The Boundedness of Adjectival Predication in Chinese: From Diachronic Perspective

Xin Han

doi:10.54097/ijeh.v5i2.1988

Authors

Xin Han

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/ijeh.v5i2.1988

Keywords:

Adjectival-predicate, Boundedness, Boundarize, Diachronic perspective.

Abstract

By means of diachronic comparative analysis, this paper investigates the boundedness of adjectival predication from a historical perspective. Remarkable differences are observed to exist between modern Mandarin and classic Chinese: firstly, some adjectival-predicates had underwent changes from unmarked to marked form, accompanied by an increase of the number of adjectival-predicate markers; secondly, some adjectival-predicate markers are found in both classic and modern Chinese, however, their different usage in different periods indicates a tendency towards increasing bounded degree; in contrast, there are also some markers that could modify adjectival-predicate independently in early period but lost this function gradually. These diachronic evidences suggest the boundarization of adjectival predication in Chinese. Corpus data and statistic analysis are also used to examine when the boundedness of adjectival predication was established. It is shown that the boundarizing process began in the middle ancient times, then developed rapidly in Song and Yuan Dynasties, and finally completed in Ming and Qing Dynasties.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Brinton, Laurel. 1998. Aspectuality and countability. English language and linguistics, 2.1, 37-63.

Dahl, Östen.1981. On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-non-bounded) distinction. In P.J. Tedeshi & A. Zaenen (eds). Syntax and Semantics 14: Tense and Aspect. New York: Academic Press, 79-90.

Declerck, Renate. 1979. Aspect and the bounded/unbounded (telic/atelic) distinction. Linguistics 17, 761–794.

Grano, T. 2012. Mandarin hen and universal markedness in gradable adjectives. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 30: 513-565.

Greenbaum, S. 1996. The Oxford English Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gu, Yang. 2007. Shitai, shizhi lilun yu hanyu shijian canzao [ Theories of tense and aspect, and temporal reference in Chinese]. Yuyan Kexue [ Linguistic Sciences] 4: 322-38.

He, Yang. 1994. Hanyu wanju chengfen shitan [A study of sentence-completing elements in modern Chinese]. Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu [Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies], 4: 26-18。

Huang, Nansong.1994. Shilun duanyu zizhu chengju suoying jubei de ruogan yufa fanchou [Discussion of the grammatical categories for sentence-completion]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language], 4: 441-447.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar,Vol.2:Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.

Pang, Jiaguang. 2015. Gainianyuyixue shijiao xia de xingrongci weiyu zizuxing [A conceptual semantics perspective on (in)completeness of adjectival predication]. Xiandai Waiyu [Modern foreign languages], 3: 293-302.

Paradis, C. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 2001(12): 1-17.

Shen, Jiaxuan. 1995. Youjie he wujie [Boundedness and unboundedness]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Studies of the Chinese Language], 5: 367-380.

Shi, Qin. 2010. Hanyu xingrongci chongdieshi de lishi fazhan [A Study on the Historical Development of Reduplication Patterns of Chinese Adjectives].Beijing: The Commercial Press.

Shi, Yuzhi .2011. Hanyu Yufa [Chinese Grammar]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.

Xiong, Zhongru & Yang, Zhou. 2020. Zhitu lilun yu xingrongci weiyuju de zizuxing [ The cartographic approach and the completeness of sentences with adjective predicates]. Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu [Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies] 2020. 1: 82-93.