Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 20:4 (2019) ► pp.634–659

The inventory structure of Person in the Chinese dialect of Puxian

| Shanghai International Studies University

One way to classify person systems across languages is by means of the semantic category of person and/or number, where person forms, with distinct referential values, are supposed to be in complementary distribution to each other. However, when we look into some finer details in a language-particular person system, i.e. that of the Puxian dialect in Chinese, there are person forms or expressions that are engaged in supplementary distribution and have meanings beyond what is literally said (Grice 1989). Different from previous approaches, which tended to analyze a person system into separate domains of study, e.g. reflexivity, intensification, logophoricity, empathy, etc., the author proposes that all the person-related meanings (semantics & pragmatics) constitute a “function inventory”, which has a stable structure called “inventory structure”. In the structure, each of the overtly expressed person meanings is assigned to a choice of node, from which multiple outcomes can be developed. The significance of this approach is that it tries to circumvent some pre-established categories and focuses instead on meaningful differences in a system (Sausurre 1983).

Keywords: Puxian dialect, person, functional inventory, inventory structure
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The person expressions under investigation
  • 3.Meanings beyond person and number: The extra-indexicals
    • 3.1Person meanings related to selfhood
      • 3.1.1Unique self
      • 3.1.2Sameness of referents
      • 3.1.3Logophoric self & empathetic self
      • 3.1.4Reflexivity & enhanced reflexivity
      • 3.1.5By self
    • 3.2Person expressions related to significance
      • 3.2.1Significant plurals
      • 3.2.2Significant others
      • 3.2.3Significant multitude
  • 4.Summarizing the person-related meanings in the inventory structure
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 24 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00052.wu
References

References

Bhat, D. N.
2004 Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B. & Gardner, W.
1996 Who is this we? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 71(1). 83–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. & Gilman, A.
1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in Language, 253–276. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C.
1987 Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cai, Guomei
2006 Puxian fangyan yanjiu [Studies on the Puxian dialect]. Fuzhou: Fujian Normal University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Chen, Yanlin
2004 Quanzhou fangyan de daici [Pronouns in the Quanzhou dialect]. Shanghai: Shanghai Normal University. (MA thesis.)Google Scholar
Clements, George N.
1975 The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10(2). 141–177.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter & Hermon, Cabriella & Yanti
2015 Grammar of binding in the languages of the world: Innate or learned? Cognition 1411. 138–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael
2009 The paradigmatic structure of person marking. (Oxford Studies in Typologies and Linguistic Theory). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Wayne A.
2012 Meaning, implicature, and linguistic variability. Intercultural Pragmatics 9(2). 245–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deo, Ashwini
2015 Diachronic semantics. Annual Review of Linguistics 11. 179–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
2010 Basic linguistic theory, vol. 11. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena
(ed.) 2005 Clusivity: Typological and case studies of the inclusive-exclusive distinction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1989 Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of human language, 58–90. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1983 Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4). 781–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2007 Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1). 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1). 40–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010a Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b Framework-free grammatical theory. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 1st edn., 341–365. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
He, Wei
1989 Huojia fangyan yanjiu [Research on the Huojia dialect]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Hirose, Yukio
2002 Viewpoint and the nature of the Japanese reflexive zibun . Cognitive Linguistics 13(4). 357–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, Willem & Siewierska, Anna
2007 A construction grammar account of possessive constructions in Lancashire dialect: Some advantages and challenges. English Language & Linguistics 11(2). 407–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R.
2013 I love me some datives: Expressive meaning, free datives, and F-implicature. In Gutzmann, Daniel & Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Beyond expressives: Explorations in use-conditional meaning, of current research in the semantics/pragmatics interface, 151–199. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan
1994 The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: A study with special reference to Chinese (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ingram, David
1978 Typology and universals of personal pronouns. In Greenberg, Joseph H. & Ferguson, Charles A. & Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 31, 213–247. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker
2006 Focused assertion of identity: A typology of intensifiers. Linguistic Typology 10(2). 223–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter
2000a Locally free self-forms, logophoricity and intensification in English. English Language and Linguistics 4(2). 183–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard, & Siemund, Peter
2000b The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica 17(1). 39–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1987 Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J.
1993 Arguments against “subject” and “direct object” as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History & Philology 631. 759–813.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. & Yang, Jiangling
2004 Reflexive and middle marking in Dulong-Rawang. Himalayan Linguistics 21. 1–13.Google Scholar
Li, Rulong & Chen, Zhangtai
1991 Lun Minfangyan neibu de zhuyao chayi [Discussion on the main differences among Min dialects]. In Chen, Zhangtai & Li, Rulong (eds.), Minyu yanjiu [Studies on Min], 58–138. Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Liu, Danqing
2011 Yuyan kucang leixingxue gouxiang [Linguistic inventory typology: A proposal for a new approach of linguistic typology]. Dangdai Yuyanxue [Contemporary Linguistics] 2011(4). 289–303.Google Scholar
Lu, Zhaojun
2011 Shanxi Jiaocheng fangyan daici yanjiu [Studies on pronouns in Shanxi Jiaocheng dialect]. Shaanxi: Shaanxi Normal University.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna
2007 What, if anything, is typology? Linguistic Typology 11(1). 231–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norman, Jerry
1988 Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oshima, David Y.
2004  Zibun revisited: Empathy, logophoricity, and binding. In Tur, Sylwia & Levi, Susannah (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th NWLC, (University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 23), 175–189. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
2006 Perspectives in reported discourse. Stanford: Stanford University. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Parker, Frank & Riley, Kathryn & Meyer, Charles F.
1990 Untriggered reflexive pronouns in English. American Speech 65(1): 50–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1983 Course in general linguistics. London: Duckworth. (Translation of Harris 1983.)Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
2004 Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, Jianming
2010 The function of pronominal expressions in Puxian. Lancaster: Lancaster University. (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
2013a Puxianhua de rencheng linshuyu [Pronominal possessors in Puxian dialect]. Yuyan Yanjiu Jikan [Collective Papers on Linguistic Researches] 101. 280–290.Google Scholar
2013b Rencheng “juhejiegou” lilun de Hanyu shijiao [Sinitic perspective on the paradigmatic structure of person marking]. Dangdai Yuyanxue [Contemporary Linguistics] 2013(4). 393–404.Google Scholar
Wu, Yunji
2005 Synchronic and diachronic study of the grammar of the Chinese Xiang dialects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar