Cover not available
Article published In:
Language, Context and Text
Vol. 5:1 (2023) ► pp.49–79

A comparative study of nominal group systems and structures between Lhasa Tibetan and Mandarin Chinese

ORCID logo | Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China
This paper presents a text-based comparative study of the construal of entities through nominal groups in Lhasa Tibetan and Mandarin Chinese. It approaches the grammatical description of nominal groups from the ideational and textual perspectives, and gives priority to the perspective “from above”, taking as point of departure the discourse semantic systems of ideation and identification. From the perspective of ideation, the comparison focuses on the classification, description and quantification of entities. From the perspective of identification, the comparison focuses on the presentation or presumption of entities in discourse, and the determination and qualification of them. In terms of grammatical realisations, the nucleus function of a nominal group, Thing, enters into multivariate structures with a range of pre- and post-Thing functions. However, configuration and realisation of the functions are language-specific. This study makes explicit structural consequences of systemic choices in nominal group grammar, and attends to the problem of structural markers, drawing on the notion of “subjacency” structure proposed in Martin et al. (2021) and Martin and Doran (this issue).
Keywords: nominal group, Lhasa Tibetan, Mandarin Chinese, classification , epithesis , quantification , qualification , function marking , subjacency structure, subjacency duplex
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical dimensions
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Nominal group systems and structures
    • 4.1Clause and nominal group
    • 4.2The ideational perspective
      • 4.2.1The Thing function realised by a common noun
      • 4.2.2The classification system
      • 4.2.3The epithesis system
      • 4.2.4The quantification system
    • 4.3The textual perspective
      • 4.3.1The Thing function realised by proper noun and pronoun
      • 4.3.2The determination system
      • 4.3.3The qualification system
    • 4.4Structural configurations
    • 4.5Function Marking in Lhasa Tibetan
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations for traditional grammatical terms
  • References
Published online: 26 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.00049.wan
References (27)
References
Doran, Y. J., J. R. Martin & Dongbing Zhang (eds.). 2021a. The grammar of nominal groups: Systemic functional linguistic perspectives (Special Issue on the nominal group, Part 1). Word 67 (3).Google Scholar
(eds.). 2021b. The grammar of nominal groups: Systemic functional linguistic perspectives (Special Issue on the nominal group, Part 2a). Word 67 (4).Google Scholar
(eds.). 2022a. The grammar of nominal groups: Systemic functional linguistic perspectives (Special Issue on the nominal group, Part 2b). Word 68 (1).Google Scholar
(eds.). 2022b. The grammar of nominal groups: Systemic functional linguistic perspectives (Special Issues on the nominal group, Part 3). Word 68 (2).Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68 (1). 83–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Word order in Sino-Tibetan languages from a typological and geographical perspective. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, 43–55. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fang, Jing. 2022. A systemic functional grammar of Chinese nominal groups: A text-based approach. Singapore: Springer. DOI logo
Fang, Mei. 2002. Zhǐshìcí zhè hé nà zài Běijīng huà zhōng de yǔfǎhuà (Grammaticalisation of zhè and nà in Beijing vernacular). Zhōngguó Yǔwén (Studies of the Chinese Language) 41. 343–356.Google Scholar
Fontaine, Lise. 2017. The English nominal group: The centrality of the Thing element. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 267–283. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fontaine, Lise & David Schönthal. 2019. The rooms of the house: Grammar at group rank. In Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schöntahl (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 118–141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966[1963]. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hahn, Michael. 1996. Lehrbuch der klassischen tibetischen Schriftsprache. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1992. Systemic grammar and the concept of a ‘science of language’. Wàiguóyǔ (Journal of Foreign Languages) 21. 1–9.Google Scholar
1996. On grammar and grammatics. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran & David Butt (eds.), Functional descriptions: Theory in practice, 1–38. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. with Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hao, Jing & Pin Wang. 2022. Chinese nominal groups: The metaphorical realization of figures. Word 68 (2). 109–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Di. 2016. Zàngyǔ Lāsàhuà yǔfǎ biāozhù wénběn (Grammatically glossed texts of the Lhasa dialect of Tibetan). Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Mira, J. R. Martin, Gi-Hyun Shin & Gyung Hee Choi. 2023. Korean grammar: A systemic functional approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Eden Sum-hung. 2017. The nominal group in Chinese. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 338–353. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. & David Rose. 2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd edition). London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Gi-Hyun Shin. 2021. Korean nominal groups: System and structure. Word 67 (3). 387–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R., Pin Wang & Yongsheng Zhu. 2013. Systemic functional grammar: A next step into the theory – axial relations. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., Y. J. Doran & Dongbing Zhang. 2021. Nominal group grammar: System and structure. Word 67 (3). 248–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Edward. 2017. Form and function in groups. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 251–266. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wang, Pin. 2020. Construing entities through nominal groups in Chinese. In Michele Zappavigna & Shoshana Dreyfus (eds.), Discourses of hope and reconciliation: On J. R. Martin’s contribution to systemic functional linguistics, 57–83. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Nominal group systems and structures in Lhasa Tibetan. Word 67 (3). 318–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar