Section 3.2 has shown the metonymic process in which the emergence of each sense associated with the LAU phrase occurs. The issue to be taken up in this section concerns the conjunctive function of the cornitative LAU. In addition to the preposition function, the comitative sense of LAU has another syntactic status, functioning as a conjunction. The major distinction between the two functions lies in the fact that the preposition LAU has to occur right after the subject, whereas the conjunction LAU can conjoin other syntactic constituents. Examine the following examples.
Ayin LAU Amin firnian.
Ayin LAU Amin meet , Ayin and Arnin met.'
(40) :f~5i::f,fT
' ...
Do yadeu pengyu ge guli LAU zici ha, ...
at these friends NOM encouragement LAU support under 'under the encouragement and support of these friends, ... '
(41) ±:t~~*W1f:~Htlt~~J!m 0
Tudi oi congki bofu LAU guifa.
land need long-term protect LAU plan 'The land needs long-term protection and planning.'
Huei-ling Lai
These cases show comitative conjunction ofLAU connecting two animate noun phrases functioning as the subject in (39), connecting two inanimate noun phrases functioning as the object of a preposition in (40), and connecting two verbal phrases in (41). Since the meaning relatedness between the comitative preposition LAU and the comitative conjunction LAU is quite straightforward--the former denoting 'together-with' whereas the latter denoting 'and'-a grammaticaIization process can then be postulated for the development whereby the preposition function is further decategorized into the conjunction function.
Such a development accords with what has been claimed by Heine et al. (1991:156):
If two grammatical categories differ from one another only by the fact that one typically implies some human particIPant, whereas the other implies an inanimate participant, then the latter is more grammaticalized. The conjunction LAU, which can conjoin inanimate participants, are therefore more grammaticalized than the preposition LAU, which can only mark an animate participant. In fact, cross-linguistic researches on similar phenomena come up with parallel generalizations. Liu & Peyraube (1994), citing diachronic data, propose that several conjunctions in contemporary Mandarin (including ji, yu, gong, he, tong, gen) have involved two steps of grammaticalization -one transforming a verb into a preposition, and subsequently the other developing the preposition into a conjunction. In a similar vein, Cheng & Tsao (1995), and Chappell (2000), documenting data from earlier texts and sub-dialects in Taiwanese Southern Min, maintain that the conjunction function of ka evolves from its comitative preposition function. In section 3.1, LAU was claimed to have been decategorized from a verb denoting 'to mix' into a preposition denoting 'together-with'. Its further transforming from a preposition denoting 'together-with' into a conjunction denoting 'and' through a grammaticalization process is hence a very natural step. After the emergence of its conjunction function as a noun phrase link, it then spreads to other syntactic constituents such as predicates or clauses (cf. Mithun 1988).
4. Conclusion
An analysis with regard to the meaning relatedness of the multiple grammatical, as well as semantic functions associated with LAU is proposed. The following figure explicitly represents the structural and semantic developments as proposed.
The Semantic Extension of Hakka LAU
Verb
'to mix, to blend, to put things together'
Comitative Preposition 'together-with'
Cl
Comitative Conjunction 'and'
Structural and semantic development ofLA U
To begin with, it is argued that LAU has undergone a two-step grammaticalization process, decategorizing from a verb into a preposition and subsequently into a conjunction.
Along the structural decategorization, LAU develops its meaning, through metaphorical extension, from 'to mix' to 'together-with', and then to 'and'. While functioning as a comitative preposition, LAU further develops the other senses through the mechanism of metonymic strengthening and underspecification of participant roles in event frames.
Specifically, the goal sense is strengthened through the implied inference of the comitative sense when the predicate is a verb of communication. The source sense, which denotes the opposite direction of the goal sense, comes out of an event frame that involves predicates of taking away. Both the goal and the source senses can feed the emergence of the benefactive sense. Finally, two alternative paths are suggested to account for the emergence of the patient sense--either from the source sense or from the benefactive sense. Hence, the semantic extension of the various senses associated with LAU is plausibly explicated. While the proposal of this study suggests plausible scenarios based on the synchronic phenomena exhibited by the data, diachronic evidence, if ever attested, will definitely strengthen the argumentation.
Huei-ling Lai
References
Bybee, Joan L., and William Pagliuca. 1985. Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. Historical Semantics, Historical Word Formation, ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 59-83. Berlin: Mouton.
Chang, Roland Chiang-Jen. 1977. Co-verbs in Spoken Chinese. Taipei: Cheng Chung.
Chappell, Hilary. 2000. Dialect grammar in two early Southern Min. te~ts. Journal oj Chinese Linguistics 28:247-302.
Cheng, Ying, and Feng-fu Tsao. 1995. Minnanyu ka yongfa zhijian de guanxi. Papers Jrom the J994 Conference on Language Teaching and Linguistics in Taiwan, vol. 1 :
Southern Min, ed. by Feng-fu Tsao and Mei-hui Tsai, 23-45. Taipei: Crane.
Dowty, David R. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67:
547-619.
Fillmore, Charles' J. 1977. The case for case reopened. Syntax and Semantics, vo1.8:
Grammatical Relations, ed. by P. Cole, 59-81. New York: Academic Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by Linguistic Society of Korea, 111-138. Seoul: Hanshin.
Fillmore, Charles J., and Beryl T. S. Atkins. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, ed. by Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, 75-102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fillmore, Charles J., and Beryl T. S. Atkins. 2000. Describing polysemy: The case of 'crawl'. Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, ed. by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock, 91-110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O'Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64:
501-538.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E . .1996. Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 7:3-19.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hiinnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1997. Twistin' the night away. Language 73:534-559.
Lai, Huei-ling. 2001. On Hakka BUN: A case ofpolygrammticalization. Language and
The Semantic Extension of Hakka LAU
Linguistics 2.2:l37-153.
Huei-ling. 2002. The grammaticalization of the verb DO in Hakka. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 30:370-391.
Lai, Huei-ling. 2003. HakIm LAU constructions: A constructional approach. Language and Linguistics 4.2:353-378.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lehrer, Adrienne, and Eva Feder Kittay. 1992. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts. Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Li, Charles N. 1975. Synchrony vs. diachrony in language structure. Language 51:
873-886.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Development of the causative in Mandarin Chinese: Interaction of diachronic processes in syntax. Syntax and Semantics, vo1.6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, ed. by Masoyoshi Shibatani, 477-492. New York: Academic press.
Lin, Ying-chin. 1990. Lun Keyu fangyan zhi Pun yu Lau (Thung). Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 19:61-89.
Jim, and Alain Peyraube. 1994. History of some coordinative conjunctions in Chinese. Journal ofChinese Linguistics 22:179-201.
Luo, Meizhen. 1998. The continuity and variation of Hakka language and culture in Taiwan. The Fourth International Conference on Hakkaology: Hakka and Modern
World, 275-284. Taipei: Academia Sinica.
MacIver, M. A. 1926. A Chinese Dictionary: Hakka Dialect. Shanghai: The Presbyterian Mission Press. Reprinted by Taipei: Southern Materials Center, 1982.
McCawley, James D. 1992. Justifying part-of-speech assignments in Mandarin Chinese.
Journal ofChinese Linguistics 20:211-246.
iHl'111.Ul, Marianne. 1988. The grammaticalization of coordination. Clause Combining in
Grammar and Discourse, ed. by John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson, 331-359.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1995. Transfers of meaning. Journal ofSemantics 12:109-l32.
Peyraube, Alain. 1989. History of the passive constructions in Chinese until the 10th century. Journal ofChinese Linguistics 17:335-372.
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition ofArgument Structure.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Huei-Iing Lai
Sweetser, Eve E. 1986. Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary?
Berkeley Linguistics Society 12:528-538.
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000a. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol.l: Concept Structuring
Systems. Cambridge: MIT Press. -.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000b. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vo1.2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and E. Konig. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. Approaches to Grammaticalization, voLl: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues, ed. by E. C. Traugott and B. Heine.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, Bojiang, and Mei Fang. 1996. Hanyu Gongneng Yufa Yanjiu [Studies on Chinese Functional Grammar]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Jiaoyu.
Zhang, Weigeng. (ed.) 1995. Kejiahua Cidian. [Hakka Dictionary]. Guangzhou:
Guangdong Renmin Chubanshe.
[Received 6 August 2002; revised 14 April 2003~ accepted 26 May 2003]
Department of English National Chengchi University 64, Sec. 2, Chih-nan Road Taipei 116, Taiwan [email protected]
;:J <...l 0:1 ...><: ~ :I: :frnI~~~ HE~ ... 0 .§
~
>< .. ~ ~ --, ~ ~\ L ~ ~ I ~ L ~~~irr ~\\•
~* ~ u ""§ E (1) CIl~ ~
fL-lilt I§ HE' ~.\I!t~I~'~
m<_ --, .
~•
~(1) !S
'~~1
~n '\"!l. ~ ...o:r $1.+ ~~~~ " -~~ rK:~*~ ~~ ~ ~ HE'lli\rr mI' ' llill lilill => ~\\ ~~).ffitl- ~ ~•
:@:~
t+ --, ~
L~n '\"!l. ,~ ~t'-
"" *2
~ -+< ~!l'.--. ~ 'I-;{ ~.-m~.
~~I§~:l;11'i*
~m!l ~W01~~. ~~'~o
~ ,.\J 4[[ 4III! ~{~m~$lli\rl
~ llill --, 'rr L ~ -m:J lli\1l ~ ~ W0l+M ~ ''''"' $ L ~¥Jif.R