Review of The Establishment of Modern Chinese Grammar
Date: Fri Feb 14 21:31:57 2003
From: Karen Chung <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: The Establishment of Modern Chinese Grammar: The Formation of the Resultative Construction and Its Effects
Shi, Yuzhi (2002) The Establishment of Modern Chinese Grammar:
The Formation of the Resultative Construction and Its Effects.
John Benjamins Publishing Company, 262pp, hardback ISBN
90-272-3062-5 (Eur), 1-58811-203-9 (US), $98.00, Studies in
Language Companion Series 59.
Karen Steffen Chung, National Taiwan University
This book, a revision of the author's Ph.D. dissertation,
attempts to identify and trace the origins of the resultative
construction in Chinese, which the author considers 'the most
fundamental syntactic change in the history of Chinese' (p. 228).
By 'resultative' is meant constructions with a verb describing
an action, plus a morpheme indicating a telic outcome of that
action, such as _chi1bao3_ [eat + full] 'to eat to the point of
being full', or _da3po4_ [strike + break] 'to [hit and] break
something'. Shi collected his data from a variety of texts, both
classical and vernacular, including the Confucian _Analects_,
Tang dynasty vernacular Buddhist texts (_bian4wen2_), Yuan
drama, and novels such as _The Dream of the Red Chamber_.
Modern examples, some apparently made up, and some from
non-Mandarin dialects, are also cited.
The author believes that the VR (verb + resultative)
construction had its origins in the separable resultative structure
with an order of VXR, in which X could be an object, adverb,
or negative particle. Subsequently the V fused with the R so that
there could be no intervening material, thus yielding the modern
VR form. The author posits three phases in the emergence of the
(1) Around 800, VR phrases whose Rs were the underlying
predicate of O (the object) started to appear in VRO form; VR
phrases whose Rs were the underlying predicate of V (i.e.
expressed the temporal internal structure of the verb) reached
a low degree of fusion.
(2) Around A.D. 1000, VR phrases whose Rs were the
underlying predicate of V reached a high degree of fusion.
(3) Ca. A.D. 1200, VR phrases whose Rs were the
underlying predicate of the subject (i.e. the agent of the verb)
became loosely fused. (p. 229)
The key factors Shi posits in the formation of the resultative
construction are (1) the emergence of disyllabification in Chinese,
which promoted fusion of the V and R elements; (2) idiomatization
of the most frequently used collocations, which first produced
individual lexical items but eventually a generalized syntactic pattern;
(3) elimination of the _er2_ 'and' connective, which produced both
resultative constructions and serial verbs; and (4) establishment of
a verb-result relationship in the construction, in which telic states
followed and other adverbs preceded the verb.
Shi believes the VR construction was the motivating cause behind
several major changes in Chinese syntax. Because in many cases an
object could not for various reasons immediately follow the VR
construction, objects needed to be placed elsewhere in the sentence,
though VRO was still an option for some verb types.
If the object was definite, it could be preceded by the particle
_ba3_ and placed before the VR construction, to form a 'disposal'
construction, e.g. _Wo3 ba3 shu1 kan4wan2le_ 'I finished reading
the book.' One specific book is referred to here; an indefinite reading
is not possible. Shi notes that some verbs in initial position in serial
verb constructions became grammaticalized into 'prepositions' or
co-verbs, or in this case the object marker _ba3_.
If the object was indefinite, it could be accommodated under
the new 'verb copying' construction, e.g. _ta1 he1 jiu3 he1zui4le_
'He drank until drunk/he got drunk' - no particular bottle of alcohol
is referred to here. Other possibilities were to topicalize the patient
by fronting it, with or without the subject: _Shu1 yi3jing1 kan4wan2le._
'[As for] the book, [I] have already finished reading [it].' Shi believes
all of these structures, and even the comparative _bi3_ construction,
are traceable to the emergence of the VR construction.
Some of Shi's points are open to debate. Shi proposes three
types of resultatives distributed over a cline (p. 32-33): 'syntactic
collocation' (e.g. _kan4wai1_ 'to misinterpret, put a wrong spin on
s.t.'), 'verb + bound resultative' (e.g._xue2hui4_ 'to learn s.t.
thoroughly'), and 'compound verb' '(e.g._kan4kai1_ 'to view s.t.
with detachment' and _shuo1ming2_ 'to explain'). He attempts to
distinguish the first two categories by claiming that expressions
in the first category are synthetic, concatenated syntactically, rather
than being set phrases; in the second he includes idiomatized phrases;
and in the third, lexified compounds. He claims that what they all
have in common is that they do not allow any intervening material, in
contrast to the situation in Middle Chinese.
In my view, however, there are only two categories: separable
resultative *constructions* and inseparable verb *compounds*.
Among the examples cited by Shi in all three categories, there
is only one true compound, and that is _shuo1ming2_, 'to explain',
which cannot be separated under any circumstances. All the others,
such as _zhua1jin3_, 'to hang on tightly, emphasize', can take
not only the affirmative and negative potential forms, with an
inserted _de2_ or _bu4_, but also sometimes intensifiers such as
_de hen3_ which modify the resultative satellite, e.g. _chi1 de
hen3 bao3_ 'to eat to the point of being very full', _zuo4 de hen3
lei4_ 'to become very tired working at something.' In response to
this, Shi claims that the potential form is a different construction
entirely and does not constitute an exception to his rule (p. 33ff).
Yet the criterion of whether or not intervening material of any kind
is allowed - which is Shi's own acknowledged criterion - is the one
thing that can neatly distinguish constructions from compounds.
Shi does discuss the potential form in chapters 4-6, but fails to
address and solve this fundamental issue.
Shi claims that the R of a VR construction must be monosyllabic
(p. 39), which would exclude trisyllabic phrases like _xi3gan1jing4 _
'to wash clean' (Shi gives only _xi3jing4_ as an example on p. 33)
and _jiang3qing1chu3_ 'to say s.t. clearly', or even four-syllable ones
like _jiao1dai4qing1chu3 _ 'to give explicit instructions'. He does
however include three-syllable constructions in his 'first category'
of syntactic resultatives, like _yan2jiu4qiong2_ 'to research
exhaustively' on p. 32. On p. 85 he quotes a four-syllable example
from 1200 A.D.: _yue1su4 fen1ming2_ 'to strictly discipline'. He
claims that such expressions have a low degree of fusion, and
that they do not allow objects; yet objects, fronted in a _ba3_
construction, are certainly possible for some of these expressions,
e.g. _Qing3 ni3 ba3 suo3you3de wan3 xi3gan1jing4_. 'Please
wash all of the dishes.' This issue is not fully clarified in the book.
A relatively minor point: Shi notes (p. 13) that 'elements in the
R position often lost their independent tonal values'. This is true of
Beijing Mandarin, but not of all other varieties of standard spoken
Chinese; Taiwan Mandarin usually preserves the full tonal values
of all morphemes, including resultatives, excepting only a very
small closed group of function particles.
One of Shi's many interesting observations: unlike English
resultatives, such as 'to lick the platter clean', a change of state
indicated by a Chinese resultative does not have to immediately
follow the V action; e.g. _chi1pang4_ 'to eat until fat' takes place
over an extended period of time (p. 30). Shi also notes that the
transitivity of a VR construction is determined by neither element
alone, but the two together (p. 35), and that its interpretation is
mainly determined by what makes sense in the particular context
in which it occurs rather than by any strict syntactic criteria. Shi
offers many other such inspired insights which must be left
unmentioned here due to space restraints.
It seems that this book went to press without much editorial or
typographical quality control at all. Sometimes a point is repeated on
the same page in almost the same words (e.g. p. 3). There are inaccurate
or not very polished 'Chinese English' translations (e.g., 'He beat a
fly to death.' [p. 1] and 'He patted one fly dead.' [p. 166] instead
of the 'He swatted a fly [and killed it]/He killed a fly [by swatting
it].'). There are many misspellings, both of English words and Pinyin
Romanization, and tones are not indicated. There are incorrect characters,
including some that apparently had been automatically converted from
simplified to traditional form by computer, and the wrong option chosen;
the word _lei4_ 'tired' is consistently written with an incorrect
character. Some English words are split by a hyphen even though they do
not occur at the end of a line. Margins and spacing are not always even.
As it stands, this book requires a good deal of patience and indulgence
on the part of the reader. Moreover, the book is overpriced, even
considering its relatively limited market and the average prices of
scholarly books these days.
Still, the merits and original findings of this book, which are many
and noteworthy, should not be overshadowed by its shortcomings. It makes
a significant contribution to the study of resultatives in Chinese and
their historical development -- I personally gained many valuable and
useful insights and ideas from this book -- and it should be available in
any institutional research library with a linguistics section, especially
if it were carefully edited and reissued.
| ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
ABOUT THE REVIEWER Karen Steffen Chung teaches English and linguistics in the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures of National Taiwan University in Taipei. Her chief current research interests are phonetics, prosody and Chinese morphology; see her websites at http://ccms.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/ http://www.topica.com/lists/phonetics/