Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Chinese Linguistics
Vol. 9:2 (2022) ► pp.175–196

The revelation of ancient Chinese to semantic compositionality in discourse reporting

A case study of Zuozhuan

| Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
| Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
This paper aims to provide a resolution of Frege’s difficulties in the semantic composition of discourse reporting by conducting a case study of Zuozhuan. The sample corpus involves a typical contrast between semantic transparency and discourse reporting. As is revealed by the special wording of ancient Chinese, it should be the fact represented by the mixed quotation that serves as the object of the reporting predicate. This leads to objectification of a fact. Hence it can be inferred that a specific layer of meaning is picked out by a specific reporting predicate. When this inference is applied to the case of direct speech, it follows that some layers of its pragmatic meaning contribute to the semantic meaning of the reporting clause by being singled out as the objects of the reporting predicates. Some of them are abstract entities, like rheme and illocution. This leads to objectification of an abstract entity. In defense of objectification, we find that the difficulties of the compositionality principle (CP) in discourse reporting are caused by the ignorance of the hierarchical structure of discourse and the false belief that objects must be concrete entities in the world. Objectification enables the CP to be recursively applied from a reported clause to a reporting clause.
Keywords: the compositionality principle, discourse reporting, objectification, reporting predicate, Zuozhuan
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Linguistic facts to be analyzed
    • 2.1The sample data and the central issue
    • 2.2Typicality of the sample data
  • 3.The case of mixed quotation
    • 3.1Difficulties of the CP
      • Question 1
      • Question 2
      • Supposition 1
      • Supposition 2
    • 3.2What ancient Chinese reveals
    • 3.3Resolution: Objectification of a fact
      • Thesis 1
      • Inference 1
    • 3.4Objections and defense
      • Objection 1
      • Defense
      • Objection 2
      • Defense
  • 4.The case of direct speech
    • 4.1Difficulties of the CP
      • Question 3
      • Supposition 3
      • Supposition 4
      • Supposition 5
    • 4.2Out of the semantic-pragmatic marsh
      • Inference 2
    • 4.3Resolution: Objectification of an abstract entity
      • Thesis 2
    • 4.4Defense against ontological obstinacy
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.22002.nie
References (33)
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Capone, A. (2016). The Pragmatics of Indirect Reports: Socio-philosophical Considerations. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (1997). Varieties of quotation. Mind, 106 (423), 429–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Qutation, Context Sensitivity, Signs and Expressions. Philosophical Issues, 16(1), 43–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Semantics for Quotation. In Kumiko Murasugi & Robert Stainton (Eds.), Philosophy and Linguistics (pp. 209–222). London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. (1979). Quotation. Theory and Decision, 11(1), 27–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Brabanter, P. (2010). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Hybrid Quotations. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(2), 107–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Why Quotation Is Not a Semantic Phenomenon, and Why It Calls for a Pragmatic Theory. In Ilse Depraetere & Raphael Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line (pp. 227–254). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durrant, S., Li, W., & Schaberg, D. (Trans.). (2016). Zuo Tradition = Zuozhuan: Commentary on the “Spring and Autumn Annals”. Seattle and London: The University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1948). Sense and Reference. The Philosophical Review, 57(3), 209–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1967). Begriffsschrift, a Formula Language, Modeled upon that of Arithmetic, for Pure Thought [1879]. In Jean van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic (pp. 1–82). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1997a). Function and Concept (1891). In Michael Beaney (Ed.), The Frege Reader (pp. 130–148). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.Google Scholar
(1997b). Letter to Marty, 29.8.1882. In Michael Beaney (Ed.), The Frege Reader (pp. 79–83). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.Google Scholar
Frege, G., Geach, P. T., & Black, M. (1951). On Concept and Object. Mind, 60(238), 168–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hu, S. (1922). The Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China (1st edn.). Shanghai: The Oriental Book Company.Google Scholar
Lycan, W. G. (2019). Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction (3rd edn.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maier, E. (2014). Mixed quotation: The grammar of apparently transparent opacity. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7(7), 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mei, Guang. (2018). Shànggǔ Hànyǔ Yǔfǎ Gāngyào (An Outline of Classical Chinese Grammar). Shanghai: Shanghai Educational Publishing House.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1981). Mathematical Logic (Rev. edn.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2000). Oratio Obliqua, Oratio Recta: An Essay on Metarepresentation. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Open Quotation. Mind, 110 (439), 637–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richard, M. (2009). Opacity. In Ernest Lepore & Barry C. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1910). Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 111, 108–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1919). The philosophy of logical atomism. The Monist, 29(2), 190–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soames, S. (2010). Philosophy of Language. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Cognitive Propositions. Philosophical Perspectives, 271, 479–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabó, Z. G., & Thomason, R. H. (2019). Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1956). The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages. In Logic, Semantics, Mathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938 (pp.152–278). Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Von Humboldt, W. (2020). On Language. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (D. F. Pears & B. F. McGuinness, Trans.). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yang, B. (2009). Chūnqiū Zuǒzhuàn Zhù (A Scholium of Zuo’s Commentary on the “Spring and Autumn Annals”) (3rd edn.). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.Google Scholar
Yang, B., & Xu, T. (Trans.). (2016). Báihuà Zuǒzhuàn (Zuozhuan in Modern Chinese). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.Google Scholar
Yao, Z. (2015). Shànggǔ Hànyǔ Yǔfǎ Shǐ (History of Classical Chinese Grammar from the Shang Dynasty to the Western Han Dynasty). Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Books Press.Google Scholar