he has only written [two pages]F.”

110

110  Restrictive focus particles In (14), the clause or the temporal phrase preceding jiu or cai serves as a parameter to set up a frame for the interpretation of cai and jiu in the main clause. On the other hand, with focus placed on liang-​ye ‘two-​page’ in the predicate in (15), cai or jiu associates with the focus to the right of cai/​jiu, giving an “only” or delimiting interpretation (or “parameter use” in Biq’s terminology). If a delimiting interpretation is restricted to the rightward association of cai and jiu, this would bring up the issue of the way in which it is related to the stressed jiu as pointed out in Lu (1984). On the basis of (10a) and (10b), Lu pointed out that for cases where jiu associates with elements after it, prosodic stress is put on jiu. Under such a case, jiu indicates that the quantity denoted by the associated item is small. It emphasizes the subjective attitude of the speaker, deriving a reading which is similar to that shown in (15), as argued in Biq (1984, 1988). For Biq, if cai and jiu are stressed, as shown in (12) and (13), their scope is on the entire proposition, with the two focus markers conveying an emphatic sense, which is a reading completely different from that claimed by Lu. On the basis of the analyses of Lü et al. (1980), Lu (1984), and Biq (1984, 1988), four uses of cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ can be generalized. (i) Temporal use of cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’: cai indicates both “immediate past” and “later than expected”, while jiu indicates “immediate future” and “earlier than what is expected”. (ii) Delimiting or restrictive use: cai and jiu will associate with the focus associate to their right, and prosodic stress will be placed on such a constituent. (iii) Emphatic use: when prosodic stress is on jiu or cai, in line with stressed ye ‘also’, the two will take the entire proposition into their scope, giving either an emphatic reading or the subjective attitude of the speaker. Under such a case, the sentence-​final particle ne, as an affirmative SFP, is present. (iv) Cai and jiu signal the meaning of “small in quantity” or “low in degree”. Along the above line of argument, the “late-​early” contrast of cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ gradually developed into the “few” effect of cai and the “many” effect of jiu, as proposed in Lai (1995, 1999). Lai argues that cai and jiu are scalar particles, which indicate ‘rejected expectation’, and both presuppose ‘a change of state of the truth value of a proposition’: while cai indicates that the asserted value is located ‘further up’ than expected on the relevant scale, jiu signals that the asserted value is located ‘further down’ than expected. Similar to what has been argued in previous studies, Lai also stated that in the temporal use, cai indicates “later than expected” and jiu indicates “earlier than expected”. However, on the basis of this, three kinds of effects are brought about by cai/​jiu, namely the immediacy effect, the early effect, and the late effect. For the immediacy effect, consider the contrast between cai and jiu as shown in (16a) and (16b).

 111

Restrictive focus particles 111 (16) (a) Wanfan   cai  hao. (Mandarin)    dinner   CAI   ready    “Dinner was just ready.” (b) Wanfan   jiu   hao. (Mandarin)   dinner  JIU ready    “Dinner is about to be ready.” As mentioned, Lai’s analysis of cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ rests heavily on “rejected expectation”, and the presupposition of “a change of state of the truth value of a proposition”, which can also be seen in the immediacy effect. Cai indicates that the relevant event denoted by the sentence occurred in the “immediate past”, with the “immediate past” later than what is expected, as shown in (16a). For the presupposition of a change of state, the change of state of the dinner from not ready, to ready occurred “just now”, with the time denoted by “just now” being later than the expected time values. On the other hand, for (16b), the change of state of the dinner from not ready to ready will happen very soon with respect to the speech time, which is earlier than the expected time values, taken to be alternative later time values. Lai also pointed out that under such a case, the asserted time value at which the dinner will be ready, though later, is very close to the speech time, therefore deriving a reading of “future immediacy”. In the case of the early effect and the late effect, consider the sentences below. (17) (a) Ta shi dian  cai zai bangongshi. (Mandarin)    s/​he ten o’clock CAI in office    “S/​he was in the office only (as late as) at ten o’clock.” (b) Ta shi dian  jiu  zai bangongshi le. (Mandarin)    s/​he ten o’clock JIU at office   SFP    “S/​he was already in his office at ten o’clock.” Cai and jiu show a “late-​early” contrast in (17a) and (17b). In (17a), cai indicates that the change of state from him not in the office to him in the office happened at the asserted time, which is ten o’clock, and that the asserted time is later than expected. Contrarily, jiu in (17b) signals the change of state from him not in the office to him in the office happened at or before ten o’clock, with the asserted time value earlier than the expected time values. In other words, this means that cai implies a meaning of “earlier than expected”, whereas jiu implies “later than expected”. Lai’s analysis heavily relies on a temporal interpretation of cai and jiu, and their restrictive use depends on whether a temporal-​related scale is indirectly or directly induced. In line with its temporal use, a change of state is involved. It is assumed that such a change is measured by a value of a time-​dependent function at the reference time, with such a function being monotonic, deriving the “few” effect and the “many” effect.

112

112  Restrictive focus particles (18)  (a) Ta    cai  chi-​ le  liang bao  binggan. (Mandarin)   s/​ he CAI eat-​ PERF two  CL   biscuit   “S/​he has only eaten two bags of biscuits so far.” (b) (Yi   ge   zoashang,) Ta  jiu   chi-​le    san    ge  pingguo. (Mandarin)   (one CL morning)   s/​ he JIU eat-​ PERF three CL apple   “(Within one morning,) he has already eaten three apples.” Lai uses examples like (18a) and (18b) to demonstrate the “few-​many” effect of cai and jiu. Example (18a) represents the “few” effect of cai. The “earlier” effect of cai will give an expression that an expected time t’ is earlier than the asserted time. If t’ is earlier and is expected to have eaten two bags of biscuits and the time-​dependent function is monotonic, he should eat more than two bags of biscuits at the asserted time t, which is later. However, he ate two bags of biscuits at the asserted time t, and the number of biscuits that he ate is therefore smaller, deriving the “few” effect. Similarly, in (18b), under the assumption that the change of state under Lai’s analysis is from him not having eaten three apples to him having eaten three apples, since jiu implies “earlier than what is expected”, the asserted time t which such a change occurred is earlier than the expected time values t’. Assuming the same monotonic time-​dependent function, if the asserted time t is earlier than the expected time t’ and quantity is directly proportional to time, the quantity of apples eaten at t is assumed to be smaller than t’, namely fewer than three apples. This indirectly derives the meaning that the number of apples that he ate, viz. three apples, is more than expected, hence the “many” effect of jiu. According to Lai, the “few” effect of cai and the “many” effect of jiu are given by a temporal-​related scale induced by them, with the monotonic temporal dependent function coming into play. However, what is interesting is that the “few-​many” effect is reversed when the restrictive focus occurs to the left of cai and jiu. Lai accounted for this by the numerical scale induced through the direct association of cai and jiu with the quantized NP. (19)  (a) Ta    chi-​le    [liang bao]F binggan cai bao. (Mandarin)    s/​he  eat-​PERF two   CL  biscuit   CAI full    “S/​he became full only after eating as many as two bags of biscuits.” (b) Ta    cai   chi-​le    [liang bao]F binggan. (Mandarin)   s/​ he CAI eat-​ PERF two   CL  biscuit    “S/​he only ate two bags of biscuits.” Opposite to (18a), which gives the “few” effect of cai, (19a) represents the “many” effect. The presence of cai would give a reading of the asserted time t being later than an expected time t’. The monotonic time-​dependent function would expect that at the earlier time point t’, the number of biscuits that he ate is smaller than “two bags”, which he should make him full. However, owing to the same monotonic time-​ dependent function, the number of

 113

Restrictive focus particles 113 biscuits taken at the asserted time t is more than expected, viz. two bags of biscuits, deriving the “many” effect which made him full. However, the “few” effect is retained in (19b), which is expected, as cai directly associates with the quantized object liang-​bao-​binggan ‘two-​CL-​biscuits’, be it stressed or not, with the quantity demonstrating the “few” effect. A similar reversal effect is found in jiu ‘only’. (20) (a) Ta    chi-​le    [san ge]F pingguo jiu   bao  le. (Mandarin)    s/​he  eat-​PERF three CL  apple   JIU  full  SFP    “S/​he became full after only eating (as many as) three apples.” (b) Ta  jiu   chi-​le   [san  ge]F pingguo. (Mandarin)   s/​ he JIU eat-​ PERF three CL apple    “S/​he only ate three apples.” Opposite to the “many” effect given in (18b) or (20b), (20a) gives a “few” effect of jiu. In (20a), jiu presupposes the asserted time t to be earlier than the expected time t’. Example (20a) means that at the asserted time t eating three apples makes him full, and the monotonic time-​dependent function implies that at every expected time point, the quantity of apples should be more than three. With the number taken to be three, jiu indicates the asserted value to be fewer than what is expected, deriving the “few” effect. On the other hand, in (20b), jiu directly associates with the quantity “three”, be it stressed or not, with the quantity demonstrating the “many” effect like (18b). Finally, for the emphatic use, Lai considers that the sense of emphasis has arisen from denying what is expected, which she puts as “rejected expectation”. (21) Wo zuotian

kan-​le yi chang bisai. Na chang bisai cai jingcai ne. (cited from Biq 1988) (Mandarin) I  yesterday  watch-​PERF one  CL  game that CL  game CAI great SFP “Yesterday I watched a game. That game was great!”

(22) [Zhangsan]F jiu   shi  wo yao   zhao  de 

ren. (cited from Zhang 2013) (Mandarin) Zhangsan JIU  be I  want find DE person “Zhangsan is the person that I am looking for.”

While Biq (1984, 1988) considers that speakers use cai ‘only’ to emphasize the unexpectedness of an assertion, Lai elaborates on how the meaning of “beyond expectation” is related to the basic meaning of cai. Like the restrictive use of cai, expected and asserted values are expected. Assume that different games are ordered on the scale with respect to their degree of how good or great they are. The speaker expected that a game p would be great, and s/​ he expected “that game” to have a lower value than p in terms of the degree of how good the two games are. However, after that game was played, the speaker asserted that the degree of “that game” was greater than the degree of game p, hence the degree of unexpectedness is derived. The same unexpected

114

114  Restrictive focus particles reading can be derived in jiu ‘only’ in (22). The reading can be as follows: it is unexpected that the right person can be Zhangsan, or the time needed to find the right person is less than expected, depending on the scale which is adhered to. On the basis of (21) and (22), Lai concluded that when cai and jiu indicate “rejected expectation”, they serve as scalar particles. Different from previous analyses, Zhang (2013) argues for three cai’s, namely the temporal adverb cai ‘only’, the degree adverb cai, and the dual-​ function cai. The temporal adverb cai is in line with what has been argued in previous analyses, meaning that cai indicates both “immediate past” and “later than expected”. For the degree adverb cai, Zhang considers that the SFP ne and cai form a discontinuous construction, meaning that the SFP is obligatorily present to license cai. As a discontinuous construction, cai…ne modifies the element surrounded by the two particles, with cai signalling “the degree is high”. The reference point is the conventional degree, and the asserted value is located higher than the reference point on the scale given by the element modified by cai…ne. For the dual-​function cai, it may serve as a temporal adverb and an exclusive adverb, and cai gives a dual meaning of “immediately past” and “later than expected or stipulated”. Cai establishes (a)  a relation between the asserted time value denoted by cai itself and the reference time value, and (b) a relation between the asserted value and the alternative time values. Similarly, cai can also serve as a degree adverb and an exclusive adverb, establishing (a) a relation between the actual degree value asserted by cai and the reference degree value, that is, the asserted degree is higher than the reference degree; and (b) a relation between the asserted degree and the alternative degree values, that is, the asserted degree is higher than the alternative degree values. Moreover, when more than one element is available to be associated with cai, ambiguity of cai may occur. Under such a case, factors like stress, focus, and context/​discourse will help disambiguate the various meanings of cai. I will not go into detail on the dual-​function cai, but two points are noted in Zhang’s analysis:  (i) the SFP ne is explicitly taken as forming a discontinuous construction with cai, giving the empathic reading, with cai serving as a degree adverb, and (ii) cai sentences can be ambiguous, having more than one reading, varying from temporal and exclusive readings to degree and exclusive readings, with relevant readings disambiguated by stress, focus, and context. Finally, the restrictive adverbs cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ demonstrate one feature distinctive from additive adverbs. When cai and jiu occur in the main clause of a complex sentence, they interact with the subordinate clause and demonstrate a tie-​up with the distinction “sufficient versus necessary condition”. Paris (1987) pointed out that cai and jiu are connective elements which establish a relation between two units. (23) Ni  qing  wo, wo (a) cai/​   (b) jiu   qu. (Mandarin) you   invite  I   I  (a) CAI/​(b) JIU  go (a) “Only if you invite me, will I go.” (b) “If you invite me, I will go.”

 115

Restrictive focus particles 115 In (23a), cai ‘only’ indicates that only the antecedent ni-​qing-​wo ‘you-​ invite-​me’ can make the consequent wo-​qu ‘I-​go’ true; and in (23b), jiu ‘only’ indicates the antecedent as a sufficient condition to make the consequent true. Moreover, the occurrence of cai and jiu is found to be obligatory in some cases where the antecedent clause is introduced by restrictive subordinators like zhi-​you/​chufei ‘only-​have’/​’except’. However, Zhang and P. Lee (2018) argue that cai is a dual-​function operator: besides serving as an exclusive particle, cai can function as a temporal adverb, indicating a temporal meaning of “just”. When occurring in complex sentences, the basic semantics of cai cannot be a necessary condition marker. It is an exclusive particle, which has an inherent negated existential quantificational force. Therefore, cai indicates that none of the alternatives introduced by the asserted value can satisfy the relevant complex sentence, and it is based on such semantics that the meaning of the necessary condition is derived. Assume that cai occurs in a complex sentence, with the antecedent p assumed to give the necessary condition and the consequent to be q. If p were to give a necessary condition for q, the falsity of p would entail the falsity of q, and the truth of q would entail the truth of p. However, what is observed by Zhang and P. Lee is that within the set of alternative conditions, only the asserted condition would entail the truth of the consequent q. Zhang and P. Lee give (24) as an example. (24) (a) Ni  qing  wo, wo  cai qu. (cited from Zhang and P. Lee 2018) (Mandarin)   you invite I   I  CAI go   “If you invited me, I would go.” (b) {ni qing wo, ni qiu wo, ni mingling wo, Wangwu qing wo, Wangwu qing ni…}   {you invited me, you begged me, you ordered me, Wangwu invited me, Wangwu invited you…} According to Zhang and P.  Lee, cai ‘only’ as an exclusive particle is a dyadic operator, whose scope is the whole sentence, and the interpretation of cai is given by a tripartite structure determined syntactically. Therefore, cai in (24a) associates with the entire subordinate clause as its focus, hence triggering a set of alternative conditions, viz. (24b). Example (24a) can have a scalar interpretation and a non-​scalar interpretation. For the former, the members in the alternative set may be ordered according to the possibilities or likeliness of the condition to be true or realized. The truth of the condition “you invited me” would exclude those which are lower in the scale to make the consequent true, but not necessarily those higher up in the scale. The scalar implicature may have all those conditions which are higher ranked in the scale making the consequent true. Therefore, if q, that is, “I would go”, is true, it does not necessarily guarantee that it is the condition “you invited me” that makes it true, but may be some condition ranked higher in the scale. Similarly,

116

116  Restrictive focus particles if “you invited me” is false, it does not necessarily entail the falsity of q, as other conditions higher ranked in the scale may make q true. Having said that, it would mean that the falsity of p, that is, ni-​qing-​wo ‘you-​invite-​me’, does not entail the falsity of q, with the truth of q also not entailing the truth of q, making p fail to be the necessary condition of q. The exclusive nature of cai is more obvious in the non-​scalar interpretation of (24a). Within the set of alternative conditions, cai would convey that for the set of alternative conditions, only the asserted condition would make the consequent true. This would imply that the truth of q would entail the truth of p, and that denying p would also mean denying q. This seems to suggest that cai in (24a) is a necessary condition marker, which in fact can be considered as a meaning derived from cai as an exclusive marker. As cai ‘only’ is assumed to be an exclusive particle, which is sensitive to focus, Zhang and P. Lee extended the above to include cases where focus in placed on the antecedent clause, as shown below. (25) Ni  [qing]F wo, wo  cai  qu. (cited from Zhang and Lee 2018) (Mandarin) you invite  I   I    CAI  go “It is if you INVITED me, I would go.” The focus on qing ‘invite’ in (25) would trigger an alternative set of {Ni P wo} ‘{You-​P-​I}’. Like (24a), the interpretation of (25) would be “It is if you INVITED me, I would go”. Again, the alternative members in the set may be ordered according to the possibilities or likeliness of the condition to be true or realized, and members which are higher than ni qing wo ‘you-​invite-​ me’ may make the consequent true. The focus on the verb qing ‘invite’ would contribute an alternative set in the form of {Ni P wo}, which may be different from that of (24b). However, the same rationale would make the falsity of ni-​ qing-​wo ‘you-​invite-​me’ not entailing the falsity of the consequent, hence cai not a necessary condition marker. Along the above line of argument, Zhang and P. Lee (2018) argued that cai is a dual-​function operator: it can serve as an exclusive particle, be cai in simplex or complex sentences, and can function as a temporal adverb, indicating a temporal meaning of “just”. Summarizing the discussion in this section, cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ can be considered to convey the meanings indicated in Table 4.1. Generalizing from previous analyses, cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ can be considered to serve as one of the following:  (i) a temporal adverb, (ii) an exclusive or a restrictive particle giving a meaning of “only”, with their interpretation sensitive to the direction of association; (iii) a scalar particle, which indicates “rejected expectation”. Examining the six meanings of cai and jiu in Table 4.1, we can see that while (a) “temporal use” and (e) “quantity” are considered to be related to cai and jiu as a temporal adverb, (b) “emphatic use”, (c) parametric use”, and (d) “limiting use” are related to cai and jiu as an exclusive or a restrictive particle.

 117

Restrictive focus particles 117 Before closing our discussion on cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’, one point needs to be stated. Despite the fact that all these uses of cai and jiu seem to involve scalar interpretation, making the two analogous to a scalar particle, Zhang and P.  Lee (2018) already pointed out that interpretations of cai sentences cannot be counting on “expectations”, as claimed in Lai (1995, 1999). Lai considered cai and jiu as scalar particles, which indicate “rejected expectation”. To support their claim, Zhang and P. Lee have given (26) which is a sentence that may not involve any expectation. (26) Ni   renzhen xuexi,  cai   neng qu-​de  hao  chengji. (cited from Zhang and P. Lee 2018) (Mandarin) you  serious study   CAI  can  get-​DE good results “It is only if you study hard, you can get good results.” It is difficult to say that the attainment of good results is what is expected in (26). As stated in Zhang and P. Lee (2018), although one may argue that the conditions denoted in the set of alternatives triggered by the antecedent may involve a scale ordered in terms of possibilities of getting good results, the sentence does not need to presuppose that there exists an expected condition which would lead to the truth of the consequent, be it the case or not. Therefore, sentences like (26) show that although cai may serve as a scalar particle, Table 4.1 A summary of different uses of cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’

(a) Temporal use (b) Emphatic use (c) Parametric use (d) Limiting use

(e) Quantity

(f) C  ai and jiu in the main clause of a complex sentence

Cai ‘only’

Jiu ‘only’

Temporal meaning of “just”, “immediate past”, or “later than expected” Cai interacts with the whole proposition Cai associated with the phrase or the clause preceding it Cai conveys a meaning of “only” Association of cai with the focus to its right • On the basis of a temporal-​ related scale, induced cai gives the “few” effect, • Cai conveys a meaning of “small in quantity” or “low in degree” Cai indicates the antecedent as a necessary condition to make the consequent true

Temporal meaning of “immediate future” or “earlier than expected” Jiu interacts with the whole proposition Jiu associated with the phrase or the clause preceding it Jiu conveys a meaning of “only” Association of jiu with the focus to its right • On the basis of a temporal-​ related scale, induced jiu gives the “many” effect, • Jiu gives a reading of “small quantity” through restricting the scope of interpretation Jiu indicates the antecedent as a sufficient condition to make the consequent true

118

118  Restrictive focus particles “rejected/​denying expectation” should not contribute to its basic semantics. Cai would remain as an exclusive particle, and its interpretation may be related more to quantification than scale. As a restrictive quantifier, viz. a quantificational focus particle, cai triggers a tripartite structure of [OP [restrictive clause][matrix clause]], giving the following quantificational structure. (27) (a) The semantics of cai (cited from Zhang and P. Lee 2018: 45):   P(q) ∧ ~∃x∈ALT(q) [P(x) ∧ x ≠ q] where x = ni-​neng-​qu-​de-​hai-​ chengji and q = ni renzhen xuexi (b) CAIs [ni neng qu-​de hao chengji in s] [s = ni renzhen xuexi]   CAIs [you can get good results in s] [s = you study hard] According to Zhang and P. Lee (2018), as the subordinate clause is the proposition asserted, it would become the focus associate of cai ‘only’, hence triggering an alternative set of propositions, as indicated by ALT(q) in (27a). The asserted proposition q, which is the subordinate clause, will be mapped to the focus part of the focus-​background structure triggered by cai as a focus adverb, with the main clause to the background part, as indicated in (27b). Moreover, treating cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ as sole scalar particles cannot cover all the phenomena. Cai and jiu do not always relate to a scale, and the meaning of non-​scalar or neutral restriction also exists in cai and jiu. On the other hand, treating cai and jiu as focus adverbs cannot cover all the phenomena, either, as in some cases where cai/​jiu is claimed to be a focus adverb, it in fact demonstrates the use of a temporal adverb, or a degree adverb, for example the emphatic use as indicated in (b) of Table 4.1. Concluding our discussion, following Zhang and P. Lee (2018), there are grounds to assume that the basic semantics of cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’ is as a restrictive/​exclusive adverb and a temporal adverb. In view of a vast number of previous analyses on cai and jiu, I am not in a better position to provide a satisfactory or an in-​depth analysis, and I  will not go into detail on the occurrence of cai and jiu in complex sentences, which also supports the two particles as exclusive adverbs. However, what is related to the current study is that like the case of additive particles, when cai and jiu are used as focusing restrictive particles, prosodic stress, be it on cai/​jiu or on the focus associate, plays a role in their interpretations. As stated, the use of prosodic stress is one critical strategy Mandarin adopts in conveying focus meaning, which may in a certain way compensate its lack of post-​verbal focus particles. I will come back to this in Chapter 5, which concludes our generalizations given in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. 4.2.2  Restrictive focus adverbs zhi (-​you/​-​shi) ‘only (-​have/​-​be)’ Unlike cai ‘only’ and jiu ‘only’, the Mandarin restrictive focus particle zhi(-​ you/​-​shi) ‘only(-​have/​be)’ is relatively less complicated. It is generally treated on a par with the English “only”, traditionally analyzed as a focus-​sensitive

 119

Restrictive focus particles 119 or focus-​functional operator in the previous literature (see Jackendoff 1972; Rooth 1985, 1992, 1995; Beaver and Clark 2003, among many others), to perform neutral or simple restriction. As mentioned in Section 4.1, like the English “only”, zhi “only” affects the truth condition of a sentence when associating with different choices of focus, with the dependence on the placement of focus lexically encoded in zhi. The basic meaning of zhi is ‘restrictiveness/​exclusiveness’. It excludes alternatives that correspond to the focused element, making none of the alternatives to the focus it associates with satisfy the relevant open sentence if substituting a variable for the focus expression. Exclusiveness in zhi(-​you/​-​shi) “only(-​have/​be)” is conducted by a grammatical mechanism. While the lexical semantics of zhi ‘only’ encodes “exclusiveness”, the focus interpretation is determined by the adjunction of zhi to -​you ‘have’ and -​shi ‘be’, with -​you expressing existential meaning and -​shi, assertive meaning. (28) (a) T  amen  zhi(-​shi)  lai  kan  ni,   bu  hui  liu-​xialai  chi-​fan. (Mandarin)   they  only-​be   come  see  you   NEG will  stay-​behind  eat-​meal   “They came by to see you only, and would not stay for dinner.” (b) Tamen zhi(-​you)  liang nian  de  shijian keyi  liu  zai  zheli. (Mandarin)   they  only-​ have two year  DE time  can stay at here   “They only got two years to stay over here.” (c) Zhi(-​you/​-​shi) san  ge  ren   lai  le. (Mandarin)   only-​have/​-b ​ e  three CL person come SFP “Only three persons will be coming.” Zhi ‘ “only’ ” in the above sentences gives a meaning of “only”, and the exclusive interpretation would depend on the verb to which it is attached. In (28a), zhi ‘only’ is attached to -​shi ‘be’ which Huang (1982) assumes to be a focus operator determined by the emphatic modality EMP, and under such an analysis, -​shi is treated as an adverb (see Huang 1982) or a raising verb (see Huang 1988). Other analyses are also along the same line of argument, and shi ‘be’ is taken to be a focus particle, with shi treated as a verb (see e.g. Teng 1979, Tang 1990, Paul and Whitman 2008, Shyu 2013) or a modal (see e.g. Shi D. X. 1994). While the assertive or focus meaning comes from the focus particle -​shi ‘be’, z​ hi ‘only’ gives its exclusive meaning through attaching to [shi [VP]], as shown in (29a). (29)  (a) [EXCL-[ASSERT [VP]]] (b) [[EXCL-[EXIST-​NP]] VP] As the scope of –​shi ‘be’ is its c-​commanding domain, hence at least VP in (28a), zhi will take scope over [shi-​VP] through attaching to shi, giving a scope

120

120  Restrictive focus particles relation as indicated in (29a). On the other hand, -​you in Mandarin generally takes its scope over NP, and with zhi attaching over –​you, the scope relation is more likely to be (29b). In (29b), zhi takes scope over [zhi-​NP], giving an interpretation of “only have two years”, as indicated in (28b). Examples (28a) and (28b) show that zhi performs like a floating quantifier, with its interpretation counting on the constituent to which it attached. This is more obvious in (28c), where both -​you and -​shi take the NP san-​ge-​ren “three-​CL-​person” into their scope, hence behaving like an exclusive D-​quantifier. The lexical meaning of zhi ‘only’ encodes a dependency on focus marking, and like the English “only”, zhi is more like a focus-​functional operator in the sense of Beaver and Clark (2003). The focus-​functional meaning of zhi is grammatically encoded, and the focus associate of zhi is determined through its syntactic attachment to -​you or -​shi, hence adopting a construction-​specific reference to focus. Generalizing from jiu ‘only’, cai ‘only’, and zhi(-​you/​-​shi) ‘only(-​have/​-​be)’, it seems that Mandarin appeals to focus adverbs accompanied with prosodic stress and grammatical mechanisms in restrictive focus structuring, which also gains support in additive focus structuring, like the additive adverbs you ‘again/​too’, ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and zai ‘again’ in their stressed and unstressed form, lian…dou ‘even…also’ and object preposing. As mentioned, whether the dependency on adverbs accompanied by prosodic stress and grammatical mechanisms to convey additive and restrictive meaning is in a certain way a compensation for the lack of post-​verbal focus particles in Mandarin, is a question that will be further examined in Chapter  5, where the basic differences between Mandarin and Cantonese in focus manifestation will be revealed.

4.3  Cantonese restrictive sentence-​final particles zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’ Restrictive focus particles in Cantonese include (i) the restrictive SFPs zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’; (ii) restrictive adverbs sin3 ‘only then’, zau6 ‘only’, zing6(-​hai6) ‘only-​be’, and zaai1 ‘only/​just’, as compared with their Mandarin counterparts; and (iii) the restrictive verbal suffix -​dak1 “only”, which has a dual role as a restrictive particle and a modal. In Chapter 3, when examining additives in Mandarin and Cantonese, the following was stated. (30) Additivity in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese To express additivity, Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese manifest different morpho-​syntactic configurations as follows: (i) Mandarin Chinese appeals to focus markers accompanied by prosodic stress in additivity, with prosodic stress in a certain way compensating for its lack of post-​verbal focus particles.

 121

Restrictive focus particles 121 (ii) The presence of a particularly rich inventory of focus particles in Cantonese makes the use of prosodic stress optional. Cantonese therefore relies on focus adverbs and post-​verbal particles, and their scope order, to determine its additive meaning, which can be achieved morpho-​ syntactically through multiple occurrences of additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles. If (30) is true, it is hypothesized that like additives, Cantonese also relies on adverbs and post-​verbal particles, and their scope order, to determine restrictive meaning. In what follows, it will be shown that such a hypothesis can be proven. We will start with the SFPs zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’ and the adverb sin1 ‘only then’ in Section 4.3.1, followed by restrictive verbal suffix -​dak1 ‘only’ in Section 4.4 and restrictive adverbs in Section 4.5. 4.3.1  Previous analyses of the Cantonese SFPs zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’ The number of Cantonese SFPs varies considerably from 30 to 70 (see e.g. Kwok 1984, Law S. P. 1990, Luke 1990, Fang 2003) and 95 (see Leung 1992/​2005), depending on whether different meanings arising from the same form of SFPs are taken to be polysemous particles. To account for the rich repertoire of Cantonese SFPs, Wakefield (2010) pointed out that as a change in the tonal property of Cantonese would give a change in lexical meaning, various types of speech acts, speaker stances, and epistemic modalities are encoded in lexical items rather than intonation in Cantonese, accounting for the presence of such a rich repertoire of SFPs. Such a feature is particularly obvious in the case of restrictive SFPs. Fung (2000) identified seven restrictive SFPs: zaa3 ‘only’, zaa4 ‘only’, ze1 ‘only’, zek1 ‘only’, zaa5 ‘only’, zaak1 ‘only’, and ze4 ‘only’. What is complicated and unique about these particles is that in addition to the core semantics “restriction”, each of them conveys distinct presuppositional or implicative meanings, which can be predicted, if Cantonese SFPs are assumed to be associated with speech acts, speaker stances, and modalities. Among them, zaa3 and ze1 have drawn the most theoretical attention, as they are considered to have a meaning closest to the English “only” (see e.g. Cheung H.  N. 1972/​2007, Kwok 1984, Law S.  P. 1990, Matthews and Yip 1994/​ 2011, Luke and Nancarrow 1997, Fung 2000, Leung 1992/​2005, A.  Law 2004, Li 2006, Sybesma and Li 2007, Wakefield 2010, Cheng S. P. 2013, Li Y. N. 2014, Tang 2015). (31) John  hai6 jin6gau3  zo6lei5 zaa3. (cited from A. Law 2004) (Cantonese) John be  research assistant ZAA “John is only a research assistant.” The zaa3-​sentence in (31) is understood as a neutral statement of restrictiveness in the sense of “not more than that” without any further speech

122

122  Restrictive focus particles act information. Example (31) gives a meaning of “John is only a research assistant but not of any rank higher than that” (see Sybesma and Li 2007), which A. Law 2004 regards as the “scalar” use of zaa3. For the scalar use, as a restrictive particle, zaa3 is said to associate with an order, including the value of the focus and the alternatives under consideration. As mentioned in Section 4.2, König (1991) holds that whenever the restrictive particle, for example, the English “only”, is associated with an order, the focus value is characterized as ranking low on the relevant scale, given that other alternatives ranking at a higher value than the focus value cannot hold true for the predication. Such an evaluation of the restrictive particle is shown in the scalar meaning below. (32) Min (λx(α),β) = (∀x)x represents a high-​ranking evaluation of the associated value being eliminated, and ← is the downwards-​ oriented one representing a low-​ranking evaluation of the associated value. Zaa3 ‘only’ f

dc

, where f is the focus value with which zaa3 is associated, dc is the upper contrasting standard, and ← is the downwards-​oriented one representing a low-​ranking evaluation of the associated value. Previous analyses like Fung and Wakefield would assume the following: by using zaa3 ‘only’, the speaker assumes a higher value than the focus or the asserted value, Dc, while ze1 ‘only’ has a lower assumed or presupposed value, Dc1, on the relevant scale, giving the so-​called “downplaying” inference. Following the three-​point comparison in (45), Li Y. N. instead assumes dc for zaa3, and for ze1, while maintaining that for Dc2, another point, Dc1 is needed. Zaa3 and ze1 will be assumed to be interchangeable, as shown in (46) and (47).

128

128  Restrictive focus particles (46) Speaker: Dou1 hai6 jat1-​baak3   man1  ze1. (Cantonese)     all be  one-hundred dollar ZE      “It is just one hundred dollars.” Addressee: Ngo5 ji5wai4 80  man1   zau6  dak1.      I  think eighty dollar then can       “I thought it only needs eighty dollars.” Speaker: Gwai3  hai6 gwai3-​zo2    di1,  dou1 m4-​sai2  150   man1, expensive be  expensive-​PERF a-​bit  DOU NEG-​need 150  dollar dou1 hai6 jat1-​baak3  man1  ze1. (Cantonese) all  be one-hundred dollar ZE “(True,) it is a bit expensive. Even so, it does not need one hundred fifty dollars, just one hundred dollars only.” (47) Gwai3  hai6 gwai3-​ zo2   di1, dou1 m4-​ sai2 150 man1, expensive be   expensive-​PERF a-​bit  but   not-​need 150  dollar dou1 hai6 jat1-​ baak3 man1 zaa3. (Cantonese) all  be one-hundred dollar ZAA “(True,) it is a bit expensive. Even so, it is just one hundred dollars only.” In (46) and (47), jat1baak3-​man1 “one hundred dollars” would be f and dc of zaa3, and dc2 of ze1 would be 150-​man1 “one hundred dollars”. However, what is additional for ze1 would be dc1, which is 80-​man1 “eight dollars”. Both dc1 and dc2 are assumed to be presupposed values triggered by ze1, but the two operate in an opposite direction with the asserted value f, which leads to the prediction that ze1 and zaa3 may not be absolute equivalents, hence questioning their absolute interchangeability. Therefore, although (46) and (47) are equally acceptable, the two sentences cannot be synonymous. To solve this dilemma, Li Y. N. assumed that dc2 is a speaker-​oriented presupposition, and that dc1 is a hearer-​oriented one. However, core questions remain to be answered, such as if the two presuppositions are in the opposite direction from the asserted value, would it affect the truth value of the sentence, and how would they be represented semantically? To sum up, along the line of Li Y. N. and previous analyses, the use of zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’ is summarized in Table 4.2. 4.3.2  Reanalysing zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’ under relativist semantic theory To work out the semantics of ze1 ‘only’ and zaa3 ‘only’, I will argue that, although they share the core semantics of “restriction” (see e.g. Fung 2000, Wakefield 2010, and Li Y. N. 2014), zaa3 and ze1 cannot be the same semantically, and are distinctive in terms of scalar presuppositions and dependence on speaker/​ addressee stance, which are critical for scalar restrictive SFPs. The zaa3-​sentence

 129

Restrictive focus particles 129 Table 4.2 A summary of zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’

Non-​scalar use Scalar use Presupposition of a higher value Presupposition of a lower value

Zaa3 ‘only’

Ze1 ‘only’

+ + + (neutral statement) -​

-​ + + (speaker oriented) + (hearer/​addressee oriented)

is understood as a neutral statement of restrictiveness in the sense of “not more than that”, without any further speech act information. As mentioned in Chapter 2, under Rooth’s Alternative Semantics, when the restrictive focus particle “only” applies to a proposition p, this would mean that p is true, and that all true propositions q from a set C of propositions are identical to p, where C is the quantification domain of “only” denoting the set of elements the operator “only” quantifies over (see (8) in Chapter 2). Under Rooth’s rationale, it must be the focus that controls the domain restriction, with “only” quantifying over the alternatives evoked by focus, and the alternative set would be a subset of the set of elements matching the denotation of the particle’s sister constituent in type. Along such a line, the semantics of zaa3 is argued to be (48). (48) The basic semantics of zaa3 (a) Non-​scalar zaa3 ‘only’ (i) Assertion: [[zaap]] = ~∃ϕ [ϕ∈C ∧ ϕ = 1] where p and ϕ are propositional variables and C is the quantification domain of zaa3 ‘only’ denoting the set of elements the operator zaa3 quantifies over. (ii) Presupposition: [[p]‌] = 1 (b) Scalar zaa3 ‘only’: (i) Assertion: [[zaap]] = ~∃ϕ [ϕ∈S ∧ [[ϕ]]>Sp ∧ ϕ =1] where p and ϕ are propositional variables and S is a scale which is a partially ordered set of propositions. (ii) Presupposition: [[p]‌] = 1 The scalar and non-​scalar interpretations are shown in (31) and (33), repeated below. (31) John hai6 jin6gau3 zo6lei5 zaa3. (cited from A. Law 2004) (Cantonese) John be  research  assistant ZAA “John is only a research assistant.”

130

130  Restrictive focus particles (33) Ngo5 heoi3 jau4-​seoi2 zaa3. (Cantonese) I   go  swim   ZAA “I only go for a swim.” As mentioned, (31) gives a meaning of “John is only a research assistant but not of any rank higher than that” (see Sybesma and Li 2007), and in line with A. Law (2004), regarding as the “scalar” use of zaa3. As mentioned in Section 4.2, König (1991) holds that whenever the restrictive particle, for example, the English “only”, is associated with an order, the focus value is characterized as ranking low on the relevant scale, given that other alternatives ranking in higher value than the focus value cannot hold true for the predication, with such a scalar meaning represented in (31). Along the line of scalarity of Kennedy and McNally (2005) and Kennedy (2001, 2007), and the restrictive definition of Rooth (1985), Bonomi and Casalegno (1993), and Herburger (2000), among others, the scalar meaning of zaa3 is defined as the notation in (48b), which states that the scalar “only” asserts that no alternative higher on a relevant scale than the focus value is true. While some cases of zaa3 do show “scalar” use, there are cases where zaa3 is used in a “non-​scalar” way, as shown in (33). In the non-​scalar use, zaa3 ‘only’ contributes the sense of exclusion to the sentences by restricting the set of alternatives to the value of focused expression, with the semantics of non-​scalar zaa3 written as (48a), going into a simpler version without taking the word variable into consideration. Based on the above, previous analyses of Mandarin SFPs distinguished three classes, as shown in Table 4.3, which were later adopted in Paul (2014, 2015) and Erlewine (2017). Zaa3 is understood to be a neutral statement of restrictiveness, which involves no speaker attitudes or speech act functions, as shown in (48), and can be considered to be a low SFP in the sense of Chao 1968, Hu 1981, and Zhu 1982, among others. Ze1 taking two presupposed values (in Li Y. N.’s terminology) involves the attitudes of the speaker and the addressee, which

Table 4.3 Three classes of Mandarin Chinese SFPs (cited from Erlewine 2017: 40) (a) SFP1: low SFP

(i) le: Li and Thompson’s (1981) “currently relevant state” marker (ii) laizhe: recent past (see Paul 2015, pp.258–​60) (iii) ne: durative aspect (Constant 2011) (iv)  eryi: exclusive ‘only’ (Erlewine 2010) (b) SFP2: clause-​type (i) ma: polar question (ii) ba: imperative (iii) n e: contrastive topic (Constant 2014) or follow-​up and constituent questions (Cheng 1991) (c) SFP3: speaker/​addressee (i) ou: impatience attitude (ii) a: softening (iii) ei: gentle reminder

 131

Restrictive focus particles 131 I  will take it to be SFP3. Therefore, ze1 differs from zaa3 in the sense that it is a higher SFP, which involves the attitudes of speakers and addressees. Adopting Paul’s (2014, 2015) proposal for Mandarin SFPs in a three-​layer split CP, and on the basis of Erlewine (2017), the syntactic positions of zaa3 and ze1 are assumed to be as follows.

AttitudeP CP TP

Attitude SFP3 (ze1) C SFP2

Subject T

. . SFP1P

. . vP

SFP1 (zaa3)

. . .

If zaa3 ‘only’ occurs at the SFP2 or SFP1 position, it is assumed to be clause-​ medial or at most an extended CP. Zaa3 is found to take scope above the negator m4 ‘not’, and m4hai6 ‘not-​be’. (49) Keoi5 m4  sik6  zyu1juk6  zaa3, wui5  sik6 ngau4juk6. s/​ he NEG eat  pork   ZAA will eat beef “S/​he just doesn’t eat pork but s/​he likes beef.” ⇒ (ZAA > NEG m4) (*NEG m4 > ZAA)

Interpretation of (49) shows that the only meaning of zaa3 takes scope over the negative meaning conveyed by the negator m4 ‘not’, giving the desired reading as indicated. If m4 is assumed to take the lower VP, it is likely that zaa3 will take a scope of vP or even a scope of top VP. This is evidenced in (50), with zaa3 occurring with modals. (50) (a) Keoi5 ho2ji5 heoi3 Soeng6hoi2 /​ heoi3-​dou2 Soeng6hoi2 zaa3.   s/​he  can  go   Shanghai /​   go-​arrive  Shanghai  ZAA   (i) “S/​he only can go to Shanghai.”    ⇒ (ZAA > dynamic “can” modal)

132

132  Restrictive focus particles   (ii) “S/​he can only go the Shanghai.”    ⇒ (dynamic “can” modal > ZAA) (b) Keoi5  ho2nang4 heoi3 Soeng6hoi2 zaa3.   s/​he  may    go   Shanghai  ZAA   (i) “S/​he may only go to Shanghai.”    ⇒ (epistemic modal > ZAA)   (ii) Not: “She only may go to Shanghai.”    ⇒ (??ZAA > epistemic modal) Assume that (50) is interpreted under the scenario of several friends planning for a long trip in the Eastern part of China. (50a) shows that zaa3 and the dynamic modal ho2ji5 ‘can’ scope over each other, giving the desired readings as indicated in (i) and (ii). If the dynamic modal ho2ji5 is assumed to take vP scope, zaa3 should take a similar scope, that is at least a scope of vP. For the epistemic modal ho2nang4 ‘may’, (50b) reveals that the epistemic modal takes scope over zaa3, giving the desired reading as indicated in (i). This is in contrast with the reading indicated in (ii), with zaa3 scoping over the epistemic modal ho2nang4, which fails to give the desired reading of  (50b). Examples (49) and (50) therefore result in a conclusion that zaa3 ‘only’ is likely to take a vP or at most the uppermost VP scope, hence at most a low SFP or a clause-​type SFP, as indicated in Table 4.3 above. This would mean that zaa3 may not be the type of SFP which involves speaker/​addressee, that is, SFP3. There are grounds for this if one considers zaa3 to give a neutral statement of restriction. For the case of ze1, if one assumes that ze1 involves the speaker/​addressee’s stance, hence taking the scope of AttitudeP, one would predict that it would scope over the negator m4 ‘not’ and the dynamic “can” modal, but not the other way around. Such a prediction is borne out in (51) and (52). (51) Keoi5 m4  sik6 zyu1juk6 ze1, wui5  sik6 ngau4juk6. (Cantonese) s/​ he NEG eat pork  ZE will  eat beef “S/​he only does not eat pork but s/​he eats beef.” ⇒ (ZE > NEG m4) (52) (a) Keoi5 ho2ji5 heoi3 Soeng6hoi2 /​heoi3-​dou2 Soeng6hoi2 ze1. (Cantonese)   s/​he  can  go  Shanghai /​  go-​arrive   Shanghai  ZE   (i) He is only able to go to Shanghai.   ⇒ (ZE > dynamic “can” modal) (b) Keoi5 ho2nang4 heoi3 Soeng6hoi2 ze1. (Cantonese)   S/​ he may   go  Shanghai  ZE   (i) “It is only possible that he will go to Shanghai.”   ⇒ (ZE > epistemic modal)   (ii) Not “It is possible that he only goes to Shanghai.”   ⇒ (??epistemic modal > ZE)

 133

Restrictive focus particles 133 The scope of ze1 is more obvious in (52b), showing the scope relation between ze1 and the epistemic modal ho2nang4 ‘may’. In (52b), the interpretations in (i) and (ii) show that ze1 needs to scope over the epistemic modal ho2nang4, and the inverse scope relation of the two will render an unacceptable interpretation shown in (ii). Under the scope of zaa3 being vP and ze1 being Attitude P, one would predict the possible co-​occurrence of the two, which is borne out below. (53) Dou1 hai6  jat1-​baak3  man1  zaa3 ze1. (Cantonese) all  be  one-hundred dollar  ZAA ZE “It’s only one hundred dollars.” Sybesma and Li (2007) put the SFPs of z-​as head of FocP under the propositional-​discourse domain, which is below DiscourseP. However, while ze1 involves the stance presupposition of both speaker and addressee, (48) shows that zaa3 involves neither and performs neutral restriction. Therefore, on the basis of Paul (2014, 2015) and Erlewine (2017), the current analysis shows that zaa3 may occupy the propositional domain, which is the clause-​ medial SFP2 or SFP1 position, whereas ze1 may occupy a higher position, which is at least at DiscourseP in Sybesma and Li or AttitudeP in Paul’s (2014, 2015) and Erlewine’s (2017) Split CP framework. If the syntax of ze1 to be Head of AttitudeP stands, one would predict that speaker/​addressee stance would be a factor in determining the semantics of ze1. As mentioned, there are cases where zaa3 and ze1 are interchangeable, which is due to their core semantics being the same, and what has made ze1 distinct from zaa3 is the presence of a “lower-​ranking” value. Instead of arguing that ze1 relies on a “lower-​ranking” value and a “higher-​ranking” value, and zaa3 on the latter only, what will be argued here is that ze1 and scalar zaa3 share semantics in their assertion and presupposition, but that the two differ in their dependence on speaker stances. As zaa3 gives a neutral statement of restriction, the speech act or speaker/​addressee stance does not play a role in its interpretation, while the same is not true in the case of ze1. Along such a line of argument, in order to derive the semantics of ze1, Lasersohn’s (2009, 2017) relativist semantic theory is taken into account. Lasersohn pointed out that a fundamental problem in the theory of truth conditions is how to deal with sentences which intuitively are not about matters of fact, but seem to involve some ineliminable element of subjective judgement or opinion. (54) The basic semantics of ze1 ‘only’ The part which overlaps with zaa3: (i) Assertion: [[zep]] = ~∃ϕ [ϕ∈S ∧ [[ϕ]]>Sp ∧ ϕ =1] where p and ϕ are propositional variables and S is a scale which is a partially ordered set of propositions. (ii) Presupposition: [[p]‌] = 1

134

134  Restrictive focus particles Stance presupposition of the addressee For all c’, w’: [|β|]c’,w’ ∧ Sβ Neg) Like (94), in (96), we have the negator interacting with -​dak1, and the reading is the denial of permission. In other words, the meaning should be “the individual is not allowed to do something”, rather than “the individual is allowed not to do something”. Therefore, the negator, which at most has a VP scope, takes a wider scope than -​dak1. The VP scope of -​dak1 gains further support when we see its interaction with other adverbials. Consider the example below.

156

156  Restrictive focus particles (97) Ngo5dei6 hou2-​noi6 *(dou1) m4-​sik6-​dak1-​je5. (Cantonese) we    for-​ long  all  NEG-​ eat-​ DAK-​ thing (i) “We cannot eat for some time.” (ii) NOT “We are allowed to not eat for some time.” Example (97) would be ill-​formed without the presence of dou1 ‘all’. Pan and P. Lee (2005) have already shown that the scope of the Mandarin negator bu ‘not’ is its local c-​commanding domain. Like bu ‘not’, the Cantonese m4 ‘not’ should have a similar scope. The adverbial hou2-​noi6 ‘for-​long’ introduces the time variable t, which cannot be bound by the negator m4, since it is not within the c-​commanding scope of m4. -​Dak1, as a modal operator, fails to bind the time variable, resulting in the obligatory presence of dou1 ‘all’ in (97) which gives a universal interpretation to the duration denoted by the adverbial hou2-​noi6. Examples like (97) show that the scope of dak1 should at most be a VP or a vP, even under its modal interpretation. This is in line with what is claimed in P.  Lee (2012) that the scope of modal -​dak1 cannot be wider than vP, under the assumption that epistemic modals are S-​scope operators and dynamic modals VP-​scope operators (see Brennan 1993), resulting in the relative scope orders of “epistemic modal > m4 > deontic/​dynamic modal > post-​verbal modal  dak1”. 4.4.3.2  Selectional restrictions of -​dak1 ‘only’ If the scope of -​dak1 is confirmed to be a vP, the next question will be related to its selectional restriction, meaning whether -​dak1 as a focus operator must associate with cardinal nominals, as claimed in Tang (2002b). Consider the examples below. (98) (a) Ngo5 taam3-​dak1 keoi5    loeng5 ci3. (Cantonese)   I   visit-​DAK  him/​her  two times   “I have visited him/​her only twice.”   ONLYx (I visit him x) (x = twice) (b) Ngo5 taam3-​dak1  jat1 go3 jan4  loeng5 ci3. (Cantonese)   I    visit-​DAK  one CL person  two  times   “I have visited only one person twice.”   ONLYx (I visit x twice) (x = one person) Examples (98a) and (98b) show that it is natural for -​dak1 to associate with post-​verbal nominal phrases with the [+Q(uantity)] feature, giving an interpretation on a par with the English “only”. In (98a), the default interpretation of the sentence will be “I visited him only twice”, with -​dak1 associating with the nominal phrase loeng5-​ci3 ‘two-​times’, with the [+Q] feature triggered by the frequency. According to the Quantification Accessibility Hierarchy for Affixal Quantifiers (QAH) given in (91), if the DO/​IO direct argument does

 157

Restrictive focus particles 157 not satisfy the semantics of -​dak1, -​dak1 will select the [+Q] post-​verbal nominal phrase, namely loeng5-​ci3 ‘two-​times’, giving the focus-​background structure, which includes the operator, the restrictor, and the nucleus, as indicated. The above claim also gains support in (98b). In (98b), the DO has the [+Q] feature. Since DO occupies a higher position in the QAH than the post-​ verbal nominal phrase, -​dak1 will interpret with the [+Q] DO, giving the focus-​background structure as indicated. Contrasting (98a) and (98b), we can see that in (98a), the DO keoi5 ‘him/​her’ is not [+Q]. Therefore, -​dak1 would associate with the [+Q] post-​verbal nominal phrase of frequency loeng5ci3 ‘two-​times’ (syntactically on a par with dative IOs or IO indirect arguments). Contrarily, consider (98b), which is a sentence with both DO and the post-​ verbal phrase carrying a [+Q] feature. Since the DO is closer to the verb, -​ dak1, as a verbal suffix, will have the tendency to interpret with the [+Q] DO instead of the [+Q] frequency phrase, which is further away from the verb, as predicted by QAH. However, what will be proposed here is that dak1-​ sentences are possible to have both “only” and modal readings, but the markedness of these readings will be determined by the QAH in (91). In other words, if the sentence contains a [+Q] phrase within the scope of -​dak1, -​dak1 will associate with the [+Q] phrase, which may be the [+Q] DO or other [+Q] post-​verbal nominal phrases, as determined by the QAH. The “only” reading becomes the dominant reading of the dak1-​sentence. On the other hand, if there are no [+Q] phrases within the scope of -​dak1, -​dak1 will go to the last resort and select the predicate, giving the modal reading or the descriptive phrase reading. In (98a) and (98b), since we have a [+Q] phrase within the scope of -​dak1, it becomes marked to get the modal reading, giving the reading of “I am allowed to visit him twice” for (98a) or “I am allowed to visit a/​one person twice” for (98b). The application of QAH in predicting the “only” reading or the modal reading also gains support in (99), which contains nominal phrases of duration. (99) (a) Ngo5  zyu6-​dak1  hai2dou6 loeng5 jat6. (Cantonese)   I   stay-​DAK   here   two  day   “I will stay here for two days only.”   ONLYx (I stay here for x) (x = two days) (b) Keoi5 jat1-​sai3-​jan4 zyu6-​dak1 nei1dou6 jat1 go3 dei6fong1. (Cantonese)   s/​he the-​entire-​life  live-​DAK  here    one CL place   “For his/​her entire life, s/​he has been living here, only one place.”   ONLYx (s/​he for his/​her whole life live here, x) (x = one place) According to the QAH in (91), we will predict that -​dak1 will select the post-​ verbal nominal phrase of duration loeng5-​jat6 ‘two-​day’ in (99a), since the DO hai2dou6 ‘here’ is not [+Q]. Example (99a) will therefore convey a default

158

158  Restrictive focus particles reading of “I had stayed in this place for only two days”, as shown by the focus-​ background structure. Contrasting (99a) and (99b), we can again arrive at the same conclusion. In (99b), since jat1-​go3-​dei6fong1 ‘one-​CL-​place’ is a [+Q] nominal phrase, with the [+Q] feature within the scope of -​dak1, -​dak1 associates with such a phrase. Example (99b) therefore gives the default reading of “For his/​her entire life, s/​he has been living here, only one place”, with the focus-​ background structure as indicated. However, consider the examples below. (100) (a) Ngo5 sing4-​jat6  sik6-​dak1 bun3 wun2 faan6. (Cantonese)   I    whole-​ day eat-​ DAK half CL  rice   ONLYx (I the entire day eat x) (x = half a bowl of rice) (b) Keoi5 sik6-​dak1 sing4 wun2 faan6. (Cantonese)   s/​he  eat-​DAK   whole CL  rice   “S/​he can finish the entire bowl of rice.”   CANp (S/​he P) (P = Finish the entire bowl of rice) Like (98b), since we have a [+Q] DO in (100a), -​dak1 will be predicted to go with such a DO, making the “only” reading the default one, as indicated in the focus-​background structure. What is interesting is the reading of (100b). (100a) and (100b) are similar, except for the DO of the latter being sing4-​ wun2-​faan6 ‘entire-​CL-​rice’. The entirety reading given by sing4 ‘whole’ will make the part-​whole relation become dominant. Under such a case, as we are contrasting entirety with partiality, the quantity reading no longer applies, and the next candidate in the hierarchy will be the verbal predicate, giving the sentence a default reading of modality. (100b) therefore conveys the dynamic reading, giving the reading of “s/​he has the ability to finish the entire bowl of rice”, as indicated in the meaning representation. The sentence implicates that the individual, probably a baby, failed to finish the entire bowl of rice before that, and now s/​he is able to do so. Generalizing, the examples above show that for dak1-​sentences to derive the “only”, cardinality or quantity is the crucial factor. The “only” reading of -​dak1 is a non-​scalar restrictive reading, with its non-​scalarity demonstrated in (101). (101) (a) Keoi5 faai3-​min6  dak1  hung4-​hung4-​dei2. (Cantonese)   s/​he   CL-​face    DAK   red-​red-​Prt   “His/​her face is only reddish.” (b) Keoi5 faai3-​min6 hung4 dak1 hou2 dak1-​jan4-​geng1. (Cantonese)   s/​he   CL-​face  red  DAK very  scary   “His/​her face is scarily red.” The gradable adjectival predicate hung4-​hung4-​dei2 ‘reddish’ lexically induces a degree scale in which the degrees of redness are ranked, but is found to be unnatural with -​dak1 ‘only’. On the other hand, when the level of the state is described, as in (101b), the reading of -​dak1 becomes the

 159

Restrictive focus particles 159 descriptive -​dak1, instead of the restrictive -​dak1. Therefore, if one considers (101a) and (101b), there are grounds to claim that the restrictive reading of -​dak1 is by default a non-​scalar one, giving a meaning of “exactly Q”. With the vP scope of -​dak1, nominal phrases having the [+Q] feature will associate with -​dak1 according to the QAH in (91), deriving the “only” reading. A focus-​background structure will then be triggered by the “ONLY” -​dak1. If there is no nominal phrase within the scope of -​dak1 having the [+Q] feature, -​dak1 will go to the last candidate of the QAH, that is, either the verbal predicate or the adjectival predicate, giving the modal reading or the descriptive reading. As the scope of -​dak1 is at most a vP, -​dak1 cannot be an epistemic -​dak1 which requires at least an IP or even a CP scope. To unify the three readings of dak1, I will go with traditional studies like Palmer (2001) and de Haan (1997) to have a threefold classification of modality, namely the epistemic-​deontic-​dynamic modality. Since an epistemic reading is not possible in -​dak1, I will focus on the deontic and dynamic modals of  -​dak1. As mentioned earlier, when no nominal in the sentence is able to trigger a [+Q] feature, -​dak1 will associate with the adjectival or verbal predicate, giving the sentence a descriptive phrase reading or a modal reading. Consider (102). (102) Ngo5 hang6-​dak1 laa3. (Cantonese) I   go-​ DAK  SFP (a) “I am able to walk/​go (now).” (b) “I am allowed to walk/​go (now).” For (102), since there is no nominal in the sentence, according to the QAH given in (91), -​dak1 would be predicted to associate with the verbal predicate hang6 ‘walk/​go’, giving the modal reading as the sole reading. Now the question is what modal readings should be given to (102). In view of the absence of a result-​denoting small clause, according to the analysis of Cheng and Sybesma, one would expect that the potential reading should not come up at all in (102). However, according to Cheng and Sybesma, the potential reading is possible to some readers, and they are forced to explain this by assuming an empty X0. In fact, for sentences like (102) which involve an intransitive verbal predicate, the sentence is ambiguous between the deontic and the dynamic readings. Consider the examples of proper names and definite NPs below. (103) Ngo5 heoi3-​dak1 Jat6bun2. (Cantonese) I   go-​ DAK  Japan (a) “I can go to Japan.” (b) “I will go only to Japan, one place.” (c) QUAΣ (λy[μ(Japan) = 1]), where μ is a measure function compatible with a lattice sort Σ, n is a number, and y is the associated DO.

160

160  Restrictive focus particles (104) Ngo5 sik6-​dak1 nei1  wun2 faan6. (Cantonese) I   eat-​ DAK this  CL  rice (a) “I can eat this bowl of rice.” (b) “I have eaten only this bowl of rice, one item.” (c) QUAΣ (λy[μ(this-​bowl-​of-​rice) = 1]), where μ is a measure function compatible with a lattice sort Σ, n is a number, and y is the associated DO. For (103) and (104), since the DOs Jat6bun2 ‘Japan’ and nei1-​wun2-​faan6 ‘this-​bowl-​rice’ are [-​Q], -​dak1 tends to interpret with the predicates, giving modal readings to both sentences. However, the (b) interpretations seem to suggest that the restrictive reading is possible, and under such a case, the interpretation is more likely to be “one place” or “one item”. The interpretation of the DO is mapped to a quantity scale by a measure function, as shown in (103c) and (104c). Such an interpretation represents a marked interpretation of (103) and (104). Lastly, consider (105), which are examples with adjectival predicates. (105) Keoi5 paau2-​dak1 hou2-​faai3. (Cantonese) s/​he  run-​DAK   very-​fast (a) “S/​he ran very fast.” (b) “S/​he can run very fast.” For (105), since there is no nominal within the scope of -​dak1, -​dak1 can only associate with the adjectival predicate, according to the QAH. Both the modal reading (dynamic reading) and the descriptive phrase reading are possible, as indicated in (a)  and (b)  respectively, depending on whether we are referring to an episodic statement or a non-​episodic statement. 4.4.4  Focused readings of -​dak1 ‘only’ The readings derived from the QAH represent the default or the unmarked readings of -​dak1. -​Dak1 will interpret with the focus of the sentence if there is one, giving either the modal reading, if the focus is placed on the entire VP, or the “only” reading”, if the focus is placed on the nominals. An example is given below. (106) Keoi5 [bui3-​dak1 saam1 sau2 si1]F. (Cantonese) s/​he  recite-​DAK three  CL  poems (a) “S/​he has recited only three poems.” (non-​focused reading) ONLYn [S/​he has recited poems & (QUA(poem) = n)] [n = three] (b) “S/​he is able to recite three poems.” (c) “S/​he is allowed to recite three poems.” CANP [S/​he P] [P = recite three poems]

 161

Restrictive focus particles 161 When there is no focus in the sentence, -​dak1 will associate with the [+Q] DO, giving the “only” interpretation. As saam1-​sau2-​si1 ‘three-​CL-​poem’ is a quantized object, no measure function would be needed to give the quantity reading of si1 ‘poems’. However, when the focus is placed on the VP, -​ dak1 will associate with the focused VP, instead of the [+Q] DO, giving modal readings to the sentence. Consider the scenario when we are comparing the ability of students to recite poems. One student has the ability to memorize three poems and recite them in a short period. (106b) will make sense under such a context. Consider another scenario when we are restricting the number of poems an individual can recite within a specific period of time. With -​dak1 interpreting with the focused VP, (106c) gives the deontic reading. Comparing the two modal readings, the deontic reading in (106c) is more difficult to get than the dynamic reading in (106b). In other words, modal readings occur under two cases: (1) if there is no [+Q] phrase within the scope of -​dak1, -​dak1 will go to the last resort and select the VP or adjectival predicate, giving the modal reading or the descriptive phrase reading; and (2)  as the focus or the marked reading of dak1-​ sentences. Consider another example below. (107) Ngo5 sik6-​dak1 [nei1 wun2 faan6]F. (Cantonese) I   eat-​DAK this bowl rice (a) “I am allowed to eat this bowl of rice.” (non-​focused reading) (b) “I am able to eat this bowl of rice.” (non-​focused reading) (c) ONLYf [she eat f] [f = this bowl of rice∈ ALT(this bowl of rice)] For (107), when there is no focus in the sentence, -​dak1 will associate with the entire VP, as the DO is [-​Q]. This would result in the modal readings of (107a) and (107b). The modal reading will be its default reading, and the restrictive reading is possible only if the context has forced the DO to be interpreted as “this bowl of rice, the only one item”, with the DO mapped to a quantity scale by a measure function under such a case. However, apart from this, to have the restrictive reading, another way is to have the focus placed on the DO. Under Rooth’s Alternative Semantics, the focused DO will trigger an alternative set, with -​dak1 as the restrictive particle, excluding all the items in the set, except for this bowl of rice, as in (107c). The restrictive reading under such a case will be on the items consumed, and is different from the one with “this bowl of rice” mapped to the quantity scale, which gives the reading of “exactly one and no quantities other than one was consumed”. Summarizing, without focus, it is the QAH that predicts different readings within the scope of -​dak1. The restrictive quantification of -​dak1 demonstrates a quantificational pattern very similar to other Cantonese quantifying verbal suffixes like the additive affixal quantifier -​maai4 (see Chapter 3), the generic affixal quantifier -​hoi1 ‘open’, and universal affixal quantifier -​saai3 ‘all’ (see P. Lee 2012), which unlike adverbials, have syntax playing a very crucial role in determining relevant interpretations (see P. Lee 2012). With the presence of

162

162  Restrictive focus particles focus, focus will affect the interpretation of dak1-​sentences through focus association, such as the selection of the focused VP to convey the modal reading in (106), instead of the association with the DO to convey the restrictive reading. The syntacticized nature of affixal quantification can somehow be reflected in its natural co-​occurrence with focus adverbs, as shown below. (108) (a) Keoi5 zing6-​hai6 maai5-​dak1 loeng5 zoeng1 fei1. (Cantonese)   s/​he   only-​be   buy-​DAK  two   CL   ticket   “S/​he has only bought two tickets.” (b) Keoi5 zing6-​hai6 bong1-​dak1 nei5 maai5-​fei1,   s/​ he  only-​ be  help-​ DAK  you buy-​ ticket   (pui4-​m4-​dou2 nei5 heoi3).   accompany-​NEG-​RES you go   (Cantonese)   “S/​he can only help you with the tickets, (but won’t be able to go with you).” Cantonese restrictive adverbs, verbal suffixes, and SFPs have their individual scope properties. As a restrictive adverb, it is assumed that zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​be’ takes a VP scope, and associates with the VP for its restrictive meaning. With such an assumption put into place, zing-​hai6 in (108a) associates with the VP maai5-​dak1-​loeng1-​zoeng1-​fei1 ‘buy-​DAK-​two-​CL-​ticket’, and as -​dak1 occurs within the scope of zing6-​hai6, it would associate with the [+Q] DO loeng5-​ zoeng1-​fei1 ‘two-​CL-​ticket’, as determined by the QAH. On the other hand, in (108b), zing6-​hai6 takes scope over bong1-​dak1-​nei5-​maai5-​fei1 ‘help-​DAK-​ you-​buy-​ticket’, with -​dak1 within its scope. As no argument in the sentence carries a [+Q] feature, the QAH would predict -​dak1 to associate with the VP bong1-​nei5-​maai5-​fei1 ‘help-you-​buy-​ticket’, giving a modal reading of “s/​he can buy the tickets for you”. With the restrictive reading given by zing6-​hai6 and the modal reading given by -​dak1, (108b) gives the desired reading as indicated. In conclusion, (108) shows that scope order and linearity play a crucial role in determining the interpretation of restrictive sentences in Cantonese. At least this is what is shown in the case of the restrictive adverb zing6-​hai6 and the verbal suffix -​dak1 in (108). The co-​occurrence of restrictive adverbs and post-​verbal particles will be further examined in Chapter 5.

4.5  Restrictive adverbs in Cantonese Apart from restrictive SFPs and verbal suffixes, Cantonese also conveys restrictive meaning through adverbs, with examples like zing6(-​hai6) ‘only-​ be’ mentioned in (108) and zaai1 “only”. Despite a consensus that zing6(-​ hai6) is examined as on a par with the English “only”, little attention has been paid to its analysis (see e.g. A. Law 2004, L. Cheung, 2005, Wong 2010). It is generally assumed that zing6(-​hai6) and zaai1 ‘only/​just’ are non-​scalar in interpretation. L. Cheung (2005) and T. Lee (2000, 2005) pointed out that

 163

Restrictive focus particles 163 zing6-​hai6 takes a VP scope and can only associate with elements within its c-​command domain, as illustrated in (109). (109) Zoeng1saam1 zing6-​hai6 ze3-​zo2    go2  bun2 siu2syut3 lo1. (Cantonese) (cited from L. Cheung 2005)

Zoengsaam  only-​ be  borrow-​ PERF that CL novel  SFP (a) * “ Zoengsaam only borrowed the novel, (and nobody else did).” (b) “Zoengsaam only borrowed THE NOVEL, (and nothing else).” (c) “Zoengsaam only BORROWED THE NOVEL, (and she did nothing else.)” (d) “Zoengsaam only BORROWED the novel, (and she did not buy it.)” The interpretation of (109a) is ruled out because zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​be’ fails to associate with the subject NP Zoengsaam. However, like the English “only”, the Cantonese zing6-​hai6 is also floating in positions, and can move to the pre-​subject position, as shown in an example given in T. Lee (2005). (110) Zing6-​hai6 Aa3  George  maat3-​zo2 saam1 gaa3 daan1ce1. (Cantonese) (cited from T. Lee 2005)

only-​ be  Aa  George wipe-​ PERF three CL bicycle “Only GEORGE wiped three bicycles.” With zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​be’ floated to the pre-​subject position, the restrictive meaning of zing6-​hai6 can be applied to the subject Aa3 George. On the basis of this, T. Lee proposed that zing6-​hai6 is different from the SFP zaa3 in the sense that zing6-​hai6 is a non-​scalar restrictive particle, while zaa3 tends to convey scalar interpretation. Relevant examples are given by T. Lee to illustrate the contrast between zing6-​hai6 and zaa3 (cited from T. Lee 2005). (111) (a) Aa3 George  maat3-​zo2  saam1  gaa3 daan1ce1 zaa3. (Cantonese)   Aa  George  wipe-​PERF  three   CL  bicycle  ZAA   “George only wiped THREE BICYLES (and not more than three).” (b) Aa3 George zing6-​hai6 maat3-​zo2   saam1 gaa3 daan1ce1. (Cantonese)   Aa  George only-​be   wipe-​PERF  three CL  bicycle “George only wiped THREE BICYLES (and exactly three, not more than or less than three).” (112) (a) Aa3 George hai6  jin4gau3  zo6lei5  zaa3. (Cantonese)   Aa  George  be  research  assistant ZAA   “George is only a research assistant (not a professor).”

164

164  Restrictive focus particles (b) ?? Aa3 George zing6-​hai6 (hai6) jin4gau3  zo6lei5. (Cantonese)   Aa  George  only-​be  be   research  assistant   “George is only a research assistant (and only that, but not a professor).” According to T. Lee, the (a) sentences in (111) and (112) occur with zaa3 ‘only’ and a scalar interpretation is given: only the alternatives higher in position in the scale than the associated items are excluded, that is, numbers greater than three in (111a) and ranking higher than research assistant in (112a). Contrarily, in the case of zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​be’ in (111b) and (112b), a neutral statement of restriction, that is, non-​ scalar interpretation, is conveyed, meaning that all quantities in the alternative set triggered by the focused saam1 ‘three’ are excluded, giving a reading of “exactly three and no quantities other than three would make the sentence true”. Example (112b) is semantically odd, as a set which includes all possible positions in the context is open, and a non-​scalar exclusive reading would be difficult to be conveyed. Therefore, only the scalar reading “George is just a research assistant (but no positions higher than that)” is possible. The relative unacceptability of (112b) suggests that zing6-​hai6 is infelicitous in scalar contexts, and hence non-​scalar in nature, according to T. Lee (2000, 2005). In contrast to T. Lee, who argues for the non-​scalarity of zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​ be’, A. Law (2004) argues that zing6-​hai6 conveys both scalar and non-​scalar meanings. The infelicity of (112b) is not due to the incompatibility of zing6-​ hai6 with scalar contexts, but the fact that without sentence-​final particles, zing6-​hai6 as an adverb cannot “close off ” a sentence, resulting in a sense of incompleteness. If the sentence-​final particle lei6, together with the phrase jat1-​go3 ‘one-​CL’, is added to (112b), as in (113), the sentence is in fact acceptable, with zing6-​hai6 conveying a scalar reading on a par with that of (112a), namely that “John is only a research assistant but not higher than that”. (113) John zing6-​hai6 hai6 *(jat1 go3) jin4gau3 zo6lei5 *(lei4). (Cantonese) John only-​be  be   one CL research assistant SFP Intended: “John is only a research assistant.” Having recapitulated the two lines of thought above, Li Y. N. (2014) takes an intermediate position between T. Lee and A. Law by claiming that zing-​6hai6 ‘only-​be’ by default is a non-​scalar restrictive adverb, and admits a scalar construal only when associating with items that can lexically induce an ordering for the set of values. In other words, her claim deviates from that of T. Lee in the sense that zing6-​hai6 has both scalar and non-​scalar uses, and at the same time it also deviates from that of A. Law in the sense that the scalar use of zing6-​hai6 has a restricted distribution, which is not as flexible as A. Law has predicted. In examining the fact that zing6-​hai6 can interact with a scalar context, Li Y. N. (2014) refers again to the example given by T. Lee, as repeated below.

 165

Restrictive focus particles 165 (111) (b) Aa3 George  zing6hai6 maat3-​ zo2  saam1 gaa3 daan1ce1. (Cantonese) Aa  George only-​be   wipe-​PERF three  CL bicycle “George only wiped THREE BICYLES (and exactly three, not more than or less than three).” While Li Y. N. agreed with T. Lee that the numeral saam1 ‘three’ in (111b) can be understood as “exactly three”, she pointed out that numerals having a sense of “exact n” can induce a natural ordering relation, which is an issue also brought up in T. Lee, who stated that numerals as “continuous entities” easily trigger a natural ordering of numbers. The possibility of eliciting a natural ordering of numbers has led to a question of whether a scalar interpretation exists in (111b). This is in line with what has been shown in (103)/​(104) and (106), where the former involves a [-​Q] nominal, and to get a quantity reading, a measure function is needed to map the nominal to the quantity scale, while the latter is a quantized object, and with a natural ordering of numbers, no measure function would be needed to give the quantity reading of the nominal. Adjectival predicates which are gradable are found to be compatible with zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​be’, as exemplified below. (114) Keoi5 faai3-​min6 zing6hai6 hung4-​hung4-​dei2. (cited from Li Y. N. 2014) (Cantonese) s/​he  CL-​face   only-​be  red-​red-​PRT “His/​her face is only reddish.” According to Li Y. N., with the occurrence of zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​be’, (114) can give a scalar reading of “the degree of redness of the individual’s face is not greater than being reddish”. The gradable adjectival predicate hung4-​hung4-​ dei2 ‘reddish’ lexically induces a degree scale in which the degrees of redness are ranked. As mentioned in Chapter 3, the [A-​A-​dei2] ‘[A-​A-​Prt]’ construction has the attenuative meaning on a par with “slightly”, as repeated below: (115) [[slightly]] = λg⟨e,d⟩λdλx.min(g) ≺ g(x) ⪯ small(g) (see e.g. Kennedy and Levin 2008, Solt 2012, McNabb 2012) “The degree that ‘slightly’ hinges on a function min that returns the minimum value (i.e. dmin) on the measure function, and a (context-​dependent) function small that returns a low degree (i.e. dsmall) on the scale” (cited from Li Y. N. 2004, p.96). Dei in (114) is assumed to have a semantics on a par with the English “slightly”, that is, (115), and the function of zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​ be’ in (114) is to exclude those values above minimum value stated by hung4 ‘red’, giving rise to a meaning of “not greater than being reddish”. With the semantics of “slightly” in (115) assumed, the occurrence of zing6-​hai6 with hung4-​hung4-​dei6 ‘red-​red-​Prt’ therefore naturally reveals the scalar nature of

166

166  Restrictive focus particles zing6-​hai6. While Li Y. N. agrees with T. Lee and A. Law on the non-​scalar use of zing6-​hai6, on the basis of the above, she argued that zing6-​hai6 has both scalar and non-​scalar uses. However, the scalar construal is possible only with a semantic scale, that is, in the case of numerals which involve a natural ordering of numbers and hung4-​hung4-​dei6 ‘red-​red-​Prt’, which has a semantics on a par with the English “slightly”. For zaai1 “only”, as a restrictive particle, it has not received much attention in the literature. A relatively detailed account on its semantics can be found in Wong (2010), which takes zaai1 as a non-​scalar restrictive particle, supported by its incompatibility with scalar contexts. The following examples are cited from Wong (2010). (116) (a) Keoi5 zaai1 tau1-​je5.   s/​ he ZAAI steal-​ thing   “S/​he only stole something (; and did nothing else).” (b) Zaai1  jeng4-​zo2   bei2coi3.   ZAAI   win-​PERF  competition   “Only won a competition (; and nothing else happened).” Examples (116a) and (116b) reveal that zaai1 ‘only/​just’ gives a meaning of restriction and exclusion to the VP, as suggested by the second clause in both sentences, namely “and did nothing else” and “nothing else happened”. Such a meaning in fact is encoded in the lexical meaning of zaai1, which means “only” or “just’. As mentioned in Wong (2010), zaai1 and zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​be’ are alike in both being restricted to sentential elements, without being extended to the discourse level to contrast with previous utterances or clauses. If this is the case, zaai1, as an adverb, would likely take a VP scope, on a par with zing6-​hai6. However, the mechanism of focus structuring is different between zing6-​ hai6 and zaai1. For zing6-​hai6, zing6 ‘only’ is more like a focus-​functional operator in the sense of Beaver and Clark (2003), with zing6 lexically encoding an exclusive meaning. The assertive or focus meaning of zing6 must be correlated with a meaning which is grammatically encoded, namely through syntactic attachment to hai6 ‘be’. The scope relation of zing6 and hai6 therefore resembles that of zhi-​shi ‘only-​be’, which is repeated below. (117) (a) [EXCL-​[ASSERT [VP]]] Unlike zing6-​hai6, zaai1 would simply convey an exclusive meaning through syntactic attachment to the VP, and a restrictive sense would be imposed on the VP or any constituent within its c-​commanding domain. Generalizing, within the family of restrictive adverbs, it seems that Mandarin appeals to focus adverbs like jiu ‘only’, cai ‘only’ accompanied by prosodic stress and grammatical mechanisms like zhi(-​you/​-​shi) in restrictive focus structuring. Cai, jiu, and zhi(-​you/​-​shi) can all have scalar and non-​scalar interpretations. Cantonese does appeal to focus adverbs like zaai1 ‘only/​just’ and sin1 ‘only then’,

 167

Restrictive focus particles 167 and grammatical mechanisms like zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​be’ in restrictive focus structuring. However, the semantics of zing6-​hai6 in fact resembles that of Mandarin zhi(-​you), with restrictive meaning conveyed through syntactic attachment or adjunction. For the Cantonese zaai1, it is more lexicalized, with it lexically carrying an exclusive meaning, and simple or neutral restriction is performed through its syntactic attachment to the VP. For sin1 ‘only then’, it represents the closest counterpart to the Mandarin cai, which is polysemous in meaning. While zing6-​hai6 and sin1 can have both scalar and non-​scalar interpretations, simple restriction by zaai1 tends to make it non-​scalar. Therefore, within the family of Cantonese restrictive adverbs, scalarity seems to be one important parameter distinguishing among different restrictive adverbs in Cantonese. All in all, the major distinction of restrictives in Mandarin and Cantonese does not lie in restrictive adverbs, but morpho-​syntactically, Cantonese is rich in restrictive post-​verbal particles, including verbal suffixes and SFPs, which is the underlying difference between the two. The interpretation of the verbal suffix -​dak1 ‘only’ is determined by QAH, and a similar meaning can only be expressed through imposing prosodic stress on the focus associate within the VP in Mandarin. On the other hand, the minimal SFP pair of -​zaa3 ‘only’ and -​ze1 ‘only’ is yet difficult to have correspondence in Mandarin, particularly for -​ze1, which syntactically occupies the position Attitude0 of AttitudeP.

4.6  What can restrictive particles and additive particles in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese tell you? From the above sections, it is possible to conclude that Cantonese does rely less on restrictive adverbs accompanied by prosodic stress to convey restrictive meaning, due to its rich repertoire of post-​verbal particles. Restrictive post-​ verbal particles in Cantonese include at least the verbal suffix -​dak1 ‘only’ and the SFPs zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’, which have no counterparts in Mandarin. As mentioned above, for -​dak1, Mandarin will appeal to restrictive adverbs and prosodic stress on the focus associate within the VP to convey. For SFPs, stance presuppositions of the speaker and the addressee, which is assumed to syntactically take a position of AttitudeP, syntactically higher than CP/​TP, are another parameter of restrictive SFPs in Cantonese. If this is the case, this confirms that the speculation made earlier is valid, namely that what makes Cantonese and Mandarin distinct in their focus marking is not in terms of focus adverbs, but the additional focus verbal suffixes and SFPs in Cantonese, which are less attested in Mandarin. 4.6.1  Restrictive particles in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese Based on the findings generalized in this chapter, I will try to conclude with how Mandarin and Cantonese differ in the way they appeal to restrictive particles to encode information. A hypothesis has been made for additives in Mandarin and Cantonese, which is repeated as follows.

168

168  Restrictive focus particles (118) Additivity in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese manifest different morpho-​syntactic configurations as follows: (i) Mandarin Chinese appeals to grammatical mechanisms and focus markers accompanied by prosodic stress in expressing additive meanings, with prosodic stress in a certain way compensating for its lack of post-​verbal focus particles. (ii) The presence of a particularly rich inventory of focus particles in Cantonese makes the use of prosodic stress optional. Cantonese therefore relies on focus adverbs and post-​verbal particles, and their scope order, to determine its additive meaning, which can be achieved morpho-​syntactically through multiple occurrences of additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles. On the basis of this, a similar conclusion can be made for restrictives. (119) Restrictiveness in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese manifest different morpho-​syntactic configurations as follows: (i) Mandarin Chinese appeals to grammatical mechanisms and focus adverbs accompanied by prosodic stress in expressing restrictive meanings, with prosodic stress on the adverb in a certain way compensating for its lack of post-​verbal focus particles. (ii) The presence of a particularly rich inventory of focus post-​verbal particles in Cantonese makes the use of prosodic stress optional. Cantonese therefore relies on restrictive adverbs and post-​verbal particles, and their scope order, to determine its restrictive meaning, which can be achieved morpho-​ syntactically through multiple occurrences of restrictive adverbs and post-​verbal particles. 4.6.2  Generalizing the picture of focus particles in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese While (118) summarizes how additivity is expressed in Mandarin and Cantonese, (119) summarizes that of restrictives. As additive particles and restrictive particles are the two major types of focus particles in ­natural language, concluding from (118) and (119), at this point, the picture of focus particles in Mandarin and Cantonese can be generalized as follows: (120) Focus particles in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese manifest different morpho-​syntactic configurations as follows:

 169

Restrictive focus particles 169 (i) Mandarin Chinese appeals to focus adverbs accompanied by prosodic stress in expressing focus meaning, with prosodic stress in a certain way compensating for its lack of post-​verbal focus particles. (ii) The presence of a particularly rich inventory of focus post-​verbal particles in Cantonese makes the use of prosodic stress optional. Cantonese therefore relies on focus adverbs and post-​verbal particles, and their scope order, to determine its focus meaning, which can be achieved morpho-​syntactically through multiple occurrences of focus adverbs and post-​verbal particles. So far, our discussion focuses on additives and restrictives, and when discussing additive and restrictive adverbs, we have come across cases like object preposing and the Mandarin zhi(-​you/​-​shi) and the Cantonese zing6-​ hai6, which count on grammatical mechanisms to express focus meaning. As mentioned, a quick generalization at this point is that Mandarin seems to appeal to focus adverbs accompanied by prosodic stress and grammatical mechanisms to express additive and restrictive focus structuring, with both in a certain way compensating for its lack of post-​verbal focus particles. In contrast, Cantonese does appeal to additive and restrictive particles, including post-​verbal ones, and grammatical mechanisms to convey focus structuring. Moreover, Cantonese is much richer in focus particles appearing in different syntactic categories, including (i)  Cantonese restrictive adverbs corresponding to their Mandarin counterparts; (ii) restrictive verbal suffixes, and (iii) restrictive SFPs appearing monosyllabically or in the form of an SFP cluster. Additionally, restrictive particles in Cantonese are relatively free to co-​ occur, with no redundancy in meaning, with corresponding representations in Mandarin and English rendering unnaturalness or ungrammaticality. Such a complicated map of restrictive particles in Cantonese supports our hypothesis of surface word order or linearity as a primitive parameter in determining focus structuring in Cantonese. In contrast, the co-​occurrence of additives and restrictives tends to be more restricted in Mandarin, and can only be found in biclausal sentences, where the focus adverb serves as a licensor of subordinators in the antecedent clause. Therefore, to come up with a general principle of focus marking in Mandarin and Cantonese, we need to look further into the role of syntax and grammar in focus structuring in Mandarin and also the co-​occurrence patterns of Cantonese additive and restrictive particles which demonstrate the role of linearity in determining focus meaning. These are the issues we will examine in Chapter 5.

170

5  Distribution of additives and restrictives in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese

5.1  Introduction Xu (2004, p.277) stated that “Chinese is a language which exhibits a reverse relationship between syntactic positioning and phonological prominence of focus, making it different from European languages, while in West Germanic languages, focus has a systematic manifestation via pitch accent”. Based on the conclusions drawn in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, despite the fact that syntax plays a crucial role in focus marking in Chinese, Mandarin and Cantonese manifest different morpho-​syntactic configurations to express focus structural distinctions. Mandarin mainly relies on focus adverbs and syntactic constructions to express different focus interpretations. In contrary, with a rich repertoire of post-​verbal particles, including verbal suffixes and SFPs, Cantonese relies on its post-​verbal particles (see e.g. Cheung H. N. 1972/​2007; Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011; T.  Lee 1994, 1995; P.  Lee 2012; Tang 2015) and their co-​occurrence with focus adverbs to determine focus meaning. This leads to a prediction that linearity is an important parameter to determine how focus is structured in Cantonese. In fact, as early as in Huang S. F. (1981), the linearity principle for Chinese scope interpretation was proposed as the Isomorphic Principle, which stated that “the surface word order among the quantificational NPs and logical elements directly corresponds to their scope order in a standard predicate calculus presentation of sentences containing such elements”. Along the same line, assuming the relevance of linear precedence to the scope interpretation of adult Mandarin, T. Lee (1991) set out to investigate the development of this principle in Mandarin-​speaking children. The findings reveal that quantifier order is distinguished by Chinese children by age six, and that the linearity principle for scope interpretation is firmly established by age seven. Although T. Lee’s experiments focused on quantifier noun phrases (QNPs) in child language, a similar linearity principle was observed. Therefore, on these grounds it is possible to hypothesize that the co-​occurrence of focus particles in Cantonese and Mandarin should work along the same line. Cantonese additive and restrictive adverbs and post-​verbal particles tend to co-​occur in a very complicated way, which can appear as “[[determiner +

 171

Additives and restrictives  171 NP + adverb + verb + verbal suffix + … + SFP]]”, with SFPs not restricted to one SFP but to an SFP cluster as well, as in “[[determiner + NP + adverb + verb + verbal suffix + … + SFP1] + SFP2…]]”. To give a clearer picture, (1), which is an example given in Chapter 2 showing the co-​occurrence of verbal suffixes and SFPs, is repeated below. (1) Cantonese sentence:

(Nei5 gam1ziu1 sik6-​jyun4 zou2caan1 jau5-​dak1 jam2-​maai4 bui1 gaa3fe1,) you  this-​morning  eat-​finish   breakfast   have-​DAK drink-​MAAI CL coffee ngo5 gam1ziu1  jam2-​dak1 bui1 seoi2  zaa3. I   this-​morning drink-​DAK CL water  ZAA English translation: ??“(This morning after breakfast, you can (the “can” meaning by -​dak1) enjoyed a cup of coffee as well (the additive meaning contributed by -​maai4), and) for me, I only (restrictive meaning contributed by -​dak1) had a cup of water, (which is less good/​less than you (restricted meaning contributed by scalar zaa3) this morning.”

Example (1) shows the co-​occurrence of the restrictive verbal suffix -​dak1 ‘only’ and the restrictive SFP zaa3 ‘only’. If (1)  is translated into English, the sentence is unnatural, which reveals that English and Cantonese cannot be employing the same morpho-​syntactic configurations to express focus meaning. Example (2) shows the same sentence expressed in Mandarin. (2) Mandarin translation: Zaoshang chi-​wan zaofan ni hai keyi he yi bei kafei, this-​morning eat-​finish breakfast you still can drink one CL coffee wo zaoshang   zhi-​(shi)  he-​le   yi  bei shui. I  this-​morning only-​be  drink-​Perf one CL water “(This morning after breakfast, you can still have a cup of coffee (additive meaning contributed by –​hai), and) for me, I had only (restrictive meaning contributed by zhi(-​shi)) a cup of water this morning.” Contrasting (1)  with (2), we can see that while Cantonese appeals to the verbal suffixes -​dak1 ‘only’ and -​maai4 ‘also’, and the SFP zaa3 ‘only’, Mandarin uses the focus adverbs hai ‘still/​also’ and zhi(-​shi) ‘only(-​be)’. The additive meaning of the Cantonese -​maai4 ‘also’ in (1)  is expressed by the Mandarin hai ‘still/​also’ in (2). As the scope of hai is VP, without any prosodic stress on the DO yi-​bei-​kafei ‘one-​CL-​coffee’, the additive meaning applies to the event “having a cup of coffee”. Moreover, while the Cantonese verbal suffix -​dak1 in jau5-​dak1 ‘have-​DAK’ expresses the modal meaning of “can” in (1), the same meaning is expressed through the modal auxiliary keyi ‘can’ in (2). For the second clause, the restrictive meaning in Cantonese is expressed through the verbal suffix -​dak1 ‘only’ and the SFP zaa3 ‘only’.

172

172  Additives and restrictives The co-​occurrence of -​dak1 and zaa3 gives the second clause a meaning of “I only had a cup of water this morning, which is less than you or less good than you”, depending on the scale accommodated contextually. The reading of “I only had a cup of water” is contributed by the direct association of -​dak1 with the DO bui1-​seoi2 ‘CL-​water’ and the reading of “which is less than you/​ less good than you” by the SFP zaa3 which operates on the entire sentence. A related restrictive meaning is expressed by the Mandarin adverb zhi(-​shi) ‘only-​be’ in (2), with the comparative meaning of “which is less than you” less obvious in Mandarin. Examples (1) and (2)  therefore show that, although Mandarin and Cantonese fall under the same language family, their morpho-​ syntactic differences result in their variations in focus marking, and major differences include the absence of verbal suffixes and SFPs in Mandarin, and the co-​ occurrence of multiple forms of focus particles in Cantonese, which is unattested in Mandarin. The co-​occurrence of multiple forms is found not only in Cantonese restrictive and additive quantifications but also in universal quantification. Therefore, to further verify how scope interpretation of focus particles works, as Cantonese is richer in the co-​occurrence of additive and restrictive particles in multiple forms, this chapter focuses on co-​occurrence patterns in Cantonese, in comparison with Mandarin, with the aim of finding out the distribution of additives and restrictives in Mandarin and Cantonese. Theoretical implications resulting from such a far-​reaching co-​occurrence phenomenon will shed light not only on focus manifestation but also on quantification in general.

5.2  Co-​occurrence of additives in Mandarin and Cantonese and the linearity principle The interim conclusions deduced from additives and restrictives (see (118) and (119) in Chapter 4) suggest that when focus markers of multiple forms occur in the same sentence, it is their word order that determines their interpretations. To verify the hypothesis that the co-​occurrence of focus particles in Cantonese and Mandarin is facilitated by the linearity principle, we will first examine co-​occurrence patterns of additive particles in Cantonese, followed by restrictives. Table 5.1 shows the distributional differences of additive adverbs and post-​ verbal particles in Mandarin and Cantonese, and the ability of these particles to co-​occur. As additive verbal suffixes and SPFs are absent in Mandarin and additives are mainly adverbs, the co-occurrence of multiple forms of additives in Mandarin would be more restricted. These adverbs generally take a VP scope, hence operating on the same domain, and share the same basic semantics of “addition”. This resembles the case of manner adverbials in

 173

Additives and restrictives  173 Table 5.1 Additives in Mandarin and Cantonese and their co-​occurrence patterns Mandarin

Cantonese

Adverbs

(i) ( lian)…dou ‘(even)… (i) dou1 ‘even/​also’, (ii) jau6 ‘again’, also’, (ii) you ‘again’, (iii) zung6 ‘still’, (iv) zoi3 ‘again’, (iii) ye ‘also’, (iv) and (v) “gau3…SFPassert” ‘enough… hai ‘still’, and (v) zai SFPassert’ ‘again’

Verbal suffixes

/​

-​maai4 ‘also’

SFPs Co-​occurrence between and among different syntactic categories

/​ As additives are mainly adverbs, co-​ occurrence among or between additive adverbs is restricted or weak.

tim1 ‘add’ As additives range from adverbs to verbal suffixes and SFPs, which vary in morpho-​syntactic categories, Cantonese additives allow natural co-​occurrence among them, demonstrating rich co-​occurrence patterns, as shown in Table 5.2.

which two scope-​taking manner adverbials may occur in the same sentence, as shown in (3). (3) Sarah loudly answered stupidly. (≈ Sarah answered loudly and stupidly) (cited from Schäfer 2008) ∃e [Agent(Sarah, e) ∧ Answer(e) ∧ Loud(e) ∧ Stupid(e)]

If more than one manner modifier is present, this is straightforwardly dealt with through the addition of another conjunct, as shown in (3) above. However, as pointed out in Bartsch (1976, p.296), the key to the analysis of sentences containing more than one scope-​taking manner adverbial lies in recognizing that scope-​taking adverbials do not belong to the same class of manner adverbials. Frey and Pittner (1999) and Frey (2003) follow Bartsch in this, and classify the scope-​taking adverbial and the adverbial in the scope into different adverbial classes. If additive adverbs are assumed to be VP-​modifiers, there are grounds to consider their scope-​taking properties would be analogous to VP-​scope manner adverbials. Mandarin additive adverbs, as a class of adverbs, take the same scope and share the same basic semantics of “addition”. It is natural that their co-​occurrence is not likely to be recognized and may either result in semantic redundancy or clash, which accounts for their restricted co-​occurrence. In contrast, Cantonese does not only have additive adverbs but also a rich pool of post-​verbal particles, including additive verbal suffixes and SFPs. They syntactically, do not demonstrate the same scope-​taking effect, and semantically, vary in at least scalar properties and stance presuppositions, and the selection

174

174  Additives and restrictives of additive associates, which depend on their projected syntactic positions. Therefore, one may say that the natural co-​occurrence of additives in multiple forms is to a certain extent driven by their distinct morpho-​syntactic properties, with various possibilities indicated in Table 5.2. Case (A)  of Table  5.2 gives the co-​ occurrence pattern of Cantonese adverbs jau6 ‘again’, dou1 ‘also/​even’, zung6 ‘even’, and zoi3 ‘again’ with the verbal suffix -​maai4 ‘also’. Examples given in (4a) to (7a) show the natural Table 5.2 Co-​occurrence patterns of additives in Cantonese Case (A): Co-​occurrence of additive adverb with additive verbal suffix [jau6 /​dou1 /​zung6 /​zoi3 + verb + maai4 …] [‘again’/​’even/​also’ /​‘even’/​‘again’ + verb + ‘also’ …] Examples: (4) (a) Nei5 jau6-​(hai6) sik6-​maai4-​faan6 (sin1  lei4). (Cantonese)    you JAU-​ be  eat-​ MAAI-​ meal then  come     Intended: “You also come again (after lunch).”   (b) Ni you-​(shi) chi-​le-​fan    cai lai. (Mandarin)    you YOU-​be eat-​PERF-​meal CAI come    “You came after lunch again.” (5) (a) Ngo5 dou1-​hai6 sik6-​maai4-​faan6 sin1 fan1. (Cantonese)    I  DOU-​ be eat-​ MAAI-​ meal then  back     Intended: “I will also be back after lunch as well.”   (b) Wo ye-​shi chi-​le-​fan    cai hui-​lai. (Mandarin)    I  YE-​be  eat-​PERF-​meal CAI back    “I will also be back after lunch.” (6) (a) Keoi5 zung6 wan2-​maai4 ngo5 heoi3. (Cantonese)     s/​he  ZUNG find-​MAAI I   go     Intended: “S/​he has even got me go (with her/​him) too.” (b) Ta hai  zhao-​le  wo qu. (Mandarin)   s/​he HAI find-​PERF I  go   “S/​he has even got me go (with her/​him).” (7) (a) Ngo5 zoi3 si3-​maai4 gam1 ci3. (Cantonese)     I   ZOI try-​MAAI this time     Intended: “I will try also one more time again.” (b) Wo zai  shi yi  bian ba. (Mandarin)    I  ZAI try one time  SFP “I will try it again.” Case (B): Co-​occurrence of additive verbal suffix with additive SFP [[verb + maai4 …] + tim1] [[verb + “also” …] + “too”] Examples: (8) (a) Ngo5 zou6-​maai4 zeoi3hau6 jat1 fan6 tim1. (Cantonese)     I   do-​MAAI  last    one  CL  TIM    Intended: “I have also done the last one too./​I have also done the last one too (, which is unexpected).”   (b) Wo lian  zui-​hou-​yi-​fan dou  zou-​le. (Mandarin)    I  LIAN last-​one-​CL  DOU do-​PERF    “I have even done the last one.”

 175

Additives and restrictives  175 Table 5.2 (Cont.) Case (C): Co-​occurrence of additive adverb with additive verbal suffix and additive SFP [[jau6 /​dou1 /​zung6 /​zoi3 + verb + maai4 …] + tim1] [[‘again’/​’also’/​’even’ /​’again’ + verb + ‘add’ …] + ‘too’] Examples: (9) (a) Nei5 jau6-​(hai6) sik6-​maai4 faan6 sin1 lei4 tim1 laa1. (Cantonese)    you  JAU-​be   eat-​MAAI  meal then come TIM SFP     Intended: “You also come after lunch again too!”   (b) Ni you-​(shi) chi-​le-​fan    cai  lai. (Mandarin)     you YOU-​be eat-​PERF-​meal then  come    “You came after lunch again.” (10) (a) Ngo5 dou1-​hai6 sik6-​maai4 faan6 sin1 fan1 tim1 laa1. (Cantonese)     I   DOU-​be  eat-​MAAI meal then back TIM SFP     Intended: “I will also be back after lunch as well too!”   (b) Wo ye-​shi  chi-​le-​fan    cai hui-​lai ba. (Mandarin)     I  YE-​be  eat-​PERF-​meal CAI back SFP     “I will also be back after lunch.” (11) (a) Keoi5 zung6 wan2-​maai4 ngo5 heoi3 tim1. (Cantonese)      s/​he  ZUNG find-​MAAI  me  go   TIM     Intended: “S/​he has even also got me go (with her/​him) too./​S/​he has even also got me go (with her/​him) (, which is unexpected).”   (b) Ta  hai  zhao-​le  wo qu. (Mandarin)     s/​he  HAI find-​PERF  I  go     “S/​he has even got me go (with her/​him).” (12) (a) Keoi5 zoi3 si3-​maai4 go2 zek3 tim1. (Cantonese)     s/​he  ZOI  try-​MAAI that  CL  TIM     Intended: “S/​he tried again that one as well too!”   (b) Ta  zai shi  (yi-​ci)   na ge. (Mandarin)     s/​he ZAI try (one-​time) that  one “S/​he will try that (one more time) again.”

co-​occurrence of Cantonese additive adverbs and verbal suffixes. As argued in Chapter 3, with the direct object (DO) being indefinite in (4) and (5), the Quantification Accessibility Hierarchy for -​maai4 (QAH-​maai4) (see (107) of Chapter 3) will predict -​maai4 to associate with the predicate sik1-​fann1 ‘eat-​ meal’, giving an additive meaning to the predicate, while -​maai4 in (6)  and (7) will associate with the DO, namely ngo5 ‘I’ in (6) and gam1-​ci3 ‘this time’ in (7), giving the additive meaning as indicated. The additive adverbs jau6 ‘again’, dou1 ‘also’, zung6 ‘even,’ and zoi3 ‘again’ take scope over the VP, placing an additive meaning on the predicate concerned. Additive meaning under these cases is conveyed according to the scope of the additive adverb, viz. over the VP, and the scope of the verbal suffix, viz. over the DO or at most the VP, with the scope being consistent with their surface order. The corresponding English translations for (4)  to (7)  do not give natural sentences. Moreover, as additive verbal suffixes do not exist in Mandarin, the corresponding (b)-​ sentences in (4) to (7) consist only of the additive adverb, with the additive meaning over the VP, on a par with additive adverbs in Cantonese. The additive meaning on the direct object would rely on prosodic stress on the DO, making the DO becoming the focus associate of the additive adverb. In the

176

176  Additives and restrictives case of Cantonese, with the presence of an additive verbal suffix, direct association of the verbal suffix with the DO is possible by means of a grammatical mechanism, and the co-​occurrence of the additive adverb may be considered to be imposing an additional meaning to the VP or further reinforcing the additive meaning of the DO, which is the direct argument of the verb. Example (B) conveys a similar picture as that of (A), with the co-​occurrence of the verbal suffix with the SFP. The additive SFP tim1 ‘add’, with a scope of IP or at least VP, takes a wider scope over the additive verbal suffix -​maai4 ‘also’. Like the cases in (A), the definite DO zeoi3hau6-​jat1-​fan1 ‘last-​one-​CL’ would be the additive associate of -​maai4, which is predicted according to QAH-​maai4, with the additive meaning of tim1 over the entire sentence, giving a meaning on a par with the English “too”. In the case of Mandarin, the DO becomes the additive associate through its focus marking by lian…dou ‘even…also’, conveying an additive meaning similar to Cantonese -​maai4, but the additive meaning conveyed by the SFP tim1 is lacking in the Mandarin counterpart. In other words, (B) shows that while Cantonese appeals to additive verbal suffixes and SFPs, it is more natural for Mandarin to express the same additive meanings via prosodic stress or by syntactic means, namely by object preposing through lian…dou ‘even…also’ in (8b), or if not, through placing prosodic stress on the DO. While the additive associate of a verbal suffix is predicted by QAH, the additive and presuppositional meanings of additive SFPs are found to be missing in Mandarin. Finally, (C) represents the most complicated case of co-​occurrence, with additive adverbs co-​occurring with verbal suffixes and SFPs. (9a) to (11a) are exactly the same as (4a) to (6a), but with the SFP tim1 ‘too’ added, while (12a) is a slightly modified version of (7). What is common among (9a) to (11a) is the additional additive meaning conveyed by the SFP tim1. While Cantonese sentences are natural, their English translations all render semantically odd sentences. For the (b) sentences in (9) to (12), Mandarin uses additive adverbs, and like the pattern shown in (B), despite the fact that the additive meaning of the Cantonese verbal suffix can be expressed by prosodic stress in Mandarin, the meaning of the SFP tim1 is difficult to be expressed in the (b) sentences of (9) to (12). As mentioned in (B), the occurrence of the additional tim1 in (C) may be for imposing an additional meaning to the VP or the sentence, which can be an additive or unexpected meaning, and in the case of an additional additive meaning, for further reinforcing the additive meaning placed by the adverb on the predicate. Generalizing, Table 5.1 and Table 5.2 reveal two unique features of Cantonese additive quantification as compared with that of Mandarin: (1) Cantonese is richer in additive verbal suffixes and SFPs, which are lacking in Mandarin; and (2) the co-​occurrence of additive adverbs, verbal suffixes, and SFPs is natural in Cantonese, but not in Mandarin. Moreover, to compensate for the lack of post-​ verbal particles, Mandarin appeals to either prosodic stress on the adverb or on the additive associate, as in the (b) sentences in (4) to (12) and the previous discussion in Chapter  3, or syntactic structure or grammatical mechanisms,

 177

Additives and restrictives  177 as in (8b). For the multiple occurrences of additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles, -​maai4 ‘add’ is present in every Cantonese sentence in (4) to (12), and it is found that it selects either the direct object or the VP, in line with QAH-​maai4. The meaning of -​maai4 is interpreted within additive adverbs like zung6 ‘even’, jau5 ‘again’, and zoi3 ‘again’, with adverbs taking the entire VP into their scope and -​maai4 scoping over the lower VP or over arguments selected according to QAH-​maai4. On the other hand, the Cantonese dou1 can be interpreted as either lian…dou ‘even…also’ or ye ‘also’ in Mandarin (see Section 3.2.2 of Chapter 3). It will take a VP scope, for the interpretation of ye, or will scope over the external argument (i.e. the subject) due to the Leftness Condition of the Mandarin dou, which is also assumed for the Cantonese dou1. All in all, in spite of their co-​occurrence, the scope principles of additives seem to be governed by a linearity principle, as shown in additive adverbs and additive verbal suffixes in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2, with their scope interpretations structured according to their surface word order, with the selection of their associates subject to interpretation conditions of individual additives. The results are in alignment with Huang S. F.’s Isomorphic Principle and T. Lee’s principle of linearity for quantifier noun phrases, and provide grounds to support the hypothesis of linearity to be the principle in governing scope interpretation of semantic operators, namely focus particles under such a case. However, for sentence-​final particles, their scope interpretation would be more complicated. As with any other SFPs, focus SFPs tend to show apparent exceptions to any generalizations in clausal syntax. Biberauer, Newton, Sheehan et  al. (2009) claim that SFPs are categorically deficient, which is motivated by the fact that SFPs are one major source of exceptions to the Final-​over-​Final Constraint (FOFC), prohibiting the combination of SFP with VO order. The syntactic status of SFPs in Chinese has long been an area of active debate in Chinese linguistics, and it is not my intention to give a comprehensive and satisfactory solution to this debate. What will be emphasized is that, although additive adverbs and verbal suffixes neatly pattern with the linearity principle of interpretation, SFPs, be they additive or restrictive, seem to deviate from linearity. In fact, as early as Greenberg (1963), particles were not included in his typological studies, and studies showing that the distribution of “adverbial subordinators” neatly patterns with the FOFC generally found no VO languages showing an “adverbial subordinator” in sentence-​ final position (see Haspelmath et al. 2005). The “exception” shown here by Cantonese SFPs is therefore by no means exceptional if one considers the categorical deficiency of clausal-​final particles or SFPs, taken to be a limited set of functional morphemes that appear at the right edge of the clause. While most of the clausal spine in Chinese is rigidly head-​initial, in line with “Final-​ over-​Final Constraint” stated in Holmberg (2000) and Biberauer et al. (2008, 2009), previous work does analyze SFPs as being head-​final heads in the CP domain, taken above head-​initial IP or TP. Erlewine (2017) provided strong data on the semantic scope of SFPs, which leads to the conclusion that some SFPs are lower in the clause, which is in a position that he identified as vP.

178

178  Additives and restrictives These SFPs are apparent exceptions to the Final-​over-​Final Constraint, which in one way or another supports a head-​final view. When discussing zaa3 ‘only’ and ze1 ‘only’ in Chapter  4, Paul’s (2014, 2015) three-​layer split CP analysis was adopted. The relevant analysis also drew on Erlewine’s (2017) proposed structure for SFPs (see Figure 4.1), which analysed the low SFPs (SFP1) as a head in the extended projection of VP, which functions as the phase head of the clause’s lower phrase; SFP2 as the realization of C and SFP3 as the realization of Attitude, the head of AttitudeP. The three heads, namely SFP1, C0, and Attitude0, therefore project the only three head-​final projections in the Mandarin clausal spine. While zaa3 is taken to be occupying the head of the SFP1, ze1, which involves stance presuppositions of both the speaker and the addressee, is taken to occupy Attitude0 (SFP3), the head of AttitudeP. The case of tim1 ‘add’ is more complicated. As pointed out in Chapter 3 when discussing tim1, besides its additive meaning, tim1 has been argued for another use as a mood particle which indicates an unexpected or a surprise meaning. The two uses of tim1 have led to a debate over whether there is a unified or one tim1 (see e.g. Cheung H.  N. 1972/​2007, Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011, P.  Lee and Pan 2010, Tang 2015) or two tim1s, with one being the additive tim1 and one as the mood particle tim1 or mirative tim1 (see e.g. Zhan 1958, Winsterstein et al. 2018). However, despite the fact that the two uses do exist in the semantics of tim1, be it one tim1 or two tim1’s, the use of tim1 under such a case can be considered to resemble that of zaa3 and ze1 –​ both zaa3 and ze1 have the basic semantics of restriction, but with ze1 having additional presupposition meanings involving the stances of speakers and addressees. If the line of argument of zaa3 and ze1 is applied to tim1, following Paul (2014, 2015) and Erlewine (2017), it can be assumed that the two uses of tim1 represent one tim1 in the SFP1 position, which is lower in the clause, identified as v0 position of vP, and another one in the Attitude0 or SFP3 of AttitudeP. I will not go into the argument whether the lower tim1 is raised to the SFP3 position, which results in still one tim1, or the two positions are base generated, resulting in two tim1’s. What can be concluded at this point is that if “only” can have two representations, namely zaa3 and ze1, with their basic semantics as “only”, there are theoretically grounds to claim that tim1 in fact appears in two syntactic positions, with their basic semantics being “addition”. This is not unusual in SFPs, and whether it is one -​tim1 or two -​tim1’s would be an issue for further investigation. From the above, it can be concluded that the scope interpretation of additive adverbs and verbal suffixes reveals that the surface word order among the additives and additive associates corresponds to their scope order, under their individual interpretation conditions. In line with Paul (2014, 2015) and Erlewine (2017), the relevant scope interpretation of additive SFPs would be determined under head-​final projections in the clausal spine, with the SFP positioned as one of the three heads, viz. SFP1, C0, and Attitude0, determined by the semantics of the individual SFPs. Both Mandarin and Cantonese make little use of pitch accents to indicate focus. But as a tonal language, while

 179

Additives and restrictives  179 Mandarin appeals more to prosodic stress, Cantonese uses SFPs, which is a set of functional morphemes with tones contributing to different entries of SFPs. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the number of Cantonese SFPs is identified in previous studies ranging from approximately 30 (see e.g. Kwok 1984, Law S.  P. 1990, Luke 1990) to 95 (see Leung 1992/​2005). Wakefield (2010) pointed out that as a change in the tonal property of Cantonese would give a change in lexical meaning, various types of speech acts, speaker stances, and epistemic modalities are encoded in lexical items rather than intonation in Cantonese. This to a certain extent does not only apply to a change in tonal property but to a change in vowels as well. Fung (2000) proposed that the numerous manifestations of SFPs can be analysed as evolving from three families, labelled as Z-​, L-​, and G-​, with the feature [+restrictive] for Z-​, [+realization of state] for L-​, and [+situation given, +focus, +deictic] for G-​. The context-​independent meanings then give rise to different senses of the SFPs through semantic extension and pragmatic inference among various linguistic domains, such as sentential, prepositional, discourse, epistemic, speech act, de re, and de dicto. On the other hand, Sybesma and Li (2007) explored the possibilities of dissecting sentence-​final particles into sub-​syllabic semantic units, and ended up proposing 12 minimal semantic units, 4 initials (l, z, l/​n, m), 2 rhymes (aa and o), 3 tones (1, 4, 5), 1 coda (k) and 2 such elements incorporating a tone (g3 and aa4), with all minimal semantic units given a place in the CP domain. Both Fung’s analysis and Sybesma and Li’s analysis represent very good attempts to systematize the complex system of SFPs whose senses seem to be quite random in other previous studies. In relation to the current study, it shows that not only a variant in tonal systems but also in the vowel system would yield a change in the lexical meaning of the SFPs, which necessarily influence the encoding of focus in Cantonese. This is true at least in additive and restrictive SFPs. The change in lexical meaning would affect the presuppositional meanings of the SFPs, giving their different positioning in the syntactic projections, as SFP10, C0, or Attitude0, as stated in the case of tim1 ‘add’, zaa3 ‘only’, and ze1 ‘only’. Summing up, a basic difference can be generalized between Cantonese and Mandarin in encoding at least additive focus: while Mandarin appeals more to syntactic constructions and additive adverbs with prosodic stress, Cantonese appeals to additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles, with complications arising from their multiple occurrences and from the repertoire of SFPs. However, more tonal systems in a variant may need to be studied in order to come up with a satisfactory answer to the question of how tones in tonal languages influence the encoding of focus in Chinese.

5.3  Distribution of additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles in Mandarin and Cantonese As shown in Table  5.1 in Section 5.2, Mandarin appeals to (lian)…dou ‘(even)…also’, you ‘again’, ye ‘also’, hai ‘still’, and zai ‘again’. For Cantonese,

180

180  Additives and restrictives while it uses at least the four counterpart adverbs to Mandarin, namely, (i)  dou1 ‘even/​also’, (ii) jau6 ‘again’, (iii) zung6 ‘still’, and (iv) zoi3 ‘again’, Cantonese has at least three items which are not found in Mandarin, namely “gau3…SFPassert” ‘enough…SFPassert’, the verbal suffix -​maai4 ‘also’, and the SFP tim1 ‘add’. The question is, if Cantonese counterparts can be found for Mandarin adverbs, what makes “gau3…SFPassert”, -​maai4 ‘also’, and tim1 different from other additives? To further examine this, I  will compare the three with dou1 ‘also/​even’ and assume that the Mandarin additive adverbs and their Cantonese counterparts are in principle analogous, except for the Mandarin hai ‘still’, with its comparison with Cantonese adverbs further explored in Section 5.3.2, due to its complex semantics. 5.3.1  A comparison among gau3 ‘enough’, dou1 ‘also/​even’, -​maai4 ‘also’, and tim1 ‘add’ Among all the additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles, Chapter 3 has given more detailed analyses on “gau3…SFPassert” ‘enough…SFPassert’, -​maai4 ‘also’, and tim1 ‘add’, representing additive adverbs, a verbal suffix, and an SFP, respectively. Despite the fact that all of them perform the basic function of “addition” and can be considered as falling under the same family, they are distinct from one another, making their independent existence necessary. The question is, that if occurrences of multiple forms of additives are natural in Cantonese, in what ways do these additives divide their labour to contribute to the additivity of the sentence? We will begin by reviewing the contrast among gau3 ‘enough’, dou1 ‘also/​even’, -​maai4 ‘also’, and tim1 ‘add’, followed by other Mandarin and Cantonese additive adverbs. To begin with, when dou1 ‘also/​even’ is used to express additive meaning, both dou1 and gau3 ‘enough’ have their additive meaning interpreted under the Leftness Condition, with their additive meaning satisfied by an addition of the entities denoted by the subject NP or topic NP. The two are distinct in the sense that gau3 needs to be licensed by an assertive SFP, giving “gau3… SFPassert”, which requires the predicate to denote a decrease in quantity/​degree, while dou1 is not required to be licensed by any SFPs. For -​maai4, it selects its additive associate by the Quantification Accessibility Hierarchy, which is more likely to be syntactic selection. Except for the definiteness requirement of its additive associate, -​maai4 imposes no selectional restriction on the predicate. Moreover, both tim1 and gau3 give a scalar presupposition, namely that the asserted point and the contrasting point have to be on a common scale. However, in the case of “gau3…SFPassert”, the SFPassert would assert that the asserted point occupies a lower position on the scale than the contrasting point, hence marking a decrease. In contrast, tim1 ‘add’ presupposes that the asserted point occupies a higher position on the scale than the contrasting point, through the > operation or the + operation, hence marking an increment. The contrast between “gau3…SFPassert” and tim1 is obvious if one refers to the example below.

 181

Additives and restrictives  181 (10) (a) Nei5 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2 ng5  ci3.    you  go-​EXP   Japan   five times   Ngo5 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2 sap6-​ci3 /​??ng5-​ci3/​??saam1-​ci3 tim1. (Cantonese)    I   go-​EXP   Japan  ten-​times/​five-​times/​three-​times TIM   “You have been to Japan for five times and I have been there too for ten times/​??five times/​??three times.” (b) Nei5 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2 ng5 ci3.    you  go-​EXP   Japan  five  times   Ngo5 gau3 heoi3-​gwo3 Jat6bun2??sap6-​ci3 /​?ng5-​ci3/​saam1-​ci3 lok3/​laa1. (Cantonese)   I   GAU  go-​EXP  Japan  ten-​times/​five-​times/​three-​times SFP/​SFP   “You have been to Japan for five times and I have been there too for??ten times/​?five times/​three times.” Both (10a) and (10b) have ng5-​ci3 ‘five-​times’ in the first clause as the contrasting point. The use of tim1 ‘add’ in (10a) requires the number of times marked in the tim1-​sentence to be larger than the contrasting number, hence accepting sap6-​ci3 ‘10-​times’ only. Contrarily, for the use of “gau3…SFPassert” ‘enough…SFPassert’, the SFPassert requires an assertion of a lower number than the contrasting point, hence accepting saam1-​ci3 ‘three-​times’ only. The contrast between (10a) and (10b) therefore shows that while tim1 requires an increment, “gau3…SFPassert” needs a decrease in reading. Despite the above, gau3 ‘enough’ is found to naturally co-​occur with tim1 ‘too’ and -​maai4 ‘also’, with no redundancy in meaning, as shown in (11). (11) (a) Ngo5 gau3 heoi3-​maai4 Jat6bun2 tim1 laa1/​lok3. (Cantonese)    I   also  go-​MAAI  Japan  TIM  SFP/​SFP   Intended: “I, as well (contributed by gau3), have also gone to Japan (contributed by -​maai4), which is unexpected (to both the speaker and the addressee, contributed by tim1) (, but (to others) it is still less unexpected than what have been made by you, (contributed by laa1/​lok3)).” (b) Ngo5 gau3 heoi3-​maai4 Jat6bun2 laa1/​lok3. (Cantonese)   I   also  go-​ MAAI  Japan SFP/​ SFP   Intended: “I, as well (contributed by gau3), have also gone to Japan (contributed by -​maai4) (, but still have done to fewer places than you (contributed by laa1/​lok3)).” Example (11) is an interesting example which shows the sophisticated co-​ occurrence of Cantonese additives. Gau3 ‘enough’ in (11) associates with the subject NP ngo5 ‘I’ to give an additive meaning, and licensed by SFPassert laa1 or lok3, “gau3…SFPassert” requires its predicate to denote a decrease reading.

182

182  Additives and restrictives However, what is interesting is that the occurrence of -​maai4 ‘also’ and tim1 ‘add’ in the predicate should have marked an increment or additive reading, and that “gau3…SFPassert” would be predicted to be incompatible with the predicate in question. Examples (11a) and (11b) would be predicted to be infelicitous, contrary to the fact demonstrated. What will be shown here is that the decrease requirement of “gau3…SFPassert” is in fact satisfied in both sentences. With -​maai4 associated with the DO Jat6bun2 ‘Japan’, heoi3-​maai4-​Jat6bun2 ‘go-​ also-​ Japan’ gives an additive meaning of “having been to one additional place –​Japan”. Taking a VP scope, or vP scope in terms of Erlewine (2017), tim1 would associate with the predicate heoi3-​maai4-​ Jat6bun2 ‘go-​also-​Japan’, hence marking an increment reading of the predicate, either in terms of the number of events performed or the degree of unexpectedness. As an assertive SFP, laa1 or lok3 should be speaker-oriented, hence syntactically natural to occupy at the Attitude0 position. If what tim1 marks is an increase in the number of events performed, it would be taking the normal VP or vP scope. If what tim1 marks is an increase in the degree of unexpectedness, tim1 can be considered to occupy a position of C0 or Attitude0 under Erlewine’s phrasal structure. Even for the latter case with both tim1 and laa1/​lok3 taking a C0 or Attitude0 position, under the assumption that the linearity on the right is the principle governing the scope interpretation of SFPs occurring in multiple forms, laa1/​lok3 would be predicted to take a wider scope than tim1. The well-​ formedness of (11a) would mean that the predicate, though with -​maai4 and tim1, still satisfies the decrease requirement of the SFPassert. What makes “gau3…SFPassert” unique from other additives is the stance presuppositions triggered by the SFPassert, that is, laa1/​lok3 in (11), which serves to license gau3. Under the above scopal assumption, while gau3 ‘enough’ associates with the subject NP, laa1/​lok3 would scope over the predicate heoi3-​maai4-​ Jat6bun2-​tim1 ‘go-​also-​Japan-​too’ in (11a) and heoi3-​maai4-​Jat6bun2 ‘go-​also-​ Japan’ in (11b). As mentioned in Chapter 3 when Lasersohn’s relativist semantics is discussed, contexts are also assumed to provide an individual on whose judgement of the contexts may depend. Adopting this to (11a) first, this would mean that depending on the individuals involved in the exchange, namely the speaker and the addressee, it is possible for two sentences to express contradictory contents, yet for each be true in its context. The stance presupposition of the addressee is defined as follows when concluding the semantics of “gau3…SFPassert”: (12) Stance presupposition of the speaker For c, w: [|Sufficient(ϕ)|](W(c), J(c)) = 1, where ϕ is the proposition asserted by the speaker, namely Ngo5-​heoi3-​maai4-​Jat6bun2-​tim1 “I having also gone to Japan too”, c is a contextual variable, w is a world variable, and judge J is the speaker. Assume that we have the speaker of (11a) taken as the speaker of the exchange. In the context c to the speaker, the ϕ, namely (11a), encodes something that is “sufficient” to be made comparable with the proposition δ denoted in the context, and the content of [|ϕ |] in c maps the world w and judge J, the speaker,

 183

Additives and restrictives  183 of c onto 1. Under the relativist semantics proposed, the addressee, assumed to be the listener or addressee of (11a), on the other hand, can hold a contradictory sentence, “it is not sufficient to make it comparable to the increment degree given by me”, under the scalar presupposition. This can then map the value of (12) to 0 under a different context c’, a different world w’, and a different judge J’ (the addressee), as shown below. (13) Stance presupposition of the addressee For c’, w’: [|Sufficient(ϕ)|](W’(c’), J’(c’)) = 0 where ϕ is the proposition asserted by the addressee Ngo5-​heoi3-​maai4-​Jat6bun2-​tim1 “I having also gone to Japan too”, c’ is a contextual variable, w’ is a world variable, and judge J’ is the addressee. According to the addressee, the stance presupposition given in (12) which exists in the interpretation of “gau3…SFPassert” is false, as shown in (13), as the addressee holds a stance presupposition which marks a higher degree. However, as ngo5-​heoi3-​maai4-​Jat6bun2-​tim1 ‘I go-​also-​Japan-​add’ in (11a) occurs within “gau3…SFPassert laa1/​lok3” construction, it needs to mark a decrease reading, despite the fact that additive particles -​maai4 and tim1 are present. However, as both -​maai4 and tim1 are within the scope of the assertive SFP laa3, to satisfy the stance presupposition of (12), what is asserted then becomes the increment degree of the speaker giving a lower point in the common scale assumed in the context. To show how the above works in (11a), let us put both sentences in actual contexts. Assume that (11a) is uttered under the following scenario. The speaker and the addressee are fresh graduates. Although they would like to enjoy their last long holiday before they start working, they have a limited budget. They took a trip to Beijing together and are arguing about who can use the remaining budget to take more individual trips. The speaker has gone to Japan, while the addressee has gone to three more places, namely Shanghai, Taiwan, and Korea. Example (11a) is then uttered by the speaker, with him/​ her using one place (Japan) to contrast with the three places of the addressee. With the limited budget remaining, the speaker presupposes that in the context c, the ϕ, namely (11a) “s/​he has also gone to Japan”, encodes something that is “sufficient” to be made comparable with the proposition δ denoted in the context c. Under the presence of tim1, we can assume that the scale in the common ground would be the scale of degree of unexpectedness in c.  The addressee has gone three additional places, holding a stance presupposition which marks a higher degree of unexpectedness –​a task which is even more difficult than that of the speaker. In (11a), while -​maai4 still marks an additive reading of marking Japan as an additional place, tim1 marks an increment in the degree of unexpectedness. To satisfy the stance presupposition of (12), the assertion of “gau3…laa1/​lok3” must be interpreted according to [|Sufficient(ϕ)|] and the truth value would depend on the values of c, w, and J.  Under such a case, the content of [|ϕ|], with ϕ being Ngo5-​heoi3-​maai4-​ Jat6bun2-​tim1 “I having also gone to Japan too”, is mapped onto 1, with

184

184  Additives and restrictives the world being w, the judge J being the speaker, and the context being c, as shown in (12). The same content of [|ϕ|], namely Ngo5-​heoi3-​maai4-​Jat6bun2-​ tim1 “I having also gone to Japan too”, would be mapped onto 0, with the world being w’, the judge J’ being the addressee, and the context being c’, as shown in (13). To satisfy the decrease requirement of “gau3…SFPassert”, the increment degree of the speaker would be taken as lower than that of the addressee, with the degree of unexpectedness taken as the common scale. On the other hand, without tim1, the interpretation of (11b) would be less complicated. Assume that (11b) is uttered under the following scenario, and that the speaker of (11b) is also taken as the speaker of the exchange. The speaker and the addressee went to Beijing together before (11b) is uttered. Besides Beijing, the speaker has gone to one more place, namely Japan, while the addressee has gone to three more places, which are Shanghai, Taiwan, and Korea. The speaker and the addressee are then arguing over the number of additional places they have travelled since their trip to Beijing, and (11b) is then uttered. Similar stance presuppositions are assumed for (11b), which is adapted as (12’) and (13’). (12’) Stance presupposition of the speaker For c, w:  [|Sufficient(ϕ)|](W(c), J(c))  =  1, where ϕ is the proposition asserted by the speaker, namely Ngo5-​heoi3-​maai4-​Jat6bun2 “I having also gone to Japan”, c is a contextual variable, w is a world variable, and Judge J is the speaker. (13’) Stance presupposition of the addressee For c’, w’: [|Sufficient(ϕ)|](W’(c’), J’(c’)) = 0, where ϕ is the proposition asserted by the addressee Ngo5-​heoi3-​maai4-​Jat6bun2 “I having also gone to Japan”, c’ is a contextual variable, w’ is a world variable, and Judge J’ is the addressee. Like (11a), -​maai4 ‘also’ gives an additive reading to Japan, and to satisfy the stance presupposition of (12’), the assertion of “gau3…laa1/​lok3” must be interpreted according to [|Sufficient(ϕ)|] and the truth value would depend on the values of c, w, and J. Under such a case, the content of [|ϕ|], with ϕ being Ngo5-​heoi3-​maai4-​Jat6bun2 “I having also gone to Japan”, is mapped onto 1, with the world being w, the judge J being the speaker, and the context being c, as shown in (12’). The same content of [|ϕ|], namely Ngo5-​heoi3-​maai4-​Jat6bun2 “I having also gone to Japan”, would be mapped onto 0, with the world being w’, the judge J’ being the addressee, and the context being c’, as shown in (13’). Unlike (11b), the common scale of (11b) would be (on top of Beijing, to which they have both gone,) the number of places the individuals have travelled. To satisfy the decrease requirement of “gau3…SFPassert”, (11b) needs to give an interpretation that in addition to Beijing, the speaker has gone to Japan, but still not as many as the additional three places that the addressee has gone, with the number of places the individuals have travelled taken as the common scale.

 185

Additives and restrictives  185 The above indicates that in spite of the complicated co-​occurrence of the additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles, the contribution of each additive to (11a) and (11b) can be predicted by their scope order, with their individual semantic requirements satisfied. This demonstrates that when additives co-​ occur in a sentence, sentence meaning is derived by their scope interpretations, which can be gleaned from their linear order. Therefore, on the basis of Table 5.2, (117) in Chapter 4 can be refined as follows. (14) Additivity in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese manifest different morpho-​syntactic configurations for marking additive meaning, described as follows: (i) Mandarin Chinese appeals to grammatical mechanisms and focus markers accompanied by prosodic stress to express additivity, with prosodic stress in a certain way compensating for its lack of post-​ verbal focus particles. (ii) The presence of a particularly rich inventory of focus particles in Cantonese makes the use of prosodic stress optional. Cantonese therefore relies on focus adverbs and post-​ verbal particles, and their scope order, to determine its additive meaning, which can be achieved morpho-​ syntactically through multiple occurrences of additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles, with their scope interpretation determined as (iii). (iii) Scope interpretation of additive adverbs and post-​verbal particles in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese The scope interpretation of additive adverbs and verbal suffixes is determined by the surface word order of additives and their associates, hence the linearity principle, under their individual interpretation conditions. With their surface word in the clause-​ final positions, the scope relation of Cantonese additive SFPs is linearized on the right, positioned as the heads of IP, CP, or AttitudeP (see e.g. Paul 2014, 2015; Erlewine 2017), determined by the semantics of individual SFPs. “Harmonic” word orders are assumed for Cantonese SFPs, meaning they are assumed to be linearized on the right and to project three head-​final projections in clausal spines syntactically. However, as mentioned, the syntax of SFPs, be it in Cantonese and Mandarin, is still subject to debate, and further research on their syntax would be needed to completely resolve such a debate. Additionally, gau3 ‘enough’, dou1 ‘also/​even’, -​maai4 ‘also’, and tim1 ‘too’ can be considered to show the contrasts in Table 5.3. The semantics of “gau3…SFPassert” is interpreted under a twofold semantics. The association of gau3 ‘enough’ with the Leftness Condition governs the additive meaning of gau3, which like other additives, asserts that the prejacent is true, with an existential presupposition of a presupposed set

186

186  Additives and restrictives Table 5.3 A comparison among additives gau3, dou1, -​maai4, and tim1

Licensing Condition The Leftness Condition Scalar presupposition

Scale selection

gau3 ‘enough’

dou1 ‘also/​even’

-​maai4 ‘also’ tim1 ‘too’

licensed by SFPassert +

/​

/​

/​

+

-​

-​

(1) Scalar (2) ≤ Decrease requirement: the predicate needs to denote a decrease in degree or quantity. Flexible, contextually dependent

dou1 ‘also’: Non-​scalar simple addition dou1 ‘even’: scalar addition

Non-​ (1) Scalar scalar (2) > simple Increment addition requirement: the predicate needs to denote an increase in degree or quantity /​ Flexible, contextually dependent

Non-​ scalar dou1: /​ Scalar dou1: the scale of unlikelihood, on a par with the English “even”

triggered. This makes gau3 seemingly analogous to dou1, though the two differ in their scope interpretation. On the other hand, gau3 is obligatorily to be licensed by SFPassert, and the scalar presupposition of the co-​occurring predicate to denote a decrease in degree/​quantity is due to the SFPassert. The presence of the SFPassert would assert that the degree or quantity denoted by the co-​occurring predicate reaches the same point as the maximal point, in contrast to or in comparison with a reference point given in the discourse. The lexical meaning of gau3 being “enough” emphasizes sufficiency. Any point lower than the reference point in the scale would be compatible with the lexical meaning of sufficiency required by gau3, as long as the same type of event or property exists, which is the minimal requirement. The interpretation of “gau3…SFPassert” reveals that in Cantonese, lexical semantics of focus adverbs does play a role in interpretation its semantics, which at least is true in the case of “gau3…SFPassert”. A similar feature is observed in additive SFP tim1 ‘add’, which with its lexical meaning being “add”, marks an increment on its co-​occurring predicate. Unlike “gau3…SFPassert”, tim1 does not need to obligatorily go with any adverbs, with the additive meaning directly coming from tim1. It is widely acknowledged that when the verbal tim1 appears in the sentence-​final position, its lexical meaning of “add” is preserved (see e.g. Zhan 1958, Cheung

 187

Additives and restrictives  187 H.  N. 1972/​2007, Kwok 1984, Law S.  P. 1990, Leung 1992/​2005, Matthews and Yip 1994/​2011, Tang 2015, and see e.g. Luke 1990, Fung 2000, A. Law 2004, Sybesma and Li 2007, Wakefield 2010 for more studies on Cantonese SFPs). If what is said in the case of “gau3…SFPassert” is true, it would also be the lexical meaning of tim1 that gives rise to the increment or additive meaning in the co-​occurring predicate. In fact, the impact of lexical meaning on the interpretation of Cantonese adverbs and post-​ verbal particles is not confined to focus particles, but found in other quantifying post-​verbal particles as well, like the Cantonese universal verbal suffix -​saai3 ‘all’. Kwok B. C. and P. Lee (2015) pointed out that the lexical source of the Cantonese -​saai3, which is used as a universal affixal quantifier (in P. Lee’s (2012) terminology), in fact originated from a verb meaning “completion/​end”. The lexical source of -​saai3 therefore falls under the verb group of “completion/​ end”. If grammaticalization occurs, verbs falling under a group would adopt a poly-​grammaticalization model, which involves three paths: (1) from verb to universal quantifying particle and degree quantifying particle, which is the case of the Cantonese -​saai3; (2) from verb to perfective marker and perfect marker; and (3)  from verb to connective. -​Saai3 is originated from a verb of “completion”, and through grammaticalization become a universal affixal quantifier. When one considers the lexical source of tim1 as the verb “add” and that of gau3 as an adjectival predicate “sufficient”, whether grammaticalization can be accounted for in the use of tim1 as an additive SFP and gau3 as an additive adverb would be an issue for further investigation. At this point, what is clear is that the cases of tim1, gau3, and -​saai3 do demonstrate the role that lexical semantics plays in influencing the meaning of these Cantonese adverbs and particles, and that it is too early to satisfactorily conclude here whether it is grammaticalization to which the rich repertoire of post-​verbal particles in Cantonese can be attributed. This would require more synchronic data. 5.3.2  A comparison with the Mandarin dou ‘even/​also’, ye ‘also’, and hai ‘still’ In Chapter 3, when discussing Mandarin additives, a comparison was made with their Cantonese counterparts (see Section 3.2.2 of Chapter  3). When comparing the Cantonese dou1 ‘also/​even’ with “gau3…SFPassert” ‘enough… SFPassert’, and tim1 ‘add’, we have restricted the use of dou1 to its simplest sense, namely simple addition on par with the Mandarin dou. However, the mapping of the Cantonese dou1 to Mandarin does not represent a one-​to-​one mapping, but rather a mapping to the Mandarin dou ‘even/​also’ and ye ‘also’. Mandarin appeals to both ye ‘also’ and dou ‘even’ to convey additivity, with the former conveying the “also” meaning and the latter in the form of (lian)… dou ‘(even)…also’ giving the “even” meaning. Cantonese appeals only to dou1 to convey both “also” and “even” meanings, with no counterparts to the Mandarin ye. The Cantonese dou1 is polysemous in its uses, demonstrating at

188

188  Additives and restrictives Table 5.4 The meaning of the Cantonese dou1 in comparison with Mandarin adverbs Cantonese

Meaning of dou1

Mandarin

dou1 ‘all’ dou1 ‘even’ dou1 ‘also’ dou1-​hai6 ‘still-​be’ dou1-​waa6 ‘just-​say’

universal quantification “even” “also” emphatic emphatic

dou ‘all’ (lian)…dou ‘(even)…also’ ye ‘also’ hai-​shi ‘still-​be’ jiu ‘just’

least five uses, generalized as performing universal quantification, expressing “even”, “also”, and emphatic meanings. As shown in Section 3.2.2 of Chapter  3, generalizing all five uses of dou1, except for (lin1)…dou1 and the universal quantifier of the Cantonese dou1 ‘all’, the other three uses in Cantonese have separate adverb counterparts in Mandarin, with “also” as ye ‘also’ and the two emphatic uses by hai ‘still’ and jiu ‘just’. The mapping of the Cantonese dou1 with Mandarin adverbs in Table 3.2 of Chapter 3 is given as Table 5.4 above. For the two emphatic uses of dou1, without the presence of dou1, the same assertive or affirmative meaning can be conveyed by Cantonese assertive or affirmative SFPs like gaa3 or ge3, making dou1 optional. The discussion so far has already suggested that Mandarin and Cantonese manifest different morpho-​syntactic configurations to express additivity:  while Mandarin appeals more to focus adverbs accompanied by prosodic stress in additivity, Cantonese relies on its rich inventory of focus adverbs and particles, including verbal suffixes and SPFs and their scope order to determine additive meaning. For hai ‘still’, as mentioned in Chapter  3, it has three uses which are related to the English “still”, “again”, “also”, and “even”, namely (i) temporal use (“still”), (ii) additive focus (“also”/​ ”even”), and (iii) repetition (“again”). For hai ‘also/​even’ which marks the additive focus, be hai stressed or unstressed, Cantonese generally appeals to zung6 ‘even’, giving a meaning on a par with the English “even”. Under such a case, the associate will generally be constituents within the predicate. Lin4…dou1 will be used if the associate is the subject NP. When hai is not stressed, its two uses, namely additive focus and repetition, are the normal non-​scalar additive meaning, and while the additive focus may have its associate with the direct object within the predicate, prosodic stress on the subject is needed when the additive associate is the subject. For the repetition meaning, hai resembles the English “again”, with hai associating with the predicate, giving a reading of the recurrence of the event in question. In other words, when hai is not stressed, it expresses a meaning of “even” or “also”, which is the lexical meaning of the adverb, with Cantonese appealing to zung6 for “even”, giving a scalar reading, or dou1 for “also”, giving the non-​scalar additive meaning.

 189

Additives and restrictives  189 If one relates the additive focus to the concepts of normal increment and metalanguage increment proposed by Liu F. H., Shen and others, the picture will be more complicated. Relevant sentences are presented below. (15) Normal increment Zhe liang che bi na liang che ´hai xiao (duo/​zhishao sanfen zhi-​yi). (Mandarin) this  CL  car COMP that CL  car HAI small (more/​at least one-​third) “This car is even smaller than that car.” (16) In a comparative construction Xiao  Wang bi   LaoZhang  ´hai  gao. (Mandarin) Xiao  Wang COMP Lao Zhang HAI  tall “Xiao Wang is even′ taller than Lao Zhang.” (17) Metalanguage increment ´Xiao-​che hai tong bu  guo ne (, jiu   bie  ti da-​che le). (Mandarin) small-​car HAI go  NEG pass SFP (, then NEG mention big-​car SFP “Even small cars yet cannot pass through. Don’t mention big cars then.” Hai ‘still’ in (15a) will be stressed to give normal increment (to use Shen’s terminology), with comparison made along the dimension of the size of a car. Paris (1988) pointed out that in the construction “x bi y Predicate”, with bi being the comparative marker in Mandarin, with hai, the comparative is accompanied by the presupposition that the property is positively attributed to x. This is the same in the case of (16), where hai will be stressed for conveying a comparative reading. In (16), both X and Y will be understood to be tall, and with prosodic stress falling on hai, the comparative is accompanied by the presupposition that the property is positively attributed to Laozhang, who is presupposed to be in the positive degree, viz. tall. In contrast, hai in (17) is used to mark metalanguage increment, with the hai proposition giving a higher degree of informativeness in contrast with the context proposition, hence with the former entailing the latter. Hai cannot be stressed under such a case, with stress falling on the item made in contrast, namely xiao-​che, and the hai generally occurs with the SFP ne. The three typical examples here show that Mandarin does appeal to prosodic stress to convey distinct additive meanings, which is at least true in the case of hai. Unlike Mandarin, Cantonese appeals to different additive particles to convey the same meaning. For a metalanguage increment, instead of contrasting it with a normal increment by putting the additive particle under stress or not, Cantonese appeals to the normal comparative construction “X-​ bei2-​Y Predicate” or “X Predicate-​gwo3 Y”, as shown in (18a) and (18b), with a normal non-​scalar superiority reading given. If the additive adverb zung6 ‘even’ is added, a scalar reading is triggered, giving a metalanguage increment.

190

190  Additives and restrictives (18) (a) Nei1 gaa3 ce1 bei2  go2 gaa3 ce1 zung6 daai6. (Cantonese)   this  CL  car COMP that CL  car ZUNG big   “This car is even′ bigger than that car.” (b) Nei1 gaa3 ce1  zung6 daai6-​gwo3 go2  gaa3  ce1. (Cantonese)   this CL  car even big-​ (g)er  that CL  car   “This car is even′ bigger than that car.” I will not repeat the discussion here, and readers may refer to Section 3.2.2 of Chapter  3 for the details. In sum, in the case of hai ‘still’, it seems that while Mandarin appeals to additive markers accompanied by prosodic stress to convey different additive focus meanings, Cantonese uses different adverbs or post-​verbal particles to convey the same meanings. It has been tentatively concluded in Chapter  3 that, while Mandarin appeals to additive markers accompanied by prosodic stress to convey different additive focus meanings, Cantonese uses different adverbs or post-​verbal particles to convey the same meanings. This again confirms that the presence of a particularly rich inventory of focus particles in Cantonese has made the use of prosodic stress optional, as Cantonese relies on different additive markers to give different additive focus meanings. Mandarin appeals to focus markers accompanied by prosodic stress in focus structuring, with prosodic stress in a certain way compensating its lack of post-​verbal focus particles. 5.3.3  The division of labour among Mandarin and Cantonese additives Summarizing what has been concluded from the previous discussion, the division of labour among Mandarin and Cantonese additives can roughly be presented in Table 5.5. Table  5.5 is by no means comprehensive, but at least it may be able to predict the interpretation of more complicated co-​occurrence cases discussed previously and we may be able to have a better understanding of the distribution of additives in Mandarin and Cantonese. With no additive SFP or SFP serving a licensing role, readings performed by Mandarin additives are generally simple addition, with scalar addition on a par with the English “even” performed by lian…dou, lian…ye and the stressed hai. Generalizing from Table  5.5, Cantonese appeals to adverbs, verbal suffixes, and SFPs to indicate additivity. Mandarin uses additive adverbs in their stressed or unstressed form, and as unstressed additive adverbs generally take scope over the VP, association with particular constituents within the VP, including subjects, would rely on placing prosodic stress on that constituent, or through syntactic construction to make that constituent in focus. Stressed additive adverbs will have scope over the entire proposition, which according to previous analyses like Liu (2009), serve more like scope particles. In the next section, we will examine the co-​occurrence pattern of restrictives in Cantonese, and together with additives, a more holistic picture will be given of focus particles in Mandarin and Cantonese.

 191

newgenrtpdf

Table 5.5 The division of labour among Mandarin and Cantonese additives Cantonese additives

Adverb jau6 ‘again’

Adverb zoi3 ‘again’

Adverb zung6 ‘even’ Gau3…SFPassert Adverb dou1 ‘enough… SFPassert’ ‘also/​even’

Verbal suffix  -​maai4 ‘also’

“again” meaning

“again” meaning

“even” meaning

“also” meaning “too” meaning, requiring an increment meaning of the predicate

Twofold semantics: (1) “even” (1) additive meaning meaning (2) “also” by gau3 meaning (2) assertive meaning of a decrease reading of the predicate by the SFPassert

SFP tim1 ‘too’

Major strategies in Cantonese: (a) additive adverbs, (b) verbal suffixes, and (3) sentence-​final particles (continued)

192

newgenrtpdf

Table 5.5  (Cont.) Cantonese additives

Adverb jau6 ‘again’

Adverb zoi3 ‘again’

Adverb zung6 ‘even’ Gau3…SFPassert Adverb dou1 ‘enough… SFPassert’ ‘also/​even’

Mandarin Cantonese jau6 Cantonese zoi3 Cantonese zung6 counterparts (1) Unstressed (1) Unstressed (1) syntactic adverb you adverb zai construction (2) Unstressed (2) Unstressed lian…dou or adverb –​hai adverb –​hai lian…ye, (2) adverb –​hai (i) stressed -​hai: performing normal increment, with “even” meaning on the predicate (ii) unstressed –​hai, performing metalangauge increment, with prosodic stress on the subject NP to convey “even” meaning

Cantonese gau3…SFPassert (1) Cantonese gau3 adverb dou (2) SFPassert no correspondence, with no decrease requirement on the predicate

Verbal suffix  -​maai4 ‘also’

Cantonese dou1 Cantonese -​ (1) “even” dou1 maai4 (i) syntactic Unstressed construction adverb lian…dou ye, with (ii) stressed –​hai (i) prosodic (2) “also” dou1 stress on (i) unstressed ye the focus associates, or (ii) syntactic pre-​position of the associate

Major strategies in Mandarin: (a) additive adverbs, (b) prosodic stress, and (3) syntactic constructions

SFP tim1 ‘too’

Cantonese tim1 (1)Simple addition tim1 Unstressed adverb ye, with prosodic stress on focus associate within its c-​commanding domain (VP) Stressed adverb ye, if the entire sentence is taken into the additive scope. (2) Mood tim1 NIL

Adverb jau6 ‘again’

VP

VP

Cantonese additives

Scope

Selection of additive associates

VP

VP

Adverb zoi3 ‘again’

VP

VP

VP

Gau3: Subject NP, TopicP, including governed subject NP, by the governed by Leftness the Leftness Condition Condition of dou1 SFPassert: the focus associate within the predicate

Gau3: VP SFPassert: CP/​ Attitude P

Adverb zung6 ‘even’ Gau3…SFPassert Adverb dou1 ‘enough… SFPassert’ ‘also/​even’

(1) Simple addition tim1: IP (2) Mood tim1: CP/​AttitudeP

SFP tim1 ‘too’

(continued)

NP or VP, (1) Simple determined addition tim1: by IP Quantification (2) Mood tim1: Accessibility CP/​AttitudeP Hierarchy

low VP

Verbal suffix  -​maai4 ‘also’

 193

-​

/​

Scale selection

/​

-​

Simple addition of situations

Simple addition of situations

Speaker stances involved (default reading)

Non-​scalar “again”-​ group

Non-​scalar “again”-​ group

Scalarity

Adverb zoi3 ‘again’

Adverb jau6 ‘again’

Cantonese additives

Table 5.5  (Cont.)

SFPassert, the licenser of gau3 +

≤ in degree or quantity, triggered by the lexical semantics of gau3 ‘enough’

Scalar Non-​scalar

Verbal suffix  -​maai4 ‘also’

-​

/​

-​

ye: “too”-​ Non-​scalar group simple (lian)… addition dou: “even/​ also”-​group simple simple addition of addition of individuals individuals of situations

Inflexible Flexible, /​ ⇒ scale of contextually unlikelihood accommodated on a par with the English “even”

-​

Scalar “even”-​group

Adverb zung6 ‘even’ Gau3…SFPassert Adverb dou1 ‘enough… SFPassert’ ‘also/​even’

Flexible, contextually accommodated

Simple addition tim1: -​ Mood tim1: +

> in degree or quantity, triggered by the lexical semantics of tim1 ‘add’

Scalar: marking an increment

SFP tim1 ‘too’

194

 195

Additives and restrictives  195 Table 5.6 Restrictives in Mandarin and Cantonese and their co-​occurrence patterns Syntactic categories

Mandarin Chinese

Cantonese

Adverbs

(i) cai ‘only’, (ii) jiu ‘only’, and (iii) zhi(-​you/​shi) ‘only(-​have/​be)’

(i) sin1 ‘only then’, (ii) zau6 ‘only’, (iii) zing6(-​hai6) ‘only-​be’, and (iv) zaai1 ‘only/​just’

Verbal suffixes

/​

-​dak1 ‘only’ (as determiner and verbal suffix)

SFPs

/​

7 restrictive SFPs in Cantonese: -​ zaa3, -​ze1,-​aa4, zek1, -​zaa5, -​ zaak1, and -​ze4 (all mean “only”)

Co-​occurrence between and among different syntactic categories

Weak or restricted: Co-​occurrence is generally restricted to biclausal sentences, with cai (not likely for jiu) in the main clause licensing the occurrence of a relevant restrictive subordinator in the antecedent clause. Restrictive subordinators zhi-​you ‘only-​have’/​chufei ‘except for’ with cai in main clause licensing their occurrences [zhi-​you/​chufei S, cai….]

Strong: Co-​occurrence is common and natural in simple sentences, as shown in Table 5.7.

5.4  Co-​occurrence of restrictives in Mandarin and Cantonese and the linearity principle The pattern of additivity demonstrated in Section 5.2 is in alignment with what has been proposed in Chapter 4: while Mandarin relies more on syntactic construction and additive adverbs in stressed and unstressed form to express various additive meanings, Cantonese counts on its adverbs and its rich repertoire of post-​verbal particles. Moreover, Cantonese SFPs like SFPassert and tim1 have no direct corresponding form in Mandarin, and meanings like a decrease reading in the predicate and mood meaning which go with the additive SFPs in Cantonese will be lost in the Mandarin additive adverbs. This is even more obvious in restrictives, which include even more restrictive SFPs, as shown in Table 5.6 above. In what follows, we will examine restrictives to see whether a similar pattern can be observed. We will start with examining the co-​occurrence patterns of restrictive adverbs and particles in Cantonese, which leads to a very complicated scope interpretation.

196

196  Additives and restrictives The case shown in Table 5.7 is a similar pattern as that of additives. With the co-​occurrence of restrictive adverbs and restrictive verbal suffixes and SFPs, the English counterparts are not natural, as shown in the English translation of the Cantonese sentences in (12a) to (15a). When one compares Cantonese with Mandarin restrictives, the only possible or natural co-​ occurrence in Mandarin restrictives is shown in (15b), where restrictive determiners co-​occur with restrictive adverbs. However, the Cantonese sentence in (15a) demonstrates a more complicated co-​occurrence pattern, with restrictive determiners co-​occurring with restrictive adverbs, verbal suffixes, and SFPs, which is not observed in Mandarin. The D-​quantifier dak1 ‘only’ associates with its c-​ commanding DP saam1-​go3-​hok6-​saang1 ‘three-​CL-​ student’, giving an only meaning to “three students”. For the predicate zing6-​hai6-​gaau1-​dak1-​jat1-​fan6-​gung1fo3-​zaa3/​ze1 ‘only-​be-​submit-​DAK-​one-​CL-​assignment-​ZAA/​ZE’, the picture is more complicated. To start off, QAH would determine the verbal suffix -​dak1 to associate with the quantized DO jat1-​fan6-​gung1fo3 ‘one-​CL-​assignment’, giving a non-​scalar neutral restrictive meaning. For zing6-​hai6 ‘only-​be’, with hai6 ‘be’ assumed to take scope over the entire predicate or the VP, zing6 ‘only’ will interpret with the VP through its syntactic adjunction to hai6, meaning that zing6-​hai6 performs restriction through a grammatical mechanism. What is remaining will be the restrictive SFP ze1 ‘only’/​zaa3 ‘only’, with both assumed to take a wider scope than the VP. If it is zaa3, with a scope of IP/​TP, zaa3 will interpret with the entire sentence. This gives the sentence an interpretation of “[onlyzaa3 [[onlydak1-​three students] [onlyzing6hai6-​ submit [onlydak1 one assignment]]]]”, meaning “it is onlyzaa3 that onlydak1 three students onlyzing6hai6 submitted onlydak1 one assignment”. A  restrictive meaning is imposed on each constituent by corresponding restrictives, with an exclusive meaning correspondingly added to the restrictive associate. A  scalar restrictive meaning will be added to saam2-​go-​hok6saang1 ‘three-​ CL-​ student’ three students and jat1-​fan6-​gung1fo3 ‘one-​CL-​assignment’ one assignment, due to the number scale denoted, and a non-​ scalar restrictive meaning will be added to the VP gaau1-​dak1-​jat-​fan6-​gung1fo3 ‘submit-​only-​one-​CL-​assignment’. On the other hand, if the SFP is ze1 ‘only’, like zaa3, the assertion and the presupposition part derived from the prejacent without the SFP would be the same in the case of zaa3 and ze1. (16) The basic semantics of ze1 (a) The part which overlaps with zaa3: Assertion: ~∃ϕ [ϕ∈S ∧ [[ϕ]]>Sp ∧ ϕ =1], where p and ϕ are propositional variables and S is a scale which is a partially ordered set of propositions. Presupposition: [[p]‌] = 1

 197

Table 5.7 Co-​occurrence patterns of restrictives in Cantonese Case (A): Co-​occurrence of restrictive adverbs and restrictive verbal suffixes adverbs + verbal suffixes: [zing6-​hai6 /​zaai1 + verb + dak1 + …] [‘only-​be’ /​’only/​just’ + verb + ‘only’ + …] Examples: (12) (a) Keoi5 zing6-​hai6 gong2-​dak1 saam1-​fan6-​zi1-​ji6. (Cantonese)     s/​he  only-​be  speak-​DAK  two-​third     Intended: “S/​he only covered only two-​third (of the content).”   (b) Ta  zhi  jiang-​le   san-​fan-​zhi-​er. (Mandarin)     s/​ he only speak-​ Perf two-​ third     “S/​he only covered two-​third (of the content).” (13) (a) Keoi5 zaai1 gong2-​dak1 loeng5 tong4.(Cantonese)     s/​he  ZAAI teach-​DAK  two  class     Intended: “S/​he will just be teaching only two sessions.”    (b) Ta  zhi  jiang liang tang ke. (Mandarin)     s/​he  only teach two  CL  class “S/​he will only be teaching two sessions.” Case (B): Co-​occurrence of restrictive adverbs, verbal suffixes and SFPs adverbs + verbal suffixes + SFPs [[zing6-​hai6 /​zaai1 + verb + dak1 + …] + ze1  /​zaa3] [[‘only-​be’ /​’only/​just’ + verb + ‘only’ + …] + ‘only’/​’only’] Examples: (14) (a) Keoi5 zing6-​hai6 maai5-​dak1 loeng5 zoeng1 fei1  zaa3/​ze1. (Cantonese)     s/​he  only-​be  buy-​DAK  two  CL   ticket  ZAA/​ZE     Intended: “S/​he has only bought only two tickets.”   (b) Ta zhi mai-​ le  liang zhang piao. (Mandarin)     s/​he only buy-​PERF two  CL   ticket “S/​he has only bought two tickets.” Case (C): Co-​occurrence of restrictive determiners, adverbs, verbal suffixes, and SFPs Determiner + adverbs + verbal suffixes + SFPs [[dak1 /​zing6-​dak1 + NP + zing6-​hai6/​zaai1 + verb + dak1 + …] + ze1  /​zaa3] [[‘only’/​’only-​have’ + NP + ‘only-​be’/​’only/​just’ + verb + ‘only’ + …] + ‘only’/​’only’]] Examples: (15) (a)  Dak1-​saam1-​go3-​hok6saang1 zing6-​hai6 gaau1-​dak1 jat1 fan6 gung1fo3 zaa3/​ze1. (Cantonese)     DAK-​three-​CL-​person     only-​be  submit-​DAK one CL assignment  ZAA/​ZE Intended: Only three students have only submitted only one assignment.”   (b) Zhi-​you    san  ge  xuesheng zhi jiao-​ le     yi fan gongke. (Mandarin)    only-​have three CL student   only submit-​PERF one CL  assignment “Only three students have only submitted one assignment.”

198

198  Additives and restrictives What is additional to ze1 would be the speaker’s/​addressee’s stance presuppositions, as repeated below. (b) (i) Stance presupposition of the addressee For all c’, w’: [|β|]c’,w’ ∧ Sβ