LINGUIST List 17.2888|
Wed Oct 04 2006
Qs: Chinese & Polysynthesis
Editor for this issue: Kevin Burrows
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.
In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Chinese & Polysynthesis
Message 1: Chinese & Polysynthesis
From: Steven Schaufele <fcosw5mail.scu.edu.tw>
Subject: Chinese & Polysynthesis
Some of my students are wondering whether Chinese would qualify as a
polysynthetic language and if not, why not. What i have told them is that
in 'typical' polysynthetic languages like the Inuit and Iroquoian
languages, the head-noun of the direct object can be joined to the
verb-stem to form a compound verb meaning `buy a house' or `find money' or
whatever. They point out that in Mandarin Chinese, while in a simple
clause one would normally say
Zhe-ge ren mai-le yi-ben shu.
DET-class. `person' `buy'-perf. `one'-class. `book'
'This person bought a book.'
In, e.g., a relative-clause construction it would be quite normal to merge
the verb-stem `mai' and the noun-stem `shu' together to form `mai-shu', a
compound meaning `buy-book':
Zhe-ge mai-shu-de ren
DET-class. `buy'-`book'-MOD `person'
`this person who bought a book' / `this book-buying person'
Now, clearly one of the characteristic features of a `typical'
polysynthetic language is that a complex verb stem that includes both a
`lexical' (translation-equivalent) verb and the head of its own object is
host to the standard verbal inflexional markers, and this is a big part of
what justifies referring to the composite string as a verb. This obviously
doesn't work in Chinese, but since Chinese has virtually nothing in the way
of verbal inflexional markers anyway, my students aren't convinced that
this is an adequate disqualification.
Does anybody out there have an adequate response to this? Can the kind of
reduction characteristic of Chinese relative-clause construction be equated
to verb-incorporation? If not, why not? I haven't any good, responsible
answer to this query, and my students want one.
Linguistic Field(s): Language Description
Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.