On the semantics of Cantonese “gau3…SFPassert” : A division of labor between additive adverbs and assertive SFPs

Cantonese gau3 ‘enough’ can be used as an adverb expressing a meaning of addition (cf. e.g. Cheng 1997; Wu 1997; Shan 2008; Matthews & Yip 2011; Liu 2013; Mai & Tan 2014), which is treated on a par with Cantonese dou1 ‘also’ or English ‘too’ and ‘also’. This paper examines the semantics of Cantonese adverb gau3 ‘enough’, which will be shown to demonstrate the following two properties (see Lee and Lai 2016). (i) Its additive meaning is governed by the Leftness Condition which gau3 ‘enough’ associates with the NP or phrase to its left at the surface structure, with such a constituent not restricted to the subject NP. (ii) Its occurrence has to be licensed by an assertive sentence-final particle (SFPassert), and “gau3…SFPassert requires the predicate to give a downward movement on a scale, as shown in (1). (1) Nei5 heoi3-gwo3 Jat6bun2 ng5 ci3 you go-EXP Japan five times ngo5 gau3 heoi3-gwo3 Jat6bun2 ??sap6-ci3 / ng5-ci3 lok3/laa1. I enough go-EXP Japan ten-times / five-times SFP/SFP Intended meaning: ‘You have been to Japan for five times and I have been there too for ??ten times/five times.’ While the additive focus is the item to the left of gau3 (the Leftness Condition), what makes gau3 unique from other additives like Cantonese dou1 is its scalar presupposition triggered by its frequent co-occurrence with sentence-final particles like laa1 and lok3. The presence of “gau3…SFPassert” triggers a scalar presupposition which requires a point for contrast, with both the contrasting point and the point denoted by the co-occurring of gau3 and SFPassert to be interpreted on the same scale. SFPassert then is required to assert that the point denoted marks a decrease in quantity or degree from the contrasting point in the scale. I will cast the idea under the Questions under Discussion (QUD) framework (Roberts 1996), in order to account for the obligatory licensing of gau3 by SFPassert. Following Carlson (1983), Roberts (1996, 2004) considered each assertion as an answer to some (more or less specific) question under discussion, which if accepted, will become the immediate topic of discussion. The occurrence of gau3 ‘enough’ needs to be licensed by an assertive sentence-final particle, as gau3 relies on the SFPassert to turn the proposition into an assertion. The reference point given in the “gau3… SFPassert” proposition can be considered to constitute the focus semantic clause, which is made in contrast by the speaker, with the focus corresponding to the questioned item given by the addressee. With regard to why the assertion made in “gau3…SFPassert” needs to denote a decrease in degree/quantity, this can be attributed to the lexical meaning of gau3 “enough”, which emphasizes on sufficiency. Under Lasersohn’s (2009, 2017) relativist semantics, it is assumed that contexts will provide an individual on whose judgement of the contexts may depend (see Kaplan 1989 as well). The predicate only marks a point which, for the speaker of “gau3…SFPassert”, is sufficient enough to make it comparable with what is stated in the first clause. Under the relativist semantics proposed by Lasersohn, the addressee, on the other hand, can hold a contradictory sentence, “it is not sufficient to make it comparable to the degree or quantity given by me”. It is the stance presupposition of the speaker of “gau3…SFPassert” that gives a decrease reading to the “gau3…SFPassert” clause.