CAS LX 500 Topics in Linguistics: Questions April 9, 2009 Spring 2009 11b: A-not-A questions Looking at A-not-A questions in Mandarin and elsewhere Are A-not-A questions alternative questions or not? (1) ta xi(huan)-bu-xihuan zheben shu? (A-not-A) he li-not-like this book Does he like or not like this book? (2) ta xihuan zheben shu ma? (YNQ) he like this book Q? Does he like this book? (3) ta xihuan zheben shu haishi ta bu xihuan zheben shu? (AltQ) he like this book or he not like this book Does he like this book or doesn t he like this book? (4) ta xihuan zheben shu bu xihuan zheben shu? (VP-not-VP) he like this book not like this book Does he like this book or doesn t [he] like this book? (5) ta xihuan zheben shu bu xihuan? (VP-not-V) he like this book not like Does he like this book or doesn t [he] like [it]? (6) ta xihuan zheben shu bu? (NPQ) he like this book not Does he like this book or not? (7) ta hui-bu-hui tiaowu? (M-not-M) He can-not-can dance Can he dance? (8) ta shi-bu-shi xihuan zheben shu? (B-not-B) he be-not-be like this book Is it the case or not that he like this book? Is this complicated? Mandarin relatively famously allows ellipsis of anything predictable. But there is reason to think that AltQ and A-not-A questions are different. For one thing ellipsis is not usually able to do stuff like elide parts of words 1
(9) a. John bought a speedboat, and then Mary did. b. * John untied the speedboat, and then Mary re (the speedboat). The A-not-A pattern seems to be restricted to a particular place in the sentence (10) ta hui-bu-hui tiaowu? He can-not-can dance Can he dance? (11) *ta hui tiaowu-bu-tiaowu? He can dance-not-dance ( Can he dance? ) And it doesn t seem to be restricted to verbs. Adjectives can do this, or adverbs. (12) zheben shu hao-bu-hao? this book good-not-good Is this book good? (13) ta cong-mei-cong Beijing lai? he from-not-from Beijing come Did he come from Beijing? (14) ta chang-bu-chang lai? he often-not-often come Does he come often? It looks like the thing after the subject/topic is the thing that gets transformed into a-not-a form. Perhaps what we re looking at is something like this: (15) IP qp DP I ni you qp I VP NQ qp [+Q] V DP xihuan like zheben shu this book 2
The idea here is that A-not-A is a kind of reduplicative morpheme, that attaches to the following element something like a prefix or a clitic, and whose pronunciation is parasitic on the thing to which it attaches. (16) a. Un thé à la vanille b. Un muffin au chocolat. (*à le chocolat) (17) a. John did not leave. b. John will not leave. c. John will leave. d. John left. d. John [PAST] leave. e. He leaves. e. He [3SG.PRES] leave. (18) a. John s hat b. The man from Panama on the hill there by the big tree s hat. c. My hat. That is, there s a certain disconnect between the syntactic structure and the actual morphological word structure morphology seems to behave a bit post-syntactic. So, the A-not-A morpheme (NQ) seems to do something like: Grab the first syllable (or the whole word) that follows, and pronounce that, followed by bu (negation). It might seem counterintuitive but there is evidence from other languages that seems to show NQ in the same place but without the reduplicative property: (19) li kam beh lai? (Taiwanese) you Q want come Do you want to come? (20) nong a le va? (Shanghai) you Q come prt Will you come? (21) ni ke you kong? (Early Mandarin) you Q have time Do you have time? There is a hitch, though what is the status of that bu? Is it just coincidence that it sounds like negation? 3
McCawley (1994) makes a relatively amusing (thus memorable) point here: In Huang s treatment of reduplicative questions, the negative element does not appear in the deep structure. For Huang, thus, the bu or mei that appears in a reduplicative question is a fake negation rather than a real negation, and the syntax and semantics of reduplicative questions would not be materially different if the element that the reduplicative rule inserts were not bu or mei but, say, ye also or jiangyou soy sauce. (McCawley 1994:180) The negation actually seems to act like negation, though. Mandarin has two forms that negation can appear in bu and mei and which is chosen depends primarily on something like whether the predicate being negated is a state or not. (22) wo bu chi mugua. I not eat papaya I do not eat papaya. (23) wo mei-you chi mugua. I not-have eat papaya I did not eat papaya. In A-not-A questions, the negation that is inserted is appropriate it s not always bu, but sometimes mei: (24) ta xi(huan)-bu-xihuan neiben shu? he like-not-like that book Does he like that book? (25) ta kan(jian)-mei-kanjian neiben shu? he see-not-see that book Did he see that book? So, it might seem that we should really incorporate the negation into the meaning/structure of the question. That s what McCawley wanted us to do. However, it doesn t seem to be totally necessary first of all, there s the crosslinguistic considerations from before, where there didn t appear to be any trace of negation. In the spirit of morphology after syntax it could as easily be that what the morphology inserts between the copy of the verb and the verb itself is a morpheme like [Neg] which is pronounced however it is pronounced (rather than inserting the phonology [bu], for example). 4
McCawley goes on to observe that gradient judgments in A-not-A questions track those in simple negative declaratives. Although here too I think we can get by with an abstract [Neg] morpheme that isn t in fact underlyingly negative but morphologically inserted it does require taking a certain kind of view on what makes a sentence sound bad, though. (26) a. *neige wenti bu/mei weijue. that problem not unsolved ( That problem isn t unsolved. ) b. *neige wenti weijue be/mei weijue? that problem unsolved not unsolved ( Is that problem unsolved? ) (27) a.??zheiyang zuo bu wuli. thus do not without-reason It isn t unreasonable to do this. b.??zheiyang zuo wu bu wuli? thus do without not without-reason Is it unreasonable to do this? (28) a.?zheiyang zuo bu feifa. thus do not illegal It isn t illegal to do this. b.?zheiyang zuo fei-bu-feifa? thus do il-not-illegal Is it illegal to do this? (29) a. ta bu wuchi. he not without.shame He isn t shameless. b. ni shuo ta wu(chi)-bu-wuchi? you say he without.shame-not-without.shame Do you say he s shameless? One of Huang s (1991) biggest discoveries, and probably the best-known fact about A-not- A questions, is that they seem to be different from hashi AltQs in that A-not-A questions are disallowed in islands. 5
To build up to that conclusion, first observe that it is possible for an A-not-A question to be embedded: (30) [ta qu bu qu Meiguo] bu qingchu he go not go America not clear Whether he will go to America is not clear. (31) ni xiang-zhidao [shei xi-bu-xihuan ni] (ne)? You want-know who li-not-like you Who is the person x such that you wonder whether x likes you or not? Now, consider islands. First, AltQs are perfectly fine in islands. Next, A-not-A questions are not. (32) a. [wo qu Meiguo haishi bu qu Meiguo] bijiao hao? (AltQ) I go America or not go America more good Is it better that I go to America or that I do not go to America? b. [wo qu Meiguo haishi bu qu] bijiao hao? I go America or not go more good Is it better that I go or not go to America? c. [wo qu haishi bu qu Meiguo] bijiao hao? I go or not go America more good Is it better that I go or not go to America? (33) a. ni xihuan [renshi ni haishi bu renshi ni] de ren? (AltQ) you like know you or not know you DE person Do you like people who know you or people who don t know you? b. ni xihuan [renshi haishi bu renshi ni] de ren? you like know or not know you DE person Do you like people who know or don t know you? c. ni xihuan [renshi ni haishi bu renshi] de ren? you like know you or not know DE person Do you like people who know you or don t? 6
(34) *[wo qu bu qu Meiguo] bijiao hao? I go not go America more good ( Is it better that I go to America or not? ) (35) *ni xihuan [ren(shi) bu renshi ni de ren]? you like kn(ow) not know you DE person ( Do you like people who know you or don t know you? ) (36) *ni [yinwei Lisi lai-bu-lai] shengqi ne? you because Lisi come-not come angry Q ( Are you angry or not because Lisi came? ) There is also something like a factive island effect: (37) *ni hen yihan [Lisi xi-bu-xihuan Meiguo]? you very regret Lisi li-not-like America ( Do you regret that Lisi likes or doesn t like America? ) (38) *ni jide [Lisi xi-bu-xihuan Meiguo]? you remember Lisi li-not-like America ( Do you remember that Lisi likes or doesn t like America? ) Huang draws a parallel between the environments where A-not-A is possible and the environments where weishenme why is possible they appear to be subject to the same I can t be in an island constraint. (39) *[women weishenme chuli zhejian shi] bijiao hao? we why handle this matter more appropriate ( What is the reason x such that it is more appropriate [for us to handle this matter for x]? ) (40) *ni bijiao xihuan [[ta weishenme zhu] de cai]? you more like he why cook de dish ( What is the reason x such that you like better [the dishes which he cooks for x]? ) (41) *Lisi hen yihan [ta weishenme cizhi]? Lisi very regret he why resign ( What is the reason x such that Lisi regrets [that he resigned for x]? ) (42) *ni jide [Lisi weishenme cizhi]? you remember Lisi why resign ( What is the reason x such that you remember [that Lisi resigned for x]? ) 7
What do islands suggest? Movement. Specifically, the A-not-A morpheme (NQ) seems to a) be an adjunct like weishenme, and b) have to move to somewhere like [+Q] C. Recall too that in Taiwanese, kam questions are supposed to be analogs to Mandarin A- not-a questions (but with kam as NQ rather than some kind of reduplication). In further support of this, note that kam questions aren t good in Tawainese islands either: (43) li kam u chi:? you Q have money Do you have money? (44) li siu: i kam e lai? you think he Q will come Do you think he will come? (45) *[i kam u lai] kha hou? he Q have come more good ( Is it better that he has come or has not come? ) (46) *li kha ai [kam u chi: e] lang? you more like Q have money REL person ( Do you like the person who has money or doesn t? ) Here s something else that might suggest something like movement, under certain views of what s going on in questions: (47) a. meigeren dou pao ma? everyone all run Q Does everyone run? b. you ren pao ma? someone run Q Does someone run? c. meiyou ren pao ma? no body run Q Does nobody run? 8
(48) a.?meigeren dou pao ba pao? everyone all run-not-run Does everyone run or not? b. *you ren pao bu pao? someone run-not-run ( Does someone run or not? ) c. *mei you ren pao by pao? no body run-not-run ( Does nobody run or not? ) As for why (48a) doesn t sound so bad, it may well be due to the fact that meigeren dou can be interpreted like tamen they a kind of a group, perhaps not really a quantifier. (49) tamen pao bu pao? they run not run Do they run or not? This might look a bit familiar it s like Hoji s facts about Japanese (and tamen is like minna). Here s some more: B-not-B questions can be formed with shi before or after the subject, but if that subject is a quantifier, only before the subject is a possibility. (50) (shi-bu-shi) Zhangsan (shi-bu-shi) pao? be-not-be Zhangsan be-not-be run Is it the case or not that Zhangsan runs? (51) a. shi-bu-shi meigeren dou pao? be-not-be everyone all run Is it the case or not that everyone runs? b. shi-bu-shi you ren pao? be-not-be someone run Is it the case or not that someone runs? c. shi-bu-shi meiyou ren pao? be-not-be no body run Is it the case or not that nobody runs? 9
(52) a. *meigeren dou shi-bu-shi pao? everyone all be-not-be run ( Is it the case that everyone runs? ) b. *you ren shi-bu-shi pao? someone be-not-be run ( Is it the case that someone runs? ) c. *meiyou ren shi-bu-shi pao? no body be-not-be run ( Is it the case that nobody runs? ) Incidentally, it is possible to split meigeren and dou up, and it seems that it is the dou and not the meigeren that is the intervenor here: (53) meigeren shi-bu-shi dou pao? everyone be-not-be all run Is it the case that everyone runs? We might think of this as parallel to Japanese daremo, but with some additional confirmation that it isn t dare but mo that is getting in the way. The parallel with weishenme holds up here too it seems that weishenme is also unhappy following these things. (54) *meiyouren/henshao ren/zuiduo liang-ge ren weishenme cizhi? nobody/few person/at most two-cl person why resign ( What is the reason x such that nobody/few people/at most two people resigned for x? ) (55) meiyouren/henshao ren/zuiduo liang-ge ren gan gen shei dajia? nobody/few person/at most two person dare with who fight Who is the person x such that nobody/few people/at most two people dare(s) to fight with x? (56) *meiyouren/henshao ren/zuiduo liang-ge ren qu-bu-qu? nobody/few person/at most two-cl person go-not-go ( Is nobody/few people/at most two people going? ) So, where does the A-not-A morphology live in the tree? It seemed like something like T, but we can potentially narrow in a little bit more: 10
(57) ta yiding qu ma? (YNQ) he definitely go Q Is he definitely going? (58) *ta yiding qu-bu-qu? (A-not-A) he definitely go-no-go ( Is he definitely going? ) Suppose that the very meaning of yiding is such that it is not happy taking scope outside the [+Q] C. That is: It s sensible to say Is he definitely going? but not Definitely: is he going? It appears that while ma is very high (perhaps it is the [+Q] C), the A-not-A morpheme is lower and results in the nonsensible reading. Note too that it matters where the A-not-A morpheme is with respect to yiding what it can t be is below it. (59) ta shi-bu-shi yiding qu? (B-not-B) he be-not-be definitely go Is he definitely going? There is no such restriction seems for jintian today it s fine in both YNQs and A-not-A questions. (60) ni jintian qu-bu-qu? (A-not-A) you today go-not-go Are you going today? (61) ni jintian qu ma? (YNQ) you today go Q Are you going today? Finally, daodi after-all is kind of the opposite of yiding it is possible in A-not-A questions, but not in YNQs. Suggests: Daodi has to take scope outside of the question. So, it s fine to say: After-all is John going? but not Is John after-all going?. (62) Jinrong daodi qu-bu-qu? (A-not-A) Jinrong after-all go-not-go Is Jinrong going or not?! (63) *Jinrong daodi qu ma? (YNQ) Jinrong after-all go Q ( Is Jinrong going or not?! ) 11
(64) *ta shi-bu-shi daodi qu? (B-not-B) He be-not-be after-all go ( Is he really going?! ) (65) ta daodi shi-bu-shi qu? (B-not-B) He after-all be-not-be go Is he really going?! So, it seems that the position of NQ is important for the scope of the question something that is outside NQ is also going to be outside the scope of the question, something that is inside NQ will be inside the scope of the question. And everything is basically in the scope of ma, assuming ma is basically C. Daodi must find itself outside, and so can t be anywhere in a ma question, but can be outside NQ. Yiding must find itself inside, and so is fine in a ma question, but must be inside NQ. And jintian doesn t care where it is with respect to the question: Today, is John going? or Is John going today?. There s a danger, though. Singapore Teochew seems to have both A-not-A questions and kam-type questions. Here s an example that actually has both. Cole & Lee (1997) show that A-not-A questions are unconstrained, but ka can t appear inside movement islands. (66) Ah Meng ka su m suka ji bun zi? (ST) Ah Meng Q li- not like this CL book Does Ah Meng like this book? Conclusion: It s the ka that is like Mandarin A-not-A questions, not the A-not-A form. Moral: Not everything that looks like an A-not-A question is parallel to the Mandarin form. Rather, ST A-not-A forms seem to be more like Mandarin haishi questions. Connecting with our discussion in the previous class, A-not-A questions are only possible in unbiased contexts, where either answer is possible. Given that I don t want to make up data, I can t provide the infelicitous examples, but the presumption is that the only possibilities are those listed: 12
(67) Context: After spending an evening at the cinema, a friend and I are hungry and are driving by a restaurant called Tabula Rasa. I ask my friend: a. ni lai-mei-lai guo Tabula Rasa? you come-not-come asp Tabula Rasa Have you been to the Tabula Rasa before? b. ni lai guo Tabula Rasa ma? you come asp Tabula Rasa Q Have you been to the Tabula Rasa before? (68) Context: I invite a friend to Tabula Rasa, which I have recently discovered. As we enter the restaurant, a waiter I don t know breaks into a smile and waves. I ask my friend: a. ni shi-bu-shi lai guo Tabula Rasa? you be-not-be come asp Tabula Rasa Have you been to the Tabula Rasa before? b. ni LAI guo Tabula Rasa ma? you come asp Tabula Rasa Q Have you been to Tabula Rasa before? Cole, Peter, and Cher Leng Lee (1997). Locality constraints on yes/no question sin Singapore Teochew. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6:189 211. Huang, C.-T. James (1991). Modularity and Chinese A-not-A Questions. In Carol Georgopolous and Robert Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 305 322. McCawley, James (1994). Remarks on the syntax of Mandarin yes-no questions. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3:179 194. 13