Cover not available
Part of
New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change
Edited by Sylvie Hancil, Tine Breban and José Vicente Lozano
[Studies in Language Companion Series 202] 2018
► pp. 361–380

The development of the Chinese scalar additive coordinators derived from prohibitives

A constructionist perspective

| Kwansei Gakuin University
| Nagoya University
In this paper, we trace from a constructionist perspective the diachronic development of the Chinese scalar additive coordinators meaning roughly ‘let alone’ derived from a prohibitive expression ‘don’t say’. We argue that a construction schema formed by the combination of a prohibitive marker with a SAY verb conveying the scalar additive meaning may have been established in Ancient Chinese. This construction schema analogically sanctioned more forms of such pattern into scalar additive coordinators over time, including biéshuō in Contemporary Chinese. The development of the scalar additive coordinators derived from the prohibitives is more likely to be considered as a case of constructionalization. Crucially, it is the entire construction that has spread over time. The present study demonstrates that prohibitives can also serve clause combining functions.
Keywords: scalar additive coordinator, prohibitives, constructionalization, biéshuō
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The constructional approach
  • 3.The diachronic development of the SAC
    • 3.1The discourse contexts giving rise to the SAC
    • 3.2The rise of the SAC
  • 4.The diffusional change of the SAC construction
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.202.15zhu
References (45)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and Commands. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte & Gildea, Spike. 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language Series 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Pekins, Revere Dale & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Jiajun. 2017. Dialogicity in dialogue. Deriving Chinese discourse marker bieshuo from the negative imperative. Journal of Pragmatics 110: 34–49.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language Series 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 103–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrushina, Nina. 2008. Imperatives in conditional and subordinate clauses. In Subordination and Coordination Strategies in North Asian Languages [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory Series 300], Edward J. Vajda (ed.), 123–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dong, Xiufang. 2007. Cihuihua yu huayubiaoji de xingcheng (Lexicalization and the formation of discourse markers). Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue (Chinese Teaching in the World) 1: 50–61.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O’connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. The case of let alone . Language 64(3): 501–538.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2016. Toward a typology for additive markers. Lingua 180: 69–100.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nicolas & Patten, Amanda. 2011. Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 92–104. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Han, Lei. 2008. Lianci “bieshuo” gongneng tanxi (On the function of the connective bieshuo). In Xiandai Hanyu Xuci Yanjiu yu Duiwai Hanyu Jiaoxu (The study of grammatical words in Contemporary Chinese and teaching Chinese as a foreign language), Vol. 2, Huyang Qi (ed.), 121–134. Shanghai: Fudan University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & König, Ekkehard. 1998. Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 20–3], Johan van der Auwera & Donall Baoill (eds), 563–640. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language Series 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hou, Ruifen. 2009. “Bieshuo” yu “bieti” ( Bieshuo and bieti ). Zhongguo Yuwen (Studies of the Chinese Language) 2: 131–140.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Lansheng. 1991. Jinzhici “bie” kaoyuan (Explore the source of the prohibitive marker bie). Yuwen Yanjiu (Linguistic Research) 1: 42–47.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles. A Comparative Perspective. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese. A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
. 2012b. Modality, Subjectivity and Semantic Change. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Languages 14(2): 177–202.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peyraube, Alain. 1996. Recent issues in Chinese historical syntax. In New Horizons in Chinese Linguistics, James C-T. J. Huang & Yen-Hui Audrey Li (eds), 161–213. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Jan, Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in Grammaticalisation. In Subjectivity and Subjectification, Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds), 31–54. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification, In Motives for Language Change, Raymond Hickey (ed.), 124–139. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Inter subjectivity and (inter)subjectification. A reassessment. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 29–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Theory and data in diachronic Construction Grammar. The case of the what with construction. Studies in Language 36(3): 576–602.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Lejeune, Ludo (with Valentin Goussev). 2013. The prohibitive. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <[URL]> (29 October 2017).Google Scholar
Wang, Li. 1958. Hanyushi Lunwenji (Paper collection on the history of Chinese). Beijing: Science Publishing.Google Scholar
Wang, Weihui. 2003. Hanyu “shuolei ci” de lishi yanbian yu gongshi fenbu (The historical change and synchronic distribution of the Chinese SAY verbs). Zhongguo Yuwen 4: 329–342.Google Scholar
Wang, Wenhu, Zhang, Yizhou & Zhou, Jiayun. 1989. Sichuan Fangyan Cidian (Dictionary of Sichuan Dialects). Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Publishing House.Google Scholar
Xing, Fuyi. 2001. Hanyu Fuju Yanjiu (Research on the Chinese complex sentences). Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Yin, Hailiang. 2009. Xiandai Hanyu “bieshuo” de pianzhang xianjie gongneng jiqi yufahua (Study on the cohesive function of bieshuo in Contemporary Chinese and its grammaticalization). Xi’nan Nongye Daxue Xuebao (Journal of Southwest Agricultural University) [Social Science Edition] 7(4): 111–116.Google Scholar
Zhou, Li. 2013. Qianhou fenju zhong butong de lianjie chengfen “bieshuo” ( Bieshuo as different connectives in the front and back clause). Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue (Chinese Teaching in the World) 4: 498–511.Google Scholar
. 2014. Lianci “bieshuo” yu “budan” (The conjunction bieshuo and budan ). Yuyan Yanjiu (Studies in Language and Linguistics) 34(3): 52–58.Google Scholar