Método aplicado para determinar el inventario de emisiones y su prospección a 25 años

I propose that NPQs are a special type of A-not-A question. Following Huang (1991), I assume that A-not-A questions constitute two syntactically distinct types. The [A not AB] type is derived from a simplex sentence with an interrogative INFL constituent that is phonetically realized by a rule of reduplication. The [AB not A] type is derived from a base structure of juxtaposed IPs that may be subject to ana- phoric ellipsis.4 Examples are given in (22).

(22) a. Tā xĭ-bù-xĭhuān zhè běn shū? 3S li(ke)-NEG-like this CL book ‘Does he like this book?’

b. Tā xĭhuān zhè běn shū bù-xĭhuān? 3S like this CL book NEG like ‘Does he like this book?’

According to Huang (1991), the interrogative INFL in (22a) is realized by copying the immediately following morpheme xĭ, and the negation marker bù is inserted in between the original and its copy. (22b) is derived from a base structure, i.e., [tā

[xĭhuān zhè bĕn shū] [bù xĭhuān zhè bĕn shū]], in which the second occurrence of

zhè bĕn shū is deleted.

I propose that NPQs belong to the [AB not A] type; namely, they are derived from a base structure of juxtaposed IPs, which undergoes anaphoric ellipsis that de- letes the constituent that follows the negation marker.

First, let us consider how the NPQs ending with bù are derived. The derivation of (23a) is demonstrated in (23b).

(23) a. Tā huì qù xuéxiào bù? 3S will go school NEG ‘Will he go to school?’

b. [IP1 [VP huì qù xuéxiào]] [IP2 [NegP bù [VP huì qù xuéxiào]]] →

[IP1 [VP huì qù xuéxiào]] [IP2 [NegP bù [VP huì qù xuéxiào]]] →

[IP1 [VP huì qù xuéxiào]] [IP2 [NegP bù]]

(23b) shows that the apparent sentence-final position of the negation marker bù is due to the deletion of the constituent that immediately follows it.

In this discussion, I consider méiyǒu to be the combination of the negation marker méi and the verb yǒu. I suggest that the sentence-final position of méiyǒu

results from the deletion of the complement of the verb yǒu, which can be either an NP or a VP. See (24) and (25).

(24) a. Tā yǒu qián méiyǒu? 3S have money NEG-have ‘Does he have money?’

b. [IP1 [VP yǒu [NP qián]]] [IP2 [NegP méi [VP yǒu [NP qián]]]] →

[IP1 [VP yǒu [NP qián]]] [IP2 [NegP méi [VP yǒu [NP qián]]]] →

[IP1 [VP yǒu [NP qián]]] [IP2 [NegP méi [VP yǒu]]] (25) a. Tā qù-guò méiyǒu?

3S go-EXP NEG-have ‘Has he been there?’

b. [IP1 [VP qù-guò]] [IP2 [NegP méi [VP yǒu [VP qù-guò]]]] →

[IP1 [VP qù-guò]] [IP2 [NegP méi [VP yǒu [VP qù-guò]]]] →

Recall that Cheng, Huang and Tang (1996) propose the NEG-to-C movement mainly to account for the selectional relation between the negation marker and the aspect/verb. Let us see how the current analysis maintains the agreement require- ment without resorting to any movement. I propose that there is an agreement re- quirement of the predicate nature of the two juxtaposed IPs. Namely, if the first IP contains bare verbs or modals, so does the second IP. As a result, the negation form that is generated in the second IP has to be bù but not méiyŏu. If the first IP contains aspect markers or accomplishment verbs, so does the second IP. In this case, the negation form that occurs in the second IP has to be méiyǒu but not bù. This is illus- trated in (26).

(26) a. [IP1 huì qù xuéxiào] [IP2 bú/*méiyǒu huì qù xuéxiào] b. [IP1 qù-guò] [IP2 *bú/méiyǒu qù-guò]

Under the current analysis, the problems raised by the movement approach dis- appear. The derivation of (8b) (repeated in (27a)) is illustrated by (27b).

(27) a. Tā qù-le xuéxiào méiyŏu? 3S go-PERF school NEG-have ‘Did he go to school?’

b. [IP1 [VP qù le xuéxiào]] [IP2 [NegP méi [VP yǒu qù xuéxiào]]] →

[IP1 [VP qù le xuéxiào]] [IP2 [NegP méi [VP yǒu qù xuéxiào]]]5→

[IP1 qù le xuéxiào] [IP2 méi yŏu]

As shown by (20b), the co-occurrence of le and méiyǒu is legitimate in NPQs be- cause they are not base generated in the same IP. As for why they cannot occur in the same IP, I suggest that while le marks perfective aspect, méiyǒu negates it. Thus when they occur in the same IP, there is a conflict of semantic feature.

On the other hand, due to the connection between le and méiyǒu, when the first IP is marked by the perfective aspect marker le, the negation form that appears in the second IP can only be meiyou. That is why (28) is out.

(28) *[IP1 [VP qù le xuéxiào]] [IP2 [NegP bú [VP qù xuéxiào]]] Now let us consider (9b) (repeated in (29a)).

(29) a. *Tā zhĭ xĭhuān zhè běn shū bù? 3S only like this CL book NEG

INTENDED READING: ‘Does he only like this book?’ b. *[ IP1 [VP zhĭ xĭhuān zhè běn shū]] [IP2 [NegP bù [VP zhĭ xĭhuān zhè běn shū]]]

(30) [IP tā [NegP bù[VP zhĭ xĭhuān zhè běn shū]]]

It shows that (9b) is ungrammatical because its base structure, which is (29b) but not (30) (cf. (9a)), is not legitimate (for the constraints on the formation of A-not-A questions see Zhang (1997) among others).

It was mentioned in section 5.2 that Cheng, Huang and Tang (1996) examined the mixed cases where the agreement requirement of the matrix verb differed from that of the embedded verb. They suggest that it provides supporting evidence for the claim that the negation marker in Mandarin NPQs is base generated inside IP and not in C. (6) is repeated below.

(31) Tā huì yĭwéi nĭ qù-guò méiyŏu? 3S will think 2S go-EXP NEG-have

i. *‘Will he think or not think that you have been (there)?’

ii. ‘Will he think that you have been (there) or you haven’t been (there)?’ The mixed cases can also be accounted for by the current analysis. See (32). (32) a. *[IP1 huì yĭwéi [CP nĭ qù-guò]] [IP2 méiyŏu huì yĭwéi [CP nĭ qù-guò]] b. [IP huì yĭwéi [CP nĭ [IP1 [qù-guò]] [IP2 méiyŏu [qù-guò]]]]

In (32a), it is the matrix IPs that are conjoined. The matrix reading is not allowed because in the second IP the negation form méiyŏu occurs with the modal verb huì, which violates the agreement requirement. In (32b), it is the embedded IPs that are conjoined. In this case, the agreement requirement is met, and thus the embedded reading is available.

5.3.4 CONCLUSION

In the preceding discussion, I argued that Mandarin NPQs are not derived via NEG- to-C movement. I proposed that they are derived from a base structure of juxtaposed IPs, which undergoes anaphoric ellipsis that deletes the constituent that follows the negation form. The current analysis not only explains the selectional relation be- tween negation and the aspect/verb, but it also avoids the problems raised by the movement approach. Besides, it accounts for the affinity between NPQs and A-not- A questions.