The question that now remains is: How to characterize the Chinese complementation construction, given the above results? Obviously at the highest level of abstraction, the construction can be characterized by means of the schema [Matrix-clause/Comp-clause], where the Matrix-clause is now reïnterpreted as a clause that contains a de dicto predicate (mental predicates or verbs of saying), and the Comp-clause is reïnterpreted as the ‘main’
clause of the composite structure. This is obviously inadequate, however, since it implies that we can take any de dicto clause and combine it with any other clause to form an acceptable “complementation” sentence. In order to avoid this, we need to supplement the syntactic schema with a statement of the kinds of items that can instantiate its various parts. Our ability to form such a highly abstract schema for language use is a question of continuing debate. At any rate, we assume that the more general schemas at a number of levels are emergent from token utterances with more specific schemas. Fig. 1, adapted from Diessel and Tomasello (2001), displays the wide heterogeneity of the complement constructions as instantiated in the corpus data in a complex network relationship. There is, to be sure, evidence for a category of matrix-clause. But not all de dicto predicates are created equal. We have shown that each de dicto, especially epistemic predicate, is unique in its own way. For example, wo juede has been shown to have grammaticized
452
furthest along as an epistemic formula, as evidenced by its ability to appear in a variety of positions both in a turn and in relation to its ‘complement’.
most general CTV/Comp
finite non-finite
Comp/CTV CTV+shuo/comp CTV+comp (ind. Q)
most specific
Juede xiang kan zhidao …….
1. wo juede 1. wo xiang (as epistemic
formula) 1. wo kan (as epistemic
formula) 1. wo zhidao (as epistemic token) 2. wo juede la 2. wo xiang (as deontic
formula)
2. ni kan (as U. launcher) 2. wo bu zhidao la (as puzzle marker) 3. ni juede ne 3. wo xiang (as politeness
marker; followed by ind. Q)
3. na kan (=depends on;
followed by ind. Q)
3. ni zhidao ma (as story preface)
4. buzhidao (as S. adv.)
Fig. 1: Network of complement constructions in spoken Chinese
7. Conclusion
I hope to have shown in this paper that complementation structures in Chinese are not embedding structures, but are combinations of lexically specific epistemic or deontic expressions, such as wo juede or wo xiang, with a main clause. The Chinese complementation construction, like any other construction, is a grammaticizing construction on a grammaticalization path, with mental predicates and their subjects having being largely grammaticized as epistemic or deontic formulæ or as lexicalized prefabs. They
‘project’, and are loosely joined to, the (following) main proposition.
Mental predicates in the grammaticizing construction appear to be drawn from a set that is largely culturally independent. These results are consistent with recent findings in functional and cognitive linguistics that grammar is a pastiche of lexically
Doubts About Complementation: A Functionalist Analysis
453
skewed and well learned linguistic patterns.
I have also shown that interpretation and action are intimately intertwined, as has been suggested by a number of researchers in functional linguistics and in CA. Parties to a conversation in the corpus indeed consistently perform actions with their turns oriented toward the complement clauses, rather than to the matrix clauses. This is demonstrated by looking at adjacency pairs, rather than at isolated utterances, and observing what speakers are trying to do.
Finally, based on the distribution pattern of the linker shuo, I have argued that an important distinction appears to be emerging in spoken Chinese between de dicto and de re complements, with the former marked by the linker shuo, and the latter by its absence.
References
Biher, Douglas et al. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London:
Longman.
Diessel, Holger, and M. Tomasello. 2001. The acquisition of finite complements clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12:97-141.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1995. A functional theory of complementizers. Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by J. Bybee and S. Fleixchman, 475-502. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, and R. Jasperson. 1991. That-clauses and other complements.
Lingua 83:137-153.
Givon, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4:333-377.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10:279-326.
Hooper, Joan. 1976. On assertive predicates. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 4, ed. by John Kimball, 91-124. New York: Academic Press.
Huang, Shuanfan. 1982. On the (almost perfect) identity of speech and thought.
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, 171-186.
Kiparsky, Paul, and Carl Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. Progress in Linguistics, ed. by M.
Bierwish. The Hague: Mouton.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. Usage-based Models of
454
Language, ed. by M. Barlow and S. Kemmer. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementation. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 42-140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E., E. Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson. (eds.) 1996. Interaction and Grammar.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ransom, Evelyn. 1986. Complementation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1996. Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action.
American Journal of Sociology 102:161-216.
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.
Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Ochs et al., 52-133. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel, Elinor Ochs, and Sandra Thompson. 1996. Introduction. Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Ochs et al., 1-51. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26:125-163.
Thompson, Sandra A., and Anthony Mulac. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 2, ed. by B. Heine and Elizabeth Traugott, 313-329.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[Received 14 October 2002; revised 13 December 2002; accepted 16 December 2002]
Graduate Institute of Linguistics National Taiwan University 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road Taipei 106, Taiwan [email protected]
Doubts About Complementation: A Functionalist Analysis
455
補語句存疑：功能語法分析