MANDARIN CLAUSE LINKAGE^207The difference between (19b) and (21), then, involves crucially whether or
not actual reading has taken place. In (21), I must have read the book and
failed to understand it. In (19b), however, I may have simply looked at the
book, seen that it was in Swahili (a language I can't read), and concluded
that even if I read it, I wouldn't understand it.
The form of negation in the PC is also important for proving that it
functions syntactically as a unitary verb. Mandarin has a type of yes-no
question, the alternative question, that is formed by direct juxtaposition of
the affirmative and negative forms of a verb:
(22) a. Ta qù.
he go
"He goes."
b. Tu bu qù
he NEG go
"He doesn't go."
Ta qù bu qù?
he go NEG go
"Does he go?"
The affirmative form qù and the negative form bu qù form the question
when combined. Li and Thompson (1976) suggest that the NEG particle bu
in a PC has scope over the V 2 only — that Υλ can well have occurred, but if
V 2 is negated then the meaning of impossibility is expressed. This is
unlikely on two counts. First, if NEG had scope over only V 2 , then Vj
"read" in (19b) would be completely unaffected by it, and (19b) would
mean "I read that book but didn't understand it" — which is exactly what
(21) means. That is, Li and Thompson's proposal does not account for the
difference between CR and PC in terms of realization. Second, their prop
osal that NEG has scope over only V 2 suggests that (23) should be the alter
native question form for PC sentences like (19), while in fact (24) is the
proper form.
(23) *Nï | kán de döng \ bu döng \ nèi bén shü?
you read PART understand NEG understand that CLF book
(24) Ni | kán de döng \ kàn bu döng \ nèi ben shü?
you read PART understand read NEG understand that CLF book
"Can you understand that book (by way of reading)?"