* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Characteristics of Mandarin Imperatives Joan Chen-Main
Japanese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Macedonian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Esperanto grammar wikipedia , lookup
Scottish Gaelic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Lithuanian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup
French grammar wikipedia , lookup
Swedish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Udmurt grammar wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ojibwe grammar wikipedia , lookup
Malay grammar wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Kannada grammar wikipedia , lookup
Chinese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Serbo-Croatian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Lexical semantics wikipedia , lookup
Honorific speech in Japanese wikipedia , lookup
Icelandic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Georgian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup
English clause syntax wikipedia , lookup
Hungarian verbs wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
Kagoshima verb conjugations wikipedia , lookup
Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup
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