presented at the Second International Symposium on Chinese Language and Discourse (ISCLD-2), Nangyang Technological University, Singapore, June 9- 11, 2012
Ever since Schiffrin’s (1987) pioneering work, research on pragmatic/discourse markers have explo... more Ever since Schiffrin’s (1987) pioneering work, research on pragmatic/discourse markers have exploded, and recently quite a few contrastive studies have been conducted, be it intralingual (e.g. Blakemore 2002 on but, however, nevertheless; Oh 2000 on actually and in fact) or interlingual (e.g. Lewis 2006 on English on the contrary and French au contraire). Contrastive studies are especially interesting because they shed light on the subtle way discourse is regulated across and within languages by revealing the similarities and differences between seemingly equivalent markers that are oftentimes non-truth-conditional. And this also shall be the case in the current study, which compares and contrasts two what König (1991) calls additive focus particles in Hakka, namely, ia3 and me3, both translatable as also. The data is drawn from a natural conversation (22’13’’ in length) in the NCCU Corpus of Spoken Chinese (see Chui & Lai 2009), where 18 tokens of ia3 and 39 tokens of me3 were found.
Blakemore (1987) introduced relevance theory to the study of non-truth-conditional discourse connectives such as English also, and, but, and argued that they impose semantic constraints on relevance, which is achieved by one of the three contextual effects (implication, confirmation, or contradiction) they bring about. For instance, while so creates the contextual effect of implication and facilitates the hearer to understand the proposition it prefaces as a conclusion for its preceding proposition(s), after all gives rise to the contextual effect of confirmation and guides the hearer to understand the proposition it prefaces as evidence for its preceding proposition(s). Following this model, Blass (1990) did an interlingual study on English also, German auch ’also’, and Sissala má ’also’. She found that the three contextual effects alone are not sufficient enough to tease apart the crosslinguistic differences of these particles since they all create the contextual effect of confirmation. Thus she distinguished parallel confirmation, whereby one proposition provides evidence for a contextual implication already derivable from its preceding proposition, from backwards confirmation, whereby one proposition provides evidence for its preceding proposition, and showed that while German auch and Sissala má can be used for backwards confirmation, English also cannot. However, our study illustrates that even the parallel/backwards distinction is not fine-grained enough to account for the functional differences between Hakka ia3 and me3, both of which can be used for parallel and backwards confirmation (e.g. 1~4). So, to fully disentangle the intricacies of the two particles, a hybrid of different approaches are adopted here, including Blakemore’s (1987) contextual effects, Blass’ (1990) notion of a confirmatory role in the processing of information, König’s (1991) typological properties of additive particles, and finally sequentiality in the tradition of conversation analysis.
Structurally, the most frequent position for both ia3 and me3 is TCU-medial (typically between subject and predicate; 14 out of 18 for ia3 and 22 out of 39 me3). However, me3, but never ia3, also occurs at
the TCU-initial and TCU-final position, a feature that would be argued as a sign of higher degree of pragmaticalization, which is further backed up by the multiple functions demonstrated by me3 but
never by ia3, including scalar use , rhetorical negation, and universal quantification (e.g. 5~7). The only function shown by ia3 but not by me3 is interrogative disjunction (e.g. 8), which might originally
arise from the conversational implicature whereby two contradictory propositions in parallel are understood as a case of disjunction since the normal conjuction interpretation would otherwise lead to
contradiction. This conventionalization process is much akin to the V bu V question in Mandarin, which also consists of two contradictory propositions (V and not V)."""
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Thesis Chapters
On the other hand, we study the structure of Motion events in narratives by looking into spontaneous speech produced by native speakers. This second perspective further divides into two dimensions. One is concerned with route knowledge as reflected in route instructions, with extra attention paid to the application of Frames of Reference (FoR). Our study shows that Kavalan speakers guide wayfinders en route by appealing largely to the Geocentric FoR (both cardinal directions and the up-down axis), though Viewpoint-centered and Object-centered FoR are also in use. This strategy is due to the nature of the geographical layout of Hsinshê Village, where the west-east axis corresponds to the land-sea and up-down axes while the north-south axis to the up-down axis. Consequently, these overlapping axes in the local environment enhance the prominent status of the Geocentric FoR in route directions.
The other dimension focuses on a semantic analysis of the Frog narratives. According to our data, Kavalan must be recognized as a fairly typical verb-framed language on a par with Tagalog and Cebuano, to which Kavalan bears the strongest resemblance in the semantic typology of Motion events in the six Western Austronesian languages investigated in Huang and Tanangkingsing (2005). In addition, the most significant construction type in Kavalan is the “wiya#V” serialization, which not only describes a Figure moving progressively away from the conceptualizer, but can also depict an emerging state of affairs or a continuous activity. Interestingly, the Motion verb wi(ya) ‘leave, disappear’ shares a parallel development of grammaticalization with the Motion verb yau ‘exist, appear’ by uniting place deixis, Motion, and aspect functions, which can be ultimately attributed to the conceptual analogy between space and time.
Publications
1.Introduction
2.Grammatical architecture
3.Argument nominalization
4.Event/result nominalization
5.Conclusion
[Book summary]
認知言語学を含む機能主義言語学の新展開の具体例として、新しい体言化理論を取り上げ、それが従来からの根本的な課題といかに立ち向かい、解決に導くかを各種言語の再分析という形で示した画期的論文集。メトニミーという認知作用を基盤に、名詞ならびにそれに準じる文法構造「準体言」を派生する体言化(nominalization)現象は、語やフレーズといった統語単位の認知的動機づけ、およびそれらの文法とその運用による談話機能の解明を促し、体言類の文法ばかりでなく、「節」や「文」などの基本概念の明確化にも寄与するものである。本書は、世界の地域や系統を異にする多数の言語・言語グループについて、語の派生と構文、特に関係節、その他の埋め込み構文などとの関連性を対象に、 伝統文法・生成文法・言語類型論では個別的に取り扱われてきた現象が新体言化理論によっていかに統一的にまとめ上げられるのかを実証したものである。
This volume, including four articles written in English, is an overdue response to an earlier call by the philosopher of language Zeno Venlder that “the grammar of nominalizations is a centrally important part of linguistic theory”. Based on a new theory of grammatical nominalizations, the volume, comprising 11 chapters, presents refreshingly new analyses of a wide range of phenomena including relative clauses and other subordinate clauses, classifiers and gender, as well as historical developments of nominalization markers in Indo-European languages (Sanskrit, Hindi, German), Japanese and Korean, Formosan languages, Yup’ik Eskimo, Swahili and Gã from Africa, and a variety of other Asian and Amazonian languages of South America. Couched in the functional typological framework, these studies showcase advancement in Functional Linguistics.
1.Introduction
2.Grammatical features
3.Key issues of argument nominalization in Formosan languages
4.Conclusion
[Book Summary]
認知言語学を含む機能主義言語学の新展開の具体例として、新しい体言化理論を取り上げ、それが従来からの根本的な課題といかに立ち向かい、解決に導くかを各種言語の再分析という形で示した画期的論文集。メトニミーという認知作用を基盤に、名詞ならびにそれに準じる文法構造「準体言」を派生する体言化(nominalization)現象は、語やフレーズといった統語単位の認知的動機づけ、およびそれらの文法とその運用による談話機能の解明を促し、体言類の文法ばかりでなく、「節」や「文」などの基本概念の明確化にも寄与するものである。本書は、世界の地域や系統を異にする多数の言語・言語グループについて、語の派生と構文、特に関係節、その他の埋め込み構文などとの関連性を対象に、 伝統文法・生成文法・言語類型論では個別的に取り扱われてきた現象が新体言化理論によっていかに統一的にまとめ上げられるのかを実証したものである。
This volume, including four articles written in English, is an overdue response to an earlier call by the philosopher of language Zeno Venlder that “the grammar of nominalizations is a centrally important part of linguistic theory”. Based on a new theory of grammatical nominalizations, the volume, comprising 11 chapters, presents refreshingly new analyses of a wide range of phenomena including relative clauses and other subordinate clauses, classifiers and gender, as well as historical developments of nominalization markers in Indo-European languages (Sanskrit, Hindi, German), Japanese and Korean, Formosan languages, Yup’ik Eskimo, Swahili and Gã from Africa, and a variety of other Asian and Amazonian languages of South America. Couched in the functional typological framework, these studies showcase advancement in Functional Linguistics.
Conference Presentations
On the other hand, we study the structure of Motion events in narratives by looking into spontaneous speech produced by native speakers. This second perspective further divides into two dimensions. One is concerned with route knowledge as reflected in route instructions, with extra attention paid to the application of Frames of Reference (FoR). Our study shows that Kavalan speakers guide wayfinders en route by appealing largely to the Geocentric FoR (both cardinal directions and the up-down axis), though Viewpoint-centered and Object-centered FoR are also in use. This strategy is due to the nature of the geographical layout of Hsinshê Village, where the west-east axis corresponds to the land-sea and up-down axes while the north-south axis to the up-down axis. Consequently, these overlapping axes in the local environment enhance the prominent status of the Geocentric FoR in route directions.
The other dimension focuses on a semantic analysis of the Frog narratives. According to our data, Kavalan must be recognized as a fairly typical verb-framed language on a par with Tagalog and Cebuano, to which Kavalan bears the strongest resemblance in the semantic typology of Motion events in the six Western Austronesian languages investigated in Huang and Tanangkingsing (2005). In addition, the most significant construction type in Kavalan is the “wiya#V” serialization, which not only describes a Figure moving progressively away from the conceptualizer, but can also depict an emerging state of affairs or a continuous activity. Interestingly, the Motion verb wi(ya) ‘leave, disappear’ shares a parallel development of grammaticalization with the Motion verb yau ‘exist, appear’ by uniting place deixis, Motion, and aspect functions, which can be ultimately attributed to the conceptual analogy between space and time.
1.Introduction
2.Grammatical architecture
3.Argument nominalization
4.Event/result nominalization
5.Conclusion
[Book summary]
認知言語学を含む機能主義言語学の新展開の具体例として、新しい体言化理論を取り上げ、それが従来からの根本的な課題といかに立ち向かい、解決に導くかを各種言語の再分析という形で示した画期的論文集。メトニミーという認知作用を基盤に、名詞ならびにそれに準じる文法構造「準体言」を派生する体言化(nominalization)現象は、語やフレーズといった統語単位の認知的動機づけ、およびそれらの文法とその運用による談話機能の解明を促し、体言類の文法ばかりでなく、「節」や「文」などの基本概念の明確化にも寄与するものである。本書は、世界の地域や系統を異にする多数の言語・言語グループについて、語の派生と構文、特に関係節、その他の埋め込み構文などとの関連性を対象に、 伝統文法・生成文法・言語類型論では個別的に取り扱われてきた現象が新体言化理論によっていかに統一的にまとめ上げられるのかを実証したものである。
This volume, including four articles written in English, is an overdue response to an earlier call by the philosopher of language Zeno Venlder that “the grammar of nominalizations is a centrally important part of linguistic theory”. Based on a new theory of grammatical nominalizations, the volume, comprising 11 chapters, presents refreshingly new analyses of a wide range of phenomena including relative clauses and other subordinate clauses, classifiers and gender, as well as historical developments of nominalization markers in Indo-European languages (Sanskrit, Hindi, German), Japanese and Korean, Formosan languages, Yup’ik Eskimo, Swahili and Gã from Africa, and a variety of other Asian and Amazonian languages of South America. Couched in the functional typological framework, these studies showcase advancement in Functional Linguistics.
1.Introduction
2.Grammatical features
3.Key issues of argument nominalization in Formosan languages
4.Conclusion
[Book Summary]
認知言語学を含む機能主義言語学の新展開の具体例として、新しい体言化理論を取り上げ、それが従来からの根本的な課題といかに立ち向かい、解決に導くかを各種言語の再分析という形で示した画期的論文集。メトニミーという認知作用を基盤に、名詞ならびにそれに準じる文法構造「準体言」を派生する体言化(nominalization)現象は、語やフレーズといった統語単位の認知的動機づけ、およびそれらの文法とその運用による談話機能の解明を促し、体言類の文法ばかりでなく、「節」や「文」などの基本概念の明確化にも寄与するものである。本書は、世界の地域や系統を異にする多数の言語・言語グループについて、語の派生と構文、特に関係節、その他の埋め込み構文などとの関連性を対象に、 伝統文法・生成文法・言語類型論では個別的に取り扱われてきた現象が新体言化理論によっていかに統一的にまとめ上げられるのかを実証したものである。
This volume, including four articles written in English, is an overdue response to an earlier call by the philosopher of language Zeno Venlder that “the grammar of nominalizations is a centrally important part of linguistic theory”. Based on a new theory of grammatical nominalizations, the volume, comprising 11 chapters, presents refreshingly new analyses of a wide range of phenomena including relative clauses and other subordinate clauses, classifiers and gender, as well as historical developments of nominalization markers in Indo-European languages (Sanskrit, Hindi, German), Japanese and Korean, Formosan languages, Yup’ik Eskimo, Swahili and Gã from Africa, and a variety of other Asian and Amazonian languages of South America. Couched in the functional typological framework, these studies showcase advancement in Functional Linguistics.
Blakemore (1987) introduced relevance theory to the study of non-truth-conditional discourse connectives such as English also, and, but, and argued that they impose semantic constraints on relevance, which is achieved by one of the three contextual effects (implication, confirmation, or contradiction) they bring about. For instance, while so creates the contextual effect of implication and facilitates the hearer to understand the proposition it prefaces as a conclusion for its preceding proposition(s), after all gives rise to the contextual effect of confirmation and guides the hearer to understand the proposition it prefaces as evidence for its preceding proposition(s). Following this model, Blass (1990) did an interlingual study on English also, German auch ’also’, and Sissala má ’also’. She found that the three contextual effects alone are not sufficient enough to tease apart the crosslinguistic differences of these particles since they all create the contextual effect of confirmation. Thus she distinguished parallel confirmation, whereby one proposition provides evidence for a contextual implication already derivable from its preceding proposition, from backwards confirmation, whereby one proposition provides evidence for its preceding proposition, and showed that while German auch and Sissala má can be used for backwards confirmation, English also cannot. However, our study illustrates that even the parallel/backwards distinction is not fine-grained enough to account for the functional differences between Hakka ia3 and me3, both of which can be used for parallel and backwards confirmation (e.g. 1~4). So, to fully disentangle the intricacies of the two particles, a hybrid of different approaches are adopted here, including Blakemore’s (1987) contextual effects, Blass’ (1990) notion of a confirmatory role in the processing of information, König’s (1991) typological properties of additive particles, and finally sequentiality in the tradition of conversation analysis.
Structurally, the most frequent position for both ia3 and me3 is TCU-medial (typically between subject and predicate; 14 out of 18 for ia3 and 22 out of 39 me3). However, me3, but never ia3, also occurs at
the TCU-initial and TCU-final position, a feature that would be argued as a sign of higher degree of pragmaticalization, which is further backed up by the multiple functions demonstrated by me3 but
never by ia3, including scalar use , rhetorical negation, and universal quantification (e.g. 5~7). The only function shown by ia3 but not by me3 is interrogative disjunction (e.g. 8), which might originally
arise from the conversational implicature whereby two contradictory propositions in parallel are understood as a case of disjunction since the normal conjuction interpretation would otherwise lead to
contradiction. This conventionalization process is much akin to the V bu V question in Mandarin, which also consists of two contradictory propositions (V and not V)."""
into speaker’s proximal sphere. The same demonstrative also conveys progressive aspect when followed by a verb. On the other hand, the distal demonstrative (wi’u ‘that yonder’) is morphologically related with the Motion verb wi(ya), which predicates the referent of its subject as either located outside or going out of speaker’s proximal sphere. In addition, this verb is associated with inchoative or continuous aspect when followed by another verb, depending on the semantics of the second verb. Therefore, the distal demonstrative shares a parallelism with the proximal near-hearer demonstrative, both linking spatial reference, Motion predication, and temporal contouring functions, which can be ultimately attributed to the conceptual analogy between space and time."
exclusively for macro-orientation. In this paper we would like to discover how the three FoRs are exploited in Kavalan, an endangered Austronesian language in Taiwan, and whether there is preferred FoR under certain circumstances. To this end, we chose route directions as our object of investigation, for they are perfect loci for all the three
FoRs to be present at the same time.
By analyzing the recorded data from native speakers narrating the same route, we look into the distributions of different types of FoRs and spatial chunking (Klippel et al. 2003). The narrated route lies within Hsinshê Village, the largest tribe of the Kavalan people where the Kavalan language is spoken on a daily basis. The result shows that of the three types of spatial chunking, numeral chunking is the least favored type and landmark chunking the most frequent one. In addition, although the whole route descriptions include just four occurrences of direction change, only two speakers mention all of them. More importantly, the four occurrences of direction
change do not demonstrate a consistent deployment of any particular type of FoR, both within and across speakers. For example, while the Geocentric FoR is exploited by all the speakers, the Viewpoint-centered FoR is adopted by three and the Object-centered FoR is only restricted to one speaker. Moreover, no speakers employ the same type of FoR across all occurrences of direction change, except for one, who consistently refers to the cardinal directions. These results may imply the Geocentric
FoR is the commonest reference system in Kavalan route directions.
Last but not least, in terms of the syntactic structures that express both direction and action, two constructions are recurrent. Interestingly enough, when direction follows action, the FoR exploited is either Geocentric or Object-centered. When direction precedes action, however, the FoR is exclusively Viewpoint-centered.
Although the other way around is not unacceptable, this dichotomy should something more than a coincidence. It seems that the Kavalan people are conscious of the uniqueness of the Viewpoint-centered FoR and organize it differently by changing the linear ordering between action and direction. A possible explanation is that the ternary relationship in the Viewpoint-centered FoR (among the Figure, the Ground, and the viewer), as opposed to the binary relationship in the Geocentric and Object-centered FoR (between the Figure and the Ground), generates a different degree of cognitive complexity, which contributes to the eventual difference in syntax.