TRAVERSING THE ‘WHERE’ LANDSCAPE: Trần Phan & Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai

VIETNAMESE ĐÂU BEYOND LOCATION National Tsing Hua University

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 1

 1. Introduction
In its most common usage, đâu is a typical locative wh-interrogative, see (1).
(1) Tí đi đâu?
Tí go where
‘Where did Tí go?
Two non-canonical uses of đâu are discussed in Phan & Tsai’s (2022) Surprise-
Denial/Disapproval Questions (SDQs)—non-standard interrogatives with đâu ‘where’
and gì/sao ‘what’ expressing Spk’s dismissal of a discourse-salient proposition as
untrue/inappropriate (+ surprise flavor):
+ Type A: close to Mandarin [V shénme V] (disapproval reading only)
(2) a. Tí khóc đâu mà khóc?! b. Tí khóc gì/sao mà khóc?!
Tí cry DAU PRT cry Tí cry WHAT PRT cry
‘It’s not the case Tí’s crying.’ ‘It’s not the case Tí’s crying.’ [refutatory]
[refutatory] ‘Tí shouldn’t be crying.’ [disapproval]
11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 2
 1. Introduction
→ wh-interrogative words are non-argumental, introduced by implicit applicative
head identified as FOR; wh-words are bound by Op in C (presumably in Force)
(3)

Speculation: + whatFOR: purpose or reason → disapproval or refutatory

+ whereFOR: reason only → refutatory only

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 3

 1. Introduction
+ Type B: đâu (like gì/sao) can also directly appear in CP to derive a refutatory
interpretation → adverb, not wh-pronoun (a product of grammaticalization)
(4) Gì/sao/đâu mà Tí khóc?!
WHAT DAU PRT Tí cry
‘It’s not the case Tí’s crying!’ [refutatory]
→ đâu is reminiscent of Mandarin nǎlǐ ‘where’ marking a refute (cf. Cheung 2008):
(5) Tā nǎlǐ qù-le Shénhù!
he where go-Prf Kobe
‘There is no way he went to Kobe!’ [refutatory]

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 4

 1. Introduction
This study investigates three other types of đâu with non-locative interpretations: pre-
verbal polarity đâu in (6) and two sentence-final (SF) đâu’s in (7) and (8).
(6) Tí đâu thích Tèo. [polarity]
Tí DAU like Tèo
‘It is false that Tí likes Tèo.’
(to be distinguished from sentence-initial adverb đâu in (4))
(7) Tí không thích Tèo đâu. [disagreeing]
Tí NEG like Tèo DAU
‘Tí does not likes Tèo. (You’re mistaken.)’
(8) Tí đi đâu đâu? [perlocutionary]
Tí go where DAU
‘Where did Tí go? (Show/tell me!)’

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 5

 1. Introduction
We adopt a cartographic approach to clause structure to shed light on distinct
syntactic & interpretive properties of these instantiations of đâu. Further assumed are
the existence of a high polarity projection determining the polarity of the clause (De
Clercq 2013) and of a pragmatic/discourse domain above CP (Wiltschko 2021).
Roadmap:
o Sec. 2: pre-verbal đâu is part of PolP above TP, taking widest scope and realizing
negation of propositions (contrary to TP-internal không as standard negator);
o Sec. 3: SF đâu in declaratives expresses disagreement to an attempt to update a
proposition/preference into the CG (cf. Krifka 2015) → G(rounding)-đâu;
o Sec. 4: SF đâu in interrogatives provides instruction as to how Add should respond
to Spk’s question → R(esponding)-đâu;
o Sec. 5: a typography of non-canonical đâu’s in Vietnamese structural spine as
conclusion.
11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 6
 2. Pre-verbal đâu and negative polarity
Duffield (2013):
- pre-verbal đâu as reinforcing item (cf. English at all) modifies (/is in construction
with) polarity phrase below TP, which also hosts standard negator không;
- đâu & không do not co-occur → ‘Doubly-Filled NegP’ filter (Robbers 1992):
(9) Ông (*đâu) không đến!
PRN DAU NEG come
‘He did not show up!’ (Duffield 2013: 262)
Our position:
- co-occurrence in (9) is fine if đâu & không are not structurally related (‘It is false
that he did not show up.’)
- đâu & không realize distinct types of negation: đâu concerns propositional
truth/false only, không is sentential or constituent negator; đâu > không.
11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 7
 2. Pre-verbal đâu and negative polarity
- Syntactic test with past-tense marker đã
+ đâu merges above TP, realizing propositional negation as part of higher PolP (cf.
Zanuttini 1997a,b; van Craenenbroeck 2010; De Clercq 2013);
+ không follows T as head of lower PolP (Trinh 2005, Phan 2013, i.a.):
(10) a. [T > không] (11)
Tí đã không {*đã} ăn sáng.
Tí PAST NEG PAST eat morning
‘Tí did not have breakfast.’
b. [đâu > T (> OAsp)]
Tí {*đã} đâu {đã} ăn sáng.
Tí PAST DAU PAST eat morning
‘It is false that Tí had breakfast.’
11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 8
 2. Pre-verbal đâu and negative polarity
- Interpretively:
+ negation with không can express discourse-new information (i.e. describing a state
of affairs without reference to a prior proposition)
→ appropriate to answer global questions like ‘What happened?’
+ đâu typically denies the truth of a discourse-old proposition or inference.
(12) Context: A mother asked her child if he has something to share about his day at
school. He replies…
Cơm trưa hôm nay không/#đâu ngon.
rice noon today NEG DAU tasty
‘Today’s lunch was not tasty.’

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 9

 2. Pre-verbal đâu and negative polarity
→ reminiscent of Piedmontese (spoken in Turin): two sentential negative markers pa &
nen (Zanuttini 1997a,b):
(13) A 1’e pa gia parti.
s.cl. s.cl’is neg already left
'@He hasn't already left.' (Zanuttini 1997a: 69)
(14) A l’avai gia nen salutami cul di la.
s.cl. s.cl’had already neg greeted-me that day there
‘Already on that day he had not greeted me.’ (Zanuttini 1997a: 70)
- structurally: pa > gia ‘already’ > nen;
- interpretively:
+ pa is presuppositional negative marker, requiring the negated p to be assumed in
the discourse (‘@’);
+ nen negates a p with no discourse status.
11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 10
 2. Pre-verbal đâu and negative polarity
- Note 1: potential epistemic conflict is important for the licensing of pre-verbal đâu
→ đâu is fine responding to declaratives (Spk full commitment), wh-question (partial
commitment), biased yes-no questions (commitment as bias); not possible with non-
biased yes-no Qs or when propositions are presented as mere possibilities.
- Note 2: đâu is felicitous in a conversation starter in contexts that are out-of-the-blue
but not neutral, see (15).
(15) Context: After lighting his cigarette, A caught B, a stranger, looking at him as they
stand at the bus stop. A then asks…
Anh đâu hút thuốc ha?
2SG DAU smoke SFP
‘You do not smoke, right? (= I assume it is false that you smoke, but please
confirm.)’

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 11

 2. Pre-verbal đâu and negative polarity
→ an epistemic conflict can be accommodated by Spk’s own conscious that some
might hold a view contradictory to his not-yet-voiced belief → ‘preemptive’ negation

⟹ Interim conclusions:
+ đâu necessarily targets the truth value of a p, regardless of whether p is truly
discourse-salient or p exists only in Spk’s mind.
+ further evidence for distinction between sentential negation & sentential polarity
(De Clercq 2013).

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 12

 2. Pre-verbal đâu and negative polarity
Elephant in the room: SI adverb đâu vs. pre-verbal polarity đâu
(16) a. Đâu mà Tí khóc?! (=(4))
DAU PRT Tí cry
‘It’s not the case Tí’s crying!’
b. Tí đâu thích Tèo. (=(6))
Tí DAU like Tèo
‘It is false that Tí likes Tèo.’
- (Some) structural differences:
+ SI đâu precedes Subj; pre-verbal đâu succeeds Subj (except for indefinite whs)
+ SI đâu must be followed by modal particle mà (Mood-related element high in CP,
marking counterexpectation/counterfactuality)
+ SI đâu can be replaced by gì and sao (lit. ‘what’); pre-verbal đâu can only be
replaced by nào (lit. ‘which’).
11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 13
 3. G(rounding)-đâu and public commitment
SF đâu as in (17) is often likened to pre-verbal đâu (Tran 2009, Duffield 2013, Phan
forthcoming).
(17) Tí đâu thích Tèo đâu.
Tí DAU like Tèo DAU
‘It is false that Tí likes Tèo. (You are wrong/mistaken.)’
Our position on G-đâu:
+ not a SF negator (cross-linguistically very rare for VO languages; cf. Reesink 2002
and Dryer 2009).
+ expresses Spk disagreement towards a proposal to add a proposition/preference
to the shared common ground.

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 14

 3. G(rounding)-đâu and public commitment
+ only appears in responding moves, pragmatically incompatible with out-of-the-
blue context, unlike pre-verbal đâu (fine in initiating move):
(18) Context: After lighting his cigarette, A caught B, a stranger, looking at him as they
stand at the bus stop. A then asks… (=(15))
a. Anh đâu hút thuốc ha? [pre-verbal đâu]
2SG DAU smoke SFP
‘You do not smoke, right? (= I assume it is false that you smoke, but please
confirm.)’
b. #Anh đâu hút thuốc đâu ha? [G-đâu]
2SG DAU smoke DAU SFP
#‘You do not smoke, right? (= #I assume [it is false that you smoke, you’re
wrong/mistaken], but please confirm.)’

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 15

 3. G(rounding)-đâu and public commitment
We adopt Krifka (2023) & Wiltschko (2021), suggesting G-đâu is generated in
Commitment/Ground layer right above traditional CP: Spk takes a public stance
contradicting Add’s public commitment.
(19) Context: The teacher asks her students what they are thinking about the cake
they just shared. A claims ‘It was tasty’.
B: Bánh đâu ngon.
cake DAU tasty
‘It is false that the cake was tasty.’
C: Bánh đâu ngon đâu.
cake DAU tasty DAU
‘It is false that the cake was tasty. (You’re wrong/mistaken.)’
→ C’s utterance can be directed at A but not at the teacher; B’s utterance can be
said to both.
11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 16
 3. G(rounding)-đâu and public commitment
Further, only G-đâu is permitted in negative response to an imperative:
(20) A: Đứng lên!
Stand up
‘Stand up!’
B: Tao không đứng lên đâu!
1SG NEG stand up DAU
‘I will not stand up! (You are wrong/mistaken.)’
B’: *Tao đâu đứng lên!
1SG DAU stand up
Int: ‘I will not stand up!’
→ Truckenbrodt (2006: 259): imperatives are not assertions, Spk is not committed to
the truth of any proposition → pre-verbal đâu is out.

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 17

 3. G(rounding)-đâu and public commitment
→ by using G-đâu, Add expresses disagreement towards committing herself to a
future action that would make Spk’s preference a true proposition.
G-đâu is sensitive towards negation of the widest scope, reminiscent of the sensitivity
of English (reversal) Q-tags towards sentential polarity (De Clercq 2013):
(21) A: Tí thích Hoa.
Tí like Hoa
‘Tí likes Hoa.’
a. B: Tí đâu thích Hoa đâu/*cơ.
Tí DAU like Hoa DAU CO
‘Tí does not like Hoa. (It is false that Tí likes Hoa. You are wrong/mistaken.)’
b. B: Tí thích Mai *đâu/ cơ.
Tí like Mai DAU CO
‘Tí likes Mai. (What is true is that Tí likes Mai. You are wrong/mistaken.)’
11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 18
 3. G(rounding)-đâu and public commitment
Nguyen (2021): SFP cơ in ‘corrective’ contexts occurs in a response to declaratives,
biased questions and requests → cơ neatly parallels G-đâu, only different in the
polarity value it is compatible with (i.e. positive value only).

→ evocative of Asher & Gillies’ (2003) typology of disagreements (as types of

discourse relations that hold between speech acts having contradictory contents):
(22) a. A: John distributed the copies.
b. B: No, it was Sue who distributed the copies. (Correction)
(23) a. A: John took first place.
b. B: No, he didn’t. (Contradiction)
(Asher & Gillies 2003: 488)
→ cơ marks Correction relation; đâu marks Contradiction relation.

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 19

G-đâu is reminiscent of SF ka in Bena (Bantu language spoken in Tanzania):
(24) A: wi wadz-a?
SUBJ.2SG come-FV.PRES.IMPF
‘You are coming?’
B: ni (si) wadz-a ka.
SUBJ.1SG NEG come-FV.PRES.IMPF KA
‘I am not coming. (You are wrong/mistaken.)’
(25) Context: A and others thought that B would come to the party but then he saw B
playing with her phone in bed. A then asks:
A: mu si wadz-a?
SUBJ.2SG NEG come-FV.PRES.IMPF
‘You are not coming?’
B: ni (si) wadz-a ka.
SUBJ.1SG NEG come-FV.PRES.IMPF KA
‘I am not coming. (You are wrong/mistaken.)’
11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 20
 4. R(esponding)-đâu
Đâu in SF position also has an addressee-oriented function of ‘calling on’ Add (in the
sense of Beyssade & Marandin 2006), mainly in constituent interrogatives:
(26) a. Tí gặp ai đâu?
Tí meet who DAU
‘Who did Tí meet? (Show/tell me!)’
b. Tí nói gì đâu?
Tí say what DAU
‘What did Tí say? (Show/tell me!)’
c. Tí đi đâu đâu?
Tí go where DAU
‘Where did Tí go? (Show/tell me!)’
→ R-đâu gives out specific instruction: Spk wants Add to point to exact referent or to
give an exact account of the missing information captured by a wh-word.
11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 21
 4. R(esponding)-đâu
→ incompatible with yes-no Qs, echo wh-Qs, and rhetorical Qs:
(27) a. Tí thích Tèo không (*đâu)? [yes-no Qs]
Tí like Teo NEG DAU
‘Does Tí like Tèo?’ (#Show/tell me!)’
b. A: Tí thích Tèo.
Tí like Tèo
‘Tí likes Tèo’.
B: Tí thích ai (*đâu)? [echo wh-Qs]
Tí like who DAU
‘Tí likes who? (#Show/tell me!)’
c. Tí mà thích ai (*đâu)?! [rhetorical Qs]
Tí PRT like who DAU
‘Who in the world would Tí like?! (#Show/tell me!)’
11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 22
 4. R(esponding)-đâu
→ R-đâu realizes Responding layer in Wiltschko’s (2021) Interactional domain, see
(28). The utterance hosting R-đâu is marked as initiating move, unlike those hosting G-
đâu.
(28)
Interactional domain

SF cơ also patterns with R-đâu: call for Add’s re-confirmation.

(29) A: Tí thích Tèo. B: Tí thích ai cơ?
Tí like Tèo Tí like who CO
‘Tí likes Tèo. ‘Tí likes who? (Say it again!)’
11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 23
 4. R(esponding)-đâu
R-đâu and SF cơ are reminiscent of German particles noch mal & wieder ‘again’ (30a)
& Japanese kke (30b) in interrogatives (Sauerland 2009 and Sauerland & Yatsushiro
2017)
→ special ‘remind-me’ request:
(30) a. Wie ist wieder/noch mal Ihr Name?
how is again your name
‘What is your name again?’ (adapted from S&Y: 651-2)
b. Namae-wa nan da-kke-ka?
name-TOP what COP-KKE-Q
‘What is your name again?’ (S&Y: 658)
→ S&Y: noch mal, wieder, and kke merge high in the periphery & take scope over the
common ground component.

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 24

 5. Conclusion
An cartographic map of the non-canonical usages of đâu:
(31)
Tí gặp ai đâu?
‘Who did Tí meet?’
(Show/tell me!) Đâu mà Tí khóc?!
‘It’s not the case Tí’s crying!’

Tí đâu thích Tèo đâu.

‘It is false that Tí likes Tèo.
(You are wrong/mistaken.)’

Tí đâu thích Tèo. Tí khóc đâu mà khóc?!

‘It is false that Tí likes Tèo.’ ‘It’s not the case Tí’s crying!’

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 25

 References
Asher, Nicholas, and Gillies, Anthony. 2003. Common ground, corrections, and coordination. Argumentation 17(4),
481–512.
Beyssade, Claire, and Jean-Claire Marandin. 2006. The speech act assignment problem revisited: Disentangling
speaker’s commitment from speaker’s call on addressee. In O. Bonami and P. C. Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in
Formal Syntax and Semantics 6, 37–68. Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.
Cheung, Yam-Leung. 2008. The Negative Wh-Construction. University of California Los Angeles Ph.D. Dissertation.
De Clercq, Karen. 2013. A Unified Syntax of Negation. Ghent: Ghent University Ph.D. dissertation.
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. The syntax of ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch dialects. Oxford: OUP.
Duffield, Nigel. 2013. On polarity emphasis, assertion and mood in Vietnamese and English. Lingua 137, 248–
270.
Krifka, Manfred. 2015. Bias in commitment space semantics: declarative questions, negated questions, and
question tags. Proceedings of SALT 25, 328–345.

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 26

 References
Krifka, Manfred. 2023. Layers of Assertive Clauses: Propositions, Judgements, Commitments, Acts. In J. M.
Hartmann & A. Wöllstein (Hrsg.), Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich: Theorie und Empirie. /Propositional
Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues, 115–182. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Nguyen, Thi Thuy Nguyen. 2021. Formal Analysis of the Vietnamese Sentence-final Particle cơ. Singapore: National
University of Singapore Ph.D. dissertation.
Phan, Trang. 2013. Syntax of Vietnamese Aspect. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield Ph.D. dissertation.
Phan, Trang. forthcoming. The Syntax of Vietnamese Tense, Aspect, and Negation. Oxford/New York: Routledge.
Phan, Trần & Wei-Tien D. Tsai. 2022. Surprise-denial/disapproval what-questions in Vietnamese: a comparative
perspective. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society Special Publication 9, 168–191.
Reesink, Ger P. 2002. Clause-final negation: structure and interpretation. Functions of Language 9(2), 239–268.
Robbers, Karin. 1992. Properties of negation in Afrikaans and Italian. In R. Bok-Bennema, R. van Hout (eds.),
Linguistics in the Netherlands, 223–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sauerland, Uli. 2009. Decomposing questions acts. Snippets 20, 62–63.

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 27

 References
Sauerland, Uli & Kazuko Yatsushiro. 2017. Remind-me presuppositions and speech-act decomposition: evidence
from particles in questions. Linguistic Inquiry 48(4), 651–678.
Tran, Thuan. 2009. Wh-quantification in Vietnamese. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Ph.D. dissertation.
Trinh, Tue. 2005. Aspect of Clause Structure in Vietnamese. Humboldt University MA thesis.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical
Linguistics (32)3, 257–306.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2021. The Grammar of Interactional Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997a. Negation and Clausal Structure: a Comparative Study of Romance Languages, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997b. Negation and Verb Movement. In L. Haegeman (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax,
214–245. London & New York: Longman.

11/11/2023 2023 NTHU LINGUISTICS FORUM 28