Bidirectional transfers of the ditransitive construction in Chinese
The Chinese ditransitive construction expresses the ‘bidirectional’ transfers: the movement of the patient either
(a) from the subject to indirect object or (b) from the indirect object to subject, a feature that has not been identified in
other languages. This construction is thus different from the ditransitive construction in English and other languages whose
ditransitive constructions can express only a ‘single-direction’ transfer: the movement of the patient from the subject to
indirect object only. This article addresses the reason for the unusual functions of the ditransitive construction in Chinese. A
parallel difference between these two languages is found in the semantic structures of those ditransitive verbs: Chinese coins a
single verb to express the same type of ‘transfer’ action with opposite directions, but English usually invents two distinct verbs
to denote the two antonymous meanings whose directions are opposite; e.g., the Chinese verb jiè subsumes the
meanings of both borrow and lend in English. This article argues that the different meanings of
the ditransitive constructions of Chinese and English result from the different conceptualizations of their ditransitive verbs. In
construction grammar, the following question remains unanswered: where does the meaning of the construction come from? The present
analysis provides evidence that the meanings of the verbs within the construction are capable of determining the meaning/function
of the whole construction.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The functions of ditransitive constructions in Chinese and English
- 3.The different ditransitive verbs in Chinese and English
- 4.The different conceptualizations of ‘transfer’ verbs between Chinese and English
- 5.The interaction between the meanings of verbs and the functions of the ditransitive construction
- I.Explanation on the basis of the hypothesis of a continuum between the lexicon and grammar
- II.Explanation on the basis of the hypothesis of the usage-based model
- 6.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
References (46)
References
Bresnan, Joan (eds.). (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, Joan L. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, Joan L. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of construction. In Thomas Hoffmann and Grameme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chao, Yuen-Ren. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chomsky, Noam. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publication.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul, and O’Connor, Mary C. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone. Language 64(3), 501–38. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gerwin, Johanna. (2014). Ditransitives in British English dialects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. (1989). A Unified Account of the Semantics of the Ditransitive. Berkeley Linguistic Society 151, 79–90. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. (1992). The Inherent Semantics of Argument Structure: The Case of the English Ditransitive Construction. Cognitive Linguistics 31, 37–74. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. (1997). Relationships between verb and construction. In Marjolijn Verspoor and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexicon and grammar (pp. 383–398). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 383–98.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Journal of Foreign Languages, 31, 1–11.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dik, Simon. (1989). The theory of functional grammar 1: The structure of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huang, James, Audrey Li, and Yafei Li. (2007). The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hudson, Richard A. (1990). English word grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. (1988). Usage-Based Model. in Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 127–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. (2000). A Dynamic Usage-based Model. In Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical and less So. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and M. Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 101–159). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Larson, R. (1988). On the doubt object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 191, 335–392.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Li, Yuming. (1996). Lingshu guanxi yu shuangbinju fenxi [Genitive relation and the analysis of the ditransitive construction]. Yuyan jiaoxue yu yanjiu [Language teaching and research], 31, 62–73.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lu, Jianming. (2002). Zaitan ‘Chi-Le Ta San Ge Pingguo’ Yilei Jiegou de Xingzhi [A Double-Object Analysis of the Mandarin Pattern of ‘Chi Le Ta San Ge Pingguo’]. Zhongguo Yuwen 41, 317–25.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie. (2010). Studies in ditransitive constructions. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mukherjee, Joybrato. (2005). English ditransitive verbs: Aspects of theory, description and a usage-based model. Amsterdam: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perlmutter, David M. and Paul M. Postal. (1983). Toward a universal characterization of passivization. In David M. Perlmutter (eds.), Studies in relation gramma I (pp. 3–19). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. (1993). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago and Stanford: University of Chicago Press and the Center for the Study of Language and Information.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sag, Ivan. A., Tom Wasow, and Emily Bender. (2003). Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language Information Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shi, Yuzhi. 2004. Han Ying shuangbin jiegou chabie de gainianhua yuanyin [The motivation of conceptualization for the differences of double-object construction between Chinese and English]. Waiyu jiaoxue yu yanjiu [Foreign Language Teaching and Research] 36(2), 83–89.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shi, Yuzhi. 2016. Hanyu yufa yanhuashi [The evolution of Chinese grammar]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Education Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wu, Jing and Yuzhi Shi. 2009. Zhiyue Hanyu yufa jiegou xuanze de yinsu [Factors in determining the selection of constructions]. Language Teaching and Research 61. 17–24.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Xu, Jie. (2004). Yuyishang de Tongzhi Guanxi yu Jufashang de Shuangbinyu Jushi [The semantic relationship of co-reference and the syntactic construction of double objects]. Zhongguo Yuwen 41, 302–313.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yang, Bojun, and He Leshi. (1992). Guhanyu yufa jiqi fazhan [The grammar of Classical Chinese and its development]. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yang, Chengkai. (1996). Hanyu yufa lilun yanjiu [Studies in Chinese grammar theory]. Shenyang: Liaoning Education Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zhang, Bojiang. (2006). Guanyu ‘Suoqu Lei Shuangbinyu’ [On the so-called ‘take’ type double object]. Yuyanxue Luncong, 331, 298–312.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zhang, Daozhen. (2002). A dictionary of current English usage. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zhang, Guoxian. (2001). Zhiyue Duoshi Chengfen Juwei Shixian de Yuyi Yinsu [The Semantic Constraints on the Syntactic Mapping of the ‘Deprived’ Constituent]. Zhongguo Yuwen 61, 508–518.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zhang, Ning. (1998). The interactions between construction meaning and lexical meaning. Linguistics 36(5), 957–980. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zhu, Dexi. (1982). Yufa jiangyi [Lecture notes on grammar]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Chen, Lvfang
2024.
Analysis of Chinese-English Differences in “Degree Adverb + Noun” Constructions in the Perspective of Constructive Grammar Based on Pattern Recognition Technique.
Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9:1
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Xu, Hai
2022.
Acquisition of English Ditransitives by Mandarin Chinese Learners. In
Challenges Encountered by Chinese ESL Learners,
► pp. 165 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.