The expression of exhaustivity and scalarity in Burmese1
Keely New and Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine, National University of Singapore
SALT 28, May 2018
1.

Introducing m̥ ɑ

Colloquial Burmese has a particle m̥ a which in some contexts expresses exhaustivity (1) and insome contexts expresses a scalar (‘even’-like) meaning (2). Okell’s 1969 reference grammar
describes these two uses simply as “hmɑA” ‘even’ and “hmɑB” ‘only’ (pp. 284–286) but we argue
that the use in (1) is a cleft.
(1)

Exhaustive m̥ ɑ (cleft):Aung-gɑ ye-ko-m̥ aθɑuʔ-kɛ-dɛ.
Aung-NOM water-ACC-MA drink-PAST-REAL‘It’s WATER that Aung drank.’(2)Scalar m̥ ɑ (‘even’-like):
Aung-gɑ ye-ko-m̥ ɑmə-θɑuʔ-kɛ-dɑr.
Aung-NOM water-ACC-MA NEG-drink-PAST-DAR≈ ‘Aung didn’t even drink WATER.’

We will show that the scalar use of m̥ ɑ (2) requires local negation and the -dar mood ending.
In addition, m̥ ɑ can form NPIs with wh-phrases:(3)Wh-m̥ ɑ NPI:ŋɑbɛ-pɑnθi-ko-m̥ ɑmə-yu-kɛ-bu.
1
which-apple-ACC-MA NEG-take-PAST- NEG‘I didn’t take any apple(s).’Preview:--1

We propose a unified semantics for m̥ ɑo m̥ ɑ is a not-at-issue scalar exhaustive, with semantics similar to Velleman et al2012’s proposal for it-clefts.
o m̥ ɑ references likelihood, but does not require the prejacent to be low or high on
the scale, unlike even. The “scalar” reading comes about indirectly, when m̥ ɑ scopes
under negation. Wide scope m̥ ɑ is always grammatical with cleft semantics.
We propose that sentence-final –dar marks clauses as having a particular discourse status.
This indirectly enforces m̥ ɑ taking scope under negation, as in (1), leading to the “scalar”
reading of m̥ ɑ.

We thank our Burmese speakers and teachers, Phyo Thi Han, Chit Thiri Maung, and Saw Ohnmar
Oo, as well as Chris Davis, Hadas Kotek, and E. McCready for helpful comments and discussion.

2.

Data

2.1.

Background

Burmese (Tibeto-Burman) has many typological properties common to head-final languages:
canonical SOV word order, pro-drop, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. One point which will be ofinterest is the mood suffix in the Burmese verbal complex:(4)

Verbal complex template:(negation) – stem – (past/prog) – mood – (Q)Mood suffixes include:-dɛ

realis/nonfuture-mɛ

irrealis/future-bu

negative-dar

DAR (to be discussed below)(5)

Sentential negation mə- is incompatible with -dɛ/mɛ, instead triggering -bu:
a. Aung-gɑ
ye-ko
θɑuʔ-kɛ-dɛ.
Aung-NOM water-ACC drink-PAST-REAL‘Aung drank water.’b. Aung-gɑ
ye-komə-θɑuʔ-kɛ-{bu/*dɛ}.
Aung-NOM water-ACC NEG-drink-PAST-NEG‘Aung didn’t drink water.’

2.2.

The two uses of m̥ ɑ(6)Exhaustive m̥ ɑ (cleft):
A: Aung-gɑ
ye-dɔməhouʔ-biyɑ-ko
Aung-NOM
water-or-beer-ACC‘Did Aung drink water or beer?’
B: Aung-gɑ
ye-ko-m̥ aAung-NOM
Water-ACC-MA‘It’s WATER that Aung drank.’# Aung-gɑbiyɑ-ko-lɛ
Aung-NOM
beer-ACC-also‘Aung also drank beer.’θɑuʔ-kɛ-lɑr?
drink-PAST-Q
θɑuʔ-kɛ-dɛ.
drink-PAST-REAL(repeated from (1))θɑuʔ-kɛ-dɛ.
drink-PAST-REAL(6B) expresses (a) that Aung drank water and (b) that Aung drank nothing else, disallowing thecontinuation that ‘Aung also drank beer.’(7)Scalar m̥ ɑ:Context: There were many drinks offered at the party and out of all the drinks, it is expectedthat Aung will drink water; it is less likely or more noteworthy for Aung to drink beer.
a. Aung-gɑ
ye-ko-m̥ ɑmə-θɑuʔ-kɛ-dɑr.
(repeated from (2))
Aung-NOM water-ACC-MA
NEG-drink-PAST-DAR≈ ‘Aung didn’t even drink WATER.’
b. #Aung-gɑbiyɑ-ko-m̥ ɑmə-θɑuʔ-kɛ-dɑr.
Aung-NOM beer-ACC-MA
NEG-drink-PAST-DAR
Intended: ≈ # ‘Aung didn’t even drink BEER.’

The example in (7) is “scalar” in the sense that its grammatical/felicitous use is scale-sensitive:
intuitively, m̥ ɑ cannot be used with a prejacent which is less likely compared to its alternatives. In
such contexts, speakers often use English ‘even’ in translations of sentences with m̥ ɑ.

Q: When is m̥ ɑ interpreted as exhaustive vs scalar?
A: “Scalar” uses of m̥ ɑ require both local sentential negation mə- and the -dɑr mood morpheme.
Without the -dar mood ending, m̥ ɑ with sentential negation yields exhaustive m̥ ɑ scoping overnegation. We return to the function of -dar in section 4.
(8)

Negation without -dar: exhaustive m̥ ɑ scoping over negation
Aung-gɑye-ko-m̥ ɑmə-θɑuʔ-kɛ-bu.
Aung-NOM water-ACC-MA NEG-drink-PAST-NEG‘It is WATER that Aung didn’t drink.’M̥ ɑ with non-local negation does not yield a scalar reading; instead, it is interpreted as anembedded exhaustive expression:(9)m̥ ɑ with non-local negation: embedded exhaustive m̥ ɑ, not scalar m̥ ɑ[Aung-gɑye-ko-m̥ ɑθɑuʔ-kɛ-dɛ/dɑr-lo]
Su-gɑmə-pyɔ-kɛ-bu
Aung-NOM water-ACC-MA drink-PAST-REAL/DAR-C Su-NOM NEG-say-PAST-NEG‘Su didn’t say that it is WATER that Aung drank.’# ‘Su didn’t {even} say that Aung {even} drank WATER.’

Example (9) expresses (a) that Su didn’t say that Aung drank water, and (b) “Aung drank water”
is a maximal answer to the question “What did Aung drink?”.
àThe interpretation of embedded exhaustive m̥ ɑ in (9) reflects a cleft-like semantics, ratherthan ‘only’-like semantics (Horn 1969 a.o.).

2.3.

Wh-m̥ a NPIs

à

Wh-phrases with -m̥ a form NPIs:(10)

Wh-m̥ ɑ is an NPI:
a. * ŋɑ-gabɛ-pɑnθi-ko-m̥ ɑyu-kɛ-dɛ.
1-NOM which-apple-ACC-MA take-PAST-REALIS
b. ŋɑ-gɑbɛ-pɑnθi-ko-m̥ ɑmə-yu-kɛ-bu.
1-NOM which-apple-ACC-MA NEG-take-PAST-NEG‘I didn’t take any apple(s).’àbɛ (wh) – (NP) – m̥ a(repeated from (3))

Wh-m̥ ɑ requires a local negation. It is not generally licensed in downward-entailingenvironments.

(11)Wh-m̥ ɑ requires a local negation:* [Aung-gɑ bɛ-pɑnθi-ko-m̥ ɑyu-kɛ-dɛ-lo]
Su-gɑ
mə-pyɔ-kɛ-bu.
Aung-NOM which-apple-ACC-MA take-PAST-REALIS-C Su-NOM NEG-say-PAST-NEG
Intended: ‘Su didn’t say that Aung took any apples.’(12)Wh-m̥ ɑ is not licensed in a conditional clause:* [Aung-gɑ bɛ-pɑnθi-ko-m̥ ɑsɑr-yin] θe-lɑiʔ-mɛ.
Aung-NOM which-apple-ACC-MA eat-if
die-follow-IRR
Intended: ‘If Aung eats any apple, he will die.’(13)

But wh-m̥ ɑ is grammatical in a conditional clause with local negation:[Aung-gɑ bɛ-pɑnθi-ko-m̥ ɑmə-sɑr-yin] θe-lɑiʔ-mɛ.
Aung-NOM which-apple-ACC-MA NEG-eat-if
die-follow-IRR‘If Aung doesn’t eat any apple, he will die.’(14)Wh-m̥ ɑ is not licensed in polar questions:* Aung-gɑbɛ-pɑnθi-ko-m̥ ɑsɑr-kɛ-lɛ?
Aung-NOM
which-apple-ACC-MA eat-PAST-Q
Intended: ‘Did Aung eat any apple?’(15)

Wh-m̥ ɑ is not licensed in wh-questions:* bɛ-θu-gɑbɛ-pɑnθi-ko-m̥ ɑsɑr-kɛ-lɑr?
wh-3-NOM
which-apple-ACC-MA eat-PAST-Q
Intended: ‘Who has eaten any apple?’3.

Proposalm̥ ɑ cliticizes to the focused constituent (or focus-containing constituent), but takes propositional
scope at LF within the same clause.2 Let p be its complement with focus alternatives C. C includes
conjunctive alternatives and is partially ordered by <likely.
àm̥ ɑ introduces the presupposition that “no less likely alternatives are true.”(16)

Presupposition of m̥ ɑC(p)(w*):∀q ∈ C [(q <likely p) → ¬ q(w*)](≈ MAXC(p)(w*) from Velleman et al 2012)

This meaning (16) is also similar to the at-issue meaning proposed for only under so-called scalar
analyses: see e.g. Klinedinst 2005, Beaver & Clark 2008 and Coppock & Beaver 2014’s MAX,Roberts 2011.
3.1.

Wide-scope m̥ ɑ yields cleft semantics (exhaustive m̥ ɑ)Consider a context with two atomic alternatives A and B and A⋀B. Entailment gives us twoorderings: A⋀B <likely A and A⋀B <likely B. Suppose further that A >likely B, but we will see that therelative likelihood of the prejacent is not important for deriving the exhaustive m̥ ɑ use.
A = ‘that Aung drank water’>likely<>

likelyB = ‘that Aung drank beer’
likelyA⋀B = ‘that Aung drank water and beer’(17)

LF: [MA [Aung WATERF drank]]
assertion: A = ‘that Aung drank water’(18)

LF: [MA [Aung BEERF drank]]
assertion: B = ‘that Aung drank beer’(example (1/6A))
presupposition (16): ¬(A⋀B) ⋀ ¬B(example (1/6A))
presupposition (16): ¬(A⋀B)

In both cases, m̥ ɑ ensures that the conjunctive alternative(s) are false, and therefore otheralternatives (B in (17), A in (18)) are false.
à2m̥ ɑ here contributes cleft (exhaustive) semantics as in Velleman et al 2012.

This can be thought of as m̥ ɑ moving from its pronounced position, in a clause-bound fashion, oras m̥ ɑ agreeing with a covert MA on the clausal spine, with this dependency being clause-bound.

In a clause with a local negation, m̥ ɑ can take scope above negation, again yielding a cleft:(19)m̥ ɑ scoping above negation yields cleft semantics > NEG:
LF: [MA [NEG [Aung WATERF drank]]](example (8))

C = {A, B, A⋀B}, A = ‘that Aung didn’t drink water’ and B = ‘that A didn’t drink beer’
Entailment gives us two orderings: A⋀B <likely A and A⋀B <likely B
assertion: A = ‘that Aung didn’t drink water’
3.2.

presupposition (16): ¬(A⋀B)

m̥ ɑ under negation yields “scalar” m̥ ɑAgain consider the following context, repeated from above:A = ‘that Aung drank water’>likely<>

likelyB = ‘that Aung drank beer’
likelyA⋀B = ‘that Aung drank water and beer’(20)m̥ ɑ under negation, with less likely atomic alternatives:
LF: [NEG [MA [Aung WATERF drank]]]assertion: ¬A(example (2/7a))presupposition (16): ¬(A⋀B) ⋀ ¬BThe use of m̥ ɑ with ‘water’ (20) is grammatical and requires that less likely alternative(s) (i.e.
Aung drank beer) are false.
(21)m̥ ɑ under negation, with no less likely atomic alternatives:
LF: [NEG [MA [Aung BEERF drank]]]assertion: ¬B(example (7b))

presupposition (16): ¬(A⋀B)àNotice that the presupposition of (21) is strictly weaker than the asserted content, therefore
its use is ungrammatical, ruled out for example by Crnič’s (2011) Principle of Non-Vacuity.

(22)

The Principle of Non-Vacuity (Crnič 2011: 110):
The meaning of a lexical item used in the discourse must aﬀect the meaning of its hostsentence (either its truth-conditions or its presuppositions).

m̥ ɑ under negation is ungrammatical if the prejacent is lowest on the scale of likelihood (as in(21)), but grammatical with more likely alternatives. This makes m̥ ɑ appear to be “scalar,” andexplains the use of (scale-reversed) even in English translations of examples such as (2/7a) in (20).

3.3.

Wh-m̥ ɑ NPIs

We follow Ramchand (1996) and Beck (2006) a.o. in taking wh-phrases to have no ordinary
semantic value:(23)
(24)

a.

⟦which apple⟧o undefinedb.

⟦which apple⟧f = {x : x is an apple}a.

⟦Aung which apple ate⟧o undefinedb.

⟦Aung which apple ate⟧f = {that Aung ate x : x is an apple}m̥ ɑ requires a defined ordinary (prejacent) value, so it cannot combine with [[Aung ate whichapple]] in (24). We adopt the null existential closure operator in (25):
(25)

(26)

Existential operator as in Erlewine 2017:3a.

⟦∃ α⟧o = ∃p ⟦α⟧f . pb.

⟦∃ α⟧f = ⟦α⟧fa.

⟦∃ [Aung which apple ate] ⟧o = that Aung ate some appleb.

⟦∃ [Aung which apple ate]⟧f = {that Aung ate x : x is an apple}

Suppose the apples in the domain are 1, 2, and 3:
that Aung ate some apple >likely that Aung ate 1, that Aung ate 2, that Aung ate 3(27)m̥ ɑ on (26) yields a systematic contradiction:
LF: [MA [∃ [Aung which apple ate]]]assertion: 1 ∨ 2 ∨ 3(example (10a))presupposition (16): ¬1 ⋀ ¬2 ⋀ ¬3

à This systematic contradiction is judged as ungrammaticality (e.g. Gajewski 2002, 2009).
(27)m̥ ɑ under local negation makes the wh-NPI grammatical:
LF: [NEG [MA [∃ [Aung which apple ate]]]]assertion: ¬(1 ∨ 2 ∨ 3)3(example (3/10b))

presupposition (16): ¬1 ⋀ ¬2 ⋀ ¬3

Existential operators over Rooth-Hamblin alternatives are also invoked by Kratzer & Shimoyama (2002), Biezma &Rawlins (2012), and Uegaki (2017). However, the operators proposed by these authors also redefines the focussemantic value; Erlewine’s (2017) formulation does not.

4.

–darRecall that sentences with m̥ ɑ and sentential negation have two different meanings, which correlatewith the choice of the final mood suffix on the verb:••-bu (regular NEG) ending:-dar ending:exhaustive m̥ ɑ > NEG (8)scalar m̥ ɑ(2/7)

LF in (19): MA > NEG
LF in (20, 21): NEG > MAThe –dar ending is not limited to examples with m̥ ɑ. Kato (1998: 88–89) notes that utterances with–dɑr are similar to Japanese –no-da propositional clefts; Andrew Simpson (p.c.) notes that it issimilar to Mandarin shì…de propositional clefts.
à We analyze –dar as a propositional cleft. Sheil (2016) proposes that propositional clefts areutterances where a new “line of inquiry” is created, e.g. an implicit sister/sub-question to theimmediate Question Under Discussion.
(28)–dar is inappropriate for direct answers to questions:A:
What did Su drink?
B:
Su-ga biya-ko θɑuʔ-kɛ-dɛ/*dɑr.
Su-NOM beer-ACC drink-PAST-REAL/DAR‘Su drank beer.’(29)–dar is appropriate for corrections:A:
Su drank beer.
B:mə-houʔ-bu,
Su-ga yɛ-koθɑuʔ-kɛ-*dɛ/dɑr.
NEG-right-NEG Su-NOM water-ACC drink-PAST-REAL/DAR‘No, Su drank water.’

Discussing propositional clefts in Scottish Gaelic, Sheil (2016) proposes that in examples such as(29), the propositional cleft in B addresses a question (“Did Su drink water?”) which is a sisterquestion to the discourse’s immediate question “Did Su drink beer?” that A was congruent to.
(What did Su drink?)
Immediate QUD from A

new line of inquiry(Did Su drink beer?)(Did Su drink water?)

29B:

No.

Su drank water.

How does the (non-)use of –dar correlate with the different uses of m̥ ɑ?
•Scalar m̥a is felicitous in cases where the immediate QUD is a super-question (e.g. “Whatdid Aung drink?” or “Did Aung drink anything?) or a sister question (e.g. “Did Aung drinkbeer?”). (2/7) answers a new “line of inquiry” (”Did Aung drink water?”), therefore –daris used.

•Exhaustive m̥a (a cleft) resolves an existing QUD (Velleman et al 2012), therefore –daris ungrammatical.

References:
Beaver, David Ian, and Brady Clark. 2008. Sense and sensitivity: How focus determines
meaning. Wiley-Blackwell.
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention eﬀects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language
Semantics 14:1–56.
Biezma, Maria, and Kyle Rawlins. 2012. Responding to polar and alternative questions.
Linguistics and Philosophy 35:361–406.
Coppock, Elizabeth, and David Ian Beaver. 2014. Principles of the exclusive muddle. Journal ofSemantics 31:371–432.
Crnič, Luka. 2011. Getting even. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2017. Quantifying over alternatives with Toba Batak manang.
Presented at AFLA 24, Triple A 4.
Gajewski, Jon. 2002. On analyticity in natural language. Manuscript, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.
Gajewski, Jon. 2009. L-triviality and grammar. Handout, UConn Logic Group.
Horn, Laurence Robert. 1969. A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In Papers from theFifth Regional Meeting, ed. Robert I. Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia M. Green, and Jerry L.
Morgan, 98–107. Chicago Linguistic Society.
Kato, Atsuhiko. 1998. Ekusupuresu Birumago [Express Burmese]. Tokyo: Hakusuisha.
Klinedinst, Nathan. 2005. Scales and only. Manuscript, UCLA.
Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: the view fromJapanese. In The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (TCP 2002),
ed. Yuko Otsuka, 1–25. Tokyo: Hitsuji Syobo. Lahiri, Utpal. 1998. Focus and negative polarity
in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics 6:57–123.
Okell, John. 1969. A reference grammar of Colloquial Burmese. Oxford University Press.
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 1996. Questions, polarity and alternative semantics. Manuscript,Oxford University.
Roberts, Craige. 1996/2012. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal
theory of pragmatics. In Papers in semantics, ed. Jae-Hak Yoon and Andreas Kathol, volume 49of OSU Working Papers in Linguistics. Reprinted in Semantics & Pragmatics 5(6), 1–69, 2012.
Roberts, Craige. 2011. Only: A case study in projective meaning. In Formal semantics andpragmatics: Discourse, context, and models, 1–59.
Sheil, Christine M. 2016. Scottish Gaelic clefts: Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Uegaki, Wataru. to appear. A unified semantics for the Japanese Q-particle ka in indefinites,questions, and disjunctions. Glossa 3:14.
Velleman, Leah, David Ian Beaver, Emilie Destruel, Dylan Bumford, Edgar Onea, and LizCoppock. 2012. It-clefts are IT (inquiry terminating) constructions. In Proceedings of SALT 22,441–460.