When a ‘say’ clause is combined with a quoted-speech clause, one of two hypothetical pathways may... more When a ‘say’ clause is combined with a quoted-speech clause, one of two hypothetical pathways may be followed: (a) a complementation pathway on which the ‘say’ clause takes the quoted-speech clause as its complement clause and thus becomes its matrix clause; (b) a conjoining pathway which involves no syntactic operation but rather the loss of a prosodic gap between the two. Following the second pathway, ‘say’ may become grammaticalized into a quotative particle. On neither pathway is ‘say’ grammaticalized into a complementizer. It is proposed that cross-linguistically so-called ‘say’ complementizers, including the alleged Chinese complementizer shuō, are more likely to be not complementizers but rather quotative particles.
Studies in grammaticalization have established that processes of grammatical change frequently ha... more Studies in grammaticalization have established that processes of grammatical change frequently have lexical items as their source, and more specifically nouns and verbs. But there is at least one potential exception: As argued by Holger Diessel in a number of publications, demonstratives cannot be historically derived from other entities, such as lexical items. Based on a survey of languages from different parts of the world and belonging to different language families, the present paper argues that this generalization is in need of reconsideration.
ABSTRACT The Modern Chinese parenthetical clause-taking mental predicate (CTMP) ni xiang (as in N... more ABSTRACT The Modern Chinese parenthetical clause-taking mental predicate (CTMP) ni xiang (as in Ni xiang yinian huafei duoshao qian a? ‘You think (about it), how much money will it cost each year?’) is used to urge the hearer to give attention to the content of the clause with which it combines. It is argued that its formation does not follow a commonly accepted matrix clause pathway, in which a parenthetical CTMP develops from a corresponding matrix clause structure, because examples of parenthetical CTMP ni xiang appear more than 150 years earlier than examples of matrix clause ni xiang in Early Modern Chinese. It is hypothesized instead that a conjoining pathway leading from a prosodically separated CTMP ni xiang to a prosodically unseparated CTMP ni xiang may be adopted to account for the formation of parenthetical CTMP ni xiang and its various contextual properties.
Abstract Contrary to the claims of previous studies, the development of Modern Chinese right-peri... more Abstract Contrary to the claims of previous studies, the development of Modern Chinese right-periphery (RP) pragmatic marker bushi does not involve the shi X bushi X construction, and the development of Modern Chinese left-periphery (LP) pragmatic marker bushi does not involve the negative copula use of bushi in a clause-medial position. Rather, the RP pragmatic marker bushi originates from the use of the negative adjective bushi in a clause-final position as a rhetorical question tag, while the LP pragmatic marker bushi originates from the negative adjective bushi used as a negative response to the previous speaker's question or statement. Our accounts are supported by cross-linguistic data on the grammaticalization pathway from a negative response marker or a negative rhetorical question tag to a pragmatic/discourse marker. Expanding beyond earlier works, this paper proposes two diachronic trajectories for the formation of phrases or structures involving shi in Chinese: one develops from shi as a demonstrative and later a copula; the other originates from shi as an adjective meaning ‘correct, true’. These two trajectories account for the synchronic and diachronic issues of almost all the constructions involving shi in Chinese.
Studies in grammaticalization have established that processes of grammatical change frequently ha... more Studies in grammaticalization have established that processes of grammatical change frequently have lexical items as their source, and more specifically nouns and verbs. But there is at least one potential exception: As argued by Holger Diessel in a number of publications, demonstratives cannot be historically derived from other entities, such as lexical items. Based on a survey of languages from different parts of the world and belonging to different language families, the present paper argues that this generalization is in need of reconsideration.
ABSTRACT The Modern Chinese parenthetical clause-taking mental predicate (CTMP) ni xiang (as in N... more ABSTRACT The Modern Chinese parenthetical clause-taking mental predicate (CTMP) ni xiang (as in Ni xiang yinian huafei duoshao qian a? ‘You think (about it), how much money will it cost each year?’) is used to urge the hearer to give attention to the content of the clause with which it combines. It is argued that its formation does not follow a commonly accepted matrix clause pathway, in which a parenthetical CTMP develops from a corresponding matrix clause structure, because examples of parenthetical CTMP ni xiang appear more than 150 years earlier than examples of matrix clause ni xiang in Early Modern Chinese. It is hypothesized instead that a conjoining pathway leading from a prosodically separated CTMP ni xiang to a prosodically unseparated CTMP ni xiang may be adopted to account for the formation of parenthetical CTMP ni xiang and its various contextual properties.
Abstract Contrary to the claims of previous studies, the development of Modern Chinese right-peri... more Abstract Contrary to the claims of previous studies, the development of Modern Chinese right-periphery (RP) pragmatic marker bushi does not involve the shi X bushi X construction, and the development of Modern Chinese left-periphery (LP) pragmatic marker bushi does not involve the negative copula use of bushi in a clause-medial position. Rather, the RP pragmatic marker bushi originates from the use of the negative adjective bushi in a clause-final position as a rhetorical question tag, while the LP pragmatic marker bushi originates from the negative adjective bushi used as a negative response to the previous speaker's question or statement. Our accounts are supported by cross-linguistic data on the grammaticalization pathway from a negative response marker or a negative rhetorical question tag to a pragmatic/discourse marker. Expanding beyond earlier works, this paper proposes two diachronic trajectories for the formation of phrases or structures involving shi in Chinese: one develops from shi as a demonstrative and later a copula; the other originates from shi as an adjective meaning ‘correct, true’. These two trajectories account for the synchronic and diachronic issues of almost all the constructions involving shi in Chinese.
This article claims that the conjecturing clause-taking huaiyi predicate in Modern Chinese (e.g. ... more This article claims that the conjecturing clause-taking huaiyi predicate in Modern Chinese (e.g. Renmen huaiyi zheming taoyi de jingcha hen keneng canyu le zheqi anjian. ‘People conjecture that the escaped policeman had probably been involved in the case.’) is actually a parenthetical structure. Diachronically, it does not develop from an NP-taking huaiyi predicate (e.g. Wo hen huaiyi zhe ge shuofa. ‘I doubt the statement a lot.’) or a doubting clause-taking huaiyi predicate (e.g. Du Yifu changchang huaiyi ta yu erzi you guo nazhong ge’ermen yiqi de shiguang. ‘Du Yifu often doubted that he had had times of buddy loyalty with his son.’). Rather, it develops from a prosodically separated conjecturing huaiyi predicate. The goal of this paper is to show that its formation did not follow the commonly accepted matrix clause pathway, whereby a parenthetical clause-taking predicate develops from a corresponding matrix clause structure. Instead, it followed a hypothesized conjoining pathway,...
This article claims that the conjecturing clause-taking huaiyi predicate in Modern Chinese (e.g. ... more This article claims that the conjecturing clause-taking huaiyi predicate in Modern Chinese (e.g. Renmen huaiyi zheming taoyi de jingcha hen keneng canyu le zheqi anjian. ‘People conjecture that the escaped policeman had probably been involved in the case.’) is actually a parenthetical structure. Diachronically, it does not develop from an NP-taking huaiyi predicate (e.g. Wo hen huaiyi zhe ge shuofa. ‘I doubt the statement a lot.’) or a doubting clause-taking huaiyi predicate (e.g. Du Yifu changchang huaiyi ta yu erzi you guo nazhong ge’ermen yiqi de shiguang. ‘Du Yifu often doubted that he had had times of buddy loyalty with his son.’). Rather, it develops from a prosodically separated conjecturing huaiyi predicate. The goal of this paper is to show that its formation did not follow the commonly accepted matrix clause pathway, whereby a parenthetical clause-taking predicate develops from a corresponding matrix clause structure. Instead, it followed a hypothesized conjoining pathway,...
Modern Chinese Pseudo-Possessive-Object Constructions (shortened as Modern Chinese PPO constructi... more Modern Chinese Pseudo-Possessive-Object Constructions (shortened as Modern Chinese PPO constructions; e.g. ta shuo le wo de haohua (他说了我的好话) ‘he has put in a good word for me’ and ta chi le wo de doufu (他吃了我的豆腐) ‘he has taken advantage of me’) are actually constructions displaying possessor-affectee syncretism. They derive from Early Modern Chinese Real-Possessive-Object constructions in bridging contexts, some examples being wo ye quande liewei daren de jiu (我也劝得列位大人的酒), ‘I also urged all the magistrates here to finish drinking your wine’ and shi nage zai jie wo de duan li (是那个在揭我的短哩) ‘who is uncovering my demerits’. Di-transitive constructions in Middle Chinese and Early Modern Chinese (e.g. Changxing! quan er yibei jiu (长星,劝尔一杯酒) ‘Comet! I urge you (to finish drinking) a cup of wine’ and shuru gan jie wu duanchu (竖儒敢揭吾短处) ‘how dare the Confucius scholar uncover my demerits’) have provided structural templates for the formation of Modern Chinese PPO constructions. They also have l...
When a ‘say’ clause is combined with a quoted-speech clause, one of two hypothetical pathways may... more When a ‘say’ clause is combined with a quoted-speech clause, one of two hypothetical pathways may be followed: (a) a complementation pathway on which the ‘say’ clause takes the quoted-speech clause as its complement clause and thus becomes its matrix clause; (b) a conjoining pathway which involves no syntactic operation but rather the loss of a prosodic gap between the two. Following the second pathway, ‘say’ may become grammaticalized into a quotative particle. On neither pathway is ‘say’ grammaticalized into a complementizer. It is proposed that cross-linguistically so-called ‘say’ complementizers, including the alleged Chinese complementizer shuō, are more likely to be not complementizers but rather quotative particles.
Studies in grammaticalization have established that processes of grammatical change frequently ha... more Studies in grammaticalization have established that processes of grammatical change frequently have lexical items as their source, and more specifically nouns and verbs. But there is at least one potential exception: As argued by Holger Diessel in a number of publications, demonstratives cannot be historically derived from other entities, such as lexical items. Based on a survey of languages from different parts of the world and belonging to different language families, the present paper argues that this generalization is in need of reconsideration.
ABSTRACT The Modern Chinese parenthetical clause-taking mental predicate (CTMP) ni xiang (as in N... more ABSTRACT The Modern Chinese parenthetical clause-taking mental predicate (CTMP) ni xiang (as in Ni xiang yinian huafei duoshao qian a? ‘You think (about it), how much money will it cost each year?’) is used to urge the hearer to give attention to the content of the clause with which it combines. It is argued that its formation does not follow a commonly accepted matrix clause pathway, in which a parenthetical CTMP develops from a corresponding matrix clause structure, because examples of parenthetical CTMP ni xiang appear more than 150 years earlier than examples of matrix clause ni xiang in Early Modern Chinese. It is hypothesized instead that a conjoining pathway leading from a prosodically separated CTMP ni xiang to a prosodically unseparated CTMP ni xiang may be adopted to account for the formation of parenthetical CTMP ni xiang and its various contextual properties.
Abstract Contrary to the claims of previous studies, the development of Modern Chinese right-peri... more Abstract Contrary to the claims of previous studies, the development of Modern Chinese right-periphery (RP) pragmatic marker bushi does not involve the shi X bushi X construction, and the development of Modern Chinese left-periphery (LP) pragmatic marker bushi does not involve the negative copula use of bushi in a clause-medial position. Rather, the RP pragmatic marker bushi originates from the use of the negative adjective bushi in a clause-final position as a rhetorical question tag, while the LP pragmatic marker bushi originates from the negative adjective bushi used as a negative response to the previous speaker's question or statement. Our accounts are supported by cross-linguistic data on the grammaticalization pathway from a negative response marker or a negative rhetorical question tag to a pragmatic/discourse marker. Expanding beyond earlier works, this paper proposes two diachronic trajectories for the formation of phrases or structures involving shi in Chinese: one develops from shi as a demonstrative and later a copula; the other originates from shi as an adjective meaning ‘correct, true’. These two trajectories account for the synchronic and diachronic issues of almost all the constructions involving shi in Chinese.
Studies in grammaticalization have established that processes of grammatical change frequently ha... more Studies in grammaticalization have established that processes of grammatical change frequently have lexical items as their source, and more specifically nouns and verbs. But there is at least one potential exception: As argued by Holger Diessel in a number of publications, demonstratives cannot be historically derived from other entities, such as lexical items. Based on a survey of languages from different parts of the world and belonging to different language families, the present paper argues that this generalization is in need of reconsideration.
ABSTRACT The Modern Chinese parenthetical clause-taking mental predicate (CTMP) ni xiang (as in N... more ABSTRACT The Modern Chinese parenthetical clause-taking mental predicate (CTMP) ni xiang (as in Ni xiang yinian huafei duoshao qian a? ‘You think (about it), how much money will it cost each year?’) is used to urge the hearer to give attention to the content of the clause with which it combines. It is argued that its formation does not follow a commonly accepted matrix clause pathway, in which a parenthetical CTMP develops from a corresponding matrix clause structure, because examples of parenthetical CTMP ni xiang appear more than 150 years earlier than examples of matrix clause ni xiang in Early Modern Chinese. It is hypothesized instead that a conjoining pathway leading from a prosodically separated CTMP ni xiang to a prosodically unseparated CTMP ni xiang may be adopted to account for the formation of parenthetical CTMP ni xiang and its various contextual properties.
Abstract Contrary to the claims of previous studies, the development of Modern Chinese right-peri... more Abstract Contrary to the claims of previous studies, the development of Modern Chinese right-periphery (RP) pragmatic marker bushi does not involve the shi X bushi X construction, and the development of Modern Chinese left-periphery (LP) pragmatic marker bushi does not involve the negative copula use of bushi in a clause-medial position. Rather, the RP pragmatic marker bushi originates from the use of the negative adjective bushi in a clause-final position as a rhetorical question tag, while the LP pragmatic marker bushi originates from the negative adjective bushi used as a negative response to the previous speaker's question or statement. Our accounts are supported by cross-linguistic data on the grammaticalization pathway from a negative response marker or a negative rhetorical question tag to a pragmatic/discourse marker. Expanding beyond earlier works, this paper proposes two diachronic trajectories for the formation of phrases or structures involving shi in Chinese: one develops from shi as a demonstrative and later a copula; the other originates from shi as an adjective meaning ‘correct, true’. These two trajectories account for the synchronic and diachronic issues of almost all the constructions involving shi in Chinese.
This article claims that the conjecturing clause-taking huaiyi predicate in Modern Chinese (e.g. ... more This article claims that the conjecturing clause-taking huaiyi predicate in Modern Chinese (e.g. Renmen huaiyi zheming taoyi de jingcha hen keneng canyu le zheqi anjian. ‘People conjecture that the escaped policeman had probably been involved in the case.’) is actually a parenthetical structure. Diachronically, it does not develop from an NP-taking huaiyi predicate (e.g. Wo hen huaiyi zhe ge shuofa. ‘I doubt the statement a lot.’) or a doubting clause-taking huaiyi predicate (e.g. Du Yifu changchang huaiyi ta yu erzi you guo nazhong ge’ermen yiqi de shiguang. ‘Du Yifu often doubted that he had had times of buddy loyalty with his son.’). Rather, it develops from a prosodically separated conjecturing huaiyi predicate. The goal of this paper is to show that its formation did not follow the commonly accepted matrix clause pathway, whereby a parenthetical clause-taking predicate develops from a corresponding matrix clause structure. Instead, it followed a hypothesized conjoining pathway,...
This article claims that the conjecturing clause-taking huaiyi predicate in Modern Chinese (e.g. ... more This article claims that the conjecturing clause-taking huaiyi predicate in Modern Chinese (e.g. Renmen huaiyi zheming taoyi de jingcha hen keneng canyu le zheqi anjian. ‘People conjecture that the escaped policeman had probably been involved in the case.’) is actually a parenthetical structure. Diachronically, it does not develop from an NP-taking huaiyi predicate (e.g. Wo hen huaiyi zhe ge shuofa. ‘I doubt the statement a lot.’) or a doubting clause-taking huaiyi predicate (e.g. Du Yifu changchang huaiyi ta yu erzi you guo nazhong ge’ermen yiqi de shiguang. ‘Du Yifu often doubted that he had had times of buddy loyalty with his son.’). Rather, it develops from a prosodically separated conjecturing huaiyi predicate. The goal of this paper is to show that its formation did not follow the commonly accepted matrix clause pathway, whereby a parenthetical clause-taking predicate develops from a corresponding matrix clause structure. Instead, it followed a hypothesized conjoining pathway,...
Modern Chinese Pseudo-Possessive-Object Constructions (shortened as Modern Chinese PPO constructi... more Modern Chinese Pseudo-Possessive-Object Constructions (shortened as Modern Chinese PPO constructions; e.g. ta shuo le wo de haohua (他说了我的好话) ‘he has put in a good word for me’ and ta chi le wo de doufu (他吃了我的豆腐) ‘he has taken advantage of me’) are actually constructions displaying possessor-affectee syncretism. They derive from Early Modern Chinese Real-Possessive-Object constructions in bridging contexts, some examples being wo ye quande liewei daren de jiu (我也劝得列位大人的酒), ‘I also urged all the magistrates here to finish drinking your wine’ and shi nage zai jie wo de duan li (是那个在揭我的短哩) ‘who is uncovering my demerits’. Di-transitive constructions in Middle Chinese and Early Modern Chinese (e.g. Changxing! quan er yibei jiu (长星,劝尔一杯酒) ‘Comet! I urge you (to finish drinking) a cup of wine’ and shuru gan jie wu duanchu (竖儒敢揭吾短处) ‘how dare the Confucius scholar uncover my demerits’) have provided structural templates for the formation of Modern Chinese PPO constructions. They also have l...
Uploads