Cover not available
Part of
Cognitive Linguistics and the Study of Chinese
Edited by Dingfang Shu, Hui Zhang and Lifei Zhang
[Human Cognitive Processing 67] 2019
► pp. 47–72

Chapter 1
When constructions meet context

The polysemy of Mandarin hai revisited

 | Masaryk University
This study investigates the synchronic polysemy of the Mandarin construction hai. Drawing on authentic and contextualized examples of spoken language, I propose that hai prototypically functions as an indicator that the ensuing proposition refers back to some relevant presupposition in prior discourse, which is either explicitly stated or inferable. With this contrastive alignment of two propositions, the reading of hai as ‘temporal continuance’ emerges naturally by way of pragmatic inferencing. In other words, I demonstrate that the various meanings identified in previous studies arise from an interplay between hai’s schematic sense and discourse pragmatics. This study presents not only a unified account for the synchronic polysemy of hai, but also has significance for the study of constructions in discourse.
Keywords: contextualization, discourse pragmatics, presupposition, schematic sense
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Theoretical assumptions
    • 3.1Defining ‘context’
    • 3.2Constructionist approaches
    • 3.3Usage-based models
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.Findings and discussions
    • 5.1The diachronic basis of the schematic function of hai
    • 5.2The hai construction
    • 5.3Concessive use
    • 5.4Marginality of hai
    • 5.5Additive use of hai
    • 5.6Comparative use of hai
    • 5.7Alternative use of hai
  • 6.Where do different interpretations of hai come from?
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.67.03lu
References (71)
References
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Biq, Y. 2001. The grammaticalization of jiushi and jiushishuo in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies in English literature and linguistics, 27(2), 103–124.Google Scholar
. 2004. Construction, reanalysis, and stance: ‘V yi ge N’ and variations in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1655–1672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (Ed.). 2012. Contrastive studies in construction grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Scheibman, J. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37(4), 575–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chu, C. C. 1998. A discourse grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chu, C. C., & Ji, Z. 1999. A cognitive-functional grammar of Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: Crane Publishing.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1998. Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 151–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donazzan, M. 2005. Additive and scalar particles: A case study of Mandarin Chinese adverb HAI. Paper presented at the Workshop on EVEN and friends, November 5th , 2005, Paris.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. 1985. Competing motivations. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 343–365). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards, & M. D. Lalmpert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Eds.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & Catherine O’Connor, M. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. 2005. A frame-based approach to case alternations: The swarm-class verbs in Czech. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(3/4), 475–512.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J. (Eds). 2004. Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In J. Östman and M. Fried (Eds.), Constructions grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 17–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hegarty, M., & Borthen, K. 2003. Cognitive status, information structure, and pronominal reference to clausally introduced entities. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 12(3), 281–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Z. and Gries S.Th. 2009. Schematic meaning and pragmatic inference: Mandarin adverbs hai, zai and you. Corpora, 4(1), 33–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, H. 1999. A discourse-pragmatic analysis of the committal -ci in Korean: A synthetic approach to the form-meaning relation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 243–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive meaning: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, Y. C., Cheng, R. L., Foster, L., Ho, S. H., Hou, J. Y., & Yip, M. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A practical reference grammar for students and teachers (Vol.II). Taipei: Crane Publishing.Google Scholar
Liu, F-h. 1996. The meaning of hai. In T-f. Cheng, Y. Li, & H. Yhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics and the 4th International Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Vol. 1 (pp. 205–222). Los Angeles, CA: Graduate Students in Linguistics, University of Southern California.
. 2000. The scalar particle hai in Chinese. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale, 29(1), 41–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, J-m. 1985. Hai he geng [‘still’ and ‘even’]. In J-m. Lu, & Z. Ma (Eds.), Xiandai hanyu xuci sanlun (A discussion of the function words in modern Mandarin) (pp. 38–59). Beijing: Beijing University Press.Google Scholar
Lu, S-x. 1980. Xiandai hanyu babaici (800 words in modern Chinese). Peking: Shangwu.Google Scholar
Lu, W-l. 2014. Contextualization and blending: A cognitive linguistic approach to the semantics of in. Theory and Practice in English Studies, 7(2), 97–114.Google Scholar
. 2016. Polysemy and the semantic-pragmatic interface: The case of up in a context-based model. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(4), 563–589.Google Scholar
. 2017. Perspectivization and contextualization in semantic analysis: A parsimonious polysemy approach to in. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviwensis, 134, 247–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Time, tense and viewpoint shift across languages: A multiple-parallel-text approach to “tense shifting” in a tenseless language. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(2), 377–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, W-l., & Verhagen, A. 2016. Shifting viewpoints: How does that actually work across languages? An exercise in parallel text analysis. In B. Dancygier, W-l. Lu, & A. Verhagen (Eds.). Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities (pp. 169–190). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, W-l., Verhagen, A., & Su, I-w. 2018. A multiple-parallel-text approach for viewpoint research across languages: The case of demonstratives in English and Chinese. In Sz. Csábi (Ed.), Expressive minds and artistic creations (pp. 131–157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ma, Z. 1985. Guanyu biaoshi chengdu qian de fuci hai (The adverb hai indicating a lower degree). In J-m. Lu, & Z. Ma (Eds.), Xiandai hanyu xuci sanlun (A discussion of the function words in modern Mandarin), (pp. 60–74). Beijing: Beijing University Press.Google Scholar
Mey, J. 2001. Pragmatics: An introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. 1993. ‘Continuity’ within three scalar models: The polysemy of adverbial still. Journal of Semantics, 10, 193–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Cross-world continuity and the polysemy of adverbial still. In G. Fauconnier, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar (pp. 179–226). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Lambrecht, K. 1996. Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72, 215–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oh, S-Y. 2003. The Korean verbal suffix -ess-: A diachronic account of its multiple uses. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1181–1222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ono, T., & Thompson, S. A. 1995. What can conversation tell us about syntax? In P. W. Davis (Ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes in the new linguistics (pp. 213–271). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Östman, J. 2004. Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In M. Fried, & J. Östman (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Östman, J., & Fried, M. (Eds). 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J., & Virtanen, T. 1999. Theme, comment, and newness as figures in information structuring. In K. van Hoek, A. A. Kibrik, & L. Noordman (Eds.), Discourse studies in cognitive linguistics (pp. 91–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandra, D. 1998. What linguists can and can’t tell you about the human mind: A reply to Croft. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(4), 361–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shao, J-m. 2002. Zhuming zhongnian yuyanxuejia zixuanji, Shaojingming juan (Self-selected collections of distinguished mid-aged linguists. Volume of Shaojingming). Hefei, Anhui: Anhui Educational Publishing.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 389–405). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Tai, J. H-Y. 1985. Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (49–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 2003. Polysemy’s paradoxes. Language Sciences, 25, 637–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2005. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, L f-m. 2002. From a motion verb to an aspectual marker: A study of guo in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 28(2), 57–84.Google Scholar
Wang, L. 1992. Zhongguo xiandai yufa (Modern Chinese grammar). Shanghai: Shanghai Publishing.Google Scholar
Wang, Y-f. 2003. Thinking as saying: Shuo (‘say’) in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and BBS talk. Language Sciences, 25, 457–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xing, Z. 1999. Semantic change in grammaticalization: A case study of huán還. Paper presented at the 11th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Yeh, M. 1996. The historical development of 還hai in Mandarin. In T-F. Cheng, Y. Li, & H. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics and the 4th International Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Vol. 2 (pp. 484–496). Los Angeles, CA: Graduate Students in Linguistics, University of Southern California.
1998. On 還hai in Mandarin. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 26(2), 236–280.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Zhang, Yi
2022. Chinese adverbs. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:2 ► pp. 330 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.