1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 7, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 7, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The Chinese ditransitive construction expresses the ‘bidirectional’ transfers: the movement of the patient either (a) from the subject to indirect object or (b) from the indirect object to subject, a feature that has not been identified in other languages. This construction is thus different from the ditransitive construction in English and other languages whose ditransitive constructions can express only a ‘single-direction’ transfer: the movement of the patient from the subject to indirect object only. This article addresses the reason for the unusual functions of the ditransitive construction in Chinese. A parallel difference between these two languages is found in the semantic structures of those ditransitive verbs: Chinese coins a single verb to express the same type of ‘transfer’ action with opposite directions, but English usually invents two distinct verbs to denote the two antonymous meanings whose directions are opposite; e.g., the Chinese verb subsumes the meanings of both and in English. This article argues that the different meanings of the ditransitive constructions of Chinese and English result from the different conceptualizations of their ditransitive verbs. In construction grammar, the following question remains unanswered: where does the meaning of the construction come from? The present analysis provides evidence that the meanings of the verbs within the construction are capable of determining the meaning/function of the whole construction.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00063.shi
2020-10-01
2024-12-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00063.shi
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bresnan, Joan
    (eds.) (1982) The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bybee, Joan L.
    (2007) Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of construction. InThomas Hoffmann and Grameme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chao, Yuen-Ren
    (1968) A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Chomsky, Noam
    (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publication.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Croft, William
    (2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul, and O’Connor, Mary C.
    (1988) Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone. Language64(3), 501–38. 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gerwin, Johanna
    (2014) Ditransitives in British English dialects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110352320
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110352320 [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldberg, Adele E.
    (1989) A Unified Account of the Semantics of the Ditransitive. Berkeley Linguistic Society15, 79–90. 10.3765/bls.v15i0.1733
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v15i0.1733 [Google Scholar]
  10. (1992) The Inherent Semantics of Argument Structure: The Case of the English Ditransitive Construction. Cognitive Linguistics3, 37–74. 10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  11. (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (1997) Relationships between verb and construction. InMarjolijn Verspoor and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexicon and grammar (pp.383–398). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 383–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2003) Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Journal of Foreign Languages, 3, 1–11.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dik, Simon
    (1989) The theory of functional grammar 1: The structure of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Huang, James, Audrey Li, and Yafei Li
    (2007) The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hudson, Richard A.
    (1990) English word grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Langacker, Ronald W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (1988) Usage-Based Model. inBrygida Rudzka-Ostyn (eds.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.127–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.06lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.06lan [Google Scholar]
  20. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2000) A Dynamic Usage-based Model. InMichael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2005) Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical and less So. InFrancisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and M. Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.101–159). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009) Constructions and constructional meaning. InVyvyan Evans and Stéphanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp.225–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.17lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.17lan [Google Scholar]
  26. Larson, R.
    (1988) On the doubt object construction. Linguistic Inquiry19, 335–392.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson
    (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Li, Yuming
    (1996) Lingshu guanxi yu shuangbinju fenxi [Genitive relation and the analysis of the ditransitive construction]. Yuyan jiaoxue yu yanjiu [Language teaching and research], 3, 62–73.
  29. Lu, Jianming
    (2002) Zaitan ‘Chi-Le Ta San Ge Pingguo’ Yilei Jiegou de Xingzhi [A Double-Object Analysis of the Mandarin Pattern of ‘Chi Le Ta San Ge Pingguo’]. Zhongguo Yuwen4, 317–25.
  30. Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie
    (2010) Studies in ditransitive constructions. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110220377
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220377 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mukherjee, Joybrato
    (2005) English ditransitive verbs: Aspects of theory, description and a usage-based model. Amsterdam: Brill. 10.1163/9789004333079
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004333079 [Google Scholar]
  32. Perlmutter, David M. and Paul M. Postal
    (1983) Toward a universal characterization of passivization. InDavid M. Perlmutter (eds.), Studies in relation gramma I (pp.3–19). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag
    (1993) Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago and Stanford: University of Chicago Press and the Center for the Study of Language and Information.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Sag, Ivan. A., Tom Wasow, and Emily Bender
    (2003) Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language Information Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Shi, Yuzhi
    2004 Han Ying shuangbin jiegou chabie de gainianhua yuanyin [The motivation of conceptualization for the differences of double-object construction between Chinese and English]. Waiyu jiaoxue yu yanjiu [Foreign Language Teaching and Research] 36(2), 83–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2016 Hanyu yufa yanhuashi [The evolution of Chinese grammar]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Education Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Wu, Jing and Yuzhi Shi
    2009 Zhiyue Hanyu yufa jiegou xuanze de yinsu [Factors in determining the selection of constructions]. Language Teaching and Research6. 17–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Xu, Jie
    (2004) Yuyishang de Tongzhi Guanxi yu Jufashang de Shuangbinyu Jushi [The semantic relationship of co-reference and the syntactic construction of double objects]. Zhongguo Yuwen4, 302–313.
  40. Yang, Bojun, and He Leshi
    (1992) Guhanyu yufa jiqi fazhan [The grammar of Classical Chinese and its development]. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Yang, Chengkai
    (1996) Hanyu yufa lilun yanjiu [Studies in Chinese grammar theory]. Shenyang: Liaoning Education Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang, Bojiang
    (2006) Guanyu ‘Suoqu Lei Shuangbinyu’ [On the so-called ‘take’ type double object]. Yuyanxue Luncong, 33, 298–312.
  43. Zhang, Daozhen
    (2002) A dictionary of current English usage. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Zhang, Guoxian
    (2001) Zhiyue Duoshi Chengfen Juwei Shixian de Yuyi Yinsu [The Semantic Constraints on the Syntactic Mapping of the ‘Deprived’ Constituent]. Zhongguo Yuwen6, 508–518.
  45. Zhang, Ning
    (1998) The interactions between construction meaning and lexical meaning. Linguistics36(5), 957–980. 10.1515/ling.1998.36.5.957
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.5.957 [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhu, Dexi
    (1982) Yufa jiangyi [Lecture notes on grammar]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00063.shi
Loading
Bidirectional transfers of the ditransitive construction in Chinese
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7, 416 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00063.shi
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00063.shi
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00063.shi
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): construction grammar; ditransitive construction; English and Chinese; transfer verb; usage-based model

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error