Chapter 1
When constructions meet context
The polysemy of Mandarin hai revisited
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.
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
References (71)
References
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biq, Y. 2004. Construction, reanalysis, and stance: ‘V yi ge N’ and variations in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1655–1672. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boas, H. C. (Ed.). 2012. Contrastive studies in construction grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J. L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Malden, MA: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chao, Y. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chu, C. C. 1998. A discourse grammar of Mandarin Chinese. New York: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chu, C. C., & Ji, Z. 1999. A cognitive-functional grammar of Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: Crane Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. 1998. Linguistic evidence and mental representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 151–173. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. D. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Du Bois, J. W. 1985. Competing motivations. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 343–365). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Eds.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fried, M., & Östman, J. 2005. Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive meaning: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
Liu, F-h. 2000. The scalar particle hai in Chinese. Cahiers de Linguistique – Asie Orientale, 29(1), 41–84. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lu, S-x. 1980.
Xiandai hanyu babaici (800 words in modern Chinese). Peking: Shangwu.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lu, W-l. 2016. Polysemy and the semantic-pragmatic interface: The case of up in a context-based model. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(4), 563–589.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lu, W-l. 2017. Perspectivization and contextualization in semantic analysis: A parsimonious polysemy approach to in
. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviwensis, 134, 247–264. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lu, W-l. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mey, J. 2001. Pragmatics: An introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Michaelis, L. A. 1993. ‘Continuity’ within three scalar models: The polysemy of adverbial still
. Journal of Semantics, 10, 193–237. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Michaelis, L. A. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Michaelis, L. A., & Lambrecht, K. 1996. Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72, 215–247. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oh, S-Y. 2003. The Korean verbal suffix -ess-: A diachronic account of its multiple uses. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1181–1222. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, J. R. 2003. Polysemy’s paradoxes. Language Sciences, 25, 637–655. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tomasello, M. 2005. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, 31–55. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wang, L. 1992.
Zhongguo xiandai yufa (Modern Chinese grammar). Shanghai: Shanghai Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wang, Y-f. 2003. Thinking as saying: Shuo (‘say’) in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and BBS talk. Language Sciences, 25, 457–488. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
Yeh, M. 1998. On 還hai in Mandarin. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 26(2), 236–280.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.