The Welsh Answering System 9783110800593, 9783110164503

Citation preview

The Welsh Answering System

1749

I

1999

?

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 120

Editor

Werner Winter

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

The Welsh Answering System

by

Bob Morris Jones

W JdJ

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

1999

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jones Bob Morris. The Welsh answering system / by Bob Morris Jones. p. cm. - (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 120) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-016450-7 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Welsh language - Discourse analysis. 2. Welsh language - Social aspects - Wales. 3. Children - Wales Language. 4. Questions and answers. I. Title. II. Series. PB2171.J66 1999 491.6'6'0141 - d c 2 1 99-21536 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jones, Bob Morris: The Welsh answering system / by Bob Morris Jones. — Berlin ; New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1999 (Trends in linguistics : Studies and monographs ; 120) ISBN 3-11-016450-7

© Copyright 1999 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printing: Rotaprint-Druck Werner Hildebrand, Berlin. Binding: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Preface A popular observation on Welsh is that it has no single words for "yes" and "no" but uses a variety of expressions as their equivalents (see Crystal 1987:99, for instance). This study investigates this aspect of Welsh from two main standpoints: a linguistic analysis describes and explains the Welsh yes-no answering system; and this account then provides a basis for a sociolinguistic analysis of the use of this system by Welsh-speaking children between three and seven years of age. Each aspect in itself is interesting. The linguistics of the Welsh answering system is based on the interplay of several aspects of grammar; this system is rich in descriptive detail and challenging in terms of theoretical explanation. The sociolinguistic investigation reveals considerable variation in the use of this system by young children: this aspect, too, is compelling in terms of description and explanation. An approach which is based on both aspects provides a comprehensive discussion of an intriguing area of Welsh grammar. The linguistic analysis of the Welsh yes-no answering system focuses mainly upon the forms, semantics and discourse acts of the system. It only considers wider issues of the pragmatics of yes-no answering insofar as they are relevant to the main aims. The linguistic study is especially concerned with the existence of different formal types of yes-no answers in Welsh, and the grammatical, semantic and discourse influences which determine the selection of one formal type rather than another. The linguistic analysis is presented in Chapters 1 to 5. The first chapter provides a typology of yes-no answering systems, based on data from various languages, in terms of their semantics and their forms. This chapter uses this typology to introduce the basic characteristics of the Welsh answering system, thus indicating how Welsh fits in with universal features of semantics and form. Chapters 2 and 3 provide the main account of the Welsh yes-no answering system. Taken together, these two chapters show that selecting a form to convey "yes" or "no" in Welsh is subject to a complex array of grammatical and semantic constraints: Chapter 2 demonstrates the influence of morphological and lexical characteristics of finite verbs; and Chapter 3 shows that further influences are exerted by the syntactic and logical form of the clause. Chapter 4 outlines the discourse functions which responsives can fulfil, and provides important distinctions for the sociolinguistic analysis which is provided in Chapter 8. Chapter 5 dra\vs upon Xbar syntax to give a formal analysis of the descriptive facts which are presented in Chapters 2 and 3, and shows that the Complementizer and Inflection are significant controlling constituents in an account of Welsh responsives. The Welsh yes-no answering system is but one aspect of the grammar of Welsh. Where the linguistic analysis touches upon wider grammatical issues, these are explained as they arise and in a way which suits the aims of this work. For readers who would like to go beyond these explanations on a descriptive level at least,

vi Preface

condensed accounts of Welsh are available in Awbery (1984), Campbell (1991: 1444-1451), Thomas A.R. (1992), and Watkins T.A. (1993). Fuller descriptions are available in contemporary reference grammars by King (1993), Thorne (1993), and, for those who read Welsh, Thomas P.W. (1996). Early theoretical treatments can be found in Awbery (1976) and Jones—Thomas (1977) while more contemporary approaches are available in Sadler (1988) and, especially, Rouveret (1994). The sociolinguistic analysis is presented in Chapters 6 to 8. Chapter 6 provides a descriptive account of young children's use of the Welsh yes-no answering system, supported by descriptive statistics. The remaining two chapters attempt to explain the trends of usage which are revealed in Chapter 6 from two different, but not necessarily dichotomous, standpoints. Chapter 7 examines the trends in terms of external causes of language variation and change, and Chapter 8 examines the same data in terms of internal causes. More advanced statistical analyses support the interpretations of the data in these latter two chapters. The sociolinguistic analysis is made against the background of bilingualism in Wales today. There are three features of Welsh bilingualism which are crucial to this study. Firstly, in comparison with English, Welsh is a minority language both in terms of numbers of speakers and domains of use. Secondly, successive census figures published by the British Government have shown that the numbers of Welsh speakers in Wales have been declining (for a variety of reasons which cannot be discussed here). Both these points suggest that, in general, Welsh and English in Wales are subordinate and dominant languages respectively. Consequently, Welsh speakers have become increasingly bilingual, and this encourages the influences of language contact, with English being the major influence. Thirdly, through primary and secondary education (and also adult education), Welsh is also used as a second language by speakers whose first language, in the majority of cases, is English. This development, too, can activate influences of language contact, and English is again the major influence. Against the background of these three factors, variation in Welsh is frequently attributed to external factors of language contact: that is, the structure of the subordinate language, Welsh, is being changed to reflect the dominant language, English. An extreme version of this view emphasizes language decline, decay or death; ultimately, the very use of Welsh is ousted by the use of English. The sociolinguistic analysis also considers the possibility of internal causes of variation, and examines the influences of simplification, analogy, semantics and discourse. There is also the possibility of a relationship between external and internal factors. There is a view, as seen in Aitchison (1991: 116-117), which holds that external factors alone do not bring about language change unless there are internal conditions which favour outside influences and allow them to take effect (although it is not clear that Aitchison has fully taken into account the pressures of language contact in multilingual societies, particularly where one language is dominant as in Wales). There

Preface

vii

are many aspects of Welsh which could be used as the basis for a study of variation (see Jones B.M. 1988, 1990a and b). But the yes-no answering system is particularly appropriate, for, as the linguistic analysis shows, Welsh uses a complex array of forms for "yes" and "no". The data for the linguistic analyses of Welsh in Chapters 1 to 4 is based on three sources: a corpus of the spontaneous conversational discourse of children between three and seven years of age (the corpus is described in Chapter 6); existing accounts of Welsh responsives — the details of which will be given in the relevant parts of the study; and this author's experience of responsives based on observations of vernacular Welsh over the years. The data for the sociolinguistic analyses in Chapters 6 to 8 is taken from the corpus of child language which is referred to above. It is self-evident that examples which are taken from the corpus contain characteristics of spontaneous spoken Welsh and also features of real-time performance, such as hesitations, unfinished words, retracings, and so forth. These characteristics are preserved to a large degree in their presentation here, and Appendix I provides a list of conventions which are used in the corpus examples. Given the strong prescriptive tradition in favour of the formal written language which is apparent in traditional grammars of Welsh, it is worth emphasising that this study is primarily concerned with spontaneous spoken Welsh, unless a point is being made about formal Welsh. Consequently, the devised examples of Welsh which are used in this study also reflect the characteristics of speech, and several of the conventions which are listed in Appendix I are also used in these examples. The presentation of examples from languages other than Welsh or English, which are numerous in Chapter 1, follows the sources which I have consulted. In all cases of examples other than those from English, glosses are supplied as well as free translations, except where my sources have not provided glosses and where I am not sufficiently familiar with the language in question to gloss the examples. Appendix II lists and explains the conventions which are used in the glosses.

Contents Preface Acknowledgements List of figures List of tables

1

Answering systems

ν xi xiii xv

1

1.1 Semantics 1.2 Forms 1.3 An overview of Welsh responsives

1 17 42

2

Welsh echo responsives

53

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

Perfect responsives: tense and aspect Full echo and substitute responsives: types of finite verbs Agreement features: person deixis Agreement features: number Forms of bod 'be' More about negative forms Summaiy

53 58 71 77 79 87 89

3

Welsh echo and nonecho responsives

93

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Introduction Discourse sources Syntactic form Logical form Summary

93 94 101 115 126

4

Discourse functions of Welsh responsives

129

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

Answers Agreements and disagreements Response questions Acknowledgements Corrections Polarity of responsives

130 133 138 141 144 144

χ

Contents

5

A formal analysis of Welsh responsives

147

5.1 VPless elliptical sentences 5.2 Responsives and VPless elliptical sentences 5.3 A generalized analysis

147 149 184

6

Children's use of Welsh responsives

199

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

Introduction Echo responsives Nonecho responsives Nonecho or echo responsives Forms of verbal responsives: positive and negative Summary

199 205 215 218 220 237

7

Language contact: the influence of English

239

7.1 Introduction 7.2 Language background 7.3 Conclusions

239 253 273

8

Internal causes of variation

277

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

Isomorphism Discourse Semantics Overall summary and conclusions

277 282 296 297

Appendix I. Conventions in the corpus examples

303

Appendix II. Conventions in the interlinear glosses

305

Appendix III. Additional examples of responsives

307

Appendix IV. Examples of formal answering systems

315

Notes

317

References

337

Index

351

Acknowledgements I am extremely grateful to many people for their help. The advice and encouragement of my friends and colleagues, Professor Paul Ghuman, Dr Daniel Chandler, and Gerran Thomas has been a constant source of support. Professor Richard Daugherty's interest has also been most welcome. As the notes to Chapter 1 indicate, I am very indebted to all those who have advised me on the characteristics of the answering systems of various languages. I should also like to express my appreciation of the support which has been provided by the editorial team and production department of Mouton du Gruyter. I am especially grateful to Professor Werner Winter for his encouragement and guidance in developing the work, and also to Dr Anke Beck and Katja Huder for their ready assistance. But above all, now that I have completed this work, I must pay special tribute to my family for accepting me back into their company after periods of absence or distracted presence.

List of figures Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

The Gaelic responsive (the present copula) Welsh responsives as two-form systems Tenses in Welsh Verbs with exceptional uses of the inflectional paradigms Simple lexical verbs and tenses in formal and informal Welsh Morphologically regular and irregular verbs Types of finite verbs and echo responsives Discourse roles and the person features of the grammatical subject Person contrasts between responsives and their targets Selecting person features in targets and responsives The forms of the third person of the present tense of bod 'be' Assertiveness and third person forms of the present tense of bod 'be' Definiteness and the nonassertive y- and o- forms of bod 'be' Present tense forms of bod 'be' with and without -d- in the vernacular style Present tense forms of bod 'be' with and without -d- in southern dialects A summary of the types of Welsh responsives A summary of the forms of question tags General discourse sources of targets of responsives Responsives and their targets Expected and unexpected pairings of responsives and tagets Scoring of the pairing of responsives and targets A contextual measure of LI use

28 49 54 62 66 67 71 71 74 75 80 80 81 85 86 89 90 94 127 206 241 263

List of tables Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table Table Table Table Table Table

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Table 23. Table 24. Table 25. Table 26. Table 27.

Frequencies of the discourse contexts of targets for responsives .... Main and subordinate clauses as targets for responsives The corpus Frequencies and percentages of targets over the children's ages.... Frequencies for types of responsives Frequencies for responsives to missing and inappropriate data Frequencies for expected and unexpected positive responsives to perfect and nonperfect targets Frequencies for types of positive responsives to perfect and nonperfect targets Frequencies for expected and unexpected negative responsives to perfect and nonperfect targets Frequencies for types of negative responsives to perfect and nonperfect targets Frequencies for types of responsives to imperatives Frequencies for responsives to perfect responsives as targets Frequencies for positive and negative responsives to perfect aspect targets Frequencies for definite and indefinite forms to targets containing eisiau 'needs' Frequencies for positive responsives to targets which expect nonecho responsives Frequencies for negative responsives to targets which expect nonecho responsives Frequencies for responsives to sentence fragments Frequencies for responsives to pardon questions Features in mismatches of finite targets and verbal responsives Frequencies for types of finite verbs in targets for responsives Number mismatches and their person features Interpolations in exchanges involving finite targets and verbal responsives Numbers of users of responsives Numbers of children in the main corpus, with additions and losses T-test comparisons of the different ages in designated bilingual schools T-test comparisons of the different ages in mixed unstreamed schools T-test comparison of boys' and girls' use of responsives (bilingual schools)

100 107 199 202 204 205 208 208 209 209 212 213 214 215 216 217 219 220 221 222 229 231 243 245 247 248 250

xvi List of tables

Table 28. T-test comparison of boys' and girls' use of responsives (mixed unstreamed) Table 29. Numbers of children in the different school types Table 30. T-test comparisons of children's use of positive responsives in school types Table 31. T-test comparisons of children's use of negative responsives in school types Table 32. T-test comparisons of children's use of positive and negative responsives in school types Table 33. T-test comparisons of positive responsives in different school types (boys) Table 34. T-test comparisons of negative responsives in different school types (boys) Table 35. T-test comparisons of both positive and negative responsives in different school types (boys) Table 36. T-test comparisons of positive responsives in different school types (girls) Table 37. T-test comparisons of negative responsives in different school types (girls) Table 38. T-test comparisons of both positive and negative responsives in different school types (girls) Table 39. T-test comparisons of Welsh LI and L2 speakers' strength of use of Welsh Table 40. T-test comparisons of Welsh LI and Welsh L2 speakers' use of responsives Table 41. The strength of the use of Welsh by LI speakers in bilingual and mixed unstreamed schools Table 42. Percentages of the discourse acts fulfilled by responsives Table 43. Frequencies of the discourse acts and types of responsives Table 44. Frequencies of the discourse acts of responsives and their pairings with targets Table 45. T-test comparisons of discourse acts conveyed by responsives Table 46. Addressees of responsives expressed in percentages Table 47. Addressees of discourse acts of responsives expressed in percentages Table 48. T-test comparison of the children's use of answers over different ages Table 49. T-test comparison of the children's use of answers over different ages

251 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 261 262 264 265 273 284 285 287 288 292 292 294 295

In memory of my father and mother.

1. Answering systems This chapter has two main aims. First, drawing upon descriptions in the literature and generous help from informants, it outlines in two parts common characteristics of answers to yes-no questions in various languages: one part examines their semantics and the other examines their formal realizations. This study is especially concerned with forms of saying 'yes' and 'no': both specialized yes-no words as found in some languages, and their equivalents in other languages. The term responsive is adopted as a general label for both yes-no words and their equivalents.1 Second, the chapter uses this outline of answering systems to introduce the main features of the responsive system in Welsh, in preparation for the detailed analyses of that system in the remaining chapters. Szwedek's observation (1982: 5) about the relative neglect of responsives in comparison with the treatment of questions remains relevant today, and it is hoped that the detailed consideration of the Welsh language presented in this work will contribute to a wider understanding of them. 2

1.1

Semantics

This section explores the functions of responsives, and examines semantics and, to a lesser extent, pragmatics and discourse. It first introduces the notion of a sentence answer, which allows the semantics of responsives to be explored in terms of grammatical and logical concepts. For introductory purposes, responsives are discussed more as answers to yes-no questions than as responses to statements or commands. The literature indicates that, in semantic terms, languages answer positive questions in a uniform way but answer negative questions in different ways, and the two are separately considered.

1.1.1 Sentence answers In a general sense, the answer to a yes-no question can be indicated by its equivalent corresponding statement, rendered as either a positive or negative sentence: (1)

a. b. c.

is it raining! it is raining, it is. it isn't raining, it isn't.

2 Answering systems

(2)

a. b. c.

isn't it raining? it is raining, it is. it isn't raining, it isn't.

Languages which allow VP ellipsis, like English, can use shorter versions as illustrated above. In this study, the long and short versions will be referred to as full sentence answers and elliptical sentence answers respectively, or simply sentence answers (the label of sentence answer is taken from Bäuerle 1979: 63). Questions and sentence answers are syntactically, lexically, and semantically closely related. The main differences arise because of: formation of moods, e.g. word order: changes in polarity: changes to person features: pronominalization: ellipsis:

can she swim? can she swim? can you swim? can John swim? can she swim?

she can swim, she cannot swim. I can swim, he can s^vim. she can.

Such issues are discussed in detail in respect of Welsh in Chapter 5. Only general points will be made here. Syntactically, the significant differences arise because of polarity and, in some languages, the formation of moods. But these are systematic differences which can be handled within a common syntactic structure for both the clause which supplies the sentence answer and the clause which asks the yesno question. The polarity of questions and sentence answers is highly significant, and is discussed in 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. The extent to which interrogative and declarative moods produce differences in clause structure varies from language to language. A detailed account is outside the aims of this study but we can note that the use of word order (as in English), particles, and intonation supply the main methods which are variously used to distinguish interrogative and declarative clauses. Lexically, although there are differences because of pronominalization, person features and ellipsis, both the question and the sentence answer share common referring expressions in their noun and verb phrases. Differences produced by ellipsis are based on the fact that the sentence answer is able to exploit the question as a source for the recoverability of omitted items. Semantically, both sentence answers and yes-no questions are based on the same propositional content. For the purposes of the discussion at this stage, we can say that propositional content refers to entities (peoples, objects, and abstract concepts) which are involved in processes (activities and states) in various circumstances (in particular, places and times). Iwanicka (1976) considers other sorts of sentence answers which she refers to as hesitant answers:

Semantics

(3)

a. b. c. d. e.

3

is it raining? I think so. I don 7 think so. I hope so. I hope not.

The important point is that these answers do not have the same equivalences to the question as sentence answers. Further, they do not occur in place of sentence answers. Fuller versions of the above are as follows: (4)

a. b. c. d.

I I I I

think it is [raining]. don 7 think it is [raining]. hope it is [raining], hope it isn 7 [raining].

These fuller versions show that sentence answers to yes-no questions can be modified to produce qualified answers. Expressions like I think ..., I hope ... and so forth bring sentence answers under semantic constraints: the responses are no longer offered categorically but are subject to the nonfactive meanings of words like think and the desires of words like hope. Although the expressions which modify the responses can occur by themselves, they do not occur in place of sentence answers: the latter are absent through ellipsis and not substitution. This study will concentrate upon unqualified sentence answers. It is not being claimed that sentence answers like (lb-c) and (2b-c) are typical answers in spontaneous discourse in all languages. Their importance for this study is that they clarify an analysis of responsives in a number of ways. The notion of a sentence answer helps to avoid confusion in the use of the term answer itself: in some accounts, it is sometimes not clear whether the term answer refers to a responsive or a sentence answer. This distinction is particularly important when discussing negative questions, as is shown in 1.1.3. Sentence answers also provide clear illustration of the semantics of answering a yes-no question: in terms of traditional semantics, sentence answers indicate the propositional information that the questioner seeks (discussion in 1.1.4 shows that pragmatic information is also important to achieve a complete understanding of answers). On a more detailed level, certain aspects of sentence answers can be used to explain the function of responsives. Of particular importance are the grammarian's notion of polarity and the logician's notion of truth value, and these are considered in the following sections.3

4 Answering

systems

1.1.2 Answers to positive questions: polarity and truth value The term polarity refers to the familiar grammatical category of negation, or negativity, as it is sometimes called. It is an essential analytic category in the discussion of both questions and answers. In this section, we shall maintain a consistent polarity in the question, and discuss the polarity of the sentence answer and the responsive. In the case of both questions and answers, however, it is useful to distinguish between sentential polarity, on the one hand, and lexical and derivational polarity, on the other hand. We are concerned in this study with sentential polarity, which is based on the absence or presence of a negating element in clause structure, such as English not. We shall not consider negation through lexical items such as the English proforms nothing, nobody etc. or the quantifier no, nor negation through derivational affixes as in English dislike 4 Polarity captures the obvious difference between the choice of sentence answers: they are either positive or negative. The equivalent responsives can also be distinguished in terms of polarity. In replying to positive yes-no questions, English, for instance, uses one form, yes, when the sentence answer is positive, and another form, no, when the sentence answer is negative. The responsives can cooccur with a sentence answer, or — pragmatics allowing — they can occur alone and indicate whether the omitted sentence answer is positive or negative: (5)

a. is it raining? b. yes, it is [raining]. c. yes. d. no, it isn't [raining]. e. no.

The literature on answers to positive yes-no questions indicates that it is a universal feature of languages that they use a two-form responsive system, and that the choice of one form or the other is determined by the polarity of the sentence answer. Japanese has an answering system which in another respect is different to English (as is discussed in 1.1.3) but the forms of the responsives which it uses to answer positive questions maintain the same polarity distinctions as English, as is shown by the following examples which are based on Dunn—Yanada (1958: 53): (6)

a.

b.

an ο hito wa Rondon ni imasu ka? that person pt London in is q 'is he in London?' hai, imasu. yes is 'yes, he is.'

Semantics 5 (7)

a.

b.

kimasu ka? come q 'are you coming?' He, ikimasen. no come+neg 'no, I am not coming.'

As can be seen, hai 'yes' and iie 'no' convey responses which indicate equivalent positive and negative sentence answers respectively, and for this reason they can be regarded as positive and negative forms. Other examples of answers to positive questions can be found in Appendix III, which provides illustrative data of responsives in various languages. There are apparent counter-examples to the claim that responsives agree with the polarity of the equivalent sentence answer. Consider the following: a. b. (9) a. b. (10) a. b. (11) a. b. (8)

is John working at the moment? no, he's sleeping. are you William Honey? no, I'm Freddie Baker. is he trying to arrange a loan? yes, he hasn 't got any money. are you tired? yes, I haven't slept for hvo days.

In these examples, the polarity of the responsive and the accompanying statements do not agree. But the accompanying statements are not sentence answers as we have defined them: they do not share the same propositional content as the question, and are not syntactic and lexical equivalents. The sentence answers have been omitted from the above examples, but if they are overtly indicated, it can be seen that their polarity is the same as that of the responsive: he is not, I am not, he is and I am, respectively. The accompanying sentences are additional answers, and are discussed in 1.1.4. Another possible way of characterizing the functions of yes and no can be found in traditional propositional logic, particularly in accounts which apply it to linguistic semantics.5 Propositional logic uses the concept of truth value. It is applied to the concept of a proposition, and has two mutually exclusive possibilities, namely, true and false (often paraphrased as 'it is so / the case that' and 'it is not so / the case that'). In linguistic semantics, it is explained that a proposition: — is conveyed by a declarative sentence — when such a sentence is used to make a statement, — and is true or false when the sentence is uttered on a specific occasion.

6 Answering

systems

Consider the following devised examples from English: (12) a. Sioned has a home in the Loire valley. b. yes. c. η ο. (13) a. does Sioned like Brahms? b. yes. c. no. The example in (12a), when it is uttered on a particular occasion, provides an instance of a proposition. There is a view that yes-no questions have no truth value, and that their function is to find out whether the proposition of the equivalent statement is true or false. Thus, does Sioned like Brahms? asks whether it is true or false that Sioned likes Brahms. It can then be said that responsives convey the truth value of a proposition. Bäuerle (1979: 64) cites Egli's (1976) view that yes means 'it is true' or 'it is the case that', and no means 'it is false' or 'it is not the case that'. Similarly, Lyons (1977, 2: 777) claims that the responsives in standard British English may have the meanings 'that is so' and 'that is not so'. The truth-value interpretation is assessed later in this section and in 1.1.3. Unlike polarity, truth value is not explicitly signalled as a matter of routine in declarative sentences in languages with which I have a working familiarity. However, speakers can overtly mark the truth or falsity of a proposition if they feel that it needs to be emphasized. Quirk et al. (1985: 583) discuss expressions which can reinforce truth value such as clearly and of course, amongst others; and to these can be added expressions like it is the case that and it is not the case that. Thus, we can have examples such as: (14) a. b. c.

of course I don't like Brahms. it is the case that I loathe package holidays, though I'm a travel agent. it's not the case that Gwen refused to help us.

But marking truth value is exceptional. As Quirk et al. (1985: 583) say: "Since it is normally expected that a person intends his hearer to accept what he says as true, the addition of the comment or assertion in no way alters but merely emphasizes the truth of the communication." 6 The routine absence of an overt signal of truth value does not stop speakers of languages from interpreting the propositions which sentences convey as true or false. In traditional logic, this is explained along the following lines. A proposition, on the occasion of uttering the sentence which expresses it, refers to some state of affairs in the world which is conveyed by its propositional content: entities (peoples, objects, and abstract concepts), processes (activities and states) and circumstances (in particular, places and times). Particular and specific instances of

Semantics 7 entities, processes and circumstances supply the truth conditions of a proposition when it is expressed on a certain occasion. A proposition is said to be true when all these can be verified when the statement is made. Otherwise, if one or more do not hold at the time of utterance, then the proposition is false. Thus, although the form of a sentence does not signal truth value explicitly, speakers have ways, in principle, of interpreting whether a proposition is true or false. In practice, however, users are not always in a position to be able to match the content of a proposition with specific states of affairs. But this does not restrict our ordinary use of language. As Chierchia—McConnell-Ginet (1990: 63) say: "The important thing to notice here is that though we might not know what the facts are we do know what they ought to be in order to make the sentence true." 7 We now have two ways of interpreting responsives. On the one hand, they can be seen as signals of the polarity of sentence answers. On this basis, responsives are determined by characteristics of the response, i.e. the sentence answer, which may or may not be realized. On the other hand, responsives can be seen as indicating the truth value of a proposition which is implied by a question. In this case, their determining factor is in a previous utterance by another speaker (anaphoric, in the wide sense of this term). There is no one-to-one relationship between truth value and polarity. A proposition which is true can be either positive or negative — 'it is true that it is raining' or 'it is true that it is not raining'. Similarly, a false proposition can be either positive or negative — 'it is false that it is raining' or 'it is false that it is not raining'. This makes it difficult to reconcile the two interpretations of responsives to positive questions that we have developed so far. This can be shown when negative sentence answers are considered in detail. Given the negative sentence answer it is not raining, there are two ways of interpreting it in terms of truth value: either 'it is true that it is not raining' or 'it is false that it is raining'. The comment by Quirk et al. (1985: 583), quoted earlier, that speakers of natural languages make true propositions — or, at least, they create the appearance of making them — is also seen in treatments of questions and answers which are more from the perspective of logic: Bäuerle (1979: 64) and Hoepelman (1983: 198) report that Karttunen (1978) interprets questions to expect only true answers. Wason (1959: 92), reporting on an experiment to process positive and negative information, also suggests that only true statements are relevant or valid — what he calls "positive information and negative information". This is not to say that a speaker cannot comment upon the truth value of a statement made by another speaker by referring specifically to its truth or falsity. Indeed, vve see in 1.1.3 that this is the basis, in part, for the answering systems of some languages. But the point is that a statement, when it is made, is intended to be taken as true. In this light, the sentence answer it is not raining in response to is it raining? is more appropriately interpreted as 'it is true that it is not raining' rather than 'it is false that it is raining'. This makes it difficult to interpret no as 'it is false'. If this

8 Answering systems

were the case, given an answer such as no, it is not raining, there would be a conflict between the message 'it is false' conveyed by no, and the message 'it is true' conveyed by the truth value of the sentence answer it is not raining. In contrast, it is simpler to say that all statements are true statements, and that no and yes, for instance, do not convey truth value but the polarity of the sentence answer — negative polarity in the case of no and positive polarity in the case of yes. In summary, then, all sentence answers are intended as true statements and that, in respect of positive questions, responsives: (i) indicate that a true sentence answer is given, and (ii) reflect the polarity of the sentence answer.

1.1.3 Answers to negative questions: polarity and truth value In the following discussion, we shall concentrate again on sentential polarity and not lexical or derivational polarity. The label negative question is a linguistic one and not a value judgement on the aims of a question. It refers to questions whose polarity is negative: (15) a. b. c. d. e.

aren 7 you staying? haven't they finished? didn 't you arrive yesterday? isn 7 she married? don 7 you have the keys?

Discussions of negative questions generally note that they suggest two sorts of belief by the questioner: an original positive belief which can be conveyed by a positive sentence (e.g. you are staying), and a subsequent negative belief brought on by later doubts which can be conveyed by a negative sentence (e.g. you are not staying)* Like positive questions, negative questions can be given either a positive or negative sentence answer. But, unlike positive questions in the main, negative questions are not neutral questions: the questioner is biased either towards a positive sentence answer based on the original belief or a negative sentence answer based on the subsequent doubt.9 There is some disagreement in the literature as to the direction of the bias. Quirk et al. (1985: 808), in their discussion of English data, refer to negative orientation. Pope (1976: 68) acknowledges that it is difficult to decide where the bias lies but then goes on to say "because of the speaker's original positive belief, the question is definitely biased toward the positive [statement] answer". Choi (1991: 408) also allows that a negative question can be used "to emphasise its positive meaning" .10 But there are probably cross-linguistic differences: some languages may allow negative sentences to be used with either positive or negative bias, while others may favour one or the other. Choi (1991:

Semantics 9

409) claims that negative questions in Korean are biased towards the subsequent doubt, and thus imply a negative sentence answer. Boslego (1984: 75) remarks that there are no negative questions in Thai, although the data offered earlier in the article suggests that there may be functional, if not formal, equivalents of negative questions. This elusiveness in defining the questioner's bias is not really a problem for the analysis being presented here. It is sufficient to know that the questioner has a bias. As such, the responder can either accept or counter the bias of the question. If the question is thought to have negative bias, a negative sentence answer accepts the bias but a positive sentence answer counters it. If the question is thought to have positive bias, a positive sentence answer goes with the bias but a negative sentence answer goes against it. Solely for convenience of presentation in the remainder of this discussion, we shall assume that negative questions are used with a negative bias and thus imply a negative sentence answer. For a language like English, the selection of a responsive form to respond to a negative question is decided in the same way as to a positive one, i.e. according to the polarity of the sentence answer: (16) a. are η 7 you staying ? b. no [, I'm not]. c. yes f , I am]. This data is used by some writers (e.g. Hoepelman 1983: 193-94, 202-203) to challenge the truth-value interpretation of English responsives. The argument is that if no means 'it is false that', then when it answers a negative question like (16a), it replaces the original truth value of the implied proposition in the question. Thus, the original 'it is true that you are not staying' is contradicted by 'it is false that you are not staying', and thus implies 'you are staying'. In other words, we would have: (17) a. b.

aren't you staying? no f , I am].

Similarly, if yes means 'it is true', then the answer yes means 'it is true that you are not staying': (18) a. aren't you staying? b. yes [, I am not]. These responses are opposite to the way that yes and no are typically used in English.

10 Answering systems

However, the truth-value interpretation is suitable for other languages. Japanese is a frequent example in the literature, as is found in Pope (1976: 122) and Takashima (1989). The following data is based on Pope: (19) a.

b.

c.

kyoo wa atuku nai desu ne? today pt hot be+neg pol aff 'it isn't hot today, is it?' hai soo desu yes pro[= kyoo wa atuku nai] pol 'no, it isn't hot.' iie, kyoo wa atui desu. no today pt hot pol 'yes, it is hot today.'

ne. äff

It will be recalled from previous Japanese examples of answers to positive questions in 1.1.2 that hai is the positive form, and iie is the negative form. But the responses to negative questions show that their selection is not always determined by the polarity of the sentence answer: in this context, when the latter is negative, the positive responsive hai is used, but when the latter is positive, the negative responsive iie is used. We cannot, then, explain the selection of a Japanese responsive to a negative question by referring to agreement with the polarity of the sentence answer. We could maintain the link between responsives and sentence answers by saying that some languages choose the form of the responsive by reversing the polarity of the sentence answer. Such an account reflects the descriptive facts, but there is another approach which has greater explanatory appeal. We can explain the Japanese data by referring to the truth value of the proposition which is implied by the question. In the case of negative bias, the questioner is suggesting 'it is true that not S'. For instance, in the case of example (19a) above, the questioner is implying 'it is true that it is not hot today'. In selecting a responsive, the responder addresses not the polarity of his or her own sentence answer but the truth value of the proposition which is implied by the bias of the question. Thus, when the responder agrees with the implied negative proposition he or she gives a negative sentence answer, soo desu ne 'it isn't hot', but chooses the positive responsive to agree with the truth value behind the questioner's implied proposition — hai 'yes' or 'it is true (that it is not hot)'. And when the speaker disagrees with the implied negative proposition, he or she responds with a positive sentence answer kyoo wa atui desu 'it is hot today', but chooses the negative responsive to disagree with the truth value behind the questioner's implied proposition — iie 'no' or 'it is false (that it is not hot)'. With languages like Japanese, responsives must have a more complex explanation to account for their uses with both positive and negative questions. In responding to positive (neutral) questions, their forms are polarity-based: they are the same as the polarity of the

Semantics

11

sentence answer. In responding to negative questions, they are based on the truth value associated with the question: where the responder accepts the truth value of the implied negative proposition of the question, a positive responsive is used, hai 'yes' ('it is true'); and where the responder sees the implied negative proposition as false, a negative responsive is used, He, 'no' ('it is false'). Appendix III provides examples of other languages found in the literature which are like Japanese in answering a negative question. They are Amharic, Cantonese, Gwa, Harari, Hausa, Korean, Mandarin, Navajo, and Yoruba. Langendonck (1980: 347) says that West Flemish can also function on a truth-value basis.11 The analysis of English responsives as being polarity-based reflects the usage in international varieties which are primarily monolingual English, such as standard British English. But there are other international varieties of English which operate on a truth-value basis when answering negative questions. Bokamba (1992: 132-133) and Oladejo (1993) say that varieties of African English are like this, and Bokamba supplies illustrations such as the following: (20) a. hasn 't the President left for Nairobi yet? b. yes, the President hasn't left for Nairobi yet. Bokamba goes on to make the reasonable suggestion that this usage is the result of the influence on English of African languages which use truth-value systems, e.g. Lingala (a Bantu language), Yoruba and Hausa (examples of the latter two can be found in Appendix III). Baik—Shim (1993: 46) also claim interference as a cause of the use of English yes and no on a truth-value basis by some speakers. To complete the outline of negative questions in truth-value systems, we can refer to answering those which have a positive bias. Dunn—Yanada (1958: 53) give an example of what happens in Japanese. They refer to "the kind of negative question that is a disguised positive request": (21) a.

b.

kimasen ka? come+neg q 'won't you come?' hai, ikimasu. yes come 'yes, I'll come.'

To agree with the positive bias of the question, the sentence answer is positive. It can be seen that the responsive form is also positive, namely, hai 'yes'. There are two ways of accounting for the selection of a positive form. One is to claim that it is determined by the polarity of the sentence answer, as happens with positive questions. The other is to say that it is determined by agreement with the truth value of the proposition which is implied by the question. The latter is the more

12 Answering systems

appealing explanation as it maintains consistency with the method of answering negative questions which have implied negative propositions. Langendonck (1980: 347) also suggests that, in West Flemish, negative questions which have a positive bias are also answered with a positive responsive form when the bias is accepted. Pope (1976: 129) records that English, primarily a polarity system, and Navajo, primarily a truth-value system (see Appendix III), vacillate. She provides examples of responsives to a negative question in Navajo being selected on the basis of the polarity of the statement answer, reproduced in Appendix III, rather than the truth value of the questioner's implied negative proposition, as follows: (22) a. b. c.

doosh ch 'έέΙτ dimyäada? 'aren't you tired?' dooda, doo ch 'έέΐι deyaada. 'no, I'm not tired.' aooch 'eih diyä. 'yes, I'm tired.'

There appear to be no similar illustrations of English vacillation in Pope's work, and her view would seem to be based on responses to positive sentences which contain negative lexical items (Pope 1976: 125-129). Intuitively, however, I feel that English can form a responsive to accept or reject the truth value of the proposition of a negative statement: (23) a. you don't like my cooking, (hen. b. yes, I do. c. no, I do. The use of yes in (23b) may be typical, but strong contradiction can be achieved by using no in (23c) with appropriate emphatic pitch movement on no and, possibly, a longer pause between it and the sentence answer. Bald (1980: 184-185) provides corpus examples which he interprets as showing that yes can agree with a negative statement in place of the more typical no (given here without the prosodic markings): (24) (25)

Β: A: A: C:

I didn't want to be pressurized like that any more. yes, yeah. they don't use the library because they take books out. yes.

As Bald points out, the interpretation of (25) is complicated by the occurrence of a negative main clause and a positive subordinate clause: the responsive can target

Semantics 13 either the main or subordinate clause (this issue is examined in respect of Welsh in 3.3.3). Further, this use of yes may simply be based on the familiar discourse strategy whereby listeners indicate that they are paying attention. The latter, of course, can also be fulfilled by no so Bald's interpretation that yes in the above examples as agreeing with a negative statement must be taken seriously. French is like English in that its responsive system is mainly based on the polarity of sentence answers. But Grevisse (1993: 1571) says that French oui 'yes' can also be used to agree with a negative statement, "Oui sert parfois ä confirmer une phrase negative (au lieu de non)" [Oui sometimes serves to confirm a negative sentence (in place of non)]. In effect, he is suggesting that oui can also be used like a positive responsive form in a truth-value system, and supplies the following illustration: (26) a.

b.

il n' a pas le sou. he neg has neg the sou 'he hasn't got a penny.' oui. 'yes.'

There is then some evidence which suggests that the norms of both the polarity system and the truth-value system can be broken. In summary, there are two major types of answering systems on semantic grounds. Some languages like English typically select their responsives on the basis of the polarity of the sentence answer to both positive and negative yes-no questions. In such languages, the selection of a responsive is determined by the syntactic form of the sentence answer. But other languages like Japanese only do this when responding to positive questions. When responding to negative questions, they choose a positive responsive to accept the truth value of the implied proposition in the question, or a negative responsive to counter it. In such languages and in this discourse context, the selection of a responsive is determined by the logical form of the proposition which is implied by the question. In this study, these two answering systems are referred to as the polarity system and the truth-value system. Strictly, of course, the latter is a mixed system but the label truth-value system is used for convenience. In a much-cited and influential study, Pope (1976: 73) distinguishes between a positive-negative answering system for languages like English, and an agreementdisagreement answering system for languages like Japanese. The former is the same as this study's polarity-based system, and the latter refers to languages which have been accounted for in this study as being based on truth value. The main point of Pope's views is evident in her overall exposition and from her data, but the details of the explanation of the agreement-disagreement system are not always completely clear. She says: "In such languages [as Japanese], there are

14 Answering systems

many questions — probably far more than in English — where it is obvious what answer is intended, and the answerer simply agrees or disagrees with this expected answer." Pope also goes on to say that a responder can also agree or disagree with what he or she interprets to be the likely answer. Pope's presentation lacks clarity in two respects. It is not clear what Pope means by an answer — it could be a sentence answer, a responsive or both together. And Pope does not clearly define the focus of the agreement or disagreement. It is not clear whether it focuses on the grammatical category of polarity or the logical notion of truth value. As her explanation stands, it could apply to polarity-based languages like English whose speakers can also agree or disagree with sentence answers which are expected by a negative question, but do so on a polarity basis. Pope's use of agreement / disagreement can be compared with a later definition which is clear and specific (Pope 1976: 132 fn. 3). This later definition is based on whether the question and the answer (presumably responsive) share the same polarity or not: if they do, then they agree; if they do not, then they disagree. If this latter definition is applied to the Japanese data in examples (19), it can be seen that the Japanese positive responsive disagrees with the negative polarity of the implied proposition, i.e. they disagree. But we know from the sentence answer that agreement is the intention. The difference between languages like English and other languages like Japanese can be more clearly stated if a distinction is made between the grammatical category of polarity in the sentence answer and the logical notion of truth value in the implied proposition of the question. Pope's agreement / disagreement becomes clearer if the truth value of the implied proposition of the question is the focus of the agreement / disagreement. Pope's work, however, generally identifies the two major answering systems and has been exploited by other writers, such as Baik—Shim (1993: 44). These authors, however, give a clearer explanation: "... in English Yes/No answers correspond with the positivity or negativity of the proposition that follows the answers while there are other languages in the world in which Yes/No answers signal agreement/disagreement with the proposition in the question."

1.1.4 Pragmatics arid discourse The literature on answers to yes-no questions contains examples which suggest that there is more to answering a question than supplying a responsive and / or a sentence answer. A common observation is that answers can be supplied by statements which are neither the propositional nor grammatical equivalents of the question. Studies on discourse analysis provide some striking examples of this, such as the illustration which is provided in Coulthard (1985: 8):

Semantics 15 (27) a. Are you going to work tomorrow? b. I'm on jury duty. And Labov (1972), as cited in Coulthard (1985: 8), supplies this delightful illustration: (28)

Linus: Do you want to play with me, Violet? Violet: You 're younger than me. (shuts the door) Linus: (puzzled) She didn't answer my question.

In the absence of semantic and grammatical equivalence between the question and the answer, we cannot view these as sentence answers. Yet, in both instances, we can regard the responses as implying a sentence answer: I'm on jury duty implies Ί am not going to work tomorrow' and You 're younger than me suggests Ί don't want to play with you'. We can refer to pragmatics to justify interpreting these responses in this way. Our understanding of the responsibilities of jury duty, in one case, and peer-group relationships amongst young children, in the other case, enable us to interpret these responses as being equivalent to negative sentence answers. In this study, we shall refer to a response of this type as an additional answer. It is often based on a reason for a negative or positive answer. Pragmatics allows the responsive and the sentence answer to be left out, leaving only the reason, e.g. [no, I don't want to play with you, because] you 're younger than me. Another observation is that a responsive or sentence answer may well be justifiable in terms of the syntax of the question clause, but it does not supply sufficient information to meet the questioner's real objectives. This applies to both information-seeking questions such as: (29) a. b. (30) a. b.

are you Dr Livingstone? no. do you know where Eric lives? yes.

and questions which are requests for action such as: (31) a. b. (32) a. b.

can you tell me the time? yes. would you open the door? no.

Syntactically, these are yes-no questions which can be answered by a sentence answer and / or the appropriate responsive. But the literature points out that the questioner seeks more than a sentence answer, no matter how the latter is actually

16 Answering

systems

realized. The questioner requires further information or wants the addressee to perform an action. The responder should provide the information which the questioner really seeks or perform the relevant task; or failing this, the responder should offer an explanation: (33) a. are you Dr Livingstone? b. no, that's him standing over there. (34) a. do you know where Eric lives? b. yes, Cardiff. (35) a. can you tell me the time? b. yes, half past four. (36) a. would you open the door? b. no, sorry, I've hurt my arm. Another point to be noted is that responsives in interactive discourse can be volunteered for social reasons. This is seen in particular when a respondent uses an expression which agrees with a previously-made proposition for the purposes of maintaining social solidarity or conveying attentiveness. In both cases, a respondent is using a responsive to achieve ends which are part of the nonpropositional (or social) meaning of a sentence as opposed to its propositional meaning. All these are telling points which emphasize that a complete account of the functions of answers to yes-no questions must consider pragmatics as well as semantics. But this study is especially concerned with responsives, and it will not pursue pragmatic issues in detail, except where they help to explain the uses of responsives. Responsives are predominantly seen on the respondent's side of interactive discourse, either as answers to questions, or as affirmations or denials of statements. There may appear to be an exception to their use as responses in their occurrence with sentences which are not responses, as in: (37) a. yes, we've sold our house. b. no, I'm not complaining. But such examples are based on interactive discourse in that they foresee possible reactions to statements, and supply the responses (more discussion is in 3.2.2). The discussion in this and previous sections has referred to three expressions which can be involved in an answer: two of them, responsive and sentence answer, have figured prominently, and the third has been mentioned only in passing, namely, the additional answer. They can combine or be omitted to create answers of varying degrees of complexity. In the orthography, it is traditional to write them separated by commas. For example, using the question is Sioned coming to the parly?, it is possible to have:

Semantics

17

(38) a. no, she isn 't, (because) she's working. b. no, she isn't. c. no, (because) she's working. d. she isn't, (because) she's working. e. no. f. she isn't. g. she's working. The sentence answer can involve various degrees of ellipsis, of which the example given, she isn't, is only one possibility. There is much discussion in the literature as to what a proper answer is, i.e. whether a responsive alone is enough, or whether a sentence answer or additional answer should also be used either alone or in combination with one of the others. We can also add to these possibilities qualified answers including disjuncts (the former are outlined in 1.1.1 and the latter in 1.2.1), and other expressions such as that's right. This question of answerhood, as it is sometimes called, is an interesting one but will not figure in this study unless it contributes to the main aim of discussing responsives themselves.12

1.2 Forms With the exception of counter answers, which are discussed in 1.2.3, the literature on answering systems has little to say directly about their forms and syntax. A consideration of the forms of responsives is crucial to the analysis of Welsh, and this section will prepare the way by establishing different formal types of responsives based on data which is available in the literature on answering systems. The typology which is outlined here is based on one simple observational criterion, namely: is the expression which occurs in response to a target sentence — and which conveys the functions described in 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 — based on lexical or syntactic forms which occur in the target or not? The answer to this question produces two types of formal systems. Expressions which can be traced to lexical or syntactic items in the target can be metaphorically described as "echoing" the target, and the answering system can be described as an echo system. In contrast, expressions which cannot be traced to lexical and syntactic items in the target can be described as operating a nonecho system.13 This approach is based on elementary descriptive observations. It does not address more probing questions about the grammatical status of expressions which can be interpreted as responsives, e.g. are such expressions members of a unique syntactic category or are they members of other categories which can be used to fulfil the responsive function? If there is evidence to adopt the first view, responsive is a syntactic category like noun, adjective and verb. If the second view is adopted, responsive is a grammatical function, possibly like subject, object and

18 Answering systems adverbial, or, more appropriately, like declarative and interrogative. In the survey which follows, these matters are only touched upon in universal terms in brief and speculative comments. But, in respect of Welsh, they are explored in detail, both descriptively and theoretically, in Chapter 5.

1.2.1 Nonecho responsives It is very striking that the forms of the responsives of many languages are not evident in any of the lexical items which are in the question. English provides a typical example: (39) a. is it raining? b. yes, it is [raining], c. no, it isn't [raining]. It is clear that whereas the sentence answers it is [raining] and it isn 't [raining] can be related to the syntax and lexis of the question clause, the responsives yes and no are newly introduced from the lexicon. In this sense, we can refer to them as nonecho responsives. There is very little direct discussion of the syntactic relationship of nonecho responsives and sentence answers in the literature. Responsives are not substitutes, or proforms, for the latter. This is clearly shown by the many examples which are provided in this chapter which show that responsives and sentence answers can cooccur. The French responsives can occur in complement positions in qualified answers, as is illustrated below in this section. But it is also the case that the French responsives can cooccur with sentence answers outside embedded contexts. This close association of a responsive and a sentence answer allows the former, \vhen standing alone, to indicate the latter. Quirk et al. (1985: 852) describe English yes and no as "reaction signals" which convey assent or agreement and denial or disagreement (along with all right, OK, certainly not, definitely not, not at all, and not likely). These authors do not comment specifically on the relationship between yes and no and accompanying sentence answers, but they do say that they are "grammatically irregular" and discuss them under the general heading of nonsentences — expressions which do not fit regular clause structure. However, we can attempt to develop our understanding of the clausal status of nonecho responsives by asking two questions: whether the functions of responsives are unique to them, and whether responsives can fulfill other functions. Quirk et al. (1985: 628, 806) refer to a number of items which can be used to answer yes-no questions in English: certainly, of course, not at all, never, probably, it appears so, to some extent, occasionally, and very often. Disjuncts which

Forms 19

convey varying degrees of truth (Quirk et al. 1985: 620-628) provide good illustrations: (40) a. is she staying? b. probably. c. probably not. d. of course. e. of course not. The important point is that they do not replace the sentence answer or the responsive. Fuller examples are as follows: (41) a. yes, she is probably [staying], b. no, she's probably not [staying]. c. yes, of course she is [staying], d. no, of course she isn't [staying]. These examples demonstrate a point that is made in 1.1.1, namely, that responses to yes-no questions can be modified to produce qualified answers. Although the disjuncts can occur by themselves, they do not occur in place of responsives and sentence answers: the latter are absent through ellipsis and not substitution. We can, then, establish their primary role as disjuncts, and view their occurrences as sole responses as a supplementary function which is made possible by their semantics. If it is the case that sentence adverbials can occur like responsives, is it also the case that responsives can behave like other constituents? The English responsives can occur as prehead modifiers in noun phrases in examples such as a yes man and the no vote. They can also occur as nominals as in iras that a yes or a no?. Attempts to interpret nonecho responsives as major clausal constituents are more interesting. The most likely explanation along these lines is that they are a sentence adverb of some sort, for example, a disjunct. But Bäuerle (1979) notes that the English responsives cannot be used as a constituent, unlike a disjunct, and he makes the following comparison: (42) a. b.

Peter will perhaps marry Sheila. * Peter will yes marry Sheila.

But other languages provide very interesting examples of responsives fulfilling other functions. Byrne—Churchill (1986: 445, 477) give examples of the French responsives occurring as complements (possibly as a prosentence for a noun clause):

20 Answering systems

(43) a.

b.

(44) a.

b.

(45) a.

b.

il part dejä? he leaves already 'is he leaving already?' j 'espere que non. I hope that no Ί hope not.' est-ce qu'il arrive aujord'hui? q he arives today 'is he arriving today?' j 'espere que oui. I hope that yes Ί hope so.' il η' acceptera jamais de la faire. he neg accept+fut never of it do 'he will never agree to do it.' ah je crois que si. ah I believe that yes 'oh, I think he will.'

Striking examples of a responsive form being used in other functions are found in German. James C.J. (1988: 93) and Dodd et al. (1996: 461) show that ja 'yes' can be used as an adverb (Dodd et al. say that it can be used to underline that a statement is self-evident, i.e. as a disjunct): (46) a.

b.

es ist ja kalt. it is yes cold 'it really is cold.' das ist ja ganz klar. that is yes absolutely clear 'that is absolutely clear.'

Dodd et al. (1996: 460) and Durrell (1996: 181-183) outline a range of uses of doch 'yes' (counter responsives are discussed in 1.2.3), mainly as a conjunct or disjunct. The following illustrations are from Durrell: (47)

(48)

gestern hat es doch geschneit. yesterday had it yes snowed 'all the same, it did snow yesterday.' du kannst mir doch helfen(, oder)? you can me yes help or 'you can help me, can't you?'

Forms 21

(49) a.

Mutti kann ich ein Stück Schokolade haben? Mummy can I a piece chocolate have 'Mummy, can I have a piece of chocolate?' b. nein doch, du hast jetzt genug gegessen. no yes you have now enough eaten 'certainly not, you've had enough to eat.'

The question is whether the responsive forms in all the above examples 14 can be regarded as being basically responsives which have extended their use to occur as sentence adverbials (disjuncts and conjuncts), or whether they are basically the latter which can also be used to answer yes-no questions. Answers to these question demand detailed analyses of specific languages on a scale which cannot be undertaken in this study. As far as English is concerned, the stronger case is that yes and no are responsives which can also be used as modifiers. Leslau (1962: 148) provides further data for the discussion of the status of responsives. He refers to a "special answer particle" which accompanies the repetition of the verb in answers in Ethiopian languages, namely: Tigrinya 'abba, Chaha e, and Soddo aw. Examples can be found in Appendix III. Leslau says that the latter two only occur in the context of answers while the first mainly occurs in this context. Leslau's data does not make it clear whether they can occur without the verb. If this were the case, given their distributional limitations, there would be a case for interpreting them as responsives. The literature supplies historical evidence about some responsives which suggests that they have originated as other forms, often as part of larger expressions. The Oxford English Dictionary (1994) holds that modern yes could be derived from a combination of jea (yea) and si, the latter being the third singular present subjunctive of beon 'be', via the early Old English forms jese, jise, and jyse. The account goes on to say that this derivation suggests that jese might have been used to answer a particular class of question. There is historical evidence quoted in Guömundsson (1970: 345-346) and Bald (1980: 178) which shows that English responsives in a later period of the language did this (see note 23). Judge—Healey (1983: 420) record that French oui emerged in Old French as ο from the Latin hoc meaning cela 'that'. They supply the following illustration: (50) a. ferez-vous cela? do+fut -you that 'will you do that?' b. ο je ferai (= cela je ferai). that I do+fut (= that I do+fut) 'that I will.'

22 Answering systems

These authors say that this response became shortened to ο je 'that I', and that other pronouns were brought into combination with ο: ο ti 'that you', ο il 'that he', ο nous 'that we', ο vous 'that you', ο ils 'that they'. They hold that ο il 'that he' was the most frequent, and was generalized in place of the others. It became oil, which developed into the form which is still used today, oui. The same authors trace the development of si from Latin sic 'so, thus'. They claim that si was used in combination with other items, si est 'so is', si a 'so has', si fait 'so does', and that these combinations were shortened to the modern responsive si. In summary, there is evidence from observations on the contemporary behaviour of nonecho responsives in some languages that they are not part of the clause structure of accompanying sentence answers. Historical evidence also suggests that nonecho responsives in some languages have originated outside clause structure. In brief, they can be regarded as being in a paratactic relationship with accompanying clauses and not a hypotactic one.

1.2.2 Echo responsives Press (1986: 110), speaking particularly of Breton, refers to a method of answering yes-no questions which is based on "the repetition of the pertinent element of the sentence". This method is sometimes referred to metaphorically as echoing, as in Greene (1972) and Thomas C.H. (1973/4), both of whom address Welsh data, and Thomas labels this type of responsive as the echo responsive. But languages can vary according to the types of elements which can be echoed, as the outline which is given below indicates. This method of forming a responsive has received very little attention in the literature and, within the context of the major codified languages which use nonecho systems, it may be perceived as being exceptional. There are, however, extensive and varied examples of echoing in the world's languages, and this method is very relevant to an understanding of the Welsh system. For these reasons, it is worth exploring echoing at length. Throughout this survey, expressions which are used in yes-no answers which echo an element in a target sentence are more often than not referred to as responsives. This is an assumption which is made for ease of presentation, and issues which show that their status as responsives, as opposed to being expressions which happen to be suitable in yesno responses, are briefly touched upon at the end of this section, and are discussed in detail in respect of Welsh in Chapter 5. A good example of an extensive echo system is found in Malay. Dodds (1977: 22) describes the system as follows: "Malays often take the most significant word in a question and use it or its negative form to say 'yes' and 'no'." Negative forms are produced with the negative particle tak, or its longer version tidak (Dodds 1977: 9-10). Dodds (1977: 21-22) supplies the following example of the repeti-

Forms 23

tion of ada which he glosses as an equivalent of English have in the sense of 'possession' or be in the sense of 'located', 'situated' and 'present': (51) a.

b.

(52) a.

b.

Hashim ada di pejabat? is in office 'is Hashim in the office?' ada. is 'yes.' encik ada kereta? addr have car 'have you a car?' tak ada. neg have 'no.'

There are other examples in Dodds (1977: 29, 30, 31) which provide comprehensive illustrations:15 (53) a.

b.

(54) a.

b.

(55) a.

b.

(56) a.

tuan mahu jumpa saya? sir want meet me 'do you want to see me, sir?' mahu, encik want addr 'yes.' apa kami boleh masuk sekarang? q we can enter now 'can we come in now?' bolehlah. can+emphasis 'yes.' anak encik sudah besarkah? child addr now big+emphasis 'are your children grown up now?' sudah. now 'yes.' rumah doktor itu jauh dari sini? house doctor the far from here 'is the doctor's house far from here?'

24 Answering systems

b.

tak jauh. neg far no.

There are indications in the illustrations in this work that nonecho responsives can occur (Dodds 1977: 30, 39): (57) a.

apa anak encik mesti tinggal di rumahsakit? q child addr must stay in hospital 'does your child have to stay in the hospital?' b. ya, mesti. yes must 'yes, she does.' (58) a. hari ini Cik Ali tak kerja? day this neg work 'aren't you working today, Cik Ali?' b. tidak, hari ini saya cuti. neg day this I holiday 'no, I'm free today.'

On the basis of these examples, it can be suggested that ya 'yes' and tidak 'no, not' can be generalized as nonecho responsives. Malay, then, has a mixed formal responsive system. But the interesting point is the very extensive echo system which is available. Finnish provides another example of an extensive echo system. It can repeat the sentence element which is the focus of the question. This may be a verb or another sentence element:16 (59) a.

hän tulee. he comes 'he comes.' b. tuleeko hän? comes+q he 'does he come?' c. tulee. comes 'yes.' d. hänkö tulee? he+q comes 'is it him who comes?'

Forms 25 e.

(60)

a.

b.

c.

hän. he 'yes.' hän ei tule. he neg+inf come 'he doesn't come.' eikö hän tule? neg+inf+q he come 'doesn't he come?' ei tule / ei. neg+inf come neg+inf 'no.'

Yes-no interrogatives are formed in Finnish by attaching the suffix ko / kö to the element that is the focus of the question, and placing that element in initial position: both characteristics can be seen by comparing (59a) with (59b) and (59d). The responsive is provided by repeating the queried element but minus the suffix. Example (59c) shows that Finnish can repeat the verb. But other items, such as the subject pronoun in (59e), can also be repeated as a responsive when they are the focus of the question. The examples in (60) illustrate a negative question. Finnish has a variant negator which agrees with the subject, and indicates tense together with the verb. Example (60b) shows that the negator can also carry the interrogative suffix and occur in initial position. The responsive to such an interrogative can repeat either the negator and the verb, or the negator by itself, as is shown in (60c). Chinese languages also supply interesting and extensive examples of echo responsive systems. In their description of Mandarin, Yip Po-Ching—Rimmington (1997: 103) say that the answer to a yes-no question "is usually expressed by repeating the verb or adjective used in the question, in the case of 'no' with the negative (bit or m