Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 37:1 (2020) ► pp.83–126

A study of the development of the Chinese correlative comparative construction from the perspective of constructionalization

ORCID logo | City University of Hong Kong
| Stanford University
The paper addresses the emergence and development of the Chinese correlative comparative construction (CrCC) from the perspective of constructionalization. Most previous historical studies of the CrCC take a grammaticalization approach (e.g., Long 2013), focusing mainly on morphosyntax alone rather than investigating syntax and semantics in an integrated way. However, the architecture of construction grammar requires approaching linguistic analysis with both form and meaning equally in mind. This approach suggests that what have sometimes been considered to be merely different formal expressions of the CrCC are in fact two different constructions, one correlative, and the other a simple incremental. We identify the critical contexts (see Diewald & Smirnova 2010) that by hypothesis enabled the constructionalization of the CrCC, and point to the importance of considering network reorganization and multiple sources in the development of the simple incremental construction (see e.g., Boas 2008; Van de Velde et al. 2013).
Keywords: Chinese, Grammaticalization, constructionalization, correlative comparative construction, incremental comparative construction, constructional networks, schemas
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some basic tenets of Cognitive Construction Grammar and of constructionalization
    • 2.1Cognitive Construction Grammar
    • 2.2Constructionalization and constructional changes
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.The correlative comparative construction in Modern Chinese
  • 5.The development of the Chinese correlative comparative schema
    • 5.1Pattern 1: [[yùe XNP(location/person/object)] ↔ [to cross/to surpass SEM]]
    • 5.2Pattern 2: [[yùe XV/Adj] ↔ [more SEM]]
    • 5.3Pattern 3: [[yùe XVP yùe YVP/Adj] ↔ [the more SEMx, the more SEMy]]
  • 6.The development of the incremental comparative construction
    • 6.1The early development of the [[yùeláiyùe XVP/Adj] ↔ [increasingly SEM]] InCC pattern
    • 6.2The development of [[suízhé X, yùeláiyùe YVP/Adj] ↔ [along with X, increasingly SEM]]
  • 7.The constructional networks in which the Chinese correlative comparative and incremental comparative constructions have participated over time
    • 7.1Networks in the constructionalization of CrCC
    • 7.2Networks in the constructionalization of the InCC
    • 7.3Summary of the development of the CrCC and InCC
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 7 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18025.zha
References (71)
References
Anderson, Curt. 2013. Inherent and coerced gradability across categories: Manipulating pragmatic halos with sorta. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference 231, 81–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto. 2010. Surpass comparatives in Sinitic and beyond: Typology and grammaticalization. Linguistics 48(4). 919–950. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi, Tonya Kim Dewey, Thórhallur Eythórsson, Chiara Fedriani & Thomas Smitherman. 2013. The story of ‘Woe’. Journal of European Studies 41(3). 321–377.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 1997. On the semantics of the comparative conditions. Linguistics and Philosophy. 20(3). 229–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice Julie. 2012. Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2008. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 61. 113–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Nigel Vincent & George Walden. 2015. On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3). 363–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, G., & Yule, G. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. In Doris Schönefeld (ed.), Constructions all over: Case studies and theoretical implications, special issue of Constructions. Düsseldorf: Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet Duesseldorf.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change. Harlow, Essex: Longman, Pearson Education.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2013. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. Does innovation need reanalysis? In Evie Coussé & Ferdinand von Mengden (eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change, 23–48. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2016. How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28(1). 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Frauke D’hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel van Goethem. 2018. The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2). 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 103–120. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions SV1-9.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele and Elena Smirnova. 2010. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2008. Constructions and constructs: Mapping a shift between predication and attribution. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Constructions and language change, 47–79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013. Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann and Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 15–33. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Heiko Narrog & Haiping Long. 2016. Constructional change vs. grammaticalization: From compounding to derivation. Studies in Language 40(1). 137–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Diachronic collostructional analysis. How to use it, and how to deal with confounding factors. In Kathryn Allan & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Current methods in historical semantics, 133–160. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Three open questions in diachronic construction grammar. In Evie Coussé, Joel Olofsson & Peter Andersson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar, 22–39. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization – A look from its fringes and its components, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2014. Comparing English comparative correlatives. Postdoctoral dissertation, Osnabrück University.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale (eds.). 2013. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüning, Matthias & Geert Booij. 2014. From compounding to derivation: The rise of derivational affixes through constructionalization. In Ferdinand von Mengden & Horst Simon (eds.), Refining grammaticalization. Special issue of Folia Linguistica 48(2). 579–604.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Li, Xiao & Carlos A. Fasola. 2010. The semantics of yue…yue in Mandarin Chinese. In Lauren Eby Clemens & Chi-Ming Louis Liu (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL 20), 36–53. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Lin, Jo-Wang. 2007. On the semantics of comparative correlatives in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Semantics 24(2). 169–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Shizhen & Yunxia Ji. 2007. A tentative analysis of the origin of Middle Chinese grammar and its historical position. Macrolinguistics 11. 141–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, Guofu. 2013. [Yuelaiyue…] goushi de yufahua [The grammaticalization of the [yuelaiyue …] construction]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of Chinese Language] 11. 25–33.Google Scholar
Lü, Shuxiang. 1980. Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci [The eight hundred words in Modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
. 1985. Jindai Hanyu zhidaici [Demonstratives and pronouns in Early Mandarin]. Shanghai: Xuelin Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1988. The comparative conditional construction in English, German and Chinese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 141, 176–187. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics 121. 47–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2014. Constructions and environments: Copular, passive, and related constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The dynamic of assemblies and constructions. In Beatrix Busse & Ruth Möhlig-Falke (eds.), Patterns in language and linguistics: New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept, 155–192. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Peyraube, Alain. 1996. Recent issues in Chinese historical syntax. In C.-T. J. Huang & Audrey Li Yen Hui (eds.), New horizons in Chinese linguistics, 161–213. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1988. Variation and historical linguistics. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 89(2). 136–154.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Language 86(3). 486–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1983 [1916]. Course in general linguistics. Translated by Roy Harris. Chicago: Open Court (first published in French in 1916).Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Annette Mantlik. 2015. Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profile. Anglia 133(4). 583–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuessler, Alex. 2015. New Old Chinese. Diachronica 32(4). 571–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, Elena. 2015. Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. In Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, & Spike Gildea (eds.) Diachronic construction grammar, 81–106. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sun, Chaofen. 1996. Word-order change and grammaticalization in the history of Chinese. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, Tiago Timponi. 2015. On the relation between inheritance and change: The Constructional convergence and construction network reconfiguration hypotheses. In Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, & Spike Gildea (eds.) Diachronic construction grammar, 173–211. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2014. Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 1(1). 3–21. Slightly modified reprint in Sylvie Hancil & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization – Theory and data, 87–105. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet & Lobke Ghesquière. 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language 37(3). 473–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Cui. 2016. “Hongtao yue lingluan” gai ruhe lijie? [How to interpret “hongtao yue linglun”?], Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of Chinese Language] 51. 615–616.Google Scholar
Wold, Dag. 1991. A few properties of the…the… comparative constructions, In Matt Alexander & Monica Dressler (eds), Second Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistic Society of Midamerica (FLSM2) 272–281. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2018. Ditransitives in Middle English: On semantic specialization and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language and Linguistics 22(1). 149–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhan, Fangqiong. 2017. The constructionalization of a set of Chinese connectives. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 46(1). 104–144.Google Scholar
Zhan, Fangqiong & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2019. The development of the shì copula construction: A constructional perspective. Functions of Language 26(2). 139–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhan, Weidong, Rui Guo & Yirong Chen. 2003. The CCL Corpus of Chinese Texts: 700 million Chinese Characters, the 11th Century B.C. – present, [URL]
Zhang, Jiahe. 2010. Chengdu fuci yue, yuefa de yufahua ji xiangguan wenti [The grammaticalization of the degree adverbs yue and yuefa ], Hanyu Xuexi [Chinese Learning] 51. 69–75.Google Scholar
Zhu, Qizhi. 2010. Suizhe A he yuelaiyue A de tongxian yanjiu jiqi lishi kaocha [A diachronic study on the co-occurrence of suizhe A and yuelaiyue A], Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Global Chinese Teaching] 11. 66–72.Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Li, Yi, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Weiwei Zhang
2023. Beyond dynasties and binary alternations: a diachronic corpus study of four-way variability in Chinese theme-recipient constructions. Folia Linguistica 0:0 DOI logo
Li, Yi, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Weiwei Zhang
2023. The theme-recipient alternation in Chinese: tracking syntactic variation across seven centuries. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19:2 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Kuo, Yueh Hsin
2022. Bidirectionality between modal and conditional constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Diachronica 39:1 ► pp. 88 ff. DOI logo
Zhan, Fangqiong
2022. The Development of the Chinese Monosyllabic Motion-Directional Constructions: A Diachronic Constructional Approach. In Chinese Lexical Semantics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13250], ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo
Zhan, Fangqiong & Chaofen Sun
2022. The development of the Chinese discourse marker and expressive wanle. Journal of Pragmatics 189 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Zhou, Chenlei
2022. On the disjunctive constructions and related constructions in Zhoutun. Lingua 266 ► pp. 103183 ff. DOI logo
Horsch, Jakob
2021. Slovak comparative correlatives. Constructions and Frames 13:2 ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo
Horsch, Jakob
2024. Cuanto(s) más datos, (tanto) mejor. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.