The expression of exhaustivity and scalarity in Burmese
Colloquial Burmese m̥a appears to have an exhaustive and scalar use. m̥a also forms wh-NPIs.

wh-m̥a NPIs

John Okell’s 1969 grammar gives two entries for m̥a, translated as English ‘only’ and ‘even,’ with no description of their distribution.

(5) ŋɑ-gɑ bɛ-pɑnθi-ko-m̥amə-yu-kɛ-bu / *yu-kɛ-dal.
1-NOM which-apple-ACC-MA NEG-take-PAST-NEG / take-PAST-REAL‘I didn’t take any apple(s).’ / *‘I took any apple(s).’Exhaustive m̥aScalar m̥a(1) m̥a expresses exhaustivity:
Context: Did Aung drink water or beer?
Aung-gɑye-ko-m̥aθɑuʔ-kɛ-dɛ.
Aung-NOM water-ACC-MA drink-PAST-REAL‘It’s WATER that Aung drank.’# ‘…Aung (also) drank beer.’m̥a has a scalar use reflecting the relative likelihood of the prejacent:

Negation is expressed through mə- and a matching mood ending, -bu.
(2) Exhaustive m̥a scopes over local negation with mə-…-bu:
Aung-gɑye/biyɑ-ko-m̥amə-θɑuʔ-kɛ-bu.
Aung-NOM
water/beer-ACC-MA NEG-drink-PAST-NEG‘It is WATER/BEER that Aung didn’t drink.’(4) Context: There were many drinks offered at the party and out of
all the drinks, it is expected that Aung will drink water; it is lesslikely for Aung to drink beer.
Aung-gɑye/#biyɑ-ko-m̥amə-θɑuʔ-kɛ-dɑr.
Aung-NOM
water/beer-ACC-MA
NEG-drink-PAST-DAR≈ ‘Aung didn’t even drink WATER.’à m̥a in (4) requires a relatively likely prejacent:• Cf exhaustive m̥a (2), ok with both less and more likely
alternatives.

(3) Non-local negation shows that exhaustive m̥a has cleft semantics:[Aung-gɑ ye-ko-m̥aθɑuʔ-kɛ-dɛ/dɑr-lo]
Su-gɑ mə-pyɔ-kɛ-bu.
Aung-NOM water-ACC-MA drink-PAST-REAL/DAR-C Su-NOM NEG-say-PAST-REAL‘Su didn’t say that it is WATER that Aung drank.’
The exhaustivity of m̥a is not-at-issue; m̥a is not an ‘only.’à Scalar m̥a requires both local negation and the –dar ending.
• (4) differs from (2) only in the verbal mood ending: –dar in (4) butthe default negative ending –bu in (2).
• (3) without local negation is exhaustive, even with –dar.

prejacentAung drankwater>likely

Aung drank
beerAung drankwater>likely

Aung drank
beerAung drankwater and beer

LF:
NEG

Aung drankwaterlikelyprejacent>likely

Aung drankbeerlikelyAung drankwater and beerm̥ɑC(4) with ‘water’ (more likely):
NEG(m̥ɑC(p)) at-issue: ¬waterm̥ɑC(p) ⤳ ¬beer ∧ ¬(water ∧ beer)
Together, ⇒ ¬beer(4) with ‘beer’ (less likely):
NEG(m̥ɑC(p)) at-issue: ¬beerm̥ɑC(p) ⤳ ¬(water ∧ beer)Here, m̥aC contributes nothing!
à Ungrammatical by Non-Vacuity(Črnic 2011)

LF:m̥a can take scope over local negation, giving (2):m̥ɑC
P

Aung drankwater and beer>

likely(1), but with ‘beer’:m̥ɑC(p) ⤳ ¬(water ∧ beer)
Together with p = beer, ⇒ ¬water
Exhaustive: ‘It’s beer that A. drank.’

likelylikely>>>likelyprejacent>likely Aung drank
beer>

>

Aung drankwater and beer

Aung drankwater>>

likelylikely(1) with ‘water’:m̥ɑC(p) ⤳ ¬beer ∧ ¬(water ∧ beer)Together with p = water, ⇒ ¬beer
Exhaustive: ‘It’s water that A. drank.’

prejacentNEG(6) TP = Aung which apple ate; suppose 1, 2, 3 are apples
a. ⟦∃ TP⟧f = ⟦TP⟧f = {that A ate 1, that A ate 2, that A ate 3}b. ⟦∃ TP⟧o = that Aung ate some apple = 1 ∨ 2 ∨ 3(7) Wh-m̥a without negation gives unsatisfiable presup.:m̥a(⟦∃ TP⟧) ⤳ ¬1 ∧ ¬2 ∧ ¬3; contradicts at-issue ⟦∃ TP⟧ (6b)(8) Higher negation makes the presupposition satisfied:⟦NEG [∃ TP]⟧o = ¬ (1 ∨ 2 ∨ 3), compatible with m̥a(⟦∃ TP⟧)–dar clauses are propositional clefts, similar to Japanese –no–da (Kato 1998) or Mandarin shì…de (Andrew Simpson p.c.).

(≈ Velleman et al 2012’s semantics for English it-clefts; see also scalar onlys as in Klinedinst 2005, Beaver & Clark 2008 and Coppock & Beaver 2014’s MAX, Roberts 2011)

P

Wh-phrases lack an ordinary semantic value (Ramchand 1996,Beck 2006). An existential ∃ supplies an ordinary value.

Sentence-final –darm̥ɑ takes propositional scope at LF and does not affect the at-issue content.
For prejacent p and alternatives C, including conjunctive alternatives, m̥ɑC(p)(w*) ⤳ ∀q∊C [q <likely p → ¬q(w*)]

m̥ɑ taking scope under negation yields the scalar use:

Wh-m̥a NPIs require local negation and are not licensed in other
downward-entailing environments (see handout).

Note that “that Aung ate some apple” (6b) >likely each alt. in (6a).

A unified semantics for m̥a: m̥a is a scalar exhaustive, presupposing that “All less likely alternatives are false”

Wide scope m̥ɑ yields exhaustive (cleft) semantics, regardless of thelikelihood of the prejacent:

Keely New & Michael Yoshitaka Erlewine
National University of Singapore

à Under negation, m̥ɑ is only grammatical if there are less likely, false
alternatives. Contexts that support m̥a under negation support even in English.

à Sheil (2016) argues that propositional clefts are utteranceswhere a new “line of inquiry” is created, e.g. an implicit
sister/sub-question to the immediate QUD.
(See handout on the distribution of –dar.)• Scalar m̥a is felicitous in cases where the immediate QUD is asuper-question (e.g. “What did Aung drink?” or “Did Aungdrink anything?) or a sister question (e.g. “Did Aung drinkbeer?”). (4) answers a new “line of inquiry” (”Did Aung drinkwater?”), therefore –dar is used.
• Exhaustive m̥a (a cleft) resolves an existing QUD (Velleman etal 2012), therefore –dar is ungrammatical.

Selected references: Crnič, Luka. 2011. Getting even. MIT dissertation • Okell,John. 1969. A reference grammar of Colloquial Burmese • Sheil, Christine M.
2016. Scottish Gaelic clefts: Syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. UC Berkeley
dissertation • Velleman, Leah, David Ian Beaver, Emilie Destruel, Dylan
Bumford, Edgar Onea, and Liz Coppock. 2012. It-clefts are IT (inquiryterminating) constructions. SALT 22