1.2 Data and Methodology
Two speech genres, TV interviews and daily conversations, were adopted in our investigation of the functional and distributional aspects of Chinese personal pronouns.
Table 1.1 describes the data used for the analysis.
Table 1.1: Data for analysis
Source Television programs NTU Mandarin Corpus3
Types Xinwen wa wa wa: Fangan jingji 新聞挖挖哇:反感經濟
The two programs discussed current news and government policies. The topic for the first television program involved the discussion of civic service appointment and possibility of bankruptcy of Labor Insurance, and the second program discussed the policy of raising electricity rate. The topics of the private conversation included actors, sports, and dogs. There are five participants in the first television program and six participants in the second one, including the hosts (two in the first and one in the second program). Two participants were in each daily conversation.
There were two criteria used for the transcription. Firstly, only the participants’
talk was transcribed. The news shown during the program and the advertisements between sections were not included. Second, occasional code switching into Southern Min was not included in the discussion.
The present study adopts both qualitative and quantitative approaches. All the participants’ utterances are transcribed. In a quantitative attempt, the total number of each personal pronoun will be counted and classified into previously proposed categories based on its property. To further investigate the function and distribution, a
3 NTU Mandarin Corpus (National Taiwan University Mandarin Corpus) contains Mandarin data collected for decades and is availed from Professor Miao-Hsia Chang, who also contributed data to this corpus.
3
qualitative comparison will be conducted so as to reveal and display the actual uses of personal pronouns in different contexts.
1.4 Organization
The structure of the thesis is as follows. Chapter One offers a general introduction of current study. Chapter Two contains detailed examination of previous literature of personal pronouns, especially in Mandarin Chinese. Chapter Three includes the analysis of the discourse-pragmatic functions of non-canonical uses in the two speech genres. Chapter Four compares the similarity and discrepancy of functions. Chapter Five offers a conclusion.
4
Chapter Two Literature Review
Personal pronoun, a subcategory in pronoun system, is defined under various domains. Lyons (1968: 470-481), for instance, incorporates semantic features and the idea of involvement in his definition of personal pronoun. First person pronoun, according to Lyons (1968), refers to the inclusion of the speaker and is specified as [+S(peaker)] and second person pronoun indicates the inclusion of the addressee and is specified as [+A(ddressee)]. Third person pronoun, since it neither includes the speaker nor the addressee, is hence marked as, [-S, -A], i.e. the exclusion of the speaker and hearer.
Halliday and Hasan (1976:44) take a role-assignment approach to categorize the participants in the delimitation of personal pronouns. Speakers and addressees are subsumed under the category of ‘speech roles’ and the human (she/he/they) and non-human (it) third parties are placed in ‘other roles’. The concept of the participant roles is incorporated into the deixis system (Fillmore 1975, Lyons 1977 and Levinson 1983).4 Person deixis, the most relevant to the current investigation of personal pronouns, specifies that participant roles are grammaticalized and encoded to the category of person (Lyons 1977: 637-646). The role played by the speaker in conversations is encoded by the grammatical category of the first person, and the subsidiary role to the speaker is realized as the second person. Third person refers to the role enacted by neither the speaker nor the addressee (Levinson 1983: 61-73). The role-reference description is considered to be the deictic use of personal pronouns. In deictic use, grammatical person is used indexically to indicate the participants/
referents that can be clearly identified in the speech context. A deictic use is thus conceived to be canonical, in contrast to the non-deictic use whose intended referents would either fail to be lucidly pointed out or be mismatched with the grammatical person or number of personal pronouns.
Previous definitions place their major emphasis on the discussion of the deictic referential canonical use of personal pronouns. In the following review, the typical use of Chinese personal pronouns would be introduced in section 2.1, and would be followed by the intriguing non-canonical expressions in section 2.2. The final section, section 2.3 summarizes the chapter.
2.1 Canonical Use: Deictic Referential Expressions
The canonical deictic description of the personal pronoun retrieves its interpretation from the grammatically encoded or realized roles in discourse contexts.
The deictic roles of Chinese personal pronouns occur in an isomorphological form.
4 There are five grammatically defined categories of deixis. They are person, space, time, discourse and social deixis (Fillmore 1975, Lyons 1977 and Levinson 1983).
5
The first person singular occurs as an independent morpheme wo ‘I’ and represents the speaker. The second person singular occurs as ni ‘you’ and stands for the addressee. The third person singular ta ‘s/he’ refers to the third party (Lu 1985 and Liu et al. 2001). Approaching personal pronouns from the perspective of deictic center, Levinson (1983: 63-64) proposes that a speaker tends to stand on an ego-centric position and talks to others from the position in which s/he is located. The speaker regards himself/herself as the first person, and the opposing addressee as the second person, and the one who is not involved in the discourse as the third person. An example of the typical deictic use of the personal pronoun is shown in (2.1), where the speaker A wants to borrow a ruler from B.
(2.1) A: 可以 跟 你 借 一 隻 尺 嗎?
Keyi gen ni jie yi zhi chi ma Can with 2s borrow one CL ruler PRT B: (With a hand gesture pointing to the person sitting next to him)
我 沒 有 耶。 你 可以 跟 他 借。
Wo mei you ye ni keyi gen ta jie 1s NEG have PRT 2s can with 2s borrow
他 有 很多 支。
ta you hen duo zhi
3s have many CL
A: ‘Can (I) borrow a ruler from you?’
B: ‘I don’t have one. You can borrow one from him. He has many rulers.’
(Wu 2003: 33-34) The speaker B views herself as the center of the source in the utterance, and chooses the first person singular, i.e. wo ‘I’ to indicate herself. The speaker A who stands in the opposing position from B is assigned a second person role by the use of ni ‘you’. The third party, who is deictically present yet does not involve in the conversation, is indicated by a third person singular, ta ‘s/he’. In addition to the contextual deictic interpretation, referentiality is another means in defining the typical use of personal pronouns. In this case, the first person singular wo refers to the speaker, the second person singular ni to the addressee and the third person singular ta to a third party.
The canonical use of personal pronouns to indicate the referents in the discourse context is realized through deixis and referentiality.
The typical use of the third person singular involves an anaphoric relation. That is, as the third person singular is co-referential with and preceded by a noun phrase, it will not be considered as an atypical case (Li & Thompson 1981 and Biq & Huang 2011).
6
(2.2) 去年 來 了 一 個 法國人，
Qunian lai le yi ge faguoren Last year come RST one CL French
他 會 寫 中國 字。
ta hui xie zhong guo zi 3s can write Chinese word
‘Last year, there comes a French, (and) he can write Chinese.’
(Li & Thompson 1981: 126) The third person singular is used anaphorically to indicate the preceding noun phrase, yi ge faguoren ‘a French’. The referent, though not deictically present in the speech context, refers to a specific person and can be clearly identified by the speaker. It should be specified that dissimilar to Wu (2003: 40), both the inferred and unspecified referents (either singular or plural) are subsumed under the non-canonical use in the current study.
The plural forms of personal pronouns in Mandarin Chinese is formulated by inflecting the semantic plural marker, -men to its singular forms, such as wo ‘I,’ ni
‘you,’ and ta ‘s/he’, respectively. The first person plural, women ‘we’ could be used inclusively to include typical dual participants, i.e. the speaker and the addressee, or to contain larger members in a speech context (inclusion of the speaker and more than one addressee), or it can be used exclusively to indicate the speaker and participants other than the addressee(s). As can be seen in the examples below, the women in (2.3) refers to both the speaker and John, while the women in (2.4) refers to the speaker and the children yet not the addressee(s).
(2.3) 我們 高興 得 太 早 了， 約翰。
Women gaoxing de tai zao le yuehan 1pl happy DE too early PRT John ‘We complimented ourselves too soon, John.’
(2.4) 我 跟 孩子， 我們 可以 照顧 自己。
Wo gen haizi women keyi zhaogu ziji 1s and children 1pl can take-care self
‘The children and I can look after ourselves.’
(Quirk 1985: 340, Wang 2007: 15) It has been proposed that the morphological distinction of the inclusive zamen ‘we’
and the exclusive women ‘we’ exists in the vernacular use in Peking (Liu et al. 2001).
The distinction of inclusive zamen and exclusive woman is not pervasively found in the spoken Chinese in Taiwan; instead, the women could either include or exclude the
7
addressees, depending on the actual situation in conversations.5
2.2 Non-canonical Use: Deictic and Non-deictic Reference
The deictic use of Chinese personal pronouns could be used non-canonically (Lin 1993, Chang 1998, Wang 2006, Wang 2007, Wang 2008, Chen 2009, Nie 2009, Yang 2011, Hsiao 2011 and Liu & Xiong 2012). Its non-canonicity lies in the discordance of the personal pronouns and its intended referent, i.e. a mismatch of person, number or both person and number with the intended referent. In the other non-canonical use, the personal pronoun is used non-deictically or non-referentially, and it is not plausible to locate a deictic referent. Previous studies show inconsistent results in the categorization of the non-deictic, atypical use of personal pronouns and thus the boundary and definition of each category should be further delimited.
Even if the non-canonical use of personal pronouns aims to achieve pragmatic effects in speech, the distinction between non-deitic/non-referential use and mismatched use exists, that is, the identifiability of referents in speech context. For instance, a well-recognized non-deictic use of personal pronouns is the generic second person singular (Biq 1991, O’Conner 1994, Bredel 2002, Hyman 2004, Chang 2006, Wang 2008, Stirling & Manderson 2011 and Liu & Xiong 2012). The generic you, unlike the mismatched personal pronoun that can be successfully identified through the speech context, indicates more than a single receiver and its identification of referents is far less plausible. The following section involves the atypical use of both deictic and non-deictic/non-referential personal pronouns, with a special attention on the latter because of its disarrayed categorization in the literature. The review will be divided by grammatical person: first person in section 2.2.1, second person in section 2.2.2 and third person in section 2.2.3.
5 The example of the exclusive women and the inclusive zanmen ‘we’ is given for illustration.
(i) 你們 是 北方 人， 我們 是 南方 人。
Nimen shi beifang ren women shi nanfang ren 2pl are north people 1pl are south people
咱們 都 是 中國人。
zanmen dou shi zhongguoren 1pl all are Chinese
‘You are from the North, and we are from the South. We are all Chinese.’
(Chao 1979: 283)
The women is used to refer people from the South and the zamen includes all the participants in the speech context.
8 deictic use, the impersonal use of personal pronoun refers to one or more non-specific person(s) (1990: 740). It is proposed that English pronouns I, we, you could function as impersonal pronouns, and are interchangeable with one, everyone, anyone or
someone without altering their meanings (though the rhetorical effect could vary and
the stylistic favor may lose). The example below demonstrates the use of the impersonal I in a written context.(2.5) We form a frame of script for this kind of situation…Thus, in order to be
able to take the subway in New York I simply need a “taking a subway”
script or frame if I have one and supply now relevant specific information about the situation….
(Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990: 741-742) Example (2.5) is excerpted from a co-authored book. The authors’ use of I instead of
we in the description and the I’s interchangeability with one or you (Kitagawa &
Lehrer 1990: 742) suggest the impersonal characteristics of the first person singular.
The occurrence of English impersonal I, however, is restrictive and it appears
‘felicitous only in a context where this ‘role model’ sense is called for in a purportedly hypothetical discourse’ (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990: 753).
The use of Chinese first person singular wo as an impersonal pronoun is infrequent as well. Previous studies (Lin 1993, Wang 2007) provide few instances and have different focuses toward the attributes of the impersonal first person singular proposed by Kitagawa & Lehrer (1990). Consider (2.6) and (2.7).
(2.6) 沒有 進來 這個 電台 以前，
Meiyou jinlai zhege diantai yiqian Not come this broadcasting-station before
根本 不 曉得 內部 的 運作 是 怎麼
9 program, and I just go through the motions, reading from the script.’
(Lin 1993: 91) psychological consoler, mimics the record producers who speak in their defense when facing the misconception of the outer groups. The use of impersonal wo suggests the speaker’s ‘intention to convince the listeners of his/her account’ (Lin 1993: 93), and it also gives rise to the ‘egotistic or even obstructive overtone’ in the speech. In Wang’s (2007) example, the utterance is spoken by a master who takes himself as a model and assumes that he is no different from others who could make whatever choice they like.
Wang (2007: 52-53) lays more concerns on illustrating how speakers take themselves as the model in an authority speech whose statement resorts to the general truth and thus she does not focus on the illustration of the pragmatic effect of the impersonal wo as Lin (1993) does. Furthermore, the impersonal wo in Lin’s (1993) example, i.e. (2.6) is similar to the mismatched first person singular in Hsiao’s (2011) instance, i.e. (2.8).
(2.8) Writer: 然後， 那 時候 我 就 發誓 說，
Ranhou na shihou wo jiu fashi shuo Then that time 1s then swear say
我 這 輩子 絕對 不要 讓
10
wo zhe beizi juedui buyao rang 1s this life never NEG let
這個 女人 養。
zhege nuren yang this women support (Laughter for 2.28 seconds)
Host: 就 想 我 要 報仇， 就算 寫格子
Jiu xiang wo yao baochou jiusuan xie-gezi then think 1s want revenge even-if write
我 也 要 拼了命， 對不對?
wo ye yao pinleming duibudui 1s also have-to sacrifice for my life right
Writer: ‘I swore to myself that I will never let this woman do this (providing financial support).’
Host: ‘I think, I want to become successful by all means, so desperate for it. Right?’
(Hsiao 2011: 801) In (2.8), the intended referent of the mismatched wo is the addressee. The speaker, i.e.
the host, utters the addressee’s inner thought so as to show her understanding toward his situation. The mismatched wo, according to Hsiao’s (2011) proposal, displays the speaker’ understanding to the hearer’s narration and reflects the addressee’s inner thought, whose effects are also found in (2.6). That is to say, the speaker in (2.6) also displays her understanding toward the addressees by boldly presuming their inner thoughts so as to make her talk sound more convincing.
In some instances, the impersonal wo is weak in its referential function to indicate people and has instead an interpersonal effect in some speech contexts. That is, the impersonal wo becomes non-referring (Chang 2005, Hsu 2008, Chen 2009, and Tsai 2011).
(2.9) 你 來 我 往。
Ni lai wo wang
2s come 1s go
‘You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.’
(Hsu 2008: 47) (2.10) 你 一 言， 我 一 語。
Ni yi yan wo yi yu 2s one word 1s one word ‘Bickering with each other.’
(Chang 2005: 107)
11
The wo in both examples above co-occurs with the second person singular, and the wo and ni do not refer to the speech participants. The two impersonal pronouns work together to depict the interactive, reciprocal relation between I and you. The first person singular not merely demonstrates an impersonal use of taking oneself as the role model in a hypothetical context, but it displays the interpersonal function, i.e. the non-referring use in the discourse context as well.
2.2.1.2 First Person plural
The first person plural is more commonly discussed than its singular form in terms of the atypical use. The impersonal use can be found in first person plural and it is similar to another concept, i.e. vague use (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990) as both of them are non-deictic and the referents they indicate could not be clearly identified in a given speech situation. It is thus necessary to make a distinction of the two uses.
Kitagawa & Lehrer (1990) propose that the distinction depends largely on the predicate it follows as can be seen in (2.11) and (2.12).
(2.11) We can generate an infinite number of sentences.
(Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990: 741) (2.12) We ought to do something to reduce the bureaucracy at our university.
(Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990: 745) The we in (2.11) is an impersonal use while the we in (2.12) is used vaguely. The impersonal we refers to anyone or everyone and vague we indicates specific but non-identified groups of people in speech contexts (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990: 742). In (2.11), anyone could produce numerous sentences if s/he wants to, whereas in (2.12), not everyone should be responsible for or feel obligated to the bureaucracy at university—at least not for a vagrant or a retailer.
To further illustrate the differences between the vague use and the impersonal use, four characteristics are proposed (Kitagawa & Lehrer 1990 and Lin 1993). Firstly, the vague use could exclude its reference that the deictic use would normally signify.
Secondly, it could not be substituted with the indefinite one. Thirdly, in the indirect speech, it results in a pronoun shift, and finally, it carries a rhetorical contrast when occurring with they. The Chinese example of the women ‘we’ is shown in (2.13). The speaker is a record producer.
(2.13) 我 覺得 整個 娛樂 業 就是
Wo juede zheng yule ye jiushi
1s feel whole entertainment industry that-is
唱片 公司 本身 還有 所有 的 媒體，
changpian gongsi benshen haiyou suoyou de meiti
12
record company itself and all NOM media
比如說 電視 拉 這些， 就是說
birushuo dianshi la zhexie jiushishuo for-example television PRT these that-is-to-say
我們 自己 沒 有 做 好， 然後 已經
record company itself, and all the media, such as television, and so on. That is to say, we ourselves are not doing a good job and now have already made the market begin to abandon the usual pattern of the record company.’
(Lin 1993: 95-96) The women here is used vaguely rather than impersonally for the following reasons.
Firstly, the speaker could exclude himself by saying ‘I don’t mean me’ to root out his inclusion by the use of women (while it is not plausible in impersonal women since the impersonal use surely includes everyone in the speech context). Secondly, the vague women refers to the members in the entertainment enterprise and does not involve the addressees. It cannot be interchangeable with the meiyi ge ren ‘everyone or anyone’ to include the general public. Thirdly, the vague use would undergo a pronoun shift in indirect speech. For instance, when a third person heard the utterances in (2.13) and told it to her friend, she could rephrase it as ‘He (the record
Firstly, the speaker could exclude himself by saying ‘I don’t mean me’ to root out his inclusion by the use of women (while it is not plausible in impersonal women since the impersonal use surely includes everyone in the speech context). Secondly, the vague women refers to the members in the entertainment enterprise and does not involve the addressees. It cannot be interchangeable with the meiyi ge ren ‘everyone or anyone’ to include the general public. Thirdly, the vague use would undergo a pronoun shift in indirect speech. For instance, when a third person heard the utterances in (2.13) and told it to her friend, she could rephrase it as ‘He (the record