Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This article defends the position taken by Talmy that Mandarin Chinese is satellite-framed, and thus argues against Slobin and Chen and Guo that Mandarin is ‘equipollently-framed’. The approach we take is constructional and cognitive in that we draw insights from Construction Grammar and Cognitive Grammar, though it is not restricted to either of them. A more unconventional view of the clause structure in Chinese is first presented, examining the so-called ‘complex sentences’ from a cognitive perspective. The consequence of this view is that the notion of ‘equipollent-framed language’ for Chinese can be abandoned and thus tidying up Talmy’s original typology. It is further argued that the constructional-cognitive view of Chinese captures the structural intuitions more appropriately than a traditional generative account, and that the motion-directional structure in Chinese has been constructionalized to the extent that individual verbs in the construction merge but produce a structure with more than their total properties.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. 陆镜光
    (2006) 论小句在汉语语法中的地位.《汉语学报》, 15, 2–14. [ Luke, K.K (2006) On the grammatical status of a clause in Chinese. HanyuXuebao , 15, 2–14].
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 邓思颖
    (2005) 从生成语法学观点看 “小句中枢说”. <<汉语学>>, 1, 56–63. [Tang, S-W. (2005). A generative grammarian perspective on “a clause as a center”. Hanyu Xuebao, 1, 56–63.]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 刑福义
    (1998) 汉语语法学.东北师范大学出版社[ Xing, F (1998)  Chinese grammar . Changchun: Northeast Normal University Press].
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boas, H.C
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. California: Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chao, Y.R
    (1968) A grammar of spoken Chinese. University of California: Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, L. , & Guo, J
    (2009) Motion events in Chinese novels: Evidence for an equipollently-framed language. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1749–1766. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.015 [Google Scholar]
  7. Croft, W
    (1991) Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dowty, D
    (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, C
    (1982) Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Eds.), Linguistics in the Morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fillmore, C. , & Aitkens, B
    (1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts (pp.75–102). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fong, R
    (2015) A constructional-cognitive analysis of Chinese directionals. Cognitive Semantics, 1(1), 104–130. doi: 10.1163/23526416‑00101004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-00101004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Givón, T
    (2009) Multiple routes to clause-union: The diachrony of complex verb phrases. In T. Givón & M. Shibatani (Eds.), Syntactic complexity (pp. 81–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.85.04mul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.85.04mul [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldberg, A.E
    (1995) Constructions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2006) Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Haiman, J
    (1985) Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Huang, C-T.J. , Li, A. , & Li, Y
    (2009) The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139166935
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166935 [Google Scholar]
  17. Huddleston, R. , & Pullum, G.K .
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Langacker, R.W
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. I). California: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. II). California: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2007) Ten lectures on cognitive grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2008).Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2013) Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.013.0017 [Google Scholar]
  23. Levin, B. , & Rappaport Hovav, M
    (2005) Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  24. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum. S. , Leech, G. , & Svarvik, J
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Rappaport Hovav, M. , & Levin, B
    (2001) An event structure account of English resultatives. Language, 77, 766–797. doi: 10.1353/lan.2001.0221
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0221 [Google Scholar]
  26. Slobin, D
    (2004) The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology & the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative (Vol. 2, pp.219–257). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Tang, S-W
    (2010) Formal Chinese syntax. Shanghai: Shanghai Educational Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Talmy, L
    (2000) Towards a cognitive semantics (Vol. 2). Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2008) Main verb properties. Revised version. linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/talmy/talmyweb/Recent/main-verb.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2010) Ten lectures on cognitive semantics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Traugott, E.C
    (2014) Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 3–21. doi: 10.1075/cogls.1.1.01tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.1.1.01tra [Google Scholar]
  32. Traugott, E.C. , & Trousdale, G
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
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