Promising Approaches for the Analysis of Sentence-final Particles in Cantonese: the Case of [aa3]

The main objective of this paper is to analyze the meanings and moods of the most frequently used particle [aa3] in various types of modern Cantonese sentences. Promising and feasible approaches of ‘Minimal Pair’ and ‘Maximal Common Induction’ are introduced to depict the pattern of the use of Cantonese particles microscopically and macroscopically so as to establish a better grammatical description of the language. The possibilities that may occur when a sentence ends with a final particle are also discussed in this work.


Sentence-final particles
Chinese has a number of communication-oriented particles to clarify a speaker's intention.They are called 'Sentence-final particles', which are morphemes that occur at the end of a sentence.Chinese sentence-final particles are a peculiar form in spoken language.In syntax, semantics and language usage, it has a large influence on a sentence.In English, the mood or meaning of a sentence is usually modified by uttering it in a different tone.However, since Chinese is a tonal language, where changing the tone of a word may actually change the meaning of the word.This is where the sentence-final particles come in.These particles are often used to modify the mood or sometimes even the meaning of a sentence.
Sentence-final particles are bound linguistic forms that are suffixed to units higher in rank than words.They are traditionally referred to as 'tone-of-voice words' which are usually used to express moods, attitudes, feelings and emotions.In this study, they will be referred to as sentence-final particles, for the obvious reason that these words mainly appear at the end of sentences, as well as clauses or phrases.To express moods, attitudes, feelings and emotions, other than sentence-final particles a number of means can also be employed in Cantonese and some other languages.For example, they can be expressed by full words, adverbs, conjunctions, inflections, interjections or intonations.In Cantonese however sentence-final particles are one of the most well developed means to express such moods.

Cantonese sentence-final particles
It is said that sentence particles are commonly used in Cantonese.Luke (1990:11) remarks that:

It is no exaggeration to say that they constitute one of the hallmarks of natural conversation in Cantonese.
This suggests the irreplaceable role that they must be playing in spoken interaction.In recent years, more works have been published that are devoted specifically to sentence-final particles.Such studies include Cheung (1972), Gibbons (1980), Yau (1980), Kwok (1984), Bourgeries (1987), Luke (1990), Leung (1992), Matthews (1994) andFung (2000).Being a pioneering work in the study of Cantonese sentence-final particles, Cheung (1972:172-192) pointed out that there are as many as fifteen particles commonly found in everyday conversation (note 1), and they are often used in clusters of two to four to express different moods.For instance, with reference to the examples he cited from a radio play, there are as many as twenty-four particle-clusters formed with [ge3] (consonant + vowel + tone) being the main particle used in combination with others (note 2).People are easily thrown into confusion by the varieties of their combinations and their complicated meaning.Before going further I would like to quote Cheung (1972:195), who says: Non-native speakers may have difficulties learning Cantonese, one of the main reasons being the fact that using the wrong particles can disrupt the original meanings of the sentences.We, therefore, ought to be aware of the particles whether one is to learn or do research on Cantonese.
One may have an impression that there are very few rules to follow with respect to the use of particles and that one seems to have a great deal of freedom using them.However, it is very difficult for foreigners to learn Cantonese because the sentence-final particles (and their lexical tones), the meanings of which being very complex, are not easy to be mastered.As we know, the usage of particles is not exactly related to syntactic structure but often relies on pragmatic factors and the speaker's intuition and knowledge.When people take part in conversations, the utterance is tightly related to the context giving full play to the communicative function.Syntax studies, therefore, cannot be figured out without the conversational context.In this connection, the meanings of particles should not only be constructed at the lexical and grammatical levels, but also confirmed both semantically and syntactically.Accordingly, this paper attempts to introduce promising and practical approaches to analyze Cantonese particles, by taking the most frequently used particle [aa3], a syllable in mid-level tone (tone 3) without a consonant onset, as an example.

A close look at sentences and final-particles
A collection of examples is adopted here to make this study more objective.The book How celebrities learn languages -interview series (1999) edited by the Hong Kong Standing Committee on Language Education and Research (SCOLAR) is chosen for the study.The corpus consists of about 3 hours of recorded materials which reveal that the use of [aa3] accounts for 34% in everyday Cantonese.This is followed by the use of [ne1] and [lo1], the percentages use of which are 23% and 19%, respectively.Some examples in this paper also come from the author's intuition as a native speaker.The abbreviations used and their meanings are listed at the end of the paper.
A number of examples will be discussed in the rest of this paper and the properties of [aa3] will be noted based on the ways it is used.The following discussion is neither conclusive nor definitive, but should give us some insight into how the approaches can be adopted to elucidate the meanings of Cantonese particles.

Differences between sentences with and without final particles
As a matter of fact, the tone of a sentence is a reflection of wishes, aspiration and feelings.During conversations, the mood of a sentence is determined by the interactions of intonation, word order, sentence structure, verbal context, particles and so on.In addition, Jin (1992) pointed out that the mood of a sentence is based on a number of factors such as intonation, particles, some of the adverbs and grammatical forms, etc.The fact would be more complicated than one could expect.Semantic criteria may therefore also be taken into consideration.Thus, the meaning of a particle does not necessarily confer its meaning to the original sentence.For example, the sentence 'ngo5 jam2 zo2 tong1 laa3' (I drink PERF soup PT --I have had the soup) indicates the perfection of the activity performed at the time.However, it is inappropriate to say that the final particle [laa3] is a perfective particle.In the discussion that follows, the meanings of particles will be verified in the context of grammatical form.
Generally, in order to distinguish various possible meanings of a particle, we can compare two sentences that are exactly the same except for the presence or absence of that particle.In other words, if a sentence (S) carries a meaning (M1) and is changed to another meaning (M2) by adding the final particle (P), we can find out what P exactly means by comparing M1 and M2.On the other hand, if M1 and M2 are the same, it implies that S possesses that meaning originally and P does not carry the meaning of either M1 or M2.For example, Examples (1a) to (2b) are interrogative sentences.Particle [aa3] does not modify the meaning of these sentences.The grammatical form 'X-not-X' in the affirmative-negative question already tells the hearer that (1a) & (1b) are interrogative with or without a particle.To reply to an affirmative-negative question, one picks the positive predicate for a positive answer and the negative predicate for a negative answer.In this case, the answer should be restricted to 'go' or 'not go'.In ( 2a) & (2b), the interrogative expression is shown by the interrogative word 'bin1 dou6' (where); hence, the final particle [aa3] cannot be considered as an expression of the interrogative mood.
On the contrary, a final particle that makes a marked difference between M1 and M2 is equivalent to M2 because the meaning has been changed after adding the particle.
(3a) is a determinative which has been changed to an interrogative sentence (3b) after adding a final particle [me1], which is therefore considered as an interrogative particle.The same applies to (4a) & (4b).The determinative sentence (4a) is changed to a question as (4b) after the particle [aa4] is attached to the end of the sentence.This method appears reasonable and feasible, but in view of the complicated meanings of particles and the variety of effects the particles can impart to a sentence, a more sophisticated way to analyze various meanings of particles is needed.
Let us then look into the moods of sentences.According to systemic functional grammar, moods are closely related to a complicated, multi-leveled semantic system, which can be divided into a few main categories that are classified into smaller groups based on the different roles of a speaker in conversation.For instance, Chinese grammarians always classify the various moods into 'declarative', 'interrogative', 'exclamatory' and 'optative'.The last one may be further subdivided into such lower levels as 'order', 'urge', 'appeal', 'seriousness' and so forth.With this in mind, the comparison of 'S+P' and S is on the basis of different levels.After adding a particle, the meaning, M2 (S+P), of a sentence can be totally different from that of its original sentence, M1 (S), in terms of the categories of mood at the first level.
Example (5a) is a declarative sentence, while (5b) is apparently an interrogative.Thus, the sentence-final particle [laa4] is apparently conclusive in determining the sentence type.
The other case is when a particle follows a sentence, the meanings of M1 and M2 may be similar in mood at higher levels, but carry a difference when one goes further down the various levels of mood categories.
Both (6a) & (6b) are interrogatives, which require the hearer to give an answer to 'X-not-X'.The difference between the two sentences is that (6a) is more straightforward than (6b); nevertheless, the latter confers a softer tone than the former does.The final particle [aa3] is used together with an interrogative sentence to form a question.
As a result, one cannot simply look superficially when examining the differences between 'S' and 'S + P'.Instead, the underlying levels of mood should be investigated to elucidate the differences.To compare the possible differences between 'S' and 'S+P', the distinctive mood morpheme should be found out in the test used later.Only in this way can the meanings of the particles be found out.We hereby put forward the concept of 'mood morphemes' to differentiate between the attitudes different sentences carry as well as to look closer at the meanings of particles.

The relationships between sentences and final particles
From the concepts introduced in the last section, there is no doubt that P can change the whole mood of a sentence in different ways.The situation is, however, more complicated than one would expect.Let us look more closely at the relationship between S and P. The final particle [aa3] is used as an example to illustrate that the relationships between a sentence and a particle in Cantonese are of four types as follows.
2.2.1 The whole sentence has changed its meaning with a particle Firstly, S originally does not have the meaning of P, but P confers the new meaning to the whole sentence.
Here, (7b) is an interrogative.There is neither interrogative pronoun nor interrogative form in the sentence and the intonation is no different from that in the declarative (7a).Supposedly, it is the particle [laa4], appearing at the end of the interrogation, that transforms the sentence into an interrogative.It now expresses a distinctly different meaning compared with (7b).In the absence of [laa4], both (7a) & (7b) will become declaratives with no differences in meaning between them.

A new meaning is produced by the combination of S+P
Secondly, S and P can combine to form S+P to produce a new meaning, which neither S nor P alone carries.The difference between S and S+P may be seen from the following: Let us compare the above pairs of examples.In (8a) B is a declarative while in (8b) the sentence 'watermelon' has been changed to a question by adding the particle [ne1] that does not represent the interrogative mood itself (note 3).The interrogative is a product of the combination of 'watermelon' and particle [ne1] in the context (note 4).The particle [ne1] in the high tone is associated closely with the interrogative mood.

The particle strengthens the whole meaning
Thirdly, S originally has a similar meaning as P.Under this circumstance, the particle attached to the sentence strengthens the whole meaning.
Both the above examples illustrate the interrogative mood and require confirmation from the other party.Without the particle [me1], (9a) with rising tone is still an interrogative sentence but (9b) implies to us a sense of 'surprise'.

The meanings of the sentence and the particle have no interactions
Fourthly, S has a certain meaning and remains the same even after a final particle has been added.There is no direct relationship between the sentence and the particle.They do not appear to be related to each other in the following examples: It is seen that the [laa1]-suffixed utterance (10b) sounds softer in tone while (10a) sounds harsher and more abrupt.Both sentences are imperatives.The particle [laa1] itself does not have the meaning and is not related to the imperative mood in (20).
To summarize, the above are the four possibilities that may occur when a sentence ends with a final particle.The relationships can be illustrated as follows: Table 1.Possible relationships when P attaches to S

Relationships Sentence
Particle Results

First
The whole sentence changes its meaning.
Second A new meaning is produced by the combination of S+P.

Third
The particle strengthens the whole meaning.

Fourth
The sentence and the particle have no direct relationship.

Further approaches for analyzing sentence-final particles
It is agreed that the meaning of a final particle can be distinguished by comparing M1 and M2.The prerequisite for finding out the meaning of a particle is to identify the semantic relationship of P and M1.This approach for comparing S and 'S+P' is termed 'Minimal Pair'.It has long been realized that differences in meanings exist between a sentence that ends with a particle and another which does not.'Minimal Pair' is a tool and basic procedure to elucidate the meanings of the final particles and the various possible interactions between the particles and the mood in the original sentences by examining only one phoneme.
Another tool, 'Maximal Common Induction', is in contrast to the method of Minimal Pair.One ought to first identify the possible sentences to which a particle P can be attached.The meaning of P in each sentence can then be elucidated by applying Minimal Pair, comparing P-bearing and non-P-bearing twin sentences.The meanings of P in various sentences can then be pooled together for comparison.The actual meaning of P can be determined if that meaning is commonly found in all the sentences (S+P); otherwise, that meaning of P ought to be excluded.
Essentially, Minimal Pair assists microscopically to reveal the various possible meanings of P in one single sentence; whereas Maximal Common Induction macroscopically compares and contrasts all the sentences, thus serves to deduce the typical meanings of P and exclude those that are not commonly used.In this respect, Maximal Common Induction must precede Minimal Pair in particle studies.

Minimal Pair
In this section, I would like to discuss the use of [aa3], which is the most frequently used particle in modern Cantonese.
The particle [aa3] can appear at the end of different types of sentences and sometimes even in the middle (note 5).Here I will discuss examples of the use of [aa3] in the various types of sentences, using the approaches of 'Minimal Pair' and 'Maximal Common Induction'.
The above pair is an interrogative which the interrogative pronoun implies a stronger interrogative mood.Therefore it works even if there is no particle at the end of the sentence.In (11a), the sentence sounds neutral and moderate after adding [aa3], whereas (11b) is more direct.
In these two affirmative-negative questions, the one with [aa3] sounds more moderate and the one without appears more direct.
(13b) is to give objective comments.(13a), with [aa3], carries a sense of urge, thus adding personal opinion and expressing wish.
(14b) consists of several items with short pauses in between.Without [aa3] at the end of each item, the utterance sounds more hurrying and formal.With the use of [aa3] in (14a), it sounds more relaxing and casual.
(15a) is a declarative sentence.With the use of [aa3], the speaker intends to emphasize the poverty by stating that they did not even have a toilet at home when he was in secondary school.[aa3] is therefore an emphasis-carrier here.It helps to indicate emphatic affirmation.
There is a pause after [aa3] in (16a) with which the speaker either intends to direct the attention of the hearer to another point, or plan what to say afterwards; whereas (16b) gives one a sense of hurry.
There is a sense of certainty in ( 17a) & ( 17b), so that it is very likely that the speaker is correct.(17a) sounds more moderate whereas (17b) more awkward.
The previous seven pairs of examples, with and without [aa3], illustrate the fascinating ways final particles of different meanings can be used in sentences.In the following, another criterion termed 'Maximal Common Induction' will be set up, as mentioned before, to investigate the meanings of [aa3].It is necessary here to emphasize again that the analysis should be conducted with 'Minimal Pair' as the primary tool.

Maximal Common Induction
It is obvious that the moods carried by [aa3] in the above sentences are not commonly found in all the examples.These include expressing doubt and hope, giving examples, emphasizing, pausing and offering guarantee.According to the principles of Maximal Common Induction, moods that are not commonly found are to be excluded.Therefore, the above moods cannot be interpreted as the meaning of the particle [aa3].In other words, the particle [aa3] fails to represent those moods.
On the other hand, the common characteristics shared by the seven examples with [aa3] are that, they all make the sentences sound more neutral.In contrast, those without [aa3] sound more direct, rushing and straightforward.That is to say, all the sentences with [aa3], compared to those without, carry a common attitude -'moderate'.If the common attitude shared by all types of sentences with a P is the meaning of P, 'making a sentence sound moderate' is more likely to be the core function of the particle [aa3].When [aa3] is said to make the sentence sound more moderate, we are only comparing with respect to those without [aa3], but not suggesting that all sentences with [aa3] sound more moderate in general.When [aa3] is attached to a sentence, its function is to make the original sentence sound more moderate, no matter what kind of attitude the sentence originally carries.For example, if the original sentence is a question, the particle attached brings a sense of doubt.This implies that the speaker knows something about the question he asks and has an expectation on the answer, but he is just doubtful and asking for confirmation.In this respect, the speaker does not seem to be too direct and abrupt and the atmosphere is more neutral.Besides, it also appears that the speaker is not so confident if the other side is willing to co-operate and therefore it leaves room for possible rejection.

Conclusion
The main objective of this paper is to depict the pattern of use of Cantonese particles and to establish a better grammatical description of the language.It must be noted that the analysis performed in this paper does not mean to be comprehensive, and only the general outlines of the particle studies have been presented.Essentially, there are many other approaches to analyze the meanings of particles.In order to come to a more accurate conclusion, an appropriate research process must be carried out in the further analysis of particle use in Cantonese.
[aa3] is used as an example to suggest a more strict examination device.That is to say, 'Minimal Pair' is proposed as the basis, together with 'Maximal Common Induction' to argue against the possibility of the lack of a general meaning in a particle and to explore its actual meaning.In addition, in order to examine the functions of particles in day-to-day conversations, the investigation of pragmatics is of paramount importance.For example, in a conversation, whether a particle can appear at the end of a sentence depends on the mapping between the function of the particle and the speaker's attitude.Therefore, the study of particles is worth profound investigation.In modern Cantonese, particles are crucial to the fluency of a conversation and the listener's understanding of the utterance.I do hope that this paper has served its objectives and that the discussion will be of some value to other researchers in the field of Cantonese linguistics.Note 2. The Romanization scheme promoted by the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong is used in this paper.

Notes
Note 3. Concerning the particle [ne1], Shao (1989) has this to say: "ne1 does not have an interrogative expression in any grammatical form…… its basic grammatical function is to remind, or go into a matter of fact seriously in an interrogative as a derivative function……" Note 4. Shao (1989) claimed that the interrogative mood is expressed by the conversational context itself.
Note 5.According to Cheung (1972) there are seven classes of sentences ended with [aa3] that can be found syntactically; they are interrogative, optative, emphasis, guarantee, address, enumeration and pause.