The category AUX in Mandarin Chinese

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors D'Andrea, John Anthony

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 05/06/2018 10:36:10

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/348346

THE CATEGORY AUX IN MANDARIN CHINESE

byJohn Anthony D 1Andrea

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of theDEPARTMENT OF ORIENTAL STUDIES

In Partial Fulfillment o£ the Requirements For the Degree ofMASTER OF ARTS

In the Graduate CollegeTHE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1 9 7 8

STATMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfill­ment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowl­edgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the inter­ests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED:

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

/THY LI GJj Assistant Professor of

Oriental Studies

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I find it difficult to express briefly my sincerest gratitude to my thesis director, Timothy Light, who originally introduced me to Chinese linguistics, and who continued to encourage and challenge me throughout my graduate study. Professor Light, my mentor and friend, has contributed much in the preparation of this thesis. He has provided many valuable suggestions and constructive criti­cisms in his efforts to make this a better work. I would like to thank those who participated in the Linguistics Seminar in the Spring, 1978, semester for providing me with a more comprehensive understanding of the problems faced by other languages regarding the universal category AUX. I am also indebted to Gene Hsiao, and John Liu who graciously donated their time to check the acceptability or non- acceptability of the examples contained in this work. Special thanks are in order to my wife, Jean, who helped type some of the previous drafts, and others who prayed for me and bore with me during the writing of the manuscript.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageABSTRACT .......... ViCHAPTER

1. . THE AUX P R O B L E M ........... . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Introduction . . 11.2 Features of AUX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 AUX Features and Mandarin.. . . , , » . . . 3

• 1.4 Line of Argument for Mandarin AUX System . 42. MANDARIN AUX SYSTEM .............. 6

2.1 PS Rules and Phrase Marker . . . . . . . . 62.2 Modals as Elements of Mandarin AUX ...... 7

2.2.1 ' Previous Terminology for Modals . . 72.2.2 List of Modal AUX Elements . . . . . 92.2.. 3 Semantic Categories for Modal

. AUX ..Elements . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.2.4 Sentential Position for Mandarin

AUX .............. 122.2.5 S u m m a r y .............. 18

2.3 Modals vs. Elements of Other LexicalCategories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.3.1 Modals vs. Verbs . . . . . . . . . . 212;3.2 Modals vs. Adverbs........ , . . 282.3.3 Modals Distinguished.from .

"Auxiliary Verbs" . , 322.3.4 Summary 35

3, MANDARIN AUX AND THE STATUS OF TENSE AND -ASPECT . . . 37

3.1 Introduction................ 373.2 Tense Not an Element of Mandarin AUX . . . 373.3 Aspect Not an Element of Mandarin AUX . . . 39

3.3.1 The Aspect Markers . . . . . . . . . 403.3.2 Boundary Analysis' for Aspect

Markers 423.3.3 Relationship Between Aspect

Markers and Sentence Particles . . 463.3.4 S u m m a r y .............. 51

iv

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS— ContinuedPage

4. CONCLUSION . . . ; . .. . . . . . . . . , . . 53SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY , . . . . ... . - .......... 55

ABSTRACT

Linguists who have postulated a universal category AUX have sought evidence for an auxiliary category cross­linguist ically. Evidence in this work demonstrates that a category AUX can be posulated for Mandarin Chinese. The Mandarin AUX consists solely of sentential elements, optionally selected, which express modality. The Mandarin modals can be classed into four semantic groupings, and therein establish a linear, hierarchical semantic ordering.

In Chapter 1, the problem of finding a Mandarin AUX. is addressed. Features of an auxiliary category are dis­cussed in relationship to Mandarin Chinese.

In Chapter 2, the Mandarin auxiliary system is dis­cussed in detail. Salient syntactic and semantic properties underlie the distinctions between modals and verbs and between modals and adverbs.

In Chapter 3, the unfitness of tense and aspect as auxiliary elements is reported! Tense does not exist in Chinese; however, time is expressed by adverbs. Comparisons between aspect and sentence particles indicate that aspect is a poor candidate for the Mandarin category AUX.

In Chapter 4, a brief conclusion is offered„ The claim is made that further work on the universal category

vi

viiAUX is necessary to account for the optional selection of the category in Mandarin.

CHAPTER 1

THE AUX PROBLEM

1.1 Introduction In recent years, a group of linguists has been

focusing their attention on the nature, composition, and expression of auxiliary elements in languages. Although there has been work done on the auxiliary in other lan­guages, the majority of analyses of the auxiliary have dealt with English. These analyses are an outgrowth of Chomsky's formal proposal of the category AUX for English in his Syntactic Structures. Currently, after much reanalysis and debate, linguists are divided into two camps: one groupconsiders'auxiliary elements in English to be main verbs, as in Ross (1969) and Pullim and Wilson (1977) while the other group considers English auxiliaries to be a syntatic cate­gory which itself reflects a category in the universal grammar, as in Steele (1975) and Akmajian, Steele, and Wasow (1977). These two camps are basically divided over sentential elements which are verbs and sentential elements which are verb-like. Although confusion between auxiliary elements and verb elements is not unique to English, not all languages confuse these two. As demonstrated in Steele (1975), some Uto-Aztecan languages (and others) have

auxiliary elements that are non-verb-like and are relatively or totally independent of the verb , Mandarin Chinese is not such a language. As is the case with English, in Chinese there is confusion whether certain auxiliary-like elements as well as other elements are verbs or something else. The intention of this paper is to test the validity of some general notions and claims of the AUX for Mandarin. In'the course of the discussion, certain sentential elements will be isolated; identified, and analyzed, demonstrating that a category AUX exists for Mandarin Chinese, but that it is significantly more limited than is the AUX in English,

1.2 Features of AUXThere are certain features of the auxiliary which

are thought by some to be universal in language. Although Chomsky’s auxiliary formula given in (1) deals exclusively

(1) AUX — C (M) (have+en) (be+ing) (be+en)

with English, his formula nonetheless offers revealing in­sights into the general make-up of an auxiliary. The element C is basically a marker for any of three tense mor­phemes while M symbolizes the modality elements in English. The parenthesized elements (have+en), (be+ing), and (be+en), are basically aspectual verbs. One may conclude from the

1, The reader is requested to see Steele's work for a more,indepth study into the relationship between auxiliaries and verbs.

above formula that tense, modality, and aspect play a part in the auxiliary. Steele (1975: sec. 1.2) concurs in her analysis of Chomsky's formula that tense, aspect, and modality comprise the auxiliary. Moreover, she states that these three elements are notions which are sentential,.in scope. Steele (1975: sec. 1.3)"proposes that there are three claims that pertain to this formulation. First, there is a deep structure unit AUX. Second, the AUX and main verb occur in the same clause (and the main verb is not at any point in the derivation subordinated to AUX). Third, the unit AUX has the notional categories: tense,aspect, and modality. It is important to note that not all of the notional categories must be present in an auxiliary but that "at least one notional category will be expressed . in an element which is separate from the verb and which does not subordinate it" (Steele 1975: sec. 2.2). These limiting conditions will be important later on at the end of the discussion on the Mandarin auxiliary.

1.3 AUX Features and Mandarin Chinese verbs are not inflected, so verbs do not

morphologically indicate tense, number, subject, or object agreement, or voice distinctions. These distinctions are realized lexically. Therefore, in Chinese, the notional elements assigned to AUX by Steele are a collection of lexical constituents instead of a collection of

morpholgical ones. Although the lexical collection helps to separate sentential elements from one another, it does not help to identify them. In my research for the Mandarin auxiliary, I have used ’.the notional set of tense, aspect, and modality along with the three claims that accompany them (mentioned above and stated by Steele) as a methodological guideline to investigate the hypothesis that a unit AUX is justifiable for Mandarin. I have isolated a group of sur­face sentential elements which collectively may be regarded as a class separate from the verb and which, possessing a certain set of notional ideas as a group, ; crannot .be regarded as possible elements of -another lexical category. Moreover, the elements of this unit AUX are listable and also demon­strate a linear hierarchy according to semantic considera­tions. For Chinese, I propose that this unit AUX consists solely of modals, one of the notional ideas, which occurs in the same clause as the main verb. I also propose that the AUX is optionally selected.

1.4 Line of Argument for Mandarin,AUX )System

/•. The two proposals stated at the end of section 1.3will be defended by the following line of argument. I will first present a set of phrase structure rules and a phrase marker which reflects my analysis. In Chapter 2, I will present the auxiliary/modal group w’ith its qualities and

characteristics which distinguish these elements from the others, namely verbs and adverbs„ In Chapter 3, I will present arguments showing that aspect and tense do not belong to the auxiliary system in Mandarin. In Chapter 4, I will summarize the defense of my proposals as well as mention the implications of these proposals upon the universal concept of AUX.

CHAPTER 2

MANDARIN AUX SYSTEM

2.1 PS Rules and Phrase Marker In this section the Mandarin auxiliary system will

be presented and justified. Up until now, there has been no analysis of the auxiliary in relation to the Chinese sentence as a whole. This serious gap in Chinese grammar can be done away with by the following phrase structure rules and phrase marker.

S ' -

SAUX VP -

(2) ASP 0 —

C —

(Neg) S (Part)NP (AUX) VP Modals V (ASP)-zhe, -guo, -le +NP -NP

(3)

(Part)(Neg)

(AUX)

V (ASP)

It is important to postulate the higher sentence S' in the phrase structure rules in order to account for

6

various syntactic and semantic phenomena. For example, the higher negative may be used as a sentential negative whereas the sentence particles may carry some illocutionary force beyond the basic meaning of the lower sentence. Another example is the generation of the so-called "past negative" mfei (i/JL). This will become more important in the section on aspect. However, it will be sufficient now to say that the higher sentence S' contains elements which are necessary for the fullest possible extension of a Chinese sentence. Without going too far afield here, these higher elements will be mentioned later on.

2.2 Modals as Elements of Mandarin AUX As noted before, of the three notions tense, aspect,

and modality, only modality comprises the category AUX. Moreover, it is the only notion that has ever been linked to am auxiliary form in Chinese. However, Chinese modals have been rather resistant to analysis. There have been analytic treatments as to their nature and function, but these treat­ments differ greatly in their conclusions. Furthermore, because of a seeming confusion between the modals and verbs and between modals and adverbs, there is even diversity as to the elements which are considered modals.

2.2.1 Previous Terminology for ModalsDespite the different conclusions reached by pre­

vious analyses of these modals, one can say that these

8sentential elements have been distinguished from other formclasses. The distinctions, have been Prague, however, because

/the true issue of modals (that is, that they are elements of a category AUX) has been clouded behind different labelings for modals« Chinese linguistic terminology is replete with different terms which basically describe the same set of elements, The terms modal auxiliaries, auxiliaries, auxiliary verbs, and optative verbs have been used rather freely by linguists in discussions of the modals in Chinese grammar. These terms are used by the linguists mentioned in Section 2.3. Although confusion can be generated by using the aforementioned terms equivocally, the terms them­selves hint at the true characteristics that these elements •possess. For example, the least obvious term, "optative verbs," means that the elements labeled in this way express a mood either of choice or of wishfulness. This definition is basically a subset of the definition of what a modal is. Therefore, even before this.present analysis, modals (no matter what they have been called) have been isolated by virtue of the fact that they have received special labeling. What will be demonstrated throughout the rest of this chapter chapter is that modals are isoltable from other sentence elements.

2.2.2 List of Modal AUX ElementsIt is my claim here that the following list of

modals are the sole elements of the Mandarin Chinese AUX. Ylng (/x5 ) , gai ) , ylnggai yingdang ^ ) ,gaidang ( ^ ) (these modals are all similar to the meaning 'ought to1); bixu f xu ^ ^ 0 • brd^iS-) , d^i ( ) , biyao {'yi , xuyao (/% ) , yao )

(these modals are all similar to the meanings 'must, have to'); ke_ (op ) f keyi (°]~ kX ) , hui ( ^ ) , ndng ( ) ,ndnggou ( 4]^ ) , k&nAng (^T ) f ) (these modalsare all similar to the meanings 'can, possible, able to'); gan (jf C) 'to dare,' xiang (5<§') / xiangyho ( 5 ^ - ), yho- xiang (^- ^1- ) (these three modals all mean 'wish to, want'); gfngyuan (4^ ) 'would rather,' yuhn ), yuhnyi(j , ) (these two modals mean 'to be willing to'); andken ("^ ) 'willing.' This list was obtained by coordinating and analyzing elements identified in dictionaries, Chinese grammar books, and beginning Chinese textbooks. Each of these sources employed some of the special labelings men­tioned above (e.g., auxiliary verbs and modal auxiliaries). The list was also compiled with the aid of more linguistically-oriented works such as Hong (1957), Lu (1964), Chao (1968), and Alleton (1973).

102.2.3 Semantic Categories for Modal AUX Elements

The list just given can be classed into three or four semantic categories. Ylng, gai, yinggai, ylngdang, gaidang may be said to be "duty" modals; whereas bixu, xu, bid^i, d^i, bryao, xuyao, yao may be said to be "necessity" modals.2 Ke , keyi, hui, neng, nenggou, ken eng, and can be seen as "possibility" modals; gan, xiangyao, yao-xiang, yaor glngyuan, yuan y yuanyif and ken can be seen as "inten­tion" modals. Similar groupings may be found in Hong (19 57: 1) and Alleton (1973: 105) but not in the same order no necessarily in the same semantic groupings as given here. However, a closer examination of the modals as given here reveals that there is a linear, hierarchical order in the sequencing of the modals, This means that in modals strings that may occur, ylng, for example, will always come before n6ng, bixu will also come before hui, and Hui will always occur before yuanyi. Neither of these pairs may appear in opposite order. Hence, any modal that may occur must be in the following order: duty, necessity, possibility, and

!2. Alleton (1973: 105) combines the duty and neces­

sity modals into one semantic category, calling this cate­gory "duty" modals. This merging of the two semantic groups is uncalled for because it hinders the discovery of the internal semantic linear hierarchy that modals exhibit. Moreover, the differentiation between duty and necessity, • though slight, is clouded. Duty refers to that which is re­quired by those things or persons which are in a higher position, whereas necessity refers to that which is required by the essentialness or inevitableness of a situation.

11finally, intention. Moreover, even within a semantic grouping, a linear hierarchy may also be observed. For example, although ylng and gai combine to form a modal, ylng always precedes gai and both occur before dang. This may reflect a greater, more general tendency for modals in other languages, but such speculation is beyond the scope of this paper.

Of course, because of semantic restrictions, not all modals occur with each other. This is particularly the case with the ordering of the semantic categories. Hence, in Chinese it does not make sense to express the possibility of an action or state that is of necessity. Yet, modal strings do exist. For example,

(4) yingxu ought-have to ought to have to

(5) huiyao can-want tomay (possibly) want to

(6) huiken can-willing may be willing

(7) hhineng can-canable (inherently) to be able

(physically) to(8) k^yihCii

may-canmay possibly

(9) (ylng)gaiyao ought-have to ought to have to

12(10) (ylng)gai keyi

ought-mayought to be able to

(11) (ylng) gaihtiiken ought-c an-willingought to be possible to be willing to

(12) buhuibuganbuyuanyi NEG-can-NEG-dare-NEG-willing to cannot possibly be afraid to be unwilling to

2.2.4 Sentential Position for Mandarin AUX

The sentential position of these modals strengthens the claim that they are elements of an auxiliary. The modals listed in Section 2.2.2 as the AUX elements occur in sentential second position. For example,

ylnggai xi wo de ylfu.I ought wash I-subordinizer-clothes I ought to wash my clothes.

V \ZNimen yao yong maobi xiezi.You-(pi)) must use brush write-character You (all) must write characters with a brush.Lao Tan hui shuo Faguo hua.Old-Tan able speak France speech.Old Tan can speak French.Ta ytianyi gei ni yl qlan kuai qian.He is willing to give you one-thousand- measure money

He is willing to give you a thousand dollars.

3. These examples were found in Chao (1968: 732). However, one of my informants regarded examples (4)-(8) as unacceptable. My other informant concurred with Chao in the acceptableness of examples (4)-(12).

4. I have purposely not included sentence adverbs nor intensifying adverbs in sentences (13)-(16). Sentence adverbs modify the whole sentence and may occur in varying

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

13Important to the sentence position claim is the fact

that the Mandarin AUX follows the assumptions stated in Steele (1975) . Steele states (1975: sec„ 3.3) that, cross- linguistically, the predominant position for an AUX is sentential second position. However, the position is. largely a correlate of the intersection of two factors.These two factors are word order type and the relative freedom of the word order. Languages with a second position AUX are predominantly either rigid SVO languages such asEnglish, Tera, Gwari, and Thai or SOV languages with rela-

~ 5tively free word order such as Luiseno, Walbiri, and Karok.The two word orders SVO and SOV are Very important"

to us in this present discussion«, Currently, Chinese lin­guists are divided over the issue whether Mandarin is an SVO language or an SOV language. Here, I shall follow Light (in press) that the fundamental word order for Mandarin is Subgect-Verb-Object. "Fundamental word order" refers to the least marked order in a language. Light distinguises this fundamental word order from base word orders which may or may not be marked. Hence he states (in press: 1) that

places throughout the sentence including sentential second position.. Intensifying adverbs may also occur in sen­tential second position. Therefore, in-order not to confuse or otherwise cloud the claim that modals occur in sentential second position, they have been left out.

5. These examples of SVO languages and SOV lan­guages are from Steele (19 75: Section 1.5, Table TV).

14postverbal objects are unmarked for specific semantic meaning by their position alone, whereas . . . preverbal objects are marked for contrastive­ness [footnote left out]. "Contrastiveness" is defined here to mean that the speaker intends the preposing of the object to indicate a contrast between the named object and certain other possible objects.

Examples (13), (15), and (16) as well as theexamples (17)-(19) given here demonstrate that the funda­mental word order SVO is unmarked.

(17) Tamen you tangwan.they have soupbowlThey have a soupbowl.

soupbowls.(18) Ni chi da wan.

You eat large bowlYou eat with the large bowl.

(19) Wo shui xiao chuang.I sleep small bedI'll sleep in the small bed.

The sentences above are rather simple, yet more complex sentences do follow this SVO word order. However,it must be agreed that there is a growing tendency and apreferred usage among native speakers to prepose objects before the verb. One notices in Chinese, then, a high frequency of sentences such as the following.

(20) Women ba zidian maidiao le.We BA dictionary sell-off ASPWe sold the dictionaries (dictionary).

6. Examples (18) and (19) are from Light (in press: 3). However, one of my informants could not accept(18).

(21) Ta ba gafei hewcin le.He ba coffee drink-finish ASP He drank up the coffee._ y/ >/(22) Tangwan tamen you. soupbowl they haveAs for soupbows, they have them.

All the three examples above demonstrate the con­trastiveness mentioned by Light. The first two examples,(20) and (21), demonstrate a special type of contrastive­ness— that of definiteness. With the aid of ba, the object is contrasted as being a particular one in mind of thespeaker (and hopefully the same one in the mind of thehearer) instead of an indefinite one or ones. Example (22), on the other hand, is an example of topicalization, Topic- alization moves the object to the front of the sentence without the use of b£ or other similar sentential elements such as yong in (14).7 Yet, topicalization does express contrastiveness by focusing attention upon the object topicalized as opposed to any other object.

What these contrasting examples demonstrate can be summed up by Light's (in press: 20) Principle of Positional Meaning, "the meaning of nouns and adverbs depends upon their location before or after the main verb." This principle is also important to the discussion of the Mandarin category

7. Sentential elements such as bji and ybng havelong been the subject of much controversy. Some have called them verbs, others have called them coverbs or prepositions. In this thesis, these elements will be referred to as prepositional/coverbal elements.

16AUX, although not in the way originally intended by Light.This principle helps point out the main verb of the sentence.Observe the following two sets of sentences:

Ni' ylnggai ba zidian maidiao. you ought BA dictionary sell-off You ought to sell the dictionary.Tamen blxu^ba nei xie dongxi nahui

Zhujia qu.they must BA that few things take-to Zhu's go They must take those things to the Zhu's.Ta xianzai neng ba bi naqilai. he now able BA pen takerup He is able to pick up the pen now.v _Ni ylnggai ybng kuaizi chifan.

you ought to use chopsticks eat-rice You ought to eat with chopsticks.

Sentences (2 3)-(26) show examples of contrasted, preposed objects before the main verbs. We know that the toerbs mhidiao 1 to sell,' ncthfli. ..qu 'to take to, ' and nd 'to take ' are the main verbs because they are the only verbal elements following these objects. We also know that ylnggai, bixu, and neng are not main verbs because a preposed object before them will produce semantically unsound sentences. There­fore, the preposed objects must occur after the modals.

(27) Tamen bixu gei ta xie xln. they must GEI him write letter They must write a letter to him.

(28) Women ken dao Xia Wai Yi qu. we willing to Hawaii go We're willing to go to Hawaii.

(29) Tamen bu keyi zai chufdng shujiho. they NEG may at kitchen sleep They may not sleep in the kitchen.

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

17Sentences (27)-(29) are examples of locatives or preposi­tional/coverbal phrases before the main verbs. The main verbs are xie 1 to write, 1 and shuijiao 'to sleep.' Bixu, ken, and keyi are not main verbs because, like the proposed object examples, locative and prepositional/coverbal phrases before them will render semantically unsound sentences,These two sets of examples above demonstrate that modals can be isolated from the main verb of a sentence.

More importantly, bcf, yong, gei, dao, zai cannot bereckoned as main verbs. Following Li (1970), what they areare case markers for the noun phrases that follow them.Furthermore, Li states (19 70: 218) that

. . . it was found that verbs and cases correlate,The verbs are said to be central to the Chinese sentence, because they determine the occurrence of certain cases in the sentence, depending on the veb classification; they also determine things like the deletability of case markers. . . .

This statement explains why certain nouns and verbs cannotco-occur in a Chinese sentence. There are selectionalconstraints to consider. Hence, the prepositional/coverbalphrases are linked to the verb and may be considered partof the verb phrase.

Modals cannot be considered part of the verb phrase because modals refer to the subject of the sentence. This is a semantic reason why preposed objects do not come before modals; preposed objects would separate the modal from the

8 1 subject. This implies that there are no selectional con­straints between verb and modal but that, aside from stylistics, modals are constrained by the subject's ability or inability to act or be in a situation or state that can be expressed in a certain mode. Although these constraints may be few, the pragmatic problems created by these pro­posals are beyond the scope of this present paper. What I hope to have shown in this section is that modals do occur in the same clause as a main verb; however, they are a separate entity from them.

2.2.5 SummaryIn summary, it has been shown that modals are an

isolatable, listable set with its own internal semantic linear hierarchy. Modals: follow the general assuption made by Steele that.its sentential second position in a language (such as Chinese) with the fundamental word order SVO is strong evidence- pointing to the conclusion that the category AUX in Mandarin containing these elements is justifiable. Although, not being a main verb, then, the modals will now be tested as to the possibility of being regarded as elements of already existing lexical categories, namely, verbs arid adverbs.

8. This idea is Professor Timothy Light's. He has graciously allowed me to include it in this work.

192.3 Modals vs. Elements of Other

Lexical CategoriesThe analysis here will now move on to demonstrate

that the modals in the Chinese auxiliary are not elements of any other lexical category. As noted previously, modals have been confused as being elements of the lexical cate­gories verbs and adverbs.

Hong (1957) is one of the better treatments on the topic of lexical category for the modals. In his essay,Hong gives an excellent accounting of previous analyses and the conclusions reached by the authors of them. Moreover, Hong cites the fact that the conclusions drawn in the pre­vious analyses categorize modals as being either: (a)verbs, (b) adverbs, or (c) auxiliary verbs, Hong (1957: 8) concludes that modals are verb adjuncts although

the meanings of the two terms listed as "verbs" and "adverbs" are comparatively clear, it is the term "auxiliary verb" itself that has divergent meanings. According td^the system in The New Authors1 National Language Grammar, "auxiliary verbs" can also be reckoned as a kind of verb; however, what auxiliary verbs are after all, whether verbs with an auxiliary g sense or auxiliary verbs, this is not clear (1957: 3),

Hong (19 57: 1) lists twenty-one "optative verbs." Each one can be found in the AUX list in Section 2,2.2. However, Hong does not included gaidang, blyao, bidei, xiang, xiangyao, nor yaoxiang in his list.

9. The quote here was translated from Chinese by me. I have earnestly attempted to present this passage with a translation closest in meaning to the original.

20Chao (1968) lists the modals as a class of transi­

tive verbs differentiatable from other verb classes, though they experience class overlap problems. After giving a "profile" of models, Chao (1968: 735-748) lists forty-three "auxiliary verbs." Because Chao's (1968) works deals with characteristics of spoken Chinese, ying, xu, ke, and yuan are not listed. However, keneng, which may be spoken, is also not listed. On the other hand, Chao includes twenty- two other elements as "auxiliary verbs" which are not found in the modal AUX list in Section 2.2.2. They are: cti( ) 1 love to, ' 1 tend to, 1 leyi (^ig, ) 'to be glad to, 'xihuan X7L ) ' like to, ' gaoxing ("$) 4"% ) ' glad to ; ' xu(7 f ) 1 to be permitted to, ' zhun (^4)’ 'to be permittedto, ' buyong ffl ) 'need not, ' hao yisi (^‘J )' has the cheek to, ' (yh6 ) ' to be afraid to, ' zhfde(%[&. 4^" ) 'worth...-ing,' lande 4^ ) 1 to be too lazyto,' shengde (% ) 1 save the trouble of...-ing,' bdbian( ' F ) 'find it inconvenient to, ' hao ( Tf" ) ' the betterto, ' bupei ("^ ©EL ) 'not fit to, ' buyao ( - ) 'don't,' bie ( 5j»] ) 'don't,' beng ( ) 'don't, (it is not necessary to),' mouh (TfD ) (Cantonese negative imperative), and mdi (VJr: ) ' have not, did not.' Chao also lists xudei (^%_ )'must needs' as a single auxiliary entry, however it would seem better to view this element as a compound modal. Dei may only combine with the adverb bl (>&] ) to form a single

21modal element. These "auxiliary verbs" will be dealt with later on.

Alleton (1973) gives a much briefer analysis of her "modal auxiliary verbs." Although her analysis is shorter, it does provide some information (not included in the other works) which aids in distinguishing modals from verbs.Alleton (1973: 105) lists fifteen "modal auxiliaries: which are found in the spoken language. Hence, she does not in­clude in her list the following modals: ylng, gaidang,brxu, bidei, blyao, xuyao, keT, k^nencf, de, xiang, xiangyao, yaoxiang, yuan, yuanyi, and xu. However, she does include the following two elements as auxiliaries: pei (0)2,) 'to befit to1 and zhide ( 4 ^ - ) 'worth...-ing. 1

Lu (19 64: 59) indirectly sets up a list of ^aux­iliary verbs" by using test frames illustrating how these elements are distinguishable from verbs. Although the two main verbs dasuhn C^T ) 'to plan, to reckon' and xlwang(^7^2 ) 'to wish, long for' do pass Lu's test frames, thetest frames will be brought forth below as an important tool in determining which elements are modals and which are verbs.

2.3.1 Modals vs. VerbsThe four analyses presented in the above section as

well as other analyses in the genre refer to the modals in one way or the other as being verbs or a subset of verbs.In order to demonstrate that modals are not verbs, I will

22submit the models to a definition of what a Chinese verb is. The definition will describe the syntactical framework for the verb, and I will use it as a guide to my analysis.

Chao (1968: 663) states that the Chinese verb "is any word which can be modified by the negative bjb. ('?' ). . . and which can serve as the predicate or the center ofa predicate expression." This definition, although broad and simple, does set up a framework in which all Chinese verbs fit. Also included are Chinese adjectives, which are also reckoned as predicates.

Applying Chao's definition to the modals each one of them does fit in. Some examples are:

(3 0) Wo bh n6ng le.I NEC able ASP I cannot anymore.

(31) Ni bh yrnggSi a!you NEC ought sent. part.You shouldn't!

(32) Wo bu ken le.I NEC willing ASPI'm not willing anymore.

Because the examples above demonstrate the general verb-likecharacteristic of serving as a predicate, it will be good toexplore the possibility that modals are verbs.

Another verb-like characteristic which modals ex­hibit is the ability for them to occur in an affirmative/ negative question form. For example,

(33) Ni keyi bti keyi dao Beijing qu?You can NEC can to Peking go Can you go to Peking?

23(34) Tamen yuanyi bu yuanyi zuo gong?

they willing NEG willing do work Are they willing to do work?

(35) Women yao bu yao chang gtioge?We must NEG must sing country-song Must we sing the national anthem?

It is perhaps Chao's broad definition for verbs and the fact that most (if not all) verbs occur in this affirmative/ negative question form which holds verbs together as a group. This is because many verbs exhibit different patterning according to their ability to (a) adjoin aspect markers, (b) take various types of objects, (c) be modifiedby certain adverbs of degree, (d) compound, and (e) re­duplicate. With these criteria, Chao sets up nine verb sub­categories, one of these being "auxiliaries."

No verb in any of Chao's nine subcategories is ableto occur in all the above environments. Hence, it would beridiculous to rule out an element as a verb because it could not fulfill one or two of them. However, modals exhibitspecialized behavior with regard to verbal critera whichcast serious doubts to the claim that modals are verbs.

2.3.1.1 Special Behavior of Modals. Modals cannotbe reduplicated, yet other verbs also cannot reduplicate; it is only action verbs which may do this. Hence, (36) is correct but (37) is not.

(36) Wo tiantian khnkhn shu.I everyday read-read bookI do a little reading everyday.

24(37) *Wo tiantian nAngn^ng kan shu.

I everyday able-able read book.Modals also cannot adjoin the aspect markers. Althoughthere exist other verbs whick also cannot take aspect, theydiffer from modals according to the objects they may take.One group is the stative verbs, or adjectives, which cannottake an object. The other group consists of the copula shl(;§£.) an^ some of the so-called "classif icatory" verbs whichtake substantives as o b j e c t s . T h e s e two groups of verbscan be united under a general category heading. Theexamples below will be of some help.

(38) Ta h£n dh. he very bigHe is very big.

(39) ShSn bh xiao. mountain NEC smallThe mountain(s) is/are not small.

(40) Wo shl Meiguordn.I be America-person I am an American.

(41) ZhangSan dang bing.ZhangSan 'represent' soldier ZhangSan is a soldier.

(42) LiSi zuo guan.LiSi 1 act as1 official LiSi is an official.

The common point shared by the two groups mentioned above is that they are both equatives of one kind or another. Equatives are special usage verbs and it is

10. The copula shl and classificatory verbs are two distinct subcategories of the nine listed by Chao.

25interesting how models are similar restricted, as are stative verbs (which correspond to English predicate adjec­tives and in Chinese are intransitives) and equationals.This suggests that models are not verbs, possessing only two verb-like qualities and having specialized behavior,

Modals also exhibit their special behavior by the type of bbjects they may take. Although listed as transi­tive verbs by Chao, they may only take verbs or verbal expressions as objects. They may not take substantives as objects. Not only does this fact distinguish modals from the intransitive stative verbs, but also it distinguishes modals from the transitive copula shr and the transitive "classificatory verbs (e.g., z h o, dang). Moreover, these modals fail Chao's general definition of verbs because, al­though they may serve as predicates, they cannot be the center of a predicate expression when other verbs are present. These are striking facts. Modals seem to be rather exceptional "verbs," if they are verbs at all. Furthermore, auxiliary modals may even be taken out of sentences when preceding other predicates and leave the re­mainder of the sentence grammatically correct and semantic­ally sound. For example,

(43) a. Renren dou ylngdang chifan.person-person all ought eat-rice Everyone ought to eat.

b . RSnren dou chifhn.person-person all eat-rice Everyone eats.

26(44) a. Zcimen d5u blxu he shui.

we-all all must drink water We all must drink water.

b. Zcimen dou he shui.we-all all drink water We all drink water.

2.3.1.2 Special Tests for Medals. Previously it was mentioned indirectly that modals may be prefixed by bu (3 ) . Since modals may only have verbs or verbal expressions fol­lowing them, their "object" may also be prefixed by bu. Lu (1964: 59) expands on this point and develops a test for modals. His test frames include the following: V^V,buV„V, and buV„buV. It is a powerful test, but are all verbs that fit into these frames modals? It should not be so, for that would make a modal of any verb that could take a predicate as its object or complement (and there are many such verbs in Chinese). This is especially apparent with the transitive action verbs which may. These two groups are quite differnt and ought not to be confused. However, Lu does include another test which alleviates the problem.This test prefixes the adverb of degree, hen (- S- ) 'very, 1 to the "verbs" in question. Modals may occur with hen, but transitive action verbs may not. Once again we see how modals are an intact, separate, and isolatable set. At this

11. The symbolization of the test frames is from Chao (1968: 731) who cites Lu,

27point in the discussion, it is also fair to say that modals do not fit well into the lexical category of verbs.

Beside failing Chao's general definition of a verb and distinguishing themselves from verbs by virtue of Lu's test frames, there are two other bits of evidence that support the claim that modals are not verbs. As was demon­strated previously, modals are not main verbs because they may be separated from the verb by adverbs or a preposi­tional/coverbal phrase. Alleton (1973: 104) points out that the modal, when prefixed by bu ( 7* ) , cannot be separated from the negative by an adverb or a prepositional/coverbal group, as verbs can. To illustrate this, we have the following:

(4 5) a. Ta zuotian maidiao neizhongshu.he yesterday sell-off that-kind-bookHe sold that kind of book yesterday.

b . Ta ztiotian bumaidiao neizhongshu.he yesterday NEG-sell-dff that-kind-book He didn't sell that kind of book yesterday.

c. Ta zuotian bu bcf neizhongshu maidiao.he yesterday NEC BA that-kind-book sell-off He didn't sell that kind of book yesterday.

(4 6) a. Ta k£yi maidiao neizhongshu.he may sell-off that-kind-book He may sell that kind of book.

b. Ta bu keyi mlidiao neizhongshu.he NEC may sell-off that-kind-bookHe may not sell that kind of book.

c. Ta bu keyi bet neizhongshu maidiao.he NEC may BA that-kind-book sell-offHe may not sell that kind of book.

28*d. Ta bu ba neizhbngshu keyi maidiao.

he NEG BA that-kind-book may sell-off(47) a. Ta bu neng chlwan fan.

he NEG able eat-finish rice He is unable to finish eating.

b . Ta bu neng ba fan chlwan.he NEG able BA rice eat-finish He is unable to finish eating.

*c. Ta bu ba fan neng chlwan.he NEG BA rice able eat-finish

These examples strengthen the claim that modals are notverbs. The more specific syntactic frames in this sectionhave illustrated this fact.

2.3.2 Modals vs. AdverbsPerhaps modals are not verbs at all but are special­

ized adverbs. Adverbs not only possess the quality of being able to be removed from a sentence (and leaving a gram­matically correct and semantically sound sentence) , as modals can, they may also (like modals) be able to be separated from the verb by adverbs and/or prepositional/ coverbal groups. However, the relationship between adverbs and auxiliaries is not a strong one. Although modals may seem to be a type of modifier for verbs (a property of ad­verbs) , modals still exhibit the verb-like quality of being able to stand alone as a word in a sentence and can be used alone to answer a question. Adverbs cannot. For example,

(48) a. Wo keyi bu keyi chOqu?I able NEG able go-out May I go out?

29b. Keyi.

may(You) may.

(4 9) a. Ta hen da ma?he very big sent. part.Is he very big?

*b. Hen. very(?) Very.

(50) a. Wo gan.I dareI dare (to).

*b. Wo geng.I even more (?) I even more.

*c. Wo b&i.I vain I in vain.

Examples (48)-(50) better highlight differences between adverbs and modals. By placing these examples into a larger sentential frame, contrasts between modals and adverbs as well as between adverbs themselves are revealed. Hence,

(51) a. Wo gan chi zaocan.I dare eat early-meal I dare to eat breakfast.

*b. Wo ghng chi zaocan.I even more eat early meal

?c. Wo bai chi zaocan.I in vain eat early-meal.^I eat breakfast in vain.

Geng in example (51)b is an adverb of degree which cannotgenerally modify a verb of action. Although adverbs of

12. My informants were divided over the accepta­bility of example (51)c.

30degree do differ from most adverbs, they are, nonetheless, adverbs and also cannot stand alone as a word in a sentence nor can they answer a question.

There are a couple of exceptions to what has just been said. The exceptions are the adverbs bl (/>& ) and yiding (—• ) . Both may stand alone as words in asentence and may answer a question. If this is true, it would be natural to wonder why these words coudd not be grouped with the modals. Like the modals they cannot be reduplicated nor can they take the aspectual markers. They may be taken out of sentences before verbal expressions in the same manner as the auxiliaries, and moreover, bl )can be grouped with some of the modals, e.g, blxu and blyao. However, they do lack an important quality that modals possess: they cannot occur in the affirmative/negativequestion form. For example,

(52) *Ni blbftbl chifan?you must-NEG-must eat-rice Must you eat?

(53) ?Ta yiding bu yiding chifan?he certainly-NEG-certainly eat-rice (?) Is it certain he eats?

But,(54) Ta yiding chifan bu yiding chifan?

he certainly eat-rice NEG certainly eat-rice (?) Is it certain he eats (or not)?

13. My informants were divided over the accepta­bility of this example.

31Another point in contrast between modals and adverbs

is the fact that some adverbs may be used as imperatives.In no case do models exhibit this behavior. Therefore we have

(55) Kuai!quickHurry!

(56) ?Yikuar!togetherTogetherI

(57) Manmanrde!slow-slow-formativeBe good and slow! ^

but not(58) *Neng!

able(?) Be able!

(59) *Qingyuan!would rather

(60) *Bidei!must 1

Although adverbs and modals share similar character­istics in the way they may be separated from the verb or removed from the sentence, it has been shown here that they contrast in two very important ways. Modals can stand alone as a word in a sentence and, hence, can be used alone to answer a question. Moreover, they may occur in the affirmative/negative question form. These two points

14. These examples are from Chao (1968: 771).However, one of my informants was unsure as to the accepta­bility of example (56).

32distinguish modals from adverbs, especially in regard in which they aid in the predication of a sentence. That modals cannot be used as imperatives is also a point in support of this claim. Hence, adverbs and modals can be seen as distinct lexical categories.

2.3.3 Modals Distinguished from "Auxiliary Verbs"

In Section 2.3 I presented sentential elements con­sidered by Chao and Alleton to be "auxiliary verbs." How­ever, I do not include them in my list of twenty-eight Mandarin AUX elements in Section 2.2.2. The obvious ques­tion is how does one deal with them? It would consume too much time and space to mention each of them and show how each may or may not fit within the criteria for modals. Alleton (1973: 105) mkkes an attempt at classifying these remaining "auxiliaries" by positing another semantic cate­gory called "evaluative modals"; however, I claim that this semantic category is not necessary. The following para­graph explains why.

As mentioned before, modals can never take substan­tives as objects. In fact, even when modals are used as elements of a different grammatical category (e.g., keneng can function as a noun, "possibility"; however, it is rare for modals to be used as anything else but modals), they still cannot take them. Therefore, Chao's listing ai_ ( )1 love to, tend to, 1 xihuan (jg. X5L) ' like to, ' and ga H'A )

33'to like to' cannot be in the same group as modals. More­over, dasuan (^T ^ ) ' to plan, to reckon' and xiwang1=0 ) 'to wish, long for' which are found in Lu' s data may take objects, so they are not modals even though they do pass Lu's test frames. The rest of the items in Chao's list also fail to correspond to the modals in other ways.Simply stated, the remainder of Chao's "auxiliary verbs" either do not fit into Lu's test frames or they cannot be put into the affirmative/negative question form because they themselves are defective forms. This is also true for Alleton's two examples. The "auxiliary verbs" listed in Section 2.3 moreover do not fit into the semantic groupings that the modals express. Although these "auxiliary verbs" may take other verbs as "objects" or "complements," they are hot akin to modals. It is claimed here that they are main verbs which take sentential compleements. For example, examples (61)-(63) come from

(61) Wo xihuan chifan.I like to eat-rice I like to eat.

(62) Wo pa chifan.I afraid to eat-rice I'm afraid to eat (rice) .

(63) Wo dasuan chifan.I plan to eat-rice I plan to eat.

a structure similar to the following:

Wo 0 V

fxihuan <dasuan>(P'a

This view is particularly helpful in regard to imperative sentences. In Chinese, an imperative sentence consists of a second person pronoun (which may remain at the surface level), a main verb (which is the imperative verb), and a complement sentence (with the pronoun deleted). For example,

(65) a. (Nimen) chlfan!you-all eat-rice (You all) eat!

b. (Ni) lai! you come (You) come!

For negative imperative sentences, there is a dif­ferent situation. The complement sentence occurs after the two main verbs, yao (3 -) and ybng ( fQ ) which are negated by the sentence negative bh ( ) . These two main verbsalso take the sentential complement because of their similarity with the other verbs in Chao's list which are not modals. Moreover, these two verbs fuse with the

AUX

35negative to forme bie (5?j ) 'don't...' and beng ( ) 'don't(it is not necessary to)...,' respectively. In Chinese imperative sentences, bie and buyao are used interchange­ably as are beng and buyong. Furthermore, it is claimed that this fusion may only take place when these two verbs are negated by the sentence negative (which negates the whole lower sentence).

2.3.4 SummaryIn summary, I have shown in this section that modals

are elements of a Chinese auxiliary. They represent a group of surface sentential elements which occur in sentential second position, the prime location for an auxiliary. They have been isolated as such, identified and listed. The Chinese auxiliary contains elements which express one of the notional ideas expressed in Steele (1975) and it has been shown that the notional idea of modality in Chinese is arranged in a semantic linear hierarchy.

Moreover, I have shown that modals do not belong to any other lexical category. Failing Chao's general defini­tion for verbs, modals are distinguished from verbs by applying Lu's test frames. As has been shown, modals con­trast with adverbs in the way they aid the predication of a sentence. This fact suggests that they have different syntactic frameworks (not to mention semantic frameworks) and.

3 6and, therefore,, must be in different categories. The category for modals is AUX.

CHAPTER 3

MANDARIN AUX AND THE STATUS OF TENSE AND ASPECT

3.1 Introduction In this section I will present arguments to show

that tense and aspect, although notions mentioned in Steele (1975) to be possible AUX elements, are not elements of the Chinese AUX. Tense will first be discussed and then aspect.

3.2 Tense Not an Element of Mandarin AUXTense and its semantic notions of past, present, and

future basically do not exist as a grammatical distinctionin Chinese. These notions are expressed by sentence ad-verbials:

(6 6) cdngqian wo chi Zhongguo fan. formerly I eat China rice Formerly, I ate Chinese food.

(67) Xianzai wo chi Zhongguo fan. now I eat China riceNow I eat Chinese food.

(68) Jianglcii wo chi Zhongguo fan. in the future I eat China riceIn the future, I will eat Chinese food. ^

Modifying these sentences as a whole (with the meaning that the situation occurs in a specific time unit), these

15. These examples are from Ching and Ching (1977:ix) .

37

38sentence adverbials may also occur after the subject with no change in the meaning. The only possible differentiation in meaning would be that there is a bit more focus on the sentential adverb when the subject occurs as the second constituent of the sentence. These time-related sentence adverbials enjoy a little more freedom in sentence position than most other adverbs which must precede verbs or verbal expressions. However, these sentence adverbials are true adverbs because they do modify a predicate element; the sentence is the predicate.

Sentence adverbials may occur post-verbally, how­ever, following Light's Principle of Positional Meaning adverbs do not retain their meaning. Often, placing pre­verbal adverbials (which deal with punctual time) to a post-verbal position (which deals with durative time) results in semantically improper sentences, For example,

(69) Ta mingtian lai. he tomorrow come He'll come tomorrow.

(7 0) *Ta lai mingtian. he come tomorrow

v ^(71) Ta xiele santlan xin.he write-ASP three-days letter He wrote letters for three days.

(72) *Ta santlan xiele xln.he three-days write-ASP letter

Although these time-related sentence adverbials may occur pre-verbally or post-verbally, the examples (69)-(72) follow Light's principle, as do the rest of the adverbs.

39This fact shows that the lexical counterparts of tense for

/

Chinese, the time-related sentence adverbials, cannot be part of the Chinese auxiliary, being able to exist in other positions in the sentence and, more importantly, being analyzable as adverbs.

3.3 Aspect Not an Element-of Mandarin AUX Aspect in Chinese is different from tense in that it

is a sentential element which is appended right adjacent to verbs. Comrie (1976: 3), basing his definition on Holt (194 3), states that "aspects are different ways of viewing the internal temporal constituency of a situation." This means that aspects usually refer to an action's and/or a situation's inception, completion, duration, and repetition (among other things).

Because aspect markers are appended to verbs, it is my claim that they are not part of the Mandarin AUX but part of the Chinese verb system. One of the claims in Steele (1975) states that the AUX and the main verb must be in the same clause. Although this means the verb cannot be sub­ordinated to, the AUX, I am extending this for Chinese to mean that AUX cannot be subordinate to the main verb in a simplex sentence. If this were not so, AUX would be part of the verb phrase and not a deep structure unit. These points can be illustrated by the following phrase markers.

I will present below the more relevant and important facts about aspects to show their unfitness to be elements of the Mandarin AUX.

3.3.1 The Aspect MarkersIn addition to the 0 aspect marker, Chao (19 68: 24 5-

253) lists seven aspectual verb suffixes. Of these seven, there are three which are important for discussion; the other four are minor, and whether or not they are true aspect markers will not affect the thesis of this paper.The three aspectual markers which will be discussed are 1 zhe' ), ' guo' ( ) , and 1 le1 ( T ) . Much has beenwritten about these three particular aspect markers (al­though the bulk has been concerned with 'le').

Traditionally, zhe has been viewed as an aspect which describes the action's progression. However, it is

41better seen as an aspect of continuation as mentioned in Chang Hsiu (1957: 157) . Examples of zhe are the following:

(74) Qiangshang guazhe yifu hua."1"6 wall-on hang-ASP one-measure painting A picture hangs on the wall.

(75) Ta chizhe fan kanbao.he eat-ASP rice read-newspaper He reads the paper while eating.

(76) Gao Ben Han daizhe yige bicio ne.Karlgren wear-ASP one-measure-watch sent. part. Karlgren is wearing a watch.

Guo is agreed upon to be an aspect which describes anaction's experiential occurrence in the past. For example,

(77) Wo xCieguo yuy&nxue.I study-ASP linguistics.I've studied linguistics.v______________ _(78) Ni dabguo Taiwan ma?you go to-ASP taiwan sent. part.Have you ever been to Taiwan?

(79) Ni zCiotian kanguo womende z6ngt&ng le ma?you yesterday see-ASP our-form. president sp.sp.Did you see our president yesterday?

Of the three, _le has been the least easy to analyze. It has been the subject of quite a few papers, disserta­tions, and heated discussions because le does not seem to have a clean-cut usage. Although it is a verb suffix like the other aspects, it is also a sentence particle as shown in (79) . Some examples of the usages of le_ are supplied below:

(8 0) Wo chile fan.I eat-ASP rice(After) I ate ...

16. Example (74) is from Chang Hsiu (1957: 163),

42(81) Wo chlfan le.

I eat-rice sent. part.I have eaten. OR I ate.

(82) Wo chile fan le.I eat-ASP rice sent. part.I have eaten (in preparation for some other

activity).(8 3) Wo' chile sanwan fan.

I eat-ASP three-bowl riceI ate/have eaten three bowls of rice/food (and

that is the end of my eating) .(84) Wo chile sanwan fan le.

X eat-ASP three-bowl rice sent, part.I ate/have eaten three bows of rice/food (in

preparation for some other activity).Examples (8 0)-(84) demonstrate that both le/s may

occur in the same sentence. The general understanding of le, both traditionally and pedagogic ally, is that le as a verb suffix expresses a perfective aspect while le as a sentence particle is an inchoative aspect. Although its usages in the sentence give different semantic realizationsto the sentences, I maintain that the semantic import ofle remains the same. This fact will be clarified a little later.

3.3.2 Boundary Analysis for Aspect Markers

The aspect markers -zhe, -guo, and -le can be viewed wholly. One perspective is Thompson's (19 68, 1970) enlightening looks at aspect. According to Thompson (19 68: 70), looking at time as discrete units with boundaries ("as beads on a string"), aspect may be explained in relation to

43a boundary as understood by the speaker. We can apply the boundary idea to the aspects -zhe, -guo, and -le. Zhe, then, is not only a continuative aspect marker, but it describes an action that is continuing within a time unit (not necessarily with any boundary in sight). Following Thompson, this may be shown schematically.

For guo, the boundary has already been passed through as shown in (86).

(86)

Le, on the other hand, is different from the other aspects in that the speaker has the time-unit boundary in mind when it is applied. However, because the time unit has two boundaries, either boundary may be referred to, and hence, ambiguities may arise. This ambiguous situation can be shown by (87) and (88).

(85)

(87)

le

-44(88) Ta lai le.

Sentence (88) has two meanings. Because le refers to a time-uhit boundary, if the speaker is referring to time- unit boundary A, the beginning of the time-unit, (88) means"he is coming." If the speaker is referring to time-unit boundary B, the end of the time-unit, (88) means "he came." Hence, ambiguities are removed when placed in a discourse context where the time frame is expressed or at least under­stood between the speaker and hearer.

The boundary analysis becomes important to the topic of the Mandarin auxiliary because this analysis also in­volves two sentence final.particles, le_ and ne. This fact suggests that there may be a relationship between the verb- suffix aspects and the sentence final particles.

In his articles, Thompson also analyzes the sentence final particle ne which, occurring with zhe, reveals that although the action is continuing, the speaker has a boundary in mind. However, the boundary is not necessarily a time-unit boundary. Chang Hsiu (1957s 158) points out that ne refers to a point in time during the action's or situation's progression or continuation. This point in time is usually the speech moment ("now") or a designated time-unit. For example, •...

45(89) Bie shuohua, blngren shuizhe jiao ne.

don't talk, patient sleep-ASP sleep sent. part Don't talk, the patient is sleeping.

(90) Ta zuotian lai de shihou, wo kanzhe shu ne. he yesterday come formative when, I see-ASP

book sent. part.When he came yesterday, I was reading.

(91) W&men mingtian qu zhao ta de shihou, ta yidlngd&ngzhe women ne.

we tomorrow go find he formative when, he certainly wait-ASP we sent. part.

When we find him tomorrow, he'11 be waitingfor us.^7

Schematically, ne can be viewed thusly:

(92) ne

zhe

The sentence particle le may also be analyzed by Thompson's boundary theory. However, we have a situation as shown in (9 3)a when used with the aspect le and (93)bwhen used with'the aspect guo.

le aspectle sent. part.

17. These examples are from Chang Hsiu (1957: 158).

46

3)

*- guo

le sent. part.

Example (84) will be used to clarify (93)a. The situation described in (84) is that the boundary of eating three bowls of rice has been reached. Moreover, the speaker is de­scribing that the whole situation is at the boundary between the time unit in which a boundary of eating three bowls of rice was reached and a new time-unit. A •,similar explanation for the aspect guo and the sentence final particle le can be expressed except that for guo, the boundary of the action was not only reached but passed by and is regarded as a past occurrence. The sentence final particle le again describes that the whole situation is at the boundary between the time unit in which the action was transgressed and the new time unit.

3.3.3 Relationship Between Aspect Markers and Sentence Particles

However, there is an even greater and simpler generality which encompases the aspect markers -zhe, -guo, and -le and the sentence final particles which also demon­strate aspectuality. All aspect markers may be seen as

4718concerning change/no change in the discourse at large.

Therefore, it is not that zhe is a continuative aspectual marker in a time-unit without a sense of an end boundary, but, more importantly, it demonstrates that the situation has not changed, yet is going bn as it has done. Guo in this analysis simply shows that the situation has changed somewhere in the past. The aspect le and the sentence final le much more simply can be stated as being action and/or situational change. Ne expresses that a change is poten­tial.

3.3.3.1 Analysis With Negation. . Whentthe ideas of boundaries and change/no change are linked together, the verb-suffix aspects .nd the sentence final particles model a strong relationship in regards to time-referencing. This fact may also be seen when aspect is analyzed in conjunc­tion with negatives. The general negative bu ) negateswhat immediately follows it. However, according to Chan (1973), the general negative may be generated in two ways; that is, there is a distinction between constituent negation and sentence negation.Sentence negation is an important

18. I am deeply indebted to Professor Timothy Light for pointing this out to me in our conversations concerning this paper. .

19. This idea is from Teng (1973b: 475).

48idea in regard to aspects and its relation to mei ( , the so-called "past negative." Observe the following sentences.

(94) a. Ta ni&nzhe shu (ne) .he read-ASP book sent. part. (ASP)He is reading.

*b. Ta mei nianzhe shu (ne).he NEC read-ASP book sent. part. (ASP)

(95) a. Ta nianguo shu,he read-ASP book He has read (before).

b . Ta mei nianguo shu. he NEC read-ASP bookHe has never read (before),

(96) a. Ta nianshu le.he read-book sent. part. (ASP)He has read.

*b. Ta m£i nianshu le.he NEC read-book sent. part. (ASP)

But,c. Ta m£i nianshu.

he NEC read-book He hasn't read.

The above sentences show that only guo may co-occurin a sentence with mei. However, note that the meaning in(95)b is not the negative for (95)a; it is the negative for

(97) Ta nianguo shu le.He read-ASP book sent. part. (ASP)He has read.

(97) is different from (95)a in the same way that (93)b is different from (8 6) . The addition of -le to the sentence adds the meaning that at the end of the time-unit boundary (which is in the speaker's mind and hopefully the same one that is in the hearer's mind) the action had been

49experienced (which means that a smaller time-unit boundary [within the larger one in reference] was crossed) . Hence, m&i negates the fact that at this particular time-unit boundary the action had been experienced. For English speakers, the word "never" expresses this point.

It seems that le plays an important part in the generation of mAi. This can be better shown by the fol­lowing sentence.

*(98) Ta nianzhe shu le.he read-ASP book sent. part. (ASP)

Zhe and le can never occur together in a sentence becausethey are contraries; zhe means that the situation has notchanged while le_ means the situation has changed. I claimthat it is because le cannot co-occur with zhe ithat m6i alsocannot. Yet, neither Ije can occur in the same sentence withmdi. I maintain here that it is the occurrence of le andthe sentence negative bu that generates m£i.^

3.3.3.2 Further Similarities. That the three aspect markers -zhe, -guo, and -le and the sentence part­icles ne and le have been similarly analyzed, this fact leads one to conclude that there is a relationship between the aspects and the particles. Although aspects are verb- suffixes, they can be related to particles on phonological,

20. It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into the possible reasons for this. The reader is requested to see Teng (1971> 1973a) and Wang (1965) for details con­cerning the generation of mei.

50morphological, and syntactic terms. Chao (1968: 795) states that, "Particles are like suffixes . . . being in theneutral zone. Both particles and suffixes are start-bound, but while suffixes belong to words, particles belong to phrases or sentences. . . . " Morphologically, it must be added that except for compound particles, aspects and particles are basically made up by a simple consonant and a vowel (CV).

Because the Chinese language is changing and because there is a growing tendency to prepose objects in Mandarin, aspects can be found in a sentence final position. This is not to say that they are sentence final on any level but simply that, because of object preposing, aspects, which are appended to the verb in all cases, are frequently found there. The following examples will help illustrate this point.

(99) Ta kuzhe (ne).he cry-ASP sent. part. (ASP)He is crying.

(100) W& ji&jie zOotiSn l&iguo le.I elder sister yesterday come-ASP s.p.(ASP)My elder sister came yesterday.

(101) Ni da le.you big ASP/sent. part.You've grown. OR You're big (now).

(102) Wo ba biao khnctio le.I BA watch look-wrong-ASP I have looked at the watch wrong.

(103) ZhangSan bei LiSl sha le.ZhangShan BEI LiSi kill ASP ZhangShan was killed by LiSi.

51(104) Wo' taitai zai zheli zuozhe.

I Mrs. at here sit-ASPMy wife is sitting here.

In every case, the aspects are right-adjoined to the verb f However, because aspects are occurring more fre­quently in sentence final position and because they are phonologically, morphologically, and syntactically similar to particles, we may look upon aspects as being a type of particles. Aspects can be seen to be the lower level S sentence phrase particles which deal with change. Aspects, then, are perhaps a subset of the higher level S' sentenceparticles which not only have le_ and ne as particles ofchange but also have particles that carry illocutionary force.

3.3.4 SummaryFrom this analysis, aspect does not seem to be a

healthy candidate as an element of the Mandarin auxiliary.Of itself, aspect can be realized as a group of sentential elements which are right-appended to verbs carrying a semantic notion, that of change. However, it has been shown that aspect may be viewed as lower sentence S phrase particles. Hence, being able to be analyzed as elements of another lexical category, aspects are not part of the Mandarin auxiliary system. This fact may be supported by the negative evidence that there has been no analysis of

52Chinese (at least to my...knowledge) in which aspect has been connected with an auxiliary system of any kind„

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

In this thesis, I have tested the general claims and notions identified as characteristics of a universal cate­gory for Mandarin Chinese. The tests have aided in the identification of the elements of the Mandarin auxiliary which follows the stipulations for an auxiliary as set up by Steele (1975). Modals are the sole elements of this auxiliary because of their inherent semantic characteristics as well as their inherent syntactic position in the Chinese sentence. Having been listed and analyzed, modals have been distinguished from verbs and adverbs by semantic and syn­tactic considerations. Hence, the claim that modality com­prises the Mandarin auxiliary is justified.

In regard to the universal theory of AUX, the fact that the Mandarin AUX is only an optional category shows that there are some deficiencies in the universal theory as it stands today. Although Mandarin may select the AUX, it is not necessary to have the AUX in each sentence. The universal theory does not address itself in regards to optional" AUX selection by a language and must be re­analyzed to account for those languages that do.

53 :

54I hope that I have added to the better understanding

of the structure of Modern Mandarin Chinese by analzying the language for its auxiliary. I also submit this thesis as a groundwork for a more sophisticated analysis to be completed in the future.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akmajian, Adrian, and Chisato Kitigawa. In press. "AJustification of the Feature f+AUX] in Japanese." Papers in Japanese Linguistics.

Akmajian, Adrian, Susan Steele, and Thomas Wasow. 1977."The Category AUX in Universal Grammar." Unpub­lished manuscript. University of Arizona.

Allen, Robert L. 1966. The Verb System of Present-Day American English. The Hague: Mouton and Co.

Alleton, Viviane. 1973. Gramma ire dii Chinois [Grammar of Chinese]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Que sais-je?, no. 1519.

Arlotto, Anthony. 1974. "Adverbs and Negation." Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2.2:229-232. .

Chan, Stephen. 1973. Review of Alleton: Les adverbs en Chinois moderne. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1.2:323-333,

Chang Hsiu. 1957. "Han yu dong ci de 'ti' ho 'stii zhi*xi tong" ["On the System of Aspect and Tense of the Chinese Verb"]. Yufa Lunjiv 1:154-174. Peking: Zhong Hua Book Company.

Chao, Yuan Ren. 1968, A Grammaf of Spoken Chinese.Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press;

Ching, Eugene, and Nora Ching, 1977. 201 Chinese Verbs.Woodbury, N. Y.: Baron's Educational Series, Inc.

Chomsky," Noam.. 1957. ; Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton and Co.

Comrie, Bernard. . 1976. Aspect. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

DeFrancis, John. .1963. Beginning Chinese, New Haven, Conn, and London: Yale University Press.

55

56Fenn, Henry, and M. Gardener Tewksberry. 1967. Speak

Mandarin. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Hashimoto, Anne, 1970. "The Imperative in Chinese."

Gengo Kenkyu 56;35-62„Hashimoto, Anne. 1971. "Mandarin Syntactic Structures."

Unicorn 8,1;1-149,Holt, J. 1943. "Studies of Aspect." Acta Jutlandica

15.2.Hong, Hsin Heng. 1957. Neng Yuan Dong Ci, Qu Xiang Dong

Ci, Ban Duan Ci IOptative Verbs, Directionals, Declaratives]. Shanghai: Xin Zhi Shi Book Company.

Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1974. "AnExplanation of Word Order and Word Order Change SVO— - SIV." Foundations of Language 12: 201-214.

Li, Ying-che. 1970. "An Investigation of Case in Chinese Grammar." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan.

Liang, Shih Chiu, ed. 1972. A New Practical Chinese— English Dictionary. Taipei: Far East Book Co.

Light, Timothy. . In press. "Word Order and Word OrderChange in Mandarin Chinese." Journal of Linguis­tics 7... .

Lu, Chih Wei. 1964, Han Yu De Cou Ci Fa [Chinese Grammar]. Peking: Ke Xue Book Company.

Puliim, Geoffrey, and Deidre Wilson. 1977. "Autonomous Syntax and the Analysis of Auxiliaries." Unpub­lished manuscript. University College London.

Ross, John. 1969. "Auxiliaries as Main Verbs." Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, 1. Evanston: Great Expectations Press. .

Rygaloff, Alexis. 1973. Grammaire Elementaire du Chinoise [Elementary Grammar of Chinese]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,

Spanos, George Anthony. 1977. "A Textual, Conversational, and Theoretical Analysis of the Mandarin Particle Le." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Arizona.

Steele, Susan. 197 5. "The Category AUX as a LanguageUniversal." Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.

Tai, James H.-Y. 1973. "Chinese as an SOV Language."Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 659-671.

Shou Hsin. 1971. "Some Remarks on Aspects inMandarin." POLA 2.15.

Shou Hsin. 197 3a. "Negation and Aspects in Chinese Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 1.1:14-37.

Shou Hsin. 1973b. "Scope of Negation." Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 1.3:475-478.

Shou Hsin. 197 5. A Semantic Study of TransitivityRelations in Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press. Linguistics 80.

Thompson, J. Charles. 1968. "Aspects of the Chinese Verb." Linguistics, 38:70-76.

Thompson, J. Charles. 197 0. "Aspects of the Chinese Verb (supplemental notes)." Linguistics, 60:

‘ 63-65.Thompson, Sandra. 1971. "More on the Imperative in

Chinese." Mimeographed. UCLA.Wang, William S.-Y. 1965. "Two Aspect Markers in

Mandarin." Language, 41.3:457-47 0.

Teng,

Teng,

Teng,

Teng,

2 7 4 9