1

Diachrony and TypologyDiachrony and Typologyin Chinese Grammarin Chinese Grammar

Alain PEYRAUBE Alain PEYRAUBE 贝罗贝 贝罗贝 CNRS & EHESSCNRS & EHESS

New Directions in Historical LinguisticsNew Directions in Historical Linguistics

ESF-OMLL WorkshopESF-OMLL Workshop

Lyon, France, 12-14 May 2008Lyon, France, 12-14 May 2008

2

Diachronic Syntax (1)

Evolution of grammatical forms throughout Evolution of grammatical forms throughout historyhistory

Three mechanisms of grammatical change:Three mechanisms of grammatical change:

- Analogy, comprising- Analogy, comprising• Degrammaticalization (typically Lexicalization)Degrammaticalization (typically Lexicalization)- Reanalysis, comprising:- Reanalysis, comprising:• GrammaticalizationGrammaticalization• ExaptationExaptation- External Borrowing- External Borrowing

3

Diachronic Syntax (2)

Motivating factors of syntactic changeMotivating factors of syntactic change- Semantic-pragmatic change, especially:Semantic-pragmatic change, especially:• Pragmatic inferencing (metonymization, more Pragmatic inferencing (metonymization, more

related to reanalysis)related to reanalysis)• Metaphorical extension (more related to analogy)Metaphorical extension (more related to analogy)- SubjectificationSubjectification- Others, such as phonological changeOthers, such as phonological change- The main motivation for external borrowing is The main motivation for external borrowing is

language contactlanguage contact

4

Diachrony / Typology

None of these diachronic mechanisms None of these diachronic mechanisms and/or motivations involve typological and/or motivations involve typological research strictly defined to any extent, research strictly defined to any extent, except perhaps external borrowing.except perhaps external borrowing.

5

Typology

Identify structural properties that different Identify structural properties that different languages share (universals), as well as the languages share (universals), as well as the significant properties which distinguish one significant properties which distinguish one from anotherfrom another

Consequence by extension = « a principle Consequence by extension = « a principle way of classifying the languages of the way of classifying the languages of the world » (Hagège 1992)world » (Hagège 1992)

6

What connects the two domains?

Simply the fact that diachronic linguistics often Simply the fact that diachronic linguistics often enables us to provide grounded hypotheses about enables us to provide grounded hypotheses about the common properties which Sinitic languages the common properties which Sinitic languages share, or more often, the basic differences which share, or more often, the basic differences which are revealed between them.are revealed between them.

  Examples: passives and causativesExamples: passives and causatives;; postverbal postverbal adverbs; ditransitive constructions; verbs of sayingadverbs; ditransitive constructions; verbs of saying

7

Passives and causatives (1) In many contemporary Sinitic languages, verbs of In many contemporary Sinitic languages, verbs of

giving are the main source for passive markers.giving are the main source for passive markers. Verbs of giving which develop into passive Verbs of giving which develop into passive

markers markers might even be a characteristic shared with might even be a characteristic shared with certain languages in East and Southeast Asia from certain languages in East and Southeast Asia from different families (Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-different families (Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman languages).Burman languages).

The development of verbs of giving into passive The development of verbs of giving into passive markers is typologically atypical. It is not attested markers is typologically atypical. It is not attested crosslinguistically. See Heine and Kuteva (2002).crosslinguistically. See Heine and Kuteva (2002).

8

Passives and causatives (2)

Shared passive and causative morphology is Shared passive and causative morphology is certainly not uncommon but the source of the certainly not uncommon but the source of the exponents is not a verb of giving (Comrie and exponents is not a verb of giving (Comrie and Polinsky 1993). Polinsky 1993).

Chappell & Peyraube (2006): all passive markers Chappell & Peyraube (2006): all passive markers having their source in verbs of giving have an having their source in verbs of giving have an intermediate stage of a causative verb (see also intermediate stage of a causative verb (see also Jiang Shaoyu 2002, Hong and Zhao forthcoming):Jiang Shaoyu 2002, Hong and Zhao forthcoming):

V [+ give] > V [+ causative] > passive markerV [+ give] > V [+ causative] > passive marker

9

Passives and causatives (3)

Proposal of an implicational universal: Proposal of an implicational universal:

If a language has a passive marker whose origin If a language has a passive marker whose origin is a verb of giving, then it necessarily has a is a verb of giving, then it necessarily has a causative verb realised by the same form and causative verb realised by the same form and having its source in a verb of givinghaving its source in a verb of giving..

[GIVE > PASSIVE MARKER] [GIVE > PASSIVE MARKER] [GIVE > [GIVE > CAUSATIVE]CAUSATIVE]

10

Passives and causatives (4)

Hypothesis grounded on historical data: all passive Hypothesis grounded on historical data: all passive markers (originating from a verb of giving) used markers (originating from a verb of giving) used today in Sinitic languages have been first used as today in Sinitic languages have been first used as causative verbs in Medieval or Modern Chinese:causative verbs in Medieval or Modern Chinese:

Yŭ Yŭ 與 與 ‘‘ tto give’, which is o give’, which is probably the first to probably the first to have been used as a passive marker (Feng 2000 : have been used as a passive marker (Feng 2000 : 638)638); ; zháo/zhuó zháo/zhuó 著著 (( 着着 ))‘‘tto place, to use, then to o place, to use, then to give’, give’, qĭ qĭ 乞 乞 ‘‘ tto give’, o give’, begins to be used as a begins to be used as a causative verb in Early Modern Mandarincausative verb in Early Modern Mandarin, , gĕi gĕi 给给 (18(18thth century, see Jiang L. century, see Jiang L. 2000: 226) 2000: 226)..

11

Passives and causatives (5)

Examples:Examples: With the verb With the verb qĭqĭ 乞乞 ‘ ‘ to give’ : to give’ :

乞乞 我我 惶了推門推不開惶了推門推不開 qĭ wqĭ wŏŏ huáng le, tuī mén tuī bù kai huáng le, tuī mén tuī bù kai

caus 1sg frighten pfv push door push neg opencaus 1sg frighten pfv push door push neg open

‘‘(It) made me so frightened (that I) could not open (It) made me so frightened (that I) could not open the door.’ (the door.’ (Jīn Píng Méi CíhuàJīn Píng Méi Cíhuà 金金 瓶瓶 梅梅 詞詞 話話 , , 16th c16th c..))

12

Passives and causatives (6)

With the verb With the verb zhuózhuó 著 著 ‘‘ to give’ to give’ In the In the Lăo Qĭ Dà Lăo Qĭ Dà 老乞大老乞大 (14(14th c.)th c.), 51% of the verbal , 51% of the verbal

zhuózhuó are causatives with the meaning of are causatives with the meaning of ‘t‘to ask’, ‘to tell o ask’, ‘to tell somebody to do something’:somebody to do something’:

我我著著孩子孩子們們 做做與與你吃你吃wŏ zhuó haízimen zuò yǔ nĭ chīwŏ zhuó haízimen zuò yǔ nĭ chī1SG1SG CAUS children do give 2SG eatCAUS children do give 2SG eat‘‘I’ll get my children to make you something to eat.’(I’ll get my children to make you something to eat.’(Lăo Lăo Qĭ Dà Qĭ Dà YáYánjiĕ njiĕ 老乞大諺解老乞大諺解 ))

13

Postverbal adverbs (1)

Postverbal adverbs in Cantonese: sin ‘first’, jyuh ‘for the moment’, gwo ‘again’, tim ‘also, more’, maaih ‘also, more, again’, saai ‘all, completely’, jaih ‘too’

Ngoh heui sinI go firstMaih yuk jyuhDon’t move now!Pin mahnjeung se hou saai laCL article write finish completely part.The article is completely written

Postverbal adverbs (2)

Postverbal adverbs never existed at any stage in the history of Chinese. Adverbs have always been preverbal, in Archaic, Medieval, as well as in Modern Chinese => impossible to propose any hypothesis of internal change

Only remaining possible hypothesis: external borrowing

Postverbal adverbs (3)

Postverbal adverbs in Kam-Tai languagesha35 so:24 an24 tem35give two CL againGive me two more (Zhuang, a Tai language, Li 1990)ta:p7 kon5Jump first (Sui, a Kam-Sui language, Zhang 1980)

Postverbal adverbs (4)

Postverbal adverbs in Miao-Yao languages

ken55 va44

Cry a lot (Miao, Qiandong language, Wang 1985)

kau2 mu4 te2

you go first (Yao, Bunu language, Mao 1982)

Postverbal adverbs (5)

Two competing hypotheses:

(i) Kam-Tai and/or Miao-Yao languages might have borrowed their postverbal adverbs from Cantonese => the origin of Cantonese postverbal adverbs remains unexplained

(ii) Cantonese might have borrowed postverbal adverbs from Kam-Tai or Miao-Yao (or more probably from Yao, see Dai 1992)

Ditransitive constructions (1)

In Standard Chinese (Mandarin), the word order of ditransitive constructions is V + IO + DO:Wo gei ni yiben shuI give you one+Cl. BookI give you one book

In some Southern Sinitic languages (Cantonese): reverse order:Ngoh bei yatbun syu neihI give one book you

Ditransitive constructions (2)

Two possible historical explanations: External Borrowing Hypothesis: The V+DO+IO construction has been borrowed

from non-Sinitic languages (Tai-Kadai, Austroasiatic) with which Cantonese and other Southern Sinitic languages have been in contact (Hashimoto 1976, Peyraube 1981)

Derivation through Internal Development: V + IO + DO > V + DO + IO or V + DO + Prep. + IO > V + DO + IO

Ditransitive constructions (3)

Xu and Peyraube (1997) have shown that the deletion of the dative preposition is probably the correct hypothesis

Contra the External Borrowing Hypothesis Other non-Cantonese dialects have V+ DO+IO

and were probably not in contact with any Tai languages, eg: Hubei dialects of Enshi, Badong, Dangyang, Jingmen, Jiangling, … Anhui dialects of Tongcheng, Anqing, Wuhu

Ditransitive constructions (4)

In Ancient Thai (13th c.): V + DO + Prep.+IOIn Ancient Thai (13th c.): V + DO + Prep.+IO Not a single piece of evidence to show that the DO could Not a single piece of evidence to show that the DO could

have moved backward across the IO or the IO could have have moved backward across the IO or the IO could have moved forward acroos the DOmoved forward acroos the DO

Almost any verb that can appear in V+DO+Prep.+IO can Almost any verb that can appear in V+DO+Prep.+IO can also appear in V+DO+IOalso appear in V+DO+IO

A pause often occurs between the DO and the IOA pause often occurs between the DO and the IO

21

Ditransitive constructions (5)

Case of a structure unknown in Standard Chinese (Mandarin, Northern Chinese) and rare in Archaic, Medieval and Modern Chinese

Not borrowed from non-Sinitic languages, but is internally derived

23

Verbs of saying (1)

grammaticalization of say verbs > complementizers - well-known for African and Southeast Asian languages (Heine and Kuteva 2002)

not very well-attested in the study of the Sinitic or Chinese languages

S - V1 - V2say Oclause > S - V1- Comp. Oclause

Verbs of saying (2)

Colloquial Beijing dialect :有很多人，他们就认为说这得政府给我们解决， … .You hen duo ren, tamen jiu renwei shuo zhe dei zhengfu gei women jiejue …there:be very many people 3PL then think saycomp this must government for 1PL resolve

‘Lots of people, they think that this has to resolved for us by the government.’ (oral corpus)

Verbs of saying (3)

Pre-Archaic and Early Archaic:

言 yan, 云 yun, 曰 yue (already in Oracle bone inscriptions), 语 yu (in Bronze inscriptions): 4 verbs of saying

Late Archaic: 谓 wei, 说 shuo, 道 dao Shuo and dao very rare with the meaning of

‘to say’. Shuo = to explain, dao = to discuss

Verbs of saying (4)

A good scenario for the grammaticalization of verbs [+ say] > Complementizers (Chappell, Li Ming and Peyraube, forthc.)

Several verbs [+ say] have acquired the meaning of « think » ( 以为 yiwei). Among them:

言 yan, under the Six Dynasties (ca. 5th c. AD)云 yun, under the Six Dynasties 道 dao, in Pre-Modern (ca. 14th c. AD) Semantic change: [+ say] > « to consider » > « to think »

Verbs of saying (5)

The complementizer does not come directly from a verb [+ say], but from a cognitive verb meaning « to think », « to believe »

Semantic change as follows: SAY > CONSIDER > THINK >

COMPLEMENTIZER This last development is part of a

grammaticalization process which did not take place before 17th or 18th century.

28

References (1) Chappell H. & A. Peyraube. 2006. The Analytic Causatives of Early

Modern Southern Min in Diachronic Perspective. D.-A. Ho, H.S. Cheung, W. Pan, F. Wu eds. Linguistic studies in Chinese and neighboring languages. Taiwan: Academia Sinica, Institute of Linguistics. 973-1012.

Chappell H., Li M. & A. Peyraube. Forthcoming. Polygrammaticalization of say verbs in Sinitic languages.

Comrie B. & M. Polinsky (eds.) 1993. Causatives and transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dai Q. et al. 1992. Introduction to contacts between Chinese and minorities languages. Zhongyuan minzu xueyuan. [in Chinese]

Feng C. 2000. Grammr of Chinese of the modern period. Shandong jiaoyu chubanshe. [in Chinese]

29

References (2) Hagège C. 1992. Morphological Typology. Oxford Int. Encycl. of

Linguistics. OUP. Hashimoto M. 1976. The double object construction in Chinese.

Computational Analyses of Asia and African Languages 6. 31-42. Heine, B. &T. Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical

change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hong B. & Zhao M. Forthcoming. On verbs of giving developing into

causative verbs and causative verbs developing into passive prepositions. [in Chinese]

Jiang L. 2000. Discussion on the common use of causatives and passives in Chinese. Outline of Modern Chinese. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan. 221-236. [in Chinese]

30

References (3) Jiang S. 2002. Origin of the passive markers ‘gei’ and ‘jiao’. Yuyanxue

luncong 26. 159-177. [in Chinese] Li J. 1990. Cantonese is different from other types of Chinese. Yuyan jianshe

tongxun 27. 28-48. [in Chinese] Mao Z. 1982. Monograph of the Yao languages. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.

[in Chinese] Peyraube A. 1981.The Dative Construction in Cantonese. Computational

Analyses on Asian and African Languages 16. 29-66 Wang F. 1985. Monograph of the Miao languages. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe.

[in Chinese] Xu L. & A. Peyraube.1997. On the Double-Object Construction and the

Oblique Construction in Cantonese. Studies in Language 21-1. 105-127. Zhang J. 1980. Monograph of Sui language. Beijing: Minzu chubanshe. [in

Chinese]