Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 20:4 (2019) ► pp.634–659

The inventory structure of Person in the Chinese dialect of Puxian

| Shanghai International Studies University
One way to classify person systems across languages is by means of the semantic category of person and/or number, where person forms, with distinct referential values, are supposed to be in complementary distribution to each other. However, when we look into some finer details in a language-particular person system, i.e. that of the Puxian dialect in Chinese, there are person forms or expressions that are engaged in supplementary distribution and have meanings beyond what is literally said (Grice 1989). Different from previous approaches, which tended to analyze a person system into separate domains of study, e.g. reflexivity, intensification, logophoricity, empathy, etc., the author proposes that all the person-related meanings (semantics & pragmatics) constitute a “function inventory”, which has a stable structure called “inventory structure”. In the structure, each of the overtly expressed person meanings is assigned to a choice of node, from which multiple outcomes can be developed. The significance of this approach is that it tries to circumvent some pre-established categories and focuses instead on meaningful differences in a system (Sausurre 1983).
Keywords: Puxian dialect, person, functional inventory, inventory structure
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The person expressions under investigation
  • 3.Meanings beyond person and number: The extra-indexicals
    • 3.1Person meanings related to selfhood
      • 3.1.1Unique self
      • 3.1.2Sameness of referents
      • 3.1.3Logophoric self & empathetic self
      • 3.1.4Reflexivity & enhanced reflexivity
      • 3.1.5By self
    • 3.2Person expressions related to significance
      • 3.2.1Significant plurals
      • 3.2.2Significant others
      • 3.2.3Significant multitude
  • 4.Summarizing the person-related meanings in the inventory structure
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 24 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00052.wu
References (46)
References
Bhat, D. N. 2004. Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B. & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this we? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 71(1). 83–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. & Gilman, A. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in Language, 253–276. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cai, Guomei. 2006. Puxian fangyan yanjiu [Studies on the Puxian dialect]. Fuzhou: Fujian Normal University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Chen, Yanlin. 2004. Quanzhou fangyan de daici [Pronouns in the Quanzhou dialect]. Shanghai: Shanghai Normal University. (MA thesis.)Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10(2). 141–177.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter & Hermon, Cabriella & Yanti. 2015. Grammar of binding in the languages of the world: Innate or learned? Cognition 1411. 138–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2009. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. (Oxford Studies in Typologies and Linguistic Theory). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Wayne A. 2012. Meaning, implicature, and linguistic variability. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(2). 245–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deo, Ashwini. 2015. Diachronic semantics. Annual Review of Linguistics 11. 179–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory, vol. 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena (ed.). 2005. Clusivity: Typological and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of human language, 58–90. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4). 781–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1). 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1). 40–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Framework-free grammatical theory. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 1st edn., 341–365. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
He, Wei. 1989. Huojia fangyan yanjiu [Research on the Huojia dialect]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Hirose, Yukio. 2002. Viewpoint and the nature of the Japanese reflexive zibun . Cognitive Linguistics 13(4). 357–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, Willem & Siewierska, Anna. 2007. A construction grammar account of possessive constructions in Lancashire dialect: Some advantages and challenges. English Language & Linguistics 11(2). 407–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2013. I love me some datives: Expressive meaning, free datives, and F-implicature. In Gutzmann, Daniel & Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Beyond expressives: Explorations in use-conditional meaning, of current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface, 151–199. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 1994. The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: A study with special reference to Chinese (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ingram, David. 1978. Typology and universals of personal pronouns. In Greenberg, Joseph H. & Ferguson, Charles A. & Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 31, 213–247. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker. 2006. Focused assertion of identity: A typology of intensifiers. Linguistic Typology 10(2). 223–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2000a. Locally free self-forms, logophoricity and intensification in English. English Language and Linguistics 4(2). 183–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard, & Siemund, Peter. 2000b. The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica 17(1). 39–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 1993. Arguments against “subject” and “direct object” as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History & Philology 631. 759–813.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. & Yang, Jiangling. 2004. Reflexive and middle marking in Dulong-Rawang. Himalayan Linguistics 21. 1–13.Google Scholar
Li, Rulong & Chen, Zhangtai. 1991. Lun Minfangyan neibu de zhuyao chayi [Discussion on the main differences among Min dialects]. In Chen, Zhangtai & Li, Rulong (eds.), Minyu yanjiu [Studies on Min], 58–138. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Liu, Danqing. 2011. Yuyan kucang leixingxue gouxiang [Linguistic inventory typology: A proposal for a new approach of linguistic typology]. Dangdai Yuyanxue [Contemporary Linguistics] 2011(4). 289–303.Google Scholar
Lu, Zhaojun. 2011. Shanxi Jiaocheng fangyan daici yanjiu [Studies on pronouns in Shanxi Jiaocheng dialect]. Shaanxi: Shaanxi Normal University.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2007. What, if anything, is typology? Linguistic Typology 11(1). 231–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oshima, David Y. 2004. Zibun revisited: Empathy, logophoricity, and binding. In Tur, Sylwia & Levi, Susannah (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th NWLC, (University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 23), 175–189. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
2006. Perspectives in reported discourse. Stanford: Stanford University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Parker, Frank & Riley, Kathryn & Meyer, Charles F. 1990. Untriggered reflexive pronouns in English. American Speech 65(1): 50–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1983. Course in general linguistics. London: Duckworth. (Translation of Harris 1983.)Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, Jianming. 2010. The function of pronominal expressions in Puxian. Lancaster: Lancaster University. (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
. 2013a. Puxianhua de rencheng linshuyu [Pronominal possessors in Puxian dialect]. Yuyan Yanjiu Jikan [Collective Papers on Linguistic Researches] 101. 280–290.Google Scholar
. 2013b. Rencheng “juhejiegou” lilun de Hanyu shijiao [Sinitic perspective on the paradigmatic structure of person marking]. Dangdai Yuyanxue [Contemporary Linguistics] 2013(4). 393–404.Google Scholar
Wu, Yunji. 2005. Synchronic and diachronic study of the grammar of the Chinese Xiang dialects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar