Download Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives Joan Chen-Main

Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
Joan Chen-Main
[email protected]
0. INTRODUCTION
This paper aims to show that the constructions which native speaker
intuition identify as imperatives share a set of characteristics that distinguishes
them from Mandarin declaratives and interrogatives. This goal is motivated by the
larger question: What exactly does it mean to be an imperative in Mandarin?
Ramsey (1987) suggests that Mandarin has four, maybe five, classes of sentences:
statements, questions, commands, exclamations, and perhaps vocatives.
Intuitively, we would like to associate the commands with the sentence type
imperative. However, from examples in English of declaratives and questions
that can be used with the illocutionary force of an order, we know that this
criterion is generally not sufficient for identifying an imperative.
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
I wish you would close the door.
Close the door!
Won’t you sit down?
Please sit down!
Instead of using illocutionary force as the means to classify sentences,
Sadock and Zwicky (1985) suggest looking at pairings of syntactic forms or
structures with the illocutionary force they typically give rise to. They call such
pairings of a particular grammatical form with a conventional conversational use,
or force, a sentence (or clause) type. We will not fully address the question of
Chen-Main
what grammatical properties conventionally give rise to the force of an order in
Mandarin. Rather, we will address a smaller and more preliminary question,
whether the constructions that fall in Ramsey’s class of commands share a set of
characteristics.
The expectation is that if the commands are indeed all
imperatives, then this intuition should be confirmed by a set of shared
characteristics.
I am inclined towards this strategy, because the means available in other
languages for verifying a sentence’s status as an imperative are not available in
Mandarin. In many languages, imperatives may be identified via forms which are
particular to imperatives. For example, in Korean, the sentence final particle e–la
marks a clause as an imperative (Pak in prep).
In Romance languages,
imperatives can be identified by the presence of particular verbal forms. In fact,
the morphology even allows for a distinction between true imperatives, verbal
forms that are unique to imperatives, and suppletive imperatives, verbal forms that
are used in the imperative but are morphologically identical to a form used for the
same person in another paradigm (Zanuttini 1997).
Although we cannot use verb form as a diagnostic in Mandarin, we shall
see below that there is at least one form that is unique to imperatives, the negative
marker bie2. We will also see that commands formed with the sentence final
advisative particle ba cannot have an alternate reading as asserting or asking. I
will first compare characteristics of commands formed with bie2 with those of
commands formed with ba. I will then compare the set of shared characteristics
to the characteristics of the commands formed with the other strategies.
Fortunately, imperatives in other languages typically have distinguishing
characteristics in addition to the presence of a particular form. Our investigation
will be guided by these non-morphological characteristics. First, subjects in
imperatives often behave differently than subjects in declaratives or
interrogatives. Subjects of imperatives are often optional in languages where
2
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
subjects usually are obligatory, such as in English. There are also some
restrictions on the interpretation of the subject. For example, in English,
Beukema and Coopmans (1989) suggest that imperative subjects are either the
pronoun you or quantificational. While Potsdam (1996) argues that the range of
subjects in English is actually broader, he also posits a restriction on subjects
based on discourse roles and extra-linguistic information. Second, imperatives
typically cannot be embedded. Korean appears to be an exception (Pak in prep).
Third, imperatives have been taken to lack tense. For example, based on Davies
(1986), Potsdam (1996) uses the lack of tense inflection as a core criterion for
identifying imperatives in English.
Fourth, in many languages, negative
imperatives have special characteristics. For example, in Italian, non cannot
appear with verbal forms which are unique to imperatives (Zanuttini 1997). In
English, don’t is required with be and have in negative imperatives, even though
they usually do not require do-support (Henry 1995).
After an introduction to ways to form commands in section 1, sections 2
through 7 will be spent showing that although the strategies for forming
commands are diverse, the sentences they give rise to all behave similarly. Based
on this observation and on the native speaker intuition that these sentences all
carry the force of an order, we can reasonably assume that these sentences belong
to one class rather than multiple classes. We can also assume that the label
imperatives is an appropriate one for this class and that the shared properties
provide a characterization of imperatives in Mandarin. The main part of the paper
is summarized in section 8. Once we see what imperatives have in common, new
questions are raised.
In the two sections following the summary, I will take a
cursory look at two questions: First, how compatible are different theories of
sentential force with the Mandarin data? And second, what is bie2? Full answers
to these questions are left for the future.
3
Chen-Main
1. WAYS TO FORM COMMANDS
Ramsey (1987) gives five strategies for forming a command1.
Strategy 1: Use a verb form or a predicate alone, with or without a second person
pronoun.
2.
Zhan4 qi3 lai2!
stand rise come
‘Stand up!’
Strategy 2: Add sentence particle ba. Commands formed with ba are milder than
commands formed by the first strategy. Using ba has the effect of making the
clause a request/suggestion.
3.
Chi1 fan4, ba.
eat dinnerba
‘You eat dinner’ OR ‘Let’s eat dinner’
Strategy 3: Add polite verbs e.g. qing3 or ma2fan3 or lao2jia4, which,
unsurprisingly, conveys a polite command/request.
4.
Qing3 zuo4 yi1 huir3
invite sit one moment
‘Please sit down for a moment.’
1
I note that verses from the Bible that have been translated as imperatives in English, such as
various proverbs, often use another strategy not listed here: Use a modal. I have not included
them here because i) I do not know if the original Hebrew uses an imperative form ii) I am unsure
whether these verses carry imperative or declarative force, especially because some verses using
the same modals have been translated as what could be considered declaratives in English (e.g.
“You shall have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:3, NIV) and iii) The register used in religious
text is unlikely to be the same as the register described by Ramsey (1987).
4
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
Strategy 4: Use bu2yao4 in a negative command.2
5.
Bu2yao4 dong4!
buyao
move
‘Do not move!’ / ‘Stop moving!’
Strategy 5: Use bie2 in a negative command. Bie2 commands are slightly more
polite than those formed with bu2yao4.
6.
Bie2 dong4!
bie move
‘Don't move!’
In section 2, I first show that bie2 is unique to imperatives. In section 3, I
argue that there is an advisative b a that is unique to imperatives and
distinguishable from tenuous ba. In section 4, I identify characteristics that are
common to both bie2 and ba commands. In section 5, I compare commands
formed using bu2yao4 with those formed with bie2. Finally, in sections 6 and 7, I
examine which characteristics are also shared by commands formed with polite
verbs and with verb forms and predicates.
2. BIE2 AS A FORM SPECIFIC TO IMPERATIVES
In this section, I report that root clauses formed with bie2 are incompatible
with assertive readings. Also, I will show that bie2 is not compatible with any of
the question formation strategies. This would be expected if bie2 is a form
2
While the citation tone for the first syllable of bu2yao4 is actually a fourth tone, bu4 is subject to
a tone sandhi alternation that results in the pronunciation bu2yao4. (See Chen 2000:22.) I have
chosen to represent the post-sandhi pronunciation. This bu2 in bu2yao4 and the non-perfective
negative marker bu4 are written with the same character.
5
Chen-Main
specific to imperatives. In contrast, this would be odd if bie2 clauses could be
declaratives or interrogatives.
Grammatical bie2 root clauses carry imperative force, but cannot be used
for asserting or asking3:
7.
Ni2 bie2 zhan4 zai4 na4 li3.
you bie stand at there
‘Don’t stand there.’
* ‘You don’t stand there.’
* ‘You don’t/aren’t allowed to stand there?’
Mandarin has three ways to form interrogatives, adding a sentence final
ma, using a wh-word, or using an A-not-A pattern. We see below that bie2 is
incompatible with all three.
8.
* Ni3 bie2 dong4, ma?
you bie move Q-particle
(intended meaning?: ‘You don’t move?’)
9.
* Bie2 ba3 shu1 ge3 shui2?
bie ba book give who
(intended meaning: ‘Who shouldn’t I/you give the book to?’)
10.
* Bie2-bu4-bie2 zai4 chuang2 shang4 tiao4?
bie-NEG-bie at bed
on
jump
(intended meaning?: ‘Shouldn’t/Couldn’t I/you jump on the bed?’)
3
Echo-questions using bie2 are an exception, but I assume that such sentences are not genuine
questions. For example, the question posed by the child in (i) cannot be used to initiate a
conversation by a child who is ready to go outside to play and wants to check with his mom where
he is not allowed to go.
(i)
Mom: Ni3 bie2 qu4 tu2shu1guan3!
you bie go library
‘Don’t you go to the library!’
Child: Wo3 bie2 qu4 NA2LI3?!
I
bie go WHERE
‘I don’t go WHERE?!’
6
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
11.
* Bie2 zai4 chuang2 shang4 tiao4-bu4-tiao4?
bie at bed
on
jump-NEG-jump
(intended meaning?: ‘Shouldn’t/Couldn’t I/you jump on the bed?’)
I conclude that bie2 is specific to imperatives. I will refer to commands
formed with this strategy as bie2 commands, bie2 imperatives, or bie2 clauses.
3. ADVISATIVE BA AS A FORM SPECIFIC TO IMPERATIVES
Mandarin employs two sentence final particles which are both pronounced
ba. Although they have come to be written with the same character, Chao
(1968:81, 807) distinguishes the two bas based on their different historical origins
and functions. They may be further distinguished via intonation. Chao calls the
ba used to form commands the advisative particle and reports it as a reduction of
the verb ba4 ‘finish.’ 4 He reports the other ba as a fusion of the non-perfective
negative marker bu4 and the exclamation a1. This second ba is used for forming
tentative statements. Examples (12) and (13) provide evidence that there are
indeed two bas.
From (3), we have indication that advisative ba exists. We know that
‘know’ is an awkward predicate for imperatives. Thus, if only advisative ba
existed, zhi1dao4 ‘know’ and ba should not co-occur. However, (12) shows that
they may in fact co-occur. Furthermore, (12) has a reading as a tentative
statement, but an alternative reading as an imperative is not available.
12.
Ni3
zhi1dao4
you know
ba
‘You know, don’t you?’
* ‘Know!’
ba?
4
According to Chao (1968), the reduced form of ba4 ‘finish’ can also be used to indicate a pause
with connotation of a dilemma, but in this usage, it is not a sentence final particle.
7
Chen-Main
Symmetrically, we also find that a clause with ba, such as (13), can carry
imperative force while disallowing a tentative statement reading. Furthermore,
(13) cannot have a reading as a clear cut assertion or be used for asking. Such a
pattern suggests that the ba in (12) is of one type while the ba in (13) is of another
type.
13.
Kuai4 dian3 zou3,ba.
quick bit
go ba
‘(We/you) better hurry up and go.’
(Chao 1968:807)
* ‘We/you are hurrying up and going, aren’t we/you?’
* ‘We/you are hurrying up and going.’
* ‘Are we hurrying up and going?’
Advisative ba cannot appear in interrogatives. As we observed with bie2,
there is an incompatibility whether we try to add a sentence final ma, use a whword, or use an A-not-A pattern.
14.
* Ni3 chi1 fan4, ba, ma?
you eat dinner ba Q-particle
(intended meaning?: ‘You eat dinner?’)
15.
* Ba3 shu1 ge3 shui2, ba?
ba book give who ba
(intended meaning: ‘Who shouldn’t I/you give the book to?’)
16.
* Zai4 chuang2 shang4 tiao4-bu4-tiao4, ba?
at bed
on
jump-NEG-jump ba
(intended meaning?: ‘Shouldn’t/Couldn’t I/you jump on the bed?’)
I conclude that advisative ba is specific to imperatives. I will refer to
commands formed with this strategy as ba commands, ba imperatives, or ba
clauses.5
5
This sentence final particle ba should not be confused with the verb-like ba3 used in ba3constructions, a construction related to double object constructions.
8
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
4. A PROFILE OF MANDARIN IMPERATIVES BASED ON PROPERTIES OF BIE2 AND
BA COMMANDS
In this section, I compile a profile of Mandarin imperatives by examining
the properties shared by bie2 and ba commands. Since I have argued that both
bie2 and ba commands are imperatives, their shared characteristics must be either
a superset of general characteristics of Mandarin imperatives or, in the best case,
the exact set of general characteristics of Mandarin imperatives. That is, their
shared characteristics should provide either sufficient conditions or necessary and
sufficient conditions for characterizing a Mandarin imperative.
Their shared
characteristics cannot be a subset of necessary conditions. I use properties of
imperatives in other languages as my starting point.
4.1 Atypical Subjects
Subjects in imperatives often differ from subjects in other clauses with
respect to optionality and restriction on interpretation. Crosslinguistically,
imperatives do not require an overt subject (Sadock and Zwicky 1985, Platzack
and Rosengren 1994). However, it has been argued that imperatives which appear
subjectless actually do have covert subjects (Beukema and Coopmans 1989),
though these subjects are not necessarily the same as covert subjects in
declaratives and interrogatives (Platzack and Rosengren 1994). Sadock and
Zwicky (1985) note, however, that whether or not a language allows covert
subjects in non-imperatives does not seem to be related to the presence of
subjectless imperatives in that language.
This additional optionality is perhaps tied to the posited restriction on
imperative subjects, which, if valid, would aid in providing the information
needed to identify the subject. Platzack and Rosengren (1994) claim that one
9
Chen-Main
universal difference between imperative and finite clauses is that even when a
language allows a subject-like pronoun to be used optionally, this pronoun
behaves differently than the subjects in ordinary finite clauses. Among the
examples they give to argue their point is the observation that in Belfast English,
the pronouns in imperatives may appear in a position where subjects of a
declarative may not.
(e.g. “Quickly run you home!” is well-formed, but
*“Quickly ran you home” is not.) Beukema and Coopmans (1989) characterize
imperative subjects as either the pronoun you or quantificational. Their restriction
is in line with the general notion that the subject of imperatives stands in some
sort of relationship with the set of addressees. For example, Downing (1969)
characterizes imperative subjects as being required to stand in a subset relation to
the set of addressees. In contrast, Potsdam (1996) argues that, in English, given
an appropriate context, any noun phrase that can be a subject in a non-imperative
may also be an imperative subjects. However, although Potsdam does not believe
restrictions on the subject are built into the syntax, he still must propose some
restriction on the imperative subject. Specifically, the restriction is derived from
discourse roles and world knowledge: the addressee must be in a control
relationship over the referent of the subject.
We will see below that, like imperatives of other languages, Mandarin
imperatives allow optional subjects and exhibit restrictions on the imperative
subject. The data in this section, 4.1, and the next, 4.2, indicate that Potsdam’s’
characterization of the restriction on imperative subjects in English is also a good
characterization of the restriction on imperative subjects in Mandarin.
4.1.1 Subjects of Bie2 Commands
Let us first examine the subjects of bie2 commands. First, we see that
when there is no overt subject, the subject can only be interpreted as second
10
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
person or a universal quantifier whose domain is the set of addressees. The
subject cannot be interpreted as first person, non-universal quantifiers, or nonquantificational third person.
17.
Bie2 chuan1 mao2yi1!
bie wear sweater
‘You, don’t wear a sweater!’
‘Everyone, don’t wear sweaters!’
* ‘I/we/he/they, don’t wear a sweater!’
Second, when there is an overt subject, we see that quantificational
subjects and second person subjects are acceptable.
18.
Da4ja1
bie2 wang4-le zhong1fan4!
Everyone bie forget-le middle dinner
‘Everyone don’t have forgotten your lunch!’
19.
Ni3/Ni3men2 bie2 qu4 shang4xue3!
you/you(pl
bie go attend
school
‘Don’t you(sing)/you(pl) go to school!’
It may at first seem somewhat surprising that overt first person plural
subjects are acceptable even though first person singular subjects are not.
20.
* Wo3 bie2 zou3 zai4 zhe4 bian1!
I
bie walk at this side
(intended meaning?: ‘Self, don’t walk on this side.’)
21.
Wo3men2 bie2 zou3 zai4 zhe4 bian1!
we
bie walk at this side
‘Let’s not walk on this side!’
In (21), the subject is the addressee and the speaker, a superset of the
addressee. I would like to refer to sentences with subjects that correspond to the
addressee and speaker as exhortatives and I will consider exhortatives as a sub-
11
Chen-Main
type of imperatives. This is still consistent with the notion of a subject-addressee
relationship.
Non-quantificational third person subjects are not uniformly acceptable.
Generally, third person subjects require more context than first or second person
subjects to be judged acceptable. That is, although third person subjects are
allowed, they are somehow less prototypical. The contrastive case in (23) is an
example of a context which allows non quantification third person subjects. (23)
would be acceptable in a situation where both sisters are ill to different degrees
and a parent makes the decision that one is well enough to attend school while the
other should stay home.
22.
* Ta1 bie2 qu4 shang4xue3!
he/shebie go attend school
(intended meaning: ‘Him/Her, don’t go to school!’)
23.
Jie2jie3 qu4 shang4xue3, mei4mei bie2 qu4!
Big sister go attend school little sister bie go
‘Big sister go to school, little sister don’t go.’
Presumably, the addressees in (23) may be either each sister in turn or
another caretaker of the sisters.
This latter possibility suggests that the
requirement that the subject include the addressee is too tight. Potsdam (1996)
proposed that in English imperatives, the addressee must be in a control
relationship over the referent of the subject. Such a characterization appears
appropriate for Mandarin as well. That is, under certain circumstances, nonquantificational third person subjects are permitted in imperatives. This is still a
point of difference with respect to declarative and interrogatives since they have
no such restriction.
12
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
3.1.2 Subjects of Ba Commands
As above, let us examine the covert and overt subjects of ba sentences
separately, beginning with the readings available for a covert subject. We see that
the absence of an overt subject allows for an exhortative reading as well as an
addressee-only reading. A third person subject that quantifies over the addressees
is also possible, but when the subject is covert, a non-quantificational third person
reading is not available. A first person singular reading is also unavailable.
24.
Chi1 fan4, ba.
eat dinner ba
‘You eat dinner.’
‘Let’s eat dinner.’
‘Everyone, let’s eat dinner.’
* ‘I/he/she/they eat dinner.’
As with bie2, the possible overt subjects include overt first person plural
and second person singular or plural subjects.
25.
Wo3men2 chi1 fan4, ba.
we
eat dinner ba
‘Let’s eat dinner.’
26.
Ni3/Ni3men2 chi1 fan4, ba.
you/you(pl) eat dinnerba
‘You/You(pl) (go ahead and) eat dinner.’
27.
Mei3ge
xue2sheng1 cai3 yi1 duo3
hua1, ba.
every-CLASSIFIER student
pluck one CLASSIFIER flower ba
‘Every student pick one flower.’
An overt quantificational third person subject is possible while a nonquantificational third person subject requires more specific circumstances to be
fully acceptable. A sentence like (28) is possible but dispreferred. In order to
13
Chen-Main
express the intended meaning of sentences like (28), speakers prefer to use a
sentence like (29). (29) however, is not an example of a third person nonquantificational subject. In (29), rang4 ‘allow’ is the matrix verb and has an
implied second person subject. In contrast to (28), example (30) shows how
context increases the acceptability of a non-quantificational third person subject.
28.
? Ta1men2 qu4 mai3 cai4,
ba.
they
go buy vegetables ba
‘Let them go buy the vegetables.’
29.
Rang4 ta1men2 qu4 mai3 cai4,
allow they
go buy vegetables
‘Let them go buy the vegetables.’
30.
Wo3 zai4 bang1 mei4mei4 xie3 zuo4ye4.
I
zai help little sister write essay
ba.
ba
TA1MEN qu4 mai3 cai4
ba.
THEY
go buy vegetables ba
‘I’m helping little sister with homework. Let them go buy the
vegetables.’
* ‘I’m helping little sister with homework. They are buying the
vegetables.’
Presumably, the addressee in (30) has the authority to decide whether the
speaker or some other people will be asked to buy vegetables. We see, then, that
the requirement that the addressee must be in a control relationship over the
referent of the subject also holds for ba commands.
A first person singular subject would also require certain circumstances,
such as if one were talking to oneself (with or without the intention of having
someone overhear), and even so, such a sentence would be marginal.6 In such a
case, however, the speaker is the same as the addressee.
6
First person singular subjects are marginally possible in Hungarian as well. This observation is
due to Anna Szabolcsi
14
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
31.
??? Wo3 chi1 fan4, ba.
I
eat dinner ba
‘I’m going to eat dinner, then.’
Summary of 4.1:
Both bie2 and ba appear to require that subjects have a special relationship
with the addressee: the addressee must be in a control relationship over the
subject. This allows the subject to be 1) the same as the addressee, 2) entities
over which the addressee has influence, or 3) the addressee and the speaker when
an exhortative reading is desired. This much concurs with the behavior of
imperative subjects in English, which roughly concurs with the general behavior
of imperatives in other languages, so let us accept these as characteristics of the
subjects of Mandarin imperatives.
Table 1. Summary chart of restrictions on subjects of non-embedded Mandarin
imperatives
Subject
Compatible
First person singular
X
First person plural
X
Second person singular
X
Second person plural
X
Third person quantificational,
ranging over the set of addressees
Third person non-quantificational
Incompatible
X
Under certain
circumstances
Our next section will show that we must revise this characterization for embedded
cases.
15
Chen-Main
4.2 Bie2, Ba, and Embedding
Imperatives in a number of European languages have been observed to
behave differently than finite clauses with respect to embedding. Platzack and
Rosengren (1994) claim that one distinctive property of imperative clauses is that
they cannot be syntactically embedded and suggest that apparent exceptions are
actually quotations or some other type of verbal paradigm. Rivero (1994a, 1994b)
maintains that resistance to embedding is a characteristic of imperative clauses
with true imperatives (verbal forms unique to the imperative paradigm) but not of
imperative clauses with suppletive imperatives (verbal forms which appear not to
be unique to the imperative paradigm). Zanuttini (1997) shows that even
imperatives formed with suppletive imperatives may resist embedding. All three
descriptions are in consensus that imperatives typically do not embed and that
exceptions are, in some sense, alternative imperatives.
In contrast, Korean allows interrogatives, declaratives, and imperatives to
be embedded. Pak (in prep) uses the presence of particles associated with each
clause type to show this is so.
The Mandarin data patterns with Korean. Below, we find that both bie2
imperatives and ba imperatives can embed.
We also observe that when
embedded, these imperatives lose the restriction on subjects that we observed
earlier in non-embedded imperatives. It would be interesting to investigate
whether or not other languages which do not use verbal morphology to mark
imperatives also allow embedded imperatives. If more languages which allow
embedded imperatives were identified, then it would be interesting to see whether
such languages use sentence final particles.
16
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
4.2.1 Bie2 and Embedding
Examples (32) and (33) illustrate two facts. First, bie2 clauses can be
embedded. Second, the noun phrase immediately preceding bie2 does not
conform to the restrictions on subjects of root bie2 clauses as described above. A
first person singular noun phrase is acceptable preceding an embedded bie2 as is
an overt non-quantificational third person noun phrase that is not in a control
relationship under the addressee.
32.
Ma1ma jian1jue2 yao1qiu2 wo3 bie2 kai1 men2.
Mom resolute request me bie open door
‘Mom insists that I not open the door.’
33.
Po2po2 quan4 mei4mei bie2 shui4 zai4 kong1tiao2
Granny urge little sister bie sleep at air conditioner
pang2bian1.
side
‘Granny urged little sister not to sleep beside the air conditioner.’
To see whether or not these examples illustrate a loss of the restrictions of
subjects of bie2 clauses, I must first make the case that the noun phrase between
the matrix verb and bie2 is the subject of the embedded clause rather than an
object of the matrix verb.
The examples above suggest two possible
representations for these constructions with an embedded bie2 clause. One
possibility is that the noun phrase that follows the main verb, for example wo3 in
(32), is an argument of the main verb, followed by a clause with a PRO subject,
e.g. (34):
34.
Ma1ma jian1jue2 yao1qiu2 wo3i [PROi bie2 kai1 men2]
Mom resolute request me PRO bie open door
17
Chen-Main
A second possibility is that the noun phrase following the main verb is the subject
of the embedded clause, e.g. (35):
35.
Ma1ma jian1jue2 yao1qiu2 [wo3 bie2 kai1 men2]
Mom resolute request me bie open door
Thus, the case to be made can be rephrased as arguing for the second
representation over the first.
If the correct representation is the first one, then the subject of the
embedded clause is a null element referentially controlled by the argument of the
matrix verb. Since the noun phrase in question serves as both an argument of the
matrix predicate and controller of the subject of the lower clause, it must satisfy
the selectional restrictions imposed by both the matrix predicate and the
embedded predicate. Constructions where the noun phrase after the matrix verb
obeys the selectional restrictions of the embedded verb but disobeys those of the
matrix verb are predicted to be unacceptable.
If the correct representation is the second one, then the noun phrase in
question need only obey the selectional restrictions imposed by the lower
predicate. We would expect to see constructions where the noun phrase after the
matrix verb obeys the selectional requirements of the embedded verb but not
those of the matrix verb. This prediction is borne out by the examples below.
36.
Wo3 quan4 ni3men2 de
zhan4zheng1 ting2zhi3!
I
urge you-pl. POSSESIVE war
cease
‘I urge your war to end!’
37.
Ta3 yao1qiu2 wo3men2 de
wu3hui4 bu2 yao4 tai4
he/she request we
POSSESIVE dance party NEG will too
chao3.
noisy
‘He/She requests/demands that our dance party not be too loud.”
18
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
‘Our dance party’ does not satisfy the selectional restrictions of ‘urge.’ Nor does
it seem likely that ‘your war’ satisfies the selectional restrictions of ‘urge.’
Since we can reasonably assume that what follows the matrix verb in (32)
and (33) is a clause, it appears that the restriction on subjects does indeed
disappear when bie2 clauses embed. Paul Portner (p.c.) suggests that perhaps the
correct characterization of the restriction on subjects of imperatives will require
that they stand in some relation to the addressee of the appropriate speech act.
Assuming Potsdam’s characterization is correct, in root cases, the subjects may be
the addressee, entities that the addressee has the authority to command, or the
addressee and speaker. In embedded cases, the addressee of the speech act (the
addressee of the matrix clause) may be different from the addressee of the
reported speech act (the addressee of the embedded clause). Presumably, there is
no restriction on the addressee of a reported speech act.
While the main points of interest in this section are that bie2 clauses can
embed and that they appear to lose their restriction on subjects when they do so,
we should note that not all well formed bie2 clauses can embed. In the following
two examples, there is no overt noun phrase between the matrix verb and bie2.
38.
* Wo3 quan4 bie2 tai4 zao3 zou3.
I
urge bie too early leave
(intended meaning: ‘I urge you not to leave so soon!’)
39.
? Wo3 yao1qiu2 bie2 dong4!
I
request bie move
(intended meaning: ‘I request/demand that you not move!’)
As we see in (40), however, it is not a general characteristic of embedded
bie2 clauses that the subject must be overt.
19
Chen-Main
40.
Wo3 xi1wang4 bie2 tai4 zao3 zou3.
I
wish
bie too early leave
‘I hope I will not have to leave too early!’
(can also mean ‘I hope you/you(pl.)/he/she/they will not leave have
to leave too early!’ in a pro-drop context, e.g. if a guest comments
to his host that he must leave early.)
One speculation is that perhaps interpreting the covert subject of bie2
becomes problematic since the restriction on bie2’s subjects no longer applies.
Perhaps an example like (40) is possible since xi1wang4 ‘hope’ allows the matrix
subject to control the interpretation of the covert subject of bie2.
4.2.2 Ba and Embedding
The examples below indicate that ba commands can embed as well. The reading
available for (41) indicates that ba is associated with the embedded predicate, not
the matrix predicate.
41.
Po2po2 quan4 mei4mei shui4 zai4 chuang2shang4 ba.
Granny urge little sister sleep at bed top
ba
‘Granny urged/persuaded little sister to sleep on the bed.’
* ‘Granny, urge/persuade little sister to sleep on the bed.’
A situation such as the following might provide the context for (42). A
gymnast is awarded a gold medal, but controversy surrounds the results because
of a clerical error. In a private conversation, the athlete’s coach might strongly
advise the gymnast to return the gold medal for the sake of the sport’s aura, his
team’s reputation, and the athlete’s own reputation.
42.
Wo3 yao1qiu2 ni3 tui4hui2 jin1pai2
ba.
I
request you return gold medal ba
‘I request/urge that you return the gold medal.’
20
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
Again, the reading associates ba with the embedded predicate, not the matrix
predicate.
Like embedded bie2 commands, embedded ba commands lose their
restrictions on subjects.
We have already seen an example of a non-
quantificational third person embedded subject in (41). When we modify (41) to
get (43), we verify that first person singular subjects are also allowed in
embedded ba clauses.
43.
Po2po2 quan4 wo3 shui4 zai4 chuang2shang4 ba.
Granny urge wo3 sleep at bed top
ba
‘Granny urged/persuaded me to sleep on the bed.’
It is interesting to note that the sentence final particle used in question
formation, ma, also appears to be able to associate with the embedded predicate.
In fact, it seems that ma may be associated with either the matrix verb or
embedded verb. For example, let us imagine a scenario where two girls are
discussing whether or not a particular boy is interested in one of them. Examples
(44) and (45) each have two possible readings.
44.
Wo3 xiang3 zhi1dao4 ta1 xi2huan1 wo3 ma?
I
want know
he like
me ma
‘Do I want to know if he likes me?’
‘What I want to know is, does he like me?’
45.
Ta1 wen4 ni3 jing1tian1 you3 kong4 qu4 guang4jie1 ma?
he as
you today
have free time go shopping ma
‘Did he ask if you have time to go shopping today?’
‘He asked if you have time to go shopping today.’
Summary of 4.2:
Bie2 commands and ba commands can both embed and when they do, the
restriction on their subjects disappears.
21
Chen-Main
4.3 Interaction with Temporal Markers
Imperatives have also been described as having unusual interaction with
temporal markers. As alluded to earlier, Potsdam (1996) considers lack of tense
inflection on the highest verbal head or auxiliary to be a defining characteristic of
imperatives in English. Furthermore, true imperatives in Romance do not exhibit
morphological marking for tense or aspect while other verbal forms, including
suppletive imperatives, can be morphologically marked for tense and aspect
(Zanuttini 1997).
The literature to date has concentrated on six markers in Mandarin that
encode temporal information, verb final le (V-le), sentence final le (S-le), ne, zhe, zai4, and guo4. Traditionally, these particles have been argued to mark aspect
while tense marking has been taken to be absent. More recently, some of these
markers have been argued to actually be tense markers (e.g. Chiu 1993, Sybesma
2001). The status of each particle as a tense marker or aspect marker may prove
to be important with respect to the behavior of imperatives, but since this issue is
unresolved, I will simply refer to these particles as temporal markers. Below, we
will examine which particles may co-occur with bie2 and ba, except for ne. We
will leave ne aside since it often co-occurs with zai4 and –zhe.
We will see that –zhe, V-le, and perhaps S-le can co-occur with bie2 and
ba while guo4 cannot and zai4 requires certain conditions.
4.3.1 Bie2 and Temporal Markers
Preverbal zai4 contributes a progressive meaning, as in (46). Having bie2
following zai4, as in (47), is clearly unacceptable. Having bie2 preceding zai4 is
odd, as in (48), but constructions which are a bit more complex, such as (49), do
allow bie2 and zai4 to co-occur.
22
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
46.
Ta1 zai4 shui4jiao4
he zai sleep
‘He’s sleeping.’
47.
* Zai4 bie2 shui4jiao4
zai bie sleep
(intended meaning: ‘Don’t be sleeping!’)
48.
* Bie2 zai4 shui4jiao4
bie zai sleep
(intended meaning: ‘Don’t be sleeping!’)
(homophonous with ‘Don’t go to sleep again!’/‘Don’t keep
sleeping!’7)
49.
Dang1 wo3 hui2lai2 shi3, ni3 bie2 zai4 shui4jiao4
when I
return time you bie zai sleep
‘When I get back, don’t you be sleeping!’
Bie2 is compatible with the marker –zhe, which carries a similar meaning.
-Zhe is a post verbal marker that suggests durativity of a state (Chan 1980:65), or
an on-going posture or physical disposition (Li and Thompson 1981:221). (51)
shows that –zhe does not follow bie2. Rather, it follows the verb chuan, ‘wear.’
We will see below that when bie2 co-occurs with a temporal marker, it is unlike
verbs in that it does not appear adjacent to the temporal marker.
50.
Jie3jie
chuan1- zhe gao1gen1xie3 qu4 shang4xue3.
Big sister wear zhe high heel shoes go attend school
‘Big sister is wearing high heels to school.’
51.
* Bie2-zhe chuan1 gao1gen1xie3 qu4 shang4xue3.
bie zhe wear high heel shoes go attend school
(intended meaning: ‘Don’t wear high heels to school!’)
7
Though the two zai4’s are homophonous, they correspond to different characters, which allows
us to know that it is the zai4 meaning ‘again’ that is natural, even though the meaning of the
sentence might have led us to suppose the temporal marker zai4 was used.
23
Chen-Main
52.
Bie2 chuan1-zhe gao1gen1xie3 qu4 shang4xue3.
bie wear zhe high heel shoes go attend school
‘Don’t wear high heels to school!’
Bie2 is also not compatible with experiential guo4. Guo4 occurs post
verbally and marks indefinite past aspect or past experience. Guo4 suggests
something “happened at least once in the past, ever” (Chao 1968:251).
53.
Wo3 yi3jing1kan4 guo4 na4 ge4
xing1 Spiderman
I
already see guo that-CLASSIFIER new Spiderman
dian4ying3.
movie
‘I’ve already seen that new Spiderman movie.’
54.
* Wo3 lai3 zi1qian2,bie2 guo4 yi3jing1kan4 na4ge4
I
come before bie guo already see that-CLASSIFIER
xing1 Spiderman dian4ying3.
new Spiderman movie
(intended meaning: ‘Don't have seen that new Spiderman movie
before I come (to visit).’)
55.
* Wo3 lai3 zi1qian2, bie2 yi3jing1 kan4 guo4 na4 ge4
I
come before
bie already see guo that-CLASSIFIER
xing1 Spiderman dian4ying3.
new Spiderman movie
(intended meaning: ‘Don't have seen that new Spiderman movie
before I come (to visit).’)
There is some debate as to whether to distinguish two les (Chan1980,
Chao 1968, Sybesma 2001, Li 1990). For our purposes, we need not delve into
the intricacies of the debate. We will simply check bie2’s behavior with both
types of le in case they are indeed distinct.
24
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
V-le is a perfective marker, indicating the termination of a bounded event,
temporally, spatially or conceptually (Chan 1980:47, Chao 1968:246, Li and
Thompson 1981:185). Bie2 is compatible with verb final le. Like we observed
above with –zhe, V-le does not follow bie2 but follows the verb wang4, ‘forget.’
56.
Da4ja1
bie2 wang4-le zhong1 fan4!
(18 repeated)
Everyone bie forget-le middle dinner
‘Everyone don’t have forgotten your lunch!’
Homophonous S-le, often called an inchoative marker, emphasizes the
inception of a situation (Chan 1980:52–3), implying that the situation did not hold
prior, and indicates a relevance of that situation to the moment of current concern
(Li and Thompson 1981:240–290, Sybesma 2001:60–2). S-le and bie2 are also
compatible.
57.
Bie2 chao3 ji1
dan4 le.
bie fry chicken egg le
‘Stop frying eggs now.’
4.3.2. Ba and Temporal Markers
Ba patterns almost identically to bie2. Ba and zai4 is odd, as in (58), but, again,
constructions which are a bit more complex do allow ba2 and zai4 to co-occur.
(59) is appropriate as an answer to the question, “What shall we be doing when
the teacher returns?”
58.
Wo3men2 zai4 xie3 zuo4wen2 (*ba)
we
zai write essay
(ba)
‘We are writing essays.’
(* ‘Let’s be writing essays.’ [homophonous with ‘Let’s write
essays again!’])
25
Chen-Main
59.
Dang1 lao3shi1 hui2lai2 shi3, wo3men zai4 xie3 zuo4wen2 ba
when teacher return time we
zai write essay
ba
‘When the teacher gets back, let's be writing essays.’
(homophonous with ‘We’ll have another essay writing period
when the teacher returns.’)
Ba is compatible with –zhe.
60.
Wo3men2 jiu4 zuo4-zheba
we
just sit zhe ba
‘Let’s just sit down.’ (With a slight connotation of ‘Let’s ignore X
and sit down.’)
Ba is not compatible with guo4.
61.
Wo3men2 bi1ye4 zi1qian3 chu4 guo4 ja1zou1 (*ba).
we
graduate before go guo California(ba)
‘We visited California before we graduated.’
(* ‘Let’s have visited California before we graduate.’)
Ba is compatible with V-le, and possibly S-le. It is unclear whether the le in (63)
is a V-le or an S-le, and I have been unable to think of a sentence that has a clear
S-le and would make sense.
62.
Ma1ma hui2lai2
zi1qian2, wo3men xi3hao3
le wan3 ba
Mom return come before we
wash complete le bowls ba
‘Let’s have finished washing the dishes before Mom comes home.’
63.
Ma1ma hui2lai2
zi1qian2, wo3men ba3 yi1fu3
Mom return come before
we
BA clothes
xi3hao3
le ba.
wash complete le ba
‘Let’s have finished the laundry before Mom comes home.’
26
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
Summary of 4.3:
Bie2 and ba appear to have similar restrictions with respect to which
temporal markers they may co-occur with. This suggests that imperatives are
incompatible with guo4 but may appear with –zhe and –le as well as zai4 under
certain conditions. For guo4, the incompatibility may be due to the experiential
meaning clashing with the future orientation that we intuitively attribute to
imperatives. However, it would be difficult to maintain that a semantic clash
gives rise to the requirement of certain circumstances to use zai4, since –zhe has a
similar meaning. Alternatively, zai4 and guo4 may be members of a different
category of temporal markers than –zhe and –le, but that is a question for another
day.
Table 2 Summary chart of restrictions on temporal marking in Mandarin
imperatives
bie2
Ba
-zhe
compatible under
certain circumstances
compatible
compatible under
certain circumstances
compatible
guo4
*
*
V-le
compatible
compatible
S-le
compatible
?
zai4
4.4 Bie2 and Ba as Distinct Forms
So far, bie2 commands and ba commands have patterned so closely that
we might be led to wonder whether they are the negative and non-negative
instantiations of the same element. The evidence indicates that they are not.
First, the observation above that ba is a sentence final particle whereas bie2 never
27
Chen-Main
appears sentence finally casts doubt on the possibility that they are underlying the
same element. Confirmation that they occupy distinct syntactic positions is
available from constructions like (64), which show that bie2 and ba may appear in
the same sentence. Imagine two friends walking along a sidewalk which is getting
muddier and muddier. One friend can see that it only gets worse up ahead. He
could say:
64.
Wo3men bie2 zou3 zai4 zhe4 bian1 ba.
we
bie walk at this side ba
‘Let’s not walk on this side.’
Second, bie2 and ba pattern differently with respect to bei-constructions.
We turn to this topic in the following subsection.
4.4.1 Imperatives and Bei-constructions
In Mandarin, we observe an asymmetry between the compatibility of
negative and non-negative imperatives with bei-constructions. The beiconstruction refers to sentences such as:
65.
Ping2gou3 bei4 wo3 chi1 le.
apple
bei me eat le
‘The apple was eaten by me.’
The subject of bei4 corresponds to the direct object in a non-bei-construction:
66.
Wo3 chi1-le ping2guo3.
I
eat le apple
‘I ate the apple.’
28
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
Because of this, the construction has been referred to as the passive structure in
Mandarin. Bei-constructions are possible in negative imperatives but not in nonnegative commands.
67.
Bie2 bei4 ta1 pian4 le.
bie bei him fool le
‘Don’t be fooled by him!’
68.
* Bei4 yi1sheng1 jian3cha2!
bie doctor
examine
(intended meaning: ‘Be examined by the doctor!’)
The objection to (68) could be in part because bei4 traditionally had a
negative connotation. That is, the subject was typically the recipient of some
harmful action, such as stealing, fooling, killing, or mistreating. However, even
in the case where one wishes ill on someone, a bei-construction is not acceptable
as an imperative. For example, suppose an author is writing a fairy tale in which
an evil witch wants to curse the offender by commanding that he be cheated or
harmed by everyone. The example below is still unacceptable.
69.
* Bei4 mei3 ge
ren3 pian4/qi1fu4!
bei every-CLASSIFIER person fool / harm
(intended meaning: ‘Be fooled/harmed by everyone!’)
Interestingly, there is no such asymmetry with the possibly related ba3construction. The ba3-construction refers to sentences such as:
70.
Wo3 ba3 ping2gou3 chi1 le.
I BA apple
eat le
‘I ate the apple.’
The object of ba3 corresponds to the direct object in a non-ba3construction:
29
Chen-Main
71.
Wo3 chi1-le ping2guo3.
I
eat le apple
‘I ate the apple.’
Ba3-consturctions appear in both negative and non-negative imperatives.
72.
Bei2 ba3 yi1fu3 nong4 zhang1!
bie BA clothes make dirty
‘Don’t get your clothes dirty!’
73.
Wo3men ba3 mian4 chi1 wan2, ba.
we
BA noodle eat finish ba
‘Let’s finish off the noodles.’
4.5 Summary of Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
Table 3 Imperative dos and don’ts
Dos
Have 1 pl, 2 s/pl, and 3rd
quantificational subjects in root clauses
st
nd
Don’ts
Have 1 s subjects in root clauses
st
Have 3rd non-quantificational subjects in
root clauses under certain circumstances
Allow embedding
Appear with -zhe and –le
Appear with guo4
Appear with zai4 under certain
circumstances
Allow negative imperatives to appear
with bei4-construstions
Allow non-negative imperatives to
appear with bei4-constructions
We now turn to the remaining three strategies for forming commands and
compare their behavior with the profile we have compiled.
30
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
5. T HE C ORRESPONDENCE B ETWEEN BU2 Y A O 4 C OMMANDS
AND
BIE2
COMMANDS
In this section, we will see that the contexts in which bie2 appears is a
subset of the context in which bu2yao4 appears. It appears that even though bie2
has been taken to be historically derived from bu2yao4, it no longer carries the
meaning ‘don’t want’ that bu2yao4 can still carry. However, we will also see that
whenever bu2yao4 is in a context that is also a bie2 context, it behaves just like
bie2. Therefore, I will conclude that bu2yao4 commands are indeed imperatives.
5.1 Apparent Differences in Distribution of Bie2 and Bu2yao4
Although bie2 and bu2yao4 are often interchangeable, as seen in (74) and
(75), it is not always the case that they are interchangeable. While you can say
the sentences in (76), you cannot say the ones in (77) and (78):
74.
Ni3 bie2 xiao4 mei4mei!
you bie laugh little sister
‘Don't laugh at your little sister!’
75.
Ni3 bu2 yao4 xiao4 mei4mei!
you NEG want laugh little sister
‘Don't laugh at your little sister!’
76.
Wo3/Ta1 bu2 yao4 chuan1 mao3yi1
I/he
NEG want wear
sweater
‘I don't/He doesn’t want to wear a sweater.’
77.
* Wo3 bie2 chuan1 mao3yi1
I
bie wear sweater.
(intended meaning?: ‘Self, don’t wear a sweater.’)
78.
* Ta1 bie2 qu4 shang4xue3
he/She bie go attend school
(intended meaning: ‘He/She, don’t go to school.’)
31
Chen-Main
Unlike bie2, the bu2yao4 in (76) is functioning as a negated main verb. It can
therefore take a first person singular subject in a non-embedded context and a
non-quantificational third person subject without special context and can also
participate in question formation.
79.
Wo3 yao4 bu2 yao4 chuan1 mao3yi1
I
want NEG want wear sweater
‘Do I want to/need to wear a sweater?’
5.2 Bu2yao4 Commands
There are, however, a subset of cases in which bu2yao4 behaves like bie2.
This is exactly the subset of commands formed with bu2yao4. In these cases,
bu2yao4 functions as a unit with the meaning ‘do not’ rather than ‘not want.’
That is, I posit two homophonous forms, one of which is a negated verb, the other
of which is a form used to make negative imperatives. Because we are concerned
with bu2yao4 commands, I will provide only the readings available with the ‘do
not’ bu2yao4.
First, we see that when there is no overt subject, the same restrictions on
interpretation on the subject apply that we observed with bie2.
80.
Bu2yao4 chuan1 mao3yi1!
bu2yao4 wear sweater
‘You, do not wear a sweater!’
‘Everyone, do not wear sweaters!’
* ‘I/we/he/they, do not wear a sweater!’
With an overt non-quantificational third person subject, the sentences can only be
interpreted with yao4 as the main verb.
32
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
81.
Ta1 bu2yao4 wang4ji4 zhong1 fan4!
he/she buyao forget middle dinner
‘He/She doesn’t want to forget his/her lunch!’
* ‘Him/Her, do not forget his/her lunch!’
Like bie2 clauses, bu2yao4 clauses can be embedded.
82.
Wo3 yao1qiu2 ni3 bu2yao4 dong4!
I
request you buyao move
‘I ask/demand that you not move!’
As with embedded bie2 clauses, the restriction on subjects disappears.
83.
Wo3 yao1qiu2 ta1 bu2yao4 dong4!
I
request ta1 buyao move
‘I ask/demand that he not move!’
Again, like bie2 clauses, some bu2yao4 clauses without overt subjects cannot be
embedded.
84.
* Wo3 yao1qiu2 bu2yao4 dong4!
I request buyao move
(intended meaning: ‘I insist that you not move!’)
When we examine temporal marking, we see that bu2yao patterns like
bie2 with respect to compatibility with zai4 under certain conditions,
incompatibility with guo, and compatibility with –zhe and –le.
33
Chen-Main
85.
* Zai4 bu2yao4 shui4jiao48
zai buyao sleep
(intended meaning: ‘Don’t be sleeping!’)
86.
* Bu2yao4 zai4 shui4jiao49
buyao zai sleep
(intended meaning: ‘Don’t be sleeping!’)
87.
Dang1 wo3 hui2lai2 shi3, ni3 ke3 bu2yao4 zai4 shui4jiao4
when I
return time you may buyao zai sleep
‘When I get back, you better not be sleeping!’
88.
Bu2yao4 chuan1-zhe gao1gen1xie3 qu4 shang4xue3.
buyao wear zhe high heel shoes go attend school
‘Do not wear high heels to school!’
89.
Wo3 lai3 zi1qian2, bu2yao4 (*guo4) kan4 (*guo3)
I
come before
buyao (guo) see
(guo)
na4 ge4
xing1 Spiderman dian4ying3.
that- CLASSIFIER new Spiderman movie
(intended meaning: ‘Don’t have seen the new Spiderman movie
before I come.’)
90.
Bu2yao4 wang4-le zhong1 fan4!
buyao forget-le middle dinner
‘Do not have forgotten your lunch!’
8
Recall that there is another character that is also pronounced zai4 that means ‘again.’ This other
zai4, ‘again,’ would give rise to an acceptable construction in a pro-drop context with a main verb
reading for yao4 in a conditional:
(i)
Zai4 bu2 yao4 shui4jiao4 ying1gai1qu4 kan4 yi1sheng1.
again NEG want sleep
should go see doctor
‘If you/he/she keeps not wanting to sleep, we/you should go see a doctor.’
However, using xiang3is preferred to using yao4 for conveying this meaning.
(ii)
Zai4 bu2 xiang3 shui4jiao4 ying1gai1qu4 kan4 yi1sheng1.
again NEG want sleep
should go see doctor
‘If you/he/she keeps not wanting to sleep, we/you should go see a doctor.’
9
Recall that there is another character that is also pronounced zai4 that means ‘again.’ This other
zai4, ‘again,’ would give rise to an acceptable construction that means ‘Don’t go to sleep again!’
or ‘Don’t keep sleeping.’
34
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
91.
Bu2yao4 chao3 ji1
dan4 le.
buyao
fry chicken egg le
‘Stop frying eggs now.’
We also see that bei-constructions can co-occur with bu2yao4, just as they
do with bie2.
92.
Bu2yao4 bei4 ta1 pian4 le.
buyao bei him fool le
‘Do not be fooled by him!’
Lastly, there is a parallel between bie2 and bu2yao4 with respect to
compatibility with stative verbs. Not all stative verbs are possible in negative
imperatives, perhaps due to semantic or pragmatic awkwardness. Whatever the
source of compatibility/incompatibility, bie2 and bu2yao4 pattern together.
Stative verbs that cannot appear with bie2 also do not appear with bu2yao4. In
contrast, bu4 may appear with these verbs.
93.
* Bie2/* Bu2yao4 zhe4me gao1!
bie
buyao this
tall
(intended meaning: ‘Don’t/Do not be so tall!’)
94.
Ni3 bu4 gao1.
you NEG tall
‘You are not tall.’
95.
* Bie2/* Bu2yao4 ren4shi4 ta1!
bie
buyao recognize him
(intended meaning: ‘Don’t/Do not recognize him!’)
96.
Ni3 bu4 ren4shi4 ta1.
you NEG recognize him
‘You don’t recognize him.’ / ‘You aren’t acquainted with him.’
35
Chen-Main
The stative verbs that do appear in imperatives with bie2, however, can
also appear with bu2yao4.
97.
Bie2/Bu2yao4 zhe4me ke4qi4!
bie buyao
this
polite
‘Don’t/ Do not be so polite!’ (‘There’s no need to be so polite.’)
98.
Bie2/Bu2yao4 shang1xin1.
bie buyao wounded heart
‘Don’t/ Do not be grieved.’
We find that commands formed with bu2yao4 pattern closely with commands
formed with bie2. This similarity allows us to make two conclusions. First, we
concluded above that bie2 commands are imperatives. The similarity of bu2yao4
commands and bie2 commands allows us to confirm intuition and conclude that
bu2yao4 commands are also imperatives. Second, the bu2yao4 data does not
require a revision to our current characterization of imperatives.
6. COMMANDS FORMED WITH A VERB FORM OR PREDICATE ALONE
Commands formed with this strategy also have restrictions on the
interpretation of the covert subject. These restrictions mirror the ones identified
above.
99.
Zhan4 qi3 lai2!
(2) repeated
stand rise come
‘You stand up!’
‘Everyone stand up!’
? ‘Let’s stand up!’
* ‘I/he/they stand up!’
36
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
Again, similar to what we observed with bie2 commands, an overt first
person plural subject is acceptable. An overt non-quantificational third person
subject, however, is not.
100.
Wo3men2 zhan4 qi3 lai2!
we
stand rise come
‘Let’s stand up!’ (can also mean ‘We stand up!’)
101.
Ta1 zhan4 qi3 lai2!
he stand rise come
‘He stands up!’
* ‘Him, stand up!’
When we turn to embedding, we find that embedding what look like
commands formed with the strategy in this section yields sentences that are
indistinguishable from declaratives. If we were to embed (99), which has a covert
subject, under wo3 jian1chi3 ‘I insist,’ then (102) is the sentence we would
expect. (102), however, can only convey the illocutionary force of asserting.
(102) cannot be used as an order. We have seen before, though, that some
imperatives with covert subjects resist embedding.
In contrast, (103), which has an overt subject, may be used as an order, but
this does not guarantee that the embedded clause is an imperative either. First, we
know that some declaratives may be used with the illocutionary force of a
command. Second, as illustrated by (100), the strategy for forming commands
discussed in this section yields constructions whose surface form is identical to
that of declaratives.
102.
Wo3 jian1chi3 yao1qiu2 zhan4 qi3 lai2!
I
insist
request stand rise come
‘I insist on standing up.’ (‘I am determined to stand up.’)
* ‘I insist that you stand up!’
37
Chen-Main
103.
Wo3 yao1qiu2 ni3 zhan4 qi3 lai2!
I
request you stand rise come
‘I request/insist that you stand up!’
Because we cannot be certain that the embedded clauses are imperatives,
we cannot count the behavior of these commands as confirmation of one of the
shared characteristics identified above. We can at least see, however, that the
behavior of these commands does not obviously clash with those shared
characteristics.
These commands do not appear with zai4, even when we consider a more
complex construction, or guo4, but do appear with –zhe.
104.
* Zai4 xie3 zou4wen2!
zai write essay
(intended meaning: ‘Be writing your essay!’)
105.
* Dang wo3 hui2lai2 shi3, zai4 xie3 zou4wen2!
when I
return time zai write essay
(intended meaning: ‘When I get home, be writing your essay!’
106.
Zou4-zhe!
sit zhe
‘Sit (for a while)!’/ ‘Sit (and stay seated)!’
107.
* Bi1ye4 zi1qian2 qu4 guo4 ja1zhou1!
graduate before go guo California
(intended meaning: ‘Have gone to California before graduating!’)
These commands are passable with V-le. They are better with S-le which
might be conflated with a V-le. (The fact that (109) is a ba3-construction might
have some effect.)
108.
? Wo3 hui2lai2 zi1qian2, xi3 hao3
le wan3!
I
return before wash complete le bowl
‘Have washed the dishes before I get home!’
38
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
109.
Wo3 hui2lai2 zi1qian2, ba3 wan3 xi3 hao3 le! (better than (108))
I
return before ba bowl wash complete le
‘Have washed the dishes before I get home!’
7. COMMANDS FORMED WITH POLITE VERBS
Polite verbs act like full lexical verbs in many cases. They can be used as
the main verb, as in (110) to (115), take temporal markers (including zai4 and
guo4), as in (111) and (112), and participate in question formation as in (113) to
(115).
110.
Wo3men2 lao2jia4 Wang3 xian1sheng1 wei4 wo3men2 qu4
we
trouble Wang mister
for us
go
yi1tang4 Niu3yue1
one trip New York
‘We trouble Mr. Wang to make a trip to New York for us.’
111.
Ta1 zai4 ma2fan3 jiao4sou4.
he zai bother professor
‘He is bothering the professor.’
112.
Ni3 qing3 guo4 ta1 hao3 ji3 ci4.
you invite guo him so many time
‘You’ve invited him so many times.’
113.
Ni3 qing3-bu4-qing3 ta1?
you invite-NEG-invite him
‘Are you inviting him?’
114.
Ni3 qing3 ta1 gen1 wo3men2 chi1 fan4 ma?
you invite you with us
eat dinner ma
‘Did you invite him to join us for dinner?’
115.
Qing3 shui3 zuo4 zai4 sha1fa1 shang4?
invite who sit at sofa
on
‘Who should we ask to sit on the sofa?’
39
Chen-Main
In some cases, however, polite verbs do not act like typical verbs in that
they cannot participate in question formation. These are the cases in which they
are used to form polite commands. (116) is a case where a polite verb cannot
participate in A-not-A question formation, as we see in (117).
116.
Qing3 gen1 wo3men2 chi1 fan4
invite with us
eat dinner
‘Please join us for dinner.’
117.
* Qing3-bu4-qing3 gen1 wo3men2 chi1 fan4
invite NEG invite with us
eat dinner
(intended meaning?: ‘Are you invited to join us for dinner?’)
Typically, declaratives may also be turned into yes-no questions by adding
the sentence final marker ma. Adding ma to (116) yields and unacceptable
sentence, indicating that (116) is not a declarative.
118.
* Qing3 gen1 wo3men2 chi1 fan4 ma
invite with us
eat dinner ma
(intended meaning?: ‘Please join us for dinner?’)
Polite verbs also cannot appear with zai4 and guo4 and maintain the force
of a command. It appears that the cases below are only acceptable with the
reading of an assertion.
119.
Zai4 ma2fan3 jiao4sou4!
zai bother professor
* ‘Be bothering the professor!’
(Acceptable as an answer to a question. E.g. ‘Where is John?’ ‘
Bothering the professor!’)
120.
Ni3 ban1 ja1 zi1qian2 qing3 guo4 ta1men2!
you move home before invite guo them
* ‘Have invited them over before you move!’
‘You invited them over before you moved.’
40
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
Furthermore, we see that there are restrictions on the interpretation of the
subject when no overt subject is present.
121.
Qing3 man4 yi1 dianr3 suo1.
invite slow one bit
say
‘Please, (you) speak slower.’
* ‘Please, (I/he) speak slower.’
* ‘(You) request for (me) to speak slower.’
* ‘(He) requests for (you) to speak slower.’
With an overt third person form present, the construction which appears
parallel on the surface allows only the reading where qing3 is the main verb.
Although the sentence still carries the force of a command, it is not a command
directed at the third person referent. It is a command directed at the hearer to
issue a command to the third person referent.
122.
Qing3 ta1 man4 yi1 dianr3 suo1.
invite him slow one bit say
‘(You) request for him to speak slower.’
* ‘(I) request for him to speak slower.’
With respect to embedding, commands formed with polite verbs seem to
resist embedding, but the source of the problem is unclear. Embedding under the
verbs we have been using to test for embedding so far, yao1qiu2 ‘request,
demand’ and quan4 ‘urge,’ yields unacceptable sentences.
123.
*Wo3 yao1qiu2 qing3 ni3 jie3shi4 zhe4 jian4
shi4
I
request invite you explain this-CLASSIFIER matter
(intended meaning: ‘I demand that you please explain this
matter.’)
It is not clear whether the source of awkwardness is syntactic or semantic.
Informants attributed the unacceptability to a semantic mismatch, reporting that
41
Chen-Main
verbs with such strong meaning could not be coupled with polite verbs. However,
as evidenced by the English gloss for (123), it is not universally the case that
verbs with strong connotations cannot appear with politeness markers. When
softer verbs were used, such as qing3qiu2 ‘request,’ informants deemed the
sentences redundant. Such an account is reminiscent of speakers of Standard
American English claiming that double negatives are not allowed because the
second negative element nulls the meaning carried by the first negative element.
In acceptable sentences that look like embedded polite commands, the
polite element is interpreted as a verb, not as a polite command element.
124.
Wo3 xiang3 qing3 ni3 jie3shi4 zhe4 jian4
shi4
I
wish invite you explain this-CLASSIFIER matter
‘I wish to invite you to explain this matter.’
* ‘I wish for you to please explain this matter.’
As in the last section, it is not clear what conclusion to draw with respect
to compatibility with embedding. Here, it appears that these commands are
incompatible, but the evidence does not justify attributing the problem to these
constructions’ status as commands.
We have seen above how the constructions with a polite verb that does not
act like a verb also happen to have only the reading of a command. Furthermore,
when a construction with a polite verb deviates from the characterization we
outlined for commands, only the reading of an assertion is available. Let us recast
what we have seen with the purpose of characterizing the commands formed with
the polite verb-strategy: 1) In such commands, the polite verbs do not act like
typical verbs, and 2) with the exception of embedding, such commands do behave
like the other commands.
42
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
8. SUMMARY
I have shown that all five strategies Ramsey describes for forming
commands share a number of properties. The profile includes restrictions against
first person singular and non-quantificational third person subjects in matrix
clauses, restrictions against the temporal markers zai4 and guo4, and asymmetries
between negative and non-negative imperatives with respect to compatibility with
the bei4-construction. We have also seen examples of embedding. Because bie2
is specific to imperatives and ba-clauses with the force of ordering cannot have an
alternative reading where it is used for either asserting or asking, it is appropriate
to label them as imperatives. Because all the commands act as one class (with
negative and non-negative subclasses), I will extend the label imperatives to the
whole class. The following properties, then, are proposed as the defining
characteristics of Mandarin imperatives:
1. Mandarin imperatives may be used as an order.
2. Mandarin imperatives may not be used for asserting or asking.
3. Mandarin imperatives allow overt or covert subjects.
4. Mandarin imperatives require that the addressee be in a control
relationship over the subject.
5. Mandarin imperatives may not co-occur with the temporal marker guo.
I will tentatively add a sixth characteristic, which requires additional research to
confirm:
6. Mandarin imperatives may embed.
Within certain contexts, Mandarin declaratives and interrogatives may be used as
an order and/or allow covert subjects. Mandarin declaratives and interrogatives
may also embed. In contrast, 2, 4, and 5 are not general properties of Mandarin
declaratives and interrogatives.
43
Chen-Main
9. MANDARIN IMPERATIVES AND APPROACHES TO THE SYNTAX OF FORCE
We are now in a position to make a first pass at considering how the
characteristics we have compiled relate to the different approaches to the syntax
of force. Zanuttini and Portner (2003) outline two main approaches researchers
have pursued in accounting for how the conversational use of a clause is encoded
in its form. One approach is to posit some specialized element in the syntax that
encodes force. That is, a morpheme or grammatical feature, such as a question
operator, represents a sentence’s illocutionary force. The proposal that there is an
imperative operator in C (Rivero and Terzi 1995, Han 1998) is an example of this
approach. Mandarin allows at least five strategies for forming imperatives and it
does not appear that an there is an overt element that is common to all five.
Although both bie2 and advisative ba limit the reading of a clause to an order
and/or block the reading of a clause as an assertion or as asking, making them
these the clearest overt indications of imperatives, they do not seem to be the
same type of element. Not only do bie2 and ba differ in their surface positions,
bie2-clauses exhibit different syntactic behavior than ba-clauses. Furthermore,
embedded bie2-clauses and embedded ba-clauses cast doubt on both bie2 and
ba’s candidacy as a specialized force-carrying element since embedded clauses
are generally assumed not to express their own force. Thus, if we were to pursue
an account under this approach, we would need to posit that the specialized
imperative force-carrying element is covert or at least optionally covert. My
intuition is that the more likely of the two is the latter, specifically, that
imperatives have an optionally covert ba.
The second approach described by Zanuttini and Portner (2003) is to
attribute force marking to a number of syntactic properties, not just a single
element. Zanuttini and Portner (2003) are careful to point out that though such an
element might be present, “this element is not what shapes the members of the
44
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
class.” Rather, a network of grammatical properties is responsible for force. A
class of structures with certain characteristics is linked to a particular pragmatic
use. Under such a view, English clauses with a wh-operator or subject-auxiliary
inversion would be linked with asking (Ginzburg and Sag 2000). Zanuttini and
Portner’s (2003) treatment of exclamatives is similar in spirit but also crucially
incorporates the meaning of exclamatives: what all exclamatives share is the need
to represent certain semantic properties in the syntax. In their proposal, two
crucial components of the meaning of exclamatives correspond to the two
syntactic properties that define the class of exclamatives.
We have seen above that clauses that native speaker intuition picks out as
imperatives share several properties which are not true of declaratives and
interrogatives. The list given above, however, is not a set of defining syntactic
properties. The first two properties make reference only to the meaning of
imperatives.
The third property, optionality of an overt subject, will not
distinguish an imperative from a declarative or interrogative. Neither will the
sixth property, the potential to embed. The fifth property only tells us we should
not observe a guo4, making it only a necessary but not sufficient characteristic.
Interestingly, the fourth property, the restriction on subjects, disappears in
embedded clauses, clauses which are assumed not to express their own force.
That is, the absence of the restriction concurs with the absence of force. Yet even
the relationship between addressee and subject is necessary but not sufficient for
identifying imperatives. The combination of the fourth and fifth properties is still
not sufficient. There are certainly declaratives and interrogatives without a guo4
where the addressee is in a control relationship over the subject.
125.
Ni3 de
nu3er2 te4bie2 you3 li3mao4.
you POSSESIVE daughter special have politeness
‘Your daughter is especially polite.’
45
Chen-Main
126.
Ni3 de
nu3er2 xi2-bu4-xi2 huan1 bing1qi4ling3?
you POSSESIVE daughter like-not-like joy ice cream
‘Does your daughter like ice cream?’
Thus, to pursue an account under this second approach, we would need to make
reference to more than the syntax of imperatives. We have already seen that the
restriction on subjects makes reference to the discourse participants and world
knowledge about who has authority over whom. If we were to follow Zanuttini
and Portner (2003)’s approach to exclamatives, we would need to understand the
meaning of imperatives and how components of that meaning are tied to some of
the syntactic properties we have seen or possibly some other syntactic properties
we have not yet identified, either because they refer to a covert element or to
clausal structure, which we have not discussed.
10. WHAT IS BIE2?
One of the questions that arises from the description above is: What is
bie2? I do not have an answer to this question, but I can contrast bie2 with verbs,
contrast bie2 with other negative markers and share a speculation regarding the
co-occurrence of bie2 and bei4.
10.1 Bie2 vs. Verbs
Chao (1968:669) calls bie2 an auxiliary verb, but bie2 does not act like
auxiliary or lexical verbs. Like lexical verbs, auxiliary verbs can participate in Anot-A question formation, but we saw in section 2 that bie2 does not appear in Anot-A questions. We also observe a difference in position with respect to
temporal markers. As demonstrated in section 4.3.1, the temporal marker zai4
appears before verbs. Zai4 may not, however, precede bie2. When lexical verbs
46
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
take the temporal marker –zhe, the marker appears immediately following the
verb, as if it were a suffix. Lexical verbs may also take what we called V–le as a
suffix. In contrast, neither –zhe nor –le can appear immediately following bie2.
Lastly, bie2 cannot appear without a verbal complement. I take this to indicate
that bie2 is not a verb.
10.2 Bie2 vs. Bu4 and Mei2
We also find that that bie2 behaves like a special negative imperative form
that is distinct from the negative markers used in declaratives and interrogatives.
First, bu4, the imperfective negative marker, and mei2(you3), the perfective
negative marker, are not available for creating negative imperatives.
127.
(Ni2) bu2 dong4!10
(you) NEG move
* ‘You don't move!’ / ‘Don't you move!’
128.
(Ni3) mei2(you3) wang4ji4 zhong1fan4!
(you) NEG(have) forget
middle dinner
* ‘Don’t have forgotten your lunch!’
(127) is acceptable in specific contexts, but carries a declarative reading. For
example, (127) might be used if one child is explaining a game to a group of
children and half the children do not move while the other half do move during
this game. (128) is also acceptable with the declarative reading, ‘You didn’t
forget your lunch!’
This is not to say that bie2 is the only negative marker that can appear in
imperatives. Mei2 cannot, but bu4 can appear in imperatives. When it does,
however, it carries a sustained/habitual reading of not doing some activity rather
10
This instance of bu4 is subject to tone sandhi. Recall footnote 2.
47
Chen-Main
than a prohibition against a particular action at the time of the utterance. Two
contrastive examples with ba imperatives are given below.
129.
Wo3men2 bu4 kan4 dian4shi4 ba.
we
NEG watch television ba
‘Let’s not watch television (for the next three days/for this
year/ever again).’ ≈ ‘Let’s fast/diet from television.’
130.
Wo3men2 bie2 kan4 dian4shi4 ba.
we
bie watch television ba
‘Let’s not watch television (right now/during our break – let’s do
something else).’
Bu4 can also appear in a bie2 imperative, and it always appears after bie2.
131.
Bie2 bu4 li3
ren2!
bie NEG attend person
‘Don’t ignore him (our guest/honored person)!’
Although bu4 may appear in imperatives, it seems that it falls within the
scope of bie2 and does not contribute to the imperative force. In contrast, bie2
appears to contribute both to the imperative force and negation. The fact that bie2
behaves differently than the negation used in declaratives and interrogatives is
further confirmation that bie2 has a special association with imperatives.
10.3 Bie2, Ba, and Bei4
As noted above, bei4-constructions may appear in negative commands but
not in non-negative commands. I repeat example (67) as (132) and a variation on
(68) as (133) below.
132.
Bie2 bei4 ta1 pian4 le.
bie bei him fool le
‘Don’t be fooled by him!’
(67 repeated)
48
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
133.
* Bei4 yi1sheng1 jian3cha2, ba!
bie doctor
examine ba
‘Be examined by the doctor!’
From this, we may entertain the following about bie2 and ba:
1. bie2 somehow provides something (e.g. a structural position, a feature, or
something else) that allows bei4 OR at least does not prohibit bei4.
2. ba somehow prohibits bei4 (via blocking movement, or clashing features,
or something else) OR fails to provide something that bei4 requires.
In (134), we see that when both bie2 and ba are present, bei4 may also be
present.
134.
Bie2 bei4 ta1 pian4 le, ba.
bie bei him fool le ba
‘Don’t be fooled by him!’
This suggests that it is not the case that ba prohibits bei4. Rather, bie2 somehow
provides something required by bei4 while ba does not. My hunch is that it is a
structural position that is required by bei4, which is based on the idea that bei4
belongs in a functional projection above the verbal projection(s).
Acknowledgments
Raffaella Zanuttini is gratefully acknowledged for very helpful feedback and
discussion.
49
Chen-Main
WORKS CITES
Beukema, F. and Coopmans, P. 1989. “A Government-Binding perspective on the
imperative in English.” Journal of Linguistics 25:417-436.
Chan, M. 1980. “Temporal Reference in Mandarin Chinese: An AnalyticalSemantic Approach to the Study of the Morphemes le, zai, zhe, and ne.”
Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 15:33–79.
Chao, Y-R. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Chen, M.Y. 2000. Tone Sandhi: patterns across Chinese dialects, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chiu, B. H-C. 1993. The Inflectional Structure of Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Davies, E. 1986. The English Imperative. London: Croom Helm.
Downing, B. 1969. “Vocatives and third-person imperatives in English.” Papers
in Linguistics 1:570-592.
Ginzburg, J. and Sag, I. 2000. Interrogative Investigations: the form, meaning,
and use of English Interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
[Distributed by University of Chicago Press.]
Han, C-H. 1998. The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force
in Universal Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
Henry, A. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English. New York and Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Li, P. 1990. Aspect and Aktionsart in Child Mandarin. PhD dissertation,
University of Leiden.
Li, C. and Thompson, S. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference
Grammar, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
50
Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives
Pak, M. (in prep). Korean particles and clause type. Ms. Georgetown University.
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/portnerp/nsfsite/PakKoreanPaper0404
.pdf
Platzack, C. and Rosengren, I. 1994. “On the subject of imperatives: a minimalist
account of the imperative pronoun and negated imperatives.” Sprache und
Pragmatik, 34:26-67.
Potsdam, E. 1996. Syntactic issues in the English imperative. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California, Santa Cruz.
Ramsey, S.R. 1987. The Languages of China. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Rivero, M.L. 1994a. “Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the
Balkans.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:63-120.
Rivero, M.L. 1994b. “Negation, imperatives and Wackernagel effects.” Rivista di
Linguistica 6:39-66. L. Haegeman, guest ed.
Rivero, M.L. and Terzi, A. 1995. “Imperatives, V-movement and logical mood.”
Journal of Linguistics, 31:301-32.
Sadock, J. and Zwicky, A. 1985. “Speech act distinctions in syntax.” In Shopen,
Timothy (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume 1:
Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sybesma, R. 2001. The Mandarin VP, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure: a comparative study of
Romance languages. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.
Zanuttini, R. and Portner, P. 2003. “Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics
interface.” Language. 79:39-81.
51