sign in sign up
<<
Home , Adu language, Amis language, An An (giant panda), Ati language (China), Bai language, Bai people

Interrogative Strategies An Areal Typology of the of

Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie

vorgelegt von Tianhua Luo

an der

Geisteswissenschaftliche Sektion Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft

Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 23. September 2013

1. Referent: Prof. Dr. Frans Plank 2. Referentin: Prof. Dr. Nicole Dehé

Contents

Acknowledgements ...... v Zusammenfassung ...... vii Abstract ...... xi Notational conventions...... xiii

Chapter 1. Introduction...... 1 1.1. The of ...... 1 1.1.1. forms...... 1 1.1.2. Assymetries in form and meaning...... 11 1.2. Motivation...... 16 1.3. Material ...... 19 1.4. Methodology ...... 24 1.5. Outline of the work ...... 28

Chapter 2. A survey of polar interrogative strategies ...... 31 2.1. Sino- languages...... 32 2.1.1. ...... 32 2.1.1.1. ...... 32 2.1.1.2. Yongxin ...... 48 2.1.1.3. Comparative Sinitic...... 56 2.1.2. Tibeto-Burman languages ...... 71 2.1.2.1. Tibetan languages...... 71 2.1.2.2. languages ...... 74 2.1.2.3. Jingpo languages ...... 88 2.1.2.4. Burmese languages...... 93 2.1.2.5. ...... 95 2.1.3. Kam languages...... 105 2.1.4. Hmong-Mien (Miao-) languages ...... 117 2.2. Altaic languages ...... 122 2.2.1. ...... 122 2.2.2. Mongolian languages ...... 128 2.2.3. Manchu-...... 133 2.3. ...... 136 2.4. Austro-Asiatic languages ...... 146

i 2.5. Indo-European ...... 154 2.6. Creole languages...... 155 2.7. Summary...... 157

Chapter 3. particles and final particles ...... 159 3.1. The position of question particles...... 162 3.2. ma ne polar in Sinitic languages...... 165 3.2.1. ma ne polar questions ...... 165 3.2.2. The nature of ma ne polar questions...... 172 3.3. Final particles in wh-questions ...... 174 3.3.1. Final particles in wh-questions ...... 174 3.3.2. Final particles in reduced wh-questions...... 177 3.4. Summary...... 182

Chapter 4. Disjunctions and alternative questions...... 183 4.1. Alternative vs -neg-X questions...... 185 4.2. Alternative questions: the or vs or/or? typology...... 188 4.2.1. Introducing the or vs or/or? typology ...... 188 4.2.2. The or vs or/or? typology...... 189 4.2.3. The position of or and or/or? ...... 193 4.2.4. The or vs or/or? typology and order ...... 196 4.3. Particles as disjunctions...... 198 4.3.1. Alternative questions through particles ...... 198 4.3.2. Patterns of particle disjunctions in alternative questions...... 200 4.4. Alternative islands in Sinitic...... 202 4.5. Summary...... 204

Chapter 5. Wh-phrases and wh-questions ...... 205 5.1. The position of wh-phrases...... 206 5.2. Wh-fronting in Standard Chinese...... 208 5.3. The syntax of wh-questions ...... 212 5.3.1. Wh-questions and order change...... 212 5.3.2. Wh-questions with coordination in Sinitic...... 216 5.4. The of wh-phrases...... 217 5.4.1. Languages with reduplication in wh-phrases...... 218 5.4.2. Which wh-phrases can be reduplicated?...... 219 5.4.3. Semantics of reduplicated wh-phrases...... 221 5.4.4. pattern of reduplicated wh-phrases...... 223 5.5. Summary...... 226

ii

Chapter 6. Three types of -related questions ...... 227 6.1. Q-VP questions ...... 228 6.1.1. Q-VP in Sinitic...... 228 6.1.2. Q-VP in Tibeto-Burman...... 234 6.1.3. Summary ...... 239 6.2. Verb-reduplicating questions...... 241 6.2.1. Verb-reduplication in Sinitic ...... 241 6.2.2. Verb-reduplication in Yi ...... 250 6.2.3. Verb-reduplication in Hmong-Mien...... 252 6.2.4. Summary ...... 253 6.3. Interrogative ...... 255 6.3.1. Interrogative verbs in Sinitic...... 255 6.3.2. Interrogative verbs in Formosan ...... 257 6.3.3. Hagège (2008)...... 258 6.4. Conclusion...... 260

Chapter 7. Typological and area-historical assessment ...... 263 7.1. Correlations of interrogativity...... 265 7.1.1. Correlations with interrogative strategies ...... 266 7.1.2. Interrogatives and ...... 270 7.1.3. Interrogatives and locus of marking...... 277 7.1.4. Interrogatives and alignment...... 280 7.1.5. Conclusion...... 289 7.2. Changes in questions: areal and historical perspectives ...... 290 7.2.1. Yes-no questions...... 290 7.2.2. X-neg-X questions ...... 291 7.2.3. Alternative questions...... 293 7.2.4. Three types of verb-related questions in Sinitic...... 295 7.3. Further topics: interrogation and negation ...... 310 7.3.1. Negation and interrogation in ask-and-answers...... 310 7.3.2. Diachronic negation and interrogation...... 313

Chapter 8. Conclusion ...... 315

References ...... 319 Appendix I. Features of 138 ...... 341 Appendix II. Atlas of interrogative strategies ...... 351

iii

iv

Acknowledgements

My work in Konstanz could not have been realized without the help of various people. I am deeply indebted to everyone who helped directly with this project, as well as to all who provided inspiration, support, and encouragement along the way. First of all, I am particularly grateful to supervisors Frans Plank and Nicole Dehé. I would like to thank Frans Plank for his invaluable advice on the project and kind support over the years, and thank Nicole Dehé for her constructive comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. Sincere thanks also go to Ka Yin Benjamin Tsou for agreeing to serve as the external examiner on my evaluation committee. I would like to thank the Department of at the University of Konstanz, particularly Aditi Lahiri (ständige Gastprofessorin), Maribel Romero, and Heike Zinsmeister for their useful and informative seminars, and for Heike’s help with the R project. Friends in offices G111-112 and G115 deserve special thanks for their constructive assistance, conversation, and laughter. I am especially grateful to Thomas Mayer for his support in general and for plotting the atlas. Thanks to Muna Pohl and Florian Schönhuber, too, for their kind help. I also wish to sincerely thank Bingfu , Jue , and Elizabeth Zeitoun. I thank Lu Laoshi and Wang Laoshi for leading me into an academic career in linguistics and for their kind support during my years of study. Thanks to Elizabeth Zeitoun for providing me with a detailed list of publications on Formosan interrogatives. I am also indebted to native informants for having provided me with various linguistic data for my research. Part of this work was presented at ICSTLL 43 (Lund 2010), ALT 9 ( Kong 2011), and ALT 10 (Leipzig 2013). I am grateful to the participants for their useful comments. For financial support, I owe special thanks to the China Scholarship Council (CSC) affiliated with the Ministry of . Finally, I would like thank my family for their love and support. Sadly, my father passed away during my studies in Konstanz and could not witness the completion of this work. I would like to dedicate the present dissertation to his loving memory.

v

vi

Zusammenfassung

Diese Dissertation untersucht Interrogativstrategien von 138 Sprachen in China in Bezug auf ihre Vielfalt und auf ihre Gemeinsamkeiten. Dabei wird ein räumlich-typologischer Ansatz verfolgt, der eine quantitative Analyse von 20 strukturellen Kriterien beinhaltet (zumeist morphosyntaktische Parameter). Diese Arbeit zeigt wesentliche strukturelle Eigenschaften der Interrogative in den einzelnen Sprachen auf und versucht Korrelationen zwischen den strukturellen Merkmalen herauszustellen. Des Weiteren wird untersucht, ob eine spezifische räumliche Verteilung von Strukturmerkmalen das Ergebnis von Sprachkontakt zu benachbarten Sprachen ist. Dabei machen Erkenntnisse im Bereich der Strukturmerkmale, Korrelationen zwischen den Parametern und räumliche Faktoren interrogativer Strategien den maßgeblichen Beitrag dieser Arbeit aus. Inhalt und Ergebnisse werden wie folgt zusammengefasst: Kapitel 2 beinhaltet eine Studie der interrogativen Strategien der Sprachen in China. Zudem enthält dieses Kapitel eine Analyse zweier einzelner Sprachen, Standard Chinesisch und Yongxin Gan, sowie ein Profil ihrer Interrogativ- strategien. Mehrere spezifische Themen im Bereich Interrogativstrategien werden in den Kapiteln 3 bis 6 behandelt. Kapitel 3 macht deutlich, dass sich die Position der Fragepartikeln der Sprachen in China deutlich von einer weltweiten Sprachstichprobe unterscheidet (Dryer 2005b), denn die Fragepartikeln der meisten chinesischen Sprachen werden bevorzugt an das Satzende gesetzt, wohingegen in Dryers Stichprobe ein sehr viel kleinerer Teil der Sprachen Fragepartikeln an das Satzende stellt. Ebenso zeigt eine Untersuchung der Entscheidungsfragen, die in den sinitischen Sprachen mit zwei benachbarten/adjazenten Finalpartikeln gebildet werden, .B. ma ne Fragen, dass solche Fragen mittels einer Fragepartikel und einer Finalpartikel gebildet werden. Damit wird der Mythos der sogenannten ‚Fragen mit zwei Fragepartikeln’ widerlegt. In der Diskussion über Disjunktionen und Alternativfragen stellt Kapitel 4 Kriterien für die Unterscheidung zwischen X-neg-X Fragen und alternativen Fragesätzen in den sinitischen Sprachen vor, da X-neg-X Fragen in der

vii Fachliteratur meist als Subtyp alternativer Fragesätze behandelt werden. Dieses Kapitel geht zudem von einer or vs. or/or? Typologie für alternative Fragen aus und untersucht zugleich, welche Faktoren für eine solche Typologie von Bedeutung sind. Denn in den Sprachen Chinas sind Disjunktionen in Deklarativen und Interrogativen verschieden, jedoch zeigen nicht alle Sprachen eine derartige Unterscheidung. Diese typologische Unterscheidung ist wichtig, weil sie (zumindest) mit einigen Wortstellungsparametern korreliert; sie wird in den Generalisierungen zusammengefasst (Abschnitt 4.2). Neben den “normalen Disjunktionen“ gibt es einige Sprachen, welche Finalpartikeln als disjunktive Strategie verwenden. Eine weitere Studie zeigt, dass Partikeln nach dem zweiten gewählten Token häufiger als nach dem ersten wegfallen. Im Gegensatz zu den Ergebnissen der weltweiten Sprachstichprobe (Dryer 2005c), ist wh- in ein allgemeines Charakteristikum der Sprachen in China. Dies wird in Kapitel 5 näher beschrieben. Das seltene Phänomen der wh-Reduplikation in interrogativen Phrasen taucht in 30 Sprachen (meistens im Tibetobirmanischen) auf. Nichtsdestotrotz variieren einzelne wh-Phrasen in ihren Möglichkeiten der Reduplikation, insbesondere Wörter wie who, what, where, und which können leicht redupliziert werden, bei how, when, und why gibt es einige Schwierigkeiten und how many/much und how long (time) können kaum redupliziert werden. Dies lässt sich damit erklären, dass wh-Phrasen nur redupliziert werden können, wenn eine bestimmte Phrase semantisch eine pluralische Bedeutung in sich tragen kann. Inhalt des sechsten Kapitels sind drei Arten von Fragesätzen: diejenigen, die sich auf das Verb beziehen, diejenigen, die mit interrogativen Adverbien gebildet werden und diejenigen, die mittels Verb-Reduplikation und interrogativen Verben gebildet werden. Bei den ersten beiden Arten handelt es sich um Entscheidungsfragen, beim dritten Typus um Inhaltsfragen. Sinitische Sprachen werden generell als isolierende Sprachen betrachtet, denen morphologische Strategien fehlen. Dieses Kapitel widerlegt diese Ansicht, indem hier die drei Typen der Fragesätze, die sich auf das Verb beziehen (alle in sinitischen Sprachen belegt) gemeinsam betrachtet werden und weist darauf hin, dass interrogative Strategien klare Fälle morphologischer Prozesse sind. Interrogativstrategien können nicht alleine funktionieren. In einer typologischen und räumlich-historischen Untersuchung von Interrogativen werden im siebten Kapitel 20 morphosyntaktische Parameter zusammengebracht, wobei in einem auf Häufigkeiten basierenden Ansatz Korrelationen aufgezeigt

viii werden. Als System korrelieren die einzelnen Strategien untereinander, als Teil eines größeren Sprachsystems korrelieren sie mit vielen anderen morphosyntaktischen Parametern. All diese Korrelationen werden in Form von 30 Generalisierungen zusammengefasst (Abschnitt 7.1). Interrogative Strategien variieren und verändern sich über Raum und Zeit. In diesem Zusammenhang werden geographische Faktoren vorgestellt, insbesondere der Kontakt mit dem Standard Chinesischen (und seinen Entlehnungen) innerhalb vieler Sprachgruppen. Zudem werden historische Entwicklungen, hauptsächlich die Geschwindigkeit der Veränderung, die Stabilität/ der Erhalt und der Rückgang individueller interrogativer Strukturen und Sprachgruppen dargestellt (Abschnitt 7.2). Kapitel 7 zeigt somit, dass einerseits Interrogative untereinander sowie mit anderen Parametern korrelieren und andererseits, dass die Vielfalt der Interrogative das (instabile) Ergebnis und die Repräsentation von Sprachwandel über Raum und Zeit sind.

ix

x

Abstract

This dissertation explores the diversity and unity of the interrogative strategies in 138 languages of China. It adopts an areal-typological approach and presents a quantitative analysis on 20 structural features (mostly morphosyntactic parameters). This work provides substantive structural features of interrogatives in individual languages and seeks to establish correlations in different structural features. It also seeks to establish whether particular areal distributions of structural features are the result of language contact among neighboring languages. Hence, structural features, correlations in parameters, and areal factors in interrogative strategies are the major contributions of this work. The major contents and findings are summarized as follows: After an introduction in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 gives a survey of the interrogative strategies in the languages of China, with also studies in two individual languages, Standard Chinese and Yongxin Gan, presenting a profile of interrogative strategies of these languages. Several specific topics on interrogative strategies are discussed in Chapters 3-6. Chapter 3 suggests that the positions of question particles in the languages of China are very different from the worldwide language sample (Dryer 2005b) in that most languages of China prefer -final positions, while Dryer’s sample reports that a much smaller proportion of other languages have sentence-final question particles. Also, the discussion on polar questions formed by two adjacent final particles in Sinitic languages, i.. ma ne questions, reveals that such questions are formed by a question particle plus a final particle, which dispels the myth of the so-called ‘questions formed by two question particles.’ In the discussion on disjunctions and alternative questions, Chapter 4 provides criteria for distinguishing X-neg-X questions and alternative questions in Sinitic, as X-neg-X questions are frequently treated as a subtype of alternative questions in the literature. This chapter also proposes an or vs or/or? typology in alternative questions and discusses what is important to such a typology because disjunctions in declaratives and interrogatives are different in many languages of China, while some other languages do not demonstrate such a difference. The typology matters in that it correlates with (at least) some word order parameters,

xi which are summarized in several generalizations (Section 4.2). Except for those with normal disjunctions, some languages are found to use particles as disjunctive strategies. A further study shows that particles to be chosen after the second disjunct are more likely to be dropped than those after the first disjunct. In Chapter 5, quite different from the findings in a worldwide language sample (Dryer 2005c), wh- in situ is found to be a general characteristic of the languages of China. A rare phenomenon, wh-reduplication in interrogative phrases, is found in 30 languages (mostly Tibeto-Burman). Nevertheless, individual wh-phrases vary in the capability of reduplication, particularly like who, what, where, and which can be reduplicated very easily, while how, when, and why bear some difficulty, and how many/much and how long (time) can hardly be reduplicated. The explanation is that reduplicating wh-phrases is only possible when a certain phrase can semantically carry a meaning. Three types of verb-related questions, in particular questions formed by a pre-verb interrogative marker, verb-reduplication, and interrogative verbs, are brought together in Chapter 6. The first two types are polar questions and the third type is content questions. Sinitic languages are generally considered to be ‘isolating’ languages that lack inflectional . This chapter fine-tunes such claims by bringing three types of verb-related interrogatives (all reported in Sinitic languages) together and proposes that such interrogatives are clear cases of morphological operations. Interrogative strategies correlate with each other and with other categories and parameters. In a typological and areal-historical assessment of interrogatives, Chapter 7 brings 20 parameters together and finds some correlations in a frequency-based approach. As a system, individual strategies correlate with each other; as a part of larger systems of language, they correlate with many other morphosyntactic parameters and these correlations are summarized in 30 generalizations (Section 7.1). Interrogative strategies vary and change in space and time. Geographical factors, notably contact with (and borrowing from) Standard Chinese in many groups of languages, as well as historical factors, notably the pace of change, i.e. pertinacity or transience in individual interrogative structures and in individual groups of languages, are presented (Section 7.2). Chapter 7 hence holds that diversity in interrogative strategies is the (unstable) result and representation of language change in space and time.

xii

Notational conventions

Abbreviations

Basically, the conventions followed are those given in The Leipzig Glossing Rules (Comrie et al. 2008). The following abbreviations are used in the interlinear glosses of language examples. In examples taken from descriptive literatures, the glosses are generally the same as those used in their original forms.

1 first person 2 second person 3 third person A agent-like argument of canonical transitive verb ABS absolutive ACC accusative Adj Adv (ial) AGT agent AF agent focus (actor focus) AP adjective phrase CAUS CL COP D DAT dative DEF definite DIR direction DISP disposal (construction) EMP emphatic marker ERG ergative F feminine FP sentence-/disjunct-final particle FUT future FV verb-final GEN genitive

xiii HON honorific IMP imperative INCL inclusive IRR irrealis LAC LOC locative M masculine NEG negation, negative NOM nominative NOMIN nominalization NP phrase NUM/Num OBJ OBL oblique P patient-like argument of canonical transitive verb PASS passive PFV perfective PIPCQ Position of interrogative phrases in content questions PL plural Po postposition PPQP position of polar question particles PQ polar questions PREF prefix Pr preposition PRF PROG progressive PRO(N) pronoun PN proper name PRS present PRT particle PST past Q question particle/marker RDP reduplication S sole argument of the SUFF suffix VP WALS The World Atlas of Language Structures

xiv

IPA and Standard Chinese

Pinyin IPA Pinyin IPA b p ai ai, aɪ, Ai h p p an an, An m m ang aŋ f f au, aʊ d t ei ei, eɪ t th en ən n n əŋ, ʌŋ l l ia iA, ia g k ian iɛn, iæn k kh iang iaŋ h x iao iau, iaʊ tɕ ie iɛ, ie q tɕh in in x ɕ ing iŋ z ts iong iʊŋ, yəŋ c tsh i(o) iou, iəʊ s s ong ʊŋ, uŋ zh tʂ ou, əʊ ch tʂh u(e)i uəi, uəɪ sh ʂ u(e)n uən r ɹ ua uA, uɑ uai uai, uaɪ, uAi a A, ɑ, ɛ uan uan, uAn e ɣ, e, ɛ, ə uang uaŋ o o, u ueng uəŋ, uʌŋ, uʊŋ i i, ɿ, ʅ üan , yɐ, yɛn u u, y üe yɛ, ü y ün yn, ün er ɚ

Notes: 1. i is written as y after zero initial and is written as yi in isolation; u is written as w after zero initial and is written as in isolation; ü is written as yu after zero initial and is written as u after initials j, q, x. 2. In this thesis most examples of Standard Chinese and other Sinitic languages are given in Pinyin, while those of Yongxin Gan (Sinitic) and minority languages are given in IPA.

xv

Tone system of Standard Chinese

Tone Symbol Graph Pitch Example

55 high level ¯ 55 mā [ma ] 妈 ‘mother’ high rising ˊ 35 má [ma35] 麻 ‘hemp’ 214 falling-rising ˇ 214 mǎ [ma ] 马 ‘’ high falling ˋ 51 mà [ma51] 骂 ‘(to) scold’

Notes: 1. This table is adapted from and Thompson (1981: 6-9) and Sun (2006: 39-40). 2. ‘Falling-rising’ tone is also known as ‘dipping’ tone. 3. In each tone graphs the vertical line on the right serves as a reference for pitch height, which is divided into five levels, 5 is the highest and 1 is the lowest. 4. The unstressed neutral tone (qīngshēng) is not included in the table. Cf. dōngxī ‘west and east’ (xi in the high level tone) and dōngxi ‘thing’ (xi in the unstressed neutral tone).

xvi

1 Introduction

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1. The grammar of interrogatives

1.1.1. Interrogative forms

The sentence types (or types of grammaticalized speech acts) consist of three members, declarative, imperative, and interrogative (though exclamatives are also very often included in the literature). The strategies of their form vary, but the declarative is the default sentence type and is typically left unmarked, the imperative is generally shown by verbal affix(es), and the interrogative has many forms. The core issue of the present thesis is the forms, or “strategies”, for asking questions, in particular polar questions (also known as yes/no questions). Content questions (also known as wh- questions, information questions, constituent questions) are also covered, but less central. Three kinds of interrogative forms should be distinguished at first place: prosodic, morphological, and syntactic. Cross-linguistically, the prosodic question marking is suggested by an intonation contour which is different from the one in declarative, normally a terminal rising one, at times also falling, or some other contour patterns. The morphological and syntactic forms, i.e. the non-prosodic question marking may take a variety of forms, ranging from full or reduced or phrases over independent words or vocal noises to clitics and affixes (Plank 2009). The inventory of question marking varies among individual languages and individual linguists. For example, in their introductory typological studies on sentence types and/or interrogative strategies, Sadock and Zwicky (1985), König and Siemund (2007), and Dryer (2005a) suggest three different lists of strategies

1

1 Introduction

for polar interrogative sentences (S & Z, K & S also include content questions, which is not the topic here; cf. Siemund 2001, Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Liljegren 2013).

(1) Polar interrogative strategies according to Sadock and Zwicky 1985

a. Intonation contour b. Question particles c. Interrogative verb morphology d. Alternative structures e. Word order change

(2) Polar interrogative strategies according to König and Siemund 2007

a. Intonational marking b. Interrogative particles c. Verbal d. Disjunctive-negative structures e. Change in word order f. Special tags

(3) Polar interrogative strategies according to Dryer 2005a

a. Interrogative intonation only b. Question particles c. Interrogative verb morphology d. Interrogative word order e. Absence of declarative f. No interrogative-declarative distinction g. Question particle and verb morphology

(1) and (2) are basically the same, except that König and Siemund (2007) noticed that certain languages spoken in Papua New Guinea (Amele, Kobon) and some Asian languages, e.g. Standard Chinese, use a disjunctive-negative structure to phrase questions (see below; see also Sections 2.1.1.1.4 and 4.1 for discussions of X-neg-X questions in Standard Chinese). (3e)-(3f) are different from (1)-(2) in that Dryer (2005a) is aware of some languages which express questions by omitting certain morphemes that are used in corresponding declarative sentences, e.g. Zayse (Omotic, Afro-Asiatic; Ethiopia), Kabardian (Northwest Caucasian; ; Colarusso 1992: 125-126),

2

1 Introduction

Puquina (isolate; Bolivia; Adelaar 2004: 354), Dinka (Nilotic; Sudan; Nebel 1948: 58-61), and Huichol (Corachol, Uto-Aztecan; Mexico).

(4) Zayse (Hayward 1990b: 307; cited in Dryer 2005a)

a. hamá-tte-ten ‘I will go’ b. háma-ten ‘Will I go?’ c. hamá-tt-isen ‘She will go.’ d. háma-ysen ‘Will she go?’

(5) Huichol (Grimes 1964: 27; Palmer 2001: 54)

a. pée-t ʌ́a ASSERTIVE-direction go ‘ left.’

b. mázá tikuucúu deer asleep ‘Is the deer asleep?’

In (4), the -tt(e)- is missing in the interrogatives (4b, 4d), but is kept in corresponding declarative sentences (4a, 4c). In (5a), an ‘assertive’ marker pée- is employed to indicate the sentence is a statement, while the form used as a question is often the unmarked form (5b). Moreover, there are languages simply demonstrate no formal marking in polar interrogatives, such as Chalcatongo Mixtec (Mixtecan, Oto-Manguean; Mexico) and Gooniyandi (Australian, ; McGregor 1990: 485, 382-3, 369-71; see Miestamo 2011).

(6) Chalcatongo Mixtec (Macaulay 1996: 126)

ñábaʔa-ró librú-ro(?) have-2 book-2 ‘ have your book. / Do you have your book?’

(6) can be interpreted as either a declarative sentence or an interrogative sentence, with no difference in intonation associated with the two meanings. Yet there are a number of languages, e.g. Blackfoot (Algonquian, Algic) and Greenlandic (Eskimo, Eskimo-Aleut), both interrogatives and declaratives are marked by special verb morphology, although not the identical ones (see Sadock and Zwicky 1985).

3

1 Introduction

The markedness pattern of declaratives and polar interrogatives is summarized in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1. Markedness pattern in declaratives (D) and polar interrogatives (Q)

Markedness pattern Frequency Languages attested (i) D unmarked, Q unmarked rare Chalcatongo Mixtec (ii) D unmarked, Q marked common Germanic, Sinitic, etc. (iii) D marked, Q marked rare Blackfoot, Greenlandic (iv) D marked, Q unmarked rare Dinka, Huichol, Kabardian, Puquina, Zayse

It can be seen that polar interrogatives are cross-linguistically more marked than declaratives.

The major forms for asking polar questions in the languages of China can be found in the three lists (1-3) mentioned above.

Interrogative intonation only Languages form questions by interrogative intonation only (IIO) suggests that they involve same words, morphemes and word order as the corresponding declarative sentence, but with a distinct intonation pattern as the sole indication signaling that it is a question. Most languages employ a distinctive intonation in questions, in collaboration with some other morphosyntactic strategies. Nevertheless, some of these languages cannot form questions by a distinctive intonation only. Moreover, the IIO languages vary in the frequency in employing the strategy. In other words, although most languages use a distinct intonation pattern in interrogatives, only some of them use the device as the sole indication – this is a matter of “yes” or “no”; in the IIO languages, some use it often, others not – this is a matter of “more” or “less”. There are two extreme cases. One is that the distinctive intonation is in complementary distribution with some other formal markers of interrogation (e.g. Chrau, a Mon- of the Austro-Asiatic family), and another is that some languages simply do not use distinctive intonation at all (e.g. Greenlandic; cf. Sadock and Zwicky 1985).

4

1 Introduction

There seems to be a hierarchy in the employment of interrogative intonation cross-linguistically:

(7) Hierarchy of interrogative intonation

IIO in complementary distribution with other strategies > IIO (common > less common) > Distinctive intonation and others strategies > No distinctive intonation

In many languages of China, distinctive intonation is used to form questions, without the participation of other strategies, although so far no language ranked the highest in the hierarchy. For example, many Sinitic languages can form polar questions by IIO, but not very common, e.g. Standard Chinese, where a special context is required (see Section 2.1.1.1.2). In most Austro-Asiatic languages, polar questions can be formed solely by a terminal rising intonation, e.g. Bulang.1

(8) Bulang (Li et al. 1986: 73)

2 4 1 1 miʔ kɔʔ l̥aʔ hɣl ? ↗ 2SG also want go ‘Do you also want to go (there)?’

Question particles Question particles are invariable items with the function of forming questions. As a marker of sentence types, question particles signal that a certain sentence is a question. Question particles are different from question tags because no meaning ‘is’ or ‘true’ is involved (which is typical in question tags; see below), and different from interrogative verb inflection in that they are not verb-related but sentence-related, i.e. such particles question the complete statement, not the verb. They are also different from the “particles in questions” in that the latter may not necessarily form questions (see the introduction of Chapter 3 for more discussion on the notion “question particle”).

1 In the nine Austro-Asiatic languages in China, six languages of the Mon-Khmer group invariably use IIO. Nevertheless, only one language from the Viet-Muong group, , use such a question-signaling device, and the other two languages either do not use IIO (Jing) or is still not clear (Mang).

5

1 Introduction

Many if not most languages with question particles favor to place them sentence-finally. In Dryer’s (2005b) 777-languages data, 272 languages use sentence-final particles, which is much more frequent than other positions, e.g. initial (118 lgs), second (45 lgs), other (8 lgs), etc. (Cf. Greenberg’s 1966 Universals 9-10 and Ultan’s 1978 Universal 7 on order.) Sentence-final question particles are especially common in the languages of China, where particles of other types of illocutionary forces are widely reported. This brings difficulties in distinguishing the question particles and other particles, now that they are in similar forms and occur at the same position. Take Standard Chinese for example, controversial remains in whether final particles ne, , and a are question particles or not, although ma is generally accepted to be a question particle.

(9) Standard Chinese

a. shi ta a/ba/ma? 2SG be 3SG elder.brother FP ‘Are you the elder brother of her/him?’

b. ni shi-bu-shi ta gege a/ne? 2SG be-not-be 3SG elder.brother FP ‘Are you the elder brother of her/him or not?’

In (9a), the interrogative meaning is expressed by using a terminal rising intonation, and (9b) relies on the X-neg-X structure. In both cases, final particles a and ne are not indicators of polar interrogatives (but ma and ba are). In other words, a and ne are common final particles (here, in questions), and ma and ba are final particles signaling questions (see Section 2.1.1.1.3 for more discussion).

Interrogative verb morphology Interrogative verb morphology covers a variety of question-signaling devices, ranging from affixes or clitics to verb inflection as well as some minor strategies like verb-reduplication and tonal change on the verb. The use of affixes is a very common interrogative strategy cross- linguistically. For example, in Dryer’s (2005a) 842-languages data, 155 languages employ such a strategy. In the languages of China, this is especially common in the Tibeto-Burman languages. Some languages use interrogative

6

1 Introduction

infixes, which is a typological rarity, e.g. Muya (Tibeto-Burman, Sino-Tibetan), where an infix æ55 is added between the verb stem and its suffix(es) (see Section 2.1.2.4 for more examples and discussion). In a number of languages, polar questions can also be formed by reduplicating the verbs or (adjective-reduplication is rare, see Section 6.2.2). This is reported in a number of Sinitic and Yi languages (Tibeto-Burman, Sino-Tibetan).

(10) Yi ( et al. 1985: 94; Chen et al. 2007: 265)

a. la33 ‘come’, la44la33 ‘Come?’ 55 21 55 21 33 b. lɔ pɔ ‘help’, lɔ pɔ pɔ ‘Help?’

In (10), the verb is reduplicated and expresses an interrogative meaning (note that 10a is total reduplication and 10b is partial, although both are changed in tones). A similar strategy is found in many other Sinitic and Yi languages as well, some with tonal changes, others do not. Such verb-reduplicating polar questions will be addressed in Section 6.2. Interrogative verbs2 are also a kind of interrogative verb morphology. Such words are normally composed of a verb stem and a morpheme indicating the pronouns (cf. Idiatov and van der Auwera 2004 “interrogative pro-verb”), although they invariably involve content questions. For example, in some Sinitic languages and most , interrogative verbs are employed in forming content questions.

(11) Colloquial Standard Chinese (Hagège 2008)

nǐ zài gànmá? 2SG PROG do.what ‘What are you doing?’

Interrogative verbs are synchronically unanalyzable. In (11), gànmá as a whole cannot be analyzed as a verb plus an interrogative pronoun, that is, it is a verb(-complex), not a verbal phrase. The issue of interrogative verbs will be addressed in Section 6.3. At times, the term “pre-verb interrogative marker” (for short, Q-V) is used

2 An interrogative verb is “a kind of word which both functions as predicate and questions the semantic content of this predicate.” (Hagège 2008)

7

1 Introduction

in this thesis. It covers the interrogative prefixes and clitics which occur before the verb, e.g. a- in many varieties of Wu (Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan) and ke- in many varieties of . This is unfortunate because in some languages such interrogative markers are clearly prefixes or clitics, but hard to make the distinction in other languages. In this sense, a more general label, though less accurate, is employed.

X-neg-X structures X-neg-X structures are also known as disjunctive-negative structures (Thompson 1998, König and Siemund 2007), V-not-V structures (Chao 1968), and A-not-A structures (Li and Thompson 1981), etc. “Disjunctive-negative” is not precise because no disjunction, which is a feature of alternative/disjunctive questions, is involved in the structure, although it has close affinity to disjunctive questions both in form and meaning. (For V-not-V, A-not-A, and some others, see Section 2.1.1.1.1.) The label “X-neg-X” is adopted in this thesis, and “disjunctive-negative” is used only in marginal cases to refer the structure, but not as a (sub)type of questions. Admittedly, X-neg-X questions are semantically similar to alternative questions in that both of them involve a choice of one item from more possibilities, but the differences remains in that (i) the former involves only two items, one positive and one negative, but the latter may involves more than two, not necessarily with one positive and one negative, (ii) less restrictions are placed on the former than the latter in syntactic alternations, (iii) the former can be answered by a less clear statement than the latter (see Section 4.1 for more discussion). The X-neg-X structure seems to be a typological rarity which is exclusively reported in the languages of China (König and Siemund 2007 also mention some other Asian languages and languages spoken in Papua New Guinea). In the literature of Chinese linguistics, such questions are also known as - wenju ‘positive-negative questions’ (sometimes also termed fanfu wenju ‘repetitive questions’). As the label suggests, such questions are characterized by the positive-negative structure. X-neg-X questions are used in most languages of China, although they are not found in the Altaic languages and some Austronesian and Tibeto-Burman languages. The following example is taken from Sulong (Tibeto-Burman, Sino-Tibetan).

8

1 Introduction

(12) Sulong (Li 2004: 167)

a. na55 ɬa33sa55 wu55ga31 ba31 wu55ga31? 2SG go NEG go ‘Are you going to Lhasa or not?’

b. na55 ɟe33 a31ŋwa33ȵiaŋ55da31 ba31 ŋwa33ȵiaŋ55da31? 3SG.M TOP good.looking NEG good.looking ‘Is he handsome or not?’

In Sulong, the X can be a verb or an adjective. In some other languages, for example in some Sinitic languages, like Standard Chinese and Yongxin Gan, it can also be a noun (phrase) (see Section 2.1.1.1.4).

Alternative structures Alternative questions (also known as disjunctive questions) are formed with two or more constituents conjoined by disjunction(s), i.e. alternative structures. The structure provides a list of propositions from which, the speaker suggests, the right answer might be drawn (Sadock and Zwicky 1985). Semantically, alternative questions are similar to content questions in the answer set because both types seek for information, not logical polarity. Nevertheless, the present thesis treats such structures as polar questions in regard of three reasons. First, semantically, the addressee is requested to choose which one in the two or more alternatives holds, i.e. alternative questions seek a yes/no value of one disjunct among the two or more. Second, formally, alternative questions do not employ any wh- phrases. Third, also formally, a similar type, X-neg-X questions, is treated as polar questions. In might be equally sensible to claim that yes/no questions are a subtype of alternative questions because the addressee is asked to choose a “yes” or “no” value, i.e. yes/no questions are “definite” alternative questions because there are only two alternatives. More radically, one may claim that wh- questions are also a subtype of alternative questions in that the addressee is asked to choose one item from a variety of choices, i.e. wh- questions are “indefinite” alternative questions, although the wh- phrases help to determine what kind of information that the questioner is requested to supply, but the range of choice is not as fixed as alternative questions. The controversial in the taxonomies of interrogatives in Standard Chinese is discussed in Section 2.1.1.1.1.

9

1 Introduction

The differences between alternative questions and X-neg-X questions have been addressed before, yet there is another matter deserves to be mentioned here, namely the alternative structures conjoined by particles. The following example is taken from Achang (Tibeto-Burman, Sino-Tibetan).

(13) Achang (Dai and 1985: 78)

a. nuaŋ55 lɔ35 ma21 lɔ35? 2SG go NEG go ‘Are you going (there) or not?’

55 35 55 21 21 35 21 b. nuaŋ lɔ neʔ la ,ma lɔ la ? 2SG go PRT QP NEG go QP ‘Are you going (there) or not?’

(13a) is a X-neg-X question, and (13b) is an alternative question because the particle la21 functions as a disjunction. Particle disjunctions have been found in a number of languages in China, the issue will be addressed in Section 4.3.

Special tags Question tags are constituents consisting of an plus pronoun, attached at the end of a statement in order to convey a negative or positive orientation, e.g. English isn’t it or innit, German nicht wahr. Question tags normally contain a predicate with meaning like ‘is’ or ‘true’ (Sadock and Zwicky 1985; Plank 2009; see also Dehé and Braun 2013 for a detailed definition and references given therein). According to König and Siemund (2007), question tags are different from question particles in that (i) “[question] tags, apart from characterizing sentences as questions, also contribute a certain bias by raising expectations toward either a positive or negative answer”, and (ii) “[question] tags almost exclusively occur at the end of a sentence, quite independently of basic word order pattern”. That is, cross-linguistically, question particles are an invariable parts-of-speech which occur not necessarily sentence-final (see Section 3.1 for Dryer’s 2005b data), while question tags are constituents (normally containing a predicate) attached at the end of a sentence, although both of them characterize sentences as questions. Nevertheless, sentence-final seems to be only a preferred position for question tags because in natural language, e.g. English, they may take utterance-final, sentence-final, XP-final, and XP-medial positions, though the XP-final/-medial

10

1 Introduction

positions are much less common (see Dehé and Braun 2013). Two further possible criteria for the distinction between question particles and question tags are (iii) prosodic separation is more frequent before (non-phrase-medial) question tags compared to question particles, and (iv) question tags are more complex syntactically than question particles, because question tags normally contain verbs or modals while particles are invariable items. In many languages of China, notably the Sinitic languages, X-neg-X structures are frequently used as question tags.

(14) Standard Chinese

ni yao , bu dui? 2SG FUT go Beijing right not right ‘You are going to Beijing, right?’

Li and Thompson claim that the in is composed of a statement followed by an A-not-A (= X-neg-X) form, e.g. dui bu dui ‘right not right’, hao bu hao ‘good not good’, xing bu xing ‘OK not OK’, shi bu shi ‘be not be’ (Li and Thompson 1981: 521). Nevertheless, this is not the whole story. There are at least two equally common strategies, namely (i) to add a final particle at the end of a copula or an evaluation adjective, sometimes also with a negation word before the structure, e.g. (bu) dui/hao/xing/shi ma/ba? ‘(not) right/good/OK/be QP’, and (ii) to use a negation word after a copula or an evaluation adjective, e.g. dui/hao/xing/shi bu? ‘right/good/OK/be NEG’.

1.1.2. Asymmetries in form and meaning

Different questions are signaled by different forms. Intonational questions, particle questions, alternative questions, X-neg-X questions, tag questions, and wh- questions are typically signaled by distinctive intonation, question particles, alternative structures, X-neg-X structures, tags, and wh- phrases, respectively. Nevertheless, a number of asymmetrical phenomenon is found in the form and meaning of interrogatives.

Distinctive intonation Terminal rising intonation is a common signaling device of polar questions

11

1 Introduction

cross-linguistically. In a number of languages, final rising intonation is used both in polar and content questions, e.g. Diola (Atlantic, Niger-; Sapir 1965, Sadock and Zwicky 1985). In Puyuma (Formosan, Austronesian), terminal falling interrogative intonation is reported in the polar questions without interrogative particles ( 2000: 151-3).

(15) Puyuma (Huang 2000: 151-2)

a. sagar=yu kanku amáw?↗ like.AF=2.NOM 1 QP ‘Do you like me?’

b. a-ekan=yu Da biTénum?↘ RDP-eat.AF=2.NOM OBL egg ‘Would you like to eat eggs?’

In the particle questions (15a), final rising intonation is used, which is the same in declarative sentences. However, in the polar questions without interrogative particles (15b), terminal falling intonation is adopted.

Question particles In Standard Chinese and most other Sinitic languages, (final) question particles resemble other final particles both in form and distribution. In particular, their phonological structures are CV, with nasal or bilabial /n/ /m/ /p/ and open (mid) front /a/ /ɛ/; and, as the label ‘final particle’ suggests, they occur sentence-finally. However, only some of them form polar questions, e.g. ma, ba, while some others cannot, e.g. a, ne. Final particles also behave differently in wh- questions in Standard Chinese and most other Sinitic languages as well. As they occur in polar questions, final particles also express various pragmatic meanings in wh- questions, depending on the context, although they are not necessary in forming wh- questions.

(16) Standard Chinese

a. shui zhidao? (wh- question) who know ‘Who knows this?’

12

1 Introduction

b. shui zhidao a/ne? (wh- question, rhetorical/‘on earth’/politeness) who know FP ‘Who knows? (I don’t know.)’ / ‘Who on earth knows this?’ / ‘(Please tell me) Who knows this?’

c. shui zhidao ma? (polar question) who know QP ‘Does someone know this?’

Note that a wh- question turns into a polar one if question particle ma is used (16c). (16c) is a case of indefinite-interrogative affinity (see, e.g. Li 1992, Haspelmath 1997, Bhat 2000, Gärtner 2009). In fact, in Standard Chinese the wh-phrases turn to be indefinite pronouns if question particle ma (and the like) is added at the end of a content question, cf. shui ‘who ~ someone’ (16c), nali ‘where ~ somewhere’, shenme ‘what ~ something’, etc. (16c) has both a wh- word shui ‘who’ and a question particle ma, but it is a polar question, not a wh- one. The rule is that wh- questions invariably turn into polar questions by taking question particle ma (and sometimes ba), in other words, polar question particles override wh- words and form polar questions. ne is different from other final particles in Standard Chinese in that it forms the so-called reduced wh- questions but the others cannot. In most other Sinitic languages and a number of minority languages in China, only some final particles can form such reduced wh- questions, and the number is much smaller than those used in normal wh- questions, although same particles are used in both normal wh- questions and reduced wh- questions in some languages, e.g. Yongxin Gan (Sinitic) ne, Wu (Sinitic) ȵi, Dulong (Tibeto-Burman) da55, Biao (Kam) ni1, etc. Such particles are collected in Section 3.3.2.

(17) Yongxin Gan

a. Zhangsan ne? ‘Where is Zhangsan?’ b. Zhangsan a? ‘Are you talking about Zhangsan?’

(17a) is a reduced wh- question (with particle ne), and (17b) is a polar question (with particle a, which is similar to Standard Chinese ma in this case).

Alternative structures The form-meaning asymmetry in alternative questions can be seen at least

13

1 Introduction

in two aspects. First, in many languages, there is in fact no choice need to be made in alternative structures. For example, in English a question in the form of alternatives can be a yes/no question in reality, depending on intonation and prosody, compare: Do you like [apples]↗ or [oranges]↘? (alternative question), Do you like [apples or oranges]↗? (yes/no question) (see e.g. and Romero 2004 and references given therein; see also Jennings 1994: 27). Nevertheless, such yes/no reading does not exist in Standard Chinese and most other Sinitic languages (see the introduction in Chapter 4 for more discussion). Second, alternative questions are hard to be neatly placed in the polar/content taxonomy. The issue has been mentioned before in Section 1.1.1, as such structures resemble both content questions and polar questions. The situation becomes more complicated if wh- phrases are involved, in which the alternative structures normally occur sentence-finally like a tag, e.g. Which course do you like better, Syntax or Semantics?

X-neg-X structures In the literature of Chinese linguistics, X-neg-X questions are frequently classified as a subtype of alternative questions (see Section 2.1.1.1.1). This is majorly because the semantic relationship between X and neg-X is also one of disjunction. Formally, the employment of disjunctions, a signal of alternative questions, is not found in such structures (see Section 4.1 for more discussion on the distinctness between the two structures). A radical formal view would claim that X-neg-X structures are declaratives because no interrogative readings can be directly inferred from the appearance. Nevertheless, this point is not adopted here. The present thesis treats alternative and X-neg-X as different structures not in regard of their forms only. The form-meaning asymmetry in X-neg-X questions brings difficulties in the taxonomy, namely whether it is a subtype of polar questions or content questions. Formally, wh- phrases, a basic feature of content questions, are not involved in X-neg-X questions. Semantically, however, it requires not a yes/no answer but a X/not-X answer (a content information). For example, Standard Chinese ni qu-bu-qu Bolin? (2SG go-NEG-go Berlin) ‘Will you go Berlin?’ cannot be answered by a polar reply shi/bu ‘yes/no’, but can be answered by qu/bu qu ‘go/not go’, which provides content information. It is obviously not an easy field to deal with the formal and

14

1 Introduction

semantic(-pragmatic) distinctions of interrogatives, as is seen in the approaches to the taxonomies (cf. Section 2.1.1.1.1). In this thesis, ‘polar questions’ and ‘yes/no questions’ are used as general labels that cover the interrogatives formed by the strategies listed in (18).

(18) Polar interrogative strategies in the languages of China

a. Interrogative intonation only b. Question particles c. Interrogative verb morphology d. X-neg-X structures e. Alternative structures f. Reduplicating structures g. Special tags

It can be seen that the subtypes of polar questions are basically based on the forms, that is, the descriptive concepts being used in this thesis are formal, although semantic-pragmatic factors are also considered.

15

1 Introduction

1.2. Motivation

Language typology studies what the languages of the world are like (Shopen 2007: xiv). In other words, typology is expected to present the diversity and its patterns (and it is expected to find some unity as well). For the present purpose, it is too early to conclude that a certain list of interrogative strategies covers most or all human languages: The list becomes longer when languages with different strategies are reported. In this sense, providing substantive structural features of interrogatives in individual languages is a first step for further generalization. To compare generalizations of individual structural features, or rather, to seek to establish correlations in different structural features, is another major interest of typology. Some earlier typological studies on interrogatives have provided extensive results regarding the ways in which languages vary structurally and regarding correlations among different features (e.g. Greenberg 1966 universals No. 8-12, and 23 universals proposed by Ultan 1978; see below). Two main typological views of the unity of human languages, that it demonstrates common features in structures, and that it correlates in structural features, are directly applicable to interrogatives. This work contributes to both diversity and unity. It provides structural features of interrogativity in 138 languages in China, many of which have not been presented or presented well in the theoretical literature (see Chapters 2-6), and it correlates features of interrogativity with various structural features, in particular clause order, alignment, and locus of marking (see Section 7.1). It also contributes to areal typology by seeking to establish whether particular geographical distributions of different values for interrogative features are the result of contact among neighboring languages (see Section 7.2; for ‘areal typology’, see e.g. Dahl 2001, Comrie et al. 2005, Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2011). Correlations or unities are not self-explanatory. In other words, language universals cannot be explained simply by claiming that a certain feature or category has something to do with another. For example, Greenberg’s (1966) Universal 10 notes that “Question particles or affixes, when specified in position by reference to a particular word in the sentence, almost always follow that word. Such particles do not occur in languages with dominant order VSO.” Curious readers would go beyond the numbers of (un)attested languages and ask why question particles or affixes occur later and why don’t they exist in VSO

16

1 Introduction

languages. Similar problems are found in his Universals 8-9 and 11-12 concerning interrogatives. Such correlations or universals do not make a significant contribution to our knowledge about interrogatives without further explanation, albeit Greenberg (1966) provides two general principles, namely harmony and dominance, to account for such universals, but the principles need further explanation, too. One obvious shortcoming of macro typology is that such approach does not tell us the history of individual languages or language groups, because it looks at samples of unrelated languages. Micro typology or areal typology remedies the disadvantage by examining languages that are very closely related, like languages or within one , or languages that are related to each other geographically or historically. All the history of language is areal history. For a complete understanding of the diversities and unities in interrogatives (and other grammatical categories as well) in a certain linguistic area (“area-versals”), several issues, namely (i) how do languages contact and change, (ii) how do certain interrogative strategies influence the others, and (iii) what is the origin of certain interrogative markers, are needed to examine. The motivation or general research questions of the present work accordingly cover three aspects: (i) What the structural features of interrogative strategies are in the languages of China? (ii) How do the structural features of interrogatives correlate between themselves and with other grammatical categories? (iii) Why there are certain interrogative features in certain groups of languages or linguistic areas?

Interrogativity deserves more attention than it has been given by typologists. As has been pointed out, “there have been few general, cross-linguistic discussions of questions” (Dixon 2012: 429). The major English typological works on interrogatives in the past 50 years are listed following. In his pioneering work on word order universals, Greenberg (1966/1963) proposes some patterns in interrogatives, which are summarized in his universals No. 8-12. These universals manifest the placement of interrogative intonation (No. 8), the relation between question particles/affixes and adpositions (No. 9) or basic word order (No. 10), as well as the relation between question word/affixes and constituent sequencing (No. 11-12). Moravcsik (1971) presents some generalizations regarding yes/no questions and their answers. In a Greenbergian

17

1 Introduction

approach, Ultan (1978) examines the interrogative systems of 79 languages, and presents altogether 23 universals with reference to interrogatives, among which 3 deal with intonation, 3 with word accent, 10 with word order, and 7 with segmental elements. Chisholm (1984) collects information regarding interrogativity in 7 different languages. Bencini (2003) presents a diachronic typology of yes/no question constructions with particles. Dryer (2005a, b, c) conducts three general surveys of polar questions, the position of polar question particles, and the position of interrogative phrases in content questions using worldwide language samples. Rialland (2007) examines yes/no question prosody in 78 African languages. Miestamo (2011) focuses on polar interrogatives in by examining 20 Uralic languages from a typological perspective. Dixon (2012: 376-433) includes one chapter on the typology of interrogatives. The list is too short compared to the studies of other major fields of , although it is by no means a complete list or a near complete one.

18

1 Introduction

1.3. Material

There are several theoretical and practical reasons for devoting the present thesis to the languages in China. As noted, “China possesses rich linguistic resources which remain relatively untapped” (Chappell et al. 2007). Except for Standard Chinese, most other languages spoken in China have not been well represented in the theoretical literature. This thesis attempts to present an outline of the interrogative strategies of the languages of China, including in-depth discussions on topics related to interrogatives, in an effort to present a comprehensive view of the interrogative mechanisms at work in these languages. The 138 languages with which this work is concerned include 10 Sinitic languages, 46 Tibeto-Burman, 22 Kam, 7 Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao), 22 Altaic, 16 Austronesian, 9 Austro-Asiatic, 1 Indo-European, and 5 Creole, covering diverse language families. The practical reason for choosing such a focus is that the languages of China, and the descriptive literature about them, are the languages with which I am most familiar. Although there is a potential risk that linguists may to some extent turn a blind eye to familiar material, the advantage of doing so are obvious, especially in analyzing the areal skewings and historical factors of certain structural features.

This work covers 138 languages currently spoken in China.3 Basically, they are classified into two groups: the Sinitic languages and the ‘minority’ languages. The classifications and names of individual languages used in this work mainly follow those employed by Sun et al. (2007).

Sinitic languages

There are ten Sinitic languages of China: , Gan, Hakka, , , Mandarin, , Ping, Wu, and Xiang, covering about 93% of the population of

3 Note that the 138 languages covered here do not comprise the total number of languages currently spoken in China. More languages have been and are being discovered. Some known cases include Ainu, Bumang, Sadu, Younuo, and Zhaba, which are collected in Sun (ed.) (1997– ).

19

1 Introduction

China (according to the 2010 census, China has a population of 1.37 billion). Their geographical distribution and number of speakers are roughly demonstrated in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1. The Sinitic languages (source: ; URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_language)

20

1 Introduction

Each language has various dialects or varieties. For example, Mandarin has basically six sub-dialects, including Beijing Mandarin, Jiang-Huai (Central-East) Mandarin, Central Mandarin, , , and -Yin (North-Central) Mandarin. Each sub- of Mandarin has millions of native speakers, with notable differences in , lexicon, and to some extent also in grammar (see e.g. 2008). It is not precise to use the label ‘Mandarin (Chinese)’ or ‘Beijing Mandarin’ to refer to the Sinitic languages, nor is it proper to refer to , Putonghua ( ).4 By definition, Putonghua’s phonological system is based on Beijing Mandarin, its vocabulary is drawn from the large and diverse group of Mandarin varieties spoken across northern, central, and southwestern China, and the grammar is based on modern good literary works written in vernacular Chinese. With regard to this, throughout this thesis, the label ‘Standard Chinese’ is used to refer to Putonghua, while individual Mandarin languages maintain their own labels. Some comprehensive works on Sintic languages mainly include: Li et al. (1987), a detailed atlas of the languages of China (a revised edition will be published soon); Li et al. (1991-2003), including 42 monographs on the lexicon of individual Sinitic languages; Hou et al. (1995-1999), a sound archive of 40 Sinitic languages; Huang et al. (1996), a dialectal grammar of Sinitic languages, grouping by grammatical topics; and Cao (2008), three volumes (phonology, lexicon, and grammar) of the linguistic atlas of Sinitic languages. (See also Chappell et al. 2007 for some studies and projects in the .)

Minority languages

The minority languages of China include at least 128 languages from various families/groups. ‘Minority’ does not necessarily imply a small number of

4 Putong-hua ‘common-language’ and -yu ‘national-language’ are basically the same, though there are some differences in the pronunciation of a small number of words (see e.g. Duanmu 2000: 263-7 for an overview of the phonology of Taiwanese accented Standard Chinese). In fact, most acquire their local ‘dialect’ (dialects of Sinitic languages) as their first language and Standard Chinese (Putonghua) as their second language. ‘Standard Chinese’ is a standardized artificial language that no one actually speaks, since everyone speaks it in more or less dialectal ways. In this sense, what people speak is a specific Sinitic language (or, dialect of Chinese), but not Standard Chinese. (According to Duanmu’s 2009: 86 estimation, only about 1% of Chinese people can speak Standard Chinese without any obvious accent.)

21

1 Introduction

speakers. Minority languages are spoken by 7% of the population of China, which is a minority in with the other 93% (the ), but China has a population of about 1.37 billion and many so-called minority nationalities actually have a large population. For example, Tibetan has about 3.3 million native speakers, Mongolian has 5.8 million, Uighur has 8 million. Nevertheless, many minority languages do indeed have a small number of native speakers (e.g. Dulong, Bola, Langsu, Leqi), or are highly endangered (e.g. Manchu, Hezhen, Gelao, Tujia, Xiandao), or died out in a recent history (e.g. some Formosan languages in Taiwan). Sun et al. (2007) provide further information regarding the number of speakers and areas in which individual languages are spoken. The following table provides some basic information about the minority languages. (Note that the classification of languages follows Sun et al. 2007, not necessarily in accordance with the popular classifications, especially in Kam languages, Austro-Asiatic languages, and Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages.) Some comprehensive studies on the minority languages of China include: Sun et al. (1980-1987), which includes 57 monographs and documents 59 languages (revised edition in 6 volumes published 2009, with one language, Manchu, added); Sun (ed.) (1997- ) intends to publish the newly-discovered languages and has already produced more than 40 books; Thurgood and LaPolla (2003), which collects dozens of Sino-Tibetan languages of China and beyond; and Sun et al. (2007), which introduces 129 languages5 of China in one big book. A list of the languages of China is given in Table 1.2.

5 In Sun et al. (2007), “Chinese” is a general label for all the Sinitic languages, which is different from the present work.

22

1 Introduction

Table 1.2. 138 languages of China (mainly based on Sun et al. 2007)

Family/Group/Branch Languages Sino-Tibetan (85) Sinitic (10) Mandarin, Cantonese (), Gan, Hakka (Kejia), Hui, Jin, Ping, Min, Wu, Xiang Tibeto-Burman (46) Tibetan (4) Baima, Menba, Tibetan, Tsangluo Yi (15) , Bisu, Hani, Jinuo, Kazhuo, Lahu, Lisu, ’ang, Naxi, Nusu, Rouruo, Sangkong, Tanglang, Tujia, Yi Jingpo (Kachin) Anong, Bengni-Boga’er, Bengru, Darang, Dulong (9) (Derung), Geman, Jingpo (Kachin), Sulong, Yidu Burmese (6) Achang, Bola, Langsu, Leqi, Xiandao, Zaiwa Qiangic (12) Ergong, Ersu, Guiqiong, Lawurong, Muya, Namuyi, Pumi (Primi), , Queyu, rGyarong, Shixing, Zhaba Kam (22) Biao, Bouyei, Bugan, Buyang, Caijia, Chadong, Cun, Dai, Gelao, Kam (Dong), Laji (Lachi), Lajia (Lakkia), Li, Lingao, Maonan, Mo, Mulao, Pubiao, Sui, Mulam, Yanghuang, Hmong-Mien Bana, Bunu, Baheng, Hmong (Miao), Jiongnai, Mian (Miao-Yao) (7) (Mien), She Altaic (22) Turkic (9) Kazak (Kazakh), Kirgiz, Salar, Tatar, Tu’erke, Tuwa, Uighur (Uygur), Uzbek, Western Mongolian (7) Bao’an, Daur, Dongxiang, Eastern Yugur, Kangjia, Mongolian, Tu Manchu-Tungusic (6) Evenki, Hezhen (Nanai), Korean, Manchu, Oreqen, Xibo (Sibo, Xibe) Austronesian (16) Formosan (14) Amis, Atayal, Bunun, Kanakanavu, Kavalan, Paiwan, Pazeh, Puyuma, Rukai, Saaroa, Saisiyat, Sedeq (Sedik), Thao, Tsou Batanic (1) Yami Chamic (1) Huihui Austro-Asiatic (9) Mon-Khmer (6) Bulang (Blang), Buxing ’ang, Kemu, Kemie, Mang Viet-Muong (3) Jing, Lai, (Va) Indo-European (1) Tajik (Tadzhik) Creole (5) E (Ai), , Tangwang, Wutun, Za

23

1 Introduction

1.4. Methodology

The approach taken here is customary in typology. My main focus is on cross-linguistic variation of typological parameters. In particular, this work examines the correlations of 20 parameters in 138 languages: 9 features in interrogative strategies, 6 features in word order, 3 features in locus of marking, and 2 features in alignment. Nevertheless, language samples – an important feature of typology – are not included in the present study (except for in Section 7.1.4.2., which includes a sample of 80 ERGATIVE languages). Correlating individual parameters across languages stems largely from Greenberg’s pioneering work on word order universals. In particular, by observing a proper set of languages and drawing descriptive generalizations of interrelations in individual languages, normally in a form of implicational universals (if p, then q), the Greenbergian approach is somewhat a-theoretical, as he notes:

The theoretical section is far more speculative and uncertain than the sections devoted to the universals themselves. In a certain sense we would prefer to have as few universals as possible, not as many. That is, we would like to be able to deduce them from as small a number of general principles as possible. (Greenberg 1966)

Nevertheless, it is often difficult to the boundary between descriptive accounts and explanatory generalizations. Areal factors present such a difficulty. For example, it is both sensible to argue that geographical skewing in certain features is related to the synchronic distribution in a certain area or such a skewed distribution is because of geographical closeness. The basic framework of this work is also areal typology. Areal typology is closely linked to the study of linguistic area or Sprachbund (Trubetzkoy 1923, 1928; for a recent work, see Muysken 2008), and to dialect geography, the study of local differentiations in a speech-area (see e.g. Bloomfield 1933: 321-345). Recently, typologists have begun to ask questions related to the geographical distribution of different values for structural linguistic features, seeking to establish whether particular geographical distributions are the result of language contact among neighboring languages (Comrie et al. 2005; see also Dahl 2001, Campbell 2006 for general principles of areal typology). As Bickel (2007) notes:

24

1 Introduction

…Instead of asking “what’s possible?”, more and more typologists ask “what’s where why?”. Asking “what’s where?” targets universal preferences as much as geographical or genealogical skewings, and results in probabilistic theories stated over properly sampled distributions. Asking “why?” is based on the premises that (i) typological distributions are historically grown and (ii) that they are interrelated with other distributions. (Bickel 2007)

In short, this work adopts an area-oriented typological approach. It is typological in that correlations in individual parameters are pursued according to a Greenbergian approach, seeking to present “what’s possible.” It is area-oriented in that areal distributions are provided in individual parameters, including explanations from an areal(-historical) point of view, seeking to present “what’s where and why.”

As to the language data dealt with in this thesis, there are basically four sources: First, mostly, the data are the collected from the previous literature. Several book series are consulted very often, in particular Sun et al. (1980-1987), Sun (ed.) (1997- ), and Sun et al. (eds.) (2007). Second, the introspective data of two Sinitic languages, Standard Chinese and Gan (the Yongxin variety and the variety), are based on my personal language expertise. Features of several other Sinitic languages, Cantonese, Hakka, Mandarin, and Wu, are partly based on my knowledge. Third, there are some data collected from the CCL corpus,6 though it is used only in searching for the Modern Standard Chinese examples with polar question particle bo (Section 2.1.1.1.3) and several verb-related interrogatives in (Section 7.2.4). Fourth, some first-hand data are collected by fieldwork or telephone/Skype investigation. Fieldwork has been carried out on Sinitic languages, including some varieties of Gan (-an, Leping, Taihe), Hakka (Dingnan, Huichang, Longnan, Xinfeng, Yudu), and Hui (Qimen, Wuyuan). More data are collected via telephone or Skype, including some other Sinitic varieties, Cantonese (), Gan (Duchang, Jishui, Luxi, Nanchang, Yugan), Hakka (Nankang, Quannan), Jin (, Wenxi), Mandarin (, Lianshui, Luyi, ),

6 CCL is a free online corpus of Modern and Classical Chinese, developed by the Center for Chinese Linguistics, . URL: http://ccl.pku.edu.cn:8080/ccl_corpus/

25

1 Introduction

Min (Tainan, , Zhangzhou), Wu (Ningbo, ), and Xiang (, ). Furthermore, some features of several minority languages, Hani, Kazhuo, Korean, Lahu, Lisu, Anduo Tibetan, Yidu, Za, and Zhuang, are checked by native speakers or experts. It can be seen that the work of first-hand data collection is unfortunately not systematic. The Sinitic data is reasonably balanced except for the Ping language, which relies exclusively on literature. For the minority languages, very limited data-checking work has been done on nine Sino-Tibetan languages (among which six are Tibeto-Burman). The choice of the set of languages is mainly because of the availability of informants. This inevitably brings an unbalanced language survey (Chapter 2) and may possibly also some flaws in the analysis of individual (groups) of languages because the documentation of some languages is very limited, e.g. Chadong (Kam), E (Ai) (Creole), Tu’erke (Turkic). The collection of the first-hand data of Sinitic languages was carried out majorly by using a questionnaire (see below; most examples are given in Standard Chinese). Except for some native speakers of Gan, Hui, and Hakka, most other informants have linguistics background. No electric recording was taken throughout the data collection process.

The Questionnaire

1. Intonation – What is the intonation like in polar questions without other interrogative strategies? (1a) Ni yao qu Beijing? (2SG FUT go Beijing) ‘Are you going to Beijing?’ (1b) Ta shi ni gege? (3SG be 2SG elder.brother) ‘Is he your elder brother?’ (1c) Dongxi bu le? (thing NEG see LE) ‘Is it lost/missing?’

2. Question particles – What are the common polar question particles and where do they occur? (2a) Ta qu Beijing le ma? (3SG go Beijing LE QP) ‘Did s/he go Beijing?’ (2b) Jintian bu hui xiayu ba? (today NEG FUT rain FP) ‘Is it going to rain today? (I hope not. / It seems not.)’ (2c) Ni ma dianying? (2SG watch QP film) ‘Would you like to watch the film?’ (2d) Ni qu Beijing ma ne? (2SG go Beijing QP FP) ‘Are you going to Beijing?’

3. Alternative questions 3.1. Is there a distinction between the declarative or and the interrogative or? (3.1a) Wo zaoshang yiban mifan huozhe miantiao. (1SG morning normally eat rice or noodles) ‘Normally I eat rice or noodles for breakfast.’

26

1 Introduction

(3.1b) Ni chi mifan haishi miantiao? (2SG eat rice or noodles) ‘Would you like to eat rice or noodles?’ 3.2. The omission of disjunctions (3.2a) Ni chi fan haishi chi mian? (2SG eat rice or eat noodles) ‘Would you like to eat rice or noodles?’ (3.2b) Ni chi fan chi mian? (2SG eat rice eat noodles) ‘Would you like to eat rice or noodles?’ (3.2c) Ni chi fan zhu fan? (2SG eat rice cook rice) ‘Are you eating or cooking?’ 3.3. Where do the interrogative disjunctions occur? Where do the particle disjunctions occur (if any)? (3.3a) Ni chi fan, haishi chi mian? ‘Would you like to eat rice or noodles?’ (3.3b) Ni chi fan haishi, chi mian? ‘Would you like to eat rice or noodles?’ (3.3c) Ni chi fan lao, mian? (2SG eat rice PRT, noodles) ‘Would you like to eat rice or noodles?’ (3.3d) Ni chi, ye/a bu? (2SG eat, PRT NEG) ‘Will you eat or not?’ 3.4. Give a list of common disjunctions.

4. X-neg-X questions 4.1. The forms (4a) xihuan bu xihuan? (like NEG like) ‘like it or not?’ ~ xihuan bu xi? ~ xi bu xihuan? ~ xihuan bu? ~ xi xihuan? ~ a(-)/ke(-) xihuan? (Q(-)/Q(-) like) ~ xihuan ma? (like QP) 4.2. The object (4b) kan dianying bu kan dianying? (watch movie NEG watch movie) ‘watch a/the movie or not?’ ~ kan dianying bu kan? ~ kan bu kan dianying? ~ kan dianying bu? ~ a(-)/ke(-) kan dianying? (Q(-)/Q(-) watch movie) 4.3. The negation word: What is the negation word in X-neg-X questions?

5. Wh- questions 5.1. Final particles in wh- questions (5.1a) Ta qu le nali ne? (3SG go LE where FP) ‘Where did s/he go?’ (5.1b) Ni zai chi shenme ne? (2SG PROG eat what FP) ‘What are you eating?’ 5.2. Final particles in reduced wh- questions (5.2a) Wo de ne? (1SG GEN book FP) ‘Where is my book?’ (5.2b) Yaoshi wo bu daying ne? (IRR 1SG NEG agree FP) ‘What if I do not agree?’ 5.3. Island (5.3a) Ta da le Zhangsan he shui? (3SG beat LE Zhangsan and who) (Literally) ‘S/He beat Zhangsan and whom?’ (5.3b) Ta da le shui he Zhangsan? (Literally) ‘S/He beat whom and Zhangsan?’ 5.4. The reduplication of wh- phrases in questions and/or declaratives

27

1 Introduction

1.5. Outline of the work

This thesis has eight chapters. The body of the thesis (except for the introduction and conclusion) consists of three parts: a survey, four specific studies, and an assessment. In particular, it is organized as follows: It first presents a survey of polar interrogative strategies7 in 138 languages of China, trying to sketch the interrogativity profile of these languages. Two detailed studies of polar interrogatives in individual languages, that is, Standard Chinese and Yongxin Gan, are also provided in Chapter 2. (Readers can also refer to Appendix I for interrogative strategies and some other morpho- syntactical features in individual languages.) In-depth studies of question particles and final particles, disjunctions and alternative questions, wh-phrases and wh-questions, as well as three types of verb-related questions, are presented in Chapters 3-6. Particle questions are one of the most common interrogatives in the languages of China. Nevertheless, the position of question particles varies in individual languages. Chapter 3 compares the position of question particles in the languages of China with a worldwide language sample by Dryer (2005b). Also, the chapter includes a discussion of polar questions formed by two adjacent final particles, i.e. ma ne questions, in Sinitic languages, as well as discussion of question particles in wh-questions. Chapter 4 focuses on disjunctions and alternative questions. It proposes criteria to distinguish X-neg-X questions (also known as A-not-A questions) and alternative questions, as X-neg-X questions are frequently treated as a special type of alternative questions in the literature. This chapter also proposes two typologies – or vs or/or?, disj-pre vs disj-post – in alternative questions and

7 Content interrogatives are not included in Chapter 2, not only because it is not the core issue of this work, but also because the content interrogative strategies are normally different from polar interrogatives in individual languages and it is not appropriate to bring them together. Polar interrogatives and content interrogatives may even not suitable to be labeled as “interrogatives” in general and should be classified as different sentence types. As Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Liljegren (2013) note, “Since polar interrogative and constituent [= content] interrogatives in a language seem to normally employ quite different strategies, what is the reason to ascribe them to one and the same overarching sentence type rather than to two different ones?”

28

1 Introduction

discusses what is important for such typologies. Attention is also paid to particles that function as disjunctions and some restrictions in alternative islands in Sinitic languages. Chapter 5 looks into the position of wh-phrases in the languages of China, including a comparison to Dryer (2005c), and analyzes the constraints of pragmatic factors, i.e. and topicality, on wh-fronting in Standard Chinese, the word order alternations and island constraints in coordinate structures in wh-questions, as well as a special feature of wh-phrases, i.e. reduplication. Three types of verb-related questions, in particular, questions using a pre-verb interrogative marker (Q-VP), verb-reduplication (VV), and interrogative verbs (IVs) are brought together in Chapter 6. The first two types are polar questions and the third type is a content question. Chapter 7 is a typological and areal-historical assessment of interrogatives. It brings 20 morphosyntactic parameters together, including interrogatives, word order, alignment, and locus of marking, and attempts to determine some correlations. Also, historical and areal factors are investigated for individual types of interrogatives, namely, yes-no, X-neg-X, alternative, and three types of verb-related questions.

29

1 Introduction

30

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Chapter 2

A survey of polar interrogative strategies in the languages of China

This chapter presents a survey of the strategies for expressing polar interrogatives1 in the languages of China. The survey covers altogether 138 languages, that means, almost all the languages that have been reported so far are included here. (See Chapter 1 for a general account of the languages of China.) Typologists always find it difficult to collect data. First of all, it is time-consuming to one parameter or category in dozens or hundreds of reference . Second, the data in individual grammars may not be ready for comparison as they might be documented in different frameworks (which is one reason the following accounts are as theory-neutral as possible). Moreover, very commonly, one grammar includes detailed discussions on certain features or categories, but another does not. This lengthy survey2 (which is still too short for individual languages) serves the following purposes:

· to present a complete overview of polar interrogative strategies in the languages of China; · to contribute to the typological literature on interrogatives, especially to assist typologists who want to include some languages in China in their own studies; · to fine-tune some of the details in the interrogative strategies in certain (groups of) languages. The order of language families and languages is based on Sun et al. (2007), while in Appendix I languages are given in in alphabetical order.

1 For some features of content questions in the languages in China, see Chapter 5. 2 Fast readers can always refer to Appendix I.

31

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.1. Sino-Tibetan languages

2.1.1. Sinitic languages

In this section, two detailed studies on polar interrogatives in Standard Chinese and Yongxin Gan are presented first (Sections 2.1.1.1.-2.), followed by a general survey of ten Sinitic languages (Section 2.1.1.3.).

2.1.1.1. Standard Chinese

2.1.1.1.1. Introduction: interrogative types in Standard Chinese3 Previous studies of polar questions in Sinitic languages have mainly focused on two subjects: the classification of question types, and X-neg-X questions in individual Sinitic languages. A difference in the classification of X-neg-X questions directly suggests a difference in the polar question systems by different linguists. Chao (1968) does not give a clear classification of question types in (Standard) Spoken Chinese, although at least two types of questions were distinguished, i.e. disjunctive questions (including V-not-V) and those formed by question particles (see Chao 1968: 269, 734, 800-8).

(1) Chao’s classification of questions in (Standard) Spoken Chinese

(i) Particle (ii) Disjunctive (including V-not-V4)

Li and Thompson’s (1981) classification of questions in Chinese considers both meaning and formal representation. They distinguish particles, disjunctives, and question words (and also tag questions).

3 The classifications introduced here are mainly made on a formal ground, in particular, whether a question uses sentence-final particles, X-neg-X structures, [X or Y] structures, or wh-phrases, although some linguists classify wh-questions as a subtype of alternative questions (e.g. Shao 1996, see below), which is clearly a semantic-based classification. (This is one reason that content questions are also included here.) 4 Chao (1968: 669) also uses the term V-bu-V (bu ‘not’) to refer V-not-V questions.

32

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(2) Li and Thompson’s classification of questions in Standard Chinese

(i) Question word (ii) Disjunctive (including A-not-A) (iii) Particle

Zhu’s (1982: 202-4) classification is tripartite: yes/no, Alternative (including X-neg-X), and wh-questions. X-neg-X is classified as a subtype of Alternative questions because it seeks a choice of either X or not-X.

(3) Zhu’s classification of questions in Standard Chinese

(i) yes/no (ii) Alternative: (a) Alternative, (b) X-neg-X (iii) wh-

A binary classification is suggested by Fan (1982). He argues that the Chinese question system includes Alternatives (including yes/no, X-neg-X, and common Alternative) and wh-questions. Yes/no-questions are a subtype of Alternatives because one has to choose between yes or no, X-neg-X is to choose X or not-X, and a common Alternative is to choose X or Y (or Z…) (cf. Bolinger 1980, who argues that (English) yes-no questions are not alternative questions).

(4) Fan’s classification of questions in Standard Chinese

(i) Alternative: (a) Alternative, (b) yes/no, (c) X-neg-X (ii) wh-

The classification proposed by Lü (1985) is also binary: yes/no-questions (including X-neg-X and Alternatives), and wh-questions. X-neg-X questions are classified as a kind of yes/no-question because they seek a yes/no value of X, and Alternative questions seek a yes/no value of one constituent among the two (or more).

(5) Lü’s classification of questions in Standard Chinese

(i) yes/no: (a) yes/no, (b) X-neg-X, (c) Alternative (ii) wh-

Shao (1996: 6) proposes that all questions in Chinese are Alternatives, which have two subtypes, namely, polarity Alternative (Alternative I), including

33

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

yes/no (one constituent) and X-neg-X (two constituents), and in/definite Alternative (Alternative II), including common (definite) Alternative (X or Y) and indefinite Alternative (wh- questions).

(6) Shao’s classification of questions in Standard Chinese

(i) Alternative I: (a) yes/no, (b) X-neg-X (ii) Alternative II: (a) Alternative, (b) wh-

The classification by Huang et al. (2009: 236) is tripartite: yes/no questions, disjunctive questions, and constituent questions. Huang et al. also note that “these question types are also known as particle questions, Alternative questions, and wh-questions.”

(7) Huang et al.’s classification of questions in Standard Chinese

(i) yes/no (= Particle) (ii) Disjunctive (= Alternative, including A-not-A) (iii) Constituent (= wh-)

I summarize these previous classifications in the following table. Note that the label ‘Alternative’ implies different interpretations by individual linguists (see above).

Table 2.1. Types of questions in Standard Chinese

References yes/no X-neg-X Alternative wh- Chao (1968) Particle Disjunctive / / Li and Thompson (1981) Particle Disjunctive Disjunctive Q words Lü (1985) yes/no yes/no yes/no wh- Zhu (1982) yes/no Alternative Alternative wh- Fan (1982) Alternative Alternative Alternative wh- Shao (1996) Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Huang et al. (2009) yes/no Disjunctive Disjunctive wh-

The present work adopts the label ‘polar question’, which is intended to cover all non-wh-questions, including yes/no, X-neg-X, and Alternative questions. The term ‘X-neg-X question’ deserves a short explanation here. It covers both VP-neg-VP and Adj-neg-Adj questions. VP-neg-VP is a reduplication of a

34

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

verb (phrase) (could be V-neg-V, V-neg-VP, VP-neg-V, or VP-neg-VP); A-neg-A is a reduplication of an adjective (phrase). Some other labels are equivalent to X-neg-X here, e.g. V-not-V (Chao 1968), A-not-A (Li and Thompson 1981), VP-neg-VP (Zhu 1985), disjunctive (-negative), positive-negative, etc. The labels V(P)-neg/not-V(P) and A-not-A are misleading because adjectives can also enter into the X-neg-X construction, and A is very frequently used as an abbreviation for adjectives. In Chinese linguistics, X-neg-X questions have aroused wide attention initiated by Zhu’s (1985) pioneering work. In his , Zhu claims that ke-VP (ke- is a pre-verb interrogative marker) is a kind of VP-neg-VP question and the two are not found to coexist in individual Sinitic languages, both diachronically and synchronically. Nevertheless, latter studies provided evidence that ke-VP and VP-neg-VP questions do coexist in Sinitic languages, e.g. Mandarin (Wang 1985), Lishui Mandarin (Huang 1996: 714). Some subsequent studies also propose that ke-VP is a subtype of yes/no-question (see, e.g. 1991). Neverthless, very little attention has been paid to polar questions formed by intonation. A pioneering study is Liu (1988), who proposes that there are mainly two types of intonation questions, one is the so called echo question, which expresses doubt or surprise at hearing some words, and the other is somehow resembling a biased question, by which a speaker seeks further confirmation, though with little doubt about the answer.

2.1.1.1.2. Interrogative intonation-only In Standard Chinese, polar questions formed by terminal rising intonation- only are not as common as those formed by (sentence-final) question particles, X-neg-X structures, or alternative structures. Intonation-only questions rely heavily on context, for example, some common knowledge between addressor and addressee.

(8) Standard Chinese

ni qu Beijing? ↗ 2SG go Beijing ‘Are you going to Beijing?’

The sentence makes sense only if the speaker knows that the respondent is possibly going to Beijing, or both of them are in a public transportation.

35

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Otherwise it is strange, e.g. this is not how one asks a stranger this question at a campus cafeteria. Polar questions of this kind must have a terminal rising intonation. For example, A is expecting to find a teacher at a certain classroom, but A did not find the teacher, in this case A asks B:

(9) Standard Chinese

A: laoshi bu zai zher? ↗ teacher not be.in here ‘Is the teacher not here?’

B: (laoshi) bu zai (zher). teacher notbe.in here ‘No. (The teacher is not here.)’

The sentence sounds very strange to B if A does not use a rising intonation at the sentence end, especially in the case that A and B do not know each other well. Except for those context-based intonation-only questions, there is another similar polar question, that is, a repetitive one, by which a speaker seeks further confirmation of what the other person has just said, by repeating (whole or a part of) the person’s words and adding a rising intonation at the end of the sentence5.

(10) Standard Chinese

A: ta bayue lai deguo. 3SG August come Germany ‘S/He will come to Germany in August.’

B: ta bayue lai deguo? (repeating) 3SG August come Germany ‘Will s/he come to Germany in August?’

A: shide. (ta bayue lai deguo.) yes 3SG August come Germany ‘Yes, it is the case.’

5 Strictly speaking, repetitive questions and context-based questions here are not intonation- only, as they rely either on a previous sentence (to repeat) or a special context. “Repetitive” questions are a subtype of echo questions. However, considering that echo questions also include (and commonly considered to be) content questions (e.g. English I am leaving on Sunday. → You are leaving when?), the label “echo” is hence not used here.

36

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

In (10), respondent B’s question is a whole repetition of A’s words. Nevertheless, B can also repeat the words partially, depending on which piece of information is more relevant to B. For example, B can ask ta? ‘her/him?’, bayue? ‘(in) August?’, (lai) deguo? ‘(come to) Germany?’, ta lai deguo? ‘s/he come to Germany?’, bayue lai? ‘come in August?’, and so on. Context-based intonation-only questions and repetitive ones exhibit differences and similarities in their functions. Basically, a repetitive intonation-only polar question implies that one is surprised or in doubt about the words of a speaker and with a question s/he seeks further confirmation of some information s/he wants to clarify. While a context-based one does not necessarily express surprise and/or doubt, it may also function as a rhetorical question.

(11) Standard Chinese

A: nimen shang- mai-le yi- shenme che? 2PL last-week buy-LE one-CL what car ‘What kind of car did you buy last week?’

B: (women mai-le yi-liang) baoshijie. 1PL buy-LE one-CL Porsche ‘(We bought) a Porsche.’

A: (nimen mai-le yi-liang) baoshijie? (repeating) 2PL buy-LE one-CL Porsche ‘(You bought) a Porsche?’ (surprise and/or doubt)

B: shide. ‘Yes, it is the case.’

In (11), by repeating/asking (ni maile yiliang) baoshijie?, A is surprised at B’s words, with also a natural reading that A is doubting how B could afford a luxurious car. This is also the case in (12), a context-based question, with B expecting that A knows s/he bought a car and being surprised that A actually doesn’t.

(12) Standard Chinese (context-based)

A: ni shuo shenme, nimen mai-le che? 2SG say what 2PL buy-LE car ‘What did you say? Have you bought a car?’

37

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

B: en, ni bu zhidao? Eh 2SG not know ‘Ah, yes, don’t you know that?’

Context-based intonation-only questions are also frequently used as rhetorical questions. For example, with (13a) a mother is asking her children to hurry up in the morning, and with (13b) a passenger is complaining that a smoker paid no attention to the DO NOT SMOKE sign at a railway station.

(13) Standard Chinese

a. hai bu qichuang qu xuexiao? still not get.up go school ‘Won’t you get up and go to school?’

b. ni bu ()shi zi? 2SG not read character ‘Can’t you read?’

Polar questions formed by intonation-only are not a much-discussed topic in Chinese linguistics. The most salient feature is that they invariably adopt a rising intonation at the sentence end. Two subtypes, repetitive and context-based, have something in common, in representation (intonation-only) and function (surprise and/or doubt), but they also differ in their representation (one by repeating, another is not) and functions (a context-based one is more complicated in conveying pragmatic meanings).

2.1.1.1.3. Interrogative particles6 In polar questions of Standard Chinese, (sentence-)final question particles are frequently (although not obligatorily) used together with a rising intonation. In fact, a polar question with final interrogative particles may take either a rising or falling intonation, as is exemplified in (14).

(14) Standard Chinese

a. ni hui shuo deyu ma? (rising/falling) 2SG can speak German QP ‘Can you speak German?’

6 See Chapter 3, for definition and a detailed discussion of interrogative particles.

38

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

It can be seen that ma 吗 is a question particle because the sentence remains to be interrogative in nature, regardless of what intonation it takes. An addressee could respond to it properly without any difficulty in understanding. However, this is not so clear in the case of ba 吧, with which a sentence normally could be either declarative or interrogative.

b. ni jin- you sanshi-le ba? (falling) 2SG this-year have thirty-LE PRT ‘Are you not younger than thirty-years-old?’

c. ni jin-nian you sanshi-le ba. (falling) 2SG this-year have thirty-LE PRT ‘You are no younger than thirty-years-old, I think.’

A sentence ending with ba normally takes a falling intonation, although it may adopt a rising one after verb-reduplicating structures to ask questions, in contrast to a falling one in declarative sentences.

d. ni qu kan-kan ba? (rising) 2SG go look-look PRT ‘Will you take a look (at it)?’

e. ni qu kan-kan ba. (falling) ‘Please take a look (at it).’

ba is different from ma in that it is a part-time polar question particle, whereas ma is always a polar question particle, which is its full-time job. Whether the particle ne 呢 is an interrogative final particle or a common final particle is also controversial (see Chapter 3 for details about final (question) particles). Questions with ne invariably adopt a rising intonation, making it hard to tell if interrogativity is carried by ne or rising intonation (or the X-neg-X structure, because it is still a polar question without ne and/or rising intonation).

(15) Standard Chinese

a. ni hui-bu-hui shuo deyu ne? (rising) 2SG can-not-can speak German PRT ‘Can you speak German or not?’

Lu (1984) argues that ne is a question particle in Standard Chinese, because there

39

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

is a type of question formed by a declarative sentence (or a noun/verb phrase) plus ne, normally semantically equivalent to a wh-question, like ‘how about …?’ or ‘where is …?’. The sentence is no longer a question if ne is dropped. In the following examples, it turns out to be wo de shu ‘my book(s)’, which is a (b); or wo bu yao ‘I do not want money’, which is a declarative sentence (c).

b. wo de shu ne? 1SG GEN book PRT ‘{Where is / How about} my book(s)?’

c. wo bu yao qian ne? 1SG not want money PRT ‘What if I do not accept the money?’

Lu (1984) proposes that question particles in Standard Chinese should be understood as only including ma, ba, and ne. This is, however, not the whole story. First, there are some other polar question particles. For example, me 么, mo 嚜, and bo 啵 are also used in Standard Chinese, although me and mo are more frequently found in the written language (but cf. Bloomfield 1933: 252 for mo in echo questions), while bo is a combination of the negation word bu 不 and the final particle o 哦 and is used more often in oral language. In a preliminary investigation of questions containing shi me 是么 (be QP) ‘is that true?’ and zhidao me 知道么 (know PRT) ‘(do you) know (that)?’ in the CCL corpus, 259 and 122 sentences were found to be attested, and most of them were polar questions. As to polar questions with bo, the CCL corpus also had 172 sentences, including some questions asked in a negative way, which suggests that bo is an independent question particle, not a negation word plus a final particle in Modern Standard Chinese (which is what it used to be historically). In a long modern novel (about 1,327,000 words), Shanghai-de Zaochen (Shanghai Morning), 172 questions with bo are attested, among which I found the following instructive questions, which are asked by a same person.

(16) Standard Chinese

A: ni bu xiaode bo? 2SG not know QP ‘You don’t know (that)?’

40

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

B: wo bu xiaode. 1SG not know ‘I don’t know.’

A: ni bu xiaode bo? 2SG really not know QP ‘You really don’t know (that)?’

B: zhen bu xiaode. really notknow ‘(I) really don’t know.’

A: shi zhende bu xiaode bo? be really not know QP ‘Is it the case that you really don’t know (that)?’

In (16), A was not sure about B’s answer at the first time and asked B again, by adding ‘really’. Then A asked the third time to seek further confirmation from B, using shi…de ‘is it…?’. The three questions are ungrammatical if bo is changed into the ‘full form’ bu o, or any other negation word plus a final particle. Second, ma, ba, and ne do not belong to the same subgroup, because ne appears only in wh-questions (and X-neg-X, alternative questions as well), but never in yes/no-questions.

(17) Standard Chinese

a. *ni shi - ne? 2SG be university-student PRT Intended meaning: ‘Are you a college student?’

b. *ta qu-guo Beijing ne? 3SG go-PST Beijing PRT Intended meaning: ‘Has s/he ever been to Beijing?’

Furthermore, many final particles can be added on in X-neg-X questions, like a 啊, ya 呀, na 呐, la 啦, and so on, with a free choice in intonation. (18) Standard Chinese

ni qu-bu-qu Beijing a/ya/na/la? 1SG go-NEG-go Beijing FP ‘Are you going to Beijing or not?’

41

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Consequently, the present work does not include ne in the list of polar question particles of Standard Chinese, but groups it with some other particles like a (and its variants na, ya) and la as commom final particles (for more discussions on question particles, final particles, as well as modal particles, see Chapter 3).

2.1.1.1.4. X-neg-X questions In the category of X-neg-X, I include those disjunctive-negative questions by reduplicating the verb (phrase), i.e. VP-neg-VP, and adjective (phrase), i.e. AP-neg-AP, as well as noun (phrase), i.e. NP-neg-NP.

(19) Standard Chinese

a. ni qu Beijing bu qu Beijing? (VP-neg-VP, common) 2SG go Beijing not go Beijing ‘Are you going to Beijing or not?’

b. ni qu bu qu Beijing? (V-neg-VP, common) c. ni qu bu qu? (V-neg-V, common) d. ni qu Beijing bu qu? (VP-neg-V, less common) e. ni qu Beijing bu? (VP-neg, less common, dialectal) f. ni qu bu? (V-neg, less common, dialectal) g. (?)ni bu qu Beijing? (neg-VP, less common, contextual) h. (?)ni bu qu? (neg-V, less common, contextual)

All variations of VP-neg-VP questions (a-h) are grammatical, and among them VP-neg-VP, V-neg-V, and V-neg-VP are most common in Standard Chinese. (e)-(f) are more characteristic of the northern dialect of Mandarin, and (g)-(h) are highly context-based and used only in situations known between addressor and addressee.

(20) Standard Chinese

a. zhe-ben shu hao-kan bu hao-kan? (AP-neg-AP, common) DEF-CL book good-read not good-read ‘Is the book good/interesting or not?’

b. zhe-ben shu hao-bu-haokan? (A-neg-AP, common) c. zhe-ben shu hao-bu-hao? (A-neg-A, common) d. *zhe-ben shu haokan-bu-hao? (AP-neg-A, ungrammatical)

42

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

e. zhe-ben shu haokan-bu? (AP-neg, less common, dialectal) f. zhe-ben shu hao-bu? (A-neg, less common, dialectal) g. (?)zhe-ben shu bu-haokan? (neg-AP, less common, contextual) h. (?)zhe-ben shu bu-hao? (neg-A, less common, contextual)

All variations of AP-neg-AP questions are grammatical except (d). In the adjective-reduplicating questions, AP-neg-AP, A-neg-A, and A-neg-AP are used more commonly, while (e)-(f) are characteristic of the northern dialect of Mandarin, (g)-(h) are highly context-based. Hence, a preliminary generalization that could be drawn is that X-neg-X questions of Standard Chinese prefer to have two of equal heaviness, or to have a lighter X preceding. A heavy X should not appear early. In other words, the latter X is syllabically no lighter than the preceding X. In Standard Chinese, there is also a polar question formed by using a NP-neg-NP structure, although not often found in formal text. This structure is becoming more and more popular in internet language and the language of younger generations. In parallel with those X-neg-X questions by verbs and adjectives, I label a monosyllabic noun as N, and a non-monosyllabic one as NP, regardless of the structure of the noun, for example, in (21), shu-nü ‘graceful-lady’ is an adjective-noun .

(21) Standard Chinese

a. nimen juede wo shunü bu shunü? (NP-neg-NP) 2PL feel 1SG graceful.lady NEG graceful.lady ‘Do you think I am a graceful lady or not?’

b. nimen juede wo shu bu shunü? (N-neg-NP) c. *nimen juede wo shu bu shu? (N-neg-N) d. *nimen juede wo shunü bu shu? (NP-neg-N) e. nimen juede wo shunü bu? (NP-neg) f. *nimen juede wo shu bu? (N-neg) g. (?)nimen juede wo bu shunü? (neg-NP) h. *nimen juede wo bu shu? (neg-N)

In (21), only four sentences, i.e. NP-neg-NP, N-neg-NP, NP-neg, neg-NP are grammatical, among which neg-NP (21g) is highly context-based. This is basically in line with the generalization about those VP-neg-VP questions and AP-neg-AP questions, though N-neg-N questions are ungrammatical (21c).

43

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

A question particle can be added after a NP-neg question.

(22) Standard Chinese

A: wo shunü bu a? 1SG graceful.lady NEG PRT ‘(You, tell me,) Am I a graceful lady or not?’

B1: ni bu shunü ne. 2SG even NEG graceful.lady PRT ‘Not at all.’

B2: ni shunü bu? ni za haoyisi ne? 2SG graceful.lady NEG 2SG why shameless ask QP ‘A graceful lady or not? How can you ask so shamelessly?’

NP-neg-NP questions are also found in some other Sinitic languages, like Yongxin Gan, yin wa ji dü dü? (2SG say 3SG NEG pig) ‘(You, tell me,) Isn’t s/he as stupid as a pig?’ In Standard Chinese and Yongxin Gan, a reduplicated noun (compound) acquires adjectival meaning and functions as an adjective. In Standard Chinese, shunü is ‘graceful-lady-like’; in Yongxin Gan, dü is ‘pig-like’, ‘stupid’. In this case it is appropriate to classify them as AP-neg-AP questions. However, since such words are never labeled as adjectives in a dictionary, I call a polar question with a reduplicating structure containing such items a NP-neg-NP question rather than an AP-neg-AP question.

2.1.1.1.5. Alternative questions Alternative questions, also known as disjunctive questions, consist of two or more constituents which are linked by disjunctions, usually conjoined by haishi ‘or’ and present an either-or choice to the respondent. For the sake of formulization, I also call them [X or Y] questions now and then, in which X and Y are the disjuncts (constituents) linked by the disjunction haishi. In the literature of Chinese linguistics, alternative questions and X-neg-X are often mixed up (see above for the classification of question types). Nevertheless, the distinction between alternative questions and X-neg-X questions is clear if alternative ones are called “X or Y”. Misunderstanding only occurs when Y happens to be not-X and the disjunction is dropped. In the following questions, (a)-(b) are alternative questions, while (c) is a X-neg-X

44

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

question.

(23) Standard Chinese

a. ni chi mifan haishi chi miantiao? (VP or VP) 2SG eat rice or eat noodle ‘You’d like to eat rice or noodles?’

b. ni chi mifan haishi bu chi mifan? (VP or not-VP) 2SG eat rice or NEG eat rice

c. ni chi (mifan) bu chi mifan? (V(P)-neg-VP)

Alternative questions resemble content questions in that the latter can always express similar meanings. For example, in English, instead of Are you going to France or Germany? one may simply ask Where are you going? The meaning of a X-neg-X question, which seeks a polarity value of either a confirmation or a negation, however, cannot be conveyed by a content question, although there is a somewhat close translation Are you going to France or not? Huang et al. (2009: 242-3) propose that in Standard Chinese, a variety of constituent types, i.e. S(entence) or S(entence), VP or VP, PP or PP, NP or NP ( position), V or V, can form an alternative question. In fact, every type of constituent can be used in such questions.

(24) Standard Chinese

a. ni chi mifan haishi miantiao? (NP or NP7) 2SG eat rice or noodle ‘You like rice or noodles?’

b. ta chi de haishi man? (A or A) 3SG eat RES fast or slow ‘Does s/he eat fast or slow?’

c. ta man-man- haishi fei-kuai-di chifan? (Adv or Adv) 3SG slow-slow-ly or fly-fast-ly eat ‘Did s/he eat very fast or slowly?’

7 Note that the NPs here are in object position. In alternative questions in Standard Chinese, alternative disjuncts in subject position are not grammatical or odd. Cf. Section 4.4.

45

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

haishi is a marker of alternative questions in Standard Chinese, although it is not necessarily obligatory in some colloquial cases. As Huang (1988, 1991) has proposed, haishi can be dropped if two alternatives being juxtaposed “retain certain degrees of phonetic or phonological similarity”; by this he means in a [VP haishi VP] structure, haishi can be dropped if there is a common V or a common O, e.g. ni chi fan chi mian? (2SG eat eice eat noodles) ‘Would you like to eat rice or noodles?’ ni mai biao xiu biao? (2SG sell watch repair watch) ‘Do you sell watches or repair watches?’ (see also Huang et al. 2009: 243). Two comments can be added here. First, those alternative questions without haishi are only found in colloquial conversations, never in written texts. Second, there should be a sufficiently long pause between the juxtaposed constituents, whether they share some phonetic/phonological similarity or not. In fact, Huang’s examples sound strange to native ears if there is no pause in between. What’s more, some alternative questions are formed by juxtaposed constituents that share no phonetic or phonological similarities, e.g. ni mai shu xiu biao? (2SG sell book repair watch) ‘Do you sell books or repair watches?’, which are regarded as ungrammatical (see Huang et al. 2009: 243), but are in fact acceptable in Standard Chinese, provided there is a pause long enough between the constituents. In this sense, a pause is equivalent to haishi in Standard Chinese. This can be seen even clearer in some other Sinitic languages, like in Yifeng Gan: here the final particle a is always used between the disjuncts, while haishi is not needed, e.g. ni xi jiao a xi tang? (2SG wash feet PRT wash hot.water) ‘Would you like to wash your feet or have a bath?’ (Shao et al. 2010: 238). Similarly, in Yongxin Gan, the question particle mang is used in between, e.g. yin qie Beijing mang Shanghai? (2SG go Beijing QP Shanghai) ‘Are you going to Beijing or Shanghai?’ In Shicheng Hakka and Xinhua Xiang, one can even drop a disjunction between the constituents and simply have a rising intonation after the first constituent and a falling intonation after the latter (or final) constituent. ne is also used very frequently in alternative questions in Standard Chinese, often together with haishi: shi X ne haishi Y ne (be X PRT or Y PRT) ‘Is it X or Y?’, which is usually found when an adult is talking to a child, or when an addressor has no more patience for an addressee and requires her/him to make a clear response. However, more frequently an alternative question is found to use only one ne, either after the first disjunct (b) or at the final (c).

46

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(25) Standard Chinese

a. ni shi chi mifan ne, haishi chi miantiao ne? 2SG be eat rice QP or eat noodle QP ‘Would you like to have rice or noodles? (Please tell me.)’

b. ni shi chi mifan ne, haishi chi miantiao? c. ni shi chi mifan, haishi chi miantiao ne?

2.1.1.1.6. Summary This section has briefly discussed polar questions in Standard Chinese. Emphasis was laid on four types of polar questions in Standard Chinese and in some other Sinitic languages, namely, intonation, particles, X-neg-X, and alternative. In Standard Chinese, polar questions formed by intonation-only are either contextual or repetitive, and are also commonly accompanied by final particles. As to polar questions formed by particles, it should be noted that ne is different from ma and ba (and me, mo, bo, etc) in that ne is a question particle in wh-questions which is equivalent to particles like , nanbucheng, and hechang, while the others are polar question particles. Basically, three subtypes of X-neg-X questions are found in Standard Chinese, i.e. VP-neg-VP, AP-neg-AP, and NP-neg-NP. VP-neg-VP is used most commonly and all varieties of it are grammatical; AP-neg-AP is also common, although AP-neg-A is ungrammatical; NP-neg-NP questions, however, are not common, and N-N, NP-N, neg-N are all ungrammatical. Alternative questions do not include X-neg-X questions because the former is meant to choose an either-value of X or Y, while the latter is to choose a polar-value of X or not-X. All types of constituents can be used to form a X-neg-X question, including [S or S], [VP or VP], [PP or PP], [NP or NP] (subject or object position), [Adv or Adv], [A or A], and so on.

47

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.1.1.2. Yongxin Gan

2.1.1.2.1. Introduction Yǒngxīn 江西省永新县 is a located in the southwest of the Jiāngxī Province (also known as Gàn for short), which has 23 townships and covers an area of about 2,200 squarekilometers. The Yongxin County has a population of about 520,000, of which most are Gan speakers, but there are also some Hakka speakers in the southern mountainous districts. Roughly, Yongxin Gan consists of four dialects, west, east, north, and south, showing some differences in phonology, but with no great difference in grammar. The language spoken in the county town (Hechuan 禾川) and some neighbouring townships is regarded as standard. This section introduces the interrogative system in Yongxin Gan, particularly, the language in the county town and its west dialect spoken in the townships Wenzhu 文竹, Gaoxi 高溪, Longtian 龙田, and some villages in Shashi 沙市. Yongxin Gan is the first language of the author. So far, there is no descriptive literature on this language.

2.1.1.2.2. Interrogative intonation-only Quite like Standard Chinese, intonation-only polar questions in Yongxin Gan are mainly used in two cases: repetitive and context-based. In the repetitive use (cf. Section 2.1.1.1.2 for a distinction between “repetitive” questions and echo questions in Standard Chinese), an addressee asks an addressor for confirmation or otherwise by repeating a non-interrogative sentence and taking a final rising intonation (26). Nevertheless, context-based intonation-only questions can convey various pragmatic meanings, like a strong sense of questioning (27), or somehow behave like a rhetorical question (28), or even commands (29).

(26) Yongxin Gan

A: ŋə tɕinman tɕhiε pεtɕin. 1SG today go Beijing ‘I am going to Beijing today.’

B: jin tɕinman tɕhiε pεtɕin? (repeat) 2SG today go Beijing ‘Are you going to Beijing today?’

48

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(27) Yongxin Gan

A: ŋəkiε tæxə kiε foɕε o xau. 1PL.INCL university GEN food very good ‘Our university’s food is very good.’

B: jin sε tæxə-səŋ? (strong questioning) 2SG be university-student ‘Are you a college student? (I doubt.)’

(28) Yongxin Gan

jin-kiε næli ɕiε-li xæ nεn thoɕü? (surprise) 2sg-GEN child ten-years.old still not read.book ‘Is it true that your ten-years-old son still hasn’t gone school?’ (Why?!)

(29) Yongxin Gan

xæ ŋ tɕhiε feŋkau? (command) still NEG go sleep ‘You still don’t go sleep?’ (Go sleep!)

2.1.1.2.3. Question particles In Yongxin Gan, there are two subtypes of polar questions formed by question particles, i.e. (i) common ones, which end with the particles mang, mangne, or mangla, where a speaker knows nothing about the topic and asks an addressee to answer; and (ii) confirmation-seeking ones, that end with the particles ba or a, where a speaker already knows something about the topic and seeks confirmation from an addressee. Different question particles convey subtle differences. By using mang, with a final rising intonation, which is most common, an addressor signals that s/he is not skeptical in anticipating an answer; by mangne, also with a final rising intonation, an addressor implies that s/he needs a clear yes/no response; by mangla, with a final falling intonation, an addressor shows that s/he is losing patience and requires a response immediately.

(30) Yongxin Gan

a. jin ɕiautε maŋ? ↗ 2SG know QP ‘Do you know that?’

49

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. jin ɕiautε maŋnε? ↗ ‘Do you know that or not?’

c. jin ɕiautε maŋla?! ↘ ‘Do you on earth know that or not?’

In its Standard Chinese equivalents (31), the structure of the sentence (31a) is the same, while sentences (31b-c) are asked in different ways, that is, by a X-neg-X structure, together with a question particle. Note that the intonation patterns in (31a-c) are the same as in (30a-c), respectively.

(31) Standard Chinese

a. ni zhidao ma? ↗ 2SG know QP ‘Do you know that?’

b. ni zhi bu zhidao ne? ↗ 2SG know not know QP ‘Do you know that or not?’

c. ni zhi bu zhidao a/ya? ↘ 2SG know not know QP ‘Do you on earth know that or not?’

The questions that seek further confirmation can be classified into two subtypes: (i) questions that end with ba, normally with falling intonation, are used in positive utterances, while (ii) questions that end with a, normally with rising intonation, are used in doubting utterances.

(32) Yongxin Gan

a. jin tɕia-li fan pa? ↘ 2SG eat-asp rice QP ‘Have you eaten? (I suppose so.)’

b. jin tɕia-li fan a? ↗ 2SG eat-ASP rice QP ‘Have you eaten? (I doubt.)’

50

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.1.1.2.4. Alternative questions In Yongxin Gan, alternative questions are asked in three ways: (i) X maŋ Y, (ii) X hæsε Y, and (iii) sε X hæsε Y. (i) is the native form, and maŋ is a question particle; hæsε in (ii)-(iii) is borrowed from Standard Chinese and is not used by elder generations.

(33) Yongxin Gan

a. tɕhia fan maŋ tɕhia miæn? eat rice PRT eat noodle ‘(Would you like to) eat rice or noodles?’

b. tɕhia fan xæsε tɕhia miæn? eat riceor eat noodle

c. sε tɕhia fan xæsε tɕhia miæn? be eat rice or eat noodle

Note that in Yongxin Gan, the question particle mang /maŋ/ cannot co-occur with the disjunction haishi /xæsε/ in one question.

d. *tɕhia fan maŋ xæsε tɕhia miæn? eat rice QP or eat noodle Intended reading: ‘(Would you like to) eat rice or noodles?’

e. *sε tɕhia fan maŋ xæsε tɕhia miæn? be eat rice QP or eat noodle

Huang (Huang 1986, 1991; Huang et al. 2009: 243-4) proposes that disjunctions can be dropped in alternative questions if there is some “phonetic or phonological similarity” between the disjuncts (cf. Chao 1968: 265, 269). By “phonetic or phonological similarity”, he means that if an alternative question is of [VO or VO] structure, and the verb or the object happens to be the same, then the disjunction can be dropped. In Yongxin Gan, however, the rule is not valid, as the disjunction (or question particle) between the disjuncts can never be dropped in alternative questions.

(34) Yongxin Gan

a. *tɕhia fan tɕhia miæn? eat rice eat noodle Intended reading: ‘(Would you like to) eat rice or noodles?’

51

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. *tɕhia fan tɕü fan? eat riceboilrice Intended reading: ‘(Would you like to) eat rice or cook rice?’

As in polar questions, the final particles ne and la can also be used in alternative questions, although pragmatically both ne and la show some impatience (la is even stronger) and hence cannot be used in low-to-high dialogues, like son to father, student to teacher, etc.

(35) Yongxin Gan

a. (sε) tɕhia fan maŋ tɕhia miæn nε?/la?! be eat rice part eat noodle QP ‘(Will you/Shall we) Eat rice or noodles?’

b. (sε) tɕhia fan xæsε tɕhia miæn nε?/la?! be eat rice or eat noodle QP ‘(Will you/Shall we) Eat rice or noodles?’

The question particle ne /nε/ is normally found with the second person, occasionally with first person plural, and rarely with first person singular or third person.

(36) Yongxin Gan

a. jin/jinkiε tɕhia fan maŋ tɕhia miæn nε? 2SG/2PL eat rice PRT eat noodle QP ‘Would you like to eat rice or noodles?’

b. ŋəkiε/?ŋə tɕhia fan maŋ tɕhia miæn nε? 1PL/1SG eat rice PRT eat noodle QP Intended reading: ‘Shall we / ?I eat rice or noodles?’

c. ??tɕi /??tɕi kiε tɕhia fan maŋ tɕhia miæn nε? 3SG/3PL eat rice PRT eat noodle QP Intended reading: ‘Will she/he/they eat rice or noodles?’ ne with second person singular (b) is only found in one’s murmuring, while ne with third person is ungrammatical (c), regardless if it is singular or plural. (To make it grammatical, the particle ne has to be dropped.) la, however, is only found with second person. This is because la expresses

52

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

impatience to an addressee and requires a response immediately and naturally is not used in questioning oneself or a third party that is not present.

(37) Yongxin Gan

a. jin/jinkiε tɕhia fan maŋ tɕhia miæn la? 2SG/2PL eat rice PRT eat noodle QP ‘Would you like to eat rice or noodles?’

b. *ŋə/*ŋəkiε tɕhia fan maŋ tɕhia miæn la? 1PL/1SG eat rice PRT eat noodle QP Intended reading: ‘Shall we / ?I eat rice or noodles?’

c. *tɕi/*tɕikiε tɕhia fan maŋ tɕhia miæn la? 3SG/3PL eat rice PRT eat noodle QP Intended reading: ‘Will she/he/they eat rice or noodles?’

As has been pointed out previously, in Yongxin Gan, mang /maŋ/ cannot co-occur with haishi /xæsε/ in a question sentence, regardless of whether or not there is a final particle (ne/la).

(38) Yongxin Gan

*sε tɕhia fan maŋ xæsε tɕhia miæn (nε/la)? be eat rice PRT or eat noodle QP ‘(Would you like to) eat rice or noodles?’

2.1.1.2.5. X-neg-X questions In Yongxin Gan, verb (phrases), adjectives, and some noun phrases can enter into the formation of X-neg-X questions. The most common varieties of VP-neg-VP questions in Yongxin Gan are V-neg-V and V-neg-VP, although VP-neg-VP and VP-neg-V questions are also found. VP-neg and V-neg questions, however, are ungrammatical.

(39) Yongxin Gan

a. jin tɕhiε ŋ tɕhiε? (V-neg-V) 2SG go not go ‘Are you going (there) or not?’

53

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. jin tɕhiε ŋ tɕhiε pεtɕin? (V-neg-VP) 2SG go not go Beijing ‘Are you going to Beijing or not?’

c. jin tɕhiε pεtɕin ŋ tɕhiε pεtɕin? (VP-neg-VP) 2SG go Beijing not go Beijing ‘Are you going to Beijing or not?’

d. jin tɕhiε pεtɕin ŋ tɕhiε? (VP-neg-V) 2SG go Beijing NOT go ‘Are you going to Beijing or not?’

e. *jin tɕhiε pεtɕin ŋ? (VP-neg) 2SG go Beijing not Intended reading: ‘Are you going Beijing or not?’

f. *jin tɕhiε ŋ? (V-neg) 2SG go not Intended reading: ‘Are you going (there) or not?’

(39e) and (39f) become grammatical if a question particle mang /maŋ/ is added before the negation word ŋ.

e'. jin tɕhiε pεtɕin maŋ ŋ? 2SG go Beijing QP not ‘Are you going Beijing or not?’

f'. jin tɕhiε maŋ ŋ? 2SG go QP not ‘Are you going (there) or not?’

In fact, the question particle mang /maŋ/ can be inserted before the negation word ŋ in all varieties of X-neg-X questions, although it is not necessary in (a)-(d). (a)-(d) are grammatical because they take a V(P)-neg-V(P) construction, in which question particles are not obligatory. Nevertheless, (e)-(f) are ungrammatical because the construction V(P)-neg itself expresses no interrogative meaning, and hence needs an additional question particle mang. mang /maŋ/ is used only in a non-final position of X-neg-X questions in Yongxin Gan. Final positions are reserved only for ne and la. a, however, is not found in any X-neg-X questions.

54

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(40) Yongxin Gan

a. ɕiautε maŋ iautε ne/la/*a? know QP know.NEG QP ‘Do you know that or not?’

b. ɕiautε iautε ne/la/*mang/*a? know know.NEG QP ‘Do you know that or not?’

Adjectives can also enter into the formation of X-neg-X questions in Yongxin Gan, though they require the full form X-neg-X, that is, no syllable of a non-monosyllabic adjective can be dropped (partly or completely). As seen in the examples, only the full form sentence (41a) is grammatical, while the others are not (though 41b is acceptable in marginal cases).

(41) Yongxin Gan

a. tɕi piautsi ŋ piautsi? (AP-neg-AP) 3SG beautiful not beautiful ‘Is she beautiful or not?’

b. ??tɕi piau ŋ piautsi? (A-neg-AP) c. *tɕi piautsi ŋ? (AP-neg) d. *tɕi piautsi ŋ piau? (AP-neg-A) e. *tɕi piau ŋ piau? (A-neg-A) f. *tɕi piao ŋ? (A-neg)

I mentioned that the pre-negation particle mang /maŋ/ helps some ungrammatical sentences (41) to become grammatical if a X is a verb (phrase); however, this is not helpful if the X is an adjective: the pre-negation particle mang does not improve the grammaticality of sentences (b)-(f). The ungrammaticality of (b)-(f) is very different from Standard Chinese and many other Sinitic languages (especially the varieties of Mandarin), in which adjectives can be used much more freely in a X-neg-X question (see Section 2.1.1.1.). For the examples of N(P)-neg-N(P) in Yongxin Gan, see Section 2.1.1.1.4.

2.1.1.2.6. Summary The polar interrogatives of Yongxin Gan and Standard Chinese are

55

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

summarized in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2. Polar interrogatives in Standard Chinese and Yongxin Gan

Languages Intonation Q particles Alternative X-neg-X Standard Chinese limited ma, (ba /pa/) X disj Y X-neg-X, (X-neg) Yongxin Gan limited maŋ, (pa), X prt Y, X-neg-X maŋnε (X disj Y)

2.1.1.3. Comparative Sinitic

Mandarin In Mandarin (also known as guan-hua ‘official-language’), four common interrogative strategies of polar questions in Sinitic languages – i.e., intonation- only, question particle, X-neg-X, and alternative structures – are found widely across its dialects. Polar questions formed by terminal rising intonation are reported in two Southwest Mandarin languages, Tianmen Mandarin (Lu 2009: 10) and Xíshuǐ Mandarin (Fan 2010: 22). Final question particles are found widely in the dialects of Mandarin, though individual dialects may have different inventories. For example, Taixing uses a, ŋa, and pa (Zhu 2011); Changyang uses a, tie/lie, pa, and sa (Zong 2012: 77-83); Enshi uses mo, o, ʂa, e, and in marginal cases also pe ( 2011: 41); and so forth.

Alternative questions in Mandarin are very frequently found to be of (disj1)

X disj2 Y (prt) structure, which is very similar to Standard Chinese. For example, the dialect (Wang 2008a, 2008b: 69) of Central Mandarin, and the Changyang (Zong 2012: 80) and Tianmen dialects (Lu 2009: 14) of Southwest Mandarin, are all of this type. Nevertheless, in Xíshuǐ, a variety of Southwest

Mandarin, X prt Y alternative questions are more common than (disj1) X disj2 Y (prt) (see Fan 2010: 29-30). The forms of X-neg-X questions vary among the dialects of Mandarin. In colloquial Northeast Mandarin, the second X is dropped, leaving a X neg (prt) question. In Jiao- Mandarin, X-neg-X questions are rare. Instead, questions of similar meanings are conveyed by some other strategies, such as shibu/shimei X (shi-bu ‘yes-no’, shi- ‘yes-not’) in Muping (Luo 1981) and (

56

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

1990), or a pre-predicate question marker, e.g. ʃi in Longkou (Ma 2007: 19-20). In Central Mandarin, Jiang-Huai Mandarin, and Southwest Mandarin, however, the same meaning of X-neg-X questions is conveyed via Q-X questions, in which ke, ge, and hai are the most common forms of Q before the predicate. Q-X questions in Central Mandarin are reported in the dialects like Yǐngshàng (Wu 2006: 60), Fuyang (Wang 2008a, 2008b: 69), and Suining ( 1989). In Jiang-Huai Mandarin, Q-X questions are found in the Taixing dialect (Zhu 2011) and many other dialects collected in Wang (2008b: 72-3). For Southwest Mandarin, Q-X questions are reported in 24 dialects in Province (He 2010: 21). For a detailed analysis of Q-X questions, see Sections 6.1 and 7.2.4.2.

Gan Gan polar interrogatives use terminal rising intonation, question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. Literature on Gan interrogatives is rare (for a study on Yongxin Gan, see Section 2.1.1.2), and the following is based on the author’s personal knowledge (Yongxin Gan and Nanchang Gan) and data collected from native speakers. Terminal rising intonation-only relies heavily on context. In particular, an addressor has to know something about the content s/he asks about. For example, h in Yongxin Gan, when aksing jin jiao tɕ iɛ peitɕiŋ? (2SG FUT go Beijing) ‘Are you going to Beijing?’, the addressor must have known that the addressee might go to Beijing or at least leave for some time. That polar questions formed by terminal rising intonation only are context-restricted is also found in many other dialects of Gan, e.g. Nanchang, Duchang, Jishui, Leping, Luxi, Taihe, Yugan, etc. Question particles show big differences across the varieties of Gan. For example, some common question particles in Nanchang Gan include a55, po44; 55 55 55 55 51 44 51 and Yongxin Gan maŋ , maŋ nɛ , maŋ la ; Luxi Gan mo , la ; Leping Gan 44 21 21 pei ; Jishui Gan mɔ̃ , po ; etc. In Gan, both verb (phrases) and adjective (phrases) can enter into the formation of X-neg-X questions. Nevertheless, full forms of X-neg-X questions, i.e. VP-neg-VP and AP-neg-AP, are not used as frequently as the shortened forms, i.e. V-neg-VP and A-neg-AP. In some varieties of Gan, V(P)-neg and A(P)-neg questions are also found (although not very commonly), e.g. Nanchang Gan, Jishui Gan, Luxi Gan, Leping Gan, but never in Yongxin Gan. Alternative questions in Gan are of [X disj Y] structure, which is the same as in Standard Chiense. Nevertheless, there are two differences from Standard

57

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Chinese that deserve to be mentioned here. One is that some varieties of Gan use disjunct-final particles as disjunctions, e.g. Yongxin Gan maŋ is also a question particle (see Section 2.1.1.2). Another is that Gan does not have a one-one correspondence of disjunctions in alternative questions and alternative declaratives as Standard Chinese does. In particular, in Standard Chinese, huozhe (and huoshi) ‘or’ is used in alternative declaratives, and haishi ‘or’ is used in alternative interrogatives. In Gan languages there is no huozhe (or huoshi), and equivalent meanings are expressed in four ways, (i) absence of disjunctions, which is common, (ii) coordinations, e.g. (dao) ‘and’ (Luxi Gan, Yongxin Gan), gen(dao) ‘and’ (Nanchang Gan), he ‘and’ (Duchang Gan), (iii) disjunctions in pairs, e.g. yaobei…yaobei ‘either…or’ (Leping Gan), yaome…yaome, busi…qiu ‘either… or’ (Taihe Gan), and (iv) huozhe ‘or’ borrowed from Standard Chinese (Jishui Gan, Yongxin Gan, and Yugan Gan). I summarize the some features of interrogative sytems of the dialects of Gan in the following table (personal knowledge and native speaker sources). Note that in the dialects Yongxin, Leping, and Luxi, polar questions can be formed by particle complexes (see Section 3.2 for more discussion).

Table 2.3. Interrogatives in the dialects of Gan8

Dialects FP-YN FP-WH FP-RWH Into. X-n-X Alter. Nanchang a, la, po o, ne li (+) X-n(-X) (d)XdY Duchang mo – ne (+) X-n(-X) (d)XdY Yugan le, lao a, ne ne, tsa (+) X-n(-X) (d)XdY Jishui mɔ,̃ po (jɛ) ne (+) X-n(-X) (d)XdY Taihe (pa) ni, ne ni (+) X-n(-X) (d)XdY Yongxin maŋ, maŋne, maŋla la ne, la (+) X-n-X (d)XdY Leping pei, peine, peila – ne (+) X-n(-X) (d)XdY Luxi mo, la, mone – ne44 (+) X-n(-X) (d)XdY

Cantonese Cantonese (also known as Yue) polar interrogatives use intonation-only, final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. In Guangzhou Cantonese, which is considered as standard Cantonese, spoken in the capital city of the Province, polar questions formed by

8 Abbreviations: FP-YN/WH/RWH: final particles in yes-no/wh-/reduced wh-questions, Into.: terminal rising intonation, X-n-X: X-neg-X questions, Alter.: alternative questions.

58

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

intonation-only can adopt either a rising or a level one ( 2006). In Beiliu Cantonese, spoken in the Zhuang Autonomous Region, intonation-only polar questions are also found (see 2008: 28, 30). Question particles in polar questions vary across the dialects of Cantonese. For example, Guangzhou Cantonese frequently takes the question particles ma33 and mε55, and also kua33, lε13, lε21, hɔ35, and so on (Peng 2006; see also Fang 2003: 152-6), while the most common question particles in Cantonese (si-yi ‘four-towns’) are not exactly the same. For example, Taishan Cantonese frequently uses me33, Xinhui Cantonese uses mə33, Cantonese and Cantonese use mɔ21. Some other question particles used in Siyi 5 35 21 13 33 Cantonese include tseʔ , ha , la , wo , and kua (see Gan 2002: 62-3). In Beiliu Cantonese, some common final question particles include ma, pha35, a, mε55, wɔ55, and lɔ55 (Xu 2008: 58, 69-71), and there are even some particle combinations.

(42) Beiliu Cantonese (Xu 2008: 59)

王老师请着假嘛呢？ a. wang laoshi qing ma ne? Wang teacher ask PAST leave QP PRT ‘Did teacher Wang ask for a leaving (or not)?’

你想去北流嘛咯？ b. ni xiang qu beiliu ma lo? 2SG want go Beiliu QP PRT ‘Do you want to go to Beiliu (or not)?’

For further discussion of mane questions and the like, see Section 4.2. Guangzhou Cantonese uses disjunctions jɪk55wak22 and tɪŋ22 to combine the disjuncts in alternative questions, which normally take a X disj Y (prt) structure (Fang 2003: 153-4). In Siyi Cantonese the disjunctions are mə11 (Taishan Cantonese), mu31u55 or haixi (Kaiping Cantonese), haixi (Enping Cantonese) (Gan 2002: 74), and Beiliu Cantonese uses shixi (Xu 2008: 61), though all of them use an alternative question structure like Guangzhou Cantonese. X-neg-X questions in Cantonese are of X-neg-X or X-neg structure. For example, Guangzhou Cantonese takes X m21 X and X-mεi22 (Fang 2003: 154-6), which is similar in Siyi Cantonese (Gan 2002: 72, 78-9). However, Beiliu Cantonese takes X (shi)mau X (prt) structure (shi ‘yes’, mau ‘not have’), which is

59

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

similar to Guangzhou Cantonese jɐu13mou14 (have-not.have) questions (it has two variations: jɐu13mou14 X, and jɐu13 X mou14). Cantonese wh-questions can take question particles at the sentence-end, and there are also so-called “semantic wh-questions” (or, reduced wh-questions, see Section 3.3.2), which are of NP/VP-prt structure. For a study of Early Cantonese interrogative construction, see (2001).

Wu Interrogatives in the dialects of Wu share many common features. Taking Shanghai (Central Wu), (North Wu), and Ningbo (South Wu) as examples, final question particles and alternative structures are all found. They also use similar structures in wh-questions, which resembles Standard Chinese. However, some strategies in polar questions do differ. One is that there is a Q-X polar question in Shanghai and Suzhou, but not in Ningbo. Q-X questions (Q is normally a) can be a normal yes/no-question or a question of X-neg-X meaning, depending on the context. In fact, there is no X-neg-X question in Suzhou (Liu 1991) and all the questions of disjunctive-negative meaning are expressed by a-X questions, though Shanghai Wu has both a-X and X-neg-X questions9. Another difference is that intonation-only questions are found in Shanghai (Xu and Tang 1987: 466) and Ningbo ( 2006: 140), but not in Suzhou (Li 1998: 124). Furthermore, as mentioned above, X-neg-X questions are reported in Shanghai and Ningbo, but not in Suzhou. The structure of these questions, nevertheless, shows some differences. If a verb (phrase) enters into the question structure, for example, Shanghai takes V-neg-VP, and sometimes VP-neg-VP, but never VP-neg-V (Xu and Shao 1998: 214), while Ningbo takes VP-neg-VP (prt) or VP-neg (prt) (Ruan 2006: 152-3). In Suzhou, Shanghai, and Ningbo, wh-questions can take a sentence-final particle, e.g. Shanghai Wu sanjin lae leq a? (what.person come PST QP) ‘Who has come?’, and there is also a semantic wh-question, i.e. a NP/VP prt question, e.g.

Suzhou Wu uÃsɿvu nəʔ ? (Wang PRT) ‘{Where is / How about} Wang Shifu?’ (Li 1998: 106).

9 Note that a is not used the in Shanghai Wu, cf. *xii a(q) tseu leq? (3SG Q go PST) Intended meaning: ‘Has he gone?’ (Zhu 2006: 169).

60

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

The interrogative strategies of Shanghai, Suzhou, and Ningbo are summarized in Table 2.4. (For a brief discussion on Shanghai Wu interrogatives, see also Zhu 2006: 167-70.)

Table 2.4. Interrogative strategies in Wu (Shanghai, Suzhou, and Ningbo)

Shanghai Suzhou Ningbo Intonation-only + - + Q particle + + + a-X + + - X-neg-X + - + Alternative + + + wh- + Q particle + + + Semantic wh- + + +

Hakka In Hakka (also known as Kejia), some common interrogative strategies in polar questions, like final-intonation-only, final question particle, X-neg-X, and alternative structures are found widely across its dialects, although there are some differences among individual dialects. Polar questions formed by rising intonation-only are reported in Nankang Hakka (Liu 2006: 42), Shangyou Hakka (Liu 1999: 747), and Xīnfēng Hakka (Zhou 1992). Ninghua Hakka has no such questions ( 2004: 262). Final question particles vary among Hakka dialects. Some common final question particles in individual dialects are summarized in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5. Question particles in comparative Hakka

Province Hakka dialects Question particles References Shangyou mã55, nẽ55, mã55nẽ55 Liu 1999: 740 33 h 213 Jiangxi Nankang mɔ̃ , p a Liu 2006: 42 Guangdong Meixian mo Huang 1994 Guangdong Xīnfēng mɔ, , tsa Zhou 1992 Guangdong Longchuan a, ma Wu 2009 Guangdong Dabu mɔ He 1993: 81-2 Guangdong Wuhua mo13, a, au13, ne Li 2009: 47-8 Ninghua pha, ha, lie, maʔ, mau, maŋ Zhang 2004: 262 Guangxi Binyang mau Qiu 2008: 136 Guangxi Lingui Xiaojiang maŋ13, a35, pa21 Chen 2008: 108

61

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

It seems that m- is shared among the question particles in the dialects of Hakka.

Alternative questions by the (disj1) X disj2 Y structure, which is the same as in Standard Chinese, are used most commonly in the dialects of Hakka. Nevertheless, the disjunctions can be different. Standard Chinese uses (shi) X haishi Y (be X or.be Y), while (shi) X haishi/yishi Y is adopted in many Hakka dialects, such as those of the South Jiangxi Province, like Nankang, -an, Shicheng, Shangyou, Chongyi, Xunwu. Moreover, a simplified form through omitting the disjunction pair, and adding a pause or particle in between, is also adopted in some dialects. For example, the structure of alternative questions in Dabu Hakka is X a Y (He 1993: 82). In Lingui Xiaojiang, a Hakka speech island in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, however, X haishi Y is found (Chen 2008: 109), which is very likely to be influenced by the neighboring Ping language. The most common structure of X-neg-X questions in Hakka is V-neg-V(P) or A-neg-A(P), depending on whether X is a verb (phrase) or an adjective (phrase), although individual dialects may adopt some slightly different structures. For example, VP-neg-V(P) and AP-neg-A(P) are also found in Ningdu, Tianlin (Huang 2006: 66), Ninghua (Zhang 2004: 267), and Lingui Xiaojiang (Chen 2008: 109); VP-neg-VP and AP-neg-AP questions are also found in Ninghua (Zhang 2004: 267) and Binyang (Qiu 2008: 136); X-neg is also found in Meixian (Huang 1994) and Dabu (He 1993: 81). Some Hakka dialects also use Q-VP questions and verb-reduplicating questions, and both express disjunctive-negative meaning. Those languages also take Q-VP questions, including Wan-an, Nankang, Xingguo, Dayu, Anyuan, Shangyou, Chongyi (Liu 1999: 748), and Longchuan (Wu 2009). The languages that are also found to have verb-reduplicating questions include Yudu, Huichang, Changting, and Liancheng (Xinquan dialect) (see, for example, Xiang 1990; Zhang 1990; Liu 1999: 748, 2001: 335).

Xiang Interrogatives in the dialects of Xiang have much more commonalities than differences. Basically, final question particles 10 , X-neg-X, and alternative questions are found in the polar questions of Xiang, while intonation-only is avoided. The so-called “semantic wh-questions” can be formed by having a

10 For ma ne questions in Xiang and Chengbu Xiang, see Section 3.2.

62

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

question particle at the end of a NP/VP, and a normal wh-question can take a final question particle. Individual dialects vary in some interrogative strategies, especially in the choice of final question particles, and in the structuring of X-neg-X questions. In , the capital city of the Province, the question particle lo is used very often (Li 1991: 559-60). In fact, lo can also be used in every kind of question.

(43) Changsha Xiang (Li 1991: 576, 585, 582)

他肯不肯讲啰？ a. tha33 khən53 pu24 khən42 kan42 lo33? (X-neg-X) 3SG will not will say QP ‘Will s/he say something or not?’

等一下下子再去好不啰？ b. tən53 i24xa21xatsɿ tsai55 khə55 xau42 lo33? (yes/no) wait a.while then go good not QP ‘Is it okay to go there a little bit later?’

你是吃烟呢，还是吃茶啰？ c. li53 sɿi21 tɕhia35 iē33 ȵie33, 2SG be eat cigarette QP

xai13sɿ21 tɕhia13 tsa13 lo33? (Alternative) or eat QP ‘Would you like to smoke a cigarette, or have a cup of tea?’

要好多才够啰？ d. iau55 xau53to33 tsai13 kəu55 lo33? (wh-) want how.much/many then enough QP ‘{How much / How many }is enough?’

Xiangtan, however, very frequently uses pu and pa ( 2001: 91), and Hengyang uses a (Peng 2002: 98), uses po and pai (Xu 2001: 297), and all these are neighboring dialects of Changsha. In Gutang, a is also the most common final question particle (Wu 2006: 11). As to the structure of X-neg-X questions, the situation is also complicated, though X-neg-XP is favored in all Xiang dialects. In Changsha (Li 1991: 576-7), (Zeng 2001: 91-2, 108, 110), and Hengyang (Peng 2002: 102-3), X-neg-XP and X-neg structures are favored when asking disjunctive- negative

63

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

questions (see the references mentioned above). Nevertheless, in Yiyang, their neighboring dialect, XP-neg-X questions are also favored (see Xu 2001: 305-6). In its Gutang dialect of Lianyuan Xiang, it seems that all the variations of X-neg-X question are grammatical (Wu 2006: 17-8).

Min The Min language (the southern dialect spoken in Taiwan is also known as Taiwanese) is classified into five sub-groups, namely, Southern, Northern, Eastern, Middle, and Pu()-(you) (Chen and Li 1991: 1), or seven subgroups, if Shao(wu)-Jiang(le) and Qiong(hai)-Wen() are added (LAC). This section mainly concerns and . In Southern Min, interrogative intonation-only, final question particles, X-neg(-X), and alternative structures are used widely across its dialects. Nevertheless, some dialects do not use all these strategies, while some other dialects use more. In the Xiamen variety of Southern Min, final interrogative intonation, final question particles, X-neg-X, alternatives, and tag questions are reported (Zhou 1999; Gan 2007). A declarative sentence turns into an interrogative if a rising intonation is used at the sentence-end. Some common final question particles include [m], [bo], [bue], [be], and [ne]. X-neg-X questions are not used as often as the reduced form X-neg. Alternative questions are of (disj) X disj Y structure. In the Zhangzhou variety of Southern Min, final question particles, Q-X (not found in Southern Min), X-neg-X, alternatives, and tag questions are reported (Li 2001). The two most commonly used final question particles are [hẽ32] and [hɔ̃32], with no rise in intonation. An X-neg-X question normally takes a particle [A] before the negation word, forming a X-prt-neg-X structure. Alternative questions are of [X or Y] structure. In Southern Min spoken in Taiwan, polar interrogatives mainly use final question particles, X-neg, Q-X, and alternative structures (Feng 1999; Chen 2011; but see Wang and Lien 2001 for a discussion on X-neg-X questions). Tag questions are also found across Southern Min languages. For example, a X-prt-neg-X tag is found in Zhangzhou, e.g., …, xau A m xau? 好啊[不]好？ (good PRT NEG good) ‘…, okay?’ (Literally, ‘…, is it good or not?’) (Li 2001); and a positive-negative tag is found in Xiamen, e.g. …, shi bo? 是[不] (be NEG-be) ‘…, okay?’ (Literally, ‘…, is it like this or not?’) (Gan 2007). The polar interrogatives of Southern Min languages are summarized in the

64

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

following table.

Table 2.6. Polar interrogatives of Min

Xiamen Quanzhou Zhangzhou Taiwan Intonation + ? + (+) Q particle + + + + X-neg-X X-neg X-neg X-(prt-)neg X-neg 53 53 11 53 53 53 Q-X (kã -/kam -X) - kã -/kam -X kam -X Alternative X disj Y X disj Y X disj Y X disj Y (prt) Tag S, pos-neg S, pos-neg S, X-prt-neg-X ?

It can be seen from the table that Xaimen Min and Quanzhou Min lack an Q-X question as found in Zhangzhou Min and Taiwan Min. In Min, an Eastern variety of the Min language, which is spoken in the capital city of Fujian Province and its neighboring districts, polar interrogatives use final rising intonation-only, final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures (Gan 2007). X-neg-X questions are commonly found in a full form rather than a reduced X-neg form, and the negation constituent is phonologically merged with its preceding syllable, for example, khoŋ55 ŋɔ213 < khɔ213 ŋ55 ŋɔ213 (go not go), paŋ21 ma53 < pa53 ŋ55 pa53 (scrawl not scrawl), khaŋ55 ŋaŋ213 < khaŋ213 ŋ55 khaŋ213 (look not look), phaŋ55 maʔ23 < phaʔ23 ŋ55 phaʔ23 (pat not pat) (see Li 1987; Gan 2007). This is different from Southern Min, where the reduced form, X-neg, is prevalent.

Hui Polar interrogatives in the dialects of Hui often use terminal rising intonation, final question particles, and alternative structures, which is basically the same as in Standard Chinese. One big difference in the dialects of Hui is found in the X-neg-X questions. Most dialects of Hui use X-neg questions, not the full form X-neg-X (although it is also used, notably among young generations). This is found in Jìxī, Shèxiàn; Túnxī, Xiūníng, Yīxiàn, as well as some Hui dialects spoken in the Province, e.g. Chún-ān, Jiàndé, Shòuchāng, Suì-ān (Meng 2005: 121, 215, 412). However, the dialects Qímén and Wùyuán are different. In particular, Qímén and Wùyuán usually use X-neg-X(P) to express the disjunctive-negative meaning

11 Q-X in Xiamen Min is only found in rhetoric questions.

65

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(fieldwork notes). Another difference is that the Jīng-Zhàn subdialect of Hui, e.g. Kēcūn, Jīngdé, and Zhàndà, usually do not use X-neg(-X) questions, but Q-X questions (here is ke-X; Meng 2005: 329-35). This is because these Hui dialects borrowed such a question from their neighboring areas, i.e. Jiang-Huai Mandarin speaking districts (see LAC map B10), which is rich in Q-X questions (see this section above and Sections 6.1.1, 7.2.4.2). Some interrogative strategies of Hui are summarized in the following table (based on Meng 2005: 124-8, 218-25, 276-81, 330-5, 414-20, and native speaker sources on Déxīng, Fúliáng, Qímén, and Wùyúan). Note that the table does not include terminal rising intonation and alternative structures, two common strategies in Hui.

Table 2.7. Interrogative strategies in Hui

Sub-dia. Dialects FP-YN FP-WH FP-RWH X-n(-X) Q-VP Ji-She Shexian a, ba a, lai, ai lai + – Jixi a, ba, wa a, le, ne ne + –

Xiu-Yi Tunxi a, wa a, le a + – Xiuning a, le a, le le + – Yixian a, ba ne ne + – Wuyuan a, ma a, ne ne + –

Qi-De Qimen wa, na, ba a, ne, na ne + – Fuliang a, ma, ba a, ne ne + – Dexing a lai, ne lai + –

Jing-Zhan Jingde a, ma a, ye, ne ne – + Kecun a, ba, la an, yo, la, ne ne – + Zhanda a, ma an, yo ne – +

Yanzhou Chun-an a, ma lei ne + – Jiande a, ba li ne + – Suining a, wa a, la ne + – Shouchang a a, ne ne + –

Jin Polar interrogatives in the Jin language use terminal rising intonation, final

66

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

question particles, X-neg-X, alternative structures, Q-X, and verb-reduplication. The first four strategies are common in Sinitic languages, while Q-X is not so common, and verb-reduplication is rare. The polar interrogatives strategies in the dialects of Jin in the Shānxī Province 山西 are summarized in Table 2.6 (mainly based on Hou and Wen 1993, Guo 2005, Guo 2010, Li 2005, and informants from Taiyuan and ).

Table 2.8. Interrogative strategies in the dialects of Jin

Strategies Dialects of Jin attested Intonation , , Dingxiang, , Loufan, Wenshui Q particle Changzhi, Datong, Guangling, Heshun, Jincheng, , Linxian, Loufan, Taiyuan, , Yuncheng Q-X Linxian, Loufan, , Shanyin, Taiyuan, Wutai verb-redu. Daixian, Pianguan, Pinglu, , Wutai X-neg-X X-prt-neg: Fenyang, Hequ, Lishi, Loufan, Pianguan, Pingyao, Wutai, , X-neg: Daixian, Datong, Ningwu, Yangquan, Yuncheng X-neg-prt: Changzhi, Guangling, Heshun, Linfen, Linxian, Taiyuan, Xinzhou X-prt-neg-(X)-prt: Fenyang, Jiaocheng, Taigu, Wuxiang, Xiaoyi X-neg-X-prt: Datong, Fenyang, Lishi, Loufan, Taiyuan, Wutai, Wuxiang, Xiaoyi X-neg-X: Changzhi, Datong, Jincheng, Lishi, Taiyuan Alternative X prt Y prt / X (prt) disj Y (prt): Changzhi, Fenyang, Jincheng, Loufan, Yangquan,

It can be inferred from the table that some varieties of Jin use more sub-types of polar questions than others, especially in the case of X-neg-X questions. However, the table does not present the whole picture of the polar question system in Jin. Taking the dialects spoken in a neighboring province – the Shǎnxī Province 陕西 - for example, Q-X questions are also found in Qingjian and Yanchuan; X-neg is found in Shenmu and Wubao; X(-prt)-neg-X is found in Yanchuan; X-prt-neg is found in Shenmu, Wubao, Yanchuan, and Shuide (Xing 2005). Verb-reduplicating questions, which are rare in Sinitic, are also reported in Shanbei Jin (Xing 2002).

67

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Ping The Ping language is mainly spoken in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, and is divided into two main dialects, the Northern and the Southern. Northern Ping is spoken sporadically in the neighboring areas of and Hezhou, and Southern Ping is spoken in contiguous geographical areas around , the capital city of Guangxi. The two dialects are separated by Liuzhou. This section focuses on the interrogatives in the 11 dialects of Northern Ping, namely, Yongfu Tangbao, Lingui Liangjiang, Lingui Yining, Yangshuo Putao, Fuchuan Xiushui, Guanyang Guanyinge, Quanzhou Wenqiao, Hezhou Jiudusheng, Xing-an Gaoshang, , and Yandong. Four common strategies – that is final question particles, X-neg-X, alternative structures, and wh-questions – are all found in Northern Ping. The interrogative system shares many similarities across the dialects of Northern Ping, though some studies show that interrogatives by verb-reduplication and intonation-only are not adopted widely, but only in some dialects. Polar questions formed by intonation-only are reported from Lingui Yining, Quanzhou Wenqiao, Guanyang Guanyinge, Hezhou Jiudu, and Ziyuan Yandong. The intonation pattern of the latter three is still unknown, while the first two dialects take a slight rising intonation (Zhou 2005: 267; Tang 2005: 276). All 11 dialects use final question particles to ask polar questions, although the inventories of final question particles may not be the same. For example, the final question particles in Yongfu Tangbao include a31, au31, lie35, nie35, and ba31 (Xiao 2005: 221-2); Lingui Liangjiang include æ33, le13, le35, and pæ33 (Liang 2005: 208); Xing-an Gaoshang include po22 and mo22 ( 2005: 226-8); and so on. X-neg-X questions are also common across the dialects of Northern Ping. In the 11 dialects of the present study, the first X reserves only the first syllable if X happens to be a non-monosyllabic word (or phrase). Taking a verb phrase for example, the most common structure is V-neg-VP, not VP-neg-V or V(P)-neg, though the latter two are also found. That is, σ1-neg-σ1(σ2…) is a basic phonological structure in the 11 dialects of Northern Ping. Two matters deserve to be mentioned here. One is the negation word in X-neg-X questions. Among the 11 dialects, three use mau 冇 only, three use mau and bu/mei, the other five use uŋ, bu, and mo. That is to say, mau is the most common negation word in X-neg-X questions in Northern Ping. In the tradition of Chinese linguistics, a selection of bu or mei are reckoned to be an important

68

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

parameter in classifying the subtypes of X-neg-X questions (see Xing 2005, and references cited therein). Here, it seems that a third possibility is also reasonable. Ping, as an individual Sinitic language, adopts a different negation word in its X-neg-X questions. Another matter is that there are verb-reduplication questions in Quanzhou Wenqiao and Ziyuan Yandong, because of phonological abridgement in conversation.

(44) Quanzhou Wenqiao Ping (Tang 2005: 280, 244-5)

星期日你去（不）去开会？ xingqiri ni qu(-bu-)qu kai-hui? Sunday 2SG go-not-go attend-meeting ‘Are you going to attend the meeting on Sunday or not?’

(45) Ziyuan Yandong Ping (Zhang 2005: 247)

考试唔考试？→ 考唔考试？→ 考考试？ kaoshi ŋ̍53 kaoshi? > kao ŋ̍53 kaoshi? > kaokaoshi? take.exam not ‘Are you going to have an exam or not?’

Alternative questions in Northern Ping normally take a (shi) X haishi Y (be X or Y) structure, which is the same as in Standard Chinese and many other Sinitic languages. Also, the question particle ne can be added after each disjunct, and the disjunctions shi and haishi can be dropped, with only a short pause in between. Like most other Sinitic languages, some question particles can also be added at the end of a wh-question in Northern Ping, which are very frequently found to be lie or ne. Nevertheless, Lingui Yining is an exception of this: here wh-questions take no final question particles. Semantic wh-questions, i.e. those formed by a noun (phrase) or a verb (phrase) plus a question particle, are also found in every dialect of Northern Ping.

(46) Guanyang Guanyinge Ping (Bai 2005: 192)

个个东西有好重咧？ kuo24 kuo24 taŋ53si53 iao33 xu33 thən33 lie? DEF DEF thing have how heavy QP ‘How heavy is this stuff?’

69

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(47) Lingui Liangjiang Ping (Liang 2005: 208, 211)

ləu33tʃē35 lie13/le35? 老张咧？ Old.Zhang QP ‘{Where is / How about} Old Zhang?’

70

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.1.2. Tibeto-Burman languages

2.1.2.1. Tibetan languages

Tibetan The Tibetan language spoken in China mainly consists of three dialects (or, groups), Weizang, Kang, and Anduo (see, e.g., Jin 1983: 114-5; Gesang and Gesang 2002: 3). Strategies of polar questions vary in different varieties of language, though final question particles are widely applied, as it is summarized in the table below. Tibetan (and three other Tibetan languages, Menba, Baima, and Tsangluo) normally does not phrase polar questions by interrogative intonation-only or X-neg-X structures.

Table 2.9. Polar interrogatives in Tibetan varieties

Dialects Varieties Q particles Alternative IVM References Weizang Lhasa pεʔ (kεʔ, ŋεʔ) X Y n/i Jin 1983: 81-2, 102-3 Rikaze pa (wa, na, X prt Y prt n/i Gesang and Gesang ŋa,ta, ka) 2002: 61, 68 Kang Dege do, ji, le X prt Y e Gesang and Gesang 2002: 160-1, 167 Gaize ne n/i ə Qu and 1983: 95 Anduo Labulen ni, ko, ri X Y ə Gesang and Gesang 2002: 264-5 Purik a n/i n/i Bailey 1915

Gesang and Gesang (2002: 160, 264) classify e in Dege Tibetan (Kang group) and ə in Labulen Tibetan (Anduo group) as question particles. Nevertheless, Sun (1995), Sun, Chirkova and Liu (2007: 85-6, 130-1, 190-1) propose that ə, a, e and the like in Tibeto-Burman are interrogative prefixes, now that such constituents are in with the verbs in some languages, e.g. Baima, a language of the Tibetan subgroup (Sun, Chirkova and Liu 2007: 85). The distribution of the interrogative prefixes is uneven in individual Tibetan varieties. In Qu and Tan’s (1983: 95) comparative study of seven dialects of the Ali of , i.e. Ge’er, Ritu, Pulan, Zhada, Geji, Lecuo, and Gaize (the

71

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

first six are of the Weizang group of Tibetan, and the final, Gaize, belongs to the Kang group of Tibetan), Gaize is different in that it has a pre-verbal interrogative constituent ə, which is not found in the other six dialects. In other words, a polar question formed by having a ə (or its variants) before a verb is an important feature of Anduo Tibetan and Kang Tibetan. Note that in Labulen Tibetan, one could also ask a polar question by only having a rising intonation at the end of a declarative sentence (Gesang and Gesang 2002: 265).

Menba In (Cuona) Menba, polar interrogatives normally use final question particles 31 (mA ) or X disj Y (prt) alternative structures (Sun et al. 1980: 58-9; Lu 1986: 106-8).

(48) Menba (Sun et al. 1980: 59)

43 13 13 23 23 ʔi zA tA mA zA ? 2SG eat or not eat ‘Will you eat or not?’

Baima In Baima, polar interrogative strategies include final question particles, alternative structures, and interrogative verb morphology. The most commonly used question particles are ua53 and tε53, but frequently they are used in collaboration with some other strategies, like interrogative verb morphology, although verb morphology itself can form a polar question alone (Sun, Chirkova, and Liu 2007: 130-4).

(49) Baima (Sun, Chirkova, and Liu 2007: 131)

tɐ13 rɐ35 na13 nɔ13 e53 ndʑi53 gɐ13 i53 tε53? today mountain LOC Q go want FUT PRT ‘{Are you going / Shall we go} to the mountain?’

An alternative question takes a particle (ɦa13 or ia13) between the two (or more) disjuncts, rather than disjunctions like ʑe341rε35, or xue13(tʃe53) (loan word from Chinese), which are used in declarative sentences.

72

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(50) Baima (Sun, Chirkova, and Liu 2007: 131)

ʑo13 ko53 ndʑi53 ʃa53 ɦa13 ʃɔ13 ʃa53? 1PL go IMP PRT rest IMP ‘Shall we go or take a rest?’

The interrogative morpheme a53 added before a verb is in vowel harmony with the verb. Their harmony pattern is summarized in the following table (based on Sun, Chirkova, and Liu 2007: 85).

Table 2.10. Vowel harmony in Baima interrogative verb morphology

Vo w e l s a varieties Examples i e ndʑi53 ‘go’ e53 ndʑi53 ‘go?’ e, ε ε tʃe53 ‘cut (tree)’ ε53tʃe53 ‘cut?’ ȵε35 ‘sleep’ ε35ȵε35 ‘sleep?’ a, ɑ, ɔ ɑ dʑa341 ‘sew’ a53dʑa341 ‘sew?’ tɔ35 ‘wrap’ a35tɔ35 ‘wrap?’ o ɔ kho35 ‘carry (firewood)’ ɔ53kho53 ‘carry?’ u o phu35 ‘rub’ o53phu35 ‘rub?’ y ø ȵy341 ‘sniff’ ø53ȵy341 ‘sniff?’ ə, ɿ, ɐ, ø, and ə khɐ53 ‘warm (by fire)’ ə53 khɐ53 ‘warm (by fire)?’ compound ndʐø53 ‘harvest’ ə53ndʐø53 ‘harvest?’ vowels dzuε341 ‘dig’ ə53dzuε341 ‘dig?’

Sun, Chirkova, and Liu (2007: 86) propose that interrogativity by verb-prefixing in Tibeto-Burman languages and Sinitic languages are of a common origin, and not accidental later-developed grammatical features in individual languages, since the phenomenon is widely attested.

Tsangluo Tsangluo (also known as Motuo Menba; see e.g. Sun et al. 1980) is reported to use final question particles and alternative structures to form polar questions (Sun et al. 1980: 106-7).

(51) Tsangluo (Sun et al. 1980: 106-7)

a. nai ba ju dʑammo mo? 2SG PL alcohol drink PRT ‘Do you want to drink some alcohol?’

73

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. dytʂaŋ lekpu la mo, ma la ja? chief goodbe PRT not be PRT ‘Is the chief a good man or not?’

Alternative questions in Tsangluo are of X prt disj Y or X prt Y prt structure, and the disjunction in (51b) is not a normal disjunction but a particle (see also Zhang 1986: 156-7).

2.1.2.2. Yi languages

Yi The most outstanding feature of the polar questions in Yi (and many other Yi languages) is the reduplicating structure, i.e. a verb (phrase) or an adjective is reduplicated to ask the polarity value of a certain action or feature. Yi mainly consists of six dialects, namely, the North, South, East, West, Southeast, and Central (Chen et al. 1985: 172-216), sharing many similarities in their polar question systems, though there are also some differences among individual dialects as well. The Northern dialects (e.g. Liangshan Yi 凉山) use final question particles, VV, V-prt-neg-V, AA, A-prt-neg-A, and alternative (X prt Y) structures. Note that the reduplicating structure, VV, or AA, is always accompanied by a change of tone. The rules of tonal change are summarized in the following (Chen et al. 1985: 94; see also Chen 1996).

Table 2.11. Rules of tonal change in North Yi reduplicating questions

(Last) syllable tone Syllable structure Examples 55, 44, 21 σ σ33 lɔ55pɔ21 ‘help’ → lɔ55pɔ21pɔ33 ‘help?’ 33 σ44σ la33 ‘come’ → la44la33 ‘come?’

It is noteworthy that in the Northern dialect of Yi, the rule is to reduplicate the last syllable if the verb has more than one syllable. In Weining Yi 威宁, an East dialect of Yi, VV prt, V (prt) neg V, AA prt, and A (prt) neg A questions are attested. The difference between using/omitting a question particle (no33) in a V (prt) neg V and A (prt) neg A question is pragmatic one, in particular, a sentence sounds more polite if no33 is adopted. A question particle (ɪ or e) must be tagged after a reduplicated

74

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

mono-syllable verb or adjective, e.g. lɤ31 ‘go’, lɤ31lɤ31ɪ ‘go?’; ɖo33 ‘like’, ɖo33ɖo33e ‘like?’. If verbs or adjectives that have two or more should be reduplicated, the rule is to reduplicate the last syllable, tagged also with an ɪ or e. An interesting feature in the in Weining Yi is that one can reduplicate a certain verb that s/he wants to emphasize (Chen et al. 1985: 186). In the following examples, (a) is to emphasis the action play, while (b) and (c) are to emphasis the action go.

(52) Weining Yi (East dialect of Yi; Chen et al. 1985: 186)

a. na31 lɤ33 go31 go31 e? 2SG go play play PRT ‘Do you want to go and play?’

b. na31 go31 lɤ33 lɤ33 ɪ? 2SG play go go PRT ‘Do you want to go and play?’

c. go31 na31 lɤ33 lɤ33 ɪ? play 2SG go go PRT ‘Do you want to go and play?’

In Luquan Yi 禄劝, another East dialect of Yi, V (disj) neg V and A (disj) neg A questions are also reported (Chen et al. 1985: 187). In some of the Southern dialects of Yi, V-neg-V and A-neg-A questions are reported (e.g. E’shan 峨山). For example, questions formed by reduplicating monosyllabic verbs/adjectives, i.e. VV (prt) and AA (prt) structures are very frequently found in E’shan, Xinping 新平, and Qiubei 邱北. When it is the case that the predicate consists of two verbs (be it an action verb or some other type, e.g. a modal one), the rule is to reduplicate the first (action) one, e.g. tsha55 ka42 (drink can) ‘(someone) can drink’, tsha55 tsha55 ka42? ‘can (someone) drink?’ in Xinping Yi (Chen et al. 1985: 192-3). In a general account of South Yi, however, Li (1996: 77-8, 86-7) concludes that to reduplicate a non-monosyllabic verb, one could either reduplicate the first syllable or the last one. Some examples of final question particles (e.g. mo33, nu33, pa55, lo33) and alternative questions (X prt Y) are also included in his monograph (Li 1996: 136, 138-41, 213). In Pula Yi (仆拉 a South dialect of Yi), a polar question can be formed by AA and a final question particle. The final syllable of an adjective is reduplicated

75

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

if it has more than one syllable, e.g. ne13 ‘short’ > ne13ne13 ‘short?’, dɪ33 ‘low’ > dɪ21dɪ33 ‘low?’ (noting a change in tone) (see Wang 2004). An example of an alternative question reported in Pula Yi is of X disj, Y prt structure (Wang 2004), in which the disjunction is adhered to the first disjunct, which is very special in the languages in China (another language that has this structure is Tujia, see below).

(53) Pula Yi (Wang 2004)

ŋa22 mɤ21khɪ33 lε55 nɤ33, ɕɪ33ȵɪ33 lε33 nɪ33? 1SG evening come or tomorrow come PRT ‘Shall I come tonight or tomorrow?’

In West dialects of Yi, however, VV or AA questions are not grammatical. Instead, V(prt)-neg-V and A(prt)-neg-A questions are used, e.g. ʑi55 (a31li31) ma31 55 55 31 31 31 55 ʑi ? (go (PRT) not go) ‘go or not?’, tʂhɿ (a li ) ma tʂhɿ ? (sweet (PRT) not sweet) ‘sweet or not?’ (Chen et al. 1985: 199-200). In Weishan Yi (巍山 a Western dialect of Yi), when a verb/adjective has more than one syllable, it takes a V/A prt question, i.e. simply takes a question particle (a31li31) after the verb/adjective that is questioned, e.g. ʂa55kho33 a31li31? 55 31 31 31 (apologize PRT) ‘apologize?’, dʐu di a li ? (happy PRT) ‘happy?’ (Chen et al. 1985: 200). In Mile Yi (弥勒 a Southeastern dialect of Yi), questions like VV and AA are reported when a verb/adjective is monosyllabic. When a verb/adjective has more than one syllable, the paradigm is a more complicated. The following table is based on Chen et al. (1985: 208).

Table 2.12. Syllable structure of reduplicating polar questions in Mile Yi

Syllable Classes Syllable structure Examples mono verb/adj. σ σ tu33 ‘drink’→ tu33 tu33

33 55 33 55 55 di/multi common verb σ1 σ2 σ2 go na ‘lose’ → go na na 33 11 33 33 11 direction verb σ1 σ1 σ2 du ‘go (out)’ → du du du 33 11 adjective σ1 σ2 σ2 prt prt ni gɤ ‘red’ → ni33gɤ11gɤ55ʑie33ʑie33

The situation in verb complexes of Yiliang Yi (宜良 another Southeast dialect of Yi) seems to be more flexible. It is both grammatical to reduplicate the

76

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

first syllable or the final one. However, when a verb complex is consisted of a major (action) verb and a modal one, the rule is to reduplicate the first syllable or the major verb. This is similar in Wenshan Yi 文山 (Chen et al. 1985: 208-9). In Yao’an Yi (姚安 a Central dialect of Yi), questions like VV, V-disj-neg-V, AA, and A-disj-neg-A are attested, while V-neg-V and A-neg-A are ungrammatical. Polar questions formed by reduplication are always found to have the first syllable reduplicated if a verb/adjective has di/multi-syllables, though in marginal cases it is also grammatical to reduplicate the final syllable of a di/multi-syllabic verb (Chen et al. 1985: 214). Polar questions in Dayao Yi (大姚 another Central dialect of Yi) are very different from Yao’an. A polar question normally uses V-neg-V, or A-neg-A structures, or simply has a question particle tagged after a verb/adjective (Chen et al. 1985: 214-5). Interrogative strategies in Yi are summarized in the following table.

77

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Table 2.13. Interrogative strategies in Yi Polar questions

Dialects of Yi Particle Alternative V-neg-V A-neg-A Syllables reduplicated in Q North da31, pa55 X prt Y VV, V-prt-neg-V AA, A-prt-neg-A verb: final (syllable)

East (Weining 威宁) ɪ, e n/i VV-prt, V(-disj)-neg-V AA-prt, A(-disj)-neg-A verb: final East (Luquan 禄劝) n/i n/i V(-disj)-neg-V A(-disj)-neg-A n/i

South (E’shan 峨山, n/i n/i VV, VV-prt AA, AA-prt general: either Xinping 新平, Qiubei 邱北) Xinping: verb: first South (Pula 仆拉) na33, ȵɪ13, no33 X disj, Y prt n/i AA adjective: final

West n/i n/i V(-prt)-neg-V A(-prt)-neg-A No

Central (Yao’an 姚安) n/i n/i VV, V-disj-neg-V AA, A-disj-neg-A verb/adjective: first Central (Dayao 大姚) ε31ε33 V-neg-V A-neg-A n/i

Southeast n/i n/i VV, V-neg-V AA, A-neg-A Mile: common verbs: final (Mile 弥勒, Yiliang 宜良) direction verbs: first adjectives: final Yiliang, Wenshan: common verbs: either verb complex: first/major

78

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Lisu Lisu uses final question particles, X-neg-X structures, as well as verb- reduplicating structures to form polar questions. Some common question particles include uε, ŋε, ma5…ε, ŋa ha, and mo, and a X-neg-X question could be V(P)-neg-V or A-neg-A (Zhongguo Kexueyuan Shaoshu Minzu Yuyan Yanjiusuo 1959: 48, 54, 56, 112-4; Xu and Gai 1986: 88, 102-3). Roop (1970: 243-7) reports that Lisu also uses intonation-only to form polar questions. Differences do exist in polar questions in individual varieties of Lisu. For example, the question ‘Can you speak (or not)?’ is very different in Nujiang Lisu 怒江, Yongsheng Lisu 永胜, and Luquan Lisu 禄劝 (Xu et al. 1986: 113).

(54) Lisu (Xu et al. 1986: 113)

a. the33 ku55 the33 ma31 ku55? (Nujiang Lisu) speak can speaknot can

b. the33 n̩31 the33 kɯ33? (Yongsheng Lisu) speak not speakcan

c. bε44 sε44 sε44? or, bε44 bε44 sε44? (Luquan Lisu) speak can can speak speak can ‘Can you speak (or not)?’

Lahu Lahu polar questions often use final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. Some common final question particles are la3, le1, and le1na2, and the structure of an alternative question is X prt disj Y prt (Matisoff 1973: 371-7; Chang 1986: 26, 30, 52, 70-1). An X-neg-X question is nothing special except that its answer can be in a very short form. In the following example, an adjective plus a particle is enough to answer an A-neg-A question.

(55) Lahu (Chang 1986: 70)

A: sɿ4ve6 tshi1 te3 ve6 ni1 ma3 ni? flower DEF one CL red not red ‘Is the flower red or not?’

79

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

B: ni1 a2. red PRT ‘It is red.’

Nevertheless, according to (2003: 210, and p.c.), Lahu also has a verb-reduplicating polar question, although it is not included in Chang’s description.

Hani Hani polar questions use final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. Two common question particles used in polar questions are la31 and a31 (Li and Wang 1986: 103, 127; equals laq and aq in Li 1990: 137, 187, respectively). In some varieties of Hani, there is a further division in the use of final question particles in polar questions. For example, in Bika Hani 碧卡, the particle used in second person is le55, and in third person is ai55 (Li and Wang 1986: 150).

(56) Bika Hani (Li and Wang 1986: 150)

a. nʏ55 sɔ31kɔ31 tsu55 mɤ31 le55? 2SG book read want PRT ‘Do you want to go studying?’

b. je31 kɔ31 sɔ31kɔ31 tsu55 mɤ31 ai55? 3SG.M book read want PRT ‘Does he want to go studying?’

Alternative questions in Hani always take a X (prt) disj Y (prt) structure. If it happens to have more than two disjuncts, then the disjunction occurs just before the very final one (Li 1990: 187-9).

Jinuo Jinuo polar interrogative strategies include final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. Polar questions formed by final question particles (e.g. la42, ȵa44) are always accompanied by a change of tone in the verb, while a verb in X-neg-X or alternative question keeps its original tone. The rule of tonal change in Jonuo verbs are summarized as follows (Gai 1986: 54-6; Gai 1987).

80

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Table 2.14. Tonal change in verbs in Jinuo polar questions

Original tone Interrogative tone Falling-tone verbs1 42 → 35 Even-tone verbs 33, 44 → 35 High-even-tone verbs 55 → 55

(57) Jinuo (Gai 1986: 54)

a. ɕe33 ɤ33 do55tshi44 ŋə44 ε la42? (ŋə42 > ŋə44) DEF LNK poison be PRT PRT ‘Is it poison?’

b. nə42 phɔ35 fa44 la42? (phɔ42 > phɔ35) 2SG buy PRT PRT ‘Did you buy it?’

Tonal change in Jinuo is regarded to be a morphological strategy, Gai (1987) calls this ‘verb ’. However, tonal change is not (or no longer?) a strict rule in Jinuo, some verbs keep their original tone in questions, with a question particle at the sentence-end, which shows that the final question particle is taking the place of tonal change. For example, in (57a-b), ŋə44 could also be pronounced as ŋə42. The X-neg-X questions in Jinuo mainly include VP neg V, V neg V, and A neg A. A verb normally keeps its original tone, whereas some adjectives are found to have their tones changed.

(58) Jinuo (a-b, Gai 1987; c-d, Gai 1986: 62)

a. nə42 zo44 zo44 mɔ44 zo44? 2SG go go NEG go ‘Are you going there or not?’

b. nə42 pjo55 ε mɔ44 pjo55? 2SG write PRT NEG write ‘Are you going to write or not?’

c. xə44mε44 ɬo42 a mɔ44 ɬo42 a? meal hot PRT NEG hot PRT ‘Is the food (still) hot?’

1 Copula ŋə42 ‘be’ is an exception, which changes to be ŋə44 in interrogative.

81

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

d. lo42si33 ma35 a mɔ44 ma35 a? screw tight PRT NEG tight PRT ‘Is the screw tight or not?’

(a) is VV neg V, (b) is V neg V, both with no tonal change in verb; (c) has no tonal change in adjective, while (d) changed (ma55 > a35). Some differences of polar questions do exist among individual dialects.

(59) Jinuo (Gai 1986: 143-5)

a. ŋɔ42 phɔ35 fa44 la42? (Youle Jinuo 攸乐) 1SG buy PRT QP ‘Had I bought that?’

b. ŋuε33 ε vu13 tɔ13 mja33? (Buyuan Jinuo 补远) 1SG PRT buy PRT QP ‘Had I bought that?’

c. kha55 ɤ33 lɔ44mɔ33 mə44 ŋə44 ε la42? (Youle Jinuo) DEF LNK one be PRT QP ‘Is that a tiger?’

31 33 33 55 d. jE lɔ mɔ lã ? (Buyuan Jinuo) DEF tiger QP ‘Is that a tiger?’

In (a), the tone of the verb changed, i.e. phɔ42 > phɔ35; in (b), both the pronoun and the verb changed, i.e. ŋɔ31 > ŋuε33 (note that not only the tone is changed), vu31 > vu13. In (c), the tone of the verb changed, i.e. ŋə42 > ŋə44; in (d), the copular is dropped. Alternative questions in Jinuo are found to be of X prt disj Y prt structure (Gai 1986: 118; Gai 1987).

Naxi Polar interrogative strategies in Naxi include final question particles, X(-neg-)X, interrogative verb morphology, and alternative structures. Some common sentence-final particles in Naxi polar questions are la55, le33, and ʂə55. X-neg-X questions are found to be V(P) (neg) V(P) or Adj neg Adj structure, depending on X being a verb or an adjective. Alternative questions are

82

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

of X (prt) disj Y prt (see He and Jiang 1982: 54, 79, 85, 98, 102; He 1987: 76). Verb-reduplicating questions normally take the question particle le33 after them, and the first verb keeps a high even tone (55). It keeps only a trivial role in Colloquial Naxi (see He 1987: 63).

(60) Naxi (He and Jiang 1982: 49)

a. bɯ55 bɯ33 le33? b. phiə55 phiə33 le33? go go PRT like like PRT ‘go or not?’ ‘like (it) or not?’

ke-VP-like questions are found in Naxi. An adverb, el (recorded also as ə55), which behaves like a prefix is placed before a verb or an adjective predicate to question an action or the polar value of a certain feature (He and Jiang 1982: 78; He 1987: 88, 115).

(61) Naxi (He 1987: 115)

a. el bbee? b. el ga leiq? Q go Q good PRT ‘go?’ ‘good?’

Tanglang In Tanglang polar questions, final question particles, alternative structures, and verb-reduplication structures are often used (Gai 2002).

(62) Tanglang (Gai 2002)

a. næ53 ȵi31 dʑe33 læ̃? 2 have PRT ‘Do you have an ox?’

b. thæ33 ȵi31 mʌ33 thæ33? sharp PRT not sharp ‘Is (the knife) sharp or not?’

c. mv̩53 χã33 χã33? rain drop drop ‘Will it rain (or not)?’

Note that the negative answer of (b) is mʌ33 mthæ13 ‘not sharp’, with a change in

83

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

the tone of the adjective, in other words, tonal change can change the positive/negative value of an adjective.

Mo’’ang is an endangered language spoken in the Yunnan Province, in , with about 5,000 native speakers (Wu 2007: 379). The polar question system of Mo’ang is not clear due to the fact that very limited literature is available, though Wu (2007: 389-90) included two examples of polar questions in his brief account of the language; both use final question particles.

(63) Mo’ang (Wu 2007: 389-90)

a. ʑa51 so33 sa33 ȵa33? 3SG.M leave PST PRT ‘Has he already left?’

b. na51 mjaˀ33 sa33 sa33 ȵa33? 2SG meal eat PST PRT ‘Have you eaten?’

Sangkong Final question particles, V neg V, and alternative structures are reported in the polar question system of Sangkong. The most frequently used question particle is wa55, which is also used after every disjunct in an alternative question, with also a disjunction after the first disjunct. The following is an alternative question example of VP prt neg V structure (Li 2002: 201-3).

(64) Sangkong (Li 2002: 160)

mɯŋ31ŋe33 e55 wa55 a31 e55 wa55? town go PRT not go PRT ‘(Will you) go to the town or not?’

Bisu In Bisu, polar interrogative strategies include final question particles (e.g. la31), V(P) neg V(P), and alternative structures (disj X Y).

84

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(65) Bisu (Xu 1998: 78, 146)

a. ʑa31ki33 xa33sɿ31 tsa31 phɤ31 ba31 tsa31 phɤ31 ga33 la31? child banana eat can not eat can PRT QP ‘Can a baby eat bananas (or not)?’

b. xai31sɿ55 ga33 e55 lai55 la31? ʑaŋ33 e55 lai55 la31? or 1SG go PRT QP 3SG.M go PRT QP ‘Shall I go or he go (there)?’

Note that in Bisu the disjunction xai31sɿ55 ‘or’ is borrowed from Chinese haishi /xaiʂʅ/ ‘or, rather’ and can be omitted freely in alternative questions.

Kazhuo Strategies reported in Kazhuo polar questions include final rising intonation and/or question particles, and alternative structures (X disj Y). A special method in Kazhuo’s polar questions is reduplication, i.e. reduplicating a verb predicate or an adjective predicate, bringing a VV or AA (prt) structure.

(66) Kazhuo (Mu 2003: a, 85; b, 88; c-d, 209)

a. nε33 to323 to323? 2SG drink drink ‘Do you want to drink (or not)?’

b. xɤ33 tε33 kɤ24 khua55 khua55? room DEF CL wide wide ‘Is the room big (or not)?’

If a predicate verb has more than one syllable, the rule is to reduplicate the final syllable; if the predicate is a verb complex, e.g. a resultive construction, then the rule is to reduplicate the word (syllable) that affiliated to the major one.

c. nε33tshε31 sa33lia33 lia33? 2PL discuss ‘Have you discussed?’

d. nε33 na35tɕa31 tɕa31? 2SG hear.RES ‘Did you hear (that)?’

85

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

For a comparison of verb-reduplicating questions in Kazhuo and other Yi languages, see Mu (2003: 208-66), in which he includes some interesting findings, e.g. verb-reduplicating questions are also attested in Hani, Lahu, Lisu, and Naxi (pp. 210), and adjective-reduplicating questions are only found in Yi and Kazhuo (pp. 246). For a discussion on verb-reduplication in Yi languages and their genetic relations, see Section 6.3.

Rouruo In Rouruo, final question particles, X neg X, alternative structures, and interrogative verb morphology are used to form polar questions. Some common question particles are ȵi55, la53, ɣa55, and ne35; X neg X includes V neg V and A neg A; and alternative questions always take a X prt Y (prt) structure (see Sun 2002: 148-9). Interrogative verb morphology in Rouruo is to have an affix ta53 before a predicate verb or adjective (Sun 2002: 90-1, 148, 171).

(67) Rouruo (Sun 2002: 91)

a. ȵo33 mia33 xo33 ta53 tso33 ku55? 2SG take meat Q eat PRT ‘Did you ever eat horse meat?’

b. ȵo33 io33 xɯ31 ta53 li33? 2SG take Q heavy ‘You take this. Is it heavy?’

Nusu Polar questions in Nusu can be formed by final question particles, V(P) neg V, and alternative structures. Some common question particles include ne55/le55, ɕi55, lo55, and vi55, and the structure of alternative questions is X (prt) Y (prt) (see Sun 1986: 86-7, 102-5).

(68) Nusu (Sun 1986: 103)

a. la53a31 ɕi35 khɹɯ35 gu31 ɣa55a31 lε55 gu31 ma55 ɣa55a31 ɕi55? cable DEF CL pass can PRT pass NEG can Q ‘Is the cable strong enough to step on?’

86

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. ȵo55 tʂə35a31 dza55 nɤ31 zui35 lε31 phə̄35a31 dza55 nɤ31 zui35 lε31? 2SG sour eat PRT want PRT hot eat PRT want PRT ‘Do you want to eat something sour or something hot?’

Tujia Tujia uses final question particles, X X neg, and alternative structures to phrase polar questions. Some common final question particles include a21, mã21, and so55; the structure of the X neg X question is X X neg; and an alternative question always takes the structure of X disj, Y (Tian et al. 1986: 105-9). The following is an example of an alternative question.

(69) Tujia (Tian et al. 1986: 105-9)

ni35 tsi55kɨe55 ma55 tɕi55 xo21, tha55ne55 ma55 tɕi55? 2SG front horse ride or back horse ride ‘Do you want to sit on the front part of the horse or the back?’

Alternative questions in Tujia are similar to those in Pula Yi (see Wang 2004), the disjunction is also a postposed one (see Sections 4.2.3, 4.3 for discussions on the position of disjunctions).

Bai In Bai polar questions, final interrogative particles and alternative structures are often used. The three most common question particles in polar questions are mo33, nε55, and ma35, alternative questions are of X (prt) disj Y structure. Note that in such particle questions there is a lengthening in articulation on the predicate verb/adjective, and the tone turns to be 35, when the monosyllabic predicate verb/adjective is not in a 35 or 55 tone. This is a strategy of interrogative verb morphology and question particles (see Xu and Zhao 1984: 87-90).

(70) Bai (Xu and Zhao 1984: 88)

a. no31 pe35 mo33? (pe35 < pe44) 2SG go QP ‘Are you going (there)?’

87

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. na55 ka35 mo33? (ka35 < ka31) 2PL go QP ‘Are you cold?’

Different dialects prefer different final question particles. As Xu and Zhao (1984: 125-6) pointed out, one can easily judge where a speaker comes from by the particles in one’s polar question sentence.

Table 2.15. Final polar question particles in three Bai dialects

Bijiang Bai 碧江 Jianchuan Bai 剑川 Dali Bai 大理 Standard Chinese 21 33 55 33 35 ua mo ni mu ma (QP) 21 55 55 33 51 35 ua nε ni pio shi ma (be QP)

2.1.2.3. Jingpo (Kachin) languages

Jingpo (Kachin) In Jingpo (also known as Kachin), polar questions are normally formed by taking sentence-final question particles or pre-verb interrogative markers (Liu 1984: 92-3). According to Dai and Xu (1992: 379), particles of this kind add to the surprisingly big number of 116, mostly with a -ni3/-ta3 ending. Alternative questions in Jingpo are of X disj Y structure (Dai and Xu 1992: 235-6). X-neg-X questions are not reported in Jingpo (and some other Jingpo languages, e.g. Anong, Bengni-Boga’er). Final question particles vary according to person and number of the subject (and sometimes also the object), and the aspect of the verb (see Liu 1984: 68-9 for detailed discussion). ʒi33 (or, ji33) is a question marker occurs before a predicate verb or adjective, which questions an action or a certain property. Such interrogatives are also found in many Tibeto-Burman languages (see Section 6.1.2 for more discussion).

(71) Jingpo (Liu 1984: 76)

a. naŋ33 ʒi33 kham33 kǎ2tʃa33 n̩31ni51? 2SG PRT health good ‘Do you have good health?’

88

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

33 33 55 55 55 31 33 b. khji naŋ eʔ kum phaʔ lai ka 3SG.M 2SG letter

ʒi33 ʃǎ2kun55kun55 ti33 nit31ta51? PRT bring do ‘Is it true that he always brings you letters?’

Dulong (Derung) Polar interrogative strategies in Dulong (also known as Derung) include question particles, alternative structures, and interrogative verb morphology. Two common question particles are e53 and da55. The structure of an alternative question is normally the bare forms of two (or more) disjuncts, no disjunctions are needed in between, i.e. XY (Sun 1982: 156-7, 175-6). ma55- (in Nujiang Dulong is gɯ55-), the interrogative morpheme, always comes first in all the morphemes (if it is not the only morpheme) of a verb.

(72) Dulong (Sun 1982: 202-3)

a. ăŋ53 ma55-kai55? (Dulongjiang Dulong) 3SG.M Q-eat ‘Did he eat?’

b. ăŋ53 gɯ55-khe55? (Nujiang Dulong) 3SG.M Q-eat

Some other differences also lie in different varieties of Dulong, for example, a V neg V question is found in Nujiang Dulong, but not in Dulongjiang Dulong (Sun 1982: 203).

Geman In Geman polar questions, final question particles (with also a terminal rising intonation), X-neg-X structures, and alternative structures are used. The most common final question particle in Geman is lai35. Alternative questions take X prt Y (prt) or X prt Y disj (prt) structure (Li 2002: 195-7, 211).

(73) Geman (Li 2002: 196)

a. ɯi53 tʂa55ɕi55 lai35? 55 55 3SG.M tʂa ɕi QP ‘Is he tʂa55ɕi55?’

89

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. ɯi53 a31pʌi35 mɯ31ka55 mai55 lai35? 3SG.M money not.have not QP ‘He has no money, hasn’t he?’

(b) behaves like a tag question, which invariably takes mai55 lai35 ‘hasn’t he?’ after a declarative sentence, regardless if it is positive or negative (note the difference in English).

Darang Darang is reported to have final question particles (e.g. ja35, sa31) and alternative structures (X prt disj Y prt) in its polar questions (Sun et al. 1980: 221, 227-8).

(74) Darang (Sun et al. 1980: 201, 228)

a. ȵoŋ35 bo53 ja31 ja35? 2SG go FUT QP ‘Are you going (there)?’

b. a31tia55n̥n53 tɯ31ɹui55 glai53 ja35 kia53a31 kha31liau55 pɯ31ɹe55 ja35? today fertizer carry QP or farmland weed QP ‘Shall we carry the fertilizer or weed the grass today?’

Anong In Anong, final question particles and alternative structures are often used to form polar questions. Alternative questions normally do not use a disjunction between the two (or more) disjuncts, but take a particle after each disjunct, i.e. X prt Y prt.

(75) Anong (Sun and Liu 2005: 128)

a. ɳa31 tian35sɿ35tɕi55 ɳ31-vεn35ε31 mε53 m31 ɳ31-vεn35ε31 mε53? 2SG television 2-buy PRT NEG 2-buy PRT ‘Are you going to buy a television?’

b. a31 tɕhεn31phɯ31 kha31 ɳ31-ɳã55ʂɿ31 mε53 2SG son ACC 2-like PRT

90

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

tɕhεn31mɯ31 kha31 ɳ31-ʂɿ31 mε53 daughter ACC 2-like PRT ‘Do you like to have a son or a daughter?’

Yidu Polar questions in Yidu are reported to use final question particles, X-neg-X structures, and alternative structures. ja31 and a31 are the two most frequently used final question particles in Yidu. X-neg-X questions normally take X X neg structure, and alternative questions take (disj) X prt (disj) Y prt (Jiang 2005: 105, 169-73, 178). The following are two examples of alternative questions: (b) uses a normal disjunction (a55i33soŋ55 ‘or’), while (a) uses a particle disjunction (wa53).

(76) Yidu (Jiang 2005: 172)

a. ȵu35 e55tia55ni35 ba53 tho31 wa53 a33na55ja55 ba53 tho31 wa53? 2SG today go out PRT tomorrow go out PRT ‘Are you going there today or tomorrow?’

b. a55i33soŋ55 ȵu35 ȵi35 ŋa35 tɕi55 oŋ35 ma55 dza33 wa53, or 2SG AGT 1SG GEN home LOC come PRT

a55i33soŋ55 ŋa35 ȵi35 ȵu35 tɕi55 oŋ35 ma55 ba33 wa53? or 1SG AGT 2SG GEN home LOC go PRT ‘Will you come to my home, or shall I go to your home?’

Bengni-Boga’er In Bengni-Boga’er, polar questions by using final question particles and alternative structures are reported. Some common particles used at the end of polar questions include je, ɦəː, a, and teː (teːla). Alternative questions are of X prt Y prt structure (Ouyang 1985: 40, 58). (77) Bengni-Boga’er (Ouyang 1985: 40, 58)

a. noː in-dəbo je, in-moŋbo je? 2SG go-FUT PRT go-NEG PRT ‘Are you going (there) or not?’

91

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. noː akeː doː-dəbo je, iɕi tɯŋ-dəbo je? 2SG meal eat-FUT PRT water drink-FUT PRT ‘Do you want to eat or drink?’

Sulong In Sulong, final question particles, X-neg-X (including V neg V and A neg A), and alternative structures are used in its polar question system. Two common final question particles are (ha31)waŋ55 and ɣaŋ51, and alternative questions take a X disj Y disj structure (Li 2004: 165-71). The following are examples of X-neg-X questions.

(78) Sulong (Li 2004: 167)

a. na55 ɬa33sa55 wu55ga31 ba31 wu55ga31? 2SG Lhasa go NEG go ‘Are you going to Lhasa or not?’

b. na55 ɟe33 a31ŋwa33ȵiaŋ55da31 ba31 ŋwa33ȵiaŋ55da31? 3SG.M TOP good.looking NEG good.looking ‘Is he handsome or not?’

Bengru Bengru is reported to have final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures in its polar questions. Polar questions formed by final question particle (ja31) are free in choosing intonation, though there are slight differences in meaning.

(79) Bengru (Li 2007a: 726)

nai55 mɯ31liu55 nə31vɤ55 du31 rau53 ja31? home inside people have EXIST go ‘Is there someone at home?’

(79) can be of a plain or rising or falling intonation. By plain, it is a normal question; by rising, it has somewhat rhetoric meaning ‘IS there someone at home?’; by falling, a speaker thinks it is very likely that there is someone at home, and simply asks for a confirmation (Li 2007a: 726). X-neg-X questions and alternative questions are also reported in Li (2007a: 726), each with only one example, of VP neg VP and disj X, disj Y structure,

92

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

respectively.

2.1.2.4. Burmese languages

Achang In Achang, strategies of polar questions mainly include final question particles, V-neg-V structures, and alternative structures. The two most frequently used final question particles are la21 and ne21. Alternative questions normally take X prt (disj) Y prt structure (Dai and Cui 1985: 74-5, 78-9). In the examples that follows, (a) is a X-neg-X question, and (b) is an alternative question, in which a disjunction ma55ʂə35 ‘or’ can be added at the initial position of the latter disjunct.

(80) Achang (Dai and Cui 1985: 78)

a. nuaŋ55 lɔ35 ma21 lɔ35? 2SG go NEG go ‘Are you going (there) or not?’

55 35 55 21 21 35 21 b. nuaŋ lɔ neʔ la ,ma lɔ la ? 2SG go PRT QP NEG go QP ‘Are you going (there) or not?’

Zaiwa In Zaiwa, final question particles and alternative structures are used to form polar questions. 31 The most common final particle in a polar question in Zaiwa is luʔ , others include lu55, khai55, ti55/li55, ti51/li51, and la31. Alternative questions always take X prt Y prt structure (Xu and Xu 1984: 116-8, 146, 150-1). The question particles ti55/li55 and ti51/li51 are used in questions without doubt or if one asks for a suggestion. Questions ending by ti51/li51 are somewhat tag-like.

(81) Zaiwa (Xu and Xu 1984: 151)

a. naŋ51 tʃoŋ31 e51 le51 ti55/li55? 2SG school go 2SG.PRS QP ‘Are you going to school? (I suppose so.)’

93

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. jaŋ55moʔ55 pan51 thoʔ55 lo55 pe51 ti51/li51? 3PL all out MV 3PL.PST QP ‘They all went out, didn’t they?’

Langsu Polar questions formed by final question particles and alternative structures are reported in Langsu. la31 is the most common final question particle. X-neg-X questions in a strict sense (V neg V, A neg A) are not found, although Langsu has questions formed by two positive-negative clauses. Alternative questions take X prt Y prt structure, which are also composed of two (or more) disjuncts (Dai 2005: 118-9).

(82) Langsu (Dai 2005: 119)

a. khauŋ35 tsɔ35 la31? mə̌31 tsɔ35 la31? corn eat QP NEG eat QP ‘(Will you) Eat corn or not?’

b. a31vɔ̃31/51 jε35 la31? na31 jε35 la31? uncle go QP aunt go QP ‘Will uncle or aunt go (there)?’

Xiandao In Xiandao, final question particles and alternative structures are used to form polar questions. The most common final question particle is la51, and alternative questions normally take X prt disj Y prt structure (Dai et al. 2005: 127-8, 136-41; Wang 2005: 99-101). There is no X-neg-X question in a strict sense. A disjunctive- negative meaning is conveyed by normal polar questions, or questions in a X prt, neg X structure.

(83) Xiandao (Dai et al. 2005: 140)

a. mε31, nɔŋ55 ŋɔ31 te55 tsai55 tsi31 ʂuʔ55/35 sε55la51? mother 2SG 1SG wine permit drink PRT ‘Mother, am I permitted to drink achohol (or not)?’

94

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. nɔŋ55 tat55 nεʔ31la51, n31 tat55 la51? 2SG can/know PRT not can/know PRT ‘Do you know (how to do) that (or not)?’

Bola In Bola, polar questions can be formed by final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. Some common question particles are la51, i55, and khai55. The structure of alternative questions is [X disj Y disj]. (Dai et al. 2007: 249-254).

(84) Bola (Dai et al. 2007: 249, 252)

55 31 55 55 51 a. ŋa ʒɛ ai nɛ̃ la ? 1SG also go need QP ‘Do I also need to go (there)?’

55 55 55 55 35/31 55 51 51 51 b. nɔ̃ pɛ ʃauʔ nɛ̃ i phai la tʃha la ? 2SG what drink want wine or tea or ‘What do you want to drink? Wine or tea?’

Leqi In Leqi, final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures are used to form polar questions. Some common final question particles are la53, lε33, and khai53. Alternative questions normally use no disjunction between the disjuncts, but take a topic marker after the first disjunct (see the example below) (Dai and Li 2007: 248-57).

(85) Leqi (Dai and Li 2007: 253)

naŋ53 wɔm33 lɔː55 tsɔː33 mə55ke33 lɔː55 juːp55 la53? 2SG meal go eat TOP go sleep PRT ‘Are you going to eat or sleep?’

2.1.2.5. Qiangic languages

Qiang The strategies of Qiang polar questions include final question particles

95

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(always accompanied by a rising intonation), X-neg-X structures (only in Taoping Qiang)2, and alternative structures. The most common polar question particle in Qiang is a; in alternative questions, disjunctive elements are used between disjuncts are not real disjunctions but particles. Different varieties of Qiang differ a great deal (Liu 1998: 2), the following table summarizes the polar question system in the dialects of Qiang.

Table 2.16. Polar questions in five varieties of Qiang

Varieties Q particles X-neg-X Alternative References Taoping mi, ma, ȵi, ua V neg V X prt Y Sun (1981: 144, (Li County) 167-8) a, me, ba – X prt Y Huang (2007: 156, (Li County) 168-71) Mawo ŋu, a – X prt Y (prt) Liu (1998: 204-5, () 232-4) Yadu a, ŋua, ja, tɕa, – X prt Y prt LaPolla with Huang () ŋui, luʁua, wa (2003: 179-86) Qugu a, tɕi – X prt Y prt Huang and Zhou (Mao County) (2006: 171-3, 228-30)

Question particles are not phonologically clear-cut. They are fused with the previous syllable, and make it difficult to tell the boundary between a grammatical morpheme and a question particle. The final question particle ŋua in Yadu Qiang is an example of this kind, which does not seem to be derived from the copula ŋuə plus a, or from the third person non-actor marker ŋuə plus a (LaPolla with Huang 2003: 179). In polar questions of Qiang, final question particles are found to be accompanied by a terminal rising intonation, however, it is the opposite in guesses, for example, in Puxi Qiang, final polar question particle ba is used together with terminal falling intonation, not a rising one as a or ma applies (Huang 2007: 168).

Pumi (Primi) In Lanping Pumi 兰坪 (Pumi is also knonwn as Primi) polar questions, final question particles, alternative structures, and interrogative verb morphology are used.

2 X-neg-X questions are very rare in Qingic languages.

96

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Two common question particles are ma13 and a13. Alternative questions are of X disj Y structure (see Lu 1983: 81-2, 88; Lu 2001: 196-7, 204; 1998: 71-4). Interrogative verb morphology seems to vary among individual dialects of Pumi. For example, Lu (1983, 2001) reports that in the Jinghua 菁花 dialect of Pumi, it uses a prefixing ε13; whereas Fu (1998) reports that in the Dayangcun 大 阳村 dialect of Pumi, it uses both a prefix ε55 and a suffix, which is a mixture of interrogative mood, person, and number, e.g. -siε31, -ʒuε(ŋ)55, and -ʒuε31, though both Jinghua and Dayangcun are spoken in the same town, i.e. Hexi Township (Lanping County, Yunnan Province).

(86) Lanping Pumi (a, Lu 1983: 54, 2001: 165; b-c, Fu 1998: 71, 73)

a. nε13 ŋãu55 ε13-bõ35? (Jinghua dialect) 2SG money Q-have ‘Do you have money?’

b. ȵe24 ŋəuŋ55 ε55-boŋ31? (Dayangcun dialect) 2SG money Q-have ‘Do you have money?’

c. ȵe24 dʒɿ24to55 ʃɿ55-ʃuε31? (Dayangcun dialect) 2SG market go-Q.2SG.FUT ‘Are you going to the market?’

In the Dayangcun dialect, alternative questions vary according to tenses; in particular, a V dia31 mə55 V structure is used in the , while a V dia55 ma55 V structure is used in other tenses.

(87) Lanping Pumi (Dayangcun dialect; Fu 1998: 74)

a. tə55gə55 ʃɿ55 dia55 mə55 ʃɿ55? 3SG.M go or NEG go ‘Did he go (there)?’

b. sʉ24 diuŋ55 dia31 ma55 diuŋ31? fruit have or NEG have ‘Are there any fruits in the tree?’

There is a further division in interrogative strategies in the Dayangcun dialect, mainly because of honorific. Compare the following questions:

97

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(88) Lanping Pumi (Dayangcun dialect, Fu 1998: 74)

a. ȵe24 dzi55 ε55-dziu31-si55? (high to low) 2SG meal Q-eat-PST ‘Have you eaten?’

b. ε55pu55, dzi55 dzɿ55qu31 dia55 mə55-qu55? (low to high) grandfather meal eat- HON or NEG-HON ‘Grandfather, have you had your meal?’

c. ȵe24 dzi55 dziu55 dia55 mə55 dziu55? (equal) 2SG meal eat or NEG eat ‘Have you eaten?’

rGyarong Polar interrogative strategies in rGyarong include question particles, alternative structures, and interrogative verb morphology. The structure of alternative questions is X prt? Y, and the most common question particle is mə, which does not necessarily appear at the sentence-end, it can also take a pre-predicate position (in this case, changed into mo; see Lin 1993: 391-2), normally next to the final place, because rGyarong is a SOV language.

(89) rGyarong (Lin 1993: 391-2)

a. no kə pa tə-ŋos mə? 2SG Han people 2-be QP ‘Are you Han (nationality)?’

b. no kə pa mo tə-ŋos? 2SG Han people QP 2-be ‘Are you Han?’

c. no na-pu mə mʃor? 2SG child QP beautiful ‘Is your child beautiful?’

An interrogative prefix, mo-, can also be placed before a verb stem to form a polar question.

98

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(90) rGyarong (Lin 1993: 391-2)

a. no mo-tə-pu-u? 2SG Q-2-do-2SG ‘Are you going to do that?’

b. no məʃer mə-nɐ -tə-rmɐ-n? 2SG yesterday Q-PST-2-sleep-2SG ‘Did you sleep yesterday?’

Note that in (b), mo- changed into mə- because it is in past tense.

Muya In Muya, an infix æ55 is added between the verb stem and its suffix(es) (see examples b-d below); when it is perfective second person, the perfective prefix of the verb will have its tone changed into 15 (the vowel in the prefix is also changed in some cases); when it is third person perfective, an infix æ55 is added between the verb stem and its suffix sə33, or an infix a55 is added in between if there is a final question particle ra55 (see examples e-h; Huang 1991b: 120-1).

(91) Muya (Huang 1991b: 121, 2007c: 917)

a. t‘ɐ53βə53 ‘to do’ 33 55 55 33 b. t‘ɐ βə æ pæ ? ‘Will youSG do (this)?’ 33 55 55 33 c. t‘ɐ βə æ pe ? ‘Will youPL do (this)?’ d. t‘ɐ33βə55æ55pi33? ‘Will he/they do (this)?’ 15 33 e. t‘æ βy ? ‘Have youSG done (this)?’ 15 33 f. t‘æ βe ? ‘Have youPL done (this)?’ g. t‘u33βə55æ55sə33? ‘{Has he/Have they} done (this)?’ h. t‘u33βə55a55ra33? ‘{Has he/Have they} done (this)?’

If the polarity value of a copula (ni53/33 or ŋɐ24/33 ‘be’) is questioned, æ55 functions as an interrogative prefix.

(92) Muya (Huang 1991b: 121, 2007c: 917)

næ mə33ȵæ53βə33 æ55ŋɐ33 / æ55ni33? 2SG Muya Q-be / Q-be ‘Are you Muya people?’

99

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Ergong Interrogative verb morphology is also reported in Ergong. In future and present tenses, the prefix a- is attached; in the past tense, the vowel of the prefix turns to be eː, and the verb takes a high rising tone (Huang 1991a: 37; Sun 2007b).

(93) Ergong (Huang 1991a: 37)

a. a-xi-? ‘Do you want to wear (it)?’ b. xi-gu a-ɟji-n? ‘Are you wearing (it)?’

c. reː -xi? ‘Did you wear (it)?’ a- is also used as an interrogative suffix, assimilated into the preceding syllable, cf. a-ra-gu and ra-ga (< gu-a) ‘Do you want to write?’, a-lʒe-n and lʒe-na ‘Did you come?’ (Huang 1991a: 38).

Ersu Sun (2007c: 966) reports that Ersu uses final question particles, X-neg-X, alternative structures, and interrogative verb morphology in its polar question system, though he included only two real examples of interrogative verb morphology (noting the difference in word order between them).

(94) Ersu (Sun 2007c: 962)

a. tiã55jĩ55 thε55wo55 nε55 dzo55ro55-a55-gε55? film DEF 2SG watch-Q-FUT ‘Would you like to watch this film?’

b. tiã55jĩ55 thε55wo55 nε55 kha55-a55-dzo55ro55? film DEF 2SG PST-Q-watch ‘Did you watch this film?’

Namuyi In Namuyi (also known as Namuzi /næ55mu33zɿ31/), polar questions can be formed by final question particles (e.g. ja33), interrogative prefixes (e.g. a33-) on a verb (complex), and alternative structures.

(95) Namuyi (a-c, Huang and Renzeng 1991a: 169; d, Liu 2007: 981)

100

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

a. nuo31 dzæ35 dziu53ji55 ja31? 2SG meal eat QP ‘Do you want to eat?’

b. nuo31 ʁuo53dzʉ31 mo31 a33-dʑi55? 2SG Q-be ‘Are you Tibetan?’

c. nuo31 mo33 ʂɿ31 dzi53 a33-ntɕhi55 mæ55-ntɕhi55? 2SG horse meat eat Q-have NEG-have ‘Did you ever eat horse meat?’

d. no53 jy53qo31 vu55 dʐɿ31 be53 ja55, 2SG home wine eat go PRT

ŋa55 jy53qo31 vu55 dʐɿ31 be53 se55? 1SG home wine drink go or ‘Shall we drink some wine at your home or my home?’

Note that (c) also uses a V neg V structure, which is very economic in expressing an interrogative meaning; and in (d), the alternative question takes a disjunction at the end, i.e. of structure X prt, Y disj, which is different from most languages in China.

Shixing Interrogative verb morphology a in Shixing is used according to the following rules (based on Huang and Renzeng 1991b: 190-1).

Table 2.17. Shixing interrogative verb morphology

Person Tense Form Examples 2 Future -gæ (< gɜ + a) ni55 dzɜ33-gæ53? ‘Do you want to eat?’ Present -a ni55 ri33 hao55 dzə35-ji55a33? ‘Are you eating?’ 55 35 33 33 33 35 33 Past -a-PRT ni dzə a sɿ (a dzə sɿ )? ‘Have you eaten?’

3 Future -a-ɦũ33 thi53 hao55 dzɜ33-gɜ55pɜ33tɕi33a33ɦũ33? ‘Does he want to eat?’ Present -a-ɦũ33 thi53 hao55 dzɜ33-ji33tɕi33a33ɦũ33? ‘Is he eating now?’ 53 55 33 35 33 33 33 Past -a-PRT thi hao dzɜ tsha -wu a dʑõ ? ‘Had he eaten?’

101

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Zhaba Final question particles are so far the only strategy reported in Zhaba polar questions. mɪ33 is frequently used, and mε33 is used only in the of the third person. The following is an example of kə55tsɿ13 ‘eat’ (Huang 1991c: 84).

Table 2.18. Final particles in Zhaba polar questions

Person Question particles 55 13 33 55 33 2 nʊ tsiε (< tsɿ jε ) mɪ ? (2SG eat QP) ‘Do you want to eat?’ 55 55 13 33 nʊ kə -tsɿ mɪ ? (2SG eat QP) ‘Did you eat?’ 55 13 55 33 nʊ tsɿ -tʂə mɪ ? (2SG eat-PROG QP) ‘Are you eating?’

55 55 33 55 33 3 ŋʊ ʐʊ tsɿ -tʂə mε ? (3SG.M eat-FUT QP) ‘Does he want to eat?’ 55 55 55 33 55 33 ŋʊ ʐʊ kə -tsɿ -tʂə mɪ ? (3SG.M eat-PST QP) ‘Did he eat?’ 55 55 33 55 33 ŋʊ ʐʊ tsɿ -tʂe mɪ ? (3SG.M eat-PROG QP) ‘Is he eating?’

When the predicate happens to be a copula, then mɪ33and mε33 are flexible and can be used interchangeably in the second person, but not in the third person, in which mɪ6 is used, with a change in tone.

(96) Zhaba (Huang 1991c: 89)

a. nʊ55 te53wu33 ʐε33 mɪ53 / tʃi33 mε55? 53 33 2SG te wu be QP be QP ‘Are you te53wu33?’

b. ŋʊ55ʐʊ55 ndʐa33pi55 ʐε33 mɪ6? 33 55 3SG.M ndʐa pi be QP ‘Is he ndʐa33pi55?’

Guiqiong Guiqiong is spoken in the and the in the Province, southwest China, with roughly 7,000 native speakers. This language is a “family language” or “village language”, as Guiqiong people (a subgroup of Tibetan) mainly use the language among family members or villagers. Most Guiqiong people also speak Chinese (Sun 2007d: 1019). According to Sun (2007d: 1029-30), Guiqiong polar questions can be

102

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

formed by final question particles, X-neg-X structures, though no real examples are given.

Lawurong In Lawurong, polar interrogative strategies include final question particles, alternative structures, and interrogative verb morphology. A common final question particle is ɕu53 if the previous syllable ends with a vowel, which turns to be tɕhu53 if the previous syllable ends with a . Alternative question take X prt disj Y prt or disj X disj Y structure (see Huang 2007: 87-8, 127-8).

(97) Lawurong (Huang 2007a: 127, 132)

a. ȵe53 ja33le33 ɕə55 dzi-n33, bre33 ɕə55 dzi-n33? 2SG steamed.bread or eat-2SG rice or eat-2SG ‘Do you want to eat steamed bread or rice?’

b. ŋgə33ɟji53 so55 rə33-və-j53 ɕu33? mə33rə53 ni-j55 ɕu33? 1PL continue DIR-go-1PL QP or rest-1PL QP ‘Shall we keep on going or take a rest?’

An interrogative morpheme ji55-/ɕə55- could also be added onto a verb or a modal verb to form a polar question (Huang 2007a: 87-8).

(98) Lawurong (Huang 2007a: 127)

a. ȵe53 dʑa55 nə33-ji55/ɕə55-the-n53? 2SG tea PFT-Q-drink-2SG ‘Did you drink tea?’

b. ȵe53 cçə55mȵi33 dʑa55 tə33 nə33-the-n53 nε33-ji55/ɕə55-zdir55? 2SG this.kind tea DEF PFT-drink-2SG ever-Q ‘Did you ever drink this kind of tea?’

Note that in (b), ji55/ɕə55 is placed inside the modal verb nε33zdir55 ‘ever’.

Queyu Queyu has an interrogative morpheme a55, which is used according to different tenses and/or aspects (Wang 1991: 59-60), as the following table shows.

103

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Table 2.19. Queyu interrogative verb morphology

Tense Formation Examples Future a55-V ȵe13 a55pɕε13ro? ‘Do you want to watch?’ 55 13 13 55 55 V-a -PRS ȵe nə pɕε re a ʒo? ‘Are youPL watching?’

55 13 13 55 55 55 31 Present V- PRS-a ɕtə ȵe nə pɕε re ʒo a ɕtə / a shi ? 55 31 / a shi ‘Are youPL watching?’

55 13 55 55 55 13 55 Past FUT-a -V ȵe ka (< kɯ a ) pɕε ro ? ‘Did you watch?’

Alternative questions in Queyu are found to take a X disj, Y structure.

(99) Queyu (Lu 2007: 1074)

ȵe35 tshõ55di53 ɕõ53tʂɿ35 da35nə53, tsε35 tshõ55di53 ɕõ53tʂɿ35? 2SG meeting go or 3SG.M meeting go ‘Will you or he attend the meeting?’

104

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.1.3. Kam languages

Zhuang Zhuang shares many similarities with Standard Chinese in its polar question system. In particular, Zhuang uses terminal rising intonation, final question particles, X-neg(-X), and alternative structures. Some common question particles include lwi/ma, la, luma, and ba; the latter X in X-neg-X question can be dropped, followed (very commonly ne) or not followed by a question particle; alternative questions are of X disj Y (prt) structure (see and 1980: 69-73; Wei 1985: 217-29; Zhang and Qin 1993: 209-12). Two matters deserve to be mentioned here. One is that there is a question formed by taking a tag-like ne, resulting a [S ne?] question, which seeks a polar value but not in a X-neg-X question as it normally does.

(100) Zhuang (Wei 1985: 224)

cungj bae lo, daegngeih ne? 2PL all go PRT Daegngeih PRT ‘You all want to go. Does Daegngeih also like to go or not?’ Literally, ‘and Daegngeih?’

It is equally grammatical to ask daegngeih bae mbouj bae ne? (mbouj ‘not’), although it is not used very frequently. Another matter is that, in Standard Chinese, the disjunctions huo(zhe) and haishi both mean ‘or’, tough the previous one is mainly used in declaratives, and the latter is used in interrogatives. In Zhuang, however, roxnaeuz ‘or’ is used in both cases, which resembles many Indo-European languages, e.g. Catalan o, English or, and German oder (see Chapter 4 for a typology of or and or/or?).

Bouyei In Bouyei, polar questions are formed by intonation change, final question particles, X-neg(-X), and alternative structures. The most common question particles include ma and ni; the latter X in X-neg-X question can be dropped; an alternative question always takes a X mɯ5 Y (mɯ5 ‘or’) structure, followed (very commonly ni) or not followed by a question particle (Yu 1980: 60-1). The answer of a X-neg-X question could be a bare form X, be it a (modal)

105

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

verb or an adjective, which is the same in Standard Chinese.

(101) Bouyei (Yu 1980: 23-4)

a. mɯŋ2 kaːm3 mi2 kaːm3? kaːm3. you dare not dare dare ‘Do you dare (to do that) or not?’ ‘Dare.’ (Yes, I do.)

b. diŋ1 mi2 diŋ1? diŋ1. red notred red ‘Is it red or not?’ ‘Red.’ (Yes, it is red.)

S ne? questions in Zhuang are also reported in Bouyei, by which a speaker seeks a polarity value like a X-neg-X question (see Yu 1980: 55).

Dai In Dai polar interrogatives, intonation change, final question particles, X-neg-X, as well as alternative structures are used. There are some differences among the dialects of Dai. For example, in Xishuangbanna Dai, polar question particles include a5, lε3, and tsam2, whereas in Dehong Dai, hɯ1, hau5, and pɔ2 are used respectively (Yu and Luo 1980: 75). (In Standard Chinese, they are ma, nema, and ba, respectively). Alternative questions always adopt X prt Y (prt) structure, without any disjunction in between (Yu and Luo 1980: 60, 99).

(102) Dai (Yu and Luo 1980: 99)

noi5 niʔ 8 di1 a6, noi5 nan4 di1 a6? CL this good PRT CL that good PRT ‘Is this one better, or that one is better?’

Lingao In Lingao polar questions, terminal intonation change, final question particles, X-neg(-X), and alternative structures are often used. The most frequently used question particles are ma, ba, and ni, the structure of alternative question is X ən4ti4/ha3ti4 Y (ən4ti4/ha3ti4 ‘or’) (Zhang et al. 1985: 186, 190-2; Liang and Zhang 1997: 81-92).

106

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Biao The Biao language is spoken in some places in the and in the of the Guangdong Province, , with a small number of native speakers (the number is approximately 200,000 according to Chen 1990, but is around 80,000 according to Liang and Zhang 2002: 1). In Shidong Biao, polar interrogatives use question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative questions. Final question particles in polar questions are very frequently found to be mε6, lau6wa6, and ni1; an alternative question is of X disj Y (prt) structure; the answer to a X-neg-X question in Shidong Biao could be the bare form X (Liang and Zhang 2002: 108-26).

(103) Shidong Biao (Liang and Zhang 2002: 108, 111)

a. poi1 m̩6 poi1? poi1! go not go go! ‘Are you going (there) or not?’ ‘I go!’

b. ɵam3 m̩6 ɵam3? ɵam3. sour not sour sour ‘Is it sour or not?’ ‘It is sour.’

In Dagang Biao, however, there is no X-neg-X question. An equivalent meaning is conveyed by interrogative verb morphology, i.e. a42, which can be used before a verb (phrase) or an adjective to form a polar question (Chen 1990).

(104) Dagang Biao (Chen 1990)

a. a42 ʔɔ42 tsiːə44 pui31? Q buy meat fat ‘Do you want to buy some fat?’

b. mɐn51 ke42 mɐ44 a42 pui31? 3SG.M GEN pig Q fat ‘Is his pig fat or not?’

c. noi44 tsu51 mia132 a42 jɔt44 lɐi55 fai44? DEF CL horse Q run RES fast ‘Does that horse run fast?’

d. noi44 tsu51 mia132 jɔt44 lɐi55 a42 fai44? DEF CL horse run RES Q fast ‘Does that horse run fast or not?’

107

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

There is a hypothesis that Wu and Kam languages share genetic relationship (Jing 1988; see also Chen 1990). As it has been discussed in Section 2.1.1.3, Wu is rich in a V(P) questions, e.g. Suzhou Wu, Ningbo Wu, and Old Shanghai Wu, and prefixing a42 in Dagang Biao seems to be further evidence that supports the hypothesis.

Kam (Dong) In Kam (also known as Dong), polar interrogatives use final rising intonation, final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. Some frequently used question particles include a1, i1, a4, ni1, le6, and pa4; X-neg-X questions are found to take a X-neg(-X) (prt) structure, and the structure of an alternative question is X disj Y. (Liang 1980a: 74-6; Yang and Zhang 1993: 130-1).

Shui Shui consists of three dialects, Sandong, Yang’an, and Pandong (Zhang 1980: 75). There are some differences in polar questions between Sandong Shui and Pandong Shui, though Yang’an Shui is not well documented so far and its polar question system is not clear. Sandong Shui polar interrogatives use final question particles, e.g., a6, ɣo3, ni6, va2, and X disj Y (prt) alternative questions. Full form X-neg-X questions are rare, more commonly, questions with the latter X dropped are used (Zhang 1980: 43, 57-8). In Pandong Shui, however, the full form X-neg-X and the abbreviated form, X-neg, are used interchangeably ( 1989).

(105) Pandong Shui (Xia 1989)

a. ȵia42 mjat55 mje42 mjat55 man35? 2SG love NEG love 3SG.F ‘Do you love her or not?’

b. ȵia42 tɕiə12 tjaŋ35 ljeu42 mei44? 2SG eat full PST NEG ‘Are you full or not?’

Note that there is a tonal change on the final word in the examples above, that is, man12 > man35, mei53 > mei44. As Xia (1989) has already pointed out correctly,

108

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

tonal change has been proved to be a good compensation of questions formed by question particles, as there are not many particles in Pandong Shui. Nevertheless, if a question ends with a question particle, e.g. j53, a44, ma44, ndje44, ni44 (e.g. 105c), or ends with a short and (cùshēng, e.g. 105d), then the rule of tonal change usually does not apply.

c. ȵiə42 paːi12 h̃o35 man12 lieu42 a44? 2SG go see 3SG.M PST PRT ‘Did you see him or not?’

d. ȵiə42 mjat55 man12 mje42 mjat55? 2SG love 3SG.M not love ‘Do you love him or not?’

Mulam In Mulam, intonation change, question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures are all reported in its polar question system. In particular, polar questions are formed by taking a terminal rising intonation; particle questions use final particles ma5, nε5, and pə; X-neg-X questions can have the latter X dropped, or have a disjunction (sɿ ‘or’) between the disjuncts, i.e. X-(disj)-neg-X; alternative questions are of X (prt) disj Y structure (Wang and Zheng 1980: 92-6). Note that question particles ma5 and nε5 are used together with a final rising intonation, whereas pə always goes hand in hand with a falling intonation (Wang and Zheng 1980: 96), which is similar to most Sinitic languages.

Maonan Maonan polar interrogatives strategies include final particles, X-neg(-X), and alternative structures. Some common question particles include ma0, lε5, ni0, and pa6, and the structure of alternative questions is X wo3 Y (wo3 ‘or’) (Liang 1980b: 51-65).

Mo Mo polar interrogatives strategies include intonation change, final particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. Specifically, a declarative sentence turns into a polar question by using a terminal rising intonation, or final particles like ma4 and mə5. X-neg-X questions in Mo are very flexible, cf. V(P)-neg(-V) and A-neg(-A), and the alternative question structure is X disj Y (Yang 2000: 97-118,

109

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

143-9).

(106) Mo (Yang 2000: a-b, 100; c, 103)

a. ŋ2 ȡai1 kau5 man1 me2 kau5? 2SG like see 3SG.M NEG see ‘Do you like to meet him or not?’

b. an5 ŋ2 kau5 man1 me2? like 2SG see 3SG.M NEG ‘Do you like to meet him or not?’

c. lə2it7 au1 si5 zok8 məi2 (zok8)? grape above DEF ripe not ripe ‘Are the grapes there ripe or not?’

(a) and (b) can be used interchangeably, with no difference in meaning. In (c), the latter adjective zok8 ‘ripe’ could be omitted freely.

Yanghuang Yanghuang is reported to have rising intonation, question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures in its polar question system. The most frequently used final particles are ma0, pa0, and ȵi0, and alternative questions take X disj Y structure, with also a short stop after the first disjunct (Bo 1997: 95-6, 130-3). A feature of Yanghuang polar question deserving to be mentioned is that it has no X-neg structure. That is, the latter X in X-neg-X can not be dropped, be it a verb (phrase) or an adjective (Bo 1997: 131).

Lajia (Lakkia) In Lajia (also known as Lakkia), polar question strategies include final question particles, X-neg-X structures, and alternative structures. A common final question particle is ŋa4 (Liu 2007: 1318, 1322), X-neg-X questions can be either V neg (V) or A neg (A), and alternative questions are of X disj Y structure.

(107) Lajia (Liu 2007: 1322)

a. in3 na:ŋ4 ni2 o:n5 huãi1 o:n5? CL clothes DEF beautiful NEG beautiful ‘Are the clothes beautiful?’

110

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. tε:n1jεŋ1 lai1lo:m1 huãi1? film interesting NEG ‘Is the film interesting?’

Chadong Chadong is spoken in the Chadong Township and the neighboring Liangjiang Township in the Lingui County, as well as some villages in the Longjiang Township in the Yongfu County, in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, located in southwest China, with roughly 20,000 native speakers (Li 2001; 2007: 1325). The polar question system of Chadong is still not very clear owing to very limited documentation, although Li (2001; 2007: 1335) reported two examples of final question particles and VP neg questions.

(108) Chadong (Li 2001; 2007: 1335)

a. ȵi2 pə1 ta6 pak7kiŋ1 ma6? 2SG go PFT PN QP ‘Have you been to Beijing?’

b. mən2 pə1 tsi4 kə2 θaŋ3? 3SG.M go PST NEG PFT ‘Did he go (there) or not?’

Li Polar question strategies in Li include final particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. Li is rich in question particles. In some cases, a sentence can even take two 2 1 3 particles, e.g. tsau tsu pa ? (have PRT PRT) ‘(still) have?’ (Ouyang and Zheng 1980: 45; see also Ouyang 1983: 551). Alternative questions are always found to be of a X disj Y (prt) structure. In Li a polar question is seldom asked by using sentence-final rising intonation (Ouyang and Zheng 1980: 70; Ouyang 1983: 552; 1994: 160). X-neg-X questions in Modern Li are a result of language contact with Chinese. An earlier form is X(-disj)-neg, which is still kept in the language of senior people (see Ouyang 1983: 569; Yuan 1994: 76-7). Variants of V-neg-V

111

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

questions (and verbal alternative questions) in five dialects of Li are summarized in the following table (based on Ouyang 1983: 568-9).

Table 2.20. Variants of V-neg-V question in the dialects of Li

Baoding Tongshi Baisha Xifang Jiamao V-neg + + + + V-neg-V + + + V-disj-neg + + V-disj-neg-V + +

Similar differences also lie in adjectival predicates.

(109) Li (Yuan 1994: 76-7)

1 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 a. ʔaː u za haɯ fei kuːn zɯːn ta zɯːn ? old.man DEF walk road fast not fast ‘Does that old man walk fast or not?’

1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 b. ʔaːu za haɯ fei kuː n zɯː n tsha ta ta ? old.man DEF walk road fast or not

The traditional structure of Li, sentence (b), is used much more often than the Chinese-like sentence (a) (see Yuan 1994: 76-7, 183).

Cun In Cun, polar question strategies include final particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. Some frequently used question particles include vε3, ai, nə, and ni. X-neg-X questions can have the latter X dropped, leaving a X-neg construction, or have a disjunction inserted between the first X and the negation word, resulting in a X-disj-neg construction (cf. German … oder nicht? ‘… or not’?), which is similar to the Li language. Alternative questions are of X disj Y structure (Ouyang 1998: 150-1, 181-2, 189).

(110) Cun (Ouyang 1998: 189)

a. na5 bən4 vεn3 bən4? 3SG.M come not come ‘Will he come or not?’

112

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. na5 bən4 si5 vεn3? 3SG.M come or not ‘Will he come or not?’

c. mɔ5 zai3 vεn3? 2SG go not ‘Are you going (there)?’

Gelao Polar interrogative strategies in Gelao include final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. There are many dialects of Gelao (see Zhang 1993: 294-372 for detailed discussion), which share many common features in polar questions, and some differences as well. For example, in almost all dialects of Gelao, the structure of the X-neg-X question is invariably X-X-neg, although there are some differences among individual dialects, which are summarized in the table below.

Table 2.21. Polar questions in the dialects of Gelao

Particle V-neg-V A-neg-AAlter. Reference Wanzizhai, ni44, mɒ44 V(P)-V-neg A-A-neg X disj Y He 1983: 30, 42, Anshun 44, 58 安顺湾子寨 Puding 普定 V(P)-V(P- A-A-neg Zhang 1993: 93-6 neg(-prt) Niupo, Liuzhi VP-neg-V Zhang 1993: 101 六枝牛坡 Pingba 平坝 mɒ55, la55, V(P)-neg A-A-neg X disj Y Zhang 1993: 140-72 mei33

Note that the blanks are situations unknown, which does not necessarily mean that certain dialects lack such interrogatives. This also applies to polar questions having a terminal rising intonation in a declarative sentence, as there are no clear statements in literature whether Gelao has a certain question or not. The following X-neg-X questions are taken from Puding Gelao, all are of the same meaning.

(111) Puding Gelao (Zhang 1993: 94)

113

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

a. ka55 maɯ13 ka55 maɯ13 ʔa13? eat meal eat meal not ‘Do you want to eat or not?’

b. ka55 maɯ13 ka55 ka55 ʔa13? c. ka55 maɯ13 ka55 ʔa13? d. ka55 ka55 ʔa13?

The structure of (b) is VP V V-neg, in which the first VP behaves somewhat 33 55 13 topic-like. A negative answer to these questions is ʑi ka ʔɒ (1SG eat NEG) ‘I don’t want to eat.’, with a change on the vowel of the negator. Note that ʔa13 is used in questions and ʔɒ13 is used in declaratives (Zhang 1993: 96). In Pingba Gelao, X-neg-X takes the structure of V(P) (disj) V-neg or A (disj) A-neg, depending if X is a verb (phrase) or an adjective. To have a disjunction in between is not the original form, which is known from the fact that it is used among younger generations, and not aged people (Zhang 1993: 156).

Buyang In Buyang, strategies like intonation change, final question particles, and X-neg-X are all reported in the polar questions. Some common question particles include hε0, ȵo0, and nε0. X-neg-X questions are always of X(-disj)-X-neg structure, although X could be a verb and sometimes also an adjective (Li 1999: 54-6, 64, 77). There are also some structural differences in X-neg-X questions among individual dialects. For example, to ask Is it cold today or not?, the structure of Baha Buyang 巴哈 is A-neg-A, E’cun Buyang 峨村 is A(-disj)-A-neg, and Yalang 雅郎 Buyang is AA-neg.

(112) Buyang (Li 1999: 132)

a. van11ni55 koŋ24 pi54 koŋ24? (Baha Buyang) today cold NEG cold ‘Is it cold today or not?’

b. vɯːn24ni33 ˀbɔt55 nou33 ˀbɔt55 naːi53? (E’cun Buyang) today cold or cold NEG

c. van33naːi31 net53 net53 la31? (Yalang Buyang) today cold cold NEG

114

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Pubiao In Pubiao, polar interrogative strategies include terminal rising intonation, final particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. Some common polar question particles include han213, na213, na45, na0, and ʔa0, etc. X-neg-X questions take V(P-)neg-V structure if X is a verb. Alternative questions normally take a X disj Y structure (Liang 2007: 76-8).

(113) Pubiao (Liang 2007: 77)

a. mi33 ŋaːi213 kɯ53 nam45 ŋaːi213? 2SG love 3SG.M NEG love ‘Do you love him or not?’

b. kɯ53 mie53 nam45 mie53? 3SG.M come NEG come ‘Will he come or not?’

Laji (Lachi) Polar interrogative strategies in Laji (also known as Lachi) include terminal rising intonation, question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. Some common question particles include la44, ua35, pa31, and nε44. X-neg-X questions takes V V(P) neg and A A neg structures, which are similar to the Li language. Alternative questions are of X disj Y structure (Li 2000: 134, 146, 183-5).

(114) Laji (Li 2000: 112, 201)

a. m̩55 mua13 kje31 a44ɕo44 mua13 ljo31? 2SG love 3SG.M or love NEG ‘Do you love him or not?’

b. m̩55 mua13 mua13 kje31 ljo31?

c. m̩55 ɕi33 tja44 qa55 kjaŋ55 (a44ɕo44) kjaŋ55 ljo31? 2SG try weigh look heavy or heavy not ‘Try it. Is it heavy or not?’

115

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Bugan Owing to the fact that adequate descriptive works are not available, the polar question system of Bugan is still not very clear. In a brief sketch, Li (1996/2007) reports that final question particles (e.g. ni55) and alternative structures are used.

(115) Bugan (Li 1996; see also Li 2007a: 1446)

mtse33tso33 kai33 ma33 mtse55/31? banana have or not.have ‘Are there any bananas or not?’

Mulao Mulao’s polar question strategies include terminal rising intonation, question particles (e.g. ai33), and X-neg-X structures. A X-neg-X question takes V(P)-neg-V structure in a verb complex, or A-neg-A in an adjective complex. In both cases, the latter X can not be dropped, in other words, Mulao lacks a X-neg question (Mu 2003: 96-7, 124-5), which is similar to Caijia (see below).

Caijia Caijia uses final rising intonation, question particles, and a X-neg-X structure to form polar questions. A X-neg-X question takes V(P)-neg-V structure in a verb complex, or A-neg-A in an adjective complex. In both cases, the latter X can not be dropped, that is, Caijia lacks a X-neg question (Bo 2004).

(116) Caijia (Bo 2004)

a. ɣan31 (wu33tshu33) pu33 ɣan31? have people NEG have ‘Are there some people or not?’

b. o33 sɿ55 tsɿ33 san33 pu33 san33? DEF water CL deep NEG deep ‘Is the river deep or not?’

116

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.1.4. Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages

Miao Polar interrogatives by intonation change, final question particles, V-neg(-V), A-neg-A, and alternatives are reported in the Yangsong dialect of Miao (Wang 1985: 70, 83, 101-2). In some districts of Qiandong (east Province, which includes Yangsong), a sentence can take two question articles.

(117) Qiandong Miao (Wang 1986: 90)

Mongx seix maix haib ad? 2SG also have QP QP ‘Do you also have (that)?’

Alternative questions of Qiangdong Miao adopt the disjunction hot (Wang 1985 records it as ho in Yangsong Miao) between the disjuncts, or add a hui after each disjunct, bringing a X hot Y or X hui Y hui structure (Wang 1985: 66; Wang 1986: 163). In Baiwu Miao (a dialect of Qiandong Miao), there is a verb-reduplicating question, which comes via omitting the negation constituent in between. In the following examples, the first verb of the reduplicating structure invariably takes the tone (55) of the negation constituent (a55) ( 2008).

(118) Baiwu Miao (Hu 2008)

a. ti33a55ti33 → ti55ti33 ‘Hit or not?’ b. men22a55men55 → men55men22 ‘Eat or not?’ c. ma53a55ma53 → ma55ma53 ‘Cut or not?’

Verb-reduplicating questions are reported in many Sinitic and Yi languages (see Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2.2, 6.2.1-2 for more discussions).

Bunu In Bunu, polar interrogatives by terminal rising intonation, final question 6 2 particles (e.g. lɣ , ni ), V(P)-neg-V(P), and alternative questions (X disj Y) are reported (Mao et al. 1982: 98-9, 102-3, 113, 115). The following is an example of a polar question by terminal rising intonation only.

117

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(119) Bunu (Mao et al. 1982: 115)

4 1 3 1 2 1 tuŋ tuŋ nau pa tɣ fen ? ↗ CL child DEF know sing ‘Can the child sing?’

Baheng Terminal intonation change, final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures (X disj Y) are reported in Baheng’s polar questions (Mao and Li 1997: 49, 62, 68, 81-2). Unlike action verbs, modal verbs can not be used in a V-neg-V structure; instead, a pa31 neg V structure is adopted (action verbs can also be used in questions of this type).

(120) Baheng (Mao and Li 1997: 51)

a. ȵɦɪ33 ŋ̩ɦ33 ȵɦɪ33? go NEG go ‘Go or not?’

b. pa31 ŋ̩ɦ33 mɦɪ44? PRT NEG sell ‘Sell or not?’

c. pa31 ŋ̩ɦ33 pɪ35 ĩ55sε31? PRT NEG can sing ‘Can (you) sing or not?’

d. *pɪ35 ŋ̩ɦ33 pɪ35 ĩ55sε31?

In Baheng, a V-neg-V question can also be formed by adding a negator a31ȵʉ55 at the end of a declarative sentence (Mao and Li 1997: 82).

e. mɦʉ33 ɕi53 pa31ŋ̜ŋ35 a31ȵʉ55? 2SG be Baheng NEG.be ‘Are you Baheng (people) or not?’

Jiongnai Jiongnai polar interrogative strategies include terminal rising intonation,

118

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures (X disj Y) (see Mao and Li 2002: 68, 80, 82). Unlike Baheng, can also be used in V-neg-V questions in Jiongnai.

(121) Jiongnai (Mao and Li 2002: 55)

maŋ33 kwan44 ŋ̜53 kwan44 naŋ33 nen44 ŋkai33? 2SG dare not dare eat meat ‘Do you dare to eat snake meat or not?’

Mian (Mien) Mian (also known as Mien) has four dialects, Mian, Jinmen, Biaomin, and Zaomin, all have polar interrogatives formed by intonation change, final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. Descriptive work on polar questions has been conducted on Dapingjiang Mian (Mao et al. 1982: 43, 59-60), Biaomin Mian (Mao 2004: 209-300), and Zheshan Mian (Zhao 2004). Some differences in interrogative strategies do exist among individual dialects. For example, there is a verb-reduplicating question in Biaomin Mian, which is very similar to Baiwu Miao.

(122) Biaomin Mian (Mao 2004: 239)

n̩31n̥wai33 nin33 ta31 n̩24 ta31 ȵin42 n̥aŋ24? today 3SG.M come NEG come eat meal ‘Will he come to eat today or not?’

It is equally grammatical to say n̩31n̥wai33 nin33 ta24 ta31 ȵin42 n̥aŋ24? That is, to omit the negation word n̩24 and have the tone shifted onto the previous verb. This rule also goes for in modal verbs (see Mao 2004: 239-40, 299). A matter deserving to be mentioned is the borrowing of question particles from Chinese (e.g., ma33, ba33), although Biaomin Mian has some question particles of its own (e.g., dza3).

(123) Biaomin Mian (Mao 2004: 270)

məi31 i33 tau31 min31 ta31 ma33? 2SG one CL person come QP ‘You came here alone?’

119

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

In Zheshan Mian (a dialect of Mian subgroup spoken in the Jinxiu County, in Guangxi), it is also common to drop the latter verb (phrase) and have a V(P)-neg question, although a full form is equally grammatical.

(124) Zheshan Mian (Zhao 2004)

muei2 tai2 mei3? 2SG come NEG ‘(Will) you come or not?’

Alternative questions are similar to other Hmong languages, i.e. take a X disj Y structure, and the disjunction in between ha6tsei4 is very likely to be borrowed from Chinese (Mao et al. 1982: 43, 47, 49).

She In Huidong (and Boluo) She, interrogative strategies like intonation change, final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures (X disj Y) are all reported (Mao and Meng 1986: 81, 84, 92). Question particles in Huidong She are mainly borrowed from Chinese, for example, ma1/ma6 is from Chinese ma55, nji6/ne1/e1 is from Chinese ne55 (Mao and Meng 1986: 62).

(125) Huidong She (Mao and Meng 1986: 62)

muŋ2 tɔ5 ŋ1 ne3 se6 ŋɔŋ5 hɔ3 ma1? 2SG foot pain now cure PST PRT ‘Is your sore foot getting better?’

In Boluo She, X-neg-X questions always keep a full form; nevertheless, the latter X can be dropped freely in Huidong She (Mao and Meng 1986: 91-2).

(126) Boluo She (Mao and Meng 1986: 92; see also Mao and Meng 1982)

muŋ2 ŋ̊ŋ4 ha6 ŋ̊ŋ4? 2SG go NEG go ‘Are you going (there) or not?’

(127) Huidong She (Mao and Meng 1986: 91)

muŋ2 ŋ̊ŋ4 ha6 ŋ̊ŋ4? or muŋ2 ŋ̊ŋ4 ha6? 2SG go NEG go 2SG go NEG ‘Are you going (there) or not?’

120

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Bana Bana is a highly endangered language spoken in some villages in the Chengbu County and in the Suining County, in the Hunan Province, located in , with about 1,000 native speakers. The ancestors of the Bana people migrated from the Guizhou Province (a neighboring province of Hunan), southwest China. The Bana language is no longer used among younger generations, who adopt Xiang or Standard Chinese instead, but is only spoken among some elderly people (see Chen 2001, 2007: 1602). Polar interrogative strategies of Bana are unknown, though, Chen (2001, 2007: 1609) points out that Bana syntax shares more similarities with Standard Chinese than with other Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages.

121

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.2. Altaic languages

2.2.1. Turkic languages

Uighur (Uygur) In Uighur (also known as Uygur), polar interrogative strategies include final question particles, interrogative verb morphology, and alternative structures. No X-neg-X questions are reported in Uighur (and other Altaic languages). Interrogative verb morphology is mainly used in the future tense. In particular, -m is attached after a verb stem with volwel ending, and -am/-εm is attached after one with consonantal ending. Question particles, e.g. mu, ʁu/qu, tʃu, du/tu, sεn, very commonly, are phonologically assimilated into the sentence- final verb (the clause order of Uighur is SOV), and are not as independent as they are in many Sino-Tibetan languages.

(128) Uighur (Zhao and Zhu 1985: 77)

søzlε ‘say’, søzlε-m-siz? ‘Do you want to say something?’ tʃiq ‘go out’, tʃiq-am-sεn? ‘Do you want to go out?’ kør ‘look’, kør-εm-du? ‘Does he want to have a look?’ oqu ‘read’, oqudiŋiz mu? ‘Did you read (it)?’

Alternative questions in Uighur use a X-prt Y-prt structure. In the following example, there is even a third question particle, hε, attached after the second particle sεn.

(129) Uighur (Zhao and Zhu 1985: 140)

sεn bara-m-sεn barma-m-sεn-hε? 2SG go.2-Q-QP go.2.NEG-Q-QP-QP ‘Are you on earth going there or not?’

Kazak (Kazakh) Kazak (also known as Kazakh) polar questions often use a question particle, together with a sentence-final rising intonation. The particle ma (and its variants, me, ba/be, and pa/pe), is changed into -mə/-mɨ, -bə/-bɨ, -pə/-pɨ when it is placed before a second person morpheme of a verb (see Gen and Li 1985: 119-20, 172;

122

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Gen 1989: 257).

(130) Kazak (Gen and Li 1985: 120)

a. sen de bara-səŋ ba? 2SG also go-2 PRT ‘Are you also going (there)?’

b. sen de bara-mə-səŋ? 2SG also go-PRT-2 ‘Are you also going (there)?’

Kirgiz Like Kazak, polar questions in Kirgiz normally take a question particle bə (and its variants, like bi, bu, by, pə, pi, pu, py) or a tag-like particle beken (< bə eken). Question particles are also used in alternative questions, which adopt a X prt disj Y prt structure.

(131) Kirgiz (Hu 1986: 155, 152)

a. bul roman qəzəq beken? DEF novel interesting yes.or.no ‘The novel is interesting, isn’t it?’

b. kitep alasəz-bə dʒedʒurnal alasəz-bə? book buy-PRT or magazine buy-PRT ‘Do you want to buy a book or a magazine?’

Uzbek In Uzbek, interrogative strategies in polar questions include a final question particle (mi, added onto declarative sentences or X-neg-X ones) and an alternative structure (X, disj Y) (Cheng et al. 1987: 70, 76, 148).

(132) Uzbek (Cheng et al. 1987: 76)

a. kel-dik-mi? come-POS-PRT ‘Did we go (there)?’

123

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. jʌz-mæ-di-mi? write-NEG-POS-PRT ‘Didn’t he write (something)?’

Tatar Two common question particles in Tatar are mə and mi, used at the sentence-end to form polar questions (Chen et al. 1986: 30, 125), which is similar to many other Altaic languages.

Salar In Salar, polar questions are often formed by sentence-final question particles (e.g. mu/mo/mi, u. o, i; Lin 1985: 70, 90, 108). Questions by intonation change are also reported. In the following example, du (or do) is the past tense marker, though it resembles a question marker (cf. Standard Chinese past tense maker le).

(133) Salar (Lin 1985: 71)

sen iʃ-du/do? 2SG drink-PST ‘Did you drink (that)?’

There seems to be no alternative question in Salar in a strict sense, although a real example of X prt? Y? structure is reported, which behaves somewhat like two questions instead of one.

(134) Salar (Lin 1985: 65)

sen aʃ iʃ-gur mu? emex ji-ɣur? 2SG noodle drink QP steamed.bread eat ‘Do you like to eat noodles, or steamed bread?’

Western Yugur Polar interrogative strategies in Western Yugur include intonation change, final question particles, and alternative structures. Some common final question particles include me/be, mu/mo, and ba/va. Alternative questions use a X cop? Y cop? structure, in which the copular drəm ‘be.Q’ is attached at the end of each disjunct; and tag questions often use the tag jam ‘okay’ (Chen and Lei 1985:

124

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

123-52; 2009: 220).

(135) Western Yugur (Chen and Lei 1985: 136, 132, 138)

a. batər jyde bar me? batər home have QP ‘Is batər at home?’

b. gol dodi gelɣəʂ drəm? gelɣəmes drəm? 3SG.M on.earth come COP come.NEG COP ‘Will he come or not?’

c. bu menekdə daaaɣa diadəpber,jam? DEF money uncle give to okay ‘Give the money to your uncle, okay?’

The pattern of inflectional morphology in Western Yugur polar interrogatives is summarized in Table 2.22.

125

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Table 2.22. Western Yugur interrogative verb morphology

Past Present Future Declarative (positive) V + -də/-di V + -p/-əp/-op + bar V + -ɢəʂ/-ɣəʂ/-gəʂ Exact Declarative (negative) V + -ma/-me/-ba/-be + -də/-di V + -v/-əv/-o(v) + joq V + -ɢəmes/-ɣəmes/-gəmes Interrogative V + -dəm V + -p/-əp/-op + bar + me V + -ɢəʂ/-ɣəʂ/-gəʂ + me Interrogative (no doubt) V + -ma/-me/-ba/-be + -dəm V + -v/-əv/-(o)v + joq + me/be V + -ɢəmes/-ɣəmes/-gəmes + me Declarative (positive) V + -p/-əp + dro V + -v/-əv/-o(v) + dro V + -ɢəʂ/-ɣəʂ/-gəʂ + dro Non-exact Declarative (negative) V + -men/-ben + dro V + -v/-əv/-o(v) + joq + dro V + -ɢəmes/-ɣəmes/-gəmes + dro Interrogative V + -p/-əp + drəm V + -v/-əv/-(o)v + drəm V + -ɢəʂ/-ɣəʂ/-gəʂ + drəm Interrogative (no doubt) V + -men/-ben + drəm V + -v/-əv/-(o)v + jaq + drəm V + -ɢəmes/-ɣəmes/-gəmes + drəm Declarative (positive) V + -ɢo/-ɣo Exact Declarative (negative) / / V + -ɢəm/-ɣəm predication Interrogative V + -ɢəʂ/-ɣəʂ/-gəʂ + me Interrogative (no doubt) V + -ɢəmes/-ɣəmes/-gəmes + me Declarative (positive) V + -j/-ej + dro Non-exact Declarative (negative) / / V (negation) + s + drəm predication Interrogative V + -j/-ej + drəm Interrogative (no doubt) V (negation) + s + drəm

Notes: 1. The table is based on Chen and Lei (1985: 91-105) (see also Zhong 2009: 126-43). 2. dro ‘be’, drəm ‘be?’; bar ‘have’, joq ‘not have’; me/be particle; drəm is likely to be a fusion of dər (dur- ‘stop’) and the question particle mu (Chen and Lei 1985: 94).

126

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Tuwa Tuwa polar interrogative strategies include intonation-only, final question particles, and alternative structures. Some common question particles include ba/be, pa/pe, and εle, and alternative questions always take X prt disj Y prt structure (Song 1985; Wu 1999: 146, 151).

(136) Tuwa (Wu 1999: 151)

sen baː rsen be, dʒoq, men barajən ba? 2SG go PRT or 1SG go PRT ‘You go (there) or I go (there)?’

Tu’erke Tu’erke is a highly endangered language spoken in the Yili grasslands of the Uighur Autonomous Region, with a population of only about two hundred. The strategies of Tu’erke polar questions are not clear because of a very limited documentation, although the language is known to share many common morphosyntactic features with Uighur, Kazak, Kirgiz, and Uzbek (see Zhao and Aximu 2007: 1799).

127

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.2.2. Mongolian languages

Mongolian In Mongolian, polar question strategies include final question particles and alternative structures. Some common question particles include b(ee), used in normal questions; and jɷɷ/juu, ɷɷ/uu, used in no-doubt questions (jɷɷ/juu in vowel-ending words, and ɷɷ/uu in consonantal-ending ones); and biddəə/baa, used in guesses or situations when a speaker has already known something and seeks for more information, e.g. assertion. Questions formed by final question particles are normally in falling intonation (see Daobu 1983: 99-100, 135).

(137) Mongolian (Daobu 1983: 100)

tʃii nεεrd jabsā biddəə? you PN go PRT ‘Did you attend the nεεrd (festival)?’

The structure of alternative questions in Mongolian is X prt? Y prt? with a pitched accent on each particle, and also a falling intonation after each of them (Daobu 1983: 135-6), rather than a rising one as it is found in many other languages.

(138) Mongolian (Daobu 1983: 99)

tər bus sεεn ɷɷ, mɷɷ jɷɷ? DEF cloth good PRT bad PRT ‘Is that cloth good or bad?’

Tu The polar question system of Tu shares some similarities with Mongolian. It mainly uses final question particles and alternative structures. The structure of alternative questions is X prt Y prt (Zhaonasitu 1981b: 56-8).

(139) Tu (Zhaonasitu 1981b: 57)

tɕərm seer ii jiuu, guii jiuu? you money have prt not.have prt ‘Do you have money or not?’

128

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Nevertheless, the usage of question particles in Tu is complicated. Some most frequently used question particles include uu, nuu, jiuu, laii, and sa. uu is used after declarative sentences and usually brings about syllable assimilation (140a). nuu is used after a or va ‘be’, which together (a/va nuu) mean ‘is it?’ (140b). jiuu is used only after the -ii-ended copula, like ii, guii, nəmbii, and puɕii (140c). The usage of sa is similar to uu, though it does not cause any syllable assimilation (140d).

(140) Tu (Zhaonasitu 1981b: 56-8)

a. tɕə mudev(a) uu? 2SG know PRT ‘Do you know (that)?’

b. nadnə xanadʑ(ə) a nuu? illness cure be PRT ‘Has he recovered (from the illness)?’

c. tɕə dordʑə nəmbii jiuu? 2SG dordʑə be PRT ‘Are you dordʑə?’

d. duiidʐaŋ mudedʑ(ə) a sa? chief know be PRT ‘Did the chief know (that)?’

Daur The final question particle jəə is used very common in Daur polar questions. jəə is also used in tag questions.

(141) Daur (Zhong 1982: 60, 85)

a. ʃii id-bəi-ʃii jəə? 2SG eat-FUT-2SG PRT ‘Are you going to eat?’

b. tʃinguruŋ dʒinguruŋ təgərbəi, biʃiŋ jəə? Qin Jin equal be not.be PRT ‘Qin and Jin are equal countries, aren’t they?’

129

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Dongxiang The most frequently used question particles in Dongxiang are u (nu) and ba. u is very easily assimilated into the previous syllable (142a), nu is used after the copula wo ‘be’ (142b), and ba bears more or less assertion and is used both in questions and imperatives (142c).

(142) Dongxiang (Liu 1981: 82, 104)

a. tʂɯ maɣaʂə irənu? (irənu < irənə u) 2SG tomorrow come ‘Are you coming tomorrow?’

b. tʂɯ bədʑinsə irəsən kun puʂɯwo nu? 2SG Beijing come people not.be PRT ‘Aren’t you from Beijing?’

c. ənə tʂɯni ʂu wo ba? DEF 2SG.GEN book be PRT ‘Is this your book?’ Literally, ‘This is your book? (I suppose so.)’

Alternative questions in Dongxiang normally take X prt Y structure.

(143) Dongxiang (Liu 1981: 105)

mini kiəliəsənni tʂɯ tʂənliən(ə) u, uliə tʂənliənə? 1SG say 2SG listen PRT not listen ‘Will you listen to me or not?’

Bao’an Bao’an has three question particles, u, ʂa, and ba. Like Tu and Dongxiang, u also brings about phonological assimilation in a recursive way (144a). Alternative questions of Bao’an also take X prt Y structure (144b).

(144) Bao’an (Buhe and Liu 1982: 61-2, 77)

a. tɕĭ gatɕĭnə samogədʑi kal(o) u? 2SG words clear say PRT ‘Did you hear the words clearly?’

130

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. tɕĭ ’gudə nadə asχodʑi okəsaŋ ser 2SG yesterday 1SG borrow give money

tawuŋ u, dʑirɢuŋ o? five PRT six be ‘Did you lend me five Yuan or six?’ Literally, ‘The money you lend me is five Yuan or six?’

Eastern Yugur The final question particle u is also found in Eastern Yugur, which is used after a CV and has the short vowel dropped, whereas its variant ju is used after a long vowel or a VV. Other question particles, like ja, ba, and ʃa, do not demonstrate such distinction (Zhaonasitu 1981a: 58-9). In the following example, (145b) is an alternative question with a X prt Y prt structure.

(145) Eastern Yugur (Zhaonasitu 1981a: 58)

a. mudʒaŋ b(e) u? carpenter be PRT ‘Are you a carpenter?’

b. tʃəmadə qudaʁa bii ju, uɣui ju? 2SG knife have PRT not.have PRT ‘Do you have a knife or not?’

Kangjia Final question particles and alternative structures are reported in the polar interrogatives of Kangjia. Question particles mainly include ʉ, ba, and ma. Among the question particles, ʉ is used most commonly, which comes from uu in Mongolian languages; ba is used both in polar questions and content questions, and is a cognate of the Mongolian ba; and ma is only found in speculative questions (cf. English Is it true that…?). The structure of alternative questions is X prt Y (Siqin 1999: 214-7). In Kangjia, polar questions are asked via a change of the interrogative verb morphology, which happens always in collaboration with a change of question particles. Imperatives are seldom used to ask questions, although in marginal cases

131

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

one may find questions like tʃi dʒigʉn bʉ? (2SG go PRT) ‘Will you go (there)?’, bi dʒi-ja ba!? (1SG go-VOL PRT) ‘I go!?’ (Siqin 1999: 140). Interrogative verb morphology changes according to tenses, as it shows in the following table (taken from Siqin 1999: 140-51).

Table 2.23. Kangjia interrogative verb morphology

Past tense I -vʉ Past tense II -dʒʉ / -dʒiʉ, ba Non-Past -nʉ / -mʉ , -gʉ-n…bʉ Present I -sʉ / -sʉnʉ Present II -dʒinʉ Future -gʉ(n)...bʉ

In Kangjia, a serial verb construction normally has an -ʉ on the latter verb. The construction is called ‘adverbial verbs’ in Siqin’s (1999: 151-64) terminology, which could be further divided into twelve subtypes.

(146) Kangjia (Siqin 1999: 153)

tʃi mɔ ri uni-dʒi re-vʉ? 2SG horse ride come-PRT ‘Did you come by riding a horse?’

There is an “adjective verb” in Kangjia, which shares similarities with adjectives. For example, both of them can function as a modifier of a noun phrase, or have markers of case, number, and genitive, like bi dandi-sʉn mɔrini (I buy horse) ‘the horse I bought’ (-sʉn is a marker of ‘adjective verb’). The polar question system of an ‘adjective verb’ sentence is to have the question particle ʉ/bʉ/vʉ at the end if it is perfective, and bʉ/ʉ/are if it is non-perfective, and bʉ if it is a usual event, and ʉ if it is an on-going event (Siqin 1999: 164-75).

132

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.2.3. Manchu-Tungusic languages

Manchu Polar interrogative strategies of Manchu include final question particles (e.g. no, nio), X-neg, alternative structures (X prt Y), and verb morphology (see, e.g. Ji and Liu 1986: 153-6, 348-54; Zhao 1989: 153-4; Zhao 1990; Wang 2005: 69, 92; Wu 2008).

(147) Manchu (a-c, Wang 2005: 210, 62, 243; d, Wu 2008)

a. ɕi mandʐo gisun baʁanam no? 2SG can PRT ‘Can you speak the Manchu language?’

b. ɕi-niŋŋə ino vaqa? 2SG-GEN be not.be ‘Is it yours or not?’

c. ərə dʐaqa ʂʅ fəniŋŋə xεʂʅ itɕiŋŋə? DEF stuff be old or.be new ‘Is the stuff old or new?’

d. sinde bithe bi-o? 2SG book have-Q ‘Do you have book?’

Some other interrogative verb morphologies include -n and -yūn (Zhao 1990; Wang 2005: 69; Wu 2008). Manchu also use V disj V-neg questions, with a similar meaning to V-neg (cf. 147b).

(148) Manchu (Zhao 1989: 184)

ɕi kənəmi xεsʅ kənəaxoɷ 2SG go or go.NEG ‘Are you going (there) or not?’

133

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Xibo (Sibo, Xibe) In Xibo (also known as Sibo, or Xibe), polar questions are formed by using a sentence-final rising intonation, or adding a question particle (e.g., na, ba) at the end of a declarative sentence.

(149) Xibo (Li and Zhong 1986: 77, 109, 97)

a. nan dʑi-xə? people come-PST ‘Did someone come?’

b. gən! sandʑə tər dʐulxu bod χani tua bi ba? go girl DEF south house still fire have PRT ‘Go, my daughter! Perhaps the southern neighbor has a fire?’

c. bi agəsədəri gum adʑig vaq na? 1SG brother all young not.be PRT ‘I am younger than all my brothers, am I not?’

The structure of Xibo’s alternative questions is not very clear, though Li and Zhong (1986: 114) included an example in their book, which is of X prt Y prt structure.

Evenki Strategies of polar question in (Huihe) Evenki mainly include intonation change, final question particles, and alternative structures. Some common question particles include gi/gu, gʊʊ/guu, jʉ, ba, wu, gə, etc. The structure of alternative questions is X prt, Y prt (see Hu and Chaoke 1986: 108-10; Chaoke 1995: 84, 114, 120, 187, 189).

Oreqen Like Evenki, Oreqen also uses rising intonation, final question particle, and alternative structure in polar questions, although the inventory of question particles is different. Question particles include baa/bəə, jεε/jee/ŋεε/ŋee, ɔɔ, unti, mʊʊ/muu, jɔɔgʊʊ/jɔɔguu, jɔɔmaa/jooməə, and so on (Hu 1986: 63, 152-4). It is clear that jεε/jee/ŋεε/ŋee, ɔɔ, and unti are different, while the others are similar. Note that Evenki ba and Oreqen baa/bəə are very likely borrowed from Chinese ba. Particles can be used to form alternative questions; in particular, particles

134

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

take disjunct-final positions, i.e. X prt Y prt (Hu 1986: 154).

Hezhen (Nanai) Two common polar question particles in Hezhen (also known as Nanai) are a/ə and ba (An 1986: 64). ba is the same to Evenki ba and resembles Oreqen baa/bəə. Other strategies (if any) of polar questions are not clear, owing to the fact that relevant descriptive literature is not available.

Korean Korean uses interrogative verb morphology and intonation change to form polar questions. The pattern of intonation change is like this: yes/no questions end with a terminal rising intonation (Sohn 1999: 199); alternative questions, which normally have no disjunction between the disjuncts, i.e. XY, are reported to have their first disjunct ending with a terminal rising intonation, while the latter disjunct has a slightly falling intonation (Xuan et al. 1985: 88; Sohn 1999: 307). Korean interrogative verb morphology (or ‘interrogative mood endings’, see Lee 1989: 99) conveys various pragmatic meanings with subtle differences.

(150) Korean (Xuan et al. 1985: 60-1)

a. namujip‘-i p‘urɯ-ni? willow.leaves green ‘Are the leaves of the willow tree green? (How is it?)’

b. namujip‘-i p‘urɯ-rka? willow.leaves green ‘Are the leaves of the willow tree green? (I suppose so.)’

c. namujip‘-i p‘urɯ-tənja? willow.leaves green ‘Are the leaves of the willow tree green? (Did you notice that?)’

Note that all the examples are of the Low Style, i.e. “the style most often used between equals and by superiors to people of lower status” (Lee 1989: 100; see also Sohn 1999: 16, 407-418).

135

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.3. Austronesian languages

Amis Polar questions in Amis are very frequently expressed by adding question particles at the end of declarative sentences. Alternative questions (X disj Y (prt)) are also used very common, with a free choice of sentence-final question particles (He et al. 1986: 92-4, 97-8, 129, 134; Chen 1992: 150; Zeng 1991: 186-9, 260-1).

(151) Amis (He et al. 1986: 92)

a. tajra kiʃu han? go 2SG PRT ‘Are you going (there)?’

b. u kafuŋ anutʃa u rikuʔ ku ʔaʔatʃaən iʃu ʃaw? DEF hat or DEF clothes NOM buy.NOMIN 2SG.GEN PRT ‘Do you want to buy some clothes or a hat?’

Different polar questions use different question particles, although they invariably take a sentence-final position. For example, han is used in normal yes/no questions and rhetorical questions, ʃaw is used in alternative questions and wh-questions, kiaʃaw is used in rhetorical questions, saku is used in leading questions, and hukia/kira/kia are used in guesses or rhetorical questions (see He et al. 1986: 92-4; Zeng 1991: 186-9).

Table 2.24. Amis polar question particles

Question particles Subtype of polar questions han yes/no, rhetorical ʃaw alternative (also in wh-questions) kiaʃaw rhetorical saku leading hukia, kira, kia guesses, rhetorical

136

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Paiwan In Paiwan, alternative questions are widely used across the dialects. The structure is X disj Y, and the disjunction manu can not be dropped. Other interrogative strategies vary among individual dialects. In Wenle Paiwan (Laiyi Township, Pingdong County) polar questions can be exactly the same form as declarative sentences, with no change in intonation (Chen and Ma 1986: 90-4, Chen 1992: 123-4; cf. Dryer 2005a for Chalcatongo Mixtec, an Oto-Manguean language spoken in Mexico, which demonstrates no interrogative-declarative distinction).

(152) Wenle Paiwan (Chen and Ma 1986: 91)

tɕiŋlay sun tu tsu a ʔalat? like 2SG ACC DEF NOM bracelet ‘Do you like the bracelet?’

Nevertheless, in an unknown Paiwan dialect, intonation contour modification and shift are used to ask polar questions. In the following example, the question is formed by a final-rising intonation contour with a stress shift from the penultimate syllable of the last word to the final syllable.

(153) Paiwan (unkown dialect; Huang et al. 1999; cited from Chang 2010: 12)

ti Palang timadju? NOM Palang 3SG.NOM ‘Is he Palang?’

A matter deserving to be mentioned is that the clause order of Wenle Paiwan is VSO, however, when one wants to emphasis the subject in a question, SVO order is adopted (Chen and Ma 1986: 87).

(154) Wenle Paiwan (Chen and Ma 1986: 87)

ti sun a ʔəmləm ta vatu? NOM 2SG NOM beat ACC ‘Is that you beat the dog?’

Bunun In Bunun, interrogative strategies in polar questions include intonation

137

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

contour change, question particles, and alternative structures, although there are some dialectal differences. In Takitaivuɬan Bunun, the question particle ha is normally used at the end of a yes/no question, while biʃ is used right after the sentence-initial predicate in rhetorical or alternative questions. The structure of an alternative question is a(d)u X-at, a(d)u Y (prt) (DISJ X-PRT, DISJ Y (PRT)) (He and Zeng 1986: 109; Chen 1992: 172-8).

(155) Takitaivuɬan Bunun (He and Zeng 1986: 89, 101)

a. aʃa a kaʃu hud maʃ davuʃ ha? like NOM 2SG drink ACC alcohol QP ‘Do you like to drink some alcohol?’

b. au namapahun maʃ padan-at, au namapatuktuk maʃ ɬukiʃ? or cut ACC bush-PRT or cut ACC tree ‘Do you want to cut the bush or the tree?’

In Isbukun Bunun, intonation contour modification, question particles, and alternative structures are used to ask a polar question.

(156) Isbukun Bunun (Chang 2010: 140-5)

a. adu na-mahtu kutun Tahai minsuma? PRT IRR-can come Tahai tomorrow ‘Will Tahai be able to come tomorrow?’

b. adu Alang kasu ha? PRT Alang 2SG.NOM PRT ‘Are you Alang?’

c. Alang sain? Alang 3SG.NOM ‘Is he Alang?’

d. adu sia Tahai ma-ludah Alang, adu sia Dahu? PRT EMP Tahai AV-beat Alang PRT EMP Dahu ‘Is it Tahai that beat Alang, or is it Dahu (that beat Alang)?’

As shown above, (a) uses the sentence-initial question particle adu, while (b) uses two discontinuous question particles adu… ha; (c) is a polar question by

138

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

leveling-rising intonation contour, with no other strategies; (d) is an alternative question, formed by a prt X, prt Y structure, which is different from Takitaivuɬan Bunun in that -at is not needed after the first disjunct juxtaposed.

Atayal In Atayal, interrogative strategies in polar questions include question particles (Chen 1992: 24; Rau 1992: 175; Shih 2008: 61-9), change in intonation contour, and alternative structures (Shih 2008: 61-9).

(157) Atayal (a, Chen 1992: 24; b-d, Shih 2008: 61-2, 66; e, Huang 1996)

a. məkəsiwu suʔ lukus makuʔ ra? (Squliq Atayal) borrow 2SG clothes 1SG.GEN PRT ‘Do you want to borrow my clothes?’

b. ya’= kumaral ke’ na ’itaral? (Plngawan Atayal) QP=2S.NOM speak ACC language GEN Atayal ‘Do you speak Atayal?’

c. kumaral=su ci ke’ na ’itaral? (Plngawan Atayal) speak=2S.NOM ACC language GEN Atayal ‘Do you speak Atayal?’

d. pamukan=su ya’=su ’itaral? (Plngawan Atayal) plain.people=2S.NOM QP=2S.NOM Atayal ‘Are you plain people or Atayal?’

e. pa-qaniq=su’ quw ga’ pa-qilaap=su’? (Mayrinax Atayal) FUT.AV-eat=2SG.NOM Q TOP FUT.AV-sleep=2SG.NOM ‘Will you eat or sleep?’

As shown above, there are some differences among individual dialects. In Squliq Atayal, the question particle ra takes a sentence-final position (a). In Plngawan Atayal, however, the question particle ya’ normally takes a sentence-initial position (b); interrogative meaning is also conveyed by changing the intonation contour of a declarative sentence (c); and ya’ is also used to conjunct alternative disjuncts (d). In Mayrinax Atayal, the topic marker ga’ is used to connect the two disjuncts (e).

139

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Saisiyat In Saisiyat, polar questions are formed by terminal rising intonation or final question particle aj (Chiang and Chiang 2008; in Yeh 2000a, 2000b: 122-3, is ay). As it was mentioned above, in Paiwan, the clause order could be SVO if the subject is emphasized. In polar questions of Saisiyat, however, SVO order is preferred regardless if the subject is emphasized or not.

(158) Saisiyat (a, Chiang and Chiang 2008; b, Yeh 2000a)

a. ʃoʔo siʔæl ʔilaʔ aj? 2SG.NOM -eat PFV PRT ‘Have you eaten yet?’

b. rimʔan ʔam ʔ-omo-ral ay? tomorrow will rain-AF PRT ‘Will it rain tomorrow?’

Like in Bunun, a modal verb could also be used alone to answer questions like (b), e.g. ʔam ʔokaʔ (will NEG) ‘It won’t.’ (Yeh 2000a)

Pazeh In Pazeh, sentence-final question particles are found in polar questions (115a). (115b) could be analyzed as a question having a distinctive intonation, or simply keeping the same intonation as declarative sentences (like Paiwan), as no further information is provided in Li (2000).

(159) Pazeh (Li 2000)

a. angid-an ka mairad-ay inang say PERF-cry-LOC TOP alive-FUT again PRT ‘Will crying help to make (him) live again?’

b. ma-baza mu-kawas pazih a rahan siw AF-know AF-speak Pazeh LIGATURE words 2SG.NOM ‘Do you know how to speak Pazeh?’

Thao The polar question system of Thao is still not clear, though Chen (1992: 240) reported a polar question with a final question particle.

140

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(160) Thao (Chen 1992: 240)

qəminerqer qa? bite PRT ‘Bite?’

Rukai In Rukai, interrogative strategies by vowel lengthening, interrogative verb morphology and alternative structures are reported in some dialects. Question particles are not used in Rukai (Li 1973: 177; Zeitoun 2000a: 109). In Maga Rukai, polar questions can be asked by vowel lengthening.

(161) Maga Rukai (Huang et al. 1999; cited from Chang 2010: 13)

u-cngili musu kdoma kanav-a: ? ACT/REAL-see 2SG.NOM sometimes Kanao-OBL ‘Do you sometimes see Kanao?’

In Danancun Rukai (spoken in the Puyuma (Beinan) Township, in the Taidong County), however, vowel lengthening strategy is not found. As the following example shows, there seems to be no vowel-lengthening (though, very likely, it changes the intonation).

(162) Danancun Rukai (Chen 1992: 193)

aj-laub-ŋa-naku musu-a? FUT-burn-FUT-1SG 2SG-OBJ ‘Shall I burn you right now?’

Mantauran Rukai uses interrogative verb morphology ka. Intonation change is also likely to be adopted, as is exemplified by (163b-c), because no morphological or lexical interrogative strategies are used.

(163) Mantauran Rukai (a, Huang et al. 1999, cited from Chang 2010: 12-3; b-c, Zeitoun 1997)

a. ‘oponoho-ka-‘o? Mantauran-Q-2SG ‘Are you Mantauran?’

141

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. mamai-ka-ʔo takanə vələvələ? be-NEG-2SG.GEN eat Banana ‘Did you eat a banana?’ Literally, ‘Is that you that ate a banana?’

c. ðipolo-ka-ʔo? Dipolo-NEG-2SG.GEN ‘Are you Dipolo?’

Note that (b)-(c) are asked in a negative way. Normally, the answers can not be in abbreviated form. Take (163c) for example, an abbreviated form, *ka-li (NEG-1S.GEN) is ungrammatical, a full form, ka ðipolo-ka-li ‘No, I’m not Dipolo’ is used instead, like in English. Alternative questions in Labuan Rukai do not use any disjunctions, i.e. they are of X Y structure.

(164) Labuan Rukai (Huang et al. 1999, cited from Chang 2010: 14)

ay-ungulu=su ku acilay ay-kane=su ku aga? IRR-drink=2SG.NOM OBL water IRR-eat=2SG.NOM OBL rice ‘Will you drink water or eat rice?’

Tsou Final question particles are not found in Tsou polar questions. A strategy is to use terminal interrogative intonation, usually a raised pitch on the final syllable. The structure of alternative questions is [X ho nte Y] (Zeitoun 2000b: 119-121; Huang 2002).

(165) Tsou (Chen 1992: 67)

te ko meelʉ fiho? FUT 2SG can catch.up ‘Can you catch up?’

Kavalan In Kavalan, polar questions are formed by final question particle ni or terminal rising intonation-only. Alternative questions are in [X uu Y] structure (G. Chang 2000: 148-9; see also Lee 2009 for several polar question examples).

142

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(166) Kavalan (H. Chang 2000: 148-9)

a. q-em-an=ti=isu tu ’may (ni)? eat-AF=PEF=2SG ACC meal QP ‘Have you eaten?’

b. ngil qan uu taqa qan tu Raaq aisu? want eat or not eat ACC liquor 2SG ‘Do you want to drink some liquor or not?’

Sedeq (Sedik) In Sedeq (also known as Sedik, Seediq), question particles are used to form polar questions. One common particle is hao (cf. Kavalan haw), which normally takes a sentence-final position (Chen and Xu 2001: 66, 141; Chen 1992: 42 documented it as hu). Another common question particle e, which takes sentence-initial position (cf. Atayal ya’, Bunun adu), or (next-to-)last positions.

(167) Sedeq (Chen and Xu 2001: 66, 140)

a. yaku maha humetun hao? 1SG FUT close QP ‘Shall I close it?’

b. e munuekan ido suai da? QP eat-PST meal younger.brother PRT ‘Has younger brother already eaten?’

c. puŋerah karats ue e lumedah? star sky be QP bright ‘Are the stars shinning in the sky?’

Like Paiwan, the word order of the polar question is changed into SVO if the subject (actor) is emphasized.

Puyuma Puyuma polar questions are reported to be formed by final question particle amaw or falling terminal intonation-only (Huang 2000: 151-2). Literature on the

143

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Puyuma language is limited, for several examples of content questions, see also Cauquelin (1991) and Zeng (2007), the latter also reports a question sentence formed with an interrogative verb (cf. Section 6.3.2).

Yami Yami, also known as , is a Batanic language spoken in the Lanyu Island, Taiwan. Polar questions are formed by final question particles, e.g. an(g) and ja, and terminal rising intonation-only (C. Chang 2000: 90; Chen 2007b: 2334).

(168) Yami (a, Chen 2007b; b-c, Rau and Dong 2006: 91, 93, 115)

a. mej ku apen an? go 1SG fetch QP ‘Shall I go and fetch it?’

b. maka-kan ka so wakay? AF.able-eat 2S.NOM OBL sweet.potato ‘Are you able to eat sweet potatos?’ (I bet you won’t.)

c. ma-kala ta o mogis nio? PF.able-find 1PL.INCL.GEN OBL rice 2PL.GEN ‘Could we manage to find your rice?’

Saaroa The question particle i is reported in Saaroa polar questions.

(169) Saaroa (Chen 1992: 78)

ʔiibuu i? 2SG.GEN.urine QP ‘Is this your urine?’ Literally, ‘Your urine?’

In a more or less assertion, one can respond ʔiibuu ai! ‘(I think) It is your urine!’ (Chen 1992: 78)

Kanakanavu In Kanakanavu, question particles and alternative structures are used to form polar questions. The question particle kara can take a non-sentence-final position.

144

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(170) Kanakanavu (a, Chen 1992: 92; b, Wu 2006)

a. kanakanavu kara kasu? Kanakanavu QP 2SG ‘Are you Kanakanavu?’

b. manman=kasu m-alisinatu kara sa paracani? like.AF=2S.NOM AF-study QP or sing.AF ‘Do you like studying or singing?’

Huihui Except for the Formosan and in Taiwan, there is another endangered Austronisan language, Huihui, spoken in , in the Province (the second biggest island of China). The population of (Muslims) in Sanya is about 5,000 (Zheng 1997: 1). The most salient feature of Huihui’s interrogative system is that it differs from the Formosan and Batanic languages by using X-neg-X questions.

(171) Huihui (Zheng 1997: 72, 76)

a. ha33 ʔdi55 pu33 ʔdi55? 2SG sleep not sleep ‘Do you want to sleep or not?’

b. zai33ni33 ʔan33 pu33 ʔan33? today cold not cold ‘Is it cold today or not?’

The X-neg-X structure in Huihui is borrowed from Chinese (although many Hui people in Sanya also speak Li – a ), not from Li, as the negator in between is the same as the Chinese /pu/, not Li’s /ta/. Another feature of the structure is that a modal verb could answer the question alone if X in X-neg-X is 11 33 11 a modal one. For example, by asking haŋ pu haŋ ? (will not will) ‘willing to … or not?’, one could answer haŋ11 ‘(Yes, I) will.’ (Zheng 1997: 73) There are many question particles in Huihui, e.g., te24, ʔa11, va24, ne24, and nə33, all of them are used at the end of a sentence (Zheng 1997: 91). Alternative questions in Huihui are adding a disjunction (and a stop) between the two (or more) disjuncts (Zheng 1997: 85, 101), which is similar to many Sinitic languages (and Kam languages as well).

145

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.4. Austro-Asiatic languages

So far, 9 Austro-Asiatic languages have been reported in China, namely, Wa, De’ang, Bulang, Kumu, Kemie, Buxing, Jing, Mang, and Lai. The first six languages belong to the Mon-Khmer group, and the latter three belong to the Viet-Muong group. These languages are mainly spoken in the Yunnan Province, except that Jing is mainly used in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. Strategies of polar questions in the Austro-Asiatic languages in China are summarized in the following table.

Table 2.25. Interrogative strategies in 9 Austro-Asiatic languages

Intonation QP V-neg-V A-neg-A Alternative Wa + + V-neg-V / VP-neg-VP A-neg-A X (, disj) Y De’ang + + V-neg-V / V(P)-neg-VP A-neg-A X (, disj) Y Bulang + + V-neg-V A-neg-A X, disj Y Kemu + + V-neg-V(P) A-neg-A X disj Y Kemie + + V-neg-V A-neg-A X, Y Buxing + + V(P)-neg-VP n/i X disj Y Jing - + V(P)-neg(-V) A-neg X (,) disj Y Mang n/i + adv-V / (adv-)V(P)-neg-V A-neg-A X (prt), Y Lai + + VV(-neg) n/i X disj Y

Note that the table is based on the descriptive work I am aware of so far; the blanks are not necessarily to be filled in with a negative value, or a positive one. X-neg-X questions are very likely to have more complicated structures in individual languages. Alternative questions are also likely to have more strategies in a colloquial context, e.g., having a short stop in between, particles, and/or disjunctions.

Wa (Va) In Wa (also known as Va), a common way to ask polar question is to use final question particles (e.g. laih, /euih/nieh, hliex) and/or rising intonation.

(172) Wa (Zhao 2006: 129)

a. hoig beix? already eat 2PL ‘Have you eaten?’

146

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. houig maix laih? come 2SG QP ‘Are you coming?’

In sentences like (172a), that is, questions with an adverb ‘already’ before a verb, which has an equivalent meaning of English Has someone already…? or German Hat jemand schon …?, a common answer is simply to use an adverb, like hoig ‘(I have) already (eaten)’, or ang nyang ‘(I have) not yet (eaten).’ Polar questions that can be answered simply by an adverb are also reported in De’ang (see below). In the examples above, the subject comes after the verb, which is common in Wa questions and answers (but the basic order in declarative sentences is SVO). However, the subject is placed before the verb if an answer is negative (Zhou and Yan 1984: 87-9).

(173) Wa (Zhao 2006: 175)

A: gon sang hu maix? still want go 2SG ‘Do you still want to go (there)?’

B: ang, ex (ang) lai hu. NEG 1SG NEG again go ‘(No,) I won’t go (there) again.’

Quite similar to Standard Chinese, both verbs and adjectives can be used in X-neg-X questions in Wa, that is, V(P)-neg-V(P) and A-neg-A.

(174) Wa (Zhou and Yan 1984: 59, 61)

a. hoik ang hoik? come not come ‘Are you coming or not?’

b. song ang song? bitter not bitter ‘Is it bitter or not?’

It has been mentioned that in Wa the subject comes often before a verb, though it is placed after a verb in a negative answer. In Colloquial Wa, one can

147

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

find that the placement of the subject in X-neg-X questions is very flexible, in particular, it could appear before the subject (175b), or between the disjunctive-negative verbs (175a), or even appear twice, with the first one after the first verb, and the latter one between the negator and the latter verb (175c).

(175) Wa (a, c, Zhao 2006: 175-6; b, Zhou and Yan 1984: 88)

a. maix gon sang hu ang hu? 2SG still want go not go ‘Do you still want to go or not?’

b. hu maix ang hu? go 2SG not go ‘Do you want to go or not?’

c. muih maix ang maix muih? like 2SG not 2SG like ‘Do you like it or not?’

(175c) is a redundant form of a X-neg-X question. Like Standard Chinese, ni xi bu xihuan? (2SG like not like) ‘Do you like it or not?’ is equivalent to ni xihuan bu xihuan?, although the subject does not appear twice in Standard Chinese. The difference between a full form and an abbreviated (or rather, long and short) form also lies in alternative questions. For example, it is equally grammatical to keep or omit a disjunction between the two (or more) disjuncts.

(176) Wa (Zhou and Yan 1984: 97-8)

a. (daɯh) mɔh maix hu daɯh mɔhnɔh hu? or 2SG go or 3SG.M go ‘Will you or he?’

b. pon hu maix ang pon hu? can go 2SG NEG can go ‘Can you go or not?’

A similar phenomenon is also found in Standard Chinese. An equivalent sentence of (a) is ni qu haishi ta qu (2SG go or 3SG go), and (b) is ni neng qu (haishi) bu neng qu (2SG can go (or) NEG can go).

148

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

De’ang De’ang consists of three dialects, Bulei, Rumai, and Liang (Chen et al. 1986: 1, 101-2). So far, Liang De’ang is not adequately described. The following introduces the polar question system of Yunqian De’ang (Bulei De’ang) and Guangka De’ang (Rumai De’ang). The polar question system of Yunqian De’ang is very similar to Wa. It forms questions with question particle with or without rising intonation, V(P)-neg-V(P), and A-neg-A. Some adverbs, like ȵam ‘not yet’, hɔiʔ ‘already’, can also be used independently to answer polar questions. In alternative questions, disjunctives between the two (or more) disjuncts can be omitted freely, too (Chen et al. 1986: 39-40, 43, 62, 98-100). Nevertheless, one specific feature of polar questions in Yunqian De’ang is that the interrogative marker ʔaŋ appears consistently before the questioned constituent (predicate verb/adjective), regardless of the fact that a question itself has some other interrogative strategies, e.g., a X-neg-X structure (177a), or alternative structure (177b), hence that results in questions that have more than one strategy.

(177) De’ang (Chen et al. 1986: 40, 99)

a. mɔi ʔaŋ m̥o ʔɤ m̥o biai? 2SG Q can NEG can sing ‘Can you sing or not?’

b. ʔaŋ muh mɔi ʔi ha:u? kɔn muh ʔo ʔi ha:u? Q be 2SG go or be 1SG go ‘You go or I go?’

ʔaŋ is also used in polar questions formed by question particles and/or intonation, like ʔaŋ hɔiʔ jɔʔ ʔε? (Q finish PST PRT) ‘Is it finished?’. The origin of the question marker ʔaŋ in Yunqian De’ang is still unclear, although it might be borrowed from Ancient Chinese an 安, an interrogative adverb, like an neng zhi wo shi ci-? (how can know 1SG be female-male) ‘How could people know I am female or male?’ (Mulanci, 5-6th Century). In Guangka De’ang, however, some interrogative strategies are different. For example, there is an abbreviated X-neg structure if X is too heavy; an alternative question is normally formed not by any disjunctions between the disjuncts but by a short stop; and question particles could appear in non-final

149

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

positions (Ni 2007: 15-22).

Bulang In Bulang, interrogative strategies of polar questions include sentence-final question particles and/or rising intonation, and X-neg-X structures (Li et al. 1986: 73-4). Disjunctions in alternative questions, however, are normally kept there, which is different from Wa and De’ang.

(178) Bulang (Li et al. 1986: 69)

am miʔ khεʔ, am ɯʔ khε? or 2SG do or 1SG do ‘Will you do it or I do it?’

Kemu Kemu forms polar questions formed by putting a question particles at the end of a declarative sentence. It also has V(P)-neg-V(P) and A-neg-A questions (Chen 2002: 205-6), which resembles Wa, De’ang, and Bulang. Disjunction in alternative questions is partly borrowed from Chinese, that is, hai in hai hɤh ‘or’ is from Chinese hai ‘still, yet’.

(179) Kemu (Chen 2002: 203)

mah ʔah bεʔ hai mɤh mah ʔah sɯaŋ? eat meat lamb or eat meat pork ‘(Shall we) eat lamb or pork?’

Kemie Final question particles and/or rising intonation, V(P)-neg-V(P) and A-neg-A questions are also commonly used in Kemie. The structure of alternative questions is (kɣʔ 53) X kɣʔ 53 Y, with a short stop between the disjuncts; no disjunction is necessarily needed (Chen 2005: 139). Alternative questions formed by (disj) X disj Y structure are common among Austro-Asiatic languages in China (but Kemu is an exception).

150

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

(180) Kemie (Chen 2005: 139)

a e35 nɔŋ31, kɣʔ 53 a ε35 nɔŋ31? DEF good be DEF good ‘This one better or that one is better?’

Buxing In Buxing, strategies like V(P)-neg-V(P), question particles (e.g. ŋa, me) and/or final rising intonation are reported ( 2004: 132). In its alternative questions, which are of X (prt) disj Y structure, the disjunction haishi ‘or’ is borrowed from Chinese (Gao 2004: 106, 132, 134).

(181) Buxing (Gao 2004: 132)

mi tuʔ mǎh haisɿ tEŋ la me? 2SG eat meal or drink tea QP ‘Would you like to eat or drink tea?’

V(P)-neg-V(P) questions in Buxing resemble Standard Chinese in that the syllable structure is consistently σ1(σ2)-neg-σ1σ2 if the verb (phrase) is disyllabic, that is, the first half before the negation word is more likely to be a monosyllabic verb. However, there is a difference between Buxing and Standard Chinese when a modal verb comes before the main verb.

(182) Buxing (Gao 2004: 132)

mi nɔʔ tĚʔ ba nɔʔ tĚʔlin? 2SG like dance not like dance ‘Do you like dancing or not?’

The literal Chinese translation of the sentence above is *ni xihuan tiao bu xihuan tiaowu? (2SG like dance not like dance) which is ungrammatical, while ni xi bu xihuan tiaowu? is grammatical and used very often.

Jing Polar question strategies in Jing resemble other Austro-Asiatic languages. Jing also has sentence-final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative questions (Ouyang et al. 1984: 121-2). Nevertheless, the latter part of X-neg-X is 1 frequently dropped in Jing, leaving only a X-neg structure. For example, an

151

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

khoŋ1? (eat not) ‘(Do you like to) eat it or not?’, dəi2 tsɯə2? (full not) ‘Is it full or not?’ (Ouyang et al. 1984: 77, 84). Unlike other Austro-Asiatic languages in China, Jing is rarely found to form polar questions by changing final intonation only. The structure of alternative questions in Jing is X, disj Y, which is very similar to Standard Chinese.

Mang Mang polar questions include those fromed by sentence-final question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. One feature of Mang (and Yunqian De’ang) that differs from other Austro-Asiatic languages in China is that it adopts the interrogative adverb pə before a constituent to be questioned, be it a short monosyllabic verb or a complex X-neg-X structure3.

(183) Mang (Gao 2003: 114)

a. mə31ha51 ʔin31 pə31 tɕə55 lau55li31? person DEF Q be Lao Li ‘Is that man Lao Li or not?’

b. lɔt55ʔə31ȵin35 pə31 hɔ51 θə31 hɔ51? tonight Q come not come ‘Are you coming tonight or not?’

In Mang, the default structure of alternative questions is not to have a disjunction, but only to reserve a short stop between the two (or more) disjuncts (Gao 2003: 114), although in marginal cases, a particle is tagged after the first disjunct (or the non-final disjunct, if there are more than two disjuncts), in the cases that a speaker wants to emphasis the disjunct or some special context (e.g. s/he is talking to a child in an exaggerating ).

(184) Mang (Gao 2003: 114)

a. ʔə31ʔin31 pan35 lɔt55 ma51, lɔt55 ʔon51? 3SG.M look like motherlike father ‘He looks like his mother or his father?’

3 The origin of pə is unclear, but, cf. Chinese ke /khə/ and De’ang ʔaŋ.

152

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

b. mi31 ʔin31 θa55 mə31li31 ʔə35, mi31 θa55 pə31ȵɔ51? 2SG like eat pear PRT 2SG eat banana ‘You like a pear or a banana?’

31 55 Tag questions in Mang are asked in a positive way, with a tag pə tɕə (Q be) ‘Is it?’, totally ignores the antecedent (Gao 2003: 115). This is, however, different from English and Standard Chinese. In English, a tag is negative if the antecedent is positive, and vice versa. In Standard Chinese, a tag could be either positive or negative, totally ignoring the antecedent. For example, ni (bu) xihuan dushu, (bu)shi-ma? (2SG (not) like reading, (not) be-QP), by keeping/omitting the negator bu, the sentence has four readings, and all of them are grammatical. Nevertheless, the four readings can only be translated into English in two versions, in particular, You like reading, don’t you?, and You don’t like reading, do you?

Lai In Lai, final question particles and/or interrogative intonation, and alternative questions are commonly used in its polar questions (Li 1999: 171-2). Some common question particles include ni2, ʔe2, ʔwe2, ndi3, ma2, etc (Li 1999: 151). V(P)-neg-V questions are not found in Lai, which is different from other Austro-Asiatic languages in China. Instead, a V(P)V-neg question is adopted, and very frequently brings a VV question, because the short negation word ʔo2 can be easily merged into the preceeding verb.

(185) Lai (Li 1999: 130, 171)

a. mi2 pja:ŋ4 vi4ndɔ5 pja:ŋ4 ʔo2 ʔe2? 2SG have brother have NEG QP ‘Do you have brothers or not?’

b. mi2 ʑu2 ʑo4 ʔe2? 2SG go go.NEG QP ‘Are you going (there) or not?’

153

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.5. Indo-European4

Tajik (Tadzhik) Tajik (also known as Tadzhik), of the Western Iranian branch of Iranian, of the Indo-Iranian family of Indo-European, is spoken in the southwest Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, with a population of about 40,000 (Gao 2007: 2527)5. It has two dialects, namely, Sariqul and Wux. In Sariqul Tajik, the particle o is critical to form a polar question. It is common to have the particle o at the end of a declarative sentence to ask a polar question, and the structure of an alternative question is X o naji Y o (X PRT NEG Y PRT). o is also used in tag questions (Gao 1985: 62, 65, 88-90).

(186) Sariqul Tajik (Gao 1985: 65, 89)

a. maʃ tuχɯ χor-an o naji wi budo χor-an o? 1PL.INCL chicken eat-1PL PRT NEG DEF beef eat-1PL PRT ‘Shall we eat chicken or beef?’

b. tudʒik ziv ati wazon-d, rust o? TOP know-3SG true PRT ‘He can speak Tajik. Is that true?’

Wux Tajik uses the question particle a, and the structure of alternative questions is normally X a, jo Y (X PRT, or Y) (Gao 1985: 117-8), both are different from Sariqul Tajik (see also the introduction of Chapter 4 and Section 7.3.2 for more discussion on the difference in alternative questions among Tajik dialects).

4 Another Indo-European language, Russian, is also spoken in some districts of China (mainly in the northwest and northeast), with no noticeable differences to the language spoken in Russia. 5 According to Gao (1985: 1), the population of Tajik is about 26,500.

154

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.6. Creole languages

Wutun Wutun (wu-tun ‘five-villages’) is a creole based on five languages, namely, Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolian, Tu, and Salar (hence the label ‘five’), spoken in the Province, with a population of about 2,000. Descriptive works of the Wutun language are rare, though Chen (1982, 2007: 2575) reports a real polar question example formed by a final question particle.

(187) Wutun (Chen 1982, 2007: 2575)

tɕi’kə ‘k‘anra ts‘iantə mi jɤ mɵ? DEF look.TOP cheap.NOMIN NEG have PRT ‘Isn’t there something cheaper than this?’

Tangwang “Tangwang” is an abbreviated combination of Tangjia and Wangjia, two villages in the northeast of the Dongxiang , Province. The Tangwang language is a creole mainly based on the Chinese lexicon and Dongxiang (Altaic) grammar, with roughly 20,000 speakers (Yibulaheimai 2007: 2580). The polar question system of Tangwang is still unknown due to a lack of relevant documentation, though, basically, one could refer to the Dongxiang grammar.

E (Ai) The E [e55] language (also known as Ai) is spoken in the Rongshui Miao Autonomous County, in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, with roughly 5,000 speakers. E is also called wuse (wu-, ‘five-colors’), which suggests that the language is spoken in an area with people from various nationalities. It is a creole based basically on Kam-Sui and Tuguai (a variety of Guibei Ping in Guangxi) (Luo 2007: 2596). The polar question system of E is unknown as relevant descriptive literature is not available.

155

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Za Za is spoken in the Xiachayu Township, in Chayu County, and in the . Polar question strategies with final question particles (e.g. re31) and alternative structures (X prt Y) are reported in Za (Li and Jiang 2001; 2007: 2618-9). The following are examples of a final question particle and an alternative structure, respectively.

(188) Za (Jiang and Li 2001; 2007: 2618-9)

a. kam55 diŋ55kha55 pei55tsi55 ka53 re31? box on cup have QP ‘Are there some cups on the box?’

b. e31ȵi55 a31raŋ55 sa53 a55 me31 sa53? today rain drop PRT NEG drop ‘Did it rain today?’

Dao Dao is a Creole mainly based on the Chinese lexicon and Tibetan grammar, spoken in the , located in the west of the Sichuan Province, with a population of about 2,600. The Dao district is surrounded by (Kang) Tibetan- speaking people, making Dao somewhat a language island (Acuo 2004: 2-7, 2007: 2621). Final question particles and V(P) neg constructions are reported in the polar questions of Dao, both strategies are taken from Chinese.

(189) Dao (Acuo 2004: 57, 59)

a. ni chi-li ma? 2SG eat-FUT QP ‘Do you want to eat?’

b. ni fan chi-lɔ bu? 2SG meal eat-PST NEG ‘Have you eaten?’

156

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

2.7. Summary

To summarize what would seem to be the most comprehensive survey to date of interrogative strategies of the languages of China, covering Sinitic (10 languages) and moniroty languages (128), some of the most striking features of interrogative strategies in individual groups of languages are as follows:

·Sinitic languages use terminal rising intonation, question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures to express polar questions. A handful Sinitic dialects and varieties also use pre-verb question markers, verb-reduplication, and interrogative verbs (which will be the topic of Chapter 6, and Section 7.2.4). ·Tibeto-Burman languages use interrogative verb morphology and alternative questions, while polar questions formed by terminal rising intonations or X-neg-X structures are rare. A subgroup of Tibeto-Burman, the Yi languages, is characterized by verb-reduplicating interrogatives. (Interrogative verb morphology and verb-reduplication in Tibeto-Burman are also dealt with in Chapter 6, and disjunct-final particles as alternative strategies are discussed in Section 4.2.) ·The Kam and Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages resemble Sinitic languages in that they use terminal rising intonation, question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures to ask polar questions. Kam and Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) also use pre-posed disjunctions in alternative interrogatives (for pre-/post-posed disjunctions, see Chapter 4). ·Altaic languages use question particles and alternative structures as their common polar interrogative strategies, and X-neg-X questions are not found. Altaic languages are special in that they take post-posed disjunctions (by particles). ·Formosan languages, a subgroup of Austronesian, use question particles, but do not use X-neg-X questions in their polar interrogatives. Formosan languages are unique in their interrogative verbs and flexible word order of interrogative particles. ·Austro-Asiatic languages share similarities with Sinitic languages in that they use polar interrogative strategies like terminal rising intonation, question particles, X-neg-X, and alternative structures. No interrogative verb morphology is reported in Austro-Asiatic.

157

2 A survey of polar interrogative strategies

Some common features of interrogative strategies in the languages of China are:

·Wh-phrases in wh-questions favor in situ positions (see Chapter 5). ·Question particles favor sentence-final positions (see Chapter 3).

158

3 Question particles and final particles

Chapter 3

Question particles and final particles

As in other domains of grammar, the terminology for question particles, modal particles, question tags, sentence-final particles and related phenomena is often disparate and sometimes confusing. Synonyms and homonyms of the terms chosen in the main body of the chapter and elsewhere deserve to be pointed out. Question particles are invariable items with the function of forming questions. As a marker of sentence types, question particles signal that a certain sentence is a question. The counterparts of question particles include declarative particles and imperatives particles. It is appropriate to label the particles that dedicated to signaling sentence types as particles of illocutionary force. Question tags, according to Crystal (2008: 476), are constituents consisting of an auxiliary verb plus pronoun, attached at the end of a statement in order to convey a negative or positive orientation, e.g. English isn’t it or innit, German nicht wahr. Question tags normally contain a predicate with meaning like ‘is’ or ‘true’ (Sadock and Zwicky 1985; cf. Plank 2009). According to König and Siemund (2007), question tags are different from question particles in that (i) “[question] tags, apart from characterizing sentences as questions, also contribute a certain bias by raising expectations toward either a positive or negative answer”, and (ii) “[question] tags almost exclusively occur at the end of a sentence, quite independently of basic word order pattern”. That is, cross-linguistically, question particles are an invariable parts-of-speech which occur not necessarily sentence-final (see Section 3.1 for Dryer’s 2005b data), while question tags are constituents (normally containing a predicate) attached at the end of a sentence, although both of them characterize sentences as questions. Nevertheless, sentence-final seems to be only a preferred position for question tags because in natural language, e.g. English, they may take utterance-final,

159

3 Question particles and final particles

sentence-final, XP-final, and XP-medial positions, though the XP-final/-medial positions are much less common (see Dehé and Braun 2013). Two further possible criteria for the distinction between question particles and question tags are (iii) prosodic separation is more frequent before (non-phrase-medial) question tags compared to question particles, and (iv) question tags are more complex syntactically than question particles, because question tags normally contain verbs or modals while particles are invariable items. Modal particles, however, do not necessarily have something to do with sentence types, rather, they express attitudes on the part of the speaker towards the factual content of the utterance, e.g. possibility, (un)certainty, vagueness, cf. German denn, einmal, doch, schon, wirklich, Italian mai, poi, pure (Coniglio 2008), English right, yet, well, etc. Modality and interrogativity are related in this way. On the one hand, sentences express various modalities, e.g. possibility, (un)certainty, vagueness, etc. On the other, interrogatives frequently express meanings of possibility, uncertainty, vagueness, etc. (that’s why people ask for information, be it yes/no or wh- ones). A clear example is German denn, which is a , but functions also as an interrogative marker (Bayer 2012). In many languages in China, notably in Sinitic languages, sentence types are characterized by sentence-final particles (cf. Li 2006). In Standard Chinese, for example, some common sentence-final particles include ma (ma and ma55), a (and its variants ya, na), ba, ne (ne and ne55), etc. Their distribution in different types of sentences is summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Final particles in Standard Chinese

Particles Declarative Interrogative Imperative yes/noAlter. X-neg-X wh- ma 嘛 + - - - - - ma55 吗 - + - - - - ne 呢 + - - - - - ne55 呢 - - + + + - ba 吧 (+) (+) - - - + a 啊 (ya 呀, na 呐) (+) (+) (+) + + + de 的 + - - - - - le 了 + - - - - + bale 罢了 + - - - - -

160

3 Question particles and final particles

Notes for the table:

1. The table includes the most common final particles in Standard Chinese, and is not a complete list. Many other Sinitic languages have rich inventories of final particles, e.g. Shanghai Wu has 56 final particles (Qian 1996). 2. Now that the work is concerned with interrogatives, high leveling toned ma55 (yes-no interrogative reading) is simplified as ma throughout the thesis if no neural-tone ma reading (declarative reading) would arise.

It can be seen from the table that ma, de, and bale express declarative, ma55 expresses yes-no interrogative. Also, if we arrange the table differently, by setting sentence types as the starting point of observation, it can be seen that ma55 and ne55 never occur in declaratives, yes-no questions use ma55 (and sometimes also ba and a), alternative questions have ne55 (and sometimes also a), X-neg-X questions (also known as A-not-A questions and disjunctive-negative questions; see Sections 2.1.1.1, 4.1) and wh-questions have ne55 and a, imperatives have ba, a, and le. Nevertheless, two matters deserve to be pointed out here. One is that sentences do not have to take such final particles, and final particles are not obligatory for indentifying sentence types. Another is that some final particles are versatile and can be used in more than one sentence type, and individual sentence types may also use more than one final particle. For some modal particles in Standard Chinese, cf. hechang, nandao, nanbucheng, etc. (Lü et al. 1980: 264, 407). In this thesis, “final particle” is a general label for (i) the sentence-final particles with illocutionary forces, including question particles, declarative particles, and imperative particles, (ii) the sentence-final particles in wh-questions, (iii) the disjunct-final particles as disjunctions in alternative questions (see Section 4.3). The term is suitable for the present purposes because the particles with illocutionary forces and in wh-questions are always sentence- final, or disjunct-final in alternative questions. This chapter deals with question particles in polar questions and final particles in wh-questions (i-ii). The position of question particles in the languages of China is compared with a 777-languages-sample by Dryer (2005b) (Section 3.1), followed by a discussion on the so-called ‘questions by two question particles’, i.e. ma ne questions (Section 3.2), and final particles in wh-questions and reduced wh-questions (Section 3.3).

161

3 Question particles and final particles

3.1. The position of question particles

In linear sequence, a question particle is not necessarily confined to a certain place in a sentence and can appear at any place in polar questions. However, according to Dryer’s (2005b) survey of 777 languages, summarized in Table 3.2, the cross-linguistically most common position is the sentence-final, followed by sentence-initial and sentence-second, while other positions are rare.

Table 3.2. Position of polar question particles in 777 languages (Dryer 2005b)

Beginning End Second Other Either No particle 118 272 45 8 24 310

Question particles are used very frequently in polar questions in the languages of China. In the languages the present study is concerned with, that is 128 minority languages of China and 10 Sinitic languages, only 2 Formosan languages (Rukai and Tsou) are reported to be without question particles in its polar questions.

Table 3.3. Position of polar question particles in 138 languages of China

(n-)end First/second/end First/end End End? No particle Other n/i 1 1 2 119 1 2 2 10

Also, quite different from the languages sampled in Dryer (2005b), most languages in China take sentence-final question particles. Only a few languages are exceptions; e.g. rGyarong (Tibeto-Burman) allows question particles in sentence-final or non-sentence-final position (see example 1 below and Section 2.1.2.5), Sedeq (Formosan) in sentence-initial, -second, or -final position, Amis and Bunun (both Formosan) in sentence-initial or -final positions, and Kanakanavu and Saaroa (both Formosan) are of the ‘other’ type, having question particles in positions other than initial, second, or final (for these Formosan languages, see Section 2.3). See Map 8 (and Maps 2, 7) in Appendix II. In rGyarong, question particles can take either a sentence-final position (1a, 1c) or a pre-predicate position (1b, 1d).

162

3 Question particles and final particles

(1) rGyarong (Lin 1993: 391-2)

a. no kə pa tə-ŋos mə? 2SG Han people 2-be QP ‘Are you Han people?’

b. no kə pa mə tə-ŋos?

c. no nə-səm-s tʃ he mə? 2SG GEN-heart-DAT go QP ‘Do you agree?’

d. no nə-səm-s mə tʃ he?

In the Guangka dialect of De’ang, the situation is different. Question particles can take sentence-final positions when the object is missing (2a-b), or sentence-medial positions, normally closely after the verb, if there is an object (2c-d).

(2) Guangka De’ang (Ni 2007: 17-20)

55 55 51/21 51 21 a. kɣ piok ʔau tʃhiː lɒ ? clothes 1SG beautiful QP ‘Are my clothes beautiful?’

412/55 412/51 55 21 b. kɜ hau tʃɔ lɒ ? 3PL go PFT QP ‘Had they been (there)?’

51 21 51/21 412 c. moh lɒ loŋ pɜ ? be QP vegetable.garden 2PL ‘Is it your vegetable garden?’

51/55 51 21 412 412/21 d. mai ha lɒ tεu ni ? 2SG eat QP food DEF ‘Do you like the food?’

Sentence-medial question particles are not found in Sinitic languages1, though, in marginal cases, there are exceptions in colloquial conversations.

1 Chao (1968: 81, 801, 806) includes some “pause particles”, which normally occur after a subject. Some particles of this kind include a, me, and ba.

163

3 Question particles and final particles

(3) Standard Chinese

ni kan ma xiaoshuo? 2SG read QP novel ‘Do you like to read the novel?’ ‘Do you read novels?’ (less common)

(4) Yongxin Gan

jin tɕhia maŋ thaŋ? 2SG eat QP candy ‘Would you like to eat some candy?’ ‘Do you eat candy?’ (less common)

In (3)-(4), constituents followed by a question particle are to add object information. That is, a questioner provides more information so that the addressee understands the question better. Such sentences are very limited in that the object must be specific, and unspecific ones immediately suggest ungrammatical sentences. In particular, while asking (3)-(4), very often the questioner is also showing or pointing at the novel or candy. If xiaoshuo ‘(the) novel’ is replaced by shu ‘book’, (3) becomes ungrammatical, which is the same if thaŋ ‘candy’ is replaced by toŋɕhi ‘something’ (4). Meanwhile, in both Standard Chinese and Yongxin Gan, a pause has to be made after the question particle (combined with a rising intonation); as a result, a question appears to consist of two clauses rather than one (compare English Do you know her? The girl from Berlin.). I hence do not consider questions of this type as containing medial question particles.

164

3 Question particles and final particles

3.2. ma ne polar questions in Sinitic languages

3.2.1. ma ne polar questions

Particles cannot be added after the sentence-final question particle ma in Standard Chinese. Nevertheless, some particles are found to be added after sentence-final question particles in some Sinitic languages. In Cantonese, Beiliu Cantonese, Shaoyang Xiang, Chengbu Xiang, Shangyou Hakka, and Yongxin Gan, for example, there are so-called ‘questions with two question particles’, i.e. ma ne questions. Because the final particle ne is commonly assumed to be a question particle (which is a controversial assumption, and one I do not share; see Section 2.1.1.1.3), ma ne questions seem very special. Some distinctions need to be clarified before looking into questions with ‘two question particles’. In Standard Chinese, the question particle ma could be divided into two: ma1, which is used in normal yes-no questions, and ma2, which is used in no-doubting or rhetorical questions.

(5) Standard Chinese

a. ni zhidao ma? 2SG know QP ‘Do you know (that)?’

b. ni bu zhidao ma? 2SG not know QP ‘Don’t you know (that)?’ (I think you know.)

The final particle ne used in questions2 can also be further divided into two: ne1, which is used in X-neg-X, alterative, and wh-questions, and ne2, which is used in the so-called “semantic wh-questions” (also known as “reduced wh-questions”; see Section 3.3).

2 ne can be used in declarative sentences as well, e.g. ta zai chifan ne. (3SG PROG eat.rice FP) ‘S/he is eating.’ However, it takes a neutral tone (unstressed) in declaratives, and thereby differs from a high level 55 tone in questions (ne55).

165

3 Question particles and final particles

(6) Standard Chinese

a. ni qu-bu-qu ne? 2SG go- not -go PRT ‘Will you go (there) or not?’

b. wo-de shu ne? 2SG-GEN book PRT ‘Where is my book?’

Justification for the distinctions between ma1/ma2 and ne1/ne2 comes from the fact that they are made consistently in many Sinitic languages. The distinction also helps in clarifying the nature of mane questions.

Yangjiang Cantonese In Yangjiang Cantonese, the question particle mo21 is used at the end of 21 yes-no questions (similar to Standard Chinese ma1), the final particle ne is used at the end of X-neg-X, alternative, and wh-questions (similar to Standard

Chinese ne1).

(7) Yangjiang Cantonese (Peng and Zhang 2008)

件事你知得麽？ a. jian shi ni zhide mo? DEF matter 2SG know QP ‘Do you know that matter?’

吃粥乜系吃饭呢？ b. chi zhou mie hai chi fan ne? eat porridge or be eatrice FP ‘{Will you/Shall we} eat porridge or rice?’ mo42ne21 (mo42 < mo21) is used mainly in two cases: normal yes-no questions (8a-b) and specific yes-no questions (8c-d).

(8) Yangjiang Cantonese (Peng and Zhang 2008)

件事你知得麽呢？ a. jian shi ni zhide mo ne? DEF matter 2SG know QP FP ‘Do you know that matter (or not)?’

166

3 Question particles and final particles

晚黑你得闲麽呢？ b. wanhei ni de xian mo ne? evening 2SG have time QP FP ‘Do you have some time tonight?’

除都我，还有乜谁麽呢？ c. chudou wo, haiyou mieshui mo ne? except 1SG have who QP FP ‘Except me, are there some other people (or not)?’

屋里来过 mi55 人麽呢？ d. wuli lai-guo mi ren mo ne? room come-PST what people QP FP ‘Did someone come (or not)?’

The difference between mo42ne21 questions and normal mo21 questions is that by using mo42ne21 a questioner wants to draw the addressee’s attention and requires a clear and quick yes-or-no answer, while using mo21 suggests a normal particle question.

Beiliu Cantonese In Beiliu Cantonese, the final particles ne and lo can be attached after the final question particle ma, so that questions end with mane and malo (cf. Section 2.1.1.3).

(9) Beiliu Cantonese (Xu 2008: 59)

王老师请着假嘛呢？ a. wang laoshi qing zhao jia ma ne? Wang teacher ask PST leave QP FP ‘Did teacher Wang ask for a leave (or not)?’

你想去北流嘛咯？ b. ni xiang qu beiliu ma lo? 2SG want go Beiliu QP FP ‘Do you want to go to Beiliu (or not)?’

167

3 Question particles and final particles

Shaoyang Xiang In Shaoyang Xiang, questions with ma42nã42 also imply that a questioner wants a clear and quick answer of yes-or-no. Li (2009) proposes that all questions that end with the question particle ma can be replaced by mane, with no special difference in meaning, but with a pragmatic difference, namely that the questioner has lost patience and thus asks in an impolite way.

(10) Shaoyang Xiang (Li 2009)

咯样搞要得吗？ a. ge-yang gao yaode ma? DEF-way do okay QP ‘Is it okay to do it this way?’

咯样搞要得吗呢？ b. ge-yang gao yaode ma ne? DEF-way do okay QP FP ‘Is it okay (or not) to do it this way?’

Chengbu Xiang In Chengbu Xiang, the question particle man55 is used in normal yes-no questions and man31 is mainly used in tags. The final particle lai31 is found in questions with wh-phrases, and lai55 is found in so-called semantic wh-questions.

(11) Chengbu Xiang (Tan 2010)

你老弟会来吗？ a. ni laodi hui lai man55? 2SG younger.brother will come QP ‘Will your younger brother come?’

其长的个像你屋里人一个，是你个崽吗？ b. ji shi ni ge zai man31? 3SG be 2SG GEN son QP ‘He is your son, right?’

168

3 Question particles and final particles

你来个里，有么个事找我呢？ c. you mege shi zhao wo lai31? have what matter find 1SG FP ‘What do you on earth want me to do for you?’

我个帽子呢？ d. wo ge maozi lai55? 1SG GEN hat FP ‘Where is my hat?’

In Chengbu Xiang, there is also a man55lai31 question, asked by impatient questioners who want a quick and clear answer.

(12) Chengbu Xiang (Tan 2010)

你老弟会来吗呢？ a. ni laodi hui lai man55 lai31? 2SG younger.brother will come QP FP ‘Will your younger brother come (or not)?’

其是昨天来个吗呢？ b. ji shi zuotian laige man55 lai31? 3SG be yesterday come QP FP ‘Is is true that s/he came yesterday?’

Chengbu Xiang usually lacks X-neg-X questions. Disjunctive-negative meaning is conveyed via final question particles man55 and man31, both also serve as final question particles in common yes-no questions. I classify X-neg-X questions and common yes-no questions as subtypes of polar questions (see Section 2.1.1.1.1), and it seems there is good reason to do so with regard to the interrogative strategies of Chengbu Xiang. In fact, some other Sinitic languages, e.g. Suzhou Wu, also do not have X-neg-X questions. A similar meaning is expressed by adv-X questions (see Section 2.1.1.3). This suggests that in Sinitic languages, X-neg-X questions are not as common as polar questions by question particles.

169

3 Question particles and final particles

Yongxin Gan3 maŋnε, or maŋlε4 questions in Yongxin Gan are mainly spoken in western townships like Wenzhu, Gaoxi, and Longtian, not in the Hechuan Township (the county town) and its neighboring districts, though the dialects are intelligible between speakers. In Yongxin Gan, the question particle maŋ is used in normal yes-no questions; the final particle nε is used in X-neg-X, alternatives, wh-questions, as well as in the so-called semantic/reduced wh-questions. A combination of the two, i.e., maŋnε is used when a questioner has lost patience and seeks a quick and clear answer of a polarity value. In Shaoyang Xiang (Li 2009), Chengbu Xiang (Tan 2010), and Yangjiang Cantonese (Zhou and Zhang 2008), polar questions ending with ma (and the like) can also be replaced by mane (and the like). This is, nevertheless, not the case in Yongxin Gan, in which many other factors must be taken into consideration. First, questions with maŋnε are not used in polite dialogues. This is because maŋnε implies a strong sense of impatience. For example, one can ask maŋ questions, but not maŋnε questions, of persons of a higher position or an older age or of strangers. Second, tense, aspect, and mood also matters. maŋnε questions are normally found in non-past tenses, non-perfect aspects, and in active , but not in the past, perfect, or passive.

(13) Yongxin Gan

你明天去芒呢/*芒能？ a. jin miŋman tɕhiε maŋ nε / *nεn? 2SG tomorrow go QP FP / NEG.PST ‘Will you go there tomorrow (or not)?’

你去哩*芒呢/芒能？ b. jin tɕhiε-li maŋ *nε / nεn? 2SG go-PST QP FP / NEG.PST ‘Did you go there (or not)?’

3 According to two native speaker informants, Leping Gan 乐平县鸬鹚埠乡 and Luxi Gan 芦 溪县宣风镇 also have ma ne questions, which are pɛ44ne44, and mo44ne44, respectively. 4 In Yongxin Gan, /n/ and /l/ are free variations.

170

3 Question particles and final particles

你去过哩*芒呢/芒能？ c. jin tɕhiε-guo-li maŋ *nε / nεn? 2SG go-EXP-PST QP FP / NEG.PST ‘Have you ever been there (or not)?’

你（被）得其打哩*芒呢/芒能？ d. jin (pei)de tɕi ta-li maŋ *nε / nεn? 2SG PASS 3SG beat-PST QP FP / NEG.PST ‘Were you beat by him (or not)?’

Grammatical expressions of (b-d) should have the modal verb nεn ‘not (yet)’ rather than the final particle nε at the end. I summarize the usage of maŋ, maŋnε, and maŋnεn in the following table.

Table 3.4. /maŋ/, /maŋnɛ/, and /maŋnεn/ in Yongxin Gan maŋ maŋnε maŋnεn all tenses non-past past all aspects non-perfect perfect all voices active passive

Except for maŋnε questions, there is also a maŋla question in Yongxin Gan. The semantic meaning of the two kinds of questions is basically the same, though, pragmatically, questions with maŋla are even less polite and the questioner has even less patience. Questions with maŋla are most commonly used in the present tense, seldom in the near future, never in the past or far future.

(14) Yongxin Gan

你（?下午/??明天/*明年）去芒啦？ a. jin (?mawu/??miænmã/*miænmã) tɕhiε maŋ la? 2SG this.afternoon/tomorrow/the.next.year go QP FP ‘Will you go there (this afternoon /tomorrow / the next year) (or not)?’

*你昨天去哩芒啦？ b. jin tshuomã tɕhiε-li maŋ *la / nεn? 2SG yesterday go-PST QP FP / NEG.PST Intended reading: ‘Did you go there yesterday (or not)?’

For questions like (14a), the degree of grammaticality is reduced when the reference time is future: ‘afternoon’ is somewhat acceptable, ‘tomorrow’ is

171

3 Question particles and final particles

strange, and ‘the next year’ is definitely ungrammatical in such sentences. As to (14b), either the final particle la should be dropped, or the negator nεn should be added (cf. 13).

Shangyou Hakka In Shangyou Hakka (spoken in the south of Jiangxi Province), there is a question particle ma55 and a final particle ne55, which can be used independently and together.

(15) Shangyou Hakka (Liu 1999: 740)

你会吗去？ a. ni hui ma qu? 2SG will QP go ‘Will you go (there)?’

你系吗去年结个婚？ b. ni xi ma qunian jie-ge-hun? 2SG be QP last.year ma-PST-rry ‘Did you marry last year?’

我要吗来呢？ c. wo yao ma lai ne? 1SG should QP come FP ‘Should I come?’

斫两斤猪肉做得吗呢？ b. liang-jin zhu-rou zuo-de ma-ne? 2SG two-CL pig-meat do-able QP-FP ‘Is it okay to buy one kilo of pork?’

Note that question particles in Shangyou Hakka come right after the questioned elements, not (necessarily) in sentence-final position.

3.2.2. The nature of ma ne polar questions

In the previous section, I have mentioned that in Standard Chinese, the question particle ma could be further divided into ma1 and ma2, ne could be further divided into ne1 and ne2. These divisions also apply in the six Sinitic languages

172

3 Question particles and final particles

with mane questions. The formation of mane in these languages is invariably ma1ne1, while *ma1ne2, *ma2ne1, and *ma2ne2 are not attested.

Table 3.5. ma, ne, and mane in six Sinitic languages

ma1 ma2 ne1 ne2 mane neutral suprise/rethoric ‘on earth’ wh- Yangjiang Cantonese mo21 me55 ne21 ne55 mo21ne21 Beiliu Cantonese ma ne, lo mane Shaoyang Xiang ma42 ã55 nã42 ma42nã42 Chengbu Xiang man55 man31 lai31 lai55 man55lai31 Yongxin Gan maŋ55 a55 lε21 lε55 naŋ55lε21 Shangyou Hakka mã55 nẽ55 mã55nẽ55

The reason that mane questions take ma1ne1 is that ma1 is neutral, and the force of ne1 is to probe, to ask an addressee to choose between yes or no, hence there is no semantic conflict between them. ma2 is commonly found in surprises, guesses, and rhetorical questions, which is with a low degree of interrogativity, and a speaker even seeks no answer in many cases. ne2 is used in the so-called semantic/reduced wh-questions and is irrelevant for the present purpose.

A combination of the question particle ma1 and the final particle ne1 suggests that questions with ma1ne1 are yes-no questions because interrogativity is carried by ma1. This can be seen in the distribution of mane questions in the six Sinitic languages mentioned above.

Table 3.6. Distribution of mane questions in six Sinitic languages

yes-no X-neg-X Alternative wh- Yangjiang Cantonese + - - - Beiliu Cantonese + - - - Shaoyang Xiang + - - - Chengbu Xiang + - - - Yongxin Gan + - - - Shangyou Hakka + - - -

A general summary of mane question is, that it is composed of ma1 and ne1, and is used in yes-no questions. mane questions express a strong sense of impatience and seek a quick and clear answer of a polarity value. It is rare in Sinitic languages, and (so far) only found in south China.

173

3 Question particles and final particles

3.3. Final particles in wh-questions

3.3.1. Final particles in wh-questions

In wh-questions of Standard Chinese, as they occur in polar questions, final particles express some ‘on earth’ meaning, or to the contrary, politeness, or even rhetorical meaning, depending on the context, although they are not necessary in forming wh-questions (cf. Jayaseelan 2012 for a similar observation in “many languages”, e.g. ; but see Cable 2010: 30-31 for Tlingit sá, Sinhala da, and Japanese ka, three question particles that must be used in some of their wh-questions and wh-indefinites; for Japanese ka, see also Wachowicz 1980, Jayaseelan 2012).

(16) Standard Chinese

a. shui zhidao? (wh-question) who know ‘Who knows this?’

b. shui zhidao a/ne? (wh-question, rhetorical/‘on earth’/politeness) who know FP ‘Who knows? (I don’t know.)’ / ‘Who on earth knows this?’ / ‘(Please tell me) Who knows this?’

c. shui zhidao ma? (polar question) who know QP ‘Does someone know this?’

Note that a wh-question turns into a polar question if question the particle ma is used (16c). (16c) is a case of indefinite-interrogative affinity (see, e.g. Li 1992, Haspelmath 1997, Bhat 2000, Gärtner 2009). In fact, in Standard Chinese the wh-phrases turn to be indefinite pronouns if question particle ma (and the like) is added at the end of a content question, cf. shui ‘who ~ someone’ (16c), nali ‘where ~ somewhere’, shenme ‘what ~ something’, etc. Final particles are used very commonly in the wh-questions of Sinitic languages. As far as the dialects (or, varieties) of Sinitic languages are concerned in the present study, only some dialects of Gan seem not to include such final particles. For example, Jishui Gan normally does not take any final particles in

174

3 Question particles and final particles

wh-questions; and Old Nanchang Gan, which is spoken in the capital city of Jiangxi Province, does not have any final particles in wh-questions, though younger generations may use some, which is a clear case of borrowing (from Standard Chinese). In the minority languages of China, very frequently, final particles are also found in wh-questions, carrying a similar meaning as they do in Sinitic.

Table 3.7. Final particles in wh-questions in 128 minority languages

With particles Without particles Unknown 79 3 46

The three languages that are reported not to have final particles in wh-questions are Dongxiang (Liu 1981: 105), Sulong (Li 2004: 166), and Za (Li and Jiang 2001). Note, however, that the two latter descriptions are by the same author, and conceivably final particles have not been at the centre of his attention. The final particles in wh-questions in 79 languages are listed in the following table. (For the three Kam languages, i.e. Mo, Mulao, and Caijia, we still lack relevant information; languages with final particles in reduced wh-questions are not included here, see Section 3.3.2.)

Table 3.8. Final particles in wh-questions of 79 minority languages

KAM HMONG-MIEN (MIAO-YAO) Zhuang ne, ni, da, ha Hmong (Miao) nen35, nend Dai li1, tsa5, a2 Baheng lɦε33 Lingao ni2 Jiongnai ni35 Biao ni1 Mian (Mien) njε42, ləi24, səi33 Shui ndje44, ɣo2 She nji6 Mulam ja5, ni5 5 Maonan lε AUSTRO-ASIATIC Mo (unknown) Wa (Va) hliex Yanghuang ȵi0 De’ang ε Lajia a3 Jing dəi1, ne1 Li ne2/ni2, ja2, h(a)ɯ2 Buxing ŋa Cun ni, he Lai ʔe2, ʔe4 Buyang hε0 Mulao (unknown) CREOLE Caijia (unknown) Dao ne, ni

175

3 Question particles and final particles

TIBETO-BURMAN AUSTRONESIAN Tibetan na, pa Amis ʃaw Menba kʌ31 Bunun i/iʃ Baima uε53 Pazeh paj Cangluo ja Sedeq da Yami ja Yi lo21 Huihui ne44, nə33, lɔ11 Lisu ŋa4 1 Lahu le TURKIC Hani la31, a31 Uighur (Uygur)du/tu Jinuo ε44 Kazak/Kazakh ʃe Naxi le/lei Salar i Tanglang ȵi55, le55 33 Sangkong le MONGOLIAN Bisu ni55ɤ31 Mongolian bee, (ă)b Kazhuo ŋa31 Daur jee, jəə Rouruo ȵi55, ɣa55, ɣɯ53 Bao’an se Nusu ne55/le55, ɕi55 Eastern Yugur ja, bə/wə Tujia a21 (la55, la21, li21) Kangjia ba

51 51 1 1 Jingpo ta , ni , lo , o MANCHU-TUNGUSIC Dulong da55 Manchu ni, nio Geman tauŋ35 Evenki bixxə, gə Darang ja35 Oreqen jee Anong da53 Yidu a31 (wa53) Bengni-Boga’er jeteː Bengru ja31

Achang ne21 Zaiwa li55, la31, lu55, thaʔ31 Langsu la31 Xiandao la31 Bola i55 Leqi la53, a53ka33

Qiang a (na, ŋua), mi, ma Ersu i33 Shixing wo33 Zhaba a33 Lawurong sə53, ɕə33

176

3 Question particles and final particles

The table suggests that the most common onset of the syllable structure of final particles in the wh-questions of minority languages are n- and l-, and the most common nucleus is a, both are features of Standard Chinese and many other Sinitic languages. There is no clear clue to trace their common origin (if any), but there are some clear cases of borrowing, e.g. Mian and Zhuang (see Section 7.2.1).

3.3.2. Final particles in reduced wh-questions

In Standard Chinese, reduced wh-questions, or semantic wh-questions, are a type of questions that normally have a NP/VP plus the final particle ne (and its variants, e.g. , lie, na), which express the same meaning as content questions, e.g. ‘Where is…?’, ‘How about…?’, ‘How to do with …?’, ‘What if …?’, etc. Reduced wh-questions in Standard Chinese can be further classified into three subtypes. I label them as [S PRON ne], [NP ne/na], [VP ne], as exemplified in (17a), (17b), and (17c) respectively.

(17) Standard Chinese

a. wo jinnian sanshisui, ni ne? (S, PRON ne?) 1SG this.year 30.years.old 2SG PRT ‘I am thirty years old. And (how old are) you?’

b. wo de zixingche ne/na? (NP ne/na?) 1SG GEN bicycle FP ‘Where is my bicycle?’ or ‘How about my bicycle?’ (less common)

c. ta bu lai ne? (VP ne?) 3SG NEG come FP ‘What if s/he does not come?’ (How to do if s/he does not come?)

Questions like (a), that is, a tag-like question after a declarative clause, are similar to English ‘(and) how about…?’. Questions like (b) are formed by an NP plus a final particle. Ambiguity arises if the particle is ne: it could either be ‘where is…?’ or ‘how about…?’, though it consistently means ‘where is…?’ if na is chosen instead (but na is used not as common as ne). Questions like (c) are normally found to have a verb, meaning ‘{what if / how to do} if something happens?’.

177

3 Question particles and final particles

In Standard Chinese, the final particles found in reduced wh-questions like (a) and (c) can only be ne, while both ne and na can be used in reduced wh-questions like (b). This is very different from the final particles in normal wh-questions, where more final particles can be used, such as ne, a, ya, na (see 4.3.1). In fact, a distinction between final particles in reduced wh-questions and normal wh-questions is systematic in Sinitic languages.

Table 3.9. Final particles in wh-questions in Sinitic languages5

Sinitic Dialect Variety Normal wh- Reduced wh- Mandarin Beijing Beijing a (ya, na), ne ne Jiao-Liao Longkou lo, la ne Southwest Changyang sa lie/tie Southwest Enshi ʂa le Southwest Xishui le, ma an

Wu Taihu Shanghai a, la ne 55 55 44 44 21 Taihu Suzhou tɕiAʔ , nəʔ , ɒ , lɒ nəʔ Taihu Ningbo la, ȵi ȵi

Cantonese Guangfu Guangzhou a33, ka33, pɔ33, wɔ33, nε55 nε55 Goulou Beiliu a, ne, lo ne

Hakka Ning-Long Nankang o ne Ning-Long Xinfeng No particles (ne)

Gan Chang-Du Nanchang a, o, ne ne Ji-Cha Yongxin la42, ne44 ne44

Xiang Chang-Yang Changsha lo ȵie Lou-Shao Qiyang la, ne ne Lou-Shao Lianyuan Gutang a, lɔ, la lε, la

Min Quan-Zhang Tainan a, le, han, hio le

Jin Bingzhou Taiyuan liɛ44, le44 le44

Hui Qi-De Qimen a, ne, na ne Xiu-Yi Wuyuan a, ne ne

Ping North Yongfu Tangbao ai31, au31, lie, nie æ35, lie, nie North Lingui Liangjiang æ33, le13, le35 le13, le35 North Yangshuo Putao lie44 lie44, e44

5 See Section 2.1.1.3 for the references and more final particles in wh-questions.

178

3 Question particles and final particles

At least two conclusions can be drawn here. First, the number of final particles used in reduced wh-questions is smaller than that used in normal wh-questions. Second, final particles in reduced wh-questions most commonly have a nasal or labial initial consonant, which is very likely a result of the borrowing from Standard Chinese (see, for example, Li 1998: 106 for discussions on Suzhou Wu). In the minority languages of China, the distinction between final particles in reduced wh-questions and normal wh-questions is also clear and systematic: see Table 3.10 (see individual languages in Chapter 2 for the references).

Table 3.10. Final particles in wh-questions in 17 minority languages

Family/Group Languages Normal wh- Reduced wh- Tibeto-Burman Dulong da55 da55 Geman tauŋ35 lo55 Anong da53 le53 Qiang a (na, ŋua), mi, ma ȵi

Kam Zhuang ne, ni, da, ha ne Lingao ni2 ni2, ni5 Biao ni1 ni1 Shui ndje4, ɣo2 ni4 Mulam ja5, ni5 nε5/lε5 Yanghuang ȵi0 ȵi4

Hmong-Mien Mian (Mien) njε42, ləi24, səi33 lε5 She nji6 ni1

Turkic Kazak (Kazakh) ʃe ʃe

Mongolian Kangjia ba le

Austronesian Huihui ne44, nə33, lɔ11 ne24

Austro-Asiatic Jing dəi1, ne1 ni1 Lai ʔe2, ʔe4 ndi3

Some languages that have final particles in reduced wh-questions are not included here, because the information on those particles used in normal wh-questions is not available, or they do not use final particles in normal

179

3 Question particles and final particles

wh-questions. These languages include: Tibetan, Sulong, Pumi, rGyarong (Tibeto-Burman); Bouyei, Kam, Gelao, Laji, Caijia (Kam); Kirgiz, Uzbek, Tatar (Turkic); Tu (Mongolian); Manchu (Manchu-Tungusic); and Mang (Austro- Asiatic). A similarity lies in the minority languages and Sinitic languages: the conclusions drawn about Sinitic languages (see Table 3.9) are also valid here. A smaller number of final particles are found in reduced wh-questions than in normal wh-questions, and most of them have an l-/n- initial consonant. Three issues deserve to be commented on here. One is that a wh-question plus a final particle may result a rhetorical question in many Sinitic languages, e.g. Standard Chinese, and in some minority languages in China, e.g. Jinuo and Yi.

(18) Standard Chinese

ta zenme/nali hui zuofan a/ya/ne? 3SG how/where know cook.rice FP ‘How could s/he know how to cook?’ (S/he doesn’t know cooking.)

(19) Jinuo (Gai 1986: 119)

ɕe33 khε53 nε35 a? DEF where 2SG.GEN FP ‘How can you claim it is yours?’ (It is not yours.)

(20) Yi (Li 1996: 139-40)

na21 e55 xa55 a21so33 mu21 ɣa21 kɯ21 ɣa33? thing DEF CL who do PRT can ADV ‘Who can not do it?’ (Everyone can do it.)

See Dai et al. (1991: 347) for Bola examples, Dai et al. (1991: 369) and Dai et al. (2005: 97) for Xiandao. Another matter is the placement of particles in wh-questions. In Yi (20), the particle ɣa21 does not take a sentence-final position (as it normally does), but a sentence-medial position. This phenomenon is rarely attested in the minority languages of China: only two plausible cases are found in Amis and Pazeh (both are Formosan languages).

180

3 Question particles and final particles

(21) Amis (Chen 2007a: 2334)

jaten ikuŋŋu ja, dʒi nawuɖ ? 1PL why PRT NEG reproduce ‘Why does our population not increase?’

(22) Pazeh (Zeng 2007: 2214)

asaj paj mini? what PRT DEF ‘What’s this?’

Finally, a wh-question plus a final question particle may also result in a yes-no question, but this is not the case if a final particle is added on.

(23) Standard Chinese

a. ta chi le shenme ma? 3SG eat PST what QP ‘Did s/he eat something?’

b. ta chi le shenme ne/a? 3SG eat PST what FP ‘What did s/he eat?’

For further discussion of final particles in wh-questions in Standard Chinese, see Huang et al. (2009: 273-81).

181

3 Question particles and final particles

3.4. Summary

In the beginning of this chapter, the terms question particle, final particle, and modal particle were (re)introduced. I then showed that the positions of question particles in the languages of China are very different from the worldwide language sample by Dryer (2005b) in that (i) most languages (c. 90%) prefer sentence-final positions for question particles, while Dryer’s sample reports that a much smaller proportion of languages (c. 35%) prefer sentence-final question particles, and (ii) in Dryer’s data, many languages are reported to have sentence-initial question particles (c. 15%) or simply do not use any question particles (c. 40%), both cases are rare in the languages of China (Section 3.1). See Map 8 and Maps 2, 7 in Appendix II for the language atlas. The discussion on ma ne questions in Sinitic languages (Section 3.2) reveals that such questions are formed by a question particle plus a final particle, not by two questions particles, which dispels the myth of the so-called ‘questions with two questions particles’. Three Gan languages, Yongxin Gan, Leping Gan, and Luxi Gan, are reported to have ma ne questions for the first time. As has been observed in literature, in Standard Chinese (and in many other Sinitic languages as well), final particles determine the nature of wh-questions, in particular, wh-questions are turned into yes-no/rhetorical questions, or declaratives (assertions), or bear some ‘on earth’ meaning, if proper question particles are used sentence-finally. To fine-tune some of the details, I checked the final particles in wh-questions in 138 languages of China and found that 79 minority languages and all Sinitic languages (10 lgs) have such a strategy. A detailed list of such final particles in the 79 minority languages is also provided in Section 3.3.1. In the so-called ‘reduced wh-questions’, it is found that the number of final particles is less than those used in equivalent normal wh-questions. Moreover, final particles in reduced wh-questions in many minority languages are very likely to be borrowed from Chinese. Two detailed lists of final particles in normal wh-questions and reduced wh-questions, one on Sinitic languages, another on minority languages, are provided in Section 3.3.2. The next chapter analyzes disjunctions and alternative questions. Continuing a point raised in the present chapter, it includes a section on particles as disjunctions in alternative questions (Section 4.3).

182

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

Chapter 4

Disjunctions and alternative questions

The subject of coordination has drawn wide scholarly attention and produced a huge amount of literature (see, e.g. Haspelmath 2004, 2007 and references cited therein; see also Stassen 2000 for and/with typology). This is, however, not the case for disjunction. As Haspelmath noted in his overview of a collection of seventeen essays on coordinating constructions,

Disjunctive (‘or’) coordination is much less prominent in this volume than conjunctive coordination, and this is not surprising because it is also less prominent in language use. (Haspelmath 2004: 27) and Mauri noted in her monograph on coordination,

Most of the typology studies on coordination however, focus on conjunctive1 construction, and leave constructions coding contrast and alternative relations a bit in the background. (Mauri 2008: 4)

Against this backdrop, this chapter focuses on disjunction with particular reference to alternative questions. It distinguishes alternative questions (with positive-negative disjuncts) and X-neg-X questions in Standard Chinese (Section 4.1). Moreover, it proposes an or and or/or? typology in alternative questions (Section 4.2). Attention is also paid to particles that function as disjunctions (Section 4.3), and to some restrictions in alternative islands in Sinitic languages (Section 4.4). It should be stated at the outset that this chapter concentrates on the

1 Coordination consists of three members: conjunctive (e.g. and), adversative (e.g. but), and disjunctive (e.g. or) (see Mauri 2008: 1). Some linguists, however, classify and/but/or as a subtype of (co-ordinating) disjunctions (see, e.g. Crystal 2008: 101).

183

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

morphosyntax of alternative questions; intonation and prosody are not central topics here. For example, a difference between English and Standard Chinese is that, in English, a question in the form of alternatives can be a yes/no question in reality, depending on intonation and prosody, compare: Do you like [apples]↗ or [oranges]↘? (alternative question), Do you like [apples or oranges]↗? (yes/no question) (see e.g. Han and Romero 2004 and references given therein; see also Jennings 1994: 27); this is, however, not the case in Standard Chinese, where questions of this form (X disj Y) must be real alternative questions, regardless of intonation and prosody. No yes/no-question readings are possible, compare: ni xihuan [pingguo] haishi [juzi]? (2SG like apple or orange) ‘Do you like apples or oranges? (Which one?)’, *ni xihuan [pingguo haishi juzi]? Another matter is that or and or/or? do not account for all the disjunction types in alternative questions in the languages of China, let alone other languages, as disjunctions in alternative questions have various origins. For example, in the Sariqul dialect of Tajik (Indo-European) spoken in China, alternative questions take the form X prt disj Y prt, where the disjunction naji ‘not’ is a negation word (alternative questions in the Wux dialect of Tajik take a similar structure, i.e. X prt, disj Y, but the disjunction jo ‘or’ is not from a negator, it is a real disjunction; see Gao 1985: 65, 118). In Longgu (Austronesian, Solomon Islands; Hill 1992: 308), the disjunction bwala ‘or’ is homonymous with the independent polarity form bwala ‘no’ (Dixon 2012: 398)2. In Dargi (Daghestanian), aħi ‘or’ is most probably a petrified gerund form of the negative auxiliary root aħ ‘not be’ (van den Berg 2004). Yet there are other languages demonstrating a neutralization of conjunctions and disjunctions, e.g. Upriver (Salish) qə ‘and/or’ (and ‘but’ as well), Thai kàp ‘with/and/or’, and Hua (Papua New Guinea) ve ‘and/or’ (see Ohori 2004). Nevertheless, a typology of or vs or/or? is meaningful, at least for the languages of China, as it does cover a majority of languages and correlates with some other parameters (e.g. clause order, position of adpositions; see Sections 4.2.3-4).

2 Note that Dixon’s (2012: 398-9) examples of alternative questions in Standard Chinese and Cantonese are in fact X-neg-X questions, in which the negators, i.e. bu ‘not’ in Chinese, and m̀h ‘not’ in Cantonese, are not disjunctions (see Section 4.1).

184

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

4.1. Alternative vs X-neg-X questions

In Section 2.1.1.1, it was mentioned that in Standard Chinese, alternative questions with two disjuncts resemble X-neg-X questions if the second disjunct is a negation of the first, i.e. X disj neg-X. This thesis does not include X-neg-X questions as a subtype of alternative questions. Section 2.1.1.1 demonstrates that, in Standard Chinese, a content question can express the same information as an alternative question, but cannot express what an X-neg-X question expresses. In addition to this, there are more reasons to differentiate between the two types of questions. First, superficially, an alternative question would take more than two disjuncts, e.g. X, Y, or Z, whereas an X-neg-X has only two constituents, i.e. X and neg-X. An alternative question shows some similarities with an X-neg-X question only when it has two disjuncts, one positive and another negative. Second, more restrictions are placed on alternative questions in their syntactic alternations, but very few on X-neg-X questions. Consider example (1a) (which is an alternative question with the disjunction haishi ‘or’, and an X-neg-X question when it is omitted), and its syntactic alternations:

(1) Standard Chinese

a. ni qu Beijing (haishi) bu qu Beijing? 2SG go Beijing or not go Beijing ‘Are you going to Beijing or not?’

b. Alternative question alternations ni qu Beijing haishi bu qu Beijing? VP-disj-neg-VP ni qu Beijing haishi bu qu? VP-disj-neg-V *ni qu Beijing haishi bu? *VP-disj-neg ??ni qu haishi bu qu Beijing? ??V-disj-neg-VP

c. X-neg-X question alternations ni qu Beijing bu qu Beijing? VP-neg-VP ni qu Beijing bu qu? VP-neg-V ni qu Beijing bu? VP-neg ni qu bu qu Beijing? V-neg-VP

185

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

It can be seen that in alternative questions, VP-disj-neg is ungrammatical and V-disj-neg-VP is very strange, while the same structures in X-neg-X questions are grammatical. More restrictions can be seen when an adjective (phrase) functions as a predicate. As is suggested by the following example and its alternations, in alternative questions, AP-disj-neg-A, AP-disj-neg, and A-disj-neg-AP are all ungrammatical; whereas in X-neg-X questions, only AP-neg-A is ungrammatical.

(2) Standard Chinese

a. Mali haokan (haishi) bu haokan? Mary good.looking or not good.looking ‘Is Mary beautiful or not?’

b. Alternative question alternations Mali haokan haishi bu haokan? AP-disj-neg-AP *Mali haokan haishi bu hao? *AP-disj-neg-A *Mali haokan haishi bu? *AP-disj-neg *Mali hao haishi bu haokan? *A-disj-neg-AP

c. X-neg-X question alternations Mali haokan bu haokan? AP-neg-AP *Mali haokan bu hao? *AP-neg-A Mali haokan bu? AP-neg Mali hao bu haokan? A-neg-AP

Third, some subtle semantic differences exist between alternative questions and X-neg-X questions, that is, alternative questions require clearer answers than X-neg-X questions. In the following examples, it is fine to answer (3a) in an indirect way, like I practiced the piano for two months…, I practiced the piano when I was five…, which do not answer the question directly (e.g. an addressee wants to pretend that s/he knows to some extent how to play the piano but in fact s/he does not play at the moment), which is similar to answering a common yes/no question ni hui tan gangqin ma? (2SG can play piano QP) ‘Do you know how to play the piano?’. However, a clear and prompt yes/no response must be given when answering (3b).

186

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

(3) Standard Chinese

a. ni hui bu hui tan gangqin? 2SG can NEG can play piano ‘Do you know how to play the piano(, or not)?’

b. ni hui tan gangqin haishi bu hui (tan gangqin)? 2SG can play piano or NEG can play piano ‘Do you really know how to play the piano, or not?’

The criterion for distinguishing positive-negative alternative questions and X-neg-X questions is whether there is a disjunction between two alternatives. If there is a disjunction, it is an alternative question; if not, it is an X-neg-X question. A disjunction marker can also be a particle (see Section 4.3), or a pause between the disjuncts, or body language like gestures and eye movements, or any other strategies to separate the two disjuncts. In his recent publication, Dixon (2012: 398-400) included a section on alternative questions, and cited Standard Chinese and Cantonese examples, Standard Chinese ni qu bu qu? (2SG go not go) ‘Will you go?’, Cantonese leih sik-mh-sik ngoh sailou a? (2SG know-NEG-know my brother PRT) ‘Do you know my brother?’ Following the criterion here, the two examples are in fact X-neg-X questions, as there are no normal disjunctions between the constituents, nor can one find particles, pauses, or even body gestures in the examples. (See Section 2.1.1.1. for more discussion of the classification of question types in Standard Chinese and other Sinitic languages.)

187

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

4.2. Alternative questions: the or vs or/or? typology

4.2.1. Introducing the or vs or/or? typology

In most Indo-European languages, e.g. English, German, and Catalan, the same disjunction is used in both declarative sentences and interrogative alternatives.

(4) English

a. I will come this afternoon or tomorrow morning. b. Will you come today or tomorrow?

(5) German

a. Ich komme heute Nachmittag oder morgen Früh. 1SG come.FUT.1SG today afternoon or tomorrow morning ‘I will come this afternoon or tomorrow morning.’

b. Kommst du heute oder morgen? come.FUT.2SG 2SG today or tomorrow ‘Will you come today or tomorrow?’

In Standard Chinese, however, disjunctions used in declarative sentences and interrogative sentences are different. As Chao (1968) pointed out correctly (but put in a somewhat different way):3

For the ‘or’-words in Chinese, it makes a difference whether it is a disjunctive ‘or’ (the ‘or’ of ‘whether or’) or an alternative ‘or’ (the ‘or’ of ‘either or’). In the former case the word usually regarded as the equivalent to ‘or’ is haishi… In the latter case the equivalent to ‘or’ is huozhe or huoshi. (Chao 1968: 265)

In Standard Chinese, huo(zhe) ‘or’ is used in declarative sentences, while haishi ‘or’ is used in interrogative sentences. I call the languages that have different disjunctions in declarative and interrogative sentences or/or?-languages (declarative or vs. interrogative or), like Standard Chinese; 4 while those languages which lack such a difference, like English and German, are called or-languages.

3 For similar observations, see also Li and Thompson (1981: 653-4), Haspelmath (2007). 4 An or/or? language outside China is Finnish (Finno-Ugric, Uralic), where a distinction between declarative ‘or’ tai and interrogative ‘or’ vai is made. Thanks to Matti Miestamo for pointing out this fact to me.

188

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

(6) Standard Chinese

a. wo jintian xiawu huo(zhe) mingtian shangwu lai. 1SG today afternoon or tomorrow morning come ‘I will come this afternoon or tomorrow morning.’

b. ni jintian (lai) haishi mingtian lai? 2SG today come or.be tomorrow come ‘Will you come today or tomorrow?’

4.2.2. The or vs or/or? typology

My investigation of 138 languages of China found that 32 languages distinguish or and or/or? in declarative and alternative questions, while 25 languages show no such difference; for 81 languages the relevant information is lacking or they are irrelevant for the present purpose (for example, 28 languages use particles rather than disjunctions; see Section 4.3). Among the 32 or/or? languages, 10 are Sinitic, 7 Tibeto-Burman, 7 Kam, 1 Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao), 2 Altaic, 1 Austronesian, and 4 Austro-Asiatic. It is clear that or/or?-languages are widespread among the languages in China. However, the only Indo-European language of China, Tajik, as well as all Creole languages are or languages.

Table 4.1. The or vs or/or? typology in 138 languages of China

Family Group or/or? or Others Sino-Tibetan (85) Sinitic (10) 10 0 0 Tibeto-Burman (46) 7 8 31 Kam (22) 7 9 6 Miao-Yao (7) 1 3 3

Altaic (22) Turkic (9) 1 2 6 Mongolian (7) 0 0 7 Manchu-Tungusic (6) 1 0 5

Austronesian (16) 1 3 12 Austro-Asiatic (9) 4 0 5 Indo-European (1) 0 0 1 Creole (5) 0 0 5 Total 32 25 81

189

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

Notes 1. The numbers in parentheses are the total number of languages in a certain group/family in China. The numbers without parentheses are the number of or-languages, or/or?-languages, and other languages. 2. The languages grouped as “others” include those alternative questions formed by other strategies, e.g. particle disjunctions (including 28 languages, see Section 4.3), and the languages still undescribed. 3. Some languages have more than one linking strategy in alternative questions, e.g. Yongxin Gan has both particles and a division in or vs or/or? disjunctions, we classify these languages as or/or?-languages.

The following table gives details of the disjunctions used in declarative sentences and alternative questions in the 32 or/or?-languages.

Table 4.2. Disjunctions in 32 or/or?-languages in China

Languages Declarative Alternative Q References Standard Chinese xuo51(tʂe214) xai35ʂʅ51 Personal knowledge Gan (Nanchang) jiaopu xaisɿ Personal knowledge Cantonese (Guangzhou) waatse wanxæ, tsoŋxæ Native speakers Wu (Shanghai) vətsə xæsɿ Native speakers Hakka (Nankang) toŋ xæxei Native speakers Xiang (Hengyang) (jiaomə…jiaomə)xai11sɿ213 Native speakers Min (Zhangzhou) (bo, m) asi Native speakers Jin (Taiyuan) jiaopulao xaisɿ Native speakers Hui (Qimen) xuo33ɕi42 xuɔ̃ 55ɕi42 Native speakers Ping (Lingui) (xo31tsə31) hæ31ʃi33 Liang 2005: 213, 217

Jinuo mɔ44ŋə44vu44læ33 ku55khæ42vu42læ33 Gai 1986: 113, 118 Kazhuo mo55ni31/ma31ŋ33 mε33sɿ55 Mu 2003: 100, 121 Geman boi53xa31ɹ a55 na55 Li 2002: 211 Yidu khiŋ55ge33pa31 a55i33soŋ55 Jiang 2005: 178 ji55e53aŋ35 Sulong hi33jaŋ55la33 biar55 Li 2004: 174; 2005 Xiandao lau55/51 mɤ55ʂɿ31 Dai et al. 2005: 128 Lawurong ɕə55 mə33rə53 Huang 2007b: 127, 132

Lingao huk8tse3 ha4ti4 Zhang et al. 1985: 186 Kam ho2kaːi1 ɕi6 Liang 1980a: 58 Mulam hɔ6si6/hɔ6tse3 sɿ /a6si6 Wang & Zheng 1980: 57

190

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

Yanghuang hwə5 (tsa2) hai1sɿ1 Bo 1997: 100, 133 Li ta1kom3 tsha3 Yuan 1994: 155 Cun hɔk1 (huan4/za5)si5 Ouyang 1998: 126 Gelao hue31tse33 lɒ33 He 1983: 42

She fek8 a1ki1 Mao and Meng 1982

Tuwa ne dʒoq Wu 1999: 151 Manchu xuəʂʅ xεʂʅ Wang 2005: 79, 243

Huihui hok24tsak43 ʔa11ti11 Zheng 1997: 85

Wa (Va) ndāeh (mōh) geem mōh Zhao 2006: 133, 211 Bulang koʔ 4pin1 am2 Li et al. 1986: 69 Jing hwak8 hai1la2 Ouyang et al. 1984: 92-3 Buxing pusɣ5 haisɿ Gao 2004: 106

Several matters deserve to be mentioned here. First, disjunctions in Sinitic languages are basically the same. Second, many minority languages, notably Kam languages, have borrowed disjunctions from Chinese (cf. Standard Chinese huo(zhe) ‘or’ and haishi ‘or.be’). Nevertheless, the ways of borrowing varies, for example, Kazhuo and Xiandao borrowed disjunctions in alternative questions from Chinese, but no disjunctions in declarative sentences; Gelao, on the other hand, borrowed a disjunction in declarative sentences, but no disjunctions in alternative questions (see Section 7.2.3 for more discussion of disjunction borrowing). Third, the differences between disjunctions in declarative questions and alternative questions are great. There is no phonological likeness in declarative disjunctions and alternative disjunctions in any individual language (Jinuo is a possible exception). Finally, some languages have very long disjunctions, e.g. Yidu khiŋ55ge33pa31ji55e53aŋ35 and a55i33soŋ55, Jinuo mɔ44ŋə44vu44læ33 and ku55khæ42vu42læ33, which are very unusual. Turning now to the 25 languages which show no difference between disjunctions in declaratives and interrogatives, the following table gives details.

5 Buxing pusɤ ‘or’ in declaratives is borrowed from Chinese bushi ‘not.be’ (Gao 2004: 106).

191

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

Table 4.3. Disjunctions in 25 or-languages in China

Lg groups Languages Disjunctions References Yi Hani maqnaaq Li 1990: 188, 194 Lahu ma3he3lε1 Chang 1986: 71 Naxi nɯ55 He and Jiang 1982: 79, 98, 102 Sangkong a31ɣ55la55o33 Li 2002: 202-3, 206 Tujia xo55, so55 Tian et al. 1986: 85, 105-9 Yi nɣ33 Wang 2004

Jingpo Jingpo shing1n2rai2 Dai and Xu 1992: 235-6

Qiangic Pumi dia13 Lu 1983: 62, 88

Hmong-Mien Bunu lɣ6(tɣu2) Mao et al. 1982: 98-9, 103, 113 Mian ha6tsei4 Mao et al. 1982: 43, 47 Miao ho44 Wang 1985: 66

Kam Biao waːk10tsε1 Liang & Zhang 2002: 113, 120, 126 Buyang nɔ24 Li 1999: 66, 77 Buyi mɯ5 Yu 1980: 38, 61 Laiji a44ɕo44ku44 Li 2000: 134, 146, 185 Maonan wo3 Liang 1980b: 59 Mo ju3ȶaːŋ3, haːi4sɿ1 Yang 2000: 143-4, 149 Pubiao haːi53ʂʅ213 Liang 2007: 61, 77 Shui ɣo3si3 Zhang 1980: 56, 74 Zhuang ɣo4nau2 Wei and Qin 1980: 51, 70, 73

Turkic Kirgiz dʒe Hu 1986: 152 Uzbek jʌ(ki) Cheng et al. 1987: 120, 148

Formosan Amis anutʃa He at al. 1986: 97-8 Bunun a(d)u Chen 1992: 175-8 Paiwan manu Chen and Ma 1986: 74, 91, 93-4

Tujia xo55, Miao ho44, Mian ha6tsei4, Biao waː k10tsε1, Shui ɣo3si3, Maonan wo3, Mo haːi4sɿ1, and Pubiao hai53ʂʅ213 (note that Biao, Shui, Maonan, Mo, and Pubiao are all Kam languages) are clear cases of disjunction borrowing from Chinese (see Section 7.2.3 for more discussions).

192

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

4.2.3. The position of or and or/or?

In some languages, e.g. English and Standard Chinese, in alternative structures a pause can only be made after the first disjunct but before the disjunction, as exemplified in the following (pause suggested by a ).

(7) English

a. Are you going to Beijing, or Shanghai? b. *Are you going to Beijing or, Shanghai?

(8) Standard Chinese

a. ni qu Beijing, haishi Shanghai? 2SG go Beijing or Shanghai ‘Are you going to Beijing or Shanghai?’

b. *ni qu Beijing haishi, Shanghai?

In English and Standard Chinese, a disjunction (and a pause before) takes a left-periphery position of the second disjunct, i.e. disjunct1 [disj disjunct2]. In some other languages, however, it is preferable to have a disjunction (and a pause after) at the right-peiphery position of the first disjunct, i.e. [disjunct1 disj] 6 disjunct2, such as Naxi and Tujia (Yi, Tibeto-Burman, Sino-Tibetan).

(9) Naxi (He and Jiang 1982: 98)

ŋv55 tʂhɯ33ȵi 33 bɯ33 nɯ55,so31ȵi 33 bɯ33? 2SG.HON today go or tomorrow go ‘Will you go (there) today or tomorrow?’

(10) Tujia (Tian et al. 1986: 105)

ni35 tsi55kɨe55 ma55 tɕi55 xo21,tha55ne55 ma55 tɕi55? 2SG ahead horse ride or after horse ride ‘Will you ride (your horse) in front (of me/us) or after?’

6 Prosodic attachment in coordinations, that is, cliticisation, is a preference in some languages, e.g. English fish’n chips, come’n go. However, so far I am not aware of any language that shows similar prosodic attachment in disjunctions. It seems that disjunctive structures are more consistent in syntax and prosody (both X [or Y]) than coordinative structures (syntax X [and Y], prosody can be [X and] Y).

193

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

We call the languages like English and Standard Chinese as disj-pre languages, and languages like Naxi and Tujia disj-post languages.7 In Liu’s (2003: 74-5) terminology, the two terms above are covered by his “prepositional disjunctions” and “postpositional disjunctions”8, respectively. Liu (2003: 94-5) also proposes that disjunctions are in a harmonic word order with adpositions, e.g. Japanese is postpositional, and has “postpositional disjunctions”; Chinese and English are prepositional, and have “prepositional disjunctions”. In our survey of 138 languages in China, however, the findings are not in accordance with Liu’s predictions. As is suggested by the left half of Table 4.4, in 32 or/or?-languages, the majority of disj-pre languages use prepositions (22/29), and the two disj-post languages both use postpositions; nevertheless, if we arrange the table in different way, by setting adpositions as the starting point (see the right half of the table), it can be seen that 22 out of 23 prepositional languages are disj-pre, while only 2 out of 9 postpositional languages are with disj-post, and 7 postpositional languages are with disj-pre.

Table 4.4. Correlations between disjunctions and adpositions in 32 or/or?- languages

Disj Adpo Adpo Disj pre 29 Pr 22, Po7 Pr 23 pre 22, post 0, pre/post 1 post 2 Pr 0, Po2 Po 9 pre 7, post 2 pre/post 19 Pr 1, Po 0

7 For the present purpose, we limit the discussion here to or. In fact, languages do demonstrate a typology in the position of disjunctions, and it is more appropriate to label them as disj-pre and disj-post languages, see, e.g. Kuno (1978: 122) for Japanese disjunct-post disjunction node ‘since’ (cf. Liu 2003: 74-5). But note that the position of or and other disjunctions may be different (see the discussion below). In some cases, English or can take the initial position of a mono-disjunct, e.g. ‘What’s so funny?’ said Burden sourly. ‘Or has that Mrs. Lake been cheering you up?’ (Ruth Rendell Sanke Hands Forever, cited in Jennings 1994: 290). Such sentences are highly context-based and will not be discussed here. 8 Dik (1997: 191) calls the two as prepositive and postpositive, respectively. Two other types, namely, repetitive (e.g. …and…and…) and correlative (e.g. both…and…) are also included in his classification. 9 Bulang (Kam, Sino-Tibetan) is reported to have postposed disjunctions in declaratives, but preposed disjunctions in interrogatives (see example 13 following).

194

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

In Table 4.5, i.e. in the 25 or-languages, the majority of disj-pre languages are prepositional (15/21), and all disj-post languages are postpositional (4/4) (see left half of the table); however, if we put adpositions as the starting point (see right half of the table), it can be seen that all prepositional languages have or-pre, while 6 adpositional languages have disj-pre, and only 4 prepositional languages have disj-post.

Table 4.5. Correlations between disjunctions and adpositions in 25 or-languages

Disj Adpo Adpo Disj pre 21 Pr 15, Po 6 Pr 15 pre 15, post 0 post 4 Pr 0, Po 4 Po 10 pre 6, post 4

Several generalizations can be drawn from Tables 4.4 and 4.5:

(i) most disj-pre languages are prepositional; (ii) disj-post languages are postpositional, and disj-post is found only in postpositional languages; (iii) most prepositional languages are disj-pre; (iv) most postpositional languages are disj-pre; (v) a disjunction prefers to appear before a disjunct it governs.

Dik (1989: 346) proposes that relators10 preferably occur between two parts to be related, at disjunct-periphery positions:

(11) Relators have their preferred position (Dik 1989: 346)

(i) in between their two relata; (ii) at periphery of the relatum with which they form one constituent (if they do so).

Disjunctions in alternative constructions, as a type of relator, prefer an initial position of the second disjunct, which is in line with Dik’s (1989) generalizations. It is also an instance of iconicity: as a constituent to relate two alternatives, a medial place is a default position.

10 See Hagège (2010: 103-5) for a discussion of terminology, including adposition, relator, case-marker, flag, and his newly-created term, functeme.

195

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

4.2.4. The or vs or/or? typology and clause order

Among the 32 languages that differentiate between alternative disjunctions in declaratives and interrogatives, 23 are SVO in their clause order, and 9 SOV. In the 25 languages that do not differentiate between the two, 12 are SVO, 10 are SOV, and 3 are VSO. or/or?-lgs (32) SVO 23, SOV 9 or-lgs (25) SVO 12, SOV 10, VSO 3

Re-arranging this table by taking clause order as the starting point, we get:

SVO (35) or-lgs 12, or/or?-lgs 23 SOV (19) or-lgs 10, or/or?-lgs 9 VSO (3) or-lgs 3, or/or?-lgs 0

It seems that the or vs or/or? typology does not have a very close relationship with clause order, except for the fact that or/or?-languages are attested more frequently among SVO languages (23/32) than SOV languages (9/32), and SVO languages more commonly have or/or?-disjunctions (23/35) than or-disjunctions (12/35). The three VSO languages in the present study all have or-disjunctions, but more evidence is needed before drawing a conclusion that VSO languages prefer or-disjunctions. Note that some languages have alternative clause orders, which is not included in the above tables. For example among the SOV languages, Hani (pre-or, postpositional) has also OSV as a minor order, Uzbek (pre-or, postpositional) is not a rigid SOV language (cf. Greenberg’s 1966 ‘rigid-III’), and Jinuo (pre-or/or?, postpositional) has also SVO and OVS as minor orders. Among the SVO languages, Maonan (pre-or, prepositional) has SOV as a minor order, She (pre-or/or?, prepositional) has SOV as a minor order, Wa (pre-or/or?, prepositional) has VSO as a minor order; while among the three VSO languages (all pre-or, prepositional), VOS and SVO orders are used as minor orders. So far, a matter that has not been discussed yet are the disjunctions that come in pairs, called bisyndetic by Haspelmath (2007), or correlative by Dik (1997: 191), e.g. English either…or…(Dik’s original example is English both…and…). In many languages in China, however, correlative disjunctions are

196

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

different from English in that the two parts are identical or partially identical, and the first half is very commonly found to be in a reduced form, e.g. dropping the (first) syllable if it is not monosyllabic, like Standard Chinese shi…haishi… ‘be…or.be’, Wa (daɯh) mɔh…daɯh mɔh… ‘(or) be…or be…’ (Zhou and Yan 1984: 68, 97), and Kemu mɤh…hai mɤh… ‘be…or be…’ (Chen 2002: 178), etc. In Bunun, the correlative disjunction is not enough to express an alternative question. In addition, a suffix -at must be attached at the end of the first disjunct, bringing about an au…-at, au… structure.

(12) Bunun (He and Zeng 1986: 101)

au namapahun maʃ padan-at, au namapatuktuk maʃ ɬukiʃ? or cut ACC weed or cut ACC tree ‘to cut the weed or the tree?’

In Bulang, correlative disjunctions are found in both declaratives and alternative questions. Nevertheless, disjunctions take disjunct-final positions in declaratives, but disjunct-initial positions in alternative questions.

(13) Bulang (Li et al. 1986: 69)

a. miʔ 2 hɤl1 koʔ 4pin1, ɯʔ 1 hɤl1 koʔ 4pin1. 2SG go or 1SG go or ‘Either you go or I go.’

b. am2 miʔ 2 hɤl1, am2 ɯʔ 1 hɤl1? (or.)be 2SG go (or.)be 1SG go ‘You go or I go?’

197

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

4.3. Particles as disjunctions

4.3.1. Alternative questions through particles

By ‘particles as disjunctions’, it is meant that disjunct-final particles are used as disjunctions in alternatives, i.e. alternative questions are formed mainly (if not solely) by particles. In particular, here we concern those languages that (i) form alternative questions by particle disjunctions, and at the same time, (ii) they do not have to use normal disjunctions in alternative questions. (Cf. Jayaseelan 2012, where such distinctions are not concerned.) (i) does not necessarily suggest that alternative questions in a certain language are formed by overt particle disjunctions, because such particles can be omitted freely in some languages. For example, in the alternative question in Mang, particles are normally used after the first disjunct, but can also be omitted, i.e. X (prt) Y (Gao 2003: 114); in the alternative questions in Nusu, particles after both disjuncts can also be omitted freely, i.e. X (prt) Y (prt) (Sun 1986: 86-7, 102-5).

(14) Mang (Gao 2003: 114)

mi31 ʔin55 θa55 mə31li31 (ʔə35), ʔin31 θa55 pə31ȵɔ51? X (prt) Y 2SG like eat pear FP 2SG eat banana ‘You like pear or banana?’

(15) Nusu (Sun 1986: 103)

ȵo55 tʂə35a31 dza55 nɤ31 zui35 (lε31) 2SG sour eat PRT want FP

phə̄35a31 dza55 nɤ31 zui35 (lε31)? X (prt) Y (prt) hot eat PRT want FP ‘Do you want to eat something sour or something hot?’

(ii) excludes languages in which normal disjunctions must appear in their alternative questions, while particle disjunctions are something that can be dropped. For example, in Standard Chinese, particles are not obligatory in alternative questions (intonation is also irrelevant), while disjunctions always have to be used in most cases, i.e. X (prt), disj Y (prt) (see the introduction of this

198

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

chapter). A general observation is that most (if not all) languages of China (if not all over the world) that have particles are found to have them after the disjuncts in alternative questions11. However, in some languages, disjunctions are optional, while particles must appear. Languages of this type include three Tibeto-Burman languages, i.e. Achang, Bisu, and Tsangluo.

(16) Tsangluo (Zhang 1986: 161)

nan13 ju13 tɕam13me13 mo13, 2SG PN drink PRT

(ma13ȵi55la) pha55pen55 tɕa13 (me13)? X prt, (disj) Y (prt) or PN drink PRT ‘Do you want to drink ju13 or pha55pen55?’ (two kinds of alcohol)

(17) Bisu (Xu 1998: 146)

(xai31sɿ55) ga33 e55lai55 la31? ʑaŋ33 e55lai55 la31? (disj) X prt Y prt or 1SG go PRT 3SG.M go PRT ‘Should I go (there) or he go (there)?’

(18) Achang (Dai and Cui 1985: 74-5)

nuaŋ55 tɕə55 tɕə31sɿ31 la31? 2SG rice eat PRT

(ma55ʂə55) men35 tɕə31sɿ31 la31? X prt (disj) Y prt or noodle eat PRT ‘You eat rice or noodles?’

In the five examples above, the particles invariably take disjunct-final positions (noting the difference in those by normal disjunctions). This is not only a common feature in languages with alternative questions by particles, but also a feature of particles in most languages of China.

11 Particles are very commonly found in alternative questions, together with normal disjunctions. It is possible that both particles can be dropped, like in Standard Chinese; also, particles after the second disjunct can be dropped, like in Geman (X prt Y disj (prt); Li 2002: 211); a third possibility is to drop the first particle, however, this is not found in a survey of 138 languages of China. See the next section for more discussion.

199

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

4.3.2. Patterns of particle disjunctions in alternative questions

28 languages12 in China are found to have their alternative questions formed by disjunct-final particles. Their structures of alternative questions and the number of attested languages are listed in the following table.

Table 4.6. Alternative questions by particles in 28 languages

Structures Languages attested X prt Y prt (TIBETO-BURMAN, SINO-TIBETAN) Tsangluo, Bisu, Achang, Anong, Bengni-Boga’er, Zaiwa, Langsu; (ALTAIC) Western Yugur, Mongolian, Tu, Eastern Yugur, Xibo (Sibo), Evenki, Oreqen (14)

X prt Y (prt) (TIBETO-BURMAN) Tibetan, Rouruo, Qiang (3)

X (prt) Y (prt) (TIBETO-BURMAN) Nusu (1)

X prt Y (TIBETO-BURMAN, SINO-TIBETAN) Baima, Tanglang, Leqi, rGyarong; (KAM, SINO-TIBETAN) Dai; (ALTAIC) Salar, Dongxiang, Bao’an, Kangjia; (CREOLE) Za (10)

It can be seen that the particle after the second disjunct (Y) is more likely to be dropped than the one after the first disjunct (X). In the following tetrachoric table, possibility (ii) is not attested.

(i) X (prt), Y (prt) 1 *(ii) X, Y (prt) 0 (iii) X prt, Y (prt) 3 (iv) X prt, Y 10

In alternative questions with a pair of particles, the latter is more likely to be dropped. In alternative questions with a pair of normal disjunctions, however, the first is more likely to be dropped. For example, in Standard Chinese, the formula is (*haishi)…haishi… ‘or’, or (*hai)shi…haishi…? ‘either…or…’, in which a partial or complete omission of the first disjunction is obligatory to guarantee the grammaticality of such sentences. A similar situation is also found in most other

12 Early Modern Chinese and some Modern Sinitic languages, e.g. Shanghai Wu, Shanbei Jin, also use particles as disjunctions, though they do not adopt it as the only strategy.

200

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

Sinitic languages13 and many minority languages as well. A unified explanation is that particle disjunctions usually take disjunct-final (clause-final) positions to form an alternative question, while common disjunctions take pre-disjunct (pre-clause) positions. According to Dik’s (1989: 346) principle, a (in-between-positioned) relator is sufficient to link the relata and hence may omit a second relator (or keep a reduced form), be it a normal disjunction or a particle disjunction, clause-initial or clause-final, that is, by formula, disjunct1 prt, disjunct2 prt and disj disjunct1, disj disjunct2, respectively. What is also suggested by Table 4.6 is that languages with alternative questions by particles are mainly found in Sino-Tibetan languages (16/28) and Altaic languages (11/28); Austro-Asiatic languages, however, mainly prefer to use normal disjunctions; the situation of Austronesian languages is not clear owing to a lack of adequate literature. The Sino-Tibetan languages in the table are mostly Tibeto-Burman languages (15/16), except that one language, Dai, is of the Kam group; Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages all prefer normal disjunctions (see Section 4.2).

13 In some Sinitic languages, alternative questions take the form (shi) X shi Y (shi is similar to English copular be), which is also in accordance with the discussion here.

201

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

4.4. Alternative islands in Sinitic

In Sinitic languages, there is a constraint on the fronting of interrogative disjuncts. For example, Standard Chinese interrogative disjuncts in disjunctive structures can appear in an object (sentence-final) position, but can hardly appear in a subject (sentence-initial) position.

(19) Standard Chinese

a. ni chi [mifan haishi miantiao]? 2SG eat rice or noodles ‘You eat rice or noodles?’

b. ??/*[mifan haishi miantiao] hao chi? rice or noodles goodeat ‘Which is more delicious, rice or noodles?’

However, such a constraint does not hold for disjunctive declaratives or conjunctive interrogatives, as it exemplified in 19(c-d) and 19(e-f), respectively.

c. wo wufan chi [mifan huozhe miantiao]. 1SG lunch like rice or noodles ‘I eat rice or noodles for lunch.’

d. [mifan huozhe miantiao] dou xing. rice or noodles all okay ‘Either rice or noodles is fine.’

e. ni xihuan chi [mifan he miantiao]? 2SG like eat rice and noodles ‘You like rice and noodles?’

f. [mifan he miantiao] ni dou xihuan chi? rice and noodles 2SG all like eat ‘Rice and noodles, you like them both?’

Constraints on disjunction fronting are also found in Hengyang Xiang and many varieties of Gan, e.g. Nanchang, Duchang, Jishui, Leping, Luxi, Taihe, Yongxin, Yugan, and so on (Yongxin Gan and Nanchang Gan are based on personal knowledge, Hengyang Xiang and other varieties of Gan are according to native

202

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

speaker informants). The following examples of Yongxin Gan are parallel to the Standard Chinese examples (19).

(20) Yongxin Gan

a. jin tɕhia [fan xaiɕiɛ miœnthiao]? 2SG eat rice or noodles ‘You eat rice or noodles?’

b. *[fan xaiɕiɛ miœnthiao] hao tɕhia? rice or noodles goodeat ‘Which is more delicious, rice or noodles?’

h h c. ŋo dəŋfan tɕ ia [fan fɛ tsa miœnt iao]. 1SG lunch like rice or noodles ‘I eat rice or noodles for lunch.’

h d. [fan fɛ tsa miœnt iao] ja tsutɣ. rice or noodles allokay ‘Either rice or noodles is fine.’

e. jin ɕiwan tɕhia [fan thoŋtao miœnthiao] a? 2SG like eat rice and noodles FP ‘You like rice and noodles?’

f. [fan thoŋtao miœnthiao] jin ja ɕiwan tɕhia a? rice and noodles 2SG all like eat FP ‘Rice and noodles, you like them both?’

Note that the disjunction xaisɛ in Yongxin Gan (cf. 20c-d) is newly borrowed from Standard Chinese. (In fact, lacking counterparts of Standard Chinese haishi ‘or’, i.e. disjunctions in declaratives, is a common feature across varieties of Gan; see Sections 2.1.1.2-3.)

203

4 Disjunctions and alternative questions

4.5. Summary

This chapter focuses on the structural features of disjunctions and alternative questions. Section 4.1 proposes a criterion – the involvement of disjunctions – to distinguish between X-neg-X questions (also known as A-not-A questions) and alternative questions, with X-neg-X questions are frequently (but mistakenly) treated as a special type of alternative questions in the literature (cf. Section 2.1.1.1.1). In many languages (32 lgs) in China, disjunctions in declaratives and interrogatives are different (or/or?-languages), while some other languages (25 lgs) do not show such a difference (or-languages). I propose an or vs or/or? typology to account for the difference. The typology matters in that it correlates (at least) with some word order parameters (adposition, clause order), as summarized in the several generalizations in Section 4.2 (for more correlations, see Section 7.1). Except for those with normal disjunctions (or and or/or?), some languages (28 lgs) were found to use particles as disjunctive strategies. A further examination (Section 4.3) has shown that such particles are more likely to be dropped after second disjuncts than after first disjuncts. Languages with alternative questions formed by particle disjunctions demonstrate a skewed genetic distribution in that they are mainly found in Sino-Tibetan languages (mostly Tibeto-Burman) and Altaic languages. Austro-Asiatic languages and Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages, however, mainly prefer normal disjunctions. See Maps 4-5 in Appendix II for language atlas of disjunctions and alternative questions.

204

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

Chapter 5

Wh-phrases and wh-questions

It seems unjustified to simply omit wh-questions (or content questions, information questions) in the present thesis, although more attention is given to polar questions. This is because, on the one hand, there is a huge amount of literature on wh- in situ in Standard Chinese (and some other Sinitic languages, e.g. Cantonese) and this thesis is expected to include such discussions because it is about the interrogative strategies of the languages of China. On the other hand, wh-questions are an important interrogative strategy cross-linguistically, and a thesis on interrogative strategies would not be expected to exclude the topic completely. In this chapter, we shall look into several topics of wh-questions, in particular, the position of wh-phrases in the languages of China, including a comparison to Dryer (2005c) (Section 5.1), the restrictions of pragmatic factors, i.e. definiteness and topicality on wh-fronting in Standard Chinese (Section 5.2), word order alternations and the coordination islands in wh-questions (Section 5.3), as well as a special feature of wh-phrases, i.e. reduplication (Section 5.4). It can be seen from the choice of topics that the present chapter focuses on the morphosyntactic features of wh-questions. Some other topics related to wh-questions have already been discussed in previous chapters. For example, a special feature of wh-questions in the languages of China, namely final particles in wh-questions and the so-called reduced wh-questions, were presented in Section 3.3.

205

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

5.1. The position of wh-phrases

Standard Chinese is known to be a wh- in , in which wh-phrases can occur in the same position as corresponding non-interrogative words.

(1) Standard Chinese

a. ni qu nali? (interrogative, SVO, in situ) 2SG go where ‘Where are you going?’

b. wo qu Beijing. (declarative, SVO) 1SG go Beijing ‘I’m going to Beijing.’

In (1a), nali ‘where’, the interrogative word, takes the post-verb position for a normal object, e.g. the non-interrogative noun phrase Beijing (1b). In fact, most languages in China demonstrate the characteristics of wh- in situ. In a survey of 138 languages, 130 languages are in situ, 3 languages are partially in situ (some wh-phrases are obligatorily initial, some are in situ), and not a single language is reported to be obligatorily wh-initial.

Table 5.1. Position of wh-phrases in content questions in 138 languages of China

Obligatorily initial Not obligatorily initial (in situ) Mixed Unknown 0 130 3 5

The languages of the “mixed” type include Thao, Sedeq, and Yami, three Austronesian languages spoken in Taiwan (Thao and Sedeq belong to the Formosan group and Yami belongs to the Batanic group). They are commonly found to have wh-phrases in the sentence-initial position, but there are also some exceptions. For example, in Thao, a VSO language, tima ‘who’ can be placed sentence-finally (Wang 2004: 297); in Sedeq, a VOS/vso language, inu ‘where’ can take a sentence-final position; the position of kumuwan ‘when’ and ‘how many/much’ are flexible in Sedeq, which can take the positions for an adverbial and attributive in non-interrogative sentences, respectively (Chen and Xu 2001: 165-6; for Sedeq word order in general, see Chen and Xu 2001:

206

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

150-61); in Yami, pira ‘how many’ can occur in sentence-second position (Rau and Dong 2006: 97), which is also the position for adverbials in non-interrogative sentences. Unfortunately, five languages were classed as “unknown” mainly because there is no adequate descriptive literature to which to refer. These languages include Mo’ang (Yi; Tibeto-Burman), Chadong (Kam), Tu’erke (Turkic), Saaroa (Formosan; Austronesian), and E (also known as Ai) (Creole). For a language atlas, see Map 9 in Appendix II. The findings in 138 languages of China are very different from Dryer’s (2005c) survey on a worldwide language sample (803 languages), in which he found 241 languages are obligatorily with wh-phrases in initial position, 542 are not obligatorily initial, and 20 are mixed.

Table 5.2. Position of wh-phrases in content questions in 803 languages (Dryer 2005c)

Obligatorily initial Not obligatorily initial Mixed 241 542 20

Nevertheless, Dryer (2005c) notes that “not obligatorily initial” languages cover the most of the mainland of Asia, which is in line with the findings here. Note that, though Table 5.1 is concerned with wh- in situ, Table 5.2 (Dryer 2005c) is concerned with wh-initial or not, no conflictions would arise, as in situ is a special case of “not obligatorily initial.”

207

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

5.2. Wh-fronting in Standard Chinese

In Standard Chinese, a wh-phrase can normally be positioned either in situ or sentence-initial, with no substantial change in semantic meaning.

(2) Standard Chinese (a-b, Lü 1984)

a. zhang laosan shi shui? Zhang Laoshan be who ‘Who is Zhang Laosan?’

b. shui shi zhang laosan?

The only subtle difference between the two questions is that by asking (2a), a questioner does not know what kind of person Z is, and asks an addressee to explain or describe, i.e. to seek some further descriptive information; by asking (2b), it can either express the same meaning as (2a), or require an addressee to identify Z, for example, if one knows a man called Z is in a group of people, and asks an addressee to point out who Z is. The difference (i.e. description vs. identification) can be seen more clearly in the following pair of sentences.

c. ni/ta shi shui? 2SG/3SG be who ‘Who are you?’ / ‘Who is her/him?’

d. *shui shi ni/ta? Intended reading: ‘Who are you?’ / ‘Who is her/him?’

(2d) is ungrammatical because there is no need to identify an addressee who is right in front of you (second person), and it is impossible to identify an unknown third party ta ‘s/he’ (third person) without a proper like (3).

(3) Early Modern Chinese (Hong Lou Meng, 18th Century)

晴雯道：今儿他还席，必来请你的，你等着罢。 A: jiner ta bi lai qing ni de. today 3SG sure come invite 2SG DE ‘Today he will definitely invite you (for dinner).’

208

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

平儿笑问道：他是谁，谁是他？（红楼梦 63 回） B: ta shi shui? shui shi ta? 3SG be who who be 3SG Literally, ‘He is who? Who is he?’

Unlike (2d), B’s questions in (3) make sense because A mentioned that someone definite, i.e. a third person ta, is going to invite B. Hence asks A to specify who the host ta is as an anaphoric strategy. The difference between (2a) and (2b) also lies in other wh-phrases in Standard Chinese. In particular, when a wh-phrase takes an initial position, it requires either an explanation or a descriptive answer, or, more frequently, requires an addressee to identify something (person, thing, time, reason, method, etc.), normally with a high degree of definiteness; while an in situ wh-phrase seeks merely an explanation or a descriptive answer.1

Explanation Identification wh- in situ + - wh- initial (+) +

In some Sinitic languages, the ambiguity in wh-initial questions, i.e. seeking identification/description answers (cf. 2b), however, does not exist. For example, in Yongxin Gan, two different wh-phrases are used: na wo ‘which one, who’ is used in questions seeking an answer of identification (4a), ka jin ‘what (kind of) people’ is used in questions seeking a descriptive answer (4b).

(4) Yongxin Gan

a. na wo ɕiε tʂaŋsan? which CL be PN ‘Which person is Zhangsan?’

b. tʂaŋsan ɕiε ka jin? PN be whatpeople ‘What kind of person Zhangsan is?’

1 Similarly, Ultan (1978) claims that sentence-initial wh-phrases are emphatic in nature. Explanation is by no means more emphatic than identification.

209

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

It must be noted that in-situ-lized question sentences of (4a), e.g. (4c), are grammatical; de-in-situ-lized question sentences of (4b), e.g. (4d), however, are ungrammatical. This is because ka jin ‘what (kind of) person’ in (4d) bears no definiteness and cannot take a sentence-initial position.

c. tʂaŋsan ɕiε na wo?

d. *ka in ɕiε tʂaŋsan?

In Standard Chinese, some bare form wh-phrases (or put it better, wh-words) can take either an in situ position or an initial position. Extended wh-phrases, however, normally occur only in in situ positions, not sentence-initial.

(5) Standard Chinese (Lu and Xu 2003)

a. ni xihuan shenme shu? 2SG like what book ‘You like {which / what kind of} book?’

b. */??shenme shu ni xihuan?

c. shenme shu ni zui xihuan? ‘Which book do you like best?’

Sentence-initial wh-phrases in Standard Chinese are topic-like (see Lu and Xu 2003). Topicality and definiteness are a natural class. In order to occur in a sentence-initial position (the position normally reserved for a main topic), a wh-phrase is required to be definite or at least bear a reasonably high degree of definiteness. For example, (5b) becomes grammatical if the superlative zui is added: in (5c), shenme shu ‘{which / what kind of} book’ is topic-like, it is definite and specific to an addressee because people normally have a very limited number of selections in answering the question. That wh-phrases are focused has also prosodic evidence from Colloquial Standard Chinese. Compare:

(6) Colloquial Standard Chinese (Hu 2005)

a. shui lai le? who come PST ‘Who came (here)?’ / ‘Did someone come (here)?’

210

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

b. 'shui lai le? ‘Who came (here)?’ / ‘*Did someone came (here)?’

c. shui 'lai le? ‘Did someone come (here)?’ / ‘*Who came (here)?’

In Colloquial Standard Chinese, some questions with wh-phrases can function both as wh-questions and yes/no questions (6a). However, the ambiguity vanishes if the pitch accent is laid properly: In (6b), the pitch accent is on the wh-phrase shui ‘who’, and it can only be interpreted as a wh-question; whereas (6c) can only be interpreted as a yes/no question because the pitch accent is laid on the verb lai ‘come’. Hu (2005) proposes that there is a prosodic difference of wh-phrases and the corresponding VPs between different types. Wh-phrases in wh-questions are the focus of the sentence, whereas in yes/no-questions, VPs are the focus. Hu’s experiments also suggest that the focused constituent is pitch accented so that its lexical tonal is retained and sometimes reinforced, while the lexical tonal melody on the corresponding unfocused constituent is compressed and sometimes reduced to a level tone.

211

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

5.3. The syntax of wh-questions

5.3.1. Wh-questions and word order change

Wh-questions may cause a change in word order. A classical example of this is found in , in which wh-phrases invariably take a sentence-initial position and change a SVO clause order to OSV if an interrogative phrase functions as an object. Most languages in China are wh- in situ (see Section 5.1). Some languages change their word order in their wh-questions, and a change (or, more properly, word order alternations) from SOV to SVO is the most common. For example, the clause order of Modern Bai (Yi; Tibeto-Burman) is SVO (Classical Bai is SOV, which is the same to other Yi languages), but SOV and OSV orders are also used by senior , and younger generations would also take SOV in yes/no questions, or in declarative sentences with a pronominal object or human object plus an object marker (see Xu and Zhao 1984: 79). In wh-questions, however, Modern Bai is of SVO order.

(7) Bai (Xu and Zhao 1984: 86)

jã55 ŋε21 a55na44? 1PL.INCL go where ‘Where are we going?’

More and clearer evidence is found in Guiqiong (Qiangic; Tibeto-Burman) and some Mongolian languages, e.g. Dongxiang, Esatern Yugur, and Kangjia. These languages are all SOV in clause order, but SVO order is found in their wh-questions, though it is used not as frequently as SOV.

(8) Guiqiong (Sun 2007d: 1028)

pɔ35tsɿ55 lø55 dʑø35 wu53 tɕø55ɣo33? newspaper LOC write NOMIN what ‘What does it say in the newspaper?’

212

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

(9) Dongxiang (Liu 1981: 94)

dʑisanni niərə ʂɯ kiənwo? third name be who PRT ‘Who won the third prize?’

(10) Eastern Yugur (Zhaonasitu 1981a: 58)

tʃənə gerdə ken niin saa ʃdadaɢ bə? 2SG family who dairy.cattle milk can PRT ‘In your family, who can milk dairy cattle?’

(11) Kangjia (Siqinchaoketu 1999: 185)

tʃini verta verledʒigʉ jɔ-mba? 2SG chest hide what-PRT ‘What do you have in your pocket?’

In Tsou (Formosan; Ausrtonesian), a VOS language, SVO order is also found in its wh-questions.

(12) Tsou (Chen 2007c: 2253)

miko eoni nenu? 2SG be.at where ‘Where are you?’

Wa (Austro-Asiatic) is a SVO/vso language, SVO is the most common word order, and VSO is used less commonly. However, in its wh-questions (and polar questions as well), VSO order is used more frequently than SVO (Zhou and Yan 1984: 87-9).2

(13) Wa (Zhou and Yan 1984: 55)

tɕhuh patiʔ tan? move what there ‘What’s moving over there?’

2 Zhou and Yan (1984) is a brief description of the Baraoke dialect of Wa. However, Zhao (2006: 242) proposes differently that in the Wa dialect of the , wh-questions prefer SVO order, but the Awa dialect and Burao dialect (= the Baraoke dialect; see Zhou and Yan 1984: 100) prefer VSO.

213

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

Note that word order change from SOV to SVO, VOS to SVO, and SVO to VSO does not necessarily suggest a change of wh- in situ, because the relative ordering of S and O does not change in SOV → SVO. Moreover, it is very likely to be a matter of S fronting/postposing in VOS → SVO and SVO → VSO, rather than O postposing. In other words, the position of the object, which is normally occupied by pronominal wh-phrases like who, what, which, and where (adverbial how, when, and why are not relevant here), is not changed in these alternations. An observation from the discussion above is that SVO order is widely adopted if a SOV language has an alternative order in its wh-questions. Vennemann (1974) proposes that, historically, some languages are found to have their order changed from SOV to SVO, but never the other way around. Are the languages mentioned here, namely, Guiqiong, Dongxiang, Esatern Yugur, and Kangjia, going to take SVO order in the future, now that they already have it in their wh-questions? Is word order change in wh-questions a trigger for a change in general word-order type? Chinese behaves differently. From Ancient Chinese to Modern Chinese, SVO is the basic clause order in declaratives (in some rhetorical questions and negative declaratives, SOV order is also used); however, SOV order is found in its wh-questions with pronominal objects (see e.g. Wang 1980: 211, 218, 357-367).

(14) Ancient Chinese (a, Wang 1980: 360)

吾谁欺？欺天乎？（论语） a. wu shui qi? (Lunyu, 5-6th Century, BC) 1SG who cheat ‘Who shall I cheat?’ (I won’t cheat anybody.)

良问：大王来何操？（史记·项羽本纪） b. dawang lai he cao? (Shiji, 1st Century, BC) king come what bring ‘My King, what do you have with you?’

The most common clause order of Modern Chinese wh-questions is SVO. SOV order is very rare, especially when O is a patient (15a). In some cases, however, SOV order is used, even if O is a patient. In the following examples, (15b) is a rhetorical question, (15c) is a contrast, and (15d) is to question a part of a whole. A similar case is also reported in Shanghai Wu (see Xu and Liu 1998: 261-2).

214

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

(15) Standard Chinese (Xu and Liu 1998: 261-2; Lu and Xu 2003)

a. *ni na ben shu mai le? 2SG which CL book buy PST Intended reading: ‘Which book did you buy?’

b. ta shenme shiqing zuo de hao? 3SG what thing do RES well ‘What can s/he do well?!’ (S/he can not do anything well.)

c. ni daodi3 shenme dongxi yao chi, 2SG on.earth what thing want eat

shenme dongxi bu yao chi? what thing not want eat ‘What do you want to eat, and what won’t you eat?’

d. women dianli shafa hen duo, na-yi-zhong ni xihuan? 1PL shop sofa verymany which-one-kind 2SG like ‘We have a lot of sofas here. Which kind do you like best?’

The word order in declaratives and wh-questions in Classical Chinese and Modern Chinese is summarized in the following table.

Classical Modern wh-questions SOV SVO/sov Declaratives SVO/sov SVO

SOV is a default order in wh-questions in Classical Chinese, but is marked in Modern Chinese. The word order in declaratives, however, is consistently SVO, though Classical Chinese also has a less common SOV order. In both Classical Chinese and Modern Chinese, SOV is an alternative order in wh-questions, though it is used more frequently in the ancestor language than in its offspring language.

3 dao-di, literally, ‘reach-bottom’, is an attitudinal adverb similar to English on earth (see Huang et al. 2009: 237).

215

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

5.3.2. Wh-questions with coordination in Sinitic

In English, it is not grammatical to question a part of a coordinate structure. For example, it is not allowed to question ‘John’ or ‘Thomas’ in He beat John and Thomas. → *Whom did he beat John and? *Whom did he beat and Thomas?4 In Standard Chinese and most (if not all) other Sinitic languages, however, there are no such constraints like in English, and it is grammatical to question a part of the coordinate structure, though the wh-phrase takes an in situ position.

(16) Standard Chinese

a. ta da-le Zhangsan he Lisi. 3SG beat-PST Zhangsan and Lisi ‘He beat Zhangsan and Lisi.’

b. ta da-le Zhangsan he shui? 3SG beat-PST Zhangsan and who Literally, ‘S/he beat Zhangsan and whom?’

c. ta da-le shui he Zhangsan? Literally, ‘S/he beat whom and Zhangsan?’

More examples like (16b) in Sinitic languages:

(17) Xiang (native speaker informants)

a. tɕiε ta-li tsaŋsan kεn nako? (Hengyang Xiang) b. tɕi ta-liau tsaŋsan xuo najiko? (Qiyang Xiang)

(18) Gan (personal knowledge and native speaker informants)

a. tɕiε ta-li tsaŋsan kεn nako? (Nanchang Gan) b. kiɛ ta-li tsaŋsan xœju neikə? (Jishui Gan) c. tɕi ta-li tsaŋsan toŋ nawo? (Yongxin Gan)

(19) Hui (native speaker informants)

a. tɕi ta-lə tsaŋsan kuai xakə? (Qimen Hui) b. khə tà-tsɿ tsaŋsan tε xuókǎ? (Wuyuan Hui)

4 Admittedly, English allow echo questions in this context, e.g. He beat John and whom? However, such questions are marginal in English (compare also 16c and ?He beat whom and John?), but very common in Sinitic languages.

216

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

5.4. The reduplication of wh-phrases

In Tibeto-Burman languages, reduplication of wh-phrases can frequently be found in wh-questions, conveying a plural meaning of the very wh-phrase.

(20) Baima (Sun, Chirkova, and Liu 2007: 78)

a. ndε53 tʃhɿ53 tε53 re13? DEF what ATTRIBUTIVE be

‘What’s thisSG?’

b. tɕhɿø53 tʃhɿ53 tʃhɿ53 ȵø53 kho13 ʒø341? 2SG what whatbuy carry have

‘WhatPL did you buy?’ (Which things did you buy?)

Reduplication in wh-phrases is rarely found cross-linguistically.5 In Germanic languages, for example, it is ungrammatical to ask a questions like (25b), e.g. English *What what did you buy?, German *Was was hast du gekauft?. In Sinitic languages, wh-reduplication is also ungrammatical, e.g. Standard Chinese *ni 6 mai-le shenme shenme? (2SG buy-PST what what), Nanchang Gan *nεn mæ-li ɕili ɕili? (2SG buy-PST what what). In this section, we are looking into reduplication in wh-phrases in the languages of China, analyzing the semantics and syllable patterns of reduplicated wh-phrases, and providing a list of languages that demonstrate this strategy.

5 In some dialects of Italian, wh-phrases can also be reduplicated. However, the forms and meanings are different from what we concerned with here. In particular, in some Italian dialects, the second wh-phrase normally occurs sentence-finally, not right after the first one, and does not express any quantity increase in meaning. E.g. Illasi Italian Ndo e-lo ndat endoe? (where is-he gone where) ‘Where has he gone?’ (Poletto and Pollock 2005; see also Manzini and Savoia 2011). 6 In colloquial Standard Chinese (and many other Sinitic languages as well), reduplication in wh-phrases is used in very limited cases, but never in questions. For example, ta shuo ta mai-le shenme shenme (3SG say 3SG buy-PST what what) ‘S/he said that s/he bought this and that.’, ta shuo ta qu-guo nali nali (3SG say 3SG go-ASP where where) ‘S/he said that s/he has been to here and there.’

217

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

5.4.1. Languages with reduplication in wh-phrases

In the 138 languages of China examined in the present study, 30 languages are found to have reduplication in interrogative phrases, including 26 Tibeto-Burman languages (4 Tibetan, 8 Yi, 5 Jingpo, 5 Burmese, and 4 Qiangic), 3 Altaic languages (1 Turkic, 1 Mongolian, and 1 Manchu-Tungusic), and 1 Austronesian language (Formosan). Geographically, Tibeto-Burman languages in China are spoken in the Southwest, mainly covering the Tibet Autonomous Region, Sichuan Province, and Yunnan Province. The three Altaic languages are spoken in the north, in particular, Kazak is spoken in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, Eastern Yugur (a highly endangered language) is spoken in Gansu Province, and Evenki is spoken in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region and Province. The Formosan (Austronesian) language Pazeh is spoken in Taiwan.

Table 5.3. 30 languages with reduplication in wh-phrases

Family Languages with wh-reduplication Sino-Tibetan Tibetan, Menba, Baima, Cangluo (Tibetan 4/4; Tibeto-Burman) (26/85) Yi, Lisu, Hani, Jinuo, Mo’ang, Kazhuo, Rouruo, Nusu (Yi 8/15; Tibeto-Burman) Jingpo, Dulong, Geman, Darang, Anong (Jingpo 5/9; Tibeto-Burman) Achang, Zaiwa, Langsu, Xiandao, Bola (Burmese 5/6; Tibeto-Burman) rGyarong, Muya, Ersu, Lawurong (Qiangic 4/12; Tibeto-Burman)

Altaic Kazak (Turkic 1/9) (3/22) Eastern Yugur (Mongolian 1/7) Evenki (Manchu-Tungusic 1/6)

Austronesian Pazeh (Formosan) (1/16)

Notes: As to the fractions in the table, the numerators are the number of languages attested and the denominators are the total number of languages of the group or family to which a language (group) belongs.

218

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

It can be seen that in Sino-Tibetan languages, reduplication in interrogative phrases is a unique feature of Tibeto-Burman (26 languages are attested in a total number of 46 languages), as it is not found in Sinitic, Kam, and Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages. Reduplication in wh-phrases is also not found in Austro-Asiatic, Indo-European, and Creole languages in China, but attested in a very limited number of Altaic (3 lgs) and Austronesian languages (1 lg).

5.4.2. Which wh-phrases can be reduplicated?

English wh-phrases mainly include who, what, where, which, when, why, how, how many/much, and how long (time). In the 30 languages with reduplication in wh-phrases, who and what are the two common interrogative phrases found in reduplication. Less commonly, we found where and which, followed by how, when, and why; nevertheless, how many/much and how long (time) are not attested. In particular, 30 languages are found to have reduplication in their wh-phrases, among which 23 languages have reduplication in who, 17 languages in what, 14 languages in where, 8 languages in which, 6 languages in how, 3 languages in when, 1 language in why, and no languages are found to have reduplication in how many/much or how long (time). Languages that demonstrate reduplication in interrogative phrases and the reduplicated wh-phrases are summarized in the following table.

Table 5.4. Wh- phrase reduplication in 30 minority languages in China

how how Languages who what where which how when why many/ long much (time) Tibetan + + + Menba + Baima + + + Cangluo + +

Yi + + + Lisu + + + + Hani + + + + + Jinuo + Mo’ang + Kazhuo + +

219

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

how how Languages who what where which how when why many/ long much (time) Rouruo + + + Nusu + +

Jingpo + + + + + + Dulong + + + Geman + Darang + Anong + + +

Achang + + Zaiwa + + Langsu + + + Xiandao + + Bola + + rGyarong + + Muya + Ersu + + Lawurong + +

Kazak + + + E. Yugur + + + Evenki + + Pazeh + +

A general explanation for the uneven distribution of reduplicated wh-phrases is that the semantic meaning of individual wh-phrases determines their capability of being reduplicated. In almost every language, wh-phrase reduplication directly suggests an increase in quantity (see Section 5.4.3). The table shows that who, what, where, and which can be reduplicated very easily in these languages, and how, when, and why bear some difficulty, while how many/much and how long (time) can hardly be reduplicated. In other words, reduplication of wh-phrases is only possible if a certain phrase can carry a pluralized meaning semantically (see below). The semantics of reduplicated wh-phrases in content questions is the topic of the next section.

220

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

who → which people when → at which times what → which things why → in what reasons where → which places how many/much → ? which → which ones how long (time) → ? how → by which means

One more matter that deserves to be mentioned is that the wh-phrases in some languages in Table 5.4 may show ambiguity, but such details are not reflected in the table. For example, Standard Chinese zenme means both ‘how’ and ‘why’ (i.e. MANNER = REASON; see Section 6.3.1). For a typology of ambiguity in wh-phrases, e.g. PERSON = THING, MANNER = QUANTITY, THING = REASON, see Cysouw (2005).

5.4.3. Semantics of reduplicated wh-phrases

Reduplication in wh-phrases normally suggests an increase in quantity of the very wh-phrase. In the 30 languages with reduplication in wh-phrases, 27 are in line with the generalization, and only 3 languages are unknown (for a list of these languages, see Table 5.5 in Section 5.4.4). The following are examples of how quantity increases in reduplication of who, what, where, which, how, and when, respectively.

(21) Yi (Chen et al. 1985: 125)

khadi khadi ko a la sɿ? who who.RDP 3 NEG come still

‘WhoPL still didn’t come?’ (Which people still didn’t come?)

(22) Baima (Sun, Chirkova, and Liu 2007: 78)

tɕhɿø53 tʃhɿ53 tʃhɿ53 ȵø53 kho13 ʒø341? 2SG what what.RDP buy carry have

‘WhatPL did you buy?’ (Which things did you buy?)

(23) Hani (Li and Wang 1986: 84)

xa55ge33 ge33? where RDP ‘Where?’ (Which places?)

221

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

(24) Achang (Dai and Cui 1985: 35)

xoi55ʑuʔ55 xoi55ʑuʔ55 ni55? which.one which.one.RDP be.in ‘Which people are here?’ Literally, ‘Which ones are here?’

(25) Jingpo (Dai and Xu 1992: 59)

shan2hte ga1ning1 ning1 rai1ga1lo ma31ni3? 3PL how how.RDP do PRT ‘By which means did they do?’

(26) Zaiwa (Xu and Xu 1984: 51)

naŋ51 kha51khun51 khun51 tʃoŋ31 toʔ31 ʒa51? 2SG when when.RDP school go PRT

‘At what periods of timePL do you have classes?’

A generalization from these examples is that what a content interrogative with wh-reduplication questions is only a part of the whole quantity, in other words, the quantity increased in wh-reduplication is not very great. This could be seen by the fact that by reduplicating who, they do not ask ‘everyone’ but only ‘which ones’; by reduplicating what, they do not ask ‘everything’ but only ‘which things’; and so on. However, the ‘several’/partitive meaning is no longer maintained if a reduplicated wh-phrase is not used in an interrogative sentence. On the contrary, a whole/pervasive meaning is very frequently expressed. In the 30 languages with reduplication in wh-phrases, 14 languages are also found to have reduplication in wh-phrases in non-interrogative sentences.

(27) Ersu (Sun 2007c: 959)7

7 In Standard Chinese, a similar sentence also expresses a whole quantity, e.g. ta shenme dou bu zhidao. (3SG what all not know) ‘S/he knows nothing.’ But note that Standard Chinese does not reduplicate wh-phrases. In fact, except for Standard Chinese (and many other Sinitic languages), whole quantity by wh-phrases is also attested in many other languages in China, like Bengni-Boga’er (Ouyang 1985: 35), Sulong (Li 2004: 122), Bengru (Li 2007a: 714), Qiang (Sun 1981: 83, 85); Dongxiang (Liu 1981: 52); Korean (Xuan et al. 1985: 29); Amis (Zeng 1991: 123); and Huihui (Zheng 1997: 78).

222

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

dʒo55 tha55 ka55 kε55 kha55 kha55 la55 zu55 dʒo35. river DEF CL LOC where where all fish have ‘Fish are everywhere in this river.’

(28) Menba (Lu 1986: 57)

su53 su53 me35 cεʔ35cuʔ53 neʔ35. who who NEG go.FUT have ‘Nobody will go (there).’

A comparison of reduplicated wh-phrases and normal wh-phrases (i.e. no wh-reduplication) in interrogative sentences and non-interrogative sentences is summarized as follows. wh-forms Sentence types Quantity (if relevant) Languages attested wh-redup. interrogative ‘several’ (increase 27 languages in quantity) non-interrogative whole 14 languages wh- interrogative ‘several’ (no increase widespread in quantity) non-interrogative whole widespread

It deserves to be pointed out that reduplication in wh-phrases may express a plural meaning, but a plural meaning in individual languages is not necessarily expressed via reduplicated wh-phrases. Nevertheless, some other strategies are also adopted by many languages with wh-phrase reduplication. For example, in Jingpo (Tibeto-Burman), ga1dai ‘who’ can be reduplicated and expresses a ‘which people’ meaning in wh-questions, but a more common plural form of it is 1 adding a noun ni ‘people’, and bringing ga daini ‘who.PL’ (Dai and Xu 1992: 47). In Kazak (Turkic), kim ‘who’, ne ‘what’, and qajsə ‘which’ can be reduplicated in wh-questions to give it a plural meaning, but a more common strategy of pluralization is to add suffixes onto these wh-phrases (Gen and Li 1985: 53-4).

5.4.4. Syllable pattern of reduplicated wh-phrases

It can be seen in examples (21)-(26) that individual languages adopt different syllable patterns in their reduplicated wh-phrases. For example, Yi, Baima, and Achang are found to have full reduplication, while Hani, Jingpo, and Zaiwa are found only to reduplicate the second syllable of a certain wh-phrase.

223

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

In the 30 languages that demonstrate reduplication in wh-phrases, 11 languages normally reduplicate the whole syllables if a wh-phrase is non-monosyllabic (normally disyllabic), 10 languages normally reduplicate the latter syllable, 2 languages are optional in choosing a full reduplication or partial reduplication, 5 languages are irrelevant (because only monosyllabic reduplication examples are found), and 2 languages lack such information.

Syllable pattern ABAB AB(A)B ABB n/r n/i Languages attested11 2 10 5 2

For more details regarding the syllable pattern in the 30 languages, see the table below. To wind up the discussion of this section, the feature of quantity in reduplicated wh-phrases is also provided.

Table 5.5. Wh-reduplication in 30 minority languages in China

Quantity Whole quan- Syllable increase in tity in non- Families Languages patterns wh-questions interrogatives Sino-Tibetan Tibetan AA, ABAB + + (Tibeto-Burman) Menba (AA) + + Baima AA, ABAB + + Cangluo AA, ABAB + +

Yi AA, ABAB + + Lisu ABB + n/i Hani ABB + + Jinuo ABB + + Mo’ang ABB n/i n/i Kazhuo ABAB + n/i Rouruo AA, ABAB + + Nusu ABAB + +

Jingpo AA, ABB + + Dulong ABB + + Geman (AA) + (+)? Darang (AA) n/i + Anong ABAB + (+)?

224

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

Achang AA, AB(A)B+ n/i Zaiwa AA, ABB + + Langsu AA, ABB + n/i Xiandao AA, AB(A)B+ n/i Bola AA, ABB + n/i

rGyrong (AA) + n/i Muya n/i + n/i Ersu (AA) + + Lawurong AA, ABB + n/i

Turkic Kazak AA, ABAB + n/i

Mongolian E. Yugur AA, ABAB + n/i

Manchu-Tungusic Eveki AA, ABAB + n/i

Austronesian Pazeh n/i n/i n/i

Notes: 1. Some languages have more than one syllable pattern, e.g. AA and ABAB, because there are monosyllabic and disyllabic wh-phrases. 2. The parenthesis, e.g. (AA), indicate that a syllable pattern (AA) is not very clear, though there are attested examples of this kind. 3. n/i: no information. As to Pazeh (Austronesian), all relevant information is missing, though it is claimed that Pazeh can reduplicate its wh-phrases (Zeng 2007, page 2211).

Finally, the phonological change in the reduplicated interrogative phrases deserves mention. For example, some languages have a tonal change on the 53 55 53 reduplicated syllable, cf. Rikaze Tibetan su ‘whoSG’ → su su ‘whoPL’ (Gesang and Gesang 2002: 43-44).

225

5 Wh-phrases and wh-questions

5.5. Summary

In Section 5.1, I compared the position of interrogative phrases in content questions in 138 languages of China with Dryer’s (2005c) sample based on 803 languages. Quite different from Dryer’s findings, I found that wh- in situ (in Dryer’s classification, “not obligatorily initial”) is not only a characteristic of content interrogatives in Standard Chinese (which has been well-addressed in literature, see e.g. Huang 1982, Cheng 1991), but also a common feature of the languages in China. The language atlas showing the position of wh-phrases is plotted in Map 9 in Appendix II. Situ positions are not the only positions for wh-phrases in many languages, not even in Standard Chinese, a typical wh- in situ language. Following Lü (1984), in Section 5.2, I further propose two matters that limit the so-called wh-fronting, i.e. definiteness and topicality, which should be taken into consideration. As to the clause order alternations in wh-questions, the general finding is that in the languages in China, the SVO order is widely adopted if a SOV language has an alternative order in its wh-questions. Section 5.3 also argues that there are no constraints in questioning a part of coordinate structures in Sinitic languages. An uncommon phenomenon, i.e. wh- reduplication in interrogative phrases, is found in 30 languages (mostly Tibeto-Burman). The discussion in Section 5.4 shows that individual wh-phrases vary in the capability of reduplication, in particular words like who, what, where, and which can be reduplicated very easily, and how, when, and why bear some difficulty, while how many/much and how long (time) can hardly be reduplicated. A proposed explanation is that wh-phrase reduplication is only possible when a certain phrase can semantically carry a plural meaning.

In the next chapter, a rare type of wh-questions, i.e. content questions formed by interrogative verbs, is discussed, together with two other types of verb-related (polar) questions.

226

6 Three types of verb-related questions

Chapter 6

Three types of verb-related questions

This chapter investigates three types of verb-related questions in the languages of China, namely, questions formed by a pre-verb interrogative marker (for short, Q-VP; also known as ke-VP questions, see below), verb-reduplication (for short, VV), and interrogative verbs (for short, IVs). The first two types are polar questions, and the third type is a content question (but cf. Ultan 1978). To exemplify:

(1) Mandarin (Zhu 1985)

h ni kə-k ə? 你格去？ (Q-VP) 2SG Q-go ‘Are you going (there)?’

(2) Naxi (Yi, Tibeto-Burman; He 1987: 63)

nvq leel lee lei? (VV) 2SG come come PRT ‘Will you come?’

(3) Colloquial Standard Chinese (Hagège 2008)

nǐ zài gànmá? (IV) 2SG PROG do.what ‘What are you doing?’

In Sections 6.1-3, the structure of the three types of questions will be analyzed, and their genetic and geographical distribution will be charted. Section 6.4 concludes that the three types of verb-related questions are clear cases of morphological operations, which dispels the assumption that Sinitic languages lack inflectional morphology.

227

6 Three types of verb-related questions

6.1. Q-VP questions1

An examination of 138 languages of China found that Q-VP questions are used in 17 Sino-Tibetan languages, including 5 Sinitic languages and 12 Tibeto-Burman languages.

6.1.1. Q-VP in Sinitic

In Sinitic languages, Q-VP questions are found in Gan, Hakka, Mandarin, Min, and Wu.

Mandarin

Q-VP questions are used in many varieties of Mandarin, especially in Jiang-Huai Mandarin and Southwest Mandarin (the latter also known as Xinan Mandarin), though Q-VP questions sound archaic in Contemporary Standard Chinese. For example, in Jiang-Huai Mandarin, ke- is found in the Caoxian dialect, and hai- is found in the Huai-an and Huaiyin dialects.

(4) Chaoxian Mandarin (Huang et al. 1996: 693)

a. ta ke-lai? 他克来? 3SG Q-come ‘Will he come?’

b. ta ke-lai-zi? 他克来吱? 3SG Q-come-PEF ‘Did he come?’

(5) Huai-an Mandarin (Zhang 1990: 14)

a. zhe jian yishang hai-haokan a? 这件衣裳还好看啊？ DEF CL clothes Q-good.looking PRT ‘Does this suit look nice?’

1 Q-VP questions are also known as ke-VP questions, as ke 可 is a common pre-verb interrogative marker in many Sinitic languages. Nevertheless, considering that some other markers (e.g. a 阿, hai 还) with similar functions are also found, this work uses the general term Q, to cover ke, a, hai, and the like.

228

6 Three types of verb-related questions

b. Shanghai ni hai-qu-guo de a? 上海你还去过的啊？ Shanghai 2SG Q-go-PST DE PRT ‘Have you ever been to Shanghai?’

In some dialects of Southwest Mandarin spoken in the Yunnan Province, e.g. Kunming Mandrin (see example 1 above) and Heqing Mandarin, pre-verb interrogative markers are also reported.

(6) Heqing Mandarin (Huang et al. 1996: 700-1)

a. xiawu ke35-qu youyong? 下午给去游泳？ afternoon Q-go swimming ‘Are you going to swim this afternoon?’

b. ni ke35-chi liangcha? 你给吃凉茶？ 2SG Q-eat herbal.tea ‘Would you like to drink some herbal tea?’

One fact that deserves to be pointed out is that Q-VP questions in Southwest Mandarin have very likely been introduced by immigrants who spoke Jiang-Huai Mandarin. In the early (around 1381 – 1387), tens of thousands military forces were ordered to go to Yunnan (southwest China) to fight the local ethnic tribes and the forces of the past Yuan (Mongolian) dynasty. After the war, they were required to stay there and do agricultural work, in order to keep Yunnan a more controllable place. A considerable proportion of the remaining army (notably the generals) was from , a southeast province with many varieties of Q-VP questions. Anhui was the hometown of the emperor (Zhu Yuanzhang). The language of the high officials was influential, and Q-VP questions were kept there. In 1389, the emperor sent millions of peasants to Yunnan shortly after the war, most of them from southern and eastern China, with a considerable number from Anhui and , and their language, Jiang-Huai Mandarin, was the more privileged one. (See Zhang 1990: 36-7 for more discussion.) 2 Central Mandarin does not have Q-VP questions except that the Suining variety uses the pre-verb interrogative marker hai-, which is also reported in

2 In Zhouqu Mandarin, a variety of Central Mandarin spoken in the Gansu Province, north- central China, verb-reduplicating questions are also reported (see Section 6.2.1.).

229

6 Three types of verb-related questions

many varieties in Jiang-Huai Mandarin and Southwest Mandarin, and resembles the ke- in many Q-VP questions.

(7) Suining Mandarin (Zhang 1990: 11)

a. hai-xiang qu? 还想去？ Q-want go ‘Do you want to go (there)?’

b. hái xiang qu. 还想去。 still wantgo ‘I want to go there again.’

Note that hai is unstressed and in a neutral tone (qingsheng 轻声; see, e.g. Wang 1997) in (7a). When hai keeps its original (high rising) tone (hái; cf. 7b), it is not an interrogative prefix but an interrogative adverb. This is a matter of iconicity, in particular, of sound symbolism, for semantic importance requires phonetic emphasis, and an affix (or clitic) is not able to receive such emphasis. It is very likely that Suining Mandarin borrowed Q-VP questions via areal contact, as Suining is very close to the districts where Jiang-Huai Mandarin is spoken (rich in hai-VP questions), in particular, form Suining it is less than 300km to and , the capital cities of the Jiangsu and Anhui Province, respectively, and even closer to some other Jiang-Huai Mandarin districts, like Sùzhōu, Shuyang, and Huai-an, with only a distance of about 100km.

Gan

Q-VP questions are not found frequently found in Gan, although several clear examples are reported in Taihe Gan and Ji-an Gan, in which the pre-verb interrogative markers are a213 and i55, respectively.

(8) Taihe Gan (Huang et al. 1996: 691; fieldwork notes)

a. ȵi34 a213-lən34-xɤ213ɕy44? 2SG Q-PFT-study ‘Did you study?’

b. ȵi34 a213-sʅ44 lau213sʅ44? 2SG Q-be teacher ‘Are you a teacher?’

230

6 Three types of verb-related questions

c. a213-sʅ44 thiɛn44tɕhiaŋ34? Q-be sunny ‘Is it sunny?’

(9) Ji-an Gan (Shao et al. 2010: 213)

a. nən34 i55 ɕiau213tɛ34? 3 2SG Q know ‘Do you know that?’

(9a) is a neutral and not a leading question. Biased questions adopt a different strategy, i.e. taking a sentence-final question particle a55, as it is shown in (9b).

b. nən34 ɕiau213tɛ34 a55? 2SG know PRT ‘Do you know that?’

Hakka In the varieties of Hakka spoken in the south Jiangxi Province, questions h with Q-VP are mainly found in two types, an-/am-/æn-VP and k ə-VP. The former is found in Quannan Hakka, Longnan Hakka, and Dingnan Hakka, and the latter is found in Xinfeng Hakka. In Quannan Hakka, a polar question is usually formed by an am-VP or am- PEF-VP structure, indicating non-perfective and perfective aspect, respectively.

(10) Quannan Hakka (Zhang 1990: 45)

a. ni am-sε tsha? 你暗食茶？ 2SG Q-eat tea ‘Would you like to have a cup of tea?’

b. ni am-tɕiæn-tau-kuo peitɕiŋ? 你暗前到过北京？ 2SG Q-PEF-go-PST Beijing ‘Have you been to Beijing?’

3 The strategy, however, is not confirmed by a native speaker. My fieldwork also suggests that young people’s polar questions are very similar to Standard Chinese. Being spoken in the political and economic center of the district, Ji-an Gan, is being mandarinized very fast.

231

6 Three types of verb-related questions

A similar construction is found in Longnan Hakka, which is spoken in Longnan, a neighboring county of Quannan County. For example, ni-kɤ kua h æn-pu t iæn? (2SG-GEN melon Q-not sweat) ‘Is your (melon) sweet?’ (Zhang 1990: 45). Zhang (1990: 46) proposes that Quannan am and Longnan æn very likely evolved from the alloforms of the Chinese interrogative adverb gǎn 敢 ‘Is it true that…?’, by losing the initial consonant. This assumption sounds reasonable, because sān ‘three’ in Standard Chinese is pronounced sám in Dingnan Hakka, spoken in a neighboring county of Longnan and Quannan, though the consonant -m is no longer kept in Longnan or Quannan because of replacement in recent history. Dingnan Hakka also has pre-verb question markers.

(11) Dingnan Hakka (fieldwork notes)

a. ni an-ɕi-a kantsou? 你暗去呀赣州？ 2SG Q-go-PRT ‘Are you going to Ganzhou?’

b. ni a-nəŋ-ɕi-kuo kantsou? 你阿能去过赣州？ 2SG Q-PST-go-PST Ganzhou ‘Have you been to Ganzhou?’

The distinction between perfect and non-perfect aspects in Dingnan Hakka is exactly the same as in Taihe Gan (see example 8 above), in which a- and anəŋ- are used respectively. Nevertheless, Dingnan Hakka also use questions with a V(P) plus a final particle, like ɕi mε? (go PRT) ‘Are you going (there)?’ ɕiː a? (go PRT) ‘Have you been there?’, or a [Q-verb-particle] structure, like ni an-ɕi-a? (2SG Q-go-PRT) ‘Are you going (there)?’ Xinfeng Hakka and Nankang Hakka are different from Dingnan Hakka, Longnan Hakka, and Quannan Hakka in that khə-VP questions are used.

(12) Xinfeng Hakka (fieldwork notes)

44 h 22 42 nei k ə -sɛ ? 你可食？ 2SG Q-eat ‘Would you like to eat?’

232

6 Three types of verb-related questions

Wu In Wu there are two types of interrogative verb morphologies, the prefixing type and the reduplicating type (the latter is commonly found in the Zhejiang Province, see Section 6.2.1.). The former is commonly found in Shanghai Wu and its neighboring districts in the southern Jiangsu Province, like Suzhou Wu.

(13) (old) Shanghai Wu, and Suzhou Wu (Liu 1991)

noŋ a-tɕhi? 侬阿去？ 2SG Q-go ‘Are you going (there)?’

It is odd if one uses a-VP question (13) nowadays, since the interrogative prefix is no longer kept in Contemporary Wu, instead, the final interrogative particle va h is normally used, e.g. noŋ tɕ i va? (2SG go PRT) ‘Are you going (there)?’

Min Polar questions in Min (including the dialects of Min in Taiwan) are commonly found to have a V(P)-neg-V(P) structure, though some dialects of it are of the prefixing type. For example, in Zhangzhou Min (Fujian Province) and Tainan Min (Taiwan), there is a kan/kam-V(P) question, like kan/kam-you fan? (Q-have food) ‘Is there some food?’ (see Zhang 1990: 41-2, Yue-Hashimoto 1991, for further discussion.) Clearly, kan/kam continues the Archaic Chinese kan 敢, which was an adjective in its earlier usage (‘brave’, ‘courageous’), it then also functioned as a verb (‘dare to do’) and an interrogative adverb, which can be used both in questions which seek no answer and in cases of uncertainty. All the three usages are kept in Xiamen Min, which has three allomorphs of kan, that is, [kam], [kan], and [kan]. [kam] is an adjective and a verb, [kan] is an interrogative adverb which only ask rhetorical questions, [kan] functions as adjective, verb, or adverb. As an adverb, [kan] can be used to ask polar questions without answer bias, for n example, ni ka -you he yi jiang ke? (2SG Q-have to 3SG say PRT) ‘Did you tell her/him something?’ (Zhang 1990: 43).

233

6 Three types of verb-related questions

6.1.2. Q-VP in Tibeto-Burman

Tibetan Two Tibetan languages, Anduo Tibetan and Baima, are reported to have interrogative prefixes on verbs. In the following examples, ə is used in Anduo Tibetan, and ə53 is used in Baima.

(14) Anduo Tibetan (Sun 1995)

tɕho nthoŋ ə-re? 2SG drink Q-be ‘Did you drink?’

(15) Baima (a, Sun 1995; b, Sun 2007a: 224)

a. tɕhø53 kho53 ə53-ue35-uɛ13? 2SG carry Q-come-PRT ‘Have you carried it here?’

b. ə53ndʑi53? ‘Go?’ ə53dʑa341? ‘Sew?’ ə53dzuɛ341 ‘Dig?’

Yi Rouruo is different from other Yi languages (see Section 6.2.2) in that the verb-reduplicating strategy is not used. Instead, the prefix ta53 is usually used to question the semantic content of the verb.

(16) Rouruo (Sun 2007e: 461)

ȵau31 tsu55 ta53-tsou31? 2SG meal Q-eat ‘Have you eaten?’

More examples of Rouruo are collected in Sun (2002: 90), e.g. ta53tso33 ‘Eat?’, ta53ȵi55 ‘Look?’, ta53phõ13 ‘Open?’, ta53pa53 ‘Hit?’, etc.

Jingpo In two dialects of Dulong (a Jingpo language), the prefixing strategy is adopted, in particular, gɯ55- is found in Nujiang Dulong, and ma55- is found in Dulongjiang Dulong.

234

6 Three types of verb-related questions

(17) Nujiang Dulong (Sun 1995)

53 55 55 a. ăŋ gɯ -khe ? he Q-eat ‘Did he eat?’

55 55 31 i53 b. na gɯ -nɯ -dʑ ? 2SG Q-2-go ‘Did you go (there)?’

(18) Dulongjiang Dulong (Sun 1995; see also Sun 1982: 176)

53 55 55 55 55 31 55 55 55 a. na i ɟɯ̆ʔ ma -na -sɯ -dat -păŋ wan ? 2SG rope Q-2-CAU-break-PRT ‘Do you want to break down the rope?’

b. nɯ55nĭŋ55 nuŋ55ŋwa53 ma55-nɯ31-săt55-păŋ55wan55? 2SG.PL ox Q-2-kill-PRT ‘Are you going to kill the ox?’

Qiangic In Qiangic languages, interrogative morphology on verbs is commonly used. In the eight languages that demonstrate such a strategy, four are prefixing, one is infixing, and three are both prefixing and suffixing. This is consistent with (and also a nature of) the general marking typology of these languages, which are head marking or double marking (see Nichols 1986, 1992; Nichols and Bickel 2005a, b, c). In rGyarong, the interrogative prefix attached on a verb is mo-, although it is found only in second person and third person.

(19) rGyarong (Lin 1993: 245-6)

a. no mo-tə-pə-u? 2SG Q-2-do-2SG ‘Would you like to do (this)?’

b. no mo-tə-zə-u? 2SG Q-2-eat-2SG ‘Would you like to eat (this)?’

235

6 Three types of verb-related questions

The prefix mo- is only used in present or future tenses. When one wants to question a past event, an allomorphy mə- is used, which precedes the tense prefix (to- or nɐ-).

c. no mə-to-tə-za-u? 2SG Q-PST-2-eat-2SG ‘Have you eaten?’

d. no məʃer mə-nɐ -tə-rmɐ-n? 2SG yesterday Q-PST-2-sleep-2SG ‘Did you sleep yesterday?’

Ergong also has prefixing, although there is a small difference in the pronunciations between the dialect in the Dasang Township, , and the northern dialect.

(20) Ergong (a, Sun 2007b: 942; b, Sun 1995)

a. ȵi ɛ -ɕin? (Dansang Township, Danba County) 2SG Q-go ‘Are you going there?’

b. nɟjə53 ə53-dzən13? (Northern dialect) 2SG Q-eat ‘(Do you like to) Eat?’

In Lawurong one can question a verb simply by adding an interrogative prefix ji- or ɕə-. A similar strategy is also reported in Namuyi.

(21) Lawurong (Huang 2007b: 1056)

a. ȵe35 dʑæ55 ə-ji55/ɕə55-the-n53? 2SG tea Q-drink-2SG ‘Would you like to have a cup of tea?’

b. cçə53 ɣə dʑæ5 nə-ji55/ɕə55-the53? he AGT tea PFV-Q-drink ‘Did he drink tea?’

(22) Namuyi (a-b, Huang and Renzengwangmu 1991a: 169; c, Liu 2007: 979; d, Sun 1995)

236

6 Three types of verb-related questions

a. nuo31 ʁuo53dzʉ31 mo31 a33-dʑi33? 2SG Tibetan people Q-be ‘Are you Tibetan?’

b. nuo31 mo33ʂɿ31 dzi53 a33-ntɕhi55 mæ55 ntɕhi55? 2SG horse.meat eat Q-ever not ever ‘Did you ever eat horse meat?’

c. no53 bi53ji31 a53-pa13? 2SG bag Q-have ‘Do you have a bag?’

d. no55 mi33 ɛ55-dzɿ53 ɛ33? 2SG Q-eat ‘Have you eaten?’

Note that in Huang and Renzengwangmu’s description (1991a), Namuyi is called Namuzi, and the interrogative prefix is documented as a33 (and the second person singular is nuo31), while it is a53 (and the second person singular is no53) in Liu (2007), and ɛ55 (and the second person singular is no55) in Sun (1995), respectively. In Ersu the interrogative affix a55 can be added before or after a verb which questions the semantic meaning of the very verb, though there is a difference in meaning according to its placement.

(23) Ersu (Sun 2007c: 962)

55 55 5 55 55 55 55 55 55 a. tiã jĩ thɛ wo nɛ dzo ro -a -gɛ ? film this CL 2SG watch-Q-PRT ‘Would you like to watch the film?’

55 55 5 55 55 55 55 55 b. tiã jĩ thɛ wo nɛ a -dzo ro ? ‘Did you watch the film?’

In Pumi (also known as Primi) the prefix ɛ13 can be added onto a verb to phrase polar questions.

(24) Pumi (Lu 1983: 81)

a. nɛ13 sĩ13tʃhø55 ɛ13-dziɯu55si55? 2SG breakfast Q-eat ‘Have you had breakfast?’

237

6 Three types of verb-related questions

b. tə55gɯ55 ȵa13mi55 ɛ13də13? he Naxi be ‘Is he a Naxi people?’

c. lau13sə55 tʃə̃55mie55 ɛ13ʒø55? teacher home be.in ‘Is the teacher at home?’

d. tʂa55ʂə55 bie55ŋãu55 ɛ13bõ55? Zhaxi money have ‘Does Zhaxi have money?’

Shixing is exactly the mirror image of Ersu in that the interrogative prefix ɛ 55 (or a55) normally precedes the verb in future tense (post-posing in marginal cases), and is postposed in past tense.

(25) Shixing (Sun 2007f: 991-2)

55 55 53 55 35 55 55 33 a. ɔ̃ rɛ̃ mɛ̃ khɛ xui ga -a -wɛ̃ ? we today have.meeting-Q-be ‘Are we going to have a meeting today?’

b. thi55 ȵo55 la55 dzi35-ɛ55-tɕyɛ53? he 2SG PRT beat-Q-PRT ‘Did he beat you?’

In Muya the infix æ55 is used between the verb stem and its suffix(es) in non-perfective (26b-d); in perfective aspect, in second person the prefix changes its tone to 15 (sometimes the vowel of the prefix also changes), or, in third person, the infix æ55 is added between the verb stem and its suffix sə33 or question particle ra55 (26e-h; Huang 1991b: 120-1).

(26) Muya (Huang 1991b: 121; see also Huang 2007c: 917)

a. t‘ɐ53βə53 ‘do’ 33 55 55 33 b. t‘ɐ βə æ pæ ? ‘Will youSG do (this)?’ 33 55 55 33 c. t‘ɐ βə æ pe ? ‘Will youPL do (this)?’ d. t‘ɐ33βə55æ55pi33? ‘Will he/they do (this)?’ 15 33 e. t‘æ βy ? ‘Have youSG done (this)?’ 15 33 f. t‘æ βe ? ‘Have youPL done (this)?’ g. t‘u33βə55æ55sə33? ‘{Has he/Have they} done (this)?’ h. t‘u33βə55a55ra33? ‘{Has he/Have they} done (this)?’

238

6 Three types of verb-related questions

6.1.3. Summary

Q-VP questions found in Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman languages are summarized in the following table.

Table 6.1. Q-VP in Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman languages

Groups Languages Dialect groups Dialects Question markers Sinitic Mandarin Southwest Kunming kə- Mandarin Southwest Heqing ke35- Mandarin Jiang-Huai Caoxian ke- Mandarin Jiang-Huai Huai-an hai- Mandarin Jiang-Huai Huaiyin hai- Mandarin Central Suining hai- (neutral tone) Gan Ji-Cha Taihe a213- Gan Ji-Cha Ji-an i55- Hakka Ning-Long Quannan am- Hakka Ning-Long Longnan æn- Hakka Ning-Long Dingnan a(n)- Hakka Ning-Long Nankang khə- Hakka Ning-Long Xinfeng khə- Wu Taihu Shanghai a- Wu Taihu Suzhou a- Min Quan-Zhang Zhangzhou kan-, kam- Min Quan-Zhang Tainan kan-, kam- Min Quan-Zhang Xiamen kan-

Tibeto-Burman Tibetan Anduo ə- Baima ə53- Rouruo ta53- Dulong Nujiang gɯ55- Dulong Dulongjiang ma55- rGyarong mo- (mə-) Ergong Danba ɛ- Ergong North ə53- Lawurong ji55-,ɕə55- Namuyi a33- (a53-, ɛ55-) Ersu a55-, -a55 Pumi ɛ13- Shixing ɛ55- (a55-) Muya -æ55-

239

6 Three types of verb-related questions

As the table shows, a is a common interrogative marker in Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman languages, which is in accordance with Benedict’s (1976, 1985) reconstruction of the Proto-Sino-Tibetan interrogative *ga(ng) ~ *ka. Also, Q-VP questions are only found in Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman languages, not in the other languages of China, which can be taken as further evidence supporting the Sino-Tibetan grouping (Benedict 1972).

240

6 Three types of verb-related questions

6.2. Verb-reduplicating questions

Verb-reduplicating questions are found in 14 Sino-Tibetan languages in China, including 6 Sinitic, 7 Tibeto-Burman (in particular, Yi languages), and 1 Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao).

6.2.1. Verb-reduplication in Sinitic

Mandarin A verb-reduplicating strategy is reported in many varieties of Jiang-Huai Mandarin, e.g. Hongze, Huaiyin4, Shuyang, Siyang, and Xishui.

(27) Huaiyin Mandarin (Zhang 1990: 15; Huang 1996: 696, 700)

a. ni you-you a? 你有有象棋啊? 2SG have-have Chinese. PRT ‘Do you have a Chinese chess?’

b. ni mei-mei shangxue a? 你没没上学啊? 2SG not.have-not.have go.study PRT ‘You didn’t go to school today?’

(28) Lianshui Mandarin (Zhang 1990: 67)

a. dao-dao-guo Shanghai? 到到过上海? arrive-arrive-PST Shanghai ‘Have you ever been to Shanghai?’

b. ni gege you-you erzi? 你哥哥有有儿子? 2SG elder.brother have-have son ‘Does your elder brother have a son?’

A native Lianshui Mandarin source suggests that colloquial Lianshui and Huai-an (including Huaiyin) do not have any prefixing or verb-reduplicating interrogative sentences, instead, they invariably take a V(P)-neg-V(P) structure, which is exactly the same as in Standard Chinese, like you-mei-you (have-not-have) ‘have or not?’, qu-bu-qu (go-not-go) ‘go or not?’. The source also suggests that Lianshui, Huai-an, and Huaiyin demonstrate only very little

4 Huaiyin Mandarin has also the pre-verb interrogative marker hai- (see Section 6.1.1).

241

6 Three types of verb-related questions

dialectal difference, no greater than the difference between a senior person’s language and that of a young man’s. It is too early to conclude that the findings in Zhang (1990) and Huang (1996) are not valid, as we have only very limited data here.

(29) Xishui Mandarin (Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

a. mai zhe-ge-niu -chu-bu-qi qian? 买这个牛你出出不起钱? buy DEF-CL-ox pay-pay-not-ACM money ‘Can you afford the ox?’

b. ni he-he-bu-liao? 三大缸子水，你喝喝不了? 2SG drink-drink-not-PRT ‘Are you able to drink the (three big glasses of) water?’

(30) Shuyang Mandarin (Zhang 1990: 67)

ni chi chifan? 你吃吃饭? 2SG eat eat.meal ‘Do you like to eat?’

(31) Siyang Mandarin (the county town) (Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

a. ta Shanghai ren? 他是是上海人? 3SG be be Shanghai people ‘Is s/he ?’

b. neng neng xi ganjing? 能能洗干净? can can wash clean ‘Could it be cleaned?’ or ‘Can you clean it?’

The compact form, i.e. the VV structure, is only found in the non-perfective in Shuyang Mandarin and Siyang Mandarin, whereas a more complex form, i.e. V-neg-V construction is adopted in perfective, for example, shi-bu-shi ‘be-not-be’, chi-bu-chi ‘eat-not-eat’, etc. Nevertheless, VV is also reported in the perfective in Huaiyin Mandarin and Hongze Mandarin.

(32) Huaiyin Mandarin (Zhang 1990: 67)

mei mei chi-guo-a? 没没吃过啊？ not.have not.have eat-PEF-PRT ‘Have you eaten?’

242

6 Three types of verb-related questions

(33) Hongze Mandarin (Zhang 1990: 67)

mei mei qilai-a? 没没起来啊？ not.have not.have get.up-PRT ‘(Someone) Still hasn’t get up?’

Interestingly, there are both youyou (you ‘have’) and meimei (mei ‘not have’) in Huaiyin (see example 27 above) and Hongze, used in non-perfective and perfective respectively. This distinction is, however, not yet fully developed in the Xinquan dialect of Liancheng Hakka (see Xiang 1990), in which only a wuwu (wu ‘not have’) is found in the non-perfective. In the Xinquan dialect of Liancheng Hakka (see example 41 below), some reduplicating verbs undergo a process of tone shift, followed by tone merging, which result in some complex tones, e.g. 35͡51 (Xiang 1990). A lengthened articulation of the verb, though not the same as in Liancheng Hakka, is found in the Zhenglou dialect of Siyang Mandarin, in which the structure of the reduplicated verbs is not VVP but VP, with V (bold emphasis of the examples below) pronounced twice as long as when it is pronounced as a normal verb (Zhang 1990: 67).

(34) Siyang Mandarin (Zhenglou dialect) (Zhang 1990: 67)

a. ni hai yoou qian a? 你还有-钱啊？ 2SG still have money PRT ‘Do you still have some money?’

b. ta shii Shanghairen a? 他是-上海人啊？ 3SG be Shanghainess PRT ‘Is s/he Shanghainess?’

c. ni chii huasheng? 你吃-花生？ 2SG eat peanut ‘Do you like to eat peanuts?’

More examples of verb-reduplicating questions are reported in Hefei, Yangzhou, (Huang et al. 1996: 700), and some Mandarin languages in the Anhui Province, like the languages in Fu(yang)-Su(zhou) (Central Mandarin) and (He)Fei-Wu(hu) (Jiang-Huai Mandarin) districts (Zhang 1990: 30).

243

6 Three types of verb-related questions

In Suizhou Mandarin ( Province), a dialect of Southwest Mandarin, negators in V-neg-V constructions are completely dropped, i.e., it simply uses a VV structure, without any pause in between. This structure is reported both in primary predicate (35a-b, non-perfective; 35c, perfective) and secondary predicate (35d).

(35) Suizhou Mandarin (Huang et al. 1996: 695; Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

a. ququ? (go go) ‘Are you going there?’ b. ququde? (go go DE) ‘Is it okay to go there?’ c. ququ(de)le? (go go DE PRT) ‘Has (someone) been there?’ d. ququ kan xi? (go go watch opera) ‘Are you going to watch the opera?’

The adjective-reduplicating (AA) structure, often co-existing in languages with V-(neg)-V questions, is, however, not found in Suizhou, in which the full form adj-neg-adj structure is used. Xiantao Mandarin (Hubei Province), a variety of Southwest Mandarin, resembles Liancheng Hakka (see example 41 below) in that it also undergoes tone shift, i.e., the tone of the negation constituent is moved onto the preceding verb, while the original tone of the very verb is dropped. The tone shifted onto the verb is consistently a 35 tone, because the tone of the negation word bu ‘not’ is 35.

(36) Xiantao Mandarin (Zhang 1990: 67)

a. ni xiang-xiang qu? 你想想去？ 2SG like-like go ‘Would you like to go (there)?’

b. ta shi-shi ni gege? 他是是你哥哥？ he be-be 2SG elder.brother ‘Is he your brother?’

c. hai you-you fan? 还有有饭？ still have-have rice ‘Is there still some food?’

d. qu-qu-guo Beijing? 去去过北京？ go-go-PST be-be ‘Have you ever been to Beijing?’

244

6 Three types of verb-related questions

A similar structure is found in Chongqing Mandarin (though it has interrogative verbs; see Section 6.2.3).

(37) Chongqing Mandarin (Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

ni ren rende ta? 你认认得他？ 2SG know know 3SG ‘Do you know her/him?’

In Zhouqu Mandarin, a variety of Central Mandarin, it is possible to reduplicate the predicate verb to ask polar questions (or tag questions).

(38) Zhouqu Mandarin (Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

zhi duo hua xiangzi hen, shi shi? 致朵花香子很，是是？ DEF CL flower good.smell very yes yes ‘The flower smells very good, dosn’t it?’

Verb-reduplicating interrogatives are also reported in Binxian Mandarin, a variety of Northwest Mandarin spoken in the Heilongjiang Province, and in Laifeng Mandarin, a variety of Southwest Mandarin spoken in the Hubei Province (Dai and Zhu 2010).

Hakka In the Hakka-spoken districts of the south Jiangxi Province, Yudu and Huichang are reported to reduplicate the verb (VV)5 to ask polar questions. (For Q-VP questions in Hakka, see Section 6.1.1.)

(39) Yudu Hakka (a, Liu 2001: 335; b, Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

a. ti-tsa-kua sε-sε-tε? 底只瓜食食得? DEF-CL-melon eat-eat-able ‘Is this melon edible?’

b. miεn-tsau ŋan ɕiau-ɕiau koŋtɕiu? 明朝你去去赣州？ tomorrow 2SG go-go Ganzhou ‘Are you going to Ganzhou tomorrow?’

5 Some aspect markers can also be reduplicated to ask polar questions, e.g. xən h h ts ən-ts ən-si-fan? (2SG PEF-PEF-eat-meal) ‘Have you already eaten?’

245

6 Three types of verb-related questions

(40) Huichang Hakka (Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

tiɕiε-kuotsi si-si-tε? 底些果子食食得？ this-fruit eat-eat-able ‘Is these fruits edible?’

My Hakka fieldwork notes, however, are in disagreement with the findings of Liu and Shao. Two native speaker sources suggest there is no verb-reduplicating strategy in Yudu or Huichang Hakka. In Yudu the only preferred structure is (V-)neg-V(P), e.g. xən (sε) ŋ/mɔ sε fan? (2SG (eat) not/not.have eat meal) ‘Would h you like to eat?/Have you eaten?’, xən mɔ tɕ iε (nε)? (2SG not go (PRT)) ‘Have you been there?’. In Huichang, (V-)neg-V(P) is also the most favored structure, although it also uses a tonal V(P) question, for example, ŋan miεntsau ɕiau-ŋ-ɕiau koŋtɕiu? (2SG tomorrow go-not-go Ganzhou) ‘Are you going to Ganzhou tomorrow?’, wei ɕiau? (will go) ‘Are you going (there)?’, ŋ ɕiau? (not go) ‘Are you going (there) or not?’. Considering that both languages have V-neg-V structures, and the negation constituent ŋ is very easily dropped in a conversation, leaving only a very short pause in articulation, the statements proposed by Liu and Shao are not far from the truth, though a native speaker would reject their point of view without any hesitation. Nevertheless, a fact that must be pointed out is that the native speaker informants are all in their 30s, and information from senior citizen’s Hakka would be necessary, if it is a question of age. One can also use the other polar question structures which are frequently encountered in other Sinitic languages, like V(P)-neg, V(P)-prt, and V(P) plus a raising tone, and these are mutually understandable, though these questions are not favored in contemporary Yudu Hakka or Huichang Hakka, and the addressee gets a strong impression that the speaker is of a different regional (especially, Mandarin) background or s/he is giving a more or less formal talk. Verb-reduplicating questions are also reported in the Xinquan dialect of Liancheng Hakka (Fujian Province). It is worth noting that the tone of the negation word ŋ̍35 (41a) is shifted onto the previous verb (41b). What is more interesting is that the two verbs can even be merged together, resulting in a single verb, with the tone merged, i.e. 3551, as in (41c).

(41) Liancheng Hakka (Xiang 1990; Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

246

6 Three types of verb-related questions

a. ɕi51-ŋ̍35-ɕi51fa33 tʂa11 k‘ie11? like-not-like DEF CL ‘(Do you) like this (clothes) (or not)?’

b. ɕi35 ɕi51fa33 tʂa11 k‘ie11? c. ɕi3551fa33 tʂa11 k‘ie11?

The medial part of the merged tone always takes a shorter time in articulation. As in (41c), tone 55 take just the same time span of a single 5 tone, which makes 3551 sounds like 351. In Changting Hakka (Fujian Province), polar questions also adopt a tonal shift strategy. In (42), the former verbs both take a rising tone (24), which is the tone of the negation word originally in between, though, they do not go as far as Liancheng Hakka, which keeps only one verb and has the tones of two verbs on it.

(42) Changting (Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

a. tsu24-tsu42-kuŋ? 做做工？ do-do-work ‘Do you like to work (or not)?’

b. ɕiau24-ɕiau42-phi? 削削皮？ peel-peel-skin ‘Do you like to have the fruit peeled (or not)?’

Jin In the Wutai subgroup of Jin, verb-reduplicating is very common in dialects like Shuozhou, Pinglu, Daixian, Lanxian, and so on. In its Shanyin dialect, one of the reduplicated verbs can be dropped, though the remaining verb keeps a longer time in articulation, in particular, the remaining verb is pronounced as long as two verbs, e.g. shi-bu-shi? (yes-no-yes) ‘Yes or no?’ → shi-shi? → shii?

(43) Wutai Jin (Guo 2010)

a. ta zai zai? (Shuozhou dialect) 3SG be.in be.in ‘Is s/he here?’

247

6 Three types of verb-related questions

b. jinnian shoucheng bulai, shi shi? (Pinglu dialect) this.year harvest not.badyes yes ‘The harvest this year is not bad, isn’t it?’

Min In the following examples of Fuzhou Min (spoken in the capital city of the Fujian Province), the preceding verb has a nasalized ending, which is a part of the negation constituent in between, cf. -n in (44a) and -m in (44b), which are clearly variants of the negation constituent ŋ̍ in many Sinitic languages in south China (e.g. Cantonese, Hakka).

(44) Fuzhou Min (Shao et al. 2010: 224-5; Huang et al. 1996: 266)

a. ny44 sεn45 sε21? 2SG wash wash ‘Will you wash (it) (or not)?’

b. i45 mεm45 mε21? 2SG buy buy ‘Will you buy (it) (or not)?’

Wu In many districts of Zhejiang, a neighboring province of Shanghai and Jiangsu, polar questions frequently have verb-reduplicating structures. This is reported in , Jinhua, Shengxian, Wuyi, and Zhuji.

(45) Shaoxing Wu (Huang et al. 1996: 701; Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

a. yi lai-lai dong-wu-li? 伊来来东屋里？ 3SG come-come east-room-LOC ‘Is s/he coming to the east room?’

b. ruo yao-yao yi lai? 诺要要伊来？ 2SG want-want 3SG come ‘Do you want to have him/her here?’

248

6 Three types of verb-related questions

(46) Jinhua Wu (Zhang 1990: 66; Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

a. nong yuan-yuan qu? 侬愿愿去？ 2sg want-want go ‘Do you like to go (there)?’

b. ju ken-ken lai? 巨肯肯来？ 3SG will-will come ‘Would s/he come?’

(47) Shengxian Wu (Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

a. wandao zhong-(wu)-zhong lai? 晚稻种(勿)种来？ autumn.rice plant-not-plant PRT ‘Are you going to plant the autumn rice?’

b. xia-(wu)-xia laojiu lai? 呷(勿)呷老酒来？ sip-not-sip PN PRT ‘Do you like to drink some (a kind of alcohol)?’

(48) Wuyi Wu (Zhang 1990: 66; Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

a. a-ben-shu nong wang-wang? 阿本书侬望望？ DEF-CL-book 2SG read-read ‘Do you like to read the book?’

b. nong fan shi-shi na? 侬饭食食哪？ 2SG meal eat-eat PRT ‘Do you like to eat?’

(49) Zhuji Wu (Zhang 1990: 66; Shao et al. 2010: 224-5)

a. qi you-you lai-guo xian? 其有有来过咸？ 3SG have-have come-PST PRT ‘Did s/he come here?’

b. ni shu you-you xian? 你书有有咸？ 2SG book have-have PRT ‘Do you have (the) book?’

It is very likely that these verb-reduplicating questions are due to the omission of the negator between two verbs (phrases). This can be seen clearly in the Shengxian Wu example (47), in which the negation word wu is optional.

249

6 Three types of verb-related questions

Admittedly, an opposite argument could be made, namely that the V(P)-neg-V(P) questions are derived from V(P)-V(P). Nevertheless, the latter hypothesis is less plausible because V(P)-neg-V(P) occur earlier than V(P)-V(P) in the history of the Chinese language (see Section 7.2 for more discussion).

Xiang Xiang, also known as Hunan Chinese, is not rich in verb-reduplicating interrogatives, though some studies claim them for some dialects, e.g. Xiang. The verb-reduplicating strategy is, also to omit the negation word between two verbs (phrases), this shares common feature with many varieties of Wu in Zhejiang Province (see above, especially the Shengxian examples).

(50) Guiyang Xiang (Ouyang 2009)

a. ni chi-chi yefan? 你吃吃夜饭？ 2SG eat-eat supper ‘Do you like to have supper?’

b. guiyang-jie-shang ni mingri qu-qu? 桂阳街上你明日去去？ Guiyang-street-LOC 2SG tomorrow go-go ‘Are you going to the Guiyang town tomorrow?’

6.2.2. Verb-reduplication in Yi

The structure of verb-reduplicating interrogatives in Yi languages (Tibeto- Burman) is to reduplicate the (last) syllable of the first verb, i.e. to reduplicate the syllable if the first verb is monosyllabic, or reduplicate the last syllable if the first verb has more than one syllable, and change the tone of the (last) syllable.

(51) Yi (Chen et al. 1985: 94; Chen et al. 2007: 265)

a. la33 ‘come’, la44la33 ‘Come?’ b. lɔ55pɔ21 ‘help’, lɔ55pɔ21pɔ33 ‘Help?’

250

6 Three types of verb-related questions

The rule of tonal change is as follows: when the tone of the (last) syllable of the preceding verb6 is 55, 44, or 21, then the first syllable keeps its own tone, while the latter is changed into 33; when reduplicating a 33-toned syllable, the latter syllable changes into 44, that is, the latter syllable of the reduplicated verb must bear a 33 tone, regardless of the tone of the previous one.

(final) verb reduplicated verbs V55 V55V33 V44 V44V33 V21 V21V33 V33 V44V33

In Modern Naxi, verb-reduplicating interrogatives are used only in marginal cases, with also a tonal change on the verb.

(52) Naxi (a-b, He 1987: 63; c-e, He and Jiang 1982: 49)

a. nvq leel lee lei? 2SG come come PRT ‘Will you come?’

b. bbigv tv heeq bbaiqnei ddol ddoq ddeq? in.forest bird scrawl see see PRT ‘Did you see that the bird is clawing the soil happily?’

c. bɯ55 bɯ33 le33? go go PRT ‘Go (or not)?’

d. phiə55 phiə31 le33? like like PRT ‘Like it (or not)?’

e. sɯ55 sɯ33 le33? know know PRT ‘Know it (or not)?’

6 In Yi, adjectives can also be reduplicated to ask polar questions, e.g. mbo21 ‘good’ → mbo21mbo33? ‘(Is it) good?’; a33vu55 ‘blue’ → a33vu55vu33? ‘(Is it) blue?’ (Chen et al. 1985: 101).

251

6 Three types of verb-related questions

Tonal change on the verb, however, is not common in Tanglang and Kazhuo, two languages with verb-reduplicating interrogatives.

(53) Tanglang (Gai 2007: 372)

a. ʑi31 ʑi31? go go ‘(Will you) Go (or not)?’

b. mv53 χã33 χã33? rain drop drop ‘Is it going to rain?’ Literally, ‘Will the rain drop or not?’

(54) Kazhuo (Mu 2003a: 211-2; He 2007: 431)

a. nɛ33 zɿ53 zɿ53? 2SG sleep sleep ‘Would you like to sleep?’

b. nɛ33 ŋ24 mo323 mo323? 2SG look see see ‘Did you see (that)?’

According to Mu (2003a: 210, and p.c.), three other Yi languages, namely, Hani, Lahu, and Lisu also have verb-reduplicating interrogatives. Mu (2003a: 246) notes that adjective-reduplicating questions are only found in Yi and Kazhuo, not in other Yi languages. This demonstrates that Yi and Kazhuo are closer genetically or in closer areal contact than the other languages; also, adj-reduplicating interrogatives are less common than verb-reduplicating ones, i.e. adj-reduplicating interrogatives imply verb-reduplicating interrogatives. (Cf. Suizhou Mandarin in Section 6.2.1.)

6.2.3. Verb-reduplication in Hmong-Mien

So far only one Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) language, Baiwu Miao, is reported to express interrogatives through verb-reduplication, e.g. ti55ti33 ‘go (or not)?’, ma55ma53 ‘cut (or not)?’, men55men22 ‘go (or not)?’, etc. (see Hu 2008).

252

6 Three types of verb-related questions

Hu (2008) proposes that verb-reduplicating questions in Baiwu Miao are shortened forms of V-neg-V questions, and that the tone of the negation word 55 x 55 x (a ) is shifted to the first verb while it is merged, via a process of V1 a V2 → 55 x V 1 V 2 , which is commonly found in Sinitic languages. Given that Miao is greatly influenced by Chinese, the abridgement between word boundary and tone shift is very likely to be a case of borrowing via language contact.

6.2.4. Summary

The languages with verb-reduplicating questions are the following.

Sinitic (6 languages) Mandarin Jiang-Huai (Central-East): Hefei, Hongze, Huaiyin, Lianshui, Shuyang, Siyang, , Yancheng, Yangzhou Central: Fuyang, Sùzhou, Zhouqu Southwest: Chongqing, Laifeng, Suizhou, Xiantao Northeast: Binxian Hakka: Changting, Huichang, Liancheng (the Xinquan dialect), Yudu Jin: Wutai (incl. Daixian, Lanxian, Pinglu, Shanyin, Shuozhou, etc.) Min: Fuzhou Wu: Jinhua, Shaoxing, Shengxian, Wuyi, Zhuji, etc. Xiang: Guiyang Yi (7 languages): Hani, Kazhuo, Lahu, Lisu, Naxi, Tanglang, Yi Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao; 1 language): Miao (the Baiwu dialect)

Two conclusions can be drawn here. First, both Sinitic languages and Yi languages are relatively rich in verb-reduplicating questions, though VV is a rare strategy in the languages of China. This is further evidence for the genetic relationship of Sino-Tibetan languages. Second, verb-reduplicating questions in other languages are very rare, which indicates borrowing from the two groups of languages by language contact (e.g. Baiwu Miao). Verb-reduplicating questions are found in Sinitic and Yi, and Q-VP questions are found in Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman. The synchronic distribution sheds light on the history of Sino-Tibetan languages. In particular, Tibeto- Burman and Yi are different in interrogative verb morphology, but they both

253

6 Three types of verb-related questions

share common features with Sinitic. As a conclusion, Sinitic, rather than the other two, is more likely to be the early ancestor. Moreover, the pace of language change becomes obvious by investigating the rise and fall of Q-VP interrogatives in Yi and verb-reduplicating interrogatives in Tibeto-Burman. An implicational universal is that having adj-reduplicating interrogatives implies having verb-reduplicating interrogatives. The evidence is found in varieties of Mandarin (e.g. Suizhou Mandarin; see Section 6.2.1) and Yi languages (Section 6.2.2).

254

6 Three types of verb-related questions

6.3. Interrogative verbs

According to Hagège (2008), an interrogative verb (IV) is “a kind of word which both functions as predicate and questions the semantic content of this predicate”. Interrogative verbs “can also occur as secondary predicates, equivalent to adverbial modifiers”. (Idiatov and van der Auwera 2004 call it “interogative pro-verb”.) It is worth noting that IV as a whole is not synchronically analyzable into a verb and an interrogative pronoun, i.e., it is a verb(-complex), not a verbal phrase. This is important because there is a huge amount of analyzable examples in the languages of China and elsewhere, and such verb + interrogative pronoun constructions are not at issue here. For example, in Tianjin Mandarin, ganma is not an IV but a verbal phrase, as ma is analyzable and free (meaning ‘what’), and could function as a modifier alone.

(55) Tianjin Mandarin (personal knowledge and native speaker informants)

a. ní zāi gàn mà ne? 2SG PROG do what QP ‘What are you doing?’

b. mà dier? what place ‘Where?’

Note that also questions with interrogative verbs are clear cases of content questions (meaning V-wh), though Ultan (1978) claims that a question affix appended onto a predicate implies a yes-no question (see Ultan’s universals No. 5 on segmental elements).

6.3.1. Interrogative verbs in Sinitic

Interrogative verbs are found in Colloquial Standard Chinese (Hagège 2008; see the example of gànmá in the beginning of this chapter), Luyi Mandarin (and many other varieties of Central Mandarin), Chongqing Mandarin, and Yongxin Gan. In Colloquial Standard Chinese, except for gànmá ‘do what’, there is another IV, i.e. zěnme ‘do how’.

255

6 Three types of verb-related questions

(56) Colloquial Standard Mandarin

tā zěnme nǐ le? 7 3SG do.how 2SG pst ‘How did s/he treat you?’

In fact, in many varieties of Mandarin, there is a counterpart of gànmá and zěnme, i.e. za ‘do how’. For example, Tianjin Mandarin zà (though it does not have gànmá, see above), and Chongqing Mandarin záge /tsako/. Chongqing Mandarin also has a ‘do what’ IV, i.e. zuǎzi /tsuatsɿ/.

(56) Chongqing Mandarin (personal knowledge and native speaker source)

zuǎzi? (do.what) ‘What do you want to do?’ zuazi is a merged form of zuo ‘do’ and sazi ‘what’, which sounds similar to the word ‘claw’ (dirty hands) in Chongqing Mandarin and many other Sinitic languages. A similar strategy is also found in Yongxin Gan, in which zū /tsu/ ‘do’ and guá /kua/ ‘what’ are merged into zuá /tsua/ ‘do what’, it functions as an interrogative verb.

(57) Yongxin Gan8

a. jin tɕhei kiɛ(taŋ) tsua? 2SG PROG here do.what ‘What are you doing here?’

b. jin tsua (miæntɕhiŋ) iau tɕhiɛ peitɕiŋ 2SG do.what thing will go Beijing ‘Why do you want to go to Beijing?’

7 zěnme has three meanings, ‘how’ (= zěnmeyàng), ‘why’ (= wèishénme), and ‘do how’. The ‘do how’ meaning is only found in colloquial conversations. For the first two meanings, cf. nǐ zěnme xiě xiǎoshuō? (2SG why/how write novel) ‘How/Why do you write novels?’ (Li and Thompson 1981: 523-4) 8 The interrogative verb tusa is only found in the dialect spoken in the Townships Wenzhu, Gaoxi, Longtian, and part of Shashi, not in the dialect spoken in the county town (Hechuan Township) and nearby, where ‘do what’ is more frequently pronounced as tsu ga, and ga ‘what’ is an (analyzable) object of the verb tsu ‘do’.

256

6 Three types of verb-related questions

In fact, tsu, gua, and tsu gua could be used independently meaning ‘do’, ‘what’, and ‘do what’ respectively, however, tsua as a whole only functions as an IV, which act as the predicate (57a) or secondary predicate (57b). Interrogative verbs are also found in Luyi Mandarin and many other Central Mandarin varieties in the Province9 (Jue Wang, p.c.), e.g. tsuà (< tsuò sà) ‘do what’.

(58) Henan Mandarin10

A: shèi? ‘Who (is that)?’ B: wò! ‘(It’s) Me!’ A: tusà? ‘What are you doing?’ B: niào! ‘(I’m) Peeing!’

6.3.2. Interrogative verbs in Formosan

IVs are reported in many Formosan languages, such as Amis, Atayal, Kavalan, Puyuma, and Rukai (see Lin 2012 and references given therein; see also H. Chang 2000: 149-165 for Kavalan).

(59) Amis (Lin 2012)

a. mi-maan ci-panay? 11 AV -what NCM-Panay ‘What is Panay doing?’

b. na maan-en isu kura wacu? PST what-PV 2SG.GEN that.NOM dog ‘What did you do to that dog?’

(60) Kavalan (Lin 2012; cf. H. Chang 2000: 155-161)

9 tusà is also found in Weihui Jin, a neighbouring language of Central Mandarin spoken in the Henan Province. Nevertheless, tusà is a clear case of borrowing via areal contact because a native speaker of Taiyuan Jin suggests there is no such IV in their language. I therefore do not include Weihui Jin to be an IV language of this kind. 10 This is one of Hou Baolin’s well-known comic dialogues (Xiàngsheng). The context of the following example is that a man is alerting someone unknown at night. 11 Lin’s abbreviations: PV patient voice, AV agent voice, NCM non-common noun marker.

257

6 Three types of verb-related questions

a. naquni-an-su m-kala ya/tu sunis a yau? do.how-PV-2SG.ERG AV-find ABS/OBL child LNK that ‘How did you find that child?’

b. tanian-an-su m-nubi ya/*tu kelisiw-ta? where-PV-2SG.ERG AV-hide ABS/OBL money-1PL.GEN ‘Where did you hide our money?’

(61) Puyuma (Zeng 2007b: 2321)

kəmakuda muimu ɖ aɖ ua kaɖ ini? do.what 2PL two be.here ‘What are you two doing here?’

(62) Rukai (Wu 2007: 2243)

aj-ʔikakua-ta, la aj-kanɨ -ta sa manɨma? FUT-do.how-1PL FUT-eat-1PL ACC thing ‘How should we do to get food?’

6.3.3. Hagège (2008)

Hagège (2008) reports 28 languages with IVs, including one language from China, i.e. Colloquial Standard Chinese. In Section 6.3.1, I show that IVs are found in some other varieties of Mandarin, e.g. Luyi Mandarin and many varieties of Central Mandarin, Chongqing Mandarin, Tianjin Mandarin, and in a variety of Gan, Yongxin Gan. Section 6.3.2 includes five Formosan languages with IVs, namely, Amis, Atayal, Kavalan, Puyuma, and Rukai. I classify the IV languages into two groups, languages outside China (27 languages, excluding Colloquial Chinese), and those in China (7 languages), and compare the meaning of IVs and some morphosyntactic features between the two sets of languages. In the Sinitic languages with IVs, Colloquial Standard Chinese, Luyi Mandarin, Chongqing Mandarin, and Yongxin Gan (see Section 6.3.1), IVs invariably mean ‘do what’ or ‘do how’ (the latter is only found in Colloquial Standard Chinese). Nevertheless, IVs also convey some other meanings, e.g. ‘do why’, ‘be where’, ‘do how many’, etc. The following table compares the meanings of IVs reported in Hagège (2008) and Lin (2012) as well as in the present work.

258

6 Three types of verb-related questions

Table 6.2. Meanings of interrogative verbs

I (27 lgs; Hagège 2008) II (7 lgs; Formosan is based on Lin 2012)12 Meanings No. of lgs Meanings No. of lgs do what 18 do how 6 be who/what 12 do what 6 do/be how 3 do why 3 be/go where 3 do how long, do how many times 3 say what 2 do how many 2 put/take where 2

It can be seen that ‘do what’, ‘do how’, and ‘be who/what’ are the most common meanings of IVs. This is not surprising because interrogative verbs naturally involve some actions. The following table shows some other morphosyntactic features in the two groups of languages.

Table 6.3. A comparison of IV languages in China and beyond

Parameters Group I (27 lgs; Hagège 2008) Group II (7 lgs) Locus HM 8, DM 11, H/DM 8 DM 5, NM 2 Adposition Pr 8, Po/S 18 Pr 7 Clause order SOV 11, SOV/SVO 4, SVO 5, VSO 3, VSO/VOS 2, SVO 2 SVO/VSO 5, VSO 1 NP order GN 15, NG 9, GN/NG 2 GN 3, NG 3, NG/gn 1 Alignment acc 13, erg 8, split 4, act 1, nom 1 neu 3, erg 2, n/i 2

Notes: 1. In the 7 languages of China, ‘locus’ is locus of marking in the clause (Nichols and Bickel 2005a), and ‘alignment’ is alignment of case marking of full noun phrases (Comrie 2005). There might be some differences in the parameters if Hagège calculated not in this way. 2. Hagège’s abbreviation: Po/S postposition or case suffix.

There are two striking differences. One is that in group I, languages with postpositions or case suffixes are much more than those with prepositions, while all the languages in group II are prepositional. Another is that the SOV order is common in the languages in group I, but never occurs in group II.

12 Lin (2012) includes four Formosan languages and three dialects of Atayal. The three dialects of Atayal are counted as one language.

259

6 Three types of verb-related questions

6.4. Conclusion

Of the three types of verb-related questions, Q-VP is more common than the other two, especially in Sinitic languages and Tibeto-Burman languages; VV and IV are rare, although VV is a general feature of Yi languages, and IV is characteristic of many Formosan languages. This chapter fine-tunes some of the details of Q-VP questions and VV questions. For example, previous studies have claimed that Ji-an Gan has Q-VP questions, Lianshui Mandarin, Huai-an Mandarin, Huichang Hakka, and Yudu Hakka have VV questions, but such claims have not been substantiated in my fieldwork (see Sections 6.1.1, 6.2.1). A detailed list of the pre-verb interrogative markers in Sinitic languages is also provided in Section 6.1.3, which adduces further evidence of the Sino-Tibetan affiliation (Benedict 1972) in that a is a common interrogative marker in Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman languages (cf. Benedict’s 1976, 1985 reconstruction of Proto-Sino-Tibetan interrogative *ga(ng) ~ *ka), not in the other languages in China. Verb-reduplicating questions are formed by omitting the negation words between two verbs (or verb phrases). Tonal shifts are always found in such an interrogative strategy (Sinitic languages and Yi languages are all tonal languages), and the rule is Vx negy Vx → Vy Vx, that is, the tone of the negation word (y) is shifted onto the first verb, and the second verb keeps its original tone (x). Languages with interrogative verbs are rare (Ultan 1978). Section 6.3 introduced another interrogative verb, zěnme ‘do how’, in Colloquial Standard Mandarin, and presented IVs in more Sinitic languages, i.e. Yongxin Gan zuá /tsuá/ ‘do what’, Chongqing Mandarin zuǎzi /tsuǎtsi/ ‘do what’ and zǎ(ge) /tsǎkə/ ‘do how’, Luyi Mandarin (and many varieties of Central Mandarin) zuà /tsuà/ ‘do what’, Tianjin Mandarin (and many other varieties of Mandarin in ) zà /tsà/ ‘do what’. Also, a comparison of two groups of IV languages, i.e. languages within vs outside China, reveals some differences and similarities. In particular, IV languages outside China are commonly found to be SOV and postpositional, while languages within China are all prepositional and many of them are VSO, not SOV. It is found, though, ‘do what’ and ‘do how’ are the most common meanings in IVs.

260

6 Three types of verb-related questions

Sinitic languages are widely assumed to lack inflectional morphology. This chapter dispels the myth, because the three types of verb-related interrogatives are clear cases of morphological operations, in particular, pre-verb interrogative marking is prefixation, verb-reduplication is clearly reduplication, and diachronically, IVs are commonly formed via suffixation of the ‘what’ lexicon, e.g. -ma in Colloquial Standard Chinese, -sazi in Chongqing Mandarin and many varieties of Mandarin in the Sichuan Province, -sa in Henan Mandarin and Tianjin Mandarin (and many other varieties of Mandarin in north China), and -gua in Yongxin Gan. This chapter demonstrates that the inventory of interrogative strategies varies in individual (groups of) languages. The diversity in interrogatives challenges some ‘universal’ notions. For example, wh-phrases are words that question the noun phrases, cf. who (which person), what (which one), where (which place), why (what reason), when (what time), etc. Interrogative verbs, however, question not the semantic content of noun phrases but verbs. To distinguish from IVs, the term ‘wh-phrases’ is more appropriate to labeled as ‘wh-noun phrases’ or ‘interrogative noun phrases’. Interrogative verb morphology correlates with many other morpho- syntactic parameters. For example, Greenberg’s (1966) universal No. 8 (“question affixes in yes-no questions are relatively rare, and question suffixes are found principally in SOV languages”) correlates question affixes with sentence-types as well as clause orders, but this is contradicted by the findings in the present work (see Section 7.1 in the next chapter for more discussion). For language atlas of interrogative verb morphology, see Map 6 in Appendix II.

261

6 Three types of verb-related questions

262

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Chapter 7

Typological and area-historical assessment

Interrogative strategies do not work alone. Some earlier typological studies on interrogatives has provided extensive results regarding the ways in which languages vary structurally and regarding correlations among different features. For example, in Greenberg’s (1966) pioneering work on word order universals, interrogatives are collected in his universals No. 8-12. The universals concern the placement of interrogative intonation (No. 8), the relation between question particles/affixes and adpositions (No. 9) or basic word order (No. 10), as well as the relation between question word/affixes and constituent sequencing (No. 11-12). Ultan (1978) examines the interrogative systems of 79 languages, and presents altogether 23 universals with reference to interrogatives, of which 3 concern intonation, 3 word accent, 10 word order, and 7 segmental elements. (For a discussion of some of their universals on interrogatives, see Section 7.1; see also Plank 2009.) Interrogative strategies vary and change in space and time. For example, Bencini (2003) argues that diachronically-typologically, “interrogative marker for yes/no questions are derived from or formally similar to one of two elements in the language: the negative marker not and the marker for the disjunction or.” Aldridge (2011) presents that Chinese final question particles are evolved from negation words. (See Section 4.3 for disjunct-final particles as disjunctions, and Section 7.3 for negation and interrogation.) Typology and area- are related in various ways. One is that the synchronic data being compared are not always (or always not?) at the same diachronic level (or, strata) because features in certain (groups of) languages are changed but remain unchanged in others. This has been well addressed in literature, e.g. Meillet (1925).

263

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Quiconque a fait des travaux de grammaire comparée sait combien on souffre de ce que les faits rapprochés offrent des différences de niveau dont il faut faire abstraction: le comparatiste qui travaille sur les langues indo-européennes se sert de données dont les dates s’étendent sur un espace de quelque trios mille ans, qui abondent à certains moments et manquent tout à fait à d’autres, qui existent pour une région alors que, pour tel autre domaine, toute indication manque. [Whoever has written works of comparative grammar knows how we suffer from the fact that the facts compared present differences of level which we must disregard: the comparatist who works on the Indo-European languages makes use of data whose dates stretch over a space of some three thousand years, which abound at certain moments and are completely lacking at others, which exist for one area while all information is lacking for another.] (Meillet 1925: 65; English version 1970: 83)

Another is that the motivations of change in features are, very commonly, areal factors (see e.g. Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2011 for a survey of cross-linguistic research on contact-induced change). For the present purpose, Section 7.2 argues that geographical factors, notably contact with (and borrowing from) Chinese in many groups of languages, as well as historical factors, notably the pace of change, i.e. pertinacity or transience in individual interrogative structures and in individual groups of languages, play important roles in the diachrony of interrogatives. In this chapter, assessments in typological and area-historical perspectives are presented, to bring together the discussions in the previous chapters. Typologically speaking, interrogative strategies correlate among themselves (internally) and with other morphosyntactic parameters (externally), e.g. word order, locus of marking, and alignment of case marking. The correlations are summarized in 31 generalizations, in a frequency-based approach (Section 7.1). In the area-historical dimension, changes in individual types of interrogatives, namely, yes-no, X-neg-X, alternative, as well as three types of verb-related questions in Sinitic languages, are investigated (Section 7.2; a further topic for diachronic interrogation and negation is addressed in Section 7.3).

264

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

7.1. Correlations of interrogativity1

An investigation into three parameters of interrogatives addressed in Dryer (2005a, b, c), i.e. question particles (QP), position of polar question particles (PPQP), and position of interrogative phrases in content questions (PIPCQ), reveals some patterns. One obvious is that most languages in China have sentence-final question particles and wh- in situ. Generalization 1. Most languages use question particles (129/138), and most question particles are sentence-final (119/129); most languages are wh- in situ (130/138). Greenberg’s (1966) universal No. 9 claims that the position of question particles or affixes is related with the position of adpositions.

With well more than chance frequency, when question particles or affixes are specified in position by reference to the sentence as a whole, if initial, such elements are found in prepositional languages, and, if final, in postpositional. (Greenberg 1966, universal No. 9)

Based on a survey of a 79-languages sample, in a more or less similar assertion, Ultan’s (1978) claims that question particles tend to occur either sentence-final (notably SOV languages), or sentence-initial (other types of languages) (for correlations between clause order and final questions particles, see also Dryer 1991).

Most QPs occur in sentence-initial (or enclitic to the initial constituent) or in sentence-final position. QPs almost always occur finally in SOV languages and show a greater tendency to occur initially in other types. (Ultan 1978, universal No. 7 on word order)

The two universals by Greenberg and Ultan have many counter examples in the languages in China. The examination of 138 languages, however, shows that most languages have question particles in sentence-final position (119/138),

1 Note that the claims and generalizations in this section are based on the languages of China (Section 7.1.4.2 on interrogativity and ergativity is an exception). I do not claim all of them are universally applicable. However, it merits collecting the “Chinaversals” because some of them are indeed universals, and genealogical and/or areal skewings are also reflected in these generalizations.

265

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

among which many languages, notably Tibeto-Burman languages, are SOV and postpositional. Greenberg and Ultan also include some universals on the position of wh-phrases and clause order types.

If a language has dominant order VSO in declarative sentences, it always puts interrogative words or phrases first in interrogative word questions; if it has dominant order SOV in declarative sentences, there is never such an invariant rule. (Greenberg 1966, universal No. 12)

QWs [interrogative words] tend to occur in sentence-initial positions in languages of all types; the ratio in favor of this is approximately three to one. However, the ratio in SOV languages is only about one to one. (Ultan 1978 universal No. 5 on word order)

I summarize the position of interrogative phrases in content questions in 14 VSO languages and 72 SOV languages in China in the following table.

Table 7.1. PIPCQ in SOV and VSO languages in China

PIPCQ SOV SOV/svo VSO VSO/vos VSO/SVO VSO/VOS In situ 67 3 5 1 2 3 Mixed 0 0 0 0 1 1 n/i 2 0 0 0 0 1

The distribution is in contridiction to Greenberg’s universal No. 12, as it can be seen that interrogative phrases in both VSO and SOV languages favor in situ positions. Also, most languages in China (130/138) are wh- in situ (see Section 5.1), which is a clear counter example of Ultan’s universal No. 5 on word order.

7.1.1. Correlations with interrogative strategies

7.1.1.1. Intonation and other interrogative strategies

There is no clear evidence showing that polar questions formed by intonation-only have close relationship with X-neg-X questions, nor are they

266

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

closely related to or vs or/or? typology in disjunctions (Alt1)2. Nevertheless, the intonation parameter is related to the position of disjunctions in interrogatives and interrogative verb morphology, as it is demonstrated in the following two tables.

Table 7.2. Intonation ~ Alt2 (Position of disjunctions in interrogatives)

Alt2 (pre) pos pre pre/posn/i Inton N 0 20 10 0 15 Y/N 0 0 1 0 0 Y? 0 0 0 0 2 y 0 0 9 0 0 Y 0 4 8 0 3 Yc 0 1 2 0 2 Yf 0 1 0 0 0 Yr 0 4 13 1 8 n/i 1 6 6 0 21

Generalization 2. Languages without polar questions formed by intonation- only are more commonly found to have post-posed disjunctions in their alternative questions; languages with polar questions formed by intonation-only are more commonly found to have pre-posed disjunctions in their alternative questions.

Table 7.3. Intonation ~ IVM (Interrogative verb morphology)

Into N y Y Y/N Y? Yc Yf Yr n/i IVM N 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Affix 28 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 IV 0 1 1 1 2 3 0 2 6 prtV 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 prtV/IV 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 prtv/vv 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 prtv/vv/iv 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vtone 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VV 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 VV/pref 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n/i 10 0 11 0 0 0 1 18 24

2 Alt1: disjunctives in alternative interrogatives. For more abbreviations, see the notes and conventions for Appendix I.

267

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Note: “Affix” includes those by interrogative prefix/suffix/infix. One language, Naxi (Yi; Tibeto-Burman), with “VV/affix”, is not invluded.

Generalization 3. Languages without polar questions formed by intonation- only normally have interrogatives formed with verb affixes or verb-reduplication; interrogative verbs and pre-verb interrogative particles are mainly used in languages with polar questions by intonation-only.

7.1.1.2. X-neg-X questions and other interrogative strategies

Table 7.4. X-neg-X ~ Alt1/Alt2

Alt1 Alt2 prt or or/or (pre) pos pre pre/pos XnX N 19 7 4 1 20 9 0 y 3 0 2 0 4 1 0 Y 5 18 25 0 10 38 1 Y? 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Generalization 4. Commonly, languages with particle disjunctions lack X-neg-X questions, and languages with normal disjunctions (regardless if they are or-languages or or/or?-languages) have X-neg-X questions. Generalization 5. Languages without X-neg-X questions are more likely to have post-posed disjunctions, while languages with X-neg-X questions are more likely to have pre-posed disjunctions.

Table 7.5. X-neg-X ~ IVM

XnX N N? y Y Y? n/i IVM N 1 0 0 3 0 0 Affix 14 2 6 4 2 6 IV 15 0 0 1 0 0 prtV 0 0 0 5 0 0 prtV/IV 0 0 0 1 0 0 prtv/vv 0 0 0 1 0 0 prtv/vv/iv 0 0 0 1 0 0 Vtone 0 1 0 0 0 0 VV 1 0 0 9 0 0 VV/pref 0 0 0 1 0 0 n/i 19 1 0 37 0 7

268

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Generalization 6. Most languages with interrogative verbs or interrogative verb affix(es) as major interrogative strategies do not have X-neg-X questions, while languages with interrogatives formed by pre-verb interrogative particles or verb-reduplication are commonly found to have X-neg-X questions.

7.1.1.3. Alternative questions and others

Table 7.6. Alt1 ~ Alt2

Alt2 (pre)pos pre pre/pos n/i Alt1 prt 0 29 0 0 0 or 0 4 21 0 0 or/or 1 2 28 1 0 n/i 0 1 0 0 51

Generalization 7. Particle disjunctions are invariably post-posed, while normal disjunctions are normally pre-posed.

Table 7.7. Alt1/Alt2 ~ IVM

Alt1 Alt2 prt or or/or n/i (pre) pos pre n/i IVM N 1 0 3 0 0 1 3 0 Affix 13 2 6 13 1 17 4 12 IV 0 3 1 12 0 0 4 12 prtV 0 1 2 2 0 0 3 2 prtV/IV 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 prtv/vv 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 prtv/vv/iv 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Vtone 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 VV 1 5 2 2 0 2 6 2 VV/pref 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 n/i 14 13 15 22 0 15 26 22

Generalization 8. Languages with interrogative verb affixes are more commonly found in languages with particle disjunctions than those by normal disjunctions (or or or/or?). Generalization 9. Languages with post-posed disjunctions commonly have interrogative verb affixes; languages with pre-posed disjunctions are much more commonly found to have interrogative verb morphologies (IVM), though the types of IVM of those with pre-posed disjunctions are hard to predict.

269

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

7.1.2. Interrogatives and word order

7.1.2.1. Adpositions

Table 7.8. Intonation ~ Adposition

Adp Po Pr Pr/po n/i Inton N 42 3 0 0 y 0 9 0 0 Y 4 11 0 0 Y/N 0 1 0 0 Y? 0 2 0 0 Yc 1 4 0 0 Yf 1 0 0 0 Yr 6 20 0 0 n/i 15 14 1 4

Generalization 10. Most languages without polar questions formed by intonation-only are postpositional (42/45). Generalization 11. Languages with polar questions formed by interrogative intonation-only are more commonly prepositional (prepositional languages 44, postpositional languages 12). Generalizations 10-11 are basically in line with Ultan’s (1978) universal No. 1 on intonation:

YNQ [yes-no interrogatives] intonation types consisting of rising terminal, higher pitched, or special stress contours are found in nearly all languages: always in prepositional, almost always in postpositional languages. Therefore, nonoccurrence of a rising terminal, higher pitched, or special stress YNQ-contour implies postpositional language. (Ultan 1978 universal No. 1 on intonation)

Table 7.9. X-neg-X ~ Adposition

Adp Po Pr Pr/po n/i XnX N 34 15 1 0 N? 3 1 0 0 y 6 0 0 0 Y 15 48 0 0 Y? 2 0 0 0 n/i 9 0 0 4

270

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Generalization 12. X-neg-X questions are more common in prepositional languages (48 lgs) than postpositional languages (21 lgs); prepositional languages are more commonly to have X-neg-X (48 lgs) than without such a question type (15 lgs); postpositional languages are more commonly to be without X-neg-X questions (34 lgs) than with such a question type (21 lgs).

Table 7.10. Alt1/Alt2 ~ Adposition

Adp Po Pr Pr/po n/i Alt1 prt 28 1 0 0 or 10 15 0 0 or/or 9 23 0 0 n/i 22 25 1 4

Alt2 (pre) 1 0 0 0 pos 35 1 0 0 pre 12 37 0 0 pre/pos 0 1 0 0 n/i 21 25 1 4

Generalization 13. Languages with particle disjunctions are mostly postpositional. Generalization 14. Most languages with post-posed disjunctions are postpositional, and languages with pre-posed disjunctions are commonly found to be prepositional; postpositional languages are commonly having disjunctions post-posed, while prepositional languages more commonly having disjunctions pre-posed.

Table 7.11. IVM ~ Adposition

Po Pr Pr/po n/i IVM N 1 3 0 0 Affix 34 0 0 0 IV 0 16 0 0 prtV 0 5 0 0 prtV/IV 0 1 0 0 prtv/vv 0 1 0 0 prtv/vv/iv 0 1 0 0 Vtone 0 1 0 0 VV 6 4 0 0 VV/pref 1 0 0 0 n/i 27 32 1 4

271

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Generalization 15. Languages with affixing verb morphology are postpositional, while languages with pre-verb interrogative particles are prepositional. Generalization 16. Languages with interrogative verbs are prepositional. Generalization 17. Languages with verb-reduplicating as a major interrogative strategy are commonly postpositional, though few prepositional languages also use this as a minor interrogative strategy.

Table 7.12. PQ ~ Adposition

Po Pr Pr/po n/i PQ IVM 1 3 0 0 IVM? 0 1 0 0 QP 25 35 1 1 QP/ivm 0 5 0 0 QP/IVM 27 14 0 0 QP/IVM? 15 5 0 0 QP+IVM 0 1 0 0 n/i 1 0 0 3

Generalization 18. Languages with interrogative verb morphology are commonly postpositional rather than prepositional.

7.1.2.2. Clause order

Table 7.13. S.O.V ~ Intonation

S.O.V SOV SVO VOS VSO Inton N 41+1svo 2+1sov 0 0 y 0 9 0 0 Y 4 9+1sov 0 1 Y/N 0 0 0 0+1vos Y? 0 0 0 1+1VOS Yc 1 1 0 1+2VOS Yf 1 0 0 0 Yr 5+1svo 17+1vso 0 1+1SVO n/i 17+1svo 8+1osv+1sov1 1+2SVO+2VOS

Note: ‘+number+clause order’ indicates the number of languages with alternative orders.

272

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Generalization 19. Languages without polar questions formed by intonation-only are mostly with SOV clause order.

Table 7.14. S.O.V ~ X-neg-X

SOV SVO VOS VSO XnX N 34+1svo 0 1 5+3SVO+1vos+5VOS N? 3 0+1sov 0 0 y 6 0 0 0 Y 15 44+1osv+2sov+1vso 0 0 Y? 2 0 0 0 n/i 9+2svo 2 0 0

Generalization 20. Most SVO languages and VSO languages have X-neg-X questions3.

Table 7.15. S.O.V ~ Alt1/Alt2

Alt1 Alt2 prt or or/or n/i (pre) pos pre pre/pos n/i S.O.V SOV 28 10 9 22 1 35 12 0 21 SOV/svo 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 SVO 1 1121 13 0 1 31 1 13 SVO/osv 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 SVO/sov 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 SVO/vso 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 VOS 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 VSO 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 VSO/SVO 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 VSO/vos 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 VSO/VOS 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 4

Generalization 21. SVO languages prefer normal disjunctions, not particles, which are mainly found in SOV languages (note that SOV languages have normal disjunctions as well). Generalization 22. SVO languages prefer pre-posed disjunctions; SOV languages prefer post-posed disjunctions (but the ratio is lower).

3 Note that X-neg-X structures are mainly an areal feature, which have not much to do with clause order.

273

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Table 7.16. S.O.V ~ PQ

PQ IV Affix prtV VV Vtone N n/i S.O.V SOV 0 18(+14)0 6+1 0 1 29 SOV/svo 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 SVO 1 0 8 3(+1) 0 3 30 SVO/osv 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 SVO/sov 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 SVO/vso 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 VOS 0(+1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 VSO 3(+2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 VSO/SVO 1(+2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 VSO/vos 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 VSO/VOS 4(+1) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Generalization 23. Some patterns in polar interrogative strategies: interrogative verbs are mainly found in VSO languages, interrogative verb affix(es) in SOV languages, pre-verb interrogative particles in SVO languages, and verb- reduplicating interrogatives in SOV and SVO languages. Greenberg’s (1966) universal No. 10 notes,

Question particles or affixes, when specified in position by reference to a particular word in the sentence, almost always follow that word. Such particles do not occur in languages with dominant order VSO.

Now that question particles or affixes question the semantic content of predicates, I correlate interrogative verb morphology and clause order in the following table (irrevelant data, e.g. interrogative verbs and verb-reduplication, are not included here).

Table 7.17. S.O.V ~ IVM

IVM inf pref pref?VV/pref pref/suf suf prtV S.O.V SOV 1 10 14 1 3 4 0 SOV/svo 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 SVO 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 VOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VSO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The table suggests that the number of languages with post-verbal interrogative particles or affixes is less than those with proceeding verb. Nevertheless, indeed, such particles or affixes do not occur in languages with dominant order VSO.

274

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

This is more or less in line with Ultan’s findings, except that 35 languages with interrogative affixes are found in the total number of 138 languages, which is not “rare”.

Q-affixes in YNQs [yes-no questions] are relatively rare. Q-suffixes are found principally in SOV languages. (Ultan 1978 universal No. 8 on word order)

Note that the eight languages with pre-verb interrogative particles included in the table are not counted as languages with interrogative affixes.

7.1.2.3. Order of NP modifiers

The following generalizations can be deduced from Table 7.18 (see the next page): Generalization 24. (i) Most languages with NG order have polar questions formed by interrogative intonation only, while GN languages are not predictable. (ii) In much higher frequency, NG languages have X-neg-X questions, while GN languages are not predictable. (iii) Most NG languages use normal disjunctions rather than particle disjunctions, which is mainly found in GN languages. (iv) Most NG languages use pre-posed disjunctions, while GN languages are not predictable. (v) Languages with interrogative affixes have a GN order. Generalization 25. (i) Most AdjN languages have polar questions formed by interrogative intonation-only, while NAdj languages are unpredictable. (ii) NAdj languages use X-neg-X questions twice as much than those without them; AdjN languages use X-neg-X questions twice as less than those with them. (iii) More NAdj languages use normal disjunctions, rather than particle disjunctions, while AdjN languages show no preference regarding this feature. (iv) Both AdjN and NAdj languages show no preference in the order of disjunctions and the alternative disjuncts (pre-/post-posed). (v) Languages with interrogative verb affixes or verb-reduplicating interrogatives are more commonly found to be of NAdj order, but languages with interrogative verbs are more frequently found to be of AdjN order.

275

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Table 7.18. Order of noun modifiers ~ Interrogative strategies

Into XnX Alt1 Alt2 IVM N y Y Y/N N y Y prt or or/or pos pre Aff prtV VV IV N N.G GN 43 10 23 1 43 8 35 27 16 20 34 30 34 6 10 6 4 GN/ng 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 N|G 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 NG 2 1 20 0 8 0 23 1 8 8 1 15 0 2 1 8 0 NG/gn 0 0 4 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 0

N.A AN 1 11 15 1 32 0 12 11 4 12 12 16 5 5 1 11 3 AN/na 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 N|A 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 NA 29 0 24 0 16 4 37 7 15 18 12 27 20 2 4 3 0 NA/an 14 0 5 0 3 4 13 9 5 1 10 5 7 1 6 0 1

N.D DN 15 10 19 1 38 3 18 15 7 17 18 21 15 5 3 10 3 DN/nd 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 N|D 4 0 2 0 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 2 5 0 0 1 0 ND 15 1 23 0 10 3 32 7 13 10 8 21 9 2 5 4 1 ND/dn 9 0 3 0 2 1 8 4 3 3 5 6 5 1 2 0 0

N.M N|M 0 0 5 1 3 0 4 2 1 2 2 3 1 0 0 1 0 NM 40 0 7 0 19 7 19 17 8 8 24 10 28 1 7 2 1 NM/mn 3 0 2 0 1 1 3 2 0 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 MN 2 11 31 0 30 0 33 8 13 19 8 32 3 7 4 13 3 MN/nm 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0

276

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

More generalizations from Table 7.18: Generalization 26. (i) It seems that the order of and head does not have close relationship with the pattern of interrogative intonation. (ii) In DN languages, there are approximately two times more languages lacking X-neg-X questions than those having such a type of question; in ND languages, there are approximately four times more languages having X-neg-X questions than those lacking such a type of question. (iii) In DN languages, the number of alternative questions formed by normal disjunctions and those by particles are basically the same; in ND languages, approximately three times more languages are found to use normal disjunctions than those use particle disjunctions. (iv) In DN languages, the number of questions formed by pre-posed disjunctions and those with post-posed disjunctions are basically the same; in ND languages, about two times more languages are found with pre-posed disjunctions than with post-posed disjunctions. (v) The order of demonstratives and head nouns can hardly predict the interrogative verb morphology, though languages with interrogative verbs are more likely to be in DN order than ND order. Generalization 27. (i) Most languages without polar questions formed by intonation-only are in NNum order, and languages in NNum order are mostly without polar questions by intonation-only; nevertheless, about three times more languages with polar questions have NumN order than NNum order. (ii) It is hard to predict the existence of X-neg-X questions in certain languages by their order of numerals and head nouns, as the ratios of NNum to NumN and +[X-neg-X] to –[X-neg-X] are both approximately 1:1. (iii) Languages with disjunct-final particles (in alternative questions) are more commonly to have NNum order; NumN languages are more commonly to have normal disjunctions. (iv) More NNum languages are with post-posed disjunctions, and much more NumN languages are with pre-posed disjunctions. (v) Languages with interrogative verb affixes mostly have NNum order, while languages with pre-verb interrogative particles or interrogative verbs mostly have NumN order.

7.1.3. Interrogatives and locus of marking

Locus (of marking), also known as head/dependent marking, by brief definition, refers to that “in any kind of phrase, overt morphosyntactic marking reflecting the syntactic relations within the phrase may be located on the head of the phrase,

277

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

on a non-head (i.e. on a dependent), on both, or on neither.” (Nichols and Bickel 2005a, b, c; see also Nichols 1986, 1992). Three features are included here, locus of marking in the clause (Cla), which concerns P (direct or primary object) is head- or dependent-marked, locus of marking in the noun phrase (PNP), which concerns the possessor is head- or dependent-marked, as well as locus of marking in whole-language typology (WLT), which concerns the combined value of Cla and PNP is consistent (head- or dependent-marking) or inconsistent (see Nichols and Bickel 2005a, b, c). Generalizations from Table 7.19 (see the next page): Generalization 28. (i) In languages with P dependent marked, more languages do not have polar questions formed by interrogative intonation-only than those having such a strategy; in languages with no marking on P, much more languages have polar questions formed by intonation-only than those lacking such a strategy. Languages without polar questions formed by intonation-only are mostly P dependent marked; languages with polar questions formed by intonation-only are commonly found to be without marking on P. (ii) Similar distributions of (i) are also found in the relationship between locus of marking in clause structures and X-neg-X questions. (iii) Most languages without marking on P use normal disjunctions, rather than particle disjunctions. (iv) More (twice as much) P dependent marked languages are with post-posed disjunctions than those with pre-posed ones; much more (approximately seven times) languages with no marking on P are with pre-posed disjunctions than those with post-posed ones. (v) Languages with interrogative verb affixes or interrogative verbs are frequently found to have P dependent marked, while languages with pre-verb interrogative particles have no marking on P. Generalization 29. (i) Languages with double marking in possessive noun phrases (PNP) have polar questions formed by intonation-only, lack X-neg-X questions, frequently use particles as (post-posed) disjunctions, and use interrogative verb affixes. (ii) Languages with interrogative verb affixes or interrogative verbs are commonly with the possessor dependent marked in PNP. Generalization 30. (i) Languages consistently dependent marked in whole language typology (WLT) normally do not have X-neg-X questions, but frequently use interrogative verb affixes and/or interrogative verbs. (ii) Most languages with interrogative verbs are consistently dependent marked.

278

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Table 7.19. Locus of marking ~ Interrogative strategies

Into XnX Alt1 Alt2 IVM N y Y Y/N N y Y prt or or/or pos pre Aff prtV VV IV N Cla DM 36 2 17 1 49 6 16 23 13 8 30 15 27 0 7 15 0 DoM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 HM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 NM 6 9 30 0 4 2 47 5 12 23 5 34 4 8 4 1 4

PNP DM 20 2 9 1 26 3 6 6 6 6 8 10 14 0 4 15 1 DM/nm 5 9 3 0 2 0 13 1 2 12 2 13 5 6 1 1 3 DM/NM 11 0 5 0 3 4 11 7 3 2 9 4 10 0 1 0 0 DoM 0 0 8 0 20 0 0 11 2 1 11 3 3 0 0 0 0 HM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 NM 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 NM/dm 8 0 20 0 2 1 31 3 10 11 5 18 1 2 4 0 0

WLT dm 15 0 0 0 4 45 7 2 2 10 2 14 0 1 0 0 DM 15 2 8 1 24 16 4 6 4 6 8 9 0 4 150 HM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 i/o 11 9 13 0 23 3 17 14 6 14 16 18 9 6 3 1 4 nm 3 0 24 0 2 0 33 3 9 12 3 20 1 2 2 0 0 NM 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0

279

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

7.1.4. Interrogatives and alignment

7.1.4.1. Alignment of case marking

Two features will be checked here, alignment of case marking in full noun phrases (NP) and alignment of case marking in pronouns (PRO). Pronouns profit from the separation from full noun phrases, because “in many languages pronouns have a different case marking system from full noun phrases” (see Comrie 2005 for definition of the values and WALS data). Note that several languages included in the alignment of case marking in full noun phrases (left columns) are not included in the alignment of case marking in pronouns (right columns), because in some languages, “the sources are not sufficiently explicit to enable the reader to reach a firm conclusion” (Comrie 2005). Nevertheless, another feature, alignment of verbal person marking (cf. Siewierska 2005), is not included in the present work, mainly because it is relevant only to a handful of languages in China.

Table 7.20. Alignment of case marking ~ Interrogative strategies

NP PRO Acc Acc? Erg Erg? Neu Neu? Acc Erg Erg? Neu Into N 32 1 6 2 3 1 34 6 2 3 Y 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 1 0 9 Y 11 0 2 1 31 0 11 4 1 29 Y/N 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

XnX N 33 0 9 2 3 1 33 12 2 0 y 6 0 2 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 Y 13 1 0 0 49 0 16 0 0 47

Alt1 prt 22 0 4 1 1 1 22 4 1 1 or 9 0 1 0 15 0 10 3 0 12 or/or 6 1 1 1 23 0 7 1 1 23

Alt2 pos 27 1 4 1 2 1 29 4 1 1 pre 11 0 2 1 36 0 11 4 1 34

IVM Aff 25 1 6 2 0 0 26 6 2 0 prtV 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 VV 6 0 0 0 5 0 7 0 0 4 IV 0 0 5 1 4 0 0 8 1 1 N 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 3

280

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Generalization 31. With regard to alignment of case marking (both full noun phrases and pronouns), (i) a bigger proportion of accusative languages use post-posed disjunctions, lack polar questions formed by interrogative intonation-only and X-neg-X questions, but have interrogative verb affixes or verb-reduplicating questions. (ii) A similar distribution as in (i) is also found in ergative languages. (iii) In neutral languages, however, more languages have pre-posed (normal) disjunctions and polar questions formed by interrogative intonation-only as well as X-neg-X questions, but without interrogative verb affixes. (iv) Languages with pre-verb interrogative particles are neutral in case marking both in full noun phrases and pronouns; languages with verb-reduplicating questions are either accusative or neutral in case marking; languages with interrogative verbs are either ergative or neutral in case marking.

7.1.4.2. Ergativity

This episodic section examines interrogative strategies in ERGATIVE languages, mainly via a survey of an 80-languages sample, to correlate interrogative strategies and alignment strategies (case marking and verbal person marking) in ergative languages. Basically, the sample languages are randomly selected: 77 languages recorded as ERGATIVE in WALS are included, with three languages not recorded as ERGATIVE, namely, Dyirbal, , and Tibetan, added to the list. The three languages are chosen because they are frequently mentioned in literature on ergativity (see, e.g. Dixon 1994; DeLancey 1982, 1984; inter alia), and also because they are comparatively well documented. The 80 languages are from 43 different families: 11 Austronesian languages (11/311), 7 Australian (7/161), 5 Arawakan (5/30), 4 Sino-Tibetan (4/131), 4 Trans-New Guinea (4/90), 4 Nakh-Daghestanian (4/28), and other families include one or two languages (for the features of the ERGATIVE languages concerned here, see Luo 2011: 152-157). Note that the numerators in the fractions are the languages included in the sample, and the denominators are the total number of languages included in WALS. Here, “ergativity” includes the ergative/active/tripartite alignment of case marking in full noun phrases (NP) and pronouns (PRO), and the ergative/ active/split alignment in verbal person marking (VERB) (see Comrie 2005, Siewierska 2005). We define the notion in a broad sense, namely by including

281

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

active/tripartite case marking and active/split verb person marking as ERGATIVE because in these alignment types the agent-like argument (A) is marked, and differentiates the patient-like argument (P) and the sole argument of the intransitive verb (S) in these languages.

Figure 7.1. ERGATIVE alignment

Case marking Case marking Alignment of verbal of pronoun of full noun phrase person marking ergative (A/SP) ergative ergative ERGATIVE ERGATIVE active (ASa/SpP) active active (NP/PRO) (VERB) tripartite (A/S/P) tripartite split accusative (AS/P) accusative accusative neutral neutral neutral none hierarchical

In Section 7.1.4.2., the term ERGATIVE is used to refer to ergative alignment in such a broad sense, and ergative keeps its standard usage, referring to a type of alignment of case marking and verbal person marking.

7.1.4.2.1. Interrogativity in general and ERGATIVE languages The following tables show the inventories of interrogative strategies in general languages (Dryer 2005a, b, c) and ERGATIVE languages.

Table 7.21. Polar questions in general and ERGATIVE languages

4 PQ general lgs (842 lgs) ERGATIVE lgs (80 lgs) QP 520 (61.76%) 26 (32.50%) IVM 155 (18.41%) 20 (25.00%) IIO 138 (16.39%) 12 (15%) IWO 12 (1.43%) 1 (1.25%) mix 12 (1.43%) 1 (1.25%) ADM 4 (0.05%) 0 NIDD 1 (0.01%) 0 n/i 0 20 (25.00%)

4 Abbreviations: QP: question particle, IVM: interrogative verb morphology, IWO: interrogative word order, mix: a mixture of the previous two mechanisms, IIO: interrogative intonation only, ADM: absence of declarative morphemes, NIDD: no interrogative-declarative distinction 1st /2nd/final: first/second/final place, No: no question particles, n/i: no information Not: not in first position, mixed: position of interrogative phrases is mixed

282

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Table 7.22. Position of polar question particles in general and ERGATIVE languages

PPQP general lgs (777) ERGATIVE lgs (80) No 310 (39.90%) 33 (41.25%) final 272 (35.01%) 8 (10.00%) 1st 118 (15.19%) 5 (6.25%) 2nd 45 (5.79%) 7 (8.75%) other 32 (4.12%) 2 (2.50%) n/i 0 25 (31.25%)

Table 7.23. Position of interrogative phrases in content questions in general and ERGATIVE languages

PIPCQ general lgs (803) ERGATIVE lgs (80) Not 542 (67.50%) 31 (38.75%) 1st 241 (30.01%) 18 (22.50%) mixed 20 (2.49%) 3 (3.75%) n/i 0 20 (25.00%)

It can be seen that many similarities are shared by ERGATIVE languages and general languages in the three strategies, though there are also some differences. For instance, in polar question (PQ) strategies, 520 general languages have question particles (QP), that is, 61.76%, while in ERGATIVE languages the number of languages and ratio is 26 and 32.5%, respectively; also, 155 general languages (18.41%) use interrogative verb morphology (IVM), while 20 ERGATIVE languages (25%) are found to be of this strategy. In the strategies of the position of polar question particles (PPQP), 272 general languages (35.01%) take sentence-final question particles, while only 8 languages (10%) are found in the 80-languages sample; also, 118 general languages (15.19%) take sentence-initial position, and 45 languages (5.79%) take sentence-second position, nevertheless, 5 ERGATIVE languages (6.25%) take sentence-initial, and 7 (8.75%) take sentence-second. The following sections focuses mainly on morpho-syntactic parameters, in particular, alignment, word order (clause order, order of NP modifiers, and the position of adpositions), locus of marking (head/dependent marking), and correlations among the three interrogative parameters (PQ, PPQP, and PIPCQ).

283

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

7.1.4.2.2. PQ, PPQP, and PIPCQ The following are the correlations among three interrogative parameters (here PQ is set as the starting point for comparison).

Table 7.24. Correlations of PQ, PPQP, and PIPCQ in ERGATIVE languages

PQ PPQP PIPCQ QP 26 1st 5, 2nd 7, final 7, other 2, n/i 5 1st 8, mix 3, Not 13, n/i 2 IIO 12 No 12 1st 4, Not 7, n/i 1 IVM 20 No 20 1st 3, Not 9, n/i 8 IWO 1 No 1 1st 1 mix 1 final 1 n/i 1 n/i 20 n/i 20 1st 2, Not 2, n/i 16

Some generalizations can be drawn from the table: Erg 1. The most common strategies of polar questions in ERGATIVE languages are question particles, interrogative verb morphology, and interrogative intonation, the other strategies are very rare. Erg 2. Non-initial positions are the most common placement of interrogative phrases in content questions, though initial position is also frequently attested. Erg 3. For those ERGATIVE languages that use interrogative intonation only (IIO) or interrogative verb morphology (IVM) or interrogative word order (IWO), there is no question particle.

7.1.4.2.3. Alignment types The correlations between interrogative strategies and alignment types in ERGATIVE languages are summarized in the following table. Some generalizations drawn from Table 7.25 (see the next page): In polar questions of ERGATIVE languages, Erg 4. Compared to other strategies, question particles are used most widely. Erg 5. Interrogatives formed by word order are rare. Erg 6. Interrogative-intonation-only languages are not found having active alignment of case marking of pronouns.

284

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Table 7.25. Correlations between interrogative strategies and alignment types in ERGATIVE languages

NP PRO VERB Act Erg Tri Acc Neu Act Erg Tri Acc Neu None Act Erg Spl Acc Neu 6 33 2 2 14 5 20 2 7 16 2 26 19 8 13 13 PQ QP 26 3 8 1 1 7 3 5 1 3 4 2 11 6 2 3 4 IIO 12 0 4 1 0 3 0 2 1 1 4 0 3 4 3 0 2 IVM 20 2 13 0 0 3 2 9 0 1 6 0 3 2 2 6 6 IWO 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 mix 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

PPQP 1st 5 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 2nd 7 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 3 1 1 0 2 final 8 0 5 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 3 0 other 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 No 33 2 17 1 0 6 2 11 1 2 10 0 7 6 5 6 8

PIPCQ 1st 18 0 7 2 0 4 0 3 2 2 4 1 4 7 4 1 2 Not 31 5 15 0 1 5 4 10 0 3 8 0 8 5 3 6 8 mixed 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0

Abbreviations: Act/Erg/Acc/Neu: active/ergative/accusative/neutral alignment of full noun phrases / pronouns / verbal person marking Tri: tripartite alignment of case marking of full noun phrases / pronouns Spl: split alignment of alignment of verbal person marking None: none of the above

285

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

More generalizations from Table 7.25: Erg 7. Languages with question particles in second position or final position are found to have ergative alignment of case marking of full noun phrases or pronouns only. Erg 8. Languages with sentence-initial question particles are not expected to have active alignment in verbal person marking. Erg 9. In content questions of ERGATIVE languages: interrogative-phrase- initial order is mainly used in languages with ergative/tripartite alignment of full noun phrases or pronouns, not active alignment; interrogative-phrase-not-initial order is mainly used in languages with active/ergative alignment of full noun phrases or pronouns, not tripartite alignment.

7.1.4.2.4. Word order Position of adpositions

Table 7.26. Correlations between interrogative strategies and position of adpositions in ERGATIVE languages

Adp Po 47 Pr 14 Inpo 1 No 7 n/i 11 PQ QP 26 12 7 0 5 2 IIO 12 6 5 0 1 0 IVM 20 19 0 0 1 0 IWO 1 0 1 0 0 0 mix 1 1 0 0 0 0 n/i 20 9 1 1 0 9

PQP 1st 1 3 0 0 1 2nd 3 0 0 3 1 final 5 3 0 0 0 other 1 1 0 0 0 No 25 6 0 2 0 n/i 12 1 1 2 9

IPCQ 1st 9 5 0 2 2 Not 22 6 0 3 0 mixed 0 3 0 0 0 n/i 16 0 1 2 9

Some generalizations drawn from Table 7.26: In ERGATIVE languages,

286

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Erg 10. Postposition is widely used, but not in languages with polar questions by interrogative word order, or languages with content questions that have mix-positioned interrogative phrases. Erg 11. Preposition is not used in languages with polar questions by interrogative verb morphology, or languages with sentence-second-positioned polar question particles. Erg 12. Polar questions by interrogative verb morphology are expected to use postpositions (if there is an adposition).

Clause order

Table 7.27. Correlations between interrogative strategies and clause order

S.O.V OSV OVS SOV SVO VOS VSO n/d n/i 1 1 31 7 3 3 22 12

PQ QP 26 0 0 8 3 1 1 11 2 IIO 12 1 1 2 3 0 2 3 0 IVM 20 0 0 16 0 1 0 2 1 IWO 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 mix 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 n/i 20 0 0 4 0 1 0 6 9

PPQP 1st 5 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2nd 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 1 final 8 0 0 4 1 1 0 1 1 other 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 No 33 1 1 18 4 1 2 5 1 n/i 25 0 0 5 1 1 0 9 9

PIPCQ 1st 18 0 0 3 2 0 1 10 2 Not 31 1 1 19 4 0 1 4 1 mixed 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 n/i 28 0 0 9 1 2 0 7 9

Some generalizations drawn from Table 7.27: In ERGATIVE languages, Erg 13. Languages using interrogative intonation only are found to be of various clause orders, but VOS order is not attested. In other words, if a language uses interrogative intonation only, then its clause order is hard to predict, but with marginal possibility to be of a VOS sequencing.

287

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Erg 14. Languages that have interrogative verb morphology predominately favor SOV order, though VSO is seldom attested, that is, if a language uses interrogative verb morphology, then its basic clause order (if there is one) is SOV (much more common) or VOS (less common).

Order of NP modifiers

Table 7.28. Correlations between interrogative strategies and the order of modifiers of noun phrases

PQ PPQP PIPCQ QP IIO IVM IWO 1st 2nd fin No oth 1st mxd Not N.G NG 6 4 0 1 3 0 2 5 1 5 3 4 GN 14 8 20 0 2 5 3 28 1 11 0 23 N|G 4 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 4

N.A NA 13 7 12 1 2 2 4 20 2 8 2 18 AN 6 4 7 0 2 0 3 11 0 4 1 9 N|A 6 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 5 0 3

N.D ND 7 4 4 0 2 0 3 8 2 3 2 8 DN 14 5 14 1 2 6 3 20 0 11 1 17 mix 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 3

N.Num NNum 6 3 8 0 0 1 4 11 0 2 1 12 NumN 157 6 1 4 3 3 14 2 12 2 15 N|Num 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1

N.R NR 10 6 5 0 4 2 1 11 1 9 2 7 RN 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 0 7 mix 6 4 0 0 1 1 3 4 0 3 1 4 i/h 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1

Some generalizations drawn from the table above: In ERGATIVE languages, Erg 15. Languages with polar questions formed by interrogative verb morphology invariably use GN order. Erg 16. Languages use interrogative verb morphology to phrase polar questions and languages that have question particles at sentence-second position are found to have GN order only. Erg 17. Languages with question-particle-second only use DN order. Erg 18. Languages with question-particle-initial only use NumN order. Erg 19. Languages with interrogative intonation-only use NR order only.

288

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Erg 20. GN, NAdj, ND, NumN, and NR orders are favored in ERGATIVE languages, though there are counter-examples in that (i) the tendency is not obvious in the order of Num and N, (ii) languages with polar questions formed by IVM are commonly found to have NNum order, (iii) languages with wh-phrases ‘not obligatorily initial’ show no special preference in using NR and RN orders. More generalizations can be made. The 20 generalizations addressed here are only the most obvious ones. The generalizations are preliminary and tentative. It is not claiming here that all (or even most) of them are unique features of ERGATIVE languages, as ACCUSATIVE languages and general languages need to be examined and compared. They are listed, nevertheless, only for a better understanding of the correlations between interrogativity and ergativity, an important topic in alignment, as the title of Section 7.1.4 suggests. For a detailed discussion on interrogatives in ERGATIVE languages, see Luo (2011: 61-71, 89-95, 107-8, 113-4, 125-6, 129-32).

7.1.5. Conclusion

Individual interrogative strategies demonstrate some dominant patterns and also correlate with each other (Section 7.1.1). Morphosyntactic parameters on word order, locus of marking, and alignment correlate with interrogative strategies as well (Sections 7.1.2-4). The correlations are mainly summarized in 31 generalizations (with also 20 generalizations on ERGATIVE languages). This work does not claim that the findings or generalizations are universally applicable. Nevertheless, it deserves collecting them in that some of them are indeed universals and genealogical and/or areal skewings are also reflected in these generalizations. Moreover, the ‘Chinaversals’ concerned here readily confirm or modify some ‘universals’ of interrogatives in the literature (e.g. Greenberg 1966, Ultan 1978; see also Dryer 1991). In Section 7.2, some area-historical factors in Sinitic languages are investigated, which presents also explanations for some patterns of interrogative strategies addressed in Section 7.1.

289

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

7.2. Changes in questions: areal and historical perspectives

I include here a brief history of the Chinese language to facilitate the discussion, because it is mentioned very frequently in this section (and elsewhere).

Table 7.29. A brief history of the Chinese language (Wang 1980: 35; Xiang 1993: 41-3)

Chinese Centuries Dynasties

Ancient – 3rd Shang (1600 – 1046 BC), Xi Zhou (1046 – 771 BC), Chun-Qiu (770 – 476 BC), Zhanguo (475 – 221 BC), Qin (221 – 207 BC), Han (202 BC – 220 AD)

Middle 4 – 12th Wei-Jin (220 – 420), Nan-Bei (386 – 589), Sui (581 – 618), Tang (618 – 907), Wudai (907 – 960), Song (960 – 1279)

Early Modern 13 – 20th Yuan (1206 – 1367), Ming (1368 – 1644), Qing (1616 – 1911) 5 Modern 20th – Republic of China (1911 – )

7.2.1. Yes-no questions

Many Minority languages, especially those spoken in southern China, i.e. Kam, Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao), Austro-Asiatic, and some Tibeto-Burman, have a very similar inventory of question particles found in Sinitic languages. For example, Bai (Titeto-Burman) uses mo33, nε55, and ma35 (Xu and Zhao 1984: 87-90); Zhuang (Kam) uses lwi/ma, la, luma, and ba (Wei and Qin 1980: 55-6); Biaomin Mian (Miao-Yao) uses ma33, ba33 (Mao 2004: 239-40); She (Miao-Yao) uses ma1/ma6 and nji6/ne1/e1 (Mao and Meng 1986: 62) (see Chapter 2 for more discussion). Paiwan, a Formosan language, also borrowed a question particle from Mandarin Chinese (Chen 2010). A similar case is found in final particles, the other Sinitic languages share many similarities with Standard Chinese, and minority languages share many similarities with Sinitic languages. See, for example, two detailed lists of final particles in wh-questions and reduced wh-questions in Section 3.3.

5 In some literature, ‘Early Modern Chinese’ and ‘Modern Chinese’ are also called ‘Modern Chinese’ and ‘Contemporary Chinese’ respectively.

290

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

It is not easy to conclude that minority languages borrowed question particles and/or final particles from Sinitic languages, and also too early to claim they share some common origins in question particles. This is because question particles demonstrate common features in syllable structures, i.e. nasal or bilabial consonants plus front low/mid vowels, e.g. a, e. Frequently, the descriptive sources are not sufficiently explicit to enable the reader to reach a firm conclusion, which is a pity, but note that Mao and Meng (1986: 62) clearly point out that She (Hmong-Mien) borrowed a whole set of question particles and final particles from Chinese. Nevertheless, we are on solid ground, that a common feature of Sino- Tibetan languages is the pre-verb interrogative marker *ga(ng) ~ *ka. Benedict (1976, 1985) proposes that *ga(ng) ~ *ka are cognates of Proto-Sino-Tibetan interrogatives, and provides evidence in Sino-Tibetan languages including Old/ Archaic/, Burmese-Lolo, Central/Proto Loloish, Chang-Tangsa, Jinghpaw, Kuki-Naga, Lushai, Mikir, Meitei, Proto-Yamang, Written Burmese, West Himalayish, and Written Tibetan, etc. (Notes: Lolo is also known as Yi, and Jinghpaw is also known as Jingpo.) Benedict’s reconstruction is supported by some subsequent studies, for example, Sun (1995) provides further data in dozens of Sino-Tibetan languages. More evidence is collected in Section 6.1. and Section 7.2.4.2. of the present thesis. Note that interrogative prefixes from Proto-Sino-Tibetan *ga(ng) ~ *ka can not only be appended to the predicate to ask polar questions, but also to nominal words to form wh-words and phrase wh-questions, e.g. Baima (Tibeto-Burman) ka35lε53 ‘who’, ka13la53 ‘where’, ka13tʂo53 ‘how’ (Sun, Chirkova, and Liu 2007: 190).

7.2.2. X-neg-X questions

Chinese X-neg-X questions evolved this way: first, [X qp, neg X qp] questions appeared, at the latest in the , which is reported in the Script (Jiaguwen); second, the first question particle turns into a disjunction, bringing [X disj neg X qp] (cf. Dixon 2012: 399-400, 428, claiming that an alternative question marker may develop into a straightforward polar question marker); third, the final particle dropped, resulting in a [X disj neg X] construction, now that a question particle is redundant in disjunctive

291

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

constructions; finally, the disjunction is dropped, resulting in [X neg X] questions (see, e.g. Song 1993). The X-neg-X-lization route of Minority languages is not very clear, though there are several possibilities, among which borrowing seems to be the most convincing. First, the same route as in Chinese may have happened to individual Minority languages. This idea is less likely to be held. On the one hand, dozens of Minority languages take X-neg-X questions now, and it is hard to imagine that their interrogative structure evolved in the same way and at a more or less similar speed, now that Chinese does not share a genetic relationship with Austro-Asiatic, Kam, Hmong-Mien, or Austronesian languages, in which X-neg-X questions are used; on the other hand, X-neg-X questions are not reported elsewhere outside China, and are not proved to be an ideal interrogative strategy that every individual language should take in its diachronic development. Second, Minority languages may have borrowed a part of X-neg-X structures and then developed the whole set. For example, Kam languages used to have [predicate – negator] order, but they gradually took Chinese [negator – predicate] order, cf. Mulao kəu53nəu35 ‘eat-not’, a55pi ‘not-go’ (see Liang 2007: 123; Mu 2003b: 128); it is possible that in this way Kam languages developed X-neg-X questions. This is also not likely to be ture, or at least not the whole story, because many other languages did not borrow such a sequence from Chinese, and there are equal possibilities that languages took Chinese word order and borrowed X-neg-X questions at the same time, or even borrowed the latter in an earlier period. Third, the story could be that Minority languages borrowed X-neg-X questions from Chinese. That dozens of minority languages of China turned to use X-neg-X questions can only be explained by borrowing. The most crucial evidence is based on the fact that some Austro-Asiatic and Kam languages outside China do not use any X-neg-X questions, whereas those spoken in China use such questions. For example, Standard Thai and Standard Lao (both Kam; Schaffar 2000; see also Long 2012: 15-21 for Thai), Vietnamese (Austro-Asiatic; Clark 1989: 212; Quyen Nguyen, p.c.) and Burmese (Tibeto-Burman; Ehrman 1972) are reported to be free of such an interrogative strategy. Wu (2008) proposes that the borrowing is motivated by means of language contact, e.g. bilingual school education, TV programs, and business activities, though another

292

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

reason, i.e. the so-called Putonghua Enhancement , which has been carried out since Mao in the 1950s, may also count.

7.2.3. Alternative questions

In Section 4.2.2, a list of disjunctions of 32 or/or? minority languages in China is provided, among which at least 13 languages borrowed the Chinese declarative disjunction xuo51(tʂɣ214) and the alternative question disjunction xai35ʂʅ51, as it is shown in the following table (for references, see Table 4.2 in Section 4.2.2).

Table 7.30. Disjunctions borrowed from Chinese in 13 or/or? Minority languages

Families/Groups Languages Disj. in declaratives Disj. in alternative Qs Tibeto-Burman Kazhuo mε33sɿ55 Xiandao mɣ55ʂɿ31

Kam Cun hɔk1 (huan4/za5)si5 Gelao hue31tse33 Kam ho2kaːi1 ɕi6 Lingao huk8tse3 ha4ti4 Mulam hɔ6si6/hɔ6tse3 sɿ /a6si6 Yanghuang hwə5 (tsa2) hai1sɿ1

Hmong-Mien She fek8

Manchu-Tungusic Manchu xuəʂʅ xεʂʅ

Austronesian Huihui hok24tsak43 ʔa11ti11

Austro-Asiatic Buxing pusɣ haisɿ Jing hwak8 hai1la2

In the 25 or-languages, there are at least 8 languages that borrowed disjunctions from Chinese, as it is shown in the following table (for references, see Table 4.3 in Section 4.2.2).

Table 7.31. Disjunctions borrowed from Chinese in 8 or Minority languages

293

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Families/Groups Languages Disjunctions Tibeto-Burman Tujia xo55

Hmong-Mien Hmong (Miao) ho44 Mien (Mian) ha6tsei4

10 1 Kam Biao waː k tsε Maonan wo3 Mo haːi4sɿ1 Pubiao haːi53ʂʅ213 Shui ɣo3si3

It can be seen from the two tables above that Kam languages favor borrowing disjunctions from Chinese. But note that languages may also keep part of their own disjunctions, for example, disjunctions in alternative questions in Kazhuo mε33sɿ55 and Xiandao mɤ55ʂɿ31 are from Chinese mei shi or mo shi (both means ‘not be’), but Kazhuo mo55ni31/ma31ŋ33 and Xiandao lau55/51 have nothing to do with Chinese disjunctions; Gelao, quite different from Kazhuo and Xiandao, borrowed hue31tse33, but not haishi. In the evolution of X-neg-X questions in Chinese, the final process is disjunction dropping, i.e. X disj neg X → X neg X (see discussions above). In Pingba Gelao, a disjunctive-negative meaning takes a structure of V(P) (disj) V-neg or A (disj) A-neg, depending if X is a verb (phrase) or an adjective. To have a disjunction in between is the original form, which is known from the fact that it is used among elderly-aged people, and younger people prefer to drop the disjunction in between (Zhang 1993: 156).

(1) Pingba Gelao (Zhang 1993: 156)

a. su33sa33 mu33 (la42) mu33 ə42? 2.PL come or come not ‘Will you come or not?’

b. san13 mpa33 nu42 nan42 (la42) nan42 ə42? CL pig DEF fat or fat not ‘Is that pig fat or not?’

In Chinese, disjunctions in alternative questions may diachronically evolve from question particles. In Yi, however, the final particle da31 functions also as a disjunction, but it is too early to make any assertion on the directions of change.

294

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

(2) Yi (Chen et al. 1985: 166)

a. nɯ33 a31 bo33 da31? 2SG not go PRT ‘You won’t go (there)?’

b. tshɿ33 m̩(u)44 mo33 bo33 da31 tʂhɯ33 tsɿ33 bo33? 3SG.M land plough go PRT seedling plant go ‘He is going to plough the land or plant the seedlings?’

7.2.4. Three types of verb-related questions in Sinitic

In Chapter 6, three types of verb-related questions, Q-VP, verb-reduplication (VV), and interrogative verbs (IV), are analyzed. This section focuses on the diachrony of these questions in Sinitic languages. For the sake of convenience, I repeat the questions here.

(3) Kunming Mandarin (Zhu 1985)

h ni kə-k ə? 你格去？ (Q-VP) 2SG Q-go ‘Are you going (there)?’

(4) Naxi (Yi, Tibeto-Burman; He 1987: 63)

nvq leel lee lei? (VV) 2SG come come PRT ‘Will you come?’

(5) Colloquial Standard Chinese (Hagège 2008)

nǐ zài gànmá? (IV) 2SG PROG do.what ‘What are you doing?’

Morphologically, the three types can also be labeled as reduplicating, prefixing, and suffixing, respectively. Very little attention has been paid to the diachrony of verb-reduplicating questions (including VV and V-neg-V), though a great deal of research is

295

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

dedicated to find out whether an individual language has both reduplicating and prefixing, because Zhu’s (1985) pioneering paper claims that V-neg-V questions and ke-VP questions are not coexisting in one language. The history of prefixing and suffixing is also not very clear. This section investigates the historical development of the three types of interrogative strategies, trying to find out what is transient and what is pertinent in the history of Sinitic questions, and to uncover why certain structures or features are less likely to change, while some others are weak and disappeared quickly.

7.2.4.1. Verb-reduplicating questions

7.2.4.1.1. Ancient Chinese In Ancient Chinese, [VP neg] questions appeared first and were used most commonly, followed by [VP neg prt] and [VP neg V] questions. [VP neg V] questions were very rare. The most ancient example of [VP neg] question found so far dates back to the middle Xi (1046 – 771 BC)6, though it was not in fully- fledged form. Qiu (1988) reports that there is a VP neg question sentence in the inscriptions of a sacrificial tripod7.

(6) Ancient Chinese (Xi Zhou dynasty)

正乃讯厉曰：女贾田不？ gu tian fou? 2SG sell farmland NEG ‘Do you want to sell the farmland or not?’

In (6), fou is not a question particle but a referential element which negates its antecedent gu tian, meaning ‘not to sell the farmland’. In other words, (6) is an abbreviated form of ru gu tian bu gu tian? (bu ‘not’).

6 Cf. Bloomfield (1933: 321) “The progress of historical linguistics showed that the standard language was by no means the oldest type, but has arisen, under particular historical conditions, from local dialects.” 7 The tripod, Wu Si Wei 五祀卫鼎, found in an archaeological excavation in 1975, records a land transaction between nobles in the Xi Zhou dynasty. It shows that land transactions were possible by permission of the nobles, which is clearly an evidence of the near end of slavery.

296

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

[VP neg] questions are then used more frequently in the dynasties Chun-Qiu, Zhanguo, Qin, and Han (see e.g. Aldridge 2011). [VP neg prt] questions first appeared in the Zhanguo dynasty.

(7) Ancient Chinese (Zhanguo dynasty)

如此，则动心否乎？（孟子·公孙丑上） a. ru ci, ze dongxin fou hu? like DEF then interest NEG PRT ‘If it is like that, are you interested in it?’

子之持戟之士一日而三失伍，则去之否乎？（孟子·公孙丑下） b. ze qu zhi fou hu? then leave.CAU 3 NEG PRT ‘Will you make them leave or not?’

[VP neg V] questions are reported in the Shuihudi books, which documented some legal provisions in the in a form of question-and- answer. The quasi-colloquial text is very likely to be a standard language, though some linguists (e.g. Zhu 1990) argue that the text is a dialect of in the Qin dynasty. Zhu’s statement is not likely to be held because one’s common sense suggests that a tripod can only be owned by the emperor and his family, or the nobles. The language of the influential people is more likely to be standard than to be a dialect.8

(8) Ancient Chinese (Qin dynasty)

智人通钱而为臧，其主已取钱，人后告臧者，臧者论不论？ a. cang-zhe lun bu lun? hide-people punish NEG punish ‘Should people be or not if they hide the (stolen) money?’

8 However, we do not claim that such (more or less) standard structures are older than the other forms used at that period. Cf. Bloomfied (1933: 321), “The progress of historical linguistics showed that the standard language was by no means the oldest type, but has arisen, under particular historical conditions, from local dialects.” Shuihudi Qinjian 睡虎地秦简, which was written between late Zhangguo dynasty (The Warring States, 476 – 221 BC) and Qin dynasty (221 – 207 BC). The bamboo books were found in an archaeological excavation in 1975.

297

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

甲告乙盗牛，今乙贼伤人，非盗牛也，问甲当论不当？ b. jia dang lun bu dang? Jia should punish NEG should ‘Should Jia be punished or not?’

吏从事于官府，当坐伍人不当？ c. dang zuo wuren bu dang? should punish neighbor NEG should ‘Should an official also be punished or not because of his neighbors (committed an offence)?’

(a) is the most compact form, i.e., X in X-neg-X is a monosyllabic verb, while it is a verbal phrase in (b) and (c), where modal verbs are reduplicated. [VP neg V] questions in Shuihudi bamboo books are not found in Han, the dynasty that follows Qin, in which only [VP neg] is documented. Nevertheless, a big change in the is the enrichment of the referential negation words in [VP neg] questions. In the early days of Ancient Chinese (i.e. before the Han dynasty), negation word is invariably fou (written as 不 or 否, which are of very similar pronunciation), while the Han dynasty has wu, wei, fei, and so on.

(9) Ancient Chinese (Han dynasty)

世间羸瘦，有剧我者无?（贤愚经，卷一） a. shijian lei shou, you ju wo zhe wu? world weak thin haveworse 1SG people NEG ‘Is there anybody skinnier and weaker than me?’

君除吏已尽未?（史记·魏其武安侯列传） b. jun chu li yi jin wei? 2SG.HON nominate officer already finish NEG ‘Have you done your nomination of the officials or not?’

若伯夷叔齐可谓善人者非耶?（史记·伯夷列传） c. ruo boyi shuqi ke wei shanren-zhe fei ye? those Boyi Shuqi couldsay good-man NEG PRT ‘Can one call the people like Boyi or Shuqi good man or not?’

In Ancient Chinese, a sentence-final referential negation word is actually a question marker. When it has a final particle that follows (cf. ye in 9c), it is no longer a question marker but acts only as a part of [VP neg] construction, and has a tendency to be a clitic of the previous VP. This tendency becomes even

298

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

stronger if the VP is a short monosyllabic verb, that is, a [VP(-)neg prt] structure is preferred in polar questions. (In fact, [VP neg prt] questions are found in documentations before the Han dynasty, cf. example 7 above.)

7.2.4.1.2. Middle Chinese In Middle Chinese, every variety of [VP neg VP] questions is fully-fledged, such as [VP neg], [VP neg VP], and [VP neg V]. There are even [VP prt neg] and [V prt neg VP] questions. As mentioned above, the structure of [VP neg V] questions found in the Shuihudi bamboo books is invariably [VP neg] in the documentations in the Han dynasty (late Ancient Chinese). The situation remains unchanged till the Nan-Bei dynasty (early Middle Chinese), covering a time span of about 800 years. That [VP neg] questions kept a dominant strategy is very likely to be a matter of , because the Shuihudi bamboo books documented quasi-colloquial questions-and-answers, while the literature later on was always found to be in an archaic style9. The situation changed in the , where [VP neg VP] questions are found, though the most popular polar question is still [VP neg].

(10) Middle Chinese (Tang dynasty)

春草年年绿，王孙归不归？（王维·送别） a. wangsun bu gui? 2.HON go.back not go.back ‘Will you come back?’

9 Colloquial Chinese and have been different to a great extent in the long . This is mainly because only the sons of (politically) influential families were educated and able to (and prefered to) write and speak in an archaic manner, which was a privilege, while the average people were normally not well educated or received no education at all, and could speak only in a colloquial way. The situation was kept unchanged till the Vernacular Movement (Báihuàwén Yùndòng) in 1917, urged people to write Chinese the way it is spoken (see Duanmu 2000: 7). That year is considered to be the beginning of Modern Chinese because of the movement. In fact, the so called Archaic Language Movement (Gǔwén Yùndòng) in the Tang dynasty also advocates to write clearer, simpler texts, as the archaic words are clearer and simpler than the all-rhythmic, difficult, and meaningless popular at that time.

299

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

已下便即讲经，大众听不听？能不能？愿不愿？（敦煌变文集） b. dazhong ting bu ting? neng bu neng? yuan bu yuan? people listen not listen can not can will not will ‘Will people listen or not? Understand or not? Like it or not?’

（师）又上堂云：本自圆成，不劳机杼。诸上座出手不出手？（祖堂集） c. zhu shangzuo10 chushou bu chushou? PL PN do not do ‘Will you all, Shangzuo, do it or not?’

Another subtype of [VP neg VP] question, i.e. [VP neg V], was also first found in the Tang dynasty.

(11) Middle Chinese (Tang dynasty ~ Wudai)

霸王问曰：捉得不得？（敦煌变文集） zhuo de bu de? catch ACM NEG ACM ‘Have you caught them or not?’

During the time of the Tang dynasty and Wudai, [V prt neg VP] questions were developed, which were the near ancestors of verb-reduplicating, i.e. [V V(P)] questions.

(12) Middle Chinese (Tang dynasty ~ Wudai)

从城外排一大阵，识也不识？（敦煌变文集） shi ye bu shi? know PRT NEG know ‘Do you know this?’

7.2.4.1.3. Early Modern Chinese and Modern Chinese Early Modern Chinese has all the subtypes of [VP neg VP] questions, among which [VP neg] and [VP neg V(P)] are most common. In early Early Modern Chinese [VP prt neg] and [V prt neg V] questions are also very common, but they died out gradually. In its contemporary descendant languages, [VP prt neg] is not used in Standard Chinese, but only in some Sinitic languages (especially in its dialects of northern Mandarin), and the particle in [V prt neg V] is dropped, resulting in a [V neg V] question. In some Sinitic languages, the

10 Shangzuo 上座, Sthavira, is a honorific title to monks of higher rank.

300

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

negators are dropped, as a result of syllable assimilation (e.g. in fast utterance), and produce a verb-reduplicating question, i.e. [V V(P)] question. See Section 6.2 for examples in Sinitic, Yi, and Miao-Yao languages. To sum up, the most recent origin of verb-reduplicating questions [V V(P)] are [VP neg VP] and [V prt neg V(P)] questions that first appeared in Middle Chinese, in particular at the time of the Tang dynasty and Wudai. The mechanism of reduplication is to assimilate adjacent syllables.

7.2.4.2. Q-VP questions

7.2.4.2.1. Q VP in Ancient, Middle, and Early Modern Chinese ke 可 functions as a (modal) verb in its early usage. According to , it is equivalent to ken 肯, which means ‘agree (to do)’ or ‘will’11. ke then functions also as an interrogative adverb, though it was not the only one in Ancient, Middle, or Early Modern Chinese. There are at least two equivalents, i.e., ning 宁 and qi 岂, which were simply not as pertinent as ke and vanished gradually. The story is like this: ke, ning, and qi are used in rhetorical (no-doubt) questions and common speculative questions in the early time (ke and ning are used first in rhetorical questions, and then in normal questions). This is a redundant interrogative system, as the three words are totally parallel in usage. In their later competitions, ning (both usages) dropped out first, followed by the speculative usage of qi, and finally the no-doubt usage of ke was lost (see Jiang 1990 for more discussion).

Table 7.32. A history of three interrogative adverbs in Chinese

Ancient Middle Early Modern Modern Chinese Chinese Chinese Chinese ning no-doubt Q no-doubt Q - - speculative Q qi no-doubt Q no-doubt Q no-doubt Q (no-doubt Q) speculative Q speculative Q ke no-doubt Q no-doubt Q speculative Q (speculative Q) speculative Q

11 According to Shuowen Jiezi, ‘可, 肯也’. Shuowen, edited by Xu (58 – 147 AD), is the first Chinese philology dictionary that analyzes the structure of characters and gives rationale behind them.

301

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Notes: 1. Minus – means a certain usage does not exist; parenthesis () means a certain usage is not very common. 2. In contemporary Standard Chinese qi is still used marginally in rhetorical questions, normally it is used in written language, with a strong archaic flavor, e.g. qibushi ‘Isn’t…?’. qi is also used in a very limited number of Sinitic languages, such as Chao-Shan Min. 3. The speculative ke is also withdrawing to a trivial role in Standard Chinese (Lü et al 1980: 334), though qi (and its variants) is still kept in many Sinitic languages (see Section 6.1 for detailed discussion).

Some scholars argue that the earliest examples of ke VP questions appeared in Middle Chinese (for example, Ye 2008: 94-5 proposes it was first found in documentations of the Tang dynasty). However, several clear cases of ke-VP questions are found in Ancient , though not very often.

(13) Ancient Chinese (Chun-Qiu dynasty)

弗慎厥德，虽悔可追？（尚书） a. fu shen que de, sui hui ke zhui? not carefully miss though regret KE remedy ‘Is it possible to remedy if people regret that they did something bad?’

夫民虑之于心而宣之于口，成而行之，胡可雍也？（国语·周语） b. hu ke yong ye? Q KE jam PRT ‘How could one jam it?’

愿以子之辞行赂焉。其可赂乎？（国语·鲁语上） c. qi ke lu hu? 3 KE persuade PRT ‘Is he persuadable?’

It is reasonable to argue that (13a-b) are not real [ke VP] questions, because they are questions without doubt. Nevertheless, an important difference which lies in (13a) and (13b) is that ke questions the action zhui ‘to remedy’ and negates it (hence the label ‘no doubt’) at the same time in (13a), but it does not negate the action yong ‘to jam’ in (13b), though one could still claim that interrogativity is partly conveyed by the question word hu ‘how’. Sentence (13c) is a clear [ke VP] question.

302

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

ke-VP questions are more frequently encountered in literature of the Tang dynasty. According to a corpus study of Zu Tang Ji (祖堂集, a classic which collects the deeds and dialogues of monks) by Ye (2008: 94-5), there are 14 ke-VP questions, among which 13 are common yes-no questions (e.g. 14abc), and one is VP-neg question (14d).

(14) Middle Chinese (Tang dynasty)

太子语曰：此草可能惠施小许，不为爱惜？（卷一，第七释迦牟尼佛） a. ci cao ke neng hui shi xiaoxu? DEF grass KE can kindly give me ‘Could you kindly give the plant to me?’

如是解时，不可断他众生善恶二根，可是菩提耶?（卷三，司空山本净和尚） b. ke shi puti ye? KE be Buddha PRT ‘Could it be of Buddha(’s deeds)?’

师曰：可年七十八摩？（卷四，药山和尚） c. ke nian qishiba me? KE year seventy-eight PRT ‘Are you seventy-eight years old?’

马师曰：可有成坏不？（卷三，怀让和尚） d. ke you cheng huai fou?12 KE have PN PN not ‘Does it have any Cheng or Huai13?’

12 Nevertheless, the earliest circumfix-like ke…fou questions appear much earlier than the Tang dynasty (Middle Chinese). As is exemplified in the following, such questions could date back to the Han dynasty (Ancient Chinese).

(15) Ancient Chinese (Han dynasty)

臣汤问仲舒：祠宗庙或以鹜当凫，鹜非凫，可用否？（春秋繁露） a. ke yong fou? KE use not ‘Is it okay to use that?’

问曰：天独怒而不应和人，宁可知否？（太平经） b. ning ke zhi fou? rather KE know not ‘Who knows that?’ (Why it is?)

303

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

In Early Modern Chinese [ke VP] questions have some variants, like [ke VP neg prt], [ke VP neg VP], and [ke VP prt]. It can be seen that ke is a redundant interrogative strategy because except for ke, [VP neg prt], [VP neg VP], and [VP prt] are very frequently used questions in Early Modern Chinese.

7.2.4.2.2. Q-VP in contemporary Sinitic languages It is not easy to assert that the ke in ke-V(P) (note the hyphen) functions as an interrogative prefix in Ancient, Middle, or Early Modern Chinese. It is equally difficult to deny the possibility of the existence of ke-V(P) at that time. This might simply be because we lack in well documented literature (missing, unnoticed, or not existing), or because of practical reasons, such as no good methods of voice recording were available at that time. Nevertheless, in many contemporary Sinitic languages there is good evidence of different strata, indicating that ke has been functioning as an interrogative prefix (see Zhang 1990: 30-48, 134-63).

· In Suīníng Mandarin (the county town, Caiji, and Qing-an) hai in hai-VP (a variant of Q-VP) is pronounced with a zero tone. · In Huai-an Mandarin hai of hai-VP is pronounced with a weakened phonological strength, which is different to an independent hai (the adverbial)13. · In many Jianghuai Mandarin and Xinan Mandarin languages [khə] is pronounced as [kə]. · In many dialects of the Anhui province ke is pronounced in a checked tone (rusheng) if the language has a checked tone. · In Xiamen Min the equivalent of ke, gan // has three pronunciations: /kam/, /kan/, and /kã/, all prefer a back velar. · In some Hakka languages spoken in the southern Jiangxi Province (e.g. Quan-nan, Long-nan), the syllable structure of the equivalents of ke in ke-VP are, however, without syllable-initial consonants, e.g. /am/, /an/. · In Kunming, Hefei, and many other Mandarin languages, ke [khə] is pronounced as [kə].

Cheng (Sanskrit vivarta-kalpa) and Huai (Sanskrit samvarta-kalpa) are terms of Buddhism referring to two periods of the life circle of the world. 13 Whereas in the Héxià Township of Huai-an, ke-VP has died out.

304

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

· In Min, qi /tɕhi/ is pronounced in a checked tone. In Yongxin Gan and many Mandarin languages (e.g., Shǎnběi, Shānxī, Shùyáng), ke [khə̌] is pronounced as [khə̀]14.

The phenomenon points to the fact that ke and its dialectal variants have been undergoing a phonological erosion process. First, the front velar [kh] is replaced by a back [k] in many languages, which is weaker in phonation. Second, in some languages, the original falling-rising tone is replaced by a checked tone or even dropped (zero tone). One obvious result (or evidence) of this is, that there are many words to record the quasi-real pronunciation in different languages, for example, 克[khə̀] and 格[kə] are very frequently encountered in Jianghuai Mandarin and Xinan Mandarin. This is what people can do most because a written system is far from being fully-fledged in Sinitic languages (Mandarin is an exception).

7.2.4.3. Interrogative verb gan-ma

7.2.4.3.1. A history of ma It is generally accepted that me 麽 and ma 嗎 are derived from wu 無 (see, e.g. Wang 1980: 452-4). The argument is very likely to be maintained because there are no labiodentals in Ancient Chinese; all the latter-appeared labiodentals were consistently pronounced as bilabials, that is, [f], [fh], [v], [ɱ] are pronounced as [p], [ph], [b], [m] respectively. This is termed gu wu qingchunyin 古无轻唇音 in Chinese literature, proposed by Qian Daxin (1728 – 1804). The phenomenon is still kept in many Sinitic languages nowadays, such as wu is pronounced mou in Cantonese and pronounced mau in many Gan languages (e.g. Yongxin, Ji-an, Nanchang) and Hakka languages (e.g. Nankang Hakka). wu 无, according to Shuowen, is a synonym of wang 亡 meaning ‘to flee away’15. Later on, wu and wang both derived the meaning ‘not have’, as it is exemplified by the following example, in which wang is glossed as wu.

(16) Ancient Chinese

14 An early example is the phonological translation of the title of the Mongolian emperor, h h [k ə̀ xán] is written as 可汗, which is pronounced [k ə̌ xàn] in Standard Chinese. 15 wu (无, traditionally also written as 無) has the homophone wu 无, meaning ‘the northwest part of the sky collapsed’ (Shuowen).

305

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

司马牛忧曰：人皆有兄弟，我独亡。（论语·颜渊） ren jie you xiongdi,wo du wang. people all have brother 1SG alone not.have ‘Everyone has brothers except me.’

wang kept its ‘leaving, losing’ meaning all the time, but this is not the case with wu, as it then also functioned as an interrogative particle (17). When it comes to the Tang dynasty, a pure interrogative particle, me (from the Tang dynasty to Wudai, written as 摩, 磨), came into vision (18a-b).

(17) Middle Chinese (Tang dynasty)

晚来天欲雪，能饮一杯无?（白居易·问刘十九） wanlai tian yu , neng yin yi bei wu? evening sky about can drink one CL not ‘It is going to snow tonight. Can you come and have a drink?’

(18) Middle Chinese (Tang dynasty)

六祖见僧，竖起拂子，云：还见摩？（祖堂集·卷二·慧能） a. liuzhu jian seng, shuqi fuzi, yun: hai jian me? Liuzhu see monk raise Fuzi say if see ME ‘Liuzhu saw the monk and raised the Fuzi (whisk): “Can you see it?”’

将他物己用，思量得也磨？（王梵志诗） b. jiang ta wu ji yong, siliang de ye me?” DISP other thing self use think get PRT ME ‘Isn’t it bad for someone to steal something from other people?’

Later in the , me and wu are used interchangeably, though me 么 has two pronunciations from then on, that is, [mə] and [ma], the latter is the original form of ma 吗, though it did not have a written form in the beginning. This could be seen from the rhyme schemes of poems at that time.

(19) Early Modern Chinese (Song dynasty; Zhong 1997; Sun 1999: 105)

风炉煮茶，霜刀剖瓜，暗香微透窗纱，是池中藕花。 高梳髻鸦，浓妆脸霞。 玉尖弹动琵琶，问香醪饮么？（米芾·醉太平） Rhymed syllables: cha – gua – sha – hua – ya – xia – ba – ma

306

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

The rhyme of the above poem is /-a/, that is, all the sentences should end with an /-a/ rhyme. 么 (me) is a character to record the real pronunciation of ma, and me itself is an interrogative particle. The same strategy is also found in some other poems, e.g., Xin Qiji’s poem Jiangshenzi (see Zhong 1997; Sun 1999: 105). In fact, 么 is not the only character for recording [ma]. Some other characters are also used before an independent character was invented. For example, 嘛 is found in the same period.

(20) Early Modern Chinese (Song dynasty; Zhong 1997; Sun 1999: 105)

济楚好得些。憔悴损、都是因它。那回得句闲言语，傍人尽道，你管又还鬼那人 唦。 得过口儿嘛？直勾得、风了自家。是即好意也毒害，你还甜杀人了，怎 生申报孩儿。（黄庭坚·丑奴儿） Rhymed syllables: ta – sha – hua – ma – jia – ŋa16

Before 吗 ma became the most frequently used interrogative particle, some other written forms (e.g. 麻) are also used in literature. Nevertheless, 么 me is the most frequently used interrogative particle before 吗 ma took its place. Even in Contemporary Mandarin Chinese, me is commonly used.

7.2.4.3.2. The suffixation of -ma and its equivalents ganma became an interrogative verb only after it was no longer analyzable, that means, ma alone is meaningless but questions the action gan – the two parts were merged. In some other Sinitic languages, the suffixing IVs are found abridging their syllables. As the ‘do what’ IVs discussed in Section 6.3, [tsukua] is pronounced [tsua] in Yongxin Gan, [tsusatsi] is pronounced [tsuatsi] in Chongqing and many Sichuan Mandarin languages, [tsusa] is pronounced [tsua] in many varieties of Jin. In fact, ganma [kanma] is more frequently pronounced as [kãma] or even [kama] in colloquial conversations, simply has a nasalized [ã] or a bare [a], and drops the [n]. For more examples of ganma and other interrogative verbs in the languages in China, see Section 6.3.

16 [ŋa] is from the Gan language, which is written as 伢. Its equivalent, 儿, is pronounced [ɚ] in Standard Chinese.

307

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

7.2.4.4. Summary

A general conclusion is that the three interrogative strategies have evolved via erosion in use. Verb-reduplicating questions come from [V neg V] questions, by dropping the negation constituent. ke and its equivalents lost their independent identity and became an interrogative prefix, accompanied by phonological erosion. ma in ganma underwent a suffixation process, in which ma gradually lost its autonomous identity as an independent word. Sinitic languages are known to lack fully-fledged inflectional systems. The analysis above shows, however, diachronically, there are some clearly morphological strategies in the evolution of the three verb-related interrogative strategies: Q-V(P) is prefixing, IV is suffixing (e.g. gan-ma), and VV is reduplication. Among the three types of verb-related interrogative strategies in Sinitic languages, two are dying out. Verb-reduplication used to be very popular in Jianghuai Mandarin and Hakka, but is now withdrawing to a trivial role, as younger generations no longer prefer to use the old-fashioned expressions (see Section 6.2.1). Q-V(P), is no longer kept in the influential languages, like contemporary Shanghai Wu and Suzhou Wu. Interrogative verb ganma is still frequently used because it is spoken in Colloquial Standard Chinese, and a privileged language is less likely to get rid of its own possessions. The development of the three types of verb-related questions in Chinese is summarized in the following table.

308

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

Table 7.33. A history of three types of verb-related questions in Chinese

Chinese Dynasties VP-neg-VP Q-VP IV VP-neg VP {neg prt} VP-neg-VP VP-neg-V V-neg-VP / Xi Zhou [VP neg] / / / / / Chun-Qiu VP neg / / / / / Ancient Zhanguo ~ Qin VP neg [VP neg prt] [VP neg V(P)] VP neg V / / Xi Han VP(-)neg VP(-)neg PRT / / / / Dong Han VP(-)neg VP neg prt / / / ke VP (prt) Wei-Jin ~ Nan-Bei VP(-)neg VP prt neg / / / Middle Tang VP-neg VP PRT neg [VP neg VP] VP neg V / [ke VP] Wudai VP-neg VP PRT neg [VP neg VP] VP neg V V prt neg VP [ke VP] Song VP-neg VP PRT neg VP neg VP VP neg V V PRT neg VP [ke VP] Yuan VP-neg VP PRT neg VP neg VP VP neg V V PRT neg VP ke VP VP me Modern Ming VP-neg VP prt neg VP neg VP VP neg V V prt neg VP ke VP VP me Qing VP-neg [VP prt neg] VP neg VP VP neg V V prt neg VP ke VP VP me Cotemporary Standard [VP-neg] / VP-neg-VP [VP-neg-V] V-neg-VP [ke-VP] V-pro Other Sinitic VP-neg VP-neg-prt, VP-neg-VP, VP-neg-V V-neg-VP ke-VP V-pro [VP-prt-neg] [V VP]

Notes: 1. Square brackets indicate that certain features are not used very frequently. 2. Slashs indicate certain features do not exist. 3. Big letter PRT means particles are used very often.

309

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

7.3. Further topics: interrogation and negation

The typological literature on negation and interrogation is scarce. In an earlier study on interrogation and negation, Thompson (1998) notes:

My decision to pursue the relationship between form and function in interrogatives and negatives was motivated by the striking differences in the grammar of these two construction types that emerge in the typological literature. In particular, the grammar of interrogation typically involves a number of strategies that are not found in the grammar of negation, and vice versa. (Thompson 1998, p.309)

The situation has not much changed in typology, though some studies, e.g. Miestamo (2005: 9, 88, 100-1, 209, 218, 225, 259, 291-2) includes discussions on interrogatives and finds many common features that are shared by the two categories, and Dixon (2012: 420) mentions that “negation is linked in a number of ways with questions.”

7.3.1. Negation and interrogation in ask-and-answers

In many languages polite questions are often asked in a negative way, e.g. in Danish, Japanese, Russian, and Ute, the polite way of asking May I enter? Is to ask something like May I not enter? To have a negator is a normal strategy in Tsou alternative questions (Zeitoun 2005) and (Mantauran) Rukai yes/no questions (Zeitoun 2007: 355-6; see Dixon 2012: 420, Zeitoun 1997 and discussions on Rukai in Section 2.3). In Imbabura, chu is used as a marker for both negatives and interrogatives (Cole 1982: 164; Palmer 2001: 53). A similar case is found in Yongxin , in which it is most polite h to ask Have you already eaten? in a negative way, e.g. jin xai nən tɕ ia pa? (2SG still not eat PRT), and questions in the positive way are not very polite. In semantic and pragmatic literature, negative polar question have continued to be a much discussed topic (see, e.g. Ladd 1981; Romero and Han 2004; inter alia). The starting point of the studies is, that negative polar questions are ambiguous between an inner and outer negation reading. For example, in English, by asking Isn’t there a café?, the question has two readings,

310

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

in particular, a speaker seeks confirmation that there is a café, or, a speaker seeks confirmation that there is no café at all. In Standard Chinese, however, there is no such ambiguity. Equivalent questions are asked in two strategies. One is to have different verbs (shi and bushi), and another is to have different particles (ma and ba).

(21) Standard Chinese

a. na shi yi-ge canguan ma? DEF be one-CL restaurant QP ‘Is there a café?’ (I don’t know.)

b. na bu-shi yi-ge canguan ma? DEF NEG-be one-CL restaurant QP ‘Isn’t there a café?’ (I know there is.)

c. na bu-shi yi-ge canguan ba? DEF NEG-be one-CL restaurant PRT ‘Isn’t there a café?’ (I suppose not.)

Compared to negative polar questions, much less attention has been paid to negative content questions in literature, though negation islands are an exception. Negation islands suggest that some constituents can not be questioned in negations, such as in English (Standard Chinese also demonstrates such differences), John didn’t read many of these books. vs. Which books did John not read? but John doesn’t weigh 190 pounds. vs. *How much does John not weigh? (see Fox and Hackl 2006 for a semantic explanation of the difference.) It deserves to be mentioned that in Standard Chinese it is not grammatical to have wh-fronting in some cases when asking positive content questions, but equivalent negative ones do not demonstrate such a restriction, as is exemplified in the following.

(22) Standard Chinese

a. ni xihuan / bu xihuan shenme shu? 2SG like / not like what/which book ‘Which books do / don’t you like?’

311

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

b. shenme shu ni *xihuan / bu xihuan? ‘Which books *do / don’t you like?’

It is equally grammatical to ask the positive or negative in the in-situ questions (22a), but it is not grammatical to ask the positive in the wh-fronted questions (22b). An explanation is that the positive reading of questions values infinity, while the negative reading limits it to a certain scope and is more or less definite. In other words, in Standard Chinese, some definiteness must be reserved to a topic positioned wh-phrase. Differences between English and Standard Chinese also exist in answers. In English, answers to polar questions take a consistent polarity strategy. In particular, positive answers have positive values, and negative answers have negative values, as exemplified follows.

(23) English

a. A: Is Mary coming?

B1: Yes, she is. (Mary is coming.)

B2: No, she isn’t. (Mary is not coming.)

b. A: Isn’t Mary coming?

B1: Yes, she is. (Mary is coming.)

B2: No, she isn’t. (Mary is not coming.)

In Standard Chinese and most (if not all) other Sinitic languages and Minority languages, the answers to a positive polar question are the same as in English, but different in negative polar questions (23b). In particular, in negative polar questions, if the answer has a positive value, then the formula is to have a negator first, followed by a positive statement, e.g. the equivalent of (23b-B1) in Standard Chinese is bu, ta lai (no, 3SG come) ‘No, she is coming’ (literal translation); if the answer has a negative value, then the formula is to give a positive answer first, followed by a negative statement, e.g. the equivalent of

(23b-B2) in Standard Chinese is shi(de), ta bu lai (yes, 3SG not come) ‘Yes, she is not coming’ (literal translation). It is interesting to test individual languages, to see if negators are included in asking polite questions, or demonstrate ambiguity in inner/outer reading, or negation islands, or answers of polar questions, and to correlate the parameters with other typological parameters.

312

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

7.3.2. Diachronic negation and interrogation

Miestamo (2005: 225) claims that many languages are found to have diachronic connections between interrogatives and negations, though the exact route of grammaticalization is still not very clear.

Diachronic connections can be found between negation and interrogation in many languages. Negative elements have been reported as sources for the grammaticaliza- tion of interrogative markers… The motivations between these diachronic connections are easy to see as both negatives and interrogatives operate in the realm of the non-realized, but the exact diachronic paths…are a subject of future research. (Miestamo 2005: 225)

That negative elements are commonly of interrogative origin is also found in the history of Chinese. For example, the most common question particle in Modern Chinese ma is evolved from me (question particle, Middle/ Early Modern Chinese) < fou (‘not’, Ancient/Middle/Early Modern Chinese). An issue related is the word order variation and change in Chinese questions and negative declaratives, which is summarized in the following table.

Table 7.34. Clause order of Classical and Modern Chinese

Sentence types Classical Chinese Modern Chinese wh-questions SVO/SOV SVO/sov yes/no-questions SVO/sov SVO/(sov) negative declaratives SVO/sov SVO

The basic clause order of Chinese, from Ancient to Contemporary, is SVO. However, Ancient Chinese also has SOV order in its wh-questions (which is especially common in those with pronominal objects), yes/no-questions, and negative declaratives. In Modern Chinese (and some Sinitic languages, e.g. Shanghai Wu), SOV is a recessive alternative order and is used only in marginal cases, e.g. in rhetorical questions and contrastive questions. To uncover the diachronic connections of interrogation and negation, and to discuss the mechanisms of SOV order in questions and negative declaratives in Classical Chinese, and its extinction in Modern Chinese, are fields of my further research on interrogative strategies.

313

7 Typological and area-historical assessment

To wind up this section, I am listing further issues that are related to both questions and negations.

· In the Sariqul dialect of Tajik (Indo-European) spoken in China, alternative questions take an X prt disj Y prt structure, in which the disjunction naji is a negation word (Gao 1985: 65). · “About 75% of languages of all [clause order] types use tag questions which consist or contain negative particles or affixes”. (Ultan 1978 universal No. 5 on segmental elements) · In Imbabura, a variety of Quechua, the same marker, -chu, is used for both (yes-no) question sand negations (Cole 1982: 164; cited in Palmer 2001: 12). · Bencini (2003) claims that “interrogative marker for yes/no questions are derived from or formally similar to one of two elements in the language: the negative marker not (and the marker for the disjunction or).” · In Karo (Tupí, Brazil), the negator in commands and wh-questions is the same (yahmãm), which is different from the negators used in declaratives (iʔke) and yes/no questions (taykit) (Dixon 2012: 92, 420). · Dixon (2012: 398) quotes that in Longgu (Ausrtonesian, Solomon Islands), the disjunction in alternative questions bwala is homonymous with the independent polarity form bwala ‘no’.

314

8 Conclusion

Chapter 8

Conclusion

In this thesis, I have focused on the interrogative strategies in the languages of China, particularly the structural features. It begins with a survey of 138 languages, followed by presentations of question particles, disjunctions and alternative questions, wh-phrases and wh-questions, as well as three types of verb-related questions. We then seek to explore typological features in various parameters across these languages, winding up with a typological assessment by bringing twenty morphosyntactic parameters together, including interrogatives, word order, alignment, and locus of marking, and proposing some correlations between individual parameters. Also, historical and areal factors are investigated in different types of interrogatives, in particular, in yes-no, X-neg-X, alternative, and three types of verb-related questions. All efforts aim to present the diversity and unity in structural features of interrogatives in the languages of China, which is the goal (or contribution) of this work. Chapter 2 gives a detailed survey of the polar interrogative strategies in 138 languages of China, including studies focusing on two individual languages, Standard Chinese and Yongxin Gan, and presents a profile of polar interrogatives of these languages. After a survey of polar interrogatives in individual languages, specific topics are discussed in Chapters 3-6 concerning question particles and final particles, disjunctions and alternative questions, wh-phrases and wh-questions, as well as three types of verb-related questions. Chapter 3 suggests that the positions of question particles in the languages of China are very different from those included in a worldwide language sample by Dryer (2005b) in that most of languages in the current study prefer sentence-final positions, while Dryer’s sample reports that a much smaller proportion of languages are formed with sentence-final question particles. The

315

8 Conclusion

discussion on ma ne questions in Sinitic languages reveals that such questions are formed by a question particle plus a final particle, not by two question particles. Moreover, Section 3.3 proposes that in Standard Chinese (and many Sinitic languages as well), final particles determine the nature of wh-questions, in particular, wh-questions turn to be yes-no/rhetorical questions, or assertions, or bear some ‘on earth’ meaning if proper question particles are used sentence-finally. In many languages in China, disjunctions in declaratives and interrogatives are different, while some other languages do not demonstrate such a difference (e.g. English and German). In Chapter 4, an or vs or/or? typology is proposed to account for the difference. The typology matters in that it correlates (at least) with some word order parameters (adposition, clause order), which is summarized as several generalizations (Section 4.2). Except for those by normal disjunctions (or and or/or?), some languages are found to use disjunct-final particles as disjunctions. A further study shows that particles after the second disjunct are more likely to be dropped than the ones after the first disjunct. Languages with alternative questions formed by disjunct-final particles demonstrate a skewed genetic distribution in that they are mainly found in Sino-Tibetan languages (mostly Tibeto-Burman) and Altaic languages; Austro-Asiatic languages and Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) languages, however, mainly prefer normal disjunctions. In the discussion of wh-phrases and wh-questions in Chapter 5, quite different from Dryer’s (2005c) findings, wh- in situ (in Dryer’s classification, “not obligatorily initial”) is a general characteristic of the languages of China. An uncommon phenomenon, wh-reduplication in interrogative phrases, is found in 30 languages (mostly Tibeto-Burman). Nevertheless, individual wh-phrases vary in the capability of reduplication, in particular, words like who, what, where, and which can be reduplicated very easily, and how, when, and why bear some difficulty, while how many/much and how long (time) can hardly be reduplicated. An explanation is that wh-phrase reduplication is only possible when a certain phrase can semantically carry a plural meaning. Sinitic languages are generally considered to be ‘isolating’ languages that lack inflectional morphology. Chapter 6 fine-tunes such claims by bringing three types of verb-related questions (all reported in Sinitic languages) together and proposes that such interrogatives are clear cases of morphological operation. Verb-reduplicating questions and questions formed using interrogative verbs are

316

8 Conclusion

rarely reported cross-linguistically. Nevertheless, the former is common in Sinitic and Yi languages, and the latter is common in Formosan (and some Sinitic languages as well) (Q-VP questions are mainly found in Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman languages). Interrogative strategies correlate with each other and with various other parameters (cf. the correlations, i.e. ‘generalizations’ summarized in Section 7.1). Interrogative strategies vary and change in space and time. Areal factors, notably contact with (and borrowing from) Standard Chinese in many groups of languages, as well as historical factors, especially the pace of change, or, in other words, pertinacity or transience in individual interrogative structures and individual groups of languages, are addressed in Section 7.2. Chapter 7 hence holds that diversity in interrogative strategies is the (unstable) result and representation of language change in space and time.

In conclusion, the languages of China show similarities with and differences from in interrogative strategies in languages elsewhere (cf. Greenberg 1966 universals No. 8-12; Ultan 1978; Dryer 2005a, b, c). The synchronic diversity and unity of interrogative strategies in the languages of China are the result of area-historical change, notably structural borrowing via language contact. For future research, a worldwide language sample needs to be analyzed and compared with the languages of China that were dealt with in this study. More typological parameters should be added and correlated. Additionaly, an atlas of individual structural features of interrogativity and the patterns of their correlations with other parameters should be produced. Then we will not only have a better understanding of the languages of China, but also of languages in general, and the diversity and unity in their interrogative strategies.

317

8 Conclusion

318

References

References

Acuo, Yixiweisa 2004 Daohua yanjiu [A study of Dao, a Creole language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Acuo, Yixiweisa 2007 Daohua [Dao: A Creole language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 2621-2636. Aldridge, Edith 2011 Neg-to-Q: The historical origin and development of question particles in Chinese. The Linguistic Review, 28: 411-447. An, Jun 1986 Hezheyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Hezhen language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Bai, Yun 2005 Guanyang Guanyinge tuhua yanjiu [A study of Guanyang Guanyinge Ping]. Nanning: Guangxi Minzu Chubanshe. Bailey, T. Grahame 1915 Linguistic studies from the : being studies in the grammar of fifteen Himalayan dialects. London: Royal Asiatic Society. Bayer, Josef 2012 From modal particle to interrogative marker: a study of German denn. In: Laura Brugè, Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro and Cecilia Poletto (eds.), Functional heads, 13-28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bencini, Giulia 2003 Towards a diachronic typology of yes/no question constructions with particles. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society, 604-621. Benedict, Paul K. 1972 Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Benedict, Paul K. 1976 Archaic Chinese affixation patterns. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Copenhagen. Benedict, Paul K. 1985 PST interrogative *ga(ng) ~ *ka. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 8.1: 1-10. Bhat, D. N. S. 2000 The indefinite-interrogative puzzle. Linguistic Typology, 4: 365-400. Bickel, Balthasar 2007 Typology in the 21st century: major current developments. Linguistic Typology, 11: 239-251. Bloomfield, Leonard 1933 Language. : Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bo, Wenze 1997 Yanghuangyu yanjiu [A study of the Yanghuang language]. Shanghai: Shanghai Yuandong Chubanshe. Bo, Wenze 2004 Caijiahua gaikuang [A brief introduction to the Caijia language]. Minzu Yuwen, 2: 68-81. Bolinger, Dwight 1980 Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In: Hiż (ed.), 87-105. Buhe and Zhaoxiong Liu 1982 Bao’anyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Bao’an language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Cable, Seth 2010 The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and Pied-Piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, Lyle 2006 Areal linguistics: a closer scrutiny. In: Yaron Matras, April

319

References

McMahon, and Nigel Vincent (eds.), Linguistic areas: convergence in historical and typological perspective, 1-31. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cao, Zhiyun (ed.) 2008 Hanyu dituji [Linguistic atlas of Chinese dialects] (3 vols.). Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan. Cauquelin, Josiane 1991 The Puyuma language. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, Deel 147, 1ste Afl., 17-60. KITLV, Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies. Chang, -yang Marco 2010 On the interrogative constructions in Isbukun Bunun. MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University. Chang, Claire H. 2000 Yameiyu cankao yufa [A reference grammar of Yami]. : Yuan-Liou Publishing. Chang, -en 1986 Lahuyu jianzhi [A brief description of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Chang, Henry Yungli 2000 Gamalanyu cankao yufa [A reference grammar of Kavalan]. Taipei: Yuan-Liou Publishing. Chao, Yuen Ren 1968 A grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chaoke 1995 Ewenkeyu yanjiu [A study of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Chappell, Hilary; Li, Ming; and Alain Peyraube 2007 Chinese linguistics and typology: the state of the art. Linguistic Typology, 11: 187-211. Chen, Chun-Mei 2010 Typology of Paiwan interrogative prosody. Speech Prosody 2010 Conference Proceedings, May 10-14, Chicago. Chen, Guoqing 2002 Kemuyu yanjiu [A study of the Kemu language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Chen, Guoqing 2005 Kemieyu yanjiu [A study of the Kemie language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Chen, Huixia 2008 Guangxi Lingui Xiaojiang Kejia fangyandao yanjiu [The Hakka island in Lingui Xiaojiang, Guangxi]. MA thesis, . Chen, Kang 1992 Taiwan Gaoshanzu yuyan [The Formosan languages of Taiwan]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Chubanshe. Chen, Kang 1996 Liangshan Yiyu juzi de yuqi ji biaoda fangshi [The mood system of Liangshan Yi]. Minzu Yuwen, 2: 36-41. Chen, Kang 2007a Ameiyu [The ]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 2113-2133. Chen, Kang 2007b Yameiyu [The ]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 2325-2336. Chen, Kang 2007c Zouyu [The ]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 2245-2263. Chen, Kang and Jinlai Xu 2001 Taiwan Saidekeyu [The Sedeq language in Taiwan]. Beijing: Huawen Chubanshe. Chen, Kang and Rongsheng Ma 1986 Gaoshanzu yuyan jianzhi (Paiwanyu) [A brief description of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Chen, Manjun 2011 Mintai Minnan fangyan de fanfu wenju [Positive-negative interrogative sentences of Southern Min dialects in Fujian and Taiwan]. Fangyan, 2: 153-163.

320

References

Chen, Naixiong 1982 Wutunhua chutan [A brief introduction to Wutun, a Creole language]. Minzu Yuwen, 1: 10-18. Chen, Naixiong 2007 Wutunhua [Wutun: A Creole language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 2568-2579. Chen, Qiguang 2001 Banayu gaikuang [A brief introduction to the Bana language]. Minzu Yuwen, 2: 69-81. Chen, Qiguang 2007 Banayu [The Bana language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 1602-1610. Chen, Shilin; Bian and Xiuqing Li 1985 Yiyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Yi language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Chen, Shilin; Xiuqing Li and Shiming Bian 2007 Yiyu [The Yi language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 252-271. Chen, Xiangmu; Jingliu Wang and Yongliang Lai 1986 De’angyu jianzhi [A brief description of the De’ang language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Chen, Yanhe 1990 Dagang Biaohua de a42+VP-xing yiwenju [The a42+VP questions in Dagang Biao]. Minzu Yuwen, 4: 22-24. Chen, Zhangtai and Rulong Li 1991 Minyu yanjiu [A study of the Min language]. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe. Chen, Zongzhen and Lei 1985 Xibu Yuguyu jianzhi [A brief description of Western Yugur]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Chen, Zongzhen and Yiliqian 1986 Tata’eryu jianzhi [A brief description of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen 1991 On the typology of wh-questions. PhD dissertation, MIT. Cheng, Shiliang and Abudureheman 1987 Wuzibiekeyu jianzhi [A brief description of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Cheung, Hung-Nin Samuel 2001 The interrogative construction: (re)constructing Early . In: Hilary Chappell (ed.) Sinitic grammar: synchronic and diachronic perspectives, 191-231. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chiang, Wen-yu and Fang-mei Chiang 2008 The interaction of syntactic structure and postlexical prosody in Saisiyat of Taiwan. Oceanic Linguistics, 47.2: 328-364. Chisholm, William S., Jr. (ed.) 1984 Interrogativity: A colloquium on the grammar, typology and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages. (Typological Studies in Language 4.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Clark, Marybeth 1989 Hmong and areal South-East Asian. In: David Bradley (ed.), in South-East Asian Linguistics, No. 11: South-East Asian Syntax, 175-230. Pacific Linguistics, the Australian National University. Cole, Peter 1982 Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Comrie, Bernard 2005 Alignment of case marking. In: M. Haspelmath et al. (eds.), 398-405. Comrie, Bernard; Dryer, Matthew; Gil, David; and Martin Haspelmath 2005 Introduction. In: M. Haspelmath et al. (eds.), 1-8. Comrie, Bernard; Martin Haspelmath and Balthasar Bickel 2008 The Leipzig glossing rules. http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php Coniglio, Marco 2008 Modal particles in Italian. University of Venice Working Papers in

321

References

Linguistics, vol. 18, 91-129. Crystal, David 2008 A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th edition). Oxford: Blackwell. Cysouw, Michael 2005 The typology of content interrogatives. Paper presented at The 6th Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, 24 July, Padang, . Dahl, Östen 2001 Principles of areal typology. In: Language typology and language universals: an international handbook, ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible, 1456-1470. Berlin: De Gruyter. Dai, Qingxia 2005 Langsuyu yanjiu [A study of the Langsu language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Dai, Qingxia and Jie Li 2007 Leqiyu yanjiu [A study of the Leqi language]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe. Dai, Qingxia and Xijian Xu 1992 Jingpoyu yufa [A grammar of Jingpo]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Chubanshe. Dai, Qingxia and Yanhua Zhu 2010 Zangmianyu, Hanyu xuanze wenju bijiao yanjiu [A contrastive study of alternative interrogative sentences in Tibeto-Burman and Chinese]. Yuyan Yanjiu, 4: 1-8. Dai, Qingxia and Zhichao Cui 1985 Achangyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Achang language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Dai, Qingxia et al. 1991 Zangmianyu shiwuzhong [Fifteen Tibeto-Burman languages]. Beijing: Beijing Yanshan Chubanshe. Dai, Qingxia; Cong, Tiehua; Jiang, Ying; Li, Jie 2005 Xiandaoyu yanjiu [A study of the Xiandao language]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe. Dai, Qingxia; Jiang, Ying and Zhi-en Kong 2007 Bolayu yanjiu [A study of the Bola language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Daobu 1983 Mengguyu jianzhi [A brief description of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Dehé, Nicole and Bettina Braun 2013 The prosody of question tags in English. and Linguistics, 17.1: 129-156. DeLancey, Scott 1982 Modern Tibetan: A case study in ergative typology. Journal of Linguistic Research, 2.1: 21-31. DeLancey, Scott 1984 and ergative case in . Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 131-40. Dik, Simon C. 1989 The theory of functional grammar, part 1: The structure of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Dik, Simon C. 1997 The theory of functional grammar, part 2: Complex and derived constructions. (Ed. by Kees Hengeveld.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dixon, R. M. W. 1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R. M. W. 2012 Basic linguistic theory, vol. 3: Further grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dryer, Matthew S. 1991 SVO languages and the OV:VO typology. Journal of Linguistics, 27: 443-482.

322

References

Dryer, Matthew S. 2005a Polar questions. In: M. Haspelmath et al. (eds.), 470-473. Dryer, Matthew S. 2005b Position of polar question particles. In: M. Haspelmath et al. (eds.), 374-377. Dryer, Matthew S. 2005c Position of interrogative phrases in content questions. In: M. Haspelmath et al. (eds.), 378-381. Duanmu, San 2000 The phonology of Standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duanmu, San 2009 Syllable structure: the limits of variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ehrman, Madeline E. 1972 Contemporary Cambodian: grammatical sketch. , D.C.: Foreign Service Institute, Department of State. Fan, Jiyan 1982 Shifei wenju de jufa xingshi [Syntactic forms of yes-no questions]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 6. Fan, Yan 2010 Xíshuǐ fangyan yiwenju yanjiu [A study of Xíshuǐ Mandarin interrogatives]. MA thesis, Hunan University. Fang, Xiaoyan 2003 Guangzhou fangyan jumo yuqi zhuci [Sentence-final particles in Guangzhou Cantonese]. Guangzhou: University Press. Feng, Aizhen 1999 Cong Minnan fangyan kan Xiandai Hanyu de gan zi [Standard Chinese gan, a viewpoint from Southern Min]. In: Bohui Zhan et al. (eds.), Diwujie Guoji Min Fangyan Yantaohui lunwenji, 251-256. Guangzhou: Press. Fox, Danny and Martin Hackl 2006 The universal density of measurement. Linguist Philos, 29: 537-586. Fu, Ailan 1998 Pumiyu dongci de yufa fanchou [Pumi verbs and grammatical categories]. PhD dissertation, Central University for Nationalities. Gai, Xingzhi 1986 Jinuoyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Jinuo language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Gai, Xingzhi 1987 Jinuoyu juzi de yuqi [The mood system of Jinuo]. Minzu Yuwen, 2: 29-36. Gai, Xingzhi 2002 Tanglanghua gaikuang [A brief introduction to the Tanglang language]. Minzu Yuwen, 3: 67-81. Gan, Yu-en 2002 Guangdong Siyi fangyan yufa yanjiu [A grammar of Siyi Cantonese]. PhD dissertation, Jinan University. Gan, Yu-en 2007 Min fangyan yiwenju bijiao yanjiu [A comparative study of interrogatives in the dialects of Min]. Journal of Jinan University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 3: 159-163. Gao, Erqiang 1985 Tajikeyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Tajik language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Gao, Yongqi 2003 Mangyu yanjiu [A study of the Mang language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Gao, Yongqi 2004 Buxingyu yanjiu [A study of the Buxing language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Gärtner, -Martin 2009 More on the indefinite-interrogative affinity: the view from embedded non-finite interrogatives. Linguistic Typology, 13: 1-37. Gen, Shimin 1989 Xiandai Hasakeyu yufa [A grammar of Modern Kazak]. Beijing:

323

References

Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Chubanshe. Gen, Shimin and Zengxiang Li 1985 Hasakeyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Kazak language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Gesangjumian and Gesangyangjing 2002 Zangyu fangyan gailun [An introduction to the dialects of Tibetan]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Greenberg, H. 1966 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In: J. H. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of language (second edition), 73-113. London: MIT Press. Guo, 2010 Jinyu Wutaipian de chongdieshi fanfu wenju [On the reduplicating forms of questions in Wutai Jin]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 1: 79-82. Guo, Xiaozhen 2005 Shānxī Jinyu de yiwen xitong jiqi fanfu wenju [On the interrogative system and X-neg-X questions of Shānxī Jin]. Yuwen Yanjiu, 2: 49-61. Guo, Xiliang 1986 Hanzi guyin shouce [A handbook of Ancient Chinese pronunciation]. Beijing: Peiking University Press. Hagège, Claude 2008 Towards a typology of interrogative verbs. Linguistic Typology, 12: 1-44. Hagège, Claude 2010 Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Han, Chung-hye and Maribel Romero 2004 Disjunction, focus, and scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 35.2: 179-217. Haspelmath, Martin (ed.) 2004 Coordinating constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, Martin 1997 Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Haspelmath, Martin 2007 Coordination. In: Shopen (ed.), vol.2, 1-51. Haspelmath, Martin; Dryer, Matthew; Gil, David; Comrie, Bernard (eds.) 2005 The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. He, Genyong 1993 Kejia fangyan yufa yanjiu [A study of Hakka grammar]. Xiamen: Xiamen University Press. He, Jiashan 1983 Gelaoyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Gelao language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. He, Jiren 2007 Kazhuoyu [The Kazhuo language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 426-446. He, Jiren, and Jiang, Zhuyi 1982 Naxiyu jianzhi [A brief description of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. He, Rufen and Zeng, Siqi 1986 Gaoshanzu yuyan jianzhi (Bunenyu) [A brief description of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. He, Rufen; Zeng, Siqi; Tian, Zhongshan; Lin, Dengshan 1986 Gaoshanzu yuyan jianzhi (Ameisiyu) [A brief description of the Amis language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. He, Yanli 2010 Hanyu fangyan F+VP yiwen jushi de yanjiu [A study of the F+VP questions in the dialects of Chinese]. MA thesis, Southwest University. He, Zhiwu 1987 Naxiyu jichu yufa [A basic grammar of Naxi]. Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe. Hill, Deborah 1992 Longgu grammar. PhD dissertation, Australian National University. Hiż, Henry (ed.) 1980 Questions. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Hou, Jingyi (ed.) 1995-1999 Xiandai Hanyu fangyan yinku [The sound archives of modern

324

References

Chinese dialects]. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaoyu Chubanshe. Hou, Jingyi and Duanzheng Wen (eds.) 1993 Shānxī fangyan diaocha yanjiu baogao [Report on Shānxī dialect investigation and research]. Taiyuan: Shānxī Gaoxiao Lianhe Chubanshe. Hu, Fang 2005 Putonghua yiwenci yunlü de yuyin fenxi [A phonetic study of prosody of wh-words in Standard Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 3: 269-278. Hu, Xiaodong 2008 Baiwu Miaohua de fanfu wenju [A-not-A questions in Baiwu Miao]. Minzu Yuwen, 2: 61-64. Hu, Zengyi 1986 Elunchunyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Oreqen language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Hu, Zengyi and Chaoke 1986 Ewenkeyu jinzhi [A brief description of the Evenki language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Hu, Zhenhua 1986 Ke’erkeziyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Kirgiz language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Huang, Borong et al. (eds.) 1996 Hanyu fangyan yufa leibian [Classified materials on Chinese dialect grammar]. : Qingdao Chubanshe. Huang, Bufan 1991a Daofuyu [The Daofu language (= Ergong)]. In: Dai et al. 1-45. Huang, Bufan 1991b Muyayu [The ]. In: Dai et al. (eds.), 98-131. Huang, Bufan 1991c Zhabayu [The ]. In: Dai et al., 64-97. Huang, Bufan 2007a Lawurongyu yanjiu [A study of the Lawurong language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Huang, Bufan 2007b Lawurongyu [The Lawurong language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 1032-1060. Huang, Bufan 2007c Muyayu [The Muya language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 905-923. Huang, Bufan and Facheng Zhou 2006 Qiangyu yanjiu [A study of the ]. : Sichuan Renmin Chubanshe. Huang, Bufan and Renzengwangmu 1991a Namuziyu [The Namuyi language]. In: Dai et al., 153-173. Huang, Bufan and Renzengwangmu 1991b Shixingyu [The ]. In: Dai et al., 174-197. Huang, C.-T. James 1982 Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT. Huang, C.-T. James 1988 Hanyu zhengfan wenju de mozu yufa [A modular grammar of Chinese A-not-A questions]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 4: 247-264. Huang, C.-T. James 1991 Modularity and Chinese A-not-A questions. In: Carol Georgopolous and Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches , 305-322. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Huang, C.-T. James; Y.-H. Audrey Li and Yafei Li 2009 The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huang, Chenglong 2007 Puxi Qiangyu yanjiu [A grammar of Puxi Qiang]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Huang, Lillian M. 1996 Interrogative constructions in Mayrinax Atayal. Journal of Taiwan

325

References

Normal University: Humanities & Social Sciences, 41:263-296. Huang, Lillian M. 2000 Beinanyu cankao yufa [A reference grammar of Puyuma]. Taipei: Yuan-Liou Publishing. Huang, Lillian M.; Elizabeth Zeitoun; Marie M. Yeh; Anna H. Chang and Joy J. Wu 1999 Interrogative constructions in some Formosan languages. Chinese Languages and Linguistics, vol. 5: Interactions in language, ed. by Yuen-mei Yin, I-Li Yang, Hui-chen , 639-680. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, . Huang, Xiaoping 2006 Tianlin, Ningdu Kejiahua bijiao yanjiu [A comparative study of Tianlin Hakka and Ningdu Hakka]. MA thesis, Guangxi University. Huang, Xuezhen 1994 Kejia fangyan de cihui he yufa tedian [The characteristics of lexicon and grammar of Hakka]. Fangyan, 4: 268-276. Idiatov, Dmitry and Johan van der Auwera 2004 On interrogative pro-verbs. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Questions, 17-23. ESSLLI 16, Nancy, France. Jayaseelan, K. A. 2012 Question particles and disjunction. Linguistic Analysis, 38: 35-51. Jennings, R. E. 1994 The genealogy of disjunction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ji, Yonghai and Jingxian Liu 1986 Manyu yufa [Manchu grammar]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Jiang, Di 2005 Yiduyu yanjiu [A study of the Yidu language]. Beijing: Minzhu Chubanshe. Jiang, Lansheng 1990 Yiwen fuci ke tanyuan [The origin of interrogative adverb ke]. Guhanyu Yanjiu, 3: 44-50. Jin, Peng 1983 Zangyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Tibetan language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Jing, Cheng 1988 Hanyu he Zangmianyu de yizhong shifei wenju [A subtype of yes-no questions in Chinese and Tibeto-Burman]. Minzu Yuwen, 2: 35-38. Kiefer, Ferenc 1980 Yes-no questions as wh-questions. In: Searle, John R., Ferenc Kiefer and Manfred Bierwisch (eds.), Speech act theory and pragmatics, 97-119. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. König, Ekkehard and Peter Siemund 2007 Speech act distinctions in grammar. In: Timothy Shopen (ed.), vol. 1: Clause structure, 276-324. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria 2011 Linguistic typology and language contact. In: Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 568-590. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria and Henrik Liljegren 2013 Review of T. Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description (2nd edition). Linguistic Typology, 17: 107-156. Kuno, Susumu 1978 Japanese: a characteristic OV language. In: W. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology, 57-138. Austin: University of Press. Ladd, D. Robert 1981 A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. In: Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 164-171. LaPolla, Randy J. with Chenglong Huang 2003 Qiang. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lee, Amy Pei-jung 2009 Kavalan reduplication. Oceanic Linguistics, 48.1: 130-147.

326

References

Lee, Hansol H. B. 1989 . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Li, Boya 2006 Chinese final particles and the syntax of the periphery. Utrecht: LOT. Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson 1981 Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson 1984 Mandarin. In: Chisholm, William S., Jr. (ed.), 47-61. Li, Daoyong; Nie, Xizhen; Qiu, Efeng 1986 Bulangyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Bulang language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Li, 2002 Gemanyu yanjiu [A study of the Geman language]. Beijing: Minzhu Chubanshe. Li, Daqin 2004 Sulongyu yanjiu [A study of the Sulong language]. Beijing: Minzhu Chubanshe. Li, Daqin 2007 Bengruyu [The Bengru language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 707-731. Li, Daqing and Di Jiang 2001 Zahua gaikuang [A brief introduction to Za, a Creole language]. Minzu Yuwen, 6: 61-75. Li, Daqing and Di Jiang 2007 Zahua [Za: A Creole language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 2605-2620. Li, Fang 2009 Guangdong Wuhuaxian Kejia fangyan yufa zhuanti yanjiu [Grammatical topics on Wuhua Hakka]. MA thesis, Guangxi Normal University. Li, Jinfang 1996 Buganyu gaikuang [A brief introduction to the Bugan language]. Minzu Yuwen, 6: 68-77. Li, Jinfang 1999 Buyangyu yanjiu [A study of the ]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzhu Daxue Chubanshe. Li, Jinfang 2001 Chadongyu gaikuang [A brief introduction to the Chadong language]. Minzu Yuwen, 1: 67-80. Li, Jinfang 2007a Buganyu [The Bugan language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 1438-1450. Li, Jinfang 2007b Chadongyu [The Chadong language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 1324-1337. Li, Paul Jen-kuei 2000 Some aspects of Pazeh syntax. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, No. 29, Grammatical analysis: Morphology, syntax, and semantics, pp. 89-108. Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i Press. Li, Paul Jen-kuei 1973 Rukai structure. Institute of History and Philology, Special Publications No. 64. Taipei: Academia Sinica. Li, Rong (ed.) 1987 Zhongguo yuyan ditu ji [Language Atlas of China]. : Longman. Li, Rong (ed.) 1991-2003 Xiandai Hanyu fangyan da cidian [Dictionaries of Chinese dialects] (42 vols.). Nanjing: Jiangsu Jiaoyu Chubanshe. Li, Shaodan 2001 Zhangzhouhua yu Putonghua yiwenju de yitong [On the differences and similarities between Zhangzhou Min and Standard Chinese]. In: Bijia Chen (ed.), Minnan fangyan: Zhangzhouhua yanjiu, 269-274. Beijing: Zhongguo Wenlian Chubanshe. Li, Shengfu 1996 Yiyu nanbu fangyan yanjiu [The southern dialects of Yi]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.

327

References

Li, Shulan and Qian Zhong 1986 Xiboyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Xibo language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Li, Xiaofan 1998 Suzhou fangyan yufa yanjiu [A study of Suzhou Wu grammar]. Beijing: Peiking University Press. Li, Xiaojun 2009 Shaoyang fangyande mane wenju [On the mane questions in Shaoyang Xiang]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 6: 556-557. Li, Xulian 1999 Laiyu yanjiu [A study of the Lai language]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe. Li, Y.-H. Audrey 1992 Indefinite Wh in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 1: 125-155. Li, Yanrui 1987 Fuzhouhua fanfu wenju de tedian [The characteristics X-neg-X questions in Fuzhou Min]. Journal of Fujian Normal University, 94-102. Li, Yongming 1991 Changsha fangyan. Changsha: Hunan Chubanshe. Li, Yongsui 1990 Haniyu yufa [A grammar of Hani]. Beijing: Minzhu Chubanshe. Li, Yongsui 2002 Sangkongyu yanjiu [A study of the Sangkong language]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe. Li, Yongsui and Ersong Wang 1986 Haniyu jianzhi [A brief description of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Li, Yunbing 1997 Bahengyu yanjiu [A study of the Baheng language]. Shanghai: Shanghai Yuandong Chubanshe. Li, Yunbing 2000 Lajiyu yanjiu [A study of the Laji language]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe. Liang, Jinrong 2005 Lingui Liangjiang yanjiu [A study of Lingui Liangjiang Ping]. Nanning: Guangxi Minzu Chubanshe. Liang, Min 1980a Dongyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Kam language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Liang, Min 1980b Maonanyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Maonan language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Liang, Min 2007 Pubiaoyu yanjiu [A study of the Pubiao language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Liang, Min and Junru Zhang 1997 Lingaoyu yanjiu [A study of the Lingao language]. Shanghai: Shanghai Yuandong Chubanshe. Liang, Min and Junru Zhang 2002 Biaohua yanjiu [A study of the Biao language]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe. Lin, Dong-yi 2012 Interrogative verbs in Kavalan and Amis. Oceanic Linguistics, 51.1: 182-206. Lin, Lianyun 1985 Salayu jianzhi [A brief description of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Lin, Xiangrong 1993 Jiarongyu yanjiu [A study of the rGyarong language]. Chengdu: Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe. Lin, Yi 2005 Xing-an Gaoshang Ruantuhua yanjiu [A study of Xing-an Gaoshang Ping]. Nanning: Guangxi Minzu Chubanshe.

328

References

Liu, Baoyuan 2007 Lajiayu [The Lajia language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 1307-1323. Liu, Danqing 1991 Suzhou fangyan de fawenci yu ke-VP jushi [The interrogative marker and ke-VP questions in Suzhou Wu]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 1: 27-33. Liu, Danqing 2003 Yuxu leixingxue yu jieci lilun [Word order typology and the theory of prepositions]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan. Liu, Danqing 2009 Weici chongdie yiwenju de yuyan gongxing jiqi jieshi [Language universals of verb-reduplicating questions and their explanation]. Yuyanxue Luncong, 38: 144-164. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan. Liu, Guangkun 1998 Mawo Qiangyu yanjiu [A study of Mawo Qiang]. Chengdu: Sichuan Minzu Chubanshe. Liu, Hanyin 2006 Nankang Kejia fangyan yufa yanjiu [A grammar of Nankang Hakka]. MA thesis, Yunnan Normal University. Liu, Huiqiang 2007 Namuyiyu [The Namuyi language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 969-982. Liu, Lu 1984 Jingpozu yuyan jianzhi (Jingpoyu) [A brief description of the Jingpo language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Liu, Lunxin (ed.) 1999 Ke-Gan fangyan bijiao yanjiu [A comparative study of Hakka and Gan]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe. Liu, Lunxin 2001 Jiangxi Kejia fangyan gaikuang [The dialects of Hakka in Jiangxi]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Renmin Chubanshe. Liu, Yuehua 1988 Yudiao shifeiwen [On the yes-no questions formed by intonation]. Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu, 2: 25-34. Liu, Zhaoxiong 1981 Dongxiangyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Dongxiang language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Long, Chunfang 2012 Han-Taiyu yiwenju duibi yanjiu [A comparative study of Chinese and Thai interrogative sentences]. MA thesis, Guangxi University for Nationalities. Lu, Bingfu and Xu 2003 Hanyu yiwenci qian yi de yuyong xianzhi [Pragmatic constraints on the movement of the topic-like wh-words in Chinese]. Yuyan Kexue, 2.6: 3-11. Lu, Hongyan 2009 Tianmen fangyan yiwenju yanjiu [A study of Tianmen Mandarin interrogatives]. MA thesis, Central China Normal University. Lu, Jianming 1984 Guanyu Xiandai Hanyu-li de yiwen yuqici [On the interrogative particles in Modern Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 5. Lu, Shaozun 1983 Pumiyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Pumi language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Lu, Shaozun 1986 Cuona Menbayu jianzhi [A brief description of the (Cuona) Menba language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Lu, Shaozun 2001 Pumiyu fangyan yanjiu [A study of the dialects of Pumi]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Lu, Shaozun 2007 Queyuyu [The Queyu language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 1061-1075. Lü, Shuxiang 1984 “Zhanglaosan shi shui?” yu “Shui shi Zhanglaosan?” [‘Zhanglaosan is who?’ and ‘Who is Zhanglaosan?’]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 4. Lü, Shuxiang 1985 Yiwen, fouding, kending [Interrogation, negation, and assertation].

329

References

Zhongguo Yuwen, 4. Lü, Shuxiang et al. (eds) 1980 Xiandai hanyu babai ci [800 words of Modern Chinese]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan. Luo, Futeng 1981 Muping fangyan de bijiaoju he fanfu wenju [The comparative sentences and X-neg-X sentences in Muping Mandairn]. Fangyan, 4: 284-286. Luo, Meizhen 2007 E [E: A Creole language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 2596-2604. Luo, Tianhua 2011 Shige yuyan de xingtai-jufa guanlian [Morpho-syntactic correlations in ergative languages]. PhD dissertation, Normal University. Ma, Zhihong 2007 Longkou fangyan de yiwenju yanjiu [Interrogative sentences in Longkou Mandarin]. MA thesis, Normal University. Manzini, M. Rita and Leonardo M. Savoia 2011 Wh-in situ & wh-doubling in Northern Italian varieties: against remnant movement. Linguistic Analysis, 37: 79-113. Mao, Zongwu 2004 Yaozu Mianyu fangyan yanjiu [A study of the dialects of Mian]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Mao, Zongwu and Chaoji Meng 1982 Boluo Sheyu gaishu [A brief introduction to Boluo She]. Minzu Yuwen, 1: 64-80. Mao, Zongwu and Chaoji Meng 1986 Sheyu jianzhi [A brief description of the She language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Mao, Zongwu and Yunbing Li 2002 Jiongnaiyu yanjiu [A study of the Jiongnai language]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe. Mao, Zongwu; Meng, Chaoji; Zheng, Zongze 1982 Yaozu yuyan jianzhi (Mian, Bunu, Lajia) [A brief description of the languages of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Matisoff, James A. 1973 The grammar of Lahu. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mauri, Caterina 2008 Coordination relations in the languages of and beyond. (EALT 42) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. McGregor, William 1990 A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Meillet, Antoine 1925 La méthode comparative en linguistique historique [The comparative method in historical linguistics] (English version translated by Gordon B. Ford, Jr., : Librairie Honoré Champion, Éditeur 1970). Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co. Meng, Qinghui 2005 fangyan [The dialects of Hui]. Hefei: Anhui Renmin Chubanshe. Miestamo, Matti 2005 Standard negation: the negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective. (EALT 31) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Miestamo, Matti 2011 Polar interrogatives in Uralic languages: a typological perspective. Linguistica Uralica, 47.1: 1-21. Moravcsik, Edith A. 1971 Some cross-linguistic generalizations about yes-no questions and their answers. Working papers on language universals 7: 45-193. Stanford University. Mu, Shihua 2003a Kazhuoyu yanjiu [A study of the Kazhuo language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Mu, Shihua 2003b Mulaoyu yanjiu [A study of the Mulao language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.

330

References

Muysken, Pieter (ed.) 2008 From linguistic areas to areal linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ni, Na 2007 De’angyu Guangkahua yiwenju yudiao yanjiu [The intonation of interrogative sentences of Guangka De’ang]. MA thesis, Central University for Nationalities. Nichols, Johanna 1986 Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62.1: 56-119. Nichols, Johanna 1992 Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: Press. Nichols, Johanna and Balthasar Bickel 2005a Locus of marking in the clause. In: Haspelmath et al. (eds.), 98-101. Nichols, Johanna and Balthasar Bickel 2005b Locus of marking in possessive noun phrases. In: Haspelmath et al. (eds.), 102-105. Nichols, Johanna and Balthasar Bickel 2005c Locus of marking: whole-language typology. In: Haspelmath et al. (eds.), 106-109. Ohori, Toshio 2004 Coordination in Mentalese. In: Haspelmath (ed.), 41-66. Ouyang, Guoliang 2009 Guiyang fangyan de chongdieshi fanfu wenju [The eslipsed complex interrogative sentence in Guiyang dialect]. Research in Theoretical Linguistics, 3: 98-102. Ouyang, Jueya 1983 Liyu diaocha yanjiu [A study of the Li language]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe. Ouyang, Jueya 1985 Luobazu yuyan jianzhi (Bengni-Boga’eryu) [A brief description of the Bengni-Boga’er language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Ouyang, Jueya 1998 Cunyu yanjiu [A study of the ]. Shanghai: Shanghai Yuandong Chubanshe. Ouyang, Jueya and Yiqing Zheng 1980 Liyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Li language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Ouyang, Jueya; Cheng, Fang; Yu, Cuirong 1984 Jingyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Jing language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Palmer, F. R. 2001 Mood and modality (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peng, Lanyu 2002 Hengyang fangyan yufa yanjiu [A grammar of Hengyang Xiang]. PhD dissertation, Hunan Normal University. Peng, Xiaochuan 2006 Guangzhouhua shifei wenju yanjiu [A study of yes-no questions in Guangzhou Cantonese]. Journal of Jinan University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 4: 112-117. Peng, Xiaochuan and Xiuqin Zhang 2008 Yueyu Yangjianghua shifei wenju-mo de mo ne lianyong [On the mo ne polar questions in Yangjiang Cantonese]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 1: 58-60. Pi, Jie 2011 Enshi fangyan jumo yiwen yuqici yanjiu [A study of the sentence-final question particles in the Enshi dialect of Southwestern Mandarin]. MA thesis, Central University for Nationalities. Plank, Frans 2009 The place and origin of question markers. Ms., Universität Konstanz.

331

References

Poletto, Cecilia and Jean-Yves Pollock 2005 On wh-clitics, wh-doubling and apparent wh-in-situ in French and some northeastern Italian dialects. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 33: 135-156. Qi, Xiaojie 1990 Weihai fangyan de zhengfanwen jushi [X-neg-X questions in Weihai Mandarin]. Journal of Normal College (Social Sciences), 2: 76-80. Qian, Nairong 1996 Shanghai fangyan de yuqi zhuci [Final particles in Shanghai Wu]. Yuyan Yanjiu, 1: 32-45. Qiu, Qianjin 2008 Guangxi Binyang Kejia fangyan yanjiu [A study of Binyang Hakka in Guangxi]. MA thesis, Guangxi University. Qiu, Xigui 1988 Guanyu Buci de Mingci shifou wenju de kaocha. [On the positive-negative questions in the Mingci of Yinxu Buci]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 1: 1-20. Qu, Aitang and Kerang Tan 1983 Ali Zangyu [Ali Tibetan]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe. Rau, D. Victoria 1992 A grammar of Atayal. PhD dissertation, Cornell University. Rau, D. Victoria and Maa-Neu Dong 2006 A grammar of Yami. http://yami-project.cs.pu.edu. tw/data/200603/Yami-05.pdf Rialland, Annie 2007 Question prosody: an African perspective. In: Riad, Thomas and Carlos Gussenhoven (eds.), Tones and Tunes, vol. 1: Typological studies in word and sentence prosody, 35-62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Romero, Maribel and Chung-hye Han 2004 On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27: 609-658. Roop, DeLagnel Haigh 1970 A grammar of the . PhD dissertation, Yale University. Ruan, Guijun 2006 Ningbo fangyan yufa yanjiu [A grammar of Ningbo Wu]. PhD dissertation, Central China Normal University. Sadock, Jerrold M. and Arnold M. Zwicky 1985 Speech act distinctions in syntax. In: Timothy Shopen (ed.), vol. 1: Clause structure, 155-196. Sapir, J. David 1965 A grammar of Diola-Fogny: A language spoken in the Basse- Casamance region of Senegal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schaffar, Wolfram 2000 Typology of yes-no questions in Chinese and . Ms, Universität Tübingen. http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/fileadmin/material/webfest-for- dieter-gasde/Schaffar.pdf Shao, Jingmin 1996 Xiandai Hanyu yiwenju yanjiu [A study of interrogative sentences in Modern Chinese]. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press. Shao, Jingmin et al. 2010 Xiandai hanyu yiwen fanchou de leixing yanjiu [A typological study of question sentences in Modern Chinese]. Guangzhou: Jinan University Press. Shi, Dingxu 1994 The nature of Chinese wh-questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12.2: 301-333. Shih, Pei-ru Cindy 2008 Interrogative constructions in Plngawan Atayal. MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University. Shopen, Timothy (ed.) 1985 Language typology and syntactic description (3 vols). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

332

References

Shopen, Timothy (ed.) 2007 Language typology and syntactic description (Second edition; 3 vols). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siemund, Peter 2001 Interrogative constructions. In: Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 1010-1028. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Siqinchaoketu 1999 Kangjiayu yanjiu [A study of the Kangjia language]. Shanghai: Shanghai Yuandong Chubanshe. Sohn, Ho-Min 1999 The . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Song, Jinlan 1993 Fanfu wenju A-bu-A de tedian jiqi yanbian [The characteristics and evolution of A-not-A questions]. Journal of Qinghai Normal University (Social Sciences), 1: 87, 91-93. Song, Zhengchun 1985 Tuwayu gaikuang [A brief introduction to the Tuwa language]. Minzu Yuwen, 1: 65-80. Stassen, Leon 2000 AND-languages and WITH-languages. Linguistic Typology, 4: 1-54. Sun, Chaofen 2006 Chinese: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sun, Hongkai (ed.) 1997- Zhongguo xin- yuyan yanjiu congshu [Studies of the newly-discovered languages in China] (more than 40 volumes). Shanghai: Shanghai Yuandong Chubanshe; Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe; Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Sun, Hongkai 1981 Qiangyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Qiang language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Sun, Hongkai 1982 Dulongyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Dulong language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Sun, Hongkai 1986 Nuzu yuyan jianzhi (Nusuyu) [A brief description of the Nusu language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Sun, Hongkai 1995 Zangmianyu yiwen fangshi shixi [A study of interrogative forms in the Tibeto-Burman languages]. Minzu Yuwen, 5: 1-11. Sun, Hongkai 2002 Rouruoyu yanjiu [A study of the Rouruo language]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe. Sun, Hongkai 2007a Baimayu [The Baima language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 216-231. Sun, Hongkai 2007b Ergongyu [The Ergong language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 924-949. Sun, Hongkai 2007c Ersuyu [The ]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 950-968. Sun, Hongkai 2007d Guiqiongyu [The Guiqiong language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 1019-1031. Sun, Hongkai 2007e Rouruoyu [The Rouruo language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 447-467. Sun, Hongkai 2007f Shixingyu [The Shixing language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 983-999. Sun, Hongkai and Guangkun Liu 2005 Anongyu yanjiu [A study of the Anong language]. Beijing: Minzhu Chubanshe. Sun, Hongkai et al. 1980-1987 Zhongguo shaoshu minzu yuyan jianzhi congshu [Brief descriptions of the minority languages of China] (57 vols.). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Sun, Hongkai; Katia Chirkova and Guangkun Liu 2007 Baimayu yanjiu [A study of the Baima language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe.

333

References

Sun, Hongkai; Lu, Shaozun; Zhang, Jichuan; Ouyang, Jueya 1980 Menba, Luoba, Dengren de yuyan [The languages of the Menba, Luoba, and people]. Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Chubanshe. Sun, Hongkai; Zengyi Hu and Xing Huang (eds.) 2007 Zhongguo de yuyan [The Languages of China]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan. Sun, Xixin 1999 Jindai hanyu yuqici [Final particles in Early Modern Chinese]. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe. Tan, Feifei 2010 Hunan Chengbu fangyan de yiwen yuqici man, lai yiji manlai lianyong [On the man lai questions in Chengbu Xiang]. Xiandai Yuwen (Yuyan Yanjiu Ban), 10: 90-91. Tang, Changman 2005 Quanzhou Wenqiao tuhua yanjiu [A study of Quanzhou Wenqiao Ping]. Nanning: Guangxi Minzu Chubanshe. Thompson, Sandra A. 1998 A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of interrogation and negation. In: Siewierska, Anna and Jae J. Song (eds.), Case, typology and grammar: in honor of Barry J. Blake, 309-341. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Thurgood, Graham and Randy J. LaPolla (eds.) 2003 The Sino-Tibetan languages. New York: Routledge. Tian, Desheng; He, Tianzhen; Chen, Kang; Li, Jingzhong 1986 Tujiayu jianzhi [A brief description of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1923 Vavilonskaja bašnja i smešenie jazykov [The Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages]. Evrazijskij vremennik, 3: 107-124. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1928 Proposition 16. In: Actes du premier congrès international de linguistes, 17-18. Leiden: Sijthoff. Ultan, Russell 1978 Some general characteristics of interrogative systems. In: J. H. Greenberg et al. (eds.) Universals of human language, Vol. 4: Syntax, 211-248. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. van den Berg, Helma 2004 Coordinating constructions in Daghestanian languages. In: Haspelmath (ed.), 197-226. Vennemann, Theo 1974 Topics, subjects, and word order: from SXV to SVX via TVX. In: Anderson, John M. and Jones, Charles (eds.), Historical linguistics, 339-376. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Wachowicz, Krystyna 1980 Q-morpheme hypothesis. In: Hiż (ed.), 151-163. Wang, Chengyou 2004 Yiyu Pulahua gaikuang [A brief introduction to Pula Yi]. Minzu Yuwen, 6: 63-79. Wang, Chunde 1986 Miaoyu yufa (Qiandong fangyan) [A grammar of Qiandong Miao]. Beijing: Guangming Ribao Chubanshe. Wang, Fushi 1985 Miaoyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Miao language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Wang, Jialing 1997 The representation of the neutral tone in Chinese Putonghua. In: Wang Jialing and Norval Smith (eds.), Studies in Chinese phonology, 157-183. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

334

References

Wang, Jun and Guoqiao Zheng 1980 Mulaoyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Mulam language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Wang, Li 1980 Hanyu shigao [A history of the Chinese Language]. Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju. Wang, -Ying and Chinfa Lien 2001 A-not-A question in Taiwanese Southern Min. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 29.2: 351-376. Wang, Qin 2008a Anhui Fuyang fangyan de ke VP fanfu wenju [Question constructions with ke VP of Fuyang dialect in Anhui Province]. Fangyan, 2: 179-183. Wang, Qin 2008b Fuyang fangyan ke VP yiwenju yanjiu [A study of the ke VP questions in Fuyang Mandarin]. MA thesis, Shanghai Normal University. Wang, Qingfeng 2005 Manyu yanjiu [A study of the Manchu language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Wang, Shan-shan 2004 An ergative view of Thao syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Hawai‘i. Wang, Shihua 1985 Yangzhouhua-li liangzhong fanfu wenju gongcun [On the co-existence of two types of X-neg-X questions in Yangzhou Mandarin]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 6. Wang, Tianxi 1991 Queyuyu [The Queyu language]. In: Dai et al., 46-63. Wei, Qingwen 1985 Zhuangyu yufa yanjiu [A grammar of the Zhuang language]. Nanning: Guangxi Minzu Chubanshe. Wei, Qingwen and Guosheng Qin 1980 Zhuangyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Zhuang language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Wu, Anqi 2007 Ruikaiyu [The Ruikai language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 2232-2244. Wu, Biyu 2008 Manyu yiwen biaoji fenlei jiqi gongneng yanjiu [On the classification of Manchu interrogative markers and their functions]. Manyu Yanjiu, 2: 9-14. Wu, Chunming 2006 Verb serialization in Kanakanavu. UST Working Papers in Linguistics, 2: 109-139. Wu, Fuxiang 2008 Nanfang yuyan zhengfan wenju de laiyuan [The origin of the interrogative construction “A-not-A” in the languages in Southern China]. Minzu Yuwen 1: 3-18. Wu, Hongwei 1999 Tuwayu yanjiu [A study of the Tuwa language]. Shanghai: Shanghai Yuandong Chubanshe. Wu, Mingyan 2009 Longchuanhua de fanfu wenju [X-neg-X questions in Longchuan Hakka]. In: Rulong Li and Xiaohua Deng (eds.), Kejia fangyan yanjiu [Studies of the Hakka language], 520-527. Fuzhou: Fujian Renmin Chubanshe. Wu, Qingfeng 2006 Lianyuanshi Gutang fangyan yiwenju yanjiu [Interrogative sentences in Lianyuan Gutang Xiang]. MA thesis, Hunan Normal University. Wu, Xiaohong 2006 Anhui Yǐngshàng fangyan yufa yanjiu [A study of Yǐngshàng Mandarin in Anhui]. MA thesis, Guangxi University. Wu, Zili 2007 Mo’angyu [The Mo’ang language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 379-391. Xia, Yongliang 1989 Pandong Shuiyu de shengdiao yu yiwenju yudiao [Tone and interrogative intonation in Pandong Shui]. Guizhou Minzu Yanjiu, 2: 169-172. Xiang, Mengbing 1990 Liancheng (Xinquan) hua de fanfu wenju [X-neg-X questions in

335

References

Liancheng Hakka]. Fangyan, 2: 126-134. Xiao, Wanping 2005 Yongfu Tangbao Pinghua yanjiu [A study of Yongfu Tangbao Ping]. Nanning: Guangxi Minzu Chubanshe. Xing, Xiangdong 2005 Shanbei Jinyu yan He fangyan de fanfu wenju [On the alternative questions in the Jin dialects along the in Northern Shānxī Province]. Hanyu Xuebao, 3: 28-36. Xu, Baohua and Zhenzhu Tang (eds.) 1987 Shanghai shiqu fangyan zhi [Urban Shanghai Wu]. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaoyu Chubanshe. Xu, Hui 2001 Yiyang fangyan yufa yanjiu [A grammar of Yiyang Xiang]. Changsha: Hunan Jiaoyu Chubanshe. Xu, Liejiong and Danqing Liu 1998 Huati de jiegou yu gongneng [The structure and functions of topics]. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaoyu Chubanshe. Xu, Liejiong and Jingmin Shao 1998 Shanghai fangyan yufa yanjiu [A study of Shanghai Wu grammar]. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press. Xu, Lin and Yansun Zhao 1984 Baiyu jianzhi [A brief description of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Xu, Lin; Mu, Yuzhang and Xingzhi Gai 1986 Lisuyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Lisu language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Xu, Rong 2008 Guangxi Beiliu Yuefangyan yufa yanjiu [A grammar of Beiliu Cantonese]. MA thesis, . Xu, Shixuan 1998 Bisuyu yanjiu [A study of the Bisu language]. Shanghai: Shanghai Yuandong Chubanshe. Xu, Xijian and Guizhen Xu 1984 Jingpozu yuyan jianzhi (Zaiwayu) [A brief description of the Zaiwa language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Xuan, Dewu; Xiangyuan Jin and Xi Zhao 1985 Chaoxianyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Korean language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Yang, Hanji and Sheng Zhang 1993 Jianming Dongyu yufa [A concise Kam grammar]. Guiyang: Guizhou Minzu Chubanshe. Yang, Tongyin 2000 Moyu yanjiu [A study of the Mo language]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe. Yang, Yiming 1989 Suininghua fanfu wenju de leixing [The subtypes of X-neg-X questions in Suining Mandarin]. Journal of Normal College, 3. Ye, Jianjun 2008 Zutangji yiwenju yanjiu [On the interrogative sentences in Zu Tang Ji]. PhD dissertation, Shanghai Normal University. Yeh, Marie Meili 2000a The syntax and semantics of Saisiyat negators. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, No. 29, Grammatical analysis: morphology, syntax, and semantics, 258-273. Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i Press. Yeh, Marie Meili 2000b Saixiayu cankao yufa [A reference grammar of Saisiyat]. Taipei: Yuan-Liou Publishing. Yibulaheimai 2007 Tangwanghua [Tangwang: A Creole language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 2580-2595. Yu, Cuirong 1980 Buyiyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Buyi language]. Beijing:

336

References

Minzu Chubanshe. Yu, Cuirong and Meizhen Luo 1980 Daiyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Dai language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Yuan, Zhongshu 1994 Liyu yufa gangyao [An essential grammar of the Li language]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe. Yue-Hashimoto, Anne O. 1991 Stratification in comparative dialectal grammar: a case in Southern Min. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 19 (2): 172-201. Zeitoun, Elizabeth 1997 The pronominal system of Mantauran (Rukai). Oceanic Linguistics, 36.2: 312-346. Zeitoun, Elizabeth 2000a Rukaiyu cankao yufa [A reference grammar of Rukai]. Taipei: Yuan-Liou Publishing. Zeitoun, Elizabeth 2000b Zouyu cankao yufa [A reference grammar of Tsou]. Taipei: Yuan-Liou Publishing. Zeitoun, Elizabeth 2005 Tsou. In: Adelaar, K. Alexander and Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian and Madagascar, 259-290. London: Routledge. Zeitoun, Elizabeth 2007 A grammar of Mantauran (Rukai). Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica. Zeng, Siqi 1991 Taiwan Ameisiyu yufa [A grammar of Amis, a language in Taiwan]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Chubanshe. Zeng, Siqi 2007a Bazehaiyu [The Pazeh language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 2197-2220. Zeng, Siqi 2007b Beinanyu [The Puyuma language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 2305-2324. Zeng, Yumei 2001 Xiangtan fangyan yufa yanjiu [A grammar of Xiangtan Xiang]. Changsha: Hunan University Press. Zhang, Guiquan 2005 Ziyuan Yandong Zhihua yanjiu [A study of Ziyuan Yandong Ping]. Nanning: Guangxi Minzu Chubanshe. Zhang, Jichuan 1986 Cangluo Menbayu jianzhi [A brief description of the Tsangluo language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Zhang, Jimin 1993 Gelaoyu yanjiu [A study of the Gelao language]. Guiyang: Guizhou Minzu Chubanshe. Zhang, Junru 1980 Shuiyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Shui language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Zhang, Min 1990 Hanyu fangyan fanfu wenju de leixingxue yanjiu [A typological study of yes-no questions in Chinese dialects: in diachronic perspective]. PhD dissertation, Peking University. Zhang, Tao 2004 Ninghua Kejia fangyan yufa yanjiu [A grammar of Ninghua Hakka]. PhD dissertation, Xiamen University. Zhang, Yuansheng and Xiaohang Qin 1993 Xiandai Zhuang bijiao yufa [A comparative study of Zhuang and ]. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Xueyuan Chubanshe. Zhang, Yuansheng; Ma, Jialin; Wen, Mingying; Wei, Xinglang (eds.) 1985 Hainan Lingaohua [The Lingao language in Hainan]. Nanning: Guangxi Minzu Chubanshe. Zhao, Aping 1990 Lun Manyu yiwenju de goucheng fangshi [On the formation of Manchu

337

References

interrogative sentences]. Manyu Yanjiu, 11.2: 13-21. Zhao, Jie 1989 Xiandai Manyu yanjiu [A study on Modern Manchu]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Zhao, Minlan 2004 Zheshan Mianhua gaikuang [A brief introduction to Zheshan Mian]. Minzu Yuwen, 1: 70-81. Zhao, Xiangru and Aximu 2007 Tu’erkeyu [The Tu’erke language]. In: Sun et al. (eds.), 1798-1811. Zhao, Xiangru and Zhining Zhu 1985 Weiwueryu jianzhi [A brief description of the Uighur language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Zhao, Yanshe 2006 Wayu yanjiu [A study of the Wa language]. Kunming: Yunnan University Press. Zhaonasitu 1981a Dongbu Yuguyu jianzhi [A brief description of the ]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Zhaonasitu 1981b Tuzuyu jianzhi [A brief description of the Tu language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Zheng, Yiqing 1997 Huihuihua yanjiu [A study of the Huihui language]. Shanghai: Shanghai Yuandong Chubanshe. Zhong, Jinwen 2009 Xibu Yuguyu miaoxie yanjiu [A descriptive study of Western Yugur]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Zhong, Suchun 1982 Dawo’eryu jianzhi [A brief description of the Daur language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Zhong, Zhaohua 1997 ma de xingcheng yu fazhan [On the origin and development of question particle ma]. Yuwen Yanjiu 1: 1-8. Zhongguo Kexueyuan Shaoshu Minzu Yuyan Yanjiusuo 1959 Lisuyu yufa gangyao [A concise grammar of Lisu]. Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe. Zhou, Benliang 2005 Lingui Yininghua yanjiu [A study of Lingui Yining Ping]. Nanning: Guangxi Minzu Chubanshe. Zhou, Changji 1999 Xiamenhua yiwenju-mo de bu wu hui wei [Sentence-final interrogaitve particles bu, wu, hui, wei in Xiamen Min]. In: Bohui Zhan et al. (eds.), Diwujie Guoji Min Fangyan Yantaohui lunwenji, 244-250. Guangzhou: Jinan University Press. Zhou, Rijian 1992 Guangdong Xīnfēng Kejia fangyan jilue [A brief introduction to Xīnfēng Hakka in Guangdong]. Fangyan, 1: 31-44. Zhou, Xiaochuan and Zhang, Xiuqin 2008 Yueyu Yangjianghua shifei wenju jumo-de mo ne lianyong [On the concurrence of mo ne in the polar questions of Yangjiang Cantonese]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 1: 58-60. Zhou, Zhizhi and Qixiang Yan 1984 Wayu jianzhi [A brief description of the Wa language]. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe. Zhu, Dexi 1982 Yufa jiangyi [Notes on grammar]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan. Zhu, Dexi 1985 Hanyu fangyan-li de liangzhong fanfu wenju [Two types of X-neg-X questions in Sinitic languages]. Zhongguo Yuwen, 1: 10-20. Zhu, Dexi 1990 Dialectal distribution of V-neg-VO and VO-neg-V interrogative sentence patterns. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 18.2: 209-230.

338

References

Zhu, Lin 2011 Taixinghua de ADV+VP wenju [“ADV+VP” questions in the Taixing dialect]. Yuyan Yanjiu, 3: 113-118. Zhu, Xiaonong 2006 A grammar of Shanghai Wu. München: LINCOM. Zong, Li 2012 Changyang fangyan yufa yanjiu [A grammar of Changyang Mandarin]. PhD dissertation, Huazhong University of Science and Technology.

339

References

340

Appendix I. Features of 138 languages of China

Notes for the table:

1. This table contains 20 features of interrogative strategies (Into, QP, XnX, Alt1, Alt2, IVM, PQ, PPQP, PIPCQ), word order (Adp, S.O.V, N.G, N.Adj, N.D, N.Num), locus of marking (Cla, PNP, WLT), and alignment of case marking (NP, PRO). 2. Abbreviations: General abbreviations and conventions: Y (and other abbreviations in (initial) capital letters): have a certain value, y (and other abbreviations in small letters): have a certain value (less common), N: without a certain value Fam: genetic families A-A: Austro-Asiatic; Aus: Austronesian; I-E: Indo-European; S-T: Sino-Tibetan Group: genetic groups M-K: Mon-Khmer, V-M: Viet-Muong; Mong: Mongolian, Tung: Manchu-Tungusic; Forms: Formosan; M-Y: Miao-Yao (Hmong-Mien); TB-B/-J/-Q/-T/-Y: Burmese/Jingpo/Qiangic/Tibetan/Yi (Tibeto-Burman) Lg: languages E/W. Yugur: Eastern/Western Yugur; Kanakana.: Kanakanavu. Into: interrogative intonation (only) Yc: intonation contour, Yf: falling intonation, Yr: rising intonation QP: question particles XnX: X-neg-X questions Alt1: type of disjunctions in alternative interrogatives or: same disjunctions in declaratives and alternative questions, or/or: different disjunctions in declaratives and alternative questions, prt: disjunct-final particles as disjunctions Alt2: position of disjunctions (to the tokens that they govern) in alternative interrogatives IVM: interrogative verb morphology inf/pref/suff: interrogative infixes/prefixes/suffixes, IV: interrogative verbs, prt: (pre-verb) interrogative particles, Vtone: interrogative tones on verbs PQ: interrogative strategies in polar questions PPQP: position of polar question particles 1/2: sentence-initial/-second, (n-)end: (not) sentence-final PIPCQ: position of interrogative phrases in content questions Adp: adpositions Po: postposition, Pr: preposition S.O.V: basic clause order N.G/Adj/D/Num: order of head nouns and modifiers (genitives/adjectives/demonstratives/numerals) Cla/PNP/WLT: Locus of marking in the clause/possessive noun phrases/whole language typology NP/PRO: alignment of case marking of full noun phrases/pronouns

341

No. Fam Group Lg Into QP X-n-X Alt1 Alt2 IVM PQ PPQP PIPCQ

1 A-A M-K Bulang Yr Y Y or/or pre/pos n/i QP end situ 2 A-A M-K Buxing Yr Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 3 A-A M-K De'ang Yr Y Y n/i n/i prtV QP/IVM end situ 4 A-A M-K Kemie Yr Y Y n/i n/i n/i QP end situ 5 A-A M-K Kemu Yr Y Y n/i n/i n/i QP end situ 6 A-A M-K Wa Yr Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 7 A-A V-M Jing N Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 8 A-A V-M Lai Yr Y Y n/i n/i VV? QP/IVM end situ 9 A-A V-M Mang n/i Y Y n/i n/i prtV QP/IVM end situ

10 Altaic Mong Bao'an n/i Y N prt pos n/i QP end situ 11 Altaic Mong Daur n/i Y N n/i n/i n/i QP end situ 12 Altaic Mong Dongxiang n/i Y N prt pos n/i QP end situ 13 Altaic Mong E.Yugur n/i Y N prt pos n/i QP end situ 14 Altaic Mong Kangjia n/i Y N prt pos suf QP/IVM end situ 15 Altaic Mong Mongolian Yf Y N prt pos n/i QP end situ 16 Altaic Mong Tu n/i Y N prt pos n/i QP end situ 17 Altaic Tung Evenki Y Y N prt pos n/i QP end situ 18 Altaic Tung Hezhen n/i Y N n/i n/i n/i QP end situ 19 Altaic Tung Korean Yc Y N prt pos suf QP/IVM end situ 20 Altaic Tung Manchu n/i Y N or/or (pre) suf QP/IVM end situ 21 Altaic Tung Oreqen Yr Y N prt pos n/i QP end situ 22 Altaic Tung Xibo Yr Y N prt pos n/i QP end situ 23 Altaic Turkic Kazak Yr Y N n/i n/i pref QP/IVM end situ 24 Altaic Turkic Kirgiz n/i Y N or pre n/i QP end situ 25 Altaic Turkic Salar Y Y N prt pos n/i QP end situ 26 Altaic Turkic Tatar n/i Y N n/i n/i n/i QP end situ 27 Altaic Turkic Tu'erke n/i n/i N n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 28 Altaic Turkic Tuwa Y Y N or/or pre n/i QP end situ 29 Altaic Turkic Uighur n/i Y N n/i n/i suf QP/IVM end situ 30 Altaic Turkic Uzbek n/i Y N or pre n/i QP end situ 31 Altaic Turkic W.Yugur Y Y N prt pos n/i QP end situ

32 Aus Forms Amis Yr Y N or pre IV QP/IVM 1/end situ 33 Aus Forms Atayal Yc Y N n/i pre IV QP/IVM end situ 34 Aus Forms Bunun Yc Y N or pre IV QP/IVM 1/end situ 35 Aus Chamic Huihui n/i Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 36 Aus Forms Kanakanavu n/i Y N n/i n/i IV? QP/IVM? other situ 37 Aus Forms Kavalan Yr Y Y n/i n/i IV QP/IVM end situ 38 Aus Forms Paiwan Y/N n/i N or pre IV IVM n/i situ 39 Aus Forms Pazeh n/i Y N n/i n/i IV? QP/IVM? end situ 40 Aus Forms Puyuma Yf Y N n/i n/i IV IVM n/i situ

342

Adp S.O.V N.G N.Adj N.D N.Num Cla PNP WLT NP PRO No.

Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NNum/numn NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 1 Pr SVO NG/gn NAdj ND/dn N|Num NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 2 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NNum NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 3 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND N|Num NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 4 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND N|Num NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 5 Pr SVO/vso NG NAdj ND NNum NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 6 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 7 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 8 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 9

Po SOV GN AdjN DN NNum/numn DM DoM3 i/o Acc Acc 10 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 11 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 12 Po SOV GN/ng AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 13 Po SOV GN AdjN/nadj DN NNum DM DoM3 i/o Acc Acc 14 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 15 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM3 i/o Acc Acc 16 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 17 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 18 Po SOV GN AdjN DN N|Num DM DM DM Acc Acc 19 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DM DM Acc Acc 20 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 21 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 22 Po SOV/svo GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 23 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 24 Po SOV GN AdjN DN N|Num DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 25 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 26 Po SOV GN AdjN n/i n/i DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 27 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 28 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 29 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 30 Po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DoM i/o Acc Acc 31

Pr VSO NG/gn AdjN DN NumN DM DM DM Neu Erg 32 Pr VSO NG AdjN ND NumN DM DM DM Erg Erg 33 Pr VSO/VOS GN N|Adj N|D NumN DM DM DM Neu Erg 34 Pr SVO GN/ng NAdj/adjn DN NumN/nnum DM DM DM Neu Neu 35 Pr VSO NG NAdj ND NumN DM DM DM n/i n/i 36 Pr VSO/VOS NG AdjN DN NumN DM DM DM Erg Erg 37 Pr VSO/vos GN AdjN DN N|Num DM DM DM Erg Erg 38 Pr VSO/SVO GN AdjN DN NumN DM DM DM n/i n/i 39 Pr VSO GN AdjN DN NumN? DM DM DM n/i n/i 40

343

No. Fam Group Lg Into QP X-n-X Alt1 Alt2 IVM PQ PPQP PIPCQ

41 Aus Forms Rukai Yc N N n/i n/i IV IVM N situ 42 Aus Forms Saaroa n/i Y N n/i n/i IV? QP/IVM? other n/i 43 Aus Forms Saisiyat n/i Y N n/i n/i IV? QP/IVM? end situ 44 Aus Forms Sedeq n/i Y N n/i n/i IV? QP/IVM? 1/2/end Mixed 45 Aus Forms Thao Yr Y N n/i n/i IV QP/IVM end Mixed 46 Aus Forms Tsou Y N Y n/i n/i IV? IVM? N situ 47 Aus Batanic Yami Yr Y N n/i n/i IV QP/IVM end Mixed

48 Creole Creole Dao n/i Y n/i n/i n/i n/i QP n/i situ 49 Creole Creole E n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i 50 Creole Creole Tangwang n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i situ 51 Creole Creole Wutun n/i Y n/i n/i n/i n/i QP n/i situ 52 Creole Creole Za n/i Y N prt pos n/i QP n/i situ

53 I-E Iranian Tajik n/i Y N n/i n/i n/i QP end situ

54 S-T Kam Biao Y Y Y or pre prtV QP/IVM end situ 55 S-T Kam Bouyei Y Y Y or pre n/i QP end situ 56 S-T Kam Bugan n/i Y Y n/i n/i n/i QP end situ 57 S-T Kam Buyang Y Y Y or pre n/i QP end situ 58 S-T Kam Caijia Yr Y Y n/i n/i n/i QP end situ 59 S-T Kam Chadong n/i Y Y n/i n/i n/i QP end n/i 60 S-T Kam Cun n/i Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 61 S-T Kam Dai Y Y Y prt pos n/i QP end situ 62 S-T Kam Gelao n/i Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 63 S-T Kam Kam Yr Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 64 S-T Kam Laji Yr Y Y or pre n/i QP end situ 65 S-T Kam Lajia n/i Y Y n/i n/i n/i QP end situ 66 S-T Kam Li N Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 67 S-T Kam Lingao Yr Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 68 S-T Kam Maonan n/i Y Y or pre n/i QP end situ 69 S-T Kam Mo Yr Y Y or pre n/i QP end situ 70 S-T Kam Mulam Yr Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 71 S-T Kam Mulao Yr Y Y n/i n/i n/i QP end situ 72 S-T Kam Pubiao Yr Y Y or pre n/i QP end situ 73 S-T Kam Shui Yr Y Y or pre n/i QP end situ 74 S-T Kam Yanghuang Yr Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 75 S-T Kam Zhuang Yr Y Y or pre n/i QP end situ

76 S-T M-Y Baheng Y Y Y n/i n/i n/i QP end situ 77 S-T M-Y Bana n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i n/i situ 78 S-T M-Y Bunu Y Y Y or pre n/i QP end situ 79 S-T M-Y Hmong Yc Y Y or pre vv QP/IVM end situ 80 S-T M-Y Jiongnai Y Y Y n/i n/i n/i QP end situ

344

Adp S.O.V N.G N.Adj N.D N.Num Cla PNP WLT NP PRO No.

Pr VSO/VOS NG N|Adj DN NumN DM DM DM n/i n/i 41 Pr VSO/VOS NG NAdj n/i NNum DM DM DM n/i n/i 42 Pr VSO/SVO NG AdjN DN NNum DM DM DM Erg? Erg? 43 Pr VOS NG/gn NAdj ND NumN DM DM DM Neu Erg 44 Pr VSO/SVO GN AdjN DN NumN DM DM DM Erg Erg 45 Pr VSO NG AdjN DN NumN DM DM DM n/i n/i 46 Pr VSO/VOS NG AdjN ND NumN DM DM DM Erg Erg 47

Po SOV GN NAdj n/i NNum DM DM DM Erg Erg 48 n/i SVO n/i NAdj n/i NumN NM DM? i/o Neu n/i 49 n/i SOV/svo GN n/i DN NumN DM DoM3 i/o Acc n/i 50 n/i SOV GN AdjN DN n/i NM DM i/o Neu? n/i 51 Po SOV GN NAdj DN NNum NM NM/dm nm Neu? n/i 52

Pr/po SOV GN AdjN DN NumN DM DM DM Acc Acc 53

Pr SVO GN NAdj/adjn ND/dn NumN NM DM/nm i/o Neu Neu 54 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN/nnum NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 55 Pr SVO/osv NG NAdj ND NNum NM NM/dm nm Neu Acc 56 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 57 Pr SVO GN AdjN DN NNum NM DM/nm i/o Neu Neu 58 Pr SVO GN NAdj N|D NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 59 Pr SVO N|G NAdj N|D N|Num NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 60 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NNum NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 61 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 62 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 63 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 64 Pr SVO GN NAdj ND NumN NM NM/DM nm Neu Neu 65 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 66 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND/dn NNum/numn NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 67 Pr SVO/sov NG NAdj ND NumN/nnum NM NM/DM nm Neu Neu 68 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN NM NM/DM nm Neu Neu 69 Pr SVO NG/gn NAdj ND NumN NM NM/DM nm Neu Neu 70 Pr SVO NG/gn NAdj/adjn ND NumN NM NM/DM nm Neu Neu 71 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN NM NM NM Neu Neu 72 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 73 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 74 Pr SVO NG NAdj ND NumN/nnum NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 75

Pr SVO GN NAdj/adjn DN NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 76 n/i SVO GN N|Adj ND NumN NM NM/DM nm Neu Neu 77 Pr SVO GN NAdj ND NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 78 Pr SVO GN NAdj ND NumN NM NM NM Neu Neu 79 Pr SVO GN NAdj ND NumN NM NM/DM nm Neu Neu 80

345

No. Fam Group Lg Into QP X-n-X Alt1 Alt2 IVM PQ PPQP PIPCQ

81 S-T M-Y Mian Y Y Y or pre VV QP/IVM end situ 82 S-T M-Y She Y Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 83 S-T Sinitic Cantonese y Y Y or/or pre N QP end situ 84 S-T Sinitic Gan y Y Y or/or pre prtv/vv/iv QP/ivm end situ 85 S-T Sinitic Hakka y Y Y or/or pre prtv/vv QP/ivm end situ 86 S-T Sinitic Hui y Y Y or/or pre N QP end situ 87 S-T Sinitic Jin y Y Y or/or pre iv QP/ivm end situ 88 S-T Sinitic Mandarin Y Y Y or/or pre prtV/IV QP/IVM end situ 89 S-T Sinitic Min y Y Y or/or pre prtV QP/ivm end situ 90 S-T Sinitic Ping y Y Y or/or pre vv QP/ivm end situ 91 S-T Sinitic Wu y Y Y or/or pre prtV QP/IVM end situ 92 S-T Sinitic Xiang y Y Y or/or pre N QP end situ

93 S-T TB-B Achang N Y y prt pos pref? QP/IVM? end situ 94 S-T TB-B Bola N Y Y n/i pos pref QP/IVM end situ 95 S-T TB-B Langsu N Y y prt pos pref? QP/IVM? end situ 96 S-T TB-B Leqi N Y y prt pos pref? QP/IVM? end situ 97 S-T TB-B Xiandao N Y N or/or pre pref? QP/IVM? end situ 98 S-T TB-B Zaiwa N Y n/i prt pos pref? QP/IVM? end situ

99 S-T TB-J Anong N Y N prt pos pref? QP/IVM? end situ 100 S-T TB-J Bengni N Y N prt pos pref? QP/IVM? end situ 101 S-T TB-J Bengru N Y Y n/i n/i pref? QP/IVM? end situ 102 S-T TB-J Darang N Y n/i n/i n/i pref? QP/IVM? end situ 103 S-T TB-J Dulong N Y y n/i n/i pref QP/IVM end situ 104 S-T TB-J Geman Yr Y y or/or pos pref? QP/IVM? end situ 105 S-T TB-J Jingpo N Y N or pre pref QP/IVM? end situ 106 S-T TB-J Sulong N Y Y or/or pos pref? QP/IVM? end situ 107 S-T TB-J Yidu N Y y or/or pre pref? QP/IVM? end situ

108 S-T TB-Q Ergong N Y N? n/i n/i pref QP/IVM end situ 109 S-T TB-Q Ersu N Y N? n/i n/i pref/suf QP/IVM end situ 110 S-T TB-Q Guiqiong N Y N? n/i n/i n/i QP/IVM end situ 111 S-T TB-Q Lawurong N Y n/i or/or pre pref QP/IVM end situ 112 S-T TB-Q Muya N Y n/i n/i n/i inf QP/IVM end? situ 113 S-T TB-Q Namuyi N Y Y? n/i n/i pref QP/IVM end situ 114 S-T TB-Q Pumi N Y N or pos pref/suf QP/IVM end situ 115 S-T TB-Q Qiang Yr Y N prt pos N QP/IVM end situ 116 S-T TB-Q Queyu N n/i n/i n/i n/i pref/suf IVM n/i situ 117 S-T TB-Q rGyarong N Y N prt pos pref QP/IVM (n-)end situ 118 S-T TB-Q Shixing N Y n/i n/i n/i pref/suf QP/IVM end situ 119 S-T TB-Q Zhaba N Y n/i n/i n/i n/i QP end situ

120 S-T TB-T Baima N Y N prt pos pref QP/IVM end situ

346

Adp S.O.V N.G N.Adj N.D N.Num Cla PNP WLT NP PRO No.

Pr SVO GN NAdj/adjn DN NumN NM NM/dm nm Neu Neu 81 Pr SVO/sov GN AdjN/nadj DN NumN NM NM/DM nm Neu Neu 82 Pr SVO GN AdjN DN NumN NM DM/nm i/o Neu Neu 83 Pr SVO GN AdjN DN NumN NM DM/nm i/o Neu Neu 84 Pr SVO GN AdjN DN NumN NM DM/nm i/o Neu Neu 85 Pr SVO GN AdjN DN NumN NM DM/nm i/o Neu Neu 86 Pr SVO GN AdjN DN NumN NM DM/nm i/o Neu Neu 87 Pr SVO GN AdjN DN NumN NM DM/nm i/o Neu Neu 88 Pr SVO GN AdjN DN NumN NM DM/nm i/o Neu Neu 89 Pr SVO GN AdjN DN NumN NM DM/nm i/o Neu Neu 90 Pr SVO GN AdjN DN NumN NM DM/nm i/o Neu Neu 91 Pr SVO GN AdjN DN NumN NM DM/nm i/o Neu Neu 92

Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn ND NNum DM DM/NM dm Acc Acc 93 Po SOV GN AdjN ND/dn NNum DM DM/NM dm Acc Acc 94 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn ND NNum DM DM/NM dm Acc Acc 95 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn ND/dn NNum DM DM/NM dm Acc Acc 96 Po SOV GN NAdj ND NNum DM DM/nm dm Acc Acc 97 Po SOV GN N|Adj ND/dn NNum DM DM/nm dm Acc Acc 98

Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn ND NNum DM DM/NM dm Acc Acc 99 Po SOV GN NAdj N|D NNum DM DM/NM dm Acc Acc 100 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn DN NNum DM DM/NM dm Acc Acc 101 Po SOV GN NAdj N|D NNum DM DM/nm dm Acc Acc 102 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn DN NNum/numn DM DM/NM dm Acc Acc 103 Po SOV GN NAdj N|D NNum DM NM/dm i/o Acc Acc 104 Po SOV GN NAdj ND/dn NNum DM DM/nm dm Acc Acc 105 Po SOV GN NAdj DN NNum DM DM/nm dm Acc? Acc 106 Po SOV GN NAdj DN NNum NM DM i/o Erg Erg 107

Po SOV GN NAdj DN NNum DM DM DM Acc Acc 108 Po SOV GN NAdj ND NNum DM DM DM Acc Acc 109 Po SOV GN NAdj DN NNum DM DM DM Acc Acc 110 Po SOV GN NAdj ND NNum DoM DM i/o Erg? Erg? 111 Po SOV GN NAdj N|D NNum DoM DM i/o Erg? Erg? 112 Po SOV GN NAdj ND NNum DM DM DM Acc Acc 113 Po SOV GN NAdj DN NNum DM DM DM Acc Acc 114 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn ND NNum NM DM i/o Erg? Erg? 115 Po SOV/svo GN NAdj DN NNum/numn DM DM DM Acc Acc 116 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn DN NNum HM HM HM Erg Erg 117 Po SOV GN NAdj DN NNum DM DM DM Acc Acc 118 Po SOV GN NAdj DN NNum DM DM DM Acc Acc 119

Po SOV GN NAdj ND/dn NNum NM NM/DM nm Erg Erg 120

347

No. Fam Group Lg Into QP X-n-X Alt1 Alt2 IVM PQ PPQP PIPCQ

121 S-T TB-T Menba N Y N n/i n/i pref? QP/IVM? end situ 122 S-T TB-T Tibetan N Y N prt pos pref QP/IVM end situ 123 S-T TB-T Tsangluo N Y Y? prt pos pref? QP/IVM? end situ

124 S-T TB-Y Bai N Y N? n/i n/i Vtone QP+IVM end situ 125 S-T TB-Y Bisu N Y Y prt pos n/i QP end situ 126 S-T TB-Y Hani N Y Y or pre VV QP/IVM end situ 127 S-T TB-Y Jinuo N Y Y or/or pre n/i QP end situ 128 S-T TB-Y Kazhuo Yr Y N or/or pre VV QP/IVM end situ 129 S-T TB-Y Lahu N Y Y or pre VV QP/IVM end situ 130 S-T TB-Y Lisu N? Y Y n/i n/i VV QP/IVM end situ 131 S-T TB-Y Mo'ang N Y n/i n/i n/i n/i QP end n/i 132 S-T TB-Y Naxi N Y Y or pos VV/pref QP/IVM end situ 133 S-T TB-Y Nusu N Y Y prt pos n/i QP end situ 134 S-T TB-Y Rouruo N Y Y prt pos pref QP/IVM end situ 135 S-T TB-Y Sangkong N Y Y or pre n/i QP end situ 136 S-T TB-Y Tanglang N Y Y prt pos VV QP/IVM end situ 137 S-T TB-Y Tujia N Y Y or pos n/i QP end situ 138 S-T TB-Y Yi N Y Y or pos VV QP/IVM end situ

348

Adp S.O.V N.G N.Adj N.D N.Num Cla PNP WLT NP PRO No.

Po SOV GN NAdj ND NNum NM DM i/o Erg Erg 121 Po SOV GN NAdj ND NNum DM DM DM Act Act 122 Po SOV GN NAdj DN NNum NM DM i/o Erg Erg 123

Pr SVO/sov GN NAdj DN NNum DM NM/dm i/o Acc Acc 124 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn DN/nd NNum/numn DM NM/dm i/o Acc Acc 125 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn ND/dn NNum DM NM/dm i/o Acc Acc 126 Po SOV GN NAdj ND/dn NNum DM DM DM Acc Acc 127 Po SOV GN NAdj DN NNum DM DM DM Acc Acc 128 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn ND NNum DM DM DM Acc Acc 129 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn ND/dn NNum DM NM/dm i/o Acc Acc 130 Po SOV GN NAdj DN NNum DM DM DM Neu? Neu? 131 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn DN/nd NNum DM NM/DM dm Acc Acc 132 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn ND/dn NNum DM DM DM Acc Acc 133 Po SOV GN NAdj N|D NNum DM NM/DM dm Acc Acc 134 Po SOV GN NAdj ND NNum DM NM/dm i/o Acc Acc 135 Po SOV GN NAdj/adjn ND NNum DM DM DM Acc Acc 136 Po SOV GN NAdj DN NNum DM NM/dm i/o Acc Acc 137 Po SOV GN NAdj ND NNum DM DM DM Neu Acc 138

349

350

Appendix II. Atlas of interrogative strategies

Notes for the atlas:

1. The shapes families and the colors are values. 2. The numbers for languages and the abbreviations for language families are based on Appendix I (see also the next page). 3. For the sake of clearer visualization, some values are combined or simplified. For example, in Map 6 on interrogative verb morphology, “prefix”, “suffix”, and “infix” are covered by a general value “affix”. That is, the information presented in the maps is sometimes more general. For details of features and values, readers can refer to Appendix I and relevant chapters. 4. Conventions for the frequency of values in individual languages:

Capital letters X X is often used Lowercase letters x X is used, but less often Parentheses (X) X can be used, but even less often Question marks X? X may be used, but not very clear

351 The languages of China

No. Fam Group Lg No. Fam Group Lg No. Fam Group Lg No. Fam Group Lg No. Fam Group Lg 1 A-A M-K Bulang 31 Altaic Turkic W. Yugur 61 S-T Kam Dai 91 S-T Sinitic Wu 121 S-T TB-T Menba 2 A-A M-K Buxing 32 Aus Forms Amis 62 S-T Kam Gelao 92 S-T Sinitic Xiang 122 S-T TB-T Tibetan 3 A-A M-K De'ang 33 Aus Forms Atayal 63 S-T Kam Kam 93 S-T TB-B Achang 123 S-T TB-T Tsangluo 4 A-A M-K Kemie 34 Aus Forms Bunun 64 S-T Kam Laji 94 S-T TB-B Bola 124 S-T TB-Y Bai 5 A-A M-K Kemu 35 Aus Chamic Huihui 65 S-T Kam Lajia 95 S-T TB-B Langsu 125 S-T TB-Y Bisu 6 A-A M-K Wa 36 Aus Forms Kanakanavu 66 S-T Kam Li 96 S-T TB-B Leqi 126 S-T TB-Y Hani 7 A-A V-M Jing 37 Aus Forms Kavalan 67 S-T Kam Lingao 97 S-T TB-B Xiandao 127 S-T TB-Y Jinuo 8 A-A V-M Lai 38 Aus Forms Paiwan 68 S-T Kam Maonan 98 S-T TB-B Zaiwa 128 S-T TB-Y Kazhuo 9 A-A V-M Mang 39 Aus Forms Pazeh 69 S-T Kam Mo 99 S-T TB-J Anong 129 S-T TB-Y Lahu 10 Altaic Mong Bao'an 40 Aus Forms Puyuma 70 S-T Kam Mulam 100 S-T TB-J Bengni 130 S-T TB-Y Lisu 11 Altaic Mong Daur 41 Aus Forms Rukai 71 S-T Kam Mulao 101 S-T TB-J Bengru 131 S-T TB-Y Mo'ang 12 Altaic Mong Dongxiang 42 Aus Forms Saaroa 72 S-T Kam Pubiao 102 S-T TB-J Darang 132 S-T TB-Y Naxi 13 Altaic Mong E. Yugur 43 Aus Forms Saisiyat 73 S-T Kam Shui 103 S-T TB-J Dulong 133 S-T TB-Y Nusu 14 Altaic Mong Kangjia 44 Aus Forms Sedeq 74 S-T Kam Yanghuang 104 S-T TB-J Geman 134 S-T TB-Y Rouruo 15 Altaic Mong Mongolian 45 Aus Forms Thao 75 S-T Kam Zhuang 105 S-T TB-J Jingpo 135 S-T TB-Y Sangkong 16 Altaic Mong Tu 46 Aus Forms Tsou 76 S-T M-Y Baheng 106 S-T TB-J Sulong 136 S-T TB-Y Tanglang 17 Altaic Tung Evenki 47 Aus Batanic Yami 77 S-T M-Y Bana 107 S-T TB-J Yidu 137 S-T TB-Y Tujia 18 Altaic Tung Hezhen 48 Creole Creole Dao 78 S-T M-Y Bunu 108 S-T TB-Q Ergong 138 S-T TB-Y Yi 19 Altaic Tung Korean 49 Creole Creole E 79 S-T M-Y Hmong 109 S-T TB-Q Ersu 20 Altaic Tung Manchu 50 Creole Creole Tangwang 80 S-T M-Y Jiongnai 110 S-T TB-Q Guiqiong A-A: Austro-Asiatic 21 Altaic Tung Oreqen 51 Creole Creole Wutun 81 S-T M-Y Mian 111 S-T TB-Q Lawurong M-K: Mon-Khmer 22 Altaic Tung Xibo 52 Creole Creole Za 82 S-T M-Y She 112 S-T TB-Q Muya V-M: Viet-Muong 23 Altaic Turkic Kazak 53 I-E Iranian Tajik 83 S-T Sinitic Cantonese 113 S-T TB-Q Namuyi Altaic: Mong: Mongolian 24 Altaic Turkic Kirgiz 54 S-T Kam Biao 84 S-T Sinitic Gan 114 S-T TB-Q Pumi Tung: Manchu-Tungusic 25 Altaic Turkic Salar 55 S-T Kam Bouyei 85 S-T Sinitic Hakka 115 S-T TB-Q Qiang Aus: Austronesian 26 Altaic Turkic Tatar 56 S-T Kam Bugan 86 S-T Sinitic Hui 116 S-T TB-Q Queyu Forms: Formosan 27 Altaic Turkic Tu'erke 57 S-T Kam Buyang 87 S-T Sinitic Jin 117 S-T TB-Q rGyarong I-E: Indo-European 28 Altaic Turkic Tuwa 58 S-T Kam Caijia 88 S-T Sinitic Mandarin 118 S-T TB-Q Shixing S-T: Sino-Tibetan 29 Altaic Turkic Uighur 59 S-T Kam Chadong 89 S-T Sinitic Min 119 S-T TB-Q Zhaba M-Y: Miao-Yao 30 Altaic Turkic Uzbek 60 S-T Kam Cun 90 S-T Sinitic Ping 120 S-T TB-T Baima TB: Tibeto-Burman

352 29.06.13 Map

21 20

17 11 28 18

15 22 23 27 26

19

88 24 29

31 13 30

53 87

16 14 25 10 50 51 12

120 111 117 115 108 91 119 116 110 122 86 48 112 100 123 109 137 107 84 106 101 104 118 113 138 92 121 102 52 103

130 136 58 99 133 71 79 intonation S-T 132 62 55 77 114 63 7473 76 81 Rising I-E 134 124 49 59 None Creole 69 68 97 93 96 8 90 89 43 94 61 57 85 39 105 128 78 70 65 44 33 No info Aus 3 54 98 95 56 131 80 4645 32 6 82 34 37 Intonation Altaic 126 75 83 36 42 129 64 72 41 40 Falling A-A 9 1 4 47 127 7 38 125 5 135 2 67 60 66 35

0.0.0.0:8000/tianhua/world4.html 1/2 29.06.13 Map

21 20

17 11 28 18

15 22 23 27 26

19

88 24 29

31 13 30

53 87

16 14 25 10 50 51 12

120 111 117 115 108 91 119 116 110 122 86 48 112 100 123 109 137 107 84 106 101 104 118 113 138 92 121 102 52 103

130 136 58 99 133 71 79 S-T 132 62 55 77 114 63 7473 76 81 I-E 134 124 49 59 Creole 69 68 97 93 96 8 90 89 43 94 61 57 85 39 105 128 78 70 65 44 33 Question particle Aus 3 54 98 95 56 131 80 4645 32 6 82 34 37 No question particle Altaic 126 75 83 36 42 129 64 72 41 40 No info A-A 9 1 4 47 127 7 38 125 5 135 2 67 60 66 35

0.0.0.0:8000/tianhua/world4.html 1/2 29.06.13 Map

21 20

17 11 28 18

15 22 23 27 26

19

88 24 29

31 13 30

53 87

16 14 25 10 50 51 12

120 111 117 115 108 91 119 116 110 122 86 48 112 100 123 109 137 107 84 106 101 104 118 113 138 92 121 102 52 103

130 136 58 99 133 71 79 S-T 132 62 55 77 114 63 7473 76 81 x-neg-x I-E 134 124 49 59 X-neg-X? Creole 69 68 97 93 96 8 90 89 43 94 61 57 85 39 105 128 78 70 65 44 33 X-neg-X Aus 3 54 98 95 56 131 80 4645 32 6 82 34 37 None Altaic 126 75 83 36 42 129 64 72 41 40 No info A-A 9 1 4 47 127 7 38 125 5 135 2 67 60 66 35

0.0.0.0:8000/tianhua/world4.html 1/2 29.06.13 Map

21 20

17 11 28 18

15 22 23 27 26

19

88 24 29

31 13 30

53 87

16 14 25 10 50 51 12

120 111 117 115 108 91 119 116 110 122 86 48 112 100 123 109 137 107 84 106 101 104 118 113 138 92 121 102 52 103

130 136 58 99 133 71 79 S-T 132 62 55 77 114 63 7473 76 81 I-E 134 124 49 59 or/or Creole 69 68 97 93 96 8 90 89 43 94 61 57 85 39 105 128 78 70 65 44 33 or Aus 3 54 98 95 56 131 80 4645 32 6 82 34 37 Particle disjunction Altaic 126 75 83 36 42 129 64 72 41 40 No info A-A 9 1 4 47 127 7 38 125 5 135 2 67 60 66 35

0.0.0.0:8000/tianhua/world4.html 1/2 29.06.13 Map

21 20

17 11 28 18

15 22 23 27 26

19

88 24 29

31 13 30

53 87

16 14 25 10 50 51 12

120 111 117 115 108 91 119 116 110 122 86 48 112 100 123 109 137 107 84 106 101 104 118 113 138 92 121 102 52 103

130 136 58 99 133 71 79 S-T 132 62 55 77 114 63 7473 76 81 Pre/Post I-E 134 124 49 59 Pre Creole 69 68 97 93 96 8 90 89 43 94 61 57 85 39 105 128 78 70 65 44 33 Post Aus 3 54 98 95 56 131 80 4645 32 6 82 34 37 No info Altaic 126 75 83 36 42 129 64 72 41 40 (Pre) A-A 9 1 4 47 127 7 38 125 5 135 2 67 60 66 35

0.0.0.0:8000/tianhua/world4.html 1/2 29.06.13 Map

21 20

17 11 28 18

15 22 23 27 26

19

88 24 29

31 13 30

53 87

16 14 25 10 50 51 12

120 111 117 115 108 91 119 116 110 122 86 48 112 100 123 109 137 107 84 106 101 104 118 113 138 92 121 102 52 103

130 136 58 99 133 71 79 Verb-reduplication S-T 132 62 55 77 114 63 7473 76 81 Pre-verb Q marker I-E 134 124 49 59 None Creole 69 68 97 93 96 8 90 89 43 94 61 57 85 39 105 128 78 70 65 44 33 No info Aus 3 54 98 95 56 131 80 4645 32 6 82 34 37 Interrogative verb Altaic 126 75 83 36 42 129 64 72 41 40 Affix A-A 9 1 4 47 127 7 38 125 5 135 2 67 60 66 35

0.0.0.0:8000/tianhua/world4.html 1/2 29.06.13 Map

21 20

17 11 28 18

15 22 23 27 26

19

88 24 29

31 13 30

53 87

16 14 25 10 50 51 12

120 111 117 115 108 91 119 116 110 122 86 48 112 100 123 109 137 107 84 106 101 104 118 113 138 92 121 102 52 103

130 136 58 99 133 71 79 Question particle (QP) S-T 132 62 55 77 114 63 7473 76 81 QP/ivm I-E 134 124 49 59 QP/IVM? Creole 69 68 97 93 96 8 90 89 43 94 61 57 85 39 105 128 78 70 65 44 33 QP/IVM Aus 3 54 98 95 56 131 80 4645 32 6 82 34 37 No info Altaic 126 75 83 36 42 129 64 72 41 40 Interrog V morpho (IVM) A-A 9 1 4 47 127 7 38 125 5 135 2 67 60 66 35

0.0.0.0:8000/tianhua/world4.html 1/2 29.06.13 Map

21 20

17 11 28 18

15 22 23 27 26

19

88 24 29

31 13 30

53 87

16 14 25 10 50 51 12

120 111 117 115 108 91 119 116 110 122 86 48 112 100 123 109 137 107 84 106 101 104 118 113 138 92 121 102 52 103

130 136 58 99 133 71 79 S-T 132 62 55 77 114 63 7473 76 81 final I-E 134 124 49 59 Other Creole 69 68 97 93 96 8 90 89 43 94 61 57 85 39 105 128 78 70 65 44 33 No question particle Aus 3 54 98 95 56 131 80 4645 32 6 82 34 37 No info Altaic 126 75 83 36 42 129 64 72 41 40 Final A-A 9 1 4 47 127 7 38 125 5 135 2 67 60 66 35

0.0.0.0:8000/tianhua/world4.html 1/2 29.06.13 Map

21 20

17 11 28 18

15 22 23 27 26

19

88 24 29

31 13 30

53 87

16 14 25 10 50 51 12

120 111 117 115 108 91 119 116 110 122 86 48 112 100 123 109 137 107 84 106 101 104 118 113 138 92 121 102 52 103

130 136 58 99 133 71 79 S-T 132 62 55 77 114 63 7473 76 81 I-E 134 124 49 59 Creole 69 68 97 93 96 8 90 89 43 94 61 57 85 39 105 128 78 70 65 44 33 Wh- in situ Aus 3 54 98 95 56 131 80 4645 32 6 82 34 37 No info Altaic 126 75 83 36 42 129 64 72 41 40 Mixed A-A 9 1 4 47 127 7 38 125 5 135 2 67 60 66 35

0.0.0.0:8000/tianhua/world4.html 1/2