Hakka LAU constructions: A constructional approach

全文

(1)LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS. 4.2:353-378, 2003. 2003-0-004-002-000043-1. Hakka LAU Constructions: A Constructional Approach *. Huei-ling Lai National Chengchi University. This study assumes constructional approach (as proposed by Goldberg (1995), Iackendoff (1997), et al.), to examine the multiple functions of Hakka LAU constructions. It is argued that each of these functions can be plausibly accounted for if the construction itself is taken as a meaning-bearing unit. Specifically, it is maintained that the meaning of the construction comes not exclusively from the specifications of the main predicate, but from the integration of all the components of the construction holistically_ Evidence for this line of argument can be provided from underspecified lexical items, constructional idioms, and cases with overlapping meanings.. Key words: constructional approach, underspecified lexical items, constructional polysemy, Hakka LAU constructions. 1. Introduction Goldberg (1995) and lackendoff (1997), among others, taking a constructional approach, maintain that constructions can be viewed as meaning-bearing units- "syntactic configurations whose structure contributes semantic content above and beyond that contained in the constituent lexical items" (Jackendoff 1997:553). Examining various constructions (or constructional idioms), they argue that the way the verb is integrated into the interpretation of the sentence comes from the construction instead of the verb itself and that all semantically peculiar characteristics come from the meaning associated with the construction as well. For instance, it is claimed that/or-dative and some cases of to-dative are constructional idioms of English (Goldberg 1995). The time-away construction, the resultative construction, the ditransitive construction, and the aspectual way construction are argued to be meaning-bearing constructions that license both the predicates and the objects (Goldberg 1995, lackendoff 1997). Evidence for this line of. This paper is a part of a research project On Hakka LAU Constructions: An Aspectua/ Viewpoint, funded by the National Science Council (NSC 89-2411-H-004-041). An earlier version was presented at the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference at National Chengchi University. I thank James Tai, Feng-fu Tsao, Ting-chi Tang, Chinfa Lien, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. I am, of course, responsible for all possible errors..

(2) Huei-ling Lai. argument can be found in the sui generis constructions where syntactic configurations that carry distinct meanings do not follow from independent syntactic principles. (Cf. also Fillmore et al. 1988, Kay and Fillmore 1999).1 Cross-linguistic analyses under this approach can also be found. Lien (2001), investigating multiple functions of choe 3 , has claimed that the range of meanings associated with the morpheme can be better accounted for in terms of the interaction of the components of the construction. Besides the ordinary VN construction, the sui generis constructions are also quite perVasive, providing a piece of strong evidence for a constructional analysis. Furthermore, Liu and Huang (2001), examining the constructional patterns of the Mandarin verbs gan, qiang, and wan, have found that verbal semantics can be better represented if constructionally coerced information is taken into consideration. For purposes of this study, a rather simplistic summary of the constructional approach will have to suffice, so that the focus can be on the multiple functions associated with the LAU constructions in Hakka Similar to Mandarin BA and Taiwanese Southern Min KA, Hakka LAU marks multiple semantic roles functioning as a patient marker, a benefactive marker, a goal marker, a source marker, and a comitative marker. The following examples illustrate each of the functions. 2 Comitative (1) f)PJ~~f)PJaJ3*5~~. 0. gietfun. Ayin LA U Amin marry Ayin LAU Amin , Ayin and Amin married.' (2) f)PJ~t~~~*l"~f!im. 0. Ayin LA U yipo kiungha hi giedang. Ayin LAU great aunt together go downtown , Ayin and her great aunt went downtown together.'. example of a sui generis construction would be, One more beer and/or I'm leaving (taken from Jackendoff 1997:553, (96a», with an unusual conjunction construction and a conditional sort of reading. 2 The data presented in this paper are mainly based on the dialect of Northem Sixian Hakka. The Hakka spelling here is adapted from the Pinyin system. The following abbreviations are used --CL: classifier, ASP: aspect marker, NEG: negative markers, PART: sentence-final particle; -A-LE: reduplication; NOM: nominalizer. The corresponding Chinese characters for each of the examples are also provided. I am grateful to Ting-chi Tang, who reminded me of the importance of explicating the Hakka data for the audience. 1 An. 354. ...........

(3) Hakka LAU Constructions: A Constructional Approach. (3) ... ¥tl~9'£mI~-t-~t~5i¥-3=-r' ... ... Do liadeu pengyu ge guli LA U zici ha, ... DO these friends NOM encouragement LAU support under , ...under the encouragement and support of these friends, ... ' (4) ±itt!~~Mf*itIt~mI1J () Tudi oi congki bofu LA U guifa. land need long·term protect LAU plan 'The land needs a long term protection and planning.' Source jr.iJa}H~lwJ5€~ -iEEE. (). Amin LA U Ayin mai yit kiu Amin LAU Ayin buy one CL 'Amin bought a piece of land from Ayin.'. tien. land. Goal (6) fm~*§t~5jUA~~§li. (). Ngai oi taisang LAU petngin I want loud LAU others 'I'll speak Hakka to others proudly.'. gong speak. haifa. Hakka. Benefactive (7) /W1~~1ft~Af'Pt!lA. (). Ayin cinvoi LA U ngin zomoingin. Ayin good·at LAU people match-make 'Ayin is good at match making (for people).' Patient (8) €t~~ffl~~. (). yung Gi LAU qien he LAU money spend 'He spent all the money.'. qiangqiang. emptily. The data show tremendous complexity both in structure and function. First of all, the comitative function ofLAU is predominant, and it also is the most complex function; see items (1) through (4), Each of these examples shows one feature in common, namely, that more than one participant is inherently involved in the construction. In. 355.

(4) Huei-ling Lai. example (1), LAU conjoins two participants who must jointly take part in the event described by the predicate-getting married. The LAU phrase in (2) marks a kind of secondary participant, indicating that Ayin's great aunt went downtown together with her. In addition to the subjects, LAU can also connect two object noun phrases as illustrated in (3). Example (4) shows a case where LAU connects constituents other than noun phrases. Besides the comitative function, example (5) illustrates a case ~here LAU marks a source from which the agent is buying the land. Example (6),011 the other hand, with a verb of telling, shows LAU marking the goal of a verb. When the predicate can bring some kind of benefaction to a beneficiary, the construction can attest LAD's benefactive function, as shown in (7). Example (8), in which LAU marks a patient, illustrates something similar to the disposal construction marked by BA in Mandarin. The construction often contains a resultative complement describing the result brought about to the affected LAU phrase by the action denoted by the predicate. Because of the diversity of their functions, LAU constructions can best be viewed (following Goldberg 1995) as a case of constructional polysemy. In other words, the semantics involved in LAU constructions can be represented as a set of systematically related senses. The various senses carried by a LAU construction come not from the verb alone but from the interaction among its components, both structurally and semantically. Each construction shows structural as well as semantic complexity due to the interaction between the predicate, the participants, and the complement. More specifically, factors that affect the well-formedness of a LAU sentence are closely related to the inherent semantic features of the predicates, the aspectual features, and the semantic constraints of the event participants. Given the complexity of LAU constructions, this study, by examining a range of complex syntactic and semantic properties, attempts a plausible account of the manifestation of these multiple functions. This study is organized as follows. As can readily be seen, this introduction has included some basic assumptions of the construction-based approach and a description of the data. With groundwork laid for an explicit investigation into the construction in question, the next section will propose an account for the various functions, followed by . a conclusion in Section 3.. 2. The various functions ofLAU constructions In this section, each of the five senses associated with LAU will be shown to result from a combination of the semantics of the construction components. Section 2. I discusses the comitative function, including both a collective reading and a distributive reading. Section 2.2 covers the goal, source, and benefactive senses altogether, since semantically they are close to each other. And Section 2.3 takes up the patient sense.. 356.

(5) Hakka LAD Constructions: A Constructional Approach. 2.1 The comitative function The comitative function of LAU actually includes two different functions: a comitative preposition or a coordinative conjunction, both involving more than one participant. The distinction between the two functions is closely related to the features of the predicates as well as of the participants, the discourse roles played by the participants, and the degree of grammaticalization of LAU. Each of these issues will be taken up in order. First of all, the following criteria for the distinction between the preposition LAU 3 and the conjunction LAU will be applied to the data in question. (9) a. If two elements connected by LAU are permutable, then we are dealing with a conjunction. b. If LAU can be preceded by any modifying adverbial expression, then it is a preposition. c. If LAU is a preposition connecting two noun phrases, the first one shows higher topicality than the second; but there is no such discourse role difference ifLAU is a conjunction.. Let us see how the criteria can help distinguish the two functions exhibited by the data. Examine the following examples: (10). , 3ZJI~1i&. ' 1§*~1*1tl5'tl5 '. iH!~~:f~A~t!fBt. 0. Amin qin /osit, yu qin henzo, gi zunghe diamdiam, Amin very decent also very hard-working he always quiet o qin moi LA U ngin giegau. very NEG LAU people argue with 'Amin is such a decent, hard-working person, who is always quiet and who never argues with others.' (11) a. 1WJ~(*'tl5'tl5ff):f~lftjJa)j*B~ ·tfiun. 4 · gle Ayin (*diam-diam-e) LAU A mm Amin marry Ayin quietly LAU 'Ayin and Amin married.' 0. These criteria are more or less after Liu and Peyraube (1994). The sentence with the manner adverb diam-diam-e 'quietly' is fine if the sentence is talking about the subject who was quietly getting married. Then the function ofLAU turns out to be a prepositional instead of a conjunctive one. The observation is exactly compatible with what is discussed here.. 357.

(6) Huej~ling. Lai. b.. [)iITEJ!(*'t!§'t5ff)t~[)iIT*~~. 0. Amin (*diam-diam-e) LA U Amin quietly LAU , Amin and Ayin married.'. Ayin Ayin. gietfun. marry. ... LAU in example (10) is clearly a preposition; the whole discourse topic is about Amin. The second sentence contains a pronoun gi, which refers back to the topic, and the third sentence contains a zero pronoun, which also has to be co-referential to its antecedent topic. The noun phrase marked by LAU is only a comitative phrase indicating people that Amin will not argue with. The first noun phrase, Amin, which is the topic of the whole discourse is not only more topical but also more prominent. Besides, there is no way to permutate the prepositional LAU phrase with the zero pronoun along the information flow of the discourse. Furthermore, LAU in this example is modified by an adverbial expression and a negative marker. On the other hand, examples in (11) illustrate cases where LAU functions as a conjunction. The two noun phrases connected by LAU can be permutated without changing the meaning. And, it is grammatically impossible to put any adverbial modifier such as a manner adverb diam-diam-e 'quietly' in front of LAU in both of these two cases. The above criteria have helped distinguish the preposition LAU and the conjunction LAU very clearly. In addition thereto, a couple of characteristics of this LAU function in general can still be detected. Let us start with the predicate. Presumably, verbs that relate to group activities-activities that inherently involve more than one participant -will bring out the comitative function of LAU in the LAU construction. Verbs of social interaction such as gietfun 'marry', and fimien 'meet', verbs of verbal interaction such as camciong 'discuss', and au 'argue', or verbs of fighting such as yenga 'fight' among others that select for a collective subject usually will bring out the conjunctive function ofLAU. When the verb does not inherently imply that more than one participant is involved, an adverb such as kiungha 'together' is often added to indicate that the first subject is doing the activity together with an entity denoted by the LAU phrase. In other words, a distributive reading is often detected in such a context. The two fonowing examples can clearly illustrate the distinction.. (12) jWJ*t~[)iITEJ!~~ Ayin LAU Amin gietfun. Ayin LAU Amin marry , Ayin and Amin married.' 0. 358.

(7) Hakka LAU Constructions: A Constructional Approach. (13) lfiiJ~f~~~~T~mJJi. Ayin. LA U. yipo. D. kiungha. hi. giedang.. Ayin LA U great aunt together go downtown 'Ayin and her great aunt went downtown together.' The predicate gietfun 'marry' in example (12) takes two participants; that is, it requires a collective subject, which is composed of two noun phrases connected by the conjunction LAU, and the sentence hence brings out a collective reading. However, the predicate hi giedang 'go downtown' does not have to select a collective subject; the sentence hence carries a distributive reading; the first noun phrase, together with the phrase marked by the preposition LAU, went downtown together. In addition to the two different readings, the preposition LAU and the conjunction LAU differ from one anther in terms of the two participants connected by them. First of as already discussed before, the first noun phrase is more prominent in terms of its discourse role than the second noun phrase marked by LAU if LAU is a preposition, whereas the two noun phrases connected by LAU do not have such a difference with regard to their topical prominence when LA U is a conjunction. Secondly, the preposition LAU connects mainly two animate participants; the conjunction LAU can conjoin two, three or even more participants. Furthermore, it can also connect inanimate participants. The following example shows a conjunction LAU connecting three inanimate participants. (14) rilJ~. , ~~f~JJjH±~~I5t&A~*f". Hoklo,. hakga. LA U. yenzumin. fa. biongngip. gaucoi.. Hoklo Hakka LA U aboriginal language included materials 'Taiwanese Southern Min, Hakka and aboriginal languages should be included in the (teaching) materials.' Another difference between the preposition LAU and the conjunction LAU follows from a distinction in their discourse function, already mentioned. Like other functions discussed, when the preposition LA U marks a comitative noun phrase, the LAU phrase has to occur right after the first noun phrase-specifically, it has to be put strictly in the second position of the sentence. However, not only can a conjunction LAU connect subject noun phrases, but it can also conjoin object noun phrases, and syntactic categories other than noun phrases. Example (15) gives an instance where LAU conjoins two object noun phrases and example (16) shows a case in which two verb phrases are connected by LAU.. 359.

(8) Huei-Iing Lai. (15) ¥U~9tlJ3Jtt[l'~lfJt~:SZ.J~~. , .... Do liadeu pengyu ge guli LA U zici ha, ... under these friends NOM encouragement LAU support under , ... under the encouragement and support of these friends, ... ' (16) ±:tfu~ffiJmf*~t~m.. 0. Tudi of congki bo/u LA U guifa. land need long-term protect LAU plan 'The land needs long-term protection and planning.'. 2.2 The goallsourcelbenefactive functions Among the different functions exhibited by LA U constructions, the goal, the source, and the benefactive functions are closely related to each other since they occur in constructions that are somewhat similar to the double object construction in other languages. Therefore, the three functions are going to be discussed together in this section. Specifically, the inherent features of the predicates, the semantic constraints of the participants of an event frame (following Talmy 2000a, b}-including both the external argument and the internal arguments-and the interaction among them will be examined to see how each of the three functions is manifested. To begin with, a short description of a double object construction is called for. Carrying two internal arguments, a typical double object verb allows more than one way of expressing its arguments. Dative alternation in English, for instance, is characterized by an alternation between the double object frame <NPI V NP3 NP2> and the prepositional frame <NP 1 V NP2 to NP3>. Verbs that allow dative alternation are verbs of change of possession such as give verbs or verbs of future having, among others; cf. Levin 1993, Pinker 1989, Goldberg 1995. Extensive research has been done on the double object construction, focusing on constraints on the alternation, particularly on the characterization of the set of verbs that show such an alternation. 5 In addition to the preposition to, which is identified as the goal preposition, there is another option that involves the benefactive preposition/or. Verbs that allow the benefactive alternation are characterized as verbs of obtaining or verbs of creation, among others. It is argued that the benefactive function can be subsumed as cases of metaphorical possession. Hence, a thematic core is maintained to incorporate both the semantics of possession and a possible extension of it to benefaction (Levin 1993, Pinker 1989, Goldberg 1995). Although this brief description give but a rough idea of double object constructions 5. Some verbs in English, although with the same sub categorization frame, do not allow dative alternation. See Levin (1993) for more details. Also detailed discussions of the characterization can be found in Levin (1993), Pinker (1989), and Goldberg (1995), among others.. 360.

(9) Hakka LAU Constructions: A Constructional Approach. in English, it lays a foundation for the exploration of the corresponding constructions in Hakka. Typical Hakka double object verbs which involve change of possession allow dative alternation with slightly different structures. The following examples can illustrate the different mappings of the thematic roles: (17) a.. f§5t-*~5t@o. yit bun Gi bun he give one CL 'He gave a book to me.'. b.. f§5tflt- *~. bun BUN. bun CL. suo book. su book. ngai. me. ngai. me. 0. ngai yit Gi bun one he give me 'He gave me a book.'. c.. su book. f§5t-*~«o. yit bun Gi bun he give one CL 'He gave a book to me.'. The examples show two features: first the recipient that occurs postverbally is marked by the morpheme BUN;6 second, Hakka allows a peculiar structure in (17c) where the direct object can occur before the indirect object without any preposition in between. Now Hakka employs a different morpheme-namely LAU-to mark the goal that does not necessarily involve change of possession. Unlike the BUN phrase, the LAU phrase has to occur preverbally.7 Furthermore, in addition to the goal function, LAU can also mark source and benefactive functions. In order to get the designated function, all the information of the whole construction has to be taken into consideration. In what follows, each of these functions will be discussed in tum. Let us begin with the goal function. As will be seen in the examples, when a LAU construction contains the so-called illocutionary verbs of communication (following Pinker 1989), which involve a particular kind of content specified by the verb that has. The morpheme BUN in Hakka carrying multiple functions displays complexity both syntactically and semantically. See Lai (2001) for discussion of the semantic relatedness of its various functions. Obviously there is a division of labor between BUN and LAO in Hakka. Issues related to how exactly they divide labor semantically and what restrictions are required in terms of word order will be dealt with in a separate study. But to make the presentation clearer, I will use recipient to refer to an animate goal that possesses the patient after the successful transfer indicated by the predicate; cf. Goldberg 1995.. 361.

(10) Huei-ling Lai. to be communicated, the LAU phrase then specifies a comprehending listener who can obtain the information from the speaker. Predicates such as gong 'tell', or gongfa 'talk to', gieseu 'introduce', gautai 'explain', yieuldu 'ask for' or fenfu 'ask ... to' are among these verbs. Consider the following: (18) a.. m¥a~A~' ;fl%t:f~{§5(f~. 0. ... Siongdo longinga ngionban LAU gi gautai, think of old man how LA U him explain 'Whenever I think of the old man, I'm worried about how to explain (this matter) to him.' b.. lThJaJ.i~t2"*~m~M~t23t. 0. Amin kon hi zonlai oi LA U gia gu gong hiwen. Amin see opera return has-to LAU his aunt tell opera , Amin had to explain the content of the opera to his aunt after watching it.' Both verbs in the two examples imply a successful comprehension by the goal audience of the agent subject. In (18a) things will be explained to the old man by the speaker and the content of the opera will be told to the aunt by Amin in example (18b). Notice that if the verb does not convey successful communication between the subject and the direct object, LA U cannot be used to mark the direct object. Take a manner-of-speaking verb hoik 'yell' for example. Since it signifies the manner of speaking without necessarily implying the involvement of the audience, the direct object cannot be marked by LAU. Instead, another preposition DUEl 'toward' can be used to mark the object that is yelled at. The following examples can clearly illustrate the difference: (19) a.. cf.. b.. *{§f~~filfF*§1lfL *Gi LAU gia lai-e taisang hoik. yell loud he LAU his son {§f1'~filfF*§llfLo Gi DUEl gia lai-e taisang hoik. loud yell he toward his son 'He yelled loudly at his son.' 0. In addition to a requirement of verb type, the semantic constraints of the subject and the LAU phrase have to be observed in order for the LAU phrase to indicate a goal. First of all, each of the verbs so far characterizes a generalization-namely, the verb selects a volitional subject (Goldberg 1995). This constraint is quite natural since verbs of illocutionary communication presumably involve the illocutionary force exerted by. 362.

(11) Hakka LAU Constructions: A Constructional Approach. the speaker to communicate an intended message with the addressee. As Goldberg (1995: 143) states, the concept ofvolitionality has to be extended to denote not only the action but also the intention. For instance, in example (ISb), the subject Amin had to intend to explain the content of the opera to his aunt. Therefore, it cannot be the case that Amin explained the opera to someone else and his aunt happened to overhear. If the volitionality constraint of the subject is not observed, a semantically ill fonned sentence is expected, as illustrated in the following example. The example can of course be semantically plausible given a metaphorically extended context where trees are personified. (20) *mtfrt~f§]~~t5. 0. gongfa. *Su-e LAU gi tree LAU him talk. '*The tree is talking to him.'. Following from the inherent feature of an illocutionary verb of communication, the direct object of this construction, just like the subject, has to be an animate being. Furthermore, the object has to specify a goal that is willing to take the transfer denoted by the action. Therefore, the following example cannot be felicitous. (21) *lWJajJf~~M~t&~. *Amin. , -Wi@f§~I~. 0. LA U gia gu gong gust, mgo gi mo tang. Amin LA U his aunt talk story but she NEG listen '*Amin told his aunt a story, but she wasn't listening.'. Next, let us move to the source function. The fact that the types of relations that the verb's meaning may bear to the semantics of the whole construction can be clearly shown by the source function exhibited by the LA U construction. Interestingly, with apparently similar surface structure, the source function of a LAU construction differs from its goal function in that the predicate in the former specifies meanings that denote taking something away. Because of the meaning of the predicate, the goal is mapped to the subject whereas the source is indicated by an oblique phrase marked by LA U. Verbs that are classified as taking-away verbs such asjtaqien 'borrow money',jiami 'borrow rice', mat 'buy', tiqien 'ask money from', or zutien 'rent field from' belong to this category. The following example can illustrate:. 363.

(12) Huei-Iing Lai. (22) l~f~:t~roJ~J{-tli83. 0. Gia ba LA U Ayin rnai yit kiu his dad LAU Ayin buy one CL 'His father bought a field from Ayin.'. tien. 8 field. As to the semantic constraints for the subject and the object, two points ean be maintained. First of all, just like the subject of the goal function, the subject of the LA U construction denoting a source function has to be volitional since the subject presumably performs the action of taking something away. However, unlike the LAU phrase of the goal function, the LAU phrase of the source function does not necessarily have to willingly accept the action performed by the subject. The following example, in which the second sentence indicates an unsuccessfully performed action, is acceptable. (23) f§j~~~{~~ , -fi'jmgt{~m¥U. 0. Gi LAU gia ba jiaqien, yit gokngui zu jia rn do. he LAU his dad borrow money one penny then borrow NEG DO 'He tried to borrow money from his dad, but he couldn't get a penny.' Now when the predicate of the LAU construction conveys that the subject has done something affecting the direct object, such that the indirect object can become the beneficiary to possess the direct object, the semantic structure then specifies a benefactive relation with the indirect object marked by LAU. One group inc1udes verbs of creation, expressing the concept that the subject causes the direct object to come into existence for the benefit of the indirect object and then causes the indirect object to have the direct object. The following example with the verb zuJan 'cook' can illustrate this concept: (24) roJ~:t~{EHijf~H&. 0. Ayin LA U gi ten Ayin LAU him help , Ayin helped him to cook.'. zuJan. cook. Another group includes verbs of obtaining, which indicate that the subject does not originally own the direct object, then comes to own it for the benefit of the indirect object, so. that the subject can give it over to the indirect objeCt (cf. Pinker 1989). This This sentence is actually ambiguous in that the LAU phrase can denote either a source or a benefactive, given an appropriate context. The ambiguity associated with the LAU construction will be discussed later.. 364.

(13) Hakka LAU Constructions: A Constructional Approach. LA U phrase therefore signifies a beneficiary. Verbs such as rnai 'buy', yiang 'win', and leu 'steal', among others belong to this subclass. Cf. the following example.. (25) ~rg:t~IWJ~fl-!li83. Gia. ba. LA U. 0. Ayin. rnai yit. kiu. his dad LA U Ayin buy one CL 'His father bought a piece of land for Ayin.'. lien. 9 land. In addition to indicating a benefactive argument, LAU phrases co-occur extensively with verbs that simply convey acts done for the benefit of a third party, not necessarily expressing that the party has to own the affected direct object. In example (26), the speaker expresses that he will do his best, and the default case indicates that he is talking to the addressee, who is the beneficiary ofthe action done by the speaker. Example (27) shows that the LAU phrase denotes people for whom Ayin is good at matchmaking. (26) «ti:Jif~&{;ft(¥li. Ngai. 0. qinliang. LA U I try-my-best LAU 'I'll do my best (for you).'. (27) }fpJ~titt:t~A1'F~A. Ayin. qinvoi. ng. zodo.. you. do-finish. 0. LA U. ngin. zornoingin.. Ayin good-at LAU people match-make. 'Ayin is good at match making (for people).'. Sometimes the benefactive scenario can be extended to such a context where the action performed by the subject can in fact bring some negative effect to the LAU phrase. In such a situation, LAU turns out to mark not a benefaction but a malefaction relation between the participants involved. Consider the following example. (28) &~tiD:t~{lIL~~3. Ng. rno. qincai. 0. LA U. ngai. longongfa.. you NEG reckless LA U me talk nonsense. 'Don't say any nonsense to embarrass me.'. In example (28), the speaker is warning the hearer not to speak any nonsense such that he will have to suffer the consequences of embarrassment. The LA U phrase in such a 9. Careful readers would notice that this example is exactly the same as example (22) only with a different reading. See section 2.4 for the discussion of ambiguous cases.. 365.

(14) Huei-ling Lai. situation has turned from specifying a beneficiary into specifying someone that is affected by the action performed. The example in (28) naturally leads us to the discussion of the patient function of the LA U construction. But before we come to the next section, a short note on the semantic constraints of the subject and the LAU phrase of the benefactive fuRction is necessary. As predicted, the subject of the benefactive LAU construction hhs to follow the volitionality constraint, since he has to perform some kind of act for the benefit of the LAU phrase. It follows naturally as well that the LAU phrase has to denote an animate being, although not necessarily a willing one. For instance, in example (27), although the subject Ayin enjoys -being a matchmaker for people, they might not be willing to accept the arrangement done by her. Moreover, when the meaning extends to a malefactive scenario as in (28), the LAU phrase definitely will not denote a willing entity. To recapitulate, the three functions discussed in this section are tabulated below. Syntactic components. Predicate. Semantic functions. GoaI S ource. Benefactive. LAU phrase. Subject. 'verbs of illocutionary [volitional agent . . ' I ,commUnICatIOn I Iverbs oftaking things (volitional agent lawav I jverbs of creation ivolitional agent I Iverbs of obtaining [verbs conveying acts ; Idone for the benefit of !the third party. Iwilling animate being I. I. lanimate being, inot necessarilv willinl! lanimate being, Inot necessarily willing 'I. In brief, discussion of the three functions indicates not only that they are closely interconnected with each other, but that the manifestation of each of the functions is largely due to the interaction of the predicate as well as the event participants of the event frame.. 2.3 The patient function As discussed in the previous section, when the predicate of a LAU construction denotes an action that will bring malefaction to the LAU phrase, then the LAU phrase turns out to be some kind of an affected patient undertaking the result of the action.1O. 10. With regard to the patient function, diverse variations can be observed both cross-dialectally. 366. I.

(15) Hakka LAU Constructions: A Constructional Approach. Let us start with a prototypical example given below. (29) ~a)H~;fffFrr1lJ7. Amin. LA U. bi-e. 0. da-Ian. hit-break Amin LA U cup 'Amin has broken the cup.'. Ie. PART. Example (29) has an action verb that causes the change of state of the LA U phrase, and the result of the change is indicated in the resultative complement. Now since the construction usually involves a causer who performs some kind of an action that brings some change of state to the LAU phrase, almost all action verbs can co-occur with the patient LAU phrase as long as the whole sentence specifies a delimited event, in Tenny's (1992) sense. More specifically, the aspectual feature encoded by the whole construction has to have an end point in time, which presumably indicates the resultative state of the patient. ll The patient, carrying the property of affectedness (also following Tenny 1992), undergoes some kind of change caused by the action. Hence, the typical example given in (29), which has a resultative complement, clearly indicates the end point of the action denoted by the predicate. With this generalization in hand, all the syntactic and semantic restrictions on the patient LAU construction seem to follow naturally. Specifically, as long as a predicate can denote an action that will measure out an event, it is compatible with the patient function of LAU. Let us consider more examples with different aspectual classes, including states, activities, accomplishments, and achievements (cf. Vendler 1967, Smith 1997).. II. and cross-linguistically. In Northern Sixian Hakim, spoken mostly in Miaoli, this patient function is quite prevalent. For instance, among the 109 tokens of the LAU phrase detected from the two volumes of Miaolixian Keyu Gushi}i (Hakka Stories in Miaoli), there are fifty tokens denoting the patient function, which occupies close to forty-six percent; cf. Jang (I 987), who analyzes LAU as an object marker. The prevalence of the patient function exhibited by the LAU phrase is very different from the corresponding KA morpheme in Taiwanese Southern Min, whose patient function is quite rare. See Lien (2001) for further discussion. Typological comparison of these corresponding constructions will be left to future research. Now the corresponding construction to the patient function ofthe LAU construction in Mandarin is the BA construction, which has attracted extensive studies in the literature. The proposal here is similar to the delimitedness requirement proposed by Cheng (1988), and more or less to the boundedness requirement proposed by Liu (1997) about the BA construction. Since a full exploration of the comparison and contrast of the two constructions would take the present work too far afield, it will have to be left for a separate study. See Liu (1997) with a detailed summary of four different approaches to the BA construction. See also Teng (1982), and Cheng and Tsao (1995) for discussion of the corresponding KA construction in Taiwanese Southern Min.. 367.

(16) Huei-ling Lai. First, a state verb that is intrinsically unbounded in time unless otherwise specified cannot occur with the LAO construction. Cf. the following:. (30) *jmJt5tt5jmJ~'M"m " *Agu LAU Amin aunt LA 0 Amin. dong very. siak. love. Accomplishment verbs and achievement verbs typically co-occur with the patient LAU phrase since they are inherently telic verbal expressions, which indicate terminal points. In such a context, the fiIfal particle LE, which signifies a change of state, is often present. J2 The following example in (31) illustrates an accomplishment verb, whereas an achievement verb is shown in (29) above. Both examples have resultative complements indicating the changed state of the LAO phrase caused by the action of the predicate.. (31). jmJEJI tt5mfF~~Il7U " Amin. LAU. xin-e. Ie.. xia-ho. write-finish Amin LA U letter 'Amin finished writing the letter.'. PART. Contrary to accomplishments, activities are atelic unbounded expressions whose denotations have no set terminal points. J3 However, a LA U sentence can be constructed if some adverbials or other relevant adjuncts are added to indicate an end point for the event; as illustrated in the following examples:. (32) fEHt5~1.&¥U~I~ " Gi LA U su biong-do he LAU book put-DO 'He put the book on the table.' (33) tt5:f.tg1fBmrmrIlJiii1Il7U " LAU dina; so-so-a-le. LAO floor sweep-A-LE 'Please sweep the floor.'. 12. 13. zokdang. table-top. This particle LE is similar to Ie in Mandarin Chinese. This well-known semantic distinction between accomplishments and activities is supported by a battery oftests provided in the literature. See, for instance, Smith (1997) for detailed discussions.. 368.

(17) Hakka LAU Constructions: A Constructional Approach. (34) {~~~mi~[+~7.HD. Ngai. LAU. fan. zu. sipfunzung.. I. LA U rice cook ten minutes ~I cooked the rice for ten minutes.'. (35) 1§mmff~A*. Gi. LA U. 0. gie-e. giuk-ngip-loi.. He. LAU chicken chase-inside-come 'He;.c,hased the chickens inside (the house).' (36) €re~*~~Wim. Gi. LAU. lingo. 0. sit-tel. He- LAU apple eat-gone 'Relate two of the apples.'. liong-liap. two-CL. Example (32) is a case where a location is used to signify the terminal point of the action of putting something somewhere if a movement to a new location is understood metaphorically as a change of state. Example (33) has a reduplicative verbal expression, which indicates exhaustiveness, and hence sets a terminal point for the action (cf. Teng 1982). In the same manner, the temporal expression sipfunzung 'ten minutes' in (34) provides an end point for the action., Likewise, the directional adverbial expression in (35) has the effect of setting an end point. Example (36) contains a retained object construction in which both the LAU and the main predicate have their own objects, and the delimite&meaning comes from the whole predicate sit-tet liong-liap 'eat two of them', indicating the end point when two apples are eaten. Now the examples given here are not meant to give an exhaustive list of the patient function. Suffice it to say the patient function of a LA U construction denotes a delimited event. Crucially, the patient function behaves more or less like a causative construction in which the first noun phrase performs an action to cause the LA U phrase to undergo some kind ofchange of state that can be stated in different sorts of syntactic expressions as long as the semantic requirement is fulfilled. The analysis of the LAU patient function is in accordance with Goldberg's (1995) analysis of the resultative construction. She suggests three constraints on the resultative construction. First, Goldberg (1995: 188) states that "resultatives can only be applied to arguments which potentially undergo a change of state as a result of the action denoted by the verb." The statement resonates with the requirement of the LAU phrase that signifies an affected patient undergoing change of state caused by the agent. Moreover, Goldberg proposes an animate instigator constraint for the English resultative construction, stating that only animate instigator arguments, although not necessarily volitional agents, are acceptable as subjects in resultative constructions. Hence,. 369.

(18) Huei-Iing Lai. She coughed herself sick is perfect, whereas The feather tickled her silly is unacceptable. Similarly, as demonstrated in the examples above, the Hakka LAU patient function requires an animate instigator as the subject. However, unlike the analysis suggested by Goldberg, a volitional agent is highly preferable as the subject of the Hakka LAU construction. Another constraint has to do with the aspectual feature associated with the resultative construction. Goldberg maintains that "the change of state must occur simultaneously with the endpoint of the action denoted by the verb" (p.194). More specifically, there should be no delay between the action denoted by the verb and the subsequent change of state. Hence, the sentence Sam-cut himselffree must mean that Sam cut the bonds that prevented him from being free, and thereby immediately gained his freedom. Likewise, such a constraint is observed in the Hakka LAU patient function. Therefore, example (35) should mean that all the chickens were inside the house at the moment the action of chasing was done.. 2.4 Implications So far, each of the distinctive functions of the LAU construction has been investigated. It is claimed that LAU constructions elucidate the fact that Hakka is a highly construction dependent language; the meaning of a sentence depends largely on its components. In particular, it is argued that the function that a LAU phrase exhibits is closely related to the interaction between the components of a LAU construction-including its predicate, the participants of the event, and its aspectual features. Several pieces of evidence can be provided to support this line of argument. The first piece of evidence comes from the underspecified meaning of a lexical item. Cf. the following: (37) fEH~J9iX~ftr~ Gi LAU gia ba jia he LAU his dad borrow 'He borrowed money from his father.' (38) 1§:1tr~:5tJ9iX~ Gi jia qien BUN gia he lend money BUN his 'He lent money to his father.' 0. qien. money. 0. ba. dad. Unlike English, which employs two different lexical items to indicate borrowing (money) and lending (money), Hakka expresses two opposing concepts with the same lexical item, namely jia (borrow/lend). Two different constructions with different word order. 370.

(19) Hakka LAU Constructions: A Constructional Approach. are used to resolve possible ambiguity: the LAU construction with the preverbal LAU marking the source or the BUN construction with the postverbal BUN marking the recipient. 14 In order to understand the correct meaning of the sentence, one has to consider all the relevant information of the whole construction-including not only the predicate I5 but also the word order, the case markers, and the relationship between the arguments. On the other side of the coin, some highly idiomatic LAU constructions, just like sui generis constructions, carry meanings of their own. Consider the following examples, taken from Lin (1990, (115), (119), & (78», with my English translations.. (39) t~%Am~M~. LAU LAU. 0. xi. ngin. liong-gap-biak.. dead person next to one another 'I almost got myself killed. ,. (40) fJiIH~1§.rrmi*~M~~. Ngai I. LA U LA U. 0. gi. o-si. him defecate 'I have nothing to do with him.'. (41) &t~ID-rat{if;ffrt{-f. Ng. LA U LAU. gak. liang-gong.. next to. hill. 0. va-sang. jia. sf-e.. you monk borrow comb 'You are looking for trouble (from me).' From the English translations, one can teU that the constructions as a whole bear meanings of their own, independent of the lexical items in the sentence. In addition to the two highly idiomatic cases, some LAU examples show both syntactic and semantic peculiarities of their own. Consider the following example: (42) {§j~ §~IIl¥Ullllll. Gi. LA U. 0. mukzu. gieu. do. zungzung.. she LAU eyes cry DO swollen 'She cried for so long that her eyes got swollen.' The predicate in sentence (42) is an intransitive verb, and hence does not subcategorize any thematic roles. Therefore mukzu 'eyes' cannot be the object of gieu 'cry'. Indeed, mukzu 'eyes' is actually the subject of the resultative complement as in the expression 14. 15. The distinction between LAU and BUN here in terms oftheir word order constraint and their semantic similarities and differences will be left for future research. See also footnote 7. Lien (2001) has the same line of argument for cases in Taiwanese Southern Min.. 371.

(20) Huei-ling Lai. mukzu zungzung 'eyes got swollen'. But to indicate that the expression is affected by the action of crying, Hakka uses LAU to mark such a patient-like expression, although syntactically it functions as the subject of the complement. Such an example clearly illustrates that only through a holistic integration of the internal structure of the elements can the meaning of the construction be explicitly described. Furthermore, as has been mentioned in the previous context, some LAU coI1'Structions demonstrate cases of overlapping meanings in which the same syntactic configurations allow more than one reading (cf. Goldberg 1995). Example (22) is such a case, repeated below in (43). Examples (44) and (45) are two additional cases that illustrate the phenomenon. (43) ~~j~llliJ~Jl-fliEE Gia ba LA U Ayin mai yit kiu lien. his dad LAU Ayin buy one CL field 'His father bought a piece of land from Ayin. ! His father bought a piece of land for Ayin.' (44) llliJf3Fjf~@1®-!1{~{-f Amin LA U gi xia yit lung xin-e. Amin LAU him write one CL letter. 'Amin wrote a letter (to someone else) for him.! Amin wrote a letter to him.'. (45) llliJf3Fjf~~llff~~~iS Amin LA U gia lai-e gong hakfa. Amin LA U his son speak Hakka. , Amin speaks Hakka with his son. ! Amin speaks Hakka to his son.'. 0. 0. 0. As indicated by the English translations for (43), two possible readings can be detected in which the LAU phrase functions either as a source from whom his father bought the land or as a benefactive for whom his father bought the land. The meanings associated with the construction corne from different integration of the internal structures, including the predicate and the four potential participants in a land-buying event frame-the buyer, the land, the source from whom the land is bought, and the benefactive who benefits from the act of land-buying. Since LAU can mark both the source and the benefactive roles and since either of them can be underspecified syntactically, ambiguity arises. In the same manner, in (44), the LAU phrase can function as a benefactive or a goal because of the meaning of the predicate of communication and the under-specification of either of the two participants involved. A similar observation can be found in example (45), where LAU can mark its phrase as a goal or as a comitative role. Now since this example contains a predicate of communication, which presumably involves an interaction between. 372.

(21) Hakka LAU Constructions: A Constructional Approach. the speaker and the addressee, the addressee specified by the LAU phrase can function either as the goal that the message is transferred to or as the comitative role to whom the speaker is transferring the message. All these cases indicate that ambiguity arises because certain participants are left unexpressed due to their lack ofspecial prominence or salience. Common knowledge of the speaker and the addressee can help recover the unexpressed roles, or other relevant pragmatic information is often called for to disambiguate the readings. Take (43) for instance. Alternatively, an oblique BUN phrase specifying the recipient in the postverbal position can help disambiguate the readings. The following example illustrates that when all four potential participants of the land-buying event are realized syntactically, no ambiguity will occur. (46) ,~l~ti!5[SilJ~~-tliEE7t~ilHT Gia ba LAU Ayin mai yit kiu tien BUN his dad LAU Ayin buy one CL field BUN 'His father bought a piece of land from Ayin for his son.' 0. gia lai-e. his son. In short, the underspecified lexical items, the highly constructionally idiomatic expressions, and the ambiguous examples provide evidence for the argument along the line proposed by a constructional approach. Essentially, it is maintained that semantic content comes above and beyond that contained in the constituents and that it is the integration of all the components of the syntactic configurations that contributes to the meaning of the whole construction.. 3. Concluding remarks To explore the syntactic and semantic complexity exhibited by the multiple functions of the LA U. constructions in Hakka, this study, taking a constructional approach proposed Goldberg (1995) and lackendoff (1997) among others, has argued that each of the various functions has to do not only with the predicate but also with the event participants, the complements and the aspectual features. Each of the functions has been claimed to be closely related with the inherent semantic features of the predicate, the semantic constraints of the participants and the complement. It is through the interaction with the above components that each of the functions is substantialized. Evidence for this line of arguments has been provided from constructional idioms and cases with overlapping senses, among others. Postulating that a construction is a meaning-bearing unit and henceforth that particular semantic structures come from the meaning associated with the construction has several theoretical implications. First of all, such an analysis, which attributes semantic. 373.

(22) Huei-ling Lai. peculiarities to the constructions themselves, instead of to different verb senses, blurs the boundary between lexicon and syntax. Supporting evidence of highly constructionally idiomatic expressions and ambiguous cases also blurs the boundary between semantics and pragmatics; cf. Langacker 1987. Furthermore, by recognizing the existence of constructions that do carry meanings, the principle of compositionality is preserved in a weakened form. Compositionality, which requires that the meaning of an expression is a function of the meanings of its immediate constituents, has met with difficulty when it comes to expressions such as idioms whose meanings cannot be obtained compositionally. Instead of claiming that the syntax and semantics of a construction come exclusively from the specifications of the main p'redicate, and that the meaning of a construction comes from combining the constituents hierarchically, a constructional approach holds that the meaning of a construction is the result of integrating the meanings of its components into the meaning of the construction. Although not composed in a syntactically hierarchical way, the meaning of a construction, taken from a mono-stratal perspective, is composed holistically; cf. Goldberg 1995. Several issues remain to be resolved with regard to the phenomena in question. First of all, as has been mentioned, LA U constructions demonstrate a case of constructional polysemy in which the same form is paired with different senses. In particular, following the line of argument of Sweetser (1986, 1988, 1990), Heine et a1. (1991), and Hopper and Traugott (1993), among others, one can ask whether there is a central sense that can connect all the various senses. Although a brief discussion has been done in terms of how the overlapping meanings can be derived, the issue in terms of how the relations between the different senses can be explained in a natural way has to be left for to further study. Furthermore, as has been hinted at under comitative function, one very peculiar feature of the LAU phrase has to do with its discourse function. The LAU phrase has to occur strictly in the second position of the construction, right after the first noun phrase. This restriction of word order brings forth two significant issues that deserve further investigation. On the one hand, the special semantic characteristics and discourse function associated with this particular position of the construction need to be delved into. On the other hand, like Mandarin, Hakka puts some general word order requirements of some ablative phrases, including the LA U phrase. And whether occurring preverbaHy or postverbally, they can make differences in terms of their meanings and discourse functions. In Mandarin, Li and Thompson (1974) and Tai (1985), for instance, have discussed the semantic consequences of word order in certain Mandarin Chinese structures. Furthermore, Tsao (1990) and Cheng and Tsao (1995) propose a secondary topic account to explain this second position requirement of the BA phrase in the BA construction in Mandarin as well as the KA phrase in the KA construction in Taiwanese. 374.

(23) Halla LAU Constructions: A Constructional Approach. Southern Min. Henceforth, it is definitely worthwhile to examine the restriction of word order required by the LA U phrase in Hakka so that a typological comparison can be set forth. The last issue has to do with dialectal variations within the Hakka language. As has been mentioned a couple of times in the footnotes, LAU shares labor with BUN both syntactically and semantically. Another morpheme that joins this camp is TUNG, which is exclusively used by Dongshi Hailu Hakka and Southern Sixian Hakka for the corresponding LAU constructions. Some native speakers of Northern Sixian Hakka allow free variations between LA U and TUNG in most of the functions. Further investigation into the variations cross-dialectally should be taken up to help explicate the complexity of Hakka grammar in particular. And this task will have to be left for future study as 16 well.. References Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1988. Aspects of the Ba-construction. Studies in Generative Approaches to Aspect, ed. by Carol Tenny, 73-84. Cambridge: MIT. Cheng, Ying, and Feng-fu Tsao. 1995. Minnanyu "Ka" yongfa zhijian de guanxi. Papers from the 1994 Conference on Language Teaching and Linguistics in Taiwan, vol. 1: Southern Min, ed. by Feng-fu Tsao and Mei-huei Tsai, 23-45. Taipei: Crane. 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 HUnnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin' the night away. Language 73:534-559. Jang, Ling-Ing. 1987. Studies in Hakka Morphology and Syntax. Taipei: Fu Jen Catholic University MA thesis. 16 . Dialectal variations can often be found among various sub-dialects of Hakka, which include Northern Sixian Hakka, Southern Sixian Hakka, and Dongshi Hailu Hakka, among others. The data presented in this paper are mainly based on the dialect of Northern Sixian Hakka.. 375.

(24) Huei-ling Lsi. Kay, Paul, and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what's X doing Y? construction. Language 75:1-33. Lai, Huei-ling. 2001. On Hakka BUN: A case of polygrammaticalization. Language and Linguistics 2.2:137-153. Lai, Huei-ling. 2002. Hakka LAU constructions: A constructional approach. PrOCeedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference, ed. by Yuchao E. Hsiao, 66-82. Taipei: National Chengchi University. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford ~University Press. Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1974. Co-verbs in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs or prepositions? Journal ofChinese Linguistics 2.3:257-278. Lien, Chinfa. 2001. Grammatical function words 'Z, Ill, EfJ, ~ and 11 in Li Jing Ji ~~~C and their development in Southern Min. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Sino logy. Taipei: Academia Sinica Lin, Ying-chin. 1990. Lun Keyu fangyan zhi "Pun" yu "Lau" ("Thung"). Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 19.1 :61-89. Liu, Feng-hsi. 1997. An aspectual analysis of BA. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6:51-99. Liu, Jian, and Alain Peyraube. 1994. History of some coordinative conjunctions in Chinese. Journal ofChinese Linguistics 22.2:179-201. Lil4 Mei-chun, and Chu-Ren Huang. 2001. Beyond verbal semantics: Predicate coercion with manner-denoting verbs. Proceedings of the Symposium on Selected NSC Projects in General Linguistics from 1998-2000, 103-118. Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition ofArgument Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The Parameter ofAspect, 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Sweetser, Eve E. 1986. Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary? Berkeley Linguistic Society 12:528-538. Sweetser, Eve E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Berkeley Linguistic Society 14:389-405. Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tai, James H-y' 1985. Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. /conicity in Syntax, ed. by John Haiman, 49-72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Talmy, Leonard. 2000a. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, voL 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.. 376.

(25) Hakka LAU Constructions: A Constructional Approach. Talmy, Leonard. 2000b. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. 2: Volume in Typology and Process in Concept Strui:turing. Cambridge: MIT Press. Teng, Shou-hsin. 1982. Disposal structures in Amoy. Bulletin ofthe Institute ofHistory and Philosophy, Academia Sinica 53.2:331-352. Tenny, Carol. 1992. The aspectual interface hypothesis. Lexical Matters, ed. by Ivan A. Sag and Anna Szabolcsi, 1-27. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Tsao, Feng-fu. 1990. Sentence and Clause Structure in Chinese: A Functional Perspective. Taipei: Student Bookstore. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Verbs and times. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.. [Received 14 October 2002; revised 13 December 2002; accepted 16 December 2002] Department of English National Chengchi University 64, Sec. 2, Chih-nan Road Taipei 116, Taiwan [email protected]. 377.

(26) bI). j. ~. ::r::. =. '4:). ;a ;w:i. ~ "-til. ~ ~tl. '\IItl.. $. ~. ... ~. ~. *. ~2 ~. ~. ~. -+< 411 ',..... ~ .r;{. in. lffie. !! 40. ...,~. ~. 0. -lrr {rf.. lffie. ~. II. *4Jnhm:. ~. lffig W. ...,. ~L ~ L ::a ~~ ~\H ~ ~ lffig ~ ::a1«~~ ~14~~. ~. ~01fr1$. ,. !! ~. ~. ~hm:. lffitl IltI. .4Jn. ~ ~. lffie. L. l~ ~ ~ tIW. :¥"11$hm:tul. :lllK~ ~.. it lffig. ~~4Jn~. r-..l$tr~. t::' ~. ~ tIiI1!! lffig. !t:-lrr~:k:. L. *. .g {rf. tE !! 5 ..., m~ ~ ~. 00. ~. ~. :JnK. ~. :1;!;1. /I). e.n. lffie. ..o:m!!~. !! ~1ii~14. 9l. IllitI. fiE'. ~. ~ m]::l ~. *1«1iiij!o. It. ~~~~. o~~1«. ~. ~ ~ ~~. -II'). -t+. '-'. -. --,. ~ L. ~tl. '\IItl.. {~. ~ ~. ..., -lrr {rf.. :1;!;1. I M. co.

(27)